930 Geschichte des Altertums bis ca. 499, Archäologie
Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (33) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (28)
- Article (3)
- Book (1)
- Review (1)
Language
- English (33) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (33)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (33) (remove)
Keywords
- 3D acquisition (1)
- Neolithic (1)
- cuneiform (1)
- digital heritage (1)
- domestication (1)
- evolution (1)
- gene flow (1)
- photogrammetry (1)
- virtual reconstruction (1)
Institute
Geoarchaeological reconstructions of land-use changes may help to reveal driving cultural factors and incentives behind these processes and relate them to supra-regional economic and political developments. This is particularly true in the context of complete abandonment of a settlement. Here we present a case study from the site of Faule Pfütze, a small catchment in the Eastern Ore Mountains (Saxony). The historical record of this site is confined to the report of a settlement called Hohenwalde in 1404 CE and two later references to the then-abandoned settlement in 1492 and 1524 CE in this area. Combined geoarchaeological studies allowed for the reconstruction of several phases of land use. While a first phase of alluvial sedimentation occurred during the late 12th century, archaeological evidence for a permanent settlement is absent during this period. The onset of settlement activity is identified during the late 14th century and included a hitherto unknown massive stone building. Mining features are present nearby and are dated to the early 15th century. The local palynological record shows evidence for reforestation during the mid 15th century and thereby corroborates the time of abandonment indicated by written sources. These processes are discussed in the context of a local political conflict (Dohna Feud) leading to the redistribution of properties and the development of a mining economy during this time. Later land use from the mid 16th century onwards appears restricted to charcoal production, probably in the context of smelting works operating in nearby Schmiedeberg as indicated by rising lead concentrations in the alluvial record.
Panel discussion
(2019)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.