Moved Detailed Kelt, Swabian, Balt, and Others of ancient Germany Discussion

[cmacq]

I'm in the process of rearranging the deck chairs, so bare with me, please

Kelt, Swabian, Balt, and Other Ethnos of Ancient Germany: A Discussion


An Introduction To This Threat

In truth, the reasons this line of discussion was initially established and why it was moved here to become a thread, are irrelevant. What is important, is that there seems to be a great deal of somewhat misleading information designed for popular consumption floating around out-there. And, by out-there, I define as some aspects of the historical literature, academia, and the media in general. Thus, the point of the following presentation is to demonstrate the ethnic and cultural composition of what was considered Greater and Lesser Germania by the ancient Latins and Greeks during the time covered by Europa Barbarorum (early 3rd century BC to early 1st century AD). This is prepared in archaeological, historical, and linguistic terms in a format, anticipated to be relatively easy to follow, provide a general reference, be extendable when appropriate, and edited as necessary to provide greater clarity.

This thread is in no way designed to present arguments concerning any perceived inaccuracies of Europa Barbarorum, or to express the desire for change of the gaming system; in any way, shape, or form. Nor is this a forum for those whom wish to settle old scores or expound nationalistic bellicosities. If your intent is to provide detailed or technical (not general or wiki-like) information, pro or con, concerning the provided topic or individual issues therein, please feel free to post (a note that short, single- or limited-issue posts are easier to digest), to include reference. If on the other hand, your aim is to misslead, cause friction, and/or inspire ill-will, by all means you're cordially invited to seek elsewhere.

Contents

First Line Discussion
The Urnfield Complex and the Proto or Early Kelts

1. The Concept and Chronology of the Urnfield Complex -----------------------[Finished]
2. Burial Patterns -----------------------------------------------------------[Finished]
3. Architectural and Settlement Structure ------------------------------------[Finished]
4. The Urnfield Artifact Assemblage:
   
   Context ------------------------------------------------[Finished]
   Ceramics -----------------------------------------------[Finished]
   Domestic Metallurgy -------------------------------------[Finished]
   Conical Gold Hats ---------------------------------------[Finished]
   Arms and Armor -----------------------------------------[Finished]
   Wagons, Chariots, and Other Vehicles -----------------[Not Finished]
   Perishable Artifacts -----------------------------------[Not Finished]
5. Settlement and Subsistence Patterns -----------------------------------[Not Finished]
6. Social Organization and Warfare ----------------------------------------[Not Finished]
7. Discussion:
   
   Culture, Linguistics, and Ethnos -------------------------[Not Finished]
   Causality and Ethnogenesis -----------------------------[Not Finished]

Second Line Discussion
Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany

1. Evidence of an Early Keltic or Hallstatt Occupation of Central Hesse ---------[Finished]
2. The Late LaTene Chiefdom of the Ubii -------------------------------------[Finished]
3. Fortified Settlements of Lesser Keltic Nobles -------------------------------[Finished]
4. Keltic Frontier Settlements in Northern Hesse ----------------------------[Not Finished]
5. Archaeological Evidence of Collapse, Abandonment, and Warfare ----------[Not Finished]
6. Textual Evidence of the Keltic Collapse and Abandonment of Hesse --------[Not Finished]

[cmacq]

First Line Discussion

The Urnfield Complex and the Proto or Early Kelts

draft

Introduction

The first group of essays deals with the relationship of the Urnfield complex and the genesis of the ethnicities that would come to dominate central Europe in the first millennium BC. Among these are the Kelts, Italics, Balts, Nordics, and others. Although our goal is a discussion of the culture and ethnicity of those that occupied Greater Germany in the period covered by Europa Barbarorum, these essays offer a much needed digression. Overall, they are designed to define and examine the process of cultural emergence within the volatile crucible of the Urnfield complex.

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 found 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. In Germany, the Urnfield complex was centered on Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria, the Saarland, the Rhineland-Palatinate, Hesse, parts of North Rhine-Westphalia, and the southern portion of the Thuringia (Probst 1996).

Reinecke (1965) 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. The material assemblage of the Urnfield complex is subdivided into three discrete stages or phases. The first phase is associated with the late tumulus aspect of the Late Bronze Age, Bronze Age D, early Urnfield, and Hallstatt A1. The second phase includes the middle Urnfield and Hallstatt A2 to B1. The third phase comprises the late Urnfield and Hallstatt B2 and B3 (Probst 1996). In calendrical terms, the Urnfield complex and Late Bronze Age cover the period from approximately 1300 to 800/750 BC.

http://odur.let.rug.nl/arge/Work/chrono.htm

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 Pre-Roman Iron Age. With this said, it is also interesting that the transition from Late Bronze to 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 Late Bronze Age cremation 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 north central Europe.

Although cremation was intimately associated with the Urnfield complex, this method of burial had been documented in Early Bronze Age cemeteries associated with the Nagyrev and Kisapostag complexes, in Hungary. Also in the Early Bronze Age context, cremation was the dominant burial type in northern Britain. Further south in Wessex, Yorkshire, and other areas, cremation was somewhat common burial method (Harding 2000). Additionally, cremation appeared as the primary burial method at Vatya in the middle Danube basin and throughout Britain in the Middle Bronze Age.

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-lined pit. Returning to Kietrz, burials occasionally were centered within posthole patterns that suggest a small roofed timber-structure 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 (Harding 2000). 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 1,259 cremations (Harding 2000). 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 (Harding 2000). Further afield, 40 cremation burials were recovered from a Urnfield cemetery at Afton, on the Isle of Wright, England (Sherwin 1940).

While Urnfield cremations rapidly became the dominate pattern in the Late Bronze Age, depending on the region, inhumation remained an important element of the overall burial population. For example, at Przeczyce in Silesia, 727 inhumations and 132 cremations were excavated (Harding 2000). At Grundfeld in Franconia, about half of the burial population were inhumations and half cremations (Feger and Nadler 1985; Ullrich 2005).

Over 10,000 Urnfield or Late Bronze Age cremation and inhumation burials have been excavation to date. However, this may represent only an extremely small fraction of the overall potential sample population. Additionally, several hundred Urnfield cemeteries have been investigated. Yet again, it is probable that many thousands more have been destroyed by cultivation and other recent development.

References Cited

Feger, R. and M. Nadler 1985
Beobachtungen zur urnenfelderzeitlichen Frauentracht. Vorbericht zur Ausgrabung 1983-84 in Grundfeld, Ldkr. Lichtenfels Oberfranken.

Harding, A.F. 2000
European Societies in the Bronze Age, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

Probst, E. 1999
Deutschland in der Bronzezeit, Bertelsmann, München.

Reinecke, P. 1965
Mainzer Aufsätze zur Chronologie der Bronze- und Eisenzeit, Habelt.

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

Ullrich, M. 2005
Das urnenfelderzeitliche Gräberfeld von Grundfeld/Reundorf, Lkr. Lichtenfels, Oberfranken, Materialhefte zur Bayrischen Vorgeschichte, Reihe B, Band 86.

[cmacq]

First Line Discussion

The Urnfield Complex and the Proto or Early Kelts

draft

Architectural and Settlement Structure

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 (Probst 1996).

In the Netherlands numerous individual examples of residential architecture, as well as segments of farmsteads and villages have been excavated (Fokkens 1998) that span the entire Bronze and Iron ages. These clearly demonstrate the progression from the long Middle Bronze Age byre type house to the much shorter Late Bronze Age two- and three-aisled structures with duel opposing entries centered within the long walls (Kooi 1979). We shall revisit this issue in greater detail when outlining the subsistence patterns and social organization of the Urnfield complex, and when discussing the Northwest Block Culture.

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 (Probst 1996).

At Dietfurt in Bavaria, Germany, during construction of the Rhine-Main-Danube canal a Urnfield period settlement located within an alluvial setting, was investigated. Here 23 houses were clustered around a large central plaza, where two roads appeared to intersect. The majority of individual houses were rectangular and somewhat small, only five to seven meters long by three to four meters in width. The roof support plan of the larger rectangular structures consisted of two or three parallel rows of three posts (Probst 1996).

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 (Probst 1996).

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. Unfortunately, relatively little is known about the interior composition of these fortified settlements, as archaeologists have focused the defensive systems (Probst 1996).

Relatively little is known about the interior composition of these fortified settlements, as archaeologists have focused on the defensive systems. Excavations of a fortified hilltop settlement at Burgberg, near Burkheim in southwestern Germany, identified hundreds of storage pits. Based on diagnostic artifact types many of the fortified settlements in central Europe appear to have been abandoned after a very short period of occupation (Probst 1996).

References Cited

Fokkens, H. 1998
Drowned Landscape: The Occupation of the Western Part of the Frisian-Drentian Plateau, 4400 BC-AD 500.

Kooi, P. 1978
Pre-Roman urnfields in the north of the Netherlands, Groningen.

Probst, E. 1999
Deutschland in der Bronzezeit, Bertelsmann, München.

[Frostwulf]

This thread is continued from this one:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=97437
The posts listed below are the relevant posts from the former thread:

The Steinsburg Oppidum: Exploring the Frontier of Keltic Thüringia, Germany

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=159

Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=183

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

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=184

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

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=185

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

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=187

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

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=188

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

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=189

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

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=190

[Geoffrey S]

Cheers guys. I'm looking forward to giving the whole thing another read-through without other posts in between.

[pezhetairoi]

Sorry guys, but what is the original background of this paper/article? Some discussion? It makes very interesting reading.

[cmacq]

First Line Discussion

The Urnfield Complex and the Proto or Early Kelts

draft

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, to include loci related to residential, procurement, processing, and production activities, has the potential to provide a context that could unify all aspects of the Urnfteld material assemblage. Yet, this context often lacks examples of high-status artifacts.

In 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 may include one or more ceramic vessels, metal vessels, tools, weapons, utilitarian items, and ceremonial accoutrements. Another important group of artifacts are those items of perishable funerary equipment or votive offerings carbonized during the cremation ceremony.

Although very common and occurring throughout the Late Bronze Age, the dating of Urnfield hoards suggest many were related to the abandonment of some regions at the terminus of the Urnfield complex. Overall, hoards are often found near or in rivers, lakes, and other wet-land settings such as 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.

As opposed to hoards, the final contextual setting includes assemblages associated with chance preservation. Typically, these are associated with the unintended conservation of items and materials particularly preserved in bogs or other types of wet-lands. While this context includes the more durable types listed above, the preservation of perishable artifacts is of particular interest. These artifact types include; the remains of natural and domesticated flora and fauna, items of clothing, and footwear; fragmentary or complete examples of wood tools, utensils, and vessels; as well as parts and fittings for furniture, weapons, and vehicles. Other perishable artifacts include; rope, twine, cordage, ligneous items of adornment, and the actual physical remains of humans.

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 bowl-shaped dishes, patchwork dishes, scoop, cups, bowls, cauldrons, low-neck jars, and urns. Surface treatment is normally smoothed but not polished (Probst 1996).

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 (Verlinde 1987).

A ceramic artifact type that also is an important source of information about the metallurgical technology and industry of the Urnfield complex are clay molds. Although a bit outside the scope of the current study the recent investigations of a Late Bronze Age production site at Santa Barbara, Bauladu, in western Sardinia, provides greater insight into the contemporary Urnfield bronze industry. Excavations at the Nuragic Culture site recovered metal slag, waste from the smelting process, terra-cotta crucibles marked by the residue of molten metal, a lead ingot, lead scrap, and over 200 copper or bronze artifacts. Hundreds of fire-blackened and fragmented clay molds and cores were also identified; a condition resulting from the introduction of molten metal followed by the extraction of the finished product (Gallin and Tykot 1993).

These molds consisted of two layers of different types of clays. The interior clay layer was made from a fine-grain and polished material. In contrast the exterior clay layer was course and porous which allowed the escape of gases and maintainance of the mold as the metal solidified. Chemical analyses of the slag indicate that craftsmen often added lead to the bronze to improve its casting characteristics (Gallin and Tykot 1993).

Domestic Metallurgy

In the 2nd millennium BC the progressively more elaborate bronze metallurgical technology advanced increasingly complex ornamental, tool, and weapon designs. By the Late Bronze Age, within the Urnfield communities, this process culminated with the evolution of several advanced manufacturing techniques. Among these methods included composite production, typified by the assembly of numerous relatively small elements intended to create larger; as well as more intricate, aesthetic, and durable artifact types (Collis 1997).

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 possible to cast artifacts with detailed and finely executed artistic design (Probst 1996).

Compared to the Middle Bronze Age, the metallurgical assemblage of the Urnfield complex was rather remarkable. Utilitarian artifact types included; razors, rattles, flesh forks, edged axes, winged axes, palstaves, socketed chisels, sickles, flat knives, socketed knives, T-knives, needles, fishhooks, nails, wire, anvils, and bellow nozzles. Personal or ceremonial items of adornment or special use consisted of pins, plain-bracelets, ribbed-bracelets, pendants, rings, fibulae, torcs, gorgets, lurs, horns, socketed ceremonial signa, and miniature wagon models (Figure 1). A variety of Urnfield metal vessel forms, that appear to imitate ceramic and wooden prototypes, are also present. These include bowls, jars, and urns; while other vessel form types include cups made of sheet-bronze with riveted handles, buckets, and large cauldrons with cross-attached elements (Collis 1997; Probst 1996).

Figure 1. Late Bronze Age Lur.

References Cited

Collis, J. 1997
The European Iron Age, Routledge, London.

Gallin, L. and R. Tykot 1993
Metallurgy at Nuraghe Santa Barbara (Bauladu), Sardinia, Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 20, No. 3.

Grigson, G. 1975
The Englishman's flora, Hart-Davis MacGibbon; [New ed.] edition.

Hald, M. 1980.
Ancient Danish Textiles from Bogs and Burials. National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen.

Hornsey, S. 2003
A History of Beer and Brewing, Royal Society of Chemistry.

Probst, E. 1999
Deutschland in der Bronzezeit, Bertelsmann, München.

Verlinde, C. 1987
Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek Die (Gräber und Grabfunde der späten Bronzezeit und frühe Eisenzeit in Overijssel).

[cmacq]

First Line Discussion

The Urnfield Complex and the Proto or Early Kelts

draft

The Urnfield Artifact Assemblage

Conical Gold Hats

Another Late Bronze Age metal artifact type is the Golden Hat group. These include the Ezelsdorf-Buch Cone, Berliner Goldhut, Avanton Cone, and Schifferstadt Hat. Three of these were found in southern Germany and one in west central France. Interestingly, they bare a striking resemblance to the hear-gear depicted on the 12th century petroglyph panel from Kungagraven, Sweden.

Found in Germany, the Ezelsdorf-Buch Cone is a thin sheet gold sleeve that served as a decorated cover for a tall conical head-dress made of some type of perishable material. Including the now missing brim and reinforcing bronze rings, this artifact weighed about 330 grams, appeared conical-shaped with a somewhat convex lower segment, was hammered from a single piece of gold, and decorated with bands and rows of symbols in the repoussé method. It was 72 cm in hight; was composed of 88.3% gold, 11% silver, 0.59% copper, and 0.086% tin; and was hammered to a thickness of around 0.78 mm (Figure 1). The Ezelsdorf-Buch Cone has been dated from the 11th to 9th century BC.

The Berlin Gold Hat is the finest example of the four known specimens. Researchers suggest this artifact served as the insignia of a priestly class associated with a widespread central Europe sun cult. Based on stylistically similarities of the design and decorations this artifact appears to date from the 11th to 9th centuries BC, and may display some type of astronomical and calendrical computation. The morphology of the Berlin Gold Hat is very similar to that of the Ezelsdorf-Buch Cone. It weighs about 490 grams, 74.5 cm high, with 87.7% gold, 09.8% silver, 0.4% copper, and 0.1% tin. It was hammered to a thickness of around 0.6 mm (Figure 2).

The Avanton Cone was discovered in 1844 in a field near the village of Avanton, about 12 km north of Poitiers, France. The object was damaged; comparison with other such artifacts indicated that the a convex-shaped lower section and the brim are missing. This artifact is about 55 cm long and weighs 285 grams. Originally it was interpreted to be a Middle Bronze Age fertility symbol, however it now appears to date to the Late Bronze Age and its function was a bit more complex (Figure 3).

Figure 1. The Ezelsdorf-Buch Cone. Figure 2. The Berlin Golden Hat. Figure 3. The Avanton Cone

The Schifferstadt Hat was found in 1835, during agricultural activities in a field named Reuschlache, located one km north of Schifferstadt. The artifact was handed over to officials of the Kingdom of Bavaria in Speyerthe following day. The hat had been buried upright, in a rectangular-shaped pit that was 60 cm deep, with its top just below ground level. It had been placed, on a slab made of burned clay which in turn sat atop a layer of fine sand. The pit fill included gray colored ashy loam matrix and three bronze axes that were found leaning against the cone-shaped artifact.

It weighs about 350 grams and although its morphology is similar to the other three Late Bronze Age gold hats mentioned above, at 29.6 cm in height it is comparatively short and squat, with a blunt undecorated top. Overall, it is cone-shape with a convex lower segment that is 18 cm in diameter with a brim that extents an additional 4.5 cm. It is made of a single piece of hammered metal composed of 86.37% gold, 13% silver, 0.56% copper, and 0.07% tin. Its average thickness ranges from 0.2 to 0.25 cm, yet the brim was far thinner at about 0.08 to 0.13 mm. This may suggest the brim had been reworked at some point.

Figure 4. The Schifferstadt Hat.

Unlike the other conical-shaped gold hats, the Schifferstadt Hat appears to represent a slightly earlier version. This may explain some the more obvious morphological differences. Based on the associated axe heads and the style of the hat’s decoration its manufactured has been dated to near the end of the Middle Bronze or beginning of the Late Bronze ages, between 1400 and 1300 BC.

Collectively, the decorations on these hats are subdivided by horizontal bands each with a row of symbols. The symbols are primarily circular bosses enclosed by concentric circles, eye motifs, eight-spoked wheels, and miniature cones. The tip of the Ezesldorf-Buch cone is adorned with a ten-point star. Apparently, twenty distict decorative punches, a comb, and six stamp-wheels or cylindrical stamps where used to fabricate the designs on the Ezesldorf-Buch cone. Fourteen different stamps and three decorated wheels or cylindrical-stamps were used to decorate the Berliner Goldhut. The function of these designs will be addressed in greater detail with the discussion of Social Organization and Warfare.

References Cited

Schauer, P. 1986
Die Goldblechkegel der Bronzezeit: Ein Beitrag zur Kulturverbindung zwischen Orient und Mitteleuropa. Habelt, Bonn.

Springer, T. 2003
Gold und Kult der Bronzezeit. Katalog zur Sonderausstellung des Germanischen Nationalmuseums vom 22.

[cmacq]

First Line Discussion

The Urnfield Complex and the Proto or Early Kelts

draft

The Urnfield Artifact Assemblage

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 (Osgood 1998).

These leaf-shaped swords commonly included a ricassco and a bronze hilt. The hilt was made separately, often of a different metal, and attached to a blade, or the blade was cast with a tang upon which a hilt was 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.

The Yetholm-type shield date from 1200 to 800 BC during the bronze age. Nineteen shields have been recovered in the British Isles and one in Denmark. They vary significantly in size, but are otherwise very similar in the details of their design. The Shield type takes its named from peat bog near Yetholm in southern Scotland that yielded three examples (Figure ??). This shield type is made of a round sheet of copper with a bowl-shaped central boss and is typically about 0.6 mm thick. The outer rim has been folded and hammered to form a durable and highly resistant edge. The handle is made from a thick piece of sheet bronze folded over and riveted to the interior edge of the boss. A pair of attached tabs suggests the presence of a carrying strap (Osgood 1998).

Figure ??. Yelthom-type shield from South Cadbury, Great Britain.

The composition of the metal used to make the Yetholm-type shield indicates a high-tin bronze alloy. The shield face is normally decorated with concentric rings of raised ridges. Between the ridges are small hemispherical bosses about 4 mm across. The decoration was produced formed by reverse hammering known as the repoussé method. The overall design and the presence of the paired tabs clearly demonstrate that the shield was not reinforced with wood or another type of material. Overall, this shield type appears too frail to fend off a bronze sword or spear, rather in a combat role it may have been used as protection against missile attacks (Osgood 1998).

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 and office.

Wagons, Chariots, and Other Vehicles

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 bronze horse bits. These include the Hart and the 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 terminus of the Urnfield complex.

The sun chariot found near Trundholm or Solvognen on Sjælland Denmark, is a miniature bronze statue of a mare pulling a large disk placed upon a rod frame supported by six four-spoked wheels. The temporal context of this artifact is extremely poor, yet based on stylistic grounds it has been tentatively dated between the 15th and 13th centuries BC. As with the coffin burials, this places the Trundholm sun chariot around the terminus of the Middle and Late Bronze ages.

Although outside the main area of interest the Kungagraven, near Kivik in southeast Sweden, provides more insight into the significance of the Trundholm artifact. The Kungagraven (King’s Grave) tomb, which was also tentatively dated to the 12th century BC, included several rock slabs with petroglyph panels. One panel depicts a man driving a two horse chariot with two four-spoked wheels (Figure 1). The Trundholm and Kungagraven examples suggests that northern Europe chariot design, in the Late Bronze Age, was similar in many respects to contemporary types used in the lands that surrounded the eastern Mediterranean basin.

Figure 1. Photo of the chariot petroglyph panel from Kungagraven.

References Cited

Collis, J. 1997
The European Iron Age, Routledge, London.

Osgood, R. 1998
Warfare in the Late Bronze Age of North Europe, British Archaeological Reports (BAR) International.

Probst, E. 1999
Deutschland in der Bronzezeit, Bertelsmann, München.

Verlinde, C. 1987
Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek Die (Gräber und Grabfunde der späten Bronzezeit und frühe Eisenzeit in Overijssel).

[cmacq]

First Line Discussion

The Urnfield Complex and the Proto or Early Kelts

draft

The Urnfield Artifact Assemblage

Perishable Artifacts

A significant source of information about perishable Late Bronze Age artifact types are the funerary attire and furnishings that survived with the Egtved burial, excavated in East Jutland, Denmark. Although, interned at the Middle and Late Bronze age terminus, this outstanding wealth of information is currently on display at the Danish National Museum in Copenhagen. The coffin, that encapsulated this inhumation, was fashioned from an Oak tree trunk, which was dendro-chronologically dated to around 1370 BC. The skeletal evidence suggest this was the remains of a young women, about 16 to 18 years old, and approximately 1.60 meters tall (Hald 1980).

She was dressed in a short-sleeve jersey top, a short string-skirt, a belt with a large metal disc decorated with spirals and a spike, a twisted wool hair band, and foot wrappings that possibly served as socks with fragments that may have been the remains of a pair of leather shoes. Additionally, the body was swathed in a cow hide, that in turn was wrapped in a cloak-blanket, and accompanied by a variety of jewelry and other accessories. The jewelry included an simple-looped earring made of wire and two bracelets (Hald 1980).

Futhermore, the burial funishings included a hair-comb made of horn, a bronze awl with a wooden handle, bronze pins, a hair net, and a textile bundle with the burned bones from a 5-6 year-old child. These had been placed within a cyclical-shaped box made of birch-bark (Hald 1980). The burial also included a small birch-bark pail, placed near her feet that contained the dark brown residue of beer dregs (Homsey 2003). Also of interest was a sprig of flowering yarrow (Achillea millefolium L.) placed on the body, which was also hung in early medieval Saxon houses to avert illness and evil (Grigson 1975).

The Skrydstrup burial

The Borum Eshøj burial



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. Similarly designed leather shields have been recovered from bogs near Clonbrinn, in Ireland.

References Cited

Grigson, G. 1975
The Englishman's flora, Hart-Davis MacGibbon; [New ed.] edition.

Hald, M. 1980.
Ancient Danish Textiles from Bogs and Burials. National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen.

Hornsey, S. 2003
A History of Beer and Brewing, Royal Society of Chemistry.

[cmacq]

First Line Discussion

The Urnfield Complex and the Proto or Early Kelts

draft

The Urnfield Artifact Assemblage

Settlement and Subsistence Patterns

more to come...

Social Organization and Warfare


Discussion

Culture, Linguistics, and Ethnos
Causality and Ethnogenesis

References Cited

[cmacq]

Second Line Discussion

Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany

draft

Evidence of an Early Keltic or Hallstatt Occupation of Central Hesse

Introduction

The second group of essays deal with the formation and florescence of the Keltic Culture in west central Europe. Because of its geophysical location east of the Rhine River and somewhat duel, core and periphery relationship to the LaTene aspect of Keltic Culture (as this is the general period covered by Europa Barbarorum), we’ll focus on the modern German state of Hesse. First, the Keltic Hallstatt occupation of central Hesse is outlined, followed by an overview of the Late LaTene Chiefdom of the tribal Ubii. Next the nature of the fortified settlements of lesser Keltic Nobles and the frontier settlements in northern Hesse are explored. Finally, the Latin and Greek textual data and archaeological evidence of warfare, collapse, and abandonment of Keltic Hesse are discussed.

The Glauberg Oppidum

Following a review of the Urnfield complex and a discussion of the Keltic ethnogenesis we readjust our attention to the modern German state of Hesse, and the site of Glauberg, located 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 Urnfield occupation on the Glauberg hilltop represented a significant, yet ill-defined 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 settlement initially consisted of a massive ditch and bank fortifications that 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 Oppidum 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.

[Barry Soteiro]

That's a very interesting discussion

[cmacq]

Second Line Discussion

Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany

draft

The Late LaTene Chiefdom of the Ubii

Introduction

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 Julius Caesar-The Gallic Wars, Book 4, Chapter 4:
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.

Rendering:
In the other direction are the Ubii, 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.

Caesar continued to outline the allance between Rome and the Ubii, and mentioned their conflicts with the Swabians and Keltic Sugambri. Cassius Dio tells us that in the time of Augustus, they were eventually expelled, in the course of the Chatti establishing a new homeland, in the modern German state of Hesse. Thus, we understand that the late LaTene Keltic chiefdom identified in 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 near 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]

First Line Discussion

Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany

-draft-

Part 4: 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]

First Line Discussion

Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany

-draft-

Part 5: Keltic Frontier 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]

First Line Discussion

Keltic Foundation, Consolidation, Collapse, and Abandonment of Hesse, Germany

-draft-

Part 6: Archaeological Evidence of Collapse, Abandonment, and Warfare

Collapse and Abandonment



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.

[cmacq]

Second Line Discussion

Exploring the Frontier of Keltic Thüringia and Bohemia.

draft

Part 4: The Steinsburg Oppidum:

The Kleiner Gleichberg or Steinsburg Oppidum (literally in English, Stone Fort), is situated on a steep hill top in the southwestern corner of Thuringia, near the headwaters of the Wasser drainage just east of Römhild (50º 24' 39" N 10º 35' 33" E). The site was partially excavated between 1900 and 1940 by A. Götze (1940).

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1276572

The Steinsburg settlement was initially established in the Neolithic period and continued into the Bronze Age. The large Late Bronze Age settlement was associated with tumulus burials and overall this occupation appears typical of the Urn Field Culture between the 10th and 8th centuries BC. The site was abandoned and reoccupied in the 6th century BC. This Pre Roman Iron Age community was incorporated into the Hallstatt and LaTene cultural spheres as it experienced intense population growth until the 4th century BC. At this point it appears to have become a district capital of a Keltic chiefdom (Peschel 1998).

The site was briefly abandoned then reoccupied to quickly reach its greatest extent by 200 BC. The settlement went into decline in the early 1st century BC until it was finally abandoned for the last time shortly after 50 BC. The Pre Roman Iron Age fortifications consist of a large upper enclosure surrounded by dry-laid stone walls that were built in the 2nd century BC. These walls appear to be of core-veneer or murus gallicus construction with dressed facing walls filled with rubble. The weaker outer walls enclose an area of about 78 ha and may have been built very late in the 2nd century BC. The main entry was located on the west side of the site as indicated by a formal gate (Peschel 1998).



A large number of artifacts were recovered in the course of Gotze’s (1940) excavations. These included an array of ceramic, ground stone, and metallurgical types. Analysis of the large ceramic assemblage from Steinsburg and other contemporary sites investigated in the general Mittelgebirg area, suggest a very strong connection with major LaTene production centers located further south. Nearly all of this particular assemblage was locally manufactured and of this about 25 percent were wheel-made types. Due to the homogeneous nature of the ceramic assemblage differentiation between distinct local manufacture loci are difficult to establish. However, a particular type of pottery, made from a graphite clay and tempered with a crystalline material, appears to have been made in the area inhabited by the historic Vindelici and Boii tribes, to the southeast (Peschel 1998).

Additionally, Gotze excavated a large number of metal artifacts (Götze 1940). These include Keltic coins, agricultural tools, keys, and items of personal adornment. Over 150 wire or sheet bronze fibula could be dated to the early LaTene Period (5th century BC). This was based on a cross-dated typological seriation that demonstrates a developmental relationship to the late Hallstatt Twin-Disc fibula types. The large numbers of this artifact type and specific design traits indicate that these were of local manufacture. Also of importance were the large numbers of solid and filiform bird-headed fibulae found at Steinsburg. In fact more have been collected from this site than any other, in the region, of comparable size (Peschel 1998).

The zonal pattern of artifact distribution across the site suggest that specific industries and crafts production areas were concentrated within particular neighborhood precincts. For example, ground stone and metal production appears to have been focused in the lower portion of the settlement between the outer wall and the fortified hill top (Peschel 1998). Again, based on excavations conducted at other Oppida the enclosed area once housed avillage or town with several thousand residents. This settlement would have been composed of streets, workshops, warehouses, and numerous single-story residential houses.

The Steinsburg Oppidum was situated along the north central frontier of the Keltic Oppida network. Taken in its entirety this site and its environs provided a direct east-west connection between Keltic settlements in Hesse and Bohemia. Based on the material assemblage this community had been fully integrated into first Hallstatt, and later the LaTene cultural spheres. However, it is also clear that although Steinsburg displayed a certain level of specialization, this community did not share the degree of sophistication witnessed at similar type sites located further south and west.

Evidence of a large Late Bronze to late Pre Roman Iron Age settlement system, consisting of hamlets and farmsteads, has been found surrounding the Steinsburg hill. The Oppida itself is situated immediately adjacent to an important north-south road that was used until the Late Medieval Period. Peschel (1998) notes that the location of the Steinsburg Oppidum is consistent with the site of Ptolemy's Βικούργιον (Bikourgion, Bicurgion, or Bicurgium). Peschel (1998) also speculates that the 1st century BC abandonment was probably due to tribal movements from the Elbe region. I may add that Peschel's tribal movements appear to closely correspond to the temporal and geographic setting I propose for a Swabian southern expansion scenario.

For those of more discerning consideration, it may prove insightful to note that the Steinsburg Oppidum together with those outlined in Hesse and Bohemia, in effect formed a frontier zone. This frontier delineated those communities integrated within the Hallstatt and LaTene spheres from those that were not. The importance of this line of demarcation is a theme we shall revisit when discussing its significance for later economic, political, and cultural developments.

References Cited

Gotze, A 1940
Führer auf die Steinsburg bei Römhild.

Peschel, K 1998
The Steinsburg Hillfort, in The Celts (edit); Moscati, S., O. Frey, V. Kruta, B. Raftery, and M. Szabó; Rizzoli International Publications.

Ptolemy, C
The Geography of Book II, Chapter 10: Greater Germany (Fourth Map of Europe).

[cmacq]

fourth Line Discussion

Continuity, Contrast, and the Swabian Ethnogenesis

-draft-

Part 1: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in the Pre-Roman Iron Age

Someone once said something about the devil always being in the details. Returning to my thesis of a late massed Deutsch or Nordic continental arrival, I posit that there may have been some type of basal ethnos that occupied what is now northeast Germany (possibly in the state of Mecklenburg). Thus, a closer look at the archaeology of Mecklenburg may prove informative.

For reference, in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern the Pre-Roman Iron Age began sometime around 600 BC and lasted until about the BC/AD terminus. Its also important to note that chronometrics for this area and era are not particularly precise and the assigned temporal setting may fluctuate at least 50 years either way. By the way, I selected this area because Tacitus’ use of Mare Suebicum, indicated that in the 1st century AD, tradition held this was the homeland of the Swabians prior to their fateful encounter with Gaius Julius Caesar in southwest Germany in the 1st century BC.

Although often placed within the Jastorf Culture, the material assemblage is best described as only peripheral to this construct as defined by Künnemann (1995). This is particular true of west Mecklenburg. Over the course of this Period the local cultural expression became increasing more influenced by the Hallstatt and later LaTene cultures of central Europe as contacts with southern Scandinavia continued (Reinecke 1991). In this Period the dominant burial pattern consisted of cremations within flat grave cemeteries, although small mounds and stone circles burials have been found in Boitin. Several of the former burial type cemeteries appear to have been used continuously from the Late Bronze Age until the Roman Iron Age. This may suggest a certain degree of long term continuity for some of the Pre-Roman Iron Age Mecklenburg-Vorpommern population that extended into the Late Bronze Age.

In the northern portion of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern the agricultural intensification that began in the Late Bronze Age appears to have increased as the local differentiation of the material culture increased. In contrast, the lack of imported bronze may suggest the decreased importance of trade and signify the local production of iron (Keiling 1982: 28-34; 1988; Krüger 1988; Voigt 1988). A demographic estimate, based on burial evidence, suggests that west Mecklenburg was densely occupied in the 4th century BC, with a population of 75,000 to 125,000. However, at some point after 300 BC the population level appears to have decreased slightly but steadily until sometime in the late 2nd or early 1st centuries BC, when west Mecklenburg was virtually abandoned. Concurrently, central Mecklenburg and northeast Vorpommern experienced very low population densities as well.

Some researchers have postulated that this initial overall decrease in population may have been caused by disruptions associated with the historical Cimbri migration. Interestingly the terminus for the Jastorf and Ripdorf phases has been placed at around 300 BC, as the local populations appear to go into a slow decline. In contrast, the Seedorf phase represented by widespread abandonments has been deliberately centered on 120 BC, the projected date of the Cimbri exodus from Denmark.

I suggest that indeed the transition between the Jastorf and Ripdorf phases may indicate the initial emergence or arrival of the Irminones/Swabian ethnos around 300 BC. If this was the case case the Irminones/Swabian presence was virtually indistinguishable, other than a slight population decrease possibly associated with an increase in warfare, had little other impact on the native population. Furthermore, I agree that the latter abandonments, in the Seedorf phase, were initially inspired by the Cimbri migration and the subsequent Irminones/Swabian expansion to the south and southwest. Regardless, regional reoccupation and significant population increase was experienced in the 1st century AD (Keiling 1982: 35–37). Of course, this brings us to the 'Origo Gentis Langobardorum,' the 'Historia gentis Langobardorum,' Vinnili, and the Langobardi (Long Beards).

References Cited

Keiling, Horst 1982
Archäologische Funde vom Spätpaläolithikum bis zur vorrömischen Eisenzeit aus den mecklenburgischen Bezirken. Museumskatalog 1. Schwerin: Museum für Ur- und Frühgeschichte.

Keiling, Horst 1988
Die Herausbildung der germanischen Stämme (ab etwa 6.Jahrhundert v.u.Z.): Die Entstehung der Jastorfkultur und zeitgleicher Kulturen im Rhein-Weser-Gebiet und deren geographische Verbreitung. In: B.Krüger (ed.), pp. 86–105.

Künnemann, W. 1995
Jastorf: Geschichte und Inhalt eines archäologischen Kulturbegriffs, Die Kunde N. F. 46, 61-122.

Krüger, Bruno (ed.) 1986
Die Germanen. Geschichte und Kultur der germanischen Stämme in Mitteleuropa. Vol. II: Die Stämme und Stammesverbände in der Zeit vom 3.Jahrhundert bis zur Herausbildung der politischen Vorherrschaft der Franken. Veröffentlichungen des Zentralinstituts für Alte Geschichte und Archäologie der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Reinecke, Andreas 1991
Studien zur vorrömischen Eisenzeit im Umland der südlichen Ostsee. Forschungsstand-Chronologie-Kulturhistorische Beziehungen. Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 21, 129-146.

Voigt, Theodor 1988
Die germanischen Stämme bis zum Beginn unserer Zeitrechnung: Kult- und Bestattungswesen. In: B.Krüger (ed.), pp. 182-191.

[cmacq]

fourth Line Discussion

Continuity, Contrast, and the Swabian Ethnogenesis

-draft-

Part 2: Evidence of Early Swabian Integration: A view from the Bardengau Zone

We now turn to the Pre-Roman Iron Age Period Archaeology of west central Lower Saxony around Luneburg, also referred to as the Bardengau Zone. Again, due to factors outlined above its important to note that the assigned temporal setting may fluctuate at least 50 years either way. This area was selected as it is immedately south and west of Mecklenburg.

In the Bardengau Zone we find a nearly identical pattern to that found in west Mecklenburg. Here Wegewitz (1972) identified a rather compact grouping of urn-burial cemeteries in the Elbe valley between the Oste and Jeetzel rivers. Over the course of this occupation these cremation cemeteries represent material assemblages that demonstrate an increasing Hallstatt and later LaTene cultural affiliation with some influence from southern Scandinavia. Once more some of these cemeteries appear to suggest a certain degree of long term continuity between the Late Bronze Age well into the Pre-Roman Iron Age.

As with Mecklenburg-Vorpommern the vast majority of the burials recovered from the Bardengau Zone cremation cemeteries date from the 6th to 3rd centuries BC. A relative decline in the number of burials between 300 and 120 BC was noted. At the end of this period the use of a large number of these cemetery sites was rather abruptly discontinued. This evidence suggests major demographic disruptions occurred throughout the later 2nd and early 1st centuries BC and may be associated with the Cimbri migration as this region lies directly along their hypothesized route between Denmark and Bohemia. Once again the Jastorf, Ripdorf, and Seedorf phase trichotomy seems to have been correctly applied.

With the population decline in the 1st century BC, there also was the sudden appearance of differentiated male and female internments; and the associated spur, spear, sword, and shield among funerary items within the remaining burials. The demographic changes and appearance of weapon burials suggest the rapid emergence of a militaristic community where the use of the lance and competent horsemanship had become a defining cultural attribute (Christie 1995).

Künnemann (1995) proposes the Pre-Roman Iron Age Period Bardengau Zone expression is typical of the Jastorf Culture concept. Interestingly, the area encompassed by the modern states of Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein are considered the core, or heartland, of the Jastorf Culture. Yet, the marked continuity of the material assemblages found within this area strongly suggests this Pre-Roman Iron Age Jastorf construct was but a later adaptation of the widespread Late Bronze Age Urnfield Culure. Over this point, its important to remember the Urnfield Culture initially appeared in a wide band between the Netherlands and central Poland, and while a later contemporary, the Hallstatt Culture is actually a separate construct.

On the other hand, Wegewitz provides that the Bardengau Zone culture represents the historic Langobardi. More recently, researchers have noted that this example is one element of a larger expression found between the Weser to the Vistula rivers. Furthermore, Christie correctly seems to point out that at some point, at least part of this expression, represented the emergence of a Suevi or Swabian ethnos.

References Cited

Christie, Neil 1995
The Lombards: The Ancient Langobards, Oxford UK and Cambridge USA.

Künnemann, W. 1995
Jastorf: Geschichte und Inhalt eines archäologischen Kulturbegriffs, Die Kunde N. F. 46, 61-122.

Wegewitz, W 1972
Das Langobardische brandgräberfeld von Putensen, Kreise Harburg.

[blitzkrieg80]

hey cmacq,

your posts are interesting as usual- great job on detail.

i've been pretty busy but i haven't forgotten to address your inquiry concerning the High German consonant shift. i should have something for you soon

[blitzkrieg80]

Bumpty dance is your chance to do the BUMP.... do the BUMP-ty BUMP

Ok, I just wanted to let you know Cmacq that your write-up on the Steinsburg oppida has been very useful and much thanks for that and the Bicurgion name to link to it from Ptolemy. I have recently made a proposal of a new province in Thurginia (somewhat) based on that

I have even coincided the borderlines of the province (specifically near Silesia) to match this well-known and possibly incorrect but useful-for-our-purposes early Germanic migrations map on wikipedia. Notice the yellow extension in central Germany between the Elbe and Weser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:G...0BC-1AD%29.png