Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:38:45.500Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Inception of the Final Bronze Age in Middle Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

T. G. E. Powell
T. G. E. Powell
Affiliation:
Department of Prehistoric Archaeology, University of Liverpool
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When, in 1948, Childe reviewed in these Proceedings the later phases of the European Bronze Age he expounded a series of new views on the causation and chronology of episodes apprehended in archaeology by the spread of cremation urn cemeteries, and by advances in bronze technology. He also put forward proposals for changes in terminology, for he was well aware of the haphazard and casual way in which archaeological nomenclature had come about. Childe's interpretation of the origins of the urnfield cremation rite was valuable as a stimulus to a reassessment of the problem, but research in the years that have followed has produced so much new information that a very different story can now be told. Nor has the terminological reform seen much progress. The grounds on which Childe has been opposed as regards the nomenclature of subdivisions of the later Bronze Age have carried weight because it has been generally agreed that at least for the zone of the North Alpine foreland, a genuine cultural break should be recognized in and after the phase that Reinecke originally defined and nominated: Bronze D. This phase is the ‘End Bronze Age’ of many scholars, and what comes after is either ‘Hallstatt’ or ‘Urnfield’, appropriately subdivided and so Childe's Bronze phases E and F have not been accepted.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 29 , December 1963 , pp. 214 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 214 note 1 Childe, V. G., ‘The Final Bronze Age in the Near East and in Temperate Europe’, PPS, XIV (1948), pp. 177–95Google Scholar.

page 214 note 2 For retention of Ha A and B nomenclature: Vogt, E., JSGU, XL (1949/1950), pp. 209–31Google Scholar, and acceptance of this by Hawkes, C. F. C. and Smith, M. A.: Ant. J., XXXVII (1957), p. 137Google Scholar, n. 4. Cowen, J. D. comments in Antiquity, XXXV (1960), pp. 40–4Google Scholar. For confusion in definitions especially for Reinecke B and C see Torbrugge, W., Die Bronzezeit in der Oberpfalz, 1959Google Scholar, and Bericht V. Internat. Kongr. Hamburg, 1958 (1961), pp. 818–23Google Scholar.

page 214 note 3 Piggott, Stuart, Approach to Archaeology (1959)Google Scholar, passim.

page 215 note 1 Müller-Karpe, H., Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen, Röm-Germ. Forsch., 22 (1959)Google Scholar, for source material and bibl.

page 216 note 1 Smith, M. A., ‘A Study in Urnfield Interpretations in Middle Europe’, Zephyrus, VIII (1957), pp. 195–240Google Scholar. Including a discussion of Holste's fremdkulturen, and the spread westwards of leichtgerillte pottery.

page 216 note 2 Müller-Karpe, M., ‘Das urnenfelderzeitliche Wagengrab von Hart a.d. Alz’, Bayer. Vorgesch. Blätter, XXI (1955). pp. 46–75Google Scholar.

page 216 note 3 Smolík's, J. report in Památky, XII (1882), pp. 385–90Google Scholar appears to remain the only complete list with line drawings. The well-known, and restored, wheeled bronze vessel has been frequently illustrated, but see new photograph in Neustupný, J., ed., Pravěk Československa (1960)Google Scholar, pl. 50. For an analysis of variant cremation rites in tfye Milaveč.Culture of W. Bohemia see: Rybová, A. and Šaldová, V., Památky, XLIX (1958), pp. 348–411Google Scholar.

page 216 note 4 Rihovský, J. ‘Žarový hrob z Velatic I … (Das Brandgrab I von Velatice …)’, Památky, XLIX (1958), pp. 67–118Google Scholar.

page 217 note 1 Točik, A. and Paulík, J., ‘Výskum Mohyly v Čake … (Die Ausgrabung eines Grabhügels in Čaka …)’, Sl. Arch., VIII (1960), pp. 59–124Google Scholar. Mr Cowen informs me that the surviving sword fragments do not permit absolute certainty of type identification.

page 217 note 2 For Riegsee and the North Alpine zone generally all acknowledgments are made to Müller-Karpe's, H.magnum opus: ‘Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen’, Röm-Germ. For., 22 (1959)Google Scholar; also his Die Vollgriffschwerter der Urnenfelderzeit aus Bayern (1962), reviewed by Cowen, , Antiquity, XXXVI (1963), pp. 75–8Google Scholar, but not available to me when writing this study.

page 217 note 3 ‘Sprockhoff IIa’ is here retained on Mr Cowen's advice in preference to his own ‘Nenzingen’ terminology (36, BRGK (1955), pp. 52–155Google Scholar) which he relinquishes on further consideration of the close family likeness of these swords.

page 217 note 4 Illustrated by Childe, V. G., Prehistoric Migrations in Europe (1950)Google Scholar, fig. 156, and by J. D. Cowen, op. cit. (1961), p. 210, fig. 3.

page 217 note 5 J. D. Cowen, op. cit. (1955), and Ber. V Internal. Kongr. Hamburg 1958 (1961), pp. 207–14Google Scholar with augmented map.

page 219 note 1 Catling, H., ‘A New Bronze Sword from Cyprus’, Antiquity, XXXV (1961), pp. 115–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Not to be confused with his earlier study in PPS, XXII (1956), pp. 102–25Google Scholar, criticised by Cowen op. cit. (1961).

page 219 note 2 Stubbings, F. H., Cambridge Ancient History, rev. ed. of vols. I and II, fasc. 4 (1962), 75Google Scholar.

page 219 note 3 Mozsolics, A., Acta Arch. Hung., XII (1960), pp. 112–23Google Scholar. Some of the comparanda are conveniently illustrated by Paulík, J., Arch. Rozh., XII (1960), pp. 408–27Google Scholar.

page 220 note 1 For references to Noa Culture see Mozsolics, op. cit. (1960), and Horedt, , Dacia, n.s. IV (1960), p. 136Google Scholar, also Petrescu-Dimbovita, ibid., p. 155, fig. 10: a wart-necked pin in a Moldavian hoard.

page 221 note 1 Nestor, I., in Sprockhoff, E., ed., Marburger Studien (1938)Google Scholar; reproduced by E. Lomborg, infra., fig. 6; Novotná, M., Památky, L (1959), pp. 1–15Google Scholar, discusses chronological overlap of B sub-types.

page 221 note 2 Outlined in Acta Arch. Hung., 11 (1952), pp. 35–69Google Scholar, and developed for the Late Bronze Age, ibid., VIII (1957). pp. 119–56. Summarized by Piggott, S., Antiquity, XXXIV (1960), pp. 287–8Google Scholar. Particular thanks are offered to Dr Mozsolics for her supervision of our studies in the National Museum at Budapest in 1960.

page 221 note 3 Horedt, K., Dacia, n.s. IV (1960), pp. 107–37Google Scholar, for Wietenberg, A. Točík, ed., Kommission für das Äneolithikum und die ältere Bronzezeit Nitra 1958, Bratislava, (1961)Google Scholar, for a series of important papers on Slovakia and Moravia; Neustupný, E. and Neustupný, J., Czechoslovakia, London (1961)Google Scholar, for useful summary.

page 221 note 4 Illustrated and discussed by Hachmann, R., Die frühe Bronzezeit im westlichen Ostseegebiet und ihre mittel und südosteuropäischen Beziehungen (1957)Google Scholar; and by Lomborg, E., ‘Donaulanäische Kulturbeziehungen und relativ Chronologie der friihen nordischen Bronzezeit’, Acta Arch., XXX (1959), pp. 51–146Google Scholar.

page 222 note 1 The rite was generally inhumation under small tumuli often in cemetery groups. While flat grave inhumations, and cremations also occur, there is apparently no instance of a pyre-grave cremation in this cultural context.

page 222 note 2 W. Torbrügge, op. cit. (1959) and (1961) for difficulties of classification as between Reinecke and Holste.

page 222 note 3 Childe, V. G., The Danube in Prehistory (1929), pp. 296–318Google Scholar.

page 222 note 4 Willvonseder, K., Die mittlere Bronzezeit in Österreich (1937)Google Scholar.

page 222 note 5 Holste, F., Die Bronzezeit in Süd- und Westdeutschland (1953)Google Scholar.

page 222 note 6 E. Lomborg, op. cit. (1959). This is required reading for the whole field of study.

page 222 note 7 E. and J. Neustupný, op. cit. (1961) with bibl. for these cultures.

page 223 note 1 Řikovský, J., Sl. Arch., IX (1961), pp. 107–54Google Scholar.

page 223 note 2 A. Točík and J. Paulík, op. cit. (1960).

page 223 note 3 Jilková, E., Sl. Arch., IX (1961), pp. 69–106Google Scholar.

page 223 note 4 E. and J. Neustupný, op. cit. (1961), p. 93, who comment on the trans-Carpathian Corded Ware contribution to the Early Bronze Age within the Carpathian Ring.

page 224 note 1 Mozsolics, A., Acta Arch. Hung., VIII (1957), p. 141Google Scholar; E. Jilková, op. cit. (1961), p. 104.

page 224 note 2 An extreme position has been adopted by Milojčić, V., Germania, XXXVII (1959), pp. 65–84Google Scholar.

page 224 note 3 Mozsolics, A., Acta Arch. Hung., VIII (1957), pp. 119–56Google Scholar.

page 224 note 4 Bóna, I., Acta Arch. Hung., IX (1958), pp. 211–43Google Scholar.

page 224 note 5 E. Lomborg, op. cit. (1959), p. 64.

page 225 note 1 Spurný, V., ‘Zur Chronologie der mittleren Bronzezeit in Mähren’, pp. 103–4Google Scholar, in Neustupný, J., ed., Chronologie préhistorique de la Tchécoslovaquie (1956)Google Scholar; ‘Neue Forschungen über die Anfänge der Lausitzer Kultur in Mähren’, pp. 125–38, in A. Točík, ed., op. cit. (1961); Památky, XLV (1954), pp. 357–77Google Scholar, for Hradisko excavation report.

page 225 note 2 K. Tihelka, pp. 77–109, in A. Točík, ed., op. cit. (1961); Památky, LI (1960), pp. 27–129Google Scholar, for Blučina and related sites. Spurný, V., Arch. Rozh., IV (1952), p. 240Google Scholar, fig. 128, for map.

page 225 note 3 Mozsolics, A., Acta Arch. Hung., XII (1960), pp. 125–35Google Scholar, esp. 134.

page 225 note 4 Bóna, I., Acta Arch. Hung., XII (1960), pp. 83–111Google Scholar, for list and discussion of model wheels; Powell, T. G. E., ‘Some Implications of Chariotry’, in Foster, and Alcock, , ed., Culture and Environment (Essays in Honour of Sir Cyril Fox), 1963Google Scholar, discusses briefly the spread of spoke-wheeled vehicles in Bronze Age Europe.

page 225 note 5 R. Hachmann, op. cit. (1957), p. 175, summarizes the alleged Shaft Grave connections. To his list (p. 258), and illustrations (Taf. 70) add: Točík, A., ‘Knocken und Geweihindustrie der Mad'arovce Kultur in der Südwestslowakei’, Studijne Zvesti AUSAV, 3 (1959), pp. 23–54Google Scholar; see also Piggott, S., Antiquity, XXXIV (1960), pp. 287 and 290Google Scholar. My point does not deny that there was any contact with Mycenae in the Shaft Grave period, and Prof. Hawkes reminds me of the three gold hair-rings found in Shaft Grave III which look to be Transylvanian. See his ‘Gold Ear-rings of the Bronze Age, East and West’, Folklore (special number in Honour of Dr Margaret Murray), LXXII (1961), pp. 438–74. Zaharia, E., Dacia, n.s. III (1959), pp. 103–34Google Scholar, for comparative study of the Transylvanian lockenringe.

page 226 note 1 Horedt, K., Dacia, n.s. IV (1960), p. 134Google Scholar, and fig. 3.

page 226 note 2 L. Hájek, pp. 59-76, in A. Točík, ed. (1961).

page 226 note 3 Arch. Rozh., IV (1952), pp. 237–9, and 241–50Google Scholar, for preliminary account of the excavation. I am indebted to Dr Točík for a visit to the site in 1958, and for an opportunity to study the finds.

page 226 note 4 Dagger: p. 72, fig. 12, in A. Točík, op. cit. (1961); Pendant, : Sl. Arch., V (1957), pp. 323–38Google Scholar, and Neustupný, J. et al. , Pravěk Československa (1960)Google Scholar, fig. 71.

page 226 note 5 Both finds referred to by Hájek in A. Točík, op. cit. (1961), p. 73; Rusu, M., SCIV, X (1959), pp. 277–84Google Scholar with map, for fan-butt axes. The hook spirals may be compared with those on the Barca pendants. Popescu, D., SCIV, XIII (1962), pp. 399–414Google Scholar, with bibl. for recent work on the Transylvanian Bronze Age. A map of Rumanian Bronze Age cultures is given by Berciu, D., Dacia, n.s. V (1961), p. 125Google Scholar. The older bronze finds in Hungarian tells and cemeteries have been brought together by J. Milojčić, pp. 157–278, in Vogt, E., ed., Actes de la III Session … Zurich, 1950Google Scholar.

page 226 note 6 A. Mozsolics, op. cit. (1957).

page 226 note 7 V. Spurný, op. cit. (1956).

page 227 note 1 Garašanin, M. V., 39, BRGK, (1958), pp. 1–130Google Scholar.

page 227 note 2 Mozsolics, A., ‘A Kisapostagi korabronzkori urnatemetö’, Archaeologica Hungarica, XXVI (1942)Google Scholar.

page 227 note 3 Patay, P., ‘Frühbronzezeitliche Kulturen in Ungaren’, Diss. Pann., XIII (1938)Google Scholar, for description and maps of Vatya and other cultures.

page 228 note 1 M. Dušek, ‘Patince, Das Gräberfeld der Nordpannonischen Kultur’, Pt. 2 of: Točík, A., ed. Gräberfelder aus der älteren Bronzezeit in der Slowakei, I (1960)Google Scholar.

page 228 note 2 Referred to by Hájek, op. cit. (1958), p. 60, and by Jilková, op. cit. (1961), p. 104.

page 228 note 3 B. Polla, ‘Birituelle Füzesabonyer Begräbnisstätte in Streda nad Bodrogom’, Pt. 3 of Točík, A. ed., Gräberfelder aus der älteren Bronzezeit in der Slowakei, 1 (1960)Google Scholar.

page 228 note 4 E. Jilková, op. cit. (1961).

page 228 note 5 M. V. Garašanin, op. cit. (1958), pp. 78 and 88.

page 229 note 1 The close stylistic links between the standing figurines and those in the Dupljaja bird-chariots, and the spoked wheels of these latter, all speak for southern prototypes. The broad beaked water bird, duck or swan, was an ornamental motif known at Mycenae, whence the Dupljaja, and Hallstatt birds, and the prows of the Sea Peoples' ships depicted at Medinet Habu (cf. Nelson, H. H., J. Near East. St., II (1943), pp. 40–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar). I must disagree therefore with the native Danubian case presented by Kossack, G., ‘Studien zum Symbolgut …’ Röm- Germ. For., XX (1954)Google Scholarpassim. For interesting comments on the inferences of the Dupljaja pieces see Garašanin, op. cit. (1958).

page 229 note 2 Dumitrescu, Vladimir, ‘Necropola de Incineratie din Epoca Bronzului de la Cîrna’, Biblioteca de Arheologie, IV (1961)Google Scholar. I take this oppotunity of thanking Prof. Dumitrescu for showing me the material from Cîrna in Bucharest in 1960.

page 230 note 1 Hájek, L., Sl. Arch., V (1957), pp. 323–38Google Scholar.

page 232 note 1 Discussed by Childe, V. G. and Hawkes, C. F. C. in PPS, XIV (1948), pp. 177–95, and 196–218Google Scholar, respectively. Piggott, S., Antiquity, XXXIII (1959), pp. 122–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, summarizes recent studies to which add now: H. Müller-Karpe, op. cit. (1959), pp. 157–9, et passim.

page 232 note 2 Kytlicová, O., Památky, L (1959), pp. 120–57Google Scholar, with chart, fig. 22, for new finds and discussion.

page 233 note 1 J. D. Cowen, op. cit. (1955), and (1961). For full-hiked bronze swords: Holste, F., Die Bronzezeitlichen Vollgriffschwerter Bayerns (1953)Google Scholar, especially for types earlier than Riegsee. H. Müller-Karpe, op. cit. (1962), for Riegsee and later types.

page 224 note 2 Desborough, V. R. d'A. and Hammond, N. G. L., ‘The End of Mycenaean Civilization and the Dark Age’ Cambridge Ancient History, rev. ed. of vols. 1 and 11, fasc., 13 (1962), pp. 10 and 25–35Google Scholar.

page 234 note 1 Huxley, G. L., Achaeans and Hittites (1960)Google Scholar. His presumption (p. 39) of Central European invaders requires modification as also expressed by C. Nylander, infra.

page 234 note 2 A question raised again by Nylander, C., Antiquity, XXXVII (1963), pp. 6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 234 note 3 Wainwright, G. A., Anatolian Studies, IX (1959), pp. 197–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar; J. Egyptian Archaeology, XLVII (1961), pp. 71–90Google Scholar. My thanks are due to Prof. H. W. Fairman for notice of these studies, and to him and Mr K. A. Kitchen for discussions on the Sea Peoples.

page 234 note 4 Mozsolics, A., Acta Arch. Hung., VIII (1957), p. 120Google Scholar; Światowit, XXIII (1960), pp. 435–50Google Scholar.