- Podbielskiallee 69-71
14195 Berlin
Germany
Oliver Dietrich
German Archaeological Institute, Orient Department, Department Member
- Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie, Graduate Studentadd
- Bronze Age Archaeology, Bronze Age Europe (Archaeology), Metalwork (Archaeology), Socketed Axes, Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age archaeology, and 97 more14C-dating, Balkan prehistory, Aegean Bronze Age (Bronze Age Archaeology), Hittite archaeology, Ancient Greek Religion, Prehistory, 14C dating (Archaeology), Romanian Prehistory, Landscape Archaeology, Material Culture Studies, Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin, Near Eastern Archaeology, Neolithic, Religion and Cult in Prehistory, Hoards, Pre-Pottery Neolithic, Prehistoric Archaeology, Southeastern Europe (archaeology), Bronze Age Balkans, Early Bronze Age (Archaeology), Archaeology of Religion, Gava culture, Dress and Personal Adornment (Archaeology), Prehistoric polished stone tools, Hoard finds, Hunter-Gatherers (Anthropology), Göbekli Tepe, Prehistoric Technology, Prehistoric Europe (Archaeology), Archaeology, Corded Ware Culture, Neolithic Archaeology, Religion and ritual in prehistory, Ethnoarchaeology, Craft production (Archaeology), Cross-cultural interaction (Archaeology), Mycenaean era archaeology, Experimental Archaeology, Archaeology of Beer and Cereal Fermentation, Archaeology of Ritual and Magic, Drinking practices (Anthropology), Anthropology of Alcohol, Origins of Agriculture, Archaeobotany, Cypriot Bronze Age, Archaeological Fieldwork, Prehistoric Fortification (Archaeology), Ceramics (Archaeology), Archaeology of Architecture, Household Archaeology, Settlement Patterns, Theoretical Archaeology, Near Eastern Studies, Ancient Near East, Ethnography, Bronze Age (Archaeology), Levantine Archaeology, Archaeological Site Formation Processes, Archaeology of Ritual, Archaeology of salt, Prehistoric weapons, Archaeology of Mining, European Prehistory (Archaeology), Anatolian Archaeology, Aegean Archaeology, Bronze Age Axes, Metal Finds (Archaeology), Megaliths (Archaeology), Megalithic Monuments, Anthropology, Ancient Near East (Archaeology), Levant Prehistory, British Prehistory (Archaeology), Ancient Technology (Archaeology), Ancient Agriculture & Farming (Archaeology), Material culture of religion, Ancient Craftmanship (Archaeology), Melanesia (Anthropology), Social Archaeology, Archaeological Theory, Archaeological Method & Theory, Archaeometallurgy, Romanian Archaeology, Urnfield Culture, Lower Danube Archaeology, Bronze Age metal hoards, Bronze Age metal hoard, Hoards and Ritual Deposits, Noua Culture, Hoarding, Hoard, Metal hoard, Wietenberg Culture, Burial Customs, Cultura Wietenberg, Celturi De Bronz, and Anthropology of Religionedit
- I have studied Prehistoric Archaeology in Berlin with Professors B. Hänsel and B. Terzan. My main research intere... moreI have studied Prehistoric Archaeology in Berlin with Professors B. Hänsel and B. Terzan.
My main research interest lies in the Bronze Age, especially of the Carpathian Basin. Currently I am working on my doctoral thesis on the socketed axes of Romania, supervisor Professor S. Hansen, Berlin.
My second focus of research is the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Near East. I am working in the Göbekli Tepe Project at the Orient-Department of the German Archaeological Institute with Professor K. Schmidt.
My linkedin-Page: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/oliver-dietrich/84/b01/782edit
The fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, and the subsequent political changes in much of central and eastern Europe, were major events in the lives of all who lived through them. These changes had effects not only in politics but also in... more
The fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, and the subsequent political changes in much of central and eastern Europe, were major events in the lives of all who lived through them. These changes had effects not only in politics but also in academia and – for archaeology – in the ways in which fieldwork and publication were organised. Instead of a rigid adherence to traditional, “Marxist” principles in thinking about the past, essentially imposed from above, scholars were now free to explore a range of different models and modes of thought in how they interpreted site and artefacts.
This volume considers the changes in archaeological thought and practice that have taken place – or not taken place – in Bronze Age studies in the countries that were previously part of the Soviet bloc. Contributors from Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania, as well as German and British scholars who have worked in those countries in recent years, describe aspects of their experiences in fieldwork and interpretation in the 30 years that have elapsed since that time. These are supplemented by personal reflections by a group of British scholars who worked there both before and after the “Change”. While the contributions present personal views, the message is clear, that the academic landscape in the Bronze Age archaeology of central and eastern Europe has changed out of all recognition in these last decades.
This volume considers the changes in archaeological thought and practice that have taken place – or not taken place – in Bronze Age studies in the countries that were previously part of the Soviet bloc. Contributors from Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania, as well as German and British scholars who have worked in those countries in recent years, describe aspects of their experiences in fieldwork and interpretation in the 30 years that have elapsed since that time. These are supplemented by personal reflections by a group of British scholars who worked there both before and after the “Change”. While the contributions present personal views, the message is clear, that the academic landscape in the Bronze Age archaeology of central and eastern Europe has changed out of all recognition in these last decades.
Research Interests:
Festschrift on the occasion of Dr. Tudor Soroceanus 65th Birthday.
23 Studies centering on the Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin.
23 Studies centering on the Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Balkan Prehistory (Archaeology), Landscape Archaeology, Bronze Age Europe (Archaeology), and 29 moreBronze Age Archaeology, Prehistoric Settlement, Prehistoric Technology, Late Bronze Age archaeology, Prehistoric weapons, Balkan prehistory, Prehistoric Europe (Archaeology), End of the Bronze Age, Bronze Age (Archaeology), Early Bronze Age (Archaeology), Archeologia, Eurasian Prehistory, Middle Bronze Age, European Prehistory (Archaeology), Prehistory, Bronze Age Balkans, Anatolian Prehistory, Bronze Age, Early Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin, Hoards, Hoard finds, Arheologie, Bronze Age swords, Bronze Age metal hoards, Hoarding, Bronze age balkan, and Depotfunde der Bronzezeit
Casting cores for socketed axes from Romanian hoards. An object from the Late Bronze Age hoard Șpălnaca II can be identified as a bronze casting core for socketed axes. As a review of all available information shows, such items rarely... more
Casting cores for socketed axes from Romanian hoards. An object from the Late Bronze Age hoard Șpălnaca II can be identified as a bronze casting core for socketed axes. As a review of all available information shows, such items rarely survive or are found. The reasons are twofold. While socketed axes were produced in many regions of central and eastern Europe, most finds of casting cores concentrate in hoards of the Danube-Drava-Sava-region, which indicates the impact of regional hoarding customs on the archaeological record. In addition, many cores would have been made of clay, which further hinders their preservation.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Der Beitrag stellt die Fundgeschichte und die Zusammensetzung zweier Sichelhorte aus Südostsiebenbürgen wieder auf. In Cristian wurden bis 1905, 12 Sicheln gefunden, die durch einen Bronzedraht zusammengebunden waren. Weitere acht Sicheln... more
Der Beitrag stellt die Fundgeschichte und die Zusammensetzung zweier Sichelhorte aus Südostsiebenbürgen wieder auf. In Cristian wurden bis 1905, 12 Sicheln gefunden, die durch einen Bronzedraht zusammengebunden waren. Weitere acht Sicheln wurden 1911 entdeckt. Nur für die letzten ist der genaue Fundort bekannt, u.z. „Büchel”, ein kleiner Hügel neben der Ortschaft. Es wurde angenommen, dass die zwei Horte zu einem einzigen vermischt wurden. Ein anderer Fund, und zwar drei Sicheln, ist für Feldioara zu verzeichnen. Bis jetzt nicht veröffentlichte Daten ermöglichen eine bessere Kontextualisierung der zwei Funde.
Research Interests:
This paper discusses the practice of stuffing the sockets of metalwork implements prior to deposition with other objects, mostly fragments of other metal items but on occasion also non-metallic objects. In the Carpathian Basin it is found... more
This paper discusses the practice of stuffing the sockets of metalwork implements prior to deposition with other objects, mostly
fragments of other metal items but on occasion also non-metallic objects. In the Carpathian Basin it is found during the earlier
part of the Late Bronze Age and in Britain and Ireland towards the end of this period. Seen against the backdrop of wider,
pan-European depositional practices, this peculiar custom in most cases can be interpreted as an attempt at preserving the
integrity of individual sets of items within larger communal offerings.
fragments of other metal items but on occasion also non-metallic objects. In the Carpathian Basin it is found during the earlier
part of the Late Bronze Age and in Britain and Ireland towards the end of this period. Seen against the backdrop of wider,
pan-European depositional practices, this peculiar custom in most cases can be interpreted as an attempt at preserving the
integrity of individual sets of items within larger communal offerings.
Research Interests:
We analyze the processing of cereals and its role at Early Neolithic Gö bekli Tepe, southeastern Anatolia (10th / 9th millennium BC), a site that has aroused much debate in archaeological discourse. To date, only zooarchaeological... more
We analyze the processing of cereals and its role at Early Neolithic Gö bekli Tepe, southeastern Anatolia (10th / 9th millennium BC), a site that has aroused much debate in archaeological discourse. To date, only zooarchaeological evidence has been discussed in regard to the subsistence of its builders. Gö bekli Tepe consists of monumental round to oval buildings , erected in an earlier phase, and smaller rectangular buildings, built around them in a partially contemporaneous and later phase. The monumental buildings are best known as they were in the focus of research. They are around 20 m in diameter and have stone pillars that are up to 5.5 m high and often richly decorated. The rectangular buildings are smaller and-in some cases-have up to 2 m high, mostly undecorated, pillars. Especially striking is the number of tools related to food processing, including grinding slabs/bowls, handstones, pestles, and mortars, which have not been studied before. We analyzed more than 7000 artifacts for the present contribution. The high frequency of artifacts is unusual for contemporary sites in the region. Using an integrated approach of formal, experimental, and macro-/ microscopical use-wear analyses we show that Neolithic people at Gö bekli Tepe have produced standardized and efficient grinding tools, most of which have been used for the processing of cereals. Additional phytolith analysis confirms the massive presence of cereals at the site, filling the gap left by the weakly preserved charred macro-rests. The organization of work and food supply has always been a central question of research into Gö bekli Tepe, as the construction and maintenance of the monumental architecture would have necessitated a considerable work force. Contextual analyses of the distribution of the elements of the grinding kit on site highlight a clear link between plant food preparation and the rectangular buildings and indicate clear delimitations of working areas for food production on the terraces the structures lie on, surrounding the circular buildings. There is evidence for extensive plant food processing and archaeozoological data hint at large-scale hunting of gazelle between midsummer and autumn. As no large storage facilities have been identified, we argue for a production of food for immediate use and interpret these seasonal peaks in activity at the site as evidence for the organization of large work feasts.
Research Interests:
During the 2001 excavation season, a fragment of a small miniature mask depiction was found in Enclosure D. The fragmentarily preserved object was originally ovaloid in form, the back is concave. It features a very prominent nose and... more
During the 2001 excavation season, a fragment of a small miniature mask depiction was found in Enclosure D. The fragmentarily preserved object was originally ovaloid in form, the back is concave. It features a very prominent nose and large, nearly open-worked eyes. An indention supposedly depicting the mouth is rather small, on the other hand, and not very deep.
The mask measures just 1.3x0.7cm. The surface is darkened-greyish, which indicates burning in reducing conditions. Whether the mask was
intentionally burned remains uncertain; a future scientific examination of
the find could resolve this issue. The article explores the potential
meanings of this unique find.
The mask measures just 1.3x0.7cm. The surface is darkened-greyish, which indicates burning in reducing conditions. Whether the mask was
intentionally burned remains uncertain; a future scientific examination of
the find could resolve this issue. The article explores the potential
meanings of this unique find.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In a paper recently published in this journal, Martin B. Sweatman and Dimitrios Tsikritsis from the University of Edinburgh (School of Engineering) have suggested an interpretation for the early Neolithic monumental enclosures at Göbekli... more
In a paper recently published in this journal, Martin B. Sweatman and Dimitrios Tsikritsis from the University of Edinburgh (School of Engineering) have suggested an interpretation for the early Neolithic monumental enclosures at Göbekli Tepe as space observatories and the site's complex iconography the commemoration of a catastrophic astronomical event ('Younger Dryas Comet Impact'). As the archaeologists excavating this site, we would like to comment on a few points that we feel require consideration in this discussion.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Abstract: Although their early evolution is largely obscure, socketed axes are among the most numerous artefacts of the Southeastern European Late Bronze Age. They seem to appear all at once in a horizon of hoards conventionally... more
Abstract: Although their early evolution is largely obscure, socketed axes are among the most numerous artefacts of
the Southeastern European Late Bronze Age. They seem to appear all at once in a horizon of hoards conventionally
parallelized with the Central European Bz D phase. Some researchers have tried to explain this sudden occurrence as
the result of a local development which began with Early Bronze Age socketed chisels. Others seek their origin in the
Seima-Turbino metalwork horizon (in which socketed axes are already attested to in the first quarter of the 2nd millennium
BC). Starting from there, a complex pattern of transmission through different cultural milieus is suggested until
their arrival in the Carpathian Basin around 1300 BC. The present contribution sets out to clarify some aspects of the
invention and spread of this Bronze Age innovation.
the Southeastern European Late Bronze Age. They seem to appear all at once in a horizon of hoards conventionally
parallelized with the Central European Bz D phase. Some researchers have tried to explain this sudden occurrence as
the result of a local development which began with Early Bronze Age socketed chisels. Others seek their origin in the
Seima-Turbino metalwork horizon (in which socketed axes are already attested to in the first quarter of the 2nd millennium
BC). Starting from there, a complex pattern of transmission through different cultural milieus is suggested until
their arrival in the Carpathian Basin around 1300 BC. The present contribution sets out to clarify some aspects of the
invention and spread of this Bronze Age innovation.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Popular scientific paper on recent research at the PPN site of Göbekli Tepe, Turkey, and the role of cult, feasting, and communal projects in the emergence of larger communities and the so-called Neolithic way of subsistence.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Near Eastern Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Anatolian Archaeology, Neolithic Archaeology, and 17 moreMegalithic Monuments, Neolithic Transition, Megaliths (Archaeology), The Neolithic Revolution, Archaeology of Ritual, Prehistory, Social Complexity, Göbekli Tepe, Social Complexity (Archaeology), Early Neolithic, Evolution of Social Complexity, Feasting and Fasting, Monumentality, Ritual Feasting, Archaeology and Feasting, Gobekli Tepe, and Gobeklitepe
Popular scientific paper (in Turkish) on recent research at the PPN site of Göbekli Tepe, Turkey, and the role of cult, feasting, and communal projects in the emergence of larger communities and the so-called Neolithic way of subsistence.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Near Eastern Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Anatolian Archaeology, Neolithic Archaeology, and 15 moreArchaeology of Ritual and Magic, Neolithic Transition, The Neolithic Revolution, Archaeology of Ritual, Prehistory, Social Complexity, Göbekli Tepe, Social Complexity (Archaeology), Early Neolithic, Evolution of Social Complexity, Monumentality, Ritual Feasting, PPNA /PPNB /PPNC, Archaeology and Feasting, and Gobekli Tepe
Research Interests:
Klaus Schmidt konnte den von ihm im Rahmen der Konferenz „Anatolien – Brücke der Kulturen“ gehaltenen Vortrag nicht mehr selbst zu Papier bringen. Der vorliegende Text stellt eine Sammlung von Gedanken zum Thema „Der Göbekli Tepe auf dem... more
Klaus Schmidt konnte den von ihm im Rahmen der Konferenz „Anatolien – Brücke der Kulturen“ gehaltenen Vortrag nicht mehr selbst zu Papier bringen. Der vorliegende Text stellt eine Sammlung von Gedanken zum Thema „Der Göbekli Tepe auf dem Weg zum Weltkulturerbe“ dar, die ganz wesentlich zahlreichen persönlichen Gesprächen mit ihm entspringen. Außerdem wurde auf Notizen und in anderen Zusammenhängen geschriebenes zurückgegriffen, um seine Vision für den Fundplatz, mit dem sich 20 Jahre seines Forscherlebens verbinden, möglichst klar herauszuarbeiten.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In this study the authors analyse archaeological materials belonging to two Coțofeni settlements in Rotbav, Brașov County, at La Pârâuț and Unghiul Gardului. Structures of habitat and material culture in these two settlements are... more
In this study the authors analyse archaeological materials belonging to two Coțofeni settlements in Rotbav, Brașov County, at La Pârâuț and Unghiul Gardului. Structures of habitat and material culture in these two settlements are discussed, with an emphasis on pottery. The material is
studied in terms of typology and decoration, the authors attempting to put the whole discussion at a micro-regional level based on a catalogue of 117 Coțofeni sites.
studied in terms of typology and decoration, the authors attempting to put the whole discussion at a micro-regional level based on a catalogue of 117 Coțofeni sites.
Research Interests:
Hoard finds appear throughout the European Bronze Age with distinct chronological and chorological peaks. While there is some consensus on seeing hoards as an expression of cultic behaviour, especially the large ‘scrap metal’ hoards still... more
Hoard finds appear throughout the European Bronze Age with distinct chronological and chorological peaks. While there is some consensus on seeing hoards as an expression of cultic behaviour, especially the large ‘scrap metal’ hoards still provoke interpretations as raw material collected for recycling. With socketed axes whose sockets were intentionally filled with deliberately fragmented metalwork, S. Hansen (1996–1998) has pointed out a group of finds that could be crucial to a better understanding of ‘scrap’ hoards. Using the finds from the Carpathian Basin as a case study, a twofold biographical approach is applied to this group. A close look at the complex use-life of the objects themselves, as well as an attempt at re-integrating them into the local history of hoarding, leads to the conclusion that they constitute single acts of dedication in larger contexts. ‘Scrap hoards’ can thus be understood as long-term accumulations of votive objects and can be integrated into the social practice of Bronze Age hoarding.
Research Interests:
The article discusses a hoard of two flanged axes from Braşov (Kronstadt, Brásso), which until now has been largely overlooked. The axes date to the transition from the Early to the Middle Bronze Age (horizon Bühl-Ackenbach / MD I). As... more
The article discusses a hoard of two flanged axes from Braşov (Kronstadt, Brásso), which until now has been largely overlooked. The axes date to the transition from the Early to the Middle Bronze Age (horizon Bühl-Ackenbach / MD I). As the find spot can be localized accurately, an attempt is made to re-integrate the hoard into the cultural landscape of the Wietenberg Culture in the area which is nowadays occupied by the town of Braşov.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Landscape Archaeology, Metalwork (Archaeology), Bronze Age Europe (Archaeology), and 17 moreBronze Age Archaeology, Prehistoric Settlement, Prehistoric Europe (Archaeology), Romanian Archaeology, Bronze Age (Archaeology), Middle Bronze Age, European Prehistory (Archaeology), Prehistory, Bronze Age, Prehistoric Archeology, Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin, Hoard finds, Arheologie, Bronze Age metal hoards, Bronze Age Metalwork, Epoca Bronzului In Romania, and Archeology
Research Interests: Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Balkan Prehistory (Archaeology), Anthropology of Mobility, Bronze Age Europe (Archaeology), and 24 moreBronze Age Archaeology, Prehistoric Technology, Late Bronze Age archaeology, Balkan prehistory, Prehistoric Europe (Archaeology), Mobility (Archaeology), Ancient Technology (Archaeology), End of the Bronze Age, Bronze Age (Archaeology), Eurasian Prehistory, European Prehistory (Archaeology), Prehistory, Bronze Age Balkans, Ancient Metallurgy, Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Prehistoric Archeology, Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin, Prehistoric Metallurgy, Bronze Age Metal Technology, Bronze Age Metalwork, Bronze Casting, Bronze Age metalworking, and Intinerant Craftsman
Research Interests:
The article won the Antiquity Prize 2012, so it is open access now:
http://antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/086/0674/ant0860674.pdf
http://antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/086/0674/ant0860674.pdf
Research Interests: Archaeology, Near Eastern Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, History of Religion, Anatolian Archaeology, and 20 moreArchaeology of Religion, History of Religions, Ancient Religion, Neolithic Archaeology, Social Archaeology, Religion and ritual in prehistory, Archaeology of Architecture, Ancient Near East, Archaeology of Beer and Cereal Fermentation, Archaeology of Ritual and Magic, Neolithic Transition, Prehistoric Art, The Neolithic Revolution, Archaeology of Ritual, Prehistory, Neolithic, Pre-Pottery Neolithic, PPNA /PPNB /PPNC, PPNA PPNB sites, and Archeology
The meaning of monumental buildings as an indicator of social complexity and the visible expression of power and authority has been a lasting topos in the field of archaeology. Now new evidence is coming from southeastern Turkey,... more
The meaning of monumental buildings as an indicator of social complexity and the visible expression of power and authority has been a lasting topos in the field of archaeology. Now new evidence is coming from southeastern Turkey, showing that the origins of monumental architecture have to be sought as early as with the hunter‑gatherer groups at the end of the last Ice Age in the Near East twelve thousand years ago. At Göbekli Tepe, monumental, monolithic T‑shaped pillars were erected by mobile groups of the Early Neolithic constituting large circular enclosures and indicating a degree of coordination and cooperation among these people hitherto not suspected.
Research Interests:
Recent fieldwork in the main excavation area at Göbekli Tepe has focused on the excavation of deep soundingsto reach the natural bedrock in preparation for the construction of a shelter, urgently required for the protection of the exposed... more
Recent fieldwork in the main excavation area at Göbekli Tepe has focused on the excavation of deep soundingsto reach the natural bedrock in preparation for the construction of a shelter, urgently required for the protection of the exposed Neolithic architecture. Eleven deep soundings have been excavated to the bedrock. At several locations, considerable amounts of carbonized botanical material were discovered, so far unique for excavations at Göbekli. A series of more than 150 samples has been produced either on site or by flotation of the relevant soil units. To test the quality of the material for radiocarbon dating, five samples from the area of the large enclosures from Layer III were submitted for AMS-radiocarbon dating. These new data, together with a further age made on collagen from an animal tooth, are presented and discussed in context with previously available absolute chronological evidence."
Research Interests: Archaeology, Near Eastern Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, History of Religion, Anatolian Archaeology, and 23 moreArchaeology of Religion, Neolithic Archaeology, Neolithic & Chalcolithic Archaeology, Religion and ritual in prehistory, Archaeology of Architecture, Archaeology of Ritual and Magic, Neolithic Transition, The Neolithic Revolution, Archaeology of Ritual, Prehistory, Neolithic, Prehistoric Archeology, Pre-Pottery Neolithic, Göbekli Tepe, Early Neolithic, Radiocarbon Dating, Radiocarbon Dating (Archaeology), Gobekli Tepe Temple - Sanliurfa, Turkey, PPNA /PPNB /PPNC, PPNA PPNB sites, Radiocarbon Chronology, Neolithic of the Near East, and Archeology
Research Interests: Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Metalwork (Archaeology), Bronze Age Europe (Archaeology), Bronze Age Archaeology, and 20 morePrehistoric Technology, Late Bronze Age archaeology, Prehistoric Europe (Archaeology), Ancient Technology (Archaeology), Bronze Age (Archaeology), Eurasian Prehistory, Middle Bronze Age, European Prehistory (Archaeology), Prehistory, Bronze Age Balkans, Bronze Age, Prehistoric Archeology, Ancient Metalwork, Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin, Late Bronze Age, Arheologie, Bronze Age metal hoards, Ancient Bronzes, Bronze Age Metalwork, and Lower Danube Archaeology
Some short words on recent work at Göbekli Tepe in the Newsletter of the project "Our Place: Our Place in the World", funded by the John Templeton Foundation.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Metalwork (Archaeology), Bronze Age Europe (Archaeology), Bronze Age Archaeology, and 9 morePrehistoric Technology, Late Bronze Age archaeology, Bronze Age (Archaeology), Early Bronze Age (Archaeology), Middle Bronze Age, Prehistory, Bronze Age, Early Bronze Age, and Prehistoric Archeology
Short preliminary report on the 2012 and 2013 seasons at Göbekli Tepe in German.
The full yearly report of the DAI can be found at: http://www.dainst.org/de/e-jahresbericht?ft=all
The full yearly report of the DAI can be found at: http://www.dainst.org/de/e-jahresbericht?ft=all
Research Interests:
Starting from two socketed axes of the Armorican type, which were so far mistakenly attributed as chisels of local production to the hoard from Şpălnaca, Romania, the author discusses finds of Armorican axes from eastern and southeastern... more
Starting from two socketed axes of the Armorican type, which were so far mistakenly attributed as chisels of local production to the hoard from Şpălnaca, Romania, the author discusses finds of Armorican axes from eastern and southeastern Europe. A number of pieces published as authentic finds can be suspected to be modern imports. Armorican axes circulated widely as gifts between researchers or through the art market especially in the late 19th and early 20th century following the big discoveries in France. Until now, this fact has not been taken into consideration in several important publications of finds. Only for Poland and Bohemia there are finds which could be the result of Early Iron Age contacts. But even their authenticity remains doubtful to some degree, as there are no finds which were discovered after 1950.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Intercultural Communication, Balkan Prehistory (Archaeology), Material Culture Studies, and 54 moreArchaeological Method & Theory, Metalwork (Archaeology), Iron Age (Archaeology) (Archaeology), Bronze Age Europe (Archaeology), Bronze Age Archaeology, Prehistory of Ukraine (Prehistoric Archaeology), British Prehistory (Archaeology), History of Central and Southeastern Europe, Prehistoric Technology, Late Bronze Age archaeology, Prehistoric weapons, Iron Age Germany (Archaeology), Metal Finds (Archaeology), Balkan archaeology, Balkan prehistory, Prehistoric Europe (Archaeology), Romanian Archaeology, End of the Bronze Age, Bronze Age (Archaeology), Irish/British prehistory, Archeologia, Eurasian Prehistory, Ancient Trade & Commerce (Archaeology), Material Culture, European Prehistory (Archaeology), Prehistory, Bronze Age Balkans, Iron Age, Ancient Metal Technology, Romania, Early Iron Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age archaeology, Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Bronze Age Interconnections, Prehistoric Archeology, Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin, Socketed Axes, Late Bronze Age, Prehistoria, Ancient Trade and Networks, Prehistoric Trade Networks, Arheologie, Bronzezeit, Iron Age Britain and France, Iron Age France (Archaeology), Bronze Age metal hoards, Long distance connections, Bronze Age Metalwork, long distance contacts (Bronze Age), Bronze Age Axes, Southeastern Europe (archaeology), Bronze age balkan, and Source Criticism (Archaeology)
A short news item on the possible entrance to Enclosure C at Göbekli Tepe.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Anatolian Archaeology, Archaeology of Religion, Neolithic Archaeology, and 12 moreReligion and ritual in prehistory, Archaeology of Ritual and Magic, Neolithic Transition, Prehistoric Art, The Neolithic Revolution, Prehistory, Anatolian Prehistory, Neolithic, Pre-Pottery Neolithic, Göbekli Tepe, Early Neolithic, and Archeology
Der vorliegende Artikel möchte einen Beitrag liefern zur Frage um die frühesten Tüllenbeile im Karpatenbecken. Zunächst wird festgestellt, dass eine größere Zahl von Tüllenbeilen nach ihren Fundkontexten schon vor Bz D datiert, also den... more
Der vorliegende Artikel möchte einen Beitrag liefern zur Frage um die frühesten
Tüllenbeile im Karpatenbecken. Zunächst wird festgestellt, dass eine größere Zahl von Tüllenbeilen
nach ihren Fundkontexten schon vor Bz D datiert, also den Zeitpunkt, der meist als Entstehungszeit
der Gerätegattung angegeben wird. Auch die weit gestreute Verbreitung dieser Beile legt nahe, dass
Tüllenbeile schon vor der Urnenfelderzeit in Südosteuropa eine übliche Geräteform waren. Es wird die
These vertreten, dass diese vor Bz D datierenden Tüllenbeile aufgrund einer selektiven Niederlegungssitte
archäologisch weitgehend „unsichtbar“ bleiben. Da die meisten Depotfunde keinesfalls chronologisch
einheitlich sind, können vor allem in den Bz D-zeitlichen Horten ältere Tüllenbeilformen gesucht werden.
Eine solche Form stellen die Tüllenbeile vom Typ Rozavlea dar, die über typologische und chorologische
Eigenheiten und eine bemerkenswerte „Mischform“ aus dem Kreis Sãlaj mit Tüllenmeißeln vom Typ
Bullendorf verbunden werden können, die überwiegend in Bz A2 und Bz B datieren. Die umrissene,
möglicherweise noch frühbronzezeitliche Tüllenbeilentwicklung im Karpatenbecken stellt ein Argument
gegen ein Aufkommen des Tüllenbeils erst in Bz D unter östlichen Einflüssen dar.
Tüllenbeile im Karpatenbecken. Zunächst wird festgestellt, dass eine größere Zahl von Tüllenbeilen
nach ihren Fundkontexten schon vor Bz D datiert, also den Zeitpunkt, der meist als Entstehungszeit
der Gerätegattung angegeben wird. Auch die weit gestreute Verbreitung dieser Beile legt nahe, dass
Tüllenbeile schon vor der Urnenfelderzeit in Südosteuropa eine übliche Geräteform waren. Es wird die
These vertreten, dass diese vor Bz D datierenden Tüllenbeile aufgrund einer selektiven Niederlegungssitte
archäologisch weitgehend „unsichtbar“ bleiben. Da die meisten Depotfunde keinesfalls chronologisch
einheitlich sind, können vor allem in den Bz D-zeitlichen Horten ältere Tüllenbeilformen gesucht werden.
Eine solche Form stellen die Tüllenbeile vom Typ Rozavlea dar, die über typologische und chorologische
Eigenheiten und eine bemerkenswerte „Mischform“ aus dem Kreis Sãlaj mit Tüllenmeißeln vom Typ
Bullendorf verbunden werden können, die überwiegend in Bz A2 und Bz B datieren. Die umrissene,
möglicherweise noch frühbronzezeitliche Tüllenbeilentwicklung im Karpatenbecken stellt ein Argument
gegen ein Aufkommen des Tüllenbeils erst in Bz D unter östlichen Einflüssen dar.
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Intercultural Communication, Balkan Prehistory (Archaeology), History of Religion, and 37 moreMaterial Culture Studies, Archaeology of Religion, Ancient Religion, Bronze Age Europe (Archaeology), Bronze Age Archaeology, Prehistoric religion and r ritual a, Religion and ritual in prehistory, Balkan archaeology, Balkan prehistory, Archaeology of Ritual and Magic, Prehistoric Europe (Archaeology), Prehistoric Art, Romanian Archaeology, Bronze Age (Archaeology), Early Bronze Age (Archaeology), Eurasian Prehistory, Middle Bronze Age, Archaeology of Ritual, European Prehistory (Archaeology), Prehistory, Bronze Age Balkans, Figurines, Romania, Prehistoric Figurines, Terracotta Figurines, Bronze Age, Anthropomorphic Figurines, Prehistoric Archeology, Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin, Anthropomorphic Figurine Studies, Ancient funerary figurines, Archaeology of Ritual, Balkan Archaeology, Prehistoric Religion, Southeastern Europe (archaeology), Antropomorphic Figurines, Prehistoric Anthropomorphic Figurines, and Ceramic figurines
Research Interests: Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Balkan Prehistory (Archaeology), Material Culture Studies, Metalwork (Archaeology), and 39 moreBronze Age Europe (Archaeology), Bronze Age Archaeology, Prehistoric religion and r ritual a, Religion and ritual in prehistory, Dress and Personal Adornment (Archaeology), Late Bronze Age archaeology, Metal Finds (Archaeology), Balkan archaeology, Balkan prehistory, Prehistoric Europe (Archaeology), Romanian Archaeology, Bronze Age (Archaeology), Middle Bronze Age, European Prehistory (Archaeology), Prehistory, Bronze Age Balkans, Romania, Hoard, Bronze Age, Prehistoric Archeology, Ancient Metalwork, Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin, Hoards, Hoard finds, Settlement, Noua Culture, Metal hoard, Bronze Age metal hoard, Bronze Age metal hoards, Hoarding, Bronze Age Metalwork, Bronze Age Hoards, Southeastern Europe (archaeology), Prehistoric hoards and votive deposits, Hoards and Ritual Deposits, Hoard Deposition, Hoard Composition, Ritual Tradition, and Find Context
"The fine wares of the Wietenberg Culture in Transylvania during the Middle Bronze Age are characterised by compositions of uniform, repetitive ‚spiraloid‘ or ‚meandroid‘ motifs. These patterns – referred to collectively as ‚spiral... more
"The fine wares of the Wietenberg Culture in Transylvania during the Middle Bronze Age are characterised by compositions
of uniform, repetitive ‚spiraloid‘ or ‚meandroid‘ motifs. These patterns – referred to collectively as ‚spiral ornamentation‘ –
were often associated with the Mycenaean region. A detailed examination of the ceramic decoration of the Wietenberg
Culture reveals that it is not actually spiral ornamentation, but rather rows of hook patterns, which may be abstract zoomorphic
motifs. A comparison with the genuine spiral ornamentation of the Mycenaean Culture further supports the thesis
of there being a fundamental difference in the type of ornamentation. The pottery ornamentation of the Wietenberg
Culture is thus independent of southern prototypes. However, this does not mean that there was no contact between the
Wietenberg Culture and Mycenaean Greece. But this contact remained at the level of prestige objects such as ‚Mycenaean‘
swords, bone objects with wave motifs and the bronzes decorated in Hajdúsámson-Apa style, which were limited to a
small social elite and were furthermore distributed far beyond the Wietenberg Culture.
Die Feinkeramik der mittelbronzezeitlichen Wietenberg-Kultur in Siebenbürgen ist gekennzeichnet durch Kompositionen
aus gleichförmigen, sich wiederholenden ‚spiraloiden‘ oder ‚mäandroiden‘ Motiven. Diese pauschal als „Spiralzier“ bezeichneten
Muster wurden oft mit Einflüssen aus dem mykenischen Raum in Verbindung gebracht. Ausgehend von einer
detaillierten Untersuchung der Keramikzier der Wietenberg-Kultur wird nachgewiesen, dass es sich nicht im eigentlichen
Sinne um Spiralzier, sondern gereihte Hakenmuster handelt, die sich möglicherweise als Abstraktion zoomorpher Motive
erklären lassen. Ein Vergleich mit der echten Spiralzier des mykenischen Kulturraumes stützt die These zur grundlegenden
Unterschiedlichkeit der Zierweisen weiter, die Keramikverzierungen der Wietenberg-Kultur sind damit unabhängig von
südlichen Vorbildern zu sehen. Dies bedeutet jedoch nicht, dass keine Kontakte zwischen der Wietenberg-Kultur und
dem mykenischen Griechenland bestanden hätten. Nur äußern sich diese lediglich auf der Ebene von Prestigeobjekten wie
„mykenischen“ Schwertern, wellenbandverzierten Beinobjekten und den im Hajdúsámson-Apa-Stil verzierten Bronzen,
die jedoch auf eine kleine soziale Elite beschränkt und zudem weit über den Raum der Wietenberg-Kultur hinaus verbreitet
waren."
of uniform, repetitive ‚spiraloid‘ or ‚meandroid‘ motifs. These patterns – referred to collectively as ‚spiral ornamentation‘ –
were often associated with the Mycenaean region. A detailed examination of the ceramic decoration of the Wietenberg
Culture reveals that it is not actually spiral ornamentation, but rather rows of hook patterns, which may be abstract zoomorphic
motifs. A comparison with the genuine spiral ornamentation of the Mycenaean Culture further supports the thesis
of there being a fundamental difference in the type of ornamentation. The pottery ornamentation of the Wietenberg
Culture is thus independent of southern prototypes. However, this does not mean that there was no contact between the
Wietenberg Culture and Mycenaean Greece. But this contact remained at the level of prestige objects such as ‚Mycenaean‘
swords, bone objects with wave motifs and the bronzes decorated in Hajdúsámson-Apa style, which were limited to a
small social elite and were furthermore distributed far beyond the Wietenberg Culture.
Die Feinkeramik der mittelbronzezeitlichen Wietenberg-Kultur in Siebenbürgen ist gekennzeichnet durch Kompositionen
aus gleichförmigen, sich wiederholenden ‚spiraloiden‘ oder ‚mäandroiden‘ Motiven. Diese pauschal als „Spiralzier“ bezeichneten
Muster wurden oft mit Einflüssen aus dem mykenischen Raum in Verbindung gebracht. Ausgehend von einer
detaillierten Untersuchung der Keramikzier der Wietenberg-Kultur wird nachgewiesen, dass es sich nicht im eigentlichen
Sinne um Spiralzier, sondern gereihte Hakenmuster handelt, die sich möglicherweise als Abstraktion zoomorpher Motive
erklären lassen. Ein Vergleich mit der echten Spiralzier des mykenischen Kulturraumes stützt die These zur grundlegenden
Unterschiedlichkeit der Zierweisen weiter, die Keramikverzierungen der Wietenberg-Kultur sind damit unabhängig von
südlichen Vorbildern zu sehen. Dies bedeutet jedoch nicht, dass keine Kontakte zwischen der Wietenberg-Kultur und
dem mykenischen Griechenland bestanden hätten. Nur äußern sich diese lediglich auf der Ebene von Prestigeobjekten wie
„mykenischen“ Schwertern, wellenbandverzierten Beinobjekten und den im Hajdúsámson-Apa-Stil verzierten Bronzen,
die jedoch auf eine kleine soziale Elite beschränkt und zudem weit über den Raum der Wietenberg-Kultur hinaus verbreitet
waren."
Research Interests: Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Intercultural Communication, Pottery (Archaeology), Material Culture Studies, and 10 moreBronze Age Europe (Archaeology), Bronze Age Archaeology, Mycenaean era archaeology, Bronze Age (Archaeology), Early Bronze Age (Archaeology), Middle Bronze Age, Material Culture, Prehistory, Culture Contact, and Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin
""»Hammerbeile« – zu einer speziellen Variante der Schäftung von bronzezeitlichen Tüllenbeilen Im nordwestlichen Karpatenbecken ist eine Reihe von Tüllenbeilen mit eingesetzten, gelochten bronzenen Stangen bekannt, sog. »Hammerbeile«.... more
""»Hammerbeile« – zu einer speziellen Variante der Schäftung von bronzezeitlichen Tüllenbeilen
Im nordwestlichen Karpatenbecken ist eine Reihe von Tüllenbeilen mit eingesetzten, gelochten bronzenen Stangen bekannt, sog. »Hammerbeile«. Diese kehren das Tüllenschäftungsprinzip zu dem einer Axt um. Anhand europaweiter Analogien wird festgestellt, dass es sich bei diesen Objekten um bronzene Umsetzungen hölzerner Zwischenfutter handelt, die eine geläufige Form der Schäftung von Tüllenbeilen gewesen sein dürften. Theorien, die Tüllenbeile mit bronzenen Zwischenfuttern eine typologische und funktionale Mittlerrolle zwischen späten Nackenscheiben- sowie Schaftlochäxten und den frühesten Tüllenbeilen zusprechen, sind abzulehnen. Dies bestätigen auch die typologisch und in ihrer räumlichen Verteilung von den »Hammerbeilen« abweichenden Funde früher Tüllenbeile Südosteuropas, die zudem zeitlich vor den Hammerbeilen liegen.
»Hammer axes« – a special method of shafting Bronze Age socketed axes
In the northwestern part of the Carpathian Basin there is a distinctive group of socketed axes with inserted, perforated bronze bars, dating from Bz D to Ha B1. These so-called »hammer axes« invert the principle of shafting a socketed axe into one used with regular axes. Based on analogies throughout Europe, it is argued that the perforated bars are indeed conversions into bronze of wooden sleeves used regularly for shafting socketed axes. As a consequence, theories promoting »hammer axes« as a typological and functional link between late forms of Carpathian axe types and the earliest socketed axes are rejected. This is further underlined by the forms and the distributional pattern of early southeastern European socketed axes which moreover appear much earlier than the »hammer axes«.
»Haches marteaux« – à propos d’une variante spéciale d’emmanchement de haches à douille de l’âge du Bronze
Une série de haches à douille dont le manche est composé de barres de bronze provient du Nord-Ouest du bassin des Carpathes, elles sont connues sous le nom de »haches marteaux«. Ces dernières inversent le principe d’emmanchement entre douille et œil. Sur la base de comparaisons européennes, on peut constater que ces manches en bronze composent une évolution de manches en bois intermédiaires. Les théories mettant en rapport les haches à douille avec des emmanchements intermédiaires en bronze pour leur attribuer un rôle d’intermédiaire typologique et fonctionnel entre les dernières haches à douille, une forme tardive de hache des Carpathes et les premières haches à œil sont à rejeter. Ceci est également confirmé par la typologie et la répartition des »haches marteaux« qui apparaissent plus tardivement que les haches à douille du Sud-Est de l’Europe. L. B.""
Im nordwestlichen Karpatenbecken ist eine Reihe von Tüllenbeilen mit eingesetzten, gelochten bronzenen Stangen bekannt, sog. »Hammerbeile«. Diese kehren das Tüllenschäftungsprinzip zu dem einer Axt um. Anhand europaweiter Analogien wird festgestellt, dass es sich bei diesen Objekten um bronzene Umsetzungen hölzerner Zwischenfutter handelt, die eine geläufige Form der Schäftung von Tüllenbeilen gewesen sein dürften. Theorien, die Tüllenbeile mit bronzenen Zwischenfuttern eine typologische und funktionale Mittlerrolle zwischen späten Nackenscheiben- sowie Schaftlochäxten und den frühesten Tüllenbeilen zusprechen, sind abzulehnen. Dies bestätigen auch die typologisch und in ihrer räumlichen Verteilung von den »Hammerbeilen« abweichenden Funde früher Tüllenbeile Südosteuropas, die zudem zeitlich vor den Hammerbeilen liegen.
»Hammer axes« – a special method of shafting Bronze Age socketed axes
In the northwestern part of the Carpathian Basin there is a distinctive group of socketed axes with inserted, perforated bronze bars, dating from Bz D to Ha B1. These so-called »hammer axes« invert the principle of shafting a socketed axe into one used with regular axes. Based on analogies throughout Europe, it is argued that the perforated bars are indeed conversions into bronze of wooden sleeves used regularly for shafting socketed axes. As a consequence, theories promoting »hammer axes« as a typological and functional link between late forms of Carpathian axe types and the earliest socketed axes are rejected. This is further underlined by the forms and the distributional pattern of early southeastern European socketed axes which moreover appear much earlier than the »hammer axes«.
»Haches marteaux« – à propos d’une variante spéciale d’emmanchement de haches à douille de l’âge du Bronze
Une série de haches à douille dont le manche est composé de barres de bronze provient du Nord-Ouest du bassin des Carpathes, elles sont connues sous le nom de »haches marteaux«. Ces dernières inversent le principe d’emmanchement entre douille et œil. Sur la base de comparaisons européennes, on peut constater que ces manches en bronze composent une évolution de manches en bois intermédiaires. Les théories mettant en rapport les haches à douille avec des emmanchements intermédiaires en bronze pour leur attribuer un rôle d’intermédiaire typologique et fonctionnel entre les dernières haches à douille, une forme tardive de hache des Carpathes et les premières haches à œil sont à rejeter. Ceci est également confirmé par la typologie et la répartition des »haches marteaux« qui apparaissent plus tardivement que les haches à douille du Sud-Est de l’Europe. L. B.""
Research Interests: Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Material Culture Studies, Metalwork (Archaeology), Bronze Age Europe (Archaeology), and 25 moreBronze Age Archaeology, Prehistoric Technology, Late Bronze Age archaeology, Balkan archaeology, Prehistoric Europe (Archaeology), Bronze Age (Archaeology), Early Bronze Age (Archaeology), Middle Bronze Age, Material Culture, Prehistory, Bronze Age Balkans, Romania, Ancient Metallurgy, Bronze Age, Prehistoric Archeology, Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin, Hoards, Socketed Axes, Hungary, Carpathian Basin, Late Bronze Age, Bronze Age metal hoards, Bronze Age Axes, Southeastern Europe (archaeology), and Archeology
Bei der Bewertung des räumlichen Verhältnisses von Gussformen zu Fertigprodukten im Karpatenbecken müssen Überlieferungsfilter stärker als bisher in Betracht gezogen werden. Zunächst stammen Tüllenbeilgussformen, anders als die... more
Bei der Bewertung des räumlichen Verhältnisses von Gussformen zu Fertigprodukten im Karpatenbecken müssen Überlieferungsfilter stärker als bisher in Betracht gezogen werden. Zunächst stammen Tüllenbeilgussformen, anders als die Fertigprodukte, ganz überwiegend aus Siedlungen und wurden bei Ausgrabungen entdeckt. Der Stand der Siedlungsarchäologie bestimmt damit die Verbreitung von Gussformen in hohem Maße mit.
Der zweite Überlieferungsfilter betrifft die bronzezeitliche Gusstechnik. Es ist kaum anzunehmen, dass allein steinerne Gussformen verwendet worden sind. Neben einigen Funden fragiler und daher selten überlieferter zweischaliger Tongussformen liegen Belege verschiedener Arten von Modeln zur Herstellung von Ton- oder Formsandgussformen vor. Dies deutet darauf hin, dass vermutlich auch archäologisch schwer sichtbare Gussverfahren einen Anteil am Gesamteindruck der Verbreitung von Tüllenbeilgussformen in Rumänien haben. Die Steingussformen können gut zur Herstellung dieser Model gedient haben, ohne dass hier ihre einzige Funktion gelegen haben muss.
Der zweite Überlieferungsfilter betrifft die bronzezeitliche Gusstechnik. Es ist kaum anzunehmen, dass allein steinerne Gussformen verwendet worden sind. Neben einigen Funden fragiler und daher selten überlieferter zweischaliger Tongussformen liegen Belege verschiedener Arten von Modeln zur Herstellung von Ton- oder Formsandgussformen vor. Dies deutet darauf hin, dass vermutlich auch archäologisch schwer sichtbare Gussverfahren einen Anteil am Gesamteindruck der Verbreitung von Tüllenbeilgussformen in Rumänien haben. Die Steingussformen können gut zur Herstellung dieser Model gedient haben, ohne dass hier ihre einzige Funktion gelegen haben muss.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Balkan Prehistory (Archaeology), Material Culture Studies, Landscape Archaeology, and 38 moreHistory of Technology, Ancient economies (Archaeology), Metalwork (Archaeology), Bronze Age Europe (Archaeology), Bronze Age Archaeology, Prehistoric Settlement, Prehistoric Technology, Late Bronze Age archaeology, Prehistoric weapons, Metal Finds (Archaeology), Balkan archaeology, Balkan prehistory, Prehistoric Europe (Archaeology), Ancient Technology (Archaeology), Romanian Archaeology, Bronze Age (Archaeology), Eurasian Prehistory, Material Culture, European Prehistory (Archaeology), Prehistory, Bronze Age Balkans, Ancient Metal Technology, Romania, Ancient Metallurgy, Ancient technology, Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Prehistoric Archeology, Romanian Prehistory, Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin, Socketed Axes, Arheologie, Ancient Mining and Metallurgy, Archaeo-Metallurgy, Bronze Age Axes, Istorie, Arheologie, Southeastern Europe (archaeology), and Bronze Age Metallurgy
A short popular science overview on work at Göbekli Tepe.
Research Interests: Archaeology, Near Eastern Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, History of Religion, Anatolian Archaeology, and 28 moreArchaeology of Religion, History of Religions, Ancient Religion, Neolithic Archaeology, Neolithic & Chalcolithic Archaeology, Prehistoric religion and r ritual a, Religion and ritual in prehistory, Archaeology of Architecture, Ancient Near East, Ancient myth and religion, Archaeology of Ritual and Magic, Neolithic Transition, Prehistoric Art, The Neolithic Revolution, Ancient Near East (Archaeology), Prehistoric magical-symbolic systems (Archaeology), Prehistory, Anatolian Prehistory, Neolithic, Arkeoloji, Archaeology of the Near East, Prehistory of Art, Prehistoric Archeology, Pre-Pottery Neolithic, Göbekli Tepe, Turkish Archaeology, Prehistoric Archaeology, Neolithic Art, and Anthropology of Religion
Starting from two socketed axes of the Armorican type, which were so far mistakenly attributed as chisels of local production to the hoard from Şpălnaca, Romania, the author discusses finds of Armorican axes from eastern and southeastern... more
Starting from two socketed axes of the Armorican type, which were so far mistakenly attributed as chisels of local production to the hoard from Şpălnaca, Romania, the author discusses finds of Armorican axes from eastern and southeastern Europe. Several pieces published as authentic finds can be suspected to be modern imports. Armorican axes circulated widely as gifts between researchers or through the art market especially in the late 19th and early 20th century following the big discoveries in France. Until now, this fact has not been taken into consideration in several important publications of finds. Only for Polonia and Bohemia there are finds which could be the result of Early Iron Age contacts. But even their authenticity remains doubtful to some degree, as there are no finds which were discovered after 1950.
Research Interests:
Hoard finds, collections of artifacts buried intentionally in the ground, appear throughout the European Bronze Age with distinct chronological and chorological peaks. While there is some consensus on seeing hoards as an expression of... more
Hoard finds, collections of artifacts buried intentionally in the ground, appear throughout the European Bronze Age with distinct chronological and chorological peaks. While there is some consensus on seeing hoards as an expression of cultic behavior, especially the large “scrap metal” hoards of the Late Bronze Age still provoke interpretations as raw material collected for re-melting. Most approaches to identify cultic activities as the reason for their accumulation have aimed at the circumstances of deposition, the choice of objects, fragmentation patterns and weight systems. While these lines of thought are viable, the current paper wants to explore the issue from a different point of view. With socketed axes whose sockets were intentionally filled with deliberately fragmented metalwork, S. Hansen (1996-1998) has pointed out a group of finds that could be crucial to our understanding of ‘scrap’ hoards. Using the finds from the Carpathian Basin as a case study, a twofold biographical approach will be applied to this group. A close look at the complex use-lifes of the objects themselves as well as an attempt at re-integrating them into the local history of hoarding will lead to the conclusion that those objects constitute single acts of dedication in larger contexts. ‘Scrap hoards’ can thus be understood as long-term accumulations of votive objects and can be integrated into the social practice of Bronze Age hoarding.
Hansen, S. 1996-1998. Migration und Kommunikation während der späten Bronzezeit. Die Depots als Quelle für ihren Nachweis. Dacia N.S., XL-XLII: 5-28.
Hansen, S. 1996-1998. Migration und Kommunikation während der späten Bronzezeit. Die Depots als Quelle für ihren Nachweis. Dacia N.S., XL-XLII: 5-28.
Research Interests:
Socketed axes are one of the most characteristic groups of artefacts of the Late Bronze Age of southeastern Europe. They seem to appear all of a sudden in a horizon of hoards conventionally parallelised with phase D of the chronological... more
Socketed axes are one of the most characteristic groups of artefacts of the Late Bronze Age of southeastern Europe. They seem to appear all of a sudden in a horizon of hoards conventionally parallelised with phase D of the chronological scheme of Paul Reinecke.
Some researchers try to explain this brusque appearance as the result of a local development starting from Early Bronze Age socketed chisels. Others tend to seek the origin of the innovation in the east. The earliest socketed axes in Eurasia can be roughly dated to 2000calBC, belonging to the so-called Seima-Turbino horizon of metalwork reaching from the Altai to Finland. Starting from there a complex pattern of migration of this innovation through different cultural milieus is suggested, until its arrival in the Carpathian Basin in connection with the westward migration of the Noua Culture around 1400calBC.
The large quantity, high variety and regionality of styles of Bronze D socketed axes hint at a prolonged local development. As evidence for earlier socketed axes, e.g. casting moulds, can be found in settlements, the rules of hoarding seem to obscure the archaeological visibility of this innovation in the Middle or even Early Bronze Age of southeastern Europe.
The archaeological record has to be reappraised critically to clarify, whether the appearance of socketed axes is connected to one center from where itinerary patterns of the innovation can be traced, or whether the ‚idea of socketed celts‘ (Childe) arose at several centers simultaneously.
Some researchers try to explain this brusque appearance as the result of a local development starting from Early Bronze Age socketed chisels. Others tend to seek the origin of the innovation in the east. The earliest socketed axes in Eurasia can be roughly dated to 2000calBC, belonging to the so-called Seima-Turbino horizon of metalwork reaching from the Altai to Finland. Starting from there a complex pattern of migration of this innovation through different cultural milieus is suggested, until its arrival in the Carpathian Basin in connection with the westward migration of the Noua Culture around 1400calBC.
The large quantity, high variety and regionality of styles of Bronze D socketed axes hint at a prolonged local development. As evidence for earlier socketed axes, e.g. casting moulds, can be found in settlements, the rules of hoarding seem to obscure the archaeological visibility of this innovation in the Middle or even Early Bronze Age of southeastern Europe.
The archaeological record has to be reappraised critically to clarify, whether the appearance of socketed axes is connected to one center from where itinerary patterns of the innovation can be traced, or whether the ‚idea of socketed celts‘ (Childe) arose at several centers simultaneously.
Kinderspielzeug oder Kultobjekte? Die anthropomorphen Figurinen der Wietenberg- und Tei-Kultur Anthropomorphe Darstellungen in Ton sind ein Phänomen, das man hauptsächlich mit dem Neolithikum assoziiert. In der Bronzezeit fehlen... more
Kinderspielzeug oder Kultobjekte? Die anthropomorphen Figurinen der Wietenberg- und Tei-Kultur
Anthropomorphe Darstellungen in Ton sind ein Phänomen, das man hauptsächlich mit dem Neolithikum assoziiert. In der Bronzezeit fehlen Figurinen weitgehend im Fundbild der donau-karpatenländischen Kulturen. Eine deutliche Ausnahme stellt allein die Gârla Mare-Kultur an der unteren Donau mit ihrem reichhaltigen Figurineninventar dar. Anthropomorphe Plastiken fehlen allerdings auch darüber hinaus nicht völlig. Besonders im Verbreitungsgebiet der Wietenberg- und Tei-Kultur ist eine Reihe von recht einfachen, grob gefertigten Beispielen bekannt.
Handelt es sich hierbei um letzte Reflexe neolithischer Glaubensvorstellungen und Ritualpraktiken? Oder stellen die Figurinen in diesem Fall, wie für Objekte geringer Ausmaße und begrenzter Fertigungsqualität gelegentlich angenommen, ad hoc, möglicherweise von Kindern selbst gefertigte Spielzeuge dar?
Dieser Fragestellung soll ausgehend von zwei Funden aus der bronzezeitlichen Siedlung von Rotbav, Kr. Braşov für die Wietenberg- und Tei-Kultur nachgegangen werden. Dabei sollen zunächst die archäologischen Indizien zur Interpretation dieser Objekte gesammelt und dann ethnologisch-anthropologischen Überlegungen gegenübergestellt werden. Ziel soll dabei nicht nur ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der bronzezeitlichen einfachen Figuralplastik sein, sondern auch eine Abwägung der Möglichkeiten und Grenzen beider Interpretationsansätze.
Anthropomorphe Darstellungen in Ton sind ein Phänomen, das man hauptsächlich mit dem Neolithikum assoziiert. In der Bronzezeit fehlen Figurinen weitgehend im Fundbild der donau-karpatenländischen Kulturen. Eine deutliche Ausnahme stellt allein die Gârla Mare-Kultur an der unteren Donau mit ihrem reichhaltigen Figurineninventar dar. Anthropomorphe Plastiken fehlen allerdings auch darüber hinaus nicht völlig. Besonders im Verbreitungsgebiet der Wietenberg- und Tei-Kultur ist eine Reihe von recht einfachen, grob gefertigten Beispielen bekannt.
Handelt es sich hierbei um letzte Reflexe neolithischer Glaubensvorstellungen und Ritualpraktiken? Oder stellen die Figurinen in diesem Fall, wie für Objekte geringer Ausmaße und begrenzter Fertigungsqualität gelegentlich angenommen, ad hoc, möglicherweise von Kindern selbst gefertigte Spielzeuge dar?
Dieser Fragestellung soll ausgehend von zwei Funden aus der bronzezeitlichen Siedlung von Rotbav, Kr. Braşov für die Wietenberg- und Tei-Kultur nachgegangen werden. Dabei sollen zunächst die archäologischen Indizien zur Interpretation dieser Objekte gesammelt und dann ethnologisch-anthropologischen Überlegungen gegenübergestellt werden. Ziel soll dabei nicht nur ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der bronzezeitlichen einfachen Figuralplastik sein, sondern auch eine Abwägung der Möglichkeiten und Grenzen beider Interpretationsansätze.
Archaeology has been engaged in a constant dialogue with the public right from its beginnings as a scientific discipline. Spectacular discoveries have stirred large-scale interest and have become positive icons associated with our field.... more
Archaeology has been engaged in a constant dialogue with the public right from its beginnings as a scientific discipline. Spectacular discoveries have stirred large-scale interest and have become positive icons associated with our field. Narratives of treasure hunt and discovery often are romanticising archaeology as adventure and bravado. On a darker side, the 20th century has seen archaeology being misused (partly by archaeologists themselves) to support political ideologies. Archaeology enjoys a wide popularity and still offers the possibility to be used in both ways quite effectively. Active science communication by archaeologists is essential to avoid misuse of our subject. Traditional outreach, like museums and popular books or articles, have been complemented by new digital tools in past decades. But whatever approach is chosen, one element remains of critical importance: credible experts and communities, who can convey the essence of archaeological research to the public. This is the point where science in general and archaeology in particular have become vulnerable recently. We live in a time, in which facts seem to have become negotiable, and 'alternative facts' can be proposed. The past now is discussed on new platforms, far removed from academia. How can archaeologists keep their role as interpreters and communicators of the past (and should we?)? In which ways can we credibly counter attempts to misuse archaeological data and cultural heritage? What are the best ways to reach out to and engage with the public? How can approaches be assessed so that past unethical communication practices may be discontinued?
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Newsletter of the project "Our Place: Our Place in the World" funded by the John Templeton Foundation.
With contributions by Jörg Becker, Lee Clare, Oliver Dietrich, Ludwig Morenz, Jens Notroff, Klaus Schmidt, Trevor Watkins.
With contributions by Jörg Becker, Lee Clare, Oliver Dietrich, Ludwig Morenz, Jens Notroff, Klaus Schmidt, Trevor Watkins.
Research Interests:
News on recent research and events in the Göbekli Tepe project.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Visit us on:
https://tepetelegrams.wordpress.com/
https://tepetelegrams.wordpress.com/
Research Interests:
It is widely accepted there was a greater movement of people and transmission of ideas and traditions in later prehistoric Europe (i.e. the Bronze and Iron Ages), as is increasingly evidenced by the most recent surge in scientific... more
It is widely accepted there was a greater movement of people and transmission of ideas and traditions in later prehistoric Europe (i.e. the Bronze and Iron Ages), as is increasingly evidenced by the most recent surge in scientific analyses, for instance of isotopes and DNA. The evidence provided by these techniques, however, can be enhanced by our main source material: portable material culture. Objects offer a physical representation of inherent concepts of form, manufacture skills and techniques, as well as the opportunities for material analyses to determine origins. Furthermore, the practices attributed to these objects, including the use, treatment, and deposition of objects can demonstrate how certain traditions transformed across different regions. The aim of this session is to bring together a spread of case studies from across Europe during the Bronze and Iron Ages that enables insights into where and how regional and supra-regional links and networks were formed through the trade and exchange of materials and ideas. We invite papers that look at traditions in the production, use and deposition of objects and how these may express influences and connections with other areas. This may include discussions around typologies and distribution patterns; production methods; origins of materials; depositional practices; and post-use treatments (e.g. reworking; fragmentation); as well as the impact these external influences had on the local communities.