Literature DB >> 26488413

Rewriting the Central European Early Bronze Age Chronology: Evidence from Large-Scale Radiocarbon Dating.

Philipp W Stockhammer1, Ken Massy2, Corina Knipper3, Ronny Friedrich3, Bernd Kromer3, Susanne Lindauer3, Jelena Radosavljević1, Fabian Wittenborn4, Johannes Krause5.   

Abstract

The transition from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age in Central Europe has often been considered as a supra-regional uniform process, which led to the growing mastery of the new bronze technology. Since the 1920s, archaeologists have divided the Early Bronze Age into two chronological phases (Bronze A1 and A2), which were also seen as stages of technical progress. On the basis of the early radiocarbon dates from the cemetery of Singen, southern Germany, the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in Central Europe was originally dated around 2300/2200 BC and the transition to more complex casting techniques (i.e., Bronze A2) around 2000 BC. On the basis of 140 newly radiocarbon dated human remains from Final Neolithic, Early and Middle Bronze Age cemeteries south of Augsburg (Bavaria) and a re-dating of ten graves from the cemetery of Singen, we propose a significantly different dating range, which forces us to re-think the traditional relative and absolute chronologies as well as the narrative of technical development. We are now able to date the beginning of the Early Bronze Age to around 2150 BC and its end to around 1700 BC. Moreover, there is no transition between Bronze (Bz) A1 and Bronze (Bz) A2, but a complete overlap between the type objects of the two phases from 1900-1700 BC. We thus present a revised chronology of the assumed diagnostic type objects of the Early Bronze Age and recommend a radiocarbon-based view on the development of the material culture. Finally, we propose that the traditional phases Bz A1 and Bz A2 do not represent a chronological sequence, but regionally different social phenomena connected to the willingness of local actors to appropriate the new bronze technology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26488413      PMCID: PMC4619067          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139705

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


Introduction

The impact of technical innovations on the development of societies has been of central interest since the beginning of archaeological research. V. Gordon Childe (1925) [1] already considered technical innovation as a crucial factor for societal changes in prehistory. However, the notion that past societies immediately accepted innovations is highly problematic and deeply rooted in modern notions of progress. The transition from the Late Neolithic (LN) to the Early Bronze Age (EBA) in Central Europe has long been considered as a linear evolutionary development that led to a growing mastery of the new technology. Paul Reinecke [2] was the first to define the Central European EBA as Bz A and some years later further divided this phase into two chronological sub-phases–namely Bz A1 and Bz A2 –which were also seen as states of technical progress [3]. All subsequent chronological discussion has been based on Reinecke’s work and many scholars have also kept the idea of a gradual development of the technology from hammered metal objects–consisting mostly of copper with hardly any tin in Bz A1 –up to perfectly alloyed bronze with 90% of copper and 10% of tin and refined casting techniques in Bz A2. Critics have argued for a more complex, non-linear history of the spread and appropriation of bronze technology [4] [5] [6] [7]. They have emphasized the relevance of social factors in this process and pointed to cases of belated appropriation of metallurgy. Moreover, scholars have already pointed to the fact that differences within Únětice material culture could be the result of social or spatial phenomena rather than chronological ones [8] [9] [10]. Others have doubted the applicability of the Reinecke system for the area of the Únětice culture [11]. Nevertheless, the small number of existing 14C dates have not so far substantiated these important doubts. Despite these critical voices, researchers have continuously tried to synchronize the Reinecke system with the chronologies of the Únětice culture [12] [13]. With regard to Early Bronze Age material culture from Central Europe, a similar evolutionist perspective still prevails: simple bone objects–especially pins–were proposed to be the starting point of this development as their shapes seemed to foreshadow the later metal shapes [14]. Walter Ruckdeschel presented a more detailed view in 1978 [15]. He proposed a further subdivision of Bz A1 and A2 on the basis of particular types of pins, which still is the basis of today’s relative chronology for southern Germany. However, as no grave contained more than one pin, the supposed development of the pins could not be crosschecked with the help of associations of different types of pins. Since the 1990s, Stephan Möslein [16] and Wolfgang David [17] have tried to further develop and refine Ruckdeschel’s chronology by taking hoard finds and pottery from settlements into account, but did not question the general chronological sequence of the pins as suggested by Ruckdeschel. Since then, it has already been acknowledged that only a large series of 14C-dated contexts may enable us to solve these long-standing problems of understanding cultural developments in the EBA. The linking of the relative chronological system with absolute dates is of major importance to understand the temporal dimension of the respective phases. Until the 1980s, the beginning of the EBA in Central Europe was dated to around 1700 BC on the basis of long-distance connections with the Mediterranean (for an overview cf. [18]). Since the late 1980s, a growing number of radiocarbon-dated contexts have enabled us to obtain scientifically determined dates of various phases. When Rüdiger Krause [19] published the radiocarbon dates for the Bz A1 cemetery of Singen in southern Germany, archaeologists were electrified by the surprisingly old dates for the beginning of the EBA. Following Becker et al. [20] it soon became common sense to locate the beginning of the EBA around 2300 BC or 2200 BC in central Europe at the very latest [21], [22]. As these dates enabled archaeologists to replace the insecurities of long-distance dating by the seemingly scientific truth of 14C dates, the new early dates were accepted widely and found their way into museum exhibitions as well as popular literature. At the same time in the late 1980s, dendrochronological dating of the so-called princely grave of Leubingen in Saxony-Anhalt helped to identify the beginning of Bz A2 in the 20th century BC and dendro-dates from Alpine lakeside settlements suggested an end of the EBA in the 16th century BC [23], [24]. Therefore, it seemed natural to date the transition from Bz A1 to Bz A2 to around 2000 BC. Since then, new radiocarbon dates have produced more problems rather than improving our understanding of the connection between the relative and absolute chronology: 22 graves from the area around Stuttgart in southern Germany, which were typologically attributed to Bz A1, were dated to the 20th and 19th centuries BC and, therefore, seemingly too young [20], [25]. On the other hand, contexts with Bz A2 type objects in the area of the Únětice culture (Aunjetitzer Kultur) in eastern Germany were dated to the centuries before 2000 BC ([26], [10], [27]): e.g. Quenstedt grave 34 with an Ösenkopfnadel (eyelet pin): 2350–1907 BC (90.7% probability); hoard II of Melz: 2205–1952 BC (95.4% probability). These results also met criticism, as it seemed impossible to have such early dates for sophistically cast bronze objects [28], though the early date for a grave with Bz A2 bronzes from Feuersbrunn in Austria– 2198–2162 BC (8.4% probability) and 2152–1960 BC (87.0% probability)–further underlines the early appearance of Bz A2 types [29]. However, these contradicting results have not found adequate explanation so far. Moreover, the rarity of Bz A1 types in eastern Germany and the rare Bz A2 types in southern Germany should have already raised the question, whether the traditional EBA relative chronology can be applied for the whole of Central Europe without further modification [30]. Until now, the lack of radiocarbon dated Bz A1 and A2 type objects from different contexts from southern respectively eastern Germany has prevented us from better understanding EBA chronology as well as social and cultural developments.

Materials and Methods

Since the 1980s a large number of Late Neolithic (LN) and Early Bronze Age (EBA) graves were excavated south of the present-day city of Augsburg (Bavaria, Germany) (Fig 1), (Fig 2). The LN and EBA cemeteries are arranged like pearls on a necklace and located just outside the eastern and western fringe of a large and extremely fertile loess terrace in the middle of the Lech valley. As a consequence, the cemeteries are placed in a very similar topographic position. On the eastern side of the loess terrace, several cemeteries are associated with a small hamlet placed to the west. Therefore, at least theoretically, all settlements had access to the same natural resources. On the western side of the loess terrace, only cemeteries are known whereas the related settlements have not yet been located. The 32 burial places vary largely in size–from single burials and small cemeteries (such as three EBA graves in Augsburg-Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 85) up to 63 of them in Kleinaitingen (Table 1). They are either restricted to one chronological phase–LN or EBA up to the beginning Middle Bronze Age (MBA)–or span a longer period of time with Late Neolithic Bell Beaker Phenomenon (BBP) and EBA burials close by each other. Consisting of 390 burials, it presents one of the largest concentrations of LN/EBA/early MBA burials in central Europe. Furthermore, the graves are remarkable for the good preservation of collagen in the bone material as well as rich grave goods–especially metal objects. In contrast to other EBA cemeteries, neither large-scale grave robbery nor insufficiently documented excavations reduce the significance of the evidence.
Fig 1

Map of important sites in Germany and Bohemia mentioned in the text.

Fig 2

Map of cemeteries and single burial sites south of the city of Augsburg.

The labelled sites provide samples included in this study.

Table 1

Cemeteries from the Augsburg region, the total number of graves and of sampled graves, respectively.

SiteTotal number of gravesSampled graves
Corded Ware Complex
Haunstetten, Siemens-Gelände20
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 8910
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 12110
Bell Beaker Phenomenon
Augsburg, Bürgermeister-Ulrich-Straße120
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße1110
Augsburg, Universitätsgelände240
Haunstetten, Im Tal 660
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 58–6222
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 85 I (Northern group)3 or 53
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 85 II (Southern group)22
Inningen, Libellenweg20
Königsbrunn, Ampack51
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter10
Wehringen, Hochfeld11
Early Bronze Age
Friedberg, Kissinger Weg (Metzgerwäldchen)10
Friedberg, Rathaus10
Göggingen, Gerhard-Hauptmannstraße10
Göggingen, Richard-Wagner-Straße10
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße4122
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 58–62107
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 8533
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 111100
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord6332
Kleinaitingen, Herbst- und Friedensstraße290
Königsbrunn, Kiesgrube Burkhart130
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße4823
Königsbrunn, Simpertstraße20
Königsbrunn, Steinkistengrab "Oberes Feld"10
Wehringen, Hochfeld149
Wehringen, Mittelunterfeld10
Early and Middle Bronze Age
Königsbrunn, Afra- und Augustusstraße440
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter3221

Map of cemeteries and single burial sites south of the city of Augsburg.

The labelled sites provide samples included in this study. We selected 140 individuals from 132 LN and EBA burials (eight of them double burials) for radiocarbon dating. The skeletal material from the cemeteries of Haunstetten (Unterer Talweg 58–62; Unterer Talweg 85; Postillionstraße) and Augsburg (Hugo-Eckener-Straße) is stored at the Stadtarchäologie Augsburg; that from Königsbrunn (Obere Kreuzstraße; Ampack), Kleinaitingen and Oberottmarshausen is kept in the Archäologisches Museum Königsbrunn, and the material from Wehringen was situated at the Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, Dienststelle Thierhaupten, at the time of our sampling. All necessary permits were obtained for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations (Augsburg: permit from 23rd April 2014 by Michaela Hermann; Königsbrunn: permit from 23rd April 2014 by Rainer Linke; Thierhaupten: permit from 18th July 2013 by Hanns Dietrich). The material from Augsburg and Königsbrunn is accessible upon request in the respective collections; that from Wehringen can meanwhile be found in the Anthropologische Staatssammlung, Munich. Based on archaeological criteria, 19 of them were attributed to the BBP, 102 to the EBA and 19 to the EBA/early MBA in order to establish their chronology. The selection of samples was guided by several considerations: in the case of small cemeteries (e.g. Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 85), we sampled all individuals with sufficient bone preservation. In the case of larger cemeteries (e.g. Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord), we selected individuals due to the following criteria: burials with chronologically significant or remarkable grave goods (especially pins, daggers and other weapons, Ösenhalsringe, elaborated head adornments etc.) as well as a representative number of samples from definable groups of graves and children as well as adults–irrespective of the presence of grave goods. Unfortunately, there is a significant difference of graves with objects datable to Bz A1 and Bz A2, respectively, as the number of graves with Bz A2 type objects is small in the Augsburg region–similar to the rest of southern Germany. As the 2σ calibrated ranges of burials in the Augsburg region cover the complete period of time defined as Early Bronze Age, this lack of Bz A2 type objects must be explained in their infrequent selection as grave goods. Our first results from Augsburg contradicted some of the older radiocarbon dates from Singen analyzed by radiometric measurement with proportional gas counters (decay counting of 14C) in the 1980s [19], especially as the grave goods seemed to be almost identical (e.g. large Rudernadeln, Horkheimer Nadeln–the pin types are further discussed below). Therefore, we decided to re-evaluate the burials from Singen, which played a crucial role in the understanding of the chronological and cultural development of the EBA [19]. We re-sampled the same individuals, which had already been analyzed in the 1980s [31], and were now able to apply AMS dating. The skeletal material from Singen is currently stored and accessible in the Hegau-Museum in Singen and our sampling was permitted by Joachim Wahl and Jürgen Hald (permit from 10th July 2014). Only the skeletal remains of grave 82 from Singen could not be localized in the archive and could not be dated again. Grave 69 was sampled in addition to the old series (cf. [20], 431 Fig 1 erroneously attributes Hd-8974-9155 to grave 69, although it belongs to grave 65; [19], 171 Tab. 5 is correct). The old radiometric dates from Singen were obtained in the radiocarbon laboratory of the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences (samples using lab codes Hd), and the new series using AMS was measured in the Klaus-Tschira-Archaeometry-Center, Mannheim, Germany (samples using lab codes MAMS). The pretreatment procedure for radiometric analysis of the samples included decalcification in weak HCl over several days up to one week and dialysis to remove proteins below 10 kD. The resulting sample material was combusted to CO2. The gas was purified and the radiocarbon age was determined radiometrically by decay counting for up to one week in gas proportional counters [32]. The new bone samples taken for AMS dating were decalcified. Bone collagen was obtained in a modified Longin extraction [33], followed by ultrafiltration (30 kD) and freeze-drying. Collagen was combusted in an Elemental Analyzer (Elementar Microcube). CO2 was collected cryogenically and converted to graphite using Fe as catalyst. The samples were measured using the MICADAS AMS system of the Mannheim facility [34]. In the Elemental Analyzer the C:N ratio can be determined. For all samples the C:N ratio was in the accepted range of well-preserved bone (2.9–3.6) [35]. The data were calibrated using Oxcal v4.2.24 [36] and IntCal13 [37]. We applied Bayesian modeling (for the method cf. [38] and [36]) in order to calculate the degree of overlap between the different phases on a statistical basis. By combining archaeological information (e.g. the attribution to archaeologically defined entities) with a series of chronometric dates, Bayesian modeling can delineate transitions between phases better than the individual 14C dates. In order to study the transition between BBP and EBA, we built a multi-phase model allowing for overlap between these two phases (using Oxcal v.4.2.24 [34]). Extensive consumption of aquatic food, such as fish or mollusks, may have contributed 14C-depleted carbon to the human diet resulting in apparently too old radiocarbon dates. This so-called reservoir effect is well-known for marine diets [33]. It is also a possible concern at inland localities, where carbonates of geological origin contribute carbon with a significantly lower 14C concentration to freshwater habitats [39], [40]. The analysis of stable carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios (δ13C and δ15N) of bone collagen is a well-established method for human diet reconstruction and may indicate significant contribution of aquatic food items [41]. In order to identify individuals whose dietary habits may have influenced the results of radiocarbon dating we determined the stable isotope ratios of bone collagen of 43 individuals from the Augsburg region. They include all individuals of the BBP with sufficient collagen preservation (n = 18) and a selection of 25 EBA individuals with diagnostic pin types. The light stable isotope analyses for Singen were conducted at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig and published in summary in [42]. Four individual values were adapted from [43]. The stable isotope analyses for the individuals from the Augsburg region were carried out on collagen extracts remaining after radiocarbon dating. C and N contents were determined by elemental analyzer (vario EL III, Elementar Analytical Systems) and isotope compositions by an IsoPrime High Performance IRMS (VG Instruments) at the Institute for Organic Chemistry at the University of Mainz, Germany. All measurements were performed in duplicate, and the results reported in δ-notation in ‰ relative to VPDB for carbon and to AIR for nitrogen. The raw data were normalized using two-point calibrations based on USGS 40 and IAEA N2 for nitrogen and IAEA CH6 and CH7 for carbon [44]. Measurement errors are less than ± 0.2 ‰ for nitrogen and ± 0.1 ‰ for carbon.

Results

In the discussion that follows, we present the results of the radiocarbon dating in chronological order for the Augsburg region. We bring them together with the traditional archaeological division of the respective phases in order to connect traditional relative-chronological phases with the absolute-chronological evidence. These results are then compared with the old and new dates from Singen.

Augsburg Region

The earliest dates for graves of the BBP in the Augsburg region start with their 2σ calibrated range already in the 25th century BC–e.g. Königsbrunn, Ampack gr. 1: 2478–2339 BC (94.4% probability) and 2317–2310 BC (1.0% probability); Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Str. gr. 5: double grave, combined calibration of both burials: 2469–2310 BC (95.4% probability) (Table 2). The three latest dates for BBP graves derive from the cemetery Hugo-Eckener-Str. (graves 1, 9 and 10) and are almost identical in their dating with the latest 2σ calibrated time span ending in 2039 BC (grave 1). All the other dates for BBP graves are evenly distributed between the oldest and the youngest date (Fig 3). The sequence of clusters of BBP dates in Fig 3 does not correspond with any archaeological division of the BBP, but only results from a sequence of small plateaus of the calibration curve.
Table 2

Burials from the Augsburg cemeteries and their radiocarbon dates (na = not analyzed).

Name of siteGraveNo.GraveNo. afterFeat.No.Ind.LaborNo.C14 Age±Cal 1 sigma (68,2% probability)Cal 2 sigma (95,4% probability)C:N%C
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße1Kociumaka167MAMS 18912374124cal BC 2199–2062cal BC 2270–20393.336.9
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße3Kociumaka168MAMS 18913378823cal BC 2280–2148cal BC 2289–21413.337.3
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße5Kociumaka169skeleton 1MAMS 18914394225cal BC 2487–2350cal BC 2562–23453.153.4
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße5Kociumaka169skeleton 2MAMS 18915386325cal BC 2453–2289cal BC 2461–22113.353.1
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße6Kociumaka170MAMS 18916377424cal BC 2274–2142cal BC 2288–20663.343.2
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße7Kociumaka171MAMS 18917381525cal BC 2289–2206cal BC 2387–21463.330.4
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße8Kociumaka180skeleton 1MAMS 18918386025cal BC 2453–2287cal BC 2461–22103.347.3
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße8Kociumaka180skeleton 2MAMS 18919387125cal BC 2453–2295cal BC 2463–22353.345.1
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße9Kociumaka183MAMS 18920374319cal BC 2199–2066cal BC 2204–20433.353.7
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße10Kociumaka190MAMS 18921374819cal BC 2199–2138cal BC 2268–20463.347.8
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße3Massy24MAMS 18959367920cal BC 2131–2029cal BC 2137–19803.345.5
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße4Massy12MAMS 18956369720cal BC 2134–2037cal BC 2190–20283.354.3
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße5Massy38MAMS 18963371723cal BC 2191–2042cal BC 2197–20343.352.7
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße6Massy44MAMS 18964368123cal BC 2131–2029cal BC 2139–19793.149.0
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße8Massy140MAMS 18973363120cal BC 2024–1963cal BC 2114–19263.347.0
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße9Massy28MAMS 18960360820cal BC 2016–1936cal BC 2027–19063.335.5
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße11Massy32MAMS 18961361920cal BC 2020–1948cal BC 2032–19163.345.4
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße12Massy35MAMS 18962362120cal BC 2021–1951cal BC 2033–19183.344.5
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße13Massy47MAMS 18965366224cal BC 2126–1979cal BC 2134–19563.354.7
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße14Massy50MAMS 18966370724cal BC 2138–2040cal BC 2196–20293.348.5
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße16Massy84MAMS 18967363824cal BC 2030–1962cal BC 2126–19283.349.1
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße19Massy131MAMS 18971363520cal BC 2027–1965cal BC 2120–19383.351.3
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße21Massy85MAMS 18968363124cal BC 2026–1959cal BC 2120–19213.346.9
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße24Massy137MAMS 18972361320cal BC 2017–1941cal BC 2029–19123.343.9
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße30Massy111MAMS 18970363920cal BC 2031–1966cal BC 2122–19413.351.7
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße32Massy99MAMS 18969364125cal BC 2033–1960cal BC 2130–19303.340.0
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße35Massy16MAMS 18957361220cal BC 2018–1941cal BC 2029–19113.341.6
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße36Massy6MAMS 18955357419cal BC 1942–1895cal BC 2009–18833.349.0
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße38Massy3MAMS 18954359219cal BC 2006–1911cal BC 2019–18903.352.0
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße39Massy21MAMS 18958360620cal BC 2014–1931cal BC 2025–19033.147.0
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße40Massy1MAMS 18952358328cal BC 1964–1892cal BC 2024–18823.349.5
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße41Massy2MAMS 18953364819cal BC 2111–1975cal BC 2126–19483.454.5
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 58–623Massy153MAMS 18943355324cal BC 1941–1836cal BC 1971–17763.353.1
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 58–624Massy152skeleton 1MAMS 18942355823cal BC 1939–1885cal BC 2007–17793.351.8
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 58–625Massy151MAMS 18940356824cal BC 1943–1890cal BC 2016–17823.135.5
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 58–625Massy151MAMS 18941355720cal BC 1931–1886cal BC 1961–17813.140.5
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 58–625Massy151MAMS 18940+18941 combined356611cal BC 1930–1894cal BC 1946–1886nana
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 58–626Massy150MAMS 18939355924cal BC 1939–1885cal BC 2009–17803.354.3
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 58–627Kociumaka67MAMS 18934384020cal BC 2340–2211cal BC 2455–22043.367.6
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 58–627Massy149MAMS 18938359724cal BC 2011–1917cal BC 2023–18923.347.9
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 58–628Kociumaka68skeleton 2MAMS 18935391020cal BC 2466–2349cal BC 2470–23103.352.2
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 58–629Massy147MAMS 18937361225cal BC 2020–1938cal BC 2031–19003.353.8
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 58–6210Massy146MAMS 18933357019cal BC 1940–1894cal BC 2009–18813.341.7
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 851Massy1163MAMS 18946358624cal BC 1961–1895cal BC 2021–18853.343.6
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 852Massy1410MAMS 18950354925cal BC 1940–1829cal BC 1960–17743.347.9
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 853Massy1412MAMS 18951360225cal BC 2014–1923cal BC 2025–18953.054.2
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 85I/1Kociumaka1334MAMS 18947382725cal BC 2331–2206cal BC 2453–21523.226.1
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 85I/2Kociumaka1336MAMS 18948389322cal BC 2458–2347cal BC 2465–23003.351.6
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 85I/3Kociumaka1343MAMS 18949381924cal BC 2291–2206cal BC 2397–21493.347.5
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 85II/1Kociumaka113MAMS 18945383124cal BC 2334–2207cal BC 2456–21553.152.3
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 85II/2Kociumaka110MAMS 18944378924cal BC 2281–2149cal BC 2290–21413.343.0
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord2Massy3MAMS 21563361628cal BC 2021–1942cal BC 2111–18953.338.9
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord3Massy2MAMS 21562347728cal BC 1876–1750cal BC 1884–16983.323.9
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord4Massy5MAMS 21564349328cal BC 1878–1771cal BC 1892–17043.320.9
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord6Massy37MAMS 21569356028cal BC 1946–1883cal BC 2013–17773.336.9
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord9Massy33MAMS 21566336428cal BC 1687–1626cal BC 1742–15623.139.8
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord10Massy40MAMS 21570346928cal BC 1875–1705cal BC 1882–16953.313.3
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord11Massy35MAMS 21567358228cal BC 1962–1891cal BC 2026–18803.338.3
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord12Massy32MAMS 21565345428cal BC 1871–1696cal BC 1878–1691nana
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord13Massy50MAMS 21572350533cal BC 1884–1773cal BC 1920–17053.338.9
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord14Massy36MAMS 21568355227cal BC 1943–1830cal BC 2006–17743.340.6
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord15Massy51MAMS 21573353134cal BC 1919–1777cal BC 1946–17543.139.4
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord17Massy53MAMS 21574349233cal BC 1878–1770cal BC 1901–16983.139.6
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord21Massy43MAMS 21571348627cal BC 1877–1761cal BC 1888–17013.130.4
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord22Massy55MAMS 21575350433cal BC 1884–1773cal BC 1919–1705na18.8
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord23Massy69MAMS 21581329434cal BC 1613–1531cal BC 1657–15003.417.4
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord24Massy62skeleton AMAMS 21576345934cal BC 1874–1697cal BC 1881–16912.530.2
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord24Massy62skeleton BMAMS 21577347833cal BC 1877–1749cal BC 1889–16953.427.2
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord26Massy66MAMS 21580348934cal BC 1878–1767cal BC 1899–16963.340.9
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord28Massy77skeleton AMAMS 21584354834cal BC 1943–1782cal BC 2008–1769nana
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord28Massy77skeleton BMAMS 21585346935cal BC 1876–1702cal BC 1885–16933.138.3
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord29Massy78MAMS 21586347434cal BC 1877–1746cal BC 1887–1694na22.0
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord34Massy87MAMS 21588343328cal BC 1767–1690cal BC 1876–16603.423.8
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord35Massy86MAMS 21587348034cal BC 1877–1750cal BC 1891–1694nana
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord37Massy119MAMS 21594347027cal BC 1876–1745cal BC 1882–16963.324.0
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord38Massy120MAMS 21595341727cal BC 1748–1684cal BC 1866–16383.414.9
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord40Massy72MAMS 21583350834cal BC 1886–1773cal BC 1926–17053.319.5
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord41Massy70MAMS 21582359437cal BC 2013–1899cal BC 2116–17853.139.5
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord43Massy65adultMAMS 21578345634cal BC 1873–1695cal BC 1881–16903.433.0
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord43Massy65childMAMS 21579332935cal BC 1660–1536cal BC 1690–15143.438.4
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord47Massy98MAMS 21592337027cal BC 1688–1629cal BC 1742–16133.316.0
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord48Massy92MAMS 21590348928cal BC 1878–1768cal BC 1889–17013.321.5
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord56Massy114MAMS 21593356328cal BC 1948–1883cal BC 2015–1778na18.3
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord60Massy95MAMS 21591342228cal BC 1754–1685cal BC 1870–1640na15.6
Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord62Massy89MAMS 21589329228cal BC 1611–1532cal BC 1627–15053.322.6
Königsbrunn, Ampack1KociumakanoneMAMS 18887392423cal BC 2471–2350cal BC 2476–23103.247.8
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße2Massy96MAMS 18910356723cal BC 1942–1889cal BC 2013–17843.353.6
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße3Massy47MAMS 18894367122cal BC 2129–1983cal BC 2136–19773.248.4
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße6Massy2MAMS 18888359922cal BC 2011–1920cal BC 2023–18943.248.7
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße9Massy95MAMS 18909360823cal BC 2016–1931cal BC 2027–19013.354.1
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße14Massy5MAMS 18889362622cal BC 2023–1954cal BC 2113–19173.238.5
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße15Massy6MAMS 18890361123cal BC 2019–1938cal BC 2029–19033.242.6
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße17Massy50MAMS 18895362323cal BC 2022–1951cal BC 2112–19123.248.1
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße23Massy80MAMS 18901366424cal BC 2127–1980cal BC 2134–19593.153.5
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße24Massy66MAMS 18896360922cal BC 2018–1936cal BC 2028–19033.244.8
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße25Massy67MAMS 18897359922cal BC 2011–1920cal BC 2023–18943.353.9
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße29Massy93MAMS 18908362123cal BC 2022–1948cal BC 2111–19073.354.4
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße31Massy76MAMS 18899356723cal BC 1941–1889cal BC 2013–17853.352.3
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße33Massy9skeleton AMAMS 18891359622cal BC 2010–1918cal BC 2022–18923.247.1
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße33Massy9skeleton BMAMS 18892361623cal BC 2021–1943cal BC 2032–19033.247.2
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße35Massy84MAMS 18905357525cal BC 1949–1891cal BC 2021–18303.152.6
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße36Massy73MAMS 18898360323cal BC 2013–1924cal BC 2024–18973.154.6
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße38Massy83MAMS 18904356224cal BC 1941–1886cal BC 2011–17803.352.1
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße39Massy82MAMS 18903360024cal BC 2012–1921cal BC 2023–18943.353.0
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße40Massy81MAMS 18902360224cal BC 2013–1923cal BC 2024–18963.353.4
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße43Massy86MAMS 18907361524cal BC 2021–1942cal BC 2032–19013.348.6
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße45Massy79MAMS 18900358123cal BC 1953–1894cal BC 2018–18833.352.6
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße46Massy85MAMS 18906362523cal BC 2023–1953cal BC 2113–19153.353.8
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße47Massy117MAMS 18911358123cal BC 1953–1894cal BC 2019–18833.354.1
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße48Massy26MAMS 18893361822cal BC 2021–1946cal BC 2033–19073.240.8
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter1Massy87MAMS 21544332434cal BC 1643–1534cal BC 1687–15173.332.6
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter2Massy92MAMS 21546313242cal BC 1449–1308cal BC 1497–12933.337.9
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter3Massy91MAMS 21545307541cal BC 1399–1289cal BC 1426–12303.49.7
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter5Massy109MAMS 21550336037cal BC 1728–1615cal BC 1743–15343.319.9
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter7Massy110MAMS 21551320737cal BC 1504–1437cal BC 1605–14123.314.7
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter9Massy100MAMS 21549322536cal BC 1526–1448cal BC 1608–14273.310.7
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter12Massy94MAMS 21547312436cal BC 1435–1309cal BC 1493–12873.312.9
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter14Massy79MAMS 21541322733cal BC 1526–1450cal BC 1608–14303.037.2
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter17Massy84MAMS 21543328332cal BC 1610–1527cal BC 1636–14653.338.8
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter18Massy97MAMS 21548331037cal BC 1627–1531cal BC 1682–15053.340.5
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter19Massy81MAMS 21542327733cal BC 1609–1511cal BC 1630–1459na22.3
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter21Massy142MAMS 21554330937cal BC 1625–1531cal BC 1682–15043.314.6
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter25Massy151skeleton 1MAMS 21555337038cal BC 1732–1623cal BC 1749–15353.138.9
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter25Massy151skeleton 2MAMS 21556328827cal BC 1610–1530cal BC 1623–15043.338.1
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter26Massy141adultMAMS 21552329736cal BC 1616–1530cal BC 1681–14993.39.8
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter26Massy141childMAMS 21553329636cal BC 1615–1530cal BC 1664–14983.337.9
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter27Massy154MAMS 21558344972cal BC 1878–1687cal BC 1949–15633.337.2
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter28Massy152MAMS 21557329528cal BC 1612–1532cal BC 1630–15053.338.1
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter29Massy162MAMS 21560328228cal BC 1610–1527cal BC 1622–15023.338.7
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter30Massy165MAMS 21561334929cal BC 1683–1616cal BC 1735–15353.338.1
Oberottmarshausen, Kiesgrube Lauter31Massy156MAMS 21559324128cal BC 1597–1455cal BC 1609–14423.338.7
Wehringen, Hochfeld2Massy1375MAMS 18925355519cal BC 1930–1885cal BC 1953–17813.342.9
Wehringen, Hochfeld3Massy1564MAMS 18931359419cal BC 2007–1917cal BC 2020–18923.353.9
Wehringen, Hochfeld4Massy1415childMAMS 18928359619cal BC 2008–1919cal BC 2021–18933.354.1
Wehringen, Hochfeld4Massy1415adultMAMS 18929357319cal BC 1941–1895cal BC 2008–18833.340.9
Wehringen, Hochfeld5Massy1414MAMS 18927360119cal BC 2011–1926cal BC 2022–18973.043.0
Wehringen, Hochfeld6Massy1380MAMS 18926359818cal BC 2009–1922cal BC 2021–18953.338.1
Wehringen, Hochfeld7Massy1474MAMS 18930361419cal BC 2017–1943cal BC 2029–19163.154.5
Wehringen, Hochfeld8Massy1586MAMS 18932355019cal BC 1932–1881cal BC 1951–17793.353.7
Wehringen, Hochfeld13Massy1193MAMS 18924354419cal BC 1927–1830cal BC 1945–17773.135.0
Wehringen, Hochfeld14Massy1192skeleton AMAMS 18922381019cal BC 2285–2206cal BC 2331–21503.354.1
Wehringen, Hochfeld14Massy1192skeleton BMAMS 18923352318cal BC 1892–1779cal BC 1918–17723.340.1
Fig 3

Plot of all radiocarbon dates from burials of the Augsburg region.

The brackets mark the 2σ calibrated ranges.

Plot of all radiocarbon dates from burials of the Augsburg region.

The brackets mark the 2σ calibrated ranges. At first, it seems difficult to decide whether there is a significant overlap between the latest BBP and the earliest EBA burials. If one supposes that the three latest BBP burials were buried at almost the same time (the three related uncalibrated dates fall within a range of seven years: 3748–3741 14C BP), one can calculate a combined calibrated age, which significantly narrows the time range with the highest probability: 2201–2133 BC (93.0% probability) and 2076–2064 BC (2.4% probability). This indicates that the last BBP burials in the Augsburg region were most probably not laid down after the early second half of the 22nd century (Fig 4).
Fig 4

Combined calibration of the radiocarbon dates from the latest BBP and earliest EBA burials from the Augsburg region.

The oldest EBA dates all derive from the cemetery Haunstetten, Postillonstraße, namely graves 4, 5 and 14 (the three related uncalibrated dates fall within a range of 20 years: 3717–3697 14C BP). The narrow time range of their deposition makes it possible to calculate a combined calibrated age. The 2σ calibrated range spans 2141–2112 BC (22.8% probability) and 2103–2036 BC (72.6% probability) BC. Calculating the overlap of the two phases (BBP and EBA) using a multi-phase model in Oxcal v4.2.24 [36] with IntCal13 [37] strengthens the argument of a sequence (Fig 5). Modeled values of “Boundary End 1” (end of BBP) and “Boundary Start 2” (beginning of EBA) do not overlap more than 20 years.
Fig 5

Bayesian modeling of the BBP/EBA overlap on the basis of all 19 BBP and the 19 oldest EBA burials.

The Agreement Index [A:] lies over 60% within every measurement.

Bayesian modeling of the BBP/EBA overlap on the basis of all 19 BBP and the 19 oldest EBA burials.

The Agreement Index [A:] lies over 60% within every measurement. Therefore, one can assume that there is hardly any overlap or no overlap at all between the latest BBP and the earliest EBA burials. At least in the Augsburg region, there is definitely no indication for either a substantial overlap or a hiatus between both periods. The data suggest a continuous and fluent sequence from the BBP to the EBA. The new dates also help to better understand the development of the EBA itself. We are able to connect the traditional division of Bz A into the sub-phases Bz A1 and A2 with absolute dates for the respective type objects. Ruckdeschel defined the following pin types as type objects for Bz A1 (with its sub-phases Bz A1a and Bz A1b) and Bz A2 (with its sub-phases Bz A2a, Bz A2b and Bz A2c) [15] (see below): Bz A1a: Ruderkopfnadeln (with large or small head), bone pins and boar tusk pins Bz A1a–A1b: Scheibenkopfnadeln Bz A1b: Schleifenkopfnadeln and Horkheimer Nadeln. Bz A2a: Ösenkopfnadel, Hülsenkopfnadel and schräg durchlochte Kugelkopfnadel. We were not able to date graves with Bz A2b and Bz A2c type objects, which are very rare in southern Germany (cf. [17]). The Lochhalsnadel type Paarstadl was dated by Ruckdeschel to Bz A2c, but it has meanwhile been dated to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (Bz B) by other authors [45], [17]. We agree with the Bz B date for this type of pin, also because the specimen dated by us was associated with a most characteristic Bz B dagger in one of the burials (Oberottmarshausen gr. 5). Therefore, we see the following pin types from our grave inventories as characteristic of Bz B: Lochhalsnadel type Paarstadl and Dreiringnadel type Muschenheim. Rollenkopfnadeln mit tordiertem Schaft start in Bz B, but continue well into the later MBA [46]. We could date altogether 36 graves with Bz A1 pins, three graves with Bz A2 pins and five graves with MBA pin types (Fig 6).
Fig 6

Plot of all pins with radiocarbon dates from Singen and the Augsburg region.

Pin types with more than two dates are supplemented with a sum calibration (black) to show their overall timespan.

Plot of all pins with radiocarbon dates from Singen and the Augsburg region.

Pin types with more than two dates are supplemented with a sum calibration (black) to show their overall timespan. Graves with Bz A1a pins are among the oldest EBA graves analyzed within our project (Haunstetten, Postillonstr. gr. 14). Several 2σ calibrated ranges start shortly after 2200 BC, but the 2σ calibrated range of most of these graves spans the second half of the 21st century and the complete 20th century BC. Therefore, we propose a period of deposition of these pins from ca 2150/2100 BC until 1900 BC for the Augsburg region. The 2σ calibrated ranges of the two type objects of Bz A1b start in the late 21st century BC (Wehringen, Hochfeld grave 7: 2030–1916 BC with 95.4% probability). However, these pin types have a much longer period of use and were still deposited after 1900 BC and probably even until 1700 BC (e.g. Kleinaitingen, Gewerbegebiet Nord grave 10: 1883–1736 BC with 87.5% probability and 1716–1695 BC with 7.9% probability). It is clear that Bz A1a and Bz A1b are contemporaneous for around 150 years. Taken together, Bz A1 can be dated in the Augsburg region to the centuries between 2150/2100 and 1750/1700 BC. The three dates with classical Bz A2 pin types (i.e. Bz A2a in the Ruckdeschel system)–all from Kleinaitingen–were extremely similar with almost the same uncalibrated dates and indicate a deposition between ca 1900 BC and the years around 1700 BC. Compared with the Bz A1 dates, it seems that Bz A2 pins were worn and deposited contemporaneously with Bz A1b pins, whereas Bz A1a pins could have been replaced by Bz A2 types (Fig 7).
Fig 7

Chronological sketch based on the radiocarbon dates from pins of Singen and Augsburg.

The oldest burial with type objects of Bz B (the first phase of the MBA) is Oberottmarshausen, grave 5 (1744–1598 BC with 84.0% probability and 1586–1533 BC with 11.4%probability). It contains a Lochhalsnadel type Paarstadl and a dagger with trapezoid hilt (i.e. [47]: series K34 or Q60). Therefore, it is most probable that the deposition of clear Bz B type objects started already in the 17th century BC in the Augsburg region. The other grave with a Bz B pin type, i.e. Oberottmarshausen grave 18, dates to the 17th or 16th century BC. However, the small number of graves with Bz B type objects does not allow further insights into the chronological position and duration of Bz B. Unfortunately, the Rollenkopfnadeln mit tordiertem Schaft are not of typological significance, as they start in Bz B (and in Switzerland even late in Bz A2; cf. [46]) and continue further into the MBA. Considerations about the absolute dating of relative chronological phases and periods of depositions of diagnostic artifacts need to consider reservoir effects, which may have shifted the radiocarbon ages by several hundred years (Table 3). Overall, the 14C data of the bone collagen of the BBP burials and especially those who were associated with certain EBA pin types appear comparatively consistent [48], [49]. They lack outliers towards older dates, which may have been caused by remarkable consumption of marine or freshwater food sources. This is in agreement with the stable carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios of bone collagen (Table 2). Despite the proximity of the Lech and Wertach Rivers, the δ13C values of between -21.3 and -19.8 ‰ and δ15N values of between 8.7 and 10.8 ‰ point to a predominance of terrestrial food sources, including crops as well as meat and dairy products of domestic animals. As to be expected for the inland location of the study area, there is no indication of any contribution of marine food sources. The data are also largely in agreement with previously investigated Final Neolithic to Early Bronze Age burials from southern Bavaria for which fish consumption was essentially excluded [50], [51]. Fig 8A illustrates the wide overlaps of the δ13C data of individuals of the BBP and those buried with diagnostic EBA pins (Fig 8). There is no correlation between old 14C ages and high δ15N or low δ13C values, which would indicate freshwater fish consumption [52]. The δ15N values of the individuals of the EBA shown in Fig 8B are more variable (range: 8.8–10.7 ‰) than those of the BBP which concentrate between comparatively low values of 8.7 and 10.0 ‰ (Fig 8). This pattern indicates that the older radiocarbon ages of the BBP burials are indeed due to their earlier calendaric age instead of resulting from extensive freshwater fish consumption. The light stable isotope ratios and 14C ages of the individuals buried with diagnostic Bz A1a and A1b pins overlap widely. Apparently independent of the 14C ages and grave goods, the δ15N and δ13C values tend to cluster by sites. Despite the very similar environmental conditions, this points to community-specific proportions of plant and animal-derived food and/or landuse and soil management, such as manuring [53], [54]. Overall, the light stable isotope ratios and the spread of the radiocarbon dates do not hint on possible overestimations of the periods of deposition of certain pin types due to different extents of reservoir effects among the investigated individuals.
Table 3

Light stable isotope data of the burials of the BBP and those with diagnostic artifacts of the EBA.

The data for the burials from Singen are adopted from [43].

Name of siteGraveNo.GraveNo. afterFeat.No.Archaeologial datingDiagnostic artifact%ollN%C%C/N atomδ13C (‰VPBD)δ15N (‰AIR)
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße 1 Kociumaka 167 BBP 1.9 11.3 31.0 3.2 -20.4 9.5
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße 3 Kociumaka 168 BBP 1.2 11.2 30.9 3.2 -21.0 9.3
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße 5 Kociumaka 169 BBP 1.1 16.5 44.0 3.1 -21.0 9.2
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße 5 Kociumaka 169 BBP 1.6 16.4 43.9 3.1 -20.8 9.0
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße 6 Kociumaka 170 BBP 2.4 13.3 36.4 3.2 -20.3 9.2
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße 7 Kociumaka 171 BBP 0.9 9.9 27.4 3.3 -21.0 8.7
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße 8 Kociumaka 180 BBP 1.6 14.3 38.7 3.1 -20.4 9.4
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße 8 Kociumaka 180 BBP 1.3 14.0 37.7 3.1 -20.2 9.5
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße 9 Kociumaka 183 BBP 2.1 16.4 44.3 3.2 -21.0 9.5
Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße 10 Kociumaka 190 BBP 2.0 14.4 39.4 3.2 -21.1 10.0
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 58–62 8 Kociumaka 68 BBP 2.1 16.0 43.9 3.2 -20.4 9.8
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 85 I/1 Kociumaka 1334 BBP 3.1 11.1 30.5 3.2 -20.0 9.1
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 85 I/2 Kociumaka 1336 BBP 3.3 16.0 40.2 2.9 -21.0 9.5
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 85 I/3 Kociumaka 1343 BBP 2.7 15.0 38.3 3.0 -20.5 9.3
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 85 II/1 Kociumaka 113 BBP 2.6 16.8 46.0 3.2 -20.3 9.4
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 85 II/2 Kociumaka 110 BBP 1.4 13.3 36.5 3.2 -20.5 9.8
Königsbrunn, Ampack 1 Kociumaka none BBP 1.6 16.7 45.2 3.2 -20.1 9.5
Wehringen, Hochfeld 14 Ind. A Massy 1192 BBP 2.8 16.8 46.0 3.2 -20.29 10.85
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße 14 Massy 50 EBA Rudernadel w/ small head 1.5 15.6 39.7 3.0 -20.8 9.1
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße 19 Massy 131 EBA Rudernadel w/ small head 2.3 16.4 43.6 3.1 -20.8 9.3
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße 39 Massy 21 EBA Rudernadel w/ small head 2.7 15.4 39.2 3.0 -20.8 9.1
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 58–62 5 Massy 151 EBA Rudernadel w/ small head 2.5 13.7 37.7 3.2 -20.9 8.9
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße 15 Massy 6 EBA Rudernadel w/ small head 2.2 15.6 39.5 3.2 -20.4 10.1
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße 23 Massy 80 EBA Rudernadel w/ small head 3.9 16.8 45.3 3.1 -20.0 10.3
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße 40 Massy 81 EBA Rudernadel w/ small head 4.3 16.7 45.3 3.1 -20.0 10.2
Singen, Nordstadtterrasse, Lessingstrasse 19 Krause 55/13 EBA Rudernadel w/ small head 2.7 15.5 41.4 3.1 -20.5 9.3
Singen, Nordstadtterrasse, Widerholtstrasse 74 Krause 52/6 EBA Rudernadel w/ small head 8.6 13.6 37.4 3.2 -20.2 9.1
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße 12 Massy 35 EBA Rudernadel w/ large head 3.1 14.6 37.2 3.0 -20.7 9.0
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße 30 Massy 111 EBA Rudernadel w/ large head 1.2 16.4 43.8 3.1 -21.1 9.6
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße 41 Massy 2 EBA Rudernadel w/ large head 2.1 17.1 43.0 2.9 -20.7 9.0
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße 14 Massy 5 EBA Rudernadel w/ large head 2.7 14.3 37.5 3.1 -20.2 10.0
Singen, Nordstadtterrasse, Lessingstrasse 7 Krause 55/24 EBA Rudernadel w/ large head 2.2 12.4 40.3 3.8 -20.9 9.7
Singen, Nordstadtterrasse, Widerholtstrasse 65 Krause 53/4 EBA Rudernadel w/ large head 5.5 14.6 42.8 3.4 -20.6 9.9
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße 8 Massy 140 EBA Bone pin/boar tusk pin 1.5 14.6 39.0 3.1 -20.5 9.1
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße 16 Massy 84 EBA Bone pin/boar tusk pin 2.6 15.9 42.6 3.1 -21.0 10.1
Haunstetten, Postillionstraße 36 Massy 6 EBA Bone pin/boar tusk pin 0.8 15.9 40.1 2.9 -20.7 9.1
Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 58–62 4 Massy 152 EBA Bone pin/boar tusk pin 2.4 16.6 45.8 3.2 -21.3 8.8
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße 17 Massy 50 EBA Bone pin/boar tusk pin 1.4 16.6 45.0 3.2 -20.4 9.3
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße 25 Massy 67 EBA Bone pin/boar tusk pin 2.2 16.7 45.3 3.1 -19.8 10.6
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße 29 Massy 93 EBA Bone pin/boar tusk pin 5.7 17.0 45.3 3.1 -20.6 9.8
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße 39 Massy 82 EBA Bone pin/boar tusk pin 2.1 16.8 45.0 3.2 -20.0 10.6
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße 43 Massy 86 EBA Scheibenkopfnadel 2.3 15.1 41.0 3.2 -20.3 9.7
Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße 46 Massy 85 EBA Scheibenkopfnadel 5.6 16.2 46.1 3.1 -20.4 10.4
Wehringen, Hochfeld 6 Massy 1380 EBA Schleifenkopfnadel 1.6 11.7 32.2 3.2 -20.78 9.98
Wehringen, Hochfeld 8 Massy 1586 EBA Schleifenkopfnadel 4.1 16.4 44.9 3.2 -20.16 10.66
Wehringen, Hochfeld 3 Massy 1564 EBA Horkheimer Nadel 6.5 17.2 45.7 3.1 -20.78 10.49
Wehringen, Hochfeld 7 Massy 1474 EBA Horkheimer Nadel 5.5 17.1 46.8 3.2 -20.95 10.65
Fig 8

Plot of the calibrated radiocarbon dates against the δ13C values (A) and δ15N (B) values of the same collagen extracts.

The letters indicate the burial sites: A: Königsbrunn "Ampack", H: Haunstetten "Hugo-Eckener-Strasse", O: Königsbrunn "Obere Kreuzstrasse", P: Haunstetten "Postillonsstrasse", U: Haunstetten "Unterer Talweg", W: Wehringen "Hochfeld". The C and N isotope data for Singen (S) are adopted from [42], [43].

Plot of the calibrated radiocarbon dates against the δ13C values (A) and δ15N (B) values of the same collagen extracts.

The letters indicate the burial sites: A: Königsbrunn "Ampack", H: Haunstetten "Hugo-Eckener-Strasse", O: Königsbrunn "Obere Kreuzstrasse", P: Haunstetten "Postillonsstrasse", U: Haunstetten "Unterer Talweg", W: Wehringen "Hochfeld". The C and N isotope data for Singen (S) are adopted from [42], [43].

Light stable isotope data of the burials of the BBP and those with diagnostic artifacts of the EBA.

The data for the burials from Singen are adopted from [43]. To conclude: at least for the Augsburg region, our data propose an absolute date for Bz A from 2150/2100 BC until at least 1700 BC. Bz A1a and Bz A2a pin types indeed represent a sequence (Fig 7). It seems that the so-called Bz A1b pin types are used during the complete EBA and cannot be used for any chronological subdivision. Compared with the traditional dating of Bz A between 2300/2200 BC and 1600/1550 BC, our results imply a substantial narrowing of the duration of the Early Bronze Age from 750/700 years to possibly 450 years. The MBA, however, seems to start already in the 17th century. Therefore, even if we have not been able to date graves with Bz A2b or Bz A2c type objects, there is not much time for a continuation of Bz A into the 17th century, unless one supposes a period of overlap between Bz A and Bz B.

The cemetery of Singen

Our (re-)evaluation of 10 graves from Singen revealed surprising results (Fig 9). The original dating of five graves (80, 7, 79, 74, 63) (Table 4) was confirmed in our study. The re-dating of grave 68 has to be considered with caution. Although the C:N ratio points to a good quality of the extracted collagen, the overall amount of carbon in the sample (4.7%) is rather low and there still is a chance that not all conservation chemicals have been removed. Most interestingly, the three earliest dates of the original series, i.e. graves 65, 70 and 19, shifted to a much younger date. The reason for this discrepancy remains unclear. It is possible that curators treated some of the bones immediately after the excavation and before the first sampling for 14C analysis. It should be noted that for radiometric 14C dating in the 1980ies rather large quantities of bone (50 grams and more) were required, which severely limits selective sampling to avoid contaminated bone. In contrast, the small sample size for AMS dating (typically 1 gram) allows for more rigorous sampling. In addition the ultrafiltration step in the AMS pretreatment sequence may have eliminated contamination more reliably. The observation that 5 out of 8 results agree well between the two techniques may in fact indicate the potential of contamination for the three older radiometric dates.
Fig 9

Plot of old (grey) and new (black) radiocarbon dates from the cemetery of Singen.

The sum calibration is shown on top.

Table 4

Burials from Singen with old and new radiocarbon dates (na = not analyzed).

Name of siteGraveNo.GraveNo. afterFeat.No.LaborNo.C14 Age±Cal 1 sigmaCal 2 sigmaC:N%CLaborNo. (from year 1988)C14 Age (from year 1988)± (from year 1988)
Singen, Nordstadtterrasse, Goethestrasse63Krause52/5MAMS 21968371229cal BC 2188–2039cal BC 2199–20283.136.6HD—10692365535
Singen, Nordstadtterrasse, Lessingstrasse7Krause55/24MAMS 21974366221cal BC 2123–1980cal BC 2133–19593.16.6HD 8972–9116367942
Singen, Nordstadtterrasse, Lessingstrasse19Krause55/13MAMS 21967370030cal BC 2136–2036cal BC 2197–19813.030.0HD 8973–9117375660
Singen, Nordstadtterrasse, Widerholtstrasse65Krause53/4MAMS 21975362022cal BC 2022–1947cal BC 2035–1910nanaHD 8974–9155384743
Singen, Nordstadtterrasse, Widerholtstrasse68Krause52/19MAMS 21973353722cal BC 1920–1783cal BC 1941–17743.34.7HD 8975–9145365143
Singen, Nordstadtterrasse, Widerholtstrasse69Krause52/17MAMS 21976368621cal BC 2131–2033cal BC 2139–19823.324.0nanana
Singen, Nordstadtterrasse, Widerholtstrasse70Krause52/14MAMS 21969360429cal BC 2016–1922cal BC 2029–18922.925.3HD 8978–9157376637
Singen, Nordstadtterrasse, Widerholtstrasse74Krause52/6MAMS 21972363221cal BC 2025–1963cal BC 2116–19263.117.7HD 8976–9129363844
Singen, Nordstadtterrasse, Widerholtstrasse79Krause50/14MAMS 21970368829cal BC 2134–2032cal BC 2194–19773.025.4HD 8971–9115367744
Singen, Nordstadtterrasse, Widerholtstrasse80Krause50/16MAMS 21971364129cal BC 2106–1952cal BC 2132–19223.031.8HD 8970–9147369046
Singen, Nordstadtterrasse, Widerholtstrasse82Krause50/21nananananananaHD—10691373040

Plot of old (grey) and new (black) radiocarbon dates from the cemetery of Singen.

The sum calibration is shown on top. Our results force us to lower the starting point of the Singen cemetery from 2300 BC to 2200 BC at the earliest (with grave 63 as the oldest: 2200–2027 BC with 95.4% probability). It is even more likely that Singen rather started around 2150 BC (see sum calibration Fig 9). Excluding the unreliable result for grave 68, the latest 2σ calibrated ranges end around 1900 BC.

Comparison of Augsburg region, Singen and the Neckar region

Our new results from Singen fit very well to the results from the Augsburg region. The oldest dates from Singen (grave 63: 3712±12 14C BP) and the Augsburg region (Haunstetten, Postillonstraße, grave 5: 3717±23 14C BP) are almost identical as is the period of use of Singen and Haunstetten, Postillonstraße. The dates for Bz A type objects from both regions provide a coherent view (Fig 6). The Ruderkopfnadeln (with small or large head) are identical in date and seem to have been used in both places at the same time. The much later date for Singen, grave 65, and the Ruderkopfnadel with large head from the grave fit perfectly to the time span for this type of pin from the Augsburg region. A difference can be seen in the early date for a Horkheimer Nadel from Singen, grave 79, which suggests a use of this type object in the 21st and possibly already in the late 22nd century BC, and, therefore, clearly earlier than in the Augsburg region. As the old dating of grave 79 was confirmed by the new measurement, the early position of this Horkheimer Nadel is beyond any doubt. Taking together the dating of the Horkheimer Nadel, shows a surprisingly long use of this particular type of pin, which spans a large part of the EBA. Due to the lack of Bz A2 type objects at Singen, the cemetery does not allow further insights into the chronological sequence beyond Bz A1. However, Singen reconfirms the parallel existence of Bz A1a and Bz A1b. The radiocarbon dates for the Neckar region around the city of Stuttgart (Fig 1) also match our results from Augsburg and Singen (Fig 10) [20]. Our new data show that the dates from the Neckar region do not contradict the chronological development as has long been assumed but fit very well into the overall picture.
Fig 10

Sum calibrations of cemeteries from south Germany.

Dates made in our project are marked in black.

Sum calibrations of cemeteries from south Germany.

Dates made in our project are marked in black. There are only three graves with Bz A pins which were dated by the radiometric technique. In the Neckar region, two 14C dated graves contain Bz A1 type objects, i.e. a Scheibenkopfnadel or Ruderkopfnadel (Gäufelden, grave 1, individual 2; Remseck-Aldingen, Halden II, gr. 15); however, in both cases the state of preservation does not allow a further taxonomic identification of the pins which can, therefore, be attributed either to Bz A1a or Bz A1b following the Ruckdeschel system. The related 2σ calibrated ranges (Gäufelden, grave 1, individual 2: 1882–1747 BC with 95.4% probability; Remseck-Aldingen, Halden II, gr. 15: 1936–1746 BC with 95.4% probability) fit into the long time span for Bz A1 type objects between 2150 BC and 1700 BC. The third burial, Rottenburg, Herderstraße, grave 1, contained a singular type of pin which does not appear in the Ruckdeschel system, but which Rüdiger Krause proposes to relate to Bz A2 shapes [25]. Due to the significant standard deviation, this old date (2137–1768 BC with 95.4% probability) does not contribute to a better understanding of the EBA chronology as it spans almost the complete EBA. To conclude: the few radiocarbon dated burials with Bz A type objects are consistent with the late Bz A1 dates from Augsburg.

Discussion

Given our results from Augsburg, we can contribute to the long-standing discussion on the transition from the LN to the EBA in Central Europe. For eastern Germany, Johannes Müller [55] postulated a co-existence of LN and EBA groups for at least 150 years. Regarding southern Germany, Volker Heyd [56] already postulated a transition from the LN to EBA without any overlap around 2150/2100 BC, however, on the basis of only a small number of radiocarbon dates from Late Neolithic burials. Our data confirm that there is neither a significant gap nor long overlap between both periods. The radiocarbon dates from the cemeteries of Augsburg, Hugo-Eckener-Straße, and Haunstetten, Postillonstraße clearly show a succession from latest LN to earliest EBA burials shortly after 2150 BC. This fits very well to recent radiocarbon dates for the Bell Beaker settlement of Engen-Welschingen, Guuhaslen, and its relation to our new dates for nearby Singen: the 2σ calibrated ranges of the three dates from Welschingen fall between 2490 BC and 2110 BC [57] and the EBA at Singen probably does not start before 2150 BC. In summary: a very short overlap or gap between the LN and the EBA in southern Germany is possible, but a smooth transition seems more plausible. Our results fundamentally question the absolute and relative chronology of the EBA and its inherent notion of a linear and gradual development for southern Germany. Since Paul Reinecke [3] the subdivision of the EBA into the phases Bz A1 and Bz A2 was explained with the growing ability to manage the new bronze technology. Almost all further chronological discussion has kept the view of a gradual development of the technology from bone and boar tusk pins to the first hammered metal objects–consisting mostly of copper with hardly any tin–in Bz A1 up to perfectly alloyed bronze with 90% of copper and 10% of tin and refined casting techniques in Bz A2 [14], [15]. With this in mind, a sequence of pin types was proposed which again was taken as a basis for socio- and cultural-historical interpretation. It was taken for granted that the duration of use and deposition of each type was rather restricted to a short period of time. Simultaneously, it was assumed that the similarity of particular types of pins also indicates contemporaneity. The results from the Augsburg region and Singen both refute a any linear and gradual development and rather indicate very different dynamics in the late 3rd and early 2nd millennium. The sequence of pins is far more complex than proposed. Bone and boar tusk pins are not amongst the earliest EBA pin types and probably continue into the early 19th century BC in the Augsburg region. Pin types defined as Bz A1a by Ruckdeschel [15] indeed start with the beginning of the EBA–but so do also the pins of his sub-phase Bz A1b, which he supposed to succeed Bz A1a. Whereas the Bz A1a pin types indeed end around 1900 BC, Bz A1b pin types continue until the end of the EBA around 1700 BC (Fig 6), (Fig 7). In contrast to the dominant notion of research, Bz A2 pins do not replace the simple hammered pins of Bz A1. This is most obvious in Kleinaitingen, where Bz A1b and Bz A2a pins were deposited in contemporaneous burials. Bz A2a type objects start around 1900 BC and are used and deposited parallel to Bz A1b pin types until 1700 BC. However, it has to be kept in mind that we were not able to date type objects of Bz A2b and Bz A2c, which might indicate a continuation of the EBA after 1700 BC. Therefore, the traditional notion of the sequence of Bz A1 and Bz A2 and the associated idea of the development from simple hammered pins (“Blechkreis”) to complex cast pins have to be revised. Our data also shed new light on the transition from the EBA to the MBA. Up to now, a start of the MBA in Southern Germany around 1550 BC has been taken for granted (i.a. [21], [24]). So far, we have only five radiocarbon dated graves with MBA type objects from the Augsburg region, two of which can securely be attributed to the earliest MBA (Bz B) on the basis of particular types of pins. It seems that the MBA at least in the Augsburg region started significantly earlier than it has been proposed so far as the 2σ calibrated range of the Bz B inventory from Oberottmarshausen, grave 5, mostly falls into the 17th century BC. If such an early start of the MBA could be demonstrated on a larger basis of analyses, this would have a major impact on historical narratives in Central Europe. Such a re-dating would solve the problem that at this point the Central European MBA seems to be a rather short period regarding the fundamental social changes which took place. Moreover, the deposition of the Nebra hoard (1639–1401 BC with 95.4% probability) [58] and the related dating of the Apa horizon (with two swords of Apa type in the Nebra hoard) would then be contemporaneous with the MBA. However, only more radiocarbon dated Bz B graves will allow us to better determine the chronological position of this phase. The contemporaneity of Bz A1 and Bz A2a as well as the small number of Bz A2 pins in the Augsburg region and in southern Germany as a whole raise the question, how to explain the appearance of these bronzes in this larger region. It seems that Bz A2a objects, most of which are related to the Únětice culture, should be interpreted as the appropriation of foreign influences and objects in southern Germany, which basically “stayed Bz A1” during the complete EBA. The Bz A2a Únětice bronzes could rather be seen as supplement to the local inventory of the material culture. Moreover, it is most likely that Bz A2 in the area of the Únětice culture started considerably earlier than in the Augsburg region. An early start for Bz A2a already in the late 3rd millennium or at least around 2000 BC is indicated by Quenstedt, grave 34, a grave from Feuersbrunn and possibly also hoard II of Melz (cf. also the princely grave of Leubingen with a dendrodate of 1942±10 BC [23]). However, the rarity of metal objects as grave goods in the Únětice region poses a serious problem to a better understanding of the chronological development of the Únětice culture. Bz A1 bronzes are extremely rare in this area. Bz A2a type objects continue at least until the late 18th century BC (cf. [59]: Prag-Miškovice, grave 32: Ösenkopfnadel, 1950–1740 BC with 95.4% probability), where they sometimes appear contemporaneously with Bz A1 pin types in the same cemetery (cf. [59]: Prag-Miškovice, grave 18: Schleifenkopfnadel, 1970–1740 BC with 95.4% probability). This could indicate a very similar situation to what we are able to document in the Augsburg region.

Conclusions

For almost a hundred years, Early Bronze Age chronology has been dominated by an evolutionist paradigm that assumed a linear development from simple to elaborate bronze objects, whose chronological placement was based on a small number of radiocarbon dated burials since the 1980s. With a large corpus of new radiocarbon dated Late Neolithic, Early and Middle Bronze Age graves from the Augsburg region, we were able to shed new light on the cultural dynamics in the late 3rd and first half of the 2nd millennium BC. We have demonstrated that the transition from the LN to the EBA happened without a significant gap or overlap in southern Germany around 2150 BC. Our results suggest that the time span of the EBA has to be shortened from conventionally postulated around 750/700 years to only about 450 years–from 2150 BC to at least 1700 BC. During the complete span of time, so-called Bz A1 pin types were used and deposited. More complex objects dated to Bz A2 appear around 1900 BC for the first time. Therefore, we do not see any transition from Bz A1 to Bz A2 in the way it has been proposed for the last 100 years. Our data show a complex coexistence of different types as well as simple and sophisticated shapes of bronze objects. We propose that Bz A1 and Bz A2 should not be understood as a chronological sequence even beyond southern Germany. In our view, Bz A1 and Bz A2 are nothing more than the consequence of different rates of appropriation of bronze technologies in southern Germany (= Bz A1) and the region of the Únětice culture in eastern Germany, Bohemia, Moravia, western Poland and parts of Slovakia and Austria (= Bz A2). In summary, Bz A1 and Bz A2 seem to appear as different levels of ability and willingness to appropriate the new bronze technology and the non-technological knowledge transferred together with the technological knowledge. Bz A1 and Bz A2 do not represent chronological but rather regional phenomena. Bz A2 finds in southern Germany and Bz A1 finds in the area of the Únětice culture should be explained as the local appropriation of foreign objects rather than autonomous chronological phases.
  4 in total

1.  [Human subsistence strategy in Neolithic times: an isotopic analysis of Bavarian skeletal findings].

Authors:  Tanja Asam; Gisela Grupe; Joris Peters
Journal:  Anthropol Anz       Date:  2006-03

2.  Normalization of measured stable isotopic compositions to isotope reference scales--a review.

Authors:  Debajyoti Paul; Grzegorz Skrzypek; István Fórizs
Journal:  Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.419

3.  New method of collagen extraction for radiocarbon dating.

Authors:  R Longin
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1971-03-26       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Abundance of 13C and 15N in emmer, spelt and naked barley grown on differently manured soils: towards a method for identifying past manuring practice.

Authors:  Marie Kanstrup; Ingrid K Thomsen; Astrid J Andersen; Amy Bogaard; Bent T Christensen
Journal:  Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom       Date:  2011-10-15       Impact factor: 2.419

  4 in total
  4 in total

1.  Female exogamy and gene pool diversification at the transition from the Final Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age in central Europe.

Authors:  Corina Knipper; Alissa Mittnik; Ken Massy; Catharina Kociumaka; Isil Kucukkalipci; Michael Maus; Fabian Wittenborn; Stephanie E Metz; Anja Staskiewicz; Johannes Krause; Philipp W Stockhammer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 2.  Yersinia pestis: the Natural History of Plague.

Authors:  R Barbieri; M Signoli; D Chevé; C Costedoat; S Tzortzis; G Aboudharam; D Raoult; M Drancourt
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 26.132

3.  Pedigree-based Bayesian modelling of radiocarbon dates.

Authors:  Ken Massy; Ronny Friedrich; Alissa Mittnik; Philipp W Stockhammer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 3.752

4.  Exceptionally high levels of lead pollution in the Balkans from the Early Bronze Age to the Industrial Revolution.

Authors:  Jack Longman; Daniel Veres; Walter Finsinger; Vasile Ersek
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 11.205

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.