MECÁNICOS, ESPESORES

As much as it is a regional term, Hallstatt is, of course, a chronological term.

Most of central Europe, in particular southern Germany, follows the chronologi-cal scheme developed by Paul Reinecke (for an in-depth discussion, see Gerloff 2007, Reinecke 1965). He divided the Bronze Age and early Iron Age in four alphabetically labelled phases each: Bronzezeit A to D and Hallstattzeit A to D.

Cemeteries of the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age in central Europe often contained bronze and iron objects, making it difficult to separate the Bronze and Iron Ages sharply (Sørensen and Rebay 2008a). What might be confusing is that today, the late Bronze Age encompasses Bz D as well as Ha A and B in Reinecke’s system (frühe Hallstattzeit and zweite Hallstattstufe), whereas Hallstatt C and D make up the early Iron Age. Until today, the late Bronze Age is most often referred to as the Urnfield period (Urnenfelderzeit), and the early Iron Age as the Hallstatt period (Hallstattzeit) in the German literature, but the meaning of the term Hall-stattzeit today has largely shifted to encompass only the early Iron Age.

Joseph Déchelette, who developed the chronological system followed in France (Déchelette 1913, Déchelette 1914), placed less emphasis on the continuity from the late Bronze Age to the early Iron Age. The First Iron Age (‘Premier âge du Fer’) in the French terminology corresponds to the Hallstatt period, and the Sec-ond Iron Age (‘Deuxième âge du Fer’) to the La Tène period.

Paul Reinecke suggested absolute dates on the basis of cross-dating and came to the conclusion that Ha A lasted from about 1200 to 1000 ^bc, and Ha B from 1000 to 850/800 ^bc (Gerloff 2007: 119). A further sub-division of the late Bronze Age into Ha A1, Ha A2, Ha B1, B2, B3 was undertaken by Hermann Müller-Karpe

(Müller-Karpe 1959), who also subsumed Bz D into the Urnenfelderzeit (Urn-field period, late Bronze Age). Suggesting 100 years for each of his sub-phases, he extended Ha B to three centuries, and thus let the Iron Age (Ha C) begin at around 700 ^bc. This late start of the Iron Age was conventionally used in most of the scholarly literature of the second half of the twentieth century; Ha B2/B3 was later commonly subsumed in one phase spanning from 900 to 700 ^bc (Gerloff 2007: 151).

Absolute dating via scientific methods is problematic in the early Iron Age, as dates between 800 and 400 ^bc fall in a flat spot of the C-14 calibration curve and cannot be dated more accurately. Dendrochronology brought precise dating for several archaeological complexes, but it is, of course, restricted to sites with sufficient wood preservation. To complicate matters further, dendrochronologi-cal dates from before about 500 ^bc had to be pushed back by 71 years after the German oak tree–ring chronology was corrected in the 1980s (Friedrich 1996);

earlier publications have to be treated with caution. Incorporating dates derived from the dendrochronology of Swiss lake sites and C–14 dates, Lothar Sperber (1987) dated the beginning of the late Bronze Age (SB 1a or Bz D1) to 1365 ^bc, and the end of the late Bronze Age (SB IIIb or Ha B3) and therefore the begin-ning of the early Iron Age to 740 ^bc. An even earlier date for the beginning of the Hallstatt period is supported by the early Hallstatt C burial at Wehringen-Hexenbergle, Burial Mound 8. The wooden chamber and a wagon were made of wood cut between 783 and 773 ^bc. It was initially thought that both the wagon hub and chamber were made of the same piece of wood, which would have inter-esting implications for the temporality of the funerary ritual and preparation of grave goods and architecture, but lately this has been doubted (Eggert 2012: 281).

The grave of an adult male included a sword of the Gündlingen type, which can typologically be dated early in Ha C1 (Trachsel 2004: 149). According to Trach-sel (2004: 151), the Hallstatt C1/C2 transition dates to 720 ^bc, and the transition from Ha C to D at around 650 ^bc. The end of the Hallstatt and beginning of the La Tène period would then have to be dated to around 520 ^bc, too early for some

Figure 3.2 Absolute dating of late Bronze Age and early Iron Age chronological phases Reinecke 1965 Müller-Karpe 1959 Trachsel 2004 this book

dates bc dates bc dates bc dates bc

Bz D 1300–1200 Bz D 1300–1200 Ha A 1200–1000 Ha A1/2 1200–1000 Ha B 1000–850/800 Ha B1 1000–900

Ha B2/3 900–750 LBA to 800

Ha C 850/800–650 Ha C 750–600 Ha C1 810–720 Ha C1 800–710 Ha C2 720–650 Ha C2 710–625

Ha D 650–450 Ha D 600–450 Ha D1 650–595 Ha D1 625–550

Ha D2 595–565 Ha D2 550–500 Ha D3 565–520 Ha D3 500–450

The Iron Age setting 47 researchers. Dendrochronological dates for grave 352 from Dürrnberg, Austria (Sormaz and Stöllner 2005), for example, a complex that clearly dates to Ha D3 in typo-chronological terms, dates to 464 ^bc.

Paul Reinecke’s dating scheme is widespread in central Europe, but the appli-cation of a system developed for southwest Germany to other regions remains dif-ficult. Numerous other cemetery-based and regional chronological systems exist, which are normally based on detailed investigations of find combinations and typological developments of pottery, bronze and other materials. Chronologies of the Iron Age correlate different categories of finds and practices that follow different trajectories, aiming to create a ‘package’ of features appearing in a syn-chronised fashion, which, of course, remains unrealistic (cf. Collis 2008: 100).

The synchronisation of local chronologies is most often, however, done primarily via the bronze typology (for example, Pare 1998, Pare 1999, Parzinger 1988, see Teržan 1992: for a solid critique, Torbrügge 1991, Torbrügge 1992) under the assumption that single types are characteristic for sharply defined chronological phases. Nevertheless, there are a number of problems with this assumption.

First, in areas with little use of metal generally there are few complexes that can be dated, and the metals that are used in the graves are often not locally produced, may be in use for a long time and represent a quite heterogeneous, eclectic mix (for example, Statzendorf, Austria, Rebay 2006). Second, understanding objects solely in terms of chronology underrepresents their social significance, in par-ticular as markers of identity and status, but also as cherished possessions. An important observation that Martin Trachsel emphasises (Trachsel 2004) is that the date of production of objects in a grave is not necessarily the same as the date of object deposition. The finds assemblage of a grave is often dated collectively based on the latest object. In fact, it appears that especially those types connected to individual identity, such as jewellery, dress elements or weapons, are acquired throughout a person’s lifetime. Women in particular receive a number of objects at the time of adolescence (Müller 1994: 210–213). Depending on the age of death, these objects may be several decades old when they are placed in graves. Other objects are manufactured specifically for deposition in the grave, and their date of manufacture corresponds closely to the date of deposition. When dating object assemblages, it is important to consider the age of the buried individual, as well as the biography of the individual artefacts. It has to be made clear what the date of an object actually refers to – the time of production or the time of deposition.

Third, it is common in a Hallstatt context to deposit reused, repaired and recy-cled objects, as well as objects that must have been handed down as heirlooms.

The belt plates from Brezje, Slovenia (Plate 12, Tumulus 1, grave 1, and Tumu-lus 18, grave 18, Lucke and Frey 1962: pl. 32. 17, 32.18, Turk 2005: fig. 42), for instance, were both worn enough to break and be repaired by driving rivets through the overlapping pieces of sheet bronze. In this process, the decorative scenes were shortened and altered (Rebay-Salisbury 2012b). Belt plates in par-ticular were often re-worked into pendants or even anthropomorphic plaques; at the sanctuary of Ampass-Demlfeld, Austria, it could be shown exactly how the pieces were cut from the older object (Tomedi 2009: 273, fig.2b). At Hallstatt, a

number of objects were reworked and integrated into sets of women’s jewellery, including parts of wagons and horse gear, as well as fragments of sheet bronze vessels, belts and helmets (Glunz-Hüsken 2013). An emotional connection to the first users of these objects seems likely in these cases, as well as a protective or religious significance.

Swords of antique style have repeatedly been found in elite graves of the southeastern Hallstatt area, for instance, at Gornja Radgona and Stična, Slovenia (Harding 1995: 87, Teržan 1990: 85), and more recently, at Strettweg, Austria (Tiefengraber 2013). Swords of Tachlovice type normally date to Ha B (before 800 ^bc), but both the use of such old-fashioned forms and the practice of deliber-ate destruction at deposition a couple of hundred years ldeliber-ater connect the funerary rituals of the elite in the early Iron Age to Urnfield customs. It is difficult to know if these finds represent true heirloom objects that have been handed down over generations, because we do not know how and if objects were bequeathed at all and, if so, to whom. These traditional swords may have been passed on from father to eldest son, as would perhaps still be customary in our own society; the last son without sons might have received the sword as a grave good after death.

Stories like these, although plausible, are difficult to prove, and the motives for including objects in graves might work entirely differently.

The addition of a large fragment of a decorated situla in Grave 346, Dürrnberg-Kranzbichl (Fig. 7.42, Moser 2010: 108, 110–113) to a high-status grave dating to the second half of the third century ^bc is particularly intriguing. The fragment shows a feasting scene with musicians, horses and hunters returning with a deer, as well as a ploughing scene. It can stylistically and technically be dated to the first half of the fifth century ^bc. The long time span between the production of the situla in the first place and deposition in its fragmentary status not only underlines the sig-nificance of the object even at a time when it was unusable, but also suggests that it was curated for a long time and could not just be disposed of or recycled; its sig-nificance, or perhaps the significance of the depicted scene, endured for centuries.

Traditions may be honoured by the inclusion of objects, but also by adhering to long-established practices. At Este-Ricovero, Italy, for example, a woman named Nerka was cremated and buried in Grave 23, dating to the first half of the third century ^bc, but following funerary rituals and patterns of grave furnishing estab-lished in the eighth century ^bc. As a high-status woman, she was characterised in the grave as a hostess and textile producer, competent in cult and religion and able to fulfil her position within a powerful family (Lang 2012: 374). The deliberate return to traditional funerary rites underlines her significance.

These examples demonstrate the importance of dating objects in context. Not only do we have to understand the date of production, but also the use-life of artefacts, their connections with the person buried in the grave, including their age and stage of their lifecycle, and the significance attributed the object at deposition;

all these factors feed into the chronological classification. In the light of this dis-cussion, I aim to differentiate between context dates and object dates in analysing human images, although in many cases the dating will be the same. In order to acknowledge the production and use-life of objects, I adopt a moderate to high

The Iron Age setting 49 translation of relative chronological terms to absolute dates (see Figure 3.2), with the Hallstatt period spanning from circa 800 to 450 ^bc. The absolute dates given for objects should be understood as rough guidelines, as they mainly constitute translated relative dates given in the literature; the inbuilt assumptions and rea-sons for the suggested date in the literature frequently remain unclear.

It is also important to appreciate that the end of the Hallstatt period at around 450 ^bc is not a cut-off point for this study, but the stylistic change from Hallstatt to La Tène art is. Some human representations continue Hallstatt traditions, even if their production and deposition reference the La Tène period. Most notably the images on situlae tell us about traditional ways of life and death, referring to times past; votive figurines and plaques in Alpine and northern Italian sanctuaries also continue ritual traditions into Roman times.

3.3 Lifeways

The third main factor after place and time of birth for the kind of person one becomes is the context of socialisation and upbringing. The way one’s parents and community conduct their everyday lives teaches, consciously and sub-consciously, social norms and beliefs, and they communicate the framework in which self-expression of identity is permitted. What kind of life did most people in the central European Iron Age lead? What were the main factors that generated different lives for different people?

The landscapes people inhabited range from flat river valleys and basins, pla-teaux, rolling foothills and low mountain ranges to high Alpine regions above the tree line, each offering unique affordances and challenges. For Alpine areas, for instance, we can consider transhumance, the seasonal migration between val-leys and Alpine pastures (Cerwinka and Mandl 1998). Cattle as well as sheep and goats are brought up to high pastures in the summer, while being stabled in the winter. Animals are kept for milk, ploughing and fertilisation; centres such as Hallstatt and Hallein, with access to salt, might have produced large amounts of pork and beef, respectively, which was cured and preserved (Pucher 1999, Pucher 2009). Towards the east and the Hungarian basin, the climate was increas-ingly continental, with very dry summers and extended periods of flooding at the change of seasons. Nomadic cultures on the eastern fringe of the Hallstatt area, with their emphasis on horses, wagons and mobile mounted warriors, undoubt-edly interacted with and thereby influenced sedentary farmers in the area. Life on the waterfront has to be considered for both inner-Alpine lakes and sites in Poland (Harding and Raczkowski 2010). Veneto, Friuli and Istria were connected to the Mediterranean lifestyle (Horden and Purcell 2000) by the northern Adriatic Sea, most likely making the most of access to fish and sea fruit, as well as taking advantage of travelling by sailing boats.

Iron Age life was, for most people, still dominated by the yearly cycle of farm-ing and stockbreedfarm-ing (Lünfarm-ing et al. 1997). The temperate climate of central Europe with its changes of seasons, including cold and icy winters as well as hot and dry summers, had a profound impact on the activities carried out throughout

the year, which, among many others, included growing, harvesting and threshing crops; growing fruit and vegetables; attending farm animals’ needs and processing their produce; managing woodland; and producing textiles. Overall, the early Iron Age was wetter and cooler than the preceding late Bronze Age (Kristiansen 1998:

31–32, Fig. 12). Life in summer and winter was most likely quite different, not only in terms of which activities were the most urgent to attend to, but also how people interacted and lived together. Communities (and their livestock) moved closer together in the winter, whereas summer activities were more dispersed in the landscape, enabling contact and interaction with communities further afield, but at the same time, limiting intense interaction at home.

The majority of people lived in agricultural villages, small clusters of single-room rectangular houses with storage facilities and some sunken features as well as ancillary buildings. The building techniques were tied into the landscape, mak-ing the most of available resources: in Alpine areas, limestone is often used for the foundation of log cabins, whereas in the lowlands, wooden posts and wattle-and-daub constructions prevail; thatched roofs were common. Images of houses are rare, and most of them stem from the rocks of the Val Camonica (Anati 1961:

159); one image was sketched into a vessel found in Balzers in Liechtenstein and dating to around 500 ^bc (Gleirscher 1991). They show multi-storage, post-built structures with triangular roofs and with small bases, perhaps indicating stilts or a cellar.

The Iron Age household is a group of people living together, often equated with but not necessarily the same as a family. It represents the basic unit of pro-duction and consumption (Webley in press). Later sources suggest that late Iron Age and early medieval Celtic societies (Karl 2006) are usually constructed from households comprising a male head, with one or more wives, children, fosterlings, servants and slaves. Communities are built of a number of households, a village, or more dispersed settlements within a local area, at a size in which face-to-face interaction is still feasible on a daily basis (Webley in press). From the late Bronze Age onwards, agglomerated villages emerge in central Europe, as well as forti-fied hilltop settlements (Harding 2000: 48–72). Early Iron Age centralisation and urbanisation processes are evident from sites such as the Heuneburg, Germany, and Mont Lassois, France (Rieckhoff and Fichtl 2011). The size of communities of people living together grew, perhaps to several hundreds and thousands. The population of the Heuneburg hillfort and surrounding settlements has recently been estimated at around 5000 (Fernández-Götz and Krausse 2012). Representa-tive architecture, planned villages with houses arranged along streets, religious centres, traces of long-distance trade and craft specialisation are signs of a change that was, most probably, primarily social: the inhabitants of the nucleated settle-ments had to be sustained from the surrounding area, which makes a hierarchical distinction of land owners and peasant farmers likely.

The first and most fundamental way in which daily activities were structured was along the lines of gender and age, although we do not know the extent to which labour was distributed and how permeable the boundaries of gendered activities were. Transgressions of these boundaries were most likely sanctioned by ridicule

The Iron Age setting 51 and shame (Sofaer 2006a: 107). There might also be a mismatch between the ideology of gendered labour distribution and the way tasks were actually carried out. In early Iron Age art and graves, for instance, there is a strong association between men, hunting and warfare, and textile work and women. Domestic tasks such as preparing food, looking after children and homecraft is normally attrib-uted to women, whereas men were responsible for outdoor tasks. When men were absent, women often had to fill in for the necessary tasks, and when push came to shove, all members of society probably had to help out and accomplish tasks together. Although there is considerable regional variation in the way children were treated after death and children are rarely shown in artwork, there is good evidence that children were involved in proto-industrial production processes.

Even newborns were brought into the salt mines of Hallstatt, and children show similar activity-induced bone markers to those of adults (Pany-Kucera, Reschre-iter and Kern 2010).

The diet of early Iron Age people in central Europe included spelt barley, emmer wheat and millet as the most important cereal crops. Einkorn wheat, foxtail mil-let, naked barley and naked wheat are also found. Oats and rye present weed-like admixtures at the time (Boenke 2005: 251). Peas, lentils and beans are represented in the archaeobotanical record of most early Iron Age sites (Boenke 2005: 252).

Oilseeds include flax, camelina and poppy. Fruit included apples, pears, strawber-ries, raspberstrawber-ries, blackberries and blueberries; blackthorn, hawthorn and hazelnut were likely gathered from forests.

The most important species of domestic animals were cattle, sheep/goats and

The most important species of domestic animals were cattle, sheep/goats and