Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (39) (remove)
Language
- English (39) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (39)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (39) (remove)
Keywords
- Digitalisierung (2)
- Herstellung (2)
- Kritik (2)
- Technologie (2)
Institute
- Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften (39) (remove)
The dynamics of development of Bronze Age fortified settlements in the territory of present-day Poland reflects a general trend visible in other regions of Europe. The first period when relatively few defensive settlements were built was the first half of the 2nd millennium BC. However, intensification of the discussed phenomenon can only be noticed with the development of the Lusatian culture. The older development stage of fortified settlements in Poland is characterised by a significantly lower number of sources. The sites identified until now form a small group of settlements, clearly connected with two cultural circles. The four settlements which have been discovered in Greater Poland and Silesia so far should be linked with local groups of Únětice culture. In south-eastern Poland, in the Polish part of the Western Carpathians, there are three known sites, which are the result of northern expansion of Otomani-Füzesabony culture settlements, as well as the development of local communities of Mierzanowice culture. The text aims at detailed description of archaeological sources concerning particular features and aspects of functioning of fortified settlements. Moreover the collected information will serve to attempt to locate the discussed settlements in wider contexts regarding the roles which are most frequently assigned to the archaeological sites of this kind.
Panel discussion
(2019)
The LOEWE-project “Prehistoric Conflict Research” is determined in several new ways to interpret the archaeological evidence of Bronze Age fortifications. One way is the comparison with other non-modern cultures of conflict and their use of fortifications. In this paper, the conquest of Aquitaine by the Carolingian rulers of the Franks (760–769 CE) is taken as such an example. By analysing the (near-)contemporary historiographical record, the military role of fortifications in post-Roman warfare is discussed. It turns out that in the historiographers’ view, fortified settlements were focal points of military activity, and that combat occurred around them far more often than in the open field. Nonetheless, warfare in the surroundings of fortifications signified more than only sieges: the historiographical sources show a great variety of events connected to them as part of the war. Furthermore, a semantic inquiry of the material shows a special notion in texts concerning the “capture” of fortified settlements. This could be achieved not only by force, but also with diplomatic means, and the historiographers valued success higher than bravery. Moreover, the amount of violence seems to have been limited, as is indicated by the small number of destroyed fortifications and by the debates ensuing about one particular massacre (Clermont-Ferrand in 761 CE), which obviously was at odds with contemporary ideas about appropriate warfare. These results imply that archaeological research on conflict would benefit greatly from broadening its scope beyond actual battle events, in order to disclose the conflicts of Bronze Age Europe in all their complexity.
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.
In this paper I assess two archaeological phenomena for Bronze to Iron Age Britain: the expanding scale of conflict over this period and the practice of what is often called deviant burial, and I consider their possible connection. Such burials may relate to a wider pattern of social violence, given that community setbacks need to be explained away, perhaps requiring scapegoats to take the blame, who met their death as a result of being identified as ‘the enemy within’. Although burials with weaponry occurred in the Early Bronze Age, there is little evidence of conflict and few deviant burials. The Later Bronze Age and the Iron Age, by contrast, provide significant evidence at varying scales of both warfare and deviant burial practices.
In this work we present an overview of the proliferation of walled hilltop sites in southwestern Europe, named castellari in Liguria, castellar in Provence, castelo in Portugal, with the question whether they are real settlements or just fortified enclosures in the Final Bronze Age. In many cases scholars considered only those with a similar context in Iron Ages as real fortifications. But, after a study with the support of psychology and physiology of violence and a careful examination of the structures and their contexts, it is possible to hypothesize their defensive nature also during the Final Bronze Age with less doubt. In this way it is possible to delineate, in a chronologically non-uniform way, in southwest Europe a social phenomenon definable as ‘castling’, and we can link this phenomenon to specific causes. Within this phenomenon, we can consider the use of walls on hilltops as practical-symbolic function concurrently. The case study of the Portuguese Middle Tagus region in Central Portugal and of the Liguria region in northwest Italy, the two extremities of the considered macro-region, are considered.
Sântana-Cetatea Veche. A late bronze age mega-fort in the Lower Mureș Basin in Southwestern Romania
(2019)
Our contribution provides an overview of the archaeological investigations carried out, including those in 2018, at the large fortification of Sântana–Cetatea Veche, north of Arad in Romania. The new research was undertaken within the framework of the LOEWE project “Prehistoric Conflict Research – Bronze Age Hillforts between Taunus and Carpathian Mountains”. In accordance with the main scientific guidelines of the project, the research efforts encompassed archaeological fieldwork, magnetometric surveys of the entire area of the fortification, as well as a LiDAR scan covering an area of nearly 850 ha. As a result of the excavation undertaken in the eastern part of the defences pertaining to enclosure III, new absolute chronological data were obtained, which in corroboration with the older information offer a clear dating of the fortification system to the 15th to 13th centuries BC.
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.