Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 30 (2020) 102224 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep Metalworking bricoleurs: Pragmatism or alienation? A case of the Lusatian hoard from Lipienek (Poland, 600–450 BC) T Łukasz Kowalskia, , Jacek Gackowskia, Aldona Garbacz-Klempkab, Grażyna Szczepańskac, Anna Mikołajskad,e, Jacek Tarasiukf, Sebastian Wrońskif, Małgorzata Perek-Nowakg ⁎ a Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Institute of Archaeology, Szosa Bydgoska 44/48, 87-100 Toruń, Poland AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Foundry Engineering, Historical Layers Research Centre, Reymonta 23, 30-059 Kraków, Poland c Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Faculty of Chemistry, PAI Instrumental Analyses Laboratory, Gagarina 7, 87-100 Toruń, Poland d Jan Matejko Academy of Fine Arts in Kraków, Faculty of Conservation and Restoration of Works of Art, Lea 27-29, 30-052 Kraków, Poland e AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Foundry Engineering, Reymonta 23, 30-059 Kraków, Poland f AGH University of Science and Technology, Department of Condensed Matter Physics, Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, Reymonta 19, 30-059 Kraków, Poland g AGH-University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Non-Ferrous Metals, Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Kraków, Poland b A R TICL E INFO A BSTR A CT Keywords: Early Iron Age Lusatian culture Pomeranian culture Chełmno group Metal hoarding Archaeometallurgy At the beginning of 750 BC, the Urnfield world-system was about to collapse, bringing about many serious cultural changes in the region of Central Europe along with the atomization of local Lusatian communities from the territory that is today northern Poland. It was a time of growing social and political competition between the Lusatian power elites, which took different forms, including more or less open struggle for influence in the metal trading network. In this paper, we provide new chemical (using ED XRF and SEM-EDS) and technological (using mCT, X-ray, OM and SEM-EDS) data for the bronze anklet and three phalerae which were hoarded in present-day Lipienek, northern Poland, between 600 and 450 BC, to combine it further with patterns of metalwork production and consumption in the region. Particular emphasis is placed on the need to present how the metal trading influenced cultural interactions between the Lusatian peoples from the Chełmno land and the nearby Kuyavia region, and how the Chełmno group responded to the dynamic and interconnected landscape of Early Iron Age Poland. Through exploring the metal artefacts from Lipienek, we also contribute to a better understanding of the bricoleur style in the Lusatian metalworking. Here, it appears that this technological trajectory might have resulted from the pragmatism of metalworkers who searched for a way to keep pace with the social and technological competition during the Lusatian era. Furthermore, the results have allowed us to hypothesise that the bricoleur style behind the hoard can also reflect the alienation of Chełmno group metalworkers and their patrons from the mainstream metal trading network, which was controlled by the Stanomin centre in the nearby Kuyavia region. 1. Introduction The period between ca. 1350 and 750 BC marks the era of the Urnfield culture complex (UCC), which was a time when much of continental Europe saw the unification of ideas and lifestyle, and experienced deep economic and social transformations (Bogucki, 2004; Gimbutas, 1965; Harding, 2000; Kaczmarek, 2017; Kristiansen, 1998). The Lusatian culture, which is included in the ultimate expansion of the UCC, spread throughout Poland, Slovakia, northern Bohemia and eastern Germany and continued the Urnfield legacy into the Early Iron Age (750–450 BC). Elsewhere, many regional groups have also been identified. Especially attractive is the Chełmno group, which was one of the northernmost Lusatian communities that provided a particularly interesting framework to discuss the metal flow in the wider ‘Urnfield Barbaricum’ world and how bronze metalworking might have become established in the regions lacking metal resources (see, e.g. Kowalski et al., 2019). One widely held belief is that the Chełmno group was rather on the side-lines of momentous events in Central Europe during Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: lukasz.k@doktorant.umk.pl (Ł. Kowalski), jacek.gackowski@umk.pl (J. Gackowski), agarbacz@agh.edu.pl (A. Garbacz-Klempka), gina@umk.pl (G. Szczepańska), amikolajska@asp.krakow.pl (A. Mikołajska), tarasiuk@agh.edu.pl (J. Tarasiuk), wronski@fis.agh.edu.pl (S. Wroński), mperek@agh.edu.pl (M. Perek-Nowak). ⁎ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102224 Received 15 January 2019; Received in revised form 14 January 2020; Accepted 19 January 2020 2352-409X/ © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 30 (2020) 102224 Ł. Kowalski, et al. Fig. 2. The archival photograph of the (a) bronze anklets hoarded in Błoto near Chełmno having a distinct tendency towards the anklet from Lipienek. The starting material used for the anklet from Lipienek is broadly similar to the Dshaped bronze ingots from Swarzewo near Puck and (c) the recent find of such type reported from the Chełmno land (courtesy of the Grudziądz Museum). The hoards from Błoto and Swarzewo are missing (after La Baume 1930). neighbouring local communities by considering the metal trading networks and other data documented archaeologically in order to place the metal artefacts into a more detailed social and political landscape of the region. Fig. 1. Map of Poland showing the location of Lipienek. The hoard consists of a solid anklet and three phalerae, each made of bronze and deposited by the Chełmno group in the period between 600 and 450 BC (map background: Yarr65/Shutterstock.com). 2. Archaeological background the Hallstatt culture dominance. There are, however, indications that Lusatian people from the region of Chełmno welcomed a new lifestyle and novel approaches to metal consumption and production, which became the nucleus of their emancipation at the beginning of the Early Iron Age (Chudziakowa, 1968, 1974, 1992; Dąbrowski, 1997; Gackowski, 2005, 2012, 2015, 2016). This paper considers the bronze metalwork production in the northern peripheries of the Lusatian culture and consumption during the Early Iron Age, in relation to neighbouring communities from the Chełmno land and the Kuyavia region, as well as the metal trading networks that might have influenced their cultural interactions and technological trajectories. We present and discuss the results of archaeometallurgical investigation of a solid anklet and three phalerae hoarded by the Chełmno group in the present-day Lipienek between 600 and 450 BC which aimed to: 2.1. Typological characterisation of the hoard The hoard consists of a non-decorated, solid anklet which was 1.5 coiled from a D-shaped bronze ingot with narrowed and cut-off straight endings. Found together with the anklet were three phalerae with a flanged backgrounding round plate, each of which were made of bronze and fitted with a loop and spike (Fig. 1). The metric features of the anklet are as follows: (i) outer diameter: 8.5 cm; (ii) inner diameter: 6.5 cm; (iii) width: 1.5 cm; (iv) height: 1 cm; (v) total length: 37 cm; and (vi) weight: 298 g. The phalerae were designed to have similar shape and dimensions, which is particularly visible in the: (i) plate diameter: 4.5 cm; (ii) height: 2.0–2.2 cm; and (iii) weight ranging between 19 and 28 g. A direct parallel for the anklet from Lipienek can be traced in Częstochowa-Raków, Upper Silesia, where a single adult male burial containing the twin-like bronze anklet was found (Błaszczyk, 1965). It is also possible to expect that corresponding metal objects were hoarded in Błoto near Chełmno (Blajer, 2001; La Baume, 1930; Lissauer, 1891) (Fig. 2a), which may serve to illustrate how the D-shaped bronze anklets became popular in Chełmno land vis-à-vis the mainstreamed anklets produced by the Kuyavian and Little Poland workshops (Blajer and Chudzińska, 2000; Durczewski, 1939–1946, 1948; Mogielnicka-Urban, i. Add information to the picture of bronze metalwork production in the northern peripheries of Lusatian culture and consumption by providing chemical and technological characterization of the metal artefacts; ii. Explore the bricoleur style behind the metal artefacts and use it as a proxy to determine their possible origin; iii. Approach the cultural interactions between the Chełmno group and 2 Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 30 (2020) 102224 Ł. Kowalski, et al. Fig. 3. Distribution of bronze metalwork in the territory occupied by the Chełmno group during the Early Iron Age (Blajer, 2001; Chudziakowa, 1974; Dąbrowski, 1997; Gackowski, 2012; Jędrzejewski, 2000; Lissauer, 1891; Łęga, 1960; Potemski, 1963; Rembisz-Lubiejewska, 2017). hoard from Lipienek the remaining stray finds casting workshops cemeteries with bronze offerings. Hoards: (1) Błoto, Unisław comm. (2) Chełmno, comm. loco (3) Kałdus, metal hoards Chełmno comm. (4) Lipienek, Lisewo comm. (5) Nicwałd, Gruta comm. (6) Papowo Biskupie, comm. loco (7) Przesławice, Łasin comm. (8) Rybieniec, Stolno comm. (9) Samin, Bartniczka comm. (10) Staw, Papowo Biskupie comm. (11) Świerkocin, Grudziądz comm. Stray finds: (12) Czystochleb, Ryńsk comm. (13) Głażewo, Unisław comm. (14) Gostkowo, Łysomice comm. (15) Grudziądz, comm. loco (16) Grudziądz-Rybaki, comm. loco (17) Kamionki, Łysomice comm. (18) Rudnik, Grudziądz comm. (19) Słupski Młyn, Gruta comm. (20) Wielki Wełcz, Grudziądz comm. Casting workshops: (21) Grodno-Mirakowo, Chełmża comm. (22) Gzin, Dąbrowa Chełmińska comm. (23) Kałdus, Chełmno comm. (24) Kamieniec (currently Czarnowo), Zławieś Wielka comm. (25) Klęczkowo, Stolno comm. (26) Ruda, Grudziądz comm. Cemeteries: (27) Bolumin, Dąbrowa Chełmińska comm. (28) Brudzawy, Bobrowo comm. (29) Jedwabno, Lubicz comm. (30) Kałdus, Chełmno comm. (31) Toruń-Kaszczorek, comm. loco (32) Kijewo Królewskie, comm. loco (33) Łążyn, Zławieś Wielka comm. (34) Mała Kępa, Dąbrowa Chełmińska comm. (35) Słończ, Dąbrowa Chełmińska comm. (36) Żygląd, Papowo Biskupie comm. Table 1 Results of the ED XRF analyses of the Lipienek hoard. Data are mean values recalculated from 10 measurements. ‘Imp.’ is a total sum of the impurities. Signature Artefact Area Fe Co Ni Cu Lip_1 Anklet … 0.13 0.06 0.77 89 0.98 1.3 2.7 2.5 2.7 0.09 5.5 Lip_2a Lip_2b Lip_2c Phalera Spike Plate Loop 0.28 0.78 0.20 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.92 0.16 0.91 71 88 69 3.3 0.07 3.3 1.8 0.04 1.9 8.3 10 11 4.8 < 0.05 4.3 9.4 1.2 9.0 0.09 0.06 0.10 11 0.27 10 Lip_3a Lip_3b Lip_3c Phalera Spike Plate Loop 0.51 0.61 0.19 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.55 0.18 0.78 73 84 75 2.4 0.19 2.1 1.3 0.03 1.0 12 13 12 3.7 < 0.05 3.3 5.9 2.2 5.4 0.10 0.04 0.08 8.0 0.40 7.1 Lip_4a Lip_4b Lip_4c Phalera Spike Plate Loop 0.21 0.29 0.24 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.85 0.27 0.76 71 87 76 2.8 0.19 2.0 1.1 0.12 1.0 15 10 12 3.2 0.23 2.5 5.6 1.7 4.9 0.09 0.05 0.07 8.0 0.82 6.3 3 As Ag Sn Sb Pb Bi Imp. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 30 (2020) 102224 Ł. Kowalski, et al. Fig. 4. Photomacrographs of the metalwork from Lipienek, showing the presence of macrostructures typical of casting and plastic forming: Lip_1 (a–c), Lip_2 (d, g, j, m), Lip_3 (e, h, k, n) and Lip_4 (f, i, l, o). 2008). The band ornaments made of D-shaped ingot are particularly the grave offerings from the biritual cemeteries in Upper Silesia and Little Poland, as exemplified by the artefacts found in Katowice-Szopienice, Kwaczała, Rybnik and Zbrojewsko (Durczewski, 1939–1946, 1948; Gedl, 1962, 1964, 1999, 2002)1. Yet, it is rare to find this type of metalwork in Pomerania (cf. Blajer, 2001, 2013; Bukowski, 1998; La Baume, 1934; Podgórski, 1992), which is particularly surprising for a region that could have had a leading role in production and/or distribution of D-shaped bronze ingots, as evidenced, for example, by the famous hoard from Swarzewo near Puck, consisting more than 150 uniformed bronze ingots with a total weight of ca. 27 kg (Kossinna, 1919; Kostrzewski, 1953; La Baume, 1930) (Fig. 2b). Surprisingly, during a recent survey in the Grudziądz Museum, a D-shaped bronze ingot was discovered (Fig. 2c). Regrettably, the exact archaeological context is unknown, and thus, the ingot can only be generally described as a stray find from the Chełmno land. While there has been success in gaining a more detailed insight into the typology and topogenesis of the anklet from Lipienek, we have difficulties in providing equally comprehensive information about the phalerae. Here, the archaeological data indicate that phalerae were not widely used by the Lusatian people from the region of Chełmno (cf. Chudziakowa, 1974; Delekta, 1935; Kurzyńska, 2001), and we can provide only a very limited number of correspondences for the investigated phalerae in archaeological material reported so far from Poland. Likewise, it is difficult to determine their functionality in the past, although some attempts have been made to prove the use of phalerae as horse gear items and/or body ornaments (see, e.g. Blajer, 2001, 2013; Bukowski, 1960, 1998; Stankiewicz-Węgrzykowa, 1964). 1 It can be observed that in the Lusatian culture, there was a certain tradition of plano-convex ingots. The evidence for this is provided by the band ornaments from the Chełmno land (Kałdus), Greater Poland (Poznań-Starołęka) and Western Pomerania (Szczecin-Klęskowo, Skronie, Rzędziny) (Blajer, 2013; Bukowski, 1998; D. Durczewski, 1961; Jędrzejewski, 2000; Kaczmarek, 2012; Szafrański, 1950). 4 Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 30 (2020) 102224 Ł. Kowalski, et al. Fig. 5. The BSE images and photomicrographs of a section through phalera Lip_2 from Lipienek. Note the presence of recrystallized and twinned grains with straight twinned lines within grains, which are indicative of annealing after cold forging (Scott, 1991). Here, the magnification is × 200–500, and the section has been polished with diamond paste and etched with HCl + FeCl3 etchant. The BSE images were taken in magnification × 1.0–2.0 k under a low-vacuum mode and an accelerating voltage of 15–20 kV. Fig. 6. The microCT scans of the phalerae from Lipienek: Lip_3 (c–f) and Lip_4 (a–b), indicating that the chaîne opératoire implemented for their production involved (a–d) punching a hole in the plate using a square cross-sectioned tool, followed by (b, f) passing a cone-shaped pin through the punched hole and (b) attaching the crown spike to the pin with filler metal (see Appendix for laboratory protocol of the microCT investigations). become the central hub for the new settlement system connecting the: (i) major settlements with the nearby (ii) urnfield cemeteries, and (iii) minor hamlets, as these are seen, for example, in the Kamieniec – Mała Kępa – Otorowo microregion (Fig. 3). At the time of writing, eleven metal hoards dated to the Early Iron Age have been reported from the Chełmno land. These are mostly the dry-land findings scattered along the Chełmża Plain, which is the western border of the Chełmno group territory (Fig. 3). What is the importance of this distribution pattern? It proves that metal hoards were tightly incorporated in the cultural landscape established near the local major settlements. As such, it appears to echo the efforts of the local Lusatian power elites (families or 2.2. The settlement and metal hoarding pattern of the Chełmno group: A general view The small fortifications and hamlets were the dominant form of settlement in the northern peripheries of ‘Urnfield Barbaricum’ during the Early Iron Age, representing a remarkable concentration of the population. Kristiansen (1998) claims that this may reflect the process of fragmentation or collapse of earlier, larger political structures organised around a single centre, which now transformed towards many small, tightly packed farming communities. Apparently, this process of disintegration found its way to the Chełmno group, where several fortified settlements appeared that have 5 Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 30 (2020) 102224 Ł. Kowalski, et al. Fig. 7. The X-ray images of the phalerae from Lipienek: Lip_2 (a-b), Lip_3 (c-d) and Lip_4 (e-f). Note the presence of a sharp contrast in metal density recorded between (b, d) the loop and metal filler. The images were taken under conditions of 50–110 kV and 50–165 mAs. lineages) to exercise power and prestige, who found a way to control the consumption of bronze metalwork via a cultural embargo on the ‘metal prestige capital’ outflow to commoners (cf. Kim, 2001), including the taboo on metal grave offerings. It is now widely accepted that the escalation of bronze hoarding was a consequence of ostentatious and ritual rejection of metal goods (Kaczmarek, 2017; see Maciejewski (2016, 2017 and 2019) for contextual studies on metal hoarding). The points we have raised thus far resonate well with the increasing atomization that can be observed in the ‘Urnfield Barbaricum’, reflecting the growing importance of territorial principle, which became a sine qua non for the emancipation of local Lusatian communities. It would therefore be reasonable to expect that metal hoarding was used to regulate social relations in the Chełmno group, and perhaps also to balance the increasing external conflicts via marking the borders and demonstrating local identity (Kowalski et al., 2019). Quantax 200 with XFlash 4010 detector (Bruker AXS). The metalwork from Lipienek was examined for casting and plastic forming defects by a Nikon SMZ 745Z stereoscopic microscope. Polished and etched (HCl + FeCl3, C2H5OH) sections of the phalerae were analysed for microstructure pattern with the use of a Nikon Eclipse LV150 metallographic microscope and a Hitachi S3400N scanning electron microscope, coupled with the BSE detector operating at 15–20 kV accelerating voltage. The phalerae were also examined by Xray radiography and microCT to explore the chaîne opératoire implemented for their production. The Ultra 100HF (EcoRay) system with a permanent tungsten anode lamp was used for X-ray radiography. The 3D reconstruction of the phalerae was based on a series of microCT scans made by a Nanotom 180 s device (GE Sensing & Inspection Technologies Phoenix X-ray Gmbh) and further processed by the GE sofware datosX ver. 2.1.0 using the Feldkamp algorithm for cone beam X-ray CT (Feldkamp et al., 1984). Full details of metal object preparation and laboratory protocols can be found in the Appendix. 3. Analytical methods The fresh exposed and cleaned surfaces of the artefacts were analysed for elemental concentrations (Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, As, Ag, Sn, Sb, Pb and Bi) using a Spectro Midex spectrometer equipped with a molybdenum X-ray tube and a Si Drift Detector (SDD) with 150 eV resolution at 5.9 keV. The bottom parts of the phalerae were screened for major and minor elemental composition (Ca, Cu, Ag, Sn and Pb) using a low vacuum scanning electron microscope LEO 1430VP (Zeiss), coupled with the EDS spectrometer 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Elemental characterisation of the hoard The ED XRF analyses show that the anklet is made of copper alloy, with the low tin content making up a mere 2.7 wt% (Table 1). With a major contribution made by antimony, lead and silver, the total content 6 Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 30 (2020) 102224 Ł. Kowalski, et al. Table 1), could have enabled the prehistoric metalworker to coil the ingot, which was then rubbed with a polishing stone to obtain a smooth surface of the final product (Fig. 4a). The phalerae show consistency in both morphology and technology (Fig. 4d–o), thus indicating the implementation of chaîne opératoire, which could have involved: Table 2 Results of the SEM-EDS analyses of the phalerae from Lipienek. Data are mean values recalculated from 3 measurements and normalised to 100 wt%. Microarea Area Ca Cu Ag Sn Pb Lip_2 Lip_2 Lip_2 Lip_2 Lip_2 Lip_2 Lip_2 Lip_2 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Spike Plate Filler metal Filler metal Loop Plate Filler metal Filler metal … … … 7.4 … … 7.9 7.2 25 23 26 32 27 34 43 47 5.5 1.8 5.6 4.1 4.9 … 3.1 2.6 48 64 51 36 52 54 33 30 21 12 17 21 17 13 12 13 Lip_3 Lip_3 Lip_3 Lip_3 Lip_3 Lip_3 Lip_3 Lip_3 Lip_3 Lip_3 Lip_3 Lip_3 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Spike Plate Plate Plate Filler metal Plate Loop Plate Loop Filler metal Filler metal Filler metal … … … … 5.7 … … … … 1.6 2.2 3.0 30 40 39 57 51 58 32 43 54 88 86 89 … 0.6 … … 3.4 … … … … … … … 57 51 52 34 30 32 57 46 39 4.6 5.4 7.5 12 8.8 9.3 8.9 9.9 9.3 11 10 7.8 5.5 6.5 … Lip_4 Lip_4 Lip_4 Lip_4 Lip_4 Lip_4 Lip_4 Lip_4 Lip_4 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Spike Plate Filler metal Filler metal Plate Loop Loop Filler metal Filler metal … … 4.3 3.3 … … … 2.4 2.7 50 28 41 55 50 36 35 75 70 … 4.1 … … … 2.8 3.5 … … 41 53 39 29 39 48 48 14 17 9.1 16 16 13 10 13 14 8.8 9.9 i. Fashioning the backgrounding plate, that is, cutting a circle plate from a bronze sheet and deforming it into a predetermined shape by annealing after cold forging. This is supported by the microstructure of phalerae, showing recrystallized and twinned grains with straight twinned lines within grains (Scott, 1991) (Fig. 5); ii. Direct casting of a loop part provided with a cone-shaped pin (Fig. 6a, e–f); iii. Punching a hole in the plate using a square cross-sectioned tool (Fig. 6a, d). During this step, the edges of the punched hole were slightly turned outwards (Fig. 6c, e–f); iv. Passing the pin through the punched hole (Fig. 6b, f) and pouring the filler metal into the gap between backgrounding plate and loop to hold them in place2 (Figs. 6m-o and 7b, d); v. Direct casting of a crown spike and attaching it to the pin with filler metal, causing a gap between the bottom part of the spike and the backgrounding plate (Fig. 6b–c, k). The spike displays characteristic porosity, proving the implementation of metal casting (Figs. 4j-l and 6b); and vi. Rubbing with a burnisher to flatten the irregularities on the bottom part of the spike overlapping the backgrounding plate (Fig. 4j–l). This is supported by the polish lines, which are discernible in the central part of the plate (Fig. 4g, j). A noticeable amount of calcium ranging from 1.6 to 7.9 wt%, which can be observed in the filler metal (Table 2 and Fig. 8; see also Fig. 9), invites further discussion. This may imply that Ca-based flux such as lime(stone) could have been used to promote the flow of filler metal and remove oxidation from the metal parts to be joined (Kokal, 2006; Milner and Apps, 1968). Although there is a technological justification for the employment of lime flux by the Lusatian metalworkers, there is as yet no chemical data for the prehistoric metalwork from Poland that could definitively confirm this assumption. of impurities in the metal object is significant (5.5 wt%) and indicative of copper smelted from Fahlerz. Interestingly, the low tin content measured in the anklet and reinforced further by its quite ordinary outline might suggest that the anklet was intended to serve as a semiproduct (Barrenringe), or perhaps used as commodity money (Gerätegeld) in the way classic Stanomin anklets presumably did (Blajer, 1992; Garbacz-Klempka et al., 2017; Pare, 2013; Sommerfeld, 1994). The tin content varying between 8.3 and 12 wt% is found in the majority of the areas analysed for the phalerae (see Table 1). In the Lip_4a spike, the tin content is higher than in the other parts examined, but not unusually so (in terms of ED XRF), as a compositional variation produced by the surface enrichment (Pollard and Heron, 1996; see Davis (2001) and Scott (1991) for further details on the inverse segregation in copper alloys). The plates have a comparatively low amount of lead, with a variation of between 1.2 and 2.2 wt%, indicating that lead most likely originates from the parent copper (Liversage, 2000). By way of contrast, the non-plate parts of phalerae present a much higher amount, averaging between 4.9 and 9.4 wt% and hence providing evidence for a deliberate addition of lead. The content of impurities varies among the spikes and loops between 6.3 and 8.0 wt%, except for the Lip_2, where the level of impurities reaches a value of ca. 11 wt%. On the whole, the individual parts of the phalerae are separated by the level of impurities, indicating that two different types of copper ore were utilised for their production: (i) oxidised/sulphidic (plates); and (ii) fahlore copper (spike and loop). 4.3. The Stanomin metalworking centre: Inspiration and alienation By the 6th century BC, the Stanomin metalworking centre (SMC) in the Kuyavia region developed into an important hub for bronze production and distribution in much of the territory that is modern Poland (see, e.g. Dąbrowski, 2009; Fogel, 1993; Mogielnicka-Urban, 2008)3. The SMC was organised around several local workshops, which were following the same technological patterns and repertoire by fashioning a wide-reaching metalwork package which involved a: (i) bronze anklet; (ii) spiral bracelet; (iii) solid necklace; and (iv) pins with two or four spiral plates (Fig. 10a). 2 Some attempts were made to identify the soldering technique for the Lusatian button-shaped bronze applications (Bukowski, 1961; Dobrzańska, 1959), which now seem outdated owing to the findings of durable (stone and metal) split moulds reported from Gogolin-Strzebniów and Bieszków, which were used for direct casting of such ornaments (Hensel, 1996; Orlicka-Jasnoch, 2013). So far, we can only provide evidence to support mastering the cast-in method for metal joining and repair by the Lusatian metalworkers from the region of modern Poland (cf. Bugaj, 2005; Karpińska, 1922–1924); see also Bassett (2008) for metal-joining techniques). 3 By way of contrast, a sudden drop in the bronze metal supplies occurred in the region of Upper Silesia that pressurised the local communities to rob the graves of their own kinsmen (Szydłowska, 1988, 1995). The phenomenon of grave robbery can be traced in other parts of Europe, as exemplified by the Hallstatt prince graves from southern Germany (Bukowski, 1992). 4.2. Technological characterisation of the hoard The anklet from Lipienek was 1.5 coiled from a D-shaped bronze ingot of the total length making up ca. 37 cm, indicating the use of an open or sand mould (Fig. 4a–c). Remarkably, the starting material used for the anklet is broadly similar to the bronze ingots known from Swarzewo and Chełmno land (Fig. 2b–c). The low tin content below 3 wt%, followed by the significant level of arsenic and antimony (see 7 Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 30 (2020) 102224 Ł. Kowalski, et al. Fig. 8. The SEM images of the phalerae from Lipienek with the EDS microareas spots: Lip_2 (a-b), Lip_3 (c-d) and Lip_4 (e-f). The images were taken in magnification × 60–80 under a low-vacuum mode and an accelerating voltage of 28.0 kV. emerge from this comparison (Fig. 11), however, given that evidence for contact and metal movement based on the ED XRF data would be risky (cf. Pernicka, 2014; Pollard and Heron, 1996), only general assumptions can be safely made from chemical data provided in this study. First, two different types of copper ore (i.e. oxidised/sulphidic and fahlore) were both utilised in the local workshops on the Chełmno land and consumed, as exemplified by metal findings from Gzin, Mała Kępa and Lipienek. Second, in contrast, copper metal used by the SMC was not smelted from Fahlerz (see Cofta-Broniewska (1996) for the ‘chemical fingerprint’ of the SMC metalwork). The ED XRF results furthermore indicate that the content of antimony and impurities kept the plates of the phalerae close to the metalwork originating from the SMC. The ED XRF results refer to certain metal objects reported from Gzin and Mała Kępa; however, owing to archaeological evidence, it can hardly be expected that the rising demand for bronze metal(work) made by the Chełmno group could be met by the SMC, hence possibly reflecting different distribution channels for oxidised/sulphidic copper metal flow that might have supplied these two groups. Also, it is interesting from this plotting that the anklet from Lipienek ties up with the products and scrap metal from the local workshops in Kamieniec and Gzin (cf. Gackowski, 2015; Garbacz-Klempka et al., 2016a, 2016b). It needs to be stressed that the non-plate parts of the phalerae seem to have chemistry that is broadly similar to the D-shaped bronze ingots originating from Pomerania. This is particularly important regarding the starting material used for the anklet from Lipienek (Fig. 1) and the Interestingly, it is rare to find evidence supporting the direct inflow of the SMC package to the nearby Chełmno group (Fig. 10a)4. What lies behind this pattern of distribution? It does seem that Kuyavian metalworkers and their patrons made no room for their kinsmen from the Chełmno land in the bronze metal(work) trading network that they had controlled for over one hundred years in the northern peripheries of the ‘Urnfield Barbaricum’, leading to the depletion of technological and stylistic opportunities in the region of Chełmno. In the archaeological record, this process is well reflected by metal objects excavated in Kamieniec and Mała Kępa (Gackowski, 2015; Garbacz-Klempka et al., 2016b, 2017). Based on similar evidence coming from Nicwałd and Rybieniec (Kostrzewski, 1954), it is clear that the Lusatian metalworkers from Chełmno land found a way to compensate their exclusion from the Kuyavian trading network by launching production of local imitations of the SMC package. The bronze anklet from Lipienek is likely to fit this model well (Fig. 10c). To put this cultural and political tension between the Lusatian people from the Kuyavia region and Chełmno land into archaeometallurgical context, we have compared chemical data for bronze metalwork obtained from these two regions. Several conclusions 4 A mere three bronze anklets are reported from Bydgoszcz-Fordon, Gzin and Samin that can be used to confirm the confrontation of Chełmno group metalworkers with the SMC metalwork (Blajer, 2001; Chudziakowa, 1974, 1992; Gackowski, 2005; Mogielnicka-Urban, 2008; Potemski, 1963). 8 Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 30 (2020) 102224 Ł. Kowalski, et al. Fig. 9. The SEM-EDS images of the phalerae from Lipienek with the elemental mapping: Lip_2 (a-b), Lip_3 (c-d) and Lip_4 (e-f). Note the presence of copper alloyed filler metal, which was poured into the gap between the backgrounding plate and the loop to hold them in place. The images were taken in magnification × 60–80 under a low-vacuum mode and an accelerating voltage of 28.0 kV. Lachmirowice and Radojewice (Szamałek, 2002, 2009), and at the defensive settlement in Kałdus, where the so-called house of the dead (Totenhaus) containing the skeletal remains of a single man was unearthed (Jędrzejewski, 2009). To set this argument into further context, one should pay attention to the skeletal male burial from Częstochowa-Raków in Upper Silesia dating to 750–600 BC (Błaszczyk, 1965). A number of grave offerings were found there, among which a non-decorated, D-shaped bronze anklet (see “Typological characterisation of the hoard” section) and an iron spearhead are noteworthy (Fig. 12). The latter represents the XVII type, according to Fogel (1979, 1988), who outlined only a few more objects of that type which can be linked to Lusatian culture, including four spearheads found at the defensive settlement in Kamieniec (Zielonka, 1955; see Gackowski (2012) for two more spearheads of that type recently reported from Grodno). In his comprehensive survey of the Lusatian weaponry, Fogel (1979) had no difficulty in accepting that the iron spearheads from Kamieniec and Częstochowa-Raków follow the same design pattern, that is, a longitudinal gap running through the socket and a slight thickening of the socket base. Linked to this problem, we suggest, contra Andrzejowska (2016), that the aforementioned spearheads lend a hand to the archaeological body of evidence for a direct link between the Chełmno group and their distant relatives from Upper Silesia and Little Poland, hence proving to be essential in tracing the ‘southern cultural package’ flow. recent find of a bronze ingot from Chełmno land (Fig. 2b-c). Although the majority of the available archaeological evidence indicates that the distribution channel for fahlore copper metal(work) could have been controlled by the communities of Pomerania, the supporting lead isotope data for the Early Iron Age metalwork from Poland is still yet to come, meaning that the debate about metal movement and consumption in the northern peripheries of the ‘Urnfield Barbaricum’ is far from being closed. 4.4. The southern Lusatian ecumene: inspiration and association From the beginning of the 8th century BC, we can genuinely trace the movement of individuals and/or families from Upper Silesia and Little Poland towards their northern kinsmen, which was accompanied by a new custom of burying human skeletal remains in the urnfield cemeteries (Bukowski, 1992; Gediga, 1979; Gedl, 1962), followed by the consumption of new types of iron and bronze metalwork, including the D-shaped anklets, fishtail pendants and phalerae. This was first reported by Durczewski (1939–1946, 1948) and later confirmed by a new archaeological record that was provided by Gedl (2002) and Szamałek (2002, 2009). It now seems justified to conclude that the ‘southern pattern’ first appeared in Central Poland and, soon after, found its way to the communities from the Kuyavia region and Chełmno land, as these are seen, for example, at the biritual cemeteries in 9 Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 30 (2020) 102224 Ł. Kowalski, et al. Fig. 10. Map of Poland showing the (a) distribution of the metalwork package linked to the Stanomin metallurgical center vis-à-vis the Pomeranian breastplates (Andrzejowska, 2016; Cofta-Broniewska, 1996; Cofta-Broniewska and Kośko, 1982; Dzięgielewski et al., 2019; Gardawski, 1979; Kostrzewski, 1954; RembiszLubiejewska, 2016, as amended). It is clear from this cartography that there was a significant demand for the Kuyavian metal, which can be evidenced by (b) the famous hoard found in Stanomin (after D. Durczewski, 1961). The Chełmno group – and the Pomeranian culture – were excluded from this trading network, and thus launched the production of (c) the local imitations of the SMC package (on left: Lipienek, in the middle: Nicwałd, on right: Mała Kępa; courtesy of the Grudziądz hoard from Lipienek the bronze products linked to the Stanomin metalworking center. Museum and the District Museum in Toruń). mainstream distribution channels for bronze metal(work) flow in Early Iron Age Poland (and perhaps also the salt trading route; see Bukowski (1985) for further details). But this overall picture is very different in the territory occupied by the Chełmno group. Here, many found it puzzling that the SMC metalworkers did not cooperate with the nearby workshops, which is striking because if one looks further back in the history and heritage of this macroregion, it becomes clear that 5. Pragmatism or alienation? The process of expanding the Stanomin centre completes the picture of remarkable metal consumption during the Lusatian era in the region of modern Poland. As such, the SMC metalwork package appears to be a response to the dynamic and interconnected landscape, which allowed the Kuyavian decision-makers to take control over one of the 10 Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 30 (2020) 102224 Ł. Kowalski, et al. Fig. 12. The male grave from Częstochowa-Raków in Upper Silesia, yielding the direct parallel for the anklet from Lipienek (after Błaszczyk, 1965). The burial was equipped with an iron spearhead corresponding to the spearheads found at the defensive settlements of the Chełmno group in Gzin and Kamieniec (Fogel, 1988; Gackowski, 2012; Zielonka, 1955). Fig. 11. Comparisons of chemical characteristics of the Lipienek hoard with the data for metalwork produced by the Stanomin metalworking centre and workshops of the Chełmno group and Pomeranian culture (Cofta-Broniewska, 1996; Garbacz-Klempka et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2017; Hensel, 1996; Kossinna, 1919, adapted). The diagrams Sb vs. Imp. and Pb vs. Sb each show that two different types of copper ore (i.e. oxidised/sulphidic and fahlore) were both used by the local workshops in the Chełmno land and consumed. The lower plot shows a positive correlation (r = 0.95) between the lead concentrations in the metalwork from Lipienek and antimony, possibly contradicting a deliberate addition of lead (cf. Lutz and Pernicka, 2013). trading network and metal production meant – to the metalworkers and their patrons from the region of Chełmno – to safeguard or not to safeguard the identity of the group. To explore this further, we need to go back to the region of Pomerania at the end of the Late Bronze Age, wherein the phalerae of the Kalisz type are observable. This type was first outlined by Sprockhoff (1956) and later reasserted by Bukowski (1998), who divided the Kalisz-type phalerae into two sub-types according to their size. Setting aside the chronological aspect, a clear parallel between the small sub-types defined by Bukowski (1998) and the phalerae from Lipienek can be drawn. Moreover, it is now widely accepted that the Kalisz-type phalerae originated in Pomerania (Bukowski, 1998; Larsson, 1986; Merhart, 1956; Sprockhoff, 1956), which is a further argument towards the conclusion that in the northern part of continental Europe, there was room for stylistic and technological inventions, even if these were mainly the remakes of metalwork emerging from either the Alpine or Danube region. This fits into the overall picture of the region that later became Pomerania, and that developed throughout the Early Iron Age into a vibrant cultural hub linking two large cultural systems of the era: the Nordic zone and the Hallstatt culture. Added to this are strong indications that the Lusatian power elites from the Chełmno land did make the most of this exceptionally favourable moment by becoming a party to this interconnected landscape (Bukowski, 1990, 1998; Chudziakowa, 1974; Fogel, 1993; Fudziński and Ślusarska, 2017; Kristiansen, 1998; Łuka, 1985; Rembisz-Lubiejewska, 2017). It therefore comes as no surprise that the growing body of archaeological evidence from the Chełmno land confirms the peaceful coexistence of the Lusatian peoples with incoming individuals and families from the communities from the Kuyavia region and Chełmno land were a partnership of equals in both social and economic level (including the metal exchange; see Bugaj (2005) for the antennae swords of the Wielowieś type) across many generations throughout the Late Bronze Age. Apparently, the continuity of this supraregional partnership was broken whilst the decomposition of the old Urnfield world-system gained momentum, which boosted the atomization of the local Lusatian communities that can be traced through the distribution of the strongholds in northern Poland. Could the access to bronze and iron metal(work) have an effect on the increasing attitude of antagonism among people of the Kuyavia region toward their kinsmen from the region of Chełmno region? It is clear from this study that metal provided an important medium for the accumulation of wealth and had a central role in the emergence of trade networks throughout prehistoric Europe (Earle and Kristiansen, 2010; O’Brien, 2015). The consumption of metal thus became significant in political negotiations between the Lusatian power elites. Once the Stanomin metalworking centre gained a ‘competitive advantage’, to participate or not to participate in the metal 11 Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 30 (2020) 102224 Ł. Kowalski, et al. densely populated region of Pomerania (see, e.g. Dzięgielewski, 2016, 2017; Gackowski, 2012)5, and this relationship happens to be shifted further to metal trading, which can be exemplified by the hollowed band ornaments hoarded in Papowo Biskupie and Staw (Chudziakowa, 1974; Łuka, 1985), a breastplate fragment from Kałdus (Jędrzejewski, 2000) and the recent find of the D-shaped bronze ingot, among many others. However, the very existence of a close cooperation between these two groups holds cultural importance. This is because at the same time, we can observe fairly considerable social aversion of the eastern Kuyavian communities directed towards Pomeranian immigrants, which provides us with a piece of the region’s geopolitical puzzle. This brings us back to the Lipienek hoard. A closer look at the phalerae allowed us to identify two different types of copper ore that were utilised for their production, and furthermore, the technological data indicate that a fairly sophisticated chaîne opératoire was implemented for their production (see Merhart (1956) for detailed commentary on metal-joining techniques used for the phalerae). Here, we cannot disregard the apparent technological contradiction between the plate and non-plate parts of the phalerae analysed for this project, clearly indicating that – in contrast to the plates – the ears and spikes are of poor quality and are cast untidily (see Fig. 4), with each of the spikes having a much different shape and some decentred (see Fig. 4j–l; see also Fig. 1). Taken together, these factors may encourage one to assume that the phalerae from Lipienek were combined by a bricoleur who utilised ‘whatever was at hand’ – and that these phalerae were not necessarily pre-made in the same workshop or even region. There are a handful of other examples following the same technological pattern that can be found in Lusatian metalwork. For instance, the bronze phalerae from Kisielsk in Podhalia also show the bricoleur style: each of them has a clearly different shape and is fitted with spikes that very much resemble the tutuli of binocular brooches originating from the Lusatian workshops in Greater Poland (Antoniewicz, 1959). Bringing these elements together, we may hazard a guess that metal objects hoarded in Lipienek were re-made by a craftsperson(s) who practised somewhere in the Chełmno land, which is based not only on their chemistry and technology (see “Elemental characterisation of the hoard” and “Technological characterisation of the hoard” sections), but also relies on evidence from stylistic trajectories and political landscape of the region. Does the bricoleur style behind the Lipienek metalwork reflect the pragmatism or the alienation of those who made it? If the metalwork discussed here was indeed re-made by Chełmno group metalworker(s), then one must accept that these two possibilities have co-occurred. With this in mind, the alienation from the mainstream metal trading network might be seen as a trigger for evoking a sense of pragmatism in the Chełmno group metalworkers, who searched for their own way to keep pace with the social and technological competition during the Lusatian era – and this is where we see the ‘hidden factor’ that is behind a bricoleur style of the metalwork hoarded in Lipienek. funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102224. References Andrzejowska, M., 2016. Niektóre elementy obrazu kulturowego Mazowsza i Podlasia we wczesnej epoce żelaza w świetle oddziaływań wschodnich”. In: Gediga, B., Grossman, A., Piotrowski, W. (Eds.), Europa w okresie od VIII wieku przed narodzeniem Chrystusa do I wieku naszej ery (= Biskupińskie Prace Archeologiczne 11). Muzeum w Biskupinie, IAiE PAN, Biskupin - Wrocław, pp. 279–322. Antoniewicz, J., 1959. Skarb halsztacki znaleziony w miejscowości Kisielsk, pow. Łuków. Wiad. Archeol. 26 (1–2), 49–55. Bassett, J., 2008. The Craftsman Revealed: Adriaen de Vries, Sculptor in Bronze. With contributions by Peggy Fogelman, David A. Scott, and Ronald C. Schmidtling II. Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles. http://hdl.handle.net/10020/gci_pubs/de_vries_ bronze. Blajer, W., 1992. Ze studiów nad skarbami okresu halsztackiego w Polsce. In: Czopek, S. (Ed.), Ziemie polskie we wczesnej epoce żelaza i ich powiązania z innymi terenami. Materiały z konferencji - Rzeszów, 17-20.09.1991. Muzeum Okręgowe w Rzeszowie, Rzeszów, pp. 101–110. Blajer, W., 2001. Skarby przedmiotów metalowych z epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza na ziemiach polskich. Księgarnia Akademicka, Kraków. Blajer, W., 2013. Młodsza epoka brązu na ziemiach polskich w świetle badań nad skarbami. Historia Iagellonica, Kraków. Blajer, W., Chudzińska, B., 2000. Ein Bronzebeinring aus unbekanntem Fundort in der Umgebung von Radomsko. In: Kadrow, S. (Ed.), A Turning of Ages. Im Wandel der Zeiten, Jubilee Book Dedicated to Professor Jan Machnik on His 70th Anniversary. IAiE PAN, Kraków, pp. 47–55. Błaszczyk, W., 1965. Cmentarzysko kultury łużyckiej w Częstochowie-Rakowie. In: Błaszczyk, W. (Ed.), Cmentarzysko kultury łużyckiej w Częstochowie-Rakowie (= Rocznik Muzeum w Częstochowie 1). Muzeum w Częstochowie, Częstochowa, pp. 25–224. Bogucki, P.I., 2004. Late Bronze Age Urnfields of Central Europe. In: Bogucki, P.I., Crabtree, P.J. (Eds.), Ancient Europe 8000 B.C. - A.D. 1000: Encyclopedia of the Barbarian world. Vol. 2: Bronze Age to Early Middle Ages (c. 3000 B.C. - A.D. 1000). Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, pp. 86–91. Bugaj, M., 2005. Ośrodki produkcji mieczy antenowych w Polsce. Prz. Archeol. 53, 87–142. Bukowski, Z., 1960. Kilka uwag na temat funkcji niektórych ozdób guzikowatych kultury łużyckiej. Archeol. Pol. 5 (2), 197–244. Bukowski, Z., 1961. Elżbieta Dobrzańska, Przyczynek do znajomości metalurgii brązowej w epoce brązu i okresie halsztackim w dorzeczu górnej Wisły i górnej Odry, Sil. Antiq. 1, 83–102. Archeol. Pol. 6 (1-2), 329–337. Bukowski, Z., 1985. Salt production in Poland in prehistoric times. Archaeol. Pol. 24, 27–71. Bukowski, Z., 1990. Szlaki handlowe z Południa na Pomorze w młodszej epoce brązu i we wczesnej epoce żelaza. In: Malinowski, T. (Ed.), Problemy kultury łużyckiej na Pomorzu. Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna, Słupsk, pp. 185–208. Bukowski, Z., 1992. Niektóre szczegóły obrządku grzebalnego w świetle badań cmentarzysk birytualnych kultury łużyckiej na Górnym Śląsku. Archeol. Pol. 37 (1–2), 57–88. Bukowski, Z., 1998. Pomorze w epoce brązu w świetle dalekosiężnych kontaktów wymiennych. Gdańskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Gdańsk. Chudziakowa, J., 1968. Cmentarzysko kultury łużyckiej w Małej Kępie, pow. Chełmno. 1). Acta UNC Archeol. 1, 115–192. Chudziakowa, J., 1974. Kultura łużycka na terenie międzyrzecza Wisły. Drwęcy i Osy, PWN, Warszawa - Poznań. Chudziakowa, J., 1992. Grodzisko kultury łużyckiej w Gzinie (źródła archeologiczne). Wyd, UMK, Toruń. Cofta-Broniewska, A., 1996. Metalurgia brązu w świetle źródeł archeologicznych. In: Cofta-Broniewska, A. (Ed.), Metalurgia brązu pradziejowych społeczeństw Kujaw (= Studia i Materiały do dziejów Kujaw 7). UAM, Poznań, pp. 1–127. Cofta-Broniewska, A., Kośko, A., 1982. Historia pierwotna społeczeństw Kujaw. PWN, Warszawa - Poznań. Davis, J.R., 2001. Copper and Copper Alloys. ASM specialty handbook, ASM International, Ohio. Dąbrowski, J., 1997. Epoka brązu w północno-wschodniej Polsce. Białostockie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Białystok. Dąbrowski, J., 2009. Polska przed trzema tysiącami lat. Trio, Warszawa. Delekta, J., 1935. Z badań nad pradziejami Pomorza. Tymczasowe sprawozdanie z prac wykopaliskowych w Kaszczorku w pow. Toruńskim. Z Otchłani Wieków 10 (1), 2–9. Dobrzańska, E., 1959. Przyczynek do znajomości metalurgii brązowej w epoce brązu i okresie halsztackim w dorzeczu górnej Wisły i górnej Odry. Sil. Antiq. 1, 83–102. Durczewski, D., 1961. Skarby halsztackie z Wielkopolski. Prz. Archeol. 13, 7–108. Durczewski, Z., 1939-1946. Grupa górnośląsko-małopolska kultury łużyckiej w Polsce. Część I (Syntetyczna). PAU, Kraków. Durczewski, Z., 1948. Grupa górnośląsko-małopolska kultury łużyckiej w Polsce. PAU, Kraków, Część II (Materiały). Dzięgielewski, K., 2016. Societies of the younger segment of the early Iron Age in Poland Acknowledgments We acknowledge the detailed comments and constructive suggestions by anonymous reviewers which profoundly improved the composition of this work. To the Officers of the Province Historical Monuments Conservation Office in Toruń, sincere thanks are due for the generous access to the metalwork from Lipienek. We cannot fail to mention Małgorzata Kurzyńska from the Grudziądz Museum, who kindly provided us with information about the recent discovery of a bronze ingot. This research did not receive any specific grant from 5 This has been also confirmed for the vicinity of the archaeological site in Lipienek where the relics of small settlements and stone cists belonging to the migrants from Pomerania were discovered (see Gackowski (2012) for further details). 12 Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 30 (2020) 102224 Ł. Kowalski, et al. (500–250 BC). In: Rzeszotarska-Nowakiewicz, A. (Ed.), The past societies: Polish lands from the first evidence of human presence to the early middle ages, vol. 3: 2000–500 BC. IAiE PAN, Warszawa, pp. 15–48. Dzięgielewski, K., 2017. Late Bronze and Early Iron Age communities in the northern part of the Polish Lowland (1000-500 BC). In: Bugaj, U. (Ed.), The past societies: Polish lands from the first evidence of human presence to the early middle ages, vol. 4: 500 BC–500 AD. IAiE PAN, Warszawa, pp. 295–340. Dzięgielewski, K., Garbacz-Klempka, A., Tunia, K., 2019. Nietypowy okaz w nietypowym miejscu. Pierścień “pomorskiego” napierśnika z wczesnej epoki żelaza ze Smolic, pow. Oświęcim (południowa Polska). In: Benediková, L., Březinová, G., Horváthová, E., Stegmann-Rajtár, S. (Eds.), Fragmenty Času. Venované Elene Miroššayovej k 70. narodeninám (= Študijné zvesti archeologického ústavu SAV, supplementum 1). Archeologický ústav SAV, Nitra, pp. 127–138. https://doi.org/10.31577/szausav. 2019.suppl.1.7. Earle, T., Kristiansen, K., 2010. Organising Bronze Age societies: concluding thoughts. In: Earle, T., Kristiansen, K. (Eds.), Organizing Bronze Age Societies. The Mediterranean, Central Europe, and Scandinavia compared. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 218–256. Feldkamp, L.A., Davis, L.C., Kress, J.W., 1984. Practical cone-beam algorithm. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 1 (6), 612–619. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.1.000612. Fogel, J., 1979. Studia nad uzbrojeniem ludności kultury łużyckiej w dorzeczu Odry i Wisły. Broń zaczepna. Wyd. Nauk, UAM, Poznań. Fogel, J., 1988. Militaria kultury łużyckiej z dorzecza Odry i Wisły (Źródła). Wyd. Nauk, UAM, Poznań. Fogel, J., 1993. Uwagi o niektórych faktoriach i szlakach wymiany ponadregionalnej na Pomorzu na przełomie epoki brązu i żelaza. In: Rożnowski, F. (Ed.), Miscellanea archaeologica Thaddaeo Malinowski dedicata quae Franciscus Rożnowski redigendum curavit. Sorus, Słupsk - Poznań, pp. 137–146. Fudziński, P., Ślusarska, K., 2017. Ośrodek starożytnego brązownictwa pomorskiego we wczesnej epoce żelaza w Juszkowie, gmina Pruszcz Gdański. Muzeum Archeologiczne w Gdańsku, Gdańsk. Gackowski, J., 2005. Dawne i nowe źródła do poznania lokalnej produkcji brązowniczej grupy chełmińskiej kultury łużyckiej. In: Fudziński, M., Paner, H. (Eds.), XIV Sesja Pomorzoznawcza. Vol. 1: Od epoki kamienia do okresu rzymskiego. Muzeum Archeologiczne w Gdańsku, Gdańsk, pp. 161–174. Gackowski, J., 2012. Przestrzeń osadnicza Pojezierza Chełmińskiego i przyległych dolin Wisły, Drwęcy i Osy w młodszej epoce brązu i na początku epoki żelaza. Wyd. Nauk. UMK, Toruń. Gackowski, J., 2015. Pozostałości warsztatu brązowniczego z osiedla obronnego ludności kultury łużyckiej w Czarnowie (stan. 46, d. Kamieniec), pow. Toruń. Pom. Antiq. 24, 131–144. Gackowski, J., 2016. The Younger Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age in Chełmno land in the light of the evaluation of selected finds of metal products. Analecta Archaeol. Ress. 11, 165–207. https://doi.org/10.15584/anarres.2016.11.8. Garbacz-Klempka, A., Kowalski, Ł., Kozana, J., Gackowski, J., Perek-Nowak, M., Szczepańska, G., Piękoś, M., 2016a. Archaeometallurgical investigations of the Early Iron Age casting workshop at Kamieniec. A preliminary study. Arch. Foundry Eng. 16 (3), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/afe-2016-0044. Garbacz-Klempka, A., Kowalski, Ł., Gackowski, J., Kozana, J., Piękoś, M., Kwak, Z., Cieślak, W., 2016b. Pracownia metalurga kultury łużyckiej w Kamieńcu, pow. Toruń. Wyniki badań nad procesem odlewniczym ozdób obręczowych z zastosowaniem stopów modelowych. In: Garbacz-Klempka, A., Kozana, J., Piękoś, M. (Eds.), XIX Międzynarodowa Konferencja Naukowo-Techniczna Odlewnictwa Metali Nieżelaznych (= Nauka i Technologia, Monografia). Kraków, Akapit, pp. 47–70. Garbacz-Klempka, A., Kowalski, Ł., Gackowski, J., Perek-Nowak, M., 2017. Bronze jewellery from the Early Iron Age urn-field in Mała Kępa. An approach to casting technology. Arch. Foundry Eng. 17 (3), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1515/afe-20170112. Gardawski, A., 1979. Czasy zaniku kultury łużyckiej. Okres halsztacki D i lateński. In: Dąbrowski, J., Rajewski, Z. (Eds.), Prahistoria Ziem Polskich IV: Od środkowej epoki brązu do środkowego okresu lateńskiego. Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wrocław - Warszawa - Kraków - Gdańsk, pp. 117–146. Gediga, B., 1979. Zagadnienia religii. In: Dąbrowski, J., Rajewski, Z. (Eds.), Prahistoria Ziem Polskich IV: Od środkowej epoki brązu do środkowego okresu lateńskiego. Zakład Narodowy im, Ossolińskich, Wrocław - Warszawa - Kraków - Gdańsk, pp. 320–341. Gedl, M., 1962. Kultura łużycka na Górnym Śląsku. PAN, Wrocław - Warszawa - Kraków. Gedl, M., 1964. Szkieletowy obrządek pogrzebowy w kulturze łużyckiej. UJ, Kraków. Gedl, M., 1999. Cmentarzysko z epoki brązu w Zbrojewsku (Badania 1973–1981). Oficyna Cracovia, Kraków. Gedl, M., 2002. Współwystępowanie pochówków ciałopalnych i szkieletowych na cmentarzyskach z epoki brązu na pograniczu Śląska i Małopolski. In: Wrzesiński, J. (Ed.), Popiół i kość (= Funeralia Lednickie, Spotkanie 4). Muzeum Ślężańskie im. S, Dunajewskiego, AKME, Sobótka, Wrocław, pp. 205–221. Gimbutas, M., 1965. Bronze Age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe. Mouton Co., the Hague. Harding, A.F., 2000. European societies in the Bronze Age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hensel, Z., 1996. Produkcja wyrobów ze stopów miedzi na Kujawach w świetle badań chemicznych. In: Cofta-Broniewska, A. (Ed.), Metalurgia brązu pradziejowych społeczeństw Kujaw (= Studia i Materiały do Dziejów Kujaw 7). UAM, Poznań, pp. 131–193. Jędrzejewski, R., 2000. Osada kultury łużyckiej w Kałdusie, gm. Chełmno (stanowiska 1, 3). Thesis, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń. Jędrzejewski, R., 2009. Pochówek szkieletowy ludności kultury łużyckiej w Kałdusie, gm. Chełmno (stanowisko 4). In: Gackowski, J., (Ed.), Archeologia epok brązu i żelaza. Studia i materiały 1. Wyd. Nauk. UMK, Toruń, pp. 123–138. Kaczmarek, M., 2012. Epoka brązu na Nizinie Wielkopolsko-Kujawskiej w świetle interregionalnych kontaktów wymiennych. Wyd, Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, Poznań. Kaczmarek, M., 2017. The Snares of Ostensible Homogeneity. Lusatian Culture or Lusatian Urnfields? In: Bugaj, U. (Ed.), The past societies: Polish lands from the first evidence of human presence to the early middle ages, vol. 3: 2000–500 BC. IAiE PAN, Warszawa, pp. 263–293. Karpińska, A., 1922–1924. Reparacje prehistoryczne w Polsce. Przeg. Archeol. 2 (4–6), 25–37. Kim, J., 2001. Elite Strategies and the Spread of Technological Innovation: The Spread of Iron in the Bronze Age Societies of Denmark and Southern Korea. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 20, 442–478. https://doi.org/10.1006/jaar.2001.0386. Kokal, H.R., 2006. Fluxes for metallurgy. In: Kogel, J.E., Trivedi, N.C., Barker, J.M., Krukowski, S.T. (Eds.), Industrial minerals and rocks, commodities, markets, and uses (7th ed.). Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Littleton, pp. 1405–1421. Kossinna, G., 1919. Meine Reise nach West- und Ostpreuβen und meine Berufung zu Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg im August 1915. Mannus 9 (1917), 119–195. Kostrzewski, J., 1953. Wytwórczość metalurgiczna w Polsce od neolitu do wczesnego okresu żelaznego. Przeg. Archeol. 9, 177–213. Kostrzewski, J., 1954. Ze studiów nad wczesnym okresem żelaznym w Polsce. Slav. Antiq. 4, 22–70. Kowalski, Ł., Garbacz-Klempka, A., Gackowski, J., Ścibior, D., Perek-Nowak, M., Adamczak, K., Długosz, P., 2019. Towards direct casting: Archaeometallurgical insight into a bronze mould from Elgiszewo (900–700 BC, Poland). Archeol. rozh. 71 (1), 45–66. Kristiansen, K., 1998. Europe before history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kurzyńska, M., 2001. Północna część ziemi chełmińskiej w starożytności. In: Boguwolski, R., Kurzyńska, M. (Eds.), Archeologia północnej części ziemi chełmińskiej. Muzeum w Grudziądzu, Grudziądz, pp. 19–70. La Baume, W., 1930. Zur Kenntnis der Metall-Technik in der Bronzezeit und älteste Eisenzeit. In: 50 Jahre Museum für Naturkunde und Vorgeschichte (Westpreuβisches Provinzial-Museum) in Danzig 1880–1930. Westpreuβisches Provinzial-Museum, Danzig, pp. 123–151. La Baume, W., 1934. Urgeschichte der Ostgermanen (= Ostland-Institut in Danzig, Ostland- Forschungen, Band 5). Danziger Verlags-Gesellschaft, Danzig. Larsson, T.B., 1986. The Bronze Age metalwork in southern Sweden: aspects of social and spatial organization 1800–500 B.C. (=Archaeology and environment 6.). University of Umeå, Dept. of Archaeology, Umeå. Lissauer, A., 1891. Alterthümer der Bronzezeit in der Provinz Westpreussen und den angrenzenden Gebieten (= Abhandlung zur Landeskunde der Provinz Westpreussen Heft II). Kommissions Verlag von Th, Bertling, Danzig. D. Liversage Interpreting Impurity Patterns in Ancient Bronze. Denmark (= Nordiske Fortidsminder Serie C 1). Kongelige Nordiske 2000 Oldskriftselskab, Copenhagen. Lutz, J., Pernicka, E., 2013. Prehistoric copper from the Eastern Alps. In: Tykot, R.H. (Ed. ), 37 Proceedings of the 38th International Symposium on Archaeometry - May 10th 14th 2010, Tampa, 38 Florida. Open J. Archaeometry 1 (e25), pp. 122-127. https:// doi:10.4081/arc.2013.e25. Łęga, W., 1960. Ziemia chełmińska na przełomie epoki brązu i żelaza. Rocz. Grudz. 1, 205–250. Łuka, L.J., 1985. Kontakty wymienne ludności grupy kaszubskiej i grupy chełmińskiej kultury łużyckiej w świetle znalezisk gromadnych. Pom. Antiq. 12, 17–59. Maciejewski, M., 2016. Metal - boarder - ritual. Hoards in Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age landscape. In: Kołodziejczyk, P., Kwiatkowska-Kopka, B. (Eds.), Landscape in the past & forgotten (= Cracow Landscape Monographies 2). Institute of Archeology Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Institute of Landscape Architecture Cracow University of Technology, Kraków, pp. 263–275. Maciejewski, M., 2017. The symbolism of hoard deposition places in the landscape of the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age in the zone of the south Baltic coastland and lake districts. Spraw. Archeol. 69, 113–132. https://doi.org/10.23858/SA69.2017. 006. Maciejewski, M., 2019. The Rosko Hoard - a Road Sign? Research and its Perspectives: Mass Deposition of Metal Objects, Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Poland. Praehist. Z. 94 (1), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1515/pz-2019-0012. von Merhart, G., 1956. Über blecherne Zierbuckel (Faleren). Jahrb. RGZM 3, 28–116. https://doi.org/10.11588/jrgzm.1956.0.32801. Milner, D.R., Apps, R.L., 1968. Introduction to Welding and Brazing (= The Commonwealth and International Library: Welding Division). Pergamon Press, Oxford - New York. Mogielnicka-Urban, M., 2008. Nagolennik typu stanomińskiego z Biejkowej Woli k. Biejkowa, gm. Promna, pow. białobrzeski, woj. mazowieckie na tle innych znalezisk tego typu w Polsce. In: Mogielnicka-Urban, M. (Ed.), Opera ex aere. Studia z epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza dedykowane profesorowi Janowi Dąbrowskiemu przez przyjaciół, uczniów i kolegów z okazji siedemdziesięciolecia urodzin. IAiE PAN, Warszawa, pp. 211–222. Orlicka-Jasnoch, J., 2013. Skarb przedmiotów brązowych i żelaznych z Bieszkowa, gm. Jasień. In: Jaszewska, A., Kałagate, S. (Eds.), Wicina. Badania archeologiczne w latach 2008-2012 oraz skarb przedmiotów pochodzących z Wiciny. SNAP, Zielona Góra, pp. 491–537. O'Brien, W., 2015. Prehistoric copper mining in Europe. 5500–500 BC. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Pare, C.F.E., 2013. Weighing, commodification and money. In: Fokkens, H., Harding, A. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the European Bronze Age. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 508–527. Pernicka, E., 2014. Provenance determination of archaeological metal objects. In: Roberts, B.W., Thornton, C.P. (Eds.), Archaeometallurgy in Global Perspective. 13 Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 30 (2020) 102224 Ł. Kowalski, et al. Zentralmuseums, Mainz. Stankiewicz-Węgrzykowa, A., 1964. Ogólne uwagi o wyrobach metalowych z cmentarzyska kultury łużyckiej w Świbiu, pow. Gliwice. Zesz. Gliw. 2, 133–148. Szafrański, W., 1950. Skarb brązowy z IV okresu epoki brązowej z Poznania-Starołęki. Prz. Archeol. 9 (26/1), 36–52. Szamałek, K., 2002. Zagadnienie genezy ciałopalenia oraz cmentarzysk birytualnych na Pojezierzu Wielkopolskim w okresie rozwoju kultury łużyckiej. In: Wrzesiński, J. (Ed.), Popiół i kość (= Funeralia Lednickie, Spotkanie 4). Muzeum Ślężańskie im. S, Dunajewskiego, AKME, Sobótka, Wrocław, pp. 246–259. Szamałek, K., 2009. Procesy integracji kulturowej w młodszej epoce brązu i początkach epoki żelaza na Pojezierzu Wielkopolskim. IAiE PAN, Poznań. Szydłowska, E., 1988. Zagadnienie eksploatacji ołowiu w kulturze łużyckiej w Polsce. In: Gediga, B. (Ed.), Surowce mineralne w pradziejach i we wczesnym średniowieczu Europy Środkowej (= Prace Komisji Archeologicznej 6). Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, PAN, Wrocław - Warszawa - Kraków - Gdańsk - Łódź, pp. 41–52. Szydłowska, E., 1995. Użytkowanie metali kolorowych przez ludność podgrupy częstochowsko-gliwickiej kultury łużyckiej. In: Szydłowski, J. (Ed.), Dziedzictwo kulturowe epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza na Górnym Śląsku i w Małopolsce tzw. grupa górnośląsko-małopolska kultury łużyckiej (= Śląskie Prace Prahistoryczne 4). Muzeum Śląskie, Katowice, pp. 85–96. Zielonka, B., 1955. Materiały z osiedla obronnego kultury łużyckiej w miejscowości Kamieniec, pow. Toruń. Wiad. Archeol. 22 (2), 159–174. Methods and Syntheses, Springer, New York, pp. 239–268. Podgórski, J.T., 1992. Fazy cmentarzysk kultury łużyckiej i pomorskiej na Pomorzu Wschodnim. In: Czopek, S. (Ed.), Ziemie polskie we wczesnej epoce żelaza i ich powiązania z innymi terenami. Wyd. Muzeum Okręgowego, Rzeszów, pp. 199–214. Pollard, M., Heron, C., 1996. Archaeological chemistry. The Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge. Potemski, Cz, 1963. Pradzieje Bydgoszczy i powiatu bydgoskiego. Bydgoskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Bydgoszcz. Rembisz-Lubiejewska, A., 2016. Nowe odkrycia “brązów kujawskich” na Pomorzu Środkowym. Pom. Antiq. 25, 255–260. Rembisz-Lubiejewska, A., 2017. Rola Wisły w rozwoju społeczności popielnicowych” Kotliny Grudziądzkiej. In: Fudziński, M., Świętosławski, W., Chudziak, W. (Eds.), Pradoliny pomorskich rzek. Kontakty kulturowe i handlowe społeczeństw w pradziejach i wczesnym średniowieczu, Muzeum Archeologiczne w Gdańsku, Gdańsk, pp. 113–124. Scott, D.A., 1991. Metallography and Microstructure of Ancient and Historic Metals. Getty Conservation Institute in association with Archetype Books, Marina del Rey, CA http://hdl.handle.net/10020/gci_pubs/metallography_microstructure. Sommerfeld, Ch., 1994. Gerätegeld Sichel: Studien zur monetären Struktur bronzezeitlicher Horte im nördlichen Mitteleuropa (= Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 19). De Gruyter, Berlin-New York. Sprockhoff, E., 1956. Jungbronzezeitliche Hortfunde der Südzone des nordisches Kreises (Periode V) (= RGZM, Katalog 16). Verlag des Römisch-germanischen 14