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)
Th e article discusses the plant species found during the 2016 archaeological campaign inside the fortification of Teleac. Analysis of the macro remains recovered from archaeological deposits in Teleac helped to reconstruct the plant species cultivated by the Late Bronze Age inhabitants. The predominant cereal species in the samples was Panicum miliaceum (broomcorn/domestic millet) with 51 seeds, followed by Triticum monococcum (einkorn) with 27 seeds and Triticum spelta (spelt wheat) with 14 seeds. Also revealed were Triticum dicoccum (emmer) with 9 seeds and Secale sp. (rye) with 7 seeds. An overview of the entire Bronze Age, our focus shows that during this period the communities were engaged predominantly in agriculture, preserving their habits from the area of their origin. The results of specific analyses show that peasant farming was the mainstay of Bronze Age life.
Micromorphology is a suitable method to study the contents and stratigraphic relationships of pit fills. Within the ramparts of Corneşti-Iarcuri, fill layers of a pit were sampled. Th e pit fill was macroscopically divided into primary and secondary fill due to striking differences. These differences could be verified and concretized micromorphologically.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Foreword
(2019)
Foreword
(2019)