SummaryMulti‐object metalwork deposits provide the foundation block for many branches of enquiry, yet surprisingly little attention has been paid to the methodological issues that underlie their analysis and interpretation. The framework outlined here aims to circumvent some of the dangers of circular argument inherent in the concepts of metalwork ‘stages’, ‘phases’ or ‘traditions’, as well as in assumptions of pan‐regional synchronizations in metalwork developments. The term ‘Assemblage’ is defined to provide a carefully circumscribed but interpretatively neutral framework for the study of metalwork groups linked by association. Assemblage subdivisions allow significant internal variations to be explored for temporal, social and cultural meanings. These analytical devices used in conjunction with ‘bubble chronologies’ allow flexibility in detailed interpretation whilst holding on to a consensually agreed near‐empirical structure. Consideration is also given to the problem of regional phase groups of metalwork that lack associations and thus preclude Assemblage definition. The case of the Penard Assemblage is salient owing to the debate about whether the ‘Wallington complex’ should be considered an integral part of it. Although the ‘Assemblage/Aspect/Group’ structure applied here can accommodate some divergence in views, available evidence supports typo‐chronological coherence between Penard and Wallington material. Occasional associations used recently to justify a ‘Limehouse phase’ between Penard to Wilburton metalwork are just as easily understood as representing a transition towards 1100 bc. The lack of associations for the Limehouse family of swords, largely contemporary with late Penard, is argued to be an accentuation of the already rare occurrence of swords in earlier associations. The depositional phenomena of the Penard Assemblage are instead centred on an array of palstaves, rapiers, spearheads, shields and gold ornaments.