World Archaeology

ISSN: 0043-8243 (Print) 1470-1375 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwar20

Hoards as collections: re-examining the

Snettisham Iron Age hoards from the perspective
of collecting practice

Jody Joy

To cite this article: Jody Joy (2016) Hoards as collections: re-examining the Snettisham Iron
Age hoards from the perspective of collecting practice, World Archaeology, 48:2, 239-253, DOI:
10.1080/00438243.2016.1152197

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2016.1152197

Published online: 04 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 335

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rwar20
WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY, 2016
VOL. 48, NO. 2, 239–253
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2016.1152197

Hoards as collections: re-examining the Snettisham Iron Age hoards

from the perspective of collecting practice
Jody Joy
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
In this article it is argued that past examination of hoards and hoarding has Collection; deposition;
concentrated too much on the moment of deposition to the detriment of the hoard; hoarding; Iron Age;
period of collection and accumulation of material that preceded it. An alter- Snettisham
native perspective on prehistoric hoarding is proposed that concentrates on the
processes by which objects were collected and assembled to form hoards and
parallels are drawn with recent research examining how museum collections
were formed. These ideas are applied to a case study which re-examines the
material from the well-known Iron Age hoards from Snettisham, Norfolk, UK, as
an example of how approaching hoards as collections can provide fresh insights
on the practices of collecting and hoarding.

There are repeated instances of hoarding throughout world archaeology and there has been much
discussion of its significance and the potential motivations behind the practice (see Bradley 1996
for a concise summary). The importance of hoarding is further exemplified by the fact that an
entire volume of World Archaeology was dedicated to it in 1988 (vol. 20(2) ‘Hoards and Hoarding’).
Its probable ritual significance and the potential importance of the location of hoards have
dominated much recent discussion, especially hoarding in relation to prehistoric Europe (e.g.
Bradley 1998; Fontijn 2002; Hedeager 1992; Yates and Bradley 2010), but the processes of collect-
ing material prior to deposition have received less attention (although see Dietrich 2014; Garrow
and Gosden 2012, ch. 5; Hansen 1996–8) and past examination of hoards and hoarding has
concentrated too much on the moment of deposition to the detriment of the period of collection
and accumulation of material that preceded it. This is odd because, as has been demonstrated by
recent work examining the gathering together of objects in museum collections (Byrne et al.
2011a; Gosden and Larson 2007; Harrison, Byrne, and Clarke 2013; Larson, Petch and Zeitlyn 2007),
which draws on archaeological methods and parallels (e.g. Wingfield 2013), the processes of
collecting and accumulating material can be investigated using traditional archaeological
techniques.
In this article it is argued that, like museums, hoards acted as containers for objects that have
been refashioned through selection, collection and accumulation, voicing the values of its collec-
tors and revealing their priorities (see Livingstone 2003, 29–40). Rather than becoming fixated on
hoarding as a practice, hoards can alternatively be viewed as a convenient window for under-
standing processes of collection and accumulation that may otherwise remain invisible because

CONTACT Jody Joy jpj32@cam.ac.uk

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
240 J. JOY

collections did not enter the archaeological record. These ideas will be applied to the well-known
Iron Age hoards from Snettisham, Norfolk, UK (Clarke 1955; Stead 1991), where over the past
sixty years large quantities of precious metal artefacts dating to the second and first centuries BC
have been recovered from at least fourteen separate hoards. A re-examination of the material from
two of these hoards is presented as an example of how approaching hoards as collections can
shed new light and provide fresh perspectives on the practice of collecting as well as hoarding.

What is a hoard and why were objects buried in hoards?

According to Bradley, hoards are ‘collections of buried objects that were apparently deposited
together on the same occasion’ (Bradley 2013, 122). As already outlined, hoarding is encountered
across broad expanses of time throughout world archaeology. The term ‘cache’ is also used to
describe similar deposits (e.g. Becker 1993; Houlbrook 2013). For example, in American archae-
ology it can be employed to describe collections of artefacts intended for retrieval (Bradley 1996,
306). As the primary case study presented is from prehistoric Europe the term hoard is used
throughout this paper.
Despite its ubiquity, it is only in Europe that we are able to trace a sequence of hoarding as a
practice for 5,000 years or more, beginning with the last hunter-gatherers and peaking in the
Bronze Age (Bradley 1996, 306). Interpretations have remained remarkably consistent over
approximately 150 years of research (Fontijn 2002, 15–19, table 2.3), principally debating questions
of motivation and intentionality (Bradley 1996, 2013; Dietrich 2014, 468–70; Fontijn 2002, ch. 2;
Hansen 2013, 179–80; Needham 2001, 2007). For example, if hoards were buried for safekeeping
and later retrieval as some have argued, they were unintentional, but then why were so many
hoards never recovered (Fontijn 2002, 14) and why are patterns in their contents and location of
deposition observed? If, on the other hand, hoards were deliberate deposits, as most would now
argue, what was the explanation? Were they all votive deposits or was there also an economic
motivation in some instances? Another concern has been to explore how hoards differ from other
types of deposit that are intentional, such as objects from watery contexts (Bradley 1998;
Fitzpatrick 1984).
Interpretations continue to be developed and refined. Research over the past thirty years, for
example on Bronze Age hoards from continental Europe, has concentrated on identifying recur-
ring patterns, such as looking at the arrangement of objects in hoards or details of fragmentation
and use-wear, to identify local and regional artefact traditions and patterns of deposition (Dietrich
2014, 468–70; Hansen 2013, 179–80). Long-standing assumptions have also been interrogated. For
example, Yates and Bradley (2010) have called into question the differences between watery and
dry-land deposits and Bradley (2013) has cast doubt on the distinction between hoards and single
finds. Particularly revealing are studies uncovering how our own cultural biases have dictated how
we have interpreted hoards. For instance, the term ritual is often used to describe a practice like
hoarding, which to our eyes defies functional or common-sense explanation (Bradley 2005, xiii)
and creates an opposition between quotidian and ritual activities in the past that is probably
artificial (Brück 1999; Bradley 2005).
Despite these developments, the majority of accounts of hoarding still focus on issues of
motivation and intentionality or the significance and location of deposition (exceptions include
Dietrich 2014; Garrow and Gosden 2012, ch. 5; Hansen 1996–8). In this concern with deposition
examinations of hoards and hoarded objects have lost sight of individual collecting practices, a
process that was probably far more time consuming than depositing the objects.
 WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 241

‘Unpacking’ the collection

Recent work re-examining museum collections has sought to investigate the processes of the
gathering together of objects in museums (Byrne et al. 2011a; Gosden and Larson 2007; Harrison,
Byrne, and Clarke 2013; Larson, Petch and Zeitlyn 2007) with researchers posing questions, such as
‘how did all of these objects end up here?’ and ‘what does it mean for them to be collected
together like this?’ (Harrison 2013, 20)? Drawing on theoretical insights from the social sciences
including, actor-network theory (e.g. Latour 2005; Law 2008), Ingold’s ‘meshworks’ (e.g. Ingold
2011) and assemblage theory (e.g. DeLanda 2006; Deleuze and Guattari 1987), the main thrust of
this research is to gain understanding of the complicated relationships between people and
objects made manifest through the gathering together of objects to create museum collections
(Byrne et al. 2011b). Rather than being viewed as static, collections are seen as ‘processes’ (Byrne
et al. 2011b, 15), as networks of humans and objects containing traces of the collectors and
museum curators responsible for creating the collection, the agency of objects in terms of their
effect on collectors and social and institutional conventions (see Thomas 2010).
Another common strand of this research is a focus on what Shanks (2012, 21–42) has termed
‘archaeological sensibility’, or the use of archaeological methods to investigate museum collec-
tions. For instance, some studies take a ‘taphonomic approach’ to the investigation of museum
collections, to explore the processes that led to their creation (Harrison 2013, 18). Wingfield (2013)
was able to re-assemble the collection of the London Missionary Society, which was dispersed to
private collectors and museums when that organization closed its museum in 1910, by closely
studying object labels and creating stratigraphic relationships through the simple observation that
different types or styles of labels were superimposed on others. Using this method, Wingfield re-
connected and re-created various parts of the original collection, as well as tracing exchanges and
acquisitions made by numerous collectors and museums.
I do not want to imply a direct analogy between collecting in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, in many instances tied to personal and/or professional motivations (Larson, Petch and
Zeitlyn 2007, 213), and the practices resulting in the creation of hoards, probably undertaken by a
variety of different individuals or groups. But, in studying hoards, I think archaeologists have lost
some of the ‘archaeological sensibility’ that the museum collections’ literature has seized upon as
one of its main inspirations. Instead, the ‘archaeological imagination’ (Shanks 2012), the process by
which archaeologists try to make sense of the individual snapshots in time they encounter in the
archaeological record, has come to dominate, with detrimental consequences. This is probably due
to a number of factors, not least the fact that many hoards are historical finds, or have been found
by metal detector users, and so much information about their context, particularly the arrange-
ment of the objects in the ground, is now lost. The focus on the motivations behind placing
seemingly valuable objects in a hole in the ground has probably also been exaggerated because,
viewed from a modern perspective, hoarding makes little sense and therefore requires special
explanation (see above). This is problematic because emphasis on the end result can mask
important questions such as how this material was collected, by whom and the length of time
this process lasted.
To resolve these problems, in addition to a careful consideration of the significance of the
deposition and location of hoards, I argue, they must be studied as collections by examining their
separate elements to identify the relationships manifested through their formative processes, such
as gathering and accumulation, curation and assembly. If we regard hoards, like museum collec-
tions, as being formed in complicated ways (see Harrison 2013, 19), this creates a mind-set from
242 J. JOY

which to approach questions such as: how and why did these objects end up here and what do
these collections do?
Just as originating communities may have withheld objects from collectors, leaving gaps in
ethnographic museum collections (Byrne et al. 2011b, 8), it is clear that local rules sometimes
governed the contents of prehistoric hoards with some artefact types underrepresented whereas
others were preferentially selected and therefore overrepresented (Bradley 2013, 126). The selec-
tion of objects consequently forms a critical phase. Assuming collections of artefacts existed in
prehistory prior to some being deposited as hoards, they may have been liminal phenomena, in
effect keeping objects in stasis until a sufficient number had been gathered for their final
deposition in a hoard. Alternatively, they could have been quite dynamic, with collections being
added to and other objects removed through processes of swapping and exchange (Wingfield
2011). We also do not know how private these collections were, who had access to them and
when. They may have been openly displayed, stored in containers, hidden away in dwellings or
even in holes in the ground. Collections became static or fixed as ‘hoards’ only because no one
retrieved the objects after deposition (Needham 2001, 2007). For the purposes of this article,
whatever the social mechanisms behind this were, whether intentional or otherwise, hoards are
viewed as ‘snapshots’ or ‘time traps’ of the networks of people, places and things that formed
these collections (Garrow and Gosden 2012, 156; see also Wingfield 2013, 80). They are also seen
as a window on collections that may have existed in prehistoric societies but are made visible only
through hoarding.

Approaching hoards as collections

When approaching hoards with ‘archaeological sensibility’, there are a number of methodologies
from the archaeological toolkit at our disposal. Examining objects for evidence of production, wear
and use can help build the biographies of individual artefacts (Gosden and Marshall 1999; Joy
2009; see also Kopytoff 1986). By combining these different biographies it may also be possible to
re-create the biographies of hoards just as has recently been attempted for other types of
archaeological assemblage (Blanco-González 2014; Cessford 2014; Giles 2012, ch. 5; Joy 2010, ch.
9). Although caution must be exercised because we cannot know how intensively artefacts were
used, examination of use-wear also allows assessments to be made of how long artefacts
circulated before they were deposited. For example, in an investigation of an assemblage of
material culture deposited c. AD 1843–5 in Cambridge, England, Cessford (2014) demonstrated
that some of the material was up to 100 years old prior to final deposition. It may also prove
enlightening to consider examining artefacts from the perspective of human generations (see
Gilchrist 2012, 18–19; Sayer 2010): it is not always possible, but if we are able to assess the age of
objects when they are deposited through scientific means such as radiocarbon dating, this can be
broadly correlated to the human lifespan to estimate how many ‘generations’ of artefact are
represented in any one deposit.
Careful analysis of the arrangement of objects in the ground, as well as the composition of
hoards, in terms of the presence and absence of particular types of artefact, can also shed light on
the possible links and relationships expressed by the grouping together or juxtaposition of certain
artefacts. For example, Garrow and Gosden (2012) have recently examined the composition of
different Iron Age deposits, including hoards, to draw attention to relationships between different
types of artefact (Garrow and Gosden 2012, fig. 6.10). It is also possible to make other sorts of
connections between artefacts, and objects can be grouped together in a number of ways. For
 WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 243

example, in a careful analysis of a late Iron Age hoard from Seven Sisters, South Wales, Davis and
Gwilt (2008) demonstrated similarities in the technology and manufacturing techniques between
artefacts in the deposit that visually appear quite different. In his examination of Late Bronze Age
hoards from the Carpathian basin containing axes with fragmentary objects inserted into their
sockets, Dietrich (2014) questioned what technical advantage this gave if it was part of the
recycling process as had previously been argued. He suggested instead that this practice was a
means of securely combining groups or collections of artefacts within hoards (Dietrich 2014, 476).
Examining the same material, Hansen (1996–8, 19–23) also argued that these collections could
represent individual offerings within larger deposits collected by multiple individuals. Objects
therefore can be physically separated out within a hoard by being placed into different types of
container or strung together, as examples from Bronze Age hoards found in Romania show
(Dietrich 2014, 478). Objects can also be arranged based on physical characteristics such as their
colour. By juxtaposing objects not otherwise occurring in the same artefactual domain side-by-side
different relationships could also be made manifest.

The Snettisham hoards

Over the past sixty years a series of spectacular discoveries have been made on a wooded hillside
just outside the village of Snettisham in north-west Norfolk (Clarke 1955; Stead 1991). Fourteen
separate hoards, the majority dating to the second and first centuries BC, have been unearthed
containing gold, silver and bronze metal artefacts, such as neck rings (known as torcs), bracelets
and finger rings. This is one of the largest concentrations of precious metal finds known from
prehistoric Europe. The hoards are labelled alphabetically in order of discovery (Fig. 1). They are
quite diverse, for example Hoard E contained only four objects whereas there were nearly 600
artefacts in Hoard F, but can be broadly categorized into two main types: tightly packed groups or
nests of torcs and hoards made up mostly of fragments.

Figure 1 Location map and plan of the Snettisham Hoards (drawn by Stephen Crummy, © Trustees of the
British Museum).
244 J. JOY

Sixty complete torcs have been found at Snettisham, and 158 more are represented by
fragments. To put this in context, fewer than fifty are known from the rest of Britain (mostly
from north-west Norfolk) and only 275 complete precious metal torcs are recognized from the
whole of continental Europe (Hautenauve 2005). They seem to have been particularly significant in
Norfolk in the later Iron Age, but went out of circulation after 60 BC, a date that coincides with the
first minting of coins in the region (Chadburn 2006, 371; Marsden 2011, 53). It is probable therefore
that many torcs were melted down to mint coins. For some reason the Snettisham torcs were
instead carefully placed in hoards.
Many of the hoards contain coins, which is useful for dating. The oldest of these were made as
early as the mid-second century BC and the most recent were going out of circulation by 60 BC
(Haselgrove 1993, n. 37, 1999, 134–49, 164–5; Hutcheson 2007, 359), so the majority of the hoards
at Snettisham were probably deposited over a relatively short period from the later second century
to 60 BC. Burial of hoards continued on a smaller scale into the first century AD. The site was
demarcated by a large enclosure sometime around AD 100 (Stead 2014, 299) and a small temple
was also built (Hutcheson 2011).
Historical interpretations of the Snettisham hoards mirror some of the tendencies already
outlined. Reporting on the first finds from the site, Clarke (1955) interpreted the hoards as scrap
buried for safekeeping, citing the valuable and portable nature of the material, as well as evidence
for damage and the fragmentation of some of the objects. Thirty-five years later, in the interim
report on his excavations at the site Stead (1991) suggested that the Snettisham finds represented
a tribal treasury also deposited for safekeeping (Stead 1991, 463). In response to Stead’s inter-
pretation, Fitzpatrick (1992) argued that, since the distinctions between ritual and the everyday
during the Iron Age may not have been as distinct as they are today, the interpretation that the
Snettisham hoards represented a tribal treasury may not exclude the fact that their deposition was
also votive (Fitzpatrick 1992, 396). Indeed, subsequent to the discovery of the enclosure surround-
ing the site, Stead (1996, 49–50) modified his interpretation to accommodate this possibility. More
recent interpretations of the site have sought to place the Snettisham finds within their wider
regional, spatial and temporal context (Chadburn 2006; Davies 1996, 87, 2008, 100–6; Hutcheson
2003, 2004, 2007, 2011) or examined the objects from a scientific or typological perspective (e.g.
Cartwright et al. 2012; Chadburn 2006; Meeks, Mongiatti and Joy 2014).

Re-examining hoards F and L from Snettisham

Each hoard has its own unique history and historicity and it is unlikely that the fourteen hoards
from Snettisham were all collected identically or served the same purpose. For this reason, it is
important to examine each hoard individually rather than treating them as a collective ‘treasure’
(contra Stead 1991). It is not possible to closely examine all of the hoards in a short article so I will
take two examples, Hoards F and L, one belonging to each main type.

Hoard F
Hoard F was discovered by a metal detector user in 1990 and comprises nearly 600 fragmentary
and complete objects (Fig. 2), some deposited inside a copper-alloy container (Stead 1991, 447),
now thought to be a helmet. As the finder and not an archaeologist excavated the objects, their
exact arrangement was not recorded, although some inferences concerning how they were
ordered can be made from the artefacts themselves. Many of the objects in the hoard were
 WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 245

Figure 2 A representative sample of the artefacts from Hoard F (© Trustees of the British Museum).

subjected to a number of different destructive processes shortly before deposition. There is much
evidence of deliberate breakage including cutting, bending, squashing and twisting. Thick wires
were hit with an implement like a chisel. Thinner wires were snipped or twisted. Other objects,
such as bracelets, were snapped by hand.
In contrast to this breakage, other fragments were fused together into lumps or onto the ends
of other objects by partial melting, creating new artefacts or mini-collections. Interestingly, this
fusing often created juxtaposition, with, for example, simple twisted wires fused onto finely made
and intricately decorated torc fragments (Fig. 3).
Linking together artefacts created groups or collections of objects within the larger hoard,
manifesting palpable connections between objects. In its simplest form objects were linked
together by looping. This is particularly the case for groups of spiral finger rings. Attaching
artefacts such as torc terminal fragments onto a large ring created other groups or collections.
Methods of attachment fluctuate but techniques include looping torc terminals to rings and also
attaching through rough perforations applied to objects (Fig. 4). Over twenty of these groups have
been identified with the number of objects contained in each group varying from two to the low
teens. This assessment is based on records of the objects soon after they were reported and it
remains possible that other collections or groups were disturbed or did not survive the interven-
tions of the finder. The composition of these different groups of artefacts varies quite widely but
very often they are formed of collections of multiple alloys of varying colours and, with the
exception of rings, are made up mostly of fragmentary objects.
Viewing this evidence from the perspective of collecting, a number of different interventions
can be noted. Processing of material such as damage, heating and fusing possibly occurred
immediately prior to deposition, but this is not certain. Objects were broken up by a number of
different processes but, oddly, others were subjected to melting and heating, resulting in the
fusing or collecting together of some artefacts. It is possible that some of these fusing activities
occurred as part of the collection process as a means of deliberately grouping artefacts together.
246 J. JOY

Figure 3 Twisted gold-alloy wire and sheet fragment fused onto the end of an elaborately decorated tubular
torc fragment (© Trustees of the British Museum).

Figure 4 Collection of torc fragments looped onto a silver-alloy bracelet from Hoard F (© Trustees of the British
Museum).
 WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 247

The placement of objects in a helmet could have occurred at the time of deposition, or it may have
been a container for a separate collection of artefacts later incorporated into the wider group.
These mini-collections may provide clues as to how the material for such a large deposit was
collected. As has been suggested for late Bronze Age hoards of the Carpathian Basin (see above),
groupings of artefacts within a larger hoard could have been intended to separate out the
contributions of individuals or groups (Dietrich 2014, 479–80; Hansen 1996–8, 19–23). The hetero-
geneous nature of the groups of artefacts identified from Hoard F suggests they were gathered by
a number of different collectors. Could they represent the actions of different individuals or groups
gathered together over an extended period of time? The original intention may or may not have
been for these all to be deposited together as a single hoard; nevertheless, the different collecting
activities provide clues as to the potential motivations behind their collection and eventual
deposition. Collections such as the looped finger rings could have been gathered from various
family members, or wider social groups, before being incorporated into the larger collection,
explaining the variations in the diameter and form of these rings. In this instance, personal gifts
towards the collection were linked together to represent broader social groupings and a collective
effort.
The deposition of Hoard F broadly coincides with the period when torcs go out of circulation
and coins become more prominent in the archaeological record. As torcs were recycled to make
coins, perhaps a portion (most frequently a terminal fragment) was removed and kept, looped
together with others, ready for deposition when sufficient material for the hoard had been
gathered and creating a representative sample of the objects recycled to make coins. Giving a
part taken for the whole, or pars pro toto, is a practice known from sanctuaries in Archaic Greece
and has been suggested for Bronze Age hoards containing fragments (Hansen 2013, 180).
Collecting in this instance is an activity pursued with a mind to future deposition, perhaps as
some form of offering linked to the processing and recycling of artefacts. Collections of fragmen-
tary material have often been interpreted as metalworkers’ hoards (e.g. Clarke 1955). Examining
the collecting process offers a fresh perspective. By gathering together a representative sample of
objects that have been recycled and subjecting other artefacts to some of the actions required to
reprocess and recycle objects, fragmentary hoards like Hoard F, in addition to serving as offerings,
could also have acted to help validate the recycling of torcs and were active in what Needham has
termed the ‘succession of objects in circulation’ (2007, 282), in this case the replacement of torcs
by coins.

Hoard L
Hoard L was excavated in 1990 (Stead 1991, 450). It contained twenty-one objects, nineteen torcs
and two bracelets (Fig. 5). The objects were clustered vertically into two main groups that could be
argued to be two separate but closely related deposits. The objects also appeared to be ordered
according to metal content and/or colour (Hutcheson 2007, 362; Stead 1991, table 1), with silver
objects located towards the top and therefore deposited last and gold objects at the bottom and
placed first in the pit. Stead argued that this arrangement had the advantage of positioning the
less valuable silver objects near the top, meaning they would be discovered first by potential
looters and possibly act as a decoy from the more valuable gold artefacts below. Hutcheson
argued that, as we have little idea of the relative value placed on gold and silver during the Iron
Age, the objects might equally likely have been arranged based on colour.
248 J. JOY

Figure 5 Hoard L during excavation (© Trustees of the British Museum).

Many of the torcs from Hoard L were extensively used before deposition. For example, the wires that
make up the neck rings of some torcs are polished on their outside surface, indicating where the object
had been in contact with clothing and/or the body for prolonged periods when worn. Polishing was also
observed on torc terminals. Some are polished on one side only, presumably the underside when worn,
demonstrating that they were consistently worn the same way around. Others are polished on both
sides indicating that the practice of wearing torcs a particular way around was not universal. Other signs
of wear include raised and sometimes broken wires at the very back of the neck ring. Terminals are also
not always aligned, with one terminal often appearing further forward than the other. This evidence is
indicative of torcs being put on and taken off on multiple occasions, as it is thought they were put on at
an angle, with one terminal pulled forward to widen the gap.
It is difficult to assess how old these objects were when deposited as we do not know how
intensively they were used and whether they were worn every day or only on special occasions,
but, given the level of wear, it is likely that many of the torcs were at least several decades old.
Radiocarbon dating of organic components puts the manufacture of one of the torcs from Hoard L
in the third or early second centuries BC (Garrow et al. 2009, table 1). This means it was 50–
100 years old when it was put in the ground. The aptly named Grotesque Torc was even older
(Fig. 6). It is extremely worn and has been much repaired. Its terminals are decorated in a style of
art that was in vogue over 100 years before it was buried (Stead 2009, 329).
Hoard L is a deposit of complete objects: bracelets and torcs. Torcs come in a range of different
sizes and were probably made for both sexes and possibly even children. They are personal
objects and it is therefore likely that the processes that took place to create this collection were
quite different from those that shaped Hoard F as those objects have been subjected to processes
of fragmentation and reformation. Perhaps individuals were persuaded to give up their torcs or,
once their wearer died, instead of their being passed on to someone else they were rather
collected in preparation for eventual deposition in Hoard L. It is possible, as with many collections
outlined in the museum literature, that this collection was not static and some processes such as
swapping and dealing occurred before it became ‘concretized’ upon burial. Certainly the attention
 WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 249

Figure 6 The so-called ‘Grotesque Torc’ from Hoard L (BEP 1991, 0407.37) (© Trustees of the British Museum).

towards the presentation of objects with a range of different colours and/or precious metal
contents hints at a period of collection and a conscious effort to deposit a wide range of artefacts.
What event prompted its final deposition is unclear.
Although much later (it is set shortly before the Norman Conquest of England), an excerpt from the
Anglo-Saxon story the Deeds of Hereward, highlighted by Gilchrist (2012, 18–19), could be relevant to
the interpretation of Hoard L. The hero Hereward ‘the Wake’ met a girl in Flanders called Turfrida. She
explained to Hereward that she was responsible for treasured objects belonging to different members
of her family, some belonging to her mother, father, grandfather and great-grandfather, and that they
would be presented to her bridegroom. Leaving aside questions as to its veracity, this story shows how
individuals could become custodians of family objects and knowledge. It also highlights a potential
social mechanism by which seemingly typologically and temporally disparate objects, possibly acting
as heirlooms (see Lillios 1999) or collected for some other reason, could be gathered together.
Assuming twenty-five to thirty years for each generation, the oldest objects in her collection would
be seventy-five to ninety years old. The collection also included both masculine and feminine objects
as well as gold and silver items denoting wealth.
In addition to the collection of family heirlooms, objects may also have been collected and kept for
many other reasons, for instance as war booty or through gift exchange and alliances, symbolizing
different sets of meanings related to defeated enemies and past associations or rivalries (Needham
2007, 280).
It is possible to examine Hoard L from this ‘generational’ perspective. The majority of torcs have been
shown to have a moderate amount of wear. These could represent objects from the generation
immediately preceding those depositing the hoard, or represent the possessions of the ‘older’ adults
present. The torc with a radiocarbon date, which was perhaps fifty years old, could represent the next
generation back, the grandparents. Lastly, the Grotesque Torc may stand for the generation of the
great-grandparents, or possibly even the great great-grandparents. Depending on preservation of
names and ancestry, the identity of these individuals may or may not have been remembered, with
250 J. JOY

the Grotesque Torc perhaps representing a semi-mythical past. Given their age and potential shared
histories with past generations, the biographies of torcs from Hoard L, and other examples from hoards
of the ‘nested’ type, could have made them inalienable (see Weiner 1985, 1992), disrupting the normal
‘flow’ or transition of objects into new types (Needham 2001) so they could not be broken up and
recycled to make coins. In this instance, perhaps the only culturally acceptable means of removing these
objects from circulation was their deposition in hoards. The collection of noteworthy torcs and their
deposition could be seen therefore both as an offering and also a convenient means of taking the
objects out of circulation. In this instance a collection of artefacts representing multiple generations of
people was made visible to us through its deposition.

Conclusion: hoards as collections

Much attention has focused on the moment of deposition, its significance and meaning. But, as
Garrow and Gosden neatly expressed it, ‘hoards brought groups of artefacts together and might in
the process have brought groups of people together’ (Garrow and Gosden 2012, 191). It is
impossible to fully assess the social importance of a hoard by focusing solely on the moment of
deposition and overlooking the commingling of people and things that make up a collection.
More notice should therefore be given to the collection and accumulation of material prior to its
deposition in hoards. Hoards also provide a convenient window for understanding processes of
collection and accumulation that may otherwise remain invisible because collections did not enter
the archaeological record. Although the act of deposition may be intentional, the exact composi-
tion of a hoard (within given cultural parameters that constituted a suitable object for inclusion)
was not set and was vulnerable to the vagaries and the choices of individuals or groups, or simply
what was available at the time, but most of all to the processes of collection and accumulation and
the activities of the people who gathered it together.

Acknowledgements
Thank you to Julia Farley, Virginia Smithson and Rosie Weetch for facilitating a research visit to examine
objects from the Snettisham hoards at the British Museum. Thank you also to Cyprian Broodbank, Duncan
Garrow, Sheila Kohring, Ben Roberts, Chris Wingfield and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful com-
ments on previous drafts.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Jody Joy is senior curator of European archaeology at the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology,
University of Cambridge. He is a specialist in later European prehistory with a particular interest in Iron Age
material culture. Alongside a team of researchers from the British Museum, he is currently working on a
publication re-examining the Snettisham hoards.
 WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 251

ORCID
Jody Joy http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8029-7817

References
Becker, M. J. 1993. “Earth Offering among the Classic Period Lowland Maya: Burials and Caches as Ritual
Deposits.” In Perspectivas antropologicas en el mundo maya, edited by M. J. I. Ponce de Leon and F. L.
Perramón, 45–74. Madrid: Sociedad Espaňola de Estudias Mayas.
Blanco-González, A. 2014. “Tracking the Social Lives of Things: Biographical Insights into Bronze Age Pottery
in Spain.” Antiquity 88: 441–55. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00101103.
Bradley, R. 1996. “Hoards and Hoarding.” In The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, edited by B. M. Fagan, 305–
7. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bradley, R. 1998. The Passage of Arms. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Bradley, R. 2005. Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe. London: Routledge.
Bradley, R. 2013. “Hoards and the Deposition of Metalwork.” In The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze
Age, edited by H. Fokkens and A. Harding, 121–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brück, J. 1999. “Ritual and Rationality: Some Problems of Interpretation in European Archaeology.” European
Journal of Archaeology 2 (3): 313–44.
Byrne, S., A. Clarke, R. Harrison, and R. Torrence, eds. 2011a. Unpacking the Collection: Networks of Material and
Social Agency in the Museum. New York: Springer.
Byrne, S., A. Clarke, R. Harrison, and R. Torrence. 2011b. “Networks, Agents and Objects: Frameworks for
Unpacking Museum Collections.” In Unpacking the Collection: Networks of Material and Social Agency in the
Museum, edited by S. Byrne, A. Clarke, R. Harrison and R. Torrence, 2–26. New York: Springer.
Cartwright, C., N. Meeks, D. Hook, A. Mongiatti, and J. Joy. 2012. “Organic Cores from the Iron Age Snettisham
Torc Hoards: Technological Insights Revealed by Scanning Electron Microscopy.” In Historical Technology,
Materials and Conservation: SEM and Microanalysis, edited by N. Meeks, C. Cartwright, A. Meek, and A.
Mongiatti, 21–9. London: Archetype.
Cessford, C. 2014. “Assemblage Biography and the Life Course: An Archaeologically Materialized Temporality
of Richard and Sarah Hopkins.” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 18: 555–90. doi:10.1007/
s10761-014-0270-5.
Chadburn, A. 2006. “Aspects of the Iron Age Coinages of Northern East Anglia with Especial Reference to
Hoards.” PhD diss., University of Nottingham.
Clarke, R. R. 1955. “The Early Iron Age Treasure from Snettisham.” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 20: 27–
86. doi:10.1017/S0079497X00017783.
Davies, J. A. 1996. “Where Eagles Dare: The Iron Age of Norfolk.” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62: 63–
92. doi:10.1017/S0079497X00002747.
Davies, J. A. 2008. The Land of Boudica. Prehistoric and Roman Norfolk. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Davis, M., and A. Gwilt. 2008. “Material, Style and Identity in First Century AD Metalwork with Particular
Reference to the Seven Sisters Hoard.” In Rethinking Celtic Art, edited by D. Garrow, C. Gosden, and J. D. Hill,
146–84. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
DeLanda, M. 2006. A New Philosophy of Society. Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. London:
Bloomsbury.
Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London: Bloomsbury.
Dietrich, O. 2014. “Learning from ‘Scrap’ about Late Bronze Age Hoarding Practices: A Biographical Approach
to Individual Acts of Dedication in Large Metal Hoards of the Carpathian Basin.” European Journal of
Archaeology 17 (3): 468–86. doi:10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000061.
Fitzpatrick, A. P. 1984. “The Deposition of La Tène Iron Age Metalwork in Watery Contexts in Southern
England.” In Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain, edited by B. Cunliffe and D. Miles, 178–90.
Oxford: University of Oxford Committee for Archaeology.
Fitzpatrick, A. P. 1992. “The Snettisham, Norfolk, Hoards of Iron Age Torques: Sacred or Profane?” Antiquity 66:
395–8. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00081515.
252 J. JOY

Fontijn, D. 2002. “Sacrificial Landscapes: Cultural Biographies of Persons, Objects and ‘Natural’ Places in the
Bronze Age of the Southern Netherlands C. 2500-600 BC.” Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 33-34: 1–392.
Garrow, D., and C. Gosden. 2012. Technologies of Enchantment? Exploring Celtic Art: 400 BC to AD 100. Oxford:
Oxford University.
Garrow, D., C. Gosden, J. D. Hill, and C. Bronk Ramsey. 2009. “Dating Celtic Art: A Major Radiocarbon Dating
Programme of Iron Age and Early Roman Metalwork in Britain.” The Archaeological Journal 166: 79–123.
doi:10.1080/00665983.2009.11078221.
Gilchrist, R. 2012. Medieval Life. Archaeology and the Life Course. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.
Giles, M. 2012. A Forged Glamour: Landscape, Identity and Material Culture in the Iron Age. Oxford: Windgather
Press.
Gosden, C., and F. Larson. 2007. Knowing Things: Exploring the Collections at the Pitt Rivers Museum 1884-1945.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gosden, C., and Y. Marshall. 1999. “The Cultural Biography of Objects.” World Archaeology 31 (2): 169–78.
doi:10.1080/00438243.1999.9980439.
Hansen, S. 1996-98. “Migration und Kommunikation während der späten Bronzezeit. Die Depots als Quelle für
ihren Nachweis.” Dacia N.S. 40–42: 5–28.
Hansen, S. 2013. “Bronze Age Hoards and Their Role in Social Structure: A Case Study from South-West
Zealand.” In Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies in Honour of Professor Kristian
Kristiansen, edited by S. Bergerbrant and S. Sabatini, 179–91. Oxford: BAR International Series 2508.
Harrison, R. 2013. “Reassembling Ethnographic Museum Collections.” In Reassembling the Collection:
Ethnographic Museums and Indigenous Agency, edited by R. Harrison S. Byrne, and A. Clarke, 3–35. Santa
Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press.
Harrison, R., S. Byrne, and A. Clarke, eds. 2013. Reassembling the Collection: Ethnographic Museums and
Indigenous Agency. Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press.
Haselgrove, C. 1993. “The Development of British Iron Age Coinage.” The Numismatic Chronicle 153: 33–63.
Haselgrove, C. 1999. “The Development of Iron Age Coinage in Belgic Gaul.” Numismatic Chronicle 159: 111–
68.
Hautenauve, H. 2005. Les Torcs D’Or du Second Âge du Fer en Europe: techniques, typologie et symbolique.
Rennes: Association du Travaux du Laboratoire d’Anthropologie de l’Université de Rennes 1.
Hedeager, L. 1992. Iron-Age Societies. From Tribe to State in Northern Europe 500 BC to AD 700. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Houlbrook, C. 2013. “Ritual, Recycling and Recontextualization: Putting the Concealed Shoe into Context.”
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 23 (1): 99–112. doi:10.1017/S0959774313000073.
Hutcheson, N. 2003. “Material Culture in the Landscape: A New Approach to the Snettisham Hoards.” In
Researching the Iron Age, edited by J. Humphrey, 87–97. Leicester: Leicester Archaeology Monograph 11.
Hutcheson, N. 2004. Later Iron Age Norfolk: Metalwork, Landscape and Society. Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports, British Series 361.
Hutcheson, N. 2007. “An Archaeological Investigation of Later Iron Age Norfolk: Analysing Hoarding Patterns
across the Landscape.” In The Later Iron Age in Britain and beyond, edited by C. Haselgrove and T. Moore,
358–70. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Hutcheson, N. 2011. “Excavations at Snettisham, Norfolk, 2004: Re-Investigating the Past.” In The Iron Age in
Northern East Anglia: New Work in the Land of the Iceni, edited by J. A. Davies, 41–8. Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports, British Series 549.
Ingold, T. 2011. Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London: Routledge.
Joy, J. 2009. “Reinvigorating Object Biography: Reproducing the Drama of Object Lives.” World Archaeology 41
(4): 540–56. doi:10.1080/00438240903345530.
Joy, J. 2010. Iron Age Mirrors: A Biographical Approach. Oxford: British Archaeology Reports, British Series 518.
Kopytoff, I. 1986. “The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process.” In The Social Life of Things:
Commodities in Cultural Perspective, edited by A. Appadurai, 64–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Larson, F., A. Petch, and D. Zeitlyn. 2007. “Social Networks and the Creation of the Pitt Rivers Museum.”
Journal of Material Culture 12 (3): 211–39. doi:10.1177/1359183507081886.
Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
 WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 253

Law, J. 2008. “Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics.” In The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory,
edited by B. S. Turner, 141–58. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lillios, K. T. 1999. “Objects of Memory: The Ethnography and Archaeology of Heirlooms.” Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 6 (3): 235–62. doi:10.1023/A:1021999319447.
Livingstone, D. N. 2003. Putting Science in its Place: Geographies of Scientific Knowledge. London: University of
Chicago Press.
Marsden, A. 2011. “Iron Age Coins from Snettisham.” In The Iron Age in Northern East Anglia: New Work in the
Land of the Iceni, edited by J. A. Davies, 49–58. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 549.
Meeks, N., A. Mongiatti, and J. Joy. 2014. “Precious Metal Torcs from the Iron Age Snettisham Treasure.” In
Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Metallurgy of the European Iron Age (SMEIA) held in
Mannheim, Germany, edited by E. Pernicka and R. Schwab, 20-22 April 2010, 135–56. Rahden: Verlag Marie
Leidorf GmbH.
Needham, S. 2001. “When Expediency Broaches Ritual Intention: The Flow of Metal between Systemic and
Buried Domains.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.) 7: 275–98. doi:10.1111/1467-
9655.00063.
Needham, S. 2007. “Bronze Makes a Bronze Age? Considering the Systemics of Bronze Age Metal Use and the
Implications of Selective Deposition.” In Beyond Stonehenge: Essays on the Bronze Age in Honour of Colin
Burgess, edited by C. Burgess, P. Topping, and F. Lynch, 278–87. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Sayer, D. 2010. “Death and the Family: Developing Generational Chronologies.” Journal of Social Archaeology
10 (1): 59–91. doi:10.1177/1469605309354398.
Shanks, M. 2012. The Archaeological Imagination. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Stead, I. M. 1991. “The Snettisham Treasure: Excavations in 1990.” Antiquity 65: 447–64. doi:10.1017/
S0003598X00080066.
Stead, I. M. 1996. Celtic Art in Britain before the Roman Conquest. 2nd ed. London: British Museum Press.
Stead, I. M. 2009. “The Chronology of La Tène Art in Britain.” In Relics of Old Decency: Archaeological Studies in
Later Prehistory. Festschrift for Barry Raftery, edited by G. Cooney, K. Becker, J. Coles, M. Ryan, and S. Sievers,
323–32. Dublin: Wordwell.
Stead, I. M. 2014. “Snettisham Swansong.” In Celtic Art in Europe. Making Connections, edited by C. Gosden, S.
Crawford, and K. Ulmschneider, 297–303. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Thomas, N. 2010. “The Museum as Method.” Museum Anthropology 33 (1): 6–10. doi:10.1111/muan.2010.33.
issue-1.
Weiner, A. B. 1985. “Inalienable Wealth.” American Ethnologist 12: 210–27. doi:10.1525/ae.1985.12.2.02a00020.
Weiner, A. B. 1992. Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While-Giving. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Wingfield, C. 2011. “Donors, Loaners and Swappers: The Relationships behind the English Collections at the
Pitt Rivers Museum.” In Unpacking the Collection: Networks of Material and Social Agency in the Museum,
edited by S. Byrne, A. Clarke, R. Harrison and R. Torrence, 119–40. New York: Springer.
Wingfield, C. 2013. “Reassembling the London Missionary Society Collection: Experimenting with Symmetrical
Anthropology and the Archaeological Sensibility.” In Reassembling the Collection, edited by S. Byrne, A.
Clarke, and R. Harrison, 61–87. Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press.
Yates, D., and R. Bradley. 2010. “Still Water, Hidden Depths: The Deposition of Bronze Age Metalwork in the
English Fenland.” Antiquity 84: 405–15. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00066667.