Chapter published in BAR S2772 Forging Identities.

The Mobility of Culture in Bronze Age Europe: Volume 2,

Edited by Paulina Suchowska-Ducke, Samantha Scott Reiter, Helle Vandkilde.
British Archaeological Reports Ltd; 9781407314402; £43; 2015. Order Online: www.barpublishing.com

The Earliest Socketed Axes in Southeastern Europe: Tracking the

Spread of a Bronze Age Technological Innovation
Oliver Dietrich

Abstract: Although their early evolution is largely obscure, socketed axes are among the most numerous artefacts of
the Southeastern European Late Bronze Age. They seem to appear all at once in a horizon of hoards conventionally
parallelized with the Central European Bz D phase. Some researchers have tried to explain this sudden occurrence as
the result of a local development which began with Early Bronze Age socketed chisels. Others seek their origin in the
Seima-Turbino metalwork horizon (in which socketed axes are already attested to in the first quarter of the 2nd millen-
nium BC). Starting from there, a complex pattern of transmission through different cultural milieus is suggested until
their arrival in the Carpathian Basin around 1300 BC. The present contribution sets out to clarify some aspects of the
invention and spread of this Bronze Age innovation.

Keywords: Southeastern Europe, socketed axes, Seima-Turbino Horizon, innovation

Introduction
Socketed axes are among the most characteristic artefacts
of the Late Bronze Age (LBA) in Southeastern Europe.
Compared to the characteristics of older axe types, they
are a major technological innovation. Not only were fewer
raw materials needed in the casting of a socketed axe head
(Kibbert 1984, 118; Wanzek 1989, 153-154), but a compa-
rable impact force could be generated through the weight
of the wooden shaft1. The insertion of the shaft directly
into the axe head would solve one of the major problems
of other axe forms; in this way, the axe head would no
longer be pushed deeper into the shaft with every blow un-
til the wood finally splits (Dietrich 2010b). Furthermore,
the shaft would not have required refashioning in order to
change between the functionalities of axe and adze; the
simple turn of the axe head and re-fastening would have
sufficed (Fischer 1999, 42).
Socketed axes made a sudden appearance in Southeast-
ern Europe in a hoard horizon conventionally parallelized
with Reinecke’s Bronze Period D (Dietrich 2010c), usu-
ally thought to have started around 1300 BC. As with all
innovations, the how and when of this phenomenon are
1
This judgment has been challenged. Kibbert (1984, 118) has argued
that the functionality of an axe head is determined mainly by its weight;
Fischer (1999, 36) and Wanzek (1989, 152-153) think that socketed axes
are not functional for heavy woodworking for the same reason. Sock-
eted axes weigh mostly less than 500g (Fischer 1999, 40). However, this
is also the weight range exhibited by Copper Age flint and ground stone
in Southeastern Europe (e.g. Klimscha 2011, 367, Fig. 7) and the latter
encompassed complex functionalities including woodworking (Klim-
scha 2011, 367-368). A simple equation of axe head weight with func-
tionality is, thus, impossible. One must also take into account the weight
of the shaft. Sleeves are attested to in the shafting of socketed axes, a
practice which would have added centrifugal mass to the axe (Dietrich
2010a). Another possibility is the production of shafts with a consider-
ably thickened upper part (e.g. Dietrich 2010a: Fig. 2/3). Experimental
work supports the possibility of cutting wood with socketed axes (Rob-
erts and Ottaway 2003, 125).
of central interest and a topic of debate. While some re-
searchers propose a local development of the socketed axe
in the metal-rich Carpathian Basin on the basis of socketed
chisels (which are attested there from the Early Bronze
Age) onwards (comp. Dietrich 2010c), others tend to seek
their origin further to the east (Bočkarev 2002, Uşurelu
2010, 46-52).2
Setting the scene: the Seima-Turbino Horizon
The exponents of the theory of an eastern origin for the
socketed axe take their starting point in the metalwork of
the so-called Seima-Turbino Horizon (STH; for the dis-
cussion below see map in Figure 1). This generic name
covers an EBA metalwork horizon characterized by sock-
eted axes, looped spearheads and knives with zoomorphic
handles that spread over a vast area of Eurasia between
the Jenissej in the east and the Baltic Sea in the west
(Chernykh and Kuzminikh 1987; Parzinger 1997, 224,
Fig. 1). To the southeast, the distribution area of typical
metalwork reaches the middle course of the Volga, while
one outlier (the famous hoard from Borodino with Seima-
Turbino type spearheads) reached as far as the Black Sea
area (Kaiser 1997, 67-91).
The STH has long been dated by means of the typologi-
cal comparison of objects from the Borodino hoard with
16th and 15th centuries BC Mycenaean finds (Kaiser 1997,
23-24 with bibliography). However, four radiocarbon dates
seem to support a much earlier date roughly between 2000
and 1600 calBC (Chernykh 2008, 86-87; Hanks et al. 2007,
359, Fig. 3;Yungner and Karpelan 2005 ). Though still few
2
Evidently this complex problem cannot be thoroughly explored
within the confines of this paper. Many of the issues presented below
are re-addressed in detail in my PhD thesis.

39
Part 3: Cultural Interaction: Modes and Channels of Movement and Transmission
Figure 1: Model of the proposed spread of socketed axes from east to west. At present, radiocarbon data are only available for the
Seima-Turbino axes; the other dates are just estimates (images of axes after Uşurelu 2010; base map: www.stepmap.de).
and from samples for which an old wood effect cannot
be excluded, these early dates , find some support when
linked to a series of radiocarbon data for the Abashevo and
Sintashta cultures, since metalwork (and, more seldomly,
pottery of the latter) was found in some Seima-Turbino
cemeteries (Chernykh 2008, 86-87). Thus, absolute dates
between 2200-1600 BC for the STH do seem possible at
the moment.
The early dating of the STH opens up the possibility that
the socketed axes typical for this horizon are the earliest in
Eurasia. A direct date is available from wood found inside
the socket of an axe from one of the graves at Yur´ino;
it dates with a probability of 89,9% to 1985-1747 calBC
(Yungner and Karpelan 2005, 112). Based on these new
dates, Bočkarev (2002) and Uşurelu (2010, 46-52) have
suggested that the socketed axe was distributed westwards
by groups which migrated from the STH Siberian core
area. In order to assess the probability of this model, it
is necessary to include a short account of the information
available on the STH and the problems related to this ar-
chaeological phenomenon.
Chernykh (1992, 216) counted 422 metal objects and 30
casting moulds over the whole of the STH distribution area
40
(representing a zone measuring around 3,000,000km2),
of which the majority came from only five cemeteries.
Most of these sites were unfortunately excavated and pub-
lished insufficiently. In some cases, the graves were re-
constructed by agglomerations of bronzes (Kaiser 1997,
77-78), as human bones were conspicuously lacking from
many complexes3. The grave goods (i.e. metal, bone and
stone weapons as well as lamellar bone armor and jadeite
ornaments) are thought to evoke the image of elite war-
rior identities (Chernykh 1992, 216). A few burials were
identified as ‘founder’s graves’ due to casting moulds
discovered within (Chernykh 1992, 218). Ceramics were
generally missing from the graves, making it hard to cor-
relate them with cultures defined on basis of pottery style.
Consequently, no STH settlements are known (Chernykh
1992, 216; Parzinger 1997, 224).
Chernykh (1992, 215-216) classes this conglomerate of
widely-scattered (but formally somehow unitary4) bronze
3
The well-documented (but less well-equipped) graves from Ros-
tovka are an exception (Chernykh 1992, 216).
4
Chernykh (1992, 217-224) highlights seven distinct groups inside
the Seima-Turbino area by the regional clustering of find spots. He
further brings forward arguments for a general differentiation into an
eastern and a western group by metal types and differences in the alloys
 Oliver Dietrich: The Earliest Socketed Axes in Southeastern Europe
objects ,as ‘the Seima-Turbino-Transcultural Horizon’,
a package of specialized, innovative bronze objects and
technology which spread throughout Eurasia by west-
ward-migrating Siberian groups. Other authors have been
more reluctant in their interpretations as pointedly summa-
rized by Parzinger (1997, 226-228). As most archaeologi-
cal cultures in Eurasia have been defined by pottery styles,
he argues that the Seima-Turbino bronzes, because they
are usually not associated with ceramics simply did not fit
the traditional heuristic approach to material culture. Parz-
inger emphasizes that the metal objects seen as typical for
the STH were also common in local cultures in many cases
(comp. Bočkarev 1986; Kaiser 1997, 80-81 with further
bibliography)5 and were attributed to a distinct horizon
only if their find contexts did not include pottery. Accord-
ing to Parzinger (1997, 226), this would be the reason for
the many single finds and badly-documented grave inven-
tories which appear among the overall body of archaeo-
logical discoveries. Ultimately, he regards Seima-Turbino
metalwork as having been firmly integrated into the local
Andronovo, Abashevo and Srubnaja cultures (Parzinger
1997, 228).
The STH is, thus, highly disputed. Based on the evidence
available at present, the whole concept may have to be re-
duced to the basic statement that over a vast territory and
apparently in different cultural milieus in the late 3rd and
early 2nd millennium BC grave ensembles with formal-
ly comparable rich metalwork (including socketed axes,
spearheads and knives) appeared. These discoveries seem
to convey the impression of steppe warrior elites who rap-
idly adopted new symbols of power (Anthony 2007, 446-
447). The appearance of this package of elite metalwork
represents the moment in which important technological
innovations become visible to the archaeologist for the
first time, presumably also including the socketed axe.
However, the short account presented above should lead
to some restraint in taking a thus far poorly understood
phenomenon as the starting point for a grand historical
synopsis. The arguments presented in favor of this horizon
being the origin of the socketed axe in the Carpathian Ba-
sin should be carefully evaluated.
An eastern innovation travelling westwards?
Bočkarev (2002) has taken the early dating of the STH as
the starting point in his argumentation for the spread of
early socketed axes from east to west (Figure 1). In the
middle of the second millennium BC, the Seima-Turbino
Complex was replaced by several new cultures. Parts of
these post-Seima-Turbino groups are thought to migrate
westwards (bringing the socketed axe along with them)
used. Although the boundary between said two groups would have been
the Urals, types common in both areas show that the groups belonged to
one horizon. See below for a more detailed discussion of socketed axes.
5
See also Anthony’s (2007, 444-446) regular associations of Seima-
Turbino metalwork with Elunino and Krotovo cultures’ pottery in the
region encompassed by the upper and middle reaches of the Irtysh and
the upper Ob.
41
with their spread marked by the appearance of Andronovo
type pottery as far west as the Dnieper. Bočkarev dates the
appearance of socketed axes in the region east of the Car-
pathians between 1500-1300 BC. In the 13th century BC,
the Noua Culture would then have brought the axes into
the Carpathian Basin during its westward migration. Only
at this point, the indigenous production of socketed axes
would have begun followed in short shift by populations
in the Danubian area (Bočkarev 2002, 118).
The last steps in this chain were discussed in particular
detail by Uşurelu (2010). Starting from a chronological
analysis of bronze and casting mould hoard finds from the
northern Black Sea region, he highlighted four chrono-
logical horizons for depositions which contained moulds
(2010, 28-34). The earliest was named after one of the
characteristic finds, the ‘Golovurov Group’. For those
hoards containing bronzes he describes five clusters, again
understood chronologically, with the ‘Lobojkovka group’
paralleling the Golovurov group. The artefacts cited as
characteristic for this horizon include several variants of
two-looped socketed axes (Uşurelu 2010, 30-31).
These axes have strong typological relations with another
cluster of metalwork, the so-called Derbeden Group situat-
ed at the middle course of the Volga and the southern fore-
lands of the Urals; metal forms of both groups were found
together in closed finds (Bočkarev 2002). The basic idea
of Uşurelu is to use this group of metalwork as a chrono-
logical and regional bridge between the STH and the axes
in the northern Black Sea area, thus constituting a chain,
whose last link is the Noua Culture taking the socketed
axe on its westward migration finally into the Carpathian
Basin. As neither the Derbeden group nor the Lobojkovka-
Golovurov groups of metalwork are dated independently,
this model is based exclusively on typological links and
interpretations, as well as on the paradigm that objects and
innovations spread only by the migration of people. Espe-
cially the system of decoration is believed to be intercon-
nected within the axes of all three groups, “degenerating”
more and more on its way to the west (Uşurelu 2010, 45-
46 with further bibliography). With secure dating for much
of this presumed way missing, Chernykh (1976, 192-193)
and others (cf. Uşurelu 2010, 44, note 19 with further bib-
liography) have – based largely on the same typological
observations – proposed the Derbeden axes to derive from
the Northpontic group.
Lacking the space for a detailed discussion, it is necessary
nonetheless to touch upon some general problems within
the typological reasoning put forward in this case. Schwar-
zberg (2009, 89-94) recently analyzed the Seima-Turbino
socketed axes in detail. Confirming opinions earlier ex-
pressed by Chernykh (1992, 220-222), he concluded that
two groups of forms are clearly distinguishable, one which
was located to the east and another to the west of the Urals.
The eastern group encompasses axes with the character-
istic Seima-Turbino ornaments, while undecorated axes
dominate the western group (Schwarzberg 2009, 93-94,
Part 3: Cultural Interaction: Modes and Channels of Movement and Transmission
Figure 2: Spatial distribution of early socketed axes in Southeastern Europe.
Fig. 4-7). Chernykh (1992, 224-226) has further noted
that only some axes contain tin west of the Urals while
the rest were made from arsenic bronze (which is typical
for the local Abashevo and Srubnaja cultures). Chernykh
(1992, 226) took this as evidence for the physical west-
ward movement of ‘Seima-Turbino-type populations’,
while Schwarzberg (2009, 93-94) concluded that socketed
axes were traded westwards from a Siberian metallurgic
center and copied locally in the East European lowlands,
a process which included the loss of the original decora-
tion system, because it had no meaning in the new cultural
context.
Interesting for the question at hand is not only the start of
the disappearance of the decoration system already in the
area and period proposed for the STH. The western group
of axes (which one would assume to have influenced the
Derbeden axes) had no loops (Schwarzberg 2009, Fig.
4-5, map Fig. 6). The Derbeden axes usually had one loop,
while the North Pontic Group had two (Uşurelu 2010, Pl.
1/1-4; 2/1-5; 6/18-32). This would allow for the possibility
that the Derbeden axes really were a mixture of eastern
(decoration) and western (loops, general form) elements in
the sense suggested by Chernykh (1976, 192-193), rather
than an innovation which travelled westwards.
Typological arguments seem, thus, to have reached a dead
end which can only be overcome by independent absolute
dating of the groups of metalwork concerned. To get be-
42
yond this line of argument, other evidence must be con-
sidered. The first step to accomplishing this is to ask what
kind of innovation really travels in this case.
What innovation?
The knowledge of casting socketed implements in two-
piece molds has already been attested to in Southeastern
and Central Europe from the EBA onwards6. Striking ex-
amples of very early socketed chisels come e.g. from. the
settlement of Pecica in Romania (Gogâltan 1999, 155-157,
Fig. 10/1, 24/1-3, 38/2-3). The last BA occupation horizon
at this site was dated by a large series of radiocarbon dates
between 2000 and 1600 calBC (O’Shea et al. 2004-2005,
Fig. 9). Another early socketed chisel was discovered in
layer 16 of the settlement at Tószeg in Hungary (Csányi
and Tárnoki 1992, 200, Fig. 353.). This layer is attributed
to the classic Nagyrév Culture, which roughly equates with
Bz A2 in Central European terms (for Radiocarbon dates,
see Gogâltan 1999, Pl. 7). Therefore, the casting of sock-
eted implements was established in Southeastern Europe
at approximately the same time as it was in the Eurasian
Steppes. Yet another point should be stressed: it was not
the way in which chisels or axes were cast that travelled.
6
On EBA socketed chisels: Hänsel 1968, 71-72; Hänsel 1993;
Schalk 2005; on EBA socketed spearheads: Becker 1964, 149-151;
­Hänsel 1968, 74; Primas 1977, 166-168, Fig. 2; Hansen 1991, 27-31.
 Oliver Dietrich: The Earliest Socketed Axes in Southeastern Europe
Seima-Turbino axes show features for pouring the molten
bronze into the molds that are not found in Southeastern
Europe. Most of the technological variants (‘Eingussvari-
anten’) which Wanzek defined as typical for Southeastern
Europe (1989, 59-65, Pl. 12) include channels cut directly
into the stone molds, a feature which is shared by the pos-
tulated forerunners of the Southeast European axes in the
North Pontic area, as a quick survey of Bočkarev’s and
Leskov’s (1980) work on this find group reveals.
The technological package that potentially came from the
east would thus have to have been exclusively restricted
to the idea of transferring the already well-established
technique of casting socketed objects to another class of
implements.
Southeast European predecessors of LBA socketed
axes
Furthermore, the timespan in which this idea potentially
travelled must be considerably shortened. There is ample
evidence for Southeast European socketed axes dating
from the Middle or even Early Bronze Age which mostly
appear in the form of settlement finds. O. Dietrich’s list
(2010a, 2010c) can be further expanded; it now comprises
19 find spots (List 1; Fig. 2). These discoveries suggest
that a production of socketed axes was already well es-
tablished in Bz B (1600-1500 BC), a point in time during
which their predecessors were thought to have arrived out-
side the Carpathian Basin. Indications of an even earlier
production start come from the EBA ’founder´s house‘ at
Feudvar, Serbia (list 1, no. 11). At Feudvar, a fragment of
a mould for socketed axes or chisels was found (Hänsel-
Medović 2004, 97). A considerable number of finds was
discovered in Wietenberg Culture contexts in the Car-
pathian Basin (list 1, nr. 8, 14-19). This culture dates well
before 1600 by both radiocarbon data7 and archaeologi-
cal reasoning (Boroffka 1994, 288-290). It is important to
stress that none of the axe forms deduced from the moulds
or the shapes known from the finished product have
any resemblance to Seima-Turbino axes, but rather with
younger forms of the same region8. The list of finds further
illustrates that most of the evidence for early socketed axes
comes from settlements and was fairly often preserved in
the form of moulds (List 1).
The earliest socketed axes were loosely scattered through-
out Southeastern Europe (Figure 2) without a particular fo-
cal point9. The map seems to show just a weak reflection
of what originally was a much more dense distribution pat-
7
Radiocarbon data from the settlement of Rotbav (southeastern Tran-
sylvania) lie between the 20th and 15th centuries BC: Dietrich 2010,
269, 285.
8
Especially the beaked mouths (Dietrich 2010a, 359, Fig. 4) of many
pieces are striking typical stylistic elements of later forms of the Car-
pathian Basin as well as earlier local socketed chisels (Dietrich 2010c).
9
A Romanian bias is due to my concentration on this area for the
material studied during my PhD research.
43
tern. Explanations for the lack of early socketed axes from
the archaeological record can be found in the life-cycle of
Bronze Age metalwork.
Where have all the axes gone?
There are two major (and interrelated) points which should
be considered in addressing this question. First, the normal
fate of bronze objects was to be re-melted (Fontijn 2002,
248-249, Fig. 13/1; Hansen 2011, 276-278). The possi-
bility of casting new objects from old ones was the main
advantage of using metal rather than stone (Hansen 2011,
276-277) and it should be assumed to have been widely
used. Only objects that for certain reasons had been taken
out of the chain of casting, use-life and re-melting will sur-
vive and be visible archaeologically (Fontijn 2002; Han-
sen 2011, 277-278, Fig. 2).
In the Carpathian Basin, these special reasons are restricted
to hoarding. Graves are mostly devoid of metal objects or
are altogether absent. For example, 85% of the Romanian
socketed axes stem from hoard finds (Dietrich 2010b, 30,
Fig. 3). This links their visibility to this find category with
only a few pieces (especially moulds10) with find locations
inside of settlements. Over the last few decades, Bronze
Age hoarding has been recognized as a structured, reli-
giously-motivated phenomenon with chronologically and/
or regionally different rules regarding the categories of ob-
jects included and their treatment (cf. Fontijn 2002, esp.
211-220; Geißlinger 1984; Hansen 1991; Hansen 1994;
Hänsel and Hänsel 1997; Soroceanu 1995; Hansen 2005
all with references to further bibliography). The hoarding
customs of the Carpathian Basin have been shown to have
been especially selective (Hansen 1994). EBA and MBA
hoards are almost canonically composed of representative
weapons in the form of axes, swords and jewelry (e.g. Da-
vid 2002; Mozsolics 1967; Soroceanu 2012; Vachta 2008).
The inclusion of tools is a rare exception.
This suddenly changes at the beginning of the LBA. At
that time, a wide range of tools (like sickles and socketed
axes) were included in hoards. They were also included
in a wide variety of types that can hardly be imagined to
have developed within short time (Dietrich 2010). It seems
that much of the diversity and development of metal ob-
jects during the Southeastern European EBA and MBAI
has been obscured by the rules of hoarding. Whole object
classes (like socketed axes) become visible to the archae-
ologist only in rare settlement finds and fairly often in the
form of those moulds disposed of after use (cf. List 1 for
the find contexts of early socketed axes). The appearance
of socketed axes in hoards at the beginning of the LBA
is, thus, not due to their invention, but rather to changing
10
For example most of the Romanian moulds for socketed axes come
from settlements, which results in a spatial distribution pattern com-
pletely different from that of hoarded finished products (Dietrich 2011).
Part 3: Cultural Interaction: Modes and Channels of Movement and Transmission
rules of hoarding, as was already presumed decades ago
(by B. Hänsel 1968, 73)11.
Conclusion
The axes of the so-called Seima-Turbino Horizon are the
oldest objects of their kind known in Eurasia at present. At
the moment, secure evidence for socketed axes in the Car-
pathian Basin goes back only to Bz B, though with a high
probability for Bz A2 beginnings. However, the lack of
evidence for early socketed axes in Southeastern Europe
can be explained as a result of culture-specific formation
processes of the archaeological record. While early sock-
eted axes formed part of an ‘elite warrior package’ mani-
fest in rich graves throughout the Eurasian Steppes, they
fif not enter this package in Southeastern Europe, where
shaft hole axes and swords were the weapons of choice
for representation and hoarding in the EBA/MBA. As our
knowledge of metalwork during this period and region is
largely based on hoards, much of the early development
of metal objects seems to be obscured by selective depo-
sitional practices. However, several well-dated settlement
finds of early socketed axes in Southeastern Europe con-
siderably shorten the timespan between the supposed east-
ern predecessors and the earliest objects in the west. The
casting of socketed objects seems to be generally attested
to roughly at the same time in both regions.
Thus, the model of the spread of the socketed axe has to be
significantly modified. There is little to no evidence for a
slow diffusion of several forms of socketed axes through
different cultural milieus from east to west by the migra-
tion of people. Casting technology, typological features
and the social use of axes (prestige objects in graves/tools
in settlements and hoards) clearly separate the eastern
Steppes from Southeastern Europe.
The innovation possibly received from the east would thus
have to have been exclusively restricted to the idea of cast-
ing socketed axes (which would have moved quite rapidly
throughout Eurasia in the first quarter of the 2nd millen-
nium BC). If the technological innovation of casting sock-
eted objects in general should derive from the knowledge
of Seima-Turbino smiths (which is improbable given the
technological differences between the areas), we would
have to assume an even more rapid spread of this idea
throughout Eurasia around the year 2000 BC.
List 1: Pre-BzD socketed axes in southeastern Europe
1. Celldömölk, Vas megye, Hungary, fragment of a mould
from a settlement (early MBA; Wanzek 1989, 204, No.
69d, Pl. 49/8b). 2. Drevenik, okres Spišská Nová Ves,
Slovakia, socketed axe from a hoard, Forró Horizon (Bz
B/C, MDIII/SDI; Novotná 1970, 72-73, No. 467, 39, No.
226). 3. Kolodnoe, Zakarpats’ka Oblast, Ukraine, sock-
 He has also proven similar filters to be the reason for our sparse
11
knowledge of the early development of tongue sickles (“Zungensi-
cheln”; Hänsel and Medović 1995).
44
eted axe from Hoard I. (Bz B/C12; Kobal’ 2000, 83, No. 62,
Pl. 4A/20). 4. Ožd´any, okres Rimavská Sobota, Slovakia,
socketed axe from a hoard, Forró Horizon/ Uriu (Bz C2/D;
Novotná 1970, 92-93, No. 711, Pl. 40/711). 5. Slovenska
Bistrica, občina Maribor, Slovenia, socketed axe from a
hoard (Teržan 1983, 63-65), Bz C13. 6. Soltvadkert, Bács-
Kiskun megye, Hungary, hoard with moulds for socketed
axes and chisels inside a settlement, MD II (Bz B1; Hän-
sel 1968, 73, Pl. 25/1-2, 4-5, 11-12). 7. Szécsény, Nógrád
megye, Hungary, two socketed axes from a hoard which
probably dates to the Forró Horizon (Bz C2; Mozsolics
1973, 121). 8. Boiu, județ Hunedoara, Romania, Wieten-
berg Culture settlement (EBA to MBA14). One socketed
axe, presently lost (Popescu 1956; 312, note. 3715). 9.
Gheja, județ Mureş, Romania, hoard of one socketed axe
with a chain of five bronze rings in its loop. An early date
for the find is probable by formal analogies with the axes
of Kolodnoe, Otomani and Slovenska Bistrica (Petrescu-
Dîmboviţa 1978, 102, nr. 32, pl. 33D). 10. Otomani, județ
Bihor, Romania, un-stratified settlement find. Hänsel has
convincingly argued that none of the finds from Otomani
date later than MD III (Bz B2/C1; Hänsel 1968, 73, Pl.
29/12). 11. Feudvar, Vojvodina, Serbia, fragment of
a mould for socketed axes or chisels from the so-called
‘founder´s house’ (Hänsel and Medović 2004, 97, Fig. 8/5,
14/3-4). 12. Veselé, okres Piešťany, Slovakia, mould in a
MBA Tumulus Culture settlement context (Bartík 1995,
43, 46, Fig. 4). 13. ‘Transdanubia’, socketed axe from
a hoard, late MBA (Wanzek 1989, 136, Pl. 53/6). 14.
Sighişoara, județ Mureş, Romania, two socketed axes
from the eponymous settlement of the Wietenberg Cul-
ture (Boroffka 1994, 76-77, No. 398, 235, Pl. 130/3-4).
15. Perişor, județ Bistriţa-Nasăud, Romania, hoard with
socketed axes in a Wietenberg Culture pot (Soroceanu
and Retegan 1981, 207-211, Fig. 26-33). 16. Şoimuşu
Mic, județ Harghita, Romania, socketed axe from a Wi-
etenberg Culture settlement (Benkő 1992, 96, No. 11/5,
Pl. 6/4). 17. Moldoveneşti, județ Cluj, Romania, ”Dealul
Cetăţii“, socketed axe from a Wietenberg Culture settle-
ment (Bajusz (ed.) 2005, 413, Fig. 25/146). 18. Râmeţ,
județ Alba, Romania, ”La Cruce“, socketed axe from a Wi-
etenberg Culture settlement (Boroffka 1994, 69, No. 353,
235, Pl. 114/2-3). 19. Săsciori, județ Alba, Romania, ‘Ce-
tate’, socketed axe from a Wietenberg Culture settlement
(Boroffka 1994, 72, No. 372, 235, Pl. 116/2).
12
 Kobal’ (2000, 83, No. 62) dates the find into his Podgorjany II Hori-
zon (Bz B). This early date is not completely certain, as two undeco-
rated axes of type B1 after Vulpe (1970) are part of the hoard, which
could date also to Bz C (Vulpe 1970, 72-73, 76). Boroffka (2003, 325)
has also pointed out that two pendants (“Lanzettanhänger”) could be
even later. It is possible that the hoard represents an ensemble collected
over a longer period of time with an emphasis in Bz C.
13
 The other objects from the hoard include an Asenkofen type sword
and knobbed sickles which would fit into Bz C. The only argument for
a later date would be the socketed axe itself … and then only if one
acts on the assumption that this find group did not appear before Bz D
(Hansen 1994, 185).
14
 Boroffka (1994, 288-290; 258, Tabl. 14) dates the Wietenberg Culture
between Bz A2 and the beginning of Bz D.
15
 Popescu’s comment is based on a communication from Nestor.
 Oliver Dietrich: The Earliest Socketed Axes in Southeastern Europe
Acknowledgements
Thanks for their remarks on earlier versions of this text are
due to Dr. Laura Dietrich, Tobias Mörtz, M. A. and Jens
Notroff, M. A. as well as to an anonymous reviewer.
References
Anthony, D. W. 2007. The horse, the wheel and the lan-
guage. Princeton-Oxford, University Press.
Bajusz, I. ed. 2005. Téglás István jegyzetei. Kolozvár,
Scientia.
Becker, C. J. 1964. Neue Hortfunde aus Dänemark mit
frühbronzezeitlichen Lanzenspitzen. Acta Archaeo-
logica (København) 35, 115-152.
Bartík, J. 1995 Kovolejárstvo na sídlisku z doby bron-
zovej vo Veselom. Zborník Slovenského Národného
Múzea LXXXIX, 25-46.
Benkő, E. 1992. A középkori Keresztúr – szék régészeti
topográfiája. Budapest, University Press.
Bokarev, V. S. eskom sootnošenie sejminskogo i
turbinskogo mogil’nikov. In Problemy archeologii
Podneprov’ja, 78-111. Dnepropetrovsk.
Bočkarev, V. S. 2002. Металлические топоры-кельты
Европы эпохи поздней бронзы. In: Степи Евразии
в древности и средневековье, 115-118. Saint Peters-
burg.
Bočkarev, V. S. and Leskov, A. M. 1980. Jung- und Spät-
bronzezeitliche Gussformen im nördlichen Schwarz-
meergebiet. Munich, Beck.
Boroffka, N. 1994. Die Wietenberg-Kultur. Bonn, Habelt.
Boroffka, N. 2003. Review of: Kobal’ 2000. Eurasia An-
tiqua 9, 323-327.
Chernykh, E. N. 1976. Drevnyaya metalloobrabotka na
Yugo-Zapade USSR. Moscow.
Chernykh, E. N. (1992) Ancient metallurgy in the USSR.
Cambridge.
Chernykh, E. N. (2008) The ‘Steppe Belt’ of stockbreed-
ing cultures in Eurasia during the Early Metal Age.
Trabajos de Prehistoria 65, 79-93.
Chernykh E. N. and S. V. Kuzminykh (1989) Drevniaya
metallurgiya Severnoi Evrazii (seiminskoturbinskii
fenomen). Moscow, Nauka.
Csányi, M. and Tárnoki, J. 1992. Katalog der aus-
gestellten Funde. In W. Meier-Ahrendt (ed.),
Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Sied-
lungen an Donau und Theiss, 175-210. Frankfurt
am Main, Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte,
Archäologisches Museum.
David, W. 2002. Studien zu Ornamentik und Datierung
der bronzezeitlichen Depotfundgruppe Hajdúsámson-
Apa-Ighiel-Zajta. Alba Iulia, Altip.
Dietrich, L. 2010. Die mittel- und Spätbronzezeit sowie
die ältere Eisenzeit in Südostsiebenbürgen aufgrund
der Siedlung von Rotbav. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Berlin.
Dietrich, O. 2010a. ‘Hammerbeile’ – Zu einer speziellen
Variante der Schäftung von bronzezeitlichen Tül-
lenbeilen. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 40,
351-362.
45
Dietrich, O. 2010b. Tüllenbeile in Rumänien. Zu eini-
gen grundlegenden Fragen von Fundüberlieferung,
Chorologie und Chronologie. Mitteilungen der Ber-
liner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und
Urgeschichte 31, 27-40.
Dietrich, O. 2010c. Vom Meißel zum Beil? Einige Gedan-
ken zu den frühesten Tüllenbeilen im Karpatenbecken
ausgehend von den Tüllenmeißeln vom Typ Bullen-
dorf. In H. Pop, I. Bejinariu, S. Bacueţ-Crişan and D.
Bacueţ-Crişan (eds), Identităţi culturale regionale in
context european. Studii de arheologie si antropologie
istorică. In Memoriam Alexandrii V. Matei, 123-134.
Cluj-Napoca, Mega.
Dietrich, O. 2011. Zentralisierte Produktionsstruk-
turen? Überlegungen zur räumlichen Beziehung von
bronzezeitlichen Gussformen und Fertigprodukten in
Südosteuropa am Beispiel der rumänischen Tüllen-
beile. Marisia XXXI, 77-91.
Fischer, L. 1999. Bäume und Beile – Verwend-
ungsmöglichkeiten einer Werkzeuggattung im urn-
enfelderzeitlichen Holzhandwerk. Archäologisches
Korrespondenzblatt 29, 35-46.
Fontijn, D. R. 2002. Sacrificial landscapes. Cultural Bi-
ographies of persons, objects and ‘natural’ places in
the Bronze Age of the southern Netherlands. Leiden-
Leuven, University of Leiden.
Geißlinger, H. 1984. Depotfund, Hortfund. In J. Hoops
(ed.), Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde
5, 320-338. Berlin-New York, de Gruyter.
Gogâltan, F. 1999. Bronzul timpuriu şi mijlociu în Ba-
natul Românesc şi pe cursul inferior al Mureşului.
Timişoara, Mirton.
Hänsel, A. 1993. Ein Tüllenhohlmeissel aus Sărata
Monteoru im Berliner Museum für Vor- und Früh-
geschichte. In Hommage à Dr. Draga Garašanin.
Zbornik Narodnog muzeja. Arheologija (Beograd)
XIV, 85-194.
Hänsel, B. 1968. Beiträge zur Chronologie der mittleren
Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken. Bonn, Habelt.
Hänsel, A. and Hänsel, B. 1997. Gaben an die Götter.
Schätze der Bronzezeit Europas. Berlin, Museum für
Vor- Und Frühgeschichte.
Hänsel, B. and Medovićm P. 1995. Seit wann gibt es
Zungensicheln? In B. Schmid-Sikimić and P. Della
Casa (eds), Trans Europam. Festschrift für Margarita
Primas, 59-67. Bonn, Habelt.
Hänsel, B. and Medović, P. 2004. Eine Bronzegießer-
werkstatt der Frühen Bronzezeit in Feudvar bei
Mošorin in der Vojvodina. In B. Hänsel (ed.), Parerga
Praehistorica. Jubiläumsschrift zur Prähistorischen
Archäologie, 83-111. Bonn, Habelt.
Hanks, B. K., Epimakhov, A. V. and Renfrew, A. C. 2007.
Towards a refined chronology for the Bronze Age of
the southern Urals, Russia. Antiquity 81, 353-367.
Hansen, S. 1991. Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen
während der Urnenfelderzeit im Rhein-Main-Gebiet.
Bonn, Habelt.
Part 3: Cultural Interaction: Modes and Channels of Movement and Transmission
Hansen, S. 1994. Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen
während der älteren Urnenfelderzeit zwischen Rhôn-
etal und Karpatenbecken. Bonn, Habelt.
Hansen, S. 2005. Über bronzezeitliche Horte in Un-
garn - Horte als soziale Praxis. In B. Horejs, R. Jung,
E. Kaiser and B. Teržan (eds), Interpretationsraum
Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern
gewidmet, 211-230. Bonn, Habelt.
Hansen, S. 2011. Innovation Metall. Kupfer, Gold und
Silber in Südosteuropa während des fünften und vi-
erten Jahrtausends v. Chr. Das Altertum 56, 275-314.
Kaiser, E. 1997. Der Hort von Borodino. Bonn, Habelt.
Kibbert K. 1984. Die Äxte und Beile im mittleren West-
deutschland II. München, Beck.
Klimscha, F. 2011. Flint axes, ground stone axes and
‘battle axes’ of the Copper Age in the Eastern Balkans
(Romania, Bulgaria). In V. Davis and M. Edmonds
(eds), Stone Axe Studies III, 361-382. Oxford, Oxbow
Books.
Kobal’, J. 2000. Bronzezeitliche Depotfunde aus Tran-
skarpatien (Ukraine). Stuttgart, Steiner.
Mozsolics, A. 1967. Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens.
Depotfundhorizonte von Hajdúsámson und Koszider-
padlás. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó.
Mozsolics, A. 1973. Bronze- und Goldfunde des Karpat-
enbeckens. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó.
Novotná, M. 1970. Die Äxte und Beile in der Slowakei.
Munich, Beck.
Parzinger, H. 1997. Sejma-Turbino und die Anfänge des
sibirischen Tierstils. Eurasia Antiqua 3, 223-247.
Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, M. 1978. Die Sicheln in Rumänien
mit Corpus der jung- und spätbronzezeitlichen Horte
Rumäniens. Munich, Beck.
Popescu, D. 1956. Einige Bemerkunen zur Bronzezeit
Siebenbürgens. Auf Grund der neuesten Grabung-
sergebnisse von Tószeg und der neueren rumänischen
Forschung. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scien-
tiarum Hungaricae 7, 301-320.
Primas, M. 1977. Zur Informationsausbreitung im südli-
chen Mitteleuropa. Jahresbericht des Instituts für Vor-
geschichte Frankfurt a. M., 164-184. Munich, Beck.
Roberts, B. and Ottaway, B. S. 2003. The use and signifi-
cance of socketed axes during the Late Bronze Age.
European Journal of Archaeology 6, 119-140.
46
Schalk, E. 2005. Ein Tüllenmeißel aus Olynth/Agios
Mammas, Griechenland. In: B. Horejs, R. Jung, E.
Kaiser and B. Teržan (eds), Interpretationsraum
Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern
gewidmet, 95-107. Bonn, Habelt.
Schwarzberg, H. 2009. Sejma-Turbino. Formenkreise
frühbronzezeitlichen Prestigeguts in Eurasien. In J. M.
Bagley, C. Eggl, D. Neumann and M. Schefzik (eds),
Alpen, Kult und Eisenzeit. Festschrift für Amei Lang
zum 65. Geburtstag, 83-96. Rahden-Westfalen, Verlag
Marie Leidorf.
O’Shea, J. M., Barker, A. W., Sherwood, S. and Szent-
miklosi, A. 2005. New archaeological investigations
at Pecica Şanţul Mare. Analele Banatului XII-XIII,
81-109.
Soroceanu, T. 1995. Die Fundumstände bronzezeitlicher
Deponierungen – Ein Beitrag zur Hortdeutung beider-
seits der Karpaten. In: T. Soroceanu (ed.), Bronze-
funde aus Rumänien, 15-80. Berlin, Wissenschaftsver-
lag V. Spiess.
Soroceanu, T. 2012. Die Kupfer- und Bronzedepots der
frühen und mittleren Bronzezeit in Rumänien. Cluj-
Napoca/Bistriţa, Accent.
Soroceanu, T. and Retegan, A. 1981. Neue Spät-
bronzezeitliche Funde im Norden Rumäniens. Dacia
N. S. 25, 195-229.
Teržan, B. 1983. Das Pohorje – ein vorgeschichtliches
Erzrevier? Arheoloski Vestnik 34, 51-84.
Uşurelu, E. 2010. Cronologia complexelor ce ţin de pre-
lucrarea metalelor în perioada târzie a epocii bronzu-
lui din spaţiul carpatodunăreano-nord-pontic. Revista
Arheologică Serie noua. VI, 24-70.
Vachta, T. 2008. Studien zu den bronzezeitlichen Hort-
funden des oberen Theissgebietes. Bonn, Habelt.
Vulpe, A. 1970. Die Äxte und Beile in Rumänien I. Mu-
nich, Beck.
Wanzek, B. 1989. Die Gussmodel für Tüllenbeile im
südöstlichen Europa. Bonn, Habelt.
Yungner K. and K. Karpelan 2005. O radiouglerodnykh
datakh Ust-Vetluzhskogo mogilnika. Rossiiskaya
Arkheologiya 4. Moskva, Rossiiskaya Akademiya
Nauk, 112.