The Early Bronze Age in the West Midlands: previous research
The Early Bronze Age, defined here as the period c 2100-1500 BC (see below), is represented in the archaeological record predominantly by large numbers of round barrows and burials, together with a range of new artefact categories including ceramics such as Food Vessels and Collared Urns, and bronze items such as flat and flanged axes and riveted daggers. The clustering of round barrows in large groups marks the development of ceremonial centres and distinctive ‘sacred landscapes’ very different to those of the Late Neolithic. Settlement sites, in contrast, are exceptionally rare and materially ephemeral, and relatively little is known about economic practices or other aspects of everyday social life. This still holds true despite new discoveries and increasingly subtle interpretations of settlement evidence (eg Brück 1999b; cf Brück 2000) and metal production and exchange (eg Needham 1988; Barber 2001, 2003).
There has been little research work devoted specifically to the Early Bronze Age of the West Midlands. Summaries of round barrow and material culture evidence at a county scale, with the exception of Grinsell’s (1993) survey of Herefordshire barrows, are mostly out of date (eg Smith 1957; Gunstone 1965) or lack detailed assessment of the evidence (eg Hingley 1996). Vine’s larger-scale study of the middle and upper Trent basin (1982) remains a useful survey of the Early Bronze Age evidence known at the time of publication, but this is also now dated, while Mullin’s (2003) more recent outline of the Bronze Age in the north-west English midlands embraces only a small part of the region (north Shropshire and west Staffordshire). There has, however, been a large number of investigations of round barrows and ring ditch sites in the region, including work by Bateman (1848 and 1861) and others in the Staffordshire Peak District in the 19th century, and significant recent excavations of groups of barrows at Catholme and Whitemoor Haye, Staffordshire, Wolvey, and King’s Newnham, Warwickshire, Bromfield, Shropshire, and Holt, Worcestershire (see below).
The definition of research agenda in Early Bronze Age studies is complicated by the lack of consensus concerning temporal boundaries and the extent to which these relate to cultural, social and economic changes. The period c 2500-2000 BC has been particularly prone to terminological confusion, especially as the presence of both metal artefacts in Britain from c 2700 BC and Beaker burials from c 2500 BC are sometimes used as chronological markers for the beginning of the Bronze Age, despite the dating of several ‘classic’ Late Neolithic site and artefact categories to the late 3rd millennium BC (discussed in the previous section). There are, in fact, several chronological frameworks available, ranging from artefact typo-chronologies (eg Gerloff 1975) to general periodisations (eg Bradley 1984a; Burgess 1980, 1986; Needham 1996). The most reliable general scheme in current use, Needham’s phasing of the British Bronze Age into seven distinct ‘Periods’ (1996, revised 2005), provides a synthesis of available dating evidence, although the period division has not been universally adopted for descriptive or interpretative purposes.
For the purposes of this review, the chronological boundary for the start of the Early Bronze Age is placed at 2100 BC. This date marks some widespread changes in both material culture and social practices. In particular, several long-lived architectural traditions associated with henges, massive timber circles and stone circles came to an end, construction events at most existing ceremonial monuments ceased and depositional practices at these places were generally discontinued, especially those associated with Grooved Ware (Garwood 1999b). This corresponds with significant changes in funerary practices. Beaker ceramics and burial assemblages, for example, changed from low- carinated vessels with a ‘primary package’ of artefact associations, to a diversified range of vessel types associated with several ‘emergent’ artefact sets (Needham 2005). This parallels changes in funerary practices and monuments: from rare, small, single phase round barrows usually with single event central burials, to more complex monuments, more frequent mound construction events, successive mound elaboration episodes, free-standing timber structures, successive burials and an increasingly diverse range of funerary artefacts (Garwood 2007a). Finally, it is important to note that the period c 2200-2100 BC saw the transition in Britain (very early in European terms) from predominantly copper to predominantly bronze production (Pare 2000; cf Needham 2005, fig 13), marking the floruit – at least in metallurgical terms – of the ‘full’ Early Bronze Age.
The chronological boundary at the end of the Early Bronze Age, c 1500 BC, is associated with far-reaching cultural, social and economic changes (Bradley 1991; Barrett 1994, 146-53; Brück 2000) marked by the widespread appearance of substantial and durable Middle Bronze Age settlement architecture, fortified enclosures, land boundaries and field systems, intensive farming practices, cremation cemeteries and new types and greater quantities of bronze metalwork (such as rapiers, spearheads and palstaves).
In the West Midlands, the boundary between the ‘Late Neolithic’ and the ‘Early Bronze Age’ is reasonably well defined. Although it is not possible to point to the cessation of henge construction as a temporal threshold (as these monuments are largely absent from the region), nevertheless a major change is evident from c 1900 BC when round barrow construction increased very rapidly, with dense concentrations around the periphery of the region and monument construction in central areas such as the lower Severn valley for the first time (Garwood 2007b, 148, 154). This is associated with the appearance of new Early Bronze Age material culture types and evidence for wider woodland clearance and agriculture. The end of the Early Bronze Age, perhaps surprisingly, is less evident in material terms: round barrow construction continued after 1500 BC and there are very few well-dated Middle Bronze Age settlements or field systems in the region. Even so, Middle Bronze Age metalwork hoards and stray finds, burnt mounds and occasional cremation cemeteries point to some significant cultural changes in the mid 2nd millennium BC.
Although there is presently no agreement about research priorities in Early Bronze Age archaeology, key themes are highlighted in several recent books (especially Barrett 1994, Barber 2003, Harding 2000, Woodward 2000, Brück 2001; Bradley 2007) and a large number of interpretative studies that raise research questions relevant to the West Midlands:
Environmental data
Early Bronze Age environments in the West Midlands are not well understood. There is very little botanical or faunal evidence and there are few pollen diagrams relating to this period (Greig 2007, 46). Extensive woodland clearance phases have been identified at Wellington, Herefordshire, c 2200/1900 BC (lime and elm) and c 1950/1750 BC (oak), and at Cookley, Worcestershire, c 1900/1600 BC. More localised and sporadic clearance episodes have been suggested around the wetland areas of mid Shropshire (Leah et al 1998, 53). In the lower Severn valley, pollen and other evidence suggests that extensive clearance and arable farming on the gravel terraces began no earlier than the early/mid 2nd millennium BC (Brown 1982), which is consistent with the evidence for a fairly open landscape in the environs of the Perdiswell enclosure at Worcester in the mid 2nd millennium BC (Griffin et al 2002, 20), and around the barrows at Holt on the other side of the Severn in the early 2nd millennium BC. There is, however, minimal direct evidence either for agriculture or exploitation of wild resources in the region, other than occasional finds of cultivated cereal grains and hazelnut shells: for example at Church Lawford (Area D; Palmer 2007, 128) and Boteler’s Castle, Warwickshire; Kemerton, Worcestershire (L, Moffett, pers comm); and Bromfield B9, Shropshire (Hughes et al 1995).
Monuments
The Early Bronze Age round barrow evidence in the West Midlands is considerable, diverse, and occasionally richly detailed (Garwood 2007b). Over 900 round barrows and ring ditches have been recorded, roughly half with surviving or recorded mound structures (Fig 2.12). Although some of these are undoubtedly Neolithic in date, and a
few Middle Bronze Age or later, the available dating evidence suggests that most round barrows in the region were built in the period c 2100-1500 BC. These monuments are so numerous and widely distributed that it is possible to make some general statements about spatial patterns and processes of site preservation and destruction.
The spatial distribution of round barrows and ring ditches in the West Midlands is closely related to the geographical and historical incidence of arable farming. Most surviving earthen mounds and cairns are located in areas used for pasture or in marginal upland landscapes (Fig 2.13), with major concentrations in the Staffordshire Peak District and south-west Shropshire, and smaller groups in north Warwickshire and south-west Herefordshire. Ring ditches, in contrast, occur mostly in areas subject to long-term arable farming, especially in river terrace locations where round barrows rarely survive as standing monuments. There are large concentrations of ring ditches in the upper Severn, upper Teme and tributary valleys of the Severn in Shropshire, the Warwickshire Avon, and the Trent and Teme in Staffordshire. Few sites are known along the middle and lower Severn in south Shropshire and Worcestershire, or the Wye in Herefordshire (ibid).
Agricultural destruction of round barrows in the region has been extensive, in some places beginning as early as the Iron Age (eg at Sharpstones Hill A1, Shropshire; Barker et al 1991). It is difficult, however, to generalise about the process of destruction given the local diversity of farming regimes and changes in these over time. Animal husbandry of various kinds has been prevalent in the region, and only in the light soil areas of south Staffordshire and south Warwickshire has there been sustained arable farming since the Middle Ages (Rowlands 1989). Elsewhere, it is likely that monuments were levelled during short-lived cultivation episodes in areas otherwise mainly pastoral in character. It is certain, however, that monument destruction accelerated from the late 17th century as new agricultural systems led to an expansion of arable farming and the improvement of grasslands (ibid, 177): by 1900 the majority of barrows in lowland parts of the region were severely eroded or truncated. Mechanised agricultural practices have continued the process of destruction at an even more extensive scale.
Quarrying has also led to widespread if localised destruction of round barrows. Salvage recording of sites in advance of gravel extraction in the 1960s and 1970s sometimes produced valuable results (eg at Holt, Worcestershire, excavated 1970-75; Hunt et al 1986), but only since the advent of PPG16 have major programmes of fieldwork taken place in river terrace locations. These are now beginning to produce impressive results: eg at Wellington, Herefordshire (Dinn and Roseff 1992; Jackson 2007), and Catholme and Whitemoor Haye, Staffordshire (Coates 2002; Woodward 2007, 182, 189-92; Buteux and Chapman forthcoming).
The extent of destruction caused by urban growth and industrial activity is more difficult to assess. Recent air photographic survey (eg Watson 1991) and excavation of ring ditches (eg at Meole Brace: Hughes and Woodward 1995) suggest that monuments may have existed in areas now covered by urban development. Yet documentary and early map sources provide little evidence for the presence of round barrows in these areas, and there are very few accounts of discoveries of prehistoric sites or finds during the growth of cities and towns in the region in the 18th to 20th centuries (Garwood 2007b, 139). None of the possible ‘round barrows’ destroyed by urban and industrial development in places such as Dudley, Walsall and Wolverhampton produced a single artefact or burial deposit, or any evidence for distinctive constructional features. Although it is possible that evidence was missed (Mike Hodder, pers comm), it is most likely that these were natural mounds or spoil heaps derived from building work and industrial practices (Garwood 2007b, 136-7). This does not negate the possibility that round barrows and ring ditches may yet be found in areas like Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Coventry (indeed, their identification and investigation should be a high priority in future evaluation work), but at present there is no indication that they were common in these areas in prehistory.
Processes of site obscuration may also have had an impact on site distributions. The rarity of ring ditches in the lower Severn valley in Worcestershire and south Shropshire contrasts with clusters of ring ditches in the upper Severn and Avon (Watson 1991). This suggests that round barrows in the lower Severn were either relatively sparse or that mounds in low-lying situations were eroded in antiquity and have since been concealed by alluviation (eg as at Wellington Quarry, Herefordshire; Dinn and Roseff 1992; Jackson 2007, 115-6). It is also important to note that a large part of the West Midlands landscape is defined broadly as wood pasture (Dyer 2000, 98), with patchy if still extensive woodland that may have obscured the presence of mounds at a local level.
There has been considerable investigation of round barrows in the West Midlands, with information of varying quality from over 250 sites. Of these, 64 sites have been excavated since 1960, in some cases providing significant constructional, funerary, artefactual and/or chronological evidence, including sites at: Bromfield (Stanford 1982; Hughes et al 1995), Meole Brace (Hughes and Woodward 1995; Barfield and Hughes 1997, 1998) and Sharpstones Hill, Shropshire (Barker et al 1991); Low Bent, Low Farm (Wilson and Cleverdon 1987), King’s Low (Lock and Spicer 1986, 1987), and Tucklesholme Farm, Staffordshire (Martin and Allen 2001); Wolvey (Garwood in prep), King’s Newnham (Simpson 1969; Palmer 2003) and Wasperton, Warwickshire (Hughes and Crawford 1995); and Holt, Worcestershire (Hunt et al 1986). Records are also available for a further 191 sites (104 located precisely) investigated mainly in the 19th century, the majority in the Peak District (Garwood 2007b, 134-40, App 1).
A wide range of monument types can be identified, including single-phase and multi- phase mounds, platform mounds, ring barrows, cairns, and possible bell and disc barrows, and there are a few examples of timber settings (although no complex structures such as concentric stake circles; Garwood 2007b, 142-3). Unfortunately, there is very little reliable dating evidence of any kind from round barrows in the region: most of those excavated recently were ring ditch sites with few surviving constructional features, and more than half lack in situ burial deposits (see below). Although artefacts have been recovered from more than 70 sites, only in 23 cases (16 in the Peak District) are these in primary contexts related stratigraphically to mound structures, or located centrally to ring ditches (ibid). Absolute dating has also contributed little to our understanding of round barrow chronologies in the region: although there are 27 radiocarbon dates available from 15 sites (ibid), only in four cases do these provide precise and stratigraphically relevant information for dating constructional events or features (Bromfield B15, Shropshire; Low Bent and King’s Low, Staffordshire; and the Perdiswell enclosure, Worcester).
The spatial organisation of round barrow groups in the West Midlands is distinctive. Large linear barrow cemeteries of the kind found in Wessex have not been identified anywhere in the region and the very few known linear barrow groups consist of just three or four mounds (eg at King’s Newnham, Warwickshire; Palmer 2007, 123-6). This suggests that attempts to express lines of descent, succession and social or political continuity within barrow groups could not be sustained for long periods of time. Instead, most ‘groups’ of barrows consist of dispersed clusters of mounds or ring ditches, sometimes forming aggregations of 20-30 monuments, situated along ridges or river terraces.
Burials
A wide range of Early Bronze Age burial practices are represented in the West Midlands, with the notable exception of ‘rich’ graves (Garwood 2007b, 144-8). Well-recorded in situ burial deposits, however, are rare, not all of them are definitely associated with mounds and most are concentrated in the Peak District. Few of these burials can be dated precisely and the majority lack reliable contextual information. Of more than 100 Staffordshire barrow sites described by Bateman (1861), for example, there is a site plan for only one and there are few details of burial orientations, spatial relationships or sequences. In fact, in the whole of the West Midlands, only ten inhumation graves of broadly Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age date can be reconstructed to show body posture and the layout of burial assemblages (Garwood 2007b, 144, fig 10.3). Similarly, there are only nine sites in the region with well-documented cremation burials (ibid, 147).
The architectural contexts and temporal ordering of funerary practices vary enormously, with particular contrasts between ‘open’ arenas for repeated funerary events and ‘closed’ burial settings immediately sealed by mounds, and between burials ‘housed’ in containers (such as stone cists, pits and pottery vessels) and those ‘exposed’ on the ground surface and in pits open to view prior to mound construction. These practices were not mutually exclusive, but in general terms there seems to have been a trend from accessible arenas in the Late Neolithic to ‘closed’ mounds with sealed burial deposits in the Bronze Age (cf Bradley 1998, 139-46).
Open access to both ceremonial arenas and burial deposits can be recognised at several sites in the Staffordshire Peak District (eg Top Low and Mare Hill; Bateman 1861, 133- 8). In contrast, identification of sites with ‘open’ arenas but sealed burial deposits is difficult because of uncertainties about the ‘accessibility’ of pits or stone-built cists (as at Arbor Hill, ibid 112-3) and their relationship to mound building events. This problem is exacerbated where sites have been heavily eroded or truncated (eg at Bromfield B15, Shropshire). The time elapsed between burial and monument construction events is also difficult to estimate, though it is sometimes possible to identify examples of ‘exposed’ funerary deposits that were covered by mounds immediately after deposition (eg the heaped cremated bone deposits at Throwley, Staffordshire; cf Garwood 2007b, 147).
The most surprising aspect of the burial evidence from the West Midlands, given conventional expectations concerning funerary practices at round barrow sites, is that there are so few well documented cases of single-event enclosed or ‘housed’ burials sealed immediately by mound structures. There is one convincing example at Thorncliff Low, Staffordshire, where a deep pit containing an inhumation with a dagger was covered by a large mound (Bateman 1861, 118-9; Gerloff 1975, 50), and another possible example of a late Beaker burial sealed by a mound at Castern (Bateman 1848, 87-8). Ring ditch sites are especially difficult to interpret in these terms because of the truncation of mound structures, although Sharpstones Hill A1 and A2, Shropshire, both with central cremation burials beneath inverted ceramic vessels, may be sites of this kind (Barker et al 1991).
Recent excavations have tended to reinforce the long-held impression that Early Bronze Age burial assemblages were relatively ‘impoverished’ in the West Midlands. The rarity of artefacts, particularly finer objects, does appear to be characteristic of this period in the region, and there are numerous examples of burials with no grave goods at all (especially in the Severn valley: Buteux and Hughes 1995, 161). Even in the Peak District, which has by far the greatest concentration of grave finds, there are no ‘rich’ burials (Barnatt and Collis 1996, 56), and very few burials associated with more than one artefact. In this context, the dating of Early Bronze Age mortuary practices is weak in relative terms, and there are only 12 reliable radiocarbon dates from the entire region from burial contexts. These are from 11 burials, all cremations, at nine sites (Garwood 2007b, 47), only one of which is associated with an artefact (a Collared Urn, at King’s Low, Staffordshire).
Ceremonial landscapes
In some parts of the region it is possible to recognise landscape areas with extensive aggregations of round barrows and ring ditches, although it is arguable whether these landscapes had ‘special’ ceremonial significance separate from settlement areas. In some places these monument clusters are close to Neolithic monuments but they may also form dispersed groups in areas without pre-existing monuments (Garwood 2007b, 148- 52). Notable monument concentrations of these kinds exist along the Avon, Trent, Tame and upper Severn valleys, and in upland areas around the fringes of the West Midlands, especially in the Peak District.
Linear barrow groups with closely spaced mounds are extremely rare and most barrows in the region are instead found in dispersed clusters along ridges or river terraces, with occasional examples of two or three close-set barrows among them (ibid). Especially large groups (Fig 2.14) have been recorded at Catholme/Whitemoor Haye, Staffordshire (to the north and south of the Trent-Tame confluence; Woodward 2007, 189-90), Bromfield, Shropshire (between the rivers Teme and Corve), and Wolvey, Warwickshire (on low ridges near the river Anker; Garwood 2007b, 150, fig 10.7).
These barrow groups, and the smaller monument clusters in the upper Severn valley (distributed at fairly regular 5-10km intervals), may perhaps be interpreted as ‘focal points’ for gatherings of interrelated communities whose settlements were scattered and transient (Buteux and Hughes 1995, 161-2; Garwood 2007b, 151-4). Periodic construction events, ceremonies and exchanges that took place at these foci may have been media for expressions of social solidarity and identity within small corporate or descent groups, while larger monument aggregations represent cumulative outcomes of these practices by several groups who recognised shared kinship, political and/or cultural affinities (ibid).
Settlement and occupation sites
There is virtually no direct evidence relating to Early Bronze Age settlement in the West Midlands. This is consistent with the wider pattern of rare and insubstantial settlement in Britain in this period (cf Brück 1999b; Halsted 2005, 16-25). Occasional finds of hearths or pits with late Beaker ceramics (c 2100-1750 BC) suggest short-term occupation events, but evidence for buildings is lacking and these sites are open to alternative interpretations. Examples include a hearth at Rock Green, Ludlow, Shropshire (Carver and Hummler 1991), and isolated pits at Whitemoor Haye Area R (F167; Coates 2002, 9), and Area P (Pit F122; Ann Woodward pers comm) and the National Memorial Arboretum site (Coates 2002, 9-13). These deposits are difficult to interpret but do not seem to represent routine everyday activities. Recent finds of Beaker middens adjacent to former stream courses at Wellington and Staunton-on Arrow, Herefordshire (Ray 2007, 68), highlight the possibility that many occupation sites were situated close to rivers (and since vulnerable to river erosion). Activity close to water sources is also evident in the case of burnt mounds, the purpose of which remains uncertain (cf. Halsted 2005, 39-41). Although most of the examples investigated in the West Midlands are Middle Bronze Age or later in date (Ehrenburg 1991, Hodder 1990; cf Powell et al 2008), a few may be Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age (eg at Harborne, Birmingham; Hodder 1990, 108). More generally, there is an almost complete lack of ‘domestic’ Food Vessel, Collared Urn and Biconical Urn ceramic assemblages in the region, which elsewhere provide evidence for occupation sites and practices during the early 2nd millennium BC (especially in East Anglia; Healy 1995).
In the absence of direct settlement evidence, interpretations of settlement patterns and economic practices rely instead on the distribution of round barrows, lithic artefact scatters and finds of Early Bronze Age stone and metal artefacts. This evidence allows for some general claims to be made about the presence of farming communities and their exploitation of the landscape (eg Garwood 2007b, 152-4; Halsted 2005, 30-2; 2007). It is evident, for example, that settlement areas marked by monuments were very unevenly distributed, with especially low levels of activity in the central part of the region. This need not imply, however, that this area was an uninhabited wilderness (Buteux and Hughes 1995). The large numbers of ring ditches recorded in the upper Severn valley, for example, may indicate considerable intensity and longevity of occupation, while the sparse occurrence of artefacts may reflect local traditions of settlement mobility and use of organic materials. Round barrows in this area, it is suggested, served to formalise long-established, if materially ephemeral attachments, of particular communities to specific residential and/or sacred areas within the landscape (ibid).
The only part of the region that has attracted sustained discussion of the relationship between monuments and settlement is north Staffordshire, in the context of wider interpretations of the Peak District evidence (see: Barnatt 1998, 1999, 2000; Barnatt and Collis 1996; Kitchen 2001). Round barrows in this area occur singly or in small clusters in two main topographical/land use settings: around localised ‘cultivation zones’ on relatively fertile limestone shelves between the upland moors and steep-sided valleys; and in ridge- or hill-top locations overlooking upland pasture (Barnatt and Collis 1996, 3, 69, figs 1.17, 1.18). Mounds built in these contrasting locations may have served different purposes: those around cultivation zones belonging to land holding farming communities; those in upland settings marking claims by several groups to limited areas of grazing land (ibid). Although this interpretation cannot simply be extended to other parts of the West Midlands, it is possible that ring ditches in river terrace locations were sited close to occupation sites or on marginal land bordering settlement areas (patterns of this kind have been suggested in the east midlands; Malim 2000, 81-2), while barrows in less well-watered plateau and ridge locations may reflect repeated short-term occupation of places on routes traversed through the landscape as part of transhumance regimes.
Surface artefact finds add little to our understanding of Early Bronze Age occupation sites in the West Midlands, except in terms of the overall distribution and density of activity at a regional scale (see below). In any case, the relationship between artefact distributions and settlement is open to question. It is important to note, for example, that many Early Bronze Age objects are found in hilltop or wetland contexts, which suggests they were deliberate deposits in settings some distance from residential sites (Halsted 2005; 2007, 171-3). The wider significance of this observation, however, is difficult to assess as early metal finds in the region have not been the subject of any kind of recent survey (there was no contribution to the framework process, for example). There are also problems with dating: lithic scatters, for example, are notoriously difficult to assign to different parts of the late 3rd and early 2nd millennia BC, and may be the result of multiple depositional events over long periods of time (Barfield 2007, 105), while some artefact types such as barbed-and-tanged arrowheads span the entire Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age.
Regionality and cultural diversity
The distribution of monuments within the West Midlands suggests concentrations of funerary activity, and therefore perhaps settlement, in the Avon, middle Trent and upper Severn valleys, north-east Warwickshire, and the uplands of north Staffordshire, west Herefordshire and west Shropshire (see Fig 2.12; Garwood 2007b, 134-7, 153-4). In contrast, very few monuments have been recorded in the central part of the region. The distribution of lithic and metal artefacts largely reinforces this pattern. There are concentrations of barbed-and-tanged arrowheads, for example, in south Herefordshire, south-west Shropshire, north Staffordshire and east Warwickshire, while finds in the central part of the region are rare, especially in east Shropshire, south Staffordshire and Birmingham (Barfield 2007, 105, fig 7.4; cf Hodder 2004, 25-6). Similarly, there are concentrations of perforated stone implements in west Shropshire, north Staffordshire and around Coventry (Fig 2.15) but few recorded in more central areas. The spatial distribution of battle-axes and axe-hammers made from stone sources located within the region (Group XII, on the Shropshire-Montgomeryshire border; and Group XIV, near Nuneaton, Warwickshire) is especially striking, with clear concentrations close to the source areas and almost exclusive distributional zones, suggesting separate exchange and alliance networks or perhaps ethno-cultural distinctions (cf Woodward 2007, 184-7; Roe 1978; Shotton 1959, 1988). Finally, most of the Early Bronze Age metal objects found in the West Midlands, whether in graves, hoards or surface contexts are again distributed around the fringes of the region. They are almost completely absent from central areas (which contrasts significantly with the distribution of Middle Bronze Age metal artefacts; Vine 1982, 95, 98, maps Y, Z).
In this context, there is little to indicate a distinct regional cultural identity specific to the West Midlands in the Early Bronze Age, except perhaps in terms of relatively low intensity social and economic practices that had little lasting material impact on the landscape (Buteux and Hughes 1995). The occurrence of simple mound structures with infrequent, modest funerary deposits in areas such as the Severn valley, for example, may represent local strategies for laying claim to land within thinly occupied and territorially amorphous woodland landscapes (ibid; Garwood 2007b, 154). The distributions of some portable material categories, such as perforated stone implements, may also suggest the existence of exclusive local or regional social networks, and even spatially articulated cultural distinctions, rather than a shared cultural identity. In other respects, regional interpretations of the Early Bronze Age evidence require a larger geographical frame of reference. The major groups of round barrows within the West Midlands, for example, can again be seen as extensions of monument concentrations outside the region, especially in eastern Wales, the Peak District and the Cotswolds (Garwood 2007c, 201-2). Unlike the Neolithic, however, there appears to be little differentiation between these areas in terms of monument types, funerary practices or material culture, which is consistent with the view that funerary traditions and monument building practices in the Early Bronze Age largely transcended local and regional cultural distinctions (eg Gibbs 1990, 172).
Social and economic change
Interpretations of social change during the Early Bronze Age in Britain are exceptionally rare. All too often the period is treated as a continuation of the Neolithic by slightly different means (ie individual funerary monuments rather than communal ceremonial monuments) or a transitional phase between the Neolithic and the Middle Bronze Age (when durable settlements and land division become visible in the material record). This view is misleading, as recent studies of rapid and far-reaching changes in monumental architecture, funerary practices and cultural landscapes during the Early Bronze Age demonstrate (eg Garwood 2007a; Needham 2005; Owoc 2001).
In the West Midlands, there is evidence for an expansion of settlement, woodland clearance and agriculture, but most striking is the construction of round barrows in very large numbers throughout the region, leading to the creation of landscapes dominated by funerary monuments. This could be seen as an outcome of successful political and economic strategies among elite social groups and the development of increasingly hierarchical social organisations, in ways very similar – in terms of the scale and density of monument building – to the pattern evident in other parts of southern Britain. Yet the predominance of dispersed monument groups, the absence of rich graves, the contrasting spatial distributions of monuments between central and outer parts of the region, and the evidence for mound construction after c 1900 BC in areas where earlier monuments are absent, suggest rather different forms of social organisation and processes of change in comparison with regions such as Wessex. There is thus considerable potential in the West Midlands for investigating distinctive Early Bronze Age societies and their cultural landscapes, and how these changed during the late 3rd and early 2nd millennia BC.
Monuments, burials and landscape
The existence of large numbers of round barrows and ring ditches in the West Midlands is significant in national research terms. In some places these sites are sufficiently well preserved and numerous to allow for extremely detailed studies of the Early Bronze Age cultural landscape. Moreover, the results of air photographic survey and excavation projects over the last 30 years show that there is potential for significant new discoveries of ring ditch sites (Garwood 2007b, 137, 140). In this context, developer-funded fieldwork will have a prominent role in the future for enhancing our knowledge of round barrow distributions and monument types, but there is also a fundamental need for research-led excavations of well-preserved round barrows and groups of monuments within wider landscape projects.
In general research terms, there is a need to investigate the monumental architecture of round barrows and ring ditch sites in the region and to recover detailed evidence relating to funerary and other practices. This requires both site-focused and landscape- scale projects involving: (i) total excavation of monuments and associated funerary and other deposits; (ii) investigation of the areas around and between monuments (involving air photographic survey, remote sensing, surface collection work and excavation); (iii) comprehensive radiocarbon dating programmes (it is worth emphasising again that there are only four sites in the whole of the West Midlands with reliable radiocarbon dates for construction events, and only one for a burial deposit associated with artefacts); and (iv) detailed palaeo-environmental study of the landscape contexts of Early Bronze Age monuments (at present there is virtually no detailed environmental evidence from any round barrow or ring ditch site in the region). It is essential that future fieldwork takes full account of current research themes, such as the role of memory and the referencing of mythical and historical pasts in the spatial relationships between monuments and in the deposition of ancient materials (eg Bradley 2002; Edmonds and Seaborne 2001, 140-2; Garwood 1999a, 2003; Woodward 2002a).
An especially important research theme concerns the spatial development of round barrow groups and their place within Early Bronze Age landscapes. Current interpretations, based mainly on evidence from southern England (eg Field 1998, Garwood 2003), may not be appropriate for understanding round barrows in other parts of Britain, where large barrow cemeteries are extremely rare and barrow groups instead consist mainly of dispersed clusters of mounds or ring ditches. Only two barrow groups of this kind have been extensively investigated in Britain in recent times: at Brenig, Denbighshire (Lynch 1993), and Raunds, Northamptonshire (Healy and Harding 2007). Although the longevity and diversity of monument-building and ritual-funerary practices in these cases is striking, sequences and tempos of construction and depositional events, and the spatial organisation of dispersed monument groups, remain little understood (Garwood 2007a, 48-9). There is a particular need, in this context, for reliable dating evidence from groups of sites, especially given the rapidity of change in monument building and funerary practices (ibid). There is considerable potential in the West Midlands to address these research agenda, as demonstrated by recent work on large dispersed round barrow groups at Wolvey in Warwickshire (Garwood in prep) and in the Catholme/Whitemoor Haye area in Staffordshire (cf Woodward 2007, 189-91;Buteux and Chapman forthcoming).
The predominance of dispersed barrow groups and the rarity of Neolithic monument complexes with round barrows clustered around them, does not necessarily preclude the creation of Early Bronze Age ‘sacred landscapes’ in the West Midlands, but they may be less easy to recognise as organised spatial forms. It is also possible that sacred landscapes structured at very large spatial scales have gone unrecognised in local studies (cf Field 1998, 2004). With the exception of fieldwork around Catholme/Whitemoor Haye, Staffordshire (Woodward 2007, 182, 189-92), and Wasperton (ibid, 187-8) and King’s Newnham/Church Lawton in Warwickshire (Palmer 2003, 2007), there has been very little recent study of ceremonial landscapes of this period in the region. Large-scale landscape projects that draw together existing data and new research to investigate the spatial organisation of monuments and ceremonial practices are clearly a research priority.
Settlement and landscape
Interpretations of Early Bronze Age settlement are weakened by the limited evidence from occupation sites, a lack of agreement about appropriate spatial scales of analysis and imprecise chronologies. This is especially apparent in discussions of the social significance and organisation of sedentary as opposed to mobile residence patterns. In the Peak District’s case, for example, the same bodies of evidence have been used to support arguments for mobility and diversity in residence patterns (with only a minor sedentary element in the farming landscape) (Kitchen 2001) and for a close relationship between permanent settlement, arable land and monuments (with only limited short-term mobility in transhumance practices) (Barnatt and Collis 1996, 67-80; Barnatt 2000, 4-7). Neither of these interpretations takes account of possible changes in economic practices and funerary customs over time, and there is no supporting evidence either way from actual occupation sites (Garwood 2007b, 151-53). There is clearly a need throughout the region to identify and investigate well-preserved settlements to recover information about the relative permanence and scale of occupation, spatial organisation, economic practices and everyday social life (Halsted 2007, 178). Similarly, very little is known at present about the nature of subsistence economies, manufacturing technologies, the social organisation of production, or exchange practices. In this context, an obvious research priority is to identify Group XII and Group XIV stone implement production sites (cf Shotton 1959; 1988, 51).
The relationships between monuments, residence patterns and economic practices are also central to current debates in Early Bronze Age archaeology (Halsted 2005, 19-32; 2007). There is particular scope in the West Midlands for investigating the character of settlement both in areas with funerary monuments and in areas where monuments are absent. A key question is how these areas differed economically, socially and culturally: eg in terms of economic strategies, funerary traditions, social complexity, demographic patterns, political histories and territorial or ethno-cultural identities. There is a need here for comparative studies of settlement and landscape organisation in different environmental and topographic zones: to establish the presence/absence of Early Bronze Age activity, and to investigate diverse settlement, resource exploitation and production systems in different parts of the region and in different landscape settings (cf Halsted 2007, 168). It is notable that the Early Bronze Age is highlighted as a relatively ‘neglected’ or poorly represented period in recent English Heritage appraisals of the environmental archaeology of the English midlands (eg Murphy 2001, 12-13; Robinson 2003, 115). In this light, recovery of environmental evidence for reconstructing Early Bronze Age landscapes, subsistence economies and settlement is a research priority. There is a particular need for well-dated pollen sequences from different landscape contexts in all parts of the West Midlands, including urban areas. The pollen evidence recovered recently from alluvial deposits beside the River Tame in Perry Barr, Birmingham (Mike Hodder, pers comm), clearly demonstrates the considerable potential for recovering environmental data from present urban contexts.
Spatial patterns and regionality
There are several possible explanations for the apparent absence of Early Bronze Age evidence from the central part of the region, none being necessarily exclusive of the others. A long-held view is that the absence of evidence simply reflects sparse and/or low intensity occupation in prehistory (eg Seaby 1949). Alternatively, it has been argued that social practices in the region involved relatively little use of durable ceramic, metal and lithic artefacts (Buteux and Hughes 1995). It is also commonly assumed that uneven and low levels of previous fieldwork and geo-environmental conditions (eg soils unfavourable to air photographic survey and alluviation in river valleys) have strongly biased recorded distributions of Early Bronze Age sites and finds (ibid; cf Barber 2007, 81-2). Yet the persistence of the overall distribution pattern over the last 50 years – despite extensive fieldwork and air photographic survey – suggests that real contrasts in the character and intensity of occupation did exist between the central and outer parts of the West Midlands during the Early Bronze Age (Garwood 2007b, 153). In many respects, this can be seen as a continuation of the pattern recognised throughout the Neolithic, with some changes during the early 2nd millennium BC as monument building expanded into the middle Severn valley (but still not into the central uplands) (ibid; cf Buteux and Hughes 1995).
The West Midlands thus provides significant opportunities for investigating variation in the social and economic character of Early Bronze Age landscapes. Extensive monument groups found in upland areas, for example, can be contrasted with the beaded distribution of small monument clusters along river valleys. It is possible that these contrasts relate to differences in the way that political and cultural communities were organised: in some areas as relatively large-scale polities associated with large round barrow concentrations (eg the Peak District); in other areas taking the form of more numerous smaller-scale socio-political entities with their own local monument groups (eg along the Avon valley). There may also be contrasts in expressions of ‘historicity’ and reference to the past (cf Garwood 1991). In the Peak District and the Avon valley a considerable time depth to monument groups is evident, with round barrows often clustered close to Neolithic monuments. In contrast, in the middle and lower Severn valley, round barrows were built in landscapes with little evidence for earlier occupation (Buteux and Hughes 1995; Garwood 2007b, 152-4). In these areas, mound building and burial events may have been intended specifically to legitimise claims to land. The limited development of linear barrow groups in the region may also relate to the organisation of mound-building groups. In particular, the expansion of settlement during the Early Bronze Age into relatively unsettled landscapes allowed for a degree of social mobility. In this context, elite groups may not have been able to sustain their dynastic pre-eminence, marked by successive monument-building events, for more than a few generations (ibid).
These observations highlight the diverse character of mound building and burial events during the Early Bronze Age (cf Garwood 2007a), and differences in their local political and cultural significance from one part of the region to another and over time. In this context, simplistic treatment of all round barrows as if they represent the ‘same’ set of social concerns and practices is clearly misleading.
Recommendations for appropriate methodologies and practices in Early Bronze Age archaeology in the West Midlands to some extent parallel those suggested for work on Neolithic sites. The nature of the Early Bronze Age evidence, however, points to several issues that require particular attention (especially in relation to funerary sites).
The Early Bronze Age in the West Midlands is materially the most represented and the most widely investigated of earlier prehistoric periods in the region. Hundreds of monuments are listed in local authority HERs, together with hundreds more finds of lithic and metal artefacts and other remains. Over 230 monuments have been investigated, and many more non-monumental sites have produced evidence of this period. Overall, our knowledge of the Early Bronze Age in the West Midlands easily bears comparison – in terms of the number and diversity of excavated sites of all kinds, the richness and complexity of the artefactual evidence, and wider spatial patterns and landscape contexts – with other English regions. Yet this period has attracted little attention within the region until recently and the West Midlands has a low profile in Early Bronze Age research nationally. One reason for this is separate treatment of the Peak District evidence: work on this area tends to focus on the limestone uplands in geographical isolation and to look to north-east England and Wessex for comparanda and interpretative themes rather than closer regional contexts. Although the Peak District evidence is clearly important, in other respects it gives a misleading impression of the nature and significance of the West Midlands evidence, and is certainly not representative of the wider spatial distribution of barrows or the funerary record in the region.
In current research terms there is no question about the relevance of the West Midlands evidence to interpretative themes and debates at regional, national and European scales of enquiry. Above all, investigation of the nature and development of round barrow groups, and the wider character of settlement and ceremony in the prehistoric landscape, are key themes in current research agenda. Study of the Early Bronze Age in the West Midlands has a significant contribution to make to our understanding of the unique cultural worlds that existed in Britain in the late 3rd and early 2nd millennia BC.
Part of the Research Frameworks Network