The Ringlemere Cup: Precious Cups and The Beginning Of The Channel
Bronze Age, Edited By Stuart Needham, Keith Parfitt And Gill Varndell
British Museum Research Publication 163, 2006; x +
116 pages including 6 pages of colour plates, 55 figures, 5 tables, 12 black and
white plates. ISBN 978-086159-163-3 (£23.00)
Within five years of its recovery in November 2001 we have this publication of the
Early Bronze Age gold cup from Ringlemere in Kent. Prompt reporting of the find
led to a programme of field-walking, survey and excavation that evolved into the
Ringlemere Ancient Landscape Project under the Canterbury Archaeological Trust.
Apart from the Roman site of Richborough, little work had been done in the Ringlemere
area and this volume provides a statement up to the end of 2005. Significant evidence
has been revealed for the Mesolithic, Late Neolithic, Late Bronze Age, Early Iron
Age, Romano-British and Early Anglo-Saxon periods, indeed for most periods except
the Early Bronze Age! So this is not a volume for Bronze Age specialists alone.
The gold cup was recovered from a mound within a substantial earlier ditch. Below
this mound was Late Neolithic occupation with the largest assemblage of Grooved
Ware in Kent, though its relationship to the ring ditch is uncertain. 80% of the
mound had been excavated without any evidence for prehistoric burials, but a sequence
of structures has been revealed at the centre of the mound: first, a timber cove;
then a low turf mound; a rectangular trench on the same axis as the cove; an irregular
pit over the cove; which was spread with woody lining that produced an amber pendant;
finally a modern intrusion just off the centre of the mound. This intrusion was
probably the location of the cup, despite being some 8 metres away from where the
finder believes he found it. The ditch was probably a Class 1 henge with a cove
aligned on its entrance, comparable to Site IV at Mount Pleasant and the Stones
of Stenness. The later mound can be matched at various sites, including Knowlton,
Mount Pleasant, Arbor Low and Cairnpapple.
The Ringlemere cup was found complete, though crumpled probably by one episode of
modern plough damage. ‘Because of concern that opening the severe buckles might
alter the metal structure’ the cup has not been physically restored, but a virtual
reconstruction has been made. The cup has an omphalos base and curved profile reaching
vertical at the shoulder with concave neck and flared mouth. Except at the base
and mouth, the cup is ribbed and there are punched dots around the rim. A separate
sheet handle of hour-glass shape with ribs outlining its profile is attached by
rivets under the rim and above the shoulder. The body was hammered in one piece
from a flat disc, technically simple but done by an experienced goldsmith from the
quality of the work. The composition is consistent with alluvial gold containing
around 25% silver. The cup’s capacity was about 0.6 of a litre, near enough a pint.
Broadly contemporary with the cup are the amber pendant mentioned above and an unstratified
fragment of an amber dagger pommel (recovered thanks to Tina Parfitt). Keith Parfitt
estimates that there may be nearly two thousand round barrows in Kent, unrecognised
because of intensive land-use in the garden of England but fully comparable with
Wessex, and he suggests Ringlemere is not alone as a Late Neolithic/Early Bronze
Age ceremonial centre in north-east Kent.
Four chapters on what Stuart Needham calls ‘precious cups’ of gold, silver, amber,
shale and perhaps also wood, comprise the core of the book. Most enduring will be
the catalogue of precious cups in north-west Europe which presents much important
new information, including one example hitherto unknown to your reviewer. A watercolour
contemporary with the discovery of the Rillaton cup indicates that it did have a
round base. All precious cups are now seen as having round bases so they could not
have stood upright on their own. In 2002 a gold cup from a Swiss private collection
was exhibited in Munich, but its provenance is unknown and any reader who doubts
the value of the Treasure legislation in England should reflect on the amount of
information revealed as a result of the Ringlemere find compared with the position
in some other parts of Europe. There is a new reconstruction, resembling a Beaker,
of the silver cup from Saint-Fiacre in Brittany and minor adjustments have been
made to the form of the Clandon Barrow amber cup. Doubt is cast on the local provenance
so far inland of the shale vessels in Salisbury Museum and there is a new reconstruction
of the lost cup from the King Barrow, Stoborough. However, the bibliography for
the Eschenz cup, Switzerland, omits the entry, containing additional information
about its findspot, on pages 120-5 of the excellent catalogue of the 2003 gold exhibition
in Nuremberg (despite the fact that this catalogue is in the bibliography of the
Ringlemere volume, Springer 2003).
The discovery and study of the cups is reviewed, their features compared and the
evidence for dating, sequence and origins assessed. While the cups share features,
they are interpreted as mostly local products of their respective areas. A combination
of associations and typology spreads the cups over some four centuries between 1950
and 1550 BC covering the later part of the Early Bronze Age. Ringlemere is dated
by the (not strictly associated) amber finds among six early metal cups, alongside
the three Breton examples and Fritzdorf, in the period before 1750 BC (ie, Wessex
1), with Rillaton slightly later. The carved cups of amber and shale are dated after
1750 (Wessex 2), except Clandon which is earlier. The three remaining gold cups
from the continent are dated after 1750 by their complex ornament. Ringlemere is
exceptional among the early cups in being ribbed, while Fritzdorf is placed in this
early group by comparison with Clandon because it is plain. This allows Needham
to derive the Fritzdorf cup, found on the Middle Rhine, from central European handled
pots by virtue of its proximity to the Adlerberg Group of the Early Bronze Age (named
after a cemetery in Worms). There may be some special pleading here, since in the
first section of the following chapter he emphasises the diversity of the precious
cups in a way that seems to undermine his reliance on their typology.
In any case, the reader of this volume cannot verify the derivation because no evidence
beyond references to Sabine Gerloff’s work more than thirty years ago and Stuart
Piggott’s nearly seventy is set out to link precious cups with central European
pottery. Not even Gerloff’s source for Adlerberg (Prähistorische Zeitschrift
43-4, 1965-66, 2-45) appears in the Ringlemere bibliography, never mind anything
more recent. Chronology is also a problem. While there are few absolute dates for
the Adlerberg Group, it must have flourished before 2000 BC and may have been too
early for its pottery to have influenced the Fritzdorf cup; the same seems true
of the other alleged continental sources of inspiration shown on fig 28, such as
Singen. Attention is drawn to the proximity of the Singen cemetery to the Eschenz
cup in Switzerland, despite the fact that Singen went out of use some centuries
before the date assigned to Eschenz. The Adlerberg/Singen period before 2000 BC
was a time with little evidence for contact between Britain and central Europe and
while it is clear that contact was renewed after 2000, when the precious cups appeared,
more work would still be needed to verify specific continental influences. A more
relevant comparison for Eschenz would have been the lake village of Arbon-Bleiche
on Lake Constance, which has produced pins like the one from the eponymous Camerton
burial, broadly contemporary with the Eschenz cup, and faience beads.
Drawing on Ann Woodward’s recent work on Early Bronze Age grave-goods, Needham argues
that precious cups were central to burial rites and that they represented the spiritual
knowledge required for such rites rather than the secular status of any individual
person. The distribution of precious cups along the south coast overlaps with the
slotted pots often called ‘incense cups’ which may have been part of the same ritual.
With a local provenance for the shale cups in Salisbury doubtful, it seems precious
cups were not associated with Aldbourne cups or grape cups in inland Wessex. Turning
to the bronzes, Needham identifies a group of hoards, centred on the Isle of Wight,
that stretches along the south coast like the distribution of precious cups but
also avoids inland Wessex. Taking account also of various types of later Early Bronze
Age pottery, he defines the beginning of what he calls the ‘Channel Bronze Age’
familiar to students of Middle and Late Bronze Age metalwork. The key material is
amber, sought-after in Wessex (and rare in northern Britain) but probably available
only from the south-coast communities. With some of the pottery, this extends his
axis eastwards beyond the English Channel to include amber finds in the northern
Netherlands and the gold cup from Gölenkamp just across the German border. Readers
of this discussion must now refer also to the publication of the Exloo necklace
(called Exloërmond in the Ringlemere volume, Palaeohistoria 47-8, 2005-06,
101-39), which identifies its amber beads as representing both local sources and
recycled Wessex spacers. Exloo also highlights the role of Cornish tin – in the
light of Needham’s arguments we should perhaps reconsider Alison Sheridan’s claim
that it was necessarily Wessex that controlled its supply – and faience in the network.
Indeed, though this does not appear to be explicitly stated in the main text, the
final sentence of the volume’s summary makes it clear that Ringlemere represents
another nail in the coffin of the Wessex Culture.
The volume appears as a re-branded version of the British Museum Occasional Papers,
in a format superior to Stuart Needham’s previous contributions. However, best use
has not necessarily been made of the opportunity for colour plates: the monochrome
letter about Rillaton faces a page showing four rather small cups surrounded by
a lot of white space. And the editors have missed a rather unfortunate misprint!
Overall, this is a work of great importance for the Early Bronze Age and the archaeology
of Kent.
Brendan O’Connor
Edinburgh
Review Submitted: March 2007
The views expressed in this review are not necessarily those
of the Society or the Reviews Editor.
|