european societies bronze age

8/13/2019 European Societies Bronze Age

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/european-societies-bronze-age 1/30

C A M BR ID G E W O R LD A R C H A EO L O G Y

EUROPEAN SOCIETIESIN THE BRONZE AGE

A . F . H A R D I N G

D epartm ent of A rchaeology

U niv ersi t y of Durham



P U BL I S H ED B Y TH E P R E S S S Y N D IC ATE O F TH E U N IV E R SI TY O F C A M B R I D G E

The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom

C A M B R ID G E U N I VE R S I TY P R ES S

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UKhtt p://w w w .cup.cam .ac.uk

40 West 20th Street, N ew York, NY 10011-4211, USAht tp://w w w .cup.org

10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia

© C am bridge U niversity P ress 2000

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisionsof relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part maytake place without the writ ten permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2000

Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

Typeset in Trum p M ediev al 10/13 [WV]

A catalogue record for t hi s book i s avai labl e from th e Bri t ish Lib rary

Li brary of C ongress catalogui ng in publ icat i on data

Harding, A. F.European societies in the Bronze Age / A. F. Harding.

p. cm. – (Cam bridge wor ld a rchaeology)Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 0 521 36477 9 (hc.)1. Bronze Age–Europe. 2. Europe–Ant iquit ies. I . Tit le.II. Series.G N 778.2.A1H 38 2000936–dc21 99–28849 C IP

ISBN 0 521 36477 9 hardbackISBN 0 521 36729 8 paperback



CONTENTS

Li st of figures viiiLi st of tabl es xiii

Preface xv

1 Int roduct ion 1

2 The Bronze Age house and village 22

3 Buria l 73

4 The dom est ic econom y 124

5 Transport and cont act 164

6 M etals 197

7 O ther craft s 242

8 Warfare 271

9 Religion and rit ual 30810 H oards and hoarding 352

11 People 369

12 Socia l organisa t ion 386

13 The Bronze Age w orld: ques t ions o f sca le and interac t ion 414

14 Epilogue 431

References 436Index 531



FIGURES

1.1 P olit ica l and physica l divisions of Europe 2

1.2 C u lt ura l seq uen ce, w est -cen tra l a nd n ort hern Europe 12

1.3 C ult ura l sequence, east -cent ra l and east ern Europe 13

1.4 C ultura l sequence, w est ern Europe 15

1.5 C ultura l sequence, It a ly, Sicily and Sardinia 16

2.1 D epict ions of Bronze Age buildings 25

2.2 Apalle, cent ra l Sw eden: out line house plans 29

2.3 Round hut plans from sout hern England 31

2.4 P lans of set t lem ent s in nort hern England 33

2.5 P lan of H ut 3 a t C lonfi n lough, C o. O ffa ly, Ireland 35

2.6 P la n of Ea rly Bro nz e Age h ou ses a t La M u cu lu fa , Sic ily 37

2.7 Plan and reconstruction of houses of Horizon B at

t he Padnal near Savognin, Engadin, Sw it zerland 392.8 Zürich-Mozarts t rasse, plans o f Early Bronze Age v il lages 41

2.9 H ouse plans on t ell sit es 43

2.10 H ouse plans in Scandinavia and north G erm any 46

2.11 Zedau, Ostm ark: simplifi ed plan of the Late Bronze Age

set t lem ent 49

2.12 Lovcicky (Moravia): general plan of the Late Bronze Age

set t lem ent 51

2.13 Biskupin, plan of house 3, earlier phase 53

2.14 Set t lem ent plans in w et land areas 59

2.15 G eneral excavation plan of the sett lem ent at P eñalosa,

sout hern Spain 62

2.16 N itriansky H rádok, reconstructed plan of the Early

Bronze Age fort ifi ed set t lem ent 63

2.17 C abezo de Mon león (Z aragoza): plan of t he Lat e Bronze

Age h illt op sit e 65

2.18 St-Oedenrode (N orth Braba nt ): general plan of house

clust er 3 683.1 Buria l t radit ions in Early Bronze Age Europe 78

3.2 Plan of the Early Bronze Age inhumation cem etery a t

Vycapy-O pat ovce, Slovakia 79

3.3 P la n of t h e in hum a t ion cem et ery a t Sin gen (Kon st an z) 81



3.4 Reconst ruct ions of ‘m ort uary houses’ in barrow s 83

3.5 Barrow s w ith post rings of various t ypes 88

3.6 P lan of t he barrow cem et ery a t O akley D ow n , D orset 90

3.7 Buria l cist s in Bret on First Series barrow s 94

3.8 Tum uli in Albania and Yugoslavia 1023.9 Barrow w ith coffi n burial, Beckdorf, Kr. Stade, Low er

Saxony 104

3.10 C em et eries w ith coffi n graves 107

3.11 Ship sett ings from G erm any and Sw eden 110

3.12 P lan of the U rnfi eld cem et ery a t Vollm arshausen 115

3.13 G emeinlebarn F, hypothetical reconstruction of t hree

contem porary bury ing com m unit ies 116

3.14 Telgte, Kr. Warendorf, Westphalia , grave form s 1193.15 N ovaya Kvasnikova, Staropolta vkino, Volgograd, kurgan 4,

buria l 5: buria l of a cra ft sm an 121

4.1 Ards on Bronze Age sit es 127

4.2 Wooden yokes 129

4.3 Sickle t ypes in Bronze Age Europe 131

4.4 Tw isk, N orth Holla nd, M iddle Bronze Age circular

st ructure int erpret ed as a corn-st ack 133

4.5 Anim al species at sites in nort h-w est Europe an d

G erm any 1354.6 Anima l species at sites in H ungary and Rom ania and

Serbia 137

4.7 Anima l species at sites in Ita ly and Sardinia and Spain

and the Balearics 139

4.8 C ult ivated plants on central European Bronze Age s ites 147

4.9 C u lt iva t ed pla nt s on M edit erra nea n Bron ze Age sit es 148

4.10 Fence lines under barrow s 152

4.11 Field syst ems on th e M arlborough D ow ns, Wiltsh ire 1544.12 Field sy st em on H olne M oor, D art m oor 156

4.13 Anim al hoofprin t s on Bronze Age sit es 157

4.14 C airnfi elds and fi eld system s in the Midlands and north

of England 160

4.15 P rehist oric fi elds a t Vinarve, Rone parish, G o tland 162

5.1 Wheels from Bronze Age vehicles 166

5.2 C ult vehicle from St ret tw eg, Aust ria 168

5.3 H orse harness: cheek-pieces in bone and ant ler 171

5.4 Bronze Age w ooden t rackw ays 1745.5 The lines of Bronze Age tra ckw ay s in t he Som erset

Levels 175

5.6 Sprockhoff’s at t em pt at represent ing Late Bronze Age

t rade rout es in nort hern G erm any and P oland 176

L i st of figures ix



5.7 Bronze Age boat s 178

5.8 P addles from Bronze Age sit es 179

5.9 Bronze Age w reck sit es around European shores 182

5.10 Boats from a rock-art panel at Vitly cke, Bohuslän,

w est ern Sw eden 1835.11 Rock-art sites in southern U ppland in relation t o a

presum ed Bronze Age shoreline 186

5.12 Distribution of amber beads of the Tiryns and Allumiere

t ypes 191

5.13 D i st ri bu t ion o f sel ec ted ra zor t ypes i n w estern Eu rope 192

5.14 D ist ribut ion of bronze vessel t ypes 194

6.1 M ajor sources of copper in Europe 198

6.2 C opper ore sources in the Sw iss Alps (Fahlerz andsulphide ores) 200

6.3 The effect on hardness after cold w orking of adding 8%

t in t o copper; ‘phase diagram ’ of a copper–t in a lloy 203

6.4 M etal ty pes in the ‘D eveloped Early Bronze Age’ of t he

Brit ish Isles 205

6.5 M et al t ypes in t he Wilburt on phase 206

6.6 Extract ion area at Spa n ia D o li na -P i esk y, cen t ra l Sl ov a ki a 209

6.7 Extract ion shafts (Pingen ) and adjacent processing areas

at the M it t erberg 2126.8 ‘Mining tools’ from copper m ines, and tongs, ham m ers

and anvils from m etalw orking sit es 214

6.9 Tuyères from Bronze Age m et alw orking sit es 221

7.1 Wooden cont a iners 245

7.2 C onstruction techniques on w ooden trackw ays and

pile sit es 246

7.3 Pust opolje tum ulus 16, reconstruct ion of th e w ooden

grave cham ber 2487.4 Briquet age from Bronze Age sit es 250

7.5 Loom inst alla t ions and depict ions 257

7.6 Loom -w eight s, spindle-w horls and spools 259

7.7 Text ile from Ledro 261

7.8 Spin a nd w ea ve t y pes k now n from Bro nz e Age Eu rope 262

7.9 The occurrence of spin an d w eave t ypes in Bronz e Age

Europe 265

7.10 G lass and fa ience beads 267

8.1 Ritua l fi ghting w ith batt le-axes: part of a rock-art panel atFossum , Bohuslän 272

8.2 Bronze sw ords: the progression of t ypes 276

8.3 Bronze spears: t he progression of t ypes 282

8.4 Shields and helm et on Iberian grave st elae 286

x l is t o f f ig u r es



8.5 Sheet -bronze cuirass from M arm esses 288

8.6 Th e t w o bron ze h orn ed h elm et s from Vik sø, Z ea la nd 290

8.7 D istribut ion of Bronze Age hillt op sites in sout hern

Würt t em berg 293

8.8 D istribution of sett lem ents and fortifi ed hill-sites in th eEszt ergom region 294

8.9 H illfort plans 297

8.10 Tw o view s of th e Middle Bronze Age hillfort at

M onkodonja , Ist ria , C roat ia 301

8.11 A fort ifi ed tow er on Sardin ia : the N uraghe Asoru 302

8.12 Fort s on the Aran Isles 304

8.13 Dún Aonghasa, plan showing excavated area with house

out lines 3059.1 Bronze Age cult inst a lla t ions 310

9.2 P it s and shaft s 314

9.3 Wells on Bronze Age sit es 316

9.4 C aves w it h Bronze Age occupat ion 319

9.5 Bronze Age w ooden fi gures 323

9.6 H um an and anim al clay fi gurines 325

9.7 The percent age represent at ion of different ca t egories

of object from moorland and from the Rhine near

M ainz 3279.8 Bronze horns from D rum best , C o. Ant rim 328

9.9 The average num bers of fi nds per year in different parts

of the M ain and Rhine 330

9.10 Pot deposits on Bronze Age sites 332

9.11 The m ain rock-art provinces of Bron ze Age Europe 337

9.12 The frequency of rock-art m oti fs in tw o parts of

Scandinavia 340

9.13 D istribution of petroglyph clusters in Stjørdal,N ord-Trøndelag 347

9.14 G old cones (‘hat s’) 349

10.1 Early Bronze Age hoard from D ieskau, Saalkreis 353

10.2 The composit ion of the hoard from U ioara de Sus,

Rom ania 357

10.3 The different represent at ion of w orn and unw orn objects

in differen t region s of D en m ark in P eriods II a nd III 359

10.4 M archésieux (M anche): fi ndspot s of axe hoards 366

11.1 Sardinian bronze fi gurines 37011.2 D ress in Bronze Age D enm ark, m ale and fem ale 371

11.3 Figurines and ornam ents in the C arpathian Basin 373

11.4 Reconstructions of fem ale ornam ent sets from graves

of the Tum ulus cult ure 375

L i st of figures x i



11.5 G rave 2/1983 at G rundfeld, Bava ria: skull and ornam ent s,

as found and reconst ruct ion 377

11.6 Mortality curves for various Early Bronze Age

populat ions 378

11.7 Mortality curves for three Late Bronze Age Polishpopulat ions 379

12.1 Iw anow ice, Babia G óra cemetery: w ealth distribution

across a ll graves, and w ealth by age 397

12.2 Mokrin, numbers of metal ornament types in male and

female graves , and w ea lth m arkers a t Mokrin and Szöreg 399

12.3 P rzeczy ce, Low er Silesia, num bers of pots by age/sex

cat egory (inhum at ions, and crem at ions) 403

12.4 M assive m ale fi gure holdin g a spear, from a rock-artpanel a t Lit sleby, Bohuslän 411

13.1 Alt ernat ive m odels of the ‘Bronze Age w orld’ 415

13.2 Sites and site catch m ents in t he Late Bronze Age on

Lakes N euchât el, Bienne and M orat 424

13.3 Villa ge an d ‘t erritory ’ at Fosie IV, Sca nia 425

13.4 Territo rial pat t erning in the barrow distribut ions of

Scania 425

13.5 Schematic reconstruction of settlement nuclei in

north-eastern West Friesland, based on the distributionof surviving barrow s 427

13.6 Interpreta tive m ap of Bronze Age sett lement areas in

north -east Scan ia, based on th e distribution of graves,

rock-art sit es and st one set t ings 428

xi i l is t o f f ig u r es



TABLES

1.1 Radiocarbon chronology for Bronze Age Europe 18

3.1 M ain Bronze Age buria l t radit ions by area 77

3.2 G rave-goods at Teset ice-Vinohrady 84

3.3 Barrow s in East Anglia 86

3.4 C offi ns in N ordic barrow s 106

3.5 Buria l rit e by sex a t P it t en 112

8.1 N um bers of m etal and organic-hilted sw ords in various

count ries of Europe 280

9.1 Specia l elem en t s in a rt provin ces of t he Brit ish Isles 341

10.1 Bronze hoards by period in C roatia, H ungary an d

Rom ania 356

12.1 Buria l different ia t ion by burial t ype 395



c h a pt er 1

INTRODUCTION

This book is concerned with the history of human societies and the course

of hum an in teractions in Europe during the period that is traditiona lly called

the Bronze Age, that is to say in absolute years the period of time between

about 2500 and 800 BC. During this time, Europe changed from a continentsett led by sm all farm ing and pastoral groups, strongly linked at t he local level

but on ly w eakly linked, if at all , at broader levels, to on e w here it is possible

to discern th e existenc e of quasi-political groupings on a relativ ely large scale;

from a society where individuals were powerful but did little to express that

power in their material remains to one where the expression of status and

power was extremely important ; and from a society where the use of metal

w as rather rare and it s circulation h ighly restricted to one w here m etals w ere

a commonplace and vast quantities were produced.

The progress of th ese aspect s of life and death w as not , how ever, even acrosstime or space. Nor were the processes outlined uniform in their manifesta-

tio n. Europe is a large and geographically com plex area (fi g. 1.1), an d t he vari-

ety of its landscapes inevitably fi nds refl ections in the pat terns of act ivity of

its inhabitants. It has also traditionally been seen as a melting-pot for the

creation of ‘peoples’, that is to say ethnic identities. Although perspectives

on both these aspects have shifted in recent years, i t is undeniable that peo-

ple reacted differently in different places and a t different tim es to st im uli th at

from today ’s perspective look t o ha ve been sim ilar or ident ical. In ot her w ords,one can identify groups of people, that is to say common groupings of ma-

terial culture rema ins, w hom it is convenient t o lump togeth er, nam ing them

‘groups’ or ‘cultures’. It is this diversity of human reactions that is explored

in this book.

Since people were different and reacted differently, the inevitable tempta-

tion is to write a book that merely lists or describes those reactions, in the

form of material manifestations. It is in truth hard to escape this tendency

altogether, since one is forced to relay some of the details of the more sig-

nifi cant fi nds and si tes tha t consti tut e the remains of any period of theprehistoric past, a nd t he reader w ill fi nd plent y of such descriptions in th is

w ork. These are, how ever, accompanied by an att empt t o view the fi nds in

a wider perspective, to arrive at some understanding of a common approach

to particular aspects of life or death. The advantage of this approach is the



possibility it offers of taking a wide view of problems common to everyone

at particular periods of the Bronze Age. The disadvantage, and sometimes it

is a crucial one, is that any att empt at discerning a comm on pattern becomes

an imposition on the data, because it is clear there w as no common pattern– things really were different in different parts of Europe.

An appreciation of th is diversity is vita l , particularly w hen one is concerned

w ith m ental processes tha t led to superstructural developm ents in th e fi eld

of ideology and beliefs. With purely technological matters one is on safer

ground, since there were only a limited number of ways of solving particu-

lar problems, such as extracting and smelting copper, working timber, or

building houses. Even here, though, t here are aspects w hich can be regarded

as having had an ideological component, for example the form of houses, or

att i tudes to w ood or stone tha t w ere more than m erely ut i l itarian. This inter-play betw een daily n eeds and expressions of th e psyche fi nds its com m onest

expression in the treatment of the dead: the dead must be disposed of, but

the way i t is done can take on an enormous variety of forms, not merely in

terms of the mechanics of disposal, but as regards the funeral service itself.

2 in t r o d u c t io n

Fig. 1.1. Political and physical divisions of Europe.



One can no more suppose that the last rites as practised in Ireland were the

same as those in Romania than suppose that the Bronze Age Irish were eth-

nically the same as the Bronze Age Romanians.

N evertheless, the att empt at discerning comm on patt erns has been th ought

worthwhile in enough cases to justi fy the writ ing of a book with this broadgeographical scope. The alternat ive, that of w riting m any sm aller books about

the Bronze Age of particular regions (and at what scale? that of the county?

th e st at e? t he geographically defi ned region?), has often been done, an d to t his

author at least has little appeal, tending as it does to create divisions where

there are none. Thus general books on the Bronze Age in Hungary, 1 or

Slovakia,2 or eastern Austria 3 or the British Isles,4 serve a useful local pur-

pose but do litt le to furth er the understan ding of the period on a w ider level.5

The t hem es presented here th erefore explore th e ext ent to w hich generaltrends may be discerned, while endeavouring to avoid imposing such trends

on t he data . Alth ough by t oday’s sta ndards the Bronze Age w as a lon g period

(around 1700 years in most of barbarian Europe, equivalent to all the time

that has elapsed since the adoption of Christianity under Constantine), by

com parison w ith a nyt hing w hich had gone before it w as a tim e of rapid devel-

opment and change, particularly so in the later stages. Furthermore, it was a

tim e w hen conta ct betw een different parts of th e European continent becam e

comm on, so that m ajor innovations in one area w ere adopted almost simul-

ta neously in ot hers; this is particularly true of technological cha nge, but couldapply as well to other, more ‘psychological’ developments such as burial

modes. This means that it could be perfectly reasonable for common trends

to have developed across much of the continent, and for archaeologists to

attempt to spot them. Since the object of study is human beings and their

responses, however, i t would be unrealistic to expect such similarities to go

beyond t he m ost superfi cial of levels.

As w ell as dealing in t he general, therefore, it w ill be necessary to look at

the particular. In this, the study of local context is especially important. Ithas become a com m onplace that si tes and fi nds must be contextualised in

order for any understanding of their meaning and form to be developed. The

aim is laudable, but the results presented for public digestion so far, though

bold and imaginative, have seemed less than impressive when it comes to

convincing the sceptical that the particular interpretation presented has to

be the correct one.

In t roduct ion 3

1 Kovács 1977.2 Furmánek et al . 1991.3 Neugebauer 1994.4 Burgess 1974; 1980a.5 One of the criticisms levelled at Th e Bronze A ge in Europe w as tha t t he authors d id not have

an adequate knowledge of the period in given countries, so that multi-author volumes usinglocal specialists w ere said to be t he w ay forw ard e.g. V. Trbuhovic , Starinar 30, 1979, 137–8.



A word is necessary about the use of the terms ‘Europe’ and ‘Bronze Age’

in this book. ‘Europe’ is intended purely as a geographical description, mean-

ing that part of the globe tha t l ies betw een C onnemara and t he U rals, Malta

and t he N orth C ape; for purely practical reasons, I do not include G reece and

the Aegean area in the present work except in order to introduce the occa-sional com parison.6 I do not believe that any oth er signifi cance can or should

be assigned to th e term in a rath er rem ote period of the past, least of all th at

t here w as an y special ‘European ness’ about Bronz e Age Europe. By t he sam e

token, the ‘Bronze Age’ merely represents that chunk of time, roughly 2500

to 800 BC, that is traditionally called the Bronze Age. On the other hand, I

believe th at th e phenom ena encount ered in t his area an d period are intrinsi-

cally interesting and that at certain times it is possible to illustrate the exis-

tence of trends and processes th at w ere comm on t o large parts of t he territory,an d w ere different from t hose occurring elsew here on t he globe. In t his sense,

I intend to show that ‘Bronze Age Europe’ is a worthwhile subject of study.

The Bronze Age is a much-studied period, and since the last century many

authors have trodden the ground that underpins the present work. On the

other hand, there have been astonishingly few books writ ten that deal with

th e period as a w hole and w ith Europe at large. Exceptions from th e older lit-

erature are the works on chronology by Montelius and Åberg,7 w hile Chi lde

w rote a very general brief account , draw ing in th e East M editerranean a s w ell

as ‘barbarian’ Europe.8 The huge volum e by G imbuta s, deal ing w ith centraland eastern Europe, represented a milestone in Bronze Age studies, bringing

a vast quantity of li ttle-known and inaccessible data before a wider public,

and presenting a daring if controversial picture of the period in ethnogenetic

terms.9 Some of these matters were picked up by Coles and Harding in an

attempt at treating the whole period over the whole continent; a more recent

survey based prima rily on radiocarbon dating is that by G onzá lez M arcén,

Lull and Risch.10 A brief but extrem ely useful sum m ary is provided by Müller-

Karpe, who also gives a wide range of il lustrative material from all parts ofEurope,11 while a short general account was provided by Bergmann. 12

The problems faced by the generalist attempting to write a synthesis of a

long period over a w ide geographical area are com pounded by polit ical a nd

linguistic diffi culties, w hich creat e artifi cial divisions in the cultural story


6 N o disrespect is t hereby int ended to G reece and its archa eology, w hich are of course fully‘European’ in a geographical sense; but the cultural manifestations are so different, and soextensive, that only a full-length book (of which many already exist) could do justice to the

situat ion.7 Åberg 1930–5.8 Childe 1930.9 G imbut as 1965.10 C oles and H arding 1979; G onzález M arcén, Lull and Risch 1992.11 Müller-Karpe 1974; 1981.12 Bergmann 1987.



and render much literature inaccessible to many people, especially to

Anglophones. With the changes that have occurred in Europe since 1989,

however, much more is being written in the major world languages, espe-

cially English. Several countries have made one or more of their vehicles of

archaeological publication into foreign-language journals (e.g. Archaeologia

Polona , Památk y A rcheologi cké ); in ot hers th is w as t he case already (e.g. Ac ta

Archaeologica (Buda pest )). While t here are som e areas w here th is t rend is not

yet apparent (Russia is a notable example), there is no doubt that it is now

much easier to acquire and read the literature than it used to be. Of course

English speakers are in a particularly privileged position in this respect.

Unfortunately, the trend mentioned wil l do nothing to encourage them to

widen their linguistic horizons, reinforcing many in their present view that

what is not wri t ten in English is not worth reading. This form of culturalim perialism an d isolationism is particularly sad at a tim e w hen ma ny barriers

in Europe are in ot her respect s being broken dow n.

While the literature is more accessible than it was, this fact does bring

oth er problem s in its w ake. During the period over w hich t his book w as w rit-

ten, a glut of publicat ion on Bronze Age archaeology ha s occurred, stim ulat ed

am ong oth er t hin gs by t he designa tio n of 1994 as t he ‘Year of t he Bronze Age’

by the Council of Europe, part of a campaign to raise awareness of Bronze

Age sites and monuments, for both touristic and conservation reasons.

C onferences and exhibitions h ave been held in m ore th an a dozen count ries,and books or exhibition catalogues have been produced to accompany them,

often lavish in scale. It is stil l too early t o assess th e longer-term benefi ts of

this awareness-raising action, but the publication of many hitherto unknown

sites and artefacts has certa inly been of benefi t t o th e scholarly w orld, even

th ough t his frequent ly involves siftin g th rough great m asses of sem i-popular

writing to extract a small number of pearls.

This can not be the only reason , how ever. The designa t ion of t he ‘Year of

the Bronze Age’ was really a symptom, not a cause. Scholarly interest in theperiod ha d been o n t he increase for years prior to 1994; th ere has been a vast

outpouring of publication on Bronze Age matters in the last twenty years. It

is not altogether easy to explain the reasons for this. In part it stems from

the hugely increased level of activity within archaeology generally. But it

m ust also refl ect the fact t hat people have com e to realise that th e Bronze

Age contains m aterial for study of a kind and q uanti t y that cannot be found

in other prehistoric periods. A comparison with the Neolithic is instructive.

In the Neolithic, very large numbers of sites are now known in many parts

of Europe – settlements in central Europe, graves in north and west Europe,various combinations of these in other areas – and during the 1970s a great

deal of attention was focused on these cultural manifestations. To the dis-

passionat e observer, how ever, there is no doubt th at th ere is a certain sam e-

ness, a lack of variety, about the material remains of the Neolithic; this is

Th e Bronze A ge and i t s st ud ent s 5



perhaps one of the features that were attractive to those of a positivist per-

suasion in earlier decades. Where this is not the case, the opposite is often

true: the remains are so bafflingly enigmatic that i t is hard to see how one

can make much progress with understanding them, other than through post-

processual approaches. A good example of this would be the study of mega-lithic tombs, where detailed typological study is a quick route to insanity.

This is not t o say t hat th ese problems do not also affl ict Bronze Age studies

in som e part. It is rare to fi nd a st udent – at least in t he Anglo-Saxon w orld

– w ho fi nds bronze im plement ty pology fascinat ing, and stone circles are just

as resistant to typological study as are megalithic tombs. But the range and

quantity of material available for study is very much larger in the Bronze

Age, particularly as modern survey and analytical techniques have demon-

strat ed the richness of the source m at erials. May be too t here has been a feel-ing that it is now the turn of the Bronze Age, that it has been understudied

in t he past an d now offers possibilities for fruitful st udy. Which ever of th ese

is correct, th e problem rema ins. Any one w ant ing to em bark on serious study

of the Bronze Age faces an enormous task in assimilating the literature. It is

hoped that this book wil l make such a task somewhat easier.

The Bronze Age and its students

The course of Bronze Age studies over the last century, and especially overthe last half century, has been determined by, but has also determined the

work of, the scholars who have engaged in it . This observation is not, of

course, peculiar to the Bronze Age; it applies to the study of any period or

an y subject. The Bronz e Age differs from preceding periods, how ever, in t ha t

it produced very large quan tit ies of specialised art efact s, w hich it has seemed

natural to study in great detail ; at the same time, it has lacked the great

fortifi ed sites and prot o-urban cent res t ha t ch aract erise t he Iron Age. Its sub-

jects of study have been conditioned accordingly.To some extent these preoccupations have been those of their age. Morris

has indicated how the nature of Bronze Age studies has changed with suc-

cessive generations of archaeologists, at least in a British context; 13 similar

effects have been felt in oth er countries. For m any years, artefact st udies and

funerary m onum ents w ere the principal objects of study. Artefacts w ere long

ago appreciated as the key to Bronze Age chronology. In the nineteenth cen-

tury, the work of Montelius or of Reinecke showed the way to the develop-

ment of a sound chronological basis, by means of a sophisticated analysis of

artefact ty pes an d association s. Workers in ot her areas, such as D échelette inFrance or John Evans in Brita in, also used art efacts for chron ological purposes,

even though their schemes did not have the same permanency.


13 Morris 1992.



Funerary st udies w ere ext remely popular in earlier years, especially in t he

last century but also in this. Funerary mon um ents, particularly t um uli or bar-

row m ounds, are conspicuous and usually produce fi nds. In m any insta nces,

the foundations of our knowledge of the period are the work of early barrow

excavators: F. X. Franc in western Bohemia or Sir Richard Colt Hoare andWilliam Cunnington in Wessex are good examples. The excavation of Bronze

Age funerary m onum ents w as not , how ever, confi ned to the last century.

Many excavators have dug large numbers of funerary monuments in recent

times, for instance P. Ashbee in Britain or Zh. Andrea in Albania. 14

G iven th ese preoccupat ions, it is not surprising tha t oth er aspects of t he

archaeological record and its interpretation were left out of consideration.

Sett lem ent studies, for instance, made barely a ny impact for m any years, w ith

the notable exception of the Swiss lake sites (in many ways the Swiss equiv-alent t o Vict orian barrow digging in Britain ). But even th e recovery of vast

quanti t ies of material from both the west and the east Swiss si tes did not

lead to any signifi cant at t em pt at understan ding the si tes other tha n in terms

of their situation and building method. In other parts of Europe, settlement

studies relating t o t he Bronze Age hardly existed; even w here sett lem ent sites

w ere dug, such as th e southern English sites excavated by G eneral Pit t R ivers,

the Argaric settlements of south-east Spain dug by the Siret brothers, the

Sicilian sit es dug by P. Orsi,15 or the nuraghi dug by Taram elli, no real at tem pt

was made to set them in an overall context of a Bronze Age living system.Even fewer efforts were made to understand the nature of the Bronze Age

economy, or the society th at gave rise to it , except in th e most general t erms.

Few works that aimed to set the Bronze Age in an overall context emanate

from t hese earlier years. On e except ion is G ordon C hilde’s book The Bronze

A ge (1930), an early work, but one that built on the foundations for European

Bronze Age studies laid in The D anube i n Prehi st ory of the preceding year.

In this work, Childe foreshadowed many of the debates that concern Bronze

Age scholars today : the econom ic and social signifi cance of metalw orking,the status and role of the smith, the effects of metalworking on small com-

m unit ies, and t he longer-term effects on hum an society m ore generally. The

work differs from all others written on the Bronze Age at this period by its

willingness to engage in speculation about matters that some considered

unknowable, and its insistence on a social and economic role for technolog-

ical matters; in view of Childe’s personal and political beliefs, this is perhaps

not surprising, but it w as for its day un usual, and fi nds few parallels unt il

the very recent past.

Not surprisingly, major trends in archaeology generally have foundth eir refl ection in Bronze Age studies. Thus t he fashion for environment al

Th e Bronze A ge and i t s st ud ent s 7

14 Ashbee 1960; Andrea 1985.15 Leighton 1986.



examin at ion and explanat ion th at w as prevalent in Britain in t he 1970s under

th e infl uence of E. H iggs spaw ned a series of articles tha t considered sites in

their environmental setting, examined the economic foundations for their

existence, and catalogued their biological debris in exemplary detail. While

one could not pretend t hat th e ‘N ew Archaeology’ had a big infl uence onmainstream Bronze Age studies, there was a certain spin-off: the number of

qua nt ita tive analy ses increased ma rkedly, and th e infl uence of new m odes

of thought can be gauged from, for instance, the work of J. Levy or K.

Kristiansen. This last author has also been one of those responsible for the

applicat ion of World Syst em s Theory t o European Bronz e Age stu dies, w hile

his contributions to various volumes that have applied models of various

kinds to the archaeological record have seen Marxist, structuralist and other

approaches t ried out on selected Bronze Age evidence. The st im ulus t his pro-vided has not, however, translated itself – at least in the Anglo-Saxon world

– int o large num bers of student s entering th e fi eld for research purposes,

th ough in G erman y, Spain and Italy Bronze Age studies have alw ay s att racted

plenty of them. Through the 1980s and 1990s, the mood has been charac-

terised more by uncertainty than anything else. On the one hand, many

Bronze Age workers continue to adopt a positivist attitude to their subjects

of study, and to believe th at defi nite answ ers to specifi c questions can be

obtained from the rich data sources at their disposal, i f only enough analysis

can be done; on the other, there is a trend to more subjective approaches toth e Bronze Age, as to oth er periods of the past, un der th e infl uence of the

post-modern movement. An extreme example of this is perhaps C. Tilley’s

1991 book on Norwegian rock-art,16 but glimmerings of the same thing can

be seen in a number of articles that have appeared since the mid-1980s.

A fully post-modern approach to the Bronze Age is yet to come. The con-

textualisation of the study of the Bronze Age is a task that is already under

way, though few mainstream Bronze Age scholars would consider the task

either legitim at e or necessary. Yet for the study of a society a nd an economyw here exchange m echanism s, industrial production and personal display w ere

key elements, it clearly is necessary to specify one’s personal context before

any attempt at interpretation is made. The nature of archaeological facts in

a Bronze Age context is also something to which little – if any – attention

has been paid; it will become apparent that for this author the equation of

‘archaeological facts’ and ‘artefacts’ is stil l valid, and that artefacts constitute

the source material with which the Bronze Age is to be studied.


16 Tilley 1991.



Frameworks of study: chronology

In order to set the developments that are the subject of this book in correct

perspective, an appreciation of the time-scale over which they occurred is

essential. The relative chronology of most parts of the European Bronze Ageis w ell understood, t hough t he details still give rise to debate and discussion

in the literature. On the other hand, the absolute chronology has long been

a m att er of considerable uncertaint y, stemm ing from t he fact tha t the avai l-

able sources w ere incapable until recently of giving a defi nit ive answ er to t he

question being asked. Traditionally, absolute chronology in the Bronze Age

depended on th e tim e-scale established in Egypt a nd M esopota m ia, t o w hich

th at of the Aegean could be relat ed, and t hat of Europe in turn to th e Aegean

(t he cross-dat ing m etho d). This produced results t ha t w ere broadly a ccept -able, but did not command unanimous support.

From the 1960s, radiocarbon dating has been available to provide an inde-

pendent chron ology, but th e progress of research on Bronze Age chrono logies

for most areas of Europe has been patchy and faltering. Earlier attempts to

use radioca rbon dat es to derive chrono logies for cent ral Europe w ere often

decried as unreliable because they enforced a rethink of the traditional posi-

t ion. Added to this were numerous problems of context with many of the

dated sam ples, for th e most part isolat ed dat es from poorly stratifi ed or inad-

equately excavated sites. In recent years, however, the situation has changedwith the advent of dendrochronologically dated sequences. These are only

available in certain areas, notably the Alpine zone and Ireland, but since it

is usually possible to link cult ures, sites and objects t o t hose areas w ith den-

dro dates the results a re still of good qualit y. Added t o t his is t he vast im prove-

ment in the quality of radiocarbon dates. Laboratories are extremely careful

to dat e only t hose sam ples w hose cont ext is good; long stratifi ed sequences

are preferred; high-precision dating, using the results of dendrochronological

calibration of the radiocarbon age, is possible; and the advent of acceleratorm ass spectrom etry (AMS) dat ing has enabled th e carbon-14 at om s to be m eas-

ured directly in samples, rather than by counting the emission of beta-

particles as happens in conventional dating. As a consequence, it is now

possible to place absolute dates on ma ny of t he important transit ions betw een

different periods of the Bronze Age in much of central, southern and west-

ern Europe. This is not to say that problems do not remain, for instance in

the East Mediterranean, where a major event such as the eruption of Thera

in the Late Bronze Age is still the subject of controversy.

Rel ati ve chronol ogi es

In broad terms, it is usual to divide the Bronze Age into three parts, Early,

Middle and Late. In pract ice, the progress of know ledge in m any areas m eans

Fram ew ork s of st ud y: chronology 9



th at t hese divisions are barely m eaningful any m ore; in G erman y, for insta nce,

a series of pha se labels based on representa tiv e fi nds ha s largely displaced th e

Early/Middle/Late syst em, w hich w as in any case hard t o apply because of

th e subtle meanings att ached to G erman or French versions of such term i-

nology (e.g. Spät-, Jung-, Jüngere- Jüngst- and End-Bronzezeit, or Bronze tar-dive and Bronze fi nal, a ll loosely translat able as ‘Late Bronze Age’). Sim ilar

trends are visible in other areas, for instance in the British Isles.

It is necessary, how ever, to ha ve an un derstan ding of the principal ch rono-

logical schem es tha t are in use in cont inental Europe, above all th ose devised

long ago by Reinecke for southern G erman y an d by Mon telius for Scandinavia ,

because they a re still in everyday use. These tw o schem es have been suc-

cessively applied to larger and larger areas of Europe, and continue to exert

a m ajor infl uence.

Reinecke

Paul Reinecke (1872–1958), w orking w it h c losed fi nd groups (graves and hoards)

in Bavaria, developed over a period of decades a system of phase labels for the

‘Bronze Age’ (Bronzezeit) and ‘Ha llstat t Age’ (H allsta tt zeit), each of t hem being

assigned four stages labelled A, B, C and D. The Hallstattzeit was based on

the fi nds from t he great cem etery of Hallstat t in central Austria, w hich

included fi nds of iron an d w ere therefore att ributable in broad t erm s to th eIron Age. Subsequent ly it becam e clear tha t phases A and B of the Ha llstat tz eit

act ually belonged to t he period tha t ca m e to be called the U rnfi eld period

(Urnenfelderzeit) because of the characteristic burial mode of depositing cre-

m at ed bone in a funerary urn, an d the urns in a defi ned burial place or ‘urn-

fi eld’. Accordingly t he pract ice grew up of assigning Bronzezeit A–D and

Hallstattzeit A–B to the Bronze Age (in its general sense), and Hallstattzeit

C–D to the Iron Age (the abbreviations Br or Bz and Ha are commonly used).

In broad terms, Br A represents the Early Bronze Age, Br B–C the Middle

Bronze Age (or Tumulus Bronze Age, after the characteristic burial form oft he period), and Br D w ith H a A–B the Lat e Bronze Age or U rnfi eld period.

All of these phases have at various times been subdivided, but the precise

meaning attached to the divisions has not been constant from scholar to

scholar. I cannot here enter into the complex debates which have attended

these exercises. Instead, a brief indication of the more important aspects of

the subdivisions is necessary.

Br A is divided int o A1, represent ing t he earliest full bronze in dustries, and

characterised by inhumation cemeteries such as Singen (Konstanz) orStraubing, and hoards w ith fl anged axes and m etal-hilted daggers such as

Bresinch en (G uben),17 and A2, to w hich a different range of specifi c t ypes such

as the pin with perforated spherical head or the socketed spearhead are


17 Breddin 1969.



assigned.18 There is also good evidence for th e existenc e of a t hird Early Bronze

Age pha se, som etim es called A3, som etim es A2/B1, cont ain ing m at erial tha t

is clearly later than classic A2 but not yet fully developed into the full

Tumulus Bronze Age material; this phase is represented at the recently exca-

vated Austrian cemetery of Franzhausen II.Ph ases B and C , t he Middle Bronze Age, have both been subdivided at var-

ious times, but in general terms all that is relevant for present purposes is

that they represent the sequence of the ‘Tumulus cultures’. On the other

ha nd, t he divisions of th e U rnfi eld period (Br D , Ha A and B) are ext remely

important. All three phases have been divided, but the divisions established

by H . Müller-Karpe in 1959 ha ve proved most infl uent ial. Building on th e

foundations of earlier scholars, he codifi ed a syst em w hich divided H a A into

A1 and A2, and Ha B into B1, B2 and B3. This has not proved uncontrover-sial. A number of authors denied that they could recognise the separate exis-

tenc e of pha se B2 as defi ned by M üller-Karpe on th e basis of the cem etery of

Kelheim n ear Mun ich. N evertheless, the usage has cont inued in G erman y,

at least; in Sw itzerland, w here the second phase is not generally discernible,

Ha B2 is sometim es used in m ore or less the sam e sense as Ha B3 in Bavaria.19

Each of the phases is characterised by a range of artefact types known from

graves and hoards (settlement material is not always easy to slot into this

sequence), and in general the range of material is extremely well known and

easily recognised, though debates continue over the details. Thus the relativechrono logical sequence is n ot in doubt (fi g. 1.2).

Monte l ius

Osca r Mon telius (1843–1921) lived and w orked in Stock holm but ha d a va st

know ledge of t he archa eology of all part s of Europe. The chronological sch em e

for which he is justly famous was developed by him in order to understand

the phasing of the Scandinavian Bronze Age, but his panoramic knowledge

m eant that i t had ramifi cations far beyond Scandinavia.20 Workin g from closed

fi nd groups, M ont elius distin guished six periods, I–VI, of w hich I–III arereferred to as Early Bronze Age, IV–V as Late Bronze Age, and VI falls at the

transition to the Iron Age. In Period I local metal production was still slight,

and signifi cant num bers of objects w ere imported from central Europe and

the Carpathian Basin. Period II is the main florui t of the earlier northern

Bronze Age, with many richly furnished barrow graves and large quantities

of metal. In Period III, cremation started to become common, and by Period

IV it was absolutely dominant. In terms of the central European chronology,

I corresponds to t he Early Bronze Age, II and part of III to t he Tum ulus period,and IV and V to th e U rnfi eld period.


18 e.g. the Langquaid hoard: Hachmann 1957, table 54.19 Though recently it has become evident that there is indeed funerary material that falls

between Ha B1 and B3: Matter 1992, 312ff.20 Montelius 1986.



The Mon telian periodisation is still in com m on use, though t he phase def-

initions hav e been refi ned or m odifi ed. In addition t o Scandinavia, th e scheme

is used in northern G erm any and Poland, and in part in the Low C ountries.

Between Reinecke and Montelius, therefore, the larger part of the European

continent is covered, or at least can be cross-referenced.

For ot her areas t here are oth er schem es in use (fi g. 1.3). A. M ozsolics devel-oped a special phasing for the bronze hoards of th e C arpat hian Basin,21 which

has n ot, h ow ever, been a dopted by all student s of th e period, even in H ungary.


21 Mozsolics 1967; 1973; 1985.

Fig. 1.2. C ultu ral sequence, w est-central an d northern Europe.



More widely used in recent years is the scheme of B. Hänsel for the same

area, but resting on a wider range of sites and artefacts than Mozsolics’sscheme.22 This uses the terms Early, Middle and Late Danubian Bronze Age

(frühe/m it t lere/spät e D an ubisch e Bronzezeit, o r FD I–III, M D I–III, an d SD


22 Hänsel 1968.

Fig. 1.3. Cultural sequence, east-central and eastern Europe.



I–II); i t h as com e to be w idely adopted, not least because of the prolifi c w rit-

ings of Hänsel’s pupils on the Carpathian Basin and neighbouring areas.

A cultural sequence of great importance that must also be introduced is

t ha t n am ed after th e cem etery of Ú netic e (G erm an ‘Aunjetit z’) near Prague.

The characteristic material culture from this and similar inhumation ceme-t eries, including th e fam ous ‘hour-glass’ cups, is found over a w ide area of

central Europe, centred on the Czech Republic but also occurring in eastern

G erman y, central and south ern Polan d and north ern Austria. Alth ough it can

be equat ed w ith Br A1 and A2 in t he Reinecke system , a local fi ve-stage

sequence of development has been distinguished for the pottery.23

In m ost ot her areas of Europe, eith er th e Early/Middle/Late sch em e is in

use, or a sequence of culture names is preferred. This is the case in Britain

an d France, Ita ly a nd Spain (fi gs. 1.4 an d 1.5), and t he Balkan s. One area t ha thas its own distinctive sequence is south Russia and Ukraine, where it has

been usual t o refer to culture nam es based on grave form – Pit G rave (Russian

j am nay a k u l t u ra ), Ca tacom b G rave (katakombna ja ku l tu ra ) and Timber

Grave (srubnaja kul tura ).24 In other parts of Russia a sequence of local cul-

ture names is used.

A bsolu t e chronology

Had this book been written thirty, or even twenty, years ago, it would prob-ably have been con sidered necessary t o devote m any pages t o a consideration

of the absolute dating of th e phases and cultures w hich w ould have been enu-

m erat ed. This dat ing w ould ha ve been derived largely from cross-dat ing via

t he Aegean t o Egypt, an d th e links betw een t he Aegean Bronz e Age civilisa-

tions an d the ‘barbarian’ w orld.25 As it is, t he progress of developm ent of inde-

pendent da ting fram ew orks has been so rapid and so successful th at for much

of the period discussion is no longer necessary: the time-spans involved are

now clear in outline. This optim istic stat ement needs to be qua lifi ed in anumber of respects. First, dendro dates come mainly from settlement sites,

and are largely concentrated in those areas where there is good preservation

of organ ic rema ins (dat es for oak co ffi ns of nort hern Europe are t he excep-

tion). In practice th is m eans th e Alpine area, south ern G erman y a nd Ireland,

with some material now becoming available from elsewhere (e.g. Poland).


23 Moucha 1961; 1963.24 Both Ru ssian and t ranslated versions ma y be found in th e literature. G im butas (1965),

Sulimirski (1970) and Coles and Harding (1979) use the translated form, as did Piggott andot hers; Ma llory (e.g. 1989) an d Anth ony (e.g. 1996) use th e Russia n form . In th is w ork th etranslated form is used, because I believe it aids comprehension and is more consistent: inBritain t he term ‘Schnu rkeram ik’ is not used, let alon e ‘snurová keram ika’, but ‘C orded Ware’.Complete consistency is impossible since it is commonplace for Anglophones to refer to theLinearbandkeramik or LBK, and the TRB, rather than their English translations.

25 e.g. Renfrew 1968; Ha rding 1980; Ra ndsborg 1991; G erloff 1993; 1996.



Thus the dates for the felling of trees used on a site such as Zürich-

Moz artst rasse (below , p. 42) are know n t o th e exact year; w hat is more diffi cultis to relate the material culture used on the site to the established phases as

known from graves and hoards. Second, sizeable parts of Europe still have no

adequate radiocarbon chronology, certainly not one based on series of care-

fully contexted samples subjected to high-precision dating. All too often the


Fig. 1.4. Cultural sequence, western Europe.



association of sam ples w ith event s on sites is vague or absent altogether, and

the dates are isolated. Still rarer are programmes of dating on organic mate-

rials that are integral parts of bronze implements, such as has been carriedout by the British Museum in recent years.26 Admittedly one cannot be sure

in these cases that the organic element dates to the time of manufacture and

original h afting of t he bronze object, but given enough objects t o dat e in t his

way patterns become clear. Third, the establishment of an independent

chronology in one area need not necessarily give a precise chronology to

another, though it is l ikely to act as a good general guide. Fourth, radiocar-

bon dates have to be calibrated against the curve derived from samples of

know n age in order to obta in t rue calendrical dates, and the calibration curve

does not affect all periods equally. In some centuries (most notably in them id-fi rst m il lennium BC) there is a plateau in t he curve w hich m eans that

a w ide ran ge of calendrical da t es is possible for a given radiocarbon a ge. This


26 Needham et al . 1997.

Fig. 1.5. Cultural sequence, Italy, Sicily and Sardinia.



problem affects the latest dates for the Bronze Age, though it is more acute

in the Iron Age.

In spite of these diffi culties, l i tt le – except t he availability of fi nan ce to

procure datings – stands in the way of establishing a sound chronological

fram ew ork for all parts of Europe th roughout t he Bronze Age. The proceduresare routine; subject t o t he availability of suitable m at erial , cultural sequences

should be accurately dated everywhere within a couple of decades.

A good example of the way in which traditional dating methods (cross-

datin g) are modifi ed by new independent ly derived dates is given by t he oak

coffi n graves of north G erman y an d D enm ark. The fam ous ‘princely’ burial

sites of Helmsdorf and Leubingen belong to the classic phase of the Únetice

culture, equivalent to th e earlier part of Br A2, and w ere assigned to th e m id-

dle of the second millennium BC, in a ccordance w ith the standard view tha tBr A2 an d its congeners in t he C arpath ian Basin w ere to be placed parallel

w ith th e Shaft G raves of Mycenae (c. 1650–1450 BC on t he tradition al chronol-

ogy). D endro dat es on th e grave constructions of t hese tw o graves in fact gave

th e dates 1942 ± 10 BC (Leubingen) and 1840 ± 10 BC (H elm sdorf).27 Even

allow ing for a period of tim e represent ed by t he out erm ost (absent ) rings of

the timbers involved, the gap between the two sets of dates is at least two

centuries, probably three, and cannot be bridged by special pleading alone. A

radical revision of traditional chronologies became necessary.

Less dramatic in its effects, but equally important as a rather precise indi-cat or of deposition da te, is th e series of dendro dat es obtained on D anish cof-

fi n graves. Those tha t w ere datable belong to Period II.28 The latest rings on

th ese coffi ns all fall in th e period 1425–1350 BC , and w ith an allow ance of

20 additional years for the absent sapwood they span the period 1396–1330

BC. In this case, the dates are in accord with the expectations of traditional

chronology – one implication of which is that the Early and Middle Bronze

Ages must have lasted considerably longer than previously thought.

D endro dates have also had a m arked effect in t he dating of th e Urn fi eldperiod, int roducing a general tendency to h eighten t he start and fi nish dat es

of each period.29 The problems of relating settlement materials to grave and

hoa rd fi nds reappear here, and t he discrepancies bet w een t he dendro-dat ed

sequence and th e ‘historical’ chronology laid dow n by Müller-Karpe have not

yet been resolved.

Table 1.1 illustrates current best estim at es for absolute ages in each area,

on the basis of radiocarbon dates.30


27 Becker, Jäger et al . 1989; Becker, Krause and Kromer 1989.28 Randsborg 1991.29 Sperber 1987.30 These are derived from a variety of recent sources, but above all from the proceedings of a

conference held i n Verona i n 1995 (Ran dsborg 1996), and select ed oth er w orks e.g. C hrono logie1986; Skeates and Whitehouse 1994; Needham et al . 1997; Sperber 1987.



Table 1.1. Radi ocarbon chr onol ogy for Bronze Age Europe

Britain Start End

Beakers 2450 1700

Early C opper (M A I–II) 2400 2150M igdale (M A III) 2200 1950Food Vessels, C ollared U rns (M A IV–V) 2100 1500Acton P ark, Taunton 1770–1350 1380–1210Penard 1380–1210 1220–1080Wilburt on 1220–1080 1100–960Blackm oor 1100–960 1000–860Ew art Park 1000–860 880–750Llyn Faw r 880–750

FranceEarly Bronze Age 2300/2200 1600/1500M iddle Bronze Age ?1800/1700 1500/1400Bronze fi nal I–II 1400 1200Bronze fi nal III 1300 800/700

North and central ItalyBeakers 2550 1800Polada 2400 1400Apennine 1690 660Late Bronze Age 1500 1140

Prot ovilla nov an 1430 660SpainArgaric Bronze Age, m ot illas 2300/2250 1600/1500M iddle–Late Bronze Age 1600/1500 1300Bronce Final I 1250 1100Bronce Final II 1100 940Bronce Final III 940 750Iron Age (H ierro) 800

Central Europe

Bell Beaker/C orded Ware 2000Singen (Br A1) 2200 2000/1950Bodm an /Scha chen , Z ürich-M oza rtst rasse 2000/1950 1600/1500

(Br A2)Tum ulus Bronze Age (Br B–C ) 1500 1300Br D 1400 1200H a A1–A2 1250 1050H a B1 1100 1000H a B2/3 1050 750H a C 750

ScandinaviaLate N eolit hic II 1920 1730Period I 1730 1510Period II 1500 1250Period III 1440 1040Period V 850 760




Climate and environment

A detailed discussion of the natural environment in Bronze Age Europe is

beyond the scope of this book. The availability of relevant source materials

is extremely variable, though pollen sequences have been studied in almostall areas and other types of proxy data are also available.31

The Bronz e Age falls w it hin t he clim at ic period called the Sub-boreal, w hich

is sandw iched betw een t he Atlant ic and Sub-at lant ic periods. In general, this

was a warm and dry period, in contrast to the warm wet Atlant ic and the

cool wet Sub-atlantic. But such a bland general statement conceals a mass of

small variations, both spatial and temporal. Fine-resolution pollen sampling

shows that within the broader picture obtained by tradit ional pollen analy-

sis there is a sim ilar deta iled set of fl uctua tions h appening in th e pollen

record, w hich as a proxy clim at e indicat or refl ects changes in air tem pera-ture, precipitat ion and so on. Lake-level fl uctua tions an d th e movem ent of

the tree-line in the Alps similarly indicate a constantly changing pattern. In

peat bogs there are indications that peat growth was periodically halted, and

soil profi les in som e cent ral European sites suggest t hat m arkedly dry con -

ditions prevailed at som e points in th e U rnfi eld period. At ot her tim es, th ese

w ere replaced by cat astrophically w et condition s, w hich w ere responsible for

the abandonm ent of ma ny lakeside si tes that lay close to norm al lake w ater

level. Indeed, it h as been suggested t hat th e pat tern of clim at e change can befollowed through the study of lakeside sett lement: at the t imes when i t is

absent, water levels were high; when present, water levels were relatively

low. There are problems w ith th is approach as t he im portan ce of cultural fac-

tors is alm ost t otal ly ignored, but i t is certainly puzzling that m any si tes w ere

com pletely aban doned after m ajor fl ooding episodes an d never, or only cen-

tu ries lat er, reoccupied.

On British moors and heaths, there is extensive evidence for the deterio-

ration of soils during the course of the Bronze Age.32 The examination of

buried soils beneath Early Bronze Age barrows has sometimes shown thatmixed oak forest lay not far away, while the presence of cereal pollen is a

clear sign that parts of the landscape were cleared and cultivated. But exam-

ina tio n of som e ‘cairnfi elds’ (below, p. 158) ha s found th at soils w ere already

podsolised and the clearance of stone that they represent has even been seen

as a strategy for maintaining yields in the face of catastrophic environmen-

tal deterioration.

One of the problems in determining the nature and importance of envi-

ronm ental conditions in th e Bronze Age is that both hum an an d natural agen-cies w ere at w ork. Specifi cally, clearance of forests t hat m ay never have been

Cl im ate and envi ronm ent 19

31 Coles and Harding (1979) include brief discussion of environmental conditions in each areaof Europe. The general picture may be obtained from works such as Tinsley in Simmons andTooley 1981, Harding 1983a, and other syntheses.

32 Dimbleby 1962.



touched since the global warming after the Ice Age must have proceeded

apace. Molluscan evidence in southern England has sometimes shown an

extensively cleared landscape in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (for

instance at Stonehenge); pollen diagrams on moorlands suggest a recurring

at ta ck on t he w oodlands, probably in t he form of num erous sma ll-scale clear-ances rather than the extensive clearance of large tracts. 33 Similar patterns

can be seen in the lowland areas of much of the rest of Europe.

Much has been written in recent years about the possible impact of major

nat ural catast rophes and other events, nota bly volcanoes,34 and, m ost recently,

comet or asteroid impacts. The only active volcanoes in Europe are in Iceland

and the central and eastern Mediterranean (Vesuvius, Etna, the Aeolian

Islands an d Thera), but Thera at least is know n t o ha ve undergone a m assive

eruption in the Bronze Age. Such eruptions eject huge clouds of debris intoth e atm osphere, and t he fi ner particles can linger at h igh alt itudes for mont hs

or years, w here th ey m ay block solar radiation. As a consequence, vegetat ion

on the earth’s surface can be severely affected. Short-lived plants will leave

no permanent trace in the fossil record, but trees can show stunted growth

in their annual rings. This phenomenon is visible in Irish bog oaks in the

1620s BC.35 There are other grounds for believing that this pattern is to be

associated with the eruption of Thera (though the date of the eruption has

been t he subject of cont roversy an d is still n ot defi nit ively sett led). Wheth er

or not t his w as t he case, grow ing trees suffered a severe setback at th at date,w hich m ust refl ect the sudden onset of m arkedly colder conditions w orld-

wide. If the impact on trees was so strong, i t would also have had dramatic

effects on grow ing crops and grassland. The effects on hum an life m ust have

been correspondingly signifi cant ; various m arked cha nges in t he archaeolog-

ical record have been attributed to the aftermath of such events.

But for most of the time life was not rocked by calamities on such a grand

scale. C limat ic and environm ental conditions fl uctuat ed, so that the observer

on t he ground w ill have suffered bad years for crop production along w ith th egood ones, as has always been the case. The extent to which human groups

buffered themselves against such effects is a cultural matter; there is some

evidence that in t he Late Bronze Age, for instan ce, specifi c strat egies w ere

adopted for t his precise purpose (p. 145). G iven t he sm all sca le of m ost Bronze

Age comm unit ies, how ever, responses to t he nat ural environm ent w ere prob-

ably palliative rather than prophylactic.


33 e.g. Balaam et al . 1982.34 Bai lli e 1989; 1995; Burgess 1989; G ross-Klee and M ai se 1997.35 Baillie 1995, 75ff.



Conclusion

In an age where relativist approaches are becoming the norm and there is a

tendency to deny the relevance of constructs such as ‘the Bronze Age’, i t

might be thought a risky enterprise to devote a book to the topic. Yet, as Ihope to show , th e geographical area know n t oday as Europe in t he tim e-span

2500–800 BC was host to a mass of technical and conceptual developments

that make it legitimate to describe and analyse it , and appropriate to treat it

as an enti ty with i ts own character and trajectory that was dif ferent from

those of other continents.

In contrast to most previous approaches to the period, however, this book

does not deal much with artefact typology or chronological analysis, and it

attempts to avoid straight description of sites and artefacts. An inclusive

approach is adopted to Bronze Age stu dies, th ough it w ill becom e evidentthat I believe some are more useful than others. The ‘Year of the Bronze Age’

w as a celebrat ion of ‘Europe’s fi rst G olden Age’, concentrat ing on t he spec-

tacular end of the range of monuments and artefacts that emanate from the

period. This book is in t ended no less as a celebrat ion of t he period, w hich

represents a crucially formative phase in the human past, constituting the

change from Neolithic farming villages, in many ways little altered since the

arrival of t he fi rst farm ers, to Iron Age proto-sta tes on t he verge of literacy

and written history. The people who created the archaeological record stud-ied here were in all l ikelihood biologically the same throughout, and enter

history with particular ethnic labels at tached to them. One of the tasks of

this book is to chart the ways in which the complexity that is visible then

was achieved, what were i ts roots, and what i ts consti tuents.

Conclusion 21

european societies bronze age

Documents