South Cadbury: The last of the Bronze Age shields?

Herausgegeben vom

Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum Mainz

in Verbindung mit dem

Präsidium der deutschen Verbände für Archäologie

Sonderdruck aus

ArchäologischesKorrespondenzblatt

Jahrgang 42 · 2012 · Heft 4

Paläolithikum, Mesolithikum: Michael Baales · Nicholas J. Conard

Neolithikum: Johannes Müller · Sabine Schade-Lindig

Bronzezeit: Christoph Huth · Stefan Wirth

Hallstattzeit: Markus Egg · Dirk Krauße

Latènezeit: Rupert Gebhard · Hans Nortmann · Martin Schönfelder

Römische Kaiserzeit im Barbaricum: Claus v. Carnap-Bornheim · Haio Zimmermann

Provinzialrömische Archäologie: Peter Henrich · Gabriele Seitz

Frühmittelalter: Brigitte Haas-Gebhard · Dieter Quast

Wikingerzeit, Hochmittelalter: Hauke Jöns · Bernd Päffgen

Archäologie und Naturwissenschaften: Felix Bittmann · Joachim Burger · Thomas Stöllner

Die Redaktoren begutachten als Fachredaktion die Beiträge (peer review).

Das Archäologische Korrespondenzblatt wird im Arts & Humanities Citation Index®

sowie im Current Contents®/Arts & Humanities von Thomson Reuters aufgeführt.

Übersetzungen der Zusammenfassungen (soweit gekennzeichnet): Loup Bernard (L. B.)

und Manuela Struck (M. S.).

Beiträge werden erbeten an die Mitglieder der Redaktion oder an das

Römisch-Germanische Zentral museum, Ernst-Ludwig-Platz 2, 55116 Mainz, [email protected]

Die mit Abbildungen (Strichzeichnungen und Schwarz-Weiß-Fotos), einer kurzen Zusammenfassung und

der genauen Anschrift der Autoren versehenen Manuskripte dürfen im Druck 20 Seiten nicht überschreiten.

Die Redaktion bittet um eine allgemein verständ liche Zitierweise (naturwissenschaftlich oder in Endnoten)

und empfiehlt dazu die Richtlinien für Veröffentlichungen der Römisch-Germanischen Kommis sion in

Frankfurt a.M. und die dort vorgeschlagenen Zeitschriftenabkürzungen. Weitere Hinweise finden sich

auf http://web.rgzm.de/273.html

ISSN 0342-734X

Nachdruck, auch auszugsweise, nur mit Genehmigung des Verlages

© 2012 Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen ZentralmuseumsRedaktion und Satz: Manfred Albert, Hans Jung, Marie Röder, Martin SchönfelderHerstellung: gzm Grafisches Zentrum Mainz Bödige GmbH, Mainz

Das für diese Publikation verwendete Papier ist alterungsbeständig im Sinne der ISO 9706.

REDAKTOREN

STUART P. NEEDHAM · PETER NORTHOVER · MARION UCKELMANN RICHARD TABOR

SOUTH CADBURY: THE LAST OF THE BRONZE SHIELDS?

473Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 42 · 2012

article and a booklet (Coles et al. 1999; Coles / Min nitt / Wil son 2000). These publications also describe the

context, condition, morphology and identification of the shield before assessing its significance in terms of

depositional ritual. The object is fragile and distorted (fig. 2), only partly due to corrosion. It measures

c. 66.5 cm in diameter and is decorated with 25 ribs alternating with rows of small bosses. Attached to the

back are two small tabs and a grip across the hollow of the boss. The shield fits well into the Yetholm type,

of which about 30 examples are known, all, with one exception, coming from the British Isles. The South

Cadbury shield is so far the only example known from south-west England (Coles et al. 1999, 33).

The spur on which the shield was deposited projects from the south-west of the famous Iron Age hillfort

of Cadbury Castle (fig.1) that has sometimes been conjectured to be King Arthur’s fabled castle of Came -

lot. Leslie Alcock’s 1966-1970 excavation of approx. 7% of the interior found very little structural or arte-

factual evidence from the Early to Middle Bronze Ages and the first significant activity took place in the Late

Bronze Age. This phase is dated by sherds from Plainware (Cadbury Ceramic Assemblage 4) accumulating

within a lynchet and in a ground surface later covered by Bank 1 (Alcock 1980, 687; Alcock 1972, 113-

114; Barrett / Freeman / Woodward 2000).

Knowledge of Bronze Age land use in the immediate environs has only recently been amplified by geophys-

ical survey, test pitting, ploughzone artefact collection and excavation as part of the South Cadbury Envi-

rons Project (Tabor 2008a, 34-39). This work has revealed sub-rectilinear enclosures of probable Middle to

The archaeological excavation of a Bronze Age

shield is an almost unprecedented event. So, too, is

to find one within a stratified sequence along with

bones and pottery. Such an occurrence happened

during excavations at »Milsom’s Corner« in South

Cadbury (Somerset) in 1997 (fig.1A). At first sight,

this discovery offers a unique opportunity to date

and contextualise the deposition of a shield. How -

ever, its placing in a silted ditch on the ridge of a

spur is wholly atypical of shield find circumstances in

the British Isles, for these are otherwise from

wetland locations. The circumstances of the deposi-

tion of the South Cadbury shield therefore assume

particular interest and it transpires that they may be

unusual in more than one respect.

THE SITE AND THE CONTEXT

The discovery of the shield, its lifting and laboratory

excavation (by Wiltshire County Council Conserva-

tion Service) have been fully covered in an earlier

Fig. 1 Location of Cadbury Castle (Somerset) and Bronze Age en -closures. – (Map R. Tabor).

Late Bronze Age date comparable with examples from elsewhere in southern Britain (Tabor 2008a, fig. 26;

Tabor 2008b, 87-88; for other examples and discussion see Barrett / Bradley / Green 1991, 145-211).

One such enclosure (fig.1B) is at Sigwells, set behind a scarp overlooking Cadbury Castle from 2.5km to

the south-east, its north end integrated into one of several parallel Early Bronze Age long linear ditches

(Tabor 2008a, 61-69 fig. 32; before excavation, wrongly assigned a much later date in Tabor / Johnson

2000). Several bronze casting mould fragments in a shallow scoop, from amongst nearly 600 fragments

within the enclosure, were found to refit a Wilburton type sword held in the Museum of Somerset (Colqu -

houn 1978, 96-97 no. 116; Tabor 2008a, pl. 6). Emmer grain from the scoop has been dated at 2 σ to

1261-1047 BC (OxA-23716), apparently somewhat later than the original enclosure ditch and a pit associ-

ated with globular Urn pottery for which a bone and grains have given four dates grouped around 1400 BC

474 S. P. Needham et al. · South Cadbury: the last of the bronze shields?

Fig. 2 The South Cadbury shield. – (Photo S. Minnitt, Museum of Somerset, Taunton).

(OxA-23501 and 23710-12). Around 140m further north-west more Late Bronze Age clay mould frag-

ments were found in another pit (fig.1C). The new survey work thus suggests that Cadbury hill was set in

a landscape which included an extensive Bronze Age ditch system containing several enclosures (fig. 3) at

least parts of which were in existence during the first half of the 2nd millennium BC.

The immediate context of the shield has been well summarised by Coles et al. (1999) and it is only neces-

sary to reiterate key points here. We can, though, add the relevant evidence from radiocarbon determina-

tions and palynological study not covered in that article. The object was recovered from an almost right-

angled length of a steep-sided, truncated »V« profiled, ditch, which geophysical survey suggests might

possibly be the south and east sides of an enclosure, although magnetic traces of the west side are very

faint due to prolonged arable activity. It was placed right at the corner, but was at a high level in the silting.

Around 21m of the southern and eastern lengths of the ditch were excavated from 1995 to 1999. For

purposes of analysis, a complex succession of fills recognised within the ditch is rendered here as seven

stratigraphic zones (tab.1). Due to truncation, particularly on the west side of the site, not all zones were

present or could be identified throughout (a coarser, 3-phase analysis appears in Coles et al. 1999, 35-37

fig. 3). Zone 7 is the lowest fill, zone 1 the highest, but zones 1-4 were not always distinguished from one

another. The shield lay in zone 2, by which time the ditch would have been just a shallow depression.

Zone 2 was characterised by the presence of a charcoal-rich silt, sealed by the much cleaner red silt of

zone 1.

Because wet-place deposition is such a marked feature of Bronze Age weaponry and particularly shields

(e. g. Bradley 1990; Coles 1962), it was vital to assess the contemporary environment of the ditch. On the

basis of their colour and textural properties, the enveloping sediments appeared to have formed in essen-


Fig. 3 Middle to Late Bronze Age enclosures at Milsom’s Corner and Sigwells, South Cadbury(Somerset). – (Map R. Tabor).

tially dry conditions, but this needed to be checked if possible. Four separate soil samples from different

positions around the shield were assessed for diatoms, and nine were assessed for pollen.

No diatoms were found and the preservation of the pollen was disappointing, probably due to the relatively

high pH (between 5.5 and 6.5) of the soils and their aerobic nature (Moore / Webb / Collinson 1991).

Oxidation is not only very destructive of pollen grains, but also affects different taxa to different degrees.

The total number of pollen grains identified was very low, ranging from only 3 up to 29 grains. Of the

pollen grains that were identified, many were thin and/or very crumpled. However, it is interesting to note

that most pollen was recovered from the soil samples immediately adjacent to the shield and these layers

also had the highest diversity of pollen taxa. Grieg (1989) has observed that pollen may be preserved in

unpromising dry or calcareous soils if copper salts are also present.

There has certainly been extensive degradation of pollen in these sediments, and as a result, the very limited

assemblages recovered are biased towards resistant types (e. g. ferns), and to those taxa which can easily

be identified, even in a poor state of preservation, as a result of their very distinctive morphology (Plantago

lanceolata, Solidago virgaurea-type and the Lactuceae fall into this latter category and are also relatively

resistant to decay). No distinct pollen assemblages could be recognised, but the very limited evidence

suggests that the pollen spectra in all these samples may originally (i. e. pre-degradation) have been similar.

It is perhaps noteworthy that the herbaceous pollen types which were found (Cereal-type, Poaceae, Ranun-

culaceae, Centaurea nigra/scabiosa, Plantago lanceolata, Solidago virgaurea-type, Lactuceae, Brassicaceae,

Chenopodiaceae, Melampyrum) were largely taxa associated with open grassland or disturbed ground.

Given marked differential decay, the lack of any wetland pollen types is not evidence as such for a dry site

at the time of deposition. It is possible, for example, that the ditch held an ephemeral water body at certain

times of the year, but it must be borne in mind that it was only a shallow depression by the time the shield

was deposited.

A modest assemblage of pottery was recovered from the excavated length of ditch (74 sherds larger than

10mm). They can be broken down into two main fabric groups: 40 sherds (54%) are tempered with grog

or grog mixtures, while 26 sherds (35%) include calcite mixtures. The grog-tempered sherds occur in all

zones, but with one exception which seems likely to be intrusive the calcitic fabrics are exclusive to

zones 1-4. The remaining eight sherds (11%) comprise shell mixtures and sand mixtures, the former occur-


zone soil description animal bones pottery inclusions

1 red, slightly clayey silt with sparse grog, sand, calcite, charcoal flecking quartz, shell

2 discontinuous grey/brown silt rich cattle vertebrae grog, calcite, quartz, in charred remains and leg bones limestone, shell

3 intermittent mottled clay ridge with sparse red deer or grogcharcoal flecking cattle pelvis

4 red, slightly clayey silt with sparse cattle mandibles, grog, calcite, shellcharcoal flecking unidentified skull

5 distinct slanting layers of slightly mottled red mandibles grog, mica, silt and greenish grey clay (at least one cattle), limestone

cattle pelvis

6 slanting layers of mottled red silt and cattle mandible grog, mica, limestone, greenish grey clay sand

7 near horizontal thin bands of red silt sealed unidentified no potteryby thicker bands of greenish grey clay, retaining water fragments

Tab. 1 Milsom’s Corner, South Cadbury (Somerset). The ditch fill zones.

ring for the first time in zones 1-4. The stratified ceramic sequence closes with a small pit cut into the

zone 1 silt; around 80% of a calcitic jar survived intact from its base to just below the shoulder and it

contained substantial fragments of bowl, dish and another jar.

Although distinctive Beaker pottery is present among the grog-tempered sherds, these are thought to

derive from an inhumation grave cut by the ditch (Coles et al. 1999, 36 fig. 3). The dominant pottery in

the lower fills, zones 5-7, has both grog and mica inclusions and can be identified as probably of Middle

Bronze Age tradition. This is broadly supported by the lower of the radiocarbon dated bones from the ditch

which came from the next fill up, zone 4 (tab. 2).

Setting aside the grog-tempered wares, which may be residual, most of the pottery from the upper fills is

dominated by calcite-containing fabrics and these can be attributed generally to the Late Bronze Age Plain-

ware tradition. These probably all predate the transition to Decorated Wares in the later 9th century BC. This

shows that the ditch was completely full before the end of the formal Late Bronze Age (end of Ewart metal-

work/Plainware; Needham 2007).

The bone finds occur principally in zone 4 and the interface of zones 2 and 3 (phases 2 and 3 in Coles et

al. 1999, fig. 3). It is noteworthy that at one horizon in zone 4 a series of cattle bones, mainly mandibles,

had been distributed along the length of the ditch, perhaps resulting from an earlier act of ritual deposi-

tion than that of the shield. Two bones and a grain, the latter from within the pit-deposited high shoul-

dered jar noted above, have been radiocarbon dated (other samples were tested but found to be unsuit-

able for conventional dating). The determination from zone 4 gives a calibrated range of 1410-1130cal BC

(2 σ; tab. 2) which broadly predates the Deverel-Rimbury/Plainware ceramic transition falling in the

12th century BC (Needham 1996).

The second radiocarbon date on bone comes from a higher stratigraphic position, zone 2, and was in

contact with the shield itself. This association obviously defines the end of the life of the shield, not its

creation, but a further complication is that the dated bone is gnawed and may not have been fresh when

incorporated in the ditch fill. Moreover, the measurement has a poor standard deviation and falls on a part

of the calibration curve which gives a rather poor chronological resolution: 1210-810cal BC (2 σ). This date

range, taken at face value, would allow the shield to have been deposited during the currency of Penard,

Wilburton or Ewart metalwork (Needham et al. 1997), but the 1σ-calibration would favour an earliest

deposition date in the mid-11th century, i. e. later Wilburton times. However, the third determination, that

for a wheat grain from within the jar, serves as a terminus ante quem for the shield’s deposition. Since the

grain was one of at least 14 cereal grains in the pot, it is unlikely to have been residual in its context and

the date of 1111-912 BC obtained (at 2 σ) actually helps to constrain the date range for the shield’s depo-

sition. These results do not in themselves allow any refined dating for the emergence of Yetholm-type

shields; this is better evaluated from the metallurgical information and some directly associated radiocarbon


context/SF no. species lab. reference date BP cal BC 1σ cal BC 2σzone 4, bos mandible, BM-3154 3030±40 1380-1218 1408-1132SF 98/88 other animal bone

fragments

zone 2, pelvis fragments BM-3152 2810±80 1056-843 1208-810SF 97/36 of bos or cervus

zone 1, carbonised OxA-23714 2835±27 1021-931 1111-912jar within pit wheat grain

Tab. 2 Milsom’s Corner, South Cadbury (Somerset). Radiocarbon dates on animal bones and a cereal grain from the ditch.

dates considered below. They do, however, conform with the stratigraphic sequence and the associated

pottery sequence running from Trevisker/Deverel-Rimbury to Plainware.

The shield lay almost horizontal, dipping slightly to the south-west, but it was faced downwards with the

handle upwards. A recess appears to have been made in the ground at the centre of the silted ditch to

accommodate the boss of the shield, thereby preventing any risk of it being crushed. Paradoxically,

however, it emerged during the laboratory excavation that the surrounding face had been pierced from the


Fig. 4 Milsom’s Corner, South Cadbury (Somerset). Bronzeshield. – a metallographic section of sample R1232 showingextent of inter-granular corrosion (× 100). – b metallographic sec -tion of sample R1232 showing areas of more massive corrosion(×100). – c metallographic section of sample R1232 showingrecrystallised grain structure and copper sulphide inclusions(× 200). – d metallographic section of sample R1232 showingrecrystal lised grain structure and copper sulphide inclusions(× 200). – e metallographic section of sample R1232 showingsmall area of un-dissolved eutectoid (× 500). – (Photos P. North -over).

a

c d

e

b

back by a rather blunt instrument while lying prostrate in the ground; three substantial areas of damage

had displaced metal fragments downwards by up to 63mm (fig. 2; Coles et al. 1999, 38-39. 45-46). The

wire-strengthened rim was also broken at one point, possibly also damage inflicted at the time of deposi-

tion. We return to this apparently ritual killing act in our discussion, linking it to the date of deposition and

changed social circumstances. But to do so we need to place the Cadbury evidence in terms of relatively

recently acquired data on the chronology of both bronze and organic shields on the European scale. Given

the paucity of datable contexts for shields, some of the key evidence for the dating of the British series

comes from metal composition, and it is this that we will outline first.

THE METALLURGICAL EXAMINATION OF THE SHIELD

Four samples were taken from the Cadbury shield, prepared and analysed by the methods described in the

appendix. The sample types and locations were:

– R1232: loose fragment of sheet from the body of the shield (fig. 4a-e);

– R1233: loose fragment of sheet from the body of the shield;

– R1435: drilled sample from the handle;

– R1436: corroded filling from the handle.

Because of the poor mechanical condition of the shield it was not possible to take samples from either the

tabs or the rivets.

Four areas, each 30× 50μm, were analysed on samples R1232-1233, and three each on R1435-1436; the

individual compositions and their means are shown in table 3. All concentrations are in weight%. After

analysis the two sheet samples were examined metallographically in both the as-polished and etched states.

The etch used was an acidified aqueous solution of ferric chloride, further diluted with ethanol.


sample part Fe Co Ni Cu Zn As Sb Sn Ag Bi Pb Au S

R1232/1 sheet 0.03 0.02 0.20 86.15 0.00 0.36 0.00 13.17 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02R1232/2 0.04 0.04 0.19 86.30 0.03 0.31 0.00 12.88 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.15R1232/3 0.06 0.03 0.23 84.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.24 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.02R1232/4 0.03 0.03 0.23 85.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.81 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02

R1233/1 sheet 0.04 0.04 0.20 85.30 0.00 0.00 0.02 13.89 0.41 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.01R1233/2 0.06 0.03 0.19 83.68 0.00 0.06 0.02 15.85 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.04R1233/3 0.07 0.02 0.20 85.30 0.00 0.34 0.00 14.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02R1233/4 0.04 0.02 0.21 86.01 0.01 0.23 0.00 13.40 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01

R1435/1 handle 0.11 0.05 0.19 83.98 0.06 1.04 0.06 14.19 0.07 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.05R1435/2 0.15 0.06 0.17 84.60 0.11 0.00 0.06 14.51 0.07 0.01 0.16 0.05 0.06R1435/3 0.18 0.06 0.17 86.58 0.08 0.00 0.07 10.89 0.06 0.00 0.47 0.00 1.44

R1436/1 corroded 0.01 0.01 0.00 3.60 0.06 1.07 0.00 74.97 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.05R1436/2 tin filling 0.01 0.00 0.02 4.13 0.07 0.50 0.00 74.37 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.06R1436/3 0.02 0.00 0.00 4.97 0.05 0.00 0.00 71.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.05

mean:

R1232 sheet 0.04 0.03 0.21 85.63 0.01 0.17 0.00 13.78 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05

R1233 sheet 0.05 0.03 0.20 85.07 0.00 0.16 0.01 14.28 0.13 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.02

R1435 handle 0.15 0.06 0.18 85.05 0.08 0.35 0.06 13.19 0.07 0.00 0.28 0.02 0.51

R1436 corroded 0.01 0.00 0.01 4.23 0.06 0.52 0.00 73.46 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.05tin filling

Tab. 3 Metal compositions of the Cadbury shield fragments analysed. See the appendix for methods.

The alloy

The sheet and the handle of the shield are both forged from a medium- to high-tin unleaded bronze,

although the impurity patterns show that the handle and the sheet are not taken from the same piece of

bronze. The two compositions from the sheet show it to be uniform in composition; the measured tin

contents were 13.8 and 14.3%; however, these values have probably been affected by some degree of tin

enrichment due to corrosion, so that the true value is presumably a little lower, say 12-13%. The principal

impurities are 0.20-0.21% nickel and 0.16-0.17% arsenic. There are also small traces of iron, cobalt, silver,

lead and sulphur; the non-uniform distribution of silver is due to one silver-rich particle in analysis R1233/1,

possibly an artefact of corrosion.

For comparison there is now a very large database of analyses of later Bronze Age metalwork in southern

Britain, most recently reviewed by Rohl / Needham (1998). The impurity pattern falls into the »P« group of

Northover’s scheme for Bronze Age compositions a pattern associated very strongly with the Penard period.

The attribution to the »P« composition type is made primarily on the nickel and arsenic contents, but also

on the low levels of antimony and silver and the trace of cobalt. The continental links of Penard metalwork

are with Bz D/Ha A1 in Central Europe, Period III in Northern Europe and Bronze Final I in France. Radio-

carbon dating of samples in direct functional association with Penard metalwork suggests a distribution

between absolute dates of c.1300 and 1125 BC (Needham et al. 1997; Lanting / van der Plicht 2001/2002)

and equivalent Irish material corresponds well (Brindley 2001).

P-metal is unlikely to have found significant use in later periods, even for sheet bronze. The sheet bronze

in cauldrons of the Ewart period typically has higher lead (above 0.10%), antimony (above 0.05-0.10%)

and lower cobalt (usually not detected) than the sheet in this shield which, as we shall see, matches very

well other shields of Yetholm type. Finds of sheet bronze from the Wilburton period are less abundant but

those which can be attributed – mainly in the Isleham hoard (Cambridgeshire) – either have the distinctive

impurity-rich »S« composition of Wilburton bronze, or very low levels of impurities indeed (Northover

1982). Among cauldrons, the composition of the shield can only be matched among the typologically

earliest examples of types Colchester and Shipton-on-Cherwell. These are datable to the Penard period on

the basis of, firstly, associations, secondly, their position as prototypes of the cauldrons of the Wilburton

and Ewart periods, and thirdly, the absence of leaded bronze even in the cast fittings (Gerloff 1986; Gerloff

2010). There is now also a radiocarbon measurement on wood in direct functional association with the

flesh-hook from Feltwell (Norfolk) which was connected with an early style cauldron. This confirms a date

between about 1350 and 1200 BC for that association (Needham / Bowman 2005, 100. 108) and further

support comes from similar compositions in a comparable single-pronged flesh-hook from Flag Fen (Cam -

bridgeshire; Coombs 2001, 263-265 no. 58), and a possible example from the Langdon Bay sea bed assem-

blage (Kent; J. P. Northover in: Needham / Parham / Frieman forthcoming).

Only two components among a good number of analysed shields from Britain can be regarded as leaded

bronze and thus notionally of Wilburton or later manufacture (tab. 4). The sheet of the Coveney-type

shield from Coveney Fen (Cambridgeshire) has 3.75% lead with an impurity pattern typical of Wil bur ton

metallurgy (Brown / Blin-Stoyle 1959). A rivet from a shield of Harlech type from the river Lea (Greater

London), however, contains 2.0% lead in an otherwise typical Penard bronze (Pryor 1980, 75 nos 163A-H);

the seven other analysed components are of Penard metal with no lead.

All other analyses of British shields support the argument for a predominantly Penard date of manufacture.

A further six shields of Coles’ Yetholm type have been analysed (tab. 4). These share a number of impor-

tant characteristics with the Cadbury shield. The measured tin contents are almost all between 11 and

14%, and where they lie outside this range the analyses are generally affected by corrosion. Lead, antimony


and silver are almost always at low trace level (below 500ppm), and arsenic is the most important impu-

rity. The bronze divides into two groups on the basis of nickel contents with one shield each from Auch-

maliddie (Aberdeenshire, National Museums of Scotland [NMS] Accession no. DN 4), and Yetholm (Rox -

burghshire; NMS Accession no. L.1933.211.4), having a significant nickel impurity, while the others do not;

both groups are compatible with a Penard date. One variant of the low nickel group has more cobalt than

nickel, although the overall levels are still low with a maximum of 0.07% cobalt. This variant occurs in one,


sample shield part Fe Co Ni Cu Zn As Sb Sn Ag Bi Pb Au S

Nipperwiese type

ASH75 Long rim 0.42 0.02 0.01 89.34 0.06 <0.20 0.15 9.68 0.06 0.00 0.20 0.00ASH76 Wittenham grip 0.16 0.02 0.35 90.04 0.01 0.25 0.25 8.80 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00ASH77 rivet 0.12 0.02 0.19 88.75 0.03 0.28 0.51 10.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.00ASH78 knob 0.13 0.02 0.26 88.71 0.03 0.31 0.67 9.84 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00

Harlech type

NMW178 Harlech sheet 0.02 0.05 0.21 90.70 0.00 0.19 0.09 8.34 0.00 0.40 0.00

BBS Coveney F. sheet 0.03 0.17 89.40 0.00 0.15 0.11 9.80 0.05 0.02 0.21 0.00

ROM163A river Lea grip 0.02 0.02 0.01 87.00 0.00 0.30 0.11 12.40 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.00ROM163B lower grip rivet 0.01 0.05 0.29 84.50 0.00 0.28 0.01 12.40 0.04 0.01 2.00 0.00ROM163C upper grip rivet 0.01 0.02 0.15 89.00 0.00 0.43 0.08 10.10 0.02 0.01 0.35 0.00ROM163D upper LH tab 0.05 0.00 0.05 85.00 0.00 0.75 0.02 13.60 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00ROM163E upper LH rivet 0.04 0.00 0.04 87.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 12.50 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.00ROM163F upper RH tab 0.02 0.03 0.02 86.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 13.40 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00ROM163G upper RH rivet 0.04 0.01 0.04 87.00 0.01 0.10 0.00 12.80 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.00ROM163H sheet, edge 0.07 0.00 0.02 87.00 0.00 0.10 0.15 12.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00

Yetholm type

BBS Langwood F. sheet 0.28 0.03 82.70 0.00 0.43 0.00 16.50 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

ED901 Yetholm sheet 0.04 0.06 0.03 88.32 0.01 0.16 0.00 11.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.32ED902 (DN 1) grip 0.02 0.07 0.04 86.91 0.01 0.32 0.01 12.56 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00ED903 tab 0.07 0.06 0.02 86.95 0.00 0.78 0.00 11.74 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.34

ED904 Yetholm tab 0.02 0.01 0.01 86.98 0.00 0.59 0.06 11.82 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.43ED905 (DN 2) sheet, boss 0.00 0.03 0.02 86.71 0.02 0.14 0.00 12.99 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05ED906 tin in grip 0.03 0.01 0.02 3.77 0.07 0.14 0.16 76.81 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.08ED907 grip 0.00 0.01 0.01 86.60 0.00 0.70 0.09 12.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29

ED908 Auchmaliddie sheet 0.41 0.00 0.09 85.62 0.00 <0.20 0.03 9.65 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.01 4.08ED909 (DN 4) grip 0.03 0.01 0.18 85.48 0.00 0.96 0.05 13.18 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03

ED910 Auchmaliddie grip 0.02 0.00 0.02 86.77 0.00 <0.20 0.01 12.94 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.17ED911 (DN 5) sheet 0.00 0.00 0.02 86.48 0.00 <0.20 0.01 13.38 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08

ED912 Yetholm sheet 0.00 0.02 0.12 86.68 0.00 0.23 0.04 12.87 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00ED913 (L.1933. wire 0.01 0.02 0.12 86.81 0.00 0.12 0.06 12.74 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03ED914 211.4) grip 0.05 0.01 0.14 87.49 0.00 <0.20 0.05 11.84 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.35ED915 tin in grip 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.07 <0.20 0.25 86.24 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.02

Coveney type

BBS Coveney Fen sheet 0.00 0.31 85.10 0.00 0.50 0.68 9.38 0.22 0.02 3.75 0.00

shield tab

FF49 Flag Fen tab 0.02 0.02 0.09 91.58 0.01 0.11 0.06 7.86 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.11

Tab. 4 Comparative analyses of bronze shields. – Analyses were by electron probe microanalysis using the methods in the appendix,ex cept for those analyses made at the British Museum by atomic absorption spectrophotometry, and those at the Research Laboratoryfor Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, by optical emission spectroscopy. A comparison of these methods ofanalysis can be found in Northover / Rychner 1998.

possibly two of the Yetholm-type shields (NMS Accession nos DN 1 and DN 2); it is a decidedly uncommon

impurity pattern in the Penard period but actually finds its best parallel in the sheet of the cauldron from

Shipton-on-Cherwell (Oxfordshire) further reinforcing the connection between shields and a Penard date.

The Langwood Fen (Chatteris, Cambridgeshire) shield, analysed by Brown / Blin-Stoyle (1959), also has

arsenic as its only significant impurity.

The composition of the bronze used to form the handle of the South Cadbury shield (R1435) is also a

Penard bronze composition, but it has rather higher levels of some impurities: iron (0.15%), cobalt (0.06%),

zinc (0.08%), antimony (0.06%), lead (0.28%) and sulphur (0.51%). Among the analysed shields this is

best matched in the Harlech-type shield from Harlech (Gwern Einion Farm, Gwynedd) and in a rivet from

the river Lea shield already mentioned; slightly more distant is the shield tab from Flag Fen. Other than

these, and the Coveney shield already referred to, the only shield components with higher antimony

contents are in the Nipperwiese-type shield from Long Wittenham (Oxfordshire) a style with continental

parallels.

The final aspect of composition of the South Cadbury shield to be discussed here is the tin filling of the

handle. The material was completely corroded except for a small number of intermetallic inclusions, either

Cu6Sn5 or FeSn2. The copper recorded is most probably from the impregnation of the corroded tin by

copper corrosion products. The possible presence of tin in the handle had already been noted during

conservation when a radiographically dense filling was observed. This is matched by similarly dense fillings

in the handles of two of the Scottish shields from which samples have been taken. That from one of the

Yetholm shields (NMS DN 2) was similarly contaminated by copper corrosion products, but that from a

second (NMS L.1933.211.4) was free of copper showing that pure tin metal was used. The impurities found

are antimony and silver and are probably impurities in the original tin. The tin may have simply been poured

into the handle to make a comfortable shape to hold but, more probably, it was there to provide a resilient

backing to facilitate the shaping of the handle. In a later period lead might have been used, but in the

Penard period lead metal was not obviously widely available. Another similar use of tin is seen in the

backing for the gold foil decoration on the Caergwrle boat from north-east Wales (Green 1985); analysis

of the gold foil showed the same alloy as in the flange-twisted gold torcs found in Wales, a type also firmly

attributable to the Penard period. Thus, overall, the case for a Penard date of manufacture for the Cadbury

shield is extremely strong.

Metallography

The function and functionality of bronze shields has been discussed extensively by John Coles amongst

others (Coles 1962; Coles et al. 1999). Based on his early experiments, Coles argued that these pieces of

sheet-bronze armour would have given inadequate protection from the onslaught of heavy weaponry. From

that time onwards the shields have been seen mainly as objects of prestige and display. However, more

recent experiments undertaken by Barry Molloy and Kate Anderson, using shield replicas of industrially

manufactured copper or bronze sheet, present a different picture. In these, the shields were found to resist

the battering or piercing from sword or spear and, moreover, showed only minor denting; on this basis they

might be worthy defensive weapons (Molloy 2009; Anderson 2011). Molloy made the further significant

points that effective use of shields by skilled combatants involved using them both offensively and to parry

opponent thrusts; many of the blows landed on the shield might only be glancing ones, causing just minor

scars. While it is important to have established that these shields, even those of quite thin sheet, had the

capability of being used repeatedly in actual battle, the argument for such use needs to be qualified by the

fact that surviving shields tend to show only limited or negligible damage. Molloy (2009) believes that many


unspecific scars and dents can be identified as weapon impacts, but only about 10% of original shields bear

obvious marks of weapon contact, although this proportion could be higher if it is assumed that fragmen-

tary examples had often sustained combat damage (Uckelmann 2011; Uckelmann 2012, 173 ff.). Indeed,

it is plausible that any heavily used shields were preferentially scrapped for recycling.

Further experiments are being carried out in a collaboration between one of the authors (M. U.), a bronze

smith (Neil Burridge) and the British Museum; a replica shield is being beaten out from a cast blank of high

tin-bronze, and it will then be both tested against weapons and analysed archaeometallurgically. A shield’s

purpose might be reflected in its microstructure. This would indicate whether it had been made to resist

the impact of swords, rapiers and spears, or whether it was intended to be largely for prestige. It is for this

reason that a metallographic survey was made of both of the South Cadbury sheet samples and, for

comparison, of samples from a number of other shields studied. Comparisons may also be made with the

sheet metal in the contemporary cauldrons.

The two sheet samples (R1232-1233) were mounted flat and ground away from one surface, thus exposing

a section parallel to and a little below that surface. In the as-polished state (fig. 4a-b) sample R1232 exem-

plifies the damaged external state of the shield with several cracks extending across metal which is deeply


Fig. 5 Yetholm (Roxburghshire): a bronze shield (NMS Accession no. DN 1). Metallographic section of sample ED901 showing re -crystallised grain structure with cold work (× 500). – b bronze shield (NMS Accession no. DN 2). Metallographic section of sampleED905 showing recrystallised grain structure and un-dissolved eutectoid (× 500). – (Photos P. Northover).

Fig. 6 Auchmaliddie (Aberdeenshire). Bronze shield (NMSAccession no. DN 4). Metallographic section of sampleED908 showing recrystallised grain structure and cold work(×500). – (Photo P. Northover).

a b

penetrated by inter- and trans-granular corrosion. In some areas the corrosion has extended to replace

whole grains, and ultimately to create cavities. Also present are sulphide inclusions but these are difficult

to see against the background of corrosion. Etching (fig. 4a-e) revealed a fully recrystallised equi axed grain

structure with annealing twins; there is no cold work and there is no coring. The grain size is moderate at

20-30μm. The sulphide inclusions are also visible as dark blue-gray particles, somewhat spread out from

their original shape by the forging of the sheet from its blank.

The second sample (R1233) is even more heavily corroded but the corrosion pattern is more clearly inter-

and trans-granular with sulphide inclusions preserved in the corrosion product. Across an object with as

large a surface area as the shield the micro-environment will vary considerably, with an even more marked

difference between its top and bottom surfaces when laid flat. Etching again showed a homogenised

recrystallised grain structure; the grain size is smaller than in R1232 at 15-20μm. The orientation of the

sample is also a little different and it can be seen that the sulphide inclusions have become elongated.

The presence of a fully recrystallised grain structure without coring or traces of cold deformation means

that the bronze has been through cycles of cold work and annealing. The annealing temperature would be

high enough to homogenise the metal, say 650-700°C, and subsequent cold hammering has been at most

minimal. Equally the deformation in the ground has not visibly deformed the surviving metal in the samples,

and it is probable that much of the deformation has been taken up by the corrosion product. The elon-

gated sulphide inclusions in R1233 show that locally the metal could have been reduced in thickness by

80% or more from that of the original blank. The small variation in grain size is caused by a corresponding

variation in the amount of cold work prior to the last anneal. The lack of traces of cold deformation means

that the metal will be quite soft with a hardness of, probably, 60-90VPN. These particular results would

support the proposal by Coles that these shields did not have the mechanical properties to resist a heavy

impact from a sword unless supported at the back. Further, the low hardness means a low resistance to

deformation and a plain sheet in this condition could be bent quite easily. However, the corrugation of the

sheet made by the concentric ribbing makes the shield much more resistant to flexing or damage by

bending. A similar strengthening can be seen in the earliest cauldrons, which have a vertical corrugated

neck.

The comparative metallographic samples come from shields from the Yetholm and Auchmaliddie finds.

Sample ED901 from the first Yetholm shield (NMS DN 1) has a small amount of very fine inter- and trans-

granular corrosion but corrosion is mainly visible by broad shallow pits on the surface, indicating a very

different burial environment from that at South Cadbury. Under plane polarised light much of the corro-

sion appears orange-red, showing that the main corrosion product is cuprite. Compared with the Cadbury

shield there are also many fewer sulphide inclusions, while the analyses discussed above show that the

copper has a different origin. As before, etching (fig. 5a) revealed a homogeneous recrystallised grain struc-

ture with a grain diameter of about 30μm but here there is an important difference in that the structure is

considerably cold worked with slip traces in all grains and duplex slip in some. This corresponds to a cold

reduction locally of 15-20%, sufficient to raise the hardness to 150-180VPN, a considerable difference

from the annealed Cadbury shield. Both the corrosion and state of cold work of the second shield from

Yetholm (ED905; NMS DN 2; fig. 5b) are similar to the first except the grain size is a little smaller and there

are broken up pools of the αδ eutectoid. The hardness of the sample should be even greater than that from

ED901. Sample ED906 shows a fragment of uncorroded tin from the handle of the same shield.

The first of the shields examined from Auchmaliddie is of type Yetholm (ED908; NMS DN 4; fig. 6) and has

a similar pattern of corrosion to the two shields from Yetholm just discussed; however, it shows rather more

sulphide inclusions which are well elongated. Etching repeats the presence of a homogenised, recrys-

tallised, cold worked structure. There is a gradient of decreasing intensity in the cold work away from the


surface which is often typical of bronze sheet where the final finishing is done with a light hammer which

compresses just the surface. The second shield from Auchmaliddie is of type Coveney (ED910; NMS DN 5)

and repeats the pattern of the first with a very similar grain size and distribution of cold work.

The final two samples come from the third Yetholm shield (ED912/13; NMS L.1933.211.4). Interestingly the

corrosion pattern is much more similar to that of the South Cadbury shield with clearly defined inter- and

trans-granular corrosion. Sample ED912 is from the sheet and shows some cold work but not as much as

in the other Scottish shields. The second sample is of some technical interest in the construction of the

shields as it comes from a wire in the rim. There was some concern that this might have been added during

an early restoration, but this is now resolved by the almost exact agreement in composition between the

sheet and wire samples, as well as by the state of corrosion. The sample shows areas that are both as-

annealed and cold worked; it is assumed that the cold deformation occurred when the wire was being

fitted into the rim of the shield. A rim reinforced with either a tube made out of rolled up sheet or with a

solid wire is typical of the Class A cauldrons of the Penard period.

The metal structure found for the South Cadbury shield therefore is not matched in the Scottish shields of

the same type, which were generally left in a much harder condition. Whether this difference is significant

is uncertain for the area of each shield sampled is very small; and while the sample locations were in the

ribbed part of the Cadbury shield, they were either at the rim or the boss in the Scottish examples.

DISCUSSION

The chronology of European bronze shields has long been problematic and they are often still viewed very

conservatively as a rather late accoutrement of the Bronze Age warrior. The difficulties, until recently, have

seemed intractable because of the general absence of cross-datable associations for shields – they normally

occur either alone or in the company of other shields. An exception to this pattern is seen in the Carpathian

Basin where five shields, or rather shield fragments, occur in hoards with other types of metalwork, and

these at least show that some bronze shields emerged quite early (Bz D to Ha A1/2; c.1325-1025 BC) (Patay

1968; Uckelmann 2012, nos 1-6). Since the Nyírtura style of the Carpathian region is also represented in a

complete shield from Lommelev (Falster/DK), it naturally raises the question as to whether other Scandina-

vian shields, of indigenous design, may also be earlier than the final phases of the Bronze Age. Although

one fragment is associated with a Period V hoard from Skydebjerg (Funen/DK; Albrectsen 1957, 73 ff.), it

will be seen below that there is now good evidence for the Herzsprung family of shields, to which Skyde-

bjerg belongs, having emerged somewhat earlier.

Outside the Carpathian Basin, dating has traditionally had to rely almost entirely on stylistic intercompar-

isons and this made it difficult to evaluate whether there may have been either delays in the transmission

of the necessary metalworking skills from one region to another, or the possibility of protracted sequences

of production accompanied by style changes. This was an especially acute problem in Britain, where several

discrete types have been identified (Coles 1962). However, we can now draw on two important strands of

evidence to provide independent dating of some shield types hitherto left floating: metal composition and

radiocarbon dates. The metal compositions of a number of British shields, of both Yetholm and other types,

have been outlined in detail above, while radiocarbon dates, most of them only recently obtained by one

of the authors (M. U.), are set out in table 5.

It has long been postulated that, whatever its actual date span, the metal shield series was grounded in a

substratum of organic shields in more common use (Gräslund 1967; Bouzek 1968; Needham 1979, 129;

Uckelmann 2011, 197 f.). It seemed likely, given petroglyphic and figurative evidence, that such organic


proto types were more widespread geographically than surviving metal forms, whilst radiocarbon dating of

the rare surviving wooden formers, wooden shields and a leather shield also confirms the suspicion that they

had a longer currency than the metal series. The principal evidence for early origins comes from dates for

the Kilmahamogue (co. Antrim/GB) wooden former (1943-1538cal BC) and the Cloonlara (co. Mayo/IRL)

wooden shield (1633-1164cal BC) (tab. 5). These indicate a distribution stretch ing back to the later part of

the Early Bronze Age (fig. 7), although some allowance needs to be made for the wood used potentially

being mature at the time of manufacture. The set of bronze rivets and decayed wooden remains found with

the Bush Barrow inhumation (Wiltshire) was originally suggested to be the »mouldering remains of a shield«

(Hoare 1812, 203), but it has since been identified as probably belonging to a rivet-studded dagger hilt

(Needham / Lawson / Woodward 2010, 10).

More recently, three other organic examples from Ireland have been AMS dated and show Middle to Late

Bronze Age dates, centred on the Bishopsland and Roscommon phases. The wooden shield former from

Churchfield (co. Mayo/IRL) gave a date of 1392-1129cal BC, the wooden shield from An nadale (co. Leit -

rim, Northern Ireland) 1258-1010 cal BC and the leather shield from Cloonbrin (co. Longford/IRL) 1194-

934cal BC. These newer dates demonstrate the use of organic shields in the late Middle and early Late

Bronze Ages (fig. 7). Interestingly, at a comparable time in southern Germany some so-called chieftain’s

graves contain numerous bronze studs or nails that, due to their location in the grave, can be interpreted

as bronze fittings for possible organic shields (Uckelmann 2012, nos 92-101). A final date we should

mention in passing is that of 770-406cal BC for the Roos Carr (East Yorkshire) boat-and-warriors wooden

figurine (Orme 1990). Here the warriors are equipped with bossed, but otherwise plain round shields which

might be supposed to represent organic ones. They show that round shields lasted in Britain into the earlier

Iron Age, though shortly after they were replaced by oval and hide-shaped forms (Stead 1991).


site type sample laboratory date BP calibrated date BC referenceand referencecomments 1σ 2σ

Kilmahamogue, wooden wood OxA-2429 3445±70 1879-1686 1943-1538 Hedges et al. co. Antrim/GB former 1991, 128

Cloonlara, wooden wood OxA-3228 3150±90 1520-1311 1633-1164 Hedges et al. co. Mayo/IRL shield 1993, 316

Churchfield, wooden wood Gr-45813 3015±40 1374-1212 1392-1129 Uckelmann co. Mayo/IRL former 2012, no. 82

Plzeň-Jikalka/CZ unique wood Gr-40666 3005±40 1370-1134 1386-1126 Uckelmann bronze from 2012, no. 86shield inside grip

Annadale, wooden wood Gr-45812 2920±35 1193-1050 1258-1010 Uckelmann co. Leitrim/IRL shield 2012, no. 81

»North Yetholm leather Gr-51009 2905±35 1188-1020 1256-998 Uckelmann Yorkshire«/GB bronze around 2012, no. 44

shield grip

Cloonbrin, leather leather Gr-45808 2880±35 1118-1008 1194-934 Uckelmann co. Longford/IRL shield 2012, no. 85

Roos Carr, round wood OxA-1718 2460±70 752-418 770-406 Orme 1990East York- shieldsshire/GB on wood

figures

Tab. 5 Radiocarbon dates for Bronze Age shields, formers for their production and shield models.

All this evidence helps to document an extended background for round shields, but does not in itself specify

the period, or periods, in which the exceptional translation to metal took place in their various regions of

production. One of the new radiocarbon determinations is for the shield from Plzeň/CZ, the date of which

has long been debated due to its discovery next to both a 13th century BC hoard and scattered finds of

8th century BC date. It is now dated 1387-1127cal BC (tab. 5) suggesting a position near the beginning of

metal shield production, as its form and technology might also imply (Uckelmann 2012, no. 86). Combined

with the evidence of the Carpathian hoard associations, it therefore appears that the small number of metal

shields known from Central Europe belong somewhere within the mid-14th to mid-11th centuries BC, essen-

tially the earlier half of the Urnfield period.

So where does the extensive British/Irish shield sequence stand in relation to this dating? Stylistic compar-

isons had formerly been used to suggest that the Nipperwiese type, found in both Northern Europe and

the British Isles, was more or less contemporary with the Plzeň shield (Needham 1979) and, as we have

seen, the latter example is now confirmed to be early. Further confirmation comes from the metal compo-

sitions of both the Long Wittenham shield of Nipperwiese type and the Flag Fen tab, probably of the closely

allied Athenry/Eynsham type, for these are consonant with the metal circulating during the Penard period

in Britain, c.1300-1125 BC. But these relatively unelaborated types could, hypothetically, stand at the head


Fig. 7 Chronological evidence for European Bronze Age shields based on radiocarbon determinations, hoard associations and metalcompositions. – (Illustration S. P. Needham).

of a long sequence of insular production. This might at first sight seem to be supported by the radiocarbon

date most closely associated with the deposition of the South Cadbury shield; taken in isolation, it would

suggest a rather later horizon for the Yetholm type at least (fig. 7). However, this date is now constrained,

pushed earlier, by the stratigraphically later radiocarbon result and, moreover, the shield’s own composition

tells another story.

It has been demonstrated above that the bronze of the South Cadbury shield is also typical of the Penard

period. Comparison with other sheet bronze of that period shows direct parallels in alloy content and im -

purity pattern. Construction techniques, such as the corrugated structure and the use of tin as a resilient

backing for forming sheet also fit in with this date. An important new radiocarbon date adds to this

evidence. It comes from a shield recently rediscovered in a stately home in North Yorkshire (private collec-

tion), where it was displayed for over 160 years; it is a perfectly preserved example of Yetholm type. With

a diameter of 62.1 cm and 26 concentric ribs alternating with rows of small bosses, it looks very similar to

the shield from South Cadbury. Rivetted to the back are the usual two small tabs and a bronze tube for the

handle. However, surprisingly, a double lining of leather was sewn around this grip and is excellently

preserved. It was possible to take a small sample of this leather for analysis; the resulting radiocarbon date

is 1256-998cal BC (Uckelmann 2012, no. 44), a range spanning much of the Penard and Wilburton phases.

Existing metal analyses of another insular shield type, that of Harlech, again suggests a primarily Penard

date of manufacture and only the Coveney Fen shield, of Coveney type, has a composition characteristic

of Wilburton metallurgy.

All of this evidence suggests that bronze shield production in Britain and Ireland may have been largely

concentrated in the Penard period, with some continuation into the Wilburton phase. There would seem

to have been a relatively rapid evolution of the insular styles and it has usually been assumed that these all

stemmed from an imported idea. The discovery of examples of Nipperwiese type in Britain (Needham 1979)

provided a plausible prototype for insular diversification on the assumption that the continental examples

in Northern Europe had chronological primacy. This assumption itself now deserves critical appraisal. Dating

evidence for the central European bronze shields allows the possibility that they began before the

13th century BC, but the date spans for both Plzeň and the Carpathian fragments are broad and the earliest

examples need not necessarily predate the major horizon of shields in the British Penard phase. Unfortu-

nately, the dating we have is not sufficiently precise to resolve such fine questions, but we can now say that

there was a major horizon of shield production, in organic materials as well as metal, during the last three

centuries of the 2nd millennium BC.

On the evidence of the Irish bog finds, circular organic shields may have been an innovation first developed

in Ireland. There are no known organic finds from bogs in Northern Europe, or indeed Britain, despite the

uptake in those regions of shield production in metal (though it should be said that Bronze Age leather

does not often survive, even in bogs). There is other evidence that such distribution patterns can be fickle;

for example, it is only because a particular iconographic tradition developed in parts of Iberia (recently

synthesised by Harrison 2004) that we can infer that round organic shields were in regular use there.

Harrison (2004, 129-131) suggested that Herzsprung style organic circular shields developed first in Iberia

or Ireland and that they served as prototypes for a wider European phenomenon (see also Uckelmann

2008). However, a handful of south German graves (Uckelmann 2012, 81ff.) seems to bear testimony to

the use of organic shields, decorated with bronze studs, in that region by at least the 14th century BC. This

makes it incredibly difficult to posit on the empirical dating evidence in which region metalworkers first

realised the potential of translating an organic shield into one of sheet bronze.

Whatever the origins, it is striking that the making of these metal shields was taken up with great vigour

in the British Isles; these islands account for more than half of all known metal shields of the Bronze Age,


44 of 87 examples. Just as significantly, there is no other defensive armour known from the British Isles,

despite many examples of helmets, greaves and cuirasses on the Continent (Uckelmann 2012, 198), so the

showy panoply of the warrior during this phase was focussed very much on the shield and any accompa-

nying offensive weapons. It may also be significant from the technological point of view that another large-

scale toreutic form, namely the cauldron, was beginning to be produced in the British Isles at a similar early

date – from the 13th century BC. Hence, whatever the precise detail of the »invention« of the metal shield,

it is clear that it rapidly became a key component in an early phase of large sheet-metal production unpar-

alleled in Western and Central Europe at that date.

We still have to address the problem of the apparently late deposition of the South Cadbury shield. We

must confront the possibility that the shield was buried after the mid-11th century BC, some decades after

its production and, perhaps even, that bronze shields were no longer being made by this time. The ques-

tion then arises as to how the shield would have been understood and valued by a society that no longer

had them in regular circulation. Its unique depositional context, on dry land, could very easily be a function

of changed social perceptions of such an object. Moreover, there may be a further distinction in terms of

its treatment: while earlier recognised examples of spear-thrust perforations in shields show this to have

been from the expected direction, penetrating the front (e. g. Needham 1979), the South Cadbury shield

was stabbed from the back while lying prostrate in the ditch, probably by a fairly blunt non-metallic instru-

ment (Coles et al. 1999). The differing hardness and metal structure of the shield from other analysed

shields of the same type reveals it to be distinctive. As recent experiments show, it is quite hard to pierce a

shield with a bronze sword or spear, it therefore seems astonishing that the South Cadbury shield was

pierced with a wooden instrument. It could be that the shield was already old and weakened by corrosion

at the time, but another possibility is that the shield was heated, almost annealed. This would soften the

metal prior to its ritual killing and allow it to be destroyed easily, potentially therefore giving the ritual act

a more persuasive force.

In general, bronze shields are quite rare and labour intensive to manufacture, and could only be made by

highly skilled metalworkers. They were objects of prestige and most probably some sort of social marker,

for example held by a leader in battle or in a ritual procession. Many of the shields were capable of

protecting their bearer in battle, at least for a while, and some do actually bear witness to limited active

combat. At the end of their time of use they were almost invariably offered up to a river, bog or lake and

thereby removed to another sphere. Significantly, this did not happen to the South Cadbury shield presum-

ably because it had passed into a new symbolic era; nevertheless, several decades after being made, it still

seems to have retained symbolic force, thus explaining its sacrifice in an unconventional way.

APPENDIX: METHODS OF PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS

The samples were hot-mounted in a carbon-filled thermosetting resin, ground and polished to a 1μm

diamond finish. Analysis was by electron probe microanalysis with wavelength dispersive spectrometry;

operating conditions were an accelerating voltage of 25kV, a beam current of 30nA, and an X-ray take-

off angle of 62°. 13 elements were sought, as listed in the accompanying table; pure element and mineral

standards were used with a counting time of 10 s per element. Detection limits were typically 100-200ppm

with the exception of 400ppm for gold and 2000ppm for arsenic. This last was because of the means

taken to avoid the well-known interference between the strongest lines for lead and arsenic in the X-ray

spectrum, lead Lα and arsenic Kα. The most convenient solution was to use the relatively strong lead Mα line


but for arsenic the weak Kβ line had to be used with a consequent degradation in performance. For the

purposes of this study this was not regarded as significant; alternative routines are available for a separate,

more sensitive analysis of arsenic but were not thought necessary.


Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Stephen Minnitt (Museum of Somerset,Taunton) for the photograph of the shield; the EnvironmentalArchaeology Laboratory, University of Bristol, for facilities forpollen analysis and especially Heather Tinsley for her studies onthese pollen samples; Nigel Cameron (Environmental Change Re -search Centre, University College London) for diatom assessment,and Jen Heathcote (Ancient Monuments Laboratory, Fort Cumber-land, Portsmouth) for commenting on the likely origin of the sedi -

ments; Christoph Skowranek (formerly University of Bristol), foridentification of the Sigwells enclosure mould fragments; Prof.Brian Cantor and the Department of Materials, University ofOxford, for the facilities for metallurgical analysis; Janet Ambers(Conservation & Scientific Research, British Museum) and TomHigham (Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit) for the radiocarbondating of relevant samples; and Chris Salter for assistance with theoperation of the electron microprobe.

References

Albrectsen 1957: E. Albrectsen, Skydebjergfundet. Fynske Minder1957, 75-78.

Alcock 1972: L. Alcock, »By South Cadbury, is that Camelot …«:The excavation of Cadbury Castle 1966-1970. New aspects ofantiquity (London 1972).

1980: L. Alcock, The Cadbury Castle sequence in the first mil-lennium BC. Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 28, 1980,656-718.

Anderson 2011: K. Anderson, Slashing and thrusting with LateBronze Age spears: analysis and experiment. Antiquity 85, 2011,599-612.

Barrett / Bradley / Green 1991: J. C. Barrett / R. Brad ley / M. Green,Land scape, Monuments and Society: the prehistory of Cran-borne Chase (Cambridge 1991).

Barrett / Freeman / Woodward 2000: J. C. Barrett / P. W. M. Free -man / A. Woodward, Cadbury Castle, Somerset: The later pre-historic and early historic archaeology. Archaeological ReportN. F. 20 (London 2000).

Bouzek 1968: J. Bouzek, Einige Bemerkungen zum Beginn derNipperwiese-Schilde. Germania 46, 1968, 313-316.

Bradley 1990: R. Bradley, The Passage of Arms. An archaeologicalanalysis of prehistoric hoards and votive deposits (Cambridge1990).

Brindley 2001: A. L. Brindley, Tomorrow is another day: some ra -dio carbon dates for Irish bronze artefacts. In: W. H. Metz / B. L.van Beek / H. Steegstra (eds), Patina: Essays presented to JayJordan Butler on the Occasion of his 80th Birthday (Groningen2001) 145-160.

Brown / Blin-Stoyle 1959: M.A. Brown / E. A. Blin-Stoyle, A sam-ple analysis of British Middle and Late Bronze Age material usingoptical spectrometry. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 25,1959, 188-208.

Coles 1962: J. M. Coles, European Bronze Age shields. Proceed-ings of the Prehistoric Society 28, 1962, 156-190.

Coles / Minnitt / Wilson 2000: J. Coles / S. Minnitt / A. Wilson, Ce -remony and Display: the South Cadbury Bronze Age Shield(Taun ton 2000).

Coles et al. 1999: J. M. Coles / P. Leach / S. C. Min nitt / R. Ta bor /A. Wilson, A later Bronze Age shield from South Cadbury, Somer -set, England. Antiquity 73, 1999, 33-48.

Colquhoun 1978: I. Colquhoun, Bronze Age metalwork in Somer-set: a catalogue of stray finds. Proceedings of the SomersetshireArchaeological and Natural History Society 122, 1978, 83-101.

Coombs 2001: D. G. Coombs, Metalwork. In: F. Pryor (ed.), TheFlag Fen Basin. Archaeology and Environment of a FenlandLand scape. English Heritage Archaeological Reports 15 (London2001) 255-298.

Gerloff 1986: S. Gerloff, Bronze Age class A cauldrons: typology,origins and chronology. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquar-ies of Ireland 116, 1986, 84-115.

2010: S. Gerloff, Atlantic Cauldrons and Buckets of the LateBronze and Early Iron Ages in Western Europe. With a Review ofComparable Vessels from Central Europe and Italy. Prähis-torische Bronzefunde II, 18 (Stuttgart 2010).

Gräslund 1967: B. Gräslund, The Herzsprung shield type and itsorigin. Acta Archaeologica [København] 38, 1967, 59-71.

Green 1985: H. S. Green, The Caergwrle bowl – not oak but shale.Antiquity 59, 1985, 116-117.

Grieg 1989: J. Grieg, Pollen preserved by copper salts. In: U. Kör-ber-Grohne (ed.), Archäobotanik. Symposium der UniversitätHohenheim (Stuttgart) vom 11.-16. Juli 1988. Dissertationes Bo -tanicae 133 (Berlin 1989) 11-24.

Harrison 2004: R. J. Harrison, Symbols and Warriors: Images of theEuropean Bronze Age (Bristol 2004).

Hedges et al. 1991: R. E. M. Hedges / R. A. Hous ley / C. R. Bronk /G. J. van Klinken, Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS sys-tem: datelist 12. Archaeometry 33, 1991, 121-134.

1993: R. E. M. Hedges / R. A. Housley / C. Bronk Ramsey / G. J.van Klinken, Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system:datelist 17. Archaeometry 35, 1993, 305-326.

Hoare 1812: R. C. Hoare, The Ancient History of South Wiltshire(London 1812).

Lanting / van der Plicht 2001/2002: J. N. Lanting / J. van der Plicht,De 14C-chronologie van de nederlandse pre- en protohistorie IV:bronstijd en vroege ijzertijd. Palaeohistoria 43/44, 2001/2002,117-262.

Molloy 2009: B. P. C. Molloy, For Gods or men? A reappraisal ofthe function of Bronze Age shields. Antiquity 83, 2009, 1052-1064.

Moore / Webb / Collinson 1991: P. D. Moore / J. A. Webb / M. E.Col linson, Pollen Analysis (Oxford 21991).

Needham 1979: S. P. Needham, Two recent British shield finds andtheir continental parallels. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society45, 1979, 111-134.

1996: S. P. Needham, Chronology and periodisation in the Brit -ish Bronze Age. In: K. Randsborg (ed.), Absolute Chronology:Archaeological Europe 2500-500 BC. Acta Archaeologica Suppl.1 = 67 (København 1996) 121-140.

2007: S. P. Needham, 800 BC: the Great Divide. In: C. Ha sel -grove / R. Pope (eds), The Earlier Iron Age in Britain and the NearContinent (Oxford 2007) 39-63.

Needham / Bowman 2005: S. P. Needham / S. G. E. Bowman, Flesh-hooks, technological complexity and the Atlantic Bronze Agefeasting complex. European Journal of Archaeology 8, 2005, 93-136.

Needham / Lawson / Woodward 2010: S. P. Needham / A. J. Law -son / A. Woodward, »A Noble Group of Barrows«: Bush Barrowand the Normanton Down Early Bronze Age cemetery two cen-turies on. Antiquaries Journal 90, 2010, 1-39.

Needham / Parham / Frieman forthcoming: S. P. Needham / D. Par -ham / C. Frieman (eds), Claimed by the Sea: Salcombe, LangdonBay and Other Marine Finds of the Bronze Age. Council for Brit -ish Archaeology (forthcoming).

Needham et al. 1997: S. P. Needham / C. Bronk Ramsey / D.Coombs / C. Cartwright / P. Pettitt, An independent chronologyfor British Bronze Age metalwork: the results of the Oxford ra -diocarbon accelerator programme. Archaeological Journal 154,1997, 55-107.

Northover 1982: J. P. Northover, The metallurgy of the Wilburtonhoards. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1, 1982, 69-109.

Northover / Rychner 1998: J. P. Northover / V. Rychner, Bronze ana -lysis, experience of a comparative programme. In: C. Mor -dant / M. Pernot / V. Rychner (eds), L’Atelier du bronzier en Eu -rope du XXe au VIIIe siècle avant notre ère. 1: Les analyses decomposition du métal: leur apport à l’archéologie de l’âge dubronze (Session de Neuchâtel) (Paris 1998) 19-40.

Orme 1990: B. Orme, Anthropomorphic wooden figures fromBritain and Ireland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56,1990, 315-333.

Patay 1968: P. Patay, Urnenfelderzeitliche Bronzeschilde im Kar pa -tenbecken. Germania 46, 1968, 241-248.

Pryor 1980: F. Pryor, A Catalogue of the British and Irish BronzeAge Metalwork in the Royal Ontario Museum (Toronto 1980).

Rohl / Needham 1998: B. M. Rohl / S. P. Needham, The Circulationof Metal in the British Bronze Age: the Application of Lead Iso-tope Analysis. British Museum Occasional Paper 102 (London1998).

Stead 1991: I. M. Stead, Many more Iron Age shields from Britain.Antiquaries Journal 71, 1991, 1-35.

Tabor 2008a: R. Tabor, Cadbury Castle: The Hillfort and Land-scapes (Stroud 2008).

2008b: R. Tabor, Woolston Manor Farm, North Cadbury: an out-line report of fieldwork in 2006-7 by the South Cadbury En -virons Project. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological andNatural History Society 151, 2008, 83-96.

Tabor / Johnson 2000: R. Tabor / P. Johnson, Sigwells, Somerset,England: regional application and interpretation of geophysicalsurvey. Antiquity 74, 2000, 319-325.

Uckelmann 2008: M. Uckelmann, Irland oder Iberien – Überlegun-gen zum Ursprung einer Ornamentform der Bronzezeit. In:F. Verse / B. Knoche / J. Graefe / M. Hohlbein / K. Schierhold /C. Siemann / M. Uckelmann / G. Woltermann (eds), Durch dieZeiten ... Festschrift für Albrecht Jockenhövel zum 65. Geburts -tag. Internationale Archäologie Studia Honoria 28 (Rahden/Westf. 2008) 259-268.

2011: M. Uckelmann, The function of Bronze Age shields. In:M. Uckelmann / M. Mödlinger (eds), Warfare in Bronze AgeEurope: Manufacture and Use of Weaponry. BAR InternationalSeries 2255 (Oxford 2011) 187-199.

2012: M. Uckelmann, Die Schilde der Bronzezeit in Nord-, West-und Zentraleuropa. Prähistorische Bronzefunde III, 4 (Stuttgart2012).


Zusammenfassung / Abstract / Résumé

South Cadbury: der letzte der Bronzeschilde?In bisherigen Publikationen über den im Jahre 1997 ausgegrabenen Bronzeschild vom Typ Yetholm vom Milsom’sCorner in South Cadbury (Somerset) wurde der Aussagekraft der Metallanalysen und dem stratigraphischen Fundkon-text hinsichtlich der Fragen zum Ursprung und Umlauf der bronzenen Schilde kaum Beachtung geschenkt. Un ver öf -fent lichte Analysen für mehrere britische Schilde werden vorgestellt und ihre metallographischen Eigenschaften disku-tiert, auch in Bezug auf die immer noch strittige Frage nach der Nutzbarkeit der Blechschilde. Die Zusammensetzungendes Metalls belegen, dass die Bronzeschilde hauptsächlich in der britischen Phase Penard (ca.1300-1125 v.Chr.) vor -kom men. Vorhandene Radiokarbondatierungen, darunter einige neue, von bronzenen (bzw. deren organischen Be -standteilen) und organischen Stücken belegen, dass sie damit ebenso früh wie die ältesten Schilde in Europa datieren.Seltsamerweise ist der Schild von South Cadbury zwar in der Penard-Periode hergestellt worden, aber erst später ver -mutlich rituell zerstört und deponiert worden, wohl zu einer Zeit, zu der solche Paraderüstungen nicht mehr in Ge -brauch waren. Dies vermag vielleicht den bisher einzigartigen Fundkontext in trockenem Boden zu erklären.

South Cadbury: the last of the bronze shields?Previous publications on the bronze shield of Yetholm type excavated in 1997 at Milsom’s Corner in South Cadbury(Somerset) have not considered the significance of its metal composition and stratigraphic context for the origins andthe distribution of bronze shields. Unpublished analyses for several British shields are presented and their metallographicproperties are discussed in relation to the ongoing debate about the utility of sheet-metal shields. Composition pat ternsconfirm that bronze shields were largely a feature of the British Penard phase (c.1300-1125 BC), while available radio-carbon dates, some new, for both metal and organic versions show this to be as early as anywhere in Europe. Paradox-ically, the South Cadbury shield, although of Penard manufacture, was probably ritually killed and deposited later, at atime when such parade armour was falling out of use. This may explain its hitherto unique dry land context.

South Cadbury: les derniers boucliers en bronze?Les précédentes publications du bouclier en bronze de type Yetholm mis au jour en 1997 à Milsom’s Corner dans leSouth Cadbury (Somerset) n’ont pas pris en compte l’importance de la composition du métal et du contexte stratigra-phique pour la question de l’origine et de la distribution des boucliers en bronze. Des analyses inédites de compositionmétallographique de plusieurs boucliers britanniques sont présentées en rapport avec la problématique liée à l’utilitéde ces boucliers. Les compositions métalliques confirment que les boucliers en bronze sont avant tout l’apanage de laphase British Penard (ca.1300-1125 av. J-C.), des datations par le radiocarbone – certaines inédites – en provenancede pièces en bronze (en l’occurence de leurs éléments organiques) montrent que ces boucliers en bronze sont les plusanciens d’Europe. Paradoxalement, le bouclier de South Cadbury bien que de manufacture Penard a été probablement»tué« et déposé plus tardivement, à une époque à laquelle ce genre d’armures de parade était en désuétude. Cecipourrait expliquer le contexte singulier dans lequel il a été mis au jour dans un terrain sec. L. B.

Schlüsselwörter / Keywords / Mots clés

Großbritannien / Bronzezeit / Bewaffnung / Schild / Bronzeanalyse / HillfortGreat Britain / Bronze Age / armour / shield / bronze analysis / hillfortGrande Bretagne / âge du Bronze / armes / bouclier / analyses de bronze / habitat perché fortifié


Stuart P. NeedhamLangton Fold, North LaneGB - GU31 5NW South [email protected]

Peter NorthoverUniversity of OxfordDepartment of MaterialsMaterials Science-Based Archaeology GroupBegbroke Science ParkSandy Lane, YarntonGB - OX5 1PF [email protected]

Marion UckelmannUniversity of ExeterDepartment of ArchaeologyLaver BuildingNorth Park RoadGB - EX4 4QE [email protected]

Richard TaborSimonburn Cottage, Sutton MontisGB - BA22 7HF [email protected]

ISSN 0342-734X

Inga Bergmann, Clemens Bock, Julia Ebert, Sarah Enders, Sebastian Müller, Grit Otto, Clemens Pasda, Juliane Weiß, Diana Zeiß, Jung- und

spätpaläolithische Freilandfundstellen im Tal der Weißen Elster (Mitteldeutschland) . . . . . . . . . 439

Tünde Horváth, Kitti Köhler, Life and death: mortuary rituals of the Baden culture

at Lake Balaton (Transdanubia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453

Stuart P. Needham, Peter Northover, Marion Uckelmann, Richard Tabor, South Cadbury:

the last of the bronze shields? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473

Holger Baitinger, Peter Kresten, Geoarchäologie zweier hessischer »Schlackenwälle«:

Glauberg und Altkönig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493

Manuel Fernández-Götz, Die Rolle der Heiligtümer bei der Konstruktion kollektiver Identitäten:

das Beispiel der treverischen Oppida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509

Jesús F. Torres-Martínez, Antxoka Martínez Velasco, Cristina Pérez Farraces,Augustan campaigns in the initial phase of the Cantabrian War

and Roman artillery projectiles from the Monte Bernorio oppidum (Villarén, prov. Palencia) . . . 525

Karlheinz Schaldach, Eine Sonnenuhr und ihr Postament: zwei Funde

vom römischen Heiligtum auf dem Martberg (Lkr. Cochem-Zell) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543

Christine Hoët-van Cauwenberghe, Cadrans solaires portatifs antiques:

un exemplaire inédit provenant des Balkans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555

Annette Siegmüller, Hauke Jöns, Ufermärkte, Wurten, Geestrandburgen.

Herausbildung differenter Siedlungstypen im Küstengebiet in Abhängigkeit

von der Paläotopographie im 1. Jahrtausend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573

Inhalt Jahrgang 42, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591

INHALTSVERZEICHNIS

Das Archäologische Korrespondenzblatt versteht sich als eine aktuelle wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift zu Themen der vor-und frühgeschichtlichen sowie provinzialrömischen Archäologie und ihrer Nachbarwissenschaften in Europa. Neben deraktuellen Forschungsdiskussion finden Neufunde und kurze Analysen von überregionalem Interesse hier ihren Platz.Der Umfang der Artikel beträgt bis zu 20 Druckseiten; fremdsprachige Beiträge werden ebenfalls angenommen. Unabhängige Redaktoren begutachten die eingereichten Artikel.

Kontakt für Autoren: [email protected]

Abonnement beginnend mit dem laufenden Jahrgang; der Lieferumfang umfasst 4 Hefte pro Jahr; ältere Jahrgängeauf Anfrage; Kündigungen zum Ende eines Jahrganges.

Kontakt in Abonnement- und Bestellangelegenheiten: [email protected]

Preis je Jahrgang (4 Hefte) für Direktbezieher 20,– € (16,– € bis 2007 soweit vorhanden) + Versandkosten (z.Z. Inland5,50 €, Ausland 12,70 €)

HIERMIT ABONNIERE ICH DAS ARCHÄOLOGISCHE KORRESPONDENZBLATT

Name, Vorname ________________________________________________________________________________________

Straße, Nr. ________________________________________________________________________________________

PLZ, Ort ________________________________________________________________________________________

Sollte sich meine Adresse ändern, erlaube ich der Deutschen Post, meine neue Adresse mitzuteilen.

Datum ______________________ Unterschrift _____________________________________________________

Ich wünsche folgende Zahlungsweise (bitte ankreuzen):

� bequem und bargeldlos durch Bankabbuchung (innerhalb von Deutschland)

Konto-Nr. ________________________________________ BLZ __________________________________________

Geldinstitut ________________________________________________________________________________________

Datum _________________________ Unterschrift __________________________________________________

� durch sofortige Überweisung nach Erhalt der Rechnung (Deutschland und andere Länder)Ausland: Nettopreis net price prix net 20,– €Versandkosten postage frais d’expédition 12,70 €Bankgebühren bank charges frais bancaires 7,70 €

Bei Verwendung von Euro-Standardüberweisungen mit IBAN- und BIC-Nummer entfallen unsere Bankgebühren (IBAN: DE 08 5519 0000 0020 9860 14; BIC: MVBM DE 55), ebenso wenn Sie von Ihrem Postgirokonto überweisen oder durch internationale Postanweisung zahlen.Das Römisch-Germanische Zentralmuseum ist nicht umsatzsteuerpflichtig und berechnet daher keine Mehrwertsteuer.

If you use the European standard money transfer with IBAN- and BIC-numbers there are no bank charges from our part (IBAN: DE 08 5519 0000 0020 9860 14; BIC: MVBM DE 55). This is also the case if you transfer the money from a post office current account or with an international post office money order.The Römisch-Germanische Zentralmuseum does not pay sales tax and therefore does not charge VAT (value added tax).

L’utilisation de virement SWIFT avec le numéro IBAN et SWIFT supprime nos frais bancaires (IBAN: DE 08 5519 0000 0020 9860 14; SWIFT: MVBM DE 55); ils peuvent aussi être déduits en cas de réglement postal sur notre CCP (compte courant postal) ou par mandat postal international.Le Römisch-Germanische Zentralmuseum n’est pas imposable à la taxe sur le chiffre d’affaires et ne facture aucune TVA (taxe à la valeur ajoutée).

Senden Sie diese Abo-Bestellung bitte per Fax an: 0049 (0) 61 31 / 91 24-199

oder per Post an:

Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Forschungsinstitut für Archäologie,Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, Ernst-Ludwig-Platz 2, 55116 Mainz, Deutschland

BESTELLUNG DES ARCHÄOLOGISCHEN KORRESPONDENZBLATTS

3/2

012

Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, MainzErnst-Ludwig-Platz 2 · 55116 Mainz · Tel.: 0 6131/ 91 24-0 · Fax: 0 6131/ 91 24-199E-Mail: [email protected] · Internet: www.rgzm.de · http://shop.rgzm.de

NEUERSCHEINUNGEN

Mosaiksteine. Forschungen am RGZM,Band 9

103 S., 71 meist farb. Abb.ISBN 978-3-88467-195-5

€ 20,–

Barbara Pferdehirt · Markus Scholz (Hrsg.)

Bürgerrecht und Krise – die Constitutio Antoniniana 212 n.Chr.und ihre innenpolitischen FolgenDie Vergabe des römischen Bürgerrechts war ein elementares Instrument derIntegrationspolitik Roms. Vor 1800 Jahren verlieh es der Kaiser Caracalla analle freigeborenen Einwohner des Römischen Reiches. Dieser Akt beendetedie bis dahin herrschende Rechtsungleichheit innerhalb des römischen Staa-tes. Wurden vor 212 n.Chr. nur solche Personen in den Stand eines römi-schen Bürgers versetzt, die sich zuvor um den römischen Staat verdientgemacht hatten – sei es in der zivilen Selbstverwaltung in den Kommunenoder durch den Dienst in Hilfstruppen und Flotten –, so besaß ab dieser Zeitjedermann die juristische Voraussetzung für den sozialen Aufstieg, indem erz. B. Staatsämter übernahm. Gleichzeitig wurde durch diesen kaiserlichenErlass auch die Vormachtstellung Italiens gegenüber den Provinzen aufgeho-ben. Der Begleitband zur Ausstellung versucht aufzuzeigen, warum es zurAbkehr von der bisherigen Verleihungspraxis kam, welche finanziellen Fol-gen sich daraus entwickelten und welche Konsequenzen damit für den Staatwie für den Bürger verbunden waren. Die Ausstellung erfolgt in engerAbstimmung mit der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg und dem Archäo-logischen Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg, das im nächsten Jahr anden Germanenfeldzug des Caracalla im Jahr 213 n.Chr. erinnern wird.

Monographien des RGZM, Band 99294 S., 86 Abb.

ISBN 978-3-88467-192-4€ 70,–

Lutz Kindler

Die Rolle von Raubtieren bei der Einnischung und Subsistenzjungpleistozäner NeandertalerArchäozoologie und Taphonomie der mittelpaläolithischen Fauna aus der Balver Höhle (Westfalen)

Die Balver Höhle ist eine der größten und bekanntesten Fundstellen aus derZeit der Neandertaler in Deutschland. Das Buch präsentiert erstmalig dieErgebnisse einer intensiven archäozoologischen und taphonomischen Stu-die der Tierreste der letzten großflächigen Ausgrabungen im Jahre 1939.Im Zentrum steht das Verhältnis zwischen Neandertalern und ihren Konkur-renten, den großen Raubtieren. Die Fauna erschließt das intensive Erbeutenvon Höhlenbären in ihrem Winterversteck. Neandertaler hatten sich aberauch mit anderen Raubtieren um den Zugang zur Höhle zu streiten. DasEinbringen von Jagdwild in die Höhle und die Verwendung von Knochenzur Herstellung von Werkzeugen erlauben nähere Einblicke in die Land-schaftsnutzung der Neandertaler.


NEUERSCHEINUNGEN

Monographien des RGZM, Band 96,1-2zugleich Vulkanpark-Forsch., Band 10

2 Bände, zus. 394 S. mit 57 Abb.,133 Taf., 6 Farbtaf., 1 Beil. ISBN 978-3-88467-183-2

€ 110,–

Martin Grünewald

Die römischen Gräberfelder von MayenMayen ist der älteste, ständig besiedelte Wirtschaftsstandort Deutschlandsmit europaweitem Warenexport. Diese Kontinuität von der keltischen Vor-geschichte bis ins Mittelalter lässt sich hier erstmals anhand der exaktdatierbaren Gräber nachweisen. Der Erfolg seiner Exportprodukte – hoch-wertige Mühlen aus der örtlichen Basaltlava und die rauwandige MayenerKeramik – veränderte das Mayener Siedlungsgefüge nachhaltig: Die Zu -sam menhänge zwischen den bestatteten Personen und den von ihnen ge -fertigten Waren stellt diese Untersuchung heraus. Außerdem ergeben sichzahlreiche Erkenntnisse zu Siedlungsgenese, Zusammensetzung, Wandelund Wohlstand der Mayener Be völkerung. In einem umfangreichen Kata-log wird das Fundmaterial aus 368 Gräbern erstmals der Forschung zu -gäng lich gemacht.

Monographien des RGZM, Band 97174 S., 53 teils farb. Abb.ISBN 978-3-88467-185-6

€ 45,–

Thomas Schmidts

Akteure und Organisation der Handelsschifffahrt in den nordwestlichen Provinzen des Römischen ReichesIn der Antike wurde der Warentransport, wann immer dies möglich war,über Wasserwege abgewickelt – so auch in den von Mittelmeer, Atlantikund Nordsee umgebenen nördlichen Provinzen des Römischen Reiches.Hier bot ein dichtes Netz von Flüssen ideale Voraussetzungen für die Bin -nenschifffahrt. Eine Reihe von Akteuren der Handelsschifffahrt kennen wiraus Inschriften. In den nördlichen Provinzen handelt es sich überwiegendum Schiffseigner, die sich im Binnenland als nauta und an der gal li schenMittelmeerküste als navicularius bezeichnen. Die gallischen naviculariiwaren auch im westlichen Mittelmeerraum an Transporten zur Versorgungder Hauptstadt Rom beteiligt. Die Studie untersucht ausgehend vom In -schriftenbestand die mit der Handelsschifffahrt befassten Berufsgruppenund ihre Vereinigungen.


NEUERSCHEINUNGEN

RGZM – Tagungen, Band 13262 S., 127 z. T. farb. Abb.ISBN 978-3-88467-191-7

€ 37,–

Lutz Grunwald · Heidi Pantermehl · Rainer Schreg (Hrsg.)

Hochmittelalterliche Keramik am RheinEine Quelle für Produktion und Alltag des 9. bis 12. Jahrhunderts

Durch die Tagung »Hochmittelalterliche Keramik am Rhein« gelang es, fürdas 9. bis 12. Jahrhundert eine Bilanz des derzeitigen Forschungsstands zudiesem »Leitfossil« der archäologischen Wissenschaft zu ziehen. Der vor -liegende Band bietet mit seinen 21 Beiträgen nicht nur einen wichtigenÜberblick über den aktuellen Forschungsstand zur entlang des Rheins anzu-treffenden hochmittelalterlichen Keramik. Ausgehend von den unter-schiedlichsten, in der Schweiz, Frankreich, Deutschland und den Nieder -landen angesiedelten Forschungsvorhaben erweitert er darüber hinaus denBlick von einzelnen Fundstellen und Töpferregionen auf überregionaleBetrachtungen und Zusammenhänge hinsichtlich der Warenarten, ihrerProduktion und des Handels mit keramischen Gütern. Einige Beiträge lie-fern für be stimmte Regionen am Rhein zudem erstmals eine Beschreibungder dort in dieser Zeit vorhandenen Tonwaren. In der Zusammenschau derEinzeldarstellungen ergeben sich neue Einblicke sowohl in die regionaleWirtschaftsgeschichte als auch in die großräumigen Entwicklungstenden-zen, die in dieser Epoche das Leben und den Alltag der Menschen entlangdes Rheins prägten.

RGZM – Tagungen, Band 14602 S., 276 sw- u. 33 farb. Abb.

ISBN 978-3-88467-193-1€ 68,–

Martin Schönfelder · Susanne Sievers (Hrsg.)

L’âge du Fer entre la Champagne et la vallée du RhinDie Eisenzeit zwischen Champagne und RheintalIm Mai des Jahres 2010 tagte die »Association Française pour l’Étude del’Âge du Fer« erstmals in Deutschland, und zwar im Rhein-Main-Gebiet. Die-ser in der heutigen Zeit überaus wichtige Verkehrsknotenpunkt verfügtebereits in der Eisenzeit über weitreichende und besondere Verbindungen,gerade zu den östlichen Teilen Frankreichs. Das hier vorliegende regionaleThema ist dem Gebiet zwischen der Champagne und dem Rheintal gewid-met, wobei der Rhein hier aber nicht als Grenze betrachtet werden sollte.Bei den Beiträgen stehen siedlungsarchäo logische Ergebnisse im Vorder-grund, die durch großflächige Rettungsgrabungen der letzten Jahre be son -ders in Frankreich erzielt werden konnten. Weiter wurden sowohl eher un -be kannte als auch international bekannte Höhensiedlungen der Hallstatt-und Latènezeit in Ostfrankreich und Westdeutschland bearbeitet. Chronolo-gische Fragen, regionale Identitäten und Gewässerfunde stehen ebenfalls imBlick der Forschung. Die politische Untergliederung hat vielfach einen ge -mein samen Fokus auf diesen Kernbereich des eisenzeitlichen Mitteleuropaverhindert. Durch die Tagung und deren Publikation hoffen die Herausgeber,Verbindungen und gemeinsame Betrachtungsweisen geschaffen zu haben.


NEUERSCHEINUNGEN

Forschungen zur Urgeschichte ausdem Tagebau von Schöningen, Band 1

208 S., 99 meist farb. Abb. ISBN 978-3-88467-204-4

€ 55,–Erscheint im Januar 2013

Karl-Ernst Behre (Hrsg.)

Die chronologische Einordnung der paläolithischen Fundstellen von Schöningen

The chronological setting of the Palaeolithic sites of SchöningenDie Aufdeckung eines Jagdlagers im Braunkohlen-Tagebau von Schöningenmit den ältesten Speeren der Welt stieß sowohl in der Wissenschaft alsauch in der breiten Öffentlichkeit auf große Resonanz. Neben diesen undvielen anderen Funden stellt die Grube ein Fenster in die Vergangenheit dar,das über mehrere Hunderttausend Jahre den geologischen Ablauf und dieUmweltgeschichte aufzeigt. Die riesigen geologischen Aufschlüsse und diearchäologischen Ausgrabungen machen Schöningen zu einem Schlüssel -gebiet für die gesamte mitteleuropäische Eiszeitalterforschung. Der ersteBand dieser neuen Reihe zum Fundplatz Schöningen enthält sieben Bei-träge, die die Untersuchungsergebnisse der zahlreichen beteiligten Diszipli-nen zum zeitlichen Ablauf des Mittelpleistozäns vorlegen. In weiteren vierBeiträgen werden die Resultate aus Schöningen in einen größeren Kontextgestellt, der Mitteleuropa und die darüber hinausreichenden Regionenumfasst, für deren zeitliche Gliederung sie große Bedeutung besitzen.

Monographien des RGZM, Band 90302 S., 151 z.T. farb. Abb.,15 Plänen, 4 Listen, 23 Taf.

ISBN 978-3-88467-158-0€ 86,–

Frank Gelhausen

Siedlungsmuster der allerødzeitlichen Federmesser-Gruppen in Niederbieber, Stadt NeuwiedDer Ausbruch des Laacher See-Vulkans um 11000 v. Chr. hat mit einermächtigen Bimsdecke die Landschaft am Mittelrhein versiegelt. In einer un -vergleichlichen Momentaufnahme blieben so das Geländerelief sowie dieReste von Vegetation und Fauna erhalten, dazu viele Hinweise auf die Nutzung der Region durch den Menschen. Der Fundplatz Niederbieber istdabei für archäologische Untersuchungen von herausragender Bedeutung.Hier konn te auf einer ca. 1000m2 großen Fläche eine beträchtliche Zahl vonFundkonzentrationen freigelegt werden, die Einblick in die sonst kaum zufassenden Siedlungsprozesse der späteiszeitlichen Federmesser-Gruppenermöglichen. Der Autor hat in seinem Buch die Funde und Befunde deszentralen Flächenteils von Niederbieber analysiert. Die Ergebnisse seinerUntersuchungen liefern neue Erkenntnisse über die vor Ort ausgeführtenTätigkeiten, die Belegungsdauer der Fundkonzentration sowie die Lebens-weise der Menschen am Ende der Eiszeit.

Neuerscheinungen

Monographien des RGZM

Th. SchmidtsAkteure und Organisation der Handelsschifffahrtin den nordwestlichen Provinzen des Römischen ReichesBand 97 (2011); 174 S., 53 teils farb. Abb.ISBN 978-3-88467-185-6 45,– €

A. I. Ajbabin Archäologie und Geschichte der Krim im FrühmittelalterBand 98 (2011); 288 S., 89 Abb., 32 Taf.ISBN 978-3-88467-188-7 72,– €

L. KindlerDie Rolle von Raubtieren bei der Einnischung und Subsistenz jungpleistozäner Neandertaler.Archäozoologie und Taphonomie der mittelpaläolithischen Fauna aus der Balver Höhle (Westfalen)Band 99 (2012); 284 S. mit 86 Abb., 70 Tab.ISBN 978-3-88467-192-4 70,– €

RGZM – Tagungen

S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser, O. Jöris, M. Sensburg, M. Street u. E. Turner (eds)Site-internal spatial organization of hunter-gatherer societies: Case studies from the European Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Band 12 (2012); 282 S. mit 109 z. T. farb. Abb., 4 Tab.ISBN 978-3-88467-190-0 49,– €

L. Grunwald, H. Pantermehl u. R. Schreg (Hrsg.)Hochmittelalterliche Keramik am Rhein. Eine Quelle für Produktion und Alltag des 9. bis 12. JahrhundertsBand 13 (2012); 262 S., 127 z. T. farb. Abb.ISBN 978-3-88467-191-7 37,– €

M. Schönfelder u. S. Sievers (Hrsg.)L’âge du Fer entre la Champagne et la vallée du Rhin – Die Eisenzeit zwischen Champagne und RheintalBand 14 (2012); 602 S., 276 sw- u. 33 farb. Abb.ISBN 978-3-88467-193-1 68,– €

Ch. Pare (Hrsg.)Kunst und Kommunikation. Zentralisierungs -prozesse in Gesellschaften des europäischenBarbarikums im 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr.Band 15 (2012); 280 S., 133 z.T. farb. Abb.ISBN 978-3-88467-194-8 39,– €

M. Grünewald u. St. Wenzel (Hrsg.) Römische Landnutzung in der Eifel. Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen Band 16 (2012); 475 S., 240 Abb.ISBN 978-3-88467-208-2 58,– €

Mosaiksteine. Forschungen am RGZM

B. Pferdehirt u. M. Scholz (Hrsg.)Bürgerrecht und Krise – die Constitutio Antoniniana 212 n. Chr. und ihre innenpolitischen FolgenBand 9 (2012); 103 S., 71 meist farb. Abb.ISBN 978-3-88467-195-5 20,– €

Kataloge Vor- und FrühgeschichtlicherAltertümer

D. QuastDas merowingerzeitliche Reliquienkästchen aus Ennabeuren. Eine Studie zu den früh -mittelalterlichen Reisereliquiaren und ChrismaliaBand 43 (2011); 173 S. mit 84 Abb., 44 Taf.ISBN 978-3-88467-184-9 43,– €

Ältere Publikationen sind in der Regel ebenfalls noch lieferbar. Unser komplettes Publikations -

verzeichnis finden Sie im Internet auf unserer Homepage (www.rgzm.de; vgl. auch

http://shop.rgzm.de) oder können es beim Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums,Forschungsinstitut für Archäologie, Ernst-Ludwig-Platz 2, 55116 Mainz, Tel.: 06131/ 9124-0,Fax: 06131/ 9124-199, E-Mail: [email protected], kostenlos anfordern. Seinen Autoren gewährt der

Verlag des RGZM einen Rabatt von in der Regel 25% auf den Ladenpreis.

Aa l i , A., Stöllner, Th., Abar, A., Rühli, F., The Salt Men of Iran: the salt mine of Douzlākh, Chehrābād . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 1, 61

Abar, A., Aa l i , A., Stöllner, Th., Rühli, F., The Salt Men of Iran: the salt mine of Douzlākh, Chehrābād . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 1, 61

Aue r , M., Zwei Fragmente der Form Alzey 27 aus Aguntum in Osttirol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 2, 245

Ba i t i nge r , H., Kresten, P., Geoarchäologie zweier hessischer »Schlackenwälle«: Glauberg und Altkönig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 493

Baum, T., Knop f , Th., Scholten, Th., Kühn, P., Landnutzung im frühen Mittelalter? Eine archäopedologische Prospektion im Mittleren Schwarzwald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 1, 123

van Beek , R., Louwen, A., Urnfields on the move: testing burial site-settlement relations in the eastern Netherlands (c. 1100-500 BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 1, 41

Be rgmann , I., Bock, C., Ebert, J., Enders, S., Müller, S., Otto, G., Pasda, C., Weiß, J., Zeiß, D., Jung- und spätpaläolithische Freilandfundstellen im Tal der Weißen Elster (Mitteldeutschland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 439

Blaschke, W., K l ims cha , F., Thiele, E., Bemerkungen zu Vorkommen, Verbreitung und Bedeutung überdimensionierter Lanzen der europäischen Eisenzeit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 3, 351

B l i u j i enė , A., Vasiliauskas, E., People from the crossroads of the Mūša-Lielupe river basin in the eastern Baltic region during the Late Roman and Migration Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 1, 95

Bock, C., Be rgmann , I., Ebert, J., Enders, S., Müller, S., Otto, G., Pasda, C., Weiß, J., Zeiß, D., Jung- und spätpaläolithische Freilandfundstellen im Tal der Weißen Elster (Mitteldeutschland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 439

Bourgeois, J., Dewe i r d t , E., De Maeyer, Ph., Méniel, P., Metzler, J., Petit, Ch., L’analyse spatiale des nécropoles révisitée. L’exemple de la nécropole de l’âge du Fer final et du début de l’époque gallo-romaine de Lamadelaine (Grand-Duché de Luxembourg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 2, 185

Bu rge r , D., Der gallo-römische Umgangstempel »Auf dem Spätzrech« bei Schwarzenbach (Lkr. St. Wendel) im Saarland. Ein Pilgerheiligtum für Mars Cnabetius in der civitas Treverorum? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 2, 225

Co rd i e r , G., Le dépôt de l’âge du Bronze final de l’Étang, commune de Saint-Germain-sur-Vienne (dép. Indre-et-Loire) . . H. 1, 31

De Maeyer, Ph., Dewe i r d t , E., Méniel, P., Metzler, J., Petit, Ch., Bourgeois, J., L’analyse spatiale des nécropoles révisitée. L’exemple de la nécropole de l’âge du Fer final et du début de l’époque gallo-romaine de Lamadelaine (Grand-Duché de Luxembourg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 2, 185

Dewe i r d t , E., De Maeyer, Ph., Méniel, P., Metzler, J., Petit, Ch., Bourgeois, J., L’analyse spatiale des nécropoles révisitée. L’exemple de la nécropole de l’âge du Fer final et du début de l’époque gallo-romaine de Lamadelaine (Grand-Duché de Luxembourg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 2, 185

Dohnálková, H., T r e fn ý , M., Thér, R., Tichý, R., On a fragment of a ceramic beaked flagon from the Late Hallstatt to Early La Tène settlement in Tuněchody (okr. Chrudim) in Eastern Bohemia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 3, 335

Du l ęba , P., Schuster, J., Eine kaiserzeitliche Rinderfigur aus Kupferlegierung von einem Siedlungsplatz der Przeworsk-Kultur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 3, 387

Ebert, J., B e rgmann , I., Bock, C., Enders, S., Müller, S., Otto, G., Pasda, C., Weiß, J., Zeiß, D., Jung- und spätpaläolithische Freilandfundstellen im Tal der Weißen Elster (Mitteldeutschland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 439

Enders, S., B e rgmann , I., Bock, C., Ebert, J., Müller, S., Otto, G., Pasda, C., Weiß, J., Zeiß, D., Jung- und spätpaläolithische Freilandfundstellen im Tal der Weißen Elster (Mitteldeutschland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 439

Fe rnández -Gö t z , M., Die Rolle der Heiligtümer bei der Konstruktion kollektiver Identitäten: das Beispiel der treverischen Oppida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 509

Fe t s ch , S., Herxheim bei Landau – Bandkeramik außerhalb der Grubenanlage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 1, 15

Geisler, H., Hakenbeck , S., Grupe, G., O’Connell, T. C., Ernährung und Mobilität im frühmittelalterlichen Bayern anhand einer Analyse stabiler Kohlenstoff- und Stickstoffisotope – Studien zu Mobilität und Exogamie . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 2, 251

Gnaed ig , J., Marquart, M., Zwei hochmittelalterliche Schreibgriffel aus Aschaffenburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 2, 273

Go t t s cha l k , R., Miniaturen in Frauenhand – zu den sogenannten Mithrassymbolen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 1, 83

Grefen-Peters, S., He ske , I., Menschliche Skelettreste und mehrstufige Teilbestattungen der Aunjetitzer Kultur im Nordharzvorland (Niedersachsen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 3, 315

591ARCHÄOLOGISCHES KORRESPONDENZBLATT 42 · 2012

INHALT JAHRGANG 42, 2012

Die zuerst genannten Autoren der Artikel sind ge spe r r t gedruckt.

592 Jahresinhaltsverzeichnis

Grupe, G., Hakenbeck , S., Geisler, H., O’Connell, T. C., Ernährung und Mobilität im frühmittelalterlichen Bayern anhand einer Analyse stabiler Kohlenstoff- und Stickstoffisotope – Studien zu Mobilität und Exogamie . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 2, 251

Hakenbeck , S., Geisler, H., Grupe, G., O’Connell, T. C., Ernährung und Mobilität im frühmittelalterlichen Bayern anhand einer Analyse stabiler Kohlenstoff- und Stickstoffisotope – Studien zu Mobilität und Exogamie . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 2, 251

Heske , I., Grefen-Peters, S., Menschliche Skelettreste und mehrstufige Teilbestattungen der Aunjetitzer Kultur im Nordharzvorland (Niedersachsen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 3, 315

Hoë t - v an Cauwenbe rghe , Ch., Cadrans solaires portatifs antiques: un exemplaire inédit provenant des Balkans . . . . . H. 4, 555

Ho rnung , S., Ein spätrepublikanisches Militärlager bei Hermeskeil (Lkr. Trier-Saarburg). Vorbericht über die Forschungen 2010-2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 2, 205

Ho r vá th , T., Köhler, K., Life and death: mortuary rituals of the Baden culture at Lake Balaton (Transdanubia) . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 453

Jöns, H., S i egmü l l e r , A., Ufermärkte, Wurten, Geestrandburgen. Herausbildung differenter Siedlungstypen im Küstengebiet in Abhängigkeit von der Paläotopographie im 1. Jahrtausend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 573

K l ims cha , F., Blaschke, W., Thiele, E., Bemerkungen zu Vorkommen, Verbreitung und Bedeutung überdimensionierter Lanzen der europäischen Eisenzeit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 3, 351

Knop f , Th., Baum, T., Scholten, Th., Kühn, P., Landnutzung im frühen Mittelalter? Eine archäopedologische Prospektion im Mittleren Schwarzwald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 1, 123

Köhler, K., Ho r vá th , T., Life and death: mortuary rituals of the Baden culture at Lake Balaton (Transdanubia) . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 453

Kresten, P., B a i t i nge r , H., Geoarchäologie zweier hessischer »Schlackenwälle«: Glauberg und Altkönig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 493

Kühn, P., Knop f , Th., Baum, T., Scholten, Th., Landnutzung im frühen Mittelalter? Eine archäopedologische Prospektion im Mittleren Schwarzwald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 1, 123

L iwoch , R., Müller-Wille, M., »Druzhina« graves dating to the time around AD 1000 in Pìdgìrcì (western Ukraine) . . . . . . . H. 3, 421

Louwen, A., v an Beek , R., Urnfields on the move: testing burial site-settlement relations in the eastern Netherlands (c. 1100-500 BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 1, 41

Marquart, M., Gnaed ig , J., Zwei hochmittelalterliche Schreibgriffel aus Aschaffenburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 2, 273

Martínez Velasco, A., To r r e s -Ma r t í ne z , J. F., Pérez Farraces, C., Augustan campaigns in the initial phase of the Cantabrian War and Roman artillery projectiles from the Monte Bernorio oppidum (Villarén, prov. Palencia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 525

Méniel, P., Dewe i r d t , E., De Maeyer, Ph., Metzler, J., Petit, Ch., Bourgeois, J., L’analyse spatiale des nécropoles révisitée. L’exemple de la nécropole de l’âge du Fer final et du début de l’époque gallo-romaine de Lamadelaine (Grand-Duché de Luxembourg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 2, 185

Metzler, J., Dewe i r d t , E., De Maeyer, Ph., Méniel, P., Petit, Ch., Bourgeois, J., L’analyse spatiale des nécropoles révisitée. L’exemple de la nécropole de l’âge du Fer final et du début de l’époque gallo-romaine de Lamadelaine (Grand-Duché de Luxembourg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 2, 185

Mle j nek , O., Škrdla, P., Přichystal, A., Ondratice I/Želeč – an Early Upper Palaeolithic site in Central Moravia . . . . . . . . . . . H. 3, 295

Müller, S., B e rgmann , I., Bock, C., Ebert, J., Enders, S., Otto, G., Pasda, C., Weiß, J., Zeiß, D., Jung- und spätpaläolithische Freilandfundstellen im Tal der Weißen Elster (Mitteldeutschland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 439

Müller-Wille, M., L iwoch , R., »Druzhina« graves dating to the time around AD 1000 in Pìdgìrcì (western Ukraine) . . . . . . . H. 3, 421

Na r l o ch , K., The cold face of battle – some remarks on the function of Roman helmets with face masks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 3, 377

Needham, S. P., Northover, P., Uckelmann, M., Tabor, R., South Cadbury: the last of the bronze shields? . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 473

Northover, P., Needham, S. P., Uckelmann, M., Tabor, R., South Cadbury: the last of the bronze shields? . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 473

O’Connell, T. C., Hakenbeck , S., Geisler, H., Grupe, G., Ernährung und Mobilität im frühmittelalterlichen Bayern anhand einer Analyse stabiler Kohlenstoff- und Stickstoffisotope – Studien zu Mobilität und Exogamie . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 2, 251

Op reanu , C. H., Ein Frauengrab aus der Völkerwanderungszeit von Cluj-Polus (Rumänien) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 1, 113

Otto, G., Be rgmann , I., Bock, C., Ebert, J., Enders, S., Müller, S., Pasda, C., Weiß, J., Zeiß, D., Jung- und spätpaläolithische Freilandfundstellen im Tal der Weißen Elster (Mitteldeutschland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 439

Pasda, C., Be rgmann , I., Bock, C., Ebert, J., Enders, S., Müller, S., Otto, G., Weiß, J., Zeiß, D., Jung- und spätpaläolithische Freilandfundstellen im Tal der Weißen Elster (Mitteldeutschland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 439

Pa sda , C., Kulturentwicklung oder kulturspezifische Lebensweise? Ein Beitrag zur Ethnographie des Paläolithikums . . . . . . H. 1, 1

Pérez Farraces, C., To r r e s -Ma r t í ne z , J. F., Martínez Velasco, A., Augustan campaigns in the initial phase of the Cantabrian War and Roman artillery projectiles from the Monte Bernorio oppidum (Villarén, prov. Palencia) . . . . H. 4, 525

Petit, Ch., Dewe i r d t , E., De Maeyer, Ph., Méniel, P., Metzler, J., Bourgeois, J., L’analyse spatiale des nécropoles révisitée. L’exemple de la nécropole de l’âge du Fer final et du début de l’époque gallo-romaine de Lamadelaine (Grand-Duché de Luxembourg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 2, 185

Přichystal, A., M l e j nek , O., Škrdla, P., Ondratice I/Želeč – an Early Upper Palaeolithic site in Central Moravia . . . . . . . . . . . H. 3, 295

Pu t ze r , A., Von Bernstein und Hirtinnen – prähistorische Weidewirtschaft im Schnalstal in Südtirol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 2, 153

Rühli, F., Aa l i , A., Stöllner, Th., Abar, A., The Salt Men of Iran: the salt mine of Douzlākh, Chehrābād . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 1, 61

Scha l da ch , K., Eine Sonnenuhr und ihr Postament: zwei Funde vom römischen Heiligtum auf dem Martberg (Lkr. Cochem-Zell) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 543

Scholten, Th., Knop f , Th., Baum, T., Kühn, P., Landnutzung im frühen Mittelalter? Eine archäopedologische Prospektion im Mittleren Schwarzwald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 1, 123

Schumann , R., Ein nordostbayerisches Gefäß und weitere hallstattzeitliche Siedlungsfunde aus Traun (Oberösterreich) . . . H. 2, 171

Schuster, J., Du l ęba , P., Eine kaiserzeitliche Rinderfigur aus Kupferlegierung von einem Siedlungsplatz der Przeworsk-Kultur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 3, 387

S i egmü l l e r , A., Jöns, H., Ufermärkte, Wurten, Geestrandburgen. Herausbildung differenter Siedlungstypen im Küstengebiet in Abhängigkeit von der Paläotopographie im 1. Jahrtausend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 573

Škrdla, P., M l e j nek , O., Přichystal, A., Ondratice I/Želeč – an Early Upper Palaeolithic site in Central Moravia . . . . . . . . . . . H. 3, 295

Stöllner, Th., Aa l i , A., Abar, A., Rühli, F., The Salt Men of Iran: the salt mine of Douzlākh, Chehrābād . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 1, 61

Tabor, R., Needham, S. P., Northover, P., Uckelmann, M., South Cadbury: the last of the bronze shields? . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 473

Teu s che r , R., Eine reliefverzierte Terra Sigillata-Schüssel mit Stempelung des Celadus in der Antikensammlung der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 3, 371

Thér, R., T r e fn ý , M., Tichý, R., Dohnálková, H., On a fragment of a ceramic beaked flagon from the Late Hallstatt to Early La Tène settlement in Tuněchody (okr. Chrudim) in Eastern Bohemia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 3, 335

Thiele, E., K l ims cha , F., Blaschke, W., Bemerkungen zu Vorkommen, Verbreitung und Bedeutung überdimensionierter Lanzen der europäischen Eisenzeit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 3, 351

Tichý, R., T r e fn ý , M., Thér, R., Dohnálková, H., On a fragment of a ceramic beaked flagon from the Late Hallstatt to Early La Tène settlement in Tuněchody (okr. Chrudim) in Eastern Bohemia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 3, 335

To r r e s -Ma r t í ne z , J. F., Martínez Velasco, A., Pérez Farraces, C., Augustan campaigns in the initial phase of the Cantabrian War and Roman artillery projectiles from the Monte Bernorio oppidum (Villarén, prov. Palencia) . . . . H. 4, 525

T r e fn ý , M., Thér, R., Tichý, R., Dohnálková, H., On a fragment of a ceramic beaked flagon from the Late Hallstatt to Early La Tène settlement in Tuněchody (okr. Chrudim) in Eastern Bohemia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 3, 335

Uckelmann, M., Needham, S. P., Northover, P., Tabor, R., South Cadbury: the last of the bronze shields? . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 473

Vasiliauskas, E., B l i u j i enė , A., People from the crossroads of the Mūša-Lielupe river basin in the eastern Baltic region during the Late Roman and Migration Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 1, 95

Ve rpoo r t e , A., Caching and retooling in Potočka zijalka (Slovenia). Implications for Late Aurignacian land use strategies . H. 2, 135

de V i ngo , P., Churches, territory and population dynamics in the Piedmont countryside between the 5th and 8th centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 3, 401

Weiß, J., B e rgmann , I., Bock, C., Ebert, J., Enders, S., Müller, S., Otto, G., Pasda, C., Zeiß, D., Jung- und spätpaläolithische Freilandfundstellen im Tal der Weißen Elster (Mitteldeutschland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 439

Zeiß, D., Be rgmann , I., Bock, C., Ebert, J., Enders, S., Müller, S., Otto, G., Pasda, C., Weiß, J., Jung- und spätpaläolithische Freilandfundstellen im Tal der Weißen Elster (Mitteldeutschland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. 4, 439

593ARCHÄOLOGISCHES KORRESPONDENZBLATT 42 · 2012

South Cadbury: The last of the Bronze Age shields?

Documents

Transcript of South Cadbury: The last of the Bronze Age shields?