CAMBRIDGE WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY

EUROPEAN SOCIETIES
IN THE BRONZE AGE
A. F. HARDI N G
Department of Archaeology
University of Durham
PU BLI SH ED BY TH E PRESS SYN DI C ATE OF TH E U N I VERSI TY OF C A MBRI DG E
The Pi tt Bui l di ng, Trumpi ngton Street, Cambri dge, Uni ted Ki ngdom
C A MBRI DG E U N I VERSI TY PRESS
The Edi nburgh Bui l di ng, Cambri dge CB2 2RU, UK
http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk
40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA
http://www.cup.org
10 Stamford Road, Oakl ei gh, Mel bourne 3166, Austral i a
Cambri dge Uni versi ty Press 2000
Thi s book i s i n copyri ght. Subject to statutory excepti on and to the provi si ons
of rel evant col l ecti ve l i censi ng agreements, no reproducti on of any part may
take pl ace wi thout the wri tten permi ssi on of Cambri dge Uni versi ty Press.
Fi rst publ i shed 2000
Pri nted i n the Uni ted Ki ngdom at the Uni versi ty Press, Cambri dge
Typeset i n Trump Medi eval 10/13 [WV]
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress cataloguing in publication data
Hardi ng, A. F.
European soci eti es i n the Bronze Age / A. F. Hardi ng.
p. cm. (Cambri dge worl d archaeol ogy)
Incl udes bi bl i ographi cal references and i ndex.
ISBN 0 521 36477 9 (hc.)
1. Bronze AgeEurope. 2. EuropeAnti qui ti es. I. Ti tl e.
II. Seri es.
GN778.2.A1H38 2000
936dc21 9928849 CIP
ISBN 0 521 36477 9 hardback
ISBN 0 521 36729 8 paperback
CONTENTS
List of gures vi i i
List of tables xi i i
Preface xv
1 Introducti on 1
2 The Bronze Age house and vi l l age 22
3 Buri al 73
4 The domesti c economy 124
5 Transport and contact 164
6 Metal s 197
7 Other crafts 242
8 Warfare 271
9 Rel i gi on and ri tual 308
10 Hoards and hoardi ng 352
11 Peopl e 369
12 Soci al organi sati on 386
13 The Bronze Age worl d: questi ons of scal e and i nteracti on 414
14 Epi l ogue 431
References 436
I ndex 531
FIGURES
1.1 Pol i ti cal and physi cal di vi si ons of Europe 2
1.2 Cul tural sequence, west-central and northern Europe 12
1.3 Cul tural sequence, east-central and eastern Europe 13
1.4 Cul tural sequence, western Europe 15
1.5 Cul tural sequence, Ital y, Si ci l y and Sardi ni a 16
2.1 Depi cti ons of Bronze Age bui l di ngs 25
2.2 Apal l e, central Sweden: outl i ne house pl ans 29
2.3 Round hut pl ans from southern Engl and 31
2.4 Pl ans of settl ements i n northern Engl and 33
2.5 Pl an of Hut 3 at Cl onnl ough, Co. Offal y, Irel and 35
2.6 Pl an of Earl y Bronze Age houses at La Mucul ufa, Si ci l y 37
2.7 Pl an and reconstructi on of houses of Hori zon B at
the Padnal near Savogni n, Engadi n, Swi tzerl and 39
2.8 Zri ch-Mozartstrasse, pl ans of Earl y Bronze Age vi l l ages 41
2.9 House pl ans on tel l si tes 43
2.10 House pl ans i n Scandi navi a and north Germany 46
2.11 Zedau, Ostmark: si mpl i ed pl an of the Late Bronze Age
settl ement 49
2.12 Lov ci cky (Moravi a): general pl an of the Late Bronze Age
settl ement 51
2.13 Bi skupi n, pl an of house 3, earl i er phase 53
2.14 Settl ement pl ans i n wetl and areas 59
2.15 General excavati on pl an of the settl ement at Peal osa,
southern Spai n 62
2.16 Ni tri ansky Hrdok, reconstructed pl an of the Earl y
Bronze Age forti ed settl ement 63
2.17 Cabezo de Monl en (Zaragoza): pl an of the Late Bronze
Age hi l l top si te 65
2.18 St-Oedenrode (North Brabant): general pl an of house
cl uster 3 68
3.1 Buri al tradi ti ons i n Earl y Bronze Age Europe 78
3.2 Pl an of the Earl y Bronze Age i nhumati on cemetery at
V y capy-Opatovce, Sl ovaki a 79
3.3 Pl an of the i nhumati on cemetery at Si ngen (Konstanz) 81
3.4 Reconstructi ons of mortuary houses i n barrows 83
3.5 Barrows wi th post ri ngs of vari ous types 88
3.6 Pl an of the barrow cemetery at Oakl ey Down, Dorset 90
3.7 Buri al ci sts i n Breton Fi rst Seri es barrows 94
3.8 Tumul i i n Al bani a and Yugosl avi a 102
3.9 Barrow wi th cofn buri al , Beckdorf, Kr. Stade, Lower
Saxony 104
3.10 Cemeteri es wi th cofn graves 107
3.11 Shi p setti ngs from Germany and Sweden 110
3.12 Pl an of the Urnel d cemetery at Vol l marshausen 115
3.13 Gemei nl ebarn F, hypotheti cal reconstructi on of three
contemporary buryi ng communi ti es 116
3.14 Tel gte, Kr. Warendorf, Westphal i a, grave forms 119
3.15 Novaya Kvasni kova, Staropol tavki no, Vol gograd, kurgan 4,
buri al 5: buri al of a craftsman 121
4.1 Ards on Bronze Age si tes 127
4.2 Wooden yokes 129
4.3 Si ckl e types i n Bronze Age Europe 131
4.4 Twi sk, North Hol l and, Mi ddl e Bronze Age ci rcul ar
structure i nterpreted as a corn-stack 133
4.5 Ani mal speci es at si tes i n north-west Europe and
Germany 135
4.6 Ani mal speci es at si tes i n Hungary and Romani a and
Serbi a 137
4.7 Ani mal speci es at si tes i n Ital y and Sardi ni a and Spai n
and the Bal eari cs 139
4.8 Cul ti vated pl ants on central European Bronze Age si tes 147
4.9 Cul ti vated pl ants on Medi terranean Bronze Age si tes 148
4.10 Fence l i nes under barrows 152
4.11 Fi el d systems on the Marl borough Downs, Wi l tshi re 154
4.12 Fi el d system on Hol ne Moor, Dartmoor 156
4.13 Ani mal hoofpri nts on Bronze Age si tes 157
4.14 Cai rnel ds and el d systems i n the Mi dl ands and north
of Engl and 160
4.15 Prehi stori c el ds at Vi narve, Rone pari sh, Gotl and 162
5.1 Wheel s from Bronze Age vehi cl es 166
5.2 Cul t vehi cl e from Strettweg, Austri a 168
5.3 Horse harness: cheek-pi eces i n bone and antl er 171
5.4 Bronze Age wooden trackways 174
5.5 The l i nes of Bronze Age trackways i n the Somerset
Level s 175
5.6 Sprockhoffs attempt at representi ng Late Bronze Age
trade routes i n northern Germany and Pol and 176
List of gures i x
5.7 Bronze Age boats 178
5.8 Paddl es from Bronze Age si tes 179
5.9 Bronze Age wreck si tes around European shores 182
5.10 Boats from a rock-art panel at Vi tl ycke, Bohusl n,
western Sweden 183
5.11 Rock-art si tes i n southern Uppl and i n rel ati on to a
presumed Bronze Age shorel i ne 186
5.12 Di stri buti on of amber beads of the Ti ryns and Al l umi ere
types 191
5.13 Di stri buti on of sel ected razor types i n western Europe 192
5.14 Di stri buti on of bronze vessel types 194
6.1 Major sources of copper i n Europe 198
6.2 Copper ore sources i n the Swi ss Al ps (Fahlerz and
sul phi de ores) 200
6.3 The effect on hardness after col d worki ng of addi ng 8%
ti n to copper; phase di agram of a copperti n al l oy 203
6.4 Metal types i n the Devel oped Earl y Bronze Age of the
Bri ti sh Isl es 205
6.5 Metal types i n the Wi l burton phase 206
6.6 Extracti on area at

Spani a Dol i na-Pi esky, central Sl ovaki a 209

6.7 Extracti on shafts (Pingen) and adjacent processi ng areas
at the Mi tterberg 212
6.8 Mi ni ng tool s from copper mi nes, and tongs, hammers
and anvi l s from metal worki ng si tes 214
6.9 Tuyres from Bronze Age metal worki ng si tes 221
7.1 Wooden contai ners 245
7.2 Constructi on techni ques on wooden trackways and
pi l e si tes 246
7.3 Pustopol je tumul us 16, reconstructi on of the wooden
grave chamber 248
7.4 Bri quetage from Bronze Age si tes 250
7.5 Loom i nstal l ati ons and depi cti ons 257
7.6 Loom-wei ghts, spi ndl e-whorl s and spool s 259
7.7 Texti l e from Ledro 261
7.8 Spi n and weave types known from Bronze Age Europe 262
7.9 The occurrence of spi n and weave types i n Bronze Age
Europe 265
7.10 Gl ass and fai ence beads 267
8.1 Ri tual ghti ng wi th battl e-axes: part of a rock-art panel at
Fossum, Bohusl n 272
8.2 Bronze swords: the progressi on of types 276
8.3 Bronze spears: the progressi on of types 282
8.4 Shi el ds and hel met on Iberi an grave stel ae 286
x l i st o f f i g u r es
8.5 Sheet-bronze cui rass from Marmesses 288
8.6 The two bronze horned hel mets from Vi ks, Zeal and 290
8.7 Di stri buti on of Bronze Age hi l l top si tes i n southern
Wrttemberg 293
8.8 Di stri buti on of settl ements and forti ed hi l l -si tes i n the
Esztergom regi on 294
8.9 Hi l l fort pl ans 297
8.10 Two vi ews of the Mi ddl e Bronze Age hi l l fort at
Monkodonja, Istri a, Croati a 301
8.11 A forti ed tower on Sardi ni a: the Nuraghe Asoru 302
8.12 Forts on the Aran Isl es 304
8.13 Dn Aonghasa, pl an showi ng excavated area wi th house
outl i nes 305
9.1 Bronze Age cul t i nstal l ati ons 310
9.2 Pi ts and shafts 314
9.3 Wel l s on Bronze Age si tes 316
9.4 Caves wi th Bronze Age occupati on 319
9.5 Bronze Age wooden gures 323
9.6 Human and ani mal cl ay guri nes 325
9.7 The percentage representati on of di fferent categori es
of object from moorl and and from the Rhi ne near
Mai nz 327
9.8 Bronze horns from Drumbest, Co. Antri m 328
9.9 The average numbers of nds per year i n di fferent parts
of the Mai n and Rhi ne 330
9.10 Pot deposi ts on Bronze Age si tes 332
9.11 The mai n rock-art provi nces of Bronze Age Europe 337
9.12 The frequency of rock-art moti fs i n two parts of
Scandi navi a 340
9.13 Di stri buti on of petrogl yph cl usters i n Stjrdal ,
Nord-Trndel ag 347
9.14 Gol d cones (hats) 349
10.1 Earl y Bronze Age hoard from Di eskau, Saal krei s 353
10.2 The composi ti on of the hoard from Ui oara de Sus,
Romani a 357
10.3 The di fferent representati on of worn and unworn objects
i n di fferent regi ons of Denmark i n Peri ods II and III 359
10.4 Marchsi eux (Manche): ndspots of axe hoards 366
11.1 Sardi ni an bronze guri nes 370
11.2 Dress i n Bronze Age Denmark, mal e and femal e 371
11.3 Fi guri nes and ornaments i n the Carpathi an Basi n 373
11.4 Reconstructi ons of femal e ornament sets from graves
of the Tumul us cul ture 375
List of gures xi
11.5 Grave 2/1983 at Grundfel d, Bavari a: skul l and ornaments,
as found and reconstructi on 377
11.6 Mortal i ty curves for vari ous Earl y Bronze Age
popul ati ons 378
11.7 Mortal i ty curves for three Late Bronze Age Pol i sh
popul ati ons 379
12.1 Iwanowi ce, Babi a Gra cemetery: weal th di stri buti on
across al l graves, and weal th by age 397
12.2 Mokri n, numbers of metal ornament types i n mal e and
femal e graves, and weal th markers at Mokri n and Szreg 399
12.3 Przeczyce, Lower Si l esi a, numbers of pots by age/sex
category (i nhumati ons, and cremati ons) 403
12.4 Massi ve mal e gure hol di ng a spear, from a rock-art
panel at Li tsl eby, Bohusl n 411
13.1 Al ternati ve model s of the Bronze Age worl d 415
13.2 Si tes and si te catchments i n the Late Bronze Age on
Lakes Neuchtel , Bi enne and Morat 424
13.3 Vi l l age and terri tory at Fosi e IV, Scani a 425
13.4 Terri tori al patterni ng i n the barrow di stri buti ons of
Scani a 425
13.5 Schemati c reconstructi on of settl ement nucl ei i n
north-eastern West Fri esl and, based on the di stri buti on
of survi vi ng barrows 427
13.6 Interpretati ve map of Bronze Age settl ement areas i n
north-east Scani a, based on the di stri buti on of graves,
rock-art si tes and stone setti ngs 428
xi i l i st o f f i g u r es
TABLES
1.1 Radi ocarbon chronol ogy for Bronze Age Europe 18
3.1 Mai n Bronze Age buri al tradi ti ons by area 77
3.2 Grave-goods at T e seti ce-Vi nohrady 84
3.3 Barrows i n East Angl i a 86
3.4 Cofns i n Nordi c barrows 106
3.5 Buri al ri te by sex at Pi tten 112
8.1 Numbers of metal and organi c-hi l ted swords i n vari ous
countri es of Europe 280
9.1 Speci al el ements i n art provi nces of the Bri ti sh Isl es 341
10.1 Bronze hoards by peri od i n Croati a, Hungary and
Romani a 356
12.1 Buri al di fferenti ati on by buri al type 395
c h a pt er 1
INTRODUCTION
Thi s book i s concerned wi th the hi story of human soci eti es and the course
of human i nteracti ons i n Europe duri ng the peri od that i s tradi ti onal l y cal l ed
the Bronze Age, that i s to say i n absol ute years the peri od of ti me between
about 2500 and 800 BC. Duri ng thi s ti me, Europe changed from a conti nent
settl ed by smal l farmi ng and pastoral groups, strongl y l i nked at the l ocal l evel
but onl y weakl y l i nked, i f at al l , at broader l evel s, to one where i t i s possi bl e
to di scern the exi stence of quasi -pol i ti cal groupi ngs on a rel ati vel y l arge scal e;
from a soci ety where i ndi vi dual s were powerful but di d l i ttl e to express that
power i n thei r materi al remai ns to one where the expressi on of status and
power was extremel y i mportant; and from a soci ety where the use of metal
was rather rare and i ts ci rcul ati on hi ghl y restri cted to one where metal s were
a commonpl ace and vast quanti ti es were produced.
The progress of these aspects of l i fe and death was not, however, even across
ti me or space. Nor were the processes outl i ned uni form i n thei r mani festa-
ti on. Europe i s a l arge and geographi cal l y compl ex area (g. 1.1), and the vari -
ety of i ts l andscapes i nevi tabl y nds reecti ons i n the patterns of acti vi ty of
i ts i nhabi tants. It has al so tradi ti onal l y been seen as a mel ti ng-pot for the
creati on of peopl es, that i s to say ethni c i denti ti es. Al though perspecti ves
on both these aspects have shi fted i n recent years, i t i s undeni abl e that peo-
pl e reacted di fferentl y i n di fferent pl aces and at di fferent ti mes to sti mul i that
from todays perspecti ve l ook to have been si mi l ar or i denti cal . In other words,
one can i denti fy groups of peopl e, that i s to say common groupi ngs of ma-
teri al cul ture remai ns, whom i t i s conveni ent to l ump together, nami ng them
groups or cul tures. It i s thi s di versi ty of human reacti ons that i s expl ored
i n thi s book.
Si nce peopl e were di fferent and reacted di fferentl y, the i nevi tabl e tempta-
ti on i s to wri te a book that merel y l i sts or descri bes those reacti ons, i n the
form of materi al mani festati ons. It i s i n truth hard to escape thi s tendency
al together, si nce one i s forced to rel ay some of the detai l s of the more si g-
ni cant nds and si tes that consti tute the remai ns of any peri od of the
prehi stori c past, and the reader wi l l nd pl enty of such descri pti ons i n thi s
work. These are, however, accompani ed by an attempt to vi ew the nds i n
a wi der perspecti ve, to arri ve at some understandi ng of a common approach
to parti cul ar aspects of l i fe or death. The advantage of thi s approach i s the
possi bi l i ty i t offers of taki ng a wi de vi ew of probl ems common to everyone
at parti cul ar peri ods of the Bronze Age. The di sadvantage, and someti mes i t
i s a cruci al one, i s that any attempt at di scerni ng a common pattern becomes
an i mposi ti on on the data, because i t i s cl ear there was no common pattern
thi ngs real l y were di fferent i n di fferent parts of Europe.
An appreci ati on of thi s di versi ty i s vi tal , parti cul arl y when one i s concerned
wi th mental processes that l ed to superstructural devel opments i n the el d
of i deol ogy and bel i efs. Wi th purel y technol ogi cal matters one i s on safer
ground, si nce there were onl y a l i mi ted number of ways of sol vi ng parti cu-
l ar probl ems, such as extracti ng and smel ti ng copper, worki ng ti mber, or
bui l di ng houses. Even here, though, there are aspects whi ch can be regarded
as havi ng had an i deol ogi cal component, for exampl e the form of houses, or
atti tudes to wood or stone that were more than merel y uti l i tari an. Thi s i nter-
pl ay between dai l y needs and expressi ons of the psyche nds i ts commonest
expressi on i n the treatment of the dead: the dead must be di sposed of, but
the way i t i s done can take on an enormous vari ety of forms, not merel y i n
terms of the mechani cs of di sposal , but as regards the funeral servi ce i tsel f.
2 i n t r o d u c t i o n
Fig. 1.1. Pol i ti cal and physi cal di vi si ons of Europe.
One can no more suppose that the l ast ri tes as practi sed i n Irel and were the
same as those i n Romani a than suppose that the Bronze Age Iri sh were eth-
ni cal l y the same as the Bronze Age Romani ans.
Neverthel ess, the attempt at di scerni ng common patterns has been thought
worthwhi l e i n enough cases to justi fy the wri ti ng of a book wi th thi s broad
geographi cal scope. The al ternati ve, that of wri ti ng many smal l er books about
the Bronze Age of parti cul ar regi ons (and at what scal e? that of the county?
the state? the geographi cal l y dened regi on?), has often been done, and to thi s
author at l east has l i ttl e appeal , tendi ng as i t does to create di vi si ons where
there are none. Thus general books on the Bronze Age i n Hungary,
1
or
Sl ovaki a,
2
or eastern Austri a
3
or the Bri ti sh Isl es,
4
serve a useful l ocal pur-
pose but do l i ttl e to further the understandi ng of the peri od on a wi der l evel .
5
The themes presented here therefore expl ore the extent to whi ch general
trends may be di scerned, whi l e endeavouri ng to avoi d i mposi ng such trends
on the data. Al though by todays standards the Bronze Age was a l ong peri od
(around 1700 years i n most of barbari an Europe, equi val ent to al l the ti me
that has el apsed si nce the adopti on of Chri sti ani ty under Constanti ne), by
compari son wi th anythi ng whi ch had gone before i t was a ti me of rapi d devel -
opment and change, parti cul arl y so i n the l ater stages. Furthermore, i t was a
ti me when contact between di fferent parts of the European conti nent became
common, so that major i nnovati ons i n one area were adopted al most si mul -
taneousl y i n others; thi s i s parti cul arl y true of technol ogi cal change, but coul d
appl y as wel l to other, more psychol ogi cal devel opments such as buri al
modes. Thi s means that i t coul d be perfectl y reasonabl e for common trends
to have devel oped across much of the conti nent, and for archaeol ogi sts to
attempt to spot them. Si nce the object of study i s human bei ngs and thei r
responses, however, i t woul d be unreal i sti c to expect such si mi l ari ti es to go
beyond the most superci al of l evel s.
As wel l as deal i ng i n the general , therefore, i t wi l l be necessary to l ook at
the parti cul ar. In thi s, the study of l ocal context i s especi al l y i mportant. It
has become a commonpl ace that si tes and nds must be contextual i sed i n
order for any understandi ng of thei r meani ng and form to be devel oped. The
ai m i s l audabl e, but the resul ts presented for publ i c di gesti on so far, though
bol d and i magi nati ve, have seemed l ess than i mpressi ve when i t comes to
convi nci ng the scepti cal that the parti cul ar i nterpretati on presented has to
be the correct one.
I ntroduction 3
1
Kovcs 1977.
2
Furmnek et al. 1991.
3
Neugebauer 1994.
4
Burgess 1974; 1980a.
5
One of the cri ti ci sms l evel l ed at The Bronze Age in Europe was that the authors di d not have
an adequate knowl edge of the peri od i n gi ven countri es, so that mul ti -author vol umes usi ng
l ocal speci al i sts were sai d to be the way forward e.g. V. Trbuhovi c, Starinar 30, 1979, 1378.
A word i s necessary about the use of the terms Europe and Bronze Age
i n thi s book. Europe i s i ntended purel y as a geographi cal descri pti on, mean-
i ng that part of the gl obe that l i es between Connemara and the Ural s, Mal ta
and the North Cape; for purel y practi cal reasons, I do not i ncl ude Greece and
the Aegean area i n the present work except i n order to i ntroduce the occa-
si onal compari son.
6
I do not bel i eve that any other si gni cance can or shoul d
be assi gned to the term i n a rather remote peri od of the past, l east of al l that
there was any speci al Europeanness about Bronze Age Europe. By the same
token, the Bronze Age merel y represents that chunk of ti me, roughl y 2500
to 800 BC, that i s tradi ti onal l y cal l ed the Bronze Age. On the other hand, I
bel i eve that the phenomena encountered i n thi s area and peri od are i ntri nsi -
cal l y i nteresti ng and that at certai n ti mes i t i s possi bl e to i l l ustrate the exi s-
tence of trends and processes that were common to l arge parts of the terri tory,
and were di fferent from those occurri ng el sewhere on the gl obe. In thi s sense,
I i ntend to show that Bronze Age Europe i s a worthwhi l e subject of study.
The Bronze Age i s a much-studi ed peri od, and si nce the l ast century many
authors have trodden the ground that underpi ns the present work. On the
other hand, there have been astoni shi ngl y few books wri tten that deal wi th
the peri od as a whol e and wi th Europe at l arge. Excepti ons from the ol der l i t-
erature are the works on chronol ogy by Montel i us and berg,
7
whi l e Chi l de
wrote a very general bri ef account, drawi ng i n the East Medi terranean as wel l
as barbari an Europe.
8
The huge vol ume by Gi mbutas, deal i ng wi th central
and eastern Europe, represented a mi l estone i n Bronze Age studi es, bri ngi ng
a vast quanti ty of l i ttl e-known and i naccessi bl e data before a wi der publ i c,
and presenti ng a dari ng i f controversi al pi cture of the peri od i n ethnogeneti c
terms.
9
Some of these matters were pi cked up by Col es and Hardi ng i n an
attempt at treati ng the whol e peri od over the whol e conti nent; a more recent
survey based pri mari l y on radi ocarbon dati ng i s that by Gonzl ez Marcn,
Lul l and Ri sch.
10
A bri ef but extremel y useful summary i s provi ded by Ml l er-
Karpe, who al so gi ves a wi de range of i l l ustrati ve materi al from al l parts of
Europe,
11
whi l e a short general account was provi ded by Bergmann.
12
The probl ems faced by the general i st attempti ng to wri te a synthesi s of a
l ong peri od over a wi de geographi cal area are compounded by pol i ti cal and
l i ngui sti c di fcul ti es, whi ch create arti ci al di vi si ons i n the cul tural story
4 i n t r o d u c t i o n
6
No di srespect i s thereby i ntended to Greece and i ts archaeol ogy, whi ch are of course ful l y
European i n a geographi cal sense; but the cul tural mani festati ons are so di fferent, and so
extensi ve, that onl y a ful l -l ength book (of whi ch many al ready exi st) coul d do justi ce to the
si tuati on.
7
berg 19305.
8
Chi l de 1930.
9
Gi mbutas 1965.
10
Col es and Hardi ng 1979; Gonzl ez Marcn, Lul l and Ri sch 1992.
11
Ml l er-Karpe 1974; 1981.
12
Bergmann 1987.
and render much l i terature i naccessi bl e to many peopl e, especi al l y to
Angl ophones. Wi th the changes that have occurred i n Europe si nce 1989,
however, much more i s bei ng wri tten i n the major worl d l anguages, espe-
ci al l y Engl i sh. Several countri es have made one or more of thei r vehi cl es of
archaeol ogi cal publ i cati on i nto forei gn-l anguage journal s (e.g. Archaeologia
Polona, Pamtky Archeologick); i n others thi s was the case al ready (e.g. Acta
Archaeologica (Budapest)). Whi l e there are some areas where thi s trend i s not
yet apparent (Russi a i s a notabl e exampl e), there i s no doubt that i t i s now
much easi er to acqui re and read the l i terature than i t used to be. Of course
Engl i sh speakers are i n a parti cul arl y pri vi l eged posi ti on i n thi s respect.
Unfortunatel y, the trend menti oned wi l l do nothi ng to encourage them to
wi den thei r l i ngui sti c hori zons, rei nforci ng many i n thei r present vi ew that
what i s not wri tten i n Engl i sh i s not worth readi ng. Thi s form of cul tural
i mperi al i sm and i sol ati oni sm i s parti cul arl y sad at a ti me when many barri ers
i n Europe are i n other respects bei ng broken down.
Whi l e the l i terature i s more accessi bl e than i t was, thi s fact does bri ng
other probl ems i n i ts wake. Duri ng the peri od over whi ch thi s book was wri t-
ten, a gl ut of publ i cati on on Bronze Age archaeol ogy has occurred, sti mul ated
among other thi ngs by the desi gnati on of 1994 as the Year of the Bronze Age
by the Counci l of Europe, part of a campai gn to rai se awareness of Bronze
Age si tes and monuments, for both touri sti c and conservati on reasons.
Conferences and exhi bi ti ons have been hel d i n more than a dozen countri es,
and books or exhi bi ti on catal ogues have been produced to accompany them,
often l avi sh i n scal e. It i s sti l l too earl y to assess the l onger-term benets of
thi s awareness-rai si ng acti on, but the publ i cati on of many hi therto unknown
si tes and artefacts has certai nl y been of benet to the schol arl y worl d, even
though thi s frequentl y i nvol ves si fti ng through great masses of semi -popul ar
wri ti ng to extract a smal l number of pearl s.
Thi s cannot be the onl y reason, however. The desi gnati on of the Year of
the Bronze Age was real l y a symptom, not a cause. Schol arl y i nterest i n the
peri od had been on the i ncrease for years pri or to 1994; there has been a vast
outpouri ng of publ i cati on on Bronze Age matters i n the l ast twenty years. It
i s not al together easy to expl ai n the reasons for thi s. In part i t stems from
the hugel y i ncreased l evel of acti vi ty wi thi n archaeol ogy general l y. But i t
must al so reect the fact that peopl e have come to real i se that the Bronze
Age contai ns materi al for study of a ki nd and quanti ty that cannot be found
i n other prehi stori c peri ods. A compari son wi th the Neol i thi c i s i nstructi ve.
In the Neol i thi c, very l arge numbers of si tes are now known i n many parts
of Europe settl ements i n central Europe, graves i n north and west Europe,
vari ous combi nati ons of these i n other areas and duri ng the 1970s a great
deal of attenti on was focused on these cul tural mani festati ons. To the di s-
passi onate observer, however, there i s no doubt that there i s a certai n same-
ness, a l ack of vari ety, about the materi al remai ns of the Neol i thi c; thi s i s
The Bronze Age and its students 5
perhaps one of the features that were attracti ve to those of a posi ti vi st per-
suasi on i n earl i er decades. Where thi s i s not the case, the opposi te i s often
true: the remai ns are so bafi ngl y eni gmati c that i t i s hard to see how one
can make much progress wi th understandi ng them, other than through post-
processual approaches. A good exampl e of thi s woul d be the study of mega-
l i thi c tombs, where detai l ed typol ogi cal study i s a qui ck route to i nsani ty.
Thi s i s not to say that these probl ems do not al so afi ct Bronze Age studi es
i n some part. It i s rare to nd a student at l east i n the Angl o-Saxon worl d
who nds bronze i mpl ement typol ogy fasci nati ng, and stone ci rcl es are just
as resi stant to typol ogi cal study as are megal i thi c tombs. But the range and
quanti ty of materi al avai l abl e for study i s very much l arger i n the Bronze
Age, parti cul arl y as modern survey and anal yti cal techni ques have demon-
strated the ri chness of the source materi al s. Maybe too there has been a feel -
i ng that i t i s now the turn of the Bronze Age, that i t has been understudi ed
i n the past and now offers possi bi l i ti es for frui tful study. Whi chever of these
i s correct, the probl em remai ns. Anyone wanti ng to embark on seri ous study
of the Bronze Age faces an enormous task i n assi mi l ati ng the l i terature. It i s
hoped that thi s book wi l l make such a task somewhat easi er.
The Bronze Age and its students
The course of Bronze Age studi es over the l ast century, and especi al l y over
the l ast hal f century, has been determi ned by, but has al so determi ned the
work of, the schol ars who have engaged i n i t. Thi s observati on i s not, of
course, pecul i ar to the Bronze Age; i t appl i es to the study of any peri od or
any subject. The Bronze Age di ffers from precedi ng peri ods, however, i n that
i t produced very l arge quanti ti es of speci al i sed artefacts, whi ch i t has seemed
natural to study i n great detai l ; at the same ti me, i t has l acked the great
forti ed si tes and proto-urban centres that characteri se the Iron Age. Its sub-
jects of study have been condi ti oned accordi ngl y.
To some extent these preoccupati ons have been those of thei r age. Morri s
has i ndi cated how the nature of Bronze Age studi es has changed wi th suc-
cessi ve generati ons of archaeol ogi sts, at l east i n a Bri ti sh context;
13
si mi l ar
effects have been fel t i n other countri es. For many years, artefact studi es and
funerary monuments were the pri nci pal objects of study. Artefacts were l ong
ago appreci ated as the key to Bronze Age chronol ogy. In the ni neteenth cen-
tury, the work of Montel i us or of Rei necke showed the way to the devel op-
ment of a sound chronol ogi cal basi s, by means of a sophi sti cated anal ysi s of
artefact types and associ ati ons. Workers i n other areas, such as Dchel ette i n
France or John Evans i n Bri tai n, al so used artefacts for chronol ogi cal purposes,
even though thei r schemes di d not have the same permanency.
6 i n t r o d u c t i o n
13
Morri s 1992.
Funerary studi es were extremel y popul ar i n earl i er years, especi al l y i n the
l ast century but al so i n thi s. Funerary monuments, parti cul arl y tumul i or bar-
row mounds, are conspi cuous and usual l y produce nds. In many i nstances,
the foundati ons of our knowl edge of the peri od are the work of earl y barrow
excavators: F. X. Franc i n western Bohemi a or Si r Ri chard Col t Hoare and
Wi l l i am Cunni ngton i n Wessex are good exampl es. The excavati on of Bronze
Age funerary monuments was not, however, conned to the l ast century.
Many excavators have dug l arge numbers of funerary monuments i n recent
ti mes, for i nstance P. Ashbee i n Bri tai n or Zh. Andrea i n Al bani a.
14
Gi ven these preoccupati ons, i t i s not surpri si ng that other aspects of the
archaeol ogi cal record and i ts i nterpretati on were l eft out of consi derati on.
Settl ement studi es, for i nstance, made barel y any i mpact for many years, wi th
the notabl e excepti on of the Swi ss l ake si tes (i n many ways the Swi ss equi v-
al ent to Vi ctori an barrow di ggi ng i n Bri tai n). But even the recovery of vast
quanti ti es of materi al from both the west and the east Swi ss si tes di d not
l ead to any si gni cant attempt at understandi ng the si tes other than i n terms
of thei r si tuati on and bui l di ng method. In other parts of Europe, settl ement
studi es rel ati ng to the Bronze Age hardl y exi sted; even where settl ement si tes
were dug, such as the southern Engl i sh si tes excavated by General Pi tt Ri vers,
the Argari c settl ements of south-east Spai n dug by the Si ret brothers, the
Si ci l i an si tes dug by P. Orsi ,
15
or the nuraghi dug by Taramel l i , no real attempt
was made to set them i n an overal l context of a Bronze Age l i vi ng system.
Even fewer efforts were made to understand the nature of the Bronze Age
economy, or the soci ety that gave ri se to i t, except i n the most general terms.
Few works that ai med to set the Bronze Age i n an overal l context emanate
from these earl i er years. One excepti on i s Gordon Chi l des book The Bronze
Age (1930), an earl y work, but one that bui l t on the foundati ons for European
Bronze Age studi es l ai d i n The Danube in Prehistory of the precedi ng year.
In thi s work, Chi l de foreshadowed many of the debates that concern Bronze
Age schol ars today: the economi c and soci al si gni cance of metal worki ng,
the status and rol e of the smi th, the effects of metal worki ng on smal l com-
muni ti es, and the l onger-term effects on human soci ety more general l y. The
work di ffers from al l others wri tten on the Bronze Age at thi s peri od by i ts
wi l l i ngness to engage i n specul ati on about matters that some consi dered
unknowabl e, and i ts i nsi stence on a soci al and economi c rol e for technol og-
i cal matters; i n vi ew of Chi l des personal and pol i ti cal bel i efs, thi s i s perhaps
not surpri si ng, but i t was for i ts day unusual , and nds few paral l el s unti l
the very recent past.
Not surpri si ngl y, major trends i n archaeol ogy general l y have found
thei r reecti on i n Bronze Age studi es. Thus the fashi on for envi ronmental
The Bronze Age and its students 7
14
Ashbee 1960; Andrea 1985.
15
Lei ghton 1986.
exami nati on and expl anati on that was preval ent i n Bri tai n i n the 1970s under
the i nuence of E. Hi ggs spawned a seri es of arti cl es that consi dered si tes i n
thei r envi ronmental setti ng, exami ned the economi c foundati ons for thei r
exi stence, and catal ogued thei r bi ol ogi cal debri s i n exempl ary detai l . Whi l e
one coul d not pretend that the New Archaeol ogy had a bi g i nuence on
mai nstream Bronze Age studi es, there was a certai n spi n-off: the number of
quanti tati ve anal yses i ncreased markedl y, and the i nuence of new modes
of thought can be gauged from, for i nstance, the work of J. Levy or K.
Kri sti ansen. Thi s l ast author has al so been one of those responsi bl e for the
appl i cati on of Worl d Systems Theory to European Bronze Age studi es, whi l e
hi s contri buti ons to vari ous vol umes that have appl i ed model s of vari ous
ki nds to the archaeol ogi cal record have seen Marxi st, structural i st and other
approaches tri ed out on sel ected Bronze Age evi dence. The sti mul us thi s pro-
vi ded has not, however, transl ated i tsel f at l east i n the Angl o-Saxon worl d
i nto l arge numbers of students enteri ng the el d for research purposes,
though i n Germany, Spai n and Ital y Bronze Age studi es have al ways attracted
pl enty of them. Through the 1980s and 1990s, the mood has been charac-
teri sed more by uncertai nty than anythi ng el se. On the one hand, many
Bronze Age workers conti nue to adopt a posi ti vi st atti tude to thei r subjects
of study, and to bel i eve that deni te answers to speci c questi ons can be
obtai ned from the ri ch data sources at thei r di sposal , i f onl y enough anal ysi s
can be done; on the other, there i s a trend to more subjecti ve approaches to
the Bronze Age, as to other peri ods of the past, under the i nuence of the
post-modern movement. An extreme exampl e of thi s i s perhaps C. Ti l l eys
1991 book on Norwegi an rock-art,
16
but gl i mmeri ngs of the same thi ng can
be seen i n a number of arti cl es that have appeared si nce the mi d-1980s.
A ful l y post-modern approach to the Bronze Age i s yet to come. The con-
textual i sati on of the study of the Bronze Age i s a task that i s al ready under
way, though few mai nstream Bronze Age schol ars woul d consi der the task
ei ther l egi ti mate or necessary. Yet for the study of a soci ety and an economy
where exchange mechani sms, i ndustri al producti on and personal di spl ay were
key el ements, i t cl earl y i s necessary to speci fy ones personal context before
any attempt at i nterpretati on i s made. The nature of archaeol ogi cal facts i n
a Bronze Age context i s al so somethi ng to whi ch l i ttl e i f any attenti on
has been pai d; i t wi l l become apparent that for thi s author the equati on of
archaeol ogi cal facts and artefacts i s sti l l val i d, and that artefacts consti tute
the source materi al wi th whi ch the Bronze Age i s to be studi ed.
8 i n t r o d u c t i o n
16
Ti l l ey 1991.
Frameworks of study: chronology
In order to set the devel opments that are the subject of thi s book i n correct
perspecti ve, an appreci ati on of the ti me-scal e over whi ch they occurred i s
essenti al . The rel ati ve chronol ogy of most parts of the European Bronze Age
i s wel l understood, though the detai l s sti l l gi ve ri se to debate and di scussi on
i n the l i terature. On the other hand, the absol ute chronol ogy has l ong been
a matter of consi derabl e uncertai nty, stemmi ng from the fact that the avai l -
abl e sources were i ncapabl e unti l recentl y of gi vi ng a deni ti ve answer to the
questi on bei ng asked. Tradi ti onal l y, absol ute chronol ogy i n the Bronze Age
depended on the ti me-scal e establ i shed i n Egypt and Mesopotami a, to whi ch
that of the Aegean coul d be rel ated, and that of Europe i n turn to the Aegean
(the cross-dati ng method). Thi s produced resul ts that were broadl y accept-
abl e, but di d not command unani mous support.
From the 1960s, radi ocarbon dati ng has been avai l abl e to provi de an i nde-
pendent chronol ogy, but the progress of research on Bronze Age chronol ogi es
for most areas of Europe has been patchy and fal teri ng. Earl i er attempts to
use radi ocarbon dates to deri ve chronol ogi es for central Europe were often
decri ed as unrel i abl e because they enforced a rethi nk of the tradi ti onal posi -
ti on. Added to thi s were numerous probl ems of context wi th many of the
dated sampl es, for the most part i sol ated dates from poorl y strati ed or i nad-
equatel y excavated si tes. In recent years, however, the si tuati on has changed
wi th the advent of dendrochronol ogi cal l y dated sequences. These are onl y
avai l abl e i n certai n areas, notabl y the Al pi ne zone and Irel and, but si nce i t
i s usual l y possi bl e to l i nk cul tures, si tes and objects to those areas wi th den-
dro dates the resul ts are sti l l of good qual i ty. Added to thi s i s the vast i mprove-
ment i n the qual i ty of radi ocarbon dates. Laboratori es are extremel y careful
to date onl y those sampl es whose context i s good; l ong strati ed sequences
are preferred; hi gh-preci si on dati ng, usi ng the resul ts of dendrochronol ogi cal
cal i brati on of the radi ocarbon age, i s possi bl e; and the advent of accel erator
mass spectrometry (AMS) dati ng has enabl ed the carbon-14 atoms to be meas-
ured di rectl y i n sampl es, rather than by counti ng the emi ssi on of beta-
parti cl es as happens i n conventi onal dati ng. As a consequence, i t i s now
possi bl e to pl ace absol ute dates on many of the i mportant transi ti ons between
di fferent peri ods of the Bronze Age i n much of central , southern and west-
ern Europe. Thi s i s not to say that probl ems do not remai n, for i nstance i n
the East Medi terranean, where a major event such as the erupti on of Thera
i n the Late Bronze Age i s sti l l the subject of controversy.
Relative chronologies
In broad terms, i t i s usual to di vi de the Bronze Age i nto three parts, Earl y,
Mi ddl e and Late. In practi ce, the progress of knowl edge i n many areas means
Frameworks of study: chronology 9
that these di vi si ons are barel y meani ngful any more; i n Germany, for i nstance,
a seri es of phase l abel s based on representati ve nds has l argel y di spl aced the
Earl y/Mi ddl e/Late system, whi ch was i n any case hard to appl y because of
the subtl e meani ngs attached to German or French versi ons of such termi -
nol ogy (e.g. Spt-, Jung-, Jngere- Jngst- and End-Bronzezei t, or Bronze tar-
di ve and Bronze nal , al l l oosel y transl atabl e as Late Bronze Age). Si mi l ar
trends are vi si bl e i n other areas, for i nstance i n the Bri ti sh Isl es.
It i s necessary, however, to have an understandi ng of the pri nci pal chrono-
l ogi cal schemes that are i n use i n conti nental Europe, above al l those devi sed
l ong ago by Rei necke for southern Germany and by Montel i us for Scandi navi a,
because they are sti l l i n everyday use. These two schemes have been suc-
cessi vel y appl i ed to l arger and l arger areas of Europe, and conti nue to exert
a major i nuence.
Reinecke
Paul Rei necke (18721958), worki ng wi th cl osed nd groups (graves and hoards)
i n Bavari a, devel oped over a peri od of decades a system of phase l abel s for the
Bronze Age (Bronzezei t) and Hal l statt Age (Hal l stattzei t), each of them bei ng
assi gned four stages l abel l ed A, B, C and D. The Hal l stattzei t was based on
the nds from the great cemetery of Hal l statt i n central Austri a, whi ch
i ncl uded nds of i ron and were therefore attri butabl e i n broad terms to the
Iron Age. Subsequentl y i t became cl ear that phases A and B of the Hal l stattzei t
actual l y bel onged to the peri od that came to be cal l ed the Urnel d peri od
(Urnenfel derzei t) because of the characteri sti c buri al mode of deposi ti ng cre-
mated bone i n a funerary urn, and the urns i n a dened buri al pl ace or urn-
el d. Accordi ngl y the practi ce grew up of assi gni ng Bronzezei t AD and
Hal l stattzei t AB to the Bronze Age (i n i ts general sense), and Hal l stattzei t
CD to the Iron Age (the abbrevi ati ons Br or Bz and Ha are commonl y used).
In broad terms, Br A represents the Earl y Bronze Age, Br BC the Mi ddl e
Bronze Age (or Tumul us Bronze Age, after the characteri sti c buri al form of
the peri od), and Br D wi th Ha AB the Late Bronze Age or Urnel d peri od.
Al l of these phases have at vari ous ti mes been subdi vi ded, but the preci se
meani ng attached to the di vi si ons has not been constant from schol ar to
schol ar. I cannot here enter i nto the compl ex debates whi ch have attended
these exerci ses. Instead, a bri ef i ndi cati on of the more i mportant aspects of
the subdi vi si ons i s necessary.
Br A i s di vi ded i nto A1, representi ng the earl i est ful l bronze i ndustri es, and
characteri sed by i nhumati on cemeteri es such as Si ngen (Konstanz) or
Straubi ng, and hoards wi th anged axes and metal -hi l ted daggers such as
Bresi nchen (Guben),
17
and A2, to whi ch a di fferent range of speci c types such
as the pi n wi th perforated spheri cal head or the socketed spearhead are
10 i n t r o d u c t i o n
17
Breddi n 1969.
assi gned.
18
There i s al so good evi dence for the exi stence of a thi rd Earl y Bronze
Age phase, someti mes cal l ed A3, someti mes A2/B1, contai ni ng materi al that
i s cl earl y l ater than cl assi c A2 but not yet ful l y devel oped i nto the ful l
Tumul us Bronze Age materi al ; thi s phase i s represented at the recentl y exca-
vated Austri an cemetery of Franzhausen II.
Phases B and C, the Mi ddl e Bronze Age, have both been subdi vi ded at var-
i ous ti mes, but i n general terms al l that i s rel evant for present purposes i s
that they represent the sequence of the Tumul us cul tures. On the other
hand, the di vi si ons of the Urnel d peri od (Br D, Ha A and B) are extremel y
i mportant. Al l three phases have been di vi ded, but the di vi si ons establ i shed
by H. Ml l er-Karpe i n 1959 have proved most i nuenti al . Bui l di ng on the
foundati ons of earl i er schol ars, he codi ed a system whi ch di vi ded Ha A i nto
A1 and A2, and Ha B i nto B1, B2 and B3. Thi s has not proved uncontrover-
si al . A number of authors deni ed that they coul d recogni se the separate exi s-
tence of phase B2 as dened by Ml l er-Karpe on the basi s of the cemetery of
Kel hei m near Muni ch. Neverthel ess, the usage has conti nued i n Germany,
at l east; i n Swi tzerl and, where the second phase i s not general l y di scerni bl e,
Ha B2 i s someti mes used i n more or l ess the same sense as Ha B3 i n Bavari a.
19
Each of the phases i s characteri sed by a range of artefact types known from
graves and hoards (settl ement materi al i s not al ways easy to sl ot i nto thi s
sequence), and i n general the range of materi al i s extremel y wel l known and
easi l y recogni sed, though debates conti nue over the detai l s. Thus the rel ati ve
chronol ogi cal sequence i s not i n doubt (g. 1.2).
Montelius
Oscar Montel i us (18431921) l i ved and worked i n Stockhol m but had a vast
knowl edge of the archaeol ogy of al l parts of Europe. The chronol ogi cal scheme
for whi ch he i s justl y famous was devel oped by hi m i n order to understand
the phasi ng of the Scandi navi an Bronze Age, but hi s panorami c knowl edge
meant that i t had rami cati ons far beyond Scandi navi a.
20
Worki ng from cl osed
nd groups, Montel i us di sti ngui shed si x peri ods, IVI, of whi ch IIII are
referred to as Earl y Bronze Age, IVV as Late Bronze Age, and VI fal l s at the
transi ti on to the Iron Age. In Peri od I l ocal metal producti on was sti l l sl i ght,
and si gni cant numbers of objects were i mported from central Europe and
the Carpathi an Basi n. Peri od II i s the mai n oruit of the earl i er northern
Bronze Age, wi th many ri chl y furni shed barrow graves and l arge quanti ti es
of metal . In Peri od III, cremati on started to become common, and by Peri od
IV i t was absol utel y domi nant. In terms of the central European chronol ogy,
I corresponds to the Earl y Bronze Age, II and part of III to the Tumul us peri od,
and IV and V to the Urnel d peri od.
Frameworks of study: chronology 11
18
e.g. the Langquai d hoard: Hachmann 1957, tabl e 54.
19
Though recentl y i t has become evi dent that there i s i ndeed funerary materi al that fal l s
between Ha B1 and B3: Matter 1992, 312ff.
20
Montel i us 1986.
The Montel i an peri odi sati on i s sti l l i n common use, though the phase def-
i ni ti ons have been rened or modi ed. In addi ti on to Scandi navi a, the scheme
i s used i n northern Germany and Pol and, and i n part i n the Low Countri es.
Between Rei necke and Montel i us, therefore, the l arger part of the European
conti nent i s covered, or at l east can be cross-referenced.
For other areas there are other schemes i n use (g. 1.3). A. Mozsol i cs devel -
oped a speci al phasi ng for the bronze hoards of the Carpathi an Basi n,
21
whi ch
has not, however, been adopted by al l students of the peri od, even i n Hungary.
12 i n t r o d u c t i o n
21
Mozsol i cs 1967; 1973; 1985.
Fig. 1.2. Cul tural sequence, west-central and northern Europe.
More wi del y used i n recent years i s the scheme of B. Hnsel for the same
area, but resti ng on a wi der range of si tes and artefacts than Mozsol i css
scheme.
22
Thi s uses the terms Earl y, Mi ddl e and Late Danubi an Bronze Age
(frhe/mi ttl ere/spte Danubi sche Bronzezei t, or FD IIII, MD IIII, and SD
Frameworks of study: chronology 13
22
Hnsel 1968.
Fig. 1.3. Cul tural sequence, east-central and eastern Europe.
III); i t has come to be wi del y adopted, not l east because of the prol i c wri t-
i ngs of Hnsel s pupi l s on the Carpathi an Basi n and nei ghbouri ng areas.
A cul tural sequence of great i mportance that must al so be i ntroduced i s
that named after the cemetery of neti ce (German Aunjeti tz) near Prague.
The characteri sti c materi al cul ture from thi s and si mi l ar i nhumati on ceme-
teri es, i ncl udi ng the famous hour-gl ass cups, i s found over a wi de area of
central Europe, centred on the Czech Republ i c but al so occurri ng i n eastern
Germany, central and southern Pol and and northern Austri a. Al though i t can
be equated wi th Br A1 and A2 i n the Rei necke system, a l ocal ve-stage
sequence of devel opment has been di sti ngui shed for the pottery.
23
In most other areas of Europe, ei ther the Earl y/Mi ddl e/Late scheme i s i n
use, or a sequence of cul ture names i s preferred. Thi s i s the case i n Bri tai n
and France, Ital y and Spai n (gs. 1.4 and 1.5), and the Bal kans. One area that
has i ts own di sti ncti ve sequence i s south Russi a and Ukrai ne, where i t has
been usual to refer to cul ture names based on grave form Pi t Grave (Russi an
jamnaya kultura), Catacomb Grave (katakombnaja kultura) and Ti mber
Grave (srubnaja kultura).
24
In other parts of Russi a a sequence of l ocal cul -
ture names i s used.
Absolute chronology
Had thi s book been wri tten thi rty, or even twenty, years ago, i t woul d prob-
abl y have been consi dered necessary to devote many pages to a consi derati on
of the absol ute dati ng of the phases and cul tures whi ch woul d have been enu-
merated. Thi s dati ng woul d have been deri ved l argel y from cross-dati ng vi a
the Aegean to Egypt, and the l i nks between the Aegean Bronze Age ci vi l i sa-
ti ons and the barbari an worl d.
25
As i t i s, the progress of devel opment of i nde-
pendent dati ng frameworks has been so rapi d and so successful that for much
of the peri od di scussi on i s no l onger necessary: the ti me-spans i nvol ved are
now cl ear i n outl i ne. Thi s opti mi sti c statement needs to be qual i ed i n a
number of respects. Fi rst, dendro dates come mai nl y from settl ement si tes,
and are l argel y concentrated i n those areas where there i s good preservati on
of organi c remai ns (dates for oak cofns of northern Europe are the excep-
ti on). In practi ce thi s means the Al pi ne area, southern Germany and Irel and,
wi th some materi al now becomi ng avai l abl e from el sewhere (e.g. Pol and).
14 i n t r o d u c t i o n
23
Moucha 1961; 1963.
24
Both Russi an and transl ated versi ons may be found i n the l i terature. Gi mbutas (1965),
Sul i mi rski (1970) and Col es and Hardi ng (1979) use the transl ated form, as di d Pi ggott and
others; Mal l ory (e.g. 1989) and Anthony (e.g. 1996) use the Russi an form. In thi s work the
transl ated form i s used, because I bel i eve i t ai ds comprehensi on and i s more consi stent: i n
Bri tai n the term Schnurkerami k i s not used, l et al one snurov kerami ka, but Corded Ware.
Compl ete consi stency i s i mpossi bl e si nce i t i s commonpl ace for Angl ophones to refer to the
Li nearbandkerami k or LBK, and the TRB, rather than thei r Engl i sh transl ati ons.
25
e.g. Renfrew 1968; Hardi ng 1980; Randsborg 1991; Gerl off 1993; 1996.
Thus the dates for the fel l i ng of trees used on a si te such as Zri ch-
Mozartstrasse (bel ow, p. 42) are known to the exact year; what i s more di fcul t
i s to rel ate the materi al cul ture used on the si te to the establ i shed phases as
known from graves and hoards. Second, si zeabl e parts of Europe sti l l have no
adequate radi ocarbon chronol ogy, certai nl y not one based on seri es of care-
ful l y contexted sampl es subjected to hi gh-preci si on dati ng. Al l too often the
Frameworks of study: chronology 15
Fig. 1.4. Cul tural sequence, western Europe.
associ ati on of sampl es wi th events on si tes i s vague or absent al together, and
the dates are i sol ated. Sti l l rarer are programmes of dati ng on organi c mate-
ri al s that are i ntegral parts of bronze i mpl ements, such as has been carri ed
out by the Bri ti sh Museum i n recent years.
26
Admi ttedl y one cannot be sure
i n these cases that the organi c el ement dates to the ti me of manufacture and
ori gi nal hafti ng of the bronze object, but gi ven enough objects to date i n thi s
way patterns become cl ear. Thi rd, the establ i shment of an i ndependent
chronol ogy i n one area need not necessari l y gi ve a preci se chronol ogy to
another, though i t i s l i kel y to act as a good general gui de. Fourth, radi ocar-
bon dates have to be cal i brated agai nst the curve deri ved from sampl es of
known age i n order to obtai n true cal endri cal dates, and the cal i brati on curve
does not affect al l peri ods equal l y. In some centuri es (most notabl y i n the
mi d-rst mi l l enni um BC) there i s a pl ateau i n the curve whi ch means that
a wi de range of cal endri cal dates i s possi bl e for a gi ven radi ocarbon age. Thi s
16 i n t r o d u c t i o n
26
Needham et al. 1997.
Fig. 1.5. Cul tural sequence, Ital y, Si ci l y and Sardi ni a.
probl em affects the l atest dates for the Bronze Age, though i t i s more acute
i n the Iron Age.
In spi te of these di fcul ti es, l i ttl e except the avai l abi l i ty of nance to
procure dati ngs stands i n the way of establ i shi ng a sound chronol ogi cal
framework for al l parts of Europe throughout the Bronze Age. The procedures
are routi ne; subject to the avai l abi l i ty of sui tabl e materi al , cul tural sequences
shoul d be accuratel y dated everywhere wi thi n a coupl e of decades.
A good exampl e of the way i n whi ch tradi ti onal dati ng methods (cross-
dati ng) are modi ed by new i ndependentl y deri ved dates i s gi ven by the oak
cofn graves of north Germany and Denmark. The famous pri ncel y buri al
si tes of Hel msdorf and Leubi ngen bel ong to the cl assi c phase of the n eti ce
cul ture, equi val ent to the earl i er part of Br A2, and were assi gned to the mi d-
dl e of the second mi l l enni um BC, i n accordance wi th the standard vi ew that
Br A2 and i ts congeners i n the Carpathi an Basi n were to be pl aced paral l el
wi th the Shaft Graves of Mycenae (c. 16501450 BC on the tradi ti onal chronol -
ogy). Dendro dates on the grave constructi ons of these two graves i n fact gave
the dates 1942 10 BC (Leubi ngen) and 1840 10 BC (Hel msdorf).
27
Even
al l owi ng for a peri od of ti me represented by the outermost (absent) ri ngs of
the ti mbers i nvol ved, the gap between the two sets of dates i s at l east two
centuri es, probabl y three, and cannot be bri dged by speci al pl eadi ng al one. A
radi cal revi si on of tradi ti onal chronol ogi es became necessary.
Less dramati c i n i ts effects, but equal l y i mportant as a rather preci se i ndi -
cator of deposi ti on date, i s the seri es of dendro dates obtai ned on Dani sh cof-
n graves. Those that were databl e bel ong to Peri od II.
28
The l atest ri ngs on
these cofns al l fal l i n the peri od 14251350 BC, and wi th an al l owance of
20 addi ti onal years for the absent sapwood they span the peri od 13961330
BC. In thi s case, the dates are i n accord wi th the expectati ons of tradi ti onal
chronol ogy one i mpl i cati on of whi ch i s that the Earl y and Mi ddl e Bronze
Ages must have l asted consi derabl y l onger than previ ousl y thought.
Dendro dates have al so had a marked effect i n the dati ng of the Urnel d
peri od, i ntroduci ng a general tendency to hei ghten the start and ni sh dates
of each peri od.
29
The probl ems of rel ati ng settl ement materi al s to grave and
hoard nds reappear here, and the di screpanci es between the dendro-dated
sequence and the hi stori cal chronol ogy l ai d down by Ml l er-Karpe have not
yet been resol ved.
Tabl e 1.1 i l l ustrates current best esti mates for absol ute ages i n each area,
on the basi s of radi ocarbon dates.
30
Frameworks of study: chronology 17
27
Becker, Jger et al. 1989; Becker, Krause and Kromer 1989.
28
Randsborg 1991.
29
Sperber 1987.
30
These are deri ved from a vari ety of recent sources, but above al l from the proceedi ngs of a
conference hel d i n Verona i n 1995 (Randsborg 1996), and sel ected other works e.g. Chronol ogi e
1986; Skeates and Whi tehouse 1994; Needham et al. 1997; Sperber 1987.
Table 1.1. Radiocarbon chronology for Bronze Age Europe
Britain Start End
Beakers 2450 1700
Earl y Copper (MA III) 2400 2150
Mi gdal e (MA III) 2200 1950
Food Vessel s, Col l ared Urns (MA IVV) 2100 1500
Acton Park, Taunton 17701350 13801210
Penard 13801210 12201080
Wi l burton 12201080 1100960
Bl ackmoor 1100960 1000860
Ewart Park 1000860 880750
Ll yn Fawr 880750
France
Earl y Bronze Age 2300/2200 1600/1500
Mi ddl e Bronze Age ?1800/1700 1500/1400
Bronze nal III 1400 1200
Bronze nal III 1300 800/700
North and central Italy
Beakers 2550 1800
Pol ada 2400 1400
Apenni ne 1690 660
Late Bronze Age 1500 1140
Protovi l l anovan 1430 660
Spain
Argari c Bronze Age, moti l l as 2300/2250 1600/1500
Mi ddl eLate Bronze Age 1600/1500 1300
Bronce Fi nal I 1250 1100
Bronce Fi nal II 1100 940
Bronce Fi nal III 940 750
Iron Age (Hi erro) 800
Central Europe
Bel l Beaker/Corded Ware 2000
Si ngen (Br A1) 2200 2000/1950
Bodman/Schachen, Zri ch-Mozartstrasse 2000/1950 1600/1500
(Br A2)
Tumul us Bronze Age (Br BC) 1500 1300
Br D 1400 1200
Ha A1A2 1250 1050
Ha B1 1100 1000
Ha B2/3 1050 750
Ha C 750
Scandinavia
Late Neol i thi c II 1920 1730
Peri od I 1730 1510
Peri od II 1500 1250
Peri od III 1440 1040
Peri od V 850 760
18 i n t r o d u c t i o n
Climate and environment
A detai l ed di scussi on of the natural envi ronment i n Bronze Age Europe i s
beyond the scope of thi s book. The avai l abi l i ty of rel evant source materi al s
i s extremel y vari abl e, though pol l en sequences have been studi ed i n al most
al l areas and other types of proxy data are al so avai l abl e.
31
The Bronze Age fal l s wi thi n the cl i mati c peri od cal l ed the Sub-boreal , whi ch
i s sandwi ched between the Atl anti c and Sub-atl anti c peri ods. In general , thi s
was a warm and dry peri od, i n contrast to the warm wet Atl anti c and the
cool wet Sub-atl anti c. But such a bl and general statement conceal s a mass of
smal l vari ati ons, both spati al and temporal . Fi ne-resol uti on pol l en sampl i ng
shows that wi thi n the broader pi cture obtai ned by tradi ti onal pol l en anal y-
si s there i s a si mi l ar detai l ed set of uctuati ons happeni ng i n the pol l en
record, whi ch as a proxy cl i mate i ndi cator reects changes i n ai r tempera-
ture, preci pi tati on and so on. Lake-l evel uctuati ons and the movement of
the tree-l i ne i n the Al ps si mi l arl y i ndi cate a constantl y changi ng pattern. In
peat bogs there are i ndi cati ons that peat growth was peri odi cal l y hal ted, and
soi l prol es i n some central European si tes suggest that markedl y dry con-
di ti ons prevai l ed at some poi nts i n the Urnel d peri od. At other ti mes, these
were repl aced by catastrophi cal l y wet condi ti ons, whi ch were responsi bl e for
the abandonment of many l akesi de si tes that l ay cl ose to normal l ake water
l evel . Indeed, i t has been suggested that the pattern of cl i mate change can be
fol l owed through the study of l akesi de settl ement: at the ti mes when i t i s
absent, water l evel s were hi gh; when present, water l evel s were rel ati vel y
l ow. There are probl ems wi th thi s approach as the i mportance of cul tural fac-
tors i s al most total l y i gnored, but i t i s certai nl y puzzl i ng that many si tes were
compl etel y abandoned after major oodi ng epi sodes and never, or onl y cen-
turi es l ater, reoccupi ed.
On Bri ti sh moors and heaths, there i s extensi ve evi dence for the deteri o-
rati on of soi l s duri ng the course of the Bronze Age.
32
The exami nati on of
buri ed soi l s beneath Earl y Bronze Age barrows has someti mes shown that
mi xed oak forest l ay not far away, whi l e the presence of cereal pol l en i s a
cl ear si gn that parts of the l andscape were cl eared and cul ti vated. But exam-
i nati on of some cai rnel ds (bel ow, p. 158) has found that soi l s were al ready
podsol i sed and the cl earance of stone that they represent has even been seen
as a strategy for mai ntai ni ng yi el ds i n the face of catastrophi c envi ronmen-
tal deteri orati on.
One of the probl ems i n determi ni ng the nature and i mportance of envi -
ronmental condi ti ons i n the Bronze Age i s that both human and natural agen-
ci es were at work. Speci cal l y, cl earance of forests that may never have been
Climate and environment 19
31
Col es and Hardi ng (1979) i ncl ude bri ef di scussi on of envi ronmental condi ti ons i n each area
of Europe. The general pi cture may be obtai ned from works such as Ti nsl ey i n Si mmons and
Tool ey 1981, Hardi ng 1983a, and other syntheses.
32
Di mbl eby 1962.
touched si nce the gl obal warmi ng after the Ice Age must have proceeded
apace. Mol l uscan evi dence i n southern Engl and has someti mes shown an
extensi vel y cl eared l andscape i n the Late Neol i thi c and Earl y Bronze Age (for
i nstance at Stonehenge); pol l en di agrams on moorl ands suggest a recurri ng
attack on the woodl ands, probabl y i n the form of numerous smal l -scal e cl ear-
ances rather than the extensi ve cl earance of l arge tracts.
33
Si mi l ar patterns
can be seen i n the l owl and areas of much of the rest of Europe.
Much has been wri tten i n recent years about the possi bl e i mpact of major
natural catastrophes and other events, notabl y vol canoes,
34
and, most recentl y,
comet or asteroi d i mpacts. The onl y acti ve vol canoes i n Europe are i n Icel and
and the central and eastern Medi terranean (Vesuvi us, Etna, the Aeol i an
Isl ands and Thera), but Thera at l east i s known to have undergone a massi ve
erupti on i n the Bronze Age. Such erupti ons eject huge cl ouds of debri s i nto
the atmosphere, and the ner parti cl es can l i nger at hi gh al ti tudes for months
or years, where they may bl ock sol ar radi ati on. As a consequence, vegetati on
on the earths surface can be severel y affected. Short-l i ved pl ants wi l l l eave
no permanent trace i n the fossi l record, but trees can show stunted growth
i n thei r annual ri ngs. Thi s phenomenon i s vi si bl e i n Iri sh bog oaks i n the
1620s BC.
35
There are other grounds for bel i evi ng that thi s pattern i s to be
associ ated wi th the erupti on of Thera (though the date of the erupti on has
been the subject of controversy and i s sti l l not deni ti vel y settl ed). Whether
or not thi s was the case, growi ng trees suffered a severe setback at that date,
whi ch must reect the sudden onset of markedl y col der condi ti ons worl d-
wi de. If the i mpact on trees was so strong, i t woul d al so have had dramati c
effects on growi ng crops and grassl and. The effects on human l i fe must have
been correspondi ngl y si gni cant; vari ous marked changes i n the archaeol og-
i cal record have been attri buted to the aftermath of such events.
But for most of the ti me l i fe was not rocked by cal ami ti es on such a grand
scal e. Cl i mati c and envi ronmental condi ti ons uctuated, so that the observer
on the ground wi l l have suffered bad years for crop producti on al ong wi th the
good ones, as has al ways been the case. The extent to whi ch human groups
buffered themsel ves agai nst such effects i s a cul tural matter; there i s some
evi dence that i n the Late Bronze Age, for i nstance, speci c strategi es were
adopted for thi s preci se purpose (p. 145). Gi ven the smal l scal e of most Bronze
Age communi ti es, however, responses to the natural envi ronment were prob-
abl y pal l i ati ve rather than prophyl acti c.
20 i n t r o d u c t i o n
33
e.g. Bal aam et al. 1982.
34
Bai l l i e 1989; 1995; Burgess 1989; Gross-Kl ee and Mai se 1997.
35
Bai l l i e 1995, 75ff.
Conclusion
In an age where rel ati vi st approaches are becomi ng the norm and there i s a
tendency to deny the rel evance of constructs such as the Bronze Age, i t
mi ght be thought a ri sky enterpri se to devote a book to the topi c. Yet, as I
hope to show, the geographi cal area known today as Europe i n the ti me-span
2500800 BC was host to a mass of techni cal and conceptual devel opments
that make i t l egi ti mate to descri be and anal yse i t, and appropri ate to treat i t
as an enti ty wi th i ts own character and trajectory that was di fferent from
those of other conti nents.
In contrast to most previ ous approaches to the peri od, however, thi s book
does not deal much wi th artefact typol ogy or chronol ogi cal anal ysi s, and i t
attempts to avoi d strai ght descri pti on of si tes and artefacts. An i ncl usi ve
approach i s adopted to Bronze Age studi es, though i t wi l l become evi dent
that I bel i eve some are more useful than others. The Year of the Bronze Age
was a cel ebrati on of Europes rst Gol den Age, concentrati ng on the spec-
tacul ar end of the range of monuments and artefacts that emanate from the
peri od. Thi s book i s i ntended no l ess as a cel ebrati on of the peri od, whi ch
represents a cruci al l y formati ve phase i n the human past, consti tuti ng the
change from Neol i thi c farmi ng vi l l ages, i n many ways l i ttl e al tered si nce the
arri val of the rst farmers, to Iron Age proto-states on the verge of l i teracy
and wri tten hi story. The peopl e who created the archaeol ogi cal record stud-
i ed here were i n al l l i kel i hood bi ol ogi cal l y the same throughout, and enter
hi story wi th parti cul ar ethni c l abel s attached to them. One of the tasks of
thi s book i s to chart the ways i n whi ch the compl exi ty that i s vi si bl e then
was achi eved, what were i ts roots, and what i ts consti tuents.
Conclusion 21