1.f 19990000 ROB Artikel Koningsgraf en Urnenveld Koerheuvel

Jong, A.J., 1990: Unieke watertoren 'De Koerheuvel' te Rhenen met sloop bedreigd, Industriele archeologie io, nr. 34, 2-11.

Modderman, P.J.R., 1964: The Chieftain's grave of Oss reconsidered, Bulletin van de Vereeniging tot bevordering der kennis van de antieke beschaving te 's-Gravenhage 39, 57- 62.

Kibbert, K., Die Axte und Beile im mittleren Westdeutschland II, Miinchen (Prahistorische Bronzefunde Abt. 9, Bd. 13).

Oosting, W.A.J., 19403: De bescherming der praehistorische monumenten, Landbouwkundig tijdschrift 52, 112-8.

Kimmig, W., 1962/63: Bronzesitulen aus dem Rheinischen Gebirge Hunsriick-Eifel-Westerwald, BRGK 43/44, 31-106.

Oosting, W.A.J., i94ob: Een en ander over de verkenmerken V3n ons landschap in het bijzonder over de z.g. landmerken of grensteekens, Weestparaat 1940, 3-7-

Kossack, G., 1954: Pferdegeschirr aus Grabern der Altern Hallstattzeit Bayerns, JRGZM i, 11-178. Klok, R.H.J., 1982: Oude graven tussen IJssel enVallei. Prehistorische grafheuvels uit de steen- en bronstijd op de Veluwe, Barneveld. Klok, R.H.J., 1988: Prehistoric Barrows on the Veluwe, BROB 38, 9-61. Kossack, G., 1959: Sudbeyern wahrend der Hallstattzeit, Romisch-Germanische Forschungen, Bd. 24, Berlin. Marien, M.E., 1958: Trouvailles du Champ d'Urnes et des Tombelles hallstattienes du Court-Saint-Etienne, Brussel (Monogr. d'Arch. Nationale, i), 236, fig. 56, 249. Meijers, H.J.M., 1998: Bronzen situla Rhenen Koerheuvel, Technologisch rapport ROB afd. Conservering (typescript). Merhart, G. von, 1969 (1952): Studien uber einige Gattungen von Bronzegefassen, Die Eimer vom Typus Kurd, in: G. Kossack (ed.), Hallstatt und Italien.

Oosting, W. A.J. i94oc: De ouderdomsbepaling van onze bouwlanden op het pleistoceen en het vraagtuk der ophooging door plaggenbemesting, Landbouwkundig tijdschrift 52, 695-704. Pare, Chr., 1987: Der Zeremonialwagen der Hallstattzeit: Untersuchungen zu Konstruktion, Typologie und Kulturbeziehungen, Vierradrigen Wagen, 189-248. Pare, C.F.E., 1992: Wsgons and Wagon-Graves of the Early Iron Age in Central Europe, Oxford (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph, 35). Patsy, P., 1981: Die Eimer des Typus Kurd, in: H. Lorenz (Hrsg.), Studien zur Bronzezeit, Msinz (Festschrift fur Wilhelm Albert v. Brunn), 317-26. P3t3y, P., 1990: Die Bronzegefdsse in Ungarn, Miinchen (Prshistorische Bronzefunde, Abt. II, Bd. io). Piggott, S., 1983: The Earliest Wheeled Transport. From the Atlantic Coast to the Caspian Sea, London.

Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 43

Roymans, N., 1991: Late Unified Societies in the Northwest European Plain and the Expanding Networks of Central European Hallstatt Groups, in: N. Roymans & F. Theuws (eds.), Images of the Past. Studies on Ancient Societies in Northwestern Europe, Amsterdam (Studies in pre- en prorohistorie, 7), 9-89.

Tent, W.J. van, 1996: Archeologische kroniek van de provincie Utrecht over de jaren 1970—1979, 44-5.

Roymans, N., 19993: The Early Iron Age Urnfield of Beegden, in: F. Theuws & N. Roymans (eds.), Land and Ancestors, Cultural Dynamics in the Urnfield Period and the Middle Ages in the Southern Netherlands, Amsterdam (Amsterdam Archseological Studies, 4), 63-86.

Tent, W.J. van, 1990: Rhenen 5, JROB 1990,174.

Roymans, N., & F. Kortlang i999b: Urnfield symbolism, ancestors and the Isnd in the Lower Rhine Region, in: F. Theuws & N. Roymans (eds.), Land and Ancestors, Cultural Dynamics in the Urnfield Period and the Middle Ages in the Southern Netherlands, Amsterdam (Amsterdam Archaeological Studies, 4), 33-61. Roymans, N., i999c: Long-term perspectives on Man and Landscape in the Meuse-Demer-Scheldt Region. An Introduction, in: F. Theuws & N. Roymans (eds.), Land and Ancestors, Cultural Dynamics in the Urnfield Period and the Middle Ages in the Southern Netherlands, Amsterdam (Amsterdam Archaeological Studies, 4), 1-32. Tent, W.J. van, 1992: Archeologische kroniek van de provincie Utrecht over de jaren 1985—1987.

Tent, W.J. van, 1997: Rhenen-Koerheuvel, in: D.H. Kok, S.G. van Dockum & F. Vogelzang (red.), Archeologische kroniek provincie Utrecht 1990—1991, 58-9.

Tent, W.J. van & S.G. van Dockum 1993: RhenenKoerheuvel, JROB 1993,164-5. Torbrugge, W., 1979: Die Hallstattzeit in der Oberpfalz, Materialhefte zu bayerischen Vorschichte Reihe A, Heft 39. Verlinde, A.D., 1985: Die Graber und Grabfunde der spaten Bronzezeit und fruhen Eisenzeit in Overijssel, BROB 35, 231-411. Verwers, W.J.H., 1988: Archeologische kroniek van NoordBrabant 1983-1984, Waalre (Bijdragen tot de studie van het Brabantse Heem, 32). Wagner, A., 1994: Rijke mannengraven in Rhenen, in: W.A. van Es & W.A.M. Hessing (red.), Romeinen, Friezen en Franken in het hart van Nederland, Amersfoort, 180-3.

R.M. VAN HEERINGEN / Burial with Rhine view: the Hallstatt situla grave on the Koerheuvel at Rhenen

APPENDIX

Note on the socketed axe found at Rhenen-Koerheuvel Jay J. Butler During the 1993 excavation at the Koerheuvel a socketed axe was discovered. Although only part (perhaps half) of the socketed axe has been found, the part found is the most informative part, making it possible to assign it to a recognized type. Its single, rather prominent socket-mouth moulding, with the small, narrow D-shaped loop springing from its base, and its nearly flat faces with somewhat more rounded sides, allow identification with the axes (or some of them, at least) in Central Germany that Kibbert has classified under the heading schlichte Tullenbeile der Form Wesseling.1 Under this heading Kibbert illustrates some 20 axes in Central Germany. Their find-spots are distributed mostly along the Lower Rhine and some of its tributaries (distribution map: his Taf. 88A). The 'plain Wesseling' axes are not, however, a homogeneous group. Kibbert distinguishes two main variants: a Variant Hilnxe, consisting mostly of the shorter specimens with more everted blade tips (and thus with wider cutting edge) and a Variant TrabenTrarbach, with on the average a somewhat greater length and a narrower biconcave outline, with less marked expansion of the cutting edge.

As only the upper part of the Rhenen-Koerheuvel axe is preserved, we do not know its original length, the curvature of the sides, nor the degree of expansion of the cutting edge. We cannot, therefore, definitely assign it to either of Kibbert's undecorated variants. The proportions of the preserved part tend to suggest, however, that it may have been of the narrower Trabant-Trarbach variant. The more common examples of both variants are without decorative ribbing on the face (and are, thus, schlichte Tullenbeile'). But each of the variants has a subvariant, consisting of a small number of examples that have Uhrpendelmuster (rib and pellet) ribbing on the faces. As far as the seven Uhrpendel examples of the Variant Htinxe are concerned (Kibbert's Cat. No. 581-586), the majority (four specimens) are in fact 1 Kibbert 1984, 126-31. 2 Schmidt & Burgess 1981, 241.

without certain provenance; and some are so close to axes assigned by Schmidt and Burgess to their type Sompting that we may consider them British exports.2 Anyway, the Rhenen-Koerheuvel axe is without such decoration, so we safely can leave these, and his two Wesseling (Traben-Trarbach) Uhrpendel axes (also possible imports from Western Europe), out of consideration here. There is still a further complication. Five of the axes listed and illustrated by Kibbert under the TrabenTrarbach variant, but labelled by him as only related (nahestehend) (his Cat. Nos. 609-613) should now rather be assigned to the Type Plainseau (as indeed Kibbert seems to recognize in his text).3 This is a type that is common in Western and Northern France, Belgium, England (it and its variants are there known as the "Southeastern type') and the southern part of the Netherlands, but not in Western Germany or the north of the Netherlands. The Plainseau axes have, thus, quite a different distribution than the axes of Wesseling type. Leaving, then, the Uhrpendel and Plainseau axes aside, we still retain a substantial number of West German, mostly Rhineland, plain Wesseling axes (Kibbert's Cat. Nos. 588-608) with which the Koerheuvel axe can be related. There is even a bronze casting mould for a Wesseling (Traben-Trarbach) axe in the Rhineland area; it was found at Erkrath, near Diisseldorf.

4 Unfortunately the mould is without further associations or context, and we do not know if there was actually a Late Bronze Age workshop there; and if there was, it was not necessarily the only one. Surprisingly, in view of their poor representation in our archaeological literature, there are actually more plain Wesseling axes in the Netherlands than there are in the Central Germany of Kibbert. Leaving aside a few examples without certain provenance with similar form but some deviant features, we reckon some 35 examples in the Netherlands to the type Wesseling. This is a minimum number; it does not include some axes which have mostly 'plain Wesseling' features but differ in some respects); but even so they represent some 10% of all the socketed axes in the Netherlands, and are, thus, one of the more common types of socketed axe in this country. Most of them are of the Traben-Trarbach variety. Only one (a small example of the Hiinxe variant) has 3 The Type 711 of Briard & Verron 1976; cf. Blanchet 1984, 277 ff. 4 Kibbert's Cat. No. 599,p. 128, Taf. 46 and 73.

93

Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 43

• 1 • 2 •3

Figure i Distribution of socketed axes, type Wesseling, in the Netherlands. Legend: i one axe per municipality; 2 two or more axes per municipality; 3 unlooped axe.

Waasmunster has been illustrated by O'Connor,6 and there are some others with loops larger than is normal on the Wesseling axes. Direct dating evidence for the plain Wesseling axes, in the form of occurrence in datable grave or hoard finds, is scarce indeed. Kibbert had none to cite for his area. In the Netherlands, there is one small hoard-find: three socketed axes were found together on the Susteren Heide in Limburg (at het Eilandje, ten zuiden van grenspaal 112 ('het Eilandje', south of the boundary post 112). Two of these axes are of plain Wesseling type; the third is a socketed axe with plastic 'imitation wing' ornament,7 of a variety similar to the socketed axe in the well-known Berg-en-Terblijt hoard.8 The Berg-enTerblijt material is purely Late Bronze Age, although the Koerheuvel situla is of the Early Iron Age. Indirect dating evidence relates predominantly to the Wesseling-related axes with Uhrpendel (rib-and-pellet) decoration.

Such decoration occurs on a variety of socketed axes types that seem also to belong both to the Late Bronze Age and the early Hallstatt period, Among these are the prominently British-West French socketed axes of Sompting type.9 Armorican socketed axes, which also straddle the boundary Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age, may also bear such decoration.10 A I4C-date recently published for a rib-and-pellet Sompting-type axe from Wichelen in Belgium (Museum Brussels, 62959) fa\ls, when calibrated, more or less closely within the range of the Hallstatt period.11

Uhrpendel decoration; all the others are unornamented.5 A distribution map (fig. i) shows that their occurrence is confined to the eastern half of the Netherlands; but that within that area they are spread out fairly evenly from north to south, linking up with the North Rhine distribution area of the German examples of Kibbert. We can therefore conclude that the Rhenen-Koerheuvel axe is likely to have been made in the eastern part of the Netherlands or in one of the adjacent parts of Western Germany. Information as to the frequency and distribution of the type in Niedersachsen is, however, not at present available. Wesseling axes do not seem to be common in Belgium; but an example from

Address of the author Dr J.J. Butler, Gronings Instituut voor Archeologie, Poststraat 6 9712 ER Groningen, the Netherlands.

5 All will be illustrated and described in a corpus of Dutch socketed axes soon to be published in Palaeohistoria. 6 O'Connor 1980, fig. 68. 7 Now Museum Sittard, Inventory No. 300; illustrated by Butler 1973, Abb. 9:5, the find-spot is erroneously given as Sittard. 8 Butler 1973, Abb. I4b, No. 4. 9 Schmidt & Burgess, 1981, 241 ff; O'Connor 1980, n, 234; various srticles in Burgess & Coombs 1979. 10 Briard 1965, 247-82, fig. 89 and 93. For Uhrpendelbeile in

Germany, see: Sprockhoff 1956,1, 95-6; II, 24-5, Kane n; Tackenberg, 1971: Liste 21, Kane n; Schoknecht, 1974; Kibbert, 1984, Nos. 581-5, 615-6. These include both British-West French products and imitations; further sorting out as to type is needed, n Conventional dating of the Wichelen axe: 2465+^ 35 (Utc- 3917), published in Hendrix et al. 1996,18-22, fig. 4. Calibration with the Groningen Radiocarbon program (version Dec. 1998) yields a high-probability (2-sigma) range of dates from 763 to 409 BC.

94

It is difficult to see the Koerheuvel axe as a battleaxe or as a prestige object. For these purposes it is too small, too plain, and, too common. Presumably it is just an ordinary tool axe, despite its prestigious associations at Rhenen.

R.M. VAN HEERINGEN / Burial with Rhine view: the Hallstatt situla grave on the Koerheuvel at Rhenen

REFERENCES

Biard, J., 1965: Les depots bretons et I'Age du Bronze Atlantique, Rennes.

O'Connor, B., 1980: Cross-Channel Relations in the Later Bronze Age i-n, Oxford (BAR is 91).

Briard, J., & G. Verron 1976: Typologie des objets de I'age du bronze en France. Fasc. IV: Haches (2) Herminettes, Paris.

Scmidt, P.K., & C.B. Burgess: The Axes of Scotland and Northern England, Miinchen (Prahistorische Bronzefunde IX, 7).

Burgess, C., & D. Coombs 1979: Bronze Age Hoards: some finds old and new, Oxford (BAR BS 67).

Schoknecht U., 1974: Ein bronzezeitlicher Hortfund der Periode von Murchin, Anklam, Jahrbuch Bodendenkmalpflege Mecklenburg 1974,148 ff.

Hendrix,V, etal. 1996: i4C-dateringen en determinaties van de houtrestanten uit bronzen rivier-vondsten, Lunula rv, 18-22.

Sprockhoff, E., 1956: Jungbronzezeiiliche Hortfunde der Siidzone des nordischen Kreises (Periode v) i-v, Mainz.

Kibbert, K., 1984: DieAxte undBeile im mittleren Westdeutschland n, Miinchen (Prahistorische Bronzefunde ix, 13).

95

Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 43

APPENDIX

The metal composition of the situla from RhenenKoerheuvel

part

%

W

N

R

O

Cu

85

91

90

77

Zn

pr

pr

pr

pr

Pb

pr

pr

0.6

1

Ag

pr

pr

pr

pr

Sn

14

5

8

20

As

pr

pr

pr

pr

Cr

pr

pr

pr

pr

Ineke Joosten The metal of the situla was sampled (Rh3 and Rh.4) as was the corrosion on the metal of Rh4 (Rh2 and Rh5). Rh.3 and Rh4 are copper-coloured, Rh2 and Rh5 are green and blue-green. The samples were pulverized as far as possible by a sapphire stone. The samples were dissolved with a concentrated HF-solution (a mixture of hydrogen fluoride, nitric acid and perchloric acid) and the solutions measured by ICP-AES (Inductive Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy). In addition, the chemical composition of various parts of the situla was non-destructively and semi-quantitatively determined with an XRF (Rontgen Fluorescence), the Spectrace 6000 of Tracer. The chemical composition of the situla is mainly determined by copper (Cu) (table i). The tin content ascertained by the XRF is probably too high. The analyses indicate that the tin content varies considerably in the various parts. The bronze also contains the trace elements nickel (Ni, 0.02-0.2 wt%), lead (Pb, 0.2-1.2 wt%) and iron (Fe, 0.1-2.8 wt%). The percentage of the remaining trace elements is relatively low. The silver content of a sample from the corrosion layer is 290 ppm. This is too low for a silvered surface. Nor were there any macroscopic indications for this.: The corrosion layer is enriched with the oxidic elements natrium (Na) and aluminium (AI) and with iron and lead.

By comparison, the chemical composition of the wall and the rivets of two situlae of the same type from Hart a/d Alz and Rehling (Germany) and those of a 'Rheinische Situla' from Neupotz (Germany) have been included in the table.2 The trace element composition of the Rhenen situla corresponds most to that from Rehling (table 2, 309).

Table i Semi-quantitative analysis of various parts of the Rhenen situla measured with a portable XRF, Spectrace 6000 of Tracor (P. Hallebeek, Instituut Collectie Nederland (ICN), Amsterdam). Legend: W Wall; N rivet; R ring under the rim; O underside; pr present.

Systematic research into the metal composition of Early Iron Age bronze situlae has not so far been carried out.

There is a plan to set up a research programme in cooperation with the Museum of Antiquities in Leiden. Some suggestions for future research are listed below. - Is the metal composition connected with the function of the metal parts of the situla? In order to establish this, per situla parts of a handle, base ring, rivets and different places pf the wall could be analysed. - Is the chemical composition of the situlae from Ede and Baarlo similar to that from the Koerheuvel? - Is the chemical composition of the later situlae similar to those of the Koerheuvel, Ede and Baarlo? - Metallographical analysis of the metal of the situla. The metal structure may produce information on the manufacturing technique. - In order to make statements on the origin of an object and if apossible the workshop where it was manufactured, a database of metal analyses will have to be compiled. This could also include other bronze objects with the same date.

i R. Meijers (ROB), verbal communication.

2 Jacob 1995; Schaaf 1993.

Further archaeometric analysis of bronze situlae

96

R.M. VAN HEERINGEN / Burial with Rhine view: the Hallstatt situla grave on the Koerheuvel at Rhenen

sample Rhenen

Hart a.d.Alz, Germany (305)

Rehling, Germany (309)3

ppm

Rh2

Rh3

Rh4

Rh5

W

N

W

N

Ag AI (wt%) As Ba Be Cd Co Cr Cu (wt%) Fe (wt%) K (wt%) Mg (wt%) Mn Mo<10 Na (wt%) Ni Pb (wt%) Sb Sn (wt%) Sr Ti (wt%) V Zn

>200 0.5 nd <100 <10 <10 290 <10 >10 0.95 <0.1 <0.05 30 <10 0.05 1240 0.393 nd nd 30 <0.05 <10 100

>200 <0.05 nd <100 <10 <10 560 <10 >10 0.1 <0.1 <0.05 10 <10 0.05 2360 0.206 nd nd 30 <0.05 <10 60

>200 0.15 nd <100 <10 <10 500 <10 >10 0.5 <0.1 <0.05 30 <10 0.05 2180 0.242 nd nd 40 <0.05 <10 40

290 0.15 nd <100 <10 <10 30 <10 55.2 2.8 <0.1 <0.05 110 nd <0.05 230 1.2 nd nd <10 <0.05 <10 20

700 nd 2200 nd nd nd 2100 nd 89.99 0.06 nd nd nd nd nd 1200 0.25 300 9.04 nd nd nd 150

300 nd 1600 nd nd nd 2400 nd 98.75 0.03 nd nd nd nd nd 1000 0.07 100 0.61 nd

3300 nd 2100 nd nd nd 500 nd 89.86 1.05 nd nd nd nd nd 1900 0.68 2300 7.38 nd nd nd 160

200-2400 nd 5700-6200 nd nd nd 600 nd 89.6-90.4 0.08-0.10 nd nd nd nd nd 3100-3200 0.26-0.26 900-1000 7.89-8.77 nd nd nd 30-480

nd nd 50

Isere,4 France

Neupotz, Germany (E109)5

tr 0.011 tr nd nd nd tr tr 92.31 0.1 nd nd tr nd

500-1400 nd 1000-1800 nd nd <10 70-840 nd 88.5 -97.4 0.06-0.51 nd nd nd nd nd nd 300-4900 0.68-1.50 300-1100 1.39-8.98 nd nd nd 200-700

tr 0.026 13900 6.79 nd nd nd tr

Table 2 Chemical composition of samples from the Rhenen situla and of typologically comparable situla types. The analyses were carried out by means of ICP-AES. Lead and silver were analysed by AAS (Atomic Adsorption Spectrography). The data on the tin and copper content are not yet known.

Legend: Rh2, Rh5 wall (corrosion layer); Rh3, Rh4 wall (metal); W wall; N rivet; ppm parts per million; nd not measured; tr present as trace element; wt% weight percentage.

Address of the author I. Joosten, Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, PO Box 1600, 3800 BP Amersfoort, the Netherlands. e-mail I.Joosten@archis.nl

REFERENCES

Chapotat, G., 1962: Le char processionnel de la CoteSaint-Andre (Isere), Gallia, 33-78. Jacob, C., 1995: Metallgefasse der Bronze- und Hallstattzeit in Nordwest-, West- und Siiddeutschland, Prahistorische Bronzefunde Abteilung II, 9. Band, Stuttgart, 155.

3 AAS analysis, see Jacob 1995, 155. 4 La Cote-Saint-Andre. AAS (Cu and Sn) and XRF analysis, see Chapotat 1962, 60. 5 XRF analysis, see Kiinzl 1993, 410.

Schaaff, U, 1993: Die Rheinische Situla, in: Kiinzl, E. (Hrsg.), Die Alamannenbeute aus dent Rhein bei Neupotz, Mainz.

97