Singen Copper, Alpine Settlement and Early Bronze Age Mining: Is There a Need for Elites and...

1

Introduction: Singen copperEarly Bronze Age metallurgy in central Europe is char-acterized not only by the incipient use of tin-bronze but by a shift in copper production from oxide ores to sulphidic ones which yielded a variety of new cop-per types. This copper, often rich in trace elements such as antimony, arsenic, silver and nickel, replaced

the pure copper or arsenical copper in use during the Neolithic. In fact, this development pre-dates the knowledge of alloying with tin. The earliest evidence for the occasional use of sulphidic copper ore comes from Neolithic contexts (Münchshöfen: Bartelheim et al. 2002; Corded Ware/Bell Beakers: Krause 2003: 153–157). In the first half of the Early Bronze Age (EBA A1) copper derived from such sulphidic ore sources was in common use. Tin-bronze, on the other hand, was initially rare and only became the standard alloy in the second half of the Early Bronze Age after 1800 BC (EBA A2; Pernicka 1998; Krause 2003: 213–224).

In the broadest terms, this sequence reflects the structure of ore deposits with oxide ores on top and sulphidic ones underneath, the development of smelt-ing technique supposedly with a two-step process re-quired for sulphidic ores and the necessity to estab-lish exchange networks for tin which in this period was either derived from the German or Slovakian ore mountains or was imported from outside central Eu-rope such as from southwest Britain or southwest to central Asia (Pernicka 1990; Ottaway 1994; Bachmann 2003; Bourgarit et al. 2003; Bourgarit 2007; Hauptmann 2007; 2008; Cierny/Stöllner/Weisgerber 2005).

Analytical work was done on the origin of the cop-per and the mining districts likely to have been ex-ploited during the Bronze Age with contradictory re-sults. H. Otto and W. Witter (1952), for example, drew attention to the so-called fahlore type copper, their Leitlegierungsgruppe IV, which they claimed was mined in the German Erzgebirge and low mountain ranges such as the Mansfeld or Northern Hassian ore-fields and then distributed widely throughout Bronze Age central Europe. A comparable approach relating cop-per objects and ore deposits was conducted by R. Pit-tioni (1957) and E. Preuschen (1967; Preuschen/Pittio-ni 1937). In their case, however, it was the Bronze Age exploitation of east Alpine copper sources, especially in the Mitterberg area, which they thought could be proven.

A substantial increase in the number of analy-ses was subsequently achieved by the SAM-project (Junghans/Sangmeister/Schröder 1960; 1968). Some-what more careful in the question of relating arte-facts to specific mining areas, the collaborators in

Singen Copper, Alpine Settlement and Early Bronze Age Mining: Is There a Need for Elites and Strongholds?

Tobias L. Kienlin – Thomas Stöllner

AbstractIn this paper attention is drawn to some shortcomings of the current interpretation of Early Bronze Age settlement and mining in the Alpine area of central Europe. In particular, we feel that the importance of copper for the colonisation of the Alps receives an undue emphasis and the notion of an elite-driven metallurgy is misguided. Drawing on a review of both the archaeological evidence available and ethno-graphic case studies a more nuanced approach to the initial stages of Early Bronze Age landuse, mining and metal pro-duction in the northalpine regions around Lake Constance as well as the Inn and Salzach valleys is proposed. Early mining was small-scale and operated most likely on a sea-sonal basis alongside high altitude herding/transhumance. Only in the second half of the Early Bronze Age the Alpine valleys were colonised and it is unlikely that metallurgy played a decisive role in this process in each of these val-leys. There are remarkable differences for instance between the Salzach-Saalach group, some parts of the Inn valley and the Alpine Rhine valley. It seems that with the move to per-manent agriculture and cattle breeding – at least initially – the additional economic opportunities offered by mining and metallurgy became less important than basic subsist-ence strategies in those valleys where the metal ressources presumably were too difficult to manage to provide a ba-sis for an economically advantageous exploitation. Both the archaeological record and ethnographic evidence strongly suggest that there is no need for a hierarchically organised society for such an approach to mining and neither did Al-pine metallurgy evolve in this direction until very much lat-er. The development of Alpine settlement, subsistence and metallurgy is a complex process that must not be subsumed to social evolutionist models of the evolution of hierarchical society.

2 Tobias L. Kienlin – Thomas Stöllner

this project relied on the mapping of different types of copper based on the assumption that spatial pat-terning would emerge and hint towards the origin of the copper types used in the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods. For the central European Early Bronze Age copper, two large groups of fahlore metal were distinguished according to whether nickel is present among the characteristic trace elements or not and the differences in their distributions were noted. In the debate that followed the nickel-containing vari-ant was named Singen copper after the eponymous EBA A1 cemetery close to the western part of Lake Constance which produced numerous artefacts con-sisting of this type of (mostly unalloyed) fahlore cop-per (Waterbolk/Butler 1965). Fahlore copper with little or no nickel, on the other hand, was frequently found in neck rings (Ösenringe/collar shaped ingots) and rib ingots from large hoards in Bavaria and fur-

ther east. It became known under the name of Ösen-ringkupfer (Butler 1978).

Singen type fahlore copper in its broadest defini-tion has a wide distribution from the western Alps to the Baltic Sea as well as into the Carpathian basin to the east (fig. 1; Krause 2003: 122, 157–160; Rass-mann 2005). It was only in the 1990s with a statis-tical re-evaluation of the older SAM-groups and an increasing number of analyses from eastern-central Europe that it became possible to differentiate truly northalpine Singen copper from similar fahlore type copper circulating in the Únětice culture area. It was revealed that we are dealing with closely related copper types with a widespread distribution in Early Bronze Age central Europe. They originated prob-ably from the exploitation of similar ore deposits in different mining areas and by the use of a comparable smelting technique.

Fig. 1: Distribution of Singen type fahlore copper (after Krause 2003: 158 fig. 124).

3Singen Copper, Alpine Settlement and Early Bronze Age Mining: Is There a Need for Elites and Strongholds?

Current models of Alpine copper mining and distributionSystematic work on ore deposits was neglected and we still lack sufficient chemical and lead isotope data from the Alpine deposits as well as from the Ger-man and Slowakian ore mountains (see however,

e.g. Weisgerber/Goldenberg 2004; Höppner et al. 2005). Attempts at provenancing the different types of fahlore copper mentioned may therefore be seen as an informed guess based mainly on the distribu-tion of various types of copper artefacts (e.g. Menke 1978/79). An important example of this kind of ap-proach was developed in several studies by R. Krause

Fig. 2: The Early Bronze Age cemetery of Singen am Hohentwiel – grave groups (after Krause 1988: 28 fig. 6).


a

b

Fig. 3: The Early Bronze Age cemetery of Singen am Hohentwiel – crouched burials with stone settings (graves 19 and 68); typical grave goods (after Krause 1988: 50 fig. 13, 64 fig. 23, 72 fig. 31, 80 fig. 38, 86 fig. 42b, 304 fig. 128, 325 fig. 183).


(1988; 1998; 2003; see also Krause, this volume) with regard to the Singen copper sensu proper from the northalpine region of central Europe. The starting point of his model was the eponymous cemetery of Singen excavated in the 1950s but properly pub-lished only in 1988. Singen is a typical cemetery of the northalpine Early Bronze Age with some 90 graves in four to five groups (fig. 2) covering the first half of the Early Bronze Age (BA A1), in absolute terms the time from roughly 2200–2000 cal BC (Krause 1996). Grave goods include amongst others a characteristic spec-trum of daggers, needles, rings and other ornaments of copper (fig. 3) which were analysed in two series; first by the SAM-project and subsequently by the Hei-delberg laboratory (Christoforidis/Pernicka 1988).

Using this data, Krause (1988: 181–213) was able to show that while most artefacts consist of a relatively homogeneous fahlore type copper (i.e. Singen type copper) some had a different trace element signa-ture interpreted as Fremdmetall. According to Krause (1988: 56–63, 212), among these there is a group of At-lantic daggers (see, however, Gallay 1991: 205; Gerloff 1993: 75–76; 2007: 124–136). A connection is drawn with tin supply from Cornwall to Singen (Krause 1988: 242–244) although in fact the vast majority of the Singen artefacts are unalloyed and therefore do not indicate the regular use of tin (Krause 1988: 272–274). Finally, Krause (1988: 29–31, 125–130, 205–213) drew attention to systematic differences in the trace element content of various types of artefacts recov-ered from the Singen cemetery. With reference to the grave groups, this finding was interpreted as a chron-ological sequence indicating changes in metal supply through time.

Turning from Singen to its surroundings Krause (1988: 214–242) noted a group of contemporaneous Early Bronze Age flanged axes consisting of Singen type copper. Named after a large hoard from Sen-nwald-Salez in the Swiss canton of St. Gallen (Abels 1972: 4–10; Bill 1997) the distribution of these axes covers a region on both sides of Lake Constance be-tween the Danube in the north and the Alpine Rhine valley in the south (fig. 4). The identical composition to the cemetery’s artefacts and their distribution ex-tending into the Alps was taken to support the role of these axes in the trade of Alpine copper. They were interpreted as ingots and their distribution was taken to reflect the spread of a specific Alpine copper type mined somewhere in mining districts along the Al-pine valley of the river Rhine and its tributaries. The community in Singen was supposed to have occupied an important step in this so-called Metallurgiekette by controlling metal trade into the area north of Lake Constance where the number of axe ingots known gradually decreases because they were supposedly remelted to cast other kinds of artefacts (Krause 1988: 219–232, 238–242). This concept, which is modelled on the east Alpine distribution of Ösenringe and rib

ingots (Menke 1978/79; cf. Krause 1988: 214), was also extended to flanged axes of Neyruz type whose main distribution is in the western part of Switzerland (Abels 1972: 11–14). There is no significant overlap with Salez type axes and both groups consist of differ-ent kinds of copper. This was interpreted as the result of neighbouring exchange systems for Alpine copper derived from different mining regions (Krause 1988: 223–232). Furthermore, younger axes of Langquaid type, too, are thought to have played a comparable role in the exchange of copper (Krause 2003: 52).

Given the number of Singen type copper artefacts known and the existence of Alpine ore deposits, it is in fact likely that Singen copper was mined somewhere in the Alps alongside the Rhine valley or further south in the central Alps of the Swiss canton Graubünden. Unlike the situation in the eastern Alps, however, there still is no conclusive evidence of Bronze Age mining in this area and traces of the practice of met-allurgy in Early Bronze Age settlements are rare (cf. Fasnacht 1999; Krause 1988: 214–218, 238–241; 2003: 34–36, 198–199). This is why Krause in his more re-cent work made the important step towards settle-ment archaeology in potential Alpine mining areas and in Bartholomäberg in the Montafon region where he began excavating an Early to Middle Bronze Age settlement (Krause 2005a; 2005b; 2007; Krause/Oeg-gl/Pernicka 2004; Schmidl et al. 2005; see also Krause, this volume). Bartholomäberg-Friaga Wald is a hilltop settlement of about 90x50 m size which in its early Middle Bronze Age phase comprised some six to eight houses built on a settlement terrace (see Krause, this volume fig. 21). The fairly massive stone wall built to support this terrace and an extension to it without an obvious supporting function are interpreted as a fortification (Krause 2005a: 401–407; 2007: 122–126). Bartholomäberg is therefore seen as a central place (Burg) controlling some smaller neighbouring sites in what is conceived of as a hierarchical settlement system (Krause 2005a: 408; 2007: 132–133). Although there is no evidence of metallurgical activities on the site (Krause 2005a: 405), it is supposed that power was derived from control over the exploitation of copper ore deposits in the vicinity and the exchange of copper (Krause 2005a: 408–409; 2007: 129–133). This stands in contrast to S. Shennan’s (1995) interpretation of St. Veit-Klinglberg in the eastern Alps as a mining settle-ment operating largely autonomous without central-ized control, but in line for example with Ch. Strahm’s (1994; 2002; see also Strahm and Hauptmann, this vol-ume) conception of early metallurgy, mining and the production of metal as a complex technology requir-ing organisation and control exercised by emerging Bronze Age elites (Krause 2005a: 391–395, 408–409; cf. Krause 2003: 257–262).

The current model of Early Bronze Age mining in the western Alps and the distribution of Singen cop-per into the northalpine area consists of three distinct


Fig. 4: Salez type axes and their distribution in the northalpine region (after Abels 1972; Krause 1988: 221 fig. 93).


elements. Firstly, there is the assumption that in the Alpine mining districts there were local communities dominated by elites which derived their power from control over mining and metallurgy. Secondly, there is the notion that exchange in copper took the form of directional trade involving the production of ingot axes and that these were normally recast into other kinds of artefacts and only occasionally finished (by forging etc.) in case of need by an “end-user” (Krause 1988: 232, 240–242). Thirdly, there is the idea that in the lowlands there were communities able to monop-olize exchange and benefit from their geographical position (in particular Singen as opposed, for exam-ple, the poorer Adlerberg graves; cf. Krause 1988: 138; 2003: 48–49) and that this whole system developed and remained in operation over a considerable period of time (Singen/Salez axes: BA A1; Langquaid axes: BA A2; Bartolomäberg/other fortified settlements in the Alps: BA A2 to Middle Bronze Age; cf. Krause 2005a: 396 fig. 5, 409–410). All this is based on the assumption that the most important reason of the colonisation of the Alps was copper – the notion that the economic background of the move into the Alps was the emer-gence of a copper industry which supplied copper to the northalpine region around Lake Constance or the Inn and Salzach valleys. However, this has been a matter of discussion since the 1940s (e.g. Holste 1941; Wyss 1971) and should only be seen as one aspect of a more complex process and economic system.

No need for elites and strongholds? – An alternative approachThere are problems with a number of aspects of the current model. In this paper we want to highlight some of these and suggest an alternative approach to the evidence available for the production and ex-change of Singen type copper and Early Bronze Age mining in the Alps. Generally, we feel that there is a tendency to see the European Bronze Age as a histori-cally unique development. Consequently, Bronze Age society and – for our present purpose – the organisa-tion of its metallurgical activities is conceptualized as somehow distinct from both what ethnography tells us about technology in traditional societies and the evidence from the earlier Neolithic societies. Mining and metallurgy are seen as an exceedingly complex undertaking discussed in the context of emerging social complexity (see above). However, large-scale mining activities for lithic raw materials took place already in the Neolithic and in corresponding dis-cussions we find at least two different approaches: on the one hand, there is a strong interest in techni-cal aspects of mining, such as the methods and high competence required to sink shafts and operate large mines, in geological aspects and the distribution of different varieties of flint or stone which are traced

by traditional archaeological means and/or scien-tific methods (e.g. papers in Sieveking/Newcomer 1987; Schild/Sulgostowska 1997; Weisgerber/Slotta/Weiner 1999; Körlin/Weisgerber 2006). This approach often is accompanied by modernist assumptions on the rational behaviour of highly skilled mining spe-cialists and a formalist perspective on the economic context and social organisation of mining activities (cf. De Grooth 1997: 71; Johnston 2008: 191–192).

Alternatively, there are studies drawing on ethno-graphic analogies such as the well-known New Guine-an case studies to explain Neolithic mining and stone tool production (cf. Taçon 1991; Pétrequin/Pétrequin 1993). As with discussions on craft specialization in general (cf. Rowlands 1971; Neipert 2006) the result-ing picture is highly variable and different from mod-ern expectations (for a similar point see Kohring/Wynne-Jones 2007). Social elites and attached spe-cialized miners are not a pre-condition for impressive mining workings. Rather, there is ample evidence for the ability of small-scale tribal societies to operate such activities on a consensual basis without coercive force being applied. Furthermore, mining is rarely done continuously throughout the whole year but typically is a seasonal activity carried out by a group of participants which may fluctuate from occasion to occasion and from year to year (e.g. Torrence 1986; Pétrequin/Jeudy/Jeunesse 1993; Pétrequin/Jeunesse 1995; Whittle 1995; Edmonds 1995; 1998; De Grooth 1995; 1997; Voytek 1997; Pétrequin et al. 2005).

Based on the ethnographic evidence we may roughly differentiate between two main modes of ac-cess to raw material deposits (Stöllner 2003; 2008): Exploitation may either be extensive, basically a spo-radic or seasonal undertaking, or it may involve the development of more stable settlement communities in the surroundings of the mining areas which allows permanent subsistence strategies and a larger scale of raw material exploitation. Considering these basic differences in approach, mining in an ethnographic or archaeological context has to be interpreted with regard to its underlying economic and structural con-cepts. Although archaeology often lacks sufficient ar-chaeological and scientific data for an interpretation of raw material exploitation on this level, the attempt is nonetheless important if we aim at a true under-standing of the historical development of early min-ing. We have to ask then, for example, what kind of evidence to expect from seasonal expeditions to high altitude ore fields for a short time-period every year. It is quite obvious that high altitude mountain ranges such as the Alps required specific efforts and struc-tural adaptations. This can best be seen when consid-ering high altitude pastoralism or the use of passes and tracks to cross these basically hostile landscapes.

In particular, the location of permanently settled landscapes is decisive for any reliable model of land use in marginal and unsettled areas. Permanent min-


ing activities and ore exploitation have to be seen as a consequence of a series of initial steps often involv-ing a considerable period of time. This is certainly true for traditional societies with generally restricted economic and technological possibilities (Stöllner 2003: 430; 2008: 77). According to our current knowl-edge about early mining and metallurgy in the Alps (see below), we therefore should expect permanence in mining not earlier than in phases with established subsistence economies and permanent settlements. The question then arises as to whether this involves modes of organisation and control similar to what we would expect from modern societies?

The individual control of mining and “owner-ship” of the mines are concepts which need not ap-ply to pre-modern societies – an important point which applies especially to societies whose access to mineral resources was basically sporadic or seasonal (Stöllner 2003). But this is just a technical or logistic level of discussion. Let us turn to the ethnographic record instead: it can often be observed that ritual “control” is interwoven with the “care” of special resources by social groups or individuals who are seen as having close relationships with transcenden-

tal powers. Such concepts have been observed for the salt supply of the Jiwika in New Guinea. The salt source and its working is protected by a confedera-tion of ancestors of the Kurulu. The image of an an-cestor is shown when salt-working such as cleaning has been done (fig. 5). Another example comes from the greenstone quarries of Mount William in Victoria (Australia) from which the Kulin-speaking tribes ob-tained an admired raw material for axes and hachets (McBride 1976; 1984). The administration and pro-tection of this special green coloured diorite quarry was in the hands of one tribe (the Woiworung) and exercised by one of the eldest – the “guard” in charge of the ritual right to win and to distribute the ma-terial. Marriages and inter-tribal social connections did nonetheless allow all Kulin-speaking tribes to as-semble at the quarry and exploit the source in the course of inter-tribal meetings and ceremonies. Such traditions can also be observed elsewhere. In south Australia (Flinders ranges), the Parachilna ochre source was one of the most immanent sources for blood-red coloured ochre which was of great ritual significance for the surroundings (Jones 1984). Trav-elling to and exploiting this source was important especially for young men who had to prove their virtue and their knowledge of complex ritual and traditions. Often these travels had the character of a pilgrimage. The Myth of the Emu (Mindari rite) that is connected with these travels and the ochre source tells us about this journey. It is told in the context of a hunt during which the emu is caught and killed and its blood is spilled to the ground. This accounts for the ritual significance of this specific deposit. One may note again the importance of the journey and of the inter-tribal meeting as well as the existence of a local community (Adnyahadmanha-people) ad-ministering and protecting this kind of acquisition. There is good evidence that the Flinders range ochre was traded over long distances from south Australia to western Queensland along kinship lines between the tribes (McBride 1987).

There is no doubt that resource management was often accompanied by ritual orders accepted by larger tribal entities and myths of an integrative and inter-tribal character. This especially is true for ritually im-portant materials such as red ochres, greenstones or red soapstone but it also applies to goods such as salt and it is also reported for metals. The north Ameri-can Keweenanwan formation around the Great Lake regions is such an important source of native copper and the massive occurrences of copper lumps played an important role in the development of an early Copper Culture from 3000 BC onwards (Rickard 1934; Griffin 1961; Clark/Martin 2005). Although the use of native copper never did lead to the development of pyrometallurgical processes, cold hammered copper played an important role in inter-tribal exchange. Copper, and its ritual and protective character, have

Fig. 5: The mummy of Jiwaka, community of the Kurula, New Guinea (Irian Jaya) – presiding over the rituals carried out during the cleaning and extraction of salt at the source of Jiwaka (after O. Weller in Pétrequin/Pétrequin 2006: 211 fig. 218; by courtesy of P. Pétrequin).


often been reported, for example by Keatanang, a chief of the Ontonagon tribe who told a fur-trader:

“The lump of copper in the forest is a great treas-ure for me. It was so for my father and my grandfather. It is our hope and our protection. Through it I have caught many beavers, killed many bears. Through its magic assistance I have been victorious in all my battles, and with it I have killed our foes. Through it, too, I have always remained healthy, and reached that great age in which thou findest me.“ (Clark/Martin 2005: 120 ).

Another most noteworthy report was given by fa-ther Claude Allouez, one of the French missionaries in the area of Lake Superior in 1666:

“One often finds at the bottom of the water [Lake Superior] pieces of pure copper of 10 and 20 pounds in weight. I have several times seen such pieces in the savages’ hands; and since they are superstitious, they keep them as so many divinities, or as presents which the gods dwelling beneath the water had given them, and on which their welfare is to depend. For this rea-son they preserve these pieces of copper, wrapped up, amoung their most precious possessions. Some have kept them for more than fifty years, others had them in their families from time immemorial, and cherish them as household gods.” (Rickard 1934: 272).

Another important source for the notion of protec-tion by transcendental powers as well as the admin-istration and supervision by a local tribal community is provided by the Ojibwe. In their religious system the access and exploitation of copper was a risky en-terprise. Abundant copper sources have been used by the Indians at the Isle Royale right in the northwest of Lake Superior. Expeditions to this island had to calm down the mighty Mischebeschu, also known as Un-derwater Manitou. This mythical protection certainly does not only reflect the dangerous nautical passage to the island but also indicates that this Manitou in fact was considered the true master of the island and its copper (Clark/Martin 2005).

The complex dimensions of ritual in indigenous or traditional raw material procurement provides us with some important information. First, it shows that exploitative expeditions often have a clear rit-ual frame in which certain members of a society act. Often the young men of a tribe have to prove their virtue and their ritual knowledge of how to interact with the transcendental powers in order to gain ac-cess to the desired source. Such gangs are regularly guided by experienced individuals who not only know the ritual ceremonies but also have the technological knowledge of how to exploit the quarries and mines. Such clan chiefs also have to negotiate access when it is necessary to pass through hostile lands and are in charge of the distribution of the yield (e.g. the “axe-share-hit-man”; Burton 1984). Large expeditions are recorded and aspects of initiation were involved the course of the journey, e.g. in the case of the Yeleme

stone quarrying expeditions in Irian Jaya (Indone-sian part of New Guinea: Pétrequin/Pétrequin 1993; 2006) or in the expeditions to the quarries of Mount Hagen in Papua New Guinea (Chappel 1966; Burton 1984). What is striking is the ritual complexity that may be involved in the exploitation of particular de-posits providing the raw material for objects of social or ritual significance such as bride prize axes. Even in hunter-gatherer communities or early agricultural groups we clearly have to be aware of the surprisingly complex levels of organisation of such periodical ex-peditions and mining activities that were closely in-terwoven with and governed by a variety of cultural categories such as age, gender and kinship (see also E. Wager, this volume).

Participation in ritual knowledge may be a pre-condition to participate in mining and its transmis-sion to younger members of a community might be subject to the social strategies of the elders. Alliances may be involved and required if mines – as is often the case – are far from home territory meaning that access needs to be negotiated or enforced (see also E. Wager, this volume; Knapp/Pigott/Herbert 1998; Topping/Lynott 2005; O’Brien 2007 with a kinship-based model of the exploitation of Mount Gabriel-type mines; Johnston 2008). Much the same applies to the raw materials extracted, the artefacts produced and their circulation. Rarely are these seen in purely functional terms and seldom is their exchange gov-erned by merely economic criteria. Instead objects may carry and convey meaning, obtain a biography of their own and their exchange provides an oppor-tunity to negotiate social relations and reinforce alli-ances (cf. Veit et al. 2003; Kienlin 2005).

On the other hand, practical aspects should not be neglected either since accessibility not only depends on social and ritual notions but also involves consid-eration of settlement, topography and spatial dis-tance. In order to gain a better understanding of Al-pine copper production during the Early Bronze Age it is important, therefore, to develop a contextual ap-proach referring back an anthropologically informed awareness of the social and ritual dimensions of tra-ditional mining to the archaeological evidence of past groups involved in Alpine copper production and tak-ing direct or indirect favour from these exploitations (socially as well as economically). S. Shennan’s (1992; 1993) concept of mining in society – in the context of his work on St. Veit-Klinglberg (Shennan 1995) – was inspired by a formalist reaction to a specific Neo-Marxist reading of prestige goods systems and an emphasis on elite ideologies that prevailed in parts of the British theoretical debate. We don’t subscribe to his notion that mining offered hitherto unknown potential for individual ambition and offered ways to break through traditional social boundaries by acquiring metal and wealth. But surely in much Ger-man discussion too there is a problem with a “myth of


control” (Shennan 1993: 59). Drawing on the evidence outlined above we argue that instead the wide variety of organisational options demonstrated in ethnogra-phy need to be taken into account when talking about Bronze Age mining and metallurgy. However, its con-troversial emphasis on elites and metallurgy is only one aspect in which the “standard” model (Krause 1988; 2003) lacks support in the archaeological evi-dence. We will discuss some of these shortcomings, starting with the notion of directional trade in metals and the postulated existence of so-called axe ingots. Secondly, we need to ask exactly what kind of settle-ment and other evidence we might expect if indeed there were elites in control of mining in the Alps and the distribution of copper to adjacent groups (cf. Bar-telheim 2002; 2007). Drawing on the available data from the northalpine regions around Lake Constance as well as the Inn and Salzach valleys a more nuanced approach to the initial stages of Early Bronze Age mining and metal production will be proposed.

Axe ingots and directional trade: Modernist conceptions in distribu-tion studies of Singen copperProblems with the notion of Early Bronze Age axe ingots have been already noted in a previous paper (Kienlin 2006a). Objections derive from a metallographic exami-nation of basic production parameters and the proper-ties of the axes as well as from more general considera-tions about material culture in prehistoric society.

Irrespective of the type of axe examined (Salez, Neyruz and Langquaid), metallographic analysis and

increased porosity in the neck of the axes shown by X-rays demonstrate that casting took place in an up-right standing closed mould. A multi-stage working with interposed annealing is the norm and confirms the good knowledge of materials and procedures al-ready developed in the Neolithic period. This forging is, however, only in part seen as a shaping operation. Rather, the near-shape casting and the predominance of pieces which were heavily cold-worked in the final step show that an interest in their mechanical prop-erties determined the production method of the axes (Kienlin/Bischoff/Opielka 2006). At this point there are some variations in the details in the relationship between composition and manufacturing techniques. Salez axes, in particular, are notable for their vari-ability in terms of working and properties. There are a group of hoard finds with exceptionally high trace elements such as antimony, arsenic, silver and nickel that are characteristic of this kind of fahlore copper (e.g. Sennwald-Salez; Hindelwangen). As a result we find a large amount of so-called inter-metallic phases, copper compounds with arsenic or antimony, nickel or cobalt. Being hard and brittle, these contributed to an extraordinarily high as-cast hardness from about 110 HV0.1 to 120 HV0.1 of which advantage was taken in subsequent working. The Hindelwangen axes show no indication of final cold-working on their blades and with the Sennwald-Salez axes occasional strain lines point to a final cold-working of limited intensity only (fig. 6). Still, even this mild forging was sufficient to raise the hardness well above 170 HV0.1 – higher than the hardness of most “normal” Salez type axes (fig. 7). Since their flanges were hammered to give them their final shape, it is clear that the raw mate-rial used for the Sennwald-Salez and Hindelwangen

Fig. 6: Microstructure of an axe from the hoard of Sennwald-Salez – intermetallic phases (1) and copper sulphide (2); left: casting grains (3) and interdendritic patterning of intermetallic phases; right: recrystallized grains with annealing twins (4) near the cutting edge; strain lines due to a rather weak cold work (5); as a result of deformation intermetallic phases are broken up.


axes did permit (cold) working. It was with full knowl-edge of the properties of this specific copper that the effort of forging was reduced. An extensive working of the blade did not occur because of an already high hardness. For the majority of “normal” Salez axes, which have less abundant inter-metallic phases, more intense working in several stages is the rule (fig. 8; cf. Kienlin 2006b).

The concept of axe ingots does not deny the prac-tical use of the Salez type axes as a weapon or tool in general. Yet it is assumed that the axes were initially produced with metal circulation in mind and intended by their shape to mark a specific type of Alpine cop-per. As such they are supposed to have been circulat-

ed unfinished, in a roughly worked state, until some “end-user” down the line of metal trade didn’t recast them but decided instead to turn them into a proper axe by forging and grinding to achieve hardness and a sharp cutting edge (Krause 1988: 240–242). This as-sumption is clearly wrong in the light of the metallo-graphic evidence presented. Quite a large number of such axes were examined and there is no evidence for the existence let alone the circulation into the low-lands of rough unfinished axes ingots (Beilrohlinge; Krause 1988: 232). Instead, it can be demonstrated that the axes’ manufacture was orientated towards good mechanical properties. This aim was achieved by a rather intense and time-consuming forging and cold-working for all the axe types examined (Salez, Neyruz and Langquaid). From the stability in basic parameters of approach it is obvious that forging was not done on an occasional basis by individual “end-users” (e.g. there are no cold-worked as-cast micro-structures which went unannealed at all and there are systematic differences in the strength of final cold-working between the axe types examined but no random variation within; Kienlin/Bischoff/Opielka 2006). In the Salez case we saw some flexibility in ap-proach due to different trace element contents, yet there is no exception to the general rule. It is possi-ble that their lighter colour added to the attractive-ness of the Sennwald-Salez and Hindelwangen axes. But the superior mechanical properties of this spe-cific type of copper did not go unnoticed either (see above) and certainly caused the axes to be held in high esteem. Casting and forging took place in some kind of production context and it is probable that this was decentralized and at least in part removed from the Alpine mining regions: while metallography

Fig. 8: Stronger cold-work with strain lines and deformed grains in a Salez type axe from Feldkirch, Vorarlberg with a lower impurity content.

Fig. 7: The hardness of Salez type axes depending on composition and cold work.


testifies to intense communication of metallurgical knowledge among those segments of society actually practicing metallurgy, the many different shapes of Salez type axes (Varianten; cf. Abels 1972) hint at lo-cal identities as the background to this metalwork-ing (see below).

A similar argument was made before by J. Bill (1997: 251) with regard to the careful polishing of most of the axes – a time-consuming surface finish which he suggested makes it unlikely that they were expected to be re-melted soon. The emphasis in manufacture clearly was on appearance and good performance during some kind of use. This certainly took the form of both aggression (weapon) and more day-to-day ac-tivities (multi-purpose tool). It is the latter that we actually find evidence of: on many axes from both the Alpine region and the lowlands there are externally visible wear marks (Kienlin/Ottaway 1998) as well as

signs of use in the microstructures which give testi-mony to prolonged practical use.

The axes are among the most massive copper artefacts of the time and area in question. So quite obviously they were re-melted and their exchange in some way contributed to the circulation of metal between Early Bronze Age settlement communities. This did not, however, involve directional trade in axe ingots. We may turn to a last category of evidence to repeat our point: Salez type axes are known from a number of hoard finds in both the Alpine region and north of Lake Constance (Abels 1972). These hoards were taken by Krause (1988: 219–226) as part of his Metallurgiekette on the assumption that they reflect trade in Alpine copper towards the Singen communi-ty and onwards towards groups depending on them for their metal supply. Now, we have demonstrated that there were no axe ingots and the axes in hoards

Fig. 9: Nickel and silver contents of the artefacts from the Singen cemetery (above) and of Salez type axes (below) – comparison of loga-rithmic and linear data presentation.


in no way differ from all the rest – both in respect to their manufacture and the presence of wear traces. There are differences, however, with regard to the number and kind of objects contained in the hoards, their topographical setting and in the way the ob-jects were buried (Stein 1976). This is why we need to reject the idea that there is a single explanation to account for all hoards whether they were deposited by traders in metal (Krause 1988: 219–232, 242) or for religious reasons (Krause 2003: 205–206; Hänsel 1997). Instead there is variability in the archaeologi-cal evidence and most likely in prehistoric motivation and perception as well (cf. Bill 1997; Kienlin 2006a). The evidence must not be rectified by reference to single causes and the transfer of modern, economic concepts such as ingots or some kind of (proto-) cur-rency to Bronze Age society (e.g. Lenerz-de Wilde 1995; Krause 1998; cf. Dalton 1965; Appadurai 1986;

Feest 2003). There is a tension in much Bronze Age research which, on the one hand, has us believe in rational actors controlling metal production and exchange for their material profit and the enhance-ment of their social standing while on the other being stricken by superstition. This ought be over-come by reference back to the Neolithic (cf. Taçon 1991; Pétrequin/Pétrequin 1993; Edmonds 1995): we see patterning that stems from decisions taken by countless individuals and complex mechanisms of exchange and interaction among people and possi-bly among people and the supernatural. Presumably, in terms of their practical function our axes should be seen more as a tool than as a weapon. But their meaning cannot be captured solely in functional and economic terms. Beyond categories such as weapon, tool, ingot or money they may have borne close ref-erence to their owner. Their “possession” was woven

Fig. 10: Arsenic and antimony contents of the artefacts from the Singen cemetery (above) and of Salez type axes (below) – comparison of logarithmic and linear data presentation.


into societal categories of order and their circulation should be seen in the framework of socially motivat-ed exchange systems.

Kinship and seasonality in Alpine copper production: Reconsidering the Singen evidenceTurning back to the Singen cemetery itself there are two ways to look at the analytical data – both of which were taken by Krause (1988). The first one emphasises similarity and leads to the definition of Singen type copper – nowadays by cluster analysis with the re-sults illustrated by use of the logarithmic diagrams first suggested by Waterbolk/Butler (1965). The over-all similarity in trace element signature is taken to imply the origin of the copper used for the Singen ar-

tefacts from a specific mining area (Krause 1988: 240). One the other hand, within the wider limits of Singen type copper defined this way there is also variation. In particular the antimony and silver contents vary and – somewhat less marked so – arsenic and nickel are present in different concentrations (Krause 1988: 207–211). With regard to the differential distribu-tion of the artefacts in question in the Singen grave groups Krause (1988: 242) argued for a chronological sequence with changes to the trace element content of Singen copper through time. Since similar variation occurs among Salez type axes, these were arranged accordingly and the hoards, in particular, were used to outline changes in metal supply to Singen as fol-lows: the older part of Singen cemetery = BA A1a = Salez axes from Hindelwangen hoard; the younger part of Singen cemetery = BA A1b = Böhringen-Rick-elshausen hoard.

Fig. 11: Arsenic and tin contents of the artefacts from the Singen cemetery (above) and of Salez type axes (below) – comparison of loga-rithmic and linear data presentation.


This is not the place to discuss the various ap-proaches to the statistical grouping of the analytical data applied since the 1960s. We won’t dispute that what is called Singen copper from a chemical and geological point of view is a relatively homogeneous group which apparently derives from the exploita-tion of comparable ore deposits. Yet it is noteworthy that the traditional way to present the analytical data by means of logarithmic diagrams (cf. Krause 1988: 189–190) is apt to disguise variation which was most likely important to Early Bronze Age metalworkers. This is easily demonstrated if one supplements the logarithmic diagrams in common use (Krause 1988: 189–191 figs. 76–78, 225–226 figs. 94–95) with the cor-responding ones in linear scale (figs. 9–11). The loga-rithmic scale diagrams for all three pairs of elements (Ni/Ag; As/Sb; As/Sn) give the impression that the Singen artefacts and the Salez axes consist of much the same kind of copper. The linear scale shows, how-ever, that the actual concentration of trace elements present differs widely and among the axes there is a group – mainly from the Sennwald-Salez and Hindel-wangen hoards – which are notably higher in nickel, antimony and arsenic than most of the Singen arte-facts (fig. 12). This finding might not be important if the only interest one takes is in the kind of copper ore deposits exploited. These were undoubtedly similar and it is likely that a comparable smelting technique was used. However, in the earlier discussion of metal-lographic evidence it was shown that such differenc-es in composition did not go unnoticed and as a result the Sennwald-Salez and Hindelwangen axes show a different approach to forging. It is possible that upon repeated re-melting the loss of trace elements might eventually lead to a Singen cemetery type copper. As it is, however, the copper of Sennwald-Salez and

Hindelwangen is not identical to Singen (cf. Bertemes 1992; Gerloff 1993: 75; Bill 1997: 250–251) and neither is the working of it.

This adds complexity to the whole question of metal supply. For it is possible that instead of mere chronology, the compositional variation in Singen itself as well as among the axes (Böhringen-Rick-elshausen vs. Sennwald-Salez and Hindelwangen) hints at small-scale, decentralized mining and smelt-ing activities. Depending on the people involved and the ore deposits accessible to them at a specific time this might have caused the widely different results in trace element contents observed and consequent flexibility in the working of this copper. Moreover, as there are differences in workability and, for example, colour we need to be aware that the use of different types of copper may be governed by a whole range of choices beyond the immediate grasp of the archae-ologist. Sennwald-Salez and Hindelwangen copper seems to have been prefered for weapons and tools because of the mechanical properties (see below). Others might have been attracted by its conspicuous colour for ornaments but at least as far as the Singen cemetery is concerned they obviously failed to gain access to precisely this kind of copper and/or its de-posits.

Possible problems with the notion of a chrono-logical sequence of the Singen grave groups were noted right from the start for it is unclear whether the fine-grained chronology of Bavarian grave finds (mostly needles; Ruckdeschel 1978) used by Krause (1988: 119–130) is in fact applicable to wider areas of the northalpine region (Schier 1991: 224–225). In a similar vein, recent discussions imply that spatial patterning in Early Bronze Age cemeteries might not be indicative of chronological differences alone but in

Fig. 12: Comparison of the trace element contents of the artefacts from the Singen cemetery (left) and of Salez type axes (right) – trace elements: sum of trace elements without tin; copper: difference to 100 %.


fact refer to different settlement communities bury-ing their dead separately in what to us appears as one large cemetery (e.g. Bartelheim 1998: 149–151; 2004; Wagner 2005). A detailed analysis of Franzhausen I, for example, shows that the arrangement of graves into nine distinct groups was governed by a complex interplay of social and ritual aspects (fig. 13). There is no linear chronological sequence throughout the whole cemetery. Rather, new graves were arranged around older ones, starting from several “cores” of slightly different ages, thereby referring to differ-ent cultural affiliation (e.g. there is stronger claim to Corded Ware tradition in one part of the cemetery) and social standing (Spatzier 2007: 238, 243–246). If this is the case and in the Singen cemetery we en-counter small-scale social units, such as members of different lineages for example, it cannot be taken for granted that all differences in material culture (grave goods) are due to chronological factors. It is possible instead that different kinds of ornaments, weapons or tools point to the coexistence of settlement units whose inhabitants did not share in all respects a common sense of local identity but traced back their origin to different ancestors or locations.

For the Early Neolithic Linearbandkeramik cul-ture it has been demonstrated that their small ham-lets and cemeteries were occupied by people with a different regional and/or cultural background. Mem-bers of different lineages or clans were present in the same settlement. In line with general expectations of such kinship-based systems, this also affected their access to exchange networks: the inhabitants of adjacent houses demonstrably obtained their dif-ferent varieties of flint from a number of different often widely distant sources (e.g. Fridrich 1994; 2003; 2005; Gronenborn 1999; 2003; Petrasch 2002; Lün-ing 2005a; 2005b; 2006). Clearly, this model requires a closer look at Early Bronze Age cemeteries in fu-ture and it is unfortunate that we lack Early Bronze Age settlement evidence comparable in quality to the Neolithic. Yet in general terms, it is likely that some kind of kinship based system prevailed far into the Bronze Age (see also Kienlin 2007; Roberts 2008). With regard to Singen we therefore have to take into consideration either of the following possibilities: if the members of the Singen community belonged to different lineages then they probably had access to different networks of exchange. There was not one line down which copper was traded to Singen and variation in trace element content is not to be un-derstood in purely chronological terms (e.g. mining activities proceeding along one particular ore vein with resulting changes in trace element content; cf. Krause 1988: 242). Rather there was a whole range of different contacts and obligations towards the Alps. Copper artefacts were obtained by different avenues of exchanges as their trace element content hints at the exploitation of similar but distinct deposits by various local partners who were operating mining activities on a small-scale seasonal basis comparable to the system suggested by O’Brien (2007: 24–27) for Mount Gabriel. Alternatively, at least in EBA A1, there were no such local communities at all, at least none based on mining and metallurgy (see below), and mining activities were carried out on a seasonal ba-sis by members of lowland communities in the wid-est sense themselves. It is possible that this involved the direct access of members from northern com-munities such as Singen into the mining districts. If there were communities closer by, copper was taken or exchanged north in various steps. But in any case the choice of ore deposits exploited and the path the copper subsequently took were governed by the kin-ship affiliations of those involved. Thus, copper with different trace element signatures found its way into the Singen grave groups at about the same time.

An approach like this might also account for the presence of just some Atlantic daggers alloyed with tin while tin-bronze otherwise is rare in Singen itself and its contemporaneous surroundings. The question of tin also leads on to a final point on Early Bronze Age metallurgy which might support our model. In

Fig. 13: Cemetery of Franzhausen I, Austria – arrangement of the graves into nine groups representing different communities or lin-eages (after Spatzier 2007: 221 fig. 2).


a recent paper an attempt was made to date Saxon type axes, closely related to our Salez ones, by refer-ence to decreasing trace element contents on the one hand and increasing tin concentrations on the other (Rassmann 2005). A similar argument was previously used by Krause (1988; see above) to support his suc-cession of Hindelwangen (= older part of Singen) and Böhringen-Rickelshausen (= younger part of Singen). Now, it is certainly true that in the long run with the predominance of so-called east Alpine Copper in BA A2 trace element contents tend to decline and high-tin-bronze becomes the standard alloy. The attempt, however, to apply this finding to the dating of copper objects from BA A1 tends to disguise regional vari-ability which most likely is due to other factors. The Salez axes provide an excellent example of this prob-lem: By their shape they may be seen as a sub-group of the Saxon type axes and their distribution in be-tween Neyruz axes further west and Saxon ones from eastern central Europe is taken to imply that these forms were in use at roughly the same time in BA A1. This approximate date is underlined by the use of Singen type fahlore copper for the Salez and Saxon type axes. Yet, unlike the Neyruz and Saxon type axes which in part consist of tin-bronze, the Salez ones were not alloyed with tin. Typically the solution to this problem is that the Salez axes are seen as “some-what” older (Krause 1988: 223) and/or the tin-alloyed pieces of the Neyruz and Saxon type are put into BA A2 with only the copper ones remaining in BA A1 (cf. Abels 1972: 9–10; Krause 1988: 223–224; Hafner 1995: 96–98, 141–146; Bartelheim 1998: 47–50).

Instead, it should be considered that the access to “competitive” fahlore copper had effects on the acceptance of tin alloying and contributed to a de-layed adoption of this innovation in the area of the Salez axes.1 We have seen earlier that the different impurity levels of Salez type axes necessitated or al-lowed a flexible approach to forging. Irrespective of this variability, a majority of them have good proper-ties, i.e. hardness values which in no way fall short of neighbouring Neyruz and Saxon type axes (cf. Kien-lin 2006b; Kienlin/Bischoff/Opielka 2006). With the juxtaposition of fahlore copper and low-tin-bronze, there were initially different options. A decentral-ized, possibly kinship or community based approach to mining might explain how such local preferences came about and why they were maintained for some time. With their specific fahlore type combination of antimony, arsenic, nickel and silver etc. some Salez

1 It should not be forgotten that similar situations have been observed in other areas of the Old World where tin-bronzes did not displace arsenical copper over a long time period, certainly reasoned both by regional metal-working traditions and the easier access to regional fahlores rich in arsenic. Despite their close regional neighbourhood to central Asian tin deposits, the Iranian plateau for instance did not adopt tin-bronze technology earlier than the Late Bronze Age, es-pecially in their eastern part (Vatandoust 1999; Pigott 1999).

axes reached hardness values above 200 HV0.1. The main difference between working fahlore copper and tin-bronze did not reside in the possibility to produce good implements. It is ability to do so on a regular basis that makes the difference. For on the fahlore side trace element contents above 5 % to 6 % on the whole are rare among the Salez and Saxon types and even more so for Neyruz axes which con-sist of relatively pure copper. Obviously such metal was difficult to obtain from specific ore deposits or involved knowledge of a specific smelting technique not generally available. Setting aside cultural pref-erences which may have added further complexity to this process, it is likely that communities without regular access to such fahlore copper would have taken to tin-bronze rather quickly – thereby estab-lishing exchange networks which eventually proved more “successful” when tin supply stabilized. A com-munity like Singen, on the other hand, in an area with either direct access to “good” fahlore depos-its, or at least to corresponding copper, might have opted for the “traditional” technology considerably longer and relied upon the extraction of specific ore deposits which eventually fell short of satisfying “de-mand”. These are technological choices informed, on the one hand, by the rapid spread of metallurgical knowledge among metalworkers in a wider area (cf. Kienlin 2007). But they were taken with regards to a local or regional context which must not be sub-sumed to our modern knowledge of long-term trends in Bronze Age metallurgy.

The beginnings of Alpine copper production and settlement: evidence from the Rhine, Inn and Salzach valleysSingen type copper is derived from fahlore (Fahlerz) deposits rich in silver (Ag), nickel (Ni) and antimony (Sb) as well as arsenic (As). Even in Singen itself there is compositional variation (see above) and the same holds true for the “Singen copper” distributed in a wider central European context (fig. 1). It is unclear whether the compositional variation derives from variation occuring within a small group of (Alpine) deposits or whether chemically similar deposits were exploited on a wider geographical scale. Singen type copper derives from a specific type of fahlore rather than with necessity from any single fahlore source and its origin(s) should not be studied under tight regional premises, especially in its early phases of production. An approach trying to correlate com-positional patterning in artefacts to distinct “access areas” – Alpine valleys and their settlement history – might come closer to a more complex ancient reality than the search of the one source of any specific cop-


per (cf. Winghart 2000 and Möslein/Winghart 2002 for the Late Bronze Age). We have to examine if there are compositional differences to be expected between valleys that served as gateways to the copper sources and if there were different economic strategies (sub-sistence and mining) that followed in the early colo-nisation of these Alpine valleys. We should be careful not to link Bronze Age (re-)settling of the Alps to the exploitation of copper alone. The use of high altitude grazing grounds and the development of special forms of seasonal pastoralism (transhumance) must also be taken into consideration (e.g. Wyss 1971; Della Casa 2002; Primas 2008). The chronological evidence of settlement and human activities (e.g. depositions, single findings, mining) has to be interpreted care-fully on a local and regional scale.

In order to discuss the settlement history on a broader basis, the evidence from three Alpine val-leys that have been discussed in the context of early copper mining and metallurgy for decades was col-lected. These are: the Alpine valley of the river Rhine; the Tyrolean Inn valley; and the Salzach valley. It is also appropriate to include parts of the northalpine region – the Alpine foreland – to understand the com-plementary settlement patterns since this area stood in tight connection with the Alps both in cultural and economic terms. The chronological subdivision is an-other aspect of particular importance when discuss-ing the beginnings of permanent settlement and in-tensive copper production. The chronological scope for the initial phase of intensive copper mining in the eastern Alps is generally confined to the second half of the Early Bronze Age, meaning the 18th and 17/16th centuries BC (fig. 14). This contrasts with the western and southern Alpine areas where 14C dates of copper

ore exploitation reach back to the 3rd millennium (e.g. St. Véran: Barge et al. 1998; Trentino: Perini 2005; Dal Ri/Rizzi/Tecchiati 2005).2

Considering this, it is necessary to differentiate between an older and a younger phase of the Early Bronze Age copper mining although there are serious constraints in that many types of artefacts cannot be dated with the precision required. A good under-standing of the development of pottery in southern Bavaria is provided by the recent investigations of St. Möslein (1997; 1999). However, this work also showed that Ruckdeschel’s fine grained chronology of cem-eteries based on metal artefacts only covers the older and the middle part of the Early Bronze Age. There are also serious problems in that hoards with Ösen-ringe, rib ingots or axes such as the Salez type will not easily fit into existing chronological schemes. As a re-sult you may find the Neyruz and Salez type axes as well as the Ösenringe dated to a wide timespan from EBA A1 through a transitional period to (the earlier) phases of EBA A2 (cf. Abels 1972: 9–10; Krause 1988: 223–224; Hafner 1995: 96–98, 141–146; Bartelheim 1998: 47–50; for Ösenringe: Menke 1978/79; Lenerz de Wilde 1995).

In the Salzach valley, there is no evidence for settlements of the older Early Bronze Age in the inneralpine part of this valley (fig. 15). All settle-

2 This does not mean that we put earlier phases out of conside-ration: but neither the northalpine copper metallurgy of the 5th and 4th millennium BC in the Tyrol or Salzburg, nor the 3rd millennium BC west- and southalpine metallurgy resulted continuously in an intensive late Early to Middle Bronze Age copper industry. On the basis of our current knowledge we have to face the gaps and recognise a renewed introduction of copper metallurgy on the basis of permanent settlement structures at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC.

Fig. 14: Table of EBA 14C dates from the district Pongau in Salzburg, Austria (after Krauss 2002; Bachmann/Stöllner 2003 and unpub-lished).


ments we know start in the 18th and 17th centu-ries, a date often given by M. Hell on the basis of the older concepts of the so-called “A2/B1” pottery group (after W. Dehn and H.-J. Hundt; note the com-ment of Möslein 1997: 37–38; for the Klinglberg, on basis of 14C research: Buck et al. 1994). The inner-alpine Salzach-Saalach-group (after Menke 1978/79; Möslein 1997) clearly corresponds with a dense set-tlement pattern in the Salzburg and Reichenhall basin during that time. A contemporaneous pat-tern can also be observed in the late Early Bronze Age copper industry. Alongside the Salzach valley there are oldest dates from the Einödberg (southern Mitterberg mining district) and from the mining area of St. Veit (Krauss 2002) (see fig. 14).3 It is cer-tainly not by pure chance that many of the rib-ingot hoards have been discovered at the widening of the fore-alpine Salzach valley – one should tentatively refer them to the Salzach valley sources. Whether this also can be said for the Ösenring ingots depends on their chemical composition and their dating: ac-

3 The dating from the Bronze Age mining of the Vierthaler Alm near Uttendorf in the Pinzgau is not yet proven to be Early Bronze Age, but there is evidence of slag tempered ceramic and slags from the Steinbühel settlement near Ut-tendorf (cf. list 1, nos. 96, 99).

cording to the minor evidence of older Early Bronze Age settlements in the fore-alpine Inn and Salzach area, we may conclude that most of these deposits also date not earlier than the 18th century BC. In this case they might also belong to Salzach/Saalach valley copper production – a point to be tested and discussed by reference to new geochemical data. With regard to the possibility of a seasonal acquisi-tion of copper, we cannot find secure evidence yet for the older Early Bronze Age. Graves and settle-ments of that period did not reach into the Salzburg and Reichenhall basin which would have been the perfect starting point for such expeditions. It might be worth investigating again the dating of these settlements because it would come as a surprise if the subsequent intensive colonisation of the inner-alpine valley would have had no initial phase and exploration in the earliest stages.

A different pattern may be deduced for the Ty-rolean Inn valley. Comparing the evidence for Early and Late Bronze Age settlement patterns (Hujsmans 1994; Harb 2002), the difference between both peri-ods is remarkable (fig. 15): while the earlier phases only reached the lower Tyrolean Inn valley, the ba-sin of Innsbruck and the upper Inn valley (Tyrolean upland/Oberland) were not settled earlier than the

Fig. 15: Settlement history in EBA A1 and EBA A2/B in the eastern Alps (Tyrol, Salzburg) and in the northern Alpine uplands (sites: list 1–3; conceptual draft: Th. Stöllner).


18th and 17th century BC.4 The site of Brixlegg-Maria-hilfbergl – a focus of copper production already in the Late Neotlithic – and the Buchberg near Wiesing were certainly occupied earlier due to the copper deposits of the Schwaz-Falkenstein and the Brixlegg copper districts. Recent research on prehistoric mining un-fortunately has only proven a Late Bronze Age to Ear-ly Iron Age date for mining so far. However, according to the copper metallurgy of the Buchberg (Martinek/Sydow 2004), there is no reason to doubt Early Bronze Age mining (see also ceramic finds of Gstrein 1981 at the Burgstall district). It is likewise significant to find traces of metallurgical activities also in the Tischofer cave near Kufstein (Harb 2002). This too underlines the importance of metal production for the earliest settlers of the lower Inn valley (Unterland). According to the chemical composition of the Ösenringe and rib-shaped ingots found mainly at the Alpine uplands in the north, there is no reason to doubt that they derive from the antimony- and silver-rich fahlore deposits in the Inn valley – at least a part of them (Krause 2003: 158 fig. 139). Certainly further discussion is required on the basis of existing and new geochemical data, if the so-called Ösenring copper can be differentiated between several sources of fahlores, including those of the Slovakian ore mountains. In general, nothing contradicts the existence of local copper processing communities from the beginning of the second mil-lennium onwards. Whether these settlements can be traced back, however, even to the older part of the EBA A1 is unsure. According to pottery finds (such as the Burgweinting-Viecht type after Möslein 1997), it is likely that the earliest permanent settlements on the Buchberg and in the surroundings of Radfeld and Brixlegg began in EBA A1b. This points to copper pro-duction on the basis of a stable population in the val-ley; if there had been seasonal expeditions from the Alpine forelands before can only be presumed but not proven yet.

Looking at the remaining Early Bronze Age evi-dence of the Inn valley, two further observations might be interesting. First, if we look at the Tyrolean upland or the area of Innsbruck and Matrei we can-not find any evidence of copper production at that period which would point to mining and metallurgy as the main economic basis for these settlements. The sudden and intensive settlement activity, especially towards the Brenner pass, indicates instead that the preferable traffic position was the crucial factor and exchange provided the economic background. Sec-ond, it is also remarkable that there are no ingot de-posits in the copper production areas although they exist in their immediate surroundings. The same is

4 One should not forget that single finds or collar shaped in-gots provided neither a secure chronological framework nor secure evidence for permanent settlements: the disk shaped needle from Natters and the single find of a collar shaped ingot from Matrei (list 3, nos. 131, 151).

true for the inneralpine Salzach-Saalach-group. It may be asked whether this is accidental or whether it is due to the special ritual and religious beliefs of the actual copper producers. This question cannot be an-swered as long as the whole chaîne d’opératoire of cop-per working is not clear. In particular, we do not know exactly where raw copper has been refined and cast to trading bars or final products. The ingot deposits remain elusive in their ritual and economic impor-tance as long as the ecomomic connections between the inneralpine producers and their neighbours to the north is not fully understood (e.g. if these hoards are religious gifts or trading deposits/treasures of the traders or from communities situated along the pro-duction line).

It is interesting now to shift to the Rhine valley – the supply area of the copper consumers for instance of the so-called Singen copper (fig. 16). Again, colo-nisation during the earliest parts of EBA A1 basically did not reach the inneralpine valleys. There are only few possible exceptions whose finer chronology is not clear yet (Cazis-Cresta in the Domleschg: list 5, no. 90). It is unlikely that this evidence indicates real stable colonisation since at the moment there is no further evidence of such a process in adjacent Graubünden. It is not easy to assess the situation in the northern parts of the Rhine valley: Although it is difficult to find direct settlement evidence for EBA A1, some hint is provided by the deposits with Salez type axes (Sen-nwald-Salez, Mels-Rossheld, Grabs, Gams: list 4, nos. 25–26, 33, 39) and by the grave of Vaduz-Hahnenspiel (list 5, no. 91). One therefore should not deny some kind of permanent colonisation from the 20th to 18th century BC, at least in the outer parts of the Rhine valley. But in comparison to the younger phase of EBA (A2), the evidence is on a modest scale. The 18th to 16th century BC ultimately saw the development of many inneralpine settlements, even in smaller side valleys such as the Oberhalbstein or the Engadin. The upper-most parts of the Rhine valley and also the Montafon have been occupied during that period. This central Alpine evidence of colonisation processes into mar-ginal areas perfectly coincides with the development we observe on lake-shore settlement sites. At the Lake Constance as well as the Zurich Lake we find the same pattern (fig. 16). First settlement evidence dates back to the 20th and 19th century BC (Zurich-Mozartstraße: Conscience 2001) and was followed by a whole range of settlements from the 18th to the 16th century BC on-wards (Conscience 2000; Keefer 1990; Köninger 1997; Hochuli/Köninger/Ruoff 1994).

It is doubtful if copper was the main economic reason for these colonisation processes. We only have small evidence for copper processing in some of the settlements – even at the Oberhalbstein within easy reach of rich sulphidic deposits no clear Early Bronze Age production is proven yet. There is small-scale copper working in settlements like Savognin


Fig. 16: Settlement history in EBA A1 and EBA A2/B in the Alpine Rhine valley and related side valleys in eastern Switzerland, south-west Germany and Vorarlberg (Austria) (sites: list 4–5; conceptual draft: Th. Stöllner).


though and rich copper artefacts in settlements and graveyards such as Lumbrain Petscha Cresta or Do-nat (list 5, nos. 133, 140) might provide evidence of a local “copper” culture. On the other hand, there is not a single date from slag sites which provides an argument for Early Bronze Age production (Fasnacht 1999; Schaer 2003). It is the same in the case of the Silbertal fahlore deposits in the Montafon whose geochemical compositions would fit the Singen cop-per composition (Krause/Oeggl/Pernicka 2004). The problem is not easy to solve because copper pro-duction could have been managed on the level of a household production within the settlements at the very beginning (so we should not expect slag heaps necessarily). On the other hand, small-scale mining sites, even deep mining, were not unusual during that period and might still be discovered as shown by a comparison with 3rd millennium BC sites in west-ern and southern Europe (Pyrenees, Alps, Montagne Noir, Liguria: Barge et al. 1998; Ambert 1995; Pearce 2007; pers. comm. Eric Kammerthaler, Argitxu Bey-rie, Toulouse). These mines also have been estab-lished in marginal areas or at high altitudes without permanent settlements in the surrounding area, perhaps by migrating groups on a seasonal level in connection with pastoral modes of economy. To find such examples requires intensive field-work and – undoubtedly – some luck.

Putting things together there is good reason to assume an expeditional mode of copper production as a first step of copper acquisition. The main valleys might have served as permanent settlement area from the earlier phases of the Early Bronze Age onwards. The Salez axe hoards and the settlements of Wartau, Eschnerberg and Koblach as well as the Altenstätten basin would have been preferable points of access to the Alpine hinterland. There is some reason for the assumption that permanent settlement started ear-lier here. On the basis of the current evidence, it is reasonable to argue for a seasonal mode of copper mining in this phase with metallurgy unlikely to have played a decisive role. In the younger part of the Ear-ly Bronze Age, the alpine side-valleys were colonised and occupied step by step. However, it is striking that not even the most promising “copper districts” were exploited at this stage. On the contrary, if there was copper exploitation on a seasonal and modest scale before, in some areas it apparently had to be aban-doned due to the increasing efforts involved in agri-culture and cattle breeding. Once settled in the Alps, basic subsistence strategies were more important – at least initially – than the additional economic oppor-tunities offered by mining and metallurgy. Therefore, it is hardly imaginable that copper exploitation has played a role for territorialism and social diffentia-tion with hillforts and elites on top at least for the founding of the eastern Switzerland inneralpine set-tlements.

Conclusions

In Singen times (ca. 2200 to 2000 BC) there is no Alpine settlement related to the mining and pro-duction of Singen type copper and we also lack evi-dence of mining itself (see above; cf. also Fasnacht 1999). This finding is conspicous with regard to the number of artefacts of Singen type copper known yet it may also be symptomatic of the beginnings of copper production in the Alps. We are dealing with small-scale activities most likely organised on a seasonal basis and we should not subsume this de-centralised approach under a model of elite-driven mining and metallurgy. Rather there is evidence that Bronze Age settlement in the Alps was driven forward by communities with a subsistence-based economy initially drawing only limited advantage of alternative resources such as the Alpine copper ore deposits. Only towards the second half of the Early Bronze Age there is evidence that in some areas this system evolved to comprise communities practising mining and metallurgy on a larger scale but it wasn’t until the Late Bronze Age that there is evidence of a marked increase in the organisational complexity of such activities.

Most authors would agree that there is little evi-dence of social ranking in cemeteries such as Singen (Strahm 2002: 186; Krause 2003: 259–261). The situa-tion is not fundamentaly different, however, during the subsequent Early Bronze Age (c. 2000 to 1800 BC and in fact beyond) when the existence of elites in the northalpine region is mainly derived from the occasional occurence of halberds and solid-hilted daggers (Krause 2002: 49–52; see also Krause, this volume). In the area between the Rhine valley in the west and the Salzach valley in the east there is only a small number of solid-hilted daggers and they hardly provide evidence of social differentiation in the east-ern Alps. Finds in graveyards such as Donat or in set-tlements such as the Buchberg near Wiesing (list 4, no. 165; list 5, no. 133) can be designated as the big exceptions. Most daggers in general have been found as stray finds (list 1, nos. 79, 84; list 2, nos. 100, 133, 150, 153, 157, 159; list 5, nos. 118, 135, 154) often at high altitude and suggestive of an interpretation as ritual depositions. It is entirely unclear what propor-tion of the (male?) population was in command of a dagger and what (social) implications, if any, a metal hilt as opposed to an organic one carried. In the Inn and Salzach valleys the evidence of elites remains elu-sive until the Late Bronze Age when large hoards and graveyards seem to indicate differences in economic prosperity and maybe differential access to status and power (e.g. Sperber 1999). We are entitled then to ask what kind of social structure may be deduced for the small-scale communities who settled on sites such as the small hilltops we generally find in the Al-pine valleys (fig. 17).


In the Únětice culture the episode of „princely“ graves such as Helmsdorf and Leubingen may reflect the inherent instability of attempts to derive power from the control of material or symbolic resources rather than permanent social evolution. In any case with most of the halberds and daggers being stray finds, no „princely“ graves or corresponding settle-ment evidence, it is controversial to propose that the northalpine region underwent a similar develop-ment (Kienlin 2008). Against this background then we would argue that the occurence of settlements such as Bartholomäberg reflects a general intensification in Early Bronze Age landuse in the Alps with the role of mining and the existence of elites in control of metal-lurgy in particular being overestimated. The attempt to draw a line from the mining for Singen copper to Bartholomäberg (e.g. Krause 1988: 238–240; 2005a: 391–401; 2007: 128; Krause/Oeggl/Pernicka 2004: 5–6; see also Krause, this volume) stems from the notion that Bronze Age mining – and metallurgy in general – could only be carried out by hierarchically organ-ised communities resident near the ore deposits. This approach falls short of representing a more complex development of organisational strategies involved in

early mining. In particular, we have to take into con-sideration that in the beginning of the Bronze Age there were no Alpine communities at all exploiting “their” copper sources and trading copper to the low-lands. Rather Early Bronze Age metallurgy in the Alps may have begun with mining activities carried out by members of lowland communities on a seasonal ba-sis (cf. also Pearce/De Guio 1999; Spindler 2003; Della Casa 2003; Pearce 2007). Such a pattern certainly is in line with the evidence of dagger finds as ritual depositions at high altitudes (see above) – the perfect ground for herders and shepherds assigned a special role in their societies and most likely involved in the first phases of copper exploration as well.

Although we still lack sufficient data on the set-tlement and subsistence basis there can be no doubt that small-scale communities gradually entered the inneralpine valleys during the first half of the 2nd millennium BC. In the Salzach and Saalach valleys this did not take place before the second half of Early Bronze Age (A2, from the 18th century BC onwards), while first permanent settlements could have been established in the Tyrolean lowland shortly after 2000 BC. Some of these were drawing on copper de-

Fig. 17: Typical Bronze Age settlement locations in the Salzach valley: 1 Klinglberg near St. Veit; 2 Höchbauer at the Einödberg, St. Johann (in the centre, hillock in the sun); 3 Götschenberg near Bischofshofen, historical view about 1910; 4 Sinnhubschlößl at the confluence of Salzach and Fritzbach, historical view during the time of the commercial enterpriser Christoph Perner, 16th century AD (1–2, Foto Th. Stöllner, DBM; 3 after G. Kyrle; 4 after E. Feldinger/F. Moosleitner).


posits, but we lack comparable evidence from the alpine Rhine valley, indicating that such a speciali-sation was dependent on regionally specific fac-tors. In another respect, however, the colonisation of the lower alpine Rhine valley between Bregenz, Vaduz and Sargans corresponds to the eastern Alps. There is little evidence that elites were involved in Early Bronze Age settlement and we suggest that small-scale communities entering the Alpine valleys in the footprints of those who first explored those areas in their search for pastoral land and mineral resources – a pattern similar to that suggested for other regions and prehistoric periods as well, e.g. in Liguria (Pearce 2007) – should be considered. A sea-sonal mode of exploitation is known from ethnog-raphy as well and is characteristic for wide-ranging extensive land-use strategies. Such expeditions are often headed by experienced people knowing the hunting grounds, trackways, arable pastoral grounds and resting sites as well as the mineral deposits – an approach to early mining which typically involves a flexible use of various raw material deposits but ob-viously does not rule out that abundant sources were repeatedly visited.

Drawing all evidence together, we may suggest the following pattern of Early Bronze Age landuse and settlement in the Alps. After a first phase of ex-peditions carried out in connection with pastoral activities, small communities chose arable grounds situated on medium altitude terraces to establish permanent settlements on the basis of agricultural activities. The choice of hilltops for the settlement it-self might indicate rivalry with neighbouring groups but we shouldn’t underestimate the need of coopera-tion in a new environment such as the Alps. In some cases these groups apparently continued exploiting copper ore deposits by seasonal or sporadic visits but, initially, mining may even have decreased as a conse-quence of permanent settlement and agriculture in some areas. In others we witness – in the long run – some concentration on more abundant and sustain-able ore deposits – although quite obviously not all of these communities were in an economic position for such an intensification of mining and metallurgy. This may be the reason why only some of these com-munities could establish intensive copper produc-tion as we know it from the 16th to 14th centuries BC (Middle Bronze Age) in the Mitterberg area (e.g. Eib-ner 1993; Stöllner/Cierny/Eibner 2004; Barthelheim 2007). Singen type copper seems a perfect example for an initial Early Bronze Age exploitation and distri-bution pattern that was based on established econo-mies in the Alpine foreland. Both the archaeological record and ethnographic evidence strongly suggest that there is no need for a hierarchically organised society for such an approach to mining and neither did Alpine metallurgy evolve in this direction until very much later.

Lists: Early to Early Middle Bronze Age sites in southern Germany, west-ern Austria and Switzerland

List 1: Fore- and Inneralpine Salzach valley (Austria, Germany)Final Neolithic (transition) to EBA A1b1. Ainring, Peatbog, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, two ceramical jugs, Möslein 1996, 21 fig. 16.2. Aising, Kr. Rosenheim, single find, ceramic vessel, type Burgweinting-Viecht (?), Ruckdeschel 1978, 54 no. 61 tab. 38,9.3. Nußdorf, Kr. Rosenheim, graves, triangular dagger, EBA A1b, Ruckdeschel 1978, 55 no. 62 tab. 17,1.4. Oberndorf, settlement, BH Salzburg-Umgebung, M. Hell, Germania 38, 1960, 131; ceramic of type Burg-weinting/Viecht after Möslein 1997.5. Kay-Mühlham, Kr. Traunstein, grave 1, Ruckdeschel 1978, 34–36 no. 29 tab. 9.6. Törring-Wilgering, Kr. Traunstein, grave, Ruckde-schel 1978, 39 no. 33 tab. 11,9–13.

Deposits of collar shaped ingots (EBA 1 to EBA 2a)7. Ainring, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, single find (de-posit?), collar shaped ingot, Menke 1978/79, 291 no. 115.8. Assling, Tegernau, Kr. Rosenheim, single find, col-lar consisting of 5 ring ingots, Ruckdeschel 1978, 9 tab. 54,6.9. Attel, Reitmehring, Lkr. Rosenheim, deposit, collar shaped ingots, Menke 1978/79, 276 no. 38.10. Bergen, Bernhaupten, Kr. Traunstein, deposit, col-lar shaped ingots, Menke 1978/79, 277 no. 43.11. Feilnbach-Au, Irschenberg, Lkr. Rosenheim, collar shaped ingots, Menke 1978/79, 275 no. 34.12. Chieming-Oberhochstätt, Lkr. Traunstein, collar shaped ingots, 2 deposits, Möslein 1998/99, 75 no. 20–21.13. Eiselfing-Gamersham, Lkr. Rosenheim, deposit, collar sheped ingots, Menke 1978/79, 276 no. 3714. Fürstätt, Fürstätter Wald, Lkr. Rosenheim, single find, part of a deposit, Menke 1978/79, 276 no. 36; de-posit, collar shaped ingots, pin, Möslein 1998/99, 75 no. 17.15. Freilassing-Brodhausen, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, deposit, collar shaped ingots, Menke 1978/79, 269 no. 5.16. Fridolfing, Langesöd, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, deposit, collar shaped ingots, Menke 1978/79, 278 no. 47.17. Golling, Torren, motorway A10, Ofenauer tunnel, collar shaped ingot, M. Hell, Germania 30, 1952, 91 no. 5.


18. Hallein, Dürrnberg, single find, collar shaped in-got, D. Moosleitner, Jahrresschrift Salzburger Muse-um Carolino Augusteum 1969, 103 fig. 1,1.19. Hallwang, BH Salzburg-Umgebung, deposit, flang-ed axe, 2 collar shaped ingots, 6 fragments, spiral shaped bracelets, R. Pittioni, Urgeschichte des öster-reichischen Raumes (Wien 1954), 346 fig. 244.20. Haslach, Axdorf, Kr. Traunstein, single find, collar shaped ingot, Ruckdeschel 1978, 57 tab. 38,7.21. Kirchanschöring, Palling, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, deposit, collar shaped ingot, Menke 1978/79, 278 no. 49.22. Kirchanschöring, Reith, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, deposit, collar shaped ingot, Menke 1978/79, 279 no. 50.23. Kirchanschöring, Roth, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, deposit, collar shaped ingot, Menke 1978/79, 279 no. 51.24. Pfaffing-Dirnhart, Kr. Rosenheim, deposit, collar shaped ingots, Menke 1978/79, 275–276 no. 35.25. Piding-Mauthausen, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, deposit, collar shaped ingots, new deposits, Möslein 1998/99, 72 no. 6.26. Piding-Högl, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, deposit, collar shaped ingots, Menke 1978/79, 270 no. 7.27. Salzburg-Glanhofen, airport, gravel pit, 30 collar shaped ingots, M. Hell, Germania 30, 1952, 91.28. Seeon-Seebruck, Heimhilgen, deposit, collar shaped ingots, P. Reinecke, Germania 25, 1941, 134–135; Möslein 1998/99, 77 no. 24.29. Staudach-Egernbach, Lkr. Traunstein, deposit, col-lar shaped ingots, Möslein 1998/99, 76 no. 25.30. Taching, Sicharting, Lkr. Traunstein, deposit, two collar shaped ingots, Möslein 1998/99, 76 no. 26.31. Teisendorf, Uffering, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, deposit, collar shaped ingots, Menke 1978/79, 270 no. 9.32. Unterwössen, Lkr. Traunstein, deposit, collar shaped ingots, Möslein 1998/99, 76–77 no. 27; further deposits: Menke 1978/79, 279–280 no. 53–54.33. Viehhausen, Wals-Siezenheim, BH Salzburg, 1944 discovery of 44 collar shaped ingots, M. Hell, Germa-nia 30, 1952, 92.34. Weitwörth, BH Salzburg-Umgebung, collar shaped ingots, M. Hell, Archaeologia Austriaca 43, 1968, 122.

Addition169. Mondsee, Riesnerbauer, deposit, collar shaped ingots, J. Reitinger, Die ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Funde in Oberösterreich (Linz 1968).

EBA A2a to A2b/B (transition)Northern Alpine upland in the Salzach basin and the Salzach valley and neighbouring Rupertiwinkel 35. Adnet, Adneter Riedl, settlement layer, slag tem-per, v. Uslar 1991, 203 no. 1.36. Ainring, Auhögel, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, sherds, v. Uslar 1991, 169 no. 1.

37. Ainring-Bicheln, Lkr. Berchtesgaden, deposit, 2 spiral shaped bracelets, Möslein 1998/99, 72 no. 2.38. Aschau im Chiemgau, Grattenbach, Lkr. Rosen-heim, 12 flanged axes, 2 copper cakes (dating?), Mös-lein 1998/99, 74 no. 14.39. Attel, Staudhamer See, deposit, miniature rib in-gots, Menke 1978/79, 276 no. 39.40. Bad Reichenhall, Nonn, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, four deposits, rib shaped ingots, Möslein 1998/99, 72 no. 4.41. Bad Reichenhall, Nonn, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, deposit, pins, pendants, Möslein 1998/99, 72 no. 5. 42. Bad Reichenhall, Nonn, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, settlement, A2/B-ceramic, H.-J. Hundt, Bayer-ische Vorgeschichtsblätter 31, 1966, 43.43. Bad Reichenhall, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, Sa-line, flanged axes, one with hafting, v. Uslar 1991, 170.44. Flintsbach, Petersberg, Lkr. Rosenheim, deposit, two spirals, 1 fragment, Möslein 1998/99, 74 no. 15. 45. Freilassing-Hofham, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, grave, Möslein 1996, 24.46. Golling, Nikolausberg, settlement, Hell/Moosleit-ner 1980/81, 10–16.47. Golling, Rabenstein, settlement, Hell/Moosleitner 1980/81, 10–16; v. Uslar 1991, 254 no. 17.48. Götting-Wiechs, Lkr. Rosenheim, grave, EBA A2b; Ruckdeschel 1978, 7–8 no. 3, tab. 2,1–349. Grabenstätt, Kaltenbach, Lkr. Traunstein, two rib shaped ingots, Möslein 1998/99, 76 no. 22.50. Hohenthann, Thal, Kr. Rosenheim, deposit, mini-ature rib ingots, Menke 1978/79, 276 no. 40. 51. Hörafing/Weildorf/Punschern, Lkr. Berchtesga-dener Land, deposit, 2 flanged axes, „rings“, Möslein 1998/99, 73 no. 7.52. Karlstein, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, settlements at Listsee, Langacker, Hochtal, M. Menke, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 15, 1968, 69; v. Uslar 1991, 169 no. 7; Menke 1978/79, 51 fig. 28, 9–11.53. Karlstein-Seebach, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, single find, flanged axe, Menke 1978/79, 51 fig. 28,13. 54. Kay-Mühlham, Kr. Traunstein, grave 2, Ruckde-schel 1978, 34–36 tab. 10,1–6.55. Kirchheim, Kr. Traunstein, grave, dagger, axe, pin, Ruckdeschel 1978, 38 no. 31, tab. 8,20–22.56. Kuchl, Georgenberg, settlement, M. Hell, Der Geor-genberg in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit. Mit-teilungen der Gesellschaft der Salzburger Landeskde. 67, 1927, 1–20; M. Hell, Jahrbuch für Altertumskunde 3, 1909, 205–207; Kyrle 1918, 94 (appendix 3).57. Kuchl, Rehrlpalfen, stray finds, settlement (date?), v. Uslar 1991, 205 no. 31.58. Leobendorf, Biburg, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, deposit, rib ingots, Menke 1978/79, 269 no. 4.59. Loitersdorf, Lorenzberg, Kr. Rosenheim, grave, EBA A2a, amber beads, axe, ceramic, Ruckdeschel 1978, 9–10 no. 8 tab. 2,4.


60. Marzoll, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, settlement, Menke 1978/79, 51 no. 8.61. Neubeuern, Pinswang, Lkr. Rosenheim, disk pins, EBA A2a, Möslein 1998/99, 75 no. 16.62. Marquartstein, Niedernfels, Kr. Traunstein, depos-it, miniature rib ingots, Menke 1978/79, 278 no. 48.60. Petting, Schönramer Filze, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, deposit, axes, type Langquaid, Menke 1978/79, 279 no. 52.63. Obereching, BH Salzburg-Umgebung, settlement/deposit, rib shaped ingots, Moosleitner/Moesta 1988, 29–67.64. Saaldorf-Brünntal, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, halberd dagger, Menke 1978/79, 270 no. 6; Möslein 1996, 24 fig. 19.65. Salzburg-Hellbrunnerberg, settlement, M. Hell, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft Wien 51, 1921, 31.66. Salzburg-Itzling, settlement, M. Hell, Archaeolo-gia Austriaca 1, 1948, 27–37.67. Salzburg-Liefering, KG Liefering II, settlement, F. Moosleitner, FÖ 36, 1997, 785; M. Hell, Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft der Salzburger Landeskunde 97, 1957, 137; M. Hell, Archaeologia Austriaca 10, 1952, 34–40.68. Salzburg-Liefering, KG Liefering I, Klessheim, Liefering, F. Moosleitner, FÖ 38, 1999, 587.69. Salzburg-Maxglan, settlement, M. Hell, Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift 10, 1923, 89; M. Hell, Ar-chaeologia Austriaca 57, 1975, 9.70. Salzburg-Morzg, settlement, offering site, M. Hell, Archaeologia Austriaca 40, 1966, 34-62; dating of the site is debatable; there may be ceramic dating to the 4th millennium Altheim group and to the Middle/Late Bronze Age (upper and lower levels).71. Salzburg-Muntigl, single find, rib shaped ingot, M. Hell, Germania 30, 1952, 91 no. 2.72. Salzburg-Parsch, settlement, M. Hell, Archaeolo-gia Austriaca 46, 1969, 8.73. Salzburg-Rainberg, settlement, stray finds, for in-stance: rib shaped ingot, M. Hell, Germania 30, 1952, 91 no. 1.74. Stein a.d. Traun, Hassmoning, Kr. Traunstein, de-posit, rib shaped ingots, Menke 1978/79, 278 no. 45.75. Stein a.d. Traun, Hörpolding, graves, dating (?), Ruckdeschel 1978, 58 no. 69.76. Taching, Gessenhausen, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, deposit, bronze tubes, spiral-tutuli, Menke 1978/79, 277; Ruckdeschel 1978, tab. 11.77. Teisendorf, Hörafing, Lkr. Berchtesgadener Land, two flanged axes, deposit, Möslein 1998/99, 73 no. 7.78. Teisendorf, Wimmern, deposit, rib shaped ingot, Menke 1978/79, 270 no. 10.79. Untersberg, BH Salzburg, single find, dagger EBA A2, Neubauer/Stöllner 1996, 131 no. 114.80. Waging, Kr. Traunstein, deposit, rib shaped ingots, chisel, axes, Menke 1978/79, 280 no. 55.80a. Waging, Kr. Traunstein, deposit, spiral shaped bracelets, Menke 1978/79, 280 no. 56.

Addition168. Abtsdorf I/Attersee, BH Gmunden, settlement; J. Offenberger/E. Ruttkay, Pfahlbauforschung in den österreichischen Salzkammergutseen. In: H. Schlich-therle, Pfahlbauten rund um die Alpen (Darmstadt 1997), 76.

Inneralpine area (Salzach valley)EBA A2a and A2b/B (transition)81. Bischofshofen, Götschenberg, hill-settlement, Lip-pert 1992, 89.82. Bischofshofen, Pestfriedhof, A2/B-ceramic, from the excavation at the grave-yard, A. Lippert/G. To-medi, FÖ 26, 1987.83. Bischofshofen, Burgstall/Ruine Bachsfall, hill-set-tlement, F. Moosleitner, FÖ 21, 1982, 322; FÖ 22, 1983, 271–272; FÖ 23, 1984, 331; Moosleitner 1984, 9–22.84. Glocknerstraße, area around the Hochtor, flanged axe, dagger, EBA/MBA Neubauer/Stöllner 1996, 131 no. 103.85. Bischofshofen, Spöck, settlement, BH St. Johann, Spöckerbühel, Hell 1952, 42–53.86. Hohlwegen, settlement, BH Zell am See, Moosleit-ner 1991, 88.87. Kaprun, Bürg, hill-settlement, M. Hell, FÖ 5, 1946/50, 59; F. Moosleitner, FÖ 30, 1991, 339.88. Katzentauern, KG Hohlwegen, hill-settlement, near Saalfelden, Moosleitner 1991, 87; R. Krauß, FÖ 39, 2000, 592; R. Krauß, FÖ 41, 2002, 589 (perhaps the ceramics belong to an older horizon within EBA A).89. Krimml, Falkenstein, settlement, M. Hell, Mitteilun-gen der Gesellschaft der Salzburger Landeskunde 103, 1963, 3–22.90. St. Georgen, Burgstall, hill-settlement, M. Hell, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft Wien 52, 1922, 262.91. St. Johann, Höchbauer/Berghaus, Zschocke/Preuschen 1932; excavation C. Eibner, unpublished, see Eibner 1993, 14.92. St. Johann, Klinglberg, hill-settlement, Hell 1921; Shennan 1994.93. St. Johann, Burgschwaiggang, Brandergang, min-ing areas, 14C-dates from beneficiation-tailing, un-published.94. St. Veit, Mining area, Auf der Au, St. Veit, Krauss 2002.95. Sinnhubschlößl, hill-settlement, BH St. Johann, Hell 1961, 32–48; C. Eibner, FÖ 23, 1984, 275.96. Uttendorf, Steinbühel, hill-settlement, ceramic, metallurgy, P. Höglinger, FÖ 35, 1996, 438; FÖ 36, 1997, 785; FÖ 37, 1998, 718; FÖ 38, 1999, 772; Archäologie Ös-terreichs 8/1, 1997, 36.97. Walchen, Naglköpfl, M. Hell, FÖ 5, 1946/50, 59, 68; F. Moosleitner, FÖ 31, 1992, 555.98. Unken, rock-shelter near Kniepass, settlement layers with ceramic, M. Hell, Mitteilungen der Ges-ellschaft der Salzburger Landeskunde 104, 1964, 89.


99. Vierthaler Alm, Bronze Age Mining area, indicated by finds from the settlement at the Steinbühel (slag tempered ceramics).

List 2: SW-Bavaria (Germany)Southwestern Upper Bavaria, sites of EBA A1a and A1b100. Eschenlohe, Höllenstein, Lkr. Garmisch-Parten-kirchen, single find, dagger, Koschik 1981, 160 no. 40 tab. 16,1.101. Gilching, Lkr. Starnberg, graves, Koschik 1981, 207 no. 181, tab. 103.101a. Grünwald, Geiselgasteig, Lkr. München, 3 graves, EBA A1a, Ruckdeschel 1978, 42 no. 37, tab. 15,1–2.102. Honsolgen, Kr. Landsberg/Lech, graves, EBA A1b, Ruckdeschel 1978, 287, 142 no. 145, tab. 37–38,1–3.103. Murnau, Mühlhagen, Lkr. Weilheim, grave, EBA A1b, Ruckdeschel 1978, 61 no. 71 tab. 5,3.104. München, Au, Kr. München, grave, Ruckdeschel 1978, 46 no. 43, tab. 12,3–5.105. München, Erhartstraße, Kr. München, grave, dat-ing (?), Ruckdeschel 1978, 48 no. 45.106. München-Harlaching, Autharistraße, grave, dat-ing (?), Ruckdeschel 1978, 48–49 no. 46.107. München-Harlaching, Ravennastraße, grave, dat-ing (?), Ruckdeschel 1978, 49 no. 47108. München-Harlaching, Tirolerplatz, grave, dating (?), Ruckdeschel 1978, 49 no. 48.109. München-Sendling, Kr. München, grave, Ruckde-schel 1978, 51 no. 55 tab. 12,1–2.110. München-Sendling, Lindwurmstraße, Kr. München, Ruckdeschel 1978, 51 no. 56, tab. 13–14.111. München-Sendling, Steinerstraße, Kr. München, graves, dating (?), Ruckdeschel 1978, 52 no. 57.112. München-Solln, Kr. München, graves, Ruckde-schel 1978, 53 no. 58, tab. 15,3–8.112a. Obermeitingen, Kr. Landsberg/Lech, graves, Ko-schik 1981, 163 no. 57, tab. 17,10–26.113. Pähl, Lkr. Weiheim, single find, axe, Koschik 1981, 242 no. 227 tab. 126,11.114. Pullach, Lkr. München, graves, EBA A1, Ruckde-schel 1978, 45 no. 40–41, tab. 12,8.115. Raisting, Lkr. Weilheim, graveyard, Ruckdeschel 1978, 61 no. 73.

Deposits of collar shaped ingots (EBA A1 to EBA A2a)116. Andechs-Erling, Lkr. Starnberg, 2 deposits, collar shaped ingots, Möslein 1998/99, 75 no. 18.117. Aschering, Grundmoos, Lkr. Starnberg, deposit, collar shaped ingots, Koschik 1981, 199 no. 167, tab. 72,9. 118. Aying, Großhelfendorf, Lkr. München, deposit, collar shaped ingots, Möslein 1998/99, 74 no. 13.

119. Hartpenning, Heignkam, Lkr. Miesbach, deposit, collar shaped ingots, Menke 1978/79, 273 no. 24.120. Hechendorf/Pilsensee, Kr. Starnberg, deposit, collar shaped ingots, Menke 1978/79, 277 no. 42; Kos-chik 1981, 208 no. 183.121. Kaufering, Kr. Landsberg/Lech, deposit, collar shaped ingots, Koschik 1981 162 no. 55, tab. 18,9. 122. Kottgeisering, Pleitmannswang, Kr. Fürstenfeld-bruck, deposit, collar shaped ingots, Koschik 1981, 152 no. 26, tab. 9,7.123. Pöcking, Grubmoos, Kr. Starnberg, deposit, collar shaped ingots, Menke 1978/79, 277 no. 41.124. Valley, Grub, Lkr. Miesbach, deposit, collar shaped ingots, Möslein 1998/99, 74 no. 12.

EBA A2a to A2b/B (transition)125. Hechenwang, Steinebach, Kr. Landsberg/Lech, deposit, spirals, ceramic, Koschik 1981, 161 no. 48, tab. 16,9–10; Menke 1978/79, 272 no. 19.126. Oberhaching, Kyberg, Kr. München, deposit (?), band shaped stripes, Ruckdeschel 1978, 179 no. 177, tab. 54,7–8.127. Thaining, in the surrounding of, Kr. Landsberg/Lech, rib shaped ingots, Menke 1978/79, 272–273, no. 20.128. Wallenhausen, Kr. Landsberg/Lech, Unfried-shausen, deposit, two Langquaid axes, Koschik 1981, 165 no. 68, tab. 21,1–2.

List 3: Inn valley and northern Ty-rol (Austria)EBA A1129. Brixlegg, Mariahilfbergl, settlement, R. Krauß, FÖ 34, 1995, 649 fig. 305–311; FÖ 35, 1996, 438; FÖ 37, 1998, 719; Huijsmans 1994, 130. EBA A2/B find, also 14C-dates; for earlier EBA A: vessels with handles, type Burgweinting-Viecht, bone pin, double-tubes, see also Möslein 1997, 69.130. Kufstein-Ebbs, Tischhofer Cave, BH Kufstein, of-fering site (?), Harb 2002; also Huijsmans 1994, 146.131. Natters, Galgen-/Kreuzbühel, single find, disk-head pin with head-loop, EBA A1b (after Ruckde-schel), Huijsmans 1994, 83 tab. 19,1.132. Wiesing, Buchberg, see below, first finds from EBA A1b.

EBA A2/B (transition)133. Achental, BH Schwaz, Alpe Dalfaz, single find, dagger, Neubauer/Stöllner 1996, 130 no. 83.134. Ampaß, below Sonnenbichl, stray finds from a settlement, A2/B-ceramic, Huijsmans 1994, 103 tab. 36–38.135. Angath, BH Kufstein, First-Kapelle, settlement, metallurgy, W. Sölder, Eine Siedlung der Bronzezeit bei Angath. Tiroler Heimat 51/52, 1987/88, 5; Huijs-mans 1994, 142, tab. 48–49, 66.13, 67.9–13.


136. Aurach, BH Kitzbühel, settlement, R. Krauß, FÖ 37, 1998, 719.137. Brixlegg, Mariahilfbergl, settlement, R. Krauß, FÖ 34, 1995, 649 fig. 305–311; FÖ 35, 1996, 438; FÖ 37, 1998, 719; Huijsmans 1994, 130. EBA A2/B-finds; also 14C-dates and metallurgy.138. Brixlegg, Mehrnstein, settlement, Huijsmans 1994, 132; M. Huijsmans/R. Krauß, FÖ 46, 2006, 654. A2/B-ceramic, GrN29814: 3450±50 BP, 1880–1690 cal BC; GrN-30391: 3290±50 BP, 1620–1500 cal BC. 139. Brixlegg, Zimmermoos, single find, pin, FÖ 34, 1995, 650 fig. 312.140. Ellbögen, BH Innsbruck-Umgebung, EBA A2/B, settlement, W. Sölder, FÖ 37, 1998, 720.141. Faggen, Kiahbichl, settlement, W. Sydow, FÖ 37, 1998, 635.142. Fließ, Piller Höhe, offering site, disk-head pin (A1b/A2a after Ruckdeschel), G. Tomedi/R. Lachberg-er, FÖ 44, 2005, 516, G. Grabherr, ArchaeoTirol, Kleine Schriften 4, 2002, 83.144. Fügen, Kapfing, graveyard; presumably older EBA A2/B settlement stray-finds, Huijsmans 1994, 127f. tab. 44,9–11.145. Innsbruck-Hötting, settlement, A2/B-ceramic, BH Innsbruck-Stadt, Huijsmans 1994, 119 tab. 12,3, 42.146. Innsbruck-Iglis, Goldbichl, offering site – used over a longer time-period, EBA A2-ceramic, G. Tomedi/S. Nicolussi-Castelan/H. Müller, FÖ 34, 1995, 649; FÖ 38, 1999, 773; FÖ 39, 2000, 590; FÖ 41, 2002, 594; FÖ 43, 2004, 843; VRI 1835: 3460±50 BP, 1870–1690 cal BC. 147. Innsbruck-Wilten, BH Innsbruck-Stadt, single find, loop-shaped pin (EBA A2b), Huijsmans 1994, 114 no. 61.148. Kaunerberg, Mairhof, settlement, EBA A2/B, H. Marchhart, FÖ 44, 2005, 486.149. Landeck, single find, flanged axe, EBA A2/B, Hui-jsmans 1994, 68 tab. 10,1.150. Landeck-Perjen, triangular solid-hilted dagger, EBA A2, Huijsmans 1994, 69 tab. 14,2.151. Matrei, Brenner, single find, collar shaped ingot, EBA, Huijsmans 1994, 95 tab. 21,1.152. Matrei, Gleiersbühel, settlement, graveyard (42 cremation graves, without funeral offerings), L. Zem-mer-Plank, Veröffentlichungen des Tiroler Landes-museums Ferdinandeum 58, 1978, 157; Huijsmans 1994, 96 tab. 534–535, 66–67.153. Mühlau, Mühlau gorge, single find, triangular solid-hilted dagger, EBA A2, Huijsmans 1994, 117 no. 6, tab. 12,1.154. Mühlbachl, KG Innsbruck-Land, settlement, cast-ing mould, raw copper cake, ceramic EBA A2/B, FÖ 30, 1991, 254; also Huijsmans 1994, 94. 155. Patsch, Pfaffenbühel, settlement (?), A2/B-ce-ramic, FÖ 45, 2006, 655.156. Patsch, Patscherbühel, A2/B-ceramic, settle-ment, Huijsmans 1994, 90 tab. 33,1–8.157. Patsch, near Mühlbach tunnel, single find, solid-hilted dagger, EBA A2, Huijsmans 1994, 91 tab. 14,1.

158. Reith, Alpachtal, Bergbau Schwaz/Brixlegg; also EBA-ceramic; B. Rieser/H. Schrattenthaler, FÖ 38, 1999, 775.159. Ried, BH Landeck, deposit, EBA A2, Huijsmans 1994, 62 tab. 22–23.160. Stanz bei Landeck, deposit, EBA A2, pin, spiral finger-ring, two collar shaped ingots, Huijsmans 1994, 66 tab. 19,3.6, tab. 21.2–3.161. Telfes, Kaburga, hilltop settlement, A2/B-ceram-ic, FÖ 44, 2005, 486. 162. Telfes, Muiggensbichl, hilltop settlement, near Luimes, A2/B-ceramic, Huijsmans 1994, 87 tab. 12,2, 31–32.163. Tischhofer Höhle, see above.164. Weer, Schwaz, settlement, offering site, A2/B-ceramic, U. Töchterle/G. Tomedi, FÖ 44, 2005, 487.165. Wiesing, Buchberg, hilltop-settlement, A2/B-ce-ramic, cremation-grave, metallurgy, perhaps since EBA A1b (looped head pin), Huijsmans 1994, 124; W. Sydow, FÖ 23, 1984, 179–207; J. Pöll, Kulturberichte aus Tirol 56, 2002 = 55. Denkmalbericht Bundesland Tirol 2001, 132–133 (discovery of a solid-hilted dagger); W. Sydow, FÖ 34, 1995, 567–573; Martinek/Sydow 2004, 199–211.166. Zams, BH Landeck, single find, head-shaped disk, Huijsmans 1994, 71 tab. 19,2.167. Zammerberg, BH Landeck, stray finds of a settle-ment, ceramic, Huijsmans 1994, 73 tab. 25,1–7.

List 4: Upper Swabia/Eastern Swit-zerlandUFAS: Ur- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie der SchweizEBA A11. Bad Schussenried, Kr. Sigmaringen, “Lissen”, depo-sit III, Keefer 1990, 46 no. 10; Stein 1979, 24 no. 32.2. Binningen, Kr. Konstanz, grave, Krause 1988, 288 list 12,1.3. Bodman-Schachen I, Kr. Konstanz, settlement, layer A, H. Schlichtherle, Berichte der Römisch-Ger-manischen Kommission 71, 1990, 229 fig. 15; Hochuli/Köninger/Ruoff 1994, 277.4. Greifensee-Böschen, Kr. Konstanz, settlement, A.-C. Conscience/B. Eberschweiler, Jahrbuch der Sch-weizerischen Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 84, 2001, 136–146.5. Greifensee-Starkstromkabel, Kr. Konstanz, A.-C. Conscience/B. Eberschweiler, Jahrbuch der Sch-weizerischen Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 84, 2001, 136 –146.6. Hohentengen-Beizkofen, Kr. Sigmaringen, graves, Krause 1988, 139 tab. 4; Overath 2000, 204.7. Immendingen, Kr. Tuttlingen, grave, Badische Fundberichte 3, 1936, 358 fig. 12.8. Kadelburg, Kr. Waldhut, 2 stone slab cisterns with two inhumations, R. Dehn, Archäologische Nachrich-ten aus Baden 22, 1979, 19.


9. Ostrach, Kr. Sigmaringen, grave, mound, Overath 2000, 205.11. Ravensburg, Kr. Ravensburg, deposit, 30 spiral bracelets, Stein 1979, 30 no. 45.12. Rümlang, Kr. Zürich, grave, axe type Neyruz, Gal-lay 1971, 115–138; UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, 14 no. 133.13. Singen, Kr. Konstanz, 95 graves, Krause 1988.14. Zürich-Letten, Kanton Zürich, single find, river, UFAS 1971, 22; E. Vogt in: E. Vogt/E. Meyer/H. C. Mey-er, Zürich von der Urzeit bis zum Mittelalter (Zürich 1971), 62 fig. 17,2.15. Zürich-Mozartstraße, Kanton Zürich, settlement, E. Gross et al., Neolithische und frühbronzezeitliche Ufersiedlungen 1. Berichte der Zürcher Denkmalp-flege 4 (Zürich 1987); recent new dates: A. Conscience, Jahrbuch Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 83, 2000, 181–190.

Deposits EBA A1/A2, axes type Neyruz and Salez, collar shaped ingotsComment on the dating: axes of type Neyruz and type Salez are difficult to date. Datings are based on two basic observations, first that they are made of fahlore copper and second that some of the assemblages con-sist of types that can be considered possible already in EBA A1; it is quite clear that they do not belong to the horizon of the Langquaid axes and should be dat-ed somewhat earlier (e.g. Abels 1972, 9). Until today it is more conventional to date all of the collar shaped ingots or the Salez/Neyruz axe deposits to the older EBA A. When considering the absolute time span of Early Bronze Age chronology, which is generally well established, it seems reasonable to date the series of axes in parallel with the collar shaped ingots to EBA A1–A2a.16. Arbon, Kanton Thurgau, single find, axe type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, no. 1.17. Bad Schussenried, Kr. Sigmaringen, deposit I, col-lar shaped ingot, Keefer 1990, 46 no. 9; Stein 1979, 23 no. 30.18. Bad Schussenried, Kr. Sigmaringen, “Lissen”, de-posit II, collar shaped ingots, Keefer 1990, 46 no. 10; Stein 1979, 23 no. 31.19. Biberach a.d. Riß, Kr. Biberach/Riß, single find, axe, Abels 1972, 5 no. 3.20. Bodnegg-Wollmarshofen, Kr. Ravensburg, single find, axe type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, no. 4.21. Böhringen, Rickelshausen, Kr. Konstanz, deposit, 8 axes type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, no. 5–9.22. Bronschhofen, Kanton Sankt Gallen, single find, axe type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, no. 63.23. Dettingen, Kr. Konstanz, „Weierried“, single find, axe type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, no. 44.24. Feldkirch (A), Altenstadt/Koblach, Kadel, deposit of two axes, type Salez, Abels 1972, no. 213–232; Stein 1979, 86 no. 181.25. Gams, In der Gosenzen, Kt. St. Gallen, deposit of 6 axes, Bill 1985, 25; Abels 1972, no. 11–13.

26. Grabs, Kanton Sankt Gallen, Grabs hillock, single find, axe type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, no. 15.27. Goldach, Kanton Sankt Gallen, single find, axe type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, no. 14.28. Güttingen, Kanton Thurgau, axe type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, no. 87.29. Hindelwangen, Kr. Konstanz, deposit, 12 axes type Salez in a vessel, UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, no. 65–69.30. Jestetten, Kr. Waldshut, axe type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, no. 54.31. Meckenbeuren, Liebenau, Kr. Tettnang, single find, axe type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22 ; Abels 1972, no. 55.32. Meersburg, Kr. Überlingen, single find, axe type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, no. 46.33. Mels-Rossheldschlucht, Kt. St. Gallen, deposit, discovered in 1943 wrapped in bee’s wax, three spiral bracelets, axe type Salez, Bill 1985; Abels 1972, no. 16.34. Nussdorf, Kr. Überlingen, single finds, 2 axes type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, no. 72–73.35. Pfyn, Kanton Thurgau single find, axe type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, no. 19.36. Ravensburg, Kr. Ravensburg, single find, axe type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, no. 60.37. Regensdorf, Kanton Zürich, single find, axe type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, no. 74.38. Schübelbach, Kanton St. Gallen, single find, Krause 1988, tab. 19.39. Sennwald Salez, Kt. St. Gallen, deposit, 66 axes 15 kg, axes type Salez, Bill 1985; Abels 1972, no. 21–37, 47–50, 76–79.40. Tannheim, Kr. Biberach, single find, river, axe type Salez, Abels 1972, no. 38.41. Unteruhldingen-Stollenwiesen, Bodenseekreis, single find, settlement (?), 2 axes type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, no. 80–81; H. Schlichtherle, Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 71, 1990, 229 fig. 15.42. Wetzikon, Robenhausen, Kanton Zürich, deposit, 2 axes type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, no. 20.43. Winterthur-Wüflingen, Kanton Zürich, single find, axe type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, no. 40.44. Zug, Kanton Zug, single find, axe type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22.45. „Zürich“, Kanton Zürich, single find, axe type Salez, UFAS 1971, 22; Abels 1972, no. 42.

EBA A246. Arbon-Bleiche 2, Kt. Thurgau, settlement, F. Fischer, Die frühbronzezeitliche Ansiedlung in der Bleiche/TG. Schriften Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Schweiz 17 (Basel 1971); Hochuli/Köninger/Ruoff 1994, 278.47. Aulendorf, Kreis Ravensburg, grave, mound, EBA A2, Overath 2000, 203.48. Bad Buchau, Kr. Biberach, settlement Forschner, Keefer 1990; Hochuli/Köninger/Ruoff 1994, 279.


48a. Bermatingen, Bodenseekreis, 16 rib shaped in-gots, deposit, Stein 1979, 24 no. 34.49. Bodman-Schachen, Kr. Konstanz, settlement, lay-ers B/C, phase III, Hochuli/Köninger/Ruoff 1994, 278; H. Schlichtherle, Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 71, 1990, 229 fig. 15.50. Bodman-Weiler, Kr. Konstanz, settlement, H. Schlichtherle, Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 71, 1990, 229 fig. 15.51. Brackenhofen, Kr. Sigmaringen, settlement, Keef-er 1990, 45 list 1 no. 3.52. Egg, Obere Gül I, Kr. Konstanz, settlement, H. Schlichtherle, Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 71, 1990, 229 fig. 15; Köninger 1997.53. Erlenbach-Winkel, Kanton Zürich, settlement, Conscience 2000, 181 fig. 1.54. Fällanden-Rietspitz, Kanton Zürich, single finds Conscience 2000, 181 fig. 1.55. Feldbach-Jona, Kanton Zürich, settlement, Jahr-buch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Urges-chichte 87, 2004, 355.56. Feldmeilen-Vorderfeld, Kanton Zürich, U. Ruoff in: E. Gross et al., Zürich „Mozartstraße“. Neolithische und frühbronzezeitliche Ufersiedlungen 1. Berichte der Zürcher Denkmalpflege, Monographien 4 (Zürich 1987) 147–148.57. Friedrichshafen, Bodenseekreis, deposit, 26 rib shaped ingots, Stein 1979, 27 no. 38.58. Hemmenhofen, Kr. Konstanz, bronze object, H. Schlichtherle, Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 71, 1990, 229 fig. 15.59. Hornstaad-Hörnle, Kr. Konstanz, settlement, ce-ramics, H. Schlichtherle, Berichte der Römisch-Ger-manischen Kommission 71, 1990, 229 fig. 15.60. Horgen-Scheller, Kanton Zürich, settlement, Con-science 2000, 181 fig. 1.61. Hüttwilen/Uerschhausen Inseli, Kanton Thurgau, Hochuli/Köninger/Ruoff 1994, 279.62. Konstanz-Staad, Kr. Konstanz, settlement, H. Schlichtherle, Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 71, 1990, 229 fig. 15.63. Küssnacht-Hörnli, Kanton Zürich, settlement, Conscience 2000, 181 fig. 1.64. Litzelstetten, Kr. Konstanz, bronze object, H. Schlichtherle, Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 71, 1990, 229 fig. 15.65. Ludwigshafen, Holzplatz, Kreis Konstanz, settle-ment, H. Schlichtherle, Berichte der Römisch-Germa-nischen Kommission 71, 1990, 229 fig. 15.66. Ludwigshafen, Seehalde, Kreis Konstanz, settle-ment, H. Schlichtherle, Berichte der Römisch-Germa-nischen Kommission 71, 1990, 229 fig. 15.67. Maurach-Ziegelhütte, Bodenseekreis, bronze ob-ject, H. Schlichtherle, Berichte der Römisch-Germa-nischen Kommission 71, 1990, 229 fig. 15.68. Obermeilen-Rohrenhaab, Kanton Zürich, set-tlement, U. Ruoff in: E. Gross et al., Zürich „Mo-zartstraße“. Neolithische und frühbronzezeitliche

Ufersiedlungen 1. Berichte der Zürcher Denkmalp-flege, Monographien 4 (Zürich 1987) 147–148.69. Maur-Schiffslände, Kanton Zürich, single finds, Conscience 2000, 181 fig. 1.70. Männedorf-Strandbad, Kanton Zürich, single finds, Conscience 2000, 181 fig. 1.71. Meilen, Schellen, Kanton Zürich, settlement, UFAS 1971, 24; U. Ruoff, Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Ges-ellschaft für Urgeschichte 70, 1987, 51–64; Hochuli/Köninger/Ruoff 1994, 277.72. Nußdorf-Seehalde, Bodenseekreis, settlement, H. Schlichtherle, Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 71, 1990, 229 fig. 15.73. Nußdorf, Strandbad Bodenseekreis, settlement, H. Schlichtherle, Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 71, 1990, 229 fig. 15.74. Pfäffikon-Burg, Kanton Zürich, single finds, Con-science 2000, 181 fig. 1.75. Pfäffikon-Irgenhausen, Kanton Zürich, single finds, Conscience 2000, 181 fig. 1.76. Rapperswil-Technikum, Kanton Zürich, settle-ment, Conscience 2000, 181 fig. 1.77. Sipplingen, Osthafen, Bodenseekreis, settlement, H. Schlichtherle, Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 71, 1990, 229 fig. 15.78. Tuttlingen, Ludwigstal, Kr. Tuttlingen, grave, Overath 2000, 206.78a. Überlingen, Bodenseekreis, bronze object, H. Schlichtherle, Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 71, 1990, 229 fig. 15.79. Untersiggenthal, Kanton Aargau, settlement, UFAS 1971, 24.79a. Uttenweiler, Kr. Biberach, deposit, 94 rib shaped ingots, Stein 1979.80. Uetikon-Schiffslände, Kanton Zürich, settlement, Keefer 1990, 46, list 2; Conscience 2000, 181 fig. 1.81. Wädenswil, Vorder Au, Kanton Zürich, Conscience 2000, 181–190.82. Wangen-Hinterhorn, Kr. Konstanz, settlement, ce-ramics, H. Schlichtherle, Berichte der Römisch-Ger-manischen Kommission 71, 1990, 229 fig. 15.83. Welschlingen, Kr. Konstanz, single find, pin, Gal-lay 1971, 138 no. 22.84. Wollishofen-Haumesser, Kanton Zürich, settle-ment, Conscience 2000, 181 fig. 1.85. Zürich-Bauschanze, Kanton Zürich, P. F. Suter, Jahr-buch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Urgeschich-te 67, 1984, 7–19; Hochuli/Köninger/Ruoff 1994, 277.86. Zürich-Breitungerstrasse, Kanton Zürich, settle-ment, Conscience 2000, 181 fig. 1.87. Zürich-Mozartstraße, Kanton Zürich, settlement, E. Gross et al., Neolithische und frühbronzezeitliche Ufersiedlungen 1. Berichte der Zürcher Denkmalp-flege, Monographien 4 (Zürich 1987); new dating: Conscience 2000, 181–190.88. Zürich, Utoquai, Kanton Zürich, single finds, Con-science 2000, 181 fig. 1.


89. Zürich-Wollishofen, Kanton Zürich, settlement, UFAS 1971, 22.

List 5: Upper Rhine valley, Oberh-albstein, Montafon (Austria, Swit-zerland, Liechtenstein)EBA A190. Cazis, Cresta, Kt. Graubünden, EBA settlement (EBA A1?), Zürcher 1982, 22.91. Vaduz-Hahnenspiel, Liechtenstein, grave, skel-eton in crouched position, EBA A1 with a bone pin, Seifert 2008, 24 fig. 4 .

EBA A2/B Vorarlberg and Liechtenstein92. Bartholomäberg, Platta I (Friaga Wald), settle-ment, R. Krause, FÖ 44, 2005, 488; Krause, FÖ 43, 2004, 845; Krause/Oeggl/Pernicka 2004.93. Bludenz, Montikel, settlement, A, Vonbank 1966, 55; W. Leitner, Die Fundstellen von Montikel bei Blu-denz. Jahrbuch des Vorarlberger Landesmuseums 123/24, 1978/79, 479–493.94. Bludenz, Kleiner Exerzierplatz, settlement, Von-bank 1966, 55.95. Borscht, Schellenberg, settlement, Seifert 2008, fig. 3; D. Beck, Ausgrabungen auf dem Borscht. Jahr-buch des Historischen Vereins des Fürstentums Liechtenstein 48, 1948, 79–100; ibid. 49, 1949, 85–100; H. Swozilek, Die urgeschichtlichen Funde von Bor-scht bei Schellenberg. Unpubl. Diss. Innsbruck 1971; M. Maczycska, Schellenberg-Borscht, I–III (Triesen 1999); Arch. Austriaca 59–60, 1976, 43–47.96. Bregenz, Kennelbacher Straße, settlement, stray finds, Vonbank 1966, 55.97. Eschen-Malanser, settlement, A. Merz, Eschen-Malanser. Bronzezeitliche Siedlungen im Fürstentum Liechtenstein (Triesen 2007).98. Feldkirch-Amberg, settlement, Vonbank 1966, 55.99. Feldkirch-Tisis, settlement, Vonbank 1966, 55.100. Feldkirch, Tostner castle, settlement, Vonbank 1966, 55.101. Göfis, Heidenburg, BH Feldkirch, A. Hild, Die Urnenfelderkultur der Heidenburg bei Göfis, Vorar-lberg. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 34/35, 1949/1950, 272; Vonbank 1966, 55.102. Göfis, Hochwindenkopf, BH Feldkirch, A. Hild/O. Menghin, Der Ringwall auf dem Hochwindenkopf, Gemeinde Göfis. Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift 25, 1938, 77–83; Vonbank 1966, 55.103. Götzis, Neumontfort, settlement, Vonbank 1966, 55.104. Hosensee, Montafon, single find of a Langquaid axe, Krause/Oeggl/Pernicka 2004, 5 fig. 2.

105. Koblach-Kadel, BH Feldkirch, settlement, deposit of two Langquaid axes, Vonbank 1966, 55–58; Fetz 1988, 9–42.106. Koblach, Krummenberg, Nellenbürgle, settle-ment, Vonbank 1966, 55.107. Koblach, Rheinbalme, settlement, Vonbank 1966, 55.108. Koblach, Bocksberg, settlement, Vonbank 1966, 55.109. Koblach, Krinne, settlement, Vonbank 1966, 55.110. Koblach, Neuburghorst, settlement, Vonbank 1966, 55.111. Koblach, Glitzhöhle, settlement, Vonbank 1966, 55.112. Koblach, Glitzbalmen, settlement, Vonbank 1966, 55.113. Lorüns-Stallehr, Diebschlössle, settlement, MBA-ceramic, C. Kaufer/K. Wink, FÖ 41, 2002, 596–597.114. Nendeln, stray finds from settlement; röm. Guts-hof, „Sägaweiher“, E. Helferich, Die Ausgrabungen beim Sägaweiher, Nendeln (1972–1975). Jahrbuch des Historischen Vereins des Fürstentums Liechtenstein 79, 1979, 51–149115. Nüziders, Bludenz, Rappenkopf, settlement, sin-gle find, Langquaid axe, Vonbank 1966, 55; K. Wink/C. Kaufer, FÖ 44, 2005, 847. 116. Rankweil, Liebfrauenberg, settlement, Vonbank 1966, 55.117. Triesenberg, Ape Sücka, high altitude, single find, flanged axe, Neubauer/Stöllner 1994, 128 no. 44.118. Schaan, Liechtenstein, single find, dagger, Gallay 1971, 137 fig. 14,14.119. Weiler, Pfaffenkellenloch, settlement, Vonbank 1966, 55.

Kanton St. Gallen120. Altstätten, Bürg 1, settlement, Seifert 2008, 22–23, fig. 2–3.121. Berschis, Felskopf St. Georg, settlement, Seifert 2008, 22–23, fig. 2–3.122. Flums, Gräpplang, excavation 1990, pin of type Bühl, unpublished, F. Knoll-Heitz/W. A. Graf, Flums, SG. Burghügel Gräpplang. Jahrbuch der Schweizeri-schen Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte 53, 1966/67, 104–109; also Neubauer 1994, 12.123. Grabs, Alp Schlawitz, high altitude single find, hilted axe, Neubauer/Stöllner 1996, 126 no. 2.124. Grabs, Alp Bir, high altitude single find, hilted axe, Neubauer/Stöllner 1996, 126 no. 3.125. Rebstein, Hardegg-Härdli, settlement, Seifert 2008, fig. 3.126. Sevelen, Pfäfersbüel, Seifert 2008, 22–23, fig. 2–3.127. Wartau, Ochsenberg, Seifert 2008, 22–23, fig. 2–3; Primas et al. 2004.128. Wartau, Herrenfeld, excavation University Zu-rich, Seifert 2008, 22–23, fig. 2–3; Primas et al. 2004.129. Wartau, Procha Burg, Seifert 2008, 22–23, fig. 2–3; Primas et al. 2004.


Kanton Graubünden130. Cazis, Cresta, settlement, Zürcher 1982, 22 no. 19.131. Chur, Areal Ackermann, settlement, stray finds, unpublished, Zürcher 1982, 23 no. 24.132. Cunter, Caschligns, settlement, EBA A2 to MBA C, Zürcher 1982, 24 no. 41.133. Donath, graveyard, for instance triangular solid-hilted dagger, Zürcher 1982, 25 no. 53.134. Fellers/Falera, Muota, settlement, Zürcher 1982, 25 no. 55.135. Felsberg, Calanda slope, triangular solid-hilted dag-ger, high altitude single find, Zürcher 1982, 26 no. 56.136. Flims, Va Vallorca, EBA-ceramic, single find, Zürcher 1982, 27 no. 71.137. Ftan, Val Tasna bei Pra da Punt, single find, half finished product of a double-wing pin, Zürcher 1982, 27 no. 73.138. Lostallo, high altitude single find, axe, Zürcher 1982, 29 no. 90; Neubauer/Stöllner 1996, 127 no. 21.139. Lumbrein, Crestaulta, Lugnez, settlement, W. Burkart, Crestaulta. Monographien Ur- u. Frühgesch. Schweiz 5 (1946); Zürcher 1982, 34 no. 94.140. Lumbrein, Cresta Petschna, Lugnez, graveyard, J. Bill, Grab 4 der Nekropole Cresta Petschna im Lugnez. Arch. Schweiz 2/2, 1979, 75–80.141. Maladers, Tummihügel, settlement, A. Gredig, Die ur- und frühgeschichtliche Siedlung am Tum-mihügel bei Maladers. Arch. Schweiz 2, 1979, 69–74; Zürcher 1982, 50 no. 268.142. Puschlav/Poschiavo, single find, detailed prove-nance unknown, flat axe (older dating); Zürcher 1982, 34 no. 144.143. Ramosch, Mottata, settlement, Zürcher 1982, 35 no. 148.144. Ruschein, Pleun da Buora, settlement, early MBA, Zürcher 1982, 34 no. 159.145. Salouf, Motta Valac, settlement, since EBA A2, Zürcher 1982, 37 no. 165.146. Savognin, Padnal, Kt. Graubünden, oldest settle-ment phase in EBA A2 (phase E), 14C-dates and strati-fied finds, Rageth 1986, 63–104; Zürcher 1982, 34 no. 178.147. Scuol, Kirchhügel, Zürcher 1982, 34 no. 187.148. Silvaplana, Grupin?, high altitude single find, flat axe, Zürcher 1982, 42 no. 202; Neubauer/Stöllner 1996, 127 no. 29.149. Splügen, single find (early MBA), Zürcher 1982, 34 no. 204; Neubauer/Stöllner 1996, 127. 150. Stampa, Isola, Lej da Segl, high altitude single find, Zücher 1982, 127 no. 171; Neubauer/Stöllner 1996, 127 no. 32.151. Sufers, Foppa, rolled head pin, single find, EBA(?), Zürcher 1982, 43 no. 212; Neubauer/Stöllner 1996, 127 no. 33.152. Trun, Grepault, settlement, Zürcher 1982, 46 no. 236.

153. Untervaz, Alp Salaz, Untervazer Alp, two spear-heads, Zürcher 1982, 47 no. 244; Neubauer/Stöllner 1996, 127 no. 36–37.154. Untervaz, Planggen, Alp Cosenz, dagger with hilt plate, Zürcher 1982, 47 no. 246; Neubauer/Stöllner 1996, 127 no. 38.155. Versam, Sclums, Alp da Razen, high altitude sin-gle find, Neubauer/Stöllner 1996, 127 no. 40; Zürcher 1982, 47 no. 251.156. Waltensburg, Jörgenberg, settlement, single find, Zürcher 1982, 48 no. 254–255.

ReferencesAbels 1972 B.-U. Abels, Die Randleistenbeile in Baden-Württemberg,

dem Elsaß, der Franche Comté und der Schweiz. Prähistor-ische Bronzefunde IX,4. München: C. H. Beck 1972.

Ambert 1995 P. Ambert, Les mines préhistoriques de Cabrières (Hérault):

Quinze ans de recherches. État de la question. Bulletin de la Sociète de Préhistorique Française 92, 1995, 499–508.

Appadurai 1986 A. Appadurai, Introduction: Commodities and the Politics

of Value. In: A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press 1986, 3–63.

Bachmann/Stöllner 2003 H.-G. Bachmann/Th. Stöllner, Bunt- und Edelmetalle aus

mitteleuropäischen Komplexerz-Lagerstätten: Fahlerz-Verhüttung von der Bronzezeit bis zur Renaissance. In: Th. Stöllner/G. Körlin/G. Steffens/J. Cierny (eds.), Man and Mining – Mensch und Bergbau. Studies in Honour of Gerd Weisgerber on Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Der An-schnitt, Beiheft 16. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum 2003, 25–35.

Barge et al. 1998 H. Barge/B. Ancel/P. Rostan/J.-L. Guendon, La mine de

Clausis à Saint Véran (Hautes Alpes) : exploitation et aire de réduction du minerai de cuivre d’époque préhistorique. In: C. Mordant/M. Pernot/V. Rychner (eds.), L’Atelier du bronzier en Europe du XXe au VIIIe siècle avant notre ère. Actes du colloque international Bronze ‘96, Neuchâtel et Dijon. Paris: CTHS 1998, 71–82.

Bartelheim 1998 M. Bartelheim, Studien zur böhmischen Aunjetitzer Kul-

tur – Chronologische und chorologische Untersuchungen. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 46. Bonn: Habelt 1998.

Bartelheim 2002 M. Bartelheim, Metallurgie und Gesellschaft in der Früh-

bronzezeit Mitteleuropas. In: J. Müller (ed.), Vom Endneo-lithikum zur Frühbronzezeit: Muster sozialen Wandels? (Tagung Bamberg 14.–16. Juni 2001). Universitätsforsc-hungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 90. Bonn: Habelt 2002, 29–43.

Bartelheim 2004 M. Bartelheim, The Spatial Analysis of the Early Bronze

Age Únětice Culture Cemetery at Polepy (Bohemia). In: L. Šmejda/J. Turek (eds.), Spatial Analysis of Funerary Re-mains. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia, Department of Archaeology 2004, 69–80.

Bartelheim 2007 M. Bartelheim, Die Rolle der Metallurgie in vorgeschich-

tlichen Gesellschaften. Sozioökonomische und kulturhis-


torische Aspekte der Ressourcennutzung. Ein Vergleich zwischen Andalusien, Zypern und dem Nordalpenraum. Forschungen zur Archäometrie und Altertumswissen-schaft 2. Rahden/Westf.: VML 2007.

Bartelheim et al. 2002 M. Bartelheim/K. Eckstein/M. Huijsmans/R. Krauß/E.

Pernicka, Kupferzeitliche Metallgewinnung in Brixlegg, Österreich. In: M. Bartelheim/E. Pernicka/R. Krause (eds.), Die Anfänge der Metallurgie in der Alten Welt. Forschun-gen zur Archäometrie und Altertumswissenschaft 1. Rah-den/Westf.: VML 2002, 33–82.

Bertemes 1992 F. Bertemes, Der frühbronzezeitliche Bestattungsplatz von

Singen im Landkreis Konstanz. Saarbrücker Studien und Materialien zur Altertumskunde 1, 1992, 61–97.

Bill 1980 J. Bill, Früh- und mittelbronzezeitliche Höhensiedlun-

gen im Alpenrheintal im Lichte der Bronzeproduktion. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 10, 1980, 17–21.

Bill 1985 J. Bill, Zur Fundsituation der frühbronzezeitlichen Horte

von Mels-Rossheld, Gams-Gasenzen und Salez im Kanton St. Gallen. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 15, 1985, 25–29.

Bill 1997 J. Bill, Die Bronzebeile von Salez. Das 1883 gefundene De-

pot aus der Frühbronzezeit. Werdenberger Jahrbuch 10, 1997, 247–261.

Bourgarit 2007 D. Bourgarit, Chalcolithic Copper Smelting. In: S. La

Niece/D. Hook/P. T. Craddock (eds.), Metals and Mines: Studies in Archaeometallurgy. London: Archetype Publi-cations 2007, 3–14.

Bourgarit et al. 2003 D. Bourgarit/B. Mille/M. Prange/A. Hauptmann/P. Am-

bert, Chalcolithic Fahlore Smelting at Cabrières: Recon-struction of Smelting Processes by Archaeometallurgical Finds. In: Archaeometallurgy in Europe. Volume 1. Milano: Associazione Italiana di Metallurgia 2003, 431–440.

Buck et al. 1994 C. E. Buck/C. D. Litton/S. J. Shennan, A case study in com-

bining radiocarbon and archaeological information: the early Bronze Age settlement of St. Veit-Klinglberg, Land Salzburg, Austria. Germania 72, 1994, 427–447.

Burton 1984 J. Burton, Quarrying in a tribal society. World Archaeology

16, 1984, 234–247.Butler 1978 J. J. Butler, Rings and Ribs: The Copper Types of the „Ingot

Hoards“ of the Central European Early Bronze Age. In: M. Ryan (ed.), The Origins of Metallurgy in Atlantic Europe. Proceedings of the Fifth Atlantic Colloquium Dublin. Dub-lin: Stationery Office 1978, 345–362.

Cierny/Stöllner/Weisgerber 2005 J. Cierny/Th. Stöllner/G. Weisgerber, Zinn in und aus Mit-

telasien. In: Ü. Yalçın/C. Pulak/R. Slotta (eds.), Das Schiff von Uluburun. Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren. Katalog zur Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum 2005, 431–448.

Chappel 1966 J. Chappel, Stone axe factories in the Highlands of East

New Guinea. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32, 1966, 96–121.

Christoforidis/Pernicka 1988 A. Christoforidis/E. Pernicka, Gruppierung von Metall-

analysen mit Hilfe der Clusteranalyse. In: R. Krause, Die endneolithischen und frühbronzezeitlichen Grabfunde auf der Nordstadtterrasse von Singen am Hohentwiel. For-schungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 32. Stuttgart: Theiss 1988, 252–262.

Clark/Martin 2005 C. P. Clark/S. R. Martin, A Risky Buisness: Late Woodland

Copper Mining on Lake Superior. In: In: P. Topping/M. Ly-nott (eds.), The Cultural Landscapes of Prehistoric Mines. Oxford: Oxbow 2005, 110–122.

Conscience 2000 A. Conscience, Reichverzierte frühbronzezeitliche Keramik

am Zürichsee – der Fundkomplex von Wädenswil-Vorder Au. Jahrbuch der Schweizer Gesellschaft für Ur- und Früh-geschichte 83, 2000, 181–190.

Conscience 2001 A. Conscience, Frühbronzezeitliche Uferdörfer aus

Zürich-Mozartstrasse – eine folgenreiche Neudatierung. Mit einem Exkurs von Eduard Gross: Ein kritischer Blick zurück. Jahrbuch der Schweizer Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 84, 2001, 147–157.

Dalton 1965 G. Dalton, Primitive Money. American Anthropologist 67,

1965, 44–65.Dal Ri/Rizzi/Tecchiati 2005 L. Dal Ri/G. Rizzi/U. Tecchiati, Die Untersuchung einer

spätkupferzeitlichen Struktur mit Hinweisen auf Erzgewin-nung und -verhüttung in Milland bei Brixen. In: L. dal Ri/U. Tecchiati (eds.), Der spätkupferzeitliche Schmelzplatz von Milland bei Brixen im Rahmen der beginnende Metallur-gie im alpinen Raum. Bozen: Folio 2005, 4–12.

De Grooth 1995 M. E. Th. de Grooth, The Organization of Chert Exploita-

tion in Southeastern Bavaria during the Neolithic. Archae-ologia Polona 33, 1995, 163–172.

De Grooth 1997 M. E. Th. de Grooth, The Social Context of Neolithic Flint

Mining in Europe. In: R. Schild/Z. Sulgostowska (eds.), Man and Flint. Proceedings of the VIIth International Flint Symposium Warszawa – Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski Septem-ber 1995. Warszawa: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnol-ogy Polish Academy of Sciences 1997, 71–75.

Della Casa 2002 Ph. Della Casa, Landschaften, Siedlungen, Ressourcen.

Langzeitszenarien menschlicher Aktivität in ausgewähl-ten Gebieten der Schweiz, Italiens und Frankreichs. Préhis-toires 6. Mergoil: Montagnac 2002.

Della Casa 2003 Ph. Della Casa, Concepts of Copper Age Mobility in the

Alps based on Land Use, Raw Materials and a Framework of Contact. Preistoria Alpina 39, 2003, 203–210.

Eibner 1993 C. Eibner, Die Pongauer Siedlungskammer und der Kup-

ferbergbau in der Urzeit. In: W. Günther/C. Eibner/A. Lippert/W. Paar, 5000 Jahre Kupferbergbau Mühlbach am Hochkönig-Bischofshofen. Mühlbach/Bischofshofen: Ge-meinde Mühlbach 1992.

Edmonds 1995 M. Edmonds, Stone Tools and Society: Working Stone in

Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain. London: Batsford 1995.Edmonds 1998 M. Edmonds, Sermons in Stone: Identity, Value, and Stone

Tools in Later Neolithic Britain. In: M. Edmonds/C. Rich-ards (eds.), Understanding the Neolithic of North-Western Europe. Glasgow: Cruithne Press 1998, 248–276.

Fasnacht 1999 W. Fasnacht, Prähistorischer Kupferbergbau im Oberhalb-

stein und dessen Spuren in der bronzezeitlichen Siedlung Savognin-Padnal (GR). In: Ph. Della Casa (ed.), Prehistoric Alpine Environment, Society, and Economy. Papers of the International Colloquium PAESE ‘97 in Zurich. Univer-sitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 55. Bonn: Habelt 1999, 267–276.

Feest 2003 Ch. F. Feest, Wampum, Wert und Wissen. Zur Wissen-

skultur der Irokesen. In: J. Fried/Th. Kailer (eds.), Wis-senskulturen. Beiträge zu einem forschungsstrategischen Konzept. Wissenskultur und gesellschaftlicher Wandel 1. Berlin: Akademie Verlag 2003, 87–103.


Fetz 1988 H. Fetz, Koblach-Kadel – Schnittpunkt zweier Kulturgebie-

te. Jahresberichte des Vorarlberger Landesmuseumsver-eins 132, 1988, 9–42.

Frirdich 1994 Ch. Frirdich, Kulturgeschichtliche Betrachtungen zur

Bandkeramik im Merzbachtal. In: J. Lüning/P. Stehli (eds.), Die Bandkeramik im Merzbachtal auf der Aldenhovener Platte. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 36. Köln: Rheinland-Ver-lag 1994, 207–393.

Frirdich 2003 Ch. Frirdich, Strukturen im Wandel: Ein bandkeramisches

Gräberfeld entsteht. In: J. Eckert/U. Eisenhauer/A. Zim-mermann (eds.), Archäologische Perspektiven. Analysen und Interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrift für Jens Lün-ing zum 65. Geburtstag. Rahden/Westf.: VML 2003, 545–559.

Frirdich 2005 Ch. Frirdich, Struktur und Dynamik der bandkeramischen

Landnahme. In: J. Lüning/Ch. Frirdich/A. Zimmermann (eds.), Die Bandkeramik im 21. Jahrhundert. Symposium in der Abtei Brauweiler bei Köln vom 16.9.–19.9.2002. Rah-den/Westf.: VML 2005, 81–109.

Gallay 1971 G. Gallay, Das Ende der Frühbronzezeit im Schweizer Mit-

telland. Jahrbuch der Schweizer Gesellschaft für Urge-schichte 56, 1971, 115–138.

Gallay 1991 G. Gallay, Review of: R. Krause, Die endneolithischen und

frühbronzezeitlichen Grabfunde auf der Nordstadtterrasse von Singen am Hohentwiel. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 32. Stutt-gart: Theiss 1988. Germania 69, 1991, 204–207.

Gerloff 1993 S. Gerloff, Zu Fragen mittelmeerländischer Kontakte und

absoluter Chronologie der Frühbronzezeit in Mittel- und Westeuropa. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 68, 1993, 58–102.

Gerloff 2007 S. Gerloff, Reinecke’s ABC and the Chronology of the Brit-

ish Bronze Age. In: Ch. Burgess/P. Topping/F. Lynch (eds.), Beyond Stonehenge. Essays on the Bronze Age in Honour of Colin Burgess. Oxford: Oxbow 2007, 117–161.

Griffin 1961 J. B. Griffin, Lake Superior Copper and the Indians: Miscel-

laneous Studies of Great Lakes Prehistory. Anthropological Papers, University of Michigan 17. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan 1961.

Gronenborn 1999 D. Gronenborn, A Variation on a Basic Theme: The Tran-

sition to Farming in Southern Central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 13, 1999, 123–210.

Gronenborn 2003 D. Gronenborn, Der „Jäger/Krieger“ aus Schwanfeld. Ein-

ige Aspekte der politisch-sozialen Geschichte des mitteleu-ropäischen Altneolithikums. In: J. Eckert/U. Eisenhauer/A. Zimmermann (eds.), Archäologische Perspektiven. Ana-lysen und Interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrift für Jens Lüning zum 65. Geburtstag. Rahden/Westf.: VML 2003, 35–48.

Gstrein 1981 P. Gstrein, Prähistorischer Bergbau am Burgstall bei

Schwaz (Tirol). Veröffentlichungen des Museum Ferdin-andeum 61, 1981, 25–46.

Hafner 1995 A. Hafner, Die frühe Bronzezeit in der Westschweiz. Funde

und Befunde aus Siedlungen, Gräbern und Horten der ent-wickelten Frühbronzezeit. Ufersiedlungen am Bielersee 5. Bern: Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag Bern 1995.

Hänsel 1997 B. Hänsel, Gaben an die Götter – Schätze der Bronzezeit

Europas – Eine Einführung. In: A. Hänsel/B. Hänsel (eds.), Gaben an die Götter: Schätze der Bronzezeit Europas.

Bestandskataloge 4. Berlin: Seminar für Ur- und Frühge-schichte/Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte 1997, 11–22.

Harb 2002 I. Harb, Die Ausgrabungen in der Tischoferhöhle bei Kuf-

stein in Tirol. Praearchos 1. Innsbruck: Golf 2002.Hauptmann 2007 A. Hauptmann, Alten Berg- und Hüttenleuten auf die Fin-

ger geschaut: Zur Entschlüsselung berg- und hüttenmän-nischer Techniken. In: G. A. Wagner (ed.), Einführung in die Archäometrie. Berlin: Springer 2007, 115–137.

Hauptmann 2008 A. Hauptmann, Vom Erz zum Metall – naturwissenschaftli-

che Untersuchungen innerhalb der Metallurgiekette. In: A. Hauptmann/V. Pingel (eds.), Archäometrie. Methoden und Anwendungsbeispiele naturwissenschaftlicher Ver-fahren in der Archäologie. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung 2008, 125–140.

Hell 1921 M. Hell, Eine bronzezeitliche Höhensiedlung bei St. Johann

i. P. in Salzburg und ihre Beziehungen zum alpinen Kup-ferbergbau. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesell-schaft Wien 51, 1921, 194–200.

Hell 1924 M. Hell, Zur vorgeschichtlichen Besiedelung des Landes

Salzburg. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft der Salzburger Landeskunde 54, 1924, 1–20.

Hell 1927 M. Hell, Der Götschenberg bei Bischofshofen in Salzburg

und seine Beziehung zum Beginn des alpinen Kupferberg-baues. Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift 14, 1927, 8–23.

Hell 1952 M. Hell, Die altbronzezeitlichen Ansiedlungen im Salzbur-

ger Gebirge. Archaeologia Austriaca 11, 1952, 42–53Hell 1961 Die altbronzezeitliche Ansiedlung am Sinnhubschlößl

bei Bischofshofen in Salzburg. Archaeologia Austriaca 34, 1961, 4–38.

Hell/Moosleitner 1980/81 M. Hell/F. Moosleitner, Zur urgeschichtlichen Besiedlung

des Talraumes von Golling (Land Salzburg). Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft der Salzburger Landeskunde 120/121, 1980/81, 10–16.

Hochuli/Köninger/Ruoff 1994 S. Hochuli/J. Köninger/U. Ruoff, Der absolutchronologi-

sche Rahmen der Frühbronzezeit in der Ostschweiz und in Südwestdeutschland. Archäologisches Korrespondenz-blatt 24, 1994, 269–282.

Holste 1941 F. Holste, Die Bronzezeit in den Alpen. Zeitschrift des Deut-

schen Alpenvereins 1941, 68–75.Höppner et al. 2005 B. Höppner/M. Bartelheim/M. Huijsmans/R. Krauss/K.-P.

Martinek/E. Pernicka/R. Schwab, Prehistoric Copper Pro-duction in the Inn Valley (Austria), and the Earliest Copper in Central Europe. Archaeometry 47, 2005, 293–315.

Huijsmans 1994 M. Huijsmans, Die Frühe und Mittlere Bronzezeit in Nord-

tirol. Unpublished Master thesis Innsbruck 1994.Johnston 2008 R. Johnston, Copper Mining and the Transformation of En-

vironmental Knowlegde in Bronze Age Britain. Journal of Social Archaeology 8, 2008, 190–213.

Jones 1984 Ph. Jones, Red ochre expeditions: an ethnographic and his-

torical analysis of Aboriginal trade in the Lake Eyre Basin. Part I/Part II. Journal of the Anthropological Society of South Australia 22/7, 1984; ibid. 22/8, 1984, without pag-ing.

Junghans/Sangmeister/Schröder 1960 S. Junghans/E. Sangmeister/M. Schröder, Metallanalysen

kupferzeitlicher und frühbronzezeitlicher Bodenfunde


aus Europa. Studien zu den Anfängen der Metallurgie 1. Berlin: Mann 1960.

Junghans/Sangmeister/Schröder 1968 S. Junghans/E. Sangmeister/M. Schröder, Kupfer und

Bronze in der frühen Metallzeit Europas. Die Material-gruppen beim Stand von 12000 Analysen. Studien zu den Anfängen der Metallurgie 2. Berlin: Mann 1968.

Keefer 1990 E. Keefer, Die „Siedlung Forschner“ am Federsee und ihre

mittelbronzezeitlichen Funde. Berichte der Römisch-Ger-manischen Kommission 71, 1990, 38–57.

Kienlin 2005 T. L. Kienlin (ed.), Die Dinge als Zeichen: Kulturelles Wis-

sen und materielle Kultur. Internationale Fachtagung an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main 3.–5. April 2003. Universitätsforschungen zur prähis-torischen Archäologie 127. Bonn: Habelt 2005.

Kienlin 2006a T. L. Kienlin, Waffe – Werkzeug – Barren: Zur Deutung

frühbronzezeitlicher Randleistenbeile in Depotfunden des nordalpinen Raums. In: H.-P. Wotzka (ed.), Grundle-gungen. Beiträge zur europäischen und afrikanischen Archäologie für Manfred K. H. Eggert. Tübingen: Francke 2006, 461–476.

Kienlin 2006b T. L. Kienlin, Frühbronzezeitliche Randleistenbeile von

Böhringen-Rickelshausen und Hindelwangen: Ergebnisse einer metallographischen Untersuchung. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 81, 2006, 97–120.

Kienlin 2007 T. L. Kienlin, Von den Schmieden der Beile: Zu Verbreitung

und Angleichung metallurgischen Wissens im Verlauf der Frühbronzezeit. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 82, 2007, 1–22.

Kienlin 2008 T. L. Kienlin, Der „Fürst“ von Leubingen: Herausragende

Bestattungen der Frühbronzezeit als Bezugspunkt ges-ellschaftlicher Kohärenz und kultureller Identität. In: Ch. Kümmel/B. Schweizer/U. Veit (eds.), Körperinszenierung – Objektsammlung – Monumentalisierung: Totenritual und Grabkult in frühen Gesellschaften. Archäologische Quellen in kulturwissenschaftlicher Perspektive. Tübin-ger Archäologische Taschenbücher 6. Münster: Waxmann 2008, 181–206.

Kienlin/Bischoff/Opielka 2006 T. L. Kienlin/E. Bischoff/H. Opielka, Copper and Bronze

During the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age: A Metallo-graphic Examination of Axes from the Northalpine Region. Archaeometry 48, 2006, 453–468.

Kienlin/Ottaway 1998 T. L. Kienlin/B. S. Ottaway, Flanged Axes of the North-Al-

pine Region: An Assessment of the Possibilities of Use Wear Analysis on Metal Artifacts. In: C. Mordant/M. Pernot/V. Rychner (eds.), L’Atelier du bronzier en Europe du XXe au VIIIe siècle avant notre ère. Du minerai au métal, du métal à l’objet. Actes du colloque international Bronze ‘96, Neu-châtel et Dijon 2. Paris: CTHS 1998, 271–286.

Knapp/Pigott/Herbert 1998 A. B. Knapp/V. C. Pigott/E. W. Herbert (eds.), Social Ap-

proaches to an Industrial Past. The Archaeology and An-thropology of Mining. London: Routledge 1998.

Köninger 1997 J. Köninger, Ufersiedlungen der frühen Bronzezeit am

Bodensee. In: H. Schlichtherle, Pfahlbauten rund um die Alpen. Darmstadt: WBG 1997, 29–35.

Körlin/Weisgerber 2006 G. Körlin/G. Weisgerber (eds.), Stone Age – Mining Age.

Der Anschnitt Beiheft 19. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum 2006.

Kohring/Wynne-Jones 2007 S. Kohring/S. Wynne-Jones (eds.), Socialising Complexity.

Structure, Interaction and Power in Archaeological Dis-course. Oxford: Oxbow 2007.

Krause 1988 R. Krause, Die endneolithischen und frühbronzezeitlichen

Grabfunde auf der Nordstadtterrasse von Singen am Ho-hentwiel. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Früh-geschichte in Baden-Württemberg 32. Stuttgart: Theiss 1988.

Krause 1996 R. Krause, Zur Chronologie der frühen und mittleren

Bronzezeit Süddeutschlands, der Schweiz und Österreichs. Acta Archaeologica Supplementum 1. Acta Archaeologica 67, 1996, 73–86.

Krause 1998 R. Krause, Zur Entwicklung der frühbronzezeitlichen Met-

allurgie nördlich der Alpen. In: B. Hänsel (ed.), Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas. Abschlußtagung der Kampagne des Europarates „Die Bronzezeit: das erste goldene Zeitalter Europas” an der Freien Universität Ber-lin, 17.–19. März 1997. Kiel: Oetker-Voges 1998, 163–192.

Krause 2002 R. Krause, Sozialstrukturen und Hierarchien – Überlegun-

gen zur frühbronzezeitlichen Metallurgiekette im süd-deutschen Alpenvorland. In: J. Müller (ed.), Vom Endneo-lithikum zur Frühbronzezeit: Muster sozialen Wandels? (Tagung Bamberg 14.-16. Juni 2001). Universitätsforsc-hungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 90. Bonn: Habelt 2002, 45–59.

Krause 2003 R. Krause, Studien zur kupfer- und frühbronzezeitlichen

Metallurgie zwischen Karpatenbecken und Ostsee. Vorge-schichtliche Forschungen 24. Rahden/Westf.: VML 2003.

Krause 2005a R. Krause, Bronzezeitliche Burgen in den Alpen. Befes-

tigte Siedlungen der frühen bis mittleren Bronzezeit. In: B. Horejs/R. Jung/E. Kaiser/B. Teržan (eds.), Interpretation-sraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidmet. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 121. Bonn: Habelt 2005, 389–413.

Krause 2005b R. Krause, Zur bronzezeitlichen Siedlungskammer im

Montafon. Neue Ausgrabungen in Bartholomäberg, Bez-irk Bludenz. Jahrbuch Voralberger Landesmuseumsverein 2005, 47–60.

Krause 2007 R. Krause, The Prehistoric Settlement of the Inneralpine

Valley of Montafon in Vorarlberg (Austria). Preistoria Al-pina 42, 2007, 119–136.

Krause/Oeggl/Pernicka 2004 R. Krause/K. Oeggl/E. Pernicka, Eine befestigte Burgsied-

lung der Bronzezeit im Montafon, Vorarlberg. Interdiszi-plinäre Siedlungsforschungen und Montanarchäologie in Bartholomäberg und im Silbertal. Archäologie Österreichs 15/1, 2004, 4–21.

Krauss 2002 R. Krauss, Der Bergbau auf der Au zu St. Veit. Prähistor-

isch-mittelalterlich-frühneuzeitlicher und neuzeitlicher Kupferbergbau in St. Veit. Archäologie in St.Veit im Pon-gau 2. St. Veit: Museumsverein St. Veit 2002.

Kyrle 1918 G. Kyrle, Urgeschichte des Kronlandes Salzburg. Österrei-

chische Kunsttopographie 17. Wien: Schroll 1918.Lenerz-de Wilde 1995 M. Lenerz-de Wilde, Prämonetäre Zahlungsmittel in der

Kupfer- und Bronzezeit Mitteleuropas. Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 20, 1995, 229–327.

Lüning 2005a J. Lüning, Die Macht der Ahnen und ihrer Abbilder. Wer

hatte das Sagen in der Gesellschaft? In: J. Lüning (ed.), Die Bandkeramiker. Erste Steinzeitbauern in Deutschland. Rahden/Westf.: VML 2005, 272–284.

Lüning 2005b J. Lüning, Bandkeramische Hofplätze und die absolute

Chronologie der Bandkeramik. In: J. Lüning/Ch. Frirdich/A.


Zimmermann (eds.), Die Bandkeramik im 21. Jahrhundert. Symposium in der Abtei Brauweiler bei Köln vom 16.9.–19-.9.2002. Rahden/Westf.: VML 2005, 49–74.

Lüning 2006 J. Lüning, Missionare aus dem Osten bekehren und bele-

hren. Archäologie in Deutschland 2006/3, 28–31.Martinek/Sydow 2004 K.-P. Martinek/W. Sydow, Frühbronzezeitliche Kupfer-

metallurgie im Unterinntal (Nordtirol) – Rohstoffbasis, archäologische und archäometallurgische Befunde. In: G. Weisgerber/G. Goldenberg (eds.), Alpenkupfer – Rame delle Alpi. Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 17. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum 2004, 199–211.

McBride 1976 I. McBride, The Distribution of Greenstone Axes in South-

eastern Australia: A Preliminary Report. Mankind 10, 1976, 163–174.

McBride 1984 I. McBride, Kulin greenstone quarries: the social contexts

of production and distribution for the Mt. William site. World Archaeology 16, 1984, 267–285.

McBride 1987 I. McBride, Goods from another country. Exchange net-

works and the people of the Lake Eyre Basin. In: D. J. Mulvaney/J. P. White (eds.), Australians to 1788. Broad-way: Fairfax, Syme & Weldon 1987, 253–273.

Menke 1978/79 M. Menke, Studien zu den frühbronzezeitlichen Metallde-

pots Bayerns. Jahresbericht der bayerischen Bodendenk-malpflege 19/20, 1978/79, 5–305.

Moosleitner 1984 F. Moosleitner, Bischofshofen in ur- und frühgeschicht-

licher Zeit. In: Bischofshofen. 5000 Jahre Geschichte und Kultur. Bischofshofen: Selbstverlag Sparkasse 1984, 9–22.

Moosleitner 1988 F. Moosleitner/H. Moesta, Vier Spangenbarrendepots aus

Obereching, Land Salzburg. Germania 66, 1988, 29–67.Moosleitner 1991 F. Moosleitner, Bronzezeit im Saalfeldener Becken.

Archäologie in Salzburg 1. Salzburg: Amt der Salzburger Landesregierung (Landesarchäologie) 1991.

Möslein 1996 S. Möslein, Stein- und Bronzezeit im Rupertiwinkel.

Archäologie beiderseits der Salzach. Bodenfunde aus dem Flachgau und dem Rupertiwinkel. Salzburg: Amt der Salz-burger Landesregierung (Landesarchäologie) 1996.

Möslein 1997 S. Möslein, Die Straubinger Gruppe der donauländischen

Frühbronzezeit – Frühbronzezeitliche Keramik aus Süd-ostbayern und ihre Bedeutung für die chronologische und regionale Gliederung der frühen Bronzezeit in Südbayern. Berichte der Bayerischen Bodendenkmalpflege 38, 1997, 37–106.

Möslein 1998/99 S. Möslein, Neue Depotfunde der älteren Bronzezeit aus

dem oberbayerischen Alpenvorland. Ein Vorbericht. Archäologie Österreichs 9/10, 1998/1999, 69–77.

Möslein 1999 S. Möslein, Die Straubinger Gruppe - Einige Bemerkungen

zum Stand der Frühbronzezeitforschung in Südbayern, Jahresbericht des Historischen Vereins Straubing 100/1, 1999, 85–110.

Möslein/Winghart 2002 S. Möslein/S. Winghart, Produktion, Verarbeitung und

Verteilung von Kupfer – Die Beziehungen der alpinen Lagerstätten und der Handel in Südbayern. In: G. Schne-kenburger (ed.), Über die Alpen. Menschen, Wege, Waren. Begleitbuch Ausstellung ArgeAlp. Stuttgart: Theiss 2002, 137–143.

Neipert 2006 M. Neipert, Der ‚Wanderhandwerker’. Archäologisch-eth-

nographische Untersuchungen. Tübinger Texte 6. Rah-den/Westf.: VML 2006.

Neubauer 1994 W. Neubauer, Flums-Gräpplang. Eine spätbronzezeitliche

Siedlung in der Schweiz 1. Rebberg Ost, Grabung 1967–1982. Buchs: BuchsDruck 1994.

Neubauer/Stöllner 1996 W. Neubauer/Th. Stöllner, Überlegungen zu bronze-

zeitlichen Höhenfunden anhand eines kürzlich in der Ostschweiz gefundenen Vollgriffmessers. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 41, 1994 (1996) 94–144.

O’Brien 2007 W. O’Brien, Miners and Farmers: Local Settlement Con-

texts for Bronze Age Mining. In: Ch. Burgess/P. Topping/F. Lynch (eds.), Beyond Stonehenge. Essays on the Bronze Age in Honour of Colin Burgess. Oxford: Oxbow 2007, 20-30.

Ottaway 1994 B. S. Ottaway, Prähistorische Archäometallurgie. Espe-

lkamp: VML 1994.Otto/Witter 1952 H. Otto/W. Witter, Handbuch der ältesten vorgeschichtli-

chen Metallurgie in Mitteleuropa. Leipzig: Barth 1952.Pearce 2007 M. Pearce, Bright Blades and Red Metal. Essays on North

Italian Prehistoric Metalwork. Accordia Specialist Studies on Italy 14. London: Accordia Research Institute 2007.

Pearce/De Guio 1999 M. Pearce/A. De Guio, Between the Mountains and the

Plain: An Integrated Metals Production and Circulation System in Later Bronze Age North-Eastern Italy. In: Ph. Della Casa (ed.), Prehistoric Alpine Environment, Society, and Economy. Papers of the International Colloquium PA-ESE ‘97 in Zurich. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistori-schen Archäologie 55. Bonn: Habelt 1999, 289–293.

Perini 2005 R. Perini, Testimonianze de attività metallurgica dall’ ene-

olitico alle fasi finali dell eta del Bronzo nel Trentino. In: R. Perini, Scritta di archeologia II. Trento 2005, 1115–1146.

Pernicka 1990 E. Pernicka, Gewinnung und Verbreitung der Metalle in

prähistorischer Zeit. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 37, 1990, 21–129.

Pernicka 1998 E. Pernicka, Die Ausbreitung der Zinnbronze im 3. Jahr-

tausend. In: B. Hänsel (ed.), Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas. Abschlußtagung der Kampagne des Europarates „Die Bronzezeit: das erste goldene Zeitalter Europas” an der Freien Universität Berlin, 17.–19. März 1997. Kiel: Oetker-Voges 1998, 135–147.

Petrasch 2002 J. Petrasch, Religion in der Jungsteinzeit. Glaube, der die

Gemeinschaft zusammenhält. In: Menschen – Zeiten – Räume. Archäologie in Deutschland. Stuttgart: Theiss 2002, 142–145.

Pétrequin et al. 2005 P. Pétrequin et al., Beigua, Monviso e Valais. All’origine

delle grandi asce levigate di origine alpina in Europa occi-dentale durante il V millenio. Rivista di scienze preistori-che 55, 2005, 265–322.

Pétrequin/Jeudy/Jeunesse 1993 P. Pétrequin/F. Jeudy/Ch. Jeunesse, Neolithic Quarries,

the Exchange of Axes and Social Control in the Southern Vosges. In: Ch. Scarre/F. Healy (eds.), Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of Bristol, April 1992. Oxford: Oxbow 1993, 45–60.

Pétrequin/Jeunesse 1995 P. Pétrequin/Ch. Jeunesse (eds.), La hache de pierre. Car-

rières vosgiennes et échanges de lames polies pendant le Néolithique (5400–2100 av. J.-C.). Paris: Éditions Errance 1995


Pétrequin/Pétrequin 1993 P. Pétrequin/A.-M. Pétrequin, Écologie d’un outil: la hache

de pierre en Irian Jaya (Indonésie). Paris: CNRS 1993.Pétrequin/Pétrequin 2006 A.-M. Pétrequin/P. Pétrequin/O. Weller, Objets de pouvoir

en Nouvelle-Guinée. Approche ethnoarchéologique d’un stème des signes sociaux. Paris: Musée d’Archéologie na-tionale de Saint-Germain-en-Laye 2006.

Rickard 1934 T. A. Rickard, The Use of Native Copper by the Indigenes

of North America. The Journal of the Royal Anthropology Institute Great Britain and Irland 64, 1934, 265–286.

Pigott 1999 V. C. Pigott, The Development of Metal Production on the

Iranian Plateau: An Archaeometallurgical Perspective. In: V. C. Pigott (ed.), The archaeometallurgy of the Asian old world. University Museum monograph 89. Philadelphia: University Museum 1999, 73–106.

Pittioni 1957 R. Pittioni, Urzeitlicher Bergbau auf Kupfererz und Spure-

nanalyse. Beiträge zum Problem der Relation Lagerstätte-Fertigobjekt. Archaeologia Austriaca, Beiheft 1. Wien: F. Deuticke 1957.

Preuschen 1967 E. Preuschen, Urzeitlicher Kupfererzbergbau in den öster-

reichischen Alpen. Leobener Grüne Hefte 104. Wien: Mon-tan-Verlag 1967.

Preuschen/Pittioni 1937 E. Preuschen/R. Pittioni, Untersuchungen im Bergbauge-

biete Kelchalpe bei Kitzbühel, Tirol. Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission der Akademie der Wissen-schaften 3, 1937, 1–160.

Primas et al. 2004 M. Primas/Ph. Della Casa/E. Jochum Zimmermann/R.

Huber, Wartau – Ur- und frühgeschichtliche Siedlungen und Brandopferplatz im Alpenrheintal (Kanton St. Gallen, Schweiz) II. Bronzezeit, Kupferzeit, Mesolithikum. Univer-sitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 108. Bonn: Habelt 2004.

Primas 2008 M. Primas, Bronzezeit zwischen Elbe und Po. Strukturwan-

del in Zentraleuropa 2200-800 v. Chr. Universitätsforsc-hungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 150. Bonn: Habelt 2008.

Rassmann 2005 K. Rassmann, Zur Chronologie der Hortfunde der Klas-

sischen Aunjetitzer Kultur. Eine Auswertung von Metal-lanalysen aus dem Forschungsvorhaben „Frühe Metall-urgie im zentralen Mitteleuropa“. In: B. Horejs/R. Jung/E. Kaiser/B. Teržan (eds.), Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidmet. Bonn: Habelt 2005, 463–480.

Rageth 1986 J. Rageth, Die wichtigsten Resultate der Ausgrabungen in

der bronzezeitlichen Siedlung auf dem Padnal bei Savo-gnin (Oberhalbstein, GR). Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft der Ur- und Frühgeschichte 69, 1986, 63–104.

Roberts 2008 B. Roberts, Creating Traditions and Shaping Technologies:

Understanding the Earliest Metal Objects and Metal Pro-duction in Western Europe. World Archaeology 40, 2008, 354-372.

Rowlands 1971 M. J. Rowlands, The Archaeological Interpretation of Pre-

historic Metalworking. World Archaeology 3, 1971, 210–224.

Ruckdeschel 1978 W. Ruckdeschel, Die frühbronzezeitlichen Gräber Südbay-

erns. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Straubinger Kultur. An-tiquitas 2,11. Bonn: Habelt 1978.

Schier 1991 W. Schier, Review of: R. Krause, Die endneolithischen und

frühbronzezeitlichen Grabfunde auf der Nordstadtterrasse von Singen am Hohentwiel. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 32. Stuttgart: Theiss 1988. Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 56, 1991, 222–226.

Schild/Sulgostowska 1997 R. Schild/Z. Sulgostowska (eds.), Man and Flint. Proceed-

ings of the VIIth International Flint Symposium Warszawa – Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski September 1995. Warszawa: In-stitute of Archaeology and Ethnology Polish Academy of Sciences 1997.

Schmidl et al. 2005 A. Schmidl/W. Kofler/N. Oeggl-Wahlmüller/K. Oeggl,

Land Use in the Eastern Alps during the Bronze Age – An Archaeobotanical Case Study of a Hilltop Settlement in the Montafon (Western Austria). Archaeometry 47, 2005, 455–470.

Seifert 2008 M. Seifert, Im Kontakt mit Nord und Süd. Archäologie der

Schweiz 31/2, 2008, 21–30.Sieveking/Newcomer 1987 G. de G. Sieveking/M. H. Newcomer (eds.), The Human Uses

of Flint and Chert. Proceedings of the Fourth International Flint Symposium held at Brighton Polytechnic 10–15 April 1983. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1987.

Shennan 1992 S. J. Shennan, Population, Prestige and Production: Some

Aspects of the Development of Copper and Bronze Met-allurgy in Prehistoric Europe. In: A. Lippert/K. Spindler (eds.), Festschrift zum 50jährigen Bestehen des Institutes für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Leopold-Franzens-Univer-sität Innsbruck. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistori-schen Archäologie 8. Bonn: Habelt 1992, 535–542.

Shennan 1993 S. J. Shennan, Commodities, Transactions, and Growth in

the Central-European Early Bronze Age. Journal of Euro-pean Archaeology 1, 1993, 59–72.

Shennan 1995 S. J. Shennan, Bronze Age Copper Producers of the Eastern

Alps: Excavations at St. Veit-Klinglberg. Universitätsfor-schungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 27. Bonn: Ha-belt 1995.

Spatzier 2007 A. Spatzier, Untersuchungen zu Chronologie, Grabstörung

und Struktur des frühbronzezeitlichen Gräberfelds Franzhausen I, Niederösterreich. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 82, 2007, 215–247.

Sperber 1999 L. Sperber, Zu den Schwertträgern im westlichen Kreis

der Urnenfelderkultur: Profane und religiöse Aspekte. In: Eliten in der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen. Teil 2. Römisch-Germanisches Zen-tralmuseum Monographien 43,2. Mainz: Römisch-Germa-nisches Zentralmuseum 1999, 605–659.

Spindler 2003 K. Spindler, Transhumanz. Preistoria Alpina 39, 2003, 219–

225.Stein 1976 F. Stein, Bronzezeitliche Hortfunde in Süddeutschland.

Beiträge zur Interpretation einer Quellengattung. Saar-brücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 23. Bonn: Habelt 1976.

Stein 1979 F. Stein, Katalog der vorgeschichtlichen Hortfunde in Süd-

deutschland. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 24. Bonn: Habelt 1979.

Stöllner 2003 Th. Stöllner, Mining and Economy – A Discussion of Spa-

tial Organisations and Structures of Early Raw Material Exploitation. In: Th. Stöllner/G. Körlin/G. Steffens/J. Cier-ny (eds.), Man and Mining – Mensch und Bergbau. Stud-ies in Honour of Gerd Weisgerber on Occasion of his 65th


Birthday. Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 16. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum 2003, 415–446.

Stöllner 2008 Th. Stöllner, Mining Landscapes in Early Societies – Im-

printing Processes in Pre- and Protohistoric Economies? In: C. Bartels/C. Küpper-Eichas (eds.), Cultural Heritage and Landscapes in Europe. Landschaften: Kulturelles Erbe in Europa. Proceedings of an International Conference Bo-chum 2007. Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums Bochum 161. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Mu-seum 2008, 65–92.

Stöllner/Eibner/Cierny 2004 Th. Stöllner/C. Eibner/J. Cierny, Prähistorischer Kupfer-

bergbau Arthurstollen. Ein neues Projekt im Südrevier des Mitterberg-Gebietes (Salzburg). In: G. Weisgerber/G. Goldenberg (eds.), Alpenkupfer – Rame delle Alpi. Der An-schnitt, Beiheft 17. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum 2004, 95–106.

Strahm 1994 Ch. Strahm, Die Anfänge der Metallurgie in Mitteleuropa.

Helvetia Archaeologica 25, 1994, 2–39.Strahm 2002 Ch. Strahm, Tradition und Wandel der sozialen Strukturen

vom 3. zum 2. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. In: J. Müller (ed.), Vom Endneolithikum zur Frühbronzezeit: Muster sozialen Wandels? (Tagung Bamberg 14.–16. Juni 2001). Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 90. Bonn: Habelt 2002, 175–194.

Taçon 1991 P. S. C. Taçon, The Power of Stone: Symbolic Aspects of

Stone Use and Tool Development in Western Arnhem Land, Australia. Antiquity 65, 1991, 192–207.

Topping/Lynott 2005 P. Topping/M. Lynott (eds.), The Cultural Landscape of

Prehistoric Mines. Oxford: Oxbow 2005.Torrence 1986 R. Torrence, Production and Exchange of Stone Tools. Pre-

historic Obsidian in the Aegean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1986.

Vatandoust 1999 A. Vatandoust, A View on Prehistoric Iranian Metalwork-

ing: Elemental Analyses and Metallographic Examinations. In: A. Hauptmann/E. Pernicka/T. Rehren/Ü. Yalçin (eds.), The Beginnings of Metallurgy. Proceedings of the Inter-national Conference „The Beginnings of Metallurgy“, Bo-chum 1995. Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 9. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum 1999, 121–140.

Veit et al. 2003 U. Veit/T. L. Kienlin/Ch. Kümmel/S. Schmidt (eds.), Spuren

und Botschaften: Interpretationen materieller Kultur. Tü-binger Archäologische Taschenbücher 4. Münster: Wax-mann 2003.

Vonbank 1966a E. Vonbank, Frühbronzezeitliche Siedlungsfunde im Vor-

arlberger Rheintal. In: R. Degen/W. Drack/R. Wyss (eds.), Helvetia Antiqua. Festschrift Emil Vogt. Beiträge zur Prä-historie und Archäologie der Schweiz. Zürich: Conzett und Huber 1966, 55–58.

Voytek 1997 B. Voytek, Some Theoretical Issues Connected with the

Study of Flint Mining. In: R. Schild/Z. Sulgostowska (eds.), Man and Flint. Proceedings of the VIIth International Flint Symposium Warszawa – Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski Septem-ber 1995. Warszawa: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnol-ogy Polish Academy of Sciences 1997, 149–152.

Wagner 2005 J. Wagner, Muster sozialer Differenzierung im früh-

bronzezeitlichen Gräberfeld von Mokrin/Vojvodina. Mit-teilungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte 26, 2005, 111–146.

Waterbolk/Butler 1965 H. T. Waterbolk/J. J. Butler, Comments on the Use of Met-

allurgical Analysis in Prehistoric Studies: A Graph Method for the Grouping and Comparison of Quantitative Spectro-Analyses of Prehistoric Bronzes. Helinium 5, 1965, 227–251.

Weisgerber 1991 G. Weisgerber, Bergbau im alten Ägypten. Das Altertum 37,

1991, 140–154.Weisgerber/Goldenberg 2004 G. Weisgerber/G. Goldenberg (eds.), Alpenkupfer – Rame

delle Alpi. Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 17. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum 2004.

Weisgerber/Slotta/Weiner 1999 G. Weisgerber/R. Slotta/J. Weiner (eds.), 5000 Jahre Feu-

ersteinbergbau. Die Suche nach dem Stahl der Steinzeit. Ausstellung im Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum vom 24. Oktober 1980 bis 31. Januar 1981. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum 1999.

Whittle 1995 A. Whittle, Gifts from the Earth: Symbolic Dimensions of

the Use and Production of Neolithic Flint and Stone Axes. Archaeologia Polona 33, 1995, 247–259.

Winghart 2000 S. Winghart, Mining, processing and distribution of bronze:

reflections on the organisation of metal supply between the northern Alps and the Danube region. In: C. F. E. Pare (ed.), Metals Make The World Go Round. The Supply and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe. Oxford: Ox-bow 2000, 151–159.

Wyss 1971 R. Wyss, Die Eroberung der Alpen durch den Bronzezeit-

menschen. Zeitschrift für Schweizerische Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte 28, 1971, 130–145.

Zschocke/Preuschen 1932 K. Zschocke/E. Preuschen, Das urzeitliche Bergbauge-

biet von Mühlbach-Bischofshofen. Materialien zur Urge-schichte Österreichs 6. Wien: Anthropologische Gesells-chaft 1932.

Zürcher 1982 A. Zürcher, Urgeschichtliche Fundstellen Graubündens.

Schriftenreihe des Rätischen Museums Chur 27. Chur: Rätisches Museum 1982.

Singen Copper, Alpine Settlement and Early Bronze Age Mining: Is There a Need for Elites and...

Documents

Transcript of Singen Copper, Alpine Settlement and Early Bronze Age Mining: Is There a Need for Elites and...