Early Bronze Age in Yorkshire

A LIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN YORKSHIRE

Jon Price
Director, Time Travellers
December 1997

(paper first published in McManus, P.,(ed), 1996, 138-141,
Archaeological displays and the public, University College, London)

INTRODUCTION

Since 1991 Time Travellers has been providing high quality historic character interpretation for museums and galleries throughout Britain.This involves devising programmes and training interpreters for presentations across the whole range of human history. In April 1995 Time Travellers was asked by Julien Parsons, Keeper of Archaeology at Sheffield Museum in South Yorkshire, to devise a live interpretation programme using two characters for a Bronze Age day at the museum. The day was aimed at a general audience and was devised to accompany the launch of an exhibition dealing with the Bronze Age in Britain. The event was to take place in the park outside the museum and involved a number of other attractions including bronze casting, flint knapping and rare breeds animals.

PREPARATION OF THE PROGRAMME

Most of our previous experiences of working in an archaeological context had been restricted to those periods and places where some primary, or contemporary secondary, epigraphic source material survived, and which were comparatively rich in recovered artefacts. With the Bronze Age in Britain no such range of evidence exists. Whilst it is not a problem to present material from such a period in a conventional museum display the nature of live character interpretation required us to develop plausible strategies to deal with unknowables. We needed to decide how characters should refer to themselves and each other, and we needed to produce workable versions of clothing and equipment from minimal evidence.

We were given a free hand in our choice of period and place and chose to interpret the Early Bronze Age in Yorkshire. Wherever possible Time Travellers programmes are linked to the client museum's location and there was sufficient archaeological evidence available from Yorkshire to work with. The choice of period was partly made because we are interested in transitions of culture, and partly because later periods were ruled out because of the expectation they would have created for the use of high cost replica objects in stone, flint, bronze and gold which were beyond the programme budget.

The surviving sites from the Bronze Age in Yorkshire consist almost exclusively of burial mounds, and these have generally survived in upland areas remote from modern settlement. The Sheffield museum is located within the city and hence no link could be made with a particular site, however this did not prove to be a problem: Time Travellers character interpreters do not carry out craft demonstration, neither do they simply function as descriptive mechanisms for artefacts. Instead their function is to interpret the social nature of the past, and in particular how the social structure, material culture and environment act upon each other at particular points in time. As a result whilst our interpretations are centred on a particular geographic location, and incorporate a specific set of artefacts, their ambit is not limited to the boundaries of that particular site or the discussion of the specific set of artefacts. Instead the interpretation reaches out beyond those boundaries to depict the entire social texture of a past, and is capable of discussing and dealing with the absence of artefacts, or with distant people and places. Had our interpretation been based at an extant remote upland burial site our presentation would inevitably have become focussed on the specifics of death and burial at that location as a result of visitor expectation derived from visit motivation. As it was we were able to deal with death and burial as merely one element in the whole range of human activity.
.
For the reconstruction of equipment used we drew on a variety of sources (Howarth, 1899; Clarke et al, 1985; Evans, 1881; Spindler, 1994). In particular the hafting of the axe and knife and the construction of the bow and arrows we used, the mounting of arrow points, and the fletching were directly drawn from the material recovered with the body found in the Austrian Alps in 1991 (Spindler, 1994). We do not possess the ability and knowledge to produce artefacts in an efficient or effective way using the same techniques that were developed in the Bronze Age after years of practice and as a result of necessity. As a consequence the bow and finished arrow shafts were bought from modern suppliers; textiles which matched the thread count and gauge of yarn of excavated examples were bought from commercial sources; jet buttons which would have been impossibly expensive had they been available were cast in black resin. Nevertheless, wherever possible we used correct materials and techniques: part finished arrow shafts were prepared from hazel wands to indicate the continuous replacement process involved in any prehistoric tool kit; the oak axe haft was taken and prepared using modern tools to match the specification of the complete example found in 1991(Spindler, 1994); the Bronze axe head and awls were cast to original metallurgical specification by the East Sussex Archaeological Project as part of their ongoing experimental programme.

Whereas examples of durable artefacts could be relatively easily located this was not the case with costume. In fact two sources were used: the material from the Austrian Alps (Spindler, 1994) and from Egtved in Denmark (Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen). Neither example is local to Yorkshire and a direct copy of either was felt to be inappropriate. We therefore took elements from each set, and added in the use of linen which is known, but not represented in either of the examples. Much of the costume structure was defined by the location of jet buttons in graves, and the wear pattern on them.

The interpretation involved two characters, one male, one female, for whom it was necessary to devise a logical and justifiable social context. We made use of current theories on status and power symbolism (Clarke et al, 1985) and gender roles in prehistory (Ehrenberg, 1989) to create this context. The first defining factor was the set of artefacts in use. A combination of curator and visitor expectations demanded the use of certain artefacts (ceramics, bronze etc), which, combined with the age of the participants, led us to create two high status characters. The lack of large scale monuments, or evidence for concentrations of population in the Yorkshire region in the Early Bronze age suggested an early stage of agricultural exploitation.

We therefore posited a social structure:which led us to depict a matrilocal society where status was visibly defined by the ownership and display of jet buttons and bronze tools which were not made locally, and by the utilisation of ceramic vessels in the distribution and consumption of beer. The exploitation of the environment by our evoked society remained at the level of movement between partially tended cleared fields, supplemented by gathering wild plants and small animals, and hunting birds and larger animals. We restricted other animal exploitation to the gathering of wool from non domesticated sheep, and the use of semi domesticated dogs. We suggested that social interaction would take place within the matrilocal group or at seasonal gatherings between adjacent groups. Whilst the characters were unable to directly inform the audience that we were working with theories rather than "known truths", nevertheless they were able to lead discussion to an awareness that this was an oral culture and that no contemporary written records existed. It was then left to the audience to draw conclusions on relative veracity of the presentation. Our previous experience indicated that this would not be a problem.

DELIVERY OF THE PROGRAMME

The completed programme was well received by the visitors who were observed by the interpreters to exhibit a wide range of levels of initial awareness and knowledge. The programme was part of a larger outdoor event and the audience were able to visit the component parts in any order. As a result, some visitors talked to the interpreters with no prior preparation. whilst others might have seen and discussed any or all of: bronze casting; flint knapping; pot making; hurdle making; and Soay sheep. The event took place in the park outside the museum, on the edge of Sheffield city centre, and lasted throughout a sunny Sunday at the end of July. The event was sponsored by Stones Brewery who also assisted with publicity.

A proportion of the audience had clearly been attracted by the publicity and had an expectation of there being a learning outcome to their visit. One or two were attracted by the expectation of winning a can of beer. By contrast many of the audience were simply users of the park who were attracted by the activity and wanted to know what was happening. It was intended that the interpreters would move around the open space engaging members of the audience in discussion. In practice the typical length of conversation, and the size of the audience, meant that neither of the two interpreters had much opportunity to move from their starting points. There was little need to create new contacts or establish introductions to initiate conversation as each new audience group followed on by joining an existing group. The interpreters generally worked individually at separate locations, but made reference to each other where necessary during discussion. Apart from a short refreshment break the interpreters were in continuous performance for about five hours.

It is normal company policy that characters are brought forward in time and that programmes take place in the present. It has been our experience that it is easier for character interpreters to work in this way, and the audience is more comfortable with the process. Research in other areas has shown that this is a valid approach (Bicknell and Mazda, 1993). This means that interpreters can explain who they are and what they are doing rapidly and easily: "We have been brought here from what you would call the Bronze Age, nearly 4,000 years ago".

The range of replica artefacts and clothing, as well as being objects for discussion in their own right, provided an intrinsically attractive focus for questions from, and discussion with, the audience. The objects allocated to each of the interpreters were selected to allow development of the core issues we aimed to discuss. The selection of bow and axe for the male interpreter, and spindle and beakers for the female interpreter, allowed both characters to discuss the practice of hunting, transhumance agriculture, gathering, food production, and artefact production. The interpreters were able to raise issues such as the relative importance of the different activities and how they fitted into the social structure, and this in turn led on to discussion of the nature of matrilocal society.

The audience ranged across all age groups, and included groups of similar age as well as family groups. There was a tendency for the younger age group to focus more on discussion of the artefacts but this was not exclusively the case. No formal evaluation was carried out although the process of devising and developing live interpretation programmes within the company includes a continuous process of subjective, post event, assessment of response by interpreters. It is our assessment that at this event we were able to make contact with a significant number of people who were outside the conventionally observed group of museum users. In particular we made positive contact with a significant number of people who clearly exhibited an alternative lifestyle. In view of the tension that undoubtedly exists between conventional archaeology and new age or traveller groups we considered that to be a point of particular value.

CONCLUSION

We felt throughout that, whilst we were often working with extremes of hypothesis, the principles and processes employed were no less valid than those used by any archaeologist preparing a museum display or a Level Four publication when they go beyond a bare description of excavated artefacts. Level Four publication is intended to summarise, draw together, and interpret, information for the reader, and this should certainly be true of museum displays. Programmes of live interpretation, properly done, fulfil the same function of interpretation. In the end we must accept that live interpretation of the distant past is no more or less valid than any hypothesis based presentation, and a hypothesis is never true, being merely a best fit of known information and speculation to create a believable whole.

REFERENCES

Bicknell, S., and Mazda, ., 1993. An Evaluation of Drama in the Science Museum. Science Museum Interpretation Unit, London.

Clarke, D.V., Cowie, T.G., and Foxon, A., 1985. Symbols of Power at the Time of Stonehenge. HMSO, Edinburgh.

Davis,P.D.C., and Dent,A.A., 1968. Animals That Changed the World. Macmillan, New York.

Ehrenberg, Margaret, 1989. Women in Prehistory. British Museum Publications, London.

Evans, John, 1881. The Ancient Bronze Implements, Weapons, and Ornaments of Great Britain and Ireland. Longmans, London.

Evans, John, 1897. The Ancient Stone Implements, Weapons and Ornaments of Great Britain. Longmans, London.

Howarth, E., 1899. Catalogue of the Bateman Collection of Antiquities in the Sheffield Public Museum. Dulau, London.

Mortimer, J.R., 1905. Forty Years' Researches in British and Saxon Burial Mounds of East Yorkshire. Brown, London.

Parker Pearson, Michael, 1993. Bronze Age Britain. Batsford, London.

Spindler, Konrad, (trans. Osers, E.,) 1994. The Man in the Ice. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.

Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen, (n.d.) Guide to the Danish National Museum