There appears to be little or no overlap between the end of the Beaker period and the beginning of the Early Bronze Age (Central Europe), although some stylistic and sentimental materials seem to continue in conservative circles. This transition occurred in the 21st century.
The Early Bronze Age of Central Europe has traditionally been divided into two phases A1 and A2 after German prehistorian Paul Reinecke, representing linear progress in technology and fashion. The A1 EBA is the era of bone pins and hammered metal trinkets. A2 EBA is true bronze with cast pins and tin bronzing. The two now overlap significantly, meaning some areas were more conservative than others.
The Middle Bronze Age may have started almost two hundred years earlier than previously believed. That would put its beginning in the ballpark of 1700 B.C., settling the Nebra hoard of Northern Germany in place that makes better sense. By moving most of the metal age to the left, especially the Early Bronze Age, the entire scheme fits better for technological developments in Britain.
|Nebra Sky Disk (1700 B.C.) - Commons|
One quote of interest from the paper:
"It seems that Bz A2a objects, most of which are related to the Únětice culture, should be interpreted as the appropriation of foreign influences and objects in southern Germany, which basically “stayed Bz A1” during the complete EBA. The Bz A2a Únětice bronzes could rather be seen as supplement to the local inventory of the material culture."
"Moreover, it is most likely that Bz A2 in the area of the Únětice culture started considerably earlier than in the Augsburg region. An early start for Bz A2a already in the late 3rd millennium or at least around 2000 BC is indicated by Quenstedt, grave 34, a grave from Feuersbrunn and possibly also hoard II of Melz"
"Bz A2 finds in southern Germany and Bz A1 finds in the area of the Únětice culture should be explained as the local appropriation of foreign objects rather than autonomous chronological phases."This partly confirms that Unetice should not be considered as a strictly chronological development radiating outwards, but more reflects social groups, possibly peculiar social groups.
I don't know if these dates were used in the Allentoft et al, 2015 paper or if these will be used in Allentoft 2.0. Since isotopes were collected on many of these remains, there will probably be another large paper on mobility in the near future.
Rewriting the Central European Early Bronze Age Chronology: Evidence from Large-Scale Radiocarbon DatingPhilipp W. Stockhammer, Ken Massy, Corina Knipper, Ronny Friedrich, Bernd Kromer, Susanne Lindauer, Jelena Radosavljević, Fabian Wittenborn, Johannes Krause. Published: October 21, 2015
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.013970 [Link]
AbstractThe transition from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age in Central Europe has often been considered as a supra-regional uniform process, which led to the growing mastery of the new bronze technology. Since the 1920s, archaeologists have divided the Early Bronze Age into two chronological phases (Bronze A1 and A2), which were also seen as stages of technical progress. On the basis of the early radiocarbon dates from the cemetery of Singen, southern Germany, the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in Central Europe was originally dated around 2300/2200 BC and the transition to more complex casting techniques (i.e., Bronze A2) around 2000 BC. On the basis of 140 newly radiocarbon dated human remains from Final Neolithic, Early and Middle Bronze Age cemeteries south of Augsburg (Bavaria) and a re-dating of ten graves from the cemetery of Singen, we propose a significantly different dating range, which forces us to re-think the traditional relative and absolute chronologies as well as the narrative of technical development. We are now able to date the beginning of the Early Bronze Age to around 2150 BC and its end to around 1700 BC. Moreover, there is no transition between Bronze (Bz) A1 and Bronze (Bz) A2, but a complete overlap between the type objects of the two phases from 1900–1700 BC. We thus present a revised chronology of the assumed diagnostic type objects of the Early Bronze Age and recommend a radiocarbon-based view on the development of the material culture. Finally, we propose that the traditional phases Bz A1 and Bz A2 do not represent a chronological sequence, but regionally different social phenomena connected to the willingness of local actors to appropriate the new bronze technology.