Posted by Jennifer Wexler on

Things that go bump in the night: The Selborne-Blackmoor Hoard & the significance of LBA weapon hoards

Part of the Blackmoor Hoard in the British Museum Collections © Trustees of the British Museum

Our new app focuses on the wonderful Blackmoor Hoard (partially pictured above). Known also as the ‘Blackmoor-Wolmer Forest’ or ‘Selborne’ Hoard, the hoard was found near the hamlet of Blackmore (just east of Selborne, Hampshire) on the land that was originally part of Lord Selborne’s estate. Multiple hoards from different periods, including various Romano-British coin hoards, have been found in this region and the area was clearly a focus for prehistoric activity. There is a high concentration of Bronze Age barrows within the area of Woolmer Forest as well as a number of Bronze Age hoards which have been found in the vicinity at Woolmer Forest, Woolmer Pond, Hogmoor, Longmoor Camp and Whitehill Village Hall. The connection between the ritual deposition of bronze weapons and the barrow cemeteries together constitute a particularly well-preserved ritual landscape of the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age periods (Allen 2007).

Like many of the hoards found in the Bronze Age Index (we wrote about the Arreton Down hoard earlier), Selborne is an antiquarian collection, connected to a series of famous collectors of archaeological antiquities including Rev. Greenwell, George Roots, General Pitt-Rivers, and Lord McAlpine.

Both Middle Bronze Age (MBA) and Late Bronze Age (LBA) hoards (an overview of Bronze Age chronology was discussed previously) from the area are featured in the Bronze Age Index. The MBA hoard was found in 1840 and contains two small torcs, four bronze rings and one palstave (pictured below):

 

BMHoard_Selborne0001_BMHoard_Selborne0002_fb

MBA hoard from Blackmoor (pictured top), and two BA Index cards illustrating objects from the hoard (bottom) © Trustees of the British Museum

The LBA weapon hoard, discovered in the garden of a cottage near Blackmoor in the spring of 1870, is more famously-known. This hoard has a complicated history of collection. A large part of the hoard was handed over to Lord Selborne, as it was found on his land. He displayed it in the former billiard room of his home Blackmoor House. It currently makes up part of the Selborne Collection now in possession of the Gilbert White Museum, the home of the 19th century naturalist who wrote The Natural History of Selborne (the earliest reference to the hoard was first mentioned Bell’s updated 1877 edition of the volume (White 1877)). This included sword fragments, over twenty large and small spearheads, three rings, some ferrule fragments, and one mysterious ‘grooved socket’ not found anywhere else in BA Britain.

Example of a LBA socketed spearhead (1891,0514.6) originating from the Roots Collection, now in the BM © Trustees of the British Museum

Somehow two large groups of objects from the hoard were separated from the Selborne collection. We have no records of what exactly happened, but some of the hoard was disposed of soon after discovery and sold to two prominent antiquarian collectors, George Roots and Rev. William Greenwell. The Greenwell collection (BM accession numbers WG. 2100-2112, 1269) is composed largely of various spearheads associated to ‘Blackmoor-Woolmer Forest’ and was donated to the British Museum by John Pierpont Morgan in 1908. The Roots collection is larger and more diverse in object types, it is largely composed of spearheads, sword and sword fragments, and cast rings, though it was originally associated to the ‘south of England’ and then ‘Woolmer Forest’. Evidence suggests that the Selborne, Greenwell, and Roots assemblages were all part of the same deposit. Spearhead fragments from the Selborne and Roots Collections fit together, and a number of the short stumpy spearheads in all three collections appear to be made from the same mould (Colquhoun 1979; Colquhoun and Burgess 1988).

Lunette spearhead originating from the Blackmoor Hoard, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art © MET Museum

The Roots collection was sold by Christies (Christie’s London April 20, 1891, lot 33) to the British Museum in 1891 (BM accession numbers 1891.0514.4-58).  At this sale, one extraordinary example of a lunette spearhead (pictured above and currently part of New York City’s Metropolitan Museum of Art (MET) collection 1998.540.1) was bought by General Pitt-Rivers and displayed in his museum on the Rushmore Estate in Farnham, Dorset. This was a secondary institution founded just after the Pitt Rivers Museum (Oxford) in 1885 focusing on local history and prehistoric crafts from Europe & Asia (MacGregor 1987). The spearhead’s origins in the Roots collection as well as its typological similarity to spearheads found in the Selborne/Blackmoor hoard, for example the slightly smaller lunette spearhead featured in figure 1, suggests that this spearhead does probably come from the same region and hoard. Metallurgical analysis (Northover 1982; Hughes, Northover & Staniaszek 1982) also appears to indicate a similar composition to spearheads directly associated with the Selborne/Blackmoor hoard.

Pitt-Rivers’ personal catalogue entry for the lunette spearhead (1891), courtesy of Prof. Dan Hicks (©Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford).

This spearhead remained in the Pitt Rivers collections until the Farnham Museum closed down in 1966, and much of collections were dispersed to the Salisbury Museum and South Wiltshire Museum as well as some private collectors. Sometime after, the spearhead became part of Lord McAlpine’s extensive collections, published in Antiquities from Europe and the Near East in the Collection of the Lord McAlpine of West Green (MacGregor 1987). After he got involved in the restoration of the Victorian town of Broome in Western Australian, Lord McAlpine sold off much of his private estate and collections, including the spearhead to the New York art dealer Peter Sharrer (The Art Newpaper, 19 January 2014). Sharrer donated the spearhead to the MET in 1998, along some other BA objects originally from the Roots Collection, where it is on display in Room 301, one of the few representations of the British Bronze Age in the museum.

Why is the Selborne/Blackmoor hoard is interesting, and why do we view these LBA weapons, particularly the MET spearhead, as objects of beauty? Extensive analysis by Colquhoun (1979) identified that the typologies of the main artefact groups (spearheads, swords, rings, and chapes) from the hoard fit well into the end of LBA Wilburton (c. 1,140-1,020 B.C.) and beginning of the Ewart Park (1,020-800 B.C.) metalworking traditions.  In fact, the Blackmoor hoard is a sub-period of the Ewart Park phase dating to around 1000-900BC, and it is an important hoard to show the transition between Wilburton and Ewart Park metalworking traditions, which is also seen at a few other sites (Isleham&  Fulbourn Common (Cambridgeshire), Sturry (Kent), and Marston St. Lawrence (Northamptonshire)) in southern England.

Hoards from this period are composed largely of weapon types. In SE England metalwork hoards tend to be more dominated by weapons along the tributaries of the Thames Valley, including the Wey River catchment where the Selborne-Blackmoor hoard was found (Yates and Bradley 2010: 61). While Colquhoun originally interpreted the ‘scrap nature of this hoard’ as representing a ‘founder’s hoard’ (e.g. containing a mix of broken metal objects, ingots, casting waste, and complete objects often for retrieval and/or remelting at a later time), recent research suggests that these objects were being purposely deposited in the ground in a particular, possibly ritualistic, manner.

Rather than actually being weapons used exclusively in everyday struggles or battles, the weapons found in these types of hoards may more likely be representative of social status and a ‘warrior aesthetic’ that developed later in the Bronze Age (Treherne 1995). A recent analysis by Schulting & Bradley (2013) of MBA-EIA skulls found in the Thames shows that almost all exhibit blunt force injuries at a time when the archaeological record is dominated by edged weapons (e.g. swords and spears). This suggests that the main form of injuries in this period were not necessarily caused by sharp bronze weapons, but rather blunt objects!  Not only does this have implications for the massive record of elaborate bronze weapons found in the Thames and other watery locations, but for all weapon hoards.  Perhaps this explains why we get such elaborate and beautiful examples of weapons both from the Thames and from LBA hoards, as the MET describes the Selborne spearhead representing the highest tradition of the British Bronze Age. The piece is undeniably beautiful: its shape is elegant and spare to the point of evoking modern art. The raised rib in the middle, which also outlines the half-moon or lunette openings, may have been designed as a blood channel.

Special thanks to Dan Pett and Neil Wilkins for their assistance on this post!

References:

Burgess C. and D. Coombs, eds.1979. Bronze Age Hoards: Some Finds Old and New. Oxford: BAR British Series 67.

Colquhoun I, 1979. “The Late Bronze Age hoard from Blackmoor, Selborne”, In Burgess and Coombs (eds). Bronze Age Hoards: Some Finds Old and New. Oxford: BAR British Series 67: 99-115.

Colquhoun, I.  and C. Burgess, 1988. The Swords of Britain. Munchen: Prähistorische Bronzefunde (C.H.Beck).

Coombs, D.G., 1975. “Bronze Age Weapon Hoards in Britain”. Archaeologia Atlantica 1: 49-81.

Hughes, M.J., J. P. Northover, and B. E. P. Staniaszek, 1982. “Problems in the Analysis of Leaded Bronze Alloys in Ancient Artefacts”. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1: 359-364.

MacGregor, Arthur, 1987. Antiquities from Europe and the Near East in the Collection of the Lord McAlpine of West Green. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum.

Needham, S., 1996. “Chronology and Periodisation in the British Bronze Age”. Acta Archaeologica 67, 121–40.

Northover, Peter, 1982. “The Metallurgy of the Wilburton”. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1: 69-109.

The Art Newspaper, 19 January 2014. Art collector and political fundraiser extraordinaire, Alistair McAlpine has died, aged 71. Obituaries Section: http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/-Art-collector-and-political-fundraiser-extraordinaire-Alistair-McAlpine-has-died-aged–/31577

Treherne, Paul, 1995. “The Warrior’s Beauty: The Masculine Body and Self-Identity in Bronze-Age Europe”. Journal of European Archaeology 3: 105-144.

White, Gilbert, 1877 The Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne, in the county of Southampton. Edited by Thomas Bell.  London: John Van Voorst.

Yates, David and Richard Bradley, 2010. “The Sitting of Metalwork Hoards in the Bronze Age of South-East England”. The Antiquaries Journal 90: 41-70.

 

 

Posted by Ignacio on

3D Models of Olduvai Gorge Handaxes

These two handaxes belong to the EF-HR locality, in Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania). EF-HR is located in the North side of the Olduvai Gorge. It was discovered in 1931 by Sir Evelyn Fuchs and Professor Hans Reck, and named after their initials. The first excavations were undertaken by M. Leakey in 1963, and then by OGAP (Olduvai Geochronology Archaeology Project) since 2009. Both handaxes were found in the surface of the EF-HR outcrops, and therefore their stratigraphic provenance is uncertain; they could have eroded either from Middle/Upper Bed II (around 1.5 myr ago) or from Bed III (slightly more recent), but are definitely older than 1 million years.

EFHR-L0-2 is made of quartzite, probably sourced by hominins from the nearby Naibor Soit, a metamorphic hill located less than 2 km away from EF-HR. This handaxe is poorly shaped, and involves no bifacial flaking. Thus, it is not a real biface, which is a type of stone tool typical of later periods of the Acheulean, but which is rare during the early stages of this technological period. EFHR-L0-17 is made of lava raw material, which was available to hominins as cobbles and boulders in river streams flowing from the volcanic highlands into the Olduvai paleolake. Like EFHR-L0-2, the EFHR-L0-17 handaxe is made on a very large flake, which was then shaped to achieve large cutting tool morphology, and likely used in heavy duty activities involving wood working and animal butchering.

Handaxe EFHR-LO-2

Handaxe EFHR-LO-2

Handaxe EFHR-LO-17

Handaxe EFHR-LO-17

You can view the 3D models created with the help of the crowd here:
http://micropasts.org/3D/?mesh=http://micropasts.org/3D/models/EFHR-LO-2/EFHR-LO-2_100kMesh.obj
http://micropasts.org/3D/?mesh=http://micropasts.org/3D/models/EFHR-LO-17/EFHR-LO-17_100kMesh.obj

Ignacio de la Torre

Posted by Chiara Bonacchi on

MicroPasts Crowd-funding

Hello!

We’ve just launched the latest part of theMicroPasts project: a crowd-funding website. Have a look at https://crowdfunded.micropasts.org and see if you can help.

Through this website, it is possible to raise up to £5,000 to fund archaeological or historical research projects that have been developed and will be undertaken collaboratively by professionals with institutional links (e.g. working in universities, museums, libraries, etc.) and any volunteer group offline or online. We welcome project proposals from any team,who can be based anywhere in the world. The only kind of activity that we do not fund is excavation.

For more information on how this all works, please see https://crowdfunded.micropasts.org/how-it-works.

If you have a project in need of funding, you can submit a proposal online. We will review it and, if it fits the requirements, you will be able to start your fund-raising campaign.

If you have an idea for a project, but don’t know a ‘professional’ archaeologist or historian to partner with, please do post your idea on the MicroPasts community forum (http://community.micropasts.org) and we will try to help out.

Thank you!

Chiara, Andy, Dan and Adi
For MicroPasts

Posted by Amara on

In the Lens: George and Agnes Horsfield’s Photographs

Amara Thornton (British Academy Postdoctoral Research Fellow, UCL Institute of Archaeology)

“My life has been so lonely – until I met you – dear Comrade … my extraordinary friendship with you – which I gradually found was absorbing the whole of my life – I did not in the least understand – you stood as pure intellect to me.”

–       George Horsfield to Agnes Conway, c. November 1931

Everyone loves a love story, right? Well, dear readers, this is one.

MicroPasts has now launched an application where you can tag a group of photographs of different sites and locations in the Middle East. The photographs come from an archive that belonged to the British archaeologists George Horsfield (1882-1956) and his wife Agnes Conway Horsfield (1885-1950).

I’ve been researching and publishing on the Horsfields for a number of years now. I first came across these photographs and others in the Horsfield archive in 2006, when I was an MA student. The images were what inspired me to undertake a PhD investigating the history of archaeology through a network of British archaeologists – including George and Agnes. The following sections will introduce George and Agnes, provide a bit of context on the historical period in which they lived and worked, and examine the circumstances of their archive’s accession. I hope you’ll find exploring Mandate Palestine and Transjordan with the Horsfields as interesting as I do.

Meet the Horsfields

Leeds-born George Horsfield trained as an architect in London and worked for one of the most well known American Gothic Revival architectural practices in New York City before the First World War. At the outbreak of war, he enlisted as a volunteer, and saw action on the Western Front. At war’s end, demobilised, he embarked on a new career in archaeology. Admitted in 1923 as a student in the new British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem (BSAJ), Horsfield gained experience in excavating and excavation management, and brought his architect’s eye to interpreting and conserving sites. After his BSAJ training in Palestine, Horsfield worked primarily in Transjordan. He became the Chief Curator/Inspector in the Transjordan Department of Antiquities.

Fig 1. Agnes Horsfield at Damieh, Transjordan.

Fig 1. Agnes Horsfield at Damieh, Transjordan.

In 1928, he met Agnes Conway for the first time. Conway was the daughter of a mountaineering art-historian, author and politician and his American wife. She studied History at Newnham College, Cambridge – before Cambridge started giving women degrees. Her interest in archaeology developed at Newnham too, under the supervision of the classicist Jane Harrison.

After leaving Cambridge, Agnes Conway embarked on many different projects, including studying at the British School at Rome and the British School at Athens, and cataloguing and enhancing her father’s vast photograph collection. When her father became the first Director General of the Imperial War Museum during the First World War, she worked with a team of other women to collect material relating to women’s war work, and continued working on the collection and display of this material into the 1920s. By this point she had also published two books: A Child’s History of Art (1909)and A Ride Through the Balkans: On Classic Ground with a Camera (1917). She also began extensive research on the Wyatt family, whose Kent castle the Conways were slowly restoring.

Fig 2. A detail from Fig 1, showing Agnes Horsfield more clearly with her camera in her hands.

Fig 2. A detail from Fig 1, showing Agnes Horsfield more clearly with her camera in her hands.

In 1929, after meeting George Horsfield, the pair began an investigation of the site of Petra in Transjordan, the famous “rose red city” of the Nabataean civilisation, with two other scholars, Tewfiq Canaan and Ditlef Nielsen. George and Agnes continued to collaborate on analysing Petra over the next few years, and their friendship evolved into love. They married in January 1932 in Jerusalem, and settled in a house in Jerash, in the midst of the remains of the Roman town that had once flourished there.

They remained based at Jerash, travelling frequently in Transjordan and Palestine, until 1936, when George Horsfield left his position at the Department of Antiquities. The Horsfields embarked on a few years of Mediterranean travel, returning to live in London during the Second World War. Agnes Conway Horsfield died in 1950; George Horsfield moved to Cyprus thereafter and died in Kyrenia in 1956.

Archaeology in the Mandates

Prior to the First World War, the region that became Palestine and Transjordan was part of the Ottoman Empire. During the war, the Sykes Picot agreement, the Arab Revolt and the Balfour Declaration all contributed to the post-war reshaping of former Ottoman Empire territories into distinct countries – Syria, Mesopotamia (renamed Iraq) and Palestine. Britain had occupied Jerusalem from late December 1917. Then, under League of Nations issued Mandate agreements, Britain gained administrative responsibility for Palestine from 1920. In 1923 Transjordan (the land east of the Jordan River) was separated from Palestine under a new British Mandate agreement.

A British-run administrative framework was instituted in Palestine, with a British High Commissioner at the top, and various departments such as Treasury, Customs, Immigration, Education, Agriculture, and Health. There was also a Department of Antiquities, established in 1920, with antiquities legislation set out in Article 21 of the Mandate Agreement.

The Department of Antiquities issued permits for excavation and generally undertook survey work, documented archaeological sites and antiquities, made provision for guards for the sites, and took steps to open sites to tourists. There was also a revitalisation of the museum in Jerusalem, and provision for smaller local museums elsewhere in Palestine.

Transjordan also had its own Department of Antiquities, with close links to the Department of Antiquities in Palestine. George Horsfield had originally been sent to Transjordan from Palestine to lend his architectural expertise to the conservation of sites, specifically Jerash. When he became Chief Curator/Inspector in Transjordan he had similar responsibilities to the Director of Antiquities in Palestine: inspecting sites, ensuring guards were in place, and, with Agnes as his collaborator, documenting sites throughout the country where possible. He also helped to build a small museum at Jerash, and wrote a guide to the site that was published in 1933.

The Transjordan Department of Antiquities had little funding for large-scale work. Thus the Horsfields mainly undertook survey work and facilitated excavations by others, including archaeological teams from the American Schools of Oriental Research and the French Ecole Biblique et Archéologique Française of Jerusalem.

Fig 3. George Horsfield at Damieh, Transjordan.

Fig 3. George Horsfield at Damieh, Transjordan.

The Horsfield Photographs

In 1951, after Agnes’s death, George Horsfield wrote directly to V. Gordon Childe, then Director of the Institute of Archaeology in London, offering Childe what he described as his wife’s material on Petra and Transjordan which he hoped would be useful for the Institute’s students. Two boxes were duly shipped to the Institute’s premises at St John’s Lodge, Regent’s Park, and a further packet of photographs arrived a short time later. (Whether any students actually used the archive is still to be discovered.)

George Horsfield’s correspondence with Childe reveals that the contents of the boxes had been put together ‘without examination’, which I think contributes to the variety (and in some senses haphazard array) of material associated with the Horsfields in this collection. The two boxes that arrived in 1951 have over the ensuing decades been distributed into seventeen archive boxes, which (most likely because the material was not examined before its donation) contain a collection documenting not only the Horsfields’ work at Petra and travels in the region, but also Agnes’s pre-marriage trips to Greece, Sierra Leone and Iraq.

Fig 4. A detail from Fig 3, showing George Horsfield.

Fig 4. A detail from Fig 3, showing George Horsfield.

What results from George and Agnes Horsfield’s donation, then, is a partial but by no means insignificant view into the life and work of an antiquities inspector and his wife (and equal partner) in archaeology in Mandate Transjordan.

The photographs now available for tagging in MicroPasts are among the most formally presented in the archive, being mounted and labelled. They reflect George and Agnes’s lives and work in the Middle East. The Horsfields themselves appear only rarely in front of the camera, and when they are there, they are absent in the captions (see Figs 1-4). Agnes Conway was very interested in photography, and spent hours practicing with her camera – as you can see from Fig 2, she holds her camera firmly in her grasp.

The Horsfields’ photographs document an archaeological and historical landscape that has changed dramatically in the decades since the photographs were taken. They need to be read as part of an important period in the history of Britain and the Middle East – and this history continues to affect the region to this day.

Researching the context of the Horsfield archive is a continuing work in progress, particularly as complementary archives become more accessible through active cataloguing. There are many more histories yet to be revealed. However, we can start to discover them together here, through images. The MicroPasts platform forces you, as contributors, to look at these photographs in detail – and the closer you look, the more you find!

References/Further Reading

On the Horsfields:

Conway, A. and Conway, W. M. 1909. The Children’s Book of Art. London: Adam & Charles Black. Available at: http://archive.org/stream/childrensbookofa00conw#page/n7/mode/2up

Conway, A. 1917. A Ride Through the Balkans: On Classic Ground with a Camera. London: Robert Scott. Available at: http://archive.org/details/ridethroughbalka00conwuoft

Conway, A. and Horsfield, G. 1930. Historical and Topographical Notes on Edom: with an account of the first excavations at Petra. Geographical Journal 76 (5): 369-390.

Evans, J. 1966. The Conways: A History of Three Generations. London: Museum Press.

Horsfield, A. 1943. Journey to Kilwa, Transjordan. Geographical Journal 102 (2): 71-77.

Horsfield, G. 1933. Official Guide to Jerash: With Plan. Government of Transjordan, Department of Antiquities.

The Times. 1950. The Hon. Mrs George Horsfield. The Times Digital Archive [Online], 7 September. (subscription)

The Times. 1956. Mr George Horsfield. The Times Digital Archive [Online], 15 August. (subscription)

Thornton, A. (forthcoming). The Nobody: Exploring Archaeological Identity with George Horsfield (1882-1956). Archaeology International.

Thornton, A. & Perry, S. 2011. Collection and Production: The History of the Institute of Archaeology through Photography.  Archaeology International, 13/14, 101-107. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ai.1319.

Thornton, A. 2011. British Archaeologists, Social Networks and the Emergence of a Profession: the social history of British archaeology in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, 1870-1939. Unpublished PhD thesis, University College London.

Thornton, A.  2011. The Allure of Archaeology: Agnes Conway and Jane Harrison at Newnham College, 1903-1907. Bulletin for the History of Archaeology, 21 (1), 37-56. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/bha.2114.

Thornton, A. 2009.  George Horsfield, Conservation and the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.  Antiquity Project Gallery [Online]: http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/thornton322/

Thornton, A. 2006. Explorations in the Desert: The Photographic Collection of George and Agnes Horsfield. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 17, 93-100. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.273.

Who Was Who. HORSFIELD, George. Who Was Who. A & C Black [Online edn]. Available at: www.ukwhoswho.com/view/article/oupww/whowaswho/U2388067 (subscription)

On the history of archaeology in Mandate Palestine and Transjordan:

Albright, W. 1963. The Archaeology of Palestine. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Abu el-Haj, N. 2001. Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Gibson, S. 1999. British Archaeological Institutions in Mandate Palestine, 1917-1948. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131 (2): 115-143. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1179/peq.1999.131.2.115.

Moorey, R. 1991. A Century of Biblical Archaeology. Cambridge: Lutterworth.

Thornton, A. (forthcoming). Social Networks in the History of Archaeology: Placing Archaeology in its Context. Workshop Proceedings: New Historiographical Approaches to Archaeological Research. Berlin Studies of the Ancient World.

Thornton, A. 2012. Archaeologists-in-Training: Students of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, 1920-1936. Journal of Open Archaeology Data, 1:1, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/4f293686e4d62.

Thornton, A. 2012.(ed). Tourism as Colonial Policy? The History of Heritage Tourism in Mandate Palestine and Transjordan [Special Issue] Public Archaeology 11 (4). (subscription)

General histories of Mandate Palestine and Transjordan

Abu-Nowar, M. 1989. The Creation and Development of Transjordan, 1920-1929: a history of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Oxford: Ithaca Press.

Abu-Nowar, M. 2005. The Development of Transjordan 1929-1939: a history of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Oxford: Ithaca Press.

Fromkin, D. 1989. A Peace to End all Peace: the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the modern Middle East. New York: Avon Books.

Luke, H. and Keith-Roach, E. 1922. The Handbook of Palestine. London: Macmillan and Co., Limited. Available at: http://archive.org/stream/handbookofpalest00lukeuoft#page/ii/mode/2up

Luke, H. and Keith-Roach, E. 1930. The Handbook of Palestine and Transjordan. (2nd edn). London: Macmillan and Co., Limited.

Wasserstein, B. 1978. The British in Palestine: the mandatory government and the Arab-Jewish conflict 1917-1929. London: Royal Historical Society.

Wilson, M. 1987. King Abdullah, Britain and the Making of Modern Jordan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Posted by Adi on

Shabtis and the Ancient Egyptian Afterlife

If you’d lived in Ancient Egypt, you would probably have strongly believed that death was not the end, and that it was only a transition between this world and the next. Ancient Egyptians believed that after they die, or more precisely after their bodies die, some parts of their soul (termed ‘ka’ and ‘ba’) kept on living in a spiritual realm known as the underworld, or Duat – the realm of the dead.

It was not at all straightforward to get to this underworld. You first had to be mummified so that your body was well preserved and thus suited to move on to the next life. Secondly, you had to pass a crucial test on your judgment day, a procedure known as the ‘weighing of the heart’. If you were a good person and hadn’t sinned, then your heart would be lighter than the feather of truth and justice (Ma’at), and you’d be allowed to continue your journey into the afterlife. Finally, you’d have to know how to overcome all obstacles on your journey, so it was advised to have a copy of the Book of the Dead handy. This book contained magic spells devised to help you to complete your journey successfully.

Faience shabti from the tomb of Sety I, Valley of the Kings, Egypt. 19th Dynasty, around 1290 BC. Courtesy of the British Museum

However, making it to the underworld was not the end of the story. In order to ensure your immortality after death, your family, friends and/or subjects should have remembered to place some food and drinks in your tomb. In addition, even though dead, you were not exempt from work. You were expected to carry out tasks such as ploughing fields and harvesting crops. But if you were well prepared, you made sure that someone else could do the work for you. So while you could enjoy your days watching the sun god Ra on his daily boat ride through the sky, someone else was tasked do the tedious routine chores for you. Therefore, alongside your mummified body, some food, the Book of the Dead, everyday objects, and other paraphernalia needed to smooth your journey into the afterlife, your tomb would include a series of funerary figurines known as shabtis (or ushabtis). These shabtis were usually shaped like a mummy and may have had your name and title inscribed on them. Otherwise, they may have been inscribed with a text from the 6th chapter from the Book of the Dead, including a phrase sending them to action – “to plough the fields, or to fill the channels with water, or to carry sand from the East to the West”.

Tasked mainly for agricultural duties, the shabtis often carried a hoe in their hands, a basket on their backs, or some other tools (depending on their roles). They were usually small, between 10 and 30 cm in size, and would most commonly be made of faience, or otherwise from terracotta, wood, stone, metal or glass. While the practice of using shabtis emerged in the Old Kingdom, they became common starting from the Middle Kingdom onwards and were in use until the end of the Ptolemaic Period. Many of them were made in mass production, and from the 21st Dynasty on, tombs could be found filled with a great number of shabtis. Some tombs had hundreds of shabtis covering the tomb floors. Better be prepared for all that afterlife work!

Adi

Posted by Neil Wilkin on

Later Prehistoric Britain & the Development of Bronze Age Metal Objects

What we call the ‘later prehistory’ in Britain and Ireland traditionally spans the first use of metal artefacts and thereafter the replacement of bronze technologies with iron, an overall period of approximately two and a half millennia which starts around 2500 BC and, by academic convention, is said to end with the Roman conquest of Britain in AD 43 (which brings in the a series of hitherto missing documentary sources for the historian and hence is deemed to be roughly the end of ‘prehistory’ where our evidence is largely archaeological), spanning the Bronze Age and Iron Age chronological periods.

Bronze Age Metal Objects: Background & Overview

Given that a major early component of the MicroPasts project involves looking at Bronze Age metal objects from Britain, the following section provides a little background information in order to understand how the subject developed and the basic outline of the period and topic.

worsaee_drawing_spearheads

Antiquarian depiction of Danish & British Bronze Age implements by J.J.A Worsaae (1843)

The term ‘Bronze Age’ was developed by the Danish archaeologist Christian Thomsen (b. 1788 – d. 1865), to sit between the Stone Age and the Iron Age in his ‘three-age system’. Although the simplicity of Thomsen’s scheme has been questioned in the intervening years, and other important divisions have been recognised, it remains relevant, and the Bronze Age has a distinct character of its own. The date and character of the Bronze Age do, however, differ across Europe, with communications and mobility between regions and countries also changing through time.

In Britain, the Bronze Age is a period used by archaeologist to refer to the centuries from 2500 to 800 BC. At the start of the period (from 2500 to 2200 BC) only gold and copper were being used, but from 2200 BC bronze was created by mixing (alloying) tin and copper. In the initial period (around 2200-2000 BC), Irish copper and Cornish tin were used in bronze production. The sources of copper then changed as new mines (especially in Wales) were exploited and Continental metal was brought into Britain. The first iron objects appear from around 1000 BC, and the Iron Age is said to begin around 800 BC (again, this is more a convenient academic label, rather than an abrupt historical  ). The Bronze Age chronologies are notoriously complex, but here is a table summarising the main developments by period:

BA Chronology Chart-1

Major chronological periods of the British Bronze Age (largely based on Needham 1996; see also Roberts 2008 & Roberts, Uckelmann, & Brandherm 2013).

From around 1500 BC, the evidence for the contexts in which we find metal objects changes from burials to ‘hoard’ deposits. Hoards, defined loosely as two or more objects deposited together, that are often treated in special and unusual ways prior to deposition (for instance swords may be intentionally bent and ornaments folded and broken up). This hoarding practice may sometimes have had a religious or ritual significance, a point also suggested by the location of the deposits in unusual and special places (e.g. rivers, bogs and natural features). Indeed, although opinions vary, current thinking tends to suggest that hoards were ‘gifts for the Gods’ (akin to pennies thrown into wells with the expectation of a granted wish), rather than purely ‘rubbish’ or items stored for safe keeping.

Communities also made use of ceramics throughout the period, expressing identities through particular styles. These were often deemed important enough to deposit with the dead, particularly during the period between 2500 to 1500 BC (e.g. Beakers, Food Vessels and Collared Urns). Although the survival of organics from this period is rare, there are sufficient examples to know that communities were highly skilled at working these materials as well.

Most of the archaeological evidence for the earlier part of the period (c.2500 to 1500 BC) comes from funerary evidence and monuments and there is little evidence for permanent settlements of any size or scale. This may suggest that communities and populations were still relatively small-scale by comparison with later periods. Towards the end of the Bronze Age (from 1500 to 800 BC) there is, however, greater evidence for roundhouses and field systems, particularly in Southern England.

The Arreton hoard from the Isle of Wight includes flanged axes and spearheads (socketed and tanged types).

The Arreton hoard from the Isle of Wight includes flanged axes and spearheads (socketed and tanged types).

If you are interested in reading more about later prehistoric Britain these resources might help to get you started:

Published resources:

Books & articles:

  • Cowie, T. 1988. Magic Metal. Early metalworkers in the North-East. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen
  • Cunliffe, B. 2004. Iron Age Britain (Revised Edition). London: B.T. Batsford/English Heritage
  • Darvill, T. 2010. Prehistoric Britain (2nd edition). London: Routledge
  • Langmaid, N.G. 1976. Bronze Age Metalwork in England and Wales, Aylesbury: Shire Archaeology
  • Needham, S. 1996. “Chronology and Periodisation in the British Bronze Age”. Acta Archaeologica 67, 121–40.
  • Parker Pearson, M. 2005. Bronze Age Britain (Revised Edition). London: B.T. Batsford/English Heritage
  • Pearce, S.M.1984. Bronze Age Metalwork in Southern Britain, Aylesbury: Shire Archaeology
  • Piggott, S. 1938. “The Early Bronze Age in Wessex”. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 4, 52-106.
  • Pollard, J. (ed.) 2008. Prehistoric Britain, London: Blackwell
  • Pryor, F. 2004. Britain BC: life in Britain and Ireland before the Romans, London: Harper Perennial
  • Roberts, B.W. 2008. “The Bronze Age”. In L. Atkins, R. Atkins and V. Leitch (eds) The Handbook of British Archaeology, 63-93. London: Constable and Robinson
  • Roberts, B.W., Uckelmann, M., & Brandherm, D. 2013. “Old Father Time: The Bronze Age Chronology of Western Europe”. In H. Fokkens & A. Harding (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age, 17-46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Worsaae, J.A.A. 1843. The Primeval Antiquities of Denmark (Danmarks Oldtid oplyst ved Oldsager og Gravhøie). London: John Henry Parker.

 Web resources:

Posted by Andrew Bevan on

3D Modelling via SfM

What is it and how can it be used?

Archaeology was unusually quick to adopt 2D mapping (GIS) technologies at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, but now 3D approaches to recording everything from small artefacts to whole excavations and large landscapes are fast becoming popular. There are a variety of different methods involved, including both the use of laser scanners (sometimes known as LiDAR, especially when used at the landscape scale) and of photograph-based techniques that fall under the umbrella term ‘photogrammetry’.

axe2

A 3D model of a Bronze Age palstave, shown both with a photographic texture and with an ‘ambient occlusion’ surface (for an online version visible in most browsers on a desktop/laptop, see micropasts.org/3D/)

MicroPasts is fostering a photogrammetric method known as Structure-from-Motion (SfM) which does away with most of the complicated camera and target set-ups used by more traditional methods. SfM can create 3D colour-realistic models from ordinary digital photographs, often taken in ordinary conditions with ordinary cameras. Most generally, SfM is also a form of ‘computer vision’, the science of allowing computers to ‘see’ the world around them whether through range-finding, still images, video, etc.

3D models are fun to play around with and can be re-used in museum displays, immersive virtual environments or computer games. This is one of the reasons we are making them available under licenses that encourage rather than restrict such unanticipated uses (we would be really interested to hear on the forum of any applications that you can think of). They are also useful for school and university teaching, especially in situations where it is impossible to access the physical objects or archaeological landscapes themselves.

For research purposes, 3D landscape models allow us to place archaeological finds in an accurate topographic setting, and we can also then modify these virtual landscapes better to reflect the way they looked in particular periods of the past. This then allows us to explore more rigorously what factors might, for example, have affected where people from a particular period chose to locate their settlements, or to consider what parts of the archaeological landscape have suffered from erosion or have been covered up by river silts. 3D models of standing buildings (e.g. prehistoric megalithic monuments or Medieval churches, see Susie Green’s blog) not only preserve a 3D snapshot of archaeological structures that unfortunately get damaged and decay through time, but  also allow better studies of masonry styles and construction techniques.

3D models of artefacts allow specialists to compare finds in the same virtual space in ways they could never do so physically: for example, you can interact with and compare the details of several different bronze axes via 3D models in ways you could never do physically because those artefacts might each live in a different museum. One key further implication of SfM for artefact-based research is the fact that we can now collect not just one or two models, but hundreds or thousands. This means we can compare the sizes and shapes statistically (e.g. of similar Bronze Age axe types), because the sample of modelled objects is big enough. Although it is early days for such research, the expectation is that computer-based 3D shape analysis will lead to much finer, more informative typologies/taxonomies of objects, a better sense of how these change through time, and in some cases finer dating. You can even apply such statistical comparisons to irregular shapes such as the body-parts of statues (for an example looking at the ears of the Chinese Terracotta Warriors, see here and a related blog post).

Photo-capture of a Bronze Age axe on a white background using a turntable (but otherwise with poor indoor lighting and photographic conditions).

Photo-capture of a Bronze Age axe on a white background using a turntable (but otherwise with poor indoor lighting and photographic conditions).

How can I create a 3D model?

SfM models are constructed in several distinct steps, involving photo-capture, image-masking, camera alignment, point-cloud construction, meshing and texturing (some of these being obligatory, others optional). There are also ways to use online tools with which anyone can build 3D models via SfM by uploading raw photos they have captured (e.g. photosynth or 123dcatch). However, better results can usually still be achieved offline, and for objects, ‘masking’ out the background of the photo achieves a much better result than simply asking a computer to distinguish crisply between object and background on its own, especially when the object has had to be flipped over at several stages to capture all sides (hence the background has been altered in ways that deceive the computer).

Currently, we have focused on enabling photo-masking tasks on the MicroPasts platform but are currently developing a project where we ask contributors to visit certain kinds of archaeological sites themselves, capture their own photographs and upload them to the site. If you are interested in contributing in this way, you can also have a look at two very good ongoing projects of this kind in Scotland and Wales (heritagetogether or accordproject).

We have written a set of working notes about good practice in creating SfM models (comments and improvements welcome) that will give you a clearer sense of how these methods work (SfM Photographic Strategy, SfM Offline Photo Masking, SfM Model Construction). These working notes provide examples using both commercially-licensed software and open source alternatives wherever possible.

Andy