Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T13:31:06.302Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Greeks, Italians and the Earliest Balkan Iron Age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

John Alexander
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The discovery of an Early Geometric (9th century B.c.) grave containing an array of iron objects at Athens has led to a quickening of interest in the beginnings of ironusing in South Eastern Europe. Two main theories about this have, for lack of conclusive evidence, been current for decades and while all admit iron was known earlier in the Near East than in Europe, the route by which that knowledge reached Central Europe has been hotly debated.

Dr Foltiny has recently restated the case for iron-using being brought to Hungary by horsemen from further east and has added to it the suggestion that not only did the knowledge then spread into Central Europe but also southwards into Greece. If he is correct and iron was known in Central and Eastern Europe before 900 B.C. then a major alteration to our ideas of the events of that period becomes necessary. Any theory must, at present, rely on the correlation of the Central European evidence with the better known and closer dated events of the east Mediterranean so that the interpretation of the objects in the Athenian grave mentioned above is vital to Dr Foltiny's theory. It is hoped to show elsewhere that their evidence is ambiguous and in this paper another body of material, from Jugoslavia, a region contiguous to Dr Foltiny's early iron-using centre in Hungary and athwart its communications with Greece, will be considered. The conclusions to be drawn from it are quite different from those which might be expected if Dr Foltiny is correct, for they are that much of Jugoslavia gained its knowledge of iron through trade connexions with Eastern Italy in the 8th–7th centuries B.C. and that Hungary and Greece played little part in the event.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 36 , Issue 142 , June 1962 , pp. 123 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hesperia, 21, 1952, 279.

2 E.g. R. J. Forbes, Metallurgy in Antiquity, 1950, 419 and 455, shows the unresolved differences in dates and theories.

3 American Journal of Archaeology, 65, 1961, 279.

4 They are more numerous, more subject to change of fashion and better dated. Small glass and pottery objects have also proved useful.

5 Pin and bracelet types are the most noticeable survivals.

6 R. L. Beaumont, Journal of Hellenic Studies, LVI, 1936, 139f.; G. Novak, Serta Hoffilleriana, 1940, 127f.; J. G. Szilágiji, Program Ung. Arh. Konferenz, 1955, 178f. ; S. Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria, 1926.

7 Nin (Zadar Museum).

8 Strpči, Vinča; Trieste and Split Museums (no findspots).

9 Gorica, Otisica, Postranje, Nin; Crvena Lokva, Nin, Gredana.

10 Vače and Otočac. They are also found in the Alps and in Italy.

11 C. Blinkenberg, Fibules grécques et orientales, 1926–27, type XV.

12 E.g. Hallstatt grave 505 and Byčiškala Höhle.

13 Nin, San Canziano and possibly Ilijak. Compare with those from Sparta in Annual of the British School at Athens, 1906, 332 and 1909, 138.

14 Nin, Bjelotinjak, Libna, Otočac, Otisica and possibly Frögg (Carinthia, Austria). See P. Jacobstahl, Greek Pins, 1956, 88.

15 Trebenište is perhaps the earliest site to show considerable Greek influence.

16 R. Vulpe, L’Age du Fer dans les Régions Thraces, 1930, 121.

17 This was still taking place in the 9th-8th centuries on the evidence of the Spectacle fibulae (see for example Chauchitza). The Malthi sword need be nothing more than a weapon made for an invader.

18 D. Garašanin, Kataljog Metalja I Beograd, 1954, 76.

19 A. Benacand B. Čović, Glasinac 1,1956, Period IIIc.

20 Especially at Paklenica, Mlad and Vratišinji.

21 J. G. Szilágiji, op. cit., 178f.

22 L. Marconi, Monumenti Antichi, XXXV, 1933, 268. R. L. Beaumont, op. cit., 162.

23 Beaumont, op. cit., 186.

24 “Except for L. von Merhart, Bormer Jährbucher, CXLVII, 1942, if.; R. Vulve, Ephemeris Dacoromana, III, 1925, 58f.; J. G. Szilágiji, Acta Archaeologica Hungaria, 1, 1953, 42of.; V. Parvan, Dacia, 1, 28.

25 D. H. Trump, The Apennine Cultures (unpublished dissertation in Cambridge University Library, 1958); Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, XXIV, 1950, 165f.

26 V. G. Childe, The Danube in Prehistory, 1929, 407.

27 Stični, Gradišće, Maribor and Mokronog.

28 Unesić and one without a findspot in Split Museum. These have disc-catchplates and there is little reason to date them before the 9th century.

29 Fliegenhöhle (San Canziano), Klacenica, Osor.

30 Compare J. Sundwall, Die Alteren Italischen Fibeln, 1943, 73.

31 Trump, op. cit., 101–102.

32 Tesanij and Grapska have razors, and the Glasinac and Gredana cemeteries fibulae.

33 S. Foltiny, 1961, p. 287, note 60, fails to note this at Vače. The Rifnik material was quite unstratified and does not deserve consideration.

34 The absence of ‘Harp’ fibulae and the presence of separate versions of ‘Boat’ and ‘Serpentine’ fibulae are evidence of this.

35 The iron is found in Benacci II and Este II forms. The same conclusion is reached by L. Starè, Arheol. Vjestnik, 1954 and 1955, Prazgodivenske Vače, 195a, Period I, and H. Müller-Karpe, Chronologie, 1959, 228.

36 P. Jacobsthal, op. cit., 177.

37 Especially at Vermo and Visaèe.

38 This is particularly well shown at Nin where there are objects from all three regions in the late 7th-6th centuries.

39 L. Dumitrescu, L’Ètà del Ferro nel Piceno, 1929, 119.

40 Podpecine, Gorica, Gosinja Planina and Zlatiste.

41 A. Benac and B. Covié, Glasinac 11 (1957), Period IVa. Their equation with Hallstatt ‘C in Central Europe should mean a largely 7th century date.

42 The earliest dateable iron is in fibulae at Šarengrad, Rudovči (with Thrako-Cimmerian type I harness) and Zirovnica. A 9th-8th century date would now be more acceptable for Zagreb-Horvath, see J. von Richt-hofen, Serta Hoffilleriana, 1940, 43. These fibulae are not early forms and do not support the early dating suggested by S. Foltiny (loc. cit.).

43 J. G. Szilagiji, op. cit., 420 and L. Sulimirski, Bulletin of the London Institute of Archaeology, 1, 1959, 45f.

44 S. Foltiny, Zur Chronologie der Bronzezeit des Karpathabeckens, 1955 and 1961 (op. cit.) and Lengyel, Acta Archaeologica Hungaria, 1956.

45 R. Horedt, Ducia, XI, 1945, 13, and Ducia, N.S. II, 1958, 56. Also F. Severeau, Bucuresti, II, 1935, 185.