Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 17 – uploaded by H. Steegstra

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 16. A. Find No. 13. Monnikenbraak (Overijssel), tumulus grave. |.2. Bronze: 3. Stone: 4. Pottery. 4 after Verlinde. Scale 1:2. B. Monnikenbraak (Overijssel). From a tumulus, but uncertain association (see under Find Nos 12 and 13). 1,2. Bronze. Scale 1:2.

Figure 16 A. Find No. 13. Monnikenbraak (Overijssel), tumulus grave. |.2. Bronze: 3. Stone: 4. Pottery. 4 after Verlinde. Scale 1:2. B. Monnikenbraak (Overijssel). From a tumulus, but uncertain association (see under Find Nos 12 and 13). 1,2. Bronze. Scale 1:2.

Related Figures (42)

Fig. 1. Location of Find Nos 1-24 (Find No. 3, ‘Drenthe’, not mapped).
Fig. 1. Location of Find Nos 1-24 (Find No. 3, ‘Drenthe’, not mapped).
Table |. Comparative chronology.
Table |. Comparative chronology.
For Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein, a browse through the presently available volumes of Aner and Kersten (1973-1986) shows a considerable number of The closest amber-rich region is thus the Liineburger Heide. In that area, Laux (1971: p. 48, with footnotes) A recent find in the area between Elbe and Weser is a rich female grave in a tumulus at Wahnbek, Kr. Ammerland (Eckert, 1990), which yielded eight small discoid amber beads (none wider than 10 mm). The grave goods also included a burial with a double wheel- headed pin (similar to, but smaller than, the Weerdinge- Kampereschje pins in our Find No. 4), a pair of ribbed bracelets, and sheet bronze tubes. knew of eight finds, containing a total of 92 amber beads. Our Drenthe group has approximately the same number of amber beads in grave finds, and roughly an equal number again in the bog hoards: a comparison which we should hardly expect, considering the fact that the Liineburg region is in other respects infinitely richer than Drenthe.
For Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein, a browse through the presently available volumes of Aner and Kersten (1973-1986) shows a considerable number of The closest amber-rich region is thus the Liineburger Heide. In that area, Laux (1971: p. 48, with footnotes) A recent find in the area between Elbe and Weser is a rich female grave in a tumulus at Wahnbek, Kr. Ammerland (Eckert, 1990), which yielded eight small discoid amber beads (none wider than 10 mm). The grave goods also included a burial with a double wheel- headed pin (similar to, but smaller than, the Weerdinge- Kampereschje pins in our Find No. 4), a pair of ribbed bracelets, and sheet bronze tubes. knew of eight finds, containing a total of 92 amber beads. Our Drenthe group has approximately the same number of amber beads in grave finds, and roughly an equal number again in the bog hoards: a comparison which we should hardly expect, considering the fact that the Liineburg region is in other respects infinitely richer than Drenthe.
Fig. 3. lron Age amber beads from the bog hoard of Nieuw-Weerdinge (Drenthe): found with bronze torque and pair of bronze knobbed bracelets. Scale 1:2.
Fig. 3. lron Age amber beads from the bog hoard of Nieuw-Weerdinge (Drenthe): found with bronze torque and pair of bronze knobbed bracelets. Scale 1:2.
Fig. 4. Find No. |. Exloérmond (Drenthe). Amber (dots), faience (arrows), tin (T), bronze (B). After Glasbergen (drawing P.C.A. van der Kamp). Inset: amber bead from Hauwert (North Holland). Scale 1:1.
Fig. 4. Find No. |. Exloérmond (Drenthe). Amber (dots), faience (arrows), tin (T), bronze (B). After Glasbergen (drawing P.C.A. van der Kamp). Inset: amber bead from Hauwert (North Holland). Scale 1:1.
Fig. 5S. Find No. 2. Emmerdennen (Drenthe), Tumulus | 1 of Bursch. 1. All amber; 2. Rock crystal; 3-4. Pottery. Scale 1:2. Tumulus plan re-drawn after Bursch. The three-riveted grooved ogival dagger from Annertol, necklacegraves andhoards in Drenthe, as the characteristic large disc and flattened-biconical forms are not presentin the Exloérmond find. The trapeze-shaped amber pendants are datable by reference to the Ammorican Tumulus grave of Kernonen-Plouvorm, with its eight examples. This lavishly furnished warrior’s grave contained, alongside typically Armorican Early Bronze Age furniture as well as various links with Wessex (cf. Gerloff, 1975: esp. p. 97), a wheel-headed pin of the earliest Central European variety (Type Speyer; Kubach, 1977: pp. 133-142, esp. p. 134, No. 130-7), which begins in the Lochham (Early Tumulus) phase; a related pin is in the Ségel-Wohlde period- hoard of Wildeshausen, Kr. Oldenburg in Northwest Germany (see under Find No. 12). Further comments: The British-type (though atypically large) basal-looped spearhead also found in the peat atExloérmond (Butler, 1963a: p. 99, fig. 28b, p. 109, No. 4) should belong chronologically to Burgess Group IX rather than to Group VII, and would thus have no connection with the hoard.
Fig. 5S. Find No. 2. Emmerdennen (Drenthe), Tumulus | 1 of Bursch. 1. All amber; 2. Rock crystal; 3-4. Pottery. Scale 1:2. Tumulus plan re-drawn after Bursch. The three-riveted grooved ogival dagger from Annertol, necklacegraves andhoards in Drenthe, as the characteristic large disc and flattened-biconical forms are not presentin the Exloérmond find. The trapeze-shaped amber pendants are datable by reference to the Ammorican Tumulus grave of Kernonen-Plouvorm, with its eight examples. This lavishly furnished warrior’s grave contained, alongside typically Armorican Early Bronze Age furniture as well as various links with Wessex (cf. Gerloff, 1975: esp. p. 97), a wheel-headed pin of the earliest Central European variety (Type Speyer; Kubach, 1977: pp. 133-142, esp. p. 134, No. 130-7), which begins in the Lochham (Early Tumulus) phase; a related pin is in the Ségel-Wohlde period- hoard of Wildeshausen, Kr. Oldenburg in Northwest Germany (see under Find No. 12). Further comments: The British-type (though atypically large) basal-looped spearhead also found in the peat atExloérmond (Butler, 1963a: p. 99, fig. 28b, p. 109, No. 4) should belong chronologically to Burgess Group IX rather than to Group VII, and would thus have no connection with the hoard.
Fig. 6. Find No. 3. ‘Drenthe’ (no exact provenance). All amber. Scale 1:2.
Fig. 6. Find No. 3. ‘Drenthe’ (no exact provenance). All amber. Scale 1:2.
Fig. 7. Find No. 4. Weerdinge, Kampereschje (Drenthe), Tumulus 2, secondary grave. |. Bronze with textile; 2-6. Bronze; 7. Amber. Scale 1:2. Plan adapted from van Giffen.
Fig. 7. Find No. 4. Weerdinge, Kampereschje (Drenthe), Tumulus 2, secondary grave. |. Bronze with textile; 2-6. Bronze; 7. Amber. Scale 1:2. Plan adapted from van Giffen.
Fig. 9. Find No. 6. Roswinkelerveen (Drenthe), bog hoard(s?). 5. Bronze; 2. Horn, 6. All amber. Scale 1:2. Location plan after Drents Museun inventory.
Fig. 9. Find No. 6. Roswinkelerveen (Drenthe), bog hoard(s?). 5. Bronze; 2. Horn, 6. All amber. Scale 1:2. Location plan after Drents Museun inventory.
Fig. 10. Find No. 7. Emmercompascuum (Drenthe). All amber except one glass in box, above. Scale 1:2.
Fig. 10. Find No. 7. Emmercompascuum (Drenthe). All amber except one glass in box, above. Scale 1:2.
Fig. 11. A. Find No. 8. Hijken (Drenthe), Tumulus 9:1, primary grave with Exc. find No. 39. |. Gold; 2-4. Bronze; 5. Flint. Scale 1:2. B. Find No. 9. Hijken (Drenthe), Tumulus 9, secondary grave with Exc. find No. 36a-c. |. Bronze; 2. Pottery; 3. All amber. Scale 1:2. Plan adaptec from van der Veen & Lanting.
Fig. 11. A. Find No. 8. Hijken (Drenthe), Tumulus 9:1, primary grave with Exc. find No. 39. |. Gold; 2-4. Bronze; 5. Flint. Scale 1:2. B. Find No. 9. Hijken (Drenthe), Tumulus 9, secondary grave with Exc. find No. 36a-c. |. Bronze; 2. Pottery; 3. All amber. Scale 1:2. Plan adaptec from van der Veen & Lanting.
Fig. 12. Pins from Drenthe (I. Hijken; 2. Elp), Northwest Germany (3. Ahlten: 4. Bassum; 5. Gdlenkamp; 6. Harmhausen; 7. Westergellersen), Bohemia (8. Lazany, II Hoard; 9. Platanice; 10. Ustin.L.-Strekov: 11. Hostomice; 12. Klobuky), Bavaria (13. Henfenfeld hoard) and S.E. Poland (14. A Maék6wka). After Waterbolk (2), Laux (3-7), Herrmann (8-13), and Essen (14). Scale 1:2. ; " Stratigraphically later th than this grave is the primary grave of Phase 2 of Tumulus 9, with as only grave-goods (Excavation find no. 31): pin with disc head containing shallow depression; under which Interesting is the occurrence in a hoard in Poland (A. Ma¢k6wka, Gd. Zarzecze, Wojew. Przemysl: Essen, 1985: p. 53, No. 284/284A; here fig. 12:13-14) ofa pairofpins evidently related to the Hijken pin and its Liineburger Heide parallels, but which have a second cone placed below the milled-edge disc, and incised decoration on the long, bent shaft. The source of these pins is obscure; Essen could cite no parallels. But a related series of pins from Bohemia and South Germany (here fig. 12: 8-13) hasbeenillustrated by Herrmann (1970- 1971: p. 87, Abb. 10); several examples with heads similarto these by Beck (1980: Taf. 14A5, 14B1, 2, 15B3; Beck assigns these to the Mohnkopfnadel series. The Polish hoard is difficult to date, as it contain sobjects ranging from Periods IItoIV, butmostof its contents are D/HaAI types.
Fig. 12. Pins from Drenthe (I. Hijken; 2. Elp), Northwest Germany (3. Ahlten: 4. Bassum; 5. Gdlenkamp; 6. Harmhausen; 7. Westergellersen), Bohemia (8. Lazany, II Hoard; 9. Platanice; 10. Ustin.L.-Strekov: 11. Hostomice; 12. Klobuky), Bavaria (13. Henfenfeld hoard) and S.E. Poland (14. A Maék6wka). After Waterbolk (2), Laux (3-7), Herrmann (8-13), and Essen (14). Scale 1:2. ; " Stratigraphically later th than this grave is the primary grave of Phase 2 of Tumulus 9, with as only grave-goods (Excavation find no. 31): pin with disc head containing shallow depression; under which Interesting is the occurrence in a hoard in Poland (A. Ma¢k6wka, Gd. Zarzecze, Wojew. Przemysl: Essen, 1985: p. 53, No. 284/284A; here fig. 12:13-14) ofa pairofpins evidently related to the Hijken pin and its Liineburger Heide parallels, but which have a second cone placed below the milled-edge disc, and incised decoration on the long, bent shaft. The source of these pins is obscure; Essen could cite no parallels. But a related series of pins from Bohemia and South Germany (here fig. 12: 8-13) hasbeenillustrated by Herrmann (1970- 1971: p. 87, Abb. 10); several examples with heads similarto these by Beck (1980: Taf. 14A5, 14B1, 2, 15B3; Beck assigns these to the Mohnkopfnadel series. The Polish hoard is difficult to date, as it contain sobjects ranging from Periods IItoIV, butmostof its contents are D/HaAI types.
Fig. 13. Find No. 10. Wageningen (Gelderland), hoard. All copper alloy except 9 (stone), Scale 1:2.
Fig. 13. Find No. 10. Wageningen (Gelderland), hoard. All copper alloy except 9 (stone), Scale 1:2.
Table 2. The Wageningen hoard (Find No. 10): Metal analyses. After Butler & van der Waals (1966) in which metallographic dataare also giver for some of the objects. References to appendices | and 2 refer to that publication. Taf. 32:2). Also similar, but with four rivet-notches, is the halberd from the neighbourhood of Amiens in Picardy (Blanchet, 1984: p. 131, fig. 56:4, p. 133). The Wageningen halberd is less like Irish Type IV/Type Cam halberds (Harbison, | 969a) than once assumed, but the ‘international straight-midribbed halberd’ type to which Harbison would assign these specimens (1968: pp. 175-178) still requires fuller definition. The finer, larger halberd with 3 rivet-holes from Roermond, Limburg (Glasbergen & Butler, 1961: fig. 1) and thesimilar example in the Dieskau hoard (often illustrated: e.g. Butler, 1963: Pl. Ic) are more advanced. bronze, and British alloys do not contain high nickel. Evidently we have to do with an axe made in the Migdale tradition, but of an alloy derived from ‘Singen’ metal. Only one or two other flat axes foundin the Netherlands are alsoassignable to the Migdale family. Remarkably, nothing in the Wageningen hoard has any relationship whatever to Bell Beaker metal work (Butler & van der Waals, 1966).
Table 2. The Wageningen hoard (Find No. 10): Metal analyses. After Butler & van der Waals (1966) in which metallographic dataare also giver for some of the objects. References to appendices | and 2 refer to that publication. Taf. 32:2). Also similar, but with four rivet-notches, is the halberd from the neighbourhood of Amiens in Picardy (Blanchet, 1984: p. 131, fig. 56:4, p. 133). The Wageningen halberd is less like Irish Type IV/Type Cam halberds (Harbison, | 969a) than once assumed, but the ‘international straight-midribbed halberd’ type to which Harbison would assign these specimens (1968: pp. 175-178) still requires fuller definition. The finer, larger halberd with 3 rivet-holes from Roermond, Limburg (Glasbergen & Butler, 1961: fig. 1) and thesimilar example in the Dieskau hoard (often illustrated: e.g. Butler, 1963: Pl. Ic) are more advanced. bronze, and British alloys do not contain high nickel. Evidently we have to do with an axe made in the Migdale tradition, but of an alloy derived from ‘Singen’ metal. Only one or two other flat axes foundin the Netherlands are alsoassignable to the Migdale family. Remarkably, nothing in the Wageningen hoard has any relationship whatever to Bell Beaker metal work (Butler & van der Waals, 1966).
Fig. 14. Find No. | 1. Drouwwen (Drenthe) grave. 1-3. Bronze: 4-5. Gold: 16. Lydite: 6-15. Flint (10 with pitch). Inset: plan of grave, after excavation photos. Scale 1:2. 1
Fig. 14. Find No. | 1. Drouwwen (Drenthe) grave. 1-3. Bronze: 4-5. Gold: 16. Lydite: 6-15. Flint (10 with pitch). Inset: plan of grave, after excavation photos. Scale 1:2. 1
Table 3. Spectro-analyses of bronzes from the Drouwen grave. After Junghans, Sangmeister & Schrdder (1960).
Table 3. Spectro-analyses of bronzes from the Drouwen grave. After Junghans, Sangmeister & Schrdder (1960).
Fig. 17. A. Find No. 14. Voorhout (South Holland), hoard (with figs 5B-5E). Scale.1:2.
Fig. 17. A. Find No. 14. Voorhout (South Holland), hoard (with figs 5B-5E). Scale.1:2.
Fig. 18. Find No. 14. Voorhout, hoard: electron micro-probe analy- ses.
Fig. 18. Find No. 14. Voorhout, hoard: electron micro-probe analy- ses.
Fig. 19. Find No. 15. Mander (Overijssel), Tumulus 11/1958, grave. 1-3. Amber; 4-7. Bronze. Scale 1:1.
Fig. 19. Find No. 15. Mander (Overijssel), Tumulus 11/1958, grave. 1-3. Amber; 4-7. Bronze. Scale 1:1.
conceivably had some sort of ritual significance under some circumstances. In the Middle Bronze Age of the Netherlands, we may note that bronze sickles occur not only in the tumulus finds of Holset and Epe, but also in the bog hoards of Heiloo, Find No. 19 following, and Veenenburg, Find No. 21 below.
conceivably had some sort of ritual significance under some circumstances. In the Middle Bronze Age of the Netherlands, we may note that bronze sickles occur not only in the tumulus finds of Holset and Epe, but also in the bog hoards of Heiloo, Find No. 19 following, and Veenenburg, Find No. 21 below.
Fig. 23. Find No. 18. Epe (Gelderland), tumulus (?) hoard. Scale 1:2.
Fig. 23. Find No. 18. Epe (Gelderland), tumulus (?) hoard. Scale 1:2.
As thereare at least four differing versions of the composition of Circumstances of find: Found, according to Leembruggen, 12 March 1897. Hegivesnodetailsasto the circumstances. The find date is quoted correctly by Pleyte. Oppenheim cites a ‘document of 1876’ concerning the hoard which he saw at the Veenenburg house; but this Description of the objects: All of bronze. The objects have well- preserved surfaces, of bronze colour, with remains of original black patina, with a few spots of green. FOO | ee ee Le ay en Od «ee Le, eM nneeter een eT a
As thereare at least four differing versions of the composition of Circumstances of find: Found, according to Leembruggen, 12 March 1897. Hegivesnodetailsasto the circumstances. The find date is quoted correctly by Pleyte. Oppenheim cites a ‘document of 1876’ concerning the hoard which he saw at the Veenenburg house; but this Description of the objects: All of bronze. The objects have well- preserved surfaces, of bronze colour, with remains of original black patina, with a few spots of green. FOO | ee ee Le ay en Od «ee Le, eM nneeter een eT a
N.B. The objects whichd o not appearinthe Leembruggen description must be considered as not belongingt othe hoardo f 1897, but are presumably other finds fromthe Veenenburg estate. Table 4. Veenenburg, Hillegom, ZH: Composition of the hoard according to Leembruggen (1897), Pleyte (1902) and Oppenheim (1927).
N.B. The objects whichd o not appearinthe Leembruggen description must be considered as not belongingt othe hoardo f 1897, but are presumably other finds fromthe Veenenburg estate. Table 4. Veenenburg, Hillegom, ZH: Composition of the hoard according to Leembruggen (1897), Pleyte (1902) and Oppenheim (1927).
Fig. 27. Subtractions from Find No. 21: Objects from the Veenenburg estate, erroneously attributed to the hoard. 1. Stone. Scale 1:2.
Fig. 27. Subtractions from Find No. 21: Objects from the Veenenburg estate, erroneously attributed to the hoard. 1. Stone. Scale 1:2.
Fig. 28. Find No. 22. Holset (Malensbosch. Limburg), tumulus hoard. Scale 1:2. Excavation plan re-drawn from notebook van Liempt (ston settings shaded).
Fig. 28. Find No. 22. Holset (Malensbosch. Limburg), tumulus hoard. Scale 1:2. Excavation plan re-drawn from notebook van Liempt (ston settings shaded).
Fig. 29. Find No. 23. Swalmen-Hillenraad (Limburg), tmulus hoards. 1,2. Tumulus | (2. Stone); 3.4. Tumulus 2. Scale 1:2. Tumulus plans re drawn from field drawings of Bursch.
Fig. 29. Find No. 23. Swalmen-Hillenraad (Limburg), tmulus hoards. 1,2. Tumulus | (2. Stone); 3.4. Tumulus 2. Scale 1:2. Tumulus plans re drawn from field drawings of Bursch.
ofalargemanand apair of irregularly coiled lengths of gold wire. The sword (if such it was) has been lost without trace: no drawing or description is known. It isnot evenrecorded whether it was of bronze or iron. distinguish them from the silver-containing gold wire ornaments from Bronze Age graves (Find Nos 8, | 1, 16, 20). The photographs donotreally suggest that the gold wires had been wrappedroundasword handle, or inany way werefinishedormaments or parts thereof; they seem to be simply irregular lengths of wire. Unfortunately these gold wires have also since been lost.
ofalargemanand apair of irregularly coiled lengths of gold wire. The sword (if such it was) has been lost without trace: no drawing or description is known. It isnot evenrecorded whether it was of bronze or iron. distinguish them from the silver-containing gold wire ornaments from Bronze Age graves (Find Nos 8, | 1, 16, 20). The photographs donotreally suggest that the gold wires had been wrappedroundasword handle, or inany way werefinishedormaments or parts thereof; they seem to be simply irregular lengths of wire. Unfortunately these gold wires have also since been lost.
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved