05 Pare Offprint

UNION INTERNATIONALE DES SCIENCES PRÉHISTORIQUES ET PROTOHISTORIQUES INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR PREHISTORIC AND PROTOHISTORIC SCIENCES

PROCEEDINGS OF THE XV WORLD CONGRESS (LISBON, 4-9 SEPTEMBER 2006)

ACTES DU XV CONGRÈS MONDIAL (LISBONNE, 4-9 SEPTEMBRE 2006)

Series Editor: Luiz Oosterbeek

VOL. 9

Session C35

A New Dawn for the Dark Age? Shifting Paradigms in Mediterranean Iron Age Chronology

L'âge obscur se fait-il jour de nouveau? Les paradigmes changeants de la chronologie de l'âge du Fer

en Méditerranée

Edited by Dirk Brandherm and Martin Trachsel

BAR International Series 1871 2008

This title published by Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED England [email protected] www.archaeopress.com BAR S1871 Proceedings of the XV World Congress of the International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences Actes du XV Congrès Mondial de l’Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques Outgoing President: Vítor Oliveira Jorge Outgoing Secretary General: Jean Bourgeois Congress Secretary General: Luiz Oosterbeek (Series Editor) Incoming President: Pedro Ignacio Shmitz Incoming Secretary General: Luiz Oosterbeek New Dawn for the Dark Age? Shifting Paradigms in Mediterranean Iron Age Chronology / L'âge obscur se fait-il jour de nouveau? Les paradigmes changeants de la chronologie de l'âge du Fer en Méditerranée, vol.9, Section C35

© UISPP / IUPPS and authors 2008 ISBN 978 1 4073 0351 2 Signed papers are the responsibility of their authors alone. Les texts signés sont de la seule responsabilité de ses auteurs. Contacts : Secretary of U.I.S.P.P. – International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences Instituto Politécnico de Tomar, Av. Dr. Cândido Madureira 13, 2300 TOMAR Email: [email protected] www.uispp.ipt.pt Printed in England by Alden HenDi, Oxfordshire All BAR titles are available from: Hadrian Books Ltd 122 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7BP England [email protected] The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

77

ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN

Christopher PARE Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Institut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Schillerstrasse 11,

D-55116 Mainz, Germany, e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: The dendrochronological dates from the lake-shore settlements north-west of the Alps provide precise dating evidence for the period from the 11th to the 9th centuries BC. The article uses this evidence to suggest an absolute chronology for the later part of the Italian Final Bronze Age. Cemetery evidence and hoards from north-east Italy are crucial for this purpose. Contacts with the Aegean, Cyprus, the Levant and the Iberian Peninsula are investigated, in order to link the Italian chronological sequence with evidence for long-distance contacts across the Mediterranean. A correlation of the major chronological horizons in the Dark Age Mediterranean is put forward for discussion. Keywords: Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Mediterranean, dendrochronology, cross-dating

Résumé: Pour la période comprise entre le 11e et le 9e siècle av. J.-C., les données dendrochronologiques obtenues dans les habitats lacustres au nord-ouest des Alpes fournissent des données de datation précises. Dans le présent article, une chronologie absolue de la partie récente de l’âge du Bronze final en Italie est proposée. Elle est basée sur ces données. À cet effet, le mobilier funéraire et les dépôts du nord-est de l’Italie sont d’une importance cruciale. Afin de relier la séquence chronologique italienne avec les témoins de contacts à longue distance à travers la Méditerranée, les relations avec l’Égée, Chypre, le Levant, et avec la Péninsule Ibérique sont étudiées. Pour ce qui est des périodes obscures en méditerranée, une corrélation des horizons chronologiques majeurs est avancée et soumise à la discussion. Mots clé: âge du Bronze final, âge du Fer ancien, Méditerranée, dendrochronologie, datation par recoupement

Abriss: Die Dendrodaten aus den nordwestalpinen Seeufersiedlungen bieten eine zuverlässige Datierungsgrundlage für die Zeit zwischen dem 11. und dem 9 Jahrhundert v. Chr. Auf Basis dieser Daten wird hier ein Vorschlag zur absoluten Chronologie des jüngeren Abschnitts der italischen Spätbronzezeit entwickelt. Grabfunde und Horte aus Nordostitalien spielen dabei eine entscheidende Rolle. Verbindungen zur Ägäis, nach Zypern, in die Levante und zur Iberischen Halbinsel wird nachgegangen, um die italische Chronologie mit Nachweisen mediterraner Fernkontakte zu verknüpfen. Davon ausgehend wird ein Vorschlag zur Korrelation der wesentlichen chronologischen Horizonte des “Dunklen Zeitalters” im Mittelmeerraum zur Diskussion gestellt. Schlüsselwörter: Spätbronzezeit, Früheisenzeit, Mittelmeer, Dendrochronologie, Überkreuzdatierung

Absolute dates are few and far between in the period from the 11th to the 9th century BC in the Mediterranean. How-ever, there is one region, some distance removed from the sea, where a high-quality series of dendrochronological dates has been developed: the lake-shore settlements of Switzerland, eastern France and south-west Germany. In turn, these north-west Alpine regions are connected by traditions of bronze metalworking with northern, central and even southern Italy. Here I explore the question whether the dendro-dates of the lake-shore settlements can provide absolute dating anchors for the Italian peninsula. If so, the Italian sequence can then provide additional evidence for dating contacts between the East, Central and West Mediterranean.

Before the discussion of contacts within the Mediterra-nean, mainly concentrating on fibulae and swords, it is necessary to trace the chronological links from Switzer-land across the Alps to the Po valley, and then through central and southern Italy. The aim of this analysis is to identify the main chronological horizons in Italy within Bronzo Finale (BF) and at the start of the Early Iron Age (Primo Ferro, PF) and, as far as possible, link them with the dendrochronological sequence north-west of the Alps1. 1 The chronological scheme used here for Italy is different in some details from those normally used in current Italian research. Primo Ferro

SWITZERLAND AND THE RSFO

Since first writing on the question of late Urnfield and early Hallstatt chronology in Central Europe in the 1990s2, considerable and welcome progress has been made, particularly in Switzerland and in the area north-west of the Alps (so-called Rhin-Suisse-France orientale or RSFO Urnfield group). This new work will be summa-rised very briefly. On the one hand, new publications of cemeteries confirmed the relative chronology devised by L. Sperber3: most important are publications by A. Matter on Regensdorf-Adlikon4, W. Brestrich on Singen5, and P. Moinat and M. David-Elbiali on Lausanne-Vidy6. On the other hand, work continued evaluating the implications of dendrochronological dates from the Swiss lake-shore settlements for the fine chronology of the later Urnfield (PF) IB corresponds to Villanoviano tipico, PF IC is a transitional stage to Villanoviano evoluto (PF II). In the terminology used here the last stage of Bronzo Finale (BF 3b) is contemporary with the first stage of Primo Ferro (PF IA): in the second half of the 10th century BC some regions of Italy are classified as terminal Bronze Age (Bronzo Finale/BF 3b) while others are classified as initial Early Iron Age (Primo Ferro/PF IA). 2 Pare 1998; Pare 1999a. 3 Sperber 1987. 4 Matter 1992. 5 Brestrich 1998. 6 Moinat – David-Elbiali 2003.

A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY

78

Fig. 5.1. Overview of the main chronological schemes for the later Urnfield period (Ha B) in the area north-west of the Alps

period (Ha B), with important results published in volume 3 of “La Suisse du Paléolithique à l’aube du Moyen-Age”7.

The present state of research has been summarised clearly in recent publications by P. Moinat, M. David-Elbiali and C. Dunning8; an overview of the main chronological schemes is shown here on Fig. 5.1. For the area north-west of the Alps it is possible to identify five phases within the younger and late Urnfield period: Ha B1a, Ha B1b, Ha B2, Ha B3a and Ha B3b. Considering the fluid development over the period in question (mid 11th–9th century BC), exemplified in a diagram by V. Rychner9, a schematic absolute chronology in half-centuries – as proposed by Dunning, Moinat and David-Elbiali – has much to commend it. Nevertheless, it is important to stress the point that some of these phases were probably longer than others. “Classic Ha B1”, or Ha B1b in the Swiss terminology, might have been longer than the early Ha B1 phase with elements of Ha A2 metalwork (Ha B1a in the Swiss terminology). Likewise “classic Ha B3”, or Swiss Ha B3a, might have been longer than Ha B2 or Ha B3b. Take for example the phase Ha B1a: is this a long phase occupying the middle and the whole of the second half of the 11th century BC, or a short phase mainly occupying the middle of the century (around 1060–1035 BC)? As for the following phase, the end of the Ha B1b lake-shore settlements seems to correspond with a phase of climatic crisis north-west of the Alps around 963–954 BC10, heralding the start of Ha B2; but the precise end of Ha B2, sometime in the late 10th century BC, is unclear. The tree-ring dates still allow room for differences of opinion on these questions. As the Swiss dates are of fundamental importance for the arguments in this article, 7 Bolliger-Schreyer – Seifert 1998; Rychner 1998. 8 Moinat – David-Elbiali 2003; David-Elbiali – Dunning 2005. 9 Rychner 1995, 483 fig. 24. 10 Billamboz 2004/05, 103 fig. 6 a.

it is worth stating clearly the strengths and weaknesses of the information. For the sake of clarity the phases and their dates are summarised:

Ha B1a: ca. 1060 – 1035/1010 BC

Ha B1b: 1035/1010 – ca. 960/950 BC

Ha B2: ca. 960/950 – ca. 910 BC

Ha B3a: ca. 910 BC – ca. 850/830 BC

Ha B3b: ca. 850/830 – 810/780 BC

In view of the recent publications by P. Moinat, M. David-Elbiali and C. Dunning there is no need to discuss the foundations of this chronology in any detail. We may simply mention some of the sites which play a crucial role: Greifensee-Böschen, Hauterive-Champré-veyres, Zug-Sumpf, Hagnau-Burg, Zürich-Großer Hafner and Cortaillod-Est for the definition of the phases Ha B1a and B1b, Le Landeron for the start of Ha B2, and Hauterive-Champréveyres, Auvernier-Nord, Mörigen, Chindrieux-Châtillon and Ürschhausen-Horn for distinguishing Ha B3a and B3b. Tumulus 8 from Wehringen “Hexenbergle” (Kr. Augsburg), with a tree-ring date of 778 ± 5 BC is still crucial for dating the start of the Hallstatt period11.

The aim of this article is instead to address the question whether the tree-ring dates of the north-west Alpine lake-shore settlements can contribute to the wider debate on chronology in the Mediterranean region around the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age. As the lake-shore settlements do not contain imports from far-distant lands, which could potentially provide direct dating evidence, it is necessary to look in detail at the relationship with the cultural groups directly to the south of the Alps, which provide some basis for more far-reaching conclusions. 11 Friedrich 2001.

C. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN

79

Fig. 5.2. Synchronisation between chronological phases for the Urnfield period in the area north-west of the Alps and in northern Italy

BETWEEN THE ALPS AND THE APENNINES

At the Rome conference in 2003 a detailed treatment of late Protogolasecca and early Golasecca chronology in north-west Italy was presented by R. C. De Marinis and F. M. Gambari. Basing their conclusions particularly on grave finds from Morano sul Po (Prov. Alessandria) and Como-Ca’Morta, the authors were able to demonstrate contacts linking Protogolasecca II/Ascona II with Ha B1a, Protogolasecca III/Ca’Morta-Malpensa with Ha B1b, and Golasecca IA1 with Ha B312. At the same conference there was also considerable debate on the chronological relevance of the pins with small vase-shaped heads and engraved shaft, particularly common in graves from Bologna, and typical for Ha B3a north of the Alps. In an earlier publication, I suggested that this type of pin demonstrates the contemporaneity of Ha B3 and Bologna IA–B13. Despite the criticism of over-simplification by R. Peroni and A. Vanzetti14, I am convinced that these pins provide a reliable foundation – based on tree-ring dates – for dating Bologna IA to the first half of the 9th century BC15.

As these questions were reviewed in detail by scholars at the recent Rome conference, my view of the present state 12 De Marinis – Gambari 2005. See also David-Elbiali – Dunning 2005, 172 f. 13 Following the work of A. Mäder, today it is clear that the engraved pins actually indicate a link between Ha B3a and Bologna IA; see Mäder 2001, 51 fig. 34 (“Strichstil”). – A local Bolognese variant of this pin type seems to have been developed in Bologna IB; see Pare 1998, 301 fig. 1, 17. 23; p. 311 fig. 7 (types 17 and 23). – For a pin of the Bolognese variant from Como-Ca’Morta grave 289, see De Marinis – Gambari 2005, 218 pl. 5. 14 Peroni – Vanzetti 2005. 15 For the same opinion, see De Marinis 2005, 27. – De Marinis (p. 22 note 34) correctly noted some mistakes in my 1998 article: in particular, types 46 and 47 were mistakenly swopped on the seriation table (Pare 1998, Beilage I).

of research can be summarised in tabular form without further discussion (Fig. 5.2). Instead it is more important to concentrate on finds of Bronzo Finale in the Veneto. Grave finds particularly from Frattesina (Fratta Polesine, Prov. Rovigo), but also from Fontanella Grazioli (Prov. Mantova) and Gazzo Veronese (Prov. Verona), are of considerable importance, as they demonstrate links not only with the area north of the Alps, but also with regions further south in Italy and beyond.

Two finds characteristic for north Italian BF 2, Fontanella grave 7 and Frattesina, Narde grave 227 deserve mention first (Fig. 5.5, A3–8). Both graves contain bronze flange-hilted knives of Fontanella type, associated in Fontanella grave 7 with a pin of type Ala, variant A and in Frattesina grave 227 with a pin with three globules. This combination of types is also found north-west of the Alps: the knife blades correspond to A.-M. Rychner-Faraggi’s Form 216, and similar pins are found in Greifensee-Böschen, Zürich-Großer Hafner layer 3, Hauterive-Champréveyres zone A–B/layer 3 and Hagnau-Burg17. These parallels provide a reliable date for Fontanella grave 7 and Frattesina, Narde grave 227 corresponding to Ha B1a, or the mid/late 11th century BC18. Owing to the identical pins of type Fontanella, variant A in Fontanella graves 7 and 10, the latter grave with a razor of type Fontanella should be assigned the same date (Fig. 5.5, A1. 16 Rychner-Faraggi 1993, 40–43 pl. 31, 7–9; 32; 33, 1. – G. L. Carancini and R. Peroni have recently introduced a new knife type “Tragno/ Narde”; however, the Narde grave 227 knife is clearly different to Tragno and all the other late Matrei knives; see Carancini – Peroni 1999, 58 no. 51. 17 David-Elbiali – Dunning 2005, 179 pl. 1, 2. 5. 6. 7. – For the pin with three globules, see examples in the hoard from Lešany, okr. Prostějov, Moravia: Říhovský 1979, pl. 30, 561. 562. 18 The most important context is from Hauterive-Champréveyres, with tree-ring dates ranging between 1054 and 1037 BC: see David-Elbiali – Dunning 2005, 152–154.


80

Fig. 5.3. Synchronisation between regional chronologies for the BF and PF from different parts of Italy and their relationship to the chronological phases in Central Europe

Fig. 5.4. Synchronisation between chronological schemes for the Late Bronze Age of Central Europe and different parts of the Mediterranean

2). These associations provide a date for knives of Fonta-nella type, which is important in view of similar knives in contexts such as the hoard from Monte Primo (Prov. Macerata)19 or the grave from Castellace (Prov. Reggio Calabria)20.

19 Peroni 1963, I.7. 20 Pacciarelli 2001, 48. 196. 192 fig. 111, 1.

There are further finds from Frattesina which provide additional information on the later part of Bronzo Finale. Most important are Narde grave 39, Zanotto graves 41/1980 and III/1978 and Frattesina hoard I (Fig. 5.6, A. B. E. F). All four contexts have fibulae with triangular outline (“knee-fibulae”), with or without a loop at the knee; in some cases the wire bow is formed by a series of figures-of-eight (Fig. 5.6, A3. B2. F3). Simple semi-


81

Fig. 5.5. A Graves with pins and knives of BF 2 in northern Italy: 1. 2 Fontanella, grave 10; 3. 4 Frattesina, Narde grave 227; 5–8 Fontanella, grave 7; B Fibulae from the Limone hoard, typical for BF 3a


82

circular arched fibulae with twisted bow are also represented. Narde grave 39 also has a fragment of an arched fibula with three swellings (Fig. 5.6, E3; compare Narde grave 52, Fig. 5.2, E7), and a fragment of a serpentine fibula with rectangular outline (Fig. 5.6, E4; compare Bismantova, Fig. 5.6, E8). The concave curve of the Bismantova fibula bow is repeated in a related serpentine fibula from Frattesina, Zanotto grave III/1978 (Fig. 5.6, F1). In Frattesina hoard I the fibulae are associated, among other things, with a pin of Verucchio type and amber beads of Tiryns and Allumiere types (Fig. 5.6, B). A similar pin is associated with a knife of Vadena type in Frattesina hoard IV (Fig. 5.6, C). As an amber bead of Allumiere type has been found in a Ha B1a context at Hauterive-Champréveyres21, and the pins and knife from hoards I and IV are similar to examples already discussed (Fig. 5.5, A), a date corresponding to Ha B1a might be suggested for these contexts. For typological reasons, the Vadena type of flange- hilted knife is normally dated later than the Fonta- nella type (some Vadena knives have a blade of Rychner-Faraggi’s form 3, which starts in Ha B1b)22. However, it is not unlikely that Vadena knives already came into production at the same time as the Fontanella type, in the mid/late 11th century BC (BF 2) – the date also suggested for the hoard of Poggio Berni (Prov. Forlì)23.

Among the objects from the Frattesina graves, the serpentine fibulae with concave curved back and knee-loop (Fig. 5.6, E1. E4. E8. F1), together with fragments of heavily ribbed serpentine fibulae with straight pins from Narde grave 80 and Zanotto grave 21/197924 (Fig. 5.6, G) should be assigned a slightly later date than the triangular fibulae with straight shanks (Fig. 5.6, A1. 2. 4; B1. 3. 5), already in BF 3a. Fragments of comparable fibulae have been found at Morano sul Po (grave 5/1994) and Angarano (grave 42) together with pins of type Fiavè and pins with cylindro-conical head which – according to Morano sul Po grave 1/1995 – were used during the first half of the 10th century BC (Ha B1b)25. Furthermore at Celano (Abruzzo), a fibula of this kind has been dated by A. Nijboer to around 1000 BC by 14C and wiggle-matching26. Comparable serpentine fibulae are known from the hoard of Limone (Prov. Livorno): these examples again have the typical concave curve of the bow (Fig. 5.5, B5; compare Fig. 5.6, E1. F1. G) and are associated with arched fibulae with thickened bow, in one case with three swellings (Fig. 5.5, B3; compare Fig. 5.6, 21 Rychner-Faraggi 1993, pl. 124, 6. 7. 22 Bianco-Peroni 1976, 19–23. 23 Morico 1984. – For parallels between the swords from Poggio Berni and Castellace, see Pacciarelli 2001, 191. 196. – For the development from Matrei to Vadena knives, see De Marinis 1999, 529 fig. 12, 6; p. 531 fig. 13, 8 (Lavagnone). 24 Associated with the fibula in grave 21/1979 is a bowl with n-shaped “motivi angolari”; see Bietti Sestieri et al. 2001, 127. 25 Angarano grave 42, see Bianchin Citton 1982. – Morano sul Po grave 5/1994 and grave 1/1995 (with “Bombenkopfnadel”), see Gambari 1999. 26 The results are reported by Nijboer in this volume. – On the Celano graves, see D’Ercole 1998; Cosentino 1999.

E3. 7). These contexts with earliest serpentine fibulae (Fig. 5.6, E1. 8. F1. G; Fig. 5.5, B5–8) are typical for Bronzo Finale 3a.

Finally we should mention one further important context from Frattesina: Zanotto grave 31/1980 has a more developed serpentine fibula with curved pin and sheet bronze foot, associated with an urn with complex engraved decoration including the “n-ramificata” motif, a type of decoration dated by N. Negroni Catacchio to the later part of BF 327 (Fig. 5.7, A) – corresponding to BF 3b as described by M. Pacciarelli28. Whereas the two-piece serpentine fibulae in BF 3a typically have a straight pin (Fig. 5.6, G; Fig. 5.5, B6–8), and those in the Early Iron Age (for example Bologna IA) often have a D-shaped pin29, the fibulae in BF 3b have a more gently curving pin and clearly define a separate chronological phase (see for example Fig. 5.7, A3. B2. C. D; the same is true for the one-piece serpentine fibulae: Fig. 5.7, E). It is important to note that a two-piece fibula of this kind is associated in Gazzo Veronese grave 74 with a razor of type Herrenbaumgarten (Fig. 5.7, B1), which indicates a chronological link between BF 3b south of the Alps with Ha B2 in the north30. The development of arched fibulae from female graves is more difficult to pursue; however, the selection from Gazzo Veronese grave 96 can be assigned with some confidence to BF 3b (Fig. 5.7, F).

In the preceding paragraphs I argued for a division of Bronzo Finale into four phases, corresponding to the following phases north of the Alps; typical hoards are given as examples:

Ha A1/2 BF 1 Gualdo Tadino

Ha B1a BF 2 Coste del Marano

Ha B1b BF 3a Limone

Ha B2 BF 3b Piediluco

The distinction between BF 2 and 3a is based partly on typological considerations: in my opinion the triangular fibulae with straight shanks, along with simple arched fibulae with twisted bow (e.g. Fig. 5.6, A. B) start in BF 2, whereas the serpentine fibulae with concave-curved bow (e.g. Fig. 5.6, E. F. G; Fig. 5.5, B5–8) begin in BF 3a. The fibula from Celano, dated by Nijboer to around 1000 BC, provides an absolute date for the latter phase31. A second support for the distinction between these two phases is provided by bronze hoards, for which the difference between BF 2 (palette a cannone and pani a piccone are 27 See Bietti Sestieri et al. 2001, 129. 28 Pacciarelli 2001, 36–39. – For typical finds of BF 3b see, for example, Volterra, Le Ripaie: Zanini 1997, 181–185. 29 See for example graves in Bologna IA: Pare 1998, 301 fig. 1, 6. – Ponte Nuovo di Gazzo Veronese: De Marinis 1999, 540 fig. 18, 3. 30 Razors of type Herrenbaumgarten differ from type Oblekovice/ Fontanella in having the triangular protrusion close to the handle; see: Jockenhövel 1971, 205–209; Weber 1996, 234–244. 31 See note 26.


83

Fig. 5.6. Objects from graves and hoards of BF 2 (A-D) and BF 3a (E-G) from Frattesina: A Zanotto grave 41/1980; B Hoard I; C Hoard IV; D Hoard II; E1–6 Narde grave 39 (E7 Narde grave 52 and E8 Bismantova are shown

as suggested reconstructions for E3. 4); F Zanotto grave III/1978; G Zanotto grave 21/1979


84

Fig. 5.7. Grave finds of BF 3b in north-east Italy: A Frattesina, Zanotto grave 31/80; B Gazzo Veronese, grave 74; C Gazzo Veronese, grave 134; D Angarano; E Gazzo Veronese, grave 111; F Gazzo Veronese, grave 96


85

particularly characteristic) and BF 3 is widely accepted by scholars32. And finally, the last stage in Bronzo Finale, BF 3b, seems reliably founded on both grave and hoard evidence33.

In this context it is worth drawing attention to the question of the correlation of the start of Bronzo Finale with the Central European sequence. As argued here, BF 2 is assigned a date in the mid/late 11th century BC. The links between BF 2 and Ha B1a seem convincing, not only on account of the graves from Frattesina and Fontanella mentioned above. A number of other bronzes from BF 2 hoards, including flanged axes34, spearheads35, Fontanella and Vadena knives36, and pani a piccone37 are found in Ha B1 contexts (hoard horizon IV) in the Carpathian Basin and north of the Alps.

This leaves us with the question of BF 1, for which I suggest a date in the late 12th and first half of the 11th century BC (according to Aegean parallels, the beginning of BF 1 should be set between 1140 and 1100 BC, see below). Should BF 1 be paralleled with Ha A2 or Ha A1 north of the Alps? Dendrochronological research on finds from Elgg-Breiti, Canton Zürich, is relevant for this question. “Early Br D” material from Elgg-Breiti has been dated to the second half of the 13th century BC (1230 BC or later), suggesting that “later Br D” continued for some time into the first half of the 12th century BC38. This would suggest a correspondingly lower start for Ha A1, perhaps the second quarter of the 12th century BC (probably not before 1180/1170 BC). Furthermore, R. Jung39 argues that swords of Allerona/Stätzling type began in the East Mediterranean in advanced LH IIIC, indicating that Ha A1 continued into the second half of the same century. Given the dendrochronological date for the beginning of Ha B1a by ca. 1060 BC, and the end of Br D2 not earlier than ca. 1180/1170 BC, the transition from Ha A1 to A2 must be located in the late 12th century BC (ca. 1125/1100 BC). According to this reasoning, BF 1 mainly ran parallel with Ha A2 north of the Alps, while Ha A1 should mainly be linked to the latest part of Bronzo Recente. 32 For a useful summary, see Carancini – Peroni 1999. 33 See Pacciarelli 2001, 36–39. 34 See for example the axes with protruding flanges from Frattesina hoard II (Fig. 5.6, D), Poggio Berni and Casalecchio, and parallels north of the Alps: Teržan 1996, 68 fig. 3 (distribution map); see also Merklingen: Schauer 1971, pl. 145, C. 35 See for example the spearhead of München-Widenmayerstr. type from the Poggio Berni hoard: Morico 1984, 19 fig. 2, 5; cf. Pare 1998, Beilage III, 1; Pare 1999a, Beilage VI, 5; Beilage VII, 3. 36 See particularly the knives of type Pfatten/Vadena, for example discussed in Müller-Karpe 1949/50. 37 For distribution maps, see: Trampuž Orel – Heath 2001, 156 fig. 13; Bachmann et al. 2002/03, 93 fig. 13. 38 Mäder – Sormaz 2000. – In the Nordic Zone, late Period II (contemporary with Br C2 in Central Europe) is dated to the second and third quarter of the 14th century BC; according to the Danish oak coffins, the transition from Period II to III (corresponding with the transition from Br C2 to D in Central Europe) dates between 1340 and 1319 BC. See Randsborg – Christensen 2006. 39 Jung 2006, 208.

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN ITALY

The latest phase of Bronzo Finale in the Po valley has clear links to BF 3b in Umbria and Etruria, best known from the hoards of Piediluco/“Contigliano” type40. Among the characteristic types are heavily ribbed serpentine fibulae of the developed kind already encountered in Frattesina, Gazzo Veronese and Angarano41 (Fig. 5.7, A–E), knives with wide blades of type Piediluco42, heavy thickened arched fibulae43 and fibulae with flanged torsion44. It is important to note that this horizon has clear parallels in Latial phase IIA1 and particularly in Torre Galli IA45. By contrast, it is uncertain to what extent (and which) Villanovan centres were already intensively settled at this time46. It is important to note that in the second half of the 10th century BC (corresponding to Ha B2 north of the Alps), some parts of Italy are still classified as belonging to the end of Bronzo Finale (north Italy, Etruria: “BF 3b”) whereas in other areas major Iron Age settlements and cemeteries have already come into prominence (Calabria, Latium: “PF IA”).

With the start of the Iron Age, earlier in Calabria and Latium (mid 10th century BC), slightly later (ca. 900 BC) in Campania, Etruria and Emilia-Romagna, the large inhumation and cremation cemeteries provide a much sounder basis for chronology. It is not necessary here to discuss the state of research in detail; instead my understanding of the situation is represented in Fig. 5.3, which shows a number of important local sequences between the Po valley and Sicily47.

Finally, the Italian BF 3b/PF IA horizon (second half of the 10th century BC) can be traced further to Sicily (Pantalica 2b), where Cassibile fibulae48 clearly represent a contemporary phenomenon. Recently, M. Turco has argued for a division of the Pantalica 2 phase, based mainly on the development of arched fibulae: Pantalica 2a is characterised by lightly thickened arched fibulae and early forms of knee-fibula, 2b in contrast by heavily 40 Piediluco I (Mus. Pigorini): Müller-Karpe 1959, 74 fig. 5 pl. 48–52, A. – Piediluco II/“Contigliano” (Mus. Naz. Perugia): Ponzi Bonomi 1970. – Piediluco III (Mus. Copenhagen): Dietz 1982. – Elba: Kilian 1975. – Goluzzo: Müller-Karpe 1959, pl. 47. – Santa Marinella: Bastianelli 1934. 41 Some of the fibulae have a sheet bronze foot. – See, for example: Ponzi Bonomi 1970, 117 fig. 8, 20–21; Müller-Karpe 1959, pls. 47, 7; 48, 11. – In Piediluco I and II there are apparently fragments of later fibulae: Müller-Karpe 1959, pl. 48, 14; Ponzi Bonomi 1970, 117 fig. 8, 25. 42 Bianco Peroni 1976, 64–66. 43 For example: Müller-Karpe 1959, pls. 47, 2. 5; 48, 17–19; Ponzi Bonomi 1970, 117 fig. 8, 1. 7. 12. 44 For example: Bastianelli 1934, 447 fig. 3, b–d; Müller-Karpe 1959, pl. 48, 1–3; Kilian 1975, pl. 34, 7; Ponzi Bonomi 1970, 117 fig. 8, 5. 45 For Torre Galli, see: Pacciarelli 1999, fig. 10. – For Osteria dell’Osa, for example fibulae from graves 104, 122, 153, 149 etc. (arched fibulae) and 75, 139, 363, 371, 452 (serpentine fibulae), see: Bietti Sestieri 1992. 46 See the discussion in Pacciarelli 1999, 56 f. 47 Many details in this correlation of the Iron Age sequences have been derived from Pacciarelli 1999. 48 A useful introduction to the Cassibile phase is provided in Turco 2000.


86

Fig. 5.8. Grave inventories from Madonna del Piano (Catania): A grave 26; B grave 194


87

thickened arched fibulae and the typical Cassibile fibula type49. Furthermore, Turco notes that the Cassibile fibulae themselves apparently underwent a development from ligh-ter forms with straight shanks50 (e.g. Fig. 5.12, 1) to hea-vier, thickened forms51 (e.g. Fig. 5.12, 2, and see below).

The two recently excavated graves 26 and 194 from Molino della Badia, Madonna del Piano (Prov. Catania), along with the Calabrian grave finds from Castellace, date before the Piediluco/Torre Galli IA/Pantalica 2b horizon (Fig. 5.8). Parallels for the fibulae can be mentioned, for example, from Limone in the case of the arched fibula in grave 194 (compare Fig. 5.8, B2 with Fig. 5.5, B4), or from Frattesina for the fibula in grave 2652 (Fig. 5.8, A4; the bow the fibula is slightly concave, a feature typical of BF 3a, see for example Fig. 5.6, E1. F1; Fig. 5.5, B5).

The short-sword from Madonna del Piano grave 26 was provided with a bronze sheet scabbard with scale-like decoration and a characteristic chape with terminal button53 (Fig. 5.8, A1–3). A similar sword and scabbard is known from southern Italy, but without a precise provenance (Fig. 5.9, B1); as in the case of Madonna del Piano grave 26, a BF 3a date is preferable. This type of chape, along with decorated scabbards and elaborate scabbard-mouths, became more common in Primo Ferro IA, as examples from Torre Galli show54, and the type was transmitted up the Adriatic Sea and even into the Carpathian Basin. In Trilj (Fig. 5.9, B2) and in Celldömölk-Sághegy hoard II (Fig. 5.9, B3) the scabbards contained bronze swords corresponding to an Aegean iron type known from Lefkandi and Athens from Late Protogeometric and Early Geometric graves55. Further examples come from Vergina in phase IIIA, which according to I. Kilian-Dirlmeier began around 925 BC56. Finally, similar scabbard components are found with solid-hilted swords, once again from Celldömölk-Sághegy hoard II (Fig. 5.9, B4) and from Kastav (Fig. 5.9, B5). 49 Turco 2000, 88–91. 50 For example Modica: Giardino 1995, 24 fig. 11, 14. – Compare the Cassibile fibula from Modica with two-looped examples in graves from Castiglione di Paludi: Bianco Peroni 1979, pl. 92, F; 93, A. – The swords from Modica belong to the Torre Galli type, found in Torre Galli already in the earliest phase of the cemetery. 51 For example Castelluccio: Di Stefano – Giardino 1990/91, 516 fig. 22, 74. 52 For the greaves from grave 26, see Clausing 2002, 164 fig. 8. 53 Another very similar short-sword and chape come from Madonna del Piano, grave 40, see: Albanese Procelli – Lo Schiavo 2004, 405 fig. 1, 2. – A mould for this type of chape has been found at Morgantina, dating to phase IB of the settlement; see: Leighton 1993, pl. 156, 661. – For a sword of type Torre Galli, with a similar chape, from the cemetery of Molino della Badia, see: La Rosa 1989, fig. 18. - For possible Atlantic predecessors for this type of chape, see: Hein 1989, 315 fig. 5. 54 For examples with ivory hilt and scabbard-mouth elements, see for example graves 34 and 65: Pacciarelli 1999, pls. 29, 10. 11; 56, 6. 7. 55 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993, nos. 274. 275. 278. 280. 321. – For an iron sword of this type from Škocjan/San Canziano, “Mušja jama”, see: Szombathy 1937, 98 fig. 92. – For a discussion of these swords, see: Harding 1995, 55–58. 56 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993, 124 f. (e.g. nos. 360. 361. 363). – For the start of Vergina IIIA at ca. 950/920 BC, and for a comparison of the Vergina sequence with other regions of the Balkans, see: Pare 1998, 336–339.

These swords represent the final stage of development of bowl-pommel swords (Schalenknaufschwerter) and for typological reasons can be understood as typical for the phase Ha B2 in the Carpathian Basin. The same date is indicated by the Celldömölk-Sághegy hoards. As for the iron parallels for the flange-hilted swords from Trilj and Sághegy (Fig. 5.9, B2. 3) from the Aegean, a similar date in the second half of the 10th century BC seems likely: with the earliest well dated examples coming from Late Protogeometric contexts and from Vergina in phase IIIA. After the introduction of the scabbard form in BF 3a, various styles of armament were used together in the Adriatic in BF 3b/PF IA: Italic, Greek and Central European. The new scabbard type was used with all these kinds of sword, suggesting the contemporaneity of BF 3b/PF IA, Late Protogeometric and Ha B2 in the second half of the 10th century BC.

Two swords from BF 3b contexts in west central Italy, the hoard from “Contigliano” (Fig. 5.9, A1) and the grave from Montagna di Campo on Elba (Fig. 5.9, A2), may be compared with a third sword from Brežec, grave 124/5 which was sheathed in a scabbard of the kind discussed above57 (Fig. 5.9, A3, compare Fig. 5.9, B4). All three swords share the common feature of having a rounded swelling on the lower part of their hilts. If we may consider this as a characteristic feature of BF 3b swords, then we once again find a link with Ha B2 in the area north of the Alps, as exactly this feature is found on the fore-runners of the well-known Ha B3 solid-hilted swords of Auvernier and Weltenburg type58 (Fig. 5.9, A4–6).

The swords on Fig. 5.9 provide a strong indication that Italian BF 3b/PF IA can be regarded as contemporary with Central European Ha B2, as was also noted above on the basis of the razor of Herrenbaumgarten type from Gazzo Veronese, grave 74 (Fig. 5.7, B1).

CONTACTS WITH THE EAST AND WEST MEDITERRANEAN

Bronzo Finale 1

Fibulae provide a useful starting point for a review of the international relations of Italy in Bronzo Finale. Fortunately, we now have available the study by R. Jung on the comparative chronology of southern Greece and southern Italy from LH I–IIIC59. Among other things, he collected information on “transitional” forms between late violin-bow60 and arched fibulae (Fig. 5.10, A), which at 57 Apart from the example from Celldömölk-Sághegy (Fig. 5.9, B4), compare also a scabbard from Škocjan/San Canziano, “Mušja jama”, see: Szombathy 1937, 147 fig. 91. 58 For a discussion of the origins of the Auvernier and Weltenburg swords (v. Quillfeldt types Corcelettes, Riedlingen, Auvernier, Hosto-mice), see: v. Quillfeldt 1995, 206–213. 216–225. 59 Jung 2006. 60 The later violin-bow fibulae are characterised by a high foot, giving the fibula a triangular outline. Compare the Mühlau variant found in the Alps and around the Caput Adriae: Betzler 1974, 11–13.


88

Fig. 5.9. A Swords of BF 3b/Ha B2: 1 Piediluco II/“Contigliano”; 2 Montagna del Campo; 3 Škocjan-Brežec, grave 124/125; 4 Weinheim; 5 Kirschgartshausen; 6 unprovenanced (Moravia?); B Swords of BF 3a (1) and BF 3b/Ha B2 (2–5): 1 Southern Italy; 2 Trilj; 3. 4 Celldömölk-Sághegy, hoard II; 5 Kastav (B Not to scale)


89

Fig. 5.10. A. B Latest Mycenean and Submycenean fibulae: A1 Perati, chamber-tomb 74; A2 Elátia, chamber-tomb 12; A3 Pilóna, chamber-tomb 4; B1 Lefkandi, Skoubris grave 22; B2 Athens, Kerameikos grave 33; B3 Athens, Kerameikos grave 108; B4 Athens, Kerameikos grave 44; B5 Athens, Kerameikos

grave 42; B6 Athens, Kerameikos grave 108; B7 Lefkandi, Skoubris grave 15B; B8 Lefkandi, Skoubris grave 19; B9 Lefkandi, Skoubris grave 43; C Italian pins of BF 2 (1. 2) compared with Submycenean pins from

Athens and Lefkandi (3–7): C1 Fontanella, grave 7; C2 Frattesina, hoard I; C3. 4 Lefkandi, Skoubris grave 62; C5 Athens, Kerameikos SM grave 41; C6. 7 Athens, Kerameikos SM grave 70


90

sites such as Perati, Argos, Elátia, Trípes, Mouliana (Crete) and Pilóna (Rhodes), can be dated to LH IIIC-late, although a possible start in LH IIIC-advanced cannot be excluded. This is most important for Italy, because these kinds of fibula, particularly examples with miniature foot-disc and earliest forms with stilted bow, characterise the start of Bronzo Finale (BF 1)61. Related fibulae can be mentioned, for example, from Fucino, Milazzo and Gualdo Tadino. Clearly, this suggests a lower date for the start of BF 1 (1140/1100 BC) than has hitherto been estimated – providing of course that the conventional chronology in the Aegean is correct (ca. 1150/1140–1100/1090 BC for LH IIIC-advanced, ca. 1100/1090–1060 BC for LH IIIC-late). Mycenean pottery in Italian settlements (mainly Broglio di Trebisacce and Torre Mordillo in the Sibaritide) also indicates that the transition from Bronzo Recente 2 to Bronzo Finale 1 should be located during LH IIIC-advanced62.

Bronzo Finale 2

The arched fibulae with symmetrical twisted bow (e.g. Fig. 5.10, B4), the stilted fibulae (often with two knobs, e.g. Fig. 5.10, B2. 5) and the asymmetrical arched fibulae (e.g. Fig. 5.10, B8) of the Submycenean period are quite distinct from LH IIIC forms, and provide good parallels for BF 2 fibulae in Italy: this is clear not only for the symmetrical arched fibulae with twisted bow, but particularly for the stilted examples with two knobs, for example from Casalmoro (Prov. Mantova)63, Coste del Marano (Prov. Rome)64, Pantalica Nord and Caltagirone (Sicily)65.

The contemporaneity of BF 2 and Submycenean is underlined by the use of similar pins in north-east Italy and the Aegean. According to I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, paired bronze pins were first worn in the Aegean during the Submycenean period (“Typengruppe A”), when examples with a swollen neck (sometimes facetted) and thickened head came into use (Fig. 5.10, C3–7)66. These are similar – if not identical – to the pins of types Verucchio and Fontanella described by G. L. Carancini (Fig. 5.10, C1. 2)67, and it is not unlikely that this mode of dress reached Greece from the west – quite likely via the Adriatic coast (Albania) from north-east Italy.

It is, of course, well known that Italy, the Aegean and Cyprus were in contact at this time. The exotic finds from 61 Bietti Sestieri 1973, 402–404. 62 Jung 2006. See also Alberti – M. Bettelli 2005. 63 De Marinis 1999, 524 fig. 8, 4. 5. 7. 64 Peroni 1961, I.1 nos. 11–14. 65 Pantalica Nord: Orsi 1912, pl. 6, 22. – Montagna di Caltagirone: Tanasi 2004, 434 fig. 21. 66 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1984, 66–69. 67 Carancini 1975, 207–211. – Furthermore, note the curious so-called “Stangenbuckel” from Athens, Kerameikos PG grave 24 (transition from Submycenean to early Protogeometric or early Protogeometric) and from Kelheim, grave 213 (transition from SB IIc to IIIa1 in the termi-nology of L. Sperber); see: Müller-Karpe 1962, 88 fig. 6, 10; p. 115 fig. 35, 4.

Frattesina offer the clearest evidence68; another well known piece is an ivory comb of a type commonly found at Frattesina from Enkomi in a Late Cypriot IIIB1 context69 – perhaps corresponding to a date around the first half of the 11th century BC70. Contact is also demon-strated by the distribution of amber beads of Tiryns and Allumiere type71 (Fig. 5.13). It is surely no coincidence that fibulae related to BF 2 in Italy are often found in the same areas as the amber beads. At Dridu (Wallachia), a two-looped stilted fibula and a symmetrical arched fibula were found in a hoard together with a bead of Allumiere type (Fig. 5.11, A) and on the north-west coast of the Black Sea we can mention the beads of Tiryns type72 from Hordeevka on the Southern Bug in eastern Podolia, and M. Kašuba has recently drawn attention to a series of two-looped knee-fibulae with triangular outline of the type we have already encountered in Frattesina in BF 273 (e.g. Fig. 5.11, B4–7; compare Fig. 5.6, A1. 2. B5). Finally it is worth mentioning a similar fibula with swollen bow and one knob from Hama in Syria74, not far from the Tiryns amber beads from Ugarit and Achziv75.

A possible route for the contacts shown by the fibulae and amber beads between the northern Adriatic and the Black Sea along the Save and the lower Danube has been suggested by M. Kašuba76, and a similar exchange network along the Save and Danube has also been postulated by N. Trampuž Orel77. Apart from the fibulae and amber beads from Wallachia and the north-west Black Sea coast, mentioned above (Fig. 5.11, A; B4–7), the two-looped fibulae from Korbovo, Drmno, Mala Vrbica and Vajuga-Pesak also deserve mention78 (Fig. 5.11, B1–3). These finds seem to show a route of contact running between the northern Adriatic and the lower Danube and Black Sea and it is probably no coincidence that this region forms the southern extent of the rich bronze production of the eastern Urnfield culture – centred in the Carpathian Basin but with numerous hoards

68 See for example Cassola Guida 1999; Bietti Sestieri – De Grossi Mazzorin 1995. – For imported LH IIIC-late and Protogeometric pottery from Frattesina, see: Bietti Sestieri 1982; Jones – Vagnetti 1991, 134. 139. 69 Enkomi, upper layer of grave 6 of the French excavations: Vagnetti 1986, 212 fig. 4, 4. 70 For a discussion of LC IIIB absolute chronology, see for example: Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 65. 71 On Tiryns and Allumiere beads, see: Negroni Catacchio 1999; Eder 2003, 54 fig. 3; Steinhauser – Primas 1987; Harding 2000, 191 fig. 5.12; Bellintani 1997, 117 f. 72 On the date of Tiryns beads in the Aegean (later LH IIIC and Submycenean) see: Metzner-Nebelsick 2005, 308 note 69. 73 Kašuba forthcoming. 74 Pedde 2000, pl. 2, 14. – Note also the similar fibula from the Sliven region in Bulgaria: Gergova 1987, pl. 8, 101. 75 Negroni Catacchio 1999. 76 Kašuba forthcoming. 77 Trampuž-Orel – Heath 2001, 143–171; e.g. 156 fig. 13. – Further evidence for contact is provided by female dress ornaments: compare for example Castions di Strada and Dridu: Castions di Strada, Evade Viere, grave 1: Càssola Guida et al. 2004, 87 fig. 6. – Dridu: Enăchiuc 1995. 78 Vasić 1999 pl. 2, 18-21; Vinski-Gaparini 1973, pl. 89, 7; Pare 1998, 415 fig. 49, 8.


91

Fig. 5.11. A Bronze fibulae and amber beads from Dridu, Wallachia; B Bronze two-looped knee-fibulae from Drmno (1), Korbovo (2), Vajuga (3), Lukjanovka (4), Strumok (5), Cazaclia (6) and Lucaşueca (7); C Arched

fibulae from Lefkandi, Toumba cemetery, graves 5, 22, 27 and 32


92

from northern Croatia, northern Serbia and Romania. Indeed, this is the time of the apogee of the south-eastern Urnfield culture, with the maximum expansion of the pottery with fluted decoration (“Kannelierte Keramik” or “Buckelkeramik”), found as far as Troy in period VIIb2-3 (late 12th to first half of 10th century BC)79. Perhaps it was the plentiful bronze (amber and gold?) in this region which attracted contacts with north Adriatic exchange partners.

Bronzo Finale 3a

Apart from amber and fibulae, swords provide additional information on chronology and contact at this time. Ma-donna del Piano grave 194 has a sword which presumably represents the direct precursor of the Torre Galli type80 (Fig. 5.8, B1). Interestingly, it not only has parallels in Albania81, but also in Subminoan Knossos82 and at Megid-do in phase VIA83. Similar short-swords are represented among the earliest iron weapons from the Aegean84 and Cyprus85, dating from Early Protogeometric/Cypro-Geo-metric IA onwards. According to the chronological scheme used in this article, Knossos would appear to be the earliest well dated example of this kind of dagger or short-sword, with the Iron Age IB, Cypro-Geometric and Proto-Geometric examples from Canaan, Cyprus and the Aegean all probably dating to the 10th century BC. As the Early Protogeometric examples represent the earliest iron weapons in use in the Aegean, and they are sometimes fitted with ivory hilt-plates and pommels, it is not un-likely that some were imported from the East Mediterra-nean. In that case, the pieces in the Central Mediterranean could be understood as copies of a new type of weaponry first developed further east – perhaps on Cyprus86.

Bronzo Finale 3b/Primo Ferro IA

Returning to the subject of fibulae, there are some examples with convex curved back, knee-loop and straight pin – corresponding to types of BF 3b/Primo 79 Pare 1998, 406–409 fig. 47. – For Troy see: Genz 2006; Becks et al. 2006. 80 A sword similar to Madonna del Piano grave 194 comes from Bisignano (Prov. Cosenza), see: Giardino 1994, 779 f. 81 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993, 251–254. – The sword from Madonna del Piano grave 26 also has a good parallel in Albania, from Prodani, grave 5: Aliu 1984, 55 pl. 1, 13. 82 North Cemetery, grave 201: Coldstream – Catling 1996, fig. 163, f7. 83 Shalev 2004, 63 f. pl. 23, 180; Watzinger 1929, 45 fig. 45 pl. 23, a. – The dagger comes from the destruction layer of the south gate, corresponding to layer VIA of the Chicago excavations; for a recent discussion of the stratigraphy, see: Finkelstein et al. 2006, 688–702. 84 See for example early Protogeometric examples from Athens, Kera-meikos PG graves A and 2N: Müller-Karpe 1962, 89 fig. 7, 3; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993, no. 273. – Lefkandi, Skoubris grave 46: Popham et al. 1979, pl. 106, 46/7. – The date of the sword from the Amyklaion near Sparta is unclear (Protogeometric or Late Geometric), see Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993, 122. 161 pl. 67, A. 85 See for example Palaepaphos-Skales, graves 64 and 89: Karageorghis 1983, pls. 120, 5; 193, 105. 106. – Amathus, grave 523: Karageorghis 1987, 721 fig. 188. 86 For early iron production in Cyprus, see: Sherratt 1994; Pickles – Peltenburg 1998.

Ferro IA in Italy – from sites such as Knossos87 and Kydonia88 in Crete or Patos grave 6789 in Albania, but they do not provide precise chronological information. The so-called Cassibile fibula and its derivatives (“Huelva fibulae”, “Megiddo fibulae”) is much more important, and has already been discussed by numerous authors90.

As M. Turco has noted91 the Cassibile fibulae undergo a development from thinner examples with straight shanks (Fig. 5.12, 1) to thickened pieces with concave curved shanks (Fig. 5.12, 2). It is the latter kind, for example from the hoard of Castelluccio, that offers the best parallels for the fibulae from the Huelva hoard (Fig. 5.12, 4). According to the arguments put forward above, this would date the Huelva pieces no earlier than Pantalica 2b (Italian BF 3b/PF IA, ca. 960/950–910 BC)92. A fibula of Huelva type from Cerro de la Miel (Prov. Granada, Fig. 5.12, 5) finds a satisfactory parallel in Palia Perivolia grave 3 at Lefkandi (Fig. 5.12, 9), dating to the Late Protogeometric period, again suggesting a date in the second half of the 10th century BC.

Primo Ferro IB

The Monachil (Fig. 5.12, 6) and Megiddo fibula types (Fig. 5.12, 11. 12. 14. 15), with a symmetrical triangular outline and central kink, developed in the first half of the 9th century, at least according to the gold fibula of a similar kind from grave 13 of the Toumba cemetery at Lefkandi (Fig. 5.12, 10; dated to Subprotogeometric II) and the probable date of the Levantine examples in Iron Age IIA93. The Cypriot fibulae of Megiddo type (Buch-holz types I–III94) are less clearly dated, with Amathus grave 523 (Fig. 5.12, 12) containing both Cypro- 87 North Cemetery, grave 45: Coldstream – Catling 1996, fig. 158, 45.f4 (on p. 551 Catling states that the tomb was in use by LPG). 88 Sapouna-Sakellarakis 1978, 40 no. 46. 89 Korkuti 1981, 44 pl. 7, V.67. – According to K. Kilian, grave 67 belongs to phase II of the Patos cemetery; see: Kilian 1985, 277 fig. 16. 90 See for example Hencken 1956; Almagro 1966, 182–188; Guzzo 1969; also A. Nijboer in this volume. – For a useful review of the Spanish fibulae (Huelva and Monachil types) see: Carrasco et al. 1999, 128 f. 138 fig. 6; Ruíz Delgado 1989; Giardino 1995, 237–249; Carrasco – Pachón 2006. 91 Turco 2000, 88–91. 92 As the Castelluccio fibula represents a developed form of the Cassibile fibula (for example compared to the Modica examples), a date in the later 10th century BC might be preferred. – A horned Iberian fibula from the Castelluccio hoard has a parallel in Torre Galli phase IB (grave 181); furthermore, Torre Galli grave 136 – again assigned to phase IB – contains a parallel for the fibula from Mola d’Agris, illustrated here on Fig. 5.12, 7. 93 For a comprehensive review of the chronological debate on Iron Age IIA, see Levy – Higham 2005. – See the fibulae from: Megiddo, quadrant L7, 2081 (corresponding to layer VA): Pedde 2000, pl. 9, 96. – Samaria, Fundstelle Qc, room C (corresponding to layer III/pottery phase 3): Pedde 2000, pl. 9, 97. – Achziv, grave N1, phase 1: Mazar 2004, 115 fig. 28, 1; according to Francisco J. Núñez (pers. comm.), the burial was associated with transitional Cypro-Geometric II/III pottery and would date to Iron Age IIA; Ayelet Gilboa (pers. comm.) would prefer a date in Iron Age IIB, as late as the end of the 9th or 8th century BC. I am grateful to Núñez and Gilboa for their kind assistance with the dating of the Achziv fibula. 94 Buchholz 1986.


93

Fig. 5.12. The development of the “Monachil” (6), “Megiddo” (11. 12. 14. 15) and “Cypriot” (13) fibulae from the Cassibile type (1. 2): 1 Modica; 2 Castelluccio; 3 Beaume-les-Créancey; 4 Huelva; 5 Cerro de la Miel; 6 Monachil;

7 Mola d’Agris; 8 Cerro Alcalà; 9 Lefkandi, Palia Perivolia grave 3; 10 Lefkandi, Toumba grave 13; 11 Cyprus; 12 Amathus, grave 523; 13 Ayia Irini, grave 3; 14 Megiddo; 15 Achziv (Not to scale)

Geometric I and II pottery95, and other examples coming from disturbed graves96. K. Giesen suggests a three-stage development for the Cypriot fibula: first Buchholz types I–III, then Buchholz types IV, VIII and XIII97 and finally, mainly in Cypro-Archaic, the fibulae with large ribbed knob98 (Buchholz types V, VI, IX–XI). At the present state of research the Cypriot material is not capable of providing a more precise chronological sequence.

The development of the Huelva fibula (Fig. 5.12, 4. 5) from the Cassibile type (Fig. 5.12, 1. 2) in the second half 95 The grave also contains a rotating spit of Atlantic type; see Karageorghis 1987, 723 fig. 193; Karageorghis – Lo Schiavo 1989; Giesen 2001, 180 no. 5 pl. 44. 96 See Giesen 2001, 179 f. – For the example from Amathus grave 243 and a discussion of this fibula type, see Chavane 1990, 64 no. 507 pl. 16, 507. 97 The fibula from Ayia Irini, grave 3 (Fig. 5.12, 13) is important for Giesen’s argumentation: Giesen 2001, 180 no. 7 pl. 44. 98 For a date in the 9th–8th century BC for the Sardinian fibula from Barumini, nuraghe Su Nuraxi, see Lo Schiavo 1992, 301. – Lo Schiavo also discusses the fibulae from Orani, nuraghe Nurdole (Prov. Nuoro) and Beaume-les-Créancey (Dép. Côte-d’Or), which were possibly developed (in Spain? Sardinia?) from the Huelva type. The fibula from Beaume-les-Créancey is shown here on Fig. 5.12, 3.

of the 10th century BC, and then the development of the symmetrical Monachil (Fig. 5.12, 6) and Megiddo types (Fig. 5.12, 11. 12. 14. 15) in the first half of the 9th century BC is, in my opinion, clearly demonstrated by the available evidence. The examples from Lefkandi from Late Protogeometric (Fig. 5.12, 9) and Subprotogeometric (Fig. 5.12, 10) provide a valuable support for this hypothesis. On the basis of the fibulae, the local chronological schemes of Sicily, Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Phoenicia and Palestine can be correlated at this time.

Further evidence comes once again from Lefkandi. H. W. Catling noted that in Subprotogeometric graves cast arched fibulae appear, with symmetrical swollen bow and broad catch-plate99. As Catling argued, these represent external influence, and indeed parallels from Italy and the Adriatic are close. The simple arched fibulae with thickened undecorated bow (Fig. 5.11, C1. 2) is typical for the start of the Italian Iron Age, the examples with three groups of engraved lines (Fig. 5.11, C3. 4) find parallels in Kompolje, grave 394100, and the examples with 99 Catling – Catling 1980, 239 f. 100 Drechsler-Bižić 1976, pl. 2, 1.


94

Fig. 5.13. Distribution of amber beads of Tiryns (circles) and Allumiere type (triangles)

three beads (Fig. 5.11, C5. 6) are common in north-east Italy, for example from Lozzo Atestino101. These new types in Subprotogeometric Lefkandi (corresponding to Athenian EG–MG I) provide a link to Primo Ferro IB in Italy, which according to the Swiss dendrodates can be dated to ca. 910–850/830 BC. These fibulae would seem to provide the first evidence for direct Euboean contact with the Central Mediterranean; by contrast, the symmetrical fibulae with central kink discussed above (Fig. 5.12, 9. 10) probably represent contact between Lefkandi and Cyprus, and not with Sicily or Spain.

CONCLUSIONS

To make use of the dendrodates from the Swiss lake-shore settlements for helping to date the Italian Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, a reliable and fine chronology in Italy is obviously a precondition. For some phases, well defined and dated both north and south of the Alps, cross-dating is now quite reliable. This is the case for Ha B3a and PF IB/Bologna IA/Villanoviano tipico (ca. 910– 101 v. Eles Masi 1986, pl. 13, 235.

850/830 BC). I am also convinced by the parallels between Ha B2 and BF 3b/PF IA in the second half of the 10th century BC (ca. 960/950–ca. 910 BC). The earlier chronology of Bronzo Finale is more difficult, mainly because the Italian phases BF 1, BF 2 and BF 3a are still not easy to define. According to my arguments, it is possible to link BF 2 with Ha B1a north of the Alps (ca. 1060–1035/1010 BC) and with Submycenean Greece, again suggesting a date in the mid to late 11th century. The earliest forms of serpentine fibula, with a concave curved bow, along with arched fibulae with lightly thickened bow (e.g. Limone, Fig. 5.5, B), typical for BF 3a, would then belong to the end of the 11th century and first half of the 10th century (1035/1010–960/950 BC according to the north Alpine sequence). The very restricted range of bronzes typical of BF 1 makes it difficult to trace contacts with the area north of the Alps, and for this period (Ha A1–2) absolute dates are completely lacking in Central Europe. The start of Bronzo Finale is at present best dated by advanced LH IIIC pottery from Calabria. At the moment, it is still difficult to correlate the latest Mycenean pottery with the bronze production of continental Italy, but the finds of LH IIIC-late and Submycenean pottery from Apulia, apparently


95

associated with BF 2 material at Roca Veccia and S. Maria di Leuca, Punta Meliso102, will doubtless provide important information on the transition from BF 1 to 2, when publication of the pottery and bronze hoards is completed.

The typo-chronological method can only function when networks of contact were in place, which resulted in exchange and acculturation. The examples discussed in this article demonstrate exchange relationships which sometimes operated over surprisingly long distances. Although I cannot offer a systematic review of the question, some conclusions present themselves.

The “Dark Age” period in question follows the decline – in the late 12th century BC – of the koinè of “International Bronzes” linking regions from the East Mediterranean, the Aegean, Italy, the north-west Balkans, Central and even northern Europe in a vast World System103. Long-distance exchange clearly did not cease in the 11th century, but the areas involved were much smaller. This is most clear for Central Europe: in Ha A2 and B1 (1125/1100–960/950 BC) bronze production developed independently, without substantive contact with Italy or the wider Mediterranean. Swords provide a good example: distinct traditions of Central European production can be recognised, all sharing a heavy wide sword-blade indicating a different type of warfare than south of the Alps. Important exchange systems continued, based on the Caput Adriae, as shown on the one hand by the pani a piccone (probably made in standard weights based on a unit of ca. 475 g104), and on the other hand by the fibulae and amber beads along the Save-lower Danube route to the Black Sea.

Fibula production in Greece and Italy remained surprisingly similar until the mid 11th century BC, suggesting that contacts across the Ionian Sea continued to be frequent, for example between Achaea and Apulia, and up the Adriatic coast via Albania. However, intensive long-distance exchange seems not to have been gene-ralised, but restricted to individual important centres, such as Frattesina near the mouth of the Po. Southern Italy (e.g. Castellace) and Sicily were probably more regularly engaged in exchange with the East Mediterranean, as the large quantities of ivory at Torre Mordillo (Calabria) and Madonna del Piano (Catania) surely demonstrate105. The sword from Madonna del Piano (Fig. 5.8, B1) with parallels in Crete, Cyprus and Canaan is a further indication of this exchange network.

“Pre-colonial” contact becomes much clearer in the second half of the 10th century BC (BF 3b/PF IA), as the Huelva hoard most clearly demonstrates. Now long-distance exchange becomes more general, for example 102 Jung 2005; Eder – Jung 2005. 103 Carancini – Peroni 1997. 104 Pare 1999b, 496 f. 105 Albanese Procelli – Lo Schiavo 2004, 411 f.

once again linking sword production north and south of the Alps; starting now, Central European prestige goods such as solid-hilted swords, bronze vessels and helmets, were adopted for local use in central and northern Italy. The hoards of Piediluco/“Contigliano” type offer further examples of regular contacts, in this case particularly via Sardinia106.

While most evidence in the 11th and 10th century BC points to the importance of the East Mediterranean (Cyprus, Dodecanese, eastern Crete) as active trading partners, early evidence of direct contact between Italy and the Greek mainland dates to the first half of the 9th century in the form of the Italian fibula types from Lefkandi in Euboea (Fig. 5.11, C). During the second half of the 10th and the first half of the 9th centuries BC the network of exchange linking Spain, Sardinia, central and southern Italy, the Aegean, Cyprus and the Levantine coast became increasingly important. The establishment of trading-posts and colonies by Phoenicans and Greeks followed soon after.

Turning once again to the subject of absolute chronology, the scheme used in this article to discuss the typological parallels between Central Europe and various Medi-terranean regions (Fig. 5.4) is based on the one hand on dendrochronology (mainly Switzerland) and on the other hand on the low 14C-chronology worked out in recent years in Israel107. According to the evidence discussed above, dates currently used for the Greek sequence (for example by R. Jung, I. Lemos) are in good accordance with these dendro- and radiocarbon dates.

The Aegean sequence of Mycenean, Submycenean, Proto-geometric and Geometric pottery still remains of crucial importance, as it provides by far the most reliable relative chronology available. For the Central Mediterranean, Aegean pottery became extremely rare after the 12th century BC, with LH IIIC-late and Submycenean only being supplied to Apulia108. In the East Mediterranean, Late Protogeometric pottery demonstrates the presence of Euboeans in Cyprus (Amathus) in Cypro-Geometric IB–II and in the Levant in Iron Age I/II (Tyre, Dor, Tel Hadar)109. The decline of the ‘palatial’ World System in the later 12th century and the gradual rise of the Iron Age World System based on Mediterranean city-states from the second half of the 10th century BC play a fundamental role for the typological analysis in the present article. In the intervening ‘Dark Age’ (11th and first half of 10th century BC) contacts between the various regions are punctual, involving individual important centres without the formation of a generalised koinè in production. 106 For the Sardinian connection, see for example the sword of Zürich type from Ploaghe: Gras 1985, 118 fig. 22. 107 Arguments for the low chronology have mainly been put forward by Israel Finkelstein. For a short summary, see Finkelstein 2004. – For more detail, see Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 65; Levy – Higham 2005. 108 ‘Italo-Mycenean’ wares, from Apulia, continued to find their way north as far as the Po valley. 109 Gilboa – Sharon 2003, 68-72.


96

Although the broad outlines of chronological develop-ment seem fairly evident, fundamental questions could not be addressed in this article, in particular the nature of trade indicated by the examples for contacts, exchange and influence discussed above. While evidence for precious materials is sometimes clear (e.g. gold, amber, ivory), sea-borne trade in other things, such as bulk commodities (e.g. copper, tin, bronze, foodstuffs) or slaves is less convincing for the Dark Ages.

Acknowledgements

My thanks are due to the following colleagues who gave their generous help during the preparation of this article: Rosa Maria Albanese (Catania), Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri (Rome), Ayelet Gilboa (Haifa), Albert Nijboer (Groningen), Francisco Núñez (Barcelona) and Wolfgang Zwickel (Mainz). Credit for the French translation of the abstract text goes to Renate Heckendorf.

Illustration credits

Figs. 5.1–5.4: tables by the author. – Fig. 5.5, A1. 5. 6: after Carancini 1975, pls. 47, 1450; 48, 1476.1478. – Fig. 5.5, A2: after Bianco Peroni 1979, pl. 24, 298. – Fig. 5.5, A3. 4: after Salzani 1989, 38 fig. 16, 10; p. 39 fig. 17, 18. – Fig. 5.5, A7. 8: after Bianco Peroni 1976, pl. 4, 40. 41. – Fig. 5.5, B1–4; 6–8: after Zanini 1997, 209 fig. 139, 22; 215 figs. 143. 144. – Fig. 5.5, B5: after Cateni 1977, 25 fig. 10, 2. – Fig. 5.6, A. F. G: after De Min 1986, 160 pl. 4, 2. 3. 5–7; p. 161 pl. 5, 1–3; p. 166 pl. 10, 3. – Fig. 5.6, B1–4: after v. Eles Masi 1986, pls. 2, 39. 41. 47; 4, 83. – Fig. 5.6, B5. 9: Bellintani – Peretto 1984, 70 pl. 1, 12. 14. – Fig. 5.6, B6–8: Negroni Catacchio 1984, 83 figs. 13. 15; p. 86 fig. 17. – Fig. 5.6, C: after Salzani 1987, 226 fig. 1, 1.12. – Fig. 5.6, D: after Salzani 2000, 39 fig. 1, 1. – Fig. 5.6, E1–6: after Salzani 1990/91, 169 fig. 22, 3; p. 170 fig. 23, 1–4. 7. – Fig. 5.6, E7: after Salzani 1989, 32 fig. 10, 7. – Fig. 5.6, E8: after Catarsi – Dall’Aglio 1978, pl. 13, 3. – Fig. 5.7, A: after De Min 1986, 165 pl. 9, 1. 3. 4. – Fig. 5.7, B. C. E. F: after Salzani 2001, 113 fig. 11, B; p. 118 fig. 16, A; p. 119 fig. 17, A; p. 123 fig. 21, A. – Fig. 5.7, D : after v. Eles Masi 1986, pl. 163, 2133. – Fig. 5.8: after Albanese Procelli 1994, 155 fig. 1; p. 156 fig. 2; 157 figs. 3. 4. – Fig. 5.9, A1. 2: after Bianco Peroni 1970, pls. 26, 186; 28, 200. – Fig. 5.9, A3: after Harding 1995, pl. 25, 204. – Fig. 5.9, A4: after Schauer 1971, pl. 78, 520. – Fig. 5.9, A5: after Kubach 1978/79, 309 fig. 18, 4. – Fig. 5.9, A6: after Krämer 1985, pl. 19, 112. – Fig. 5.9, B1: after Bianco Peroni 1970, pl. 27, 181. – Fig. 5.9, B2. 5: after Harding 1995, pls. 24, 195A; 31, 244; 45, A12. A23. – Fig. 5.9, B3: after Kemenczei 1988, pl. 41, 370. – Fig. 5.9, B4: after Kemenczei 1991, pl. 58, 246. – Fig. 5.10, A1: after Jung 2006, pl. 19, 3. – Fig. 5.10, A2: after Demakopoulou 1988, 245 no. 258. – Fig. 5.10, A3: after Karantzali 2001, fig. 42. – Fig. 5.10, B1. 7–9: after Popham et al. 1979, pls. 95, 15B/5; 98, 19/10; 99, 20/22; 104, 43/5. – Fig. 5.10, B2–6: after Müller-Karpe 1962, 85

fig. 3, 7. 10; p. 87 fig. 5, 19. 21; p. 88 fig. 6, 7. – Fig. 5.10, C1: after Carancini 1975, pl. 48, 1476. – Fig. 5.10, C2: after Bellintani – Peretto 1984, 70 pl. 1, 14. – Fig. 5.10, C3–4: after Popham et al. 1979, pl. 111, 62/2.3. – Fig. 5.10, C5–7: after Müller-Karpe 1962, 86 fig. 4, 1. 10. 11. – Fig. 5.11, A: after Enăchiuc 1995, 302 fig. 7, 7. 8; p. 303 fig. 8, 2. 3. 15. 18. 19; p. 309 fig. 14, 37. 40. – Fig. 5.11, B1–3: after Vasić 1999, pl. 2, 18. 19. 21. – Fig. 5.11, B4–7: after Kašuba forthcoming. – Fig. 5.11, C1–6: after Popham et al. 1979, pls. 171, 5/17; 178, 22/19; 184, 27/9.10; 186, 32/11.12. – Fig. 5.12, 1: after Giardino 1995, fig. 11, 14. – Fig. 5.12, 2: after Di Stefano – Giardino 1990/91, 516 fig. 22, 74. – Fig. 5.12, 3: after Cunisset-Carnot et al. 1971, 604 fig. 2, 1. – Fig. 5.12, 4. 11: after Buchholz 1986, 225 fig. 2, c; p. 227 fig. 8, c. – Fig. 5.12, 6. 8: after Lo Schiavo – D’Oriano 1990, 123 fig. 9, 7. 10. – Fig. 5.12, 7: after Gil Mascarell – Peña Sánchez 1989, 131 fig. 3. – Fig. 5.12, 9–10: after Popham et al. 1979, pl. 125, 3/26; 173, 13/15. – Fig. 5.12, 12. 13: after Giesen 2001, pl. 44. – Fig. 5.12, 15: after Mazar 2004, 115 fig. 28, 1. – Fig. 5.13: after previous maps by Bellintani 1997; Eder 2003; Harding 2000; Negroni Catacchio 1999; Steinhauser – Primas 1987.

References

ALBANESE PROCELLI, R.M., 1994, Considerazioni sulla necropoli di Madonna del Piano di Grammichele (Catania), in: La Presenza Etrusca nella Campania Meridionale. Istituto Nazionale di Studi Etruschi e Italici, Atti delle Giornate di Studio, Salerno – Pontecagnano 1990 (Firenze 1994) 153–170.

ALBANESE PROCELLI, R.M., F. LO SCHIAVO, 2004, La comunità di Madonna del Piano presso Gram-michele (Catania): rapporti con l’area Calabra. In: Preistoria e Protostoria della Calabria. Atti della XXXVII Riunione Scientifica, Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria (Firenze 2004) 403–420.

ALBERTI, L., M. BETTELLI, 2005, Contextual problems of Mycenaean pottery in Italy. In: R. Laffineur, E. Greco (eds.), Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens 14th –18th April 2004, Aegaeum 25 (Liège 2005) 547– 560.

ALIU, S., 1984, Tuma e Prodanit, Iliria 1, 1984, 27–67.

ALMAGRO, M., 1966, Las estelas decoradas del Suroeste peninsular, BiblPraehistHisp 6 (Madrid 1966).

BACHMANN, H.G., A. JOCKENHÖVEL, U. SPICHAL, G. WOLF, 2002/03, Zur bronzezeitlichen Metall-versorgung im mittleren Westdeutschland. Von der Lagerstätte zum Endprodukt, Bericht der Kommission für Archäologische Landesforschung in Hessen 7, 2002/03, 67–120.

BASTIANELLI, S., 1934, Santa Marinella – Ripostiglio di bronzi arcaici, NSc (Series 6) 10, 1934, 443–450.


97

BECKS, R., P. HNILA, M. PIENIAZEK-SIKORA, 2006, Troia in der frühen Eisenzeit. Troia VIIb1–VIIb3, in: M. Korfmann (ed.), Troia. Archäologie eines Sied-lungshügels und seiner Landschaft (Mainz 2006) 181–188.

BELLINTANI, P., 1997, Frattesina. L’ambra e la pro-duzione vitrea nel contesto delle relazioni transalpine, in: L. Endrizzi, F. Marzatico (eds.), Ori delle Alpi. Exhibition catalogue Castello del Buonconsiglio, QuadSezioneA 6 (Trento 1997) 116–129.

BELLINTANI, G.F., R. PERETTO, 1984, Il ripostiglio di Frattesina ed altri manufatti enei raccolti in superficie, Padusa 20, 1984, 55–72.

BETZLER, P., 1974, Die Fibeln in Süddeutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz I, PBF XIV, 3 (München 1974).

BIANCHIN CITTON, E., 1982, I reperti della necropoli di S. Giorgio di Angarano nel Museo Civico di Bassano del Grappa, Collezioni e Musei Archeologici del Veneto 24 (Roma 1982).

BIANCO PERONI, V., 1970, Le spade nell’Italia conti-nentale, PBF IV, 1 (München 1970).

BIANCO-PERONI, V., 1976, I coltelli nell’Italia conti-nentale, PBF VII, 2 (München 1976).

BIANCO-PERONI, V., 1979, I rasoi nell’Italia conti-nentale, PBF VIII, 2 (München 1979).

BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., 1973, The metal industry of continental Italy, 13th to the 11th century BC, and its connections with the Aegean, ProcPrehisSoc 39, 1973, 383–424.

BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., 1982, Frattesina, in: L. Vagnetti (ed.), Magna Grecia e Mondo Miceneo. XXII Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 7–11 ottobre 1982 (Taranto 1982) 201–208.

BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., (ed.), 1992, La necropoli Laziale di Osteria dell’Osa (Roma 1992).

BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., J. DE GROSSI MAZZORIN, 1995, Importazione di materie prime organiche di origine esotica nell’abitato protostorico di Frattesina (RO), in: Atti del 1o Convegno Nazionale di Archeo-zoologia, Rovigo 5–7 marzo 1993, Padusa Quaderni 1 (Rovigo 1995) 367–370.

BIETTI SESTIERI, A.M., M.C. DE ANGELIS, N. NEGRONI CATACCHIO, A. ZANINI, 2001, La protostoria della Toscana dall’età del bronzo recente al passaggio alla prima età del ferro, in: Atti della XXXIV Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Firenze, 29 settembre – 2 ottobre 1999 (Firenze 2001) 125–134.

BILLAMBOZ, A., 2004/05, Die Wasserburg Buchau im Jahrringkalender, Plattform 13/14, 2004/05, 97–105.

BLECH, M., M. KOCH, M. KUNST (eds), 2001, Hispania Antiqua. Denkmäler der Frühzeit (Mainz 2001).

BOLLINGER-SCHREYER, S., M. SEIFERT, 1998, L’âge du Bronze final. Suisse centrale et orientale, in: S. Hochuli, U. Niffeler, V. Rychner (eds.), Age du Bronze, La Suisse du Paléolithique à l’aube du Moyen-Age 3 (Basel 1998) 80–92.

BRESTRICH, W., 1998, Die mittel- und spätbronze-zeitlichen Grabfunde auf der Nordstadtterrasse von Singen am Hohentwiel, FBerBadWürt 67 (Stuttgart 1998).

BUCHHOLZ, H.-G., 1986, Ein kyprischer Fibeltypus und seine auswärtige Verbreitung, in: V. Karageorghis (ed.), Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium “Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident”, Nicosia 8th–14th September 1985 (Nicosia 1986) 223–245.

CARANCINI, G.L., 1975, Gli spilloni nell’Italia conti-nentale, PBF XIII, 2 (München 1975).

CARANCINI, G.L., R. PERONI, 1997, La koinè metallurgica, in: M. Bernabò Brea, A. Cardarelli, M. Cremaschi (eds.), Le Terramare. La più antica civiltà padana (Milano 1997) 595–601.

CARANCINI, G.L., R. PERONI, 1999, L’età del bronzo in Italia. Per una cronologia della produzione metallurgica, QuadProtostoria 2 (Perugia 1999).

CARRASCO RUS, J., J.A. PACHÓN ROMERO, 2006, La fíbula de codo tipo Huelva. Una aproximación a su tipologia, Complutum 17, 2006, 103–119.

CARRASCO, J., J.A. PACHÓN, J.A. ESQUIVEL, G. ARANDA, 1999, Clasificación secuencial tecno-tipológica de las fíbulas de codo de la península Ibérica, Complutum 10, 1999, 123–142.

CASSOLA GUIDA, P., 1999, Indizi di presenze egeo-orientali nell’alto Adriatico alla fine dell’età del bronzo, in: V. La Rosa, D. Palermo, L. Vagnetti (eds.), επι ποντον πλαξομενοι. Simposio italiano di Studi Egei dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, Roma 18–20 febbraio 1998 (Roma 1999) 487–497.

CASSOLA GUIDA, P., S. CORAZZA, A. FONTANA, G. TASCA, S. VITRI, 2004, I castellieri arginati del Friuli, in: D. Cocchi Genick (ed.), L’età del bronzo recente in Italia. Atti del Congresso Nazionale, Lido di Camaiore 26–29 ottobre 2000 (Lucca 2004) 77–89.

CATARSI, M., P.L. DALL’AGLIO, 1978, La necropoli protovillanoviana di Campo Pianelli di Bismantova (Reggio Emilia 1978).

CATENI, G., 1977, Il ripostiglio di Limone (Livorno), StEtr 45, 1977, 3–17.

CATLING, H.W., E.A. CATLING, 1980, Objects in Bronze, Iron and Lead, in: M.R. Popham, L.H. Sackett, P.G. Themelis (eds.), Lefkandi I. The Iron Age, BSA Suppl. 11 (Oxford 1980) 231–264.

CHAVANE, M.-J., 1990, La nécropole d’Amathonte. Tombes 110–385. IV. Les petits objets, Études Chypriotes 12 (Nicosia 1990).


98

CLAUSING, C., 2002, Geschnürte Beinschienen der späten Bronze- und älteren Eisenzeit, JbRGZM 49, 2002, 149–187.

COLDSTREAM, J.N., H.W. CATLING (eds.), 1996, Knossos North Cemetery. Early Greek Tombs (London 1996).

COSENTINO, S., 1999, Nekropole von Celano, Grab 4, in: G. Colonna (ed.), Die Picener, ein Volk Europas. Exhibition catalogue Frankfurt (Roma 1999) 183–185.

CUNISSET-CARNOT, P., J.-P. MOHEN, J.-P. NICOLARDOT, 1971, Une fibule “chypriote” trouvée en Côte-d’Or, BSocPrehistFr 68, 1971, 602–609.

DAVID-ELBIALI, M., C. DUNNING, 2005, Le cadre chronologique relatif et absolu au nord-ouest des Alpes entre 1060 et 600 av. J.-C., in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 145–195.

DE MARINIS, R.C., 1999, Il confine occidentale del mondo proto-veneto/paleoveneto dal pronzo finale alle invasioni Galliche del 388 a. C., in: Protostoria e storia del ‘Venetorum angulus’, Atti del XX Convegno di Studi Etruschi e Italici, Portogruaro – Quarto d’Altino – Este – Padova 1996 (Pisa 1999) 511–564.

DE MARINIS, R.C., 2005, Cronologia relativa, cross-dating e datazioni cronometriche tra bronzo finale e primo ferro: qualche spunto di riflessione metodo-logica, in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 15–52.

DE MARINIS, R.C., F.M. GAMBARI, 2005, La cultura di Golasecca dal X agli inizi del VII secolo a.C. Cronologia relativa e correlazioni con altre aree culturali, in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 197–225.

DE MIN, M., 1986, Frattesina di Fratta Polesine. La necropoli protostorica, in: L’Antico Polesine. Exhibition Catalogue Adria and Rovigo (Padua 1986) 143–169.

D’ERCOLE, V., 1998, La necropoli dell’età del bronzo finale delle “Paludi” di Celano, in: V. D’Ercole, R. Cairoli (eds.), Archeologia in Abruzzo (Montalto di Castro 1998) 157–166.

DIETZ, S., 1982, Etruriens forhistorie, in: Ch. Ejlers (ed.), Etruskernes Verden. Livet og doden hos et oldtidsfolk i Italien (København 1982) 42–44.

DI STEFANO, G., C. GIARDINO, 1990/91, Ragusa. Il ripostiglio di bronzi in contrada Castelluccio sull’Ir-minio, NSc (Series 9) 1/2, 1990/91, 489–546.

DEMAKOPOLOU, K. (ed.), 1988, Das mykenische Hellas. Heimat der Helden Homers (Athen 1988).

DRECHSLER-BIŽIĆ, R., 1976, Porijeklo lučnih jedno-petljastih fibula u Japoda, Godišnjak Centar zu Balkanološka Ispitivanja 13, 1976, 143–152.

EDER, B., 2003, Patterns of Contact and Communication between the Regions South and North of the Corinthian Gulf in LH IIIC, in: The Periphery of the Mycenaean World. 2nd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium, Lamia 26th–30th September 1999 (Athens 2003) 37–54.

EDER, B., R. JUNG, 2005, On the character of social relations between Greece and Italy in the 12th/11th c. BC., in: R. Laffineur, E. Greco (eds.), Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens 14th –18th April 2004, Aegaeum 25 (Liège 2005) 485–496.

ELES MASI, P. von, 1986, Le fibule dell’Italia settentrionale, PBF XIV, 5 (München 1986).

ENĂCHIUC, V., 1995, Der Bronzefund von Dridu, Kr. Ialomiţa, in: T. Soroceanu (ed.), Bronzefunde aus Rumänien, PAS 10 (Berlin 1995) 279–310.

FINKELSTEIN, I., 2004, Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology, Levant 36, 2004, 181–188.

FINKELSTEIN, I., D. USSISHKIN, B. HALPERN (eds.), 2006, Megiddo IV. The 1998–2002 Seasons, Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology Monograph 24 (Tel Aviv 2006).

FRIEDRICH, M., 2001, Dendrochronologische Unter-suchung der Hölzer des hallstattzeitlichen Wagen-grabes 8 aus Wehringen, Lkr. Augsburg, in: H. Hennig, Gräber der Hallstattzeit in Bayerisch-Schwa-ben, Monographien der Archäologischen Staats-sammlung München 2 (Stuttgart 2001) 137–144.

GAMBARI, M.V., 1999, In riva al fiume Eridano. Una necropoli dell’età del bronzo finale a Morano sul Po (Alessandria 1999).

GENZ, H., 2006, Ein neues Metall macht Furore. Die frühe Eisenzeit in West- und Zentralanatolien, in: M. Korfmann (ed.), Troia. Archäologie eines Siedlungs-hügels und seiner Landschaft (Mainz 2006) 71–80.

GERGOVA, D., 1987, Früh- und ältereisenzeitliche Fibeln in Bulgarien, PBF XIV, 7 (München 1987).

GIARDINO, C., 1994, I materiali dell’età del bronzo recente, in: R. Peroni, T. Trucco (eds.), Enotri e Micenei nella Sibaritide (Taranto 1994) 185–264.

GIARDINO, C., 1995, Il Mediterraneo Occidentale fra XIV ed VIII secolo a. C. Cerchie minerarie e metallurgiche, BARIntSer 612 (Oxford 1995).

GIESEN, K., 2001, Zyprische Fibeln. Typologie und Chronologie, SIMA Pocket-Book 161 (Jonsered 2001).

GILBOA, A., I. SHARON, 2003, An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Chronological


99

Debate. Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus and Greece, BASOR 332, 2003, 7–80.

GIL MASCARELL, M., J.L. PEÑA SÁNCHEZ, 1989, La fibula “ad occhio” del yacimiento de la Mola d’Agres. Saguntum 22, 1989, 125–145.

GRAS, M., 1985, Trafics tyrrhéniens archaiques (Roma 1985).

GUZZO, P.G., 1969, Considerazioni sulle fibule del ripostiglio dal Ria de Huelva, RScPreist 24, 1969, 299–309.

HARDING, A., 1995, Die Schwerter im ehemaligen Jugoslawien, PBF IV, 14 (Stuttgart 1995).

HARDING, A., 2000, European Societies in the Bronze Age (Cambridge 2000).

HEIN, M., 1989, Ein Scheidenendbeschlag vom Heiligenberg bei Heidelberg, JbRGZM 36, 1989, 301–326.

HENCKEN, H., 1956, The Fibulae of Huelva, ProcPrehistSoc 22, 1956, 213–215.

JOCKENHÖVEL, A., 1971, Die Rasiermesser in Mitteleuropa, PBF VIII, 1 (München 1971).

JONES, R.E., L. VAGNETTI, 1991, Traders and Craftsmen in the Central Mediterranean, in: N.H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, SIMA 90 (Jonsered 1991) 127–147.

JUNG, R., 2005, Ποτε? Quando? Wann? Quand? When? Translating Italo-Aegean Synchronisms, in: R. Laffineur, E. Greco (eds.), Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens 14th –18th April 2004, Aegaeum 25 (Liège 2005) 473– 484.

JUNG, R., 2006, Xρονολογία comparata. Vergleichende Chronologie von Südgriechenland und Süditalien von ca. 1700/1600 bis 1000 v. u. Z. Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 26 (Wien 2006).

KARAGEORGHIS, V., 1983, Palaepaphos-Skales. An Iron Age cemetery in Cyprus, Alt-Paphos 3 (Konstanz 1983).

KARAGEORGHIS, V., 1987, Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1986, BCH 111, 1987, 663–733.

KARAGEORGHIS, V., F. LO SCHIAVO, 1989, A West Mediterranean Obelos from Amathus, RStFen 17, 1989, 15–29.

KARANTZALI, E., 2001, The Mycenaean Cemetery at Pylona on Rhodes, BARIntSer 988 (Oxford 2001).

KAŠUBA, M., forthcoming, Die ältesten Fibeln im Nordpontikum, EurAnt 12, 2006.

KEMENCZEI, T., 1988, Die Schwerter in Ungarn I, PBF IV, 6 (München 1988).

KEMENCZEI, T., 1991, Die Schwerter in Ungarn II, PBF IV, 9 (Stuttgart 1991).

KILIAN, K., 1975, Eine früheisenzeitliche Fundgruppe von der Insel Elba, AKorrBl 5, 1975, 121–124.

KILIAN, K., 1985, Magna Grecia, Epiro e Macedonia nell’età del ferro, in: Magna Grecia, Epiro e Macedonia. Atti del XXIV Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 5–10 ottobre 1984 (Taranto 1985) 237–288.

KILIAN-DIRLMEIER, I., 1984, Nadeln der frühhella-dischen bis archaischen Zeit von der Peloponnes, PBF XIII, 8 (München 1984).

KILIAN-DIRLMEIER, I., 1993, Die Schwerter in Griechenland (außerhalb der Peloponnes), Bulgarien und Albanien, PBF IV, 12 (Stuttgart 1993).

KORKUTI, M., 1981, Tuma e Patosit, Iliria 11, 1981, 7–55.

KRÄMER, W., 1985, Die Vollgriffschwerter in Österreich und der Schweiz, PBF IV, 10 (München 1985).

KUBACH, W., 1978/79, Deponierungen in Mooren der südhessischen Oberrheinebene. JberVgFrankf 1978/79, 189–310.

LA ROSA, V., 1989, Le populazioni della Sicilia. Sicani, Siculi, Elimi, in: G. Pugliese Carratelli (ed.), Italia omnium terrarum parens (Milano 1989) 1–110.

LEIGHTON, R., 1993, The Protohistoric Settlement on the Cittadella, Morgantina Studies 4 (Princeton 1993).

LEVY, T.E., T. HIGHAM (eds.), 2005, The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science (London 2005).

LO SCHIAVO, F., 1992, Un’altra fibula ‘Cipriota’ dalla Sardinia, in: R.H. Tykot, T.K. Andrews (eds.), Sardinia in the Mediterranean. A Footprint in the Sea. Studies in Sardinian Archaeology presented to Miriam S. Balmuth, Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 3 (Sheffield 1992) 296–303.

LO SCHIAVO, F., R. D’ORIANO, 1990, La Sardegna sulle rotte dell’Occidente, in: La Magna Grecia e il Lontano Occidente. Atti del XXIX Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto 1989 (Taranto 1990) 99–162.

MÄDER, A., 2001, Zürich-Alpenquai I. Die Metallfunde, Zürcher Archäologie 3 (Zürich 2001).

MÄDER, A., T. SORMAZ, 2000, Die Dendrodaten der beginnenden Spätbronzezeit (Bz D) von Elgg ZH-Breiti, JbSchwUrgesch 83, 2000, 65–78.

MATTER, A., 1992, Die spätbronzezeitlichen Brand-gräber von Regensdorf-Adlikon, in: I. Bauer, D. Fort-Linksfeiler, B. Ruckstuhl, A. Hasenfratz, C. Hauser, A. Natter (eds.), Bronzezeitliche Landsiedlungen und Gräber, Berichte der Zürcher Denkmalplflege, Archäologische Monographien 11 (Egg 1992) 287–336.

MAZAR, E., 2004, The Phoenician family tomb N.1 at the northern cemetery of Achziv (10th–6th centuries BCE), CuadAMediterranea 10 (Barcelona 2004).


100

METZNER-NEBELSICK, C., 2005, Das bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Hordeevka am Südlichen Bug im Spannungsfeld seiner auswärtigen Bezüge, in: H. Horejs, R. Jung, E. Kaiser, B. Teržan, Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidmet, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 121 (Bonn 2005) 293–315.

MOINAT, P., M. DAVID ELBIALI, 2003, Défunts, bûchers et céramiques: la nécropole de Lausanne-Vidy (VD) et les pratiques funéraires sur le Plateau suisse du XIe au VIIIe s. av. J.-C, CahARomande 93 (Lausanne 2003).

MORICO, G. (ed.), 1984, Il ripostiglio di Poggio Berni (Roma 1984).

MÜLLER-KARPE, H., 1949/50, Grünwalder Gräber, PZ 34/35, 1949/50, 313–325.

MÜLLER-KARPE, H., 1959, Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen, RGF 22 (Berlin 1959).

MÜLLER-KARPE, H., 1962, Die Metallbeigaben der früheisenzeitlichen Kerameikos-Gräber, JdI 77, 1962, 59–129.

NEGRONI CATACCHIO, N., 1984, La problematica dell’ambra nella protostoria italiana: le ambre intagliate di Fratta Polesine e le rotte mercantili nell’Alto Adriatico, Padusa 20, 1984, 73–90.

NEGRONI CATACCHIO, N., 1999, Produzione e commercio dei vaghi d’ambra tipo Tirinto e tipo Allumiere alla luce delle recenti scoperte, in: Protostoria e storia del ‘Venetorum angulus’. Atti del XX Convegno di Studi Etruschi ed Italici, Portogruaro – Quarto d’Altino – Este – Adria, 16–19 ottobre 1996 (Pisa 1999) 241–265.

ORSI, P., 1912, La necropoli sicula di Pantalica, MonAnt 21, 1912, 301–346.

PACCIARELLI, M., 1999, Torre Galli. La necropoli della prima età del ferro (Soveria Manelli 1999).

PACCIARELLI, M., 2001, Dal villaggio alla città, Grandi contesti e problemi della protostoria italiana 4 (Firenze 2001).

PARE, C.F.E., 1998, Beiträge zum Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa I, JbRGZM 45, 1998, 293–433.

PARE, C.F.E., 1999a, Beiträge zum Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa II, JbRGZM 46, 1999, 175–315.

PARE, C.F.E., 1999b, Weights and weighing in Bronze Age Europe, in: Eliten in der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen. RGZM Monographie 43 (Mainz 1999) 421–514.

PEDDE, F., 2000, Vorderasiatische Fibeln. Vor der Levante bis Iran, ADOG 24 (Saarbrücken 2000).

PERONI, R., 1961, Ripostigli del Massiccio della Tolfa, Inventaria Archaeologica, Italia, fasc.1 (Firenze 1961).

PERONI, R., 1963, Ripostigli dell’Appennino umbro-marchigiano, Inventaria Archaeologica, Italia, fasc. 3 (Roma 1963).

PERONI, R., A. VANZETTI, 2005, Intorno alla cronolo-gia della prima età del ferro italiana da H. Müller-Karpe a Chr. Pare, in: G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino (eds.), Oriente e occidente. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 53–80.

PICKLES, S., E. PELTENBURG, 1998, Metallurgy, Society and the Bronze/Iron Transition in the East Mediterranean and the Near East, RDAC 1998, 67–100.

PONZI BONOMI, L., 1970, Il ripostiglio di Contigliano, BPI 21, 1970, 95–154.

POPHAM, M.R., L.H. SACKETT, P.G. THEMELIS (eds.), 1979, Lefkandi I. The Iron Age, BSA Suppl. 11 (Oxford 1979).

QUILLFELDT, I. von, 1995, Die Vollgriffschwerter in Süddeutschland, PBF IV, 11 (Stuttgart 1995).

RANDSBORG, K., K. CHRISTENSEN, 2006, Bronze Age Oak-Coffin Graves. Archaeology and Dendro-Dating, ActaArch Suppl. 7 (København 2006).

ŘÍHOVSKÝ, J., 1979, Die Nadeln in Mähren und im Ostalpengebiet, PBF XIII, 5 (München 1979).

RUIZ-DELGADO, M., 1989, Fíbulas protohistóricas en el Sur de la Península Ibérica (Sevilla 1989).

RYCHNER, V., 1995, Stand und Aufgaben dendrochro-nologischer Forschung zur Urnenfelderzeit, in: Beiträge zur Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. RGZM Monographie 35 (Bonn 1995) 455–487.

RYCHNER, V., 1998, L’âge du Bronze final. Suisse occidentale et Valais, in: S. Hochuli, U. Niffeler, V. Rychner (eds.), Age du Bronze. La Suisse du Paléolithique à l’aube du Moyen-Age 3 (Basel 1998) 70–79.

RYCHNER-FARAGGI, A.-M., 1993, Métal et parure au Bronze final, Hauterive-Champréveyres 9 (Neuchâtel 1993).

SALZANI, L., 1987, Un nuovo ripostiglio di bronzi da Frattesina, Padusa 23, 1987, 219–231.

SALZANI, L., 1989, Necropoli dell’età del bronzo finale alle Narde di Fratte Polesine. Prima nota, Padusa 25, 1989, 5–42.

SALZANI, L., 1990/91, Necropoli dell’età del bronzo finale alle Narde di Fratta Polesine. Seconda nota, Padusa 26/27, 1990/91, 125–206.

SALZANI, L., 2000, Fratta Polesine. Il ripostiglio di bronzi n. 2 da Frattesina, QuadAVen 16, 2000, 38–46.

SALZANI, L., 2001, Tombe protostoriche dalla necropoli della Colombara (Gazzo Veronese), Padusa 37, 2001, 83–132.


101

SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKIS, E., 1978, Die Fibeln der griechischen Inseln, PBF XIV, 4 (München 1978).

SCHAUER, P., 1971, Die Schwerter in Süddeutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz I, PBF IV, 2 (München 1971).

SHALEV, S., 2004, Swords and Daggers in Late Bronze Age Canaan, PBF IV, 13 (Stuttgart 2004).

SHERRATT, S., 1994, Commerce, Iron and Ideology. Metallurgical Innovation in 12th–11th Century Cyprus, in: V. Karageorghis (ed.), Cyprus in the 11th Century BC (Nicosia 1994) 59–107.

SPERBER, L., 1987, Untersuchungen zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderkultur im nördlichen Alpenvorland von der Schweiz bis Oberösterreich, Antiquitas 3 A/29 (Bonn 1987).

STEINHAUSER, R., M. PRIMAS, 1987, Der Bern-steinfund vom Montlingerberg (Kt. St. Gallen, Schweiz), Germania 65, 1987, 203–208.

SZOMBATHY, J., 1937, Altertumsfunde aus Höhlen bei St. Kanzian im österreichischen Küstenlande, MPrähistKomWien 2, 1937, 127–169.

TANASI, D., 2004, Per una rilettura delle necropoli sulla Montagna di Caltagirone, in: V. La Rosa (ed.), Le presenze micenee nel territorio siracusano. 1o Simposio Siracusano di Preistoria Siciliana, Siracusa 15–16 dicembre 2003 (Padua 2004) 399–447.

TERŽAN, B., 1996, Hoards and Individual Metal Finds from the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages in Slovenia, Katalogi in monografije 30 (Ljubljana 1996).

TRAMPUŽ OREL, N., D.J. HEATH, 2001, Depo Kanalski Vrh. Študija o metalurškem znanju in kovi-nah na začetku 1. tisočletja pr.n.š, AVes 52, 2001, 143–171.

TURCO, M., 2000, La necropoli di Cassibile. Scavi Paolo Orsi 1897 e 1923, Cahiers du Centre Jean Bérard 21 (Roma 2000).

VAGNETTI, L., 1986, Cypriot Elements Beyond the Aegean in the Bronze Age, in: V. Karageorghis (ed.), Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium “Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident”, Nicosia 8th–14th September 1985 (Nicosia 1986) 201–214.

VASIĆ, R., 1999, Die Fibeln im Zentralbalkan, PBF XIV, 12 (Stuttgart 1999).

VINSKI-GASPARINI, K., 1973, Kultura polja sa žarama u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj (Zadar 1973).

WATZINGER, C., 1929, Tell El-Mutesellim II. Die Funde (Leipzig 1929).

WEBER, C., 1996, Die Rasiermesser in Südosteuropa, PBF VIII, 5 (Stuttgart 1996).

ZANINI, A. (ed.), 1997, Dal bronzo al ferro. Il II Millennio a.C. nella Toscana centro-occidentale. Exhibition catalogue Livorno (Pisa 1997).

05 Pare Offprint

Documents

Transcript of 05 Pare Offprint