Science versus Archaeology? The Case of the Bernstorf Fakes.

Abstract

Although scientific methods are frequently applied in archaeology and are often considered as indispensable, their results do not always agree with archaeological expectations. This can usually be resolved by detailed discussions and by acknowledging the potentials and limitations of the different approaches. To do this it is necessary to accept the competence and experience of each other and, foremost, accept and understand the different methodologies. Here a case is presented, in which such a  conundrum could in principle be solved but archaeological arguments are given a priori more weight and discomforting scientific results are thus suppressed. The case deals with a number of decorated gold foils and pieces of amber that were found near a Late Bronze Age structure at the hamlet of Bernstorf near the small town of Kranzberg, Lkr. Freising, in Bavaria. They were  interpreted as clear evidence for contacts between Mycenae and Bavaria in the Late Bronze Age and it was suggested that the gold derives from Egypt. It was also maintained that this find would corroborate the widely accepted hypothesis of an “amber road” and a link between the Mediterranean cultures and Central Europe. Analyses of the Bernstorf gold showed it to be exceptionally pure which is not only unknown in natural gold but also in all prehistoric gold objects hitherto analyzed. It was therefore concluded that the finds from Bernstorf were made from modern gold foil, which is supported by radiocarbon dates of soil intentionally enveloping an amber “seal” containing gold foil of similar composition. However, this unavoidable conclusion is dismissed by some archaeologist, claiming that “mere chemical analysis” and “a chemist” cannot decide on the authenticity of an object and that archaeological reasoning has to be given priority.