Just like historic souces in the strictest sense, i.e. the written sources, the prehistoric sources also have to be edited and analyzed regarding the scientific knowledge. When talking about editing I understand all of the procedures in this relationship that they are subjugated to after they have been retrieved. Here one can include the cleaning, an eventual conservation and supplementation, the labeling, drawing and photographing as well as classifying and describing the findings and discoveries. The editing of archaeological sources ends with its scientific publication.     

The examination of the source value needs to be separated from the preparation of the sources. Within the historical disciplines it is commonly referred to as source criticism. Even if the preparation and criticism of prehistoric sources are two processes which are separate from one another, they still have a bond between them. It is obvious, for example, that the conservation and restoration, i.e. in a more or less rough manner, have an effect on the sources. Through this even the outer appearance or the inner material structure of this source can be changed. Such a change will have considerable negative consequences if knowledge that could have been derived from the original condition of the corresponding archaeological object can no longer be attained after such a change. For example, the treatment of pottery with preservatives has a negative effect on the subsequent application of chemical analysis methods. But even the inadequate drawing or photographic reproduction of an object in the context of source preparation is enough to produce incorrect results.   

From a systematic point of view, the archaeological analysis of the source value can be divided into an external and an internal source criticism. The outer critique is the critique of the source tradition, whereas the inner critique is the evaluation of the cognitive potential of a source, i.e. its inner value. This differentiation is also common in historical studies. Thus Kirn distinguishes between a critique of the text or textual criticism - which corresponds to the archaeological critique of source tradition - and a critique of the source statements. As in archaeology, the latter is no longer concerned with external factors such as authenticity, type of tradition and completeness of the source, but with its informative value. It is in the nature of things that external criticism comes about first. Only if it turns out to be positive does one deal with the significance of the source in question, i.e. the inner criticism.

Eggers (1950a, 51) once succinctly characterized the difference between external and internal criticism in archaeology by juxtaposing two sets of questions. There are questions, he noted, that relate to the reliability of the tradition of a source and those that relate to the reliability of the source itself. In this sense, we can call the archaeologist's inner source criticism a critique of the source value.

External source criticism (criticism of the source tradition)

In archaeology, the criticism of the source tradition concerns all data that refers to the history of finds, primarily the location and circumstances of the finds. One needs to check whether the site under which the corresponding individual pieces or objects of an ensemble are listed is beyond all doubt. It must also be clarified whether the information linked to these objects appears trustworthy. This concerns, for example, information on how the objects were found, any particularities of their arrangement or storage in the ground, any discoloration observed, any associated cremation or unburnt human bones, and the like. It is clear that such a critical examination will often not lead to a sufficiently satisfactory result, especially in the case of old finds. Especially in the case of old museum inventories, the only criterion that often remains is the inner coherence between the objects and the details of their discovery ascribed to them, including the location or specific site of discovery. In the case of old bronze finds in museum collections, for example, it is often possible to decide on the basis of the patina alone whether, as the entry in the inventory book indicates, it is actually a river find recovered during dredging or rather a find on solid ground for which, for whatever reason, a false site has been indicated.

Particularly in the case of objects that were acquired from local or regional antique dealers around the turn of the century, the information provided often does not correspond with the facts. But this is also true for the present, especially for those rich hoards that are tracked down by unauthorized persons with the help of electronic metal detectors. These are then improperly recovered and finally offered for sale in the art and antiques trade, often using fictitious information about the location and circumstances of the finds.

A special instructive example can be seen at the Bullenheimer Berg (mountain) situated southeast of Würzburg at the western edge of the Steigerwald (forest) near Uffenheim, in whose area at least 17 urn field hoard finds saw the light of day. Only one of them was professionally recovered (Wamser 1995). In 1990 alone, 5 hoards from Bullenheimer Berg were offered to the then prehistoric, now archaeological Staatssammlung (state collection) in Munich, including one consisting of 12 gold and at least 19 bronze objects (Gebhard 1990). The gilded objects are 2 longitudinal-oval, punched gold plates, 6 correspondingly decorated humps and 4 arm spirals. The bronze finds of this hoard consist of rag axes, a socketed axe, a socketed chisel, a chisel and 2 sickles as well as massive arm and swing foot rings. According to independent lines of tradition, the bronzes are said to have been found at a greater depth above the gold objects. According to the information available, a fragmented recovered vessel served as a container, but it is unclear whether it contained all or only some of the objects - for example, only the gold. Some of these 5 hoards from 1990 were apparently split up into various individual elements soon after their improper recovery, before being acquired by the Staatssammlung.

From a critical point of view, the hoard ensemble from Bullenheimer Berg in Main-Franconia is a model case for the importance of external source criticism. From the diffuse data available for most of the hoards found there, a maximum of reliable or at least plausible information must be filtered out with investigative intuition. This involves the clarification or elucidation of the respective sites as well as the circumstances of the finds, which are of central importance for the overall interpretation of this unusual hoard concentration. Thus the unity of the find complex with the gold objects has been questioned due to the heterogeneous dating of the objects contained therein. For Rupert Gephard, on the other hand, an inconspicuous detail - traces of bronze patina on the front side of one of the two gold plates - speaks for the coherence of the complex. The patina remains, however, only prove that the metal sheet must have been in contact with bronze, but not that it was one of the bronzes in this ensemble of finds. Even the find from Bullenheimer Berg is already known from a comparable hoard (Depot 5), which is reminiscent of the present find in its composition and which contained fragments of sheet gold with circular hallmarks similar to the two gold plates, seems, in contrast to Gephard's opinion, only conditionally suitable to dispel the doubts about the unity of the ensemble. In view of the fact that Depot 5 itself is not beyond all doubt in its composition, it can at best provide a rather weak argument for the unity of the other complexes in question.

To what extent the data to the 16 inappropriately salvaged find complexes, the Bullenheimer Berg specified here being an exemplary case, correspond or at least could correspond has to be clarified by a detailed examination of each individual case. Especially in the case of the 5 hoards offered to the Prehistoric Staatssammlung by the art trade, not only the composition of the finds but also the location must be considered with caution. In such a case, however, even the most thorough examination of the available information will hardly be able to completely dispel any existing doubts.

In connection with the external source criticism respectively the criticism of the source value, the internationally so-called Nebra Sky Disk is a particularly good example. Due to intensive media coverage and a large exhibition, it has recently caused a considerable stir. It is said to have been found in 1999 on the Mittelberg near Nebra in Saxony-Anhalt, together with 2 bronze swords, 2 bronze hatchets, a bronze chisel and numerous fragments of probably two bronze arm spirals, by two illegal operators equipped with a metal detector. The ensemble was sold immediately. It was only in 2002, after a feigned authenticity check in Basel and the involvement of the Swiss and German police, that it reached the Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte in Halle. We are not concerned here with the interpretation of the various gold applications on the Sky Disc and with their overall astronomical interpretation, but with the unity of the find complex. As is almost always the case with unlawful and improperly recovered archaeological finds, the alleged location of the find, which was determined under various difficulties, is not beyond doubt. The same applies to the accompanying finds and thus to the coherence of the ensemble. Harald Meller presented a chain of evidence which, in his opinion, proves the Mittelberg to be the actual site of discovery and, moreover, the unity of all objects in the find. Peter Schauer presented a number of weighty arguments against this view. He comes to the conclusion that the bronzes cannot be considered a closed find and that the alleged site is anything but sure. Although the reasons he cites cannot simply be dismissed, to my knowledge neither Meller nor any other archaeologist has yet to react to this. This is all the more incomprehensible as Meller's opinion can only be convincing by thoroughly invalidating Schauer's arguments. As long as this has not happened, the bronze hoard with the sky disk, which was allegedly found on the Mittelberg near Nebra, will continue to be have a big question mark accompanying it due to its unclear history.

In principle it can be stated, with regard to the criticism of the source tradition, that it will become clear in the course of a detailed examination of the find whether the present object or find complex is a secured find or not. From the outset, a falsification of the objects themselves cannot be ruled out. Has the external criticism caused a negative result, although the respective objects have proven to be genuine, then it is obvious that one needs to assume that the location and/or circumstances of the find are based on false information. This first level of source criticism concludes with a thorough evaluation of all information available for the tradition of the respective source.

Literature: Manfred K. H. Eggert, Prehistoric Archeology, Concepts and Methods, 4th edition, UTB 2012