- Chapter Twenty-One -
et al. 1981: 451-2; Schroter 1975). This level hilltop had been occupied from
Neolithic times (Goldberg I-III), and again systematically during the early
sixth-fifth centuries BC (Goldberg IV), and later (Goldberg V), as Bersu's plans and
publications (1911-31) showed. Bersu's own interpretations of his evidence have
never been presented, but have now been assembled Gope 1995), through the kind
collaboration of Dr C.A. Ralegh Radford, who had discussed the evidence in detail
with Gerhard Bersu from 1932 onwards (I had also discussed it with him in the early
1950S). All this is here summarized, to give a realistic view of Goldberg IV,
fifth-sixth centuries BC.
The plan in Childe (1950: 224) runs together all the evidence for Goldberg IV, but
the plan itself is composite, and Bersu's evidence confirms this. The 'citadel' area is
of primary interest: Bersu saw building 2 (phase IVA) as a post-built tower 13m
square outside (timber posts I m across in very deep holes); but a 'tower' would have
been at least 13 m high, needing 14 m tree-trunks at 1 m thick, weighing some 7 tons.
A hefty stockade some 4 m high is more likely (and note the 4 m-wide ground level
entrance). In phase IVB the massive timbers were removed from their sockets and an
earth 'wall' made around the whole settlement, covering the 'stockade' position; and
some of its material had fallen into the recently emptied stockade post-holes. At this
time a post-built ridge 'hall' (10 X 6 m inside) was put up (perhaps re-using the stock-
ade posts), and outside it an oblong entrance complex with projecting entrance
structure, the foundation trenches of its enclosures all ending abruptly at what must
have been the inner line of the new 'wall' (IVB). Stockade and hall were thus not
existing together.
The 'Holz und Erde Mauer' probably had a timber outer facing (any evidence of
postholes and slots has now slid down the hillsides); along this inner face were very
few postholes, so there was probably no vertical inner face, only a sloping bank.
In the interior were oblong post-built houses of this age (phase IV, so judged by
Bersu from pottery and metalwork fragments): some were probably of retainers
(e.g. with hearths), others for storage. These structures were not all standing at the
same time. Some lay under the line of the defensive wall and must therefore be
assigned to IVA (e.g. 17, very like the 'ridge-hall', I, of IVB). Some buildings were
clearly succeeded by others (e.g. 43 replaced 42, and others similarly by analogy). A
few groups look as though they had grown by accumulation (e.g. 32-7). On our two
plans houses have thus been accorded to IVA and IVB, though rebuilding will not
necessarily all have been done at exactly the same time (Figure 21.8). Bersu judged
that these timber structures had a short life, thirty years or less, being entirely
replaced when dilapidated rather than repaired. This house-building tradition
persisted long, at least from IVA through into Middle La Tene (Bersu 1930).
Dating for IVA and IVB rests on Bersu's assessment of pottery and metal frag-
ments, seen now in the light of more up-to-date chronologies. While there was a little
use of the hilltop in Ha C (Schroter 1975: III, fig. 14, no. 13), the bulk of IVA and
IVB seems to lie within the later sixth to early fifth centuries. 'Metalwork did not
well survive on this site' and the better of the brooches, now labelled 'Goldberg' in
museums, probably did not come directly from the settlement itself (e.g. the 'snake',
Mansfeld 1973: 170 (note also 185); Bittel et al. 1981: 452). But Bersu knew (and
photographed) many of these, and had reason to believe that they came from a burial