Looking Sharp. Dutch Bronze Age razors and tweezers in context

Abstract

Discussions on the presence, nature and apparel of (presumed) European Bronze Age warriors has traditionally focused on weapon graves, armour and rock art – the latter two regrettably absent in the Low Countries. This means that for this area, warrior identities need to be reconstructed on the basis of funerary assemblages that may even lack actual weapons. Since Paul Treherne’s seminal (1995) paper, particularly razors and tweezers have been recognized as reflecting the personal care typical of the warrior life-style. In this paper, Bronze Age and Early Iron Age razors and tweezers from the Netherlands are discussed as part of their wider West-European distribution. Razors of different shapes (pegged, tanged, symmetrical and asymmetrical) can be shown to date to different phases in the period of c. 1600 – 600 BC. Moreover, in variations in handle and blade shape, regional groups and supra-regional contact networks can be identified. Tweezers too show ample diachronic and regional variations: in addition to presumably local types, Nordic and Hallstatt imports are discernible. Razors and tweezers were part of toilet sets that differed in meaning and composition within the time-frame of 1600-600 BC. We argue that the short-hafted awls frequently found in association may represent tattooing needles. In the Hallstatt period, nail-cutters and ear-scoops complement the set (now often suspended from a ring and worn in leather pouches closed with rings or beads).Contextual analysis of the objects shows that razors could be placed in hoards, yet most originate from graves. Several urnfield razors (and some tweezers) originate from funerary monuments that must have stood out for their age, shape or dimensions (e.g. older tombs, long-bed barrows), hinting at a special status for those interred with the toilet sets. Remarkably, the association of razors and tweezers with weapons is infrequent for the Low Countries during most phases of the Bronze Age. Associations with swords are limited to the Ploughrescant-Ommerschans dagger from the famous Ommerschans hoard and the Gündlingen sword from the Oss chieftain’s grave. This means that in the Low Countries, a pars-pro-toto approach to the expression of warrior identity prevailed – one in which the interment of toilet sets instrumental to the expression of warrior identity took precedence over the interment of weaponry.

The Fields that Outlived the Celts: The Use-histories of Later Prehistoric Field Systems (Celtic Fields orRaatakkers) in the Netherlands

“…Such an early dating of the Dutch Celtic fields may resolve a previously salient discrepancy in Dutch grand narratives of prehistoric (agri)cultural landscape development: the assumed (Late Bronze Age to) Iron Age date for the Dutch raatakkers implied that a chronological gap existed between the parcelled landscapes of the Dutch Middle Bronze Age-B ( c. 1500–1000 cal bc ) and those of the Iron Age (800–12 cal bc ). The scale and spatial syntax of Dutch (agri)cultural landscape compartmentalisation documented in wetlands as ditches (eg, Lohof & Roessingh 2014) or fences (eg, Arnoldussen 2008, 421–3) during the Middle Bronze Age-B were supposedly lost or rendered archaeologically invisible around the Late Bronze Age ( c. 1000–800 cal bc ), only to re-appear in new landscapes (upland settings) during the Iron Age with a similar spatial grammar of linearity and perpendicularity. The present reading of the data instead suggests that Dutch Celtic fields may, in their (a) devotion to compartmentalisation, (b) spatial grammar of linearity and perpendicularity, and (c) extensive spatial scale, be legitimate heirs or successors to a final Middle Bronze Age system of agricultural landscape layout.…”

Broken Bones and Broken Stones: Exploring Fragmentation in Middle and Late Bronze Age Settlement Contexts in Ireland

“…The discovery of both burnt and non-burnt human remains on prehistoric settlement sites in contexts that could be considered non-funerary, informal, or unceremonious has been well-documented across Europe, for example in Late Bronze Age and Iron Age Britain (Brück, 1995; Hill, 1995; Armit & Ginn, 2007; Brudenell & Cooper, 2008), the Balkan Neolithic and Copper Age (Chapman, 2000), Bronze Age Sweden (Eriksson, 2005) and the Middle Bronze Age of the Netherlands (Arnoldussen, 2008: 271).…”

“…Settlement sites, as the arenas of everyday life, were similarly invested with social meaning, their lifecycle being intimately intertwined with that of their inhabitants (Barrett, 1994; Brück, 1999, 2001; Bradley, 2005). Patterning in the placement and condition of artefacts within such sites has been examined by several scholars and seen as ritualized practice in the domestic arena (Hill, 1995; Brück, 1999, 2001, 2006; Chapman, 2000; Bradley, 2005; Arnoldussen, 2008). At the Iron Age settlement of Crick Covert Farm, Northamptonshire in England, for example, Woodward and Hughes (2007) critically examined the patterning of deposits within roundhouse gullies to determine that some represent deliberate placements at the time of abandonment and a preference for right-hand locations relative to doorways.…”

“…The discovery of human remains within occupation levels on prehistoric domestic sites is a well-documented phenomenon (e.g. Brück, 1995; Hill, 1995; Chapman, 2000; Eriksson, 2005; Cleary, 2006, 2014; Armit & Ginn, 2007; Arnoldussen, 2008: 271; Brudenell & Cooper, 2008; Booth et al, 2015). Most deposits are only fragments of the whole body: a select few bone types, namely the cranium and long bones, ‘token’ deposits of cremated bone, or parts of several individuals reconstructed and mummified.…”

Harry Fokkens, Bastiaan Steffens and Stijn van As. Farmers, Fishers, Fowlers, Hunters: Knowledge Generated by Development-led Archaeology about the Late Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Start of the Middle Bronze Age (2850–1500 cal bc) in the Netherlands (Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 53. Amersfoort: Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands, 2016, 345pp., 271 illustr. in colour, hbk. ISBN 978-90-5799-263-6). https://cultureelerfgoed.nl/sites/default/files/publications/rce_nar-05

“…It has proven in the past to be problematic to identify and study prehistoric houses in the Netherlands. Arnoldussen (2008) devised an intricate method for the identification of Middle Bronze Age B house plans in the Dutch riverine area. Based on these ideas and experiences, Fokkens and colleagues are able to outline evidence for central posts (either deeply dug in combination with gable roofs or less deep with saddle roofs) and a two-aisled inner structure for houses throughout the Late Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age, and the Middle Bronze Age A.…”