i This PDF file of your paper in Beyond Stonehenge belongs to the publishers Oxbow Books and it is their copyright. As author you are licensed to make offprints from it, but beyond that you may not publish it on the World Wide Web or in any other form, without permission from Oxbow Books. An offprint from BEYOND STONEHENGE ESSAYS ON THE BRONZE AGE IN HONOUR OF COLIN BURGESS Edited by Christopher Burgess, Peter Topping and Frances Lynch © Oxbow Books 2007 ISBN 978-1-84217-215-5 Contents Contributor’s details ............................................................................................................................................ viii Foreword ................................................................................................................................................................. xv Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... xvi Acknowledgements ...............................................................................................................................................xvii Colin Burgess: a life in the Bronze Age – Frances Lynch ................................................................................ xix Colin Burgess: career bibliography 1962–2004 – Norma Burgess ............................................................... xxiii Editors’ Note ..................................................................................................................................................... xxvii 1 Culture contact in prehistoric Europe: forty years on from the diffusionist debate Dennis Harding ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Cup and rings and passage grave art: insular and imported traditions Clive Waddington ................................................................................................................................................... 11 3 Miners and farmers: local settlement contexts for Bronze Age mining William O’Brien ..................................................................................................................................................... 20 4 ‘The phallic explanation’. A late nineteenth-century solution to the cup-and-ring conundrum Paul Frodsham ....................................................................................................................................................... 31 5 Bronze moyen récent du Médoc et middle Bronze Age II: des connexions atlantiques Julia Roussot-Larroque .......................................................................................................................................... 38 6 Unenclosed round-houses in Scotland: occupation, abandonment, and the character of settlement S. P. Halliday ......................................................................................................................................................... 49 7 Implantation géographique et topographique des sépultures de l’âge du bronze dans le Finistère Michel Le Goffic .................................................................................................................................................... 57 8 A revision of the late Bronze Age burials from the Roça do Casal do Meio (Calhariz), Portugal R. J. Harrison ......................................................................................................................................................... 65 9 Burnt evidence and mined ground: peat and poverty in early mineral extraction practice C. Stephen Briggs ................................................................................................................................................... 78 10 The early Iron Age transition in the goldwork of the west of the Iberian Peninsula Virgílio Hipólito Correia ....................................................................................................................................... 90 11 Change and persistence. The Mediterranean contribution to Atlantic metalwork in late Bronze Age Iberia Barbara Armbruster and Alicia Perea ................................................................................................................. 97 12 Timing death and deposition: burials, hoards and Bronze Age chronology in western Iberia Catriona D. Gibson .............................................................................................................................................. 107 13 Reinecke’s ABC and the chronology of the British Bronze Age Sabine Gerloff ...................................................................................................................................................... 117 14 Dating the Scottish Bronze Age: ‘There is clearly much that the material can still tell us’ Alison Sheridan .................................................................................................................................................... 162 15 Heathery Burn: the nature and importance of its deposits Anthony Harding .................................................................................................................................................. 186 16 The fort on Shackleton Beacon, County Durham Keith Blood ........................................................................................................................................................... 190 17 ‘An awesome place’. The late Bronze Age use of the Sculptor’s Cave, Covesea, Moray Ian A. G. Shepherd ............................................................................................................................................... 194 18 Burnt mounds in the Lake District, Cumbria John Hodgson ....................................................................................................................................................... 204 19 A note concerning the Nuraghe Barrabisa, Palau (SS): first summary of research Anna Grazia Russu ............................................................................................................................................... 213 20 Ritual architecture, ashlar masonry and water in the late Bronze Age of Sardinia: a view from Monte Sant’Antonio (Siligo-SS) Nevenka Vešligaj and Christopher Burgess ....................................................................................................... 215 21 Votive swords in Gallura: an example of Nuragic weapon worship Fulvia Lo Schiavo ................................................................................................................................................ 225 22 Beakers and the Beaker Culture Humphrey Case .................................................................................................................................................... 237 23 Bronze Age cross-Channel relations. The Lower-Normandy (France) example: ceramic chronology and first reflections Cyril Marcigny, Emmanuel Ghesquiere and Ian Kinnes, with contributions by Thierry Benoît ................... 255 24 Métallurgie atlantique et style céramique Rhin-Suisse-France orientale dans le Centre-Ouest de la France. A propos de l’épée pistilliforme de Saint-Hilaire-le-Palud (Deux-Sèvres), un état de la question José Gomez de Soto ............................................................................................................................................. 268 25 Bronze makes a Bronze Age? Considering the systemics of Bronze Age metal use and the implications of selective deposition Stuart Needham .................................................................................................................................................... 278 26 Swords by numbers Dirk Brandherm .................................................................................................................................................... 288 27 Spiralling from the Danube to the Meuse: The metal-hilted sword from Buggenum (Netherlands, Limburg) Jay J. Butler and David R. Fontijn .................................................................................................................... 301 28 Late Bronze Age swords from Scotland: some finds old and new Trevor Cowie and Brendan O’Connor ............................................................................................................... 316 29 Le dépôt de bronze de Villethierry (Yonne). Une relecture des données Claude Mordant ................................................................................................................................................... 335 30 Apport du Bronze Age Study Group au vieillissement des “hair-rings” dans le Nord de la France Ghislaine Billand and Marc Talon ..................................................................................................................... 344 31 The tool kit of a late Bronze Age wood-worker from Loughbown, County Galway, Ireland George Eogan ....................................................................................................................................................... 354 32 La Broche à rôtir articulée de Port-Sainte-Foy. Un instrument privilégié des banquets de la fin de l’age du Bronze sur la façade atlantique Christian Chevillot ............................................................................................................................................... 361 33 The Meldon Bridge period: the pottery from south and east Scotland twenty years on Ann MacSween ..................................................................................................................................................... 367 34 Miroirs et mantique à l’âge du Bronze Eugène Warmenbol .............................................................................................................................................. 377 35 A late Bronze Age hoard of gold and bronze from near Berwick-upon-Tweed, Northumberland Stuart Needham, Gill Varndell and Sally Worrell ............................................................................................. 397 36 Continuity of monumental traditions into the late Bronze Age? Henges to ring-forts, and shrines T. G. Manby .......................................................................................................................................................... 403 37 Colin Burgess: Adult Education and the Northumberland Archaeological Group Stephen Speak, Margaret Maddison, Basil Butcher, Gordon Moir and the members of NAG ...................... 425 Colour plates 13. Reinecke’s ABC and the Chronology of the British Bronze Age Sabine Gerloff ABSTRACT Firstly, Reinecke’s chronology of the central European Bronze Age, the subsequent divisions of his Urnfield phases by Müller-Karpe (1959) and Sperber (1987) and the new absolute chronology (post-Reinecke and Müller-Karpe) based on scientific dating will be discussed. It will be pointed out that Sperber’s ‘new’ phases – like those of most Swiss authors – although frequently aligned to Müller-Karpe’s terminology, do not correspond in content to the traditional Müller-Karpe scheme which is still usually still used for establishing correlations across Europe. Special attention will be also given to more recently introduced ‘post-Reinecke’ phases, i.e. Bz A3 and Ha C0/C1a. Müller-Karpe’s Ha B2, normally disregarded, will be reviewed and reinstated. The traditional and revised British chronologies will be discussed and correlated with the current central European schemes in the main body of this paper. The British Early Bronze Age will be divided into three major phases: the earliest (EBA 1 or Migdale phase) corresponding to Reinecke Bz A1; Wessex I (EBA 2 or Bush Barrow phase) aligned to the classical phase of the Únětice culture of early Bz A2 (although originally included in Bz A1 by Reinecke); Wessex II (EBA 3 or Camerton-Snowshill phase) should correspond to the conventional late Bz A2 (i.e. Bz A3), or Sögel phase in northwest Germany (Period IA in northern Europe), and persist – in Wessex – into Bz B and possibly early C. The earliest Middle Bronze Age (mainly found outside Wessex) is seen as contemporary with later Wessex II burials in Wessex and thus with Bz B (Wohlde phase in northwest Germany, Period IB in northern Europe) and early C (Reinecke’s 1924 Bz C1). The later Middle Bronze Age or Taunton phase should mainly correspond to later Bz C, i.e. C2 (Period II in northern Europe) and possibly persist into early D. The earlier Penard (Appleby) phase – characterized by straightsided blades – is seen to correspond to the entire Rosnoën complex in Brittany as well as to Bz D and MüllerKarpe’s Ha A1 in central Europe (Period III in northern Europe). The later Penard phase (Ffynhonnau) is believed to be contemporary with Wilburton in southeast England and St.-Brieuc-des-Iffs in Brittany, all of which have to be aligned to Ha A2 and Ha B1 in central Europe and Period IV in northern Europe. Burgess’s late Wilburton or Needham’s early Ewart Park, i.e. the Blackmoor horizon, is aligned to MüllerKarpe’s discarded Ha B2, whereas the classic Ewart Park phase including the Carp’s Tongue complex should correspond to Müller-Karpe’s original Ha B3 and Period V in northern Europe. Period V should also incorporate the newly established Ha C0/C1a (Gündlingen horizon), whereas Period VI has to be assigned to Kossack’s remaining Ha C (now Ha C1/C1b and C2). In common with the revised Ha C, the Llyn Fawr phase, conventionally aligned with Kossak’s traditional Ha C ought to include an early horizon (possibly called Boyton-Ferring) and be parallel to the new Ha C0/C1a, as both are characterized by some identical forms, i.e. Gündlingen swords, winged chapes and single-edged razors, all of which seem to be indigenous Atlantic, rather than central European types as commonly believed. Boyton-Ferring should date from the very end of the 9th to the later 8th century BC and includes surviving Carp’s Tongue and Ewart forms. The later horizon(s?) of Llyn Fawr(later 8th to late 7th century) are marked by the eponymous Llyn Fawr and Sompting hoards, the former including continental forms of the new Ha C1/Ha C1b, the latter of the traditional Ha C2. Keywords BRONZE AGE, REINECKE, CHRONOLOGY 118 SABINE GERLOFF John Evans (1881), Oskar Montelius (1885) and Paul Reinecke (1902a) laid the foundations for the periodization of the Bronze Age in temperate Europe: Evans for the Atlantic West, Montelius for the North and Reinecke for central Europe. Whereas Evans established a three-fold division into Early, Middle and Late, Montelius favoured a numerical sequence and Reinecke an alphabetical one. All three systems are still used today, although there have been modifications and further subdivisions. Together with the revised scheme for Britain developed by Gordon Childe (1940) and Christopher Hawkes (1960), Colin Burgess’s (1968 and 1969) contributions on the chronology and periodization of the British Bronze Age have laid the foundation for past and future research in the Bronze Age of the Atlantic West. Unlike most of his predecessors, who worked at leading research institutions with excellent library facilities and international contacts, Colin Burgess was never granted this opportunity. For this reason, his achievements are the more remarkable. His studies show a detailed knowledge not only of the various Bronze Age cultures in the Atlantic West, but also of those in other parts of temperate Europe and the Mediterranean. Further, he initiated and was the founding member of the Bronze Age Studies Group, an international group of scholars – most of them contributors to this volume – sharing his dedication to the study of Bronze Age societies in the Atlantic West and its interactions with contemporary groups in other parts of Europe. When defining the individual phases of their British Bronze Age sequences, Childe, Hawkes and Burgess correlated them with the chronological frameworks used on the continent, namely with those established by Montelius and Reinecke. Burgess’s initial studies (1968; 1969) appeared late enough to be able to incorporate Hermann Müller-Karpe’s (1959) subdivisions of Reinecke’s early Hallstatt phases. It was necessary for Hawkes and Burgess to refer to central European bronze types in order to provide a relative and absolute chronology for the British material, especially its Middle and Late Bronze Age bronzes, which were deposited singly or included in hoards. These often contain ‘scrap’ material, sometimes not easily identifiable and of different periods. On the continent, comparable bronzes can be more closely dated, because apart from occurring in hoards, settlements and as single finds, they were frequently included in burials. These include superimposed burials, such as those from multi-period mounds of the northern Bronze Age and central European Tumulus Culture, and large cremation cemeteries laid out in horizontal sequences, typical of the central European Urnfield period. These vertical and horizontal stratigraphies helped to define their relative chronology. Thus the definition and sequence of individual phases of the Bronze Age was much more easy to establish in continental Europe than in the ‘burial-free’ zones of the later Atlantic Bronze Age. In regard to the absolute chronology of continental finds, absolute dating methods not yet having been developed, Montelius, Reinecke and even Müller-Karpe had to rely on historical ‘crossdating’, i.e. deriving their dates from comparative, historically-dated finds in the eastern Mediterranean, often via Italy. As Atlantic bronzes showed closer affinities with central- and north-European forms than with the historically-dated material from the south, scholars in western Europe had to rely on the secondary or ‘imported’ historical dates for central and northern Europe. They transferred these – often believing in a ‘time-lag’, especially for the beginning of the Late Bronze Age – to the individual phases of the Bronze Age in the West, first called ‘Atlantic’ by Adolf Mahr in his presidential address to the Prehistoric Society in 1937 (Mahr 1937, 397). In this paper I will firstly discuss Reinecke’s and Müller-Karpe’s traditional systems, as these may not be intimately familiar to all British readers, before reexamining their synchronism with the individual phases of the British Bronze Age as established by Hawkes and Burgess. Recent radiocarbon and dendrochronological dates, both from Britain and the continent, will then be considered and finally their impact on the correlation of both systems will be discussed. PAUL REINECKE AND HIS CHRONOLOGICAL SYSTEM Paul Reinecke was born in Berlin in 1872 (Fig. 13.1). During the early and middle 1890s he initially studied medicine, then classical archaeology and anthropology at Munich University, at a time when the subject of prehistoric archaeology was not yet formally taught. Between 1897 and 1908 he worked as assistant curator at the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum in Mainz. Here Reinecke was able to study one of the largest collections of prehistoric finds from central Europe, although the great majority of the exhibits were copies from originals in various museums, mostly in Germany, some from elsewhere.1 During his time at Mainz he travelled widely throughout Europe, studying, recording and comparing the finds that were to form the basis of his chronological studies. Between 1908 and 1926 he was the head of the newly established ‘Generalkonservatorium der Kustdenkmale und Altertümer Bayerns’, today known as the ‘Bayerische Landesamt für Denkmalpflege’ (Bavarian Ministry of Ancient Monuments). Although Reinecke was offered the chair of Prehistoric Archaeology at Munich University in 1920, he declined it and stayed at the Landesamt until his retirement in 1937. Reinecke died in 1958, aged 85. His bibliography lists nearly 450 articles (Wagner 1965), most of which are relatively brief contributions to numerous central European journals. He never published a monograph, although some of his Late Bronze Age and Iron Age papers were collected in 1965 REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE Fig. 13.1 Paul Reinecke aged about 60. Oil painting by Reinhold Lischka, displayed in the Römisch-Germanische Zentralmuseum at Mainz (after Krämer 1985) (below p.119). His original publications are therefore to be sought in vain in library catalogues. His most important papers on the periodization and chronology of the central European Bronze and Iron Age are included in our bibliography. Oskar Montelius and Paul Reinecke are rightly regarded as the principal founders of European Bronze Age chronologies. Montelius’ pioneering work, which divided the Northern Bronze Age into six periods (I– VI), appeared in 1885 (an abbreviated English translation was published in 1986). This publication was to be a catalyst for Reinecke’s desire to establish a comparable system for central Europe (1900). Unlike Evans (1881), who divided the British Bronze Age into Early, Middle and Late (a three-fold division also common in the eastern Mediterranean where it is based on the division of the Egyptian dynastic sequence into Old, Middle and New Kingdoms), Reinecke and Montelius did not use this scheme. In common with Montelius for the north, Reinecke divided the central European Bronze Age – as we define it today – into six phases. He tried to correlate them with the periods of Montelius, but realized that the individual periods of the two systems did not correspond exactly (Fig. 13.2). In his discussions and lists of central European Bronze Age finds, mostly from burials and less frequently from hoards or settlements, Reinecke not 119 only included material from present-day Germany and western Poland, but also from Austria-Hungary – especially Bohemia and Moravia – as well as Switzerland. To provide absolute dates, he related the finds to similar material from the Aegean, Egypt and Syria (see Fig. 13.2). Reinecke’s scheme, originally devised for southern Germany – northern Germany with its ‘Nordic’ finds being dated by Montelius’ periods – was subsequently adopted in most parts of central Europe. Reinecke wrote his Bronze Age chronology during the first decade of the last century and published it in articles in the Korrespondenzblatt der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte (1900; 1902a) and, primarily, in the fifth volume of Die Alterthümer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit (1911). The latter is the last volume of the nineteenthcentury standard work on German pre- and protohistory, the first four volumes being edited by Ludwig Lindenschmit (see n.1) and all published by the RömischGermanische Zentralmuseum at Mainz between 1858 and 1911. Reinecke’s ‘Mainzer Aufsätze’ of 1911 were reprinted in a monograph after his death (Reinecke 1965). In order to distinguish his Stufen (steps or phases) from the numerical periods forwarded by Montelius, Reinecke labelled them alphabetically. He proposed this alphabetical scheme not only for the central European Bronze Age, but also extended it to Tischler’s (1881) classic chronological divisions of the Hallstatt and La Tène (in German Latène) Iron Age. Reinecke divided the central European Bronze Age, as we perceive it today, into six consecutive phases: Bronzezeit (Bz) A to D (1900; 1902a–b; 1911a–c), followed by his first two Hallstatt phases A and B (1911d–f). The phases from Bronze A to Bronze D were defined as Die reine Bronzezeit (the true Bronze Age), whereas phases Ha A (frühe Hallstattzeit) and Ha B (zweite Hallstattstufe), marked by flat cemeteries of urned cremations – now as in the late nineteenth century generally assigned to the Late Bronze Age – formed the first two Hallstatt phases of his earlier Iron Age or post-Bronze Age (nachbronzezeitlich) period. Reinecke’s Hallstatt C (dritte Hallstattstufe; 1911g) and Hallstatt D (späte Hallstattstufe; 1911h) replaced Tischler’s ältere and jüngere Hallstatt periods. Tischler’s Early Latène period was subdivided into Latène A and B (Reinecke 1911i–j), Tischler’s Middle Latène became Latène C (idem 1911k) and Late Latène was redefined as Latène D (idem 1911l). Reinecke’s Bronze and Iron Age classifications are still standard today, although the individual phases have subsequently been modified and frequently redated by various scholars, including by Reinecke himself in later years. They also have been subject of further subdivisions. Reinecke originally dated his ‘reine Bronzezeit’, Bz A to D, between the end of the third millennium and 1200 BC (1902a–b; 1911a–c), Ha A to the period from 1200 to 1000 BC (1911d–e), and Ha B to 1000 to 850/800 BC (1911f). Remarkably, Reinecke’s original ‘historical’ 120 SABINE GERLOFF Fig. 13.2 Reinecke’s Chronological Table (1902a) dates, some of which were subsequently lowered (below, p.130), largely correspond to our present chronology of calendar years, based on scientific dating (see Table 13.1–2, p.125ff.). Reinecke assigned his first two Hallstatt phases (Ha A and B) to the earliest Iron Age because they contained a few bronze objects with iron components, for instance metal-hilted swords (Vollgriffschwerter) of Hostomice, Mörigen and antennae-hilted types. Reinecke (1902a) included these in his frühe Hallstattzeit (Ha A), although today they are known to belong to the end of Ha B. Reinecke argued, as did others before him, that the Urnfield period (his Ha A and B) should be largely contemporary with the ‘Pre-Etruscan’ Iron Age south of the Alps, namely with the earlier phases of the Italian Villanova Culture (Montelius’ 1897 periods I and II of the Italian Iron Age), as both share urned cremation burials in large flat cemeteries, common metal types, and related pottery forms. Reinecke’s concept of an early beginning of the Iron Age north of the Alps and his assignment of the term ‘Hallstatt’ to phases that still produced almost exclusively bronze objects proved to be unfortunate, as it gave rise to controversy and misinterpretation, especially outside Germany. Reinecke’s ‘Hallstattzeit’ (Hallstatt period) comprised forms both of Late Bronze and early Iron Age date (Ha A to D), whereas the term Hallstattkultur (Hallstatt Culture), although often used interchangeably with it, covers only the Ha C and D phases – those now conventionally reckoned as Iron Age. Also, Reinecke’s use of the name “frühe Hallstattzeit” to mean Ha A (in what we would now call the earlier part of the Late Bronze Age) could very easily be confused with Tischler’s ältere Hallstattzeit (in what we would now recognise as the first phase of the Iron Age), the latter corresponding in fact to Reinecke’s third Hallstatt phase, namely Ha C. Reinecke’s Hallstatt terminology, therefore, gave rise to controversy. His system was never adopted in France, where Déchelette (1910), who replaced Mortillet’s twofold scheme of Morgien and Larnaudien, followed Montelius in introducing a numerical scheme (period I– V). Also in Britain, Reinecke’s ‘Hallstatt terminology’ was ill-understood, the term ‘Hallstatt’ often being identified with the Celts. For instance, Late Bronze Age flange-hilted swords with leaf-shaped blades, which included the Carp’s Tongue and Gündlingen types, the latter regarded by Reinecke as a Leitfossil of his Ha B (1911f), were frequently connected with invasions by early Celtic people from the West-Alpine area into southeastern England (Crawford 1922; Peake 1922, Evans 1931; Kendrick and Hawkes 1932; Mahr 1937). These armed warriors – Estyn Evan’s (1930) ‘sword-bearers’ – were then believed to have introduced the earliest Celtic culture and language into Britain and Ireland. Reinecke’s conception of his earlier Hallstatt phases also influenced E. C. R. Armstrong, who’s The early Iron Age or Hallstatt Period in Ireland (1924) discusses mainly late Bronze Age forms. These inconsistencies in terminology, and the assignation of Gündlingen swords to Ha C by Kimmig in 1940, led Childe in 1948 to abandon the terms Ha A and B and replace them with BZ E and F, a REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE terminology also adopted by Hawkes (1948). Childe argued: But to me the Hallstatt period begins with these swords (Gündlingen) and their wielders, and, if only to save type, I shall treat his (Reinecke’s) Hallstatt A and Hallstatt B as phases E and F of the Bronze Age (1948, 180, note 2). Possibly to avoid confusion, Reinecke never used the term ‘Late Bronze Age’; nor, indeed, was it commonly used by later generations of German prehistorians. Reinecke referred to Bz D as the ‘end of the proper Bronze Age’ or the ‘younger Bronze Age’, perhaps realizing that his phases Ha A and B included types classed as ‘Late Bronze Age’ elsewhere, but which he believed did not belong to the true or proper Bronze Age in central Europe, as they were related to Early Iron Age types (see above), as well as being contemporary with material classified as representing an Early Iron Age south of the Alps. Because of Reinecke’s legacy, the term ‘Late Bronze Age’ is still not generally used in central Europe, the term Urnenfelderzeit (Urnfield Period) being more common, and still regarded as transitional between Bronze and Iron Age, as for instance by Kimmig in 1988. While he divided the Early Bronze Age into phases A1 and A2 (a phase A3 was proposed after Reinecke’s death)2 – and the later Tumulus Culture of the Middle Bronze Age into C1 and C2 in 1924, Reinecke never attempted to subdivide his final Bronze and early Hallstatt phases. This was done by Hermann MüllerKarpe, who, shortly after Reinecke’s death, published his Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen (1959), in which he subdivided Reinecke’s earlier Hallstatt phases into Ha A1 and A2 and Ha B1 to B3, as well as incorporating Reinecke’s Bz D into his Urnfield period (review in English by Cowen 1961). Müller-Karpe’s Urnfield period thus comprised six phases, each of which he believed to have lasted a century. As did Reinecke before him, Müller-Karpe arrived at his absolute dates by ‘importing’ historical or protohistorical dates from Greece by way of Italy. His dates did not differ greatly from those proposed by Reinecke at the beginning of the century. In common with Reinecke, Müller-Karpe dated Bz D from 1300 to 1200 BC, Ha A from 1200 to 1000 BC (Ha A1: 1200– 1100 and Ha A2: 1100–1000) and Ha B from 1000 to 700 (Ha B1: 1000–900 BC, Ha B2: 900–800 BC and Ha B3: 800–700 BC). Whereas Reinecke originally dated Ha B from 1000 to 800 BC, Müller-Karpe ended it just before 700 BC, the then conventional date for the beginning of Ha C. He thus extended the duration of Ha B to three centuries, whereas Reinecke originally envisaged only two. SPERBER’S REVISED URNFIELD CHRONOLOGY Here we ought to mention the chronological system 121 published by L. Sperber in 1987 after the first series of dendrodates from Swiss lake-side settlements had appeared. Sperber abandoned the Urnfield terminology of Reinecke and Müller-Karpe and adopted a threefold division of the Late Bronze Age: Spätbronzezeit (SB) I to III, with further alphabetical subdivisions. His modified definition of the traditional Urnfield terminology (Bz D-Ha B3) is cited in brackets. It is important to note that Sperber’s Bz D to Ha B3 phases are not identical to those of Müller-Karpe (Sperber 1987, 11f. 211f). Apart from assigning many types to different phases than Müller-Karpe, Sperber also defined eight phases, whereas Müller-Karpe used six. Sperber divided both his SB I (his Bz D) and SB IIIa (his Ha B2) phases into earlier and later parts (Ia and b; IIIa 1 and 2). Sperber interprets his phases not as ‘closed chronological boxes’ – implying that the traditional schemes envisaged them as such – but rather as spans of time in a continuous evolution or replacement of individual types (Sperber 1987, 255). Apart from his Ha B3, each time-span or phase was allotted seventy years. His early date for the beginning of SB 1a (Bz D 1) of 1365 BC was basically derived from C-14 dating and Aegean correlations and by adding the estimated duration of his four earliest Late Bronze Age phases without dendrodates (that is his Bz D1-D2 and Ha A1-A2, which were estimated to have lasted 280 years, i.e. 4×70, to the dendrodated beginning (1085 BC) of his SB IIc, defined as Ha B 1, although including material of Müller-Karpe’s Ha A2 (also see Randsborg 1992). Sperber’s SB Ia (his Bz D1; 1365–1295 BC) includes some of Reinecke’s C2 forms, but consists mostly of Müller-Karpe’s Bz D, whereas Sperber’s SB Ib (his Bz D2: 1295–1225 BC) still contains some of his SB Ia types, but also incorporates others belonging to MüllerKarpe’s Ha A1. SB IIa and SB IIb phases (Sperber’s Ha A1–2: 1225–1085 BC) include bronzes characteristic of the remaining Müller-Karpe’s Ha A1 and also a few characteristic of his Ha A2, but are defined mainly by pottery from settlements. However, pottery does not figure prominently in Reinecke’s or Müller-Karpe’s (1959) schemes, which were primarily based on bronzes. Sperber’s SB IIc (1085–1020 BC), defined as Ha B1, does not correspond with Müller-Karpe’s Ha B1, but, as mentioned above, incorporates many types assigned to Ha A2 by Müller-Karpe. Of the fifteen SB IIc /Ha B1 grave ensembles cited by Sperber, fourteen are assigned to Ha A2 by Müller-Karpe (Sperber 1987, 206f. 212). Nor do Sperber’s SB III a–b phases (his Ha B2 and Ha B3: 1020–740 BC) correspond with Ha B2 and B3 as defined by Müller-Karpe. Sperber’s SB III a/1 or Ha B2 early, for instance, incorporates most of Müller-Karpe’s Ha B1 and some of his B2. Because Sperber’s definition of the individual Urnfield stages does not comply with the conventional scheme, and is also based largely on pottery typology and that of pins, its validity for the overall chronology 122 SABINE GERLOFF of the Urnfield Culture, in particular regarding its relations with other areas, is limited. For instance, while Reinecke and Müller-Karpe used bronzes as Leitfossills in the formation of their schemes because many of those bronze types occurred in different parts of Europe, Sperber includes few of the bronze finds Müller-Karpe used to characterise his Urnfield phases. Sperber’s additional or parallel use of Müller-Karpe’s Urnfield terminology has led to confusion, as we have shown, Sperber’s phases (Bz D-Ha B3) have different contents than Müller-Karpe’s phases of the same name. This has not always been fully understood and led A. Harding (1991, 235) to label Sperbers’ Bz D and Hallstatt phases as those of Müller-Karpe. Indiscriminate or interchangeable use of both schemes can obviously lead to wrong conclusions when transferring or comparing Swiss dendrodates to Britain (as for instance in Needham et al. 1997, 97), because the British Late Bronze Age phases have traditionally been correlated with the Reinecke/Müller-Karpe Urnfield scheme, whereas the dendrodated Swiss phases may have been adjusted to Sperber’s terminology, as for instance by Rychner (1998a 16f.; Rychner 1998b, 72ff.). When referring to continental Urnfield phases and Swiss dendrodates, one ought to identify them as belonging either to the traditional Müller-Karpe or the Sperber/Rychner scheme. Another drawback with Sperber’s system is that it omits the evidence from hoards, despite the substantial contribution of hoards to the traditional dating systems, and also the vital importance of hoards in correlating Urnfield phases with the Late Bronze Age in southeastern, northern and western Europe. Whereas in Switzerland Sperber’s terminology and definition of the Late Bronze Age phases have been partly adopted (cf. Hochuli et al. 1998), Sperber’s absolute dates having been adjusted in line with more recent dendrodates, in other parts of central Europe the conventional Reinecke/Müller-Karpe scheme is still in common use and it is also generally referred to by researchers beyond central Europe. Obviously – in common with all other supra-regional chronological systems – the conventional scheme has its shortcomings in seeming to suggest that its phases represent clearly defined chronological horizons, marked by successive types and ignoring the obvious gradual transition from type to type. For this reason many recent schemes, including Sperber’s, have transferred forms from one phase to another and/or have established various sub-phases. Yet all the traditional scholars, including Montelius, Reinecke and Müller-Karpe, stressed that individual types did not all disappear simultaneously or overnight to make way for the types characteristic of the next phase, but that individual types were replaced gradually, with transitions between phases or periods. These should not, therefore, be regarded as exact calendars or as closely confined boxes, but rather as general guidelines or grid indicating the dominance and duration of specific archaeological types and phenomena. TRADITIONAL CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CENTRAL EUROPEAN AND BRITISH SCHEMES We should now examine the correlation between the central and west European Bronze Age systems, the latter all based on Evans’ (1881) basic three-fold division into Early, Middle and Late. In Britain, Hawkes (1960) was the last in a line of scholars who refined Evans’ system and created the present sub-divisions. Hawkes divided the Early Bronze Age into two phases, EBA 1 and EBA 2, which were based on ApSimon’s (1954) division of the Wessex Culture into Wessex I and II. The Middle and Late Bronze Ages were each divided into three subphases: MBA 1–3 and LBA 1–3. In absolute terms Hawkes dated his two Early Bronze Age phases, thought to be contemporary with Reinecke’s Bz A, between 1700 and 1400 BC. The three Middle Bronze Age phases, believed to be parallel with the continental Tumulus and early Urnfield Cultures, were placed between 1400 and 900 BC. Following conventional thinking of the times, Hawkes believed that the beginning of the British Late Bronze Age (LBA 1) should be defined by leaded bronzes, early founders’ hoards and the first native leafshaped swords of Wilburton type, all of which he believed to be contemporary with the beginning of Reinecke’s Ha B. Hawkes’ LBA 2 was marked by later insular swords of Cowen’s (1933) Ewart Park type, sheet bronze vessels, shields and Carp’s Tongue hoards. His final phase of the British Late Bronze Age (LBA 3) he held to be contemporary with continental Ha C, both periods being defined by Hallstatt swords of Gündlingen and Mindelheim type, winged chapes, single-edged razors and horse and wagon fittings. Hawkes derived his absolute dates from ‘imported’ historical dates from the central and northern continent, as current in the late 1950’s. Already in 1933 Reinecke had lowered by several hundred years his original date for the beginning of the central European Bronze Age by dating the central European Late Neolithic to the late third and the beginning of the second millennium BC, a period previously (1902a–b) assigned to Bz A. In 1933, however, Bz A1 was believed to be contemporary with the later Middle Helladic Period in Greece, whereas Bz A2, established in 1924, was connected with the beginning of the Late Helladic period, i.e. the Mycenaean Shaft-Grave period (also below, p.127). Hawkes believed that the absolute dates for the beginning of the Early and Middle Bronze Age more or less corresponded with those introduced by Reinecke in 1933, but argued for a longer duration of the British Middle Bronze Age, delaying the start of the British Late Bronze Age – compared with the beginning of the continental Late Bronze Age – by several hundred years. While Reinecke (1902a; 1911a– c) had started his final Bronze Age phase (Bz D) at around 1300 BC, a date also proposed by Müller-Karpe (1959), the British Late Bronze Age was thought to have REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE begun only around 900 BC. Therefore, Hawkes incorporated Reinecke’s Bz D and Ha A into the final phases of his Middle Bronze Age (MBA 2–3), considering MBA 2 to be contemporary with Bz D and equating MBA 3 largely with Ha A. He began MBA 3 around 1050 BC, a time-lag of one and a half centuries in relation to the beginning of the equivalent continental phase of Ha A, which Reinecke, followed by Müller-Karpe (1959), had dated to c.1200 BC. Hawkes held LBA1 and LBA 2 to be contemporary with Ha B, the beginning of which Reinecke (1911f), again followed by Müller–Karpe, had dated around 1000 BC. Hawkes began the comparative phase in Britain at 900 BC, the time-lag now being reduced to a century. Müller-Karpe’s (1959) Ha B2 and B3, of ninth- and eighth-century date, were included in Hawke’s LBA 2. He saw his final Bronze Age phase (LBA 3), marked by ‘Hallstatt intrusions’, as directly contemporary with Ha C and dated without any time-lag to the seventh century BC. LBA 3 was followed by the First A cultures of Hawkes’ classic ABC of the Iron Age, the beginning of which was dated to c.600 BC in 1931 and to 550 BC in 1959. Hawkes’ (1960) scheme, in particular his three-fold divisions of the Middle and Late Bronze Age, have provided the general framework for the work of Colin Burgess and subsequent chronological divisions of the Bronze Age in other areas of the Atlantic West, although the assignation of the term ‘Late Bronze Age’ does not always correspond on either side of the English Channel (below, p.123f.). In Ireland Eogan (1964) named his Middle and Late Bronze Age phases after hoards characteristic of each phase, correlating them with the British scheme, forwarded by Hawkes in 1960. In Brittany Briard (1965) adapted Hatt’s (1961) Urnfield scheme for eastern France to the Atlantic West, naming phases after phase-specific hoards and frequently referring to related British and Irish finds. Hatt’s eastern French BF I and IIa (Müller-Karpe’s Bz D and Ha A1) were assigned to BF (Atlantic) I, Hatt’s BF IIb and IIIa (Müller-Karpe’s Ha 2 and Ha B1) became BF (Atlantic) II and Hatt’s BF IIIb (Müller-Karpe Ha B2 and B3) became BF III (cf. tables in Gerloff et al. 1993, 16f.). Subsequently Briard’s scheme was adopted for other regions of Atlantic France: for Picardy (Gaucher and Mohen 1974; Blanchet 1984), Normandy (Verron 1976) and the south-west (Coffyn 1972; id. 1985) as well as for the Atlantic north and west of the Iberian Peninsula (Almagro-Gorbea 1977; Coffyn 1985). Stimulated by Hawkes’ Bronze Age scheme (1960) and by the late Jacques Briard’s (1965) publication of Bronze Age hoards in Brittany, Burgess (1968; 1969) published the first of his many contributions on the typology and chronology of British Bronze Age metalwork. In The later Bronze Age in the British Isles and north-western France he retained Hawkes’ divisions, related them to Briard’s scheme and – in common with Eogan (1964) and Briard (1965) – named British Middle 123 and Late Bronze Age phases after phase-specific hoards, thus introducing our present terminology. In this and later publications, he revised Hawkes’ absolute dating and divisions into periods, especially for the British phases believed to be contemporary with Bz D and Ha A, and abolished the concept of a time-lag for the transmission or adaptations of continental forms (Burgess 1974; 1976; 1979; 1980a–b; 1988). For correlation of Hawkes’ 1960 scheme with Burgess up to 1980 see comparative table in Gerloff (1980/81, 189). Whereas Hawkes correlated Bz D with his MBA 2 (‘Ornament Horizon’), Burgess connected it with Bz C or late Montelius II, aligning Bz D and Ha A with MBA 3. Burgess’ eponymous Middle and Late Bronze Age hoards and dates (centuries BC) were: Acton Park for MBA 1 (15th–14th), Taunton for MBA 2 (14th–13th); Penard for MBA 3 (13th–11th), Wilburton for LBA 1 (10th), Ewart Park for LBA 2 (9th–8th) and Llyn Fawr for LBA 3 (7th). In 1974 Burgess also refined the conventional division of the Early Bronze Age, ApSimon’s (1954) Wessex I and II or Hawkes’ (1960) EBA 1 and 2. Following Coles (1968–69), who envisaged a pre-Wessex Migdale phase in Scotland, Burgess distinguished three Early Bronze Age metal-working stages, these being enlarged into four in 1978 and 1980a: while his earliest Metalwork Stages (MS) I–III represented the Copper Age or Late Neolithic, MS IV to VII were assigned to the Early Bronze Age, MS VIII to X represented the Middle and MS X to XIII the Late Bronze Age (see Tables 13.1–2, p.125f.). Burgess’ use of the term ‘Metalwork Stage’ was subsequently questioned by Needham, who argued that the term ‘phase’ or ‘stage’ implies a strictly temporal sequence (cf. above, p.122) and suggests that interlinked groups of metalwork associations (in Britain mostly derived from hoards) should be called ‘Metalwork Assemblages’ (Needham et al. 1985; idem 1996). The latter do not correspond entirely with Burgess’s Metalwork Stages, omitting Burgess’ Copper MS I and assigning Burgess’ MS II and III to MA I and II. Needham’s MA III thus corresponds to MS IV, both marking the Migdale complex and thus the beginning of bronze (cf. Needham 1996, fig.1). Both, Burgess and Needham, based their metalwork sequences mainly on the typology and associations of copper and bronze axes. In 1996 Needham also divided the British Copper and Bronze Age into eight consecutive periods (cf. our Tables, p.125f.), as well as correlating pottery traditions with his metalwork assemblages and periods. While the division into phases and the relative chronology for all areas of the Atlantic Bronze Age is now more or less uniform, the terminology for the Middle and Late Bronze Age is not. In Britain and Ireland the Penard and Bishopsland phases, although seen as contemporary with the early Late Bronze Age in central Europe (Reinecke’s Bz D and Ha A), are still usually assigned to the Middle Bronze Age (MBA 3), whereas 124 SABINE GERLOFF in the continental regions of Atlantic Europe this period is defined as the first phase of the Late Bronze Age (BF 1), thus following central European terminology. This inconsistency in terminology caused O’Connor (1980) to bring the designations of the individual phases of the insular Late Bronze Age in line with Atlantic continental terminology, following the system proposed by Briard in 1965, by re-labelling the latest phase of the British Middle Bronze Age (MBA 3) as the first phase of the Late Bronze Age (LBA 1). Consequently, the Middle Bronze Age was left with two sub-phases, whereas the Late Bronze Age, its beginning now in line with that on the continent, included four. To avoid confusion between the traditional and revised British schemes, the present author (1980/81) proposed to abolish the numerical classification altogether and to introduce an alphabetical system which was aligned to Reinecke’s and MüllerKarpe’s division of the central European Late Bronze Age and earliest Iron Age. This proposed ABC of the British Late Bronze Age could also be applied to other areas of Atlantic Europe, having the advantage of establishing a uniform terminology for western and central Europe (cf. Gerloff 1980/81, 197 tab.2). Although adopted by Cunliffe (1991), the scheme is not widely known in Britain and Hawkes’ traditional terminology still prevails. Below, therefore, when discussing the Middle and Late Bronze Age, we shall refer to Burgess’ familiar labels of eponymous hoards, trying to avoid numerical divisions. If the latter are cited, as in our Chronological Table 13.2 (p.126), Hawkes’ divisions are named, followed by O’Connor’s ‘cross-Channel’ scheme, cited in brackets. THE NEW ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY FOR THE BRONZE AGE IN CENTRAL EUROPE AND BRITAIN Having discussed the periodisation, relative chronology and conventional absolute chronology of the Bronze Age in central Europe and Britain, we shall now turn to the latest absolute chronology. Already in the later 1960s, when tree-ring calibration was first applied to conventional radiocarbon dates, the latter more or less in line with the traditional ‘imported’ historical dates, it became apparent that the conventional C-14 dates, especially those of the Neolithic and earlier Bronze Age, had to be raised by centuries. Whereas in Britain the new chronology was already accepted in the 1970s and in the earlier 1980s (cf. Burgess 1974; 1978; 1980a–b), before the first standard calibration curve (Stuiver and Kra 1986) had been agreed on, central European scholars were more hesitant to accept radiocarbon dating. They felt that the dates were not yet reliable enough to replace traditional chronologies. All early carbon dates were derived from long-lived samples, often from charcoal of undisclosed origin and association, showing standard deviations of up to several hundred years. It was only during the later 1980s, when the first series of dendrodates became available (Becker et al. 1985) and it was also possible to C-14 date short-lived samples (AMS dating), that scientific dating methods became widely accepted in central Europe and were used as a basis for revised chronological systems, as for that introduced by Sperber in 1987 (above, p.121f.). Today we have a whole series of dendrodates, mostly derived from circum-Alpine lake dwellings (cf. Table 13.1 and 13.2). The latter constitute a calendar-based framework for settlement strata of the later Early and early Middle Bronze Age (Bz A2-Bz B) as well as for later phases of the Late Bronze Age (Ha B). The most recent series of dates are marked on our Chronological Tables (125f.): see Hochuli et al. (1998) for Switzerland, Köninger (1989) and Keefer (1989) for south-west Germany, Orcel et al. (1992) and Billaud and Marguet (1992) for eastern France. In addition, R. C. de Marinis (1999) provides an excellent survey of the Bronze Age in northern Italy, citing all recent Italian as well as central European dates. It is important to note, however, that most of the dated settlement strata, in particular those of the Late Bronze Age dated to c.1080–810 BC, have yielded predominantly local pottery forms and only a few bronzes. The typology of the latter, mainly pins, together with that of pottery were used by Sperber (1987) and Rychner (1998) to define their Ha B phases (see above, p.121f.). Prestige bronze forms of trans-regional significance, such as weapons, body armour and bronze vessels, more suitable for cross-dating, are hardly ever found in dendrodated Late Bronze Age settlement contexts. More useful for cross-dating are the few dendrodated burial chambers of princely interments with phasespecific bronzes, for instance, those of the classic phase (Bz A2) of the Únětice Culture at Leubingen (c.1942±10 BC) and Helmsdorf (c.1840±10 BC) in central Germany (Becker et al. 1989) and that of an early Ha C wagon burial at Wehringen, in Bavarian Swabia (778±5 BC; Friedrich and Hennig 1995). Further dates from Iron Age Hallstatt tombs in southern Germany are used by Hennig (2001). Most important for the chronology of the Middle Bronze Age is the series of Danish Period II dendrodates from oak-trunk coffins, which date later Period II and early Period III burials between c.1400 and c.1275 BC (Randsborg 1992 and 1996). These dates are augmented by the dendrodate of the oak lining of a well at St. Maurice, Switzerland, which has produced swords of late Middle and early Late Bronze Age date (Bz C1 Spatzenhausen / Göggenhofen, Bz C2 octagonal-hilted and Bz D Rixheim types) and provides a terminus post quem of 1466 BC (Seifert 2000) for Reinecke’s phase C1, which corresponds with early Period II in the North. We now also have dendrodated early Bz D pottery from four cremation sites at Elgg, Zürich-Breiti, which have been dendrodated to the mid-thirteenth century BC 125 REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE North. Europe cal. BC 2300 2200 2100 Montelius others and Single Grave / Copper LN I Lunulae flat-, lowflanged axes axes 2000 LN II 1900 Pile, Bagterp, Tinsdahl Reinecke and others Hawkes, Burgess, Gerloff Needham Period 2 Beakers / Copper MS III MA II Beakers / Copper Bz A1 Straubing EBA 1 Migdale/Butterwick Singen, Adlerberg Kyhna, early ÚnƟtice MS IV Bz A2 Langquaid Leubingen Anglo-Irish axes Classical ÚnƟtice Aegean Britain Central Europe Manning (Troy: Easton 2002) EM / EH Troy II middle Troy II late Migdale / Brithdir MA III Troy III Aylesford MS V EBA 2 (Wessex I) Bush Barrow MS VI Period 3 Mile Cross MA IV Armorico-British daggers A and B Willerby MA V Troy V Period 4 Arreton MA VI LM IA / LH I Troy VI MM / MH Troy IV Helmsdorf Wilsford Series fem. burials 1800 Period I A Bz A2/B (Bz A3) Arbon 1700 Fådrup, Virring Sögel Trassem Nebra Fritzdorf, Eschenz Period I B Valsømagle, Wohlde Bz B Lochham 1600 1500 Period II 1400 Spatzenhausen Bz C1 Göggenhofen EBA 3 (Wessex II) Camerton-Snowshill MS VII Arreton Armorico-British daggers C Rillaton Aldbourne Ser. fem. burials Group I and II dirks MBA 1 Acton Park Acton 1 Acton 2 MS VIII Group II rapiers (late Wessex II burials in Wessex ) Thera eruption LM IB / LH IIA Period 5 Acton MA VII LM II / LH IIB LH IIIA / LM IIIA Grey: Dendrodated periods and sites in Central Europe: Becker et al. (1989) for Leubingen and Helmsdorf; Seifert (2000) and Hafner / Suter (2003) for SW Germany and Switzerland. Italic: eponymous phas es. MS=Metalwork Stage (Burgess) ; MA = Metalwork Assemblage (Needham). Table 13.1 Early to middle Bronze Age phases in northern and central Europe, Britain and their corresponding phases in the Aegean. (Mäder and Somaz 2000). This date, the first dendrodate available for Bz D, is in line with its conventional beginning (1300 BC) as proposed by Reinecke and Müller-Karpe. The Elgg date therefore challenges the proposal of a beginning for Bz D before or at the midfourteenth century, as proposed by Sperber (1987), Della Casa and Fischer (1997) and Rychner (1998a, 17). Their dates were largely based on C-14 evidence from Middle and early Late Bronze Age settlement-strata in central Europe, Yugoslavia and northern Greece (also see above, p.121). Unfortunately, the scarcity of suitable wooden material from settlements, such as water-logged posts from ‘piledwellings’ and burial structures found during modern excavations, means there are at present hardly any dendrodates from Bronze Age Britain. However, recent 126 SABINE GERLOFF Britain Northern Europe Central Europe cal. BC Montelius and others Reinecke / MüllerKarpe and others Hawkes / Burgess (O'Connor) Needham 1400 Per. II Bz C2 MBA 2 Period 5 Taunton Asenkofen / MS IX Hammer Ireland Atlantic France Eogan Briard and others MBA Bronze Bishopsland Moyen II Atlantic Iberia Almagro-Gorbea others Bronce Tardío Greece and LH III A MA VIII Ornament Horizon 1350 1300 Per. III Hammer sword Pelynt sword Oberwilfling. ingot Falmouth ingot Schifferstadt cone Mold cape Bz D MBA 3 (LBA 1) Riegsee / München- MS X Grünwald I Group IIII and IV rapiers Agris (?)cape Bronze Final I Bronce Final I MA IX [Penard 1] Appleby hoard 1250 Nenzingen swords Ha A1 1200 Hart / München- LH III C Grünwald II 1150 Per. IV LBA 1 (LBA 2) Ha A2 Period 6 Wilburton Gammertingen / [Penard 2] Kelheim I Hemigkofen- and Erbenheim swords LBA Bronze Final II Roscommon St. Brieuc- Ballintober / des-Iffs (Class 1) swords Bronce Final II Épées pistilliformes Atlantiques Ffynhonnau hoard 1100 SubMycenean 1050 Ha B1 [Wilburton] MS XI Unterglauheim Wilburton swords MA X Class 2 and 3 Hío hoard swords Kelheim II ProtoGeometric Ha B2 1000 950 LBA 1/2 (LBA 2/3) Per. V Ha B3 St. Nazaire swords Blackmoor Kelheim III (Wilburton /Ewart ) MA XI LBA 2 (LBA 3) Period 7 MS XII Kelheim IV Dowris A Bronze Final III Class 4 swords Ewart Park Wallstadt / MA XII Huelva 'hoard' Bronce Final III Castro Culture 1A Carp’s Tongue Carp’s Tongue Complex Complex 900 850 Geometric Thames-, Holme Pierrepoint-, Class 6 swords earliest Gündlingen swords 800 Per. V late Ha C0/C1a LBA 3 (LBA 4) Period 8 (EIA) Llyn Fawr Gündlingen Wehringen MS XIII Vénat hoard Monte sa Idda Dowris B BF III / Ha Anc. swords Class 5 swords Final Carp's Tongue MA XIII Ferring hoard Armorican axes Gündlingen swords 750 Côte-St.-André Per. VI 700 Ha C1/C1b Mindelheim Hallstatt Ancien Llyn Fawr 'hoard' Orientalizante Archaic Castro Culture IB Mindelheim swords Ha C2 Bubesheim Sompting hoard Ha D Iron Age A 650 Iron Age 1 Dowris C Hallstatt Final 600 Grey: Dendrodated periods and sites: Northern Europe after Randsborg (1996); Central Europe after Boquet (1990), Orcel et al.(1992), Hochuli et al. (1998), Mäder & Somaz (2000) and Hennig (2001).Italic: eponymous phases. MA: Metalwork Assemblage (Needham). MS: Metalwork Stages ( Burgess). [conventional assignation of Penard and Wilburton phases ]. Table 13.2 Middle to late Bronze Age phases in northern, central and western Europe, and corresponding phases in Greece. REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE dates of 2050 and 2049 BC have been obtained – by combining information provided by tree-ring and radiocarbon methods – for the central and outer posts of the timber circle ‘Seahenge’ at Holme-next-the-Sea in Norfolk, believed to have been constructed by using Migdale-type bronze axes (Brennand and Taylor 2003, 31ff.). These dates are in line with recent AMS dates obtained from organic material found in associations with phase-specific Early Bronze Age bronzes and pottery (for dates see Gerloff 1993; Hedges et al. 1995; Needham 1996; Brindley 2001 and Sheridan 2003). These British dates, which have provided similar results to those obtained for the continental Early Bronze Age, have placed the beginning of the British Bronze Age in the last two – or possibly three – centuries of the third millennium BC and the transition from Early to Middle Bronze Age in the mid-second millennium BC. Of utmost importance is the series of over 40 British Middle and Late Bronze Age AMS measurements (OxA), results of the project (DoB = Dating of Bronzes) aimed to date samples in direct contact with phase-specific bronzes (Needham et al. 1997). The project was undertaken to provide a new, independent chronology for British Middle and Late Bronze Age metalwork. Results of a corresponding project have recently been published for Ireland (Brindley 2001). The implication of the new dates will be discussed below (p.148ff.). Last, but not least, it has now become possible to obtain AMS dates from cremated bones, a technique developed at Groningen (Lanting and Brindley 1998) that is already giving us additional information on the chronology of Irish and British cinerary urns and their associations (Sheridan 2003). This technique should also prove useful in dating phase-specific burials of the continental Urnfield Culture and thus help to clarify their relative and absolute chronologies. We should now discuss how far the new scientific dates from the continent and Britain have altered our traditional understanding of interaction and chronological relation between the two areas. Can the new dates be reconciled with traditional historical dates and longdistance connections, for instance those between the Near East and central Europe and between Wessex and Mycenae, which traditionally served as foundations for the absolute chronology of the Early Bronze Age in temperate Europe? RENFREW’S ‘WESSEX WITHOUT MYCENAE’ The new chronology primarily affected the traditional dating of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Historical cross-dating placed Late Neolithic copper-using groups between 2700 and 1700 BC, believed to be contemporary with the Old and earlier Middle Kingdom in Egypt and the Early and early Middle Bronze Age in the Aegean. The earliest part of the Early Bronze Age was correlated 127 with the Aegean later Middle Bronze Age, whereas its developed part was connected with the Mycenaean Shaft Grave period. This chronology, in use since the 1930s (Reinecke 1933; cf. Müller-Karpe 1974, 263ff.), was put in doubt after Renfrew (1969) published his classic paper ‘Wessex without Mycenae’, abolishing historical crossdating in favour of scientific dating based on calibrated carbon dates. As there were no C-14 dates available for the Wessex Culture itself, Renfrew based his new chronology on dates derived from Stonehenge III, Late Beaker burials and the earlier continental Early Bronze Age, all of which were traditionally believed to be contemporary with Wessex I. He thus dated the Wessex Culture between ca. 2100 and 1700 BC, i.e. well before the Mycenae Shaft Graves, which were then believed to begin towards the middle of the 16th century. His ‘Wessex without Mycenae’ thesis was enlarged upon by Harding (1984) in Britain and followed on the continent by Krause (1988), both of whom – in contrast to many continental scholars – rejected many of the traditional contact-finds between the two areas. Krause reconnected Wessex I with Reinecke’s Bz A1, whereas the present author had previously aligned it with Bz A2 (see below, p.128). Renfrew, writing in the late 1960s, followed traditional belief that Wessex I ought to be contemporary with Reinecke’s phase Bz A of the Únětice Culture, a connection already noted by Reinecke himself, when he correlated it with finds from richly equipped Early Bronze Age tumuli in Brittany and Wessex (1902b, 105, 110). In 1924 he assigned triangular metal-hilted daggers and the princely Únětice tumuli from central Germany to his phase Bz A1 or Stufe von GaubickelheimNeuenheilingen, referring to the eponymous hoards with metal-hilted daggers. His phase Bz A2 or Stufe von Trassem, Langquaid and Tinsdahl included daggers with ogival blades, flanged axes of Langquaid type, bulbheaded pins with perforated head (schräg durchlochte Kugelkopfnadeln) and the earliest socketed spearheads. Significantly, Reinecke also included the British Arreton find in his Bz A2 assemblage (1924, 43). Reinecke’s assignations of the classic phase of the Únětice Culture, which also includes most of the spectacular Únětice hoards with metal-hilted daggers and halberds, to Bz A1 was adopted by most continental scholars until the 1970s, although v. Brunn (1959, 25) already suggested that some finds should be connected with Bz A2. So when Piggott coined the term ‘Wessex Culture’ in 1938 he followed conventional thinking and connected it with Bz A1. Consequently when ApSimon divided the Wessex Culture into two phases in 1954, he correlated Wessex I with its triangular Bush Barrow daggers to Reinecke’s Bz A1 (Gaubickelheim-Neuenheiligen phase), whereas the newly defined Wessex II with its ogival CamertonSnowshill daggers and Arreton bronzes was related to Bz A2 (Langquaid phase). As the richest Wessex graves, with their assumed Mycenaean connections, were 128 SABINE GERLOFF assigned to Wessex I, then believed to be contemporary with Late Beakers and earliest flat bronze axes and daggers (Piggott 1963), Renfrew felt confident in replacing unavailable C-14 dates for Wessex I with those from late Beaker burials, Stonehenge II/IIIa and from continental Bz A1 and classical Únětice contexts. Müller-Karpe (1949, 27) and Hachmann (1957, 100ff.) were the first to point out that some of Uenze’s (1938) types of metal-hilted daggers, the latter generally assigned to Bz A1, show distant typological affinities to Apa swords which were conventionally assigned to a developed phase of the central European Early Bronze Age. In 1961 Schickler argued that most metal-hilted daggers, including the Oder-Elbe type, ought to be connected with Reinecke’s phase Bz A2. Unfortunately his work was never published and his thesis was not widely known, although his assignation of the Gaubickelheim and Dieskau 2 hoards – the latter also including a decorated so-called ‘Irish’ axe – to Bz A2 was briefly published in 1971. Consequently Schickler connected Bush Barrow daggers and Dieskau-type ‘Irish’ axes to Bz A2. In her own thesis, submitted in 1969 and published in 1975, the present author aligned Wessex I mainly with Reinecke’s Bz A2, assigning its main ‘Mycenaean connection’ to an advanced stage of Wessex I, that is the Wilsford series of female graves, seen as transitional with Wessex II and contemporary with Bz A3 on the continent (Gerloff 1975, 96f, 124, 214ff.). Wessex II and Arreton hoards were aligned with late Bz A2 (Bz A3) and B, possibly lasting into early Bz C (ibid. 115ff, 144ff.). Not using early carbon dates for reasons stated above (p.124), she assigned Wessex I to the earlier 16th century and its overlap with early Wessex II to the end of the sixteenth century, so that Wessex II lasted throughout the 15th and possibly into the beginning of the 14th century BC. Whereas the continental relations of the earlier Wessex dagger graves were seen to have been with Brittany and the Únětice Culture of central Europe, their later connections were believed to have included the Sögel-Wohlde province of north-west Germany as well as the upper Rhine area, south-west Germany and northern Switzerland. THE BRITISH MIGDALE PHASE, REINECKE A1 AND THE NEAR EAST While the present author, following traditional thinking (Piggott 1963), wrongly aligned flat bronze daggers (her Butterwick and related types) mainly with Wessex I, Burgess (1974, 191 ff.) argued that those daggers – in common with Migdale axes – should be assigned to a pre-Wessex stage of metalwork, his Migdale phase, representing the earliest British metalwork in bronze (see above, p.123). Following Coles (1968/69, 70f.), Burgess aligned Migdale with Reinecke’s Bz A1. This correlation has since been confirmed by scientific dating. Although there are as yet few dendrodates for this period recent AMS dates place the beginning of Migdale bronzes and that of Bz A1 in the late third millennium BC (see above, p.125f). In 1988 Krause, however, followed conventional belief in connecting Bz A1 with Wessex I, as he believed some small Bz A1 daggers from Singen on Lake Constance, were imported ArmoricoBritish daggers, because they showed Atlantic metal compositions. This preposition was refuted by the present author who argued in 1993 and 1996 that the relevant Singen blades are not genuine Armorico-British daggers, but are more closely related to other central European daggers of phase Bz A1, which must be contemporary with flat daggers of British Butterwick and related types that were assigned to the pre-Wessex Migdale phase by Burgess in 1974. The small ‘Armorico-British’ dagger blades from Singen and their Bz A1 parallels from central Europe may possibly be considered as prototypes of the larger, central European metal-hilted ‘Oder-Elbe’ and Atlantic ‘Armorico-British’ forms, but not as their contemporaries. The contemporaneity of the earliest tin-bronze objects in Britain (Migdale) and those on the continent (Bz A1) is borne out by two crouched inhumation burials both belonging to the earliest phase of the Bronze Age and containing tin-bronze daggers. One comes from Gravelly Guy in Oxfordshire (Barclay 1995; Gerloff 2004b), the other from Anzing in Bavaria (Ruckdeschel 1978). The British burial (Fig. 13.3) included a Late Southern beaker and a flat dagger of Type Butterwick found with a tanged bone pommel, an unusual form since most Early Bronze Age pommels have sockets. The Bavarian burial (Fig. 13.4) of the Bz A1 Straubing Group had a small riveted dagger, similar to those from Singen. It also contained a bone pommel nearly identical to that from Gravelly Guy. The C-14 dates of the skeletal remains in both burials are closely comparable: Gravelly Guy (UB 3122) 2199– 2036 BC and Anzing (Kn 2204) 2198–1979 BC (see Gerloff 1993, 95). A further link between the British Migdale phase and Bz A1 in central Europe is provided by the lost hoard from Węgliny (formerly Oegeln), Lower Silesia, of the earlier Únětice Culture in western Poland (Kästner 1826; Gerloff 1997). This was found in 1826 and contained bronzes typical of Bz A1 together with a crescentic copper ornament closely resembling West European gold lunulae (Fig. 13.5:a). Although the Polish piece was probably a miniature version – having an exact parallel in an unprovenanced find, probably from around Dresden and now in the Ashmolean Museum (Fig. 13.5:b) – its shape and decoration is clearly derived from Atlantic lunulae, with which it has been identified in the past. Although western gold lunulae are difficult to date, most being found singly, the possible association of a lunula with a Migdale axe from Harlyn Bay in Cornwall (Smirke 1865, 276) points to a date within that phase and emphasises its correlation with Bz A1. Also, as already noted by Reinach (1900, 78) and demonstrated by Taylor (1980, 36ff, figs. 42–43), the decoration on REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE 129 Fig. 13.3 Finds from Gravelly Guy (after Lambrick and Allen 2004) Fig. 13.5 Lunula-shaped broaches: (a) Węgliny [Oegeln] (after Kästner 1826); (b) Probably Dresden area (after Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) Fig. 13.4 Finds from Anzing (after Ruckdeschel 1978) 130 SABINE GERLOFF her classical lunulae clearly recalls that of Late Beakers, the latter found in association with Migdale-phase bronzes, for instance at Gravelly Guy (above, Fig. 13.3). The Migdale hoard itself may have a contained a lunulashaped crescentic neck ornament (Stevenson 1958, 456), incorporating tubular sheet beads, typical of continental Bz A1 Danubian Blechkreis contexts, as found in burials at Gemeinlebarn, Austria (Bertemes 1989, pl. 27.32.35. 55.59–61) and Straubing, Bavaria (Hundt 1958, 8–15) as well as appearing in the two Oppenheim-Dexheim hoards (Fig. 13.6) on the Middle Rhine (Reinecke 1902b, 112; Stein 1979, 78 f. pl. 56–59). The wooden core of the Migdale beads have produced an AMS date (OxA 4659) of 3655±75 BC, calibrating to 2134–1909BC (Hedges et al. 1995, 425). Similar late third millennium dates have also been obtained for other bronze assemblages of the Migdale tradition of metalwork (Needham 1996, table 3–4). Surprisingly, the new chronology confirmed Reinecke’s (1902a. b) original concept, which, more than a century ago, placed the beginning of the central European Bronze Age in the late third millennium BC. In 1933, however, Reinecke revised his dating (see p.122), correlating most of his Bz A with the Mycenaean Shaft Grave period, which he believed to date to the 17th and 16th centuries BC. The rich Únětice hoards and princely burials were correlated with the Shaft Grave period, an assignation still considered valid until the 1970s (see Müller-Karpe 1974, 266). After the advent of the new chronology cast doubt on the traditional links, the present author (1993) reconsidered the evidence. She argued that Bz A1 ought to be contemporary with the latest phase of the Early Bronze Age (EBA 3) in the Aegean and that Bz A2 – including the classical phase of the Únětice Culture and Wessex I – should be aligned with the Aegean Middle Bronze Age, whereas it was the continental phase Bz A3 (or A2/B), together with the Wilsford series of female burials with its amber necklaces – transitional between Wessex I and II – as well as early Wessex II that must be connected to the Mycenaean Shaft Graves. When re-examining the traditional contact finds (Cypriot knot-headed pins and ingot torcs) between the Near East and Bz A1, the present author (1993; 1996) discussed the early (Bz A1) Únětice hoard of Kyhna, Saxony (Fig. 13.7), which included those two forms (Fig. 13.7: b, d) as well as an Aegean-style tanged copper weapon with slotted blade (Fig. 13.7: a). All three forms were seen to have exact parallels in the eastern Mediterranean and Near East. The knot-headed pin with single loop and the slotted blade were recognized as being of ultimate Near Eastern ancestry, there having counterparts dating from the fourth (earliest knot-headed pins with single loop) to the later third and in a modified form (with T-shaped spiral head) also into the second millennium BC. Both forms, single-looped pin and slotted blade, are also represented in Troy IIg and the ‘Priamos treasure’, conventionally dated to the very end of Troy IIg. The ingot torcs, however, connected by Schaeffer (1949) with his renowned porteurs des torques, were seen have their origin in central Europe, where they have Copper Age roots in the Baden culture of the fourth millennium BC. Judging from the material published so far, they appeared in the Near East at beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (MBA 1), that is only in the early second millennium BC. The traditional connection of ingot torcs and knot-headed pins with the Near Eastern and Egyptian Middle Bronze Age had contributed to the belief that Bz A could not have begun before these oriental periods. It was never explicitly stated that the single looped Cypriot pin is certainly earlier than the multi-looped T-shaped version. Whereas the former has Copper Age beginnings in the fourth millennium and is typical for the Early Bronze Age of the third, the latter is common in the Middle Bronze Age of the earlier second (Gerloff 1993, 69ff, 90f.). For instance at Troy, a single-looped example has recently been excavated from level IIg, whereas a T-shaped version was discovered by Blegen which should be assigned to level VI (ibid. list 2, nos. 17.24). As the eponymous Cypriot pins, the majority of which belong to the later form with T-shaped head frequently found in Middle Cypriot tombs, provided the absolute post-quem date for all central European examples (including the single-looped pieces), the beginning of the central European Bronze Age (Bz A1) was believed to be contemporary with that of the developed Middle Bronze Age in the Near East and dated to ca. 1800–1700 BC. Whereas Near-Eastern knot-headed pins were most commonly found in Cyprus, nearly all oriental torcs have been discovered on the Asiatic mainland close to the east Mediterranean coast. Of the c.70 Near Eastern examples, 60 were found in rich temple deposits at Byblos (modern Dschebeil, Lebanon) north of Beirut. The remaining pieces have mostly come from inhumation burials at Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra, Syria) and other sites in Syria. Apart from one example, made of copper, the few analysed pieces are of bronze, containing around 10% tin. For bibliography, lists and distribution maps of above finds see Gerloff (1993). Judging from their distribution, both pins and torcs should have been transmitted by way of the Danube. Whereas prototypes of the earliest central European pins (with single loop) and slotted blade were transmitted from east to west during the last centuries of the third millennium (Bz A1), at the beginning of the second (Bz A2) the torcs must have travelled in opposite direction. The transition from third to second millennium BC must also have witnessed the transformation of the single-loop, knot-headed pin to the developed type with T-shaped head, although the single-looped may have continued alongside it. The developed T-form with long spiral head with at least 5 to 7 loops, Ruckdeschel’s (1978, 123ff, fig. 6, 1) form Göggingen or Bertemes’ (1989, 95) Variant 2, has to be connected – as already noted by Hachmann (1957, 113) – with central European REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE 131 Fig. 13.6 Oppenheim-Dexheim. Part of hoard II (after Stein 1979) Bz A2 contexts. For instance, they appear in burials and hoards of the classical phase of the Únětice Culture, where they were associated with a sharply carinated, socalled ‘classical Únětice cup’ in a burial at Kolin, Bohemia (Bartelheim 1998, 235 no. 53–12, pl. 14) and with Langquaid axes in the Bohemian hoard of Plavnice (Forssander 1936, fig. 18) as well as in later Únětice burials in Austria and Moravia (Christlein 1964, 27ff.; Bertemes 1989, pls. 28, 32; Neugebauer 1997, pls. 450, 526, 534, 541, 570). 132 SABINE GERLOFF Fig. 13.7 Kyhna, part of hoard (after Coblenz 1965) THE CLASSICAL PHASE OF THE ÚNĚTICE CULTURE (BZ A2) AND THE BUSH BARROW PHASE OF WESSEX Reinecke’s phase A2 has, since the 1930s, traditionally been associated with the Shaft Grave Period and the beginning of the Helladic Late Bronze. It was shown above that the rich Únětice princely burials and hoards were also also connected with this Aegean phase, which, according to scientific dating, is now believed to have begun sometime in the 17th century BC. But the Únětice burials have dendrodates between the mid-20th and mid19th centuries BC, therefore they can no longer be connected with the Late Helladic Shaft Graves, but should be aligned with the Aegean and Near Eastern Middle Bronze Age. The above-mentioned MBA 1 temple deposits cannot relate to Bz A1, but to Bz A2, so their ingot torcs cannot be compared to the earliest Bronze Age torcs from central Europe. Significantly, the Middle German find known as Dieskau 1 (Fig. 13.8) – formerly believed to constitute a hoard (Montelius 1900, 42; Brunn 1959, pl. 12,1–5), now a burial (Schmidt and Nitzschke 1980) – has yielded a unique miniature torc of silver (electron) with a radius of 65 mm (Fig. 13.8:c). This silver torc has an exact counterpart among the larger 41 bronze and 3 silver torcs in the Jarre Montet from the Ba’alat-Gebal temple at Byblos (Montet 1928; Gerloff 1993, 67 with further bibliography). The Dieskau 1 find also contained a solid gold axe of Langquaid type (Fig. 13.8:a), which firmly connects it to phase Bz A2. The fluted torc of solid gold from Dieskau 1 (Fig. 13.8:b) has an exact counterpart from the Leubingen princely grave (Höfer 1906; Clarke et al. 1985, fig. 4.78), the latter being dendrodated to c.1942 BC (above) and thus more or less contemporary with the Byblos deposits. This date should mark the beginning of Bz A2 in central Europe, consistent with recent carbon dates for Bz A1 which are in the last quarter of the third and very beginning of the second millennium BC. One of the most remarkable features of the Leubingen burial is the position of its two skeletons and bronzes (axe, dagger and halberd blades). The deceased, an old man and very young female, were laid out as a cross, the body of the female placed horizontally above the male, who lay vertically with his head to the south. As seen in Figure 13.9 the associated weapons, including an Irish style halberd blade (O’Riordain 1937, 207, 300) were arranged in the same manner: two daggers, the halberd and three axe blades formed three individual crosses. This unusual form of deposition is repeated in a hoard from Malchin in Mecklenburg where two metal-hilted daggers of Uenze’s Aunjetitzer and Malchiner Typ were recorded by Lisch (1837, 113) as having been found under a large stone: the daggers ‘were laid cross-wise, one above the other’. Their position, also mentioned by Montelius (1900, 48, fig. 133–134) is here reconstructed in Figure 13.10. This leads us to the Atlantic Early Bronze Age and to Brittany, where three Armorico-British daggers with hafts decorated with gold pins in the princely burial of Kernonen en Plouvorn, Dep. Finistère (Briard 1984, 88f.) (Fig. 13.11), were arranged in the same manner as the weapons at Leubingen and Malchin. The daggers came from a large stone burial-chamber, which may have been REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE 133 Fig. 13.8 Goldfind from Dieskau I [‘Merseburg’] (after Montelius 1900) Fig. 13.9 Plan of the Leubingen burial (after Höfer 1906) Fig. 13.10 Malchin, Mecklenburg. Reconstructed depositional position of two daggers from the Malchin hoard (after Montelius 1900) 134 SABINE GERLOFF Fig. 13.11 Position of weapons in the Kernonen burial (after Briard 1984) lined with wood – the skeleton(s) have not survived. These two princely tombs, Leubingen and Plouvorn, as well as the Malchin hoard, should, therefore, be closely connected and not far removed in time. The unique positioning of their weapons, not recorded from other central- and west-European Bronze Age assemblages and surely of ritual significance, must imply some ceremonial or other affinity between these finds. Unfortunately the skeletons of most Breton princely tombs have not survived, while many – in common with those from Wessex – were excavated in the 19th century, when exact observations were lacking. The same applies to the central European princely graves and hoards of the classical Únětice Culture, most having been retrieved during the 19th century. The exact find circumstances of the hoards in particular were seldom recorded. It is possible, therefore, that further bronzes (and bodies?), in western as well as central Europe, may have been deposited in this distinctive cruciform manner. The Kernonen find included a cast bronze ring-headed and a simple wheel-headed pin, which clearly connect it to phase Bz A2. Pins with cast heads, for instance Böhmische Ösenkofnadeln – golden examples of which occur in the princely tombs of Leubingen and Helmsdorf, and pins with perforated bulbous heads are typical of A2, while pins of Bz A1 usually have heads of wire (e.g. Loop-headed pin, above) or heads hammered flat (e.g. Straubing racquet- and disc-headed pins, Ruder- and Scheibenkofnadeln). The close affinities between the rich Early Bronze Age burials in Brittany and Wessex have long been noted. Both include similar six-riveted dagger blades of Armorico-British types, reminiscent of the centralEuropean Oder-Elbe metal-hilted type (Gerloff 1975, 86ff.). The gold-nail decoration on the organic hafts of many Breton daggers and of the eponymous Bush Barrow dagger (Fig. 13.12, a–c) could be interpreted as elaborate local adaptation of the prestigious central-European metal-hilts (Fig. 13.12, d–f), whose techniques of hollow casting by which most continental metal hilts had been produced had not yet been mastered in the Atlantic west. The close connection between the Wessex princely graves and those of the Únětice Culture is also apparent when comparing the Bush Barrow axe, which has few parallels in Britain (Needham 1988, 233) with one of the Leubingen examples. As seen on Figure 13.13 both are comparable, being of similar narrow outline with more or less parallel sides and faint median bevel. The Leubingen axe – which is slightly more waisted and has more developed flanges than the Bush Barrow piece – has counterparts in several hoards of the classical phase of the Únětice Culture, for instance at Gröbers-Bennewitz 1 and Naumburg in Saxo-Thuringia (Brunn 1959, pl. 32, 1. 6; 64, 2) and also at Plavnice in Bohemia (above, p.131). In common with the above pieces the Leubingen axe should be of native Úněticean origin and the Bush Barrow piece was presumably a local adaptation. A larger and broader, low-flanged example of the above plain Únětice examples is the decorated ceremonial axe from Schweta (Fig. 13.14; ibid. 67, pl. 89,3) which bears horizontal rows of hatched triangles also found on Scandinavian examples (Vandkilde 1996, fig. 64.67.74). Decorated axes are uncommon on the continent and they have traditionally been linked to Ireland and Britain (cf. Megaw and Hardy 1938; Butler 1963; 1995–96; O’Connor and Cowie 2001, 224–5). The most renowned example is the decorated axe from the Dieskau 2 hoard (Butler 1963, pl. 1b; Clarke et al. 1995, 316, fig. 4.24), now believed to be an imported British Falkland type (Schmidt and Burgess 1981, 63), which seems to have its best comparison in the axe from the ditch of the enclosure at Mount Pleasant, Dorset (Britton 1979; information Brendan O’Connor). Further proof for links between Britain and the classical phase of the Únětice Culture is provided by a penannular ribbed cuff-armlet from a late beaker burial (grave 1007) at Shorncote in Gloucestershire. This is carbon-dated to 1890–1740 cal. BC (BM 2892; Barclay et al. 1995, 29 fig. 7), suggesting that some late beakers survived into a period contemporary with Wessex I and the classical phase of Únětice. The Shorncote armlet, possibly cast, has good counterparts in the penannular 135 REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE cast and ribbed Únětice Armmanschetten of Bartelheim’s Type X9 (1998, 84) which can have rounded or squareshaped ends. Two golden examples of the former have come from the Dieskau 1 burial, one example shown on Fig. 13.8,d. Numerous bronze examples appear in burials and hoards of the classical phase of the Únětice Culture (Bartelheim 1998 map 173), where a good parallel to Shorncote, with its square-shaped ends, was included in the Dresden-Prohlis hoard (Brunn 1959, pl. 25, 9). The unique find of a Böhmische Ösenkopfnadel probably from a barrow in South Wiltshire (Gerloff 1975, App. 3, 17, pl. 31,6) also underlines Únětice-Wessex connections. The reason for the wealth of the social elites from Wessex, Brittany and central Europe during the early second millennium must surely be connected with the trade in tin. It can surely be no coincidence that the remarkable princely graves in Wessex, Brittany and central Germany, among the richest of the European Early Bronze Age, are all within reach of Europe’s largest tin deposits, of which at least those from Devon and Cornwall and possibly Brittany and the Erzgebirge are known to have been exploited during the Early Bronze Age (Shell 1978; Penhallurik 1986). CentralEuropean and possibly Atlantic tin, the latter presumably being traded via central Europe, probably reached the Near East during Bz A1 and Bz A2 (late third and first quarter of the second millennium BC) via the Danube, this route being established since Neolithic times (Childe 1929; Sherratt 1993, 14ff.). In this context the segmented tin beads from an early Bronze Age (Bz A1) burial at Buxheim (Lkr. Eichstätt) near the Altmühl, a confluent of the Danube, may be of special significance (Möslein and Rieder 1997). The Atlantic West, although already alloying its earliest bronzes with up to ten and more per cent of tin by the end of the third millennium (cf. Gerloff 1993, fig.7) – a general practice unparalleled in contemporary Bronze Age Europe and Near East presumably started its ‘export phase’ at the beginning of the second millennium, when its princely burials document close contact with Brittany and central Europe, but not yet directly with the Aegean. The traditional contact finds between Wessex and Mycenae, i.e. the gold-pin decoration of the Bush Barrow and Breton dagger hafts and the Bush Barrow zig-zag bone mounts of the earlier second millennium, all have their roots in the west, where some can be traced back to the Copper Age (below). Their appearance in the Mediterranean, however, cannot as yet be dated before the earliest Shaft Graves of Grave circle B of the end of Middle Helladic Bronze Age and its transition to the Late, a period now assigned to the 17th century BC or earlier (Manning 1996; Manning et al. 2002). In central Europe this absolute time range should be contemporary with the traditional latest Bz A2 and its transition to B, namely A3 (see below), whereas the Leubingen burial with its Breton and Bush Barrow connections has been connected with an early stage of Bz A2. d b e c f a Fig. 13.12 Armorico-British and Oder Elbe daggers 136 SABINE GERLOFF Fig. 13.13 Bronze axes from (a) Leubingen (after Höfer 1906) and (b) Bush Barrow (after Needham 1988) Unfortunately, there are still no C-14 dates for any of the classic Wessex I graves from southern Britain, though related material has come from a few C-14 dated burials in Ireland and southern and eastern Britain. The cremation found with a triangular Wessex I (Armorico-British A) dagger at Grange, Co. Roscommon, has produced dates between 2023 and 1771 cal BC (Brindley 2001, 147). A Breton-style Armorico-British A dagger (Type Rumédon after Gallay 1981; Quimperlé after Needham 2000b) from a deposit found in a barrow at Lockington in Leicestershire (Hughes 2000) has provided two carbon dates of 2580–2200 and 2190–1880 cal BC, the latter being more compatible with existing dates for related finds. A female inhumation at Risby in Suffolk (Martin 1976) with a jet spacer-necklace like those known in amber from Wessex, was buried between 1884–1784 cal BC (Gerloff 1993, 94 no.17). These dates suggest that the Wessex Culture was already established by the earlier part of the second millennium BC. They also prove its contemporaneity with the Únětice princely tombs, two of which were erected at around 1940 and 1840 BC respectively (above, p.124). These dates certainly predate those of the Mycenaean Shaft Graves. Fig. 13.14 Schweta, Middle Germany. Part of hoard (after Billig 1958) REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE BZ A3, SÖGEL, LATER WESSEX AND THE MYCENAEAN CONNECTION The second quarter of the second millennium BC witnessed the gradual transition from the central European Early to Middle Bronze Age, a time span coined late Bz A2, Bz A2/B or Bz A3 (above, p.121 n.2, p.154). Whereas during the first two or three centuries of the second millennium connections between Wessex and central Europe were primarily with the Únětice area, in the second quarter of that millennium – which saw the rise of the Mycenaean Shaft Graves – the main contact between Britain and central Europe appears to have shifted towards south-west central Europe, involving the middle and upper Rhine, south-west Germany and Switzerland. Those areas have all have yielded finds recalling some from rich Wessex burials as well as the Shaft Graves at Mycenae. The central European finds include axes or chisels with gold nail inlay from Thun-Renzensbühl and Trassem, the gold cups from Fritzdorf near Bonn in Germany (Uslar 1955) and Eschenz near Lake Constance, Switzerland (Leuzinger 2003), both vessels found in close vicinity of the Rhine. Further contact finds (Fig. 13.15) include the well-known amber bead bound with gold from Lake Zürich, Zürich, Mozartstrasse (Fig. 13.15:h; Barfield 1991; Concise 2001), the amber spacer beads with complex borings in ‘basic pattern’ (parallel borings interspersed with inverted V’s) from hilltop settlements at Koblach-Kadel in the Rhine valley south of Lake Constance, Voralberg, Austria and Padnal, Savognin, on the ancient Julier Pass in Graubünden, Switzerland (Fig. 13.15:i. j–k; Rageth 1976, 173). They are also known from early Tumulus Culture burials (Bz B) in Baden-Württemberg (Gerloff 1975, App. 8, nos. 28– 33.50, pl. 57M). British-style faience beads are known from Arbon-Bleiche on Lake Constance, Switzerland (Fig. 13.15:l–m; Hochuli 1994, 110). In addition, ArbonBleiche (ibid.) and Bodman-Schachen (Köninger 1989), the latter also on Lake Constance, have yielded the closest comparisons for the Camerton, Somerset, and St. Colomb, Cornwall, hollow-cast bulb-headed pins (Fig. 13.15:a–g), the latter significantly found in an ancient tin stream-working (Shell 1978, 257). The continental counterparts (Fig. 13.15:b–f) date to the end of the Early and earliest Middle Bronze Age and many have come from lake-side dwelling sites that have yielded material typical of Bz A3, dendrodated to the 17th and earlier 16th centuries BC (see Table 13.1 on p.125). According to scientific and historical dating (below, p.137) this period also witnessed the floruit of the Mycenaean Shaft Graves and the finds mentioned above suggest that a contact (tin/amber?) route between the Atlantic West and the Mediterranean should have involved the Rhine, passing across the Swiss lakes and alpine passes to the Rhône and via ancient Austrian through-ways to northern Italy, continuing via the Mediterranean and Adriatic Sea. 137 Recent scientific dates certainly support the traditional link between Wessex and Mycenae. Whereas the new chronology had raised the absolute date for the beginning of the Wessex Culture and that of Reinecke‘s Bz A2 by several centuries, it did not much affect the conventional dating of their end. According to central European dendrodates the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (Bz B) should date to the mid-sixteenth century BC (Hafner and Suter 2003), a date in line with the historical chronology for the beginning of the Shaft Grave period. According to scientific dating the latter are now believed to have begun in the 17th century BC (above, p.137) and would thus be contemporary with Bz A3 in central Europe and the later Wessex Culture in Britain. The zig-zag shaped bone or ivory mount – according to Brandherm (1986, 49f.) more likely of ivory – discovered recently off the west Mediterranean coast on the Isleta del Campello nr. Alicante, Spain (Fig. 13.16), with its close comparisons in the chevron-shaped Bush Barrow and Shaft Grave mounts, also supports the traditional concept of a direct sea route across the Mediterranean rather than one by land along the Danube, the latter used since Early Neolithic times connecting northern Greece, Thrace and Anatolia with central Europe. Whereas the old short chronology’ held all of Wessex I to be contemporary with the Shaft Grave period, the new chronology places this correlation possibly still late in Wessex I, contemporary with its transition to II and with Wessex II, the later still producing amber spacer beads found in its Aldbourne series cremation graves (Gerloff 1975, 198ff). By this time, Wessex central European contacts seem to have shifted to the Sögel area of northern Germany and to south-west Germany and northern Switzerland (cf. Gerloff 1975, 245; 1993), the central European Únětice Culture of the classical phase possibly having lost its dominant role sometime during the second quarter of the second millennium BC. Significantly, the renowned Aegean bronze cup from Dohnsen near Celle, certainly an early Late Minoan (LM I) import from the East Mediterranean (Matthäus 1980, 225f. no. 344), has not come from Únětice territory, but from the heart of the Sögel province in Lower Saxony. The old chronology – under the influence of Montelius’, Reinecke’s and Childe’s concepts of Ex Oriente lux – held Mycenae to have been the dominant partner in the relationship between East and West, but the new chronology has reversed this traditional picture and we should now envisage an Ex Occidente lux, this relationship presumably being initiated by the transfer of tin from west to east. Over a hundred years ago Reinecke (1902b, 110f.) compared the gold-pin inlay of the Bush Barrow and the Breton Cruguel and Kergourognon dagger hilts with similarly decorated hafts from the Mycenaean Shaft Graves. He argued that the Mycenaean hilts had to be later than the comparable western examples, which – in 1902 – he believed to be contemporary with the pre-Mycenaean ‘Inselkultur’ (cf. 138 SABINE GERLOFF Fig. 13.15 Late Early Bronze Age finds from Britain, northern Italy, Switzerland and south-west Germany. (a) Camerton (Somerset); (b) Täuffelen-Gerolfingen (Kt. Bern); (c) Mals nr. Meran; (d–e, l–m) Arbon-Bleiche 2, L. Constance; (f) Bodman-Schachen (L. Constance); (g) St. Colomb (Cornwall); (h) Zürich-Mozartstrasse; (i) KoblachKadel (Vorarlberg); (j–k) Padnal nr. Savognin (Graubünden). (a–e) after Hundt 1983; (f) after Köninger and Schlichterle 1990; (g) after Shell 1978; (h–i) after Hochuli et al. 1998; (j–k) after Rageth 1976); (l–m) after Hochuli 1994. Not to scale Fig. 13.2), which had produced no parallels to the contemporary western hilts. But believing in the cultural superiority of East over West (Ex Oriente Lux), Reinecke could not accept the western hilts as prototypes of the Mycenaean ones and argued that Aegean prototypes for the western pieces might be found in the future (1902b, 111). These, however, have not emerged and the western hilts are still the best parallels for the Mycenaean examples. As demonstrated by Sakellariou (1984) goldpin decoration is foreign to the Aegean prior the Shaft Grave period and its origin must, therefore, be sought in the Atlantic West. In Britain wrist-guards decorated with gold nails occur in third-millennium beaker burials, while tin nails have been found on the horn hilt of a flat dagger from Bargoosterveld, Drenthe, Netherlands (Clarke et al. 1985, fig 4.83), which has been connected with Reinecke’s phase Bz A1 (Butler and Van der Waals 1967) and should date to the late third or the turn of the third and second millennia BC, contemporary with the British Migdale phase. Significantly, the hilt-line of a Type Milston dagger, recently discovered in a rich Migdale-phase burial at Rameldry Farm, Fife, Scotland, and AMS dated to 2280–1970 BC, was decorated with a line of tiny copper pins (Baker et al. 2003), recalling the minute holes which lined the organic hilt of the eponymous Milston dagger (Thurnam 1873, pl. 34,2; Gerloff 1975 no. 57) and also defined the hilt-marks of succeeding Armorico-British A daggers from Winterbourne Stoke and Bush Barrow in Wessex (Gerloff 1975 nos. 108, 113) as well as numerous Breton examples (cf. Gallay 1981, nos. 323, 327–329, 377, 383, 384, 394;), their organic hilts now being inlaid with gold nails (cf. Fig. 13.12. a–c). Apart from lining the outline of hilt and rivets of Breton and Bush Barrow hilts, several hilts have have nail decoration in chevrons designs (cf. Eluère 1982, fig. 51; Evans 1881, fig. 289). Decoration with gold pins continued into Wessex II, when the amber pommel of a Camerton-Snowshill dagger from Hammeldon, Devon (Gerloff 1975 no. 194) was embellished with minute gold nails. This piece ought to be contemporary with the Shaft Grave period, whereas the beginning of pin-decorated British hilts – as noted by Reinecke more than a century ago – certainly predated the Shaft Graves. Whereas in the British hilts the visible pinheads form the design, the heads of the Mycenaean pins were hammered flat to the surface of the hilt, thus REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE Fig. 13.16 Ivory (?) mount from Isleta Campello near Alicante (after Brandherm 1996) producing a mosaic or patchwork cover of gold sheet which often covers the entire surface of the hilt, a form of decoration that survived into LH II (see Gerloff 1975, 9. 88; Sakellariou 1988). It is difficult to date the chevron-shaped bone or ivory mount from the Spanish coast near Alicante (see p. 137, Fig. 13.16), because its find-circumstances have not been recorded. Brandherm (1996, 51) connects it with the northern province of the El Argar Culture. Its Mycenaean parallels come from Shaft Grave Iota, circle B, which contained pottery of Middle Helladic type and should mark the very beginning of the Shaft Grave series, presumably dating to the 17th century BC and probably slightly later than the comparable pieces from Bush Barrow with which they are traditionally connected (cf. Gerloff 1975, 89; Harding 1984, 114 fig. 4). In common with the chevron-shaped gold-nail decoration of the Bush Barrow and related Breton dagger hafts, the Bush Barrow bone chevrons have third-millennium sheet-gold prototypes from Breton megalithic tombs (cf. Gerloff 1975, 89; Eluère 1982, 41). The chevron design, already present in ‘Passage Grave Art’ (below, p.139f), occurs again on British Early Bronze Age beakers (cf. Fig. 13.3) and Irish lunulae of the late third millennium. It also appears on a developed flat axe (no. 2) from the Dunsapie 139 Crag hoard found in Edinburgh (O’Connor and Cowie 2001, fig. 14,2), which should be roughly contemporary with the Bush Barrow phase of Wessex I and date to the early second millennium BC. Therefore, the unique Mycenaean mounts and their design, which have no contemporary local parallels or ancestry, could be derived from the west, whence they reached Greece presumably during the end of the Middle Helladic period and its transition to the Late, in – or possibly prior to – the 17th century BC (see p. 135). A further link between the Atlantic West and Mycenae is the linear, symmetrical lozenge-shaped design (Fig. 13.17) of a gold diadem and its pendants from Shaft Grave IV (Karo 1930, pl. 39), which mirrors the shape and decoration of the inner panel of the larger Bush Barrow lozenge. This geometric design is unparalleled in the repertoire of Mycenaean (or Minoan) motifs, which are mostly of floral and curvilinear outline. In common with chevron-shaped mounts, the Bush Barrow lozenges and their related Mycenaean design may have their roots in the Megalithic art of Copper Age western Europe. Chevrons and lozenges, including concentric arranged lozenges as seen on the smaller Bush Barrow lozenge, are characteristic of O’Kelly’s (1973, 364f.) ‘Rectilinear’, and Eogan’s (1986, 153f.) ‘Angular’ Styles and are included in Herity’s (1974, fig. 81) ‘Alphabet’ of Irish Passage Grave Art. The two designs are often combined as in New Grange (Herity 1974, fig.76), Knowth and Fourknocks I (Eogan 1986, pl. 52, fig. 77. 79–80), but also occur individually or with other linear and curvilinear designs on many megalithic monuments. They are most common in Ireland, but also occur in Brittany (cf. Herity 1974, fig. 72–76) and decorate stone implements from Skara Brae in Orkney (Clarke et al. 1985, figs. 3.18: 7.12–13) and a chalk plaque found near Stonehenge Bottom in England (ibid. fig. 3. 48). Like other megalithic motifs these linear ornaments or symbols are believed to be of ritual, magical or religious significance (Herity 1974, 91 ff.). Eogan (1986, 181 ff.) has argued that his ‘Angular Style’, predominantly chevrons and lozenges, marked key positions in the inner sanctums of Irish passage tombs. During the late third millennium, after the demise of collective burial in tombs, Megalithic-style linear motifs – including chevrons and lozenges – reappeared in the earliest Bronze Age, when they are found on British long-necked beakers from single burials and are also characteristic of the most prestigious metalwork, namely Irish gold lunulae. These motifs – or better ‘symbols’ – continued into the time of the Wessex Culture, when they made their final appearance in the shape and decoration of the prestigious Bush Barrow and Clandon breastplates and the gold-nail inlay of the Bush Barrow hilt and its associated bone mounts. These two basic designs or symbols also appear as engravings on lowflanged axes. Apart from the faint chevron decoration on the Dunsapie Crag example cited above, concentric and 140 SABINE GERLOFF Fig. 13.17 Diadem from Shaft Grave IV at Mycenae (after Müller-Karpe 1980) continuous lozenges are found on an Irish Ballyvalley axes (Harbison 1960b no. 1028, 1215) and the hatched lozenges from Bush Barrow and Mycenae adorn a Scottish axe of Balbirnie Type (Schmidt and Burgess 1981 no. 406). Concentric lozenges also appear on a stone slab from Badden Farm, Argyllshire, Scotland, originally part of an Early Bronze Age stone cist (Clarke et al. 1985, fig. 7.29). The survival of these motifs or symbols associated with burials, rituals and elites must indicate a continuation of some Megalithic traditions, beliefs and cult practices into the Early Bronze Age. Their sudden appearance at Mycenae together with other Atlantic elements of prestige (spacer beads, gold-nail decoration, sceptre mounts) must indicate a direct contact between these regions and it is feasible that some Atlantic ‘tin princes’ or merchants settled in the Mediterranean and contributed to the riches of the Shaft Grave period, possibly acting as distributors of Atlantic tin (and other commodities) to regions further east and adhering to some distant ‘Atlantic’ symbols of cult and prestige. It was shown that the contact finds between Wessex and Mycenae should have their prototypes and origin in the Atlantic West of the third and possibly even early fourth millennia BC. The design of the boring in the ‘basic pattern’ of Wessex and Mycenaean amber spacers (cf. above, p.135–6) also has its ancestry in the Atlantic West, where it already occurs on late third-millennium beakers (Clarke’s 1970 motif 35ii; cf. Butler 1963, 162ff.; Gerloff 1975, 219) as well as on lunulae (Taylor 1980, 38ff.). This supports the traditional belief that the Mycenaean spacers, known to be of Baltic amber, should have originated Britain. Apart from one – presumably imported – specimen off the west coast of Denmark, spacer beads with this particular style of boring, have no counterparts in Baltic lands. Baltic amber, however, is known to have been washed up along the eastern coast of Britain. Renfrew was justified, therefore, in postulating a ‘Wessex without Mycenae’, but had he proposed a ‘Mycenae without Wessex’ he would not have been. Whereas we have seen that several Mycenaean finds must have been inspired by close contact with the Atlantic West, there are at present no genuine ‘Shaft Grave finds’ from the West, although the proposed Middle to late Minoan gold-plated ‘earring’ from Wilsford G.8 (Clarke et al. 109 fig. 4.32) may document contact with Crete (Branigan 1970, 95ff.). Although the West-European cups of precious materials (gold, silver, amber and shale) of the later Early Bronze Age recall contemporary vessels of precious materials from the Shaft Graves, they were certainly of local manufacture, adopting local pottery forms (cf. Gerloff 1975, 19ff; Harding 1984, 108). British segmented faience beads, one of the traditional prime witnesses for connections between Egypt, Mycenae and Wessex in the Shaft Grave period, are now known to predate them and to have been manufactured in Britain from the earlier second millennium BC, when the knowledge of producing faience – possibly in connection with the tin trade – reached Britain via central Europe (Sheridan and Shortland 2004). THE THREE PHASES OF THE BRITISH EARLY BRONZE AGE (EBA 1–3) To conclude this section on the chronology of the Early Bronze Age, it appears – as already envisaged by Burgess (1990) – that it can be broadly divided into three consecutive phases (EBA 1–3), here seen in Table 13.1. These phases are defined mainly by weapon types (daggers and axes) occurring in burials and hoards. It is self-evident that these phases partially overlapped and also produced transitional metal types, as in the Aylesford hoard (below). EBA 1 is marked by the first appearance of tin bronze in the Migdale/Butterwick phase (c.2300/ 2200–2000/1900 BC), which produced late (long-necked) beakers, sheet-bronze ornaments, bronze (and copper) halberds, flat-sectioned axes (Migdale/Killaha types) and daggers (Butterwick and related forms). The earliest bronze weapons already show alloys of c.10 and more per cent of tin, a generally used composition, unparalleled in contemporary Europe and Near East. This phase presumably also saw the floruit of gold lunulae. We have tried to demonstrate that EBA 1, which corresponds to Burgess’ metalwork stage (MS) IV and Needham’s metalwork assemblage (MA) III, should broadly correspond with Reinecke’s Bz A1. Burgess MS REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE V and Needham’s MA IV should be seen as transitional between EBA 1 and EBA 2. MS V and MA IV are marked by flat daggers and developed flat axes, as in the eponymous Aylesford hoard. Group Aylesford and related daggers have been regarded as hybrids between flat daggers of Butterwick and related types and ArmoricoBritish A and B types of Wessex I (Gerloff 1975, 68f). Schmidt and Burgess (1981, 60f) describe Aylesford axes as the most primitive type of developed flat axes, still retaining the Migdale shape. They are never associated with more advanced forms connected with Wessex I. Therefore, the Aylesford group of bronzes, transitional between EBA 1 and EBA 2, are possibly being closer to EBA 1 than EBA 2 and are here (cf. Table 13.1) included late in EBA 1 rather than with early EBA 2. Early Bronze Age 2 includes the traditional Wessex I or Bush Barrow phase which is believed to have its roots in the Beaker culture (cf. Case 2003). Wessex I should date from c.2000/1900 to 1750/1650 BC. It is contemporary with revised Reinecke Bz A2 (cf. p.127f) and marked by triangular daggers of Types Armorico-British A and B, bevelled and/or low-flanged axes, as well as sheet gold ornaments. Crescentic collars including amber and shale spacer beads should also have begun in this phase. On the continent EBA 2 should correlate with the classical phase of the Únětice Culture, marked by its princely graves and rich hoards with metal-hilted daggers, some of which contain decorated HibernoBritish axes, as the Type Falkland axe from Dieskau 2. Some of the rich ‘female graves’ without daggers of the Wessex Wilsford series, with their amber-bead collars, gold ornaments and occasional segmented faience beads, should also be assigned to this period, although Wilsford graves should have continued into the following period (Gerloff 1975, 197ff. App. 7). As demonstrated by the present author in 1975, there should have been an overlap, i.e. transitional period, between Wessex I and II. As there are hardly any C-14 dates for Wessex graves, the length of this transition is difficult to establish. Above (p.136) we have cited two Amorico-British A daggers assemblages from Ireland and Leicestershire which between them have produced AMS dates between 2190 and 1771 cal. BC. A crescentic collar of shale beads from Risby in Suffolk, reminiscent of the amber collars of the Wilsford series, was seen to date between 1884 and 1784 BC (above, p.136) and an Armorico-British C dagger from Norton Bavant, Wiltshire, of Variant Wonston, transitional between Wessex I and II (ead. 1975, 9ff.), has produced a date (BM–2909) of 1760– 1675 cal BC (Butterworth 1992; Needham 1996, 132). This suggests that the transition from Wessex I to II covered the later 18th and earlier 17th centuries BC. Wessex II, here included in EBA 3, perhaps lasted from 1750/1650 to c.1500 BC, allowing for a generous overlap with Wessex I (EBA 2). Wessex II incorporates Camerton-Snowshill dagger graves and bronzes of the Arreton tradition. Arreton bronzes, which include the 141 earliest British (and Irish) spearheads, have hardly ever come from graves and seem to avoid Wessex burial territory (cf. Gerloff 1975, 12, 141, pl. 62B). Although Piggott (1938) included them in his ‘Wessex Culture’, and there are certainly connections, the exact relationship between Wessex and Arreton is still ambiguous, though a close connection with Ireland seems certain (cf. Gerloff 1975, 155ff.). EBA 3 should also incorporate most daggers of Armorico-British C form, namely Variants Wonston and Winterbourne Came (ibid. 1975, nos. 140– 148). This phase should correspond to early Montelius I in southern Scandinavia, Hachmann’s (1957) Sögel horizon in north-west Germany and Low Countries, Bz A3 hoards in southern central Europe (above p.121, note 2) and also be contemporary with the defended hilltop sites and lake-side settlements of the latest continental Early Bronze Age. Recent dendrodates for late Bz A2, i.e. Bz A3 (A2/B) lake-side settlements (cf. Hafner and Suter 2003) suggest EBA 3 should occupy the period between c.1750 and 1550/1500 BC. The eponymous Wessex II burial from Camerton has been seen to include a continental pin, its head cast by cire perdue. Its most likely place of origin is northern Switzerland (cf. Gerloff 1975, 119f.; Hundt 1983), where it has several counterparts at Arbon-Bleiche 2 (cf. fig. 14), now dendrodated to 1630–1508 BC. That latest Arbon date should, however, be related to bronzes of Bz B, also present at Arbon 2 (Hochuli 1994, 166ff.). Another parallel to the Camerton pin comes from Bodman-Schachen (Fig. 13.15:f), also on Lake Constance and dendrodated to 1608–1591 BC (Köninger and Schlichtherle 1990). If the Camerton pin did reach Britain during the time of its continental currency, the beginning of Wessex II must predate 1600/1550 BC. Poorer Wessex graves without daggers, the so-called ‘female graves’ of the Albourne series, characterized by urned cremations associated with a few amber (including spacers with borings in ‘basic pattern’) and faience beads (Gerloff 1975, 198ff. 233 App. 7), should also be assigned to Wessex II. A starshaped faience bead of a type most commonly represented in Scotland was associated with an Albourne series cremation at Winterborne St. Martin, Dorset, and quoitshaped beads, also more common in Scotland and Ireland, have come from two Aldbourne-series cremations in Sussex (ibid. 205). Fragments of British type star- and quoit-shaped faience beads have also been discovered at the above-mentioned site of Arbon-Bleiche, confirming the absolute dating of later Wessex burials. Wessex II also witnessed the ‘Mycenaean connection’, the beginning of which may possibly be assigned to the previous period, but until we have more reliable scientific dates for the beginning of the Shaft Graves series, a series of AMS measurements of Shaft Grave bones for example, this is impossible to confirm. For obvious reasons, it seems futile to compare traditional historical dates from the east with dates obtained by scientific means for the west. 142 SABINE GERLOFF THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE: ACTON, TAUNTON (MBA 1–2) AND THE TUMULUS CULTURE OF REINECKE’S BZ B AND C1–2 In 1960 Hawkes had divided the Middle Bronze Age into three sub-phases (MBA 1–3, above p.122). We shall here discuss MBA 1 and 2, MBA 3 (O’Connor 1980: LB1, above p.124) will be included in our section on the Late Bronze Age below. MBA 1 and 2 are Burgess’ (1974) Acton Park and Taunton phases of Middle Bronze Age metalwork, which can be linked with the DeverelRimbury complex known from settlements and burials. Metal weapons were now no longer placed in graves, although burials with daggers and without (Aldbourne series) probably continued in Wessex during MBA 1. Of the C-14 dates for Wessex II burials with CamertonSnowhill daggers obtained in the 1970s, three fall between 1599 and c.1450/1400 BC and one between 1428 and 1265 cal BC (cf. Gerloff 1993, 95 nos. 18–21). Although these dates (not AMS) ought to be viewed with caution, deriving mainly from charcoal samples with high standard deviations, they suggest that traditional Wessex Culture burial rites continued in Wessex until c. 1400 BC, if not even into the 14th century. We have seen that Wessex II daggers graves should certainly have begun by 1600/1550 BC, the later examples lingering on into to the fifteenth century, which saw the introduction of characteristic early Middle Bronze Age forms (MBA 1), namely early rapiers (groups I and II; cf. Burgess and Gerloff 1981), haft-flanged axes and shield-pattern palstaves (Rowlands 1976, 153ff.; O’Connor 1980, 40ff.). These forms are not found in graves, but as single finds or in hoards. For reasons stated above, early Middle Bronze Age metal types are less common in Wessex, where Early Bronze Age forms and burial traditions seem to have survived into the Middle Bronze Age (Burgess 1976, 73; O’Connor 1980, 43). MBA 1 should more or less correspond to Reinecke’s Lochham (Bz B) and Göggenhofen (Bz C1) phases and Periods IB and early II in the north (see Table 13.1, p.125). According to Swiss dendrodates the beginning of Bz B should be assigned to the mid 16th century, whereas that of Bz C1 should postdate 1466 BC, the date of the oak lining of a well at St. Maurice, which had yielded bronze swords from Bz C1 to D (above, p.124). There are as yet hardly any British dates for typical Acton metalwork (cf. Needham et al. 1997, 84). According to British Museum records a four-riveted dagger, identifiable as an imported continental Locham/ Wohlde dagger (Gerloff 1975 no. 236) was found at Wrexham, Denbighshire, together with a halberd. This association was questioned by Ó Ríordáin (1937, 200), since the halberd had previously been published as coming from Shropshire when no mention was made of the dagger having been found with it. Significantly, the eponymous Acton Park hoard also comes from near Wrexham, suggesting contacts between the earliest continental Tumulus Culture and the early Middle Bronze Age in western Britain. Early shield-pattern palstaves of western origin (Abels 1972, 44ff.) were discovered in the Alsacian hoard from Habsheim (Fig. 13.18) which Abels dated to the continental Lochham phase (Bz B). Further examples can also be dated to this phase, which corresponds with the Wohlde/Ilsmoor phase in north-western Germany and the Valsømagle phase (Per. I B) in northern Europe. They have come from the following hoards (cf. O’Connor 1980 nos. 90, 92, 94, 95): Hausbergen, Lower Saxony, associated with a Wohlde blade (Sprockhoff 1941, pl. 29); Seelow, Brandenburg (ibid. pl. 28,12) associated with Bohemian palstave and knobbed sickle; Ilsmoor, Lower Saxony, associated with a Valsømagle axe (ibid. pl. 24); and Neuhaldensleben, Saxony, with a Valsømagle spearhead (Hachmann 1957, no. 401). The chronological relation between north-west German Sögel and Wohlde blades and their eponymous cultural ‘horizons’, which Sprockhoff (1941) believed to be contemporary, was reconsidered by Hachmann (1957, 32ff. 90ff.), who defined the difference between the two blade forms (ibid. 36ff.) and argued that Sögel should be parallel with Bz A3 (see above, Note 2), whereas Wohlde should correspond to Reinecke’s Lochham phase of Bz B. He related the Sögel blades (lentoid section) – often decorated and with grooves covering only half or threequarter lenght of the blade – to similarily shaped and decorated blades of south-east European metal-hilted swords with rounded butt and normally 5 (occasionally 4) rivet-holes which Holste’s (1953) assigned to Type Apa. The plain Wohlde blades with ridged section were related to the eponymous Lochham daggers or dirks with angular, trapezoidal butt and four rivet-holes, a butt form also typical of the metal-hilted swords of Holste’s (1953) Type Au, as represented in the Romanian hoard of Zajta (ibid. fig. 2; Hachmann 1957, pl. 65). Hachmann argued that Sögel and Wohlde blades were never associated in burials, but that burials containing the former were sometimes primary to the latter, as in the mortuary house burial from Baven near Celle (ibid. 36). His theory, not generally accepted (cf. 1980, 18f.; Laux 1995; Vandkilde 1996, 17f.;) was to be substantiated by the extraordinary site of Rastorf in Schleswig-Holstein, which has yielded a sequence of burials from the early Neolithic (in a dolmen) to the Wohlde period (Bokelmann 1977). A Bronze Age burial mound was placed north-west of the dolmen, its primary inhumations containing a triangular bronze blade with damaged butt (Bz A1 or A2), while above it was an inhumation with an Apa sword (Bz A3/ Per. IA). After the mound was closed, another inhumation with a Wohlde blade (Bz B/ Per. IB) was placed between dolmen and mound and the whole site was then covered by a larger mound (diam. 28m), centred on the last Wohlde burial. The chronological priority of Sögel over Wohlde has recently also been demonstrated by Vogt REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE Fig. 13.18 Habsheim hoard (after Abels 1972) 143 144 SABINE GERLOFF (2004, 11ff.). Whereas early British palstaves and MBA 1 can be connected with the Bz B or Wohlde phase (above), developed shield-pattern palstaves should have appeared later and correspond to early Montelius II or the Göggenhofen phase of Bz C1 (cf. O’Connor 1980, 43ff.). The ensuing Taunton phase (MBA 2) of the 14th century BC with its characteristic ‘Ornament horizon’ produced gold bar-twisted torcs and earrings with 14thand 13th-century counterparts in the eastern Aegean (Hawkes 1961; Eluère 1980–81; Gerloff 2003, 196). Taunton basal-looped spearheads, square-mouthed socked axes and Group III rapiers have connections with Bz C 2 (Asenkofen) and later Montelius II (O’Connor 1980, 58ff.; 92 ff.Burgess/Gerloff 1981, 60f.). The latter has yielded a series of 14th century dendrodates (above, p.124). From Britain we have some radiocarbon dated Taunton period bronzes which support this dating (Needham et al. 1997, 84f. fig. 7). Taunton’s closest connections were with northern France (O’Connor 1980, 92ff.), whence a great number of Breton and Norman palstaves reached southern Britain (O’Connor 1980, 45ff. map 4.5). In central, northern and western Europe this period and its transition with the next (Bz D) witnessed the initial production of gold bowls and of the renowned Schifferstadt type cones (Gerloff 1995 and 2003). The Mold cape has traditionally been connected with the Schifferstadt cone and been assigned to the Taunton period, although Needham (2000a) has recently proposed an Early Bronze Age date, connecting its embossed lenticular ornament to that of the Early Bronze Age armlet recently discovered at Shorncote (above, p.134). This resembles the similarly decorated sheet bronze armlet from Migdale. However, if one compares the size and intricately modelled shape of the cape with the Early Bronze Age sheet-gold ornaments, the latter are much smaller, flat and mainly with incised geometrical decoration, the comparison seems rather unconvincing. The cape should instead be related to early gold bowls and the also intricately modelled Schifferstadt and Avanton cones. Possibly contemporary are some of the lost Irish ‘bowls’, recently reinstated as ‘crowns’ (Gerloff 1995; 2003), a function favoured in the 18th and early to mid 19th century until Wilde (1862) declared them to be bowls. A late Middle Bronze Age date for the Mold cape can also be inferred from the recently published French find of a sheet-bronze fragment with similar embossed ornaments (Fig. 13.19) which Gomez de Soto (2001) believed could have been part of cape or garment similar to that from Mold. This was found in a stratified layer in the Perrats cave near Agris (Charente) which had also yielded late Middle Bronze Age pottery (Culture des Duffaits) and should thus support the traditional dating of Mold. Surely, the wearer of this ceremonial cape, the largest piece of sheet gold known from Bronze Age Europe, would not have been bare-headed, as represented in Hope-Taylor’s well known reconstruction (cf. Ashbee Fig. 13.19 Fragment of sheet-bronze from Grotte des Pèrrats, Agris, Charente. (a) as found, (b) unfolded (after Gomez de Soto 2001) 1960, pl.20). It seems very likely that the head of this prehistoric ‘Prince of Wales’ was suitably adorned with a matching headdress in the form of the Schifferstadt cone or a cap-shaped (‘Irish’) crown (*Fig. 13.20), both forms current in the later Middle Bronze Age (Gerloff 1995; 2003). The Schifferstadt cone was associated with western palstaves which Kibbert (1980, 128ff.) assigned to Bz C2. The decoration of the lost ‘Comerford crown’ from Co. Tipperary has parallels in smaller gold bowls like those from Potsdam, Germany, and Rongères, Dép. Allier, France, both of which were found with gold bracelets with spiral terminals dating to the late Middle and early Late Bronze Age or Period II and early III in northern Europe (see Gerloff 1995). The ‘Ornament horizon’ of the Taunton phase which was originally linked to Period III in northern Europe (Smith 1959), now seen to be contemporary with Period II, incorporates some forms which continued into the Penard phase (Hawkes MBA 3; O’Connor’s LBA 1), these include some bracelets, basal-looped spearheads and later palstave types. Group IV rapiers, typical of the Penard phase, already occur in a few Taunton period hoards. This phase of overlap (cf. Rohland Needham 1998, 96) might be assigned to the latest 14th and early REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE 13th century, contemporary with the transition from Bz C2 to Bz D and from Period II to III in northern Europe. Several continental finds also point to an overlap between the latest Middle and early Late Bronze Age, which may be assigned to the later 14th and very beginning of 13th centuries BC. This phase of overlap should include some of the continental Bz D1, a supposed early phase of Bz D (Reim 1974; Beck 1980), proposed after Reinecke and Müller-Karpe’s definition of the Riegsee phase of Bz D. Sperber’s Bz D1, however, also incorporates most of the traditional D, the remainder being assigned to Bz D2, which also incorporates some of Müller-Karpe’s Ha A1 (cf. Sperber 1987, 145ff. 211 and above, p.121f.). Several Bz D burials incorporate forms also typical of the Asenkofen phase of Reinecke’s Bz C2 (cf. ibid. pl. 45), defined by Reinecke by its octagonal-hilted swords and pins with long ribbed heads (gerippte Kolbenkofnadel). Müller-Karpe (1959, 150) already realized this and also noted that the Peschiera horizon of northern Italy, conventionally paralleled with Bz D, also has forms characteristic of Bz C. Bronzes of both phases are also occasionally associated in hoards, as in Riedhöfl, Eitlbrunn and Penkhof (ibid. 147f. pl. 151A.151C.153.154). The new spectacular Middle Bronze Age ‘scrap’ hoard from Piller near the R. Inn in Tyrol (Egg and Tomedi 2002), which includes a Tirynstype crested helmet, contains mostly Middle as well as a few early Late Bronze Age forms (cf. Schauer 2003). Its position near the Roman Via Claudia Augusta may be significant, as this route connected southern Germany with Bolzano/Venice and may have been a transalpine passage in prehistory via the Inn Valley and Reschen Pass into northern Italy and to the Caput Adriae. The fourteenth century, Montelius II, Reinecke’s Bz C2 and their British counterpart Taunton, certainly witnessed renewed contact with the west and east Mediterranean. The renowned flange-hilted sword from Hammer (Müller-Karpe 1980 no. 641 pl. 352 A), with its T-shaped pommel reminiscent of Sandars’ Aegean II D swords, was associated with a ribbed pin of Bz C2. It is likely that the ‘Mycenaean’ sword fragment from Pelynt in Cornwall and possibly the Falmouth tin oxhide ingot belong to this period. The Irish and British Aegeanstyle double axes with oval shaft-holes have their best counterparts in Aegean pieces dated between c.1450 and 1250 BC (Branigan 1970, 93). The Swabian hoard from Oberwilflingen contained palstaves similar to those from Schifferstadt (Kibbert 1980, 279) as well as four corner fragments of copper oxhide ingots, possibly of Cypriot origin (Primas and Pernicka 1988 with updated distribution map). Copper oxhide ingots, which also occur in the western Mediterranean – especially Sicily, are mainly assigned to the 14th to 12th centuries BC: the examples from the shipwreck of Ulu Burun off the south coast of Turkey, which also contained fragments of tin ingots like Falmouth, have been dated to 1340–1330 BC (cf. ibid. 40; cf. Burgess 1991, 26). The Oberwilflingen 145 copper fragments should be of similar date and could have arrived in Swabia by the transalpine route mentioned above. Contact between east and west is also documented by the extraordinary shape of the Schifferstadt cone and its related gold crowns. These have been related to the conical hats or crowns that were the characteristic headgear of Levantine and Anatolian (Hittite) deities of the later second millennium; a model of such a deity has been found on the Baltic coast and northern copies occur in the 14th-century Period II hoard from Stockhult, Sweden (cf. Gerloff 1995; 2003). The above-mentioned gold bar-twisted earrings of the Atlantic late Middle Bronze Age also have 14th-century counterparts in the Levant and Cyprus (Hawkes 1961; Eluère 1980–81; Gerloff 2003, 196). Unprovenanced examples have been identified in the National Museum of Archaeology in Lisbon (Armbruster 2000, 107f. pl. 115, 4.6), while several provenanced finds come from southern France. Their distribution (Eluère 1980–81, fig. 4) and the examples possibly from Portugal could indicate a direct sea route via the Straits of Gibraltar, but the French finds certainly imply a ‘short-cut’ along the Gironde and Garonne (cf. Burgess 1991, 27). THE LATE BRONZE AGE: PENARD TO EWART PARK (MBA 3/LBA 1 – LBA 2/LBA 3) AND MÜLLER-KARPE’S URNFIELD PHASES (BZ D – HA B3) Burgess’s (1968) Penard Phase (MBA 3), although in Britain traditionally still assigned to the Middle Bronze Age as it contains some Taunton types (above p.144), incorporates many early Urnfield forms of the continental Late Bronze Age and has therefore been labelled LBA 1 in some chronological schemes (O’Connor 1980: above, p.124). The Penard phase traditionally corresponds to Bz D and Ha A in central and to Montelius III and early IV in northern Europe. Penard has been subdivided into two sub-phases (Penard 1 and 2): the first – defined by parallel-sided sword and rapier blades as in the Appleby hoard – is seen to correspond to Bz D and Ha A1; whereas the second – marked by the first leaf-shaped rapiers (Type Cutts as in the he Ffynhonnau hoard) – has been linked to Ha A2 (Jockenhövel 1975; Burgess 1976, 72ff. fig. 4.9). Both phases were believed to be contemporary with Briard’s (1965) BF I/Rosnoën in Atlantic France. The Rosnoën phase was never subdivided and incorporates Hatt’s (1960) Bronze Final I and IIa of the ‘Rhine-Swiss-eastern France group’ of the Urnfield Culture, which corresponds to Müller-Karpe’s Bz D and Ha A1 (cf. Brun 1988, 409 fig. 10; 1991, 15). It is significant in this context that Briard (1965, 197) included Hemigkofen swords and the Ffynhonnau hoard in his St.-Brieuc-des-Iffs (BF II) phase, which he equated 146 SABINE GERLOFF with Ha A2 and Ha B1. It has sofar not been recognized that the eponymous St.-Brieuc-des-Iffs hoard contains a central European knife fragment (Fig. 13.21:b) which Briard (1965 183, fig. 61) originally identified as a ‘razor’. Its shape, section and decoration, however, suggest it to have been part of a genuine Urnfield knife (Griffdornmesser) with curved and expanded decorated back of the same type as that in the Ffynnhonau hoard (Fig. 13.21:a) Their central European counterparts come from hoards and burials (Müller-Karpe 1959, 197 figs. 37–38). This implies that when a late Penard phase was identified for Britain, it should logically have been aligned with Wilburton/St.-Brieuc-des-Iffs, rather than Penard/Rosnoën. As with the Atlantic French scheme, where two of Müller-Karpe’s phase are combined into one (Bz D and Ha 1 into Rosnoën; Ha A2 and Ha B1 to St.-Brieuc-des-Iffs), in the North Montelius III incorporates Bz D and Ha A1, whereas Montelius IV is aligned with Ha A2 and Ha B1. The horizontal stratigraphy of Urnfield cemeteries permitted finer subdivision of the relative chronology in central Europe, but the absence of such cemeteries in northern and western Europe inhibited such subdivision there. In the Atlantic West especially, where there is no formal Late Bronze Age burial rite and associations are generally known only from hoards, a fine subdivision of phases has proved impossible. That is because the types represented in hoards are more numerous and were probably in circulation for longer and over different periods of time than the smaller range of objects in central European Urnfield burials: those probably related only to the adult lifetime of the deceased and can thus be dated to within a few decades. Most Urnfield burials can therefore be assigned to a single (Müller-Karpe) phase, whereas Urnfield hoards, like those from northern and western Europe, often combine objects of successive phases. In central European Urnfield hoards too, Bz D and Ha A1 types are often associated or cannot be clearly differentiated (Müller-Karpe 1959, 156. 173f.), whereas Ha A2 types are more frequently connected with Ha B1 types, rather than with Ha A1 (ibid. 167.176; 198ff.; cf. Hansen 1994, 306ff.; 398). This combination of Ha A2 and B1 types is also apparent in dendrodated Swiss lake-side settlement sites, where some types of Müller-Karpe’s Ha A2 as defined in burials are assigned to a Ha B1 settlement horizon (above, p.121f.). The Urnfield knife from the Ffynhonnau hoard – of a type assigned to Ha A2 by Müller-Karpe – was associated with a leaf-shaped dirk of Type Cutts and long conical ferrule (Burgess/Gerloff 1981, pl.133E) is conventionally connected with later Penard and Ha A2. The knife, however, has good parallels in the earliest levels of dendrodated Late Bronze Age Swiss settlements, as in Hauterives (cf. Rychner 1998b, fig. 24,4.5), here assigned to Ha B1, which was seen to include forms of Müller-Karpe’s Ha A2. Consequently, Penard 2 – equated with Ha A2 – should, as in Atlantic France and northern Europe be included in LBA 1 (O’Connor’s LBA 2) rather than be aligned with Hawkes’s MBA 3 (O’Connor’s LBA 1), which should instead only be parallel with Bz D and Ha A1 (see Table 13.2, p.126). Apart from continuing and developing native palstave, rapier and spearhead types, early Penard was marked by the introduction and adaptation of continental early Urnfield forms (Burgess 1968, 1976; Jockenhövel 1975; O’Connor 1980, 95ff; Gerloff 1980/81, 188ff.): parallelsided Monza and Mantoche swords (cf. Reim 1974; Colquhoun and Burgess 1988, nos. 1.7–15), Nenzingen/ Reutlingen swords (Gerloff 1980/81, 183f; Colquhoun and Burgess 1988, nos.59–61), median-winged axes and the Gwithian pins (Burgess 1976; O’Connor 1980, 122), all of which have continental counterparts in Bz D, or possibly even in its transition from the preceding Bz C2. In return, British Penard (late Taunton?) and Breton cm Fig. 13.21 (a) Urnfield knife from Ffynhonnau hoard (after Burgess 1968) and (b) fragment from St. Brieuc-des-Iffs hoard (after Briard 1965) REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE Rosnoën types appear in continental Bz D contexts. Sprockhoff (1934, 58, pl. 9, 5–7) and Hawkes (1948, 217) remarked long ago on the fragmentary basal-looped spearhead which was associated with a Rixheim sword in a cremation at Wiesloch near Heidelberg (Fig. 13.22). As the spearhead has only survived as a fragment, it is not clear whether it belonged to the Taunton leaf-shaped form or to the Penard straight-based type (cf. O’Connor 1980, 64). The Bronze D hoard from Windsbach in Franconia (Fig. 13.23) contains a Rosnoën palstave and a Rosnoën/Lambeth sword, the latter type also present in the Bohemian hoard of Rýdeč (Müller-Karpe 1959, 287 pl. 155A; Novák 1975, no.33–35). All the above contact finds relate to Bz D of the thirteenth century and also possibly to its transition from Bz C2 of the latest fourteenth, rather than to Ha A1 of the twelfth century. At the transition from Middle to Late Bronze Age the continent saw the introduction of prestigious metalwork of beaten bronze, namely body armour, helmets, shields and large metal vessels – crested helmets possibly already having appeared in Bz C2 (see Piller hoard above, p.145). Of these types, only shields and large metal vessels of multi-sheet construction reached Britain and Ireland, where the earliest examples – Nipperwiese shields (Needham 1979) and early Kurd buckets (Gerloff 1986; eadem 2004a) – should belong to the early Penard phase. The earliest insular cauldrons (Class A0 after Gerloff 1986), of native manufacture but based on early Urnfield continental types, can definitely be assigned to early Penard. Wood from the socket of the flesh-hook found inside the Class A0 cauldron from Feltwell has recently yielded a C-14 date (OxA10859) of 3013±36, calibrating with 95% probability to 1390–1120 BC (Bronk-Ramsey et al. 2002, 41). A related continental vessel, found at Sipbachzell in Austria contained a Bz D/Ha A1 scrap hoard (Höglinger 1996; Gerloff 2004a, fig. 1,2) confirming a date early in the Late Bronze Age for metal cauldrons. In France an Irish/British-style cauldron with handle-attachments identical to the Irish Class A0 cauldron from Derreen (Gerloff 1986, 94, pl.9) has recently been discovered at Saint-Ygeaux, Côtes d’Armor, Brittany, where it was ‘ceremoniously’ surrounded by Rosnoën swords laid around it in a circle (Fily 2003). In this context it may be significant, that the earliest insular cauldron from Colchester, Essex of Class A0 after Gerloff (1986, 88f.), probably a ritual deposit, came from a settlement site that as Camulodunum was a dominant Celtic stronghold during the later Iron Age. As cauldrons figure prominently in Celtic rituals and mythology, their sudden appearance at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age may be significant in the context of the emergence of a Celtic ‘culture’ or elite in the Atlantic west (cf. Waddell 1991). It may be no coincidence that the possible cape fragment from Agris, mentioned above (p.144, Fig. 13.19), dated to the very end of the Middle Bronze Age, came from the same cave as the renowned 147 Fig. 13.22 Wiesloch burial (after Müller-Karpe 1980) Early La Tène helmet. In central Europe, too, Iron Age Celtic burials may be superimposed on or adjacent to late Middle (Bz C2) or early Late (Bz D) Bronze Age ones (cf. Gerloff 2003, 201f.). Celtic-style wagon burials also have their origin in the Late Bronze Age (cf. Pare 1991). So, when Reinecke dated the Urnfield phases to the Hallstatt Iron Age in 1902, he was instinctively reflecting the close connection between Late Bronze and Celtic Iron Age. His ill-liked Ha A and B (above, p.120) may possibly be already assigned to ‘Celts’ who started to establish and spread ‘Celtic elements’ during Bz D, the end of his ‘reine Bronzezeit’. In Britain these early ‘Celtic’ elements may perhaps be detectable during early Penard, which saw the introduction of the first flange- 148 SABINE GERLOFF Fig. 13.23 Windsbach hoard (after Müller-Karpe 1980) hilted swords (Type Nenzingen, above), metal shields and ritual cauldrons, and possibly also of early Urnfield buckets like that from Nannau in Wales (Gerloff 2004a; ead. in press). The Langdon Bay (Dover) and Salcombe finds, presumably shipwrecks, have also been assigned to this period. However, the median-winged axes from Langdon Bay show affinities with central European examples of Type Freudenberg which appeared during Bz C2 contemporary with Taunton (cf. Colquhoun and Burgess 1988, pl. 140–142; Pászthory and Maier 1998, pl. 32ff.). The early Penard phase must have witnessed regular traffic across the Channel, though there is no longer evidence for the close contact between Normandy and the coast of Hampshire and Dorset that prevailed during the Taunton phase. In southern Germany and Austria traffic along the Danube must have been of primary importance, since many elite Bz D types – swords, cuirasses, conical helmets, shields, buckets and cauldrons – often found as ‘scrap’ in hoards, and some having prototypes or parallels in late Mycenaean Greece have their best counterparts in the Danubian area of southeastern Europe (cf. Gerloff 1986; ed. in press). As demonstrated above, the later Penard phase, which is marked by a continuation of earlier forms, should rather be aligned with Wilburton than Penard. While early Penard blades were parallel-sided, later Penard and Wilburton rapiers and swords have leaf-shaped blades, a blade form that continued into the Iron Age. On the continent, leaf-shaped blades appeared during Ha A1, as on rod-tanged Types Pépinville, Arco and Unterhaching as well as on early Hemigkofen swords (Schauer 1971, 83ff. 159) and became the norm in Ha A2. Some continental leaf-shaped blades may already have reached Britain or influenced British sword/rapier forms during the later part of early Penard, i.e. during the twelfth century and contemporary with Ha A1. There is still some uncertainty about the absolute date for the beginning of Bz D. So far there is only one series of later thirteenth century dendrodates for Bz D pottery, from the ritual cremation site (Brandopferplatz) at Elgg, Zürich (above, p.124). There is none for Ha A1 or A2, although some of the latter (as defined by Müller-Karpe) has been incorporated in the new Sperber/Swiss definition of early Ha B1. This phase has yielded the earliest Late Bronze Age dendrodates from Swiss lake dwellings, which remained occupied until Ha B3. Ha B1 dates, obtained from Hauterive on Lake Neuchâtel are between 1054 and 1037, dates from Kanton Zürich being similar (Mader 1992, 305ff; Rychner 1998b, 76ff.). These dates would be in line with the conventional chronology of Müller-Karpe, who assigned his Ha A2 (types of which were seen to be included in the Sperber/ Swiss Ha B1) to the eleventh century BC. It appears, however, that the traditional Ha B1 should have begun earlier than envisaged by Müller-Karpe, who dated its beginning to 1000 BC. As stated above, the Swiss forms derive from REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE settlement sites, which do not allow the fine subdivision possible for the material from large Urnfield cemeteries. As there are no absolutely dated lake dwelling sites for Bz D and Ha A, we can assume, as did Rychner in his chronological table (1998a, fig.1), that Ha A2 – seen to be contemporary with Penard 2/early Wilburton – may have begun during the later twelfth century, whereas Ha A1 – contemporary with later Penard 1 – should have started around 1200 BC, as already envisaged by Reinecke a hundred years ago. However, it is not quite clear, and has never been explicitly stated, which traditional forms are included in the ‘new’ Sperber/Swiss Ha A1 and A2, since Müller-Karpe’s ‘old’ HaA 1 has largely been incorporated in the new Bz D 2 and his Ha A2 in the new Ha B1 (cf. Rychner 1998a, 16ff.). Until we have reliable scientific dates for Urnfield burials with phase-specific metalwork, the chronology and the exact content of the individual Urnfield phases is far from settled. In this context the newly developed Groningen program ‘Dating of cremated bones’ is of utmost importance (Lanting and Brindley 1998). Although it has been successfully employed to date British cremations (Sheridan 2003), this new technique has not yet been used for central European Urnfield cremations. From Britain nine Penard bronzes have been dated by the DoB programme (above, p.127) to between 1275 and 1140 BC (Needham et al. 1997, 86ff.). Those bronzes include two triangular basal-looped spearheads (Needham et al. DoB 35; 26; fig.17, 2–3) dated to 1180 ±140 and 1285±155 BC. These dates agree with the conventional dates for Bz D and Ha 1 and should place these spearheads in early Penard. It is not surprising that several late Penard bronzes have AMS dates contemporary with early Wilburton ones, since both ought to be assigned to early LBA 1 or O’Connor’s LBA 2 (cf. Needham et al. 1997, 90f.). A phase of overlap between Penard and Wilburton metalwork is also apparent in the the Dainton find from Devon, where clay moulds for Wilburton types were associated with metal fragments of Penard metal composition (Northover 1982; 1988, 136). Typical Wilburton metalwork, conventionally aligned with Ha B1, shows little contact with central Europe (for Wilburton types see Burgess 1968; Coombs 1975; idem 1988; O’Connor 1980, 132ff.; Brown 1982, 22f). An exception is the indented socketed axe, which has parallels in continental hoards (cf. O’Connor 1980, 135), as at Larnaud (Mortillet and Mortillet 1903, pl. 80, no. 923. 939.940), which Müller-Karpe (1959, 205) aligned with his Ha B1. Some examples with slighter indentations are known from Ha B2 contexts (cf. Gerloff 1980/ 81, 193). Continental finds of British type hollow-bladed spearheads and examples with lunate openings have been discussed by Butler (1963, 106f. 223ff. 239) who aligned them with later Period IV in northern Europe which corresponds with the traditional Ha B1. The DoB programme has dated Wilburton metalwork, including spearheads from the eponymous hoard, between 1140 149 and 1020 BC. These dates precede by almost a century the dendrodated beginnings of Ha A2/B1 Swiss settlements horizons cited above. But as we noted, it is difficult to align the inventory of settlements with that from hoards, while the settlements may not have been established at the very beginning of the Sperber/Swiss ‘new’ Ha B1, which includes most of Müller-Karpe’s Ha A2 (cf. p.122). The latter phase, assigned to the eleventh century by Müller-Karpe, may well have begun in the later twelfth century. In 1967 Davies, when discussing the Guilsfield hoard, recognized a late LBA1 (Wilburton) phase, which he saw as transitional to LBA 2 (Ewart Park). He named this phase LBA1/2. He also connected the hoards from Isleham, Blackmoor, Fulbourn Common in England and Co. Roscommon in Ireland to his LBA 1/2, as they too contained forms of both phases. When Burgess named Hawkes’ Late Bronze stages after eponymous hoards in his classic paper, he also aligned these LBA1/2 hoards with late Wilburton and remarked on their transitional nature (1968, 36f.). After Colquhoun (1979) re-published the Blackmoor hoard, which besides typical Wilburton forms contained swords predominantly marked by typical Ewart Park features, this hoard became eponymous for the transitional horizon. The Blackmoor, Isleham and Wicken Fen hoards also contained French St. Nazaire swords (Colquhoun and Burgess 1988, 53f), which Cowen (1956) regarded as forerunners of the Carp’s Tongue Type typical of the classic Ewart Park phase in south-eastern England. Whereas in his chronological works, Burgess assigned the ‘Blackmoor Horizon’ to late Wilburton, Needham included it early in Ewart Park. When discussing British swords, Colquhoun and Burgess (1988, 68f.) assigned the transitional Wilburton/Ewart Park swords to their earliest Ewart Park form (Step 1). They – following Brown (1982, 32) – believed Step 1 swords evolved out of late Wilburton (their Variant G) in northern Britain, whence they spread southwards during the late Wilburton phase (ibid. 68). In south-east England Step 1 swords are absent from the core lower Thames valley area of sword production, but occur in Hampshire, an area still marked by Wilburton forms. The present author (1980/81) suggested the Blackmoor horizon should be assigned to its own phase (her LBA B2; see above, p.124), transitional between Wilburton and Ewart Park and aligned with MüllerKarpe’s Ha B2, which he too saw as transitional between his Ha B1 (corresponding to Wilburton) and Ha B3 (corresponding to Ewart Park). As the British LBA terminology is conventionally divided into three or four Late Bronze phases – the latter system assigning Hawkes’s MBA 3 to LBA 1 (O’Connor) – it can scarcely accommodate another phase, which would further confuse both the old (Hawkes 1960) and new (O’Connor 1980) terminologies. Rather than being aligned with either Wilburton or Ewart Park, Blackmoor should be seen as an independent metalwork tradition, transitional 150 SABINE GERLOFF between Wilburton and Ewart Park and therefore, following Davies (1967), classified as LBA 1/LBA 2 in the Hawkes and LBA 2/LBA 3 in the O’Connor scheme, thus emphasizing its transitional position. This Blackmoor horizon, characterized by Step 1 swords, seems to be best represented in northern Britain, the southeast predominantly still producing Wilburton types. A possible northern Step 1 sword may have reached southern Germany, where it appears in the Late Bronze Age hill-top site of the Heunischenburg near Kronach in Franconia (Fig. 13.24), which has one of the earliest stone ramparts in central Europe and has mainly produced finds from the later Urnfield period. On account of its notched pommel piece and flat hilt, Abels (2002) identified it as a Thames type, comparing it with Cowen’s (1967) Thames sword from the Bexley Heath hoard. However, the Heunischenburg example compares better with early Ewart Park swords of Step 1: its pommel and hilt-shape, the number and arrangement of rivet-holes and their large size are all typical of Step 1 swords. A good comparison is the Northern Step 1 sword from Chatton, Northumberland, also found near a prehistoric enclosure (Colquhoun and Burgess 1988, no.780). There is another good parallel, published as unprovenanced (ibid. no. 461), but now known to be from Iochdar, South Uist (see Cowie and O’Connor this volume), where it was associated with another sword of Northern Step 1 (ibid. no. 579). A further comparison is the Northern Step 1 sword from Moss of Cowie (ibid. no. 466). Like the Heunischenburg example, the newly provenanced Iochdar and Moss of Cowie swords have no hilt flanges, a feature believed to be indicative of the Thames type (cf. Abels 2002). Nor does the Heunischenburg notched pommel piece necessarily indicate a Thames attribution since notched pommel pieces appear on some Wilburton swords as well as being occasionally present on Ewart Park swords of Step 2. The Heunischenburg enclosure has produced several carbon dates. Those of Period III, believed to be contemporary with the ‘Thames’ sword, range between 1060 and 790 cal. BC (ibid. 67f.) and thus cover the whole of Ha B: they cannot, therefore, assign the sword to any of the Müller-Karpe subdivisions of this phase. Abels, believing the sword to be a Thames type, assigned it to late Ha B3, but the British evidence points to an earlier date; when Colquhoun and Burgess aligned Step 1 swords to the central European chronology, they assigned them to the beginning of Ha B2/3, which would correspond with Müller-Karpe’s Ha B2. This leads to the question of the ‘abandoned’ Ha B2, which Müller-Karpe saw as an independent phase, marked by large-headed vase-headed pins (großköpfige Vasenkpofnadeln) and placed between the betterdocumented Ha B1 and B3, the latter with small-headed vase-headed pins. Müller-Karpe did realize that Ha B2 was less well documented than Ha B1 and B3 and much more difficult to define, as it included types showing affinities with the preceding and following phases (1959, Fig. 13.24 Ewart Park sword from the Heunischenburg Franconia (after Abels 2002) 209). He also noted its absence from some Urnfield areas. This middle phase of the Late Urnfield period should, therefore, be seen as transitional between the classic and well-defined phases Ha B1 and B3. Müller-Karpe derived this middle phase from the horizontal stratigraphy of the Bavarian Urnfield cemeteries of Kelheim on the Danube (Müller-Karpe 1959, fig. 20) and Maria Rast (Ruše) in Slovenia, in the same way as he had made his subdivision of the earlier Urnfield period (Ha A) from cemeteries in the Munich area (ibid. fig. 16.17). Whereas Ha B1 and B3 figure prominently at Kelheim, Ha B2 is represented by only a few burials. Nevertheless, Müller-Karpe believed it to have lasted as long as Ha B1 and B3, each phase being assigned to a century. When adapting Müller-Karpe’s Urnfield chronology for eastern France, Hatt (1960) included Ha B2 and Ha B3 in one phase, his Bronze Final IIIb. In Switzerland, the lake villages only seemed to have produced two Ha B phases: Ha B1 and Ha B2, the latter aligned with MüllerKarpe’s Ha B 3. A three-phase Hallstatt B was also questioned in Germany (cf. O’Connor 1980, 29; Pfauth 1998, 64ff.). The reasons given were partly those stated by Müller-Karpe himself, when he described this phase and its transitional nature. So in the 1970s the use of Ha REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE B2 was abandoned and it was incorporated into Ha B3 to become Ha B2/B3, now believed to comprise two centuries, namely those Müller-Karpe allotted to his Ha B2 (900–800) and B3 (800–700). It was never explicitly stated, though, why Ha B2 was incorporated into B3 and not B1. More recently, however, Müller-Karpe’s threefold division of Ha B has been reinstated (cf. Trachsel 2004, 24ff.). Sperber (1987) also arrived at a three-fold division of Ha B for his new Urnfield terminology (cf. above, p.121f.): SB IIc (his Ha B1), SBIIIa (his Ha B2; subdivided into two) and SB IIIb (his Ha B3). The evidence from dendrodated Swiss lakeside settlements also suggests a three-fold division of the later Urnfield phase, here named Ha B1, B2 and B3 and corresponding largely to Sperber’s scheme (Rychner 1998, 15ff.). These newly established Ha B phases, especially in the Swiss settlements, are mainly defined by local pottery and pins. They do not correspond exactly to the phases of MüllerKarpe that have the traditional contact finds with the West. Nor do they – apart from Ffynhonnau type knives (above, p.146) – include types that also occur in Britain. For these reasons, it seems futile to compare or transfer the Swiss dates directly to the British system. We saw above that Müller-Karpe’s absolute dates for his earlier Urnfield phases are still valid because there are – apart from Elgg (above, p.124) – no dendrodates for Bz D and Ha A. His dates for the later Urnfield period of Ha B, however, must be raised, especially since it became apparent that the eighth century, his Ha B3, incorporates the Gündlingen horizon of early Ha C (cf. Pare 1987; 1992; 1996; Friedrich and Hennig 1995 and Hennig 2001). The end of the Swiss/Sperber ‘Ha B1’ has been dendrodated to c.1020 BC, followed by an ‘early Ha B2’ believed to have lasted until ca. 950 BC, which was succeeded in turn by a ‘late Ha B2’ that gave way to ‘Ha B3’ around 900 BC (Rychner 1998, fig.1). It is now evident that the dendrodated early Ha C burial at Wehringen, Barrow 8 (778±5 BC; Friedrich and Henning 1995) with its Gündlingen sword places the end of Ha B3 almost a century earlier than envisaged by Müller-Karpe, who began Kossack’s traditional Ha C1, believed to include Gündlingen swords, just before 700 BC. Adhering to Müller-Karpe’s proposed duration of his individual stages, the Wehringen date should backdate his traditional Ha B3 by nearly a century to around 900 BC, whereas his Ha B2 – which he also believed to have lasted a century – should be placed between 1000 and 900 BC. These dates correspond to Rychner’s (1998, fig. 1) dates for the new ‘Ha B3’ and ‘Ha B2’ phases, but as mentioned above, their contents do not correspond with those defined by Müller-Karpe. A detailed study of the synchronism of both systems, which cannot be the subject of the present study, would be most useful. Until that has been done, however, it is perhaps possible to indicate some finds that connect both systems. It appears that Müller-Karpe’s Ha B2 is partly included in Sperber’s SB IIIa (his mittleres Ha B or Ha 151 B2). Such connecting finds are onion-headed pins (Bombenkopfnadel) with bands of ribbed ornament (cf. Müller-Karpe, fig. 53,2; Sperber 1987, pl. 32, 151), pins with large vase-shaped heads (großköpfige Vasenkopfnadeln; cf. Müller-Karpe 1959, fig. 52, 10– 11; Sperber 1987, nos. 241.225, pl. 80,54) and tanged knives with stops, plain or line-decorated collars and decorated blades (Müller-Karpe 1959, fig. 50,1; 53,1– 213; 53,1; Sperber 1987, pl. 32,152). The Swiss early tenth-century dates for their Ha B2 (Rychner 1998, fig.1) may perhaps apply to Müller-Karpe’s traditional Ha B2. Had Müller-Karpe been aware of the early eight-century date for Wehringen, he would have placed Ha B2 in the tenth, rather than ninth century BC. Further support for an early tenth century beginning of Ha B2 are the British DoB dates for Blackmoor bronzes, which fill the gap between dates for Wilburton and traditional Ewart Park metalwork and are seen as contemporary with Ha B2. The Blackmoor dates include measurements from wooden shaft tips of three spearheads from the eponymous hoard, which give a calibrated date range centring on the tenth century BC (Needham1996, 136, table 5B). In Britain the Blackmoor metalwork tradition was followed by that of classic Ewart Park, named after the eponymous find (Cowen 1933) which contained more developed Ewart Park swords (Cowen 1933). This phase, Hawkes’ LBA 2 (O’Connor’s LBA 3) is marked by a great diversity of types and regional industries, documented by its various local styles of socketed axes (Burgess 1968; O’Connor 1980). Traditional correlations are with Period V in the north and Ha B3 in central Europe. Like the eponymous swords, other Ewart Park types evolved out of preceding Late Bronze Age forms. As during the Wilburton period, metal types were predominantly deposited as ‘scrap’ in the south-east and occur in numerous founders’ hoards. Weapons, however, spearheads and swords, also survive complete from ‘whet’ deposits, especially from the Thames at London. South-east England also witnessed the presumably intrusive ‘Carp’s Tongue horizon’, whose bronzes occur in many founders’ hoards. Some Carp’s Tongue types have also reached central Europe, where they are known from Ha B3 contexts (cf. Jockenhövel 1972). Whereas Burgess places Carp’s Tongue hoards towards the end of the Ewart Park phase, Needham believes they appeared early in the period (Needham et al. 1997, 95), because two bronzes – a mouth-decorated spearhead with ogival blade and a bag-shaped chape – which are traditionally seen as Carp’s Tongue types have yielded dates (DoB 40. 16) of 1100–840 and 1050–820 cal. BC. However, decorated spearheads with ogival blades occur not only in Carp’s Tongue hoards, but also in central European finds of Ha B3 date and in British Ewart Park hoards without Carp’s Tongue material, as at Bagmoor (Davey 1973; also cf. O’Connor 1980, 181). It has been demonstrated elsewhere (Gerloff 2004a, 146) that bag- 152 SABINE GERLOFF shaped chapes are not necessarily part of the French Carp’s Tongue complex either; on the contrary they are absent from the core area of Carp’s Tongue distribution and they also appear in Ewart Park hoards which have yielded no Carp’s Tongue material. Such chapes evolved from short Wilburton tongue-shaped chapes (O’Connor 1980, 190) and should be related to British Ewart Park swords rather than French Carp’s Tongue weapons. Some bag chapes are also known from Swiss settlements, notably Mörigen, which has also produced the eponymous metal-hilted sword characteristic of Ha B3. Mouthdecorated spearheads and purse-shaped chapes can thus be linked to the indigenous Ewart Park complex and could predate true Carp’s Tongue forms. The C-14 dates for the Petters hoard (Needham 1990), which included Carp’s Tongue types such as fragments of the eponymous swords, are late within the Ewart Park range and seem to confirm Burgess’ suggestion of a late date for Carp’s Tongue material, which may have survived into the early Llyn Fawr phase (below). On account of its many contact finds with the continent Ewart Park has traditionally been connected with Briard’s Bronze Final III and Hatt’s Bronze Final IIIb in France, Ha B2/B3 in central and Period V in northern Europe and been assigned to the ninth and eighth century BC (cf. ibid; O’Connor 1980, 158; Gerloff 1980/81, 194ff.). As shown above, Müller-Karpe’s neglected Ha B2, the middle period of Ha B, has recently been re-instated. The classic Ewart Park material, conventionally related to Ha B2/B3, should therefore be paralleled with Ha B3 only and not a combined Ha B2/ B3. The latter would also include the Blackmoor horizon with its earliest Ewart Park swords, which are more often associated with Wilburton metalwork than with classic Ewart Park. But as stated above, there are no closely dated burials from the Atlantic West, so a fine subdivision of phases is impossible here. It is clear, however, that Blackmoor hoards generally include little material of the classic Ewart Park phase and they should, therefore, represent an earlier horizon. Swiss dendrodates assign their Ha B3 to the ninth century BC, while British DoB dates (Needham et al. 1997, 93ff. fig. 31) seem to suggest an earlier beginning (probably in the second half of the tenth century BC or towards its end) for classic Ewart metalwork. In Switzerland late Ha B2 settlements (950–900) are poorly defined, also having produced no bronzes (Rychner 1998b, 78), and Sperber’s equivalent phase, SB IIIa2 or his late Ha B2, incorporates some forms characteristic of Müller-Karpe’s conventional Ha B3. Although Müller-Karpe allotted a century to each of his Hallstatt phases, his ‘faint’ Ha B2 did probably not last as long as the more prolific Ha B1 and B3. It is likely, therefore, that Müller-Karpe’s Ha B2 gave way to Ha B3 during the mid-tenth century, allowing more time for the diverse and abundant types of his welldocumented Ha B3 and a shorter duration for his slighter Hallstatt B2. THE LATEST BRONZE OR EARLY IRON AGE. LLYN FAWR (LBA 3 [LBA 4] AND HA C) The Ewart Park phase should have been succeeded by Llyn Fawr at the turn of the ninth and eighth centuries, if not at the end of the ninth century. The Llyn Fawr phase, though named after the Welsh lake find containing iron objects, is still characterised mainly by bronze objects, e.g. socketed axes of the Sompting and Linearfaceted types, Armorican socketed axes, Gündlingen bronze swords, winged chapes, horse-gear and singleedged razors and has, therefore, been traditionally assigned to the latest Bronze Age: Hawkes’ LBA 3, i.e. O’Connor’s LBA4 (Burgess 1968; O’Connor 1980; forthcoming) or, more recently, to the early Iron Age (Cunliffe 1991; Needham 1996). It is linked to the Early Iron Age on the continent, namely to Hallstatt C. The eponymous Llyn Fawr hoard with its iron Mindelheim type sword was aligned with Kossack’s classic Hallstatt C1, traditionally believed to include Gündlingen and Mindelheim swords, both types being contemporary (Kossack 1959). Kossack’s theory has been questioned by Pare (1987), who established a pre-Mindelheim ‘Gündligen’ horizon (called Ha C0 as in Hennig 2001 or C1a as in Pare 1999), seen as transitional between Müller-Karpe’s Ha B3 and Kossack’s Ha C1. Pare’s theory was confirmed by the early dendrodates for the Wehringen burial as well by other absolute dates for Hallstatt C burials (above, p.124). In Britain too, Gündlingen swords should predate the eponymous Llyn Fawr deposit and should be placed between Ewart Park and Llyn Fawr with its iron Mindelheim sword. Bronze Gündlingen swords, conventionally assigned to the earliest Iron Age, are found from Bohemia in the east to Ireland in the west. On the continent they are now known to date from at least the beginning of the eighth century, thus suggesting a similar – if not earlier – date for their beginning in Britain. Apart from Ferring (Huth 1997, 275 pl. 37) they do not appear in classic Llyn Fawr hoards associated with Sompting axes, but they are occasionally associated with Carp’s Tongue or Ewart Park metalwork (Burgess 1979; Gerloff 2004a), suggesting that some Carp’s Tongue and Ewart Park hoards may still have been deposited during the beginning of the currency of Gündlingen swords. In common with winged chapes (on the continent now also assigned to Ha C0/C1a), Gündlingen swords were traditionally believed to have been introduced into Britain from the continent. Whereas Schauer (1971; 1972) believed Gündlingen swords developed on the continent from Cowen’s (1967) imported British Thames type, Cowen himself, followed by Colquhoun and Burgess (1988), took the opposite view, believing the Thames Type evolved in Britain after continental Gündlingen swords had been introduced during the Llyn Fawr phase. While Cowen, Schauer and Burgess argued for a REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE continental origin, the present author (2004a) has demonstrated that Gündlingen swords must have originated in the Atlantic West, most probably at the centre of British Late Bronze Age sword production – namely the lower Thames valley, where the Thames type also evolved. Thames swords were believed to have evolved out of Ewart Park with Gündligen swords developed subsequently from the Thames type. Thames swords were generally believed to have been absent from Ewart Park hoards, hence the view of Cowen and Burgess that they post dated the Ewart Park phase. However, in both the presumed lower Thames production centre and northwest France, swords in hoards were mainly deposited as small blade fragments without hilts. As Thames blades are identical to those of Ewart Park swords, many presumed Ewart Park blade fragments may have had Thames, i.e. Gündlingen type hilts and would thus include Thames swords in the Ewart Park phase. A fragmentary Thames or Gündlingen hilt terminal has recently been identified in the French Carp’s Tongue hoard of Petit-Villatte (Cordier 1996, 20, fig. 6, 8). At Han-sur-Lesse in Belgium, intact Thames swords and bag-shaped chapes, the latter typical of Ewart Park hoards, have been retrieved from the same location on the bed of the River Lesse, suggesting they may have been deposited together (Warmenbol 1988). All this indicates that Thames swords should be removed from the Llyn Fawr phase and relocated in Ewart Park, although they probably did coexist with the earliest Gündlingen swords. Nearly all continental finds of Thames swords are unfortunately single finds (cf. Cowen 1967, Schauer 1971, nos. 665–671), although one (Burgess’ Type Holme Pierrepoint, L. 60,7 cm and now lost; Fig. 13.25) is recorded from a tumulus burial at Viehhofen in Bavaria (Cowen 1967, no. 38; Schauer 1971, no. 671; Srock 2006), where, significantly, it was associated with a developed bag-shaped, i.e. boat-shaped chape, which has often been wrongly identified as the detached sword’s pommel (Fig. 13.25a). The chape has several continental parallels, some of which were possibly also associated with swords related to Type Thames or Holme Pierrepoint (Trachsel 2004, 113). The well-known Danish example from Kirke Søby was included in a hoard of Period V (Cowen 1952 no. 11; 1967 no. 30), which has traditionally been paralleled with Ha B3, though Period V is now believed to incorporate the Gündlingen horizon of Ha C1a as well (Nebelsick 1997). There must certainly have been a period of overlap between Period V and early Ha C, as between the classic British Ewart Park and Llyn Fawr phases. This period or metal work assemblage (8th century BC) – in Britain marked by the decline of hoards and characterized by many single finds and finds of scattered bronzes of the Late Bronze/ Earliest Iron Age from Iron Age settlements – should be extracted from the classic Llyn Fawr phase and may be given its own name, possibly Boyton-Ferring after the finds of Gündlingen sword fragments with Ewart and Sompting 153 Fig. 13.25 Holme Pierrepoint sword (lost; copy in the Römisch-Germanische Zentralmuseum at Mainz; L. 60,7 cm) and chape from Viehhofen in Franconia. (a. after Schauer 1971; b. after Srock 2006 from cast copy) axes, (Burgess 1979; Huth 1997, 37). As to absolute dates, Ha B3 settlements on the Swiss lakes stopped at around 850 BC and in the French Jura at c.814 BC (Rychner 1998; Orcel et al. 1992). The Wehringen burial, with its Gündlingen sword of Schauer’s (1971) Type Lengenfeld, was seen to date to c. 780 BC (above, p.124), suggesting that the date for the beginning of Gündlingen swords could, therefore, be earlier. According to the present author (2004a), Type 154 SABINE GERLOFF Lengenfeld does probably not represent the earliest form of Gündlingen sword; Schauer’s Types Steinkirchen and Weichering (the most common form in Britain) should have appeared earlier. The earlier Part of Llyn Fawr (or Boyton-Ferring phase) with its many swords of types Steinkirchen and Weichering may, therefore, have started in the late ninth century BC, being replaced by the classic Llyn Fawr phase towards the end of the eighth century, the date of the beginning of Kossack’s traditional Ha C1 or Mindelheim phase and Montelius’ Period VI in northern Europe. It is not yet clear whether the Llyn Fawr and Sompting hoards could be assigned to two separate chronological horizons, though the former does include forms of continental Ha C1/C1b and the latter of Ha C2, both dating from the later eighth to late seventh centuries BC. Only a detailed typological chronological analysis of Llyn Fawr phase axes – the most common bronze type of this period – may permit further subdivision of the latest British Bronze or earliest Iron Age (also see O’Connor forthcoming). To conclude, it is abundantly clear that the Atlantic West, particularly Britain and Ireland with their rich tin and gold resources, were part of a European Bronze Age ‘Common Market’. Reinecke’s ABC has many contact finds in the Atlantic West and vice-versa. Despite the advent of scientific dating, believed by some to have replaced historical cross-dating, the ‘old method’ and a knowledge of forms and typologies are still as important as they were in Reinecke’s time, for they enhance our knowledge of cultural and commercial interactions between different areas of Europe. As we saw above, the new scientific dates, in particular dendrodates from settlement sites, may be very useful for establishing local chronologies, but are less suitable for comparing sequences in different regions. The studies of Evans, Montelius, Reinecke, Childe, Hawkes, Müller-Karpe and also Colin Burgess have not become obsolete, but will still provide the basis for all future research into the chronology of and relations between Bronze Age societies in different parts of Europe. figures and Phillipp Stockhammer did the proof-reading and made valuable comments. For all this I thank them very much. Last but not least I am indebted to Chris Burgess for his patience, this paper was submitted in 2004 long after the original deadline had passed. NOTES 1 2 The Römisch – Germanische Zentralmuseum in Mainz (RGZM), together with the Germanische Museum in Nürnberg, were both founded in 1852 during the wake of nationalist movements which led to German unification in 1871. To further the idea of German unity, the museums wanted to display antiquities relating to the past of all German lands, the most important finds of German antiquities being housed in various local collections relating to the principalities or states in which they were found. For this purpose the Zentralmuseum at Mainz, under its founder and first Director Ludwig Lindenschmit the Elder (1809– 1893), created workshops and trained craftsmen in order to copy and unite the most important vaterländische Alterthümer (antiquities of the fatherland) in a single National Museum. The Museum and its associated workshops were to become one of the world’s leading research institutions for the study of materials and the restoration, preservation and duplicating of antiquities and it remains such today. As the Museum always kept copies of restored originals, it has in its collection many of duplicates of internationally renowned finds, some of which have since been looted, lost or destroyed (as for instance, the Atlantic sword from Viehhofen in Franconia, figured in Fig. 13.25). A transitional phase between Bz A2 and Bz B, incorporating late forms of Reinecke’s A2 and some related to his Bz B, as for instance in the hoards from Bühl and Ackenbach (for discussion of these hoards see Rittershofer 1983), was recognized by Hachmann (1957, 115 ff.) and called Bz A3 by Milojĉić (1960, 229). For discussion of phase A3 and also of Torbrügge’s (1959) discussion of Holste’s subdivisions of Reinecke’s phase B into B1 and B2 see Gerloff (1975, 4f.), more recent discussions of A3: Rittershofer (1983), Krause (1996) and various contributions in: Eberschweiler et al. 2001. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS BIBLIOGRAPHY This paper could not have appeared in its present form without the constant help of Brendan O’Connor. After reading numerous sequences of the text, he not only polished my ‘clumsy’ English, but also made many useful suggestions for amendments and alterations and drew my attention to many relevant finds. For all this and his never ending assistance I cannot thank him enough. He and also Alison Sheridan provided me with some of their unpublished work and for this I am also very grateful. Andrew Sherratt read the paragraph on Reinecke and his ABC and he too offered valuable comments. Stefan Wirth helped to untangle the mysteries of the Sperber/ Müller-Karpe correlations, Dirk Brandherm helped with the Spanish terminology, Christian Züchner scanned the Abels, B.-U. (1972) Die Randleistenbeile in BadenWürttemberg, dem Elsaß, dem Franche Comté und der Schweiz. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX, 4. Munich. Abels, B.-U. (2002) Die Heunischenburg bei Kronach. Eine späturnenfelderzeitliche Befestigung. Regensburger Beiträge zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 9. Bonn. Almagro-Gorbea, M. (1977) El Bronce Final y el Período Orientalizante en Extramadura. Madrid. Armbruster, B. (2000) Goldschmiedekunst und Bronzetechnik. Studien zum Metallhandwerk der Atlantischen Bronzezeit auf der Iberischen Halbinsel. Monographies Instrumentum 15. Montagnac. ApSimon, A. M. (1954) Dagger Graves in the ‘Wessex’ Bronze Age. Annual Report (and Bulletin) of the Institute of Archaeology University of London 10, 57–62. London. REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE Ashbee, P. (1960) The Bronze Age round barrow in Britain. London. Baker, L., Sheridan, A. and Cowie, T. (2003) An Early Bronze Age ‘dagger grave’ from Rameldry Farm, near Kingskettle, Fife. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 133, 85–123. Barclay, A. (1995) A review of the Neolithic and Bronze Age sites the Devil’s Quoits area. In: Healy, F. (ed.) Excavations at the Devil’s Quoits, Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire, 1972– 3 and 1988. Oxford Archaeological Unit. Thames Valley Landscapes: The Windrush Valley 3. Oxford. Barfield, L. (1991) Wessex with and without Mycenae: new evidence from Switzerland. Antiquity 65, no. 246, 102– 107. Bartelheim, M. (1998) Studien zur böhmischen Aunjetitzer Kultur- Chronologische und chorologische Untersuchungen. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 46. Bonn. Becker, B., Billamboz, A., Egger, H., Gassmann, P., Orcel, A., Orcell, Ch. and Ruoff, U. (1985) Dendrochronologie in der Ur- und Frühgeschichte. Die absolute Datierung von Pfahlbau-siedlungen nördlich der Alpen im Jahrringkalender Mitteleuropas. Basel. Beck, A. (1980) Beiträge zur frühen und älteren Urnenfelderkultur im nordwestlichen Alpenvorland. Prähistorische Bronzefunde XX, 2. München. Becker, B., Jäger, K., Kaufmann, D. and Litt, T. (1989) Dendrochronologische Datierungen von Eichenhölzern aus den frühbronzezeitlichen Hügelgäbern bei Helmsdof und Leubingen (Aunjetitzer Kultur) und an bronzezeitlichen Flußeichen bei Merseburg. Jahresschrift Halle 72, 299– 312. Bertemes, F. (1989) Das frühbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Gemeinlebarn. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 45. Bonn. Billamboz, A., Kefer, E., Köninger, J. and Torke, W. (1989) La transition Bronze Ancien-Moyen dans le Sud-Ouest de l’Allemagne à example des deux stations de l’habitat palustre (Station Forschner, Federsee) et littoral (BodmanSchachen I, Bodensee). In: Dynamique de Bronze Moyen en Europe. Actes du 113e Congrès National des Savantes. Strasbourg 1988, 51–78. Paris. Billaud, Y. and Marguet, A. (1992) Le site Bronze final de Tougues à Chens-sur-Léman (Haute-Savoie) Strategraphie, datations absolues et typologie. In: Actes du 116e congreès national des Socités savantes, Commision pré-et protohistoire, Chambéry 1991, 277–310. Paris. Billig, G. (1958) Die Aunjetitzer Kultur in Sachsen. Leipzig. Blanchet, J-C. (1984) Les premiers métallurgistes en Picardie et dans le nord da la France. Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française 17. Paris. Bokelmann, K. (1977) Ein Grabhügel der Stein- und Bronzezeit bei Rastorf, Kreis Plön. Offa 34, 90–100. Brennand, M. and Taylor, M. (2003) The survey and excavation of a Bronze Age timber circle at Holme-next-the-Sea, Norfolk, 1998–9. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 69, 1–84. London. Brandherm, D. (1999) Zur Nordprovinz der El Argar Kultur. Madrider Mitteilungen 37, 37–59. Briard, J. (1984) Les tumulus d’Armorique. L’Age du Bronze en France 3. Paris. Briard, J. (1965) Dépôts Bretons et l’Âge du Bronze 155 Atlantique.Travaux du Laboratoire L’Anthropologie Préhistorique de Rennes. Rennes. Brindley, A. (2001) Tomorrow is another day. Some radiocarbon dates for Irish bronze artefacts. In: Metz, W. van Beek, B. and Steegstsra, S. (eds.) Patina. Essays presented to Jay Jordan Butler on the occasion of his 80th birthday, 145–160. Groningen and Amsterdam. Britton, D. (1979) The bronze axe. In: Wainwright, G. Mount Pleasant Dorset: excavations 1970–1971. Report of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 37, 28–138. London. Bronk Ramsey, C. Higham, T. Cowen, D. Pike, A. and Hedges, R. E. M. (2002) Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry datelist 31. Archaeometry 44, 3 Suppl. 1, 1–149. Brown, M. A. (1982) Swords and sequence in the British Bronze Age. Archaeologia 107, 1–42. Brun, P. (1988) L’entité ‘RhiSn-Suisse-France orientale’et évolution. In: Brun and Mordant (eds.), 599–620. Brun, P. (1991) Le zone atlantique et ses subdivisions cuturelles: essai de définition. In: Chevillot and Coffyn (eds.), 11–24. Brun, P. and Mordant, C. (eds.) (1988) Le groupe Rhin-SuisseFrance orientale et la notion de civilisation des Champs d’Urnes. Actes du colloque international de Nemours 1986. Mémoires du Musée Préhistoire d’ Ile-de-France 1. Nemours. Brunn, W. A. v. (1959) Bronzezeitliche Hortfunde I. Die Hortfunde der frühen Bronzezeit aus Sachsen-Anhalt Sachsen und Thüringen (Berlin). Burgess, C. B. (1968) The later Bronze Age in the British Isles and north-western France. The Archaeological Journal 125, 1–45. Burgess, C. B. (1969) Chronology and Terminology in the British Bronze Age. The Antiquaries Journal 49, 22–29. Burgess, C. B. (1974) The Bronze Age. In: Renfrew, C. (ed.) British Prehistory. A new outline, 165–232. London. Burgess, C. B. (1976) The Gwithian Mould and the forerunners of South Welsh axes, Appendix II to J. V. S. Megaw, Gwithian, Cornwall: some notes on the evidence for Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement. In: Burgess, C. B. and Miket, R. (eds.) Settlement and economy in the third and second millennia B.C. British Archaeological Reports 33, 69–79. Oxford. Burgess, C. B. (1978) The background of early metalworking in Ireland and Britain. In: Ryan, M. (ed.), 207–214. Burgess, C. B. (1979) A find from Boyton, Suffolk, and the end of the Bronze Age in Britain and Ireland. In: Burgess, C. B. and Coombs, D. (eds.) Bronze Age hoards. Some finds old and new. British Archaeological reports 67, 269–282. Oxford. Burgess, C. B. (1980a) The Age of Stonehenge. London. Burgess, C. B. (1980b) The Bronze Age in Wales. In: Taylor, J. A. (ed.) Culture and environment in prehistoric Wales. British Archaeological Reports 76, 243–286. Burgess, C. B. (1988) Britain at the time of the Rhine-Swiss group. In: Brun and Mordant (ed.), 559–573. Burgess, C. B. (1990) Chronological table. In: Wright, E. Ferriby boats – seacraft of the Bronze Age. London. Burgess, C. B. and Coombs, D. (eds.) (1979) Bronze Age hoards. Some finds old and new. British Archaeological reports 67. Oxford. 156 SABINE GERLOFF Burgess, C. B. and Miket, R. (eds.) (1976) Settlement and economy in the third and second millennia B.C. British Archaeological Reports 33. Oxford. Burgess, C. B. and Gerloff, S. (1981) The rapiers of the British Isles. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV, 7. München. Butler, J. (1963) Bronze Age connections across the North Sea. Palaeohistoria 9, 1963. Butler, J. (1995) Bronze Age metal and amber in the Netherlands (Part II, 1). Palaeohistoria 37/38, 159–244. Butler, J. and van der Waals, J. (1967) Bell beakers and early metalworking. Palaeohistoria 12, 44–139. Butterworth, C. (1992) Excavations at Norton Bavant Barrow Pit, Wiltshire, 1987. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 85, 1–26. Chevillot. C. and Coffyn, A. (eds.) (1991) L’ Âge du Bronze Atlantique. Actes du Ier colloque du Parc Archéologique de Beynac. Beynac. Childe, V. G. (1929) The Danube in prehistory. Oxford. Childe, V. G. (1940) The prehistoric communities of the British Isles. London. Childe, V. G. (1948) The final Bronze Age in the Near East and temperate Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 14 (NS), 177–197. Clarke, D. Cowie, T. and Foxon, D. (eds.) (1985) Symbols of power at the time of Stonehenge. Edinburgh. Coblenz, W. (1986) Ein frühbronzezeitlicher Verwahrfund von Kyhna. Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur Sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege 30, 89–110. Coffyn, A. (1972) Le bronze final et le début du Premier âge du Fer autour de l’estuaire girondin. Unpublished thesis. Bordeaux. Coffyn, A. (1985) Le Bronze final Atlantique dans la Péninsule Ibérique. Paris. Coles, J. M. (1968–69) Scottish Early Bronze Age metalwork. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 101, 1–110. Edinburgh. Colquhoun, I. (1979) The Late Bronze Age hoard from Blackmoor, Hampshire. In: Burgess, C. B. and Coombs, D. (eds.) Bronze Age hoards. Some finds old and new. British Archaeological Reports 67, 99–116. Oxford. Colquhoun, I. and Burgess, C. (1988) The swords of Britain. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV, 5. München. Concise, A-C. (2001) Frühbronzezeitliche Uferdörfer aus Zürich-Mozartstrasse – eine folgenreiche Neudatierung. Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 84, 147–157. Coombs, D. (1975) Bronze Age weapon hoards in Britain. Archaeologia Atlantica 1, 49–81. Coombs, D. (1988) The Wilburton complex and Bronze Finale II in Atlantic Europe. In: Brun, P. and Mordant, C. (eds.), 575–581. Cordier, G. (1996) Le dépôt de l’Âge du Bronze Final du PetitVillatte à Neuvy-sur-Barangeon (Cher) et son contexte régional. Joué-Lès-Tours. Cowen, J. D. (1933) Two bronze swords from Ewart Park, Wooler. Archaeologia Aeliana 4. ser. 10, 185–198. Cowen, J. D. (1952) Bronze swords in northern Europe. a reconsideration of Sprockhoff’s Griffzungenschwerter. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 18, 109–128. Cowen, J. D. (1956) Les origins des épées du type en langue de carpe. In: Beltrán, A. (ed.) Congreso International de Ciencias Prehistóricas y Protohistóricas. Actas de la IV Sesión, Madrid 1954, 639–642 (Zaragoza 1965). Cowen, J. D. (1961) The Late Bronze Age chronology in central Europe: some reflections. Antiquity 35, 40–44. Cowen, J. D. (1967) The Hallstatt sword of bronze: on the Continent and in Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33, 377–454. London. Crawford (1922) A prehistoric invasion of England. The Antiquaries Journal 2, 27–35. Cunliffe, B. (1991) Iron Age communities in Britain. London. Davey, W. (1973) Bronze Age metalwork from Lincolnshire. Archaeologia 104, 51–127. Davies, G. D. (1967) The Guilsfield hoard, a reconsideration. The Antiquaries Journal 47, 95–108. Déchelette, J. (1910) Manuel d’archéologie préhistorique, celtique et gallo-romaine 2: Archéologie celtique ou protohistorique: première partie: Age du Bronze. Paris Della Casa, P. and Fischer, C. (1997) Neftenbach (CH), Velika Gruda (YU), Kastanas (GR) and Trindhøj (DK). Argumente für einen Beginn der Spätbronzezeit (Reinecke D) im 14. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 72, 195–233. Easton, D. (2002) Schliemann’s excavations at Troia 1870– 1873. Monographien Studia Troica 2. Mainz. Eberschweiler, B. Köninger, J. Schlichtherle, H. and Strahm, C. (eds.) (2001), Aktuelles zur Frühbronzezeit und frühen Mittelbronzezeit im nördlichen Alpenvorland. Rundgespräche Hemenhofen 6 Mai 2000. Hemenhofener Skripte 2 (Freiburg i.Br.) Egg, M. and Tomedi, G. (2002) Ein Bronzehelm aus dem mittelbronzezeitlichen Depotfund vom Piller, Gemeinde Flies in Nordtirol. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 32 (4), 543–560. Eluère, C. (1980–81) Réfelexions à propos de ‘boucle d’oreilles’ torsadées en or des types connus de l’âge du bronze. Antiquités Nationales 12–13, 34–39. Eluère, C. (1982) Les ors préhistoriques. Paris. Eogan, G. (1964) The later Bronze Age in Ireland in the light of recent research. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 30, 268–351. Eogan, G. (1986) Knowth and the passage tombs of Ireland. London. Evans, E. (1930) The sword-bearers. Antiquity, 157–172. Evans, E. (1931) The Late Bronze Age in western Europe. Man 31, 207–211. Evans, J. (1881) The ancient bronze implements, weapons and ornaments, of Great Britain and Ireland. London. Fily, M. (2003) Le Bronze Final I en Bretagne: le site à dépôts de Saint-Ygeaux dans les Côtes d’Armor, mémoire de maîtrise sous la direction de Michèle Casanova, direction scientifique de Maréva Gabillot. Rennes 2. Unpublished. Forssander, J. E. (1936) Der ostskandinavische Norden während der ältesten Metallzeit Europas. Lund. Friedrich, M. and Hennig, H. (1995) Dendrochronologische Untersuchungen der Hölzer des hallstattzeitlichen Wagengrabes 8 aus Wehringen, Lkr. Augsburg und andere Absolutdaten zur Hallstattzeit. Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 60, 289–302. Gallay, G. (1981) Die kupfer- und altbronzezeitlichen Dolche und Stabdolche in Frankreich. Prähistorische Bronzefunde VI, 5. München. Gardin du, C. (2003) Amber spacer beads in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. In: Beck, C. W., Loze, I. B. and Todd, J. M. (eds.), Amber in archaeology. Proceedings of the REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE fourth international conference on amber in archaeology, Talsi 2001, 180–197. Riga. Gaucher, G. and Mohen, J-P. (1974) L’âge du bronze dans le nord de la France. Amiens. Gerloff, S. (1975) The Early Bronze Age daggers in Great Britain. Prähistorische Bronzefunde VI, 2. München. Gerloff, S. (1980–81) Westeuropäische Griffzungenschwerter in Berlin. Zu chronologischen Problemen der britischen Spätbronzezeit. Acta Prehistorica et Archaeologia 11–12, 183–216. Gerloff, S. (1986) Bronze Age Class A cauldrons: typology, origins and chronology. Journal Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 116, 84–115. Gerloff, S. (1993) Zu Fragen mittelmeerländischer Kontakte und absoluter Chronologie der Frühbronzezeit in Mittelund Westeuropa. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 68, 58–102. Gerloff, S. (1995) Bronzezeitliche Goldblechkronen aus Westeuropa. In: Jockenhövel (ed.), 135–194. Gerloff, S. (1996) Wessex, Mycenae and related Matters: the chronology of the British Bronze Age in its European Setting. In: XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Science. Forlì, Italia 8–14 September 1996. Colloquium XX, Section 11, 11–19. Gerloff, S. (1997) Frühbronzezeitliche Gewandschließen? Eine lunulaförmige Zierscheibe im Ashmolean Museum zu Oxford und die verschollene ‘Lunula’ aus Wegliny (ehem. Oegeln), Woiw. Zielona Góra. In: Becker, C. et al. (eds.) CÒuoj. Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie zwischen Nord- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Bernhard Hänsel, Berlin. Gerloff, S. (2003) Goldkegel, Kappe und Axt: Insignien bronzezeitlichen Kultes und Macht. In: Springer, T. (ed.), 190–203. Gerloff, S. (2004a) Hallstatt Fascination: Hallstatt’ buckets, swords and chapes from Ireland and Britain. In: Roche, H. Grogan, E. Bradley, J. Coles, J. and Raftery, B. (eds.) From megaliths to metals. Essays in honour of George Eogan, 124–154. Oxford. Gerloff, S. (2004b) The dagger from grave 4013. Typology and affinities. In: Lambrick, G. and Allen, T. (eds.), 82–86. Gerloff, S. (in press) Atlantic cauldrons and buckets. Studies in typology, origin and function of multi-sheet vessels of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in western Europe. With a contribution on their construction and metallurgy by P. Northover. Prähistorische Bronzefunde II. Stuttgart. Gerloff, S. Hansen, S. and Oehler, F. (1993) Die bronzezeitlichen Metallfunde aus Frankreich. Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte Berlin. Bestandskatalog 1. Berlin. Gomes de Soto, J. (2001) Agris et Mold. Revue archéologique de l’Ouest, Supplément 9, 181–185. Hachmann, R. (1957) Die frühe Bronzezeit im westlichen Ostseegebiet und ihre mittel- und südosteuropäischen Beziehungen. Hamburg. Hafner, A. and Suter, P. (2003) Vom Endneolithikum zur Frühbronzezeit: Wandel und Kontinuität zwischen 2400 und 1500 v. Chr. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 33(3), 325–344. Hansen, S. (1994) Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen während der älteren Urnenfelderzeit zwischen Rhônetal und Karparthenbecken. Bonn. Harbison, P. (1969a) The daggers and the halberds of the 157 Early Bronze Age in Ireland. Prähistorische Bronzefunde VI, 1. Munich. Harbison, P. (1969b) The axes of the Early Bronze Age in Ireland. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX,1. Munich. Harding, A. (1984) The Mycenaeans and Europe. London. Harding, A. (1991) Review of Sperber 1987. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57(2), 234–235. Hatt, J. J. (1961) Chronique de Protohistoire. V. Une nouvelle chronologie pour l’Age du Bronze Final. Exposé critique du système chronologique de H. Müller-Karpe. Bulletin de la Societé Prehistorique Français 58, 184–195. Hawkes, C. F. C. (1931) Hill-Forts. Antiquity 3, 60–148. Hawkes, C. F. C. (1933) Die Erforschung der Spätbronzezeit, Hallstatt- und Latène-Zeit in England und Wales von 1914– 1931. Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 21, 1931 (1933), 86–175. Hawkes, C. F. C. (1948) From Bronze Age to Iron Age: Middle Europe, Italy and the North and West. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 14 (NS), 196–218. Hawkes, C.F.C. (1959) The ABC of the British Iron Age. Antiquity 33, 170–194. Hawkes, C. F. C. (1960) A scheme for the British Bronze Age. Address presented to the Council for British Archaeology. Bronze Age Conference, London, December 1960 (Unpublished). Hawkes, C. F. C. (1961) Gold earrings of the Bronze Age, east and west. Folklore 72, 438–474. Hedges, R. et al. (1995) Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 20, Archaeometry 37 (2), 417–430. Hennig, H. (2001) Gräber der Hallstattzeit in BayerischSchwaben. Monographien der Archäologischen Staatsammlung München 2. Stuttgart. Herity, M. (1974) Irish Passage Graves. Dublin. Hochuli, S. (1994) Arbon-Bleiche. Die neolithische und bronzezeitliche Seeufersiedlung. Ausgrabungen 1885–1991. Frauenfeld. Hochuli, S. Niffeler, U. and Rychner, V. (eds.) (1998) Die Schweiz von Paläolithikum bis frühen Mittelalter. III. Bronzezeit. Basel. Höfer, P. (1906) Der Leubinger Grabhügel. Jahresschrift Halle 5, 1–99. Höglinger, P. (1996) Der spätbronzezeitliche Depotfund von Sipbachzell/OÖ. Linzer Archäologische Forschungen, Sonderheft 16. Linz. Holste, F. (1953) Die bronzezeitlichen Vollgriffschwerter Bayerns. München. Hughes, G. (2000) The Lockington gold hoard. An Early Bronze Age barrow cemetery at Lockington, Leicestershire. Oxford. Hundt, H.-J. (1958) Katalog Straubing I: Die Funde der Glockenbecherkultur und der Straubinger Kultur. Kallmünz. Hundt, H.-J. (1983) Über eine Nadelform der ausgehenden Frühbronzezeit der Schweiz. Helvetia Archaeologia 14 (55/ 56), 173–178. Huth, C. (1997) Westeuropäische Horte der Spätbronzezeit. Fundbild und Funktion. Regensburger Beiträge zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 3. Bonn. Jockenhövel, A. (1972) Westeuropäische Bronzen aus der späten Urnenfelderzeit in Süddeutschland. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 2, 103–109. Jockenhövel, A. (1975) Zum Beginn der Bronzezeit in 158 SABINE GERLOFF Westeuropa. Jahresbericht des Instituts für Vorgeschichte Frankfurt 1975, 134–181. Jockenhövel, A. (ed.) (1995) Festschrift für Hermann MüllerKarpe zum 70. Geburtstag. Bonn. Kästner, E. (1826) Von einigen in der Niederlausitz gefundenen Altertthümern. Neues Lausitzer Magazin 5, 197–216. Karo, G. (1930–33) Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai. München. Keefer, E. (1989) La station Forschner, État de la recherche archéologique. In: Billamboz et al., 54–61. Kendrick, T. D. and Hawkes, C. F. C. (1932) Archaeology in England and Wales 1914–1931. London. Kibbert (1980) Die Äxte und Beile im mittleren Westdeutschland. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX, 10. Munich. Kimmig, W. (1988) Les Champs d’Urnes d’Europe centrale. Remarques à propos du colloque de Nemours. In: Brun, P. and Mordant, C. (eds.), 9–15. Köninger, J. (1989) La station littoral de Bodman-Schachen I à L’Ouest du lac Constance. In: Billamboz et al., 61–78. Köninger, J. and Schlichtherle, H. (1990) Zur Schnurkeramik und Frühbronzezeit am Bodensee. Fundberichte aus BadenWürttemberg, 15, 149–174. Kossack, G. (1959) Südbayern während der Hallstattzeit. Römisch Germanische Forschungen 24. Berlin. Krämer, W. (1985) Paul Reinecke. Archäologie in Deutschland, 5.23. Krause, R. (1988) Die endneolithischen und frühbronzezeitlichen Grabfunde auf der Nordstadtterrasse von Singen am Hohentwiel. Stuttgart. Krause, R. (1996) Zur Chronologie der Frühen und Mittleren Bronzezeit Süddeutschlands, der Schweiz und Österreichs. Acta Archaeologica 67, 73–86. Lambrick, G. and Allen, T (eds.) (2004) Gravelly Guy, Stanton Harcourt: The development of a Prehistoric and RomanoBritish community. Thames Valley Landscape Monographs 21. Oxford. Lanting, J. and Brindley, A. (1998) Dating of cremated bone: the dawn of a new era. Journal of Irish Archaeology 9, 1– 7. Laux, F. (1995) Westeuropas Bedeutung für die Bronzezeit Niedersachsens. Zum Übergang von der Sögel-WohldeZeitstufe zur Älteren Bronzezeit. In: Jockenhövel, A. (ed.), 85–102. Leuzinger, U. (2003) Der Goldbecher von Eschenz (Kanton Thurgau, Schweiz). In: Springer, T. (ed.), 120–125. Lisch, G. (1837) Friderico-Francisceum oder Grossherzogliche Alterthümersammlung aus der altgemanischen und altslawischen Zeit Mecklenburgs zu Ludwigslust. Leipzig. Mäder, A. and Sormaz, T. (2000) Die Dendrodaten der beginnenden Spätbronzezeit (BZ D) von Elgg, ZH-Breiti. Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 84, 65–78. Mahr, A. (1937) New aspects and problems in Irish prehistory. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 3 (NS), 262–436. Manning, S. (1996) Dating the Aegean Bronze Age: without, with, and beyond Radiocarbon. In: Randsborg, K. (ed.), 15– 38. Manning, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Doumas, C., Marketou, T., Cadogan, G. and Pearson, L. (2002) New evidence for the Aegean Late Bronze Age Thera eruption. Antiquity 76, 733– 744. Marinis, R. C. de (1999) Towards a relative and absolute chronology of the Bronze Age in Northern Italy. Notizie Archaeologiche Bergomensi 7, 23–100 (updated version in internet: http://users.unimi.it/prehist/itversion/didattica/ articoli/de_marinis_NAB_1999.pdf). Martin, E. (1976) The excavation of a tumulus at Barrow Bottom Risby, 1975. East Anglian Archaeological Reports 3, 43–62. Matthäus, H. (1980) Die Bronzegefäße der kretischmykenischen Kultur. Prähistorische Bronzefunde II, 1. München. Matter, A. (1992) Die spätbronzezeitlichen Brandgräber von Regensdorf-Adlikon. In: Hauser, S. and Hauser, C. (eds.) Bronzezeitliche Landsiedlungen und Gräber. Berichte der Zürcher Denkmalpflege. Archäologische Monographien 11. Zürich. Megaw, B. and Hardy, E. (1938) British decorated axes and their diffusion during ther earlier part of the Bronze Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 4, 272–307. Metz, W. van Beek, B. and Steegstsra, S. (eds.) (2001) Patina. Essays presented to Jay Jordan Butler on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Groningen and Amsterdam. Milojčić, V. (1960) Review of Hachmann 1957. Germania 38, 227–231. Montelius, O. (1885) Om tidsbestämning inom bronsålderen, med särskildt afseende på Skandinavien. Stockholm. Montelius, O. (1897) Pre-classical chronolgy in Greece and Italy. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 26, 261–271. Montelius, O. (1900) Die Chronologie der älteren Bronzezeit in Nordeutschland und Skandinavien. Braunschweig. Montet, P. (1928) Byblos et Egypte. Quatre campagnes des fouillles à Gebeil, 1921–1922–1923–1924. Paris. Mortillet, G. de and Mortille, A. de (1903) Musée Prehistorique. (Paris²). Möslein, S. and Rieder, K. (1997) Zinnperlen aus einem frühbronzezeitlichen Grab von Buxheim, Landkreis Eichstätt, Oberbayern. Das Archäologische Jahr in Bayern 1997, 68–70. Müller-Karpe, H. (1949) Frühe hessische Griffplattenschwerter. In: Müller-Karpe, H. (ed.) Hessische Funde von der der Altsteinzeit bis zum frühen Mittelalter. Schriften zur Urgeschichte 2, 24–28. Marburg. Müller-Karpe, H. (1959) Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. Römischgermainsche Forschungen 22, Berlin. Müller-Karpe, H. (1974) Handbuch der Vorgeschichte III Kupferzeit. München. Müller-Karpe, H. (1980) Handbuch der Vorgeschichte IV Bronzezeit. München. Nebelsick, L. (1997) Chronological table. In: Hänsel, A. and B. (ed.) Gaben an die Götter. Schätze der Bronzezeit Europas. Museum für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Berlin. Bestandskatalog 4, 102–103. Berlin. Needham, S. (1979) Two recent British shield finds and their Continental parallels. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45, 111–134. Needham, S. (1988) Selective deposition in the British Early Bronze Age. World Archaeology 20(2), 229–248. Needham, S. (1990) The Petters Late Bronze Age metalwork. An analytical study of Thames Valley metalworking in its settlement context. British Museum Occasional Papers 70. London. REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE Needham, S. (1996) Chronology and periodisation in the British Bronze Age. In: Randsborg, K. (ed.) Absolute chronology: Archaeological Europe 2500–500 BC. Acta Archaeologica 67, Supplementa 1, 121–140. Needham, S. (2000a) The development of embossed goldwork in Bronze Age Europe. The Antiquaries Journal 80, 27–65. Needham, S. (2000b) Power pulses across a cultural divide: cosmologically driven acquisition between Armorica and Wessex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 151– 207. Needham, S., Lawson, A. and Green, H. (1985) Early Bronze Age hoards. British Bronze Age metalwork. Associated finds Series A1–6. British Museum Publications. London. Needham, S., Bronk-Ramsey, C., Coombs, D., Cartwright, C. and Pettitt, P. (1997) An independent chronology for British Bronze Age metalwork: the result of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelator programme. Archaeological Journal 154, 1997, 55–107. Northover, P. (1982) The metallurgy of Wilburton hoards. Oxford Archaeological Journal 1(1), 69–109. Northover, P. (1988) The analysis and metallurgy of British Bronze Age swords. In: Colquhoun, I. and Burgess, C. The swords of Britain. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV(5), 130– 146. München. Novák, P. (?) Die Schwerter in der Tschechoslowakei I. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV(4). München. O’Connor, B. (1980) Cross-channel relations in the later Bronze Age. British Archaeological Reports International Series 91. Oxford. O’Connor, B. (forthcoming ) Llyn Fawr mwetalwork in Britain: a review. In: Haselgrove, C. and Pope, R. (eds.) The earlier Iron Age in Britain and the near continent. Oxford, Oxbow Books. O’Connor, B. and Cowie, T. (2001) Scottish connections. Some recent finds of Early Bronze Age decorated axes from Scotland. In: Metz et al. (eds.), 207–230. O’Kelly, C. (1973) Passage-Grave art in the Boyne valley, Ireland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 39 (NS), 345–383. London. Orcel, A. Orcel. C. and Tercier, J. (1992) L’état des recherches dendrochronologique concernant L’ Âge du Fer a Yverdonles Bains (Canton de Vaud). In: Kaendl, G. and Curdy, P. L’ Âge du Fer dans le Jura. Actes du 15e colloque de l’association francaise pour l’étude de L’ Âge du Fer. Pantarlier (France) et Yverdon-les-Bain (Suisse) 9–12 mai 1991. Lausanne. Ó Ríordáin, S. (1937) The halberd in Bronze Age Europe. Archaeologia 86, 195–321. Pare, C. (1987) Wagenbeschläge der Bad Homburg-Gruppe und die kulturgeschichtliche Stellung des hallstattzeitlichen Wagengrabes von Wehringen, Kreis Augsburg. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 17, 467–482. Pare, C. (1992) Wagons and wagon-graves of the early Iron age in Central Europe. Oxford. Pare, C. (1996) Chronology in central Europe at the end of the Bronze Age. In: Randsborg, K. (ed.) Absolute chronology: Archaeological Europe 2500–500 BC. Acta Archaeologica 67, Supplementa 1, 99–120. Pászthory and Mayer (1998) Die Äxte und Beile in Bayern. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX, 20. Stuttgart. Peake (1922) The Bronze Age and the Celtic world. London. Penhallurik, R. (1986) Tin in antiquity. Its mining and trade 159 throughout the ancient world with particular refernce to Cornwall. London. Pfauth, U. (1998) Beiträge zur Urnenfelderzeit in Niederbayern. Materialen zur Bronzezeit in Bayern 2 Regensburg. Piggott, S. (1938) The Early Bronze Age in Wessex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 4, 60–106. Piggott, S. (1963) Abercromby and after, the Beaker Cultures of Britain re-examined. In: Foster, L. and Alcock, L. (eds.) Culture and Environment. Essays in honour of Sir Cyril Fox. London. Primas, M. and Pernicka, E. (1998) Der Depotfund von Oberwilflingen. Germania 76 (1), 25–65. Rageth, J. (1976) Die bronzezeitliche Siedlung auf dem Padnal bei Savognin (Oberhalbstein, GR). Grabungen 1971 und 1972). Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Urund Frühgeschichte 59, 123–172. Randsborg, K. (1992) Historical implications: chronological studies in European Archaeology c. 2000–500BC. Acta Archaeologica 62, 1991 (1992), 89–107. Randsborg, K. (1996) The Nordic Bronze Age: Chronological dimension. In: Randsborg, K. (ed.), 61–72. Randsborg, K. (ed.) (1996) Absolute chronology: Archaeological Europe 2500–500 BC. Acta Archaeologica 67, Supplementa 1, 1996. Reim, H. (1974) Die spätbronzezeitlchen Griffplatten-, Griffdorn- und Griffangelschwerter in Ostfrankreich. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV, 3. München. Reinach, M. (1900) Les croissants d’or irlandais. Revue Celtique 21, 75–99; 166–175. Reinecke, P. (1900) Zur Chronologie der jüngeren Bronzezeit und der älteren Abschnitte der Hallstattzeit in Süd- und Norddeutschland. Korrespondenzblatt der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte 31, 25–29. Reinecke, P. (1902a) Zur Chronologie der 2. Hälfte des Bronzealters in Südund Norddeutschland. Korrespondenzblatt der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte 33, 17–22; 27–32. Reinecke, P. (1902b) Beiträge zur Kenntnis der frühen Bronzezeit Mitteleuropas. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft Wien 32, 104–129. Reinecke, P. (1911a) Grabfunde vom Ende der reinen Bronzezeit aus Süddeutschland. In: Die Altertümer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit V, 205–207, pl. 38. Reinecke, P. (1911b) Grabfunde vom Ende der reinen Bronzezeit aus Norddeutschlanddeutschland (1906). In: Die Altertümer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit V, 208–215, pl. 39. Reinecke, P. (1911c) Jüngerbronzezeitliche Grabfunde aus Nord- und Süddeutschland (August 1909). In: Die Altertümer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit V, 359–363, pl. 62. Reinecke, P. (1911d) Kleinfunde aus Brandgräbern der frühen Hallstattzeit Süddeutschlands. In: Die Altertümer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit V, 231–234, pl. 43. Reinecke, P. (1911e) Tongefäße aus Brandgräbern der frühen Hallstattzeit Süddeutschlands (Oktober 1906). In: Die Altertümer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit V, 235–247, pl. 44. Reinecke, P. (1911f) Grabfunde der zweiten Hallstattstufe aus Süddeutschland (Juli 1908). In: Die Altertümer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit V, 315–323, pl. 55. Reinecke, P. (1911g) Grabfunde der dritten Hallstattstufe aus 160 SABINE GERLOFF Süddeutschland (Mai 1911). In: Die Altertümer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit V, 399–408, pl. 69. Reinecke, P. (1911h) Funde der Späthallstattzeit saus Süddeutschlands. In: Die Altertümer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit V, 144–150. Reinecke, P. (1911i) Grabfunde der ersten La Tènestufe aus Nordostbayern (Juni 1907). In: Die Altertümer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit V, 281–287, pl. 50. Reinecke, P. (1911j) Grabfunde der zweiten La Tènestufe aus der Zone nördlich der Alpen (Oktober 1908). In: Die Altertümer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit V, 330–337, pl. 57. Reinecke, P. (1911k) Grabfunde der dritten La Tènestufe aus dem bayerischen Donautal (Juni 1907). In: Die Altertümer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit V, 288–294, pl. 51. Reinecke, P. (1911l) Funde vom Ende der La Tènezeit aus Wohnstätten bei Karlstein unweit Reichenhall, Oberbayern (Oktober 1909). In: Die Altertümer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit V, 364–369, pl. 63. Reinecke, P. (1924) Zur chronologischen Gliederung der süddeutschen Bronzezeit. Germania 8, 43–44. Reinecke, P. (1933) Zur Chronologie des frühen Bronzealters in Mitteleuropa. Germania 17, 11–13. Reinecke, P. (1965) Mainzer Aufsätze zur Chronologie de Bronze- und Eisenzeit. Nachdrucke aus: Altertümer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit 5, 1911 und Festschrift des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums 1902. Bonn Renfrew, C. (1969) Wessex without Mycenae. Annual British School at Athens 63, 277–285. Rittershofer, K-F. (1983) Der Hortfund von Bühl und seine Beziehungen. Berichte der Römisch Germanischen Kommission 64, 139–417. Rohl, B. and Needham, S. (1998) The circulation of metal in the British Bronze Age: the application of lead isotope analysis. British Museum Occasional Paper 102. London. Rowlands, M. (1976) The production and distribution of metalwork in the Middle Bronze Age in southern Britain. British Archaeological Reports 31. Oxford. Ruckdeschel, W. (1978) Die frühbronzezeitlichen Gräber Südbayerns. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Straubinger Kultur. Antiquitas 2, 11. Bonn. Ryan, M. (ed.) (1978) The origins of metallurgy in Atlantic Europe. Proceedings of the 5th Atlantic Colloquium. Dublin 30th March to 4th April 1978. Dublin. Rychner, V. (1998a) Chronologie. 1.1: Einleitung: In: Hochuli et al. (eds.), 13–20. Rychner, V. (1998b) Chronologie. 1.4.1: Spätbronzezeit, Westschweiz. In: Hochuli et al. (eds.), 70–79. Sakellariou, A. (1984) Poignées ouvragées d’épées et des poignards mycéniens. In: Origines de l’ Hellenisme. La Crète et la Grèce. Hommage à Henri van Effenterre, 128–137. Paris. Schaeffer, C. (1949) Porteurs des torques. Ugaritica 2, 49– 120. Paris. Schauer, P. (1971) Die Schwerter in Süddeutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz I. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV, 2. München. Schauer, P. (1972) Zur Herkunft der bronzenen Hallstattschwerter. Archäologisches Korrespondenzbatt 2, 261–270. Schickler, H. (1963) Stabdolche und Vollgriffdolche. Beiträge zur Ornamentik und Technologie der frühen Bronzezeit. Doctoral Dissertation [unpublished] 1963. Freiburg/Brsg. Schickler, H. (1971) Review of Harbison, P. 1969a and 1969b. Fundberichte Schwaben NF 19, 404–417. Schmidt, B. and Nitzschke, W. (1980) Ein frühbronzezeitlicher “Fürstenhügel” bei Dieskau im Saalkreis. Vorbericht. Ausgrabungen und Funde 25, 179–183. Schmidt, P. and Burgess, C. (1981) The axes of Scotland and Northern England. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX, 7. München. Seifert, M. (2000) Vor 3466 Jahren erbaut! Die Quellfassung von St. Moritz. Archäologie der Schweiz 23 (2), 63–75. Shell, C. (1978) Tin deposits. The early exploitation of tin deposits in south-west England. In: Ryan, M. (ed.), 251– 264. Sheridan, A. (2003) New dates for Scottish Bronze Age cinerary urns: results from the National Museums of Scotland Dating Cremated Bones project. In: Gibson, A. (ed.) Prehistoric Pottery People, pattern and purpose. Prehistoric Pottery Research Group: Occasional Publication No. 4. British Archaeological Reports, British Series 1156, 201–226. Oxford. Sheridan, A. and Shortland, J. (2004) “… beads which have given rise to so much dogmatism, controversy and rash speculation”: faience in Early Bronze Age Britain and Ireland. In: I. Shepherd and G. J. Barclay (eds.) Scotland in Ancient Europe, 263–279. Edinburgh. Sherratt, A. (1993) What would a Bronze Age world look like? Relations between temperate Europe and the Mediterranean in later prehistory. Journal of European Archaeology 1 (2), 1–57. Smirke, E. (1865) Notice of two gold ornaments found near Padstow. Archaeological Journal 22, 257–277. Smith, M. (1959) Some Somerset hoards and their place in the Bronze Age of southern Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 25, 144–187. Sperber, L. (1987) Untersuchungen zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderkultur im nörlichen Alpenvorland von der Schweiz bis Österreich. Antiquas 3, 29. Bonn. Springer, T. (ed.) (2003) Gold und Kult der Bronzezeit. Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nürnberg. 22. Mai bis 7. September 2003. Nürnberg. Sprockhoff, E. (1934) Über die Befestigungen vorgeschichtlicher Lanzenspitzen. Mainzer Zeitschrift 29, 56–62. Sprockhoff, E. (1941) Niedersachsens Bedeutung für die Bronzezeit Westeuropas. Bericht der Römisch Germanischen Kommission 31(2), 1–138. Srock, B. (2006) Ein verschollener Fund aus dem Übergang zwischen der Bronze- und Eisenzeit aus Viehhofen, Krs. Hersbruck und seine westeuropäischen Verbindungen. Unpublished MA thesis, University Erlangen-Nürnberg. Stein, F. (1979) Katalog der vorgeschichtlichen Hortfunde in Süddeutschland. Bonn. Stevenson, R. (1958) The Migdale hoard bronze necklace. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 89, 456–457. Stuiver, M. and Kra, R. (eds.) (1986) The Twelfth International Radiocarbon Conference, June 24–28, 1985, Trondheim, Norway. Radiocarbon 28, 175–804. Taylor, J. (1980) Bronze Age goldwork of the British Isles. Cambridge. Thurnam, J. (1871) On ancient British barrows. Part II: Round barrows. Archaeologia 43, 285–552. Tischler, O. (1881) Gliederung der vorrömischen Metallzeit. REINECKE’S ABC AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BRITISH BRONZE AGE Correspondenzblatt der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte 12, 121. Torbrügge, W. (1959) Die Bronzezeit in Bayern. Stand der Forschung zur relativen Chronologie. Berichte der RömischGermanischen Kommission 40, 1–78. Trachsel, M. (2004) Untersuchungen zur relativen und absoluten Chronologie der Hallstattzeit. Universitätsforschungen zur prähidstorischen Archäologie 104. Bonn. Uslar, v. R. (1955) Der Goldbecher von Fritzdorf bei Bonn. Germania 33, 319–322. Uenze. O. (1938) Die frühbronzezeitlichen triangulären Vollgriffdolche. Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 11. Berlin. Vandkilde, H. (1996) From Stone to Bronze. Aarhus. Verron, G. (1976) Les civilisations de l’Age du Bronce en 161 Normandie. In: Guilane, J. (ed.) (1976) La préhistoire francaise. Tome II: Les civilisations néolithiques et protohistoriques de la France, 585–600. Paris. Waddell, J. (1991) The Celticization of the West: an Irish perspective. In: Chevillot, C. and Coffyn, A. (eds.), 349–366. Vogt, I. (2004) Der Übergang von der frühen zur mittleren Bronzezeit in Mittel- und Nordeuropa unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Griffplattenklingen. Bonn. Wagner, F. (1965) Bibliographie von Paul Reinecke 1896– 1963. In: Reinecke, P., 145–156. Warmenbol, E. (1988) Broken bronzes and burnt bones: the transition from Bronze to Iron Age in the Low Countries. Helinium 28, 244–270. Wilde, W. (1862) A descriptive catalogue of the antiquities of gold in the museum of the Royal Irish Academy. Dublin.