Academia.eduAcademia.edu
PRINCES, ARMIES, SANCTUARIES THE EMERGENCE OF COMPLEX AUTHORITY IN THE CENTRAL GERMAN ÚNĚTICE CULTURE Harald Meller ABSTRACT The Circum-Harz group of the Central German Únětice Culture (2200-1600 BC) was a highly stratified society, which arose from the merging of the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Cultures. This process was advanced by princes who established their legitimacy as rulers on symbolic references to both cultures as well as on newly created traditions and historical references. Their power was based on armed troops, which appear to have been accommodated in large houses or longhouses. The hierarchical structure of the troops can be determined by both their distinctive weapons and the colours thereof. The prince of the Dieskau territory commanded the largest army and occupied a dominant position, expressed through the large Bornhöck burial mound and by the gold find of Dieskau, which itself most likely originated in the Bornhöck barrow. The article concludes with a discussion whether the Dieskau ruler was an actual head of a genuine state, according to the criteria put forth by Max Weber and Stefan Breuer. There is some indication that these criteria of statehood were fulfilled by the period associated with the Nebra Sky Disk at the latest, since this disk allowed the prince to act as ‘a representative of the gods before the community’ (Breuer 1998, 39). DEDICATION This article is dedicated to Klavs Randsborg (1944-2016), to whom I owe a debt of gratitude. Only very few archaeologists over the past century have managed to have a similarly inspiring impact. Klavs Randsborg’s pioneering work on numerous Bronze Age hoards in Denmark (including the large Smørumovre hoard) anticipated some of the suggestions that follow here (Randsborg 1995, 44- 52). Had it not been for his advances, I would have perhaps been more hesitant to publish my own rather bold claims. Here, too, Klavs Randsborg has served as a superb model for entering unknown territory. INTRODUCTION The end of the Neolithic towards the last centuries of the 3rd millennium BC marked the onset of profound social, religious, and economic change in Central Germany. As a consequence, a new cultural group, commonly referred to as the Únětice Culture, emerged at the start of the Bronze Age. It differed in many aspects both from earlier Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Cultures as well as from subsequent Bronze Age cultures. Of special note is the advanced Circum-Harz group of the Central German Únětice Culture. Its characteristic grave finds, settlement traces and identifiable hoard finds date from 2200 to 1600 BC and can be found in the area north, east and south of the Harz mountain range (see, inter alia, Zich 1996; Evers 2012). The Circum-Harz region is among the most fertile regions in the world, the so-called Lössbörde. Its deep chernozem soil lies in the precipitation shadow of the Harz mountain range and provides ideal conditions for agriculture (Fig. 1) (cf. Kainz 1999, 21f., 27-29). Consequently, different cultures succeeded and replaced one another for several millennia in the area (Meller 2008; Schwarz 2013; Schwarz & Meller forthcoming). The Circum-Harz group of the Central German Únětice Culture, which finally unified the Late Neolithic Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Cultures, exhibit a remarkably high level of social stratification, as shall be discussed here with a view to a number of examples. 40 Acta Archaeologica Fig. 1. Precipitation map of the annual mean in 1961-1990. The map shows very low precipitation rates in the areas northeast, east and south of the Harz mountain range. For this reason, extremely fertile chernozem soils are preserved in this region. These two factors provide ideal conditions for agriculture and make the so-called Lössbörde one of the most fertile regions in the world. Therefore, it was a highly demanded settlement area throughout the Neolithic period and later. Map: Deutscher Wetterdienst; Únětice Culture areas added by B. Janzen, State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt. THE LEGITIMATION OF POWER: THE PRINCELY BURIALS IN CENTRAL GERMANY The Barrows of Leubingen and Helmsdorf The phenomenon of the legitimation of power is impressively exemplified by the Early Bronze Age princely burials found at Leubingen, in the district of Sömmerda, and at Helmsdorf, in the district of Mansfeld-Südharz, which are already familiar to many. These are among the most important grave finds in Central Europe (Klopfleisch 1878; Höfer 1906; Größler 1907). Their significance is due to the high number of grave goods unearthed as well as elaborate tomb building techniques. Additionally, the good state of the wooden constructions allowing for the dendrochronological dating of both sites has contributed to their renowned status (note 1). Furthermore, despite the finds hailing from the early days of archaeology, their documentation is of very high quality. This is true especially for the princely grave in Leubingen, initially excavated by Friedrich Klopfleisch in 1877, the detailed report of which, however, was only published by Paul Höfer in 1906, based on Klopfleisch’s reports and sketches (Höfer 1906). The Leubingen grave has been discussed and interpreted at great length, also quite recently (note 2). However, one essential aspect, namely intentional references to traditions associated with earlier cultures for the purpose of legitimising power, has not yet been sufficiently examined (note 3). This grave is in fact key for understanding the development of the Únětice Culture and its social stratification. That said, the grave in Leubingen is, most likely, not the earliest Únětice princely burial, given that the majority of the prominent Únětice burial mounds have either been looted and destroyed (Bornhöck, see below) or remain unexamined (e.g., Evessen, district of Wolfenbüttel; see Zich 2016, 391). The emergence of the Únětice Culture has long been discussed in relation to the Bell Beaker Culture, as well as to the Corded Ware Culture (see, inter alia, Zich 1996, 340-344; Schwarz 2015). The earliest evidence of the Corded Ware Culture in Central Germany dates to around 2800 BC. The evidence gradually diminishes from 2300 BC onward and finally disappears around 2200 BC. The earliest archaeological evidence of the Bell Beaker Culture dates to 2500 BC, and the latest to around 2100 BC. This indicates that both cultures overlapped one another for at least 300 years. This concurrent existence is particularly remarkable given that the two cultures were also sharing the same settlement areas, namely the extremely fertile plains of the Börde region located in the northern, eastern and southern foothills of the Harz mountain range (Fig. 2.1) (note 4). The two cultures seem to have coexisted as neighbours without actually sharing the same settlements (Fig. 2.2). Evidence suggests that the innovative Bell Beaker Culture prevailed in the long run, while the Únětice Culture subsequently became noticeable from 2200 BC onward, progressively replacing the Bell Beaker Culture (Schwarz & Meller, forthcoming) (Fig. 2.3). Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries 41 2400–2300 BC 2300–2200 BC Bell Beaker culture (phase 2) Bell Beaker culture (phase 3) Corded Ware culture (phase 2) Corded Ware culture (phase 3) Chernozem Chernozem EL B E RZ Mu l de HA Mu l de HA EL B E RZ str ale ale Sa Sa Un Un u u t t 0 50 km 2.1 0 50 km 2.2 2200–2050 BC Bell Beaker culture (phase 4) Únětice culture (phase 1) Chernozem EL B E RZ Sa ale Un str u t 0 Fig. 2. Distribution of the Corded Ware, Bell Beaker and Únětice Cultures in Saxony-Anhalt and neighbouring regions in Thuringia. The map clearly shows that the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Cultures shared the same settlement area on the extremely fertile black earth soils and along the rivers throughout the region for an extended period, before the Corded Ware Culture started to disappear during the 23rd century BC and merged with the Bell Beaker Culture. Around 2200 BC, the Únětice Culture emerged out of the blend of these two earlier cultures. Find sites and chronology according to R. Schwarz. Map: R. Schwarz; graphic design: B. Janzen, both State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt. Mu l de HA 2.3 str 50 km 42 Acta Archaeologica With all that said, genetic evidence now suggests that this image of cultural succession has been created exclusively by the archaeological finds. While the material culture changed, the people themselves did not. Genetic evidence indicates that a considerable segment of the ‘Corded Ware’ population lived on (Brandt 2017, 189). It appears that they were integrated into the Bell Beaker Culture over time and that both cultures contributed significantly to the development of what is called in archaeology the Únětice Culture (Schwarz 2015, 692). People using Corded Ware pottery originally immigrated from the region of the Eastern European steppes (Allentoft et al. 2015; Haak et al. 2015). According to recent studies, the same seems to apply to later communities using Bell Beaker pottery, although there is a reason to assume that they might have originated in more southern regions (Gronenborn & Haak 2018, 77; see also views on Western European ancestry in Olalde et al. 2018). It is noticeable that both groups went to great lengths, over the entire 300-year-period, to each preserve their cultural identities through specific bipolar burial rites differentiated by gender and distinctive drinking vessels. However, they seem to have had somewhat similar burial and drinking rituals and even social structures (Strahm 2010, 166). The question as to why the Corded Ware Culture eventually disappeared from the archaeological record, whether by integration, assimilation, or something else, remains unanswered. Perhaps the Bell Beaker groups were more innovative and thus had a greater cultural radiance. This is suggested by one potential piece of evidence: the construction of a Bell Beaker period circular enclosure on the foundations of a former Corded Ware Culture sanctuary at Pömmelte in the Salzland district (Spatzier 2017, 268-272; see below). Burials of the Únětice Culture have been shown to contain genetic evidence linked to people of both Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Culture (Brandt 2017, 189f.). This suggests that the Únětice Culture, which subsequently manifested itself as a coherent entity, emerged from the conflation of both population groups within the CircumHarz region over the course of the 3rd millennium BC. In fact, it may have been precisely this blending of the two distinct population groups and cultures that was a key factor in the remarkable success and longevity of the Únětice Culture. If the prolonged coexistence of the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Cultures is already peculiar - one pos- sible explanation being previous population losses due to plague or other epidemics introduced by westwards moving steppe populations (Rasmussen et al. 2015; Andrades Valtueña et al. 2017) - then the transformation of both cultural groups into one unified culture is certainly all the more remarkable. The princely burial of Leubingen (1942 ± 10 BC) provides a good starting point for reconstructing the causes for this unification. It should be added that the process of merging had apparently already begun by 2300 BC and was more or less completed by 2050 BC (see Figs. 2.12.3). One reliable indicator of this is the range of ceramic finds at Pömmelte, Salzland district (see below), dated between 2300-2050 BC in which Corded Ware pottery is no longer present. Although there have been isolated instances of substantial bronze hoard finds (Meller 2013a, 516-517, Tab. 2), indicating more complex social differentiation, no princely graves are dated to this period. The analysis of the Leubingen grave suggests not merely an accidental fusion of material inventories of two cultural groups but rather an intentionally induced process of unification by the political leadership. When examining the tomb building techniques and grave goods found at the Leubingen grave, it is possible to easily identify a blending of the main distinctive elements and burial traditions associated with the Corded Ware and the Bell Beaker Cultures. In sum, a qualitatively new appearance is created. This is especially noteworthy considering that the memories pertaining to the Corded Ware Culture must have been preserved for at least two and a half centuries. The most illustrative example of this is shown in Figure 3. The cultural features of both the Corded Ware and the Bell Beaker Cultures are contained in the princely burial at Leubingen. Indications of a Corded Ware legacy include the burial mound, measuring at least 48 metres in diameter, as well as the wooden tent-like burial chamber. Both are typical of important Corded Ware graves (e.g., Moos 2006; Häusler 2011, 331). Furthermore, an ‘overdisplay’ of weaponry - in Leubingen represented in the form of two axes, three daggers, and a halberd - likewise testifies to the influence of the Corded Ware tradition. The latter is manifested in the form of axes in richly furnished graves (see also Strahm 2010, 168) (Fig. 4). There is also a large vessel, which functionally corresponds to the Corded Ware amphorae, though, in contrast to them, it is not decorated. At the same time, there are objects in Leubingen, Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries 43 Fig. 3. Comparison between distinctive cultural features of the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Cultures and the princely grave at Leubingen. The burial illustrates that individual elements of both earlier cultures were adopted and conflated. This appears to have served the intentional fusion of both cultural groups as well as the legitimation of the princes’ rule. Graphic design: J. Filipp, Bad Bibra. 44 Acta Archaeologica 1 cm Fig. 4. The inventory of the Leubingen princely grave exhibits elements of both the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Cultures. The ‘overdisplay’ of weaponry is a feature of the Corded Ware Culture, while the two golden spiral hair ornaments, daggers and forging tools are associated with distinguished Bell Beaker graves. The markedly more ancient Early Neolithic shoe-last celt most likely served to emphasise the legitimacy. Photos: J. Lipták, Munich. Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries which are characteristic of the typically abundant grave finds associated with the Bell Beaker Culture. This notably includes two golden Noppenringe as well as the daggers (Meller 2014, 616-628; Hille 2012, 48f.). Other than that, forging tools are present, also a common characteristic of the richly furnished graves associated with the Bell Beaker Culture (Bertemes 2010, 154). However, the deposition of ceramic cups and footed bowls and especially of arrowheads (indicative of projectile weaponry), which is a distinctive trait of richly furnished Bell Beaker graves, did not occur at Leubingen. The positions and orientations of those buried may provide further clues. The contracted or crouched position known from ordinary burials usually allows for clear attribution to either of the two cultures based on their orientation. However, the position of the corpse at Leubingen is somewhat neutral. The prince in the Leubingen tomb was laid on his back with his limbs stretched out. So he assumed neither of the positions preferred by the two traditions in question. New burial practices for the population at large indicate that the desire for unification was not limited to the exceptional Leubingen find. While the Corded Ware burial tradition was bipolar and gender-differentiated, using a contracted position orientated E-W, facing south, the Bell Beaker Culture’s burial ritual was bipolar and gender-differentiated using a contracted position orientated N-S, facing east. In the Corded Ware Culture, men were buried in a contracted position, lying on their right side, whereas women lay on their left side. The Bell Beaker Culture used this burial position in exact reverse (Fischer 1956, 120-123, 163-165; Häusler 2011, 341f.). The bodies found in Únětice graves were, in turn, buried in flat graves facing eastward as in the Bell Beaker Culture, albeit without the bipolar differentiation (Fischer 1956, 174f.; Häusler 2011, 352-355). Their heads are always at the southern end of the grave. As a result, both genders lie on their right sides - as men do in the Corded Ware Culture and women in the Bell Beaker Culture. The idealised existence of the ‘heroic’ lone warrior, rooted in a ‘heroic’ lifestyle, appears to have been practised by some men in the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Cultures. This is suggested by the numerous male graves that include weapons, as well as by specific injury patterns and the erecting of statue-menhirs honouring individual warriors. However, this entirely changes in the Únětice Culture (see Vandkilde 2006; Schwarz 2015, 45 699-703; Meller 2015; 2017; Meller, Arz et al. 2015). No weapons have been found in any of the common graves belonging to the Únětice Culture; they are reserved only for the princely burials and other richly furnished graves, apparently representing military or possibly civil leaders. Another component of the conflation of both culture groups’ customs pertains to the ceramic vessels associated with the Únětice Culture. The applied style evolved from the ceramic styles of the Bell Beaker as well as the Corded Ware Cultures. In contrast to both preceding cultures, however, the pottery is largely undecorated (Zich 1996, 43; Meller 2011, 75f.) (note 5). Assuming that the decoration of ceramics emphasised regional variations and thus perhaps represented certain clans or social groups, the undecorated, almost standardised pottery again suggests that previously clearly distinguishable cultural groups were rendered indistinguishable. It is conceivable, given the long lifespan of the Únětice Culture, that the determined will for unification eventually eroded the memory of ancient origins. What can be established is that in the case of the earliest proven princely burial associated with the Únětice Culture, the buried, and/or those burying him, clearly intended to incorporate elements from both cultures into the new burial tradition. The underlying reason is apparent: the creation of a new cultural identity based on the ‘princely’ burial rites of both preceding cultures. The ancestry of the prince himself is traceable to neither of the individual cultures. It was a clear demonstration of the fact that he transcended particular group interests and exercised legitimate power over all members of society. The need for the construction of an additional ‘historical’ legitimacy is demonstrated by the large shafted shoe-last celt, which most likely represents an object from the Stroke-ornamented Ware Culture, dating more than 2700 years earlier, found in the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age (note 6). This item is a splitting wedge used for working large pieces of wood. To the Bronze Age discoverers of the Early Neolithic find, however, the shoe-last celt must have rather appeared to have been a mythical weapon of primeval giants. In this sense, this find is very clear in unmistakeably documenting the intentions of those who buried the Leubingen prince. The furnishing of an ancestor’s grave with an essentially unusable ‘giant axe’ doubtlessly assisted in the construction of historical legitimacy, and, more importantly, in the creation of charismatic qualities, which manifested them- 46 Acta Archaeologica selves in exceptional and rare objects such as the shoe-last celt (see Breuer 1990, 64f.; Kienlin 2008a, 195; Strahm 2010, 168). In line with this, a probably Middle Neolithic shafted stone axe head was found in the princely grave of Helmsdorf which dates later (1829/1828 BC) (Größler 1907, Tab. 2.7) (Fig. 5). A newly created set of gold ornaments consisting of a heavy bracelet, two pins, two spiral hair ornaments, and one spiral bead was another element of the strategy of self-portrayal (Meller 2014, 628-649) (note 7). The conscious act of creating traditions - and proclaiming legitimacy derived thereof - is indicated by the identical composition of the gold ornaments in both princely burials of Leubingen and Helmsdorf (the former predates the latter by more than a century), as well as the continuous use of the same specific gold sources in the making of bracelets, pins, spiral hair ornaments, and spiral beads, which make up the set of gold ornaments (Lockhoff & Pernicka 2014, 230-232; Meller 2014, 628-632) (see Figs. 4 & 5). The weight of the golden ornaments alone is 255.8 grams in Leubingen and 176.7 grams in Helmsdorf. Therefore, they are several times the weight of the earlier Bell Beaker period spiral hair ornaments which were made of gold wire and weighed only a few grams at most (Meller 2014, 616-620). This additionally underscores the new princes’ aspirations, which went far beyond the role of the Late Neolithic chiefs. Equally, a clear special link with the preceding cultures was established in order to substantiate legitimacy. Beneath the burial mound of Helmsdorf, a Corded Ware grave has been found (Größler 1907, 40-43). It seems reasonable to suggest that a pit found underneath the Bornhöck, another princely barrow recently identified near Dieskau in the Saale district (see below), could be likewise interpreted. Seeing as the mound in Leubingen has not yet been fully studied, it cannot serve as a reliable reference in this regard. One feature observed at the Bornhöck barrow as well as in Leubingen is that the mound itself partially comprises an occupation layer, probably from an earlier settlement (note 8), littered with finds. Here, again, a link with the past and the preceding settlers was intentionally established. At the same time, an important means of subsistence was provided as well: the fertile soil. The Bornhöck and the Dieskau Gold Find In the communal district of Dieskau, part of the municipality of Kabelsketal, in the district of Saalekreis, the largest Bronze Age burial mound in Central Europe, named Bornhöck, was removed by workers from 1844 on, particularly between 1870 and 1900. Measuring more than 80 metres in diameter and 15 metres in height, the burial mound had dominated the flat landscape until the 20th century. Excavations between 2014 and 2017 revealed that the burial mound - similarly to the princely barrows at Leubingen and Helmsdorf - contained a tent-like wooden construction surrounded and covered by stone packing. The artificial mound measured about 65 metres in diameter and 13 metres in height during the Bronze Age (Fig. 6). A 14C data series dates it to the second half of the 19th century BC or about 1800 BC (Meller & Schunke 2016). Furthermore, only three kilometres away, a large gold find, also known as Dieskau I, was discovered during underground drainage works in 1874. Based on the remaining objects retrieved (a flanged axe, two ribbed bracelets, one open bracelet, and a small eyelet ring (Ösenring)) this find has been dated to the Únětice post-classical phase (Bz A2b; 1775-1625 BC) (Fig. 7). The Dieskau gold finds represent a key assemblage suitable for assessing both the Únětice Culture as well as the Early Bronze Age in Central Europe more generally. In the past, this has prompted various presumptions concerning its archaeological context alongside repeated studies of its provenance (Olshausen 1886, 470; Montelius 1900, 4243; Jacob 1911, 180; von Brunn 1959, 55). The suspicion emerged that the gold objects may well have originated in the barrow at Dieskau-‘Meiersche Höhe’, potentially a princely tomb, the previous looting of which was documented during a rescue excavation (Schmidt & Nitzschke 1980, 182). This theory was largely accepted (e.g., Zich 1996, 428, No. E136). A recent comprehensive review of files has provided further insight into the history of the archaeological finds (Filipp & Freudenreich 2014). According to this study, the gold find of Dieskau appears to have originally consisted of 13 gold artefacts, allegedly recovered from the ‘Saures Loch’ (‘Sour Hole’), what once more supported the presupposition of a hoard find. While eight of the artefacts appear to have been melted down by a Leipzig jeweller, the remaining five artefacts were sent to the former Royal Museum in Berlin, from where they were subsequently taken to the Pushkin State Museum in Moscow, Russia, after World War II. Apart from the Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries 47 1 cm Fig. 5. Among the inventory of the Helmsdorf princely grave, there is a markedly archaic Middle Neolithic stone axe, a symbol of legitimacy and entitlement. A set of gold ornaments is also present. Both of these were also contained within the Leubingen grave, dated to around one century earlier. These ornaments demonstrate the princes’ claim to power. Photos: J. Lipták, Munich; drawing of the stone axe according to Größler 1907, Tab. 2,7 by M. Wiegmann, State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt. 48 Acta Archaeologica Fig. 6. Excavation plan of the core of the large Bornhöck burial mound near Dieskau. It shows the remains of the tent-like burial chamber and stone packing as well as the wheel ruts from transporting the building material. Graphic design: J. Filipp, Bad Bibra. small eyelet ring, which has been lost, the gold artefacts remain on display undamaged (Piotrovski 2013, 465-466, No. 157). The chemical composition of the gold used for the objects has been more recently examined by E. Pernicka (Born et al. 2015, 214). According to this analysis, the tested artefacts, namely the axe and the ribbed bracelets, exhibit relatively low content of copper and silver, similar to the spiral hair ornaments (Noppenringe) from Leubingen (see Lockhoff & Pernicka 2014, 230-232). Given the find history and considering the results of the most recent excavations at Bornhöck, I am of the opinion that the Dieskau gold find is related to the Bornhöck mound’s removal (Meller forthcoming a). That is to say, the findspot was probably moved to the nearby ‘Saures Loch’ in an attempt to cover up the local workers’ illegal extraction of artefacts, a measure which ultimately proved successful. In my view, it is highly unlikely that the discovery of possible burial chambers at Bornhöck, which, according to R. Virchow (1874), had already been half removed by 1874, would coincide with the random discovery of such a gold find in close geographic proximity purely by chance and without there being any kind of connection. Another particularly convincing argument is that in contrast to other regions with Únětice hoard finds such as Bohemia, the deposition of gold artefacts in hoards appears to have been unacceptable in the Circum-Harz group; gold was reserved almost exclusively for graves (Fig. 8). One exception is the find of two spiral hair ornaments (Noppenringe) in a set- Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries 49 Fig. 7. The gold find of Dieskau discovered under dubious circumstances in 1874, which included five existing (replica on display) and eight lost gold items, probably originated in the Bornhöck burial mound located near Dieskau that was removed around the same time (Meller forthcoming a). This is consistent with the rule found to apply to all reliably documented gold finds in the Circum-Harz group: all of them are from grave finds, none are from hoard finds. The Dieskau gold find most likely represents part of the set of gold ornaments placed in one or several princely graves. Photos: J. Lipták, Munich. tlement pit in Pretzsch, Burgenlandkreis district (Meller 2014, 697, No. 17). Another exception is the deposition at Nebra in the Burgenland district, which dates towards the end of the Únětice Culture. Here, the sheet metal covering the Sky Disc and the hilt mounts of the sword hilts are made of gold. However, these cannot be considered as proper gold finds, but rather they are bronze finds with a golden iconographic programme (Meller 2010). As for the Dieskau gold find, it seems safe to assume that it represents the contents of one or several graves discovered over the course of the removal of the Bornhöck mound. The central burial chamber, remains of which still exist, can be ruled out as the actual site of provenance, given the likeliness of looting as early as the High Middle Ages (Meller & Schunke 2016, 455, Annotation 28). Instead, we may assume the existence of at least one more burial chamber, perhaps constructed in accordance with dynastic succession. One important aspect is that the enormous mound was raised in a relatively short time. The new burial chamber would therefore either have been inserted at a later point or already planned for beforehand. A discovery on the edge of the mound’s stone core, a pit measuring 1.70 by 1.20 metres in plan and 1.60 metres deep, indeed corresponds to a ‘crouched’ burial. However, it can be ruled out as being the grave originally containing the Dieskau gold find, given that the old sur- 50 Acta Archaeologica Fig. 8. In the Circum-Harz group of the Únětice Culture, ribbed double axes, halberds, certain types of rings, decorative badges, and amber were (almost) exclusively deposited in hoards, whereas gold (from confirmed contexts) and bronze-made spiral rings have been found (almost) only in graves. Some other objects have been found in both graves and hoards, although axes are only very rarely found in graves (exceptions and very rare objects are depicted transparently. The composition of the Dieskau find, depicted here, suggests that the discovered set derives from a grave. Graphic design: J. Filipp, Bad Bibra. Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries face level had not yet been exposed by 1874 (Virchow 1874). In fact, this deep hollow may point to an earlier culture, such as either the Corded Ware or Bell Beaker Culture; this would imply a reference to tradition like at Helmsdorf (see above). The Dieskau gold find comprises four golden rings and one golden axe (Meller 2014, 628-649) (see Fig. 7). Quite remarkably, the single gold bracelet corresponds to the bracelet from the Leubingen princely burial with regard to both patterns and profile as well as its terminals (see Fig. 4) (note 9). Seeing as it was probably forged directly around a person’s wrist, we may assume that it was at one point opened by force. Both ribbed bracelets form a pair and correspond to the Bohemian hoard find at Minice in the Czech Republic (Moucha 2005, 130, No. 121). This suggests that the custom of wearing one golden bracelet, which was common in the period associated with Leubingen and Helmsdorf, subsequently changed to two bracelets. The closest counterpart to the small eyelet ring made of electrum from the Dieskau find is part of a votive deposit (‘Jarre Montet’) in Lebanon (Gerloff 1993, 66-67, 86, No. 1-44). One particularly striking feature is the 234-gram gold flanged axe with a semi-circular blade of the Langquaid II type. If this find of five gold artefacts is already by itself somewhat unique, it should be added that, as mentioned earlier, C. von Bülow reports in a letter to the Royal Museum in Berlin on January 25, 1880 that the find assemblage included another eight gold objects (Filipp & Freudenreich 2014, 745, 748): ‘In 1874 a treasure was found during drainage works on my property, also referred to as the ‘Saures Loch’. The treasure consisted of different ancient Roman gold jewellery objects, bracelets, buckles, rings, gold wire, etc. In sum, 13 pieces were reported’ (note 10) (Filipp & Freudenreich 2014, 745). Unfortunately, their form is not described in any greater detail. The weight of the entire gold find is placed at four Prussian pounds, that is 1,868 grams. According to this figure, the missing eight gold objects thus weighed a total of 1,232 grams (note 11). The grave find hypothesis postulated in this article demands that the composition, namely the four bracelets, is explained. After all, these are noticeably uncommon objects in a grave find. There are two options. Either the find was at some point transported there and mixed in during the removal of the Bornhöck mound, meaning that the objects came from several graves at 51 Bornhöck. Or they belonged to the inventory of a single grave where they partially acquired specific meanings. Following this interpretation, the small size of the electrum-made eyelet ring may have some relevance to the childhood of the deceased. A comparable find at Byblos testifies to the long-distance contacts of the buried prince. The large bent (or forcibly opened) gold bracelet in turn almost appears as a twin find matching the gold bracelet from Leubingen (cf. Figs. 4 & 7). It could be an Early Bronze Age replica of the original item or even a contemporary artefact from the same workshop (note 12). The bracelet could thus have been a more ancient artefact commemorating a person’s glorious ancestry. This is rendered unlikely by the fact that the bracelets were deposited in the princely graves at Leubingen and Helmsdorf. The thickness and diameter of the bracelets show that they had to be forged directly around the wrist in order to be worn. That said, the object from Dieskau may also be a piece of booty, which the prince of Dieskau might have snatched from another conquered or deposed - most likely inferior - ruler of, say, the rank of the Leubingen or Helmsdorf princes. Alternatively, the prince of Dieskau may have worn the ring at a younger age, serving, perhaps, as a lower-ranked prince of the Leubingen or Helmsdorf kind, before he was finally entitled to wear the two ribbed rings when he became the supreme ruler of the entire region. Both ribbed bracelets correspond chronologically and in their gold composition to the flanged axe of the Langquaid II type. This would date the find to the Bz A2b phase (1775-1625 BC). This date moreover corresponds to the recent 14C data from Bornhöck, assuming that the gold find indeed belonged to a later grave within this burial mound. It can, therefore, be assumed that at least the axe and both ribbed bracelets formed part of the inventory of a single grave. What might the missing eight gold artefacts, weighing the estimated 1,232 grams, have looked like? If the inventory of the princely graves was canonical and had possibly expanded from one to two bracelets (as can be observed in the hoards of Minice and Nebra), the Dieskau bracelets would be part of a set with two pins, two spiral hair ornaments and one spiral bead - all of which is missing. In this case, three additional gold finds would remain. It is conceivable that there were originally two golden axes, one or two golden daggers and/or halberds included as well (note 13). The only other Early 52 Acta Archaeologica Fig. 9. Comparison of the three known princely graves. While the construction of the burial chambers inside the mounds exhibits Corded Ware traditions, the sizes of the mounds point to elaborate social stratification and strict demarcations. Measurements: Leubingen: excavation sketches F. Klopfleisch; Klopfleisch 1878; Höfer 1906; information kindly provided by K. Schauer, Salzburg and M. Küßner, Thuringian State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology; Helmsdorf: Größler 1907; Kutzke 1907; Bornhöck: Meller & Schunke 2016; information kindly provided by T. Schunke, Saxony-Anhalt State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology. Graphic design: J. Filipp, Bad Bibra. Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries Bronze Age weapon made of gold in Central Europe is, incidentally, the gold dagger discovered as a single find at Inowrocław, Poland (Piotrovski 2013, 466, No. 158.1). The closest location of any other gold weapons is in Southeastern Europe, e.g., in the hoard finds at Perşinari and Ţufalău, both in Romania (Primas 1988). Consequently, we may assume that the golden princely insignia were expanded to include golden weapons from the 18th century BC onward. Comparing the Princely Graves Alongside the above mentioned identical gold ornaments and references to the ancestors, the almost identical internal constructions of the princely burial mounds of Leubingen and Helmsdorf, but also the Bornhöck barrow were probably just as much an element in the construction of traditions. All three known princely burial mounds exhibited tent-like wooden chambers inside, with stone packing above and around (Höfer 1906; Größler 1907; Meller & Schunke 2016) (Fig. 9). The burial mound at Leubingen has a diameter of at least 48 metres (note 14), and that at Helmsdorf has a diameter of 34 metres. With the height of 8.5 metres, the burial mound at Leubingen was substantially larger than that at Helmsdorf being 6.82 metres high. The (calculated) volumes would have been (at least) c. 7,270 cubic metres and 2,031.7 cubic metres, respectively. The Bornhöck mound, with a diameter of 65 metres, a height of about 13 metres and a volume of c. 20,050 cubic metres, by far exceeded the former in size (note 15). Considering that the grave goods in the three princely tombs reflect the sizes of the graves, a clear gradation is apparent. The differential is already implied by the gradient in the weight of gold objects from Dieskau (about 1,850 grams), Leubingen (255.8 grams), and Helmsdorf (176.7 grams), assuming of course that the gold find of Dieskau really did come from Bornhöck originally. However, regarding Leubingen and Helmsdorf, it should be noted that Leubingen’s distinctive feature (the doubling of deposited daggers and axes) is not present at Helmsdorf (note 16). That the princes differed markedly from the ordinary population in terms of lifestyle is also illustrated by the Helmsdorf prince’s diet, consisting to an exceptional extent of animal products (Knipper et al. 2015). THE PRINCELY ARMIES: THE CONTENTS OF HOARDS 53 For many years scholars interpreted prehistoric hoard finds, including the Early Bronze Age hoard finds in Central Germany, either as trade deposits or sacrifices to gods (see, e.g., Hänsel 1997). In addition to the convincing interpretation as votive offerings to gods, we may postulate that the Early Bronze Age deposit finds in Central Germany reflected social realities. This is true especially for the Early Bronze Age hoards linked to the Únětice Circum-Harz group (von Brunn 1959; Meller 2013a, 516517, Tab. 2). These hoard finds consist mostly of weapons, with jewellery (indeed, almost exclusively ring ornaments) accounting for the second-most distributed type of artefact. In one instance, namely the hoard of Dieskau II, an amber necklace was deposited. Given that weapons are only very rarely included in grave finds (see Fig. 8), it must be assumed that deposits of weapons represent actual male warriors (see below). Necklaces and bracelets are also uncommon in graves. Whether the items of adornment found in the deposits can also be ascribed to male warriors is not so easy to determine, since necklaces, for example, are often interpreted as being generically female. The burial in Esperstedt in the district of Burgenland of a young man with a necklace, however, confirms that it was also common for men to wear jewellery (Bogen 2006). Of particular importance is the possible proof of military units, the existence of which can be deduced from the numerical proportions of distinct weapon types in hoard finds (Meller 2015; 2017). These numerical ratios, then, indicate a hierarchization of weapon types. The 1,178 axes from the Circum-Harz hoard finds account for the bulk of the weapons (Fig. 10). These are complemented by 26 halberds, 18 daggers, and eight ribbed double axes. The implication of the large presence of so many axes should not be underestimated, because precisely the capacity for serial production based on bronze casting may well have constituted one of the main drivers of social hierarchization. Serial production is moreover suggested by chemical analyses; the metal composition in the hoards is largely homogeneous. This would not be the case if warriors had obtained or produced their axes individually (Fig. 11). It would appear that the common soldiers themselves were only equipped with axes and commanded by halberd-bearers at a ratio of 1:45, by dagger-bearers at a ratio of 1:65, and by bearers of the ribbed axes at a ratio of 1:150 (Fig. 12) (note 17). Interestingly, Acta Archaeologica 54 Burial mounds Princely grave Number of axes in hoards 1 2–5 6–15 35–50 60–100 120–125 290–300 Helmsdorf Bornhöck Leubingen 0 20 km Fig. 10. It is quite conspicuous that (by far) the largest axe hoards associated with the Circum-Harz group of the Únětice Culture were found in the micro-region of Dieskau, that is, in direct proximity to Bornhöck, the likely origin of the Dieskau gold find. Correspondingly, the prince of Dieskau appears to have had the largest army under his command. Map: A. Swieder; graphic design: B. Janzen, both State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt. the hoards also exhibit similar ratios of deposited axes. This shows that the number of axes in hoards with more than ten axes is not coincidental (Fig. 13). If we round the numbers up, this comes to 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120 or 300 axes. These numerical sequences could reflect military hierarchies, as have been proven to exist throughout military history since antiquity. This finding is particularly noteworthy, for it implies new aspects pertaining to hoard find interpretations which may be relevant beyond the Únětice Culture (note 18). It can, therefore, be assumed that the princes apparently had armies at their disposal, and thus an enforcement or administrative staff in the sense posited by Max Weber (Weber 1922, 29-30; 1978 [1922], 54). The distribution of hoards and graves containing weapons linked to the Circum-Harz group, in connection with natural boundaries, suggests the existence of distinct territories (Fig. 14) (note 19). If the axe hoards represent actual soldiers or troops, the largest armies were located in the region around Dieskau, near the Bornhöck barrow and the gold find of Dieskau (see Fig. 10). This is certainly not a coincidence. Only here have axe hoards been found to contain almost 300 axes and thus, it appears, correspondingly large military units (Meller 2015; 2017). One rather important observation concerns the presence of numerous grindstones in the lowest, partly conserved stone course of the stone packing inside the Bornhöck mound. According to the responsible researcher, R. Risch, they represent unusually large grindstones, whose operation required an exceptional workforce. The larger Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries 55 Fig. 11. Charts of trace elements (Ag/Ni, Sb/As) of Early Bronze Age hoard finds in Central Germany. The metal composition of the hoard finds is rather homogeneous, which suggests mass production of the objects and a subsequent issuing by the prince. This renders individual production or obtainment unlikely. Charts: E. Pernicka, Mannheim; graphic design: B. Janzen, State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt. Fig. 12. Chart depicting the possible military organisation of the Únětice Culture in Central Germany. While small units of 15 axe bearers were probably each led by a single, more experienced axe-bearing warrior, the larger units would have been commanded by warriors carrying halberds, daggers or double axes. Similar forms of military organisation have been proven to exist since classical antiquity. Graphic design: B. Parsche, State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt. 56 Acta Archaeologica Fig. 13. Graph of all Early Bronze Age (phase Bz A2) hoards containing axes in Central Germany (see Meller 2013a, 516-17, Tab. 2). The number of axes found ranges from one to almost 300 axes. Most hoards contain only a small number of up to 10 or 14 axes, at times in combination with other bronze items. Hoards consisting of axes alone are far rarer, with the number of axes contained therein ranging from 30 to 45, 60, 90, 120 or 300. This pattern might reflect a military system where the smallest unit consisted of 15 axes or men. Graphic design: B. Janzen, State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt. Fig. 14. The distribution of hoards and graves containing weapons possibly indicates the existence of distinct territories. In the (assumed) territories of Naumburg and Goldene Aue princely graves have yet to be discovered. Probably, there were further princely graves in each territory (Zich 2016, 396, Fig. 20). The hoard find of Nebra, which is located in between the different territories, has not been associated with any particular territory. Map: J.-H. Bunnefeld; graphic design: B. Janzen, both State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt. Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries grindstones might even have been operated by two men. Given the form of these grindstones, we may assume that grinding was no longer a female domestic activity, as is often asserted, but rather that there existed centralised grinding workshops, possibly involving slavery. O. Montelius and M. Jahn have already noted that Dieskau represented a particularly wealthy region unmatched in Central Europe (note 20). The rulers of Dieskau likely reserved the privilege of maintaining the highest levels of troop force, doubtlessly enabling them to dominate neighbouring regions (note 21). These thoughts on the Dieskau territory are confirmed when the territories of Leubingen and Helmsdorf are examined. Here, the sizes of hoards, or, for that matter, armies, were in each case also proportional to the abundance of goods found in the princely graves. The ruler of the Leubingen area correspondingly had a lot more troops under his command than the prince of Helmsdorf. Based on the distribution of grave and hoard finds as well as the natural boundaries, the region around Naumburg and the Goldene Aue region may also have been such delimited territories, suggesting the existence of princely graves there as well (cf. Zich 2016, 398-399) (see Fig. 14). DISTINCTION AND ‘DRESS CODE’: THE COLOUR OF WEAPONS As has been shown, the Circum-Harz group of the Únětice Culture displayed a highly stratified social structure, evidenced not only by princely graves and gold jewellery but also by the distribution of eyelet pins (Ösenkopfnadel) in graves (e.g., Schwarz 2014; Knoll & Meller 2016; Meller & Schunke 2016, 455-462). Proceeding from there, an examination of the Early Bronze Age weapon finds in graves and hoards provides an hitherto unexplored interpretative approachJ. Filipp to social stratification and armies if the ancient colouring of the bronze weapons is taken into account (Meller forthcoming c). Several rather enlightening archaeometric studies of the colouring of various bronze alloys have been conducted in recent years (e.g., Berger 2012; Mödlinger et al. 2017; Radivojević et al. 2018). Different alloys of copper with tin, arsenic, antimony, and nickel, as well as their varying combinations, produce distinct colours (note 22). These alloys must have fascinated the prehistoric observer simply for the fact that, say, highly 57 alloyed tin bronze produces gold-coloured, i.e. seemingly golden objects. On the other hand, arsenic bronzes tend to produce a brighter colouring. Alloys with certain contents of antimony and nickel appear, if polished, even silvery. Needless to say, the interpretation of alloys must consider many other factors as well, such as the availability of certain raw materials, casting properties, mechanical material properties, and technological sophistication (cf. Kienlin 2008b). Even though the examination of chemical compositions of Central German Early Bronze Age hoard finds still remains incomplete, the roughly 1,000 relevant objects studied certainly provide a representative body of evidence (Fig. 15). The intention here is not to present a conclusive analysis of the phenomenon, but rather to point out the apparently systematic application and function of colours in Early Bronze Age artefacts, as well as the corresponding implications for interpreting social structures (note 23). The axe hoards contain 1,178 identifiable axes, of which 862 have been analysed. The Bz A2a phase (20001775 BC) is dominated by pure copper axes (Fig. 16), while the later phases from A2a/A2b onward (starting around 1800 BC) exhibit a rise in tin-alloyed objects. This indicates that common soldiers, at least at first, did not have gold-coloured bronze axes, but rather softer copper axes (note 24). It is conceivable that this was not due to a general shortage of tin but rather intentional, so as to mark the distance between princes, other leaders, and common soldiers. An examination of the graves reveals that all five tested axes from grave finds (so far, there are 13 identifiable axes from graves (note 25)) were tinalloyed and therefore had a shimmering golden colour. This can hardly pass for coincidence, but much rather reflects social hierarchy. A glance at the distribution map of axes in hoards and graves indicates an even distribution (see Fig. 14); i.e. axes were indeed only deposited in the graves of distinguished personalities. The ratio of axes in graves versus hoards is 1:90. The halberd finds correspond to this pattern, yet the daggers do not: some 26 halberds and 18 daggers were found in hoards, and three halberds and 30 daggers were deposited in graves. Interestingly, the ribbed double axes do not feature as grave goods at all (see Bunnefeld forthcoming). This means that there was a distinction between graves and hoards, a phenomenon which, by the way, can also be observed with regard to gold (see above), decorative badges, amber, and a number of ring types (see Meller forthcoming 58 Acta Archaeologica Fig. 15. Depiction of hoards with weapons (containing more than one weapon) associated with the Circum-Harz group of the Únětice Culture for the territories of Dieskau, Leubingen, Helmsdorf, Naumburg and Goldene Aue. Nebra is located in between these groups and not included. The centre of the circle represents the princely burials with their respective inventories. The colouring is based on the specific metal alloys (tin bronze ≥ 5% tin; arsenic/nickel bronze ≥ 3% arsenic/nickel; antimony bronze ≥ 4% antimony; fahlore copper ≥ 4% summed contents of arsenic, antimony and nickel). The larger part of axes from hoards consists of copper or fahlore copper, with the former outnumbering the latter. Tin bronzes are less commonly used for axes found in hoards and only start to appear in the Bz A2b phase. Halberds, daggers and double axes are for the most part alloyed with tin, arsenic or antimony, producing at least for daggers and double axes a clearly visible and intentionally distinct colouring. This also applies to some of the ornaments. In sum, it appears that a person’s rank was not only denoted by weapons such as axes, daggers, halberds and double axes, but also by certain combinations and colouring thereof. Graphic design: J. Filipp, Bad Bibra. Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries 59 宇宬室宪宵室宰季宲宩季宷宬宱季室宱宧季室宵家宨宱宬宦季宲宩季室宻宨家季宬宱季宅宽季宄孵室 孻季 孺季 孹季 宄家季季季孨季 學季 孷季 0 孴季 孵季 孶季 孷季 學季 孹季 孺季 宖宱季季季孨 孻季 孼季 孴孳季 孴孴季 宋宨宯宰家宧宲宵宩 孳季 宏宨宸宥宬宱宪宨宱 孴季 宏宨宸宥宬宱宪宨宱 宏宨宸宥宬宱宪宨宱 孵季 宋宨宯宰家宧宲宵宩 宏宨宸宥宬宱宪宨宱 孶季 孴孵季 孴孶季 孴孷季 安宯室宱宪宨宧季宦宫宬家宨宯 安宯室宱宪宨宧季室宻宨 宅宸宵宬室宯季r宱宧 孴學季 室 宇宬室宪宵室宰季宲宩季宷宬宱季室宱宧季室宵家宨宱宬宦季宲宩季宲宷宫宨宵季宲宥宭宨宦宷家季宬宱季宅宽季宄孴宥将宄孵室 孻季 孺季 宄家季季季孨季 孹季 學季 孷季 孶季 孵季 專宇宲宸宥宯宨季室宻宨專 孴季 宋室宯宥宨宵宧季宥宯室宧宨 孳季 宇室宪宪宨宵季宥宯室宧宨 守宼宨宯宨宷季害宬宱 0 孴季 孵季 孶季 孷季 學季 孹季 孺季 孻季 宖宱季季季孨季 孼季 孴孳季 孴孴季 孴孵季 孴孶季 孴孷季 孴學季 宅宸宵宬室宯季r宱宧 宥 Fig. 16. a) Sn-As chart of flanged axes from the Bz A2a phase. During this period, axes made from pure copper or fahlore copper prevail. Higher tin content, meaning intentionally produced alloys, can be found almost exclusively in axes and chisels from princely graves. This is most likely not accidental, but rather reflects intentional production of weapons for the prince, either for reasons of their material properties or due to the shiny golden colour of the tin bronze. b) Sn-As chart of other objects from the Bz A2a phase. The weapons associated with a higher rank in the Únětice Culture usually consist of two distinct copper alloys. Halberds were mainly made of arsenic bronze, daggers of tin bronze, resulting in different colours respectively. The ribbed axes are made of various alloys and contain high rates of minor elements. The high prestige associated with the eyelet pins (Ösenkopfnadel) is moreover indicated by their tin-bronze composition. Charts: J.-H. Bunnefeld; graphic design: M. Wiegmann, both State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt. 60 Acta Archaeologica a) (see Fig. 8). The fact that tin-bronze, shiny golden axes in the graves do indeed denote a certain elevated social position is also substantiated by the colouring of the rarer and thus likely more highly valued daggers, halberds, and ribbed axes (Fig. 16, see also Fig. 15). The latter are often alloyed with tin, arsenic or antimony. The result is an interesting and clearly visible play of colours (note 26). Simultaneously, there are striking differences between halberds, daggers, and ribbed double axes, too. The halberds consist largely of arsenic bronzes (note 27), probably mainly due to casting properties and mechanical material properties, and the daggers mainly of tin bronzes. The ribbed double axes are made of different materials, including tin bronze, antimony bronze, nickel bronze, and copper, frequently with a high content of minor elements. Many of them have a strikingly silvery colour. The fact that axes dating from the Bz A2a/A2b phase onward were increasingly made of tin alloys and thus had a golden colour, may be the true reference to the gold axe discovered in the gold find of Dieskau (see Fig. 7). Given that even common soldiers carried gold-coloured axes by this time, the distinction of the supreme prince of Dieskau may have required him to bear weapons of pure gold. The phenomenon of precious-metals weaponry ultimately originated in the Middle East and Southeastern Europe, where they have been encountered in graves, hoards, and temple treasures, demonstrating their owner’s superior status (Primas 1988, 162-178; Hansen 2001, 42-58). From a broader perspective, the use of distinct alloys for different objects was certainly not confined to the Únětice Culture but was widespread throughout Europe during the Early Bronze Age. In the region north of the Alps, axes of the Salez type consist of fahlore copper amalgamated with arsenic, antimony, nickel, and silver up to several per cents, but almost entirely without tin (Kienlin 2008b, 121-123). Axes of the Neyruz type and the Saxon type, by contrast, are made of copper with a low content of minor elements and are partially alloyed with tin. The most recent axes of the Langquaid type, in turn, all consist of tin bronze alloys containing only a few trace elements (Kienlin 2008b, 221-224). The material properties of the alloys were apparently widely known and used in different ways to achieve the required hardness so that axes made of tin alloy were not necessarily any harder than other alloys (Kienlin 2008b, 267-280). Halberds made of arsenic bronze occur all over Europe, while halberds made of tin bronze have been found in the Irish-Scottish region, Central Germany, Northeastern Germany, and Southern Scandinavia, and in some instances in Poland and southern and southeastern Central Europe (Horn 2014, 147-155). The daggers from southern Central Europe consist mainly of tin bronze with an arsenic content of less than one per cent (note 28). Although the interpretation of such alloys is complex and multi-layered, the parallels with the use of specific alloys in Central Germany may point to large-scale dissemination of fundamental notions regarding the value of alloys, perhaps in part transmitted via contacts with the Únětice Culture. The hoard at Dieskau II illustrates well the potential benefits of detailed colour analysis (Fig. 17) (note 29). The hoard was discovered slightly to the north of the village of Dieskau in 1904 (von Brunn 1959, 55-56). The fact that it included 14 halberds, among other artefacts, is particularly remarkable. In eleven instances the halberds were mere blades and three were blades with rudiments of metal shafts. Further items included one axe, two ribbed double axes, various necklaces, bracelets or anklets as well as a copper spiral necklace and an amber necklace. When assessing this hoard without taking into consideration the alloy composition or artefact colour, it is not possible to attribute the single axe or the two ribbed axes and ring jewellery to any hypothetical person. If we do consider colour analysis, however, we learn that one halberd blade is amalgamated with 7.6% tin, while the remaining halberds are bronze alloys with a 4.1% to 6.1% content of arsenic. The gold-shimmering halberd made of tin bronze can be grouped, due to its alloy (or, for that matter, colour), with the axe, one ribbed double axe, possibly also the second, silvery-gleaming ribbed double axe, and five items from the set of ring jewellery. This very much looks like the equipment of a single warrior, who likely commanded other armed men, given his gold-shimmering equipment. Accordingly, it appears reasonable to ascribe the amber necklace to him, as well (note 30). Two of the shafted halberds exhibit a fahlore copper socket alongside an arsenic-bronze blade. The remaining eleven halberd blades are amalgamated, as described, with arsenic, while the rivets, as far as is known, are made of fahlore copper or more pure copper. Apart from that, one ring and one spiral bracelet are made of fahlore copper. One ribbed double axe, as well as one ring, are made of antimony bronze. The listed objects cannot be matched with a particular individual. Seeing as the Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries 61 Fig. 17. This detailed depiction of the alloys used in the Dieskau II hoard shows that a halberd, a ribbed double axe, an axe and five pieces of the set of rings are made of tin bronze. This represents a complete, gold-coloured set of equipment of a single warrior. The second, silvery-shimmering ribbed double axe possibly also belonged to him. The remaining 13 halberds represent additional warriors who were most likely his subaltern military leaders. The latter likely wore the remaining ring ornaments made largely of copper. Graphic design: J. Filipp, Bad Bibra. 62 Acta Archaeologica remaining ring jewellery is made of copper, any specific ascription is impossible here as well. Even though a certain association of the ring and jewellery ornaments with the male vestments has so far not been possible - a consequence of the lack of ornaments present in Central German graves (see above) - an initial glance reveals that the ten open loop-headed necklaces (Ösenhalsring), the other twelve rings, and the two spiral bracelets and copper spiral necklace, given their number, could be conveniently matched with the 13 halberds as jewellery inventory. PRINCELY RESIDENCE OR ‘MEN’S HOUSE’? THE LONGHOUSES OF DERMSDORF AND ZWENKAU Studies of the Dermsdorf complex in the district of Sömmerda support the notion that weapon hoard finds represent ritual relicts of armed troops. During road works in 2011, pathbreaking excavations conducted by M. Küßner and K.-P. Wechler unearthed an unusually large Early Bronze Age longhouse located about 2,200 metres to the west of an Early Bronze Age settlement (Küßner 2015) (Fig. 18). It was built in NE-SW alignment and lies only 3.6 kilometres to the northeast and within sight of the Leubingen barrow. One particularly striking aspect is the fact that the narrow southwestern side of the house was dug into a Corded Ware period burial mound, which must still have existed at the time and seems to have contained two additional graves, one from the Bell Beaker period and one from the Early Bronze Age (note 31). Right in front of the opposite north-eastern side of the house, a hoard find was discovered containing 98 axes and two unfinished halberd cast blanks deposited in a vessel. The house’s radiocarbon dating and the hoard find date the assemblage to a later period than the Leubingen burial mound, allowing for a potential link between the two (Küßner 2015, 196-197). It seems very unlikely that the hoard find, the Corded Ware burial mound, and the princely grave of Leubingen would be aligned along a straight axis by mere coincidence (note 32). The large three-aisled house itself, measuring 44 metres in length and 11 metres in width, may have been the residence of a distinguished person such as, for instance, a prince of the Leubingen rank. A factor supporting this view, alongside the size and characteristic construction of the structure, is the most peculiar location isolated from other houses. As I have stated elsewhere, however, I favour the ‘men’s house’ interpretation, albeit with an extension (Meller 2013a, 520-521; Schwarz 2014, 727728). The length of 44 metres allowed for the accommodation of up to 100 people along the long walls, assuming a width of 90 centimetres to one metre per individual seat or bed. Comparable ‘men’s houses’ serving as assembly or leisure halls or dormitories and often associated with secret societies or masked societies (as known from, e.g., certain African contexts), often serve as storage for tools and weapons and have been associated with countless ethnic groups worldwide (see Schurtz 1902). One possible scenario might have been that the community of soldiers living in the men’s house sacrificed the weapons issued by the particular prince in front of the building when he died; perhaps as a preparation for the issuing of new weapons by the succeeding ruler so as to symbolically secure his subjects’ loyalty (Meller 2015, 248; 2017, 1538). Proceeding from this concrete finding, a broader perspective may allow for the more general consideration of weapon hoards (and, perhaps, equipment hoards as well). The large weapon hoards in the Dieskau region would correspondingly have been sacrificed at the death of each prince who had originally issued the weapons (see above). Another rather noteworthy feature is the unusual deposit of a bronze bodkin in a posthole at the house’s eastern corner. It exhibits some resemblance to a chisel found at the princely grave at Leubingen (see Fig. 4), which appears to present the prince as a metal artisan, or rather as a master of the new material (Bertemes 2010, 154). The small bodkin from Dermsdorf may, therefore, be a foundation sacrifice in honour of the prince who commissioned the construction of the ‘men’s house’ to accommodate his troops. The deposition of a cushion stone, which likewise features in the Leubingen prince’s set of tools, in the circular enclosure at Schönebeck, in the district of Salzland (see below), which otherwise lacks deposits, underlines the plausibility of such an interpretation. This stone apparently was sufficient to symbolise the prince’s presence. Given that the house’s association with a Corded Ware period burial mound cannot be accidental, the reference to the Corded Ware Culture represents another link between the men’s house and the Leubingen mound. During the Early Bronze Age, these mounds must have been visible from far away, significantly exceeding the Bell Beaker mounds in size. The princes’ awareness of the his- Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries 63 Fig. 18. Photograph of the house floor in Dermsdorf including the location of the hoard at the ridge post of the northeastern side, the Corded Ware burial mound at the southwestern side, and the position of the Leubingen princely barrow, the view of which is blocked by trees in the picture. The spatial relationship between the hoard, the longhouse, the Corded Ware burial mound, and the princely barrow of Leubingen, namely that they are all more or less aligned along a straight axis, is most likely intentional rather than accidental. Photo: Mario Küßner, Thuringian State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology, 11.09.2011, modified; graphic design: B. Janzen, State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt. torical ancestry of both groups, the Corded Ware and the Bell Beaker Cultures, is corroborated by the analyses of the Leubingen grave described above. By consciously appropriating the more ancient Corded Ware period mound, the prince and his soldiers were making an explicit reference to the prince’s historical legitimacy. At Zwenkau, in the district of Leipzig, another longhouse, substantially longer and similarly isolated, has been found (Fig. 19) (note 33). The house sits above an earlier building in E-W alignment, next to which there is another smaller construction. At a length of 57 metres and a width of nine metres, it is even slightly larger than the Dermsdorf men’s house. The Zwenkau house is also three-aisled, and its central postholes are in similar positions to those at the Dermsdorf house. However, here the outer posts do not comprise small, closely lined-up posts, but rather large posts erected at roughly one-metre intervals. As at Dermsdorf, the Zwenkau house is constructed on the foundations of a Corded Ware burial mound. The mound has a diameter of about 15 metres and contained two graves. It is significant that the burial mound was previously, i.e. during an earlier phase of the Early Bronze Age, integrated into some kind of sanctuary by surrounding it with a circular trench. As was common in the Early and Middle Bronze Age circular trenches, its opening faced the sunrise in the east. Another noteworthy aspect is the apparent burning and levelling of the Early Bronze Age house located next to the Corded Ware burial mound. Debris and burnt pottery were used to fill in the Early Bronze Age circular trench. Some of that material of the 64 Acta Archaeologica Fig. 19. Site of the large ‘men’s house’ (or longhouse) in Zwenkau, whose southern long wall with an entrance in its centre was most likely intentionally built on top of a previously levelled Corded Ware burial mound with an Early Bronze Age circular trench so as to establish a link to the ancestors. The circular trench may be related to the burial mound in ritual terms or associated with the house itself. Ever since the discovery of the sites in Pömmelte and Schönebeck, we know that there were links between the Corded Ware and Únětice Cultures, but also between graves and circular complexes. Both might have been part of a strategy of power legitimation during the Early Bronze Age. Source: Huth & Stäuble 1998, 189, Fig. 2; Schunke 2009, 274, Fig. 1; with kind permission of H. Stäuble, Archaeological Heritage Office of Saxony. Únětice classical phase was also deposited in the postholes of the new longhouse and thus provides a terminus post quem. This gives us an idea of the sequence of events (Schunke 2009, 305-308). At Zwenkau, the construction on top of the foundations of the Corded Ware burial mound most likely was not due to shortage of space, given the vast flat landscape. Instead, an intentional link to the ancestors appears to have been established. The (probably intentional) burning of the old house and filling of the circular trench is reminiscent of what took place at the circular enclosure at Pömmelte towards the end of its period of use, around 2050 BC (see below). Apart from the entrance at the southern side of the large building, there were probably entrances at both narrow sides on the eastern and western sides as well. During the excavation of the Zwenkau house, however, no Early Bronze Age deposit was found. Perhaps the commissioning prince outlived the house’s lifespan, or the depositional custom did not demand that the deposition be placed right in front of the assembly house. One factor in line with this view are the numerous weapon deposits unrelated to construction or house finds (see above) (note 34). Applying the same parameters from Dermsdorf to the Zwenkau house, the latter could have accommodated up to 65 individuals on each longitudinal side, totalling 130 warriors. One pointer, without claiming any reliable link, is that one of the axe hoards of the Dieskau territory - namely the hoard found at Schopkau in the district of Saalekreis - yielded 124 axes. Seeing as the largest hoards here contained up to 300 axes, while houses of 100 metres length are rather Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries improbable, the troops behind these major axe hoards may have occupied a total of two or three Dermsdorf or Zwenkau-sized houses. As the case of Dermsdorf demonstrates, the discovery of such isolated houses is contingent on pure coincidence or else requires large-scale excavations as in the case of the lignite opencast mining site of Zwenkau. A CHANGE IN RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGY. PÖMMELTE AND SCHÖNEBECK: SACRED SITES AT THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN THE BELL BEAKER AND THE ÚNĚTICE CULTURES Until very recently, finds broadening our access to and advancing our understanding of the religious landscape of the Late Neolithic and Únětice societies in Central Germany have been quite limited. Essentially, any assessments regarding religious beliefs and practices had to be based exclusively, as is the case in most regions, on graves, deviant burials, and hoards. The recently excavated circular enclosures at Pömmelte and Schönebeck, both located in the Salzlandkreis district, however, provide us for the first time ever in the Central German context with monumental architectural constructions and archaeological evidence of related burial and sacrificial practices; other regions have long yielded such structures, for instance, southern England with its henge monuments. Pömmelte and Schönebeck only make sense in combination, seeing as they were successively constructed, their periods of use overlapped, and they stood in a particular spatial relation to one another (Meller forthcoming d; Spatzier forthcoming). The sacred site of Pömmelte appears to have begun as a small rectangular enclosure dating to the Corded Ware period. Its two entrances are aligned with the point of sunrise during the summer solstice and the point of sunset during the winter solstice, respectively (Fig. 20). This suggests the performance of ritual ceremonies following the seasonal cycle (Spatzier 2017, 242-243; Meinike forthcoming, Fig. 1). A large, representative Corded Ware burial located 50 metres to the west may be associated with the enclosure (note 35). The monumental circular enclosure at Pömmelte, consisting of palisade ditches, segmented ditches and postholes, has been analysed and detailed in a publication by A. 65 Spatzier (Spatzier 2017). The site appears to have been in use from around 2300 to 2050 BC. One key finding is that the ceramic forms at Pömmelte no longer display any kind of Corded Ware elements; they are exclusively related to the Bell Beaker Culture, already hinting at the Únětice Culture. This is hardly surprising, given that the representation of the Corded Ware people in archaeological materials markedly declines from the 23rd century BC and disappears entirely from 2200 BC onward (see above). As we know from genetic analyses, however, the erstwhile bearers of the Corded Ware Culture did not disappear. They adopted the material culture of the Bell Beaker Culture and most likely had a significant role in the construction and ceremonial operation of Pömmelte and Schönebeck. The ritual character of the Pömmelte site is illustrated by the surrounding graves of male individuals, and particularly by the sacrificial pits, at the bottom of which lie shards of intentionally destroyed ceramic vessels - mostly drinking cups - as well as animal bones, grindstones and human skeletal remains of women and children, and, in the layer above, still more grindstones and cattle jaw halves. The end of the site’s period of use is marked by the deposition of human skulls and stone axes at the top of the long filled-in pits (Spatzier 2017, 151-183). Towards the end of that period, the trench was filled up with the remains of the burnt palisades. This suggests that the structure was intentionally destroyed around 2050 BC. In terms of its interpretation, Pömmelte appears - not forgetting the site being aligned to the course of the sun - to have served as the site of complex ritual procedures performed by different groups of people. Probably human sacrifices were part of these rituals, combining displays of ultimate authority with supernatural justifications. They seem to be typical for the emergence of highly stratified social systems (Watts et al. 2016). The beginning and end of the period of use of the Schönebeck circular enclosure cannot be dated exactly. What can be ascertained is that its period of use overlapped with that of Pömmelte during the 22nd to 21st centuries BC, and it was possibly abandoned around 1775 BC. In contrast to Pömmelte, indicators of sacrifice are entirely missing at Schönebeck; traces of this practice, which one might expect in the ground, are not present. Instead, certain performances during gatherings or ceremonies and the reference to the sun’s celestial course were likely prioritised here. The only deposit, the cushion Acta Archaeologica 66 0 50 m Circular enclosure outer post ring ditch segment segmented ditch ring ditch palisade post ring A post ring B shaft pits post ring segments Associated features graves and »cenotaphs« pit cluster pits in SE Other Corded Ware features other features excavation boundary Fig. 20. Map of the Bell Beaker period circular enclosure of Pömmelte, including, among other things, the sacrificial pits, Bell Beaker and Únětice graves and cenotaphs, and the older features associated with the Corded Ware Culture. The site was abandoned during the early phase of the Únětice Culture. The circular enclosure at Schönebeck was constructed about 100 years later than such at Pömmelte and used until about 1775 BC, that is, until the period of the Nebra Sky Disc. The Schönebeck circular enclosure replaced Pömmelte after the latter’s ritual destruction. It is important to note that Schönebeck enclosure displays an entirely distinct character, without any reference to human sacrifice or burials. This also suggests a power concentration among the princes. Source: Spatzier & Bertemes 2017, 657, Fig. 2 with modifications. Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries stone of a blacksmith, similar to that found in the Leubingen princely grave, may reflect the changed social relations and the emphasis on strict hierarchies in the sense of ‘representing’ the ruler (see above). One result of both sites’ prolonged coexistence - until Pömmelte was intentionally destroyed - is the opportunity to observe and reconstruct the transition from Late Neolithic and earliest Bronze Age religious forms to the new social and political structure of the advanced Únětice Culture. While the Pömmelte circular enclosure represents mainly the Late Neolithic ‘heroic’ society without finished centralisation of power, the Schönebeck site possibly shows a cosmological order with an absolute concentration of charisma in the sun itself from which the Únětice princes then derived their authority (cf. Voegelin 2002). AMBER AND BRONZE. THE ÚNĚTICE SYSTEM OF EXCHANGE A brief glance at the areas north of the Únětice Culture indicates another factor contributing to its power. Large quantities of amber from the North were transported to the Únětice territory, particularly to Bohemia but also to Central Germany, mainly during the Bz A2a phase (20001775 BC) (Ernée 2013; Meller 2017, 1536, Fig. 6) (Fig. 21). From here, the amber was passed on to the southern neighbouring cultures in substantial volumes. It was thereafter confined to these cultures and only rarely transported to distant regions. These rare long-distance contacts likely represented special forms of exchange, such as princely gifts, given that amber occurs mainly in finds linked to high-ranking social contexts, e.g., the circular burial site B at Mycenae, Greece (Harding et al.1974, 164; Czebreszuk 2011, 210-211, Nos. 120 & 122). In these cases, the amber’s provenance is the southern Scandinavian and the Baltic coast, respectively (Woltermann 2016, 237-239; Vandkilde 2017, 144, Fig. 86). The immediate northern neighbours of the Únětice Culture in what today is the Altmark, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg and Pomerania were unable to supply any noteworthy volume of amber given the material’s scarcity there. Consequently, it appears all the more astonishing, at least at first glance, that they had access to a large number of Únětice weapons and other bronze objects (some of which are deposited in large hoards) precisely at the time of the most extensive amber importing by the Únětice Culture (Rassmann 1993, 37-48; Vandkilde 2017, 147, Abb. 87). 67 A good example of this are the hoards containing eyelet rings (Ösenringe), which seem to have been brought to the north from the Únětice areas in larger numbers (BathBílková 1973, 27, Fig. 2; reprinted in Vachta 2016, 38, Fig. 14). In this context, it is striking that in the actual regions of provenance, i.e. the coastlines of West and North Jutland and the Danish isles, and also the Baltic coast, there is no comparable presence of Únětice bronzes, but instead only scattered single finds and rare hoard finds such as that in Pile, Sweden (Lomborg 1973, 155; Rassmann 1993, 45; Vandkilde 1996, 263f.; 2017, 140-157). This raises the probability that the regions to the immediate north of the Únětice Culture organised the import of amber to the Únětice system - both to Bohemia and Central Germany - and received large quantities of bronze items in return, including weapons such as halberds (note 36). The bronze objects were largely withheld from the more northern regions, and direct contact occurred only sporadically. That people in Scandinavia certainly valued the Únětice bronze items, without having any immediate (or other) access to them, is indicated not only by flint daggers with fake ‘casting seams’ (Lomborg 1973, 156) resembling metal daggers, but also by the emulation of eyelet pins (Ösenkopfnadeln) made of bone found on the Danish isles (Knoll & Meller 2016, 285, Fig. 1, 300). It is quite likely that amber represents only the archaeologically best detectable trading good and that other trading goods, including honey, hides, wool, or slaves were just as important in the north-south exchange. Owing to the fact that no additional goods from the south, apart from the few scattered bronze finds, can be identified in Scandinavia as exchange equivalent to amber, it may be assumed that the Southern Scandinavian goods were exported from there by the societies immediately to the north of the Únětice Culture - either in the form of tribute or through violent means - and imported into the Únětice system in exchange for weapons and other bronze items. From the Bz A2b phase (around 1775/1750 BC) onward, the import of amber to both Central Germany and Bohemia from sources in the north gradually came to an end (Ernée 2013). The question if and, if so to what extent, this equally applies to bronze items in Northern Germany requires further study. It remains unclear, moreover, why this exchange between the Únětice Culture and the north apparently ceased at this point in time. While communication ties between the north and the Únětice Culture gradually diminished, the latter’s ex- Acta Archaeologica 68 Early Bronze Age amber finds Middle Bronze Age amber finds Únětice Culture 0 500 km Fig. 21. Distribution map of the Early Bronze Age (c. 2200-1600 BC) and Middle Bronze Age (c. 1600-1300 BC) amber finds against the background of the distribution area of the Únětice Culture (2200-1600 BC). It shows that amber was limited to the Únětice Culture and its immediate southern neighbours during the Early Bronze Age, making its way as far as the eastern Mediterranean only in the form of princely gifts. Following the demise of the Únětice Culture and its control over amber exchange at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, this changed entirely, and amber began to be transported to southwestern Germany, the Carpathian basin and the Mediterranean in large quantities. Map: A. Swieder, J.-H. Bunnefeld, B. Janzen, State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt. Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries change with the southern neighbours continued to flourish uninterrupted. These observations highlight not only the (cultural) charisma, exertion of influence, degree of organisation and stability, but also the military power of the Únětice Culture. CONCLUSION The analysed find categories of graves, settlements, hoard finds, and ritual architecture allow us to not only describe but also to define and classify the Únětice social system. Finally, I wish to discuss the hypothesis whether the Circum-Harz group of the Central German Únětice Culture constituted an ‘early state’ in the sense devised by Max Weber (Weber 1922, 29; 1978 [1922], 54-56) (note 37). The Weberian definition of the state was further refined by, for example, St. Breuer (1998). In contrast to other theories of the state, such as that put forth by P. Bourdieu (2014), the Weberian theory not only bases itself on certain notions with regard to modernity but also on historical conditions. If we apply the Weberian criteria of statehood, then the results of the analysis of the Leubingen and Helmsdorf princely barrows clearly indicate ‘legitimate domination’ in both its charismatic and traditional form (Weber 1922, 124; 1978 [1922], 215) (note 38). Correspondingly, while the princely ornaments, or insignia, testify to the sanctity of tradition, the abundant weaponry underscores the heroic dimension of an order based on charismatic authority. The military organisation of the administrative staff as manifested in the form of an army and its hierarchical differentiation confirms that there was not only authority but a ruling organisation in the Weberian sense. That this ruling organisation moreover amounted to a political organisation in the Weberian sense is illustrated by the longevity of the Únětice Culture and its hierarchy in the Circum-Harz area over a period of more than 400 years; the Circum-Harz area constituted the territory of the ruling organisation and the groups settling within its confines the ‘people of the state’ in the Weberian sense (Weber 1922, 627; 1978 [1922], 922) (Fig. 22). The question of the monopoly on physical force can also be answered. The discovery of the monumental Bornhöck mound and its link to the gold find of Dieskau reveals a quality of authority entirely distinct from that in Leubingen and Helmsdorf. Given that the Únětice Culture represented a highly standardised order based 69 on hierarchical authority, as I hope to have demonstrated in the preceding pages, the gradient in the weight of the gold objects from Dieskau (about 1,850 grams), Leubingen (255.8 grams), and Helmsdorf (176.7 grams) further underlines the hierarchical order of the princes. Furthermore, they were distinguished from their subaltern military and perhaps also civilian leaders which had only gold spiral hair ornaments (up to a maximum of 10 grams of gold). The standardised order is also demonstrated by the volumes of the princely burial mounds of c. 20,050 cubic metres, to (at least) c. 7,270 cubic metres and, finally, 2,031.7 cubic metres. The princes’ claim to historical legitimacy is additionally evidenced by the inclusion of fertile soil and, more importantly, of materials from earlier settlements, in the barrows of Leubingen and the Bornhöck, as well as ancient ‘weapons’ in Leubingen and Helmsdorf, respectively. This reference to tradition is equally displayed in the princes’ or men’s houses and their architectural integration with earlier Corded Ware period burial mounds. The monopoly on legitimate physical force required for classification as a state is indicated by the size of the armies. The Dieskau region appears to have had military troops from the Leubingen period onward, i.e. starting in the 20th century BC. They were several times the size of both the Leubingen and Helmsdorf armies, which, in turn, were proportional to one another. In this sense, and despite the relatively late dating of the Dieskau burial mound of Bornhöck to around 1800 BC at the latest, a centralised form of rule exercised in the Dieskau region can be assumed from as early as the 20th-19th centuries BC onward. If nothing else, the construction of the Bornhöck mound must have certainly been assertive. Military dominance and hierarchical organisation are the ingredients for turning a (traditional or charismatic) ruling organisation into a novel political organisation. This includes the monopoly on the use of legitimate force. Consequently, all relevant criteria in the Weberian definition of statehood are evidenced. We likewise find all criteria fulfilled if we look to the further refinement of state theory by St. Breuer (Breuer 1990; 1998). The ‘oligopolistic orders’ (note 39) of the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker Cultures declined after the ‘hierarchization and verticalization’ (note 40) - especially via the ‘control over the most scarce and important good […]: charisma’ (note 41) - of the monopoly on violence (Breuer 1998, 39). The person-related charisma 70 Acta Archaeologica Fig. 22. The highly stratified social structure of the Circum-Harz group of the Únětice Culture according to the contents of graves. Persons buried together with bronze items, including eyelet pins (Ösenkopfnadel), daggers, and (very rarely) axes stood markedly above the common population, which were either not even buried at all or received only pottery as grave goods. Higher-ranking individuals were additionally distinguished by golden spiral hair ornaments. Above all of them ranked the princes from the burials at Leubingen and Helmsdorf, who in turn were subordinate to the supreme prince of Dieskau. Graphic design: J. Filipp, Bad Bibra. became an ‘official and hereditary charisma’ (note 42) (Breuer 1998, 39) at least since the appearance of gold ornaments. A monopolisation of the ‘supernatural as imaginary sources of prosperity’ (note 43), however, cannot reliably be contended in this context, even if the destruction of the Pömmelte circular enclosure and the sole use of the Schönebeck site might point in this direction (Breuer 1998, 39). The Bornhöck princes and the princes associated with the Dieskau gold find may have been the first princes to reserve the right to exclusive access to the supernatural world. In contrast to Leubingen and Helmsdorf, this is symbolised by the almost oriental custom of including gold weapons in the grave. The analysis of the contemporary Nebra Sky Disc, the earliest version of which is only conceivable through long-distance trade contacts, adds further clarification (Meller 2010, 59-62; see also Meller & Michel 2018) (Fig. 23). The rational, intellectual substance in particular demonstrates a high degree of independence certainly rather uncommon for prehistoric conditions, and above all the capability of de- Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries 71 Fig. 23. Photograph of the Nebra Sky Disc. The Sky Disc granted its owner exclusive access to the supernatural sphere. During its initial period of use, it assisted in the creation of a lunisolar calendar and thus in the establishment of a new temporal order. Given that the Sky Disc would be most likely associated with the Dieskau princes, it ultimately demonstrates their claim to state power. Photo: J. Lipták, Munich. vising a lunisolar calendar. The latter, in turn, allowed for an extremely accurate positing of time including even the capacity for predicting lunar eclipses. The introduction of a new temporal order underscores the claim to entitlement and power of the Únětice princes. The Dieskau princes, with whom the Sky Disc is most likely associated, thereby clearly transcended the definitional boundaries of chiefdom: ‘The status of the chief can now change from being a representative of the community vis-à-vis the gods to becoming a representative of the gods before the community, with exclusive discretionary powers over spiritual goods - a reversal synonymous with the transformation of chiefdom to charismatic state.’ (note 44) (Breuer 1998, 39). It is precisely this ‘change at the symbolic level’ (note 45) that ‘distinguishes the state from the chiefdom’ (note 46) (Breuer 1998, 40). Not long after 1600 BC, the ‘Únětice state’ eventually disintegrated due to direct contacts between more southern regions and Southern Scandinavia (Meller 2013a, 521-523; Vandkilde 2014). No comparable hierarchization was to occur 72 Acta Archaeologica in Central Germany up until the Germanic societies of the early Roman Imperial Period. Needless to say, the deliberations presented here are no more than a hypothetic model, which future research will have to scrutinise particularly in economic archaeology, on the basis of the settlements, and scientifically on the basis of the health and nutritional state of those buried in the graves. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would especially like to thank J.-H. Bunnefeld, State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt, for revising the manuscript and doing the required research. Furthermore, I express my gratitude to R. Risch, UAB Barcelona, for discussions and helpful comments and E. Pernicka, CEZ Mannheim, and C.-H. Wunderlich, State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt, for discussing the metal colours. Also, I owe my thanks to F. Knoll, MLU HalleWittenberg, and B. Stoll-Tucker, State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt, for proofreading as well as to J. Filipp for designing many of the figures. NOTES 1. On dendrochronological dating: Becker et al. 1989. A new examination of the Helmsdorf princely grave (CEZ Mannheim, MAD 1479 and MAD 1480) revealed a dendro-date around 1829/1828 BC (wane). 2. Inter alia: Hansen 2002, 151f.; Sørensen 2005; Kienlin 2008a; Bertemes 2010, 154; Meller 2014, 628647. 3. Initially pointed out by Fischer 1956, 190; Knapp 1999; Strahm 2010, 168-174. See Meller forthcoming b. 4. All maps are taken from the simultaneously published article: Schwarz & Meller forthcoming. 5. It should be emphasised, however, that largely undecorated pottery was already present in the later Bell Beaker Culture (Schwarz 2015, 686). 6. In this context, I owe thanks for the helpful comment to D. Kaufmann, Halle (Saale). See also Klassen 2004, 40 and Strahm 2010, 168. 7. Here, golden bracelets are used for the first time as a marker of distinction in Central Europe, starting off a long tradition (Metzner-Nebelsick 2010; Knoll et al. 2014). Interestingly, a golden bracelet was also included in grave no. 75 at Fuente Álamo, Spain (Schubart 2012, 139-141). This is intriguing given that the El Argar Culture exhibits certain parallels with the Únětice Culture, including apsidal houses, similarly standardised forms of undecorated pottery, pithos burials, distinction through precious metal ornaments (see Lull et al. 2013, 596-602). In contrast to the Únětice Culture, the distinctive metal used in El Argar is not gold, but silver. 8. Klopfleisch 1878, 553; Meller & Schunke 2016, 441-447; The information kindly provided by M. Küßner, Thuringian State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology. 9. Only the weight of the Dieskau bracelet (149.51 grams) slightly deviates from that of the Leubingen bracelet (199.4 grams). 10. Original quote: “Im Jahre 1874 wurde auf meinem Grundstück, ‘das Saure Loch‘ genannt, beim Drainieren mehrere Fuß unter der Erde ein Schatz gefunden, bestehend aus verschiedenen alten römischen goldenen Schmuckgegenständen, Armreifen, Spangen, Ringen, Golddraht etc. Im Ganzen sollen es 13 Stück gewesen sein.” 11. Advice kindly provided by K. Michel, Zurich, based on the scanned letter by C. von Bülow (Filipp & Freudenreich 2014, 745). 12. Unfortunately, in contrast to the axe and the ribbed bracelet, this bracelet was not tested in The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow (see Born et al. 2015), the archaeo-metallurgic examination remains to be done. 13. Although C. von Bülow mentions only ‘golden jewellery objects […]’ (Filipp & Freudenreich 2014, 745), single gold weapons cannot be ruled out, seeing that the existing axe was not reported as such either. The indicated weight does not contradict this assumption. 14. Section cuts at the foot of the mound in spring 2017 and 2018 allowed for a recalculation (information kindly provided by M. Küßner, Thuringian State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology; see Küßner, Wechler forthcoming). 15. Leubingen: recalculation of the volume considering the diameter of (at least) 48 metres and a height of 8.5 metres (cf. Höfer 1906, 15); Helmsdorf: information in Größler 1907, 4. Calculations kindly provided by T. Schunke, State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt. 16. Even though H. Gößler presumes the disintegration of additional bronze objects as a possibility (Größler Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries 1907, 23), I consider it rather implausible that larger objects should be affected by this given the existing bronze finds. 17. The changes in these numeric ratios compared to Meller 2015 and Meller 2017 are due to the fact that here only those finds from the core area of the Central German Únětice Culture were taken into account, while those from the northern periphery were not (cf. Meller 2013a, 516-517, Tab. 2) 18. A similar interpretation was proposed by K. Randsborg (1995, 44-52) concerning Southern Scandinavian hoard finds. 19. B. Zich (2010; 2016) was the first to recognise different territories within the Circum-Harz group, which he referred to as domains. However, the territories described here deviate in number and boundaries from Zich’s ‘domains’. 20. Montelius 1900, 77-78; Jahn 1950; Maraszek 2012; Filipp & Freudenreich 2016. 21. Of course, the factor of time, i.e. the partial asynchronicity of the listed hoard and grave finds, must be considered. Seeing as we are talking about coincidental find extracts and, more generally, a model, this may not be too significant in the light of the relatively large number of finds. 22. Currently, extensive casting experiments are carried out at the State Museum of Prehistory in Halle to understand the former colours of the artefacts (see Wunderlich et al. forthcoming). 23. Cf. initial considerations regarding the social prestige associated with certain alloys in, e.g., Kienlin 2008b, 309. 24. The hoard finds of Dieskau III, Dederstedt and Giersleben in particular appear to consist of a fahlore copper containing many trace elements, with some 110 axes exhibiting an added content of more than 4% arsenic, antimony and nickel, what determines the colouration only insignificantly. 25. Großheringen (Zich 1996, 495, No. F152); Helmsdorf (see above); Körner (Zich 1996, 497, No. F184); Leubingen (see above); Naundorf (Zich 1996, 533, No. K161, 534, No. K163); Nobitz (Zich 1996, 509, No. H5); Osmünde (Zich 1996, 428, No. E137 [‘Dieskau’], 462, No. E614); Walschleben (Zich 1996, 504, No. F293); Schkeuditz (Rummer et al. 2018). Furthermore, the golden axe from Dieskau I probably was found in a grave within the Bornhöck mound (see above). 73 26. The two unalloyed halberd blades from Dermsdorf represent unfinished cast blanks (Berendt et al. 2015). Information on the chemical composition kindly provided by M. Küßner, Thuringian State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology. 27. It seems noteworthy that the halberds from the northern periphery of the Únětice Culture exhibit tin alloys significantly more often than arsenic alloys compared to those found in the Únětice heartland (cf. Horn 2014, 155, Fig. 90). 28. According to data from the SAM database (Krause 2003, CD-ROM). 29. A more precise analysis of the individual hoard finds may produce even more meaningful results in the future. 30. Whether this represents a female or male principle cannot be ascertained at this point, but neither is relevant for the argument. 31. Küßner, Wechler forthcoming. I owe many thanks to M. Küßner from the Thuringian State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology for generously providing the unpublished site map. 32. The significance of spatial references in the mindscape of earlier societies is demonstrated, for example, by the axial arrangement of medieval royal graves. Good examples of this include the grave of Emperor Otto I, the table tomb of Queen Editha, and the ‘Ernst Chapel’ (Ernstkapelle) housing the grave of Archbishop Ernst of Saxony in the nave of Magdeburg Cathedral. 33. Zwenkau, ZW-10, building 26 (Stäuble 1997, 134, 147, Fig. 7; Huth & Stäuble 1998, 192-193; Schunke 2009, 304-309). I would like to thank H. Stäuble, Archaeological Heritage Office of Saxony, who headed the comprehensive excavations at Zwenkau and provided the map. 34. It must be kept in mind, however, that most weapon hoards represent accidental finds, discovered decades or even more than a century ago. In some of these cases, where the location is precisely known, it could be examined whether similar house constructions were located in the immediate vicinity. 35. A similar site associated with the Corded Ware Culture is known from Esperstedt, in the district of Mansfeld-Südharz (Leinthaler et al. 2006, 65, Fig. 10). Other discoveries displaying a similar basic form lack corresponding finds, unfortunately, making the identification of similar structures from the Late Neolithic pe- 74 Acta Archaeologica riod more difficult. Consequently, a precise classification of the square enclosures at Großfahner, in the district of Gotha, Großrembrach, in the district of Sömmerda, and Stemmern, in the Börde district, is not possible at present (Spatzier 2017, 239-242). Another find that is quite intriguing in this regard is the rectangular stone structure inside the large Avebury circular compound near Stonehenge in England, which was discovered by ground-penetrating radar and remains undated, but could potentially date earlier. It is reminiscent of the square Corded Ware compound at Pömmelte but appears to be associated with more ancient building foundations from the Neolithic period, as well (Barker et al. 2017). 36. Such contact between Bohemia and the regions in Northern Germany is additionally suggested by the identical type of bronze used in the production of the halberds found there (Rassmann 1993, 44-45). 37. I am entirely aware of the problem with applying the term ‘state’ to prehistoric societies, particularly in Central Europe. Likewise, I am familiar with the discussion about the classification and terminological determination of distinct archaeological and ethnological finds. See e.g., Eder 1980; Haldon 1993; Earle 1997; Lull & Micó 2011 (including further academic sources). 38. I would like to thank S. Thomas (State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt) for crosschecking and providing advice with regard to the sociological interpretation of Max Weber’s writings. 39. Original quote: „oligopolistischen Ordnungen“. 40. Original quote: „Hierarchisierung und Vertikalisierung“. 41. Original quote: „Verfügung über das knappste und wichtigste Gut […]: das Charisma“. 42. Original quote: „Amts- und Erbcharisma“. 43. Original quote: „Übernatürlichen als den imaginären Quellen des Wohlstands“. 44. Original quote: „Aus einem Repräsentanten der Gemeinde gegenüber den Göttern kann der Häuptling nunmehr zu einem Repräsentanten der Götter gegenüber der Gemeinde werden, welcher allein über die Heilsgüter verfügt - eine Umkehrung, die gleichbedeutend ist mit der Transformation des Häuptlingstums in den charismatischen Staat.“ 45. Original quote: „Veränderung[…] auf symbolischer Ebene“. 46. Original quote: „den Staat vom Häuptlingstum unterscheidet“. Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries 75 BIBLIOGRAPHY Andrades Valtueña, A., A. Mittnik, F. M. Key, W. Haak, R. Allmäe, A. Belinskij, M. Daubaras, M. Feldman, R. Jankauskas, I. Janković, K. Massy, M. Novak, S. Pfrengle, S. Reinhold, M. Šlaus, M. A. Spyrou, A. Szécsényi-Nagy, M. Tõrv, S. Hansen, K. I. Bos, Ph. W. Stockhammer, A. Herbig & J. Krause. 2017. The Stone Age Plague and Its Persistence in Eurasia. Current Biology 27 (23). 3683-3691. Allentoft, M. E., M. Sikora, K.-G. Sjörgen, S. Rasmussen, M. Rasmussen, J. Stenderup, P. B. Damgaard, H. Schroeder, T. Ahlström, L. Vinner, A.-S. Malaspinas, A. Margaryan, T. Higham, D. Chivall, N. Lynnerup, L. Harvig, J. Baron, P. Della Casa, P. Dąbrowski, P. R. Duffy, A. V. Ebel, A. Epimakhov, K. Frei, M. Furmanek, T. Gralak, A. Gromov, S. Gronkiewicz, G. Grupe, T. Hajdu, R. Jarysz, V. Khartanovich, A. Khokhlov, V. Kiss, J. Kolář, Khokhlov, V. Kiss, J. Kolá, A. Kriiska, I. Lasak, C. Longhi, G. McGlynn, A. Merkevičius, I. Merkytė, M. Metspalu, R. Mkrtchyan, V. Moiseyev, L. Paja, G. Pálfi, D. Pokutta, Ł. Pospieszny, T. D. Price, L. Saag, M. Sablin, N. Shishlina, V. Smrèka, V. I. Soenov, V. Szeverényi, G. Tóth, S. V. Trifanova, L. Varul, M. Vicze, L. Yepiskoposyan, V. Zhitenev, L. Orlando, T. Sicheritz-Pontén, S. Brunak, R. Nielsen, K. Kristiansen & E. Willerslev. 2015. Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia. Nature 522 (7555). 167-172. Assendorp, J. J. (ed.). 1997. Forschungen zur bronzezeitlichen Besiedlung in Nord- und Mitteleuropa. Internationales Symposium vom 9.-11. Mai 1996 in Hitzacker. Internationale Archäologie 38. Espelkamp (Verlag Marie Leidorf). Barker, D., J. Pollard, K. Strutt, M. Gillings & J. Taylor. 2017. Squaring the Circle? Geophysical Survey across part of the Southern Inner Circle of the Avebury henge. https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/ archaeology/people/academics/gillings/documents/avebury-obeliskreport-2017/at_download/file (retrieved on 8.8.2018). Bartelheim, M. & H. Stäuble (eds.). 2009. Die wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen der Bronzezeit Europas. Forschungen zur Archäometrie und Altertumswissenschaft 4. Rahden/Westf. (Verlag Marie Leidorf). Bath-Bílková, B. 1973. K problému původu hřiven. Zur Herkunftsfrage der Halsringbarren. Památky archeologické 64. 24-41. Becker, B., K.-D. Jäger, D. Kaufmann & T. Litt. 1989. Dendrochronologische Datierungen von Eichenhölzern aus den frühbronzezeitlichen Hügelgräbern bei Helmsdorf und Leubingen (Aunjetitzer Kultur) und an den bronzezeitlichen Flußeichen bei Merseburg. Jahresschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 72. 299-312. Behrendt, S., M. Küßner & O. Mecking. 2015. Der Hortfund von Dermsdorf, Lkr. Sömmerda - Erste archäometrische Ergebnisse. Gluhak et al. 2015. 98-100. Berger, D. 2012. Bronzezeitliche Färbetechniken an Metallobjekten nördlich der Alpen. Eine archäometallurgische Studie zur prähistorischen Anwendung von Tauschierung und Patinierung anhand von Artefakten und Experimenten. Forschungsberichte des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 2. Halle (Saale) (Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt). Bertemes, F. 2010. Die Metallurgengräber der zweiten Hälfte des 3. und der ersten Hälfte des 2. Jt. v. Chr. im Kontext der spätkupferzeitlichen und frühbronzezeitlichen Zivilisationen Mitteleuropas. Meller & Bertemes 2010. 131-162. Bogen, C. 2006. Ein Jüngling mit Bernsteinschmuck - Eine außergewöhnliche Bestattung der Aunjetitzer Kultur. Meller 2006. 124-130. Born, H. & S. Hansen. 2001. Helme und Waffen Alteuropas. Sammlung Axel Guttmann 9. Mainz (Zabern). Born, H., D. Günther, A. Hofmann, M. Nawroth, E. Pernicka, W. P. Tolstikow & P. Velicsanyi. 2015. Der Hortfund von Eberswalde Archäologie, Herstellungstechnik, Analytik. Vorbericht zu neuen wissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 47. 199-218. Bourdieu, P. 2014. Über den Staat. Vorlesungen am Collège de France 1989-1992. Berlin (Suhrkamp). Brandt, G. 2017. Beständig ist nur der Wandel! Die Rekonstruktion der Besiedelungsgeschichte Europas während des Neolithikums mittels paläo- und populationsgenetischer Verfahren. Forschungsberichte des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 9. Halle (Saale) (Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt). Breuer, St. 1990. Der archaische Staat. Zur Soziologie charismatischer Herrschaft. Berlin (Reimer). -. 1998. Der Staat. Entstehung, Typen, Organisationsstadien. Reinbek bei Hamburg (Rowohlt). von Brunn, W. A. 1959. Die Hortfunde der frühen Bronzezeit aus Sachsen-Anhalt, Sachsen und Thüringen. Berlin (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften). Bunnefeld, J.-H. forthcoming. Werkzeuge, Waffen oder Insignien? - Zu den sogenannten gerippten „Doppeläxten“ der Aunjetitzer Kultur. Meller & Bertemes forthcoming b. Czebreszuk, J. 2011. Bursztyn w kulturze mykeńskiej. Zarys problematyki badawczej. Poznań (Wydawnictwo Poznańskie). Earle, T. 1997. How Chiefs Come to Power. The Political Economy in Prehistory. Stanford (Stanford University Press). Eder, K. 1980. Die Entstehung staatlich organisierter Gesellschaften. Ein Beitrag zu einer Theorie sozialer Evolution. Frankfurt am Main (Suhrkamp). Ernée, M. 2013. Bernstein und der Zusammenbruch der klassischen Aunjetitzer Kultur in Böhmen. Meller et al. 2013, 453-467. Evers, M. 2012. Die frühbronzezeitliche Besiedlung der Makroregion um Nebra. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Martin-LutherUniversität, Halle-Wittenberg. Halle (Saale). Filipp, J. & M. Freudenreich. 2014. Dieskau Revisited I. Nachforschungen zur „Lebensgeschichte“ des Goldhortes von Dieskau und zu einem weiteren Grabhügel mit Goldbeigabe bei Osmünde im heutigen Saalekreis, Sachsen-Anhalt. Meller et al. 2014. 743-752. -. 2016. Dieskau und Helmsdorf - Zwei frühbronzezeitliche Mikroregionen im Vergleich. Meller et al. 2016. 407-425. Fischer, U. 1956. Die Gräber der Steinzeit im Saalegebiet. Studien über neolithische und frühbronzezeitliche Grab- und Bestattungsformen in Sachsen-Thüringen. Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 15. Berlin (De Gruyter). Fokkens, H. & A. Harding (eds.). 2013. The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age. Oxford (Oxford University Press). Gerloff, S. 1993. Zu Fragen mittelmeerländischer Kontakte und absoluter Chronologie der Frühbronzezeit in Mittel und Westeuropa. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 68. 58-102. Gluhak, T., S. Greiff, K. Kraus & M. Prange (eds.). 2015. Archäometrie und Denkmalpflege 2015. Jahrestagung an der JohannesGutenberg-Universität Mainz 25.-28. März 2015. Metalla Sonderhefte 7. Bochum (Deutsches Bergbaumuseum). Größler, H. 1907. Das Fürstengrab im großen Galgenhügel am Paulsschachte bei Helmsdorf (im Mansfelder Seekreise). Jahresschrift für die Vorgeschichte der Sächsisch-Thüringischen Länder 6. 1-87. 76 Acta Archaeologica Gronenborn, D. & W. Haak. 2018. Als Europa (zu) Europa wurde. Die großen Migrationen im Neolithikum. Wemhoff & Rind 2018. 72-77. Haak, W., I. Lazaridis, N. Patterson, N. Rohland, S. Mallick, B. Llamas, G. Brandt, S. Nordenfelt, E. Harney, K. Stewardson, Q. Fu, A. Mittnik, E. Bánffy, C. Economou, M. Francken, S. Friederich, R. Garrido Pena, F. Hallgren, V. Khartanovich, A. Khokhlov, M. Kunst, P. Kuznetsov, H. Meller, O. Mochalov, V. Moiseyev, N. Nicklisch, S. L. Pichler, R. Risch, M. A. Rojo Guerra, C. Roth, A. Szécsényi-Nagy, J. Wahl, M. Meyer, J. Krause, D. Brown, D. Anthony, A. Cooper, K. W. Alt & D. Reich. 2015. Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. Nature 522 (7555) 207-211. Hänsel, B. 1997. Gaben an die Götter: Schätze der Bronzezeit Europas - Eine Einführung. Hänsel & Hänsel 1997. 11-22. Hänsel, B. & A. Hänsel (eds.). 1997. Gaben an die Götter: Schätze der Bronzezeit Europas. Berlin (Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte Berlin). Häusler, A. 2011. Beiträge zur vergleichenden Untersuchung von Bestattungssitten vom Neolithikum bis zur frühen Bronzezeit. Jahresschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 92. 309-385. Haldon, J. 1993. The State and the Tributary Mode of Production. London, New York (Verso). Hansen, S. 2001. Helme und Waffen der Bronzezeit in der Sammlung Axel Guttmann. Born & Hansen 2001. 11-166. -. 2002. „Überausstattung“ in Gräbern und Horten der Frühbronzezeit. Müller 2002. 151-173. -. 2010. Der Hort von Nebra: seine Ausstattung. Meller & Bertemes 2010. 77-89. Harding, A., H. Hughes-Brock & C. W. Beck. 1974. Amber in the Mycenaean World. The Annual of the British School at Athens 69. 145-172. Hille, A. 2012. Die Glockenbecherkultur in Mitteldeutschland. Veröffentlichungen des Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt 66. Halle (Saale) (Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt). Höfer, P. 1906. Der Leubinger Hügel. Jahresschrift für die Vorgeschichte der Sächsisch-Thüringischen Länder 5. 1-59. Horn, C. 2014. Studien zu den europäischen Stabdolchen. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 246. Bonn (Habelt). Huth, C. & H. Stäuble. 1998. Ländliche Siedlungen der Bronzezeit und älteren Eisenzeit. Ein Zwischenbericht aus Zwenkau. Küster et al. 1998. 185-230. Jacob, K.-H. 1911. Zur Prähistorie Nordwest-Sachsens. Übersicht über die vorgeschichtlichen Perioden und deren wichtigsten Vertreter in der Leipzig-Hallischen Gegend. Halle (Saale) (Leopoldina). Jahn, M. 1950. Ein kultureller Mittelpunkt bei Halle, Saale während der frühen Bronzezeit. Jahresschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 34. 81-89. Kainz, W. 1999. Bodenatlas Sachsen-Anhalt. Teil 1: Beschreibung der Bodenlandschaften und Böden. Halle (Saale) (Geologisches Landesamt). Kienlin, T. L. (ed.). 2005. Die Dinge als Zeichen: Kulturelles Wissen und materielle Kultur. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 127. Bonn (Habelt). Kienlin, T. L. 2008a. Der „Fürst“ von Leubingen: Herausragende Bestattungen der Frühbronzezeit als Bezugspunkt gesellschaftlicher Kohärenz und kultureller Identität. Kümmel et al. 2008. 181-206. -. 2008b. Frühes Metall im nordalpinen Raum. Eine Untersuchung zu technologischen und kognitiven Aspekten früher Metallurgie anhand der Gefüge frühbronzezeitlicher Beile. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 162. Bonn (Habelt). Klassen, L. 2004. Jade und Kupfer. Untersuchungen zum Neolithisierungsprozess im westlichen Ostseeraum unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Kulturentwicklung Europas 5500-3500 BC. Jysk Arkaeologisk Selskabs skrifter 47. Aarhus (Jutland Archaeological Society). Klopfleisch, F. 1878. Kurzer Bericht über die erste Ausgrabung des Leubinger Grabhügels. Neue Mitteilungen aus dem Gebiete historischantiquarischer Forschungen 14. 544-561. Knapp, I. 1999. Fürst oder Häuptling? Eine Analyse der herausragenden Bestattungen der frühen Bronzezeit. Archäologische Informationen 22. 261-268. Knipper, C., P. Held, M. Fecher, N. Nicklisch, Ch. Meyer, H. Schreiber, B. Zich, C. Metzner-Nebelsick, V. Hubensack, L. Hansen, E. Nieveler & K. W. Alt. 2015. Superior in Life - Superior in Death. Dietary Distinction of Central European Prehistoric and Medieval Elites. Current Anthropology 56 (4). 579-589. Knoll, F. & H. Meller. 2016. Die Ösenkopfnadel - ein ”Klassen”verbindendes Trachtelement der Aunjetitzer Kultur. Ein Beitrag zu Kontext, Interpretation und Typochronologie der mitteldeutschen Exemplare. Meller et al. 2016. 283-370. Knoll, F., H. Meller & J. Filipp. 2014. ”Nordisch by nature”. Die jungbronzezeitlichen, goldenen Eidringe Sachsen-Anhalts an der südlichen Peripherie des Nordischen Kreises in ihrem Kontext. Meller et al. 2014. 789-871. Krause, R. 2003. Studien zur kupfer- und frühbronzezeitlichen Metallurgie zwischen Karpatenbecken und Ostsee. Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 24. Rahden/Westf. (Verlag Marie Leidorf). Kümmel, C., B. Schweizer & U. Veit (eds.). 2008. Körperinszenierung - Objektsammlung - Monumentalisierung: Totenritual und Grabkult in frühen Gesellschaften. Archäologische Quellen in kulturwissenschaftlicher Perspektive. Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher 6. Münster (Waxmann). Küster, H., A. Lang & P. Schauer (eds.). 1998. Archäologische Forschungen in urgeschichtlichen Siedlungslandschaften. Festschrift für G. Kossack zum 75. Geburtstag. Regensburg (Universitätsverlag Regensburg). Küßner, M. 2015. Leubingen und Dermsdorf, Lkr. Sömmerda - „Fürstengrab“, Großbau und Schatzdepot der frühen Bronzezeit. Spazier & Grasselt 2015. 194-197. Küßner, M. & K.-P. Wechler. forthcoming. Der Großbau von Dermsdorf und die Kleinregion um Leubingen zur Zeit der Aunjetitzer Kultur. Meller et al. forthcoming. Kutzke, G. 1907. Das Helmsdorfer Hünengrab. Die Denkmalpflege 9. 128-130. Leinthaler, B., C. Bogen & H.-J. Döhle. 2006. Von Muschelknöpfen und Hundezähnen - Schnurkeramische Bestattungen bei Esperstedt. Meller 2006. 59-82. Lockhoff, N. & E. Pernicka. 2014. Archaeometallurgical investigations of Early Bronze Age gold artefacts from central Germany including gold from the Nebra hoard. Meller et al. 2014. 223-235. Lomborg, E. 1973. Die Flintdolche Dänemarks. Studien über Chronologie und Kulturbeziehungen des südskandinavischen Spätneolithikums. Nordiske Fortidsminder B,1. Kopenhagen (Kgl. Nordiske Oldskriftselskab). Lull, V. & R. Micó. 2011. Archaeology of the Origin of the State. Oxford (Oxford University Press). Lull, V., R. Micó, Ch. Rihuete Herrada & R. Risch. 2013. Bronze Age Iberia. Fokkens & Harding 2013. 594-616. Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries -. 2014. The social value of silver in El Argar. Meller et al. 2014. 557-576. Maraszek, R. 2012. Gesegnetes Land - Frühbronzezeitliche Schätze der Region um Dieskau. Stadermann 2012. 147-149. Meinike, M. forthcoming. Zur Astronomie der Rondellanlage Pömmelte-Zackmünde. Meller & Bertemes forthcoming a. Meller, H. 2004. Der Körper des Königs. Meller 2004b. 94-97. -. (ed.). 2004b. Der geschmiedete Himmel. Die weite Welt im Herzen Europas vor 3600 Jahren. Halle (Saale) (Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt). -. (ed.). 2006. Archäologie auf der Überholspur. Ausgrabungen an der A 38. Archäologie in Sachsen-Anhalt Sonderband 5. Halle (Saale) (Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt). -. (ed.). 2008. LebensWandel. Früh- und Mittelneolithikum. Begleithefte zur Dauerausstellung im Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle 3. Halle (Saale) (Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt). -. 2010. Nebra: Vom Logos zum Mythos - Biographie eines Himmelsbildes. Meller & Bertemes 2010. 23-73. -. (ed.). 2011. Bronzerausch. Spätneolithikum und Frühbronzezeit. Begleithefte zur Dauerausstellung im Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle 4. Halle (Saale) (Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt). -. 2013a. Der Hortfund von Nebra im Spiegel frühbronzezeitlicher Deponierungssitten. Meller et al. 2013. 493-526. -. (ed.). 2013b. 3300 BC - Mysteriöse Steinzeittote und ihre Welt. Halle (Saale) (Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt). -. 2014. Die neolithischen und bronzezeitlichen Goldfunde Mitteldeutschlands - Eine Übersicht. Meller et al. 2014. 611-716. -. 2015. Armeen in der Frühbronzezeit? Meller & Schefzik 2015. 243-252. -. 2017. Armies in the Early Bronze Age? An alternative interpretation of Únětice Culture axe hoards. Antiquity 91. 1529-1545. -. forthcoming a. Fürsten, Goldwaffen und Armeen. Überlegungen zum Goldfund von Dieskau und dessen möglicher Herkunft aus dem frühbronzezeitlichen Großgrabhügel Bornhöck bei Dieskau, Saalekreis. Studia Hercynia. -. forthcoming b. Das Fürstengrab von Leubingen neu betrachtet Zur Konstruktion von herrschaftlicher Legitimität mittels Bezugnahme auf die Vorgängerkulturen. Meller & Bertemes forthcoming b. -. forthcoming c. Zur unterschiedlichen Farbigkeit der Waffen der mitteldeutschen Aunjetitzer Kultur und ihrer Interpretation als militärisches Ordnungssystem. Meller & Bertemes forthcoming b. -. forthcoming d. Religion und gesellschaftlicher Wandel vom Endneolithikum zur Frühbronzezeit am Beispiel der Rondelle Pömmelte und Schönebeck. Meller & Bertemes forthcoming b. Meller, H., W. Arz, R. Jung & R. Risch (eds.). 2015. 2200 BC - Ein Klimasturz als Ursache für den Zerfall der Alten Welt? 7. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 23. bis 26. Oktober 2014 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 12. Halle (Saale) (Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt). Meller, H. & F. Bertemes (eds.). 2010. Der Griff nach den Sternen. Wie Europas Eliten zu Macht und Reichtum kamen. Internationales Symposium in Halle (Saale) 16.-21. Februar 2005. Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 5. Halle (Saale) (Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt). -. (eds.) forthcoming a. Mensch und Umwelt im Ringheiligtum 77 von Pömmelte-Zackmünde, Salzlandkreis. Forschungsberichte des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 10/III. Halle (Saale) (Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt). -. (eds.). forthcoming b. Der Aufbruch zu Neuen Horizonten. Neue Sichtweisen über die Europäische Frühbronzezeit. Abschlusstagung der Forschergruppe FOR 550 vom 26.-29. November 2010 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle. Halle (Saale) (Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt). Meller, H., F. Bertemes, H.-R. Bork & R. Risch (eds.). 2013. 1600 - Kultureller Umbruch im Schatten des Thera-Ausbruchs? 4. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 14. bis 16. Oktober 2011 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 9. Halle (Saale) (Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt). Meller, H., S. Friederich, M. Küßner, R. Risch & H. Stäuble (eds.). forthcoming. Siedlungsarchäologie des Endneolithikums und der frühen Bronzezeit. 11. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 18. bis 20. Oktober 2018 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle. Halle (Saale) (Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt). Meller, H., H. P. Hahn, R. Jung & R. Risch (eds.). 2016. Arm und Reich - Zur Ressourcenverteilung in prähistorischen Gesellschaften. 8. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 22. bis 24. Oktober 2015 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 14. Halle (Saale) (Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt). Meller, H. & K. Michel. 2018. Die Himmelsscheibe von Nebra. Der Schlüssel zu einer untergegangenen Kultur im Herzen Europas. Berlin (Propyläen). Meller, H., N. Nicklisch, J. Orschiedt & K. W. Alt. 2015. Rituelle Zweikämpfe schnurkeramischer Krieger? Meller & Schefzik 2015. 185-189. Meller, H., R. Risch & E. Pernicka (eds.). 2014. Metalle der Macht Frühes Gold und Silber. 6. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 17. bis 19. Oktober 2013 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 11. Halle (Saale) (Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt). Meller, H. & M. Schefzik (eds.). 2015. Krieg - eine archäologische Spurensuche. Begleitband zur Sonderausstellung im Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale) 6. November 2015 bis 22. Mai 2016. Halle (Saale) (Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt). Meller, H. & T. Schunke, Die Wiederentdeckung des Bornhöck - Ein neuer frühbronzezeitlicher „Fürstengrabhügel“ bei Raßnitz, Saalekreis. Erster Vorbericht. Meller et al. 2016. 427-466. Metzner-Nebelsick, C. 2010. Die Ringe der Macht - Überlegungen zur Kontinuität frühbronzezeitlicher Herrschaftssymbole in Europa. Meller & Bertemes 2010. 179-197. Mödlinger, M., M. H. G. Kuijpers, D. Braekmans & D. Berger. 2017. Quantitative comparisons of the color of CuAs, CuSn, CuNi, and CuSb Alloys. Journal of Archaeological Science 88. 14-23. Montelius, O. 1900. Die Chronologie der ältesten Bronzezeit in Nord-Deutschland und Skandinavien. Braunschweig (Vieweg). Moos, U. 2006. Der Großgrabhügel auf dem Brüggeberg und die frühen Eliten in der Schnurkeramik. Meller 2006. 98-105. Moucha, V. 2005. Hortfunde der frühen Bronzezeit in Böhmen. Prag (Archeologický ústav AV CR). Müller, J. (ed.). 2002. Vom Endneolithikum zur Frühbronzezeit: Muster sozialen Wandels? Tagung Bamberg 14.-16. Juni 2011. 78 Acta Archaeologica Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 90. Bonn (Habelt). Olalde, I. S. Brace, M. E. Allentoft, I. Armit, K. Kristiansen, T. Booth, N. Rohland, S. Mallick, A. Szécsényi-Nagy, A. Mittnik, E. Altena, M. Lipson, I. Lazaridis, T. K. Harper, N. Patterson, N. Broomandkhoshbacht, Y. Diekmann, Z. Faltyskova, D. Fernandes, M. Ferry, E. Harney, P. de Knijff, M. Michel, J. Oppenheimer, K. Stewardson, A. Barclay, K. W. Alt, C. Liesau, P. Ríos, C. Blasco, J. Vega Miguel, R. Menduiña García, A. Avilés Fernández, E. Bánffy, M. Bernabò-Brea, D. Billoin, C. Bonsall, L. Bonsall, T. Allen, L. Büster, S. Carver, L. Castells Navarro, O. E. Craig, G. T. Cook, B. Cunliffe, A. Denaire, K. Egging Dinwiddy, N. Dodwell, M. Ernée, C. Evans, M. Kuchařík, J. Francès Farré, C. Fowler, M. Gazenbeek, R. Garrido Pena, M. Haber-Uriarte, E. Haduch, G. Hey, N. Jowett, T. Knowles, K. Massy, S. Pfrengle, P. Lefranc, O. Lemercier, A. Lefebvre, C. Heras Martínez, V. Galera Olmo, A. Bastida Ramírez, J. Lomba Maurandi, T. Majó, J. I. McKinley, K. McSweeney, B. Gusztáv Mende, A. Modi, G. Kulcsár, V. Kiss, A. Czene, R. Patay, A. Endrődi, K. Köhler, T. Hajdu, T. Szeniczey, J. Dani, Z. Bernert, M. Hoole, O. Cheronet, D. Keating, P. Velemínský, M. Dobeš, F. Candilio, F. Brown, R. Flores Fernández, A.-M. Herrero-Corral, S. Tusa, E. Carnieri, L. Lentini, A. Valenti, A. Zanini, C. Waddington, G. Delibes, E. Guerra-Doce, B. Neil, M. Brittain, M. Luke, R. Mortimer, J. Desideri, M. Besse, G. Brücken, M. Furmanek, A. Hałuszko, M. Mackiewicz, A. Rapiński, S. Leach, I. Soriano, K. T. Lillios, J. L. Cardoso, M. Parker Pearson, P. Włodarczak, T. D. Price, P. Prieto, P.-J. Rey, R. Risch, M. A. Rojo Guerra, A. Schmitt, J. Serralongue, A. M. Silva, V. Smrčka, L. Vergnaud, J. Zilhão, D. Caramelli, T. Higham, M. G. Thomas, D. J. Kennett, H. Fokkens, V. Heyd, A. Sheridan, K.-G.Sjögren, P. W. Stockhammer, J. Krause, R. Pinhasi, W. Haak, I. Barnes, C. Lalueza-Fox & D. Reich. 2018. The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe. Nature 555 (7695). 190-196. Olshausen, O. 1886. Spiralringe. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 18. 433-497. Otto, T., H. Thrane & H.Vandkilde (eds.). 2006. Warfare and society. Archaeological and social anthropological perspectives. Aarhus (Aarhus University Press). Piotrovski, Ju. Ju. (ed.). 2013. Bronzezeit. Europa ohne Grenzen. 4.-1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Katalog zur Ausstellung in St. Petersburg (Staatliche Eremitage) und Moskau (Staatliches Historisches Museum) 2013-2014. St. Petersburg (Tabula Rasa). Primas, M. 1988. Waffen aus Edelmetall. Jahrbuch des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums 35. 161-185. Radivojević, M., J. Pendić, A. Srejić, M. Korać, C. Davey, A. Benzonelli, M. Martinón-Torres, N. Jovanović & Z. Kamberović. 2018. Experimental design of the Cu-As-Sn ternary colour diagram. Journal of Archaeological Science 90. 106-119. Randsborg, K. 1995. Hjortspring. Warfare and sacrifice in early Europe. Aarhus (Aarhus University Press). Rasmussen, S., M. E. Allentoft, K. Nielsen, L. Orlando, M. Sikora, K.-G. Sjögren, A. G. Pedersen, M. Schubert, A. Van Dam, C. M. O. Kapel, H. B. Nielsen, S. Brunak, P. Avetisyan, A. Epimakhov, M. V. Khalyapin, A. Gnuni, A. Kriiska, I. Lasak, M. Metspalu, V. Moiseyev, A. Gromov, D. Pokutta, L. Saag, L. Varul, L. Yepiskoposyan, T. Sicheritz-Pontén, R. A. Foley, M. M. Lahr, R. Nielsen, K. Kristiansen & E. Willerslev. 2015. Early Divergent Strains of Yersinia pestis in Eurasia 5,000 Years Ago. Cell 163 (3). 571-582. Rassmann, K. 1993. Spätneolithikum und frühe Bronzezeit im Flachland zwischen Elbe und Oder. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns 28. Lübstorf (Archäologisches Landesmuseum für Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). Rummer, M., T. Held, T. Reuter & V. Hubensack. 2018. Eine Bestattung mit Beigaben der frühen Bronzezeit aus Schkeuditz, Lkr. Nordsachsen - Ausgrabung, Restaurierung und Rekonstruktion. Ausgrabungen in Sachsen 6. Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege Beiheft 33 147-156. Schmidt, B. & W. Nitzschke. 1980. Ein frühbronzezeitlicher „Fürstenhügel“ bei Dieskau im Saalekreis. Vorbericht. Ausgrabungen und Funde 25. 179-183. Schubart, H. 2012. Die Gräber von Fuente Álamo. Ein Beitrag zu den Grabriten und zur Chronologie der El Argar-Kultur. Madrider Beiträge 32. Wiesbaden (Reichert). Schunke, T. 2009. Die frühbronzezeitliche Siedlung von Zwenkau, Ldkr. Leipziger Land. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Beobachtungen zur Wirtschaftsweise und sozialen Differenzierung anhand der keramischen Funde. Bartelheim & Stäuble 2009. 273-319. Schurtz, H. 1902. Altersklassen und Männerbünde. Eine Darstellung der Grundformen der Gesellschaft. Berlin (Reimer). Schwarz, R. 2013. Das Mittelneolithikum in Sachsen-Anhalt - Die Kulturen und ihre Erdwerke. Meller 2013b. 231-238. -. 2014. Goldene Schläfen- und Lockenringe - Herrschaftsinsignien in bronzezeitlichen Ranggesellschaften Mitteldeutschlands. Überlegungen zur Gesellschaft der Aunjetitzer Kultur. Meller et al. 2014. 717-742. -. 2015. Kultureller Bruch oder Kontinuität? - Mitteldeutschland im 23. Jh. v. Chr. Meller, Arz et al. 2015. 671-713. Schwarz, R. & H. Meller. forthcoming. Migrationen im Mittelund Spätneolithikum in Mitteldeutschland. Forschungsberichte des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle. Halle (Saale) (Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt). Spatzier, A. 2017. Das endneolithisch-frühbronzezeitliche Rondell von Pömmelte-Zackmünde, Salzlandkreis, und das RondellPhänomen des 4.-1. Jt. v. Chr. in Mitteleuropa. Forschungsberichte des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 10. Halle (Saale) (Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt). -. forthcoming. The enclosure complex Pömmelte-Schönebeck. The dialectic of two circular monuments of the late 3rd to early 2nd millennium BC in Central Germany. Meller & Bertemes forthcoming b. Spazier, I. & T. Grasselt (eds.). 2015. Erfurt und Umgebung. Archäologische Denkmale in Thüringen 3. Langenweißbach (Beier und Beran). Stadermann, J. (ed.). 2012. Au(g)enblicke. Streifzüge durch die Elster-Luppe- und Saale-Elster-Aue 2. Halle (Saale) (Arbeitskreis Döllnitz). Stäuble, H. 1997. Die frühbronzezeitliche Siedlung in Zwenkau, Landkreis Leipziger Land. Assendorp 1997. 129-147. Strahm, C. 2010. Die ökonomischen und ideellen Bedingungen der Formation frühbronzezeitlicher Eliten. Meller & Bertemes 2010. 163-175. Sørensen, M. L. S. 2005. The Grammar of Drama: An Analysis of the Rich Early Bronze Age Grave at Leubingen, Germany. Kienlin 2005. 283-291. Vachta, T. 2016. Bronzezeitliche Hortfunde und ihre Fundorte in Böhmen. Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 33. Berlin (Topoi). Vandkilde, H. 1996. From Stone to Bronze. The Metalwork of the Late Neolithic and Earliest Bronze Age in Denmark. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications 32. Aarhus (Aarhus University Press). Princes, Armies, Sanctuaries -. 2006. Warriors and warrior institutions in Copper Age Europe. Otto et al. 2006. 393-422. -. 2014. Breakthrough of the Nordic Bronze Age: Transcultural Warriorhood and a Carpathian Crossroad in the Sixteenth Century BC. European Journal of Archaeology 17 (4). 602-633. -. 2017. The Metal Hoard from Pile in Scania, Sweden. Place, Things, Time, Metals, and Worlds around 2000 BC. The Swedish History Museum Studies 29. Aarhus (Aarhus University Press). Virchow, R. 1874. Bericht über den „Bornhök“. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 6. 152-153. Voegelin, E. 2002. Ordnung und Geschichte 1: Die kosmologischen Reiche des Alten Orients - Mesopotamien und Ägypten. München (Wilhelm Fink). Watts, J., O. Sheehan, Q. D. Atkinson, J. Bulbulia & R. Gray. 2016. Ritual human sacrifice promoted and sustained the evolution of stratified societies. Nature 532, 228-231. Weber, M. 1922. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der Sozialökonomik 3. Tübingen (Mohr). -. 1978 (1922). Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. London, Berkeley (University of California Press). Wemhoff, M. & M. M. Rind (eds.). 2018. Bewegte Zeiten. Archäologie in Deutschland. Katalog zur Sonderausstellung in Berlin vom 21. September 2018 bis 6. Januar 2019. Petersberg (Imhof). Woltermann, G. 2016. Die prähistorischen Bernsteinartefakte aus Deutschland vom Paläolithikum bis zur Bronzezeit. Methodische Forschungen zu Lagerstättengenese, Distributionsstrukturen und sozioökonomischem Kontext. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 290. Bonn (Habelt). Wunderlich, C.-H., J.-H. Bunnefeld & H. Meller. forthcoming. Buntmetall. Farbigkeit, Glanzverhalten und ästhetische Eigenschaften von Legierungen der Anjetitzer Kultur. Meller & Bertemes forthcoming. Zich, B. 1996. Studien zur regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der nördlichen Aunjetitzer Kultur. Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 20. Berlin, New York (De Gruyter). -. 2010. Die frühbronzezeitliche Umgebung des Fundes mit der Himmelsscheibe von Nebra. Meller & Bertemes 2010. 97-117. -. 2016. Aunjetitzer Herrschaften in Mitteldeutschland - ”Fürsten” der Frühbronzezeit und ihre Territorien (”Domänen”). Meller et al. 2016. 371-406. Author’s address: Harald Meller Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt - Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Richard-Wagner-Straße 9 06114 Halle (Saale) Germany e-mail: hmeller@lda.stk.sachsen-anhalt.de 79