Sweboz EB 1.0 comments

[blitzkrieg80]

No no, please don't say the term German- Deutsch was used (Deut+'ish'), is used, and always was used by Germanic peoples (it's Indo-European). it may not have designated a state or language at the time, but neither did Germania! we are not Latin, therefore we should use correct language, which is based in the cultural language itself. Deutsch comes from Deut / Teut - 'tribe', 'people', not Teuton- the only thing 'Teutonic' are Teutons and those identifying with the Teutons, so yes 'Teutonic' would be wrong... nobody here is using that term

I will reply to your detailed request, Cmacq, when I get some time, unfortuantely that is not now.

btw, Tacitus' relation of Aesti to speaking a Celtic language shows his ignorance more than anything. The Aesti, like the Lusatian culture, or West Slavic, all might resemble nearby cultures and yet NOT be of those. I wholly agree that Old Prussian and the Balto-Slavs (specifically Balts) do not get the attention they deserve.


btw, please DO NOT give us more 'common conception' and internet sources on theoretical cultures such as these, because they may help YOU prove that people have ideas based on nonsense (such as that found in wikipedia)- but there is very little academic foundation in some of those sources. You can if you want, I suppose, but you won't convince any of us who have actually opened up books from universities rather than using wikipedia. I'm serious now- looking at that inappropriate bulk copy/paste and using it as any kind of argument really offends my senses. Everybody knows about Wikipedia, we don't need help seeing THAT easily accessible and inaccurate pop-information. Anyone got a Germanics For Dummies too? If Wikipedia gets something right, then good for them, but that unique and coincidental occurence has nothing to do with their database of user-input and generalization.

If you want to add your opinion, ect. that's cool. wikipedia as spam or proof is not.

[cmacq]

Please don't say Deutsch.

Please read my posts above on the use of the term German and Jastorf Culture; Continuity and Contrast: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in the Pre-Roman Iron Age and Ethnogenesis and Integration: A view from the Pre-Roman Iron Age Bardengau Zone. I'm using Deutsch instead of Nordic to refer to a specific ethnos. I fear that the archaeology of the Jastorf Culture actually can only demonstrate the possible presence of an early Deutsch enthos in the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and west central Lower Saxony regions of northern Germany (modern Federal Republic) around 300 BC. However, much clearer evidence may be dated around the late 2nd or early 1st centuries BC. Again please read above on page 5.

Deut-sch and Teuto-ones
þēod-OE, þeudā-protogermanic???, þiuda-Goth, þjóð'-ON, túath-OI, tout/teuto/toutâ-Gallic, tud-Welsh, tus-Cornish, tâutâ/tauto-OP, táuta-Lettic, toto-Umbric, totus-Latin, túvtú-Oscan, or teuto-Ingaevic???



This was one reason I used Nordic, yet even that seemed to cause confussion?



Right, Blitz I figured the Deutsch stuff would take some time.


I know I've moved things around a bit, but its a process.

[cmacq]

Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany
draft
Part Ia: The Urnfield Complex and the Early Kelts

The Concept and Chronology of the Urnfield Complex

The Middle Bronze Age Tumulus Culture was followed by the Urnfield complex, which was perhaps one of the most dynamic periods of temperate European prehistory. This complex was represented by a rather widespread common burial pattern which was associated with a number of local expressions. These include the Lusatian Culture, which is widespread over much of Poland, northeastern Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and northwestern Ukraine. Another expression is the Knovíz Culture of Bohemia and east central Germany.

Reinecke devised the chronological foundation for the European Bronze and Pre Roman Iron ages, as he differentiated the Hallstatt construct as yet another localized expression, replete with it own temporal scheme, that spanned both periods. In effect, Reinecke's Bronze D and Hallstatt A and B can be equated with the Late Bronze Age and the Urnfield complex. In calendrical terms, the Late Bronze Age covers the period from approximately 1300 to 750 BC.

It is important to note that the Late Bronze and Pre Roman Iron age terminus is extremely indistinct, due in large measure, to significant evidence of cultural continuity. For example, the developmental trajectory of many elements of the burial patterns, settlement forms, architectural features, and artifact designs continued uninterrupted from Hallstatt B or Late Bronze Age, into Hallstatt C of the Early Iron Age. With this said, it is also interesting that the transition from Late Bronze and Pre Roman Iron age witnessed the widespread abandonment of old settlements and foundation of many new communities within particular regions.

Burial Patterns

The Urnfield complex is considered a central European phenomenon as large Urnfield cemeteries are typically found throughout the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland. However, this pattern of cremation burial also extended into France, Spain, Italy, Greece, the Balkans, Scandinavia, Anatolia, and the British Isles. Pertaining to the later locales, the transition from inhumation to cremation in the Late Bronze Age was noted. Yet, these areas lack the vast scale of the typical Urnfield expression, as witnessed in central Europe.

Urnfield cremations are somewhat unexceptional when compared to the richness of earlier Bronze Age burials. In general, each burial pit included one or more ceramic vessels that contained the incinerated remains of the deceased and portions of the funerary pyre. Artifacts found within the urn were those items, unaffected by the conflagration, used to ornament the deceased during the cremation rite. Typically, these included bronze pins and jewelry; as well as glass and amber beads. Additionally, the burial pits often contained the other evidence of the pyre, as well as exequial vessels, some with the trace of carbonized funerary offerings, and other metal artifacts. However, a high-status burial was excavated near Poing, in Bavaria, that included elements of a four-wheel wagon, and bronze wagon models have been found in other Urnfield cemeteries across Europe.

Excavation of the Urnfield cemetery at Očkov in Slovakia, suggest a form of public funerary rite and use of monumental architecture. Here some of the burial population was cremated on a communal pyre that also consumed many bronze and gold artifacts. Evidence of these along with numerous broken vessels and the burned ash from the pyre were covered by a six meter high mound that was stabilized by a stone retaining wall.

There is evidence that the location, of some Urnfield burials, was marked by mounds or wooden mortuary structures. At Zirc-Alsómajer, in Hungary, between 80 and 100 mounds were built over cremations, some of which were found in small limestone slab cists. Returning to Kietrz, burials occasionally were situated among posthole patterns that suggest a small timber structure with a roof was built over the pit. The Urnfield burial pattern of enclosures, as indicated by a ditch, appears to have been concentrated in northwest Germany and the Netherlands. At Telgte in northwestern Germany, 35 cremations each centered within a keyhole-shaped ditch enclosure were excavated. The area within these small shallow ditches was about three to four meters in diameter with one side extended to enclose an elongated area, thus resembling a keyhole in plan. These were found within a cemetery that also included burials surrounded with round and oval ditches.

As the excavations at Kietrz, in Silesia of western Poland, attest that many Urnfield cemeteries were quite large; here about 3,000 burials were recovered. The Urnfield cemetery at Zuchering-Ost, in Bavaria, is estimated to have about 1,000 burials, while Moravičany, in Moravia, has provided another 1,260 cremations. Another large Urnfield population was recovered at Radzovce, in Slovakia. Here, another 1,400 burials were excavated (Kristiansen 2000). Smaller Urnfield cemeteries, such as the one excavated at Vollmarshausen and Dautmergen in Germany, provided 262 and 30 cremation burials, respectively. Further afield, 40 cremation burials were recovered from a Urnfield cemetery at Afton, on the Isle of Wright, England (Sherwin 1940). Several hundred Urnfield cemeteries have been investigated, and thousands more have been destroyed by cultivation and other development.

Settlement Patterns and Architectural Features

Near Munich, excavation of a large, open Late Bronze Age settlement at Unterhaching, uncovered evidence of about 80 houses, scattered over an area of 15 ha. The houses were rectangular in plan, primarily supported by four corner posts, and numerous smaller posts that delineated the walls. At Zedau, in eastern Germany, 78 small rectangular houses were excavated. Some were supported by the four post configuration while the roof support of the others consisted of two parallel rows of three posts. At Eching in Bavaria, two Urnfield settlements were investigated, each with about 16 houses.

Seventeen structures built over a long period were excavated at Riesburg-Pflaumloch, in Baden-Württemberg. Here, the long-houses, as defined by widely-spaced posthole patterns were interpreted as residential. In contrast, the smaller structures were defended as granaries. Furthermore, the construction sequence of these superimposed houses identified several structural clusters, which appears to have functioned as informal farmsteads that deminstrated a main and outlaying house dichotomy.

Another important Urnfield settlement is Lovčičky in Moravia, of the Czech Republic. Of the 48 rectangular houses recorded, many were outlined by widely spaced large postholes. Apparently, many of these structures had steeply pitched roofs, as a row of roof-support postholes were found aligned along the long axis of the structures. In the center of the settlement a large structure was found within a large open area. The structure was 21 meters long and covered about 144 m2. The formal layout of the settlement and the presence of a large central plaza with a community house suggest this site may have served some important but localized administrative function.

The Urnfield complex also witnessed a quantum increase in the number and size of fortified hilltop settlements. These fortifications were often elaborate, with their parameters delineated by bank and ditch features toped with palisades or stone faced walls reinforced with timber. Evidence of fortified hilltop settlements established in the Urnfield period within Hesse, include Glauberg, Hausberg, Milseburg, and Altenburg.

References Cited

Kristiansen, K. 2000
Europe before History (New Studies in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press.

Sherwin, G. 1940
Letter in Proceedings of the Isle of Wight Natural History and Archaeology Society 3, 236.

[cmacq]

Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany
draft
Part Ib: The Urnfield Complex and the Early Kelts

The Urnfield Artifact Assemblage

Context
The four most important contextual settings for the archaeological reconstruction of the Urnfield complex are; domestic, burial, hoards, and chance preservation. While the domestic setting has the potential to provide a context that could unify all aspects of the Urnfteld material assemblage, it often lacks examples of high-status artifacts. I contrast, the Urnfield burial context is relatively poor in terms of the overall number of artifacts that survived the burial ritual. However, the exceptions often provide a wide array of intact and fire damaged high-status ceramic and metallurgical artifacts. This context includes one or more ceramic vessels, metal vessels, tools, weapons, utilitarian items, and ceremonial accoutrements.

Although very common, the dating of Urnfield hoards suggest these were related to the widespread abandonment of many settlements at the end of the Late Bronze Age. These are often found near or in rivers, lakes, or other wet places like swamps or bogs. Some suggest they were some type of votive offering, as late Urnfield hoards often contained the same type of artifact diversity found in burial contexts.

chance preservation and bogs

Ceramics
Urnfield ceramics are typically manufactured from locally procured, fine-grained clay pastes that were generally tempered with a variety of mica, schist, and arcosic material types. Overall, vessels are hand-made using the coil and scrap or anvil methods. Vessel forms include cups, bowls, cauldrons, low-neck jars, and urns. Surface treatment is normally smoothed but not polished.

Decoration of some type is common yet large portions of individual vessels remain unembellished. Decoration techniques include fluting, patterned-incision, and obliterated-corrugation, while metallic inlay has been documented, as well. These forms of decoration often occur concurrently with modeled elements; such as coils, bumps, lugs, and handles. Vessel morphology include globular urns and animal effigy vessels; as well as, conical-, biconical-, and cylindrical-shaped jars, cups, and bowls. These often have low funneled-necks or cylindrical-necks with slightly flared rims.

Clay models and molds

Metallurgy
In the 2nd millennium BC the increasingly complex bronze metallurgical technology advanced many innovative ornamental, tool, and weapon designs. In the Late Bronze Age, within the Urnfield communities this process culminated with the emergence of several new manufacturing techniques. Among these methods included composite artifact production, typified by the assembly of numerous relatively small elements in order to create larger; as well as more intricate, aesthetic, and durable artifact types.

In part, this was achieved through a new technique that used bronze sheets, which were shaped into large and sometimes complex forms that were bound together with bronze rivets. Another new method was the use of investment casting or cire perdue, whereby a wax model is covered in a two part clay mold and fired. The wax melts and runs out, leaving a hollow cavity into which molten bronze was poured. When the clay mold was separated, a bronze cast of the wax form remained. As wax is a solid yet incredible malleable material, it was now possible to cast artifacts with detailed and finely executed artistic design.

Compared to the Middle Bronze Age, the metallurgical assemblage of the Urnfield complex was rather remarkable. Utilitarian artifact types included; razors, edged axes, winged axes, palstaves, socketed chisels, sickles, flat knives, socketed knives, T-knives, needles, fishhooks, nails, wire, and bellow nozzles. Personal or ceremonial items of adornment or special use consisted of pins, plain-bracelets, ribbed-bracelets, pendants, rings, fibulae, torcs, lurs, horns, socketed ceremonial signa, and miniature wagon models. A variety of Urnfield metal vessel forms, that appear to imitate ceramic prototypes, are also present. These include bowls, jars, and urns; while other vessel form types include cups made of sheet-bronze with riveted handles and large cauldrons with cross-attached elements.

Arms and Armor
One of the most conspicuous aspects of the Urnfield artifact assemblage is the diverse variety of weapons and armor, primarily found in ceremonial deposit and hoard contexts. Weapons types included swords, socketed spears, daggers, arrowheads, and socketed axes. In particular, the Urnfield swords demonstrate a great variety of lengths, widths, and shapes. In contrast to the Middle Bronze Age short stabbing sword, the leaf-shaped Urnfield sword appears to have been designed to deliver side or downward slashing blows.

These leaf-shaped swords commonly included a ricassco and a bronze hilt. The hilt was made separately of a different metal and attached to a blade, or the blade was cast with a tang so that the hilt could be affixed. Examples of swords with tangs are known from Rixheim, east of Mulhouse in the Alsace region of eastern France. The actual hilt of the tanged blades were made of wood, bone, and antler. Sword designs include the Auvernier-, Kressborn-Hemigkofen-, Erbenheim-, Möhringen-, Weltenburg-, Hemigkofen-, and Tachlovice-types.

Elements of defensive body armor include cuirasses, graves, shields, and helmets. These artifact types are extremely rare and virtually never found in burials. The finest example of a highly decorated bronze shield comes from Plzeň in Bohemia, which had a riveted handle. Similar examples of this type of shield have been found in Germany, western Poland, Denmark, England, and Ireland.

Examples of the Urnfield Bronze cuirass are known from Caka, Slovakia. Other complete bronze cuirasses were recovered from Saint Germain du Plain, in France. At Marmesse, near Haute Marne also in France, nine nested bronze cuirasses were found, while fragments of another was recovered in Albstadt-Pfeffingen, in Germany. Bronze circular plates, as a form of phalerae-like armor, that was attached to a leather lattice, have also been documented. Finally, finely decorated sheet-bronze greaves were found at Kloštar Ivani, in Croatia, and the Paulus cave, near Beuron in Germany.

The thin bronze sheet used to make the Urnfield body armor would not preclude a significant breech, particularly from a determined spear thrust. Thus, in defensive terms these may have been designed to blunt the force of impact, as a wood backing or protective undergarment would prevent or reduce actual penetration. Higher quality body armor sets also may have been designed as part of a ceremonially costume or a symbol of rank or office.

Wagons
One of the most intriguing Urnfield artifact types are the miniature wagon and cart models. For the most part, these have been found in southern Germany, Austria, and neighboring areas. The wheels have four spokes and turn on their axles. A cauldron or some type of vessel is often found attached to the wagon bed, while stylized aves, particularly waterfowl are often depicted, and overall appear to have been an important motif in Urnfield iconography.

Approximately 12 burials interned with bronze-fitted four-wheeled wagons have been excavated that date to the early Urnfield period. These wagons are coeval with and appear to be directly associated with the use of single-piece horse bits. Bronze (one-part) bits appear at the same time. These include the Hart an der Altz (Kr. Altötting), Mengen (Kr. Sigmaringen), Poing (Kr. Ebersberg), Königsbronn (Kr. Heidenheim) burials from Germany and the St. Sulpice (Vaud) burial, in Switzerland. Wood and bronze spoked wheels were found at Stade, in Germany, and at Mercurago, in Italy. Solid or dish-wheels made of wood have been excavated at Corcelettes, in Switzerland and at Wasserburg-Buchau, in Germany. Although very uncommon, two-part horse bits, apparently due to the influx of steppe influence, appear near the late Urnfield terminus.

Perishable Artifacts
Urnfield vessels made of wood have may have been widespread, yet have only been preserved in the waterlogged context of Auvernier, in Neuchâtel, Switzerland. The design of the metal shields appear to have been copied from wood examples which have been documented in northern Italy and the eastern Alps. Again, similarly designed leather shields have been recovered from bogs near Clonbrinn, in Ireland.

Subsistence Patterns


Social Organization and Warfare



Causality and Ethnogenesis



References Cited

[cmacq]

Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany
draft
Part II: Evidence of an Early Keltic Occupation of Central Hesse

The Glauberg Oppidum

Moving further we come to the state of Hesse, and the site of Glauberg, approximately 33 kilometers northeast of Frankfurt am Main (50º 18' 35" N 09º 00' 33" E). Although this region was inhabited by the Neolithic era, we will focus on the Late Bronze Age and Pre-Roman Iron Age occupation. Established around 1000 BC, the late Bronze Age site on the Glauberg hill represents a significant Urnfield Culture settlement.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/265819

After 750 BC this area was absorbed into Hallstatt and later LaTene cultural spheres. By the 6th and 5th centuries BC, the Glauberg settlement had became a district center of regional importance. At this time, it has been hypothesized that Glauberg was the seat of a Keltenfürst or Kelt prince, as its size and extensive fortifications indicate it functioned as an oppida (Herrmann 1990). The Pre-Roman Iron Age fortifications initially consisted of a massive ditch and bank that may have formed a hill fort. The south and north edge of the hill top was walled using dry-laid stone, murus gallicus, and mudbrick. Within this structure a small reservoir was built to supply defenders a source of water. At some point in the 5th century BC the fortifications were extended to the north and here a much larger reservoir was built (Fig 1).

At this time the Glauberg Oppidum covered an area of approximately 8.5 ha. Entry was gained through the main gate on the northeast and a smaller secondary gate to the south. The gates were designed to make access for an attacker as difficult as possible. Another weaker outer wall was built beyond the northeast edge of the oppidum (Herrmann 1985; 1998). Based on excavations conducted at the Manching Oppidum the enclosed area was filled with structures that once housed several thousand residents. Collectively, these formed a large village or town that was composed of streets, stockyards, workshops, warehouses, and numerous single-story residential houses.


Figure 1. Map of the Oppida at Glauberg.

An apparent high-status burial precinct was identified immediately south of the fortifications. This area included a processional way, four complete or fragmentary ritual statues/stele (Fig. 2), a possible shire/temple structure, numerous ditch and bank features, and two large tumulus tombs, one of which was surrounded by a circular ditch. As this tomb was excavated an empty central burial pit, a wood-lined burial chamber that contained an inhumation, and a cremation placed within a wood container were found. The inhumation burial had not been looted and herein a gold torc and tubular bronze jug were recovered. Both burials appear to have been warrior burials as funerary items included swords and other weaponry. The second tomb contained another warrior inhumation burial complete with weapons, a fibula, a belt, and gold ring. At least two additional inhumation burials were recovered from this area.

During its heyday Glauberg was not a temporally or geographically isolated community. Other important Kelt population centers or fortifications are known in the general Rhein-Main and Central Hesse region. Extentively fortified sites have been recorded at Dünsberg near Giessen and Feldberg within the Taunus mountain range. Both are visible from Glauberg. One of the largest urban centers in Keltic Europe is the Heidetränk Oppidum located near Oberursel-Oberstedten, while the center of Keltic salt industry is found at Bad Nauheim.


Figure 2. The head of the 'Prince of Glauberg' sandstone statue or stele.

The regional importance of the Glauberg Oppida appears to have waned in the 4th century, yet the settlement may have remained the seat of a lesser Keltic noble until the late 2nd century BC. The gradual decline of Glauberg appears to correspond closely to the rise of the Heidetrank Oppidum near Oberursel-Oberstedten. Although greatly reduced, the Pre-Roman Iron Age oppida and greater Glauberg community remained intact until it was abandoned sometime in the late 1st century BC. This abandonment appears to closely correspond to the period of Swabian expansion; possibly associated with the Chatti expulsion of the Ubii as recorded by Cassius Dio.

References Cited

Herrmann, F 1985
Der Glauberg am Ostrand der Wetterau. Arch. Denkmäler Hessen 51.

Herrmann, F 1998
Keltisches Heiligtum am Glauberg in Hessen. Ein Neufund frühkeltischer Großplastik. Antike Welt 29, 1998, 345—348.

Herrmann, F 1990
Ringwall Glauberg; in: Die Vorgeschichte Hessens, Herrmann, F. and A. Jockenhövel (eds.); Stuutgart: Theiss, p. 385-387.

[Geoffrey S]

Absolutely fascinating. It's giving me a far more nuanced image of the region than I had, and you have certainly convinced me to do some reading of my own now.

[cmacq]

Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany
draft
Part III: The Late LaTene Chiefdom of the Ubii

Gaius Julius Caesar mentioned the Ubii in connection to the Suebi’s expulsion and exodus of the Usipetes and Tenchteri, which occurred between 58 and 55 BC. He provides a basic description of this tribe and mentioned that he met with their ambassadors on several occasions. Furthermore, Caesar inferred that he had concluded an alliance with them and after crossing over the Rhine conducted a joint punitive campaign against the Suebi.

From Caesar's commentary;

Ad alteram partem succedunt Ubii, quorum fuit civitas ampla atque florens, ut est captus Germanorum; et paulo, quamquam sunt eiusdem generis, sunt ceteris humaniores, propterea quod Rhenum attingunt multum ad eos mercatores ventitant et ipsi propter propinquitatem quod Gallicis sunt moribus adsuefacti. Hos cum Suebi multis saepe bellis experti propter amplitudinem gravitatem civitatis finibus expellere non potuissent, tamen vectigales sibi fecerunt ac multo humiliores infirmiores redegerunt. Julius Caesar-The Gallic Wars, Book 4, Chapter 4.

Next, in the other direction are the Ubiians, as ample and prosperous a state as Germany may provide. Although only a small nation they are civilized. This is because they largely border the Rhine where merchants regularly come and through proximity have become directly familiar with the Gallic manner. Often the Swabians severely test them in battle. Despite a great weight in numbers they are unable to expel this nation from its homeland. Nonetheless they are subject to tribute and are much weakened, reduced, and humbled.

Cassius Dio tells us that they were themselves eventually expelled by the Chatti in the course of establishing a new homeland. Thus, we understand that the late LaTene Keltic chiefdom of southwestern Hesse represents the Ubii and that their capital was the Heidetränk Oppidum.

The Heidetränk Oppidum

The huge Heidetränk Oppidum spans the Heidetränkbaches valley within the Taunus Highlands located about 16 km northwest of Frankfurt am Main. Overall, the settlement extends from the fortress situated on the Altenhöfe (50°13'43.66"N 08°30'35.97"E) in the southwest to the Goldgrube on the northwest (Figure 1). Furthermore, the main Oppida is surrounded by a number of small fortified settlements, the largest of which are the Altkönig and Gickelsburg fortresses. The smaller fortress settlements include the Hunerberg, Heidengraben, Blerbeskopf, and Rosskopf sites; as well as five even smaller fortified farmsteads. Unfortunately, almost no systematic archaeological investigations have been conducted at any of these important sites (Maier 1985).


Figure 1. General Plan of the Heidetränk Oppidum Fortifications.

The site appears to been founded in the 3rd century BC as two discrete middle LaTene fortresses on the Altenhöfe and Goldgrube ridges. These forts were expanded and later linked by extensive bank and ditch murus gallicus type walls in the 2nd century BC. The main gate appears to be located in the northeastern wall of the site. Numerous secondary gates are found along the entire walled parameter of the settlement. A graphic reconstruction of the main gate is provided below (Figure 2). When completed, the length these fortifications eventually reached approximately 10 kilometers and enclosed an area of about 130 ha, which is even larger that most medieval towns. Within the enclosed area are literally hundreds of terraces and platforms that supported thousands of residential structures (Maier 1985). For satellite and ground photos of the Altenhöfe Locus see the link provided below.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/5360679#comment

The Heidetränk site seems to have been a flourishing hub for trade on the northern frontier of Keltic Germany. Intrusive artifacts also demonstrate the importance of trade in Baltic amber, Italian wine, bronze toiletry items and jewelry manufacted along the lower Rhine (Roymans 2005), as well as a large number of coins minted throughout central Europe. Although located in an area many researchers consider a cultural backwater, this community is recognized as the fourth largest Keltic settlement in all of Europe. For a map showing the extent of the greater Heidetränk community, see the link below (Maier 1985).

http://www.teutatesnet.de/portal/ima...oad/taunus.jpg

The Heidetränk Oppidum in the 2nd and early 1st centuries BC, appears to represent a major regional center. Extensive collections of locally made ceramics, weapons, coins, and jewelry indicate that this settlement was an important manufacturing focal point. Some have proposed that this settlement controlled the important iron and salt deposits in the Taunus Mountains and at Bad Nauheim respectively. However, by the middle of the 1st century the site appears to have gone into a rapid decline until it was abandoned in 10 BC, with the beginning of Roman occupation (Maier 1985).


Figure 2. Reconstruction of the Heidetränk Oppidum main gate.

The Altkönig and Gickelsburg Fortresses

Atop a steep hill situated about half a kilometer southwest of Heidetrank, are the massive stone walls of the Altkönig fortress (50°12'41.65"N 08°28'56.81"E). This site was founded as a contemporary of late Hallstatt and early LaTene (5th and 4th centuries BC) tumulus tombs found at Glauberg (Ferdinand 1985). For satellite and ground photos of the Altkönig fortress see the link provided below.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/5365253

Several kilometers northeast of Heidetrank is the Gickelsburg fortresses situated on a southeast trending ridge (50°16'18.49"N 08°35'36.93"E). Based on the limited evidence recovered from this site, it appears to have had a history very similar to that of the Altkönig Fortress. Although both settlements declined in importance in the 2nd century, they continued to be occupied into the 1st century BC. Their abandonments in the late 1st century BC seemed to have corresponded to the general pattern of Keltic withdraw from Hesse as witnessed in the archaeological record.

References Cited

Roymans, Nico 2005
Ethnic Identity And Imperial Power: The Batavians In The Early Roman Empire, Amsterdam University Press.

Maier, Ferdinand 1985
Das Heidetrank-Oppidum: Topographie Der Befestigten Keltischen Hohensiedlung Der Jungeren Eisenzeit Bei Oberursel Im Taunus, Deutsches Archaologisches Institut.

[cmacq]

Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany
draft
Part IV: Fortified Settlements of Lesser Keltic Nobles

The Hausberg Fortress

Similar to the Gickelsburg and Altkönig loci near the Heidetrank Oppidum, another small Keltic fortress settlement is situated on the Hausberg hilltop located several miles southwest of Butzbach. The settlement actually consists of two loci, of which the larger northern settlement is called Hausberg (50°24'44.46"N 08°36'57.49"E), while the southern locus is known as Brülerberg (50°24'16.82"N 08°36'18.46"E). This settlement appears to have been positioned near an important agricultural area located immediately to the east. Archaeological investigations were conduced at these sites by Ferdinand Kutsch in 1911 and 1912 (Verlag 1996).

The Hausberg fortifications consist of two concentric bank and ditch enclosures with walls built with dry-laid stone, using murus gallicus construction. Weaker fortifications appear to have been extended in two phases to the north. A main gate was indentified in the east wall while several secondary gates are found at intervals along the alignment of the central enclosure. Overall, these features enclosed an area of about 12ha (Figure 1). To the south the Brülerberg fortifications included a central bank and ditch enclosure. Again the walls displayed elements of murus gallicus construction and the fortified area was later increased to the north with the addition of two bank and ditch based walls. The main gate and a secondary gate were found in the eastern and southern walls, respectively (Verlag 1996).


Figure 1. Plan of the Hausberg Fortifications.

The hilltop was initially occupied in the 9th century, as indicated by the presence of ceramics associated with the late Urn Field Culture. However, the Hausberg Locus was not apparently fortified until the Hallstatt Period between 650 and 475 BC. This settlement reached its greatest extent in the early LaTene Period in the 5th and 4th centuries BC. The discovery of a number of Keltic coins, including one minted by the Mediomatrices, indicates that the Hausberg locus was occupied until 150 BC. In contrast, artifacts recently recovered including ceramics, a brooch, and a fragment of a bronze belt buckle indicates the Brülerberg locus was occupied in the Late LaTene Period from 150 to 80 BC. Examples of this site type dot the hilltops throughout the Wetterau area and appear to have functioned as the residence of lesser Keltic nobility (Verlag 1996).

The Dünsberg Oppidum

The Dünsberg Oppidum (50°39'4.52"N 08°35'14.86"E) is located northwest of Gießen within the Lahn River valley. The site appears to have been situated near several important trade routes and can be characterized as a large fortified hilltop. The first excavations were conducted by Ritterling and Brenner between 1906 and 1909. These excavation recovered a large collection that included ceramic and metal artifacts. Limited excavations associated with salvage or research projects also were conducted in 1951, 1965, 1974, 1977, and 1999.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/2507074

The fortification consists of three concentric bank and ditch bands. Interestingly, upslope of the each bank was a shallow trough from where material was removed to build the walls. The walls atop the banks were faced with dry-laid stone, using murus gallicus construction. The wall interiors were filled with the rock and soil removed from the troughs located behind the banks. Numerous formal gates were identified, however a series of main gates appear to be located in the eastern walls. A photo of a reconstructed main gate is provided in the link above. Scattered throughout the interior of the enclosing walls were about 800 house platforms, as well as, several cisterns and reservoirs.

About 1 km west of Dünsberg a Late Bronze Age tumulus cemetery was identified within the Krodorfer Forest. Nearby, a Late LaTene (phase D2) cemetery was found, which consisted of several low rectangular or circular earthen-banked enclosures that each housed a cluster of urn cremations. About twelve cremation burials were recovered from this cemetery, which fits well the current view of small late LaTene funerary patterns (Schulze-Forster 1998). Several additional late LaTene cemeteries were found throughout the Krodorfer Forest as this is a common occurrence within the Lahn drainage and the nearby section of the Rhine River valley.

The First settlement established on the Dünsberg hill top dates to the Late Bronze Age. The ceramic assemblage and copper axe heads indicate this settlement was associated with the Urn Field Culture (Dehn 1986). The Hallstatt period is represented only by a small number of sherds and it is uncertain if Dünsberg was actually occupied at this time. The settlement was reestablished in the early LaTene period (B2). Although this occupation was relatively small, it seems to represent the first Oppida settlement, and may have been an important center for iron mining and production (Jacobi 1977).

While it is unclear if Dünsberg was continuously occupied, the settlement experienced massive growth in the middle LaTene period (C2 190-130 BC). The old walls were remodeled and expanded as extensive new fortifications were erected. The artifacts include an extensive ceramic assemblage while metal artifacts associated with this occupation include imported bronze vessels, a diverse set of tools, and a very large number of weapons and associated military gear (Figure 2)(Schlott 1999). Mildenberger (1980) concludes that many of the weapons date to LaTene D1 (130-80 BC) and were related with Kelto-Chattian war, while the remainder that date to D2 (80-30 BC) were associated with a later Romano-Chattian conflict. Others suggest the weapons were votive in nature and indicate the Kelts and Swabian confederates intermixed (Schlott 1999).


Figure 2. Examples of Military Gear Found at Dünsberg.

Although the site was greatly reduced in importance by the middle of the 1st century BC, the presence of Swabian pottery and occurrence of a variant of the Forrer 352 coin type indicate the site was occupied very late in the 1st century BC. In fact, the recent excavation of a battlefield in front of gate 4 indicate that Dünsberg was abandoned in 10 or 9 BC (Herrmann 2000; Rittershofer 1999, 2000). The Dünsberg Battlefield will be revisited below.

The Milseburg Oppidum

Located east of Fulda, Milseburg (50°32'48.57"N 09°53'54.11"E) had a history similar to other Oppida communities found witin the Hesse region. The site was initialy investigated by Vonderau Joseph between 1900 and 1906. His excavation recovered a very large ceramic assemblage and metal artifacts that included; iron spearheads, arrow points, and other tools. More recent excavations were conducted between 2003 and 2004 by Matthias Mueller (Maier 2004).

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/337180

The site consists of a large fortified hilltop that enclosed an area of approximately 33 ha. The exterior wall was built of dry-laid stone, using murus gallicus construction. On the northern, east, and southern slope of the hilltop the wall appears to have been about four to twelve meters wide (Figure 3). Because of rock outcrops and steepness, most of the western slope remained largely unwalled (Maier 2004).


Figure 3. Photo of the Milseburg Oppidum.

The Rohn valley, Milseburg settlement was initially established in the Late Bronze Age as an Urnfield complex hilltop settlement. Later it became an important demographic and economic center on the Hallstatt and LaTene cultural frontier. The site was intensely occupied in the 2nd century, yet was abruptly abandoned at some point in the 1st century BC (Maier 2004).

References Cited

Dehn, W. 1986
Dünsberg. In J. Hoops (Ed.), Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, pp. 260-263.

Herrmann, F. 2000
Der Dünsberg bei Gießen: Führungsblatt zu dem Keltischen Oppidum bei Biebertal-Fellingshausen, Kreis Gießen (2 ed.), Volume 60 of Archäologische Denkmäler in Hessen. Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Hessen.

Jacobi, G. 1977
Die Metallfunde vom Dünsberg, Volume 2 of Materialien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte von Hessen. Selbstverlag des Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege Hessen.

Maier, Ferdinand 2004
Das nordmainische Hessen im Randbereich der keltischen Oppida-Kultur, in Berichte der Kommission für Archäologische Landesforschung in Hessen, Heft 4, 1996/1997. Herausgegeben von Kommission für Archäologische Landesforschung in Hessen.

Mildenberger, G. 1980
Die germanische Besiedlung des Dünsbergs. Fundberichte aus Hessen 1977/78 17/18, 157-163.

Rittershofer, K. 1999
Ausgrabungen Dünsberg.

Rittershofer, K. 2000
Dünsberg 2000 Website Textbeitrag.

Schlott, C. 1999
Zum Ende des spätlatènezeitlichen Oppidum auf dem Dünsberg, Gemeinde Biebertal-Fellinghausen, Kreis Gießen, Hessen, Volume 2 of Forschungen zum Dünsberg. Editions Monique Mergoil.

Schulze-Forster, J. 1998
Noch einmal zu den latènezeitliche Grabgärten am Dünsberg. Berichte der Kommission für archäologische Landesforschung in Hessen 5, 49-64.

Verlag, Afra 1996
Siedlungen der Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Butzbach und seinen Stadtteilen, in: Butzbacher Hefte 5.

[cmacq]

[ Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany
draft
Part V: Keltic Settlements in Northern Hesse

The Altenburg Oppidum

(51° 2'42.66"N 09°12'58.07"E)

Pre Roman Iron Age settlements in the Gudensberg Area

(51°10'47.89"N 09°21'9.65"E)

The Results of Recent Archaeological Investigations in Kessel

(51°18'48.43"N 09°30'17.44"E)

[cmacq]

Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany
draft
Part VI: Terminal Occupation and Archaeological Evidence of Warfare

In archaeological terms the chance preservation of a battlefield is an extremely rare occurence, and evidence of an ancient battlefield even more so. With this in mind, as early as the 1970’s, looters using metal detectors plundered many of the prehistoric sites in the modern State of Hesse. In fact, the site of the Dünsberg Oppidum itself has not escaped this fate. It was through the procurement of some of these artifacts by museums that information about their provenance suggested a large collection of Keltic and Roman weapons. Collectively, there armaments dated to the last decades of the 1st century BC and appeared to cluster near Gate 4 of the Dünsberg Oppidum. Jacobi (1977) and Schlott (1999) have linked these artifacts to the military campaigns of Drusus against the Chatti in 10 and 9 BC, as recorded by Cassius Dio.

The Dünsberg Battlefield

Excavations conducted in 1999 and 2000 at the Dünsberg Oppidum were concentrated on a partition of the rampart immediately west of Gate 4 (Figure 1). This area seemed to have experienced two phases of construction. The early phase was located approximately five meters behind the later wall alignment. This earlier wall appears to have been completely dismantled, as only a linear posthole alignment with a 2.5 meter spacing remained. Investigations suggested this wall was made of dry-laid stone reinforced with a timber superstructure, that may have been built late in the 2nd or very early in the 1st centuries BC. Immediately in front of this wall was a two meter deep flat bottom ditch (Rittershofer 1999; 2000).


Figure 1. Graphic Reconstruction of Gate 4.

At some point after the middle of the 1st BC, the first wall was dismantled and a second wall was built on sterile soil immediately in front of the defensive ditch that was associated with the earlier wall. This wall was indicated by an alignment of square postholes and three courses of the stone exterior facing wall. The vertical square-posts were anchored by sets of posts hammered at oblique angles into another exterior ditch face. In turn, these were secured by horizontal beams. Plaster casts of the oblique postholes demonstrate these were rough-hewn tree trunks with limbs cut to a length of 10 cm (Rittershofer 2000).

Along this portion of the later wall numerous offensive and defensive weapons were found. These included a few Roman slingshot lead balls, arrowheads, and spearheads that date to the Augustan era; and a much larger collection of late Keltic artifacts. The Keltic artifact assemblage consisted of over 50 iron spearheads, nails, arrowheads, fragments of swords, horse bits, bronze harnesses, an almost complete bronze Hofheim-type bridoon, and several bronze rein rings, occasionally found with ornamental design and fragments of leather still attached (Rittershofer 2000).

Additional items included bronze and iron linchpins, and a bronze body mount; these all the remains of several Keltic war chariots. This military gear was augmented by the discovery of fragments of bronze sword-scabbards with an occasional intact piece of sword, and finally a nearly complete Keltic iron sword actually embedded in the wall face. Overall, this assemblage seems to represent the chance preservation of the weapons used in an assault on the Dünsberg's fortifications, thus accounting for similar discoveries made prior, in this area (Rittershofer 2000).

References Cited

Jacobi, G. 1977
Die Metallfunde vom Dünsberg, Volume 2 of Materialien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte von Hessen. Selbstverlag des Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege Hessen.

Rittershofer, K. 1999
Ausgrabungen Dünsberg.

Rittershofer, K. 2000
Dünsberg 2000 Website Textbeitrag.

Schlott, C. 1999
Zum Ende des spätlatènezeitlichen Oppidum auf dem Dünsberg, Gemeinde Biebertal-Fellinghausen, Kreis Gießen, Hessen, Volume 2 of Forschungen zum Dünsberg. Editions Monique Mergoil.

[PershsNhpios]

Does anyone here feel that the Sweboz in EB are overpowered?

[Jaywalker-Jack]

double post

[Jaywalker-Jack]

Does anyone here feel that the Sweboz in EB are overpowered?

Good luck to you sir!

[Rhipsaspis]

Actually I think they're fine just the way they are bar a double-handed weapon or two. I've played campaigns with them and against them, I think they're pretty damn tough indeed!

[PershsNhpios]

Exactly, they are way overpowered, and their weapons weren't that well made either.

Historical evidence shows that the Sweboz in particular fought with sharpened rocks attached to roughly made pine shafts.

The Sweboz were also nomadic people who mostly slept in trees, hence the name Sweboz, ("Tree-people").

Also, the fact that these people have made such a defense of themselves is very suspicious... They may be a prime target for a lynch.

[Moros]

I think you're getting a bit to much into this mafia thing, Glenn.

Germanic peoples mainly fought using spears indeed, spears called the frame.
No surprise as 'Ger' actually means spear in germanic.Thus spearmen literally.
Now historical works suggest they used shieldwalls. Also all weapons featured ingame were found and determined to be used in this area at this time.

[Maksimus]

I am truly interested what is the pattern and ideal (goal) for EB team when they are making stats in EDU

As I am aware there are at first some basic constructions that are tweaked ''along the way'' - and then there are some serious tests or comparations based on another basic constructions.. ..

Sometime it seems to me that some units are stronger and/or weaker in EDU (and they are tweaked along the way) because AI Campaign expansion should be considered ..sorry but I got that impression ..

So what is really the pattern? How does this work in EB? Is it by saying:''OK, Nomad cavalry was the best so they have 10% stronger cavalry units unlike the others'' ...

[Moros]

No. Stats are made by following a system. However the system is always subject to change, if we see that it gives unrealistic results in battle. What we sometimes do is, adjust the money helping scripts to get factions to function better.

[cmacq]

Sounds like this thread is no longer going down the path it was headed before I hijacked it. It actually looks very productive now and I don’t want to get in the way.

So if you don’t mind, I’ll move my part of the Kelt and Swabian discussion to another threat, for reference.

However, I have a question as well.
Is it possible to introduce a much greater chance that individual Swabian provenances may revolt without the presence of a very strong FL overall and local FMs?

Thanks in advance.

[paullus]

i'm not sure how well we can do that, but i'd like to see something like that put into place.

[MM83]

Are the Sweboz overpowered?
No! They are indeed one of the weakest factions in the game. Their Bonus is their isolated starting position, which makes it able to first build up an empire and then deal with enemy factions. They have also an advantage for tactics, cause of their bonus in woods (and no diadvantage in snow). I think this is why some guys here have problems fighting them. For players how are aware of this, fighting sweboz is absolutly no problem (at least not for me).
Are the sweboz underpowered?
I don't think so, they are just missing their Wolf- and Bearwarriors (and bit of cost decrease). The only unit which is really too weak are the Bodyguards.
@Rhipsaspis: How long did you play your Sweboz campaign in 1.0? At least, when rome (in my campaign also KH) starts to spamm 2-3 full stacks of their heavy units, you will see how weak the sweboz are. In the beginning when rome only send armies of celtic levies, yes thats easy. But that changes.
@Glenn: Spears weren't the only weapon, the Swebos used. And not all of them were of poor Quality. Furthermore, even the poorest of those Spears were deadly in the hands of skilled warriors and finally it was enough to drive the romans out Germania .
Mfg MM83

[Rhipsaspis]

@Rhipsaspis: How long did you play your Sweboz campaign in 1.0? At least, when rome (in my campaign also KH) starts to spamm 2-3 full stacks of their heavy units, you will see how weak the sweboz are. In the beginning when rome only send armies of celtic levies, yes thats easy. But that changes.

To be honest I'd consider that more of an engine problem that any of the factions can "spam" their best units (which I imagine can/will be fixed in EB2).
After playing vanilla RTW for so long I got hooked on the notion that every battle has to be a decisive action, until I started playing as the Sarmatians a few EB versions back, I realised I don't have to defeat that huge stack in one battle, I attack, withdraw, attack. I found that quite successful with my campaign as the Arverni also when facing better equipped enemies, I find it quite a believable solution.

[bovi]

To be honest I'd consider that more of an engine problem that any of the factions can "spam" their best units (which I imagine can/will be fixed in EB2).

M2TW has a much better way of balancing the availability of troops. No more Triarii/Gaesatae/Cataphract spamming .

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

M2TW has a much better way of balancing the availability of troops. No more Triarii/Gaesatae/Cataphract spamming .

You mean we could face Hastati/Principes/Triarii Legions? That'd be awesome indeed. Hope my Compi can handle M2TW though.

[bovi]

No, sorry. We can't make the AI recruit historical armies. We can however limit the availability of elite forces so that the run-of-the-mill troops will have to be used.

[MM83]

@Rhipsaspis: Well, for my own Sauromatae campaign I also use a similar tactic (even don't know how often I had to reconquer some of my settelments). For the Sweboz I use another tactic (fighting in woods/snow and run over the enemy flanks). But this isn't the point I wanted to say. I wanted to point out, that the Sweboz unit's aren't overpowered. Their unit's are neither strong nor cost effectiv in comperision to other factions units (exept the levies), I also didn't wanted to claim that a player can't win with them. Just to make this sure, I'm not a supporter for a sweboz "super" unit. In generall I'm pleased with the stats of the Sweboz units (except the Bodyguards). But well, what do think about their (Sweboz Bodyguards) strength? The results of duells against Arjos, Solduros or Neitos, are clear against the Sweboz Bodyguards. I think a bit too clear.
I don't want them to be an "Überkrieger", I just think they did a bit better in history. And I would be happy about Wolf- and Bearwarriors .
Mfg MM83

[PershsNhpios]

By rocks attached to pine shafts I didn't mean spears.

See the Sweboz, (Tree-people), would often wrap three large rocks to the centre of a small shaft, and when it came time for the charge of battle, they would hold the shaft at both ends, and push the enemy with the central rocks.
Sometimes they used four, and the upper class Germans who could afford estates usually had opals instead of rocks.
These upper class were referred to as Marcomanni in Latin, (Upper-classi).

[paullus]

What?

[cmacq]

Right, this is getting good now.

[PershsNhpios]

Quote something from a book, they will berate you.

Quote from the first thoughts that enter your head, and you can write the facts unassailed!

Oh, if anyone wants me to relate any more facts on the Sweboz, don't hesitate to ask, it's an interesting book I'm reading on them.
I will cite the name and author when I find it.. it's written by someone who went to a university!