The Use and Significance of Early Bronze Age Stone Battle-axes and Axe-hammers from Northern Britain and the Isle of Man

Abstract

The perforated stone battle-axes and axe-hammers of Early Bronze Age Britain have been used either to interpret the status of individuals they were buried with or have been overlooked; this is especially the case with axe-hammers. Previous understandings have assumed battle-axes were purely ceremonial, while the rougher axe-hammers were neither functional nor prestigious, being too large and too crude to be prestige items. Studies of the 20th century were focused on creating a typology and understanding the manufacture and petrological sources of the stone, concluding that haphazard exploitation of stone was used to create a variety of different shapes of both implements. This paper revisits the question of how these artefacts were used. It presents the results of the first large-scale application of use-wear analysis to British Early Bronze Age battle-axes and axe-hammers, from northern Britain and the Isle of Man. Combining the results of the wear analysis with experimental archaeology and contextual analysis, it is argued that these objects were functional tools, some of which saw prolonged use that might have spanned multiple users. The evidence shows that the few implements found in burial contexts were both functional and symbolic; their inclusion in burial contexts drawing upon relational links which developed through the itineraries of these objects. It is also apparent that use and treatment were similar across all types of battle-axe and axe-hammer, with some regional variation in the deposition of axe-hammers in south-west Scotland. It is concluded that battle-axes and axe-hammers had varied and multiple roles and significances and that it is possible to discover what each artefact was used for by deploying a use-wear analysis methodology.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.