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)
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.
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.
Among many prehistoric hillforts of the Western Carpathians the one located at Maszkowice village displays unique traits. The site was excavated in 1960s and 1970s, but it was not until 2015 that the new field project revealed remains of massive stone fortifications. The wall of the Zyndram’s Hill is dated to the Early Bronze Age (18th century BC), being one of the earliest examples of defensive stone architecture in Europe outside Mediterranean. In our paper we shall discuss the development of the defensive system with its geographical and settlement context. Considering the results of fieldwork and other applied methods we can assume, that the enclosed settlement in Maszkowice functioned as an isolated point located in scarcely populated area. Therefore, we need to stress the landscape and geological circumstances which played a significant role in inner layout organization, social perception and the development of settlement and its fortifications. The stone wall was erected already at the beginning of the site’s occupation. The defensive system existed then in its most elaborated form (with at least two gates leading into the village), while later during several dozen years the fortifications slowly but constantly deteriorated. Finally, in conclusion we shall consider the stone wall of Zyndram’s Hill not as a product of local adaptation, but as a result of a prepared execution of a project.