Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (59) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (59)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (59) (remove)
Keywords
- Digitalisierung (2)
- Herstellung (2)
- Kritik (2)
- Technologie (2)
Institute
- Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften (59) (remove)
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.
The large fortifi cation of Corneşti-larcuri is located on the Mureş River in Romania and comprises four rings of defensive ramparts. With the outermost rampart encircling a total area of 17.65 km2, Corneşti-larcuri is thus considered the largest Bronze Age fortification in Europe. New intensive research began in 2007 with the six-year project “Investigations on settlement structures and the chronology of the Late Bronze Age fortification of Corneşti-larcuri in Romanian Banat”, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The project terminated in the autumn of 2017. Now the goal is to evaluate the data collected during the last eleven years and to develop the first syntheses. As part of the new excavations, a total of 109 radiocarbon datings from diff erent contexts (ramparts, ditches, pits, house structures, etc.) were obtained. The subsequent phase model based upon these data essentially refers to the dating of ramparts I and II and to pits associated with house contexts. Thus, it enables a site biography for Corneşti-larcuri to be outlined for the first time and four settlement phases to be distinguished.
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.
Despite the fact that the fortification in Sântana-Cetatea Veche has been known since the 18th century and various local scholars have taken a direct interest in the site, the first excavations only started much later. The fortification was correctly attributed to the Bronze Age only in the second half of the 20th century. Until then, those interested in the issue of the great fortifications in Banat believed that the ramparts had been constructed during the Avar Period. New research on the fortification in Sântana was initiated in 2008. The northern side of the third fortification system was tested in 2009, and its construction system was documented on that occasion. The fortification system in question consisted of an earthen rampart, a wall made of wood and clay built upon the crest of the rampart, and a defense ditch. At the same time we noted that the erection of the earthen rampart had disturbed a cemetery in use in that area. The present article focuses on the dating of the third system of fortification excavated in 2009 and on the presentation of the contexts from which radiocarbon data have been collected. The results indicate that the cemetery disturbed by the construction of the fortification was used at the end of the 15th century BC and that the fortification was certainly in use during the 14th century BC.
The history of the Lombards could well be designated a history of warfare, for in the course of the 206-year existence of their realm in Italy the Lombards constantly carried out warfare of varying intensity, whether in their own defence or to expand their territory. Even the time prior to their invasion of Italy, especially their advances from Pannonia, were already marked by numerous military conflicts. Of particular interest here are the questions with reference to the background and the course of these conflicts, and also to the weaponry that was utilised. In the following contribution the weapons of Lombard warriors – or more specifically – the weapons used by warriors in Lombardian Italy will be examined. This specification is necessary because Lombard warriors experienced many interactions with other powers, for example, with Byzantine forces stationed in Italy (until 751 AD), and with foreign enemies like the Franks and Avars, who however could always turn into cooperative partners for the Lombards. Thus, it can be assumed that ultimately through contacts with enemies as well as with allies, the different types of Lombard weaponry depended upon the respective situation. Aside from use in real battles, weapons of the Lombards also had other functions: They were of symbolic significance in that they could demonstrate power and social differences. Certain types of weapons can be interpreted as signs of rank – which of course applies to the early Middle Ages on the whole. In principal, three groups of source material are at disposal for study: 1) references in written sources, 2) contemporary depictions of Lombard warriors, and 3) archaeological evidence, that is, weapons and pieces of armament found in graves, settlements and also occasional finds – including those without a find context. An overall picture of Lombard weaponry can only be gained when all possible source groups are evaluated.
The eastern part of the state of Hesse in Germany between the Vogelsberg and Rhön mountains was one area included in the field investigations of the LOEWE project on “Prehistoric conflict Research – Bronze Age Hillforts between Taunus and Carpathian Mountains”. There are several mountains in the county of Fulda with remains of protohistoric fortifications, which still need to be dated and further investigated. Our surveys and excavations took place successively at Stallberg, Kleinberg, Haimberg and Sängersberg. The results are briefly presented in this paper and will form part of more detailed forthcoming publications. At Stallberg and Kleinberg, no archaeological features had been destroyed by erosion, so sufficient material was found to date these sites. At Stallberg, two main periods of use have been documented by radiocarbon dates and corresponding artefacts: the Late Neolithic Michelsberg Culture and the Late Middle-Ages. At Kleinberg, radiocarbon datings indicate an occupation at the end of the Bronze Age and during the first Iron Age, whereas most of the ceramic sherds are typical for the second Iron Age and medieval times. Unfortunately, the fortification at the Haimberg is destroyed, and further excavation is not possible. Finally, at Sängersberg, the various field investigations brought forth evidence of conflicts during the Bronze Age.
Während der Mittelbronzezeit bildet sich in Osthessen mit der Fulda-Werra-Gruppe ein eigenständiger Kulturraum heraus, der mit den Nachbarräumen in kulturellem Austausch steht. Am Übergang zur späten Bronzezeit ist ein massiver Wandel zu beobachten. Wie in weiten Teilen Europas kommt es auch in Osthessen zu einem Wechsel von der überhügelten Körperbestattung zum Brandflachgrab. In dieser Zeit zerbricht in Osthessen der einheitliche Kulturraum, stattdessen machen sich starke Einflüsse aus den Nachbarräumen bemerkbar, die offensichtlich auch mit Einwanderungen einzelner Bevölkerungsgruppen in Verbindung stehen. Der Übergang zur Eisenzeit gestaltet sich fließend. Einerseits endet die Befestigung auf dem Haimberg spätestens in dieser Zeit, andererseits werden mehrere Gräberfelder offensichtlich durchgehend belegt. Die Waffenfunde auf dem Sängersberg zeigen an, dass die verschiedenen Umbrüche auch in Osthessen offensichtlich mit bewaffneten Konflikten verbunden waren, deren Umfang jedoch bisher ebenso wenig bestimmbar ist, wie Herkunft und Zusammensetzung der Kontrahenten.
Shattered maceheads at early bronze age Tel Bet Yerah: symbolic power and destruction, but whose?
(2019)
An unusually large number of stone macehead fragments were found in a large open court in the Early Bronze Age site of Tel Bet Yerah, Israel. Maces, which first appear in the Levant in the seventh millennium BCE, are considered the earliest dedicated combat weapons in western Asia; in later periods they take on a symbolic role. We discuss the sequence of events leading to the accumulation of maceheads at Bet Yerah, the people who may have been implicated in it and its possible political significance.
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.
This paper provides a glimpse into the palaeoecological conditions at the prehistoric settlement Corneşti-Iarcuri in the southwest Romanian Banat, which is known as the largest Bronze Age fortification in Europe. Preservation of pollen is generally poor in the region, where extensive marshlands have been drained and converted into arable lands since the 18th century. Remarkably, some fossil topsoils buried under thick colluvial layers within the fortification proved to contain pollen. Together with the sediments themselves, which serve as direct evidence for anthropogenically infl uenced geomorphodynamics and could partially be put into chronological context by radiocarbon dating, the on-site palynological data offer a unique opportunity to reconstruct the palaeoenvironmental setting at Corneşti. Results reveal that during the Chalcolithic period, a partially cleared open woodland with Tilia, Quercus and Corylus prevailed. Soil erosion began in some central parts of the settlement site, resulting in the accumulation of up to 90 cm of colluvium in the main valley. Until the Early Iron Age, regional tree percentages dropped from around 38 to 22 %, while anthropogenic indicators (Cerealia, Plantago lanceolata, Polygonum aviculare) increased from 11 to 16 %. Meanwhile, between 50 to 170 cm of colluvium were deposited at the investigated floodplain sites.
During the advanced Early Bronze Age two innovative weapons – the sword and the bronze lancehead – became widespread or were regionally produced in vast parts of Europe. The rapid dispersion of these new weapons implies the corresponding necessity for defence measures and the supply of raw materials, as well as the presence of metalworkers, who possessed technical know-how. The ability to handle a sword or a lance required in turn specific training, which was not limited to only a few persons. The appearance of these weapons occurred around the same time as the construction of fortified settlements in elevated locations in Central Europe.
The large hillfort of Teleac, commanding the Mureş River valley, the principal East-West connecting axis in the Carpathian Basin, was likely built in the second half of the 11th century BC and occupied until the end of the 10th or the early 9th century BC. The fortification wall was destroyed around 920 BC, according to recent investigations. More than 40 iron objects were discovered in the fortified complex. These iron finds viewed together with numerous other iron finds from other sites signify that Transylvania was an early centre of the implementation of iron and presumably iron production. Thereby, the use of iron for producing weapons probably stood in the foreground. This is indicated by corresponding grave finds in Greece that contain a sword as offering, but also iron swords found in Slovenia and Romania.
Geophysical prospection and excavations show that the heavily fortified Teleac hillfort was densely occupied with a population reaching the low thousands. In this article it is argued that Teleac was a local political centre that acted as a hub for transportation and trade in a region that is rich in mineral resources. Recent investigations also reveal that Teleac was attacked in the late 10th century in an event that breached and destroyed the formidable northern defensive system. This attack suggests that the level of military threat was quite severe in the eastern Carpathian Basin. The attacking forces must have had significant offensive capabilities in order to tackle Teleac’s defences. It is also a strong indication that not only Teleac, but contemporary fortified settlements in the surrounding region were at least in part erected to resist serious military threats.
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.
Research on Bronze Age weapons from wet contexts in northern Europe often interprets those finds as structured deposits of a symbolic nature, placed in liminal environments that had special significance in social and religious terms. Much less consideration is given to direct or indirect connections with war and conflict in the competitive chiefdom polities of the Bronze Age. As territorial boundaries, rivers were obvious settings for conflict, with confrontations at fording points leading to weapon loss in battle. There may also have been intentional deposition connected to the death of a warrior at or near that location. River deposition may also signify the celebration of a military victory, involving a ritualized destruction of the weapons of the vanquished. They may also represent an assertion of territory or an expression of ritualized violence. Such scenarios illustrate how the use of weapons as funerary or votive offerings does not preclude a close association with warfare. The parallel phenomenon of hoarding in the same period may reflect a political climate in which it was necessary to hide valuables. This paper explores possible connections between the deposition of weapons and valuables in wet contexts and the landscape context of war in Ireland during the later Bronze Age, with implications for research in other parts of Europe.
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.
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.
Until now 33 hilltop settlements that might represent Bronze Age hillforts have been registered in South Bohemia. However, only four sites have been distinguished and designated with certainty as Bronze Age fortifications through modern archaeological excavations. As for the other sites, the probability is smaller. The main chronological horizons of the preference for hillforts are the turn of the Early to the Middle Bronze Age (Br A2/B1–B1; c. 1800–1500 BC) and the turn of the Late and Final Bronze Age (Ha A2–B1 and Ha B; c. 1050–800 BC). Enclosed areas of rather small dimensions existed throughout the Bronze Age. There are several Bronze Age hillforts, about which we have gained a fairly clear idea about the construction of their fortifications.