This study uses metal analyses to examine one of the most import-rich metalwork finds in the Scandinavian final Bronze Age—the Hassle hoard (probably deposited c. 500 BCE)—containing two ciste a cordoni/Rippenzisten, two Hallstatt Mindelheim swords (one with bronze pommel), two small hooks and twelve bronze-iron ornamental discs in a large bronze cauldron, all submerged in the now-drained river Äverstaån. Twelve samples from a selection of eight objects in the Hassle hoard have been analysed, primarily for chemical composition and lead isotopic signature. The aim is to study their alloy recipes, and origins and potential production areas, also allowing for comparison of similarities and differences between objects in the assemblage. Apart from the sword pommel, with a typical fahlore signature, the alloys in the Hassle objects differ considerably from most of the alloys in previously analysed, contemporary Nordic Bronze Age objects. The cauldron is very atypic for the area, so far without any clear match in relevant isotopic datasets. The analytical results support a foreign origin, both for the metal and for the objects. The results show that the objects, even those from typologically comparable groups, are made of several alloys, from raw materials of different origins. As relevant reference material for objects of similar types is so far limited, these analyses contribute to build dataset for future comparisons. The results underline the complexity in both raw material and alloys circulating in Late Bronze Age Scandinavia and Early Iron Age Europe.

The fragmentation of bronze objects was a widespread phenomenon in the European Bronze Age, especially in the later part of the period. Fragmented metalwork has primarily been linked to the practice of recycling; hoards dominated by fragments have long been seen as raw material caches, ‘scrap’ hoards or metalworkers’ stocks. Breaking metalwork into smaller pieces can partly be explained by the inherent qualities of the material and the technology of casting with the possibility of re-melting. However, fragments were also employed beyond their immediate use in recycling as well as in various transactions, rituals and depositions. Lately, attention has been drawn to their potential function as a means of exchange in mercantile transactions, for example through adhering to specific weight standards. This contribution discusses fragments from different contexts in Middle and Late Bronze Age northern and western Europe, demonstrating the varied uses and values of fragmented metalwork. It is suggested that the concept of the ‘secondary products revolution’ can be useful for illustrating the diverse range of practices enabled by the increased fragmentation in the Late Bronze Age. The chapter concludes by pointing to some of the many interesting questions for future research.

Since the establishment of the Three Age System, the Bronze Age–Iron Age transition has often been difficult to pinpoint, and the final Bronze Age hard to delimit. Oscar Montelius, the founder of the six sub-periods for the Nordic Bronze Age, doubted the usefulness of the sixth and final period in his later works. Like many others since, he discussed the successive transition from bronze to iron as a challenge. This somewhat diffuse period has often “slipped through the cracks”; excluded from Late Bronze Age “proper”, but not yet embraced by Early Iron Age scholars. This paper calls attention to the varying and sometimes contradictory definitions and characterizations of the final Bronze Age Period VI. Was it a period of profound change, continuity, decline or flourishing contacts and wealth? Does it correspond to 800–650 BCE, 700–500 BCE, 700–600 BCE or perhaps 550–400 BCE? Through examples from past and current research, we identify challenges and possibilities in how this period is approached. The paper ends with six propositions for studies of Period VI: to study continental parallels in relation to new international research, to further integrate “metal-focused” academic research with results from contract archaeology, to investigate regionality, to better understand the timing and impact of the Subboreal–Subatlantic climatic transition, to increase collaborations between Bronze Age and Iron Age specialists, and to experiment with various period definitions.

Broken Bodies, Places and Objects demonstrates the breadth of fragmentation and fragment use in prehistory and history and provides an up-to-date insight into current archaeological thinking around the topic.

A seal broken and shared by two trade parties, dog jaws accompanying the dead in Mesolithic burials, fragments of ancient warships commodified as souvenirs, parts of an ancient dynastic throne split up between different colonial collections… Pieces of the past are everywhere around us. Fragments have a special potential precisely because of their incomplete format – as a new matter that can reference its original whole but can also live on with new, unrelated meanings. Deliberate breakage of bodies, places and objects for the use of fragments has been attested from all time periods in the past. It has now been over 20 years since John Chapman’s major publication introducing fragmentation studies, and the topic is more present than ever in archaeology. This volume offers the first European-wide review of the concept of fragmentation, collecting case studies from the Neolithic to Modernity and extending the ideas of fragmentation theory in new directions.

The book is written for scholars and students in archaeology, but it is also relevant for neighbouring fields with an interest in material culture, such as anthropology, history, cultural heritage studies, museology, art and architecture.

Bronze casting in Late Bronze Age south Scandinavia was a widespread, varied and often spectacularly performative affair tied to significant rituals. Fragments of casting debris are found in many settlement and burial contexts. In contrast, remains of Pre-Roman Iron Age casting are sparse, despite many excavated settlements. This paper reviews casting debris and their find contexts, with a comparative view on the Late Bronze Age and the Pre-Roman Iron Age. The aim is to identify changes in craft organisation during this transformative period when many classic object types went out of use. Our results, together with previous research on casting technology, demonstrate changes in crucibles, in strategies for melting metal, and in the visibility and setting of casting events. While Late Bronze Age bronze artefact production entertained a variety of social institutions and settings, the Pre-Roman Iron Age bronze working was more concentrated to individual households. The discontinuity highlights the profound social changes of the Pre-Roman Iron Age.

Since the establishment of the Three Age System, the Bronze Age–Iron Age transition has often been difficult to pinpoint, and the final Bronze Age hard to delimit. Oscar Montelius, the founder of the six sub-periods for the Nordic Bronze Age, doubted the usefulness of the sixth and final period in his later works. Like many others since, he discussed the successive transition from bronze to iron as a challenge. This somewhat diffuse period has often “slipped through the cracks”; excluded from Late Bronze Age “proper”, but not yet embraced by Early Iron Age scholars. This paper calls attention to the varying and sometimes contradictory definitions and characterizations of the final Bronze Age Period VI. Was it a period of profound change, continuity, decline or flourishing contacts and wealth? Does it correspond to 800–650 BCE, 700–500 BCE, 700–600 BCE or perhaps 550–400 BCE? Through examples from past and current research, we identify challenges and possibilities in how this period is approached. The paper ends with six propositions for studies of Period VI: to study continental parallels in relation to new international research, to further integrate “metal-focused” academic research with results from contract archaeology, to investigate regionality, to better understand the timing and impact of the Subboreal–Subatlantic climatic transition, to increase collaborations between Bronze Age and Iron Age specialists, and to experiment with various period definitions.

Since the establishment of the Three Age System, the Bronze Age–Iron Age transition has often been difficult to pinpoint, and the final Bronze Age hard to delimit. Oscar Montelius, the founder of the six sub-periods for the Nordic Bronze Age, doubted the usefulness of the sixth and final period in his later works. Like many others since, he discussed the successive transition from bronze to iron as a challenge. This somewhat diffuse period has often “slipped through the cracks”; excluded from Late Bronze Age “proper”, but not yet embraced by Early Iron Age scholars. This paper calls attention to the varying and sometimes contradictory definitions and characterizations of the final Bronze Age Period VI. Was it a period of profound change, continuity, decline or flourishing contacts and wealth? Does it correspond to 800–650 BCE, 700–500 BCE, 700–600 BCE or perhaps 550–400 BCE? Through examples from past and current research, we identify challenges and possibilities in how this period is approached. The paper ends with six propositions for studies of Period VI: to study continental parallels in relation to new international research, to further integrate “metal-focused” academic research with results from contract archaeology, to investigate regionality, to better understand the timing and impact of the Subboreal–Subatlantic climatic transition, to increase collaborations between Bronze Age and Iron Age specialists, and to experiment with various period definitions. 

This introduction provides an overview of fragments and fragmentation in archaeology, aiming to map out a field that has rarely been subjected to synthesising efforts. First, it presents a background, taking John Chapman’s publication of ‘Fragmentation in Archaeology’ in 2000 as a starting point. It then moves on to explore issues within the wide range of perspectives on fragmented materials and fragmentation that have emerged during recent decades. Four themes where the archaeology of fragmentation has proven particularly creative are discussed: the ontological and existential character of fragments; fragmentation and the human body; methodological considerations regarding fragmented materials and their properties; and finally, the links between fragmentation studies and relational perspectives currently influencing many areas of archaeological thinking. Overall, it also gives an approach to the other contributions in this volume and places them in their theoretical and methodological context. Concluding reflections highlight some wider aspects of fragments as part of ever-changing assemblages, as well as the role of fragmentation as a means of embracing the complexity of past remains.