Exchange and Cultural Interactions: A study of long-distance trade and cross-cultural contacts in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in Central and Eastern Europe 9781841710266, 9781407351452

Citation preview

BAR S813 1999  PYDYN  EXCHANGE AND CULTURAL INTERACTIONS

Exchange and Cultural Interactions A study of long-distance trade and cross-cultural contacts in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in Central and Eastern Europe

Andrzej Pydyn

BAR International Series 813 B A R

1999

Exchange and Cultural Interactions A study of long-distance trade and cross-cultural contacts in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in Central and Eastern Europe

Andrzej Pydyn

BAR International Series 813 1999

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 813 Exchange and Cultural Interactions

© A Pydyn and the Publisher 1999 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841710266 paperback ISBN 9781407351452 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841710266 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd/ Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 1999. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

EMAIL

PHONE FAX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

To my parents

CONTENTS Acknowledgements The list of Maps. The list ofFigures. Transliteration

iii iv vi viii

L INTRODUCTION.

l

IL GENERAL BACKGROUND.

2

2.1. Geographical area of study. 2.2. Chronological framework. 2.3. Previous study and research. 2.4. Cultural-historicalbackground. 2.4.1. The Middle and Late Bronze Age. 2.4.2. Political, economic and cultural changes in neighbouring areas of central Europe at the beginning of the Iron Age. 2.4.3. The Early Iron Age.

2 2 3 3 3 4 5

Ill THEORETICALAPPROACHES.

7

3.1. Social theory and interpretation of exchange and trade. 3.1.1. Introduction: social theories of exchange. 3.1.2. Culture as an economy. 3.1.3. Trade or exchange. 3.1.4. Exchange as social communication. 3.2. Social life of material things. 3.2.1. Life cycles ofobjects. 3.2.2. Knowledge and distance. 3.2.3. Value and the role of prestige goods. 3.2.4. Cultural boundaries and the definition of imports. 3.3. Theoretical interpretation of trade and exchange in archaeology. 3.3.1. Evolutionism and diffusionism. 3.3.2. Prestige-goods economy. 3.3.3. "World system". 3.3.4. Maps of distribution as evidence of trade: some problems with archaeological methods.

7 7 7 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12

JV. BETWEEN THEORETICAL INTERPRETATION AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA.

14

4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7.

14 14 15 15 16 17 17

Changes in social, economic and symbolic values in relation to long-distance exchange. From economic to social value. Value and the social position of imports. The social role and value of bronze. The prestige position of boats and wagons. Maintaining and changing systems of values and social structures. The value of distant knowledge.

V. CENTRAL EUROPE AND ITS INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST MILLENNIUM BC (THE HALLSTATT B 1_2 PERIOD).

18

5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4.

18 18 18 19

The time of stability. Networks of exchange and their changes. Contacts between the south and the north in the Hallstatt B 1_2 period- the material evidence. Conclusion.

VI. SYSTEMS OF EXCHANGE AND CULTURAL INTERACTION IN THE BALTIC REGIONS AND EASTERN EUROPE.

22

6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5.

22 22 24 24 25

Introduction - Baltic unity. A common tradition of metal production in the western and southern Baltic regions. Traditions of pottery production in different regions of the Baltic Sea. Other cultural similarities between the regions of the western and southern Baltic. Long-distance exchange networks in the eastern Baltic.

6.6. Contacts between the Baltic and the north-eastern Europe. 6.7 . Conclusion.

27 29

VIL EXCHANGE AND INTERCULTURAL CONTACTS BETWEEN THE CAUCASUS MOUNTAINS, THE EAST EUROPEAN STEPPES (THE CIMMERIANS), AND THE REGIONS OF CENTRAL EUROPE (THE 9TH-7TH CENTURIES BC).

31

7 .1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7.5. 7.6.

31 32 33 34 36 40

Cirnmerians and their expansions in the Near East. The nomadic origin of the Cirnmerian culture. Archaeological evidence of early nomadic cultures. Economic and cultural changes in the southern parts of central Europe. Artefacts ofCirnmerian origin in central Europe. Conclusion .

VIII EXCHANGE, TRADE AND CULTURAL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE SCYTHIAN CULTURE AND CENTRAL EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .

8.1. 8.2. 8.3. 8.4. 8.5. 8.6. 8.7.

Introduction - previous studies on Scythian culture. Ancient writers on Scythian culture. Development of the Scythian culture in the steppe zone. hnpact of the Scythian culture on other areas of eastern Europe. Scythian influence in the Carpathian Basin . Scythian influence in other regions of central Europe. Conclusion.

42 42 43 44 45 47 50

IX EXCHANGE AND INTERCULTURAL CONTACTS BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN PARTS OF CENTRAL EUROPE, IN THE PERIOD FROM HALLSTATT B 3 TO HALLSTATT D. 53 9.1. Introduction - the research on the amber routes. 9.2. Amber. 9.3. Old traditions and new contacts (Hallstatt B 3-C). 9.3.1. The western exchange routes (Bronze Age traditions) . 9.4. A new system of interregional contacts - the Hallstatt world. 9.4.1. A new model of contacts and general cultural changes . 9.4.2. The first zone ofHallstatt influence. 9.4.3 . The second zone ofHallstatt influence. 9.5. Beyond the Hallstatt world . 9.5.1. On the edge of two worlds. 9.5.2 . Access to the Baltic. 9.6. Contacts between central Italy and the Baltic zone (Hallstatt C-D).

61 61 62 63

X MODELS AND MODES OF EXCHANGE IN IATE PREHISTORIC EUROPE.

65

10.1. Regularity and change in exchange systems . 10.2. The "World system" and regional networks of contacts. 10.2.1. The central European Bronze Age systems . 10.2.2. The nomadic world. 10.2.3. The Hallstatt world. 10.2.4. The Baltic world - the "Mediterranean of the north".

65

53 54 54 55

56 56 58 60

66

66 67 67 67

XI. THE ROLE OF THE LONG-DISTANCE EXCHANGE IN THE TRANSITION FROM THE BRONZE AGE TO THE IRON AGE. 69

11.1. 11.2. 11.3. 11.4.

Changes in long-distance trade networks and fragmentation of knowledge. Cognitive exchange. Introduction of iron and changes in social systems of local communities . Between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age - community versus individuals.

69 69 69

70 71

BIBLIOGRAPHY MAPS AND FIGURES

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book is based on my D.Phil. thesis, and I would like to acknowledge all those who helped me to successfully complete my dissertation and to prepare this publication. Above all, I would like to thank my parents and all my family for endless emotional and financial support which made this work possible. I would also like to dedicate this book to them, as the most appropriate way of expressing my gratitude. During my research significant financial assistance, which I am pleased to acknowledge, was also given by Oxford University. Financial support from the Aurelius Trust helped me to survive the most difficult times both during my research and while I was preparing this publication. Without this assistance this work would not have been possible. I would like to thank the Trust and particularly its secretary Mr. A.AR Stephens. I am especially grateful to Professor Barry Cunliffe for his supervision, support and understanding. Particular thanks is also due to Dr Andrew Sherratt for that first cup of coffee many years ago and his continued intellectual encouragement. I am very grateful to Professor Kristian Kristiansen for his comments and suggestions which improved my work tremendously. It is also a pleasure to acknowledge the support given to my research by many scholars and members of staff from the Institute of Archaeology, the Ashmolean Museum, St. Cross College and the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford. I am thankful for assistance given during my research by a number of European colleagues, particularly from the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Poland and Russia. I would like to express my special gratitude and indebtedness to Dr Bruce Ross-Smith who through the years has tried to improve my chronically crippling English, and to his wife and children who had to sacrifice many weekends of their family life. In addition, friendly encouragement and helpful advice accompanied by indispensable comments on my English have been given by many friends of mine. Thanks to David Miles and the staff from the Oxford Archaeological Unit who secured my employment and a fairly regular income throughout the years ofmy D.Phil. study. I am also pleased to acknowledge the hospitality of David Hedges which made my stay and work in Oxford possible. Finally, I would like to thank all my friends and colleagues for creating an academically and socially stimulating atmosphere during my time in Oxford.

iii

THE LIST OF MAPS.

Map 1. Central Europe and neighbouring regions with current political boundaries. Map 2. Central Europe and its historical and geographical regions. Map 3. The distribution ofbronze vessels of Carpathian origin (after Thrane 1975: 146, Fig. 89). Map 4. The distribution of the different types ofFuchsstadt and Jenesovice hammered bronze cups (after Thrane 1975: 137, Fig. 81). Map 5. The distribution ofSilesian type knives (after Thrane 1975: 91, Fig. 46). Map 6. The distribution of Pfatten type knives (after Thrane 1975: 93, Fig. 49). Map 7. The distribution of vase-headed pins (after Thrane 1975: Fig. 103; Kristiansen 1993: 145, Fig. 14.2). Map 8. Jutland and its participation in long-distance maritime exchange networks in the Late Bronze Age. Map 9. The distribution of fortified settlements in the central area of the North European Plain (based on Niesiolowska-W~dzka 1974: Rye. 1; 1989; Prahistoria 1979: 228, Rye. 130). Map 10. The distribution of the so-called gold oath-rings (Eidringe) (based on Sprockhoff 1956: v. II, Karte 37; Fogel 1988: mapa III). Map 11. The distribution ofbracelets made of double wire (Armspiralen aus Doppeldraht) (after Sprockhoff 1956: v. II, Karte 35; Fogel 1988: mapa II). Map 12. The distribution of"loop-shaped" bracelets (Schleifenarmbander)in Pomerania (after Fogel 1988: mapa II). Map 13. The distribution of"kidney-shaped" bracelets (Nierenringe) (after Sprockhoff1956: v. II, Karte 38). Map 14. The distribution of different types of neckrings (after Sprockhoff 1956: v. II, Karte 26). Map 15. The distribution of different types of fibulae with flat plates (after Sprockhoff 1956: v. II, Karte 44, 45). Map 16. The distribution of the so-called swords with a rod type of hilt (Griffangelschwerter)(after Sprockhoff 1956: v. II, Karte 1).

Map 17. Major regions with different traditions of pottery production in the Baltic zone (based on Jaanusson 1981: Fig. 59). Map 18. The regions influenced by the Ananino culture in relation to the areas with "textile decorated" pottery (based on Kuzminykh 1983: 8, Fig. 1). Map 19. The distribution ofbarrow graves from the Periods III and IV in Poland (based on Malinowski 1962). Map 20. The distribution of barrow graves from the Periods IV N and VI in Poland (based on Malinowski 1962). Map 21. The distribution of hoards in Pomerania and other regions of Poland from the second half of the Period V (after Blajer 1992: 104-106). Map 22. The distribution of hoards in Pomerania and other regions of Poland from the Hallstatt C-D period (after Blajer 1992: 103-106). Map 23. The distribution ofhoards in the northern part of central Europe from the Periods IV, V and VI (after Sprockhoff 1937: Karte 1-3). Map 24. The distribution of different types of archaeological sites and single finds of the West Balts Barrow culture from regions between north-eastern Poland and the Samland Peninsula (after Okulicz J. 1973: 247, Rye. 99). Map 25. Cultures of the east European forest zone represented by characteristic pottery with spherical bottoms (based on Okulicz L. 1976: 225, Rye. 105). Map 26. The distribution of different types of barrow graves at the end of the Period IV and in the Period Vin the eastern Baltic (based on Okulicz L. 1976: 105, Rye. 37). Map 27. The archaeological situation in the eastern Baltic region at the end of the Bronze Age (settlement pattern and distribution ofmatal objects from different metallurgical centres) (based on Okulicz L. 1976: 153, Rye. 62). Map 28. Possible trade routes in eastern Europe in the 10th-9th centuries BC (based on Okulicz L. 1976: 92, Rye. 32). Map 29. The distribution of the Millar axes (based on Kuzminykh 1983: 166, Fig. 92; 1993: 96, Fig. 2; Okulicz L. 1976: 92, Rye. 32). Map 30. The distribution of different types of axes discovered in the forest and steppe zones of central and eastern Europe. Map 31. The distribution pattern of boat-shaped graves in the eastern Baltic (based on Okulicz L. 1976: I 05, Rye. 37). Map 32. Possible areas of salt production and routes of its distribution in central and eastern Europe. Map 33. General directions of nomadic expansions to the Near East (after Sonneville-David,Ghirshman 1983: 21, Fig. 1). Map 34. Cultural situation in eastern Europe at the time of Cimmerian influence (based on Sulimirski 1959: 62, Fig. 2; Gedl 1985a: 332, mapa 3). Map 35. The distribution of the Cimmerian type of artefacts in eastern Europe (based on Terenozhkin 1976; Murzin 1991: Fig. 2).

Map 36. Archaeological cultures in the southern regions of central Europe in the Late Bronze Age (based on Chochorowski 1992: Fig. 1; 1993: Map 10). Map 37. Archaeological cultures in the southern regions of central Europe in the Hallstatt BrC (based on Chochorowski 1992: 12, Fig. 2; 1993: Map 11). Map 38. The distribution of sites on which finds of Cimmerian origin have been discovered, in central Europe (based on Chochorowski 1993: 36, Map 1). Map 39. The distribution of different types ofCimmerian horse-bits (based on Chochorowski 1993: 44, Map 2). Map 40. The distribution ofCimmerian cheek-pieces in central Europe (based on Chochorowski 1993: 58, Map 3). Map 41. The distribution of different items of horse gear of Cimmerian origin in central Europe (based on Chochorowski 1993: 80, Map4). iv

Map 42. The distribution of different types of military equipment of Cimmerian origin in central Europe (based on Chochorowski 1993: 116, Map 7). Map 43. The distribution of artefacts which can be associated with wheeled vehicles in central Europe (after Pare 1992: 15, Fig. 19). Map 44. The distribution of wagon-graves in the Hallstatt C period (after Pare 1992: 162, Fig. 108). Map 45. The distribution of wagon-graves in the Hallstatt D period (after Pare 1992: 163, Fig. 109). Map 46. The distribution of depictions of wagons in central Europe (after Pare 1992: 206, Fig. 141; van den Boom 1995: 46, Fig. 7). Map 47. The map of the world according to Herodotus (after Taylor 1994: 386). Map 48. Local cultures strongly influenced by Scythian traditions (based on Meliukova 1989: 50, Fig. 5). Map 49. The distribution of different types of graves of the "classical" version of Scythian culture (based on Meliukova 1989: 50, Fig. 6). Map 50. The distribution of Scythian barrows in eastern Europe in 7th-5th centuries BC (based on Olkhovskii 1991: 18, Fig. 1). Map 51. The distribution ofScythian barrows in eastern Europe in 5th-3rd centuries BC (based on Olkhovskii 1991: 19, Fig. 2). Map 52. The distribution of open and fortified settlements, and graves oflocal cultural groups in the forest-steppe zone which were influenced by Scythian traditions (based on Petrenko 1989: 67, Map 8). Map 53. The distribution of different archaeological sites between the Pruth and the Dnestr Rivers (based on Nikulice 1977; Meliukova 1989: 85, Map 10). Map 54. The general archaeological situation in the Carpathian Basin during the period of Scythian influence (based on Chochorowski 1987: 163, Fig. 1). Map 55. The distribution of objects ofScythian origin in the Carpathian Basin (based on Parducz 1974: 315, Map 1). Map 56. The distribution of archaeological sites of the Vekerzug culture (based on Chochorowski 1985b: 224, Fig. 2). Map 57. The distribution of objects of Scythian / Vekerzug origin in different regions of central Europe (based on Chochorowski 1985b: 256, Fig. 5). Map 58. The distribution ofScythian types of ornaments in south-eastern Poland and western Ukraine (based on Bukowski 1977: 205, Map 2). Map 59. De Navarro's and Sturms' amber routes (after de Navarro 1925; Sturms 1953: Map 3; Bukowski 1990b: 83, Fig. 2). Map 60. The complex system ofSprockhoft's trade routes (after Sprockhoff 1930: Pl. 45). Map 61. The main trade routes in the Early Iron Age proposed by Luka (after Luka 1959: Map 4). Map 62. Malinowski's long-distance trade routes (after Malinowski 1971: 109, Fig. 1). Map 63. Horst's exchange routes (after Horst 1986: 357, Taf. 1). Map 64. Bukowski's system oflong-distance cultural interactions (after Bukowski 1990a: 201, Rye. 1). Map 65. The main "routes" of exchange and cultural interactions between the south and the north in central Europe, in the Hallstatt B 1•2 period. Map 66. Networks oflong-distance contacts between the southern and northern regions of central Europe, in the Hallstatt B 3 and the first part of the Hallstatt C period. Map 67. The distribution oflanceheads (spears) of Pfahlbau type and a related Nordic type (after Thrane 1975: Fig. 30; Kristiansen 1993: 144, Fig. 14.1). Map 68. The distribution of vase-headed pins and ribbed armrings and possible network of their distribution (based on Thrane 1975: Fig. 103). Map 69. The distribution ofWaltenburg and Moringen types of swords (based on Millier-Karpe 1961: Taf. 98-101). Map 70. The distribution of iron artefacts in central Europe in the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age (after Horst 1982: 234, Abb . 2). Map 71. A general model of exchange and cultural interactions in the Hallstatt world, in the Hallstatt B 3-C period. Map 72. The distribution of"spectacles-shaped" fibulae (after von Merhart 1969: 369, Karte 9). Map 73. The distribution of bronze vessels (cistae) in Europe (after Kimmig 1983a: 43, Fig. 34). Map 74. The distribution of sites with Alpine and Italian metal imports found in the area north of the Sudeten and Carpathian Mountains (based on Buck 1979: 79, Abb. 66; Bukowski 1993: 74, Fig. 1). Map 75. A general distribution of painted pottery ofHallstatt type in Europe (after Kimmig 1983: 74, Fig. 63). Map 76. The distribution of the Silesian version of the painted pottery (after Alfawicka 1970; Gedl 1991: Abb.51). Map 77. The central European distribution of cemeteries with graves with wooden chambers north of the Hallstatt "core" (based on Buck 1979: 79, Abb. 66; Bukowski 1990b: 92, Fig. 9). Map 78. The distribution of fortified settlements in the western part of central Poland (based on Smigielski 1991: 25, Fig. 1). Map 79. The distribution of house urns in Pomerania (based on Prahistoria 1979: 160, Fig. 85). Map 80. The distribution of cowrie shells, blue glass beads and amber beads in Pomerania (based on Luka 1963b: mapa 1). Map 81. The distribution of face urns in Poland (based on Prahistoria 1979: 158; Fig. 84). Map 82. The main directions oflong-distance contacts in the Hallstatt C-D period. Map 83. A model of the Late Bronze Age "gateway" communities from central Europe. Map 84. A model of changes in the Hallstatt culture under different cultural influences. Map 85. Trade routes in northern and eastern Europe at the end of the Bronze Age. Map 86. Three central European networks of contacts from the end of the Bronze Age. Map 87. The distribution of the so-called harp-shaped fibulae (Harfenfibeln) (Nebelsick 1996: 334, Abb. 19).

V

Map 88. Networks of exchange and interregional contacts between the East Hallstatt culture and neighbouring regions (Egg 1996: 57, Abb. 4). THE LIST OF FIGURES. Fig. 1. Examples of decorative motifs of Danubian origin, which have been found in northern Europe (after Sprockhoff 1954: 45, Abb. 8: 10; 1956: v.I, 167, Abb: 46-47; Kossack 1954: Ta£ 8). Fig. 2. The twin helmets from Viks0 (after Norling-Christensen 1946a: Pl. l; 1946b: 9, Fig. 3; Harding 1994: 330). Fig. 3. Different types of knives from northern and central Europe from the Hallstatt B 1•2 period (Silesian and Pfatten types, and knives from L0ve) (after Thrane 1972: Fig. 4k; 1975: Fig. 46-47). Fig. 4. Examples of the so-called oath-rings (Eidringe) (after Sprockhoff 1956: v.11,Taf. 40) Fig. 5. Examples of bracelets made of double wire (Armspiralen aus Doppeldraht) (after Sprockhoff 1956: v.11,Taf. 37: 1-3, 5). Fig. 6. Examples of "kidney-shaped" bracelets (Nierenringe) (after Sprockhoff 1956: v.11,Taf. 42). Fig. 7. Examples of different types ofneckrings (Halskragen) (after Sprockhoff 1956: v.11,Taf. 21: 3, 22: 5-6, 23: 4-5). Fig. 8. Examples of different types of fibulae with flat plates (Sprockhoff 1956: v.11,Taf. 49: 4-9, 51: 5-8). Fig. 9. Examples of swords with a "rod type of hilt" (Griffangelschwerter) (after Baudou 1960: Taf. I). Fig. 10. Examples of round-bottomed pottery characteristic of the forest zone of eastern Europe, which has been found in northeastern Poland (5-9), and in the areas of the Ananino (1-4) and Milogrady (10-19) cultures (after Okulicz L. 1976: 226, Rye. 106). Fig. 11. Plans of the barrow graves from former Georgshohe, Warschken and Birkenhof (raj. Primorsk) (after Tischler 1887: 124, 154, Fig. 1, 4; Okulicz J. 1973: 230, Rye. 92: b). Fig. 12. A plan of the boat-shaped barrow from former Espenheim (raj. Znamiensk) (after Okulicz J. 1973: 319, Rye. 145). Fig. 13. Examples of the Malar and Ananino axes (after Kuzminykh 1983: 204-205, 226-227, Tab. X: 1-9, XI: 1-4, 7-10, XXXI: 1-9, XXXII: 1-4, 6-8). Fig. 14. Examples of two types of pottery ("Lusatian" and "textile") discovered at the fortified settlement in Asva (after Okulicz L.1976: 118-119,Ryc.43: 1-8,44: 1-7). Fig. 15. The boat-shaped barrows from the Island ofSaaremaa (after Lougas 1970: 112, Fig. 1). Fig. 16. Examples of boat-shaped graves from the eastern Baltic (recorded in 19th century and in 1960s) (after Groudonis 1967: 70-72, Fig. 53-55). Fig. 17. Examples of the Cernogorovka and Novocerkassk types of artefacts (after Murzin 1991: 60-61, Fig. 3 a-b). Fig. 18. Gold artefacts from a barrow ofGyoma (after Marton 1905; Chochorowski 1993: 237, Fig. 50). Fig. 19. Examples of artefacts from the Michalk6w-Fokoru (Michalkiv-Besenyszog) type ofhoards (after Chochorowski 1993: 239, Fig. 51). Fig. 20. Examples ofCimmerian horse-bits from central Europe (after Chochorowski 1993: 40-41, Fig. 1: 1-12). Fig. 21. Examples ofCimmerian horse-bits where cannons are structurally connected with the cheek-pieces (after Chochorowski 1993: 74-75, Fig. 4). Fig. 22. Examples ofCimmerian cheek-pieces from central Europe (after Chochorowski 1993: 56-57, Fig. 2). Fig. 23. Examples of ring-shaped joins used in bridle fittings ofCimmerian origin (after Chochorowski 1993: 82, Fig. 5). Fig. 24. Examples of"rein-knobs" ofCimmerian origin from central Europe (after Chochorowski 1993: 90, 101, Fig. 7-8). Fig. 25. A depiction on an Etruscan vase (the so-called Pontic vase) (after Murzin 1991: 57, Abb. 1). Fig. 26. A depiction from the sarcophagus from Klazomenai (after Chochorowski 1993: 112, Fig. 11). Fig. 27. Examples of the Kabardin-Pyatigorsk daggers of different types from central Europe (after Chochorowski 1993: 114, Fig. 18). Fig. 28. Examples of different types of Cimmerian fittings for sheaths from central Europe (after Chochorowski 1993: 123, Fig. 13). Fig. 29. Examples of different types of spearheads from central Europe (after Chochorowski 1993: 126, Fig. 14). Fig. 30. Examples of"sceptres" found in central Europe (after Chochorowski 1993: 130, Fig. 15). Fig. 31. Examples of bronze and stone batons from central Europe (after Chochorowski 1993: 135, Fig. 16). Fig. 32. Peoples and tribes described by Herodotus, mapped in terms of geographical and social space (after Taylor 1994: 390). Fig. 33. Examples of different types of Scythian barrows (after Meliukova 1989: Tab. 12: 7, 13: 3, 5, 9, 10, 15, 15: 1, 2, 7, 7a; Olkhovskii 1991: 227-229, Tab. XV: 7-8, XVII: 7-8, XVIII: 4). Fig. 34. Characteristic objects of the Scythian culture (after Meliukova 1989: 336-338, 342-343, 347, 350-351, Tab. 31: 36, 37, 32: 5-9, 11-13, 33: 20, 37: 5-8, 12, 14, 38: 14-18, 42: 11-15, 45: 6-7, 46: 20, 22). Fig. 35. Graves, fortified settlements and examples of material culture from the forest-steppe zone influenced by the Scythian culture (after Meliukova 1989: 323-324, 326, 346, Tab. 18: 1, 6-7, 19: 7, 14, 21: 2, 5, 10, 12, 14-15, 31-32, 34, 35, 41: 1-2, 31-53). Fig. 36. Examples of artefacts of Scythian origin from area between the Pruth and Dnester Rivers (after Meliukova 1989: 332, Tab. 27). Fig. 37. Examples ofScythian type items found in graves in Transylvania (after Vasiliev 1980: Tab. 27; Meliukova 1989: 333334, Tab. 28: 4-6, 18-24, 29: 1-27, 30, 32). Fig. 38. Examples of finds ofScythian type from graves of the Vekerzug culture (after Chochorowski 1987: 172-173, 177, Fig. 7: 1-53, 56). vi

Fig. 39. Examples of objects of Scythian type from the basin of the upper Sava River (after Chochorowski 1985b: 248-250, Abb. 8: 1-23, 80, 9: 17, 33-35, 38-46, 10: 1-50). Fig. 40. Examples of objects ofScythian origin from south-western Hungary (after Chochorowski 1985b: 238-239, Abb. 5: 1, 313, 17-18,24-25,6: 1-9, 17-22,30). Fig. 41. Examples of objects ofScythian type from the area north of the Carpathian Mountains (after Schwantes 1952: 286, Abb. 195; Chochorowski 1985b: 244, Abb . 7: 2-6, 15-23, 26-31). Fig. 42. Examples of Waltenburg and Moringen types of swords (after Miller-Karpe 1961: Tab. 98-99; Kristiansen 1993: 146, Fig. 14.3). Fig. 43. Examples of"sunship bird" decorations (after Kossack 1954: Taf. 8: 16-17; Jockenhovel 1974: Abb. 7-8; Kristiansen 1993: 148, Fig. 14.5). Fig. 44. Examples of metal objects of the East Hallstatt origin from Bohemia, Moravia, western Slovakia and Silesia (after Gedl 1992: 24, Rye. 1: 2-6; 1996: Abb. 18: 1-2, 4; Filip 1951: Tab. 17: 15-16, 19-22, 19: 47-57, 20: 15, 27-31, 21: 1-7, 9-10, 14, 16). Fig. 45. Examples of the Hallstatt and Italian fibulae found in Poland (after Gedl 1991: Abb. 30: 7-11, 40: 1-4, 41: 1-3). Fig. 46. Examples of bronze situlae and cistae from the Czech Republic (after Filip 1951: Tab. 26: 8-9, 13, 16). Fig. 47. Examples of metal finds from graves of the South Bohemian Barrow Graves culture (after Praveke 1978: 580-581, Fig. 180: 1-4, 7-9). Fig. 48. Examples ofHallstatt type finds from graves of the Horakov culture (after Podborsky 1974: 397-399, Fig. 10: 8, 11, 11: 1, 6-15, 20-35). Fig. 49. Examples of finds from the site Byci skala (after Parzinger, Nekvasil, Barth 1995: Taf. 1: 6, 10; 2: 21, 24, 25; 8: 57a-d; 20:218a,219a;21:226;22:273,282;27:296,303-306;33:337;38:346;39:348;41:369). Fig. 50. Examples ofHallstatt type artefacts from the Billendorf group (after Buck 1982: 220, Abb. 3). Fig. 51. Examples of the southern imports, and amber beads from Goi:yszewice-Komorowo complex (after Kossack 1983: Abb. 1: 1, 2, 4, 6, 21; Pradzieje 1989: 545, Tab. CXVI: 1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18). Fig. 52. An example ofEtruscan pottery kantharoiof buccheronero type from central Poland (after Duraczewski 1961: Fig. 6566; Fogel, Makiewicz 1989: Fig. 1). Fig. 53. Examples of finds from hoards from western Pomerania (HaC) (after Gedl 1991: Fig. 10: 1-17, 22: 4, 7-9, 23: 2-3, 24: 5, 6, 8, 26: 6-7; 1992: 24, Rye . 1: 1). Fig. 54. Examples ofLusatian type pottery from Scandinavia (after Thrane 1989: Fig. 1, 4; Carlsson 1995: 51, Fig. 3). Fig. 55. Examples of early forms of face urns from northern Europe (after Malinowski 1995: Fig. 2). Fig. 56. Examples of house urns from central Europe and Italy (after Gedl 1996: 286, Abb. 25: 8-10; Biichsenschiitz 1989: Fig. 2, 4, 6; Pradzieje 1989: 629, Tab. CXXVIII: 22-24 ). Fig. 57. Examples of Pomeranian face urns (after Pradzieje 1989: 749-750, Tab. CLIX-CLX). Fig. 58. A model of the "rotation" of central European exchange routes at the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age.

vii

TRANSLITERATION.

There is no single standardised system of transliteration from the cyrillic to the roman alphabet. The system used in this work is presented below. In recent years, this method has been relatively broadly adopted in English language publications. Many authors from eastern Europe, however , have transliterated their own names in a different way and these versions have been accepted in this work. There are also a number of previously well-established roman-alphabet forms of cyrillic names (particularly in the case of famous sites or cultural groups) and they are traditionally used in archaeological literature. Some of these names were first transliterated by German scholars and they have significantly different forms from names transliterated in the system used in this publication (e.g. Cernogorovka, Novocerkassk, etc). a b

a b

H

B

V

r

)I(

g d e zh

3

z

.L(

e,e

p

Ii

K

i k

T

Jl

1

y

M

q>

H

m n

X

0

0

Q

I1

p

q

C

Vlll

r s t u f kh ts ch

Ill II(

b

bl b

3

IO .8

sh shch omitted y omitted e yu ya

Introduction L INTRODUCTION.

"Exchange is interesting because it is the chief means by which useful things move from one person to another; because it is an important way in which people create and maintain social hierarchy; because it is a rich symbolic activity - all exchanges have got social meaning; ...[it is a] source of metaphors about social relations, about social order, about the fundamental process of nature. Exchange is also often fun: it can be exhilarating as well as useful, and people get excitement from the exercise of their ingenuity in exchange at least as much because of the symbolic and social aspects as because of the material changes which may result" (Davis 1992: 1). Exchange and trade have always been subjects of interest for many academic disciplines. Economics, politics, sociology, social anthropology and archaeology have explored these problems from a diversity of perspectives. In the last few years, complex cross disciplinary analyses of exchange have also emerged. The interpretations of trade which will be presented in this work are based upon archaeological evidence, but I believe that archaeology bridges the past and the present through the application of theoretical models. For my present purpose I would first like to present some general approaches to theories of exchange. Archaeologists, for almost 200 years, have treated exchange and trade as an invisible movement of goods, which could cross a vast area of Europe, but innocent of any interpretative interest in the social contexts of this process. Early interpretations of exchange and trade have divided archaeologists into two general schools: diffusionists and evolutionists (Sherratt 1993c). The models for interpretations of culture contacts and interactions presented in the last 60 years might have different theoretical and intellectual roots but have always belonged to one of a number of diffusionist or evolutionist schools. Kossinna's nationalist archaeology, for example, and Childe's Marxist archaeology have diffusionism in common. Even present-day conflicts between processual and post-processual archaeology are similar in character. The aim of this study is to analyse exchange and trade in their social contexts, during the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age, with a professed interested in long-term changes occurring over a vast area of central and eastern Europe. In the first millennium B.C. different areas of central Europe did not develop separately but were united by symbolic and commercial systems of exchange. The regional differences were of course significant but only because of these differences could exchange have played its very important cultural and social role in these societies. "Exotic" goods present in different archaeological contexts have always been a subject of interest for archaeologists. In 1925 J.M. de Navarro offered the first well known interpretation of long distance trade in the central Europe. His so-called "amber routes" then defined have been the subject of debate and reinterpretation for the last 70 years, yet at the same time a number of archaeologists have questioned the importance of exchange itself.

I shall argue that society at any level of its development (if there is such a thing as the development of society), particularly in the first millennium BC, would have organized itself on a much more complex base than simple production and consumption. However, I do not believe in a panEuropean exchange system similar for all Europe on all levels of exchange. There may be universal "rules" of exchange but they are so general that they are present in any kind of exchange. In the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, in some regions of central Europe exchange linked distant communities which began to share similar values, while in other parts of the continent different fonns of cultural interactions took place and they had different impacts on social, religious, and economic life.

Exchange and Cultural Interactions IL GENERAL BACKGROUND. 2.2. Chronological framework. 2.1. Geographical area of study.

The study of long-distance exchange and cultural interactions needs to encompass large and often distant geographical regions. In this work intercultural contacts which took place in the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age are presented in their broad European context; however, the primary interest is focused on the central and eastern parts of the continent. The term "central Europe", as it is used here, has geographical meaning and cannot, therefore, directly be associated with seemingly similar historical and political terminology. For the purpose of this research, central Europe includes geographical regions which are literally located in the centre of the continent (between the Atlantic and the Ural Mountains). This description of central Europe is significantly different from that which is commonly perceived. The currently used term "Central Europe" frequently has political meaning, including all countries situated between the free-market economy of the West and post-Soviet Russia. The term "Middle Europe", which should describe regions located on the middle of the continent, also has political meaning and historically is associated with an area of strong German influence.

It is not the aim of this research to develop a new chronological system for later European prehistory within the study area, but it is impossible to present long-term changes without some sort of chronological structure. From the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century European archaeologists have created many local chronological systems for the different parts of the continent. Most of these systems are based on two chronological studies: the first, presented by Oscar Montelius for southern Scandinavia, is widely used for all regions of northern Europe, while the second, offered by Reinecke for southern Germany, is used in many local chronologies applied to the southern parts of central Europe. The majority of chronological systems have an artificial, "archaeologistmade" character and they are not strictly related to social, political and economic changes in Europe. I will use these "professional" chronological terminologies more as a tool to clarify and organize my arguments and less as a marker of rapid and significant changes in the "real" past. In the last few decades, the development in cross-dating, radiocarbon, and dendrochronological analyse allow us to "empower" the older, relative, chronological systems with absolute dates.

Based on the geographical approach which is used in this work, the "broad" area of central Europe should include most of Germany, Denmark, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary and eastern Switzerland. These countries create a large and regular block situated between meridians 8 and 22 (Map 1). For the purpose of a more accurate description of the study area, a relatively literal division of central Europe into northern - southern and eastern - western parts, has been adopted. More appropriate geographical names have frequently been used, some of them associated with small areas; for example, Kujavia, the Little Hungarian Plain, etc. Names of larger geographical zones have also been used. These zones often unite parts of central Europe with other regions; for instance, the Baltic area, the Carpathian Basin, etc (Map 2).

In broad definition, the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age is a period of 500 years. In this work I will use both Monelius' and Reinecke's chronological systems to study four phases of changes in the structures and patterns of interregional exchange in the chosen areas of central and eastern Europe. The first phase corresponds to the beginning of the Period V in Montelius' chronology or the Hallstatt B 2 period in Reinecke's system. The next phase represents the end of the Period V, which is synonymous with the Hallstatt B3 period. The third phase includes the first part of Period VI or Hallstatt C, and the last phase is the second part of Period VI or the Hallstatt D period. On the same level of generalization the relationship between these two chronological systems and absolute dates would look like (Randsborg 1996: 61-72; Pare 1996: 99-129):

The study area also includes regions from outside central Europe, which participated in the analysed networks of longdistance exchange and cross-cultural contacts; for example, southern and central Scandinavia, the eastern Baltic, areas from the middle Volga and Kama Rivers, parts of the east European steppe, northern and central Italy, etc (Maps 1 and 2). However, not all regions from this part of the continent are of equal interest to this study. On the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age, different areas of Europe participated to different extents in long-distance exchange. Some regions which played important roles in this interregional trade, for example the southern Baltic area, are particularly significant for the interpretations presented here.

B.C.

Montelius' system

Reinecke's system

950 850

V

750 HaC 600

VI HaD

450

As a result of political and historical events many places and

regions in central Europe have changed their names. In this work I will try to use currently valid names but where there are commonly used English versions, these will be given preference. 2

General Background technologically and economically advanced cultures of the Mediterranean regions.

2.3. Previous study and research. The discussion of long-distance, interregional, contacts between prehistoric communities has a long tradition in the archaeological literature; however, for late European prehistory the first significant discussion of the evidence for this type of contact was published by J.N. de Navarro (1925), who developed the concept of the so-called amber routes. His interpretation of intensive contacts between the northern and the southern parts of central Europe has subsequently been supplemented and modified by other archaeologists and ancient historians including K. Sturms, Z. Bukowski, E. Sprockhoff, T. Malinowski, J. Chochorowski, D.-W. Buck, H. Thrane, and many others.

2.4. Cultural-historical background. A cultural and historical outline of the 1st millennium B.C. in central Europe presents an essential introduction to this study. It must be realized that archaeological interpretations of the past in central Europe have been almost as complicated and unclear as has the political history of this region in the 19th and 20th centuries. A more objective cultural-historical framework, devoid of political and ethnic pre-conceptions, is a necessary base for any archaeological research. Different cultural groups from central Europe, which are presented below, are mostly treated as methodological tools to order the archaeological data; their presentation is a necessary and preliminary, but not a major, aim of this work.

The relationship between central Europe and other parts of barbarian Europe in later prehistory has never been analysed on the same scale as the southern influence. The importance of contacts with the Nordic world have been ignored for many years. Recently some aspects of this problem were studied by E. Sprockhoff, T.B. Larsson, J. Ostoja-Zag6rski, J. Fogel, H. Thrane, and others. The connections with the eastern Baltic region are even less known than those with the south and west. This subject was introduced by AM. Tallgren, J. Okulicz, M. Gimbutas and E. Sturms in general publications. One of the most interesting questions in the central European Bronze and Iron Ages is the problem of the Pontic steppe, and the significance of eastern influences. This has been analysed in publications by J. D!!:,browski, S. Bokonyi, J. Bouzek, Z. Bukowski, Gy. Gazdapusztai, M. Parducz, T. Sulimirski, A.I. Terenozkhin, A.I. Meliukova, J. Chochorowski, and others.

2.4.1. The Middle and Late Bronze Age. For the Late Bronze Age, different versions of the Umfield cultures and related groups have been distinguished in central Europe. The most characteristic of these cultures are known from central and southern Germany. This part of the continent participated in the cultural and political changes which had already taken place in western and central Europe in the Early Bronze Age (Periods II and III). As a result of these changes, a large number of different cultures (the Piliny culture in Slovakia and Hungary, the middle Danube Umfield culture, the Northern Tyrol Umfield culture and the Southern German Umfield culture, etc) appeared and can be divided into smaller archaeological groups (Gedl 1985a: 121-157). All of these cultures had their roots in the earlier cultural complex called the Tumulus or Barrow Graves culture. The Umfield groups from Germany are known from large flat cremation cemeteries, rich barrow graves, hillforts, and lakesettlements. Some of these groups developed a large scale production of metal and controlled trade with their southern and northern neighbours.

Most of the publications focusing on central European contacts with the south and other regions have the character of regional catalogues of imports and most of them offer only short and simplistic interpretations of the distribution of goods. The archaeology of the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age in central Europe has not benefited from sophisticated interpretations of social, political and cultural changes of a kind which would embrace the importance of foreign influences, and is based on known archaeological and anthropological models. Apart from these "traditional" interpretations of long-distance trade, there are many publications which present local aspects of exchange mechanism. Examples, can be seen in the large collections of papers from international conferences in Szombathely in 1982 (Savaria 16), Budapest in 1986 (Jerem 1986), Rzesz6w in 1992 (Czopek 1992), Sopron in 1994 (Jerem, Lippert 1996), and others.

East and north of the "classical" Umfield world related cultural groups called the Lusatian culture developed. At the tum of the Bronze Age Periods II and III (in Montelius' system), the Lusatian culture emerged in an area extending westward to the upper and middle Elbe, and eastward to the Vistula, with the Oder basin at its centre. The Lusatian culture never represented a unified cultural or economic entity since it was widely spread across central Europe and was divided into many different local groups. The most consistent and characteristic element of material culture known from different groups of the Lusatian culture is pottery. The pottery, on the one hand, helped to distinguish the culture as a whole while, on the other, formed a basis by which most of the local groups could be characterized.

There is also a significant collection of publications offered by archaeologists who attempt to connect material evidence of long-distance trade with theoretical and, particularly, social interpretations of this activity. Interesting explanations of the central European exchange system have been presented by Kristiansen (1993, 1994) and Sherratt (1993c). In their opinion the changes in trade networks bore a direct relationship to social and political changes. The nature of these networks was based on regular contacts with the

The Lusatian metallurgy was significantly influenced by the southern (the Carpathian) traditions; nevertheless, it developed its own centres in middle Silesia and the southern part of Great Poland. Among common bronze objects, weapons (particularly spearheads) and ornaments (pins of various kinds) were produced. In the first half of the seventh

3

Exchange and Cultural Interactions

The Nordic tradition of metal production usually employed sophisticated casting techniques. The metal objects themselves and burial practices are the most characteristic elements of the Nordic culture known from the archaeological evidence. Inhumation barrow graves from the Early Bronze Age dominated the burial tradition until Period IV and even later. Rich graves were placed in old barrows or under new ones. Pottery production in the Nordic culture was not of such a high quality as its metal production and was strongly influenced by forms typical of the Urnfield zone and the Lusatian culture.

century B.C., iron products began to be used in a few regions in the northern part of central Europe, initially in the form of pins, knives and other small objects. By the end of the Hallstatt C period, in the areas of the Lusatian cultures which were strongly influenced by the Hallstatt world, the majority of weapons and tools were made of iron (Prahistoria 1979: 45-49). At the beginning of Hallstatt A, when the Lusatian culture was developing, the custom of cremation was adopted. The normal practice in this culture was burial in flat um-graves. In the Hallstatt B3 and C period, in intensively developed regions of the Lusatian culture (Silesia, Great Poland, and Kujavia), richly furnished graves, with large quantities of pottery and foreign imports, appeared. Barrows were occasionally built over these graves (Gedl 1989).

2.4.2. Political, economic and cultural changes in neighbouring areas of central Europe at the beginning of the Iron Age. During the period between 8th and 6th centuries BC, corresponding to the Hallstatt C and D period, the whole of Europe was undergoing significant political and cultural change. These changes were, in part at least, conditioned by Greek and Phoenician colonization, by the intensive development of the Etruscan culture and by the expansion of people from the east European steppe zone (Cimmerians and Scythians).

In the northern part of Poland, and particularly in Pomerania, the Lusatian influences were mixed with older local traditions and with significant Nordic elements. The so-called Lusatian traditions in Pomerania can be recognized in the funerary tradition (forms of cemeteries and pottery) and only from very few fortified settlements. The background of the Lusatian culture in the area of northern Poland was very different from the background of this culture in other regions. The southern coast of the Baltic Sea was never strongly influenced by the Unetice culture, but the traditions of the Barrow Graves culture, the early Nordic culture, and the Grobia-Smiard6w culture, had a significant impact on the region (Gedl 1990: 67). In my judgement, Pomerania for most of the Bronze Age was in close relation to other areas of the western Baltic. Some elements of the Urnfield traditions of the Lusatian culture were introduced to this region not earlier than the middle or end of the Period III (in the Montelian chronology) (Fogel 1988: 106; Dll_browski1990: 123).

Greeks and Phoenicians had by 800 B.C. begun to penetrate the central and western coasts of the Mediterranean Sea. The earliest Greek colonies were established at Ischia and Cumae in central Italy, situated for ease of access to Etruria. Soon after, colonization of the agriculturally more promising areas of southern Italy and Sicily began. From the later 8th century the northern coast of the Aegean (next to the Thracians) was also explored. The Greek's exploration of the Black Sea, with their first colony at Olbia, gave them access to Transylvanian metals and to the com-rich Danube valley (Istrus) and then, after the foundation of Phasis, to the north Pontic region and to metal-rich Caucasus. They had also developed their contacts with the East Mediterranean regions of Cyprus, Syria, Egypt and Libya. Further expansion to the west was carried out by the Phoenicians (Carthage, Sardinia, Spain and western Sicily). In the 8th century,the most important colonizing cities were the Euboean Eretria and Chalcis, then the city of Corinth, especially in Sicily and northern Greece; and Miletus and the Ionian cities in the Black Sea (Boardman, Griffin,Murray 1992: 20-25; Cunliffe 1988: 1317). The Greek colonization directly influenced only the Mediterranean area, although it also stimulated economic and cultural development of other regions, for example the Alpine zone, and trade contacts with more distant parts of Europe.

To the north of the Urn:field world (including the Lusatian culture) a significantly different cultural complex developed. From the Early Bronze Age (Period I of the Montelian system) in the area of Jutland, the Danish Islands, southern Sweden and northern Germany, a new cultural complex - the Nordic Bronze Age culture - appeared. From the beginning of the Bronze Age this culture had developed contacts with the south European centres of metallurgy and already, in Period II, the Nordic culture had begun to produce its own metal. Since this area of northern Europe did not have local sources of copper and tin, all production was based on imported materials. In the first part of the Bronze Age these imports were from the Carpathian Basin (Pradzieje 1989: 533; Kristiansen 1993: 143), but by the end of the Bronze Age the important interregional centre of metal production had moved to the Alpine region, which included northern and central Italy, whence one can see a strong connection between this region and the area of Nordic culture (Kristiansen 1993: 146-147; and others). It is possible that, from the Period V, much of the copper might have been imported from as far away as the Ural Mountains area (Pradzieje 1989: 533; Fogel 1988: 83; Okulicz L. 1976: 268270).

The reasons for colonization were varied and they were different for different mother cities. The reason most usually given by classical writers was over-population, while the overriding reason suggested by historians and archaeologists was trade. A third reason for the period of colonization, which needs to be explored more carefully, is sociological, depending on the decisions and ambitions of individuals or groups of individuals. Relevant factors include the will to travel and the pursuit of adventure, career, or knowledge. 4

General Background In the first half of 6th centwy, Greeks from Phocaea established their first colony in southern France (Massalia), and not much latter a number of Greek colonies appeared in France (Tauroention, Antipolis and Nicaea), one in Spain (Emporion) and one on Corsica (Alalia). The port of Massalia, located close to the mouth of River Rhone, was the most important colony on the Gaulish coast and soon became the centre of cultural interaction and trade between classical and barbarian Europe (Cunliffe 1988: 17-19).

Europe. The increase of the nomadic influences initiated political and cultural changes in different parts of the continent, and it is represented by the reorientation of longdistance exchange networks, changes in the centres of metal production, and the appearance of the Hallstatt culture. Artefacts of the early nomadic type can be defined as objects which had their origin within the vast area of the Cimmerian and then Scythian cultures, and they are described in the later chapters of this work. The Cimmerian culture, and particularly the Scythian culture which developed from the end of the 7th centwy B.C., united not only exclusively nomadic people from the northern Black Sea coast, but also various neighbouring groups from the east European foreststeppe zone. This accords with the description presented by Herodotus (Talbot Rice 1957). Local communities from the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin and Transylvania may also be included in the broad definition of the Cimmerian and Scythian cultures.

The expansion of Greek colonies took place during the period of intensive development of the Etruscan culture, which was the most important and the most economically advanced culture of the Italic world until the rise of Rome. The Etruscan culture is known from the 7th centwy in central and northern Italy (between the Rivers Amo and Tiber). The late Bronze Age communities from northern Italy, which preceded the Etruscan culture, had important links with the Umfield cultures of continental Europe. This is represented by a cremation burial tradition which was adopted and spread in central and northern Italy by the proto-Villanovan culture (Pallottino 1991: 25-35).

From the end of the 7th centwy B.C. in the Dnieper basin and other parts of eastern Europe, early Scythian elements, with characteristic zoomorphic motifs (the horizon of the Kelermes assemblage) began to appear (Sulimirski 1971: 141). The Scythian zoomorphic style appears earlier in the Altai area, in Central Asia. The artefacts from this region are best known from the Pazytyk site, where the famous frozen barrows were excavated. During these excavations large collections of organic and non-organic artefacts were discovered (Rudenko 1970). Similar kinds of artefacts have been found in the regions of Transbaikalia and in northern Mongolia (Jettmar 1967: 141-143). The Scythian and related cultures replaced previous nomadic tribes (Cimmerians) as a dominant political, cultural and economic power in eastern Europe, parts of the Caucasus and of Asia Minor. The important position of the Scythian culture in the European steppe zone ended with the development of the Sarmatian culture.

The cause of Etruria's economic prosperity lay in the mineral wealth found there, and in its position in interregional trade. In the 7th and 6th centuries the Etruscans played an important role in the European exchange system: on the one hand they had access to supplies of Greek luxury products, on the other, they had strong connections with the productive barbarian lands beyond the Alps. This role was particularly important after the decline of the Carpathian centre of metal production. Amicable relationships between Massalia and the Etruscan cities ended with the battle of Alalia (c.537 B.C.), in which the Etruscans supported the Carthaginians. In 474 B.C., Etruscan fleets, in two sea battles (Himera and Cumae), were defeated by Greeks. Hence, the north-eastern sector of the western Mediterranean became an exclusively Greek preserve (Cunliffe 1988: 22-23).

2.4.3. The Early Iron Age.

The intensive development of the Alpine and north Italian centres of metallurgy might be associated with the expansion of nomadic communities from the east European steppes. As a result of this expansion the older Carpathian centres of metal production were incorporated into a new system of cultural interactions. The east European steppes are the natural door to the centre of the European continent. These steppes expand from the area close to the northern Caucasus and the River Volga to eastern Hungary. The enormous area of open grassland provided a natural habitat for the nomadic tribes, who were the first to use horses on a large scale. They also linked the European communities with the cultural centres in the Caucasus, Asia Minor, and Central Asia. The existence of the steppe and its nomadic population, including named tribes like the Cimmerians, provided the link by which Caucasian influences reached central Europe. The evidence of eastern influences on the European communities can be recognized from characteristic archaeological material.

The changes in barbarian Europe at the beginning of the Iron Age were the result of internal development and interactions with other cultures (Greeks, Phoenicians, Etruscans and nomads from eastern Europe). In this period, in the area of the southern groups of the Umfield culture (Upper Austria, southern Germany), a new archaeological culture (called the Hallsatatt culture) appeared. This culture extended over large areas of western and central Europe from France in the west, through the regions of the upper and middle Rhine and the upper and middle Danube, to the coast of the Adriatic Sea in the east. Contacts with the steppe zone may have been instrumental in the increasing popularity of wheeled vehicles and a horse riding tradition in the Hallstatt "world". This culture played a very important role in the general European exchange system. Bronze and iron weapons and ornaments, painted pottery, large fortified settlements and rich burials in monumental graves, are the best known archaeological evidence of the very important position . of the Hallstatt culture in barbarian Europe. The eastern extensions of this culture were the Bylany culture and the Horakov culture, in the area of the present-day Czech Republic, and the

Daggers, sceptres, arrowheads and horse-bits are the most diagnostic products of the steppes area in 9th to 7th century B.C. Some of these artefacts have also been found in western 5

Exchange and Cultural Interactions By the end of the Hallstatt B one of the local cultural groups from Pomerania, which had lost contacts with the centres of the Lusatian culture, and were strongly influenced by the Nordic zone, began to acquire a particularly distinctive character. This group, which was separated from the south by the marshy Notec valley, developed into a separate culture called the Pomeranian culture. It is sometimes referred to as the East Pomeranian culture, the Cist Grave culture, the Face Um culture and the Wejherowo-Krotoszyn culture (Malinowski 1989: 570-574). In the Hallstatt C the centre of the Pomeranian culture lay west of the lower Vistula on the Cassubian Upland. In the Hallstatt D and later, it spread to the west and south (extending as far as the northern part of Lower Silesia, central Poland, part of Little Poland and of north-westernMasovia) (Luka 1979a: 147-150).

Kalenderberg culture from south-eastern Slovakia and Austria (Pradzieje 1989: 536-542). Between the Hallstatt C and D period, as a result of political and economic changes, the most active centre of the Hallstatt culture moved westward from the area of the so-called East Hallstatt culture to the area of the West Hallstatt culture (Cunliffe 1988: 25). The new Hallstatt world did not incorporate regions which were situated in the northern part of central Europe, where two large um-using cultural complexes can be seen to continue their development. The first, the late Nordic Bronze Age culture, was later replaced by the Jastorf culture. The second cultural complex continued the older traditions of the Lusatian culture, while in northern Poland a new culture, the so-called Pomeranian, developed. The Jastorf culture occupied Jutland, northern Germany and southern Scandinavia. In the later period it expanded southward to northern Saxony and Thuringia, and eastward to western Pomerania. W. Wegowitz developed G. Schwantes' earlier chronological system of this culture and distinguished a number of phases. The oldest is the Wessenstedt phase, which represents the transition between the Nordic and Jastorf cultures. The Jastorf phase (A, B, C) continued until the beginning of the Pre-Roman Iron Age (the early La Tene) (Wegowitz 1972). At the beginning of the Iron Age the area of the Jastorf culture lost its direct contacts with the economic and cultural centres of southern central Europe. The archaeological evidence for this culture is limited to open settlements and cemeteries. The burial rituals had their roots in Late Bronze Age traditions, with cremation being the dominant ritual. In the earlier phase urns were often surrounded with stones. Later the stones were omitted from grave constructions. In the Jastorf culture pins represent a dominant foxm of ornaments, since for much of the time fibulae were unknown.

Certain religious ideas, probably connected with the cult of ancestors, which were expressed in house-shaped urns and primarily in the urns with pictorial representation of human faces (the so-called face urns), appeared in the Pomeranian culture as a result of intensive contacts with southern Europe (particularly with the Etruscan culture), through central and north-eastern Germany. This pottery was specially made for burials. It represents a remarkable transfer of central Italian ideas and customs along the exchange routes. In the fifth to third centuries B.C. characteristic elements of the Pomeranian culture were adopted by different groups of the Lusatian culture. The combination of the Pomeranian and the post-Lusatian elements, together, probably, with older traditions, foxmed the basis of the development of the Bell Grave culture in eastern Poland. Current interpretations consider it to be a variant of the Pomeranian culture.

At the beginning of the Iron Age large areas of Great Poland, Upper and Middle Silesia, and the northern part of the Czech Republic (with the local versions of the Lusatian culture) were in close relationship with the East Hallstatt culture area. The Silesian group played an important role in the system of long-distance trade which connected central and northern Italy with the southern coast of the Baltic Sea. Hallstatt bronzes were widely distributed in the area of south-western Poland. Local centres of pottery production echoed the Hallstatt style: of these the high quality Silesian painted ceramics are the best example. The new influences did not affect the old tradition of cremation burial; inhumation graves appeared only in areas of middle Silesia. However, in many graves finds similar to those known from the area of the Hallstatt culture have been discovered (for example Gorszewice cemetery). Outside Silesia other groups of the Lusatian culture continued their development, the most important between them were the Bialowice (Billendorf) group, and the eastern Great Poland and Kujavia group. Large fortified settlements (the Biskupin type), rich burials and a high quality of pottery production were characteristic of these groups.

6

Theoretical Approaches solely for one's own needs, involving no exchange between the household units (Pearson 1957: 6).

/IL THEORETICALAPPROACHES. 3.1. Social theory and interpretation of exchange and trade.

What is important in Polanyi's theory is its objection to the interpretation of exchange and trade from the point of view of present-day economics (formalism). However, his belief in the limited importance of trade, particularly long-distance trade, in social life, is wrong and cannot stand up to criticism. Since Polanyi's publications, we can divide interpretations of exchange and trade in social anthropology into two groups : formalism and substantivism. Scholars from both schools have created many different definitions of formalism and substantivism. Generally we can say that formalists believe that, unlimited by time and place, abstract economic theory is applicable to the analysis of "primitive" and "peasant" economies which are \lllderdeveloped versions of our own. Substantivists limit themselves to space and time and they do not believe in universal roles of "formal" economic theory, since for them economy becomes a category of culture rather than behaviour (Sahlins 1974: xii; Cook 1966: 323-327).

3.1.1. Introduction: social theories of exchange.

"Our interest in how to play and win the social game ... brought us very quickly to dilemmas about the individual and society; egoism and altruism; equality and inequality; even original sin and man's perfectibility" (Bailey 1971: 3). Social theories of exchange, developed in anthropology and other academic disciplines, have been projected aro\llld various aspects of exchange and trade, while for most archaeologists it has been studied as the simple movement of goods. From the early 20th century, interpretations of exchange and trade in most social studies were dominated by the works of Karl Marx. Theories of exchange, of relevance to archaeologists, have been particularly developed in social anthropology. These anthropological theories have different philosophical and intellectual backgrollllds, located in the broader context of polemics between structuralists and functionalists, formalists and substantivists, and relativists and anti-relativists, etc. In my view, however, it is now impossible to accept the binary division of social theories. Exchange as a social activity can be studied at a general, or even a universal, level as well as within local and regional contexts.

Both these interpretations of exchange and trade carry with them the potential danger of imposing ethnocentric judgements on different cultures. Formalists can very easily treat our own economy and culture as a centre of the universe, the highest stage of human development. In their opinion all other societies for thousands years wanted to achieve our culture and way of life; for them man's wants were always great or even infinite, whereas his means were limited, although improvable by industrial productivity (Sahlins 1974: 2). Nevertheless, the substantivists' interpretation of exchange can be equally dangerous . On the one hand, it can end in complete relativism, which will make further study impossible, and on the other it can treat other cultures and peoples as different from us: not quite human or, at least, not as sophisticated as we are.

3.1.2. Culture as an economy. One of the most interesting questions in the social interpretation of exchange and trade concerns the relation between culture and economy. Since Marx's "Capital", culture has been interpreted, in the social sciences, as economy or as a dialectic force orientated against economy. This point of view is expressed very clearly by Kopytoff:

It is my assertion that exchange and trade are integral parts of a culture, as is economy, not an external factor, and only in its cultural context can it be analysed. Here I agree with Gudeman's opinion about economics and its impact on other academic disciplines:

"... the exchange function of every economy appears to have a built-in force that drives the exchange system towards the greatest degree of commoditization that the exchange technology permits . ... The counterforces are the culture and the individual, with their drive to discriminate, classify, compare, and sacralize" (Kopytoff 1986: 87).

"I have no doubts as to the seriousness of Economics. I think that Economics has taken in modern society to a large extent the place that theology had in the Middle Ages; and there has never been any thing as serious as that" (Gudeman 1986: 142).

This situation changed after Polanyi's interpretation of trade and market which was a reaction to the economic difficulties in "the western world" . Yet this interpretation is not based on strong historical or archaeological evidence. Nowadays, few can accept his opinion that:

3.1.3. Trade or exchange. Another problem embedded in the discussion between formalists and substantivists is the question of the difference between exchange and trade. Many anthropologists use the term "trade" when they refer to any passage of goods, and the term "exchange" when it is applied to the ceremonial passage of gifts or presentations (Healey 1990: 5). In other words, social exchange is distinguished from strictly economic exchange by the unspecified obligations incurred in it and the trust both required for and promoted by it (Blau 1964: 8). In many studies, trade is implicitly everything that gift exchange

"{..exchange} was still widely practised by some barbarians peoples in regard to the necessaries of life, at the set equivalences, benefiting at one time the one, at another time the other, as chance would have it" (Polanyi 1957: 93), or with opinions of his followers, for example:

"Up to the year 1000 A.D. the economy never passed beyond the stage of closed domestic economy where production was 7

Exchange and Cultural Interactions is not. Yet, trade is one form of exchange. There is no such a thing as free trade: evexy transaction, even that which has a highly economic character, is not free from a social context and it always expresses some kind of social relationship. Of course, some forms of exchange have a more symbolic and sophisticated character than others, but there is no transaction without social meaning.

exchange processes. For him the primitive analogue of social contract is not the State, but the gift which is the basic way of achieving peace. Exchange, which is first of all a pact of society, has a political character; it subtracted the power of individuals to a "super-person" or a group of people to the benefit of all. This total exchange has its own internal structure, which is similar to the structure of any competition.

The division between formalists' explanation of trade and substantivists'analysis of exchange has an artificial character, since economy is culturally bounded and it is impossible to study these two subjects separately. I will use the words "exchange" and "trade" almost as synonyms, or at last as words with vexy similar meanings which are vexy difficult to distinguish. We have to agree with Davis' opinion that the aim is the essential element of exchange, since the result itself tells us nothing and that result can only have a meaning in relation to the intentions of the exchangers (Davis 1992: 39). Any sociological, anthropological or archaeological study of exchange needs:

"The prime competitor - the first enemy - is frequently the man nearest to you in rank" (Bailey 1971: 19). We usually do not start a "war" if we do not have at least a slight chance of victory. However, there are people who do not stand as competitors. It is possible to separate them into a number of categories: "Firstly there are those with whom a man has a relation of trust... Secondly there are those who stand outside the moral community... Thirdly, there are ... people whom one considers to be in the "league" above or below" (Bailey 1971: 20)

"... a good theory of the relation between surface appearances and underlying reality - one which explains how some things can be both at once, and some can be one at one time and the other at another, while some things can only be surface phenomena" (Davis 1992: 26).

Mauss' interpretation of exchange was developed by Sahlins. For him the gift will not organize society in a corporate sense, but only in a segmentary sense. Exchange does not dissolve the separate parties within a higher unity, but, on the contrary, in correlating their opposition, perpetuates it. The connection between material flow and social relations is reciprocal. A specific social relation may constrain a given movement of goods, but a specific transaction - "by the same token" - suggests a particular social relation (Sahlins 1974: 179-186).

3.1.4. Exchange as social communication. Exchange has the character of social conversations. It is a language which is the property of "a community of speakers" (Saussure 1978: 78), but its grammar cannot be directly found in a linguistic parallel, as some structuralist and poststructuralist anthropologists or archaeologists seem to argue. There is no limit to exchange, everything can be passed: food, women, children, property, talismans, land, labour services, priestly functions, and ranks. There is constant exchange on a spiritual level, including things and men distributed between social ranks, the sexes, and the generations (Mauss 1990: 12-14). Exchange is a basic function of social relations; there is neither altruism nor free trade in a society; we exchange evexything, including love and religious beliefs.

"Iffriends make gifts, gifts makefriends" (Sahlins 1974: 186)

Sahlins, also, distinguished two general kinds of gift transactions. The first one, so-call reciprocity is a "vice versa" movements of goods between two partners or groups of partners.

A

.. B

The second kind of transaction is centralized movement: collection from members of a group, often under one authority, and redistribution within this group (Sahlins 1974: 188).

"Souls are mixed with things; things with souls. Lives are mingled together, and this is how, among persons and things so intermingled, each emerges from their own sphere and mixes together. This is what contract and exchange are" (Mauss 1990: 20).

A

Polanyi refers to exchange as a sequence of one-sided declarations of will, to which definite effects were attached under "rules oflaw" (Polanyi 1957: 22), but these rules leave room for the individual actions of participants. For Mauss, evexything is based upon the principle of antagonism and rivalry. The political status of individuals in the brotherhood and clans, and ranks of all kinds, are gained in a "war of property", just as they are in the real war (Mauss 1990: 37). Mauss replaced Hobbes' war of every man against every man by the exchange of evexything between evexybody, and Rousseau's social contract by agreement achieved during

B

It\

C D

::::,

A

B

/!\

C D

Many social theories accepted dialectical interpretations of social relations: for them the dynamics of organized social life has its source in opposition forces. "The dominant power of individuals, groups, or organizations over others make it possible for them to establish legitimate authority by exercising their power fairly 8

Theorerical Approaches and with moderation and by making it profitable for others to remain under their protective influence" (Blau 1964: 334).

"While the big man is a "theoretical" category corresponding to the structure of the system of the reproduction, the great man is an "empirical" category: aggregate of outstanding social position in a concrete society. ... Whar the great men have in common is that they are not big men" (Liep 1991: 30).

Dialectical interpretation implies that changes in social structure involve neither evolutionary progress in a straight line nor recwTing cycles, but alternating patterns of social reorganization along different lines. Blau offered a theoretical model in which political organization is analytically derived from transactions among organized collectivities and these organizations, in tum, are traced back to simpler processes of social exchange (Blau 1964: 334-336). 1his model can be schematically presented in the following form:

1

ntegration

7

7

rCoalitions

ExL·changedOrganiJzation ~or;:ti:~~nal

Diffmnti,hon

..

• •

"Individual" and "group" are, I believe, false alternatives. doubly so implicated because each implies the other. Marilyn Strathem introduced the concept of the person who is neither singular nor plural. A big man is not an integrator or simply a power-broker; he undergoes a personal magnification when he changes from an individual to a sociological scale (Wagner 1991: 162-171). "The great man ... is as great as a particular institution or configuration of a conceptual totality; one can have "kinds" of great men as one can have variations of a myth" (Wagner 1991: 173).

or::~i~n

Dice~

ppos1t1on

3.2. Social life of material things.

\,\/hile most anthropologists will agree that forms of exchange have changed through the history of social "evolution", it is accepted that the symbolic passage of goods and services was the most important in those societies which passed from the formal solidarity of kinship structure to centralized chiefdoms, but had not yet reached a money oriented economy. where the individual contract is the most important (Mauss 1990: 46; Sahlins 1974: 130).

3.2.L Life-cycle of objects.

Liep replaced Sahlins' two-fold evolutionary sequence - from the Melanesian big man to the Polynesian chief - by a threestage ladder: great man - big man - chief (Liep 1991: 32); three types of society presented by a model which assumes no temporal sequences but sets out their differences and simila1ities and suggests transformational possibilities between them (Liep 1991: 33).

The study of exchange and trade, pa.tticularly in archaeological or anthropological contexts, is the study of the relationship between human beings and material objects. On the one hand, material things have their own lives, their own biographies, they are made, used and then abandoned: on the other, they present and create social relations. Material objects can be exchanged for other objects, services, prestige or directly for power. Imports are a special category of commodities which have changed their social context and have acquired an important prestigious and symbolic position.

"...we have to follow the things themselves, for their meanings [which} are inscribed in their forms, their uses, their trajectories". "..from a methodological point of view it is the things-inmotion that illuminate their human and social context" (Appadurai 1986: 5).

CHIEF hierarchic generalized exchange centralization of wealth ascribed status ntual constitution

GREATMAN ,._______ d1rec1exchange division of functions non-accumulation

A theory of commodities was developed in the 19th and early 20th centuries by the economists Marx([ 1887] l 97 l ). Simmel ([1907] 1978) and others. Karl Marx in the first volume of Capital described a commodity as a product intended principally for exchange, yet this definition can be used only for a commodity in modem or capitalistic society. Another more "anthropological" description of commodities was given by Appadurai. In his interpretation commodities are things with a particular type 'of social potential and they are distinguishable from "products", "objects". "goods". "artifacts", and other things. He accepted that this distinction can be made only from certain points of view and in cenain respects (Appadurai 1986: 6). One can change Marx's famous distinction between two forms of circulation of commodities: "Commodities - Money - Commodities" and "Money Commodities - Money" to another one more useful for social studies in archaeology and anthropology: "Commodities Prestige - Commodities" and "Prestige - Commodities -

__., BIG MAN achieved status complex exchange decentralization of wealth

Yet. there is evidence that societies which have not developed the position of a strong leader (e.g. acephalous tribes) can have a highly complicated system of exchange . In my understanding. in every society the individual contract is a basic and universal part of exchange. Systems of exchange can change through history, they can have different forms at different levels of society, they can be more or less sophisticated. and finally they can be more or less difficult to discover. I agree with Liep that the category of great man is located at a different analytical level than that of the big man. 9

Exchange and Cultural Interactions Prestige". If Simmel was right that value is not an inherent property of objects, but a judgment made about them by subjects (Simmel [1907)1978: 73), it is possible to say that politics creates links between exchange and value (Appadurai 1986: 3). 3.2.2. Knowledge and distance.

Knowledge had played an essential part in exchange. It is the most important part of a social game of exchange to know how to produce, distribute, display and monopolize trade. In most prehistoric or "primitive" societies knowledge was a subject of social distribution, either by simple criteria of age and gender or by more complex criteria of households, castes and villages (Appadurai 1986: 42). Differences in power and wealth were produced in the past through limited contact with the outside world (Bailey 1971: 56; Helms 1988: 131172).

"... merchant bridges across large gaps in knowledge between producer and consumer" (Appadurai 1986: 42). Knowledge can also be distributed in a spatial, temporal and institutional sense. When physical things travel long distances, knowledge about them tends to become partially contradictory and differentiated. This knowledge, or rather lack of knowledge, creates their value and very often gives them a special symbolic character, used to establish and maintain power in prestige-goods societies. It is why in premodern, and particularly in so-called primitive societies, it is possible to observe a tendency to restrict trade to a limited set of commodities and to dealings with strangers rather than with kinsmen or friends (Appadurai 1986: 33).

If we accept Kopytoffs (1986) opinion that material things have their "life histories" or "careers", it is possible to say that distribution of knowledge at various points in their careers would be different. Appadurai distinguished two categories of knowledge. The first is the knowledge (technical, social, aesthetic, and so forth) that goes into the production of the commodity. This knowledge, "how-to", is usually highly standardized and has a technical character. The second is the knowledge that directs how the commodity should be consumed (Appadurai 1986: 41). Yet Appadurai's classification divided knowledge only from a "practical" point of view and thus ignored the essential qualification that any technical knowledge is always interpreted within a complex sociological and symbolic assumptions. In all societies, particularly in so-called primitive societies, knowledge "written-in" during a process of production exhibits at the same time a technical and a ritual character. Producers also have a basic knowledge which will be "readout" of their products by customers, and again this knowledge always has both a practical and a symbolic character. Nevertheless, after the process of production, material things start their own "lives", which might be independent from the knowledge and wishes of their producers. Goods which moved beyond local circles of knowledge, which united producers and consumers, start to have a special value in a practical and/or symbolic sense. This is why long-distance trade, where knowledge about

foreign imports was limited, partial, highly symbolic and restricted to elites, always held a very important position in establishing, maintaining and changing social, political and economic powers. Any diversion of commodities from regular paths, particularly in long-distance exchange, is a sign of creativity or crisis, whether aesthetic and economic, as Appadurai (1986: 26) maintains, or social, political and religious, as I believe. In most societies, the diversion of material things from their customary paths can be risky and morally ambiguous. Humans and physical objects, in real life, are mixed together and it is only a very modern idea to classify them in two separate "worlds". We are making the things and, at the same time, the things are "making" and defining us. Changes in distribution, in regular paths of goods, particularly those goods which have an important social meaning, will influence "a human world". 3.2.3. Value and the role of prestige goods.

Physical objects which were used to represent the important social position of their owners are called prestige goods by anthropologists and archaeologists or luxury products by economists. These objects usually have a higher political value than an economic one. Mary Douglas (1967) presented the following general characteristics ofluxury goods: • they represent highly specific powers of acquisition, • their distribution is strictly controlled, • they create a set of patron-client relationships, • their main function is to enter, maintain and combine highstatus positions, • the aims of the system in which they operate is to eliminate or reduce competition (Douglas 1967: 69). In different political and economic systems, all or only some, elements of a prestige-goods economy can be discovered. The essential point of luxury products is that their consumption is social and active rather than private and passive. It might be useful here to quote Appadurai again:

"...we regard luxury not so much in contrast to necessities, but as goods whose principal use is rhetorical and social ... The necessity to which they respond is fundamentally political" (Appadurai 1986: 38). In this sense, prestige goods are not only a special class of things, but much more, a special complex of judgements about these things. Material objects can move in and out of the stage of being prestige goods. These changes can appear in time or space. Luxury commodities are usually foreign imports which were exchanged in a long distance trade network. It is relatively easy to give them a prestigious character by restrictions of price or law to an elite, to complexity of acquisition, specialized knowledge, semiotic virtuosity (that is, the ability to signal complex social messages), and to a high degree of linkage of their consumption to body, person and personality (Appadurai 1986: 38).

Theoretical Approaches archaeologists the dirty word diffusionism (in my opinion no more dirty than evolutionism) has such a negative meaning, there are not many contemporary scholars who will identify themselves with this kind of theoretical interpretation. Moreover, even those archaeologists who believe in the importance of cultural interaction, nowadays would reject the nationalistic diffusionism of the Kossinna school and the Marxist diffusionism of Gordon Childe. Furthermore, in my view, social, political, cultural, and economic changes in late European prehistory, particularly in the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, found their roots in local development as well as in interregional contacts. For example, long-distance exchange systems helped to establish and maintain social structures in local societies, but, as necessary condition, these societies had already developed to the stage that they could participate in such systems.

3.2.4. Cultural boundaries and the definition of imports.

A major, and one of the most difficult, questions in the study of exchange and trade, in its cultural, economic and political sense, is the definition of an import. One can accept that an import is an object of foreign origin, but what does this mean in a pre-state system where political, economic and cultural boundaries were not clearly defined. There are some material objects which can definitely be described as imports, usually as a result of their originality, for example, Egyptian blue glass and cowrie shells from the Pomeranian region in northern Poland in the Early Iron Age or the Baltic amber in central Italy in the same period. Nevertheless, we still do not know how the exchange network looked: were the shells and glass obtained in a process of local exchange with neighbouring tribes or as a result of direct long-distance trade? In this work I shall seek to find answers to these questions, although I do not believe them to be the most important questions. More important and more interesting is that local cultures, as a result of internal and external changes in political, social and economical situations, were ready to accept foreign goods, ideas, "traders" or even "colonists". Here I fully agree with Kopytoff (1986):

The role of exchange and trade in prehistory, particularly in its relation to social and political systems, and to local production and kinship structures, has been intensively analysed in the archaeological literature (Barrett and Bradley (eds.) 1980; Sheridan and Bailey (eds.) 1981; Ericson and Earle (ed.) 1977, 1982; Renfrew and Shennan (eds.) 1982; Gosden 1985, 1989; Earle (ed.) 1991; Scarre and Healy (eds.) 1993; Sherratt 1993a, 1993c; Kristiansen and Jensen (eds.) 1994; and others). Present day theories which stress the importance of exchange in prehistory have developed in opposition to older positivistic opinions, new fashionable post-modem relativist interpretations and "vulgar" materialist views. However, some elements of a neo-Marxist approach, together with other elements of structural anthropology, were used to create general theories of exchange, for example in a prestige goods-economy (Kristiansen 1981: 239-241).

"... that what is significant about the adoption of alien objects - as of alien ideas - is not the fact that they are adopted, but the way they are culturally redefined and put to use" (Kopytoff 1986: 67). The criteria of originality in long-distance trade are more important than distances themselves. We have evidence that different regions separated in a geographical sense could be united in a cultural sense, and vice-versa. Local trade systems might need different definitions of imports, but I will be interested in these systems only as parts of complex longdistance exchange networks. The definition of import, which I shall apply in this work therefore reads: an import is a material object or idea which moved out of its original cultural "universe", in which practical (technical) and symbolic (religious) knowledge united "producers" and "customers", and for a mixture practical and ideological reasons this material object or idea was then redefined in a "new universe".

3.3.2. Prestige goods-economy.

A model of a prestige-goods economy is based on general anthropological theories of exchange, and in particular on the work of Meillassoux (1960); Dupre and Rey (1968); Dupre (1972); Ekholm (1972); Sahlins(1968, 1974); and others. The association of political power with control over access to foreign goods, which are assigned high status, has been observed and analyzed in different parts of the world. This general theoretical framework for relations between economy and political organizations was used by Frankenstein and Rowlands (1978) to formulate and demonstrate a model of a prestige-goods economy in central and northern Europe over different phases of the Iron Age. In this type of socioeconomic system society is seen as strictly hierarchical and political advantage is gained by controlling access to resources that can only be obtained through external trade. The distribution of these resources down through the social group provides a mechanism for maintaining hierarchy. In such a society the various groups are linked together by competitive exchange in cycles of continuous rivalry. In reality this would mean that the dominant chief has to redistribute sufficient quantities of prestige goods to his subordinates, and thus down the chain, to maintain not only his own position, but also that of the chain of subordinates. If he fails, the system collapses from the bottom up (Cunliffe 1988: 31).

3.3. Theoretical interpretation of trade and exchange in archaeology. 3.3.1. Evolutionism and diffusionism

Archaeological interpretation of trade and exchange, as well as general interpretations of cultural change, has a long history and, traditionally, has been divided into two schools: evolutionary, which interprets all changes in human history as an independent and autonomous development of local centres; and diffusionist, which stresses the importance of the contacts with other cultures and other regions for the internal development of local communities. By choosing the study of long-distance exchange and trade as focus for this research, I put myself much closer to the diffusionist interpretation of cultural changes in European prehistory. Since for many 11

Exchange and Cultural Interactions possible to ask: which world? Another problem with the "world system" model is that it is so general that it always has to be true, but on the other hand, the first, and probably, the most important aim of any theory is that it can be applicable to different, if not to every, practical situation.

For late European prehistory, the 7th to 5th centuries B.C. marked a period of renewed and more intensive interaction between the Mediterranean world and Europe north of the Alps. It represents, however, only a stage in the general sequence of the symbiotic development of the two regions during prehistory and history, which has led to the observation, on more than one occasion, that Europe and the Mediterranean world form a large system within which local sequences of change should be studied holistically (Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978: 73).

In recent years there have appeared publications which not only criticize "world system" and the importance of long distance trade, but also question the existence of this kind of exchange. One of the best examples of this extremely subjective view, which uses very selective archaeological data and rather eclectic theoretical interpretation, is the work of Arafat and Morgan (1994), and, to a lesser degree, Dietler (1995: 89-112). In my assessment the "world system" model, together with the theory of prestige-goods economy, can be accepted as a "backbone" for the theoretical framework which will explain the European exchange system in the first part of the first millennium B.C. Yet, this system could have different patterns in different regions of northern and central Europe. Moreover, I will demonstrate that at the same time in these parts of Europe there existed other exchange networks which did not directly participate in the Mediterranean "world system". Some regions could take part in more than one exchange system, and derive benefits from each.

3.3.3. "World system". Regular patterns of relationship between barbarian and Mediterranean Europe persuaded some archaeologists to adopt a model presented by Wallerstein (1974) to explain the European "world economy" in the sixteenth century. In his work, Immanuel Wallerstein described patterns of exchange which connected politically independent units. These independent participants formulated regular systems of exchange, which bridged not only different geographical regions, but, above all, different social, political and economic structures. In this core/periphery system raw materials were exchanged for manufactured goods. This socio-economical model could almost have been designed for archaeologists to explain cultural, economic and social changes in prehistory and the early history of Europe, and was adapted by Sherratt (1972, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c), Kristiansen (1994) and others to explain patterns of change in the European Bronze Age. The Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age was a time of intensive expansion of east Mediterranean traditions to the west; it was also the time of rapid development of the Etruscan culture. These events and other political changes in eastern and central Europe opened a door for direct and indirect exchange of ideas and material goods between the Mediterranean area and regions of central and northern Europe. These goods, as recently pointed out by Sherratt (1993c: 4), were moving not only in a different direction but also had a different character. The raw materials from northern Europe, probably metals, salt, hides, amber, furs and slaves, were exchanged for the southern manufactured goods, such as luxury and prestige metal objects, wine, textiles and leatherwork, etc. This "world system", where prime values were exchanged for added values (Sherratt 1993c: 4) most of all bridged a gap in knowledge, both technological and ideological (Renfrew 1993: 10). Imported southern goods played a much more important role in the symbolic than the economic life of people in barbarian Europe; if it is possible to distinguish these two elements of the "social universe" in the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age in central Europe. In my opinion both of them were culturally limited.

3.3.4. Distribution maps as evidence of trade: some problems with archaeological methods. Probably one of the most important achievements of postprocessual archaeology is that lack of archaeological evidence can be treated as evidence as well. This is particularly important when we analyse distribution maps, which are a basic tool to study prehistoric exchange systems (Hodder and Orton 1976). Needham (1993: 161) was probably right when he wrote that most archaeological maps of artifacts distribution are rather maps of displacement and when he suggested that:

" there is rarely any proximity between the action and archaeological residues, because exchange is, self-evidently, something that takes place wholly in the sphere of circulation, or 'use life-cycle' of objects" (Needham 1993: 162). One knows that displacement of artifacts is in relationship not only with prehistoric trade but also with the other social and political factors (e.g. war, tribute, population movement, etc). Moreover, material archaeological evidence accessible to us has usually been accumulated over a very long time and its distribution depends on its "social position" in a given society. Some of these arguments will be less important (and we can leave them to be resolved by contextual archaeologists) if we analyse exchange from a long-term perspective and we can begin to view exchange as a basic form of human communication. Even war and commercial trade can be treated as a form of this communication where material objects and symbolic ideas are exchanged. The argument for the "relativity" of distribution maps can be accepted only when we come to believe, as did the old positivistic school, that they present a true and complete

Despite Renfrew's (1986, 1993 and in Sherratt 1993b) critique of "world system" as materialistic and simplistic, it is, in my view, a most successful model for analysing relations between large areas of Europe in late prehistory. However, I would rather call this model "world system" than world system. I know that this argument can look more rhetorical than practical, but any name of a theory or model which has in its title the word "world" can be questioned. It is always 12

Theoretical Approaches situation from a few thousands years ago. In this work I will demonstrate the importance of long-distance cultural, political and economic connections by using not only maps of distribution (or displacement) of specific archaeological artifacts, but also by studying other elements of culture, such as specific settlement or cemetery patterns, which developed as a result of cultural and economic contacts.

13

Exchange and Cultural Interactions W. BETWEEN THEORETICAL INTERPRETATION AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA.

Most Bronze Age specialists will agree that the value of bronze objects known from regions situated north of the Alps and the Carpathian Mountains could not be directly associated with their economic worth. Even in the areas of intensive metal production, such as the Carpathian Basin or the Alpine region, the value of metal objects was not simply related to the process of their production. Instead, as I will argue later, the value of different types of objects was always related to their prime value, and a complex system of added values, represented through their shape, originality, artistic value, etc. All products of a high prestige value had to be socially recognisable but at the same time they had to be very closely related to an owner. As Renfrew (1986: 157) has already pointed out, it is difficult to accept Marx's opinion that nothing can have value without being an object of utility (Marx 1971: 48). This is particularly true for precapitalist societies, whose utilitarian character was geared to obtaining goods, which then could be exchanged for prestige and power, while the objects themselves could have a very limited practical use.

4.1. Changes in social, economic and symbolic values in relation to long-distance exchange.

In the following chapters a formidable quantity of archaeological data is presented. The origins and typologies of different artefacts are also discussed. Many of these objects are interpreted as prestige goods of high social value. In this chapter the processes involved in the creation of social and economic values are discussed. Through these processes a number of objects began to acquire social power which was used to maintain the structures of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age communities in different parts of central Europe. Value, like prestige and power, is very difficult to define, is nonetheless within the experience of us all. People value different things: material objects, power, freedom, friendship, love, knowledge, etc. On the one hand there is no more subjective judgment than the judgment of value: consciously or not, we are always making decisions about the value of different things and very often we conflate separate categories of value. On the other hand, values can have an absolute or universal character and very often they form the basis for social communications and social relations: they have an agreed and integrating character in a given society.

The description of value offered by Simmel has a much more universal character since, in his opinion, value is not an inherent property of objects, but is a judgment made about them by subjects (Simmel [1907]1978: 73). This is particularly true for an exchange value, where there is no connection between producers and customers. In an archaeological context, prestige goods first of all have an exchange value; this value usually increases subject to the distance which separates producers and customers. High labour in production and the prime values of objects significantly increase their likely exchange value. For instance, impressive swords and vessels could be exchanged primarily because of their economic and aesthetic values. As these objects travelled from their centres of production, they began to acquire a new social value as they moved into new social contexts and as they travelled further away from the technological context of their production. In return, demands for specific products increased their social value in the original centres of their production, and it is clear that metallurgical activities began to be the subject of social distribution. Furthermore, if prestige goods are made of rare materials, this does not necessarily directly increase their general value but instead it makes access to them even more restricted. (It might be less true in the present-day postindustrial economy, where "value" measured in "price" is more directly related to scarcity, and goods exchanged on the stock-market may have a very abstract character).

"Communities and societies are made up of people but we only recognize them as a community or as a society, because people who belong share some ideas about how things are and how things should be: they have a common set of categories with which they "word" the social and the natural world around them and they share a definition of the good things and the bad things in life. From this point of view a community is a set of shared values and categories" (Bailey 1971: 9).

In all societies some values have a static character while others a dynamic one; moreover, the same things can have a relative economic value and an absolute social value. The specific character of archaeological data forces us to analyse social relations and social values in relation to material objects and their economic value. The study of exchange and trade, particularly in archaeological contexts, is, as already stated, the study of the relationship between human beings and material objects. On the one hand, material things have their own lives, their own biographies, they are made, used and then abandoned (Kopytoff 1986: 64-65); on the other, they create and preserve social relations. Material objects can be exchanged for other objects, services, prestige, or directly for power.

In the Late Bronze Age, the practical or "use" value of prestige products was not their most important value. Many swords and other weapons were made not for fighting but for presentation, either in a process of exchange or in some other public consumption (e.g. potlatch). Many ornaments, particularly those known from the Nordic world, were too big, too small or too heavy to be worn on a regular basis and as I will argue later, they might have been used to store the value of bronze. Even more, some of these products were excluded from practical use, such is the case of the Millar axes, which were broadly distributed between central Sweden and the regions of the middle Kama and Volga

4.2. From economic to social value.

One of the most interesting problems associated with values are the methods of their creation. What is the relationship between an economic value and a social value? Why do some objects, in a specific geographical and political environment, move from a stage of having a relative value to a stage where their value is socially accepted and unquestionable? At the same time other objects may have only an economic value. 14

Between Theoretical Interpretation and Archaeological Data From more advanced cultural and technological centres, objects of a high prestige value travelled in one direction; but what was the value of products which moved the opposite way? Sherratt (1993c: 4) has suggested that the raw materials from northern Europe were exchanged for southern manufactured goods, in a system in which prime values were exchanged for added values; however, this interpretation explains only the economic value of exchanged products. Toe social value of northern imports (e.g. sophisticatedly processed leather and furs) in southern Europe was probably as high as the value of manufactured goods which were moved to the north. Both southern and northern imports had their prestige value only outside their areas of origin. Prestige objects change their value as they travel, from economic (material) to social. In present-day societies, one of the most important elements in the value of material things is related to their authenticity. Objects which have a significant prestige position, first of all, have to be original while their artistic or practical values have a secondary meaning. This concept of authenticity is a relatively modern idea and in prehistoric societies it did not necessarily play as important a role. Toe value of objects was related to their materials, shapes, and use (a social behaviour associated with their consumption); at the same time, the origins and producers of these objects were insignificant and very often unknown. A distinction between an original import and a locally made copy was unclear, and many of these copies were used in exchange systems. This process was particularly characteristic for bronze production, where a good copy was as good as an original. At the same time, access to bronze production was strictly restricted and socially distributed.

Rivers in the period from Bronze IV to VI in the Montelian chronology. According to Patrushev (1971: 32ft), they were used only as weapons but, in my opinion, it is more likely that they served as prestige objects, in contrast to local axes which were used as every-day tools. This might suggest that these foreign items, distributed through the process of longdistance exchange, had predominantly a prestige and symbolic value. As was mentioned earlier, the high value of material things is embedded in their material, form, and use. Materials from which prestige goods were made could have a high value themselves, but this value was usually geographically restricted; for example, amber had a significant value only outside its area of origin, in the same way that cowrie shells had a particular value in the north. Toe social value of some manufactured goods could also be primarily associated with their materials instead of their forms, for instance blue glass beads known from eastern Pomerania, from the Hallstatt C period, which had their origin in the Mediterranean regions. It is unlikely that these finds had a distinctive value because they were made in the shape of a bead; instead, their value should be related to the rare material from which they were produced. 4.3. Value and the social position of imports.

In the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, the separate exchange systems identified in central Europe helped to maintain different value systems. In these systems, power and social positions were expressed by different material things, which did not have the same value in other regions. Distribution patterns of many artefacts mentioned in the following chapters suggest not only different patterns of interregional contacts but they also mark regions where similar systems of value had developed. Toe social structures of local communities, which were incorporated into these separate exchange networks, were based on a similar principle (e.g. the prestige goods economy); however, they chose different material objects to express these social structures. It would, probably, be more correct to say that these structures have manifestations in different archaeological materials.

4.4. The social role and value of bronze.

Toe high value of bronze and bronze imports was created through even more complicated processes. All bronze objects discovered in northern Europe were probably made of metals which were obtained from regions situated further south, or, to a lesser degree, from eastern Europe. As a result of this, bronze itself had a significant value because it was produced out of metals of unknown origin. Moreover, metal objects were made through a complicated process of smelting, which required significant specialised knowledge ("how-to"). Finally, there were a number of bronze goods which were obtained directly from other regions, and both geographical and technological knowledge about them was very fragmented. This fragmentation of knowledge increased the symbolic value of bronze and of objects made of this metal.

One of the most important questions which should be asked is: when did material things begin to possess this important and powerful social value? This value did not necessarily have to be related to a distance, an authenticity or even a prime value. Toe social value of imports is not only associated with their place of origin or with the societies in which they were produced; this social value is created within a community which adopted and used foreign products. A local community decides which products are valuable and which ones are valuables. Within a local society rules are made which allow some objects to have a negotiable value and to be freely traded, and other rules which restrict the open exchange of objects of a high social value. Of course cross-cultural contacts influenced local systems of value, which developed within local societies, particularly in situations when a majority of high prestige objects were obtained through external trade.

Bronze itself had an important economic and symbolic value, yet only objects of particular forms could have a prestige character. Toe value of these goods was not directly related to the quantity of material which was used for their production. In centres of bronze production, heavy bronze ingots could have a significant commercial value, but they could not attain an important prestige position. This position could, only to some degree, be related to the artistic value of bronze products. Prestige goods, first of all, had to carry a specific social message; they had to be closely related to a person (the owner) but at the same time they had to be socially active. Prestige objects were publicly used in very 15

Exchange and Cultural Interactions 4.S. The prestige position of boats and wagons.

defined situations, for example during feasts in the form of drinking or eating vessels. In northern Europe, most of the imported goods which had a prestige value were represented by weapons, ornaments and vessels.

During periods of intensive long-distance intercultural contacts the means of transport themselves will have had not only economic value but also high prestige, social, and religious value. This universal phenomenon, which took place in different periods and in separate parts of the world, was also present in the Baltic region in the Late Bronze Age. Throughout most of this period, an intensive exchange of bronzes and other material items was based on maritime cycles, which united separate regions of the Baltic zone. Probably in the Periods Bronze V and VI (in the Montelian chronology) these cycles were conflated into a system which connected very distant areas located between Jutland and southern Scandinavia in the west and the eastern Baltic and centres of metal production in the area of the middle Volga and Kama Rivers in the east.

In the Late Bronze Age, in large areas north of the Alps and the Carpathian Mountains, the forms in which bronze could be produced, stored and exchanged were strictly restricted. It is clear that these areas obtained large quantities of metal from the southern and possibly eastern parts of central Europe, but it is not an accident that no single ingot or any other objects of similar shape or possible similar use have been found. For local communities from the northern part of central Europe, bronze had not only value as a material in its own right, but, above all, bronze had to be rendered into the shapes of particular objects. Even discoveries ofhoards of the so-called scrap bronze contained pieces of cut but defined objects. Local producers developed sophisticated technologies of metal smelting; through exchange networks they obtained tin and copper from distant areas and supplied bronzes to other regions, but they always produced objects, not bronze itself. In the Nordic zone, this phenomenon is clearly represented by the intensive production of different types of rings and other ornaments of similar shape, which have been discovered in large quantities. Many of these rings, because of their sizes or weights, were rarely used as ornaments; instead, they were used to store a value of bronze which was not used (although it could be) to produce other objects. At the end of the Bronze Age, when the Nordic area experienced a significant shortage of metal, some Pomeranian metallurgical centres began to make hollow bracelets; the shapes of these products were close imitations of the heavy bracelets manufactured in the earlier period. This veneer effect suggests that the value of a form, and potentially "symbolic" use of these objects, might have been more important than the value of bronze itself

The social systems of local communities, in the Nordic world and in the whole area of the Baltic, were based on a consumption of bronze items which stimulated intensive communication based on water transport. As a result of this, boats began to play a very important role, not only as vehicles which were used to carry valuable goods but also as things which had a value in themselves. A man or a community without a boat was a man or a community without power, even more, without the potential ability to have power. Very soon boats began to have a value as symbols of power, for their owners not only during their lives but also after their deaths. The so-called boat-graves first appeared in Jutland and southern Scandinavia and then spread across the Oland and the Gotland Islands to the regions of present-day Latvia and Estonia, and further inland along the main rivers (possibly as far as the Caspian Sea). The important social position of boats was also manifested in the "solar barque" representations which are known from the same period. A process similar to this Late Bronze Age phenomena took place in Scandinavia and other regions of the Baltic Sea in the Viking period, when means of transport again began to have important social, economic, and symbolic value.

The social value of some objects, which were made of a specific material and had a defined shape, could change in relation to how they were used. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, prestige goods had their social value only if they were presented in an appropriate context. A value is not created by a secret accumulation of goods but by public use and consumption (or even waste, as in the potlatch). In the Baltic area, many bronze objects probably had the highest social value in the moment of their symbolic destruction and deposition in hoards or graves. Changes in the pattern of social consumption of prestige goods might suggest significant changes in a system of symbolic and social values; as happened, for example, in the western Baltic region, where in the Bronze V Period (in the Montelian chronology), a new custom of deposition of bronzes in hoards appeared on a large scale, in contrast to the previous period, when most metal objects were placed in graves (Bradley 1990; Blajer 1992). It suggests that from the Bronze V Period competitive wealth-destruction could take place on occasions other than the death of a chieftain. Nevertheless, both types of consumption of high value objects were social and active rather than private and passive.

The Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age were also periods of intensive contacts within other parts of Europe. The increasing influences of the nomadic world stimulated interactions between the steppe areas of eastern Europe and the central part of the continent. The clearest representations of these contacts were changes in funerary traditions, for instance the introduction of inhumation on a large scale and the development of rich princely graves. In the Hallstatt culture, but also in other areas of central Europe, a symbolic value was given to horses and wheeled vehicles. This is amply represented by a large number of graves in which horse skeletons, elements of horse gear, and wagons were deposited. In other parts of central Europe, where old traditions of cremation were still very strong, the new value of horses and wheeled vehicles was expressed in pictorial representations (Pare 1992), as is the case in eastern Pomerania.

16

Between Theoretical Interpretation and Archaeological Data Wagon-graves in central Europe and boat-graves in northern Europe appeared as the result of the same processes of change, which took place during a period of intensive interregional contacts. These contacts had manifestations in new systems of value, in which ordinary means of transport achieved new prestige positions. The social position of specific objects was separated from the technological means for their production. Wheeled vehicles had been known in central Europe for almost 1000 years before the Cimmerian or other nomadic influences helped to redefine the social value of these objects. This new value of wheeled vehicles was then maintained by local elites, who used them in a funerary context. A similar process took place in the eastern Baltic region, where practical knowledge of shipbuilding developed locally. However, during the Late Bronze Age, as a result of contacts with the Nordic world, ships began to have new social and symbolic values. Social value of the means of transport, as with any other material things, was geographically and chronologically restricted.

Pomeranian culture, some types of pottery held an important symbolic significance, and their production and use were strictly restricted to funeral ceremonies.

4.7. The value of distant knowledge. Goods which passed out of local circles of knowledge that united producers and consumers began to have a special value in a practical and/or symbolic sense. This is why longdistance trade, where knowledge about foreign imports was limited, partial, highly symbolic and restricted to elites, always enjoyed a very important position in establishing, maintaining and changing social, political and economic power. "Mercantile" activities (usually carried out by chiefly elites) covered the gap in knowledge between producers and customers, both in a technological and in an ideological sense (Renfrew 1993: 10). The prestige value of material objects was created in this gap. Amber in the Mediterranean world had its value at least partially because its sources were unknown; it was obtained from foreign and distant regions through a chain of indirect transactions. Amber's physical properties made it particularly attractive and this gave it an extra symbolic value. Throughout most of the Bronze Age amber had a high symbolic and prestige value in regions of southern Europe while for the same period in the Baltic region, amber finds have very rarely been discovered. Since in the north it was relatively easy to obtain amber, it probably lost its prestige value in this region after the Neolithic, and in later periods amber only had an economic value. (An exception is known from eastern Pomerania, where, in the Hallstatt C and D periods, amber began to appear in a number of graves in contexts which suggest that it had acquired a prestige value.)

4.6. Maintaining and changing systems of values and social structures.

In late prehistory, social and political elites used their power to preserve specific needs and values; it was a basic way to maintain their social positions. Changes in a value system were signs of creativity or decline in social, political, or economic systems. Social values had to be recognized and accepted by a community, but political elites had a primary interest in their preservation. It is possible to say that politics (power) creates links between exchange and value (Appadurai 1986: 3). An important way to maintain the high value of prestige objects was through a process of exclusion : on the one hand, goods of a high value were received through specific and restricted forms of exchange, they had to be represented by particular types of objects and be publicly displayed during defined social events; on the other hand, objects of great social value were received primarily through networks of transactions conducted with strangers rather than with kin or neighbours. This is why, at the end of the Bronze Age, long-distance trade became so important for maintaining the social structures of local communities. Even if some goods which had a high social value were distributed between neighbours or kin, this took place in completely different social contexts and should be understood as the consumption of prestige things rather than an exchange. As a result of this consumption, the power of elites and the loyalty of relatives were maintained.

In prehistoric societies, prestige and social value was given to very select objects. For example, local communities from the region near the mouth of the Vistula River could easily have obtained a number of different types of shells but instead chose to give a high value only to a specific type of cowrie shell which had to be obtained from the Mediterranean or the Black Sea. These shells could only be acquired through longdistance exchange, so knowledge about them was very fragmented and places of origin were unknown. The trade in cowries was easy to monopolise and control. It is also characteristic that cowrie shells, in contrast to most of the southern imports which have been found in the northern part of Europe, did not have added or technological value. Their high value was directly related to a gap in knowledge which separated their place of origin and the northern communities in which they were used. Furthermore, the significance of these shells might have been increased by the potential symbolism of their shape, which could represent a vagina. Shells often carry this fertility symbolism in many different parts of the world.

The social value of material things was created and maintained not only through restrictions in exchange systems but also by strict limitations in the use of selected objects. As was discussed earlier, the Mfilar axes were probably used only as objects of high social and symbolic values in contrast to other types of axes. In the same way, some types of chariots and wagons, which are known from central Europe, had exclusively symbolic and prestige value: of these, the best examples are those which were heavily decorated, such as the vehicles from Eberdingen-Hochdorf, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, Byci-skala cave and many others (Pare 1992). In the regions of the Lusatian culture, and particularly the

17

Exchange and Cultural Interactions Any changes and disturbances in the Bronze Age exchange networks, particularly in the areas of metals extraction, had an influence on the other regions for which economic and social structures depended on bronze supplies. The best example is the Nordic culture in Denmark and southern Sweden, where cultural changes and the development of sophisticated metal production were closely related to political and cultural events in the southern part of central Europe. In the earlier phases of the Bronze Age (the Reinecke's Middle Bronze Age 1600-1400 BC), the longdistance exchange network emerged, linking Scandinavia with the Tumulus cultures and Italy (Sherratt 1993c: 32). From around 1200 BC this north - south interregional system was replaced by the west - east system which closely connected Italy and the Carpathian Basin. From this time, the first period of relative separation of the Scandinavian cultures from the south began, which ended somewhere around the beginning of the first millennium BC. At this time, Scandinavia recycled metal imported in previous periods (Sherratt 1993c: 38) and established a closer relationship with the East Baltic regions. The second period of isolation of Scandinavia started around the 7th century BC (Period VI in the Montelian chronology). Scandinavian periods of separation and decline in bronze production had a different character to the process of decline in metal consumption and production known in south-eastern regions of the Urnfield cultures during the period Hallstatt B 2_3 (Furmanek 1973). Here the Carpathian cultural and metallurgical centre became a part of the new network which connected this region closely with the steppe areas of eastern Europe.

V. CENTRAL EUROPE AND ITS INTERREGIONAL CONTACTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST MIUENNIUM BC (THE HALLSTATT B1-2PERIOD).

5.1. The time of stability. At the beginning of the first millennium BC, large areas of Europe achieved a high level of cultural, political and economic stability and unity, yet this level cannot be recognized in either the older or younger phases of the Bronze Age. At that time, the dramatic events from the second half of the second millennium BC, for example the collapse of the east Mediterranean centres of civilization and, possibly, large scale migrations in the areas of barbarian Europe, already belonged to an ancient, mostly unrecognizable, past. Their remains could survive in the form of legends and mythological stories, probably even more fragmented than those offered by Homer. In many regions of central and eastern Europe, during this period of stability, similar patterns of material and ideological culture developed. In archaeological terms, this is represented by a common burial tradition and similar forms of pottery and metal production. The rather dry and warm climate facilitated intensive agricultural activity, particularly in the wetter areas of the European lowlands (Ostoja-Zag6rski 1974 ). Evidence for this was provided by the numerous pollen analyses and the pedological research in western and central Europe (Bradley 1978; Jager and Lozek 1982; Jockenhovel and OstojaZag6rski 1987; Kuster 1988). Intensive exploitation of landscape paralleled demographic growth which, in many areas of the North European Plain, can be compared only with the dramatic growth which occurred in the same region in the Middle Ages (Ostoja-Zag6rski 1982). Different parts of the continent developed different patterns of settlement, but it is characteristic of the regions involved in interregional exchange that dense and complex settlement systems appeared, which usually included some form of fortified sites (with the exception of the Nordic zone). Examples include the fortified settlements in central Poland, hillforts in the Carpathian Basin and other regions of the Urnfield cultures, and lake-shore sites in the Alps.

5.3. Contacts between the south and the north in the Hallstatt B 1_2 period - the material evidence. Before these changes in the eastern parts of the continent occurred, in the Hallstatt B 1_2 period, the Carpathian centre of metal production re-established its contacts with Scandinavia (Map 65), which started again to receive south European metals and prestige items, particularly armour and objects related to the process of eating and drinking, for example, different forms of bronze vessels. The distributions of these bronze vessels have been intensively studied in the northern and southern parts of central Europe (Thrane 1966, 1975; Patay 1968a, 1969a, 1969b). The patterns of these distributions can be used as convincing evidence of longdistance contacts in the Hallstatt B 1•2 period (Map 3). The distribution map of the different types of Fuchsstadt and Jenesovice hammered bronze cups (Thrane 1975: 137, Fig. 81) presents archaeological evidence for changes in interregional exchange networks which slowly incorporated the Alpine region into an already existing trade system connecting the Danubian area with Scandinavia. Furthermore, finds within the Hungarian bronze vessel producing area indicate that some types of Swiss cups were made in secondary workshops (Map 4).

5.2. Networks of exchange and their changes. In the Late Bronze Age, different groups of the Urnfield, Lusatian and Nordic cultures were connected in networks of trade and exchange, which on the one hand helped to maintain social structures, and on the other provided access to the metal sources. In this period, copper and tin were used in large quantities in all areas of central Europe. The copper ore sources are represented by numerous small deposits spread throughout different regions; however, in late prehistory most of the copper ore extracted and used in the central part of the continent came from two mountain regions - Alpine and Carpathian. Another important metal ore was tin, and this was also extracted only in very limited areas, for example the Ore Mountains of Germany, former Czechoslovakia and probably in Silesia (Harding 1994: 310).

Decorative art has a specific position in the study of cultural interactions, and for the Late Bronze Age has been analysed, particularly in the works of Althin (1945), Kossack (1954) and Sprockhoff (1954, 1957b). Although research on decorative motifs and symbolic art always carries a high risk 18

Central Europe and its Inte"egional Contacts at the Beginning of the First Millennium BC

Another group of bronze imports, knives from Scandinavia and Jutland, is particularly important since it helps not only to define the connection between these parts of northern Europe and the south, but it also illustrates an internal connection between different cultural groups inside the North European Plain. Different types of knives were particularly popular in the Hallstatt B 1_2 period (Thrane 1972), and they were produced mostly in the area of the upper Oder River (the Silesian type) and in the region of the lower Oder River or Mecklenburg (the type of so-called Pfatten knives), (Fig. 3). A particularly interesting example of the Tiroler version of the Pfatten knives is known from L0Ve (Fig. 3): this find, decorated with the bird ornament, might suggests that the origin of all these knives was in the Danubian area; however, the majority, discovered in the northern regions of central Europe, were produced in the local workshops of the Lusatian culture, eventually by the regional groups of the Urnfield cultures in Mecklenburg. Maps 5 and 6, which show the distribution of the Silesian and Pfatten knives, also stress the importance of the Oder River in interregional networks of exchange. At that time, in the Hallstatt B 1_2 period, the Oder trade routes were still of secondary and local importance in relation to routes along the Elbe, but in the next period, Hallstatt B3, the situation changed completely and the Oder local exchange network took over the older pattern of trade based on the Elbe.

of subjective interpretations, it is possible to say that geometric style and other groups of motifs in the Nordic tradition had their roots in central Europe. In particular, the so-called bird-sun boat symbols, together with plastic birds and general animal decoration (Fig. 1), have been related to the Danubian centres of cultural and metallurgical activity (Sprockhoff 1954, 1957b). The southern influences in northern Europe are very clearly represented by military equipment, for instance, by swords, spearheads, arrowheads, helmets, shields, knives and axes. The distribution maps of these objects and bronze ornaments were presented in the works of Sprockhoff 1930b, Sprockhoff 1956, Thrane 1975, and others. The Late Bronze Age swords are one of the most interesting kind of artefacts, their different types represent different traditions and origins (Sprockho:ff 1934b; Jensen 1967; Schauer 1972). Imported swords had already been brought into Scandinavia in the Hallstatt A period (the "Dreiwulstschwerter" type) and their presence continued in the younger periods. At the beginning, most of them represented the Danubian traditions which, in the period Hallstatt B, was slowly replaced by the southwestern influences. A very special position among all the Carpathian imports in Scandinavia are held by the twin helmets from Viks0 (Fig. 2.) which were originally published by Norling-Christensen (1946a, 1946b, 1946c). Kossack (1954) related their origin within the Danubian region of metal production, probably with one of the workshops situated in Slovakia; and Thrane (1975: 255) dated these helmets broadly to the Period IV-V (in the Montelian chronology), but it is more likely that they should be related to the Hallstatt B 1_2 period. The helmets from Viks0 are similar to those known from the Grevensv'nge figurines (Zealand), the Jonstorp figurines (Scania), some rock carvings in Sweden, and to the motifs on razors from Vestrup (Jutland) (Thrane 1975: 255). However, the strongest "typological" similarities are with Sardinian figurines and it is possible that the western Mediterranean experienced the same kind of influences from the eastern Mediterranean, or even the Near East, as did the Danubian area. The contexts of all these artefacts have in recent archaeological publications been interpreted as ritual and symbolic.

Although the largest group of the artefacts found in the central and north European hoards are axes, they have limited value in the study of long-distance exchange, firstly because they are more or less equally spread throughout the vast areas of central and western Europe and secondly because different types of axes (particularly the so-called socketed axes) were frequently copied in many local workshops. The situation is slightly clearer with winged axes, but they might only represent local trade between Scandinavia and the Lusatian culture or neighbouring areas of central Germany in the Hallstatt B 1 period, and possibly between the Swiss-Rhein regions, central Germany and Jutland in the later phases of HallstattB (Thrane 1975: 256, Fig. 55). 5.4. Conclusion.

Other types of artefacts have been found in similar ritual contexts, particularly shields known from Scandinavian rock carving and from bog deposits in England, Denmark and northern Germany. The oldest central European shields belong to the Nyirtura group (Patay 1968b) and are dated to the Hallstatt A 1_2 period (Thrane 1975: 255). These Danubian-type shields seem to provide the model for all round shields, developing until the Hallstatt C phase. However, in the later periods of the Late Bronze Age, the centre of shield production moved a little to the west where the so-called U-notched Pilsen shields represented the adoption of Mediterranean elements into central Europe. The Carpathian or, generally, the south-eastern traditions in shield production in the early Hallstatt B, are also represented by the so-called bird-boat ornaments, which are known from the shields in southern Scandinavia and Denmark, for example the find Smup 1.

It is clear that most of the Late Bronze Age military

equipment found in the area of the Nordic culture has a foreign origin, and in the Hallstatt B 1_2 period it was imported mostly from the Carpathian centres of metal production. There is, however, some evidence of other influences, particularly from the regions of the Lusatian culture (knives), the Urn:field groups in central Germany (axes) or even western Europe (the R.0rbaek vessel, the cauldron from Abildholt: Hawkes and Smith 1957; and some types of shield). Nevertheless, all these influences were minor and these contacts might have represented "secondhand" transition centres between the Danubian areas and northern Europe. The exchange of the military equipment was probably accompanied by the trade of metal ores and bronze used in local production, which often copied foreign objects. The Scandinavian regions, and the northern parts of the continent in general, were large "consumers" of armour produced in central Europe and we have clear evidence that, 19

Exchange and Cultural Interactiorzs central European systems of trade and exchange at the end of the Hallstatt B2 period and particularly in Hallstatt B2•3, was accompanied by other long-distance and local systems of exchange which connected different regions of Europe (Sherratt 1993c: 45, Fig. 14). The best examples of the regional trade or, rather, cultural interaction, can be found in the areas of the western and central Baltic where the Danish centres of bronze production served as the main producers and distributors of their own products, as well as "the second hand dealers" of southern products for the areas of northern Germany, Meckleburg and Pomerania (Kossinna 1928; Thrane 1975: 229-243; Fogel 1988). At the same time, other systems of local exchange developed between the Carpathian cultural and metallurgical centre and the other groups of the Umfield and Lusatian cultures.

at the end of the Period IV and in the Period V of the Montelian chronology, in the area of southern Sweden, Jutland and northern Germany, typical central European weapons as well as fashions of decoration were adopted. It is characteristic that most of arms deposits in the northern part of the continent have been found in the contexts interpreted as ritual or symbolic. This interpretation is less common for the hoards discovered in central Europe. One cannot question the social and symbolic importance of the north European bronze deposits, particularly the hoards of helmets, shields, axes, swords, spearheads and knives found in bogs and underwater. The first two categories of these artefacts probably played a particularly important part and this is expressed by their occurrence on rock carvings in different parts of Scandinavia. However, it is difficult to accept Thrane's (1975: 255) opinion that bronze weapons in the north did not have any everyday use, unlike in other areas of central Europe. First of all, it is widely accepted that Bronze Age armour in almost all regions of Europe had a mostly prestigious character, and the so-called "practical" use of bronze weapons, in the sense of modem or even medieval wars, is vecy questionable. The main use of armour was as prestige items which had been produced or received in the process of exchange, displayed by occasional wearing in the close relation to the person, and finally, but not necessarily, destroyed or deposited in a symbolic context. The importance of bronze prestige objects in the Nordic culture was probably greater than in the regions of the agriculturally orientated Umfield and Lusatian cultures, which would have had other ways to express prestige and articulate social relations.

There were also other long-distance networks of exchange connecting different cultural centres of Late Bronze Age Europe. The areas of Nordic culture, particularly the very active western Baltic region, in the Hallstatt B period developed and maintained at least three different trade systems (Map 8). The first, which was mentioned above, united this area of northern Europe with the south through a complex system of prestige economy. In the late Hallstatt B2 period, the Alpine region was incorporated into the chain of exchange connecting Jutland with the Carpathian Basin, and in the next phases of the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, this mountainous area of central Europe played a key role in the system of interregional exchange. It accepted the new influences from the south, from the Etruscan culture and the Greek colonies, as well as some technological and ideological innovations from the eastern region, controlled by the nomadic tribes, and adopted these innovations to the already changing traditions of the Umfield culture. By the Hallstatt B 3 period, the Alpine centres had taken over the position of the Carpathian regions as the main participants in trade with the north. At the same time, there was a significant shift of political, cultural and economic power in the north, from the area of the lower Elbe to eastern Jutland and the lower Oder.

In the earlier part of the Late Bronze Age (Hallstatt B 1•2), another group of prestige items, ornaments and jewellery, known from the Nordic zone, were of a much more local character and only distantly reflected central and south European traditions. These ornaments are represented by the large belt plates or buckles, ankle rings, armrings and some sort of spirals (Thrane 1975: 258, Fig. 110). Fibulae, which were very popular in the area of the Lusatian culture, were found only on the coastal zones of the Nordic area, and provide evidence of local maritime trade cycles. Although most of the pins from this period represent local traditions, this situation changed in the next phase, (Hallstatt B3) when the so-called vase-headed pins were represented in many areas of central and northern Europe (Map 7).

The second exchange system connected western Jutland and the mouth of the Elbe River with western Europe, the British Isles and, notably, with the metallurgical centre in Brittany (Thrane 1975: Fig. 62; Sprockhoff 1930b: 1-44, Fig. 8), through maritime exchange cycles. The third of Jutland's long-distance networks was also based on maritime activity and stretched from eastern Jutland along the southern coast of the Baltic as far as present-day Lithuania, Estonia and, via the river systems, to the metal production areas in the middle Volga and Kama Rivers, and possibly to the central Ural Mountains. In the earlier phases of the Hallstatt B, this trade was based on maritime exchange cycles, but in later periods, particularly in Hallstatt C and D (the Period VI in Montelius' chronology), the different cultural centres along the Baltic coast developed more direct contacts; the strength of these contacts helped to maintain more indirect networks of exchange between local tribes along the east European rivers. The long-distance maritime trade systems of Jutland from the Late Bronze Age are represented on Map 8.

The principles of a so-called prestige goods economy or prestige items consumption are well known from the earlier phases of the Bronze Age; however, at the end of this period the model of exchange started to be much more complicated. It is impossible to limit this simply to two-sided transactions between the north, which provided amber and probably other products like honey, wax, furs, leathers, etc, and the south which supplied metals, bronze products, technical knowledge and possibly other objects and ideas, which are archaeologically invisible. In the Hallstatt B 1•2 period, the exchange network connecting Scandinavia with the Carpathian Basin followed the Elbe River and the middle Danube down to present-day Hungary (Map 65). This network, which probably served as the backbone of the 20

Central Europe and its Interregional Contacts at the Beginning ofthe First Millennium BC The cross-cultural systems of contacts from the Hallstatt B 1_2 period provided a strong foundation for three long-distance exchange networks known from the Hallstatt B3 and C periods, which had a great impact on the cultural and economic development of central Europe. Two of these networks connected the west with the east. The first one in the north via the Baltic Sea and the east European rivers, and the second in the south provided contacts between the Alps, the Carpathian Mountains, the east European steppes and the Caucasus Mountains. The third system of interregional contacts united the northern and the southern parts of central Europe with the two east-west networks mentioned above. All these systems of exchange had different origins and were based on different imperatives. However, there were some similarities between them and all of them interacted with each other. It is very difficult to give exact dates for the development of these different interregional contacts. They were usually based on older, already existing, relationships which are not necessarily well represented in archaeological evidence. Moreover, after the decline of intensive trade activities, most of the long-distance routes still operated, but on a much lesser scale and very often they were used by numbers of local exchange networks. A common mistake made by many archaeologists is to try to relate interregional connections with exact, relatively short, chronological phases or even absolute dates. This "squeezed chronology" of longdistance relationships is more accessible and easier to interpret, but one cannot forget that, whenever we use it, we are always talking about a short period of time in which the strength of interregional contacts is expressed in archaeological evidence, yet the presence of this evidence only underlines the process of the activation of a potential network of contacts which was preceded by long-term interactions.

21

Exchange and Cultural Interactions VI. SYSTEMS OF EXCHANGE AND CULTURAL INTERACTION IN THE BALTIC REGIONS AND EASTERN EUROPE.

metal production, which underlies the question of the ethnicity of the producers. A new analysis of the Pomeranian Bronze Age has to be accompanied by a new approach to the study of relationships between the different groups within the so-called Lusatian culture. It is impossible to accept the opinion that this "culture" represented one cultural, economic and political unity for almost 1000 years. The southern coast of the Baltic Sea in the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age was an area of intensive cross-cultural interactions, but above all it was part of the old system which by a common set of economic and symbolic values united different regions of the western and central Baltic. In all parts of this zone significant similarities in metal and pottery productions, funeral tradition, hoard deposition and settlement patterns can be distinguished.

6.1. Introduction - Baltic unity. 1broughout most of prehistory the whole area of northern Europe represented a high degree of cultural unity, particularly characteristic of the Baltic regions, which during the Bronze Age developed systems of long-distance exchange, gradually incorporating different zones along the Baltic coast. Already in the earlier phases of the Bronze Age, these areas had experienced a similar pattern of cultural change. The influences of the Unetice culture and its metallurgical tradition in the northern part of central Europe were limited. The development of the Nordic culture and its metallurgical centres, in southern Scandinavia and northern Jutland, was the most important factor in the emergence of an interregional system of trade in the Baltic regions. The Nordic culture based its social structure on a large scale consumption of bronze objects. In the Early Bronze Age, most of the metal and technological knowledge were received from the Carpathian Basin. However, in the second half of the Period II (in the Montelian chronology) a local metallurgical production was already represented by high standard products with characteristic decorative motives; for example, concentric circles, spirals, etc (Fogel 1988: 76). This northern centre of metallurgy also developed its own specific production techniques based on the use oflost- wax. During this time the active centre of the Nordic traditions in Sjrelland incorporated the whole area of northern Germany, between the Elbe and Oder Rivers, into a system of bronze production and exchange. In the next Periods III-IV, these traditions spread to Pomerania, particularly to its western part. The Nordic culture also developed intensive contacts with the Urnfield cultures and this is represented by the adoption of cremation in the funeral ceremony which slowly replaced the old inhumation and barrow traditions (Jazdzewski 1981: 364-369; 1brane 1977: 154-155).

Pomerania started to play a particularly important part in the inter-regional contacts, from the second half of the Period V, which can be related to the Hallstatt B3 period, when the changes in long-distance trade systems between the south and the north placed the Oder River in a strategic position. At this time, as a result of competition over the control of the longdistance exchange, Lusatian influences in the area of the lower Oder significantly increased as represented by the number of fortified settlements near the mouth of the river (Map 9), or even by some kind of Lusatian penetration in the southern part of Scandinavia (Larsson 1993; 1994; Carlsson 1995). 6.2. A common tradition of metal production in the western and southern Baltic regions. The strongest and clearest evidence of intensive contacts between the central and western parts of the Baltic is represented through distribution maps of different Nordic metal types. The most complete catalogue of these objects was presented by Sprockhoff (1956) and followed by the more geographically limited works of Kostrzewski (1958; 1959), La Baume (1964) and the more up-date publications of Fogel (1988), Blajer (1992) and others. The Nordic imports in Pomerania are known from 149 sites, with the total number of almost 400 objects (Fogel 1988: 126). Contrary to the earlier phases of the Bronze Age, in which the Jutland and southern Scandinavian connections with the Carpathian Basin were represented mostly by the distribution of armour and drinking vessels, in the Period V the Baltic exchange system is known, first of all, through the distribution of ornaments. In Pomerania, 360 examples of these were found, representing 90.5% of all imports; the majority of the ornaments are bracelets of various types known from 111 sites and 256 examples (Fogel 1988: 126, 167, Tab. 3).

By the Period V, the metallurgical tradition and assemblage imported bronze objects in all areas of Pomerania were related to the Nordic centres of metal production. The development of the Nordic culture and its influences in the western Baltic zone has never been the subject of controversy, while the presence of this culture in Pomerania has been intensively discussed by Polish and German archaeologists. The polemics of these discussions reflected the nationalistic atmosphere between the World Wars and it still recurs in present-day publications. The early works of Kossina (1915, 1917, 1919) and Sprockhoff (1930a, 1934, 1937, 1956), published at that time, are fundamental to the study of Nordic influences in Pomerania. Kostrzewski's publications, (l 958, 1959) which were supposed to offer alternative interpretations of metal objects in northern Poland, were uncritically accepted by generations of Polish archaeologists. In my judgement, the discussion of the Late Bronze Age in Pomerania was inappropriately focused: it is wrong to limit the study of cultural interaction in this region only to the question of the Nordic or non-Nordic character of

Not the largest but the most characteristic type of bracelet, widely distributed in the Nordic exchange zone, is the socalled oath-ring (Eidring) (Fig. 4). This Tolkien-like name was originally given in the first half of 19th century by C. J. Thomsen and since then has been used by Kossinna (1917: 12), Sprockhoff(l956 v.l: 181-188, v.lI: Karte 37) and others. 22

System o[Exchange and Cultural Interaction in the Baltic Regions and Eastern Europe The oath-rings were present in large areas of northern Europe, from north-west Jutland to the lower and middle Elbe in the west, and the lower Vistula in the east There are also two finds of this type even further east in the present-day Kaliningrad region. The main centres of distribution of these bracelets was in the Danish Islands, where they were found in the highest quantity. More than 70% of the oath-rings were made of gold and the rest were made of bronze (Fogel 1988: 29-30). The pattern of distribution of the gold type is presented Map 10. In Pomerania, 32 examples of these bracelets were found, the majority in hoards (47%) and only a few (6%) in graves (Fogel 1988: 29-33). The prestige and symbolic characters of these artefacts were originally suggested by Kossinna (1917: 2). In his interpretation, based on observation of the Nordic burial traditions, the rings were worn on the left hand by powerful male individuals. However, his anthropological analyses were questioned by Baudou (1960: 65). Another of Kossinna's observations suggests that heavy examples of this type of bracelet known from the western Baltic were replaced, in the area east of Oder, by a hollow type (Kossinna 1917: 4-5). It would suggest that the symbolic value of the objects was related more to their shape than to their weight. The last interesting question relating to these finds is on the origin of the gold ore used in their production. The metal could have come, through the process of long-distance exchange, from the south or, as has been suggested by some authors, from gold - rich Ireland or the British Isles. In van Brunn's opinion, there are even some typological similarities between the Baltic and the north-west European bracelets (Brunn 1958: 487-488).

intensively studied by Kossinna (1915: 97-103; 1919: 160163, Fig. 27-31); Sprockhoff (1931b: Fig. 29; 1956 v.I and Luka (1963a: 241) and Fogel (1988: 23-29). The origin of these ornaments was probably in the west Baltic area, but it is possible that at the end of the Period V, and in the Hallstatt C, they were produced in metallurgical workshops near Gdansk and then distributed eastward and westward along the Baltic coast. This opinion is supported by the distribution of these artefacts in Pomerania (Map 12). In almost all contexts, these objects were found in pairs (2, 4, etc.), identical in size, their morphological and decorative motives reversed (mirror-like) (Luka 1979b: 217; Fogel 1988: 28). This might suggest that, for aesthetic or symbolic reasons, they were worn on both armsat the same time.

The second kind of bracelet widely produced and exchanged in Jutland and northern parts of Germany and Poland, were the so-called bracelets made of double wire (Annspiralen aus Doppeldraht) (Fig. 5). The origin of these objects might be related to the old Unetice tradition, in which small hair-ring ornaments were made in similar fashion. In the Period II-III, in the centre of the Nordic zone, this tradition was transformed and the first gold version of double wire bracelets were produced (Kossinna 1914: 3: Fogel 1988: 21); during the next Period IV-V gold was replaced by bronze and this was accompanied by further typological alterations. Moreover, the centre of production and distribution of these finds also changed and moved eastward to Mecklenburg, Brandenburg and Pomerania; the distribution of these artefacts, in the Period V, is presented on Map 11. In Pomerania, these bracelets are represented by 55 objects from 32 sites, the majority in hoards. In the Hallstatt C period, the eastern version of these objects made of thicker wire was adopted by the Pomeranian culture, which started to control economic and symbolic exchange in this part of the Baltic region. From this centre, Pomeranian metal objects were distributed further east to the lake district in north-eastern Poland and to the Kaliningrad region (Fogel 1988: 20, Map 2).

Other groups of ornaments typical for the Nordic metallurgical traditions are the different types of neckring (Halskragen) (Fig. 7). Structurally and typologically they are related to all ring-type metal objects. Almost all of them, 56 in total, were found in the same contexts as the bracelets, that is in hoards. Originally these types developed in the northwestern part of the Baltic, but by the end of the Period V and at the beginning of the Hallstatt C, they were produced and distributed from the centre of metal production in eastern Pomerania (Fogel 1988: 50-62). Map 14 presents a distribution of different types of neckrings. It is possible that these objects had a very high prestige and/or economic value. In the process of their production, a large quantity of bronze would have been used and a high level of experience would have been required. At the same time, the practical use of these finds must have been limited by their shape and weight.

m,

The last group of bracelets or, rather, arm-rings, widely distributed along the coast of western and central Baltic are the so-called kidney-shaped bracelets (Nierenringe) (Fig. 6). In Pomerania, there are 93 known examples of these finds and 95% of them were found in hoards (Fogel 1988: 34). Early analyses of these artefacts were carried out by Kossinna (1919: 186-191) and were continued by Sprockhoff (1926: 51-71; 1937: 47; 1956 v.I: 188-192) and Fogel (1988: 34-40). It is apparent from the distribution (Map 13) that all types of these objects were particularly popular at the southern and south-eastern periphery of the Nordic influenced-area. It is even possible that the origin of the kidney-shaped bracelets might lie in the Period IV rings found in Lower Saxony (Sprockhoff 1932: 60-61, Tab. 30; 1956 v.II: Karte39).

The increasing importance of the lower Oder region in the Period V, can be supported by the distribution pattern of socalled fibulae with flat plate (Plattenfibulen) (Fig. 8). These objects were found mostly in hoards in Mecklenburg and western Pomerania (Map 15); they are, however, typologically related to the types found in the Period IV in Jutland (Fogel 1988: 40-50). It is characteristic that these finds exhibit strong local variations apparent from the analyse ofSprockhoff(1932; 1956); Kostrzewski (1958) and others.

Another type of bracelet well-known from Pomerania, represented by 76 finds from 37 sites, is typologically related to the objects mentioned above. The so-called loop-shaped bracelets (Schleifenarmbander) and their larger version, sometimes referred to as a necklace (Halskragen), were

In contrast to the different kinds of ornaments, widely produced and exchanged in the western and central regions of Baltic, armour is mostly represented by a variety of 23

Exchange and Cultural Interactions 6stergotland, and Fosie IV in Scania (Larsson 1993; Bjornhem, Savestad 1993: 110). However, the frequency of these two types of pottery in settlements and cemeteries is diverse; plain and smooth vessels are predominant in cemeteries (Carlsson 1995: 47). In all the above mentioned settlements, apart of the Urnfield type of pottery, a number of relatively small, square and regular houses with roofsupporting wall posts have been found. This type of architecture is characteristic for the northern part of central Europe, particularly for the Lusatian culture (in Kujavia and northern part of the Great Poland). Furthermore, Larsson (1993; 1994), during his excavations in Vistad, discovered a primitive version of fortification, and this type of wooden construction is novel in the Late Bronze Age Scandinavia. According to his interpretation, a number of pottery vessels found on the site were imported from the southern Baltic region. Another building of southern origin, with horizontal timber boards set within a framework of posts, has been discovered in the cemetery on the small island of Ringeby in 6stergotland (Carlsson 1995: 43-58). This house, with the entrance towards the south, was surrounded by different types of graves, including boat-shaped barrows, and inside the structure pottery of Lusatian type was discovered. There were no finds to indicate hunting or fishing activities, as a consequence the building was interpreted as a ritual structure (Carlsson 1995: 49-50).

swords, described and analysed in many publications by Sprockhoff (1931a; 1951; 1956); Kostrzewski (1958; 1966; 1972); Baudou (1960); Struve (1979) and Fogel (1979a; 1979b ). The most characteristic type of the Nordic swords, from the Period V, is a so-called sword with a rod type of tang (Griffangelschwerter) (Fig. 9). These objects were particularly popular in the lower Elbe, southern Scandinavia, the Island of Oland and the Danish Islands, and probably in these regions they developed from the earlier version known there in the Period IV (Baudou 1960: 11-19, Map 1; Struve 1979: 117, Tab. 46). In Pomerania, 18 examples of these finds are known, mostly from hoards, representing more than half of all swords discovered in this region (Fogel 1988: 68). It is characteristic that in the west Baltic area these artefacts were found in different archaeological contexts, mostly in graves. Map 16 (Sprockhoff 1956: v.11:Karte 1; Sturve 1979; Fogel 1988: Mapa VII) presents the general distribution of swords with a rod type of hilt.

6.3. Traditions of pottery production in different regions of the Baltic Sea. It is clear that in the Late Bronze Age most of the western and southern Baltic was influenced by Nordic metallurgical traditions; nevertheless, during the same period almost all pottery production in this area had its roots in southern (Lusatian) traditions . Jaanusson (1981; 1985: 39-50; 1988: l 71-177) has distinguished two general styles of pottery production for the Baltic zone. The western ceramics have been characterised by an abundance of the rusticated ware, a significant quantity of burnished pottery, and a rarity of decorated vessels; while the eastern pottery indicates the persistence of Neolithic traditions, it also includes a large quantity of the ware with "textile decorations" (Jaanusson 1985: 39). The boundary between these two techniques of pottery production runs from the Kaliningrad region (and separates Pomerania from Kurland) to the north to southwestern Finland (Map 18). It is very interesting that the areas where long-distance trade routes crossed exhibit unusual types of ceramics; for instance, pottery found on the Aland Islands has a predominantly "western" character but it also has a distinct "eastern" foundation, particularly in its forms (Jaanusson 1981: 53). The pottery with "textile decorations" is characteristic for large areas of northern and eastern Europe , and on some level of generalisation it can be related to the western regions of the Ananino culture influences (Map 18).

The remains of the material and symbolic culture found on this island suggest that exchange, between local communities on the both sides of the Baltic Sea, influenced not only economic and social structures but also the religious and symbolic life of these communities. Furthermore , cultural elements characteristic of the Lusatian culture, discovered in Scandinavia, suggest that these long-distance contacts did not result from "Nordic expansion" but from cultural interaction. It is necessary, however to remember that pottery is a specific category of material culture, which can be similar over large geographical regions. Ifwe accept that pottery production is a useful way to distinguish archaeological cultures, it is possible to say that the Nordic zone and the Lusatian area formed one cultural continuum, but this might be misleading, much as has been the view that different groups of the Lusatian culture had formed a strong unity for almost one millennium. The primary commonality between local groups of this culture is the tradition of pottery production and some other cultural elements which were shared in the whole of the Urnfield world.

6.4. Other cultural similarities between the regions of the western and southern Baltic.

The Urnfield type of pottery was introduced in Scandinavia together with a spread of new funeral traditions, discussed in the later part of this chapter. The pottery of the Late Bronze Age Scandinavia shows a great variation of types, but its shapes, temper, surface finish, and firing have no links with the earlier traditions known from this region, and it is clear that pottery known from southern and central Sweden has its roots in the Lusatian culture (Hulten 1977: 202; Carlsson 1995: 46). Two new types of smooth surfaces and rusticated wares are frequent both from cemeteries, for example, in Simris in Scania, and Fiskeby and Ringeby in 6stergotland (Carlsson 1995: 47), as well as from settlements Pryssgarden (Stahlbom 1994: 24-26) and Vistad (Larsson 1993) in

The quantity and the quality of bronze products in the Baltic area exchange system has led to the underestimating of other elements of material, religious and symbolic culture characteristic for this region. In the burial tradition, all areas along the coast of the Baltic exhibit significant similarities; barrow graves had been present there since the Late Neolithic Age . In different periods they appeared in different densities in different parts of the Baltic zone . They also varied in shape and size. In the Late Bronze Age, the earlier tradition of inhumation was replaced by cremation, which at that time 24

System ofExchange and Cultural Interaction in the Baltic Regions and Eastern Europe dominated most parts of central Europe. In some areas, particularly in Pomerania, even flat graves were adopted in the Period V-VI: very often barrow and flat graves have been found in the same cemeteries.

In the next, Hallstatt C-D, period, when the cultlu'al and economic centre of the Baltic zone moved even further east to eastern Pomerania, the old system of values uniting different regions along the western and central coast of the Baltic helped to spread a new funeral tradition. This tradition was represented by the so-called face urns and house urns (Malinowski 1979). The importance of this area in cultural and economic contacts between the north and the south will be discussed in another chapter. Nevertheless, it is necessary to mention here that the intensive development of the Pomeranian culture was responsible for the spread of the northern traditions southward. This is clearly represented through the increased number of hoards found in central, or even southern, Poland (Blajer 1992: 106). Participation by the new Pomeranian centre in the maritime exchange networks helped to transmit bronze objects and funeral traditions, characteristic for the western and central Baltic, to the eastern regions of the Baltic Sea.

Pomerania, which for most of the Bronze Age represented the south-eastern periphery of the west Baltic cultlu'al zone, followed the same pattern of changes as the main area of Nordic culture. However, many of these changes appeared here later: for example, the barrow graves so characteristic of the Period IV were still present in Pomerania, at the latest, in the first part of the Period V. Maps 19 and 20 show distribution patterns for barrow graves in northern Poland, in different periods of the Late Bronze Age. In this area, the frequency of the rich, so-called princely-graves, was also much less than in Denmark and northern Germany. Generally it is possible to say that most barrow graves were accompanied by metal objects, while in the majority of flat graves, pottery was dominant (Fogel 1988: 111).

6.5. Long-distance exchange networks in the eastern Baltic.

In the western Baltic regions, in Period V, a new custom of deposition of bronzes in hoards appeared on a large scale. In the previous period, most metal objects were found in graves (Bradley 1990; Blajer 1992: 104). This might suggest a significant change in the system of religious beliefs. However, in the next phase fewer hoards are known from this area, a decrease closely related to changes in long-distance trade routes and with a shortage of metal in general. Pomerania experienced a similar pattern of changes in metal deposition, although this process took place in the younger chronological phases of the Bronze Age. In the second half of the Period V, 200 hoards were found in Pomerania (Map 21 ), and it is particularly interesting that in the next Hallstatt C-D period 240 hoards were discovered (Map 22) (Blajer 1992: 103-106). The general patterns of hoards distribution in central-northern Europe, in the Periods IV, V and VI are presented on Map 23. Another difference between Pomerania and other areas of Nordic culture was characterized by variations in the forms of hoard deposition but this has been over-stressed in previous archaeological publications. It is true that majority of Scandinavian (80%) and north German (66%) hoards were found in bog or underwater environments (Fogel 1988: 113), while only between 20% and 30% of Pomeranian hoards were discovered in similar places (Blajer 1992: 103); yet, in my opinion, this only represents regional and chronological variations and the patterns of their deposition were probably the same in all regions.

Two cultlu'al and political centres had very important influences on the development of the eastern part of the Baltic exchange network. The first was located in the Samland Peninsula (in the present-day part of the Russian Federation between Poland and Lithuania) and the second in the north-western part of Latvia and in the Island of Saaremaa (western Estonia). As a result of dramatic events in the recent political history of this region, it is difficult to present a comprehensive analysis of the archaeological material from these areas. Most of the finds discovered there in the first half of the 20th century were lost during and after World War II and in the last 50 years archaeological research has been carried-out on a much smaller scale than in the western part of the Baltic zone. In the earlier phases of the Bronze Age, the Samland Peninsula had already experienced cross-cultlu'al interaction with the Unetice and later the Lusatian cultures on one hand, and with central areas of the Nordic culture located in Jutland and the Danish Islands on the other. These influences are reflected in the patterns of distribution of different forms of axes and battle-hammers of the Norycken type (Okulicz J. 1973: 174-180). At the same time, the north-western regions of Estonia established more direct contacts with the Nordic zone, through south-eastern Sweden, Oland, Gotland, and the Aland Islands (Sturms 1935: 248; Okulicz L. 1976: 64). All these events were accompanied by the intense development of the Volga-Kama metallurgical centre (Tallgren 1926: 142; Chlenova 1972: 135), which replaced the Caucasus region as the location of the main bronze supplier in eastern Europe, in the last centuries of the second millennium BC (Chernykh 1966). During the same period or, even earlier, some local communities from the lower Neman and the lower Daugava were in contact with the regions of the North Russian Plain (Okulicz L. 1976: 64). This is represented by the distribution of the so-called textile decorated pottery (Map 18).

The relatively late chronology of most of the cultural and symbolic changes in Pomerania, in comparison with the west Baltic area, was not related to its peripheral geographical position but rather it was a sign of changes in long-distance trade which allowed this area to play a central role in the system of exchange. The new, special, position of western Pomerania in interregional exchange, at the end of Bronze Age (particularly in the Hallstatt B3 period and at the beginning of the Hallstatt C), is reflected not only through the fortified settlements and the Lusatian type pottery discussed above, but also through the distribution patterns of some types of bronze objects, and the continuity in religious and symbolic values characteristic for the Bronze Age system. 25

Exchange and Cultural Interactions called oath-rings, three bracelets, and other smaller ornaments of Pomeranian origin (Okulicz J. 1973: 207-211). The majority of the Period VI hoards have concentrated south of the Samland Peninsula and were related to the socalled West-Baits Barrow cultw-e, where the metallw-gical tradition was influenced by the Lusatian cultw-e. Map 24 presents patterns of distribution of different types of archaeological sites from the Period VI in the area of the socalled West-Balts Barrow cultw-e and in the Samland Peninsula Toe central Ew-opean (Lusatian) tradition of metal production existed in the south-eastern Baltic region even earlier and was represented mostly by a large number of bronze tools, particularly sickles.

Toe existence of the north-east Ew-opean long-distance network of exchange in bronze products was originally suggested by Tallgren (1916, 1926, 1937). Toe first stage of this system of trade is supposed to be represented by two spearheads of the Volga-Kama origin found inland from the eastern coast of the Baltic (Okulicz L. 1976: 65-66). The metal products of similar origin were also found in southeastern Siberia (Chlenova 1972: 39). At the end of the second millennium BC, the large north Ew-opean system of exchange was not completely united. On one hand the western and southern Baltic regions, represented by a common set of material and symbolic values, did not expand further east than the Samland Peninsula. This area, even in later periods, was dominated by the Pomeranian traditions of metal production. On the other hand the network of exchange related to the middle Volga-Kama metal production centre did not expand beyond western Estonia and southern Finland. Only at a site near Klaipeda (western Lithuania), situated almost exactly in the centre between the limits of two trade systems, were bronze objects found which can be related to both networks (Okulicz L. 1976: 84).

One of the characteristic cultw-al elements of the West-Baits Barrow cultw-e was round-bottomed pottery. Typologically, this pottery can only be related to the finds from two cultural groups in the forest zone of eastern Ew-ope (Fig. 10). These cultw-es of the forest zone occupied an important position in inter-regional contact; all of them were, however, separated by distances of hundreds of kilometres and did not have direct contact with each other (Map 25). Nevertheless, these groups based in water-oriented environments (lakes and rivers) could probably have had easier access to other, even distant, regions. Toe Ananino cultw-e, with its intensive metallw-gical activities, could have developed links with economically and politically strong centres in the Milogrady cultw-e, in northern Ukraine and southern Byelorussia, which could, in tw-n,have had some kind of contact with the WestBalts Barrow cultw-e situated near the southern coast of the Baltic Sea.

In the Period ill-IV, the regions of the south-eastern Baltic (between Poland and Finland) were also involved in some kind of direct or indirect contact with the south. The Italian type of axe found in Swietlogorsk (raj. Primorsk) (Okulicz J. 1973: 182) could have occurred as a result of contact with the Lusatian or Urnfield cultw-es. However, nine beads of blue glass of the Near East origin, from a barrow in Zastrow, and a figw-ine found in Sernai (raj. Klaipeda), which was probably made in Anatolia or the Near East (Okulicz J. 1973: 182183), could have been imported through a different system of contacts, either from the Caucasus region or from the east Mediterranean.

The most significant sign of the "pan-Baltic" cultw-al unity was expressed through the barrow graves burial traditions. Barrows located further east along the Baltic coast have much more elaborate forms than those known from the southern Baltic region. Toe graves found in Pomerania and in north-eastern Poland represent a variety of forms, but they cannot be compared with the complicated construction of the Samland barrows, nor with the Kw-land (north-eastern Latvia) and Estonian boat-shaped graves. Toe pattern of distribution of different types of barrow graves at the end of the Period IV and in the Period V, in the eastern Baltic, is presented on Map 26. Toe fi.meraltradition of coastal areas of Samland followed a pattern of changes known from Jutland and Pomerania. Cremation replaced inhumation in these regions in the Period ill-IV and in the same period the form of barrows evolved as well. In the Late Bronze Age and in the Early Bronze Age, many barrows not only had concentric stones rings, but also internal circular walls and centrally located cists made of stones (Okulicz J. 1973: 229-231). Typical examples of this kind of barrow grave are known from former Georgshohe, Warschken and Birkenhof (all in raj. Primorsk), (Fig. 11). Toe Late Bronze Age barrows were often used again in the Hallstatt and La T,ne periods. The direct influences from Scandinavia are represented, in Samland, through the presence of the boat-shaped barrows found, for example, in former Espenheim (raj. Znamiensk) (Hansson 1927: 63), (Fig. 12). Toe general archaeological situation, at the end of the Bronze Age, in the eastern Baltic regions, expressed through the settlement pattern and the

At the end of the Period IV and in the Period V, all cultural and political centres along the south-eastern coast of the Baltic grew in importance and as a result joined a system of exchange which connected southern Scandinavia with the bronze production area situated west of the Ural Mountains. At that time the amber rich area of the Samland Peninsula developed its own metallw-gical production, and supplied bronze objects to all regions of the eastern Baltic as far as present-day Finland. The active position of this region can be perceived as a "missing link" in the process of creating the north Ew-opean long-distance exchange system (Okulicz J. 1973: 227). This cultw-al centre was strongly influenced by the Nordic zone through intensive contact with Pomerania. These contacts were represented by the distribution of metal objects and burial traditions. Typical Nordic bronze products, from the Period IV, known from Samland, are represented only by one fibula and two swords (Okulicz J. 1973: 203); however, in my estimation all the traditions of bracelet production, known there from at least 65 examples, should be related to the Nordic custom. In the next Periods (V-VI), evidence of the west Baltic influences are even clearer and were probably more direct. There is a significant increase in the number of known hoards, and in the quantity of Nordic type armow- and ornaments. Toe Period V imports are represented by the Giindlingen and so-called antennae-hilted swords, one golden bracelet, typologically related to the so26

System of Exchange and Cultural Interaction in the Baltic Regions and Eastern Europe distribution of metal objects from various metallurgical centres, is shown on Map 27.

in the first part of the Late Bronze Age (10th-9th centuries BC). Before the local centres in the lower Kama and the middle Volga areas developed their own intensive metal production, and established closer relations with the eastern Baltic and Scandinavia, they were influenced by the Cimmerian and Caucasus metallurgical zones (Khalikov 1962: 36-37) . The exchange routes based on the river systems has previously been mentioned in the works of Moora (1929: 646ft); Nerman (1933: llff; 1954: 257ft); Tallgren (1937); Okulicz L. (1976) and, more recently, by Lougas (1970); Jaanits, Laul, Lougas, Tonisson 1982; Lang (1983; 1996). Traditionally, the inter-regional contacts between the eastern Baltic and the North Russian Plain, in the prehistoric and historic period, could have followed at least two patterns. The first one extended from the middle Volga through the lower and upper Kama, the Vyeegda and Suchona Rivers and later via the lake system to the Finnish Bay. However, this network, which for many months, during long winters, was inaccessible, was probably less important than the second trade route located further south. Through this network, the middle and upper Volga was directly connected with the Dvina (Daugava) River and the Riga Bay. Like most of the Late Bronze Age systems of cultural interactions, this east European one is also reflected in the pattern of settlements and the distribution of imported bronze objects.

6.6. Contacts between the Baltic and the north-eastern Europe. The long-distance system of contacts along the southern coast of the Baltic Sea, which was based on the maritime exchange circles at the beginning of the Period IV, began to integrate with another network of trade and cultural interactions, thereby connecting central Scandinavia with the middle Volga and the lower Kama Rivers. Development of these two systems was structurally and chronologically closely related and they influenced each other. Increasing contacts between western and central Baltic zones and north-eastern Europe were associated with the cultural, economic and political changes in these regions. On the one hand the Nordic area began its final stage of Bronze Age development characterized by a high level of bronze consumption; on the other, different cultural groups, united through the complex systems of the large east European rivers, started their intensive metallurgical production. Although long-distance relations between separate regions in this part of the continent were based on long tradition, the Late Bronze Age trade network, which began in 10th-9th centuries BC, represented a new quality and scale of material and cultural interactions.

A period of intensive activity apparent in the north-east European long-distance system of exchange can be related to the development of the Ananino culture in vast areas of the middle Volga and Kama Rivers, which is broadly dated to 94th century BC (Ashikhmina 1985: 20). This culture, famous for its metallurgical activity, influenced large areas of eastern Europe and western Asia (Khalikov 1969b: 317). Some authors, for example Tretyakov (I 966: 142ft), consider that its origin should be related to the process of migration of the west Siberian tribes, and Khalikov (1962: 88), went so far as to describe these tribes as early Ugro-Finnish. Yet, in my view, it would be unwise to relate the Ananino culture to any ethnic group on the basis of existing archaeological evidence. The Ananino culture developed primarily out of old SeimaTurbino traditions which were represented by the Lugovo and Byrgynda cultures (Ashikhmina 1985: 14-17), and was a part of the Ural zone, in which were included different local communities on both sides of this mountains (Chemykh 1992: 235-264). Furthermore, there is evidence of influences from the other regions, particularly from the south, in a form of the so-called Cimmerian daggers, but also from very distant areas of eastern Siberia (Kuzminykh 1983: 122-133, 181-182). The most obvious sign of contact between the Ananino culture and the Nordic zone is represented by the distribution of the so-called Mfilar axes (Tallgren 1911: 170-183; 1912: 77-83; 1916: 13; 1937: 40-41; Gorodcov 1914: 48; Nerman 1933; 1954: 257; Kuzminykh 1993: 61-109) (Map 29). These axes were probably produced on a large scale in central Sweden, particularly near the Mfilaren Lake where a significant centre of bronze production has been discovered (Sulimirski 1970: 334), and they are broadly dated to the Period IV-VI in the Montelian chronology (Sprockhoff 1950: 111-119) . This type of axe has been found in almost all

Populations of the late phases of Seima and Turbino cultures (2000-800 BC), which replaced the neolithic Volosovo culture (the end of the 3rd and the first half of 2nd millennium BC) (Ashikhmina 1985: 13-21; Gedl 1985: 9398; Chernykh 1992: 215-235) in this region, adopted new material and symbolic values into the older, even Neolithic, traditions. Many late Bronze Age settlements and cemeteries, where Nordic imports are found, had previously been occupied in the Neolithic (Okulicz L. 1976: 91-93). Typical for the Late Bronze Age were small fortified settlements situated on naturally defended peninsulas along the major rivers (Khalikov 1960: 109). The funeral tradition was represented through the flat and barrow graves, in many of which pottery and a number of bronze objects were found. Patrushev and Khalikov (1967: 95) and Okulicz L. (1976: 89, 95) suggested that in some cemeteries, for example those in Achmylovo and Volosovo, the graves of individuals representing different cultural and material traditions were found amongst burials characteristic of local systems. This might suggests a high level of integration between "newcomers" and a local people. On many burial grounds of the Ananino culture, for instance, Ananino, Zuevo, Kotlovo, "Ryolka", Tash-Yelga, Lugovo, Karakulino, Verhnije Moshkary and Podgorno-Bailar, the general orientation of many graves and skeletons was related to directions of the rivers. On most of these cemeteries bodies were deposited with their heads towards the rivers, and this suggests that rivers not only had an important economic but also a symbolic significance (Ashikhmina 1985: 19). Map 28 presents the system of possible trade routes in eastern Europe together with the settlement pattern of fortified sites and the distribution of the Nordic products in eastern Europe, 27

Exchange and Cultural Interactions with different regions of the Baltic zone), then to the Island of Saaremaa, where, on the Sorve Peninsula, in Asva, an important fortified settlement was located. The Saaremaa Island was densely occupied from the second millennium BC (Jaanits 1959: 344), but only as a result of significant social and economic changes, which took place in the Period V-VI (L_ugas 1967: 86-93; 1970: 112-118), was a complex settlement pattern able to emerge in this area. It is possible to distinguish two phases of occupation on this site, of which only the first one was functionally and chronologically related to a long-distance exchange system and had a sophisticated defence system constructed of stone walls (Indreko 1939: 35ft). Artefacts found on the settlement, including cast forms, fragments of copper and bronze and crucibles (Vassar 1955: 113-120), suggest the existence of metallurgical production and intensive contacts with the regions of copper ore extraction in the Volga - Kama Basins. The majority of bronze objects discovered on this site were, however, typologically related to forms known from the Gotland Island and some of them might also represent imports from this region. On the settlement on the Island of Saaremaa a large quantity of fragments of clay moulds have been found (673), but only a limited number of bronze products themselves are known from this site (20) (Lougas 1966: 102-113). A similar situation appeared on many settlements in the forest zone of eastern Europe. This suggests that in the large areas of eastern Europe, the nature of metal production as well as its consumption was significantly different from that characteristic of central and northern Europe. It is possible that all metallurgical activities in the forest zone were concentrated on large settlements, from which the majority of the bronze products were distributed to local communities.

cemeteries and settlements between the Oka, middle Volga and Kama Rivers (Okulicz L. 1976: 99). Tallgren's (1911: 178; 1937: 40) and others' theories about the Scandinavian origin of these axes was recently questioned by Kuzminykh (1993: 61-74, 107), who suggested that the Miilar axes were produced in the Volga - Kama region and then distributed throughout the northern part of eastern and central Europe. A similar opinion was presented earlier in a few Russian archaeological publications, which restricted the term Miilar (or Akozino-Miilar) axe only to the early forms of these finds, in the contrast to the later which were called Ananino axes (Fig. 13) (Smirnov AP. 1970: 177; Kuzminykh 1983: 167180). A "recycled" version of the Kuzminykh's work, as well as publications by other Russian scholars, have recently been presented by Schwerin von Krosigk (1989). However, it is clear that the majority of the so-called Ananino axes represented, above all, a local metallurgical tradition; and even if in the area of the middle Volga and Kama Rivers these axes have been found on the same sites as the Miilar axes they do not have the same origin. In my opinion Tallgren and, particularly, Nerman (1954: 257) underestimated the importance of the social aspects of the bronze exchange, but they were correct in their interpretation of the general directions of the Miilar axe trade. Tallgren (1937: 36-38; 1938: 725-726) related these axes typologically to ones known from the area of the Lusatian culture. It is possible to say that the Miilar type axes represented central European traditions of axe production and that they were introduced in Scandinavia in the earlier periods. Axes found in the central parts of the continent are significantly different from those discovered in eastern Europe and in western Asia (in general the central European types are narrower but longer than those from the east). Map 30 presents distribution of different types of axes known from the forest and steppe zones of central and eastern Europe and western Asia. It is difficult to estimate the exact number of these finds, even though, in one cemetery alone, in Achmylovo, 75 axes have been discovered (Patrushev 1971: 37ff; Patrushev and Khalikov 1967: 97). An interesting interpretation of the Malar axes was presented by Patrushev (1971: 32ft). In his opinion they were used only as weapons in contrast to the local products which were used as every-day tools. This might suggest that these foreign objects, received through the process of long-distance exchange, had a predominantly prestige and probable symbolic character. In the later periods, copies of this type of axe could be produced locally in the northern part of eastern Europe, and they were in use until 400 BC (Chlenova 1972: 138). More than 20 Millar axes have also been found along the eastern coast of the Baltic and it is interesting that they are represented by both the Swedish and the middle Volga versions of this find (Okulicz L. 1976: 102).

It is possible to distinguish two types of pottery discovered in Asva. The first one, found over large areas of northern and eastern Europe, was usually of low quality and was decorated with the so-called textile ornament. In the earlier periods this kind of pottery was particularly characteristic of the Dyakovskoi culture in the regions of the middle Volga and Kama Rivers (Smirnov AP. 1970: 176). The second type of pottery, represented by thin, black coloured, high quality wares decorated with geometrical motifs, is usually called "the Lusatian type", although it might be more correct to call it the Umfield type (Vassar 1955: 113-120). This type of pottery, together with the large quantity of amber (Okulicz L. 1976: 116-117) discovered in Asva, suggests that this settlement, and others on the Saaremaa Island, had contacts with the southern Baltic zone and with central Europe, in general. A sophisticated technology of pottery production was probably introduced in this region through contacts with cultural groups situated on the Samland Peninsula, which were strongly influenced by the Lusatian culture. Fig. 14 presents two types of pottery discovered on the fortified settlement in Asva.

Development of inter-regional contacts in north-eastern Europe was accompanied by changes in the settlement systems. The Baltic stage of long-distance trade went from central Sweden through the Islands of Gotland or Aland (which in earlier and later periods also had close contacts

The chronology of this settlement can be related with the chronology of boat-shaped barrows discovered in the southern part of the Saaremaa Island (Fig. 15). One of the most interesting aspects of the Saaremaa barrows is that they are made out of a sandstone which does not appears on the 28

System of Exchange and Cultural Interaction in the Baltic Regions and Eastern Europe and routes of its distribution in central and eastern Europe. In northern Europe, as in other regions with colder climates, turf, algae and other debris, in which salt is naturally concentrated to a significant degree, could be used to obtain sea-salt (Jaanusson and Jaanusson 1988: 108). The southern areas of central Europe could have produced salt from other sources such as salt springs and rock salt deposits (the regions of Halle, Krak6w and the Alps), but most of the Baltic zone had to obtain salt from western Scandinavia or possibly from the White Sea, because the Baltic water is brackish and unsuitable for the precipitation of salt. There is early historical evidence of salt production in the region of the White Sea, and in late prehistory this salt was probably distributed in the forest zone of eastern Europe, as far as to the Ananino culture (Tallgren 1937: Fig. 23; Zbrueva 1952; Jaanusson and Jaanusson 1988:llO).

island or within the whole of Estonia (Lougas 1970: 111; Jaanits, Laul, Lougas, Tonisson 1982: 150-151), and had to be imported, probably by maritime transport, from another region of the Baltic. Recently new boat-shaped graves have been discovered in other parts of Estonia, for instance in Jaani near Vao (Lang 1983: 294-295; 1996: 561-591). Intensive development of Asva region ended with the decline of the long-distance exchange system, which disappeared in the second part of Period VI. Further south, in the northern part of the Kurland Peninsula, another even larger concentration of boat-shaped barrows has been found. Graudonis (1967: 68-74) has listed twelve sites with this type of grave (Map 31). These graves were genealogically related to the barrows found in the Gotland and in central and southern Scandinavia (Hansson 1927: 63ff; Sturms 1931: 126:ff). Examples of the boat-shaped graves, which were recorded in the 19th century and in 1960s are shown on Fig. 16. Unfortunately, many of these graves have been significantly destroyed during uncontrolled excavations (see Graudonis 1967: 70, Rye. 53). In the majority of excavated graves only few or no bronze objects were found This, together with a funeral tradition (like cremation and deposition in urns), suggests strong influences from the Umfield cultures (Engel 1935: 324ff; Okulicz L. 1976: 111). It is possible that in the area ofnorthern Kurland two main exchange routes from the East to the western Baltic zone had crossed: one via the southern coast of the Baltic Sea and the second via the Gotland Island to central Sweden. Through the first system of contact the central European tradition of cremation was introduced, while cultural and economic relations with the Gotland Island and Scandinavia helped to introduce boat-shaped forms ofbarrows.

The complete decline of this long-distance trade network can be related to the end of the Bronze Age in Scandinavia. Deep cultural changes in the western and central Baltic zones, which on the one hand replaced the practical use of bronze through the introduction of iron, and on the other introduced new systems of social relations unrelated to the production and distribution of prestige metal objects, were responsible for the collapse of the long-distance intercultural chain of exchange. The north European system of intercultural contacts which united different parts of the Baltic zone and other east European regions can be called "the V arangiantype" of exchange or economy, based on prestige-goods exchange, some kind of commercial trade, and different forms military raids (rather small in scale but regular). These cross-regional contacts generated the same kind of archaeological evidence as the "Varangian-type" of exchange which united this part of Europe in other periods, particularly during the Viking Age. Rare, but very often dramatic, contacts with powerful strangers, who came from a different cultural "universe", were likely to influence the symbolic and religious values of peoples in later prehistory in different parts of Europe. During the period of intensive intercultural contacts, means of transport began to have not only practical but also social and symbolic values. In the Baltic zone, the concept of the boat, comparable to wheeled vehicles in the southern parts of central and eastern Europe, was redefined and put in a new social and symbolic context. In many parts of northern and eastern Europe a practical knowledge of shipbuilding, which probably developed locally, co-existed with the idea of boat-graves, which appeared in these regions as an "import" from Scandinavia.

The next very important centres located on the trade routes were probably situated near the mouth of the Dvina River and generally along the lower and upper Dvina. They are represented by a number of fortified settlements and cemeteries, unfortunately only very broad chronological dates are known for the majority of these sites and it is difficult to relate them directly with the network of longdistance exchange (Graudonis 1967; 1970a; 1970b; Okulicz L. 1976: 120-128). However, bronze objects of the Scandinavian origin dated on Period V-VI were discovered on some of these sites. On the fortified settlements in Klangukalns (the lower Dvina), for example, bracelets, the Mfilar type axe, a spearhead and other objects of the Nordic origin were recovered (Sturms 1947: 3). 6.7. Conclusion.

The majority of traded goods were passed through complicated networks of exchange, which connected very distant regions. However, it is possible that some of these goods were carried all the way from the Baltic to the middle Volga region, or even further to the Caspian Sea, by the same people. On the north-eastern coast of the Caspian Sea, nine boat-shaped graves have been discovered, on the copper ore rich Mangyshlak Peninsula at Cape Tokmak (Galkin 1996: 27-30). These barrows are typologically and chronologically related to those known from the Baltic; furthermore, they are accompanied by two circular barrows made of stone, which are similar to those found in northern Estonia. Unfortunately

It is highly likely that in the process of exchange other kinds of goods, apart from bronze products, were involved, for example wax and furs (Tallgren 1937: 12, 41). Another important product, which was probably broadly traded in the Late Bronze Age, was salt. The subject of salt production was recently discussed in a paper presented by Jaanusson and Jaanusson (1988: 107-112). While their general understanding of the Bronze Age trade is rather simplistic, their comments on the importance of the salt production are of interest. Map 32 presents possible areas of salt production

29

Exchange and Cultural Interactions this discovery has only been published in a non-academic journal (although a distribution map of these barrows and a number of photographs were included) (Galkin 1996: 27-30). Sailing communities from the Baltic could have entered the Caspian Sea a long time before the Vikings. This subject, however, requires further intensive research.

30

Exchange and Intercultural Contacts Between the Caucasus Mountains, the East European Steppes and Central Europe

VII. EXCHANGE AND INTERCULTURAL CONTACTS BETWEEN THE CAUCASUS MOUNTAINS, THE EAST EUROPEAN STEPPES (THE CIMMERIANS), AND THE REGIONS OF CENTRAL EUROPE (THE 9TH-7TH CENTURIES BC).

These are the descendants of Noah's sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. These three had sons after the flood The sons of Japheth - Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras - were the ancestors of the peoples who bear their names. The descendants of Gomer were the people of Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah (Genesis 10: 1-3).

7.1. Cimmeriansand their expansionsin the Near East. It is particularly interesting that this passage suggests that the peoples of Gomer (the Cimmerians) and Ashkenaz (the Scythians) had close genealogical connections. In the early stage of their history, they could have had a similar origin (Hommel 1904: 110; Dyakonov 1956: 228-241; Werner 1961: 132; Terenozhkin 1976: 211; Chochorowski 1993: 10) and it is possible to relate them to the north or west Iranian group of the Indo-Europeans. Their social and cultural structures also exhibited a considerable degree of congruence. However, throughout the few centuries of their history, the Cimmerians did not represent a single ethnic unity, neither during their expansion in the Near East nor in the period of their intensive contacts with central Europe. One has to understand the name Cimmerians more in a cultural sense than in an ethnic one. The military and cultural expansions united a variety of different tribes, who adopted a culture originally represented by Cimmerian communities. This is referred to by Ezekiel in the Old Testament:

The Lord gives a signal to call for a distant nation(s). He whistles for them to come from the ends of the earth. And here they come, swiftly, quickly! None of them grows tired; none of them stumbles. They never doze or sleep. Not a belt is loose; not a sandal strap is broken. Their a"ows are sharp, and their bows are ready to shoot. Their horses' hooves are as hard as flint, and their chariot-wheels turn like a whirlwind. The soldiers roar like lions that have killed an animal and are carrying it off where no one can take it away from them (Isaiah 5: 26-29). This kind of dramatic description of the invasion of the northern tribes can be found in a number of places in the Old Testament (Isaiah 5; Ezekiel 38). It does not reflect old "mythological" stories but real historical events which took place around 9th-8th centuries BC, during the time the Old Testament was being created. These events can be related to the expansion of the first historically known nomadic tribes the Cimmerians. They played an important role in the political, military, cultural and economic changes which happened in the first half of the first millennium BC in the Caucasus, Asia Minor, and in all the Near East. Furthermore, they had even greater impact on the regions of the eastern and central Europe. Although the Cimmerians and the Cimmerian expansions have been extensively analysed by archaeologists and ancient historians, they have not yet been able to create a comprehensive and compatible interpretation of the archaeological evidence and the written sources. The most recent analyses of the Old Testament and Akkadian texts, relating to the period of Cimmerian presence in the Near East, has been published by Ivantchik (1993). Collections of archaeological material from this period have been presented by Russian, Ukrainian and central European scholars, through numerous publications, but for the regions of central Europe the most complete analysis of the so-called Cimmerian finds is that offered by Chochorowski (1993).

All the fighting men of the lands of Gomer and Beth Togarmah in the north are with him, and so are men from many other nations. ... He and his army and the many nations with him will attack like a storm and cover the land like a cloud (Ezekiel 38: 6, 9). In the later phases of their history, the northern branch of the Cimmerian tribes developed close political, economic and cultural relations with the Thracians and this is why, in older literature, the origins of these two "ethnic" groups were considered together (Lehmann-Haupt 1921: 397; Rostovtseff 1922: 39). In the 9th and 8th centuries BC, the Greeks' geographical knowledge was already sufficient to locate Cimmerians in the area north of the Black Sea, and they were mentioned in Homer's Odyssey (11: 13-19) and lliad (13: 5-7). Nevertheless, the most accurate location of the Cimmerians, together with a description of their migration, was given a few centuries later by Herodotus (IV: 9-13):

Of the different interpretations of the Cimmerian origin presented in the last eighty years, most have tried to locate the early Cimmerians in the area of the Pontic Steppes or the Caucasus Mountains. Nevertheless, there are a number of publications which suggest more "exotic" and "unusual" locations for these people. On the one hand some older scholars have suggested a west European origin for the Cimmerians (Lehmann-Haupt 1921: 424); on the other, Kristensen ( 1988) has offered an equally unrealistic interpretation, according to which Cimmerians were the lost tribe of Israelites'. In biblical interpretations, the people of Gomer (the Hebrew name for the Cimmerians) were the descendants of Noah's son Japheth (Genesis 10: 1-3; I Chronicles 1: 4-6).

It is that the wandering Scythians once dwelt in Asia, and there warred with the Massaget', but with ill success; they therefore quitted their homes, crossed the Araxes (Volga), and entered the land ofCimmeria. For the land which is now inhabited by the Scyths was formerly the country of the Cimmerians (Herodotus IV: 11; translation by G. Rawlinson). Herodotus in his writing connected in one story different events from Cimmerian history. In his description, the process of migration was preceded by an internal war between separate Cimmerian tribes.

31

Exchange and Cultural Interactions On their {Scythians] coming, the natives, who heard how numerous the invading army was, held a council. At this meeting opinion was divided, and both parties stijjly maintained their own view; but the counsel of the Royal tribe was the braver. For the others urged that the best thing to be done was to leave the country, and avoid a contest with so vast a host; but the Royal tribe advised remaining and fighting for the soil to the last. ... Having thus decided, they drew apart in two bodies, the one as numerous as the other, and fought together. All of the Royal tribe was slain, and the people buried them near the river Tyras (Dnestr), where their grave is still to be seen. Then the rest of the Cimmerians departed, and the Scythians, on their coming took possession of a deserted land (Herodotus IV: 11). It appears likewise that the Cimmerians, when they fled into Asia to escape the Scyths, made a settlement in the peninsula where the Greek city of Sin6pe was afterwards built. The Scyths, it is plain, pursued them, and missing their road, poured into Media. For the Cimmerians kept the line which led along the sea-shore, but the Scyths in their pursuit held the Caucasus upon their right, thus proceeding inland, falling upon Media. This account is one which is common both to Greeks and barbarians (Herodotus IV: 12).

move southward but also westward, and that closed the Cimmerians' access to Anatolia. Thenceforth the Scythian pressure forced the Cimmerian tribes to migrate across the steppes north of the Black Sea. For almost the next hundred years, the Cimmerians trapped in the Near East were involved in a number of military alliances and conflicts. For example, they were first divided by Assarhaddon (677 BC) (Latyshev [1947] 1992); then, in cooperation with Urartu, they destroyed Phrygia (676-674 BC) (Lehmann-Haupt 1921: 409-414; Bouzek 1983: 222). Finally, the Cimmerian king Lygdamis, together with the Thracians, invaded and ruined Lydia (657-652 BC) (Zablocka 1987: 351; Wiesner 1963: 76). Nevertheless, in the second half of the 7th century BC, Lydian kings, supported by Assyria and the Scythians, divided the Cimmerians and the Thracians. Probably around 600 BC the Cimmerians were expelled from Asia Minor by Alyattes (Lehmann-Haupt 1921: 420-421; Bouzek 1983: 222); other authors indicate that this should be connected with the Scythian migration from Anatolia (585 BC) (Artamonov 1974: 34; Pogrebova 1984: 14). 7.2. The nomadic origin of the Cimmerian culture.

The events described can be related to the history of the different Cimmerian tribes; they took place in separate regions and they had different chronologies. The first big groups of northern nomads crossed the Caucasus Mountains and entered the Near East regions in the 8th and 7th centuries BC. It is possible to connect these first groups with the Cimmerians, but soon after they were followed by the Scythians. The general directions of their penetration are shown on Map 33. In the account of Herodotus, the conflict between the different Cimmerian tribes developed after the conflict with the Scythians. The Cimmerians, who buried "their kings" near the Dnestr River, moved westward along the northern cost of the Black Sea and finally some of them began to influence central Europe, particularly in the Carpathian Basin. From there they could also enter Anatolia from the north-west, together with the Thracians in the middle of the 7th century BC.

The Cimmerian expansions in Europe and in the Near East have to be studied together with the problem of the origin of nomadism in the eastern part of the continent. The introduction of horses and horse raiding on a large scale, changes in social structures and the development of elites, and also climatic changes, are probably the most significant factors which have to be included in the analysis of early nomadism. Between the 14th-12th century BC, in the large areas of the steppes situated north of the Black Sea, intensive development of the so-called Sabatinovka culture took place. Archaeological evidence for this culture is represented by large, long-term settlements with stone, clay and wooden architecture; its economy was based on settled agriculture reflected in the continuous use of the same land (Chernyakov 1985: 44-47, 153-156). It is characteristic for this period that many settlements were located in regions which today experience regular shortages of water and are often uninhabited (Chernyakov 1985: 26-40; Makhortykh, levlev 1992: 110-112). The intensive development of the Sabatinovka culture was related to the relatively warm and wet climate known from the 15th-13th centuries BC (Gershkovich, levlev 1987: 38-40). From the end of the 13th century BC, in eastern Europe a period of colder and dryer weather began; or at last some significant climatic anomalies took place, which ended some time between the 7th and 5th century BC (Losev 1985: 110; Ievlev 1991: 22; Makhortykh, levlev 1992: 112). The evidence of these changes is represented by the sea level changes and the regressions of the Black Sea (Zolotun, Kuchneev 1984: 249) and the Caspian Sea (Varushenko S.I., Varushenko L.N., Kligge 1987: 112, Fig. 20). According to Zdanovich and Khabdulina (1981: 35) these climatic changes were even more dramatic in the regions of the central Asian steppes, where different zones of vegetation moved almost 200 km to the north. However, it is difficult to accept a view presented by Chochorowski (1993: 260), after Otroshchenko (1981: 19-

The Assyrian written sources provide detailed information about the Cimmerians and their military expansions. In the 8th century BC the Cimmerians were already well established south of the Caucasus Mountains and they could be located in the area of the upper Kura River on the border with Urartu (Dudarev 1991: 27). In the year 715 BC, the Cimmerians, probably in cooperation with the Assyrian king Sargon II, gained a significant victory over Urartu and its king Rusa I. It is generally accepted that during that time the Cimmerians were not involved in military activity against Assyria (Dudarev 1991: 29-30). This situation changed around 680 BC and later, probably when new groups of nomads entered Anatolia and started a conflict with Assarhaddon, the king of Assyria (Zablocka 1987: 335; Dudarev 1991: 67). The Cimmerians, in their new expansion, were followed by the Scythians who appeared in Asia Minor at the same time (680-677 BC) (Pogrebova 1984: 13) or a few years later (674-673 BC) (Makhorykh 1992; Chochorowski 1993: 13). Scythian military activity not only forced the Cimmerians to 32

Exchange and lntercultural Contacts Between the Caucasus Mountains, the East European Steppes and Central Europe

525; Chernyakov 1985: 155; Chochorowski 1993: 260-262) have put forward the views that the first nomadic (horseriding) groups formed in the central part of the east European steppe region some time around 11th-10thcentury BC. In the following centuries most of these groups moved out of the central parts of the steppes. Depopulation of these central regions was accompaniedby intensive cultural and economic development of the peripheral zone of the steppes; for example,the area north of the Caucasus Mountains,the Kriin Peninsula,the regions of the middle Dnepr, the middle Volga and Kama Rivers and also the Great Hungarian Plain. These new centres were usually located in the areas of wetter climate and their positions allowed them to play an important role in interregional exchange. In all these regions local cultures developed but at some stage in all of them there appeared finds of the so-called Cimmeriantype (Makhortykh, Ievlev 1992: 114-115, Fig. 1). The migrations of nomadic tribes from the centre of the steppe zone was not single events but rather a continuousprocess. These migrationshad, however, not yet developedthe cyclic nature characteristicof more advancednomadic cultures.

20) and Vanchugov (1990: 109), that changes in the ecosystem were in substantial part caused by the large population of the Sabatinovka, and other cultures, which over-exploitedthe local environment. It is very difficult to know how different local groups in late prehistory influenced their environments and why the ecological crisis happened at the same time in large areas of Asia and eastern Europe. Yet it is a fact that the Belozerka culture (12th-10th centuries BC) (Otroshchenko 1985: 524; Vanchugov 1990: 138), which replaced the Sabatinovka culture (14th-12th centuries BC) (Berezanskaya & Sarafutdinova 1985: 498; Chernyakov 1985: 156) in the regions north of the Black Sea, represented a new set of cultural, economic and symbolic values. From the archaeologicalevidence, the clearest indications are changes in the settlement pattern; in the south-western area of the Black Sea steppes almost 700 settlementsof the Sabatinovka culture (Chernyakov 1985: 40) and only 40 of the Belozerka culture (Vanchugov 1990: 40) are known. Nevertheless,the suggestionmade by Makhortykhand levlev (1992: 113-114), that the population of the steppes, between the Danube and the Don Rivers, decreased 10 times in this period, is difficult to accept even if we relate the depopulation of these regions to the expansionof the so-called "sea people", as Chemyakov has insisted (1985: 157). I believe these arguments lack conviction.

A mobile life-stylehelped to create a new set of cultural and social patterns of behaviour. The great importance of horses and horse riding is evident from the number of finds related to horse breeding discovered in graves and hoards (Cherednichenko 1987: 80). Rich graves, in which were found large numbers of weapons, suggest significantchanges in the social structures (Ternozhkin 1976: 100-102; Murzin 1991: 57). Processes of change and migration similar to that which took place in the east European steppes also occurred throughout the Asian steppes. In the regions east of the Altai Mountains and in Manchuria, in the 12th-8th century BC, kings of the Western Chou dynasty constantly waged war againstnomadic and semi-nomadicbarbarian tribes of central Asian origin (Rodzinski 1992: 39).

There were also other structural changes in settlement patterns characteristic of the Belozerka culture. While the majority of the sites located earlier in the central part of the steppe region disappeared,most of the places occupiedby the people of the Belozerka culture were located near main rivers and on the edges of the steppe zone and were relatively small, with temporary architecture (Chemyakov 1985:105; Vanchugov 1990: 15-40, Fig. 1-17). These processes of change intensified in the later periods. Decentralization of occupationin the east European steppes is likely to have had not only a climaticbasis but must also have marked signs of a deep crisis within existing social structures. Individualisation of the economic and religious life can be accepted as a response to this situation and as a sign of cultural creativity. In the steppe regions internal, social competitions were transformed into external territorial expansions. It is interesting that this process has many similarities with the changes which took place in the northern part of central Europe during the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age (for example, in the Lusatian culture); and it is characteristicthat the central European crisis was also related to changes in social structuresand climate.

7.3. Archaeologicalevidence of early nomadic cultures.

Material evidence of the early stage of Cimmerian expansions in Europe is represented by Cernogorovka-type artefacts, which also included objects of the so-called Arzan type. In the rich Arzan tumulus a large quantity of finds of the Altai origin have been discovered.While the exact date of this barrow is still unknown, the finds suggest that, even in the early phase of the developmentof the Cimmerianculture, groups of the proto-Scythian, as well as people of Altai origin, participated and had significant roles in changing systems of value and behaviour of local people from the Black Sea steppes.

Although one can accept that the economy of the Belozerka culture was largely based on agriculture, there were significantchanges in the structure of animal husbandry,with cattle becoming the commonest animal and with the horse increasing in importance (Zhuravlov, Amirkhanov, Gubska 1985: 61, Tab. 4; Vanchugov 1990: 105). Vanchugov (1990: 106) noted that the increasingly important role of husbandry was represented by the deposition of meat in graves. In his analysis animal bones were found with 15% of the human burials. Some authors (Otroshchenko 1981: 19-20; 1985:

Since Gorodcov'spublication (1928: 46-60), or earlier, many archaeologistshave tried to connect the historically known Cimmerianswith an archaeological culture or cultures. The most complete review in English of different opinions was presented by Sulimirski(1959: 45-64). The cultural situation in eastern Europe at the time of the supposed movements of the Cimmerians is presented on Map 34. More complete analyses of the material culture which can be related to the Cimmerianshave been presented by archaeologistsfrom the former Soviet Union, for example lessen (1953; 1954), 33

Exchange and Cultural Interactions historically known Cimmerians; at the same time he relates the Novocerkassk type to the Volga region version of the Timber-grave culture and with the early Scythian tribes. This interpretation is based on insufficient evidence and cannot be accepted (Skoryj 1991: 15-24); furthermore, new analyses of the Cernogorovka and the Novocerkassk assemblages, accompanied by the studies of their relations to the material remains from other well-dated cultures, particularly to the Koban culture from the Caucasus region (Dudarev 1983: 1013; 1991: 31), suggest that the chronology of both types of these objects only partially overlap. The CernogorovkaNovocerkassk assemblage represents one archaeological complex and it is impossible to distinguish the different ethnic groups which could be represented within this archaeological culture.

Krupnov (1960), Terenozhkin (1961; 1976), Neikhardt (1982), Dubovskaya (1989), Murzin (1990), Dudarev (1991), Skoryj (1991) and others. A relatively up-to-date swnmary of these works was offered by Chochorowski (1993: 20-23). One of the two main typological forms of artefacts which are usually associated with the Cimmerian culture was distinguished by lessen (1953: 49-110) during his work on the hoard from Novocerkassk and related finds, which have been dated to the 8th century BC. A few years later Terenozhkin (1961; 1965; 1973) presented results of his studies on the problem of the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age in the regions of the east European steppes and in the Caucasus. Archaeological materials from the barrows Cernogorovka, Kamysevacha, Malaja Ciabalka, Symferopol-Zol'noe, the cemetery Kamenomostskoe, the hoards from Novocerkassk and other sites, were situated chronologically between the late phase of the Timber-grave culture and the early Scythian culture (Chochorowski 1993: 21). In his final conclusion, Terenozhkin (1976: 198-214) connected the Cimmerian culture with two groups of material objects (the Cernogorovka type 900-750 BC and the Novocerkassk type 750-650 BC) but, in his view, these two types of artefacts are also strongly related to the late phase of the Timber-grave culture. The Cernogorovka group was associated with the number of barrow graves with inhumed bodies deposited in a flexed position, lying on their side. Many of these barrows were interpreted as graves of warriors, who were buried with large quantities of weapons, for example bi-metal daggers and swords with iron blades and bronze hilts, bronze arrowheads and a number of bronze elements of bridles (Terenozhkin 1976: 199-201; Murzin 1990: 17-18; Chochorowski 1993: 21). The finds interpreted as the Novocerkassk type were also discovered in "warriors' barrows" but with the bodies deposited in extended positions. In the graves of this type more iron objects were found than in the previous group, for example daggers, swords and spearheads, but bronze arrowheads and elements of bridles were also found (Terenozhkin 1976: 201-202; Murzin 1990: 17; Chochorowski 1993: 21). Typical artefacts of the Cernogorovka and the Novocerkassk groups are presented on Fig. 17. The distribution of the Cimmerian type finds, in eastern Europe, is shown on Map 35.

Although people of different origin were involved in the Cimmerian migrations, it is impossible to see these differences in the material culture. The people influenced by the Cimmerian culture did not represent an ethnic unity; instead they shared similar systems of values, behaviour, beliefs, social structures, and their economy was based on similar principles. The different groups of the Cimmerian culture are represented, in the archaeological evidence, by similar sets of material objects called the CernogorovkaNovocerkassk assemblage. The changes in the steppe zone were accompanied by the development of other important cultures in eastern Europe. Of particular importance were contacts between nomadic peoples and centres of bronze and iron production in the Caucasus Mountains (lessen 1951; Dudarev 1983; 1991), but the large and mobile populations from the steppes also influenced the early Ananino culture (Khalikov 1980) and the Chemoles (Cernyj Les) culture (Terenozhkin 1954; 1961). However, for the studies of cultural interactions among central European communities, of most importance was the political and economic impact of the Cimmerian expansions in the areas of the Carpathian Basin. 7.4. Economic and cultural changes in the southern parts of central Europe.

The relatively stable cultural and economic situation in the southern part of central Europe, which had existed there throughout most of the Middle and Late Bronze Age, changed rapidly in the Hallstatt B period, particularly in the second part of this phase. In the first part of the Late Bronze Age (the Hallstatt A and B 1 periods) a very important position in the Carpathian region was held by the Gava culture, known from the Great Hungarian Plain and Transylvania, and genealogically related to the Holihrady culture, situated in the upper Dnestr, Pruth and Siret Rivers (Paulik 1968: 1-4, Fig. 1; Laszlo 1973: 575-576; 1986: 149163; 1989: Fig. 1). A number of other local archaeological cultures closely related to the Gava-Holihrady complex have been distinguished (Map 36). In present day northern Hungary and central Slovakia lay the Kyjatice, situated between the middle Danube Urnfield culture, the Lusatian culture, and the Gava culture: these three large cultural complexes inevitably influenced the Kyjatice culture (Paulik 1962: 113-140; 1968: Fig.2; Furmanek 1987: 317-323). In

One can accept that the Cernogorovka and the Novocerkassk types of finds are the remains of the early nomadic cultures which appeared in the region of the east European steppes at the beginning of the first millennium BC. However, there are important differences in opinions about their chronology. Some authors (Dubovskaya 1989: 63-69; Klocko, Murzin 1989: 61-71) have suggested that both types of artefacts have a similar chronology (8th-7th century BC) and that many characteristic objects, particularly from the Novocerkassk group, have a prestige and intercultural character. They were thought to represent the social position of their owners. Leskov (1971: 76-91; 1981: 64-110) has accepted the parallel chronology for the Cernogorovka and the Novocerkassk artefact assemblages and has related them to two different ethnic groups. He has restricted the Cernogorovka type to the western part of the Timber-grave culture, and particularly to the Belozerka culture, which is supposed to represent the 34

Exchange and lntercultural Contacts Between the Caucasus Mountains, the East European Steppes and Central Europe the region of the Sava and Drava Rivers another well defined complex, called the Dobova-Rus culture, developed (MilllerKarpe 1959: 119; Vinski-Gasparini 1973: 176, Fig. 7).

From the middle of the Hallstatt B period, significant changes also took place in the western part of the Carpathian region and in the eastern Alps. In the middle Danube Urnfield culture, these changes had a less dramatic character and the settlement pattern demonstrated a higher degree of continuity. This might suggest that the central Danube region had less direct contact with nomadic peoples than the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin. Nevertheless, these contacts had a strong cultural impact and affected social structures as well as religious beliefs. This is represented archaeologically by the appearance of the East Hallstatt culture. In many microregions of this culture it is possible to recognize that continuity in occupation was accompanied by important cultural changes. In the settlement complex at PecsJakabhegy (Maraz 1979), for example, the fortified settlement occupied the same site as the earlier open settlement. Toe ceramic material discovered in this complex is typologically related to the Urnfield tradition. Toe new barrow cemetery is dominant in the local landscape with the graves situated on both sides of the road leading to the main gate of the settlement (Chochorowski 1993: 213-215). In one of the barrows a cremated body with material objects of Cimmerian origin was discovered (Torok 1950: 4-9, Tab. IIIIV). Toe pattern of changes examined in the Pecs-Jakabhegy complex can be found on many sites of the early East Hallstatt culture (Patek 1976; 1980; 1981; 1986; Kromer 1986; Dobiat 1981).

This cultural situation in the southern part of central Europe completely changed at the end of the Hallstatt B period and at the beginning of the Hallstatt C (in the Reinecke's chronology). It is difficult to distinguish the causes and the results of these changes. Toe expansion of nomadic peoples and their intensive contacts with local populations influenced the social structures characteristic of the Late Bronze Age period. In the archaeological record this is represented by the disappearance of the Gava-Holihrady complex and the development of the Hallstatt culture, which later had a great impact on vast areas of central Europe. Toe changes in the social models were accompanied by a wide introduction of iron and the adoption of new religious and symbolic values, expressed most clearly in the funeral traditions of inhumation burials. At the end of the Hallstatt B period, in the region of the lower Danube, a new archaeological culture, called the Basarabi culture, developed . Toe general archaeological situation in the southern parts of central Europe, in the Hallstatt BrC period, is shown on Map 37. At the end of the Hallstatt B 1 period, in the Alfold region, the intensive development of the Gava culture came to the end. Kemenczei (1981: 38; 1984: 85) has related this to migrations of new ethnic groups. Toe Gava culture first disappeared from the Great Hungarian Plain, while the settlements of this culture in the highland and mountain parts of the Carpathian region, particularly in Transylvania, were occupied until the Hallstatt B3 period (Chochorowski 1993: 211). Toe development of the highland settlements of the Gava culture was accompanied by significant changes in pottery production and the decline of bronze metallurgy which was replaced by iron production (Eisner 1933: 152-162, Fig. 15:3, Tab. XL:67; Budinsky-Kricka 1976: 133-134, Fig. 5:6,10-15). A very similar process of changes, particularly in the settlement pattern, happened in the region of the Kyjatice culture.

Further south, in Slovenia, the process of the development from the Urnfield to the Hallstatt traditions, in general followed much the same pattern. It is represented, for instance, by the complex in Sticna, with a large fortified site and a substantial barrow cemetery (Gabrovec 1973: 361; 1974: 163-187; Frey 1974: 151-162). In Gabrovec's (1973: 361-362) opinion the changes in settlement pattern, which took place in Slovenia in the second half of the 8th century BC, could be related to a rapid increase in the population. On this interpretation , the large groups of people moved in to the south-east Alpine region from Pannonia under the pressure from the Cimmerian and the Thraco-Cimmerian tribes. However, this is my view that rapid economic cultural development in many areas of Slovenia is more appropriately related to changes in long-distance trade system. These regions did not experience the direct "expansion" of the Cimmerian culture, and local population can be described as a complex system of "gate-way" communities, which benefited from contacts with both the steppe and the Alps "worlds". Not much later, the Slovenian version of the Hallstatt culture began to develop closer contacts with the Balkan region and northern Italy, particularly with the Este culture (Gabrovec 1973: 356-363).

Toe settlement structure of the late Gava and Kyjatice cultures was based on large fortified sites, which were usually situated in the highlands, in places with naturally limited access (Smimova 1966: 397-408; Furmanek, Veliacik, Romsauer 1982: 159-175, Fig. l; Furmanek 1989: 73-84; Chochorowski 1989: 85-97). Toe size of these settlements might suggest that they had been used as places of refuge (Smimova 1966: 402; Popovic 1991: 105; Kobal' 1992: 174-175). Toe fortified settlements were characteristic of the final stage of the development of Late Bronze Age cultures in many parts of central Europe, but in the Carpathian region this process showed a particularly intensive character what could have been stimulated by events related to the Cimmerian economic and political expansions. Toe fortified sites not only appeared in the Gava and the Kyjatice cultures but also, further east, in the Chernolas (Cernyj Les) culture (Terenozhkin 1961: 13-40; Meliukova 1989: 24) and in the Holihrady culture, where this kind of settlement was usually located on the western side of river-valleys. These locations were probably used as an additional protection from the nomadic tribes penetrating this region from the east (Maleev 1988: 113-114, Fig. 13).

Toe process of changes which started in the southern part of central Europe, probably as a chain-like reaction, spread northwards into southern Moravia (the Horakov culture) and the central part of Czech Republic (the Bylany culture), and westwards into the upper Danube and the upper and central Rhine. Significant economic and political destabilisation, accompanied by a discontinuity in the settlement patterns, can be seen most clearly in the Great Hungarian Plain and 35

Exchange and Cultural Interactions

finds. The gold artefacts from Gyoma are shown on Fig. 18. Within the group of objects typologically related to the Cimmerian traditions, particularly to the Novocerkassk type, should be included some of those known from the hoards of the Michalk6w-Fokoru (Mihalkiv-Besenyszog) type, examples of which are shown on Fig. 19. The majority of the finds discovered in this type of hoard had a prestige value and an inter-cultural character. The artistic style in which they were made can be related to the Caucasian, the Balkan and the Pontic areas (Gimbutas 1959: 84-87; Mozsolics 1977: 290-297).

Transdanubian region. The area of the Basarabi culture, particularly its eastern part, and the Danube valley experienced more direct influences from the nomadic world, which most probably involved raids (Medovic 1981: 25). This is represented in the archaeological record by a number of destroyed fortified settlements, for example those in Gradina (near Vasic) on the Bosut River (Popovic 1981: 59) and Gomolava (Hrtkovci) on the Sava River (Tasic 1988: 5357). In the second of these sites two large graves with more than one hundred human skeletons, deposited at the same time, were discovered (Tasic 1972: 27-37). In the Hallstatt B 3 period, large quantities of pottery characteristic for the Basarabi culture appeared in the area of the early Hallstatt culture, as far as Upper Austria and Bavaria (Dumitrescu 1968: 223, Fig. 37; Tasic 1988: 55; Chochorowski 1993: 227-228). This suggests that local communities of the Basarabi culture, which were already incorporated into the east European interregional system of contacts, maintained some relations with other parts of central Europe.

The economy of the people represented by the Mezocsat culture was based on the breeding of animals and probably on trade and raiding. There is insufficient archaeological evidence to demonstrare the existence of continuous occupation in the area of this culture. The funeral traditions and the material objects found in the cemeteries, particularly in those of the Fiizesabony-Oregdomb type, are closely comparable to those known from the regions dominated by the Cimmerian culture (Vinogradov, Dudarev, Runic 1980: Fig. 1:1,21, 2:1,8,19; Techov 1981: Fig. 1-43; Dudarev 1991: Tab. 2:1, 5:2, 6:1). This suggests that the population of the Mezocsat culture was strongly influenced by the nomadic culture; it is even possible that small groups of horse-riders of the eastern origin penetrated into the Alfold, in the 9th-8th centuries BC. However, one has to remember that the process of development of the Early Iron Age cultures in this region was complex and cannot be explained only by the simple expansion of the Cimmerian tribes. The strong local tradition of pottery production suggests that the old local population remained significant in the development of the Mezocsat culture.

As mentioned above, on the transition from the Late Bronze

Age to the Early Iron Age, the area of the Alfold, unlike the highland regions, showed almost complete cultural discontinuity. The finds discovered in the Great Hungarian Plain, in the period between the collapse of the Gava and the Kyjatice cultures (HaB 1) and the development of the Vekerzug culture (with a strong Scythian influences) (the end of HaC and HaD), were described in the older literature simply as "pre-Scythian" (Gallus, Horvath 1939: 9-13, Tab. IV). Following the excavations on the important cemetery Mezocsat-Horcsogos, all these artefacts were redefined as representing a distinct archaeological culture, called the Mezocsat culture (Szabo 1969: 72-77; Patek 1974: 337-362; Kemenczei 1986: 140-143). This culture is mostly known from the cemeteries with inhumated bodies deposited in flat or barrow graves. It is also represented by a few hoards, and by a single settlement at H6dmezovasarhely-Solt Pale (Szabo 1969: 72; Kemenczei 1986: 142). Most of the sites of the Mezocsat culture lie between the Tisza and the Mure~ Rivers. In the graves of this culture the animal bones (usually cattle and sheep) (Szabo 1969: 124-125; Patek 1974: 342), a relatively large number of the iron objects (Patek 1974: Tab. VII:1-5; 1980: Fig. 3:18-21), and the pottery made in the older Gava-Kyjatice tradition (Patek 1974: Tab. 1-V; 1980: 161, Fig. 3), were deposited. In a few of these graves objects of Cimmerian origin, for instance the horse bits and the ornaments, have been found (Chochorowski 1993: 231-241). In the area of the Mezocsat culture, elements characteristic for the Hallstatt culture, including the weapons and the metal vessels (Gallus, Horvath 1939: Tab. LXVII-LXVIII), or even the graves with four-wheeled wagons and horses (Wamser 1981: 225-261; Kimmig 1983: Fig. 14), such as those known from Gyongyos and Miskolc-Di6sgyor, have been discovered.

7.5. Artefacts of Cimmerian origin in central Europe.

The general cultural changes, described above, can be used only as indirect evidence of steppe and Caucasian influences in central Europe. The archaeological material representing these influences was first described by Reinecke (1925: 5354) and has since been analysed by a number of archaeologists. Yet, Reinecke's "nordthrakischkimmerischen" finds, which mostly came from the rich gold hoards, have little to do with the real Cimmerian artefacts; and now they are dated to the beginning of the first millennium BC (Hansel 1976: 43-44), or even earlier (Pingel 1982: 183-184). Objects ofThraco-Cimmerian origin have in the mean time been studied by Nestor (1934a; 1934b); Gallus, Horvath (1939); Harmatta (1946); and more recently by Gazdapusztai (1963; 1971); Podborsky (1967; 1970); Schille (1969); Bukowski (1976); Terenozhkin (1976); Stoia (1980); Bouzek (1983); Chochorowski (1992; 1993); and others. The Cimmerian influences on the process of formation of the early Hallstatt culture have been analysed by Kossack (1954); Schille (1969); Gabrovec (1980; 1981) and Kromer (1986).

Many artefacts of eastern ongm, for example the gold ornaments found in the large barrow in Gyoma (near Bekes), were deposited in the rich graves. These ornaments were interpreted by Gazdapusztai (1967: 316-317) as of the Black Sea and Caucasian origin, while Chochorowski (1993: 236237) related them to the Novocerkassk type of the Cimmerian

The most significant finds of so-called Cimmerian origin, discovered in central Europe, are considered below; yet one has to remember that they do not represent exclusively the ethnic Cimmerians but rather should be related to different 36

Exchange and Jntercultural Contacts Between the Caucasus Mountains, the East European Steppes and Central Europe

shape of a simple ring probably developed from this form (Chochorowski 1993: 51-53).

groups from the areas between the lower Danube, the middle Volga, and the northern Caucasus, which were dominated, or at least strongly influenced, by the Cimmerian culture. For central Europe the most complete catalogue of artefacts associated with this culture has been presented by Chochorowski (1993: 39-206). His work probably includes all objects from the central part of the continent directly related to the Cernogorovka-Novocerkassk assemblage, the majority of them having earlier been described by Terenozhkin (1976: 186-215). The distribution of sites on which this type of finds have been discovered is presented on Map 38.

A more sophisticated and advanced form of bit is represented by those where the cannons, usually with the ends in the shape of the ring or the oval, have been structurally connected with the cheek-pieces (Fig. 21). Bits permanently connected to the cheek-pieces give more control over the horses. It is interesting that they were more popular in the regions peripheral to the steppes than in the central parts of this zone, and they would probably have been used primarily for driving wheeled vehicles rather than for riding. All finds of this kind represent only minor typological regularities and, to distinguish their different versions, technical criteria have been used. Four types of bits with integral cheek-pieces, most likely of eastern origin, are known from central Europe: the Ziirich-Alpenquai type, the Brunnenthal type, the Gyula type, and the Vetulonia/Cerveteri type (Chochorowski 1993: 7277).

The largest group of objects of Cimmerian ongm is represented by the elements of horse-gear. In the area of the Carpathian region, graves containing horses or complete sets of horse-gear, similar to those known from the Altai Mountains or even from the Hallstatt culture, have not been found. Nevertheless, in many graves horse-bits, cheek-pieces and other elements of halters have been discovered (Map 39). Chochorowski's (1993: 42-54) classification of the Cimmerian horse-bits from central Europe is based on lessen's (1953: 52) typology of this kind of artefacts (Fig. 20). All types of bits of east European origin were made out of two, or more, pieces; and their typological classification has been based mostly on the different shapes of the terminals. The first group represents the bit with the ends shaped in the form of circular or oval rings. They might be related to the bits known from the areas of the northern Caucasus, the Kuban (lessen 1953: Fig. 12-15) and central Asia, for example to the objects found in the Arzan barrow (Gryaznov 1980: Fig. 12:1, 14:5, 16:1, 20:4,8, 23:3-6, 27:510). The second type of bit has the ends in the form of a stirrup (D- shape). This form cannot be compared to any type of bits known from the area of the Hallstatt culture and, as in the previous form, their origin probably lies in the northern Caucasus or central Asia. A large number were also found in the Arzan barrow. Moreover, they have been discovered in the regions of the Black Sea steppes, particularly in assemblages of Cernogorovka type, for instance in the barrows of Cernogorovka, Malaja Cimbalka, and Kamysevacha (lessen 1953: 83-85, Fig. 19:1,3,23; Terenozhkin 1976: 48-68, Fig. 19:1-7, 24:1-14, 35:3-8). The next form hasends in the shape of a reverse stirrup (-D form). This type was very popular in central Europe, but it is difficult to relate these bits directly to the forms known from the steppe region, apart from the example from Rostov on the Don (lessen 1953: 89-90, Fig. 2/IV, 3:3). Chochorowski (1993: 49), after lessen (1953: 90), interpreted them as a local central European form, which developed from the type, previously described, with ends in the shape of a stirrup. The fourth type of the bit is characteristic of the Novocerkassk assemblages and has the ends in the shape of double rings. In the central part of the continent, this form is only represented by two objects from Moldavia. The last type of bit is typologically related to the first category, with the ends in the form of circular or oval rings: these types probably had a similar origin. The circular ends have added extra elements in the form of the rings with decorated hooks or buttons. The Hallstatt version of the bits with the extra element in the

The separate cheek-pieces, in the period of the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, represent a large group of artefacts and for many archaeologists they have been the most favoured objects for typological study (Gallus, Horvath 1939: 9-49; Potratz 1939-1940: 464-465; Harmatta 19461948: 109-128; lessen 1953: 54-56; Kossack 1954a: 115138; Terenozhkin 1976: 150-154, Fig. 86-89; Erlikh 1991: 34-35; Chochorowski 1993: 55-72; Metzner-Nebelsick 1994: 383-450; and others). Terenozhkin's (1976: 150-154, Fig. 8689) classification was recently developed by MetznerNebelsick (1994: 383-450), which has distinguished thirteen types of check-piece. A more general typology of cheekpieces of Cimmerian origin hasbeen given by Chochorowski (1993: 55-72) (Fig. 22), and a distribution of these artefacts is presented on Map 40. The first type of cheek-pieces is called the Cernogorovka form and this category is very characteristic for the whole complex of the Cemogorovka assemblage. In central Europe examples of these objects are known from only a few sites, for instance Cernotin and Karmina III. The cheek-pieces of the Cernogorovka type are widely represented in the area of the Black Sea steppes, the northern Caucasus (lessen 1953: Fig. 19:2; Petrenko 1982: Fig. 2), central Asia, the Altai Mountains (Sorokin 1966: Fig. 5:1), and in the Tuva region (the east of the Altai, on the border between Russia and Mongolia) (Grach 1983: Fig. 5-6). A similar version was also found in the Arzan barrow (Gryaznov 1980: Fig. 14:1-2, 16:2,4-6, 20:2-3,5-7, 23:2). The Cernogorovka type ofcheekpiece probably represented one of the oldest metal versions of these artefacts, and their form suggests that they were copied from similar objects made of bone (Leskov 1971: 8586, Fig. 4; Khalikov 1980: Tab. 55:15-17; Chernyakov 1985: Fig. 41:16-19; Vanchugov 1990: Fig. 35:17). In the Arzan barrow identical bone and bronze cheek-pieces of the Cernogorovka type have been found (Gryaznov 1980: Fig. 28:5-6). The second group of cheek-pieces, called the Kamysevacha type, was very popular in central Europe. All examples of these finds have a characteristic bent shape and are known in 37

Exchange and Cultural Interactions Caucasus, for example from the cemetery Klin-Jar Ill, near Kislovodsk (Dudarev 1991: Tab. 20:5).

a variety of different forms. In the eastern part of the continent they were not very common, but nevertheless were present in the steppe zone (Kamysevacha), the Kuban region (llinskaja Stanica) (Terenozhkin 1976: Fig. 87:1,3), and also in the northern Caucasus, in the cemetery of Serzhen-Jurt in Checheno-Ingushetii (Kozenkova 1975b: Fig. 4:1-3). In the older literature the Kamysevacha type was described as a local central European type (lessen 1953: 84-91; Kozenkova 1975b: 58-59), yet more recent publications suggest that it has its origin in eastern Europe , and that it is related to the Cernogorovka form of cheek-piece (Terenozhkin 1976: 151; Chochorowski 1993: 60-61).

There are a number of other small items of horse gear, particularly bridles, of Cimmerian origin or developed under east European influences, which have been discovered in central Europe (Map 41 ). Most of these elements have been the subject of intensive typological studies. Some of these finds provide links between Cimmerian artistic traditions and techniques of the metal production, and local styles of the Umfield and the Hallstatt cultures (Chochorowski 1993: 85). The small metal bridal fittings played a decorative role but they also were used as the links between bronze and leather parts of the horse gear. This reflects the complexity of bridle and degree of control which could be extended over animals. Analogous types can be found in the northern Caucasus and the southern part of the steppes. One of the most interesting of the groups of links is represented by the objects in the form of the rings (Fig. 23). The second large group of the straps junctions contains a number of different forms of the so-called rein-knobs (Fig. 24). In this group should also be included larger and more decorative elements which probably had the same function as the rein-knobs.

The Malaja Cimbalka type of cheek-piece is similar to the previous form but, in central Europe, it is represented only by a single example from Cernotin (near Pferov). The typologically related form is known from the regions of the central and north-western Caucasus (lessen 1953: Fig. 3:4-5). In this group of finds Terenozhkin (1976: 151), probably wrongly, included the most popular version of cheek-piece from central Europe called the Hungarian type (Dudarev 1991: 58) or, after the name of the site where ten examples of these objects were discovered, the Dunakomlod type (Chochorowski 1993: 61). This type has a characteristic asymmetrical shape with one end bent and longer than the other. The finds of this form are known in the number of variations. In eastern Europe they have been associated with the Novocerkassk assemblage or with the earliest Scythian finds. Different versions of the Dunakomlod type of the cheek-pieces were present on the sites in the southern Caucasus, through the northern Caucasus and the Black Sea steppes, to the Great Hungarian Plain or even in the area of the Czech Republic (Chochorowski 1993: 62-64). It is possible that the central European versions of these objects were produced locally, under the cultural influences from the East. Another local version of cheek-piece, called the Szanda type, is related to the Dunakomlod type.

A completely different, but also very characteristic, group of artefacts of Cimmerian origin found in central Europe is represented by military equipment. Almost all types of arms known from the east European steppes have been found in the central part of the continent (Map 42). In central Europe, probably the most difficult to interpret is a relatively small number of arrowheads, which, according to the ancient written sources, were used as a basic element of Cimmerian weapons. This opinion is also supported by a large quantity of these artefacts discovered in the steppe regions, and by the famous depiction on an Etruscan vase (the so-called Pontic vase) from the 5th century BC (Fig. 25). Yet, it is possible that some of the early nomads who penetrated, or at last strongly influenced, central Europe, were using weaponry different from that used by tribes in the steppe zone; for instance, swords, daggers and spears. This view gains support from the depiction from the sarcophagus from Klazomenai (Fig. 26). Most of central European arrowheads of Cimmerian origin have been found in the regions located in the south-eastern part of the Carpathian Mountains. It is possible to distinguish three types of these arrowheads and they can be related to both the Cernogorovka and Novocerkassk assemblages (Terenozhkin 1976: 174-175). They were made of bronze or bone and had typical rhomboid-shaped cross-sections.

The classic version of the Novocerkassk cheek-piece is represented by the Majkop type. These artefacts have the characteristic ends in the shape of a paddle, and in central Europe are represented only by one example (probably from Hungary) (Chochorowski 1993: 64). The next type, called the Posadka type is more common in the central part of the continent and was discovered , for instance, on the sites of Biharugra, Pecs-Jakabhegy, and Posadka. In this group should be included the objects from Rostov on the Don River (Terenozhkin 1976: 58, Fig. 26:9), the Kuban region (Gallus, Horvath 1939: Tab. LXXVI:5) and from the Kohan cemetery (lessen 1953: 72, Fig. 12:3-5), but also similar forms of the cheek-piece from the Dnepr River region, for example those from the barrow no. 375 in Konstantinovka (Terenozhkin 1976: 75-77, Fig. 41:5), and from the northern Caucasus (lessen 1953: 76-78, Fig. 18:2-3). The last group of cheekpieces of Cimmerian origin is represented by the Csakbereny type. This fonn has characteristic straight ends. Central European examples of this version have been found in Biharugra, Csakbereny, and Vacszentlaszlo (Chochorowski 1993: 66). In eastern Europe the related fonns are known from the Kuban region and the central part the northern

The most representative item of Cimmerian weaponry is the dagger of the Kabardin-Pyatigorsk type. Typological analyses of these daggers have been presented for the different regions of central Europe (Podborsky 1967: 194223; Khalikov 1969a: 275-281; Chlenova 1975: 69-81; Kozenkova 1975a: 91-102; Terenozhkin 1975: 3-34; Bukowski 1976: 53-73; Dudarev 1991: 40-46; Chochorowski 1993: 113-122) . The majority of them have the iron blades and the bronze hilts, with two exceptions which were made completely of bronze. The origin of the Kabardin-Pyatigorsk daggers has been discussed many times 38

Exchange and Jntercultural Contacts Between the Caucasus Mountains, the East European Steepes and Central Europe

decorated in the same style as the daggers, which suggests that they are also of east European origin.

in the archaeological literature and even if we reject the most wrrealistic view, presented by Chlenova (1975: 70), suggesting a Mycenaean origin, their origin is still in debate. Probably the most acceptable interpretation is that offered by Terenozhkin (1976: 104-126), who argues that the daggers have a Siberian, Kazakhstan, or, in general, a central Asian origin, but that their development took place in the regions situated north of the Black Sea. The most satisfactory classification of the Kabardin-Pyatigorsk daggers divides them into three sub-types: Leibnitz, Gamow, and PecsJakabhegy (Fig. 27).

In the area of Cimmerian influences in central Europe a large number of spearheads have been found, and in this region they are much more common than on the steppes. The spearheads were made of both bronze and iron but the iron examples represent a new cultural element in the central part of the continent and they were also more popular in eastern Europe. Different types of these artefacts are shown on Fig. 29. Terenozhkin (1976: 144-146) has suggested that the majority of the bronze spearheads should be related to the Cernogorovka form, while the iron spearheads are best included in the Novocerkassk type. This pattern can also be seen in the Kuban region where, in the cemetery of Nikolaevskoe, dated to the Cemogorovka phase, bronze spearheads were discovered, while in the cemetery of the Novocerkassk phase at Kubanskoe, the spearheads were predominantly of iron. However, it should be noted that the central European iron spearheads, particularly the narrow ones with two characteristic holes in the lower part of the blades, have significant typological similarities with the spearheads of Mediterranean origin, for example, with the type known from central Italy (Cumae) (Chochorowski 1993: 128-129).

The Leibnitz daggers have relatively long, narrow blades and simple, undecorated hilts. In central Europe, examples have been found at Panade, Szony (Brigetio), Leibnitz, Still:fried (cemetery) and Klein Neudorf (Chochorowski 1993: 113). These daggers are significantly similar to examples discovered in the eastern part of the continent. Typologically the closest related finds were discovered in Demkino (the central Volga) and Golovjatino (the central Dnepr) (Terenozhkin 1976: Fig. 12:4, 37:7); others were found in the cemetery of Serzhen Jurt in Chechen-Ingushetia (Kozenkova 1977: Tab. XIV:10), at Mugergan in Dagestan (Terenozhkin 1976: 68:5), the cemetery of Kislovodsk 1 in the northern Caucasus (Vinogradov, Dudarev, Runic 1980: Fig. 1:17-20), and at the cemetery of Nikolaevskoe in the Kuban region (Anfimov 1965: Fig. 1:4). A different form of the Leibnitz dagger was found, in the lower Danube region, in the barrow at Suvorovo near Izmail (Terenozhkin 1976: Fig. 33:1-5) and this object has significant similarities with the bronze dagger from Zmeinogorska in the Altai area (Chlenova 1975: Fig. 1:15).

The Cimmerian "sceptres" (shaft-hole sculptures) have a characteristic form (the top end usually has the shape of a bent horse head) and a distinctive artistic decoration. It is widely accepted that these finds had no practical function, sensu stricto, and were used as symbols of power and social position, not only between the Cimmerians but between all nomadic peoples from eastern Europe and Asia (Werner 1961: 387-389). The historical written evidence associates sceptres with the Scythian and the Persian aristocracy (Ilinskaya 1965: 208; Hancar 1967: 119; Bukowski 1976: 80). Six examples are known from central Europe (Fig. 30). In eastern Europe, similar types of sceptres have been discovered, not in the steppes but in the Caucasus, for instance in the cemetery of Kislovodsk 1 (Krupnov 1960: Tab. XXXVII) and the cemetery of Fars in the Kuban region (Erlikh 1991: Fig. 4). Some authors, particularly Erlikh (1991: 247-250), have suggested that the central European sceptres have their origin in much older forms known from the Noua culture (13th century BC). Nevertheless, it does not alter the fact that in the later periods, from the end of the Bronze Age, sceptres were an important element in the social and cultural systems of the nomadic groups. Wooden sculptures eg. from Pazyryk show the rich background from which such symbols could have been chosen. A similar role was also played by bronze or stone batons discovered in central Europe, such as those found at Gura Padinii, Fize~u Gherlii, Biharugra, Priigy and Fiizesabony (Fig. 31). These objects were relatively popular in the steppe regions and the Caucasus (Terenozhkin 1976: 139, Fig. 84:12; Kozenkova 1977: Tab. XVIII; Dudarev 1991: Tab. 11:5).

The Gamow type is represented by the daggers with the blades wider than those of the previous type. The most characteristic element of these daggers is the openwork hilt decorated by a single row of open rings. Objects of this type has been found, for example, in Matra, Stramberk and Gamow (Podborsky 1967: 202-203, Fig. 62). In eastern Europe, similar versions are known from Navki near Penzy in the central Volga region (Terenozhkin 1976: Fig. 20:3) and grave no. 70 in the cemetery of Serzhen Jurt in Chechenlngushetia (Kozenkova 1977: Tab. XIV:9). There are also a few examples known from the northern Caucasus (Kozenkova 1975a: 92, Fig. 1:2; 1989: Tab. XLIII:6), but they have less direct typological similarities to the central European daggers of the Gamow type. The last type of daggers, called the Pecs-Jakabhegy type, is represented, in the central part of the European continent, by a single example. A very similar form is found in daggers from the cemetery 1 of Kislovodsk (Kozenkova 1989: Tab. XLIII: 1) and from the cemetery of Serzhen Jurt. The PecsJakabhegy dagger can also be compared with finds from Blagodamoe in the Kuban region (Anfimov 1965: Fig. 1:1), Tatarskoe Bumasevo and the cemetery of Akhmylovo in the Volga-Kama region (Khalikov 1969a: Fig. I :8, 5-6).

The last group of finds of Cimmerian type are the so-called whetstones. Their central European versions were usually discovered in the cemeteries, including Seliste, Balta Verde, Gura Padinii, Senica, Brno-Obrany, Stillfried, and others

A small but significant group of the metal objects, associated with Cimmerian arms, is represented by different types of the fittings for sheaths (Fig. 28). Most of these objects were 39

Exchange and Cultural Interactions

early Hallstatt culture of the (Chochorowski 1993: 205-206).

(Chochorowski 1993: 137). Depictions on Cimmerian and Scythian tombstones (Chlenova 1975: Tab. 2, Fig. V:3c,4b, VI: 1c,2d), particularly from those from Olbia and Belogradec, suggest that whetstones were parts of in the typical equipment of the horse riders from the European and Asian steppes. This is also supported by the contexts (graves with weapons and elements of horse-gear) in which most of the whetstones were found. It is interesting that the distribution of these objects is closely related to the distribution of early iron products. The whetstones have frequently been found in eastern Europe, both in the steppes (Terenozhkin 1976: Fig. 5:4, 6:2, 17:23) and in the northern Caucasus (Kozenkova 1977: Tab. V:13-20; Dudarev 1991: Tab. 7:7, 23:5, 24:5; Erlikh 1991: Fig. 4). Their origin has been sought in the area of the late development of the Timber-grave cultures, particularly in the region of the Belozerka culture (Terenozhkin 1976: 146; Vanchugov 1990: Fig. 38:9-10).

north-Alpine

region

The distribution of the early types of the Cimmerian objects can be related to the first stage of the nomadic influences which probably took the form of commercial and symbolic trade partially accompanied by limited military raids penetrating to the north, as far as the centre of the Lusatian culture. These contacts did not affect the settlement patterns of the local cultures. They did, however begin to influence the social and religious values of the people of the Umfield cultures. In the central Danube Umfield culture these changes have their expression in the form of rich graves which emerged when joining traditional cremations and the new forms which displayed social status through the so-called "prince's-graves" (Kaus 1984: 76). In the northern part of the Great Hungarian Plain the impact of the nomadic people can even be seen clearly in a new type of inhumation grave, containing arms and elements of horse-gear, like that from Filzesabony (Chochorowski 1993: 191).

7.6. Conclusion. The date of Cimmerian influences and the potential contacts between the early nomadic people and the central European communities used to be limited to the Hallstatt B3 period (8th century BC), in the developed form of the Reinecke sequences (Milller-Karpe 1959: Fig. 64). Yet, this process of cultural interactions had a much longer tradition. The Cimmerian culture had been developing for centuries in the steppe zones and the neighbouring regions of eastern Europe. For most of this time the east European cultural groups had contacts with the areas located further west, even if only in the form of simple complementary exchange, eg. horses for salt or metal. The intensification of these contacts, too often interpreted as migrations, began in the second half of the Hallstatt B2 period (the second half of 9th century). These east-west contacts played a very significant part in the Hallstatt B3 and ended in the first half of the Hallstatt C (the first half of 7th century) (Kemenczei 1981: 41; 1984: 94; 1988: 80-81). The oldest objects of Cimmerian origin have been found in hoards from the Hallstatt B2 period, for instance in the hoard from Haslau-Regelsbrunn (MilllerKarpe 1959: 128-129, Tab. 143/A ), while the youngest phase of Cimmerian influences is related to the finds similar to those known from the hoard discovered in Filgod (Kemenczei 1984: 94; Chochorowski 1993: 181-183).

During the second stage of the Cimmerian influence large areas of central Europe, particularly in the Carpathian Basin, were incorporated into the east European system of cultural and economic interaction, determined by the nomadic tradition. In the archaeological record this is represented by the collapse of the Gava-Holihrady complex and the development of the Mezocsat culture. As discussed above, the Mezocsat culture developed as a result of the integration of the local population with new traditions, probably represented by small groups of newcomers. The new traditions of the social structure, economy, and the associated religious and symbolic values closely reflected the nomadic world. Through the Mezocsat culture, Cimmerian systems began to influence other regions of central Europe, largely through commercial trade mixed with elements of prestigegoods exchange, but also probably by small-scale but regular military raids. The Late Bronze Age centres of bronze production, in the Carpathian region, which had supplied metal to large areas of central and northern Europe, now began to be incorporated in a new, and completely different, system of exchange. In the same area intensive iron production began. The introduction of iron, together with the collapse of the old system of exchange, had a dramatic impact on many regions of central Europe to as far as Scandinavia.

The distribution of Cimmerian objects characterizing the different stages of nomadic influences suggests that the Cimmerian culture had different impacts on the different parts of central Europe. The oldest finds of Cimmerian type (HaB2) were found relatively far to the north in the region of the Moravian Gate and in the area of the upper and the middle Oder River. The next group of artefacts (HaBz-B3) was discovered in the northern part of the Carpathian Basin: Moravia, Transdanubia and Transylvania. The objects characteristic of the classical phase of the Cimmerian culture, in central Europe (HaB3), are mostly known from the Carpathian Basin. At the end of Hallstatt B3 and at the beginning of the phase Hallstatt C, finds of Cimmerian origin have been discovered in different cultural environments, for example in northern and central Italy, the Balkans, and the

In the Hallstatt C period, the impact of the Cimmerian traditions on other regions appears to have been primarily of a cultural character. Reflections of this cultural impact can be found in very distant areas, above all among the East Hallstatt cultural groups, but also in the Balkans, and in northern and central Italy. At the same time large areas of eastern Europe, including the northern Caucasus, began to be dominated by the Scythian culture (Makhortykh 1991: 112). The new cultural hot spot - the zone of the Hallstatt culture - began to play a central role in exchange and interregional contact in central Europe. It was located between the rapidly developing Etruscan culture and Greek colonies in the south, and the rich resources of barbarian Europe to the north; it also lay between the changing cultures of western Europe,

40

Exchange and /ntercultural Contacts Between the Caucasus Mountains, the East European Steppes and Central Europe 178; Gabrovec 1981: 164-165). Wagons and other wheeled vehicles were known in some regions of central Europe for centuries, but as a result of cultural changes, dramatic political events, and intensive interregional contacts, their concept was redefined and put in a new context. It is significant that the early East Hallstatt culture wagon-graves developed in area of direct cultural interactions between the old central European communities and the nomadic culture. This form of grave was less common in the region which actually adopted the Cimmerian culture and which probably experienced some direct contacts with different groups of people from the East. The patterns of distribution of the wagon-graves in the Hallstatt C and D periods are presented on Maps 44 and 45.

and the eastern regions dominated by Cimmerian traditions. The Cimmerian influences, at the end of Bronze Age, were thus partly responsible for the collapse of the Umfield and related cultures but they also participated in the development of the social structures and the symbolic values adopted in the Hallstatt culture. The nomadic impact on Early Iron Age cultures, particularly on the Hallstatt culture, can be seen in the increasing importance of horse, horse riding, wagons and wheeled vehicles. These changes not only had a technological aspect but influenced religious practices (the appearance of the inhumation graves with horse gear and wagons), social structures (the development of the elite groups of horse riders who benefited from interregional exchange), economy (the changes in the structure of the breed of animals), and warfare (the effective use of cavalry and wheeled vehicles in warfare requiring well-trained horses and riders).

Horses and wagons, as principal means of transport, have played an important role in the system of the religious beliefs in different periods of history. They were also used to express the prestige positions of their owners. Even if ox-drawn wagons were known and used in central Europe for a long time, it is clear that, at the end of the Bronze Age and particularly in the Early Iron Age, wheeled vehicles had began to have a special social position. Their prestige was related less to the value of these objects themselves than to the ritual contexts and the privilege of their use. Wagons had a particularly important symbolic position in the Villanovan and Etruscan cultures in Italy. This is shown by a number of wagon models, pictorial representations and the so-called pyxis pendants. The universal and symbolic character of the means of transport, together with the strong influences from the Cimmerian culture and the close cultural contacts between Italy and the Alpine region, helped to develop a new set of religious and symbolic values specific to the Hallstatt culture. The importance of vehicles to religious beliefs can also be seen in the areas where the wagon-graves have not been discovered. The depictions of wagons, usually found on the surfaces of the pottery vessels and the urns, are known from different regions of central Europe. However, their biggest concentrations have been discovered in central Italy and in eastern Pomerania, in northern Poland (Map 46). This interesting phenomenon reflects a different system of interregional contacts between the northern and the southern parts of central Europe, which will be the subject of later chapters.

The first evidence of horse-drawn vehicles, dated to 2000 BC, occurred in pictorial representations from the Near East, for instance from Old Assyrian colonies in Cappadocia, and from the Ural-Tobol steppe. By the middle of the second millennium different forms of wheeled vehicles were known in many regions of the Old World: Siberia and the Ural Mountains, Egypt, among the Mycenaean culture, and probably not much later in the Umfield cultures (Pare 1992: 12). In central and northern Europe the spread of knowledge of these vehicles, in the older and middle Bronze Age, is archaeologically represented by the distribution of pottery spoked wheels, bar-shaped or discoidal cheek-pieces, and rock-carvings (Map 43). Nevertheless, as it was recently suggested by Pare (1992: 17, 217-218), the chariot (or similar vehicles) did not gain widespread acceptance in Bronze Age Europe, while in the form of exotically wheeled wagons they were used in cult practices. Yet it is difficult to accept Pare's further interpretation that the level of the social development of the Bronze Age societies was insufficient to support the use of wheeled vehicles in wars, or even the emergence of a "chariot-driving" aristocracy. The Late Bronze Age social structures were probably no less sophisticated than those from the Early Iron Age, rather they were based on different principles. The elites had maintained their positions through the control of interregional trade and exchange, and they simply did not need the wheeled vehicles as the representation of social status. In central and western Europe this type of wheeled transport, except for ox-carts, had also limited practical use because of lack of roads or large open spaces, which could stimulate long-distance transport. The situation changed completely in the period of the Cimmerian influences. The collapse of demand for bulk bronze production in the Carpathian region, or at least a reorientation in the system of exchange, the introduction of iron and, above all, the intensive and often dramatic contacts with the relatively unknown cultures of nomadic people, influenced social structures and the religious beliefs in the area of the early development of the Hallstatt culture. Objects of Cimmerian origin have frequently been found in the earliest graves of the Hallstatt culture (Horvath 1969: 109134; Chochorowski 1993: 270-272), elements of horse-gear are the most characteristic among them (Kossack 1954a: 11141

Exchange and Cultural Interactions

VIII. EXCHANGE, TRADE AND INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE CULTURE AND CENTRAL COMMUNITIES.

CULTURAL SCYTHIAN EUROPEAN

status of a male was dependent on many factors: partly inherited, maintained through marriage, kinship and friendship relations, and confirmed by military activities and complex systems of trade and exchange.

8.1. Introduction - previous studies on the Scythian culture.

It is necessary to distinguish the clear division between Scythian ethnic groups and Scythian culture. The problem is similar to that discussed earlier in relation to Cimmerian influences in central Europe. The impressive character of Scythian art and limited knowledge about the past of the northern and central parts of Asia have encouraged many archaeologists to call elements of material culture, discovered as far distant as Mongolia and Manchuria, "Scythian" (Tolstov 1960; Martynov, Erdeli 1984; Martynov, Alekseev 1986; Martynov, Molodin 1987; Kiriushin, Rudenko 1986; Moshkova 1992; Jacobson 1995). The Scythians, in the early stage of their history, were probably one of many groups of Eurasian early-nomadic peoples. These peoples probably had similar political, economic and cultural structures, expressed through similar elements of material culture. Yet, one has to remember, that the Elll'aSian steppes are several times larger than the whole of Europe, and that in different regions of this zone different race and language groups had developed. The Scythians, like the Cimmerians, and unlike other nomadic peoples who entered Europe in the later periods, were one of the groups of Indo-Europeans speaking Indo-lranian (Mallory 1989). Nevertheless, they probably had contacts with different groups of people, who spoke non-IndoEuropean languages, for example Finno-Ugrian (Taylor 1994: 376). Herodotus, in an exaggerated text, described how the Scythians communicated with other people from distant regions of barbarian Europe through several interpreters.

The Scythians, Scythian culture and Scythian relations with other cultures of the Early Iron Age Elll'aSia have been subjects of interest for historians, archaeologists, historians of art, linguists, anthropologists, and representatives of other academic disciplines. In the recent years scholars, particularly from the former Soviet Union, have even created a separate discipline called Scythology. Nevertheless, many problems related to the culture and history of the Scythians remain unanswered. The traditional view, which has strongly influenced academic interpretations, sees the Scythians as a symbol of the barbarian, uncivilized peoples who, throughout the centuries, have tried to destroy the ancient civilizations from Greece and the Near East to China. Yet, the character of the archaeological data, and particularly the famous discoveries from the sites like Pazyryk and others found in Siberia and the Caucasus region, have focused the attention of scholars predominantly on the intricacies of the Scythian art and burial traditions. The majority of western European and North American publications on the Scythians have concentrated on the question of the Scythian art, above all focusing on the golden treasures from nomadic regions of Elll'aSia (Artamonov 1969; 1974; From the Lands of Scythians 1975; Rolle (1980] 1989; Piotrovskii, Galanina, Grach 1986; Gold der Steppe 1991; L'or des Scythes 1991; Schiltz 1994; Jacobson 1995). Most of these publications have presented an impressive collection of the Scythian metalwork. Scythian art has, unfortunately, usually been studied without reference to other aspects of Scythian culture. At the same time, many works published in the former Soviet Union are content to describe the large quantity of Scythian barrows and the material discovered during ~eir excavations (Martynov, Erdeli 1984; Murzin 1984; Chernenko, Bessonova 1986; Mozolevskii, Murzin, Chernenko 1987; Terenozhkin 1988; Pooltrik, Buniatian 1991; Murzin, Alekseev, Rolle 1991; and others).

Scythian culture or, rather, nomadic cultures, in separate regions of Europe and Asia, have been studied mostly by archaeologists from the former Soviet Union. Discussion of many aspects of these cultures has been particularly intensive for the areas north of the Black Sea (Rostovtseff 1931 ; Shokhov 1952; Murzin 1984; Chernenko, Bessonova 1986; Mozolevskii, Murzin, Chernenko 1987; Olkhovskii 1990; Dashevskaia 1991; Andrukh 1995) and in the Caucasus (Pogrebova 1984; Esaian, Pogrebova 1985; Makhortykh 1987; 1991; Abramova 1993), but also in other regions, for instance in central Asia (Grach 1980; Moshkova 1992), Kazakhstan (Tolstov 1960; Batalov, Zdanovich 1988) and the Altai (Kiriushin, Rudenko 1986). Nevertheless, in this work Scythian culture is taken to be a system of political, economic and symbolic values accepted, with local variations, by different nomadic tribes from the area between the lower Danube and the lower Don, and between the coast of the Black Sea and the central part of the forest-steppe zone. Archaeological evidence for this culture is expressed through a large number of barrow graves, characteristic metal work, and a few settlements. In the early stage of its development, Scythian culture had close cultural and economic contacts with the Caucasian region.

As a result of this, Scythian material culture has mostly been presented in the form of antiquarian collections and theoretical reflections have failed to developed further than a Russian version of archaeological positivism. In some archaeological publications, social and cultural changes in the steppe regions have been "explained" but only by environmental determinism, or by a simple (vulgar) version of Marxism. Yet, for the period of the Early Iron Age, the area of the Pontic steppes, more than any other region of barbarian Europe, offers the potential basis for a comprehensive interpretation of social relations. The local communities from this part of Europe displayed structures characteristic of late prehistoric societies and within a relatively short time they had developed intensive contacts with ancient cultures. Our knowledge of them based on archaeological evidence can be compared with written sources. It is known, for example, that in Scythian society the

Artefacts of the Scythian origin began to be collected in the 18th and 19th centuries, leading to the first excavations of the barrow graves in Ukraine and in the Kuban region. The excavations, or rather unearthing, of the nomadic barrows 42

Exchange. Trade and Cultural Interactions Between the Scythian Culture and Central European Communities In the next century, after Herodotus and his contemporaries,

continued throughout the first part of the 20th century. Zabielin (1820-1908) was probably the first Russian historian who attempted to relate materials discovered to the tribes described by Herodotus. For further development of the Scythian studies, the works of Rostovtseff ([1922] 1983; 1931; 1933) were very important. In his books, published not only in Russian but also in German and English, he analysed different aspects of Scythian culture, and of particular importance were his studies of the so-called animal style. In English, the first important publications about the Scythians were presented by Minns (1913: 1-293) and Borovka (1928). After World War II Soviet archaeologists published a large amount of the materials related to Scythian culture (Artamonov 1947; 1950; 1953; 1974; Grakov 1947; 1953; 1971; Pogrebova N.N. 1954; 1958; and others); these studies have been continued by Chaz.anov (1973; 1975), Chernenko (1968; 1979; 1984), llinskaya (1965; 1968; 1983), Murzin (1984), and others. A major summary of research on the Scythians, in the region of the European steppes, was prepared by a team of archaeologists from the former Soviet Union and edited by Meliukova (1989). There are also a number of more recent publications (Gavriliuk 1989; Murzin 1990; Makhortykh 1991; Olkhovskii 1991; Alekseyev 1992; Gavriliuk 1992; Moshkova 1992; Pogrebova M.N. 1992; Erlikh 1994; Olkhovskii 1991; 1994). A relatively complete review of works related to Scythian culture, published before 1970, was presented by Sulimirski (1971). Apart from the few studies of the Scythian art, mentioned earlier, the English publications on the early nomads are of a rather general character (Fasken 1941; Talbot Rice 1957; Jessup 1970; Rolle 1989). An interesting summary of the interactions between the Scythians and local communities from central Europe has been presented by Taylor (1994: 373-410).

(from the late 4th to the late 3th century BC), a number of other Greeks wrote on Scythian history, geography and ethnography. Ephoros of Kyme (c. 405-330 BC), as Herodotus had earlier, wrote "universal history" and fragments of his work were later used by Strabo. Ephoros, unlike the majority of Greek authors, had very positive opinions about the culture of the Scythians and other northern tribes. He is often accused, by ancient and modem writers, of idealisation of these peoples (Gardiner-Garden 1987b: 3-6). Aristotle (c. 384-322), in Meterologika, described the geography of Scythia, and in fragments of Generation of Animals concentrated on the ethnography of this region (Gardiner-Garden 1987b: 17-21). Herakleides Pontikos, and Theophrastos followed by Alexanderian historians and Ptolemaic scholars also discussed some elements of Scythian history, ethnography and geography (Gardiner-Garden 1987b: 21-56). Long before Herodotus described the Scythians in his The Histories, they were mentioned in the Assyrian chronicles and in the Bible. Isaiah (5: 24-30), Jeremiah (51: 24-35) and Ezekiel (38-39) wrote about the invasions of the northern tribes who destroyed the Near East. Many different tribes participated in these military activities but the Cimmerians and later the Scythians probably played a central role. The Scythian presence in Anatolia is well documented by Assyrian authors. The first specific reference to the Scythians appears in the Assyrian divinations dated to approximately 681-668 BC, where it is recorded that the Assyrian king Esarhaddon gave his daughter in marriage to the Scythian king Bartatna (Lehmann-Haupt 1921: 400-403; Latyshev 1992: 18-19; Makhortykh 1992: 56). This event had to be preceded by the penetration of significantly large groups of nomadic peoples, including the Scythians, who at the end of the 8th and in the 7th centuries had crossed the Caucasus Mowitains from the north (Pogrebova 1984: 13; Makhortykh 1992: 56-57). Nevertheless, according to Herodotus, the main group of people of Scythian origin entered Asia during the reign of the Median king Cyaxares (625-585 BC) and "ruled" the whole region for 28 years (Herodotus IV: 1). Chernenko (1983: 5) has even suggested that a large group of Scythians could have moved as far as the border of Egypt, and forced the Pharaoh Psammetichus I to pay tribute to them to avoid an invasion. In 612 BC joint forces of Medes, Babylonians and Scythians captured Nineveh and thereby destroyed the Assyrian Empire (Chernenko 1983: 4-5; Jacobson 1995: 3334). Not much later, at the end of the 7th or at the beginning of the 6th century BC, the forces of the Median king Alyattes (605-562 BC) drove the Scythians and other nomadic peoples from north of the Caucasus, back into the steppe regions (Artamonov 1974: 34; Pogrebova 1984: 14).

8.2. Ancient writers on Scythian culture. In the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, nomadic peoples from the east European steppes developed closer contacts with ancient cultures from the Near East and Greece. These contacts were probably through both military raids and commercial trade. The Scythians were the first of the barbarian peoples to be relatively well described by ancient writers. These written sources have been intensively analysed in many works by historians and archaeologists (Lulofs 1929; Lloyd 1978; Rybakov 1979; Neikhardt 1982; Chernenko 1984; Kuklina 1985; Gardiner-Garden 1987a; 1987b; Hartog 1988; Gould 1989; Harmatta 1990; Latyshev [1947] 1992). Herodotus, in chapter IV of The Histories, described different aspects of Scythian life providing the most important and the most often quoted historical source of knowledge of Scythian culture. Nevertheless, Herodotus was not the only Greek who wrote on Scythian matters in the second half of the 5th century BC; there had previously been three other writers working on this subject, who are too often overlooked. Only a few fragments of Damastes' Peri Ethnon and Hellanikos of Lesbos' Barbarika Nomina have survived. Hellanikos' work, quoted by many later ancient writers, was described as valueless by Strabo (Gardiner-Garden 1987a: 1-2). Hippocrates' On Airs, Water and Places is particularly useful for studies of Sauromatian and Sarmatian cultures located east of the Scythians (Gardiner-Garden 1987a: 14-20).

Herodotus, in chapter IV of The Histories, concentrated on Darius' (521-486 BC) expedition into the Pontic steppe region (Herodotus IV: 1, 46, 83-87, 92-93, 97-98, 118-143). After Darius' campaigns (519 BC) against the local nomads (the Saka people) from eastern Kazakhstan, he began, in the year 512 BC, an unsuccessful expedition against the Scythians. Chernenko (1984) has analysed different aspects of the Herodotus description of this war, but he placed too 43

Exchange and Cultural Interactions scholars (Grakov 1971; Leskov 1975) have presented the opinion that Scythian culture developed as a result of an evolution of local archaeological cultures related to the Cimmerians. Against this, Terenozkhin (1971) has argued that Scythian culture was fully developed in central Asia and from there expanded into the region of the Pontic steppes. Artamonov (1968; 1971; 1974) has suggested that the Scythians were newcomers who, during their expansions in Asia Minor, destroyed the already existing early nomadic cultures of the Novocerkassk-Cernogorovka type. There is enough written and archaeological evidence to confirm the opinion that the process of intensive contacts, and possibly the movement of significantly large groups of people, took place in the east European steppes (Murzin 1984: 92-93). These contacts, which occurred over a relatively long period of time, could have been based on exchange, trade, and also on interactions initiated by raids. In the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, the area of the Black Sea steppes was a zone of intensive long-distance contacts (Murzin 1990: 1533) involving not only different nomadic tribes from the European steppes but also groups of peoples from central Asia (southern Siberia), the Caucasus (Meliukova 1989: 4849) and the forest-steppe zone (Shramko 1983: 95).

much trust in the exaggerated stories presented by Herodotus. By the second half of the 4th century BC, the Scythians had lost a number of battles with the Macedonian forces on the west and with the Sarmatians on the east: as a result their influence on other regions of eastern and central Europe declined. The most interesting aspects of Herodotus text are not his discusions of the military activities of the Scythians, but his descriptions of the culture and ethnography of peoples of the European steppe zone. However, in ancient times as well as more recently, a number of scholars have questioned the objectivity and trustworthiness of Herodotus' account: Thucydides, for instance, called Herodotus "Father of Lies" (Taylor 1994: 374). It is clear that The Histories do(es) not reflect "an objective reality" but instead represent a stage of Greek knowledge of the world from the middle of the 5th century BC, the extent of which is presented on Map 47. Yet, one has to remember that all historical writing is about available knowledge and not about "an objective reality", and Herodotus' knowledge and the quality of information decreased as the distance from Greece increased, or at least from Olbia He could offer better quality, and a greater quantity, of information about the Thracians than he could for the rest of the northern and the eastern neighbours of the Scythians. The peoples and tribes described by Herodotus, mapped in terms of geographical and social space, are presented on Fig. 32.

Pastoral activities in the grassland regions of Eurasia focused on access to a network of water sources. In such a system environmental or climatic imbalances could have resulted in the progressive displacement of populations across the whole steppe zone (Taylor 1994: 380). The movement of steppe populations was stimulated by a number of factors. Migrations probably changed their patterns every few decades in response to changes in the size of human and animal populations, and to short term over-exploitation of the environment. Furthermore, these regular nomadic movements were influenced by more global, long-term climatic changes. From the beginning of the first millennium BC, all three factors together with social (detribalization) and technological (introduction of iron) changes stimulated the mobility of the Eurasian nomadic groups, initiating interactions with different regions of central Europe.

Many archaeologists, particularly from the former Soviet Union, have made rather unsuccessful attempts to relate the different ethnic groups described by Herodotus to specific archaeological cultures. It is important, however, to remember that Scythian culture, from the 7th to the 5th centuries BC, was not represented by a single ethnic group but rather reflected different local tribes from the steppe and the forest-steppe zones situated north of the Black Sea. According to Herodotus and other ancient writers, there were significant differences in economy, prestige, and political power, between the separate Scythian tribes. Many scholars believed that it is possible to distinguish three general groups of Scythians. The most important and powerful position was held by the so-called "Royal Scythians" from the region between the Dnepr and Donec Rivers; to the north-west of them Herodotus located "the Nomadic Scythians"; and between the Dnestr and the Dnepr Rivers were situated "the Ploughing Scythians" (Herodotus IV: 17-21).

Murzin (1984: 104), in his work based on the earlier publication of Spitsyn ( 1918), distinguished four important stages in the first part of Scythian history. In the first of them, at the beginning and in the middle of the 7th century BC, the Novocerkassk type of material culture, in the Pontic steppe region, was replaced by the early Scythian culture. The second period, extending from the middle to the end of the 7th century, he related to the particularly active contacts between the Scythians and the region of Asia Minor. The end of the 7th and the 6th centuries BC was characterised by a period of intensive Scythian contacts with local tribes situated east of the Danube in the steppe and in the foreststeppe zones. Scythian culture, in the final stage of its early development at the end of the 6th and particularly in the 5th centuries, was concentrated in the area of the lower Dnepr and the Kriin Peninsula. At this time, the Scythians established close relations with the Greek colonies. Analyses of the Greek imports found in the steppe and the forest-steppe zones of the Pontic region (Onaiko 1966; 1970; Brashinskii

8.3. Development of the Scythian culture in the steppe zone. The character and scale of the Scytho-Cimmerian conflict is unclear, but it is a fact that in the first half of the first millennium BC Cimmerian culture strongly influenced central European communities and not much later the early Scythian culture was present in large areas of the Pontic steppe. In the early stage of the development of Scythian culture, some groups of nomadic people probably moved westward from the region of the lower Volga. The origin of Scythian culture has been the subject of intensive discussions between archaeologists from the former Soviet Union. Some 44

Exchange, Trade and Cultural Interactions Between the Scythian Culture and Central European Communities

centuries BC, in the steppe and Krim Peninsula, only 72 barrows are known; 168 graves can be associated with the 5th century BC. With the period of the transition from the 5th to 4th century BC, it is possible to identify 125 sites, while, from the time between the 4th and 3rd centuries, 1353 barrows are known. From the final stage of Scythian history (3rd-1st centuries BC) only 45 graves have been recorded (Olkhovskii 1991: 6, 17).

1965; 1980) have been particularly useful in establishing a chronology for different stages of the Scythian culture. In the area from the middle Danube to the lower Don, archaeologists have distinguished a number of versions of Scythian culture or, rather, local cultures strongly influenced by Scythian/nomadic traditions. Toe geographical distribution of these cultures, in the period between the 6th and 3rd centuries BC, is shown on Map 48. Toe "classical" version of Scythian culture developed in the steppe region from the lower Danube to the lower Don and its northern limit can be related to the border between the steppe and the forest-steppe zones. From this area should be excluded the Krim Peninsula and the small region near the mouth of the Don where the cultural situations were different Toe cultural, economic and political centres of the nomadic steppe zone were concentrated along the Dnepr River. Near the mouth of this river Olbia, one of the most important and wealthiest of the Greek colonies developed. In the later period, between the 4th and 3rd centuries, in the region of the lower Dnepr a large number of late Scythian settlements appeared (Vysotskaya 1975; Meliukova 1989: 51-53).

Various authors have suggested different classifications of the Scythian graves based on their forms but they also differ in the types of material used for their construction (Fig. 33). Inhumed bodies were deposited in catacombs, or in stone or wooden chambers located either within barrows or underground. Toe early Scythian graves were often dug into older Bronze Age barrows. From the 6th century BC, Scythians barrows began to appear in much larger numbers and are usually arranged in groups of 10-15 but can also occur in concentrations as large as 100 graves (Meliukova 1989: 52). Some of these barrows were used as graves for single individuals, but more often a number of human skeletons have been found. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish differences in social status between bodies deposited in the central part of the graves. Nevertheless, displacements of skeletons in barrows and differences in material objects associated with each individual have suggested that people of different social status were buried in the same grave. Male as well as female skeletons were deposited in central parts of Scythian barrows, and very often they have been found together in the same chamber (llinskaya, Terenozhkin 1983: 122-123). In many cases a number of human skeletons have been found inserted into the barrows after their constructions have been completed.

Toe most characteristic elements of Scythian culture were barrow graves which are also one of the most visible monuments of the Ukrainian landscape. (Map 49). These Scythian graves have been the main source of material finds associated with the nomadic culture. As mentioned earlier, the excavations of the nomadic barrows, situated in the European steppes and the Caucasus, began in the 18th and 19th centuries. At the end of 19th and in the beginning of 20th centuries a number of very important sites, including Ulsky Aul, Kelermes, Kostromskaya and Solokha (near Nikopol) were dug. Most of this activity was concentrated in Kuban and the Caucasus region. After World War II, investigations of the Scythian graves began with an important discovery made at Melitopol in 1954. In the 1960s and '70s, during the construction of irrigation systems in the steppe zone, more than 300 barrows were excavated (Piotrovskii 1986: 6). While the quality of post-excavation publications have been very varied, discussions of Scythian barrows and nomadic funeral traditions have been presented in a number of publications (Grakov 1947; 1971; Smirnov 1966; Ilinskaya, Terenozhkin 1971; 1983; Leskov 1974; 1981; Artamonov 1949; 1974; and others). Barrow graves from the earlier part of the Scythian history (7th-5th centuries BC) have been analysed by Yacenko (1959) and Murzin (1979; 1982; 1984). Toe problem of the Scythian barrows in the region of the Black Sea steppes has been recently discussed by Olkhovskii (1991).

In a majority of graves, bodies were buried lying on their backs with heads directed towards the west. Particularly large and rich barrows contained elaborate constructions and included wheeled vehicles and horse skeletons. In some of these barrows more then a few hundred horses were deposited (Talbot Rice 1957: 92-93; Piotrovskii 1986: 5). Material objects from the graves included both local and foreign items. Cultures of the Eurasian nomads developed on edges of the great ancient civilizations, and intensive cultural and trade contacts between these groups helped to establish the early version of the silk route. However, the most common imports found in Scythian graves were Caucasian, and in later periods, Greek. Metal finds discovered in these graves contain gold ornaments, drinking vessels, metal mirrors, different types of arms, and elements of horse gear (Fig. 34). Toe Scythian habit of drinking alcohol recorded in the historical texts is reflected in the number of Greek amphoras found in the region of the Pontic steppes.

Some authors have suggested that, in the steppe zone, there are as many as 2500 graves which can be related to Scythian culture (Meliukova 1989: 54). Olkhovskii (1991: 6, 17) limited this number to 1857 graves, although his catalogue includes only 318 barrows. A similar number of graves (3 81) are presented by Chernenko and Bessonova (1986: 9-56). It is probable that between 350 and 400 Scythian graves have been excavated in the region of the Pontic steppe. Toe chronological distributions of these barrows are very uneven (Maps 50 and 51). From the time between the 7th and 5th

8.4. Impact of the Scythian culture on other areas of eastern Europe. From the end of the 7th century BC, and particularly in the 6th and 5th centuries BC, Scythian culture characteristic of nomadic people from areas situated north of the Black Sea began to influence other regions of eastern and central Europe through the mechanism of trade, exchange, and 45

Exchange and Cultural Interactions structures of Scythian societies. Well organized groups of nomads developed a strong interest in agriculturally rich areas of the forest-steppe zone. Close trade contacts were probably accompanied by the military penetrations and possible movements of some groups of people. This process was particularly intense in the area of the middle Dnepr where, during the 5th century BC, many of the fortified settlement which had developed in the 7th and 6th centuries BC were abandoned or destroyed. Some of them, for example Pastyrskoe and Sharpovskoe, have significant layers of fire destruction (Skoryj 1993-1994: 154-157). At the same time only a few fortified settlements are known in the regions situated much further north, for instance in Bolshoe-skifskoe and Grigorovskoe (Skoryj 1993-1994: 156). Evidence of the intensive contacts and cultural interactions between the people of the forest-steppe zone and the Scythians has been found in a number of cemeteries, for example at Steblevcy, where a majority of graves contain objects closely related to the nomadic tradition (Klochko 1985: 284-285). In areas located north of the east European steppe, single rich graves, dug into older barrows, have also been found, for example in Jasnozore (Kovpanenko, Bessonova, Skoryj 1988: 16-17). From the second half of the 5th century BC, in the southern part of the forest-steppe zone, characteristic Scythian type catacomb graves, with military equipment, are known (Kovpanenko, Bessonova, Skoryj 1988: 250-251, 320-323; Skoryj: 1993-1994, 157-158). A selections of plans of Scythian graves, fortified settlements and examples of material culture from the forest-steppe zone are presented on Fig. 35. The nomadic influences on these regions north of the east European steppes were of more direct character than on any other areas of eastern and central Europe. Some of these regions from the forest-steppe zone not only accepted different elements of Scythian culture but were probably incorporated into the political system of "the Great Scythia".

military activity. There were significant differences between the local groups of the east European nomads, yet the political and economic structures of these tribes, as well as systems of beliefs and values, represented a high degree of similarity throughout the area. The mobility of the nomadic people sharing this Scythian culture allowed them to develop intensive contacts with other communities of barbarian Europe, whose economy, settlement patterns and cultural traditions were very different from these of the nomads. The impact of the Scythians on the local cultures of eastern and central Europe differed. It is possible to distinguish three zones of influence: the forest-steppe area of Ukraine and southern Russia; the region of the Carpathian Basin; and other areas of central Europe which have yielded significant concentrations of Scythian finds. As mentioned earlier, the traditional view of the Scythians as an uncivilized people who destroyed traditional cultures represented by local populations, have strongly influenced interpretations of Scythian relations with other cultures. It is true that intensive migrations and military activities were significant parts of nomadic life, but it is also important to remember that a distinction between successful raid and successful trade might be unclear. Furthermore, it is obvious that the Scythians strongly benefited from intensive trade contacts with the other regions. For example, they not only tolerated a Greek presence on the northern coast of the Black Sea but probably even protected the urban colonies. At the same time, exchange and the tradition of gift-giving played an important role in Scythian society. One also has to realise that even if separate nomadic groups in different parts of eastern and central Europe were represented by similar material culture, to a large extent they adopted local traditions and ways of living. After a time those groups in the distant regions of the forest-steppe zone and in the Carpathian Basin had little in common with the Scythians living in the neighbourhoods of the Greek colonies, who were themselves very different from the nomadic people of

The position of the "middleman" in contacts between the Scythians and communities from central Europe was held by local populations of the so-called "Thracian-Hallstatt", from the forest-steppe area between the Pruth and the Dnestr Rivers (present-day Moldavia). In this region a large number of cemeteries as well as open and fortified settlements have been discovered (Map 53). The nomadic traditions began to influence this region from the second half of the 6th century BC and continued until the 3rd century BC. In the 6th and 5th centuries BC, contacts with Scythian culture had little impact on funeral traditions and pottery production; yet almost all metal products and objects made out of bone discovered in Moldavia embody nomadic traditions (Fig. 36). Furthermore, in Starye Kukoneshty, a typical Scythian grave, set in a Bronze Age barrow, has been found. This grave has been dated to the end of the 6th century BC, and is very similar to typical Scythian graves from the Black Sea steppes (Dergachev 1979: 239-241). It might suggest that the region between the Pruth and the Dnestr Rivers had direct contacts with the nomadic people from the steppes.

Pazyryk. Areas which had the closest relations with, and, as a result of that, were the most strongly influenced by Scythian culture were situated in the forest-steppe zone between the middle Dnestr and the middle Don. The most important publications on the Scythian influences in these regions include Bokii (1980), Ilinskaya, Terenozhkin (1983: 227-356), Fialko (1989), Moruzhenko (1969), Skoryj, Bessonova (1987), Skoryj (1986, 1987, 1991, 1993-1994), Vinogradov, Marchenko (1991). Those areas which developed strong contacts with the nomadic people from the steppes concentrated along the main rivers of eastern Europe, the most important region being the middle Dnepr. Barrow graves, together with both open and fortified settlements have usually been discovered on the western sides of the main rivers (probably for defensive reasons). The distribution of these sites, for the period between the 7th and the 3rd centuries BC, is presented on Map 52. Contacts between the tribes of the forest-steppe and the nomads probably intensified at the end of the 6th and in 5th centuries BC, after the war between the Scythians and the Persians. Military activities helped to consolidate the political and economic

Scythian influences in Moldavia, as in the whole foreststeppe zone, intensified after the Scythian conflict with the Persian king Darius (Artamonov 1974: 56). In cemeteries from the end of the 5th and the beginning of the 4th centuries 46

Exchange. Trade and Cultural Interactions Between the Scythian Culture and Central European Communities Nevertheless, spearheads were often deposited in Scythian graves (Bukowski 1977: 239). Zoomorphic decorative motifs typical of Scythian culture are present on the some of the military equipment discovered in the Carpathian Basin.

BC, for example in Dancieny near Chi~inau (Lapushnian 1979: 50-60) and in Slobodzieia in the Rumanian part of Moldavia (Buzdugan 1968), graves related to the Scythian funeral tradition have been found, and in many other graves Scythian type artefacts have been discovered. The most characteristic are arrowheads, spearheads and iron swords and daggers. Even the most typical Scythian barrows, such as Suruceny, were usually situated near the local cemeteries (Sergeev 1961: 18-19). This might suggest that any groups of newcomers became well-integrated with local societies. This interpretation is also supported by the relatively undisturbed settlement patterns represented by almost 40 fortified sites from the 4th and 3rd centuries BC (Meliukova 1989: 84-85).

A large number of various types of horse bits and cheek pieces were found in the Carpathian Basin. They usually represent the so-called Vekerzug type and were probably produced locally but are related to archaic prototypes of Cimmerian and early Scythian type. A significant quantity of these artefacts is known from the Great Hungarian Plain and the upper Tisza region (Parducz 1974: 311-336). Objects of probable symbolic importance, include bronze mirrors known from at least 25 examples discovered on 21 sites. They derive from Greek workshops in Olbia and possibly from an unknown centre located somewhere in Transylvania (Pa.rducz 1960: 523-530). A number of the so-called rattles and pole-ends, known from the Carpathian Basin (Bakay 1971: 11-13, Fig. 1), can be related to those found in the east European cemeteries, for example in Ulsky Aul and Kelermes. This type of object, apart from its decorative value, could also be used as a symbol of prestige and power. In the nomadic world no two rattles or pole-ends are exactly alike, but all were made in one piece and cast in separate moulds. Their upper parts represent different animals, which Bakay (1971: 111) has interpreted as representations of tribal totems. Specific typological groups of personal ornaments, mostly earrings and rings, are known from numerous graves in the Carpathian region. However, it is very difficult to distinguish a specific Scythian type (Benadik 1953: 677), and indeed most metal ornaments, discovered in the southern part of central Europe, were probably made locally under the Hallstatt culture influences or had been imported from areas associated with the Greek civilization. A pattern of distribution of different types of objects of Scythian origin in the Carpathian Basin is shown on Map 55.

8.5. Scythianinfluencein the CarpathianBasin. In central Europe the cultural groups which had the strongest contacts with Scythian culture lay in the region of the Carpathian Basin (Map 54). Already from the 8th century BC, this area was influenced by the nomadic traditions and was incorporated into the east European system of economic and cultural exchange. The natural resources and the geographical location of the Carpathian Basin put this area in a particularly important position in relation to other regions of this part of Europe. From the Carpathian Basin Scythian influences, in the forms of trade, exchange and raids, reached the East Hallstatt culture, northern Italy and the Lusatian culture. It is possible to distinguish two regions in the Carpathian Basin which experienced the strongest influences from the nomadic cultures from the east European steppes: Transylvania in Romania and central and north-eastern Hungary together with south-western Slovakia. In both of these regions significant concentrations of metal objects of Scythian origin, as well as a number of nomadic-type barrows, have been discovered. For the period between the 6th and 4th centuries BC, Parducz distinguished four groups of finds of Scythian character. The first group contains arms and military equipment (arrowheads, parts of quivers, short iron daggers, iron battle-axes, armour and shields); the second category includes elements of horse gear; the third contains objects of a symbolic character (bronze mirrors, bronze fittings of poles, rattles, and bronze kettles); while the last category is represented by gold ornaments and applied dress fittings (Parducz 1971b: 585).

The two cultural groups from Transylvania and Alfcild, strongly related to Scythian traditions, were distinguished by Fiettich (1928; 1931: 494-529, Map 6) and then analysed by Nestor (1932) and Bohm (1936). In the 1920's a number of flat cemeteries in the basin of the Mure~ River were excavated, and details of these were presented by Parvan (1926). More recently the problem of the Transylvanian group was discussed in Vasiliev"s monograph (1980). In the area of this group he identified 225 graves of the Scythian tradition from 93 sites. Most cemeteries are relatively small, with an average number of graves around 20 (Vasiliev 1980; Meliukova 1989: 87). Although, both inhumation and cremation played an important role in funeral traditions, inhumed bodies were deposited in the simple catacombs without any wooden or stone constructions. The positions of the skeletons in inhumations were less regular than in "the classical" version of the nomadic graves in the steppe zone; nevertheless, in most graves, bodies were deposited with the heads toward the north-west.

Arrowheads of the Scythian-type from the Carpathian Basin are known from at least 120 sites, and show chronological and typological variations. About 85% of these artefacts were discovered in groups of no more than 1-4, but single graves containing from 10-100 arrowheads have also been found. Related to them are discoveries of quivers known from at least 18 sites (Dusek 1966: 29; Bukowski 1977: 238). A common find are short iron daggers, single or double-edged, which have been found on more than 35 sites. Battle-axes are known from only a few examples in the area of the Carpathian Basin. Protective armour is equally rare and the known examples are usually badly damaged. Remains of shields with umbos and gold fittings have been discovered in Zoldhalompuszta and Tapi6szentmarton. It is difficult to distinguish iron spearheads of the Scythian form from others types of these artefacts, which were produced locally.

Apart from metal items, pottery vessels, sometimes portions of meat were also deposited in graves. Examples of Scythiantype material objects found in graves in Transylvania are presented on Fig. 37. All pottery from the sites belonging to 47

Exchange and Cultural Interactions

Vasiliev 1980: 171; Chochorowski 1987: 168 and others) interpreted this phenomenon in the terms of changes in population and tried to relate the cultural changes in Transylvania with the ethnic expansion of the Scythians, or the Scythian-related tribe called the Agathyrsae, mentioned by Herodotus. There is, however, not enough evidence to support this interpretation. Indeed, some elements of material culture, for example pottery production, reflect a significant continuity. Whether or not recent interpretations of the ancient written sources correctly located the Agathyrsae in Transylvania, it is clear that local population predominantly represented old communities influenced by the new nomadic traditions from the east European steppes. As mentioned earlier, economic and cultural contacts were probably accompanied by small-scale but relatively regular raids. These types of interaction also played an important part in changes of cultural and economic values in regions located east of the Carpathian Basin.

this cultural group was made in the local tradition deriving from the late phase of the Gava culture (Vasiliev 1980: 165; Cri~ 1974: 110). This pottery has been dated to the 6th-5th centuries BC, and has significant similarities to pottery from the area between the Pruth and the Dnestr Rivers (Meliukova 1989: 87). Bronze and iron products, from the basin of the Mure~ River, offer clear evidence of intensive contacts between local populations and Scythian culture. Metal objects from this area can be divided into two major groups, one containing militny equipment, the other including ornaments. Toe most common of the metal artefacts are arrowheads found on more than 60 sites. All represent Scythian-types of 6th and 5th centuries BC. Another group of arms is represented by 36 examples of different forms of swords and daggers, including the most characteristic Scythian-type called akinakes. Some of these swords and daggers are typical Scythian products and were probably imported from the area of the nomadic culture in eastern Europe, while others represent local imitations. Toe swords and daggers varied in size. Toe most characteristic examples are these decorated in the animal style, like those from Diebolii-de-Jos and Finninica (Meliukova 1989: 87). Toe local populations in Transylvania also had contacts with the forest-steppe version of Scythian culture. Large axes from the forest-steppe areas have been found on a few sites in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin. Spearheads as well as horse-bits and decorative metal elements of horse-gear have been discovered in a much smaller number, but they are closely related to Scythian-types.

Similar cultural changes to those which took place in Transylvania happened, on an even larger scale, in the other parts of the Carpathian region, particularly in the areas of the Great Hungarian Plain and south-western Slovakia. Toe material evidence of Scythian influence in Alf6ld was analysed in the 19th century by Hampel (1895) and Reinecke (1897), followed by Fiettich (1928; 1931: 494-529), Nestor (1932) and Bohm (1936). Toe general view about the Scythian expansion in the Carpathian Basin, formulated in these publications, was accepted by the later scholars, e.g. Budinsky-Kricka (1947), and in a number of publications presented by Parducz (1952; 1954; 1965; 1973; 1974). Nevertheless, in the 1960's Gazdapusztai (1967: 307-334, Pl. XXXI-XXXIV) was already proposing a different model of the relationship between the Caucasus, the Pontic steppes and the Carpathian Basin in the pre- and early Scythian period. This stressed the possibility of intensive trade contacts instead of migrations. Some of Parducz interpretations, particularly concerning direct migrations of the Scythians from the area of the Black Sea steppes, were criticised by Meliukova (1958), who emphasised the important role of the forest-steppe zone in contacts between the Carpathian Basin and the nomadic tribes from the steppes. Her interpretations influenced views of other archaeologists, for instance Popescu (1958; 1967), Berciu (1961) and Dusek (1961; 1974). Harmatta (1948; 1968) associated cultural groups in the Great Hungarian Plain, from the 6th-5th centuries BC, with historically known tribes called the Sigynnae; a similar interpretation was earlier presented by Sulimirski (1961). Toe most recent analysis of the archaeological material from the Carpathian Basin, from the period of intense nomadic influence, has been presented by Chochorowski (1984; 1985a; 1985b; 1987).

Bracelets, earrings, bits and, more rarely, bronze mirrors of Scythian-type, together with other items decorated in animal style, were present in many graves in the area of the Mure~ River. A larger number of ornaments came from the graves which did not contained arms. On the basis of typological analysis, Vasiliev (1980) suggested that intensive contacts between the nomadic cultures from the steppes and local populations of Transylvania took place in the 6th and the first half of the 5th centuries BC. According to his opinion, there is no evidence of contact between these two regions in the later periods. Intensification of contacts between local populations of Transylvania and the Scythians was accompanied by an abandonment of older fortified settlements, such as Teleac near Alba, $eica Mica near Sibiu and Ciceu-Corabia near Bistrita Nasaud (Vasiliev 1983: 54; Chochorowski 1987: 168). Toe eastern part of the Carpathian Basin was incorporated into the east European or "the Scythian" system of exchange and intercultural contact in the early stages of its existence. Toe impact of the Scythian influences in this region can be seen through distribution patterns of objects of nomadic origin, and also through the changes in settlement systems and funeral traditions. Toe scale and character of these intercultural contacts were different from those between the Scythian culture and the forest-steppe area of Moldavia. Toe local populations of Moldavia had more regular and longerlasting contacts with the nomadic world, but the effects of these contacts were never as significant as they were in the area of the Carpathian Basin. Many central and east European scholars (Ferenczi 1971: 30; Cri~ana 1974: 114;

Cultural groups from Alf6ld which developed close contacts with Scythian culture have been given different names in the archaeological literature. Recently they have been called "the Thraco-Scythian culture" (Paulik 1975), or named after the large cemetery at Szentes-Vekerzug near Csongrad, as "the Vekerzug culture" (Chochorowski 1984). Toe period of intensive contact between local populations and the Scythian culture is represented in more than 20 cemeteries with around 48

Exchange, Trade and Cultural Interactions Between the Scythian Culture and Central European Communities

phases of the Vekerzug culture have been found. In addition to pottery of a local or Hallstatt type and metal objects of Scythian origin, fragments of horse skeletons and teeth were deposited in these graves.

1400 graves throughout the whole of Hungary. For the same period, in south-western Slovakia the most important sites are large cemeteries at Chotin (Meliukova 1989: 89). A majority of finds related to the Vekerzug culture have been found in the basin of the Tisza River, in river valleys in the highland areas of northern Hungary, and also in south-western Slovakia (Map 56).

In the northern part of the Great Hungarian Plain, mainly in river valleys of the north Hungarian highlands, a number of single finds of Scythian origin have been discovered, without archaeological contexts. In the same area concentrations of barrow graves have also been found, the best known of which contained gold and electrum objects of Scythian origin, decorated in a characteristic animal style. Examples of these impressive finds are known from the MezokeresztesZoldhalompuszta county Borsod-Abauj-Zemplen and from Tapi6szentmarton, near Pest (Chochorowski 1987: 173). If the barrows discovered in the area of the Vekerzug culture suggest close contacts between the local population and the nomadic tribes from eastern Europe, then the dominance of cremation in cemeteries in the north-eastern region of the Vekerzug culture (Nemeti 1972: 121-149; 1982: 115-144) and in the Kustanovice group (south-eastern Slovakia) (Smimova, Bernjakovic 1965: 89-115; Smimova 1979: 3954) indicates the possibility of strong political, cultural and economic relations between these groups and local versions of Scythian culture in the forest-steppe zone, particularly from the area of the upper Dnestr, where the funeral tradition of cremation was especially strong (Sulimirski 1936: 7:ff; Meliukova 1958: 40ft). Direct contacts through the Carpathian Mountains probably developed as a northern axis of the long distance system of exchange which linked central Europe with the east European steppes.

In the two centuries preceding the period of Scythian influences, the area of the Carpathian Basin experienced a period of significant cultural change. The old Urnfield traditions and intensive contacts with the Cimmerian tribes helped to shape the East Hallstatt culture, which formed an important political, economic and cultural component in central Europe, in the Hallstatt B3-C period. Local technological development, influenced from the Mediterranean and eastern Europe, led to a change in the scale and quality of metal production. The Mezocsat culture, which appeared in the Carpathian Basin as a result of the early nomadic influences in the 8th-7th centuries BC, had close contacts with the East Hallstatt culture. These contacts are represented by rich groups of finds of the Gyongyos type discovered at cemeteries of the Mezocsat culture (Gallus, Horvath 1939: 72, Tab. LXVII 11-13,15, LXVIII 1-18). The Gyongyos type of finds can also be related to artefacts found in rich graves, dated to the Scythian period (the 6th century BC), from Artand, in county Hajdu-Bihar. In this grave, objects of the eastern origin have also been found (Parducz 1965: 137-231, PL 1-XXX; Chochorowski 1987: 165-167). Discoveries from this site represent an interesting mix of early nomadic (Cimmerian), Scythian, and Hallstatt traditions. It is interesting that on the same site nomadic-type finds from much later periods (Middle Ages) have also been found (Parducz 1965: 139-140). Early Scythian influences, led not only to the development the Vekerzug culture, but also to the occurrence of a characteristic cultural group, situated further north in eastern Slovakia and western Ukraine, called the Kustanovice group (Smimova, Bernjakovic 1965: 89-115).

In the cemeteries located in the central and southern parts of Alfold, inhumation graves, with bodies lying on their backs or sides were dominant. In the Szentlorinc cemetery (county Baranya), 75% of all burials represent this type (Jerem 1968: 160-208). A majority of these graves had east-west or westeast orientation, a similar orientation has been found in many cemeteries of the Vekerzug culture (Szentes-Vekerzug: 62 out of 74 inhumation graves) and the Hallstatt culture (Hallstatt cemetery 289 out of 375) (Jerem 1968: 174-175). Another interesting phenomenon, which appeared in a number of cemeteries influenced by the Scythian culture, are the so-called symbolic graves (cenotaphs), in which a significant quantity of pottery and metal items were deposited without human or even horse skeletons.

The chronology of Vekerzug culture and Scythian contacts with the Carpathian Basin in general depends heavily on the cemetery of Als6telekes-Dalinka. This cemetery was continuously used from a period preceding the development of Vekerzug culture until the early elements of the La Tene culture appeared in this region (Chochorowski 1987: 170173). However, the majority of cemeteries associated with the Vekerzug culture display a significant discontinuity with the cemeteries from the previous period. As in Transylvania, both inhumation and cremation played an important role in the funeral traditions of the Vekerzug culture. The most characteristic items of Scythian-type found in graves of this culture were arrowheads, daggers, mirrors, rattles and other small ornaments (Fig. 38). The oldest of these artefacts are dated to the second half of the 6th century BC.

In many burials of the Vekerzug culture metal objects of Scythian origin, dated broadly to the period between the 6th and 5th centuries BC, have been discovered. In some of the most important cemeteries a few horse graves have been found, for instance Szentes-Vekerzug (15), CsanytelekUjhalasy6 (2) (Bokonyi 1952: 173-183; 1954: 93-114; 1955: 23-31), Tapi6szale (1) (Parducz 1966: 35-91) and Szentlorinc (6) (Jerem 1968: 160-208). In other graves, in these and other cemeteries, elements of horse gear have been discovered (Meliukova 1989: 89-90). Funeral traditions in the area of the middle Tisza River were particularly strongly influenced by the nomadic culture. The steppe environment and long traditions of contacts with pastoral cultures of eastern Europe attracted Scythian mobile groups, and helped

At the cemetery ofTapi6szale (Parducz 1966: 35-91, PL XILXXIV) an almost equal number of inhumation and cremation burials have been discovered. This is probably the largest of the Scythian-influenced cemeteries in the Carpathian Basin, where 500 graves from older and younger 49

Exchange and Cultural Interactions 8.6. Scythian influence in other regions of central Europe.

to develop closer relations with local communities, makining use of the northern routes, described earlier, or possibly the southern routes through Transylvania.

From the Carpathian Basin, Scythian culture developed contacts with other regions of central and western Europe, as is suggested by the relatively wide distribution of the Scythian-type of arrowheads and other artefacts (Map 57). There were two distinct directions of nomadic influences from the Carpathian Basin: one towards the area of the upper Sava Rivers in Slovenia and the second towards Silesia, in south-western Poland. Both regions played a very important role in interregional systems of exchange, not only between the west and the east but also between the south and the north.

At the same time, or not much later, the areas situated even further west in the Little Hungarian Plain and in southwestern Slovakia were incoiporated into the systems of exchange and intercultural contact described above. In the archaeological record, this process is expressed through the emergence of cemeteries characteristic for the southern region of the Vekerzug culture. The largest and the most important of them are those discovered in Chotin (I-A and 1B), near Komarno (Dusek 1966). Scythian-type material found in the graves, in both of the cemeteries at Chotin, include bronze arrowheads, spearheads, battle-hammers, horse bits mostly of Vekerzug type, cross-shaped fittings applied probably to quivers, bronze mirrors, bronze basal elements of spear shafts, whetstones and some ornaments, particularly earrings (Dusek 1966). The so-called Chotin group developed in an area which earlier was closely related to the East Hallstatt culture. This is shown in the nearby cemetery of Modrany (near Komarno ), which was used from the middle of the 6th century by a local population of the East Hallstatt culture (Dusek, S. 1976: 397-416); but in less than one century, in the same cemetery, the local population was using a fimeral tradition characteristic of the V ekerzug culture (Chochorowski 1987: 176).

The intensification of contact between the Scythians and local cultural groups in Slovenia can be dated to the period when cemeteries of the Szentes-Vekerzug type developed in Alfold. Metal objects of the Scythian-type have been found in significant concentrations in the basin of the upper Sava River, and included eastern types of military equipment, such as, arrowheads, battle-axes, spearlleads, and a number of small ornaments and horse bits (Fig. 39). The Scythian influences in Slovenia are particularly strongly represented in the fimeraltraditions of the local population. In many graves, horse bits of the V ekerzug type have been discovered, and in the cemeteries Brezje and Smarje-Magdalenska Gora (Bokonyi 1964: 227-239; 1968: 11-71) the so-called "horse riders' graves" have been found, in which human and horses skeletons were deposited together. A tradition of sacrificing and depositing horses in human graves was very strong in the steppe zone of eastern Europe. The high economic and symbolic value of horses for local populations in the Carpathian Basin is represented not only by the complete horse skeletons found in cemeteries, but also by a large number of horse skulls and teeth deposited in graves (Chochorowski 1987: 190), and by a significant quantity of horse bones discovered at settlements (Bokonyi 1958: 75; Parducz 1974: 327).

From the beginning of the 6th century BC different areas of the Carpathian Basin, as far west as the central Danube, had become part of "the Scythian world". Local cultural groups shared a complex system of political, economic, cultural and military interactions. The archaeological evidence, however, suggests that Scythian culture influenced only specific aspects of material culture in this part of central Europe. For example, most of the military equipment was of Scythian derivation, while the high quality wheel-made pottery was the Thracian type, the simple hand-made pottery was ofpostGava origin and many decorative ornaments, including fibulae, were characteristic for the Hallstatt culture. The development of Scythian exchange systems was accompanied by changes in metal production and the further popularization of iron metallurgy . At this time an important new centre of iron smelting developed in the eastern part of the Bi.ikk Mountains, where the iron ores were relatively easy to gather (Parducz 1965: 299) . The growing importance of iron is also supported by the high percentage of iron products discovered in cemeteries in this region, for instance at Als6telekesDalinka and Eger-Nagy Eged (Chochorowski 1987: 196).

The area of the upper Sava played a very important role in the contact between "the Scythian world" and the regions of northern Italy, where, near the mouth of the Padaus River (the Po) at the end of the 6th century BC, two Mediterranean trading "colonies", Spina and Adria, developed. The Slovenian cultural groups, with their roots in Urnfield traditions, adopted elements of the early Hallstatt culture (Santa Lucia cemetery) and began to develop contacts with northern Italy at the end of the 7th century BC. These relations intensified in the 6th and 5th centuries BC and are represented by a number of Greek and Italian imports found in the area of the upper Sava River (Frey 1966: 50-60; Gustin, Terzan 1975: 188-202), and by a development of traditions of situla production in this region. During the same period other artefacts, such as the Certosa type of fibula, which had a more interregional character, began to appear in the upper Sava and Alfold . At the Szentlorinc cemetery (southern Hungary) 44 fibulae of this type have been discovered (Jerem 1968: 180). Possible routes of exchange and interregional contacts between the East Hallstatt culture and the Scythian world are shown on Map 88 (Egg 1996: 57, Abb. 4).

In the second part of the Hallstatt C period, the middle Danube became a clear border between the zones of the Scythian and the Hallstatt cultural influences. The development and consolidation of the Scythian system of interregional contact weakened the dominant position of the Hallstatt culture in the Carpathian Basin, as is apparent not only through the territorial expansion of the V ekerzug culture but above all through a shift of the innovating centre of the Hallstatt culture to the west.

50

Exchange, Trade and Cultural Interactions Between the Scythian Culture and Central European Communities

Ojc6w, Strzegom, Sl~za and Wicina. A large quantity of the Scythian-type arrowheads, from the second half of the 6th and the first part of the 5th centuries BC, have been discovered in the western zone of the Lusatian culture (Bukowski 1977: 166-184). From this area 6 swords and daggers related to the Scythian tradition have also been recorded. Battle-axes and battle-hammers have been found on at least 8 Lusatian sites (Bukowski 1977: 192). The Scythian origin of a number spearheads from the area of the Lusatian culture is more problematic. However, at the defended settlement of Kamieniec at least two such finds have been discovered together with a number of the Scythian-type of arrowhead. Other examples of spearheads are known :from several cemeteries in Silesia and Great Poland. Nomadic east European types of horse bit are recorded from 6 Lusatian sites (Bukowski 1977: 192-197). Typological analysis of the finds noted above suggest that a majority of them can be related to similar artefacts from the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin and from Ukraine.

The important position of northern Italy in interregional trade is unquestionable. On the one hand this area had access to highly manufactured products from the Mediterranean world while on the other it could obtain goods and raw materials from communities spread throughout different areas of central Europe. North Italian centres of trade also developed contacts with cultural groups strongly influenced by the nomadic tradition. From these groups they received large quantities of horses, which were probably distributed further south into Italy and Greece. This horse trade is evidenced in written sources as well as in the archaeological record (Bokonyi 1983: 335-340). According to Bokonyi (1964: 227239; 1968: 11-71), the Early Iron Age horses found in central and eastern Europe can be divided into two categories based on their height. The boundary dividing the shorter type, from the western part of Europe, and taller horses from the east, lay approximately between Austria and Slovenia. Inevitably a demand for large, impressive horses developed in western Europe and in the Mediterranean regions. Local communities in the Carpathian Basin had access to both types of horses, and at the Szentlorinc cemetery, in the same grave (no. 52), horses of the different types were discovered together (Jerem 1968: 169-170).

One of the most impressive collection of objects of Scythian origin found in central Europe is known from Witaszkowo (Vettersfelde) near Lubsko. Unfortunately the archaeological context of this discovery is unclear, and many smaller objects from Witaszkowo were destroyed even before they were recorded. Nevertheless, the surviving objects from this find are of outstanding quality. They include a gold fish-shaped shield-boss, a gold shield-like armour, an iron dagger, an akinakes type of sword and its golden sheath, a whetstone in a gold frame, a chain, a massive necklace, a bracelet, a stone amulet set in gold and a number of smaller ornaments (Bukowski 1977: 197-204). They can be related only to finds known from the richest barrows in the steppe region. The assemblage from Witaszkowo (Vettersfelde) has been dated to the second half of the 6th or the beginning of the 5th centuries BC. The number, the quality and the extreme value of these objects makes it very difficult to interpret their role in the local society. However, a concentration of such finds in one place must reflect a concentration of economic, military, and, possibly, political power. The discovery from Witaszkowo also suggest that the local population from western Poland had direct contacts with the "classical" version of Scythian culture from the steppe zone.

The intensication of intercultural contacts in the northern Adriatic area coincided with developing contacts between the cultural group in Slovenia and the Scythian culture. The Scythian influences in the basin of the upper Sava probably appeared from the centre of the Vekerzug culture, through the area between the middle Danube and Balaton Lake where a number of objects of the Scythian type have been discovered (Fig. 40). After the regions of northern Alf6ld and south-western Slovakia were incorporated into the Scythian system of cultural interactions, the nomadic influences could expand further north into the territory of the present-day Czech Republic. A few objects of the Scythian-type have been discovered in the basin of the V eltava and the upper Elbe Rivers. However, the regions of Silesia and of south-western Poland in general, were probably much more interesting to communities from the Carpathian Basin, which already were strongly influenced by Scythian culture. In the Hallstatt C period, the richest and the most important group of the Lusatian culture was located in Silesia. This group played a very important role in the long distance trade and exchange systems which linked the northern and the southern parts of central Europe. This political and economic centre of power began to experience increasing influences from the southeast, as is shown by the appearance of metal objects of the Scythian-type. It is possible to distinguish three separate groups of these artefacts (Fig. 41). The first category contains the characteristic military equipment and horse bits of the Scythian-type. The second group includes the famous finds from Witaszkowo (Vettersfelde). The third category contains personal and clothing ornaments influenced by Scythian style (Bukowski 1977: 166-217).

Scythian-type artefacts are also represented by a number of small ornaments, including earrings, pins and bracelets, known from the area of the Tamobrzeg and the Wysocko groups of the Lusatian culture (Moskwa 1982: 301-349; Grupa Tamobrzeska Kultury Lu.iyckiej 1989, vol. 1 and 2). Finds of this type in much smaller concentration have also been found in other areas of the Lusatian culture and in Jutland (Bukowski 1977: 204-217). Most the bronze earrings, pins and other fine ornaments have been discovered between the Vistula and the San Rivers, and in the basin of the upper Bug River (western Ukraine but to the north of the Carpathian Mountains) (Map 58). Such ornaments could either be imported from the zone of Scythian culture or produced locally as imitations of eastern products. A location of these artefacts in the eastern area of the Lusatian culture is significant and suggests that they appeared there as a result of contacts with local Scythian groups in the forest-steppe zone,

The most characteristic elements of the first group are arrowheads. Early versions of the Scythian-type arrowheads have been found on a number of sites, including Chehnno, 51

Exchange and Cultural Interactions particularly from the region of the upper Dnestr. Such contact would not have needed to cross the Carpathians.

Volga and the Kama Rivers. These contacts were based on trade, exchange of prestige goods and relatively regular raids, which were a part of the social structures of very mobile groups of local populations, both in the region of the Baltic Sea and in the area of the east European steppes. In the communities strongly influenced by nomadic culture, internal prestige and political competitions were often transformed into external economic and political expansions. In many communities influenced by the nomadic culture a process of so-called detribalization took place (Taylor 1994: 1985). In this process old social relations based on kinship were to some extent replaced by more "competitive" social structures, in which the position of an individual was not only inherited but had to be maintained through symbolic and commercial exchange, as well as through warrior prowess .

Scythian-type artefacts from Silesia and western Poland are clearly related to these from the Carpathian Basin. A number of finds of Scythian character discovered in areas located on both sides of the Moravian Gate indicate that contacts between Silesia and the Carpathian Basin followed this route. Evidence of the Scythian-type of arrowheads in layers of destruction in many fortified settlements, from the end of the Hallstatt C period and beginning of the Hallstatt D, has, in the past, been interpreted as evidence of Scythian invasions. However, relations between populations strongly influenced by Scythian culture, occupying the Carpathian region, and south-western Poland, must have had a much more complicated character, involving intensive trade and exchange activities as well as raids. Nevertheless, as a result of increasing contacts with the nomadic cultures, the Silesian group of the Lusatian culture began to lose its dominant position in the interregional system of exchange which connected northern Italy with the Baltic regions. This process ran parallel to changes which took place in the area of the Hallstatt culture and with the occurrence of the Pomeranian culture, which began to develop as a new centre of economic and political power in the North European Plain .

8.7. Conclusion. Social, cultural and economic changes which took place in the east European and the central Asian steppes, in the first millennium BC, stimulated the physical mobility of local communities. These processes helped to develop closer interregional contacts. Although these contacts were very fragmented, different aspects of material and symbolic cultures were exchanged, often between very distant areas. The Scythians, and the systems of cultural interactions which developed under their influences, were only part of that large Eurasian network. The Scythians themselves had considerable impact on different regions, including Anatolia, the Caucasus, the steppe and the forest-steppe zones of eastern Europe, the Carpathian Basin, and other parts of central Europe.

In the second part of the Hallstatt C period and at the beginning the Hallstatt D, the Scythian systems of exchange not only incorporated a number of cultural groups from the area of barbarian Europe, but also strongly influenced other, older systems of exchange and cultural interactions which connected the southern and northern parts of central Europe. The constantly increasing position of Scythian culture in the Carpathian region limited the role of the Hallstatt culture in this area. Not much later, another centre of interregional trade and exchange, situated in Silesia, lost its dominant position as a result of an expanding power of Scythian culture in central Europe. The character of exchange and intercultural contacts, which linked different areas of the eastern and the central parts of the European continent, was similar to that which connected the western Baltic region with the eastern part of this sea and with centres of metal production in the area of the middle 52

Exchange and Intercultural Contacts Between the Southern and Northern Parts of Central Europe

IX. EXCHANGE AND INTERCULTURAL CONTACTS BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN PARTS OF CENTRAL EUROPE, IN THE PERIOD FROM HALLSTATT B3 TO HALLSTATT D.

Malinowski proposed two parallel systems of contacts (Map 62): • from the mouth of the Elbe, along the river towards the upper Danube; • from Samland to the lower Vistula; from there one branch led directly to the south through Kujavia and central Poland to the Moravian Gate, while the second branch led towards the south-west to the Komorowo-Gorszewice settlement complex, and from there it divided again into the western and the southern routes (Malinowski 1971: 102-110).

9.1. Introduction- the research on the amber routes. The discussion of the so-called amber routes begins with de Navarro's (1925) paper, later developed by Sturms (1953). For the early phase of the Bronze Age Navarro and Sturms suggested a northern route from Samland along the Baltic coast to the Odra estuary, then across Mecklenburg to the region of the lower Elbe. In the Early Iron Age these routes were reoriented and moved further east. The main routes ran from the middle Danube across the Carpathian Mountains, Lower Silesia and Great Poland to Kujavia, reaching the mouth of the Vistula (Map 59) and joining the systems of exchanie based on Baltic maritime activities (Navarro 1925: 496ff; Sturms 1953: 191ff; Bukowski 1990: 82-84).

An interesting reconstruction of trade routes in the late Hallstatt and the early La T ,ne periods in the Odra-Vistula basin has been offered by Chochorowski (1978). In his interpretation, in this period, Kujavia and eastern Pomerania played a particularly important role in a long-distance trade (Chochorowski 1978: 355-375). Bouzek (1978) analysed the problem of trade routes primarily in the context of influences from the eastern Mediterranean. In his view, in the Early Iron Age, there were two routes which led from the middle Danube: the western route went through Bohemia and along the Elbe, while the eastern route led through the Moravian Gate and along the Odra (Oder) River (Bouzek 1978: 47-56). Buck (1979; 1982) described potential connections between the Billendorf (Bialowice) group and the east Alpine area. According to his interpretation, the main routes started in the middle Danube and then crossed the Carpathian Mountains through the Moravian Gate and went to the north along the Odra (Oder) and Warta Rivers (Buck 1979: 79, Fig. 66; 1982: 215-224, Fig. 5). In studies of exchange, in the Hallstatt C and D periods, the most frequently used maps of trade routes are those presented by Horst (1982; 1987) (Map 63). Horst's reconstruction of systems of contexts is based on major central European rivers: the Weser, the Elbe, the Saale, the Odra (Oder) and the lower Vistula (Horst: 1987, 236).

The patterns of interregional contacts for the younger phases of the Nordic Bronze Age were presented by Sprockhoff (1930b ). His interpretation, based on the location of bronze hoards and a reconstruction of medieval route systems, proposed several communication systems (Map 60): • from southern Jutland to north Mecklenburg, then across the islands of Umam and Wolin, along the Pomerania to Samland; • from the Spree to the Odra (Oder), then through the southern part of Pomerania to the lower Vistula where it joined the first route; • two parallel routes, starting in the lower Elbe and running towards the Nysa (Neille) and the Odra (Oder) rivers up to the lower Warta and the central and lower Vistula. Sprockhoff also distinguished a route from the south, from the Moravian Gate across central Poland, which he believed crossed the Vistula near Torun and ran along the eastern bank of the river towards Samland (Sprockhoff 1930b: Pl. 45). Unfortunately Sprockhoff's proposal lacks a theoretical interpretation, and is little more than a "join the dots" exercise.

Bukowski (1990a, 1990b, 1992, 1993) has critically reviewed previous interpretations of the so-called amber routes, but he has not yet presented any alternatives. He has interpreted the archaeological evidence of trade only in general terms of intercultural contact between the East and West Hallstatt Cultures, the cultural groups from Moravia, and the Silesian group of the Lusatian Culture (together with the eastern part of the Billendorf group). According to Bukowski, the Moravian Gate held a specially important position in contacts between these cultural groups. He has also suggested that, in the Hallstatt D period, particularly in the second half of this period, elements of symbolic and material culture characteristic of northern Italy and the west Alpine region were introduced in Pomerania, through southern Germany and Mecklenburg. His general model of cultural interactions is shown on Map 64. Bukowski has presented a large quantity of archaeological evidence, but more recent chronological analysis suggests that many of the processes which he dated to the Hallstatt D period took place earlier in the Hallstatt C period; nor have his studies offered any theoretical interpretation of long-distance trade and interregional contact.

The nature of the main trade contacts in the Early Iron Age was discussed by Luka (1959); according to his interpretation, the most important route started from eastern Bohemia, then ran through the Klodzko Basin and Lower Silesia, where it split into two . The first branch ran through western Great Poland to Kujavia and then divided again, and on a much smaller scale, ran towards Samland and the mouth of the Vistula. The second route from Silesia ran towards the middle Warta and Kujavia (Map 61). Malinowski's (1971) interpretation of long-distance contacts between the northern and the southern parts of central Europe was strongly influenced by the results of the excavations of the Komorowo (fortified site) and Gorszewice (cemetery) complex in Poman province. His reconstruction of the main amber routes shows them running from the north to the south, and, according to his interpretation, a stimulating role in the interregional trade was played by the Baltic zone.

Apart from these general works on long-distance trade , there are many publications which have considered local aspects of 53

Exchange and Cultural Interactions exchange of other goods, which were probably even more important for an interregional trade than the amber itself. Nevertheless, amber is probably the only one of the northern goods which has been found in a large quantity in southern Europe. The Baltic Sea region has been the original source of amber for the world since prehistoric times, yet amber is not confined to the Baltic area. Different types of fossilised tree resins can be found in different parts of the world. The socalled Baltic amber is present "in situ" in the "blue earth" of the Baltic regions (Jutland, Pomerania and Samland) and in secondary contexts as far away as eastern England and Ukraine.

exchange. Examples might be found in the large collections of papers from the international conferences in Steyr in 1980 (Die Hallstattkultur 1981), Szombathely in 1982 (Savaria, 16; 1983), Budapest in 1986 (Jerem 1986), Rzesz6w in 1992 (Czopek 1992) and Sopron in 1996 (Jerem, Lippert 1996). Recently there have been a number of publications which have tried to place material evidence oflong-distance trade in the context of theoretical, and particularly, social interpretations. Interesting explanations of the central European exchange system have been presented by Kristiansen 1993, 1994 and Sherratt 1993c. On different levels of generalisation, they have tried to adopt a model of prestige-goods exchange and modified forms of "world system theoxy" to explain changes in trade networks closely related to the social and political changes which took place in this part of the continent. They have also stressed that patterns of exchange, in the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, shifted from the west (the Elbe River) to the east (the Odra River), and that the structure of these exchange systems was based on regular contacts with technologically and economically advanced cultures of the Mediterranean regions.

The richest deposits of amber occur in Jutland, Pomerania and Samland; and for these regions only that there is archaeological, ethnographical and written evidence for prehistoric and historic exploitation of amber deposits. It is vexy difficult to interpret the organisation and systems used to obtain amber in antiquity. Some idea can be gained by using the results of ethnographic studies conducted among communities engaged in collecting amber at the end of the 19th century. The archaic method of working and the kinship organization of a social group suggest that this system has an ancient origin (Natkanski 1992: 14-16).

The so-called amber routes were in use for several centuries but they cannot be understood in terms of being a single thoroughfare; instead they should be perceived as general directions of trade contacts between the north and the south. These long-distance exchange routes also had significant influences on the character and intensity of contacts between local tribes from the area between the Elbe, the Odra (Oder) and the Vistula Rivers. Most of the publications about contacts between the northern and the southern regions of central Europe have the character of regional catalogues of imports and most of them give only short and simple interpretations of the distribution of goods. The analyses of contacts between different parts of central Europe should include not only studies of foreign imports but also has to take into account the occurrence of hoards, distribution patterns of fortified settlements and settlement complexes associated with them, the presence of distinctive cemeteries or individual burials, and the general political and cultural situation in different regions of central Europe. Other elements of material and non-material culture which could be used to support an interpretation of interregional trade are changes in technology, art traditions and beliefs. The archaeology of the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age in the central part of the North European Plain have not so far benefited from complex interpretations of social, political and cultural change, embracing the importance of foreign influences and based on archaeological and anthropological models.

There is an enormous number of archaeological and nonarchaeological publications concerning the origin, use and trade of amber. These works have recently been reviewed in several separate bibliographies, including Beck, Gerving, Wilbur (1966; 1967); Sawkiewicz (1970); Pietrzak (1972); Usaciova (1981); Bogdasarov, Yurev (1990) and Kosmowska-Ceranowicz (ed.) (1993).

9.3. Old traditionsand new contacts (HallstattB3-C). As mentioned earlier, in the late Hallstatt B2 period, the Alpine region was incorporated into the chain of exchange connecting Jutland with the Carpathian Basin, and in the next phases of the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age (the Hallstatt B3-C), the Alpine area of central Europe played a key role in the system of interregional exchange. In the development of the Hallstatt culture, an important role was played by new influences from the south, from the Etruria and the Greek colonies, as well as some from the eastern region controlled by the nomadic tribes. These innovations, together with new social and symbolic values, were adopted by the transformed Urnfield groups. By the Hallstatt B3 period, the Alpine centres had taken over the position of the Carpathian region as the main participants in trade with the north.

The strong centre of political and economic power focused on the East Hallstatt culture developed its own coreperiphexy system, but it also benefited from interregional contacts with distant areas of the North European Plain, and of central and northern Italy. The Hallstatt B 3 period was also a time of significant change in other regions of central Europe. The old centre of long-distance exchange in the Carpathian Basin was incorporated into the east European (steppe) system of contacts, which developed under strong nomadic influences. At the same time, there was a significant

9.2.Amber. Since de Navarro's publication (1925), studies of trade between the northern and the southern parts of central Europe have concentrated on amber and distributions of artefacts made out of this fossil resin. However, although amber finds have survived and have been found on many archaeological sites, it is clear that trade of this material was accompanied by 54

Exchange and Jntercultural Contacts Between the Southern and Northern Parts of Central Europe

metallurgical production in the Pfahlbau region a number of different types of metal objects were distributed, the most characteristic among them being lanceheads (spears) of the Pfahlbau type, and, related to them, those of the Nordic type (Map 67). Other types of finds widely distributed along the western trade routes were vase-headed pins and ribbed armrings (Map 68).

shift of political, cultural and economic power in the north,

from the area of the lower Elbe to eastern Jutland, the Danish Islands and the region of the lower Oder River. In the Hallstatt B 3 period the development of an interregional system of exchange, in which an important role was played by the East Hallstatt culture, was accompanied by the appearance of another system of trade in many ways similar to systems known from the earlier periods (Hallstatt B 1_2). Through this exchange network, quantities of metal from the area of the western Alps were distributed northwards to the Baltic zone. As there was no clear division between these two systems of cultural interaction, the old network of connections based on the Bronze Age traditions was gradually replaced by the new system of contacts, which was stimulated by the rapid development of the Hallstatt civilization. The old and the new exchange networks to a large extent coexisted in the same chronological period, yet they were based on different principles and had different impacts on local communities. Furthermore, these two systems united different geographical areas and are represented by separate types of archaeological artefacts. The main exchange routes between the north and the south for the Hallstatt B 1•2 are presented on Map 65, while networks of long-distance contacts from the Hallstatt B3 and the first part of the Hallstatt C period are shown on Map 66.

The distribution of the metal objects mentioned above also suggest locations of regional centres of long-distance exchange. From north-western Switzerland the main trade routes went north-east along the Rhein, and a large concentration of artefacts, described earlier, have been discovered in the central sector of this river. Another important centre of exchange was probably located in the area of the central Elbe, from which there was relatively easy access to the Nordic zone, particularly to the region of the lower Odra, and to eastern Jutland and the Danish Islands (Kristiansen 1993: 144). The locations of important centres of interregional trade, in the Period V of the Montelian chronology, can be well demonstrated by a pattern of distribution of Waltenburg and Moringen types of swords (Map 69; Fig. 42)) (Millier-Karpe 1961: taf. 98-101). Most of these finds were discovered in regions which participated in long-distance exchange, for example western Croatia, Slovenia, northern Italy, areas on both sides of the Alps, a region between the central Rhein and the central Elbe, eastern Jutland, and western and eastern Pomerania.

The exchange system, which was influenced by the East Hallstatt culture, had already appeared in the Hallstatt B 3 period, but it played a particularly important role in the next period (Hallstatt C). From the eastern Alps, exchange routes pased through western Slovakia, Moravia to Silesia and from there along the Odra (Oder) to the area of the western Baltic, or (particularly in the Hallstatt C period) to central Poland, Kujavia and eastern Pomerania. Many scholars, influenced by their national preferences, have stressed the importance of the western or the eastern routes (Gedl 1992 and Kristiansen 1993). However, in my interpretation, these exchange routes, which to some extent chronologically overlapped each other, are clear reflections of the political and cultural changes which were takeing place, at this time, in central Europe. Moreover, it is generally accepted that through the Hallstatt B3 , C and the first part of D periods, political centres of power which were involved in long-distance exchange, in the area north of the Alps and Carpathians, were gradually moving eastward.

In the Hallstatt B 3 period, apart from ornaments and military equipment, different types of vessels and other objects related to a tradition of drinking have been found. The most impressive among them are amphorae with very characteristic "sunship bird" (Sonnenbarkenvogel) decorations (Jockenhovel 1974: 32) (Fig. 43). Objects of this type were usually found in rich graves in many areas of central Europe from France to the Carpathian Basin. The centres of their production, which developed from the Umfield origins, were located in northern or central Italy, in Hungary and probably somewhere north of the Alps. Wellknown examples of these amphorae have been found in a warrior burial at Veii in central Italy, in an aristocratic grave from Gevlinghausen in north-western Germany; they are also known from the "royal" cemetery at Seddin on the Elbe and from northern Jutland in Denmark (Kristiansen 1993: 147148).

9.3.1. The western exchange routes (Bronze Age traditions).

Kristiansen (1993), and other scholars have distinguished, in the northern part of central Europe, several centres of economic and political power, which benefited from participation in long-distance exchange networks. Among the most important were those in Seddin, and in V oldtofte on Funen. Wiistemann (1974) has presented the results of interesting studies in the area of Seddin, where a number of hoards, Umfield and barrow cemeteries have been found. From this region almost 1000 burials are known from urnfield cemeteries. They are generally poor, only 17 per cent of them containing grave goods. These Umfield graves are in clear contrast with rich burials, of which 320 have been discovered in 240 barrows. There were further distinctions in internal ranking between people deposited in barrows. The

The most recent analysis of the western trade routes from the Alpine region to Scandinavia has recently been presented by Kristiansen (1993; 1994), developing an earlier proposal suggested by Sprockhoff (1951). In this exchange network a very important role was played by the centre of metal production situated in the Pfahlbau region in north-western Switzerland between the upper Rhein and the upper Rhone. This location provided relatively easy access to the area of Marseille, where in the 6th century BC an important Greek colony developed, and across the Alps to the Po valley and also northward to central Germany. From centres of

55

Exchange and Cultural Interactions

9.4. A new system of interregional contacts - the Hallstatt world.

first, larger group of graves was built in the form of stone cairns, which were relatively small, with rather sparse grave goods. The second category of barrows was less common. They were usually bigger and made of turf and earth (Kristiansen 1993: 148-149). In almost half the cairns and barrows, metal objects were deposited, often in large quantity.

By the Hallstatt B 3 period another central European interregional system of cultural interaction had begun to develop, which differed significantly from those apparent in the Bronze Age. The new system also helped to maintain the high social position of the elites, yet the old Bronze Age value system, based on prestige goods, was replaced by new structures which expressed social and political relations through a new set of objects, burial traditions, and hierarchical settlement patterns. The development of the Hallstatt culture also had a considerable impact on changes in religious beliefs and economic structures over large areas of central Europe. The changes evident in barbarian Europe at the beginning of the Iron Age were the result of the internal development of the Urnfield traditions and interactions with external cultures (Greeks, Phoenicians, Etruscans and nomads from eastern Europe). The earliest innovating areas of the Hallstatt culture developed in the zone of the southern groups of the Urn:field culture (Upper and Lower Austria, and southern Germany). In the following centuries different elements of the Hallstatt culture were accepted in a large area of western and central Europe; from France in the west, through the regions of the upper and middle Rhine and the upper and middle Danube, to the coast of the Adriatic Sea in the east.

Size, construction and a large number of imports suggest that the so-called "royal" barrows in Seddin were afforded special distinction. The most famous among them is 11 meters high and 80 meters in diameter and is the biggest barrow in northern Europe. Specially selected stones were used to build the chamber which had a corbelled roof, a construction of this type can only be compared to barrows from Bulgaria and the Balkans (Wiistemann 1974; Sprockhoff 1957a). The walls of the burial chamber were covered with plaster and decorated with red-white-black paintings. A tradition of wall plastering and painting is also known from another centre of interregional contact, situated further north at Voldtofte on Funen. In this "royal" grave, skeletons of one male and two females were discovered along with a number of different types of artefacts. The metal objects were probably of both foreign (swords, amphora and other vessels) and local (razors, tweezers and knives) origins. The large quantity of pottery vessels from this barrow is also outstanding. The area of Seddin has provided clear evidence of social stratification; best explained by supposing that control over long-distance exchange helped local elites to maintain their paramount positions in the social hierarchy. The important position of the Seddin area in interregional trade owed much to its geographical location, which gave relatively easy access to the Nordic zone, the Lusatian culture, and the Urnfield groups from central Germany.

9.4.1. A new model of contacts and general cultural changes.

It is clear that from the Hallstatt B 3 period networks of exchange began to be much more complicated and it is too simplistic to limit them only to two-sided transactions between the north and the south . The Hallstatt culture played an important part in the exchange systems which directly united the Mediterranean world and northern Europe. Bronze and iron weapons and ornaments, painted pottery, large fortified settlements and rich burials in monumental graves together reflect the contacts between the Hallstatt culture and other parts of barbarian Europe. In the first part of its development (the Hallstatt BrC period) the Hallstatt culture expanded its influences eastward and established close relations with the Bylany and the Horakov cultures, located in the Czech Republic, and the Kalenderberg culture of south-western Slovakia and Austria. In the same period areas situated even further north, in Silesia and the Billendorf group, were probably included in the system of cultural and economic exchange, which was stimulated by the East Hallstatt culture. From these regions, trade routes extended to regional centres of exchange situated in the North European Plain and in the Baltic zone. A general model of exchange and cultural interactions in the Hallstatt world, in the Hallstatt B 3 period, is presented on Map 71. In the Hallstatt B 3 period the main exchange routes was based on the Odra (Oder), which gave easy access to northern Germany (Seddin), eastern Jutland and to central Poland, where important centres of political and economic power (Komorowo-Gorszewice, Biskupin and other settlements from this area) had started to develop. At the end of this period, but particularly in the next, Hallstatt C, period

As mentioned earlier, another centre of exchange, and one of outstanding wealth, was located at V oldtofte on Funen (Thrane 1984; 1990). A high concentration of bronze objects and a tradition of wall-plastering suggest the existence of significant similarities between this region and the area of Seddin but the smaller size of the barrows and the significant quantity of the Lusatian type of pottery discovered in this region, suggest strong connections with areas located south of the Baltic Sea. These connections were probably more important in the second part of the Hallstatt B 3 period and particularly in the Hallstatt C.

The significant position of central and northern Germany in long-distance exchange systems, in the Hallstatt B period, is also shown by the distribution of iron artefacts which have been found in concentrations along the central part of the Elbe. In the later periods (Hallstatt C-D), iron finds have usually been recorded in the area of the Nysa (Neille) and the lower Odra (Oder). The distribution of iron artefacts from the Period III to VI, in the Montelian chronology, is shown on Map 70. It is important to stress that it is very unlikely that local centres of iron production north of the Sudeten and the Bohemian Ore Mountains had developed on a large scale before the Hallstatt C-D period. In the earlier periods iron goods were obtained from regions situated further south. 56

Exchange and lntercultural Contacts Between the Southern and Northern Parts of Central Europe made locally under strong southern influences (Kossack 1983: 96); yet it does not alter the fact that the concept of their production was imported from other distant regions of central Europe. A similar process happened in a pottery production, when at the end of the B 3 period and particularly the Hallstatt C, the importation of Hallstatt painted pottery preceded the development of local production centres (Alfawicka 1970).

and probably in the first part of the Hallstatt D, exchange networks, which connected the East Hallstatt culture through Moravia and western Slovakia with Silesia and central Poland, played the most important role in a system of interregional contacts between the southern and the northern parts of central Europe. During the transition period from the Hallstatt C to D, as a result of political and economic changes, the most active centre of the Hallstatt culture moved westward from the area of the East Hallstatt culture to the area of the West Hallstatt culture. At the same time the increasing influence of Scythian culture limited contacts between the Alpine area and the Silesian group of the Lusatian culture, which, as a result, lost its important position in the system oflong-distance exchange.

In the Hallstatt C period, cultural influences from the east Alpine region had an impact on changes in funeral traditions in some regions of central Europe, for example in Silesia, where a new custom appeared in which cremated bodies were deposited in graves within wooden chambers (typified by the cemetery at Kietrz) (Gedl 1991: 112-117). At the same time, in areas north of the Alps, a significant increase in a knowledge of iron metallurgy probably took place (Bukowski 1981; Gedl 1983).

Despite Kristiansen's (1993: 147) interpretation, the western group of the Lusatian culture had begun to be involved in interregional exchange with the Hallstatt world already in the Hallstatt B3 period. In this area influences of the east Alpine region continued throughout the Hallstatt C period. For both periods it is possible to distinguish significant changes in the types of objects imported. The Hallstatt influences, however, were not only limited to the exchange of prestige and luxurious objects. Many other elements of material and nonmaterial culture characteristic of the Hallstatt civilization were adopted in Moravia, Bohemia, western Slovakia and Silesia. For example, there were significant changes in funeral traditions, pottery technology, metal production, and fashions of body ornaments and clothes. Influences from the east Alpine region also had an impact on changes in settlement pattern, the development of fortified sites, and general changes in the political and economic structures of local communities. It is clear that these new cultural elements were adopted in different ways in different regions of central Europe. Nevertheless, even distant cultural groups, for example Billendorf and Silesia, became peripheral parts of a single system which developed under influences from the Hallstatt core.

Already in the second half of the Hallstatt C period, significant changes in the pattern and character of the contacts between the northern and the southern parts of central Europe had began. The region of southern Germany, particularly northern Bavaria and the Upper Palatinate, increased its role in transmitting cultural influences and southern imports to Bohemia, Silesia and central Poland. A number of small ornaments discovered in all these areas have significant similarities to each other. Characteristic are the socalled vase-headed pins and pins with ends in the shape of spiral (Gedl 1992: 27). During the transition from the Hallstatt C period to the Hallstatt D close relations were established between the Bylany culture and the South Bohemian Barrows culture (now in the territory of the Czech Republic), and cultural groups from southern Gennany. Probably, through these connections, fibulae of the West Hallstatt origin and some Italian objects (bronze vessels, bronze chain and horse bits) were distributed to the east and north, as far as central and northern Poland.

In the second phase of the Hallstatt influences (the transition Ha C-D), the previous trade route, from Italy, and the east Alpine region, to western Slovakia, Moravia, Silesia and central Poland, remained in use. Through this network of contacts, north Italian and the East Hallstatt luxury objects and ornaments, such as different types of fibulae including harp-shaped fibulae (Harfenfibel) (Map 87) and Certosa type, and some glass beads, were distributed to the north. Examples of different types of the Hallstatt and Italian fibulae, found in Poland, are shown on Fig. 45. At the same time advanced technologies of iron metallurgy were introduced, and it is possible that the production of iron, from local beds of bog iron ore, began in some areas situated in the northern part of central Europe (Bukowski 1990b: 73; 1992: 41).

Parts of Bohemia, Moravia and western Slovakia probably at first experienced intensive contacts with the East Hallstatt culture, but not much later the rich and intensively developing Silesian group of the Lusatian culture became part of the same phenomenon. In all these regions the earliest strong East Hallstatt influence began in the second part of the Hallstatt B 3 period and continued through most of the Hallstatt C period. Most of the metal imports found in these areas had prestige character, for example, bronze vessels, ornaments (fibulae, pins), arms (swords made of bronze or iron and characteristic flat flanged iron axes), elements of horse gear and bronze razors, but also raw metals, particularly iron (Fig. 44) (Bukowski 1990b: 73; 1992: 41; Gedl 1992: 23). For the Hallstatt B3 period, the clearest indication of intensive contact between the Baltic zone and the area of the northern Adriatic is represented by the distribution of the so-called spectacles-shaped fibulae (Map 72).

In the Hallstatt D period, particularly in its final stage, when, as a result of internal changes and influences from the Scythian "world", the centre of the Hallstatt culture moved to the west the Silesian group of the Lusatian culture lost its important position in interregional system of exchange. At the same time trade routes from central and northern Italy

It is possible that some examples of finds mentioned above, and particularly those which are associated with the later period of transition between the Hallstatt C and D, were 57

Exchange and Cultural Interactions through southern, central and then eastern Germany to eastern Pomerania started to play a dominant role. From this period a few items of Etruscan pottery have been discovered north of the Alps (Bukowski 1992: 41). Significant similarities in funeral traditions, such as house-urns and faceurns, known from Italy, central Germany and Pomerania, suggest strong cultural connections between these areas. Moreover, in eastern Pomerania large quantities of the socalled blue glass beads and cowrie shells have been found, and they were all most certainly imported from (or via) Italy.

territory of the Bylany culture one Attic black-figured ware was also found, which could have had its origins in southern France or possibly central Italy, where similar artefacts have been discovered in a large quantity (Kimmig 1983: 36-37, Fig. 28). The Hallstatt influences in this region also had an impact on the symbolic life and funeral traditions of the local population. In many graves horse-bits or even fragments of wagons (particularly of the western types) have been discovered, for example in barrow no. 28 from Hradenin, district Kolin (Bukowski 1992: 43).

In the Hallstatt B 3-C period, the Billendorf group, from the area between the Elbe and the Nysa (Neille) Rivers, experienced influences from the Hallstatt world, clearly demonstrated in changes in styles of pottery production. Furthermore, in the next period (HaD), despite a decline of the East Hallstatt culture and the Silesian group, the Billendorf group continued its development and began to play a relatively important role as a local centre of metal production and trade. Some elements of Hallstatt metallurgical traditions where also adopted by another political and economic centre located further north in Pomerania (Gedl 1992: 27).

The western and southern parts of the Czech Republic established close relations with areas of south-western Germany relatively early, this is shown by similar types of grave deposits (Bukowski 1993: 77). It was probably from there, in the Hallstatt D period, that these regions of the Czech Republic received Etruscan imports, in forms of characteristic bronze bowls (Peschel 1979: 226-227, Fig. 2; Chytracek 1983: 427-445, Fig. 1) and flagons (Schnabelkannen), which, in Europe, appeared in two significant concentrations, in northern and central Italy and in the middle Rhein (Peschel 1979: 230-231; Chytracek 1983: 432-435, Fig. 3-4; Kimmig 1983: 39-41, Fig. 32).

9.4.2. The first zone ofHallstatt influence.

In the early stage of the development of the Hallstatt zone of political, economic and cultural influences (the Hallstatt B 3-C period), the Bylany and the South Bohemian Barrow Grave cultures participated in long-distance exchange which helped to introduce a new technology, ideas and models of social organization to areas situated further north and east, to Silesia and Saxony, and particularly to the Billendorf group. The upper Elbe was probably used as the most important exchange route connecting the regions located on both sides of the Sudeten Mountains and Erzgebirge. Further north this route followed the middle and lower Odra (Oder). In the next period (the Hallstatt C), this system of interregional contacts played a less important role and the main exchange routes developed through Moravia and Silesia. Even so, during the final stage of the Hallstatt D period (HaD 2•3), the western and southern part of the Czech Republic again began to play an important role in trade between the southern and the northern parts of central Europe.

In the Hallstatt B 3-C period, a peripheral zone of the East Hallstatt culture expanded into the territory of the present-day Czech Republic, western Slovakia and southern Germany. In the Early Iron Age, southern and western parts of the Czech Republic, where the Bylany and the South Bohemian Barrow Graves cultures developed, acted as a natural connection between the East Hallstatt culture and the Upper Palatinate, Lower Silesia, the Billendorf group and the basin of the Odra (Oder) River, which at that time played an important role in the long-distance exchange system. The most characteristic Alpine type of artefacts from this part of the Czech Republic are represented by a number of bronze situlae and cistae found in graves (Praveke 1978: 580-581, Fig. 180), dated to the Hallstatt C period or beginning of the Hallstatt D (HaD 1) (Bukowski 1993: 76). Examples of these artefacts have been discovered in the Zbesicek-Hanov district Pisek, Strelsky Hostic near Strakonic, Skalic district Sobeslava and Dobfan district Pilzno (Bukowski 1992: 42); and some of them are presented on Fig. 46. Large quantities of metal objects have been found in some of the rich graves of the South Bohemian Barrow Graves culture. These finds had their origin in two cultural areas which are significantly different; in Upper Austria (large decorated bowls) and the Upper Palatinate (horse-gear). The group of rich graves include barrows from Dysiny (grave no. 2), near Pilzno, and Cervene Poi'ici, near Klatov (Fig. 47).

In the region located to the east of the Bylany culture, which in the Late Bronze Age was influenced by the Lusatian culture, Hallstatt and north Italian imports appeared in much smaller quantity than in the regions described above. They are represented by tools, ornaments and single finds ofhorsebits, although in a few rich graves of Hallstatt type bronze swords have been discovered (Bukowski 1993: 78). In addition, one cista and a few other bronze vessels reached Skalice near Sobeslav (Praveke 1978: 582). From this part of the Czech Republic various non-metal objects, which were imported from the south or produced locally under the southern influences, are known, including a large quantity of glass beads, dated to the Hallstatt D period, pottery situlae, and fibulae from cemeteries in Platenice, district of Pardubice, and Pfedmefice district of Hradec Kralove (Filip 1969: 1231). It is clear, however, that the part of the Czech Republic located south of the central part of the Sudeten Mountains played a lesser role in interregional exchange, in

In the area of the Bylany culture metal products of Alpine, north Italian or even Slovenian origin have appeared in smaller concentrations and the very rich graves there are less common. Though a number of graves containing a sparse assemblage of metal goods are known, including PrahaStresovice, Rvenice (barrow no. 2), district Louny, Nebovidy, district Kolin, and Stradonice, district Louny (Pleinerova 1973: 272-296, Fig. 1: 1-4, 2: 2, 6: 5). In the 58

Exchange and Jntercultural Contacts Between the Southern and Northern Parts of Central Europe interesting. Ibis amber was probably obtained through the very active centres of the East Hallstatt culture in Lower and Upper Austria.

the Early Iron Age, than areas situated to the west and east of this territory. From the end of the Hallstatt B3 period until the first part of the Hallstatt D, Moravia (the eastern region of the Czech Republic) together with western Slovakia played a significant role in long-distance exchange. Ibis area forms a natural geographical connection between the eastern Alps and regions situated north of the Sudeten and Carpathian Mountains, and it was probably through this territory that most of the southern products were imported to upper and central Silesia. In the Early Iron Age, in the southern part of Moravia, the Horakov culture developed, while in northern Moravia strong late Lusatian influences were present. The first phase of contacts between the Horakov culture and the East Hallstatt centre (for most of the Hallstatt C period) is represented by a standard collection of Alpine and north Italian imports, also known from other regions of central Europe, for example different types of bronze vessel, often with animal and sun-like decorations, horse-bits, weapons, and ornaments, particularly fibulae. Almost all these artefacts have been found in rich graves, like the "Hlasnica" barrow near Horakov, barrow no. 2 from Brno-Holasky, grave no. 78 from Klentnic district Bi'eclav and an inhumated grave from Brno-Zidenice (Bukowski 1992: 45). A selection of the finds from these grave are presented on Fig. 48. In the next period (the first part of HaD), the southern (Hallstatt and Italian) products and their imitations found in southern Moravia are mostly represented by different types of fibulae, tools, and a few other iron objects (Podborsky 1972: 6-7; 389-404, Fig. 6B, 40). Exceptions to this are a very rich "princely-grave" found in the cave Byci skala near Brno and hoards discovered at the same site (Nekvasil 1969: 38-49; Podborsky 1972: 53). In this cave a number of ornaments, tools, military equipment and five bronze cistae were found (Fig. 49). Apart from objects of southern origin, dated to the Hallstatt D2 period (Bukowski 1992: 45), other artefacts from different parts of central Europe have been discovered, for instance the so-called Scythian-type of military equipment from the east, and amber (two necklaces made of 512 and 656 beads) from the north. Amber itself was clearly imported from the Baltic area, but sophisticated necklaces were produced locally, or even more likely in one of the centres of the Hallstatt culture (Hallstatt 1969: 87, Tab. 16). Smaller quantities of amber or only single beads are also known from other rich "princely-graves" in the Czech Republic and western Slovakia (Podborsky 1972: 21; Praveke 1978: 477481, 576).

In northern Moravia the pattern of southern influences, represented by a distribution of southern imports, is similar to this known from the southern part of this region. Alpine and north Italian imports, mostly in a form of ornaments, have been found, usually in graves (for example at a cemetery in Moravicany, district Sumperk (Nekvasil 1982)). An exception to this is a very rich hoard from Naklo, district Olomouc (Podborsky 1960: 49-50, Tab. 9; Stjernquist 1967: t.I 53-55, t.11 Tab. 28:1). However, there are significant difficulties with the exact dating of this find; apart from a bronze cista from the Hallstatt D2•3 period eight bronze bowls dated to the Hallstatt B 1•2 period were discovered (Bukowski 1993: 78; 1992: 45). Another hoard, containing not only bronze objects but also a number of amber beads, is known from Sarovy near Uherskeho Hradiste, district Gottwaldov (Dohnal 1977: 59). The fortified settlement from StramberkKotouc, district Novy Jicin, located in northern Moravia near the Moravian Gate, particularly benefited from participation in long-distance exchange. The stratigraphy suggests that this site was destroyed and re-occupied several times between the Hallstatt B period and the end of the Hallstatt D, although the five hoards found inside of the settlement have been dated to Hallstatt B and B/C periods (Podborsky 1967: 8-10; 1970: 30-35, Tab. 230). Arrowheads of the Scythian-type have been discovered in a destruction layer dated to the Hallstatt D2 period (or earlier), suggesting that the region located south of the Moravian Gate experienced the same process of a political destabilisation as areas north of the Sudeten and Carpathian Mountains. In the neighbouring areas of south-east Moravia, in Lower Austria and in south-western Slovakia, the so-called Kalenderberg culture developed. Ibis culture was an important part of the prime zone within the East Hallstatt culture's sphere of influence (Romsauer 1981). These intensive interactions with "the Hallstatt core" are expressed in the funeral tradition, the technology of pottery production and the settlement pattern (including the development of fortified sites) (Pichlerova 1969). However, metal objects of the southern origin are represented there only by ornaments (usually fibulae), horse-bits and iron tools (Bukowski 1992: 4 7). One important political and economic centre in the Kalenderberg culture, which played a significant role in trade with the north, was situated in Smolenice-Molpir, district Trnava. Ibis fortified settlement was occupied between the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, and its final destruction is dated to the beginning of the Hallstatt D period (HaD 112) (Dusek and Dusek 1984; Novotna 1991: 68ft). A large number of the Scythian-type arrowheads have been found in the destruction layer of this site; this has parallels to the findings from the site at Stramberk-Kotouc in Moravia.

The local communities of southern Moravia were not only influenced by the Hallstatt culture but could also have contacts with eastern areas of central Europe, which participated in the nomadic system of cultural interactions. In south-western Slovakia and Hungary a number of amber beads have been discovered, especially in graves from cemeteries related to the Scythian tradition in Chotin, district Komamo (Dusek 1966: 33ff; Beck, Dusek 1969: 247-258), Csanytelek-Ujhalast6 near Szeged (Galantha 1986: 69ff, Tab. 5: 5) and Sopron-Krautacker (Jerem 1981: 114-115, Fig. 7: 1-5). In this context the large assemblages of Baltic amber found in Slovenia and north-western Croatia are particularly

In northern and north-western Slovakia, the Hallstatt influences were mixed with strong Lusatian traditions. An intensive occupation, represented by a number of cemeteries and fortified settlements, concentrated in the areas of Liptov and Orava (Budinsky-Kricka 1947: 88-97, Maps 8-9; 59

Exchange and Cultural Interactions influence of the East Hallstatt culture. This process probably took place in a relatively short period, although it had a veiy intensive character and is represented by important changes in material and symbolic culture. As a result of contacts with the south, a number of bronze ornaments (pins, fibulae), glass beads, iron products and possibly knowledge of iron metallurgy were introduced to the Billendorf group. These contacts had even more impact on funeral traditions (the introduction of graves with wooden chambers known for instance from sites in Cottbus and Bautzen) and methods of potteiy production (new forms of pots and decorative motives characteristic for the East Hallstatt culture) (Buck 1979; 1982; Peschel 1990). Examples of artefacts related to the Hallstatt types known from the Billendorf groupe are . presented on Fig. 50. In the Hallstatt DJ/2 period, the Billendorf group reestablished its contacts with the south through the Bylany culture, but on a much reduced scale (Peschel 1990: 31-33, Map 2-3).

Caplovic 1987). As in the Kalenderberg culture, southern imports are mostly represented by bronze ornaments and some iron products. Only two hoards containing Etruscan vessels are known from the final stage of the Hallstatt D period. A bronze jar and several bowls were discovered in Sul'ov, district Povazska Bystrica, and in Novaky, district Previdza (Novotna 1991: 70-74, Tab. 12: 64, 13: 65). In other hoards from the areas of the Poprad and the Dunajec Rivers valleys, notably from Marcinkowice, Stary Sll_czand Swidnik all near Nowy Sll_cz, and from Wakij6w near Zamosc and KrasnaHorka-Medvedzie district Dolny Kubin, metal products characteristic for the regions situated both north and south of the Carpathian Mountains have been found (Bukowski 1993: 79).

9.4.3. The secondzone ofHallstatt influence. The area of the Czech Republic, western Slovakia, and some parts of southern and central Germany, can be defined as a first zone of Hallstatt influence in the north and north-east. Throughout most of the Late Bronze Age the forms of exchange and interregional contacts, between these areas, were significantly different from those characteristic of the transition period between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. Control over the distribution and trade in bronze, particularly weapons, ornaments and drinking vessels, was now of little significance in helping to maintain social structures. Local elites started to express their status through other aspects of the material and symbolic culture, for example funeral traditions and new systems of settlements. As result, in some areas where the cultural impact of the Hallstatt culture was strong and clear, only a few southern luxurious objects have been discovered, as in the Kalenderberg culture. At the same time, in local communities in which social structures were based on old Late Bronze Age traditions, the distribution of prestige objects of southern origin played a much more important role, as for instance, in the northern parts of central Europe. However, southern imports preserved in graves need not necessary represent the full circulation of these objects.

From the Hallstatt C period, the eastern part of the Billendorf group was also influenced by important economic and political centre from Silesia. It is possible that a number of hoards, which have been discovered between the Nysa (Neille) and Odra (Oder) Rivers reflect these influences, such as those from Bobrowice, Cielm6w, Slocin and Wicin, all from the voivodeship of Zielona Gora (Bukowski 1993: 85). Many of these hoards contained luxurious objects of southern origin characteristic for hoards known from Silesia. The Billendorf group has also produced a 0.40kg hoard of amber. Amber beads have also been found in several cemeteries and settlements of this cultural group (Buck 1979: 110,203). There are a number of other similarities between the Billendorf group and the Silesian group of the Lusatian culture, which suggest that both these areas, possibly as a result of contacts with the Hallstatt world, followed similar patterns of development during the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Bronze Age. For instance, in both regions new forms of graves containing wooden chambers appeared, and potteiy production was significantly influenced by the Hallstatt traditions. The development of the Silesian cultural group took place between the Hallstatt B 3 and D periods, but it played a particularly important role in the Hallstatt C period, at which time it acted as a local centre spreading new values and ideas adopted from the Hallstatt world. The contacts between the first and second zones of Hallstatt influences, particularly between Bohemia, a part of Moravia, and Silesia (or generally south-western Poland) is represented through the distribution of "harp-shaped fibulae" (Harfenfibeln); Map 87 (Nebelsick 1994: 334, Abb. 19). The southern influences on the area of present-day Poland have been a subject of interest for a number of archaeologists (Luka 1959; 1963b; Alfawicka 1970; Malinowski 1974; 1984; Bukowski 1990b; 1992; 1993; Gediga 1992; Gedl 1991; 1992).

Some elements of this process also took place in the second Hallstatt-influenced zone which includes areas north of the Sudeten and Carpathian Mountains, particularly the region between the middle Elbe and the Nysa (Neille) Rivers (the Billendorf group), and Silesia. The first of these regions (Elbe-Nysa) played an important role in the period of transition between the Hallstatt B 3 and C periods and to a lesser extent in the Hallstatt D, while Silesia was significant in long-distance exchange and cultural interaction in the Hallstatt C period and probably at the beginning of the Hallstatt D. In this zone, patterns of interregional contact changed not only chronologically but also in character. The Billendorf group, which in archaeological literature has been described as a separate culture or as a part of the Lusatian culture, was located between the middle Elbe, Nysa (Neille) and middle Odra (Oder), and this helped the Billendorf group to establish its important position in the long-distance exchange networks. In the period between the Hallstatt B3 and C (Peschel 1990: 30), a large part of Saxony, Brandenburg and north-western Silesia came under the

Metal objects of Alpine and Italian origin, which have been found in the area of the Warta and Odra Rivers, represent types described in the earlier part of this chapter, and they are similar to those discovered in Lower Austria, Bohemia and Moravia. It was probably through these regions that the 60

Exchange and Jntercultural Contacts Between the Southern and Northern Parts of Central Europe

influenced by Nordic cultural traditions, and they participated in a separate system of exchange which expanded from west to east along the Baltic Sea A very interesting process of change took place in areas located between the second zone of the Hallstatt influences, in Silesia and Saxony, and the Nordic world. The intensive development of local communities from western parts of central Poland and neighbouring areas of eastern Germany was characteristic of the final stage of the Bronze Age. This development was expressed in the occurrence of fortified settlements, which appeared in large numbers in regions situated east of the middle Elbe and west of the middle Vistula (Map 9). Some of these fortified sites might have had their roots in the traditions going back to the earlier phases of the Bronze Age. However, changes in their geographical location must relate to changes in patterns of the long-distance exchange. The development of a concentration of fortified settlements in Great Poland and Kujavia is most likely associated with changes which began in the Baltic zone at the end of the Period V. As a result of these, political and cultural centres in the Nordic world gradually shifted eastward, allowing areas of western and central Poland to play an increasingly important role in interregional contacts.

exchange routes, which connected the Hallstatt centre with Silesian periphery, passed. It is generally accepted that the southern products were brought to the north in two different phases. The first one began at the end of the Hallstatt B3 period and continued through the Hallstatt C. In this phase contacts were intensive and are represented by a large quantity of bronze vessels (amphorae, cistae and situlae) (Map 73), ornaments (fibulae, pins), weapons (swords made of bronze or iron and characteristic flat flanged iron axes), elements of horse gear and bronze razors, and also raw metal, particularly iron, and iron objects (knives). The distribution of Alpine and Italian imports found north of the Sudeten and the Carpathian Mountain is shown on Map 74. At the same time, as a result of intensive cultural and trade contacts, a new tradition of pottery production was introduced to Silesia, represented by a characteristic form of vessel decorated with motives derived from the Hallstatt culture (particularly from the East Hallstatt). These changes are even more clearly represented in the introduction of painted pottery, which was originally produced in the Hallstatt centre (Map 75). In the Hallstatt C period, an active local centre of production of painted pottery developed in Silesia, supplying its products to other regions situated north of the Sudeten Mountains (Map 76). Contacts with the Hallstatt civilization also influenced the symbolic culture and funeral traditions of local communities in Silesia and other parts of central Europe. In some cemeteries in south-western Poland inhumation graves, known there from earlier phases of the Bronze Age, re-appeared. In a few cemeteries, graves with wooden chambers were also found, as for example, at Kietrz. Development of this tradition represented significant changes in the social structure of the local population, which were stimulated by contact with the Alpine region. The distribution of cemeteries with wooden grave chambers is shown on Map 77.

Bronze Age (Lusatian) traditions played an essential role in the development of local communities in the area of Great Poland and Kujavia. Large fortified settlements, characteristic of this region, appeared in the final stage of the Bronze Age and not as a result of a new Iron Age influences from the south, as was previously suggested in older Polish archaeological literature (Niesiolowska-W¢zka 1974; 1980; 1989). While it is clear that the population of the fortified sites benefited from contacts with the south and played an important role in a long-distance exchange system, this area was not directly incorporated into the Mediterranean or even the Hallstatt world. The study of settlement development in the area of Great Poland and Kujavia would form the basis for a separate publication. However, the results of the excavations at Biskupin, and other fortified sites in these regions, have not been analysed and published properly. Information about many sites is often limited to short postexcavation reports, in which the results have not been presented in the context of the broader archaeological situation in micro and macro regions. Exceptions to this are found only in a few recent publications (Jaskanis (ed.) 1991; Ostoja-Zag6rski 1993; Niewiarowski (ed.) 1995); but sadly most of these works rely heavily on environmental determinism to explain the cultural changes observed in the western part of central Poland.

In the second phase of contact between the Hallstatt and the north and north-east, the character of this interaction changed significantly. Southern products began to be represented not only by the East Hallstatt and north Italian imports but also by objects from the west Alpine centres and southern Germany, for example swords, horse-bits, some types of fibulae and pins, and a number of other small metal objects. This second phase, during which a system of long-distance exchange linked the west Alpine centres and Upper Palatinate with the Czech Basin, central Silesia and northern part of central Poland, had already begun in the Hallstatt C period, and in modified form continued into the Hallstatt D period. Silesia, however, ceased to play a central role in this system in the first part of the Hallstatt D period, probably as the result of events which took place in the Carpathian Basin and the general process of political and economic destabilisation which happened in areas of the Lusatian culture.

In my opinion, intensive development among local communities in Great Poland and Kujavia can best be explained by changes in the cultural and political situation in central Europe. A number of fortified settlements have been located in a small area between the Nordic zone and the Hallstatt world (Map 78). The social structure of the communities living at these sites relied in part on local and long-distance exchange as well as on the intensive agricultural activities needed to provide food for large concentrated populations (probably up to 2000) (OstojaZag6rski 1993: 51). Despite the generally accepted opinion,

9.5. Beyond the Hallstattworld. 9.5.1. On the edge of two worlds. Regions situated north of the Silesian and the Billendorf groups, particularly those of the Baltic zone, were strongly 61

Exchange and Cultural Interactions

9.5.2. Access to the Baltic.

different sites belonging to the so-called Biskupin type did not follow similar patterns of development. Their internal architecture as well as their defence systems represent significantly different building traditions (Smigielski 1991: 28-29). Fwthermore, results of recent radiocarbon and dendrochronological analyses suggest that many of these settlements developed during a relatively long period between Hallstatt B 3 and the end of the Hallstatt C (Miklaszewska-Balcer 1991: 107-112; Pazdur, Mikl:aszewska-Balcer, Piotrowski, W~grzynowicz 1991: 115123; Zaj~czkowski 1995: 78-84; Wazny 1993: 3-5; Piotrowski, Zaj~czkowski 1996: 61-62). Local communities in Great Poland and Kujavia began to build large defence systems employing sophisticated architecture, mostly as the result of internal changes and only to a small degree in response to external threats. Even if this area of central Poland experienced some political instability, during the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, the decline of fortified sites is best seen in the context of changes in systems of interregional contacts, and particularly to increasing influences of the nomadic world in the southern part of Poland (Silesia). The region of Great Poland and Kujavia played a very important role in contacts between the Hallstatt culture and areas situated in the northern part of central Europe. After significant changes in the long-distance exchange routes the local communities of Great Poland and Kujavia often continued to occupy the same sites but in the form of open settlements.

As we have seen, in Hallstatt B 3 and Hallstatt C, local communities from the region of the Billendorf group and the Lusatian culture (from Great Poland and Kujavia) helped to transmit, first to Mecklenburg and the lower Oder (Odra) region and then further north to eastern Jutland and southern Sweden, Italian and Alpine imports and other cultural elements from the south. These regions also played important roles in controlling contacts between the Nordic zone and centres of the Lusatian culture situated further south, particularly in the Hallstatt B 3/C period. Through this exchange route bronze situlae and cistae, of the type found in Mecklenburg (Bukowski 1993: 85-86), could be obtained. However, these finds could also have arrived through the western trade route (particularly in the Hallstatt B 3 period). This route has been described in the earlier part of this chapter. Shifts of power between local centres in the Baltic area and changes in a system of interregional exchange routes gave prominence to the lower Odra (Oder) in the period between Hallstatt B3 and C and in the first part of the Hallstatt C. Control of this area was essential for commanding longdistance trade. As a result of competition between the Nordic and Lusatian cultures as well as between different groups of the Lusatian and other Urnfi.eld cultures a number of fortified settlements developed in the lower Oder region. For most of the Late Bronze Age, the lower Oder, together with almost all of Pomerania, was an area peripheral to the Nordic world, but this situation changed with the end of the Period V, in the Montelian chronology, when the crisis, related to a shortage of bronze in the Nordic zone, began. The increasing influence of the Lusatian culture is most clearly represented by a development of fortified settlements in the lower part of the Oder river (Map 9). However, from the Hallstatt C period, only two hoards of southern products are known from western Pomerania, at Brzesk near Szczecin and Kazimierz Pomorski near Koszalin (Fig. 53) (Gedl 1991: 24, 38-39, Fig. 10: 1-15, 22: 9).

The impact of the Hallstatt culture on the local communities belonging to the Gorszewice-Komorowo complex in the lower Warta River was much more significant than its effect on the population of the Biskupin type settlements located further east. In the cemetery of Gorszewice the largest concentration of Hallstatt and north Italian objects, known from areas north of the Sudeten and the Carpathian Mountains, have been found (Bukowski 1993: 87; 1990b: 98; Malinowski 1971: 102-110; 1974: 195-200). In some graves, amber necklaces, and many glass and amber beads, have been discovered. Amber lumps and finished beads are also known from a neighbouring fortified settlement of Komorowo (an island on the Lake Bytyn) (Bukowski 1990b: 98-99; Malinowski 1973: 83-100). Examples of amber beads and other so-called southern imports from the GoryszewiceKomorowo complex are presented on Fig. 51. Not far from Gorszewice and Komorowo, at Kluczewo, a bronze hoard containing southern imports, including a bronze cista, has been found. From other parts of Great Poland single finds and hoards with artefacts of the Alpine and north Italian origin are known, including those from Przedmiescie (or Zabrowo ), voivodeship Zielona Gora, Choryn, voivodeship Poznan, and Sluplca, voivodeship Konin. Other bronze products of the southern origin have been found in Kujavia, in hoards from Stanomin, Zalesie and the cemetery of Tarn6wka, all in voivodeship Bydgoszcz, while on another cemetery at Koscielec two Etruscan pottery kantharoi of bucchero nero type have been discovered (Fogel, Makiewicz 1990: 127-138, Fig. 5; Bukowski 1993: 87) (Fig. 52).

Fwther evidence of increasing Urnfi.eld influences in the Baltic region is represented by the so-called Lusatian-type pottery found on a number of sites in Denmark and Sweden at, for example, in Hallunda (Jaanusson 1981), Voldtofte (Thrane 1984: 125-126), Gevninge (Jensen 1967: Fig. 2-4), Vistad (Larsson 1994: 15-24) and Ringeby (Carlsson 1995: 43-58). This interesting problem was discussed in more detail in the earlier chapter. Examples of Lusatian-type of ceramics from Scandinavia, are presented on Fig. 54. Most of this pottery was probably produced locally but under strong influences from the south. In the Period V and VI, together with the southern imports and styles of pottery production, other elements of southern Baltic culture appeared in eastern Jutland, and southern and central Scandinavia. The most characteristic were the so-called face urns of the Pomeranian type found, for example, in barrows from Vesterby and Vester Skjeminge (Thrane 1989: 104). Larsson (1994: 15-24) has gone so far as to interpret fortified settlement at Vistad as a Lusatian "colony". Although it is 62

Exchange and lntercultural Contacts Between the Southern and Northern Parts of Central Europe Age" in central Italy took place earlier than in the northern part of central Europe, it is not really surprising that house urns in Italy are dated to the late 10th and 9th centuries BC (Wendorff 1981: 160), while in the Baltic region and in central Germany they are usually associated with the Periods V and VI, in the Montelian chronology (Malinowski 1995: 25-28).

rather unlikely that this site was built by a Lusatian community, the defensive character of this settlement together with the characteristic building technique and a distinctive method of pottery production, suggest strong influences from the area of the Lusatian culture. Southern Baltic influences in the north ended at the beginning of the Hallstatt D period, with a decline of the main Lusatian centres in Great Poland, Kujavia and Silesia. This process was complemented by the intensive development of the late phase of the Pomeranian culture.

Van den Boom (1995: 43), argued that there is a very little formal and chronological similarity between Etruscan canopies from Chiusi and Pomeranian face urns, yet both traditions represent similar patterns of social change expressed in the same funeral behaviour. It is even more striking if one compares the Tarqunian house urns and those known from central Germany. It is possible that some of the elements of funeral tradition characteristic of central Italy were introduced in regions north of the Alps already in the Hallstatt B period. They were certainly widely adopted much later, particularly in the Hallstatt C period. This new method of burying cremated bodies was introduced into regions which did not experience direct Hallstatt influences but already had a strong tradition of cremation. Face urns (Fig. 57), and particularly house urns (Fig. 56), spread to large areas of central Europe between the Weser and Vistula Rivers, the largest concentration of house urns being in central Germany (the middle Elbe), and face urns in eastern Pomerania (Map 81).

9.6. Contacts between central Italy and the Baltic zone (Hallstatt C-D). The regions situated south of the Baltic started to play a particularly important role in long-distance intercultural contacts in the Hallstatt C period and in the first part of the Hallstatt D, when the Baltic cultural, economic and political centre had moved further east into eastern Pomerania, where the so-called Pomeranian (or East Pomeranian) culture developed. The centre of this culture was located near the mouth of the Vistula River. The Pomeranian culture perpetuated the old Bronze Age traditions and values characteristic of northern Europe. These values were based on a prestige goods exchange. In the new Pomeranian system, high social status was no longer related to bronze objects but instead to new prestige items like cowrie shells, blue glass beads and other products of northern and central Italian origin. These changes were accompanied by the introduction of new funeral traditions, which had the clearest representations in the so-called face and house urns. These new traditions could also have their origin in central and northern Italy.

Many cultural elements characteristic of central Italy, together with a number of the so-called Etruscan imports, were passed further north via the middle Elbe to Pomerania. In the eastern part of Pomerania, the situation was more complex than in central Germany. The introduction of face urns was related to the development of new centres of political and economic power near the mouth of the Vistula river. These new centres controlled important foci in the exchange networks connecting them with the south as well as with the systems of interregional contact which existed along the Baltic coasts. Eastern Pomeranian urns represent a very interesting phenomenon, since they appeared in a relatively small geographically concentration in a very large quantity (Map 81), and they are represented by more than 1500 finds (Malinowski 1979: 102) (Fig. 57). As the Pomeranian culture expanded geographical, the urns evolved from the very realistic to the more schematic (Kruk 1969: 95-131); at the same time the culture lost many other characteristic elements which distinguished it from the Lusatian background. This is probably why some archaeologists have tried to relate the early development of the Pomeranian culture to the so-called Etruscan migrations (Szafranski 1966; 1989: 253-270). However, these unrealistic and romantic interpretations are unsupported by the evidence. Long-distance contacts between Italy and the Baltic regions had a long Bronze Age background and in the Hallstatt C period they could have taken on a more direct character. A geographical knowledge of the Etruscans probably extended far beyond the Alps and it is possible that some very active individuals may have travelled all the way from central Italy to the Baltic region; even so, that large groups of Etruscans migrated to the distant Baltic region is totally unproven.

It is unclear which exchange routes were used to bring southern products to Pomerania. However, it is most likely that they were distributed along the western trade routes, from Italy (particularly Etruria) through the west Alpine region, southern and central Germany to Mecklenburg and Pomerania (Map 82). This long-distance exchange system was based on relatively direct contacts between distant local communities from the northern and the southern parts of central Europe. The introduction of new funerary traditions via the western exchange network can be traced through the study of geographical and chronological variations in the distribution of face and house urns. Relatively simple face urns first appeared in Jutland in the Period IV and examples reached Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony not much later (Pedersen 1975; Malinowski 1995: 20-21 ). Examples of these urns are presented on Fig. 55. However, in the northern part of central Europe, the development of the new funeral tradition, which adopted face and house urns, took place in the Periods V and VI. In my view, both types of um began to be used as a result of the same cultural phenomenon which took place in many societies during the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age. The Early Iron Age communities, in contrast to those of the Bronze Age, were societies of individuals and this individualisation is clearly represented in funeral practice. Since the transition period from the "Bronze" to the "Iron 63

Exchange and Cultural Interactions In Pomerania the introduction of the new funeral traditions can be related to the appearance of imports of Mediterranean origin, obtained from Italy through long-distance exchange networks. These objects, including cowrie shells and blue glass beads, replaced older prestige goods made of bronze. The new prestige items, like the old. had to travel through interregional systems of exchange. Yet, the new objects more than any other prestige goods from the Bronze Age were related to an individual during his life as well as after his death. Many glass beads and shells have been found as personal ornaments in the form of earrings attached to urns with realistic representations of faces. These new types of goods replaced bronzes as prestige items not just because of a general shortage of the metal but because they were a more suitable means of expressing social relations existing in the Pomeranian society during the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. The largest concentration of cowrie shells and blue glass beads known from central Europe have been found near the mouth of the Vistula River (Map 80).

Although most of these amber finds have been discovered in graves, hoards of amber are also known from this region. These include Pruszcz Gdanski, where on open settlement 3.65kg of amber has been discovered (Wi1tcek 1979: 212), and Cieplewo, in the Gdansk district, where 9kg of amber were found in a large pottery vessel, unfortunately of uncertain date (Seger 1931: 184); other amber hoards are known from the area situated :further east in former Georgenswalde (raj. Primorsk) and former Leysuhnen (raj. Mamonowo) (Seger 1931: 183-184; Bukowski 1993: 88).

Despite the cultural and social changes which took place in Pomerania, local communities from this area occupied a leading position in bronze and iron production. Different types of products from these centres were broadly distributed eastward along the Baltic coasts and southward into the Lusatian territory. A significant decline in bronze production took place in eastern Pomerania in the second half of the Hallstatt D period; after this, in the area of northern Poland, only small bronze ornaments were produced (Walus 1979: 219-227). Objects of Hallstatt origin are almost completely unknown among the prestige goods used by the communities occupying the region of the Vistula estuary. This is a clear contrast to the neighbouring territories of central and southern Poland, where Hallstatt imports and other elements of this culture were present. It suggests not only that the Hallstatt goods were not of high value in Pomerania, but also that the Hallstatt world was not interested in maintaining the old Bronze Age contacts with the north. The southern products, discovered in Pomerania, probably arrived there via western exchange routes and it might have been through this trade network that the well-known Italian helmet from the Oder River near Szczecin was imported (von Hase 1992: 243-253; van den Boom 1995: 43). Kossack's (1983: 93) opinion, that all southern products discovered north of the Alps were reimported from the Hallstatt centres, is not acceptable for the finds known from Pomerania.

From the second half of the Hallstatt D period. the Pomeranian culture began to develop strong local relations with the "post-Lusatian" cultures of central Poland and it accepted many aspects of symbolic life characteristic for the old Umfield traditions. At the same time it began to lose its dominant economic position in the Baltic area, a process which was related to changes in interregional exchange networks and a further decline of the Nordic world, which, in its western part, was soon to be replaced by the Jastorf culture.

The Hallstatt imports did not play as an important role in Pomerania as the Italian objects, although some symbolic elements characteristic of the Hallstatt world were known in the southern Baltic region. These elements usually had a panEuropean character, and the best examples are pictorial representations of wheeled vehicles known, in a large number, from central Italy as well as from Pomerania (Map 46).

A new political and economic situation in southern and western Europe, together with a broad acceptance of iron and deep social changes in the centre of the continent, were responsible for the development of new systems of interregional contact. These new networks moved to the west and were based on the Rhone-Rhine Rivers system. For the next few centuries large areas of central, and particularly northern, Europe were marginalized. and lost contact with the western and southern parts of the continent.

In this region, changes in the types of imported goods and in funeral traditions were accompanied with changes in a general system of values. Throughout most of prehistory amber was collected and exchanged in most of the regions of the western and the southern Baltic. However, amber was very rarely placed in graves: it had more of a trading (economic) value than a symbolic (religious) value. This situation changed in the Hallstatt C period, when a number of amber beads started to appear in graves together with glass beads (Map 80). It suggests that even in Pomerania amber began to taken on a symbolic value, similar to that which it held in earlier periods in the southern parts of Europe. In the present day more than one hundred sites on which amber beads have been found are known (Wi1tcek 1979: 211). 64

Models and Modes of Exchange in Late Prehistoric Europe

social systems, which were based on a "consumption" of prestige goods, on some kind of commercial trade, and on raids (rather small in scale but regular), have left similar types of archaeological evidence (e.g. sophisticated barrow graves) to those from the "Varangian" type of exchange system known from northern Europe, which united large areas of the western and southern Baltic. Infrequent, but often intensive or even "dramatic", contacts with powerful strangers, who came from a different cultural "universe", were likely to have influenced the economy as well as the symbolic and religious life of people, in later prehistory, in different parts of Europe.

X MODELS AND MODES OF EXCHANGE IN LATE PREHISTORIC EUROPE. What would a Bronze Age world system look like? It is a question which might be asked, not only by Andrew Sherratt (1993c), but probably by most archaeologists who study the European Bronze Age. They do not have to be interested in "world system" theory, or even in exchange. "World system" theory, together with a model of a prestige-goods economy, can be used as a useful "backbone" to study trade and exchange. However, if we look closer at different regions of central Europe, it is possible to find other patterns and forms of exchange, which were often more complicated than simple two or three zone systems of core, periphery and margin.

In the Hallstatt B 3 period and the beginning of the Hallstatt C, there were other changes in the European exchange systems. The area of the North European Plain developed closer contacts with the Alpine region, which already had strong connections with northern Italy. These systems, which were based on continuous competition between different groups of the Umfield culture (including the Lusatian culture) and the Nordic culture, over the control of the bronze supplies, followed at least two patterns. The western exchange systems (the western Alps, southern and central Germany, the Mecklenburg region and eastern Jutland and the Danish Islands) were based on principles similar to those known from the previous period. While the eastern routes (the eastern Alps, western Slovakia, Moravia, Silesia, and from there westward to the mouth of the Odra (Oder) River or eastward to Kujavia and the mouth of the Vistula River) helped to maintain the Bronze Age prestige goods economy in the northern parts of central Europe, they also introduced a new system of cultural interactions and social structure derived from the Hallstatt world.

10.1. Regularityand change in exchangesystems. In the Late Bronze Age, changes in the pattern of exchange between northern and southern Europe show significant regularities. In the north, centres of exchange gradually moved eastward from the Weser and Elbe Rivers, to eastern Jutland and the Danish Islands, and finally to the lower Odra (Oder) and Vistula Rivers. While in the southern parts of central Europe, major centres of long-distance trade shifted westward from the Carpathian Basin, to the eastern and then western Alps (Fig. 58).

The Hallstatt B 1•2 period, in Reinecke's chronology, is the last stage of the traditional Middle Bronze Age "undisturbed" pattern of exchange. The network which at this time was based on a regular demand for metals, particularly tin and copper, and manufactured bronze objects by the communities of the Baltic regions, connected western Jutland with an important region of metal production in the Carpathian Basin, via the Elbe River. Probably in the same period, or not much later, the active political and cultural centres in Jutland established their first contacts with northern Italy and the Alpine region, but these connections had not yet gained a dominant position in long-distance cultural and economic exchange. At the same time most of the area of the western Baltic Sea was already united in a common exchange system based on water transport.

This new system was particularly important during the next period (the Hallstatt C phase in Reinecke's chronology), when significant changes took place both in the Nordic and in the Umfi.eld cultures. This period (Ha C) was also a time of important political and economic changes in the western Mediterranean region, where the Etruscan culture and Greek colonies began to develop as prominent centres of trade. This was probably the most important factor affecting the cultural, economic and political changes which took place in central Europe. In the same period, very influential centres of power developed in the eastern Alps. These centres, archaeologicaly represented by the Hallstatt culture, resulted from the interactions of Mediterranean and eastern influences with local communities. The new Alpine centres continued to control exchange between different parts of Europe for a long time.

This relatively simple picture changed in the second part of the Bronze V Period, or, in other words, in the Hallstatt B3 phase, when the east Alpine region and northern Italy took over from the Carpathian Basin as the main centre of metal production. These changes were closely related to political events in eastern Europe, which had a great influence on the economic, social, political and symbolic life of people in the central part of the continent. The so-called Cimmerian artefacts, which are present in many areas of Europe, no doubt reflect these influences. Through the system of complex economic, cultural and, possibly, military interactions, the nomadic cultures from eastern Europe began to influence central European Bronze Age communities. During this period, of almost 200 years, the metallurgical centre of the Carpathian Basin was incorporated into Cimmerian system of long-distance interactions, which connected vast areas of the continent from the Caucasus Mountains to the Alps. The early nomadic economic and

However, the Baltic regions were not included in this new system of exchange and cultural interaction and maintained the older Bronze Age economic and social structures. Since Jutland and the western Baltic regions in general no longer had access to the southern European supply of copper and tin, they started to look for new sources. As a result intensive contacts developed with the eastern Baltic regions, and possibly stretched as far as the Ural Mountains. At the same time (particularly in the second half of the Hallstatt C period and in the first part of the Hallstatt D), the main economic and political centre of the Baltic zone shifted

65

Exchange and Cultural Interactions The "world system" presented by Sherratt (e.g. 1993c) explained the processes, which appeared during the Bronze Age, on a pan-European, or even bigger, scale; and above all, it has an analytical or "historiological" character. However, this model offers little explanation for cultural and economic interactions on a regional and macro-regional scale. According to Sherratt's interpretation, most of the interregional contacts which have been presented in the previous chapters took place in the marginal zone of the "world system". In my analysis, the "world system" model can also be successfully used to explain processes which appeared in more geographically restricted areas - a point, to some extent, already made by Kristiansen (1994). Furthermore, the Bronze Age pan-European model of the "world system" represents an abstract theoretical interpretation, while more geographically restricted "world systems" can be more closely related to an archaeological "reality".

to northern Poland, where, near the mouth of the Vistula River, the so-called Pomeranian culture appeared. This culture, on the one hand, continued Bronze Age traditions of exchange, which in previous periods were based on the control of the distribution ofbronzes, and in the Hallstatt C-D phase on the control of the distribution of other prestigious objects such as cowrie shells, blue glass, etc. (but not the socalled Hallstatt imports), obtained in the process of relatively direct exchange with northern and central Italy, particularly with Etruria. On the other hand, these new imports, found in Pomerania, already represented social and symbolic values characteristic of the Early Iron Age, as discussed in more detail in the next chapter. In central Europe, the Hallstatt D period (particularly in its second half) is marked by important political, economic and, possibly, military events. In the middle of the 6th century B.C. the Greek colony in Massalia became involved in trade between the western Mediterranean and the Alpine region, and after the battle of the Alalia (537 BC) and other military victories, the Greeks began to play a dominant role in longdistance trade. At the same time, barbarian Europe itself went through a period of rapid change, which can be related to the increase of Scythian (or generally nomadic) influences in many parts of central Europe. The Scythian culture, as a new political and economic power, was responsible for the decline of the Silesian group of the Lusatian culture. The strong Scythian influences were also one of the reasons for the shift in power from the East to the West Hallstatt culture.

10.2.1. The central European Bronze Age systems. During the Late Bronze Age most of the local communities based their social structures on the exchange and consumption of different types of prestige goods. Nevertheless, these local structures, which were joined into complex systems of regional and interregional interactions, could have had different forms and different material manifestations. For many Bronze Age societies from the areas of the Nordic and the Umfield (including Lusatian) cultures contacts with neighbouring regions, particularly with the Carpathian Basin, were more important than relations with distant Mediterranean areas. These local societies created their own "world" in which local elites, at both extremites of the trade networks, maintained their social positions through controlling the production and exchange of bronze. Of course there were significant differences in social structures and in patterns of bronze consumption between separate areas of the Nordic, the Umfield and others cultures known from central Europe, but this only added extra value to exchanged things and, in general, stimulated trade.

All these changes, directly and indirectly, affected the trade systems in the North European Plain. Some of the old networks were put out of use, and others played only a minor role in the local trade. Interregional exchange of material goods and ideas was no longer a significant catalyst of cultural and economic changes in these regions in the following periods. In the area of the western Baltic, particularly in Denmark and northern Germany, new social and political structures developed, but they were not based on long-distance trade. In the southern Baltic, the Pomeranian economic and political centres lost their powerful positions and no longer participated in interregional exchange. One could say that vast areas of Europe, north of the Alps and the Carpathian Mountains, were "marginal" to the centres of West Hallstatt and early La Tene cultures which developed in areas of south-western Europe, where new trade routes were based on the Rhone and Rhine Rivers. The gradual development of a new system of contacts within western Europe was chronologically and structurally related to a rise of the economic and political power of the western Mediterranean. On a more global scale it might be associated with the development of the "super-power" of Achaemenid Persia.

These differences encouraged the development of "gateway" communities, which appeared in areas of intensive crosscultural contacts. In contrast to the later "gateway" communities known, for example, from Roman times, those characteristic of the Late Bronze Age in central Europe did not bridge a gap between "producers" and "consumers"; instead they appeared in the interface zones which separated different cultural traditions and social structures. These communities can be described as "gates" in both directions, in that they derived significant benefits from their political and geographical locations, yet usually had their own strong cultural identity (Map 83). The best examples of "gateway" communities, form this period, are known from the areas of the Billendorf group and the Kujavian group of the Lusatian culture. These communities played an important role in developing contacts between the Baltic zone and the Umfield cultures. A similar role was carried out by "gateway" communities from Slovenia which occurred in the zone of interaction between the Hallstatt culture and the Scythian world.

10.2. The "World system" and regional networks of contacts. One might reasonably ask whether it is possible to explain the complex exchange systems of late prehistoric central Europe by a single model. Did the Bronze Age "world" represent the same kind of "world" as that of the Iron Age? 66

Models and Modes o{Exchange in Late Prehistoric Europe 10.2.2. The nomadic world. 10.2.3. The Hallstatt world. Many areas of central Europe were, to different degrees, involved in different exchange networks; as a result of this, trade patterns, as well as principles of social structures, could be influenced by political events which happened in relatively distance areas. Thus, at the beginning of the first millennium BC, nomadic cultures, which had developed for centuries on the east European steppes, began to influence different regions of central Europe. This process had a significant impact on local communities, both in the Carpathian Basin and in the Alpine region. Furthermore, it was indirectly responsible for a social and economic crisis in the Baltic region at the end of the Bronze Age.

The Hallstatt culture, which developed during the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, represented a unique mix of traditions characteristic for both periods. Communities obtained and consumed a large quantity of bronzes and other prestige objects, particularly of Italian origin; but, as a result of the eastern influences and the introduction of iron, they based their social structures on competition between powerful individuals. In the archaeological record this is represented by elite fortifications and rich chief/warrior burials. In the western area of the Hallstatt culture, this process took place later than in the eastern region, yet it probably had even a bigger impact on local communities.

A number of nomadic tribes, collectively represented by the Cimmerian and later the Scythian cultures, transformed their internal competitions into external territorial expansions. These warrior societies were based on continuous competitions between outstanding individuals, which secured their position through "raiding-trading" activities as well as through the distribution of prestige goods. I would argue that in late prehistory the division between a successful exchange and a successful raid was very unclear. The primary role of both activities was to maintain social structures. It possible that a number of relatively small groups of horse riders penetrated into different regions of central Europe, but this was only the side-effect of a larger process of cultural, political and economic interaction which united a number of local societies from regions situated between the Great Hungarian Plain and the Caucasus Mountains. Many of these societies did not have a nomadic character, even during the period when eastern influences were strong.

The Hallstatt centres, from the beginning of their development, had close contacts with northern Italy and the eastern competitors, but above all they created their own "world system" which encompassed vast areas of the continent, from northern Italy and the Alpine regions to southern Germany, the former Czechoslovakia, and Silesia. Recently Jarem (1996: 11-28) has tried to adopt a general model of core-periphery system to explain the social and economic relations inside this "world". A relatively different model of economic interactions in this zone was given by Stollner (1996: 489, Abb. 8). The influences of the Hallstatt centre had different impacts on the material culture, symbolic life, and social structures of the local populations in the different zones of this world (Map 71). Furthermore, from the end of the Hallstatt C period, only a very limited number of the Alpine bronzes and other prestige goods were distributed far to the north, outside the Hallstatt zone. This suggests that communities with new social structures, known from the southern parts of central Europe, were no longer interested in maintaining the older Bronze Age systems of long-distance exchange. As a result, a significant shortage of bronze, bronze products and other prestige objects appeared in many areas of the North European Plain and in the Baltic regions and this, to a large extent, was responsible for the political and economic crisis which took place in many parts of Europe at the end of the Bronze Age. The crisis was preceded by an intensification of Baltic exchange, which expanded from Jutland to the eastern Baltic and as far as the centres of metal production in the middle Volga and Kama Rivers.

Throughout prehistory, pastoral and mobile communities represented a higher degree of individualisation among their members than societies whose economies were based on agriculture. In archaeological terms this is usually manifested in chiefly burials. Examples of this type of community were represented by the Tumulus cultures of the Middle Bronze Age and the Cimmerian and the Scythian cultures from the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age. Early nomadic influences were responsible for a reorientation in the production and exchange of bronze from centres located in the Carpathian Basin. These centres began to be a part of the east European network of cultural interactions. The early horse-riding communities also had a significant impact on the social structures and symbolic life of the Hallstatt zone, from the Alpine region. Not much later the intensively developing "world" controlled by nomadic populations was in strong economic and political competition with the Hallstatt culture. In eastern Austria, western Slovakia and particularly in the Little Hungarian Plain, this can be clearly seen in the changes which had occurred at a number of sites, including the well known Chotin cemeteries. On a more global scale, a significant shift of power from the East to the West Hallstatt culture also demonstrates the competition between the Alpine and nomadic worlds (Map 84). In the later Hallstatt period (HaD) the eastern area of the Hallstatt zone could have continued its development but lost its dominant role in the system of inter-regional contacts.

10.2.4. The Baltic world - the "Mediterranean of the north". Throughout history the Baltic Sea not only separated the different regions of northern and eastern Europe, but it also played an integrating role, stimulating intensive communications and contacts between local communities from the coast as well as from neighbouring zones, which were situated further inland (Map 8). In the Late Bronze Age, these contacts, which for a long time were based on maritime cycles, created complex systems of exchange and cultural interactions. The shortage of metal in the western and central Baltic stimulated contacts with distant east European centres

67

Exchange and Cultural Interactions

of bronze production. These contacts were primarily based on water transport (Map 85) and "united" societies with different cultural traditions, but probably all of them maintained their social structures through large scale consumption of bronze and other prestige goods. The mechanisms of these contacts were similar to those known from the European steppes: they were based on complex systems of gifts exchange as well as on a range of "tradingraiding" activities, which could have had different forms, from commercial trade to some kind of "taxation". In this example of "Varangian world systems", large open areas, both land and sea, began to have an integrating character. 'Through these systems a number of goods, which could be publicly consumed, were obtained; but at the same time, long distance journeys were a sign of strong internal competition between individuals as well as between communities. In opposition to the east-west contacts from the southern parts of central Europe, which were stimulated by the eastern nomads, those from the northern areas of Europe were animated by active populations from the regions of the western Baltic.

68

The Role ofthe Long-distance Exchange in the Transition -fromthe Bronze Age to the Iron Age

material things) can only be understood in relation to the aims of exchangers (Davis 1992: 34). These aims were to provide enjoyment, excitement, economic benefits, but first of all, to win social games of preserving and exercising the power of individuals as well as of communities, while the results of exchange themselves, which very often are only represented by simple dots on distribution maps of archaeological finds, can in themselves explain very little.

XL THE ROLE OF THE LONG-DISTANCE EXCHANGE IN THE TRANSITION FROM THE BRONZE AGE TO THE IRON AGE.

11.1. Changes in long-distance trade networks and fragmentation of knowledge. If the high social position of material things was created through a fragmentation of knowledge about them, which took place during the process of long-distance exchange, it is possible that exchange networks did not have to follow the shortest routes uniting the two ends. In the Late Bronze Age, material goods which travelled between the northern and southern parts of central Europe were not necessarily transported along the most convenient routes. Indeed, it is possible to observe a general pattern of change in the systems of exchange. While the northern centres of trade were moving to the east, from western Jutland to eastern Jutland and the Danish Islands, then to the mouth of the Oder (Odra) River and finally to Eastern Pomerania, the southern centres, which participated in interregional contacts, were gradually shifting to the west, from the Carpathian Basin, first to the eastern Alps, and then to the west Alpine region, and finally to southern France (Fig. 58). Tiris process allowed a larger number of local communities to participate in systems of exchange and yet significantly increased the distance which separated "producers" and "consumers", and fragmented the knowledge about traded goods. As a result, the majority of things passed through these exchange systems did not simply travel from south to north, or in the opposite direction, but were distributed along complex systems of cultural interactions, which united very distant areas.

11.3. Introduction of iron and changes in social systems of local communities. On the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, the

development of iron metallurgy was socially and culturally, but not technologically, limited. Many local communities from central Europe had a knowledge and the technical ability necessary for the production of iron long before they began to smelt and to use this metal on a large scale. Iron could be used for the production of weapons and tools which would be significantly more efficient than bronze - a fact which suggests that the social value of bronze was much more important than its practical value. Local societies from different areas of central and northern Europe, particularly from the Nordic zone, based their social structures on the massive consumption of bronzes. These societies strictly controlled the trade and production of bronze objects and their elites were not interested in developing the production of other metals. Furthermore, they were more likely to restrict iron metallurgy which could threaten existing systems of value and through this directly destabilise the power of local elites. Tiris is one of the reasons why, in central and northern Europe, the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age took place much later than in Italy, or even in the Alpine area. In these regions, the adoption of iron appeared not only as a result of internal changes in local societies, but was primarily stimulated by political events which happened in the southern part of central Europe and changes in the pattern of long-distance exchange networks. With the development of the Hallstatt culture, the communities of the Alps were no longer interested in supplying objects of a high social value, and bronze in general, to the regions situated further north. Shortage of bronze to a large extent was responsible for an economic and social crisis which appeared in the Baltic region at the beginning of the Iron Age.

11.2. Cognitive exchange. In the Late Bronze Age, many bronze objects from the south were traded to the northern parts of central Europe, together with ideas connected to their production: in new geographical and cultural environments, both material things and ideas were redefined. As a result of this cognitive exchange, many of the so-called foreign objects could be produced outside the area where their concepts were first formulated: examples include the Hallstatt-type painted pottery produced on a large scale in Silesia, in south-western Poland (Alfawicka 1970); or the north Italian imports which were copied in the Alpine region (Kossack 1954). The intensive polemics between archaeologists about the possible origins of different types of material things are not only representations of different academic views, but above all, they express ambiguity in understanding concepts of imports in prehistoric communities.

The east Pomeranian communities represented a unique example of societies in transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, as they adopted elements of two separate systems of value. They used new prestige objects to maintain the old Bronze Age social structures, while at the same time these new imports were representations of values characteristic for the Iron Age. Tiris situation allowed, and to some degree stimulated, an adoption of iron on a large scale. Pomeranian metallurgical centres inherited a tradition of intensive bronze smelting characteristic of the Nordic zone; nevertheless, during the Hallstatt D period, these centres developed their own significant production of iron, and very soon Pomerania began to supply iron products to vast areas of the eastern Baltic and even regions of the "post"-Lusatian culture, which

In some areas of central Europe, this "cognitive exchange" could have had more significant impacts on local societies than the trade and movement of material things. A very good example of this process is known from Lower Austria and western Slovakia where, in the area of the Kalenderberg culture, very few Hallstatt imports have been found yet it is clear that this culture was a part of the primary zone of the Hallstatt influences represented by the burial tradition and the technology of pottery production. Exchange (both ideas and

69

Exchange and Cultural Interactions interactive character in a given context", so the introduction of iron production on a large scale and changes in social structures and systems of value were reasons and results at the same time. While iron was introduced as the result of internal changes in the Bronze Age societies and shifts in patterns of long-distance exchange, iron and iron production to a large extent stimulated these changes.

were situated further south. 111is process could only have taken place because social demands for a new metal emerged, and value, previously unknown, was given to the new product.

11.4. Between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age community versus individuals.

Progressive individualisation in the Early Iron Age communities was clearly represented in changes in funeral traditions and in new types of ornaments, which are known from many parts of central Europe; they have been discovered in eastern Pomerania in a particularly large quantity. Most of these ornaments could be directly associated with their owners, during their lives as well as after their deaths. These ornaments had a prestige value in the Bronze Age sense but at the same time they had a new value which was given to them by individuals; "consumption" of these products could be a public as well as a private act. The changes which took place in Pomerania during the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age created an ambiguity in value systems. An important social value was given not only to new imports and materials, particularly iron, but also to a material which was known in the Baltic area for most of prehistory. Amber, which always had an economic and trade value in northern Europe, in the Hallstatt C period (in the Reinecke's chronology), began to have a new and important symbolic position: in many graves from this period amber necklaces and a large quantity of single beads have been found. The new social value of amber appeared as a result of intensive and relatively direct contacts with northern and central Italy, where this material has frequently been discovered in contexts which suggest that it had a distinctive social and symbolic role. It is possible to conclude that longdistance exchange and interregional contacts could be used not only to maintain the prestige value of material things and social structures of local communities, but they could also create a confusion in a system of value, in which objects of local origin could significantly change their status.

One can ask how different were the social values of bronze and iron products, or, more generally, how significant were differences in the social structures of Bronze Age and Iron Age communities. 111is might easily raise a question about definitions of the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. In my interpretation, the European Bronze Age, particularly in its northern version, is not just a period in which people used bronze to produce tools, ornaments and weapons; instead, it should be more accurately described as a period in which communities had specific social structures, which were expressed in a characteristic system of values. By the end of the Bronze Age these social structures were very elaborate and in some regions, for example in Kujavia and a part of Great Poland, they served to organize large groups of people. In the Bronze Age, elites played an integrating role in communities: they were an essential part of the social structure, but they could hold and exercise their power only to the degree which was allowed by a given society. The position of a chieftain had to be maintained through the public consumption of objects of a high social value. Prestige was associated with the function of being a chief rather than with individuals themselves. 111is situation changed in the Iron Age, when many communities experienced a process of the progressive individualisation of their members . A leading position in these communities began to be directly associated with active, powerful individuals, who achieved their positions through continuous competition with other individuals, rather than through broad social acceptance. As a result of this, in the southern part of central Europe, the Hallstatt culture developed many competitive centres of local power, while in the northern parts of central Europe, a process of significant political and economic decentralisation took place. In the archaeological record this is represented in the decline of large fortified settlements and the development of smaller open sites.

The new position of individuals in communities also influenced art. The well-established old style of geometric and animal (particularly bird) representations, which was characteristic for the Urnfield cultures, was gradually replaced by human representations, for example these known from depictions on pottery vessels and urns from in Italy, Hungary, Pomerania and other regions. These human representations have to be related to an individualization of the social life and changes in religious beliefs.

The production and consumption of iron was much more suitable for this new social situation than the production and use of bronzes. The European sources of tin and copper are geographically restricted and a bronze metallurgy could have developed only in relation to long-distance trade. 111istrade was maintained by and restricted to the Bronze Age elites. Iron ore, on the other hand, is relatively common in Europe and was directly used by local centres of power. It is possible to say that bronze was used to maintain the "given" hierarchical structures of the Bronze Age communities, while iron was produced to increase (i.e. to "take") the political and economic position of local leaders. Iron and iron production were neither reasons nor results of changes in systems of social value and structure. It might be more correct to say after Hodder (1992: 14-16) that "causes and effects have an

70

Biblio ra h Artamonov, M.I., 1974, Kimmeriicy i skify. Leningrad: Izdatelstvo Leningradskogo W1iversiteta Ashikhmina, L.I., 1985, Genezis Ananinskoi kultury v srednem Prikame. Syktyvkar: Akademiya Nauk SSSR

BIBLIOGRAPHY: M.P., 1993, Centralnoe Predkavkaze v sarmatskoe vremia (Ill v. do n.e. - IV v. n.e.). Moskva:

Abramova,

Rossiiskaya Akademiia Nauk, Institut archeologii Alekseyev, A.Yu., 1992, Skifskaya khronika. St. Petersburg: "Nauka" Alfawicka, S., 1970, Ceramika ma/owana okresu halsztackiego w Po/see. Biblioteka Archeologiczna 22, Warszawa-Wroclaw-Krok6w: Ossolineum Althin, C.-A., 1945, Studien zu den bronzezeitlichen Felszeichnungen von Skane. Lm1d: Gleerup Andrukh, S.I., 1995, Nizhnedunaiskaya Skifiya v VI - nachale I v. do n.e.; etnopoliticheskii aspect. Zaporozhe: Zaporzhskii gosudarstvennyi W1iversitet Anfimov, N.B., 1965, Kinzhaly karabin-pyatigorskogo tipe iz Prikubanya. Novoe v Sovetskoi Archeologii. 196-198, [Moskva] Antoniewicz, J., 1964, Osiedla obronne okresu wczesnozelaznego w Prusach. Swiatowit 25, 5-211, [Warszawa] Appadmai, A., 1986. Introduction : commodities and the politics of value. in: Appadurai, A. (ed.), The social life of things. 3-63, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Arafat, K., Morgan, C., 1994. Athens, Etruria and the Heuneburg: mutal misconceptions in the study of Greekbarbarian relations. in: Morris, I. (ed.), Classical Greece: ancient histories and modern archaeologists. 108-134, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Bailey, F.G., 1971. Gifts and Poison. in: Bailey, F.G. (ed.), Gifts and Poison. 1-26, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Bakay, K., 1971, Scythian rattles in the Carpathian Basin and their eastern connections. Budapest: Akademiai Kiad6 Barrett, J., Bradley, R. (eds.), 1980. Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age. Oxford: British Archaeological Raport (British Series 83 i) Batalov, S.G., Zdanovich, G.B. (eds.), 1988, Problemy

archeologii uralo-kazakhstanskikh stepei. Mezhvuzovskii sbornik. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinskii gosudarstvennyi W1iversitet Baudou, E., 1960, Die regionale und chronologische

Einteilung der jungeren Bronzezeit im Nordischen Kreis. Studies in North-European archaeology 1, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell La Baume, W., 1964, Bronzezeit m1d fiiihe Eisenzeit in Pommern m1d Pommerellen. Zeitschrift far Ostforschung 13.4, 733-764 Beck, C.W., Gerving, M., Wilbur, E., 1966, The provenance of archaeological amber artifacts. An annotated bibliography. Part 1: 8th c. BC to 1899. Art and Archaeological Technical Abstracts 6.2, 215-302 Beck, C.W., Gerving, M., Wilbur, E., 1967, The provenance of archaeological amber artifacts. An annotated bibliography. Part 1: 8th c. BC to 1899. Art and Archaeological Technical Abstracts 6.3, 201-280 Beck, C.W., Dusek, M., 1969, Die Herkunft des Bernsteins vom trakischen Graberfeld von Chotin. Slovenska Archeol6gia 17, 247-258 Beck , C.W., Shennan, S., 1991. Amber in Prehistoric Britain. Oxbow Monographs, 8, Oxford Benadik, B., 1953, Latenske pohfebiste ve Vel'ke Mani na Slovensku. Archeologicke rozhledy 5, 157-167, 185-189 Berciu, D., 1961, Die Stellm1g der Geten im Lichte der Archaologie. Dacia 5, 163-184 Berezanskaya, S.S., Sharafutdinova, I.N., 1985, Sabatinovskaya kultura. Archaologiia Ukrainskoi SSR 1, 489-499, [Kiev] Bjornhem, N ., Savestad, U., 1993, Fosie IV. Bebyggelsen under brons och jdrnalder. Malmo: Malmo Museer (Malmofynd 6). Blajer, W., 1992, Ze studi6w nad skarbami okresu halsztackiego w Polsce. in: Ziemie polskie we wczesnej epoce telaza i ich powiazqnia z innymi terenami. 101110, Rzesz6w: Muzeum Okr~gowe w Rzeszowie Blau, P., 1964, Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York, London, Sydney: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Boardman, J., Griffin, J., Murray, 0., 1992, The Oxford History of the Classical World. Oxford: Oxford University Press Bogdasarow, A.A., Yurev, I.I., 1990, V mire jantrya. Bibligraficheskii ukazitel. Minsk: Nauka i Tekhnika Bokii, N.M., 1980, Skifskii period na pogranichi stepi i lasostepi v Dneprovskom Prevoberezhe. Avtoreferat dissertacii kandidata istoricheskikh nauk. Kiev

Archiiologische Untersuchungen zum Obergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit zwischen Nordsee und Kaukasus. Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums in Regenburg 28.-30. Oktober 1992. 1996, Regensburg: Universitat Regensburg Aristotle [Drossaart Lulofs, H.J.], 1965, Aristotelis De generatione animalium. Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis, Oxford: A typographeo Clarendoniano Aristotle, (1923), Meterologika. (translated by E.W. Webster), Oxford: The Clarendon Press Artamonov, M.I., 1947, Obshchestvennyi stroi skifov.

Vestnik Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 10, [Leningrad] Artamonov, M.I., 1949, Etnogeografiya

Skifii. Uchenye zapiski Leningradskogo gosudarstvenogo universiteta 85,

[Leningrad] Artamonov, M.I., 1950, K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii skifov. VestnikDrevnei Istorii 2, 37-47, [Moskva] Artamonov, M.I., 1953, Etnicheskii sostav naseleniya Skifii. in: Doklady VI Nauchnoi konferencii IA AN USSR. Moskva Artamonov, M.I., 1968, Proiskhozhdenie skifskogo iskusstva . Sovetskaya Archeologiya 4, [Moskva] Artamonov, M.I., 1969, The Splendours ofScythianArt. New York & Washington: Frederic A. Praeger Artamonov, M.I., 1971, Pereselenie kimmeriicev i skifov v Aziiu i ich vozvrashchene v Severnoe Prichernomore okolo 585 g. Tezisy dokladov plenarnych zasedanii

Vsesoyoznoi nauchnoi sesii, posviashchennoi itogam polevykh archaologicheskikh etnograficheskikh issledovanii 1970 g. 32-33, Tibilisi 71

Exchange and Cultural Interactions Nordischen Kreises (Periode V). Mainz; Germania 36, 482-495 Buck, D.-W., 1979, Die Billendorfer Grappe. Verojfentlichungen des Museums fur Ur- und Friihgeschichte Potsdam 13, [Berlin] Buck, D.-W., 1982, Kulturelle Beziehwigen der Billendorfen Grappe zur ostalpinen Hallstatt-Kultur wid zum sildosteuropaischen Raum. in: Poludniowa strefa kultury luzyckiej i powiqzania tej kultury z Poludniem. Materialy z konferencji w Krakowie, Nowej Hucie i Nowym Sqczu. 11-14. 04. 1978. 215-230, Krakow- Przemysl Buck, D.-W., 1989 (1990), Kontakte wid Beziehwigen zwischen den jwigbronze- wid frilheisenzeitlichen Stammen in Pommem wid der Lausitz. in: Malinowski, T. (ed.), Problem kultury luzyckiej na Pomorzu. 109-116, Slupsk: Wy'k$zaSzkola Pedagogiczna Budinsky-Kricka 1947, Slovensko v dobe bronzovej a halstatskej. in: Slovenske Dejiny. Bratislava: Matica slovenska Budinsky-Kricka, V., 1976, Predkustanovicke ziarove pohrebisko vo Vojnatine. Slovenska Archeologia 24.1, 119-149, [Nitra] Bukowski, Z., 1976, Elementy wschodnie w kuluturze luzyckiej u schylku epoki brqzu. Wroclaw: Ossolineum Bukowski, Z., 1977, The Scythian Influence in the area of Lusatian Culture. Wroclaw: Ossolineum Bukowski, Z., 1981, Najstarsze znaleziska przedmiotow zelaznych w srodkowej Europie a poc24.tki metalurgii zelaza w kulturze luzyckiej w dorzeczu Odry i Wisly. Archeologia Polski 26, 321-401 Bukowski, Z., (1990a) 1989, Szlaki handlowe z Poldnia na Pomorze w mlodszej epoce brazu i we wczesnej epoce zelaza. in: Malinowski, T. (ed.), Prob/emy kultury luiyckiej na Pomorzu. 185-208, Slupsk: Wy'k$za Szkola Pedagogiczna Bukowski, Z., 1990b, Critically about the so-called amber route in the Odra and Vistula river basins in the Early Iron Age. Archeo/ogia Polona 26 (1988), 71-122 Bukowski, Z., 1992. Tzw. szlak bursztynowy z wczesnej epoki zelaza na obszarach na poludnie od Sudet6w i Karpat w swietle imort6w pochodzenia poludniowego. in: Ziemie polskie we wczesnej epoce ielaza i ich powiqzania z innymi terenami. 39-54, Rzesz6w: Muzeum Okr~gowe w Rzeszowie Bukowski, Z., 1993, Tzw. szlak bursztynowy z wczesnej epoki zelaza w mi~dzyrzeczu Laby i Wisly w swietle skarb6w z importami i bursztynem. in: Ksiega pamiatkowa ku uczczeniu 40-/ecia pracy naukowej prof dr T. Malinowskiego. 73-93. Slupsk: Wy'k$za Szkola Pedagogiczna Buzdugan, C., 1968, Necropola geticii de la Slobozia. Carpica 1 Bilchsenschiltz, 0., 1989 (1990), Essai d'interpretation des umes-cabanes, et des descriptions textuelles ou plastiques des habitations protohistoriques de l'Europe temperee. in: Malinowski, T. (ed.), Problemy kultury luiyckiej na Pomorzu. 185-208, Slupsk: Wy'k$za Szkola Pedagogiczna

van den Boom, H., 1995, Zjawisko antropomorfizacji w okresie halsztackim. in: Kultura Pomorska i Kultura Grabow Kloszowych. Razem czy osobno? Materialy z konferencji w dniach 24-26 listopada 1993. 43-54, Warszawa: Panstwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne Borovka, G.I., 1932, (translated by G. Childe), Scythian art. London: E. Benn limited Bouzek, J., 1978, Ostlicher Mittelmeerraum wid Mitteleuropa. Die bronzezeitlichen Beziehwigen auf Grwid der archaologichen Quellen. Mitteleuropiiische Bronzezeit: 47-56 Bouzek, J., 1983, Caucasus and Europe and the cimmerian problem. Sbornik Narodnfho Muzea v Praze 37.4, 177240 Bona, L, 1975, Die mitt/ere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre siidostlichen Beziehungen. Budapest: Corvina Press Bohm, J., 1936, Otazka Skythu ve stredni Evrope. in: Bohm, J., Jankovich, J.M. (eds.), Skythove na Podkarpatske Rusi. 9-32, Praha Bokonyi, S., 1952, Les chevaux scythiques du cimeti,re de Szentes-Vekerzug. Acta Archaeologica (Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae) 2, 173-183, [Budapest] Bokonyi, S., 1954, Les chevaux scythiques de SzentesVekerzug II. Acta Archaeologica (Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae) 4, 93-114, [Budapest] Bokonyi, S., 1955, Skifskie lashadi v Szentes-Vekerzuge ill, Acta Archaeologica (Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae) 6, 23-31, [Budapest] Bokonyi, S., 1958, Filggelek Parducz Mihaly dolgozatahoz a Hejokereszturi szkita leletekrol. A Herman Otto Muzeum Evkonyve 2, 75, [Miskolc] Bokonyi, S., 1964, Angaben zur Kenntnis der eisenzeitlichen Pferde in Mittel- wid Osteuropa. Acta Archaeologica (Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae) 16, 227-239, [Budapest] Bokonyi, S., 1968, Data on Iron Age Horses of Central and Eastern Europe. American School of Prehistoric Research. Peabody Museum, Harvard University. Bulletin 25, 11-71, [Cambridge (Mass.)] Bokonyi, S., 1982, Trade of domestic animals between Pannonia and Italy. in: Nord-Siid-Beziehungen. Historische und kulturelle Zusammenhiinge und Handelsbeziehungen die europiiischen Bernsteinstrassen entlang vom I Jahrtausend v.u.Z. bis zum Ende der r6mischen Kaiserzeit. (Savaria 16), 335-340, [Szombathely] Bradley, R., 1978, The Prehistoric Settlement of Britain. London: Routledge and Kegan Bradley, R., 1990, The Passage of Arms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Brashinskii, LB., 1965, Novye materialy k datirovke kurganov skifskoi plemennoi znati Severnogo Prichernomorya. Eirene 4 Brashinskii, LB., 1980, Grecheskii keramicheskii import na nizhnem Donu v V-111vv. do n.e. Leningrad: "Nauka" Brun, P., 1995, Contacts entre colons et indig,nes au milieu du Ier millenaire av. J.-C. en Europe. Journal of European Archaeology 3.2, 113-124 Brwin, W.A., 1958, (review of) Sprockhoff, E., 1956, Jungbronzezeitliche Hortfimde der Siidzone des

Carlsson, T., 1995, Objects and attitudes: the Lusatian impact on the material and mental culture in south-eastern 72

Chronicles [1994], in: Good News Bible. 395-463, The Bible Societies - Harper Collins Chytracek, M., 1983, Nove poznatky o halstatsko-latenskych bronzovych nadobach z Cech. Archeologicke rozhledy 35, 427-451 Cizmai'ova, J., 1992, Szlak bursztynowy - najwi~ksze dalekosi~zne pol!\_czeniaw p6inym. okresie latenskim. in: Szlak bursztynowy. Biblioteka Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w Lodzi 27, 24-28 Cook, S., 1966, The Obsolete "Anti-Market" Mentality: A Critique of the Substantive Approach to Economic Anthropology. American Anthropologist 68, 323-345 Cri§lllUI,I.H., 1974, Despre Aga~i. Acta Musei Napocensis 4, 439-443, [Cluj] Cunliffe, B., 1988, Greeks, Romans and Barbarians. London: B.T. Batsford Czopek, S. (ed.), 1992, Ziemie polskie we wczesnej epoce ielaza i ich powiqzania z innymi terenami. Materialy z konferencji - Rzesz6w 17-20. 09. 1991, Rzeszow: Muzeum Okr~gowe w Rzeszowie Caplovic, P., 1987, Orava za pravek:u, vo vcasnej dobe dejinnej a na zaciatk:ustredovek:u.Martin

Sweden in the late Bronze Age. Journal of European Archaeology 3.2, 43-58 Cherednichenko, N.N., 1987, Osnovnye etapy ispolzovaniya v stepyakh Evrazii. Kimmeriicy i skify IL 78-81, Leningrad: "Nauka" Chernenko, E.V., 1968, Skifskii dospekh. Kiev: Naukova dumka Chernenko, E.V., 1979, Persidskie akinaki i skifskie mechi. in: Jsk:usstvo i archeologiya Irana i ego sryaz s isk:usstvom narodov SSSR s drevneishikh vremen. Tezy dokladov.Moskva Chernenko, E.V., 1983, The Scythians 700-300 BC. Osprey Men at Arms (Series 137), London: Osprey Publishing Chernenko, E.V., 1984, Skifo-persidskaya voina. Kiev: Naukova dumka Chernenko, E.V., Biessonova, S.S. (eds.), 1986, Skifskie pogrebalnye pamiatniki Stepei Severnogo Pichernomorya. Kiev: Naukova dumka Chernyakov, I.T., 1985, Severo-Zapadnoe Prichernomore vo vtoroi polovine II tys. do n.e. Kiev: Naukova dumka Chernyakov, I.T., 1987, "Kimmeriya" i "Straya skifiya Gerodota v svete sovremennogo izucheniya kultur rubezha epokh bronzy i zhelaza Severnogo Prichemomorya. in: Kimmeriicy i skify 11 85-87, Leningrad: "Nauka" Chernykh, E.N., 1966, Jstoriya drevneishei metallurgii Vostochnoi Evropy. Materyaly i issledovaniya po archeologii SSSR 132, Moskva: "Nauka" Chemykh, E.N., 1992, Ancient metallurgy in the USSR The Early Metal Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Chlenova, N.L., 1972, Khronologiya pamyatnikov Karasukskoi epokhi. Materyaly i issledovaniya po archeologii SSSR 182, Moskva: Izdatelsvo Akademii Nauk SSSR Chlenova, N.L., 1975, 0 sviazakh Severno-Zapadnogo Prichemomorya i Nizhnego Dunaya s V astokom v kimmeriiskuyu epokhu. Studia Thracica 1, 69-90, [Sofija] Chochorowski, J., 1978, Ze studi6w nad okresem halsztackim na ziemiach polskich. Archeologia Polski 23.2, 355-376 Chochorowski, J., 1984, Die Vekerzug-Kulture - Fragen ihrer Genese und Chronologie. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 23, 99-161, [Krakow] Chochorowski, J., 1985a, Die Vekerzug-Kultur. Charakteristik der Funde. Warszawa - Krakow: Ossolineum Chochorowski, J., 1985b, Die Rolle der Vekerzug-Kultur (VK) im skythischen Einflilsse in Mitteleuropa. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 60, 204-271, [Berlin] Chochorowski, J., 1987, Rola Sigynn6w Herodota w srodowisku kulturowym wczesnej epoki zelaza na Nizinie W~gierskiej. Przeglqd Archeologiczny 34, 161-218 Chochorowski, J., 1992, Europa srodkowa na przelomie epoki brq_ZU i wczesnej epoki zelaza. in: Czopek, S. (ed.), Ziemie polskie we wczesnej epoce ielaza i ich powiqzania z innymi terenami. Materialy z konferencji - Rzesz6w 1720. 09. 1991, 9-21, Rzeszow: Muzeum Okr~gowe w Rzeszowie Chochorowski, J., 1993, Ekspansja Kimmeryjska na tereny Europy Srodkowej. Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagielonski

Dashevskaia, O.D., 1991, Pozdnie skify v Krymu. Moskva: "Nauka" Davis, J., 1992. Exchange. Buckingham: Open University Press D!\_browski, J., 1990, Beitrage zur Mittelbronzezeit Nordpolens. in: Beitrage zur Geschichte, 119-127 Dergachev, V.A., 1979, Ranneskifskoe pogrebenie na srednem Prute. Sovetskaya archeologiya 3, [Moskva] Dietler, M.; 1995, The cup of Gyptis: rethinking the colonial encounter in early-Iron-Age western Europe and the relevance of world-systems models. Journal of European Archaeology 3 .2, 89-112 Diodorus Siculus, (1933-1967), Bibliotheca historica. (translated by C.H. Oldfather), London - New York: Heinemann, G.P. Putnam's sons Dobiat, C., 1981, Die Hallstattnekropole bei Kleinklein im Sulmtal. in: Die Hallstattk:ultur. Bericht uber das Symposium in Steyr 1980 aus An/ass der Internationalen Ausstellung des Landes Oberosterreich. 185-204, Linz Dohnal, V., 1975, Kultura luiickych popelnicovych poli na vychodni Morave. Fontes archaeologiae moravicae 10, Brno : Archeologicky ustav CSA V Douglas, M., 1967, Primitive rationing: A study in controlled exchange. in: Firth, R (ed.) Themes in Economic Anthropology: 119-147, London: Tavistock Dubovskaya, O.R, 1989, K interpretacii kompleksov tipa novocerkasskogo klada . Sovetskaya Archeologiya l, 6369, [Moskva] Dudarev, S.L., 1983, Rannii etap osvoeniya zhelaza na centralnom Predkavkaze iv bassene r. Tereka (IX-VII w . do n.e.). Avtoreferat dissertacii kandidata istoricheskikh nauk.Kiev Dudarev, S.L., 1991, Iz istierii sryazei naseleniya Kavkaza s kimmeriisko-skifskim mirom. Groznyi Dumitrescu, V., 1968, La necropole tumulaire du premier age du fer de Basarabi (dep. de Dolj, Oltenie). Dacia 12, 177260 73

Exchange and Cultural Interactions Ferenczi, $., 1971, Cimitirul "scitic" de la Ciumbrud (partea a V-a). Acta Musei Napocensis 8, 11-36, [Cluj - Napoca] Fialko, E.E., 1989, Skifskie pamyatniki Pridneprovskoi terrasovoi lesostepi. in: Tezisy dokladov konferencii: Problemy skifo-sarmatskoi archeologii Severnogo Prichernomorya. 154-156, Zaporozhe Fiettich, N., 1928, La trouvaille scythe de Zoldhalompuszta. Budapest Fiettich, N., 1931, Bestand der skythischen Altertiimer Ungarns. in: Rostovtseff, M.I., 1931, Skythien und der Bosporus (Band I). 494-529, Berlin: Hans Schoetz Filip, J., 1951, Pradzieje Czechoslowacji. Poznan: lnstytut Zachodni Filip, J., 1969, Enzyklopiidisches Handbuch zur Ur- und Fruhgeschichte Europas (vol. I & II). Prag: Verlag der Tschechoslowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Fogel, J., 1979a, Sil:y zbrojne ludnosci kultury l:u.zyckiej (struktura - organizacja - wartosc bojowa). Materialy Zachodnio-Pomorskie 25, 7-51 Fogel, J., 1979b, Studia nad uzbrojeniem ludnosci kultury luiyckiej w dorzeczu Odry i Wisly. Bron zaczepna. Poznan: Wydawnictwa Naukowe Universytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza Fogel, J., 1988, "Import" nordyjski na ziemiach polskich u schylku epoki brqzu. Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu. Seria archeologiczna 30 Fogel, J., Makiewicz, T., 1989, La sconosciuta importazione Etrusca in Cujavia (Polonia Centrale) e la questione della presenza degli Etruschi sul Baltico. Studi Etruschi 55, 123-130 Fogel, J., Makiewicz, T., 1990, Nieznany "import" etruski z Kujaw. Archeologia Polski 34 (1989), 127-159 Frankenstein, S., Rowlands, M.J., 1978, The internal structure and regional context of early Iron Age society in south-western Germany. [London University] Institute of Archaeology Bulletin 15, 73-112 Frey, O.-H., 1966, Der Ostalpenraum und die antike Welt in der frilhen Eisenzeit. Germania 44, 48-66 Frey, O.-H., 1974, Bericht uber die Ausgrabungen im Ringwall van Sticna (Slowenien). in: Symposium zu Problemen der jungeren Hallstattzeit in Mitteleuropa. 151-162, Bratislava: Veda From the Lands ofScythians. 1975, Metropolitan Museum of Art and Los Angeles County Museum of Art Frozen Tombs. The culture and art of the ancient tribes of Siberia. London: British Museum Publications Limited Furmanek, V., 1973, K nekterym spolecensko-ekonomickym problemfun doby bronzove. Slovenska Archeologia 21-2, 401-408 Furmanek, V., 1987, Die Kyjatice-Kulture. in: Die Urnenfelderkulturen Mitteleuropas. Symposium Liblice 21-25. 10. 1985. 317-323,Praha Furmanek, V., 1989, Burganlangen der Kyjatice-Kulture. in: Studia nad podami epoki brqzu i wczesnaj epoki :ielaza w Europie Srodkowej. 73-84, Wroclaw: Ossolineum Furmanek, V., Veliacik, L., Romsauer, P., 1982, Jungbronzezeitlichen befestigte Siedlungen in der Slowakei. in: Beitriige zum bronzezeitlichen Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa. 159-175, Berlin: Zentralinstitut fiir Alte Geschichte und Archaologie

Dupre, G., 1972, La commerce entre societes lignag,res: les Nzabi clans la traite a la fin du :xrxesi,cle (Gabon Congo). Cahiers d'Etudes Africaines 12.48, 616-658 Dupre, G., Rey., 1968, Reflexions sur la pertinence d'une theorie des echanges. Cahiers Intemationaux de Sociologie 46, 133-162 Duraczewski, D., 1961, Skarby halsztackie z Wielkopolski. Przeglqd Archeologiczny 35 (1960), 7-106 Durkheim, E., Mauss, M., [1903] 1969, Primitive Classification. London: Cohen & West Dusek, M., 1961, K otazkam prevekeho vyvoJa juhozapadneho Slovenska. Studijne Zvesti AU SAV 6, 5982 Dusek, M., 1966, Thrakisches Griiberfeld der Hallstattzeit in Chotin. Bratislava: Slovenska Akademia Vied Dusek, M., 1974, Die junghallstattzeitliche Fiirstensitz auf dem Molpir bei Smolenice. in: Symposium zu Problemen der jungeren Hallstattzeit in Mitteleuropa. 137-150, Bratislava Dusek, S., 1976, Junghallstattzeitliches Griiberfeld von Modrany. Slovenska Archeol6gia 24, 397-427, [Bratislava] Dusek, M., Dusek, S., 1984, Smolenice-Molpir. Befestigter Furstensitz der Hallstattzait I Nitra: Archeologicky ustav Slovenskej Akademie Vied Dyakonov, J.M., 1956, Istoriya Midii ot drevneishikh vremen do konca IV vekado n.e. Moskva - Leningrad: "Nauka" Earle, T. (ed.), 1991, Chefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Earle, T., Ericson, J.E. (eds.), 1977, Exchange Systems in Prehistory. New York and London: Academic Press Egg, M., 1996, Zu den Furstengriibern im Osthallstattkreis. in: Jerem, E.G., Lippert, A. (eds.), 1996, Die Osthallstattkulture; Akten des Internationalen Symposiums, Sopron, 10-14 Mai 1994. Archaeolingua 7, 53-86, Budapest: Akaprint Eisner, J., 1933, Slovensko v praveke. Bratislava: Naklad V cene spolecnosti Safarikovy Eichholz, D.E., 1950, A Roman book on precious stones; The 37th Book of Pliny the Elder. Oxford: Oxford Universty Press Ekholm, K., 1972, Power and Prestige: The Rise and Fall of the Kongo Kingdom. Uppsala Engel, C., 1935, Vorgeschichte der altpreussischen Stiimme. vol. 1, Kaliningrad Ericson, J.E., Earle, T. (eds.), 1982, Contexts for Prehistoric exchange. New York and London: Academic Press Erlikh, V.R., 1991, Bronzove uzdechnye nabory i problema chronlogii predskifskogo i ranneskifskogo vremeni Zakubanya. in: Drevnosti Severnogo Kavkaza i Prichernomorya, 31-47, Moskva: "Nauka" Erlikh, V.P., 1994, U istokov ranneskifskogo kompleksa. Moskva: Gosudarstvennyi muzei Vostoka Esaian, S.A., Pogrebova, M.N., 1985, Skifskie pamiatniki Zakavkazia. Moskva: "Nauka" Ezekiel, [1994], in: Good News Bible. 802-855, The Bible Societies - Harper Collins Fasken, W.H., 1941, Cimmerians and Scythians. Haverhill (Mass.): Destiny Publisher 74

Gedl, M, 1978, Wczesnoluzyckie pochowki cia1opalne ze sladami trumien drewnianych na cmentarzysku w Kietrzu, woj. Opole. Archeologia Polski 23, 277-306 Gedl, M., 1983, Anfange der Kenntnis des Eisens im Gebiet Polens. Zeitschriftfar Archiiometrie 1, 8-19, [Wien] Gedl, M., 1985, Schylek kultury luiyckiej w poludniowozachodniej Po/see. Prace Archeologiczne 37, Krakow : Uniwersytet Jagiellonski Gedl, M., 1985a, Archeologia Pierwotna i Wczesnosredniowieczna. Epoka Brazu i Wczesna Epoka Zelaza w Europie. (Skrypty uczelniane no. 489), Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagiellonski Gedl, M., 1989, Srodkowa i mlodsza epoka bfllZUi wczesna epoka zelaza ( cykl J:uzycko-pomorski). in: Pradzieje Ziem Polskich: Epoka Brq,zu i Poczqtki Epoki Zelaza, 488- 732, Warszawa - Lodz: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe Gedl, M., 1990 (1989), Poc.24.tkii zroznicowanie regionalne kultury J:uzyckiej na Pomorzu. in: Malinowski, T. (ed.), Problemy kultury luiyckiej na Pomorzu, 25-51, Slupsk: Wyzsza Szkola Pedagogiczna Gedl, M., 1991, Die Hallstatteinjliisse au/ den polnischen Gebieten in der Fruheisenzeit. Prace Archeologiczne 48, Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagiellonski Gedl, M, 1992, Wplywy halsztackie w Polsce. in: Ziemie polskie we wczesnej epoce ielaza i ich powiq,zania z innymi terenami. 23-31, Rzeszow: Muzeum Okr~gowe w Rzeszowie Gedl, M., 1996, Archaologische Untersuchungen zum Obergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in Polen. in: Archiiologische Untersuchungen zum Obergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit zwischen Nordsee und Kaukasus. Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums in Regenburg 28.-30. Oktober 1992. 263-292, Regensburg: Universitat Regensburg Genesis [1994], in: Good News Bible. 3-55, The Bible Societies - Harper Collins Gershkovich, Ya .P, Ievlev, M.M ., 1987, Etnokulturnye izmeneniya z Severnom Prichernomore v epokhu pozdnei brony v svete paleoklimaticheskikh issledovanii. in: Aktualnye problemy istoriko-archeologicheskikh issledovamii. 38-40, Kiev Gimbutas, M, 1959, The treasure of Michalkov. Archaeology 12, 84-87 Gold der Steppe. Archaologie der Ukraine. 1991, Neumunster: K. Wachholtz Gorodcov, V.A., 1914, Archeologiceskie issledovanija w okrestnostjach gor. Muroma, w godu 1914. Drevnostii: Trudy imperatorskiego Moskowskowo Archelogiczeskogo Odsczestwa 24, 40-216 Gorodcov , V.A., 1928, K voprosu o kimmeriiskoi kulture. Trudy sekcii archeologii "Raniona" 2, 46-60 Gosden, C., 1985, Gifts and kin in the early Iron Age Europe . Man 20, 475-493 Gosden, C., 1989, Dept, production and prehistory. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8, 355-387 Gould, J., 1989, "Herodotus". Historians on Historians. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson Grach, A.D., 1983, lstoriko-kulturnaya obshchnost ranneskifskogo vremeni v centralnoi Azji. Archeologicheskii Sbornik 23, 30-35, [Leningrad] Grakov, B.M., 1947, Skifi. KiO ~s\

~v

;s,t' A q❖.

• 2~ ..::>:>· • ··

,·,:,,:f;;,, 4 .,

.:: ),

Kaptol grc:mp

Map 88. Networks of exchange and interregional contacts between the East Hallstatt culture and neighbouring regions (Egg 1996: 57, Abb. 4). 1 - Grize, 2 - Ormoz, 3 - Legen, 4 -Martijanec, 5 - Postela, 6 - Rifuik, 7 - Burgstallkogel at Kleinklein, 8 - Leibnitz, Radkersburg, 10 - Strettweg, 11 - Wildon, 12 - Lamprechtskogel

Figures

,,·;fj!,!!

,,(~}i,,'{t/;jJiltf~,, ,,,1;f!-',£~i~l~~~t~~\;J1,i>

),{~i~~

,'

·=:~~---.·.-:.-

Fig. 1. Examples of decorative motifs of Danubian origin, which are known from northern Europe (after Sprockhoff 1954: 45, Abb. 8: 10; 1956: v.I, 167, Abb: 46-47; Kossack 1954: Taf. 8).

Fig. 2. The twin helmets from Viks0 (after Norling-Christensen 1946a: Pt 1; 1946b: 9, Fig. 3; Harding 1994: 330).

•

1.

-2.

r

I

• C:

3.

Fig. 3. Different types of knives from northern and central Europe from the Hallstatt B 1_2 period (Silesian (I) and Pfatten (2) types, and knives from L0ve (3)) (after Thrane 1972: Fig. 4k; 1975: Fig. 46-47).

Fig. 4. Examples of the so-caUed oath-rings (Eidringe) (after Sprockhoff 1956: vJI, Taf. 40)

Fig. 5. Examples of bracelets made of double \vire (Armspiralen aus Doppeldraht) (after Sprockhoff 1956: vJI, Taf. 37: 1-3, 5).

Fig. 6. Examples of "kidney-shaped" bracelets (Nierenringe) (after Sprockhoff 1956: vJI, Taf. 42).

Fig. 7. Examples of differenttypes of neckrings (Halskragen)(after Sprockhoff 1956:v.Il, Ta:f.21: 3, 22: 5-6, 23: 4-5).

Fig. 8. Examples of different types of fibulae with fiat plates (Sprockhoff 1956: v.Il, Taf 49: 4-9,

~1-,8") . ~- .

)

-

......

c:,

l! /' ·

\:

I

,1

,, ,,

!['

: /}JI

' l,1{

\J'

.. I

• ' 'I

' ,I.ii

:,11

,Y1

W

}i; I·:;:'.

t(i; .lj

'

' '

11

'1•1 .).:1

'

ii:::

iy -~;~ .

·err

','.':\i)i I

i

~,Iii

:; i::tr '1/ll /' t

', ';i \11/1

' Fig. 9. Examples of the so-called sword with a rod type of hilt (Griffangelschwerter) (after Baudou 1960: Taf. I).

CD.... (77 \__L[

i'

:2 ':'~

,,

'

O

I

.....•..•. ,:...-·. , '14

:)'3l

\J I

I

I

.......

,.,..,,

,1, m·..:

1

16

' I 1

fl

18

I

--=-1;==..;. 0 0 0 0

Fig. 10. Examples of round-bottomed pottery characteristic of the forest zone of eastern Europe, which has been found in north-eastern Poland (5-9), and in the areas of the Ananina (1-4) and Milogrady (10-19) cultures (after Okulicz L. 1976: 226, Rye. 106).

Fig. 11. Plans of the barrow graves from former Georgshohe, Warschken and Birkenhof (raj. Primorsk) (after Tischler 1887: 124, 154, Fig. 1, 4; Okulicz J. 1973: 230, Rye . 92: b).

Fig. 12. A plan of the boat-shaped barrow from former Espenheim (raj. Znamiensk) (after Okulicz J. 1973: 319, Rye. 145).

Fig. 13. Examples of the Malar and Ananina axes (after Kuzminykh 1983: 204-205, 226-227, Tab. X: 1-9, XI: 1-4, 7-10, XXXI: 1-9, XXXII: 1-4, 6-8).

~

Fig. 14. Examples of two types of pottery ("Lusatian" and "textile") discovered at the fortified settlement in Asva (after Okulicz L. 1976: 118-119, Rye. 43: 1-8, 44: 1-7).

A

,.. : ..... --d;;-%~:~

8

...... i B

Fig. l5. The boat-shaped barrows from t he Island of Saaremaa (after L-ougas 1970·· 112, Fig. . 1).

o

.5

,o

15

.ao

-~-\

.---~-·--··••"..:-

,/;

ii

,.'"·';,::%;£ :i :J'J,~,,,

[

.

?t!-

\,,~~l ~~1:S'lj !;@:~~/1

0

Fig. 16. Examples of boat-shaped graves from the eastern Baltic (recorded in 19th century and in 1960s) (after Groudonis 1967: 70-72, Fig. 53-55).

. I '

~

C@)) I

I

~

-0-

~ ~.·· I at ~..t 1f1f1f'

!i t@f1'tt t Fig. 17. Examples of the Cemogorovka and Novocerkassk types of artefacts (after Murzin 1991: 60-61, Fig. 3 a-b).

Fig. 18. Gold artefacts from a barrow of Gyoma (after Marton 1905; Chochorowski 1993: 237, Fig. 50).

0

Fig . 19. Examples of artefacts from the Michalk6w-Fokoru (Michalkiv-Besenyszog) type of hoards (after Chochorowski 1993: 239, Fig. 51).

Fig. 20. Examples of Cimmerian horse-bits from central Europe (after Chochorowski 1993: 4041, Fig. 1: 1-12).

Fig. 21. Examples of Cimmerian horse-bits where cannons are structurally connected with the cheek-pieces (after Chochorowski 1993: 74-75, Fig. 4).

Fig. 22. Examples of Cimmerian cheek-pieces from central Europe (after Chochorowski 1993: 56-57, Fig. 2).

-o t7

•,

0

.·

•.

.

.

.,,.,•. - ,a,·

Fig. 23. Examples of ring-shaped joins used in bridal fittings of Cimmerian origin (after Chochorowski 1993: 82, Fig. 5).

~~ ~ ~ 0 ~~

~~e

•

0~

§

*~

~

©tO ~ ~~

. .

I

,

iBr-

1

...

Fig. 24. Examples of "rein-knobs" of Cimmerian origin from central Europe (after Chochorowski 1993: 90, 101, Fig. 7-8).

Fig. 25. A depiction on an Etruscan vase (the so-called Pontic vase) (after Murzin 1991: 57, Abb. 1).

Fig. 26. A depiction from the sarcophagus from Klazomenai (after Chochorowski 1993: 112, Fig. 11).

'''' ',,

,.I

0

.'

', '

10cm

Fig. 27. Examples of the Kabardin-Pyatigorsk daggers of different types from central Europe (after Chochorowski 1993: 114, Fig. 18).

'

I

LJ

0

5cm

Fig . 28. Examples of different types of Cimmerian fittings for sheaths from central Europe (after Chochorowski 1993: 123, Fig. 13).

0

5cm

I ..'I

\;;ll!j~ /,

I 1 ·, ~

·

Ii

I• I' I I

'••I I \I

,':'::!I .

I.

'1

I I

Fig. 29. Examples of different types of spearheads from central Europe (after Chochorowski 1993: 126, Fig. 14).

Fig. 30. Examples of "sceptres" found in central Europe (after Chochorowski 1993: 130, Fig. 15).

0

5cm

Fig. 31. Examples of bronze and stone batons from central Europe (after Chochorowski 1993: 135, Fig. 16).

I

A,y~p•ci

I N~i I l~M ·l

II

Issdanu

I I

11'tossagdde

I

HISa=me~I

~::;__ ___ __;::~-----IJ1aie!aeI I Swl< I

Fig. 32. Peoples and tribes described by Herodotus, mapped in terms of geographical and social space (after Taylor 1994: 390) .

~

~:

·~

.....-...;..

:-.'✓

'

;

t

aJ

Fig. 33. Examples of different types of Scythian barrows (after Meliukova 1989: Tab. 12: 7, 13: 3, 5, 9, 10, 15, 15: 1, 2, 7, 7a; Olkhovskii 1991: 227-229, Tab. XV: 7-8, XVII: 78, XVIII: 4).

f\@t®4~ i:,.----0-AA

G)

@~ i~fi~

Fig . 34. Characteristic objects of the Scythian culture (after Meliukova 1989: 336-338, 342343, 347, 350-35 1, Tab. 31: 36, 37, 32: 5-9, 11-13, 33: 20, 37: 5-8, 12, 14, 38: 14-18, 42: 11-15, 45: 6-7, 46: 20, 22).

0

•· .•

,,

ii-!).».)(·;. . . .,..,,~ ·.. '

e)

·~-

0

.

'

~

q

@'

,o,,~

ZOOM

000

Fig. 35. Graves, fortified settlements and examples of material culture from the forest-steppe zone influenced by the Scythian culture (after Meliukova 1989: 323-324, 326, 346, Tab. 18: 1, 6-7, 19: 7, 14, 21: 2, 5, 10, 12, 14-15, 31-32, 34, 35, 41: 1-2, 31-53).

~~~~f~~~•" -:.:-----

'r '

v v ..

.

®

,"

,f~ ~'

I

h..

~

~ I

Fig. 36. Examples of artefacts of Scythian origin from area between the Pruth and Dnester Rivers (after Meliukova 1989: 332, Tab. 27).

'

'9

i*

it V

@ I

-

't ¢'

7

t V

. . . I

v

L_:cM

0

.

··· ,\I .._

'

'

(

Fig. 3 7. Examples of Scythian type items found in graves in Transylvania (after Vasiliev 1980: Tab. 27; Meliukova 1989: 333-334, Tab. 28: 4-6, 18-24, 29: 1-27, 30, 32).

-

0

L__Jan

Fig. 38. Examples of finds of Scythian type from graves of the Vekerzug culture (after Chochorowski 1987: 172-173, 177, Fig. 7: 1-53, 56).

Fig. 39. Examples of objects of Scythian type from the basin of the upper Sava River (after Chochorowski 1985b: 248-250, Abb. 8: 1-23, 80, 9: 17, 33-35, 38-46, 10: 1-50).

''

c~-~ .

-

-

-

;-

.•.

.

[!J} : .

- -

- ..

_, l

~

-~-/

'~ &

0

-

-

Fig. 40. Examples of objects of Scythian ongm from south-western Hungary (after Chochorowski 1985b: 238-239, Abb. 5: 1, 3-13, 17-18, 24-25, 6: 1-9, 17-22, 30).

8

CJj

_fil_ .6.

0

3cm

1-12,15-18.24

O

3cm

'--------'

13,14

O

'---------'

7cm

19,20,27-29,32

0

'-------' 21,33

3cm

0 2cm '--------' 23

Fig. 41. Examples of objects of Scythian type from the area north of the Carpathian Mountains (after Schwantes 1952: 286, Abb. 195; Chochorowski 1985b: 244, Abb. 7: 2-6, 15-23, 26-31).

,----------

TYPUS MORIGEN Variante

! ______

_

Fig. 42. Examples of Waltenburg and Moringen types of swords (after Miller-Karpe 1961: Tab. 98-99; Kristiansen 1993: 146, Fig. 14.3).

......... ................ ........................... ................................. ........... .......................... .......

.:i.."..

.:i _.;,_.;,_ .;,_ ..:i_..:i _-:i_.:i ...:i .. .:, _-:i.. .:i.. .:i

.;,_.:i_.:i_.;i _.:i..:,_.:,"· "· .:i_.;,:,.;,.:,

"·"·"·.:i

::;·:;·:;· :;·',j·',:;··.)· ~-0·0.0--..;·:.;· ~ -~· ·.;> ·,::;-~··~·~-;j·~·-.:;-,;· -~··;;.::;·::;·,::; ·:;·:;·~·0·:.;·.J

-----·-

·························----------------·--------·

0000000000000000000000000000000000

Fig. 43. Examples of "sunship bird" decorations (after Kossack 1954: Taf. 8: 16-17; Jockenhovel 1974: Abb. 7-8; Kristiansen 1993: 148, Fig. 14.5).

D D t!!1 t!l ~

£J

'l=t~

{)ll

. •

11 !

0

r

~

-~\1

~

Som

~cm

-=

_1,.:_:.r';_-. --

...... .,

r," • ~'.

\,'.~ o__

•· ;,-;:.

• ..,

i -~-~~

0

5cm

~ mJ 1 rtl(1rr1 H

. --

J.

~

;j

I

1 ·::: :f \" ..:!! \

,•{

\J Fig. 44. Examples of metal objects of the East Hallstatt origin from Bohemia, Moravia, western Slovakia and Silesia (after Gedl 1992: 24, Rye. I: 2-6; 1996: Abb. 18: 1-2, 4; Filip 1951: Tab. 17: 15-16, 19-22, 19: 47-57, 20: 15, 27-31, 21: 1-7, 9-10, 14, 16).

-

5cm

0

aow¢

I ;q .lllL«I( l!/J

-Cl

11)1 Ji), ~

I

Fig . 45. Examples of the Hallstatt and Italian fibulae found in Poland (after Gedl 1991: Abb. 30: 7-11, 40: 1-4, 41: 1-3).

Fig. 46. Examples of bronze situlae and cistae from the Czech Republic (after Filip 1951: Tab. 26: 8-9, 13, 16).

t1l:J\(

~~ ~

/'

0-----------------

Fig. 47. Examples of metal finds from graves of the South Bohemian Barrow Graves culture (after Praveke 1978: 580-581, Fig. 180: 1-4, 7-9).

• 27

~

O

00

0

~ ~ 0000

0

ooo

ooo o oo op O 000

000

000000

ooo

000000

00

oo ooo 00

oo o• o • oo

0000000

00000

0000000

••

6000000