Tags
After Its Premiere at the Museum over the Weekend…
25 Monday Jul 2022
Posted ArchFest, Collections, Festival of Archaeology, Uncategorized, Wessex Gallery
in25 Monday Jul 2022
Posted ArchFest, Collections, Festival of Archaeology, Uncategorized, Wessex Gallery
in06 Wednesday Jul 2022
Posted ArchFest, Collections, Festival of Archaeology, Uncategorized, Wessex Gallery
inThe Amesbury Archer: 20 Years On – Film screening followed by Q&A
Sat 23 July
1:30pm Lecture Hall
On 3 May 2002 Wessex Archaeology excavated the grave of a man dating to around 2,300BC. Discovered three miles from Stonehenge, his grave contained the richest array of items ever found from this period.
The Amesbury Archer: 20 Years On will uncover fascinating new evidence with interviews from the original excavators and important discussions of what new DNA technologies have been able to tell us in the intervening years.
Tickets are free but places are limited so pre-booking advised
To book your place visit Eventbrite here
Beyond the Stones – Film screening followed by Q&A
Sun 24 July
1:30pm Lecture Hall A new feature-length documentary celebrating the 35th anniversary of the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Sites, Beyond the Stones focuses on our connection to the World Heritage Site landscape through people, communities and journeys – both now and in the past.
It explores what we can learn from more recent excavations within the Stonehenge landscape at sites like Bulford and Larkhill, with special contributions from the Wessex Archaeology experts who excavated the sites. This immersive, evocative and accessible film will be showcased as part of the Festival of Archaeology.
Tickets are free but places are limited so pre-booking advised.
To book your place visit Eventbrite here
25 Tuesday May 2021
Posted Collections, Uncategorized, Wessex Gallery
inFrom our Twitter feed today:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1397107700010475522
Did you hear @theAliceRoberts on Radio 2 this morning, talking about her fascinating new book ‘Ancestors’ including the Amesbury Archer? Listen here if you missed it (at about 8.50): https://bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_two…
23 Thursday Apr 2020
Posted Exhibitions, Fundraising, Wessex Gallery
inI became intrigued by the stone slips, found with numerous skeletons, which are identified as ‘bracers’ used by archers to protect the inside of their wrists from the lash of the bowstring. My wife and I have both been told separately by archers that the bracers will not work because the string will catch behind the near end of the stone. Intrigued and persuaded by their comments, I investigated.
We have seen three designs: one with two holes, three examples (Figa 1,2,3) one hole at each end and one with six holes, three at each end Fig 4, both in Salisbury Museum, and one with four holes, two at each end, in Devizes Museum. Internet research revealed similar ‘bracers’ and some with even more holes, some of which were filled with rivets. The only one we have seen that might be in situ is with the “Amesbury Archer”, and that one might be on the outside of his arm and is associated with a large pin. Once again, internet research revealed that others have been found on the outside of the forearm, which is not the place for a wrist guard. From the outside of the display cases, we cannot see any sign of wear (witness mark) around the holes that might have resulted from movement of a cord or thong.
One must be careful not to read too much into the position of artefacts in graves. They can be moved and/or they might have been placed in the grave without reference to their function in life. Indeed a second bracer is near the “Amesbury Archer’s” feet. The “Stonehenge Archer” might have been buried with his ‘bracer’ in place but his grave had been badly damaged by animals and the photo does not show where the bracer was found.
For a bracer to be effective it must deflect the bowstring without snagging it, as this would disturb the arrow’s release and deflect the arrow. It must be easy to fit single-handedly, be comfortable and non-encumbering.
I have made simulations in wood of both the two and four-holed versions. It is easy to devise suitable means of attachment using a simple loop of string but I needed a helper to put it on. The two hole version stands up and snags the bowstring most of the time. The four-holed version fitted more snugly to my wrist but it still snagged the bowstring far too often. Both types protected my wrist effectively, most of the time but not often enough. I received string lash to my wrist when the bracer snagged the bowstring and to my thumb and the fletching cut my top knuckle. If this were my bracer, I would make a better one. In particular, I would want some kind of glove or mitten to protect my thumb and knuckle; which seems to be an impractical modification to the bracer as normally shown, Fig 5 The example with the Stonehenge archer is so small it would provide little or no protection. In short, used as shown in Fig 5 would be inconvenient, useless and an encumbrance.
Protection might be provided in numerous ways, e.g. by binding the arm with a leather sheet or sleeve. In this case, the stone slip might have been used as a fastener, rather like a cleat, and/or a spreader/stiffener to stop the leather from creasing. This could explain finding them on the outside of the arm. It might also explain the absence of wear in the holes, since it would be rather static. The Amesbury Archer’s pin is unexplained. Clearly, the thumb and knuckle guards could be incorporated with the sleeve; this construction would also have helped to keep the sleeve taut.
I have no explanation for the six-holed version, there seems to be no advantage in having the extra holes. However, some multi-hole ‘bracers’ have rivets closing the holes so, maybe, the extra holes were ornamental or perhaps it was a two hole version later modified. Possibly, some ‘bracers’ were purely ornamental; there are examples of such developments, e.g. officers’ epaulets which were once protection from downwards sword cuts and the small silver shield that was worn by army officers on a silver chain around the neck is a vestigial breastplate.
Clearly, all of this is speculation based on incomplete evidence and looking from outside the display cabinets. Of the various options proposed above, the hand guard plus sleeve with a buckle/tensioner/stiffener seems to give the best design for the equipment and is within the capabilities of Neolithic people. Which raises the question “Why use stone, why not wood?” I suggest that making a flat wood version rather than using flat slate or similar stone would have been more difficult and a round stick would have got in the way. Of course, all of this is speculation and could well be wrong! All we can only ever say is that this or that explanation is consistent with known facts; of course, if it is inconsistent, it is wrong.
For a more information see:
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 74, 2008, pp. 109-140
‘Bracers or Bracelets? About the Functionality and Meaning of Bell Beaker Wrist-guards’ by HARRY FOKKENS, YVONNE ACHTERKAMP, and MAIKEL KUIJPERS1
Abstract
The Bell Beaker bracers, or wrist-guards, are traditionally thought to have functioned as archery equipment, protecting the arm against the sting of the bowstring. Their position on the body is therefore thought to have been on the inside of the lower arm. Through analysis of the position in which wrist-guards are found, we have come to the conclusion that they were, however, more often than not fastened to the outside of the arm, which leads us to consider a range of new possible uses and meanings for the bracers. With combined information from archaeological and ethnographic surveys we have come to think of the stone wrist-guard as an artefact that was associated with a martial, ideologically-laden activity in the Bell Beaker culture.
It may be seen online.
My major comments on this work are given below, they state:
“The surprising conclusion of our survey (Of the positions of “bracers” in Neolithic graves.) is that, while the majority of the bracers were indeed positioned on the lower arm, generally the left arm, they had been worn on the outside. —- only eight out of 30 examples were located on the inside of the arm, with 17 definitely on the outside. Even if we leave — the position that is hardest to interpret – out of the equation, still c. 60% are positioned on the outside of the arm. That was, in fact, wholly unexpected and is difficult to explain as evidence for a functional position. It is also clear that this position on the outside of the wrist is not exclusive, so both a functional and a non-functional or ornamental position are possible, although the majority appear to be ornamental.”
I suggest that it is wrong to suppose that the functional position must be on the inside of the arm. It seems to me that that they are the fastener for the wrist guard and therefore the outside of the wrist is their functional position. So why were some found on the inside? For that, I have no good answer, perhaps movement of the bracer occurred after death. For example, the arm may have withered allowing the bracer to slip round during the burial ritual.
20 Monday Apr 2020
Posted Collections
inSkeletons of the “Amesbury Archer” and the “Companion”. Personal observations by Keith Rodger
There are many interesting thing to tell visitors about these two individuals. Chemical analysis of teeth and bones tell us that the Archer probably came to the Amesbury area from the central European Alps whereas the Companion was born here, perhaps two generations later, travelled to central Europe and then returned to die in his mid-twenties. This says much of the ability to travel in the late Neolithic. We can also learn a lot by simple observation through the glass of the display cabinets.
The archer has lost the patella (kneecap) from his left leg, Fig 1. Comparing the bones of his two legs, we can see that the left is slimmer than the right. However, be careful, their orientations differ and the difference is less that it appears. This asymmetry is consistent with the theory that the archer favoured the injured limb by limping. This would have caused the muscle of the left leg to diminish and that in turn would cause the bone to waste.
Further examination shows that the right tibia (shinbone) has a thickening consistent with a healed fracture Fig 2. It is possible that the longitudinal cracks in the bone indicated in Fig 3 are the result of this healing; however, this must be treated with caution without detailed examination by an osteo-archaeologist. He was an adult when the fracture occurred.
The cause of the archer’s injuries are of course unknown, but one notes that he was buried wearing a boar’s tusk. Were these two injuries received at the same time and caused by a hunted boar?
The companion is only represented in the Museum by two gold ornaments, similar to those found with the archer, and a boar’s tusk. However, reportedly (I have not seen his skeleton.) he and the archer shared an anomalous structure, called a talocalcaneal coalition, in the skeleton of the foot. Anatomically this feature is a kind of extra joint: Fig 4 shows a normal foot X-ray and Fig 5 the skeleton of the archer. This condition is unusual, about 1:1000, rather than rare, and it is inherited. This does not mean that the companion was a direct descendant of the archer, although the proximity of their graves might hint at that. The nature of the inheritance of the anomaly is such that it is common in families not associated with the sex genes (autosomal dominant) but scarce in the wider population. Thus, it might be quite common in a particular group, less so in near neighbours and almost unrepresented further afield. It seems reasonable to suppose that the archer arrived with kin and near neighbours and that the companion is a descendant of one of that group.
Here we note that Wikipedia states that:
“A male skeleton found interred nearby is believed to be that of a younger man related to the Archer, as they shared a rare hereditary anomaly, calcaneonavicular coalition, fusing of the calcaneus and of the navicular tarsal (foot bones).”
Clearly, this is wrong: the archer does have a “coalition” but between the talus and the calcaneus, the anomaly does not involve the navicular bone nor has it fused (“synostosis” is the correct medical term for a fusion). Fusions are indeed rare, coalitions much less so, it its quite likely that the reader will know someone with a “coalition” it is very unlikely that they will have met anyone with a “fusion”. (However, I have – so there!!) Generally, a coalition has little clinical significance; there may be a slight tendency to sprained ankles due to a slight loss of flexibility and possibly arthritis in old age, but it is unlikely that the archer experienced any problem. They occur on the medial (inside) of the foot.
Acknowledgment:
I am indebted to my wife, a retired radiologist, who proof-read the above and ensured that the long words are in the correct places. The text however represents my personal observations and any error is mine alone.
26 Tuesday Nov 2019
Tags
Josh, from Stonehenge School, completes his contribution to our blog…
As part of my work experience at the Salisbury museum, it has been requested that I write a short blog or piece about a chosen artefact within the museum, some information about it, and why I have chosen it. I hope that you will find this interesting, and that maybe, just maybe, you’ll learn something.
The Amesbury archer is the skeleton of what is believed to be a late Neolithic/early Bronze Age man, estimated to have been around 35-45 years old when he died. He was found buried near the town of Amesbury, along with several fascinating and highly revealing archaeological finds, making his discovery of great importance and relevance. I will summarise these below, only looking over a few of the many finds buried with him.
The Amesbury Archer is believed to be part of what was referred to as the “bell beaker culture”, a late Neolithic social grouping of individuals who were all found to be buried with ceramic beakers, hence their name. Usually they were all buried with one, in what we now believe to have been their customary funeral rite or ceremony. However the Amesbury Archer was different. For you see, he was not buried with just one beaker. Nor two. Not even three. He was found buried with an impressive five beakers, a figure that has only been matched a few times.
This large number of pots is usually taken to indicate a particularly high social status and burial, meaning that whoever the Amesbury Archer was, he was a man of power. The other items buried with him only go to further support this theory.
Alongside the skeleton of this long dead man lay three copper daggers, and two hammered gold hair ornaments, and the importance of these finds cannot be overstated. As of the time of writing, these are the oldest man-made copper or gold items to be found in Britain, and indicate that the art of metal working was slowly coming to the island.
It was an art that many believe the Amesbury Archer had brought with him. Through in-depth isotope analysis of the Archers teeth, we are able to determine that he was not a native to this land, instead originating somewhere in the Alpine region of what is now known as southern Germany, Austria and Switzerland.
This suggests that over 4000 years ago, people were beginning to travel long distances and were spreading the finer arts of forging and metalworking to Britain, which had for so long been isolated from continental Europe. Indeed, it is believed from the presence of a black cushion stone and several flint tools lying amidst his grave that he was a metalworker himself, a position that would have undoubtedly given him much power and influence in the late Neolithic society. If this is true, he was one of the men who started the gradual ushering of the British Isles into the next era.
Other details can be found from his burial. His skeleton was found missing a knee cap, and the growth of the bones on one of his legs indicates that it had been used far more than the other one, suggesting that he only walked using the one leg for most his life, giving him a limp. Yet evidently he flourished, living to a great age relative to those around him.
Why did he travel all these many miles? On what sort of quest was he on? Was he seeking something, or was he fleeing troubles and dangers in his own land? These are unanswerable questions, but to me, really strike home, and are why I find this one exhibit so fascinating.
The Amesbury Archer suggests so much about the changing and evolving civilisation developing in Britain and Europe at the time, and yet gives us so little solid evidence or story that we can work from. We are left with a few fragmentary pieces, frantically trying to use them to make the full picture.
To me, this is what history is. A constant struggle to find the stories and tales of ages past, and to understand the motivations and reasonings behind the people who shaped the events that have led us up to this moment. The Amesbury Archer is one of these figures, who can tell us so much about the past, but still leaving us longing to fill in the gaps.
I have not written everything I could have about this subject, and the artefact and if you want to learn more about this fascinating character, he’s on display in the Wessex gallery today. And please, when you see him, try to fill in the gaps for me. Make a new tale. The best thing about history is that there’s always a new story, and always a new interpretation. I hope you find one that satisfies you.
Sources
” The best thing about history is that there’s always a new story, and always a new interpretation.” ‘Couldn’t agree more Josh. Thank you.
The full story of Wessex Archaeology’s discovery, excavation, etc of the Amesbury Archer can be read here.
03 Tuesday Sep 2019
My name is Jack, I am 17 years old and am studying for my A-Levels at Bishop Wordsworth’s School.
Having helped in the summer with the museum’s Festival of Archaeology and then with the children’s activity events in August, I had hoped to find another volunteering role to undertake at the museum from September onwards.
Engagement volunteering was undoubtedly an excellent activity to help with. After some organisation, it was confirmed that I was to come into the museum on Fridays after school at 4pm, shadowing engagement volunteer Ian Dixon. My role was simply to help welcome visitors to the museum and show them the exhibits, which first involved learning about the collection. However, because I was only present at the end of the day on Friday, the museum tended to have relatively few visitors. This fortunately meant that there was more time to learn about the fascinating exhibits in the museum.
I enjoyed learning a great deal about prehistory and local history which was hugely fascinating. I feel that the exhibits in the Wessex gallery are particularly interesting. Favourites included the Warminster jewel in addition to the polished Neolithic axe, not just for their physical beauty, but for the brilliant stories which they and many other exhibits hold.
And then there is of course the Amesbury Archer, which I believe is the greatest exhibit in the museum in that it reflects most clearly what I believe is the greatest appeal of archaeology to us: how the mere physical remains of something can incite so much speculation and imagination in their interpretation. Ian frequently told visitors about the exhibit in my presence and so by the end of my time as an engagement volunteer I could essentially explain all of the features of the artefact to the public which was great. Also, the relatively small number of visitors meant that we were able to spend more time helping particular visitors to explore the museum more thoroughly.
I was also fortunate to be at the museum when there were a number of excellent temporary exhibitions, of which the exhibition of hoards was my favourite. Furthermore, I got on very well with Ian and very much enjoyed shadowing him, and it was great to volunteer with Nick as well. My time at the museum was very useful as it helped me gain further experience working around members of the public and I have learnt so much about our local history and archaeology. Thank you.
Thank you Jack
20 Tuesday Aug 2019
Artemis has written in our blog before (see July 10) and has recently completed two pieces on her favourite items in the museum. We include one today. The other will appear next week.
The Salisbury Museum is, of course, chock full of all sorts of curious objects that people would find intriguing, no matter where their interests lay. That is the allure of a museum. I’ve only been studying in England for three years, having done my GCSE’s at Godolphin (and now continuing my A-levels there), and in my first year of GCSE Art we came down to look at the artefacts – specifically ceramics. No offence to anyone, but I grew to dislike looking at old ceramics after that experience where we were expressly forbidden to look at anything but pots! So my first impression of the museum was unfortunately not that great. Now that I have had a full week to explore the museum more in depth and have been able to adapt to my own tastes better, there were two objects that I found particularly interesting that I hadn’t had the chance to properly study before.
The first is the famous Amesbury Archer. I had glanced at him (longingly) two years ago, but on Monday I got to really inspect the display. (The staff and volunteers often joked that he had received more media coverage than the whole museum combined throughout the years.) His remains were found near Stonehenge, dating back to the late Neolithic period. The reason why he was so interesting was because of the finds in his burial, which suggested that he was a man of extremely high status despite one non-functional leg. His teeth traced his origins to somewhere near the Alps. He was, seemingly, one of the founders of metal-working in Britain, which was what gave him such a wealthy burial, with the oldest gold and copper items yet found within the UK.
My interest lies in archaeology, but the main influence on that is in all types of ancient mythology (also mainly in ceremonial rites like funerals and weddings, but that isn’t really relevant right now). The Greeks believed in a blacksmith god named Hephaestus, or the Roman Vulcan, who was crippled with a smashed leg when Hera threw him off Olympus as a baby for being too ugly. He landed on high mountains – some believed he landed on a volcano, which made him also the god of volcanoes (hence the word derived from his Roman name). After being raised by the older generation of “monstrous” immortals who taught him the trade of metalworking, Hephaestus travelled far and wide, ultimately seeking revenge against his immortal family for his mistreatment. Mortals associated him with gold and bronze.
With that in mind, the first thing that came to me upon seeing the Amesbury Archer was the similarities he had to Hephaestus. Both crippled, metalworking men who came from the mountains, treated with high prestige and immense respect by the locality; the coincidence was all too much. Could it be possible that the Stone Age Archer was a reincarnation of the Ancient Greek God?
The reincarnation theory is highly prominent in Asian religions and mythologies, and it has certainly spread worldwide in providing interesting plotlines (e.g. see the film A Dog’s Journey). Of course the common person would scoff at my association of the Amesbury Archer with an Ancient Greek myth, but it left a lasting impression on me and certainly allowed my imagination to wander far and wide.
Thank you Artemis. Fascinating, and thought provoking.
06 Tuesday Sep 2016
Tags
Amesbury Archer, Archaeology, Museum, Salisbury, Salisbury & South Wiltshire Museum, Salisbury Museum, volunteer
Volunteer Keith Rodger has been applying himself to what is apparently yet one more of many mysteries surrounding ancient peoples. His is the kind of thinking, and experimentation, which archaeologists and historians must do all the time. It makes an interesting read….
I have been thinking about the stone slips, found with numerous skeletons, which are identified as ‘bracers’ used by archers to protect the inside of their wrists from the lash of the bowstring. My wife and I have both been told separately by archers that the bracers will not work because the string will catch behind the near end of the stone. Intrigued and persuaded by their comments, I investigated.
We have seen three designs: one with two holes, one hole at each end, one with six holes, three at each end, both in Salisbury Museum, and at one with four holes two at each end, in Devizes Museum. Internet research revealed similar ‘bracers’ and some with even more holes, some of which were filled with rivets. The only one we have seen that might be in situ is with the “Amesbury Archer”, and that one might be on the outside of his arm and is associated with a large pin. Once again, internet research revealed that others have been found on the outside of the forearm, which is not the place for a wrist guard. From the outside of the display cases, we cannot see any sign of wear around the holes that might have resulted from movement of a cord or thong. One must be careful not to read too much into the position of artefacts in graves. They can be moved and/or they might have been placed in the grave without reference to their function in life. Indeed a second ‘bracer’ is near the ‘Amesbury Archer’s’ feet. The ‘Stonehenge Archer’ might have been buried with his ‘bracer’ in place but his grave had been badly damaged by animals and the photo does not show where the bracer was found.
For a bracer to be effective it must deflect the bowstring without snagging it, as this would cause the archer’s hand to move and spoil his aim. It must be easy to fit single-handedly, be comfortable and non-encumbering.
I have made simulations in wood of both the two and four-holed versions. It is easy to devise suitable means of attachment using a simple loop of string. The four-holed version fitted more snugly to my wrist, snagged the bowstring less frequently and might be a development. Both types protected my wrist effectively, most of the time. However, I still received string lash to my thumb and the fletching cut my top knuckle. If this were my bracer, I would make a better one. In particular, I would want some kind of glove or mitten to protect my thumb and knuckle.
Protection might be provided in numerous ways, e.g. by binding the arm with a leather sheet or sleeve. In this case, the stone slip might have been used as a fastener, rather like a cleat, and/or a spreader/stiffener to stop the leather from creasing. This could explain finding them on the outside of the arm. It might also explain the absence of wear in the holes, since it would be rather static. The Amesbury Archer’s pin might have been part of this fastening. Clearly, the thumb and knuckle guards could be incorporated with the sleeve; this construction would also have helped to keep the sleeve taut.
I have no explanation for the six-holed version, there seems to be no advantage in having the extra hole. However, some multi-hole ‘bracers’ have rivets closing the holes so, maybe, the extra holes were ornamental. Possibly, some ‘bracers’ were purely ornamental; there are examples of such developments, e.g. officers’ epaulets which were once protection from downwards sword cuts.
Clearly, all of this is speculation based on incomplete evidence and looking from outside the display cabinets. Of the various options proposed above, the hand guard plus sleeve with a buckle/tensioner/stiffener seems to give the best design for the equipment and is within the capabilities of Neolithic people. Which raises the question “Why use stone, why not wood?”. I suggest that making a flat wood version rather than using flat slate or similar stone would have been more difficult and a round stick would have got in the way. Of course all of this is speculation and could well be wrong! All we can only ever say is that this or that explanation is consistent with known facts.
15 Tuesday Mar 2016
Posted Uncategorized
inTags
Amesbury Archer, Archaeology, News, Pitt Rivers Wessex Collection, Salisbury & South Wiltshire Museum, Salisbury Museum, Wessex
Did you see the first of BBC4’s new series of ‘Digging for Britain’ on 10th March? If not, try here… Dr Alice Roberts, Adrian Green and Salisbury Museum, together with some special artefacts…