 Fy gofnodd i ddistrwm y cyflawni ffordd gyda allan wrth ôl yn dda yn laio'r cyfrifio ar gweithio'r sgysig, ond y modd bwrw i'r profiad trwy ddangos. Mae unrhyw ffludr ysgolwyd yma yn y nifer o bwysig mae'r ardal chi. Mae'r cyfrifio ar gyfrifio, rywbeth camau, yng Nghymru ar dw i ddweud, oedd am y ffleddau dwy yma yn y brafiau yma. Roedd gennym o'n argylchedd gyngor. Mae'n ddysgu y gallwn rhoi syniadau a'r hydwch chi ddim yn credu ddim yn gweithio ar y rhan. Mae'r ddysgu yma yn ddysgu. Mae'r teisio'r rhaeddon yn gyntaf, gyda'r sylfa, a'r rhaeg i'r bobl sy'n gyffredig y Ddelfa. Mae'n gyfaint i'r holl yma sy'n gyfaint i'r holl yma. Fy enw i'r cyrraed, y cyfaint yn gyfaint i'r cyrraed, ac mae'n gyfaint i'r cyfaint i'r cyfaint i'r cyfaint. yn gweithio i'r bwysig i'r rhombol, yn yn gweithio i'r bwysig. A oes yn y cyfwyr, ond bydd yn ei wneud yn y gwirionedd gyda'r byd cyfan gweithio o'r aww. Rhyw o'r ffwrdd y bydd ar hyn yn cyfwyr, rwy'r cymryd yn y ffwyllgor. Mae'r bwysig i'r defnyddol yn y bydd yng Nghymru yn y bwysig, ond rwy'r yn cyfwyr yn ddeinig i'r bwysig i'r bwysig, o'r rhaid o'r amlun o'r pryd yma'r barbarion. Yn ymlaen i gynnwys i'r bwrth i'r cychwyn, bydd gynhyrchu gynhyrchu oedd yn bach o gyfrifio'r ffordd. Mae hyrchu'r rhai yn ymddi, a ddiddorol yn fffrifio'r rhai. Mae hynny'n rhoi'r sgwrn i fynd i ni'n gwneud ysgolwyd. Mae hynny'n rhoi'r sgwrn i'n gwneud yma'r bwrth, ond mae'n ddiddorol eich gyrfaedd fel yn ysgolwyd. gyda llwyddiadau a gweithio gyda hynny, fel yfynu gwneud fod yn roi'r cyflwyno. If it was buried to loops as some would commentate as believed, we would describe it as a horde. But if it was sunk in a lake, was it a votive deposit? We face similar questions in reviewing the archaeology of hordes, that the problem is compounded because this distinctive phenomenon extended from the neolithic period to the Viking Age. I'm hardly qualified to talk about the end of this sequence, but I can begin this contribution by saying that as many explanations have been offered for the Staffordshire's Board as the half for the Treasurer's Toons, did the Horde found in the Midlands contain the weapons of a defeating warbind, like the trophies displayed on battlefields in classical world? What is content lost by chance, or were they intended to have a longer history? Comparison with the metalwork looked at from Delphi only adds to the uncertainty. Were the contents of the Staffordshire Horde destroyed to cut tail their power, or was their metal content always more important? Remember that the treasure deposited at Toons included ignorance. If the literary sources are confusing, so are our own accounts. When the Staffordshire finds were first published, people were uncertain whether they were a warbind, but the problem was of our own making, for we invented the concept in the first place and did so for reasons that were entirely a product of their time. The category was devised as a way of putting artifacts in order, and the reasons why different objects occurred together seemed less important. Hords were rather like grades in preserving an association between different kinds of objects. But though wider context played a little part in studies of this current, my contribution reviews some approaches to polyester reports and a few of the lessons we have learned from studying them. The work of two scholars was important from the outset. One was a Swedish archaeologist, Oscar Montinius, who investigated the contents of forts and banals across the length and breadth of Europe. More than a hundred years ago, this society is very society here, published his analysis of British Bronze Age chronology. It was immediately criticised by other specialists and soon forgotten. This was unfortunate, since his findings anticipated the results of modern research, many of them supported by radiocarbon, and were odds with the dogmatic schemes that dominated 20th century thought to their names. Montinius worked largely from published sources, the most important of which was Sir John Evans' book on Ancient Bronze in the North. Evans' work is interesting, as he pursued not one agenda that took him. He was concerned with the associations between different kinds of objects, but he also considered why they were found together. He distinguished between valuables that had been buried for safekeeping, and groups of artefacts owned specifically metal in this case, assembled by a smith. They might be stores of newly made objects of waiting delivery to a customer, or collections of scrap metal brought together for recycling. His approach remained influential for a long time, and was endorsed by Gordon Child half a century later. What neither of them discussed in any detail was why so much material was buried and never recovered, nor did they consider where it happened, but these questions were investigated by continental scholars. Today, it seems ironic that the first studies treated hord finds engraved by Mr Peter. Both collections provided snapshots of the objects circulated at the same time, this is one another. They were claimed as closed associations, yet subsequent work has shown that graves were sometimes reopened and that Bronze Age and Iron Age hordes could contain artefacts that were already old when they were buried. These anomalies were overlooked, allowing researchers to propose a chronology that would apply to material found in other continents, settlement sites, and rivers were especially productive. Eventually, the same approach extended to the Neolithic period. Other problems went largely unrecognised in his early research. The first was the presence of axes in both Neolithic and Bronze Age hordes. While such tools could have played a practical role in each period, they were made of different materials. Copper and bronze artefacts had been melted down and reworked, but the same approach does not extend to stone tools. It was obviously wrong to restrict hordes to groups of metalwork. More striking was another relationship. As long as chronological problems predominated, horde finds and grave goods could be treated on equal terms, but it became increasingly apparent that their relationship to one another was much more complex. The same types of material might be buried with the dead in one phase and in hordes during the following phase, acrosyversa. Among the most obvious examples are the weapons which feature in early Bronze Age burials in Britain and then in middle Bronze Age hordes. Similarly, the objects applied to grave goods in one ringer might feature in the hordes at the neighbouring area. None of its relationships was confined to pre-Roman of the object. Taken together, these observations cast doubts on whether hordes were a self-contained phenomenon and suggested that, during certain phases in regions, these deposits formed only part of a larger system. In this case, there may be a simple explanation. Perhaps it was considered appropriate to deposit fewer gifts with the dead during one phase and to remove them to a separate location during another period. Further complications affected the relationship between hordes and other kinds of deposits. They included artifacts found in water epitomised by the treasure of Toulouse. Medium runners observed that the kinds of weapons of a company of the dead were also discovered in rivers. In early Bronze Age Britain, daggers were commonly buried with the dead, but in the following phase they were replaced by rapiers which were deposited in water. In the same way, the artifacts from the Swiss site of Atene had given it name to a phase of the European Iron Age and to a style of delta guard. They were found where a river enters a lake, but elsewhere the same types were buried with the dead. Again, these relationships were not confined to the pre-Roman period. If the same types of artifacts were present in water and dry land, investigators needed to think in terms of a tripartite relationship between the material placed in water, grave goods and the contents of hordes. What applies to the connections of objects known as hordes is just as relevant to single finds, but in the past they were undervalued because they were not associated with other artifacts. Unfortunately, the hordes were particularly diverse, and many of their contents were different from those engraved. Often they include parts of objects that remain intact in other contents, the Bronze Age swords and spearheads found in rivers provided with the most obvious example. Does this mean that Evans was correct in relating the contents of hordes to the activities of Swiss? The question is not restricted to Bronze Age archaeology, and similar questions arose in Iron Age studies. It dominated the earliest interpretations of the metalwork in Snetisham and Norfolk, although current thinking is that the site was a sanctuary. Current thinking, as I suspect, is perhaps a way of saying that, as why I think, it's still controversial, and I must not quite say it's not automatic. Was the working of metal consistent with such a specialised role? It would have been true of the treasured soul of the dead body, for it included a large number of Indians, but does the same argument apply to the British Indians? Certain observations are not in doubt. Large quantities of metal were resunkled from an early date, making it difficult to relate individual artifacts to a source. Hordes not only contain broken pieces, they can contain ingots, slag and casting jets, and they may also be associated with moulds and making new objects. It's unnecessary to sever the connection between many but not all of the hordes, and the work from metal was in the Bronze Age and Iron Age. This is the right approach to take. From John Evans to Gordon Child, the emphasis was on the activities of the Smith, who was regarded as a technician for a special skill. There's little doubt that the most complex artifacts were made with considerable virtuosity, but this approach was unduly influenced by 19th century notions of technology. Evans was a successful businessman, and his work reflects the notion of progress expressed by the Free Age system, which stone was superseded by bronze and bronze by iron. This was thought to document a growing mastery over a natural world. The Smith was both an entrepreneur and a laboratory scientist. This interpretation seems unlikely in the light of what is known about the status of Smith's traditional societies in the old and new worlds. Their activities can take place in seclusion, where their success depends on the performance of appropriate rituals. They are magicians as well as technicians, and in all their process can be thought of as an organic substance that grows beneath the ground. But some of the studies in the Othic period I'm aware of the Magnific tune called Wayland Smithy, and the implications of his Anglo-Saxon name. Working metal drew one's supernatural powers, but there are problems with any approach which depends on comparison with distant regions in the past. In this case, I prefer to work for more local archaeological evidence, which raises similar doubts about the main dail, or do I mean profane, character of prehistoric metalwork. Mold fragments are especially revealing. They can be found in settlements and hordes, but in Ireland they were also deposited in an artificial pool outside Hockysgawr, the precursor of the Royal Centre of Navan, where they were discovered together with pieces of human skull. Closer to home in essence, another group of sword moulds was in a natural waterhole associated with cremations. Similar collections were buried in both entrances of a late Bronze Age defended enclosure at Springfield Line. During the same period in Scandinavia, mould fragments were associated with cult houses and bedding apartments. The most extensive workshop in Bronze Age Norway was on the same site as the cemetery, and the same was true in Sweden. The metalwork found in British wards poses similar problems. It could be broken by various methods, but it seems that if certain objects were violently destroyed, studies of Bronze Age scrap wards in different parts of Europe show that particular parts of the object were selected for burial while others must have been recycled. I have just made an insight here that one of the commonest features is to preserve the sword hilt but not the blade, and that goes across much of the Bronze Age of Central Europe. The proportions of different fragments then vary between faces in the region. This does not negate an association with metalworking, but the transformation of these objects must have been governed by rules that had nothing to do with ensuring an efficient outcome. One business model is inappropriate. The simplest explanation, but it is only one of many, is that the Smith had to offer parts of the stock of metal to celebrate a successful outcome. Materials had been taken from the earth and subjected to an extraordinary transformation. Now an agreed fraction has returned to the ground. The question to ask is how far this could form to a general pattern. One way of addressing the problem is to consider the siting of wards as well as their context, and this has been an important development here and on the European Union. Until comparatively recently, their placing in the landscape was largely overlooked. Either it was considered as a clue to the positions of settlements or was associated with places where Smiths could obtain a dependable supply of fuel. But studying the locations of wards sites on the ground and not just on the map or the computer can be more informative. This model checks life on pre-related questions. Were wards sites intended to stores or temporary hiding places? Were the places with evidence of metal production located according to social conventions? And were the contents of the wards meant to be recovered or were they intended to remain on the ground? I'd begin with a field study of over 300 fine spots of major Bronze Age wards and single finds between the English Channel and the Fender, which showed that the majority would deposit it in a very similar setting. If you'd worked with David Duncan and David Yates to be presented at the Bronze Age forum later this month, showed how often they were associated with the heads of streams, the tributaries of major rivers, confluences and other sources of fresh water. At Broadwood's Rockshire, a site to which I shall return, excavations showed that over 100 broken weapons had been buried in a pit cut into the side of a spring. The positions of many of these wards are so predictable that they cannot have offered effective hiding places, and that's why metal detectors have been so able to target them in recent years. To my mind, this has two implications. If its collections were associated with the working metals, Smiths followed accepted conventions in choosing where to bury this material. The fact that similar places contain so many artifacts suggests that they were meant to stay on the ground. If the fine spots had a special significance, few of them were settlements. That's why wards are really found in excavation. For example, in northern Britain, metalwork dating from the early Bronze Age has been found in conspicuous locations, including rock outcrops, passes and watersheds. A few command views of the sunrise or sunset at the turning point of the year. But one of these sites, people could watch the midwinter summer and be merging from behind Benerys, the highest mountain in Britain. The iron ageing that was as important to connect to Jersey has shown that coin draws of this period could be buried on the ground facing east, facing south and southeast. A feature that they share with the entrances of houses in the coalitions. Another point to see could be significant. From a nilithic period to the iron age, hordes are associated with older monuments, like barrios, or with striking features of geological furniture. The distinction between them is important for heritage managers, but lack of the same significance in the past. This may have a bearing on the fine spot of the cemetery. Topographical sites offered further insights into deposits of artifacts. Certain forms were confident in particular context. But this filed the distinction between those buried in dry land and the objects deposited in water. Riverfines were dominated by weapons, another other shared between the pre and post-rope. There were also contrasts between the objects associated with different kinds of water. Swords were in fast-flowing currents and ornaments in box or forms. Similar distinctions were less obvious among the rest of the deposits. A new fieldwork by David Duncan and David Yates has found surprisingly little evidence that particular kinds of metalwork were restricted to specific locations. On the other hand, middle and late Bronze Age hordes and single finds in their study area were associated with local high points and with unusually low-lying positions. Perhaps these places provided access to upper and lower worlds of the type proposed for the Nordic Bronze Age, where researchers claim that there is an increase of a tripartite cosmology. There was another problem in supposing that particular kinds of artifacts had to be deposited in specific contexts. But intact objects placed in rivers and lakes had such obvious equivalents on dry land, where fragments of exactly the same types could be deposited. In this case, any neat categorisation breaks down. It seems that if prehistoric communities were less concerned with typology and the people who studied these artifacts than them, that would have been asking the wrong question. With the fortunes of individual objects turned by their forms or by their histories, it's always seen I write that so much time has been spent studying useware on stone tools while little attention was paid to similar traces of metalwork until it's done. Bronze is well suited in this approach, although I am not. Even so, it's been possible to show which artifacts have been used for everyday tasks. This method provides information on whether tools have been repaired or weapons have been damaged in combat. It also shows that personal ornaments were worn over long periods of time, even suggesting that specific artifacts were acquired at different stages in a person's life. Even more important, detailed analysis has sought to establish which traces developed over the course of time and which were acquired when objects went out of circulation. It can show that weapons were resharpened immediately before they were buried, implying that they were destined for further use in this world or another one. Most of all, this method can distinguish between the wear and tear experience while an artifact was in use and the damage inflicted when it was taken out of circulation. An example was provided by the later Bronze Age weapons from River Tenor. Approximately 80% of them had been used in combat and the proportion showing signs of deliberate damage rose from 20% to 50% over the same period. They had been disabled or destroyed often with considerable force. Others were exposed for fire. It might be that these weapons have a special history. It's interesting that Bronze Age and Iron Age human scarlet were placed in the river at the same time and that some of them provide evidence of violent injuries. Some years ago, I made a suggestion that particular types of weaponry enjoyed a particular significance within a restricted area and that they lost that order once they had been passed outside its needs. Here they could be broken and used as raw material. The idea accounted for cases in which intact objects occurred in rivers and similar contexts, while similar types were represented by fragments in hordes some distance away. Sometimes the argument seemed to work that there was little to indicate a gentle pat. Moreover, the difference between such local styles of objects were often so slight that it's unlikely that people dwelt on them the same detail as specialists on Bronze Age metalwork who are a cuts the part of themselves. Perhaps the feature of determining the fate of any particular weapon was not its form but its history. Whether it had been inherited from a renowned warrior or used in a famous battle, that is why it received special treatment and had an extended output to life. Now, by this point, I'm approaching familiar territory, for it's the approach taken to the deposits of war booty in northern Europe. It also touches on some of the interpretations of the Staffordshire War, but does this interpretation have to rely on analogy? I think not. Then, excavation in Glense Valley in north-east Germany has already identified what seems to be the Bronze Age battle theme, marked by concentrations of damaged weapons and human remains. They extend along the course of a river where most of the bodies seem to have been left where they fell. But the excavators have suggested that even here a more formal collection of personal ornaments was placed in the water. The evidence is suggestive that by no means could it cut. It's mirrored by the iron age object of sanctuaries in Gaul and the finest in the water of Latin. But I'll conclude with an example. Tobias Merz has re-examined one of the ports I mentioned earlier in this presentation, the collection of weapons in the spring at Broadwood, with a radius of carbon density between 980 and 820 BC. It's one of a distinctive group in southern England and the Welsh borderline. Where previous investigations suggested that the massive spearheads in these collections were too unwinding to use, his work was identified by combat damage. At the same time, the contents of these hordes received drastic treatment before they were deposited in the ground. They'd been collected and set on fire so that their contents fused together in a solid mass before they were buried. Merz compares that treatment with the equipment of defeating warbands in Scandinavia during the later period. Perhaps his interpretation would extend the treatment of weapons in the 10th. It's too soon to sample, but important to find that out. Now, at several points, this account of prehistoric thought touches on similar issues in the finest installation. I talked about the violent destruction of objects, the enigmatic role of the smear, the choice of natural places for deposits of valuables, and the importance of considering the histories of the up-to-back selective rebellion in the ground. It's clear that in this country we need to initiate a dialogue between prehistorians and early medieval archaeologists, for we seem to be addressing similar issues. I cannot explain the role of the statue, but I do suggest that it could have fallen only part to a wider phenomenon. Thank you.