930 Geschichte des Altertums bis ca. 499, Archäologie
Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2019 (30) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (30) (entfernen)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (30)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (30)
Institut
- Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften (30) (entfernen)
In the archaeology of Scandinavian Bronze Age rock art, there is a long-standing debate over the function and role of the engraved weapons and warriors. The question can be boiled down to: Are the depicted warriors actual fighters, or are they showmen merely portraying an identity to gain status and power? One of the proposals was that spears are active because they occur in killing scenes and swords are passive because they are mostly depicted sheathed. Discussing recent rock art research on the transformation of petroglyphs, their narrative structure as well as new discoveries of weapon depictions, and confronting this with results from use wear analyses on similar weaponry, this paper sets out to argue that the answers to this problem may not be as straight forward as previously proposed. Instead it is proposed that while there is a concern with showmanship relating to a warrior identity in Scandinavian rock art, it is based on real combat, fighting, and killing. Rock art was used to enhance the stature of warriors and to make narratives more exciting that involve warriors.
Foreword
(2019)
Conflicts are shaping our life and influencing most of our behaviour. In the recent years, conflict archaeology has developed into a growing sub-discipline. This article tries to go beyond the traditional concepts of conflict archaeology that mainly addressing violence. We advocate widening the view on conflicts by including different levels of conflict escalation as well as of conflict de-escalation. Archaeological indicators for all of these facets of conflicts are discussed. Here, we concentrate on fortifications which are sensitive indicators of historical, social, economic and cultural processes and hence are able to indicate different facets of conflicts and not only violence. In this context, we also consider territoriality as relevant, because it is a kind of regulation, preventing conflicts from further escalation. The article presents a simple scheme of conflict archaeology which extends the traditional approach and provides deeper insights in human behaviour and its rational.
Foreword
(2019)
The construction of fortified settlements upon mountain summits and mountain spurs signifies a new form of defensive architecture for the Bronze Age in the 2nd millennium BC, which we designate ‘Bronze Age’ hillforts or fortresses. With mighty walls and gates built using various techniques with wood, clay and stone, the fortifi ed hill settlements manifest an eminent need for protection from assault, while at the same time they were obviously centres of power, from which territories and natural resources as well as travel routes could be controlled. Within the focus of the Hesse excellence initiative LOEWE “Prehistoric Conflict Research – Bronze Age Fortifi cations between Taunus and Carpathian Mountains” new approaches are made on the subject “War and Fortresses as Architecture of Power” in 2016–2019. Th ese studies are being carried out by the Goethe University in Frankfurt/Main and the Römisch-Germanische Kommission in Frankfurt/Main. The objective was to observe the development and character of fortifi ed structures in cultural spheres south of the Alps and landscapes north of the Alps in diachronic comparison in order to better understand the genesis and function of fortifications in their cultural milieu.
Attributing the large-scale, but tactically suspect, south Levantine Bronze Age fortification systems a ‘social’ role has become an archaeological commonplace, yet it begs the crucial question of form – if a polity, a social class, or a collective wish to advertise their cohesion, power, or wealth, why choose fortifications, rather than burial monuments, temples or palaces? In other words, what social end was served by conspicuous, inefficient, military consumption? This paper aims to offer a preliminary answer to this question through three interlocking arguments: The first, that societies like that of the Levantine Bronze Age are characterized by the existence of cooperative labor obligations; the second, that this collective labor investment was, in the ancient Levant, primarily dedicated to defense; the third, that tactically imperfect fortifications were nonetheless strategically successful as defensive installations, even while promoting social cohesion and projecting elite power.
In Bronze Age Cyprus, fortifications are only known from the beginning of Late Cypriote I (17th century BC) onwards, after previously only open settlements existed. In the first phase of the construction of these fortifications they had no uniform character, while later in the 13th century BC (Late Cypriote IIC), like in the Levant, they served primarily to secure settlements with a character of economic and administrative centres. Castles as enwalled noble residences are generally unknown in the Bronze Age of Cyprus.
The current paper summarizes the development of Bronze Age Aegean fortifications with a special focus on the Aegean Early and Middle Bronze Age. In order to get a better understanding of Aegean fortifications for each period, their numbers are set into relation with the number of known sites and other features. The impressive multi-phased fortifications of sites such as Troy or Kolonna on the island of Aegina will be used as case studies to explain the development of Early to Middle Bronze Age sites in the central Aegean. The final part of the paper gives a preview on the development of Late Bronze Age (Mycenaean palatial and postpalatial) fortifications.
The paper presents a reconsideration of settlement pattern and defensive systems in south-eastern Italy during the Bronze Age, on the ground of the archaeological data coming from the excavations at Coppa Nevigata. In particular, the transformations of the defensive lines of the settlement are discussed, which were strictly linked to both defensive and offensive strategies and their changes. Moreover, the paper seeks to examine some related problems, such as the possible origin for the model of complex fortification lines in southern Italy, the pattern(s) of fortified settlement in the Eastern Adriatic and matters related to the social organisation of the Bronze Age southern Italian communities that built the fortification lines.
The hillfort settlement of Monkodonja, located in the vicinity of the town Rovinj, is representative of the Bronze Age Castellieri culture in Istria. Twelve years of excavations that lasted one month each year revealed a proto-urban settlement with extensive fortification system, and a tripartite division of its interior that could well reflect the hierarchical social structure of its inhabitants. Remarkably, a change in the fortification concept during the time of the settlement’s existence could also be observed. With regard to bronze objects and ceramic finds the settlement is dated generally between the developed Early Bronze Age and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, or in Br A2 and Br B1 periods according to the chronology of Paul Reinecke. Moreover, about 40 radiocarbon dates from the Monkodonja settlement have also been analysed. The foundation of the settlement is dated to around 1800 cal BC. The second extensive building phase, including the rebuilding of the fortification system according to new defensive concepts, is dated approximately to 1600 cal BC, while the destruction of the settlement occurred around 1500 cal BC or in the middle of the 15th century BC at the latest.