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
Panel discussion
(2019)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Foreword
(2019)
Foreword
(2019)
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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 photogrammetric acquisition of 3D object models can be achieved by Structure from Motion (SfM) computation of photographs taken from multiple viewpoints. All-around 3D models of small artefacts with complex geometry can be difficult to acquire photogrammetrically and the precision of the acquired models can be diminished by the generic application of automated photogrammetric workflows. In this paper, we present two versions of a complete rotary photogrammetric system and an automated workflow for all-around, precise, reliable and low-cost acquisitions of large numbers of small artefacts, together with consideration of the visual quality of the model textures. The acquisition systems comprise a turntable and (i) a computer and digital camera or (ii) a smartphone designed to be ultra-low cost (less than $150). Experimental results are presented which demonstrate an acquisition precision of less than 40 μm using a 12.2 Megapixel digital camera and less than 80 μm using an 8 Megapixel smartphone. The novel contribution of this work centres on the design of an automated solution that achieves high-precision, photographically textured 3D acquisitions at a fraction of the cost of currently available systems. This could significantly benefit the digitisation efforts of collectors, curators and archaeologists as well as the wider population.