Biehl P. & Yu. Rassamakin (eds), 2008. Import and Imitation in Archaeology Schriften des ZAKS, 11,...

SCHRIFTEN DES ZENTRUMS FÜR ARCHÄOLOGIE UND KULTURGESCHICHTE DES SCHWARZMEERRAUMES 11

IMPORT AND IMITATION

IN ARCHAEOLOGY

SCHRIFTEN DES ZENTRUMS FÜR ARCHÄOLOGIE UND

KULTURGESCHICHTE DES SCHWARZMEERRAUMES

Herausgegeben von

FRANÇOIS BERTEMES und ANDREAS FURTWÄNGLER

IMPORT AND IMITATION

IN ARCHAEOLOGY

EDITED BY

P. F. BIEHL & Y. YA. RASSAMAKIN

Beier & BeranLangenweißbach 2008

Es ist nicht gestattet, diese Arbeit ohne Zustimmung von Verlag, Herausgebern oder Autoren vollständig oder aus-zugsweise nachzudrucken, zu kopieren oder auf sonst irgendeine Art zu vervielfältigen!

Bibliographische Information der Deutschen NationalbibliothekDie Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation

in der Deutschen Nationalbibliographie; detaillierte bibliographischeDaten sind im Internet über <http://dnb.ddb.de> abrufbar.

Gedruckt mit freundlicher Unterstützung der Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung. Printed with the financial support of the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung.

Verlag/Publisher: Beier & Beran. Archäologische Fachliteratur Thomas-Müntzer-Str. 103, D-08134 Langenweißbach Tel. 037603 / 3688, Fax 037603 / 3690 Internet: www.beier-beran.de, E-mail: [email protected]

Wissenschaftliche Redaktion/Editing: Peter F. Biehl und Daniela FrehseRedaktion der englischsprachigen Beiträge/English copy editing: Ben Roberts Redaktion der ukrainischen Zusammen-fassungen/Ukrainian translations: Yuri Ya. RassamakinGraphische Gestaltung/Graphic design: Jordan Kanew Layout/Publisher: Daniela FrehseDruck/Print: Verlag Beier & BeranHerstellung/Production: Buchbinderei Reinhardt Weidenweg 17, D-06120 Halle / Sa.

C: Copyright und V. i. S. d. P. für den Inhalt liegt bei den Autoren.

ISBN 978-3-937517-95-7

Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier.Hergestellt in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland / printed in Germany.

Cover figure: Anthropomorphic Clay Figurine from Vrsac (after cover figure: G. Schumacher-Matthäus, Studien zu Bronzezeitlichen Schmucktrachten im Karpatenbecken. Ein Beitrag zur Deutung der Hortfunde im Karpatenbecken (Mainz 1985), after F. Milleker, Starinar 3, Ser. 2, 1923, Taf. 1)

S. Hansen:Preface

P. F. Biehl & Y. Ya. Rassamakin:Import and Imitation in Archaeology. An Introduction

A. Choyke:Shifting Meaning and Value through Imitation in the European Late Neolithic

J. Czebreszuk & M. Szmyt:What Lies behind ‘Import’ and ‘Imitation’? Case Studies from the European Late Neo-lithic

T. Tkachuk:Ceramic Imports and Imitations in Trypillia Culture at the End of Period CI - Period CII (3900 - 3300 BC)

Y. Ya. Rassamakin & A. Nikolova:Carpathian Imports and Imitations in Context of the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age of the Black Sea Steppe Area

A. A. Bauer:Import, Imitation, or Communication? Pottery Style, Technology and Coastal Contact in the Early Bronze Age Black Sea

P. F. Biehl:‘Import’, ‘Imitation’ or ‘Communication’? Figurines from the Lower Danube and Mycenae

Contents

G. J. van Wijngaarden:The Relevance of Authenticity. Mycenaean-Type Pottery in the Mediterranean

A. Mª Lucena Martín:Things We Have, Things We Lack: Reconsidering the First Contacts Between Aegean and the Central and West Medi-terranean

S. Makhortykh:About the Question of Cimmerian Imports and Imitations in Central Europe

H. Potrebica:Contacts Between Greece and Pannonia in the Early Iron Age - With Special Concern to the Area of Thessalonica

M. Carucci:The Sette Sale Domus. A Proposal of Reading

A. Kaliff:The Goths and Scandinavia. Contacts Between Scandinavia, the Southern Baltic Coast and the Black Sea Area During the Early Iron Age and Roman Period

N. Wicker:Import and Imitation in the Migration Period

List of Authors and Addresses

1

2

5

23

35

51

89

105

125

147

167

187

213

223

243

253

Import and imitation have been in archaeological vocabulary since the 19th century and many archae-ologists still use these terms when describing simi-larities of material culture in different archaeological “cultures“.

Generally import and imitation as concepts have been used to build up chronological frame-works in Europe and Eurasia by connecting regional relative chronologies. One major problem in German archaeology in the 1960s was the question of how fast Roman imports reached the northern Germanic regions.

The method of cross dating by “imports“ and “imitations“ in earlier prehistoric periods was revealed in many cases to be flawed after employ-ment of calibrated radiocarbon dates. Especially in the Neolithic and the Copper Age completely new pictures of contemporaneous “cultures“ emerged and are still being developed. Surprisingly we again find in this new chronological framework “imports“ and “imitations“ in cultures whose contemporaneousness we didn’t even consider some years ago.

Hence it is necessary to differentiate forms of imitation of material culture as well as to specify “importing“ as a metaphor for the different forms of exchange of goods.

The growing interest in the humanities in ma-terial culture and the semiotics of things open new perspectives on the topic. Igor Kopytoff’s notion of the cultural biographies of things leads to the dif-ferentiation of several overlapping functions during the lifetime of an object. The meaning and function of objects depended on certain cultural contacts and may have changed in space and time.

The editor’s collection of papers given in EAA meetings in Thessaloniki and St. Petersburg is a wel-come contribution to the widening perspective on foreign objects. The variety of contributions from the Neolithic to the Migration Period and from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea should be taken as an excellent chance by specialists to read case studies from other regions and periods outside of their own specialization.

!"#$%&' &( )")&(*)+ ,’-.'/'0- . (%12$/$3)45)6 /270'*) . 8!8 0&$%)44), ) 9(3(&$ (%12$/$3). :2 6 ,(%(, .'7$%'0&$.;<&= *) &2%")5', $#'0;<4' 01$>)0&= "(&2%)(/=5$+ 7;/=&;%' . %),5'1 (%12$/$3)45'1 «7;/=&;%(1».

? $05$.5$";, )"#$%&' &( )")&(*)+ 7$5*2#&;(/=5$ .'7$%'0&$.;.(/'0- @/- %$,%$97' 1%$5$/$3)+ A.%$#' &( A.%(,)+, #%' #$9;@$.) %23)$5(/=5'1 .)@5$05'1 1%$5$/$3)45'1 012". B/- #%'7/(@;, $@5)C< , 5(69)/=D'1 #%$9/2" . 5)"2*=7)6 (%12$/$3)+ ; 60-1 %$7(1 88 0&$%)44- 9;/$ #'&(55-, 5(07)/=7' D.'@7$ %'"0=7) )"#$%&' @$0-3(/' #).5)45'1 32%"(50=7'1 %23)$5)..

?)@5$05$ @(&;.(55- «)"#$%&).» &( «)")&(*)6» . %(55)6 #%()0&$%)+ . 9(3(&=$1 .'#(@7(1 .'5'7/' 0;"5).' #)0/- .'7$%'0&(55- %(@)$.;3/2*2.'1 @(&. E$7%2"(, . 52$/)&) &( 252$/)&) .'5'7/( #$.5)0&< 5$.( 7(%&'5( 0'51%$5),(*)+ «7;/=&;%», -7( ) @$0) :2 ,5(1$@'&=0- . #%$*20) %$,.'&7;. B'.$.'>5$, (/2 "' ,5$.; ,5(1$@'"$ 5$.) 1%$5$/$3)45) 012"' «)"#$%&).» &( «)")&(*)6» . 7;/=&;%(1, -7) "' ..(>(/' 520'51%$55'"' :2 @27)/=7( %$7). &$";.F2$91)@5$ %$,%),5-&' G$%"' )")&(*)+ #%2@"2&). "(&2%)(/=5$+ 7;/=&;%', ( &(7$> &$45$ .',5(4(&' «)"#$%&'», -7 "2&(G$%; @/- %),5'1 #%$-.). $9")5; %2426.

E%$0&(<4( ,(*)7(./25)0&= ; .',5(4255) #%'%$@' "(&2%)(/=5$+ 7;/=&;%' &( 02")$&'7' %2426 .)@7%'.(<&= 5$.) #2%0#27&'.' . *)6 $9/(0&) #),5(55-. B;"7( !. H$#'&$GG( #%$ 7;/=&;%5) 9)$3%(G)++ %2426 @$,.$/-C @'G2%25*)<.(&' $7%2") 4(0&7$.$ 0#).#(@(<4) G;57*)+ .#%$@$.> >'&&- $9’C7&;. E5(4255- &( G;57*)- $9’C7&). ,(/2>'&= .)@ #2.5'1 7;/=&;%5'1 7$5&(7&). ) "$>;&= ,")5<.(&'0- ; #%$0&$%) &( 4(0).

I&(&&), ,)9%(5) %2@(7&$%("' . @(5)6 ,9)%*), ) -7) 9;/' #$#2%2@5=$ $,.;425) 5( 7$5G2%25*)-1 A.%$#260=7$+ J0$*)(*)+ J%12$/$3). . I(/$5)7(1 &( I(57&-K2&2%9;%,), C .(>/'.'" .5207$" @$ %$,D'%255- #2%0#27&'. ; .'.4255) #%$9/2"' )"#$%&). &( )")&(*)6. L),5$"(5)&5)0&= 0&(&26, -7) $1$#/<<&= 4(0 .)@ 52$/)&; @$ #2%)$@; ")3%(*)6, &( &2%'&$%)< .)@ M$%5$3$ @$ N(/&)60=7$3$ "$%)., 5(@(C ,%;45'6 D(50 G(1).*-" #$,5(6$"'&'0- , @$0/)@>255-"' , %),5'1 %23)$5). &( #2%)$@)..

Preface

S. Hansen

Import and Imitation in ArchaeologyAn Introduction

The book „Import and Imitation in Archaeology“ arose from two symposia organized by the editors at the meetings of the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) in Thessaloniki (2002) and St. Petersburg (2003). In it authors from across Europe discuss and illustrate with case studies from a wide range of geographical regions and time periods the archaeological key concepts of ‘import’ and ‘imitation’ from a variety of theoretical and methodological perspectives.

The geographical focus lies in East and South-east Europe as well as in the eastern Aegean and the wider Black Sea Region. Chronologically, there are three emphases among the contributions: (1) Neolithic, Copper Age and Early Bronze Age (Choyke, Czebreszuk/Szmyt, Tkachuk, Rassamakin/Nikolova, Bauer), (2) Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (Biehl, van Wijngaarden, Lucena Martin, Makhortykh, Potrebica), and (3) the protohistoric periods (Carucci, Kaliff, Wicker).

The book has two main objectives: firstly, to publish new archaeological data, especially from eastern Europe and make it accessible for a wider, mainly western research community (Choyke, Tkachuk, Rassamakin/Nikolova and Bauer). And secondly, to open up a debate and theorize the concepts of import and imitation in archaeology, both with scrutinizing their applications in modern archaeology as well as to better understand the epistemological – the comparative analysis of these concepts in western and eastern European research traditions – and methodological issues involved – ranging from the so called ‘import chronology’, which has been especially influential in culture-historical approaches, to agency-based approaches in post-processual archaeology.

Therefore, the contributions in this book mirror the general paradigm shift in modern archaeology from the concepts of ‘invention’ and ‘innovation’ – including the underlying models of migration or diffusion – to concepts ranging from culture change, contact and transfer to reception/adaptation and import/export – using models such as

centre and periphery, trade and exchange, style and interaction/communication. Other theoretical issues discussed in this volume include authenticity, identity and agency and their meaningfulness for identifying imported or imitated material culture. The basic prerequisite for this paradigm shift and debate is that we acknowledge that material culture is meaningfully constituted and that it plays an active role in the social reproduction of all human behavior and relations. In the end, the book tries to conceptualize the material engagement of both the ‘importing and/or imitating’ and ‘exporting’ individuals or groups, in order to come closer to an understanding of the entanglement of objects and people in the past.

As in any project, we, as editors, owe great thanks to the people who helped make this book possible. We gratefully acknowledge and deeply appreciate the dedicated efforts of each of the authors who undertook to write up their conference papers and who willingly agreed to guide their writings through several stages of editing. We would also like to thank the editors of the Publication Series of the Centre for Black Sea Archaeology (Zentrum für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes - ZAKS) François Bertemes and Andreas Furtwängler for including this book in the series. Thanks are also due to the Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology at the Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg for the logistic and technical support. Here we owe a deep dept of thanks to Jordan Kanew for the digital image editing, and especially to Daniela Frehse for the meticulous copyediting, layout and the production of the printer’s copy, which contributed in an essential and significant way to this volume. We would also like to thank Ben Roberts from the University of Cambridge for the diligent copyediting and thorough English language editing. Thanks are also due to our publisher Hans-Jürgen Beier who agreed to take on this project and encouraged it to completion.

And finally, deep gratitude is especially owed to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation in Bonn for financing the book.

Halle in October 2007

Peter F. Biehl & Yuri Ya. Rassamakin

K2%2@"$.(

E9)%7( «!"#$%&' &( )")&(*)+ . (%12$/$3)+»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’- &( I1)@5$+ P32+@'. 8%$5$/$3)45$ 0&(&&) "$>5( %$,@)/'&' 5( &%' .2/'7) #)@%$,@)/': (1) 52$/)&, 252$/)& ) %(55)6 #2%)$@ @$9' 9%$5,' (M$67), M29%2D;7/Q"'&, R7(4;7, F)7$/$.(/L(00("(7)5, N(;2%); (2) #),5)6 #2%)$@ @$9' 9%$5,' &( @$9( %(55=$3$ ,(/),( (N)/=, .(5 ?'653((%@25, S;*25( T(%&)5, T(1$%&'1, K$&%29)*() ) (3) 5(69)/=D #),5)6, -7'6 #%2@0&(./25'6 ;>2 %(55=$)0&$%'45'" 4(0$" (H(%;44), H(/)GG, ?)72%).

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

E( ,(@;"$" %2@(7&$%)., . 0&(&&-1 #$.'55) 9;&' %$,3/-5;&) 52 &)/=7' 7(&23$%)+ «.'5(1)@» &( «)5$.(*)-», (/2 6, .'1$@-4' , %$,;")5- &(7'1 #$

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«)"#$%&;<4$3$/)")&;<4$3$», ( &(7$> «270#$%&;<4$3$» 0;0#)/=0&.(.

F( ,(7)54255-, "' 1$&)/' 9 .'0/$.'&' :'%; #$@-7; %2@(7&$%(" «B$0/)@>25= *25&%; (%12$/$3)45'1 @$0/)@>25= ) )0&$%)+ 7;/=&;%' 4$%5$"$%0=7$3$ %23)$5;» (Schriften des Zen-trums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes, ZAKS) U. N2%&2"20; &( J. U;%&.253/2%; ,( +1 /<9’-,5; ,3$@; $#;9/)7;.(&' 5(D; 75'3; . @(5$"; &$") *=$3$ 02%)65$3$ .'@(55-. R(7$> "' .@-45) .029)45)6 #)@&%'"*) !50&'&;&; #2%.)05$+ (%12$/$3)+ T(%&)5-S<&2%( ;5).2%0'&2&; 8(//2-?)&&2592%3 (Institut für Prähis-torische Archäologie der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg) #%' #)@3$&$.*) 75'3' @$ @%;7;. F(D( $7%2"( #$@-7( V. H(52.; ,( *'G%$.; $9%$97; )/<0&%(*)6 ) B. U%2,2 ,( %2@(7*)652 $#)7;.(55- ) #)@3$&$.7; &270&; @$ @%;7;. E( 7%'&'45'6 $3/-@ (53/$"$.5$3$ %;7$#'0; &( %2,<"2 "' @;>2 .@-45) N. L$92%&0; (H2"9%)@>0=7'6 ;5).2%0'&2&). W7%2"( #$@-7( O.-X. N2C%; ,( 6$3$ #%$G20)65; .'@(.5'4; @$#$"$3;.

! 5(%2D&), "' 1$&)/' 9 $0$9/'.$ #$@-7;.(&' U$5@ W/270(5@%( G$5 O;"9$/=@&( ; N$5) (d)2 Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung). N2, G)5(50$.$+ #)@&%'"7' *=$3$ U$5@; .'1)@ , @%;7; *)C+ 75'3' 9;. 9' 52"$>/'.'".

8(//2, ; >$.&5) 2007 %$7;

Shifting Meaning and Value through Imitation in the European Late Neolithic 5

Abstract

The imitation in bone or antler of objects originally made in other raw materials may have a number of different embedded meanings. Imitation may result from the scarcity or inaccessibility of the original raw material. Imitation may occur within new so-cial contexts. Finally, imitation may serve to retain the social meaning and alter the physical properties enough to make the object usable in a different way. The argument will be made here that the very act of transformation into new altered forms and raw materials carries its own social information to the community for whom the imitation is intended. None of these meanings are mutually exclusive but may instead be intertwined. In Central Europe, the phenomenon of imita-tion is widespread, although not very common in bone tool assemblages. The objects to be discussed are all small and designed for individual use. Some are ornaments to be worn and, thus, displayed. Other objects take the form of tools, although not intended for their original use. This interpretation is based on their wear and context. Such imitations seem rather to have functioned in a more intimate sphere, con-necting individuals to other worldly concerns. This paper will concentrate on the time span from the Late Neolithic to the Copper Age. By the Bronze Age in this region, if there is imitation, it does not seem to be carried out in the media of bone or antler. Examples will be drawn from bone and antler finds in France, Switzerland and Hungary.

!"#$%"

&%'()*'+ # ,'-(,. )/0 1023 41"5%"('6, 7,' 4"16'-80 /39. #10/9"8' # '8:.; %)("1')9'6, %0<3(= %)(. 6<" '8:' 6,9)5"8' 6 8.; #8)>"887. &%'()*'+ %0<3(= /3(. 1"#39=()(0% 6'5-3(80-(' )/0 8"50-(3480-(' %)("1')9'6, # 7,.; 10/.9.-7 01.2'8)9.. &%'()*'+ %0<3(= #‘76.(.-7 3 %"<); 806.; -0*')9=8.; ,08-(",-('6. ?)1":(', '%'()*'+ %0<3(= -93236)(. #/"1"-<"88$ -0*')9=8020 #8)>"887 () #%'8$6)(. @'#.>8' 0-0/9.60-(', 7,' 50-()(8' 597 (020, A0/ 6.,01.-(0-636)(. 0/‘B,(. 1'#8.%. :97;)%.. C123%"8(, 7,.D /35" 41.6"5"8.D 3 -()((', 6 (0%3, A0 ),( (1)8--@01%)*'+ 1">"D 3 806' #%'8"8' @01%. ' %)("1')9.

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‘7#3$>. 0-0/.-(" # '8-:.%. #"%8.%. (31/0()%.. F7 -()((7 /35" -,08*"8(106)8) 8) >)-060%3 410%'<,3 6'5 4'#8=020 8"09'(3 50 50/. %'5'. J) 50/. /108#. 6 *=0%3 1"2'08', 7,A0 '-836)9. '%'()-*'+, 608. 8" 6.,0836)9.-7 # ,'-(. )/0 1023. K1.,9)5. #8);'50, # ,'-(,. () 1023 /353(= 8)-5)8' 3 -()((' # ("1.(01'D L1)8*'+, M6"D*)1'+ () N201A.8..

Introduction

The American Heritage College Dictionary diction-ary offers several definitions of imitation:

1. The act or an instance of imitating

2. Something derived from or copied from an original

3. Mus. Repition of a phrase or sequence often with variations in key, rhythm and voice - made to resemble another, usually superior material.

These definitions, however, are not only static, but they also disregard the social and cognitive impera-tives lying behind imitation. Anthropologists and sociologists have described behavioral imitation as an important social variable in, among other things, the cultural transmission of information1. This has usually been described in terms of learning behavior 1 J. Nicod. http://www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/Psychology/ imitation/Background/.

Alice M. Choyke

Shifting Meaning and Value through Imitation in the European Late Neolithic

Alice M. Choyke6

but can be applied to behavior and attitudes associ-ated with the use of objects as symbolic ‘stand-ins’ as well. The act of imitation in behavior, customs or material culture within or between groups of peo-ple seems to increase in frequency at times of social change, when new territorial and social boundaries are evolving. Imitation of special objects may take place at the level of the individual, the household, the village, the region or even further afield. The greater the distance and time from the original source, the less likely it is that the original meaning embedded within the form and/or raw material of a particular object type will retain its initial sense. The end of the Neolithic in Continental Europe dates to the end of the 5th millennium in the Carpathian Basin and the 3rd millennium 1000 km further west in eastern France and western Switzerland. However, no matter when these cultural transformations get underway, these are times when social structures seem to have become more hierarchical and complex with increasing social differentiation. Metal technol-ogy, appeared as a high status raw material. Probably there was also increasing inequality with regard to access to goods made from special raw materials like stone, shell and metal. Archaeological materials can be very unevenly preserved due to accidents of soil and subsequent human activity. It is likely that many different kinds of imitation existed in the past but only a scattered few have come down to us, some of these made in osseous materials which are gener-ally well preserved. The end of the Neolithic appears as a time when hunting, and the animals associated with hunting, assumed importance in the ritual life of many groups across Europe. Access to certain body parts from particular species became notably gender, age, and possibly rank, dependent. On the face of it, bone, antler and canine teeth/tusks would appear to have been ‘cheap’ raw mate-rial, readily available for the production oftools and ornaments. However, even today these osseous mate-rials are not at all neutral in terms of symbolic mean-ing. The makers and users of special implements of all sorts must have had a clear concept of the so-cial meanings embedded in the raw materials they exploited. The special traits they attributed to the particular animal species supplying the raw materials were probably intertwined with layers of meaning in these special objects. Some of these layers of mean-ing would have been unconscious, others conscious but considered too obvious for discussion while others would have represented deliberate, conscious manipulations of symbolic reality. At the end of the Neolithic, across Europe from France to the Black Sea, one can find regular, although not very com-

mon, examples of imitation of special object types in funerary as well as other special contexts. This imita-tion involved transformations between raw material classes and sometimes resulted in subtle alterations in form. Transformations of objects in terms of their raw material and sometimes simultaneous alterations in form reflect the retention of the basic meaning be-hind the object and the added meaning derived from the new context in which the object is being used. These objects can reflect status, gender, age, profes-sion, and combinations of all of these. Sometimes, when the artifact is removed from the original social context, only part of the message was transferred along with the altered physical object to which new, additional, meanings may have been ascribed. People-artifact interactions occur on various scales (Schiffer 2002, 1148). The kinds of transfor-mations described here are not large-scale but rather tend take place on a small scale within or between communities. The argument will be made here that the very act of transformation and alteration carried its own social information for the audience for the imitation, both the broader public and the users of the object. None of these meanings would have been mutually exclusive but may have been closely intertwined and interdependent. The phenomenon of imitation is widespread, although not very common in bone tool assemblages from the Late Neolithic of Central Europe. The ob-jects to be discussed here are all small and designed for individual use. Some are ornaments for wearing and, thus, were displayed by their owners. Other such objects took the form of tools. These, however, had the form of workaday utensils but were, first and foremost, display objects of some sort. This interpre-tation is based on the decoration found on them, the kinds of special polished use wear they exhibit and the contexts in which they were found. Such imita-tions seem often to have functioned in the intimate household or village sphere, connecting individuals to other-worldly concerns which, at the same time, would have reinforced social cohesiveness (between gender and age cohorts in a village, between extend-ed clans, or groupings within larger socio-political units, for instance). By the time the Early Bronze Age truly be-gan (in western Switzerland c. 2200 BC and the Carpathian Basin c. the end of the 4th millennium), imitation in material culture no longer seems to have been carried out in the medium of bone or antler. Examples will be drawn from special bone and antler objects from final Neolithic contexts in the French Jura, Switzerland and Hungary where copper or


bronze objects underwent transformations into bone or antler or vice versa. The facts surrounding these transformations are not all the same. The cultural con-texts include lake dwellings in western Switzerland (final Neolithic), extensive flat sites in the final Neolithic Tisza Culture in southeastern Hungary, and a slightly later Chalcolithic Boleráz village set-tlement in northwestern Hungary. At this latter site, the worked bone material still displays clear links with the regional late Neolithic. It seems that in this transitional period imitation as a behavior increased as old forms were adjusted to new social contexts and situations. Sometimes forms were adopted and adapted in new places because of perceived meanings having nothing to do with their original significance. However, drawing conclusions about the manner in which prehistoric societies worked is always fraught with uncertainties because so many facts are sim-ply unavailable. Some examples of imitation will be cited from modern or historical contexts as models of alternative imitation possibilities. These examples include well documented historical and ethnographic contexts of the Sami (popularly known as the Lapps) in Scandinavia, a society in rapid but relatively un-forced transition, and a short description of the use of cowries and their imitations over a wide temporal and geographic scene. Imitation also reflects complex phenomena. The five types of imitation described below may occur alone or in combination with each other. Recognizing how social behavior is manifested in material culture is always challenging, risky, and open to a variety of interpretations. The motivation for imitation takes numerous forms. Rather than present certain ‘archae-ological facts’ the main purpose of this paper will be to illuminate further avenues for future research.

Classification of Imitation Imitation in bone or antler of objects originally made in other raw materials may mean a number of dif-ferent things both to the target group for whom the imitation was intended and for the person employing it. Five different types of imitation have been identi-fied here (fig. 1). The first are two different types of imitation of objects relating to changes in status and are expressed through maintenance of the form but transformations in raw material. These types of imitation can occur both within communities and be-tween societies. The third and fourth types of imita-tion are related to shifts in the embedded symbolism or use context of the object expressed either in the raw material or in the form itself. The final type of imitation, for which there are only examples from

late prehistory and even later, involves imitation of the form but with virtual loss of the original meaning (fig. 1).

Imitation type 1: imitation in easily avail-able materials

The first type of imitation is that from rare raw ma-terials into easily available materials. For thousands of years, long before the end of the Neolithic in Europe, antler, bone and teeth were important raw materials for manufacturing tools and ornaments. Antler was valued for its density and relative resist-ance to shock while bone could be used to produce sharp tools for piercing and scraping (Currey 1979, 313 ff.; MacGregor/Currey 1983, 71 ff.; MacGregor 1985, 23 ff.). Teeth, especially canines with their hard enamel, could be used as sharp-edged scrapers (e. g. wild boar mandibular tusks) or as ornaments (e. g. pig tusks, canines of red deer stags, canids, and brown bear). This was still true when societies be-gan to experiment with copper, first cold hammered and later smelted. Metal technology developed ear-lier in Central Europe (middle of the 5th millennium BC in the Balkans) so that forms such as decorative clothing pins appeared almost ‘ready-made’ in ar-eas just beyond the Alpine Foreland. Copper objects such as pins and beads also began to appear as high status objects in the first half of the 4th millennium BC in a very scattered distribution in French and Swiss Neolithic sites (Fasnacht 1995, 186 ff.). It is likely that the virtual absence of metal on settlements is caused by broken objects being melted down and re-cast or taken out of circulation by being placed in funerary contexts as items of conspicuous wealth and status. The lake dwelling sites of the Alpine Foreland are notable for the rich and varied worked bone, antler and tooth assemblages from various Neolithic periods (for example Strahm 1972-1973, Ramseyer 1987, Schibler 1987, 1997; Deschler-Erb 2001). This variability increases toward the very end of the Neolithic (Corded Ware) at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC with the addition of a number of decorative pin types in antler and bone which ap-pear abruptly at this time in considerable numbers on all lacustian sites of this period (Gallay 1968; Billamboz 1978, 170; Ramseyer 1987, 4 f.; Choyke, unpublished2). These pins slightly post-date the ap-pearance of bronze prototypes on Central European

2 Also typical in the unpublished Final Neolithic Auvenier worked osseous materials at the lacustian site of St. Blaise on Lake Neuchâtel.

Alice M. Choyke8

Fig. 1. Imitations related to status change and to alter embedded symbolism or for use in different contexts

sites. Clearly people living in the Swiss villages would have observed both the metal pins used on the clothing of both local and far-flung trading partners and recognized the high status denoted by their own-ership. At the well preserved Late Neolithic-Early Bronze age site of Arbon-Bleieche 3 (3384 - 3370 BC, dendrochronological date for the latest occupa-tion), aside from the presence of a copper awl sug-gesting a limited local production, there is clear evi-dence of long distance trade contacts involving more sophisticated objects. The people of this settlement, as at other coeval sites in the Alpine Foreland, used imported flint from northwestern France and north-ern Italy while the shape and ornamentation of some of the ceramics was clearly influenced by pottery styles fashionable in the Boleráz Culture of Central Europe (Luezinger 2000, 56 ff. fig. 270). Some

people at these settlements may have possessed lo-cally made copper/bronze pins and even axes (pl. 1,1a after Strahm 1979, 60 ff. fig. 10A-B) although these clearly would have been re-cycled or buried with their owner. Otherwise, people wore copies of these exotic high status goods for which there are good formal parallels, not only far away at Central European sites but also scattered examples nearby in western Switzerland and eastern France (pl.1,1b after Strahm 1979, 690 f. fig. 10A-B). The copies themselves, however, represent real labor invest-ment. They are beautiful and the fact that they dis-play heavy and repeated curation suggests that their bone/antler copies were valued in their own right3.

3 The club-headed decorative, Final Neolithic Auvenier Period pins from St. Blaise were repeatedly reworked and conservedas the tips broke.


Copies of decorative pins in osseous materials based on high status metal prototypes from both outside the area and within it, represent a clear example of the first type of imitation.

Imitation type 2: imitation as enhancement of original meanings

The second type of imitation involves the enhance-ment of the status of a socially identifiable object. Imitation is one way to transfer and transform the meaning of an object or the value of the raw material it is made from for a new audience from outside the original social context. Such enhancement of mean-ing may occur both within and between societies. A particular object may have special social meanings that change depending on the rank or gender/age group(s) that the owner belonged to. Objects trans-formed in this sense are usually found as evidence within the context of special burial rituals.

This Type 2 imitation involves particular ar-tifact types customarily produced in bone or antler. With the availability of new high status materials, the form with all its traditional meanings was main-tained, but was given added meaning by producing it in a new, rare, and valuable material. This would have allowed continuity in the ethnic identification embedded in the object type but would also have am-plified the perceived status of the object. Two ex-amples provide a demonstration: one ethnographic example of Sami spoons to help clarify the point and another example concerning the necklace ‘buttons’ from the end of the Neolithic, found in France and western Switzerland as well as southern Germany. A third example offered here involves imitation of spin-dle whorls in ritual contexts from the slightly later, early Chalcolithic period.

Sometimes it is easier to draw on properly doc-umented ethnographic materials to illustrate theoreti-cal points. In a sense, such objects provide examples of the way the imitation of material properties reflect-ed attitudes and behavior in distant prehistoric times. The Sami have traditionally followed herds of rein-deer in northern Scandinavia and Russia, although theirs is also a history of an increasingly sedentary life. Nevertheless, they have succeeded in preserv-ing their language and ethnic identity in the face of encroaching modernity. The Sami spoon shown here (pl. 1,2a.2b) is an interesting and complex reflection of this process. The initial form of imitation from antler to silver, that is from a common raw material to a more valuable rare one, best fits the Type 2 form of imitation defined here.

These two raw materials have apparently been interchanged by Sami craftspeople over a long pe-riod, even centuries. The first, antler spoons (pl. 1,2a) were probably just that: spoons made from a locally available material, in use long before metal was introduced. Later, when silver spoons became the norm (pl. 1,2b), they may have been copied back into antler as a material which was cheap, easy to work and available on the spot. It is also possible that some of antler spoons were sent to goldsmiths in towns as models for silver spoons made especially for the Sami market and reflecting Sami taste. Aspects of ethnic identity are embedded in the form that was consistently preserved. Since the 1950s, silversmiths who have settled in the Sami areas have made “Sami” silver spoons for the tourist market based on silver spoons – which may have preserved the old (metal) spoon models that would other wise have disappeared (Leif Parelli, personal communication 2003)4. This latter example is more an example of the development of a Type 5 form of imitation where the original meaning is in the process of being lost with the objects re-inter-preted in the nostalgic tourist context.

Another (Type 2) prehistoric example of the amplification of status though imitation into a high-er value raw material concerns the antler and bone buttons from the end of the Neolithic in southern Germany, the Alpine Foreland of Switzerland and the French Jura (Strahm 1982, 183; Schibler 1987, taf. 21,26; Neilsen 1989; Gross 1990, 1991; Egloff 1990, 320, Choyke, unpublished5). It is thought that these buttons may actually have functioned as clo-sures for bags or were strung on necklaces. The but-tons occur in many forms and sizes. One of the most elaborate types has two holes with radiating lines of dot decoration and dots around the outer edge (pl. 2,1 after Strahm 1982, fig. 1,6). These buttons are generally found in settlement materials. Bronze copies of these buttons may be found in a few rare instances in funerary settings in dolman burials in southern France. Dolman 2 of Frau in Cazals (Tar-et-Garonne) contained three bronze buttons with clear parallels with the Swiss finds. They also have two holes and the same radiating pattern of decorative dots (pl. 2,2 after Parot and Clottes 1975, 392 fig. 9,2.3.4). Clearly these buttons had a particular sym-bolic meaning for the people who had the right to wear them. Making them in bronze or copper, then

4 Information from Dr. Leif Pareli, curator at the Norwegian Museum of Cultural History (Museumveien 10, N-0287 Oslo, Norway), who provided specific background informa-tion on the Sami spoons and lasso loops. http://www.norskfolke-museum.no

5 Among the Final Neolithic, Auvenier period worked osseous materials at St Blaise.

Alice M. Choyke10

relatively rare and very high status raw materials, would have given them even more value in the eyes of the mourners at the funeral (Chapman 2000) while retaining the original social meaning embedded in their form.

There is yet one more example of this kind of imitation which appears on sites of the early Chalcolithic (4000 - 3600) in western Hungary. At this time, high status spindles and spindle whorls were made of copper although the majority were surely made from wood or bone as in earlier times6. It seems likely that the wooden or antler spindles and whorls would also have had a very similar shape. However, in this slightly later period there are some smaller, non-functional imitations made from gold found exclusively in ritual burial contexts of women in eastern Hungary (Marton 2001, 133 ff.). Here the gender meaning of weaving equipment was retained while adding on the value of the gold.

Imitation type 3: imitation and material transformations across intra societal bound-aries

Type 3 imitation involves copying of the general form of the original artifact into an available raw material. The new raw material adds on new, related symbolic meaning to the symbolism embedded in the origi-nal object. This type of imitation may also be a way to signal social differentiation or a way to transfer and transform the meaning of an object or the raw material for different groups within the same social setting. Such transformed objects may have had spe-cial social meanings for individuals within cohorts based on rank, age, and/or gender. The objects at-tained additional meaning(s) depending on the target audience. The change in raw material, although it may have represented new meanings, was not neces-sarily related to a change in value. Rather the new material also carried a new message (stone to ant-ler, bone from one species to bone of another, tooth to bone). The transformation of objects may involve imitation of specific or general forms. The latter may have a functional aspect as well. Type 3 and Type 4 forms of imitation are related to each other and may even be embodied in the same object as is the case with the imitation red deer canines to be discussed below. This category is intriguingly complex and is the kind of imitation most often found in the worked bone, antler, and tooth assemblages at the end of the Neolithic.

6 Choyke, unpublished from the Tiszapolgár flat settlement of Polgár 6 the remains of antler spindle pin with the double groove for holding the thread.

Examples presented here include special ant-ler axes, imitation roe deer metapodial awls, and red deer imitation canines from the final Neolithic as well as a special find of a bone projectile point from the slightly later Chalcolithic context in Hungary.

Another rare find characteristic of the final Neolithic lake-dwelling sites in western Switzerland and eastern France are antler axe/adzes, hafted per-pendicular to the long axis of the blade. The major-ity of such finds, made from the rose and beam of a red deer antler rack, are tools intended for every-day activities. However, occasionally some of them display quite different use wear, a high polish, and combine characteristics of both regular antler axes and the polished stone “battle” axes, another type of prestige item known from the region. Another spe-cial antler axe form found in eastern France in the same period imitated socketed metal axes (pl. 3,1; Billamboz 1978, 116, 163 fig. 71; Bailloud 1979; inv. no. 2160 Chastel 1985, 71; Burnez-Lanotte 1987; Baudais/Delattre 1997; Choyke, unpublished7). Both these kinds of special antler blades are darkly pol-ished overall, with copies of leather binding around the haft hole, produced by leaving the rough original surface of the antler intact in thin, criss-crossed lines or broad stripes on this part of the object. Billamboz (1978, 116) suggests that this binding is an imitation of the handles for metal axes with bifurcate handle heads (l’emmanachement des haches de métal avec la gaine à tenon bifide). Although worn, these axe/adz-es display none of the battering characteristic of oth-er similar axe/adzes. The ash wood handles are often preserved intact in the transversely hafted specimens. This suggests that these objects were disposed dif-ferently than other antler axes used as regular tools. In this case, there is no suggestion that these objects were made en lieu of their stone or metal counter-parts. Rather, use of the more prestigious form in antler combined the high status of the stone or metal forms with the recognized meaning inherent to the antler axe/adze or axe form. Furthermore, since the antler itself comes from stags, it seems likely that the symbolic meanings attributed to the stag as a princi-pal large game species were also embedded in these special antler artifacts.

Another excellent example of symbolic trans-formation through form and raw material, again sig-nificantly involving raw materials from game, is a unique case from a disturbed late Neolithic burial in France. It contained multiple burials including the

7 Such special axes were also found in the unpublished Auvernier worked osseous materials at the lacustrian site of St. Blaise on Lake Neuchâtel. One particular axe, with its ash handle complete, was dark colored and highly polished with a decorative band of the antler outer skin retained at its shaft hole.


well-preserved skeleton of a young woman, scattered remains of another adult individual and remains of children. Here, aside from perforated red deer ca-nines and their imitations in stone, the deceased in-dividuals were buried with an awl apparently carved from the metatarsus of a roe deer, but actually whit-tled from the larger metapodium of a red deer (pl. 3,2; Roussot-Larroque 1982, fig. 2) as well as an awl of the same size made from a roe deer metatarsal. Thus, the imitation is not only of the form of the tool but also of the species and raw material! Clearly, this complex transformation is not related to any scar-city of roe deer in the immediate environment but rather to the immensely complex wild/hunt symbol-ism represented by these two cervid species for the individual and the society they lived in.

Imitation Type 3, where the general form was imitated in an available raw material but where new meaning was added onto the original form also in-cludes bone copies of red deer canine teeth. Such copies of stag canines are found from Paleolithic times on in Europe. However, there are some spe-cial cases from the end of the Neolithic in Central Europe including the finds from Polgár–Cs!szalom-d"l!, a settlement in eastern Hungary dating to the 5th millennium BC. This period marks the time of the Late Neolithic in the Carpathian Basin. The equivalent social phenomena in the French Jura and western Switzerland seem to have begun almost 1000 years later. Of particular interest here are ornaments such as necklaces containing red deer canine beads – the upper mandibular canines – or their imitations carved from the long bone diaphyses of large rumi-nants (Choyke 2001). All objects found in such rit-ual contexts carry their own special, codified mean-ings relative to both the deceased and the society in which he or she lived. The symbolic meanings of whom real canines were given to and who received the imitations were apparent, even obvious, to the people taking part in the funeral ritual, although we can only guess at the specifics. The copies were not made because of a shortage of red deer canines. They embodied various meanings as subtly altered practical and symbolic phenomena, related to group identity and social continuity during the burial ritual. Furthermore, while the real red deer canines may actually have belonged to the deceased, the imita-tions, more labor intensive to produce, exhibit stages of wear from new to heavily worn. This suggests that the ornaments they were made into had some kind of a history behind them, having been compiled from a number of sources, perhaps for the burial event itself. Pydyn (1998) defines the value of an object as entail-ing a combination of shape, originality and artistry as well as its prime and added value. Red deer canine

beads and their copies would represent the perfect kind of valuable mortuary goods (Bailey 1998) be-cause they came from an important game animal and were restricted in their availability. Pearson (1998) has pointed out that the moment of interment is an emotional theatrical moment. What better time not only to honor the dead but to reconfirm and strength-en the fabric of social intercourse?

The proportion between sexes is roughly equal in the graves of the large Polgár 6 horizontal settle-ment adjacent to the tell site. Altogether 11 graves, male and female, juvenile and adult, were found con-taining necklaces with real red deer canines and/or their blunt, propeller-shaped imitation beads (pl. 4,1; Anders, personal communication). Generally, men were given real canines and women seem to have possessed imitations. However, one of the graves was that of an older, high status woman who apparently had the right to wear a necklace with a large number of real red deer canine beads strung with large spondylus shell beads (pl. 4,2, lower necklace). She was accompanied by other valuable grave goods as well. Interestingly, the opposite of this phenomenon was observed at a Middle Neolithic Hinkelstein cem-etery at Trebur in Germany (Spatz 1999). This site, containing belts and necklaces with both real and imitation red deer teeth, would have been contem-porary with the Hungarian Polgár 6 site. As opposed to the Hungarian finds, these imitations made from the shell Margarita auricularia are quite realistic in terms of their shape and size. Also different from the situation in the Hungarian burial context, the imita-tions were generally presented to the men and the real red deer canine beads to the women, including 230 in one grave and 86 in another! It seems that it was the act of copying the general form of these teeth which permitted transference and the accumulation of meaning in both contexts, even if the end results differed.

Finally, an apparent Type 3 imitation came to light in the worked osseous materials from a slightly later site, Gy!r–Szabadrét-domb, a middle Chalcolithic Boleráz Culture settlement (3338-3042 BC cal), contemporary with the aforementioned set-tlement of Arbon-Bleiche 3 in Switzerland (Choyke, in press). This site is located in the northwestern cor-ner of present-day Hungary. The bone and antler pro-jectile points which came to light at Gy!r–Szabadrét-domb are extremely interesting from several points of view. First, in Hungary at this stage of research, they appear to be manufactured uniquely in the Boleráz phase of the Middle Chalcolithic. No comparable projectile points manufactured in osseous materials are known either from earlier or later periods in this region until the later Bronze Age. Examples of simi-

Alice M. Choyke12

lar types have been found in the surrounding territo-ries. Pape (1982, 141 ff.) places all the types found at Gy!r–Szabadrét-domb within his Group D, which he suggests may have had metal proto-types. There is also a short triangular point made on a bone flake. It was chipped on the edge like a stone arrowhead, perhaps a case of an expedient Type 2 imitation of such a tool. Two of the projectile points with angled cross-sections, however, have a high handling-polish (pl. 5,1). Both specimens are beautiful, glossy and have a warm honey-brown color. The manufactur-ing marks seem fresh, unworn by use or re-working. This suggests that they were never actually used but functioned more emblematically, perhaps as part of an amulet satchel. Their angular shape seems to rep-resent an attempt to copy a valued (possibly metal) projectile point type seen somewhere outside the im-mediate area of the site. If the interpretation of the high handling-polish related to their use as amulets or talisma is correct, this would also be a case of symbolic imitation of a form associated with hunting or human conflict.

Imitation type 4: copies of specific emblem-atic forms altered for use in new functional contexts

Imitation Type 4 is represented by artifacts in which the social meaning of the object reflects social or ethnic identity, but where the form or raw material has been altered to make the object conform to new working or decorative contexts. Thus, the physical properties may be altered to make the object usable in a new way whilst the form is carefully maintained. The raw material chosen may have been as valuable or even less valuable than that which was used origi-nally. By altering some aspects of the form of a spe-cial object, it became possible to employ it in other social contexts or for other members of the society to use it. Thus, objects which were originally strung on necklaces can be altered to be sewn on clothing or to give them a slightly different appearance.

The Sami traditionally produced characteristic lasso loops with incised decoration in antler for use in reindeer herding (pl. 5,2a). Nowadays, although still connected to reindeer herding, such lasso loops are used with snowmobiles as part of reindeer herd-ing. The form and size of these loops have been faith-fully reproduced in plastic that is stronger and more resilient, but they still fit specifically Sami taste re-quirements and reflect ethnic identity both in terms of form and the activity where they are traditionally used (pl. 5,2b). As with most societies in transition, Sami households are filled with socially emblematic

objects which are traditional in form but which are made in new, convenient raw materials (Leif Parelli, personal communication).

The Hungarian imitations of red deer canine beads in necklaces also contain an element of Type 4 imitation. The unique propeller shape of the imi-tation beads on the one hand had a practical qual-ity, surpassing that of the original anatomical shape. These carved bone beads can be fitted perpendicu-larly to each other, producing the smoother, more orderly look of the ornaments found with younger females (see pl. 4,1) . On the other hand, as the pro-peller-type beads became worn and broke, they could be re-drilled and came to resemble the real red deer canines more closely. Thus, the form of the imitation of both the lasso loops and red deer canine beads had practical as well as symbolic aspects that intertwined and reinforced each other.

Imitation type 5: copying of forms between groups without transference of meaning

Type 5 involves copying external, re-interpreted forms between societies. Ultimately these shapes have nothing to do with their meanings in their own original contexts. The forms are adapted from a mis-construed interpretation that is then almost totally re-interpreted. Sometimes the original social and tech-nical function may be completely lost in the process of physical imitation and transformation. From more recent periods comes an example of the use of the crucifix form in Avar metal finds. The Avars, peo-ple of Asiatic steppic origins, practiced a form of shamanistic religion. However, they saw crucifixes at the court of the Byzantine Emperor and adapted them as a symbol of power rather than as a religious symbol.

Among animal raw materials there is also the curious case of cowry shell beads and their imita-tions, which were in use from ancient Egypt to China to Europe. A few of their many and complex trans-formations are worth citing here. In Egypt, cowries and their imitations in materials ranging from gold to bone were worn suspended from women’s girdles. The similarity of the opening of these shells to the hu-man vulva no doubt accounts for their use as fertility symbols, even in the present day (Reese 1988, 262). In slightly later periods, their use reached China ei-ther through diffusion or actual contact. Here their meaning was transformed and cowries and their im-itations began to be used as money (Egami 1974, 3 f., 15, 44).

Although natural cowries only reached the Minusinsk basin in Central Asia in the Iron Age in


limited numbers if at all, their imitations in glass paste and bronze, even in bone, are common. They were sewn on clothing or worn as pendants or in strings of beads. They were perforated or grooved longitudinally to produce serrated edges. These ob-jects, also considered Chinese, could have been em-ployed as ornaments or amulets, but were no longer thought of as money (Ierusalimskja 1996, 29).

Cowrie shells and cowry imitations as beads can also be found as far west as Estonia where their use was re-interpreted once again as a snake’s head within the framework of a snake cult and they were meant to protect the wearer against mischance. On the other hand, the Sarmation period glass imita-tion cowrie from a woman’s grave in Hungary was again thought to be related to fertility magic (Kovács 2001, 172). Modified cowries are found in Early Central Asian Sarmatian contexts as well as later in the Carpathian Basin, exclusively in women’s graves. However, their form here once again represented a reinterpretation from their original use in Central Asia where it appears as decoration on belts (Kovács/Vaday 1999, 262 ff.).

This shell can be seen used as exotica on la-dies’ apparel or in necklaces even today, in 21st cen-tury Europe. The men and women wearing these pieces, however, have little idea about the historical transformations of their embedded meanings in vari-ous periods and geographical settings. Having lost most of their symbolic value and being a rather com-mon shell, they are rarely copied in alternative raw materials. The originals are actually valued in this new context as symbols of an “organic” or “ethno” back-to-nature look.

Conclusions

Different types of imitation are sometimes embodied in a single object. Imitation of motifs and forms can be lifted from various media to be combined within a new artifact in new raw materials to produce layers of meaning which may or may not be conscious on the part of the people observing or using the object. In fact, different levels of symbolic meaning can exist for individual beholders or groups of beholders of a particular object type.

It appears that imitation may occur more fre-quently in times of social instability. Most of the ob-ject types chosen for analysis here come from con-texts dating to the end of the Neolithic. This was a time when many tribal societies across Europe were in transition both in terms of technology and their in-creasingly hierarchical social structures. This inevi-tably led to inequalities in the availability of certain

prestige goods. Bone, antler, and tooth were still very important raw materials at the end of the Neolithic and continued to have significance well into the Bronze Age in many parts of the Old World. Thus, it is not surprising that they played an important role in various kinds of imitative behaviors. Objects made from osseous raw materials became less and less im-portant in manufacturing as time progressed, with the exception of peripheral regions with less access to wood and other raw materials. This would per-tain to Arctic peoples such as the Sami in northern Scandiavia and Russia.

Five different types of imitation have been defined here. Type 1 and Type 2 are related in the sense that they both concern maintenance of mean-ing with enhanced value. Type 1 Imitation involves raw material transformations from a prototype pro-duced in a rare and therefore particularly valuable raw material into a more easily available medium. Thus, people living in later Neolithic villages along the lakeshores in Switzerland frequently copied the forms of coveted copper and bronze decorative pins which were probably in the possession of the highest ranking individuals both in the village and outside the immediate region.

Type 2 imitation involves a transformation into a valuable raw material where the form of the origi-nal object made in a common (i. e. less prestigious) raw material had an important iconic meaning in terms of ethnic or age/gender identity. This mean-ing of identity was enhanced by transformation into more rare and thus, valuable raw materials. The two examples presented include Sami antler spoons with a complex raw material history. The form, originally made in antler, was always maintained as something particularly Sami in taste, but the form of the spoons was later manufactured, that is, imitated in silver. The Late Neolithic button shapes with two holes and radiating dot decoration used in necklaces and found both in settlement materials and burial contexts in western Switzerland represent another example of a form originally made in easily available antler or bone, with strong iconic associations of some sort in one region. The form was then copied into a more valuable raw material, bronze, to produce grave goods for a burial in southern France. Type 3 and Type 4 imitations are related in that they both concern the manufacture of particular objects in traditional raw materials. Imitation occurs within social groups and the raw material transformation involves a change into an equally available raw material. However, they dif-fer in terms of their final intent. The general form is copied, but the raw material changed in symbolically significant ways. Thus, the original meaning intrinsic to the form is maintained and the symbolism of the

Alice M. Choyke14

new raw material is added on. There is no question of added value in this kind of imitation. Type 3 was the most important kind of imitation in osseous ma-terials in the final Neolithic in Switzerland. The sali-ent features of stone battle axes and socketed metal axes were imitated as decoration on common antler tool types. The ash handles of these axes are almost always preserved at lakeshore sites. The antler blades themselves are highly polished, exhibiting a very dif-ferent kind of use wear than what would be found on the workaday variety of antler adze/axe. Thus, these objects contain meanings embodied in the stone and metal axes, the antler adze/axe tool type and in the red deer antler they are made from. A similar situation is exemplified in a unique burial find from the same period in France of an imitation roe deer metapodium awl carved from a red deer metapodium found together with a real roe deer metapodium awl and other imitations of wild animal teeth. Here, the importance of the tool is enhanced by the change into another raw material derived from another, possibly equally significant, game animal. The red deer canine beads from burials dating to the end of the Neolithic in the Carpathian Basin also reflect shifts in meaning along with transformations from teeth to bone related to the age and sex of the deceased. Finally, a type of arrowhead discovered at a slightly later Chalcolithic site in northwestern Hungary appears to be an imi-tation of real working arrowheads produced in an-other raw material, possibly metal. However, two of the long angular points are glossy and a deep honey brown in color. Such intensive handling polish sug-gests that they were used as talism, perhaps designed to give good luck in hunting or conflicts. Type 4 imitation involves a copy of a very spe-cific form in a new raw material as well as alterations in a form. The changes occur in new functional con-texts although the original symbolic meaning of the form is retained. A good example of such imitation is found in the Sami lasso loops, originally used in traditional reindeer herding. With the new functional requirements they have been transformed exactly into more durable and resistant plastic, but their form, an iconic symbol of Sami identity, has been retained. The red deer canine beads from Hungarian sites dis-cussed here also fit this category as their imitation in an altered form in a different raw material also al-lows them to be strung into a more rounded, ordered way in female ornaments. In contrast, the imitation deer canines from a contemporary German Middle Neolithic cemetery signaled male identity.

There are no examples of Type 5 imitation evident among the bone, antler and tooth artifacts from late Neolithic Europe. This kind of imitation occurs be-tween social groups and is expressed in objects made of valuable raw materials. The raw material may be retained in the imitation but the original meaning understood by the people who first manufactured it is lost or in the process of being lost. This results in new interpretations in new contexts. From later prehistoric and proto-historic periods there is the ex-ample of cowry shell pendants and their imitations in various raw materials from gold to glass and bone. These began to be used in the ancient Near East, ap-parently related to fertility beliefs. The use of cowry beads and their various imitations is known from places as far away as China but used as currency. They also appeared in Europe in the Iron Age, again to be transformed unrecognizably in meaning as part of a snake cult in the Baltic region and were used as protective amulets. Currently such cowry beads have even been used as purely decorative exotic items in Europe. They continue to be altered in the same way but virtually all the original meaning(s) has been lost.

Imitation in objects is indeed a way of trans-ferring important information from person to person and from group to group through various special arti-facts. Imitation can be related to questions of prestige, rank, and group identity. Five types were described here in which an object is replicated containing more than one type of intertwined imitation. It is possible that other types of imitation have existed in other media from different periods and regions. It is hoped that this paper will inspire other scholars to explore this aspect of this very human behavior in their own materials.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to express her thanks to the following people: to Dr. László Bartosiewicz for crit-ically reading the manuscript for flaws in logic and editing. To Dr. Judith Rasson for more editing and for help with re-constituting the line drawings. All mistakes and flaws still lingering in the paper are the responsibility of the author. I would also like to thank the organizers of the EAA session in Thessaloniki on ‘Import and Imitation’, Yuri Rassamakin and Taras Tkachuk, for making it possible to present my ideas on this very interesting key concept in archaeology. Thanks are also due to Dr. Peter Biehl for undertak-ing the hard work of editing these proceedings.


References

The American Heritage College Dictionary, Third edition, Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston.

Bailloud 1979G. Bailloud, Le Néolithique dans le Bassin Parisien, Gallia préhistoire (Paris 1979).

Bailey 1998D. Bailey, On being famous through time and across space. In: D. W. Bailey (ed.), The Archaeology of Value: Essays on Prestige and the Processes of Valuation. BAR Intern. Ser. 730 (Oxford 1998) 1–9.

Baudais/Delattre 1997D. Baudais/N. Delattre, Les objets en bois. In: P. Pétre-quin (ed.), Les sites littoraux néolithiques de Clairvaux-les-Lacs et de Chalain (Jura), III, Chalain station 3, 3200-2900 av. J.-C., vol. 2 (Paris 1997) 529–544.

Billamboz 1978A. Billamboz, L‘industrie du bois de cerf en Franch-Comté au Néolithique et au début de l‘Age du Bronze. Gallia Pré-hist. 20/1, 1978, 7–176.

Burnez-Lanotte 1987L. Burnez-Lanotte, Le Chalcolithique moyen entre Seine et Rhin inférieur: étude synthétique du rituel funéraire BAR Intern. Ser. 354 (Oxford 1987).

Chapman 2000J. Chapman, Tension at Funerals: Social practices and the subversion of the community structure in later Hungarian prehistory. In: M. Dobres/J. Robb (eds.), Agency and Ar-chaeology (London, New York 2000) 169–195.

Chastel 1985J. Chastel, Fouilles anciennes des lacs de Chalain et de Clairvaux. Les industries en bois de cervidés et en os, Collections du Musée municipal de Lons-le-Saunier no. 1, 1985, 61–81.

Choyke 2001A. M. Choyke, Late Neolithic Red Deer Canine Beads and Their Imitations. In: A. M. Choyke/L. Bartosiewicz (eds.), Crafting Bone - Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. BAR Intern. Ser. 937 (Oxford 2001) 251–266.

Choyke, in pressA. M. Choyke, Continuity and Discontinuity at Gy!r–Sz-abadrét-domb: Bone Tools from a Chalcolithic Settlement in Northwest Hungary. In: J. Schibler (ed.), Bone, Ant-ler, Teeth. Raw Material for Tool Production in Prehistoric and Historic Periods. Proceedings of the 3rd meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group. Basel (Augst, 4-8 September 2001) Internationale Archäologie Arbeitge-meinschaft (Rahden/Westf, in press).

Currey 1979J. D.Currey, Mechanical Properties of Bone tissues with greatly differing functions. Journal of Biomech. 12, 1979, 313–319.

Deschler-Erb 2001 S. Deschler-Erb, Die Knochen-, Zahn- und Geweiharte-fakte. In: S. Deschler-Erb/U. Leuzinger/E. Marti-Grädel/J. Schibler (eds.), Die jungsteinzeitliche Seefersiedlung Arbon/Bleiche 3 - Funde. Arch. Thurgau 9 (Kantos Thur-gau 2001) 277–366.

Egami 1974N. Egami, Migration of the Cowrie-Shell Culture in East Asia. Acta Asia 26, 1974, 1–52.

Egloff 1990M. Egloff, La rive nord du lac de Neuchâtel: du Magda-lénien à l‘âge du Bronze final. In: M. Höneisen (ed.), Die ersten Bauern 1 (Zürich 1990) 311–323.

Fasnachte 1995W. Fasnachte, Metallurgie. In: W. Stöckli/U. Niffeler/E. Gross-Klee (eds.), Die Schweiz vom Paläolithikum bis zum frühen Mittelalter. Serie SPM II, Neolithikum (Basel 1995) 183–192.

Gallay 1968A. G. Gallay, Le Jura et la séquence Néolithique récent/Bronze Ancien. Archives suisses d‘anthropologie générale 33 (Genève 1968) 1–84.

Gross 1990E. Gross, Entwicklungen der neolithischen Kulturen im west- und ostschweizerischen Mitteland. In: M. Höneisen (ed.), Die ersten Bauern 1 (Zürich 1990) 61–72.

Gross 1991E. Gross, Die Sammlung Hans Iseli in Lüscher. Ufersied-lungen am Bielersee 3 (Bern 1991).

Ierusalimskaja 1996A. Ierusalimskaja, Die Gräber der Moš#evaja Balka. Früh-mittelalterliche Fund an der nordkaukasischen Seidenstras-se (München 1996).

Kovács 2001L. Kovács, A glass imitation of a cowrie from the Sarma-tian Period in Hungary. Journal of Glass Stud. 43, 2001, 172–174.

Kovács/Vaday 1999L. Kovács/A.Vaday, On the problem of the marine gas-tropod shell pendants in the Sarmatian Barbaricum in the Carpathian Basin. In: A. Vaday (ed.), Pannonia and Bey-ond. Studies in Honour of László Barkóczi, Antaeus 24 (Budapest 1999) 247–277.

Leuzinger 2000U. Leuzinger, Die jungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung Ar-bon/Bleiche 3, Befunde, Arch. Thurgau 9 (Kanton Thur-gau 2000).

MacGregor 1985A. MacGregor, Bone, Antler, Ivory & Horn: The Techno-logy of Skeletal Materials since the Roman Period (London 1985).

Alice M. Choyke16

MacGregor/Currey 1983A. MacGregor/J. D. Currey, Mechanical Properties as conditioning factors in the bone and antler industry of the 3rd to the 13th century, Journal of Arch. Science 10, 1983, 71–77.

Marton 2001E. Marton, New approaches to the spinning and weaving of Neolithic-Aeneolithic people in the Carpathian Basin (the „Shrewd Princess“ and looms). In: J. Regenye (ed.), Sites and Stones. Lengyel Culture in Western Hungary and Beyond (Veszprém 2001) 131–142.

Nicod 2000J. Nicod, Perspectives on Imitation from cognitive neuros-cience to social science, conference at Royaumont Abby, France (2000), http://www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/Psycho-logy/imitation/Background/.

Nielsen 1989E. H. Nielsen, Sutz-Rütte, Kataloge der Alt- und Lese-funde der station Sutz V, Ufersiedlungen am Bielersee 2 (Bern 1989).

Pape 1982W. Pape, Au sujet de quelques pointes de flèche en os. In: H. Camps-Fabrer (ed.), Industrie de l‘os neolithique et de l‘Age des Metaux 2 (Paris 1982) 135–172.

Parot/Clottes 1975B. Parot/J. Clottes, Le dolmen 2 du Frau, à Cazals (Tarn-et-Garonne). Bull. Société Préhist. Française 72, 1975, 383–401.

Pearson 1998M. Pearson, Performance as valuation: Early Bronze Age burial as theatrical complexity. In: D. W. Bailey (ed.), The Archaeology of value: Essays on Prestige and the Processes of Valuation. BAR Intern. Ser. 730 (Oxford 1998) 32–41.

Pydyn 1998 A. Pydyn, Universal or relative? Social, economic and symbolic values in Central Europe in the transition from the Bronze age to the Iron Age. In: D. W. Bailey (ed.), The Archaeology of Value: Essays on Prestige and the Pro-cesses of Valuation. BAR Intern. Ser. 730 (Oxford 1998) 97–105.

Ramseyer 1987D. Ramseyer, Delley/Portalban II: Contibution à étude du Néo-lithique en Suisse Occidentale, Editions Universitaires Fribourg (Fribourg 1987).

Reese 1988S. Reese, Recent invertebrates as votive gifts. In: B. Ro-thenberg (ed.), The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (London 1988) 260–265.

Roussot-Larroque 1982J. Roussot-Larroque, Poinçon en os sculpté imitant un métapode de chevreuil dans la sépulture néolithique de l‘Abri Vidon à Juillac (Gironde). In: H. Camps-Fabrer (ed.), L‘industrie en os et en bois de cervidé durant le Néolithique et l‘âge des métaux, Deuxième réunion du groupe de travail n° 3 sur l‘industrie de l‘os préhistorique (Paris 1982) 124–134.

Schibler 1987J. Schibler, Die Knochenartefakte. In: E. Gross et al. (eds.), Zürich „Mozartstrasse“. Neolithische und bronze-zeitliche Ufersiedlungen 1. Monogr. Züricher Denkmalpfl. 4 (Zürich 1987) 167–175.

Schibler 1997J. Schibler, Knochen- und Gweihartefakte. In: J. Schib-ler et al. (eds.), Ökonomie-Ökologie neolithischer und bronzezeitlicher Ufersiedlungen am Zürichsee A. Monogr. Kantonsarch. Zürich 20 (Zürich 1997) 122–219.

Schiffer 2002M. B. Schiffer, Studying Technological Differentiation: the case of 18th-century electrical technology. American Anthr. 104-40, 2002, 1148–1161.

Spatz 1999H. Spatz, Das mittelneolithische Gräberfeld von Trebur, Kreis Gros-Gerau. Mat. Vor- u. Frühgesch. Hessen 19 (Wiesbaden 1999).

Strahm 1972-1973C. Strahm, Les fouilles d‘Yverdon. Jahrb. schweizerische Ges. Ur- u. Frühgesch. 57, 1972-1973, 8–16.

Strahm 1979C. Strahm, Les épingles de parure en os du Néolithique final. In: H. Camps-Fabrer (ed.), L‘industrie en os et en bois de cervidé durant le Néolithique et l‘âge des métaux, Premièree réunion du groupe de travail n° 3 sur l‘industrie de l‘os préhistorique (Paris 1979) 47–85.

Strahm 1982C. Strahm, Deux types de boutons de parure du Néoli-thique final. In: H. Camps-Fabrer (ed.), L‘industrie en os et en bois de cervidé durant le Néolithique et l‘âge des métaux, Deuxième réunion du groupe de travail n° 3 sur l‘industrie de l‘os préhistorique (Paris 1982) 183–194.


PL. 1. 1a. Metal proto-types of decorative pins from Central Europe and France (redrawn by Judith Rasson after Strahm 1979, 60 f. fig. 10A-B); 1b. Antler imitations of metal proto-types from Swiss Late Neo- lithic lacustrian sites (redrawn by Judith Rasson after Strahm 1979, 60 f. fig. 10A-B); 2a. Sami antler- spoon (photograph by Alice Choyke); 2b. Sami silver imitation (photograph by Alice Choyke)

1b1a

2a 2b

Alice M. Choyke18

Pl. 2. 1. Antler and bone buttons with two holes and radiating dot decoration from Swiss Late Neolithic la custrian sites (redrawn by Judith Rasson after Strahm 1982, 184 fig. 1,3-6); 2. Bronze buttons from the 2nd dolman burial at Frau, á Cazals (redrawn by Judith Rasson after Parot and Clottes 1975, 391 fig. 9,2-4)

2

1


Pl. 3. 1. Late Neolithic imitation of a socketed metal axe from the site of Chalain 3 in the French Jura (Musée de Lons-le-Saunier; redrawn by Judith Rasson after Billamboz 1978, 163 fig. 71,1); 2. Late Neolithic imitation roe deer metapodial awl carved from red deer metapodial from a multiple burial at the Vidon Rockshelter in France (redrawn by Judith Rasson after Roussot-Larroque 1982, 127 fig. 2,1)

1 2

Alice M. Choyke20

Pl. 4. 1. Imitation red deer canines with spondylus beads in a necklace from a young woman’s grave at the late Neolithic Hungarian site of Polgár 6 (photograph by Karoly Kozma); 2. Real red deer canines with large spondylus beads in a necklace from an older woman’s grave at the Late Neolithic Hungar- ian site of Polgár 6 (photograph by Karoly Kozma)

1

2


Pl. 5. 1. Projectile point imitation used as amulet from the Middle Chalcolithic Boleráz site of Gy!r–Szaba- drét-domb (photograph Judith Rasson); 2a. Traditional Sami antler lasso loops (photograph Alice Choyke); 2b. Modern Sami lasso loop from blue plastic (photograph Alice Choyke)

1

2a

2b

Alice M. Choyke22

What lies behind ‘Import’ and ‘Imitation’? 23

Abstract

Two cases from the 3rd millennium BC, which from a certain point of view may be treated as examples of ‘import’ and ‘imitation’, are discussed. A com-mon manifestation of both cases is the presence of artifacts in one culture that are related to an entirely different cultural group (or even several of them). A detailed analysis of both cases, however, in particular the exploration of their cultural and social contexts, leads to the conclusion that in each case the items underwent a different chain of transformations of senses and values.

!"#$%"

& '()((* +,'-.(.$(/'0 +1) 1,2)+-, # 333 (,'. +4 5. "., 0-* 6"#.%4154 %47.(/ 6.(, 84#9:05.(* 0- 28,-:)+, *%248(*1 () *%*();*<. =)9):/5,% 284014% 1 464> 1,2)+-)> ? 5)015*'(/ 1 4+5*< -.:/(.8* )8("@)-(*1, 0-* 1*+54'0(/'0 +4 #41'*% *5A4B -.:/(.854B 98.2, ()64 5)1*(/ +4 -*:/-4> 98.2). C"():/5,< )5):*# 464> 1,2)+-*1, #4-8"%), +4':*+7"550 B> -.:/(.85,> () '4;*):/5,> -45("-'(*1, 28,14+,(/ +4 1,'541-., D4 1 -4754%. 1,2)+-. ;* 28"+%"(, 284>4+,:, :)5;$9 8*#5494 84+. (8)5'@48%);*< B> #5)E"550 * ;*554'(*.

F"8A,< 1,2)+4- – ;" 5)015*'(/ 24'.+., @48%):/5* 8,', 0-494 () 485)%"5();*0 1,#5)E)$(/ #1‘0#-, # -.:/(.84$ -.:0'(,> )%@48 1 24>41)550> 0%54B -.:/(.8, 1 '("241*< () :*'4-'("241*< #45)> G>*+54B H1842,. I)-,< 24'.+ 2415*'($ E.7,< (8)+,;*0% 0%54B -.:/(.8,. J'* 1*+4%* 46‘?-(, ;/494 (,2. #5)<+"5* 1 '.%*75*< #45* %*7 +14%) -.:/(.8)%,, 0-* 284;1*():, 4+54E)'414 +"0-,< 2"8*4+. KE"1,+54, ()-,< 24'.+ '1*+E,(/ 284 -45()-(, %*7 46D,5)%, 464> -.:/(.8.

C8.9,< 1,2)+4- 28"+'()1:"5,< 5)015*'($ ()- #1)5,> 9.+#,-*1 # V-24+*65,% 4(1484%. I)-* 9.+#,-,, #846:"5* 94:415,% E,54% # -*'(-, () 849., 1*+4%* 1 -.:/(.8)> L"5(8):/54B H1842, # 24E)(-. 5"4:*(.. M8454:49*E54 +4194 1*+4%* 145, 1 -.:/(.8* N)81) 5) 2*1+"554%. '>4+* O):(,-,, +" 145, 6.:, #846:"5* 1,-:$E54 # 6.8A(,5.. I*:/-, 1 )8"):*, 0-,< 284'(095.1'0 1*+ P+)5'/-4B #)(4-, +4 Q)(1*B 5)% 1*+4%* %)<'("85*, +" 9.+#,-, # V-24+*65,% 4(1484% %)'414 1,846:0:,'0. R8*%

#5)>*+4- # 2)%‘0(4- -.:/(.8, N)81), ;"< (,2 )8("@)-(*1 (#846:"5,> (*:/-, # 6.8A(,5.) 1*+4%,< 5) 2)%‘0(-)> -.:/(.8, -.:0'(,> )%@48, -.:/(.8, A5.8414B -"8)%*-,, -.:/(.8, !7.E"14, -.:/(.8, =:4() () -.:/(.8, +#1*5424+*65,> -.6-*1. L0 (8)+,;*0 6.:) 284+417"5) 5)'":"550% -.:/(.8, -.:0'(,> )%@48. J -.:/(.8* +#1*5424+*65,> -.6-*1 46,+1* ("5+"5;*B 46‘?+5):,'0 # 9.+#,-)%,, #846:"5,%, (.( ()-47 # -)%"50 (1-:$E54 5)2*1-4A(415494 -)%"50) () %"():. (1-:$E54 #4:4(4). F*':0 -.:/(.8, +#1*5424+*65,> -.6-*1, 5) 24E)(-. 33 (,'. +4 .5."., 9.+#,-, 8)2(414 #5,-)$(/. = 49:0+. 5) 8*#5* -.:/(.85* -45("-'(, 1)7:,14 1'()541,(,, E, %):, 9.+#,-, 1 -4754%. # 5,> (" 7 ')%" #5)E"550.

K'46:,1. .1)9. 28,+*:"54 #%*5)%, 28, 0-,> 2"81*'5) (1,>*+5)) '(8.-(.8) 46‘?-() 6.:) 1*+(4895"54$ * (*:/-, +"0-* ":"%"5(, 241(48"5* (+:0 28,-:)+., #8)#-, -.:/(.8, -.:0'(,> )%@48 1 0%54B -.:/(.8,) () #%*5* ;*554'(* 28"+%"(*1 #) 8)>.54- +4+)5,> +4 (,241,> 28"+%"(*1 ":"%"5(*1 (+:0 28,-:)+., 9.+#,-, # 6.8A(,5.).

Introduction

Right at the very beginning we would like to stress that the terms ‘import’ and ‘imitation’ used in the title are purely conventional. That which in the ma-terial sphere is perceived as an identity or similarity of forms, techniques and/or materials, is one of the signs of a phenomenon being an object of intensive studies by cultural anthropologists and prehistorians, namely, the cultural contact, or more specifically, its material aspects. As an analytical key, we use the concept of metaphoric and metonymic transforma-tions formulated by E. Leach (1976). Under this con-cept, signs and symbols (and, consequently, objects that are their carriers) undergo multiple transforma-tions during a transfer. In this paper we wish to show what chain of formal and semantic transformations accompanied the movement of certain ideas, materi-ally represented in the form of different goods.

What lies behind ‘Import’ and ‘Imitation’?

Case Studies from the European Late Neolithic

Janusz Czebreszuk & Marzena Szmyt

Janusz Czebreszuk and Marzena Szmyt24

Example I: Globular Amphora Culture ves-sels in Yamnaya Culture graves

A settlement distribution area of the eastern Globu-lar Amphora Culture group, the so-called Seret sub-group (Szmyt 1999), may be found between the Prut and Seret Rivers (e. g. in the east part of modern Romania - fig. 1). Globular Amphora artifacts were recorded there at over a dozen sites, the majority of which were burials. Apart from the graves, single fragments of Globular Amphora Culture pottery and flint axes, which are hypothetically related to that culture as well, were also found in the area. The cur-rent information (first 14C dates) allows us to set the beginnings of the Seret subgroup at 2900-2700 BC (Mihailescu-Birliba/Szmyt 2003).

The area east of the Prut River was occupied by societies coming from the steppe zone and belonging to the Yamnaya Culture (fig. 1). These populations followed a mobile way of life related to the semi-no-madic grazing of animal herds. In the area in ques-tion, finds from the Yamnaya Culture include kur-gans (burial mounds) located at valley edges, chiefly the Prut and Reut Rivers. These sites belong to two groups, distinguished in the western portion of the

Yamnaya Culture dispersion area: an older one, the so-called Dniester Group and a later one - Budzhak Group (Dergachev 1986). The absolute chronology of neither group is not clear. Relying only on indirect evidence, the beginning of the Yamnaya Culture in the forest-steppe on the Dniester may be dated from 2700 to 2550 BC (Szmyt 1999).

Thus, areas west of the Prut (i. e. between the Prut and Seret) were covered by the Globular Am-phora settlement while areas east of the river (i. e. between the Dniester and Prut) were exploited by Yamnaya Culture people. A comparison of the data from both regions shows that the populations of both cultures could have been at least partially contem-poraneous with a line of demarcation between them that ran along the Prut and middle Dniester Rivers. Only a few kurgans were discovered west of the Prut, where they must have appeared after the end of the Globular Amphora settlement structures (fig. 1).

The societies of both cultures differed in many aspects of their lifeways. Nevertheless, there are cer-tain aspects that are shared in their traditions. These are graves where the rules of the Yamnaya Culture obeyed all major rituals except one: the grave goods placed in the burials exhibit Globular Amphora traits, in most cases on the vessels (Szmyt 2000).

Spatial relationships between the Globular Amphora Culture and the Yamnaya Culture on Seret-Prut-Dniester Rivers. Key: 1. graves of the Globular Amphora Culture; 2. graves of the Yamnaya Culture; 3. graves of the Yamnaya Culture with Globular Ampho-ra traits (a. Corpaci, b. Ocni!a, c. Marcule"ti, d-e. Camenca); 4. range of the Globular Amphora Culture; 5. range of the Yamnaya Culture

Fig. 1.


Only rarely do we find any flint axes, which are in-frequently found in Yamnaya Culture graves anyway, especially the type associated with the Globular Am-phora Culture. The graves, of which there are five at present, are located exclusively between the Prut and Dniester Rivers (fig. 1). They also have close counterparts in other parts of the Globular Amphora/Yamnaya frontier, such as on the middle Dnieper. All the graves contained remains of adults (sex has not been determined). The pottery found in the graves has forms and ornamentation that are totally differ-ent from patterns characteristic of vessel techniques of the Yamnaya Culture (pl. 1). In addition, in most cases, we have no information on the manufactur-ing, so we cannot say much about it. Some of these vessels are fully consistent with Globular Amphora pottery, that is vessel forms and ornamentation pat-terns have numerous analogies with ceramic material from Globular Amphora Culture sites (pl. 1,A). The other vessels exhibit certain modifications of Globu-lar Amphora Culture vessel forms, but retaining the original ornamentation (pl. 1,B.C). A separation of the form and ornamentation of the vessels can be observed - forms undergo modification more often (earlier?) while the ornamentation maintains their original patterns longer.

The complexes indicate face-to-face relation-ships of the societies of both cultures. Their cultur-al contacts, however, seem to have been of a more limited character. This is borne out by the fact that only one percent of Yamnaya graves explored so far along the Dniester have produced finds suggestive of mutual influence. In turn, Globular Amphora sites between the Prut and Seret Rivers bear no trace of contacts with Yamnaya Culture societies.

In this case we are dealing with a prototype pattern and its transformations. The original pat-tern (i. e. a vessel of GAC) was a complex structure, formed from many elements (traits). These elements include: raw material, ceramic volume, forms of the whole vessel and its individual parts (rims, handles etc.), techniques of ornamentation, decorative mo-tifs, firing techniques etc. All these different factors interrelate. This ceramic form incorporated a mate-rialization of customs, rituals and self-identification patterns. During the transformations of the initial structure, only selected and individual elements were adopted and realized (fig. 2). It also constituted a “break” (or perhaps a rejection or forgetting?) with the original (i. e. initial) structure and, perhaps, of the original values materialized by it.

Example II: amber buttons with V-shaped perforations

The example of amber buttons with V-shaped perfo-rations is more complicated but considerably more eloquent as well. We shall restrict our discussion, however, to a single aspect of the material culture which displays a chain of transformations from one cultural pattern as part of an adaptive process in dif-ferent cultural milieus.

There are two major types of amber buttons with V-shaped perforations: A - with a hole bored from the convex side and B - with a hole bored from the flat side. They were already being produced at the beginning of the Neolithic on the southeastern Baltic region, especially in the Narva/Post-Narva

Fig. 2. Chain of transformations. A case of Globular Amphora Culture vessels in Yamnaya Culture graves. Key: GAC = Globular Amphora Culture


Culture (Loze 1975; Loze 1999; Gimbutas 1985). Only in the area stretching from the Bay of Gda!sk to Latvia (fig. 3) do we know of workshops where V-perforated buttons were mass-produced (Loze 1979; Loze 1999; Mazurowski 1985). Besides the exam-ples from Narva culture sites, this type of artifact is known from Globular Amphora Culture, the Corded Ware Culture (in particular its variant from the lower Vistula called the Rzucewo Culture), the so-called Z"ota Culture and Bell Beaker sites (Mazurowski 1983; Czebreszuk/Makarowicz 1993). Only in the case of the Narva Culture, i. e. the main produc-tion centre, do we observe a balance between both typological varieties (pl. 2). All the other cultural units were characterized by a clear-cut distinction: type A is known only in the Rzucewo and Globular Amphora Cultures (pl. 3), whereas type B was found exclusively in the Z"ota Culture and Bell Beaker graves (pl. 4). In addition, it should be mentioned that Globular Amphora populations preferred oval buttons, whereas in the Bell Beaker Culture a simi-

lar preference is not observed (buttons may be oval/ round or rectangular).

Two major thresholds can be distinguished in the dispersion of the buttons (fig. 4). The first oc-curred ca. 3000 BC. Until then amber had been a local raw material, used, in principal only in those regions where it occurred naturally. After that date, in particular thanks to the mediation of Globular Amphora people, and, to a lesser degree, the Z"ota Culture, amber spread, inter alia in the form of the buttons in question, deep in the south of Central Eu-rope. The other threshold date comes around 2400 BC. It is then that buttons with V-shaped perforations appear in Bell Beaker assemblages and together these reach the Mediterranean (Harrison 1980).

The chain of transformations begins on the southeastern Baltic, where the two major types of the artifact in question were produced. These two types must have had clear cultural values attached to each other since their connection to certain archaeologi-cal cultures in particular and no others was so close

Fig. 3. Dispersion of amber buttons with V-shaped perforation. Key: 1. mainly graves; 2. mainly produc tion-sites; 3. Z#ota Culture


and regular. The first stage of the dispersion of V-perforated buttons is related to type A. Type B was, at that time, preferred only in a small enclave at the confluence of the Vistula and San Rivers by people of the so-called Z"ota Culture. With the appearance of Bell Beakers elements in the northern part of central Europe, preferences in button shape shifted in favour of type B.

In this whole process, we are struck by the situation observed in the production center on the southeastern Baltic (from the Bay of Gda!sk to Lat-via). Amber workshops in this area were left behind by the populations of the Narva and Rzucewo Cul-tures. Relying on the data that we have, a hypothesis can be adopted that the production of buttons with V-shaped perforations continued there throughout the 3rd millennium BC. Was this production, how-ever, “exchange-oriented”? We have no clear answer to this question. Again, it should be stressed that it is only in the Narva society where both varieties of buttons were equally important whereas in the other

Fig. 4. Stages of dispersion of amber buttons with V-shaped perforation. Key: 1. Sambia center; 2. after 3000 BC; 3. after 2400 BC

cases, one type is favoured over the other. This was related to some clear cultural values which, unfortu-nately, cannot be currently specified. Thus, the same product meant something else in different cultural contexts (fig. 5). For example, it seems that, first of all, the raw material (amber) as a special carrier of cultural information was important for the Narva people. By contrast, in the Globular Amphora Cul-ture and in the Rzucewo Culture, it had a value mani-fested not only in the raw material (amber) and in the type of product (button), but also by the fact that the perforation was made in the convex side. Not only were the raw material and product type important in the Bell Beaker milieu and in the Z"ota Culture, but also one of its special characteristics, namely, that the perforation was bored from the flat side.

Finally, let us focus on the data suggesting con-texts in which the buttons were used in individual cultures (fig. 5). For this purpose we shall examine grave finds from the Globular Amphora Culture, Corded Ware, Z"ota and Bell Beaker graves. The first


difference lies in the fact that only in the Bell Beakers were amber buttons combined with similar products made of different materials (bone, metal, semipre-cious stones). By contrast, in the other groups, but-tons with V-shaped perforations, were combined

Fig. 5. Chain of transformations. A case of amber buttons with V-shaped perforation. Key: BB = Bell Beakers, GAC = Globular Ampho- ra Culture

with other types of amber beads (pl. 3). In the Bell Beakers, buttons were part of head and chest orna-ments (certain finds may be interpreted as traces of buttons sewn onto clothing) similar to the Globular Amphora Culture, where buttons comprised part of a necklace. However, in the culturally indeterminate graves (Corded Ware culture?) from the southeastern Baltic littoral, they are also found next to the legs of the deceased (Manasterski/Walu# 2001).

Conclusions

Both examples illustrate situations that formally sug-gest ‘import’ or ‘imitation’ but are in fact signs of far more complex phenomena. What we find the most interesting in them is the chains of transformations of senses and values that the given products under-went. Special attention should be paid to the changes where the original (initial) structure of an object is renounced and only some elements are still repeated (example of Globular Amphora culture vessels) and the diversifying of values attached to some elements of an object type (for example, amber buttons).


References

Birliba/Szmyt 2003V. Mihailescu-Birliba/M. Szmyt, Radiocarbon Chronol-ogy of the Moldavian (Seret) Subgroup of the Globular Amphora Culture. In: A. Ko#ko (ed.), Radiocarbon Chro-nology of Cultures between the Vistula and Dnieper. Bal-tic-Pontic Stud. 12 (Pozna! 2003) 82–112.

Czebreszuk/Makarowicz 1993J. Czebreszuk/P. Makarowicz, The Problem of Amber But-tons with V-shaped Perforation in the Bell Beaker Culture. Actes du XIIe Congres International des Sciences Prehis-toriques et Protohistoriques (Bratislava 1993) 529–532.

Dergachev 1986V. A. Dergachev, Moldavia i sosednije territorii v epochu bronzy (Kišinev 1986).

Gimbutas 1985M. Gimbutas, East Baltic Amber in the fourth and third Millennium B.C. Journal of Baltic Stud. 16/3, 1985, 231–256.

Harrison 1980R. J. Harrison, The Beaker Folk. Copper Age Archaeol-ogy in Western Europe (London 1980).

Leach 1976E. Leach, Culture and Communication (Cambridge 1976).

Loze 1975I. Loze, Neolithic Amber Ornaments in the Eastern Part of Latvia. Przegl$d Arch. 23, 1975, 49–82.

Loze 1979I. Loze, Pozdniy neolit i rannaya bronza Lubanskoy Ravn-iny (Riga 1979).

Loze 1999I. B. Loze, The Processing of Amber during the Middle Neolithic in Latvia. In: B. Kosmowska-Ceranowicz/H. Paner (eds.), Investigations into Amber (Gda!sk 1999) 131–135.

Manasterski/Walu# 2001D. Manasterski/A.Walu#, “Bursztynowy” wojownik sprzed czterech tysi$cleci. Arch. %ywa 2-17, 2001, 24–25.

Manzura et al. 1992I. V. Manzura/E. O. Klochko/E. N. Savva, Kamenskie kurgany (Kishinev 1992).

Mazurowski 1983R. F. Mazurowski, Bursztyn w epoce kamienia na ziemiach polskich. Mat. Staro&ytne Wczesno#red. 5, 1983, 7–134.

Mazurowski 1985 R. F. Mazurowski, Amber Treatment Workshops of Rzuce-wo Culture in %u"awy. Przegl$d Arch. 32, 1984, 5–60.

Noworyta 1976E. Noworyta, Nowe odkrycia kultury pucharów dzwono-watych na #l$sku. Silesia Ant. 18, 1976, 49–58.

Sobieraj et al. 2003J. Sobieraj/M. Marciniak/A. Gutkowska, Grobowiec meg-alityczny kultury amfor kulistych z Jajkowa, stan. 45, pow. Brodnica. In: M. Fudzi!ski (ed.), Sesja Pomorzoznawcza XIII (Gda!sk 2003) 41–50.

Szmyt 1999 M. Szmyt, Between West and East. People of the Globular Amphora Culture in Eastern Europe: 2950-2350 BC. Bal-tic-Pontic Stud. 8 (Pozna! 1999).

Szmyt 2000M. Szmyt, In the Far Reaches of Two Worlds. On the study of contacts between the societies of the Globular Amphora and Yamnaya Cultures. In: S. Kadrow (ed.), A Turning of Ages/Im Wandel der Zeiten. Jubilee Book Dedicated to Professor Jan Machnik on his 70th Anniversary (Kraków 2000) 443–466.

Yarovoi 1984E. V. Yarovoi, Pogrebalniy obryad nekotorykh skotovod-cheskikh plemen srednego Pruta. Kurgany v zonakh novo-stroyek Moldavii (Kishinev 1984) 37–75.

Yarovoi 1985E. V. Yarovoi, Drevneyshie skotovodskie plemena Yugo-Zapada SSSR (Kishinev 1985).


Pl. 1. Some Globular Amphora traits in Yamnaya Culture graves. A. Ocni!a (foll. Man- zuraje et al. 1992); B. Corpaci (foll. Yarovoi 1984); C. Orhei (foll. Yarovoi 1985)


Pl. 2. Typology of amber buttons with V-shaped perforation in the Middle Neolithic production center in Latvia (foll. Loze 1999)


Pl. 3. A Globular Amphora Culture grave from Jajkowo site 45 (foll. Sobieraj et al. 2003); Key: circles=amber buttons with V-shaped perforation


Pl. 4. Buttons with V-shaped perforation in a Bell Beakers grave from Strachów site 2; b-c. amber; d-k. bone (foll. Noworyta 1976).

Ceramic Imports and Imitations in Trypillia Culture 35

Abstract

Part of this work is based on ceramic imports and imitations in Trypillia Culture at the end of period CI to the beginning of CII. Ceramic imports and imitations play a vi-tal role adressing the similarities between the local groups. They also help us to comprehend the in-tensity of the communication between them. These connections may have been based on the custom of exchange between close neighbors as well as local groups further away. The distribution of the areas of inhabitans that had imports and imitations allow us to make connections regarding the nature of exchange. The quantities of imports and imitations can tell us about influences of local groups. The total amount of imports and imitations, which reaches 0.1% - 2%, shows stable exchange in peaceful times between local groups. For example, the exchange between the Shypyntsi, Chechelnik and Petreni groups. In the time of conflicts, insubstantial amounts of imports and imitations of the sites which took part in the conflicts, shows the degreasing effect of the conflicts. For example, between the Badragii group, phase II, Shypyntsi group, phase II, or Kosenivka group, phase I and Tomashivka group, phase III.

If the amount of imports and imitations is be-tween 3% and 5%, this indicates the intensive ex-change, perhaps between friendly neighbors, like those of Chechelnik and Tomashivka groups. Large amounts of imports and imitations (more then 5%) in-dicate quite intense influence and possible migration, such as with the Koshylivtsi and Brâzeni groups.

!"#$%"

&"'(%)*+) )%,-'./ .( )%).(0)1 2)3)4'($.5 2(67/28 '-75 379 2)3,-2)3) +( ,/.(++9 ,'- :.8,)+5 :;--6-:.) ')#+/; 7-<(75+/; 4'8, ='/,)779. >-+/ .(-<-6 3-,-%(4($.5 #'-#8%)./ )+."+:/2+):.5 <-%8+)-<(0)? %)6 0/%/ 4'8,(%/. @2‘9#</ %)6 7-<(75+/%/ 4'8,(%/ %-47/ A(#82(./:9 +( .'(3/0)9; 2#(B%--A-%)+8 9< %)6 A7/#5</%/ :8:)3(%/, .(< ) %)6 A)75C 2)33(7"+/%/ 4'8,(%/ +(:"7"++9. &('.-4'(D82(+-+9 ('."D(<.)2 ./; ('"(7)2, 3" 2)3-%) )%,-'./ .(

)%).(0)1 ,-:838, 3-#2-79B 2)3.2-'/./ C79;/ .(</; -A%)+)2. >/#+(*"++9 <)75<-:.) )%,-'.)2 .( )%).(0)? 3-#2-79B 2:.(+-2/./ ')2"+5 )+."+:/2+-:.) 2,7/2)2 .)B1 */ )+C-1 7-<(75+-1 4'8,/ +( .) # +/;, 3" A87/ #+(?3"+) 2)3,-2)3+) )%,-'./ .( )%).(0)1. > %/'+/? *(: <)75<):.5 )%,-'.)2 .( )%).(0)?, E- 3-:94(B 0,1-2%, 2<(#8B +( :.(A)75+/? -A%)+ %)6 7-<(75+/%/ 4'8,(%/. F79 ,'/<7(38, %)6 C/-,/+"05<-$, *"*"75+/05<-$ .( ,".'"+:5<-$ 4'8-,(%/. > ,"')-3 <-+D7)<.)2 +":8..B2( <)75<):.5 )%-,-'.)2 .( )%).(0)? # ,(%‘9.-< ./; 4'8,, 9<) A87/ #(3)9+) 2 <-+D7)<.(;, :2)3*/.5 ,'- #%"+C"++9 #2‘9#<)2. F79 ,'/<7(38, %)6 A(3'(#5<-$ (3'84( D(#() .( C/,/+"05<-$ (3'84( D(#() 4'8,(%/ (A- %)6 <-:"+)2:5<-$ (,"'C( D(#() .( .-%(C)2:5<-$ (.'".9 D(#() 4'8,(%/. G<E- <)75<):.5 )%,-'.)2 .( )%).(0)? 3-:9-4(B 3–5%, 0" :2)3*/.5 ,'- #+(*+8 )+."+:/2+):.5 -A%)+)2, %-67/2-, %)6 3'86+)%/ :8:)3+)%/ 7--<(75+/%/ 4'8,(%/, '",'"#"+.-2(+/%/ #-<'"%(, *"*"75+/05<-$ .( .-%(C)2:5<-$ 4'8,(%/. >"7/<( <)75<):.5 )%,-'.)2, 9<( ,"'"2/E8B 5%, :2)3*/.5 86" +" .)75</ ,'- 3-:/.5 )+."+:/2-+) 2,7/2/, (7" %-67/2-, %)4'(0)$ +(:"7"++9 ,"2-+/; 4'8,, #-<'"%(, <-C/7)2:5<-1 .( A'/+#"+:5<-1 4'8,.

Introduction

The ceramic complex of each local group of the Trypillia Culture differ from one another in their form of pottery, style of ornamentation, and in cer-tain instances, the method used to create the clay for the pottery.

When the ceramics are not typical and have different ornamentation, they are called imports. Ce-ramic “imitations” can have foreign forms, but they are still made from the same clay, as the previously created pottery complex. On the imitations there may be local, as well as foreign ornamentation and also a mix of several traditions.

Ceramic imports and imitations play a vital role in answering the questions of similarities be-tween local groups. They also help us comprehend the intensity of the communication between them. These connections may have been based on the cus-tom of exchange between close neighbors and not so

Ceramic Imports and Imitations in Trypillia Culture at the End of Period CI - Period CII (3900- 3300 BC)

Taras Tkachuk

Taras Tkachuk36

close local groups. The distribution of the inhabita-tion areas that add imports and imitations allow us to make connections regarding the nature exchange. Growing amounts of imports and imitations can tell us about influences from one or another local group and to whom it belonged. If large amounts of ceramics appear in a par-ticular region, which does not have local traditions of creating and decorating it, this lets us know that migration occurred in the local group, or in part of it. Part of this work is based on ceramic imports and imitations in the Trypillia Culture at the end of pe-riod CI to the beginning of CII (map 1).

The Badragiii group was formed at the end of period C I between the rivers of Bahlui and Reut. To its formative phase belong the following sites: Valea Lupului II (Dinu 1957), Varvarovka XV (Markevich 1981, 26 ff.), Shury I (Bikbaev 1989, 50 ff.).

Radiocarbon data points out the time of exist-ence of these sites. Valea Lupului II - 4950±BP (Grn -1982) and Varvarovka XV - 4990±60 BP (Bln- 2480) (Burdo/Videiko 1998, 22).

Towards phase II of Badragii group, be-longs the following sites of the basin of river Prut; Badragii Vechi (Markevivh 1981, 30 ff.) H!nc!u"i I, #tefâne$ti (Ni"u 1984, 131) Gl!v!ne$ti-Vechi (Nes-tor et al. 1951, 62), Jassi (Zaharia et al. 1970, 554). Cucuteni-B!iceni (Schmidt 1932); and in the basin of Middle Dniester river; Darabani II (Nitu 1984, 129) Konovka (buildings 1, 2) (Shmaglii et al. 1985).

The pottery belonging to the Badragii group can be divided into those with lesser conic-cut forms and those with more spherical-cut forms. Plates were often decoratively painted on both sides, and they also appear with similar profiles. When ribbed edges completely disappear on the plates their profiles be-come softer and the pottery develops sphero-coni-cal shapes and smoothly bent exterior rims. Much of the pottery has rounded shapes and high conic-cut necks; frequently the dining ware is decorated from the brims to the bottom (Markevich 1981).

At this time period, in the east, Badragii neighboring groups to the Badragii were the settle-ments by the basin of the Bistri"a river. They kept their traditions in making and decorating the pottery (Cuco$1999).

To the west and north, the first phase Badrag-ii group co-existed with Petreni group, which also kept their traditions as we can see in imports of big Petrenian sphere-conic pottery with short, sharply bent exterior brim and painted in ‘Tangentenkreis-band’-schemes (Bikbaev 1989, 56). This pottery was formed on the Shury I settlement and shares Pertreni (Lipcani) symbols on pottery of Varvarovka XV.

The dish and biconic pottery with the wide neck and ornamentation has an analogy with the Chechelnik group of the South Bug river, and points out the furthest away contacts in the stage I of the Badragii group (Markevich 1981).

In this way, biconic pottery made from caolin clay and decorated with specific Tomashivka orna-mentation (Zbenovich/Shumova 1989, 103), allow-ing us to synchronize Lipcani settlements, because of the similar symbols on the phase I of Badragii group with phase II of development of the Tomashivka group (Kruts/Ryzhov 1985, 52).

Phase I of the Badragii group synchronized with the beginning of phase II of the Petreni group, phase II of the Chechelnik group and phase II of the Tomashivka group.

On phase II of its development, the Badragiii group partly occupied the territory which was previ-ously used as a contact zone between the Petreni and Shypyntsi groups; especially the latter which estab-lished the settlement Darabani II, Konovka. To this period of time belongs the Badragii ceramic imports found in first late Shypyntsi layer of the Verteba cave by the village of Bilcze Zlote (Kadrow et al. 2003).

The territory of the Shypyntsi group, which was located between Middle Dniester and Prut river, on the left and right side of the Dniester river, and perhaps the right side of Prut river (Tru$e$ti) became more narrow at phase III of the group development. The Shypyntsi settlement left the territory of Middle Dniester and Prut settlements at phase II of Shypyntsi group and is only known on the left side of the up-per and north part of the left side of Middle Dniester river.

In our opinion, because of these events, the Verteba cave became occupied. Our interpretation is that this cave was a temporary shelter for a neighbor-ing local group.

Among the large amounts of Late Shypyntsi ceramics (2456 pots) (pl. 1) were also 23 (0.9%) imports, dining ware that belonged to phase II of Badragii group (pl. 2). These were dishes with S-shaped profiles, dishes with cut cone shape and cut spheric shapes, and fragments of sphere-like conic or rounded pottery with high cut conic necks (pl. 3 and 4,1-7).

The radiocarbon analysis of Verteba I, and be-cause of imports the phase II of Badragii group is 4940±80 BP (Ki 8269).

Besides the Badragii imports among the pot-tery in Verteba I, they found a biconic cup, similar to Petreni artifacts type Varvakovka VIII (Markevich 1981, 26) (pl. 4,9).


Map 1. Trypillia-Cucuteni sites of the end CI - beginning of the CII stages

These Petrenian imports points to later sites of phase II Badragii group. To prove this theory we have radiocarbon data of the early layer of Soroki Ozero site (Chernysh 1970, 80) (BM-495 = 4940±105 BP) (Burdo/Videiko 1998, 23).

The typical late Shypyntsi sphero-conic pottery is ornamented on the lower rim by four randomly located black circles and red diagonal lines on the white background of the second rim (so called the “Tangentenkreisband”-scheme). This formed on Chechelnik site Stina IV phase III of Shypyntsi group and shows us that phase II of Chechelnik group lo-cated on the basin of the South Bug co-existed.

The Chechelnik import that looks like a frag-ment of painted conic-cut dish, was found in Verteba I (pl. 4,8).

The dining ware complex from Stina IV is very interesting. From the total amount of 188 whole pieces of pottery and other fragments, 78 (41.4%) be-longed to the Chechelniks tradition, and 33 (17.5%) belongs to the common Trypillia tradition. It is dif-ficult to tell what tradition the other 34 (18%) pot-tery belongs to and 32 (17%) dishes most definitely belong to Petrenis tradition.

The large amounts of Petrenian pottery prob-ably tells us about migration the of settlers of middle Prut and Dniester to Chechelniks territory under the influence of Badragii group.

Taras Tkachuk38

The most typical of Badragii imports from Stina lV is a cut-conic dish with painted lens-like ovals in the middle.

The connection of Stina IV with Tomashivka group can be found on the example pieces of pot-tery made of caolin clay. This is characteristic of To-mashivka dining ware. The other pieces of pottery, a cup and a biconic piece of pottery with handles are imitations. They are made of local material, but painted with typical Tomashivka type of drawing.

Besides those, on pottery from Stina IV, there are incised lens-like symbols filled with a diagonal net on the big conic-cut dish and plant-like on two biconic cups.

The total amount of Tomashivka imports and imitations on the Chechelnik settlement on Stina IV is 4.2%. This is a large enough number that points out the intensity of the contacts between the Tomashivka group III phase and Chechelnik group settlements.

Made from local material with an addition of sifted sand, but painted with Tomashivkas schemes, this type of pottery shows us that there was some amount of Tomashivka human population in Chechel-nik area (Ryzhov 2000, 471).

The most typical Tomashivka symbol is a lens-like oval filled with a diagonal net and two wave-like ribbons, which are in the center of the spherical, cut Badragii plate from Verteba I. Verteba was unoccu-pied for a long time and only after that, the second layer was developed (Kandyba 1937, 79). It belonged to phase I of the Koshilivtsy group, which has a Late Shypyntsi tradition as one of the components. The Brânzeni tradition played the most influential role in the formation of the Koshylivtsi group (pl. 5,1-7). We can see this on the form of the pieces of pottery and their ornamentation.

There are five typical Brânzenis large rounded pottery with high and smoothly bent exterior brims, with the type of late Shypyntsi schemes of “Tangen-tenkreisband”.

One of the examples of late Shypyntsi pot is the sphero-conic piece of pottery with sharply bent, short exterior spout, and a pair of handles with verti-cal openings in the upper part. This piece is painted in a rather unparticular way of the Koshilivtsy type, which looks like a wide red stripe on a white back-ground. Amongst the whole and fragmented dining ware of phase II layer Verteba, 622 examples were found. There were 46 imports and imitations (6.8%) which belong to the Brânzeni group. There are dishes with s-shaped profiles and spheric-cut dishes painted with crosses and semi-circles in the middle (pl. 6 and 7).

We can see typical pottery with a rounded belly with die above it and high cylinder conic neck among the Brânzeni imports.

On the Koshylivtsi dining ware we can see new elements of ornamentation which are not typical Shypyntsi paintings. These are short or long, mostly horizontal wave-like lines. There are eleven pictures like these in the collection. They were drawn on the lip edge of the vessel between the lens-like ovals. In their centers, on the exterior and interior of the plates and on the middle of the ribbons.

Under the influence of Brânzeni ceramic com-plexes Koshylivtsi pottery developed rounded forms and high, smoothly bent exterior lip edges, types of painting, such as large lens-like ovals connected with diagonals at times with “hooks”, ovals located in a cross like position on the middle of cut cones and spheric-cut plates are similar to the Brânzeni orna-mentation.

Also typical for the Brânzeni ceramic complex-es are more cut spherical plates painted on both sided than conic-cut plates.

Besides ceramics in Brânzeni and Koshylivtsi groups, we can see daggers made out of bone mat-tocks made out of horns, and copper artifacts.

The second early Koshylivtsi layer of Verteba I, and because of import phase I of Brânzeni group can date Ki 8 271 = 4800±100 BP.

The Koshylivtsi group existed in unstable times. Their neighbors, Brânzeni group, lived through some cataclysms. As a proof of this theory, we can see that the location of their settlement, Kosteshty IV, was on the high cone-like hill, with a height of more then 50 meters. From the field side, the Brânzeni settlement was additionally fortified with a ditch and ramparts.

Because of radiocarbon data of Brânzeni group settlement, Zhvanets I the known time of existence of the last phase of Brânzeni group is Ki - 6745 = 4530±50 BP; Ki -6743 = 4480±BP (Videiko 1999, 40).

After reviewing the data three times, we can see that these artifacts belong to the Kasperivtsi layer.

Brânzeni group was very aggressive (Mov-sha 1994, 34). Because of the immigration of into their territories in between rivers of South Bug and Dnieper, the Kosenivka group developed (Movsha 1980, 40), and also developed the artifact type of Khoriv I on Volhynia (pl. 5,8-13) (Dergachev 1980, 95; Peleshcnyshyn 1998, 184; Movsha 1990a, 13; Kruts/Ryzhov 2000, 104).

There are influences of the Brânzeni group in the Vychvantsy group, which were located on the right and left sides of Middle Dnieper (Movsha 1994, 34; Byzian/Jakubenko 1998, 60).


In our opinion, the fragment of the spheric-cut plate ornamented with crosses and ovals in the middle fragment of the cut-conic plate painted with a pair of handles which have vertical openings or-namented with black and red ovals connected with diagonals, belongs to the phase III of the Tomashivka group (Kruts/Ryzhov 1985, 49 ff.).

Besides those on the plates, we have painting by one or more groups, of V-shaped figures. In two cases, they are located in a manner of one above the other (pl. 9,1-6).

The total amount of imports and influences of the Brânzeni group in Maidanetskoe is 6 fragments or pottery, 0.4% from 1315 dining wares of this ex-ample.

There in one conic-cut plate in Maidanetskoe, painted with ovals arranged in a figure-eight shape. This was a typical symbol for the Petreni group, which resembles arc-like ribbons with black circles at the ends, painted in smaller ovals.

The radiocarbon data of Petreni group settle-ment, Soroki Lake BM - 455 = 4792±105 BP (Bur-do/Videiko 1998, 23) which belonged to the upper layer of this settlement (Chernysh 1970, 80) synchro-nizes with the existence of phase 11 Brânzeni group.

The radiocarbon data of one more late Pertreni group settlement Varvarovka VIII Ki -601 = 4370±180 BP (Burdo/Videiko 1998, 23) (if only it does not belong to the Brânzeni layer of this site) pointed on the synchronization of the late phase of Petreni group with the latest phase III of the development of Brânzeni group.

There is a possibility that Petreni imports on the Brânzeni settlement Zhvanets I, which looks like a pottery fragment painted with horizontal s-like arcs and cut-conic plates ornamented with bi-colored ovals which are arranged in a figure-eight shape, let us as-sume the similarity of late Petreni and late Brânzeni sites. The radiocarbon data of late Tomashivka set-tlement Talianki (Ki - 6865 = 4755±50 BP; Ki-6866 = 4720±60 BP; Ki-6867 = 4810±55 BP; Ki-6868 = 4780±55 BP (Klochko/Kruts 1999, 79) and Maidanetskoe (Ki-1212 = 4600±80; Bln-2087 = 4890±50 BP (Burdo/Videiko 1998, 23) point out the similarity between phase III Tomashivska group and phase II Brânzeni group.

The import (fragments of cut-conic plates) of the late Tomashivka group was found on the side of the last phase of the Brânzeni group Zhvanets I which shows the similarity of late Brânzeni and late Tomashivka settlements.

The quantity of ceramic imports of Chechelnik group on the last phase of its existence in Talianki and Maidanetskoe differs.

There are only eight Chechelnik imports and one imitation of the form of the Chichelnic piece of pottery 0.9% from 991 pieces of pottery found on the settlement of Talianki. This fact shows few contacts between the settlement of Talianki and its neighbors to the south-east was rare.

In the Maidanetskoe settlement, the quantity of Chechelnik imports increased to the total amount of 44 examples. Almost in every building in the Maid-anetskoe settlement, there was between one and six Checheinic imports or imitations. Most of this pot-tery was made of local clay, and four pieces of pottery are imitations of Chechelnik sort. Perhaps it tells us that the Chechelnik tradition integrated into the life of Maidanetskoe (Videiko 1991, 48 f.). A very im-portant archaeological question of the eneolithic of the South Bug and Dnieper is the time of appearance and occupationof of this territory by the Kosenivka group (pl. 8). There are two main hypothesises.

According to T. S. Movsha, the Kosenivka group has Brânzeni (Zhvanets) heritage and co-ex-isted with the Tomashivka group (Movsha 1990b, 170 f.).

Radiocarbon data of Maidanetskoe Brânzeni-Kosenivka imports found first time on this settle-ment, prove the hypothesis of Movsha. The quantity of Kosenivka imports in Maidanetskoe reaches five examples (0.3%) and a total with six Brânzeni im-ports, previously mentioned, influences reach 0.8% or 1395 pieces of pottery (pl. 9).

The opinion of V. O. Kruts and S. M. Ryzhov is that the Kosenivka group existed later than the To-mashivka group, and its formation links the artifacts to type Varvarovka XV (Kruts/Ryzhov 1985, 59; Ryzhov 2000, 471).

The Kosenivka group was developed on the basis of late Badragii and early Brânzeni traditions. Migration of the part of early Brânzeni settlers in the region between the rivers of South Bug and Dnieper, falls at the same time as the existence of phase III Tomashivka group. There is a possibility that the reason for for-mation at this time was the large Tomashivka settle-ments opposing Kosenivka settlements.

Early Brânzeni migration reaches the right Dnieper river were on the sides of Krutukha-Zholob. The pottery of round bodied form with high and smoothly bent brims started to made here. Pot-tery which was formed here, is reminiscent of late Badragii tradition (Buzian/Jakubenko 1998, 59).

The Kosenivka group existed, from what we can see in the radiocarbon data, to the last phase Vilkhovets: Ki - 6922 = 4170±55 BP; Ki - 6923 = 4165±60 BP; Ki - 6924 = 4205±50 BP; Ki - 6925 - 4225±55 BP (Videiko 1999, 50).

Taras Tkachuk40

The study of the amounts of imports and imi-tations of the Trypillia Culture at the end of period CI and the beginning of CII let us see the certain regularities.

The total amount of imports and imitations, which reaches 0.1% - 2%, shows stable exchange in peaceful time between the local groups. For ex-ample, the exchange between Shypyntsi, Chechelnik and Petreni groups.

In the time of conflicts, insubstantial amounts of imports and imitations of the sites which took part in the conflicts, shows the lessening of the conflicts. For example, between Badragii group, phase II,

Shypyntsi group, phase II or Kosenivka group, phase I and Tomashivka group, phase III.

If the amount of imports and imitations is be-tween 3% and 5%, this indicated intensive exchange, perhaps between friendly neighbors, like those of Chechelnik and Tomashivka groups.

Large amounts of imports and imitations (more then 5%) indicate quite intense influence and possi-ble migration, like those of Koshylivtsi and Brânzeni groups.

Translated by Veronika Tkachuk, Tatiana Sala and Author.


References

Bikbaev 1989V. M. Bikbaev, Issledovanija tripolskogo poselenija Shury I. Arkheologicheskie issledovanija v Moldavii (Kishinev 1989).

Burdo/Videiko 1998N. B. Burdo/M. Y. Videiko, Osnovy khronolofii Trypillia-Kukuteni. Arkheologiia 2 (Kyiv 1998)

Buzian/Jakubenko 1998G. M. Buzian/O. O. Jakubenko, Doslidzhenia trypilskogo poselenia Krutukha-Zholob poblyzu Pereaslava-Khmelny-ckogo. Arkheologichni vidkryttia v Ukraini 1997-1998 rr. (Kyiv 1998).

Chernysh 1970E. K. Chernysh, Tripolskoe poselenie Soroki-Ozero. Kratkie soobshcheniia Inst. arh. 123 (Moskva 1970).

Cuco$ 1999S. Cuco$, Faza Cucuteni B in zona Subcarpatica a Moldovei (Piatra-Neam" 1999).

Dergachev 1980V. A. Dergachev, Pamiatniki pozdnego Tripolia (Kishinev 1980).

Dinu 1957M. Dinu, #antierul arheologic Valea Lupului. Materiale $i Cerce"ari arheologice (Piatra-Neam" 1957).

Kadrow et. al.S. Kadrow/M. Sokhatskii/T. Tkachuk/E. Trela, Sprawozsza-nie ze studiow i wyniki analiz materialowzabytkowych kultury Trypolskiej z Bilcza Zlotego znajdujacych siewzbiorach Muzeum archeologicznegow Krakowie. Mat. arch. XXX-IV (Kraokow 2003).

Kandyba 1937 O. Kandyba, Doslidy na galytskomu Podilli rr. 1928 ta 1929. Zapysky Naukovogo Tovarystva im. Shevchenka CLIV (Kviv 1937).

Klochko/Kruts 1999V. I. Klochko/V. A. Kruts, Radiocarbon dating chronology of the late Tripolye Culture. Baltic-Pontic Stud. 7 (Pozna% 1999).

Kruts/Ryzhov 2000.V. A. Kruts/S. N. Ryzhov, Tripolye Culture in Volhynia (Gorodsk-Volhynian group). Baltic-Pontic Stud. 9 (Pozna% 2000).

Kruts/Ryzhov 1985V. A. Kruts/S. N. Ryzhov, Fazy rozvytku pamjatok to-mashivsko-sushkivskoji grupy. Arkheologija 51 (Kyiv 1985).

Markevich 1981V. I. Markevich, Pozdnetripolskie plemena Severnoi Mol-davii (Kishinev 1981).

Movsha 1980aT. G. Movsha, Zhvanecka kultura Trypilsko-Kukutenskoji spilnosti, VIII Podilska istoryko-kraeznavcha konferenciia (Kamianec-Podilski 1980).

Movsha 1980bT. G. Movsha, Aktualnye problemy istorii pozdnetripolsko-go naselenija Dnestrovsko-Dneprovskogo mezhdurechja. Rannezemledelcheskie poselenija-giganty Tripolskoj kul-tury na Ukraine (Taljanki, Veselyj Kut, Majdaneckoje 1990).

Movsha 1994T. G. Movsha. Poselenija na r. Ushice i nekotorye voprosy Zhvaneckoi kultury Tripolsko-Kukutenskoj obshchnosti. Drevnee Prichernomorie. Kratkie soobshchenia Odesskogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva (Odessa 1994).

Ni"u 1984A. Ni"u. Formarea si clasificarea grupelor de stil AB $i B ale ceremicii pictate Cucuteni-Tripolie (Ia$i 1984).

Nestor et al. 1951I. Nestor/A. Alexandrescu/E. Comsa/E. Zaharia-Petrescu/V. Zirra, S!p!turile de $antierul Valea Jijiei (Ia$i-Boto$ani Dorogoi) in anul 1950. Studii $i Cercet!ri de Istorie Veche 1. anul II (Ia$i 1951).

Peleshchyshyn 1998M. Peleshchyshyn, Problemy istorii trypilskykh plemen Zakhidnoi Volyni, mezhyrichja Zakhidnogo Bugu ta Dnistra. Zapysky Naukovogo Tovarystva im. Shevchenka CCXXXV (Lviv 1998).Ryzhov 2000S. N. Ryshov, Raspisnaia keramika tomashovskoi lokalno-khronologicheskoi gruppy tripolskoi kultury. Stratum plus 2 (Kishenev 2000).

Schmidt 1932H. Schmidt. Cucuteni in der Oberen Moldau, Rumänien (Berlin, Leipzig 1932).

Shmaglii et al. 1985M. M. Shmaglii/S. M. Ryzhov/V. P. Dudkin, Trypilske poselennia Konovka v Serednjomu Podnistrovii. Arkhe-ologiia 52 (Kyiv 1985).

Videiko 1991M. Y. Videiko, O sostave naseleniia krupnogo tripolskogo poselenija Maidaneckoe. Drevneishie obshchestva zemledeltsey i skotovodov Severnogo Prichernomoriia (V tys. Do n.e. – V v. n.e.) (Kiev 1991).

Videiko 1999M. Y. Videiko, Radiocarbon dating chronology of the Late Tripolye Culture. Baltic-Pontic studies 7 (Pozna% 1999).

Zaharia et al. 1970N. Zaharia/M. Petrescu-Dîmbovi"a/Em. Zaharia, A$ez!ri din Moldova. De la paleolitic pina in secolul XVIII-lea (Bucures"i 1970).

Zbenovich/Shumova 1989V. G. Zbenovich/V. A. Shumova, Tripolskaia kultura Sred-nego Podnestrovia v svete novykh issledovanii. Pervobytnaia arheologiia. Materialy i issledovaniia (Kiev 1989).

Taras Tkachuk42

Pl. 1. Samples of the ceramic complex from Bilcze Zlote Verteba I. The III faze of development of the Shypynitsi group (after L. Kozlovsky)


Pl. 2. Samples of the ceramic complex of the Badragii group (after V. I. Markevich and S. N. Ryzhov)

Taras Tkachuk44

Pl. 3. Samples of the ceramic imports from Badragii group to Verteba I


Pl. 4. 1-7. samples of the ceramic imports from Badragii group to Verteba I. 8. the im port from Chechelnik group to Verteba I. 9. the import from Petreni group to Verteba I

Taras Tkachuk46

Pl. 5. Samples of the ceramic complex from Br!nzeni group. 1-7. Br!nzeni IV (after V. I. Markevich). 8-13. Khoriv I (after M. Peleshchychyn)


Pl. 6. The ceramic imports from Br!nzeni group to Verteba II

Taras Tkachuk48

Pl. 7. The ceramic imports from Br!nzeni group to Verteba II


Pl. 8. Samples of ceramic complex from Kosenivka

Taras Tkachuk50

Pl. 9. 1-3. the ceramic imports from Br!nzeni group to Maidanestkoe. 4-6. the signs of Br!nzeni signs system on the dishes from Maidanestkoe. 7- 8 the ceramic imports from Kosenivka (?) to Majdanecke.

Carpathian Imports in the Graves of the Yamnaya Culture 51

Abstract

The results of the excavation of kurgan 10 near Sofievka village, Kakhovka district, Kherson region on the left bank of the Dnieper River will be presented. Kurgan grave 1 of the Yamnaya Culture contained a unique vessel named in the literature as a jug with asymmetrical handles which is analysed. The paper disscuses the original region of this type of vessel and analyse the problem of the relative and absolute chronology of the Yamnaya Culture in the Pontic steppe in context of the Carpathian EBA I. The area of the Carpathian Basin could be a region from where the jug with asymmetrical handles was bought to the left bank of the Lower Dnieper. This type of ceramic appears on the Middle Danube during the transition period from the !"# I to the !"# II according to the Hungarian chronology (!" II to EB III, according to the Balkan periodization after L. Nikolova). It allows us to synchronize this period with the Final Yamnaya Culture in the Lower Dnieper region and to date it between 2500 - 2400 "$ according to the existing radiocarbon dates. This dating should be refined in the future due the new radiocarbon dates and development of a tree rings chronology of the steppe cultures. It is impossible to trace the exact circumstances in which the jug with asymmetrical handles appeared on the Lower Dnieper. For further classification we need the detailed analysis of the ceramic complex of the Yamnaya Culture in the huge region between the Dniester, southern Bug and Dnieper Rivers. It is very important for understanding the influential degree of cultural tradition of the Lower and Middle Danube areas on the formation of ceramic complex of the Yamnaya Culture local groups. Only with this background we can approach a solution to this problem. However, it is possible now to say that the Pontic steppe area was not isolated zone in the cultural processes that took place in the Circumpontic area during the EBA.

%&'()&

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‘8. L&B +5= 9&1,)-95 '‘8/5/*8 2 $&1&0.46)2 K602.,/‘? / =&1&A-0.5B =&1-60 /-0 =&1M6? 06 012:6? >,'5 06;5 1,..46? ;16.'5 /-0=6/-0.6 06 2:61*496? A16.636:-?, ,;6 7 /-0 012:6? 06 +1&+46? >,'5 06;5 1,..46? ;16.'5 /-0=6/-0.6 06 =&1-605',E-? N. H-9636/6?. L& 06'/638I *5.A16.-'2/,+5 E&B =&1-60 ' >-.,34.5) G,*6) -*.2/,..8 8).6? 9234+215 ., H57.46)2 <.-=1- - 0,+2/,+5 B6:6 2500-2400 11. 06 . &. ':-0.6 -*.2(G-B ;,'- 1,0-6/2:3&E&/5A 0,+, 89- ,/+615 .,/608+4 - 915+5G.6 ,.,3-'2(+4 2 *+,++-. J,9& 0,+2/,..8 =6/5..6 ;2+5 2+6G.&.& 2 ),B;2+.46)2 ',/0895 .6/5) 0,+,) +, 16'/5+92 0&.016A16.636:-G.6:6 0,+2/,..8 9234+21 *+&=6/6? '6.5. H&)6735/6 /-0=6/-*+5 +6G.6 ., =5+,..8, 89 :3&G59 ' ,*5)&+15G.5)5 12G9,)5 =6+1,=5/ 2 H57.I K60.-=16/‘8. <38 '‘8*2/,..8 E46:6 =5+,..8 .&6;A-0.5B 0&+,34.5B =61-/.834.5B ,.,3-' 9&1,)-G.5A 96)=3&9*-/ 369,34.5A :12= 8).6? 9234+215 )-7 <.-*+16), K-/0&..5) O2:6) +, <.-=16) / 96.+&9*+- /=35/-/ ., E&B =16E&* 9234+21 06;5 1,..46? ;16.'5 H57.46:6 +, $&1&0.46:6 K602.,/‘8. H& 05/38G5*4 ., E&, )67., *+/&1072/,+5, F6 =-/.-G.6=15G61.6)61*49- *+&=5 ', 06;5 1,..46? ;16.'5 .& ;235 -'6346/,.- /-0 9234+21.5A =16E&*-/, 89- ),35 )-*E& / E5192)=6.+-B*496)2 1&:-6.-.

Yuri Ya. Rassamakin & Alla V. Nikolova

Carpathian Imports in the Graves of the Yamnaya Culture on the Lower Dnieper.

Some Problems of Chronology and Connections in the Black Sea Steppes During the Early Bronze Age

Yuri Ya. Rassamakin & Alla V. Nikolova 52

Introduction

The so-called Yamnaya (Pit-Grave) Culture of the Pontic steppes was categorized about 100 years ago. After conducting the 1901 and 1903 excavations of the steppe kurgans along the Seversky Donets River area, V. A. Gorodtsov proposed the first cultural-chronological scheme in the development of the Bronze Age steppe cultures. According to the main features of the graves’ constructions, V. A. Goro-dtsov classified three consecutive archaeological cul-tures: Yamnaya (the Pit Grave), Catacombnaya (the Catacomb Grave), and Srubnaya (the Timber Grave) Cultures (Gorodtsov 1905; 1907; 1916). This cul-tural-chronological scheme became the basis for the further research of the Bronze Age Cultures in the Black Sea steppe area. Today, the Yamnaya Culture is known to ex-ist along the vaststeppe and partially forest-steppe area stretching from the South Urals to the Danube River with its tributaries, including the Carpathian region. Within this so-called Yamnaya Cultural-His-torical area (“oblast’“ in Russian) 35 years ago N. J. Merpert outlined nine local variants (fig. 1) (Mer-pert 1968; 1974). For the North Pontic Steppe, O. G. Shaposhnikova further subdivided the Yamnaya Cultural-Historical unity (“obshchnost’“ in Russian) on five local variants (fig. 2) (Shaposhnikova 1971; 1985). Now the scheme of different local variants or separate Cultures inside this archaeological phenom-enon is much more complicated and there is no clear mutual understanding between the researchers. For simplicity, in this paper we will use a general term “the Yamnaya Culture”. In the study of the Yamnaya Culture many problems still remain unresolved. Two of these are as following: a) the relative and absolute chronology of various local groups of the Yamnaya Culture and the dating of the earliest, as well as final periods of their existence; b) the cultural interaction between the various local groups within the Yamnaya Culture and with their neighboring cultures. The difficulties for the dating of the Yamnaya Culture lie in the broad chronological range of the grave goods. Therefore artifacts imported from other areas, especially those that allow consideration of the Yamnaya Culture in the context of the development of the southeastern and Central European Bronze Age, have special value for the chronological determina-tion of the Yamnaya Culture. From this point of view an imported vessel from a kurgan near the village of Sofievka (kurgan 10, grave 1) on the left bank of the Dnieper River is of a great interest.

1. The description of kurgan 10.

Kurgan 10 was excavated by the expedition of the In-stitute of Archaeology, Ukrainian Academy of Sci-ence in 19721. It was a part of the large kurgan cem-etery that included about 40 mounds. The kurgans stretched in one chain and were situated on the watershed between two ancient gullies of the Dnieper Riv-er (presently, the shore of the Kakhovka Reservoir). As a result of the long term agriculture, kurgan 10 had lost its original shape and size. Before the exca-vation, the preserved dimensions of the kurgan were 1.2 m in height and 26 m in diameter (fig. 3). Five graves were found inside of the kurgan. Graves 1, 2, and 5 belong to the Yamnaya Culture, grave 3 to the Middle Ages (the burial of a Pecheneg), and grave 4, culturally undefined, to a period of the Bronze Age. In the fill of the kurgan were found several sherds of a vessel’s bottom dated to the Bronze Age. Accord-ing to the field report, the kurgan was built above grave 52. All other graves were inserted in the mound without additional subsequent layers of soil.

Grave 1 (the Yamnaya Culture, pl. 1,1) was located 6 m southwest from the centre, at a depth of 1.45 m. The pit borders were untraceable. Two children’s skeletons lay in a flexed position on the left side, their heads pointing north. The bones of skeletons were very badly preserved. The position of hands was not clear. The fragments of the collapsed wood roofing lay on the skeletons. Behind the skeletons’ skulls were found two vessels. A small vessel with a short neck and flat bot-tom lay behind the skull of the skeleton P 1. Its dimensions: 7 cm in height, 6 cm in rim diameter, 7 cm in shoulder diameter and 2 cm in bottom di-ameter (pl. 1,2). The black burnished vessel with a high cylindrical neck and slightly outturned rim lay near the skull of skeleton P 2. The biconical vessel with flat bottom had two handles of different size. Shoulders of the vessel are decorated with incised zigzag lines. Under both handles this ornamental belt was divided by vertical rhombic figures. The vessel was 24 cm in height, 9 cm in rim diameter, 23 cm in shoulder height and 6 cm in bottom diameter (pl. 1,3.4).

1 The description of the kurgan we give here is according to the excavation report (Leskov et al. 1972), In addition to the description, we will discuss the disputable questions of this field report.

2 The drawings of the kurgan’s profiles are absent in the field report. Also, a soil from the oldest grave pit Nr. 5) is not marked on the general plan of the kurgan.


Fig. 1. Nine local variants and its subvariants of the Yamnaya Cultural-Historical Area (after N. Ya. Merpert 1968, 14 ff.)


Grave 2 (the Yamnaya Culture, pl. 2,1.2) was located in the center of the mound. Big limestone slabs cov-ering the area of 2.9 ! 2.5 m were found at a depth of 0.4 - 0.9 m. Beneath the slabs was an oval shaped grave pit, oriented East - West. The pit was 1.9 m in length and 1.6 m in width. 2.27 m down in the pit around its perimeter ledges had been created. n these ledges were placed the wooden beams3. The pit, 1.4 m x 0.9 m, had a rectangular shape with rounded corners, the bottom of it 2.87 m from the center of the kurgan. On the walls of the pit were visible the traces of the digging instrument in 3 cm width.

3 According to the depth of the stone roof of the grave, it is quite possible, that this secondary grave was inserted into the first (the oldest) mound which covered grave 5, and then it was still covered by the new additional layer, which the au-thors of excavation did not trace. Otherwise, it is possible to assume, that at this depth were the ledges of the pit, where the stones of a grave lay as proof. For this appears to be the case from the profile of the stones in the field drawing (pl. 2,1). The Stones lay exactly at the height where only this could be the case. The stones overlapped the grave, which was filled by the soil and then covered by the stone roof. In the steppe area there are graves where there are several levels of ledges made at the different depth. However, more often they are found in kurgans of greater heights.

The skeleton of a woman, 18-20 years old, lay on its back with flexed legs and a head pointing east4. The skull was on the right side; the hands were ex-tended along a body. The legs were flexed and the knees fell to the right. The brownish remains of a mat were found underneath and around the skeleton’s pelvis. A bone awl, 12 cm in length, and the pan-cake-like piece of ocher were found in the northeast-ern corner of a pit (pl. 2,3).

Grave 3 (pl. 2,3: Medieval Time, the Pecheneg,) was located 2 m to the south of the centre of the mound, at a depth of 1 m. The pit borders were untraceable. The skeleton lay in an extended position on its back, the head pointing west. The hands were extended along a body. The fragments of a skull and the bones of a front leg of a horse were found 0.15 m from the right shoulder of a human skeleton. Beneath these horse bones more animal bones were found.

4 The anthropological determinations were made by the anthro-pologist S. I. Kruts from the Institute of Archaeology, Na-tional Academy of Science of Ukraine (Kruts 1984, 105 tabl. 1).

Fig. 2. Five local groups of the Yamnaya Cultural-Historical Unity for the northern Pontic Steppe except the Dniester-Donau and Don Rivers zones (after O.G. Shaposhnikova 1985, 347 ff.).


Grave 4 (pl. 3,1: the Bronze Age, culturally unde-fined) was located 1.3 m to the south of the centre of the mound, on depth of 0.9 m. The pit borders were untraceable. Two skeletons of teenagers, one on the right and one on the left sides, faced each other, their heads pointing northwest. Their hands were extended along their bodies; the bones of the legs were not preserved.

Grave 5 (pl. 3,2: primary, the Yamnaya Culture) was located in 2.5 m to the south of the center of the mound. The pit was a rectangular form with rounded corners. The pit, 1.65 m x 1.07 m, was located 0.95 m from the ancient ground level. At this level, the pit was covered by the wooden logs placed acrossit. The skeleton of an adult man lay on its back with flexed legs, the head pointing east. The skull was slightly turned on the right side; the hands were extended along the body. The flexed legs fell to the right. The ground around the skeleton’s pelvis was covered by ocher.

2. Kurgan 10 in a context of the Yamnaya Culture

Thus, three graves of the Yamnaya Culture were ex-cavated in the kurgan. Graves 5 and 2 were the oldest in the kurgan. They have common features such as the shape of the grave pit and the position and ori-entation of skeletons. These features are very typical for the Yamnaya Culture over a wide territorial and time span. Nevertheless, the similar graves vary in percentage in different areas of the Yamnaya Culture. In general, the graves with skeletons on theirs backs with flexed legs amount to 46.3 % in the steppe zone of Ukraine, but they are unevenly distributed from 29.9% in the Crimea up to 65.3% in the Severskiy Donets River region (the territory to the northeast of the Sea of Azov) 5. The graves in the Lower Dnieper region amount to 43% including graves from the So-fievka kurgan group. The eastern orientation of the skeletons aver-ages 19.2% of the Yamnaya Culture graves in the Pontic steppe, but varies from 6.3% on the right bank of the Dnieper River region (within the modern Zaporozhye district) up to 47.7% in the Crimea. A high percentage of this feature, 42.9%, occurs on the left bank of the Dnieper River area. The northeastern orientation of the deceased in the Yamnaya Culture graves of the Pontic steppe is more typical. On aver-age it is up to 30% of graves but changes from 21.3%

5 The percentage is given according to the unpublished manu-script of the dissertation by A.V. Nikolova. For the main con-clusions of this dissertation see: A. Nikolova 1992.

on the right bank of the Dnieper River region (the area near the modern city of Nikopol) up to 47.7% on the coastal region of the Black Sea (an area near the city of Kherson). In the graves of the Yamnaya Culture the formed pieces of ocher are a relatively frequent feature. This tradition can be traced back to the Eneolithic period and continue to be in use during the Early Bronze Age. On average, the ocher lumps occur in the graves of the Yamnaya Culture up to 18.2%, but reach 30% and more in the region between the Severskiy Donets River and the Molochnaya River, as well as in the Lower Dnieper region. The burial characteristics found in the 1st grave, with skeletons lying on the left side in a flexed posi-tion with the head pointing north, are less typical. However, these features are distributed extensively enough in certain steppe areas. For example, on the right bank of the Dnieper River region (the area near the modern city of Nikopol), the left-sided position of skeletons accounts for up to 30%, and up to 20% of them have the north orientation. Similarly, high percentages of the left-sided position of skeletons pointing north are typical for the graves in the In-gul-Southern Bug Rivers and the Dniester-Danube Rivers regions. The graves with these characteristics usually occupythe latest the stratigraphical position in kurgans (Yarovoi 2003, 91).

Fig. 3. Plan of the kurgan 10 near Sofievka village


In general, the left bank of the Dnieper River region with the kurgan group near the village of Sofievka forms, according to the distribution of the burial features, a single block with all territorial groups of Ukraine located to the east of the Dnieper River. The graves of this Dnieper River region show the greatest similarity to the monuments of the region between the Severskiy Donets River and the Molochnaya Riv-er, as well as in the Crimea. It is important to note, that we analyzed more than 2 thousand graves of the Yamnaya Culture and came to the conclusion that the correlation between the different steppe regions of the Culture in the Pontic area does not correspond with the schemes of the local groups or variants proposed previously.

3. An imported vessel from grave 1: paral-lels and relative chronology

The first vessel from grave 1 (pl. 1,2) represents a type common for the latest period of the Yamnaya Culture. Similar vessels are known from the Kuban River region to the Crimea and southern Bug River region (Trifonov 1991, fig. 9,2; Sanzharov 2001, fig. 6,2.3; Kolotukhin/Toshchev 2000, fig. 12,3.5.7; Shaposhnikova et al. 1986, fig. 48,3). The second vessel from grave 1 is an import (pl. 1,3.4). Similar vessels are known in the Car-pathian Basin and on the Middle Danube River re-gions. N. Kalicz defines two vessels from the graves at Tarnazsadány and Budapest, Szentmihályi út. as the ceramics of the Makó group of the Zók Culture (Kalicz 1968, 80, pl. III,2.3). The vessel from Tar-nazsadány is completely identical to the vessel from the village of Sofievka including its decoration. N. Kalicz did not describe the details of the funeral rite of this grave, but he did mention “Hockerbestattung” (Kalicz 1968, 80). The vessel from Budapest, Szent-mihalyi út. is also similar to the vessel from the vil-lage of Sofievka, but without decoration. 35 years ago N. Kalicz attributed both vessels to the pottery of one of the basic types of the Makó group. He attributed them as one of the variants of one-handle jugs (“einhenklinge Kruke”) (Kalicz 1968, 83). Later N. Kalicz noted that this type of jug, with asymmetrical handles, is present in the kur-gan graves in Serbia, in the late layers of Vinkovci, and among materials of the Ljubljana Culture settle-ment (Ig I) also. Besides that, a similar type of vessel is known from accidental finds in the Tisza River re-gion and even in the Moravia region, in monuments of the late phase of the Corded Ware Culture (Kalicz 1984, 103).

Analyzing the basic types of the Kosihy-!aka group ceramics in the Slovakia, J. Vladár also wrote about one similar undecorated jug. It was a jug from the Ivanka pri Nitre grave (Vladár 1966, 276 f. pl. 28,2; 31.I.5). J. Vladár has noted that this type of jugs are present in the Kosihy-!aka group but only in example. However, this has a great value for the chronology of this group, since similar jugs are not known in the earlier and later cultures of the region. The researcher has pointed tosome parallels to this vessel from the Transdanubian region, particularly from the grave of Budaörs and from the previous-ly mentioned grave of Tarnazsadány (Vladár 1966, 276 f.). J. Vladár also has noted parallels to the jug from Ivanka pri Nitre among ceramics of the younger phase of the Corded Ware Culture in the “Böhmen” and “Mähren”. But these vessels were accompanied by one big and three small handles (Slížany, MQnín). Therefore, J. Vladar has interpretedsuch vessels as the remote derivatives from the jug of Ivanka pri Ni-tre (Vladár 1966, 277). A similar type of vessel is known in the Vinkovci Culture (or Somogyvár-Vinkovci Culture). N. Tasi" has described them as amphorae (Ilok, Gra-dina am Bosut) (Tasi" 1984, 21 pl. I,4; IV,3). They were found in the Vincovci-Tržnica/Hotel, horizon C-1. This new group of ceramics lay in one layer (horizon C-1), with ceramics of the late phase of the Vu#edol Culture (Vu#edol C after S. Dimitrijevi") (Dimitrijevi" 1982, pl. 4,1.9; Maran 1998, 312). Finally, the jugs with asymmetrical handles are known in the Ro$ia-G%l%$eni group (or Ro$ia Cul-ture) in Romanian area of Bihor (Emödi 1985, 126 fig. 5, 33, 34, 35; Roman, Németi 1986). R. Kalicz-Schreiber has presented the most complete list of the 23 sites where the vessels with asymmetrical handles have been found (Kalicz-Sch-reiber 1991, 12 f. fig. 13) (fig. 4). She has divided these vessels into three types, according to their shapes: “a”, “b” and “c” (Kalicz-Schreiber 1991, 11). According to this classification, the vessel from the village of Sofievka corresponds to the type “a”. The closest parallels to the Sofievka‘s vessel have been found in graves with the flexed position of skel-etons (Kalicz-Schreiber 1975, 168; Kulcsár 2002, 455). But in the Makó-Kosihy-!aka Culture the funerary practice was the cremation in urns instead of individual graves for the deceased (Kalicz 1984, 95 f.; Kulcsár 2002, 447 ff.). N. Kalicz writes that some graves with skeletons do not belong to the Makó-Kosihy-!aka Culture and accompanying ar-tifacts differ from the goods of this culture. He be-lieves that the graves with jugs and similar finds at the settlements appeared a little bit earlier to the


north of the Balkans rather than in the Carpathian Basin region. In the Carpathian Basin region they appeared in the Late Makó Culture (Kalicz 1984, 95, 103). The limited amount of graves with skeletons are present in a certain areas of the Makó Culture, mainly, in the south, but with typical forms of pot-tery known in the north (Budapest, Tarnazsadany) as well, even in Slovakia (Ivanka pri Nitre). N. Kalicz assumes that the occurrence of such graves with the jugs can be connected to the period when the cul-tures replaced each other. Meanwhile, the researcher does not assert that the occurrence of these graves caused the termination of the Makó Culture. N. Ka-licz assumes that the changes in the Makó Culture and the formation of the Nagyrév- and Nyírség Cul-tures were the result of interrelated and simultaneous factors, including the occurrence of the Bell Beakers Culture. However, the character and chronological duration of this process are not clear (Kalicz 1984, 95 f., 103). R. Kalicz-Schreiber also discussed the jugs from the area of the Makó-Kosihy-!aka Culture as a subject for the studying of the Early Bronze Age chronology of Central Europe (Kalicz-Schreiber 1975, 167 f.). She concluded that we can not de-termine the precise chronological position of these specific jugs. According to her opinion, the contem-porary emergence in the Makó-Kosihy-!aka Culture area of these vessels and graves with skeletons could be connected to the arrival of the population from the south. R. Kalicz-Schreiber assumed that this process could occur in the final stage of the development of the Makó Culture (Kalicz-Schreiber 1975, 168 fig. 2). Later, R. Kalicz-Schreiber discussed this prob-lem in more detail in the context of the studying of the Somogyvár-Vinkovci Culture that could be an in-termediary in the transfer of cultural influences from the south to the north (Kalicz-Schreiber 1991, 11 ff., 19 ff.). The conclusions of R. Kalicz-Schreiber are the following: a) The place of the origin of vessels with asym-metrical handles in the Carpathian Basin region lies in the south where they appeared in the Eneolithic and were known in western Anatolia, on Cyprus and even in the Near East. b) The vessels of this type are found in graves with inhumations, in graves with cremations (in urns); in kurgan graves and in cult graves in caves. However, these vessels are found at the settlements as well. c) These vessels are known from the com-plexes of the Somogyvár-Vinkovci Culture, the Late-Vu#edol Culture, and in the area of the Makó-Kosi-hy-!aka and the Nagyrév Cultures (the Early stage). However, they are unknown in the area of the Glina

III-Schneckenberg Culture although we can assume their future finds in this culture, possibly even in the Lower Danube region; d) The vessels of this type can not be always connected to a certain archaeological culture and precisely dated. However, in the south and southwest parts of the Carpathian Basin these vessels undoubt-edly belong to the late phase of the Vu#edol Culture and the Somogyvár-Vinkovci Culture including the Beloti" group. The original region of these vessels was the northern area of the Balkans, from which people migrated and brought a funeral rite with in-humation to the territory where cremation was in use (the Makó-Kosihy-!aka Culture, the western part of Transylvania); e) An emergence of the vessels with asym-metrical handles in the Theiss-, Körös area (the en-virons of the modern Budapest) occurred during the transition period from the Makó Culture to the Ear-ly Nagyrév Culture, and the original region of this process was in the Somogyvár-Vinkovci Culture area (Kalicz-Schreiber 1991, 13 ff.). In recent publications, researchers confirm a late chronological position for the graves accom-panied by the vessels with asymmetrical handles in area of the Makó-Kosihy-!aka Culture. According to the Hungarian chronology, this is a transition period from the !"# I to the !"# II or the earliest !"# II (Kalicz-Schreiber, Kalicz 1999, 85, 93 f.; Kulcsár 2002, 456). According to the Hungarian periodization, the Makó-Kosihy-!aka Culture is the earliest culture of the Bronze Age (!"# I)6. There are the disput-able questions concerning the synchronization of the Makó-Kosihy-!aka Culture with neighboring cul-tures, for example, with the Somogyvár-Vinkovci Culture (Early stage) and the Late-Vu#edol Culture. We proceed here using the most accepted synchroni-zation of these cultures (see: Bándi 1981, 21 ff. pl. 12; Kalicz 1981, fig. 5; 1984, 98 ff.; Kalicz-Sch-reiber 1984, 168; 1989; 1991, 9ff.; Bóna 1992, 11 f.; Kalicz-Schreiber, Kalicz 1999, 93 fig. 20; Maran 1998, 311 ff.). F. Bertemes and V. Heyd consider these cul-tures in the context of the formation of the Central European !"#. They define this time as an addi-tional period A0 (2350-2250 BC) in chronological scheme proposed by Reinecke (Bertemes/Heyd 1996; 2002, 190 ff.). J. Lichardus and J. Vladár parallel this period A0 with only the late phase of the Makó-Kosihy-!aka Culture and C&opice-Veselé group (Ho-rizon 1 for the !"# R) in the Southwest Slovakia. They place the earliest monuments of the Makó-Ko-

6 On the problems of the Hungarian terminology and chronology see: Gogâltan 1998, and Kulcsár 2002, 441 f., notes 2-6.


65-6770-76

59-6468-69 77

15-17

18-27

11-14202-208

201

209

197-200125-129

30,57-58130-134

34-5455

5628-29

31-34

112-120 135

110-111146148-153

147137-138

154-156121-124

2484

136157 139-145190

188-189

184-186172

166-170

174-182173

171165

158-164183

187

78-79

86 85

80-83

1-2

3-9

10

23

22

21

15

1617

141312

86

7

3

2

18

20

19

A B

C

D

E

F

1

B l a c k S e a

A s o v S e a

191-195

210

211212-214

196

105-109 87-104

9

1110

5 4

Fig. 4.Map of the Yamnaya Culture sites with C-14 dates and the EBA I Cultures in the Donau-Carpathian area: I-VI - the EBA I Cultures of the Carpathian area: A Vu!edol Culture; B Beloti" Culture; C Somogyvár-Vinkovci Culture; D Makó-Kosihy-#aka Culture; E Glina III-Schneckenberg Culture; F Jigodin Culture (after Kalicz-Sch-reiber 1991, Fig. 8). Square: 1-24. the vessels with assimetrical handles (1-23 after Kalicz-Schreiber, 1991, p. 11-13, Fig. 13): 1. Raskopanitza (Bulgaria); 2. Priboj (Serbia); 3. Ig (Slovenia); 4. Vu!edol-Gradac (Croatia); 5. Sarva$ (Croatia); 6. Gradina (Yugoslavia); 7. Ilok (Yugoslavia); 8. Vincovci (Croatia); 9. Gajdukovo (Yu-goslavia); 10. Zók-Várhegy (Hungary); 11. Szava (Hungary); 12. Hódmez%vásárhely-Gorzsa (Hungary); 13. Kunszentmárton és Szentes között (Hungary); 14. Csongrád-Vidrepart (Hungary); 15. Tiszaluc-Sarkadpuszta (Hungary); 16. Ternazsadány (Hungary); 17. Budapest XIV. Szentmihályi út. (Hungary); 18. Calatea (Rumania); 19 . Gala&eni (Rumania); 20. Izbucul Topli'ei (Rumania); 21. Ivanka pri Nitra (Slovakia); 22. Menin (Slovakia); 23. Morkovice-Sližany (Slovakia); 24. Sofievka (Ukraine). Circle: the Yamnaya Culture sites with the C-14 dates (the numbers according to table 2)

sihy-!aka Culture together with the Vu#edol Culture and the place the Glockenbecher Culture to the Late Eneolithic 3 (Lichardus/Vladár 1997, 289 fig. 11; 296 fig. 12). Thus, if, according to the Hungarian periodiza-tion, the emergence of the vessels with asymmetrical handles and the graves with flexed skeletons accom-panied by such vessels in the Makó-Kosihy-!aka Cul-ture are dated to the transition period from the !"# R to the !"# RR or the Earliest !"# RR, the graves of the Yamnaya Culture in the kurgan near the village of So-

fievka on the Lower Dnieper should be dated around this time. In general, it correlates with periodization of the Black Sea steppe zone, where the Yamnaya Culture corresponds to the !"# R7. The grave from the kurgan near the village of Sofievka belongs to the

7 There is an opinion that the period C/2 of the Tripolye Culture and its Usatovo local variant particularly, already presents the Early Bronze Age. However, we consider this period as the Final Eneolithic or the transition period from the Eneolithic to the Early Bronze Age, because the system’s change of the archaeological Cultures in the steppe region took place only after formation of the Yamnaya Culture.


latest period of the Yamnaya Culture on the Lower Dnieper and can be important in answering the fol-lowing questions: a) about the cultural- chronologi-cal correlation of the Yamnaya Culture monuments in the Dnieper River region with the monuments of the EBA of the Central and Southeast Europe; b) about time of disappearance of the Yamnaya Culture monu-ments in the Dnieper River region.

4. Problems of the absolute chronology

4.1. The horizon of the Makó-Kosihy-!aka/Somogyvár-Vinkovci/Late Vu#edol Cul-tures

Unfortunately, there is only a small number of the ra-diocarbon dates for the horizon of the Makó-Kosihy-!aka/Somogyvár-Vinkovci/Late Vu#edol Cultures. We found only one date for the Makó-Kosihy-!aka Culture (Raczky et al. 1992, 43; Gogâltan, 1998, 195, note 52), six dates for the Somogyvár-Vinkovci

Culture (Raczky et al. 1992, 43; Forenbaher, 1993, 243; Gogâltan, 1998, 195, note 53) and eight dates for the Late Vu#edol Culture (Forenbaher, 1993, 241; Gogâltan, 1998, 195, note 51)8 (fig. 5). The researchers use these dates for the broad conclusions. S. Forenbaher defines the beginning of the Late Vu#edol Culture between 2600 and 2400 BC. The other dates for the Late Vu#edol Culture cover the rest of the second half of the 3rd milleni-um BC (Forenbaher 1993, 247). Two dates used by him for Somogyvár-Vinkovci (Vincovci-Hotel) Cul-ture are close to 2300 BC (Forenbaher 1993, 248). S. Forenbaher defines the !"# between 2500-1700 BC, but included in this period a broad spectrum of cul-tures that, whose beginning dates a little bit earlier than Br. A1 and also Br. A1, A2 (A3) according to P. Reinecke, (Forenbaher 1993, 236; 253). Meanwhile, S. Forenbaher defines a period between 2300 and 2200 BC as the most suitable for the beginning of Br. #1, and he considers the vague period between 2500 and 2300 BC as a key one for understanding the pro-cess in the Early Bronze Age of the Central Europe

8 In a paper by S. Forenbaher the date for Nagyárpád (Bln-1634) is given in a list of the radiocarbon dates for the Late Vu#edol Culture, but in the paper by P. Raczky, E. Hertelendi, F. Horváth - in the list of dates for Somogyvár-Vinkovci Cul-ture. Therefore, we do not exclude other possible mistakes.

Fig. 5. Radiocarbon dates of the Makó-Kosihy-#aka/Somogyvár-Vinkovci/Late Vu!edol


(Forenbaher 1993, 252 f.). However, the horizon of the Makó-Kosihy-!aka/Somogyvár-Vinkovci/Late Vu#edol Culture is defined as Br. A/0 (Bertemes/Heyd 2002, 190 ff.). That means, according to con-clusions by S. Forenbaher, this horizon should lie between 2500 and 2300 BC?9

On a basis of the existing radiocarbon dates, F. Gogâltan dates the beginning of the !"# (!"# I after his periodization) to 2500 BC. In his opin-ion, !"# I corresponds to the radiocarbon dates for the horizon of the Makó-Kosihy-!aka/Somogy-vár-Vinkovci/Late Vu#edol Culture (Gogâltan 1998, 195). F. Gogâltan synchronizes the end of the !"# (!"# III) with most of Br. A1 and dates it to the period 2300-1950 BC in accordance with S. Gerloff. It also agrees with the radiocarbon dates for the southeast part of Central Europe and for the dendrochronologi-cal date 2150 BC (Gerloff 1993, fig. 10; Gogâltan 1998, 196). Thus, the horizon of the Makó-Kosihy-!aka/Somogyvár-Vinkovci/Late Vu#edol Culture falls in the middle of the III Mill. BC, probably, 2500-2400 BC according to F. Gogâltan. J. Maran has analyzed the absolute chronol-ogy of the Carpathian Basin !"#, the western and Central Balkans (Maran 1998, 347 ff.). He points out, that the vessels with asymmetrical handles ap-pear after the Classical Vu#edol Culture and during the period of the Late Vu#edol Culture (Maran 1998, 314 f.). According to J. Maran, the transition from the cultural groups that paralleled the Late Vu#edol

9 G. Kulcsár defines this period between 2800/2700 and 2500/2300 "$ (Kulcsár 2002, 442 Anm. 3).

Culture (the Hungarian EBA I) to the Post Vu#edol (the Hungarian EBA II) could be placed around 2500 B$ (Maran 1998, 352). In general, J. Maran dates the Classical and Late Vu#edol to 2900/2800 - 2500 BC and the Post Vu#edol to 2500 - 2300/2200 BC (Maran 1998, 354). Using the periodization of the Balkans EBA proposed by L. Nikolova, the time we are interested in corresponds to the end of the !" II (EB II$) (2600 - 2500/2450 BC) - beginning of the EB III (EB IIIA) (2500/2450 - 2300 "$). According to L. Nikolova, the horizon of the EB II$ is synchronous to the Late Vu#edol and the Late Co'ofeni III (Nikolova 1992, 7 f.; 1999, 252 ff. tabl. 12,3-5). The transition from the !" II to the !" III falls at 2500 - 2450 "$ (L. Nikolova 1999, 237) that should correspond to the transition from the !"A I to the !"A II according to the Hungarian chronology. It means that a date of around 2500 "$ can be a starting point for the dating of the complexes con-taining the vessels with asymmetrical handles. The chronological period to date these complexes falls in the period 2500 - 2400 "$.

4.2. The radiocarbon chronology of the Yamnaya Culture

The radiocarbon chronology of the Yamnaya Cul-ture from the territory of Ukraine has been studied for a long time by D. Ya. Telegin. Telegin created the first database of the radiocarbon dates for the Yamnaya Culture (Telegin 1977; 1987; 1986). At the present time for analysis we can use more than 214

Fig. 6. Calibration of radiocarbon datings of the Yamnaya (Pit-Grave) Culture of Ukraine (1 sigma): 1.C14 dates (wood); 2. C14 dates (bone)


dates from 58 sites10. 213 dates are are from graves and there is one date for the Desjatiny settlement lo-cated on the Tyasmin river (near the city of Cherkassy region) (pl. 4,5-9 and fig. 6). The graves represent practically all local groups of the Yamnaya Culture in the Pontic steppe and forest steppe of Ukraine (fig. 4). There are several chronological schemes that define the frame of the Yamnaya Culture in terms of the absolute chronology. D. Ja. Telegin dated it to 3650 - 2350 BC (Telegin 1986). J. Ja. Rassama-kin determined the time of the Yamnaya Culture be-tween 3000/2900 and 2300/2200 BC (Rassamakin 1999)11. S. V. Nazarov and N. N. Kovalyukh dated this culture to 2800 - 2300 BC (Nazarov/Kovalyukh 1999). At present, D. J,. Telegin, N. N. Kovaly-ukh, and S. Z. Pustovalov determine the existence of the Yamnaya Culture in the Pontic Steppes between 3300/3200-2100/2000 BC (Pustovalov et al. 2003; Telegin et al. 2003, 150). E. N. Chernykh and L. B. Orlovskaya date the Yamnaya Culture from the Urals up to the Danube to the period from 2950 to 2200 BC (Chernykh/Orlovskaya 2004, 93 f.). Besides this, E. N. Chernykh and L. B. Orlovskaya note that the numerous early dates (3400/3350 - 3100 BC) for the “peripheral” monuments regarding the “central” monuments of the Yamnaya Culture (probably, an area between the Dnieper and the southern Bug) op-pose “the ideas about the character and direction of the expansion of the Yamnaya Culture pastoralists - from the center to the southern peripheral regions” (Chernykh/Orlovskaya 2004, 94). At first glance it seems that the significant number of the radiocarbon dates allows us to create a reliable enough absolute chronological scheme for the Yamnaya Culture. Unfortunately, this is not so. As some researchers note: “The YC is, as it were, a textbook example of the fact that a large amount of data does not automatically push our knowledge forward “ (Klochko et al. 2003, 403). It is necessary to note that most researchers use the radiocarbon dates without any critical analysis. These researchers use the unreliable dates and dates that come into disagreement with archaeological data12. Besides this,

10 The radiocarbon dates of the Yamnaya Culture are published in a bigger number than we use here, but some of them evoke serious doubts of their accuracy. Below we will mention such dates.

11 Yu. Ya. Rassamakin considers that the Yamnaya Culture rep-resents the so-called “Late Yamnaya Culture” only.

12 The exceptions are the early paper by D. Ja. Telegin, where he made an attempt to compare the archaeological data and radiocarbon dates (Telegin 1977). In this paper he noted that 25% of the received dates should be considered as anomalous (Telegin 1977, 12 f.). Nevertheless, these anomalous dates

are still in use by scholars (compare: Chernykh et al. 2000, tabl. 6-").

the newly received radiocarbon definitions are very different from the earlier dates received for the same monument. Therefore, a modern database of the ra-diocarbon dates for the Yamnaya Culture requires a critical approach. Below, we will try to discuss ques-tions that appear more often during the analysis of the radiocarbon dates. First of all, it is necessary to note the signifi-cant chronological span between existing radiocar-bon definitions, from 5960±120 BC (Zaporozhye 1/14 - Ki-605; tab. 1,57)13 to 3640±40 BC (Cher-voniy Yar 1/10 - L&-1504; tab. 1,138). Even without these undoubtedly erroneous dates, the gap between dates of the Yamnaya Culture is from 4800±140 BC (Privolnoe 11/5 - Ki-1437; tab. 1,17)14 to 3740±150 BP (Verkhne-Tarasovka 11 - Ki-582; tab. 1,132)15 or 3745±70 BP (Kovalevka 6/13 - Ki-9392; tab. 1,157)16. It corresponds to 3700 - 2000 BC17. First of all, we separated the dates on wood and bone samples (fig. 6). In the left part of the diagram (fig. 6,1- dates on wood) two dates completely differ from the others dates. The earlier dates are distinctly clustered within the limits of 3780 - 3100 BC and few dates are between 2300 and 1870 BC (fig. 6,1). Other dates are located in regular intervals. The right part of the diagram (fig. 6,2 – dates on bones) gives another picture. Here all dates are distributed rather in regular intervals and cover a range of 2600-2150 "$. Only two dates (2955±75 and 2750±30 "$) are earlier than the others (fig. 6,2). We will return to the analysis of this distribution later18. On the next diagram (fig. 7) the radiocarbon dates are distributed according to separate territorialgroups by the material of these samples (wood or bone)19. The analysis of this table shows anomalous earlier and later dates (on wood) present in most of the groups, with an exception of the region between the southern Bug and the Ingul Rivers, and in the

13 Here and below in the numerator is given the number of a kurgan and in the denominator – the number of a grave.

14 In the various publications the spelling of the places some-times differ in the Ukrainian, Russian, and also in the English transliteration. For example, Privolnoe - Pryvillya. We name the places according to their first mention in publications.

15 Kurgan 21 appears in the literature with this number, but ac-cording to publications, it is a kurgan of the Scythian time (Bunyatyan et al. 1977, 59). Obviously, this date should be excluded from the general list of dates as inaccurate.

16 In this case the authors of publication did not specify a number of the kurgan group (Telegin et al. 2003, tab. 1).

17 We use in this paper a probability of 68,2%.18 A presence of this statistically significant group of dates (more

than 40 determinations) affected the character of distribution in the radiocarbon dates in the paper by E.N. Chernykh and L. B. Orlovskaya (Chernykh/Orlovskaya 2004, fig. 2).

19 Here the two earliest and doubtful dates were excluded from the database, because there are other dates for these graves that differ from them (tab. 1,1.2.26.27).


Ingulets River area. In the first case, the radiocarbon dates cover a range of 2900 - 1900 "$. In the second case, two different dates are from one grave of Krivoj Rog, “Mogila”, gr. 2: 2820 - 2760 "$ (IW-3137); 2750 - 2620 "$ (IW-3134) (tab. 1,110.111). It is not clear, which one of these two dates is more accept-able. One anomalous early date (tab. 1.55) and one anomalous late date are given for the Moloch-naya River region (tab. 1.39)20. Other dates fall in the range of 3030 - 2340 "$. Thus, the above presented data, if consider them as correct ones, contradict the E. N. Chernykh’s and L. B. Orlovskaya’s opinion that the Yamnaya Culture between the Dnieper and the southern Bug (a center of this culture) region are represented by later dates than the “periphery” of the Yamnaya Cul-ture (Chernykh/Orlovskaya 2004, 93 f.). However, the dates on the bone examples in the regions to the right bank of the Dineper River, the Ingulets River and the forest-steppe zone practically coincide and cover a range of 2810 - 2140 "$. These last two regions gave the bigger number of the late dates. The next aspect of our research concerns the reliability of the available radiocarbon dates. This problem is clearly seen by comparing of several dates received for the same grave. The analyses of the sam-ples were made either in different laboratories or in the same laboratory, but at different times 21. The cases of discrepancy in radiocarbon dating and archaeological data (stratigraphic sequences in the kurgans, direct typological comparisons) are often present as well. The biggest series of radiocarbon dates for the Yam-naya Culture of the Pontic steppes were analysed at a .different time in Kiev’s radiocarbon laboratory (Ki). The accuracy of many of these dates is not always convincing. There are obviously has the objective reasons, such as chemical and technical problems, quality of samples etc. This explains the significant range of standard errors and the discrepancy of old and new radiocarbon dates. For example, the ra-diocarbon dates with standard errors from ±100 to ±200 years are represented by 32 cases or 15% of all dates (tab. 1). In many cases the new dates for the graves do not correspond to the old dates that have been received for the same graves before (H,-',16//@6/,3(A 1999, fig. 16; Telegin et al. 2003, fig. 16). Scholars do not explain this situation in their publications (e. g. Telegin et al. 2003). It is

20 The last date is obviously erroneous, since there are two more dates that have shown a much older age of this grave (tab. 1,38.40).

21 These cases are marked by gray color (tab. 1). The most anomalous dates and dates with standard deviations above ±100 are marked in bold.

not clear, why in some cases the authors of this pa-per use new radiocarbon dates without the old dates,forexample, Pereshchepino 1/6, 1/7, 1/1322, but in other cases the old dates are present as well (Tele-gin et al. 2003, tab. I). New radiocarbon results have been published for 25 samples23. Some new dates are much younger than the old dates (for example, #stakhovo 3/15; Svatovo 12/1; Balki 1/57; Zaporo-zhye 1/14 etc.) (tab. 1,1.2.26.27.33.34.57.58). Oth-er new dates are much earlier than the previous dates (for example, Vishnevoe 17/36) (tab. 1, 162.163). The number of close or identical new and old dates for one grave is relatively few24. It gives a basis to doubt the reliability of the significant part of the available radiocarbon dates for the Yamnaya Culture. On the other hand, there are contradictions be-tween archaeological data and radiocarbon dates. For example, the dates for kurgan 6 near the village of Kremenevka are very questionable (tab. 1,3-9). Ac-cording to the stratigraphy of this kurgan, the graves 6, 7 and 9 are the earliest ones (Konstantinesku 1984). These three graves were accompanied by ves-sels of the so-called Repin Type. Some researchers proposethat such graves belong to the early period of Yamnaya Cultures. Others consider the graves with the Repin Type pottery as a separate Repin Culture of the Late Eneolithic period. However, in one case, according to the radiocarbon dates (tab. 1,3.5), the graves 6 and 7 should be dated later than grave 4, whose much later date was confirmed by stratigra-phy (Konstantinesku 1988, 99). However, the dates of these graves is much younger (tab. 1,4.6) that the dates for the graves of the Late Yamnaya Cul-ture from Brilyuvata Mogila, Minovka, Pereshepino (tab. 1,60.66.70) (Telegin 1977, 6, 12). Kremenev-ka‘s dates also differ from the date of grave 9 that is

22 A number of kurgans in the new publication (Telegin et al. 2003, tab. I) are specified wrongly: Pereshepino 4/13. According to D. Ja. Telegin’s earlier paper, Pereshepino 1/13 is correct (Telegin 1986). In this new publication there is a significant number of the discrepancies with the data published earlier in other papers, including mistakes of the kurgan’s and graves’ numeration. There are also mistakes in the cultural interpretation of the graves. For example, Astakhovo 22/3 and Volonterovka 1/1 belong to the Catacomb Culture (not to the Yamnaya Culture) (Evdokimov 1991, 203; Konstantinesku 1988, 101). We did not include in our list a date for a grave from the “Akkiembetskiy kurgan”, because the field information and excavation report about the kurgan and graves is lost (Szmyt, Chernyakov 1999). The dates for Uspenka, kurgan 1 are also unknown to us (Telegin et al. 2003, tab. 1,157-159).

23 The correctness and reliability of the old sample re-dating is not supported by methodical explanations given by the authors (H,',16/, @6/,3(A 1999; Telegin et al. 2003).

24 We use a combination command (R_COMB) of Program Ox$al v.3.5 to compare the radiocarbon dates from one grave.


contemporary to them (tab. 1,8) and also from dates for the similar burials with the Repin Type pottery in Volonterovka 1/3, 1/4 (tab. 1,11-12) (Konstantinesku 1984). Similar contradictions follow from the strati-graphic analysis of kurgan 4 near the village of Shi-rokaya Balka. Stratigraphy puts grave l 7 significantly earlier than the grave 10, but their dates reflect a re-verse situation (tab. 1,144-145).However, in kurgan 2 near the village of Dobrovodi, the earliest grave, 3, has two different dates (tab. 1,202-203). In kurgan 11 near the village of Semenovka graves 6 and 7 have a similar funeral rite and the same stratigraphical position, but the radiocarbon dates for these graves are very different (tab. 1,184-185) (Subbotin 1985, 59, 61). In kurgan 14 of the same kurgan group, grave 6 belonging to the Usatovo local variant of the Latest Tripolye $/2 is dated much later, according to the radiocarbon date (Ki-7089: 4135±60 BP), but at the same time as the stratigraphically much younger grave 2 of the Yamnaya Culture (tab. 1,186: Ki-2126 - 4600±90 BP) (Subbotin 1985, 48 f.). In general, almost all dates received for the Yamnaya Culture of the Dniester-Danube region evoke doubts in their re-liability (Liman, S,yaki, Novoselitsa, Utkonosovka) (tab. 1,171.172.174.179.186.187). It should be mentioned that the dates from other radiocarbon laboratories also cause certain doubts. For example, in kurgan 1 near the village of Sarateni grave 5 (the second earliest grave in the

kurgan) according to the date (tab. 1,188: Lu-2459 - 4360±30 BP), was made later, but at the same time as stratigraphically as the younger grave 4 with similar burial rite (tab. 1,189: Lu-2476 - 4480±50 BP) (Levi'ki et al. 1996, 22 f., 29). The latter grave, in that case, appears to be practically synchronous to the Eneolithic grave 2 with an “extended” skeleton from kurgan 1 of the same kurgan group (Lu-2477: 4530±40 BP) (Yarovoi 2000, 18)25. It contradicts the arch,eologic,l data. A date of Petreshti 1/8 is a very old one (tab. 1,190: Lu-2474 - 4530±50 BP) and is robably also anomalous. A list of similar discrepan-cies could be continued. Thus, it is possible to consider a significant part of the radiocarbon dates (if not all) analysed ear-lier (the “most ancient”, and “most youngest”) as erroneous. They should be excluded from the analy-sis26. Using the radiocarbon dates of the Kiev’s labo-

25 The authors of the excavation consider these graves in the context of the Earliest Eneolithic graves and in the kurgans of the Dniester-Danube rivers region (Levi'ki et al. 1996, 59).

26 The radiocarbon dates for the Catacomb Culture also show a similar situation of the discrepancy of “old” and “new” dates, for example, the dates of the kurgans near the village of Svatovo (see: Bratchenko 2003, tabl. 1,2). Although these dates more precisely re ect the archaeological data than the previous ones, their reliability evokes some doubts. According to the stratigraphy of kurgans, the graves of the Yamnaya Culture are always earlier then the graves of the Catacomb Culture, but radiocarbon dates for them partly coincide, and moreover, the Catacomb graves does not represent the earliest graves of the Catacomb Culture.

Fig. 7. Calibration of radiocarbon datings for different regions of the Yamnaya (Pit-Grave) Culture of Ukraine (1 sigma) (a - wood; b - bone): 1. Donets River region; 2 a, b. Molochnaya River region; 3 a, b. Ingulec River region; 4 a, b. Dnieper River region, 5. Ingul River region; 6. Dni- ester-Danube Rivers region; 7 a, b. forest-steppe zone


ratory analysedduring recent years, we should date the Yamnaya Culture of the Pontic steppes to the pe-riod between 4550/4450 - 4000/3900 "%, including the graves with pottery of the Repin type (4550/4450 - 4350/4300 "%). We can consider the new radiocarbon dates (on wood) from Kiev’s and Berlin’s laboratories for the Molochnaya River region as the most authentic ones among the available dates (tab. 1,35-54). Nine dates from them were analysedfor the graves of the Yam-naya Culture from kurgan 24 near the village of Vi-nogradnoe (tab. 1,46-54) (Häusler 2003, 55; Görs-dorf et al. 2004). The stratigraphical information of this kurgan allowed us to calibrate the dates more precisely, by choosing realistic values for the gaps between the graves (Görsdorf et al. 2004). The ma-jority of graves in this kurgan reflect the late period of the Yamnaya Culture based on the artifacts and fea-tures of the burial rite. The latest dates for these graves fall at 2570 "$, except three dates for two graves (2340 "$, 2390 "$, 2390 "$) (tab. 1,35.38.40). It

we cannot accept a hypothesis with the earlier disap-pearance of the Yamnaya Culture just in the Moloch-naya River region rather than in all the other regions. This assumption contradicts the archaeological data. On the other hand, the radiocarbon dates of the bone samples give younger dates in comparison with dates of the wood samples (fig. 6 and 7). Only two dates on bone samples are comparable to the dates on the wood sample from the Molochnaya River re-gion. These are dates for the “Voznesenskij” kurgan Berlin’s laboratory and Vinogradnoe 3/10 in Kiev’s laboratory (tab. 1,30.37). The first grave is comparable similar graves on the right bank of the Dnieper River and in the Ingu-lets region based on the burial rite and vessels (Pleshivenko/Antonov 2000, 507, tab. 11,3.4), but the radiocarbon dates on bone from these regions are much younger (tab. 1,87-109; 112-124) (#. Nikolova 1999a; 1999b). Some other researchers also note the differences between the radiocarbon dates on bone and on wood (Chichagova et al. 1999, 40). Obviously,

Fig. 8. Calibration of radiocarbon datings of the Yamnaya (Pit-Grave) Culture of Ukraine (1 sigma): 1. C14 dates (wood); 2. C14 dates (bone)

is interesting that the dates on bone and wood for the grave (Vinogradnoe 3/25) gave the identical results (tab. 1,38.40). The third date for this grave was ob-viously erroneous (tab. 1,39). In other regions, the latest dating extends to 2300 "$ and perhaps a little bit later, even after excluding the anomalous dates. At the present time it is difficult to explain this situation. For example,

the factor of “old wood” does not play the main role for an explanation of these differences because the wood for used in the funeral rite could not be too old. The wooden artifacts, for example the parts of vehicles, reflect the dating of the Yamnaya Culture in all cases. The Yamnaya Culture requires a develop-ment of the tree ring chronology for more realistic dating.


Our revision of the radiocarbon dates database shows that approximately 135 dates can be deter-mined as relatively realistic (fig. 8 and 9)27. In this case, the Yamnaya Culture on the territory of Ukraine can be dated 3500/3350 - 2300 BC based on the dates on wood28, including the early graves with pottery of the Repin type. The majority of the dates lie in the span of 3050/3000 to 2300 "$ (fig. 8,1). According to the dates on bone, the period of existence of the Yamnaya Culture covers a span of 2650/2600 to 2250 BC (fig. 8,2). Only two results on bone give ear-lier dates and fall between 3030 - 2750 "$. The analysis on bones for the early graves containing the vessels of the Repin type have not been made. The distribution of dates in regard to the dif-ferent regions on the basis of the analysis performed on bone or wood gives the following picture (fig. 9). In the Severski Donets River - northwestern area of the Sea of Azov region the earliest dates are for the graves of Svatovo 12/1, Volonterovka (kurgan 1) and Kremenevka (kurgan 6) (tab. 1,3-9.11-14.27)29. These dates fall between 3380 and 2880 "$. Only the date for Svatovo 12/1 is much earlier. It is pos-

27 In this case we used combined dates for 41 graves that have some radiocarbon dates. Therefore, in reality, we used the bigger number of dates, including some doubtful ones.

28 Including Svatovo 12/1 (tab. 1,26.27), but this complex perhaps belongs to the Eneolithic period (Bratchenko 2004,

169 f.).29 In our opinion, the dates for Kremenevka 6/7 and 6/6 (fig.

17,4.6) are more reliable than thetwo other dates for these burials (tab. 1,3.5).

sible, that this grave is an Eneolithic grave (O1,+-G&.96 2004, 169 f.). The graves from Volonterovka and Kremenevka were accompanied by vessels of the Repin type. The other dates for this region are the period of 2720 - 2450 BC, excluding a doubtful date for Privolnoe 8/1 (tab. 1,16). The main series of dates from the Molochnaya River region span 3020 - 2570 "$ (tab. 1,28.29.35-56)30. If consider these dates as the most realistic and good correspondence to the archaeological data, then these dates could determine the latest chronological border of the Yamnaya Culture in Ukraine around 2600 - 2500 "$. However, according to several sepa-rate dates it is also possible to consider 2500 - 2400 "$ (see above). The dates in the Dnieper region are distributed in regular intervals. The main cluster is dated 2900 - 2300 "$. The Yamnaya Culture in the region between the southern Bug and Ingulets Rivers covers a more limited chronological period of 2600 - 2200 "$31. The chronological span of the Yamnaya Culture in the Dniester-Danube Rivers region can be defined as 2900 - 2200 "$ although it is possible to accept for this region two groups of dates, 3000 - 2600 "$ and 2550 - 2200 BC. There is a similar situation for the Yamnaya Culture in the forest-steppe zone. The dates for this region are distributed between 2900 - 2620 "$ and 2600 - 2300 "$. 30 Only three of these dates are beyond the limits for this pe-

riod.31 As it was mentioned above, there are two various dates for the

Ingulets River region.

Fig. 9. Calibration of radiocarbon datings for different regions of the Yamnaya (Pit-Grave) Culture of Ukraine (1 sigma) (a - wood; b - bone): 1. Donec River region; 2 a, b. Molochnaya River region; 3 a, b. Ingulec River region; 4 a, b. Dnieper River region; 5. Ingul River region; 6. Dniester-Danube Rivers region; 7 a, b. forest-steppe zone.


The radiocarbon dates made on bone samples are known for four regions. We have only two dates from the Molochnaya River region that range 3000 - 2400 "$. The chronological span of the Yamnaya Culture in the Dnieper River region (2800 - 2380 BC) is very close to the range received on the wood samples (tab. 1,30). The chronological range of the Yamnaya Culture in the Ingulets River region and in the forest-steppe zone is tighter (2600 - 2250 "$).

Thus, a distribution of the radiocarbon dates in general, and in the certain regions, gives a diverse picture. We consider that it is impossible to draw the certainconclusions only on the basis of the radiocar-bon chronology, since a large amount of the dates are questionable and out of range. Therefore, we cannot agree with the conclusions by E. N. Chernykh and L. B. Orlovskaya about synchronization of the Yam-naya Culture and the Usatovo variant of the Late Tri-polye Culture in the region between the Dniester and Danube Rivers as it is based only on the radiocarbon dates (Chernykh/Orlovskaya 2004, 96). Asignificant number of dates for the Yamnaya Culture from this region arises serious doubts. The dates for the Usa-tovo variant are disputable as well since they are not supported by the archaeological data. It is interesting to compare the dates received for graves of the Yamnaya Culture excavated in Ukraine with dates for the other territories of the Yamnaya Culture. For such a comparison we took the dates from northeastern Bulgaria and Pannonia

(11 dates), the Don-Kuban Rivers region (5 dates), the northwestern Caspian Sea area (19 dates), and the Volga-Ural Rivers region (15 dates) (Chrernykh et al. 2000, tabl. 6,#.B; Chernykh/Orlovskaya 2004, tabl. 1, 2; Kuznetsov 2002; Shishlina 2002; Mor-gunova/Turetskii 2004). The comparative analysis of these dates was taken without differentiating the samples according the type of material analysed (fig. 10). The closest dates are the Yamnaya Culture of the Pontic steppe and the northwestern Caspian Sea area. In the latter region there is a series of early dates that are close to ones from the Severski Donets River - the Sea of Azov Steppe region (Shishlina 2003, 75 ff.). These earlier dates are also close to the dates from the Volga-Ural River region. However, in the Volga-Ural River region the only dates for the Yamnaya Culture in the Pre-Ural area and the Early Poltavka Culture (or the Late Yamnaya Culture, ac-cording to the different terminology) are comparable to the majority of dates for the Yamnaya Culture in Ukraine (Kuznetsov 2003, 43; Turetskii 2000, 127). The small number of dates for the Don-Kuban Riv-ers region provides a very broad chronological range (3100 - 2000 "$). The dates for the western Pontic region fall on the shorter period (3100 - 2500 "$). A slightly different picture is presented by the results of the radiocarbon analysis made on bones: different laboratories in the world produced different dates (fig. 11). Only a few dates analysedby the Rus-sian laboratories correspond to the results received

Fig. 10. Calibration of radiocarbon datings for different regions within eastern Europe of the Yam- naya (Pit-Grave) Culture (1 sigma): 1. North-East Bulgaria and Pannonia; 2. Dniester-Dan- ube Rivers region; 3. Ingul River region; 4. Ingulets River region; 5. Dnieper River region; 6. forest-steppe zone; 7. Molochnaya River region; 8. Donets River region; 9. Don-Kuban’ Riv- ers region; 10. Kalmykia region, 11. Volga-Ural Rivers region.


by the Kiev laboratory. Not considering at this point the archaeological aspects, according to the radiocar-bon dates we should note that only the Late Poltavka Culture of the Samara region on the Volga river can be partially synchronized with the Yamnaya Culture of the steppe and forest-steppe area of the right bank of the Dnieper River. The Yamnaya Culture of the Samara region on the Volga River dates to a much earlier period (Kuznetsov 2003, 43). The inconsis-tency uncovered obviously lies in the competency of the archaeologists. Nevertheless, at present time we must taken into account these contradictions when we analyze the archaeological and radiocarbon data. Thus, the absolute radiocarbon chronology of the Yamnaya Culture requires serious corrections as a general scheme as well as for the different regions of the culture, and for its local groups. The modern state of the radiocarbon database for the Yamnaya Culture in the Pontic Steppe zone doesn’t allow us to make the final conclusions.

4.3. The comparative analysis of radiocar-bon dates of the Carpathian EBA and the Yamnaya Culture of the Pontic Steppe area

Unfortunately, we cannot critically analyze the dates for the previously mentioned archaeological Cul-tures of the Carpathian Basin because are lacking the necessary information. Therefore, as a basis for our comparative analysis we use the conclusions made by

S. Forenbaher, F. Gogâltan and also J. Maran and L. Nikolova (Forenbaher 1993; Gogâltan 1998; Maran 1998, 347 ff.; L. Nikolova 1999, 199 ff.; 252 ff.). A grave with a jug from the village of Sofievka on the Dnieper River, according to archaeological data and stratigraphy of kurgans, should be dated to the latest period of the Yamnaya Culture in the Low-er Dnieper region. Taking into account the available dates mentioned above, the Yamnaya Culture in the Dnieper River region, in general, dates to the pe-riod between 2900 - 2300 "$ (on wood samples) and 2800 - 2380 "$ (on bone samples). Hence, the latest graves of the Yamnaya Culture of this region cover approximately a span of 2500 - 2300 "$. This cor-responds to the latest dates of the Yamnaya Culture in other regions. This latest period of the Yamnaya Culture is in correspondence with the assumed dat-ing of the graves with jugs in the Carpathian Basin region (2500 - 2400 "$). Probably, in the future, this period can be corrected using new dates. As we already noted above, the date 2500 "$ is a key date for the resolving this problem.

5. The Yamnaya Culture on the Lower Dnieper area and the Carpathian import

The question is, how did a vessel with asymmetrical handles appear in the Lower Dnieper area Scholars suggest a southern origin for this type of pottery in

Fig. 11. Absolute chronology of the Yamnaya (Pit-Grave) Culture for different regios of eastern Europe (bone): 1. Ingulets River region; 2. Dnieper River region; 3. forest-steppe zone; 4. Moloch- naya River region; 5. Don-Kuban’ Rivers region; 6. Kalmykia region; 6. Volga-Ural Rivers region


a context of the Aegean-Anatolian connections. We mentioned above the opinions on this hypothesis expressed by R. Kalicz-Schreiber and N. Kalicz 32. Other scholars consider this problem in the context of the formation of the related cultures of the Early Bronze Age in the Carpathian-Danube region. The most evidence-based is the position of J. Machnik. He considers the cultures of the EBA of the Central and southeastern Europe (Schneckenberg-Glina III, Makó-Kosihy-!aka, Somogyvár-Vinkovci, Csepel, Early Nagyrév etc.) as the cultures that have more common features than differences. In his opinion, it allows us to consider these cultures as a new cul-tural unity. J. Machnik defines this unity as “die donaulandische oder mittelsüdosteuropäische früh-bronzezeitliche Zivilization” (Machnik 1989-1990, 97). This unity, had numerous elements of both the Aegean-Anatolian and southern Caucasian worlds (Machnik 1989-1990, 99 ff.). Whether it means, what the appear of a ves-sel with asymmetrical handles on the Lower Dnieper could not be directly connected with the Carpath-ian or Middle Danube region and, probably, can be dated to the period before the mentioned above. R. Kalicz-Schreiber also assumed that it is possible to find vessels of this type on the Lower Danube in the Glina III-Schneckenberg Culture area (Kalicz-Sch-reiber 1991, 20). However, we proceed in this paper from the fact that the most exact parallels, including a completely identical vessel from the grave in Tar-nazsadány, are known in the Makó Culture area (fig. 4). Perhaps, we can consider in the same context both, a process of distribution of such vessels and the graves with the flexed position of skeletons from the South to the Middle Danube (as the researchers suggest), and a process of the appearance of such vessels in the Yamnaya Culture graves on the Lower Dnieper. It is interesting that J. Lichardus and J. Vladár consider the Makó Culture formation in the eastern Hungary as the mixture of the Latest Baden Culture features with the Yamnaya Culture tradi-tions (Lichardus/Vladár 1997, 291 ff.). According to these scholars, these traditions explain the typo-logical similarity of the Makó Culture ceramics with the ceramics of the more eastern Glina III Culture. They consider the appearance of the position of the flexed body on its back , with a rhombic position of legs, and with ochre in the Makó-Kosihy-!aka Cul-ture area as assimilation by the Mako-Kosihy-!aka Culture of the Pontic steppe traditions (Lichardus, Vladár 1997, 291 f.). Does it mean that the Yamnaya

32 R. Kalicz-Schreiber mentions five Eneolithic sites where the vessels with asymmetrical handles were found, but they do not occupy the compact region (R. Kalicz-Schreiber 1991,

11 f. Abb. 13).

Culture population had connections to the distribu-tion of the vessels with asymmetrical handles to the northern direction? When did the Yamnaya Culture appear on the Middle Danube? According to I. Escedy, the Yamnaya Culture is located on the left bank of the Tisza River (Escedy 1979, 14 f. fig. 3). N. Kalicz also notes that the kur-gans of the Yamnaya Culture are known only in the lowland of eastern Hungary and Banat (Kalicz 1998, 172). L. Nikolova considers the territory of the Mid-dle Danube as an insuperable barrier to the further territorial expansion of the Yamnaya Culture’s popu-lation. She notes that the kurgans of the Yamnaya Culture are absent to the west from the Danube River (L. Nikolova 2000, 441 f.). I. Escedy has defined a period of the Late Co'ofeni - Glina III as terminus ante quem for the majority of kurgans of the Yamnaya Culture in the Tisza River area (Escedy 1979, 51). Generally, I. Escedy dates the earlier graves of the Yamnaya Culture to the disintegration period of the Late Bo-drogkerestúr-Hunyadi-Halom, and the late graves - to the Late Baden, Latest Folte$ti II, Earliest Glina III, Makó-Somogyvár, Nyíség (Escedy 1979, 52). In a paper written later, I. Escedy dated the earliest graves of the Yamaya Culture to the west of the Dni-ester River to the Late Usatovo and Early Cernavoda III, and the later graves to the Late Co'ofeni, Late Baden, Early Glina III, Schneckenberg B (Escedy 1983, 153). On the map, the chronological posi-tion of the Makó-Kosihy-!aka Culture is shown as the later one regarding the position of the Yamnaya Culture and Baden Cultures in the eastern Hungary (Escedy 1983, 153 fig. 1). N. Kalicz has specified a chronological hia-tus between the graves of the Csongrád-Kett(shalom - Deçea-Sure$ului and the graves of the Yamnaya Culture on the Great Hungarian Plain. He notes, that these monuments cannot be considered in their development (Kalicz 1998, 173)33. According to the stratigraphical data, the Yamnaya Culture dates later than the Bodrogkerestúr Culture, the Boleráz-Cer-navoda III, and even a classical phase of the Baden Culture. (Kalicz 1998, 169, 173)34. Nevertheless, N. Kalicz assumes that the Yamnaya Culture in the Great Hungarian Plain could have already appeared dur-

33 This problem is connected to the different understanding of the Yamnaya Culture. Some scholars include such graves as Deçea-Mure$ului in the Yamnaya Culture. We consider it as an incorrect attribution.

34 The Kurgan of Mokrin in former Yugoslavia is an exception. It is difficult to tell, why N. Kalicz writes about the synthesis of features of the Classical Baden and the Yamnaya Culture in this kurgan. The kurgan covered a cremation grave (Kalicz 1989, 130; 1998, 173). Here we have problems with the cultural definitions of the graves in the kurgans of the Balkan-Carpathian region (see: Nikolova 2000).


ing the Classical Baden period and then continued to exist during the subsequent later periods of the Baden Culture (Kalicz 1998, 174). In his opinion, the ar-chaeological material from Romania and Bulgaria in-directly proves this conclusion, because the Yamnaya Culture appeared in these regions during the period of the Co'ofeni - Magura - Ezero Cultures (Kalicz 1998, 172). N. Kalicz maintains that results from the stratigraphical data do not prove that the Yam-naya Culture survived later than the Baden Culture. According to N. Kalicz, these data testify only that the Yamnaya Culture followed the monuments of the Baden Culture, including the Classical Baden, and even teh monuments of the Kostolac Culture. The scholar came to the conclusion that in the Carpath-ian Basin area, the Baden Culture and the Yamnaya Culture cannot have been so strongly connected as in the Co'ofeni Culture area (Kalicz 1989, 130)35. It is interesting to observe that N. Kalicz notes the absence of the stratigraphical data on the Yamnaya Culture graves for the time after the Baden- and Kos-tolac Cultures, but he assumes an existence of more later monuments of the Yamnaya Culture than these two. As an example of a later monument, N. Ka-licz mentioned a grave with two vessels and bronze artifacts from the kurgan near Sárrétudvari on the Berettyó River. These two vessels allow dating of this grave to the Makó- and Glina III-Schneckenberg Cultures (Kalicz 1998, 174 fig. 11-13)36. Evidently, we can assume the role of the Yam-naya Culture’s population in the processes that oc-curred in the Carpathian Basin area during the EBA, including their functioning as go-betweens in a trans-fer of the cultural influences. This assumption is con-firmed by the presence in the Yamnaya Culture graves of the Balkan - Carpathian region forms of pottery exclusively of local cultures. However, there is a question, how did a very rare vessel with asymmetri-

35 According to the radiocarbon chronology and distribution of this Culture developed during !" II (3000-2550/2450 BC), L. Nikolova considers that the end of the IV Millennium "$ is the terminus post quem for the beginning of the Yamnaya Culture in the Eastern Tisza River area, It is possible, that the Yamnaya Culture contributed to the formation of the Maros Culture (L. Nikolova 2000, 445). The dating of the Classical Baden falls inthe period 3360 - 2930 "$l according to last publications (Stadler et al. 2001). J. Maran dates the Early and Classical Baden between 3500 and 3100/3000 "$, and Baden/Kostolac - @6stolac/Early Vu#edol - 3100/3000 - 2900/2800 "$ (Maran 1998, 347 ff.). Therefore, the synchronization of the Classical Baden with the Yamnaya Culture in the Hungarian region is doubtful.

36 It is necessary to note, that the flexed right-sided position of the deceased, with hands in front of a face (Kalicz 1998, Abb. 11) is atypical for the burial traditions of the Yamnaya Culture, although there are several similar cases. For example, kurgan 1 near Trnava in Bulgaria, where some graves with ceramics of the Co'ofeni Culture contained skeletons in the similar position (Nikolov 1976, 40 ff. fig. 3).

cal handles reach the Lower Dnieper region? There are several possible answers to this question. Firstly, we can speak about a direct movement of any group of the Yamnaya Culture population along the Danube River, through the Pontic Steppe, to the Dnieper Riv-er region. Secondly, it is possible to assume the mov-ing of Carpathian cultural groups through the steppe areas to the direction of the Dnieper River. The third variant assumes a step-by-step transfer of the presti-gious things through the various local groups of the Yamnaya Culture to the Dnieper River. The special feature of the local groups of the Yamnaya Culture is determined, first of all, by ce-ramics. The formation of the basic ceramic forms of these local groups and their variety was a result of the cultural influences of the neighboring regions of the Yamnaya Culture. The Yamnaya Culture local groups of the Volga-Ural River region in this con-text are the least expressive. By contrast, the various forms of the Yamnaya Culture ceramics from the Pre-Caucasian steppe area, where the researchers locate the Novotitorovskaja Culture, are very specific (Gei 2000). The kurgans in the area between the Dniester and the Prut Rivers occupy a special place. Scholars consider this area as one of the most important contact zones from the Neolithic to the end of the Bronze Age (Machnik, 1992; Dergachev 1999, 211 ff.). According to V. A. Dergachev, three main “cultural-historical factors” constantly interacted in this area: the southeastern European (the most influentialone), the eastern European and the Central European (Dergachev 1999, 211 ff.). The influences of these factors determined the character of the Yamnaya Culture in this region. This Culture is represented here by two cultural-chronological variants: the Early Dniester variant and the Late Budzhak variant (Dergachev 1986, 74 ff.; 1999, 205 ff.). The imported vessels of different Cultures of the EBA of the Central and Southeast Europe, in particular, the Globular Amphora and Cord Ware Ceramics Cultures, Folte$ti 2 and Kotofeni Cultures are the basis for the relative chronology of the both variants (Dergachev 1986, 74 ff.; 1999, 205 ff. g. 27; Manzura, 1992, 93 ff.; Machnik, 1992) (fig. 12). It is also necessary to mention the Edinetskaya Culture on the left bank of the Middle Prut River region. V. A. Dergachev considers this culture a result of the migration of a population with traditions of the Hatvan Culture, from Transylvania through the Upper Suchava inter-mountain road (Dergachev 1986, 111 ff.; 1999, 207 f. 214 g. 29). J. Machnik also considers this culture as a result of people’s moving from the Carpathian-northern Balkan region,


but on a map he shows the route of the Edinetskaya Culture distribution from the Lower Danube area to the north along the Prut River (Machnik 1992, 293 f. fig. 1). According to V. A. Dergachev, the Edinetskaya Culture is synchronous, not only with Budzhak variant of the local Yamnaya Culture, but also with Cultures such as the Vincovci-Somogyvár, Nyírség, Hatvan, Nagyrév, Maros, Glina RRR-Schneckenberg B, S6nteoru R$, Belotic-Bela Crkva, as well as with the Late Catacomb Culture in the southern Bug and Dnieper steppe area as well (Dergachev 1986, 120 g. 54; 1999, fig. 29). However, the majority of these Cultures represent a period a little later than the Makó-Kosihy-!aka Culture, though it is possible that its latest monuments can be synchronous to some of these previously mentioned cultures (Kalicz 1981;

In the Carpathian Basin region, many cultures appear with common typological features: Late Vin-covci-Somogyvár, Early Nagyrév, Nyírség, Pitvaros, Late Schneckenberg-Glina III, Ro$ia, Jigodin and Edinetskaya Cultures (Kalicz-Schreiber/Kalicz 1999, 93f.). On the map the scholars place these together with these cultures the Late Makó Culture also (Ka-licz-Schreiber/Kalicz 1999, fig. 2). The Romanian scholars date the beginning of the Ro$ia Culture (or group) to the Co'ofeni III time and synchronize it with the Early Makó, Late Vu#edol, Schneckenberg B, Glina III. They mark the end of the Ro$ia Culture by the Post-Co'ofeni time and synchronize it with the Late Makó, Vincovci, Nyírség and Glina IV Culture (Roman/Németi 1986, 230; Schuster 1999, 247).

Dniester-Prut Rivers

region

!"#$%&"' 1986; 1999;

Derga(ev 1998

)%*+,#% 1992; Manzura

1993

Pre-Dniester local

group

Cernavoda II, Folte-ti II,

Co.ofeni I, Orlea-Sadovets,

Celej, Classical Baden, Ezero

/1

Dniester local group /

variant

Folte-ti II, Cernavoda II and III,

Co.ofeni, Ezero, Latest Eastern

group of the Globular Amphora

Culture, Early Podcarpathian group

of the Corded Ware Culture

Co.ofeni II, Late Baden,

Glina I-II -Schneckenberg /

(early 0 ?), Early Kostolac,

Ezero /2 1 /-0, Ezerovo III,

Early Ezerovo-)ikhalich (?)

Budzhak local group /

variant

Edinetskaya Culture, Hatvan, Glina

III-Schneckenberg, Early Maros,

2tomani, Monteoru I3-4, the third

stage of the Podcarpathian group of

the Corded Ware Culture

Co.ofeni III, Glina III-

Schneckenberg 0, Jigodin,

Ezero 0, Ezerovo-Mikhalich,

Bogdane-ti

Fig. 12. Relative chronology of the Yamnaya (Pit-Grave) Culture of the Dniester-Prut Rivers region (according to V. A. Dergachev and I. V. Manzura)

1984, 98 ff.; Kalicz-Schreiber/Kalicz 1999; Bona 1992). It is interesting to note here that the Ro$ia Culture, from where the jugs with assymmetrical handles are known to be found. R. Kalicz-Schreiber and N. Kalicz consider the appearance of the Ro$ia Culture to be the result of a new big wave of movement from the south to the Carpathian Basin area during the transition period, from the EBA I to the EBA II.

The appearance of the separate Edinetskaya Culture in the Dniester-Prut area as the result of po-pulation movement from the Carpathian (after V. A. Dergachev) or Carpathian-northern Balkan (after J. Machnik) region is remarkable. However, this factor could not play the main role in the transmission of cultural elements from the Carpathian Basin to the Yamnaya Culture of the Pontic steppes.


J. Machnik does not believe that the Pontic steppe area between the Don and southern Bug Rivers was an important one in the creation of the previously mentioned Early Bronze Age “civilization” from the southern Caucasus to the southeastern and Central Europe, on the grounds that the steppe area had different geographical characteristics and was populated by societies with other cultural traditions (the Yamnaya Cultural-Historical area) (Machnik 1973; 1989-1990, 101 Anm. 6). However, it is impossible to deny that the cultural influences from the southeastern and Central Europe were represented in the Pontic steppe region, where the population of the Yamnaya Culture was a very susceptible to innovations in material culture. For example, the influences of the Glina III-Schneckenberg Culture in noted in ceramics of the third (the late one) stratigraphical horizon of the Yamnaya Culture in the southern Bug-Ingulets Rivers region (Shaposhnikova et al. 1986, 59). J. Machnik also notes a presence in the southern Bug region of the influence of this culture (Machnik 1992, 290 fig. 2,10). It is worth noting the appearance of the pedestal bowls in the Dnieper River region. Some scholars consider them in a context of influences that came from the Middle and Lower Danube region, particularly, from the Vu#edol Culture (Klein 1966; Kaiser 2003b). The big variety of ceramics is typical for the material complex of the Yamnaya Culture in general and its local groups specifically. It is possible to define no less than 25 groups of the ceramic forms (Nikolova 1992). The vessels with various vertical and horizontal handles have an important place among ceramics of these groups. Such vessels are well known at the Mikhailovka settlement on the Lower Dnieper (Lagodovs’ka et al. 1962, pl. XII; XIII). The similar ceramics are often found in the graves. We can surely speak about a relatively long time contact between two cultural zones in the context of a find of the imported jug with asymmetrical handles near the village of Sofievka on the Lower Dnieper. Direct imitations of such jugs (pl. 4,1) and their varietiations (pl. 4,2-4) were found in the graves of the Yamnaya Culture in the Black Sea steppe area. One of these graves (Vinogradnoe, b. 24, gr. 9) has radiocarbon date - Bln-4697, 4104±41 BP (tab. 1,50; pl. 4,1-4). These variations are traceable in the

initial ceramic forms of the Balkan-Carpathian region since the Eneolithic period (see, for example, Kalicz-Schreiber 1991, fig. 14,1; 15,7). Unfortunately, a problem of the imitations and creation of new ceramic forms of the Yamnaya Culture in the southern Bug and Dnieper River regions, as well as in the Sea of Azov steppe area is not studied well and requires special research.

Conclusion

Thus, the Carpathian Basin area could be a region, from where the jug with asymmetrical handles from the village of Sofievka was delivered to the left bank of the Dnieper River. This type of ceramics appears on the Middle Danube, according to the Hungarian periodization, during the transition period, from the EBA I to the EBA II (EB II to EB III, according to the Balkan periodization after L. Nikolova). It allows us to synchronize this period with the Final Yamnaya Culture of the Dnieper River region and date it between 2500 - 2400 BC in accordance to the existing radiocarbon chronology. This dating should be specified in the future due the new radiocarbon dates and development of the tree rings chronology of the steppe Cultures. Now it is impossible to trace the exact nature of the delivery of the jug with asymmetrical handles to the Lower Dnieper. For an explanation of this fact we need the detailed analysis of a ceramic complex of the Yamnaya Culture in the huge region between the Dniester, southern Bug and Dnieper Rivers. It is very important for understanding the degree of influence of cultural tradition of the Lower and Middle Danube areas in the formation of this complex. Only with this background can we approach the solution of this problem. However, it is possible now to say that the Black Sea steppe area was not, despite the skepticism of J. Machnik, an isolated part in the processes that took place in the area during the EBA.

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Julia Wagner (Germany) and Gabrielle Kulcsár (Hungary) for sharing the information during the preparation of this paper.


References

Bándi 1981G. Bándi, Über die Einstehung der frühbronzezeitlichen Zivilisation von Transdanubien. In: N. Kalicz/R. Kalicz-Schreiber (eds.), Die Frühbronzezeit im Karpatenbecken und in den Nachbargebieten. Internationales Symposium 1977, Budapest-Velem (Budapest 1981) 21–27.

Bertemes/Heyd 1996F. Bertemes/V. Heyd, Définition et origine de l`age du bronze ancien en Europe centrale. In: C. Mordant/O. Caiffe (eds.), Cultures et Sociétés du Bronze Ancien en Europe (Paris 1996) 13–36.

Bertemes/Heyd 2002F. Bertemes/V. Heyd, Der Übergang Kupferzeit/Früh-bronzezeit am Nordwestrand des Karpatenbeckens -kulturgeschichtliche und paläometallurgische Betrachtungen. In: M. Bartelheim/E. Pernicka/R. Krause (eds.), Die Anfänge der Metallurgie in der alten Welt. Forsch. Archäom. Altertumswissensch. 1 (Rahden/Westf. 2002) 185–227. Boltrik et al. 1983 Yu. V. Boltrik/E. E. Fialko/N. V. Kovalev/D. A. Vorontsov, Dtchet 6 rabote Priazovskoi novostroechnoi ekspeditsii v 1983 godu. Nauchnyi arkhiv Instituta arkheologii NAN Ukrainy 3, 1983.

Bóna 1992I. Bóna, Bronzezeitliche Tell-Kulturen in Ungarn. In: W. Meier-Arendt (ed.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Ausstellungsgestaltung in Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt 1992) 9–41.

Bratchenko 2003S. N. Bratchenko, Radiocarbon Chronology of the Early Bronze Age of the Middle Don. Svatove, Luhansk Region. In: A. Ko)ko (ed.), The Foundations of Radiocarbon Chronology of Cultures Between the Vistula and Dnieper: 4000–1000 BC. Baltic-Pontic Stud. 12 (Poznan 2003) 185–208. Bratchenko 2004S. N. Bratchenko, Pradavnya Slobozhanshchyna: Svativs’ki mogyly: kurgany RRR tys. do n.e. ta maidany. In: S. M. Sanzharov (ed.), Materialy ta doslidzhennya z arkheologii Skhidnoi Ukrainy 2 (Lugans’k 2004) 65–190.

Bunyatyan et al. 1977!. P. Bunyatyan/N. N. Cherednichenko/V. Yu. Murzin, Skifskii mogil’nik u s. Verkhnetarasovka. In: N. N. Cherednichenko (ed.), Kurgany yuga Dnepropetrovshchiny (Kiev 1977) 59–124.

Chernykh et al. 2000E. N. Chernykh/L. I. Avilova/L. B. Orlovskaya, Metallurgicheskie provintsii i radiouglerodnaya khronologiya (Moskva 2000).

Chernykh/Orlovskaya 2004E. N. Cernykh/L. B. Orlovskaya, Radiouglerodnaya khronologiya drevneyamnoi obshchnostu. Rossiiskaya arkheologiya 1, 2004, 84–99.

Chichagova et al. 1999D. #. Chichagova/#. L. Aleksandrovskii/S. #. Anisimova/N. I. Shishlina, Rezul’taty radiouglerodnogo analiza kurgannykh pogrebenii epokhi bronzy mogil’nika Mandzhikiny-I. In: !. V. Tsutskin/N. I. Shishlina (eds.), Mogil’nik Mandzhikiny-I - pamyatnik epokhi bronzy - rannego zheleznogo veka Kalmykii (Moskva 1999) 39–45.

Dimitrijevi" 1982S. Dimitrijevi", Die frühe Vinkovci-Kultur und ihre Beziehungen zum Vu#edoler Substrat im Lichte der Ausgrabungen in Vinkovci (1977/78). Opuscula Arch. 7 (Zagreb 1982).

Derga#ev 1998V. A. Derga#ev, Kulturelle und historische Entwicklungen im Raum zwischen Karpaten und Dnepr. Zu den Beziehungen zwischen frühen Gesellschaften im nördlichen Südost- und Osteuropa. In: B. Hänsel/J. Machnik (eds.), Das Karpatenbecken und die osteuropäische Steppe (Rahden/Westf. 1998) 27–64.

Dergachev 1999V. #. Dergachev, Osobennosti kul’turno-istoricheskogo razvitiya Karpato-Podnestrov’ya. Stratum plus 2, 1999, 169–221.

Emödi 1985I. Emödi, Asupra începutului epocii bronzului în Bihor. Thraco-Dacica VI, 1985, 123–144.

Escedy 1979I. Escedy, The People of the Pit-Grave Kurgans in Eastern Hungary (Budapest 1979).

Escedy 1983I. Escedy, Steppeneinflüsse und kulturelle Veränderungen in der Kupferzeit. Godišnjak XXI, 1983, 135–163.

Evdokimov 1991G. L. Evdokimov, Pogrebeniya epokhi rannei i srednei bronzy Astakhovskogo mogil’nika. In: S. N. Bratchenko (ed.), Kata-kombnye kul’tury Severnogo richernomor’ya (Kiev 1991) 187–213.

Forenbaher 1993S. Forenbaher, Radiocarbon Dates and Absolute Chronology of the Central European Early Bronze Age. Antiquity 67, 255, 1993, 218–220.

Gei 2000#. N. Gei, Novotitorovskaya kul’tura (Moskva 2000). Gerloff 1993S. Gerloff, Zu Fragen mittelmeerländischer Kontakte und absoluter Chronologie der Frühbronzezeit in Mittel- und Westeuropa. Prähist. Zeitschr. 68, 1993, 58–102.

Gogâltan 1998 F. Gogâltan, Early and Middle Bronze Age Chronology in South-West Romania. General Aspects. In: H. Ciugudean/F. Gogâltan (eds.), The Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Carpatian Basin. Proceeding of the International Symposium in Alba Iulia, 24-28 September 1997. Bibl. Musei Apvlensis VIII (Alba Iulia 1998) 191–212.


Gorodtsov 1905V. #. Gorodtsov, Rezul’taty arkheologicheskikh issledovanii v Izyumskom uezde Khar’kovskoi gubernii 1901 goda. Jrudy XII Arkheologicheskogo siezda v Khar’kove 1902g. I, 1905, 174–514.

Gorodtsov 1907 V. A. Gorodtsov, Rezul’taty arkheologicheskikh issledovanii v Bakhmutskom uezde Ekaterinoslavskoi gubernii 1903 goda. Trudy XIII Arkheologicheskogo siezda v Ekaterinoslave 1905 g. I, 1907, 211–365. Gorodtsov 1916 V. A. Gorodtsov, Kul’tury bronzovoi epokhi v Srednei Rossii, In: Dtchet Istoricheskogo muzeya za 1914 g. I, 1916, 169–213.

Görsdorf 2003.J. Görsdorf, C14-Datierungen von Menschenknochen aus dem Kurgan Voznesenskii, Zaporož’e. Arch. Eurasien 14, 2003, 399–400.

Görsdorf et al. 2004J. Görsdorf/Yu. Rassamakin/A. Häusler, C-14 Datings of Mound 24 of the Kurgan Group near Vinogradnoe Village, Ukraine. In: T. Higham/C. Bronk/C. Owen (eds.), Radiocarbon and Archaeology: Fourth International Symposium, St Catherine’s College, Oxford (9–14th April, 2002) Oxford Univ. School Arch., Monogr. 62 (Oxford 2004) 127–134.

Häusler 2003A. Häusler, Nomaden, Indogermanen, Invasionen. Zur Entstehung eines Mythos. Orientwissensch. Hefte 5 (Halle 2003).

Ivanova/Vetchinnikova 1991S. V. Ivanova/N. E. Vetchinnikova, O datirovke yamnoi povozki v Nizhnem Podunav’e, In: Arkheologiya i istoriya Nizhnego Podunav’ya. Tezisy dokladov konferentsii (Reni 1991) 27–29.

Kaiser 2003aE. Kaiser, Studien zur Katakombengrabkultur zwischen Dnepr und Prut. Arch. Eurasien 14 (Mainz am Rhein 2003).

Kaiser 2003bE. Kaiser, Kuril’nitsy i chashy na podstavkakh. In: N. I. Shishlina (ed.), Chteniya, posvyashchennye 100-letiyu deyatel’nosti Vasiliya Alekseevicha Gorodtsova v Gosudarstvennom istoricheskom muzee. Tezisy dokladov konferentsii I (Moskva 2003) 98–101.

Kalicz 1968N. Kalicz, Die Frühbronzezeit in Nordost-Ungarn. Abriss der Geschichte des 19.–16. Jahrhunderts v. u. Z. Arch. Hungarica S.N. XLV (Budapest 1968).

Kalicz 1981N. Kalicz, Neue Aspekte über die Chronologie der Nyírség-Gruppe. Slovenská arch. XXIX-1, 1981, 67–73.

Kalicz 1984N. Kalicz, Die Makó-Kultur. In: N. Tasi" (ed.), Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit des Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans (Beograd 1984) 93–103.

Kalicz 1989N. Kalicz, Die chronologischen Verhältnisse zwischen der Badener Kultur und den Kurgangräbern in Ostungarn. In: Das Äneolithikum und die früheste Bronzezeit (C-14 3000–2000 BC) in Mitteleuropa. Kulturelle und chronologische Beziehungen. Acta des XIV. Internationalen Symposiums, Prag-Liblice 20.–24. 10. 1986. Praehistorica XV (Prag 1989) 121–132.

Kalicz 1998N. Kalicz, Östliche Beziehungen während der Kupferzeit in Ungarn. In: B. Hänsel/J. Machnik (ed.), Das Karpatenbecken und die osteuropäische Steppe (Rahden/Westf. 1998) 163–177.

Kalicz-Schreiber 1975R. Kalicz-Schreiber, Die Bedeutung von Budapest in der Chronologie der mitteleuropäischen Frühbronzezeit. Acta Arch. Carpatica XV, 1975, 163–172.

Kalicz-Schreiber 1984R. Kalicz-Schreiber, Komplex der Nagyrev-Kultur. In: N. Tasi" (ed.), Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit des Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans (Beograd 1984) 133–190.

Kalicz-Schreiber 1989R. Kalicz-Schreiber, Die älteste Bronzezeit in Nordwestungarn und ihre Beziehungen. In: M. Buchvaldek (ed.), Das Äneolithikum und die früheste Bronzezeit (C-14 3000–2000 BC) in Mitteleuropa. Kulturelle und chronologische Beziehungen. Acta des XIV. Internationalen Symposiums, Prag-Liblice 20.–24. 10. 1986. Praehistorica XV (Praha 1989) 249–259.

Kalicz-Schreiber/Kalicz 1999R. Kalicz-Schreiber/N. Kalicz, A Somogyvár-Vincovci kultúra és a Harangedény-Csepel-Csoport Budapest kora bronzkrában. Savaria 24/3, 1998-1999, 83–114.

Klein 1966L. S. Klein, Prototipy katakombnykh kuril’nits i problema proiskhozhdeniya katakombnoi kul’tury. ASGE 8, 1966, 5–17.

Klochko 1999V. I. Klochko, Radiocarbon Chronology of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Middle Dnieper Region. The Myronivka barrows. In: A. Ko)ko (ed.), The Foundations of Radiocarbon Chronology of Cultures between the Vistula and Dnieper: 3150–1850 BC. Baltic-Pontic Stud. 7 (Poznan 1999) 163–195.

Klochko/Kruts 1999V. I. Klochko/V. A. Kruts, Radiocarbon Dates from the Yamnaya Culture Barrow at the Tripolye Culture “Gigant Settlement” near Talyanky. In: A. Ko)ko (ed.), The Foundations of Radiocarbon Chronology of Cultures between the Vistula and Dnieper: 3150-1850 BC. Baltic-Pontic Stud. 7 (Poznan 1999) 72–79.


Klochko et al. 2003V. I. Klochko/A. Ko)ko/M. Szmyt, A Comparative Chronology of the Prehistory of the Area between Vistula and Dnieper: 4000–1000 BC. In: A. Ko)ko (ed.), The Foundations of Radiocarbon Chronology of Cultures between the Vistula and Dnieper: 4000–1000 BC. Baltic-Pontic Stud. 12 (Poznan 2003) 396–414.

Kolotukhin/Toshchev 2000 V. I. Kolotukhin/G. N. Toshchev, Kurgannye drevnosti Kryma, 3 (po materialam raskopok Severo-Krymskoi ekspeditsii v 1983–1986 gg. Sakskii raion Krymskoi oblasti) (Zaporozh’e 2000).

Konstantinesku 1984L. F. Konstantinesku, Rannioyamni pokhovannya Pivnichno-Skhidnogo Pryazov’ya. Arkh. 45, 1984, 61–67.

Konstantinesku 1988L. F. Konstantinesku, Novye materialy pozdneyamnogo vremeni Severo-Vostochnogo Priazov’ya. In: O. G. Shaposhnikova (ed.), Novye pamyatniki yamnoi kul’tury stepnoi zony Ukrainy (Kiev 1988) 92–107.

Kovalyukh/Nazarov 1999N. N. Kovalyukh/S. V. Nazarov, Radiocarbon Dating Calibration in Archaeological Studies. In: A. Ko)ko (ed.), The Foundations of Radiocarbon Chronology of Cultures between the Vistula and Dnieper: 3150–1850 BC. Baltic-Pontic Stud. 7 (Poznan 1999) 12–26.

Kruts 1984S. I. Kruts, Paleoantropologicheskie issledovaniya Stepnogo Podneprov’ya (Kiev 1984).

Krylova 1964 L. P. Krylova, Otchet ob arkheologicheskikh raskopkakh kurganov u g. Krivoi Rog na YuGOKe v 1964 godu. Nauchnyi arkhiv Inst. ark. NAN Ukrainy 67, 1964.

Kulcsár 2002G. Kulcsár, Die Makó-Kosihy-!aka Kultur im Spiegel einiger Bestattungen. Antaeus 25, 2002, 441–475.

Kuznetsov 2002P. F. Kuznetsov, Voinskie simvoly iz pogrebenii yamnykh plemen Samarskogo Povolzh’ya. In: R. S. Munchaev (ed.), Problemy arkheologii Evrazii (k 80-letiyu N.Ya. Merperta) (Moskva 2002) 87–95.

Kuznetsov 2003P. F. Kuznetsov, Osobennosti kurgannykh obryadov naseleniya Samarskoi doliny v pervoi polovine bronzovogo veka. In: Yu. I. Kolev/P. F. Kuznetsov/D. D. Sochalov (eds.), Material’naya kul’tura naseleniya basseina reki Samary v bronzovom veke (Samara 2003) 43–51.

Lagodovs’ka et al. 1962D. F. Lagodovs’ka/D. G. Shaposhnikova/S. L. Makarevich, Mykhailivs’ke poselennya (@iev 1962).

Leskov et al. 1972#. S. Leskov/#. N. Rumyantsev/Ya. I. Boldin/ N. P. Zaraiskaya/G. I. Chekamova/Yu. A. Shilov/S. V. Yastrebova, Dtchet o rabote Khersonskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii IA AN USSR v 1972 :, I. Nauchnyi arkhiv Inst. ark. NAN Ukrainy 35, 1972.

Levi'ki et al. 1996.O. Levi'ki/I. Manzura/T. Demcenko, Necropola tumular% de la S%r%teni. Bibl. Thracologica XVII (Bucure$ti 1996).

Lichardus/Vladár 1997J. Lichardus/J. Vladár, Frühe und Mittlere Bronzezeit in der Südwestslowakei. Forschungsbeitrag von Anton To#ík (Rückblick und Ausblick). Slovenská arch. XLV/2, 1997, 221–352.

Machnik 1973J. Machnik, Kulturbeziehungen zwischen dem Kaukasus und dem Karpatenraum an der Wende des Neolithikums und der Bronzezeit. In: Actes du VIII Congres international des sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques II (Beograd 1973) 350–354.

Machnik 1989-1990J. Machnik, Aus den Studien über die Anfänge des frühbronzezeitlichen Kulturkomplexes in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. $+,15.,1 XL-XLI, 1989-1990, 95–104.

Machnik 1992J. Machnik, Nordbalkanische und donauländische Kultureinflüsse im Pruth-Dnestr-Gebiet um die Wende des Äneolithikum zu der Bronzezeit. Stud. Praehist. 11–12, 1992, 288–296.

Manzura 1992I. V. Manzura, Stepnye vostochnoevropeiskie obshchnosti eneolita – rannei bronzy v khronologicheskoi sisteme balkano-dunaiskikh kul’tur. In: V. I. Grosu (ed.), Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii i etnografii Moldovy (Kishinev 1992) 87–101.

Manzura 1993I. V. Manzura, The East - West Interaction in the Mirror of the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age Cultures in the Northwest Pontic. Revista Arh. 1, 1993, 23–53.

Maran 1998J. Maran, Kulturwandel auf dem griechischen Festland und den Kykladen im späten 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Studien zu den kulturellen Verhältnissen in Südosteuropa und dem zentralen sowie östlichen Mittelmeerraum in der späten Kupfer- und frühen Bronzezeit. Universitätsforsch. Prähist. Arch. 53 (Bonn 1998). Marina 1978Z. P. Marina, Periodizatsiya i khronologiya pogrebenii yamnoi kul’tury v mezhdurech’e Oreli i Samary. In: I. F. Kovaleva (ed.), Kurgannye drevnosti stepnogo Podneprov’ya III-I tys. do n.e. (Dnepropetrovsk 1978) 55–69.


Merpert 1968N. Ya. Merpert, Drevneishaya istoriya naseleniya stepnoi polosy Vostochnoi Evropy (III - nachalo II tys. do n.e.). Avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni doktora istoricheskikh nauk (Moskva 1968).

Merpert 1974N. Ya. Merpert, Drevneishie skotovody Volzhsko-Ural’skogo mezhdurech’ya (Moskva 1974).

Morgunova/Turetskii 2004N. L. Morgunova/M. A. Turetskii, Proiskhozhdenie i etapy razvitiya yamnoi kul’tury yuzhno-ural’skikh stepei na fone okruzhayushchei sredy. Drevnii Kavkaz: retrospektsiya kul’tur. Mezhdunarodnaya nauchnaya konferentsiya, posvyashchennaya 100-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya E. I. Krupnova. XXIV Krupnovskie chteniya po arkheologii Severnogo Kavkaza (Moskva 2004) 127–130.

Nazarov/Kovalyukh 1999S. V. Nazarov/S. S. Kovalyukh, Kyivs’ka radiovugletseva kalibratsiina programa. Arkheometriya ta okhorona istoryko-kul’turnoi spadshchyny 3, 1999, 70–80.

Nikolov 1976B. Nikolov, Sogylni pogrebeniya ot rannobronzovata epokha pri Jrnava i Knezha, Vrachanski okrug. Arkheoligiya 3, 1976, 38–51.

Nikolova 1992A. V. Nikolova, Khronologicheskaya klassifikatsiya pamyatnikov yamnoi kul’tury stepnoi Ukrainy. Avtoreferat na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni kandidata istoricheskikh nauk (Kiev 1992).

Nikolova 1999aA. V. Nikolova, Radiocarbon Dating of Graves of the Yamnaya and Catacomb Cultures on the Dnieper Right Bank. In: A. Ko)ko (ed.), The Foundations of Radiocarbon Chronology of Cultures Between the Vistula and Dnieper: 3150–1850 BC. Baltic-Pontic Stud. 7 (Poznan 1999) 103–128.

Nikolova 1999bA. V. Nikolova, Radiocarbon Dates from the Graves of the Yamnaya Culture at the Ingulets River (the Kirovohrad Region). In: A. Ko)ko (ed.), The Foundations of Radiocarbon Chronology of Cultures Between the Vistula and Dnieper: 3150–1850 BC. Baltic-Pontic Stud. 7 (Poznan 1999) 81–102.

Nikolova 1992L. Nikolova, Poyava i razprostranenie na nadgrobnite mogili v Karpato - Balkanskiya region (ranna bronzova epokha). Arkheologiya 34/3, 1992, 1–10.

Nikolova 1999L. Nikolova, The Balkans in Later Prehistory. Periodization, Chronology and Cultural Development in the Final Copper and Early Bronze Age (Fourth and Third Millennia BC). BAR Intern. Ser. 791 (Oxford 1999).

Nikolova 2000L. Nikolova, Yamnaya kul’tura na Balkanakh (dinamika struktury pogrebal’nogo obryada i sootnoshenie s drugimi kul’turami rannei bronzy). Stratum plus 2, 2000, 423–458.

Pleshivenko/Antonov 2000A. G. Pleshivenko/#. L. Antonov, Kurgan Voznesenskii. Stratum plus 2, 2000, 505–525

Pustovalov et all. 2003 S. Zh. Pustovalov/D. Ya. Telegin/S. S. Kovalyukh, Radiocarbovana khronologiya yamnykh ta katakombnykh pam’yatok. Magisterium 11. Arkh. studii (Kyiv 2003) 24–27.

Raczky et al. 1992P. Raczky/E. Hertelendi/F. Horváth, Zur absoluten Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Tell-Kulturen in Ungarn. In: W. Meier-Arendt (ed.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Ausstellungsgestaltung in Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt 1992) 42–47.

Rassamakin 1997 Yu. Ya. Rassamakin, Gospodarstvo ta pobut skotariv, In: Davnya istoriya Ukrainy 1. Pervisna istoriya (Kiev 1997) 317–337.

Rassamakin 1999Yu. Ya. Rassamakin, The Eneolithic of the Black Sea Steppe: Dynamics of Cultural and Economic Development 4500–2300 BC. In: M. Levine/Yu. Rassamakin/A. Kislenko/N. Tatarintseva (eds.), Late Prehistoric Exploitation of the Eurasian Steppe (Cambridge 1999) 59–182.

Roman/Németi 1986 P. Roman/I. Németi, Descoperiri din perioda timpurie (pre-Otomani) a epocii bronzului în nord-vestul României. SCIVA 37-3, 1986, 198–232.

Sanzharov 2001S. N. Sanzharov, Katakombnye kul’tury Severo-Vostochnogo Priazov’ya (Lugansk 2001).

Shaposhnikova 1971O. G. Shaposhnikova, Yamna kul’tura. In: D. Ya. Telegin (ed.), Arkheologiya Ukrains’koi RSR I (Kiev 1971) 263–281.

Shaposhnikova 1985D. G. Shaposhnikova, Yamnaya kul’turno-istoricheskaya obshchnost’. In: D. Ya. Telegin (ed.), Arkheologiya Ukrainskoi SSR 1 (Kiev 1985) 336–352.

Shaposhnikova et al. 1986O. G. Shaposhnikova/V. N. Fomenko/N. D. Dovzhenko. Yamnaya kul’turno-istoricheskaya oblast’ (Yuzhnobugskii variant) (Kiev 1986).

Schuster 1999C. Schuster, Early Bronze Age in Romania. In: L. Nikolova (ed.), The Balkans in Later Prehistory. Periodization, Chronology and Cultural Development in the Final Copper and Early Bronze Age (Fourth and Third Millennia BC). BAR Intern. Ser. 791 (Oxford 1999) 241–248.


Shishlina 2000N. I. Shishlina, K voprosu o nachale bronzovogo veka v Severo-Zapadnom Prikaspii. In: R. S. Munchaev (ed.), Problemy arkheologii Evrazii (k 80-letiyu N. Ya. Merperta) (Moskva 2002) 68–86.

Skripkin/Kovalyukh 1999V. V. Skripkin/N. N. Kovalyukh, Radiocarbon LS Dating of Bone Micro-Samples. In: A. Ko)ko (ed.), The Foundations of Radiocarbon Chronology of Cultures Between the Vistula and Dnieper: 3150-1850 BC. Baltic-Pontic Stud. 7 (Poznan 1999) 27–33.

Smilenko 1972 #. T. Smilenko, Roboty v baltsi Kantserka. In: E. V. Maksymov (ed.), Arkheologichni doslidzhennya na Ukraini v 1968 rotsi IV (Kyiv 1972) 269–273.

Stadler et al. 2001P. Stadler/S. Draxler/H. Friesinger/W. Kutschera/A. Priller/W. Rom/P. Steirer/E. M. Wild, Absolute Chronology for Early Civilizations in Austria and Central Europe Using C-14 Dating with Accelerator Mass Spectrometry with Special Results for the Absolute Chronology of the Baden Culture. In: P. Roman/S. Diamandi (eds.), Cernavod% III - Boleráz. Ein vorgeschichtliches Phänomen zwischen dem Oberrhein und der Unteren Donau (Mangalia/Neptun, 18.-24. Oktober 1999). Stud. Danubiana Ser. Symp. II (Bucure$ti 2001) 541–562.

Subbotin 1985L. V. Subbotin, Semenovskii mogil’nik epokhi eneolita - bronzy. In: V. N. Stanko (ed.), Novye materialy po arkheologii Severo-Zapadnogo Prichernomor’ya (Kiev 1985) 45–95.

Subbotin 2000L. V. Subbotin, Severo-Zapadnoe Prichernomor’e v epokhu rannei i srednei bronzy. Stratum plus 2, 2000, 350–387.

Syvolap 2003M. P. Syvolap, Okhoronni doslidzhennya na maidannykh sporudakh Poltavs’koi oblasti Cherkas’kym derzhavnym universytetom im. B. Khmel’nyts’kogo. In: N. D. Gavrilyuk (ed.), Arkheologichni vidkryttya v Ukraini 2001-2002 11. (Kiev 2003) 254–258.

Szmyt/Chernyakow 1999M. Szmyt/I. T. Chernyakow, Radiocarbon chronology of “Akkembetskiy kurgan”. A preliminary report. In: A. Ko)ko (ed.), The Foundations of Radiocarbon Chronology of Cultures Between the Vistula and Dnieper: 3150–1850 BC. Baltic-Pontic Stud. 7 (Poznan 1999) 196–202.

Tasi" 1984N. Tasi", Die Vincovci-Kultur. In: N. Tasi" (ed.), Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit des Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans (Beograd 1984) 15–32.

Telegin 1977D. Ya. Telegin, Ob absolyutnom vozraste yamnoi kul’tury i nekotorye voprosy khronologii eneolita yuga Ukrainy. Sovetskaya arkh. 2, 1977, 5–19.

Telegin 1986D. Ya. Telegin, A Settlement and Cemetery of Copper Age Horse Keepers on the Middle Dnieper. BAR Intern. Ser. 287 (Oxford 1986).

Telegin 1987D. Ya. Telegin, Tripol’skaya i yamnaya kul’tury: voprosy khronologii i sinkhrinizatsii kul’tur mednogo veka yuga Ukrainy. In: K. N. Pitskhelauri/E. N. Chernykh (eds.), Kavkaz v sisteme paleometallicheskikh kul’tur Evrazii. Materialy pervogo simpoziuma “Kavkaz i Yugo-Vostochnaya Evropa v epokhu rannego metalla”, Telavi-Signakhi 1983 (Tbilisi 1987) 120–133.

Telegin et al. 2003D. Y. Telegin/S. Z. Pustovalov/N. N. Kovalyukh, Relative and Absolute Chronology of Yamnaya and Catacomb Monumets the Issue of Co-existence. In: A. Ko)ko (ed.), The Foundations of Radiocarbon Chronology of Cultures between the Vistula and Dnieper: 4000–1000 BC. Baltic-Pontic Stud. 12 (Poznan 2003) 132–184.

Trifonov 1991V. #. Trifonov, Stepnoe Prikuban’e v epokhu eneolita – srednei bronzy (periodizatsiya). In: V. S. Masson (ed.), Drevnie kul’tury Prikuban’ya (Leningrad 1991) 92–166.

Turetskii 2001S. #. Turetskii, O periodizatsii i khronologii yamnykh pamyatnikov Samarskogo Povolzh’ya. In: Yu. I. Kolev (ed.), Bronzovyi vek Vostochnoi Evropy: kharakteristika kul’tur, khronologiya i periodizatsiya. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii „K stoletiyu periodizatsii V. A. Gorodtsova bronzovogo veka yuzhnoi poloviny Vostochnoi Evropy” (Samara 2001) 125–129.

Vladár 1966J. Vladár, Zur Problematik der Kosihy-!aka Gruppe in der Slowakei. Slovenská arch. XIV/2, 1966, 245–336.

Vyaz’mitina et al. 1960 M. I. Vyaz’mitina/V. A. Illins’ka/E. F. Pokrovs’ka/D. R. Terenozhkin/G. T. Kovpanenko, Kurgany bilya s. Novo-Pylypivka i radgospu “#kkermen“. Arkh. pam’yatky URSR VIII, 1960, 22–135. Yarovoi 1985!. V. Yarovoi, Drevneishie skotovodcheskie plemena Yugo-Zapada SSSR (Kishinev 1985).

Yarovoi 2000!. V. Yarovoi, Skotovodcheskoe naselenie Severo-Zapadnogo Prichernomor’ya epokhi rannego metalla. Avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni doktora istoricheskikh nauk (Moskva 2000).

Yarovoi 2003 !. V. Yarovoi, Vydelenie obryadovo-stratigraficheskikh grupp yamnoi kul’tury v Severo-Zapadnom Prichernomor’e. In: N. I. Shishlina (ed.), Chteniya, posvyashchennye 100-letiyu deyatel’nosti V. A. Gorodtsova v Gosudarstvennom istoricheskom muzee. Tezisy konferentsii I (Moskva 2003) 90–93.


Pl. 1. Sofievka village, kurgan 10, grave 1

1

2

3

4


Pl. 2. Sofievka village, kurgan 10, grave 2; 1. stone construction covered the burial; 2. plan and profile of the burial; 3. bone awl from burial

1

2

3


Pl. 3. Sofievka village, kurgan 10: 1. grave 3; 2. grave 4; 3. grave 5

1

2

3


Imitations of vessels with assymetrical handles from Yamnaya Culture burials in the Pontic Steppe area: 1. Krivoi Rog, b. 8, gr. 5 (after K"#$%&' 1964, ('b. 24, according to photo-graph); 2. Yur’evka, b. 2, gr. 4 (unpublished excavation); 3. Novo-Pylypivka, “Akkermen’ I”, b. 11, gr. 12 (after )*+,-./.0' /' .0. 1960, 123. 79,1); 4. Vinogradnoe, b. 24, gr. 9 (after 1'33'-'4.0 1997, 123. 117,8). 5. Sofievka, b. 23, gr. 5 (unpublished materials, after 5634%& 2 7". 1972); 6. Fedorivka, site “Kruglik”, distroed burial (after 8-.$604% 1972, 123. 3); 7. Vasil’evka, b. 1, gr. 19 (after 8'09'"%& 2001, 123. 8,2); 8. Novoe, b. 2, without graves (after :%$/"24 2 7". 1983, (';$. 8,7); 9. Sokolovo, b. 3, gr. 24 (after <'"20' 1978, (';$. 6,3)

31

42

Pl. 4.

5 7

6 8 9


Tab. 1. Catalog of the radiocarbon dates of the Yamnaya (Pit-Grave) Culture of Ukraine

Import, Imitation or Communication? 89

Abstract

In the Early Bronze Age, noticeable stylistic similari-ties develop among the pottery assemblages of coast-al sites across the Black Sea region. Archaeologists often interpret similarities between distant areas such as these as signaling trade relations or, in the absence of direct imports, local imitation or the movement of people across the region. The problem with these attri-butions, however, is that they not only assume a direct correlation between pottery and cultural identity, but stem from a view of culture itself as ‘blocks’ situated within a time-space grid, rather than something that is continuously re-formulated through social practice. As a result, ‘import’ and ‘imitation’ become our only interpretive options, neither of which is satisfactory for the Black Sea case, where a subtler network of in-terregional contact, which I characterize by the term “communication”, may have developed. One possible solution is to undertake technological studies of pot-tery traditions, which focus on the methods employed in the objects’ manufacture, in tandem with stylistic analysis, in order to better investigate the sharing of ideas that emerges from communication among com-munities. Preliminary investigations of Early Bronze Age assemblages from the eastern shore of the Black Sea serve to illustrate the utility of this approach.

!"#$%"

&' ()*+ ,'--.)/ *,)-#+ ,)#0+0'12.34 32+5632+7--' 38)9632. 3","( :",'%67-+8 :)%;5":360 ;,+*"-,"9-+8 ;'%‘42): <),-)=) %),4. >,8")5)=+ 7'32) 6-2",;,"2?$2. 38)9632. %69 06(('5"-+%+ 2",+-2),64%+ 4: -'24: -' 2),=)06 06(-)3+-+ '*), #' 06(-3?2-)326 ;,4%+8 6%;),260, 4: %63@"06 6%62'@6/ '*) %6=,'@6$ -'3"5"--4 7","# ,"=6)-+.

A,)*5"%' 2':)=) ,6B"--4 0 2)%?, C) -" 265.-:+ ;,);)-?12.34 ;,4%' :),"54@64 %69 ;)3?()% 6 :?5.2?,-)$ 6("-2+7-632$, '5" D )=54( :?5.2?, 4: „*5):60”, ,)#%6C"-+8 0 %"9'8 ;,)32),)0)-7'3)-0+8 :)),(+-'2, 4:6 %)9?2. *?2+ );)3","(:)0'-+-%+ 3)@6'5.-)$ ;,':2+:)$.

E ,"#?5.2'26, „6%;),2” 2' „6%62'@64” 32'$2. 265.:+ -'B+% 6-2",;,+2'@6D-+% 0+*),)%, 4:+D

0 ,'%:'8 7),-)%),3.:)=) 0+;'(:?, 1 3+32"%)$ 6-2",,"=6)-'5.-+8 :)-2':260 , 4:6 4 8',':2",+#?$ 2",%6-)% „:)%?-6:'@64”, C) %'0 *?2+ ,)#0+-"--+%.

F(-+% # %)95+0+8 ,6B"-. ;,)*5"%+ %'$2. *?2+ 2"8-)5)=67-6 ()356(9"--4 ;)3?(?, 4:6 0+#--'7'$2. 8',':2", 0+:),+32'---4 ? 0+,)*-+@206 ;,"(%"260, ? 2'-("%6 # 32+5632+7-+% '-'56#)%. A);","(-6 ()356(9"--4 %'2",6'560 ()*+ ,'--.)/ *,)-#+ 6# 386(-)=) ;)*","994 <),-)=) %),4 306(-7'2. ;,) ;",3;":2+0-632. @.)=) ;6(8)(?.

Introduction

A considerable amount of attention has been paid to interaction around and across the Black Sea region during the period of Greek colonization and after, but there has been little research on trade and interaction during the preceding periods. This may be due in part to the fact that the pre-colonial Black Sea situation seems to pale in comparison with the intensive net-works that developed later as well as with those of the Bronze Age Mediterranean to its south. But our per-ception may also result from our maintaining a limited idea of what ‘trade’ means, and what such networks look like. For while it is true that the Bronze Age Black Sea has produced nothing even resembling the Mediterranean situation, this is a little like comparing apples and oranges, and as such may prevent us from seeing points of connection between them.

In order to address the issue of pre-colonial Black Sea interaction seriously, we need to start ex-amining it on its own terms. Two recent developments in archaeology may now allow us to do this. First, re-search and evidence gathered over the past decade or so is increasingly suggestive of contacts around the Black Sea from a very early date, in some parts as early as the Copper Age (late 5th – beginning of the 4th millennium BC) (ÖzdoGan 1993; Price 1993). By the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, similarities in material culture across the region hint at even wider contacts, though there is still little to suggest the ex-istence of an intensive trade network (Bauer 2006). But perhaps we shouldn’t be looking for one.

Import, Imitation or Communication? Pottery Style, Technology and Coastal Contact in the

Early Bronze Age Black Sea

Alexander A. Bauer

Alexander A. Bauer90

The second development that bears upon this subject is the increased attention being paid to social rela-tions in the past (Meskell 2002). Part of this new, or renewed, archaeological attention to the ‘social’ is the recognition that ‘trade’ entails more than mate-rial commodity exchange. Rather there are aspects ‘beyond the material’ (Renfrew 1993) involving communication, cooperation and the establishment of relationships within and among communities that do not necessarily involve market economics, or per-haps operate both within and outside of such systems. More nuanced understandings of trade allow us to move toward more multivalent conceptions of trade beyond basic descriptive categories, such as ‘impor-tation’, ‘migration’ and ‘diffusion’. Rather, there are a host of different kinds of interregional relationships that exist and might be investigated with a variety of approaches.

In this paper, I seek to assess the subject of Black Sea interaction on its own terms and present a case for an integration of the region at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, over two millennia before the Greek colonial network developed. As I present

Age in the Black Sea and describe a technological study of one group of pottery from the northeastern part of this region in order to illustrate how different kinds of social relations might be investigated. Final-ly, in light of that analytical study, I will return to the issue of pre-colonial Black Sea interaction and offer some thoughts about its implications for our under-standing of the region and the archaeological study of trade more broadly.

Expanding our ideas about trade

Archaeologists infer interaction among past societies through the study of material culture related to such interaction. When we identify material made in a for-eign style, we turn to investigate whether it was made locally and by whom it may have been made. Our conclusions from these inquiries allow us to label the material an ‘import’, an ‘imitation’, or an object made locally but by a foreigner — what might be termed an ‘expression of identity’ (fig. 1). These three cas-es thus correspond to the larger social processes of ‘trade’, ‘diffusion’ and ‘migration’.

Fig. 1. Archaeological interpretations of material culture contact

my argument, I will make three moves. First, I want to address the problem of how archaeologists interpret social interaction in the past through material culture using key concepts such as ‘import’ and ‘imitation’, and I want to suggest how more ‘intangible’ aspects of trade might or might not t into these models. Sec-ond, I will review current data about the Early Bronze

In spite of a great deal of attention to trade stud-ies in the 1960s and 1970s, few models of cultural interaction have developed beyond this. It is true that when Immanuel Wallerstein’s ‘World-Systems’ theo-ry (Wallerstein 1974) was itself imported by archae-ologists in the late 1970s and 1980s, this model not only placed the process into a larger context, but also


allowed us to see the connections between ‘import’ and ‘imitation’ and, in a sense, placed classic diffu-sion into an economic framework. But the problem with even ‘World-Systems’ theory and these kinds of explanations is that they all place the emphasis, or really exclusively regard, the action going one way - from ‘place 1’ to ‘place 2’. What these leave out is the role that the receiving community, ‘place 2’, plays in the interaction.

A few approaches have explored this other di-mension: studies of diasporic communities, or the Sherratts’ study of consumption of luxury goods (Sherratt/Sherratt 1991), which looks at this other side of ‘importation’, The other side of ‘imitation’ is suggested by theories of ‘emulation’, such as Irene Winter’s analysis of Iron Age Hasanlu (Winter 1977), as well as Renfrew and Cherry’s ‘peer-polity inter-action’ model of inter-group competition (Renfrew/Cherry 1986). These models show that both sides, that of ‘producer’ and ‘consumer’, play a role in the interaction and thus in the development of the mate-rial culture operating within it. Indeed, as some recent studies of the trade in Mycenaean pottery has shown, it is becoming clearer, not surprisingly, that market demand actively shapes the kind of material that is produced in the rst place (Sherratt/Sherratt 2001; Sherratt 1999; Vagnetti 1999). Certainly, the de ned style and sheer quantity of Classical Greek vases in Etruria illustrates this even more plainly.

The one dimension that has not really been explored, however, is in cases like the Bronze Age Black Sea, where locally-made material, similar to material elsewhere, seems to represent a new local tradition. In unidirectional terms, we would usually hypothesize ‘diffusion’ or ‘migration’ in such cases, but these would be incorrect conclusions, I think. But how do we move to consider a bi-directional, or med-itative, model for what might be a ‘cultural expres-sion’ of interaction?

In order to achieve this, it is clear that we must go still further in expanding our understanding of trade to include the social dimensions of interaction and communication - what Renfrew calls “trade be-yond the material” (Renfrew 1993). Current trade models are largely inadequate for investigating inter-community relations other than commodity exchange. Even advocates of ‘core-periphery’ or other modi ed ‘world-system’ models have pointed out the dif cul-ties in applying them to pre-capitalist contexts, in part because of their emphasis on institutionalized trade

networks (Kohl 1989). Informal or freelance trade is more elusive, for which Renfrew’s model of ‘down-the-line’ trade is still largely the operative paradigm (Renfrew 1969; Renfrew 1975) (Janetski 2002; Knapp/Cherry 1994), in spite of his own call to move forward on the topic.

A second reason most trade models are inap-propriate for studying how social relations them-selves may develop into communities is that they assume a priori discrete societies, albeit at different scales, taking part in the system. When related to cul-ture change, interaction is thought to stimulate those individual groups into becoming more complex (as in the case when hierarchies develop because of dif-ferential control over resources or economic advan-tage from trading activities), rather than the network itself developing into a cultural community (Flannery 1968; Kohl 1987; Schortman/Urban 1987). Moreo-ver, current models tend not to provide an adequate means for understanding social relations beyond eco-nomics, and yet social relations, whether provided by language, kinship or communication, are what act to promote and maintain the ties among individuals and groups (Urban 1996). In fact, trade items are not nec-essarily the best indicator of such relations, since, as Urban (1996, 162) points out, trade may only need to happen occasionally in order to maintain the idea that such relations exist. Just think of how much some fu-ture archaeologist would miss if they evaluated what happened at meetings such as this one based only on the papers that were given. Conversely, it is possible to have imported goods appear without the formation of any real social bonds, particularly if that trade is highly regulated by some centralized authority.

In short, most current models understand trade as creating relationships among groups in a system, not as an originator itself of new socio-political forms. It is thought to be a thread that connects communities, and new social developments take place as a result of contact with other groups. What these models fail to appreciate is that interaction itself sometimes engen-ders its own community of those moving among the regions and groups (see Sherratt 1998). Rather than a thread, interaction may be understood as a ‘virtual’ space forming the basis of a new social community that becomes ‘real’ as its participants — the people actually moving and doing the interacting — commu-nicate with each other and develop a shared cultural tradition across the contexts of that interaction.


Investigating community in the Early Bronze Age Black Sea

The reason all this is important is because in places like the Bronze Age Black Sea, where there is little evidence for an intensive trade in goods, archaeolo-gists tend to conclude that therefore there were no interaction networks, and no integration of the region before the Greek colonization. But there is a grow-ing amount of circumstantial evidence to suggest that some kind of interaction was taking place.

Researchers of the prehistoric cultures of the re-gion have often noted links with other coastal groups especially at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, when several groups associated with the coastal re-gion in particular appear for the rst time: the Usa-tovo, Kemi-Oba, Novosvobodnaya and then the Dol-men groups across the north, sites at ¡kiztepe and in the Sinop Peninsula in Turkey, and around the Varna Lakes and Burgas Bay on the Bulgarian Coast (e. g. Häusler 1994; Markovin 1997; Nikolova 1995; Price 1993; Rassamakin 1997; Rassamakin 2002a; This-sen 1993; Zbenovich 1973).Whether you want to call these different ‘cultures’ or just regional ‘variants’ is not important. What is important is that there is some-thing new and different happening along the coasts, and the intriguing thing about this shift is that there are similarities in the material culture from these re-gions. In terms of the pottery, the most general aspect of this material is that it has a highly polished, dark surface, sometimes with incised decoration and often in carinated shapes probably in imitation of metal prototypes (or ‘skeuomorphs’, e. g. see Sherratt/Sher-ratt 2001).

The pottery from several early sites in the Si-nop region of the Black Sea coast of Turkey illus-trates this stylistic orientation toward other Black Sea coastal communities (Doonan et al. 2001). Ma-terial such as that from Mezarlktepe seems linkable to Early Chalcolithic pottery from the Thrace and Marmara regions (ÖzdoGan et al. 1991; Rooden-berg 1999), but may also be linked to a larger pat-tern in the region of using incision as a decorative technique. Distinctive incised motifs, like those (pl. 2,1) in an assemblage from a site found during the 2003 eld season (Doonan/Bauer 2005), nd strong parallels in the pottery from the Bulgarian Coast (Leshtakov 1995; Nikolova 1995) and in the ‘hanging triangle’ motif widespread in the Dolmen Culture (Markovin 1997). The site of Güllüavlu in Sinop (Doonan et al. 2001) presents even more is-

sues as some of its more unusual material (pl. 2,2) seems to resemble both Trojan ‘face pots’ and the im-pressed gurines from Usatovo (Rassamakin 2002b; Zbenovich 1973). Juglets from the small mound site of Kocagöz (Erzen 1956) seem more closely related to those from the Bulgarian Black Sea site of Eze-rovo II (TonHeva 1981) than to west Anatolian types, while Bronze Age nds from the center of the modern town of Sinop itself bear the rope decoration found in several places around the Black Sea, including the northern Caucasus (Doonan et al. 2001). While these resemblances are not necessarily signi cant in themselves - after all, dark burnished pottery appears across much of Europe and the Near East at different times - the fact that they appear along the coast at about the same time and in distinct contrast to pottery from inland regions (comparing these examples with late Tripolye pottery, Maikop pottery or steppe pot-tery, or Late Uruk pottery in Anatolia, or even Ezero Culture material from Central Bulgaria, clearly dis-tinguishes them from the material appearing on the shores of the Black Sea) suggests that some sort of contact may have begun to develop across the region at this time.

But if we are to move past our dependence on simple stylistic comparisons when faced with a lack of trade items to investigate evidence of emerging in-teraction networks, the problem then becomes how to develop a program of research that can detect such evidence. One possible way forward is to study pot-tery technology in order to identify whether a shared pottery-making tradition develops which would re-sult from the communication and knowledge-sharing typical of a more integrated and interacting commu-nity. In other words, is it possible to identify the ap-pearance of a Black Sea-wide ceramic technology at this time? As Miriam Stark (Stark 1998) and others have pointed out, technology is closely related to the social identities of communities, since it can contain features identi able with speci c social groups, and can thus be used by archaeologists to determine the social boundaries and connections among groups in the past. Since stages of pottery production, such as the tempering, forming, ring, and nishing of ves-sels relate to socially-learned motor habit patterns, their examination also offers a method for investi-gating the possible links between cultural traditions that is far preferable to stylistic comparison alone (Vandiver 1988b). For ‘habits’ such as these emerge through the repetition and patterning of social action (Peirce 1992, 334 ff.), and the appearance of ‘habits’


unique to, but shared among, Black Sea communities may suggest that information is being exchanged and even that broader social bonds are forming on some level.

Studying cultural identity in pottery technology:

An example from the Northwest Caucasus

Background

The utility of a technology-based approach may be illustrated by a recent study undertaken by the author of Bronze Age handmade pottery from the north-western Caucasian Black Sea Coast. Several rea-sons make the Bronze Age of the Black Sea region an interesting context in which archaeologists may begin to re-think current strategies for investigat-ing culture contact and interregional interaction. For while there is rather little evidence for the existence of an intensive trade network across the area before the Greek Colonies were established there in the 7th century BC, there is increasing evidence of cul-tural interaction and even integration of the region as far back as the Early Bronze Age (Bauer 2006). But the lack of any real evidence for imported items has led many scholars to attribute these similarities to stylistic diffusion or, in some cases, large-scale mi-grations. In an attempt to develop an approach to cul-tural interaction that can account for different kinds of social relations, this study focuses on technological traditions as an indicator of the sharing of knowledge within and between social groups. More speci cally, pottery manufacturing processes were identi ed and compared as a way to better understand the relations among the cultures of the Late Chalcolithic (or Eneo-lithic) and Early Bronze Ages along the North Cauca-sian Black Sea Coast.

Conducting archaeological research on the prehistoric Black Sea presents certain immediate problems. First, it is an under-researched topic, so that even the most elementary archaeological issues regarding the material culture and basic chronology still need to be worked out for much of the region. Second, following boundary conventions of modern nation-states, bodies of water are often considered to be features that divide, rather than connect, distant regions. This assumption has been particularly per-vasive with regard to the Black Sea, as it was an al-most impermeable political and academic boundary

from the beginnings of archaeology as a discipline until the opening up of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. Archaeologists have thus rarely considered the area as a unit of analysis in its own right (Özveren 2001), so that they invariably regard the inhabitants of the coastal regions in the Bronze Age and earlier as ‘peripheral variants’ of the better-known inland cultures. Third, and also a product of the history of archaeology in the region, is that those areas that have been studied are understood within a strict normative cultural framework, in which culture blocks extend across regions and culture contact and change is most often explained by theories of migration and popula-tion replacement.

The North Caucasus and the North Black Sea Steppe is a clear example where the exclusive em-phasis on stylistic typology has led to the kinds of extreme compartmentalization of ‘culture types’ across time-space grids. Here, the limited variety of cultural features has resulted in a grand tradition of naming cultures according to their burial type: hence names such as the “Pit-Grave Culture”, “Catacomb-Grave Culture”, “Dolmen” or “Megalithic Cist-Grave Culture”, and the later “Timber-Grave Cul-ture”. Some scholars, however, have recently made important calls to move beyond simple typologies and theories of cultural replacement. Y. Rassamakin (Rassamakin 1997), for example, has suggestedthat we break apart these traditional cultural ‘trait complexes’ into their constituent parts in order to ex-amine more thoroughly the variability that exists in the archaeological data. He believes that there is vari-ation in both the individual artifact types (such as bur-ial construction or pottery) as well as in their archaeo-logical combinations that has not been addressed by the ‘trait complex’ approach. Viktor Trifonov (Tri-fonov 1994; Trifonov 2001a; Trifonov 2001b), who studies the North Caucasian Dolmen, Maikop, and related cultures, has done much to dispel the simplis-tic theories of migration often invoked in the debates over the origin and fate of cultural ‘trait complexes’ such as these. He has systematically addressed the problems in such explanations and instead favors a more moderate view that emphasizes local continu-ity over disjunction. While he by no means advocates a narrow regionalism, he does, however, tend to at-tribute archaeological similarities to cultural interac-tion rather than to territorial movement or expansion.

Studying cultural interaction through pottery technology provides a way to follow their lead and explicitly move away from traditional emphases on artifact styles and provenience studies, to one


that is able to detect social relations among cultural groups, even in the absence of suf cient evidence for the direct movement of people or trade items. The material analyzed for this study relates to the ‘Dolmen’ Culture and three other Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age groups of the Northwest Caucasus (pl. 1). The links among these cultures — namely, the Maikop, Meshoko and Novosvobodnaya — with the Dolmen group have been the subject of some de-bate and have implications for early urbanism, trans-port technology, and the spread of the Indo-European language family (Andreeva 1991/1992; Chechenov 1991/1992; Korenevskii 1991/1992; Markovin 1991/1992; Markovin 1997; Rezepkin 1988; Sa-fronov 1991/1992; Sherratt 1997 (1991); Trifonov 1994; Trifonov 2001a). They are also central to the study of early interregional interaction in the Black Sea, as all but the Maikop are regarded as the kind of Black Sea coastal ‘variants’ typically identi ed in the region.

The best known of these cultures is the Maikop group, named after a great kurgan, or burial mound, discovered near the town of Maikop in the North-west Caucasus at the turn of the 20th century (Iessen 1935). The richness of the material culture - the com-plex metalwork, the iconography, and what seems to have been the only wheelmade pottery tradition in the region - all pointed to an advanced tradition thriving in the region that initially seemed related to the Royal Cemetery at Ur, although radiocarbon dates have shown it is considerably older, rst ap-pearing in the Late Chalcolithic, or 4th millennium BC (Andreeva 1977). Contemporary with this, the ‘Meshoko’ or ‘Darkveti-Meshoko’ Culture desig-nates what was until recently considered a Black Sea

coastal variant of Maikop. The distinctiveness of its dark burnished handmade pottery and stone-work-ing tradition from Maikop material, however, has led some to now regard it as a separate culture, or perhaps a substratum of the latter group (Trifonov 2001b).

During the Early Bronze Age, a second cul-tural group emerges in the Black Sea coastal region of the western Caucasus referred to as the ‘Dolmen’ or ‘Megalithic Cist’ Culture - so named for the large stone-built tombs dating from this period that dot the landscape (Markovin 1997; Trifonov 2001a). Despite the fact that Maikop burials also use stone in their construction, the general resemblance between these monuments and ones that appear across Europe, North Africa, and the southern Levant initially led some scholars to attribute their appearance in the Caucasus to a migration of ‘Dolmen people’ from these regions, and perhaps over the sea. The material too, seemed to differentiate the group from Maikop, as the pottery was handmade and dark burnished, and the tombs did not often contain the richness of the Maikop burials. The material and territorial pattern does, however, beg comparison with that of Meshoko, although the relationship between the two groups has not yet been investigated (V. Trifonov, personal communication).

The fourth cultural group at issue here is known as the ‘Novosvobodnaya’ group and is located be-tween the areas assciated with the more inland Maikop group and the coastal/mountain Dolmen group. Only recently identi ed as a distinct ‘group’, the Novosvo-bodnaya is considered by some to be a variant of the Maikop Culture as its cist tombs are covered by huge earthen mounds, or ‘kurgans’, like the Maikop ones (Markovin 1991-2). Others suggest it is more closely linked to the Dolmen Culture, based on the architec-

Fig. 2. Chronology of sampled Northwest Caucasian sites


tural resemblances in their burial structures - basically, the Novosvobodnaya tombs look like the stone Dol-mens with ‘porthole’-like entrances, except that they are buried in earthen mounds - and the fact that its pottery is dark-burnished, and thus similar to Dolmen and unlike Maikop ceramics (Trifonov 2001a). The excavator of several Novosvobonaya sites, however, takes the third view that it is a separate culture entire-ly, and based on stylistic resemblances with dark-bur-nished pottery from Europe, suggests that it represents the spread of the Central European ‘Funnel-Beaker’, or TRB Culture into the region (Rezepkin 1988; Rezepkin 2000).

Analysis

Given the complexity of the situation in the region and the tendency of scholars to draw conclusions about these groups on stylistic-typological grounds, the primary goal of this project was to investigate the relationship among these cultures by approach-ing the material from the perspective of ceramic technology. That is, were there any signi cant simi-larities or differences in the manufacturing methods employed among the groups and over time that might support or refute current theories of culture change in the region? In order to address this question, a nested strategy employing both macroscopic and microscopic techniques was utilized in an attempt to develop a rich understanding of the manufactur-ing processes employed at the different sites (see Vandiver 1988b).

For the analysis, samples were taken from well-strati ed contexts from four different sites in the Northwest Caucasus (fig. 2): Guamsky Grotto pro-vided a long sequence of Meshoko and then Dolmen Culture material, with a single small ‘gap’ following level 10. The neighboring site of Starkichi, however, is clearer at this point, with its 2nd and 3rd levels dat-ing to just this time. The 3rd and 4th sites sampled are from sites, attributed to the Novosvobodnaya Culture, and are roughly contemporary with these same levels (Trifonov 2001a).

In the rst stage of the analysis, the clay matrix of each sherd was examined using a high-powered stereoscopic optical microscope, and based on this visual examination, the sherds were assigned to pro-visional ware groups. The sherds were then xerora-diographed in order to examine the alignment of and density of the pore structure in the clay bodies (Rye 1977; Vandiver et al. 1991). Xeroradiography, which

differs from other radiographic techniques, allowed an independent assessment of the initial ware types and also provided information regarding the texture and forming techniques employed in the construc-tion of the vessels (fig. 3). Wheelmade pottery for example, is easily distinguished by its ne texture and the parallel diagonal lines of pores which result from forming pressure drawn upwards while the pot is turning. It is harder to identify different types of handmade pottery because of its irregular pore struc-ture, although it is still possible to determine areas where coils or clay slabs were joined together in the body of the pot.

Sub-samples of the ware groups were then re- red in a controlled oxidizing environment at 100°C increments starting at 600° and increasing to 1100° in order to determine the original ring temperature of each group (see Matson 1971). This was done by examining the re red sherds using a Scanning Elec-tron Microscope and comparing the microstructural changes apparent at different temperatures to non-re- red samples (Tite et al. 1982). In addition, an analyt-ical attachment to the SEM, referred to as an Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectrometer, provided elemental composition data for each ware’s clay matrix and in-clusions (fig. 4a, b).The result of these analyses was the identi cation of six ware types with a similar clay structure - a ne-particled illite presumably common to the geology of the region - differentiated by their overall porosity, inclusions, and ring temperature (fig. 5). The pot-

Fig. 3. Xeroradiograph of Dolmen Cul- ture pottery sherd, Guamsky Grotto, level 6a


tery was generally low- red in a neutral to moderate-ly reducing atmosphere, with mottling on the surface of many of the sherds suggestive of an uncontrolled environment. Surface nishing included evidence of burnish, combing and smoothing on macroscopic and microscopic levels, and decoration was limited to slip and the ‘hanging triangle’ motif common to Dolmen Culture pottery. As to the forming techniques used, the rst type is notable for showing the clearest evi-dence for being coil-built, while the others seemed

to have been built using a sequential-slab method, which is a long-term Near Eastern practice of taking irregularly-sized lumps of clay and pressing them to-gether into the desired shape, usually with the help of a mold of some kind (Vandiver 1988a).

Their distribution is clearly patterned across the sampled contexts, the most signi cant break be-ing that around Guamsky Grotto level 10, when there seems to be a discontinuity in the site’s depositional sequence as well (fig. 6). The later levels at Guam-

Fig. 4b. SEM photograph of a CaCO3 inclusion in ware type C-VI, Northwest Caucasus

Fig. 4a. SEM photograph of a CaCO3 inclusion in ware type C-VI, Northwest Caucasus


sky Grotto and Starkichi share common ware types, a nding that supports the excavator’s conclusions that they share the same cultural attribution, that of the ‘Dolmen’ group (V. Trifonov, personal com-munication). The Novosvobodnaya Culture sites of Klady and the eponymous Novosvobodnaya settle-ment show certain connections to Starkichi and the later, Dolmen phases of Guamsky Grotto. Aside from the link provided by the appearance of ware type III, common at the Dolmen sites, at Klady, there are sev-

sult of different clay sources (though geographically, Novosvobodnayais in an area similar to where Gua-msky Grotto and Starkichi are situated). On the other hand, its greater similarity to the Dolmen-period as-semblages than to the earlier Meshoko phases does suggest a stronger link to the Dolmen ceramic tradi-tion, and less connection with the manufacturing tra-ditions of the Maikop sphere (Trifonov 2001a).

One question that remains unanswered by this analysis is the important issue regarding where the

Fig. 5. North Caucasian Bronze Age Black Sea ware types

eral similarities between that ware and the type (no. VI) that appears in the Novosvobodnaya contexts. The composition and porosity of the overall matrices are very similar, and they both are made with a high percentage of calcitic inclusions. In addition, they are the only wares that are red-slipped. While these are not reasons enough to say they are the result of the same cultural practices and the differences among the two types still do not merit their con ation, this is nevertheless a nding that warrants further study.

Some important conclusions may be drawn from this investigation that may be brought to bear on the issue of these cultures’ origins and relationship to each other. First, the disjunction in many aspects of the pottery technology between the Meshoko and Dolmen Culture phases at Guamsky Grotto supports the theory that the Dolmen Culture does not develop from a broader Maikop tradition, but rather may rep-resent in uences from elsewhere (Markovin 1997; Trifonov 2001a). Second, the distinctiveness of the Novosvobodnaya material may partially be the re-

Novosvobodnaya-Dolmen Culture tradition comes from. Several scholars have looked to the West and suggested its origins lay in the Megalithic Cultures of the European Neolithic. But while further analysis on the Novosvobodnaya pottery needs to be undertaken, I would tentatively suggest that the connections instead point to a more ‘local’ source: the Black Sea region, which itself was developing a broader ceramic tradi-tion at this time, certainly related to eastern European pottery, but also containing elements related to North Anatolian ceramic traditions (Rysin 1997; Trifonov 2001a). Indeed, this connection is suggested by the apparent shift in the forming method employed by the makers of the Dolmen ceramic types to a sequential-slab construction, which is a long-lasting, conserva-tive tradition particular to the Near East. While this in itself should not be given too much weight, it does point to cultural links that have so far been largely left unexplored, and clearly lights a path to future re-search.


Conclusion

In this paper, I have attempted to show that archaeo-logical key concepts such as ‘import’ and ‘imitation’ do not satisfactorily address the range of interregional relationships that exist among cultural groups. I sug-gest that we need to further explore approaches that recognize the mediative aspects of social relations, and that the study of pottery technology may be one way to investigate aspects of trade ‘beyond the mate-rial’. Moreover, as a socially-learned and patterned practice, the manufacture of pottery may reveal con-nections and innovations not immediately apparent in purely form- and style-based typologies. It is hoped that the application of such an approach to the prehis-toric Black Sea, where trade is thought to be absent and culture-blocks are often delimited on general sty-listic grounds, may allow us to rethink the nature of interaction across the region and how we approach problems of culture-contact more broadly.

The case study discussed in this paper illus-trates the utility of such an approach, and that there is a technological shift in the northwestern Caucasus region should be in little doubt. The signi cance of such a shift with respect to developments elsewhere in the Black Sea, however, still requires investiga-tion, although preliminary analyses of other regional assemblages suggest a similar pattern. But since nei-ther ‘import’ nor ‘imitation’ may be the best way to characterize the similarities among the assemblages, which suggests that their links do not seem to result from either trade or widespread migration, it is clear that we might better understand the signi cance of

such interregional parallels in material culture if we broaden our understanding of trade as a social proc-ess, in which multiple communities play an active role (Bauer/Doonan 2002).

From this perspective, the similarities in the pottery assemblages appearing at this time re ect, on a literal level, a shared manufacturing tradition, and may signify, on a more symbolic level, a shared com-munity identity emerging around the Black Sea. Such a community may have developed around the shared experiences involving dependence on the sea and its resources, such as shing, sea-borne travel and other activities that require cooperation and communica-tion, and in general the emergence of a shared val-ue-system based on their connection to the maritime world. Such values are at the heart of community and bind people together in ways more strongly than our models of trade often recognize.

Acknowledgements

The analysis presented in this paper was made pos-sible by the generosity of Dr. Viktor Trifonov of the Institute for History and Material Culture, St. Pe-tersburg, and with the support of a pre-doctoral fel-lowship at the Smithsonian Center for Materials Re-search and Education (SCMRE) under the guidance of Dr. Pamela B. Vandiver on the early ceramic tech-nology of the Black Sea region. The author wishes to thank them both for their kindness and support. Parts of this paper were presented at the 2003 Society for American Archaeology Meetings in Milwaukee,

Fig. 6. Distribution of ware types across sampled Northwest Cauca- sian contexts


USA, and the 2003 European Association of Archae-ologists Meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, and has bene ted from comments and input from Bill Barnett, Peter Biehl, Owen Doonan, Fred Hiebert, Bob Preu-cel, Yuri Rassamakin, Viktor Trifonov, Pam Vandiver. Unfortunately, however, blame for any mistakes, must be assigned to me. Finally, I wish to thank Peter Biehl and Yuri Rassamakin for including me in this volume.

References

Andreeva 1977M. V. Andreeva, K Voprosu o Yuzhnykh Svyazakh Maikop-skoi Kul‘turi. Sovetskaya Ark. 1, 1977, 39–56.

Andreeva 1991/1992M. V. Andreeva, Traditional Problems and New Ways of Solving Them. Several Observations Regarding the Dis-cussion of the Ethnic Affiliation of the Maikop Culture. Soviet Anthr. and Arch. 30/3, 1991/1992, 35–38.

Bauer 2006A. A. Bauer, Prehistoric Sinop and Inter-regional Inter-action along the Black Sea Coast, In: D. L. Peterson/L. M. Popova/A. T. Smith (eds.), Beyond the Steppe and the Sown (Leiden 2006) 227–246.

Bauer/Doonan 2002A. A. Bauer/O. P. Doonan, Buying a Table in Erfelek. A New Look at the Social Nature of Trade. Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. Conference Pa-per (Denver 2002).

Chechenov 1991/1992I. M. Chechenov, On the Study of the Ancient History and Archaeology of the Northern Caucasus. Soviet Anthr. and Arch. 30/3, 1991/1992, 67–78.

Doonan et al. 2001O. Doonan/A. Gantos/F. Hiebert/M. Besonen, A. Yaycio!lu, Sinop Regional Archaeological Survey 1998-1999. The Karasu Valley Survey. TUBA-AR IV, 2001, 113–35.

Doonan/Bauer 2005O. P. Doonan/A. A. Bauer, Sinop Province Archaeologi-cal Project. Report on the 2003 Field Season. Ara"trma Sonuclar Toplantas 22/2, 2005, 275–284.

Erzen 1956A. Erzen, Sinop Kazs 1953 Yl Çali"malar. Türk Ark. Dergisi 6, 1956, 69–72.

Flannery 1968K. V. Flannery, The Olmec and the Valley of Oaxaca. A Model of Interregional Interaction in Formative Times, In: E. P. Benton (ed.), Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec (Washington 1968) 79–110.

Häusler 1994A. Häusler, The North-Pontic Region and the Beginning of the Eneolithic in South-East and Central Europe, In: B. Genito (ed.), The Archaeology of the Steppes. Methods and Strategies (Napoli 1994) 123–47.


Iessen 1935A. A. Iessen, K voprosu o drevneishikh korniakh metal-lurgii medi na Kavkaze. Izvestiia GAIMK 120, 1935.

Janetski 2002J. C. Janetski, Trade in Fremont Society. Contexts and Contrasts. Journal Anthr. Arch. 21, 2002, 344–370.

Knapp/Cherry 1994A. B. Knapp/J. F. Cherry, Provenience Studies and Bronze Age Cyprus (Madison/WI 1994)

Kohl 1987P. L. Kohl, The Ancient Economy, Transferable Technolo-gies and the Bronze Age World System. A View from the northeastern Frontier of the Ancient Near East, In: M. Rowlands/M. Larsen/K. Kristiansen (eds.), Centre and Pe-riphery in the Ancient World (Cambridge 1987) 13–24.

Kohl 1989P. L. Kohl, The Use and Abuse of World Systems The-ory. The Case of the ‚Pristine‘ West Asian State, In: C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (ed.), Archaeological Thought in America (Cambridge 1989) 218–40.

Korenevskii 1991/1992S. N. Korenevskii, On the Discussion of the Ethnic Inter-pretation of the Maikop Culture. Soviet Anthr. and Arch. 30/3, 1991/1992, 39–47.

Leshtakov 1995K. Leshtakov, The Detachment of the Early Bronze Age Ceramics Along the South Bulgarian Black Sea Coast, In: M. Lazarov/C. Angelova (eds.), Thracia Pontica V. Les Ports dans la Vie de la Thrace Ancienne (Sozopol 1995) 23–38.

Markovin 1991/1992V. I. Markovin, Disputed Points in the Ethnogenetic Study of Northern Caucasus Antiquities (The Maikop Culture). Soviet Anthr. and Arch. 30/3, 1991/1992, 7–28.

Markovin 1997V. I. Markovin, Dol‘mennye pamiatniki Prikuban‘ia i Prichernomor‘ia (Moscow 1997).

Matson 1971F. R. Matson, The Study of Temperatures Used in Firing Ancient Mesopotamian Pottery, In: R. Brill (ed.), Science and Arch. (Cambridge 1971) 65–69.

Meskell 2002L. Meskell, The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology. Ann. Review Anthr. 31, 2002, 279–301.

Nikolova 1995L. Nikolova, Data About Sea Contacts During the Early Bronze Age in South-Eastern Europe (c. 3500/3400–2350–2250 B.C.). In: M. Lazarov/C. Angelova (eds.), Thracia Pontica V. Les Ports dans la Vie de la Thrace Ancienne (Sozopol 1995) 57–86.

Özdo!an 1993M. Özdo!an, Vinça and Anatolia. A New Look at a Very Old Problem (or Redefining Vinça Culture from the Per-spective of Near Eastern Tradition). Anatolica XIX, 1993, 173–193.

Özdo!an et al. 1991M. Özdo!an/Y. Miyake/N. Ö. Dede, An Interim Report on Excavations at Yarmburgaz And Toptepe in Eastern Thrace. Anatolica 17, 1991, 59–121.

Özveren 2001Y. E. Özveren, The Black Sea as a Unit of Analysis, In: T. Aybak (ed.), Politics of the Black Sea. Dynamics of Coop-eration and Conflict (London 2001) 61–84.

Peirce 1992C. S. Peirce, The Essential Peirce. Selected Philosophical Writings 1 (1867-1893) (Bloomington 1992).

Price 1993R. P. S. Price, The West Pontic „Maritime Interaction Sphere“. A Long-Term Structure in Balkan Prehistory? Oxford Journal Arch. 12, 1993, 175–196.

Rassamakin 1997Y. Y. Rassamakin, The Eneolithic of the Black Sea Steppe: Dynamics of Cultural and Economic Development 4500-2300 BC. In: M. Levine et al. (eds.), Late Prehistoric Exploitation of the Eurasian Steppe (Cambridge 1997) 59–182.

Rassamakin 2002aY. Y. Rassamakin, Aspects of Pontic Steppe Development (4550-3000BC) in the Light of the New Cultural-Chrono-logical Model, In: K. Boyle/C. Renfrew/M. Levine (eds.), Ancient Interactions. East and West in Eurasia (Cambridge 2002) 49–74.

Rassamakin 2002bY. Y. Rassamakin, Die Statuetten des Serezlievka-Typs und ei-nige Probleme des Anfanges der Bronzezeit in den nordpontischen Steppen, In: G. Hänsel (ed.), Festschr.Viera Nemejeová-Pavúkova (Berlin-Bratislawa 2002).

Renfrew 1969A. C. Renfrew, Trade and Culture Process in European Prehistory. Current Anthr. 10, 1969, 151–169.


Renfrew 1975A. C. Renfrew, Trade as Action at a Distance: Questions of Integration and Communication. In: J. A. Sabloff/C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (eds.), Ancient Civilization and Trade (Albuquerque 1975) 3–59.

Renfrew 1993A. C. Renfrew, Trade Beyond the Material. In: C. Scarre/F. Healy (eds.), Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe (Oxford 1993) 5–16.

Renfrew/Cherry 1986A. C. Renfrew/J. F. Cherry, Peer-polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change (Cambridge 1986).

Rezepkin 1988A. D. Rezepkin, Typologie megaliticheskikh grobnits zapadnogo kavkaza. Voprosy ark. Adyghei 1988, 1988, 156–63.

Rezepkin 2000A. D. Rezepkin, Das frühbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Klady und die Majkop-Kultur in Nordwestkaukasien. Arch. Eurasien 10 (Rahden/Westf. 2000).

Roodenberg 1999J. J. Roodenberg, Ilpnar, An Early Farming Village in the Iznik Lake Basin, In: M. Özdo!an (ed.), Neolithic in Turkey (Istanbul 1999) 193–202.

Rye 1977O. S. Rye, Pottery Manufacturing Techniques. X-Ray Stud-ies. Archaeometry 19, 1977, 205–211.

Rysin 1997M. B. Rysin, Kulturnaya transformatsiya i kultura stroitelei dolmenov na Kavkaze. Drevnye obshchestva Kavkaza v epokhi paleometalla 1997, 1997.

Safronov 1991/1992V. A. Safronov, New Ways of Solving the Maikop Prob-lem. Soviet Anthr. and Arch. 30/3, 1991/1992, 57–66.

Schortman/Urban 1987E. M. Schortman/P. A. Urban, Modelling Interregional Interaction in Prehistory, In: M. B. Schiffer (ed.), Ad-vances in Archaeological Method and Theory (New York 1987) 11–35.

Sherratt 1997A. Sherratt Troy, Maikop, Altyn Depe. Early Bronze Age Urbanism and its Periphery, Economy and Society in Pre-historic Europe (Edinburgh 1997) 457–470.

Sherratt/Sherratt 1991A. Sherratt/S. Sherratt, From Luxuries to Commodities. The Nature of Bronze Age Trading Systems. In: N. H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. Stud. Mediterranean Arch. XC (Göteborg 1991) 351–384.

Sherratt/Sherratt 2001A. Sherratt/S. Sherratt, Technological Change in the East Mediterranean Bronze Age: Capital, Resources and Mar-keting. In: A. Shortland (ed.), Social Context of Techno-logical Change. Egypt and the Near East 1650-1550 B.C. (Oxford 2001) 15–38.

Sherratt 1998S. Sherratt, “Sea Peoples” and the Economic Structure of the Late Second Millennium in the Eastern Mediterranean, In: S. Gitin/A. Mazar/E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peo-ples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Century B.C. (Jerusalem 1998) 292–313.

Sherratt 1999S. Sherratt, E pur si muove. Pots, Markets and Values in the Second Millennium Mediterranean. In: J. P. Crielaard/V. Stissi/G. J. van Wijngaarden (eds.), The Complex Past of Pottery. Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (Sixteenth to Early Fifth Centuries BC) (Amsterdam 1999) 163–211.

Stark 1998M. T. Stark (ed.), The Archaeology of Social Boundaries (Washington/DC 1998).

Thissen 1993L. Thissen, New Insights in Balkan-Anatolian Connections in the Late Chalcolithic. Old Evidence from the Turkish Black Sea Littoral. Anatolian Stud. 43, 1993, 207–237.

Tite et al. 1982M. S. Tite/I. C. Freestone/M. D. Meeks/M. Bimson, The Use of Scanning Electron Microscopy in the Technologi-cal Examination of Ancient Ceramics, In: J. S. Olin/A. D. Franklin (eds.), Archaeological Ceramics (Washington 1982) 109–120.

Ton#eva 1981G. Ton#eva, Un Habitat Lacustre de l‘Âge du Bronze An-cien dans les Environs de la Ville de Varna. Dacia 25, 1981, 41–62.

Trifonov 1994V. A. Trifonov, The Caucasus and the Near East in the Early Bronze Age (Fourth and Third Millennia B.C.). Ox-ford Journal Arch. 13, 1994, 357–360.


Trifonov 2001aV. A. Trifonov, Chto mi znayim o dolmennakh zapadnogo kavkaza i chyemu uchit istoriya ikh izucheniya. In: V. I. Yakovlev (ed.), Dolmennye sovyrimyenniki drevnikh tsivi-lizatsii. Megality zapadnogo kavkaza IV-II tisyachiletii do n. e. (Kransnodar 2001) 20–55.

Trifonov 2001bV. A. Trifonov, Darkveti-Meshokovskaya Kultura, Tretya Kubanskaya Arkheologicheskaya Konferentsia (Krasnodar 2001).

Urban 1996G. Urban, Metaphysical Communities (Austin 1996).

Vagnetti 1999L. Vagnetti, Mycenaean Pottery in the Central Mediter-ranean: Imports and Local Production in their Context, In: J. P. Crielaard/V. Stissi/G. J. van Wijngaarden (eds.), The Complex Past of Pottery: Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (Sixteenth to Early Fifth Centuries BC) (Amsterdam 1999) 137–161.

Vandiver 1988aP. B. Vandiver, The Implications of Variation in Ceramic Technology. The Forming of Neolithic Storage Vessels in China and the Near East. Archaeomat. 2, 1988, 139–174.

Vandiver 1988bP. B. Vandiver, Reconstructing and Interpreting the Tech-nologies of Ancient Ceramics. In: E. V. Sayre et al. (eds.), Materials Issues in Art annd Archaeology (Pittsburgh 1988) 89–102.

Vandiver et al. 1991P. B. Vandiver/W. A. Ellingson/T. K. Robinson/J. J. Lobick F. Séguin, New Applications of X-Radiographic Imaging Technologies for Archaeological Ceramics. Ar-chaeomat. 5, 1991, 185–207.

Wallerstein 1974I. Wallerstein, The Modern World System (New York 1974).

Winter 1977I. J. Winter, Perspective on the „Local Style“ of Hasanlu IVB: A Study in Receptivity. In: L. Levine/T. C. Young (eds.), Mountains and Lowlands. Essays in the Archaeolo-gy of Greater Mesopotamia. Bibl. Mesopotamica (Malibu 1977) 371–386.

Zbenovich 1973V. G. Zbenovich, Chronology and Cultural Relations of the Usatovo Group in the USSR. In: F. Kalousek/V. Budinský-Kri#ka (eds.), Symposium Über die Entstehung und Chro-nologie der Badener Kultur (Bratislava 1973) 513–524.


Pl.

1.

Map

of D

olm

en C

ultu

re s

ites

in th

e N

orth

wes

t Cau

casu

s (f

rom

Tri

fono

v 20

01a)

BL

AC

K S

EA

SE

A O

F A

ZO

V


Pl. 2. 1. Early Bronze Age pottery from site of Kayann bası, Sinop li, Turkey. 2. Early Bronze Age pottery from site of Güllüavlu, Sinop !li, Turkey

1

2

‘Import’, ‘Imitation’ or ‘Communication’? 105

Peter F. Biehl

Abstract

In this article I discuss both theories and methods to approach import and imitation in archaeology. In order to better understand my approach I will use a case study to illustrate my thoughts. I will use the anthropomorphic clay figurines from the Lower Danube and compare them with contemporaneous figurines from the Mycenaean world in order to scrutinize ‘contacts’ between Mycenae and Barbarian Europe during the Late Bronze Age. Here I will not so much offer a detailed analysis of the figurines but rather show how important it is to contextualize each category of material culture one uses to establish so-called ‘influences’ and ‘interaction’ between two contemporaneous but geographical separate regions and culture complexes. At the end of this article I will provide a theoretical and methodological framework for the concepts of imports and imitations which will enable us first to methodologically differentiate between imports and local imitations of foreign material culture, second to theoretically come closer to an understanding of the different causes which lie behind the various processes for importing a foreign artifact and/or imitating it locally, and thirdly to theorize the agency of imports and imitations in short- and long term changes. And finally, I will highlight that the basis of all those processes labeled with various terms such as import, imitation, contact, interaction and influence is communication. I will argue that we have to begin our analyses of import and imitation with the study of communicative acts and the role they played in socio-political and also cognitive-symbolic processes in which people import and/or imitate foreign material culture or customs within their local or regional cultural context.

Резюме

У статті я розглядаю методи та теорії, які використовуються в археології при вивченні імпортів та імітацій. Для кращого розуміння власного підходу я буду наводити випадки дослідженнь, щоб наглядно проілюструвати свої думки. При цьому, я буду використовувати глиняні антропоморфні статуетки з Нижнього Подунав’я і

порівнювати їх зі статуетками мікенського світу для вивчення «контактів» між Мікенами і варварською Європою в період доби пізньої бронзи. Тут я буду намагатися надати не стільки детальний аналіз статуеток, скільки показати, як важливо контекстуалізувати кожну категорію матеріальної культури, щоб використати для встановлення так названих «впливів» і «взаємозв’язків» між двома синхронними, але географічно відокремленими регіонами і культурними комплексами.

Наприкінці цієї статті я запропоную теоретичну та методологічну структуру для концепцій імпортів та імітацій, яка надасть можливість нам, по-перше, методологічно встановити відмінності між імпортами і місцевими імітаціями чужої матеріальної культури; по-друге, теоретично підійти ближче до розуміння різних випадків, які стоять за різними процесами імпортування чужого артефакту і/або його місцевої імітації; по-треттє, розробити теорію сприяння імпортів та імітацій в коротко- та довготривалий періодах змін. Нарешті, я буду показувати, що основою всіх цих процесів, позначених різними термінами, такими, як імпорт, імітація, контакт, взаємозв’язок і вплив є комунікація. Я буду доводити, що ми повинні починати наші дослідження проблеми імпортів та імітацій з вивчення комунікативної діяльності і ролі, яку вони відігравали в соціо-політичних і також пізнавально-символічних процесах, за яких населення імпортувало або/і імітувало чужу матеріальну культуру та звичаї в межах власного місцевого або регіонального культурного контексту.

Introduction

In his highly influential article on the so-called ‘ostentatious graves’ Georg Kossack ascertains that “questions about the distribution of certain artifacts are often answered with the words ‘through trade’, thinking about nothing more than dissemination” (Kossack 1998, 36 f.). He continues to point out that the concept of trade does not advance our understanding of the underlying processes of the many forms of goods-exchange nor does it explain the causes for imports or imitation of foreign customs and material culture. Though the main

‘Import’, ‘Imitation’ or ‘Communication’?Figurines from the Lower Danube and Mycenae

Peter F. Biehl106

objective of his analysis is to scrutinize the role these borrowings played in culture change within the context of their use in ostentatious graves, his observations are a good starting point to tackle the concepts of ‘import’ and ‘imitation’ in archaeology. I will do this on a more general basis, and discuss both theories and methods to approach such ‘foreign’ material culture and customs. In order to better understand my approach to import and imitation in archaeology I will use a case study to illustrate my thoughts. I will use the anthropomorphic clay figurines from the Lower Danube and compare them with contemporaneous figurines from the Mycenaean world in order to scrutinize the well-researched ‘contact’ between Mycenae and Barbarian Europe during the Late Bronze Age. Here I will not so much offer a detailed analysis of the figurines but rather show how important it is to contextualize each category of material culture one uses to establish so-called ‘influences’ and ‘interaction’ between two contemporaneous but geographical separate regions and culture complexes. I will also scrutinize those comparative analyses and the terminology and concepts employed, that is the concept of import and imitation. At the end of this article I will provide a theoretical and methodological framework for the concepts of imports and imitations which will enable us first to methodologically differentiate between imports and local imitations of foreign material culture, second to theoretically come closer to an understanding of the different causes which lie behind the various processes for importing a foreign artifact and/or imitating it locally, and thirdly to theorize the agency of imports and imitations in short- and long term changes. And finally, I will highlight that the basis of all those processes labeled with various terms such as import, imitation, contact, interaction and influence is communication. I will argue that we have to begin our analyses of import and imitation with the study of communicative acts and the role they played in socio-political and also cognitive-symbolic processes in which people import and/or imitate foreign material culture or customs within their local or regional cultural context.

Some definitions

The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1971) defines ‘import’ as “to bring in; to introduce from a foreign or external source or from one use, connexion, or relation into another”; but it also includes “to convey to another, communicate (information)”. Though here the connation of communication and information/knowledge is

included, the traditional definition in archaeology is normally associated with trade and exchange of goods1. In addition to the purely economic definition, Wamser adds that it also can mirror the mobility of people2. Kristiansen and Larsson suggest a more sophisticated definition of import and imitation in their recent excellent study on the ‘The Rise of Bronze Age Society’ (Kristansen/Larsson 2005). They suggest an intercontextual, interpretative strategy, which implies “first, to trace symbols throughout all the contexts were they appear, and second to interpret and reconstruct the meaning and institutional structure of this new intercontextual universe in time and space”. And they point out that “it is only by understanding the social, economic and religious institutions and various forms of integration that we are able to evaluate the nature of interaction between the different societies in the east Mediterranean and central Europe” (ibd. 12 f.). For them “imitation is at the heart of all archaeological classification” and they succinctly discuss import within the context of the ‘contacts’ between the Mycenaean world and Barbarian Europe (ibd. 16 ff.)3. Even if we focus on import and imitation in this article and book, there are still some terms and concepts we need at least to discuss briefly. But since this article is dealing with non-utilitarian and non-technological objects we can skip over the concepts of ‘invention’ and ‘innovation’4 and focus

1 “Der neuzeitlichen Wirtschaftstheorie entlehnte und seit langem in der Archäologie gebräuchliche Begriff ‘Import’ ist nicht auf den reinen Außenhandels-Begriff der ‘Einfuhr’ beschränkt, also den ‘Bezug von Waren und Dienstleistungen aus dem Ausland’; vielmehr bezeichnet man mit ihm allgemein das antiquarisch erschließbare Vorkommen von sächlichem ‘Fremdgut’ in Kulturarealen mit ursprünglich andersartigem Fundgut, wobei deren Bezugsformen vielfältig sein können” (E. Wamser 2000, 364 ff.). See also the definition by Antoniadou: “imports, the material result of a trade/echange transaction between at least two parties, can be either gifts or commodities” (Antoniadou 2005, 66). She further specifies that “imports can be seen as either objects intended by their producers to be traded, or as objects which, although intended for other uses, are ultimately traded” (ibd.). For a detailed discussion of the interconnection between import and imitation from an economical perspective, see Barry/Thrift 2007 and Berg 2002.

2 “Nicht selten spiegelt ‘Fremdgut’ auch Mobilität von Menschen in ihren verschiedensten Ausprägungen wider” (ebd.). See also Hundsbichler’s conception of the bipolarity of ‘Eigenes’ and ‘Fremdes’ (Hundsbichler 2003, 515).

3 See also Kristansen/Larsson fig. 3, p. 14, which summarizes the differences between the structural and typological approach to import and imitation; see also footnote 9, p. 19 with their adjustment of the ‘typological method’.

4 For a detailed discussion on these concepts and their application in Mediterranean case studies, see the edited volume ‘Invention and Innovation’ (Bourriau/Phillips 2004) and here especially Andrew Shortland’s introductory chapter (Shortland 2004). Effectively illustrated with his case study of


more on the processes of ‘cultural transmissions and transformations’ (Clarke 2005). Or more concretely, on the “question of reception” as Jacke Phillips quite aptly entitled her chapter in Clarke’s edited book. She highlights the different factors on which cross-cultural transmission (she defines it as “direct copying (‘imitation’), adoption, adaptation, incorporation, interpretation, or even imposition of an external trait beyond its normal cultural sphere” (Phillips 2005, 39); and we might add import here as well): that is “the nature of the material or iconographic image being transmitted, the actual means of its transmission, and the receptivity to its transmission by the recipient culture itself” (ibd.). She also points out that most of the previous research has rather focused on questions of the ‘what, when, how, where and even who’ of these transmissions rather than to the ‘why and why not’. She furthermore highlights that “whether or not similar iconography or manifestation retains similar associations for the donor and recipient culture and whether or not it is fully understood, re-interpreted or even ‘mis’-interpreted by the latter” (ibd) provides a good starting point for the study of the anthropomorphic figurines at the Lower Danube and Mycenae.

History of research: The Mycenaeans and ‘Barbarian Europe’

When Heinrich Schliemann excavated the Shaft Graves of Circle A at Mycenae in 1876, he found “an enormous quantity of amber beads” in some of the graves (Schliemann 1878). Since amber does not naturally occur in Greece5, he realized that they bespoke far-reaching trade. More than anything else, the amber of Mycenaean Greece has promoted the idea that the Mycenaeans were in contact, perhaps regular contact, with their northern neighbors of Southeast- and Central Europe. Since that time, many other categories of artifacts have been linked with possible Mycenaean

the innovation of glassmaking in the second half of the second millennium, he differentiates three stages of technological change ranging from the discovery to the invention and innovation stage (ibd. 2) and scrutinizes the so-called iffusion of innovation (DOI) theory (ibd. 5), which might work for some cases where technological change is involved but not for ideational or symbolic changes as we can see with the figurines.

5 Anthony Harding has pointed out that “although there were some sources of amber in southern Europe, analysis of Greek, Yugoslav and Italian amber finds has shown that the great majority were of ‘Baltic’ amber, that is, from the sources of northern Europe”; “Particularly in the case of Mycenaean Greece the implications of this movement are highly important” (Harding 2000, 190).

trade (Harding 1984) (fig. 1). Behind this search for links between Mycenae and the rest of Europe two concrete objectives can be seen: First of all, the establishment of the missing link between the historic, absolute chronology in Egypt and Montelius and Reinecke’s relative chronology of Central and Northern Europe. And secondly, the explanation of the ‘civilizing process’ of prehistoric societies in general and the process of the interaction between core and periphery, or in other words between ‘civilized Mycenae’ and ‘barbaric Europe’ in particular. The so-called contact theories are mainly based on the identification of ‘Mycenaean artifacts’ outside Greece and of ‘Non-Mycenaean artifacts’ within Greece6. The problem with this approach is that archaeologists have mostly focused on functional, utilitarian material culture, which could be analyzed and interpreted with common models of specialization, exchange, trade and prestige7. The flaws of these approaches can be seen in the extrapolation and globalization of the finds of exceptional artifacts of supposedly Mycenaean origin which are spread all over the European Continent. They can also be seen in the building of narrative bridges between these finds through the construction of either direct or indirect contact, connection or influence. And the approaches do not answer the vital question of how to reconstruct and understand the nature of these contacts that existed over these vast distances. Until this becomes clearer, we are no closer to decoding the puzzle of the Mycenaean influence during the European Bronze Age. But this article is not about the “rise and fall of Mycenaean civilization”, the trade and exchange of extraordinary prestige goods or the unparalleled richness of the shaft grave princes caused by their organization and exploitation of an international copper exchange network. Rather, it is about communication, the resource lying beneath the processes of trade and interactions between geographically separated societies. But can we analyze, interpret and ultimately reconstruct forms of communication in prehistoric societies without writing? I believe we can.

6 For a detailed overview of the history and development of contact theories see Harding 1984, 4 ff.

7 Most research has focused on pottery, raw materials and metal objects. For the latter, “notably swords, spearheads and knives and also large metal vessels” as Thyrza Smith pointed out in her work on ‘Mycenaean Trade and Interaction in the West Central Mediterranean:1600-1000 BC’ (Smith 1987, 32); see also Portugali/Knapp 1985, 64. For exchange (and specialization), see Brumfield/Earle 1987; Earle/Ericson 1977.

Peter F. Biehl108

In this article I suggest a contextual approach8 to the analysis of communication within and between prehistoric societies. Focusing on communication as a concept and as a given within all kinds of interactions ranging from social and economic to ritual-symbolic interaction may enable us to reconsider the entanglement of material culture (Hodder 2006, 187)9, i.e. “materials acted as agents in social life. As crafted material objects were exchanged, their ‘thingness’ had social effects”. Objects or ‘things’ actively create a connection between the maker of the object and its user. In some cases, the maker might also have been the user, but in other cases, this was probably not true. The maker may have lived in the same village or region as the user, or may have lived in a geographically different culture. Still, wherever the artifact came from or however far it traveled to get to the user, all are connected by the communicative intent of use. The artifacts were not necessarily used in the same way, but all were absorbed into a cultural context. The intent of this article, therefore, is to analyze material culture for indications of communicative interaction between the people of Mycenae and those of the Lower Danube. In the past, most archaeologists have tried to identify whether the exceptional Mycenaean prestige goods found in great numbers across the European continent are of local production, and therefore an imitation, or if they were directly imported, made and traded from Mycenae itself (Kristiansen/Larsson

8 The ‘rediscovery’ and appraisal of context is due to Ian Hodder’s seminal work on so-called ‘contextual archaeology’ (Hodder 1987). But my conception of context differs in a couple of points from Hodder’s definition. I agree with his definition of the context of an archaeological attribute as “the totality of the relevant environment, where ‘relevant’ refers to a significant relationship to the object - that is, a relationship necessary for discerning the object’s meaning” (Hodder 1991, 143; see also Hodder 1982a, 23, 27, 211; 1985, 14; 1987, 4; 1991, 121 ff.; 1999); and also that a context is always “situation specific”. But I disagree with his somehow relativistic statement that context also depends on and varies with the dimensions of variation in similarities and differences being considered, and with the questions being asked. This consequently leads him to the conclusion that “in many areas contextual archaeology can hardly begin until more data have been collected” (Hodder 1991, 146). Elsewhere (Biehl 1999; 2003; 2006) I have argued against Hodder’s assertions that, firstly, ”an object out of context is not readable,” and secondly, that “in prehistoric archaeology, the further one goes back in time, so that the survival rates diminish, the more difficult it becomes to ground hypotheses in data” (Hodder 1991, 146), and have suggested the concept of a ‘structural context’ of an artefact, which gives us the tools to include “artefacts out of context” - which overwhelmingly form the archaeological record – in our analyses. For critical approaches to ‘context’ in archaeology see also Papaconstantinou 2006.

9 See also N. Thomas 1991.

2005, 18)10. The trade of raw materials, luxury goods, weapons and other utilitarian and specialty items has been studied extensively (Harding 1984). Kristiansen and Larsson not only criticize this approach because “it deprives material culture of any symbolic role as a medium of social or ritual meaning, as a transmitter of information” (Kristiansen/Larsson 2005, 18) but more importantly because “the comparative critical analysis was mostly done object by object, as in traditional typological studies, thus prohibiting a contextual and holistic interpretation of the evidence ... and little was left of the contextual framework within which imitations and imports were to be understood; … and consequently the social significance of imitation was rarely recognized or was simply denied” (ibd.). I cannot agree more with their final statement in this debate that “an imitation speaks perhaps even more strongly than an import about the local significance of ‘foreign’ prestige goods, and so does the application of foreign technological skills, as they represent foreign knowledge that is loaded with status” (ibd.). But I also want to point out that what have barely been studied are the non-utilitarian artifacts, such as figurines11. How can we explain the appearance and use of anthropomorphic clay figurines in the Carpathian Basin and the Lower Danube, when these figurines have no parallels but in Mycenae12? For the most part, archaeologists have ignored this whole category of material culture in Bronze Age research by automatically associating figurines with domestic cult and ritual like in the Neolithic and Copper Age13. Analyzed carefully, the figurines of the European Bronze Age do not fit so neatly into such classification and raise some intriguing questions:

10 The authors summarize the basic principles employed by the Renfrew school and also Harding in their study of Mycenaean imports in Bronze Europe as follows: “1. Identify the ‘real’ Mycenaean imports in Europe, which were to be rather few, since criteria for ‘acceptance’ were strict, being limited to full formal identity; 2. To question the Mycenaean origin or impact on those items that imitated or demonstrated similarity to Mycenaean or east Mediterranean objects, a minimal definition of similarity being applied where difference counted the most” (Kristiansen/Larsson 2005, 18).

11 Exceptions are Chicideanu-Sandor/Chicideanu 1990; French 1971; Letica 1973; Kossack 1954; Kovác 1986; Majnarić-Pandzić 1982; Nilsson 1950; Pare 1989; Schumacher-Matthäus 1985.

12 Chicideanu-Sandor/Chicideanu provide the most current and most detailed discussion of the figurines of the lower Danube and their resemblance to the Mycenaean figurines (1990); but see also Harding 2000, 324; Kossack 1954, 11; Kristiansen/Larsson 2005, 146; Lichardus/Vladár 1996, 37 f.; Pare 1989, 84 f.

13 For a discussion of Neolithic and Copper Age figurines see Biehl 2003; Hansen 2007.


First of all, why, after an abrupt disappearance at the end of the Copper Age in most parts of Europe (Biehl 2000, 34, Hansen 2007, 288 ff.), do we have the re-emergence of an old tradition of manufacturing figurines? Secondly, why did some societies revive this tradition, while their neighbors did not? Thirdly, can we connect this revival of anthropomorphic clay figurines in the Lower Danube with the northward spread of the late Mycenaean civilization? And finally, how can we re-construct this process presumably produced by the Mycenaean civilization? Before we approach these basic issues I will first present the geographical, chronological and culture-historical context of this study.

Core and Periphery: the Dilemma of the Chronology

Anthony Harding succinctly summarizes the problems with chronology in Central and Southeast Europe and the Aegean when he writes, “crucial to any discussion of possible links between the Aegean area and the barbarian world is the question of chronology. A prerequisite for the existence of direct links of any sort is that contemporaneousness between events or processes can be demonstrated in the two areas” (Harding 1984, 12). He also points out that the problem lies in the fact that the chronologies used for the two different areas are of radically different types, and their synchronization is still subject of fierce debate (Harding 1984, 12 ff.; David 2002, 3 ff.; Kristiansen/Larsson 2005, 212 ff.).

Fig. 1. Distribution of ‘Mycenaean artefacts’ in Europe during the Bronze Age: pottery (open circles), metalwork (full rectangles), spirally decorated bone and antler (open rectangles) and faience beads (full circles), altered after Harding 1984, fig. 1. Shaded areas: Mycenaean centre (left to right), distribution of the anthropomorphic clay figurines of the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo-Gîrla Mare Cultures in the lower Danube (right to left) - for a detailed map see fig. 2

Peter F. Biehl110

On the one hand we have the absolute chronology of the Aegean Helladic Bronze Age, which is build on the historic chronology of the Egyptian New Kingdom. This chronology is proved by many chronologically determined finds of Egyptian origin in Crete and Mycenaean Greece and, therefore, widely accepted. But on the other hand, we have no independent dating evidence except radiocarbon dates on which to base a judgment. The problem is that the radiocarbon and traditional chronologies for Central- and Southeast Europe are in direct conflict. As a result, the relative chronologies by Reinecke and Montelius and are still widely used in European Bronze Age studies (David 2002, 3; Kristiansen/Larsson 2005, 157; Lichardus/Vladár 1996, 54 f.). However, the main problem with these studies is that the chronologies are either a series of local culture names, or rely on internal divisions quite distinct from those elaborated for Central Europe, or else are attempts at relating one of the systems described to areas for which they were not designed. In a synthesizing analysis Jan Lichardus and Jozef Vladár point out that one of the main problems in understanding the relationship between Mycenae and Europe lies in this distortion of the Central European relative chronology (Lichardus/Vladár 1996).

Therefore, they suggest a comparative chronology, which tries to synchronize not only Central- and Southeast Europe with Mycenae, but also with areas as far as the north- and south Pontic region14. In this paper I follow this chronological synchronization, applying it to answer the questions already raised. I will focus primarily on the Late Tumulus Cultures of the late period of the Middle Bronze Age (Reinecke Bronze Age C) in the Lower Danube Valley and the Carpathian Basin (Cîrna I - Zuto Brdo/Dubovac - Egyek - Piliny - Suciu de Sus) and the contemporary Late Mycenaean civilization (Late Helladic III A). In absolute dates, this study covers the second half of the 15th century and the first half of the 14th century cal BC. To summarize, the significance of the Mycenaean civilization for Central and Southeast Europe becomes noticeable with the Late Helladic IIIA period, when it spreads not only towards Asia Minor, the Near East and Egypt but also northwards to Italy, Macedonia and Central Europe. During the Middle Bronze Age Tumulus culture, we find in

14 For the most recent discussion about the chronological issues involved, see Harding 2000, 9 ff.; Kristiansen/Larsson 2005, 212 ff.; see also Wijngaarden in this volume for the issues with the Mycenaean chronology.

Fig. 2. Distribution map of the anthropomorphic clay figurines of the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo-Gîrla Mare Cultures in the Lower Danube (after Chicideanu-Sandor/Chicideanu 1990, fig. 1, catalogue of sites p. 74-75)


the Carpathian Basin and Lower Danube a culture complex with so-called Spiral-Decorated-Pottery15. In this time period we can observe important changes in the settlements and burial patterns and the emergence of various new elements in the material culture in this region (Lichardus/Vladár 1996, 38-39). These changes can be connected with the earliest Urnfield cultures (Cîrna I - Zuto Brdo/Dubovac - Egyek - Piliny - Suciu de Sus), which show luxury goods and weapons, which most likely originated from Mycenaean Greece (Kristiansen/Larsson 2005, 216). But above all, these societies revive the tradition of manufacturing anthropomorphic clay figurines, which have no parallels in the Carpathian Basin and the Lower Danube.

Anthropomorphic Clay Figurines from the Lower Danube

Elsewhere I have demonstrated that at the end of the Early Copper Age in the second half of the fifth millennium (cal BC) after a climax in quantity and quality of production, the tradition of manufacturing anthropomorphic figurines in clay, bone, stone and marble ebbed away and ceased throughout Central and Southeast Europe at the end of the late Copper Age (Biehl 2000; 2003; 2006, 208)16. Only in the Aegean and - especially in the Cyclades during the Early Bronze Age - did this tradition continue to flourish from the Early Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age (Biehl 2000, 34; Marangou 1992). Another striking point is that with some exceptions, anthropomorphic figurines in Central and Southeast Europe have during the Neolithic and Copper Age mostly been found within the domestic sphere17. In contrast, figurines in the Bronze Age Aegean world were found within settlements and inside graves (French 1971; Marangou 1992). It is important to note that one major characteristic of this new revival in the Lower Danube in the second half of the second millennium BC is

15 Lichardus and Vladár suggest, this can be synchronized with the northpontic cultures Mnogovalikovaja - with the famous hoard of Borodino - and Abasevo with settlement and cemeteries of Sintašta (1996).

16 Most recently Svend Hansen has discussed in detail the end of the anthropomorphic figurines in Southeast Europe in the late Copper Age and identified the Vucedol culture in the mid of the 3rd millennium BC as the end point of this long tradition (Hansen 2007, 274 ff.).

17 The Northwestern Pontic region seems to represent an exception - especially the Hamagia culture and later the Usatovo culture (see Biehl 2003, E-Figure 135-137 – where we find figurines inside burials. For other exceptions, see Marangou 1992, 227 ff.

that these anthropomorphic clay figurines were also found both in domestic and funeral contexts, which makes it from the very beginning obvious that the function of these figurines stands isolated within the figurine tradition of more than 4.000 years in Central and Southeast Europe. The most recent and detailed research of the Urnfield figurines from the Lower Danube has been published by Monica Chicideanu-Sandor and Ion Chicideanu (1990). Their study is based on 172 anthropomorphic clay figurines from 48 sites from both sites of the Danube river (fig. 2). The region in which the figurines occur is circumscribed, and in summary, the figurines come from 16 cremation cemeteries, 10 settlements and 22 from unknown context (Chicideanu-Sandor/Chicideanu 1990, 54). In regard to absolute numbers, “86 figurines (50%) come from graves, 35 (20,34%) from settlements, while information is lacking for 51 pieces (29,66%)” (ibd.) (pl. 1 and 2). The authors describe and illustrate the figurines in detail and assert that “judging from the salient anatomical details all the statuettes represent females with the exception of the items from Dupljaja and Klicevac, the latter being considered a male by the dress” (ibd.) (pl. 3)18. This anthropomorphic figurine has often been used to indicate the relationships between Central Europe and the Aegean world during the Bronze Age19. Referring to Elizabeth French’s excellent classification of the ‘development of Mycenaean terracotta figurines’ (1971) (pl. 4) Christopher Pare notes that “for the shape of the idol is comparable with the ‘Phi’ type of Mycenaean idols. The ‘Phi’ idols, typical for LH IIIA, have bird-like heads, folded arms and conical or trumpet-shaped bases,

18 The same assertion can be found in Pare’s article (1989, 84): ”The wagon itself contains a male pottery idol which is covered with rich engraving, presumably representing an elaborate costume”. Though the sexing of figurines needs a more detailed contextual attribute analysis (see Biehl 2006, 203 f. with further references for a contextual approach to gender and figurines) which would go beyond the scope of this article, it can be stressed that recent studies on Aegean Bronze Age anthropomorphic representations clearly show the importance of dress and clothing regarding gender. There are clear-cut differences between depicting the female and male body (German 2000, 103) and the typical ‘bell-shaped’ costume of the figurine from Dupljaja seems to be similar to the dress of other ‘female’ figurines from the Gîrla Mare culture (see figure 4).

19 See Chicideanu-Sandor/Chicideanu 1990; see also Pare (1989) for further literature. Though Pare’s article does not focus on the anthropomorphic figurines – it discusses succinctly in great detail the relationship between the Aegean and Central Europe during the Bronze Age on the basis of four-wheeled wagons – he points out that its (the idol’s) “special character, combining Middle Bronze Age and novel elements, can perhaps be explained by a relationship with the Aegean world (1989, 84).

Peter F. Biehl112

also encountered on the Dupljaja idol” (Pare 1989, 84)20. He also contextualizes his observation arguing that “a pre-Urnfield date, suggested by its links with the Mycenaean ‘Phi’ idols of LH IIIA, would lend the Dupljaja model a key role in our understanding of the Urnfield symbolic complex” (ibd.)21. But since this paper focuses on indicators for communicative interactions in material culture and not on the analysis and interpretation of function and meaning of Bronze Age figurines, I will give here only a brief summary of form, content and context of anthropomorphic figurines of the Gîrla Mare Culture from the Lower Danube and from Mycenae (pl. 5). To begin with, the making of figurines was based on a system understood by the makers. Body shapes, body position, specific body parts and gestures all hold meaning. Similarly, how a figurine is decorated - that is with elements of clothing, jewelry or symbols - makes a difference. Although the whole concept of these anthropomorphic representations was an abstraction of the human body, we can recognize some elements of clothing and jewelry. For example, the so-called ‘Mycenaean bell-shaped skirt’, which is realistically depicted on many two-dimensional representations in Mycenae can be identified on most of the figurines. Jewelry for example is depicted in form of abstraction on the chest of the figurines and can be found in the form of various bronze necklaces, pendants and ornaments with the dead in the graves22. In both areas the figurines are mostly deposited in the graves, which is one reason why they are so well preserved (pl. 6)23. In the Urnfield cultures of the Lower Danube, the figurines were deposited directly with the cremated ashes inside an urn and covered by another vessel24. The figurines were never burnt with the dead body, but placed afterwards inside the urn along with other vessels and various grave goods25.

20 See also Lichardus and Vladár 1996, 38 for a similar argument.

21 As further evidence for such a link he refers to a Mycenaean sherd of LH IIIA2 from the settlement on the Debelo Brdo near Sarajevo (Pare 1989, 85).

22 Chicideanu-Sandor/Chicideanu 1990, 2 and 22; for a detailed analysis see Schumacher-Matthäus 1985.

23 Though it has to be highlighted that there are also many fragmented figurines (see fig. 8).

24 Chicideanu-Sandor/Chicideanu 1990, Dumitrescu 1961. The fact that many figurines were associated with children’s graves is interesting to note but given the excavation and publication record difficult to interpret (see also Chicideanu-Sandor/Chicideanu 1990, 73).

25 It must be highlighted that there are other grave goods in the Gîrla Mare Culture such as the so-called double-ax ornaments (Chicideanu-Sandor/Chicideanu 1990, 73 with footnote 113 with further references), which have been identified as one of the most typical Mycenaean symbols; see also the Bulgarian cemetery of Orsoja (Harding 1984, 127).

In some instances, the decoration is purely aesthetic. In others, it holds symbolic importance. Within the maker’s world, the individual was not entirely free to create as s/he wished rather s/he had to conform to rules of production. Perhaps the only real freedom a maker had was in the choice of the aesthetic decoration. This decoration can be used as a chronological and regional indicator. Obviously, the figurines from these two widely separated areas show different stylistic characteristics and are embedded in the regional decoration style, which was also used on the ceramic wares (Chicideanu-Sandor/Chicideanu 1990, 73). As a rule, the figurines were not made by specialists, but were made by many different people even in the same village. This explains why, at first glance, the figurines seem to have a great variety of forms and decoration. Different design motifs such as the spiral-motif or sun-motif appear in many variants on the different figurines. This regional or local variability in the representation of the main design-motifs is caused by additional ornamentation - for instance with dots or framing lines - and can be seen as the maker’s relative freedom in the aesthetic decoration of the figurine. But despite this ornamentation, the user could consistently recognize and understand the symbolic content of the central motifs such as a spiral or a sun (see fig. 3, 4 and 8). This variability in the representation of the main motifs, especially if it was seen on figurines from the same village/cemetery and same time period, is an important argument for the thesis that the figurines were made by many people rather than by one specialist who mass produced. This argument for a ‘rule-governed creativity’26 is also strengthened by the disposition of the design motifs. All different design motifs show a certain placement on the different body parts of the figurines. Obviously, it is an indication of a form system with rules of creation to which the maker had to conform. However, it has to be stressed that only a very limited number of motifs, forms and gestures of the Mycenaean figurines can be found on the figurines of the Lower Danube27. Nonetheless, the re-emergence

26 For a detailed discussion on the concept of materiality and agency regarding the role of the individual in the processes of intentional and unintentional action in the production of material culture, see Biehl 2006b; see also Bernbeck 2003, Dobres/Robb 2005.

27 As already pointed out by Pare it is only the ‘Phi’ type, which seems close similarities in the figurines from the Lower Danube (1989, 84; see also Kristiansen/Larsson 2005, 146, footnote 2). It is also important to note that the zoomorphic figurines from Mycenae, which are decorated in a similar


of this old tradition of manufacturing figurines, which ceased some 500 years earlier, cannot be considered an independent development. Above all, chronological analyses indicate that the revival of the production of anthropomorphic clay figurines in the Lower Danube coincides with the well-documented northward spread of the late Mycenaean civilization (Lichardus/Vladár 1996, 38 f.). Therefore, we can assume that the makers and users of the figurines at the Lower Danube imitated the Mycenaean prototypes and used them in different but clearly described way. It is obvious that in both areas there were different form system and most likely different belief systems. But there must be a reason why these figurines were imitated in this remote area and what caused the makers to form the figurines a certain way. Even if we have been able to show close similarities between the figurines from Gîrla Mare and Mycenae28 and that they were most likely imitations we still don’t now why these figurines were made? Following again the detailed analysis Chicideanu-Sandor and Chicideanu (1990, 70) the anthropomorphic figurines of this region can be interpreted as local productions. Nonetheless, the maker did not start without any inspiration or need to do so. The Mycenaean figurines set the model for the maker in the Lower Danube region, who transformed what s/he knew or was told into the local style implementing a relative freedom of aesthetic ornamentation. It has to be assumed that not only the form of the figurines was imparted from Mycenae but also the meaning and function of these representations. They were similarly used as grave goods and they were depicted with shared symbols and gestures.

The Emergence of Communication Systems: The Quest for Copper?

Another question is how can we re-construct this process of imitation of Mycenaean symbolic artifacts? And why did only some societies revive this tradition, while their neighbors did not? One possibility to answer these questions is to look at other categories of these prehistoric societies.Every category of a society - such as economy (e. g.

style as the anthropomorphic figurines (see French 2002, fig. 30) were not made nor used in the Lower Danube region.

28 Again, this is nothing new and has repeatedly been pointed out since the 1940s (Berciu 1939, 131 ff.), see also Harding 1984, 2000, Schumacher-Matthäus 1985, Chicideanu-Sandor and Chicideanu 1990; Lichardus/Vladár 1996; Kristiansen/Larson 2005.

raw materials, trade, exchange, specialization, subsistence, etc.), society (e.g. settlement and burial patterns, household, gender, hierarchy, etc.) and religion (e.g. burials rites, temples, figurative representations, symbols, etc.) holds potential interest, but for our purpose, I will concentrate on only one - that is the raw materials. Anthony Harding pointed out that “since the occurrence [of deposits of minerals like copper and gold] in the Old World is extremely patchy, the movement of such minerals over considerable distances must have been inevitable in late prehistory” (Harding 1984, 43) and consequently that much copper is likely to have been imported during the late Bronze Age (ibd. 46) (fig. 3). The importance of ore for the Mycenaean civilization is highlighted by the fact that ore is mentioned in the Linear B tablets (ibd. 47 ff.). Unfortunately, nothing in the archives indicates where the Mycenaeans acquired the raw materials to produce their precious luxury goods and weapons. Also, how this ‘movement’, or more interestingly, the actual copper mining was organized has not yet been sufficiently studied29. However, the archaeological record indicates that in Cyprus for example, the mining was most likely directly in the hands of Mycenaeans as their settlements there indicate (Harding 1984, 232; Steel 2004, 190 ff.)30. But in copper mines located further away from the center, a local elite may have worked closely with the Mycenaeans. A look at the figurines undermines this thesis. Most interestingly, we find that at concentrations of copper deposits - such as Cyprus or Northern Italy - figurines with striking similarities to those of Mycenaean origin are found31. This leads us to infer that they were probably made by Mycenaeans who settled there to organize and control copper mining and trade. It is important to stress that rich concentrations of copper ore exist in the Lower Danube region, particularly in Rudna Glava in Serbia. This huge copper mine has been known and used regularly since the early Copper Age32. It is located almost in the center of the Urnfield Cultures along the most favorable trade route 29 A way to tackle this problem could be the study of ingots

found in Southeast Europe (see Harding 1984, 49 and fig. 9)30 The importance of the copper from Cyprus starts already in

the Minoan period (Stos-Gale 2001, 195)31 Harding mentions both sites with figurines from Cyprus

(French 1971, 106; Steel 2004, 211) and Italy (Harding 1984, 246). But it has to be noted that the raw materials cannot be the only reason for the occurrence of Mycenaean-like figurines as we can see in the larger number of figurines from the Levante (especially Ugarit) and Anatolia (French 1971, 106; Harding 1984, 232).

32 Lichardus 1991, Lichardus/Vladár 1996, 38; see also Harding 1984, 47.

Peter F. Biehl114

of the Danube river and the rivers Morava/Vardar or Struma/Isker. These river systems were used as a trade and exchange system between Central Europe, Southeast Europe and the Aegean world throughout European prehistory (Lichardus/Vladár 1996, 36 ff.)33. Although, the Lower Danube Region could have been easily reached and probably controlled as well by the Mycenaeans, we have no archaeological evidence for Mycenaean settlements nor pottery, which is normally regarded as a strong indication of trade and exchange systems (Harding 1984, 222)34. Consequently, the nature of the contact between Mycenae and the Gîrla Mare Culture of the Lower Danube is still unclear and beside the so-called Mycenaean design motifs35, the anthropomorphic figurines seem to be the most promising category of material culture to scrutinize such contacts. Again, the fact that they represent non-utilitarian objects undermines the importance of such an analysis.

33 See also Chicideanu-Sandor and Chicideanu 1990, 69 f.34 With the exception of the sherd mentioned by Pare, see

footnote 21.35 Especially the spiraliform designs on bone, antler and metal

objects as well as on pottery such as the so-called Spiral-Decorated-Pottery (see above and Harding 1984, 190 f.).

Conclusions

To summarize, such a deep understanding of symbolic material culture by the maker as well as the user in the Lower Danube Region required a communication system between this peripheral region and the Mycenaean center. The routes of communication have been identified with the river systems. The impulse to communicate has been interpreted as the Mycenaean quest for copper. The result of this communication was not only the acquisition of ore and the exploitation of a society but also the transfer of new symbols and ideas. This newness not only carried prestige, luxury goods and weapons with it, but also brought at least parts of a belief system imitated in the form of the anthropomorphic figurines. It is obvious that these imitations were made in the local design with its existent symbols and iconography and used and adapted to the existent belief system. The local makers and users of the figurines did not follow the strict system of creation, meaning and function of the Mycenaeans or did not know it. The differences overwhelmingly exceed the similarities. For the latter speaks the fact that the use of figurines did not sustain and eventually ends as abruptly as it began. But over the almost two centuries the people

Fig. 3. Distribution map of major deposits of various raw materials indicating the copper- mine of Rudna Glava/Serbia (1) and Aibunar/Bulgaria (2): copper (full rectangles), gold (full circles), tin (full triangles), amber (vertical lines), after Harding 1984, fig. 6


of the Gîrla Mare Culture on the Lower Danube used figurines to ideationally and symbolically connect themselves to mighty Mycenae and to differentiate themselves from the neighboring regions. Imitating Mycenae helped them to create their own identity as well as raising their social status in their local community.

References

Antoniadou 2005S. Antoniadou, The impact of trade on Late Cypriot society: a contextual study of imports from Enkomi. In: J. Clarke (ed.), Archaeological Perspectives on the transmission and transformation of culture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Levant Supplement Ser. 2 (Oxford 2005) 68–77.

Barrett 2001J. C. Barrett, Agency, the Duality of Structure, and the Problem of the Archaeological Record. In: I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeological Theory Today (Cambridge 2001) 141–164.

Barry/Thrift 2007A. Barry/N. Thrift, Gabriel Tarde: imitation, invention and economy. Economy and Society 36/4, 2007, 509–525.

Basler et al. 1983D. Basler et al., Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja IV, Bronzano Doba (Sarajevo 1983).

Berciu 1939D. Berciu, Arheologia preistorica a Olteniei (Craiova 1939).

Berg 2002M. Berg, From Imitation to Invention: Creating Commodities in Eighteenth-Century Britain. The Economic History Review, N.S. 77/1, 2002, 1–30.

Bernbeck 2003R. Bernbeck, Die Vorstellung der Welt als Wille: Zur Identifikation von intentionellem Handeln in archäologischen Kontexten. In: M. K. H. Eggert et al. (eds.), Zwischen Erklären und Verstehen: Beiträge zu den erkenntnistheoretischen Grundlagen archäologischer Interpretation. Tübinger Arch. Taschenbücher 2 (Münster 2003) 201–238.

Biehl 1996P. F. Biehl, Symbolic Communication Systems. Symbols on Anthropomorphic Figurines in Neolithic and Chalcolithic Southeast Europe. Journal European Arch. 4, 1996, 153–176.

Biehl 2000P. F. Biehl, Neue Untersuchungen zur intentionalen Zerstörung frühkupferzeitlicher Menschenstatuetten Bulgariens. In: S. Kadrow (ed.), A Turning of Ages. Im Wandel der Zeiten. Jubilee Book Dedicated to Professor Jan Machnik on his 70th Anniversary. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology Polish Academy of Sciences Krakow Branch (Krakow 2000) 25–45.

Biehl 2003P. F. Biehl, Studien zum Symbolgut der Kupferzeit und des Neolithikums in Südosteuropa. Saarbrücker Beitr. Altkunde. 64 ( Bonn 2003).

Peter F. Biehl116

Biehl 2006aP. F. Biehl, Figurines in Action: Methods and Theories in Figurine Research. In: R. Layton/S. Shennan/P. Stone (eds.), A Future for Archaeology - the Past as the Present. Festschr. Peter Ucko (London 2006) 199–215.

Biehl 2006bP. F. Biehl, Materialität, Variabilität und Individualität kommunikativen Handelns in der Vorgeschichte. In: S. Conrad/R. Einicke/A. Furtwängler/H. Löhr/A. Slawisch (eds.), Pontos Euxeinos. Beiträge zur Archäologie und Geschichte des Antiken Schwarzmeer- und Balkanraumes. Schr. Zentrum Arch. u. Kulturgesch. Schwarzmeerraum 10 (Weissbach 2006) 23–34.

Biehl/Bertemes 2001 P. F. Biehl/F. Bertemes (eds.), The Archaeology of Cult and Religion (Budapest 2001).

Biehl/Gleser 2003P.F. Biehl/R. Gleser, Theorien und Methoden der Stilanalyse. In: M. K. H. Eggert et al. (eds.), Zwischen Erklären und Verstehen: Beiträge zu den erkenntnistheoretischen Grundlagen archäologischer Interpretation. Tübinger Arch. Taschenbücher 2 (Münster 2003) 125–153.

Bourriau/Phillips 2004 J. Bourriau/J. Phillips (eds.), Invention and Innovation. The Social Context of Technological Change 2: Egypt, the Aegean and the Near East, 1650-1150 BC. Proceedings of a conference held at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, 4-6 September 2002 (Oxford 2004).

Brumfield/Earle 1987E. M. Brumfield/T. K. Earle (eds.), Specialization, exchange, and complex societies (Cambridge 1987).

Chicideanu-Sandor/Chicideanu 1990M. Chicideanu-Sandor/I. Chicideanu, Contributions to the study of Gîrla Mare anthropomorphic statuettes. Dacia N.S. 34, 1990, 53–75.

Clarke 2005J. Clarke, Cultural transmissions and transformations. In: J. Clarke (ed.), Archaeological Perspectives on the transmission and transformation of culture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Levant Supplement Ser. 2, (Oxford 2005) 1–8.

David 2002W. David, Studien zu Ornamentik und Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Depotfundgruppe Hajdusamson-Apa-Ighiel-Zajta. Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis XVIII (Alba Iulia 2002).

DeBoer 1990W. R. DeBoer, Interaction, imitation, and communication as expressed in style: the Ucayali experience. In: M. Conkey/C. Hastorf (eds.), The uses of style in archaeology (Cambridge 1990) 82–104.

Dobres/Robb 2005M.-A. Dobres/J. Robb (eds.), ‘Doing’ Agency. Special issue of the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2005,159–255.

Dumitrescu 1961V. Dumitrescu, Necropola de incineraţie din epoca bronzului de la Cîrna (Bucureşti 1961).

Earle/Ericson 1977T. K. Earle/J. E. Ericson (eds.), Exchange Systems in Prehistory (New York 1977).

French 1971E. French, The Development of Mycenaean Terracotta Figurines. Annual British School Athen 66, 1971, 101–187.

French 2002E. French, Mycenae, Agamemnon’s Capital. The Site and its Setting (Stroud 2002).

Furumark 1941A. Furumark, The Mycenaean Pottery. Analysis and Classification (Stockhom 1941).

Gardner 2004A. Gardner (ed.), Agency uncovered: archaeological perspectives on social agency, power and being human (London 2004).

German 2000S. G. German, The Human Form in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. In: A. E. Rautman (ed.), Reading the Body. Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record (Philadelphia 2000) 95-110.

Hachmann 1957R. Hachmann, Die frühe Bronzezeit im westlichen Ostseegebiet und ihre mittel- und südosteuropäischen Beziehungen (Hamburg 1957).

Hänsel 1968B. Hänsel, Beiträge zur Chronologie der mittleren Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken (Bonn 1968).

Hänsel 1976B. Hänsel, Beiträge zur regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der älteren Hallstattzeit an der unteren Donau (Bonn 1976).


Hänsel/Harding 1998B. Hänsel/A. F. Harding (eds.), Towards translating the past. Georg Kossack: selected studies in archaeology: ten essays written from the year 1974 to 1997 (Rahden/Westf 1998).

Hansen 2007S. Hansen, Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit. Untersuchungen zur anthropomorphen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit und Kupferzeit in Südosteuropa. Arch. Eurasien 20 (Mainz 2007).

Harding 1984A. F. Harding, The Mycenaeans and Europe (London 1984).

Harding 2000A. F. Harding, European societies in the Bronze. Cambridge World Arch. (Cambridge 2000).

Hodder 2006I. Hodder, Çatalhöyük. The Leopard’s Tale. Revealing the mysteries of Turkey’s ancient ‘town’ (London 2006).

Hundsbichler 2003H. Hundsbichler, Fremdes deuten. In: U. Veit et al. (eds.), Spuren und Botschaften: Interpretationen materieller Kultur. Tübinger Arch. Taschenbücher 4 (Münster 2003) 515–530.

Kossack 1954G. Kossack, Studien zum Symbolgut der Urnenfelder- und Hallstattzeit Mitteleuropas (Berlin 1954).

Kovác 1986T. Kovác, Ein Beitrag zur Untersuchung der bronzezeitlichen Verbindungen zwischen Südtransdanubien und dem unteren Donaugebiet. Folia Arch. 37, 1986, 93–113.

Kristiansen/Larsson 2005K. Kristiansen/T. B. Larsson, The Rise of Bronze Age Societies. Travels, Transmissions and Transformations (Cambridge 2005).

Letica 1973Z. Letica, Antropomorfne figurine bronzanog doba u Jugoslaviji (Beograd 1973).

Lichardus 1991J. Lichardus (ed.), Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Saarbrücker Beitr. Altertumskunde 55 (Bonn 1991).

Lichardus/Vladar 1996J. Lichardus/J. Vladár, Karpatenbecken - Sintašta - Mykene. Ein Beitrag zur Definition der Bronzezeit als historische Epoche. Slovenská Arch. 44/1, 1996, 25–93.

Majnarić-Pandzić 1982N. Majnarić-Pandzić, O porijeklu srednjebroncano-dobne antropomorfne plastike u jugoslavenskom Podunavlju. Opuscula Arch. 7, 1982, 47–60.

Matthäus 1981H. Matthäus, Spätmykenische und urnenfelderzeitliche Vogelplastik. In: H. Lorenz (ed.), Studien zur Bronzezeit. Festschr. Wilhelm Albert v. Brunn (Mainz 1981) 277–297.

Mithen 1999S. Mithen, Imitation and cultural change: a view from the Stone Age, with specific reference to the manufacture of handaxes. In: H. Oldfield Box/K. R. Gibson (eds.), Mammalian Social Learning: Comparative and Ecological Perspectives (Cambridge 1999) 389–400.

Mitrevski 1998D. Mitrevski, Settlement on the Northern Periphery of the Mycenaean World. In: B. Hänsel (ed.), Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas (Kiel 1998) 449–456.

Nilsson 1950M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion (Lund 1950).

Oxford 1971The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford 1971).

Pare 1989C. Pare, From Dupljaja to Delphi: the ceremonial use of the wagon in later prehistory. Antiquity 63, 1989, 80–100.

Phillips 2005J. Phillips, A question of reception. In: J. Clarke (ed.), Archaeological Perspectives on the transmission and transformation of culture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Levant Supplement Ser. 2 (Oxford 2005) 39–47.

Portugali/Knapp 1985Y. Portugali/A. B. Knapp, Cyprus and the Aegean: A Spatial Analysis of Interaction in the 17th–14th Centuries BC. In: A. B. Knapp/T. Stech (eds.), Prehistoric Production and Exchange. The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. Monogr. XXV Inst. Arch. Univ. California (Los Angeles 1985) 44–69.

Renfrew 2001C. Renfrew, Symbol before Concept: Material Engagement and the Early Development of Society. In: I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeological Theory Today (Cambridge 2001) 122–140.

Robb 1998J. Robb, The Archaeology of Symbols. Annual Review of Anthropology 27, 2001, 329–46.

Peter F. Biehl118

Schliemann 1878H. Schliemann, Mycenae; a narrative of researches and discoveries at Mycenae and Tiryns (London 1878).

Schumacher-Matthäus 1985G. Schumacher-Matthäus, Studien zu bronzezeitlichen Schmucktrachten im Karpatenbecken (Mainz 1985).

Shortland 2004A. Shortland, Hopeful Monsters? Invention and Innovation in the Archaeological Record. In: J. Bourriau/J. Phillips (eds.), Invention and Innovation. The Social Context of Technological Change 2: Egypt, the Aegean and the Near East, 1650–1150 BC. Proceedings of a conference held at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, 4–6 September 2002, (Oxford 2004) 1–11.

Smith 1987T. R. Smith, Mycenaean Trade and Interaction in the West Central Mediterranean:1600-1000 BC. BAR Intern. Ser. 371 (Oxford 1987).

Steel 2004L. Steel, Cyprus before History. From the Earliest Settlers to the End of the Bronze Age (London 2004).

Stos-Gale 2001Z. Stos-Gale, Minoan Foreign Relations and Copper Metallurgy in Protopalatial and Neopalatial Crete. In: A. Shortland (ed.), The Social Context of technological change. Egypt and the Near East, 1650–1550 BC. Proceedings of a conference held at St. Edmund Hall, Oxford 12–14 September 2000 (Oxford 2001) 195–210.

Thomas 1991N. Thomas, Entangled Objects. Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific (Cambridge 1991).

Wamser 2000E. Wamser, Import. RGA2 XV (Berlin 2000) 364–369.


Pl. 1. Anthropomorphic clay figurines from the Lower Danube: 1 - Phi I-Klenovnik type; 2 – Phi II A Ostrovul Mare type; 3 – Phi II B (Cirna variant); 4 – Phi III (Cîrna variant) (after Chicideanu-Sandor/Chicideanu 1990, fig. 3)

Peter F. Biehl120

Pl. 2. Anthropomorphic clay figurines from the Lower Danube: 1-2 – Tau-Dalj type; 3 – Psi-Ostrovul Mare type (after Chicideanu-Sandor/Chicideanu 1990, fig. 5)


Pl. 3. Anthropomorphic clay figurine and the wagon model with a figurine from Dupljaja (after Basler et al. 1983, table LXXXIII)

Peter F. Biehl122

Pl. 4. Anthropomorphic clay figurines from Mycenaean Greece (after French 2002, fig. 29)


Pl. 5. Typology of the Dubovac-Zuto Brdo-Gîrla Mare figurines (A) and the typological and chronological classification of the Mycenaean figurines after French 1971 (B), and after Furumark 1941 (C) (figure after Chicideanu-Sandor/Chicideanu 1990, fig. 2)

Peter F. Biehl124

Pl. 6. Complete and fragmented anthropomorphic clay figurines from the Lower Danube: 1 a-b – Cîrna Nr. 6 grave 71a (height 17,7 cm); 2 a-b – Balta Verde, grave 14 (height 6,2 cm); 3 a-b – Cîrna Nr. 13 (height 14,2 cm); 4 a-b – Cîrna Nr. 14 (height 8,3 cm); 5 a-b – Cîrna Nr. 15 (height 6 cm) (after Schumacher- Matthäus 1985, table 9)

The Relevance of Authenticity. Mycenaean-Type Pottery in the Mediterranean 125

Abstract

In this article, the question is posed whether our modern concerns with the authenticity of objects can be projected into ancient patterns of consumption. The case studied is that of Mycenaean-Greek type pottery dating to the Late Bronze Age that has been found in many areas of the Mediterranean. In Cyprus, Syro-Palestine (the Levant) and Italy Genuine imports and locally made imitations have been found. Analyses of the repertoire of pot shapes, of the spatial distribution and of contexts sheds light on the different roles that Mycenaean authenticity played in consumption patterns in each of these areas.

!"#$%"

& '()((* +,#-./0)1(2'/ 34()55/, 64 %,7" 89(4 '3+,":(,;)5,$ 5)<) '96)'5) #)=*:);."55*'(2 ; )9("5(465,'(* 3+"0%"(*; 5) 0);5* %,0".* '3,74;)55/. & ,'5,;9 0,'.*07"55/ ;#/(4> %*:"5,--+"=2:4> (43 3,'909, /:4> 89; #5)>0"54> ; 8)-)(2,? )+").)? @"+"0#"%5,%,+‘/ * 0)(,;)54> 0,8,$ 3*#52,A 8+,5#4. B) C*3+*, ; @4+*A * D)."'(45* (E";)5(), ; F().*A 89.4 #5)>0"5* '3+);75*> *%3,+(54> 3,'90 () #+,8."5* 5) %*'=* >,-, *%*()=*A. G5).*# )'',+(4%"5(9 H,+% 3,'909, >,-, 3+,'(,+,;,-, +,#3,0*.9 * :,5(":'(9 3+,.4;)1 ';*(., 5) +*#59 +,.2, /:9 ;*0*-+);).) )9("5(465*'(2 %*:"5'2:,A 3+,09:=*A ; %,0"./? '3,74;)55/ 9 :,75,%9 # #)#5)6"54? )+").*;.

Introduction

In the material culture of modern-day western so-ciety, the concept of authenticity is of great impor-tance1. In our continuous dealings with the material world around us, the question of whether a specific item is real or not, is asked frequently. This pre-oc-cupation with authenticity originates in the reactions to thegrowing influence of bourgeois culture in early Modern Europe2. The increased wealth of middle-class consumers enabled them to acquire objects that

1 Spooner 1986, 225 ff. esp.; Lowenthal 1992, 184; Miller, 1995, 24 ff.; Groom 2001a, 2 f.

2 Elias 1969; Berman 1971; Jones 1992.

had previously been reserved for traditional élites. The technical and digital possibilities for mass-pro-duction and imitation in the industrial and post-in-dustrial world have challenged further the restricted use of exclusive goods and services3. The notion of authenticity serves to maintain exclusivity so that commodities may be used by people to materially express themselves in an amorphous modern society: many people may possess an oriental-style carpet, but a distinct few can acquire a true Persian rug.

Such a pre-occupation with the genuiness of things, is visible especially in the arts, its history and the art market4. In modern western society, the aura of an authentic work, revolves around issues of good taste, expert knowledge, social distinction and ‘origi-nality’. In the middle Ages, the copy of an original work of art had its own value and significance. Since the European Renaissance, however, and in particu-lar since the 19th century, copies and forgeries are not considered real art5. Art objects may decrease dramatically in financial worth if proven not to be authentic. The criteria by which authenticity is de-fined, however, are not self-evident. The definitions of authenticity in the arts are continuously being ne-gotiated between experts from the art world, dealers, producers, scholars and purchasers6. Rather than an artistic quality, authenticity is an elusive conceptu-alisation through which art remains a prime medi-um for sumptuary distinction: the Coca-Cola bottle placed in a museum by Marcel Duchamps became an authentic piece of art through this action and through subsequent reactions and discussions in the art world.

The concepts of falsity and authenticity are cultural constructs that vary in time and across cul-tures7. The modern understanding of what is original and what are imitations is valid only in the context of modern, western society. The way in which these notions have relevance for the study of material re-mains from the past is by no means self-evident.

3 Benjamin (1936) 1974; Trilling 1971; Spooner 1986; Lo-wenthal 1992, 187; Smith 2000; Punter 2001.

4 Baudrillard 1981; Mukerji 1983; Bourdieu 1984, 63 ff.; Ke-mal 1999; Groom 2001b.

5 Savage 1963; Jones 1992, 8; Hoving 1996; Hebborn 1997.6 Phillips 1997, 40; Groom 2001b.7 Pastoureau 1988, 23 f.; Groom 2001a.

The Relevance of Authenticity.Mycenaean-Type Pottery in the Mediterranean

Gert J. van Wijngaarden

Gert J. van Wijngaarden126

Authenticity in Archaeology

In archaeology, the notion of authenticity has come to play a major role. Archaeologists employ a whole range of stylistic, technical and chemical techniques to determine the genuiness of objects8. To a large extent such techniques are applied in order to in-vestigate whether an item is really old. In spite of the variety of techniques, a consensus cannot always be reached, as is clear from the famous case of the Getty Kouros, to which a whole conference was de-voted, without a firm conclusion9. In various other cases, forgeries of archaeological artefacts have been exposed, which were meant either for the art market or to claim academic fame10. Many of the stylistic and archaeometric tech-niques used to determine the age of objects are also used for provenance research. The physical charac-teristics of archaeological artefacts sometimes con-nect them irrefutably to specific geographical areas, as in the case of obsidian which in the Mediterra-nean area is found at a limited number of places only and shows clear differences among these11. More problematic are cases in which archaeologi-cal finds are associated with specific archaeological groups or cultures on the basis of previous defini-tions of these groups or cultures. A case in point is the so-called Handmade Burnished Ware which has been found in Mycenaean Greek contexts12. Due to its stylistic and technical differences, this type of pot-tery is considered not to be Mycenaean, even though, at the same time, it is thought to be locally produced in the majority of cases. Obviously, the characteris-tics of this class of artefacts do not meet the defini-tions of Mycenaean authenticity.

Especially in the archaeological research of interaction between different culture groups, it is im-portant to distinguish originals and imitations. The assumption here is that different patterns of interac-tion may have varying archaeological results13. Trade relations would lead to imports of originals and vice versa. Migrations would lead to the large scale local production of foreign-type objects (imitations). And infrequent contacts may lead to distant derivations which are inspired by the originals. In order to iden-tify patterns of interaction, it is important to know

8 For an overview of these techniques, see Aitken 1990, 166 f.; Brothwell/Pollard 2001, 1 ff. See also: Wainwright 1992.

9 Getty Kouros Colloquium 1993. See Walker 1992, for a simi-lar case in the British Museum: the female statue known as Clytie.

10 Muscarella 2000; Brodie/Tubb 2002, 3.11 Renfrew et al. 1965, 225 ff.; Tykot 1996, 42 ff.12 For overviews: see Pilides 1994; Betelli 2002, 117 ff.13 Polanyi 1975, 135; Dalton 1975, 104; Smith 2001.

whether, for example, a vase found outside Greece is truly Greek, or a local imitation.

For archaeologists the notion of authenticity refers not only to age, but in particular to geographi-cal and cultural provenance. Archaeological defini-tions of authenticity are being formed in academic debates and usually include stylistic and archaeomet-ric criteria14. In this article, I explore the question whether such archaeological definitions of authentic-ity had relevance for the societies that we study. In other words: did it matter to the people in Cyprus, the Levant and Italy whether a Mycenaean pot actu-ally came from Greece or was imitated elsewhere?

Mycenaean pottery in the Mediterranean

Beyond the Aegean, Mycenaean-type pots have been found in Anatolia, Cyprus, the Levant, Egypt and in the Central Mediterranean (fig 1)15. The earliest of these can be classified stylistically as Late Hel-ladic I, which is traditionally dated to the 16th cen-tury BC16. The latest Mycenaean vessels stylistically dateto LH IIIC, the period after the collapse of the pala-tial system on the Greek mainland around 1200 BC. The chronological pattern of the distribution of this pottery varies highly for each of these areas. Where-as in the eastern Mediterranean there is a marked peak in the numbers of finds from the Mycenaean palatial period (LH IIIA2-LH IIIB1), in Italy, there are also substantial quantities of vessels from the pre- and post-palatial periods.

The majority of sites beyond the Aegean with Late Helladic pottery have yielded only a few speci-mens. In all areas, however, there are some sites with substantial quantities of Aegean finds, as many as several hundred vessels in some cases17. The corpus

14 Cf. Jones 1986, 15 ff.; Baer 1993, 66; Åström 1998.15 Van Wijngaarden 2002, 9 ff. For particular areas, see: Mee

1978; Özgünel 1997; Niemeier 2003 (for Anatolia); Åström 1972; Pacci 1986; Steel 1998 (for Cyprus); Leonard 1994; Steel 2002 (for the Levant); Hankey 1993; Cline 1994, 31 ff.; Merrillees 1998, 153 (for Egypt); Vagnetti 1999; Marazzi 2003 (for Italy).

16 The absolute chronology of the ceramic styles of the Late Bronze Age Aegean is by no means undisputed; see for ex-ample, Betancourt 1990; 1998; Manning 1990; Warren 1996; 1998; Wiener 1998, 313 ff.; Marketou et al. 2001. Absolute dates given here are only indicative.

17 Examples of sites with more than hundred finds are Deir el-Medina and Tell el-Amarna in Egypt; Ugarit, Minet el-Beida, Sarepta, Amman-airport, Tell Abu Hawam, Megiddo and Lachisch in the Levant; Enkomi, Kition, Hala Sultan Tekke, Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios, Maroni and Kouklia Palaeopa-phos in Cyprus and Scoglio del Tonno, Broglio di Trebisacce, Torre del Mordillo and Lipari in Italy; see Van Wijngaarden 2002, 15 ff., with many refs.


Fig. 1. Distribution of Mycenaean pottery in the Mediterranean

of Mycenaean pottery found outside the Aegean, dif-fers from that found in its area of production. This is especially true of the pottery found in the eastern Mediterranean. One of the most notable differences is that the finds consist almost exclusively of deco-rated fine wares. Almost all Mycenaean vessels are of fine, hard-baked, well-levigated clay, decorated with geometrical and floral designs. A number of pot shapes have been found in large quantities in the east-ern Mediterranean which are comparatively rare in Greece itself18. Examples of these types include shal-low bowls, chalices, angular jugs and zoomorphic rhyta. This distribution pattern of specific Mycenae-an vessel types suggests that a specialised production of pottery for markets in the eastern Mediterranean

18 These pot shapes have been referred to as “Levanto-Hellad-ic”, see Karageorghis 1965, 204 ff.

took place in the Mycenaean world during the LH IIIA2-LH IIIB period19.

Interestingly, the type of vessel found is not limited to ceramic containers20. A substantial part of the ceramic repertoire consists of Mycenaean ta-bleware, such as cups, bowls and jugs, indicating a genuine appreciation at the importing places for the pottery itself. The repertoire of Mycenaean pots is not the same for all sites in the Mediterranean21. In specific areas there are clear preferences for certain Mycenaean types. In the northern Levant, for exam-ple, there is a marked concentration of Mycenaean mugs and rhyta22. Variations are also visible among sites situated close together. For example, at tell Abu Hawam in Israel open pot shapes are more

19 Sherratt 1982, 183; Jones 1986, 599 f.20 Sherratt 1999, 170 f.21 Van Wijngaarden 1999, 7.22 Gilmour 1992, 115.


Fig. 2. Enkomi: plan of Ashlar building, indicating find spots of Mycenaean finds and of Myc- enaean-type bowls

numerous than closed vessels, which contrasts with most other sites in the same area23. Such variations in the frequency of certain vessel types indicate that im-porting societies could exert preferences for specific products, which suggests the possibility of special-ised systems of distribution.

In each of the areas under discussion, the Myc-enaean-type vessels are clearly distinguishable from products of the local pottery industry, suggesting a foreign origin for these products. Nevertheless, in all areas where imported Mycenaean finds occur, there are also products of local or regional manufacture imitating these vessels or incorporating specific ele-

23 Balensi 1980, 485; see also Steel 2002, 32, 44.

ments in their own ceramic repertoire. In Miletus, for example, there is evidence for the manufacture of Mycenaean ceramics from LH IIIA onwards, which is to be considered in relation to the likely presence of a Mycenaean population in the town24. For Egypt, the local production of Aegean-style ceramics seems to have been limited to only a small number of ves-sels25. It is important to realise that such regional products of Mycenaean type could be exchanged and

24 Gödecken 1988, 311; Niemeier 1997, 347; 1998, 30 ff.25 Bell (1982, 150) identified only two imitations of the stir-

rup jar, probably based on LH IIIB prototypes. Additionally, Mycenaean stirrup jars were imitated in stone and faience, see Hankey 1995a, 117, 123.


transported over large distances, as is clear in from Mycenaean–type pottery in the Levant that probably was manufactured in Cyprus26. We cannot exclude the possibility that these ‘imitations’ were transport-ed together alongside Mycenaean originals.

The main question I will pose in this article is whether the origin of Mycenaean vessels was of im-portance for the way they were used and appreciated in antiquity. I will investigate this topic for the three areas which have yielded the majority of Mycenaean finds outside the Aegean: Cyprus, the Levant and Italy.

Cyprus

The island of Cyprus is without any doubts the area outside the Aegean with the most numerous Myc-enaean pottery finds. Almost every Late Bronze Age site on the island yields some Mycenaean-type pots and there are a few sites with hundreds or even thou-sands of Aegean finds, as for example at Enkomi, Kition, Hala Sultan Tekke and Kalavassos - Ayios Dhimitrios27. The systematic introduction of Aegean-type ceramic products in Cyprus began in the begin-ning of the Late Bronze Age: there are small numbers of Late Minoan I and II and Late Helladic I and IIA finds at various sites, notably at Enkomi, at Toumba tou Skourou and at Ayia Irini - Palaikastro28. The quantities of Mycenaean pottery increase dramati-cally during the LH IIIA and LH IIIB periods29. In the period immediately after the fall of these palaces, the quantities of the Mycenaean-type pottery remain very high, but the ceramic repertoire in terms of pot shapes and decoration is much more limited.

The Mycenaean type pots at Cyprus clearly stand out from the native ceramic industry on the island30. The Mycenaean products are of fine wheel-made ware and they are decorated with lustrous paint. In contrast, Cypriot ceramic products continued to be hand-made until very late in the Late Bronze Age. Painted decoration is scarce and, generally, consists of simple Geometric motifs only.

The provenance and area of manufacture of the Mycenaean pottery on Cyprus has been a topic of dis-

26 Leonard et al. 1993, 119; Killebrew 1998, 162; 2000, 12. For a Cyprus-made Mycenaean-type krater in the so-called ‘Rude’ or ‘Pastoral’ style at Eboli in Italy, see Vagnetti 2001, 82.

27 Cadogan 1993, 91 ff.; Sherratt 1998, 296 note 8; 1999, 170.28 For Enkomi, see: Smith 1925, no. 29; Dikaios 1969 230 nos.

27-29. For Toumba tou Skourou, see Vermeule/Wolsky 1978; 1990, 381. For Ayia Irini, see Graziado 1995.

29 Kanta 2003, 32.30 Sherratt 1991, 191 ff.; 1994, 37.

cussion since the late 19th century31. The repertoire of Mycenaean pots on the island differs substantially from that in the Aegean and, indeed, there are sev-eral classes of pots, which occur more frequently in Cyprus than in Greece itself. Examples of this are the large amphoroid kraters decorated with scenes involving chariots or bulls32. They have been found in large numbers in Cyprus, especially in tombs. They also occur in Greece, but in smaller numbers.

Scientific analyses by various methods since the 1940’s have indicated that most of the Mycenaean pottery at Cyprus was imported from the Pelopon-nese33. At the same time, however, it has also be-come clear that Cypriot potters some time during Late Cypriot IIC (c. 1320-1200 BC) began using the potter’s wheel for their products and incorpo-rated part of the Mycenaean repertoire alongside the traditional White Slip and Base Ring Wares34. This has resulted in a number of Cypriot pottery classes of Mycenaean type, such as vessels in the ‘Rude’ or ‘Pastoral’ pictorial style and a variety of bowls (pl. 1). These local products occur side by side with imports from Greece.

We are in a good position to study the use of Mycenaean vessels at the site of Enkomi, which is situated in the north-east of the island and has been substantially excavated since 1896 by British, Swed-ish, French and Cypriot teams35. These excavations have revealed a substantial town which was inhabited during the whole of the Late Bronze Age. Mycenae-an-type pottery is very abundant at Enkomi. It occurs in all excavation areas of the town, both in settlement and in tomb contexts36. The earliest Mycenaean finds date to the very beginning of the Late Bronze Age and they continue to be imported during the whole of the Late Bronze Age.

In settlement levels dating to the later Bronze Age periods (LC IIC-LC IIIA: c. 1325-1190 BC), both Mycenaean imports and local products of

31 Myres/Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, 40; Karageorghis 1965, 201 ff.; 2000; 2000-2001, 91 f.32 Furumark 1941, 431; Vermeule/Karageorghis 1982; Crouwel/

Morris 1985; Steel 1998, 292 ff.; Van Wijngaarden 2001.33 Immerwahr 1945, 555 note 7; Catling/Millet 1965, 212 ff.;

Asaro/Perlman 1973, 221 f.; Catling et al. 1978; Jones 1986, 523 ff.; Bryan et al. 1997. V. Karageorghis (1999, 398 f.; 2000-2001, 92), however, argues for the transportation of Greek clays and craftsmen to Cyprus.

34 Sherratt/Crouwel 1987, 341 f.; Kling 1987; 1989, 80 f.; 2000, 281 f.; Sherratt 1991, 186 ff.; Åström 1998.

35 Murray et al. 1900, 1 ff.; Myres 1945, 70; Gjerstadt et al. 1934, 467 ff.; Schaeffer 1936; 1952; Courtois 1981, 1984; Lagarce/Lagarce 1985; Dikaios 1969; 1971. The site is cur-rently inaccessible due to the military occupation of northern Cyprus by Turkish troops.

36 Van Wijngaarden 2002, 133 ff.


Mycenaean type have been found37. In the so-called Ashlar Building (LC IIIA: c. 1225-1190 BC) both types of pottery were in use, as can be attested from the distribution of such pottery, often only in frag-ments and on the floors of the building. Figure 2 shows the distribution of Mycenaean vessels and of shallow bowls which on visual grounds can be con-sidered as the local type38. Of course, various factors involving deposition and post-deposition probably have had an effect on the final distribution within the house39. Nevertheless, there does not appear a nota-ble difference in this house in the use of Mycenaean originals and imitations.

At Enkomi, the tombs are notable archaeologi-cal features40. They are caves cut into the rock which are situated between the houses. Generally, they have been used for multiple internments, each time involv-ing the deposition of grave goods. In several cases, it is clear that tombs were used for many generations. This long period of use makes it difficult to identify objects that were part of the funerary inventories of particular burial ceremonies. Nevertheless, it is clear that in the periods LC IIC- LC IIIA both imported Mycenaean pictorial kraters, as well as locally pro-duced vessels in the so-called ‘Rude’ or ‘Pastoral’ Style were deposited side by side41. There are no indications whatsoever that these two classes of ce-ramic vessels played different roles in the funerary rituals at Enkomi.

In refuse contexts dating to LC IIC-LC IIIA, Mycenaean pots also occur side-by-side42. It appears that both in daily life as well as in funerary rituals at Enkomi during this period, imitations of Mycenaean pottery were treated exactly the same as imported vessels.

Another site at Cyprus with substantial amounts of Mycenaean pottery is Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitri-os, along the southern coast of the island43. Occupa-tion at the site began early in LC II (c. 1500-1450 BC), as is clear from a number of wealthy tombs. The site was abandoned before the end of LC IIC (c. 1200 BC), that is earlier than Enkomi. Mycenaean-type pottery belonging to the latest stylistic phases (LH IIIC) is lacking. The range of Mycenaean-type

37 Catling et al. 1963, 103 ff.; Asaro/Perlman 1973, 221; Catling et al. 1978, 72, 77.

38 To my knowledge none of these vessels have been subject to scientific determination. See, however, Maier 1985; Kling 1987, 103, 106; Sheratt 1991, 186 for the local provenance for these types of shallow bowls.

39 La Motta/Schiffer 1999, 25.40 For an overview, see Keswani 1989 (with bibliography).41 Keswani 1989, 64 f. tabl. 2.42 For example in pit 202 in Quartier 5E; see Courtois et al.

1986, 57, 61 pl. 16,1-3.43 South 1988; Russell 1989; Goring 1989; South/Russel 1993.

pots at Kalavassos is wide and comprises a number of storage and dinner vessels, as well as large pictorial kraters. There appear to be some Mycenaean-type vessels of local manufacture, but the bulk of the pot-tery is clearly imported from the Aegean.

The spatial distribution of Mycenaean pottery at Kalavassos shows a remarkable pattern44. Small Mycenaean containers are widely distributed in the settlement, while dinner vessels are restricted to one building: building X and its associated tombs. Build-ing X is the largest building at the site, situated in the middle and it may be described as Palace-like45. In the centre of building X, a pit has been discovered, which yielded the remains of a copious dinner as was evident from large quantities of bones and from large numbers of ceramic vessels. About three quarters of the total of these vessels were imported, suggesting that their foreign origin made them special somehow. However, there were also significant numbers of lo-cally produced vessels. Among imports and local ce-ramic products alike, shapes associated with serving, drinking and eating dominated by far. In the case of Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios the function of ceramic vessels, rather than their origin appears to have been of prime importance in the way that they were used and appreciated.

It has been argued that the Mycenaean dinner vessels at Kalavassos were part of a material reper-toire referring to élite practices of ritual dining and drinking46. In this case it is of interest that from the middle of the Late Bronze Age onwards, increasing numbers of Mycenaean dinner vessels appear at many sites all over the island47. These vessels occur togeth-er with other items that refer to élite practices and international trade, such as cylinder seals and ivory objects. Many tombs from the Late Bronze Age at small inland sites on the island contain limited num-bers of Mycenaean vessels, usually kraters, bowls or cups. This suggests that the Mycenaean pots were part of a material repertoire that was used by local élites in the emulation of élite practices in the large coastal centres at Cyprus48.

The adoption by the local ceramic industry of Mycenaean pot shapes primarily relating to dining and drinking, should be interpreted in this regard. These practices had become an integral part of Cyp-riot Culture. The functions of the vessels and the way they could be used in local cultural practices deter-mined their appreciation, not so much their Aegean origin.

44 South/Russel 1993.45 South 1988, 227 f.; South/Russel 1993, 305 f.46 Steel 1998, 291.47 Van Wijngaarden 2002, 192 ff.48 Keswani 1993, 78 f.; Knapp 1996, 20 f.; Steel 1998, 292.


The Levant

In the area of coastal Syria, the Lebanon and Israel/Palestine, Mycenaean-type pottery has been found on some 120 sites49. The distribution pattern clearly shows that such pottery circulated widely, with some sites far away from the sea yielding notable quanti-ties of it, for example Kamid el-Loz in Lebanon50 or Amman airport in Jordan51. As in Cyprus, at the majority of sites only a very limited number of Myc-enaean finds have been made. However, some large coastal sites, notably Ugarit, and Tell Abu Hawam have yielded several hundred of these vessels52.

In general, the repertoire of Mycenaean pots is similar to that in Cyprus, with many vessel types oc-curring frequently in both areas53. However, there are also substantial differences in the distribution pattern of Mycenaean pots between the two areas. Mycenae-an finds dating to the period before LH IIIA are rare in the Levant in comparison with Cyprus, while the earliest Mycenaean finds in the Levant are notably later than on the island LH IIA (c. 1500 BC) rather than LH I (c. 1600 BC)54. Similarly, Mycenaean-type pottery in LH III C style is less abundant in the Le-vant55. Another important difference is that whereas Mycenaean vessels in Cyprus are being found at nearly all Late Bronze Age sites, in the Levant this type of pottery does not often occur at smaller sites and only in low quantities. In general, Mycenaean-type pottery in the Levant is part of an urban, cosmo-politan material repertoire.

Systematic research into the provenance of the Mycenaean type pottery combining chemical, petrografical and morphological criteria has not been conducted for the Levant, but various studies suggest that the vast majority of these vessels were produced in the Aegean56. In fact, local production in the Levant of Mycenaean-type pottery appears to have been quite modest in comparison to Cyprus57. Only at the very end of the Late Bronze Age, in the transitional period to the Iron Age (late 13th – early

49 Stubbings 1951; Hankey 1967; 1993; Leonard 1994; Van Wijngaarden 2002, 33 ff.

50 Adler 1994; Marfoe 1995.51 Hankey 1974; 1995.52 For Ugarit, see Yon et al. 2000 (with many references). For

Tell Abu Hawam, see Balensi 1980.53 Hankey 1967, 145 f.; Gilmour 1992.54 Van Wijngaarden 2002, 261 f.55 Hankey 1967; 146; Leonard 1994; Barako 2000, 514 ff.; Kil-

lebrew 2000, 12.56 Asaro/Perlman 1973, 222 f.; Lambert et al. 1978; Gunneweg

et al. 1986; 1992; French/Tomlinson 2004; Tomlinson, forth-coming.

57 Leonard et al. 1993; Killebrew 1998, 163 ff.; D’Agata et al. 2004.

12th centuries BC) does there appear a limited range of closed Mycenaean-type vessels such as flasks and stirrup jars58. These appear not to have originated in the Aegean, but in a variety of sources in the eastern Mediterranean, among which Cyprus. The occurrence of such vessels at coastal sites such as Tell Nami, and in the interior such as at Beth Shean and Megiddo, suggests that Mycenaean-type pottery from various sources in the Mediterranean circulated in pre-existing exchange networks. It is clear that some of this Mycenaean-type pottery was imported from Cyprus59. Only at a later stage, well into the 12th century BC, does a substantial production of so-called Mycenaean IIIC1b pottery begin in the Le-vant60. The occurrence of this type of pottery, espe-cially bowls, may be related to the influx of various groups of migrants in the area.

Mycenaean-type pottery in LH IIIA and LH IIIB styles (c. 1400-1200 BC) occurs in substan-tial quantities at the majority of the Levantine Late Bronze Age urban sites. In these cities, Mycenae-an pottery appears to have been an integral part of the material culture61. It was used in the daily life of many different social groups in the cities, as is evident from its presence in many different types of settlement contexts. It occurs in small habitationstructures such as those in the Ville Basse at Ugarit, or the small house H in Ashdod62. It has also been found in structures with evidence of industrial activi-ties, such as those in Tell Abu Hawam or in Sarepta63. However, Mycenaean pots have also been reported from palaces and temples in the Levant that are as-sociated with the ruling élites in the region. At these urban sites, the Mycenaean-type vessels are usually associated with objects of local manufacture or with other imports such as Cypriot and Egyptian-type pot-tery. In the urban context, Mycenaean pottery seems to have been a fairly common class of material, with a wide variety of uses (pl. 2).

Mycenaean-type pottery also occurs frequently in funerary contexts in the Levant. In the majority of cases, only a limited number of Mycenaean pots occur in these tombs: one or two stirrup jars or cups that are accompanied by larger quantities of Cypriot

58 Killebrew 1998, 161, 166; 2000, 12.59 Leonard et al. 1993; Killebrew 1998, 162; Tomlinson, forth-

coming, also identifies two fragments of Mycenaean type probably made in Cyprus at Lachisch in Israel.

60 Killebrew 1998, 159 f.; 2000, 13; Barako 2000.61 Van Wijngaarden 2002, 111 ff.62 For Mycenaean finds from the Ville Basse at Ugarit, see Yon

2000, 7 f.; Yon et al. 2000, 29 ff. For house H in Ashdod, see Dothan 1993, 96.

63 For Tel Abu Hawam, see: Balensi 1980, 25 ff. For Sarepta, see Khalifeh 1988; Anderson 1988, 82.


and, especially, local wares64. In several places in various parts of the Levant, we find tombs with ex-traordinary quantities of Mycenaean pottery. Such is the case, for example, in the so-called “Mycenaean tomb” at Tell Dan65 as well as in a tomb at Sarepta in Lebanon66. In each of these cases large numbers of open and closed Mycenaean vessels were discovered, in addition to Mycenaean figurines. These were asso-ciated with local wares, but also with many imports from other areas in the Mediterranean: scarabs and faience amulets from Egypt, stone cylinder seals and ivory boxes from Mesopotamia and pottery from Cy-prus. Obviously, certain groups in the Levantine so-ciety chose to emphasize international relationships in their funerary rituals. It may be of significance that at Ugarit these exceptional tombs are situated not in the vicinity of the royal palace, but in the har-bour town67. Likewise, at Tell es-Saidiyeh, it was not the wealthiest tomb that incorporated large quantities of foreign imports, but one near to it68. These excep-tional, cosmopolitan tombs probably testify to the degree in which items from international trade were part of urban material culture in the Levant.

In the Levant, Mycenaean pottery functioned as part of the cosmopolitan urban material culture, in daily life as well as in funerary practices. In both types of contexts the Mycenaean imports usually occurred in association with imports from other ar-eas. In this respect, it may be of significance that at the very end of the Late Bronze Age Mycenaean type pots are being imported from several sources in the eastern Mediterranean, amongst which is Cyprus. This suggests that the Mycenaean origin of these vas-es was not important for their use and appreciation in the Levantine cities. Perhaps, they were regarded simply as international goods from far away and as such suitable for the material expression of the urban middle classes. They probably did not serve as mark-ers for the Aegean world and culture.

Italy

In the Central Mediterranean, Aegean-type pottery has been found at more than 70 sites on the Ital-ian Mainland, Sicily, Sardinia and the Aeolian is-lands69. It also occurs in Malta and sporadic finds have been made in Spain. The distribution pattern of Mycenaean pottery in this area can be divided into

64 Van Wijngaarden 2002, 122.65 Biran 1994, 111 ff.66 Baramki 1958.67 Van Wijngaarden 2002, 70; 124.68 Pritchard 1980, 28 ff.69 Vagnetti, 1999; 137 ff.; Betelli 2002; 19 ff.; Marazzi 2003.

three distinct chronological phases: an early phase contemporary with LH I and LH II (c. 1600-1400 BC), a second phase coinciding roughly with the ex-istence of the Mycenaean palaces during LH IIIA and LH IIIB (1400-1200 BC) and a later phase af-ter the fall of those palaces in LH IIIB2-LH IIIC (c. 1350-1100 BC). Each of these chronological phas-es shows clear geographical shifts within the general distribution pattern.

Very helpful for the purposes of this article is the extensive programme of provenance research that has been conducted for the Mycenaean-type pot-tery in Italy70. It has become clear that a substantial part of the Mycenaean-type pottery in Italy has been manufactured locally. Such local production of this type of pottery began already in the first phase of the Mycenaean pots in Italy, as is evident from finds at Torre Mordillo and from the locally produced wheel-made coarse ware in Vivara71. Local production of Aegean-type pottery was particularly extensive in the Late and Final Bronze Ages (c. 1300-900 BC), dur-ing which the majority of these pots, at least at some sites, were of local manufacture. Local products of Mycenaean-type also circulated regionally as is clear from vessels found in Latium and the Veneto that ap-pear to have a south Italian origin72.

During the early phase of Mycenaean con-tacts with Italy, there are some twenty sites with this type of pottery, with concentrations of this pottery at the island of Vivara near the coast of Naples73, at the Aeolian islands74, and in southern Sicily75. The Aegean-type pottery that is present in Italy during this phase includes wares of various traditions within the Aegean: fine lustrous wheel-made wares, but also several types of matt-painted wares and some coarseware76. Even though there is evidence for local production in Italy of Mycenaean-type pottery dur-ing the period, the majority of these classes appear to have been made within the Aegean77. The vari-ous Mycenaean-type wares probably reflect contacts with different areas within Greece, where different regional pottery traditions existed during the early stages of the Late Bronze Age78.70 Vagnetti/Jones 1988; Jones/Vagnetti 1991; 1992; Jones, et al.

1994; Vagnetti 1999; Jones 2001; Jones et al. 200171 For Torre Mordillo, see Jones 2001, 333 ff.; For Vivara, see:

Jones/Vagnetti 1991, 131.72 Vagnetti/Jones 1993, 211 ff.; Angle 2003, 116 f.; Jones et al.

2001, 254 ff.73 Re 1993; Marazzi/Tusa 1994, 25 ff.; Marazzi/Mocchegiani-

Carpano 1998.74 Marazzi/Tusa 1994, 28 f.; Vagnetti 1999, 138 f.; Van Wijn-

gaarden 2002, 249 ff.75 Castellana 1999, 433 ff.; 2000.76 Van Wijngaarden 2002, 249 f.77 Jones/Vagnetti 1991, 131. 78 Marazzi/Tusa 1994, 30 f.; Dietz 1991, 300 ff.


It is interesting to note that sites vary substan-tially with regard to the internal frequency of these Aegean wares. At the island of Vivara and the is-land of Filicudi, for example, there are relatively large numbers of coarse and matt-painted wares79. In smaller numbers, Aegean matt-painted pottery is also widely scattered along the Apulian coast80. At Lipari, however, Mycenaean lustrous ware domi-nates. At all sites both dinner and storage vessels are part of the repertoire of imported pots. Such a pat-tern is easiest to explain by assuming that different sites were able to exert preferences for pottery from specific areas within Greece. This indicates that the origin of the Mycenaean-type vessels was indeed of importance in this period.

The distribution of Mycenaean finds within a settlement, can for this period be investigated at the site of Capo Graziano on Lipari. This site was excavated from 1950 to 1966, with additional cam-paigns in the 1970’s and 1980’s81. These excavations revealed a substantial Bronze Age settlement that was occupied continuously from some time in the Early Bronze Age (c. 2000-1400 BC) until the Early Iron Age (c. 850 BC). The Mycenaean-type pottery be-longing to the earliest strata at the site, encompasses a range of open and closed vessel types, with a clear majority of dinner vessels82. Apart from true Myce-naean lustrous ware, there is also some monochrome and matt-painted pottery.

The spatial distribution of the Mycenaean-type finds within the Capo Graziano settlement shows con-centrations at a few buildings (fig. 3). Of particular interest are the concentrations at two buildings (I III and I V) that are situated adjacent to a large and ex-ceptional structure (I V), which showed evidence for cultic activities. These concentrations of Mycenaean-type pottery include various functional types, includ-ing dinner, serving and storage vessels. Even allow-ing for insufficient excavation data, it is clear that Mycenaean pottery as a whole was unequally distrib-uted among the population of Lipari. Concentrations of a diverse range of Mycenaean pots at particular structures dating to this early period have also been noted at Filicudi83, Vivara84, and Monte Grande85. It appears that not the function of the Mycenaean pots, but primarily their origin determined the restriction to specific groups within the early Italic societies.

79 Re 1993; Marazzi/Tusa 1994, 225 ff.80 Van Wijngaarden 2002, 256; Radina 2003, 121 f.81 Bernabò-Brea/Cavalier 1976; 1980.82 Van Wijngaarden 2002, 214.83 Vagnetti 1991, 285.84 Marazzi/Tusa 1994, 119.85 Castellana 1993-1994, 737-741.

In the period immediately after the fall of the Mycenaean palaces (LH IIIB2-LH IIIC c. 1350-1100 BC), Mycenaean pottery occurs at some 45 sites with concentrations in Apulia, Sardinia and even northeastern Italy86. The majority of these pots were manufactured in Italy, as has become clear from the extensive programme of provenance research that has been carried on this type of material. The result is a wide range of Mycenaean-type pottery during this phase: true Mycenaean imports, imitations of Myc-enaean pots, but also various classes of derivations: wheel-made grey ware; hand-made impasto with Mycenaean elements, dolia cordonati (pl. 3)87.

At Broglio di Trebisacce, which has been exca-vated since 197988, hundreds of Mycenaean-type pots have been found, of which only a very small minority appears to have been imported from the Aegean89. A clear concentration of Aegean-type finds can be seen at the central habitation building (complesso del monte), which probably is to be associated with some sort of central authority90. Having said this, it should also be noted that there is no difference in this pattern between the true imports and the Mycenaean imitations. Apart from three Aegean imports, numer-ous imitations were found in association with this building, as well as locally produced, wheel-made grey ware. Apparently, the appreciation for wheel-made pottery of Aegean and non-Aegean origin was similar at Broglio.

The complesso del monte at Broglio di Trebi-sacce yielded a particular high number of Mycenaean-type dinner vessels, indicating that a differentiation was made according to function rather than origin.

At the contemporary site of Termitito, in the modern province of Basilicata, a large quantity of Mycenaean pottery has also been found91. Much of this material came from a large silo, which yielded more Mycenaean dinner vessels than storage pottery. A large number of open vessels of local manufacture has also been found and the pit contained seeds and other evidence for food storage or consumption. Else-where on the site, a smaller silo yielded Mycenaean pottery of similar type. The fact that a relatively large proportion of Mycenaean dinner vessels was found in these structures indicates that such vessels had a

86 Vagnetti 1999, map 5; Betelli, Levi/Vagnetti 2001/2002, 66 ff.; Betelli 2002, 19-32.

87 Betelli 2002, 43 ff.88 Bergonzi/Cardarelli 1982; Peroni 1982; Peroni 1984; Peroni/

Trucco 1994. See, also, the other articles in the same vol-umes. Peroni/Vanzetti 1993; 1998; Betelli et al. 1998.

89 Vagnetti/Panichelli 1994, 407; Betelli 2002, 165 ff. From the more than 300 Mycenaean-type fragments found in the exca-vations from 1978-1985, only twelve proved to be imports.

90 Van Wijngaarden 2002, 239 ff.91 De Siena/Bianco 1982; De Siena 1986.


Fig. 3. Distibution of Mycenaean finds in the Capo Graziano settlement on Lipari


special significance in practices of dining. The em-phasis in the Mycenaean-type pottery on practices of drinking and dining suggests consumptive strategies of élite groups92. The main criterion for the use and appreciation of this type of pottery, appears to have been not their origin, but in particular the way in which they could function in such local consumptive practices.

Conclusions

Without systematic diachronic research programmes in which the contexts of known Mycenaean imports are compared with those of Aegean-type pots of cer-tain local manufacture, any conclusion of this explor-atory article is necessarily indicative. In pre-modern societies, objects retained cultural associations that refer to their origins and the circumstances of acqui-sition93. The exotic nature of imports may become part of their identity and this aspect may, to a smaller or larger extent, determine the way they are used, appreciated and discarded.

In each of the three areas which have been dealt with here, the Mycenaean origin of the ceramic vessels under discussion appears to have influenced their role in local cultural contexts. However, the way in which this was the case and the interrelation of the imported nature with other characteristics differed in all three areas. In Cyprus, it appears that the use of Mycenaean-type vessels in Cypriot social practices made them part of Cypriot Culture to the point that the origin of the pots was no longer relevant. In con-trast, in the Levant, the exotic character of Myce-naean-type ceramic vessels appears to have been of

92 For example Voutsaki 1997.93 Appadurai 1986, 44; Humphrey/Hugh-Jones 1992, 3; Strath-

ern 1992, 185.

importance, but it remains to be established whether it mattered if they came from Greece, or simply from ‘overseas’. In Italy, finally, we can distinguish a proc-ess where the imported nature of the Mycenaean pots, diminishes in importance in favour of their function. Obviously, the relevance of Mycenaean authenticity varied highly in time and place.

Both in Cyprus and in Italy, the local potting industry incorporated Mycenaean forms. To some de-gree, this resulted in hybrid ceramic forms in which different traditions were combined94. In both areas, however, classes of pottery developed which were clearly distinguishable from the local potting indus-try and, indeed, Aegean-like, to the point of being imitative. This suggests that changes in the definitions ccur with regard to Mycenaean pottery in these areas. Rather than on geographical provenience, the concept of authenticity appears to have been based on references to Mycenaean Culture through morphological and stylistic resemblances. The possi-ble presence of travelling craftsmen may have added to the diminishing importance of geographical ori-gin95. In any case, it is clear that authenticity is not an inherent quality of an object, but a cultural con-ceptualisation based on a varying set of definitions.

Archaeological classifications are generally tied to modern research questions. Whether archaeo-logical remains are considered as evidence for ex-ternal influences or as incentives for autochthonous development has important consequences for the in-terpretations of cultural groups96. The relevance of a concept such as authenticity for past societies is not self–evident, however. Modern definitions of authen-ticity cannot automatically be applied in the past.

94 For Cyprus, see Kling 1987; 1991; 2000; Sherratt 1991; Åström 1998. For Italy, see Vagnetti 1999; Betelli 2002.

95 On travelling potters at the end of the Late Bronze Age, see Peroni 1983, 258; Papadopoulos 1997; Vagnetti 1999, 148.

96 Smith 2001.


References

Adler 1994W. Adler, Kamid el-Loz 11. Das ‘Schatzhaus’ im Palast-bereich. Die Befunde des Königsgrabes. SBA 47 (Bonn 1994).

Aitken 1990M. J. Aitken, Science-based dating in archaeology (New York 1990).

Anderson 1988W. P. Anderson, Sarepta I. The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of area II/Y (Beyrouth 1988).

Angle 2003M. Angle, “Gifts offered in reciprocation…”. At the dawn of the myth. The mycenaeansin latium. In: N. Stampolidos (ed.), Sea routes from Sidon to Huelva. Interconnections in the Mediterranean 16th – 6th BC (Athens 2003) 116–119.

Appadurai 1986A. Appadurai, Introduction: commodities and the politics of value. In: A. Appadurai (ed.), The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective (Cambridge 1986) 3–63.

Asaro/Perlman 1973F. Asaro/I. Perlman, Provenience studies of mycenaean pottery employing neutron activation analysis. The Myc-enaeans in the eastern Mediterranean (Nicosia 1973) 215–224.

Åström 1972L. Åström, The late cypriot Bronze Age. Other arts and crafts. SCE IV/ID (Lund 1972) 473–622.

Åström 1972P. Åström, Ceramics: Influences East and West, In: E. Cline/D. Harris-Cline (eds.), The Aegean and the orient in the second millennium. AEGEUM 18 (Liège 1998) 257–263.

Baer 1993N. S. Baer, The role of scientifc evidence in archaeologi-cal inquiry the getty kouros. The getty kouros colloquium (Athens 1993) 65–66.

Balensi 1980J. Balensi, Les fouilles de R. W. Hamilton à Tell Abu Hawam effectuées en 1932-1933 pour la compte du Dépar-tement des Antiquités de la Palestine sous mandat Brit-tanique. Niveaux IV et V. Dossier sur l’histoire d’un port Méditerranéen durant les ages du Bronze et de Fer. Unpub-lished Ph D thesis (Strassbourg 1980).

Barako 2000T. J. Barako, The Philistine settlement as mercantile phe-nomenon? Am. Journal Arch. 104, 2000, 513–530.

Baramki 1958D. C. Baramki, A Late Bronze Age tomb at Sarafend, ancient Sarepta. Berytus 12, 1958, 129–142.

Baudrillard 1981J. Baudrillard, For a critique of the political economy of the sign (St. Louis 1981).

Bell 1982M. R. Bell, Preliminary report on the Mycenaean pottery from Deir el-Medina, Ann. Serv. Arch. Égypte 68, 1981, 143–163.

Benjamin 1974W. Benjamin, Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner tech-nischen Reproduzierbarkeit. In: T. W. Adorno/G. Scholem (eds.), Gesammelte Schriften I (Frankfurt/Main 1974) 471–508.

Bergonzi/Cardarelli 1982G. Bergonzi/A. Cardarelli, L’abitato di Broglio: topografia ed ambiente. Ricerche sulla protostoria della Sibaritide 1, Cahiers du Centre Jean Bérard VII (Naples 1982) 35–41.

Berman 1971M. Berman, The politics of authenticity. Radical indi-vidualism and the emergence of modern society (London 1971).

Bernabò-Brea/Cavalier 1976L. Bernabò-Brea/M. Cavalier, Il castello di Lipari e il mu-seo archeologico eoliano (Palermo 1976).

Bernabò-Brea/Cavalier 1980L. Bernabò-Brea/M. Cavalier, Meligunìs-Lipàra IV. L’acropoli di Lipari nella preistoria (Palermo 1980).

Betancourt 1990P. P. Betancourt, High chronology or low chronology. The archaeological evidence. In: D. A. Hardy/A. C. Renfrew (eds.), Thera and the Aegean world III (London 1990) 19–23.

Betancourt 1998P. Betancourt, The Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age. Unanswered questions. In: M. S. Balmuth/R. H. Tykot (eds.), Sardinian and aegean chronology. Towards the resolution of relative and absolute dating in the Mediterra-nean. Stud. Sardinian Arch. 5 (Oxford 1998) 291–296.

Betelli 1998M. Betelli, Broglio di Trebisacce. In: L. Orago Toccoli (ed.), Scavi e ricerche archeologiche dell’Universitá di Roma ‘La Sapienza’ (Roma 1998) 193–251.

Betelli 2002M. Betelli, Italia meriodonale e mondo miceneo. Ricerche su dinamiche di acculturazione e aspetti archeologici, con particolare riferimento ai versanti adriatico e ionico della penisola italiana (Firenze 2002).

Betelli et al. 2001-2002M. Betelli/S. T. Levi/L. Vagnetti, Chronologia, topografia e funcione dei siti con testimonianze micenee in Italia me-riodonale, Antiqua 10/11, 2001-2002, 65–95.

Biran 1994A. Biran, Biblical Dan (Jerusalem 1994).


Bourdieu 1984P. Bourdieu, Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judge-ment of Taste (Cambridge 1984).

Brodie/Tubb 2002N. Brodie/K. W. Tubb, Introduction. In: N. Brodie/K. W. Tubb (eds.), Illicit Antiquities. The theft of Culture and the extinction of Archaeology (London/New York 2002) 3–7.

Brothwell/Pollard 2001D. R. Brothwell/A. M. Pollard, Handbook of archaeologi-cal sciences (Chichester 2001).

Bryan et al. 1997N. D. Bryan/E. B. French/S. M. A. Hoffman/V. J. Robin-son, Pottery sources in Bronze Age Cyprus. A provenance study by neutron activation. Rep. Dep. Ant. Cyprus, 1997, 31–64.

Cadogan 1993G. Cadogan, Cyprus, Mycenaean pottery, trade and colo-nisation. In: C. Zerner/P. Zerner/J. Winder (eds.), Wace and Blegen. Pottery as evidence for trade in the Aegean Bronze Age (Amsterdam 1993) 91–99.

Castellana 1993/1994G. Castellana, Notizia preliminare sui recenti rintrova-menti di materiali egeo-micenei nel territorio agrigentino. Kokalos 39/40, 1993/1994, 48–57.

Castellana 1999G. Castellana, La produzione dello zolfo nel santuario cas-telluciano di Monet Grande e I contatti con il mondo egeo-levantino. In: V. La Rosa/D. Palermo/L. Vagnetti (eds.), JKì KLMNOM KPQRLSTMOU. Simposio italiano di studi Egei (Roma 1999) 423–438.

Castellana 2000G. Castellana, La cultura del Medio Bronzo nell’Agrigentino ed I rapport con il mondo miceneo (Agrigento 2000).

Catling/Millett 1965H. W. Catling/A. Millett, A study in the composition pat-terns of Mycenaean pictorial pottery from Cyprus, Ann. British School Athens 60, 1965, 212–224.

Catling et al. 1963H. W. Catling/E. E. Richards/A. E. Blin-Stoyle, Correla-tions between composition and provenance of Mycenaean and Minoan pottery. Ann. British School Athens 58, 1963, 94–115.

Catling et al. 1978H. W. Catling/R. Jones/A. Millett, Composition and prov-enance problems of some Late Bronze Age pottery found in Cyprus. Rep. Dep. Ant. Cyprus, 1978, 70–90.

Cline 1994E. H. Cline, Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea. International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean, BAR Intern. Ser. 591 (Oxford 1994).

Courtois 1981J. C. Courtois, Alasia II. Les tombes d’Enkomi. Le mo-bilier funéraire (Paris 1981).

Courtois 1984J. C. Courtois, Alasia III. Les objets des niveaux stratifiée d’Enkomi. Fouilles C. F. A. Schaeffer (1947-1970) (Paris 1984).

Courtois et al. 1986J. C. Courtois/J. Lagarce/E. Lagarce, Enkomi et le Bronze Récent à Chypre (Nicosia 1986).

Crouwel/Morris 1985J. H. Crouwel/C. E. Morris, Mycenaean pictorial pottery from Tell Atchana (Alalakh). Ann. British School Athens 80, 1985, 85–98.

D’Agata et al. 2005A. D’Agata/Y. Goren/H. Mommsen/A. Schwedt/A. Yas-ur-landau, Imported pottery of LH IIIC-style from Israel. Style, provenance and chronology. In: R. Laffineur/E. Greco (eds.), Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean, AEGEUM 10 (Liège 2005) 371–380.

Dalton 1975G. Dalton, Karl Polanyi’s analysis of long-distance trade and his wider paradigm, In: J. A. Sabloff/C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (eds.), Ancient civilisation and trade (Albuquerque 1975) 63–132.

De Siena 1986A. De Siena, Termititio. In: M. Marazzi/S. Tusa/L. Va-gnetti (eds.), Traffici micenei nel Mediterraneo (Taranto 1986) 41–48.

De Siena/Bianco 1982A. De Siena/S. Bianco, Termititio (Montalbano Ionico, Matera). In: L. Vagnetti (ed.), Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo. Nuovi Documenti (Taranto 1982) 69–94.

Dietz 1991S. Dietz, The Argolid at the transition to the mycenaean age (Copenhagen 1991).

Dikais 1969P. Dikaios, Enkomi. Excavations 1948-1958. Vol. 1 (Mainz 1969).

Dikaios 1971P. Dikaios, Enkomi. Excavations 1948-1958. Vol. II (Mainz 1971).

Dothan 1993M. Dothan, Ashdod, New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 1 (Jerusalem 1993) 93–102.

Elias 1969N. Elias, Über den Prozess der Zivilisation. Sozio-genetische und psychogenetische Untersuchungen (Bern 1969).

French/Tomlinson 2004E. French/J. Tomlinson, Investigating the provenance of some Aegean-type potsherds in the Near east: results from Neutron Activation Analysis. In: J. Balensi/J.-Y. Mon-chambert/S. Müller-Celka (eds.), La céramique mycéni-enne de l’Égée au Levant – Hommage à Vronwy Hankey, Traveaux de la maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée (Lyon 2004) 18–25.


Furumark 1941A. Furumark, The Mycenaean pottery. Analysis and clas-sification (Stockholm 1941).

Getty Kouros Colloquium 1993, Athens.

Gilmour 1992G. Gilmour, Mycenaean IIIA and IIIB pottery in the Le-vant and Cyprus. Rep. Dep. Antiquities Cyprus, 1992, 113–128.

Gjerstad et al. 1934E. Gjerstad/J. Lindres/E. Sjöqvist/A. Westholm, The swedish Cyprus expedition. Finds and results of the exca-vations in Cyprus 1927-1931. Vol. I (Stockholm 1934).

Gödecken 1988K. B. Gödecken, A contribution to the early history of Miletus. The settlement in mycenaean times and its con-nections overseas. In: E. B. French/K. A. Wardle (eds.), Problems in greek prehistory (Bristol 1988) 307–318.

Graziado 1995G. Graziado, Egina, Rodi e Cipro. Rapporti inter-insulari agli inizi del tardo bronzo? Stud. Micenei Egeo-Anatolici 36, 1995, 7–27.

Goring 1989E. Goring, Death in everyday life. Aspects of of burial practice in the Late Bronze Age. In: E. Peltenburg (ed.), Early society in Cyprus (Edinburgh 1989) 95–105.

Groom 2001aN. Groom, Foreword. In: N. Groom (ed.), Authenticity. Critical Quarterly 43/2 (Oxford 2001) 2–3.

Groom 2001bN. Groom, Original copies, counterfeit forgeries. In: N. Groom (ed.), Authenticity. Critical Quarterly 43/2 (Oxford 2001) 6–18.

Grunnewg et al. 1986J. Gunneweg/T. Dothan/I. Perlman/S. Gitin, On the origin of pottery of tell Mikre-Ekron. Bullet. American School Oriental Res. 264, 1986, 3–16.

Grunneweg et al. 1992J. Gunneweg/F. Asaro/H. V. Michel/I. Perlman, On the origin of a Mycenaean IIIA chariot krater and other related Mycenaean pottery from tomb 387 at Laish/Dan. Eretz Israel 23, 1992, 54–63.

Hankey 1967V. Hankey, Mycenaean pottery in the Middle East. Notes on finds since 1951. Ann. British School Athens 62, 1967, 107–147.

Hankey 1974V. Hankey, A Late Bronze Age temple at Amman 1. The Aegean pottery. Levant 6, 1974, 131–178.

Hankey 1993V. Hankey, Pottery as evidence for trade. Egypt. In: C. Zerner/P. Zerner/J. Winder (eds.), Wace and Blegen. Pot-tery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age (Am-sterdam 1993) 109–115.

Hankey 1995V. Hankey, A Late Bronze Age temple at Amman Airport. Small finds and pottery discovered in 1955. In: S. Bourke/J. P. Descoedres (eds.), Trade, contact and the movement of peoples in the eastern Mediterranean. Studies in honour of Basil Hennessy. Mediterranean Arch. Suppl. 3 (Sydney 1995) 169–185.

Hebborn 1997E. Hebborn, The art forger’s handbook (Woodstock 1997).

Hoving 1996T. Hoving, False impressions. The hunt for bigtime art fakes (New York 1996).

Humphrey/Hugh-Jones 1992C. Humphrey/S. Hugh-Jones, Barter, exchange and value. In: C. Humphrey/S. Hugh-Jones (eds.), Barter, exchange and value. An anthropological approach (Cambridge 1992) 1–20.

Immerwahr 1945 S. A. Immerwahr, Three Mycenaean vases from Cyprus in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Am. Journal Arch. 49, 1945, 534–556.

Jones 1992M. Jones, Do fakes matter? In: M. Jones (ed.), Why fakes matter. Essays on problems of authenticity (London 1992) 7–10.

Jones 1986R. E. Jones, Greek and Cypriot pottery. A review of scien-tific studies (Athens 1986).

Jones 2001R. E. Jones, A provenance study of the Aegean-type and other pottery by chemical analysis. In: F. Trucco/L. Vag-netti (eds.), Torre Mordillo 1987-1990. Le relazioni egee di una comunitá protostorica della Sibaritide (Roma 2001) 331–337.

Jones/Vagnetti 1991 R. E. Jones/L. Vagnetti, Traders and craftsmen in the cen-tral Mediterranean. Archaeological evidence and archaeo-metric research. In: N. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. Stud. Mediterranean Arch. 90 (Göte-borg 1991) 127–147.

Jones/Vagnetti 1992 R. E. Jones/L. Vagnetti, Traders and craftsmen in the cen-tral Mediterranean. Archaeological evidence and archaeo-metric research (an addendum). Ann. British School Ath-ens 87, 1992, 211–217.

Jones et al. 1994R. E. Jones/L. Lazzarini/M. Mariottini/E. Eduardo Or-vini, Appendice: studio minero-petrografico e chimico di ceramiche protostoriche da Brogli di Trebisacce (Sibari). In: R. Peroni/F. Trucco (eds.), Enotri e micenei nella Sibaritide I (Taranto 1004) 413–454.


Jones et al. 2001R. E. Jones/L. Vagnetti/S. T. Levi/J.Williams/D. Jenkins/A. De Guio, Mycenaean pottery from northern Italy. Ar-chaeological and archaeometric studies. Stud. Micenei Egeo-Anatolici 44-2, 221–261.

Kanta 2003A. Kanta, The Aegean world between east and west. As-pects of common cultural elements from the 16th to the 11th cal. BC. In: N. Stampolidis (ed.), Sea routes from Sidon to Huelva. Interconnections in the Mediterranean 16th-6th BC (Athens 2003) 20-40.

Karageorghis 1965V. Karageorghis, Nouveaux documents pour l’étude du Bronze Récent à Chypre (Paris 1965).

Karageorghis 1999V. Karageorghis, A Mycenaean pilgrim flask re-examined. In: Ph. P. Betancourt/V. Karageorghis/R. Laffineur/W.-D. Niemeyer (eds.), Meletemata. Studies in Aegean archaeol-ogy presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as he enters his 65th year, AEGEUM 20 (Liège, Austin 1999) 395–402.

Karageorghis 2000V. Karageorghis, Cultural innovation in Cyprus relating to the Sea Peoples. In: E. D. Oren (ed.), The Sea peoples and their world (Philadelphia 2000) 255–275.

Karageorghis 2000-2001V. Karageorghis, The Mycenaean pottery of the pictorial style: achievements and perspectives. Opuscula Atheniensa 25-26, 2000-2001, 713–718.

Kemal 1999S. Kemal, Performance and authenticity in the arts (Cam-bridge 1999).

Keswani 1989P. S. Keswani, Dimensions of social hierarchy in Late Bronze Age Cyprus: an analysis of the mortuary data from Enkomi. Journal Mediterranean Arch. 2/1, 1989, 49–86.

Keswani 1993P. S. Keswani, Models of local exchange in Late Bronze Age Cyprus, Bull. American School Oriental Research 192, 1993, 73–83.

Khalifeh 1988A. Khalifeh, Sarepta II. The Late Bronze and Iron Age Periods of Area II, X (Beyrouth 1988).

Killebrew 1998A. E. Killebrew, Aegean and Aegean-style material cul-ture in Canaan during the 14th-12th centuries BC: Trade colonization, diffusion or migration? In: E. Cline/D. Har-ris-Cline (eds.), The Aegean and the orient in the second millennium. AEGEUM 18 (Liège 1998) 149–170.

Killebrew 2000A. E. Killebrew, Aegean-style Early Philistine pottery in Canaan during the Iron I Age. A stylistic analysis of Myc-enaean IIIC:1b pottery and its associated wares. In: E. D. Oren (ed.), The Sea peoples and their world (Philadelphia 2000) 233–253.

Kling 1987B. Kling, Pottery classification and relative chronology of the LCIIC-LCIIIA periods, In: D. W. Rupp (ed.), Western Cyprus: Connections. Stud. Mediterranean Arch. 77 (Gö-terborg 1987) 97–113.

Kling 1989B. Kling, Mycenaean IIIC:1b and related pottery in Cy-prus. Stud. Mediterranean Arch. 87 (Göterborg 1989).

Kling 1991B. Kling, A terminology for the matt-painted wheelmade pottery of Late Cypriot IIC-IIIA. In: J. A. Barlow/B. Bolger/B. Kling (eds.), Cypriot ceramics. Reading the pre-historic record (Philadelphia 1991) 181–184.

Kling 2000B. Kling, Mycenaean IIIC:1b and related pottery in Cy-prus. Comments on the current state of research. In: E. D. Oren (ed.), The sea peoples and their world. A reassess-ment (Philadelphia 2000) 281–295.

Knapp 1996A. B. Knapp, Power and ideology on prehistoric Cyprus. In: P. Hellström/B. Alroth (eds.), Religion and power in the ancient Greek world (Uppsala 1996) 9–25.

LaMotta/Schiffer 1999V. M. LaMotta/M. B. Schiffer, Formation processes of house floor assemblages. In: P. M. Allison (ed.), The archaeology of household activities (London, New York 1999) 19–29.

Lagarce/Lagarce 1985J. Lagarce,/E. Lagarce, Alasia IV. Deux tombes du Chypri-ote Récent d’Enkomi (tombe 1851 et 1907) (Paris 1985).

Lamnert et al. 1978J. B. Lambert/C. D. McLaughlin/A. Leonard, X -Ray photo-electron spectroscopic analysis of the Mycenaean pottery from Megiddo. Archaeometry 20, 1978, 107–122.

Leonard 1994Jr. A. Leonard, An index to the Late Bronze Age pottery from Syria-Palestine. Stud. Mediterranean Arch. 114 (Jon-sered 1994).

Leonard et al. 1993Jr. A. Leonard/M. Hughes/A. Middleton/L. Schofield, The making of Aegean stirrup jars. Technique, tradition and trade. Ann. British School Athens 88, 1993, 105–123.

Lowenthal 1992D. Lowenthal, Authenticity? The dogma of self-delusion. In: M. Jones (ed.), Why fakes matter. Essays on problems of authenticity (London 1992) 184–192.

Maier 1985F. G. Maier, A note on shallow bowls. Rep. Dep. Ant. Cyprus, 1985, 122–125.

Manning 1990S. W. Manning, The Thera eruption. The third congress and the problem of the date. Archaeometry 32, 1990, 91–100.


Marazzi/Tuisa 1994M. Marazzi/S. Tuisa, Vivara. Centro commerciale medi-terraneo dell’età del bronzo II. Le tracce dei contatti con il mondo egeo (scavi 1976-1982). Ricerche di storia, epigra-fia e arch. mediterranea 3 (Napoli 1994).

Marazzi 2003M. Marazzi, The Mycenaeans in the western Mediterrane-an (17th –13th c. BC). In: N. Stampolidis (ed.), Sea routes from Sidon to Huelva. Interconnections in the Mediterra-nean 16th-6th BC (Athens 2003) 108–115.

Marazzi/Mocchegiani-Campano 1998 M. Marazzi/C. Mocchegiani-Campano, Vivara. Un isola al centro della storia (Napoli 1998).

Marfoe 1995L. Marfoe, Kamid el-Loz 13. The prehistoric and early historic context of the site. Saabrücker Beitr. Altkunde. 41 (Bonn 1995).

Marketou et al. 2001T. Marketou/Y. Facorellis/Y. Maniatis, New late Bronze Age chronology from the Ialysos region, Rhodes. Mediter-ranean arch. and archaeometry 1, 2001, 19–29.

Mee 1978 C. Mee, Aegean trade and settlement in Anatolia in the sec-ond millenium BC. Anatolian Stud. 28, 1978, 121–156.

Merrillees 1998R. S. Merrillees, Egypt and the Aegean. In: E. H. Cline/D. Harris-Cline (eds.), The Aegean and the orient in the second millennium. AEGEUM 18 (Liège 1998) 149–155.

Miller 1995D. Miller, Consumption as the vanguard of history. A po-lemic by way of an introduction. In: D. Miller (ed.), Ac-knowledging consumption. A review of new studies (Lon-don, New York 1995) 1–57.

Mukerji 1983C. Mukerji, From graven images. Patterns of modern ma-terialism (New York 1983).

Murray et al. 1900A. S. Murray/A. H. Smith/H. B. Walters, Excavations in Cyprus (London 1900).

Muscarella 2000O. W. Muscarella, The lie became to great. The forgery of ancient Near Eastern cultures (Groningen 2000).

Myres 1945J. L. Myres, Excavations in Cyprus 1913. Ann. British School Athens 40-41, 1945, 53–98.

Myres/Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899J. L. Myres/M. Ohnefalsch-Richter, A catalogue of the Cyprus Museum (Oxford 1899).

Niemeier 1997W. F. Niemeier, The Mycenaean potter’s quarter at Mi-letus. In: R. Laffineur/Ph. P. Betancourt (eds.), VTWMX I. Craftswomen and craftsmen in the Aegean Bronze Age. Aegeum 16 (Liège 1997) 347–351.

Neimeier 1998W. F. Niemeier, The Mycenaeans in western Anatolia and the problem of the origins of the Sea Peoples. In: S. Gitin/A. Mazar/E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean peoples in transi-tion. Thirteenth to early tenth century BCE. In honor of Professor Trude Dothan (Jerusalem 1998) 17–65.

Neimeier 2004 W.-D. Niemeier, Greek territories and the Hittite empire. Myceaneans and Hittites in west Asia Minor. In: N. Stam-polidis (ed.), Sea routes from Sidon to Huelva. Intercon-nections in the Mediterranean 16th–6th BC (Athens 2004) 103–107.

Ozgünel 1997C. Ozgünel, Mykenische Keramik in Anatolien. Asia Mi-nor Stud. 23 (Bonn 1997).

Pacci 1986M. Pacci, Presenze micenee a Cipro. In: M. Marazzi/S. Tusa/L. Vagnetti (eds.), Traffici micenei nel Mediterraneo (Taranto 1986) 335–342.

Papadopoulos 1997J. K. Papadopoulos, Innovation, immitation and ceramic style. In: R. Laffineur/Ph. P. Betancourt (eds.), VTWMX I. Craftswomen and craftsmen in the Aegean Bronze Age. Aegeum 16 (Liège 1997) 449–461.

Pastoureau 1988M. Pastoureau, Vrai ou Faux? Copier, imiter, falsifier (Paris 1988).

Peroni/Trucco 1994R. B. Peroni/B. Trucco, Le campagne di scavo 1983-1985. In: R. Peroni/F. Trucco (eds.), Enotri e micenei nella Sibaritide (Taranto 1994) 21–84.

Peroni 1982R. Peroni, La campagna di scavo 1980. Ricerche sulla pro-tostoria della Sibaritide 2, Cahiers du Centre Jean Bérard VIII (Neaples 1982) 5–24.

Peroni 1983R. Peroni, Presenze micenee e forme socio-economiche nell’Italia protostorica, Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo. Atti Taranto 22, 1983, 211–335.

Peroni 1984R. Peroni, La campagna dello scavo 1981. Ricerche sulla protostoria della Sibaritide 3 (Roma 1984) 9–27.

Peroni/Vanzetti 1993R. Peroni/A. Vanzetti, Broglio di Trebisacce (CS). Scavi 1990-1992. Atti del Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grae-cia 32, 1993, 137–145.

Peroni/Vanzetti 1998R. Peroni/A. Vanzetti, Broglio di Trebisacce 1990-1994. Elementi e problemi nuovi dalle recenti campagne di scavo (Rubettino 1998).

Phillips 1997D. Phillips, Exhibiting Authenticity (Manchester 1997).


Pilides 1994D. Pilides, Hand-made burnished wares of the Late Bronze Age in Cypru. Stud. Mediterranean Arch. 105 (Jonsered 1994).

Polanyi 1975K. Polanyi, The economy as instituted process. In: K. Po-lanyi/C. M. Arensberg/H. W. Pearson (eds.), Trade and market in early empires (Glencoe 1975) 243–269.

Pritchard 1980J. B. Pritchard, The cemetery at Tell es-Saidiyeh, Jordan (Philadelphia 1980).

Punter 2001D. Punter, E-textuality. Authenticity after the post-mod-ern. In: N. Groom (ed.), Authenticity. Critical Quarterly 43-2 (Oxford 2001) 68–91.

Radina 2003F. Radina, Overseas trade and the coastal centres of Asdri-atic Apulia. In: N. Stampolis (ed.), Sea routes from Sidon to Huelva. Interconnections in the Mediterranean 16th–6th BC (Athens 2003) 120–122.

Re 1993L. Re, Early Mycenaean plain and coarse ware from Italy. In: C. Zerner/P. Zerner/J. Winder (eds.), Wace and Ble-gen. Pottery as evidence for trade in the Aegean Bronze Age (Amsterdam 1993) 331–334.

Renfrew et al. 1965C. Renfrew/J. R. Cann/J. E. Dixon, Obsidian in the Aegean. Ann. British School Athens 60, 1965, 225–247.

Russell 1989P. Russell, The fine ware ceramics. In: I. A. Todd (ed.), The settlement deposits in the west, central, east and south-east areas. Vasilikos valley project 3. Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios II. Ceramics, objects, tombs, specialist studies. Stud. Mediterranean Arch. 71-3 (Göteborg 1989) 1–11.

Savage 1963G. Savage, Forgeries, fakes and reproductions (London 1963).

Schaeffer 1936C. F. A. Schaeffer, Missions en Chypre 1932-1935 (Paris 1936).

Schaeffer 1952C. F. A. Schaeffer, Enkomi-Alasia. Nouvelles missions à Chypre 1946-1950 (Paris 1952).

Sherratt 1982E. S. Sherratt, Patterns of contact. Manufacture and dis-tribution of Mycenaean pottery 1400–1100 BC. In: J. G. P. Best/N. M. W. De Vries (ed.), Interaction and accultura-tion in the Mediterranean (Amsterdam 1982) 179–195.

Sherratt 1991E. S. Sherratt, Cypriot pottery of Aegean type in LCII-III. Problems of classification, chronology and interpretation. In: J. A. Barlow/B. Bolger/B. Kling (eds.), Cypriot Ce-ramics. Reading the prehistoric record (Philadelphia 1991) 185–198.

Sherratt 1998E. S. Sherratt, Sea peoples’ and the economic structure of the late second millennium in the eastern Mediterranean. In: S. Gitin/A. Mazar/E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean peo-ples in transition. Thirteenth to early 10th centuries BCE. In honor of Professor Trude Dothan (Jerusalem 1998) 292–313.

Sherratt 1999E. S. Sherratt, E pur si muove. Pots, markets and values in the second millennium Mediterranean. In: J. P. Crie-laard/V. Stissi/G. J. Van Wijngaarden (eds.), The complex past of pottery. Production, circulation and consumption of Mycenaean and Greek pottery (sixteenth to early fifth centuries BC) (Amsterdam 1999) 163–211.

Sherratt/Crouwel 1987E. S. Sherratt/J. H. Crouwel, Mycenaean pottery from Cilicia in Oxford. Oxford Journal Arch. 6, 1987, 325–352.

Smith 1925A. H. Smith, Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Great Britain I: British Museum (London 1925).

Smith 2000A. Smith, Authenticity in perspective. In: Authenticity in a digital environment. http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub92/smith.html.

Smith 2001A. Smith, Authenticity, antiquity and archaeology. Nations and Nationalism 7-4, 2001, 441–450.

South 1988A. K. South, Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios 1987. An im-portant ceramic group from building X. Rep. Dep. Antiq-uities Cyprus, 1988, 223–228.

South/Russell 1993A. K. South/P. Russell 1993, Mycenaean pottery and so-cial hierarchy at Kallavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios, Cyprus. In: C. Zerner/P. Zerner/J. Winder (eds.), Wace and Blegen. Pottery as evidence for trade in the Aegean Bronze Age (Amsterdam 1993) 303–310.

Spooner 1986B. Spooner, Weavers and dealers. The authenticity of an oriental carpet. In: A. Appadurai (ed.), The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective (Cambridge 1986) 195–235.

Steel 1998L. Steel, The social impact of Mycenaean imported pot-tery in Cyprus. Ann. British School Athens 93, 1998, 285–296.

Steel 2002L. Steel, Consuming passions. A contextual study of the local consumption of Mycenaean pottery at Tell el-Ajjul. Journal Mediterranean Arch. 15-1, 2002, 25–51.

Strathern 1992M. Strathern, Qualified value. The perspective of gift-ex-change. In: C. Humphrey/S. Hugh-Jones (eds.), Barter,


exchange and value. An anthropological approach (Cam-bridge 1992) 169–191.

Stubbings 1951F. H. Stubbings, Mycenaean pottery from the Levant (Cambridge 1951).

Tomlinson, forthcomingJ. E. Tomlinson, Statistical Evaluation of Neutron Activa-tion Data on Mycenaean Pottery found at Lachish. In: D. Ussishkin (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish 1973-1994. Monog. Ser. Inst. Arch. Tel Aviv University (Tel Aviv, forthcoming).

Trilling 1971L. Trilling, Sincerity and authenticity (Cambridge 1971).

Tykot 1996R. H. Tykot, Obsidian procurement and distribution in the central and western Mediterranean. Journal Mediterranean Arch. 9, 1996, 39–82.

Vagnetti 1991L. Vagnetti, Appendice III. Le ceramiche egeo-micenee. In: L. Bernabò-Brea/M. Cavalier (eds.), Meligunìs-Lipára VI. Filicudi: insediamenti dell’età del bronzo (Palermo 1991) 263–296.

Vagnetti 1999L. Vagnetti, Mycenaean pottery in the central Mediterra-nean. Imports and local production in their context. In: J. P. Crielaard/V. Stissi/G. J. van Wijngaarden (eds.), The complex past of pottery. Production, circulation and con-sumption of Mycenaean and Greek pottery (Amsterdam 1999) 137–161.

Vagnetti 2001L. Vagnetti, Some observations on Late Cypriot pottery from the central Mediterranean, In: L. Bonfante/V. Ka-rageorghis (eds.), Italy and Cyprus in Antiquity (Nicosia 2001) 77–89.

Vagnetti/Jones 1988L. Vagnetti/R. E. Jones, Towards the identification of lo-cal Mycenaean pottery in Italy. In: E. B, French/K. A. Wardle (eds.), Problems in Greek prehistory (Bristol 1988) 335–348.

Vagnetti/Jones 1993L. Vagnetti/R. Jones, Le ceramiche di tipo ego. In: M. Angle/A. M. Conti/R. Dottarelli/A. Gianni/C. Persinai/L. Vagnetti/R. E. Jones/L. Constanti (eds.), Prime testimoni-anze micenee nel Latium Vetus. Parole Pasato 48, 1993, 211–213.

Vagnetti/Panichelli 1994L. Vagnetti/S. Panichelli, Ceramica egea importata e di produzione locale. In: R. Peroni/F. Trucco (eds.), Enotri e micenei nella Sibaritide I (Taranto 1994) 373–413.

Van Wijngaarden 1999G. J. M. Van Wijngaarden, An archaeological approach to the concept of value. Mycenaean pottery at Ugarit (Syria), Arch. Dialogues 6, 1999, 2–23.

Van Wijngaarden 2002G. J. M. Van Wijngaarden, Use and appreciation of Myc-enaean pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (Amster-dam 2002).

Vermeule/Karageorghis 1982E. Vermeule/V. Karageorghis, Mycenaean pictorial vase painting (Cambridge 1982).

Vermeule/Wolsky 1978E. T. Vermeule/F. Z. Wolsky, New Aegean relations with Cyprus. The Minoan and Mycenaean pottery from Tou-mba tou Skourou. Proc. Philosophical Society 122, 1978, 294–317.

Vermeule/Wolsky 1990E. T. Vermeule/F. Z. Wolsky, Toumba tou Skourou. A Bronze Age potters’ quarter on Morphou bay in Cyprus (Boston 1990).

Voutsaki 1997S. Voutsaki, The creation of value and prestige in the Aegean Late Bronze Age. Journal European Arch. 5, 1997, 34–52.

Wainwright 1992C. Wainwright, The importance of provenance. In: M. Jones (ed.), Why fakes matter. Essays on problems of au-thenticity (London 1992) 174–183.

Walker 1992S. Walker, Clytie - a false woman? In: M. Jones (ed.), Why fakes matter. Essays on problems of authenticity (London 1992) 32–40.

Warren 1996P. Warren, The Aegean and the limits of radiocarbon dat-ing. Acta Arch. 67, 1996, 283–290.

Warren 1998P. Warren, Aegean Late Bronze 1-2 absolute chronology. Some new contributions. In: M. S. Balmuth/R. H. Tykot (eds.), Sardinian and aegean chronology. Towards the reso-lution of relative and absolute dating in the Mediterranean. Stud. Sardinian Arch. 5, 1998, 323–331.

Wiener 1998M. H. Wiener, The absolute chronology of Late Helladic IIIA2. In: M. S. Balmuth/R. H. Tykot (eds.), Sardinian and Aegean Chronology. Towards the Resolution of Rela-tive and Absolute Dating in the Mediterranean. Stud. Sar-dinian Arch. 5, 1998, 309–319.

Yon 2000M. Yon, Répartition et contextes. In: M. Yon/V. Kara-georghis/ N. Hirschfeld (eds.), Céramiques mycéniennes. Ras Shamra-Ougarit XIII (Paris and Nicosia 2000) 7–27.

Yon 2000M. Yon, Index chronologique des lieux de trouvailles de la céramiques mycénienne d’Ougarit au Louvre. In: M. Yon/V. Karageorghis/ N. Hirschfeld (eds.), Céramiques mycéniennes. Ras Shamra-Ougarit XIII (Paris, Nicosia 2000) 29–35.


Pl. 1. Mycenaean amphoroid Krater and stemmed cup (left) from Kalavassos, Cyprus and Cypriot made krater and bowls (right). After Kling 1989; South/Russel 1993, 308; Karageorghis 1965, 251


Pl. 2. Imported Mycenaean and Cypriot and local pottery from tomb 387 in Tel Dan. After Biran 1994, 113, 114, 118


Pl. 3. Locally-made Mycenaean pottery and wheel-made grey ware from Broglio di Trebisacce. After Vagnetti 1999, 144, 146

Things we Have, Things we Lack 147Things we Have, Things we Lack.

Reconsidering the First Contacts Between Aegean and Central and West Mediterranean

Agustín Mª Lucena Martín

Abstract

The studies in Prehistory and the Ancient World have paid much attention during the last years to the economic activities of communities and above all to commerce. However, it seems that we are still far from getting a satisfactory approach of the study of the commercial activities and we find that much of the efforts are dedicated to identifying “imported” or “exported” objects, instead of creating a consistent theoretical concept which would be used as a base for our investigation. Although in the last decades new advances have been made in these fields, it is difficult to define the exact nature of Mediterranean commerce. Social historians of the Ancient World facilitated the “terminus sub quo”, which social pre-historians were obliged to respect in their construc-tions for the more ancient periods. If trade exhibited produced a gradual decrease in the Classical Period, it must have been due to the strong insignificance in previous times. At the beginning of the nineties, in the middle of the recession of New Archaeology and the post-processual pressure, a new interpretative mark becomes important in the study of the commer-cial demonstrations of the Prehistory of the Mediter-ranean, through which they interpret the interchanges as part of an intimately related supranatural context, called World System. Within this new approach, the relations of independence between the centre and pe-riphery of the World System, which are explainable through the existence of an unequal interchange be-tween a more advanced centre in the production of factories and their periphery to the change of exotic primary materials or semi-elaborated products, take the leading role.

!"#$%"

&'( )()*"++, -'.,/01',2 0. /0.'13.)+4151 /),06 ) 1/0.+, '17( 8691 -'(/):*"+1 8.5.01 6).5( 51/-1-3.'/47,; .70()+1/0, /6/-,94/0) ,, -"'< #. )/", 01'-5,)9,. =(% +" %"+<, #3.>04/:, ?1 %( ?" 3.9"7, ),3 10'(%.++: #.31),94+151 -,3@136 -'( 31/9,3A"++, 01'51)(@ ),3+1/(+, , %( 8.*(%1, ?1 8,94<,/04 #6-/(94 /-':%1).+. +. )(#+.*"++: «,%-1'01).+(@» .81 «"7/-1'01).+(@» 18’>70,), #.%,/04 /0)1'"++:

-1/9,31)+12 0"1'"0(*+12 71+B"-B,2, :7. %159. 8 860( )(71'(/0.+1$ :7 1/+1). 39: +.<151 31/9,3-A"++:. C" 3()9:*(/4 +. 0", ?1 ) 1/0.++, 3"/:0(9,0-0: 869( #'189"+, +1), 6/-,@( ) B,; 189./0, 31/9,3-A"+4, )/" A 0.7( /79.3+1 01*+1 )(#+.*(0( -'('1-36 /"'"3#"%+1%1'/4712 01'5,)9,. D/01'(7( /0.'1-3.)+4151 /),06 /-'(:9( )/0.+1)9"++$ «terminus sub quo», :7(; -'.,/01'(7( 869( #181)’:#.+, )'.@1)6).0( ) /)12@ -18631).@ 39: 8,94< 3.)+,@ -"',13,). C. -1*.076 3")’:+1/0(@, -,3 *./ #.+"-.36 +1)12 .'@"1915,2 , 0(/76 -1/0--'1B"/6.94+12 /0.> ).A9()(% +1)(; ,+0"'-'"0.B,;+(; +.-':%17 6 )()*"++, 01'5,)9, ) -'.,/01',2 E"'"3#"%+1%1'’:, *"'"# :7(; 18%,+( '1#59:3.$04/: :7 *./0(+6 71+0"7/06, :7(; 86) +.#).+(; «/),01)1$ /(/0"%1$». F %"A.@ B4151 +1)151 -,3@136 -'1),3+" %,/B" #.;%.$04 ),3+1/(+( +"#.9"A+1/0, %,A B"+0'1% 0. -"'(G"',>$ «/),01)12 /(/0"%(», :7, -1:/+$$04/: ,/+6).++:% +"',)+1B,++151 18%,+6 %,A 8,94< '1#)(+60(% B"+0'1% , ;151 -"'(G"',>$ "7#10(*+(%( -'"/0(A+(%( %.0"',.9.%( .81 +.-,)-G.8'(7.0.%(.

Introduction

The title of the book, the archaeology of Import and Imitation, presents difficulties that are propelled from it’s own formulation. On one hand, we need to define, before beginning, what we understand through Import/Export, since the latter necessarily produces a parallel with the former, and what we understand by Imitation. We consider it necessary to distinguish between the movements of materials and ideas, as the root of the differentiation between Import/Export and Imitation and in this way discuss the role played by the receptive communities of these materials/ideas of the said processes. In the case of Import/Export phenomena, the stylistic similarities and comprehensive chemical analysis are employed to identify this type of phenomenon. However, the imitation is not equally easy to verify, as we will see later. On the other hand, in the reference to the role played by the receptive commu-nities, we consider that the fact of imitating materials of exogenous provenance implies a major degree of populational and external influence, especially when

Agustín Mª Lucena Martín148

compared to the influence that generates the phe-nomenon of importation. This is due to the receiving population exercising a much more active role in the case of imitation. Although this is no the place to produce a de-tailed history of the known archaeological investi-gations, we think it is convenient to indicate where we situate ourselves today in relation to those pulses from which the study of Prehistory has crossed since its origins. Since the first moments of development of the archaeological studies there was a fundamen-tal attention to the similarities between the material finds from distant places. Thus, processes of coloni-zation were defended in function of those materials (Goberna 1986, 28 ff.; Blance 1986, 19 ff.). No one else uses them. The pre-eminence and rapid development of the typological studies in comparison with other types of analysis promoted those constant similarities between the archaeological registers of distant areas that, today, continue yielding to discussion (Calvo Trias 2002, 15 ff.). This situation, that extends to the middle of the twentieth century was interrupted with the discovery of radiocarbon dating following World War II and the emergence of the New Archae-ology. From this moment on, the endogenous proc-esses achieved success in the explanation of observed cultural changes in the communities of Prehistory. In the Iberian Peninsula, when the New Ar-chaeology had just begun to influence the research, recent findings led archaeologists to reconsider some elements of the earlier model, which was based on the value of external influences. The political circum-stances of recent decades, characterized by a supra-national spirit within Europe, find identical move-ments in the field of culture. If, during the first half of the nineteenth century, culture provided politics with arguments to defend the specific roots of each nation, nowadays culture provides arguments to sup-port the common origin of people. One of the most successful and clear manifestations of this wish for communion among communities has been the stag-ing of exhibitions on the various periods of the pre-history and ancient history of Europe and its neigh-bouring areas, providing visitors with an excellent opportunity to study collections that could only nor-mally seen by visiting many different museums. This was the case of I Fenici (1988) and I Celti (1989), two well-known examples which gave rise to excel-lent publications. The same applies to the exhibition El Mundo Micénico, which began in Berlin in 1987 and reached Madrid in 1992 (Martín de la Cruz/Lucena Martín 2002).

Finds of Mycenaean pottery from Llanete de los Moros (Montoro, Córdoba) justified the recon-sideration of the strictly endogenous or exogenous nature of cultural processes in the Iberian Peninsu-la, its relationships with the Mediterranean area (at least during the 2nd millennium BC), and its inclu-sion within the exhibition and catalogue El Mundo Micénico. Now, several years later however, renewed discussion of this topic seems necessary, not just due to advances through new findings (Mederos 1997), but because of the new perspectives which time con-fers. What we lack, quantitative and qualitative, is so much, and what we have is so scarce, that the valuation of contacts between the Iberian Peninsula and Mediterranean could be made by mere process of elimination. Recent studies in prehistory and the ancient world have paid much attention to the economic activities of communities, especially to commerce. However, it seems that we are still far from finding a satisfactory approach to the study of commercial activities, and that much effort is dedicated to iden-tifying “imported” or “exported” objects, instead of creating a consistent theoretical basis for investiga-tion. Although in recent decades new advances have been made in these fields, it is difficult to specify the exact nature of Mediterranean commerce (Melas 1991, 392). The social historians of the ancient world provided the processual archaeologists with the ter-minus sub quo, which social prehistorians were obliged to respect in their constructions for the more ancient periods. If commerce was on a small scale in classical times (Sherratt/Sherratt 1991, 369 ff.), it must have been insignificant in the previous period (Gilman 1993, 105). At the beginning of the nineties, with the retreat of the New Archaeology in the face of post-processual pressure, a new interpretive pat-tern arose in the study of Mediterranean prehistoric commerce, by which interchanges are interpreted as part of an intimately related supranational context or world system. Within this new approach, relations of dependence between the centre and the periphery of the World System play a leading role, explained by unequal interchanges between a centre, more ad-vanced in production, and its periphery, in the ex-change of exotic raw materials or semi-manufactured goods (Mederos 1995b, 131 f.). We cannot apply a theoretical concept to a sub-ject without first adapting it; that is, there may well be a variety of correct methodologies, instrumental as well as interpretive, for dealing with a problem. Furthermore, the attempt to extrapolate interpretive patterns to very different data groups can cause ba-sic distortions in understanding prehistoric cultural mechanisms.

Things we Have, Things we Lack 149

The 2nd millennium in the Mediterranean and adjacent areas was a turbulent period, in which the complexity of the elements concerned, and the inter-actions between them, make any phenomenon dif-ficult to interpret. Thus, we cannot explain the situ-ation of the Iberian Peninsula without considering other parts of the Mediterranean which were active at the time. The Aegean was not isolated and closed to the outside world, but open to a wide variety of contacts, principally Egypt, Syria, Palestine and, of course, Italy. This last case, Italy, proves to be of great importance, not only in its strategic position between the Aegean and the Iberian Peninsula; in addition, the Aegean presence in Italy is much better known and explained, since it was more intense and frequent, and there is a great tradition of studies in this area. Studies of the relationships between the Aegean and the Iberian Peninsula date back a long time and have seen the rise and fall of different interpretative currents. The interest in the connections between the Aegean Late Bronze Age and the Central and Western Mediterranean began quite early - see for example Lord William Taylour’s work of 1958, Mycenaean Pottery in Italy and Adjacent Areas (Buchholz 1980, 45). However, these studies progressed slowly and timidly compared with those dealing with the rela-tionships within the East Mediterranean (Cline 1994, 78). If the data on the contacts of the Iberian Peninsula with the Aegean area during the Bronze Age are scarce, confused or difficult to interpret, then the contacts of the Aegean Bronze Age with Ita-ly are, as we have already said, much better studied, understood and defined, due above all to their abun-dance. Aegean ceramics have been identified in 65 settlements in the Central Mediterranean, especially in Italy and adjacent islands, belonging to the peri-ods LH/LM III A-B; however, at Monte Grande we have ceramics dated to the end of the MH-III (Cas-tellana 1998, 107 ff.; 2000, 28 ff.; 2001, 379 ff.), and a few are from early dates, LH/LM I-II (Cline 1994, 78), found so far at 14 settlements, including Lipari, Monte Grande, Filicudi, Manaccore, Salina, Porto Perone and Vivara. (French 1984, 31 f.). Thus, Mycenaean presence in the Central Mediterranean is documented from the 16th to the 11th centuries BC (Vagnetti 1991, 106 ff.), but with such limited in-formation that the exact nature of these contacts and the ways that Mycenaean structures fitted into the Mediterranean are difficult to reconstruct for these periods (Re 1999, 407). It seems however that by the end of the 14th century permanent Mycenaean com-munities were established in the coastal centres in Puglia, Calabria and Sicily, with Mycenaean artisans

producing their typical wares, while later true Italo-Mycenaean workshops arose as a result of cultural integration (Marazzi 1991; 1999, 415 f.). In the Iberian Peninsula, the number of Myc-enaean finds from trustworthy archaeological con-texts is still very scarce. We shall deal here with only two settlements, El Llanete de los Moros (Montoro, Córdoba), in western Andalusia (Spain), and Cuesta del Negro (Purullena, Granada), eastern Andalusia. There are other remains of East Mediterranean ori-gin, but they belong to early and imprecise periods in the 2nd millennium BC (spear-heads from the mega-lithic tomb of La Pastora, a horn-shaped altar from El Oficio, a cylindrical seal from Vélez Málaga, for example), beyond the news about some Anatolian red plain simple ware (2600-2200 BC) in the Late Chal-colithic levels of Les Moreres (Crevillente, Alicante) (González Prats/Ruiz Segura/Gil Fuensanta/ Seva Román 1995, 131-142). At El Llanete de los Moros two Mycenaean pottery fragments, from a cup and a crater, were found in association with cultural contexts from the end of the 2nd millennium, and are thus dated within the first half of the 13th century BC. The relative chronology of these fragments belongs to LM IIIA-B, and through neutron activation analysis we know they come from the workshop of Mycenae-Berbati (Argolis) (Martín de la Cruz 1990; Mommsen et alii 1990). The two fragments have an uncalibrated chro-nology of 1110±60 BC (CSIC-795) and 1070±60 BC (CSIC-794), calibrated at 1310 BC and 1260 BC (Mederos 1998, 62; Castro/Lull/Micó 1996). Thus the dates for the levels in which these materials ap-peared fit well with their typology.The other finds are the pottery from La Cuesta del Negro (Purullena, Granada) (Molina/Pareja 1975, 38 f.), which are parts of a support and a vase con-taining carbonized wheat, from a hut whose de-struction is dated by C-14 without calibration to 1210±35 BC (GRN-7285) and 1145±35 BC (GRN-7284) (1419 BC and 1389-1327 BC, calibrated) (Mederos 1995a). These ceramic shapes have been identified again in Llanete de los Moros, also in as-sociation with carbonized wheat. The uncalibrated C-14 dates place this at 1030±130 BC (UGRA-159) and 980±110 BC (UGRA-190), calibrated at 1250 BC and 1120 BC. X-ray defraction, X-ray fluores-cence and neutron activation analyses have shown that these sherds from these two sites came from the same workshop, although this has not yet been locat-ed (Martín de la Cruz 1987, 50 ff.; 1994, 120 f.). Terminologically, the word ‘trade’, for Ren-frew (1975, 3 ff.) was “synonymous with exchange”. The term “exchange” has a more general meaning than “commerce”, because the latter has a series of


associated activities which are related, but which exceed mere exchange (Snodgrass 1991, 15). The economist Karl Polanyi distinguishes three modali-ties of exchange, reciprocity, equalitarian redistribu-tion and stratified redistribution (Harris 1981). In reciprocal exchange, an example frequently detected archaeologically is the gift between members of the elites of different communities. We have both archae-ological and literary evidence that rulers in Egypt and the Near East recognized their counterparts in the Aegean and practiced this kind of exchange with them. Among textual evidence we find the Al-Amarna tablets, which make it clear that many of the exchang-es in the East Mediterranean during the 2nd millen-nium BC were in the form of gift-exchange. Among them there is a document in which Suppiluliuma con-gratulates Ajnaton on ascending the throne. The ex-istence of a diplomatic language, Acadic, to facilitate communication in the area, made such relationships possible (Renfrew 1990, 47). Moreover, we know of texts from Egypt or the Near East in which the kings in the Aegean Late Bronze Age, and the practice of gift-exchange with them, are recognized. Thus in the Egyptian tomb of Menkheperesenb, the “Prince of Keftiu”, that is to say, the Prince of Crete, appears in the company of the “Prince of the Hittites”, the “Prince of Tunip”, the “Prince of Kadesh”, and the title used for identifying the figures, “wr” with the meaning of “Prince”, is the same in each case. In the year 42 of the Annals of Thutmosis III there is a reference to the “Prince of Tanaja”, that is to say, the Prince of mainland Greece. Similar texts in Anatolia show that the Hittites accepted the existence of great rulers in the Aegean. A series of Egyptian tombs contains wall paintings where a man from Keftiu is bringing objects to the Pharaoh; the word which identifies these objects in the texts that accompany the paintings, “inw”, is interpreted as “tribute”, but also as “gift” (Cline 1994, 85). However, it is accepted that the volume of these luxury products sent across the Mediterranean, al-though important, must have been insignificant when seen beside the total volume of the less luxurious and more functional goods exchanged in the region (Cline 1994, 86). From the earliest period of the Mycenaean pal-aces there is evidence of products from far away, such as the many necklaces of Baltic amber found in pit graves in Mycenae and in the first Mycenaean graves from Mesenia (Harding 1984). However, such data on “imports” of Aegean products by communities in Italy and the southern Iberian Peninsula contrast with the small quantity of data we have of exchanges in the opposite direction, that is to say, western Mediterra-

nean - Aegean and Central Mediterranean - Aegean. In fact we have only 85 finds from Italy with chro-nologies of LH/LM III A-B, and none at all from the southern Iberian Peninsula (Cline 1994, 78). Most of the texts in Linear B from the archives of Knossos and Pylos, and some from Mycenae, Te-bas and Tyrins (Panagl 1991, 56 ff.; Devoto/Nocen-tini 1975, 83 f.), show the priorities of these centres of redistribution. The texts do not mention anything about selling or buying, profits or merchants, it seems that the main preoccupation of these centres was to obtain and/or produce the goods that would later be redistributed to other minor centres of the system. This is one of the most important pieces of evidence in imagining an economic system which involved other territories than those from which Mycenaean centres extracted the resources they needed. How-ever, in the Linear B texts we do not have any infor-mation about the exchange of luxury articles, which we know of thanks to archaeology and the translation of other texts. Thus, we see that the information from Linear B refers to common consumer goods, it is our main direct evidence on the production of textiles, oil and perfume, on work in bronze, leather and ivory, as well as on the location of relatively specialized ar-eas within or outside the palaces for production and selling. Neither do we have information from the tab-lets about the place of provenance of the products delivered to the palaces. We have pointed out the ma-terial evidence for the contacts between the Aegean and Italy and the Iberian Peninsula, from the materi-als found in these regions, and it would be logical to postulate that the exchange resulted in the appear-ance in the Aegean of Italian and Iberian products. However, these are very rare in the case of Italian products and completely absent in the case of those from the Iberian Peninsula. It is also useful to point out that in Italy there is an almost complete lack of ‘luxury’ products, understood as the result of ex-change among rulers. Leaving aside the appearance of bronze ingots in Sardinia, with very similar shapes to those in mainland Greece, Cyprus and Crete (Va-gnetti 1982), we scarcely find anything apart from pottery, which has sometimes been seen as having been made by Mycenaean groups established in Italy, as in the case of Scoglio del Tonno (Buchholz 1980, 50; Cline 1994, 78) or Vivara (Marazzi 1999, 16). If it is reasonable to focus on some products which were sent to Italy and others which came back to the Aegean, then why are the traces left by the latter so scarce? An answer is that maybe the products which reached the Aegean consisted above all of perishable goods. Thus, the apparent total absence of products


of Italian origin during the LH/LM I-II Aegean may be due to the fact that these goods were copper and tin. During the LH/LM IIIA1 Italian pottery ap-peared for the first time in the Aegean, interpreted as accompanying perishable metal products; these were raw materials which were consumed or lost their original shape at their destination, to become weap-ons, jewellery, etc. In fact, the 76% of the goods from Italy found in the Aegean with Late Bronze Age dates are pottery, while the number of bronze prod-ucts with clear Italian provenance is very low (Cline 1994, 79). Snodgrass (1991, 15) reminds us that “a re-distributive organization is mainly worried about what to acquire, and then what to offer in exchange”. In Italy, there were no princes or rulers like those of the Egyptians, Cypriots and Hittites with whom to practice gift-exchange; in fact those Mycenaean goods which appear in Egypt, and less in Syria and Palestine, hardly appear in Italy. There are some exceptions, such as an engraved ivory comb, some Mycenaean stone seals and some originals or cop-ies of Helladic terracotta in Scoglio del Tonno, Pal-ermo and Lipari, and some stone anchors and some pieces of glass appeared in Sicily and the Aeolian Islands (Buchholz 1980, 50). But this kind of luxury exchange could simply not develop here because one of the agents of the exchange was missing. In Vivara we have a great variety of common pottery which is not normally found outside Greece, amongst which are large containers, sometimes made from local Ital-ian clay, with unusually thin walls, especially suit-able for sea transport because of their lightness. This indicates Mycenaean craftsmanship in Vivara, or even the use by the local population of the potters’ wheel for the production of at least a limited number of Aegean types (Marazzi 1999, 16), which implies important consequences for possible acculturation phenomena. In Vivara, and in general, in points of particular relief in the scope of the Mycenaean ex-change in Occident, it is been noticed the presence of ceramic fragments with circular, semicircular and quadrangular form, interpreted like tokens. These suppose a useful system of memorization in which-ever economic-commercial find within communities with distinct languages and levels of development (Marazzi 1995, 161 ff.; 1998a, 328 ff.; Mammina 2001, 445 f.). These tokens seem to occupy all of the Mediterranean region during the second millen-nium B.C., home of the wine merchant, at Mycenae; Keos; Mikre Vigla (Naxos); Festós y Myrtos (Crete); Paleopaphos (Cyprus); Aphrodisias; Troy; Ugarit, Sarepta, Megiddo, Tel Far´ah (Levant).

A redistributive organisation is concerned above all, as we have seen, with what to acquire, and the Mycenaean world must have had some good reason to turn to the western Mediterranean. What it acquired were the basic goods that no community can do without, subsistence goods and raw materials such as metals (Knapp 1991, 51). Max Weber con-ceived of the ancient world as essentially agrarian, and in Keith Hopkins´ words, “The vast majority of the population in most areas of the ancient world was primarily occupied with growing food… the scale of inter-regional trade was very small” (Sherratt/Sher-ratt 1991, 369 ff.). But we should point out that eve-ryday materials are not synonymous with subsistence goods, and there is no necessary correspondence be-tween them. When direct evidence of exchanges in organic goods has been collected, the conclusion has been the following, “This study…demonstrates that trade [in the Aegean] comprises much more than an ex-change in precious raw materials and luxury prod-ucts. If we may judge from the detailed Linear B evidence of manufacture, the part played by textiles and perfumed-oil products in the Aegean trade may have been substantial; if we may judge from the ar-chaeological data, there seems little doubt that oils and unguents travelled in containers by the thousand to Cyprus, Egypt and the Levant (their more limited appearance in central Mediterranean contexts sug-gests quite different politico-economic and cultural modes of interaction)” (Knapp 1991, 44). It seems that much of the data on exchanges involving organic substances does not relate to sub-sistence - unguents, perfume oils, dyes and opium are not exactly vital for life. Hopefully, in the coming years, there is an advance in the identification of the organic substances that ceramic containers brought, thanks to new analysis of Chromotography (Marazzi 2001b, 93 f.). We have seen that there were kings, princes or rulers in the Aegean, and it is widely assumed that this elite played an essential role in the development of the exchange activities of these communities. We may wonder if there were analogous rulers in the Iberian Peninsula at this time, in the sense of being really separated vertically from the rest of society, because if not it would have been difficult to carry out actions recognising and reinforcing connections, such as happened between rulers from the Aegean and those from the Near East or Egypt. But Italy also lacked such an elite, and yet there was a Mycenaean presence there from the 17th century BC. The Mycenaean pottery from Llanete de los Moros and Cuesta del Negro (pl. 1-2) is dated around the 13th – 11th centuries BC, a time (LH III) in which


the Mycenaean presence in Italy was at its peak (fig. 1). However, there is the series of objects found in different places in the Iberian Peninsula, datable to earlier but imprecise periods (spear-heads from the megalithic tomb of La Pastora (pl. 5), horn-shaped altars from El Oficio and La Encantada (pl. 3), seg-mented vitreous paste beads from Fuente Álamo (pl. 6) and Cova del Frare, a cylindrical seal from Vélez Málaga, a necklace from Almuñécar (pl. 4) (Rafels I Fontanals 1978; Sanchez Meseguer et alii 1983; 1985; Martín de la Cruz 1994, 118 ff.), and this, together with the possible coexistence of figura-tive motives of lyres in LM-IIIB and the Iberian Late Bronze Age (14th – 13th centuries BC), clearly linked from a formal point of view (Mederos 1996, 121), makes us consider the possibility that Mycenaean structures spreading from the Aegean or from closer points such as Italy, and those belonging to the Ibe-rian Peninsula, may have met before the 13th – 11th centuries. On the other hand we should not exaggerate the importance of such Iberian contacts with the Medi-terranean, because, regardless of their intensity, the indigenous substratum did not incorporate elements such as the potter’s wheel, nor do we have evidence that groups became established in the Iberian Penin-sula, as they did in Italy. But even this fact depends on the way we focus the problem, because we can also argue that the burials in urns from the end of the early phase of Argar Culture (1900-1650 BC), with the consequent abandoning of megalithic ritual (Martín de la Cruz 1991a, 113 f.; 1996, 1551 ff.), or the presence of segmented vitreous paste beads in tomb nine at Fuente Álamo (Almería) (Martín de la Cruz 1991b, 88 f.), are proof of early accultura-tion by Mediterranean people. Later we shall dis-cuss another argument in support of Mediterranean influence at this early period, the horn-shaped altars from El Oficio (Almería) and Granátula de Calatrava (Ciudad Real). Future finds of Mycenaean materials in the Iberian Peninsula will lead to increased quantitative information, but it should not be supposed that the qualitative weight of this presence will increase simi-larly. Mycenaean communities would have taken sta-ble structures into the Peninsula and its islands, but it would never have been more than a marginal area on the Mycenaean periphery. Anyway, the evaluation of the Mycenaean presence here needs to concentrate as much as possible on precise identification of materi-als, since analytical techniques can tell us their exact origin. In Italy, as we have seen, there has been a long tradition of specialist study of Mycenaean contacts, but this is not the case in the Iberian Peninsula,

mainly because of the scarcity of evidence of con-tacts. In Italy there has been a call for collaboration with Late Bronze Age studies to identify materials, some of them not immediately recognizable as Myc-enaean (Re 1999, 407), such as common pottery, the most abundant find in Italy (Marazzi 2001a, 65 ff.), which also in Spain makes up the majority of the scanty material found so far. New data could perhaps be found by revising excavated materials; a closer collaboration between scholars of the Mediterranean is evidently necessary. The Dédalo project (a com-puterised archive of Aegean evidence in the central and western Mediterranean), launched in Italy to cat-egorise objects imported from or influenced by the Aegean, is helping to increase knowledge of Myc-enaean materials (Re 1999, 409). But beyond the materials, the real problem we must deal with is whether there was a world system which included the Iberian Peninsula. If there was, the centre must have been the original Mycenaean area, which would have exchanged its manufactures with peripheral regions. Then there is the role we give these materials as the reduced and simplified trace of a much more complex reality. We are sure that many more items will be found in the future, but the main problem is the importance we give them, whether we see them as the tip of an iceberg, the outward sign of a much more complex and hidden reality lying beyond the material itself, or as ele-ments always present in the archaeological syntax, a connection always appearing but meaning nothing individually (Lucena Martín 2002, 74 f.). Thus, we must consider a three-fold problem which lies at the root of the discussion on the place of the Iberian Peninsula in any kind of world system, The first, common to any archaeological con-sideration, is the ability of materials to speak about human activities which could be inferred from them but which cannot be assumed from the materials themselves. The example above is significant, ma-terials act as the connection between mankind and environment, the later being understood as other hu-man communities, nature, neighbours, etc. As a nex-us, they inform us immediately of any link between different elements, but we do not know what those elements are, nor the circumstances from which the links were born. The second problem could be stated thus, the existence of any world system requires, first of all, the need for it to be. The centre of the System is go-ing to need services and products that can be found at the periphery, so that only areas which can provide them will take part in the System. Thus we must first define the exact nature of that world system,


what is the need for exchange that make it possible/necessary, and then decide if the Iberian Peninsula could have taken part in the game. The third problem is methodological, by defi-nition, the centre of the world system receives raw materials, which must obviously lose their original shape and nature in the process of manufacture or consumption (in the case of subsistence products). We can thus make an archaeology of absences, why don’t we find the things we don’t find? In the case of luxury objects, we have already observed that the lack of one of the elements in a possible exchange is reason enough for this absence, and so such ob-jects are scarce in the Iberian Peninsula and as yet unknown in the East Mediterranean. In the case of common pottery, we see again the scarce Mycenaean presence in Iberia and the complete lack of Iberian sherds in the East Mediterranean. It is also true that pottery was often not important in itself, but only as a container for other products. But if we find Italian pottery in Crete, taken there as recipients for other products, why do we not find Iberian pottery in the Central and East Mediterranean? Claiming that this is because only raw materials were delivered is valid as a working hypothesis, but not a demonstrated em-pirical fact, apart from being an important difference in the way we view the cases of Italy and Iberia. Contact between Iberian structures and those from the Eastern Mediterranean happened one way or another, directly or through communities settled in Italy, or by indigenous people accultured by these communities. If we have to formulate an hypothesis with the information we have and the information we lack (which is information also, after all), there is only one possibility, during the 16th -12th centuries BC the Iberian Peninsula was not part of the eco-nomic system controlled by Mycenaean centres, and materials from these centres could have arrived by chance, through sporadic contacts such as expedi-tions or accidents, lost ships which would arrive on the south-eastern coasts of the Peninsula driven from the Levant by westerly currents along the north coast of the Mediterranean (Aubet 1994, 163 ff.; Giardino 1995, 281). This would explain the eastern pottery and beads in the Iberian Peninsula, and even the cult structures such as the horn-shaped altars at El Oficio (Almería) and La Encantada (Granátula de Calat-rava, Ciudad Real), with chronologies from Argar B –these would have been the cult objects of such small groups of chance arrivals. This situation would not necessarily imply the acculturation of the Peninsular population, nor the adoption of oriental cults, since the potter’s wheel was not adopted either.

Structures related to cults and beliefs, such as sanctuaries, do not necessarily imply that the local population was deeply influenced by outside groups who led them into similar practices. An out-side group maintaining its customs within a differ-ent community is a more immediate explanation for these finds than hypothetical acculturation. These recently arrived people would have brought with them from their place of origin not only a series of material objects, but also a baggage of beliefs which they would maintain for some time. We are however dealing with people who would not necessarily have known how to make wheel-turned pottery, in view of the advanced productive specialization of the eastern centres, although some of them would have brought wheels with them, during the 14th and 13th centuries BC pottery production in Mycenaean centres in-creased, with greater normalisation and stylisation of shapes and decorations, along with increased spe-cialisation of craftsmanship (Vermeule/Karageorghis 1982). The technology of the obtainment of copper during the Middle Bronze in the Iberian Peninsula seems to have been very basic and its’ characteristics would be able to track until the Copper Age, without indications of the developments of the Mediterranean impulse during the moments when the Italian metal-lurgy and its’ islands were firmly linked to the Myce-naean activities (Gómez Ramos 1999; Giardino 1999, 352). Although it was believed that the most antique bronzes were the Argaric and that this knowledge had arrived through the contacts maintained with the Mediterranean in turn to 1500 AC, today we know that the oldest dates pertain to Monte Aguilar (Nav-arra) (1980-1750 cal. AC). Neither the Argar nor the Bronze Period of La Mancha have given older dates of the 17th century in calibrated dates (1500-1400 AC in conventional dates). It seems clear that bronze en-tered in the Iberian Peninsula through the north by contacts with another region of the European occi-dental facade (the British Isles where Bronze was al-ready known in those times). “De todo ello se extrae un modo de producción atomizada, casi doméstica, sin grandes centros metalúrgicos ni activas redes comerciales a pesar de disponer de recursos min-erales suficientes, situación que casa sin dificultad con el escaso dinamismo que muestran las culturas del Bronce Medio Peninsular en comparación con sus contemporáneas de la Europa templada” (Gómez Ramos 1999, 331). The metallurgy took a second-ary role during the Argaric Bronze, in relation with agriculture and stock breeding. It explains the near absence of ingots until the Late Bronze Age.


Social rejection has been postulated in relation to foreign innovation, as in the case of the spear-heads from the megalithic tomb at La Pastora (Montero/ Teneishvili 1996). However, there is no need to think that wheel-turned pottery in Iberia around 1300-1200 BC was rejected for social reasons, but rather that the people who first brought these materials could not produce them, and this could also be the case with the spear-heads. Finally, the abandoning of megalithic ritu-als and the beginning of urn burials at the end of Argar A period can be perfectly well explained as the result of an internal process of evolution in the Argaric communities (Contreras Cortés 1995, 151 f.). In respect to the individual burial, one of the elements that have most induced thinking in oriental influences in other Mediterranean zones, (necrópolis of Milazzo, Milazzese Period, parallel to Thapsos culture; necrópolis of Naxos, posterior to the hori-zon Milazzese-Thapsos) (Schubart 1976), we can see the continuity from the Chalcolithic. The first Argaric burials are made in artificial caves excavated in rocks, with dromos or without it, and that carry in occasions, idols within the rocks that close the sepul-tures like those that came in the period before. They share chronology with the excavated caves the great cists that follow in the B phase (Lull 1983, 448). Thus, also in respect to the funerary world, we find a process of internal evolution of the Argaric commu-nity; it is not necessary to argue external influences to explain its material repertories. Only the cup seems strange to the evolution in situ of the materials, appearing in Argar B over the tombs o together with the same. The cup appears in the Near East in the IV-III A.C millenniums and are made more frequently in the III. In the middle of the second millennium, cups are very common in Anatolia (Beycesultan) and Mycenaean area, in the Middle Bronze of the south and east of Sicily and in the Milazzese culture of the Aeolian Isles (Schubart 1976). But the Argaric cups can be comprehended like the own creations of a community in advance and that have reached a notable degree of ceramic development, above all given the existence of stylised forms from the Chalcolithic, like are the supporters. Also there are local precedents for the quadrangular floors characteristic of the Argaric Bronze (Parazue-los, Tres Cabezos, Campos, Montefrío y Laborcil-las) (Aguayo 1986, 264). When the underlying conditions are mature in a human community, new ideas appropriate to them rise, and this can happen in different places and times (Harris 1987, 75 f.). Gordon Childe and others accepted that the higher the degree of develop-ment a community reaches, the smaller its expendi-

ture of energy in funerary practices (Eiroa 2000, 70 f.). We can argue that the Argaric communities, with their vertically stratified society from the Chal-colithic onwards, no longer needed to express materi-ally, through expensive monuments, the differences which existed during life - their social system had reached maturity. Therefore the existence of tombs of pit graves or cists in the Argolis in the final moments of the MH and during all the LH-I (Taylour/French /Wardle 2000; Graziadio 2000) is not necessarily re-lated with the rite of Argaric inhumation. There are many reasons to see the introduc-tion of urn burial as either due to Mediterranean in-fluxes or as an autochthonous process, but since we lack solid arguments for the foreign option, we must accept local responsibility for changes in funerary rites. In the Iberian Peninsula we do not find clear indications of imitation of Aegean motifs by the in-digenous population, or of whichever fact that has an archaeological reflection that speaks to us of Medi-terranean influences. It is a situation very distinct from that of which we find in Italy and it’s islands. We try to synthesize this, The Mycenaeans of Vivara, for example, did not only bring objects but also the necessary tech-nology to continue producing them (ceramists intro-duced the potters’ wheel and used local clays to pro-duce Aegean types, that coexisted with the ceramics by hand, or even any Khalkeus). The possibility that it was the indigenous people who fabricated these ce-ramics, and therefore learned the technique, informs us that we are possibly facing the phenomena of imi-tation that implies a level of acculturation (Bettelli 2002, 146 ff.; Tusa 1999, 521 f.).

1. The need of wood to bake the ceramics and, above all, to melt the metal would have caused strong deforestation of the Mediterranean vegetation of Vi-vara, so it seems clear that Punta d’Alaca was related with the process of elaboration of metals (Pepe 2001, 13 f.). We see that the process of acculturation by Mycenaean influences, accelerated the changes in the local population and its environment. This envi-ronmental degradation, united with seismic causes, could be the reason of the abandonment of the island (Marazzi et al. 1998, 64 ff.).

2. Ceramic repertories with chronologies that re-spond to the moment of formation of the Greek-Myc-enaean culture have been documented in the habita-tion structures of Vivara (LH-LM IIA-IIA1, middle of the 16th century to the middle of the 15th century BC). The opening of the occidental markets of metal by the Late-Helladic centres is considered as a pos-


sible cause of the process of social stratification in Greece at that time. It would explain the particular advance of the Helladic component in the commer-cial circuits of the Levant (Pepe 2001, 13 f.), as a result of the new function assumed by the Helladic periphery in respect to the Levant-Aegean centre, to facilitate the affluence of resources, especially metals (Dickinson 1977). In Vivara, the existence of an an-cient beach has been documented, currently situated between 3 and 10 meters below sea level. It has been interpreted as the old entrance zone of the island, where the ships would be repaired and protected from the sea (Pepe 2001, 15 ff.; Mocchegiani 2001, 7 f.). The Mycenaean ships could bring not only copper but also tin, things that the Aegean and Near East virtuallylacked (Giardino 2001a, 62 f.; 1998a, 48 ff.). The Sicilian ports like Cannatello and Thap-sos would be intermediaries. The Mycenaean in-fluence in the evolution of the mid-Mediterranean metallurgy has been underlined for the case of the Necropolis of Thapsos, where two iron bars of quad-rangular section have been documented in relation to ceramics of the LH-IIIA (Giardino 2001b, 408 f.).

3. Crete is, during the 17th century BC, the mo-tor of an international, maritime network that unites the Aegean with Egypt, Levant and Anatolia, and the north with the Greek peninsula. In the 17th century, Greece is placed between the Mediterranean-Orien-tal elites, the need for selected goods (copper and tin), and the periphery of the Central Mediterranean, characterized by social-political forms less organized but with a large tradition in metals (Marazzi 1998b, 37 ff.). While in Occident, the Mycenaean presence shows an organized structure during the decades of transition between the MH and the LH, in Levant it is a phenomenon at least a century later (Marazzi 1999b, 9 ff.). The only ceramic finds of the initial moments of the TH are in Trianda and Mileto. The first presence in Egypt, in Troy and the Near East belongs to the TH IIA (Graziadio 1999, 75). The Minoans first, the Minoans and Mycenaeans after, and at the end only the Mycenaeans, have carried out the role of intermediaries in the Levant. However, Egypt took total control over the Palestine coast dur-ing the reign of Thutmosis III (Godart 1999, 21 ff.).

Conclusion

Contact between the Iberian Peninsula and the Medi-terranean is indisputably documented from the 13th-12th centuries, and it is quite possible, though not precisely datable, that this contact could have begun in the 16th century BC, when the Mycenaean pres-ence is first seen in Italy. With regard to the nature of these contacts, the most plausible option in the light of the information at our disposal, is to postulate that they were acci-dental and sporadic, not a part of any economic strat-egy. They seem to have left no cultural influences on the Iberian Peninsula which can be detected from material evidence. If the contacts had some role as catalysts for the development of the Argar, it had to be through social rather than material repercussions (Martín de la Cruz 1999, 312). The relationship of Italy and its’ islands to the Mycenaean world is well defined as we have seen, thanks to the intensity of it and a long tradition of studies about the topic. In the case of the Iberian Pe-ninsula, the case is much more complicated. When Schubart (1976) refers to the “metallic cups” of Castelluccio of the Early Bronze Age (1800-1400) and Capo Graziano (Aeolian Islands) and observes its’ many protuberances and perforations that very different from the ceramics of Argar, and thus he defends a common influence diversely interpreted according to regions. The only thing left to say is that if we want to identify Mycenaean influences in the Iberian Penin-sula, we should change our perspective on the Ital-ian instances, given that we don’t deal anymore with imported objects but with common ideas, materially made in a diverse way. However, in the Iberian Pe-ninsula, apart from scarce “imported” materials, we just can simply say that there was nothing to “imi-tate”.

Translation from Spanish to English by Katherine Ko.


References

Aguayo de Hoyos 1986P. Aguayo de Hoyos, La transición de la Edad del Cobre a la Edad del Bronce en la Provincia de Granada. In: J.-L. Cuchillos/J. M. Galán/J.-A. Zamora (eds.), Actas del Congreso Homenaje a Luis Siret (1934-1984), Junio 1984, Cuevas de Almanzora (Sevilla 1986) 262-270.

Aubet 1994M. E. Aubet, Tiro y las Colonias Fenicias de Occidente (Barcelona 1994).

Bettelli 2002M. Bettelli, Italia Meridionale e Mondo Miceneo: ricerche su dinamiche di acculturazione e asetti archeologici, con particolare riferimento ai versanti adriático e ionico della penisola italiana (Firenze 2002).

Blance 1986B. Blance, Siret y cien años de Arqueología. In: J.-L. Cuchillos/J. M. Galán/J.-A. Zamora (eds.), Actas del Congreso Homenaje a Luis Siret (1934-1984), Junio 1984, Cuevas de Almanzora (Sevilla 1986) 19-27.

Buchholz 1980H.-G. Buchholz, The Problem of Minoan Relations with the West at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age. Temple University Aegean Symposium 5 (Philadelphia 1980).

Calvo Trías 2002M. Calvo Trías, Útiles líticos prehistóricos, forma, fun-ción y uso (Barcelona 2002).

Castellana 1998G. Castellana, Il Santuario Castellucciano di Montegran-de e lápprovvigionamento dello zolfo nel Mediterráneo nellétá del bronzo. Agrigento.

Castellana 2000G. Castellana, La cultura del Medio Bronzo nellágrigentino ed i rapporti con il mondo miceneo (Agrigento 2000).

Castellana 2001G. Castellana, Presenze egeo-levantine nellágrigentino nella prima metá del II millenio a.C. Preistoria Dalle Coste della Sicilia alle Isole Flegree, Istituto Universitario Suor Orsola Benincasa, Napoli, 5 maggio-3 giugno (Na-poli 2001) 375-387.

Castro et al. 1996P. Castro/V. Lull/R. Micó, Cronología de la Prehistoria Reciente de la Península Ibérica y Baleares (c. 2800-900 cal ANE). BAR Int. Ser. 652 (Oxford 1996).Cline 1994E. H. Cline, Italy, Europe and the LBA Aegean. Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea. International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean. BAR Intern. Ser. 591 (Oxford 1994).

Contreras Cortès 1995F. Contreras Cortès, Peñalosa: un proyecto de investi-gación de la Edad del Bronce en el Alto Guadalquivir. I Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular, Porto, 12-18 Outu-bro de 1993, vol. V (Porto 1995) 143-157.

Deveto/Nocentini 1975G. Devoto/A. Nocentini, La Lingua Omerica e il Dialetto Miceneo (Firenze 1975).

Dickinson 1977O. Dickinson, The Origins of Myceanean Civilisation (Göteborg 1977).

Eiroa 2000J. J. Eiroa, Nociones de Prehistoria General (Barcelona 2000).

French 1984E. K. French, Problems in Mycenaean Contacts with the Central Mediterranean. Temple University Symposium 9 (Philadelphia 1984).

Giardino 1995C. Giardino, Il Mediterraneo Occidentale fra XIV ed VIII secolo a.C. Cerchie minerarie e metallurgiche. BAR In-tern. Ser. 612 (Oxford 1995).

Giardino 1999C. Giardino, Spagna sud-orientale, Italia medio-tirrenica e Micenei: attività metallurgiche e traffici nel Mediterraneo occidentale della prima metà del II millenio. In: C. Gia-rdino (ed.), Culture Marinare nel Mediterráneo Centrale e Occidentale fra il XVII el il XV secolo a.C. (Roma 1999) 339-366.

Giardino 2001aC. Giardino, Archeometallurgia a Vivara. La Ricerca Ar-cheologica a Vivara e la Attivit dellÍstituto Universitario Suor Orsola Benincasa, 5 maggio-3 giugno (Napoli 2001) 59-63.

Giardino 2001bC. Giardino, La metallotecnia nella Sicilia pre-protostor-ica. In: S. Tusa (ed.), Preistoria Dalle Coste della Sicilia alle Isole Flegree. Istituto Universitario Suor Orsola Ben-incasa, 5 maggio-3 giugno (Napoli 2001) 405-414.

Gilman 1993A. Gilman, Y Contacto Cambio Cultural en la Prehistoria de la Europa Mediterránea. Trabajos de Prehistoria 50, 1993, 103-111.

Goberna 1986Mª. V. Goberna, Los estudios de Prehistoria durante la se-gunda mitad del siglo XIX y primeros años del XX. Actas del Congreso Homenaje a Luis Siret (1934-1984), Cuevas de Almanzora, Junio 1984 (Sevilla 1986) 28-34.

Godart 1999L. Godart, LÉgeo e il Mediterraneo orientale. In: C. Gia-rdino (ed.), Culture Marinare nel Mediterráneo Centrale e Occidentale fra il XVII el il XV secolo a.C. (Roma 1999) 19-29.

Gómez Ramos 1999P. Gómez Ramos, Metalurgia extractiva del cobre durante el Bronce Medio en la Península Ibérica. In: C. Giardino (ed.), Culture Marinare nel Mediterráneo Centrale e Oc-cidentale fra il XVII el il XV secolo a.C. (Roma 1999) 325-338.


González Prats et al. 1995A. González Prats/E. Ruiz Segura/J. Gil Fuensanta/R. Seva Román, Cerámicas Anatólicas en el poblado calcolítico de Les Moreres (Crevillente, Alicante, España). I Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular, Porto, 12-18 Outubro de 1993, vol. V (Porto 1995) 131-141.

Graziadio 1999G. Graziadio, La Grecia continentale allínizio del Tardo Bronzo e le rotte protomicenee verso Occidente. C. Gia-rdino (ed.), Culture Marinare nel Mediterráneo Centrale e Occidentale fra il XVII el il XV secolo a.C. (Roma 1999) 75-96.

Graziadio 2000G. Graziadio, LÉgeo e lÍtalia nel periodo delle tombe a fossa. In: G. Castellana (ed.), La cultura del Medio Bron-zo nellágrigentino ed i rapporti con il mondo miceneo (Agrigento 2000) 246-263.

Harding 1984A. Harding, The Mycenaeans and Europe (London 1984).

Harris 1981M. Harris, Introducción a la Antropología General (Ma-drid 1981).

Harris 1987M. Harris, El Materialismo Cultural (Madrid 1987).

Hodder 1988I. Hodder, Interpretación en Arqueología: Corrientes Ac-tuales (Barcelona 1988).

Knapp 1991A. B. Knapp, Spice, Drugs, Grain and Grog: Organic Goods in Bronze Age East Mediterranean Trade. In: N. H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. Stud. Mediterranean Arch. XC (Göteborg 1991) 19-66.Lucena 2002A. Mª. Lucena, Prehistoria de Todo lo Material y lo In-material, Arte, Arqueología e Historia 9 (Córdoba 2002) 74-75.

Lull 1983V. Lull, La “cultura” de El Argar (Madrid 1983).

Mammina 2001G. Mammina, Le “Rondelle” Fittili nellétà deñ Bronzo. In: S. Tusa (ed.), Preistoria Dalle Coste della Sicilia alle Isole Flegree. Istituto Universitario Suor Orsola Beninca-sa, Napoli, 5 maggio-3 giugno 2001 (Napoli 2001).

Marazzi 1991M. Marazzi, Vivara: Centro comérciale mediterráneo dellétá del bronzo I. Gli scavi dal 1976 al 1982 (Roma 1991).

Marazzi 1995M. Marazzi, Tokens e Strategie di Memorizzazione sen-za Scrittura: Nuove Attestazioni nel Mediterráneo del II Milenio A.C. AIWN, Annali del Departamento di Studi del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico Sezi-one Lingüística, Istituto Universitario Orientale (Napoli 1995).

Marazzi 1998aM. Marazzi, I siti di Monte Grande e Vivara: due cap-isaldi dell pi antiche frequentazioni egee in Occidente, In: G. Castellana (ed.), Il Santuario Castelluciano di Monte Grande e lápprovvigionamento dello zolfo nel Mediter-ráneo nellét del Bronzo (Palermo 1998).

Marazzi 1998bM. Marazzi, Gli antenati dei Greci “scoprono” lÓccidente: le più antiche navegación micenee e la formazione di un´élite di ricchi mercanti e di guerrieri nell Grecia del Tardo Bronzo. In: M. Marazzi/C. Mocchegiani (eds.), Vi-vara: unísola al centro della storia (Napoli 1998).

Marazzi 1999aM. Marazzi, I Micenei a Vivara o i Micenei di Vivara?. Un bilancio delle ricerche a ventánni dallínizio degli scavi. Epi Ponton Plazomenoi. Simposio Italiano di Studi Egei (Roma 1999).

Marazzi 1999bM. Marazzi, La nasita delle prime élites politiche nella Grecia tardo elladica e le più antiche navigazioni micenee in Occidente: alcune riflessioni. In: C. Giardino (ed.), Culture Marinare nel Mediterráneo Centrale e Occidentale fra il XVII el il XV secolo a.C., 1999, 9-8.

Marazzi 2001aM. Marazzi, Studio di Analisi Archeometriche delle ce-ramiche preistoriche di Vivara e Monte Grande. In: C. Pepe (ed.), La Ricerca Archeologica a Vivara e la Atti dellÍstituto Universitario Suor Orsola Benincasa (Napoli 2001) 65-74.

Marazzi 2001bM. Marazzi, Dieta alimentare e movimenti di “beni org-anici” a Vivara: una ricerca fra fisica e bioarcheologia. In: C. Pepe (ed.), La Ricerca Archeologica a Vivara e la Atti dellÍstituto Universitario Suor Orsola Benincasa (Napoli 2001) 65-74.

Marazzi et al. 1998 M. Marazzi/C. Mocchegiani/C. Giardino, LÁrcipelago flegreo, punto nodale per lo sviluppo di un commercio mirato allácquisizione delle materie prime metalliche. In: M. Marazzi/C. Mocchegiani (eds.), Vivara. Unísola al centro della storia (Napoli 1998).

Martín de la Cruz 1990J. C. Martín de la Cruz, Die erste mykenische Keramik von der Iberischen Halbinsel. Prähist. Zeitschr. 65, 1990, 49-52.

Martín de la Cruz 1991aJ. C. Martín de la Cruz, La Península Ibérica y el Medi-terráneo en el II Milenio a.C. El Mundo Micénico: Cinco Siglos de la Primera Civilización Europea, 1600-1100 a.C. (Madrid 1991).

Martín de la Cruz 1991bJ. C. Martín de la Cruz, LÉtá del Bronzo nel Sud della Penisola Iberica: la Sequenza Locale e gli Influssi Esterni, Seminari, Anno 1990, Consiglio Nazionale dell Ricerche, Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici (Roma 1991).


Martín de la Cruz 1991cJ. C. Martín de la Cruz, Los Primeros Contactos entre Grecia y la Península Ibérica. La Problemática Planteada por los Hallazgos de Montoro (Córdoba). Arqueología de la Magna Grecia, Sicilia y Península Ibérica (Córdoba 1991).

Martín de la Cruz 1996J. C. Martín de la Cruz, Nuevas cerámicas de Importación en Andalucía (España): sus Implicaciones Culturales. In: E. Stavrianopoulou (ed.), Atti e Memorie del Secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, Roma-Napoli, 14-20 Ottobre 1991 (Roma 1996).

Martín de la Cruz 1999J. C. Martín de la Cruz, España, Oriente y el Mediterrá-neo Central en la primera mitad del II milenio a.C. In: C. Giardino (ed.), Culture Marinare nel Mediterráneo Cent-rale e Occidentale fra il XVII el il XV secolo a.C. (Roma 1999) 307-323.

Martín de la Cruz/Baquedano Baltrán 1987J. C. Martín de la Cruz/M. I. Baquedano Baltrán, Cerámi-cas inéditas del Bronce Final. Revista de Arqu. 70, 1987.

Martín de la Cruz/Lucena Martín 2002J. C. Martín de la Cruz/A. Mª. Lucena Martín, The Iberi-an Peninsula and the Mediterranean during the second mil-lennium B.C. An Archaeology Made of Absences. Journal Iberian Arch. 4, 2002.

Martín de la Cruz/Perlines Benito 1993J. C. Martín de la Cruz/M. Perlines Benito, La cerámica a torno de los contextos culturales de finales del II milenio a.C. en Andalucía. In: V. O. Jorge (ed.) I Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular, Porto, 12-18 Outubro de 1993, vol. II (Porto 1993) 337-345.

Mederos 1995aA. Mederos, La Cronología Absoluta de la Prehistoria Re-ciente del Sureste de la Península Ibérica, Pyrenae, 1995, 53-86.

Mederos 1995bA. Mederos, Retorno al Pasado. Comercio o Difusión en los Análisis de los Sistemas Mundiales Antiguos. Trabajos Prehist. 52, 1995, 131-141.

Mederos 1996A. Mederos, Representación de Liras en Estelas Decora-das del Bronce Final de la Península Ibérica. Cuachernos Prehist. Arqueologia Univ. Autonomia Madrid 23, 1996, 114-123.

Mederos 1997A. Mederos, Nueva Cronología del Bronce Final en el Oc-cidente de Europa. Complutum 8, 1997, 73-96.

Mederos 1998A. Mederos, La Cronología Absoluta de Andalucía Oc-cidental durante la Prehistoria Reciente (6100-850 A.C.), Ser. prehist. et arqueologia Univ. Sevilla 5, 1996, 45-86.

Melas 1991M. Melas, Mediterranean Trade in the Bronze Age: a Theoretical Perspective. In: N. H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. Stud. Mediterranean Arch. XC (Göteborg 1991) 387-398.

Mocchegiani 1998C. Mocchegiani, L´Antica spiaggia di Vivara: nuove ricerche sul porto-approdo della Vivara del II millenio a.C. In: M. Marazzi/C. Mocchegiani (eds.), Vivara: un´isola al centro della storia (Napoli 1998).

Mocchegiani 2001C. Mocchegiani, Archeologia Subacquea a Procida-Vivara (Napoli 2001).

Molina/Pareja 1975F. Molina/E. Pareja, Excavaciones en la Cuesta del Negro (Purullena, Granada). Campaña de 1971. Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España, 1975, 38-39.

Mommsen et. al. 1990H. Mommson/V. Diehl/D. Lambrecht/F. J. Pantenburg/J. Weber, Eine Mykenische Scherbe in Spanien: Bestäti-gung ihrer Herkunft mit der Neutronenaktivierunganalyse (NAA)”, Prähist. Zeitschr. 65, 1990, 59-61.

Montero/Teneishvili 1996I. Montero/T. O. Teneishvili, Estudio Actualizado de las Puntas de Jabalina del Dolmen de la Pastora (Valencina de la Concepción, Sevilla). Trabajos Prehist. 53, 1996, 73-90.

Panagl 1992O. Panagl, Las Tablillas de Arcilla con Escritura Lineal B. In: Ministerio de Cultures (ed.), El Mundo Micénico: Cinco Siglos de la Primera Civilización Europea, 1600-1100 a.C. (Madrid 1992) 56-61.

Pepe 2001C. Pepe, Missione Archeologica Vivara. Guida agli Scavi e al Progetto Vivara (Napoli 2001).

Rafelis I Fontanalis 1978N. Rafelis I Fontanalis, La cueva de La Roca del Frare en la Llacuna, Comarca del Penedés. Pyrenae 13/14, 1978, 43-59.

Re 1999L. Re, I piantichi contatti micenei nel Mediterraneo: un confronto fra Oriente e Occidente. Epi Ponton Plazome-noi. In: V. La Rosa/D. Palermo/L. Vagnetti (eds.), Simpo-sio Italiano su Studi Egei (Roma 1999) 405-413.

Renfrew 1975C. Renfrew, Trade as action at a distance. In: J. A. Sabloff/C.C. Laukerg-Katorvsky (eds.), Ancient Civilization and Trade (Alburquerque 1975) 3-59.

Renfrew 1990C. Renfrew, Arqueología y Lenguaje. La Cuestión de los Orígenes Indoeuropeos (Barcelona 1990).


Sanchez Meseguer et al. 1983 J. Sanchez Meseguer et al., El Oficio y La Encantada. Dos Ejemplos de Culto en la Edad del Bronce en la Península Ibérica. Actas del XVI Congreso Nacional de Arqueología, Murcia, Cartagena (Zaragoza 1983) 383-396.

Sanchez Meseguer 1985J. Sanchez Meseguer, El Altar de Cuernos de la Encantada y sus Paralelos Orientales. Oretum I, 1985, 125-174.

Schubart 1967H. Schubart, Relaciones Mediterráneas de la Cultura del Argar. Zephyrus XXVI-XXVII, 1967, 331-342.

Sherrat/Sherrat 1991A. Sherrat/S. Sherrat, From Luxuries to Commodities: the Nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age Trading Systems. In: N. H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. Stud. Mediterranean Arch. XC (Göteborg 1991) 351-386.

Snodgrass 1991A. M. Snodgrass, Bronze Age Exchange: A Minimalist Position. In: N. H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. Stud. Mediterranean Arch. XC (Göteborg 1991) 15-20.

Taylor et al. 2000W. D. Taylor/E. B. French/K. A. Wardle, Well built Myc-enae. fasc. 7 The Prehistoric Cemetery. Pre-mycenaean and Early Mycenaean Graves (Oxford 2000).

Tusa 1983S. Tusa, La Sicilia nella preistoria (Palermo 1983).

Vagnetti 1982L. Vagnetti, Magna Grecia e Mondo Miceneo. Conven-go di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. Nuovi Documenti XXII (Taranto 1982).

Vagnetti 1991L. Vageetti, El Comercio Micénico con el Mediterráneo Central. Italia Peninsular y las Islas. El Mundo Micénico. Cinco Siglos de la Primera Civilización Europea, 1600-1100 a.C. (Madrid 1991) 106-109.

Vermeule/Karageorghis 1982E. Vermeule/ V. Karageorghis, Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting (Cambridge 1982).

Wiener 1991M. H. Wiener, The Nature and Control of Minoan For-eign Trade. In: N. H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. Stud. Mediterranean Arch. XC (Göteborg 1991) 325-326.


1 2

3

5

4

76

Fig. 1. Map of the Iberian Peninsula with the settlements and cities commented in the text: 1. Cova del Frare (La Llacuna, Tarragona); 2. La Encantada (Granátula de Calatrava, Ciudad Real); 3. Llanete de los Moros (Montoro, Córdoba); 4. Cuesta del Negro (Purullena, Granada); 5. La Pastora (Valencina de la Concepción, Sevilla); 6. El Oficio (Cuevas de Almanzora, Almeria); 8. Vélez Málaga (Málaga); 9. Almuñécar (Granada)


Pl. 1. 1. Drawings of the Mycenaean pottery from Llanete de los Moros (Montoro, Córdoba) by Martín de la Cruz (1996); 2. Mycenaean pottery from Llanete de los Moros (Montoro, Córdoba) by Martín de la Cruz/Lucena Martín (2000, fig. 6); 3. Weel-turned pottery from Cuesta del Negro (Purullena, Grana- da), by Molina/Pareja (1975, fig. 102), identified again at Llanete de los Moros (fig. 5)

1

2 3


Pl. 2. 1. Pottery from Llanete de los Moros (Montoro, Córdoba), by Martín de la Cruz (1999, fig. 8b)


Pl. 3. 1. Horn-shaped altar from El Oficio (Cuevas de Almanzora, Almeria), by Siret (1893, fig. 288); 2. Horn-shaped altar from La Encantada (Granátula de Calatrava, Ciudad Real), by Sánchez Me seguer et al. (1985, fig. 8)

1

2


1

2

Pl. 4. 1.Cylindrical seal from Vélez Málaga (Málaga) (a) and necklace from Almuñécar (Granada) (b), by Rodriguez de Berlanga (1891, figs. 3, 8); 2. Segmented vitreous paste beads from Cova del Frare (La Llacuna, Tarragona), by Rafel I Fontanals (1978, fig. 10)


Pl. 5. Spear- heads from the megalithic tomb of La Pastora (Valencina de la Concepción, Sevilla), by Almagro (1962)


Pl. 6. Segmented vitreous paste beads from Fuente Álamo (Cuevas de Almanzora, Almeria), by Siret (1890)

On the Question of Cimmerian Imports and Imitations in Central Europe 167

Abstract

Contact between the Black Sea Coast and Central Europe during the Early Iron Age has to be studied together with the origin of nomadism in the steppe area of the continent. The early 1st millennium BC was characterized by the formative development of nomad pastoralism throughout the Eurasian Steppes. During this time, specialized nomadic economies de-veloped based on the horse, so that most of steppe re-gions were occupied by groups of nomads with their mobile way of life. Cimmerians played a vital part in the transmission of the horse riding and in the devel-opment of a new bridle technique. Both innovations were to have a major impact on European history. The climatic changes, migrations, the intro-duction of horse on a large scale, trade contacts and prestige goods exchange, changes in social structures and the development of elites, are probably the most significant factors which have to be included in the analysis of the questions being considered.

!"#$%"

&'‘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

G8+%65*-0+ #%+0*, %+;/6E+F + B*/.)" '*)./*15600( ).0(, 5./;.'+ ).056)5* + .4%+0 3/"15*,0*%* 3/":%"56%*, #%+0* < 1.E+6820+= 15/<)5</+ + /.#'*5.) "8+5* 3/":156'8($52, .-"'*:0., 06=4+82B '6,8*'+ A6)5./*, ()+ 0".4@+:0. %65* 06 <'6#+ 3/* 6068+#+ 3*5602, ()+ /.#;8(:6$521(.

Introduction

A material culture of different peoples, whether it has a closed or original character, in some way ex-periences the influence of other cultures, which are neighbouring or in contact with it. Such influence is shown in distribution of imported luxury goods, mainly for the representatives of the supreme layers of a society, as well as the utilitarian items, especially those, which had the great advantages in a material, form or technical characteristics.

During the period 900-700 BC a considerable number of objects manufactured in eastern Europe workshops appear in archaeological contexts in Cen-tral Europe. These materials are found associated with Central European materials of the Late Urnfield and Early Hallstatt periods in graves and hoards. The “Thraco-Cimmerian” objects are concentrated in the Carpathian Basin and penetrated as far west as Bo-hemia, Croatia, Lower Austria and North Italy. Most of what came to Central Europe from the east was connected with military equipment and horse gear, and this fact, speaks for nomads.

At present, two stages in interactions between the Cimmerians of East European Steppes and the population of Central Europe can be distinguished (I6@./5J@ 2003, 39f.). At the early stage (9th – 8th

centuries BC) the contacts with the Upper and Mid-dle Danube region prevailed (the Late Urnfield and related cultures). They were reflected in weaponry and horse harnesses. At the later stage (8th – 7th cen-turies BC) the contacts of Cimmerians with the cul-tures of the Thracian Hallstatt and the northern Bal-kan become stronger, and they reflected in ceramics and ornaments.

1. Natural-climatic and social-cultural changes in the early 1st millennium BC in East European Steppes

It should be noted that the first centuries of 1st millen-nium BC are characterized by a significant activation of contact between remote territories. In many re-spects, this has been caused by an appearance in the historical arena of early nomads, one of which was

On the Question of Cimmerian Imports and Imitations in Central Europe

Sergey V. Makhortykh

Sergey V. Makhortykh168

the Cimmerians. The end of the II – the beginning of the 1st millennium BC in steppe zone of northern Black Sea area was accompanied by the transition of its population to a nomadic way of life that was caused by climatic and anthropogenous factors.

The Cimmerian period was marked by consid-erable changes in economic and social life of popula-tion of eastern Europe and belongs to an extremely important time in the ancient history of this region. The considered period is called by the name of peo-ple- the Cimmerians, who were the first historically known nomadic tribe in eastern Europe. The neces-sity of studying the Cimmerians’ history and culture is determined by the important role of this nomadic people in historical development of eastern and Cen-tral Europe as well as the Near East.

It is evident that the emergence of Cimmerian Culture coincided with climate changes in eastern Europe. About the 11th century BC, in eastern Europe a period of long climate aridity began (K"/61*%"0). 1997, 56; L3*/*:.0.'6/M6'/<B*0 1997). The evidence of these changes is represented by the sea level changes and the regressions of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea (D6/<B"0). et al. 1987, 112). These climatic changes were even more dramatic in territory of the Kazakhstan Steppes, where differ-ent zones of vegetation moved almost 200 km to the north (N64:<8*06/&:60.'*- 1984, 35). As a result of the changes in the ecosystem, the population of the Black Sea and Aral-Caspian steppe regions was affected by a common ecological crisis.

The worsening of climatic conditions had a negative effect on the Pontic Steppe archaeological cultures with mixed pastoral-agricultural economy. The crisis might have been strengthened by the an-thropogenous influence on the local environment as well (e. g. intensive ploughing, destruction of steppe vegetation due to grazing the animals, etc).

The collapse of such large Late Bronze com-munities as the Belozerka and the Post-Srubnaya Sultures was a result of mentioned ecological crisis (I6@./5J@ 1993, 42). The population of these com-munities had a complex economy based on agricul-ture and cattle-breeding. The drying of the climate forced the steppe inhabitants to shift to nomadic cat-tle-breeding. It is probable that, already by the Late Bronze Age, the cattle breeding shift in the economy, which was gradually taking more mobile forms, be-gan tointensify. The crisis in agriculture increased simultaneously. In these conditions, the role of horse is grew in the herds. This created the necessary pre-conditions for the transition to nomadic and to semi-

nomadic pastoralism, which was soon spreading, not though the inhabitants of Pontic Steppes, but though the huge steppe regions of Eurasia.

A considerable part of the population, already involved in nomadic cattle breeding, moved from the Pontic Steppes into areas with a more favorable en-vironment. These migrations probably took place in several steps and were characterized by continuous or camp types roaming with a non-closed cycle of excur-sions. This form of pastoral nomadism is an excep-tion in nomadic way of life. It existed in conditions of the ecological crisis caused by lack of foraging dur-ing the drought periods, or during the military events (!<:"0). 1961, 2). The choice by the Cimmerians of nomadic, semi-nomadic, or semi-sedendary forms of pastoralism was determined by the ecological niche they occupied. The migration of Cimmerians took place in several directions. First of all it was the areas which were located in zones with a positive level of humidity. Among these areas were the Dnieper for-est-steppe zone, the Crimea Peninsula, the northern Caucasus and the Great Hungarian Plain. These new centers were located in environmental areas of wetter climate and their positions allowed them to play an important role in the new condition.

The increase of the Cimmerian influences initi-ated historical and cultural changes in different parts of eastern and Central Europe, and this is repre-sented by the reorientation of long-distance exchange networks and the changes in centres of metal produc-tion.

The nomadic impact on the Early Iron Age cultures can be seen in the increasing importance of the horse. The appearance of horse riding in the ear-ly 1st millennium BC brought about a revolution in communications. The horse could be used to explore new territories, in raiding and trading. Cimmerians played a vital part in the transmission of the horse riding and in the development of a new bridle tech-nique. Both innovations were to have a major impact on European history. A mobile life-style helped to create a new set of cultural and social patterns of behaviour. The great importance of horses and horse riding is evident from the number of finds relating to horse gear discovered in the Cimmerian graves (pl. 1,2). The previously mentioned changes also influ-enced warfare (the use of cavalry in battle requiring well-trained horses), religious practices (the distribu-tion of inhumation burials with horse harnesses), and social structures (the appearance of elite groups of mounted warriors who benefited from long distance exchange).


2. Cultural and social changes in Central Europe in the context of Cimmerian influ-ence

The transformation of warfare and of prestige arte-facts generated in the Cimmerian society, represent-ed a new technological and social complex closely connected to other forms of military tactics. These tactics were based on riding and demanded more re-liable control of horses. Simultaneously this process was accompanied by the introduction of new types of weapon and horse gear. The new Cimmerian bits con-sisted of two movable joint parts, meant for riding, contrary to the rigid bits of Urnfield Culture which were more suitable for traction (Balkwill 1973; Hüt-tel 1981). In comparison with the Urnfield bits with a size usually of 7 cm, the new Cimmerian types were 10 - 11 cm, implying larger breeds of horses (Kossack 1998). The use of cavalry in war required well-trained horses and skilful experts for the breed-ing and training of the animals. Wide distribution of these innovations assumed either the presence of well organized exchange between eastern-Central Europe-an elites, or the occurrence of new representatives of Cimmerian nobility with their retinue and equipment in the Carpato-Danubian region.

Oriented to the needs of mounted warrior, new light types of military equipment (daggers, spears, etc) had widespread distribution and simultaneously became the prestigious categories of the weaponry of Cimmerian epoch. The old heavy armaments of the Urnfield Culture, especially as applied to a horse, were not effective against the riders armed by the light weapons.

During the Early Iron Age in Central Europe a fairly clear demarcation between two centers of Cim-merian influences can be observed.

The first is located on the Great Hungarian Plain and Southwest Slowakia as well as southern Moravia (Patek 1974; Kemenczei 1984; Chochorowski 1993; Romsauer 1999). Its sites show fundamental changes in the cultural landscape in comparison with the pre-vious epoch. Here are concentrated the monuments of the Mez!csát type, which reflects the spread-ing of the eastern traditions in burial rites (flexed or stretched out inhumations), material culture and economy. The Mez!csát phenomenon could be in-terpreted as a result of the penetration of separate Cimmerian groups in Hungary and neighbouring territories and their mixing with the local popula-tions. The East Carpathian Basin was a particular bridgehead from which a local variant of Cimmerian Culture spread its influences and developed contacts with other regions of the Central and western Eu-rope. The nomadic or semi-nomadic way of life of

the Mez!csát population assisted in the transmission of the technical achievements and ideology of Cim-merian Culture (horse harness, weaponry, symbols of power, etc) through all Central Europe.

The second center of Cimmerian influence unites the Late Urnfield and Hallstatt cultures which continued to develop their economic and cultural tra-ditions to the west of Danube (Patek 1993). Here, in the western areas of the early Hallstatt world, the ar-tifacts of Cimmerian type have been found mainly in the burials, which reflect a high social status of their owners. Contacts of nomads with the local popula-tions have influenced the social structures of west-ern Hallstatt population (Kristiansen 1998). These changes in social models were accompanied by the widespread introduction of iron and the adaptation of new religious and symbolical values. A consideration of the “western” area of the distribution of Cimme-rian innovations allows us to assume the appearance there in the 8th century BC of a new social organiza-tion for which there are typical fortified settlements and kurgan burials (Pécs-Jakabhegy, Sopron, etc).

In the territories of both centers, the finds, which could be considered as imports and imitations of Cimmerian objects, are the most numerous.

3. Cimmerian imports and imitations in Central Europe

The distribution of eastern imports in Central Eu-rope was caused by several factors. Besides inva-sions, these include trade activities and the exchange of prestigious things between elites. It is known that, not only the nomadic cattle breeding and war, but also trade mediation were among the components of Cimmerian power (I6@./5*@ 1996). Their monu-ments in the Pontic Steppe are located along the trade routes and near river crossings. Most likely, the Cim-merians, just as other nomadic peoples, had a layer of traders-middlemen who were engaged in trade and exchange with fellow tribesmen and the populations of remote regions. It is well known that the extensive nomadic economy was not able to cause any large division of labour in the nomadic society, except for trade. The widespread development of trade was de-termined by the narrow economic base of nomadism, which promoted an establishment of close interac-tions with agricultural civilizations. Therefore, active participation and interest, both by ancient and medi-eval nomads in exchanges with settled agricultural societies are well-known in history.

The written sources, in particular Herodotus’s account (IV, 24), provide grounds to assume the presence of traders in a Scythian society. With help


of their mediation, the Olbia goods got to the Sarma-tians (I6@./5*@ 1996). Penetration of antique im-ports into the forest-steppe has also been connected with trade activity of Scythians.

Of considerable interest is Strabon’s reference (XI, V, 8) about the Sarmatian tribe (Aorsi), who conducted a caravan trade with Indian and Babylon goods, receiving them through an exchange with the Armenians and the Medians. Written sources inform, that the Avars were also thoroughly engaged in trade. From the beginning of the Avarian period in Central Europe they seized river crossings and crossroads of trade routes (O/:"8* 1986, 330). Similar exam-ples of nomadic trade activity could be mentioned. At the same time, the failure of satisfying the need for exchange of the nomadic peoples frequently re-sulted in conflicts. So, the Mongols often were at war with China, and demanded permission to trade for nomads as the Peking government pursued a pol-icy of the trade prohibitions in 15th – 16th centuries, providing a severe punishment for its infringement (P65/6).' 1958).

The spreading of imitations of Cimmerian ar-tifacts in Central Europe was determined by their adoption by the local Central European craftsmen. The separate elements of nomadic traditions that re-sulted in appearance of the syncretic artifacts. This borrowing occurred as a result of direct contacts with nomads or through acquaintances, with their finds distributed by means of trade or prestige exchange. The familiarity of the population of Central Europe with nomadic advanced weapons and horse gear caused the appearance of their own products to de-velop under the influence of Cimmerian traditions. Some of the most important and informative catego-ries of these finds will be considered below.

3.1. Daggers and swords

Central Europe belongs to the second region (after the northern Caucasus) of the greatest abundance of the Pre-Scythian swords and daggers with a cross-shaped hilt. The main territory of their distribution - western Hungary and adjacent areas of Matra’s mountains and the East Alpine fringe as well as Si-lesia and East Germany. What almost all the Central European finds (except for two completely bronze daggers from Gamów and Klein Neudorf) have in common is that they were made of the combination two metals, the iron blades and the bronze hilts.

The origin of the bimetallic daggers is connect-ed with the Pontic region where they and metal scab-bard endings are already known in the monuments of the Belozerka Culture in 12th – 10th centuries BC (Kalanchak, K.chkovatoe, Stepnoe, etc.) (I6@./5J@

2003, 42). Probably, due to contacts with steppe tribes and migrations of the separate nomadic groups to the North Caucasus, there bimetallic swords and daggers of the “Cimmerian type” received a wide distribution and further development.

The Pre-Scythian daggers with a cross-shaped hilt from Central Europe could be divided into several types. The first type is represented by the daggers with knoblike or flat horizontal pommel, a openwork hilt decorated by a single row of open rings and a guard of right-angled or sub-triangular con-tours: Gamów (Poland), Štramberk (Czech), Mátra (Hungary) (Pfützenreiter 1936, ryc. 1-2 tab. VI,1-2; Gallus/Horváth 1939, fig. 5; Podborský 1970, tab. 35,5-11.76.6) (pl. 3,5.11).

Morphologically the previously mentioned ex-amples are similar to a series of 10 daggers from the North Caucasus: Klin-Yar, Psekups, Kislovodsk, etc. (D*0.;/6:.' et al. 1980, fig. 1,20; 3,6; M.'36-" 1985, tab. 15,3). The fact that the majority of simi-lar daggers have been found in the North Caucasian area, allow us to assume their origin in the Ciscau-casian-Cimmerian environment, from where some of them were distributed to other territories, including Central Europe.

The second type of Cimmerian daggers is rep-resented, in the Trans-Danube area, by a single exam-ple. It was found in the kurgan burial near the Pécs in Hungary (Török 1950, tab. 3-4; Maráz 1978). The dagger has a flat handle, which is decorated by a double row of open rings (pl. 3,2). Such an ornament is usually considered as later derivative from daggers with a single row of decoration. However, a bronze dagger with a similar decorated hilt was found in the grave 15 from the cemetery 1 of Kislovodsk (D*0.;/6:.' et al. 1980, fig. 2,12), which is dated to the 9th – 8th centuries BC (I6@./5*@ 1992, 26). This fact is evidence that some daggers of the second and the first types existed simultaneously. It is also interesting to note a similarity in the decoration of guards with the isosceles triangles pattern on daggers from Pécs-Jakabhegy (with a double–row hilt) and Štramberk (with a single-row hilt), that probably, in-dicates their chronological similarity.

Concluding consideration this group of dag-gers, it is necessary to mention the bronze fittings for sheaths decorated by similar a double-row pattern. Such finds are known from a number of sites on ter-ritory of Hungary: Biharugra, Kakasd as well as in the Hungarian National Museum (pl. 3,7-9). Besides those previously discussed, there is also other group of the bimetallic weaponry in Cen-tral Europe. They are represented by the daggers and short swords of the third type with cap-formed pommel, undecorated hilts of oval or rectangular sec-


tion and the straight advanced guard (variant Golov-jatino after V. Podborský or Leibnitz after J. Cho-chorowski). They have no local roots in Central Eu-rope and their appearance is connected with the Cim-merian influence: Leibnitz (Austria), Klein Neudorf (Germany), Szöny (Hungary), P"nade (Romania) (Podkowinska 1932-1933, fig. 2; Marton 1934, tab. 38,5; Podborský 1970, fig. 26,1; Vulpe 1990, pl. 1,1) (pl. 3,1.3.4.6). From Austria (Stillfried cem-etery) is known a find of the bronze hilt of a dagger which, probably, belongs to this type (Strohschned-er/Vahlkampf, 1980, tab. 55,1-4) (pl. 3,10).

Though the previously considered daggers be-long to various types, together they form a compact group, probably, relating to fairly narrow period of time (9th - 8th centuries BC).

Not all of the Cimmerian daggers from the Carpathian-Danubian region are imported from the east. Some of them are imitations. The handle of a dagger from Štramberk, was made of local metal which corresponds in the details with certain bronze objects in the Chernotin hoard (Podborský 1967, 220). Furthermore, other Central European finds have morphological features that are not peculiar to the East European items. These are a very narrow blade or a round-shaped pommel on the daggers as from the Klein Neudorf and P"nade. A short sword from Leibnitz which has considerable widening of its blade in the lower part, characteristic of Late Bronze Age swords in Central Europe, but practically un-known among the East European bimetallic weap-onry should also be mentioned.

Thus, in the Pre-Scythian time, there existed the primary centers of manufacturing of daggers and swords with cross-shaped hilts concentrated in east-ern Europe, and secondary centers among which was the Carpatho-Danubian area. As this takes place, the secondary centers could themselves made local pro-duction spreading at the considerable distances.

3.2. Bits

3.2.1. Bits with single end-rings

During the Pre-Scythian epoch, there is a wide dis-tribution in the Carpatho-Danubian area of bronze bits with the ends in the form of circular rings. These are known from the following finds of these elements of horse gear in Central Europe: Austria (Seeboden, Stillfried), Croatia (Batina, Legrad), Czech (Pláten-ice, P#edm$#ice, Zábo#Q ), Germany (Steinkirchen), Hungary (Biharugra, Dinnyés, Dunakömlöd, Pécs-Jakabhegy, Szanda, Szeged, Fügöd), Italy (Este), Slovakia (Santovka), Romania (Cip"u, Veti%). In ad-

dition, no less than three examples without specify-ing the place of origin are kept in different Hungar-ian museums (Gallus, Horváth 1939, taf. 1,9; 9,13; 12,6; 10,18.19; 18,6; 20,13; Nevizánsky 1985; Kaus 1984, taf. 9,j; Kaus 1988/89, taf. 2,6.7; Cho-chorowski 1993, ryc. 1; 2; Metzner-Nebelsick 1994, fig. 17a.5.6). All these bits consist of two parts con-nected by rings on their inside ends. The form of their outside loops varies from a precise ring up to oval or drop outlines, and the bars are frequently cov-ered with incised line markings. Almost half of the listed finds have extra elements in the form of the buttons at the end for connection with a bridle rein (pl. 4,1.6-9.11).

Bits of such form had a wide territorial distri-bution in the 9th – 7th centuries BC. They are most numerous in the south of East Europe and in Central Europe. There are single examples found in Tran-scaucasia, Kazakhstan and Central Asia (I6@./5J@ 1994, 69ff.). In the eastern Europe and Caucasus bronze bits with single end-rings are mainly dated to the 9th - first half of 8th centuries BC. In 7th century BC they were replaced by the iron bits of the same type. In the Hallstatt Culture area the majority of the bronze bits with the ends in the form of circular rings are dated to the 8th - 7th centuries BC (Kos-sack 1954, 167 fig. 18,B1-2; 20,B1, C2; Pare 1991, 9 ff. fig. 9; Chochorowski 1993, 42 f., 54 fig. 1,1-3). It must be stressed that these bits consist of two movable jointed parts whereas Central Europe was for a long time dominated by a one-compound type of a bit (Balkwill 1973). I have to agree with the ma-jority of researchers who connect their origin with an area of eastern Europe.

3.2.2. Bits with the ends in the form of a reverse stirrup (D-shape)

Of particular interest are the bronze bits with outside ends in the form of a stirrup. The basic territory of their distribution is the East Alpine area and Pan-nonia, though separate finds are also known in Tran-sylvania and the neighbouring areas of Hungary. At present there is evidence about the following finds: Austria (Alland, Haslau-Regelsbrunn, Pamhagen, Stillfried); Germany (Steinkirchen), Croatia (Ba-tina, Dalj), Romania (Cip"u), Hungary (Biharugra) (pl. 5,6-12). In addition no less than four examples without specifying the place of origin are kept in the Hungarian National Museum (Frey 1905, fig. A,7; Gallus/Horváth 1939, pl. 11,5; 18,7; 46,4; 47,4; Müller-Karpe 1959, pl. 143A,13-14; Foltiny 1961, pl. 1; Vinski-Gasparini 1973, pl. 119,13; Kaus 1984, pl. 9,m; Kaus 1988/89, pl. 2,5; Metzner-Nebelsick 1994, 398).


J. Chochorowski distinguished two variants of bits of this type in Central Europe (Haslau-Regelsbrunn and Batina) and stressed their rather early chronological position among the “Thraco-Cimmerian” antiquities (Chochorowski 1993, 49). This remark relates, first of all to the “classical” examples (variant Haslau-Regelsbrunn) where the stirrup’s form is underlined expressively. It should be noted, however, that along with this variant in the Haslau-Regelsbrunn hoard there is also a second variant of this bit type that, in my opinion, testifies to their synchronous function-ing during the same chronological period.

Most likely, this type of a bit is a local Central European version which originated there on the basis of East European bits with stirrup ends and then, already in the modified form, came back to the pri-mary centre.

In the south of East Europe are four finds of a bit with D-shaped ends: Rostov kurgan of 1939, Kazazovo 3 and Pshish 1 cemeteries in the Trans-Kuban region (I6@./5J@ 2003, 88) (pl. 5,1-4). Bits bars from Kazazovo 3 are decorated by an incised “firlike” ornament, which is characteristic of Central European items from Batina, Haslau-Regelsbrunn and Stillfried.

3.3. Cheek-pieces

Bronze cheek-pieces of Pre-Scythian time through the design of their openings or elements of fasten-ing could be divided into three large sections: three-holed, three-looped, and three-muffed cheek-pieces. Among them different types are distinguished as well. Some of these will be considered below.

3.3.1. Three-holed cheek-pieces

These cheek-pieces are represented by the ones of Chernogorovka type. They are made of bronze and have a bar of round section with three oval holes, placed in regular intervals on length of the bar, and small caps on the ends. In Central Europe such ob-jects are known from only a few hoards- Chernotin (Czech) and Karmin III (Poland) (Seger 1907, fig. 59; Podborsky 1970, pl. 52,2-3) (pl. 6,16-18).

The cheek-pieces of the Chernogorovka type are rather well represented in the Cimmerian com-plexes of Black Sea steppes (Biriukovo, Nikolaevka, Slobodzeja, Chernogorovka), the lower Don area (Balabinskiy, Novocherkassk), Trans-Kuban region (Kazazovo 3, Krasnogvardejskoe II, Nikolaevskiy, Pshish 1), Stavropol’e (Aleksandrovskoe), Kab-ardino-Balkariya (Germenchik) and the northern Ossetia (Koban) (pl. 6,1-15). The majority of these finds are dated to 9th – first half of 8th century BC.

However, taking into account a complex from Ale-ksandrovskoe which shows a combination of the clas-sic version of the Novocherkassk bit with the ends in the shape of double rings and the cheek-pieces of the Chernogorovka type, it is possible to assume the existence of single examples also in the second half of 8th century BC (>"5/"0). 1981, fig. 1,2).

The bronze cheek-pieces from Karmin and Chernotin belong to the earliest evidence of contact between the northern Black Sea area and Central Eu-rope. This is confirmed by the archaic character of these complexes, in which there are objects (sickles, socketed axes, etc), dated to Ha B2 (Chochorowski 1993; Metzner-Nebelsick 1994).

3.3.2. Three-looped cheek-pieces

These cheek-pieces are represented by several types in Central Europe (Csákbereny, Posadka, etc), but in the given article I will dwell only on one of them.

The Maikop type (after J.Chochorowski or variant “c”of type NR after C. Metzner-Nebelsick) is represented by a single example in the collection of the Hungarian National Museum (Budapest) (Gallus, Horváth 1939, pl. XLI,5-6). It is decorated by two narrow relief bulges and an image of rhombic sign entered in a circle (pl. 7,3).

The basic area of distribution of the cheek-pieces of this type is the eastern Europe, in particular the northern Caucasus where more than 25 examples have been found (Kislovodsk, Kochipe, Koban, Fars) (O/8*@ 1994; S<:6/"' 1999) (pl. 7,4.5.8-10). They belong to a number of archaic three-looped cheek-pieces, which preceded the appearance of the “clas-sical” Novocherkassk type. Attention is drawn to the essential differences in dating the “Hungarian” find by different researchers. So, J. Chochorowski assigned this cheek-pieces to the period Ha B2 (Cho-chorowski 1993, 67 fig. 3) whereas C. Metzner-Nebelsick dated it to the middle - second half of 8th century BC (Metzner-Nebelsick 1994, 424 fig. 18).

In my opinion, of vital importance for resolv-ing its chronology is an ornament in the form of the “Cimmerian” solar sign (rhombus entered in a cir-cle) which decorated this item. Such a motif, in an already developed form, is characteristic of the end of the Pre-Scythian time – the beginning of the Early Scythian period. It allows to date the given cheek-piece to the second half of 8th - the beginning of 7th centuries BC.

3.3.3. Three-muffed cheek-pieces

These cheek-pieces represent a special research area for the study of contact between the Pontic Steppes


and Central Europe. Among them can be distin-guished several types which I have examined on dif-ferent occasion (I6@./5J@ 2002; 2003).

The cheek-pieces of the Kamyshevakha type were found in the most ancient East European buri-als of the Pre-Scythian period dated to the 9th century BC. In Austria, a find of the Kamyshevakha cheek-piece, the nearest in time to the oldest East European objects, is known from the Haslau-Regelsbrunn hoard (Müller-Karpe 1959). This type of cheek-piece had undergone some morphological changes that contin-ued to occur in Central Europe during the 8th century BC (Chochorowski 1993; Metzner-Nebelsick 1994).

The Kamyshevakha type of cheek-piece is rep-resented in Central Europe by a considerable amount of finds (more than 30 examples). The majority of such objects are found in Austria (Haslau-Regelsb-runn, Hohe Wand, Frög, Parndorf, Stillfried, Stock-ern) (Müller-Karpe 1959, pl. 143A,15-16; Kaus 1984, pl. 9,i.p; Adler 1985/86, fig. 188.189; Terzan 1990, fig. 50,4.5; Lochner 1991, pl. 94,1), Hungary (Dinnyés, Tolna, Füzesabony, “Hungary” (Gallus, Horváth 1939, pl. 1,1; 9,10; 40,1; 45,4), Germany (Urach-Runder Berg, Steinkirchen) (Holste 1940, 9 fig. 2,10-16) and Serbia (Tdaševci, Rudovci, Mesic (Vasi& 1987, pl. 54,6.7; Metzner-Nebelsick 1994, 443). Similar in forms, but in single finds are known in Bulgaria (Trojan), Romania (Cip"u), Czech (T#t$no), Kroatia (Batina) and Slovakia (O'kov) (Eisner 1933, pl. 40,5; Gallus, Horváth 1939, pl. 41,2; Kytlicová 1991, pl. 55,6.7). It should be also noted that three or four cheek-pieces probably found in Hungary (Hallus, Horváth 1939, pl. 1,8; 41,3; Kossack 1954, 135, fig. 11; Foltiny 1961, pl. 71,2) (pl. 8,9-20).

The most numerous (more than 20 examples) and morphologically close to the cheek-pieces of the Kamyshevakha type is the Dinnyés variant after J.Chochorowski or type VI after C. Metzner-Nebel-sick (Chochorowski 1993, 59; Metzner-Nebelsick 1994, 393). They are interpreted as the oldest and dated to the period Ha B2.

As a later version of the Kamyshevakha type of cheek-piece should be considered in the finds from Batina (Croatia) and Hohe Wand (Austria).These are characterized by the squared design of their open-ings which is typical for the cheek-pieces of the Ha C period.

The cheek-pieces of T#t$no type, characterized by the biplane position of central and two farthest to the ends tubular openings (Adaševci, Steinkirchen, T#t$no) belong to the independent modification of the Kamyshevakha type of cheek-piece. Such objects are considered as the younger ones and dated to Ha B3 (Chochorowski 1993, 67 fig. 3). It is not im-

probable that part of the Kamyshevakha cheek-pieces from Central Europe are imports, however, some their versions (the cheek-pieces with decorated caps, the T#t$no type, etc.) must be interpreted as local imitations.

3.3.4. Combined tubular-looped cheek-pieces

Among these is the Szanda type of cheek-piece (after J. Chochorowski and type X after C. Metzner-Nebel-sick) which is represented by bronze barlike cheek-pieces with a bent end (pl. 7,11-14). Their endings are decorated with semicircular or flat cups. Strap holes facing in different directions were made in the form of two round loops and one tubular opening. Such cheek pieces are distributed on the Great Hungarian Plain and the southern foothills of Carpathians. They have been found in hoards (Biharugra, Szanda) and burials (Gura-Padinii, Dalj) (Gallus, Horváth 1939, pl. 10,14-15; 12,3; 37,4-5) Archaeologists attribute this type of cheek-piece to a syncretic form devel-oped in Central Europe as a result of meeting the local three tubular cheek-pieces with “eastern” three loop ones (U"11"0 1953; Chochorowski 1993, 71; Metzner-Nebelsick 1994, 395).

3.4. Cylindrical pendants

Interesting adornments represented by the cylindri-cal-blade pendants were found in two Pre-Scythi-ans burials in Hungary: Czeged-Öthalom and Sirok (Reizner 1904; Patek 1989-1990) (pl. 9,8-10). The nearest parallels to them are known in steppe Cim-merian burials from the Lower Don (Balabinskiy 1, kurgan 10, grave 13; Novonikolaevka >, kurgan 2, grave 7) and the Volga region (Mirnoe, kurgan A1), as well as from the so-called Proto-Maeotic monuments in Trans-Kuban area, some of them have developed under influence of steppe traditions of the North Black Sea area (Nikolaevskoe, Psh-ish I, Psekups) (T0A*%.' 1961; I6@./5J@ 1994; L6#.0.' 1995; S<4.'1)6(/>.:.4": 1996) (pl. 9,1-5). A single bronze pendant of this type in the Koban culture is known from the Verkhniy Akbash cem-etery (Kabardino-Balkariya) (pl. 9,6).V. Kozenkova has attributed these pendants to the Michalkov type (G.#"0).'6 1990), whereas C. Metzner-Nebelsick attributed them to the Šarengrad type (Metzner-Nebelsick 1996). However, in my opinion, the unification of the above mentioned finds within the frame of these types (Michalkov or Šarengrad) is not correct. Ornaments from the Michalkov hoard from the Ternopol Oblast, relate to the beads or fittings (Hadaczek 1904) (pl. 9,7). They are made in the form of solid cylinders with bent


and flattened ends. They differed from the discussed cylindrical-blade pendants which were usually used as hair ornaments or ear-rings (Metzner-Nebelsick, Chochorowski). It is necessary to note, that these pendants can be divided into two groups.

The first group includes practically all the East European objects and Hungarian pendants from Szeged-Öthalom and Sirok (pl. 9,1-10). They are constructed of two flat cylinders with one bent edge. From the top both cylinders are connected with each other by a loop. The second group is represented by the pendants from the Šarengrad hoard and collective tomb 2 on the Gomolava settlement (pl. 9,11-17). They consist of one large cylinder with two bent edg-es. Furthermore, the edges of cylinder are connected horizontally by a lug or a wire, and their external surface is decorated in distinctive technique. These examples are made from bronze (Vinski-Gasparini 1973, tab. 131,2-8). Virtually all the pendants of the first group from the eastern Europe are dated to 9th – 8th centuries BC (I6@./5J@ 2003, 53). A similar pendant from Hungary (Szeged - Öthalom), proba-bly, marks a route of penetration of such adornments in the west and further to the south, in the south-east Pannonia and to northern Balkans. The pen-dants of the second type revealed there (Gomolava, Šarengrad) differ by their originality and, probably, represent later derivatives. It is also evidenced from their dating within the 8th century BC (Tasi& 1972, 30 ff.; Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 163 f., 210, 220; Metzner-Nebelsick 1994, 410, 420).

Conclusion

Cimmerian imports and imitations, spreading into Central Europe in the Pre-Scythian epoch were a re-sult of variety of factors connected with an appearance of nomads on the historical arena and their impact on settled agricultural communities. Trade contacts and prestige goods exchange, “eastern” invasion and

the adoption of separate elements of Cimmerian Cul-ture resulting in appearance of the syncretic artifacts manufactured by the local craftsmen are reflected in a number of models of cultural contact between the Cimmerians and Central European population (I6@./5J@ 2003). They show the several stages in a process of culture transfer and perception of its elements, distinguished by R. Linton (Linton 1940). Owing to exchange, trade, migration, and military collisions, there was the initial adaptation to the new kinds of horse equipment and Cimmerian weaponry among the local inhabitants of Central Europe (the first stage). Initial borrowing, besides the technical preferences, occurred, probably, in expectation of receiving advantages from the possession of new ar-tifacts. Imports themselves often had high prestigious value, and the growth of prestige was accompanied by advantages in the field of the social status and po-litical influence. The elite adopted new cultural ele-ments, hoping to strengthen their social position and for the improvement of warfare. As a result nomadic weapons and horse gear were distributed in Central European communities, where under the Cimmerian influence there appeared a new social layer repre-sented by the mounted warriors (the second stage). In turn, its formation caused the distribution of new ritual and social forms of behaviour that was possible only as a result of direct contacts and long mutual relations with Cimmerians, in contrast to the objects of material culture which spread faster and did not require direct contact (Linton, 1940). In due course, the borrowed artifacts of Cimmerian origin were modified by the local Central European populations who developed their own versions of bits, cheek-pieces and daggers and definitively integrated them into their cultural system (the third stage). Thus the examination of the relations between the two areas has exceeded the limits of a purely “archaeological” problem and also brought forward the necessity of finding asolution of important questions connected with the history of society and its social sphere.


References

Adler 1985/86H. Adler, Urnenfelderzeit. Burgenland, Parndorf. Fund-ber. Österreich 24/25, 1985/86, 237.

T0A*%.' 1961 V. D. T0A*%.', >/.5.%".51)*= %.;*820*) < 1. V*).86"'1).;., In: V. D. T0A*%.' (ed.), L4./0*) %65"/*68.' 3. 6/@".8.;** T:J;"* (I6=).3 1961) 103–126.

Balkwill 1973 C. J. Balkwill, The earliest horse-bits of western Europe. Proc. Prehist. Society 39, 1973, 425–452.

P65/6).' 1958 D L. P65/6).', N.#(=15'"00J" 1'(#* ).-"'J@ 06/.:.' 1 !.11*"=, L/":0"= T#*"= * G*56"% (W6B)"05 1958).

D6/<X"0). et al. 1987 L. U. D6/<X"0)./T. V. D6/<X"0)./!. G. G8*;" U#%"0"0*" /",*%6 G613*=1).;. %./( * 4"115.-0J@ '.:."%.' ' 368".-'/"%"0* (I.1)'6 1987).

D*0.;/6:.' et al. 1980 D. P. D*0.;/6:.'/L. M. S<:6/"'/T. >. !<0*-, G*%%"/*=1).-)6')6#1)*" 1'(#* In: T. U. W"/"0.,)*0 (ed.) L)*A*( * G6')6# (G*"' 1980) 184–199.

Chochorowski 1993. J. Chochorowski, Ekspansja kimmeryjska na tereny Eu-ropy Srodkowej (Krakow 1993).

K"/61*%"0). 1997 V. >. K"/61*%"0)., >/*/.:06( 1/":6 .4*560*( -"8.'")6 06 $;.-'.15.)" Y)/6*0J ' 3.#:0"8":0*).'2" * ' ;.8.E"0". T/@".8.;*-"1)*= 682%606@ 6, 1997, 3–64.

S<4.'1)6(/>.:.4": 1996 H. !. S<4.'1)6(/D. T. >.:.4":, H4 .:0.% 5*3" <)/6B"0*= -"/0.;./.'1).;. '/"%"0*. In: D. V. K./4.' (ed.), L"'"/.-D.15.-0." >/*6#.'2" ' 1*15"%" Z'/6#*=1)*@ :/"'0.15"= (S.0"E) 1996) 102–109.

S<:6/"' 1999L. M. S<:6/"', D#6*%..50.B"0*( 38"%"0 L"'"/0.;. G6')6#6 1 ).-"'0*)6%* [;.-D.15.-0.= Z'/.3J ' 3/":1)*A1)<$ \3.@< (T/%6'*/ 1999).

Eisner 1933 J. Eisner, Slovensko v prav$ku (Bratislava 1933).

U"11"0 1953T. T. U"11"0, G '.3/.1< . 36%(50*)6@ VIII-VII ''.:. 0.\. 06 $;" "'/.3"=1).= -615* LLL!, L.'"51)6( T/@".8.;*( 18, 1953, 49–110.

Foltiny 1961S. Foltiny, Über die Fundstelle und Bedeutung der an-geblich aus Kiskoszeg stammenden hallstattzeitlichen Bronzen des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum in Mainz. Jahrb. RGZM 8, 1961, 175–189.

Frey 1905 J. Frey, A kisközegi bronzlelet. Arch. Ertesitö XXV, 1905, 189–191.

Gallus/Horvath 1939 S. Gallus/T. Horváth, Un peuple cavalier préscythique en Hongrie (Budapest 1939).

Hadaczek 1904 K. Hadaczek, Z(ote skarby Michaikowskie (Kraków 1904).

Holste 1940 F. Holste Zur Bedeutung und Zeitstellung der sogenannten “thrako-kimmerischen” Pferdegeschirrbronzen. Wiener Prähist. Zeitschr. 27, 1940, 7–32.

Hüttel 1981H.-G. Hüttel, Bronzezeitliche Trensen in Mittel- und Os-teuropa. PBF XVI/2 (München 1981).

Kaus 1984 M. Kaus, Das Gräberfeld der jüngeren Urnenfelderzeit von Stillfried an der March. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975-1977. Forsch. Stillfried 6 (Wien 1984).

Kaus 1988/1989 M. Kaus, Kimmerischer Pferdeschmuck im Karpatenbeck-en. Das Stillfried Depot aus neuer Sicht. Mitt. Anthr. Ges. Wien 118/119, 1988-1989, 247–257.

Kemenczei 1984 T. A. Kemenczei, Die Spätbronzezeit Nordostungarns (Bu-dapest 1984).

G.#"0).'6 1990 D. U. G.#"0).'6, N/.0.8.;*( ).4601).= )<825</J: :.15*,"0*(, .3J5 <5.-0"0*(, 0"/"B"00J" 3/.48"%J, L.'"51)6( 6/@".8.;*( 3, 1990, 64–92.

Kossack 1954 G. Kossack, Pferdegeschirr aus Gräbern der älteren Hall-stattzeit Bayerns. Jahrb. RGZM 1, 1954, 111–178.

Kossack 1998 G. Kossack, Horse and wagon during the Early Iron Age in Central Europe -Technical considerations, nature of evidence and conceptual content. In: B. Hänsel/A. Hard-ing (eds.), Towards translating the past (Rahden 1998) 97–106.

Kristiansen 1998K. Kristiansen, Europe before history (Cambridge 1998).

Kytlicová 1991 O. Kytlicová, Die Bronzegefäße in Böhmen. PBF II/12 (Stuttgart 1991).

M.'36-" 1985V. K. M.'36-", I.;*820*) ' <152" >1")<316. In: V. D. T0A*%.' (ed.), D.3/.1J 6/@".8]** T:J"* (I6=).3 1985) 16–64.


M.'36-" 1991V. K. M.'36-", I.;*820*) G.-*3\ ' I6=).3". In: >.Y.T<58"' (ed.), G<825</6 * 4J5 6:J;.'. (I6=).3 1991) 76–102.

Linton 1940 R. Linton, Acculturation in Seven American Indian tribes (New York 1940).

Lochner 1991. M. Lochner, Studien zur Urnenfelderkultur im Waldviertel - Niederösterreich (Wien 1991).

Márton 1905 L. Márton, Scytha aranylelet gyomai halomsírb^l. Arch. Ertesitö XXV, 1905, 234–240.

Maraz 1978B. Maraz, Zur Frühhallstattzeit in Süd-Pannonien. Janus Pannonius Muzeum Evkonyve 23, 1978, 145–164.

Maraz 1996B. Maraz, Pecs-Jakabhegy. Ausgrabungsergebnisse und die Fragen der Frühhallstattkultur in Südostpannonien. In: E. Jerem/A. Lippert (eds.), Die Osthallstattkultur (Budapest 1996) 255–265.

Marton 1934L. Marton, Der Verwandtenkreis des Parierstangendolches von Klein Neudorf, Kr. Görlitz. Altschlesien 5, 1934, 209–214.

I6@./5*@ 1992 C. D. I6@./5*@, >6%’(5)* 5*3< V.'.-"/)612).;. 1)6/4<. T/@".8.;+( 1, 1992, 23–31. I6@./5J@ 1993 L. D. I6@./5J@, !600*" ).-"'0*)* L"'"/0.;. >/*-"/0.%./2( * .)/<,6$X6( 1/":6. In: L. S. G/J,*E)*= (ed.), H)/<,6$X6( 1/":6 * :/"'0"" 061"8"0*" Y)/6*0J (G*"' 1993) 41–51.

I6@./5J@ 1994 L. D. I6@./5J@, G*%%"/*=EJ 06 L"'"/0.% G6')6#" (G*"' 1994).

I6@./5*@ 1996 L. D. I6@./5*@, L)6/4* YR-Y> 15. :. 0.". 06 3+':0+ L@+:0.F 9'/.3*. T/@".8.;+( 4, 1996, 9–24.

I6@./5J@ 2002 L. D. I6@./5J@, H 3/":1)*A1)*@ 5/<4-65J@ 3168*(@. In: T. S. P"8*01)*=/L. V. L6'"0). (eds.), NN> “G/<30.'1)*" -5"0*(” 3. 6/@".8.;** L"'"/0.;. G6')6#6 (Z11"05<)*-G*18.'.:1) 2002) 90–92.

I6@./5J@ 2003L. D. I6@./5J@, G<825</0J" ).056)5J 061"8"0*( L"'"/0.;. >/*-"/0.%./2( * 7"05/6820.= Z'/.3J ' )*%%"/*=1)<$ \3.@< (G*"' 2003).

Metzner-Nebelsick 1994 C. Metzner-Nebelsick, Die früheisenzeitliche Trensen-entwicklung zwischen Kaukasus und Mitteleuropa. In: P. Schauer (ed.), Archäologische Untersuchungen zum Über-gang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit zwischen Nordsee und Kaukasus. Regensburger Beitr. Prähist. Arch. 1 (Bonn 1994) 383–446.

Metzner-Nebelsick 1996 C. Metzner-Nebelsick, Die Urnenfelder- und Hallstattzeit in Südostpannonien. Eine Region im Spannungfeld zwischen Osthallstattkreis, karpatenländisch-balkanischer Eisenzeit und Steppenkultur. In: E. Jerem/A. Lippert (eds.), Die Osthallstattkultur (Budapest 1996) 283–314.

Müller-Karpe 1959 H. Müller-Karpe, Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnen-felderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen (Berlin 1959).

Nevizánsky 1985 G. Nevizánsky, Bronzový depot tzv. trácko-kimmer-skeho horizontu zo Santovky. Arch. Rozhledy 37, 1985, 601–606.

Pare 1991 C. Pare, Swords, wagon-graves, and the beginning of the early iron age in Central Europe. Kl. Schr. Vorgesch. Sem-inar Marburg (Marburg 1991).

Patek 1974 E. Patek, Präskythische Gräberfelder in Ostungarn. In: B. Chropovsky (ed.), Symposium zu Problemen der jüngeren Hallstattzeit in Mitteleuropa (Bratislava 1974) 337–362

Patek 1989/1990 E. Patek, A Szabó Jánós Gy!z! által feltárt „preskíta“ síranyag. Egri Múzeum Évkönzve 25/26, 1989/1990, 61–118.

Patek 1993 E. Patek, Westungarn in der Hallstattzeit (Weinheim 1993).

>"5/"0). 1981 D. K. >"5/"0)., G.%38")1 8-7 ''. :. 0.\. *# L56'/.3.82(. G/65)*" 1..4X"0*( U015*5<56 6/@".8.;** TV LLL! 170, 1981, 70–73.

Pfützenreiter 1936 F. Pfützenreiter, Oberschlesische Bronzeschwerter. Altsch-lesien 6, 1936, 75–84.

Podborský 1967 V. Podborský, Štramberská dýka s k#Qzšnovým jilcem a otázka rozšQ#eni, puvodu a datovánQ t$chto dýk v Evrop$. Arh. Rozhledy XIX, 1967, 194–220.

Podborský 1970 V. Podborský, Mähren in der Spätbronzezeit und an der Schwelle der Eisenzeit (Brno 1970).


Podkowi)ska 1932/1933 Z. Podkowi)ska, Miecze bronzowe z Wojciechowic w pow. J*drzejowskim w woj. Kieleckim. Swiatowit XV, 1932/1933, 116–168.

Reizner 1904 J. Reizner, Leböi, öthalomi és obébai ásatások. Arch. Er-tesitö 24, 1904, 76–88.

Romsauer 1999 P. Romsauer, Zur Frage der Westgrenze der Mezocsat-Gruppe. In: E. Jerem/I. Poroszlai (eds.), Archaeology of the Bronze and Iron Age (Budapest 1999) 167–176.

!<:"0). 1961 L. U. !<:"0)., G '.3/.1< . A./%6@ 1).5.'.:-"1).;. @.#(=15'6 * . ).-"'0*)6@. I65"/*68J 3. \50.;/6A** 1, 1961, 2–15.

L6#.0.' 1995 T. T. L6#.0.', !600(( ;/<336 ).01)*@ ,"/5'.3/*0.B"0*= 3/.5.%".51).;. %.;*820*)6 >B*B-1. In: >. T. S*58"/ (ed.), T/@".8.;*( T:J;"* (I6=).3 1995) 84–107.

Seger 1907 H. Seger, Depotfunde aus der Bronze- und Hallstattzeit. Schlesiens Vorzeit Bild u. Schr. IV, 1907, 9–43.

L3*/*:.0.'6/M6'/<B*0 1997 Z. T. L3*/*:.0.'6/[. T. M6'/<B*0, G.//"8(E*( ;".8.;.-368"\).8.;*-"1)*@ 1.4J5*= ;.8.E"06 6/)5*-"1).=, 4./"6820.= * 6/*:0.= #.0 D.15.-0.= Z'/.3J. In: I. T8")1""'/U. N./"'6 (eds.), _"5'"/5*-06( ;".8.;*( * 368".;".;/6A*( !.11** (I.1)'6 1997) 151–170.

Strohscheider/Vahlkampf 1980 M. Strohscheider/G. Vahlkampf, Das späturnenfelderzeitli-che Gräberfeld von Stillfried. Veröff. Österreich. Arbeits-gem. Ur- u. Frühgesch. XIII/XIV, 1980, 143–145.

Tasi& 1972 N. Tasi&, An Early Iron Age collective tomb at Gomolava. Arch. Iugoslavica XIII, 1972, 27–37.

Teržan 1990B. Teržan, Starejša železna doba na Slovenskem Štajerskem. Katalogi in monografije 25 (Ljubljana 1990). Török 1950 Gy. Török, Pecs-Jakabhegyi foldvar es tumulusok. Archa. Ertesitö 7, 1950, 4–9.

N64:<8*06/&:60.'*- 1984 I. G. N64:<8*06/K. P. &:60.'*-, M60:B6A50.-)8*%65*-"1)*" ).8"460*( ;.8.E"06 * '.3/.1J )<825</0.-*15./*-"1).= 1*5<6E** ' L"'"/0.% G6#6@1560". In: K. P. &:60.'*- (ed.), P/.0#.'J= '") Y/68.-U/5JB1).;. %",:</"-2( (_"8(4*01) 1984) 35–48.

Vasi& 1987 R. Vasic, The chronology of the Early Iron Age in the socialist republic of Serbia. BAR Suppl. Ser. 31 (Oxford 1987).

Vinski-Gasparini 1973 K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura polja sa zarama u severvnoj Hrvatskoj (Zadar 1973).

Vulpe 1990 A. Vulpe, Die Kurzschwerter, Dolche und Streitmesser der Hallstattzeit in Rumanien. PBF VI/9 (München 1990).

O/:"8* 1986 U. O/:"8*, T/@".8.;*( D"0;/** VI-XI ''. In: D. W*5.'/U. O/:"8* (eds.), T/@".8.;*( D"0;/** (I.1)'6 1986) 310–346.

O/8*@ 1994 D. !. O/8*@, Y *15.).' /600"1)*A1).;. ).%38")16 (I.1)'6 1994).


Pl. 1. Cimmerian burial from Slobodzeya (middle Dniester)


Pl. 2. Cimmerian burial from Biriukovo (eastern Ukraine)


Pl. 3. Daggers and short swords of “Cimmerian” type and bronze fittings for sheaths from Central Europe: 1. Szöny; 2. Pécs-Jakabhegy; 3. P!nade; 4. Klein Neudorf; 5. Gamów; 6. Leibnitz; 7. Kakasd; 8,9. Biharugra; 10. Stillfried; 11. Mátra; 12,13. Dunakömlöd


Pl. 4. Bronze bits with single end-rings from Central and eastern Europe: 1. Seeboden; 2. Slobodzeya; 3. Kochipe; 4. Sergeevka; 5. Pécs-Jakabhegy; 6. Veti"; 7. Frög; 8. Still fried; 9. Santovka; 10. Balabinskiy; 11. Steinkirchen; 12. Koban


Pl. 5. Bronze bits with the ends in the form of a reverse stirrup from Central and eastern Europe: 1. Kazazovo 3; 2,3. Pshish 1; 4. Rostov; 5. Sakharna; 6. Batina; 7,8,12. Stillfried; 9. Cip!u; 10,11. Haslau-Regelsbrunn


Pl. 6. Three-holed cheek-pieces from eastern and Central Europe: 1-7. Pshish 1; 8,10. Kazazovo 3; 9. Aleksandrovskoe; 11. Nikolaevskoe; 12. Balabinskiy; 13. Gurov; 14. Moschanets; 15. Slobodzeya; 16,17. Chernotin; 18. Karmin III


Pl. 7. Bronze cheek-pieces: three-looped: 1. Gyula; 2. Tereze; 3. Hungary; 4. Koban; 5. Khanskaya; 6,7. Purkary; 8-10. Fars; tubular-looped: 11. Biharugra; 12. Szanda; 13. Dalj; 14. Gura Padinii


Pl. 8. Bronze cheek-pieces of Kamyshevakha type from eastern and Central Europe: 1. Ilin- skaya; 2. Pshish 1; 3-5. Kazazovo 3; 6. Kamyshevakha; 7,8. Serzhen-Yurt; 9. Parndorf; 10. O#kov; 11. Ismeretlen; 12. Dinnyés; 13. Steinkirchen; 14. Tolna; 15. T$t%no; 16. Ha- slau-Regelsbrunn; 17. Stillfried; 18. Frög; 19. Adaševci; 20. Urach-Runder Berg


Pl. 9. Gold and bronze adornments: 1. Nikolaevskoe, grave 5; 2. Pshish 1, grave 3; 3. Mirnoe, kurgan A1; 4. Balabinskiy, kurgan 10, grave 13; 5. Novonikolaevka II, kurgan 2, grave 7; 6. Verkhniy Akbash; 7. Michalkov; 8. Sirok, grave 8; 9,10. Czeged-Öthalom; 11. Gomolava, grave 2; 12-17. Šarengrad

Contacts between Greece and Pannonia in the Early Iron Age 187

Abstract

It seems that in the Late Bronze Age some gen-eral cultural and religious concepts were common throughout Europe, from Scandinavia to Greece. The general pattern of social and economic struc-ture, probably partly determined by the climate, was similar over a large area that included both Greece and Central Europe. After that period the cultural development in those two areas followed different patterns, resulting in two fundamentally different cultural complexes of the Early Iron Age. Although the communication between these two areas funda-mentally changed, it never ceased.

In the Early Iron Age, Greece became one of the most powerful cultural centres on the Mediterranean. A significant increase in quantity and quality of pro-duction of art objects and objects of common use was related to the intensive development of trade activity. Some of that activity was directed northwards and it had reflections even in Pannonia and the area of the Hallstatt Culture.

The area between Pannonia and Greece is geo-graphically very complex, not easily passable, and split into a large number of smaller defined areas. The best solution to this problem would be the estab-lishment of a relay trade system and a complex com-munication network. The goods that travelled across such great distances, both spatially and culturally, must have had great potential when they were able to characterize, if not even induce such contacts.

There are some finds from northern and Central Balkans in Greece, although the finds of dis-tinctively Pannonian origin are scarce. This group of finds, mainly consisting of pieces of horse equip-ment, pendants and several types of fibulae and pins, cannot justify the effort and risk of communication with those areas, and we must presume that goods that were transported southward were perishable (perhaps precious metals, amber or other rare raw materials).

A special class of objects that are defined as prestigious goods, like bronze vessels and defensive weapons, could trigger and/or influence the course of material and spiritual development of the local so-ciety. In order to find out how these processes work,

it is necessary to study the notion and mechanisms of import which can roughly be divided into three main categories including the import of objects, the import of ideas and concepts, and the import of technology and craftsmanship. The distribution of prestigious goods in the area between Pannonia and Greece, as well as study of mechanisms of their transition and function within different cultural contexts, offers some insight into all three aspects of import.

However, objects were not the only thing that travelled along those ancient routes. If we perceive culture as cargo, the objects of prestige present strong conceptual vessels capable of carrying sets of ideas over long distances and open more or less sta-ble communication channels for further transfer.

!"#$%"

&' ()*+ ,-#./)0 *1).#+ ("23- )4.)5.- 367/861-.- 8' 1"7-9-:.- 6257"..2 *67+ 4;)<+%+ 5 =51),-, 5-( >3'.(+.'5-0 () ?1"@-0. &'9'7/.' %)("7/ 4)-@-'7/.)0 8' "3).)%-A.)0 48163861+, %)<7+5) 5+#-.'A".' A'483)5) 37-%'8+A.+%+ B'38)1'%+, *67' 4;)<)$ .' #.'A.-: 8"1+8)1-0, 537$A'$A+ ?1"@-$ 8' C".81'7/.6 =51),6. D-472 @/)9) ,"1-)(6 367/-861.+: 1)#5+8)3 5 )*); '1"'7'; ,1);)(+5 1-#.+%+ E72;'%+, 5 %"<'; (5); ,1+.@+,)5) 1-#.+; 3)%,-7"34'; ()*+ 1'../)9) #'7-#'. F" (+572A+4/ .' 8", G) #5‘2#3+ %-< @+%+ (5)%' '1"'7'%+ 4688H5) #%--.+7+42, 5).+ .-3)7+ ." ,"1"1+5'7+42.

&' ()*+ 1'../)9) #'7-#' ?1"@-2 ,"1"85)1+7'-42 5 )(+. # .':*-7/E 1)#5+.68+; 367/861.+; @".-81-5 6 >"1"(#"%.)%)1‘0. &.'A." #1)48'..2 3-7/-3)48- 8' 23)48- 5+1)*.+@85' ,1"(%"8-5 %+48"@85' 8' 1"A": #'9'7/.)9) 5+3)1+48'..2 ,1+#5"7) () -.8".4+5.)9) 1)#5+836 8)19-57-, #)31"%', 6 ,-5.-A-.)%6 .',12%36, G) %'7) ,"5.+: 5-(963 .'5-8/ 6 D'..).-0 - 5 )*7'48- 1)#,)54$(<"..2 9'7/E8'84/-3)0 367/861+.

I"1+8)1-2 %-< D'..).-H$ 8' ?1"@-H$ 9")-91'B-A.) (6<" 437'(.', 5'<3' (72 ,"1"8+.6 - 1)#-(-7".' .' 5"7+36 3-7/3-48/ %".E #.'A.+; '1"'7-5. F':31'G+% 5+1-E"..2% @-H0 ,1)*7"%+ %)97' * *68+ #%-.' 4+48"%+ 8)19-57- - 437'(.)0 4+48"%+ 3)%6.-3'@-:. I)5'1+, 23- ,"1"%-G65'7+42 .' 8'36 5"7+36 (+48'.@-$, ,1)48)1)5) 8' 367/861.) ,)-5+..- *67+ * %'8+ 5"7+3+: ,)8".@-'7 (72 8)9), G)* 5+37+3'8+ 8'3- 3).8'38+.

Contacts between Greece and Pannonia in the Early Iron Age

Hrvoje Potrebica

Hrvoje Potrebica188

J ?1"@-0 5-()%- #.';-(3+, 23- ,);)(28/ # ,-5.)A- 8' @".816 K'73'., '7" #.';-(3+, 23- ()48)5-1.) ,);)(28/ # D'..).-0 81',72$8/42 (6<" 1-(3). C- #.';-(3+, 23- 5 )4.)5.)%6 5-(.)428/42 () 3-.4/3)-9) 4,)12(<"..2, ,1+31'4 8' 4;)<+; 8+,-5 B-*67 - E,+7/)3, ." %)<68/ ,)24.+8+ 8): 1+#+3, 23+:-46,1)5)(<65'5 #5‘2#3+ %-< @+%+ 8"1+8)1-2%+. L)<7+5), G) 8)5'1+, 23- 81'.4,)1865'7+42 .' ,-5("./, ." *67+ ()59)81+5'7)9) 5<+836 (%)<7+-5) 8'3)<, 3)E8)5.- %"8'7+, *61E8+. '*) -.E- ."-#5+A.- %'8"1-'7+).

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

O1-% 8)9), ,1"(%"8+ *67+ ." 8-7/3+ )*‘H38'%+, 23- 81'.4,)1865'7+42 5#()5< ('5.-; ()1-9. P3G) 625+8+ 367/8616 23 5'.8'< ,'1),7'5', 8)(- ,1"(%"8+ ,1"48+<6 ,1"(48'572$8/ 625.+: ,'1),7'5, #('8.+: ,1+."48+ .'*-1 -(": .' ()596 (+48'.@-$ - 5-(31+8+ *-7/E-%".E 48'*-7/.- 3'.'-7+ #5‘2#36 (72 ,)('7/E)9) 81'.4B"16.

Introduction

Traces of communication between Greece, Balkans and areas further to the north are visible in all pre-historic periods from the Neolithic onwards. The dynamics of these contacts varied over time in rela-tion to many different factors. Hundreds of different scenarios have been created with the aim of explain-ing the end of Mycenaean civilization and many in-volve some version of the “Dorian invasion” theory (Thomas 1978; Wallace/Kare 1978; Hooker 1979; van Soesbergen 1981).

The common trait is a population of warriors coming from the north, that is often described as the last wave of the Indo-European migration, towards the Mediterranean (Drews 1988). The theses pre-sume that both populations had a remote relationship and common origins. That is why they merged their culture traits so quickly and later readily accepted foreign influences creating unique cultural amalgam known as Greek Culture. Some authors identified the northern intruders with the Sea Peoples (e. g. Schachermeyr 1980) claiming that their raids were not

only responsible for fall of the Mycenaean civiliza-tion, but also for the creation of instability throughout Mediterranean, by cutting off the intricate network of trade, exchange and control over resources, which fi-nally bought about the collapse of the Mediterranean Bronze Age koine. Other authors prefer explanations for changes during the LH III period in Greece that do not involve migrations. Assuming a different point of view R. Drews stresses the importance of the change in warfare (Drews 1993), while many other authors suggest natural catastrophes (earthquakes, drought, etc.) as the key factor that determined cultural chang-es in this area (Carpenter 1966, 54 ff.; Bryson et al. 1974; Snodgrass 1975; Bouzek 1997, 20 ff.). K. Kilian further supports this concept by pointing out elements of continuity between the Mycenaean civili-zation and successive cultural phenomena, especially in strong centres such as Tirins (Kilian 1982, 53 ff.). Furthermore, some authors have tried to establish Mycenaean predecessors for objects that were attrib-uted to the northern influence such as pins or fibu-lae (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1984a; 1984b; Kilian 1985). However, they managed to find parallels only as far back as LH III B (Bouzek 1985). Leaving aside the question as to whether they were the cause or conse-quence of the collapse of the Mycenaean civilisation, it is highly probable that some migrations from the north took place at the beginning of the Dark Ages. The question whether it was an invasion or just a migration in which new population occupied devas-tated area, over which remnants of the autochthonous population already had no control, will be answered elsewhere.

Many of the natural catastrophe theses inevi-tably include some form of climatic change that, for example, resulted in drought (Bryson et al. 1974). Some authors claim that climatic changes are one of the main factors that influence the shift in power in the area discussed in this paper, and are the main cause for migrations. The data offered by those au-thors suggest that the general dynamics of climatic change in Pannonia and Greece were complementary and therefore could directly the influence direction, character and intensity of contacts between these two areas (Bouzek 1982; 1997, 19 f.; 1999). Although the importance of climatic changes and the strength of the argument in favour of their importance can-not be denied, it is very hard to firmly connect the environmental data with results of archaeological exploration without systematic investigations of the ecosystems within which individual archaeological cultures developed. Therefore, their importance in the dynamics of cultural development still cannot be properly evaluated from the archaeological point of view. At the same time, it is almost impossible to es-


tablish intricate interrelations between all the factors that must have influenced the cultural phenomena of the Early Iron Age in this area.

It seems that in the Late Bronze Age some gen-eral cultural and religious concepts were common throughout Europe, from Scandinavia to Greece. The general pattern of social and economic structures, probably partly determined by the climatic relations (Bouzek 1997, 20 ff.; 1999), was similar over a large area that included both Greece and Central Europe. After this period the cultural development in the two areas followed different patterns, resulting in two fundamentally different cultural complexes of the Early Iron Age. However, although the communica-tion between these two areas fundamentally changed, it never ceased.

Theoretical Background

In the Early Iron Age, Greece became one of the most powerful cultural centres on the Mediterranean. Some conceptual transformations took place in Greece earlier than in the rest of Europe. They were followed by significant increases in quantity and quality of production of art objects and objects of common use, that was related to the intensive devel-opment of trade activity. What were the goods that travelled across such great distances, both spatially and culturally, and what were the routes along which such objects reached Pannonia or Greece? They must have had great potential if they were able to characterize, if not even induce such contacts. Since the distance of trade or exchange is in inversed proportion to the physi-cal quantity of traded goods, those goods must have had very high value in the destination cultures. There are some finds from northern and Central Balkans in Greece, although the finds of distinctively Pannonian origin are scarce. This group of finds mainly consists of pieces of horse equipment, pendants and several types of fibulae and pins, which are mostly probable temple offerings or individual pieces of attire (Maier 1956; Kilian 1976). Those objects cannot justify the effort and risk in maintaining communication with areas in the north such as the Balkans. Therefore, we must presume that the goods that were transported southward were perishable, or for some reason it is difficult to trace them directly, using only archaeolog-ical methods. This conforms to the general rule that Greeks exported works of fine art or wine in order to gain precious metals and other rare raw materials from the barbaric societies. Leather, fur and honey are traditionally mentioned as “export products” of Barbaric North. There are also historic references

to “a quantity of gold by far larger than in any other land” in “the North of Europe” as well as amber that also comes from “the sea which lies towards the North Wind” (Herodotus III. 115). We must also not forget the slaves which reportedly could be acquired from barbaric chiefs “in exchange for a jar of wine” (Diodorus Siculus V. 26) and mercenaries in more or less organized groups that sold their services to the Mediterranean communities. In exchange for these things, the Greeks probably traded prestigious goods (often including feasting accessories, such as bronze vessels), the previously mentioned wine, and maybe fine textiles, thus supplying the warrior aristocracy of protohistoric communities in northern areas with “things that belong to civilized life” (Strabo 11.2. 3).

The area between Pannonia and Greece is geo-graphically very complex, not easily passable, and split into a large number of smaller defined areas. That inevitably led to the development of individual tribal, and later even political units, in each of those geographic areas. In such circumstances, it would be very difficult for a single group of traders to carry their goods all the way across Balkans. The best so-lution to this problem would have been the estab-lishment of a relay trade system, given that there is an awareness and basic understanding between the communities that lie on each end of the relay trade chain. The key concept of relay trade is control over space. Therefore, in order to make this system func-tional over great distances, it is necessary to establish a network of relationships between individual com-munities that control space segments on the route from the source culture to the destination culture. The size, either of the community or of the space it controls, is not the only criteria of importance. Sometimes small communities control very limited, but crucial segments of space, and accordingly must be included in the communication network. The point of exchange between two communities is not necessarily the border between the areas under their control. In many cases such places are communal or regional cult centres (temples or sanctuaries) which are considered to be sacred ground and therefore “no man’s land”, meaning that the administrative power of the community controlling the area is nominally suspended in that place.

However, when applied to the area between Pannonia and Greece these theoretical points raise several important issues. One of them is the political stability of communities involved in such system of exchange. The cultural group Donja Dolina – Sanski Most, or the communities that form the Glasinac Cultural complex have a long continuity going back to the Bronze Age and demonstrate stable development,

Hrvoje Potrebica190

unlike the other parts of the Balkans. In some areas, the cultural phenomena lasted only for a generation or two, such as the princely graves from Atenica and Novi Pazar or the rich burials at Trebenište. The consequence of their sudden appearance as well as disappearance was a change in power structure in a given area which inevitably led to destabilization of complex exchange system. Social and economic sta-bility in this system relies on the constant access and control over certain important resources. After some time, this is reflected in establishment of a stable and well-defined system of inheritance and transfer of power which is of crucial importance to the long-term stability of any community.

Pannonia was never the exclusive source of precious metals or other highly valued goods. Therefore, we cannot expect to find clearly defined and intensively used, stable trade routes of long con-tinuity (such as Silk or Amber Route), leading across Balkans towards Greece. We also have to take in con-sideration the fact that numerous local and regional transactions took place with every major exchange along the chain of the relay trade, which makes the general picture of interactions in the contact zone even more complex. There is also the question of the dynamics of supply and demand along the route of the relay trade. Every community tries to obtain things for which they have a direct need or that they could easily (and profitably) exchange in the next step of the process. If we accept this model, then we cannot be sure that the same goods will proceed along the whole trade route, and we cannot make judgements on the length and spatial position of trade routes based on the distribution of a single category of goods.

Objects of Prestige and Trade Routes

The goods of high and stable value, which were con-sidered as such by all communities along the relay trade route, will travel the longest distance along that route. Beside precious raw materials that are archae-ologically almost impossible to trace, such goods are a special class of objects defined as prestigious goods. These objects are not necessarily connected to the fundamental needs of any given community and have a certain conceptual potential that can suc-cessfully connect the communities on both ends of the trade route. All that leads to the conclusion that the exchange of prestigious goods is the best marker of macro-regional as well as local trade communica-tions.

The system of gift exchange was equally charac-teristic of the warrior elites in Pannonia and Balkans

as it was of the Greek aristocracy. The motivation of the gift exchange is primarily the establishment and maintenance of relations and sometimes confirma-tion of allegiances between different communities. Consequently, the symbolic impact of prestigious goods is far more important than only their high ma-terial value. That is why the distribution system of such goods is considerably different than the system used for the goods of more general importance for the community, although those two systems were closely connected. Sometimes, the prestigious goods served as some sort of informal trade tax that was presented to the “big man” with intention to get his approval for a performing more basic, profitable trade in his area or to exchange goods that were highly valued in some other area. The higher organizational level of such communities was reflected in the more intensive administrative control over trade. It was a process that enabled the elites to transform control over space into control over trade and in such way accumulate prestigious goods that served as instrument of power concentration.

Such objects could trigger and/or influence the course of material and spiritual development of the local society. In order to find out how these proc-esses work, it is necessary to study the very notion and mechanisms of importing which can roughly be divided in three main categories: importing of ob-jects, importing of ideas and concepts, and importing of technology and craftsmanship. The distribution of prestigious goods in the area between Pannonia and Greece offers some insight in all three aspects of im-porting.

Import of Objects

The prestigious objects in the area between Greece and Pannonia probably included some perishable or hardly traceable goods such as fine textiles1, wine

1 Beside the famous discovery of the Chinese silk clothin the Hallstatt princely grave in Hochmichele in southern Germany (Riek/Hundt 1982, 213 f.), and other finds from the area such as the princely grave from Hochdorf (Biel 1985), there are also several finds of textiles in princely graves in Pannonia and Balkans. There are strong indications that metal grave goods in such graves were wrapped in some sort of cloth, traces of which were discovered on several sites such as Kaptol in southern Pannonia (Potrebica 2000, 79 f.), or Glasinac and Atenica in Central Balkans (Benac/!ovi" 1957, 53 ff.; #ukni"/Jovanovi" 1966, 10). Some traces indicate that a whole piece of clothing including ornaments and fastening devices (like fibulae) was either burned or burried with the deceased, such as those from Novo Mesto in Slovenia (Hundt 1975, 333 f.) or from Mojsinje in Serbia (Nin$i" 2002, 126 ff.). Sometimes there is also possibility that the whole urn was wrapped in cloth and fastened with a needle or fibula.


or maybe opium. The other important categories of archaeological material that could be determined as prestigious goods include several types of ornaments, bronze vessels, and defensive weapons.

Several groups of such objects were identi-fied in the material discovered at the necropolis in Kaptol. The geographical position of this site proved to be very important for its development. It is located in the Požega Valley, which is surrounded by moun-tains, on the southern fringes of the Pannonian Plain. The Požega Valley itself gravitates towards the valley of the river Sava which is considered to be border between the Balkans and Pannonia. The geographical position makes Kaptol an ideal point for the transfer of southern influences to Hallstatt Culture groups located in Pannonia but it is also extremely impor-tant for understanding of the very old and intensively used communication route between the alpine world and the Danubian Basin that went along the valley of the river Sava. The analysis established three main sources of the objects and cultural influences in Kaptol graves. The objects imported from Italy came through the southeastern Alpine region, the eastern ideas and material came through the Danubian re-gion, while the prestigious goods connected with Greece came through the Balkans (Potrebica 2000). Probably the greatest known display of macro-re-gional importance and power that was derived from control over such important cultural crossroad is inventory of the warrior grave discovered under the tumulus IV in Kaptol (pl. 1) (Vejvoda/Mirnik 1975, 593 ff. t. 2-3; Vejvoda/Mirnik 1991, 12 ff. fig. 6).

Both objects connected with Italy are unique pieces. The shafted bimetallic battle axe (pl. 1,4) is similar to the bronze piece discovered in a very early tumulus at Gornja Radgona (Teržan 1990, 85 fig. 19,6) with a cult wagon model and the Tachlovice sword. Based on the bronze piece that comes from the grave at Cá Morta in northern Italy also with the cult wagon model (Kossack 1957, 50) and the similar form of bronze axe found in the grave Ricovero 236 from Este (Müller-Karpe 1959, pl. 7,9), K. Vinski-Gasparini proposed that the origin of this form is somewhere in the area of the Este Culture, suggest-ing a somewhat later date for the piece from Kaptol because of its iron blade (Vinski-Gasparini 1987, 195). B. Teržan agrees that the piece from Este is the oldest and that the axe from Kaptol is the latest known example of this form, but she suggests that such axes in the Alpine area were produced in a local workshop, under the influence of similar Etruscan axes dated in the late 8th and the early 7th centuries BC that sometimes reached the north like the exam-ple from Cá Morta grave (Teržan 1990, 85). The po-

sition of this form of axes within elite warrior graves and their collocation with votive wagon models is hardly coincidental and we cannot exclude the possi-bility that such axes acted as some sort of insignia of warrior power. In this case, motivation for the import (or acceptance) of such object could be connected more with its symbolic than its functional value.

The other piece connected with Italy is a bronze rectangular plate (pl. 1,3) that was originally inter-preted as chest plate. Already K. Vinski-Gasparini has pointed out that the origin of that form should be sought in central Italy (Vinski-Gasparini 1987, 194) and B. Teržan attributes it to the family of Etruscan and Central Italian chest plates also dated to the 8th and early 7th century (Teržan 1990, 148). However, the recent suggestion that it is in fact a shield plate seems to be more plausible (Egg/Križ 1997, 201). Moreover, the more detailed study of the plate shows that the ornamentation (a line of circles with dot in the centre) along the edges and along the diagonals is not incised very precisely. At one place it even seems that the craftsmen made a mistake in the orna-mentation or at least has not followed through with the whole of intended motif. Such a “careless” ap-proach could also indicate a local, rather than Italic, workshop.

In summary, it seems that both pieces of “Italic import” from the tumulus IV at Kaptol were pro-duced in the Alpine area, much closer to the desti-nation culture, but with good knowledge of Italian prototypes. It seems that a centre on the Alpine route towards Italy (perhaps Dolenjska) ceased at one point to be only a distribution centre for prestigious goods of Italian origin and, at least in some cases, took over the role of production centre. The fact that the same area is source of distribution of a few other distinc-tive items discovered in the Kaptol cemetery (e. g. fibule à tre bottoni, multi-headed pins, fibulae with bone plating, etc.) supports the thesis of the local production of some “Italic imports”.

The eastern influences in this grave are docu-mented with two items under the category of the horse equipment: bronze bits and a fragmented bronze cheek-piece (Vejvoda/Mirnik 1975, tab. 2,5). The bronze cheek-piece with square openings belongs to the type Ib according to G. Kossack (Kossack 1954, 156, Map 2A) with closest parallels coming from Szomlyóvásárhely (Gallus/Horváth 1939, pl. LII,9, 16; Teržan 1990, 148 f.). Such cheek-pieces were widely distributed over the Alpine area as well as the Danubian and Carpathian Basin, and are dated into Ha C. The shape of bits is very similar to those from depositions from Szanda and Ugra (Gallus/Horváth 1939, pl. X,18-19, XII,6; Vinski-Gasparini 1987,

Hrvoje Potrebica192

Fig. 1. D

istribution map of the C

orinthian helmets (after P

flug 1988b)


196) whilst the fish-bone ornament is present on somewhat older bits from Batina (Metzner-Nebelsick 2002, pl. 36,5).

However, for the subject of this paper the most important group of prestigious objects from the tu-mulus IV is the one that demonstrates southern influ-ences which consists of the Graeco-Illyrian helmet and bronze cnemidae without ornamentation (pl. 1,2.5) (Vejvoda/Mirnik 1975, tab. 2,2). Defensive weapons in general seem to be the best marker of the communication and trade routes leading from Greece to Pannonia. Sets of defensive weapons were found in Kaptol in two princely graves. In the tumulus IV, dated in the middle of the 7th century BC, there was a Graeco-Illyrian helmet, a pair of cnemidae without ornamentation, and ornamented bronze shield plate. The other princely grave in the tumulus X, dated to the first part of the 6th century BC, contained a rich inventory that included a Corinthian helmet. Apart from the already discussed shield plate, the rest of the defensive weapons discovered at the Kaptol cem-etery are of the distinctive Greek origin. In this con-text we must mention the idea already discussed else-where (Potrebica 1998, 241) that the sets of defensive weapons and their distribution reflect borders of the spheres of influence to which the individual cultures were exposed. Thus, classic forms of the Graeco-Illyrian and Corinthian helmets marked the zone of the Greek influence in the 7th century BC, while the Italic zone was characterized by composite helmets.2 This idea has been further developed by B. Teržan who claims that the distribution areas of Graeco-Illyrian, Corinthian, Chalcidice and Phrigian types of Greek helmets reflect both different trade markets and different areas of political orientation and influ-ence, regardless of the actual location of the produc-tion centres. (Teržan 1995, 85 ff.). It seems that the Greek influence spread mostly along the route of Via Egnatia to the central parts of the Balkans, and fur-ther towards the Danube, while the cultural impulses from Italy travelled over the south-eastern Alpine re-gion to the western Balkans and Pannonia and further to the Danube Basin.3

Unfortunately, the Corinthian helmet from Kaptol (pl. 2,3) was incorrectly reconstructed and some important distinguishing marks were lost (shape of the neck-piece). However, the small holes along the edge of the helmet that served for the at-tachment of textile padding are still visible. They

2 A similar situation is also present in the 5th century BC when helmets of the later Graeco-Illyrian type marked one, and hel-mets of the Negova type another area.

3 Northern Croatia was somehow on the borderline between these two spheres of influence, which was reflected in the Kaptol tumuli cemetery.

indicate that the helmet found in Kaptol belongs to the second phase, or classical type of the Corinthian helmet, which is dated to the late 7th and transition to the 6th century BC. The largest number of similar helmets was discovered in Olympia, while the dis-tribution map of the second phase of Corinthian hel-mets (Pflug 1988b, fig. 48) shows that in the same period there was a large group of such helmets in southern Italy (fig. 1), perhaps indicating a local pro-duction centre. However, the closest parallels to this piece are located in the Balkans and roughly mark the route along which this helmet reached Kaptol. A very similar helmet was discovered in Glasinac (pl. 3,6), in the princely grave in Arareva gromila (Benac/!ovi" 1957, 20 f. tab. 40,1). This helmet also suffered damage to the lower part, and the shape of neck-piece of these two helmets remains unknown. However, the small holes along the edge, and gen-eral shape features make it chronologically close to the example from Kaptol. There are no other finds of Corinthian helmets in the area between Glasinac and the Ohrid Lake, where one piece was found at the famous necropolis Trebenište (Filov 1927, 78, pl. XIV). They seem to be rare even in the area of Macedonia and northern Greece and all known ex-amples seem to be later than helmets from Glasinac and Kaptol. One Corinthian helmet was discovered at the rich necropolis in Sindos on Chalcidice in a grave dated in 510 - 490 BC (Sindos 1985, 278 ff. fig. 458). Two helmets come from the sites at Edessa and Nea Syllata (Pflug 1988b, 77, 100). Another very interesting example, decorated with gold sheet, was found at the Archaic cemetery of Aghia Paraskevi also near Thessaloniki. The grave is dated to the 6th century BC (Sisimandis 1993, 170 ff.). The gold sheet decoration on the helmets is quite a specific feature limited to the area of Macedonia in the 6th and 5th century BC, but it is mostly found on Graeco-Illyrian helmets. The distribution map shows that the helmet from Kaptol is by far the northernmost exam-ple of the Corinthian helmet in general (Pflug 1988b, fig. 48).

The type of bronze cnemidae without ornamen-tation (pl. 2,2) and shaped to follow the musculature of a leg was widespread in Greece in the long period between the 7th and 4th century BC. It is therefore dif-ficult to chronologically determine. A large number of such pieces were found in Olympia, but they were widely distributed over a large area from the Black Sea to Italy. The distribution map suggests that the major workshops were in mainland Greece (Kunze 1991), on the west coast of the Black Sea, and in southern Italy (Stary 1981). However, some features, like previouly mentioned small holes along the edge that served for the attachment of textile padding, date

Hrvoje Potrebica194

it to before the end of the 6th century. A similar pair was found in a grave from !itluci on Glasinac (pl. 3,1) (Benac/!ovi" 1957, tab. 30,6), and two some-what later pairs were discovered in graves 2 and 55 at the necropolis at Sanski Most (Fiala 1896, 221 f., 239 f., tab. 1-2). At least one pair was discovered at Trebenište in the grave with the Graeco-Illyrian hel-met (Vuli" 1932, 33 f. fig. 53-54) and several pieces were found on the Adriatic Coast (Balen-Letuni" 1992, 22 ff. fig. 2; Nikolanci 1959; 85 tab. 8,1.2; 9,1; Marovi"/Nikolanci 1969, 11 fig. 4, 11, 16). The pair from Kaptol is again the northernmost example of this type (Teržan 1995, fig. 11).

Probably the most important find for the anal-ysis of the Greek influence is the Graeco-Illyrian helmet (pl. 2,1). According to information collec-ted so far (Pflug 1988a, 42 ff. fig. 6); Lahtov 1965, 49-50; Marovi" 1976, 288 ff.) the origin of those helmets (fig. 2) should be sought somewhere on the Peloponnesus, because the first type of these helmets (dated from ca 750 to the beginning of the 7th cen-tury BC) was distributed almost exclusively in the Peloponnesus (again mainly in Olympia). The dis-tribution map of the second phase of those helmets is completely different. It covers a wide area from the southernmost piece in Alexandria (Egypt) to the northernmost in Kaptol. (Pflug 1988a, 48 ff.) The highest density of finds is still in Greece, but sixteen of 27 known examples were found in the Illyrian area. The suggested distribution route goes runs from Trebenište with five examples (Filov 1927), to Donja Dolina with two examples (!ovi" 1987a, 250 f., 258), and finally to Kaptol (Vejvoda/Mirnik 1975, 595 tab. 2,1). The difference between the second and the third phase of the Graeco-Illyiran helmet is marked by the evolution in shape: para-gnatides became longer and extended forward, the cut between paragnatides and neck protection beca-me deeper and eventually evoluted to an ear-oppe-ning, and the neck protection became smaller for-ming an almost horizontal rim along the back part of the helmet. However, the most important distinction between these types is functional. In the second pha-se, the helmets have a line of rivets along the edge that served for attachment of textile padding, while in the third phase rivets disappear leaving only or-namental imitation that in time develops into purely decorative bordering. This change suggests that, in the third phase, the helmet was worn without padding over some kind of cap. We cannot be sure whether this change marks a general change in warrior attire or it is perhaps sign of different manner in which this helmet was used by members of different ethnic or cultural groups. The first version is supported by the visible change in distribution area: the helmets of

the first and the second phase were mainly found in the area controlled by Greeks, while the helmets of the third phase pre-dominate over the Illyrian area. Even the distribution of the variants of the third pha-se differs between the Greek and the Illyrian areas, perhaps indicating different local production centres, or perhaps more probably, different tribal commu-nities (Teržan 1995, 88). The helmets of the type III A 3 were found mainly in Macedonia, with two main areas of concentration. The first group is lo-cated at Chalcidice with finds such as those from Sindos (Sindos 1985), Agia Paraskevi (Sisimanidis 1993, 170 fig. 179), Zeitenlik, Mesimeri-Trilophon and Mikro-Karaburun (Pflug 1988a, 62), while the second group is concentrated around the Ohrid Lake at the sites of Trebenište (Filov 1927, 82 fig. 97-98), Re$ica4, Delagoždi (Bitrakova-Grozdanova 1989, 87 fig. 4) and Rajcë (Gjipali 1981, 242 tab. 1,8). Such distribution supports the thesis of ethnic or some ot-her strong bond between the elites of Trebenište and Sindos. However, the examples of the second phase are very rare in that area. Trebenište is the only site which provided both helmets of the second and the third phase. The helmet from Kaptol as well as those from Donja Dolina are dated to approximately 650 - 550 BC and they are typologically earlier variants of the second phase than those from Trebenište. Similar chronological inversion between central and northern Balkans and Macedonia has also been observed with Corinthian helmets. The chronological priority of pi-eces from Donja Dolina and Kaptol indicate that at that time Trebenište and Sindos were not centres of such importance or perhaps were not even located along the trade routes. Another question is the ori-gin of the helmets of the second phase in Trebenište. Since they have no real predecessor or contemporary parallel in the Macedonian area they probably rea-ched Trebenište from Greece along a different route, probably along the route of future Via Egnatia, acro-ss northern Albania.

It seems that the Graeco-Illyrian helmet came to Kaptol through Donja Dolina and that is the place where we should start our journeybackwards. One helmet of that type from Donja Dolina is an isolated find, presumably from the destroyed grave on the site !arakovo (!ovi" 1987a, 258). The other helmet was found in grave 27 located in the field of M. Petrovi" junior, along with bronze shield boss and lotus phiala

4 Lahtov in his original publication (Lahtov 1965) as well as Marovi" in his synthesis determined this helmet as the later example of the second phase (Marovi" 1976, 291, 298). The helmet has a line of small holes along the rim, however it is lacking nail-like protrusions and its shape corresponds to the third phase of the Graeco-Illyrian helmets (Kilian 1975, pl. 65,1). Therefore, Pflug considers helmet from Re$ica to belong to the variant III A 3 (Pflug 1988a, 62 ff. fig. 19).


(!ovi" 1987a, 250 f.). Similar shield boss was also discovered in graves 1, 27, 37 and 39 on the same site (!ovi" 1987a, 250 f.). R. Vasi" dates that type to the second half of the 7th and the 6th century and claims that the iron shield boss type of such as the one from the grave 10 in the field of I. Stipan$i" site name could be the local variant inspired by im-ported bronze pieces and therefore belongs to the same period (Vasi", 1977, 33). The closest parallel to this type was discovered at Glasinac, on the site of !itluci in grave 5 of tumulus I, together with the already mentioned cnemidae, bronze vessels, orna-

ments, horse gear and arms (Benac/!ovi" 1957, 16 pl. 30-32). Z. Mari" also thinks that this is a local type inspired by a Greek model (Mari" 1964, 36). However, although the Greek counterparts are signif-icantly older, it seems that this type should also seen as a Greek import and dated into the period from the beginning of the 6th to the beginning of the 5th cen-tury (Vasi" 1983, 14). M. Parovi"-Pešikan traces the origin of the type to the Aegean islands to around the 12th century BC. From there, they reached Greece in the 9th century. Since the examples from Olympia are dated to the 7th century BC, the presence of this

Fig. 2. Distribution map of the second phase of the Graeco-Illyrian helmets (after Pflug 1988a and Teržan 1995)

Hrvoje Potrebica196

type in Bosnia is dated to the second half of the 7th and the beginning of the 6th century (Parovi"-Pešikan 1960, 24). Therefore we can establish the connection be-tween the material of Greek provenience in Donja Dolina which comprises two Graeco-Illyrian hel-mets, a bronze phiale and bronze shield bosses, as well as similar material discovered on Glasinac: the previously mentioned Corinthian helmet, cnemidae and some interesting examples of Greek bronze ves-sels.

The distribution of two very specific objects characteristic of Donja Dolina and Glasinac indi-cates close interconnection between the southern Pannonian zone and the two dominant Early Iron Age centres of northern and Central Balkans.

The first is a type of multi-headed pin specific to Donja Dolina (pl. 4,1-3). A total of 19 pins were discovered on the site. They were included in the in-ventories of eight graves, though a few pieces belong to unpreserved graves and several pins were discov-ered on the settlement. Aside from Donja Dolina, they are very rare. However, one pair was discovered both under tumuli on Glasinac and in Kaptol (!ovi" 1987b, 620; Vejvoda/Mirnik 1975, 595 tab. 6,1) in the grave together with a specific combination of axes. The same combination of axes was also found in one grave in Sanski Most and that suggests the influence of Kaptol. The other example is so-called ‘scepters’ – whetstones with fine cast bronze handles (pl. 4,4-8). The origin of this type is on Glasinac. Beautiful pieces discovered there show that at one point (IV C1 = 625 - 550 BC) they ceased to be just functional objects and became a symbol of high so-cial rank in the grave inventory. Before and after that period, that conceptual niche was reserved for axes. It is still a mystery why this shift occurred, but at the same time the luxurious pieces appeared in Kaptol along with the functional ones.

It seems that in the 7th and 6th century BC the area of the Glasinac Culture was a very strong trade centre. Together with the area of the cultural group Donja Dolina-Sanski Most, it formed a trade network oriented north towards Pannonia and through the val-ley of the river Sava towards the Danubian region. It is also evident that Kaptol, was also incorporated into the trade network.

In this period the finds of Greek bronze ves-sels (as markers of luxury Greek imports) were ac-companied by sets of defensive weapons but only in southern Pannonia and northern Balkans. Such imports haven’t yet been confirmed in the southern Balkans, or on the eastern Adriatic coast. Apparently, such luxurious Greek merchandize travelled a long

way to reach the powerful centres such as Glasinac and Donja Dolina. In the early phase of the early Iron Age those contacts were not very frequent. Occasional finds of pieces of Balkan clothing orna-ments in Greek temples (Kilian 1976, 166 f., 170 f.) could be gifts of merchants that travelled north or panoplies, but they could also be interpreted as gifts brought by pilgrims from the north. We have to bear in mind that the Greek interest in the Balkans and other areas further north was mainly motivated by the need for raw materials such as gold, honey, slaves, amber, or precious metals. These goods are mostly perishable or almost impossible to detect us-ing exclusively archaeological methods. On the other hand, the Greek imports in this area can be divided in several groups according to its sources. The first one consists of the finds re-lated to Greek centres in Italy. The distribution of Greek bronze vessels imported from Italy in the area of Slovenia, suggests that there was a route that went from central Italy, across the area of the Este Culture, to Slovenia, from where it went along the river Sava towards the Danubian Basin.5 This route had been operative from the 10th century BC onwards. The ba-sin of the river Sava was a very important segment of that route which acted as trade, exchange and com-munication channel between the Alps and the Danube Basin. It reached the peak of its activity in the Early Iron Age. The centres along the river Sava, such as the settlement in Donja Dolina, had an important role in the intricate communication network of the Early Iron Age which is reflected in presence of material of eastern, i. e. Danubian origin, and even more in groups of objects of Alpine or Italic provenance. The finds from Hallstatt sites in southern Pannonia, such as Kaptol, indicate intensive communication with the eastern Alpine area. However, although that commu-nication included some Italic elements none of them could be connected with the Greek centres in Italy.

However, we must not ignore the possibility of cross-Adriatic trade through which products of Greek workshops in Italy could reach the Balkans and con-tinue to circulate along local trade routes. Some of the bronze vessels discovered at Glasinac are prob-ably of Italian origin. These are primarily a fluted bowl (Zungenphiale) (pl. 3,5) and basin with bossed rim (Perlrandbecken) that were discovered in the princely grave under the tumulus II at the site of Ilijak at Glasinac (Fiala 1895, 6; Benac/!ovi" 1957,

5 Theoretically, it could have also followed the river Drina into the Balkans, but we have no direct proof of such activity.


70)6. A fluted bowl was also discovered in princely grave 5 under the tumulus I at site !itluci (pl. 3,3) also at Glasinac (Benac/!ovi" 1957, 75), and an-other Perlrandbecken on Glasinac was discovered in the grave 1 of the tumulus II at the site Osovo (Benac/!ovi" 1957, 73). Based on the general dis-tribution of Corinthian helmets, B. Teržan suggests a southern Italian origin of the helmets from Glasinac and Kaptol. She supports the idea with other material of clearly Italian origin such as the bronze vessels on Glasinac, or the shield plate from the princely grave under tumulus IV in Kaptol. Furthermore, the Italian bronze vessels and Corinthian helmet found at Glasinac, lead her to claim the intensive contacts be-tween the southern Italy and the western Balkans in the Early Iron Age reflected in the Italian raw models for feasting and drinking customs used by the warrior elite from Glasinac (Teržan 1995, 88 f.)7. However, bronze vessels from Glasinac are not all of Italian origin. There were also Greek bronze vessels, probably of eastern Mediterranean origin, some of which were even in the same graves with Italian bronze vessels (e. g. previously mentioned princely grave 1 in tumulus II at Ilijak). The shi-eld-plate from Kaptol was discovered in the princely grave together with bronze cnemidae and a Graeco-

6 Based on the position of the fluted bowl (zungenphiale) in the grave, Fiala (1895, 6) suggested that the prince used it as a helmet or a kind of head-gear!? Benac and !ovi" (1957, 12 fig. 6) used Fiala’s description and made a drawing reconstruc-tion of that grave and B. Teržan (1987, 17; 1995, 89) accepted such suggestion. I do not agree with such explanation because the same grave also contained a “proper set” of bronze vessels consisting of basin with bossed rim (Perlrandbecken), kotylus and phiale. It clearly shows that the owner was aware of the proper use of bronze vessels which is documented by another fluted bowl discovered in the normal position in the princely grave 5 under the tumulus I at site of !itluci also at Glasinac (Benac/!ovi" 1957, 75). The Corinthian helmet from Arareva Gromila (another princely burial on Glasinac) shows that they were also familiar with the use of real helmets. Furthermore, there is no original drawing of the position of the finds in the grave and the reconstruction is based solely on Fiala’s written description which could be contaminated with intention of a prejudiced interpretation. The fluted bowl could have con-tained some sort of offering which was laid slightly above the head of the deceased and later fell on his head. Even if it was deliberately placed there it was in accordance with some sort of burial ritual, and not as a reflection of its original use!

7 This proposition is probably somewhat influenced by N. Lucentini (1981) who interpreted the chronology of the Glasinac Culture from the point of view of the well-estab-lished Italian chronology, to a large extent without insight into local chronological and cultural circumstances. The result was a chronological scheme which almost completely ignored the continuous development of the Glasinac Culture from the Early Bronze Age to the Late Iron Age. In this case, I must agree with rather lapidary reaction of B. !ovi" to this work in which he recognizes “many fresh ideas, but without a real un-derstanding of internal development dynamics in the Central Balkan region.” (!ovi" 1987b, 581).

Illyrian helmet of distinctively Greek origin and this context gives just as strong arguments for the southern origin of Corinthian helmets in Kaptol or Glasinac. Furthermore, although rare and somewhat later than the pieces from Kaptol or Arareva Gromila, several Corinthian helmets were also found along the south-ern trade route at Trebenište, Sindos and several oth-er Macedonian sites, like Nea Syllata, Edessa, Aghia Paraskevi (Filov 1927; Sindos 1985, 280 fig. 458; Pflug 1988b, 77, 100; Sisimandis 1993, 170 ff.).

In the context of cross-Adriatic trade we must mention the route along the river Neretva that has long been suggested as possible (sometimes even the only) inland route for the Greek import (Novak 1955, 4 f.). That route went along Neretva, and then up the tributary streams to the Sava and further on to the Danube. However, Narona, the Greek settle-ment at the mouth of the river Neretva, was not es-tablished until the 5th century, and the period of its greatest influence falls in the 4th century BC when the Greek colonies were established on the Adriatic islands of Hvar, Vis and Kor$ula. Although it is the general opinion that in the 7th and 6th century BC this route was not yet functional (Parovi"-Pešikan 1960, 36 f.), there are some finds, like those from Pod near Bugojno (!ovi" 1983, 152 ff.), that do not completely exclude such a possibility. Even more probable ports of entry for Greek products from Italy could have been the Greek colonies Apollonia and Epidamnos on what is today the Albanian coast. They had well established contacts with the Italian coast of the Adriatic which is not far from the Greek colonies in the southern Italy (Bietti Sestieri/Lo Schiavo 1976). From those ports a network of local trade routes went inland (Mano 1976), and some of them reached an important distribution centre and trade crossroad at Lake Ohrid (fig. 3). This could also explain the presence of exclusive products of Italian workshops in the princely graves of the Central Balkans. !ovi" has suggested a provenance for some of bronze vessels in the Balkans (!ovi" 1983, 154). The grave goods of the princely burial under the tu-mulus in Atenica included anthropomorphic amber pearls and a bone box that are probably Etruscan products (Vasi" 1992) although they were previously considered to be a product of Ionian colonies on the western coast of the Black Sea (Palavestra 1984, 44 f.). They probably reached Balkans through Greek colonies on the south-eastern Adriatic Coast (most probably Apollonia or Epidamnos).

The Ionian trade is flourished at the end of the 7th and through the 6th century and formed the sec-ond group of the imported material (mainly pottery and bronze vessels). The supposed route went from the Ionian colonies (e. g. Istros at the mouth of the

Hrvoje Potrebica198

Danube) on the Black Sea, along the rivers Danube and Drina, into the mainland of the Balkans. This road was probably known already in 10th or 9th cen-tury BC (before the colonisation of Ionian Greeks), but the most intensive traffic along this route falls in the 5th century BC when it was probably con-nected with the trade route that went along the river Neretva. However, the modern interpretation of the material thought to be Ionian (e. g. bone box from Atenica) puts serious doubts on the importance of the Danubian way, at least in that period (Vasi" 1992, 59).

The analysis presented of the available data shows that the most important group of Greek imports seems to be the one that connects the most southern part of the Hallstatt Cultural circle with mainland Greece across the Balkans. Although, it is roughly marked by the distribution of the Graeco-Illyrian helmets, there are a few variants on that route. The distribution of Greek import suggests the route of the future Via Egnatia as a more probable than the vari-

ant that went along the valley of the river Vardar, and further north along the valley of Morava and Drina (fig. 3 and 4). In that context we already mentioned the route that went from the Greek colonies Apollonia and Epidamnos, along the valley of Drim to the river Ibar and Lake Ohrid. We should also pay attention to scarce finds that suggest communication between Central Greece and the area around Lake Ohrid that went across Thessaly (Parovi"-Pešikan 1960, 44) or perhaps along the possible route across Epirus and northern Albania documented by helmets found in the vicinity of Ioannina (Andhreou 1985) and Ungrej (Barun Nopcsa 1907, 2 fig. 2-3). Unfortunately, the crucial parts of these areas are still insufficiently ex-plored and published to form the ground for more specific conclusions.

Although the third type of the Graeco-Illyrian helmets is later than the second type (e. g. helmets from Donja Dolina and Kaptol) and functionally significantly different, the distribution of individual variants of that type has some interesting features.

0 50 100 km

KAPTOL

DONJADOLINA

MRAMORAC

ATENICAPILATOVIÆI

GLASINAC

NOVI PAZAR

ROMAJA

EPIDAMNUS TREBENITE

AMBRAKIA

CORCYRA

TARENTMETAPONT

SYBARIS

CROTON

OLYNTH

TORONEMENDEPOTIDAEA

SINDOS

APOLLONIA

Fig. 3. Communication routes over Balkans in the 7th – 5th century BC


It shows more spatial than chronological differen-tiation, and the concentration of the variant III A 3, mostly in Macedonia (Pflug 1988a, 61 ff. fig. 19), indicates highly developed metal working and trade distribution centres on Chalcidice that were very im-portant for long distance trade. These long distance relations could have their roots in the very beginning

of the Iron Age when the flow of concepts and ob-jects perhaps went in the opposite direction. Some elements of burial ritual as well as attire found at the tumuli necropolis at Vergina support this thesis (Andronikos 1969; Radt 1974, 144 ff.; Teržan 1987, 8 f. fig. 3).

Fig. 4. Distribution of the late Archaic Greek import throughout Central Balkans (after Vasi! 1992).

BRONZE VESSELS

POTTERY

ARMS

JEWELRY0 50 100 km

TARENTMETAPONT

SYBARIS

CROTON

EPIDAMNUS

ONONLLOLOONIAONNIAAPOLLOAPOLLOLLAPAA LLOAPOLLONIA

CORCYRA

AMBRAKIA

OLYNTH

TORONEMENDE

POTIDAEA

Import of Ideas and Concepts (or what did they really import?)

Obviously, objects were not the only thing that trav-elled along those ancient routes. If we perceive cul-ture as cargo, than objects of prestige present strong conceptual vessels capable of carrying sets of ideas over long distances and opening more or less stable communication channels for further transfer. If such objects are containers, their immaterial content could be a set of religious and social concepts and ideas,

but what were the mechanisms of their transition, and how did they function within different cultural contexts?

Although in two cases, sets of valuable de-fensive weapons were added to the standard set, the analysis of warrior grave inventories from Kaptol shows that warfare did not change. The standard equipment of the Kaptol warriors consisted of two or three (in some cases even more) spears (pl. 1,6-8), one or more axes and horse-gear. This illustrates their way of fighting: the warrior would throw spears

Hrvoje Potrebica200

towards the enemy and than use axe for close-range combat. Such weapons were used for individual fighting and not for fighting in an organised order, like the Greek phalanx (Vinski-Gasparini 1987, 195). Sets of defence weapons consisted of carefully gathered objects that came across the Alps from Italy or across the Balkans from Greece, and they were obviously considered prestigious goods. Such objects had a considerable value either because of their rarity (sometimes because of the long distance they trav-elled), their high-quality of production, or the mate-rial itself. They reflected the power of a prominent individual or group within the local social structure. In the case of the Graeco-Illyrian helmets, some other examples of the same type were actually used, dam-aged and repaired, such as helmets of the third phase from Kli$evo (Žiži" 1979, 206 ff. fig. 1) and Re$ica (Lahtov 1965). Their geographical position puts them spatially and culturally closer to the production cen-tre of these helmets and they probably served as ac-tual weapons rather than classical objects of prestige. The helmet of the second phase with traces of ancient repair at the front of the crest from the Rouch Private Collection from Germany (recently offered for sale) probably came from the same area. Unfortunately the exact location of this exquisite find will remain un-known. Even the ornamented pieces from Trebenište (pl. 5,1), that were obviously prestigious objects, are similar to the ornamented helmets discovered at Sindos necropolis. It shows how the context ‘wears off’ with distance leaving these objects susceptible to conceptual transformation. Perhaps even helmets from Kaptol were used in some actual battles, but their primary role was to make their owner socially distinctive. Prestigious objects are often taken out of the context of the culture that produced them and acquire new meaning and value in the culture they enter. However, although it seems that these objects travelled individually without their original warfare concept, they were part of a general concept of the appearance of a mighty warrior. The combination of the Graeco-Illyrian helmet with the bronze cnemi-dae, such as the one from tumulus IV in Kaptol (Fig. 1), has been discovered over the large area between Greece, Adriatic and Pannonia. Such warrior equip-ment with helmets of the third phase was discovered in Vi$ja Luka (Nikolanci 1959, 82 ff. tab. 7,9) and in Kli$evo near Nikši" (Žiži" 1979, 206 ff. fig. 1-3), but also in Trebenište (e. g. Lj. Popovi" 1956, 47 f., tab. 18-19) and in Kaptol (Vejvoda/Mirnik 1975, 595 tab. 2,1.2) where such combination belongs to the second phase of Graeco-Illyirian helmets. Examples such as the set from Krk with the combination of the Negova helmet and cnemidae (Balen-Letuni" 1992), as well as many examples of the same combination

with the Corinthian helmet, show that it is not the imitation of appearance but the actual importing of the image or concept of the warrior where helmets and cnemidae were just outer manifestations.

Although such objects came without their immediate cultural context, they opened a channel through which some new concepts were communicat-ed to this area. Some of these were related to warriors such as the conceptual unit of ‘brothers in arms’. The grave 19 of tumulus VII in Novo Mesto, discovered in 1995, contained a rich and very interesting inven-tory marked with bronze vessels and warrior equip-ment that also included two Graeco- Illyrian helmets of the third phase - III A 1 and III A 2 (Egg 1999). It seems that two warriors apparently of the same status were buried together; although it is not clear whether they were buried at the same time (one helmet could be dated into the late 6th century and the other into the beginning of the 5th century BC). Perhaps the in-cineration burials of warriors in the identical urns in tumulus IX in Kaptol could be interpreted in the same way (Potrebica 2001, 72). The recent discovery of a rich princely burial also at Kaptol with two sets of weapons dominated by the bronze and the iron sword could become the best illustation of that concept in the Hallstatt area, given thatanthropological analysis confirms a double warrior burial. The ancient con-cept of “brothers in arms” is present in Greek litera-ture and mythology and it also had some sociological reflections among Greek and Etruscan nobility (Egg 1999). Imitation or even the “import” of such a con-cept is not limited to the Hallstatt Culture because several La Tène graves could also be interpreted in such a way. Perhaps the rich Late La Tène warrior burial recently discovered in Mali Bila$, which is also located in the Požega Valley, 30 km south of Kaptol (Potrebica/Dizdar 2002, 113 ff. fig. 2), could also be interpreted in such a way.

Sometimes it is difficult to separate the con-ceptual content from the imported object, because the object itself is part of a specific religious prac-tice. Prestigious objects were often used as offer-ings presented to deities by a tribal aristocracy. The largest number of Graeco-Illyrian helmets and a sig-nificant number of Corinthian helmets was discov-ered in the treasuries of temples in Olympia (Kunze 1958; 1967). Similar religious practices are evident throughout Greece and Italy, but there is some proof that these were also present on Balkans. The build-ing discovered in the village of Gorica near Grude in western Bosnia (Truhelka 1899) is remarkably simi-lar to an early Greek temple. The reinterpretation of the building, initially defined as “crematorium”, confirms that it was a sanctuary with some sort of treasury (!ovi" 1976, 252 ff.) and the spatial organi-


zation corresponds to Greek temples. The finds from the treasury show a long continuity of this sacred space. Among those finds there is also a Graeco-Illyrian helmet (Truhelka 1899, fig. 3-4) of the early third phase. Another aspect of the votive deposition of helmets in sacred spaces is ritual deposition in rivers. Probably the best corpus of Graeco-Illyrian helmets from such a context are helmets recently discovered in the river Cetina (apparently more than 30 pieces).8 Even before this discovery, several Graeco-Illyrian helmets came from similar contexts and which already indicated that there was a practice of ritual deposition of such specific offerings in rivers. The best representatives of that group are helmets discov-ered in the river Sava near Sisak (Vukovi" 1994, 106, 254 fig. 122), between Županja and Orašje (Vasi" 1982, 7 f. fig. 1) and Sremska Mitrovica (Vasi" 1983, 76 f. fig. 1). Their location on the southern edge of Pannonia marks a very important west-east route that we have already discussed. The wide spatial distri-bution of such phenomena indicates the general no-tion of the important role that rivers had in religious practices connected to warriors. Perhaps some rivers, such as Sava or Cetina, had specific prominent place in cults. In both cases, the continuity of deposition of different weapons is extremely long. Finds from the river Cetina date as early as 6000 BC and a large number of metal and stone objects that have been retrieved from the river include over 60 Bronze Age swords, over 30 Graeco-Illyrian helmets, a Roman legionary dagger complete with sheath, as well as numerous items of jewellery, axes and spearheads. Although the river Sava has not yet produced such a remarkable record, the Late La Tène helmet recently discovered in Sava near Nova Gradiška also suggest long continuity of the ritual. Another important fact is that the objects of prestige are rarely bought. They were probably re-ceived as gifts in a complex exchange scheme that was of crucial importance for development of the trade network between those very different cultures. Although it is well known in Greece (e. g. Fischer 1973), such intricate mechanisms of gift exchange were established in different communities in almost all periods all over the world. The ethnological re-search in last century showed that similar customs were preserved almost until today.

It is not a coincidence that, in many cases in the area between Pannonia and Greece, prestigious goods are defensive weapons. Their form and pur-pose make them objects of display that everyone can see and perceive as symbols of power and wealth. The best illustration of that idea are bronze helmets

8 Preliminary communication by A. Miloševi", V. Gaffney and the University of Birmingham.

ornamented with applied gold sheets (pl. 5,1) that were discovered only on few sites in Macedonia. Such ornaments were found on several Graeco-Illyrian helmets at Sindos (Sindos 1985, 83 f., 127, 130 f. fig. 121, 199, 211) and on one such helmet from Trebenište (Vuli" 1932, 34 f. fig. 55-56). There is also the Corinthian helmet ornamented in the same technique from Aghia Paraskevi (Sisimandis 1993, 170 ff.). One of many common features of cemeter-ies at Sindos and Trebenište are golden masks (pl. 5,12). Such masks were discovered only at three or four sites: Sindos (Sindos 1985, 80 ff. fig. 115, 239, 282, 322, 451), Trebenište (Filov 1927, tab. I,1; Popovi" 1956, tab. 1-2), an unknown site from Chalcidice – now in the Stathatos collection (V. Popovi" 1966, 24 fig. 13) and Petilep near Beranci where a typologically different mask was discovered in a female cremation grave (Mikul$i" 1965, 219 fig. 9). Because of the immense cultural and temporal gap we cannot consider it to be a revival of ancient Mycenaean burial custom. However, it seems to be a characteristic feature of elite burials at this spe-cific period in Macedonia which is fundamentally foreign to this area and could be considered southern import, perhaps connected with small-scale migra-tion (V. Popovi" 1964; 1966, 23 ff.). At least two masks from Sindos (Sindos 1985, 148 f., 276 f. fig. 239-240, 451-452), the mask from the Stathatos col-lection (V. Popovi" 1966, 24 fig. 13), and probably some from Trebenište were used in combination with the Graeco-Illyrian helmets, but never with helmets ornamented with gold sheets. It seems that those two ornamental techniques excluded each other or occu-pied the same conceptual niche. Perhaps they were reflection of more subtle stratification within the so-cial stratum of the warrior elite.

We also already discussed the multi-headed pins of the Donja Dolina type and luxurious whetstones from Glasinac (pl. 4) as examples of conceptual units that could have been ‘picked up’ by the stream of ideas that went from Greece towards Pannonia.

In the second half of the 7th and the first half of the 6th century BC, the southern imports that travelled across Central Balkans reached Pannonia through Donja Dolina. At that point they reached the other important trade route that went along the river Sava, connecting the eastern Alpine area and the Danubian Basin (fig. 3). Recent research in the distribution of the multi-headed pins of the Donja Dolina type shows an eastern branch that went all the way to Romania (Majnari"-Pandži" 2002, 285 ff. fig. 2), confirming active communication with the Danubian Basin in that period. The preliminary re-sults of the excavations at the Kaptol hillfort also sup-port this thesis. Several types of pottery suggest even

Hrvoje Potrebica202

closer relations with Donja Dolina, as well as with the Danubian Basin (Potrebica 2004).

Later, in the late 6th and the 5th century the southern communication route shifted more to the east. In that period it went from the Central Balkan cultural centres (e. g. Glasinac) straight towards the Danube (fig. 3). In the area of eastern Slavonia, Srijem and Vojvodina this period is marked by strong Balkan influences, such as the specific types of fib-ulae with triangular or trapezoidal catch-plate and knob (Vasi" 1999, 89 ff.). R. Vasi" interprets those influences rather as signs of an Illyrian intrusion, probably from the area of the Glasinac Culture, than as the result of trade (Vasi" 1983, 77). Nine skeletal graves on the Early Iron Age cremation necropolis Lijeva Bara in Vukovar (with 101 incineration buri-als) provide an argument for foreign ethnic elements, especially because of the richly ornamented whet-stone (pl. 4,6), similar to already discussed objects from Glasinac, that were discovered in one of those graves (Vinski/Vinski-Gasparini 1962, 271 tab. 3-4; Balen-Letuni" 1996, 32 ff. fig. 16-17). However, the fact that similar objects were also found in Kaptol and that the same grave also contained a fibula of the Va$e type which came from the Alpine area, suggest a more complex explanation for these phenomena. The Graeco-Illyrian helmet from Sremska Mitrovica probably also came from the Glasinac area. Further east, following the Danube, we reach Romania which is the most eastern area of the Graeco-Illyrian hel-mets. All three helmets from Romania belong to the late phase of those helmets and could be dated to the 5th century BC (Berciu 1958, 447 f.). The examples of the same type from Trstenik (M. Garašanin 1973, 511 tab. 111) and Ražana (M. Garašanin 1957, 37 ff. fig. 1) in Serbia suggest a south-eastern route of dis-tribution of those helmets, along the rivers Vardar and Morava. However, if we take into consideration the eastern distribution of the 6th and 5th century BC Glasinac fibulae types (Vasi" 1999, 89 ff. pl. 64B; Bader 1983, pl. 49-50; Teržan 1984, 12 ff. fig. 17-18), it seems more probable that helmets also came from the area of the Glasinac Culture which was at peak of its power at that time (Vasi" 1983, 79). On the other hand, if that is the case, we still do not have satisfactory explanation for lack of contempo-rary Graeco-Illyrian helmets in the “core area” of the Glasinac Culture, even in rich princely burials. Another open question is whether those helmets reached Romania as a result of limited population movement (such as intrusion of organized warrior groups), or if they are actual imports from the Central Balkan area (Berciu 1958, 449 f.; Vasi" 1983, 79).

Import of Technology vs. Imitation – Shape, Concept or something else

Imitation is perhaps the best illustrated with the ob-jects of display. Such objects can be results of tech-nological import (e. g. the fortification elements at Heuneburg), the import of prestigious goods (e. g. defence weapons and bronze vessel sets), or just in-dividual elements of attire. Their common denomi-nator is the imitation of appearance achieved by ob-jects of material culture, with limited awareness of the original context of those objects or their concep-tual value. The simple illustration of that is the fibula of the Va$e type characteristic for the Alpine area of the Hallstatt Culture that was originally part of the female attire. If we compare the distribution map of that type of fibulae and with the context of finds, we notice that in the area of origin it strictly keeps to its conceptual position within the female attire (usu-ally cremation graves). With distance, the original context fades and conceptual value diminishes. The result of that is the appearance of an example in a male skeletal grave at Vukovar - Lijeva Bara site.9 Sets of vessels for ritual and/or social feasting also fall into the category of religious concepts equally characteristic of Pannonia and Greece. The ritual feast played an important role in the warrior and heroic dimension of the Iron Age religion, in the Hallstatt region as well as further south (Potrebica 2001, 72). This ancient concept could have roots way back in early Indo-European religion. That is maybe why it was so readily accepted in such a broad area from Mediterranean to Central Europe.

Luxurious sets of bronze vessels imported for that purpose both in Central Europe and Balkans demonstrate characteristic features of prestigious ob-jects as objects of display, and the discussion of that subject would take us too far. Instead, we will rapidly discuss their pottery counterparts. A large number of such sets have been found in the wide territory of the Hallstatt Culture.10 In Kaptol, that category includes cups with single handles (pl. 1,10), two ceramic situlas (pl. 2,7), a cist (pl. 2,5) and a footed cup, and finally the most impressive set from tumulus XII: an askos, two ceramic tripods and three big black food storage jars. Pottery imitations of bronze vessels (pl. 2,4-7) are not just a mere reflection of an inferior community that could not afford the “real stuff”. Pottery is one of the most important archaeological

9 Another example of that are certain types of Balkan fibulae that are imitated outside of their original areas, but without true understanding of its technology or functional elements like those from Gorica (Truhelka 1899, 353 f. fig. 13-16).

10 These and their cult significance were discussed in detail by G. Kossack (Kossack 1964).


denominators of any culture and the drinking set is a specific group of vessels used for a conceptually well-defined purpose. The acceptance and transcrip-tion of these characteristic shapes indicates a trans-fer on deeper conceptual level. At the same time, although the original objects (e. g. sets of imported bronze vessels) have the role of prestigious goods, their cultural and conceptual impact in many cases remains superficial.

The askoi that are related to the complex symbolism of bovines and fertility and tripods that have numerous mythological references are perhaps the most prominent elements of such sets. They have counterparts both in the Italian/Alpine and the Greek/Balkan zones. The origin of initial conceptual impulse is hard to establish. Because of their com-plex symbolic connotations, it is difficult to deter-mine whether it is simple imitation of a form or a transformation of a concept already present.

Eastern influences played a crucial role in the process of social and cultural change at the end of the Late Bronze Age in Pannonia that resulted in the Hallstatt Culture. Among a wide variety of differ-ently dated objects bearing eastern characteristics, the most important group is that of the so called, “Cimmerian” bronzes. These mainly consist of bronze horse equipment dated into the 8th and the first half of the 7th century BC (Kossack 1980, 109 ff.). Although the idea behind these objects defi-nitely came from the East, the analysis of their distri-bution marked them as Pannonian types, being much more present in Central Europe and Pannonia than in southern Russia (Bouzek 1997, 199 ff.; Metzner-Nebelsick 2002, fig. 99-100, 107, 110, 113, 136, 138, 147, 154). Although a new form of horse harness and riding was developed on the other side of the Carpathians and the new production techniques could not be transferred without some contacts with these populations11, the actual objects show independent and local characteristics probably continuing the lo-cal metallurgical tradition (Potrebica 2001, 63).

11 The most important recent contributions to the subject are those of C. Metzner-Nebelsick (1998; 2002).

Therefore, horse gear is more reaction than imitation. It is an import of technological solutions to a given problem. Although such objects appear in context of Pannonian Cultures at the time when they were more aware of the areas where prototypesof such objects were created, the impulse for their production came from within. It is class of locally produced objects that were at one point equally char-acteristic of Pannonian and Caucasian Cultures. The sociological structure of Pannonian Cultures at the dawn of the Iron Age adapts in response to impulses reaching this area from the east. Therefore, horse gear appears as technological innovation caused by changes from within the society. The idea, prototype or technology, were initially imported, but the pro-duction was organized locally and those objects ap-peared as fully integrated elements of the material culture of a local society.

Imitation is plainly visible in intracultural rela-tions within more or less compact cultural units such as were Greek, or even better Hellenistic and Roman cultural koines. In such cases, objects and ideas are part of the same general knowledge and the intended effect of the imitation is plainly visible. An interest-ing example are ship cargoes containing imitations of amphorae characteristic of the famous wine-grow-ing areas. Amphorae of characteristic shape would be considered to contain such high-quality product, but imitations of those amphorae probably contained wine of lesser quality and they were sold at culturally more distant parts of Mediterranean to indigenous population that presumably couldn’t tell the differ-ence – the concept that is not altogether strange to our times.

On the other hand, it is very hard to establish a simple ‘imitation’ in intercultural relations and long distance trade. In those cases, it is always part of more complex notions related to import and cultural transfer and somehow always lingers on the vague borders of different conceptual categories.

Hrvoje Potrebica204

References

Amandry 1953Les bijoux antiques. Collection Hélène Stathatos I (Strass-bourg 1953).

Andhreou 1985J. Andhreou, Halkino kranos „ilyrikoy“ typoy me eghar-akte diakosmese. Iliria XV/2, 1985, 281–291.

Andronikos 1969M. Andronikos, Vergina I (Athens 1969).

Bader 1983T. Bader, Die Fibeln in Rumänien. PBF XIV/6 (München 1983).

Balen-Letuni" 1996D. Balen-Letuni", Nalaz ratni$ke opreme iz Krka. Vjesnik Arh. muzeja Zagrebu 3, 1992, 21–34.

Balen-Letuni" 1992D. Balen-Letuni", Prapovijsna naselja i nekropola vu-kovarske Lijeve Bare. In: Ž. Demo (ed.), Vukovar. Lijeva Bara. Exhibition catalogue (Zagreb 1996) 32–35.

Barun Nopcsa 1907F. Barun Nopcsa, Arheološke crtice iz Albanije. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja BiH XIX, 1907, 1–32.

Benac/!ovi" 1957A. Benac/B. !ovi", Glasinac II (Sarajevo 1957).

Berciu 1958D. Berciu, Le casque Gréco-Illyrien de Gostav%& (Olténie). Dacia N. S. II, 1958, 437–450.

Biel 1985J. Biel, Der Keltenfürst von Hochdorf (Stuttgart 1985).

Bietti Sestieri/Lo Schiavo 1976A.-M. Bietti Sestieri/F. Lo Schiavo, Alcuni problemi rela-tivi ai rapporti fra l’Italia e la peninsola Balcanica nella tarda età del bronzo inizi dell’età deol ferro. Illiria IV/1, 1976, 163–189.

Bitrakova-Grozdanova 1989V. Bitrakova-Grozdanova, Sveti Ilija/Delagoždi. Arh. prze-gled 1987, 1989, 87–88.

Bouzek 1982 J. Bouzek, Climatic changes and Central European pre-history. In: A. Harding (ed.), Climatic Changes in Later Prehistory (Edinburgh 1982) 179–191.

Bouzek 1985 J. Bouzek, The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe. Stud. Medi-terranean Arch. 29 (Jonsered 1985).

Bouzek 1997 J. Bouzek, The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Interrelations During the Early Iron Age. Stud. Mediter-ranean Arch. 122 (Jonsered 1997).

Bouzek 1999 J. Bouzek, Climatic changes and southern relations: two aspects of the East Hallstatt Cultures. In: E. Jerem/I. Po-roszlai (eds.), Archaeology of the Bronze and Iron Age (Budapest 1999) 13–23.

Bryson et al. 1974 R. A. Bryson/H. H. Lamb/D. L. Donley, Drought and the Decline of Mycenae. Antiquity 48, 1974, 46–50.

Carpenter 1966R. Carpenter, Discontinuity in Greek Civilisation (Cam-bridge 1966).

!ovi" 1959 B. !ovi", Glasinac - 1957 - Rezultati revizionog iskopa-vanja tumula glasina$kog tipa. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja BiH N.S. XIV, 1959, 53–85.

!ovi" 1976B. !ovi", Od Butmira do Ilira (Sarajevo 1976).

!ovi" 1983B. !ovi", Importation of bronze vessels in the Western Balkans (7th to 5th century). L’Adriatico tra Mediterra-neo e peninsola balcanica nell’antichità (Taranto 1983) 147–155.

!ovi" 1987aB. !ovi", Grupa Donja Dolina, Sanski Most. In: A. Benac (ed.), Praist. jugoslavenskih zemalja V (Sarajevo 1987) 232–288.

!ovi" 1987b B. !ovi", Glasina$ka kultura. In: A. Benac (ed.), Praisto-ria jugoslavenskih zemalja V (Sarajevo 1987) 575–643.

Diodorus Siculus C. H. Oldfather (transl.), Diodorus of Sicily in Twelve Volumes (London 1989).

Drews 1988 R. Drews, The Coming of Greeks: Indo-European Con-quests in the Aegean and the Near East (Princeton 1988)

Drews 1993 R. Drews, The end of the Bronze Age: Changes in warfare and the catastrophe c. 1200 B.C. (Princeton 1993).

#ukni"/Jovanovi" 1966 M. #ukni"/B. Jovanovi", Atenica (!a$ak 1966).

Egg 1999M. Egg, Waffenbrüder? Eine ungewöhnliche Bestattung der Frühlatènezeit in Novo Mesto in Slowenien. Jahrb. RGZM 46/2, 1999, 317–356.

Egg/Križ 1997M. Egg/B. Križ, Ein neuer hallstattzeitlicher Schildbe-schlag aus Novo Mesto, Slowenien. Jahrb. RGZM 44/1, 1997, 193–212.

Fiala 1895F. Fiala, Die Ergebnisse der Untersuchung prähistorischer Grabhügel auf dem Glasinac im Jahre 1893. Wiss. Mitt. Bosnien u. Herzegowina 3, 1895, 3–38.


Fiala 1896F. Fiala, Nekropola ravnih grobova kod Sanskog mosta. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja BiH VIII, 1896, 219–272.

Fiala 1899 F. Fiala, Das Flachgräberfeld und die prähistorische An-siedlung in Sanski Most. Wiss. Mitt. Bosnien u. Herze-gowina 6, 1899, 62–129.

Filov 1927B. Filov, Die Archaische Nekropole von Trebenischte (Berlin, Leipzig 1927).

Fischer 1973F. Fischer, KEIMHQIA. Bemerkungen zur kulturgeschich-tlichen Interpretation des sogenannten Südimports in der späten Hallstatt- und frühen Latène-Kultur des westlichen Mitteleuropa. Germania 51/2, 1973, 436–459.

Gallus/Horváth 1939S. Gallus/T. Horváth, Un peuple cavalier préscythique en Hongrie. Dissertationes Pannoniae II-9 (Budapest 1939).

Garašanin 1957M. Garašanin, Ilirsko-gr$ki šlem iz Ražane. Vesnik Vojnog muzeja 4, 1957, 37–51.

Garašanin 1973M. Garašanin, Praistorija na tlu SR Srbije (Beograd 1973).

Gjipali 1981I. Gjipali, Vendbanime dhe materiale prehistorike nga rre-thi i Librazhdit. Illiria XI-1, 1981, 239–244.

HerodotusG. C. Macaulay (trans.), The History of Herodotus (Lon-don 1890).

Hooker 1979J. T. Hooker, New reflections on the Dorian invasion. Klio 61-2, 1979, 353–360.

Hundt 1975H. J. Hundt, Die Restaurierung der Funde aus den hallstattzeitlichen Fürstengräbern von Novo Mesto. Arh. vestnik XXIV, 1975, 327–337.

Kilian 1975K. Kilian, Trachtzubehör der Eisenzeit zwischen Agäis und Adria. Praehist. Zeitschr. 50, 1975, 9–140.

Kilian 1976K. Kilian, Bosnisch-herzegowinische Bronzen der Eisen-zeit II aus Griechenland. Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja ANUBiH XIII-11, 1976, 163–176.

Kilian 1982 K. Kilian, Civiltà micenea in Grecia: nuovi aspetti storici et interculturali. In: G. Pugliese Caratelli (ed.), Magna Graecia e il mondo miceneo: nuovi documenti. Atti di XXII Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia (Taranto 1982) 53–96.

Kilian 1985 K. Kilian, Violinbogenfibeln und Blattbügelfibeln des griechischen Festlandes aus mykenischer Zeit. Praehist. Zeitschr. 60, 1985, 145–203.

Kilian-Dirlmeier 1984a I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Nadeln der frühheladischen bis ar-chaischen Zeit aus der Peloponnes. PBF XIII/8 (München 1984).

Kilian-Dirlmeier 1984b I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Der dorische Peplos – ein archäolo-gisches Zeugnis der dorischen Wanderung. Arch. Korrbl. 14, 1984, 281–291.

Knez 1986 T. Knez, Novo Mesto I (Novo Mesto 1986).

Kossack 1954G. Kossack, Pferdegeschirr aus Gräbern der älteren Hall-stattzeit Bayerns. Jahrb. RGZM 1, 1954, 111–178.

Kossack 1957G. Kossack, Zu den Metallbeigaben des Wagengrabes von Cá Morta (Como). Sibrium 3, 1957, 41–51.

Kossack 1964G. Kossack, Trinkgeschir als Kultgerät der Hallstattzeit. Varia Arch. 16, 1964, 96–105.

Kossack 1980G. Kossack, „Kimmerische“ Bronzen. Situla 20-21, 1980, 109–144.

Križ 1997B. Križ, Kapiteljska njiva, katalog arheološke razstave. (Novo Mesto 1997).

Kromer 1986K. Kromer, Das östliche Mitteleuropa in der frühen Ei-senzeit (7. – 5. Jh. v. Chr.) - seine Beziehungen zu den Steppenvolkern und antiken Hochkulturen. Jahrb. RGZM 33/1, 1986, 1–93.

Kunze 1958E. Kunze, Helme. VI. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia (Berlin 1958) 118–151.

Kunze 1967E. Kunze, Helme. VIII. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia (Berlin 1967) 111–183.

Kunze 1991E. Kunze, Beinschienen. Olympia Forschungen 21 (Berlin 1991).

Lahtov 1965V. Lahtov, Ilirskiot bore$ki grob od seloto Re$ica - Ohrid-sko i problemot na gr$ko-ilirskiot šlem. Situla 8, 1965, 47–67.

Lucentini 1981N. Lucentini, Sulla cronologia delle necropoli di Glasinac nell’eta del ferro. Studi di protohistoria adriatica 1, Qad-erni di cultura materiale 2, 1981, 67–171.

Hrvoje Potrebica206

Maier 1956F. Maier, Zu einigen bosnisch-herzegowinischen Bronzen in Griechenland. Germania 34/1-2, 1956, 63–75.

Majnari"-Pandži" 2002N. Majnari"-Pandži", Multi-headed „Pins“ of the Donja Dolina Type Revisited. Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja ANUBiH XXXII/30, 2002, 283–291.

Mano 1976A. Mano, Les rapports commerciaux d’Apolonie avec l’arriere-pays Illyrien. Iliria IV/1,1976, 307–316.

Mari" 1964Z. Mari", Donja Dolina i problem etni$ke pripadnosti pre-drimskog stanovništva sjeverne Bosne. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja BiH XIX, 1964, 5–128.

Marovi" 1976I. Marovi", L’elmo Graeco-Illirico. In: M. Sui" (ed.), Jadranska obala u protohistoriji (Zagreb 1976) 287–300.

Marovi"/Nikolanci 1969I. Marovi"/M. Nikolanci, !etiri groba iz nekropole u Vi$joj Luci (o. Bra$) prona'ena u 1908. god. Vjesnik arh. i hist. dalmatinsku LXX-LXXI, 1969, 5–55.

Metzner-Nebelsick 1998 C. Metzner-Nebelsick, Abschied von den “Thrako-Kim-meriern”? Neue Aspekte der Interaktion zwischen karpat-enländischen Kulturgruppen der späten Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit mit der osteuropäischen Steppenkoine. In: B. Hänsel/J. Machnik (eds.), Das Karpatenbecken und die Osteuropäische Steppe, Südosteuropa-Schr. 20, Prähist. Arch. Südosteuropa 12 (München, Rahden/Westfalen 1998) 361–422.

Metzner-Nebelsick 2002 C. Metzner-Nebelsick, Der “Thrako-Kimerische” For-menkreis aus der Sicht der Urnenfelder- und Hallstattzeit im südöstlichen Pannonien. Vorgesch. Forsch. 23 (Rah-den/Westfalen 2002).

Mikul$i" 1965I. Mikul$i", Arhajske nekropole južne Pelagonije. Starinar N.S. XV-XVI, 1965, 209–226.

Müller-Karpe 1959H. Müller-Karpe, Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnen-felderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. Röm.-Germ. Forsch. 22 (Berlin 1959).

Nikolanci 1959M. Nikolanci, Nove gr$ke kacige i knemide u Dalmaciji. Vjesnik arh. i hist. dalmatinsku LXI, 1959, 81–93.

Nikolanci 1964M. Nikolanci, Contacts gréco-illyriens sur la côte est de l’Adriatique. Arch. Iugoslavica V, 1964, 49–60.

Nikolanci 1959M. Nikolanci, Nove gr$ke kacige i knemide u Dalmaciji. Vjesnik arh. i hist. dalmatinsku LXI, 1959, 81–93.

Nin$i" 2002O. Nin$i", Tkanine iz Mojsinja. In: L. Nikitovi"/M. Stoji"/R. Vasi", Mojsinje. Nekropola pod humcima iz bronzanog i gvozdenog doba - Appendix (!a$ak 2002) 66–68.

Novak 1955G. Novak, Prethistorijski Hvar (Zagreb 1955).

Palavestra 1984A. Palavestra, Kneževski grobovi starijeg gvozdenog doba na centralnom Balkanu (Beograd 1984).

Parovi"-Pešikan 1960M. Parovi"-Pešikan, O karakteru gr$kog materijala na Glasincu i putevima njegovog prodiranja. Starinar N.S. XI, 1960, 21–45.

Parovi"-Pešikan 1964 M. Parovi"-Pešikan, Les Ilyriens au contacts des Grecs. Arch. Iugoslavica V, 1964, 61–82.

Pflug 1988aH. Pflug, Illyrische Helme. In: W.-D. Heilmeyer/U. Schaaff (eds.), Antike Helme, Monogr. RGZM 11 (Mainz 1988) 42–64.

Pflug 1988bH. Pflug, Korinthische Helme. In: W.-D. Heilmeyer/U. Schaaff (eds.), Antike Helme, Monogr. RGZM 11 (Mainz 1988) 65–106.

Popovi" 1956Lj. Popovi", Katalog nalaza iz nekropole kod Trebeništa (Beograd 1956).

Popovi" 1964V. Popovi", Les Masques funéraires de la nécropole ar-chaïque de Trebenište. Arch. Iugoslavica V, 1964, 33–44.

Popovi" 1966V. Popovi", O poreklu gr$kih arhajskih predmeta iz nekropole kod Trebeništa sa posebnim osvrtom na problem zlatnih maski. Starinar N.S. XV-XVI, 1966, 15–30.

Potrebica 1998 H. Potrebica, Some remarks on the contacts between the Greek and the Hallstatt Culture considering the area of the northern Croatia in the Early Iron Age. In: M. Pearce/M. Tosi (eds.), Papers from the EAA Third Annual Meeting at Ravenna 1997. Pre- and Protohistory. BAR Intern. Ser. 717 (Oxford 1998) 241–249.

Potrebica 2000H. Potrebica, Požeška kotlina - prapovijesna mikroregija na razme'i Panonije, Balkana i alpskog svijeta. Unpub-lished M.A. Thesis (Zagreb 2000).

Potrebica 2001 H. Potrebica, Some aspects of the warrior concept in the Eastern Hallstatt Circle. Prehistoria 2000/1, 2001, 62–81.

Potrebica 2004H. Potrebica, Požeška kotlina i Donja Dolina u komunikaci-jskoj mreži starijeg željeznog doba, Opuscula Arch. 27, 2004, 217–242.


Potrebica/Dizdar 2002H. Potrebica/M. Dizdar, Latenska kultura na prostoru Požeške kotline. Opuscula arch. 26, 2002, 111–131.

Radt 1974W. Radt, Die früheisenzeitliche Hügelnekropole bei Vergi-na in Makedonien. PBF XX-1 (München 1974) 98–147.

Riek/Hundt 1982 G. Riek/H. J. Hundt, Der Hochmichele, Ein Fürstengra-bhügel der späteren Hallstattzeit bei Heuneburg. Röm.-Germ. Forsch. 25 (Berlin 1982).

Schachermeyr 1980F. Schachermeyr, Ägäische Frühzeit IV (Vienna 1980).

Sindos et al. 1985I. Vokotopuolou/Ai. Despoine/V. Misaelidou/M. Tiverios, Sindos. Exhibition catalogue (Solun 1985).

Sisimandis 1993K. Sisimandis, The archaic Cemetery at Aghia Paraskevi. Thessaloniki, Greek Civilization, Macedonia, Kingdom of Alexander the Great. (Thessaloniki 1993) 170–179.

Snodgrass 1975A. Snodgrass, Climatic change and the fall of the Myc-enaean civilisation. Bull. Inst. Classical Stud. 22, 1975, 213–214.

Stary 1981P. F. Stary, Zur eisenzeitlichen Bewaffnung und Kampfes-weise in Mittelitalien (ca. 9.–6. Jh. v. Chr.), Marburger Stud. Vor- u. Frühgesch. 3 (Mainz 1981).

StraboH. L. Jones (ed.), The Geography of Strabo (London 1924).

Teržan 1987B. Teržan, The Early Iron Age Chronology of the Central Balkans, Arch. Iugoslavica XXIV, 1987, 7–27.

Teržan 1990B. Teržan, Starejša železna doba na Slovenskem Štajerskem. Katalogi monogr. 25 (Ljubljana 1990).

Teržan 1995B. Teržan, Handel und soziale Oberschichten im frühe-isenzeitlichen Südosteuropa. In: B. Hänsel (ed.), Handel, Tausch und Verkehr im bronze- und früheisenzeitlichen Südosteuropa, Südosteuropa-Schr. 17, Prähist. Arch. Sü-dosteuropa 11 (München/Berlin 1995) 81–160.

Thomas 1978C. G. Thomas, A Dorian Invasion? The early literary evi-dence. Studi Micenei Egeo-anatolici 19, 1978, 77–88.

Truhelka 1899(. Truhelka, Dva prahistorijska nalaza iz Gorice (Ljubuškog kotara). Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja BiH N.S. XI, 1899, 339–395.

van Soesbergen 1981P. G. van Soesbergen, The Coming of the Dorians. Kad-mos 20, 1981, 38–51.

Vasi" 1977R. Vasi", The chronology of the Early Iron Age in the Socialist Republic of Serbia. BAR. Suppl. Ser. 31 (Oxford 1977).

Vasi" 1982R. Vasi", Prilog prou$avanju gr$kog oružja u Jugoslaviji. Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja ANUBiH XX-18, 1982, 5–21.

Vasi" 1983R. Vasi", A contribution to the study of “Illyrian” helmets in North Yugoslavia. Arch. Iugoslavica XXII-XXIII, 1983, 76–80.

Vasi" 1987R. Vasi", Ohridska oblast. In: A. Benac (ed.), Praistoria jugoslavenskih zemalja V (Sarajevo 1987) 724–736.

Vasi" 1992R. Vasi", An Etruscan bone box from south-west Serbia and the problem of the Late Archaic imports in the Central Balkan area. Arh. vestnik XLIII, 1992, 53–66.

Vasi" 1999R. Vasi", Die Fibeln im Zentralbalkan. PBF XIV/12 (Stuttgart 1999).

Vejvoda/Mirnik 1975 V. Vejvoda/I. Mirnik, Halštatski kneževski grobovi iz Ka-ptola kod Slavonske Požege. Arh. vestnik XXIV, 1975, 592–610.

Vejvoda/Mirnik 1991 V. Vejvoda/I. Mirnik, Prethistorijski Kaptol. In: F. Potrebi-ca (ed.), Kaptol 1221-1991 (Kaptol 1991) 9–28.

Vinski-Gasparini 1987K. Vinski-Gasparini, Grupa Martijanec-Kaptol. In: A. Benac (ed.), Praist. jugoslavenskih zemalja V (Sarajevo 1987) 182–231.

Vinski/Vinski-Gasparini 1962Z. Vinski/K. Vinski-Gasparini, O utjecajima isto$no-alp-ske halštatske kulture i balkanske ilirske kulture na slavon-sko-srijemsko Podunavlje. Arh. radovi rasprave 2, 1962, 263–293.

Vukovi" 1994D. Vukovi", Siscija vizija rimskog grada u Panoniji (Sisak 1994).

Vuli" 1931N. Vuli", Jedan nov grob kod Trebeništa. Glasnik Skop-skog nau$nog društva XI, 1932, 1–41.

Wallace/Kare 1978P. A. Wallace/E. Kare, The route of the Dorian invasion. Arch. Analekta ex Athenon 11, 1978, 102–107.

Žiži" 1979O. Žiži", Grobovi ilirskih ratnika – Kli$evo kod Nikši"a, In: M. Garašanin (ed.), Sahranjivanje kod Ilira (Beograd 1979) 205–218.

Hrvoje Potrebica208

Pl. 1. Part of the grave goods of the princely tumulus IV at Kaptol (after Vinski-Gasparini 1987)

1 2

3

4 5

6 7 8 9 10


1 2 3

4 5

6 7

Pl. 2. 1-3. Greek import at Kaptol (after Potrebica 1998); 4-7. Bronze vessels from tumulus IV at Kandija in Novo Mesto (1 and 3) and their ceramic counterparts from tumulus VII in Kaptol (2 and 4) (after Knez 1986 and Potrebica 2000)

Hrvoje Potrebica210

Pl. 3. Greek imports at Glasinac (after Kromer 1986)


Pl. 4. Multi-headed pins of the Donja Dolina type and whetstone “sceptres” (1. 4. 5. Kaptol; 2. Donja Dolina; 3. 7. 8. Glasinac; 6. Vukovar) (after Potrebica 2000; Vinski-Gasparini 1987; Benac/"ovi! 1957; "ovi! 1987a and b)

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8

Hrvoje Potrebica212

Pl. 5. Finds from the princely burials at Trebenište (after Vasi! 1987)

2

3

4

5

1

6

7 8 9

10 11

12

The Sette Sale Domus - A Proposal of Reading 213

Abstract

In the late 1960s and early 1970s an extraordinary discovery was made on the Esquiline Hill in Rome. On the top of the Sette Sale, the great reservoir built at the time of Trajan to supply his adjacent baths with water, the excavations brought to light remains of a large and elegant domus dated to the early fourth cen-tury AD. Although only a small part of a much bigger building survives, the domus probably belonged to a wealthy man of senatorial rank: its dimensions, its lo-cation on the aristocratic Esquiline and its proximity to the Praefectura Urbis make this evidently clear.

The aim of this paper is to establish the identity of that man, one of the 380 anonymous domus own-ers living on the Esquiline in Imperial times.

The starting point is the assumption that the five mythological statues found in the area of the Sette Sale and bearing signatures of Aphrodisian art-ists might decorate one of the elegant rooms of the domus. As the Esquiline group shows an especially close relation with the 4th century AD sculptures decorating the Gaulish Villa at Chiragan, the owners of the two domestic buildings could have belonged to the same family.

On the basis of iconographical, epigraphical and prosopographical evidence, this paper will sug-gest that the owner of the Sette Sale domus would have been a member of the gens Aconia.

!"#$%"

& '()*( 60-+ – ),-./,0'1 70-+ 2.'(3 4156 -2.3"-7")( )"3(7'5,7)( 7.85(79")): ), Esquiline Hill 1 !6%(. ;, 3"2<6)( Sette Sale, 3"56'6= 4,8"=) /,8(3 >2,:), 8),49,3 3.7.$ 818(7)( # )6% '1-,5?)(, 2.#'.-'6 3(7'2656 #,56<'6 3"56'.@. 0, 36<1-',).@. 7.%181, 7,0.3,).@. -./,0'.% 4 80.5(00: ),<.A "26. B./, 0(5?'6 )"#),/), /,806), #),/). 4(5?<.A 8-.2176 415, 7.85(79"),, %.9), 803"27-913,06, C. 7.%18, ./"367)., 3(7).860?8: 7. #,-%.9).@. /.5.3(', 2,)@1 8"),0.2,: 2.#%(26 7.%1-81, 2.#%(C")): =.@. 3 ,2680.'2,06/).%1 2,=.)( ( =.@. 3(7).<")): 7. Praefectura Urbis 7.3.7:0? *". D.5.3), %"0, *(EA 80,00( – (7")06F('13,06 *$ 5$-76)1, .7).@. # 380 4"#(%"))6+ domus, :'( -2.96-3,56 ), Esquiline 3 (%-"2,0.28?'6= /,8.

G./,0'.% 2.#@5:71 E @(-.0"#, -2. 0", C. -‘:0? %(F.5.@(/)6+ 80,01=, #),=7")6+ 3 2,=.)( Sette Sale, ( -(7-686 +17.9)6'(3 HF2.7(06 %.@56

-26'2,<,06 .76) # 36<1',)6+ '(%),0 domus. >,' :' @21-, Esquiline -.',#1E .8.4563. 456#?'( 3(7).-<")): # 8'15?-012,%6 4 80.5(00:, -26'2,<,3<6+ 3(51 D,15(< 3 I(2,@,)(, 35,8)6'6 73.+ 417(3"5? %.@56 %,06 3(7).<")): 7. .7)(EA 8(%‘A. ;, .8).3( ('.).@2,F(/)6+, "-(@2,F(/)6+ 0, -2.#.@2,F(/)6+ 7.',#(3 1 *(= 80,00( 803"2791E0?8:, C. 35,8)6' Sette Sale %(@ 4106 /5").% gens Aconia.

Introduction

In Imperial times the Esquiline Hill was one of the most densely populated regiones of Rome (Pisani Sartorio 1983; Cima/La Rocca 1986). However, of its 380 domus recorded in the Regionary Catalogues few remains are left now: they aren the scattered fragments of buildings which are all that destruction, change and concealment have left little by little be-cause of the uninterrupted life of the city.

In order that the fragments signify something more than mere material remains of ancient dwell-ings, it is necessary to ask questions about their use, and hence to learn more about the lifestyle of peo-ple living there. Epigraphical and literary evidence records some names of owners living on the Esquiline but, in most cases, the structural remains of domus cannot be connected with the names of specific own-ers. However, it is by establishing the identity of the owner and connecting him with his dwelling that we can learn more about how the ancients lived in their houses and how their beliefs and social status affect-ed the structural arrangement of domestic spaces.

In attempting to relate the physical structures of a domus with the specific personality of the owner, domestic decoration can prove to be very helpful. The iconographical analysis of sculptures, paintings and mosaics decorating ancient dwellings may high-light less evident aspects such the function of rooms, and the beliefs, tastes and social status of the house-owner. Moreover, the imitation or replication of decorative elements in the same context (domus) but in different regions may suggest contacts, exchang-es and communication between either familiae or members of the same gens. Iconographical analysis, therefore, is not just a methodological approach to solve questions of style and chronology: it can also make an important contribution to our understanding of social issues.

The Sette Sale Domus - A Proposal of Reading

Margherita Carucci

Margherita Carucci214

On the basis of the above observations, this paper will try and establish the identity of one of the 380 owners living on the Esquiline in Imperial times by iconographical and epigraphical analysis. By start-ing with the structural remains of a domus on the Esquiline, the paper will consider its possible sculp-tural decoration as means of identifying its owner.

The domus

In the late 1960s and early 1970s an extraordinary discovery was made by Lucos Cozza (1974-1975) on the Esquiline (fig. 1). On the top of the Sette Sale, the great reservoir built at the time of Trajan to supply his nearby baths with water, the excavations brought to light remains of a large and elegant domus (Guidobaldi 1986, 167 ff.) (fig. 2).

Although its walls stand to a height of only 50 cm, it is clear from the masonry that the domus was built in the first half of the 4th century AD on ear-lier structures. To the west, two rows of rectangular rooms (3.50 x 4.10 m) overlooking an open-air area were built in the Trajanic period. These were prob-ably used as service rooms by staff working in the nearby Baths of Trajan (De Fine Licht 1983, 198). With the construction of the private building they were turned into a small bath, kitchen and latrine, and connected with new, larger and more elegant rooms to the east.

To the north a hexagonal hall adjoins rooms of rectangular and apsidal shape with little round cham-bers in the corners. Beside it is a basilical structure (17.5 x 14.15 m) with a raised apse (9.50 m) be-tween a semicircular fountain (to the north) and a circular structure (to the south). Along its southern side, a nymphaeum with a water basin and niches of semi-circular shape opens onto a long courtyard (18.5 x 4.5 m), at the back of which are three rooms (the biggest one in the middle is probably a triclin-ium or tablinum).

Traces of mosaic decoration show that the floors and walls of the eastern section of the house were decorated with expensive multicoloured mar-ble, while cocciopesto and black mosaic decorated the service rooms to the west (Vincenti 1997; Bi-anchi et al. 2000). Other lavish forms of domestic decoration, such as sculptures, wall paintings, wall mosaics, furniture and textiles, would have enhanced the architecturel layout of domestic space, but they are missing.

In spite of the fragmentary remains of the Sette Sale domus, some elements may be employed to es-tablish the house-owner’s identity.

The domus lay on a hill that Maecenas had turned into an elegant residential area. That area was in great demand by aristocrats because of its close prox-imity to the administrative headquarters of the city and to the Praefectura Urbis, and because its aque-ducts and roads led to the main quarters of the city. This is the area where wealthy people, such as Pre-textatus, Secundus and Projecta lived. Location on the aristocratic Esquiline along with proximity to the Praefectura Urbis, large dimensions and sumptuous decoration clearly suggests that the Sette Sale domus belonged to a wealthy man of senatorial rank.

The Esquiline group

In order to identify that man, the possible sculptural decoration of his mansion might be helpful.

In the 1880s statuary fragments came to light during building works in the area of the Via Carlo Botta, to the south of the Sette Sale (Visconti 1886) (pl. 1,1). They had been cut to pieces and reused as building material in a medieval wall. From the frag-ments, five statues were reconstructed: they are life size mythological figures representing Heracles, Sa-tyr with infant Dionysos, Helios, Poseidon and Zeus (Poulsen 1951, nos. 521-527; Floriani Squarciapino 1943, 13 ff., 38 ff.; Moltesen 1990; Kiilerich/Torp 1994; Bergmann 1999, 14 ff.); they are of Carrara marble and are standing on plinths signed by Aphro-disian artists. On the basis of epigraphical evidence Erim and Roueché (Erim/Roueché 1982) dated them to the first half of the 4th century AD.

Appearing homogeneous as to scale, propor-tions and style, the statues very probably decorated a single area not far from the place of their discov-ery. Moreover, since each statue has its own signed plinth, they might have been placed in a niche, sep-arately, but in the same area. Poulsen (1951) sug-gested a nymphaeum in the nearby Baths of Trajan whilst Ricci (1891) pointed to the Curia athletarum near S. Pietro in Vincoli. However, the Esquiline group might also have decorated a private building, such as the nearby Sette Sale domus (Moltesen 1990, 146; Kiilerich/Torp 1994, 312): the nymphaeum with its semicircular niches or hexagonal hall would have been convenient for the display of the statues. The domestic use of the Esquiline group is suggested by other examples of sculptural decoration with mytho-logical subjects which decorated late antique houses (Hannestad 1994) such as at Silahtaraga (De Chaise-martin/Örgen 1984; Kiilerich/Torp 1994, 314 ff.; Bergmann 1999, 17 ff.), Valdetorres de Jarama (Arce et al. 1979; Bergmann 1999, 21), Saint Georges de Montagne (Stirling 1996a; Stirling 1996b; Berg-


Fig. 1. Map of the Esquiline (after A. M. Bietti Sestieri (ed.) Roma: archeologia nel centro, vol. II: La “città murata”, Roma 1985)

mann 1999, 21 ff.), Carthage (Gazda 1981), Chira-gan (Bergmann 1999; Carucci 2001) and elsewhere (Neudecker 1988). Such sculptural complexes show a clear connection in terms of design and product range, a clear link to the tradition of Aphodisias, and shared a general function as elements of domestic decoration.

The Esquiline group statues were found to-gether with fragments of other figures “of Jupiter, Pluto, Aesculapius, Cybele, Minerva Parthenos; bac-chic vases, fountains, mouths of wells, candelabras, figures of animals, bas-reliefs and other carvings” (Lanciani 1899, 42). They might have been part of the same sculptural complex as the Esquiline group and decorated the same private building, that is the Sette Sale domus.

The Aconii

The mythological subject of the Esuiline sculptures indicates that the owner was a zealous pagan attached to ancestral traditions in times when the con ict with the Christianity and the socio-political crisis were unsettling the very foundations of paganism (Bloch 1963; Musso 1983). The commission of outstand-ing pieces of sculptures from Aphrodisian artists whose craft had earned them imperial honours (Erim/Roueché 1982, 106 f.) points to the wealthy status of the owner.

The Esquiline group within the context of the Sette Sale domus can give indications about the re-ligious beliefs, social status and wealth of the house-


owner. Further elements allow for a more speci c identi cation of the Sette Sale house-owner.

In attempt to identify the Sette Sale domus owner, the Roman villa at Chiragan, near Toulouse, proves to be particularly helpful. Built in Julio-clau-dian times and destroyed in the early 5th century AD, the large and elegant mansion was decorated by sculptures of mythological subjects, dated mainly to the first half of the 4th century AD, and by a group of fifty portraits, both imperial and private (Bergmann 1999; Balmelle 2001).

The portraits are very interesting, because they show that the villa’s owners at Chiragan had close connections with Italy. In fact, the twenty imperial portraits, running from Augustus through to the mid third century and ending with Philip the Arab, em-phasize relations with, and loyalty to, the imperial house; the private portraiture of men, women and children being indicators of high social status. They were probably carved in a Roman workshop, as exact replicas of three of them have been found in the area of Rome. The portrait of a man with long locks of

Fig. 2. Plan of the Sette Sale domus (after Cozza 1974-1975)


hair and beard (Espérandieu 1908, 78 n. 980; Berg-mann 1999, 30) shows a strong resemblance to an image found at Perugia (Dareggi 1988) along with other sculptures from Rome (pl. 1,2-3). Another rep-resentation of man (Espérandieu 1908, 80 n. 983; Bergmann 1999, 30), whose head is damaged in the upper part, is linked to a portrait in Palazzo Corsini at Rome (De Luca 1976, 88 f., n. 52 pl. LXVII) (pl. 2,1-2). Finally, some replicas of the portraiture of a young man (Fittschen 1999, 75 ff. pl. 124) have been found in different places, one of which is in the Museo Capitolino at Rome (Fittschen/Zanker 1985, 90, n.79 pl. 95-96). He might represent either a in-dividual or a Caesar like the son of Pertinax (pl. 2,3-4). All of the portraits date to the Severan period on the basis of their iconographical features: the short locks of hair, the dotted pupils and the long supercili-ary arch being characteristic of Severan art.

However, the comparison of the Gaulish por-traits with their Roman replicas is more explica-tive than any description. They show that the villa at Chiragan probably belonged to a member of the nobilitas, enjoying the privilege of the ius imaginum and accepting imperial policy. Of particular impor-tance here is that the family can be identified.

On the basis of an inscription found in loco (CIL, XIII,2, n.11007) (fig. 3), it is possible to as-sume that the gens owning the villa in the second to third century was that of the Aconii Tauri. In view of the rarity of the name, they are linked with the Aconii Callisti of the 3rd century AD and the Aconii Catullini of the 4th century AD. The members of the gens Aconia (Torelli 1969a, 305; Torelli 1982b, 292; Jones et al. 1971, 176, 187 ff.; Jacques 1986, 155 f.; Dareggi 1988, 328 ff.) were originally equites from Volsinii, but in the Severan period (222-253) they

with new sculptures, including private and imperial portraits. Afterwards, when the gens Aconia became politically and socially eminent in the first half of the 4th century AD, new rooms were added to the man-sion and mythological sculptures were commissioned from Aphrodisian artists.

It is not certain wether Aconii continued own-ing the villa at Chiragan in the 4th century AD, but it might be inferred from the fact that the private and imperial portraits were kept as decorative elements of the villa until its destruction in the early 5th cen-tury. If the villa had passed to a different family, the new owners would have removed the imagines of a gens to which they did not belong, as happened for example at Lullingstone in Kent, where portraits of earlier owners were walled up in the disused ‘Deep Room’ (Meates 1979).Since the sculptural images assumed to come from the Sette Sale domus shows striking similarities with those commissioned by the owner at the Chiragan vil-la - both men were wealthy, pagan and commissioned mythological sculptures from Aphrodisian artists- it is arguable that both house-owners belonged to the same gens.

The Aconii known by epigraphical evidence in the fourth century are Aco Catullinus (Aco is a short-ened form of Aconius), praeses of Byzacena in 313-14 and proconsul of Africa in 317-18; Aco Catullinus Philomathius (the former’s son), vicar of Africa in 338-9, praetorian prefect in 341, urban prefect in 342-4 and ordinary consul in 349; and Fabia Aconia Paulina (320-384), daughter of the second and wife of Vettius Agorius Pretextatus. Among these, espe-cially interesting is the figure of Aco Catullinus Phi-lomathius (Arnheim 1972, 78 f.). As urban prefect, he must have lived in Rome, possibly not far from the prefect’s office. His daughter’s name indicates that he married into the Fabii, another noble house of which two members were, like Catullinus, noble praetorian prefects under Constans; an inscription dedicated “Iovi Optimo Maximo” (CIL, II, n. 2635) shows that he was pagan. His daughter, Fabia Aconia Paulina (Jones et al. 1971, 675), was a devout pagan too, “dicata templis atque amica numinum” (CIL, VI, nos. 1779-1780) and priestess of many gods; she was wife of Vettius Agorius Pretextatus (Jones et al. 1971, 722ff.), a fervent defender of pagan culture and politician who was also an urban prefect in 367-8 and lived on the Esquiline. Water-pipes marked with his and his wife’s names (CIL, XV, n. 7563) suggest the location of their domus in an area to the north of Via Mamiani.

Fig. 3. Fragment of inscription found in a Roman villa at Chiragan (after CIL, XIII,2, n.11007)

were promoted to senatorial rank and during the 4th century AD they obtained the highest offices.

The political fortunes of this family seem to be reflected in the structure and decoration of the villa at Chiragan. In fact, when the Aconii became claris-simi in the first half of the 3rd century AD, the villa was enlarged with new structures and ornamented


Conclusions

The evidence makes it clear that Aco Catullinus Philomathius was a wealthy man of senatorial rank, a zealous pagan related to noble pagan families of Rome. It is also very possible that he lived in Rome. The striking similarities with the owner of the Sette Sale domus (a pagan aristocrat living in Rome) al-lows us to consider that both figures were the very same person.

In conclusion, it is evident that, when an ar-tistic work is not simply analysed in itself and is set in its broader context, it can make a very important contribution to our understanding of social issues. In fact, by relating the Esquilin group with the Sette Sale domus, it is possible to sketch the personality of the owner and even to give him a name. It is further-more possible to imagine the lifestyle of this wealthy senator receiving his most important and powerful guests in the apsed room, entertaining his more pri-vate but equally noble friends in the triclinium and also showing his high social status by grandiose ar-chitecture and his education by images of the gods and heroes of the ancestral religion.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Manuela Struck for her useful comments made on earlier drafts of this paper and Dr. Mark Pearce for inviting me to present the paper on the 8th EAA Annual Meeting at Thessa-loniki (24th-29th September 2002). I am grateful to Prof. Roger Wilson for reading and commenting the last version of the paper.

References

Arce et al. 1979J. Arce/L. Caballero Zoreda/M. A. Elvira, Valdetorres de Jarama (Madrid). Informe preliminar de las excavaciones arqueológicas. Primera campana 1978 (Madrid 1979).

Arnheim 1972M. T. W. Arnheim, The senatorial aristocracy in the late Roman Empire (Oxford 1972).

Balmelle 2001C. Balmelle, Les demeures aristocratiques d’Aquitaine. Société et culture de l’antiquité tardive dans le sud-ouest de la Gaule (Bordeaux 2001).

Bergmann 1999M. Bergmann, Chiragan, Aphrodisias, Kostantinopel. Zur mythologishen Skulptur der Spätantike (Wiesbaden 1999).

Bianchi et al. 2000F. Bianchi/M. Bruno/A. Coletta/M. De Nuccio, Domus delle Sette Sale. L’opus sectile parietale dell’aula ba-silicale: studi preliminari. In: F. Guidobaldi/A. Par-ibeni (eds.), Atti del VI Colloquio dell’Associazione Italiana per lo Studio e la Conservazione del Mo-saico, Venezia 20-23 gennaio 1999 (Ravenna 2000) 351–360.

Bloch 1963H. Bloch, The Pagan Revival in the West at the End of the Fourth Century. In: A. Momigliano (ed.), The conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford 1963) 193–218.

Carucci 2001M. Carucci, Review of M. BERGMANN, Chiragan, Aph-rodisias, Kostantinopel. Zur mythologischen Skulptur der Spatäntike. Ostraka 10, 2001, 241–244.

Cima/La Rocca 1986M. Cima/E. La Rocca (eds.), Le tranquille dimore degli dei. La residenza imperiale degli Horti Lamiani. Roma Capitale 1870-1911 (Venezia 1986).

Cozza 1974-1975L. Cozza, I recenti scavi delle Sette Sale. Rendiconti. Atti Pontificia Accad. Romana Arch. 47, 1974-1975, 79–101.

Dareggi 1988G. Dareggi, A proposito di un ritratto virile di età impe-riale. Mélanges l’Ecole française Rome 100, 1988, 321–330.

De Chaisermartin/Örgen 1984N. De Chaisermartin/E. Örgen, Les documents sculptés de Silahtaraga (Paris 1984).

De Fine Licht 1983K. De Fine Licht, Scavi alle Sette Sale. Atti del seminario ‘Città e Architettura nella Roma imperiale’, Roma 1981. Analecta Romana Inst. Danici Suppl. X, 1983, 186–202.


De Luca 1976G. De Luca, I monumenti antichi di Palazzo Corsini. Vol. IV (Roma 1976).

Erim/Roueché 1982K. T. Erim/C. M. Roueché, Sculptors from Aphrodisias. Some new inscriptions. Papers British School Rome 50, 1982, 102–115.

Espérandieu 1908B. Espérandieu, Recueil général des bas-reliefs de la Gaule romaine. Vol. II (Paris 1908).

Fittschen 1999K. Fittschen, Prinzenbildnisse Antoninischer Zeit (Mainz 1999).

Fittschen/Zanker 1985K. Fittschen/P. Zanker, Katalog der römischen Porträts in den Capitolischen Museum und der anderen communalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom (Mainz 1985).

Floriani Squarciapino 1943 M. Floriani Squarciapino, La scuola di Afrodisia (Roma 1943).

Gazda 1981E. K.Gazda, A Marble Group of Ganymede and the Eagle from the Age of Augustine. In: J. H. Humprey (ed.), Ex-cavations at Carthage 1977 conducted by the University of Michigan VI (Ann Arbor 1981) 125–178.

Guidobaldi 1986F. Guidobaldi, L’edilizia abitativa unifamiliare nella Roma tardoantica. In: A. Giardina (ed.), Società romana e Im-pero tardoantico II. Roma: politica, economia, paesaggio urbano (Bari 1986) 165–237.

Hannestad 1994N. Hannestad, Tradition in late antique sculpture. Conser-vation – Modernization – Production (Aarhus 1994).

Jacques 1986F. Jacques, L’ordine senatorio attraverso la crisi del III secolo. In: A. Giardina (ed.), Società romana e impero tardoantico I. Istituzioni, ceti, economie (Bari 1986) 81–225.

Jones et al. 1971A. H. M. Jones/J. R. Martindale/J. Morris, The Prosopo-graphy of the Late Roman Empire I, AD 260-395 (Cam-bridge 1971).

Kiilerich/Torp 1994 B. Kiilerich/H. Torp, Mythological sculpture in the fourth century A.D. The Esquiline group and the Silahtaraga stat-ues. Istanbuler Mitt. 44, 1994, 307–314.

Lanciani 1899R. Lanciani, The Destruction of Ancient Rome. A Sketch of the History of the Monuments (London 1899).

Meates 1979G. W. Meates, The Roman villa at Lullingstone, Kent (Chichester 1979).

Moltesen 1990M. Moltesen, The Aphrodisian sculptures in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. In: C. M. Roueché/K. T. Erim (eds.), Aphrodisias Papers I. Recent Work on Architecture and Sculpture. Journal Roman Arch. Suppl. 1 (Ann Arbor 1990) 133–146.

Musso 1983L. Musso, Manifattura suntuaria e committenza pagana nella Roma del IV secolo. Indagine sulla lanx di Parabiago (Roma 1983).

Neudecker 1988R. Neudecker, Die Skulpturenausstattung römischer Villen in Italien (Mainz 1988).

Pisani Sartorio 1983G. Pisani Sartorio (ed.), L’archeologia in Roma Capitale tra sterro e scavo. Roma Capitale 7 (Roma 1983).

Poulsen 1951F. Poulsen, Catalogue of Ancient Sculptures in the NY Carlsberg Glyptotek (Copenhagen 1951).

Ricci 1891S. Ricci. Bulletino della Commissione Archeologica Com-munale Roma 19, 1891, 208–209.

Stirling 1996aL. M. Stirling, Divinities and Heroes in the Age of Au-sonius: a Late-antique Villa and Sculptural Collection at Saint-Georges-de-Montagne (Gironde). Revue Arch. 1996, 1996, 103–143.

Stirling 1996bL. M. Stirling, Mythological Statuary in Late Antiquity. A casa study of villa decoration in Southwest Gaul (Ann Arbor 1996).

Torelli 1969M. Torelli, Senatori etruschi della tarda repubblica e dell’impero. Dialoghi di Arch. 3, 1996, 285–363.

Torelli 1982M. Torelli, Ascesa al senato e rapporti con i territori di origine. Italia: regio VII (Etruria). In: S. Panciera (ed.), Atti del Colloquio internazionale AIEGL su epigrafia e ordine senatorio (Tituli, 5), Roma, 14-20 maggio 1981 (Roma 1982) 275–299.

Vincenti 1997V. Vincenti, Le pavimentazioni musive delle Sette Sale a Roma. In: R. M. Carra Bonacasa/F. Guidobaldi (eds.), Atti del IV Colloquio dell’Associazione Italiana per lo Studio e la Conservazione del Mosaico, Palermo 9–13 dicembre 1996 (Ravenna 1997) 829–838.

Visconti 1886C. L. Visconti, Trovamento di oggetti d’arte e di antichità figurata. Bulletino Commissione Arch. Comm. Roma 14, 1886, 314–323.


Pl. 1. 1. The Esquiline group in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (after Moltesen 1990); 2. Portrait of a man in the Musée Saint-Raymond at Toulouse (after Dareggi 1988); 3. Portrait of a man in the Università per stranieri at Perugia (after Dareggi 1988)

1

2 3


1

4

Pl. 2. 1. Portrait of a bearded man in the Musée Saint-Raymond at Toulouse (after Bergmann 1999); 2. Portrait of a bearded man in the Palazzo Corsini at Rome (after De Luca 1976); 3. Portrait of a young man in the Musée Saint-Raymond at Toulouse (after Fittschen 1999); 4. Portrait of a young man in the Museo Capitolino at Rome (after Fittschen/Zanker 1985)

2

3

The Goths and Scandinavia 223

Abstract

Different finds from archaeological investigations in eastern Sweden show evidence of close contacts with the Baltic Coastal area on the continent, as well as further towards the south-east. Swedish rescue exca-vations in the past few years have yielded material for the study of such contacts. From the Bronze Age onwards, there are signs of contacts between eastern Sweden and areas in modern Poland and eastern Ger-many as well as further southeast, towards the Black Sea area. Pottery, special house types and graves show contacts with the Lusatian Culture, but also with more distant areas. These cultural elements fit well into a pattern of long-distance cultural contacts during the Bronze Age, probably maintained by an elite in society. These contact routes across the Baltic Sea seem to have continued in a similar way during the Early Iron Age. During this period, some grave structures and objects demonstrate cultural contacts between Scandinavia and the Wielbark culture in Po-land. Such finds have traditionally been connected with Jordanes´ Getica, and his account of a migration of Gothic people from Scandinavia. A reasonable ex-planation for similarities in the material cultures can be that they are products of long-term contacts, per-haps originating in connections between the Lusatian Culture and other Urnfield groups on the continent and eastern Scandinavia during the Late Bronze Age – Early Iron Age. Regular contacts between high ranking groups in different geographic areas could eventually have developed into a close relationship between certain groups of the Wielbark Culture and groups of people in Scandinavia, visible in similari-ties in material culture, language and burial customs. The archaeological record indicates that Jordanes´ history concerning the origin of the Goths was based on an oral tradition with a real background.

!"#$%"

&'()*+,- # (.)"/0/1*2'-) ./#,/3/, '( 4)/+* 56"7*8 '(+($9: +/,(#- 9*4'-) ,/'9(,9*6 # ;(09*<4,-% 3/-;"."==>% '( ,/'9-'"'9* * +(0* '( 3*6+"''-< 4)*+. 56"+4:,* .>9*6'* ./#,/3,- #( /49(''* 3‘>9: ./,*6 '(+(0- %(9".*(0- +0> 6-62"''> 9(,-) ,/'9(,9*6.

?*+ +/;- ;./'#- *4'@$9: +('* 3./ ,/'9(,9- %*= 4)*+'/$ 56"7*A$ 9( (."(0/% 4@2(4'/8 B/0:C* 9( 4)/+/% D*%"22-'- * +(0* '( 3*6+"':-4)*+, @ '(3.>%,@ +/ E/.'/1/ %/.>. B/4@+, >, * /4/;0-6* 9-3- ;@+-',*6 9( 3/)/6(':, 6,(#@$9: '( ,/'9(,9- # 0@=('4:,/$ ,@0:9@./$, (0" 9(,/= * # ;*0:F 6*++(-0"'-%- 9".-9/.*>%-. G* ,@0:9@.'* "0"%"'9- +/;." 3(4@$9: +/ %/+"0* ,@0:9@.'-) #6‘>#,*6 '( +(0",* +-49('7*8 63./+/6= +/;- ;./'#-, /2"6-+'/, 3*+-9.-%('* "0*9/$ 4@43*0:496(. G* F0>)- ,/'9(,9*6 2"."# H(09*<4:," %/.", #+(A9:4>, 3./+/6=@$9:4> #( +/;- .('':/1/ #(0*#(. ?3./+/6= 7:/1/ 2(4@ 49.@,-9@.( +">,-) 3/)/6(': 9( 3."+%"9- +"%/'49.@$9: ,@0:9@.'* ,/'9(,9- %*= I,('+-'(6*A$ 9( 6*0:;(.,-4:,/$ ,@0:9@./$ @ B/0:C*. J(,* #'()*+,- 9.(+--7*<'/ 3/6‘>#@$9:4> # K/9*,/$ L/.+('( 9( '(40*+-,(%- %*1.(7*8 1/94:,/1/ '(4"0"''> # I,('+-'(6*8. !/#@%'" 3/>4'"''> +0> 4)/=/9* %(9".*(0:'-) ,@0:9@. %/=" ;@- M(,9/., C/ 6/'- A 3./+@,9(%- +/61/9.-60-) ,/'9(,9*6, %/=0-6/ #(3/2(9,/6('-) @ #6‘>#,() %*= 0@=('4:,/$ ,@0:9@./$ 9( *'F-%- 1.@3(%- @.'/6-) 3/0*6 '( ,/'9-'"'9* * '( 4)/+@ I,('+-'(6*8 @=" 63./+/6= +/;- 3*#':/8 ;./'#- - .('':/1/ #(0*#(. B/49*<'* ,/'9(,9- %*= 6-4/,/ .('=/6('-%- 1.@3(%- @ .*#'-) 1"/1.(M*2'-) #/-'() 3.- 3"6'-) /;49(6-'() %/10- ./#6-'@9-4> 6 9*4'* 6*+'/4-'- %*= 3"6'-%- 1.@3(%- 6*0:;(.,4:-,/8 ,@0:[email protected] * 1.@3(%- '(4"0"''> I,('+-'(6*8, C/ 3./40*+,/6@A9:4> 6 4)/=/49* %(9".*(0:'/8 ,@0:[email protected], %/6- 9( 3/)/6(0:'-) 9.(+-7*<. N.)"/0/1*2'* +('* 46*+2(9:, C/ *49/.*> L/.+('( 6*+'/4'/ 3/2(9-,@ 1/9*6 ;(#@6(0(4> 6 @4'*< 9.(+-7*8 '( ."(0:'-) /;49(6-'().

Introduction

The old theories of a migration from Scandinavia to areas in present-day Poland during the 1st century AD, often referred to as “the Gothic problem”, is the main background for this paper. In modern re-search, the theory of a massive migration has gener-ally been abandoned. My feeling is that this ques-tion has very much been seen from an “everything or nothing” perspective. If there were no migration of Goths, there would simply be nothing to research. Nevertheless, nothing indicates that this problem is as simple as that. There is actually some archaeologi-cal support for contacts, and this is the reason to find

The Goths and ScandinaviaContacts between Scandinavia, the Southern Baltic Coast and the Black Sea

Area during the Early Iron Age and Roman Period

Anders Kaliff

Anders Kaliff224

a more plausible explanation. Many scholars would point out that ideas concerning connections between the Goths and Scandinavia are mostly wishful think-ing. Looking at some of the older interpretations in this field, I certainly agree with this. Nevertheless, to say a priori that there is no connection at all is surely also a form of wishful thinking, and a preconceived idea. During recent year, archaeological research has shown an increased interest in the study of cul-tural contacts across the Baltic Sea during different periods. One probable reason for this development is the new possibilities for contacts with scholars in Poland, Russia and in the Baltic states, which have opened up during the past decade. Another reason could be an increasing interest among archaeologists in cultural contacts and exchange systems in general, as well as questions concerning ethnicity. For a long period after the 2nd World War, studies concerning ethnicity and migrations were almost absent from the agenda of Scandinavian archaeology. In recent years, this has gradually changed. This development could also be partly linked to the current events in Europe. I have no ambition to cover the whole question in this paper (for a more thorough discussion see Kaliff 2001). The intention is mainly to discuss ideas concerning a long term perspective for contacts in the light of some archaeological finds from Sweden as well as research concerning the Goths in Poland and Southeast Europe. This must also be compared with earlier research and opinions in this field. Dif-ferent interpretations can often be understood only in the light of the time and tradition where they were made. I will therefore start with a brief background to the history of the Goths and its impact on archae-ological and historical research. I will also briefly present the archaeological background for the Goths as a separate cultural and ethnical group on the con-tinent. To conclude, I aim to show an alternative interpretation of the development behind a possible connection between the Goths of Poland and people in Scandinavia.

The historical background

The Goths were one of the most powerful tribal con-federations on the continent during the Late Roman and Migration period. After the decline and fall of the western part of the Roman empire, one part of the Gothic people – known as the Ostrogoths – formed, for a few decades, a state in Italy that inherited some of the traditions from Rome. Under the rule of the legendary king Theoderic the great, the Ostrogothic

kingdom dominated the western part of southern Eu-rope and the Mediterranean for a few decades during the late 5th and early 6th century. During the Migration Period, yet another Gothic state was formed, often known as the Visig-oth kingdom in what today is Spain and southern France, filling the vacuum created by the demise of the western Roman empire. The starting point for the migration of the Gothic peoples, who eventually settled down in Italy and Spain, was the invasion by the Huns. Originating on the steppe of Central Asia, the Huns attacked eastern Europe, beginning around 375 AD. With their effective military technique, us-ing light and fast moving cavalry units, they easily conquered the East Germanic – Gothic tribes living in the area north and northwest of the Black Sea. To avoid the Hunic intruders, some Gothic groups took refugee in Roman territory, with the permission of the Roman emperor. This peaceful co-existence changed rapidly into hostilities. In 378 AD, the Goths defeated the Romans at Adrianopel (Edirne in modern Turkey) and the Roman emperor, Valens, was killed in the battle. A peace treaty with the Romans was negotiated and the Goths officially became foederati under the Roman emperor, but this relatively peaceful state was not to last. A Gothic army, under their king Alaric, attacked the very heart of the Roman empire, Italy, and finally plundered Rome in 410. Already before Alaric´s attack, the emperor, Honorius, had changed his residence to Ra-venna, instead of Rome. In less than a century after the fall of the western empire, from the late 5th up to the mid 6th century, Ravenna would be the capital in the most powerful of the Gothic political formations, the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy. The Visigoth kingdom of Spain existed from the 6th century up to the Islamic conquest during the 8th century. After this, the Goths as an ethnical group disappear from the scene of European history. Nevertheless the heritage from the Goths was to be claimed by several nations. The historical basis for any discussion con-cerning connections between the Gothic people and Scandinavia is the work called “Getica. The origin and deeds of the Goths” (Getica. De origine acti-busque Getarum) written in Constantinople in AD 551, by a man of Gothic origin named Jordanes. The work by Jordanes is a history of the Gothic people, covering the time up to the date of his own writing, at the end of the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy. Jor-danes claims his Getica to be an abbreviation of a much more comprehensive work, now lost, written by Cassiodorus Senator (c. 487 – c. 583 AD), a high ranking official at the court of Theoderic the great. The place of origin of the Gothic people was, accord-


ing to Jordanes, an island named Scandza – generally interpreted as Scandinavia – and located in the north-ern sea. After mentioning different tribes in Scandza, Jordanes comes to a passage in the Getica, where the emigration of the Goths is described: “Now from this island of Scandza, as from a hive of races or a womb of nations, the Goths are said to have come forth long ago under their king, Berig by name. As soon as they disembarked from their ships and set foot on the land, they straighta-way gave their name to the place. And even to-day it is said to be called Gothiscandza”. (Getica IV:25, transl. Mierow 1915) In medieval and older geography, Scandinavia was generally believed to be an island, or several islands. In Jordanes´ work, the island of Scandza is located in the sea, opposite the mouth of the river Vistula (Polish Wi!"a). Different hypotheses have been put forward re-garding the location of possible areas of origin for the Goths. Roman authors writing in the first century mention a tribe believed to be this people. This tribe was not called Goths by the Romans but Gutones and were said to live next to the Vandals and the Lugians. The Greek geographer Ptolemy proposes a more precise location of the Gutones (or Gythones) in his work Geographia, written around 150 AD. He locates them on the eastern banks of the Vistula, in modern northern Poland. Jordanes uses Ptolemy and other older written sources for some of the ge-ographic descriptions in his work (Wolfram 1990, 39 f.; Nordin 1997, 19 f.). Between the writings of Ptolemy, in the mid 2nd century, and the 3rd century, no contemporary sources mention any tribe named either Gutones or Goths. From around AD 300 onwards, the spelling of the word is almost exclusively Goths. From now on, both the Romans and the Persians seem to have known of a people with this name, as stated in con-temporary sources from the second half of the 3rd century. The Goths were then located mainly in an area north and northwest of the Black Sea, between the mouth of the Danube and the Don, and had ex-panded into a large group of people (Wolfram 1990, 20, 43 f.). Ptolemy, the last ancient author to mention the Gutones with this name, was also aware of a people called Guti on the island of Scandia but Procopios, writing in the 5th century, was the first to mention a Scandinavian tribe called the Gauts (interpreted as the Swedish Götar). The meaning of the names Goth and Gaut and how they are related has been a popu-lar topic for etymological discussions. Different in-terpretations have been put forward. One suggestion is that the root Gut/Gaut – meaning “the one who

pours out” – derives from the people living at a great river that pours out its water in the sea. Another in-terpretation of the meaning would be just “men” in the sense of “seed spreader” and yet another that Gauts would be the sons of Gaut, a Scandinavian and Germanic god of war. The historian Herwig Wolfram points out that it may be fruitless to select just one of the interpretations. He finds the insight that the tribal names Goths and Gauts means the same is of greater interest than the etymology (Wolfram 1990, 20 f.). The Swedish philologist Elias Wessén pointed out that it is not possible to separate the etymology of the words Gutar, Götar and Goths (as well as Gu-tones and Gauti) from each other. The origins of the words are the same (Wessén 1969, 28; Wessén 1972, 125).

History and mythology

Traditions concerning the Gothic people have had a great impact on previous history writing in different European countries. This claim of a national con-nection to the Gothic people and history is often referred to as Gothicismus (e. g. Jensen 1999; Lin-droth 1972). The glorification of the works and deeds of the Goths, made it popular to seek a national origin back to this people. This thought was present in me-dieval Spain, the location of the Visigoths kingdom for three hundred years. The connection was also made in Austria, based on the old Gothic areas in the eastern part of the Habsburg empire, and later in Germany with a frightening impact during the Nazi-regime, as connected with the ideology behind the ambition for ”lebensraum” in eastern Europe. The geographical area for the German expansionist dreams was very much the same as the area believed to have once been under the domination of Gothic or other East Germanic tribes. Consequently, the city of Gdynia on the Baltic Coast was renamed Goten-hafen, after the German invasion of Poland. There were also plans to resettle the old Gothic territory on the Crimea with Germans and to rename the cities of Sevastopol and Simferopol to Theoderikhafen and Gotenburg respectively (Wolfram 1990, 3). The first certain traces of Gothicismus in Sweden is from medieval sources from the late 13th century, where the Goths and the Swedish Götar are described as identical. The Gutasagan, the mythical history of Gotland, written down in the 12th century, also has similarities with Jordanes´ history concern-ing an ancient migration of people. The earliest writ-ten evidence in Scandinavia showing an awareness of a possible connection with the Goths is the ru-

Anders Kaliff226

nic inscription on the Rök stone from the province of Östergötland, originating in the early 9th century (Jensen 1999, 11). When it comes to Gutasagan and the Rök stone, it is difficult to say whether or not they show any in-fluence from Jordanes, either directly or indirectly. They could as well consist of genuine traditions. The Rök stone runic inscription mentions a name, often interpreted as Theoderic the great. It is not unlikely that the stories of this legendary Ostrogothic king could have survived in a genuine tradition also in Scandinavia, in the same manner, as he became Di-etrich of Bern in continental Germanic epic poetry. The Rök inscription can be based on traditions and myths, widely spread in northern Europe during the Migration – Viking period. Gutasagan, describing an emigration from Gotland is often compared with Jordanes´ history concerning the Goths, and could be based on an older oral tradition, even though it was written down only in the 13th century. Possible older genuine traditions are important to separate from the later Gothicismus, based on a learned construction. At least from the late medieval period and up to its peak during the 17th century, the Gothicismus had a strong impact on Swedish national history writing. The first time a more detailed knowledge by a medieval Swedish person concerning the history of the Goths can be noticed is from the church council of Basel in 1434. Here the Swedish delegate Nico-laus Ragvaldi, the bishop of Växjö, makes a speech claiming a more honourable position at the meeting for the Swedish delegate. In his opinion, he deserved this honour since the Swedish people, whom he rep-resented, were nothing less then the true descendants to the Gothic people, the ancient heroic warriors and conquerors of Rome itself. The high peak of Swed-ish Gothicismus came under the first half of the 17th century, when Sweden rose to become a European military superpower, with its participation in the 30-year war (Lindroth 1972, 14 ff.) (fig. 1).

Archaeology and the origin of the Goths

After the 17th century, scholarly interest for possi-ble connections between the Goths and Scandinavia decreased for a long time. It was not until the late 19th and early 20th century that this interest appeared again, hand in hand with the development of archae-ology as a modern science. Up to the mid 20th cen-tury, many archaeologists regarded Jordanes´ history concerning the origin of the Goths as more or less a true story. The debate in archaeology concentrated on what particular geographical areas Jordanes may

have intended for Scandza and Gothiscandza respec-tively. It was generally accepted that Scandza was Scandinavia, or a part of Scandinavia, and Gothis-candza part of the southern Baltic Coastal area. During the first half of the 20th century the archaeological definition of the word “culture” was strongly influenced by the work of Gustaf Kossinna (1858–1931). The identification between ethnicity and material culture challenged archaeologists to identify tribal groups, known from Tacitus and other classical writers, with regional groups of archaeo-logical finds. This development in archaeology un-fortunately often walked hand in hand with extreme nationalism and racism, at a time when ethnicity was often regarded as equivalent with race. Although Ko-ssinna died in 1931, his ideas were to have a strong and regrettable impact on German archaeology dur-ing the Hitler era. Kossinna connected the archaeological groups from the first two centuries AD with tribes and areas mentioned on Ptolemy´s map. The Burgundian tribe was believed to have occupied the Pomeranian area between the rivers of Oder and Vistula, during the Early Iron Age. To the south and east was the area of the Vandals. Kossinna believed the Burgundians to have originated mainly in Bornholm, but that they also were constituted out of other Swedish tribes, un-der Bornholmian leadership. The Burgundians were followed in the 1st century BC by the Goths and other tribes from present day Sweden, now under Gothic leadership. First the Burgundians and later the Goths pushed the Vandals further south and east (Kossina 1914, 145 ff. and 1928, 22 ff.). Following Kossinna, the Polish archaeologist Józef Kostrewski believed that the area of the Goths of Poland was the earlier geographical area of the Burgundians during the Pre Roman Iron Age, while the area to the south and east were occupied by Van-dals (Kostrewski 1919). In the 1960´s, Kostrewski still considered the emigration of Goth and Gepids from Scandinavia as a fact. In his opinion, they con-quered the people of the so-called Oksywie Culture and became part of it, and occupied part of Pomera-nia for about 200 years. In Kostrzewski´s opinion, the Goth and Gepid emigrants should be understood as a social elite in its new environment, possibly a warrior elite. He maintained that cultural influences had passed in both directions and consequently the immigrants were affected by the local cultures (Kos-trzewski 1965, 7 ff.). The Swedish archaeologist Birger Nerman interpreted the Goths as probably originating from Öster- and Västergötland. The great number of docu-mented graves from the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age in


Öster- and Västergötland, as well as a decrease in burials during the Early Roman Iron Age, led Ner-man to consider this as strong evidence for the emi-gration of the Gothic people from this part of Sweden (Nerman 1923, 176 ff.). Józef Kostrewski originally considered Östergötland the most probable homeland of the Goths while the Swedish archaeologist Eric Oxenstierna later claimed the province of Västergöt-land to be the origin of the Gothic people (Oxenstier-na 1948). Mårten Stenberger believed it possible that people from both Öland and Gotland as well as from other parts of Sweden could have participated in the first migration. The relatively few finds present on Öland from the Late Roman Iron Age were inter-preted as probably due to a move, connected with the migration towards south-east of the Germanic tribes in present-day Poland (Stenberger 1933, 57 ff.). In the period after the 2nd World War, the prob-lems concerning “human culture” and “archaeologi-

cal culture” have been reconsidered, and the defi-nition of what constitutes ethnical groups has itself been much discussed. The archaeology of the Goths has also naturally been very influenced by this. The German scholar Reinhard Wenskus (Wenskus 1961) proposed that infiltration and limited migration could be a factor behind the forming of a certain people. Wenskus did not believe in any emigration of a whole Gothic people but rather of small influential groups, a position that has had a great impact on later re-search. In modern historical and archaeological re-search, theories of a large migration have generally been abandoned. As mentioned, part of this develop-ment is probably due to the deeply infected interac-tion between archaeological research and politics that evolved during the Nazi-period in Germany. Partly because of this, the question concerning Gothic con-tacts was erased from the research agenda.

0 25 mil

V ä s tergötland

Ö land

Ö s tergötland

G otland

Fig. 1. Map showing the traditional picture of a Gothic migration from Scandinavia to a new territory in today´s Poland. Map by Lars Öst- lin

Anders Kaliff228

The Wielbark and #ernjachov Cultures and the Goths

The area in Poland most often identified as Gothis-candza is the region between the lower part of the Vistula Basin and the river mouth of Oder. One par-ticular area, identified also by archaeologists as the first known habitation area of the Goths, is the region along the lower part of the Vistula. As mentioned above, this is approximately the area where Ptolemy located the Gutones in the first half of the 2nd cen-tury AD. This area is in many respects optimal for contacts with parts of Scandinavia. The route across the southern basin of the Baltic Sea, sometimes via Bornholm, to the coast of Blekinge and further through the straits of Kalmar, up along the east coast of Sweden, has been in use for a very long time. This hypothetical Gothiscandza of Pomerania and part of old East Prussia is almost identical with the area covered with remains representing the earli-est phase of the so-called Wielbark Culture. For a long time the Wielbark Culture has been identified with the presence of the Goths in Poland. The name

of the culture derives from the cemetery of Wielbark, (Willenberg), on the eastern bank of the Nogat river. Objects have been found in the Wielbark area since the 19th century, showing parts of a large cemetery. Although there had also been earlier interest in the remains of Gothic/Wielbark graves found in Pomera-nia, the first scientific work occurred in 1912 (Blume 1912). The Wielbark cemetery was partly excavated in the 1920´s and 1930´s by German archaeolo-gists. Reinhard Schindler published only part of the excavated material in 1940, with an analysis of the Wielbark pottery (Schindler 1940). All in all, the Wielbark cemetery consisted of approximately 3000 cremation and inhumation burials, dating mainly from the Early Roman Iron Age (B1-B2) (Bierbrauer 1999, 407). At the end of the 2nd World War, most of the artefacts from Wielbark were destroyed or lost (fig. 2). The only Wielbark site excavated before the 2nd World War with complete documentation preserved is the Lubowidz (Luggewiese) cemetery, excavated by H. Agde in 1938-39. Agde was supposed to have written a monograph about the cemetery, but died

WarsawB erlin

0 20 mil

E

F

DA

B

C

B a l t i c s e a

Fig. 2. The different areas of development and expansion of the Wielbark Culture, chronologically from A-F, according to Ryszard Wo!"giewicz


in the war. A complete presentation of the material from the Lubowidz cemetery was not published until 1995, as the last work of the Polish archaeologist Ryszard Wo"$giewicz. Material from some important Wielbark cemeteries (Lubowidz, Cecele, Pruszcz Gda%ski and Niedanowo) covering its different phas-es have been published by Polish archaeologists dur-ing recent years (Wo"$giewicz 1995; Jaskanis 1996; Pietrzak 1997; Ziemli%ska-Odojowa 1999). Jerzy Kmieci%ski (Kmieci%ski 1962) was the first to produce a summary of research concerning the Wielbark Culture or what he called Gotho-Ge-pidian culture. Kmieci%ski could point out the fact that there were no overall similarities between Scan-dinavian and Gothic (Wielbark) finds. Many objects as well as burial customs, which at least partly show a similar pattern, have a much wider distribution. Others are typical for the Wielbark area but not frequent in Scandinavia. The most significant con-nection between Scandinavia and Pomerania are the round stone settings and stone circles as well as sin-gle erected stones. Grave constructions of this kind do not occur in the Pomeranian area before the end of B1 and in the B2 period and the distribution of sites with stone-circles and mounds coincides with a southward expansion of the Wielbark Culture. The German scholar Volker Bierbrauer maintains that this pos-sibly shows the presence of smaller groups of new-comers in the area. The arrival of such groups could provide an explanation for the appearance of certain new cultural elements. (Bierbrauer 1992, 14 f.) The most accepted current interpretation maintains that the Wielbark Culture is a local continuity from the so-called Oskywie Culture and that there are no sig-nificant Scandinavian influences behind its formation (Bierbrauer 1999, 412). Ryszard Wo"$giewicz divided the development of the Wielbark Culture into two main phases: one covering approximately the 1st and 2nd century AD and a second one covering the period from the end of the 2nd century up to the disintegration of the Wiel-bark Culture in the early 5th century. In its oldest phase, in the 1st century AD, the Wielbark Culture covered the region of Middle and eastern Pomera-nia, an area reaching from the Baltic Coast and ap-proximately 70 km towards south. In the later period, the Wielbark Culture expanded towards the east and south-east. Wo"$giewicz also observed different geograph-ical zones in which the Wielbark Culture had devel-oped or spread over time. The oldest habitation area was located along the Pomeranian Baltic Coast and the lower part of the Vistula (A-B, figure 2). Later, the Wielbark elements spread to the south (C) and in

an even later phase towards the east (D) and south-east (E-F). Only the C-area shows grave-types in the shape of stone settings and erected stones with par-allels in Scandinavia. Wo"$giewicz also divided the Wielbark Culture into three different development periods. He interpreted the earliest period of the Wielbark Culture as part of other domestic cultures in the area. During the second period, Wo"$giewicz maintained that the culture was reformed by a com-pound of domestic tribes as well as immigrants from Scandinavia. The third and last phase was character-ised by the migration of the Gothic tribes towards the Black See area. (Wo"$giewicz 1974, after Kokowski 1995, 30) Settlement areas with characteristic Wiel-bark finds in today’s Moldavia and in the Dnjepr re-gion occur during the 3rd century. In those areas, the culture is not called the Wielbark Culture but the Sîntana de Mure! Culture, after a site in Transylva-nia, and #ernjachov Culture, after a site near Kiev. The reason and dynamics behind the expansion of the Wielbark – #ernjachov - Sîntana de Mure! Culture have been much discussed. However, it is clear that the expansion of elements of the Wielbark Culture fits well into the historically known Gothic areas of Southeast Europe and there is no reason to doubt that the Goths were a dominant tribal group within the areas of the #ernjachov and Sîntana de Mure! Cultures (Bierbrauer 1999, 415 f.). A rather fast migration is one possibility but a more slow dif-fusion, combined with some sort of exchange of peo-ple between certain social groups, is another possible interpretation (Kokowski 1999, 31). It was not necessarily masses of people who moved from one area to another. It is likely that certain influential groups formed a core with the strength or attraction to dominate in new areas. Out of a number of different tribes and local groups, a homogeneous whole was created over time. Other groups in new areas were adopted by the expanding Wielbark Culture, people of the Przeworsk Culture and of Dacian, Iranian or Slavic origin. This new compound eventually formed the different Gothic tribes appearing in historical sources from the 3rd and 4th century, and who are archaeologically visible as the #ernjachov and Sîntana de Mure! Cultures. Different methods could have been used to take over a geographical area, ranging from negotiations lead-ing to federations with other tribes to pure force and war. The ancestors of the different Gothic king-doms probably consisted of a mixture of dominant Gothic groups and subordinate locals (Heather 1998, 86 f.). Even if the core of “real” Goths were relatively small, they had the capacity to hold on to a certain ethnical identity for a long time and in totally new

Anders Kaliff230

environments. The Swedish philologist Elias Wessén maintained that the preservation of a Gothic lan-guage, without any traces of major foreign influences up to the days of Wulfila´s Bible translation during the late 4th century (c. 380 AD), must show a Gothic elite environment, strong enough to assimilate other groups and keep its identity. This could not be ex-plained without close geographic connections dur-ing earlier periods. Wessén saw the closest relation between the Gothic language and East Scandinavian dialects. (Wessén 1969, 26 f.; Wessén 1972, 122) (fig. 3).

Important finds from eastern Sweden

There are finds from several sites in eastern Sweden that are of interest for the understanding of interac-tions across the southern part of the Baltic Sea. A cemetery that could hold a key to the understanding of the connections between the Wielbark Culture and Scandinavia was excavated at Skälv in Borg’s parish in the coastal area of Östergötland in 1988 and 1990. The dating of the graves covered a time span from the latest part of the Bronze Age (Montelius per. V-VI) up to the Late Roman Iron Age. The most common metal objects were curved knives, needles and awls. I will return below to a possible interpretation of those finds. A few of the Skälv graves were of more special design or with special grave gifts. Particularly one burial is of special interest, a woman burial dated to about 200 AD or the first decades of the 3rd century (B2/C1). The burnt bones and grave goods had been placed in a wooden case of where an iron lock re-mained. Beside the cleaned burnt bones had been placed several metal objects, jewellery and dress ac-cessories: a strap-end fitting, a bronze belt buckle, a bronze chain and a berlock of gilded silver and a pair of stylised snake-head bronze armlets. The strap-end fitting and the belt buckle could be dated to around 200 AD or the very early 3rd century (B2/C1), while the berlock is somewhat older, probably from the mid 2nd century (B2c) (Kaliff 1993). During the early 3rd century the typical women burials of the Wielbark Culture, at least of the higher social strata, often include rich grave goods in the form of jewellery, dress accessories and personal equipment. The jewellery often consists of objects of some age (Kokowski 1999, 34). This pattern matches the Skälv grave and its grave gifts well. The berlock pendant of gilded silver is probably the oldest object. The plausible interpretation is that the berlock pen-dant was an inherited object or piece of jewellery that

had followed the deceased throughout life. This type of jewellery has been interpreted as gifts connected with marriage (Andersson 1995, 22 f.). The pres-ence of two, from a Scandinavian view-point, quite unique armlets, as well as the collection of objects as a whole, actually makes the Skälv grave more of a Wielbark burial than a typical Scandinavian burial. The presence of a cemetery of the Skälv type gives a different perspective compared to the old view concerning an emigration from Scandinavia to Poland. Instead, Skälv indicates influences from that area. The woman grave of Skälv could be dated to a time when the Wielbark Culture had already begun its expansion towards the south-east, from its earli-est areas near the Baltic Coast. The same sort of influence is also indicated by finds from other cem-eteries, with most graves containing none or just a few ordinary grave-gifts, but with some outstanding graves with imported goods. I will here only briefly mention a few other sites. In 1992, a cemetery with burials mainly from the Roman period was excavated at Linneberg, in Högby parish, in the western plain of Östergötland. The cemetery consisted of 34 cremation burials and 14 inhumations. The burial structures visible above ground consisted of large round stone-settings and erected stones. Several well preserved metal objects were documented as grave gifts: bronze brooches and pendants, strap-end fittings, curved knives, nee-dles, awls, locks and keys. In one of the inhumation graves, two rare objects of exclusive type were de-tected, both dated to approximately 200 - 250 AD (C1b). One of the objects was a silver fibula with high catch plate and of an unusual design, with three bosses of blue glass (Helander/Zetterlund 1998, 43 f. and 57 f.). The fibula with high catch plate from Lin-neberg has its geographically closest parallel in a find from Östervarv in Varv parish in Östergötland. In an unusually rich weapon-grave, containing full weapon equipment, a gilded bronze rosette fibula with high catch plate was found. Among other ob-jects, this grave also contained a drinking horn of glass, imported from the Roman provinces (Oxensti-erna 1958, 49 f.). Rosette fibulas are a type of object showing connections with the #ernjachov culture. It appears in rich female burials from C1b onwards. The core area of this fibula type is eastern Denmark, with additional concentrations found on the continent in the lower Oder region and in the #ernjachov Cul-ture in Moldavia. There are also several examples from Gotland and some from mainland Sweden as well as Norway (Werner 1988, 247 ff.; Lund-Hansen 1995, 212 f.).


The Linneberg cemetery also showed similari-ties with another burial ground from approximately the same period, excavated early in the 19th century. The Smörkullen cemetery at Alvastra, near the east-ern shore of lake Vättern was dated to 100 BC – 200 AD and showed an unusual number of inhumation graves situated in this region. 60 inhumations and 81 cremation burials were documented. The excava-tor, T. J. Arne interpreted some of the grave gifts, especially some fibula types and weapons, as signs of a lively traffic between the western part of Östergöt-land, the islands of Gotland and Öland and areas on the southern coast of the Baltic (Arne 1903, 2 f.; Ox-enstierna 1958, 23). The unusually high percentage of inhumations, compared to the more intensively investigated cemeteries of this region, as well as the relatively few finds of weapons, are also typical fea-tures for the Wielbark Culture. The distribution pattern of inhumation graves is very uneven for the province of Östergötland as a region. The percentage is much higher in cemeter-

ies from the western part of the province. Western Östergötland also holds some of the most luxurious burials of the Roman Iron Age, as well as a large proportion of weapon-graves. This pattern could indicate that external contacts and influences were concentrated to certain local groups or special social environments. Graves with imported objects are possible to interpret as containing representatives for a social elite with a key role in trade and exchange with peo-ple on the continent. Gold objects as well as Roman imports and other objects showing high statuses are likely to have been distributed via social relations within the social and political elite (e. g. Näsman 1991, 325). Studies from the island of Öland show that a higher social stratum distinguishes itself with larger burial monuments and exclusive grave goods from the beginning of the Early Roman Iron Age and onwards. Representatives for such groups also seem to be buried in special cemeteries (Rasch 1991, 138).

0 50 mil

S tockholm

WarsawB erlin

R om

Fig. 3. Map showing the approximate extension of the Wielbark (unbroken) and the #ernjachov/Sîntana de Mure$ (broken line) Cultures. After distribution maps by Rys- zard Wo!"giewicz 1993. Drawn by Lars Östlin

Anders Kaliff232

The island of Öland is another province of profound interest for the understanding of the Roman Iron Age traffic across the Baltic. This is shown in single finds as well as in the general richness of burials, hoards, settlements and offerings from this period. The Ro-man Iron Age was a period of apparent wealth for the inhabitants of the island, not least shown by a large number of imported Roman objects. This is most probably due to Öland´s favourable location in the Baltic. One cemetery of particular interest was excavat-ed at Gåtebo in Bredsättra parish during the 1970´s. 13 round and quadratic stone-settings were excavated with 34 burials in all, located both below and outside stone settings (Besko Sjöberg 1987, 204 ff.). The most outstanding of the grave monuments excavated, was a cairn consisting of large stones. Beneath the upper layer of large slabs, surrounded by a kerb, an inner cairn of burnt stones was detected. It consisted of rubble stones surrounded by a well-made kerb of selected stones, between upright stones. This grave is most closely paralleled by some of the stone-cir-cle type in northern Poland. The types appear in the classical Wielbark cemeteries in Odry and Wesiory (Hagberg 1977, 5). The cemetery excavated at Bo in Bredsätra par-ish was located just a few hundred metres south of Gåtebo. One round stone-setting contained a crema-tion burial of particular interest: the burial of a young girl in a cremation layer with many grave gifts. This particularly rich burial contained belt details, brooch-es, an armlet and finger ring of bronze, beads of gold as well as glass beads. The filigree-decorated gold beads are of special interest. One of the beads had a clasp similar to the one present on the gold neck-ring from Havor on Gotland. The brooches were of a type unique for this area but showing influences from the south-east (Beskow Sjöberg 1987, 275 f.; Kaul/Mar-tens 1995, 115). There are other types of objects showing con-tacts with Southeast Europe as well as with other are-as. At the large settlement at Bo in Bredsätra, a hoard of amber beads was found. Most of the beads were rounded or disc-shaped, but eleven of them were of berlock or club shape. In Sweden, some inhumation graves from the provinces of Skåne and Bohuslän as well as some votive deposits have yielded beads of this type. The dating of the Swedish finds is from the Late Roman Iron Age or the Migration Period (Hag-berg 1967, 102 ff.). In female and child burials in the #ernjachov Culture, berlock shaped amber beads of this type are found. The earliest distribution area of this type of beads is the Danish islands of Sealand and Bornholm, as well as the Baltic Coast in present-day Poland. The beads are one type of find that shows

contacts with Southeast Europe. This type of beads was in use for several generations and has been inter-preted as a sign of a certain social or ethnic identity. (Lund-Hansen 1995, 217 ff.). The finds of berlock-shaped amber beads can be interpreted as one of sev-eral indications of an existing contact network in the Baltic region and also with the #ernjachov Culture in the Black Sea region (pl. 1 and 2).

Economic background for external contacts

An hypothesis put forward by Przemys"aw Urba%czyk (1998), concerning a Scandinavian influence on the early Goths, includes the seizure of control of the northern part of the so called Amber Route, in the Vistula area, by a group of Scandinavians. This route, or routes (e. g. Heather 1998, 46), was im-portant for the export of amber and other products from the north towards the Roman Empire. The Am-ber route, which was well established during Roman times, emerged from long-lasting relations in trade of amber and other goods as early as the Bronze Age. Amber is found for instance at Mycaene and other Bronze Age sites in Greece. Urba%czyk maintains that the seizing of control over the northern part of the route by a small but determined and well organ-ized group of immigrants from Scandinavia, who re-quired a material manifestation of their dominance, could be a possible scenario. An alternative view is that Gothic ethnicity could have taken shape in the area along the lower Vistula in the context of long-term, intensive trade relations with other areas. It could then have developed as a transformation of the local population of the Oksywie Culture into a new cultural unit taking place under Roman and Scandi-navian influence. This ethnical formation then be-came visible as the Wielbark Culture during the 1st century AD (Urba%czyk 1998, 399 f.). Both views fit well into a scenario with long-term interaction between the Pomeranian area and Scandinavia. Long-lasting trade contacts, particu-larly between elite groups, could have had an influ-ence on the cultures in the Vistula area, and gradu-ally made the contacts even easier. This could in turn be the background for an immigration of small, but powerful, groups of Scandinavians. The main key to a successful establishment in a new region could have been that they did not arrive in a totally foreign cultural environment. For generations, elite groups could have had close contacts, developing exchange of different kinds: trade, exchange of gifts, dynastic marriages, influences in religious beliefs, burial cus-toms etc.


The Roman Period of Scandinavia shows much evidence for being a turbulent period, but also a peri-od of increased wealth, at least within certain groups of society. Both internal and external factors can have interacted, but it seems probable that the changes within the Scandinavian society during Roman times to a high degree were related to the external contacts of the time. Different authors have presented ideas con-cerning incomes from the export of hides and leather from Scandinavia as the basis for growing economic wealth during the Roman Iron Age. When it comes to archaeological finds, this has also been connected with the frequent finds of curved knives as common grave gifts from the period. The presence of knives of this type, interpreted as knives for processing hide and leather, could show an important business, con-ferring a certain status on the pursuers of this occupa-tion (e. g. Hagberg 1967, 115 ff.). Also, the presence of claws and foot bone of wild animals, such as bear or wolf, in certain graves has been similarly inter-preted. The body of the deceased has been put on a fur or wrapped in it before the cremation. This burial custom could show an elite within society, maybe persons with a key role in the important trade with leather and furs (e. g. Petré 1980/81). Also, different kinds of fur were probably much coveted merchan-dise and much of this could have originated from the forests of Scandinavia. The export of fur from Scan-dza is specially mentioned by Jordanes when describ-ing the different people living there (Getica 19). There must have been a great demand for leather during the time when the Roman army was stationed along the Limes, with a consumption con-siderably larger than the local production. Leather was used for many purposes in the Roman army: clothing and shoes for the soldiers, shield covers and scabbards, harnesses and straps for the draught animals and not least for the tens of thousands of tents used by the Roman army. It seems likely that some of this export originated in parts of Scandina-via. The agreement between the distribution of the curved knives in graves and finds of Roman import is striking. They coincide mainly in Västergötland, Östergötland and on Öland. In historically recorded periods, the richness of the three regions was based on cattle breeding. There is likely to have been con-ditions for creating a surplus of leather-goods and hides in these regions also during the Roman period, which could be exported (Hagberg 1967, 121 ff.). The trade with hides and leather during Roman times fits well with Przemys"aw Urba%czyks hypoth-esis concerning a group of Scandinavians trying to dominate part of the Amber route, at the Baltic coast in Poland. Hides and leather would have been impor-

tant export products on this trade route. This export could have been a major reason for influential groups of Scandinavians to take control of part of the route, to get as much economic profit as possible out of the trade. It is also possible that the trade with hide and leather had a long tradition already during Ro-man times. The growing wealth among certain social groups in Scandinavia during the Bronze Age could be related to export of different kind, but maybe not least with the export of hide and leather (e. g. Malm-er 1993; Malmer 1999).

The Lusatian connection

The subject of contacts between Scandinavia and the surrounding world during the Bronze Age has often been discussed in archaeological research of later years. Such contacts can be traced in different phenomena and objects: the urn-burial custom, im-ported bronzes and the bronze import in general, cer-tain types of pottery, certain house types as well as more outstanding and unique objects. The evidence of contacts especially with the Lusatian (Lausitz) culture has been generally observed and is the matter for an ongoing discussion (e. g. Jaanusson 1981; Bu-kowski 1988; Dabrowski 1989; Mogielnicka-Urban 1989; Larsson 1993; Carlsson 1995; Kaliff 1999; Kaliff 2001 Gustavsson 1997; Stålbom 1998a; Stål-bom 1998b). The meaning of the term Lusatian Culture has been a much discussed matter. It is sometimes de-scribed as part of the Urnfield Culture or as several different cultural groups. Furthermore, the wide term Urnfield Culture is also a problematic definition and used for a collection of different cultural groups, with only certain significant elements in common. Within the overall culture labelled Lusatian, several local groups and variations in material culture can also be identified. The question what exactly con-stitutes the Lusatian Culture has been an ongoing discussion for several decades (for an overview see Bukowski 1988, 15 ff.). A more precise definition of the term Lusatian culture and what constitutes it are not of importance for my discussion, and I will here only briefly touch on the subject. The cultural groups defined as Lusatian have a long continuity from at least the Bronze Age period III up to the Early Iron Age (Montelius per. VI). The area dominated by them, stretches in an east-western direction approximately from the Vistula Basin to the Elbe. Within this geographical area, the Lusatian Culture is often separated into two cultural groups, a western and an eastern one, with several regional and local cultural groups in each area (e. g. Gedl 1988;

Anders Kaliff234

Dabrowski 1988). The Lusatian Culture in general is characterized especially by its burial custom, with cremation burials in urns, often with deposited ves-sels beside the urn, and pottery with special design. One possible interpretation of the Lusatian Culture is an overall regional culture, characterized by local traditions at the border between the continental Urn-field Vulture and the South Scandinavian Bronze Age Culture (Bukowski 1988, 15 f.; Gediga 1988, 41 f.; Kristiansen 1998, 73). The oldest connections between the Lusatian area and Scandinavia are possible to trace as early as the Bronze Age period III. Some of the oldest typical Urn-burials in Southeast Sweden are dated to this period (Stålbom 1994, 33). Similarities in pot-tery and burial customs become more frequent and widespread during period IV-VI. Influences in the reverses direction, contemporary with the Lusatian impact on Scandinavia, have also been documented. The metal finds from Pomeranian Early Bronze Age show a high degree of similarity to south Scandina-vian counterparts (e. g. Kersten 1958) and the Nor-dic influence on the bronze industry of the northern Lusatian area, Pomerania and the northern part of Poland is significant from period III and onwards. This is noticeable to such a degree that this area has sometimes been described as part of the Nordic Bronze Age Culture (Dabrowski 1989, 73). Of special interest when discussing the Late Bronze Age contacts are different types of pottery. Some vessels found at Scandinavian sites have been identified as typical for the Lusatian Culture. In most cases, the Scandinavian parallels are of local manu-facture but some sites also show imported ware, indi-cated by analyses of the clay material and inclusions in the ware. The vessels and ware defined as Lusa-tian type pottery do not represent the majority of the ceramic finds on Scandinavian sites. Most of the ce-ramics are of local production and furthermore, this seems to be true also for most of the Lusatian type pottery. All the same, a reservation must be made concerning this statement, since as yet, only ceram-ics from relatively few sites have been thoroughly analysed. So far, only two of the excavated sites, one on the Swedish mainland and one in the Åland archi-pelago in Finland, have shown pottery that is likely to have been mainly imported. Both cases are sites of exceptional but mainly very different character. The Vistad settlement site in Väderstad parish, in the western part of the province of Östergötland, has been interpreted as a fortified chieftain´s farm of Lusatian type, quite different from settlements previously documented in this region. The remnants of houses present on the Vistad site also showed an unusual design for this region, but which is docu-

mented for settlements of the Lusatian area, for ex-ample Biskupin. Remnants of ovens with dome roofs of twigs and branches, covered with clay were also found. Ovens of this type are common in the Lusatian Culture, but relatively unknown in Scandinavia. The ceramic material found at the site was very limited but showed clear signs pointing at continental influ-ences. The excavator, Thomas B. Larsson, interpret-ed the features at Vistad as the influence of a leading communal chieftain´s long distance socio-economic exchange network and alliances with correspond-ing groups in the Lusatian Culture (Larsson 1993, 56 f.). The other case is the Otterböte site on the small island of Kökar, located south of the island of Åland, in the middle of the Baltic Sea between the Swed-ish and Finnish mainland. Otterböte was excavated already in the 1950´s by C. F. Meinander and was interpreted as a seasonal hunting place, mainly for seal. The Otterböte pottery constitutes a vast mate-rial which has been re-analysed during recent years. In a dissertation at Stockholm University, Kenneth Gustavsson shows that most of the pottery found at Otterböte was imported. His thesis is strongly sup-ported by an analysis of the ceramic ware as well as by an analysis of macro fossils present in the clay. The vessels were most probably manufactured in an area near the Baltic Coast in present-day Poland. This indicates that the Otterböte hunting place was used by people travelling very far indeed (Gustavsson 1997, 67 f., 131 f.). Pottery of unusual types has also been docu-mented on the largest excavated Bronze Age settle-ment in eastern Sweden, the Pryssgården site near the Bråviken inlet in Östergötland (Borna-Ahlkvist et al. 1998). The site is located in the centre of the well known area of rock-carvings near the city of Norrköping, with its most famous sites at Himmel-stadlund, Ekenberg and Leonardsberg, at the point where the Motala Ström River mouth was located during the Bronze Age. Other sites in the vicinity also comprise evidence of external contacts during different periods. The Skälv cemetery with its Wiel-bark type woman burial, mentioned above, is located only two kilometres to the south of Pryssgården, on the opposite side of the river. The area in question, located at the mouth of the most important waterway leading into the heart of the province, has functioned as a trans-shipment area for the change between in-ternal and external communications during a long time. A very large collection of ceramic material was found at Pryssgården, comparable to, for instance, the earlier excavated settlement of Hallunda and Apalle in the lake Mälaren valley of eastern Swe-


den. The pottery, dated to the Late Bronze Age, also showed a wide variety. There were many examples of types showing similarities with the Lusatian pot-tery, such as low carinated bowls and cups, some-times with handles. The most outstanding ware con-sisted of sherds from low bowls of very fine ware with a partly rusticated surface. The vessels are so far unique for Scandinavia, but with parallels in the Lusatian area. However, the analysis of the ware makes it probable that they were locally made. Rusti-cated furrowed sherds of the Otterböte type were also found in Pryssgården (Stålbom, 1998b, 103 ff.). Even though the imported vessels point out in-teresting exchange systems or trade, the locally man-ufactured ware of Lusatian design could be of even greater interest. Single objects, or even a number of objects, could easily be transported over the barriers of culture and language while the transmission of an idea or an ideological concept demands more effort. Influences in local design between two geographi-cally separated areas would not be possible without some sort of closer interaction between the people in the two areas.

The trade and exchange network of the Late Bronze Age – Early Iron Age

The rivers of Elbe, Oder and Vistula have played an important role as routes for contacts between Scan-dinavia and Central Europe in the Bronze Age as well as during later periods. This is one probable reason for why the close contacts between Scandi-navia and this area were established and continued. Good connections and alliances with people in the eastern Lusatian area must have been of vital impor-tance for high ranking milieus in Scandinavia to get hold of attractive imported goods. A large proportion of the bronze import to Scandinavia probably passed through the Lusatian area, although the bronze ob-jects imported from this area as such to Scandinavia are relatively few (Dabrowski 1989, 72). The presence of long distant exchange systems and contacts can be seen in finds also from the Pre-Roman Iron Age. During this period as well, there are signs of contacts across the Baltic and further towards Southeast Europe. Goldsmith´s work illus-trates contacts between Öland – Gotland and South-east Europe as early as the Pre-Roman Iron Age (e. g. Nylén 1972, 188 ff.). There are clear simi-larities between the filigree ornaments of the more luxurious, and probably imported, neck-rings and that of the berlocks, biconical beads and other gold and silver objects of the Early Roman Iron Age in Scandinavia.

The Swedish archaeologist Kent Andersson points out that the jewellery and ornaments of new, and totally different character, that appear in Scan-dinavia during the last centuries BC show impulses from new areas. They indicate a growing importance of southern and south-eastern contact routes. Stylis-tic characteristics appear with an origin in the Hel-lenistic gold work of the eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea area. This could be a result of very direct contacts where foreign goldsmiths travelled to Scandinavia to work. During the Early Roman Iron Age, the characteristics of the gold work of Scan-dinavia are likely to have developed through these contacts (Andersson 1998, 117). The model often discussed, for how external as well as internal contacts were performed in different parts of Europe during the Bronze Age and possibly also during the Pre-Roman Iron Age, is an exchange network with alliances between elite groups of the society. This is often described as a centre-periph-ery relation between areas of different importance. Important in this model is the evolution of a high ranking class, rising in different areas of Bronze Age Europe, with the ability and will to keep up contacts with allies and relatives also from a geographical distance (e. g. Kristiansen 1993 and 1998; Larsson 1993; Bouzek 1999). The Bronze Age contact routes fit well into the pattern visible also during the Pre-Roman and Roman Iron Age. Cultural groups settled in the Pomeranian coastal area could have served as communicators in a transition zone between Scandinavia and areas in south-eastern Europe. This could have been going on for several hundred years, with a continuous cultural development in the different areas. The Bronze Age alliances could, over time, have developed into close relations between elite groups in some geographical areas. If so, the close contact could in the long run have generated overall cultural similarities between such groups, and possibly also an ethnical identifica-tion. The kinship and consanguinity between such elite groups in different areas could then have been stronger than with “ordinary” people in the local en-vironment. Regardless of other points of compari-son, this could be compared with the scenario of the European nobility during later periods, for instance the 18th century, when a nobleman of Sweden prob-ably found it easier to hold a conversation with a German or Polish equal in the French language than to talk with a farmer from the neighbourhood of his own manor. The elite contacts between parts of Scandina-via and the Lusatian culture during the Bronze Age could have created such a pattern. This elite, or pos-sibly larger groups of people, in both the Pomera-

Anders Kaliff236

nian area and in Scandinavia could have developed a similar language and used the same cultural codes and customs. On an individual basis, exchanges of persons are likely to be interpreted as intermar-riage or as travelling artisans or traders. Dynastic marriages between high ranking or royal groups in different geographic areas are a phenomenon with parallels throughout history. If such exchanges were established on a high social level, which was prob-ably the case, this is more likely to have involved larger groups of people. A scenario with a dynastic marriage in a high ranking milieu includes groups of servants, artisans and other accompanying people.

Conclusion

In my opinion, the similarities between some of the Scandinavian and Wielbark contexts are likely to be the result of a complex process of interaction, evolving for centuries. Contacts have been established through trade and exchange, between groups and individu-als. Limited migration is likely to have taken place in the shape of dynastic marriages, trading colonies, travelling artisans as well as young men hiring out as mercenaries. When the Wielbark Culture evolved out of earlier cultures in the Pomeranian area, this proc-ess could have been the result of both endemic de-velopment as well as impact from outside impulses. The forming of the Wielbark – Gothic - Culture in Poland could then have interacted with the formation of new cultural identities also in Scandinavia. To say that the Goths migrated from Scandinavia to Poland could therefore be as right – or wrong – as claim-ing the opposite. Over time a culture was formed, at least in some social environments, with many similar characteristics in both areas. This could also explain the occurrence of such features as the female burial at Skälv in Östergötland. The Skälv woman should probably be interpreted as a person linked to a high-ranking environment in the coastal area of eastern Östergötland. I think it likely that her presence was the result of a dynastic marriage. I have mentioned earlier the linguistic evidence for a connection between the Goths and Scandinavia. The basic meaning of the word Goth – Gut – Gaut

(Göt) is “to pour out” and is often interpreted as “the one who pours out” or “the people living where the rivers have their outlet”. If we choose the later inter-pretation, the word Goth (Gut) in its basic form could be a description of people with close connection to rivers or the sea, possibly used for different groups with these elements in common. Contacts between such groups could then, over time, have developed into a trade community, held together by a common interest in exchange across the sea. Such a commu-nity could have stretched across different ethnic and other boundaries, possibly to be compared with the much later medieval Hanseatic community, develop-ing in the same geographical area. During the Early Roman Period with its increasing need for leather, hide and other goods from the north, the importance of this trade community was accentuated. The rela-tively few but significant graves and other features in different areas round the southern Baltic could be traces of people belonging to this particular group. According to this scenario, the original mean-ing of the word could have pointed out just any peo-ple living at a river outlet. However, the meaning gradually changed to signify groups of people using the waterways for different transports. Not being a philologist, I will not speculate further on this, but only conclude with a tentative interpretation of the world Got–Gaut–Gut as “the people who are con-nected by the rivers and the sea”. This would mean that the names living on in the Swedish Götar (Gaut), the people of Västergötland and Östergötland, and in the Gotlandic Gutar as well as in the Gutones of Poland (later the Goths), originally points out people living in different areas but with a common interest in the exchange net-work across the southern part of the Baltic and its connecting rivers.

Acknowledgements

Results from the research project: Baltic contacts during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Changes in Society in Eastern Sweden as reflected in finds recovered from rescue excavations. The project is financed by: The Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation.


References

Andersson 1995K. Andersson, Romartida guldsmide i norden III. Övriga smycken, teknisk analys och verkstadsgrupper. Aun 21 (Uppsala 1995).

Andersson 1998K. Andersson, Berlocker och medaljonger. Något om romartidens guldsmide i Norden. Fornvännen 92, 1997, 115–127.

Arne 1903T. J. Arne, Järnåldersgravfältet vid Alvastra i Östergöt-land. Meddel. Östergötland Fornm., 1903, 2–11.

Beskow Sjöberg 1987M. Beskow Sjöberg, Ölands järnåldersgravfält 1. In: M. Beskow Sjöberg (ed.), Alböke, Köpings, Räpplinge, Löts, Egby, Bredsättra och Gärdslösa socknar (Stockholm 1987).

Bierbrauer 1992V. Bierbrauer, Die Goten vom 1.–7. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Siedelgebiete und Wanderbewegungen aufgrund archäolo-gischer Quellen. In: E. Straume/E. Skar (eds.), Peregrina-tion Gothica III. Univ. Oldsaksa. Skr. 14 (Oslo 1992).

Bierbrauer 1999V. Bierbrauer, Goten. II. Archäologisches. RGA2 (Berlin 1999).

Blume 1912E. Blume, Die germanischen Stämme und die Kulturen zwischen Oder und Passarge zur Römischen Kaiserzeit I. Mannus Bibl. 8 (Würzburg 1912).

Borna-Ahlkvist et al. 1998H. Borna-Ahlkvist/L. Lindgren-Hertz/U. Stålbom, Pryss-gården. Från stenålder till medeltid. arkeologisk slu-tundersökning, RAÄ 166 och 167, Östra Eneby socken, Norrköpings kommun, Östergötland. Riksantikvarieämbe-tet, Avdelningen för arkeologiska undersökningar, Rapport UV Öst 13 (Linköping 1998).

Bouzek 1999J. Bouzek, Communications in Late Bronze Age Europe - the Case of the Urnfields. Communication in Bronze Age Europe. In: C. Orrling (ed.), Transactions of the Bronze Age Symposium in Tanumstrand, Bohuslän, Sweden, Sep-tember 7–5 1995 (Stockholm 1999). Bukowski 1988Z. Bukowski, Die Lausitzer Kultur. Einleitung zur Prob-lematik. In: Z. Bukowski (ed.), Forschungen zur Problem-atik der Lausitzer Kultur (Wroclaw 1988).

Carlsson 1995T. Carlsson, Objects and Attitudes - Lusatian Impact on Material and Mental Culture in South-East Sweden during the Late Bronze Age. Journal. Europ. Arch. 3/2, 1995, 41–58.

Dabrowski 1988J. Dabrowski, Über die Unterscheidungsprinzipen der östlichen Zone der Lausitzer Kultur. In: Z. Bukowski (ed.), Forschungen zur Problematik der Lausitzer Kultur (Wroclaw 1988).

Dabrowski 1989J. Dabrowski, Nordischer Kreis und Kulturen polnischer Gebiete. In: B. Ambrosiani (ed.), Die Bronzezeit im Ost-seegebiet. Ein Rapport der Kgl. Schwedischen Akademie der Literatur Geschichte und Altertumsforschung über das Julita-Symposium 1986. Kungl. Vitterhets Hist. och An-tikvitets Akad. Konferenser 22 (Stockholm 1989).

Gediga 1988B. Gediga, Die Lausitzer Kultur – Definitionsversuche, In: Z. Bukowski (ed.), Forschungen zur Problematik der Lausitzer Kultur (Wroclaw 1988).

Gustavsson 1997K. Gustavsson, Otterböte. New light on a Bronze Age Site in the Baltic. Theses and Papers Arch. B/4 (Ekenäs 1997).

Hagberg 1967U. E. Hagberg, The Archaeology of Skedemosse II. The Votive Deposites in the Skedemosse Fen and their Relation to the Iron-Age Settlement on Öland, Sweden (Stockholm 1967).

Hagberg 1977U. E. Hagberg, Introduction. In: M. Beskow Sjöberg (ed.), The Archaeology of Skedemosse IV. The Iron Age Settlements of the Skedemosse Area on Öland, Sweden (Stockholm 1977).

Heather 1998P. Heather, The Goths (Oxford 1998).

Helander/Zetterlund 1998A. Helander/P. Zetterlund, Högby. Linnebergsgravfältet från romersk järnålder. Arkeologisk slutundersökning Linneberg 1:2 och 1:3, RAÄ 14 Högby socken, Mjölby kommun, Östergötland. Del 3. Riksantikvarieämbetet, avdelningen för arkeologiska undersökningar, Rapp. UV Linköping 52 (Linköping 1998).

Jaanusson 1981H. Jaanusson, Hallunda. A study of pottery from a late bronze age settlement in central Sweden (Stockholm 1981).

Jaskanis 1996J. Jaskanis, Cecele. Ein Gräberfeld der Wielbark-Kultur in Ostpolen. Mon. Arch. Barbaricum II (Kraków 1996).

Jensen 1999O. W. Jensen, Historiska forntider. En arkeologihistorisk studie över 1000-1600-talens idéer om forntid och an-tikviteter. Ark. Skr. 29 (Göteborg 1999).

Mierow 1915C.C. Mierow, The Gothic History of Jordanes (Princeton 1915).

Anders Kaliff238

Kaliff 1993A. Kaliff, Skälv - en gård och ett gravfält från äldre järnålder. Riksantikvarieämbetet och Statens Historiska Museer 1992/9 (Stockholm 1993).

Kaliff 1999A. Kaliff, Östergötland. Scener ur ett landskaps förhisto-ria. Occ. Papers Arch. 20 (Uppsala 1999).

Kaliff 2001A. Kaliff, Gothic connections. Contacts between eastern Scandinavia and the southern Baltic coast 1000 BC to 500 AD. Occ. Papers Arch. 26 (Uppsala 2001).

Kaul/Martens 1995F. Kaul/J. Martens, Southeast European influences in the Early Iron Age of Southern Scandinavia. Acta Arch. 66 København, 1995.

Kersten 1958K. Kersten, Die Funde der Älteren Bronzezeit in Pom-mern. Beih. Atlas der Urgesch. 7 (Hamburg 1958).

Kmieci%ski 1962J. Kmieci%ski, Zagadnienie tzw. Kultury gocko-gepidzk-iej na Pomorzu Wschodnim w okresie wczesnorzymskim (&od' 1962).

Kokowski 1995A. Kokowski, Schätze der Ostgoten. Eine Austellung der Maria Curie-Sk"odowska Universität Lublin und des Landesmuseums Zamo() (Stuttgart 1995).

Kokowski 1999A. Kokowski, Archäologie der Goten. Goten im Hru-bieszów-Becken (Lublin 1999).

Kossinna 1914G. Kossina, Die Deutche Vorgeschichte, eine hervorra-gend nationale Wissenschaft. Mannus Bibl. 9 (Würzburg 1914).

Kossinna 1928G. Kossinna, Ursprung und Verbreitung der Germanen in vor- und frühgeschichtliche Zeit. Mannus Bibl. 6 (Leipzig 1928).

Kostrewski 1919J. Kostrewski, Die ostgermanische Kultur der Spätlatèn-ezeit I (Leipzig, Würzburg 1919).

Kostrewski 1965J. Kostrewski, Zur Frage der Siedlungstetigkeit in der Ur-geschichte Polens von der Mitte des II. Jahrtausends v. u. Z. bis zum Frühen Mittelalter (Wroc"a, Warszawa und Kraków 1965).

Kristiansen 1993K. Kristiansen, From Villanova to Seddin. The Recon-struction of an Elite Exchange Network during the Eight Century BC. In: C. Scarre/F. Healy (eds.), Exchange in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of Bristol, April 1992. Oxbow Monogr. 33 (Exeter 1993).

Kristiansen 1998K. Kristiansen, Europe before history (Cambridge 1998).

Larsson 1993T. B. Larsson, Vistad. Kring en befäst gård i Östergötland och Östersjökontakter under yngre bronsålder. Stud. Arch. Umensis 4 (Umeå 1993).

Lindroth 1972S. Lindroth, Der Gotizismus und seine Bedeutung in der schwedischen Wissenschaft. In: U. E. Hagberg (ed.), Stu-dia Gotica. Die eisenzeitlichen Verbindungen zwischen Schweden und Südosteuropa. Vorträge beim Gotensym-posion im Statens Historiska Museum Stockholm 1970 (Stockholm 1972).

Lund-Hansen 1995U. Lund-Hansen, Himlingøje – Seeland – Europa. Ein Gräberfeld der jüngeren römishen Kaiserzeit auf Seeland, seine Bedeutung und internationalen Beziehungen. Nord-iske Forstidsminder B/13 (København 1995).

Malmer 1993M. P. Malmer, Bronsåldershandelns struktur och sociala funktion. In: L. Forsberg/T. B. Larsson (eds.), Ekonomi och näringsformer i nordisk bronsålder. Rapport från det 6:e nordiska bronsålderssymposiet, Nämforsen 1990. Stud. Arch. Univ. Umensis 3 (Umeå 1993).

Malmer 1999M. P. Malmer, How and why did Greece communicate with Scandinavia? In: C. Orrling (ed.), Communication in Bronze Age Europe. Transactions of the Bronze Age Symposium in Tanumstrand, Bohuslän, Sweden, Septem-ber 7–5 (Stockholm 1999).

Mogielnicka-Urban 1989M. Mogielnicka-Urban, Bemerkungen zur Verbeitung von Gefäßen mit Merkmalen der Lausitzer Kultur im Nor-dischen Kreis. In: B. Ambrosiani (ed.), Die Bronzezeit im Ostseegebiet. Ein Rapport der Kgl. Schwedischen Akade-mie der Literatur Geschichte und Altertumsforschung über das Julita-Symposium 1986. Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. Konferenser 22 (Stockholm 1989).

Nerman 1923B. Nerman, Goternas äldsta hem. Fornvännen 18 (Stock-holm 1923).

Nordin 1997A. Nordin, Inledning. Jordanes Getica. Om goternas urs-prung och bedrifter (Stockholm 1997).

Nylén 1972E. Nylén, Der Norden und die Verbindungen mit dem thrakisch - dakischem Raum. In: U. E. Hagberg (ed.), Studia Gotica. Die eisenzeitlichen Verbindungen zwichen Schweden und Südosteuropa. Vorträge beim Gotensympo-sium im Stens Historiska Museum Stockholm. Kungl. Vit-terhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. Antikvariska Ser. 25 (Uppsala 1972).


Näsman 1991U. Näsman, Det syvende århundrede - Et mörkt tidsrum i ny belysning. In: P. Mortensen/B. Rasmussen (eds.), Fra Stamme til Stat i Danmark 2. Høvdingesamfund og Konge-magt. Jysk Ark. Selskabs Skr. XXII/2 (Aarhus 1991) 165–178.

Oxenstierna 1948E. C. G. Oxenstierna, Die Urheimat der Goten (Leipzig/Stockholm 1948).

Oxenstierna 1958E. C. G. Oxenstierna, Die Ältere Eisenzeit im Östergöt-land (Linköping 1958).

Petré 1980B. Petré, Björnfällen i begravningsritualen - statusobjekt speglade i regional skinnhandel? Fornvännen 75, 1980, 5–14.

Pietrzak 1997M. Pietrzak, Pruszcz Gda%ski. Fundstelle 10. Ein Gräber-feld der Oksywie- und Wielbark-Kultur in Ostpommern. Mon. Arch. Barbarica IV ( Kraków 1997).

Rasch 1991M. Rasch, Kan gravseden spegla social och politisk utveck-ling? - En närstudie av ett stort arkeologiskt material från en liten ö. In: C. Fabech/J. Ringtved (eds.), Samfund-sorganisation og Regional Variation - Norden i romersk jernalder og folkevandringstid. Beretning fra 1. nordiske jernaldersymposium på Sandbjerg Slot 11–15 april 1989. Jysk Ark. Selskabs Skr. XXVII (Århus 1991) 133–139.

Schindler 1940R. Schindler, Die Besiedlungsgeschichte der Goten und Gepiden im unteren Weichselraum auf Grund der Tonge-fäße (Leipzig 1940).

Stenberger 1933M. Stenberger, Ölands järnålder (Stockholm 1933).

Stålbom 1994U. Stålbom, Klinga. Ett gravfält. Slutundersökning av ett gravfält och bebyggelselämningar från bronsålder och äldre järnålder. Östergötland, Norrköpings kommun, Borgs socken, Klinga, STÄ 6352, Fornlämning 210. Rik-santikvarieämbetet UV Linköping (Linköping 1994).

Stålbom 1998aU. Stålbom, Figurinen från Pryssgården. Fornvännen 92, 1997, 109–114.

Stålbom 1998bU. Stålbom, Fynden från Pryssgården. In: H. Borna-Ahl-kvist/L. Lindgren-Hertz/U. Stålbom (eds.), Pryssgården. Från stenålder till medeltid. arkeologisk slutundersökn-ing, RAÄ 166 och 167, Östra Eneby socken, Norrköpings kommun, Östergötland. Riksantikvarieämbetet, Avdelnin-gen för arkeologiska undersökningar, Rapport UV Öst 13 (Linköping 1998).

Urba%czyk 1998P. Urba%czyk, The Goths in Poland – Where did they come from and when did they leave? Europ. Journal Arch. 1/3, 1998, 397–415.

Wenskus 1961R. Wenskus, Stammebildung und Verfassung. Das Werden der frühmittelalterliches Gentes (Köln/Graz 1961).

Werner 1988J. Werner, Dan*eny und Brangstrup. Untersuchungen zur #ernjachov-Kultur zwischen Sereth und Dnestr und zu den ’Reichtumsszentren‘ auf Fünen. Bonner Jahrb. 188, 1988.

Wessén 1969E. Wessén, Nordiska folkstammar och folknamn. En över-sikt. Fornvännen 64, 1969, 14–36.

Wessén 1972E. Wessén, Die gotische Sprache und ihre Überlieferung. In: U. E. Hagberg (ed.), Studia Gotica. Die eisenzeitlichen Verbindungen zwichen Schweden und Südosteuropa. Vor-träge beim Gotensymposium im Stens Historiska Museum Stockholm. Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. Antikvariska Ser. 25 (Uppsala 1972).

Wo"$giewiczR. Wo"$giewicz, Lubowidz. Ein birituelles Gräberfeld der Wielbark-Kultur aus der Zeit vom Ende des 1. Jh. v. Chr. bis zum Anfang des 3. Jh. n. Chr. Monum. Arch. Bar-barica I (Kraków 1995).

Wolfram 1990H. Wolfram, History of the Goths. New and completely revised from the second German edition (Berkley, Los An-geles, London 1990).

Ziemli%ska-Odojowa 1999W. Ziemli%ska-Odojowa, Niedanowo. Ein Gräberfeld der Przeworsk- und Wielbark-Kultur in Nordmasowien. Mon-um. Arch. Barbarica VII (Kraków 1999).

Anders Kaliff240

Pl. 1. The objects from the women burial at Skälv in Borgs parish, Östergötland. Photo Gunnel Jansson, Museum of National Antiquities, Stockholm


Pl. 2. Key artifacts of women burials of the Wielbark Culture. From the cemetery of Pruszcz Gda%ski. After Pietrzak 1997, Tafel LXXII

Anders Kaliff242

Scandinavian Migration Period Bracteates 243

Abstract

Gold pendant jewelry called bracteates that date to the Migration period, the 5th and 6th centuries AD, have been considered a specifically Scandinavian phenomenon. More than 700 of these objects have been found in Scandinavia, but a sizable number of them, at least 200, have been found as far away as the Netherlands, England, France, Germany, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. In this paper I examine the import and imitation of bracteates that have been found in these far-flung areas, particularly in Central Europe.

It has often been assumed that bracteates found throughout Europe were made in the Central Nordic region and then distributed into distant regions by migration of Scandinavian peoples. However, migra-tions of the best documented of these groups, the An-gles, Saxons, and Jutes to England and the Lombards to Central Europe, predated the period of bracteate production. Therefore, it appears that extant bracte-ate pendants were not carried or worn by these initial settlers.

It is likely that the few bracteates found on the Continent and in England that are difficult to dis-tinguish from Scandinavian examples were indeed imported by individuals who sustained ties with the North. The connections may have been through exogamous marriage as is documented in several continental cases. Grave evidence, especially in An-glo-Saxon England and in Central Europe, demon-strates that women were the ultimate consumers - the wearers - of bracteates at least in burial context. B. Arrhenius has suggested that bracteates were a part of the bride-price; thus these objects may have been intimately linked with women who were manipulated by kinship groups in the power-plays of arranging marriage alliances.

Many bracteates found in Continental or Anglo-Saxon graves may have been made locally, perhaps by Scandinavian goldsmiths, rather than imported directly from Scandinavia. Such smiths might have been itinerant or employed by local chieftains who had Scandinavian connections, perhaps through mar-riage ties. However, some bracteates exhibit anoma-lous motifs and technical details that differ from pieces found in Scandinavia. Examples that depart

from typical Scandinavian characteristics may have been made by Continental and Anglo-Saxon smiths who did not understand the Nordic Animal Style and who introduced different technical solutions for mak-ing a bracteate. Yet the objects must have been made for an audience who appreciated the idea of a bracte-ate and wanted to own and display such an article so that smiths were commissioned to imitate Scandina-vian bracteates. As examples imported directly from the north became less common and less available as models for imitation, the idea of the object type persisted and may even have been adapted to later Christian usage.

Whether Continental and Anglo-Saxon bracte-ates were made in Scandinavia and then imported, or manufactured in more southerly areas, they reflect a continuing interest in obtaining Scandinavian-type bracteates and in displaying what Lotte Hedeager calls their Scandinavian “political ethnicity.” Espe-cially when found outside the core of the Scandinavi-an region, bracteates were recognizable international symbols of apparently “Scandinavian” identity, wor-thy of both import and imitation.

!"#$%"

&'()*+',-.) #)/)-'0 123.24)5 (-65 #.6+2 „bracteates”) . 1"(2)3 %2(6,27, 6 46%", 8 6 - 5 4-)/2---90 +6:); "(', %)<+6 ()#=/936-' 95 )4)*/'.'7 456+3'+6.4>5'7 ?"+)%"+. @2/>: +2< 700 # ,'0 )*‘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

Nancy L. Wicker

Scandinavian Migration Period Bracteates found outside the Nordic Area.Import or Imitation?

Nancy L. Wicker244

B0)<", I) +"#+6C+6 52/>524-> 123.24)5, #+673"+6 +6 5)+-'+"+-2 2 . E+=/2;, 2 958 .6<5) (6#(2#+'-' .23 456+3'+6.4>5'0 #+6023)5, *8/' 3274+) 2%1)(-).6+2 1"(4)+6%', 0-) 123-('%8.6. #.‘9#5' # 12.+2CC$. N)+-65-' %)=/' 123-('%8.6-'49 #6.395' "5#)=6%-+'% :/$*6%, 95 #63)58%"+-).6+) 8 52/>5)0 5)+--'+"+-6/>+'0 .'163560. O6+2 1)0).6+>, #)5("%6, . 6+=/)-4654)+4>527 E+=/2; 2 8 J"+-(6/>+27 K.()12, 4.23C6-> 1() -", I) <2+5' *8/' =)/).+'%' 41)<'-.6C6%' – +)429%' – 123.24)5, 95 %2+2%8%, 8 1)0)-.6/>+)%8 5)+-"54-2. @2(=2- E(0"+284 *8/) #6#+6C"+), I) 123.24-5' 36+)=) -'18 *8/' C64-'+)$ 1/6-' #6 +6("C"+8. L65'% C'+)%, ,2 1("3%"-' %)=/' *8-' 2+-'%+) 1).‘9#6+2 # <2+56%', 952 *8/' #66+=6<).6+2 ()3'+-+'%' =(816%' . 3)=).2(+2 :/$*+2 6/>9+4'. @6=6-) 123.24)5 ()#=/9+8-)=) -'18, #+67-3"+2 +6 5)+-'+"+-2 6*) . 6+=/)-4654)+4>5'0 1)-0).6++90, %)=/' *8-' #()*/"+2 +6 %24,2, %)</'.) 456+3'+6.4>5'%' 5).6/9%', 2, 1".+)$ %2()$, 2%-1)(-).6+2 1(9%) 2# B56+3'+6.2;. L652 5).6/2 *8/' *()39C'%' 6*) < +6 4/8<*2 8 .)<32., 952 %6/' #.‘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‘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„1)/2-'C+)$ "-+2C+24-$”. M4)*/'.), 5)/' #+673"+2 1)#6 %"<2 93(6 456+3'+64>5)=) ("=2)+8, 123.245' *8/' .'#-+6+2 %2<+6()3+'%' 4'%.)/6%' „456+3'+6.4>5);” 23"+-'C+)4-2 - 95 2%1)(-', -65 2 2%2-6,2;.

Introduction

Import and imitation are important agents of culture change, as will be illustrated through developments in women’s jewelry, in particular, a type of pendant

jewelry known as a bracteate. Most of these objects, which date to the early medieval period or Migration Period of the 5th through 6th centuries AD, were ap-parently manufactured and used in northern Europe. Some were transported to other areas outside Scan-dinavia while a few were possibly made in locations outside Scandinavia for use by local communities. More than 700 of them have been discovered in Scan-dinavia; however, around 200 have also been found as far away as Anglo-Saxon England and Lombardic Pannonia in modern Northwest Hungary (v. Padberg 1978, 349; with totals updated to include more re-cent finds). Bracteates were expressions of cultural identity and political expediency, including alliances by marriage, in a cultural mélange of pagans and Christians, Scandinavians and non-Scandinavians, and soldiers and immigrants in a world in flux.Bracteates have been discovered in a diverse array of find contexts, including isolated finds, hoards, and graves, yet certain find contexts appear to clus-ter in specific geographic areas. Isolated finds and hoards of bracteates predominate in the core distribu-tion area of bracteates found in Denmark and most of Sweden; however, grave finds with these objects appear in western Norway, England, southern Ger-many, and Central Europe, as well as on the Swedish island of Gotland (Andrén 1991, fig. 3). Nearly all examples found in graves come from female burials, as determined osteologically or, more often, by ana-lyzing associated grave goods. Most specimens have an obvious loop attachment showing that the objects were suspended as pendants; at Sievern in Germany, a bracteate was found with a braided leather cord threaded through the loop (Schröter/Gummel 1957). Abrasion on suspension loops indicates that they were actually worn. In inhumation graves, they are usually found at the neck or chest area, often with other beads and pendant jewelry; thus it appears that women were buried wearing bracteates as part of a necklace. Various explanations have been offered for why these artifacts have been discovered in places distant from Scandinavia. These possibilities include migration, trade and exchange, exogamous marriage patterns, and cultural imitation.

Migration

It is tempting to attribute the wide distribution of Migration Period bracteates to migrations of peo-ples, including of course women who apparently wore these objects. Scandinavia has been considered the source of many of the peoples of Europe. Jorda-nes, who wrote a history of the Goths in the mid-6th century, referred in Origins and Acts of the Goths


(De origine actibusque Getarum) to Scandinavia as a “womb of peoples” (Mierow, trans., 1951, Chapt. 4:25). Many scholars have subscribed to these ideas (Wenskus 1961; cf. Heather 1996, 12) and attempted to trace the migrations of tribes mentioned by Jor-danes, while others have questioned his description (Christensen 2002, 251 ff.). Maps indicating possi-ble routes abound (see for instance, Diesner 1980, inside front cover). The proposed movements of two groups who apparently came out of the north, the Jutes and the Lombards (also known as the Longo-bards or Langobards), are particularly interesting for studying the distribution of bracteates.

The early 8th-century churchman Bede in his History of the English Church and People (Sherley-Price/Latham 1977, trans.) reported that Kent in Southeast England was settled in the mid-5th century by Jutes from Jutland in Denmark. Mo. Mackeprang (1952, 81) thought that Scandinavian-type gold brac-teates found in female burials such as at Dover in Kent were direct imports; thus they may have been brought by these settlers - that is, the women wearing them - and reflect the direct migration of a popu-lation. However, the actual movement of peoples probably occurred around the year 450 and predated these bracteates. According to M. Axboe, the en-tire bracteate production occurred from around 475 through the mid-6th century (Axboe 1999, 138 ff.). Although some pieces may have been heirlooms and were already old when they were placed in the wom-en’s graves (Hawkes/Pollard 1981, 340), the Kentish bracteates are too recent to have been brought with the initial migration around 450 AD. More likely, they indicate either continuing contact with and im-port from their Danish homelands, or indigenous production in England closely imitating Scandina-vian types (Behr 2000, 50).

The Lombards may also have come from the north, though much earlier than the Angles, Sax-ons, and Jutes who migrated to England according to Bede. Another 8th-century writer, Paul the Dea-con, in his History of the Lombards (Foulke, trans., 1974) described Lombard migrations from their ancestral homeland in Lower Saxony. It is possible that they may have come from the Danish islands of Lolland and Sjælland before arriving in Saxony (Christie 1995, 1 ff.; Werner 1962). They moved down the Elbe River into Bohemia during the second half of the 5th century AD, into the former Roman province of Noricum in eastern Austria in 489, and into Moravia after 508. Bracteates from Poysdorf near Vienna (Beninger 1966; Hauck et al. 1989, no. 48) and Saratice near Brno in Moravia (Tejral 1977; Hauck et al. 1989, no. 4) probably reflect the Lombard presence in these areas, as identified by

characteristic brooches and other material. Finally the Lombards moved into another former Roman province, Pannonia in Northwest Hungary, in 526 or 527 (Christie 1995, 19). Bracteates from a woman’s grave at Várpalota date from this Pannonian phase of Lombardic settlement in the second and third quar-ters of the 6th century (Bóna 1956, 213; Hauck et al. 1985, no. 206; Hauck et al. 1979, no. 559). Simi-lar to the Jutes in England, the Lombards’ period of residence in or adjacent to Scandinavia long predated the period of bracteate production. Thus late 5th and early 6th century bracteates found in Moravia, Aus-tria, and Hungary cannot be the direct result of the initial migration of Lombards out of Scandinavian areas, just as bracteates in Kent do not reflect direct migration from Jutland.

Trade, Gifts and Exogamy

The similarity of bracteates found in Central Europe and England to those in Scandinavia invites specula-tion. The presence of apparently Scandinavian ob-jects there must be explained by mechanisms other than migration since they post-date hypothetical movements of peoples out of Scandinavia and adja-cent regions. Northern bracteates could have reached England and the Continent as trade goods; however, as luxury items, they very likely reflect gift exchange. Bracteates in addition to pendant medallions have been interpreted as objects given as gifts by powerful men to their retinue in order to strengthen bonds of loyalty between warriors and among the political ar-istocracy (Seebold 1992, 308 ff.). Gregory of Tours, writing his History of the Franks (Thorpe, trans., 1979, Bk. 6, Chapt. 2) in the 6th century, related that the Emperor Tiberius II had given Roman me-dallions (multiples of coins minted to commemorate special occasions) to the Frankish King Chilperic. It is possible that bracteates were used in a similar way. However, since bracteates have been discovered in women’s graves rather than men’s, we must consider how bracteates came to be associated with women.

That 5th and 6th-century Scandinavian women wearing such jewelry were “married off” to foreign chieftains to cement political alliances would explain 1) the presence of bracteates in Central Europe and England, 2) the time lag between migrations and the chronology of bracteate production, and 3) how women came to possess and display bracteates. Simi-larly, T. Hjørungdal (1991, 110 ff.) has proposed that kinship ties remained important for groups in west-ern Norway as attempts were made to form broader geographical alliances. These contacts can be traced through unusually old or “foreign” objects found

Nancy L. Wicker246

in graves, which may be evidence of exogamy, the custom that a man must marry outside his tribe or clan. Marriage and property are closely intertwined. Arrhenius (1992; 1995) proposes that the practice of exogamy explains why ornaments of foreign ori-gin — including bracteates from Scandinavia — have been found in women’s graves on the Continent. She claims that Scandinavian women who married foreign chieftains would have worn jewelry that was part of their dowries and that these objects displayed their wealth, status, and ethnicity. Although Tacitus (Hutton, trans., 1970, chapt. 18) stated that the hus-band brought a dowry to his wife rather than the wife bringing a dowry to the marriage, his word from 98 AD has not been taken as a complete explanation of the practice. D. O. Hughes describes a “morn-ing-gift” (morgengabe) that a man gave to his bride at consummation of their marriage (Hughes 1978, 266), which Tacitus may have misunderstood as a dowry. S. F. Wemple further explains the difference between a brideprice paid to the bride’s family and a morning-gift which was paid to the bride herself (Wemple 1981, 12). Some bracteates may have been given personally to brides by their grooms as morn-ing-gifts. However, Arrhenius (1995, 86) cites E. Kock’s (1926, 12) clarification that there was indeed a dowry among Germanic groups that was given by the woman’s parents and not transferred to the hus-band but controlled by the woman as her “anticipated inheritance.” Arrhenius (1995, 86) demonstrates that gold was an important constituent of the dowry as prescribed in early laws of Gotland and Östergöt-land, which resemble 7th-century Lombardic laws. Gold worn by women may have represented their own property and inheritance while also serving as emblems of Nordic ethnic and religious identity, es-pecially in areas of political conflict such as Kent and Pannonia, as argued by A. Andrén (1991). Scandina-vian-type bracteates from female graves in these are-as thus could have been marriage property of women used strategically by their parents and husbands to consolidate political alliances.

Marriages contracted between individuals from different tribes and regions are attested in Mi-gration Period written sources on the Continent. For instance, the 6th-century writer Gregory of Tours in his History of the Franks (Thorpe, trans., 1979, Bk., 6, chapt. 45) discussed how Rigunth, daugh-ter of the Frankish King Chilperic, was to be given in marriage to a Visigothic prince in Spain. In his History of the Lombards, Paul the Deacon (Foulke, trans., Bk.1, chapt. 21) gave a detailed account of the Lombard King Waccho, reigning from 510 to

540, who bolstered his position through strategic marriage alliances: “his first wife was a Thuring-ian princess, subsequently dropped in favour of his second wife, daughter of the Gepid king, who bore him two daughters, who in time were married off to Frankish kings, while his third spouse was daughter of the subjugated Herul king” (trans., Christie 1995, 32). Such accounts often mention large amounts of gold and jewelry that accompanied royal matches, for instance, Gregory (Thorpe, trans., Bk. 6, chapt. 45) described that Chilperic’s daughter Rigunth was presented with “such a vast assemblage of objects that the gold, silver and other precious things filled fifty carts.” Even less lavish marriages were marked by gifts, and as Tacitus explained in Germania (Hut-ton, trans., chapt. 18) and apparently incompletely understood, the wife traditionally may have received a “morning gift” from her new husband, in addition to the dowry that the couple received from her par-ents. New jewelry may have been made and given as dowries and morning gifts, or heirloom pieces may have been brought from home. Thus, a Scandinavian bride might display antiquated Scandinavian jewelry or new pieces made either by Scandinavian smiths or by continental artisans in imitation of northern styles.

Even when it is suggested that bracteates were part of a dowry or morning gift, the main focus of discussion has been on the power-plays of arranged marriages, assuming that women were manipulated by men. However, T. Hjørungdal (1991, 113) has pointed out that women may have had the power to make some decisions about such marriage alliances. For instance, according to the Liber Historiae Fran-corum, Clotilda, daughter of Chilperic, secretly ac-cepted a ring as a betrothal gift from Clovis without her kinsmen’s permission (Schulenberg 1998, 181). It has also been assumed, though unstated, that men were the primary agents in the commission, design, and manufacture of objects such as bracteates. By comparison with later evidence of women commis-sioning 10th- and 11th-century Scandinavian rune-stones (Sawyer 2000), I have suggested that elite women who bore bracteates as markers of Nordic identity were not merely pawns and passive bearers of prestigious objects given to them by men (Wicker, in press). Instead, these women may have had the wealth and prerogative to commission a gold bracte-ate and determine the imagery it displayed, whether at home in Scandinavia or in distant lands.


Bracteate imitations made in England and on the Continent

I have previously examined how bracteates found in England and on the Continent both resemble and differ from Scandinavian examples (Wicker 2002), and I will briefly summarize my findings here. Some bracteates found in women’s graves in England and on the Continent display distinctively Nordic image-ry, by which I mean that they emulate Scandinavian types originally described by O. Montelius (1869), specifically Type A with a man’s head imitating the Roman emperor’s bust (pl. 1,1) 3 Type C with a man’s head over a stylized horse-like animal (pl. 1,2), and Type D with a more stylized, interlaced animal but no human figure (pl. 1,3). Bracteates of these types occur in large numbers within Scandina-via, but examples are also known from outside Scan-dinavia, including a Type A piece from Aschersleben (pl. 1,4), Type C pieces from Szatmár (Hauck et al. 1985, nos. 182.1 and 182.2) and Debrecen (Hauck eet al. 1985, no. 182.3) in Hungary, and a Type D from Obermöllern (pl. 1,5) in Saxony. These bracte-ates so closely resemble Scandinavian ones that they may indeed have been imported from the north or have been made by travelling Scandinavian smiths. On the other hand, non-Scandinavian materials, techniques, and iconography distinguish other Eng-lish and Continental bracteates from their Scandina-vian counterparts. Bracteates from Aschersleben (pl. 1,6) and Obermöllern (pl. 1,7), both in Saxony, imi-tate Scandinavian pieces in certain respects but have eccentric, non-Scandinavian anomalous iconography that suggests that they were made by local smiths on the Continent. Although an attempt was made to refer to or incorporate Nordic imagery, there is a “strangeness” in their overall impression that indi-cates that they were made in distant lands.

Scandinavian bracteates were made from the copious supply of gold that had reached the north in the 5th century as Late Roman coin payments to soldiers in the service of the Empire (Fagerlie 1967). However, the diminishing amounts of gold available for making jewelry is reflected in later examples from both England and Central Europe — although in different ways. A few 6th-century English pieces, including one from Driffield (Hauck et al. 1989, no. 422) in Yorkshire, were made of silver (Wicker 1992), whereas most bracteates are gold. In addition, many Continental bracteates are considerably lighter in weight and smaller in diameter than Scandinavian examples, thus using less gold (Axboe/Hauck 1985). The smallest, from Bad Kreuznach, Rheinland-Pfalz (Hauck et al. 1989, no. 408), weighs less than a

gram, whereas most weigh at least three grams. The deviations of later English and Continental pieces from Scandinavian norms attest to indigenous rather than Nordic production. Some silver and low-weight bracteates from England and Continental Europe adapt Scandinavian-type animal-style imagery, su-perficially emulating Nordic style although reinter-preting or misinterpreting it in subtle ways, such as on three nearly identical pieces from Várpalota, Hungary (Hauck et al. 1989, no. 559).

While some Scandinavian-type bracteates found in England and on the Continent could have been imports from the north, the very fact that these pendants were adapted to local conditions and imi-tated outside Scandinavia demonstrates that it contin-ued to be important for women beyond the homeland to display bracteates. Scandinavian-type jewelry was still being produced, even if it did not accompany Nordic brides. The Lombard nobility apparently could commission jewelry locally and was not de-pendent upon imports from the north (Christie 1995, 46). Goldsmiths’ graves at Brno in the Czech Repub-lic (Beninger/Freising 1933, 45) and at Poysdorf in Austria (grave 6) - from a cemetery that also yielded a female burial (grave 4) with bracteates (Beninger 1966) - demonstrate that Lombard goldsmiths were making pendants similar to bracteates before their move to Pannonia. Scandinavian bracteates were apparently imitated in areas with former actual or imagined ties to the Nordic region, even when the objects - or the women wearing them - were not di-rectly “imported”.

Foundation myths of the Lombards, Alemanni, Thuringians, Angles, Saxons, and Jutes all trace their backgrounds to Scandinavia (Wenskus 1961; He-deager 1993). It seems to have been vital for some elite women in these groups to evoke their north-ern origins. One way to sustain this connection may have been through use of animal ornamentation that visually signified “Nordic” to their own and other peoples. Bracteates may reflect pagan resistance to encroaching Christian anthropomorphic and natural-istic imagery, perhaps to legitimize their ethnic ori-gins (Hedeager 1998; 2000).

Introduction of Christian motifs

At the same time that some bracteates preserve a pagan animal style, possible Christian motifs of the cross and perhaps also the Virgin Mary were intro-duced into bracteate iconography. Bracteate-type pendants with cross-motifs have been found in Berlin (v. Müller 1962, 108 f.) and together with animal-

Nancy L. Wicker248

ornamented examples (pl. 1,5) from Obermöllern in Saxony. Although most anthropomorphic repre-sentations on bracteates show males who are often bearded, a few examples from Germany and Den-mark depict a figure that has been the focus of dif-fering interpretations. This image on the bracteates from Großfahner, Thuringia (Hauck et al. 1986, no. 259), Welschingen, Baden-Württemberg (Hauck et al. 1986, no. 389), and Oberwerschen, Saxony (pl. 1,9), plus one from Gudme in Denmark (pl. 1,10), may depict either a male exhibiting Roman impe-rial imagery (Werner 1935, 1 ff.) or a female, who may represent a hostess at a Germanic feast (Enright 1990; Enright 1996), a Byzantine empress, or the Virgin Mary based on Byzantine numismatic image-ry (Ellmers 1971).

There is considerable uncertainty concern-ing when various barbarian tribes were christian-ized. The majority of individuals in Central Europe probably retained their pagan beliefs in the 5th and 6th centuries (Christie 1995, 56), but many elites - including women referred to by J. T. Schulenberg as “domestic proselytizers” (Schulenberg 1998, 177 ff.) - often were the first from their families to convert to Christianity. Just as Saint Helena (d. c. 330) was instrumental in the conversion of her son, the Roman Emperor Constantine (Coon 1997, 97 ff.), and Paula (d. 404), a wealthy Roman widow, left her family to follow Jerome (Cloke 1995, 35), notable royal and aristocratic Germanic women also converted to the new faith before their male rela-tives. Gregory of Tours (Thorpe, trans., 1979, Bk. 2, Chapts. 29 f.), described how Saint Clotilda (d. 544), wife of Clovis and queen of the Franks (the same Clotilda mentioned above who accepted a ring from Clovis without knowledge of her male guardi-an) eventually converted her pagan husband who had worshipped idols. Indeed, women played an impor-tant part in the earliest stage of the Christianization process in many areas, as has been documented for Macedonia in the 3rd century (Portefaix 1988; von Harnack 1908, 73), Southeast England in the 7th and 8th centuries (Jacobsen 1986, 37 ff.), and Sweden in the 9th (Gräslund 1980, 84; Rimbert (Robinson, trans., Chapt. 20)) and 11th centuries (Sawyer 2000, 135). We may even refer to a gendered conversion with women often more positively inclined than men toward the new religion (Gräslund 1989, 225), with the Virgin Mary especially important to women in the conversion in Scandinavia (Hallencreutz 1982). It is possible that bracteates may have been adapted - not just imitated - so that women outside Scandinavia living within a Christian milieu could display their new faith while also reflecting their ethnic origins.

As the Lombards moved into previously Ro-man areas that had been christianized in the early 4th century, they most likely encountered Christians and Christian churches. At least some Lombards were nominally converted when they occupied Noricum in 489. N. Christie (1995, 57) states that the Lom-bards “employed Christianity as a diplomatic tool,” and some of them may have converted for strategic reasons. According to Procopius of Caesarea, the Byzantine Emperor Justinian, who reigned from 527 to 565, counted the Lombards among his “Christian allies” (Christie 1995, 34). Bracteates with Nordic-type animal imagery from Saratice (Hauck 1989, no. 491) and Várpalota (Hauck et al. 1989, no. 559) may have been worn within a setting where Christian im-ages were becoming common.

Although a cross motif possibly of Christian connotation appears on some 5th and 6th-century brac-teates in Central Europe, no examples of this symbol are known on bracteates in Southeast England or Scandinavia at this time. Christianity and the cross were first recognized in Sweden around the time of Ansgar’s mission to Birka in 830 (Lager 2003, 504), but the conversion to Christianity in this area did not occur until the late Viking Period, after the year 1000. Nevertheless, Scandinavian women married to foreign Germanic leaders may indeed have come into contact with christianized groups such as Lombards in Central Europe much earlier.

Conclusion

Specific details of bracteate jewelry illuminate vari-ous culture contact situations including migration and exogamous marriages, as well as the expression or communication of ethnic origins and religious beliefs. These objects may reflect political expedi-ency as well as the accommodation of native belief systems and a desire to exhibit a visual connection to their ancestry. Bracteates with traditional Animal-Style ornamentation may have been imported into Central Europe but were also imitated, possibly with Christian motifs, by local smiths in the region. In addition, Animal-Style design may have continued to function as an ethnic marker. Elite women who wore bracteates evoked real ties to Scandinavia if the objects were imported or imagined ties if they were imitative, while also revealing changing belief sys-tems. However, even Germanic tribes that became christianized and no longer imported goods directly from Scandinavia may still have hoped to legitimize their claims to Scandinavian origins through the imi-tation of northern types.


Distinguishing which objects were imported through trade or as gifts from those that were imitat-ed to meet a local demand remains a difficult meth-odological issue that requires study of all available sources, whether technological, iconographical, or proto-historic. Explaining why imitation occurs and matching named groups of peoples to specific exam-ples of material culture are issues that remain even more problematic.

Acknowledgements

For providing funds for me to examine artifacts in Scandinavia, I would like to thank The American Philosophical Society, The American Scandinavian Foundation, The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Af-fairs and Norwegian Information Service, and The Berit Wallenberg Foundation. In addition Minnesota State University awarded me several Faculty Re-search Grants that made it possible for me to study bracteates in England and on the Continent. Finally, a fellowship from the National Endowment for the Humanities allowed time to bring together the data gathered on separate research trips.

All photographs were taken by the author. I am extremely grateful to the Statens Historiska Mu-seum, Stockholm, Sweden, the Nationalmuseum, Copenhagen, Denmark, and the Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte, Halle, Germany, for permission to re-produce these photographs.

References

Andrén 1991A. Andrén, Guld och makt - en tolkning av de skandinavis-ka guldbrakteaternas funktion. In: C. Fabech/J. Ringtved (eds.), Samfundsorganisation og Regional Variation. Jysk Ark. Selskabs Skr. 27 (Århus 1991) 245–256.

Arrhenius 1992B. Arrhenius, Smycken som diplomati. In: G. G. Ny-berg (ed.), Föremål som Vittnesbörd. Festskr. Gertrud Grenander Nyberg (Stockholm 1992) 18–25.

Arrhenius 1995B. Arrhenius, Women and gold. On the Role of Wom-en in Society at the Time of the Great Migrations and Their Relationship to the Production and Distribution of Ornaments. In: H. G. Resi (ed.), Produksjon og sam-funn. Beretning fra 2. nordiske jernaldersymposion på Granavolden 7–10 mai 1992. Varia 30 (Oslo 1995) 85–96.

Axboe 1999M. Axboe, The Chronology of the Scandinavian Gold Bracteates. In: J. Hines (ed.), The Pace of Change: Stud-ies on the Early-Medieval Chronology (Oxford 1999) 126–147.

Axboe/Hauck 1985M. Axboe/K. Hauck, Hohenmemmingen-B, ein Schlüssel-stück der Brakteatenikonographie. Frühmittelalter. Stud. 19, 1985, 98–130.

Bede 1977Bede, A History of the English Church and People, L. Sherley-Price/R. E. Latham (trans.) (New York 1977).

Behr 2000C. Behr, The Origins of Kingship in Early Medieval Kent. Early Medieval Europe 9, 2000, 25–52.

Beninger 1966E. Beninger, Der Langobarden Friedhof von Poysdorf, NÖ. Arch. Austriaca 40, 1966, 167–187.

Beninger/Freising 1933E. Beninger/H. Freising, Die germanischen Bodenfunde in Mähren. Anstalt Sudetendeutsche Heimatforsch. Vorge-sch. Abt. 4 (Reichenberg 1933).

Bóna 1956I. Bóna, Die Langobarden in Ungarn. Acta Arch. Acad. Scientiarum Hungaricae 7, 1967, 183–244.

Christensen 2002A. S. Christensen, Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths: Studies in a Migration Myth (Copenhagen 2002).

Christie 1995N. Christie, The Lombards: The Ancient Longobards (Ox-ford 1995).

Nancy L. Wicker250

Cloke 1995G. Cloke, This Female Man of God: Women and Spir-itual Power in the Patristic Age, 350–450 A.D. (London 1995).

Coon 1997L. Coon, Sacred Fictions: Holy Women and Hagiography in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia 1997).

Diesner 1980H. J. Diesner, Die Völkerwanderung (Leipzig 1980).

Ellmers 1971D. Ellmers, Eine byzantinische Mariendarstellung als Vorbild für Goldbrakteaten. Jahrb. RGZM 18, 1971, 233–237.

Enright 1990M. J. Enright, The Goddess Who Weaves: Some Icono-graphic Aspects of Bracteates of the Fürstenberg Type. Frühmittelalter. Stud. 24, 1990, 54–70.

Enright 1996M. J. Enright, Lady with a Mead Cup (Dublin 1996).

Fagerlie 1967J. Fagerlie, Late Roman and Byzantine Solidi Found in Sweden and Denmark. Num. Notes a. Monogr. 157 (New York 1967).

Gräslund 1980A.-S. Gräslund, Birka IV. The Burial Customs: A Study of the Graves on Björkö. Birka. Unters. u. Stud. 4 (Stock-holm 1980).

Gräslund 1989A.-S. Gräslund, ‘Gud hjälpe nu väl hennes själ’. Om runstenskvinnorna, deras roll vid kristnandet och deras plats i familj och samhälle. Tor 22, 1989, 223–224.

Gregory of ToursGregory of Tours, The History of the Franks. L. Thorpe (trans.) (New York 1979).

Hauck et al. 1985K. Hauck/H. Lange/L. v. Padberg, Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit 1,3. Ikonographischer Katalog. Münsterische Mittelalter-Schr. 24/1,3 (München 1985).



Hallencreutz 1982C. F. Hallencreutz, Runstenarnas Maria. En studie av kris-tendomens översättning till runsvenska. Svensk mission-stidskr. 70/2 (Uppsala 1982) 12–22.

v. Harnack 1908A. von Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christi-anity in the First Three Centuries AD. Vol. 2 (New York 1908).

Hawkes/Pollard 1981S. C. Hawkes/M. Pollard, The Gold Bracteates from Sixth-century Anglo-Saxon Graves in Kent, in the Light of a New Find from Finglesham. Frühmittelalter. Stud. 15, 1981, 316–370.

Heather 1996P. Heather, The Goths (Cambridge 1996).

Hedeager 1993L. Hedeager, The Creation of Germanic Identity: A Euro-pean Origin-Myth. In: P. Brun/S. v. d. Leeaw/C. Whittak-er (eds.), Frontières d’empire. Nature et signification des frontiéres romanes. Mém. Musée Préhist. d’Ile-de-France 5, 1993, 121–131.

Hedeager 1998L. Hedeager, Cosmological Endurance: Pagan Identities in Early Christian Europe. Europ. Journal Arch. 1, 1998, 382–396.

Hedeager 2000L. Hedeager, Migration Period Europe: The Formation of a Political Mentality. In: F. Theuws/J. L. Nelson (eds.), Rituals of Power from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. The Transformation of the Roman World 8 (Leiden 2000) 15–57.

Hjørungdal 1991T. Hjørungdal, Det skjulte kjønn: Patriarkal tradisjon og feministisk visjon i arkeologien belyst med focus på en jernalderkontekst (Stockholm 1991).

Hughes 1978D. Hughes, From Brideprice to Dowry in Mediterranean Europe. Journal Family Hist. 3, 1978, 262–296.

Jacobsen 1986G. Jacobsen, Kvindeskikkelser og kvindeliv i danmarks middel-alder (Copenhagen 1986).

Jordanes Jordanes, The Gothic History of Jordanes in English Ver-sion, C. C. Mierow (trans.) 2nd ed. (Princeton 1915).

Kock 1926E. Kock, Om hemföljd (förtida arv) i svensk rätt t.o.m. 1734 års lag (Lund 1926).

Lager 2003L. Lager, Runestones and the Conversion of Sweden. In: M. Carver (ed.), The Cross Goes North. Processes of Conversion in Northern Europe, 300–1300 AD (York 2003) 497–507.

Mackeprang 1952M. Mackeprang, De Nordiske Guldbrakteater. Jysk Ark. Selskabs Skr. 2 (Århus 1952).

Montelius 1869O. Montelius, Från jernåldern. (Stockholm 1869).


v. Müller 1962A. von Müller, Völkerwanderungszeitliche Körper-gräber und spätgermanische Siedlungsräume in der Mark Brandenburg. Berliner Jahrb. Vor- u. Frühgesch. 2, 1962, 105–189.

v. Padberg 1978L. von Padberg, Übersichtstabelle zur Verteilung der Gold-brakteaten. RGA2 3 (Berlin 1978) 347–353.

Paul the DeaconPaul the Deacon, History of the Lombards, W. D. Foulke (trans.) (Philadelphia 1974).

Portefaix 1988L. Portefaix, Sisters Rejoice. Paul’s Letter to the Philip-pians and Luke - Acts as Seen by First-century Philippian Women. Coniectanea Biblica. New Testament Ser. 20 (Stockholm 1988).

RimbertRimbert, Anskar, The Apostle of the North, C. H. Robin-son (trans.) (London 1921).

Sawyer 2000B. Sawyer, The Viking-Age Rune-Stones. Custom and Commemoration in Early Medieval Scandinavia (Oxford 2000).

Schmidt 1961B. Schmidt, Die späte Völkerwanderungszeit in Mit-teldeutschland. Veröff. Landesmus. Vorgesch. Halle 18 (Halle 1961).

Schröter/Gummel 1957T. Schröter/H. Gummel, Der Goldbrakteatenfund von Sievern. Kunde NF 8, 1957, 112–129.

Schulenberg 1998J. T. Schulenberg, Forgetful of Their Sex: Female Sanctity and Society, c. 500-1100 (Chicago 1998).

Seebold 1992E. Seebold, Römische Münzbilder und germanische Sym-bolwelt: Versuch einer Deutung der Bildelemente von C-Brakteaten. In H. Beck/D. Ellmers/K. Schier (eds.), Germanische Religionsgeschichte. Quellen und Quellen-probleme. Ergänzungsb. RGA2 5 (Berlin 1992) 270–335.

Tacitus.Tacitus, Germania, M. Hutton (trans.), Loeb Classical Li-brary (Cambridge 1970).

Tejral 1977J. Tejral, Abriss der Entwicklung in Mähren während der Völkerwanderungszeit. Alt-Thüringen 14, 1977, 244–257.

Wemple 1981S. F. Wemple, Women in Frankish Society (Philadelphia 1981).

Wenskus 1961R. Wenskus, Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Wer-den der frühmittelalterlichen Gentes (Köln 1961).

Werner 1935J. Werner, Germanische Schmuckbrakteaten der Völker-wanderungszeit aus Südwestdeutschland. Bl. Münzfreunde 70, 1935, 189–195.

Werner 1962J. Werner, Die Langobarden in Pannonien. Bayer. Akad. Wiss. (München 1962).

Wicker 1992N. Wicker, Swedish-Anglian Contacts Antedating Sutton Hoo: The Testimony of the Scandinavian Gold Bracteates. In: R. Farrell/C. Neuman de Vegvar (eds.), Sutton Hoo: 50 Years After. Am. Early Med. Stud. 2 (Oxford/Ohio 1992) 149–171.

Wicker 2002N. Wicker, The Multiplicity of Migration: The Distribu-tion of Early Medieval Scandinavian-Type Bracteates. In C. Allum/J. Kahn/C. Cluney/M. Peuramaki-Brown (eds.), Ancient Travellers. Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh An-nual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary (Calgary 2002) 132–141.

Wicker, in pressN. Wicker, Women and Agency: A Gendered Re-visioning of Early Medieval Scandinavian Bracteate Jewellery. In: C. Damm/E. Engelstad (eds.), Re-visioning the Past. Kvin-nforsk Occasional Papers 6 (Tromsø, in press).

Nancy L. Wicker252

1. Scandinavian Type A bracteate from Tuna, Gotland, Sweden (IK 192.1), diameter 2.4 cm, Statens Historiska Museum, Stockholm, Sweden, inv. no. 2251 Go; 2. Scandinavian Type C bracteate from Grumpan, Västergöt-land, Sweden (IK 269.2), diameter 2.0 cm, Statens Historiska Museum, Stockholm, Sweden, inv. no. 14392Vg; 3. Scandinavian Type D bracteate from Skodborg, Jutland, Denmark (IK 510.1), diameter 2.2 cm, National-museum, Copenhagen, Denmark, inv. no. C6329; 4. Type A bracteate from Aschersleben, Saxony, Germany (IK 15), diameter 2.0 cm, Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte, Halle, Germany, inv. no. 56:628c; 5 Type D bracteate from Obermöllern, grave 20, Saxony, Germany (IK 477), diameter 2.4 cm, Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte, Halle, Germany, inv. no. 25:693g; 6. Anomalous bracteate from Aschersleben, Saxony, Germany (IK 16), diam-eter 2.6 cm, Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte, Halle, Germany, inv. no. 56:628a; 7. Anomalous bracteate from Obermöllern, grave 6, Saxony, Germany (IK 132), diameter 2.3 cm, Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte, Halle, Germany, inv. no. 25:680j; 8. Pendant with cross motif from Obermöllern, grave 20, Saxony, Germany (Schmidt 1961, Taf. 45a), diameter 1.6 cm, Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte, Halle, Germany, inv. no. 25:693g; 9. Brac-teate with female image from Oberwerschen, grave 2, Saxony, Germany (IK 311), diameter 2.1 cm, Landesmu-seum für Vorgeschichte, Halle, Germany; 10. Bracteate with female image from Gudme, Jutland, Denmark (IK 391), diameter 2.0 cm, Nationalmuseum, Copenhagen, Denmark, inv. no. Danefæ 49/83.

Pl. 1.

List of Authors and Addresses

Alexander A. BauerPrinceton Writing Program91 Prospect AvePrinceton UniversityPrinceton, NJ 08540, USAEmail: [email protected]

Peter F. BiehlDepartment of AnthropologyState University of New York at Buffalo380 MFAC Ellicott ComplexBuffalo, NY 14261, USAEmail: [email protected] Margherita CarucciDepartment of ArchaeologyUniversity of NottinghamUniversity ParkNottingham, NG7 2RD, UKEmail: [email protected]

Alice M. Choyke1031 Aquincum MuseumZáhony u. 4H-1031 Budapest, HungaryEmail: [email protected]

Janusz Czebreszuk & Marzena Szmyt Institute for Eastern StudiesAdam Mickiewicz University28 Czerwca 1956, no. 19861-485 Poznań, PolandEmail: [email protected]: [email protected]

Svend HansenDeutsches Archäologisches InstitutEurasien-AbteilungIm Dol 2-6, Haus II14195 Berlin, DeutschlandEmail: [email protected] Anders KaliffDepartment of Archaeology and Ancient HistoryUppsala UniversitySt Eriks Torg 5SE-753 10 Uppsala, SwedenEmail: [email protected]

Agustín Mª Lucena MartínDepartment of PrehistoryFaculty of Philosophy of CordobaPlaza del Cardenal Salazar, nº 314003 Córdoba, SpainEmail: [email protected]

Sergey V. MakhortykhInstitute of ArchaeologyNational Academy of Sciencies of Ukrainepr. Geroiv Stalingrada 1204210 Kyiv-210, UkraineEmail: [email protected]

Alla NikolovaInstitute of ArchaeologyNational Academy of Sciencies of Ukrainepr. Geroiv Stalingrada 1204210 Kyiv-210, UkraineEmail: [email protected]

Hrvoje PotrebicaUniversity of ZagrebFaculty of PhilosophyDepartment of ArchaeologyI. Lucica 3HR-10000 Zagreb, CroatiaEmail: [email protected]

Yuri RassamakinInstitute of ArchaeologyNational Academy of Sciencies of Ukrainepr. Geroiv Stalingrada 1204210 Kyiv-210, UkraineEmail: [email protected]

Taras TkachukMuseum Davnij GalychSorochteya str. 9- b76005 Ivano-Frankivs’k, Ukraine

Nancy WickerDepartment of Art116 Meek HallUniversity of MississippiUniversity, MS 38677, USAEmail: [email protected]

Gert Jan van WijngaardenNetherlands Institute in AthensMakri 11117 42 Athens, GreeceEmail: [email protected]

Biehl P. & Yu. Rassamakin (eds), 2008. Import and Imitation in Archaeology Schriften des ZAKS, 11,...

Documents

Transcript of Biehl P. & Yu. Rassamakin (eds), 2008. Import and Imitation in Archaeology Schriften des ZAKS, 11,...