Urnfield culture

The Urnfield culture (c. 1300 BC – 750 BC) was a late Bronze Age culture of Central Europe, often divided into several local cultures within a broader Urnfield tradition. The name comes from the custom of cremating the dead and placing their ashes in urns, which were then buried in fields. The first usage of the name occurred in publications over grave sites in southern Germany in the late 19th century.^[1][2] Over much of Europe, the Urnfield culture followed the Tumulus culture and was succeeded by the Hallstatt culture.^[3] Some linguists and archaeologists have associated this culture with the Proto-Celtic language, or a pre-Celtic language family.^[4][5]

Urnfield culture

Geographical range	Europe
Period	Late Bronze Age
Dates	c. 1300 — c. 750 BC
Major sites	Burgstallkogel (Sulm valley), Ipf (mountain), Ehrenbürg
Preceded by	Tumulus culture, Vatya culture, Vatin culture, Terramare culture, Noua culture, Ottomány culture
Followed by	Hallstatt culture, Lusatian culture, Proto-Villanovan culture, Villanovan culture, Golasecca culture, Este culture, Luco culture, Iron Age France, Iron Age Britain, Iron Age Iberia, Cimmerians, Thracians, Dacians

Chronology

Central European Bronze Age
Late Bronze Age
Ha B2/3	800–950 BC
Ha B1	950–1050 BC
Ha A2	1050–1100 BC
Ha A1	1100–1200 BC
Bz D	1200–1300 BC
Middle Bronze Age
Bz C2	1300–1400 BC
Bz C1	1400–1500 BC
Bz B	1500–1600 BC
Early Bronze Age
Bz A2	1600–2000 BC
Bz A1	2000–2300 BC

It is believed that in some areas, such as in southwestern Germany, the Urnfield culture was in existence around 1200 BC (beginning of Hallstatt A or Ha A), but the Bronze D Riegsee-phase already contains cremations. As the transition from the middle Bronze Age to the Urnfield culture was gradual, there are questions regarding how to define it.

The Urnfield culture covers the phases Hallstatt A and B (Ha A and B) in Paul Reinecke's chronological system, not to be confused with the Hallstatt culture (Ha C and D) of the following Iron Age. This corresponds to the Phases Montelius III-IV of the Northern Bronze Age. Whether Reinecke's Bronze D is included varies according to author and region.

The Urnfield culture is divided into the following sub-phases (based on Müller-Karpe sen.):

	date BC
BzD	1300–1200
Ha A1	1200–1100
Ha A2	1100–1000
HaB1	1000–800
HaB2	900–800
Ha B3	800–750

The existence of the Ha B3-phase is contested, as the material consists of female burials only. As can be seen by the arbitrary 100-year ranges, the dating of the phases is highly schematic. The phases are based on typological changes, which means that they do not have to be strictly contemporaneous across the whole distribution. All in all, more radiocarbon and dendro-dates would be highly desirable.

Origin

The Urnfield culture grew from the preceding Tumulus culture.^[3] The transition is gradual, in the pottery as well as the burial rites.^[3] In some parts of Germany, cremation and inhumation existed simultaneously (facies Wölfersheim). Some graves contain a combination of Tumulus-culture pottery and Urnfield swords (Kressbronn, Bodenseekreis) or Tumulus culture incised pottery together with early Urnfield types (Mengen). In the North, the Urnfield culture was only adopted in the HaA2 period. 16 pins deposited in a swamp in Ellmoosen (Kr. Bad Aibling, Germany) cover the whole chronological range from Bronze B to the early Urnfield period (Ha A). This demonstrates a considerable ritual continuity. In the Loire, Seine, and Rhône, certain fords contain deposits from the late Neolithic onward up to the Urnfield period.

The origins of the cremation rite are commonly believed to be in Hungary, where it was widespread since the first half of the second millennium BC.^[6] The neolithic Cucuteni–Trypillia culture of modern-day northeastern Romania and Ukraine were also practicing cremation rituals as early as approximately 5500 BC. Some cremations begin to be found in the Proto-Lusatian and Trzciniec culture.

Distribution and local groups

 

Europe in the late Bronze Age.

The Urnfield culture was located in an area stretching from western Hungary to eastern France, from the Alps to near the North Sea. Local groups, mainly differentiated by pottery, include:

South-German Urnfield culture

• Northeast-Bavarian Group, divided into a lower Bavarian and an upper Palatinate group
• Lower-Main-Swabian group in southern Hesse and Baden-Württemberg, including the Marburger, Hanauer, lower Main and Friedberger facies
• Rhenish-Swiss group in Rhineland-Palatinate, Switzerland and eastern France, (abbreviated RSFO in French)

Lower-Rhine Urnfield culture

• Lower Hessian Group
• North-Netherlands-Westphalian group
• Northwest-Group in the Dutch Delta region

Middle-Danube Urnfield culture

 

Urnfield culture, bronze situal with bird-headed sun ship motif, Hungary, c. 1000 BC.^[7][8]

• Velatice-Baierdorf in Moravia and Austria
• Čaka culture in western Slovakia
• Gáva culture
• Piliny culture
• Kyjatice culture
• Milavce culture in southeastern Bohemia
• Unstrut culture in Thuringia
• Virovitica in Slovenia and Croatia^[9]
• Lusatian culture in northern Bohemia, Lusatia and Poland

Sometimes the distribution of artifacts belonging to these groups shows sharp and consistent borders, which might indicate some political structures, like tribes. Metalwork is commonly of a much more widespread distribution than pottery and does not conform to these borders. It may have been produced at specialised workshops catering for the elite of a large area.

Important French cemeteries include Châtenay and Lingolsheim (Alsace). An unusual earthwork was constructed at Goloring near Koblenz in Germany.

Related cultures

 

Villanovan helmet, Italy, 8th century BC

 

Villanovan cinerary urn, Italy, 9th century BC.

The central European Lusatian culture forms part of the Urnfield tradition, but continues into the Iron Age without a notable break.

The Piliny culture in northern Hungary and Slovakia grew from the Tumulus culture, but used urn burials as well. The pottery shows strong links to the Gáva culture, but in the later phases, a strong influence of the Lusatian culture is found. In Italy the late Bronze Age Canegrate and Proto-Villanovan cultures and the early Iron Age Villanovan culture show similarities with the urnfields of central Europe. Urnfields are found in the French Languedoc and Catalonia from the 9th to 8th centuries. The change in burial custom was most probably influenced by developments further east.

The Golasecca culture in northern Italy developed with continuity from the Canegrate culture.^[10][11] Canegrate represented a completely new cultural dynamic to the area expressed in pottery and bronzework, making it a typical western example of the Urnfield culture, in particular the Rhine-Switzerland-Eastern France (RSFO) Urnfield culture.^[10][11] The Lepontic Celtic language inscriptions of the area show the language of the Golasecca culture was clearly Celtic making it probable that the 13th-century BC language of at least the RSEF area of the western urnfields was also Celtic or a precursor to it.^[10][11]

Placename evidence has also been used to point to an association of the Urnfield materials with a Proto-Celtic language group in central Europe, and it has been argued that it was the ancestral culture of the Celts.^[12][13] The Urnfield layers of the Hallstatt culture, Ha A and Ha B, are succeeded by the Iron Age "Hallstatt period" proper (Ha C and Ha D, 8th-6th centuries BC), associated with the early Celts; Ha D is in turn succeeded by the La Tène culture, the archaeological culture associated with the Continental Celts of antiquity.

The influence of the Urnfield culture spread widely and found its way to the northeastern Iberian coast, where the nearby Celtiberians of the interior adapted it for use in their cemeteries.^[14] Evidence for east-to-west early Urnfield (Bronze D-Hallstatt A) elite contacts such as rilled-ware, swords and crested helmets has been found in the southwest of the Iberian peninsula.^[15] The appearance of such elite status markers provides the simplest explanation for the spread of Celtic languages in this area from prestigious, proto-Celtic, early-Urnfield metalworkers.^[15]

Migrations

 

Urnfield warrior panoply

The numerous hoards of the Urnfield culture and the existence of fortified settlements (hill forts) were taken as evidence for widespread warfare and upheaval by some scholars. Written sources describe several collapses and upheavals in the Eastern Mediterranean, Anatolia and the Levant around the time of the Urnfield origins:

 

Depiction of the Sea Peoples with bird-headed ship. Medinet Habu, Egypt.^[16]

• End of the Mycenean culture with a conventional date of c. 1200 BC
• Destruction of Troy VI c. 1200 BC
• Battles of Ramses III against the Sea Peoples, 1195–1190 BC
• End of the Hittite empire 1180 BC
• Settlement of the Philistines in Canaan c. 1170 BC

Some scholars, among them Wolfgang Kimmig and P. Bosch-Gimpera have postulated a Europe-wide wave of migrations. The so-called Dorian invasion of Greece was placed in this context as well (although more recent evidence suggests that the Dorians moved in 1100 BC into a post Mycenaean vacuum, rather than precipitating the collapse). Better methods of dating have shown that these events are not as closely connected as once thought.^{[citation needed]}

More recently Robert Drews, after having reviewed and dismissed the migration hypothesis, has suggested that the observed cultural associations may be in fact partly explained as the result of a new kind of warfare based upon the slashing Naue II sword,^[17] and with bands of infantry replacing chariots in warfare. Drews suggests that the political instability that this brought to centralised states based upon maryannu chariotry caused the breakdown of these polities.

Ethnicity

The variety of regional groups belonging to this culture makes it possible to exclude the presence of ethnic uniformity. Marija Gimbutas connected the various Central European regional groups to as many proto-populations: proto-Celts, proto-Italics, proto-Veneti, proto-Illyrians and proto-Phrygians (as well as proto-Thracians and proto-Dorians), who would establish themselves later, through migrations, in their historic locations.^[18][19] This migration (disputed by some) occurred during the period called late Bronze Age collapse and was perhaps caused by climate changes. Communities of peasants and herders, led by a warrior aristocracy, introduced the new rite of cremation, new ceramic styles and the mass production of metal objects as well as a new religion and Indo-European languages in various regions of Western and Southern Europe.^[20]

Settlements

 

Ipf, Germany. The summit was levelled and fortified in the Urnfield period.^[21][22]

The number of settlements increased sharply in comparison with the preceding Tumulus culture. Few of them have been comprehensively excavated. Fortified settlements, often on hilltops or in river-bends, are typical for the Urnfield culture. They are heavily fortified with dry-stone or wooden ramparts. Excavations of open settlements are rare, but they show that large 3-4 aisled houses built with wooden posts and wall of wattle and daub were common. Pit dwellings are known as well; they might have served as cellars.

Fortified settlements

 

Model of fortifications on the Bullenheimer Berg.^[23]

Fortified hilltop settlements become common in the Urnfield period. Often a steep spur was used, where only part of the circumference had to be fortified. Depending on the locally available materials, dry-stone walls, gridded timbers filled with stones or soil or plank and palisade type pfostenschlitzmauer fortifications were used. Other fortified settlements used river-bends and swampy areas.

Metal working is concentrated in the fortified settlements. On the Runder Berg near Urach, Germany, 25 stone moulds have been found.

Hillforts are interpreted as central places. Some scholars see the emergence of hill forts as a sign of increased warfare. Most hillforts were abandoned at the end of the Bronze Age.

Examples of fortified settlements include the Bullenheimer Berg, Ehrenbürg, Heunischenburg, Hesselberg, Bürgstadter Berg, Stallberg, Schellenburg, Farrenberg, Glauberg and Ipf in Germany, Burgstallkogel, Thunau am Kamp and the Oberleiserberg in Austria,^[24][25] Corent and Gannat^[26] in France, Hořovice and Plešivec in the Czech Republic, Biskupin in Poland, Ormož in Slovenia,^[9] Corneşti-Iarcuri, Sântana and Teleac in Romania,^[27][28][29] Gradište Idoš in Serbia,^[30] and Velem and Csanádpalota–Földvár in Hungary.^[31]

The 30.5 ha plateau of the Bullenheimer Berg in Germany was the site of a "large, walled, city-like" settlement in the later Urnfield period.^[32] Excavations have revealed a dense settlement across the whole plateau, including courtyard-type buildings located on artificially raised terraces.^[33] The fortified settlement on the Ehrenbürg, also covering about 30 ha and surrounded by a pfostenschlitzmauer-type wall, was another regional centre during the Urnfield period and the residence of a regional elite.^[33] At the hill fort of Hořovice near Beroun (Czech Republic), 50 ha were surrounded by a stone wall. Most settlements were much smaller.

 

Hühnenburg bei Watenstedt, Germany

Corneşti-Iarcuri in Romania was the largest prehistoric settlement in Europe, at almost 6 km across,^[34] with four fortification lines and an inner settlement with a diameter of c. 2 km. Magnetic mapping and excavations have suggested the existence of a dense, well-organised settlement of urban character during the Urnfield period. An estimated 824,00 tonnes of earth had to be moved for the construction of the fortification walls alone.^[35]

"Mega forts" such as Corneşti-Iarcuri (and Gradište Idoš in Serbia) were surrounded by numerous smaller settlements, including fortified sites. They formed part of a general movement towards large fortified sites across Europe in the Late Bronze Age, possibly in response to new styles of warfare.^[36] The general uniformity in design, material culture, and the density of settlements in Romania and Serbia at this time is "indicative of one or more multilocal societies which must have been organized under a common political framework."^[30] Kristiansen and Suchowska-Ducke (2015) describe these mega-sites as "part of a political centralisation process, a complex chiefdom, or archaic state".^[37]

Open settlements

Urnfield period houses were one or two-aisled. Some were quite small, 4.5 m × 5 m at the Runder Berg (Urach, Germany), 5-8m long in Künzig (Bavaria, Germany), others up to 20 m long. They were built with wooden posts and walls of wattle and daub. At the Velatice-settlement of Lovčičky (Moravia, Czech Republic) 44 houses have been excavated. Large bell shaped storage pits are known from the Knovíz-culture. The settlement of Radonice (Louny) contained over 100 pits. They were most probably used to store grain and demonstrate a considerable surplus-production.

Pile dwellings

On lakes of southern Germany and Switzerland, numerous pile dwellings were constructed. They consist either of simple houses made of wattle and daub, or log-built. The settlement at Zug, Switzerland, was destroyed by fire and gives important insights into the material culture and the settlement organisation of this period. It has yielded a number of dendro-dates as well.

•  

  Heunischenburg fortification, Germany

•  

  Stone fortification wall, reconstruction.^[38]

•  

  Model of a pfostenschlitzmauer wall

•  

  Biskupin fortified settlement, Poland

•  

  Lake Constance pile settlement, Germany

•  

  Corneşti-Iacuri ramparts, Romania

•  

  Urnfield period village model

Material culture

 

Late Bronze Age swords, c. 10th century BC. Cantonal Museum of Archeology and History, Switzerland.

 

Bronze cuirasses from Marmesse in France, 9th century BC.^[39]

Pottery

The pottery is normally well made, with a smooth surface and a normally sharply carinated profile. Some forms are thought to imitate metal prototypes. Biconical pots with cylindrical necks are especially characteristic. There is some incised decoration, but a large part of the surface was normally left plain. Fluted decoration is common. In the Swiss pile dwellings, the incised decoration was sometimes inlaid with tin foil. Pottery kilns were already known (Elchinger Kreuz, Bavaria), as is indicated by the homogeneous surface of the vessels as well. Other vessels include cups of beaten sheet-bronze with riveted handles (type Jenišovice) and large cauldrons with cross attachments. Wooden vessels have only been preserved in waterlogged contexts, for example from Auvernier (Neuchâtel), but may have been quite widespread.

Tools and weapons

The early Urnfield period (1300 BC) was a time when the warriors of central Europe could be heavily armored with body armor, helmets and shields all made of bronze, most likely borrowing the idea from Mycenaean Greece.^[40]

The leaf-shaped Urnfield sword could be used for slashing, in contrast to the stabbing-swords of the preceding Tumulus culture. It commonly possessed a ricasso. The hilt was normally made from bronze as well. It was cast separately and consisted of a different alloy. These solid hilted swords were known since Bronze D (Rixheim swords). Other swords have tanged blades and probably had a wood, bone, or antler hilt. Flange-hilted swords had organic inlays in the hilt. Swords include Auvernier, Kressborn-Hemigkofen, Erbenheim, Möhringen, Weltenburg, Hemigkofen and Tachlovice-types.

Protective gear like shields, cuirasses, greaves and helmets are rare and almost never found in burials. The best-known example of a bronze shield comes from Plzeň in Bohemia and has a riveted handhold. Comparable pieces have been found in Germany, Western Poland, Denmark, Great Britain and Ireland. They are supposed to have been made in upper Italy or the Eastern Alps and imitate wooden shields. Irish bogs have yielded examples of leather shields (Clonbrinn, Co. Wexford). Bronze cuirasses are known since Bronze D (Čaka, grave II, Slovakia).

Complete bronze cuirasses have been found in Saint Germain du Plain, nine examples, one inside the other, in Marmesse, Haute Marne (France), fragments in Albstadt-Pfeffingen (Germany). Bronze dishes (phalerae) may have been sewn on a leather armour. Greaves of richly decorated sheet-bronze are known from Kloštar Ivanić (Croatia) and the Paulus cave near Beuron (Germany).

Chariots

Further information: Chariot

 

Bronze chariot wheel from Arokalja in Romania, c. 1000 BC

About a dozen wagon-burials of four wheeled wagons with bronze fittings are known from the early Urnfield period. They include Hart an der Altz (Kr. Altötting), Mengen (Kr. Sigmaringen), Poing (Kr. Ebersberg), Königsbronn (Kr. Heidenheim) from Germany and St. Sulpice (Vaud), Switzerland. In Alz, the chariot had been placed on the pyre, pieces of bone are attached to the partially melted metal of the axles. Bronze (one-part) bits appear at the same time. Two-part horse bits are only known from late Urnfield contexts and may be due to eastern influence. Wood- and bronze spoked wheels are known from Stade (Germany), a wooden spoked wheel from Mercurago, Italy. Wooden dish-wheels have been excavated at Courcelettes, Switzerland and the Wasserburg Buchau, Germany (diameter 80 cm). In Milavče near Domažlice, Bohemia, a four-wheeled miniature bronze wagon bearing a large cauldron (diameter 30 cm) contained a cremation. This exceptionally rich burial was covered by a barrow. The wagon from Acholshausen (Bavaria) comes from a male burial.

Such wagons are known from the Nordic Bronze Age as well. The Skallerup wagon, Denmark, contained a cremation as well. At Peckatel (Kr. Schwerin) in Mecklenburg a cauldron-wagon and other rich grave goods accompanied an inhumation under a barrow (Montelius III/IV). Another example comes from Ystad in Sweden. South-eastern European examples include Kanya in Hungary and Orăştie in Romania. Clay miniature wagons, sometimes with waterfowl were known there since the middle Bronze Age (Dupljaja, Vojvodina, Serbia).

The Lusatian chariot from Burg (Brandenburg, Germany) has three wheels on a single axle, on which waterfowl perch. The grave of Gammertingen (Kr. Sigmaringen, Germany) contained two socketed horned applications that probably belonged to a miniature wagon comparable to the Burg example, together with six miniature spoked wheels.

Bronze spoked wheels from Hassloch and Stade (in Germany) have been described as "the most ambitious craft endeavour of all Bronze Age bronze objects",^[41] representing "the highest achievement of prehistoric bronze casters in non-Greek Europe ... In terms of casting technique, they are on a par with the casting of a Greek bronze statue."^[42]

•  

  Urn with chariot depictions, Slovakia, 14th century BC.^[43]

•  

  Cult chariot model from Dupljaja, Serbia, c. 1300 BC.^[44]

•  

  Bronze wagon model from Acholshausen in Germany c. 1000 BC

•  

  Bronze wagon model from Orăştie in Romania

•  

  Miniature cult wagon model from Burg, Germany

•  

  Bronze wheels from Hassloch in Germany, 900-800 BC

•  

  Bronze wheel from Stade, Germany, c. 1000 BC

•  

  Bronze wheels from Stade, Germany, c. 1000 BC

Hoards

Hoards are very common in the Urnfield culture. The custom is abandoned at the end of the Bronze Age. They were often deposited in rivers and wet places like swamps. As these spots were often quite inaccessible, they most probably represent gifts to the gods. Other hoards contain either broken or miscast objects that were probably intended for reuse by bronze smiths. As Late Urnfield hoards often contain the same range of objects as earlier graves, some scholars interpret hoarding as a way to supply personal equipment for the hereafter. In the river Trieux, Côtes du Nord, complete swords were found together with numerous antlers of red deer that may have had a religious significance as well.

Gallery

•  

  Gold Jewellery, Hungary, c. 1200 BC

•  

  Gold necklace, Belgium, 1000 BC

•  

  Large brooch, Germany, 1100–1000 BC^[45]

•  

  Bronze wheel pendants from Switzerland

•  

  Gold bowl, Altstetten, Switzerland^[46]

•  

  Naue II swords from Slovakia, 1200-1100 BC

•  

  Bonze sword from the Czech Republic

•  

  Bronze helmets from France, 1100-900 BC

•  

  Bronze diadem, Hungary, c. 1200 BC^[47]

•  

  Vaudrevange hoard, Germany^[48]

•  

  Bronze shield from the Czech Republic

•  

  Bronze ornament, Slovakia, 13th c. BC^[49]

•  

  Hoard of bronze objects, Germany, 1000 BC.^[50]

•  

  Gold collar and necklace from Austria, 900 BC.^[51]

•  

  Gold diadem from Sichów, Poland

•  

  Gold ornaments from Blanot, France.^[52]

•  

  River and lake finds from Switzerland

•  

  Bronze urn with sun-bird-ship motif.^[53][54]

•  

  Bronze greave, Hungary

•  

  Bronze ornament with iron rivets, c. 1200 BC^[55]

•  

  Bronze cauldron from Hungary, c. 1000 BC^[56]

•  

  Pottery inlaid with tin foil, Switzerland, c. 1000 BC

•  

  Pottery polished with graphite

•  

  Cinerary urn from Kelheim, Germany

•  

  Various artefacts, Hungary

•  

  Helmets, France

•  

  Eberswalde Hoard (replica), Germany

•  

  Bronze artefacts from Austria

•  

  Bronze ornaments, Germany

•  

  Large brooch, Germany

•  

  Gold diadem, Hinova Treasure, Romania

•  

  Hinova Treasure, Romania, 12th cent. BC

Iron

An iron knife or sickle from Ganovce in Slovakia, possibly dating to the 18th century BC, may be the earliest evidence of smelted iron in Central Europe.^[57] Another early find is an iron ring from Vorwohlde (Kr. Grafschaft Diepholz, Germany) dating to c. the 15th century BC (Reinecke B).^[58] During the late Bronze Age, Iron was used to decorate the hilts of swords (Schwäbisch-Hall-Gailenkirchen, Unterkrumbach, Kr. Hersbruck), knives (Dotternhausen, Plettenberg, Germany), pins and some other ornaments. The Carpathian Basin was an early centre of iron technology, with iron artefacts dating from the 10th century BC, and possibly as early as the 12th century BC.^[57] Regular use of iron for weapons and tools in Central Europe began with the Hallstatt culture.

Economy

 

 

Left: High-status female, Slovakia.^[59] Right: Urnfield culture dress (reconstruction).

 

Opium poppy-head pin, Hungary

Cattle, pigs, sheep and goats were kept, as well as horses, dogs and geese. The cattle were rather small, with a height of 1.20 m at the withers. Horses were not much bigger with a mean of 1.25 m.

Forest clearance was intensive in the Urnfield period. Probably open meadows were created for the first time, as shown by pollen analysis. This led to increased erosion and sediment-load of the rivers. New crops and more intensive agrarian regimes are introduced, transforming landscapes on a large scale.^[60]

Wheat and barley were cultivated, together with pulses and the horse bean. Poppy seeds were used for oil or as a drug. Millet and oats were cultivated for the first time in Hungary and Bohemia, rye was already cultivated, further west it was only a noxious weed. Flax seems to have been of reduced importance, maybe because mainly wool was used for clothes. Hazel nuts, apples, pears, sloes and acorns were collected. Some rich graves contain bronze sieves that have been interpreted as wine-sieves (Hart an der Alz). This beverage would have been imported from the South, but supporting evidence is lacking. In the lacustrine settlement of Zug, remains of a broth made of spelt and millet have been found. In the lower-Rhine urnfields, leavened bread was often placed on the pyre and burnt fragments have thus been preserved.

Wool was spun (finds of spindle whorls are common) and woven on the warp-weighted loom; bronze needles (Unteruhldingen) were used for sewing.

There is some suggestion that the Urnfield culture is associated with a wetter climatic period than the earlier Tumulus cultures. This may be associated with the diversion of the mid-latitude winter storms north of the Pyrenees and the Alps, possibly associated with drier conditions in the Mediterranean basin.

Numerals

Further information: Frankleben hoard

 

The cast mark numeral system

Large hoards of sickles dating from the Bronze Age have been excavated across central Europe which feature a range of cast markings. An analysis of the Frankleben hoard and other sickle hoards from Germany dating from the Urnfield period found that markings on the sickles constitute a numeral system related to the lunar calendar. According to the Halle State Museum of Prehistory:

“Many sickles carry line-shaped markings. The scope and order of these brands follows a defined pattern. This sign language can be interpreted as a pre-form of a writing system. There are two types of symbols: line-shaped marks below the button and marks at the angle or at the base of the sickle body. The archaeologist Christoph Sommerfeld examined the rules and realized that the casting marks are composed of one to nine ribs. After four left-hand, individually counted strokes there follows a bundle as a group of five on the right side. This creates a counting system that reaches to 29. The Synodic Moon orbit lasts 29 days or nights. This number and the lunar shape of the sickle suggest that the stroke groups should be interpreted as pages of a calendar, as a point in the monthly cycle. The sickle marks are the oldest known sign system in Central Europe.”^[61]

The sickles also feature other marks or symbols which Sommmerfeld (1994) suggests may represent 'conceptual signs', or a type of proto-writing.^[62] Markings on sickles and tools from across Bronze Age Europe have been interpreted by other authors as ownership marks, sign systems, number systems or "units of information" of unknown meaning.^[63]

'Counting marks' have also been identified on bronze armrings and ingots from the Urnfield period, possibly related to trade. Similar markings found on pottery have been interpreted as serving a calendar function.^[63]

Golden hats

Main article: Golden hat

 

Velem gold diadem, Hungary.^[64]

 

Gold appliqués from Lake Bled, Slovenia.^[65]

Four elaborate cone-shaped hats made from thin sheets of gold have been found in Germany and France, dated to 1400-800 BC. It is thought that they may have been worn as ceremonial hats by "king-priests" or oracles.^[66]

The gold hats are covered in bands of ornaments along their whole length and extent. The ornaments – mostly disks and concentric circles, sometimes wheels, crescents, pointed oval shapes and triangles – were punched using stamps, rolls or combs. An analysis of the Berlin Gold Hat found that its ornaments form systematic patterns, representing the Metonic cycle of a lunisolar calendar.^[67][68][69] According to Wilfried Menghin: “The symbols on the hat are a logarithmic table which enables the movements of the sun and the moon to be calculated in advance.”^[66] Similar ornaments are found on the gold bowls of the Eberswalde hoard, some of which also contain calendrical information.^[49] Astronomical and calendrical interpretations have also been proposed for gold items from the Bullenheimer Berg in Germany,^[70] the gold diadem and roundels from Velem in Hungary,^[71] gold appliqués from Lake Bled in Slovenia,^[72] gold discs from the Czech Republic,^[73][74] the Trundholm sun chariot from Denmark,^[75][76][77] bronze discs from Germany and Denmark,^[78][79][80] and bronze urns from Germany (including Seddin and Gevelinghausen), Denmark and Poland.^[81] The conical gold hats have been linked to the Casco de Leiro from Spain and the Comerford Crown from Ireland, which also bear similar symbols.^{[66][82][83][84][85]}

In his analysis of the Velem diadem, archaeologist Gabor Ilon writes: "high-ranking members of the elite in Bronze Age Europe were proud owners of gold foil-covered costume adornments and symbols of status and power as well as of golden vessels, objects of social display, decorated with an identical set of symbols ... embodying what was presumably an identical and coherent spiritual background."^[64] According to the Musée d'Archaeologie Nationale, "these precious and remarkably executed objects evoke a complex society, undoubtedly strictly hierarchical, with advanced technical and astronomical knowledge, organized around work in the fields".^[86]

•  

  Berlin Gold Hat, Neues museum

•  

  Avanton Gold Hat, National Archaeological Museum, France

•  

  Ezelsdorf-Buch Gold Hat, Germanisches National Museum

•  

  Schifferstadt Gold Hat, Historical Museum of the Palatinate

•  

  Ezelsdorf-Buch, schematic depiction of ornamention and stamps.

•  

  Schifferstadt, schematic depiction of ornamention and stamps.

Funerary customs

Graves

 

Bronze urn from Gevelinghausen with sun-bird-ship motif.^[87][88]

 

An urn for the ashes and dishes for grave offerings.

In the Tumulus period, multiple inhumations under barrows were common, at least for the upper levels of society. In the Urnfield period, inhumation and burial in single flat graves prevails, though some barrows exist.

In the earliest phases of the Urnfield period, man-shaped graves were dug, sometimes provided with a stone lined floor, in which the cremated remains of the deceased were spread. Only later, burial in urns became prevalent. Some scholars speculate that this may have marked a fundamental shift in people's beliefs or myths about life and the afterlife.

 

Typical burial of cremation urn.

The size of the urnfields is variable. In Bavaria, they can contain hundreds of burials, while the largest cemetery in Baden-Württemberg in Dautmergen has only 30 graves. The dead were placed on pyres, covered in their personal jewellery, which often shows traces of the fire and sometimes food-offerings. The cremated bone-remains are much larger than in the Roman period, which indicates that less wood was used. Often, the bones have been incompletely collected. Most urnfields are abandoned with the end of the Bronze Age, only the Lower Rhine urnfields continue in use in the early Iron Age (Ha C, sometimes even D).

The cremated bones could be placed in simple pits. Sometimes the dense concentration of the bones indicates a container of organic material, sometimes the bones were simply shattered.

If the bones were placed in urns, these were often covered by a shallow bowl or a stone. In a special type of burial (bell-graves) the urns are completely covered by an inverted larger vessel. As graves rarely overlap, they may have been marked by wooden posts or stones. Stone-pacing graves are typical of the Unstrut group.

Grave gifts

The urn containing the cremated bones is often accompanied by other, smaller ceramic vessels, like bowls and cups. They may have contained food. The urn is often placed in the centre of the assemblage. Often, these vessels have not been placed on the pyre. Metal grave gifts include razors, weapons that often have been deliberately destroyed (bent or broken), bracelets, pendants and pins. Metal grave gifts become rarer towards the end of the Urnfield culture, while the number of hoards increase. Burnt animal bones are often found, they may have been placed on the pyre as food. The marten bones in the grave of Seddin may have belonged to a garment (pelt). Amber or glass beads (Pfahlbautönnchen) are luxury items.

Upper-class graves

 

Seddin grave contents.^[89]

Upper-class burials were placed in wooden chambers, rarely stone cists or chambers with a stone-paved floor and covered with a barrow or cairn. The graves contain especially finely made pottery, animal bones, usually of pigs, sometimes gold rings or sheets, and in exceptional cases miniature wagons. Some of these rich burials contain the remains of more than one person. In this case, women and children are normally seen as sacrifices. Until more is known about the status distribution and the social structure of the late Bronze Age, this interpretation should be viewed with caution, however. Towards the end of the Urnfield period, some bodies were burnt in situ and then covered by a barrow, reminiscent of the burial of Patroclus as described by Homer and the burial of Beowulf (with the additional ship burial element). The grave of Seddin (c. 9th century BC) has been described as a "Homeric burial" due to its close similarity to contemporary elite burials in Greece and Italy.^[90][91][49] In the early Iron Age, inhumation became the rule again.

Cult

An obsession with waterbirds is indicated by numerous pictures and three-dimensional representations. Combined with the hoards deposited in rivers and swamps, it indicates religious beliefs connected with water. This has led some scholars to believe in serious droughts during the late Bronze Age. Sometimes the water-birds are combined with circles, the so-called sun-barque or solar boat motif. Moon-shaped clay fire dogs are thought to have a religious significance, as well as crescent shaped razors.

The Kyffhäuser caves in Thuringia contain headless skeletons and animal bones that have been interpreted as sacrifices. Other deposits include grain, knotted vegetable fibres and hair and bronze objects (axes, pendants and pins). The Ith-caves (Lower Saxony) have yielded comparative material.

•  

  Crescent shaped fire-dog, Germany

•  

  Ceramic bird rattle, Germany

•  

  Bronze pendant with solar boat motif, from Cabezo de Alcalá, Spain

•  

  Opium poppy-head pins, Germany

•  

  Metal pendant with sun-bird-ship motif, France

•  

  Crescent shaped razor, Germany

Genetics

See also: Bell Beaker culture § Genetics, Unetice culture § Genetics, Hallstatt culture § Genetics, La Tène culture § Genetics, Celts § Genetics, and Italic peoples § Genetics

A genetic study published in Nature in March 2015 examined the remains of an Urnfield male buried in Halberstadt, Germany ca 1100-1000 BC.^[92][93] He was found to be a carrier of the paternal haplogroup R1a1a1b1a2 and the maternal haplogroup H23.^[92]

A genetic study published in Science in March 2019 found a significant increase in north-central European ancestry in Iberia during the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. The authors of the study suggested that the spread of the Urnfield culture was associated with this transition, during which the Celtiberians may have emerged.^[94] A Celtiberian male examined in the study was found to be a carrier of the paternal haplogroup I2a1a1a.^[95]

A genetic study published in Science in November 2019 examined the remains of a female from the Proto-Villanovan culture buried in Martinsicuro, Italy between c. 900 BC and 800 BC. She carried the maternal haplogroup U5a2b.^[96]

See also

• Prehistoric Europe
• Bronze Age Europe
• Beaker culture
• Nordic Bronze Age
• Tumulus culture
• Hallstatt culture
• Lusatian culture
• Solar deity
• Sorothaptic language

References

1. Louwen, A.J (2021). Breaking and making the ancestors. Piecing together the urnfield mortuary process in the Lower-Rhine-Basin, c. 1300–400 BC (PhD). Leiden University.
2. Probst, Ernst (1996). Deutschland in der Bronzezeit : Bauern, Bronzegiesser und Burgherren zwischen Nordsee und Alpen. München: C. Bertelsmann. p. 258. ISBN 978-3570022375.
3. Chadwick and Corcoran, Nora and J.X.W.P. (1970). The Celts. Penguin Books. pp. 28–29.
4. Peter Schrijver, 2016, "Sound Change, the Italo-Celtic Linguistic Unity, and the Italian Homeland of Celtic", in John T. Koch & Barry Cunniffe, Celtic From the West 3: Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages: questions of shared language. Oxford, England; Oxbow Books, pp. 9, 489–502.
5. Lorrio, Alberto. "The Celts in Iberia: An Overview". E-Keltoi: J Interdiscip Celtic Stud. 6.
6. Gimbutas, Marija (1965). Bronze age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe. Mouton Publishers. pp. 274–298.
7. "Situla". Institute for the Study of the Ancient World. 2022.
8. "History of Europe: The People of the Metal Ages – Rituals, religion and art". Britannica.com. Retrieved 8 November 2022. In the stylistic development during the Metal Ages, two phenomena are of particular interest. The first is the development of the sun-bird-ship motif of the Urnfield Culture. The origin of this motif, which featured bird-headed ships embellished with solar disks, is not known, but over a short period about 1400 BCE it became common both as incised decoration and as plastic art throughout a vast area of eastern and central Europe. The similarity in execution and composition is remarkable and suggests a shared understanding of its meaning and the intensity of contact between distant areas.
9. Terzan, Biba (1999). "An Outline of the Urnfield Culture Period in Slovenia". Arheološki vestnik. 50: 97–143.
10. Kruta, Venceslas (1991). The Celts. Thames and Hudson. pp. 93–100.
11. Stifter, David (2008). Old Celtic Languages (PDF). p. 24.
12. Chadwick with Corcoran, Nora with J.X.W.P. (1970). The Celts. Penguin Books. pp. 28–33.
13. Philip Payton (2017). Cornwall: A History (3rd ed.). Exeter: University of Exeter Press. p. 42. ISBN 978-0859890274.
14. Cremin, Aedeen (1992). The Celts in Europe. Sydney, Australia: Sydney Series in Celtic Studies 2, Centre for Celtic Studies, University of Sydney. pp. 59–60. ISBN 0867586249.
15. Koch, John T. (2013). Celtic from the West 2 – Prologue: The Earliest Hallstatt Iron Age cannot equal Proto-Celtic. Oxford: Oxbow Books. pp. 10–11. ISBN 978-1842175293.
16. Wachsmann, Shelley (1991). "Bird-Head Devices on Mediterranean Ships". In Tzalas, H.E. (ed.). Tropis IV. Fourth International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity (Athens, 28-31 August 1991). Hellenic Institute for the Preservation of Nautical Tradition, Athens. pp. 539–572. A connection, difficult to define as it might be, appears to exist between the Sea Peoples and the Urnfield cultures of Central and Eastern Europe. A possible Sea Peoples' ship, complete with a bird-head stem device with an up-curving beak, that is depicted on a crematory urn from Hama in Syria seems to support this connection. The manner in which the bird-head devices are positioned on the Sea Peoples' ships at Medinet Habu – facing outboard at stem and stern – invites comparison with the bird boats (Vogelbarke) of Central Europe
17. Drews. R (1993) "The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe Ca. 1200 B.C." Princeton University Press ISBN 0691048118
18. K. Kristiansen, Europe Before History, p. 388.
19. Gimbutas, Marija (1965). Bronze age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe. Mouton Publishers. p. 340.
20. K. Kristiansen, Europe Before History, p. 385.
21. Krause, Rüdiger (July 2021). "Mount Ipf in southern Germany. The fortification, spatial organization and territory of a "Princely Seat" of the Early Iron Age". Vix et le phénomène princier. ISBN 978-2356133601. the strongly fortified complex upon Mount Ipf held an extraordinary position ever since the Late Bronze Age and Urnfield culture, specifically as a centre of power on the western periphery of the Nördlinger Ries. ... there was already a large settlement and fortification on the summit plateau during the Late Bronze Age Urnfield culture. Geomagnetic investigations and targeted excavations have confirmed a densely built settlement on the upper plateau.
22. Krause, Prof Dr Rüdiger. "Die bronzezeitliche Burg auf dem Ipf – Neue Forschungen zum Burgenbau und Krieg in der Bronzezeit". Retrieved 9 April 2022.
23. Springer, Tobias (2006). "Model of the Bullenheimer Berg fortifications". KulturGut: Aus der Forschung des Germanischen Nationalmuseums. 11: 11.
24. "THUNAU AM KAMP – A FORTIFIED HILLTOP SETTLEMENT OF THE URNFIELD CULTURE". www.oeaw.ac.at/. Retrieved 24 March 2022.
25. "The Bronze Age – Austrian Settlements as Centres of Trade". Fwf.ac.at. Retrieved 5 December 2021.
26. "Archaeology breakthrough as 'lost ancient capital city' found in France". Ancient Archaeology. 2021.
27. Szentmiklosi, Alexandru; Heeb, Bernhard S.; Heeb, Julia; Harding, Anthony; Krause, Rüdiger; Becker, Helmut (August 2015). "Corneşti-Iarcuri – A Bronze Age town in the Romanian Banat?". Antiquity. 85 (329): 819–838. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00068332. hdl:10036/4425. S2CID 67764127.
28. Gogâltan, Florin; Sava, Victor (2010). Sântana Cetatea Veche. A Bronze Age earthwork on the lower Mureș. ISBN 978-9730096644.
29. Uhnér, Claes; Ciugudean, Horia; Hansen, Svend; Becker, Franz; Bălan, Gabriel; Burlacu-Timofte, Raluca (2019). "The Teleac Hillfort in Southwestern Transylvania: the Role of the Settlement, War and the Destruction of the Fortification System". In Hansen, Svend; Krause, Rüdiger (eds.). Bronze Age Fortresses in Europe. Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn. pp. 177–200.
30. Molloy, Barry; Jovanović, Dragan; Bruyère, Caroline; Marić, Miroslav; Bulatović, Jelena; Mertl, Patrick; Horn, Christian; Milašinović, Lidija; Mirković-Marić, Neda (1 January 2020). "A New Bronze Age Mega-fort in Southeastern Europe: Recent Archaeological Investigations at Gradište Iđoš and their Regional Significance". Journal of Field Archaeology. 45 (4): 293. doi:10.1080/00934690.2020.1734899. hdl:10197/11796. S2CID 216408128. Retrieved 5 December 2021.
31. Szeverényi, Vajk; Czukor, Péter; Priskin, Anna; Szalontai, Csaba (2017). "Recent work on Late Bronze Age fortified settlements in south-east Hungary". In Heeb, Bernhard; Szentmiklosi, Alexandru; Krause, Rüdiger; Wemhof, Matthias (eds.). Fortifications: The Rise And Fall Of Defended Sites In Late Bronze And Early Iron Age Of South-East Europe. Die Deutsche Bibliothek – CIP-Einheitsaufnahme. pp. 135–148.
32. "Mythos Bullenheimer Berg" Knauf-Museum Iphofen". knauf-museum.de. Retrieved 23 February 2022.
33. Schussmann, Markus (2017). "Defended sites and fortifications in Southern Germany during the Bronze Age and Urnfield Period – a short introduction". In Heeb, Bernhard; Szentmiklosi, Alexandru; Krause, Rüdiger; Wemhof, Matthias (eds.). Fortifications: The Rise And Fall Of Defended Sites In Late Bronze And Early Iron Age Of South-East Europe. Die Deutsche Bibliothek – CIP-Einheitsaufnahme. pp. 59–78.
34. "Archaeological Research on the Late Bronze-Age Site of Corneşti Iarcuri in Romanian Banat". www.smb.museum. Retrieved 9 April 2022.
35. Kristiansen, Kristian; Suchowska-Ducke, Paulina (December 2015). "Connected Histories: the Dynamics of Bronze Age Interaction and Trade 1500–1100 bc". Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 81: 361–392. doi:10.1017/ppr.2015.17. S2CID 164469137.
36. Harding, Anthony (2017). "Corneşti-Iarcuri and the rise of mega-forts in Bronze Age Europe". In Heeb, Bernhard; Szentmiklosi, Alexandru; Krause, Rüdiger; Wemhof, Matthias (eds.). Fortifications: The Rise And Fall Of Defended Sites In Late Bronze And Early Iron Age Of South-East Europe. Die Deutsche Bibliothek – CIP-Einheitsaufnahme. pp. 9–14.
37. Kristiansen, Kristian; Suchowska-Ducke, Paulina (December 2015). "Connected Histories: the Dynamics of Bronze Age Interaction and Trade 1500–1100 bc". Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 81: 361–392. doi:10.1017/ppr.2015.17. S2CID 164469137.
38. Krause, Rudiger (2019). "Fortresses and Fortifications. On Fortified Hilltop Settlements of the Bronze Age". In Hansen, Svend; Krause, Rudiger (eds.). Bronze Age Fortresses in Europe. Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn. pp. 1–16. ISBN 978-3774942042.
39. "THE MARMESSE CUIRASS" Musee Archeologie Nationale". musee-archeologienationale.fr/. Retrieved 31 March 2022.
40. Gimbutas, Marija (2011-08-25). Bronze Age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe. google.dk. ISBN 9783111668147.
41. Harding, Anthony (2013). The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age. p. 404. ISBN 978-0199572861.
42. "Wagenrad" Historical Museum of the Palatinate, Speyer". nat.museum-digital.de. Retrieved 23 February 2022.
43. Honti, Szilvia. "The warrior aristocracy of the Late Bronze Age Urnfield Period in County Somogy, south-western Transdanubia. The Lengyeltóti V hoard". Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. 73 (2): 143–162. doi:10.1556/072.2022.00012. S2CID 253208580.
44. Bilic, Tomislav (2016) (2016). "The swan chariot of a solar deity: Greek narratives and prehistoric iconography". Documenta Praehistorica. 43: 445. doi:10.4312/dp.43.23.
45. "Large Brooch". www.metmuseum.org. Retrieved 9 April 2022.
46. Gold und Kult der Bronzezeit. Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg. 2003. p. 297. ISBN 3-926982-95-0.
47. "Diadem". www.metmuseum.org. Retrieved 11 April 2022.
48. "Le dépôt de Vaudrevange". musee-archeologienationale.fr. Retrieved 9 April 2022.
49. "Life and Belief During the Bronze Age" Neues Museum, Berlin". Retrieved 13 March 2022.
50. "Hoard of bronze objects". Neues Museum, Berlin. Retrieved 13 March 2022.
51. "Golden collar". Neues Museum, Berlin. Retrieved 13 March 2022. There are three such gold collars in the museum, which are thought to be from three different hoard found close together. They were found together with gold wire and necklaces of bone and amber beads and shells. they are particularly important in terms of both crafting and cultural history and probably belonged to a woman of high social status. They are decorated with circular ornamentation and thus similar to the roughly contemporary Berlin Gold Hat and the Eberswalde golden bowls.
52. "Le dépôt de Blanot". archeologie.dijon.fr. Retrieved 9 April 2022.
53. "The Nebra Sky Disc: decoding a prehistoric vision of the cosmos". the-past.com. 25 May 2022.
54. "Bowls of gold". natmus.dk. Retrieved 12 April 2022.
55. "Cauldron Ornament". www.clevelandart.org. 30 October 2018. Retrieved 12 April 2022.
56. "Ritual Cauldron". www.clevelandart.org. 31 October 2018. Retrieved 12 April 2022.
57. Hansen, Svend (2019). "The Hillfort of Teleac and Early Iron in Southern Europe". In Hansen, Svend; Krause, Rüdiger (eds.). Bronze Age Fortresses in Europe. Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn. p. 204.
58. Turnbull, Anne (1984). From bronze to iron : The occurrence of iron in the British later Bronze Age (PhD). Edinburgh University. p. 24. S2CID 164098953.
59. Honti, Szilvia. "The warrior aristocracy of the Late Bronze Age Urnfield Period in County Somogy, south-western Transdanubia. The Lengyeltóti V hoard". Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. 73 (2): 143–162. doi:10.1556/072.2022.00012. S2CID 253208580.
60. Kristiansen, Kristian; Suchowska-Ducke, Paulina (December 2015). "Connected Histories: the Dynamics of Bronze Age Interaction and Trade 1500–1100 bc". Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 81: 361–392. doi:10.1017/ppr.2015.17. S2CID 164469137.
61. "Sickle "Hoards" Halle State Museum of Prehistory". Landesmuseum-vorgeschicte.de. Retrieved 5 December 2021.
62. Sommerfeld, Christoph (1994). "Die Sichelmarken". Gerätegeld Sichel. de Gruyter. pp. 207–258. ISBN 9783110129281.
63. Jahn, Christoph (2013). "Bronzezeitliche Zeichensysteme". Symbolgut Sichel. Studien zur Funktion spätbronzezeitlicher Griffzungensicheln in Depotfunden. Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn. pp. 197–226.
64. Ilon, Gabor (2015). The Golden Treasure from Szent Vid in Velem. Archaeolingua. p. 112.
65. "Two appliqués". National Museum of Slovenia. 2022. These extraordinary appliqués were part of treasures deposited in the Bronze Age as an offering to gods on the shore of Lake Bled. The prestigious gold appliqués also indicate that the lake was an important centre of a cult. ... Similar appliqués have been discovered in Switzerland, Bavaria and Hungary, mainly in Bronze Age fortified settlements and in the graves of wealthy women. ... The ornamentation bears markings of the solar and lunar year.
66. "Mysterious gold cones 'hats of ancient wizards'". Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 5 December 2021.
67. "Golden Ceremonial Hat ("Berlin Gold Hat")". Neues Museum Berlin.
68. Menghin, Wilfried (2008). "Zahlensymbolik und digitales Rechnersystem in der Ornamentik des Berliner Goldhutes". Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica. 40: 157–169. doi:10.11588/apa.2008.0.71505.
69. Gold und Kult der Bronzezeit. Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg. 2003. pp. 220–237. ISBN 3-926982-95-0.
70. Sommerfeld, Christoph. "… nach Jahr und Tag– Bemerkungen über die Trundholm-Scheiben". Praehistorische Zeitschrift, 2010. 85.
71. Ilon, Gabor (2015). The Golden Treasure from Szent Vid in Velem. Archaeolingua. pp. 69–74.
72. "Two appliqués". National Museum of Slovenia. 2022.
73. Bouzek, Jan (2018). Studies of Homeric Greece. Charles University. p. 205. ISBN 978-80-246-3561-3. The West Bohemian gold roundels with twelve bosses are simplified calendars of the gold cones.
74. "Dýšina-Nová Huť. Gold disc with hammered decoration, Tumulus culture (1650-1250 BC)". Museum of West Bohemia in Pilsen.
75. Sommerfeld, Christoph. "… nach Jahr und Tag– Bemerkungen über die Trundholm-Scheiben". Praehistorische Zeitschrift, 2010. 85.
76. Hansen, Rahlf; Rink, Christine (2020). "Himmelsscheibe, Sonnenwagen und Kalenderhüte - ein Versuch zur bronzezeitlichen Astronomie". Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica. 40. doi:10.11588/apa.2008.0.71501.
77. Randsborg, Klavs (2006). "Calendars of the Bronze Age". Acta Archaeologica. 77 (1).
78. "Belt disc". Neues Museum Berlin.
79. "Golden Ceremonial Hat / Heegermühle disc". Neues Museum Berlin.
80. Randsborg, Klavs (2006). "Calendars of the Bronze Age". Acta Archaeologica. 77 (1).
81. May, Jens (2008). ""Die gefangene Zeit". Vergleichende Untersuchungen zu den Kalenderamphoren von Seddin, Herzberg, Rorbaek, Unia und Gevelinghausen". Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica. 40: 127–155. doi:10.11588/apa.2008.0.71503.
82. Gold und Kult der Bronzezeit. Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg. 2003. pp. 191–216. ISBN 3-926982-95-0.
83. Eogan, George (1981). "The Gold Vessels of the Bronze Age in Ireland and Beyond". Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: Archaeology, Culture, History, Literature, 1981. 81C: 345–382. JSTOR 25506075.
84. Needham, Stuart (2000). "The Development of Embossed Goldwork in Bronze Age Europe". The Antiquaries Journal. 80: 27–65. doi:10.1017/S0003581500050186. S2CID 162992985.
85. Gerloff, Sabine (2007). "Reinecke's ABC and the Chronology of the British Bronze Age". Beyond Stonehenge: Essays on the Bronze Age in honour of Colin Burgess. Oxbow Books. pp. 117–161.
86. "Avanton Cone" Musée d'Archaeologie Nationale, Paris". Retrieved 8 April 2022. Tous ces objets précieux et remarquablement exécutés évoquent une société complexe, sans doute strictement hiérarchisée, aux savoirs techniques et astronomiques avancées, organisée autour des travaux des champs." English translation: "All these precious and remarkably executed objects evoke a complex society, undoubtedly strictly hierarchical, with advanced technical and astronomical knowledge, organized around work in the fields.
87. "Bronze Urn of Gevelinghausen". megalithic.co.uk.
88. Desplanques, Elsa (October 2022). "Protohistoric metal-urn cremation burials (1400–100 BC): a pan-European phenomenon". Antiquity. 96 (389): 1162–1178. doi:10.15184/aqy.2022.109. S2CID 251874781.
89. "Princely Tomb of Seddin". Neues Museum Berlin.
90. Hansen, Svend (2018). "Seddin: ein „homerisches Begräbnis"". Arbeitsberichte zur Bodendenkmalpflege in Brandenburg 33. Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum. pp. 65–84. ISBN 978-3-910011-92-2.
91. Desplanques, Elsa (October 2022). "Protohistoric metal-urn cremation burials (1400–100 BC): a pan-European phenomenon". Antiquity. 96 (389): 1162–1178. doi:10.15184/aqy.2022.109. S2CID 251874781.
92. Haak et al. 2015, Extended Data Table 3, I0099.
93. Haak et al. 2015, Supplementary Information, p. 35.
94. Olalde et al. 2019, p. 3.
95. Olalde et al. 2019, Supplementary Tables, Table 4, Row 91.
96. Antonio et al. 2019, Table 2 Sample Information, Row 36.

External links

  Media related to Urnfield culture at Wikimedia Commons

• The First ‘Urnfields’ in the Plains of the Danube and the Po (Cavazzuti et al. 2022)
• Bronze age fortresses in Europe
• From Dupljaja to Delphi: the ceremonial use of the wagon in later prehistory
• The Cult-Wagon of Liptovský Hrádok: First evidence of using the Urnfield cult-wagons as fat-powered lamps

Bibliography

• Antonio, Margaret L.; et al. (November 8, 2019). "Ancient Rome: A genetic crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean". Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 366 (6466): 708–714. Bibcode:2019Sci...366..708A. doi:10.1126/science.aay6826. PMC 6436108. PMID 30872528.
• J. M. Coles/A. F. Harding, The Bronze Age in Europe (London 1979).
• G. Weber, Händler, Kieger, Bronzegießer (Kassel 1992).
• Ute Seidel, Bronzezeit. Württembergisches Landesmuseum Stuttgart (Stuttgart 1995).
• Konrad Jażdżewski, Urgeschichte Mitteleuropas (Wrocław 1984)
• Association Abbaye de Daoulas (eds.), Avant les Celtes. L'Europe a l'age du Bronze (Daoulas 1988).
• Haak, Wolfgang; et al. (March 2, 2015). "Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe". Nature. Nature Research. 522 (7555): 207–211. arXiv:1502.02783. Bibcode:2015Natur.522..207H. doi:10.1038/nature14317. PMC 5048219. PMID 25731166.
• Olalde, Iñigo; et al. (March 15, 2019). "The genomic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the past 8000 years". Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 363 (6432): 1230–1234. Bibcode:2019Sci...363.1230O. doi:10.1126/science.aav4040. PMC 6436108. PMID 30872528.
• Frans Theuws, Nico Roymans (eds.), Land and ancestors: cultural dynamics in the Urnfield period and the Middle Ages in the southern Netherlands, Amsterdam Archaeological Studies, Amsterdam University Press, 1999, ISBN 978-90-5356-278-9.