Figure 121 – uploaded by Svend Hansen

See full PDF downloadDownload figure

Fig. 10 Section of the northern rampart and defensive ditches at the Gruset Plateau (adapted from Vasiliev et al. 1991, 3 Pl. ID) — Figure 10 Section of the northern rampart and defensive ditches at the Gruset Plateau (adapted from Vasiliev et al. 1991, 3 Pl. ID)

Related Figures (204)

UNIVERSITATSFORSCHUNGEN ZUR PRAHISTORISCHEN ARCHAOLOGIE

Fig. 1 Graphic reconstruction of the Bronze Age fortification walls built of wood, earth and stone. Bullenheimer Berg (a-c) and other sites (d-g) (after Herrmann 1989, 115 with references)

like conflicts: traces of destruction levels or hori- zons, repair or renovation of fortified structures in regular intervals, the shift of the population into a fortress, the strategic position of a fortifi- cation, gates that provide only indirect entrance into a fortification, blockage of the gates, and the willingness of the population to participate in building a large fortification. Thus, according to Ashkenazi, the function of fortifications lay in their symbolic representation of power and ideol- ogy of the elite, that is, the border between outside and inside, between ‘we’ and ‘they. The erection of

Fig. 2 Still present today in the massive walls of prehistoric fortifications are the remains of previous defensive walls. View of the graduated defensive walls around the summit plateau of the Ipf near Bopfingen, which were already erected in the Late Bronze Age and expanded later in the Hallstatt period (photo by R. Krause)

Fig. 3 The circular, 600-m long stone fortification around the summit of the 533-m high Stallberg near Hiinfeld-Kirchhasel, distr. Fulda, is evidenced by the immense rubble of basalt boulders. In the foreground - an old trench from the excavation by Josef Vonderau in 1903, in which the front face of the stone wall can be recognised (photo by R. Krause)

Fig. 4 The landscape between the Vogelsberg and the Rh6n with the Fulda basin in eastern Hesse, showing hilltop settlements of the Late Bronze Age or evidence of prospection and salt springs (map by F. Becker based on the EU-DEMs v. 1.1)

Fig. 6 The salt spring Benediktussprudel, drilled in 1903, in Selters, Ortenberg, distr. Wetteraukreis (photo by B. Henkes)

Fig. 7 Experimental salt boiling as part of a course of the Goethe University (Frankfurt/Main) on the Glauberg in 2018. Brine is boiled in a ceramic vessel. A white residue can be recognised above the foam on the wall of the vessel. Using this simple method at least small amounts of salt can be gained (photo by A. Stobbe)

Fig. 8 Viewshed analyses of a 20-km radius around the Haimberg (above) and the Sangers- berg (below). They confirm the favourable view axes between both Late Bronze Age hill settlements and in the Fulda Basin, the area where the old route axes intersect (cp. Fig. 4). Despite the forest cover, in figures 8 and 9 together the excellent view axes between the hill settlements is quite apparent (analysis by FE. Becker, basing on the EU-DEMs v. 1.1)

Fig. 9 View from the 553-m high Sangersberg towards the Southeast to the Lider valley and the Fulda Basin. In the centre lies th elongate, forested ridge of Haimberg (today still preserved to a height of 416 m) (photo by R. Krause) ject in Frankfurt/Main is discussing the function and importance of fortifications in interdiscipli- nary dialogue with medieval studies* and sociol- ogy. Nowadays, the causes for erecting walls are attributed to various factors, which do not nec- essarily base on solely reasons of defence. Today the line of inquiry concerns far more the social representation and effect of walls - ‘inwards’ as well as ‘outwards’ -, and their function in a settle- ment landscape as an identity-giving element of a community. Or expressed in another way: fortifi- cations likewise symbolise the ideology and claim to power of elites. On the other hand, we assume that fortresses of the Bronze Age were built coin- cident with the development of new weapons and battle techniques as preventative measures and de- terrents against confrontations. They were less the expression of real conflicts, and more in anticipa- tion of conflict, which could possibly be avoided or carried out outside of the fortified hill settlements. one hand, timber was needed for construction of fortresses and settlement structures, while on the other hand, wood was needed for daily use. Yet, the mountain tops must have already been free of trees, so that the postulated visual connections between fortifications and a certain control over the area would have been possible. Finally, it may be assumed that the valleys in the area of the Ful- da Basin were visible to a certain degree, as well, possibly to control the long-distance routes, re- constructed here.

Fig. 10 The topographically prominent basalt block of the Milseburg (835 m high) in the anterior Rhén dominates the landscape. View from the 553-m high Sangersberg towards the East, over the Fulda Basin to the Milseburg (photo by R. Krause)

Fig. 1 Acropolis of Early Bronze Age Zeraqun (after Douglas 2011 Fig. 3)

Fig. 2 Bab edh-Dhra. Area XI includes two freestanding towers and at Area XVI only domestic houses were found (after Rast/Schaub 2003, 286 Fig. 10.1) Despite their sheer size, EB III fortifications ex- hibit many tactical deficiencies.” At Bab edh-Dhra;, Bet Yerah and Zeraqun, fortifications still did not encircle the whole site (Fig. 2). At Bet Yerah and Rumeida (Hebron) they occupied topographically inferior positions. Towers and bastions, though massive, often exhibit a limited field of view (either due to their location in the path of the wall or by being built facing inward, e.g. at ‘Ai and Bet Yerah) and were usually separated by very large gaps, far exceeding the typical “bowshot gap” of 25-40 m. Over time, towers and bastions at some sites were allowed to fall into disrepair without being replaced (‘Ai, Yarmuth). Most sites lacked a secured water source. Finally, the massive fortified enclosures could scarcely be effectively manned by the limited population of the towns (which, in any case, were not likely to have had any form of permanent mili- tary garrison): the only putative evidence for battle - at the Lawieh/Leviah enclosure - comes in the form of what could at best be termed a raid involving hand-to-hand combat within the gate passage, rather than a siege, and it appears to have been won by the attackers! Tel Yarmuth,” whose massive and sophisticated late EB II fortification anticipated ments, appears to buck the trend o porary settlements: In the EB II, a series of large rectangular stone platforms (10- = a Li. B III develop- f most contem- 2x 30-40 m), interpreted as foundations for internal bastions, was constructed u earlier walls. Later, as the first wall (Wa construction of Pa pon the fill be one of these platforms as well ll A) were put out of use by the ace B1, reinforcing the sense tween the two of a change in priorities of the local leadership: instead of recruiting local labor for public works through the medium of ritual centralization, a con- centrated effort was made to bolster the leading family or families, leaving inhabitants to fend for efit of a functioning de was a harbinger of the final demise themselves wit fense system. 1 the status of he rest of the hout the ben- [his approach of EB III, when towns were no longer able to function as communi- ties, and the mutual obligations of the various classes of inhabitants were no ——- 1 171 onger honored. 4

Fig. 4 Ashkelon (after Stager et al. 2008 Fig. 1.4)

Fig. 5 Hazor ramparts and Stratum 3 (XVI) temples (after Zuckerman 2012 Fig. 5)

ig. 1 Map of Bronze Age fortified sites on Cyprus. The numbers on the map correspond with thos in the catalogues (map by the authors)

Fig. 2 Map of sites in the Dali/Agios Sozomenos area (after Fortin 1995 Fig. 1)

Fig. 3 Plan of Kafkallia (after Fortin 1995 Fig. 14)

Fig. 4 Nitovikla walled plateau and fortress (after Gjerstad et al. 1934 Pl. IV,2 and Peltenburg 2008, Fig. 2 b. Sites known from surface surveys

Fig. 5 Korovia/Kuruova-Nitovikla. Aerial view of the walled plateau (image: Apollo Mapping)

Fig. 6 Korovia/Kuruova-Nitovikla and surroundings. Aerial view (image: Apollo Mapping)

Fig. 8 Agios Thyrsos-Vikla. Aerial view of the fortified site (image: Apollo Mapping)

Fig. 9 Agios Thyrsos-Vikla and surroundings. Aerial view (image: Apollo Mapping)

Fig. 10 Dali-Ambelleri (Idalion), Period 3 (LC IIIB) (after Astrém 1972b, Fig. 7c) Catalogue III. Sites with disputed defensive character

Fig. 11 Plan of the excavations in Enkomi (after Courtois et al. 1986 Fig. 1) 29. Enkomi/Tuzla-Agios Iakovos

Fig. 1 Distribution of Bronze Age sites (blue) and possible/certain fortifications (red) (map by author and P. Matsouka, Anavasi)

Fig. 2 Chronological distribution of Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age sites and possible/certain fortifications (chart by author)

Fig. 3 General distribution of possible/certain Bronze Age fortifications (blue) and sites with continuous, multi-period fortifications attested in the Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age (red) (map by author and P. Matsouka, Anavasi)

Fig. 5 Distribution of Early Bronze Age sites (blue) and possible/certain fortifications (red) (map by author and P. Matsouka, Anavasi) tlement of Troy I/II with its protection by a sepa- rate rampart makes Troy I/II exceptional.” Two re- constructions of the rampart have been suggested either a wooden palisade with wattle and daub be- tween posts or a more substantial construction o! wooden posts and mud bricks.” exhibited all features typical in later phases. Rather than a freestanding wall, the fortifications included a sloping monumental stone revetment (‘glacis’), a distinctive feature of north-eastern Aegean fortifi- cations.”! Wide gates are protected by massive rec- tangular bastions of monumental dimensions. Later, a steep monumental stone-paved ramp about 21 m long and 7.5 m wide led to one of the gates. Several phases of destruction can be identified in Early Bronze Age Troy. However, the fortifications did not fundamentally change, but rather were gently modified.” The large c. 90,000-m7? large lower set-

Fig. 6 Distribution of possible/certain Early Bronze II fortifications (red) and corridor houses/roof-tiles/incised bone-tubes and weights (blue) (map by author and P. Matsouka, Anavasi)

Fig. 7 Distribution of Early Bronze III sites (blue) and possible/certain fortifications (red) (map by author and P. Matsouka, Anavasi)

Fig. 8 Kolonna on Aegina, settlement with fortifications of Kolonna phase V (red); the late Archaic/Classical temple of Apollo is symbolized by the light gray area (figure based on Walter/Felten 1981, with additions by the author and H. Birk)

Fig. 9 Kolonna on Aegina, settlement with fortifications of Kolonna phase V (blue) and VI (red); the late Archaic/Classical temple of Apollo is symbolized by the light gray area (figure based on Walter/Felten 1981, with additions by the author and H. Birk)

Fig. 10 Distribution of Middle Bronze Age sites (blue) and possible/certain fortifications (red) (map by author and P. Matsouka, Anavasi the growing number of fortified or potentially for- tified inland sites urges caution. tions, only general comparisons seem possible.» Very important factors for defensive strategies are clearly the location and natural conditions.” Most fortifications are located immediately at or in close proximity to coastlines,” even if situated on rather inaccessible hilltop locations. However, the assumption that only coastal sites may have been fortified or that the greatest threat came mainly from the sea is an oversimplification, and One primary difference between eastern and central/western Aegean fortifications may be the form and dimensions of fortifications. Troy, with its massive fortification of the acropolis and a defen- sive system for the lower settlement, is exceptional. In the central and western Aegean, the Cycladic islands and the Greek mainland, fortifications are commonly of much smaller scale, sometimes pro- tecting only a few houses. The walls are either free- standing or have buildings abutting them; stone revetments (‘glacis’) of the settlement mound seem more common in the eastern Aegean.

Fig. 11 Distribution of later Middle Bronze Age and early Late Bronze Age sites (blue) and possible/certain fortifications (red) (map by author and P. Matsouka, Anavasi)

Fig. 12 Distribution of Middle Bronze Age sites (blue), possible/certain fortifications (red) and tumuli/elite burials and mansions (green) (map by author and P. Matsouka, Anavasi)

Fig. 13 Kolonna on Aegina, settlement with fortifications of Kolonna phase VI (blue) and VII (red); the late Archaic/Classical temple of Apollo is symbolized by the light gray area (figure based on Walter/Felten 1981, with additions by the author and H. Birk)

Fig. 14 Kolonna on Aegina, settlement with fortifications of Kolonna phase VII (blue) and VIII (red); the late Archaic/Classical temple of Apollo is symbolized by the light gray area (figure based on Walter/Felten 1981, with additions by the author and H. Birk)

Fig. 15 Kolonna on Aegina, settlement with fortifications of Kolonna phase VIII (blue) IX (red) ; the late Archaic/Classical temple of Apollo is symbolized by the light gray area (figure based on Walter/Felten 1981, with additions by the author and H. Birk)

Fig. 16 Distribution of Late Bronze Age (Early Mycenaean) sites (blue) and possible/certain fortifications (red) and tumuli/tholoi/elite burials and mansions (green) (map by author and P. Matsouka, Anavasi)

Fig. 17 Distribution of Late Bronze Age (Palatial) sites (blue) and possible/certain fortifications (red) (map by author and P. Matsouka, Anavasi)

Fig. 18 Distribution of Late Bronze Age (Post-palatial) sites (blue) and possible/certain fortifications (red) and fortified palatial sites occupied in post-palatial times (green) (map by author and P. Matsouka, Anavasi)

Fig. 1 Bronze Age settlements in south-eastern Italy, the eastern Adriatic and the Aegean mentioned in the text (map elaborated by G. Recchia)

1. Molinella; 2. Punta Manaccora; 3. Torre Mileto; 4. Vallone S. Giovanni ; 5. Coppa Castedda; 6. Brecciara; 7. Colle Malchieuti; 8. Pianc Navuccio; 9. Coppa di Rose; 10. Colle di Breccia; 11. Piani di Lauria; 12. Colle Arsano; 13. Pezze della Chiesa; 14. Le Cave; 15. Monte Granata; 16. Ciccalento; 17. Mass. Faralla ; 18. Monte Rullo; 19. Lucera; 20. Coppa Nevigata; 21. Cupola Beccarini; 22. Posta Rivolta 23. Serra Forcella; 24. Ordona; 25. Vasche Napoletane; 26. Ripalta; 27. Calcara; 28. Madonna del Petto; 29. Canne: 30. Macchia di Rose; 31. Capo Colonna; 32. La Chianca; 33. Punta Marasca; 34. Minervino Murge; 35. Spinazzola; 36. Giovinazzo: 37. Tre Fontane; 38. Bari; 39. Bitetto; 40. Punta della Penna; 41. Mola di Bari; 42. Monte S. Michele; 43. L’Annunziata; 44. Dannetta 45. La Croce; 46. Polignano a Mare; 47. Torre del Trullo; 48. Agnano; 49. Monopoli; 50. Monte S. Nicola; 51. Monte Tauro; 52. Egnazia: 53. Mass. S. Francesco; 54. Monte Gianecchia; 55. Mass. Chiancudda; 56. Badessa; 57. Porcile Caramazza; 58. Mass. Minerva 59. Cozzo Marziotta; 60. Monticelli; 61. Puntore; 62. Fosso Montanaro; 63. Torre S. Sabina; 64. Rissieddi; 65. Ostuni; 66. Carestia 67. Torre Guaceto - Apani; 68. Torre Testa; 69. Mass. Jannuzzo; 70. Punta le Terrare; 71. Muro Maurizio; 72. Oria; 73. Riggio; 74. Scoglic del Tonno; 75. Taranto S. Domenico; 76. Mass. Lo Noce; 77. S. Sofia; 78. Porto Perone - Satyrion; 79. Torre Castelluccia; 80, Bagnara: 81. Manduria; 82. Punta Presutti; 83. Torre Castiglione; 84. Scalo di Furno; 85. Roca; 86, Cavallino; 87. S. Donato; 88. Torre dell’Alto: 89. Punta dell’Aspide; 90. Otranto; 91. Portorusso; 92. Muro Leccese; 93. S. Maria al Bagno; 94. Isola S. Andrea; 95. Le Pazze; 96. Fano - Salve; 97. Punta Ristola; 98. S. Maria di Leuca; 99. Punta Meliso. A. Celone valley survey; B. Murge Tableland project; C. Ostuni field survey

Fig. 3 Coppa Nevigata (northern Apulia). Aerial photo of the archaeological site, excavations 1983-2015 (archive of the Coppa Nevigata Research Project; aerial photos by A.V. Romano 2006, FE. Nomi 2010 and B. Mandelli 2015)

Fig. 4 Coppa Nevigata (northern Apulia). Map of the 17" century BC defensive wall and of the burnt deposits outside the wall, dating to late 16" century BC, possibly resulting from an assault. The distribution of the flint arrowheads from the burnt deposits is also shown (archive of the Coppa Nevigata Research Project; drawing and elaboration by G. Recchia)

Fig. 5 Coppa Nevigata (northern Apulia). Flint arrowheads from the burnt deposits dating to late 16" century BC, possibly evidence for shot arrows: 1-7 barbed and tanged arrowheads; 8-10 arrowheads with a small tang; 11-13 tangless arrowheads (archive of the Coppa Nevigata Research Project; drawings by E. Santucci)

Fig. 6 Coppa Nevigata (northern Apulia). Map of the 14" century BC fortification lines (archive of the Coppa Nevigata Research Project; drawing and elaboration by G. Recchia)

grave goods, provides us with a good picture of the bronze weaponry that was in use and on which ideo- logical emphasis was placed (Fig. 8,1-6. 12-19).* This panoply mostly comprises daggers and short swords, while long swords are rarely attested in this period in entire southern Italy. Thus, it seems that weapons for close-quarter combat had gained prominence, exalting the bravery of single individ- uals. These individuals appear to have been fully integrated in kinship groups, but possibly distin- guished themselves in battle or played the role of military chiefs. In any case, it is highly likely that all the adult males actively participated in the battles, owing to the still limited demography of these forti- fied centres. For instance, as we shall discuss below, we hypothesise that Coppa Nevigata had a popu- lation of approximately 300 inhabitants, of which only 60-75 males were of any military value.**

Fig. 9 Estimation of the amount of labour involved in building the defensive dry-stone wall and digging the defensive ditch at Coppa Nevigata (14 century BC) (graphics by G. Recchia).

Fig. 1 Monkodonja hillfort with surroundings and coastline in the background (after Monkodonja I)

Fig. 2 Monkodonja. a Schematic drawing of reconstructed original contours of the hill in cross-section, which was changed witl stonecutting during the settlement’s construction; b Schematic drawing of the settlement ground plan with tripartite division, con sisting of the acropolis area, the Upper and the Lower Town (a-b: after Monkodonja I, altered)

Fig. 3 Monkodonja. Aerial view of the excavated and restored areas of the settlement in 2007 (after Monkodonja I)

Fig. 4 Monkodonja. The West Gate in the main fortification wall: a Schematic drawing of the four main building phases of the principa. gateway to the settlement; b Aerial photograph of the West Gate after the conclusion of archaeological excavations and restoration worl on the walls (a-b: after Monkodonja I)

Fig. 6 Monkodonja. a Ground plan of the excavated northwest area of the acropolis with the first building phases o: the fortification (red colour); b Ground plan of the younger building phase with the last rebuilding of fortificatior (blue colour) (a-b: after Monkodonja I, altered)

Fig. 7 Monkodonja. North Gate of the main fortification wall: a Aerial view; b Drawing (a-b: after Monkodonja I) ‘0 the precipitous hole of a vertical cave - an area, which in all probability functioned as a specific cult place. A rather particular construction of this 10rthern entrance, the position of which was ob- viously dependent upon the location of the cave n the slope of Monkodonja hill, could possibly ye interpreted as a hidden and fairly safe pathway, ised for particular ritual practices.

Fig. 8 Gradina on the Veliki Brijun/Brioni Island. a View of the gate from outside of the settlement; b Ground plan and cross-sections of the excavated area of the gate, leading to the settlement (the numbers indicate various building phases; according to Vitasovi¢ 2000) (a: photo by K. Mihovili¢; b: drawing by I. Murgelj)

Fig. 9 Karastak hillfort near Rovinj, eastern gate in the main fortification wall. a View of the hill Karastak with the hillfort; b View of the fortification wall remains, built with orthostats; c Ground plan of the gateway to the settlement (the numbers indicate different construction stages) (a-b: photographs by D. MatoSevi¢; c: drawing by I. Murgelj)

Fig. 10 Troy. Schematic plan with different phases of city fortification; important for our discussion here are especially the phases Troy I] (ochre) and Troy VI (red) (according to Korfmann/Mannsperger 1998)

Fig. 11 Monkodonja. a Bronze spearhead, which was discovered under the stone rubble of the acropolis fortification; b Distribution map of this type of bronze spearhead, which was also discovered in Monkodonja (a: after Monkodonja I; b: map by V. Svetlici¢)

Fig. 1 Localization of South Bohemia within Europe (map by the author)

Fig. 2 A Representation of types according to transformation; B morphological types; C histogram of the size of hillforts (graphs by the author)

ig. 3 A Representation of types according to chronology; B relation between chronology and transformation types; C histogram of the size of dated hillforts (graphs by the author)

Fig 4 Vrcovice. Cross-section of the fortification (after Hlasek et al. 2014a)

Fig. 5 Vsemyslice. A Map of the site; B cross-section of the edge of acropolis made by L. Jira; C cross-section of the edge of acropolis made by author (A after Hlasek et al. 2015b; B after Hasek et al. 2014b; C after Hlasek et al. 2015b)

Fig. 6 Milenovice. Cross-section of the fortification (drawing by the author)

Fig. 7 Maps of South Bohemian hillforts. Labels refer to the catalogue of sites (maps by the author)

Fig. 8 Plans of South Bohemian hillforts made by airborne laser scanning (ALS): 1 Albrechtice nad Vltavou; 2 Bechyné; 3 Brloh; 4 Dobiejovice; 5 Hluboka nad Vltavou; 6 Hradisté u Pisku (ALS plans by the author; 4 other plan after Chvojka et al. 2008; 5 other plan after Chvojka/John 2006)

Fig. 1 Localisation of the hillfort on Zyndram’s Hill in Maszkowice: a against the background of the Bronze and Early Iron Age set- tlement network within the upper Dunajec river valley; b location of sites (maps by J. Jedrysik)

Fig. 2 Advanced viewshed analysis for the observation point located in the eastern part of the Maszkowice hillfort prepared in Quantum GIS, plug-in by Cuckovié 2016. Parameters: radius - 6 km, observation point - 1.6 m, receiver height - 0 m, atmospheric refraction — 0’ (map by J. Jedrysik)

Fig. 3 Local relief model and slope analysis prepared in Quantum GIS which show detail of Zyndram’s Hill’s topography (steep west- ern and southern slopes, eastern and northern terraces and plateau) (map by J. Jedrysik)

"ig. 4 Basic deposit modelling of boreholes obtained in a geological reconnaissance of the western edge of the Maszkowice hillfort (cp. Fig. 5) (illustration by J. Jedrysik)

Fig. 5 Site plan with localisation of trenches and boreholes (illustration by J. Jedrysik)

Fig. 6 Simplified chronological diagram of the hillfort on Zyndram’s Hill (illustration by M. S. Przybyla)

Fig. 7 Zyndram’s Hill in Maszkowice, view from the west. Graphic reconstruction: the range of the stone wall is marked according to the results of geophysical survey (illustration by M. S. Przybyla)

Fig. 8 Segment of the wall completely revealed in July 2017: 1 line of the outer face; 2 inner part of the wall; 3 stone pathway; 4 short cross-wall; 5 test trench from 1961; 6 clay embankment from the second building phase (illustration by M. S. Przybyla)

Fig. 9 Stone fortifications in the southern part of the excavated area (trenches 2. 8; cp. Fig. 5). The postern gate is located within an off-set of the wall (blue - pebbles connected with construction or gate occupational level; yellow — postern gate’s occupational level; brown - postern gate’s slabs; light green - inner part of the wall; dark green - outer face) (illustration by J. Jedrysik)

Fig. 11 Fragments of worked stone discovered within the short cross-wall, located in the southern part of the pathway. Probably an element of combined stone-wood construction (illustration by M. S. Przybyta)

Fig. 12 Particularly well preserved segment of the inner part of the wall (trench 8N); excavations in 2015 (photo by M. S. Przybyla)

Fig. 13 Northern section of trenches 8N and 10 from 2014-2015 (illustration by M. S. Przybyta)

Fig. 14 Selection of pottery fragments from the postern gate occupational layer (drawings by E. Rydzewska)

Fig. 15 Stratigraphic relations observed during the excavations in 2017 (trench 11). The stone pathway from the oldest phase of for tifications is covered by the clay embankment, which in turn is the base for one of the houses of the second phase of the Early Bronz« Age settlement (illustration by M. S. Przybyta)

Fig. 16 Generalized plan of the settlement in phases Maszkowice I-III (a-c): A northern gate; B pathway; C short cross-wall; D partly excavated segment of wall (state in spring 2018); E eastern (postern) gate; F house I; G house I; H clay embankment; I house V; J upper part of the fill of large storage pit; K house III; L house IV; M storage pit; N house VII (illustration by M. S. Przybyla)

Fig. 1 Santana-Cetatea Veche. Aerial photograph of the fortification with the location of the 2009 excavation and the location of the settlement of Santana on the administrative map of Romania (photo by the authors) Kurt Horedt accepted this dating straight away, but he preferred to use the term “Late Bronze Age Period.’ He also added that Santana displayed two habitation levels that could be attributed, on the basis of the gold hoard, to the stage Bronze Age D and on the basis of a bronze belt discovered on the surface of the settlement to the stage Hallstatt A.* tion to a late phase of the Pecica- type civilization from the end of the Bronze Age and the second for- tification to the first Iron Age (Hallstatt A1).? Other specialists have subsequently adop An archaeological report on the ted this dating.’° 963 excavation was published much later, providing the first pieces of information regarding the struc ture of fortifica- tion III and the habitation identified inside fortifi- cation I. The excavations were illustrated with plans and archaeological material discovered during this work." Although the fortification systems of en- closures I and III were investigated, no definitive

Fig. 2 Santana-Cetatea Veche. Topographic survey of the area where the 2009 excavation was per- formed and the location of section S1 (map by the authors)

Fig. 3 Santana-Cetatea Veche. Schematic ground of section $1/2009 and the main contexts (very light grey: ditch; grey: rampart; red: remains of the wall; brown: wood beams; light grey: stones; black: post holes; white: extraction pit and area of graves) from where AMS data were sampled (graphic by the authors)

Table 1 Santana-Cetatea Veche. List of AMS dates

Fig. 4 Santana-Cetatea Veche. North-eastern profile of the ditch and absolute dating of lenses “L6”, “L7”, “L8” and “L22’ (drawing by the authors)

Fig. 5 Santana-Cetatea Veche. Ceramic pots discovered in lens “L8” and the absolute dating of the context (drawings by the authors)

Fig. 6 Santana-Cetatea Veche. Pottery discovered in the rampart, in secondary position (drawings by the authors)

Fig. 7 Santana-Cetatea Veche. Pottery discovered in the extraction area of the soil used for the erection of the rampart (drawings by the authors)

Fig. 8 Santana-Cetatea Veche. Grave Cx. 40 (photo and drawings by the authors)

Fig. 9 Santana-CetateaVeche. Grave Cx. 41 and its absolute dating (photograph and drawings by the authors)

Fig. 10 Santana-Cetatea Veche. Bayesian Model of the AMS data (graphic by the authors)

Fig. 12 Santana-Cetatea Veche. The modelling of the AMS data: 1 Start Graves Boundary; 2 End Graves Boundary; 3 Start Ditch Boundary; 4 End Ditch Boundary (graphics by the authors) Fig. 11 Santana-Cetatea Veche. The layout of the AMS data on the calibration curve (graphic by the authors)

Fig. 1 Location of the Teleac hillfort and fortified Gava settlements in the larger region surrounding Teleac (map by the authors)

Fig. 2 LiDAR image of the Teleac hillfort. A Jidovar Hill; B Gruset Plateau; C Lower Settlement; D Northern fortifi- cation and gate; E Southern Ridge and gate; F Areas north of the settlement; G North-western part of the settlement (image by the autors)

Fig. 3 Magnetogram superimposed on a LiDAR image of the Teleac hillfort. The locations of the main trenches excavated in 2016 and 2017 are outlined in white (magnetogram by J. Kalmbach, RGK)

Fig. 4 Magnetogram superimposed on a LiDAR image of Jidovar Hill (magnetogram by J. Kalmbach, RGK)

Fig. 5 Section of the northern fortification system at Jidovar Hill, showing the rampart and defensive ditches (adapted from Horedt et al. 1962, 3 Fig. 3)

Fig. 6 Section of the northern fortification system at Jidovar Hill, showing the tower and defensive ditches (adapted from Vasiliev et al. 1991, 28 Pl. III)

Fig. 7 Magnetogram superimposed on a LiDAR image of the Gruset Plateau (magnetogram by J. Kalmbach, RGK)

Fig. 8 3D image of a pottery kiln and an adjacent oven found at the area for high-temperature production at the Gruset Plateau (image by the authors)

Fig. 9 Orthophoto of the 16 x 10-m trench (T5) by the rampart on the Gruset Plateau with the well preserved remains of a 6 x 9-m large building. The 150 x 120-cm wall section is located in the southern middle part of the building (photo by the authors)

Fig. 11 Orthophoto of the debris from the destruction of the building and rampart in T5 on the Gruset Plateau (photo by the authors)

Fig. 12 Small slingshots found in the destruction debris from the northern rampart at Teleac (drawings by F. Marcuti)

Fig. 13 Magnetogram of Teleac’s Lower Settlement (magnetogram by J. Kalmbach, RGK)

Fig. 14 Iron sword or dagger hilt found at Teleac (photo by C. Suteu)

Fig. 15 The salt spring Ocnisoara - Muratura (com. Lopadea Noua), located in the hills above the Mures floodplain in a salt-rich area 25 km north-east of Teleac (photo by the authors)

Fig. 16 Remnants of placer gold mining in the Aries River Valley in the Apuseni Mountains. The mounds on the field around the steel lattice towers are spoil heaps accumulated during gold mining. The heaps have not been dated, but the majority are probably from medieval times (photo by the authors).

Fig. 17 Aerial view of the Teleac hillfort to the North (photo by J. Kalmbach)

Fig. 18 Cumulative 20-km radius viewshed analysis centred on the Teleac hillfort, mapped with surrounding open settlements (image by the authors)

Fig. 19 Cost-surface analysis centred on the Teleac hillfort (image by the authors)

Fig. 20 Probability distributions of dates relating to the construction of the 9 x 6-m building by the northern rampart, and the destruction of the northern fortification system (graphic by the authors)

Fig. 1 Teleac. View from the northeast: the hillfort and into the Mures Valley (photo by K. Scheele)

Fig. 2 Teleac. The magnetogram shows the burnt fortification wall in a length of 600 m (magnetogram by C. Uhnér)

Fig. 3 Uioara de Sus (Hung.: Felsémarostijvar) located on the Mures River (map made during the Josephinian Land Survey)

Fig. 4 Uioara de Sus. Winged pickaxes (after Petrescu-Dimbovita 1977 Pls. 220,17-19. 221,1.5)

Fig. 5 Teleac. Pottery of the Gava culture (photo by C. Suteu)

Fig. 6 Kerameikos, Athens. Protogeometric grave 6 (after Kraiker/Kibler 1939, altered) ties, which - quite significantly - were immedi- ately used for military purposes. This confirms once again the technological basis of Christian Jurgensen Thomsen’s three-period time sequence. It is indeed the “cutting tools” with which the Bronze and Iron ages should be defined.”

Fig. 7 Kerameikos, Athens. Protogeometric grave 28 (after Kiibler 1943, altered)

Fig. 9 Kerameikos, Athens. Protogeometric grave E (after Kraiker/Kubler 1939, altered)

Fig. 13 Grave 169 in Obiany, Moravia. Ceramic vessels (after Stegman-Rajtar 1986) Fig. 12 Grave 169 in Obiany, Moravia: (from left to right) lancehead, sword, and fin-shaped chape made of iron (after Stegman-Rajtar 1986)

Fig. 14 Iron lancehead from the Musja jama (Fly Cave), Slovenia (after Szombathy 1913)

Fig. 15 Metal finds in the hoard from the hillfort “Varful Ascutit” in Cernat, Romania (after Székely 1966)

Fig. 16 Teleac. Double axe made of iron (Museum Cluj, photo by C. Suteu) Age D/Baierdorf/Caka and Hallstatt Al/Kurd/ Suseni.” T. Bader defined the Cernat variant, which is limited to the eastern Carpathian sphere, and is distinguished by a spring (Federspirale) that is wound outwards.” B. Terzan later made clear that the fibulae indicate a date in the phase Ha A, and that therefore the Cernat hoard certainly can- not be dated to the younger Urnfield time.”! She also emphasises that the Ghirisu Roman hoard belongs to the time Ha A2/B1, and that a late date is out of question.” and iron objects, such as socketed axes and ham- mers, which date to the phases Ha B1 and Ha B2, as well as bronze bar ingots and hardly datable iron socketed axes, knives and lumps of raw iron. Also retrieved from within the area of finds was a “bronze hoard of the phases Ha B2-3, which con- sisted of six socketed axes as well as a one-piece, willow-leaf-shaped bow fibula’® The objects had been deposited in pits.

Fig. 17 Agora, Athens. Metal finds from the Early Geometric grave XXVII (after Blegen 1952) tained a socketed axe made of iron, too.*' The deposition process: the neck-amphora used as an urn was placed in the grave pit. The iron sword was bent to an extreme and then laid around the urn. Two iron lanceheads, one trunnion axe, two bits from horse gear and several clay vessels com- pleted the above-average furnishings of the grave, which included even more clay vessels. 14C-datings for Assiros indicate the beginning of the Protogeometric style (in Assiros) during the time around 1080/1060 BC.” This would support a higher dating for Cernat as well. Double axes made of iron are known from Teleac in Roma- nia, too (Fig. 16).”° The hoard in Bilvanesti, jud. Mehedinti, contained two examples.”

Fig. 18 Teleac. Finds made of iron (photo by C. Suteu)

Fig. 19 Teleac. Small figure of a horse, made of bronze (L. 5.7 cm) (photo by C. Suteu)

Fig. 20 Occurrence of iron ore in Southern Europe (Carte Internationale des Gisments de Fer de Europe, pages 11 and 15, altered and supplemented by C. Uhnér and F. Becker)

Fig. 1 Location of the site of Teleac in Romania (map based on Google Earth)

Fig. 2 View of the landscape (photo by B. Ciuta)

Fig. 3 View towards Trench 1 (photo by B. Ciuta)

Fig. 4 View of Trench 2 (photo by B. Ciuta)

Fig. 5 Flotation barrel used in the selection process (photo by B. Ciuta)

Fig. 7 Charred seeds recovered from inside the oven (photo by B. Ciuta) Fig. 6 Oven in Trench 1 (photo by R. Burlacu)

Fig. 8 Plate showing the plant species recovered from the Teleac site (photo by B. Ciuta)

Fig. 1 Overview of study area and coring sites (map by the authors; image source: ESRI open data)

Fig. 2 a Grain size composition of floodplain deposits from Cornesti; b Examples of fossil topsoils (top: 2"! and 3" m of floodplain profile, bottom: 2"4 and 3" m of slope profile with underlying loess) (graphic and photos by the authors)

Fig. 3 Positions of coring sites at the fortification (illustration by the authors; image source: ESRI open data)

Fig. 4 Sedimentology and chronostratigraphy of the presented profiles (graphics by the authors)

Fig. 5 Locations and surroundings of Profile I (left) and II (right) (photos by the authors)

Fig. 6 Selected palynomorphs from the Copper Age (Profile I) and the Iron Age (Profile II) (graphics by the authors)

Fig. 7 Allocation of regional taxa from the Copper and Iron Age to ecological groups (graphic by the authors)

Fig. 1 Cornesti-larcuri. Location of excavation trenches I to XV from the past eleven years of field research (graphic: Cornesti Project, D. Schaffler)

Tab. 1. Cornesti-larcuri. Trench designation, excavation year, investigated structures and number of radiocarbon datings obtained (n = 109)

Fig. 2 Cornesti-larcuri. Probability of dislocation among 14C datings gained from charcoal and macro remains (graphic: Cornesti Project, R. Lehmphul)

Fig. 3 Cornesti-larcuri. Cracks in the soil recorded in the late summer of 2017 in Valea Lacului at the height of Ring ITI (photo: R. Lehmphul)

Fig. 4 Cornesti-larcuri. Distribution of the 26 dating intervals of 108 datings in the course of the calibration curve (graphic: Cornesti Project, R. Lehmphul)

Fig. 5 Cornesti-larcuri. Spatial distribution of 14C datings for the individual excavation trenches; colours denote epochs and period (graphic: Cornesti Project, D. Schaffler/R. Lehmphul)

Fig. 6 Cornesti-larcuri. Sum calibration of 108 14C datings

‘ig. 7. Cornesti-larcuri. Sum calibration of 91 Late Bronze- to Early Iron Age 14C datings, differentiated according to macro remains (n=50) and charcoal (n=41) (graphic: Cornesti Project, R. Lehmphul)

Fig. 9. Cornesti-larcuri. The six dated posts of the front of rampart Ring II (easterly directior (photo: Cornesti project, A. Szentmiklosi) Fig. 8. Cornesti-larcuri. Combined probability density of the four radiocarbon datings from phase B of Ring I (graphic: Cornesti Project, R. Lehmphul)

Fig. 10. Cornesti-larcuri. Combined probability density of the six radiocarbon datings from the front of rampart Ring II (graphic: Cornesti Project, R. Lehmphul) Tab. 3. Cornesti-larcuri. 14C datings (unmodelled), with laboratory number, sample material and feature context, from trench VI (2012

Fig. 11. Cornesti-larcuri. Combined probability density of the nine radiocarbon datings from trench VI in Ring II (graphic: Cornesti Project, R. Lehmphul)

Tab. 4. Cornesti-larcuri. Datings (unmodelled), with laboratory number, sample material and feature context from trench XI (2016) The Bayesian model is based upon stratigraphic contexts and with an agreement-index-value (A. ae) Of 106.1 principally, it indicates good ac- cordance with the unmodelled A-priori-probabil- ities (Tab. 5, Fig. 12). The date of sample “MAMS- 29742” was not regarded in this calculation and was marked as an ‘outlier, because in the course of the computation this sample showed statisti- cally only slight accordance; evidently it repre- sents the result of a deposition at a considerably ater time. Considering the modelled datings and the two stratigraphic phases discerned in the ram- part profile, a comparably shorter time span can be derived for both the erection as well as the re- newal of the rampart. Accordingly, the date of the beginning of the construction of the first phase ies between 1480 and 1330 cal BC. The beginning of the second phase dates between 1430 and 1325 cal BC; the end is between 1420 and 1265 cal BC. Since both the erection and the renewal as well as the destruction of the fortification likely reflect layers and contexts through the massive movement of earth in the course of erecting the rampart. The time span between carbonisation and final depo- sition of macro remains is an unknown factor in this model, but nevertheless it should be regarded when considering the dating. Accounting for the amount of time that passed from carbonisation to deposition of macro remains, a terminus post quem for the erection of the fortification derived from this model would be too early. —" ee

Figure 121 – uploaded by Svend Hansen

Related Figures (204)

Connect with 287M+ leading minds in your field