JAN BOUZEK STUDIES OF HOMERIC

GREECE

KAROLINUM
Studies of Homeric Greece

Jan Bouzek

Reviewers:
Luboš Jiráň (Institute of Archaeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences)
Václav Marek (Institute of Greek and Latin Studies, Charles University)

Designed Jan Šerých

Typeset by DTP Karolinum
First Edition

The final phase of the book was prepared with the support of the Programme
for the development of Fields of Study at Charles University No. Q 09
“History as key to understanding globalisation of the world” in the Faculty of Arts,
and Programme Progress Q 22 “Anthropological investigations in the natural,
human and historical areas” in the Faculty of Humanities.

© Jan Bouzek, 2018

© Charles University, 2018

ISBN 978-80-246-3561-3
ISBN 978-80-246-3566-8 (online : pdf)
Charles University
Karolinum Press 2018

www.karolinum.cz
[email protected]
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface 7

Introduction 9

Part 1: Bronze Age 13

1.1 “The First Golden Age of Europe” 13
1.2 Mycenaean models and European parallels 17
1.3 Migrations in the Aegean 23
1.4 Reviews—Harding, Dickinson, Cline 29

Part 2: Late Helladic III C 41

2.1. LH III C: a survey 41
2.2 LH III C iconography: an interim period of artistic development in Greece 60
2.3 From Bronze to Iron Age 66
2.4 Pride and modesty—how to survive the Dark Age 70
2.5 Birds 80

Part 3: From Submycenaean to Middle Geometric 86

3.1 Submycenaean and Subminoan 86
3.2 Protogeometric (Late 11th and 10th century BC) 92
3.3 From Protogeometric to Geometric 103
3.4 Early to Middle Geometric, 900–775 BC 105
3.5 Thracian thalassocracy: fact or fiction? 127

Part 4: Late Geometric 136

4.1 From pasture to polis 136
4.2 The structure of settlements, temples 141
4.3 Reviews—Coldstream, Malkin 143
4.4 Precolonisation in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea 148
4.5 Xoana and Laconian wooden sculpture 161

Part 5: Homer and archaeology 166

5.1 Homer—how he perceived his real environment 166
5.2 Reviews—Nagy, Hall 168
Part 6: Phoenicians 172
6.1 Introduction 172
6.2 Phoenicians in the Black Sea? 173
6.3 Phoenician merchant ventures in central
and western Mediterranean and in continental Europe 174

Part 7: Macedonian bronzes 180

7.1 Macedonian Bronzes in Italy (= MB VI) 180
7.2 Macedonian bronzes—30 years later 184
7.4 Macedonian Bronzes today 203

Part 8: Geometric Koine 205

8.1 Relations Between The Aegean and the North. The Amber Route 205
8.2 koine of Early Iron Age Geometric Styles 212
8.3 Central Europe and Caucasus in the Early Iron Age 222
8.4 The Westernmost Part of the EIA Koine 235

Part 9: Religions 238

9.1 Introduction 238
9.2 Hyperborean Apollo, Solar Heros and Human Soul 238
9.3 Early Greek Religion and Thrace 241
9.4 Reviews—Isler-Kerényi, Wachsmann 245
9.5 Goddess With Arms 248

Part 10: Summary 254

Bibliography 259

Index 284
 PREFACE

The earlier predecessors which formed the roots of this field of study were
first the old dissertation of Bernhard Schweitzer (1918), whose final syntheti-
cal book appeared only after his death (1969) and his polemics with Anna
Roes (Roes 1933) who brought important contributions to understanding
of the symbols from prehistoric Europe over Greece to Iran, E. Sprockhof ’s
Nordische Bronzezeit und frühes Griechentum (1954) was also subject of his
lecture in Prague during my student years in Prague and the paper by my
Humboldt father W. Kimmig (Kimmig 1964) followed similar path, besides
H. Müller-Karpe (1962 and his studies on early Rome and Kerameikos). For
penetrating into the world of European symbols H. Kossack’s Symbolgut
(1954) was indispensable and even if we later disagreed in some details, he
was many times useful partner in discussions, notable in the eastern rela-
tions of Central Europe, Caucasus and Siberia. I hardly met Vladimír Milojčić,
but his brief AA paper on northern relations of EIA Greece (Milojčić 1949)
was excellent sketch of this field of study and laid foundations for much what
I also follow in this book. In the field of Hungarian LBA I benefited much from
the friendship of Amalia Mozsolics; János-György Szilágyi helped to educate
me in etruscology. Fritz Schachermeyer (1976–1983) had good nose even if
his argumentation was not always on expected level, and discussions with
him were useful; my dear friend Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy transmitted me some
of them together with her own inspiring ideas. In Greece discussions with
M. Verdelis and M. Andronikos helped me much already during my first stays
in Greece.

My Homerisches Griechenland published in 1969 arose from my first study

stays in Greece as a guest of Swedish and German institutes and from
my Humboldt scholarship with Prof. Wolfgang Kimmig at Tübingen in
1967–68, when I also tried to prepare my later books on relations between
Greece and Central Europe, the first draft of which was presented already
to the Paris congress of Classical archaeology in 1963. Of Britain I had steady
support from my close friends Sinclair Hood, Nicolas Coldstream, Anthony
Harding and fruitful exchange of ideas with Anthony Snodgrass and many
others, in France I owe much to Jean-Pierre Vernant, Venceslas Kruta, Pierre
Devambez, Pierre Amandry, in Germany to W.-D. Heilmeyer, K. and I. Kilian
8 Preface

and K. Kübler. Including the east into this picture enabled me a number of
conferences in former Soviet Union, Russia and Georgia, and one semester
stay in Moscow in 1976. I also benefited from the survey by O. Dickinson, who
holds himself for pupil of Vincent Desborough, whose books on last Myce-
naeans and on Protogeometric Greece (1964, 1972) were narrative syntheses,
also respecting historical sources and mythological traditions of heroic
past. Of the Balkan countries I benefited much from my mentors of previ-
ous generation, my contemporaries and younger colleagues, in Bulgaria esp.
Ivan Venedikov, M. Domaradzki and L. Domaradzka, in Romania to Petru
Alexandrescu and Valeriu Sîrbu, in ex-Jugoslavia to Z. and Ks. Vinski, M. and
D. Garašanin, R. Vasić, Z. Marić, in Greece to L. Marangou, N. Kourou, A. Maza-
rakis, M. Andronikos, and A. Michailidou. For understanding the Scandina-
vian rock art and symbolism I would like to thank to John Colis and F. Kaul,
for broader information about context to my careful editor Paul Ǻström. I am
especially indebted to the Mellon foundation and to W. D. Coulson fund or the
hospitality in the American School at Athens in 1995, to the German Archaeo-
logical Institute and the French School in 2000–2012, and finally to Alexander
Mazarakis Ainian for the hospitalty at Volos in 2015. The original version of
the title of the volume included a subtitle “and koine of EIA Geometric styles
revisited”, but the author understands that the shorter title suggested by the
publisher sounds better.

I would like to express my gratitude to many persons, who supported me

during the long years when trying to study various aspects of this field. In
the final phase I thank to the reviewers, Luboš Jiráň and Václav Marek, for
their useful comments, to the director of the Karolinum publishing house
Petr Valo, Jan Hejzl, Jana Zíková and Stanislava Kučová, who kindly took over
the care of the index. Without her support, the book would not appear.

The author would like to dedicate this volume to the memory

of Nicolas Coldstream, teacher and friend.
 INTRODUCTION

After A. Snodgrass (2000) and N. Coldstream (2003) published second edi-

tions of their Dark Age books, the first only with new foreword, and the
second rewritten with many improvements, I was asked by several colleagues
whether I would not follow them with my old book on Homeric Greece
(Bouzek 1969a). First I answered that most of what I wanted to say was put
into my second book with Paul Ǻström (Bouzek 1997a, GAE), but later on
the field grew bigger, a large number of new excavations, finds and studies
appeared, and new previously neglected aspects of the Dark Age emerged in
the ongoing discussions (cf. esp. Stampolides ed. 2004; Mazarakis Ainian ed.
2011, 2016, etc.). The last impetus was the kind invitation to the Dark Age con-
ference at Volos in 2015 by the leading specialist in this field Prof. Alexander
Mazarakis Ainian, who was a splendid host. Meeting with many specialists
there largely improved my knowledge of the new discoveries and studies.1
On the other hand I was involved in some more general projects in my
country, notably in studies of civilisations and also looking after parallel
situations of crises and collapses. For closer collaboration I was also kindly
invited by my Icelandic friend Johann Arnason into the field of what they
call with Carl Jaspers the emergence of the Axial Age. My studies on much
humbler level on the transition from Bronze to Iron Age tried to show that the
transition from pre-philosophical to philosophical mind in the categories of
Auguste Conte and the structuralism, or from mythos to logos by the Classi-
cists, as Geburt des Geistes by Bruno Snell, was a longer process.
First I tried to follow the idea to rewrite my old Homeric Greece with addi-
tions, but the more reasonable solution seemed to bring brief overviews of
the present state of knowledge (these are the first chapters in each of the first
four parts) and attach some comments from dispersed reviews with a selec-
tion of up-to-dated earlier papers on detailed aspects of this field, dispersed
in various conference volumes, and—often exotic—periodicals, in the frame
of revisiting the fields covering roughly the four volumes of mine devoted to
Late Bronze—Early Iron Age in Greece and Europe:

1 ARISTOI. Regional Studies towards a new perception of the Early Greek World, Volos, June 18–21,
2015, publ. 2016. The volume is a kind of complementary survey to the more general discussion
in my book.
10 introduction

– Homerisches Griechenland, Prague 1969 (abbr. HG)

– The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe in the second millennium BC, Ǻström
1985 (abbr. AAE)
– Greece, Anatolia and Europe in the Early Iron Age, Ǻström 1997 (abbr.
GAE)
– Graeco-Macedonian Bronzes, Prague 1972 (abbr. GMB)

In my ripe age I hardly could rewrite all, but have to concentrate on more
modest goal: to edit dispersed notes while completing the main line of narra-
tive—to attach second thoughts, corrections and additions to various aspects
of the subject of this book for those, who will follow my path in the same
or related field of study, in a kind of discussion with other new synthetic
monographs.
The surveys by O. Dickinson (2006), G. D. Middleton (2010), M. Thomatos
(2000) and many other younger colleagues deserve discussion, much new
brought the second editions of J. N. Coldstream’s, Geometric Greece (2003)
and Greek Geometric Pottery (2008), with supplementary chapters, A. Snod-
grass’ book Dark Age Greece (2000) and also his more recent volumes brought
new ideas. I. S. Lemos on Protogeometric pottery (2002) compiled much new
evidence on settlements, burials and pottery. Several books by I. Morris and
J. Whitley show specific approaches to the subject. The book by A. Mazarakis
Ainian on Ομηρος και αρχαιολογια (Athens 2000) only appeared in Greek,
while his two conference volumes (2013, 2016) and number of other studies
on Crete, islands and mainland with the Peloponnese much broadened the
evidence and were published the field of study interest enlarged, with several
more general books for broader public were published (Cline 2014; Wallace
2010; cf. Tsipopoulou 2005).
In the first four parts of this book the first chapter(s) give(s) a kind of
revisited summary of the discussed period, followed by revisited com-
ments and special studies. Brief references to my previous books are put in
the brackets into the text; they either refer to more detailed discussions in
the old books, or express critics where the progress of knowledge changed the
possible interpretation. Special place is devoted to iconography and also to
usually neglected metallic finds, as being of interest also to the prehistorians.
Part 5 is devoted to Homer and to explanation of rather unorthodox dat-
ing of his lifespan (or at least of Proto-Homer) into the 10th century, with
some features corresponding to the lifespan of the Lefkandi hero. Part 6
on the Phoenicians is based on three revisited papers on the Black Sea and
Central Europe, while the more general part is based on my lecture in the
Oriental Institute in Beirut in 2006. Their role was of primary importance
not only in the field of the glass and alphabet, but in the capacity of risky
private venture as well.
 introduction 11

Part 7 deals with the Macedonian bronzes, the topic of the present author,
whose relations to the East, North, Italy and Greece are discussed together
with their neighbours. Part 8 sums up the evidence of the koine of geometric
styles between northern China and the Atlantic coast, part 9 the northern
links and relations of Greek religion. Part 10 summarizes the conclusions on
the two levels of questions posited: one on the usual field of archaeology and
history, and the second on the path from mythos to logos, emergence of Axial
Age, change of identity.
Historia magistra vitae. The past experience may offer hints to us: how to
develop the means and capacity to find the way out from the menacing col-
lapse nowadays: by rising the mental capacity of thinking, finely educated
area of feelings, emotions, to be able to overcome the fear, despair and hate,
and to develop strong will to accomplish what has to be done.
 PART 1: BRONZE AGE

1.1 “THE FIRST GOLDEN AGE OF EUROPE”

The series of conferences held in the frame of the Council of Europe campaign
The Bronze Age—The First Golden Age of Europe,1 of which only several have
been published,2 may offer good examples of the present situation in Bronze
Age studies, where two main camps have been formed, between which the
understanding has become difficult. The usual picture is like fairy tales with
heroic knights in armour with swords, and beautiful ladies with heavy orna-
ments, all on them shining in yellow bronze resembling gold.

METHODS, APPROACHES

The Bronze Age in Europe has been traditionally studied mainly from bronze
objects and pottery uncovered in the cemeteries, and only later settlement
sites are becoming better known. Moreover, the traditional “fundamen-
talist” approach stressed questions of the typology of the objects, of their
relative chronology and of local differences, while other questions of social
and cultural life, of settlement sites and patterns, were much less in the focus
of interest. This situation, despite of its positive results, left many important
questions unanswered.
On the other hand, the approaches of New, Processual and Post-Proces-
sual archaeologists, as well as other attempts to solve the problems, in which
alternative strategies have been suggested, often lacked sufficiently deep
knowledge of the archaeological objects themselves and therefore provoked
objections from the traditional connoisseurs.

1 Lecture and review 2000, presented orally, but unpublished. Cf. Bouzek 1988a, 2004.
2 The Verona conference on chronology appeared as a supplementum of Acta Archaeologica 67
in Copenhagen (Randsborg, ed. 1996). The last Berlin conference under redaction of B. Hänsel
(1998) entitled Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas—Man and Environment in Bronze Age
Europe. The subject found its reflection also in the UISPP 1996 Forlì congress (sessions concerning
the Bronze Age, published in its Acts). One has been published in the series of the Museum of
National Antiquities in Stockholm by Carin Orrling. The other colloquia, like London, Athens-
Lagonisi, Lisbon, Besançon, etc. remained unpublished.
14 PART 1: Bronze Age

Moreover, Aegean Bronze and Early Iron Age studies, stemmed from
Classical archaeology of age lit by written history, were also split in an
analogous way and too alien to Central European stream to establish mutual
understanding.3
The present crisis reflects a situation in which the traditional methods
cannot take us much more forward above the level reached by the previous
generation. This is especially so for areas which have already been much
explored (though this approach can still fill up some lacunae even in well-
known areas). On the other hand, other approaches, including deduction
from patterns of parallel societies and changes known both archaeologically
and historically, or from living ethnographic societies, which can still be
studied as contemporary to us, are not yet quite ripe to fulfil this task. But
a crisis, a disease, may well open the way to its healing: the present situation
should not be seen as a problem only, but rather as a challenge giving us the
chance to enlarge and deepen our knowledge by trying harder and asking the
right questions.4
Most of the discussions during the colloquia of the campaign have shown
that only an approach from different angles, using different methods, could in
their complexity bring us forward in the knowledge of European prehistory.
One of the questions raised in the discussions was a confrontation of “auton-
omist” and “diffusionist” approaches, and considering the relevant situations
from these two points of view has confirmed that both approaches may have
the right to compete in most crucial questions. Equally the two interpretative
streams, one deriving its possible models from “living” ethnography, and the
other from the Near Eastern and Classical societies, also known from written
sources, may be fruitful, though a caution has to be recommended not to go
too far in using shortcut parallels. The Bronze Age stood between the Neo-
lithic period, of which more ethnographic parallels exist until recent times,
and the Iron Age, largely known—besides archaeological excavations—from
literary sources.
Even the old societies were complex ones, with complicated social struc-
tures, with mutual interrelations and contacts between individual areas.
Some of these contacts contributed to a koine of similar technologies and
artistic styles, which show us also the old European continent of that time as
certain cultural entity and identity.
Similar, sometimes even identical phenomena existed over most parts of
Europe, thus shaping one of its first identities.

3 Cf. e.g. Alcock – Osborne 1988; Blake – Knapp, eds. 2005; Courbin 1988; Mee 2011; Morris, ed. 1994;
Osborne 2009; Snodgrrass 1987.
4 A survey Z. Vašíček 1994.
 PART 1: Bronze Age 15

BRONZE AGE MIND

The history of religion and many modern studies of the so-called primitive
societies have taught us that their understanding of the world was different,
but in many ways not inferior to our approach. I would recommend that
a similar approach should also be applied to prehistory. The word ideology
usually means something artificially produced and false. Ancient ways of
thinking used by Bronze Age societies reflected the realities surrounding
ancient men and women from different angles and with different means
than we use to approach them now. But their picture of the world was not
considered by the Bronze Age people an ideology in our sense. It was the reality
in which the ancient peoples lived. It enabled them to conduct their lives in
harmony with nature, with their environment and also among themselves,
within their society: a goal which we now try hard to achieve, often with
modest results as yet.
In any case, archaeology only gives a fragmentary and thus a distorted
picture of mutual relations between individual cultures, so, as far as possible,
we have also to use other means to reconstruct the general scene.
A few sherds of pottery or other objects found far away from their pro-
duction centre offer useful information and in all probability they represent
a more common feature. In his book Piecing together the past (London 1956)
V. G. Childe describes an archaeological source as follows:5 Mr. Childe went to
the woods, he consumed his tin of sardines and buried the empty container
under a tree. Later, an archaeologist comes, discovers the tin and knows that
Mr. Childe (or somebody like him) was there. Under normal conditions, how-
ever, we would need some ten thousands of Childes to have any chance to
find one tin. We are normally happy to have our sherds, but their absence
cannot be used as a decisive argument against the historical tradition or any
other evidence: only too often have a few happy finds destroyed elaborate
hypotheses based on the absence of finds.
Organic objects, like wood, basketry, etc. are only rarely preserved, under
especially favourable conditions (as in the Egyptian desert, in the frozen soil
of Upper Altai, or in wet sites in prehistoric Europe and in Samos’ Heraeum),
but traces of their influence can be seen in other classes of objects, like pot-
tery and bronze items. We can thus use this evidence for reconstruction of
the missing aspects of the archaeological culture. There are also general laws
based on a reasonable degree of probability (not absolute necessity) describ-
ing changes and interactions between different societies. We have discussed
these elsewhere (Bouzek 1988a, 1994a), as other scholars have done (cf. esp.
Sherrat 1992), and the interpretations put forward should respect these

5 For Childe’s opinions on archaeological theory, cf. now esp. B. McNairn 1980.
16 PART 1: Bronze Age

laws, and not be based on “feelings” or false presumptions of what should be

expected as “safe” arguments in any given case.
Our ecological crisis should teach us that no real results could be reached
by examining two phenomena only as cause and effect. What might work in
a laboratory never works in an identical way in real life. Single phenomena
can only be studied in isolation in the first stage of examination, which must
be followed by examination of their relation to other phenomena in time
and space, and also of their place in a higher order. All phenomena acquire
real meaning only in the context of other features. There are always chains
of causes and effects and other kinds of interrelations, among them those,
which respect a higher totality, of which single phenomena are but members.
Here our position is holistic, so that we are convinced that a basic change in
the human mind lies behind all artistic products and can again be studied
through its reflection in them.
Human history is also an interaction between man and his natural envi-
ronment, and changes in this interaction, due to climatic fluctuations and
changes and damage caused by human activities, are also part of our story:
men had to react to all of them to survive. One also has to study the phenom-
ena themselves, and be critical when considering opinions on them expressed
by others.
If arguments for the existence of a phenomenon are proved wrong,
renewed study of the phenomenon is necessary—its existence may still be
correct. Equally erroneous is the argument that if a phenomenon cannot be
proved with certainty to exist (1), it has no right to be considered as existent
(2) and its existence should therefore be denied (3). This attitude means that
we close doors through which our knowledge may one day be enlarged.
We have to steer our ship between the Scylla of telephone catalogues
of objects or phenomena (data bases, which may be useful, but can never
represent the final aim of a real study) and the Charybdis of free play with
hypotheses, where everything may be possible, since no proofs are required
for different views. Only after skilled manoeuvring between the two and
taking from both what is still sound, can we try to overcome—as far as our
capacities allow—both dangers.
We have to use models, but we should also bear in mind that perim-
eters not included in the model bring unexpected possibilities into any real
sequence of events. That all individual cases are determined by one general
law is no longer respected in modern science, which knows many laws of
only statistical validity. To paraphrase Aristotelian philosophy, induction
can bring us to a certain level of probable knowledge, but above this level
it is unable to give general results, while deduction can encircle the space
in which the probable solution can be sought, but does not determine the
individual case.
 PART 1: Bronze Age 17

All documents must be placed where they belong, and the general subject
approached from as many angles as possible: this would exclude hypotheses
derived only from one-sided observations. It must, however, be stressed that
the improbable may also happen.
We should not keep to schematic models or schemes: our way of thought
must be moving freely over our hypotheses, which should be no more than the
scaffolding helping us to reconstruct the building, scaffolding which will be
taken away once our part of the building is finished. It must also be stressed
that alternative explanations should always be mentioned. Some stones from
our building may fall out, and the building may again take a different shape.
We still have a long way to go to acquire a more thorough knowledge of the
subject discussed here, but we may express the hope that some contribution
to solving some problems may be found, if Klio, the Muse of history and
perhaps of archaeology as well, is with us.6
The Bronze Age laid backgrounds of our present Europe: the story of
princess Europa, kidnapped by Zeus and receiving gifts enabling safe rule,
belongs here.

1.2 MYCENAEAN MODELS AND EUROPEAN PARALLELS

Minoan seals and signet rings show divinities and priestesses worshipping
sacred trees, boulders, gardens and altars, dances: phenomena paralleled in
most religions known to us, but some of those more specific ones suggest sim-
ilar traits common to the Aegean and temperate Europe as well (AAE 43–56;
Marinatos 1993; Hrubý 1958; Bouzek 1994).
In prehistoric Europe altars similar to the Aegean ones are known in clay,
sometimes burned. The sanctuary from Uherský Brod, where bulls were sac-
rificed and their figurines also offered, reminds much of the rituals in the
Bronze Age Aegean (fig. 1), the so-called Little Altar of Minoan-Mycenaean
iconography has parallels in clay and in small bronze objects, mainly pen-
dants (AAE 71–76). The necklace with acorns (or penises?) from the Shaft
Graves has close parallel in pendant from the early MBA site at Vrcovice
(pl. B 1.3) in South Bohemia (Hlásek et alii 2015; Pl. 21:8), where also a copy
of early pithos has been found (pl. B 1.1). The earrings with spiral terminals
from the Shaft Graves probably belonged, as already Arthur Evans thought,
to princesses from far north married to Mycenaean princes; their North Bal-
kan origin is at least very probable (AAE 53–55). Jewellery was transmitted by

6 The volume 4 (The Bronze Age, 1913) of the Prehistory of Bohemia brings useful discussion by L. Ji-
ráň. Cf. Harding, A. – Fokkes H., eds. 2013, The Oxford Handbook of European Bronze Age, Oxford;
Kristiansen 1998; Kristiansen – Larsson 2005; Bergebrant – Sabatini, eds. 2013; Beneš 1964.
18 PART 1: Bronze Age

intermarriages, the princesses married to foreign rulers were ambassadors

caring for their people, as we know e.g. from the story of Ester. Baltic amber
was used in Mycenaean jewellery and even in Egypt (Beck – Bouzek, eds.
1993; AAE 54–58); faience and glass beads worn in many parts of moderate
belt of Europe (AAE 58–60). Roundels with spiral decoration of gold and of
bone, the latter with spirals drawn by compasses (figs. 2–4), reflect the items
from the Shaft Graves of Mycenae, and even the Tumulus culture pottery took
inspiration from Middle Helladic / Early Mycenaean shapes (fig. 7), while
fig. 6 summarizes the distribution of Mycenaean and related finds north of
the Aegean, inspiring European weapons and tools (AAE 64–68, Bouzek 2011b,
40–43). Aegean Linear script was not unknown in other parts of Europe, as
shown by finds from the Balkans and from other parts of Central Europe
(cf. AAE, 48–91; HG 16–20; Vladár – Bartoněk 1977).7
What is, however, equally interesting for the study of relations between
prehistoric Europe and the Aegean civilisations is the metrical system of
weights.8
A survey of the situation of recording quantities of metals in the Aegean
and in the Near East have been recently thoroughly studied by A. Michaili-
dou, ed. (2001ab) and in the conference volume edited by Ch. Pare (2000).

WEIGHT UNITS

In all these areas, metal was costly and was measured and weighed carefully.
This concerned all metals known during the Bronze Age—bronze, gold and
silver. Large amounts of metal were in state or public possession usually
(royal, temples, holders of higher administrative positions) but less valuable
amounts belonging to private people (and sometimes larger with the trades-
men) were also subjects of inheriting, selling and other transformations of
ownership. Generally, there is a close resemblance between the situation
in the Near East and in the Aegean in the distribution system of metals (cf.
also Gillis et alii, eds. 1996). In prehistoric Europe, the system also worked as
a kind of exchange-redistribution pattern, accepted on large territories and
enabling access to metal even to small village units in all Bronze Age Euro-
pean “cultures”.
Weights of bronze, lead or of stone were of various shapes and also of
different materials in different parts of the Mediterranean and of temperate
Europe (cf. esp. the series from the Uluburun shipwreck, Pulak 2000, and
those from Kea, Petruso 1992, with Pare 1999; Ruiz Gálvez 2000), and with the
Italian weights (Cardarelli et alii 2001; Peroni 2001; Bossi 2001; Cattani 2001;

7 Cf. also Bernstorf, Gebhard 1999, and Gebhard – Rieder 2002; Bouzek 2008; Briard 1987.
8 Revisited summary of paper presented to the Eogan Festschrift.
 PART 1: Bronze Age 19

Maggiani 2001). Small balances are known not from the Eastern Mediterra-
nean only, but from several parts of Central Europe as well (esp. Pare 1999,
with examples illustrated). Shapes of weights were not identical even in the
Near East and in the Aegean, and they were of different materials. A group of
stone weights is known from Bronze Age Italy (fig. 12), while most of weights
known from Central and Western Europe are of bronze (fig. 8). Balances are
known from all parts of the world compared here, scale-beams even from
prehistoric Europe (fig. 11). While the ideas behind weighing and weight
units were common property, the shapes of weights show local varieties.
The Aegean weight units have been studied for many years and are gen-
erally well known (cf. esp. Michailidou, ed. 2001ab; Ruiz Gálvez 2000). For
small weight units in the Aegean, there are two main calculations. Petruso
(1978ab) came to 61.5 g and Parise to 65.27 g (Ruiz Gálvez 2000). The main
Aegean sub-unit was probably 6.7 g (between 6.5 and 6.8 g); the system was
binary.
J. Eiwanger (1989, 449) came in his analysis to two possible weights for the
talent in prehistoric Europe. One was calculated from the hoard of Féregyháza
in Hungary (31 439.7 g), and another from the Eberswalde hoard (31,437.3 g).
Both are reasonably similar to the Aegean talent, and the differences between
these two are very small. The standard measures are especially typical for
gold hoards. He takes the small unit known from many parts of Europe
as 55.21 g. For the bronze objects he sees the standard unit ca. 12 and 17 g
(o. c. p.). The calculations of Bronze Age weight units in large parts of Europe
show that these areas used the Mycenaean weight units for weighing met-
als. Malmer (1992) had also 26.6 g as a quarter unit, 107.07 as the basic unit.
Ch. Pare (1999) calculates with 12.2 g, what is 1/5 of the Mycenaean unit of
61 g. 24.4 g is 1/20 of 4.888 g. For Br D the usual units were 6.9 g and 31 g,
for the final Bronze Age the unit as far as known was ca. 27 g. R. Peroni cal-
culates the main weight unit as ca. 26 g, a second as 62–63 g; there existed
also their multiplications and fractions. Even if there are small differences
in present calculations (ancient people did not measure as exactly as our
modern machines), there is an apparent relation between the Bronze Age
Aegean, Italic and European systems. Cardarelli et alii (2001) came to an unit
ca. 52–53 g, well comparable with the 26 g unit.
The collapse of the Mycenaean civilization around 1200 brought changes
into the generally accepted system, and the shekel (7.9 g) became the main
international weight unit (Ruiz Gálvez 2000). Multiple units known are:
36–37 g = 5 shekels; 79 g = 10 shekels; 160 g = 20 shekels; 296 = 35 shekels;
320 g = 40 shekels.
20 PART 1: Bronze Age

ELITES

Two conferences published by the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum

at Mayence “Eliten in der Bronzezeit, 1999” brought in two volumes parallel
analyses of the elites systems of Bronze Age in the Aegean and in temperate
Europe. This colloquium helped to remind us of many resemblances in the
systems of Bronze Age societies in both compared parts of the ancient world.
All areas with élites of similar character apparently had some compatible
systems of administration, diplomatic interrelations, distribution and redis-
tribution of metals. Even if on a more primitive level in temperate Europe,
the general traits of the Central European elites “administration” resembled
that of the Minoan and Mycenaean palace economy.
These social systems and the general way of life of these elites (kings-
priests and their sub-leaders, priests etc.) were compatible to each other
to a certain degree, understandable in their basic traits to the political and
economic partners even in distant areas. The common system of values in
social life facilitated a large-scale “trade” with metals, the most important
raw materials for any part of the Bronze Age world (cf. Eogan 1990, 1997).
It is also very probable that this spread of a system of ideas and beliefs
included a connection between metals, planets and their divinities: copper
was connected with Astarte and Aphrodite–Venus, tin with the predecessors
of Zeus–Jupiter in the ancient world. Gold jewellery was connected with the
Sun. All literary sources of the ancient Near East and Egypt document that
the religious and secular domains were not separated, smelting metals was
connected with some rituals and sacrifices, and the spread of metallurgy
should thus be connected with a sophisticated system of thoughts and beliefs
which formed the content of mind of ancient Europeans and of their Near
Eastern relatives as well (cf. also Hansen 1999). Two new finds deserve a spe-
cial mention:
One of them is the disc from Nebra (Gillis – Risberg – Gleirscher 2007),
another the amber beads with marks similar to Aegean Linear scripts from
Bernstorf, Ldkr. Freising in Bavaria (Gebhard 1999, Gebhard – Rieder 2002).
Other important contribution to this subject represents the book by Vla-
dimír Podborský on the religion of early Europeans (2006). The question of
religious parallels and relations in this field seems to be now in the focus
of interest (Whittaker, ed. 2008; Baray 2008; cf. Hiller 1984).
The religious ideas of the Central European people arrived to Greece
across the Adriatic mainly during the Late Bronze Age. It concerns the hoards
(Bouzek 1985 and A. Mozsolics 1985–2001), amber, its use with solar wheel,
and gold discs with spirals. The items well known from the West Bohemian
Tumulus culture have close analogies in South Italy and also in the Delos
and Tiryns treasures (cf. fig. 5), European weapons, tools (fig. 6) and even
 PART 1: Bronze Age 21

pottery shapes were inspired from the Aegean area (fig. 7). After many years
of discussions even some younger scholars found what I wanted to show for
many years (AAE 175); at least partly W. David (2007) from the northern point
of view, and R. Jung (2007) from the point of view starting from the Aegean
(cf. AAE 45–51).
A series of phenomena shows that Europe was not fully isolated from the
Eastern Mediterranean and from the Near East. The weight units of the Euro-
pean Middle and Late Bronze Age were common to all areas, the astrology and
the mythological teaching about metals was international, as were the shapes
of the majority of metal objects, the technology of casting, of architecture
and so on. There must have been some basic common understanding also
in establishing long-distance relations and an attempt to understand them
more properly is one of the challenges of our time. The system of distribu-
tion of metals during the Bronze Age probably resembled the state-directed
system of the Eastern Mediterranean. In general, there are resemblances
of various artefacts from the temperate zone of Europe with those from the
Aegean, among them in jewellery, which marked the status of the person, of
the priestesses, priests etc. But even more important than relations between
objects are the relations of ideas which enabled the rise of Europe, a cultural
unity even in our modern sense (cf. Harding 2000, 2007; Harding – Fokkes,
eds. 2013; Jiráň, ed. 2015). For understanding of Minoan and Mycenaean cul-
tures Greek myths and Near Eastern Bronze Age parallels have been used
with varying success,9 but northern links were also important and should not
be neglected (cf. Chidiosan – Ordentlich 1975: a temple).

OXHIDE INGOTS AND OTHER SHAPES, WEIGHTS

New finds of bronze ingots shaped like the oxhide from NE Bulgaria (two
now exhibited in the Varna Museum, a third in a private collection, and
several fragments) confirm the trade links between the Black Sea and the
Mediterranean; a fragment of another comes from Suebia (mus. Stuttgart,
cf. figs. 73–75 and 10); Primas – Pernicka 1998; Doncheva 2010; Bouzek 2011b).
There are also some standard shapes of cast bronze and weights for weighing
small objects, probably metals; they are known from many parts of Europe:
this shows that the “trade” in metals had some general rules accepted over
large territories (cf. Gale 1991).

9 A good example are three books on Minoan and Mycenaean religion by Nanno Marinatos. The
first two (Art and Religion on Thera, Athens 1984, and Minoan Sacrificial Ritual, Stockholm 1986)
are linked to later Greece, and the third (Minoan Religion, Ritual, Image and Symbol, Columbia,
South Carolina 1993) tries explanations by means of Near Eastern, Egyptian and Hittite parallels,
each case with different results.
22 PART 1: Bronze Age

A survey of the situation of recording quantities of metals in the Aegean

and in the Near East have been thoroughly studied by A. Michailidou, ed.
(2001ab). In all these areas, metal was costly and was measured and weighed
carefully. This concerned all metals known during the Bronze Age—bronze,
gold and silver. Large amounts of metal were in state or public possession
usually (royal, temples, holders of higher administrative positions) but less
valuable amounts of objects in posession of private people (and sometimes
larger with the tradesmen) were also subjects of inheriting, selling and other
transformations of ownership (Courtois 1990).

OTHER UNITS, AND THEIR POSSIBLE RELATIONS TO MEASURING UNITS

IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE

The length units of the ancient Near East are known from various sources.
A good example is the stick of Maya, the finance minister of Tutankhamun,
in the Louvre. Its total length of 52.3 cm is divided in 28 digits, each measuring
1.86 cm), and further into half digits of 9.3 mm and in 1/16 digit of 1.16 mm.
With my colleague D. Koutecký we tried to calculate the contents of some
large vessels and of the storage pits (silos). The latter had apparently some
relation to the size of the field for which grain destined for the sewage was
stored, but also to the hollow measures for dry substances in the Mycenaean
world (Bouzek – Koutecký 1991).

ASTROLOGY AND THE RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE OF METALS

IN ANCIENT SOCIETIES

Not only metallurgy itself, but also other civilisation traits spread with metal-
lurgy. One of them was apparently a kind of astrology, connected with obser-
vatories and calendars giving a regular rhythm to annual feasts and agricul-
tural activities, as reflected in circular enclosures known from many parts of
Europe. The second was a kind of artistic symbolism, preferring abstraction
to the former Neolithic “naturalism”. The latter was also probably connected
with some geometry as applied in various domains: construction of houses,
measuring of fields, ploughing. None of these could have been introduced
without some practical geometry, similar to that used for ziggurats in Meso-
potamia and for pyramids in Egypt. It is also very probable that this spread
of a system of theories and beliefs included a connection between metals,
planets and their divinities: copper was connected with Astarte and Aphro-
dite–Venus, tin with the predecessors of Zeus–Jupiter. All literary sources
of the ancient Near East and Egypt document that the religious and secu-
lar domains were not separated, smelting metals was connected with some
 PART 1: Bronze Age 23

rituals and sacrifices, and the spread of metallurgy should thus be connected
with a sophisticated system of thoughts and beliefs which formed the content
of the conscience of ancient Europeans and of their Near Eastern relatives
as well (cf. Bouzek 2011b, 31–32). The hoards may have been probably reused
in times of necessity, but their deposition was the final phase and confir-
mation of a ritual, sacrifices to deities. Müller-Karpe in his book (1998) has
shown that Jaspers’ system of the structural chronological development of
civilisations can also be applied to prehistory; and many cultural elements
were common to many areas; this could not be achieved without some kind of
personal communications—formerly called prospectors, merchant ventures,
pilgrims, distant marriages with brides confirming alliances, etc. LH III B saw
the highest density of settlements in Greece, decline in most areas in LH III C
early to late, with the bottom in Submycenaean and only very small rise in
10th to 9th centuries; for Central Europe the opposite is characteristic (cf. HG
50–68; GAE 19–33, here fig. 14). Aegean and Anatolian weapons and armour
were models for the European development and later the European for the
Aegean (AAE 3–50, 99–150).

THE TRANSITION FROM BRONZE TO EARLY IRON AGE

The process was slow, but the changes substantial. The new community
turned from the king-priests to those of the strong individuals; in the
language of Hesiod, the Age of the Heroes was a transitional period between
the Copper and Iron Ages. The new political system was more divided into
small units, the small oikoi of the important persons were more independent
of larger communities, the Dionysiac separation of the individuals from
the community brought the system of leader-and his-men (Gefolgschaft),
arranged according to personal relation between the leader and his followers,
and/or in relations inside his družina. This formed a new society and the new
Iron Age mind, preparing the rise of philosophy, first as a ruse of Odysseus
and David. The trade and exchange network also changed substantially. At this
time, also the weight units are no longer pan-European, there are substantial
local differences between local areas (cf. Bouzek 2011b, 59–62).

1.3 MIGRATIONS IN THE AEGEAN

The idea of any migrations in antiquity was long time out of fashion, but in
the last years there were at least some attempts to return to the subject (Härke
1988; Burmeister 1996, 13–21; Anthony 1990, 895–914; Sherrat 1992, 1–5; Laka
2002), including a section in the European Association of Archaeologists at
24 PART 1: Bronze Age

Malta in 2006,10 and the time seems to be ripe to try to examine the possibili-
ties of migrations on a more sophisticated level (cf. AAE 240–244; GAE 22–33,
and G. Cadogan, ed. 1986). A good start may represent migrations attested
both archaeologically and historically; their examination may narrow the
field of possible interpretations of the archaeological evidence by showing
what can be expected after which kind of invasion.
Let us consider first the three basic models and their main variations:
A. The invasion of a group with a higher culture into a less developed
area is usually called colonisation. The real colony, as known from
ancient Greek history, means the transplantation of a more sophis-
ticated culture as a whole, with a substantial number of newcomers
(colonists; Graham 1980; Boardman 1980). Though some earlier inhabit-
ants of the area colonized are included (in lower positions) into the new
social system, the slight traces of the more primitive culture of the earlier
inhabitants are subdued and they either disappear soon, or play only
a marginal role. Under the usual conditions, neighbours who are not
culturally much inferior, are readily acculturated (like the neighbours of the
Greeks in Italy) while those whose culture is too different (like the Pontic
nomads) are much more resistant in this respect.11
If the number of colonists—invaders is small (var. Ab), the result will
be a more or less mixed society. Even in this case acculturation of the local
population is probable if the difference between the two cultural levels is not
very great, but many more traces of the earlier local culture will be preserved
and the result will be more or less a mixture of the two. If the newcomers
form the ruling class, their taste has an overwhelming impact; if they only
live as metoikoi and offer some kind of service, the resulting changes will be
more in technical skills and innovations than in fashion and taste, except in
some elements of the latter.12
This kind of colonization may be illustrated by some Mycenaean trading
posts in Italy, and we can trace all three models in the interrelations between
the Minoan, Helladic and Cycladic culture in the Aegean Bronze Age.13 But no
evidence of this kind seems to exist for the extra-Aegean influx of population
from the Near East, except perhaps for some specialists in ivory carving and
furnishers of bronze figurines in the Mycenaean world, predecessors of later
Phoenician traders in Geometric Greece.14

10 A similar paper appeared, slightly out of place, in Poland: Bouzek 2010a , cf. Bouzek 1996ab.
11 For Italy cf e.g. Lepore 1970; de la Genière 1987.
12 This is clear e.g. from the Ionian artisans in Persia or Greek artists in Rome.
13 Cf. the acts of the colloquium The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and reality, ed. by R. Hägg and
N. Marinatos, and the review in Gnomon 1986, 71–73.
14 Cf. the conference Phönizier in Westen, Niemayer, ed. 1984 and Coldstream 1982.
 PART 1: Bronze Age 25

B. In the case of an invasion of bearers of a lower culture into a culturally

more developed territory, much depends on the size of the invading group as
against the native population. The complete eradication of an earlier culture
is an extreme case known only from small communities surrounded by a cul-
turally different milieu (like Greenland’s Vikings); this has hardly happened
in history on a larger scale.
When a large group of newcomers forms the majority of the new soci-
ety, in which the remains of the old population are in the minority and of
low social standing (var. Ba), the taste of the newcomers would prevail and
the regression of the old culture towards a more primitive social and artistic
system will be the result. The craftsmen of the old population are made use
of. No invading barbarians like to do more work by themselves than what is
necessary, and so the readily make use of the more skilled natives who can
be ordered what and how to produce, according to the barbarians’ own will,
their own taste. In such a case, artistic style changes more or less substan-
tially, though it always adapts earlier available models and takes over those
techniques of craftsmanship which are too sophisticated to them. The Ger-
manic occupation of the Rhineland and northern France (by the Francs) may
serve as examples.
If the group of barbarian newcomers is smaller, yet, despite their small
number, they establish themselves as the ruling class, we may find destruction
and some barbarian elements in the artistic style, but only relatively little
changes in culture in general. The barbarians make use of the skill of the
much better artisans of the previous culture and also use their products to
demonstrate the legitimacy of their rule as against the subjugated earlier
population. Theodoric of Ravenna and the Visigoths in Spain may be plausible
examples of this kind, or the Vikings, who eagerly took over the culture of the
territory they subjugated.
Smaller groups of warlike invaders usually influence armour, weapons
and male dress fashions, while the larger groups, in bringing their women
with them, also affect women’s fashions; nevertheless the techniques of the
old local artisans are preserved. The result also depends on how rich the cul-
ture of the newcomers is: if it is simple like that of the Mountain peoples
invading Mesopotamia or the Viking warriors, archaeological traces are
fairly modest, except in destruction.
The third theoretical possibility which may be considered (C) is one in
which both cultures, that of the invaders and of the invaded country, are of
roughly equal standards. The culture of the invaders then prevails among the
ruling class, but many elements of the defeated culture persist and the result
ought to be a kind of symbiosis of the two.
26 PART 1: Bronze Age

In real situations, however, the two cultures are practically never of the
same level, and the higher culture will prevail under progressive conditions,
while the more primitive culture dominates under regressive conditions.
A complete exchange of population is an extremely rare case even
among nomadic populations, who move with their herds, and practically
never happens with settled agriculturalists, more intimately bound to their
land. Even if as a consequence of a cruel war all men carrying weapons
have been killed or abandoned their country, most of their women and
children stay behind, so that at about 2/3 of the old population remains.
Much more often, however, even some of the male population surrender
and are integrated into the new system in various ways. In Greece, we have
the Dorian model of subjugated populations strictly applied in Sparta and
Crete, and the Ionian model incorporating foreign elements into “normal”
society without apparent difficulty, while granting them almost or fully
equal rights.
Even the notoriously cruel Assyrians organized deportation rather than
eradication of their defeated enemies, and the most cruel eradication known
from the Old Testament (the book of Joshua) knew lots of exceptions. In addi-
tion, hardly any other ancient culture felt itself so unique and so different
from their neighbours as the ancient Hebrews.
As for language, there exists one rule that invaders without their women-
folk usually lose their language in two generations: everyone takes the mother
her tongue of his or her mother. In this respect, the fate of a group bringing
its women with it usually depends on the size of the group. The language of
the invaders does not disappear so easily; at least it influences some features
of the language of the old population, even if the latter prevails, as in the case
of the Germanic tribes in the Latin-speaking countries, or the Protobulgars
in Bulgaria. The larger groups with long-lasting political dominance may
implant their language among the population invaded, as was the case e.g. in
Hungary with the Hungarians or in Anatolia with the Turks.
Using the comparative system of invasions in case of the variant (B),
we can fit the situation towards the end of the Mycenaean culture and after
its fall into this model practically in all points: there are parallels among
the cases with massive immigrations of a more primitive population, but
where the former local culture retains an important role, though without
its most sophisticated top part, which apparently disappeared. The lower
tradition of craftsmanship formed the base, but the new directions in which
art developed were in many aspects—notably ideological ones and those
of artistic taste—dictated by the newcomers, at least after some time had
passed and the new culture began to emerge. According to the usual pat-
tern, the first generation does not develop a new culture, it only destroys
the old one.
 PART 1: Bronze Age 27

Among the comparable models both historically and archaeologically

known, we find close parallels in France and in northern Italy dating towards
the end of the Great Migration period. Here, our results seem to be clear, and
other explanatory hypotheses lack comparable parallels among historically
and archaeologically known models (cf. e.g. d’Agata – Moody, eds. 2005).
The situation towards the end of the EH II culture and in EH III is less
clear, but even here, with deeper knowledge of what happened in large parts
of Greece including the islands,15 there seems to be more traces of significant
cultural change than e.g. in Visigothic Spain or Vandal Africa. Moreover, both
periods—the end of Early Helladic and Late Helladic cultures—coincide with
climatic changes, favouring the temperate part of Europe, which became
warmer and more fertile, and bringing dryness to the Mediterranean coun-
tries. This situation favoured the change in the balance of power between
Barbarian Europe and the civilisations of the Eastern Mediterranean. It
follows from these comparisons that these two periods were decisive for
important changes of population in Greece. In the earlier case, the chain of
archaeological documents of barbarian elements brings us to the area of the
Pontic steppes, in the latter case to the eastern part of Central Europe.
In the latter case, we have the theory of Fritz Schachermeyr,16 who thought
the Sea Peoples had come from the northern area. There were very probably
some among the first newcomers arriving by sea, like those mentioned from
the last year of the kingdom of Pylos (Chadwick 1976, 173–180). But the second
wave, bringing larger groups, is more difficult to explain in this fashion, and
the old hypothesis that the Dorians used the opportunity and came with allies
from some place near the eastern Alps or from Hungary, and that their ances-
tors might be found among the bearers of the Late Tumulus cultures of the
Middle Bronze Age (cf. esp. Merhart 1969 and Hood 1982), now seems again
much less absurd than it looked to most specialists for some time, despite of
the weaknesses of the old argumentation. After studying models from Celtic
and Germanic migrations (cf. Dobesch 1983, 179–229) the more northerly
locations even of the allies of the Dorians for some time do seem within the
range of what is entirely possible, if as yet far from certain.
What prevents most of us from discussing these problems on a more
sophisticated level than the usual “feeling” is existence of several basic
obstacles.
1. The poor level of argumentation of those of the previous generation
who discussed the migrations. But it should be kept in mind that the

15 Cf. the contributions by M. S. F. Hood and M. Sakellariou in the volume edited by G. Cadogan and
J. Rutter, Some observations in the Cyclades in the late 3rd and early 2nd millennium BC, AJA 87,
169–176; Id., The Early Cycladic III gap, In: The Prehistoric Cyclades, Contributions to the Workshop of
Cycladic Chronology, Edinburgh 1984, 96–107 (cf. Doumas 1998).
16 Cf. esp. his Ägäische Frühzeit III–V, 1979, 83.
28 PART 1: Bronze Age

phenomena do not disappear when the wrong arguments given by some

scholars in favour of their existence are destroyed: the phenomenon
has to be examined again without prejudice unbiased by the wrong
arguments of our predecessors.
2. To throw a reflection of ourselves onto the past and try to smooth away
dramatic events from our picture of the past: this is the same automatic
tendency which governs us when speaking of illnesses, suffering and
death as integral parts of our own lives.
3. The static picture given by the archaeological sites to the excavators
implants in our minds the necessity to study a continuous development
in our site or area. We acknowledge real imports, but are much less ready
to see relations of a subtler kind; the archaeologists’ mind has in most
cases became too mechanical in approach, so that it is difficult to them to
accept a more sophisticated way of thought.
4. In common naivity, many archaeologists expect proofs of events of a kind
which cannot exist; what cannot be proved by a subjective measuring
stick produced in their own mind should be rejected as non-existent.
5. The general tendency of all science today is that it is the duty of the facts
to persuade us of their existence, and if they do not do this hard enough,
according to our expectations, the existence of the facts must be denied:
This means that we close the doors in places where real knowledge may
come one day: we must leave the door open and listen more carefully.
As against the two main periods with barbarian invasions mentioned
above, documentation of other possible cases of this kind in the Aegean
Bronze Age is much weaker. The Shaft Graves culture shows some Anato-
lian and Balkan affinities, and possibly some small group participating in or
maintaining power may have arrived from areas outside the Aegean, but most
of what happened there is derived from developments in the Aegean area
itself. Foreign elements in LH III B Greece are related to those which appear
in the time of the destruction of the palaces; they seem to belong to the same
chain of events. It cannot, however, be excluded that the “barbarisation” of
the Mycenaean culture started earlier, and that the picture we know from the
Linear B tablets are already the result of the first stage of integration of some
pre-Dorian Greek elements into an originally different culture.17
It should be remembered that the groups invading were not big, that even
the brides were able to bring cultural messages, besides the pilgrims and
merchants; the analyses of teeth confirm what could be expected.

17 For the characteristic archaeological attitudes towards the problems of possible migrations,
cf. e.g. V. Karageorghis, “Barbarian” Ware in Cyprus, and the following discussions. In: Kara-
georghis, ed. 1986, 246–264.
For attitude near to historical cf. M. S. F. Hood (notes 19, 22) and N. Sandars, OxfJArch 2, 1983,
43–68. A useful historical survey Sakellariou 1980. Cf. Doumas 1993.
 PART 1: Bronze Age 29

1.4 REVIEWS

A. Anthony F. Harding, European Societies in the Bronze Age. Cambridge Uni-

versity Press 2000. 552 pp. with many illustrations and ten tables.18

The previous book on this subject written by the author with John Coles
(The Bronze Age in Europe, 1979) gave, similarly as the similar book by Marija
Gimbutas (Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe, The Hague
1965), a survey of prehistoric cultures, their particularities and interrela-
tions; this was usually the contents of all similar books of this kind. In the
new book, Anthony Harding essayed a different approach.
He deals separately with the Bronze Age house and village, the burials, the
domestic economy (i.e. mainly agriculture and cattle breeding), with prob-
lems of transport and contact. The chapter on metals deals with ores, mining
and melting, another chapter on “other crafts” deals with wood-working,
salt and textile production, glass and faience. A specific section is devoted to
warfare (the author organized a special colloquium on this question a couple
of years ago), including forts and fortifications. Chapter 9 is devoted to reli-
gion and ritual and to hoards and hoarding respectively. Temples and sacred
bothroi are described, cult objects and symbols, votive deposits, animal and
human sacrifices and even anthropophagy, are discussed; a special subchap-
ter deals with the rock art. Ch. 10 deals with hoards and hoarding and its
explanations. Ch. 11 deals with the appearance of the people, their dress,
jewellery, population estimates and demography. Finally, ch. 12 is devoted to
social organization and ch. 13 brings the conclusions of the volume. An exten-
sive and useful bibliography is added, but many general books on Bronze Age
Europe are missing there.
In its approach the book more focused on similarities than differences; the
usual archaeological divisions of cultures groups and regions are very little
dealt with, and emphasis is given just to the general problems of the way of
living in the Bronze Age. The housing in different parts of the temperate zone
of Europe (the Mediterranean is not dealt with) shows much more parallels
than differences. All Bronze Age cultures had similar kind of agriculture, of
bronze objects; they buried their dead or cremated them, their techniques of
woodworking and textile production were similar, as were also the custom of
hoarding bronze objects and religious beliefs. The whole temperate zone dis-
cussed in the volume was inhabited by people who shared much in common,
and this also enabled relatively easy communications among them. So far so
good, but one would like to hear more about the particularities of individual
groups even in those fields, where the differences are apparent. The author

18 First published in Gnomon 2001, shortened.

30 PART 1: Bronze Age

is wise enough to try to find a reasonable compromise between speculations

based on one category of evidence. He does not prefer one approach only, so
his book will certainly be useful to those who look after the questions pos-
ited—and to a large extent answered—in the volume under review.

B. Oliver Dickinson, The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age. Continuity and
change between the Twelfth and Eighth Centuries BC, Routledge, Abinmdon /
New York, 2006.19

The book first has to be compared with similar books published recently.
J. N. Coldstream, Geometric Greece was republished in 2003 with improve-
ments and supplementary chapters, A. Snodgrass’ book Dark Age Greece
(omitted in the bibliography of the book under review), it reappeared with
slight changes in 2000. I. S. Lemos, Protogeometric Aegean, Oxford 2002 is
a new book, a concise survey of Protogeometric settlements, burials and
pottery. Several books by I. Morris and J. Whitley show specific approaches
to the subject, generally of a character differing from the mainstream stud-
ies, while the book by J. Mazarakis Ainian on Homeric Greece (Ομηρος και
αρχαιολογια, Athens 2000) only appeared in Greek and is also omitted in the
bibliography, though without doubt is deserves much interest. It became
usual in books written for English-speaking readers that books written
in other languages (cf. now Sherat – Bennet, eds. 2016: Archaeology and
Homeric Epics, Oxford) are only exceptionally included in the bibliogra-
phy (and even less red by the students), O. D. claims being a pupil of Vin-
cent Desborough, whose books on last Mycenaeans and on Protogeometric
Greece were narrative syntheses, also respecting historical sources and
mythological traditions of heroic past.
O. D. book is different. There are useful passages on pottery relations, eval-
uating even new studies, like R. W. Catling on northern Protogeometric, and
also compiling useful information on some other. But most parts of the book
resemble a list of comments to some round discussion on several problems,
where he brings his point of view while weighing opinions on them written
by others. D. posited some questions and tries to answer them by discussing
mainly different opinions of specific questions and finally deciding who is right.
The introduction discusses the explanative theories, and here D. expresses
his sceptic position: It can reasonably be supposed that the Protogeometric
period was less dark than thought earlier, but compared with later situations,
its picture remains much more modest and the term Dark Age, borrowed from
similar period after the fall of the West Roman Empire, is at least better than
other names given to this period. The relative chronology seems to be rather

19 First published in Gnomon 81, 2009, 86–88.

 PART 1: Bronze Age 31

well established, even if nuances may still be a subject of discussions, and for
quite exact dates we have to await more dendrology dates; the attempt to shift
the beginnings of the Protogeometric pottery style slightly back by K. Wardle
on the base of one C14 date has to be proved by further study; both dates, ca.
1050 or ca. 1025 may still be held. Thanks to the investigations of R. W. Catling
on North Greek Protogeometric we know now more about the early style in
the north, and Coulson’s Dark Age I is very likely contemporary with Submy-
cenaean to Early Protogeometric (pp. 18–25). Attic Submycenaean cemeteries
must have lasted at least two generations, and the period ca. 1100–1050/30 is
less difficult than other solutions.
The second chapter deals with the collapse of the Mycenaean civilisation
in the 13th to 12th century. D. here quotes a number of opinions, which may
be at the first sight contradictory, but in better known history there is never
only one cause and one effect, and the collapse of any civilisation had usually
more reasons acting parallel. More sites were fortified in the 13th century,
even if not having the Cyclopean walls like Tiryns, Mycenae, Dendra and
Athens, but Cyclopean was also the wall across the isthmus and the latter
supposes danger coming form the north, similarly, like the pictorial repre-
sentations of barbarians in the Pylos frescoes. Relations with the East existed
on larger scale than believed earlier; the rulers of III C kingdoms apparently
pretended to be the legitimate successors of earlier dynasties. The situation
changed several times, but the European weaponry and armour taken over in
later part of III B together with the fibulae of NW Balkan invention and spe-
cific Barbarian Ware hand-made pottery comparable with the Adriatic area
are much more strong evidence of mighty foreigners than we have on the
Visigoths in Spain or Vandals in North Africa. Only those without knowledge
of the Balkan and North Italian archaeology could be opposite to this explana-
tion. The new cereals and new cattle in Nichoria and in the north (Kastanas,
Assiros) are other arguments for this. But of course the climatic worsening
with less precipitation and bad crops was another reason, also the cattle and
goats/sheep were affected. The collapse of international state trade systems,
which enabled enough copper and tin, was also endangered by the situation
with barbarian bands, called mainly Sea Peoples, or probably also Pelasgoi in
Greek historical tradition. D. argues against more centralized principalities,
(p. 33 and elsewhere), and it seems to be so when compared with the Near
Eastern empires, but the view from prehistoric Europe would show that the
Mycenaean ruling systems were on much higher level already. The Ulubtrun
wreck shows that the large-scale trade was still centralized affair and the
traders, like Sinaranu of Ugarit, were still royal agents; the change which
enabled more space for private merchants was not achieved until later.
32 PART 1: Bronze Age

C. Eric H. Cline, 1177 BC. The Year Civilisation Collapsed, Princeton University
Press 2014, 237 pp., 11 figs., two tables, dedicated to James Muhly.20

Happily the book is more serious than its journalistic title. The prologue
of the book is a kind of introduction to the central subject devoted to the Sea
Peoples and their main attack on Egypt in early 12th century BC. The first
chapter returns to the 15th century BC, starts with the Hyksos and the Mari
archives, from these the text follows to Hammurabi and back to the Minoans,
notably to those depicted in Egyptian tombs of the upper middle class; other
paragraphs are on the Megiddo battle 1479 BC, on Mitanni and the Hittites, the
end on the Mycenaeans. The second chapter on the 14th century starts with
Amenhotep III and his Aegean list, much attraction has of course Amarna,
but also Cyprus–Alašia and the rise of Assyria; the remaining paragraphs
are devoted to the Hittite kingdom and its relations with the Mycenaeans.
The chapter III deals with the Uluburun shipwreck, exodus of the Jews from
Egypt, wars of the 13th century, including the supposed upper date of the
Trojan War and with the battle in Kadesh. Chapter V returns to the twelfth
century, to the core of his story. The whole volume covers the field of several
thick books of Bronze Age history, the extensive bibliography documents wide
readings of the author. For the general reader it is interesting to see that the
empires, kingdoms and cities were already at this early time interconnected
by trade, politics with wars and alliances, confirmed by intermarriages. He
would welcome several new raisins of texts showing that even the knowledge
of Minoans and Mycenaeans in Egypt, with the Hittites and in the Levant,
was deeper than supposed by sceptics, but already supposed by optimists
on the base of analysis of non-textual sources. This concerns even the prob-
lem of the Sea Peoples, a subject to which after excellent studies notably by
N. Sandars,21 T. Dothan22 and more recently by A. Yasur-Landau,23 together with
S. Wachsman,24 brought important well-thought books and papers besides
a number of other specialists, including the author of the book under review.25
With the rising amount of information it becomes more and more dif-
ficult to understand all specific problems and not all scholars are able to
write for broader public; very narrow specialisation loses understanding
of general synthesis, so even less deep surveys are useful. The book under
review is strong when new names or clear facts are available, less so, where

20 Gnomon, in print.
21 N. Sandars, The Sea Peoples, Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean, 1985.
22 Esp. T. Dothan, The Philistines and Their Material Culture, 1982; Dothan 1992; Drews 1993.
23 Esp. Yasur-Landau 2010: The Philistines and the Aegean Migration at the End of the Late Bronze Age
and Oren, ed. 2000: The Sea Peoples and Their World, A Reassesment.
24 Cf. esp. his last book, Wachsman 2013: The Gurob Ship-Cart Model and Its Mediterranean Context.
25 Cf. Killebrew – Lehmann 2013: The Philistines and Other Sea Peoples.
 PART 1: Bronze Age 33

only opinions are quoted without competence on the level of the fontes, as
in stratigraphy in excavated sites, in artistic relations concerning architec-
ture, sculpture, wall paintings, which had much in common even in aspects
of religions, as well as at the levels of the rulers and courts, of merchants
and trade (weight and measure units, prices) and notably in interpreting of
archaeological features as pottery styles and classes, small objects of bronze
and stone, their analyses, or in the fields beyond the Eastern Mediterranean,
like Bronze Age Europe, the traces of which in the Mediterranean may seem
to be marginal (Vianello, ed. 2011).
Migrations from northern Italy, the Adriatic, NW and SE Balkans were of
similar extent and importance for the following history as the Great Migra-
tion Period and time is ripe to refuse the ghost of superficial ideological
critics that some facts and evidence of European immigrants in Greece were
once abused by Nazi propaganda.26 The Trojan Grey Ware came to Cyprus
and the Levant apparently with some people. The Barbarian Ware in Greece
and Cyprus derives from the Adriatic, Trojan Knobbed Ware and Early Phry-
gian from the Balkans, The Naue II swords and lanceolate spearheads were
invented in NW Balkans and they came as far as to Cyprus, Syria and Egypt;
the bird protomae on Sea Peoples ships at Medinet Habu derive from the
Urnfield Sonnenbarke, and the armour of sheet bronze of Goliath is of Cen-
tral European origin similar as that of Kaloriziki. The violin-bow and bow
fibulae came to Italy, Greece and the Levant from where they were invented,
in NW Balkans and NE Italy, the peplos dress fastened with two long pins
on shoulders and the pyramidal loom weights from roughly the same area
(cf. AAE 161–167), as well as some aspects of religious movement. The illustra-
tions are extremely limited generally out of fear of being sued. I remember
still Illustrated London News, archaeological section and other handbooks
with good illustrations, which are missing nowadays due to parasitic laws of
authorship property nourishing parasitic attorneys.
History and archaeology belong into the realm of narratives under the
Muse Klio; they are obliged to attempt telling stories respecting the facts for
other experts and for other readers; also necessary for financing any project
in which broader public must be interested. Popularisation is useful, but
vulgarisation dangerous. Exodus from Egypt, Sea Peoples and Homer with
Trojan War, are evergreen subjects also serving as emotional education, the
discussion of earlier collapses may easily become part of nowadays propaga-
tion of fear and despair. The K and K controversy, Homer from Cilicia, ama-
teurish discussions of the Exodus, Thera and Atlantis, if discussed without
competence create ghost pseudoproblems further abused. Advertising the
market ware of infotaitment of tourist industry brings more negative than

26 Cf. J. Bouzek, AAE, GAE. Larger areas of contacts Deshayes 1960; Chernykh 1977; Bouzek 1971.
34 PART 1: Bronze Age

positive results. The position of geographer of Exupéry’s Little Prince does

not reach the autopsy of direct access to the knowledge. Still, the book under
review happily escaped Skylla of newspeak pride and Charybdis of vague
entertainment. Though not quite competent enough in all fields discussed, it
tries honestly to inform larger public in a way it would listen. For number of
reasons it is a useful book and deserves to be widely read.
 PART 1: Bronze Age 35

6
4

7
3 5

Fig. 1: Altars, libation tables and bull rhytons. 1, 4 and 6 Uherský Brod, Moravia, MBA, 2–3, 7
Phaestus, libation table and sanctuary (?) in the front of the main staircase of the palace, altar
(?), 5 Koumasa. After AAE.

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10

Fig. 2: Bone discs (6–7), cylinders (1–5, 9–10) and cheek piece of bridle (8) incised by compass,
1–2, 8 Vattina, 3 Tisszafüred, 4–5 Blučina, 6 Kakovatos, 7 Tószeg, 9–10 Tell Atchana. After
Bouzek 1966.
36 PART 1: Bronze Age

Fig. 3: Distribution of spiral decoration, 1 bone objects decorated with compass, 2 gold discs.
After AAE, additions.

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

9 10

Fig. 4: Gold discs from Mycenae and the Carpathian basin. 1, 5–7 Mycenae, 2 Tufalau,
3–4 and 8 Székelyhid, 9–10 bronze axe of the Transylvanian type I. After AAE.
 PART 1: Bronze Age 37

1 2 3

5 6

Fig. 5: Sheet gold roundels. 1 Milínov, 2 Sedlec-Hůrka, tumulus 29, grave 3, 3 Nová Huť (after
V. Čtrnáct and J. Čujanová), 4 Roccavecchia, North Italy, 5 Tiryns, 6 Delos, treasury under the
Artemision.

Fig. 6: Distribution of Mycenaean weapons and tools north of the Aegean. 1–3 Karo A
and related swords, 4 fragments, 5 Persinari and Roşie-de Vede swords, 6 Spišský Štvrtok
mould, 7–8 Sandars D swords and their Balkan imitations, 9 Aegean Sandars D-E swords and
imitations, 10 Mycenaean spearheads and imitations, 11 double axes of Mycenaean shape,
12 LBA “royal” sceptres.
38 PART 1: Bronze Age

1 2

5 6 7

Fig. 7: Pottery shapes: Middle Helladic, Asine (3), Mycenaean (4–6) and MBA Central
European Tumulus culture (1 Mochov, Bohemia, 7 Steinbrunn, Lower Austria).

1
2
2
1

3 5

6
4 4 5

Fig. 9: Aegean weights of lead after

7 Michaelidou.

Fig. 8: Examples of weights in Central and West

European Middle to Late Bronze Age.
1–2, 7 Richemont, Pépeville, Dépt. Moselle;
3–6 Steinfurth, Wetteraukreis. After Pare 1999,
drawing A. Waldhauserová.
 PART 1: Bronze Age 39

Fig. 10: Oxhide ingots in the Mediterranean and in Europe. 1 early (ca. 1500 BC), 2 middle (ca.
1400 BC), late (ca. 1200 BC), hollow mark single pieces, full hoards, framed representations,
small marks fragments in Bulgaria and near Stuttgart, cf. also ch. 3.5.

2
Fig. 11: Examples of beams and
dishes of balances.
1 Maolles-sur-Seine, Dépt. Seine
et Marne, 2 Bordjoš, Banat (bone),
3 Susa, 4 Cyprus.
4 After Pare 1999, drawing
3 A. Waldhauserová.

Fig. 12: Italic type of stone weight from Vikletice,

Bohemia, drawing A. Waldhauserová.
40 PART 1: Bronze Age

Fig. 13: Climatic changes, LBA-EIA,

temperature and precipitation.

Fig. 14: Generalized relation of development

of density of population, Bohemia and Greece.
 PART 2: LATE HELLADIC III C

2.1 LH III C: A SURVEY

Mycenaean Greece (cf. HG 16–80; GAE 19–47) can be approached either in

the frame of the general history of the Eastern Mediterranean and Europe of
the same time, or through later tradition (Deger-Jalkotzy – Lemos, eds. 2006;
Dickinson 2006; Eder 1998; Middleton 2010).
The Mycenaean civilisation was similar in its bureaucracy to the smaller
Near Eastern states of the Late Bronze Age further East. It was also consid-
ered as a kind of political and economic entity by the Hittites and in Egypt.
For both these empires it was far away to get involved more directly, for the
pre-Phoenician cities in the Levant and for Cypriots it represented a trade
partner for rare goods. The larger trade was in royal hands mainly in all these
areas, and some exchange of gifts and representation was necessary every-
where.
For the more barbarian neighbours in the Central Mediterranean the
contacts with the former was also of some interest, and their ships were
not unwelcome there. For the peoples more to the north the Mycenaeans
were admired models for their own aristocracy, for their weaponry, crafts
and techniques. They apparently shared with them some religious beliefs.
Some knowledge of distant sanctuaries existed, accessible to pilgrims from
distant countries as well. Though only few people made long journeys, the
raw substances were traded long-way, as the Phoenician glass and even
the easily transportable glass beads, the Alpine and Transylvanian copper,
the British tin, Baltic amber were traded and also the Transylvanian gold,
known already from the Shaft Graves. Metals were what for us the crude
oil is. Who wanted it, had to develop even more distant distribution links
to get the metal.
The Mycenaean bureaucracy was not everywhere in Greece. I remember
the F. Dakoronia cemetery in Marmara (Dakoronia 1987) long considered by
some to be Early Helladic, and something like return of the Middle Helladic
tradition in the south after the fall of the Mycenaean states, as mentioned on
several occasions by Hiller and Snodgrass, may not be far from the truth. The
position of the Mycenaean confederacy on the margins of that time “civilized”
42 PART 2: late Helladic III C

world made it more exposed to the barbarian neighbours. According to what is

known from the tablets and archaeology, the system resembled of what
is better known from the Hittite sources. But the unity of pottery style in
LH II A 2 and LH III B seems to show that the central authority of Mycenae was
recognized (Mountjoy 1995), or while the local rulers had much autonomy;
LH III C pottery is more regional. Already in late 14th century the Mycenaeans
started to build mighty forts and sophisticated roads for light chariots mainly
for military purposes. Against whom they were built? Of course a kind of
stasis probably existed; already the Shaft Graves skeletons showed that the
war and fighting was part of the life of the elite.
The main East Peloponnesian centres were seriously hit by two earth-
quakes, in mid 13th and one at the end of that century. A wall across isthmus
was built to defend the Peloponnese (Hope Simpson – Hagel 2006) against
a stronger enemy from the north.

LH IIIC AND THE NORTH AND NORTHWEST

The Cypriot copper ingots are known from the Black Sea, Sardinia and Suebia
(AAE, 19–21; Lichardus et alii 2001, 160–167; here figs. 10, 73–75), while the
Makarska ingot has been shown to come from Cyprus and the miniatures
from Croatian hoards are only distant reflections of the shape. Mycenaean
Bronze Age weight units have been respected in large parts of prehistoric
Europe, being replaced only in the 12th century BC by Near Eastern shekels
(Pare 1999; Bouzek 2004a; Michailidou, ed. 2001a, here pp. 18–19, 22). Even if
the weights were of different materials, the weight units were the same.
As the traditional date of the Trojan War was in the 12th century BC, the
previous Trojan War, in which also Heracles participated, was in its mytho-
logical date several generations earlier. Heracles also took part in the mythi-
cal history of the Argonauts, the earliest Greek heroic legend on the Black
Sea and Adriatic contacts of Greek heroes (Rossignoli 2001). It may well be
placed in the Shaft Graves period, i.e. roughly towards the end of the Central
European Early Bronze Age; according to the contemporary chronology in
the 17th century BC approximately. The Argonauts returned to Greece via
Danube, Sava/Drava and Caput Adriae, these rivers and the northern end of
the Adriatic Sea were also the extreme north of the inhabitable land in the
geography of Early Greek mythologies (Shefton 2001; Schauer, ed. 1996; esp.
Delpino 1995; Bouzek 2007d; Borgna 1999).
The Adriatic area was marked archaeologically by a certain koine during
the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, though its Middle Bronze Age predeces-
sor also existed. As well known since Merhart’s studies, the area of the NW
Balkans and around the eastern Alps was the territory in which the Sprock-
hoff I and IIa flange-hilted swords emerged, together with the earliest sheet
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 43

armour and probably also the lanceolate spearheads. This armour arose from
some Aegean inspiration and it penetrated later in the Aegean and to Cyprus.
The Adriatic was very probably one of the routes through which the Central
Europeans participated in the Sea Peoples movements (AAE, 92–152). Their
symbols were related to those in northern Europe (figs. 5, 8, 15, 43): symbols
of wheel, sun, ship and birds were the most common. But most important
centre of origin of the new style of bronzework, weaponry and fashion, was
in the NW Balkans (Alran-Stern and Nightingale, eds. 2007; Hansen 2005).
The bird protomae on the prows of ships of the Sea Peoples and the birds
on LH III C vases in Greece (figs. 8, 14, 43), Cyprus and on the Philistine vases
in Palestine derived from the koine of symbols typical for Central Europe
and for Scandinavia (Kaul 2002; AAE 176–180, GAE, 34–44). The Philistines
are among the best candidates for the Central European participation of the
Sea Peoples movement. Still Goliath wore typical “European” armour of sheet
bronze (I. Sam. 17, 6). On the other hand, the Macedonian Lausitz Ware is
best comparable with the pottery known around the eastern Alps and from
Croatia, from where its bearers probably came (AAE, 190–192, here figs. 6,
27). Two shapes of razors are typical for the same area of NE Italy and the
NW Balkans. The earlier variety shaped like the double-axe are of Aegean
inspiration, the lunar items mark in their distribution pattern the Amber
Route northwards until Silesia (figs. 101, 103; AAE, 216–18; GAE, 232–237; Frey
1995). From the same centre around the NE Balkans the discovery came of the
violin-bow fibulae1 and of very long pins of the fashion of Central European
and Balkan elites of Br. C2–D (cf. AAE 152–168), used to fix the feminine peplos
on the shoulders. Violin-bow fibulae (fig. 16) show roughly the same distribu-
tion pattern as the weapons and armour and they originated in the same area
around the NE tip of the Adriatic Sea.2 The distribution of spectacle fibulae
follows a similar pattern, but more to the east and they are generally later
(fig. 53). Cf. also Jockenhövel 2011.
The LBA koine of weaponry belonged to later 13th–11th century BC
(fig. 24).3 The weaponry of LH III B 2 shows that the Mycenaean armies
adopted some impulses of Central European origin, and even more so after
1200 BC4 The first “wave” of them belongs to LH III B 2 (figs. 21, 33), the

1 The one-piece fibulae became popular only in the southern part of Central Europe; more to the
north the two-piece fibulae with separate pin were worn.
2 Cf. AAE 152–160; for the northern Adriatic esp. van Eles Masi 1986, pl. 1–3 violin bow, pl. 3–12
simple bow; Glogović 2003; Vasić 1999, violin bow pl. 61, simple bow pl. 63, pl. 62 spectacle.
3 The third and fourth belong to Late Urnfields and to the Early Hallstatt culture of Ha C 1 (cf. HG
92–95 , AAE 19–144, GAE 104–107).
4 Cf. HG 80–88; AAE 92–116; GAE 91–108. Newly S. Parst, Naue II Schwerter mit Knaufzunge und
die Aussenbeziehungen der mykenischen Kriegerschicht in den postpalatien Zeit, Jb. RGZM 60,
2013, 105–152 has shown well the area from which this “wave” came in NW Balkans in the maps
of distribution of Sprockhof IIb swords and Peschiera fibulae.
44 PART 2: late Helladic III C

second to LH III C early and middle (figs. 9, 51); the “European” finds from
Crete and the Cyclades are closer to those from Italy, the mainland group to
those from the NW Balkans (cf. HG 33–43, 93–95; AAE 95–142, GAE 97–106;
Kilian K. 2007). The common Sprockhoff IIa swords are distributed from Scan-
dinavia to Cyprus and the Levant (fig. 17, cf. pls. B 16.1-2 and 3), the later IIb
is less common (fig. 23, AAE 119–130). With them go “geflammte” spearheads
(AAE 132–142 2, pl. B 16.2) and armour consisting of helmet, corselet and
greaves, with distribution area from eastern France to the eastern frontier of
Poland and Romania (AAE 92–117, here fig. 24). The Kaloriziki shield (fig. 29.1)
is more probably neck plate of corselet , cf. fig. 30) and the suggested Br D
early date of the Jíkalka shield (fig. 29.4) is doubted by some.5
The Barbarian ware shows that some alien population appeared on the
Mycenaean territory with other preferences of its cooking habits and house-
hold ceramics. The former seems to suggest that very probably mercenaries
from the “northwest” were already serving in the Mycenaean army, the sec-
ond that some alien elements were already allowed to settle on the Mycenaean
territories (AAE 87–90; Kilian K. 2007). One link leads to Italy, the other to the
western Balkans, as do the relations of Mycenaean weaponry in late 13th and
12th century, among which two main schools can be distinguished.6 Since the
beginnings of written reports in Greece, Adriatic was known as an area of
Illyrian supremacy (cf. Mihovilić 2004; Nava 2004), but amber relay trade
was well organized on religious pattern (Herod. IV, 33–35). The amber trade
with the north was in Illyrian hands during the Early Iron Age, transmitted
by them to the Etruscans and the Greeks.
The climatic crisis leading to droughts (cf. ch. 8.1) in the Mediterranean
favoured the temperate zone of Europe, where the population increased, but
later on, in drying steppe-like areas it led to crises (Bouzek 2011c, 48–55). These
peoples or some elite of them had some knowledge about the riches of the
south, went there, served there as allies—mercenaries and after some time,
being no more content with their submitted position in the country, in which
they were allowed to settle, took over the power; LH III C early and middle had
several autonomous centres (Bouzek 2011c; Mountjoy 1995; Dickinson 2006).
At the end of the 13th century there were apparently many groups of
such bands, called in Egypt Sea Peoples. Egyptian sources wondered that they
could act jointly in their campaigns and that—even if only few of them had
more important nautical background—they could built within a short time
a naval force of considerable strength, able to destroy the more sophisticated

5 Cf. J. Bouzek 1971a and, RDAC. The simple ribs of the Jíkalka shield are very similar to Ha B 3 Herz-
sprung shields inthe north, but they all are of very thin sheet, while the Jíkalka piece is much
thicker and cast, in its character similar to heavy wheels of Br D chariots. Cf. Kytlicová 1986,
2007; Uckelmann 2012; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993; Bader 1991.
6 Cf. AAE 182–196 , GAE 79–90 and the next chapter.
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 45

fleets of the East Mediterranean states and empires (cf. Sandars 1985a; Oren,
ed. 2000; Cline 2014).
Some groups from SE part of Central Europe arrived at least to Macedonia,
where their so-called Lausitz Ware derived from that of the Čaka culture in
SW Slovakia (fig. 27) and western Hungary (AAE 190–191). The Balkan tribes
invaded Troad (Bithynia, Mysia) and Phrygia. The former had their previous
roots in northern and eastern Thrace, the latter more westwards, in the area
of later Brygi and Paeonians (HG 66–69, AAE 180–200; GAE 87–100; fig. 26).
Some of the warrior groups coming via Italy and also those coming by
land settled, in many places they either became the landlords, or developed
a kind of symbiosis with the old elites. This situation resembles much what
happened at Great Migrations period. Not too many people were needed
to create a military force in the small wars. According to the Salic laws, as
unauthorized bands were considered those consisting of less than 16 men, the
groups of 16 or more men were already classified as armies.
10 000 Vandals founded their empire in North Africa, as did a similar
number of Visigoths in Spain; Ostrogots and Langobards in Italy were also
not much more numerous. None of them preserved their language, and their
rule was based on some compromise with the earlier traditions on the lower
level. Their bands were in the system of Gefolgschaft composed of able war-
riors, in the Great Migration period even after the defeat the good warriors
accepted often a new tribal identity.
These groups apparently were too small, and coming with essentially
less women than men. They no much chance to preserve their identity for
long. Even later the Slavonic migrants became graecised in most parts of
southern and central Greece, and the same happened with the Albanians in
these territories, not mentioning the descendants of the Francs, Venetians
and Genovans. The LBA groups were apparently smaller, but they got their
chance in the time of famine and interior struggle.

THE CHANGES IN THE AEGEAN

The LH III C settlements in Crete can be divided in two categories. One of

them, with a parallel in Maa on Cyprus, is on the promontories with good
access to the sea, while other settlements of refugees protecting themselves
in hidden places are founded far off the sea and from the pirates, like the
Byzantines in the time of the Arab raids there. Cretan population moved from
the coast to defendable sites on hills (Nowicki 2000; Wallace 2010; Niemeyer
et al., eds. 2013) to well-protected sites, usually with good visual control over
extensive areas, including the sea view. However, even coastal sites existed,
such as Vrokastro, Itanos and Palaikastro. The abandonment of many coastal
sites towards the end of the Bronze Age is connected with the prevailing dis-
46 PART 2: late Helladic III C

turbed conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean, and the consequent increase

of piracy (cf. ch. 3.1).
The short-lived kingdoms of LH III C early remind one of the similar
kingdoms of Odoakar, Ostrogots, Huns etc. The new chiefs were happy to be
served by local potters and smiths, but only few of them had more feeling for
more valuable artistic objects, like those who composed the Tiryns hoard of
very different origins, as is also the hoard under the Artemision on Delos. Other
groups, like at Perati or Tiryns, preserved more of the traditional identities,
as did also the Euboeans and those on Skyros, but there were also new values,
little known to earlier Mycenaeans, the new architecture construction,
substantial changes in iconography and style in domains accessible to
us in corpore, before all in pottery. In general, the population decreased.
The iconography of LH III C Early and Middle is an interesting synthesis
of old tradition and new impulses, taken as well from the East, as from the
European tradition. The latter influenced especially the wooden architecture,
models of the sacred architecture of later Greece, and the xoana, animal-
-shaped vases, bosses on pottery (ch. 2.2, figs. 34–38), the former enriched the
vocabulary by models in faience, bronze vessels and sheets, textiles, ivories
and other objects not preserved in corpore (cf. here ch. 2.2; further Bouzek, in
Mazarakis Ainian, ed. 2011; Guggisberg 1996).
The individual burials at the end of Mycenaean culture show the develop-
ment of individual personality from the clans with family tombs, the spiral
of retour éternel was interrupted into isolated circles. The strictly geomet-
ric organization of space was only achieved, however, in the PG style. Very
smooth transition from Mycenaean to Protogeometric is documented in Ela-
teia in Phokis and at Kalapodi, where the earliest temple dates from LH III C
late.7
The barbarians were not as many as to impose their group identity in
the most areas which they invaded and devastated. Some of them settled
in southern Palestine as the Philistines and held their identity longer,
some elsewhere in the Levant and apparently also in the Aegean. A number
of Greeks fled to Cyprus, the Aeolians and Ionians to the East and North
Aegean (at least the foundation of Torone and other sites in the Chalcidice
(Tiverios 2008, 4–15) is of the same time roughly as the Ionian cities in Asia
Minor). Some other Mycenaean refugees even fled to some places in Italy,
even in the Po delta (cf. below).
The Sea Peoples remained in Greek mythical memory mainly in the myth
as Pelasgians, of which very little is known, perhaps with the exception of
Lemnos and the Adriatic (Briquel 1984).

7 Cf. Deger-Jalkotzy 2003 and the konference Aristeia, Volos 2015, contributons by W. D. Nie-
meyer and F. Dakoronia, in print.
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 47

The impoverished land in most of the Peloponnese was taken over by the
Dorians, claiming earlier identity as descendants of the Heraclids. In some
Dorian cities the previous population did not get the full civic rights, like
in Sparta. But even in Laconia and Messenia many links with much more
northern countries can be seen—in the wooden architecture, new plants and
animal husbandry at Nichoria.
The Lefkandi people may have had similar Middle Helladic roots, as
there is a gap between early and middle LH III C in the place of the Toumba
(Evely, ed. 2006, overview by S. Sherrat 1992, 303–309). In the Argolid Myce-
nae and many other sites were nearly abandoned, while Tiryns and Argos
survived rather well (Eder 1998; Vanschoonwinkel 1991; Thomatos 2000;
Middleton 2010). The Cyclades show also various stories, catastrophes and
continuity.8 Italic and NW Balkan elements are known from the islands
and on the mainland as well.9
Long distance maritime expeditions carried exotic items. The Uluburun
shipwreck yielded glass ingots of probably Levantine origin (Nicholson 1997).
Large part of the raw glass known from Late Bronze Age settlement at Frat-
tesina in North Italy is of Levantine origin (Bieti Sestieri 1984ab; Brill 1992;
Henderson 1988),10 The Dark Age glass beads in Greece and Italy are also in all
probability Phoenician products and brought to their destinations by Phoeni-
cian merchants.11
Most of the realistic facts and features in the Iliad and Odyssey are taken
from the PG period, as already H. L. Lorimer has shown clearly, and the
ancient authors situated him best in the 10th century (cf. ch. 5). The name
Sidonians for the Phoenicians in the Odyssey would not be out of place. Even
Egypt had some Dark Age, for a short time even Tyros, re-founded from
Sidon, and the Neo-Hittite cities had also modest period in the 12th and 11th
centuries.12

8 Cf. esp. Architecture and Archaeology in the Cyclades, Papers in Honour of J. J. Coulton by Marina
Yeroulanou and Maria Stamatopoulou, BAR IS 1455, 2005; Vlachopoulos, A. – Birtacha, K., eds.
2003.
9 In addition to GAE, 79–120, cf. Lefkandi IV, 283–286; cf. for pottery Kilian 1987 and 2002; new
discussions of Naue II swords Jb. RGZM 2014, and Molloy, Barry, Naue II swords an the collapse
of the Aegean Bronze Age, 115–118, in SOMA 2003 Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, ed.
B. C. Briault, J. Green, A. Kadelis, and A. Stellatou, BAR IS 1391 2005; for earlier bibl. cf. Bouzek
AAE 119–145.
10 As are many beads found in Hauterive-Champréveyeres in Switzerland and in Stadtallendorf
in Germany dating from Late Urnfield period, i.e. from the 10th to 9th centuries BC (Ha B 2–3,
Henderson 1993; Lorenz 2006), and also those from Rathgall in Britain of the 9th century BC
(mentioned by Brill 1992). Apparently even the technique of producing beads was brought with
the raw material, and used also by their pupils according to the Phoenician recipes.
11 Cf. ch. 6.
12 Cf. ch. 5.
48 PART 2: late Helladic III C

1 2

Fig. 15: 1–2 LH III seals in

5 the British Museum, after
6
CMS, 3 Thapsos, handle of
vessel, 4 clay boat model
from Italy, 5 Zemun,
Serbia, bronze, 6 Tiryns,
7 Medinet Habu. After
7 AAE, fig. 88.

Fig. 16: Schematic map of distribution of violin bow fibulae, after HG, with additions.
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 49

Fig. 17: Map of distribution of Sprockhoff IIa (Reutlingen und related) swords.
50 PART 2: late Helladic III C

1 2

5 6

8
10
9

13

11 12
14

15
17

16 18

Fig. 18: Double birds, horses and bird boats on bronze objects. 1 Emden, Kr. Meppen,
2 Vojens Gaard near Hadersleben, 3 Alstrupt, Amt Aalborg, 4 Mehlbeck, Kr. Steinburg,
5 Harsefeld, Kr. Stade, 6 P. Gullev, Amt Aalborg, 7 Ǻketorp, Ǻland, 9 near Börstel,
Kr. Merseburg, 10 Merseburg. 11–12, 14 decoration of Liptov swords, Slovakia, 13 Emmen,
Kr. Meppen, 15 Rossin, Kr. Anklam, 16 Siem, Amt Aalborg, 17 Lislebyfjord, distr. Fredrikstad,
18 O. Billleberga, Schonen. After AAE.
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 51

10

1
11

16
12

3
13
5
9
4
6 17
14

7
15
8

Fig. 19: LH III B–C fibulae, knives and other implements. 1, 16–17 Mycenae, Acropolis,
2 Kos, Langada, 3 Diakata, 4 Lakithra (both Kephalenia), 5–6 LH III C types of stone knobs after
Furumark, 7 Dictaean cave, 8 Ialyssos, Rhodes, 9 Mycenae, reconstruction from mould,
10–11 Mycenae, hoard, 10–14 Knossos, Gypsades, 15 Dodona. After AAE.

Fig. 20: Lovčičky, Moravia,

Ha B 1 village, after Říhovský 1982.
52 PART 2: late Helladic III C

5 6

1 2 3

10
7 9
8
11

13
12

Fig. 21: LH III B–C weapons and armour with northern relations. Swords Sprockhoff IIa,
no 1 from the Acropolis, 2–3 Kallithea, graves A and B, 4 and 7 Kallithea grave B, 5–6 Metaxata,
8–9 Langada, Kos, 10–13 Kallithea, grave A, greave and parts of cuirass. After HG.

Fig. 22: The “Circus Pot” from Mycenae, after Wace, drawing A. Waldhauserová.
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 53

Fig. 23: Map of distribution of Sprockhoff IIb swords. After GAE.

54 PART 2: late Helladic III C

Fig. 24: Map of distribution of bell–shaped corselets (1), greaves (2), conical helmets ad its late
variety (3, 4), 5 helmet and corselet from Argos. After AAE.

Fig. 25: Depart of warriors, LH III C midle krater from Mycenae.

 PART 2: late Helladic III C 55

Fig. 26: Ceramic styles of 12–10th century BC 1 Serbian and Croatian Urn fields, 2 Žuto Brdo–
Cirna culture, 3 Central Illyrian area, Bobousti Matt-Painted Pottery, 7–9 Bulgarian Incised
and stamped wares (7 Sofia group, 8 Cepina, 9 Čatalka and Pšeničevo ), 10 Danubian group
with fluted pottery prevailing, Commentary: 1 Mediana and Macedonian “Lausitz” ware,
2 coastal Thracian, 3 Thasos, 4 Karphi Incised Ware, with parallel in Cyprus, 5 Naxos Incised
Ware, 6 Vergina, Dion and Central Macedonia, 7–8 Attic Incised Ware and related pottery.
After AAE.
56 PART 2: late Helladic III C

9
1 15

2
4 16
10

3
17
11

18
12 19
5

20 21

6 13

14 23
7

8
24 25 22 26

Fig. 27: Macedonian “Lausitz” Ware and parallels in Slovakia and Lower Austria
(Čaka–Očkov culture). 1–4, 6, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 Vardarophtsa, 5, 7–8 Vardina, 9, 5, 25 Očkov,
10, 12 Čaka, 11, 13 Ipeľský Sokolec, 19 Bajč, 21 Topolčany, 22 Iňa, 16–17 Herzogenburg. After AAE.
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 57

Fig. 28: 1 Lefkandi, heroon, 2–3 houses at Nichoria, after Mazarakis Ainian.
58 PART 2: late Helladic III C

1 3
2

4 5

Fig. 29: Shields. 1 Kaloriziki, old reconstruction, 2 bilobal shield from finger ring from
Mycenae (“fight in the cave”) 3 Warrior Vase, 4 Plzeň-Jíkalka, 5 the way to produce leather
vaulted shield, 6 the Nyírtura shield. After AAE.

Fig. 30: Kaloriziki reconstructed as corslet, Fig. 31: 1 Milavče, 2 Bavaria,

cf. Bouzek 1995. 3 Kaloriziki.
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 59

1 2

Fig. 32: Greaves. 1 Athens, Acropolis, 2 Rinyasyentkirály, Hungary. After AAE.

Fig. 33: The first horizon of European metal types in the Aegean (LH III B 2—III C early).
1–2 swords Sprockhoff IIa, 3 Peschiera (Psychro) daggers, 4–6 lanceolate and related
spearheads, 7 hammer axe, Dodona, 8 “European” knives, 9 knife with ring finial, 10 knives
Sandars 6b. After AAE.
60 PART 2: late Helladic III C

2.2 LH III C ICONOGRAPHY: AN INTERIM PERIOD

OF ARTISTIC DEVELOPMENT IN GREECE

Really significant differences in local styles existed at the beginning and at the
end of the development of Mycenaean pottery, 13 while the styles of LH III A-B
were much more unified in a common koine. The most interesting, however, is
the particular iconography of LH III C. New finds show more clearly how much
the iconographical expression of LH III C changed compared to that of the
previous periods (cf. Furumark 1941; Crouwell 1991; Vermeule – Karageorghis
1982; Mountjoy 1995). Many motifs and representations apparently express
new ideas, even when using old traditional elements of decoration, while
other artisans attempted to find another, more adequate expression for new
ideas. Some of them had predecessors in Middle Helladic, as Stefan Hiller
noted in several of his conference papers (esp. Hiller 1991); they are a kind of
parallel to the mythical story of the Return of the Heraclids. Others, however,
point to relations to the Levant, while relations with prehistoric Europe can
also be traced.

NON-FIGURAL ICONOGRAPHY AND INNOVATIONS

The “Barbarian Ware” was probably made to fit the culinary preferences
of people coming from outside Greece. Parallels can be seen in Italy and in
the western Balkans; perhaps also in Sardinia. This style of pottery started in
LH III B and later was transmitted eastward with the Sea Peoples to Cyprus
and to the Levant, including Palestine. Later cooking pots of the Submyce-
naean to Protogeometric periods in Greece show similar characteristics
and apparently developed from the Barbarian Ware tradition (Bouzek 1985,
183–187, now also Hallager 2000, 165f. pl. 51, Badre 2003 with bibl., Kilian K.
2007); it is also known from Cyprus (Pilides 1994). The chemical analysis has
shown for some of them South Italian, Sardinian and Adriatic ancestry; oth-
ers probably came from the Balkans.

13 First published as LH III C Iconography: an interim period of artistic development in Greece,

in: Stefanos Aristeios, Festschrift S. Hiller, eds. F. Lang, C. Reinholder, J. Weilhartner, Phoibos
Verlag Wien 2007, 49–64. For later development across the Dark Age, cf. J. B., in The iconography
of the Dark Age, From LH III C to Geometric, continuity and change, In The Dark Ages Revisited,
Acts of an international symposium in memory of Willam D. E. Coulson, University of Thessaly,
Volos 14.–17. June 2007, vol. II, Volos University of Thessaly 2011, 983–1003, from which a brief
summary is put at the end of this chapter. Cf. also two papers of the author devoted to other
aspects of LH III C to Protogeometric in Greece: Bird-Shaped Prows of Boats, Sea Peoples and the
Pelasgians, 188–193, in: Exotica in the Prehistoric Mediterranean, ed. by A. Vianello, Oxbow Books
2011; Cretan and Attic Incised Ware revisited. In G. Graziadio et alii (eds.): Φυλικη Συναυλια, Stud-
ies in Mediterranean Archaeology for Mario Benzi, BAR IS 2460, 2013, 61–68.
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 61

Some new shapes, like FS 240, started in LH III B (cf. Deger-Jalkotzy 1982),
while several decorative elements started in LH III C. Among new features are
the bosses on shoulders of closed vases (amphorae and pitchers), apparently
showing their sex (GAE, 128f., here fig. 34). The humanisation of the world in
the Greek anthropocentric attitude is a new phenomenon, especially charac-
teristic for later development of the Greek mind.
The same quality is also expressed in changing proportional relations
between the body, neck and foot of vases. In the old Minoan-derived tradi-
tion the main element of the vase was the body, to which minor accessories
were attached. In LH III C a new approach started towards the later concept
of amphorae and pitchers. These were now understood as related to human
body in their proportions: neck, body and foot became separate parts, their
mutual proportions resembling the structure of the human body. In this field
LH III C was a predecessor of later Protogeometric development, when female
and male amphorae were distinguished and used for burials of men or of
women accordingly (figs. 34 and 63).
The triglyph-metopoid articulation of horizontal bands of decoration had
some earlier tradition in the Mycenaean pottery, but it became especially
important in LH III B 2—C styles; LH III C prepared the basis of the main
rhythmical system of later Greek art (cf. GAE 56–60).
The duck vases already started in Greece in LH III A 2, and they showed
continuous development until Middle Geometric and later styles (fig. 35).
They were, however, especially characteristic for LH III C, in which they
stressed the “wooden” inspiration (fig. 36). Parallel barrel animals are also
known from LH III C (GAE 129–131). Even the latter showed some kind of
continuity until Geometric times, but they were especially characteristic for
LH III C. The triple vases are particularly characteristic for the Protogeometric
period, but they had predecessors in LH III C (GAE 133–134; Guggisberg 1996).

SPINNING AND WEAVING UTENSILS

The pyramidal loom weights of European tradition replaced in Early Geomet-

ric Greece the earlier types, and the spools, known mainly from the contexts
of the Sea Peoples, are known from EIA Italy and the western Balkans (cf.
GAE, 87; Barber 1991, 302–6; Hood 1982, 98–103). The pyramidal loom-weights
became the standard Greek shape used until Archaic, Classical and Hellenis-
tic periods. While the spools and the Barbarian Ware go with the Sea Peoples
to the East (Rahmsdorf 2003, 2005; Badre 2003; Barakos 2003), the pyramidal
and conical weights remain the standard implements in Greece, and there is
also an unbroken tradition between the technology and shapes of the Barbar-
ian Ware and later hand-made vessels in Submycenaean to Geometric Greece
(Strack 2007).
62 PART 2: late Helladic III C

ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTS, SANCTUARIES

The transition of the palatial megaron to the Early Greek sanctuary is better
known now than it was a few decades ago. The Mycenaean palace building
was the model for the temple in antis, but its wooden construction is alien to
the local tradition. It derives from the European building techniques known
from Britain to the Ukraine, and from Scandinavia to Italy and the Balkans
(fig. 28). It is a traditional technique developed in those parts of Europe
where there was enough timber available and the construction of posts
carrying walls and roof prevailed during the whole prehistory (Mazarakis
Ainian 1997a, 124–233; GAE, 64f ). The walls were of wattle-and-daub tech-
nique, and the roof of plastered reed (cf. figs. 55, 58, 65–66). The gables left
space for decoration. This construction developed during the Protogeometric
and Geometric periods and became the model for later Greek temple architec-
ture in stone; it must have been understood by its builders in Greece to be the
most proper dwelling for the gods. The main Greek sanctuaries, like Olympia
and Delphi, started in LH III C, and show a continuous tradition through the
Dark Age to Archaic Greece, while their predecessors are very modest and/or
uncertain (cf. Mazarakis Ainian 1997a, 375–377). New excavations at Kalapodi,
however, identified the earliest LH III C sanctuary,14 and the chamber tombs
in Elateia–Alonaki in Phokis show rather fluent transition from LH III B to
PG (Deger-Jalkotzy 2009), but new surveys elsewhere do not seem to have
changed the evidence essentially; at Ephesus the traces of some predecessors
of the Protogeometric cultic activities are only as few as on the Greek main-
land. The forerunners used daub reliefs (pl. B 3) as decoration.

XOANA AND NEW FORMULAE TO DEPICT HUMAN AND ANIMAL BODY

The LH III C figurines from Olympia, Phylakopi and elsewhere resemble the
wooden “statues” known from the British Isles and Scandinavia (Bouzek
2000a, cf. here figs. 37 and 39.6). A tree trunk with remains of cut-off
branches, changed into suggestions of legs and arms, was the common source
of those prehistoric “statues” and of Greek xoana as well (cf. also fig. 89).
But even the facial details of LBA wooden statues and the earliest Iron Age
figurines known to us are strikingly similar. The xoana derive from the same
tradition of forest areas as the new temples of gods in Greece; from the tra-
dition in which wood and timber were considered the most proper materi-
als for the human figure and those of gods as well. The early clay figurines
of animals are also very similar to those known from prehistoric Europe
(Bouzek 2002b, fig. 3), while the Levantine Reshef figurines, known also

14 Niemeyer, contribution to the Volos conference, summer 2015.

 PART 2: late Helladic III C 63

from the earliest phase of the Phoenician enterprises in the Western Medi-
terranean, were the models of the Protogeometric figurines of smiting god.15

CYPRIOT AND LEVANTINE IMPORTS, EGYPT

Perati (Iakovides 1970), Tiryns and Lefkandi are the most representative sites
for understanding this phenomenon, while Crete was probably even more
important (cf. Wallace 2010). The scarabs, other small faience objects, ivory
and glass are of Egyptian inspiration, but as far as we know, they were mainly
products of the Levantine workshops. Tripods and other bronze vessels are
clear evidence that much impact came from the east, notably from Cyprus,
a country where a large part of the Mycenaean population fled during and
after the catastrophes (Catling 1966; Matthäus 1985). In the field of iconogra-
phy and pottery style, there were close contacts as well (Mountjoy 2005). In
particular the octopus changed into the Tree of Life on the menagerie-vases
may have had eastern inspiration (fig. 40), which is also reflected in Greek
myths, as shown notably by W. Burkert (1988), but Yggdrasil was part of Euro-
pean mythology as well.

NEW ICONOGRAPHICAL FORMULAE: EAST AND WEST

New iconographical ideas are known first from the Tanagra sarcophagi of
LH III A-B (Spyroupoulos 1969, 1970; Demakopoulou – Konsola 1981): mourn-
ing around the deceased and the riddle of the Sphinx (fig. 41) are subjects
familiar in later Greek Iron Age art (Cavanagh – Mee 1997; Immerwahr 1995).
But there is (or was? ) a neo-Hittite relief in the Mosul Museum with a repre-
sentation of mourning quite similar to the Geometric idiom. Some predeces-
sor are also known from elsewhere (cf. the Circus Pot from Mycenae; Wace
1932, pl. 18, here fig. 22).
Especially interesting are the figural representations on vases in simpli-
fied sketched manner reminding one of later Geometric art; most of them
are war scenes (cf. Hiller 1999; Wedde 1999, here fig. 42). Among the most
important items are the krater sherds from Kynos (Dakoronia 1997, cf. also in
Deger-Jalkotzy, ed. 2003, ed. 2005 and Crouwell 1999), from Pyrgos Livanaton
(Wachsmann 2000, Fig. 6: 13; Barakos 2003, Fig. 4) and Tragana (Korres 1989),
all with ships and warriors, as is also the new sherd from Lefkandi (Arch. Rep.
2004–5, 51, Fig. 90). The krater fragment from Ayia Triada Eleias (Schoinas
1999, 2003) probably represents a prothesis with mourners (fig. 41.7),
similarly as it is depicted on some of the Tanagra sarcophagi (fig. 41.1–6).
One sherd in similar style comes from Ugarit (Royaume d’Ougarit 2004,

15 Seeden 1980; AAE, 69–70, GAE, 168; cf. esp. the figurine from Phylakopi.
64 PART 2: late Helladic III C

p. 234 cat. No. 251); a hunter and a stag are represented here (fig. 42.7). The
Bademgedighi warriors (fig. 42.6) wear helmets similar to the Warrior Vase
type (fig. 25), but the drawing is much cruder (Mountjoy 2005). The Kynos
figural style is especially fascinating (fig. 42.1); the artistic formulae are
very similar to those of the rock carvings in Scandinavia (fig. 39.1–5), but
there are also the seeds here of the much later stylistic vocabulary of Greek
Geometric art (cf. Dakoronia 2006ab, Coldstream 2006a) and similar scenes
on fig. 43.12–13). The whole group resembles engravings on bronze razors
from Denmark, while there exist also less close parallels in Alpine rock art
(pl. A 5.4) and on the Central European decorative elements in bronze objects
(GAE; fig. 57). The ships with birds (Benson 1975; Hiller 1999; Lenz 1995; Yon
1992; Korres 1989; Wachsmann 2000; Bouzek 2004b, here fig.s 43.8, 10 and 14)
go with the Sea Peoples, probably in later tradition called Pelasgoi (according
to Dion. Halic. I, 28, 3–4 they were originally called Pelargoi, as all with them
resembled storks). The Circus Pot of Mycenae (fig. 22) represents something
what can hardly be understood properly; it mirrors the stress of the painter,
who was just searching to depict strong impression of something, for what
he had no artistic model in his conventional tradition; it also reminds some of
the dancers in Scandinavian rock art (fig. 39.1–4). The transition from Myce-
naean idols to the bell-shaped items also happened in this period (Bouzek
1997a, 127, with bibliography, and Karageorghis 2001; fig. 68).
The horned and curved symmetrical patterns (fig. 38.2) resemble those
used on the hilts of the Urnfield swords (fig. 38.1) and on the finials of the
so-called “Antenna” swords (of Ha B 2–3), and may have been signs of some
fraternity in arms, as were later similar “pair-of-dragons’ motives on sheets
of Celtic swords (cf. Bouzek 2005b; Furumark 1941, 362–364, antithetic spiral
pattern, fig. 62; Mountjoy 1995, fig. 434: 227, 441 d, 469: 7, etc.). The warlike
character of LH III C might have had similar symbols, as the Aegeans of that
time used the same type of swords.
The “menagerie-vases”, as Fritz Schachermeyr called them, remind one
of the Tree of Life with animals on it, even if the central element is more
like the old octopus: birds, fishes and hedgehogs (or perhaps boars?) prevail
(fig. 40.1–5). They are known mainly from the eastern Aegean (Mountjoy
1995, fig. 456: 141 Kos, fig. 464–465 Kalymnos), but parallels also exist on the
Greek mainland (Güntner 2000, pl. 56: 46 and pl. 82; Crouwell 1991; Sake-
larakis 1992; Mountjoy 1995). The so-called hedgehogs in this context may
rather be boars, known in their adversary relation to the Tree of Life in
the Nordic mythology, but rather positive attitude to them exists in other
mythologies.
Horse and bird are among the most frequently represented subjects on
LH III C pottery, while fish is also often depicted; men are rare (Benson 1970,
1975; Bouzek 1997a, 140–143; Yon 1992; Güntner 2000, pls. 34–56 and pl. 61).
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 65

SOLAR SYMBOLS AND BIRDS

Since LH III B solar symbolism similar to that of European Urnfields (Kos-

sack 1954, Briard 1987; Kaul 1998, here fig. 18) can be traced in the Aegean
(Bouzek 1997b, 125–6); a kind of religious message seems to have existed
behind the new iconography. The sea anemone, rosette, circles and con-
centric circles (Furumark Mot. 27, 17, 41 and 43) are of special importance
in LH III B–C (fig. 43.1–11); isolated semicircles are predecessors of similar
main ornaments of Submycenaean and Protogeometric pottery (cf. Bouzek
1970, 98–101). In the Greek tradition the Hyperboreans, Thracians and other
northern people were bearers of important religious messages, and this
seems also to be expressed in the iconography of LH III C.
The gold roundel of Central European or North Italic provenance from
the Trésor d’Artemision in Delos (fig. 5.6) also belongs to this phenomenon
(Matthäus 1979), besides the story of the Hyperborean maidens and of amber
sent through the relay transport from the Baltic across various tribes to Delos
(Herod. IV, 32–36; cf. Bouzek 2000b). The popularity of birds and the Sun
went with the Sea Peoples to the Levant via the Aegean. The ships with bird
protomae remind one strongly of the European solar barque (figs. 5, 43.8).
This motif of bird protomae is not only known on pottery (Tiryns, Rhodes, cf.
Bouzek 1985, 177–178, but also on metal sheets and vessels from Pylos (Bouzek
1985, 1997a, 98–99). The LH III C birds went eastwards to the Levant with the
Sea Peoples and were of extreme importance also for the Philistines (Yon
1992; Bouzek 1997a, 141–3 and 2004; Lenz 1995; Bouzek 2011ab); the ships of
the Sea Peoples with bird protomae are even known from the Medinet Habu
reliefs (Wachsmann 1998, 2000).The reciprocal relations between Greece and
Europe during the Late Bronze Age, known from warfare and from dress fas-
teners mainly, can also be seen in the related style of depicting humans and
animals, and in the iconography (cf. Briard 1987; Kaul 1998; Bouzek 1997a,
124–139).

CONCLUSIONS

Generally speaking, some of the new artistic ideas appeared already in

LH III B, and the first of them in LH III A 2, too. In the field of visual art, as
stressed by Gombrich, any new idea must grow from what existed before, and
can only add to what already exists. The dissolution of old figural and floral
decorative motives opened the way to a new language, whose foundations
were laid notably in LH III C.
The new subjects, like mourning, prothesis etc. were first—on the Tana-
gra sarcophagi—expressed in the old manner or in attempts where the new
stylistic phenomena were only suggested, like on the Circus Pot (fig. 22), but
66 PART 2: late Helladic III C

the Kynos and Ayia Triada Eleias sherds show the seeds of the new Geometric
style in which the barbarian impact started to merge with the earlier Aegean
heritage to lay the foundations of the new Iron Age Greek world, similarly
as the Early Christian art of Ravenna prepared the medieval development.
It appears that the pan-European koine of 13th–12th century BC was not only
of weapons, armour and dress fasteners, but also of many common religious
ideas generally understandable over a very large territory (cf. also Betancourt
1999; Marinatos 2001; Gauer 2001).
Greek mythology took over impulses from various traditions (cf. nota-
bly Burkert 1975, 1977), and no wonder that the iconography did the same. It
descended from Mycenaean tradition, accepted impulses from various sides:
East, South, West and North, and prepared a new synthesis of Greek Geomet-
ric and Archaic art.

2.3 FROM BRONZE TO IRON AGE

Time of the Heroes of Hesiod is situated between the Bronze and the Iron
Age. We know some of the heroes from the very rich burials at the beginning
of the time of the Urnfields and some even from the end of that time; they
remind us of the burials of Homer’s heroes. A common habit of that time
was sacrificing bronze objects as depots on sacred places; it was probably
a final part of a religious ritual. They might be recycled in a time of urgent
need as well as the treasures of the Greek temples. Most of the hoards on the
important places in the landscape were the sacrifices to the gods or to lower
spiritual beings in order to secure harmonious relationship between human
society and surrounding nature. Other depots of pottery represented—when
they were deposited with food—sacrifices similar to Greek thesmophoria:
feasts of Demeter that secured fertility and good harvest.16
The boom of the Central European mild climate (cf. figs. 13–14) was paral-
lel to the crisis in the Mediterranean area, where draught and poor crop led
to serious problems. The weapons and armour of the time of the Urn Fields
are the same in most of Europe—from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean,
from central France as far as to modern eastern border of Poland and Roma-
nia. Spectacular armour was from sheet bronze. Goliath, the Philistine hero
defeated by David, wore such an armour; Philistines were one of the Sea Peo-
ples who settled after their defeat on Egyptian border in southern Palestine.17
The Sea Peoples were stopped by the army of Ramses III on Egyptian bor-
der shortly after 1200. Egyptian reports reflect their surprise that in their

16 Cf. GAE 24–47; cf. Deger-Jalkotzy 1978, 1983, 1998, 2005, 2009.
17 Cf. GAE 19–22, 160–165, here ch. 2.1; Gold und Kunst der Bronzezeit 2003.
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 67

military operation many different ethnic groups participated and they were
able to cooperate. The ability to cooperate closely outside the own blood com-
munity is the foreboding of the Gefolgschaft (leader and his men) system of
the Early Iron Age, as well as hoards of ceramic vessels that couldn’t be used
any longer after statutory (oath) ritual with pledge. Also people living north
of Greece worshipped both Apollo, the model of perfect youth, and Diony-
sus, spiritus vini—vine spirit. Alcohol consumption freed human individual
from the blood relationship. The followers of the leader were bound by agree-
ment, by promises given at the feast with drinking vine, but the relationship
between the leader and his followers was not irreversible. Achilles could
refuse the head of the army Agamemnon to go to war and nothing happened
to him, in feudal time it would mean the loss of the tenure. In the female
world women left their families, they became maenads—wild worshippers of
Dionysus, they were running in the mountains, had their drinking feasts and
other adventures (often with their male partners—Satyrs). The emancipation
of the individuals created a space for the community of polis that didn’t rely
on blood relationships, but on agreement made by its citizens (cf. ch. 2.1). This
system developed first in Greece, but it was adopted by the Etruscans and
other Italics; later also by the Celts.
The Iron Age is depicted in many mythologies as sharp worsening of the
state of the world and Hesiod especially complained (LI, 174–8):

If only I wouldn’t belong to the fifth generation of men,

But die sooner or was born later.
Because now it is the Iron Age. During daytime men know
no end of toil and sorrow and
at night they suffer from exhaustion.
And gods bestowed on us great anxiety.

It was similarly viewed by Lucretius and by Celtic and German mythol-

ogy; from the European myths maybe only Kalevala saw in a piece of iron
something new, opening the way to future (cf. GAE 44–48).
Greek camp outside the Troy walls was a model of a new city, the oppo-
site of the old town of the Bronze Age Troy whose foundation and existence
depended on the will of gods and their relationship to people, who easily
messed up the destiny, as Paris during the beauty contest (but it was clear
from the beginning that a contest of the most beautiful goddess could not
end up else than with disaster). Hesiod also describes two towns (Op. 225–47):
the one that it’s rightly ruled by the citizens prospers and where not, it per-
ishes; similar picture of two towns is in the middle of the shield of Achilles
(Il. 18, 490–540). There is a message that it is necessary to issue human laws
of society because direct theocracy has finished; just only town with rights
68 PART 2: late Helladic III C

laws—polis—is a basis of the world order, macrocosm; the polis is more

autonomous reflection compared to the theocratic towns of the Bronze Age.
In the geographic description of the world as the Greeks of that time per-
ceived it; it is appropriate to use two descriptions preserved by early Greek
authors. It is the shield of Achilles by Homer, and the shield of Heracles by
Hesiod. In the middle of the shield of Heracles there was depicted Phoibos
but also Eris, snakes, then Lapiths with Centaurs and choros, Perseus and
harbour; by the circumference there are war and peace as an expression of
the polarization of the world forces and finally around the shield Okeanos. In
the middle of the shield of Achilles (Il. XVIII, 477–608) there were sky, earth
and sea as a centre of the created world, around in the agriculture world:
ploughing, harvest and vintage, then pastoral life, dance of shepherds and
shepherdesses, and beyond them a lion attacking a bull; at the edge of the
shield there was again Okeanos (fig. 71 left). This described depiction of
both shields is a basic model of every Greek artwork, which in its microcosm
should reflect cosmos.
At the edge of the shield of Achilles, as well as on the shield of Heracles
by Hesiod, there was Okeanos surrounding the whole earth. Okeanos was
something different than sea the Greeks sailed. It was the very border of the
physical world and in time conception the beginning of its existence (Il. XIV,
246). Hesiod says that Okeanos has three thousand sons and three thousand
daughters, streams and rivers, givers of life (Theog. 364–7). Okeanos was for
Greeks and for Etruscans in mythical expression what Milesian philosophers
translated from visualized mythology of the Dark Age into new language
either like water (Thales) that can itself change into other things or apeiron
(Anaximandros); the development is through excretion of opposites, tem-
porary polarisation of forces. Anaximenes called this primordial material
substance apeiron aer, it means substance similar to our primordial nebula.
Okeanos is present at the wedding of Peleus and Thetis on the François vase,
but otherwise he is depicted only rarely.
Phonetic script created by Phoenicians, who before the Greeks developed
entrepreneurial spirit of privately run sailing, connected both to trade and
piracy, was an outcome of abstraction as well as progress in mathematics and
astronomy. It set free human mind from overloaded memory and it was indis-
pensable step of the progress in speculative philosophical thought (cf. ch. 6).
Greek art starts—as other phases of the world development—by the
period of involution. Mycenaean civilization perished both because of inner
problems, climatic crisis and invasion of barbarians from Europe and the
western Mediterranean; the best known of whose are so called Sea Peoples
(cf. ch. 2.1). Together with Mycenaean culture great Hittite empire in Asia
Minor perished and part of city states in Syria and Lebanon. Part of the Sea
Peoples settled after their defeat in Palestine (the best known are Philistines)
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 69

and by the Syrian coast towns of Phoenicians soon bloomed, whose culture
together with sailing, seafaring trade and development of phonetical script
strongly influenced the art of the early Iron Age. The melting and forging of
iron were known to Hittites already in the 14th century, but the new metal was
more widely used in the eastern Mediterranean as late as in the 12th century
and only around year 1000 BC iron started to be commonly used in Greece for
weapons and tools. The Iron Age brought not only use of new metal, but also
new approach to world, new identity.
The Greek heroes of the end of Bronze Age got out of the divine order the
influence of which they didn’t respect any longer. They were not able to con-
trol their passions and they became models for characters of Greek tragedies.
In the Iliad, whose author lived according to prevailing Greek tradition on the
break of 10th and 9th century BC reflects mainly situation of the very begin-
ning of the Iron Age, there are various heroes of transition period depicted
in detail; we can trace well the development of thought of early Iron Age with
the heroes of Homer.
In the Iliad Aias is the oldest hero wearing old-world Bronze Age armour.
Similarly to the heroes of the tragedies he is not able to control his passions
with his mind, he commits foolish deeds: in foolishness he kills the flock of
his camp and when he recognises his shame he couldn’t live any longer and
commits suicide. He is tossed by his passions as well as heroes of Greek trag-
edies. The middle generation is represented mainly by Hector and Achilles.
Achilles can to certain degree control his passions, but he gives way to them
when he loses his mistress Briseis and refuses to fight, and also when after
the death of Patroclus he massacres Trojan captives; after winning the duel he
lets the body of his rival Hector be drawn on the battlefield. Hector is exem-
plary son, father and husband caring for homeland and family, probably the
most positive character from the whole Iliad, but even he doesn’t survive the
war. They both die not being able to cross the threshold of the new age. Only
the cunning Odysseus can cross it; from our point of view he is definitely not
a model of moral excellence, but he is—besides Diomedes, the one who by
shooting at Aphrodite transgressed the space of thambos and was refused at
home—the only one who could think independently. The slyness was one of
the first signs of new personal intelligence; the main representative of which
in Greek world is Pallas Athena born from the head of Zeus, by Goethe called
Urgedanke. She also helps Odysseus who is the new type of a person inspired
by her able to carry out independent way of thinking. Similar way Lord helps
David in the Old Testament. His victory over Goliath was not according to
the Olympic rules, and sending husband to war to be able to have his wife he
desired, is not a moral deed. The Lord liked David although he was not always
an example of virtue. Also the story of Samson and Delilah show the victory
of fraud over rough force; this time with less favourable impact on Israel.
70 PART 2: late Helladic III C

New art of Iron Age was prepared by the reduction of the picture in
the Late Mycenaean time. Its forerunner was the art in the 12th century BC
called Late Helladic III C style, when much of the later iconographic and style
development was started, but disappeared as a seed in ground and much later
appeared again. In 13th and 12th century many scenes started that were popu-
lar in Late Geometric art in the 8th century: mourning deceased at prothesis,
processions of warriors, and Oedipus with Sphinx had there their predeces-
sors. Also popularity of depicting birds, fish, horse, sun gods whose successor
was Apollo, spread at that time from continental Europe. From the east imports
from the Levant influenced this world, mediating impulses from the Middle
East and Egypt. Continuity of tradition is partly visible at the end of the Myce-
naean civilisation, notably in Thessaly and Athens, but generally the collapse
brought an origin of new more simple society that grew out of components
of domestic, European and Near Eastern impacts and created new synthesis.

2.4 PRIDE AND MODESTY—HOW TO SURVIVE THE DARK AGE

The end of the Mycenaean period was marked by a considerable barbarian

presence which probably took the leading position in the mosaic of small king-
doms. In a way, even the society known from Linear B gives the impression
of a new leading strata of nouveau riche implanted into an alien system. Such
groups demonstrate their legitimacy by keeping most of the formal structure
of the old system, and this seems to have been the strategy of the leaders of
the small LH III C kingdoms, too. The new criteria of taste influenced some
elements of the material culture, but many of the traditional forms persisted.
The decline of the old Bronze Age divine kingship was followed by a further
development at the end of Mycenaean times, when more democratic political
structures were called for (GAE 19–40, HG 82–87). More barbarians arriving
into a society where the palace bureaucracy was collapsing, made the former
“lower class” strong enough to overthrow the remnants of the old system. The
social explanations of the Dorian history initiated by J. Chadwick (1976, 1984)
may touch on the truth. In the later contribution he is suggesting that the
Dorians were actually non-Greek speaking originally and took over low class
Greek, like the Goths and Langobards in Italy in Early Mediaeval times. Even
more probably it happened with the Pelasgians (cf. Briquel 1984), like much
later with the Albanians and Slavs in Greece.
But as everywhere in human history, no effect has only one cause, earth-
quake, barbarians, climatic difficulties, economic problems and social—all
played some part and the only serious mistake of new studies is that they try
to find only one unique cause; the weighing of them is, however, necessary
(cf. Eder 1998, Dickinson 2006; Middleton 2010).
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 71

The fate of the traditional upper class was, of course different in differ-
ent parts of Greece; local schools of painted pottery reflect this situation
(Mountjoy 1995). Those who could not relinquish their pride, like the rulers
of Mycenae, ended in the catastrophes reflected in Greek tragedies. In Tiryns
they restored the anaktoron, and created conditions for large community
even outside the citadel (cf. for development of architecture esp. Mazarakis-
Ainian 1997a), Lefkandi LH III C was a temporary success (Middleton 2010
with essential bibliography), as was Perati (Iakovides 1970), probably in
collaboration with the Sea Peoples, whom the Greeks in their legends prob-
ably called Pelasgoi (cf. Briquel 1984). Those who gave up their privileges and
started to live like their ordinary kinsmen, as the Athenian kings did, were
able to open the way towards the new age of Classical Greece. In LH III C
solid foundations were laid for what later became Geometric Greece (Deger-
Jalkotzy – Lemos, eds. 2006, Bouzek 2011c).
The small units persisted always better than the colossal empires, as also
the example of Crete split into small units shows (Wallace 2010). The state
economy collapsed in late LM III C Crete with the rule on the sea, the pirates
of the Sea Peoples were similarly dangerous as were the medieval Arab raids
(cf. the conference volumes Karageorghis, ed. 1998, with Stampolides – Kara-
georghis 2003, with Kouka 2009, for the Sea Peoples Oren, ed. 2000, Sandars
1985b). The modest subsistence of small communities, both in economy and
warfare, became in Dark Age Crete successful; but pirate nests also existed
on some promontories, as shown already by Nowicki (2000). Archaic cities
with their small territories, differences in their constitutions and political
arrangements, arose from this Dark Age pattern with concentration of popu-
lation at well defendable places with enough large territory. This develop-
ment created rather stabile small poleis with poor, but proud populations of
homoioi by descent, though in most cases with less rigid political system than
in Sparta. The international involvement in the Orientalizing period, despite
of its temporary success in Daedalic art, did not bring Cretans much eco-
nomic activity outside the island, perhaps with the exception of mercenaries,
Cyrenaica and the foundation of Gela together with the Rhodians. Egyptian
influence was more probably transmitted via the Phoenicians than directly,
and most of us would see more Oriental influence than Egyptian in the Dae-
dalic Crete than S. Wallace (2010). The modest success on the path across the
Dark Age prepared the conservatism of Cretan poleis, resulting in a strong
opposition against any unification of the island and in the lack of economic
growth. Therefore, unlike most Greece, Crete played only a marginal role in
Late Archaic and Classical Greece (Wallace 2010).
72 PART 2: late Helladic III C

1 2 3 5

6 7

11

8
12
9 10

14
13
15 16

Fig. 34: Bosses on LH III C and Submycenaean vases. 1 and 3 Mycenae, 2 Asine,
4 Vourvatsi, 5 Ialyssos, 6 Kerameikos, 7 Salamis, 8 Corinth, 9–11 Attic Geometric, 12 Protoattic,
13–14 Vergina, 15 Athens, 16 Ialyssos. After Bouzek 1997, fig. 145.
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 73

2a
2b
1

3b
3a

Fig. 35: Types of Cretan bird askoi. 1, 2a, 3b Fortetsa, 2b and 3a Arkades. Right below the
Orientalizing type. After AAE.

LH III (A-)B

1 2 3 4

LH III C

6
5 7

SM/PG

10 11
8

Fig. 36: A Bird askoi in Greece, LH III (A)B to Submycenaean and Protogeometric. 1–2
Mycenae, 3 Prosymna, 4 in Munich, 5–6 Achaea, 7 Ialyssos, 8 in Heidelberg, 9–10 Kerameikos,
11 Assarlik. After Bouzek 1997, fig. 146.
74 PART 2: late Helladic III C

1
3
2

Fig. 37: Clay figurines

from Olympia (1 and 3–4),
Phylakopi (6) Stránky,
5 Bohemia (2) and Bavaria (5).
4 After Bouzek 1985, fig. 174.
6

Fig. 38: 1 decoration on guards of the Liptov swords, Slovakia, 2 antithetic spiral pattern (after
Furumark 1940, fig. 62). After Bouzek 2005.
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 75

2 3
1

Fig. 39: 1–4 Dancing women, horses and dancing men, 1 and 4 Fossum, 2 Vitlycke,
3 Backa, 5 rock carving of a ship at Vitlycke, all Sweden, 6 wooden model of ship, Roos Carr,
England (after Bouzek 1997, figs. 40, 162 and 160).
76 PART 2: late Helladic III C

4
5

Fig. 40: Vases in Octopus style, LH III C. 1 Kalymnos (after Furumark 1941, fig. 49: 28),
2 and 4 Rhodes (Moutjoy 1995, fig. 438 above), 5 Kalymnos (Mountjoy 1995).
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 77

1 2

3 4

5 6

Fig. 41: 1–6 Tanagra sarcophagi, Tanagra after Demakopoulou – Konsola 1981, Immerwahr
1995, Bouzek 1997a, Marinatos 1997, 7 mourning scene on the krater from Ayia Triada Eleias
after Schoinas 1999 and 2003.
78 PART 2: late Helladic III C

2
1

7
6

Fig. 42: LH III C ships and warrior scenes. 1 Kynos, 2 Pyrgos Livanaton, 3 Gazi larnax,
4 Tragana. After Wedde, 1999, Dakourounia 1997, Crouwell 1999, Wachsmann 2000,
Cavanagh – Mee 1997, Mountjoy 2005, Korres 1989 and Bouzek 1997; 5 Kynos, 6 Bademgedighi
warriors, 7 man and stag from Ugarit (after Rouayume d’Ougarit 2004 and Bouzek 1997).
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 79

4
2 3

1
6 7

10

11
8
9

12 13

14

Fig. 43: 1–4 Mycenae, LH III B, 5 Ialyssos, LH III C, 6 Tarent, 7 Furumark mot. 50, 8 Tiryns,
9 Argos, 10 Hungary, 11 Tolfa, 12–13 Ugarit (LH III C) and Argos (Late Geometric), after Bouzek
1997, fig. 106. 14 Skyros, after Wedde 1999 and Bouzek 1997, fig. 149.
80 PART 2: late Helladic III C

2.5 BIRDS

The book by J. Zimmermann on Geometric horses has shown many stylis-

tic relations in the production of figurines of animals in Geometric Greece
(Zimmermann 1985); an article on Geometric birds (Zimmermann 1989)
has shown a number of aspects of history of figurines of Geometric and
sub-Geometric birds. While confirming many of his ideas on interrelations
between the local schools of bronzesmiths, it seems to be useful to look at
this subject even from another point of view. Discussion concerning Geomet-
ric birds, especially those of bronze, is long and with different results while
using different approaches (cf. Bouzek 1967). The majority of contributions to
this subject were either of prehistory character, without analyzing the style
(Kilian, K. 1975a and 1975b; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979), or without knowledge of
the territory north of Greece and of other symbolic roles of birds (Zimmer-
mann 1989). K. Kilian et I. Kilian-Dirlmeier produced useful lists of the items,
but the stylistic division is either too schematic or absent completely. The sec-
ond group of specialists, while noticing fine traits of stylistic and technique
fields (Zimmermann 1989, Rolley 1983, 1985, 1987) did not discuss the parallels
from other regions. It is possible to distinguish four separate questions and
discuss them one after another (cf. Bouzek 2004b).

BIRDS OF LH III C—PROTOGEOMETRIC AND THE TRADITION

OF KOINE OF GEOMETRIC STYLES

While studying Geometric birds it is necessary to start with the Late Bronze
Age. Birds are living everywhere, they are represented in all figural arts of the
world, but they were rare in the Aegean Bronze Age art. As already noticed by
M. Nilson, they signal presence of divinities, and their role in vase painting
was limited. They gained more popularity only in LH III and in LH III B–C
they became extremely popular; their popularity surpass all other figurative
subjects.
For their history in LH III C and in the Dark Age it is necessary to start
discussion with the symbolic koine of Europe and the Mediterranean in
the 13th – 12th centuries BC. Birds were companions of the Sun in Scandinavia
(Sprockhoff 1954, Galling – Davidson 1969) and in the civilisation of the Urn
fields of Central and Western Europe (Kossack 1954; Roes 1933; Briard 1987a,
58–60). Between prehistoric Europe and the Near East many birds are known
also in South Italy and the Aegean (Bouzek 1985, 176–181; 2013c). The solar
barque with bird protomae of European regions finds parallels also with the
Sea Peoples (Philistines) in Medinet Habu (Wachsmann 1998; Schachermeyr
1982, 78–79; Sandars 1978, 130–131).They are the most common motif on Philis-
tine pottery (Dothan 1982, 198–203) and similarly on Cyprus at the time of the
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 81

Sea Peoples (Yon 1992, 394–407). The birds became one of the most popular
motifs on Cypro-Geometric pottery (Benson 1975).
In Greece the protomae of birds preceded the full figures (Bouzek 1977):
they appeared in Kerameikos (Kerameikos IV, pl. 39), Torone (Papadopoulos
1991, 13–24) and elsewhere (Benson 1975). They are very common in Geometric
Greece (Rolley 1983, 64–66, Zimmermann 1989, 38; Langdon 1990, 316–317).
Their religious significance shows links with the European parallels; even
C. Rolley (Rolley 1983, 64–66) considers them under the most important Euro-
pean contributions to Greek bronzes; ceramic bird askoi were also popular in
the Submycenaean and Protogeometric periods (cf. also Bouzek 2007).
Without any doubt many earlier birds existed than those on handles of
Argive tripods of second quarter of the 8th century (Zimmermann 1989,
38), but the first birds dedicated to Greek sanctuaries were mainly of clay
(cf. Langdon 1990; Heilmeyer 1972). The continuity of production of tripods
in bronze is not certain, but the imitations in clay show that they existed in
wood and basket. The primitive figurines from Sparta are nearly identical
with those of prehistoric Central Europe (figs. 44–46; pl. A 4.1).

CAUCASIAN AND CIMMERIAN CONTRIBUTIONS

Elsewhere I tried to study relations between Macedonian and Thracian birds

and the Caucasus region (Bouzek 1974b, esp. pp. 328–332, cf. here (fig. 45) in
the frame of Caucasian inspiration of Macedonian and Thessalian bronzes
(Bouzek 1983, 212–217; fig. 46). The chronology of so-called Thraco-Cimmerian
bronzes in Central Europe is now higher: they started in 9th century, or even
slightly earlier (cf. Kossack 1980; Terenožkin 1980; Bouzek 1983, 212–217). This
date seems to be confirmed by dendrochronology of Ha B 2 and 3 in Central
Europe (Becker-Schmidt 1982), and perhaps also from Sardis.18 It is also con-
firmed by iron axes from Athenian graves of early 9th century (HG 138 and
A. Wesse 1990). The pyxis from Vitsa grave 113 and several other contexts date
the early development of Macedonian bronzes into the first half of the 8th
century BC (Bouzek 1988b, 47–49). Cf. Guba-Szeverenyi 2007.

CONTRIBUTION OF PREHISTORIC EUROPE

Tradition during 10th– 9th century BC is not quite clear, but primitive birds
from Sparta are so closely similar to those of Central Europe, that these
could be exchanged without seeing any substantial difference (fig. 45);19 in

18 The discussion on the destruction of Sardis by the Cimmerians or by other cannot be closed as
yet. Cf. Becker – Schmidt 1982, 101–106; Brun – C. Mordaut, eds. 1986.
19 Bouzek 1967, 116–118 fig. 1 et Eirene 8 1971, 89–93.
82 PART 2: late Helladic III C

all probability they were also made of wood; the finds from Upper Altai and
Heraion of Samos show clearly parallels to this situation. As shown by the
birds on bird-cages and connections with the Cimmerian world is evident
(figs. 96, 123–124), it is reasonable to understand pendants in shape of birds
as results of northern influences adapted by Peloponnesian workshops—
generally, they are rare south of Thessaly. For other varieties the links with
Central Europe are becoming more closely evident.20 The majority of con-
tacts between Central Europe and Greece belong to 13th–12th century BC, but
some show also later contacts during the Geometric period: amber, fibulae,
pins, pendants, beads and pectorals from north are well represented in Greek
sanctuaries. It is unlear whether the northern and NE items were brought
in the Greek sanctuaries by Greeks as pieces of memory, or by Thracians,
Illyrians, Paeonians and other Balkan peoples, but even for the Greeks these
objects were bearers of some message, some memory, related to the area of
their origin: the tradition told about Greek sanctuaries often mentions their
northern and/or eastern origin.

SIMPLE FIGURINES OF BIRDS OF LH III C—EARLY GEOMETRIC

DATE

Pottery is principally made for the market, silver plate, gold jewellery directly
for the client. Votive bronzes of Late and Sub-Geometric were probably made
by itinerant specialist on an occasion of holidays, such feasts were also con-
nected with markets, centres des etnoi, those communities which have not
yet develop the polis (cf. Coldstream 1982, 17–25). W. D. Heilmeyer (1979,
192–195) has shown how the itinerant bronzesmiths worked at Olympia. The
itinerant character of souvenir production causes difficulties in distinguish-
ing the local schools, as it is much more clear in pottery styles.
The classification of local styles by H.-V. Herrmann with my addendum on
birds (Hermann 1964; Bouzek 1967, cf. Zimmermann 1988, 39–45) was often
misunderstood. The schools are not fixed centers like in pottery styles; they
show several main centers and even more imitations, based on the influence
of particular masters. Northern Greece often imitated the great Peloponnesian
centers. W. D. Heilmeyer has shown that my Argive group is rather Laconian,
even if based on Argive inspiration, and only some of them were really Argive
(Heilmeyer 1979, 198, Voyatzis 1990, 155–156, cf. Zimmermann 1989, 38, Heil-
mayer 1979, 187). The majority of the Corinthian type birds were made in Thes-
saly and western Greece, but following Corinthian prototypes (Voyatzis 1990,
155, Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979); the inspiration came notably from Corinth (Kilian-

20 Cf. now Smejtek – Švédová 2016; Bouzek – Vokolek 2016; Belke-Voigt 2016: also horses, rams
and human figurines.
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 83

Dirlmeier 1979, 164) and they were found in the area of strong Corinthian influ-
ence also in the field of pottery; the production of Phocis and Thessaly were
only of local importance. The classification by Zimmermann (1989) brings nice
detailed observations; the birds from Tegea, discussed by Mary Voyatzis (1990)
find only a few parallels in Sparta, so they may be called Arcadian. The Tegea jew-
ellery of prehistoric character has few parallels south of Thessaly and Boeotia.

PEACOCKS AND “POULES”

The situation among the birds called cocks, peacocks, hens, etc. is clearer
(Bouzek 1967, 125–130). The types of Argos and Tegea, Corinth, Thessaly and
Macedonia are clearly different, and even their distribution confirms the
ascription (fig. 46.1). The type known from Tegea and Argos (variety I of
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier) seems to be earlier than the second known from Tegea and
Sparta. Its origin was probably at Argos, but it was made also in Tegea
and Sparta, probably by itinerant smiths (Voyatzis 1990, 147–149). Of the Corin-
thian type one sample is known from Perachora, one in private collection and
another in Prague University (pl. A 4.1) from Olynthus, Corinthian colony.
Foreign types of bronze figurines were sometimes made, but without
much respect for the original style. Bronzes from Thasos (Dunand – Rolley
1987) and a number of other objects in Greek sanctuaries are imports from
areas north of Greece. As shown in the analysis by I. Kilian-Dirlmeier (1985)
many other souvenirs dedicated to Greek sanctuaries came from beyond
Greece. Genuine imports are rare, but their influence had some importance
for the Orientalizing phase of Greek art.

CONCLUSION

Generally, religious importance of birds in Dark Age became marginal in

later Greece, despite of their roles as messengers between the divine and
human worlds. Part of the symbols became instruments of magic sorcery,
like the wheel with birds (Iynx) for getting love from partner of another sex
or the vessel-wagon with ravens at Krannon, for bringing rain at time of dry-
ness. But swan remained symbol of Apollo and even of Aphrodite, peacock
remained the bird of Hera, eagle belonged to Zeus, even that sitting on the
cage who carries the world globe (fig. 46.7). Late Geometric period started
to abandon the Dark Age language of symbolic signs, signs of symbols were
again translated into more pictorial language: to depicting plants, animals
and human beings (Himmelmann 1968). This transformation of symbols
marked the transition from half—prehistoric Dark Age towards polis of
Archaic Greece.
84 PART 2: late Helladic III C

1 2

4
5

Fig. 44: Heads of birds from Kerameikos. 1–2 bronze, 3 and 5 horses on PG vases, and protome
from Torone (4). After Bouzek 2004b.

1
4
5

6 7

Fig. 45: Birds of bronze. 1–4 Sparta, Artemis Orthia, 5 Siebeneich, Austria, 6 Piersznice
Wielke, Silesia, 7 Hader, Bavaria. After Bouzek 2004b.
 PART 2: late Helladic III C 85

2
3

8
9
7
6

Fig. 46: Late Geometric birds. 1 Argos, 2–3 Laconian types, 4 Volos,
5 Lindos, 2, 3, 8 Olympia, 6 Corinth, 7 and 9 Central Greece, 8 Rhodes. After HG.
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN
TO MIDDLE GEOMETRIC

3.1 SUBMYCENAEAN AND SUBMINOAN

The Submycenaean in its full sense is much better known from cemeteries
than from settlements. Its initial transition from LH III C is best known in
Argos (Deshayes 1966),1 so the new style arose probably in the Argolid, as
was these with the Close and Granary styles earlier. But the development in
Athens and Salamis could not have started much later. In Athens the Submy-
cenaean style (fig. 47) is not contemporary with the end of the Perati cem-
etery, as supposed earlier, but the Athenian cemeteries arose after Perati (HG
89–91). Technical and artistic level of Submycenaean pottery is lower than
preceding LH III C, but potter’s wheel and glazed decoration persisted (Lemos
2002, 7–9). The main motifs are wavy line and by hand sketched concentric
semi-circles and triangles. Of the earlier shapes the stirrup vase is still repre-
sented, but most of other vases have predecessors in LH III C only. Amphorae
with belly-handles and pitchers with trefoil rim are decorated with bosses,
so they seem to be of “female” character (figs. 34.16, 63). The basic drinking
vessels, skyphoi follow the earlier tradition, while lekythoi are the most com-
mon toilet oil containers in graves, outnumbering larger stirrup vases. Hand-
made pottery has roughly similar shapes as wheel-made, its technique seems
to follow that of the earlier Barbarian Ware. In western Greece it outnumbers
painted ware, as e.g. in Delphi. Some of them remind one of the Vergina vases
(fig. 54), fluted pyxis and other vessels with incised or channelled decoration
show relations further northwards (figs. 24, 26–27). The style in its broader
sense is known from Thessaly, Thebes and from Poseidi in Chalcidice in the
north, in Euboea and in large parts of the Peloponnese—Argolis, Corinthia,
Elis, in several Ionian colonies in Asia Minor and in the Dodecanese (Des-
borough 1972, 20–35, cf. 64–105; Styrenius 1967). Some elements of the Proto-
White-Painted pottery in Cyprus seem to be derived from Submycenaean or
Early Protogeometric. In Messenia the style contemporary with Submyce-
naean is called Dark Age I and its decoration is very simple, nearly no patterns

1 According to volume‚ LH III C chronology and synchronism III, 2007 (ed. S. Deger-Jalkotzy) LH III C
late dates 1100–1080, Submycenaean belongs to ca. 1070/40–1000 BC.
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 87

are recorded from Nichoria (Coulson 1986). In Lefkandi there seems to be

a gap between LH III C settlement and the first graves in the cemetery.
Settlement deposits are known from Submycenaean in Tiryns, Asine,
Mycenae, Kalapodi and Iolkos.
The Kerameikos volume I by W. Kraiker and K. Kübler published just
before the Second World War was a great step forward, and with the old pub-
lication of Salamis graves by S. Wide2, remains the base for any further study.
The supplementary material published by Ruppenstein is much smaller
(34 graves, nos. 115–134), but the author returned to the earlier corpus and
analysed the whole cemetery. He minutiously describes and discusses the
pottery, but original reports of the excavators (mainly, as in other volumes,
of Karl Kübler) are nearly nowhere mentioned. In contrast to Styrenius,
Ruppenstein distinguishes four phases of Submycenaean (Ruppenstein 2007;
Styrenius 1967).
Parallel to Sub-Mycenaean style of the early 12th century, the Subminoan
style on Crete brought first of all reduction in ornament—concentric semi-
circles and undulating curves, wavy-lines are almost the only decorative ele-
ments. Figural representations almost disappeared; only exceptionally rough
linear drawings appear depicting goddess or priestess with raised hands,
hunters and mountain goats on Crete (cf. figs. 56 and 68.4 for PG).
Against the earlier chamber tombs of families sub-Mycenaean burials
(mainly skeleton ones) are cist graves (cf. fig. 50) of individuals, for whom
the family ties counted less than for those in family tombs, which continued
to be used in northern Thessaly. The bronze jewellery is common, namely
bow fibulae with Adriatic parallels, pins related to those from NW Balkans
and Central Europe (fig. 49.1–4) and finger rings (figs. 49.14–19), but not
weapons; they were probably too much needed in everyday life (fig. 49.10).
Sub-Mycenaean style started in the Argolis (Deiras), the main centre of
Mycenaean civilization, but the following Protogeometric style originated in
Athens and Thessaly.
Contrary to legends connected to Mycenae and other Mycenaean centres
where heroes possessed by pride ended by violent death in tragedies; Athe-
nian kings according to tradition gave up their power, moved from Acropolis
down to small house on the Agora and through their humbleness they enabled
future prosperity. Athens became a centre where refugees from the Dorian
invasion in the Peloponnese came; they continued from there to Ionia in Asia
Minor that soon grew up into the most developed part of Greek world.

2 The EPG finds from Salamis exhibited in the Pireus Museum show similar continuous develop-
ment as in Athens.
88 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

WEAPONS AND ARMOUR

The series dated LH III C late to Submycenaean can well be compared with
the “second wave” of European influence by V. Milojčić. The Naue IIb swords
with prolonged pommel-support came to the Aegean slightly earlier.3
The Catling III sword from Mouliana dates probably slightly before 1200, the
Catling II b swords from Central Greece (fig. 48.1–2) are not well datable, but
apparently preceding the Protogeometric period (Palaiokastro from LH III C).
The full-grip daggers first appear at the transition from Submycenaean to
Protogeometric. The last Mycenaean horned swords were found in the Sub-
mycenaen graves in Palea Elis. For the first time appear spearheads with
facetted shaft and small spearhead of oval shape (HG 93–96; AAE 152–167).4
The Tiryns grave dated at the transition between Submycenaean and
Protogeometric contained comb helmet of bronze in openwork, probably
attached to a leather cap (fig. 48.4); its decoration resembles the helmet
from Pass Lueg in Austria. The band may perhaps have been part of a leather
corselet. The shield bosses (fig. 48.5–6) have predecessors from Mouliana
and Kaloriziki and successors in Protogeometric graves (fig. 62.3); similar
representations are known from Sardinia (HG 95, AAE 167–75). Two short
iron swords have parallels in Protogeometric Kerameikos, the long laurel-
shaped spearhead starts the development to bigger heads, used as the main
weapon later. The absence of weapons in most Submycenaean graves may be
the result of the unsettled political situation: weapons were too much needed
by the living.

FIBULAE AND DECORATIVE OBJECTS OF BRONZE

From the violin-bow fibulae bow fibulae developed probably at the same
time around the Adriatic and in Greece (fig. 51); those with simple bow are
characteristic for Submycenaean graves, special shapes are twisted and with
two knots on the bow, and the violin-bow fibulae with flattened bow are also
represented (fig. 49.7). Of the long pins which are becoming characteristic
for fastening peplos and/or chiton on the shoulders four main types can be
distinguished. The first type is formed by vase-shaped pins, whose globe is
sometimes of glass or ivory bead. The second type is formed by pins with
elongated biconical head and flat cap. The third variety, known from Crete,
Argos, Attica and northern Greece, has larger globe in the centre of the
head, surrounded above and below by smaller globes, and the cap is missing

3 Cf. now Pabst 2013, 105–152, esp. maps of distribution of Sprockhoff Ib swords and Peschiera
fibulae.
4 Local specifics Bouzek 1979b, 49–52.
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 89

(fig. 49). The fourth type known for ex. from Argos and Prosymna is similar
to the European club-headed type, while some pins from Karphi are cruder
and cannot be ascribed to any of the preceding. The first type seems to have
preceded the second in Athens and Argos, and all of them have rather close
European parallels all over the area where weapons and armour described
above (p. 89) was distributed. They show that in Greece new female dress
was common in most parts of Europe, and that the fashion of peplos and chi-
ton came to Greece from the north, partly via Italy, partly across the western
Balkans (HG 93–95, AAE 152–169; Lemos 2002, 108–130). The PG fibulae and
pins took more sophisticated forms (fig. 62.5, 7–9, 11–12). Semiglobular bowls
may have served also as helmets (fig. 62.10). Swords are of iron, as the rare
trunnion axes (fig. 62). Of particular interest are also fine shield bosses (cf.
figs. 48.5–6, 62.3).
The shield rings from Kerameikos and from the Dictaean cave have paral-
lels in Macedonia and in North Italy (fig. 49.14–19). They may have derived
from Mycenaean signet rings, but are decorated in simple repoussé with
pointed rosettes and multiple swastika, apparently important solar sym-
bols. Simple rings of sheet bronze or wire are the most common jewellery.
Spiral bracelets are represented, as well as small hair spirals, but heavy
bracelets of rods are exceptional (fig. 62.6). Either the higher cost of raw
material is responsible, or they were considered barbarian. Glass beads are
common, apparently together with faience beads of Phoenician production.
Amber was available, but very rare, against LH III C (HG 95, AAE 168–181).

FUNERAL RITE

The prevailing funeral rite in Athens and elsewhere was that of individual
cist graves (fig. 50); every dead received his or her individual cist; the family
chamber tombs remained only in marginal regions. The table given for Kera-
meikos shows that cremations became more common only in the transitional
period between Submycenaean and Protogeometric (HG 97–99, AAE 205–207,
GAE 73–78, here fig. 60 and table 1).
In northern Greece and the areas north of it the cist graves and/or crema-
tions are placed under tumuli (fig. 52), and apparently the tumuli were not
rare even in Greece proper, but the denudation left only few traces of barrows
and stone enclosures. The funerals in collective tombs in northern Thessaly
published by Dakoronia and Deger-Jalkotzy show fluent continuity from
LH III C to Protogeometric, as well as the chariots (Crouvell 2006).5

5 Deger-Jalkotzy 2009, and Brandbestattungen von der mittelern Donau bis zur Ägäis, zwischen 1300–
–750 v. Chr., 221–229. Cf. Cremation Burials 2013 and Dakoronia – Deger-Jalkotzy 2001.
90 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

Table 1

Inhumations SM 1 SM 2 SM 3 SM 4 Transition PG
cists 23 18 9 5 3 9
shafts – 3 9 7 4 2
pit graves – – – 3 2 3
cremations
urn – 1 3 4 9 48
pit – – – 1 2 10
Total 23 22 21 20 20 72

Interesting phenomenon is the close resemblance in burial rite (fig. 50)

and grave offerings between Greece and Macedonia: Early Iron Age Vergina
and Dion cemeteries show the same basic shapes of pottery (fig. 54), even if
hand-made, and closely similar bronze objects—dress fasteners, ornaments
and weapons; the “barbarian” components of the Submycenaean culture
were closely related to those in Macedonia (GAE, 196–7). The strict burial rite
of free men and women does not show significant differences of social posi-
tion of the deceased. The social rite shows rather egalitarian society, much
different from earlier times. On the Peloponnese one can speak about Dorians
prevailing after the Dorian invasion, but Attica and Salamis cemeteries are
situated outside the later Dorian territories (cf. Lewantowski 2000).

CRETE

The Subminoan in Crete was also a short period. New analysis of Karphi finds
confirmed that the city lived until the Protogeometric period. In Knossos no
architecture is known, but the rich cemeteries show that the population con-
tinued and its number was not unimportant. The tradition of the Close Style
persisted on some vases, but many vases are only covered by black glaze. The
mounted hunter on a Subminoan vase belongs to few figural representations,
but figurines of goddesses with raised hands and long cylindrical skirt persist
also until Protogeometric (fig. 56). The second group of European-derived
bronzes, among them the small bronzes from the Dictaean cave and the war-
rior grave from Mouliana yield the most important evidence; bow fibulae,
pins and the sword with grip with protrusion may well have arrived here via
Italy (HG 99–101, GAE 98–103). Inhumations in chamber tombs continue to
be the most usual funeral rite. Some imports of Egyptian or Levantine origin
never ceased to reach Crete completely, but their number was very limited.
Eastern Crete with its Eteocretan population prevailing took in the field of
pottery style a way differing from those in the north and south of the island
and even its definition differs (Tsipopoulou 2005).
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 91

Several cremations are known, but no cist graves. Most settlements are
off sea, to enable protection against pirates, like at the time of the Arab
7th century AD piracy, but several forts on the promontories may well have
been nests of the Sea Peoples, if they were not abandoned prior to Submy-
cenaean.
The earliest clay and bronze figurines from Olympia, Delphi and other
sites show two sources: the Phoenician smiting god, the European wooden
and clay primitive figures, models of Greek xoana and very schematic bronze
reliefs (fig. 37).

SUMMARY

The Submycenaean period and its Subminoan variety in Crete represent the
period of deepest decline of the Mycenaean culture, the extent and size of
settlements sank even against LH III C. Attic potters for the first time took
the lead from their colleagues in the Argolis, but the artistic level was modest
and the number of motifs used very limited. While the late LH III B destruc-
tions can best be ascribed to the Sea Peoples and their allies coming from
distant areas of Italy and NW Balkans, the destructions of settlements in later
III C can best be compared with the legends of the Dorian invasion and the
Return of the Heraclites (cf. HG 103). The change of sorts of cereals, and new
bigger race of cattle, as documented in Kastanas in the north and Nichoria
in Messenia especially, but probably also elsewhere (GAE 20–22 with bibl.),
together with new elements in wooden architecture (GAE 64–65; Mazarakis-
Ainian 1997b), can also be compared with the anthropological analyses; the
Submycenaean and Protogeometric skeletons show much higher percentage
of Alpine and Dinaric types than it was the case earlier.6 The situation in Ath-
ens does not differ much from that in the Argolis, so even Athens took more
from the Doric or Northwest Greek population; it seems to be in accordance
with the Doric elements in the Attic dialect (Styrenius 1967, 163; cf. Chadwick
1956a, 42 ff.). The immigrants may have come to Attica via Argolis (Deshayes
1966, 240 ff., 249; Styrenius 1967, 161–163).

6 For Athens, Agora, cf. Angel 1945, 323–6 318f: of 28 Myceanean skeletons 3 Alpine type, of 25 Sub-
mycenaean 8 Alpine; for Kerameikos Breitinger, Kerameikos I, 244–52: of 18 examined Submy-
cenaean skeletons were 8 of the Mediterranean type, 5–7 Alpine, 1 Dinaric.
Table 2
Number Mediterranean Mixed Mediter- Alpine-dinaric
of skeletons ranean-Balkan
Mycenaean 46 28 10 8
Submycenaean/
Protogeometric 5 1 4 –
Geometric 5 – 4 1
92 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

On the mainland, and partly on the islands, too, the chamber familial
tombs disappear and cist graves, destined for one individual only, are the pre-
vailing burial rite—a step towards the individualisation—change of identity
towards the Iron Age Greek mind. The distribution of them and the earlier
date of some of them under barrows in the Balkans suggest that they were
probably adopted from the north, from Epirus and Macedonia at least. The
pins and the bow fibulae, both of northern origin, show new dress fashion, as
do some of bronze ornaments and weapons (flange-hilted swords, new variet-
ies of spearheads). Also the hand-made pottery has close parallels in Mace-
donia (Vergina, Dion). Already J. L. Myres derived the most popular motif
on Submycenaean and Protogeometric pottery—concentric semicircles and
circles—with the Urnfield Buckelkeramik, and both may well have similar sym-
bolic meaning—solar symbols and symbols of breasts of the Nature Goddess.
The Dorians were according to the legends related to other Greeks, but
less sophisticated, and they took over the power in most parts of the Pelopon-
nese, in the Dodecanese and in several cities of Crete. Their language was
considered by John Chadwick as that of the low-class against the high-class
dialect of Linear B (cf. above p. 92).
The Ionians, who were not subdued by the Dorians, fled to Attica and
from there to later Ionia in the islands and on Anatolian coast, as shown by
Torone and Mende, also northwards to Chalcidice (Tiverios 2008, 4–15; cf. for
Ionia Vanschoonwinkel 2006, 115–140). The close relation between Arcadian
and Cypriot is in accordance with strong pottery influence from Attic Early
Protogeometric in Cypriot Proto-White-Painted pottery, as shown already by
Desborough (1972).
As usually interpreted, Submycenaenan and Subminoan periods mark
the deepest involution between the Bronze and Iron Ages in Greece; the fol-
lowing Protogeometric the first steps of new evolution towards the grandeur
of Iron Age Greece.

3.2 PROTOGEOMETRIC (LATE 11TH AND 10TH CENTURY BC)

In the 1969 book (HG 105–117) the Protogeometric was called the deepest
period of decline, but now the beginnings of recovery seem to be more impor-
tant feature. In reality, Protogeometric period was a new start, though still
modest, of the Greek Iron Age civilisation. The traditional date of the begin-
nings ca. 1025 BC was doubted by several C14 dates from the north, so 1050
seems to be the possible date, too, as the slightly earlier date of the earliest
Geometric style from 925 to late 10th century (cf. Desborough 1972; Lemos
2002; Brandherm – Trachsel 2008, esp. Trachsel 2008, 59–76), but this does
not mean any substantial change of the general picture. Greece was less iso-
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 93

lated than believed earlier, Protogeometric pottery was known in the Levant
(cf. Boardman 2006, 507–510; Coldstream 2008, 480; 2006a, 371) and Phoe-
nician imports are not missing; the earliest Phoenician sanctuary at Kom-
mos in southern Crete dates from the 10th century (Bouzek 1997a, 162; cf.
Shaw 1989, 165–183). New groups were established as larger units; in Attica
the synoicism belonged most probably to Early Protogeometric, as this style
is nearly unknown outside the later city of Athens. The larger scale initia-
tives were in the hands of the Phoenicians; PG Greeks were rather accepting
the goods and means of transport from the former, but in modest scale their
small initiatives started to overcome the depression.

POTTERY

The first sign of the new style is the use of compass with multiple brush for
concentric circles and semicircles (figs. 61 and 63, pls. B 7.5 and 14.1). This
kind of decoration needed much skill and concentration, because repairing
of the design on the vessel was impossible; the first attempt was the only one.
Also the technique of firing improved, the slip on the surface was of better
quality. Aesthetically, the Protogeometric pottery is not unattractive. Five,
sometimes seven circles might mean the cosmic spheres, but the whole is
either solar motif or the female breasts; the parallel in the European Urnfields
pottery is apparent. Other popular ornaments are triangles, lozenges, bands,
chessboards, wavy lines and zigzag. Most motifs seem to have been derived
from textile and basketry (cf. Bouzek 1969b). The Protogeometric style was
divided into several provinces, especially characteristic in the late stage.
1. The central area consisted of Attica with East Peloponnese, southern
Cyclades, Dodecanese (Rhodes, Kos) and Ionia (Miletus, Ephesus, Old
Smyrna, etc.)
2. Thessaly with Skyros and northern Cyclades formed the second province,
whose peripheral area in the north had another northern variety (mainly
amphorae and cups) along the Thracian coast (Catling 1998, 151–187).
3. NW Peloponnese with Ionian islands and the western part of Central
Greece had another style, in which other patterns prevailed over
concentric circles.
4. The Dark Age Style II in Messenia had also little to do with its eastern
neighbour, and the situation in Laconia, still little known, was apparently
in a way between Messenia and Argolis (Coulson 1986).
5. Crete with its Protogeometric A and B styles went again its own path
(Tsipopoulou 2005; Wallace 2010).
For the first time Attic potters surpassed their colleagues in other
parts of Greece, perhaps with the exception of Salamis, where the Early
Protogeometric might be better known, if sufficiently published.
94 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

The Early (Experimental) Protogeometric started to use compass with

multiple brush, thus translating the Submycenaean motif into much more
sophisticated version. As mentioned above, the circle, which shows strict
separation of individual motif against the earlier running spiral, may show
the progress of individualisation of new Iron Age personalities, but also solar
symbols and breasts as bosses on the Central European Buckelkeramik. The fol-
lowing Ripe phase accomplished the clearly articulated forms of amphorae,
lekythoi and cups. Most of the surface remained in the colour of clay, while in
the Late Phase most of the surface was covered by black glaze or with dense
ornament (Close Style, of textile inspiration). Foot, neck and rim are sharply
divided from the body, being considered independent parts of the whole ves-
sel. Of the two varieties of amphorae the slimmer neck-handled amphora
was used for male cremations and the more rounded belly-handled amphora
for burned bones of females (fig. 63); the two vases were abstract symbols of
ideal forms of both sexes, as much later kouroi and korai or Doric and Ionic
orders. The ideal of female body was, however, rather rounded, not as slim as
most of the Archaic korai are.
Trefoil oinochoe and hydria were popular shapes, lekythoi are well
represented in graves, the most common drinking cups—skyphoi have
high conical foot. Many shapes imitate basketry and textile ornaments
are common, especially in the late phase (Close Style) with metopes and
triglyphs; three lines divide all bands and fields, as was also common rule
later in Geometric Style.
Transitional Submycenaen/Protogeometric and Early Protogeomet-
ric pottery is known from Athens, Lefkandi and Chalcis on Euboea, from
Delphi, Nea Ionia near Volos Tiryns, Argos, Mycenae, Asine and Corinth,
the Ripe (Middle) Protogeometric from Athens, Salamis, Lefkandi, Skyros,
Kalapodi, Nea Ionia, Mycenae, Tiryns and Asine in the Argolid, in Kos and
Ephesus (Lemos 2002, 10–18; for Ephesus cf. Kerschner 2004, 72–92). All
local facies seem to have taken inspiration from Athens, whose inspiration
is also known from Cyprus (Desborough 1972). In Miletus, Ephesus and else-
where in Ionia, as well as in the Chalcidice (Mende), it is the first pottery
style of the Ionian settlements.
Late Protogeometric vases have more extended distribution and the num-
ber of finds is higher. Late Protogeometric is known again from Athens, else-
where the main sites are Lefkandi, Kalapodi in Phokis, Iolkos in Thessaly; this
style is well represented in the Argolis (Argos, Asine, Mycenae, Tiryns), in the
Dodecanese (Rhodes, Kos), where it seems to have taken inspiration from
the Argolis, and in Asian Ionia (Old Smyrna, Ephesus, Miletus, Assarlik),
where the style is still similar to Attic models (fig. 59).
It is known also from the sites in Cyprus, Phoenicia and Palestine (Israel).
The skyphoi with pendent semicircles were found also in Sardinia, Sicily and
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 95

South Italy, though some of them are rather sub-Protogeometric (Bouzek 1985,
151–159). In the west they preceded the foundations of Greek colonies, and
in the East they became popular painted drinking cup even outside Greece
proper. The genuine Protogeometric is again missing in the west, where only
some aspects of the style were adopted, like in Achaia (Derveni), or even less
of them in Laconia (Amyklai). Concentric circles are rare, more often appear
hatched and cross-hatched bands, rhombs and triangles. Twisted handles and
incised patterns remind one of the situation in the north. The contemporary
vases from Ithaca (Aetos, Polis Cave) preserved more of LH III C traditions,
while the Dark Age II style of Messenia shows only some aspects comparable
with the PG style proper.
In Northern Crete the PG style arose not much later than in Athens. The
Middle PG style belonged to late 9th century, the late phase to early 9th, fol-
lowed by the Protogeometric B, which shows floral ornaments and other fea-
tures comparable otherwise with Orientalising art.

COOKING POTS

This class, briefly discussed in AAE (p. 197–198) formed the main object of
study of the Ph.D. thesis by K. Reber (1991), who sufficiently studied its devel-
opment in two main centres where more material is available, Athens and
the Argolis. The bulk of the material from graves consists of cooking pots,
but there were other shapes commonly used in the settlements. Reber distin-
guishes the Dark Ware of the Attic tradition and the Light Ware of the Argolis,
but since the colour varies and often depends on the position of the pot in the
kiln, the second distinctive feature deserves more attention: the Attic class
usually contains more sandy particles, while the clay of the Argive class is
normally finer, and contains less sand.
The jugs follow roughly the development of painted wheel-turned pot-
tery, and this can be said also about most of the other shapes. They were
made professionally by potters, but the composition of the clay differed from
the “normal” of the wheel-made pottery in most places (cf. Reber 1991, 39 f.
for Lefkandi, p. 38): apparently the different technique was adapted for the
different use of this ware. Some of the roots of this class may derive from
a non-Aegean tradition (cf. above), but cooking ware was a normal part of the
equipment of PG, Geometric and Archaic households.

“ATTIC” INCISED WARE

This particular class started in 10th century BC Athens, having some fore-
runners in a group of Submycenaean hand-made pyxidae. After my small
monograph with two brief addenda (Bouzek 1974c; 1979a, 8–11; Bouzek 1985,
96 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

200–201; Bouzek 2013a, 61–69) this particular class has also been studied by
Reber (Reber 1991, 118–139). He rejects any Balkan connections for this ware
(Reber 1991, 168–171), but his arguments only show that his own hypothesis
of its origin being “just an idea developed by a local potter at Athens” is much
weaker than the previous Balkan theories based on comparisons with the
shapes known there (fig. 59).
But all of the clay dolls, pyxidae, bowls with pierced holes for suspension
and decorated beads seem to be copies of wooden models made especially for
some cult purposes connected with female cremation burials. Many religious
phenomena came to Greece from Thrace (cf. ch. 9), and this class may well
reflect one aspect of one of these religious movements. Most of the northern
parallels come from the central part of the Balkans, i.e. from western Thrace
(cf. Bouzek 1974a, 38; and Bouzek 1985, 200–201). Addenda to the list pub-
lished in my monograph were given in the Festschrift Benzi article quoted
above and by Reber. Outside Attica, those from Asine and Zagora are impor-
tant, and many new beads can be added now to the Cretan class. Painted dolls
have since been published also from Skyros (cf. fig. 68) and the Cypriot class
by V. Karageorghis.7

THESSALY AND MACEDONIA

The northern PG style discussed by R. W. Catling knew especially amphorae

and skyphoi,8 while the main cemeteries in southern and central Macedonia
yielded pottery shapes basically similar (Bouzek 1985, 183–191) to Greek PG,
but hand-made, of grey colour and only rarely decorated by flutes or incised
lines. Amphoriskoi jugs and skyphoi were the most common shape, besides
bowls, some of them resembling baskets.
Another specific of this region is the Matt-Painted Pottery, dating from
LH III C to PG periods (Bouzek 1997a, 156–160).
For the Bobousti class of painted pottery, produced in the area along the
big lakes in Northwest Greece, south-eastern part of Slavonic Macedonia and
in Southeast Albania, it became clear that its development started roughly in
the 12th century BC, in connection with an influence of peripheral LH III C
pottery, and that it was produced throughout the Dark Age until the 7th cen-
tury BC (figs. 106–107).

7 Notes on the origin of the Cypriot wheelmade terracotta figurines, in Ithaka, Festschr. J. Schäfer,
77–84.
8 Cf. note 4.
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 97

Of the more general surveys of this style, those of K. Wardle and A. Hoch-
stätter are the most useful,9 besides the classification suggested for the
Epirot branch by A. Vokotopolou (Vokotopoulou 1986, 255–276), by those by
A. Prendi for the Tren cave stratigraphy and by Z. Andrea for the Kuç i Zi
tumuli.10 Everywhere we see the development from simple stage, in which the
decoration imitates binding of vessels, to a more ripe style of the advanced
Dark Age, with ornaments also known from Greek Geometric pottery, and
finally to a decadent style of the Subgeometric period, when simple strips
again prevail. The main centre of production was around the big lakes near
the boundary between present-day Greece, Albania and Slavonic Macedonia,
but it was also known more to the east in Western and Central Macedonia and
in Northern Thessaly.
The Matt-Painted Pottery of Vitsa Zagoriou, a mountain site (1030 m
above the sea level) is a local, rather poorly executed variety of the Bobousti
Ware. The shapes are basically identical with those known from sites at lower
altitude, but the technique is poorer (with the exception of some fragments
found outside the graves, which were probably imports). Most of the pots are
crudely made, but sometimes with a lustrous coating or a creamy or yellow
slip. Vokotopoulou distinguishes three classes, belonging to different pottery
traditions, and 3–4 workshops. Some ornaments in Vitsa are unusual, but
the basic repertory of decoration is identical with the main Bobousti group.
Vokotopoulou classifies the general development of Matt-Painted Pottery in
northern Greece into two main stages (Vokotopoulou 1986, 255–276).
I. 12th–10th centuries BC (known from Kastritsa, Dodona, Pedina near
Zagori, Merope and Vitsa, finds outside the graves).
II. 9th–7th centuries BC: local pottery of Vitsa, contemporary with those
of Marmariani, Velestino and Pharsala. She sees some resemblances of this
Bobousti pottery with the Ithacan style, and some links can be seen more
clearly after the renewed analysis of the Polis pottery by W. D. Coulson (1991),
who enlightened its relations with West Peloponnesian schools.

METAL OBJECTS

Iron—at first as a rare metal—was known to the Hittites and their northern
neighbours (Kaška) much earlier than the time we are dealing with here.11
The spread of small iron implements in Cyprus (first) and the Aegean dates

9 Wardle 1977, Hochstätter 1984, cf. also Bouzek, MB II, III, and IV. The other survey in Kilian 1971,
35–40) is too general and does not distinguish between local groups, but it has shown similarities
with the South Italian styles.
10 Prendi 1966, 1975, Andrea 1985 and esp. 1993 for the relations to the more easternly areas of Mace-
donia, and also Bodinaku 1990, 65–97.
11 Cf. for general surveys T. A. Wertime – J. D. Muhly, eds., 1980; Stig-Sørensen – Thomas 1989.
98 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

from the 12th century BC and the transition from Submycenaean to Protogeo-
metric saw the coming of the Iron Age into Greece. One of the reasons why it
spread was the collapse of the copper and tin trade network.12 After 1000 BC,
weapons and large implements of bronze became exceptional in the Aegean
(cf. Snodgrass 1971, 213–240; Bouzek 1989, 36–38). A second reason was also
the fact that only half of the wood was needed for melting iron from the ore
than for bronze (fig. 81).
In the Protogeometric period iron weapons and tools prevail consider-
ably, as shown already by the statistic table in the first edition of HG, p. 116.
The bronze sword and the two daggers belong to the beginnings of the style.
Only spearheads of bronze continued to be used, perhaps inherited from ear-
lier times. Cf. fig. 62.

WEAPONS

Iron flange-hilted swords of the Sprockhoff IIa tradition from Protogeometric

contexts use to have only two rivets in the grip (fig. 48.2). The shape is near
to bronze swords of Catling types IIb and IV, and to the West Balkan swords
of similar date, for which I used the name Donja Dolina (Bouzek 1971c; Hard-
ing 1995; now Harding 2007, 2013, ed.); the protrusion for fixing pommel has
not been noticed among published items. Against their Geometric succes-
sors they are shorter and heavier. Some of the daggers preserved remains of
organic grip; they have parallels in the Balkans, too. Most of the spearheads
are of iron, but bronze spearheads were still in use. Longer spearhead in
shape of laurel leaf was popular, another shorter of similar form (javelin for
throwing? fig. 62.4) and a third variety of rhomboid shape and thicket width
at the socket, Snodgrass types A.C.G). The socket is usually shorter than with
Geometric spearheads. Probably two of them belonged to the equipment of
a noble warrior. The bow was less common weapon outside Crete, the arrow-
heads are rare on the Greek mainland.13

Table 3

swords spearheads daggers knives axes

bronze 1 8 2 – –
iron 20 + x 30 + x 8 15 4

The chariot with burial of two horses is known from the Hero Grave at
Lefkandi (Lefkandi II, 2, 1993, part 2, Bouzek 1985, 27–28 etc.), it is frequently

12 Bouzek 1985, 175–176. For Cyprus and the Aegean Sherratt 1993, 59–106.
13 Snodgrass 1971, 141–4, from Lefkandi and Pherai Lemos 2002, 122f.
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 99

mentioned in the Iliad and also represented on Late Mycenaean and Geomet-
ric vases. Horse bits are known from LH III C contexts, from Hero Tomb and
T 68 at Lefkandi and from Early Geometric Grave 27 on the Athenian Agora. It
is hardly believable that it belonged to legends only.
The helmet from Tiryns has been mentioned above (fig. 48.4), the shield
buckles in shape reminding one of shield on Sardinian figurines are well
represented in male graves (figs. 48.5–6 and 62.3). The items in bronze pre-
vail, the Kynosarges iron buckle is an exception.14 Smaller items were part
of female belts at Vergina, but other similar objects in Europe, Caucasus and
Luristan served as shield bosses and/or phalerae (cf. here part 8, ch. 3).

METAL VESSELS

The bucket from Lefkandi, Heros grave is import from Cyprus, as prob-
ably are the LH III C tripods. Their existence is known from ceramic imita-
tions, and from a Lefkandi mould, but they were probably very rare objects,
and their basketry version much more common, as for the kalathoi. The semi-
globular bowls (fig. 62.10), which probably served also as cap helmets, were
common in the Eastern Mediterranean in LH III C and later; PG are known
from Athens and Crete. A bronze pitcher is known from Mouliana, and more
of them are imports from the Levant or Egypt (cf. Bouzek AAE, 104; AAG,
96–97; Matthäus 1979, 1980).
The simple iron knives of iron do not differ much from their predeces-
sors. In Athens they appear mainly in male graves, but in Lefkandi not with
weapons. Lemos 2002, p. 123 (cf. Desborough 1952, 311f ) gave a list of them
from Lefkandi, Locris, Thessaly and the Dodecanese; only one item from Kos,
Serraglio, is still of bronze (Morricone 1978, 219, fig. 433).
The whetstone from Lefkandi Pyre 16 (Lefkandi I, 163 pl. 153:2) reminds of
whetstones in Cimmerian graves. The trunnion axes of iron are known from
Athens (fig. 68.2), Lefkandi and Hefaisteia, they have parallels also in Her-
akleion-Mastaba and Nea Anchialos near Thessaloniki, from Protogeometric
and Early Geometric contexts. They are known from the Balkans and from the
North Caucasus area; in Greece they bear witness, together with horse burial
and the whetstone, of an influence from the so-called Cimmerian milieu, of
which more was attested in the Balkans, in Dark Age Greece (cf. Bouzek 1997a,
105f ). Their appearance in graves with weapons shows that they belonged

14 Cf. Lemos 2002, 124 and Fellmann 1984, 16, 68–118. Some of the items from Olympia may be
phalerae, but hardly those with pike. The Sardinian figurines are well known, and if the shield
was sewn from several parts, the crossing of the main seams in the middle had to be especially
protected. The helmet hypothesis is very unlikely, but later also cymbals had similar form. Cf.
Bouzek, GAE, 106–138; Bouzek 1985, 99–106.
100 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

rather to warfare, while the double axe remained as basic carpenter’s tool
until the Classical period.
Pins in PG context are rare, but certainly they continued being used, as
shown by their Submycenaean predecessors and Early Geometric succes-
sors. In fact, they do not differ much from the former (fig. 62.7–9), and the
A and B types were the main varieties (Bouzek 1985, 160–167; 1997, 117; Lemos
2002, 103–8). Fibulae used to have two knots and the central part of the bow
is thickened (fig. 62.11–12). The general impression of both pins and fibulae
is that they arrived a more sophisticated stage, better representing the new
generations with higher demands.
Finger rings are rarer in graves than in Submycenaean period, but some
of those found in Lefkandi are of gold. But even the shield rings were still in
use. Coil spirals, part of hairdo, were also of gold in Lefkandi and in Thessaly,
similar shorter spirals (“wire hoops”) are also widely known, usually made
of gold.
Roundels of gold sheet with spiraliform ornaments have their predeces-
sors in the hoard under Artemision on Delos, but also earlier in Italy and Cen-
tral Europe (fig. 5); they were calender and solar symbols (cf. Bouzek 2011d
42, fig. 35b; Jung 2007).15 They are known from Lefkandi and Skyros. Sheets of
gold foil called “attachments” and resembling “Gamaschenhälter” are known
from Lefkandi and Skyros; they were parts of ornate fashion dress including
also gold bands – diadems, which are first decorated with simple geometric
ornaments, and later, in Geometric times, with animal and human figures in
repoussé. The bands resemble Cypriot jewellery, as does the pectoral of sheet
gold from the Toumba burial; it has, however, parallels in decorative parts of
cuirasses in Central Europe and in gold sheets from Macedonian graves, dat-
ing first from 8th century and in more sophisticated shapes, like at Duvanli,
dating from 6th century BC.
The female burial in Toumba was given necklace with a central pendant,
thirty eight gold and two faience beads; the pendant resembles earlier Near
Eastern models. The pendant from Toumba Tomb 63 resembles the Cimme-
rian jewellery with Maltese crosses inside the circle, the four-sided Earth
under circular dome of the sky; also the spiral ornaments—beads attached
to it, find their parallels there (Lemos 2002, 126–131; Lefkandi II, 2, pl. 15–16).
As the iron trunnion axes and the horse burials from Toumba point also into
this direction, the North Pontic and/or Balkan inspiration for the pendant is
more likely. The crescent-shape pendant Lemos pl. 105:2, however, fits into
what is considered usually Phoenician jewellery of the Dark Age,; parallels
come also from the Iberian peninsula. Glass beads, abundant in Lefkandi,
are in all probability of Phoenician origin, imported from the Levant. The

15 Later finer esp. from Skyros I. Marangou, BCH 99 1975, 365–378.

 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 101

figural motifs are rare, but instead of later angular stylisation working with
soft curves (fig. 45.1).
Settlements are less well known than cemeteries. Euboea with Skyros
and Thessaly show rather extensive settlements, but of architecture little
is known. Several rectangular and one apsidal house were found in Asine
(Mazarakis Ainian 1997ab, Asine II, 4, 2–3, 33f., 82). In Argos a house of mud-
bricks and an installation for refining silver; there were probably was found
clusters of houses at the slope of the hill Larissa, some evidence comes also
from Tiryns and Corinth. The most attractive and well-dated building is the
house of the Lefkandi hero, but several early temples may be contemporane-
ous (Mazarakis Ainian 1997ab).
Delphi and Kalapodi have cult activities throughout the Dark Ages, in
Thessaly Nea Ionia (Iolkos) show rather intensive settlement. Cyclades may
show some continuity, especially Grotta on Naxos, Koukounaries on Paros
and Minya on Amorgos (Lemos 2002, 139–149), while some kind of continuity
of sacred place existed in Delos. Several apsidal or oval houses are known
from Old Smyrna (fig. 55.1–2) and Ephesus, continuity from LH III C to Geo-
metric at Miletus. The Aeolian Grey Ware prevailed in Aeolis, but at Mytilene
on Lesbos and also in the north some PG pottery with remains of architecture
was found : at Poseidi near Mende, on the hill Koukos in Sithonia and at the
Toumba of Thessaloniki; the last can be compared also with the sites further
north, Kastanas and Assiros; in both last mentioned sites the continuity from
LH III C to Geometric is clear. The same concerns other sites esp. in Thessaly
and in the west. Vergina and Dion have large PG cemeteries with hand-made
ware and Ithaca (Polis cave) continuous settlement from LH III C to Geomet-
ric. Aeolian sites, like Kyme, probably used Aeolian Grey Ware mainly, but the
evidence is still unsafe (Bayne 2000). The apsidal and oval architecture was
apparently adopted from the only partly settled population more oriented to
pasture than to agriculture; the models od huts in Crete (fig. 65.3) and Cyprus
show some kind of yurts serving similar purpose.
Crete was split into various local town-cores: several modest PG sites in
the east have been found, the area of Knossos examined, though with little
success as concerns the architecture, while in the east Vrokastro and Kavousi
are believed to have existed during the PG period; this may have been the
case also for Gortyn. A general survey of East Cretan pottery by Metaxia
Tsipopoulou (Tsipopoulou 2005) brings little evidence on settlements, and
the number of LH III C sites on inaccessible hills seems to be higher than
those of slightly later age.
In general, the new period of Iron Age history in Greece started, the new
structure has not much preserved from the past. The architecture was mod-
est, but the main Greek sanctuaries (Delphi, Kalapodi, Olympia) were visited.
In the Argolis there seems that large part of the old population remained, in
102 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

the west this is more questionable, and nearly in all parts of the peninsula
Doric dialect prevailed, so the Dorian population had decisive power here
during the Protogeometric period. The close links between Rhodes, Kos and
the Argolis may also confirm the Dorian migration to this eastern part of
Greece, while Crete (Wallace 2013) makes the impression that it was split into
small poleis’ areas as it is mentioned by Homer.
In different parts of Greece the burial rite was different and also not
always obligatory even in one particular cemetery (cf. HG 123–124; Androni-
kos 1968, 59–62; Desborough 1952, 306f.; Lemos 2002, 151–190). Individual
burials prevail, cist tombs were the most common in most parts of Greece,
together with similar pit or shaft tombs without lining of stone slabs, but
dug in the rock or softer soil. But some tholoi and chamber tombs were still
in use in Phokis (Elateia), Phtiotis (Bikiorema near Lamia), exceptionally
also elsewhere and they remained common in Crete (fig. 75). They are appar-
ently survivals of the old Mycenaean tradition in areas, where less changes
of upper class happened (cf. p. 46). Cremations much prevailed in Athens,
they are known also from Euboea, Skyros, Kos, Rhodes and exceptionally also
from the Argolis (fig. 69). Two types of urns were still typical, each of them
for one sex,16 but there are exceptions from this rule. Attic cremations were
put into an urn, but the urn was placed into oblong grave of size necessary
for inhumation, with small pit for inserting the urn; first deep to fit for the
whole urn and later for half of the urn only (fig. 65). Small children were
more often inhumed and sometimes put into pithoi, but exceptions exist. As
stated above, individual burials existed in the Middle Helladic period and
may be considered revivals of the old custom, but in general they put the
individual above the family group (cf. above). Cremations are more expensive
and they are usually considered as marking a stronger line between the living
and the dead, as expressed in messages for the soul in many Books of Dead
in various parts of the world. Few cemeteries are known; most of the groups
of burials were small and can be interpreted as family plots. Cist tombs were
usual in Late Bronze and early Iron Age in Northern Greece and surround-
ing areas of Macedonia and Albania (fig. 50), cremations (fig. 69) in most
parts of Central Europe and northern Italy during the Urnfield period, and
certainly connected with some religious message (Bouzek 1997a, 73–78).
As shown e.g. by R. Hägg (1974) for the Argolis, tumuli were not rare even
in the Peloponnese (and, as can be supposed from various notes on digs) and
in central Greece, but thanks to denudation only modest remains of them
were preserved. But even alternating burial rites e.g. in Athens show that
there was not much more than family preference behind choosing crema-
tion to inhumation and vice versa, and cremating families lived together

16 Neck-handled amphorae for men, one-handled jug for women.

 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 103

with those, who preferred inhumations in most parts of Protogeometric

Greece. Noble men had weapons in their graves (fig. 60), noble women jew-
ellery. Double burials in Lefkandi probably meant the custom of sati, which
was most probably the case of the lady buried together with the Lefkandi
Hero. But elsewhere it was exceptional, and the persons buried belonged
to homoioi—citizens of earliest Iron Age communities, predecessors of the
poleis. The society of homoioi shows only very few exceptionally rich buri-
als—with the exception of Lefkandi Hero; the concentration of power in the
hands of rich aristocracy apparently only started.17 Probably the central posi-
tion under a tumulus of the grandfather was more important for his image
than the number of pots in the grave; the tumulus remained visible mark.
Weapons were often put into graves of noble men; they were apparently
carried at least on some occasions (cf. Thuc. I, 2, 6), but the situation settled
more than during Submycenaean period (when they were too much valued
to be put into graves?), so they could be given to dead (HG 130). They were
already less necessary in everyday life and new sword was also easier to pro-
cure for the son and heir. Anyway, already the old statistic shows that half of
males were buried in Kerameikos with weapons (HG 129–131) and the situa-
tion has not changed substantially (fig. 60).
Crete with its external relations (the first Phoenician sanctuary at Kom-
mos dates from 10th century and many other imports from the Levant and/or
Egypt are that early); in PG style B it surpassed all its neighbours (Coldstream
2003, 48–50). The small communities using their close environment learned
from the previous collapse and could maintained their small economies in
rather satisfactorily way.

3.3 FROM PROTOGEOMETRIC TO GEOMETRIC

PG was the new start, but the accomplishing of the new Iron Age world was
realized only by the Geometric style proper. It created a kind of scaffolding,
of full understanding of space and structure.
The Geometric style created a structure of scaffolding that was respected
by the whole following development of Greek art. Although later this struc-
ture was hidden on the surface, the construction of the works of art was
still ruled by it, as well as in architecture, painting and sculpture (Bouzek,
GAE 54). Polarity of forces of weight and lift, stretched and supported, was
at first only tested as sketches in Geometric painting, before using them for
expression of the real forces of carrying and carried, their visualisation in

17 Cf. also the books by Morris 1987 and Whitley 1991, with alternative approaches to the subject.
104 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

architectonic orders of Greek temples and in the canon of depiction of human

stature that slowly changed to Classical ideal (HG 133–142).
Greek art starts—as other phases of the world stylistic development—by
the period of involution. Mycenaean civilization perished because of inner
problems, climatic crisis and invasion of barbarians from Europe and the
western Mediterranean; the best known of whose are so called Sea Peoples.
Together with Mycenaean culture great Hittite empire in Asia Minor per-
ished and part of town states in Syria and Lebanon as well. Part of the Sea
Peoples settled after their defeat in Palestine (the best known are Philistines)
and by the Syrian coast towns of Phoenicians soon bloomed, whose culture
together with sailing, seafaring trade and development of phonetical script
strongly influenced the art of the Early Iron Age Greece. The Iron Age brought
not only use of new metal, but also new approach to world, new identity.
Greek Geometric art created system of proportional relationships derived
mainly from proportional system of human body. This way our own somatic
structure was raised into consciousness and relationship of man and universe
was renewed on new level. After experiments of Early Style (first half of the
9th century) when vessels were mostly covered with glaze and only small
fields on neck, shoulders, and belly were left for geometric decoration, this
principle reached its accomplishment in so called Strict Style at the end of the
9th century BC. Individual parts of the vessel correspond in its decoration as
if reflected in mirror. The structural system is created for the whole further
development of Greek art although this designed pattern did not carry any
load of antagonistic forces of weight and lift, the most clearly expressed in
Greek architecture. Even here the harmony is reached by careful balance of
antagonistic forces (Coldstream 2003, 25–54).
The same is true in rhythmic articulation of time. As Greek metros in
poetry, in visual art the laws of rhythm of frieze—at first on pottery—is
strictly articulated in rhythm. Triplets of intermediate segments (triglyphs)
alternate with bigger fields—metopes. The triplet of lines separates all fields
vertically and horizontally. More complicated intermediate segments are
separated by fields in horizontal belts. Some rhythms of frieze are more
complicated e.g. fivefold (abaca–D–acaba) or even sevenfold intermediate
segments; others—mainly outside Attica—also in less strict rhythm, but the
basic system is generally respected. The basic principle can be expressed in
mathematic formulae, but old Greeks usually made it up by their feeling with-
out necessity to calculate it. As even Roman Vitruvius knew only construction
adjusted by eye becomes aesthetically correct. Rhythmic structure similar to
Geometric style can be seen also in the structure of Homeric poems. A depic-
tion is static after its completion, but it was created in time and we “read” it in
time, too. Using the same metaphor for depicting scene and describing events
joins poetry with respecting picture—geometric depiction follows the course
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 105

of a story and not the unity of space and time. The Geometric style with its
strong linearity was much influenced by textile and basketry. Its strictness
developed the abstract background for later proportional and structural laws
of later development of Greek Iron Age art. At the first sight primitive art
is already ripe and sophisticated. The simple, primitive appearance covers
the advanced inner structure; in its abstract appearance it brought for later
Greek art the scaffolding. Where the Protogeometric art still went half way
from Mycenaean, Geometric art is really new start towards later splendour.18
The initiatives were modest, more oriented inward, but notably the sub-PG
skyphoi show the popularity of the Greek drinking cup in the Levant (fig. 64)
and in some places in Italy, Sardinia and Sicily. At first as pupils of the Phoe-
nicians, the Greeks learned to participate in overseas trade and at home they
learned to establish the cores of later poleis, communities of equals, of citi-
zens.

3.4 EARLY TO MIDDLE GEOMETRIC, 900–775 BC

Phonetic script created by Phoenicians, who as the first developed entre-

preneurial spirit of privately run sailing, connected both with trade and
piracy, was an outcome of abstraction as well as progress in mathematics
and astronomy. It liberated human mind from overloaded memory and it
was indispensable step of the progress in speculative philosophical thought.
Greeks took over phonetic alphabet most probably in late ninth or early
eighth century (cf. Coldstream 2003, 295–303).
Early Geometric style in Attica turned away from the sharp articulation
and vessels again are one homogenous unit. Most of the surface is covered
by glaze; only small areas are left for decoration (fig. 67). The style was
deeply influenced by textile and basketry (cf. Bouzek 1969b). From the new
motives there is mainly meander and related rectangular patterns; meander
is rectangular transcription of fluently running spiral; concentric circles
and semicircles disappear. Swastika and related motives were solar symbols
(pl. B 5–7).The new style was first introduced only in Attica and Argolis. Boeo-
tia and Corinthia joint the Early Geometric soon, in other parts of Greece

18 Cf. B. Schweitzer in Gnomon 10 1934, 341: “Man könnte von einem erneuten Hereinbrechen einer
prähistorischen Welt, die am Ausfall plastisch-körperlicher und architektonischer Gestaltung
am ehesten den prähistorischen Kulturen des nördlichen Europa vergleichbar wäre, sprechen,
wenn nicht allenhalben neue, der Zukunft zugewandte Kräfte hervorbrächen und die künst-
lerischen Bedürfnisse, das Zeitmass ihrer Entwicklung keineswegs den vorgeschichtliche Zu-
ständen ähnlich wäre.” In another way, as direct continuation of the Protogeometric style un-
derstand the evolution for exc. W. Kraiker (Festschrift B. Schweitzer p. 39, note 16) and R. Hampe
(Charites, Festschrift E. Langlotz p. 107, note 10). Cf. HG p. 133.
106 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

sub-Protogeometric persisted. In Athens the evolution is smooth, also as

concerns the custom to cover most of the surface by shiny black glaze and in
the continuity of basic shapes: “male and female” amphorae (cf. fig. 63; the
shoulder-handled ousted the belly-handled), oenochoe, skyphoi and similar
drinking cups, while some of the pyxidae are new shapes, as are the nar-
row oenochoai replacing the earlier lekythoi. The convexity of ovoid bodies
is answered by the concave curve of the neck (cf. Coldstream 2003, 25–54). In
the first generations of Early Geometric Style period female burials are usu-
ally in shoulder-handled amphorae and male in neck-handled amphorae; the
first variety also shows bosses (cf. fig. 34). Human body in its two varieties
was the model even for vases—human beings were located in the centre of
the new anthropocentric world, which should again bring harmony between
humans and universe, lost with passing of the Age of Heroes (HG 133–138).
The sharp separation of foot, body, neck and lip is abandoned, and the
vessels are perceived more as unity. The search after proper proportional
system, taken again from structure of human body, led first to experiments,
in which some of the parts were exaggerated or suppressed, but it always
returned to try again the most perfect path. Mathematic formulae are behind
the system, but they were not calculated, rather expressing the proper sound
feeling of the artist. Even nowadays some painters calculate the Gold cut,
while other make two perpendicular lines and the results are roughly the
same. The system of mutual relations between parts of vessel and to its total
shows one of the first steps to order in Greek architecture. Also the system
of dividing frieze into fields and dividing three-fold or more complicated
members is predecessor of Greek architectonic principles notably of alter-
nating triglyphs and metopes. There existed clear parallels between struc-
tural rhythm in visual art, music and poetry; even the drawing of ornament
and its reading is process running in time. In the decoration on vases it was
only sketched—the relation between carrying and carried, the law of gravi-
tation was not compulsory. Only minor motifs remained from the previous
style; concentric circles and semicircles disappear; meander and battlement
become the most important motifs. In children psychology the transition
from curvilinear to rectilinear drawings is one of signs of development of
abstract thought; here it shows the first steps on the path towards Greek
philosophy, from mythical thought to logos. Meander is similar to spiral, but
with sharper angular turns; giving stricter order. Early Geometric I is tenta-
tive style, EG II settles down to a more tranquil state; also the range of motifs
and shapes is narrower. In general the style shows more rigid restriction to
laws of structure and shapes. The Incised Hand-Made ware continues from
PG, but is refined.
Motifs of decoration were of course of symbolic value, but it is difficult
to understand them by our eyes. Swastika was always solar symbol, rosette
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 107

probably flower from the Tree of Life, meander symbol of the rhythm of
human lives in their succession. In modest figural art the Geometric style
was expressed in transition from curvilinear to rectilinear forms and to strict
respect the three basic directions of the three-dimensional space; the three
axial views were the only ones fully understandable.
Geometric style emphasizes more sense for order than its predecessor,
probably reflecting the stricter order of common mind in Athens and in
those communities which took over the new style; the first laws organizing
the life in the society came later, but their predecessors were laid in PG or EG
period—the organisation of communities was by the decision of its members,
not by the divine laws as in the Bronze Age.
Argolis followed soon Attic models; the decoration shows, however, more
austerity and the pointed pyxis has two suspension lugs for hanging; this
points out to more “northern” orientation, later emphasized in iconography;
skeleton burials in cists were the most usual burial rites. Corinth followed
Attic models with some retard. While in the Argolis there was more varia-
tion in proportions and shape, Corinthian potters preferred the firm globular
shape of the belly more rigidly. Boeotia followed with more modesty Attic
path, with less sophisticated sense for correct proportions.
Lefkandi and Thessaly continued to produce pottery in sub-Protogeo-
metric style. Skyphoi with pendent semicircles (fig. 64.1) were popular in
both areas, as were globular pyxidae, while jugs with cut-away necks and
handles with thumb support only persisted in Thessaly. Amphorae used to
have narrow necks in relation to more sharply curved body (Coldstream 2003,
73–106). Hand-made cooking pots followed in the earlier tradition. Similar
pottery was made in Skyros and the Northern PG style continued in its late
variety also in the northern Aegean (Catling 1998, 151–187). SW Peloponnese
continued still the production of its Dark Age II ware in Messenia and sur-
rounding areas, as far as known. In the Dodecanese the Early Geometric style
starts only in the second half of the 9th century. Samos, Miletus and Ephesus
also show in the first half of the 9th century only traces of Attic EG style; most
of it was still Sub-Protogeometric.
In the development of Early Geometric style the free field for ornament
slowly broadens and proportional structure of vases reaches higher level of
perfection, harmonisation. The first peak of Geometric style is reached in the
so called Strict Style. At that time the best potters reached balance between
decoration and shape, harmony of relations of the whole to individual parts
and among the parts. The ratio between decorated and black glazed surface
area is at that time 1:1.
Most of Greece followed Athens, and the stylistic evolution followed
again similar path. In the Argolis and Corinthia the development was more
gradual, the pyxidae are different. The body shapes are more rounded, new
108 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

motifs like vertical chevron appear. Fine plain hand-made pottery started
in early 9th century and remained popular also as container. Inhumations
in cists are the most common burials. The province of Thessaly with Euboea
has abandoned the sub-PG style and followed the Attic development, while
Boeotia followed it with less fine feeling of proportions. Exceptions were
still western Greece, in which Dark Age II style continued in Messenia, and
Ithacan “Protogeometric” on the Ionian islands, to some extent Euboea with
Cyclades, where only some elements of Attic style were taken over as in Crete.
Protogeometric style B in Crete belonging to the first three quarters of the 9th
century BC used many floral motives known from elsewhere only from the
end of the 8th century and it also uses figural painting more often. Charac-
teristic are cables, flowers, buds, spirals and other to Geometric style foreign
elements, a significant precursor of Orientalising art (HG 143–147).
In Crete there is some continuity in all parts of the island, the local Pro-
togeometric style persists notable in the northern plain. Concentric circles
and semicircles were popular together with hatched lozenges; the stirrup
vase was still used. The traditional chamber tomb remained popular, but in
9th century cremations started to prevail over inhumations. Larger number
of pots in graves suggests the existence of funeral feasts, like the pyres in
Athens. Several Levantine faience imports in graves show that Crete was not
completely isolated, as does the Phoenician sanctuary at Kommos. A tholos
tomb found at Gortyn contained over 50 vases, among them also those of 9th
century. In Eastern Crete, the local pottery bears little characteristic decora-
tion only (Coldstream 2003, 99–100; Tsipopoulou 2005).
At the end of the 9th century Geometric style was common in the whole
Greece (HG 147–150). The early pottery of Rhodes was strongly influenced by
Cypriot and Phoenician models. Crete provided finds of bronze vessels, votive
shields and other objects produced partly on the spot by Phoenician crafts-
man and partly imported from the Levant. Even Greek tradition placed there
the earliest of legendary sculptors—Daedalus—whose sculptures had to be
chained up not to escape. Rich jewel is also produced using granulation made
at the beginning probably by Phoenician craftsmen in Athens and elsewhere.
It is a self-expression of aristocracy the richest landowners who took over
rule of most of communities from older Homeric kings; the latter had only
priestly functions.

ARCHITECTURE, SCULPTURE

From the 9th century we know small wooden temples from the most of
Greek sanctuaries (cf. figs. 58 and 66), spectacular houses in the middle of
the settlements, as at Zagora on Naxos (resembling Homer’s “palace” in the
Iliad and Odyssey, figs. 57–58) and also more modest houses of the others
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 109

(fig. 55.2–4). In Ionia real towns began to exist (figs. 28 and 57). To Early
Geometric belonged a large oval house on the Athenian Agora, with several
parallels elsewhere, an apsidal house at Asine and several temple buildings in
Greek sanctuaries: the first Samos Heraion, Kalapodi, Thermon belong to the
9th century, as do the earliest fortifications of Old Smyrna (figs. 55, 58, 80).
Apsidal and round houses belonged to pre-urban architecture of shepherds,
similarly as in Etruscan Italy (cf. Mazarakis Ainian 1995 and 2015).
Clay and bronze figurines change from the rounded stylization of Pro-
togeometric style (figs. 44–45) towards more rectangular and closer to nature
forms (figs. 85–86). At the end of the century figural drawing becomes more
common on the vases in Athens (fig. 77.1–2) and in central Greece and the
Greeks adopted phonetic script from the Phoenicians, although the oldest
evidence of it belongs to the middle of the next century.
Of metal objects, swords and spearheads are now commonly of iron, pins
and fibulae more elaborated than their predecessors (fig. 72), and the pins
not rarely composed of iron shaft and bronze globe. The trunnion axes are
still in use, iron swords use to have broader grip and they are mainly longer
than their predecessors. The spearheads from Kerameikos get a broader leaf
and longer socket. The shield bosses were also still used, as were other parts
of protective armour; most of them was apparently of leather. The splendid
corselet with helmet from Argos is an exception. It belongs to mid 8th cen-
tury (HG 138–141).
Pins and fibulae start to be finer decorated, thought this tendency is bet-
ter marked only in the second half of the 9th century, rings start to be deco-
rated, too. Beads of faience and glass seem to become available also outside
Crete and Euboea, but they probably escaped notice in old digs.

FUNERAL RITE

In Attica cremations prevailed (fig. 69), but the tomb was still of oblong
shape, as for inhumation; the pit for inserting amphora was less deep, so the
lower half of the urn was put into it. Sacrificial pyre was put in the other
half of the oblong grave. Some vessels were burnt with the deceased, but oth-
ers, probably containing drinks and food for the journey to the underworld,
remained unburned. On the grave a krater stood, serving as a sema, and also
container for later libations (Kübler 1954, 24). Weapons in graves are symbols
of dignity to be worn, but less often used.
In Rhodes cremations were put in shafts with remains of the burned
objects (in one shaft only one dead was buried; Johansen 1957, 9–10). In Crete
the cremations were put into chamber or tholos tombs, used for the families.
In the Peloponnese, especially in the Argolid, skeleton graves in cists pre-
vailed, as in Kos. Really rich funerals started only in the second half of the
110 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

century, but their Early Geometric predecessors also had special equipment
(HG 142; cf. Coldstream 2005b).
Lefkandi on Euboea shows relative prosperity, probably based on over-
seas trade, in while the initiative was first apparently in the hands of the
Phoenicians, through whose activities the faience and glass beads came; the
gold objects may have been connected with their interest in gold sources in
Thasos already. Crete was more open to the Levant due to its position, as was
the Dodecanese, which Anatolian Greeks may had some contacts already
with the inner Anatolian koine, in which Neo-Hittite cities played the decisive
role, but in which Assyria and Urartu also participated, together with in gold
rich Lydia. But this is only a kind of guess; more can be seen only in the next
period. In general, Greece was at that time an isolated country, making a mod-
est second step—after the Protogeometric ouverture—towards its later great-
ness. The general impression is still of small village communities, modest
cores of later poleis, with communications rather deteriorating against the
10th century, and small wars continuing; the number of weapons in graves
of this period is rather higher than in Protogeometric period (HG 144–146).
Nicolas Coldstream in his book starts his chapter on Middle Geometric
with a grave of a pregnant Athenian lady, whose burial on the northern slope
of the Areopagus slightly preceded the end of EG II (Coldstream 2003, 55–72).
The belly-handled amphora, which served as urn for female burials in PG
times, was accompanied by a chest with five model granaries, a symbol of
her richness; perhaps her family belonged to the highest Athenian class of
pentakosiomedimnoi, whose members could produce 500 measures of grain
from their estates. 34 painted vases—all but nine in her pyre—belong to the
most sophisticated works of their time. Also from her pyre came fragments
of 21 handmade incised vessels and nine beads. As we mentioned above, this
class only appears in female graves, it shows links with the north, and seems
to have belonged to specific religious association of a female deity. Three
bronze pins and one of bronze with iron globe, two fibulae and finger ring
followed the lady together with six gold rings of thin sheet, three broader
with patterns of lozenges and zigzags and repoussé dots on the rim. She had
long necklace of more than a thousand faience beads (one large item has
a close parallel from Sidon) and especially splendid gold earrings, adorned
with granulation and filigree, each of the pair with three small pendants in
shape of pomegranates, symbols of fertility. The technique was apparently
taken over from a Phoenician master, but the style is Greek Geometric.
The bowl with repoussé decoration from Kerameikos Grave 42 with row
of women leading animals is probably Phoenician, mixing North Syrian ele-
ments with Egyptian motifs, similarly as some toreutic works from Crete—
bowls, shields; some of them, with elements of Greek Geometric style, were
probably made in Crete.
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 111

MIDDLE GEOMETRIC ATHENS—THE STRICT STYLE

Middle Geometric is a name given by Coldstream as it enables better com-

parison with Geometric styles in other parts of Greece (Coldstream 2003,
73–105), but the Strict Style, given by his predecessors, is a better name. It
was the fulfilment of the stream starting in Early Geometric towards optimal
proportional system and structure of this abstract art on vases. The black
glazed surface is in proportion to decorated parts in relation 1 : 1, the decora-
tion on belly and neck mirror each other, the overall system for outbalancing
individual elements in proportions (human body was still the model) and
rhythm reached its most sophisticated stage. The balance of elements creates
the harmony: harmony in Greek opinion was in outbalancing of two opposite
forces. And the strictly Geometric abstract art reached in Strict Style its apo-
gee. But soon after the task was accomplished, the purely abstract style did
not satisfy completely the demands and animal and human figures entered
the vocabulary of the artists more often (HG 147–150; pl. A 4); cf. Winter 2008.
The first scenes from the beginnings of 8th century remind one much of
the simple scenes in LH III C art, but also of Nordic rock carvings (fig. 39.1–5).
There are a few bridges between LH III C and Middle Geometric drawings,
notably in Crete; J. L. Benson (1970) compiled a good general survey (cf. also
GAE 83–87). The same simple approach to human and animal figures can be
seen first in connection with the clay and bronze figurines of the age, at best
in Olympia, where Early to Strict Geometric figurines are best represented:
horses, birds, and bulls prevail among the animals, standing figurines of
gods–warriors, and goddesses are common, besides the group of charioteers
(figs. 85–86 and 79). Of the new shapes the flat pyxis with horses on lid and
opening for suspension or closing is important for further development (cf.
Bonev 1988 and Bouzek 1959).
Pins and fibulae reach sophisticated shapes, they became more ornate,
bow and pin-holder of the fibulae bear incised ornaments, mainly swastika
and circles; even rings display incision and repoussé. The simple repoussé
decoration, which first followed European models, now becomes finer (GAE
91–106). The contacts with the north were, however, not forgotten, as show
several early imports and relations between Balkan and Greek fibulae and
pins of this period. The first Italic imports to Greece also date from the end of
the 9th century, though they become common only later (GAE 104–114).
In the year 776 BC, the date of the first all-Greek Olympic games, the
Greeks officially began their own history. Around that time they were sailing
over most of the Mediterranean Sea; first for trade and piracy connected to
it and later on they founded their own colonies. It can be taken even here as
a turning point for artistic and other more common aspects of Greek civilisa-
tion. It is useful to add here a complementary view from the north.
112 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

2
5

4
1
3 6 7

Fig. 47: Basic shapes of Submycenaean pottery, after HG.

1 1a 2 6 7

Fig. 48: LH III C, Submycenaean and Early Protogeometric weapons and armour.
Swords 1 Graditsa, Thessaly, 2 Mouliana, Crete, Grave B, 3 spearhead from Kerameikos,
Grave PG A, 4 Tiryns, helmet from Grave 28, 5–6 shield buckles, Kerameikos graves PG 24
and 48, 7 Peschiera dagger from Psychro Cave, 8 short sword from Submycenaen Grave at
Ancient Elis, after HG.
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 113

1 2 3 4

7 8

11

12 9
13 10

14 15 16 17 18 19

Fig. 49: Submycenaean pins, fibulae, rings and weapons. Pins: 1 and 3 Kerameikos, graves 20
and 41, 3 Knossos, Gypsades, grave VII, 4 Argos, Deiras, grave 17. Fibulae: Kerameikos graves
1 (5), 102 (6–7, 11), 33 (12). Rings. 13 and 15 grave SM 52, 14 grave SM 24, 16–17, 24 grave SM 70,
18 grave SM 102. Sword 8 from SM grave 11, spearhead and dagger 9–10 from grave PG B. After
HG.

Fig. 50: Generalized distribution map of cist graves in Greece.

1 LH III B, 2 LH III C, 3 Submycenaean, 4 with hand-made pottery,
5 with hand-made pottery only. After HG.
114 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

Fig. 51: Generalised distribution map of bow fibulae with knots, after HG.

1 3

Fig. 52: Tumuli and periboloi. 1 Naxos, 2–3 Vergina, tumulus II and part of tumulus III. After HG.
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 115

Fig. 53: Generalised distribution map of spectacle fibulae, after HG.

116 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

1 4
3

6 8
7

11

10
9

14

19
15
13

16
17

18

Fig. 54: Vergina cemetery, pottery, sword and fibula. 1–2, 6–18 Vergina, 1–2 fluted
kantharos and LH III C angular alabastron, 6–7 grave C delta, 8 and 11 grave 1 alpha,
9 and 14 grave M, 23–24, 12–13 gamma, 73–74, 15–16 III lambda, 3–4 Devetaki cave, 5 Lefkandi.
After HG.
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 117

1 2

4
3

Fig. 55: 1–2 PG oval buildings in Old Smyrna and Athens, 3–4 LG houses in Siphnos, after HG.

Fig. 56: The Knossos PG goddess:

spring. Courtesy
N. Coldstream.
118 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

Fig. 57: Andros, Zagora. After Cambitoglou.

3
2

Fig. 58: 1 Lefkandi, heroon, 2 Eretria, 3 Thermon, PG—Geometric temples.

After Mazarakis-Ainian.
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 119

4
1 3

5
7

8 9 10 11

Fig. 59: Main shapes of Protogeometric pottery. 1, 5 and 7 Incised Ware. After HG.

Fig. 60 Proportion of graves with weapons in Kerameikos. Left all graves, right only male
graves. After Early Geometric only knives were put into graves. After HG.
120 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

Fig. 61: Protogeometric sites in Greece (1) and of the northern variety (2). After HG.

1
8

7 9
2 6

4
10
12

3
11

Fig. 62: Protogeometric weapons, fibulae, pins, bracelet and bronze bowl.
1–4, 8–12 Athens, 5–7 North Peloponnese. 1–2, 4 iron, 8–9 iron with bronze globes, other
bronze. After HG.
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 121

Fig. 63: Protogeometric amphorae with male (left) and female (right) cremations. After GAE.

2 3

4 7

Fig. 64: 1 – Above skyphoi with pendent semicircles (precolonial), middle row chevron
skyphoi (first colonies), below bird bowls and related (ab ca. 700 BC). After GAE.
122 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

1
2

Fig.65: 1–2 PG cist grave, 3 model of hut, 3 Subminoan hut urn from Karphi. After HG.

1 2

Fig. 66: Late Geometric temple models from Argive Heraion and Perachora (1–2), 3 Samos,
Heraion. After HG.
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 123

1 3 4

5
6
7

9 10 11

Fig. 67: Main shapes of Early Geometric pottery. After HG.

124 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

2
3 4
1

5 6 7 8

Fig. 68: Bell-shaped “dolls” and similar figurines. 1 Enkomi, 2 cave Sto Trochili, Crete,
3 Boeotia, 4 Ialyssos, Rhodes, 5 Samos, Heraion, 6 Serraglio, Kos, 7 from Boeotia, Berlin,
8 Cyprus, Museum Nicosia. After HG.

Fig. 69: Generalized map of cremations in Geometric Greece. 1 areas with cremations
prevailing, 2 cemeteries, 3 single graves. After HG.
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 125

Fig. 70: PG and Geometric pottery in Eastern Mediterranaen. 1 large number of MG and LG
pottery, 2 skyphoi with concentric semicircles, 3 Attic MG pottery, Cyprus, 4 MG pottery,
5 LG pottery. 1 Marion, 2 Soli, 3 Ayia Irini, 4 Kyrenia–Karaphtani, 5 Idalion, 6 Salamis, 7 Stylli, 8
Larnaca, 9 Amathus, 10 Kurion, 11 Paphos, 12 Mersin, 13 Tarsus, 14 Al Mina (Suedia),
15 Tell Tayianat, 16 Tell Judaiah, 17 Tell Halaf, 18 Tell Sukas, 19 Hama, 20 Tababt-al-Hammam,
21 Tell Abu Hawam, 22 Megiddo, 23 Samaria. After Coldstream and GAE.
126 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

Fig. 71: Achilles’ shield, reconstruction after Myres, right Phoenician silver bowl from
Francavilla Maritima. After GAE.

1 2 4

6 7

3 8

Fig. 72: Pins and fibulae of the 8th century BC. 1 Perachora, 2 Sparta, 3 Psychro Cave,
4 Museum Boston, 5 Idaean Cave, 6–7 Pherai, 8 Peloponnese. After HG.
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 127

3.5 THRACIAN THALASSOCRACY: FACT OR FICTION?

Eusebius and also Marmor Parium speak about Thracian thalassocracy, ruling
over the sea, lasting for 79 years just between the Bronze and Iron Ages. It
was usually believed by most scholars that there must have been something
behind the tradition of other earlier thalassocracies, starting with the
Cycladic, Cretan and Mycenaean, but the Thracian thalassocracy remained
for many a kind of a hapax. Much, however, was enlightened in the field of
study of Thracian seafaring documents by our old friend Micha Lazarov, and
it seems to be useful to sum up the evidence now available and to try to find
the most probable answer.19 We may start with the literary documents on
Thracian thalassocracy.

THE LITERARY TRADITION

The list of thalassocracies, known mainly from the chronographs, among

which the best known are quotations from Hecataeus and Marmor Parium,
kept mainly in Oxford, partly lost during the English civil war, and partly later
found in Paros in the 19th century, were studied and edited by many, among
them on the first place by Felix Jacoby, in a special monograph on Marmor
Parium and in his main oeuvre, Fragments of Greek Historians. The mythical
genealogies and their possible explanations were discussed by many, includ-
ing Fritz Schachermeyr and Michel Sakellariou during the last twenty years.
The list of thalassocracies is a parallel to the list of genealogies and of mythi-
cal foundation legends, part of the attempts to establish some kind of order
into the mythical past, to connect the legends with the chronicles. Though
most of the compilations known to us came through Byzantine authors, and
the original ones date from the Hellenistic age, there must have been some
so-called oral memory behind them. Modern theoretical studies based on
African sources distinguish the chronological lists which were kept officially
by some persons (chronographs) at the royal or princely courts, and the
bards, whose works were not canonical and could be adapted and changed,
at lest to some extent. Very ancient Indian works, like Bhagavad Gita, were
memorized and preserved practically intact for millennia, Homeric poems
were apparently memorized as well before being written officially in the Pei-
sistratus’ redaction. As most of the real facts in Homer find best parallels in
the Protogeometric times, the traditional dating of Homer—or Proto-Homer,
as for ex. Karl Schefold suggested, in the 9th century seems to be much more
probable now than before twenty years.

19 The first version of this paper was presented at the Varna conference dedicated to my late friend
Misha Lazarov: Bouzek 2006, 109–120; cf. also Doumas 1998.
128 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

Thracians were to some extent mythical people for the Greeks, the legends
about them resemble the legends on the Pelasgians, and to some extent also the
Phoenicians, a country from which princess Europa came. Why the legend on
thalassocracies put the Thracians as the only non-Aegean people into the list,
and just between the Bronze Age and the new Iron Age? Legendary Pelasgians
were better in seafaring (the core of them were probably the Sea Peoples, as
suggested by Schachermeyr and others), the Phoenicians were certainly better
in this field before the Greeks learned from them to do the same.
Archaeological discoveries in Thrace during the last thirty years enlight-
ened much of the Dark Age, but much still remains obscure. The Pelasgians
of legends were nearly everywhere and were masters of the sea and mari-
time battles. The Phoenicians of the legends brought Princess Europa, civili-
sation, ruse: the topoi of description of mythical Thracians were Dionysiac
and Orphic religion, and the richness (like Rhesus). They were, however,
no “modern” people in their cleverness, as Rhesus was not careful enough
and was killed by Odysseus and Diomedes, the two heroes representing with
Homer the new Iron Age mind, from which the Greek philosophical mind
evolved. In this respect, Thracians were predecessors of the new mind, as are
the Trojans. Old Thracians of Greek legends were apparently not identical in the
Greek mind with later Thracians; many families leading Greek sanctuaries
claimed Thracian origin, and, as concerns the legends on foundations of
mystery sanctuaries, Thracians were not less important than the Phoenician
Kadmos. In Greek legendary reconstruction of the past the Thracians were
just the predecessors of the new Iron Age world, who just helped its birth.
The literary tradition is too much a fiction to enlighten the legend on Thracian
thalassocracy, so this contribution should try to prove it from the archaeo-
logical evidence known to us now.

THRACIAN CONTACTS WITH THE MYCENAEAN AND PROTOGEOMETRIC

WORLD

Contacts between the territory of modern Bulgaria and the Mycenaean world
prior to the 13th century BC are mainly represented by weapons. The sword
from Galatin is probably a Mycenaean product, others, including the frag-
mentary weapon from Drama, are local imitations, while the northernmost
item found in Medgidia in Romanian Dobrodgea appears to be of Mycenaean
origin, too (Bouzek 1994a, 217–234; Bonev 1988). With some of the swords
Mycenaean spearheads with long blade were found; both represent ele-
ments of Mycenaean armour, which is unknown in other parts of Europe.
Some fragments of Mycenaean pottery were found in South-west Bulgaria,
at Koprivlen (cf. p. 44–45).
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 129

The double axes from Bulgaria include mainly North Greek, marginal
types (fig. 6), but also genuine Mycenaean shapes of Late Bronze Age date
(fig. 6.11); some of them have been found as far as in the Ukraine (Buchholz
1983, 43–134; Bouzek 1985, 44–47; Bonev 2003). Decorative bronze sceptres
from that time (fig. 6.12), testify to excellent bronze working technique and
are evidence of rulers whose paraphernalia they represented.
Late Bronze Age Thrace was rich country with mighty rulers. The treasure
of golden vessels from Valčitran (distr. Pleven) is one of the best examples
of the wealth of Late Bronze Age Thrace (pl. B 2). The largest vessel, a two-
handled kantharos, has parallels in Križovlin near Odessa and from Bădeni
in Romanian Moldova (cf. note 6 and Mikov 1958; Taylor 1984, 187–202). The
Valčitran hoard appears to be earlier than the gold vessel from Kazičane near
Sofia; lids of silver similar to those of the Valčitran treasure have recently
been found in north-western Bulgaria. The most interesting part of the
Valčitran set is a vessel in shape of a big triple ladle or dipper connected by
tubes, so that it is possible to mix together the liquids poured in all three
ladles. This vessel is accompanied by three drinking cups and this triple set
shows that it served for ritual sacrifices to a trinity, perhaps identical to that
known in later Thracian religion (cf. Bouzek 1997a, 133).
According to Homer Thracians from the Marmara Sea to the Axios river
took part in the Trojan War on the side of the Trojans. Homer’s description of
the Thracian king Rhesus, whose kingdom was on the lower Struma, reflects
the richness of the Thracian rulers of his time. Odysseus and Diomedes killed
Rhesus before he could intervene more seriously in the war, but his arrival
at Troy was impressive. Homer describes the way all Greek heroes stared at
him in amazement:
… here apart be the Thracians, newcomers, the outermost of all
and among them their king Rhezus, son of Eioneus.
His be verily the fastest horses that ever I saw, and the greatest,
whiter than snow, and in speed like the winds
and his chariot is cunningly wrought with gold and silver,
and armour of gold brought he with him, huge of size,
a wonder to behold. Such armour is hubris,
not that mortal men should wear, but immortal gods.
(II. X, 436–441; Loeb translation)

Characteristic is what awakened the admiration of the Greeks: much bet-

ter horses than theirs (cf. also Il. X, 474–5 and X 513–14), and a wealth of gold
that exceeded what the Greek princes possessed. A saying was created: “As
rich as Rhesus” (cf. here ch. 9).
Greek myths attributed the origins of the Dionysus cult to the Thracians.
Through drinking wine and rituals connected to it individuals were freed
130 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

from their blood relations and able to form new relationships, expressed
mainly in the male Gefolgschaft and in female menadism. It was not only
Dionysus with his merry company who came to the Greeks from Thrace,
orphism also came from this region. According to legend its founder was the
Thracian king Orpheus and orphism created one of the first bridges between
the religious and philosophical interpretation of the world. In that sense
Thrace was a midwife of Greek culture.

THE MARITIME TRADE AND SEAFARING DOCUMENTS

The Bulgarian Black Sea coast was involved in maritime trade in the Late
Bronze Age, according to finds of ingots of oxhide shape. One copper ingot
was found in Čenovo near Burgas (fig. 73); it weights 26 kg and is similar
to those found e.g. in the wrecks in Yassi Ada and Kaş, at the south-western
Turkish coast. Another item of this class, coming from near Cape Kaliakra
and weighing 1.5 kg, was composed of 32% of gold, 18% of silver, 43% of cop-
per and some nickel; it is a unique piece, but its shape is of Mediterranean
inspiration; Mycenaean weights were used in most parts of Bronze Age
Europe (Pare 1999, 421–514; Michailidou, ed. 2001a). Three new ingots have
been found recently near Varna; they came from Kirilovo, Bjalata Prst and
from Černozem, Lambanskoto kladenče (fig. 75), while there is also a parallel
fragmentary find from the European coast of the Marmara Sea at Íğdebağları
in Turkey (cf. esp. Lichardus – Echt – Iljev – Christov 2002, 135–184, for the
ingots pp. 160–167). The items from Černozem have been analysed, and their
composition fits well into the usual class of Cypriot ingots (fig. 10).
Along the Bulgarian coast many stone anchors of pyramidal shape have
been found, with one or three drilled holes at its top (fig. 74, pl. A 8). These
anchors are characteristic for the Bronze Age seafaring, when adverse winds
forced boats to anchor immediately wherever they were. Many of these
anchors were found underwater in places, which offered no safe anchorage:
in dangerous shallow waters and under cliffs. There seem to be two reasons
for this situation. One was the necessity to anchor in bad weather wherever
it was possible, and to escape by cutting off the anchors when in trouble, but
these anchors are also traces of shipwrecks. In the latter case the whole set
of anchors of the ship was preserved, as well as other objects from the ship’s
cargo (cf. esp. Angelova – Lazarov eds. 1994; Porožanov 1989, 6–15). It is a pity
that—unlike in the Mediterranean—anchors in Bulgarian coastal waters
were discovered without clear context. Their dating is thus not quite safe,
but they must have preceded the sophisticated Phoenician and Greek Early
Iron Age seafaring.
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 131

THRACIANS AND SEA PEOPLES, MIGRATIONS TO AND FROM THRACE

According to Greek tradition the Trojan War came at the end of the 13th cen-
tury BC. Those who returned from it were among the last heroes of the mythi-
cal period, which ended shortly afterwards with the beginning of the new
Age of Iron. In Thrace the Bronze Age lasted longer; but even there it did not
survive too long after the destruction of the Mycenaean palaces. Around
1200 BC the powerful Hittite empire ceased to exist in Asia Minor, the so
called “Sea Peoples” conquered Cyprus, destroyed Syrian towns—among the
best known of those destroyed was Ugarit and—around 1190 BC their victori-
ous campaign was only stopped on the Egyptian frontier by the armies of
Ramses III. More sophisticated state structures mostly disappeared, only the
more distant of them survived, especially Assyria and Egypt, and the Dark
Age began. Although—thanks to intensive research during the last decades—
the next centuries are now better known and the Dark Age becomes lighter to
our knowledge, the state of affairs became more primitive than in the preced-
ing Late Bronze Age and in the following civilisation of Archaic Greece.20
Generally, Thrace was touched by Late Bronze Age migrations less than
other countries. Its cultural continuity was more disrupted only in some
parts of its territory, although the influence from the western Balkans was
decisive for further development of jewellery, dress fasteners and armour,
especially in the western part of Thrace, and—besides influences from the
Pontic and Caucasus areas (here ch. 8.2–3)—it became the main background
of the Thracian bronze work in the Early Iron Age. It might be under pres-
sure of arrival of other groups from the north to Thrace that other migrations
from the Balkans to Asia Minor occurred. Tradition recorded by later Greek
authors (mainly by Herodotus, 7, 73 and 8, 138, and Strabo 7, 4, 2 and 14, 5, 29)
testifies that the Phrygians moved to Asia Minor from the area of the Vardar
(Axios) valley; their remnants stayed in western Macedonia until historic
times and were called the Brygi. The Phrygians created a powerful kingdom
in Asia Minor with its centre in Gordion; their kingdom was destroyed by
the Cimmerians at the beginning of the 7th century BC.21 The earliest pottery
known from the excavations at Gordion shows many traits comparable to the
Early Iron Age pottery style of the southern Balkans (Bouzek 1997, 151–155;
Petrova 1996). Also the Armenians were, according to Herodotus, the descen-
dants of the Phrygians. The Mysians living in north-western Asia Minor came
there according to ancient authors from the present north-western Bulgaria
(Herod. 7. 75. 2). Those of the Mysians, who stayed in their homeland on the
Danube, were called Moesians and later gave their name to the Roman prov-

20 Cf. Bouzek 1985, 241–244 (ch. 4); 1997, 24–33; 2005a, 31–37; Oren, ed. 2000; Doumas 1998.
21 Or, according to C14, one hundred years earlier.
132 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

ince of Moesia (in late sources also sometimes called Mysia). Just a brief look
at the map shows us that both historically proved movements can be linked
with the two archaeologically documented movements of other groups from
the eastern part of Central Europe; the latter may perhaps have been respon-
sible for the pressure which caused the Mysians, Bithynians and Phrygians
move to Anatolia. Further movement from Thrace into Asia Minor can be
traced in the similarity of the Trojan pottery after the fall of Troy VI with the
pottery style known in eastern Bulgaria and Rumania (Babadag, Sava-Conevo,
Malkoto Kale): Domaradzki – Karaiotov – Gotzev 1991, 119–132; Tončeva
1983; Laszlo 1994. It concerns first of all the so-called Trojan Knobbed Ware
(fig. 26). Some parallels with Trojan pottery of the 12th–10th centuries BC
can also be found in more western parts of Thrace (Bouzek 1985, 79–82; 1994,
218–20), while Aeolian (Trojan) Grey Ware is also known from Bulgaria (Lich-
ardus et al. 2001, 140–159). The legend on Thracian thalassocracy may suggest
that also some Thracians participated in the movements of the Sea Peoples.
The close parallels between Greek and Caucasian bow fibulae and Cau-
casian bronze objects from Samos show that contacts across the Black Sea
existed in the 9th–8th centuries BC (cf. pl. B 4.4–5 and B 1.6), though no safe
Greek pottery imports of this early date are known from the Black Sea area
as yet (Bouzek 1990a, 13–18; cf. ch. 8.3).

GREEK COLONISATION IN THE BLACK SEA

According to historical tradition Greek colonization of the Thracian Black Sea

coast started after the attacks of Cimmerians and Scythians ended, i.e. around
660 BC, but few Greek cities in the area have yielded pottery earlier than
600 BC (Boardman 1980, 239–250; Bouzek 1990a, 13–41, 172–178; Tsekhladze
1998, 9–68). The first Milesian colony on the Black Sea Thracian shore was
Histria (also Istria, Istros or Istropolis). According to Pindaros Istros was
in the area where Apollo lived in winter, so even the Apolline myth shows
Thracian links (cf. ch. 9.2–3). The earliest pottery from Histria dates from
mid 7th century BC. Some exceptions may, however, date from the end of
the 8th century BC; here belongs one vase from Cyprus, some fragments
of Aeolian amphorae and one Geometric sherd, but the provenance of the
latter has been questioned (cf. now again Alexandrescu 2000), and new exca-
vations revealed nothing that early. The earliest pottery from Istria widely
known is of Milesian Middle Wild Goat style as clay analyses have confirmed.
Similarly early finds yielded Orgame near to Histria; the earliest also date
from mid 7th century BC. Middle White Goat I fragments, fragments of bird
bowls, a Valet-Villard A2 Samian cup and an early Chiot transport amphora
came from one of the earliest graves of the cemetery, perhaps of the ktistes
of the town (Manucu-Adamsteanu 2001). Apollonia Pontica yielded first pot-
 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 133

tery from the last decade of the 7th century. These dates leave enough time
for Thracian seafaring dominance in the Black Sea prior to founding Greek
colonies.
It can be concluded that the legend on Thracian thalassocracy fits well
into the period preceding the Greek colonisation of the Black Sea, when
Greek seafaring was not yet very successful and of limited scale only. The Tro-
jan Grey Ware is known from many sites in the Eastern Mediterranean, and
some Thracians may well have participated even in the campaigns of the Sea
Peoples, together with the Pelasgoi, who left other myths in Greek tradition.
It seems that there are enough archaeological sources suggesting that the tra-
ditional story of Thracian thalassocracy was not a pure invention. There may
well have been a real core behind the legend, which also resembles parallel
stories describing Illyrian thalassocracy in the Adriatic Sea, though the latter
lasted longer and was apparently on a more sophisticated level (cf. ch. 8.1 and
Bouzek 2005a, 38–41).
134 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC

Fig. 73: Bronze oxhide ingot from near Burgas, Bulgaria, after Bouzek 1985.

Fig. 74: Stone anchors from near Sozopol, Bulgaria.

 PART 3: FROM SUBMYCENAEAN TO middle GEOMETRIC 135

Fig. 75: Distribution of the oxhide bronze ingots in the eastern Balkans. After Doncheva 2010.
 Pl. A 1

1 Mycenae, Lion’s Gate, 2 Mycenae, behind Mt. of Saint Elias.

Pl. A 2

1 Mycenae, Treasury of Atreus, 2 Mycenae, houses along the city wall.

 Pl. A 3

1 Tiryns, upper part of Cyclopean wall, 2 Tiryns, ‘scaic’ access gateway along the city wall.
Pl. A 4

1 Late Geometric bronze ‘peacock’, Charles University, 2 LG I a kantharos, NM Prague.

 Pl. A 5

1 2

3 4

1 LG I b pitcher of the Workshop Athens 706, 2 LG II a amphora of the Philadelphia Painter,

both Charles University, 3 detail of mounted warriors on 2, 4 horse figurine from Mladá
Boleslav, courtesy L. Smejtek.
Pl. A 6

4
2

1 LG I b pyxis with team of horses, Laurion Workshop (?), 2 LG II a mug, 3–4 LG I b kantharos
and mug LG II a. 1 Charles University, 2–4 National Museum Prague.
 Pl. A 7

1 2

6 7 8

1–2 glass beads from Závist, 3 glass bead from Pistiros, 4 mask bead from Slovenia, 5 fragment
of glass aryballos from Strakonice, 6 collier of glass beads from Lípa near Hradec Králové,
7–8 knob, pin and sheath of dagger from Cimmerian grave at Belogradec near Varna. 1–2, 5–6
Bohemia, 3 and 7–8 Bulgaria, 4 Slovenia.
Pl. A 8

1–4 stone anchors from the Bulgarian coast around Apollonia, Sozopol museum.
 Pl. B 1

1 2

5
6

1 pithos fragment from Dobev, 2 vessel vagon from Milavče, 3 pendant from Vrcovice,
4 figure-of-eight gold bundle from East Bohemia, 5 the Dupljaja charioteer, 6 stag from
Sevlijevo.
Pl. B 2

The Valcitran hoard, after Bouzek 2005.

 Pl. B 3

1 2 3

1 pendant from Hungary, NM Budapest, 2–3 decoration of Černý Vůl ‘altar’ and
reconstruction, 4–6 firedogs from near Halle, 5 similar from Volos, Greece, 8 fragments of clay
‘altars’ from NW Bohemia, after Bouzek – Vokolek 2016.
Pl. B 4

1 2 3

5
4

1–3 Macedonian bronzes (1 mus, Cambridge, 2 from Trilophon-Messimeri, Chalcidice, 3 Tren),

4 Caucasian bronzes from Samos, 5 their imitations from Lousoi and Tegea; bull from the
Troad.
 Pl. B 5

Men leading horses on Argive LG vases from Tiryns, photos courtesy DAI Athens.
Pl. B 6

1 LG I b man leading horses, Kerameikos, 2 Agive LG I horses with solar symbols,

photo courtesy DAI Athens.
 Pl. B 7

1 MG I pyxidae, 2 EG I–II amphora and pitcher, fragment of PG oinochoe, Charles University.

Pl. B 8

1 MG II pyxis with horse, 2 LG I a kantharos, NM Prague.

 Pl. B 9

1 LG II a jug of the Rattle Group, 2 LG II a skyphos and juglet, NM Prague.

Pl. B 10

1–2 LG tankards, NM Prague. 1 LG II a, 2 LG II b.

 Pl. B 11

1 LG II b amphorae, 2 LG I a spouted cup, all NM Prague.

Pl. B 12

1 2

1 LG II b amphora, 2 LG II b amphora, Athens 897 Workshop, 3 LG Melian cup, all NM Prague.

 Pl. B 13

2 3

1 LG Plate, Charles University, 2 LG granary model, NM Prague, 3 Boeotian LG juglet, Charles

University.
Pl. B 14

1 LPG lekythos, private collection, Prague, 2 LG II hydria, NM Prague.

 Pl. B 15

LG I b pitcher, Athens 706 Workshop, Charles University.

Pl. B 16

1 2 3

1 Schliemann’s sword from Mycenae, 2 spearhead from Kangadhi, Achaea, 3 sword from
Kallithea, tomb B, after AAE, 4 Mycenae, entrance into 'casematte'.
 PART 4: LATE GEOMETRIC

4.1 FROM PASTURE TO POLIS

In the year 776 BC, the date of the first all-Greek Olympic games, the Greeks
officially began their own history. At the beginning of the 8th century Greece
was a closed primitive country and at the end of the century strong city states
existed with prospering daughter settlements on Sicily, in southern Italy,
North Africa and south-eastern part of the Adriatic Sea; in the Levant the
Greeks settled as metoikoi in quarters of Phoenician and Syrian cities. The
social stratification advanced, the city-states with their constitutions were
established (Langdon 1993; Morris 1999).

GREEK COLONISATION

As mentioned by Herodotus, poverty was always a sister of Greece. With posi-

tive climatic fluctuation around 800 BC, with enough rains and good crops
the population could grow; with the later series of bad years many Greeks
tried to improve their position elsewhere. Some served as mercenaries in the
East and in Egypt, others went in groups to get good agricultural land else-
where. At around 800 BC they were sailing already over most of the Mediter-
ranean Sea; Greek pottery arrived to the Levant, Sardinia and Etruria. The
first expeditions were made for trade and piracy connected to it; later to find
new agricultural land for growing population as they founded their own colo-
nies (cf. Coldstream 2003, 109–190). The earliest known in Italy, Pithekous-
sai on the island of Ischia and Kyme in Campania, were established around
770 BC, others on Sicily and in South Italy from the middle till the end of
the 8th century (fig. 78; cf. Coldstream 2003, 233–239). In Sicily the first was
Megara Hyblaea with the mid 8th century pottery, then Euboean Naxos in
734, slightly later followed Leontinoi and Catane. Corinth founded Syracusae
in 733 and the Phoenicians rather moved to western Sicily, to escape wars
with the Greeks. The skyphoi with pendant semicircles are characteristic for
the earliest overseas emporia sites, the chevron skyphoi for the third quarter
of the 8th century and the bird skyphoi for its end (fig. 64).
In Apulia Tarent was the only Spartan colony, but in most parts of the
western coast of the Adria the mighty local population, namely of the Iapygoi
 PART 4: Late geometric 137

and Daunians from around Monte Gargano, stopped until the late 6th century
any attempts of the Greeks to found important colonies on their territory and
also on the north of Corfu, to sail to northern Adriatic. The Etruscans with
rich sources of metals were lucrative trade partners, even inviting Greek
artisans and artists, but despite traces of contacts since ca. 800 BC and local
Geometric pottery produced at Tarquinia and Caere in Euboean style, early
Greek colonies never reached direct vicinity of their cities (cf. Coldstream
2003, 233). Strange enough, the earliest Greek inscriptions are known not
only from Pithekoussai on Ischia, but also on the outskirts of Rome (cf. Cold-
stream 2003, 295–302).
Greek Massilia and Emporio in NW Mediterranean are 7th century
foundations, but in 7th century Greek ships sailed around most parts of the
Mediterranean and also in the Black Sea, where many East Greek colonies,
mainly by Milesians, were founded in mid 7th century and Greek pottery
penetrated deep inland along the main rivers (cf. Tsekhladze 2015). Only
the Gibraltar Straits were closed to them by Carthaginian navy. A network
of maritime trade connection was established, with Greeks and Phoenicians
sometimes fighting, but in other cases collaborating for common benefit
(cf. esp. Tsekhladze 2007).

GREECE

In Greece itself the city states—poleis—became established as autonomous

units, with only few ethnoi without city left on the periphery of the Greek
world. Business could bring more money than land tenure of traditional
aristocracy and the first tyrannies appeared. Greek particularism is also
reflected in the art. Local schools of vase painting emerged, enabling to
distinguish workshops and groups of painters. Local differences are also
expressed in the plastic art of the poleis. They stemmed from the competi-
tive spirit of Early Greece, of the maturing troubles of the youth of the
mankind.
Sculptors and painters had—in contrary to poets, writers, musicians and
dancers—no Muses, only models in crippled Hephaestus and unstable Dae-
dalus, who committed murder and had to run from his city to be involved in
dark building activity at Knossos labyrinth. But even the artists had contests
and their works were admired. Nicolas Coldstream noted that local styles of
pottery emerged in the city states, not with the ethnoi. Athens, as illustrated
still on the west pediment of the Parthenon, didn’t take part in Great Coloni-
sation; they remained agricultural country, with the production of silver in
Laurion mines that attracted Phoenician merchants, but they already took
the leading position in art.
138 PART 4: Late geometric

VASE PAINTING: ATHENS

The peak of the Geometric vase painting was reached in Athens. At the begin-
ning of the 8th century the Strict Style created the strict rules of balance,
including the one to one relation between ornament and black surface; in
the second quarter of the 8th century the Ripe Style developed; with the
ornament covering the whole vessel. First appeared the vessel of Dionysus,
kantharos with two high handles, first floral motives (rosettes and leaf stars,
cf. fig. 84 and pl. A 3) and namely figural painting. The first scenes with its
immediacy remind of the rock carvings from Scandinavia (fig. 39.5) and of
LH III C predecessors (fig. 44); only slowly they are incorporated into the
rhythm of the vase by filling ornament between the figures (fig. 77.1–2). The
human figure is depicted similarly as in other primitive arts; head and legs
up to waist are from profile, shoulders and eyes in frontal view (fig. 79.1–2).
Narrow tail was fashionable both for men and women; Homer’s heroes and
heroines had never mentioned belly with the only exception of beggars in
the court of Odysseus who suffered hunger. First figures of both sexes are
depicted as naked; only from the middle of the 8th century female figures got
long dresses and eyes and hair are marked.
In the Ripe Style black glaze disappears from most of the body and the
whole surface is covered by dense ornament reminding of textile patterns.
This style reaches its peak on big vases that originally stood on the graves
of the Athens’ aristocracy. So called Great Dipylon amphora, the work of
painter who led the most important workshop in Athens, excels in its perfec-
tion of proportional system, delicacy of drawing, balance of decoration and
also in the central theme. It is usually the mourning of the dead exposed on
bier—prothesis (fig. 77.1–2); less often as transported on the funeral wagon—
ekphora—to his grave. The figural scenes are filled with supplementary
ornaments to avoid empty places (horror vacui), and also as simile to add the
atmosphere to the main subject represented (Hampe 1952). First lions and fan-
tastic animals were inspired by neo-Hittite art, where also the prothesis with
checkboard cloak thrown over the body had its model.1 Part of the funeral
was the parade of chariots, riders and foot warriors (fig. 79.1–2, pl. A 5.2–3),
dancing scenes and scenes of war, perhaps suggesting some celebre acts of
the deceased; at least they are missing in prothesis of female deceased. In the
second to third quarter of the 8th century the crowded war scenes inspired by
Assyrian reliefs include sea battles, scenes that disappeared around 730 BC.
The change is ascribed to the war with Aegina that was lost and that for long
time diverted the interest of Athenians in external expansion.

1 Museum Mosul inv. no. FWW 904; other parallels in Egypt.

 PART 4: Late geometric 139

Several tens of schools, workshops and vase painters can already be

distinguished, the first individuals in the second quarter of the 8th century,
notably the Master of the Great Dipylon amphora. A few of them were spe-
cialized in large kraters, most of them in smaller amphorae and pitchers,
including the drinking cups. The complicated drawing of fine ornament
was time consuming and demanding deep concentration. In Late Geometric
Ib the rigid filling patterns dissolve, the human and animal figures display
more details, and less time consuming décor starts to be preferred. In the
third quarter of the 8th century drawing of ornaments simplifies, becomes
more perfunctory and in some workshops only abbreviated idiom remained.
Human figure gets in the centre of attention, it shows inner details and filling
ornament is less dense.
In Late Geometric II (the last quarter of the 8th century) the free fields
are more common and figures have more details marked: eyes, nose and chin.
With acceptance of floral ornament the style slowly changes into Protoattic,
while preserving the basic shapes and framing of painted decoration. Around
720/10 BC spirals and floral ornaments took the lead, the face starts to be
depicted by contour line and Athenian vase painting moves into the period
of Orientalizing style; it follows its more advanced neighbours at that time in
Corinth and on Crete where this process took place earlier.
First reflection of myths and heroic poetry appears on Attic vases in the
3rd quarter of the 8th century (figs. 87–88, Odysseus saved on beam after
wrecking, Nestor in race contest with twins Molions; cf. Fittschen 1998;
Snodgrass 1998). Their parallels are known from Pithekoussai and on Boeo-
tian engraved fibulae.

OTHER GREEK CENTRES

Argive Late Geometric had big vases with stepped meander, leaf-shaped loz-
enges and columns of floating chevrons. Horses and birds connected with
solar symbolic are common besides the men leading horses (pl. B 5–6; the
style was imitated in SW Peloponnese, where also figural motifs start to
appear; the Argive seals (fig. 82.1) show schematic figures similar to those on
vases. Corinth produced in large quantities splendid small globular aryballoi,
alabastra and pitchers for perfumes, besides drinking service with large cup,
kotyle. Its style influenced the whole NE Greece, Sicily and SE Italy. It changed
into Early Orientalising style already in the last quarter of the 8th century.
Under the Bacchiades Corinth became rich mercantile city, even fine ivories
were carved here, stemmed as those from Athens and Eleusis from Phoeni-
cian school, but adopted to the Greek taste.
Euboean pottery came with its colonies to the west, including Etruria;
rural Boeotia was in the shade of its Attic neighbour, but it produced large
140 PART 4: Late geometric

bronze fibulae with incised figures (Hampe 1936) and female terracotta figu-
rines with hairdo of the Greek orthodox priests—papades. Cycladic schools
called Parian and Naxian may have both worked on Naxos. Melos and Thera
had their particular schools of painted pottery, including carved gems on
Melos and relief pithoi on Thera, most characteristic for Tenos. Zagora on
Andros imported much Eretrian pottery; the small town was heavily fortified
and destroyed ca. 700 BC (fig. 57). Cretan Late Geometric knew polychromy
and a number of local styles in individual regions, reflecting the split into
small poleis. It also took many impulses from the East, from Phoenicia and
Cyprus (Coldstream 2003, 271–290).
The bird bowls were made on Samos and also elsewhere in Late Geometric
and later, the large family of the Wild Goat styles started at Miletus ca. 700 BC
(Coldstream 2003, 271–290).

SCULPTURE

In the field of bronzework the main centres were Argos, Sparta, Corinth and
Athens, but at Olympia and Delphi wandering bronzesmiths casted souvenirs
for participants of feasts in various local styles. Tripods serving also as prizes
in contests were made in Argos, Corinth, Athens ad Crete. The sphyrelata,
statues mounted from beaten bronze sheets and mounted on wooden core,
are best known from Dreros in Crete and Olympia (Coldstream 2003, 126–128,
146–152, 161 f., 174–179). Thessaly and Macedonia developed besides painted
an unpainted pottery of similar shapes (fig. 31.8) interesting groups of deco-
rative bronze pendants, beads, bracelets and neck rings, later also gold and
silver jewellery (cf. here ch. 7), a field in which the rich Ionia took the lead.
Eastern Greece accepted many impulses and imports of pottery and small
sculpture from Cyprus and the Phoenicians. Small bronze figurines of par-
ticular styles were made notably in Athens, Argos, Corinth, Laconia and Crete
(cf. Coldstream 2003, 145, 174–176, 196, 202, 281–285); secondary production
centres existed notably in western part of central Greece, Thessaly and Mace-
donia (cf. ch. 7, here fig. 110). Geometric figurines strictly respected the three
dimensions of the space. In group of two each of them kept its particular
space (figs. 85–86).
Many dedications of decorative bronzework from the East arrived in
main Greek sanctuaries, Olympia, Delphi, Acropolis of Athens and even
more so in the East Aegean and Crete; Greek craftsmen took over the Oriental
monsters as inspirations and started to tame them in a process, which took
the next hundred years (cf. Coldstream 2003, 358–366). In Cyprus most of
local kingdoms were Greek, Kition Phoenician and Paphos Eteocypriot. In the
Levant Greeks lived as metoikoi and Greek pottery was imported, but even
more from the Levant to Greece.
 PART 4: Late geometric 141

The Greek renaissance was inspired by Homeric poems, by some Myce-

naean and Minoan monuments available, among them gems, and together
with Oriental models it led to transition to 7th century Orientalizing style.
The old aristocracy stylised itself as descendants of Homeric heroes, fighting
monsters and giant Polyphemus; some cases show quotations of oral poetry
(e.g., in duels of heroes, kidnapping of Helen). Some war scenes may be quo-
tations from life of the deceased or his comparison to the Homeric heroes of
aristocratic ideal. Most of Greek Geometric pottery was drinking service for
symposium; one of the first known graffiti on an Attic pitcher says: To the
best dancer!
Old Smyrna of 8th century was already town with rectangular checkboard
of blocks (fig. 80), while the revision of digs at Lato, long considered being of
8th century date, found only classical foundations (Gaignerot-Driessen 2012,
59–82). The Late Geometric iron tools, implements and armour were used also
later in Archaic Greece (fig. 81).

4.2 THE STRUCTURE OF SETTLEMENTS, TEMPLES

For the time-span covered by this book, there are many detailed surveys cov-
ering various local settlements from Cyprus and Israel, while the situation in
Greece and Italy, where large-scale excavations uncovering complete settle-
ment sites are rare, remains are less well known.
The pastoralists usually had two settlements, one for summer pasture in
the hills (like Vitsa Zagoriou), which was really theirs, and a second where
they stayed during the winters in the lowland, where they often had to estab-
lish a modus vivendi with their agricultural neighbours.2
Greece saw in late 2nd millennium tensions, reflected in the construc-
tions of strong fortifications, then their destructions and splitting into
smaller communities, and later still a deeper decline of the civilisation level.
Pirates’ nests, like Paleokastro-Maa in Cyprus, were probably the forts of the
Sea Peoples. Greek legends knew them probably as Pelasgians or, as stated
by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Pelargoi, stork-people (Dion. Halic. I, 28,3–4).
Settlements built high up in the Cretan mountains, as Karphi and those
examined recently by D. C. Haggis and K. Nowicki (Haggis 2005; Nowicki
1988, 2000), were probably those of the refugees. This situation, similar in
many ways to what happened in the Mediterranean later in the Dark Age

2 Cf. the two colloquia of the XIIIth UISPP congress Forli 1996: Coll. XXII: The evolution of settle-
ment systems and society in Europe and the Mediterranean during the Bronze Age and its pre- and
protourban developments (ed. by C. Belardelli and R. Peroni), and Coll. XXV: Primary centre and
secondary developments of urbanism in Europe (ed. by M. Bieti Sestieri and V. Kruta; Hodos 2006).
142 PART 4: Late geometric

between Roman and Mediaeval civilisations, and earlier at the end of EB II

in the Eastern Mediterranean, resulted in a new, much more primitive situ-
ation in Greece and Anatolia, while the time of decline was shorter and less
far-reaching in Cyprus, and still less so in the Levant.
The new settlement pattern starting in the 11th century is best known from
Cyprus (cf. esp. Iacovou 1994, 149–166), where there emerged at that time the
core of settlement structure of later towns, which may have been founded (on
a modest level first) at that time. In Greece and Italy, the settlement pattern of
the early Dark Age was more modest. Zagora on Andros shows a village with
more space between houses (fig. 57), Lathourza in Attica may be quoted as
an example of a densely built village with simple huts. Although already in
the 9th century BC the first urban nuclei of Etruscan cities known from later
Etruria emerged, as in Ionia, like Ancient Smyrna (fig. 80), eighth century BC
advanced in urbanisation and in establishment of Greek poleis in their later
sense. It was also the age in which official Greek history started with the first
Olympiad, as well as the semi-legendary foundation of Rome. The emerging
poleis consisted of a modest urban nucleus and smaller villages in its chora.
From the limited information we have especially from Nichoria and from
eastern Crete, thanks to the American excavations there; the Early Dark
Age villages were not much larger at first that those known from temperate
Europe (cf. also Karphi, HG fig. 41), and cattle breeding with some agriculture
represented the principal form of land use in the more fertile plains, while
sheep and goat were much more common than cattle in the hilly areas with
less high grass pasture. On this field notably A. Mazarakis brought much
useful information on Latourza and other sites (1997, 2011, 2016; Mazarakis-
Ainian 2006, 365–398). Cf. Hägg 1990, Drerup 1969; Karageorghis – Moris
2001; Karageorghis 1975.
Generally, during the earlier Dark Age the settlement pattern in Greece,
Italy and those parts of Anatolia where more information is available, were
basically similar to the “prehistoric” pattern known from temperate Europe,
while later the beginnings of urbanisation soon surpassed the modest initial
stage in Europe (cf. e.g., Ancient Smyrna, fig. 80).
The data showing settlement decrease during LH III C, and most notably
in Submycenaean — Early Protogeometric (resp. Dark Age I, and partly II)
periods, shown many years ago by P. Ǻlin and myself in HG (as Desborough
1952 and Bouzek in VDI 1962/1, 104–114) have since been generally confirmed,
and even the placing into the Early Dark Age what was the main character-
istic of Athenian synoicism (i.e. the concentration of population to Athens;
for Zagora cf. Cambitoglou et al. 1972, 1981; for Lathourza Mazarakis Ainian
1995, 46–61), is now considered being a plausible theory (Gelder 1991, 55–64).
The first significant increase of population belonged to later 9th century
in most parts of Greece, and the 8th century saw a steady and rapid increase
 PART 4: Late geometric 143

to the late 8th BC century climatic crisis, when population density hit its lim-
its, and drought brought famine. The curves of climatic development and set-
tlement density in the Mediterranean and in Central Europe were generally
complementary to each other (fig. 13–14). The change in the first half of the
8th century, catastrophic in Central Europe (Primas 2016, 271–378), brought
more rains and rise of population in Greece; the late 8th century drought
in Greece caused tensions, civic struggle and the first wars on a larger scale
(like the Lelantine war in Euboea; McKesson 1983, 54–62; cf. Carpenter 1966).
Greek colonisation offered an answer to many adventurers, who would not
be able to survive in their native communities.
The 7th century BC settlement pattern has basically two different models:
those poleis which founded colonies and developed significant sea-borne
trade, developed new rich class of merchants and artisans more rapidly,
while in other parts of Greece the land aristocracy retained its power longer.
We leave this development at the close of the Archaic period of Greece and
Etruria, with urban centres well-developed and fortified; such communities
surpassed their predecessors in the second millennium BC.
Eighth century temples are represented in all main Greek sanctuaries.
Long halls with two or three naves prevail; the small in antis type is known
especially from models (GAE 64–67; fig. 58 and 66), the metal armour, weap-
ons and ornaments are finer (HG 152–61; Coldstream 2003, 303–340; Mazara-
kis Ainian 1997a). Besides the bronze pendants, bracelets, beads and plaques,
serving as common jewellery and ex-vota in sanctuaries, the finer of gold
becomes more common, too (cf. here Part 7) and the life standard of the
upper and middle class ceases to be of prehistoric character. The new syn-
thesis looked to the old heritage of the Mycenaean past, it takes over many
impulses from its Anatolian neighbours, Phoenicians, Syrians, Neo-Hittites
and also from Egypt (Coldstream 2003, 334–369, 390–414). Greek civilisation
and art enter the new age called Orientalising, with inspiration from more
sophisticated close and more distant neighbours, but at the same time inspir-
ing its less sophisticated neighbours as the leading force in founding after the
Geometric koine the new one, which uses to be called Orientalizing (cf. here
Part 8).

4.3 REVIEWS

A. J. N. Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 900–700 BC, 2nd edition. London, Rout-

ledge 2003.3

3 Addendum to the review in Gnomon 53, 392–394.

144 PART 4: Late geometric

Against the similar second edition of The Dark Age of Greece by Anthony
Snodgrass (Edinburgh 2000), who added only a very short chapter and left
most of the text untouched, Nicolas Coldstream improved some pages and
added an exhaustive supplement (pp. 371–415). But it is fascinating to see how
much of the first edition published in 1977 remained sound, how little prog-
ress has been made when compared with the “revolutionary” syntheses of
late sixties and seventies of the last century. The sovereign competence
of the author is clear from the addenda and also from the small improve-
ments of the original text. Important new finds are listed and commented
in the addendum, relations to the Near East thoroughly analyzed with great
competence. The Phoenician impact in the Aegean is one of the fields where
our knowledge significantly enlarged since the first edition of this book, and
the new evidence is fully respected in the new edition. J. N. C. is one of the
scholars who follow one particular subject during the whole life and no one
can compete now with him in the competency in his proper field. A new article
by him on Protogeometric pottery found at Tell Rehov in Israel (published in
Israel Exploration Journal 53, 2003, 29–48) is one of his many detailed studies on
various aspects of the Dark Age, a field in which he is a real master, equally in
details as in synthetic picture. The key period of emergence of Iron Age Greece
is seen from his point of view very well, but other aspects should be added to
get the complete picture. There is very little in the book on anything in North-
ern Greece and the Balkans is completely outside the author’s field of interest.
A similar situation is in the topic of interpretation of Homeric poems in the
frame of the period (the enlarged knowledge of 10th–9th century suggests that
the ancient tradition need not be wrong and that the “Proto”-Homer may have
lived around 900 BC), on the general problems of transition from the Age of
Heroes to the Age of Iron, well described in different characters of the heroes
in the Iliad, on the first steps toward the Greek philosophy, on the “birth of
logos”, etc. These phenomena deeply studied a. o. by Jean-Pierre Vernant
or Bruno Snell seem also to interest the author much less than the empiric
study of archaeological finds, notably pottery, the main bulk of archaeological
sources of this period. In the questions outside C.’s main field of interest one
finds less in the book under review than many readers may have expected.
In my eyes it concerns also the questions of northern relations of Geometric
Greece, a field where our opinions were still not identical, though otherwise
one can agree with nearly anything what he wrote.

B. J. N. Coldstream: Greek Geometric Pottery. A survey of ten local styles and their
chronology. Updated second edition. Bristol, Phoenix Press 2008.4

4 Cf. Gnomon 82, 668–669.

 PART 4: Late geometric 145

Nicolas Coldstream was one of the masters of the empiric British school which
established stylistic classification of Greek painted pottery following the path
of J. D. Beazley. He participated in excavations in Knossos and Kythera and
published books on Knossos cemeteries and pottery, but his main oeuvre was
the classification of Greek Geometric pottery. The first edition of this book
became the basic manual to all archaeologists dealing with the Geometric
period in Greece and the most important archaeological background of
the later part of so-called Dark Age, to whose enlightenment he basically
contributed. He was a perfect example of British gentleman at his best,
excellent teacher with many students from Britain, USA, Greece and other
countries, but during most of his professional career he was concentrated
in Geometric age of Greece, to which he also contributed in many papers to
international colloquia and collective works.
The second edition of his oeuvre on Geometric pottery will undoubtedly
remain the basic source for anyone who wants to deal with Geometric Greece
and Greek colonisation. All important new publications are thoroughly
discussed in the addenda, which form one third of the book under review, and
some passages have also been rewritten in the main part of the text taken over
from the first edition. The photographs on the plates are taken over from the
first edition, the hardbound second edition is in all respects of high quality.
New ascriptions of individual vases to in the first edition defined workshops
are not many. My impression was that also a series of minor vases could be
added to some of his workshop groups, but also did not proceed much farther,
and C.’ self-criticism did not allow him to go beyond the limits of what he
considered to be safe conclusions.
In Kuhn’s terminology the paradigm of the mainstream of Classical
archaeology has been changed and the classification of objects is no more that
much the central task of the field, as it was for the older generation and its
main prophet Sir John Beazley, but the book remains—besides other classify-
ing works by J. M. and R. M. Cook on East Greek pottery, of Jack Benson and
A. D. Amyx on Corinthian vases, etc.—the background of all further studies
in any respect, also for those whose paradigm has changed. Nowadays it is
believed by many specialists that the scientific analysis of clay is more impor-
tant than the style for classification, but this is hardly true, and the stylistic
framework will also in the future remain one of the basic sources for study-
ing and understanding interrelations between individual areas and sites,
individual masters, their workshops and their clients as well as for general
history of art and of the human mind behind. The rich varieties of Geometric
styles in individual poleis show the competitive spirit characteristic for all
Greek culture and stylistic varieties of the workshop groups also the pride
of individual potters and painters on their products. Nicolas Coldstream was
146 PART 4: Late geometric

still able to follow the printing of the book; he died in March 2008, just still
able to finish his last proofs.
His death marks, after the death of R. M. Cook a few years ago, the end
of the activities of the generation whose main task was the detailed classi-
fications of stylistic groups of Greek vases in the empirical way. One of the
approaches to study of Greek Geometric art as a system of schools and work-
shops is in a way accomplished, but many other questions remain. The num-
ber of identified settlements and cemeteries with Geometric finds enlarged
substantially, the new documents on mutual influence between the Greeks
and their neighbours in Greek colonies enlarged the picture of Greek pottery
styles, the scientific analyses of clay open new perspectives, as do new stud-
ies of iconography. To the problems not tackled in C’s books belongs, among
others, the question of correlation of the archaeological picture with the two
main literary works of this age. The relation of Geometric art to Homer and
Hesiod remained here beyond the scope of interest of the author, as were
the questions of the rise of Greek polis, of the patterns of Greek colonization
and of the transition to philosophical approach to reality, to Greek rational
logos. But anyway, thanks to Nicolas Coldstream, it is much easier to try to
proceed forward also in other fields of study of Early Iron Age Greek art and
civilization.

C. Irad Malkin, A Small Greek World, Networks in the ancient Mediterranean,

Oxford UP 2011, 284 pp. with illustrations.5

The book deals with some previously neglected aspects of Greek colonisa-
tion based on historical sources and on some theoretic concepts, which he
explains in the introduction called “Networks and history”. He found models
for his approach first among those historians who refused the 19th century
explanations based on that-time nationalistic and colonial positions of
European scholars. Individual stories on heroic expeditions and founding of
colonies were paroles of the common langue of mythology, the field of stories,
where Greeks, Phoenicians, Etruscans and their neighbours held similar pat-
tern of their views. The network of interrelations was based on links between
many local centres, none of imposing obligatory cultural unification, as it
existed e.g. in the Roman Empire. The author compares the network of
Archaic Greece with our internet, as loosely organized system without uni-
fying respected centre. Being not an archaeologist, however, he jumps over
the Dark Age situation and does not discuss the shift from state-organized
expeditions, as they still existed at the time of Salomon and his ally Hiram,

5 First published in Ancient West and East 11 (2012), 211–212, additions.

 PART 4: Late geometric 147

to the privately funded ventures, joining trade with piracy; the privatisation
of the sphere was established during the 9th–8th centuries.
The well-known passage with Herodotus distinguishes several stages of
trade contacts: of which fine Greek pottery starts to play more important role
only in the stage, in which the settlers try to continue their specific dining
habits as expression of their identity and transmit these customs also to their
local neighbours. The first groups of settlers have usually few women with
them and they take wives from the local population (cf. Bouzek 2009, 19–22,
with further biblography).
Some early emporia are known notably from early Phoenician founda-
tions behind the Straits of Gibraltar. The literary tradition dated their origin
ca. 1100 BC, Phoenician and Greek pottery and C14 dates show these sta-
tions fully developed in 8th century. Generally, the Phoenicians preceded
the Greeks in merchant ventures in most parts of the Mediterranean, and
the story was generally accepted also in Greek tradition on thalassocracies
(cf. esp. Brandherm – Trachsel, eds. 2008).
The following chapter, “Island networking and Hellenic convergence:
from Rhodes to Naukratis”, discussed the area with close links with Cyprus
and also with the Phoenicians, who lived as metoikoi producing glass, faience
and textiles in Rhodes and in other East Greek cities, including the Black Sea
area (cf. Bouzek 2012a, 125–134).
The chapter “Sicily and the Greeks: Apollo Archegetes and the Sikeliote
network” also needs some addenda on the Phoenicians who, according to
Thucydides VI, 2–3, did not like to fight and left most parts of Sicily to the
Greeks. Greek legends ascribed even foundations of non-Greek cities in
Italy and the Adriatic to heroes of the Trojan War. Of often syncretic figures
Heracles and Melqart, considered by the author “identical networking
heroes”, the former was less common founder of Greek apoikias, whose
patron was mostly Apollo (also for his Delphic oracle), but was probably wor-
shipped in places like Pithekoussai, where Greeks, Phoenicians and North
Syrians lived together while trading for common benefit.
The last two chapters deal with “Networks and middle grounds in the
western Mediterranean” and “Cult and identity in the Far West: Phokaians,
Ionians and Hellenes”. The stories of origin of colonies, of their relation to
mother-city, of relations between sanctuaries, but also of common inter-
est, were all aspects of mutual influence and dependence of the network, in
which the sea was more connecting than dividing factor.
The book under review enlightens several aspects of Greek colonisation,
while for other aspects the reader has to look elsewhere. From the point of
view of an archaeologist the book is based mainly on written sources only
and needs complementary approach respecting archaeological evidence. On
the other hand, archaeologists should be grateful to the author for enlight-
148 PART 4: Late geometric

ening aspects of Greek colonisation and cohabitation with their neighbours

neglected in other books on the subject.

4.4 PRECOLONISATION IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

AND THE BLACK SEA

Phoenician and Greek pre-colonisation in the West entered now more into the
focus of interest of scholarship than it was usual earlier (cf. esp. Celestino –
Rafel – Amada, eds. 2008) and the time seems to be ripe to approach a similar
phenomenon in the Black Sea on the base of the recent state of research more
in detail than it was possible twenty years ago (cf. Bouzek 1990a, 13–17).6

FIRST GREEK POTTERY FINDS IN THE BLACK SEA

The knowledge of the earliest painted pottery and trade amphorae in the
Black Sea much enlarged during the last decade. The Middle White Goat I pot-
tery is known not only from a number of Scythian tumuli, but also from the
first Greek settlement at Orgame, Histria and Berezanj, from inland sites, like
Belskoe gorodishte, and it was also identified among the finds from the Tagan-
rog site (survey Tsekhladze 2007 and 2015). Similarly the bird bowls set from
Taganrog started in the second quarter of the 7th century, the third quarter of
that century is already well attested in many sites (Bouzek 2007a, 1223–1228)
and the earliest transport amphorae came there not much later. This situation
was now again well documented by G. Tsetskhladze (Tsekhladze 2007), while
the historical sources for the earliest colonisation are now summed up by
Jan de Boer (de Boer 2007, cf. also Maximova 1956 and Doonan 2007). Middle
White Goat I sherds and the early bird bowls of the same date—2nd quarter to
mid 7th century—are known not only from the Greek colonies, but also from
Scythian graves and settlements partly far away from the sea. The discussion
on what was five or ten years earlier according to one more fragment appears
similarly little fruitful as was the old discussion on relation between Syracu-
sae and Megara Hyblaea foundations by Valet and Villard in the fifties of the
last century. But the fact that the mid 7th century came even in remote plates
suggests that the links with the population of the area (Thracians, Scythians,
Colchis, etc.) were established in some way earlier.
But the earlier history of Greek contacts with the Black Sea area is more
difficult to trace by pottery finds. The authenticity of 8th century finds of pot-

6 Revisited paper first presented to Istanbul Black Sea congress, Istanbul, 14th–18th September
2009 (Bouzek 2013c). A more exhaustive list of early Greek pottery in the Black Sea gives now
Tsetskhladze 2015, 11–42.
 PART 4: Late geometric 149

tery from Histria and Berezanj have been doubted. Pottery is more important
for archaeologists than it was for ancient people. Even nowadays, it does not
have especially important role in cultural identity of people who use them.
There is an ongoing discussion on for whom Greek pots were imported. John
Boardman thought that they came for Greek colonists (Boardman 2004), while
Nicolas Coldstream was convinced that they were attractive enough also for
non-Greeks (Coldstream 2003). Finds of Greek pottery from Scythian tombs
speak in favour of the second opinion. Greek drinking service was probably
more important for the settlers who wanted to continue their way of life with
their drinking habits, but it was also recognized as valuable exotic objects
contributing to the prestige of its possessors, among them non-Greeks, too.

IONIANS AND SCYTHIAN ART

While the early phase of Scythian art, during the second and third quarter
of the 7th century stood under a strong influence of the Assyrian art, as
especially documented now by the finds from the tombs of Assyrian queens
at Nimrud, around 640 the Ionian influence became the most decisive and it
remained so until the end of the 6th century both in jewellery and toreutics
(Bouzek 2007a). In the field of terracottas, connected with traditional cults
introduced by the colonists, non-Greeks had less interest in adopting for-
eign models, but as concerns male and female jewellery and toreutics, the
Scythians were willing to be served by their Greek neighbours since art
was accessible to them, and the Greek willing to work for their Scythian
customers.

FIRST TRACES OF GREEK CONTACTS WITH THE BLACK SEA AREA

The sudden rising of Greek settlements in the second and third quarter of
the 7th century could not be realized without previous knowledge. There was
some oral tradition recording that the Greeks tried to settle in the Black Sea
region, notably at Amissos and perhaps elsewhere as well, in late 8th cen-
tury. However, this attempt had no good luck due to the Cimmerian invasion
(cf. Maximova 1956, Doonan 2007, de Boer 2007). Legendary stories on the
penetrations in the Black Sea by the Argonauts are dated in the mythological
time earlier than the Trojan War, and the limited number of analyses made
so far pointed out that the Shaft Graves gold came from Transylvania. Myce-
naean swords are known from Bulgaria and Romania (cf. Bouzek 1990a, 13–17;
2007b, 1222).
Reports on Thracian thalassocracy following that of the Pelasgians can
be placed in the Dark Age. The finds of Bronze Age types of stone anchors
from the Bulgarian coast are not dated properly, while the finds of Myce-
150 PART 4: Late geometric

naean pottery in this area are in most cases doubtful (Bouzek 2007b). The
alleged finds of Geometric pottery from Histria and Berezanj, however, have
not been confirmed by modern digs; the Cypriot Black-on-Red fragments of
Histria are not exactly dateable (Bouzek 1990a, 17f.). The precolonial trade had
rather other reasons than bringing pottery to the local inhabitants. Pottery is
certainly more important for archaeologists than it was for early travellers;
similar situation was with the earliest trading stations of the Phoenicians in
the Western Mediterranean.
In the field of bronze objects, some parallels derived from links caused by
others, like the Belozerka elements with links westwards, but the Hordeevka
cemetery already shows influences from the south, west and east in its jewel-
lery; the Tiryns and Alumière types of amber beads show links to the Baltic
region and to the Aegean as well. In the Cimmerian period, many types of
bronze objects link the Caucasus area with the Balkans and even connections
with Central Europe are attested, while Caucasian bronzes are known for ex.
from Samos Heraeaum (pl. B 1.6, B 4.4–5; ch. 7–8). The earliest of the Cauca-
sus fibulae are closely similar to East Greek variants (cf. Bouzek 1990a, 16–18).
All these elements show that some contacts between the Aegean and the Black
Sea existed prior to colonization and pottery imports, too. The Mediterranean
LBA ingots from Bulgaria, the Bronze Age anchors and other objects (Bouzek
2007c) show that even during the Dark Age there was some continuity of rela-
tions between the Aegean and the Black Sea, though on much more modest
scale than later.

SUPPOSED STAGES OF TRADE CONTACTS AND PRE-COLONISATION

The well-known passage with Herodotus (IV, 196) shows the simplest kinds
of trade contacts.
1. The most simple stage is visits by ships at some intervals, with some
arrangements for the exchange of goods. In the case of the silent trade,
the newcomers put their goods on the exhibits and the other side also put
besides theirs for exchange. Goods are added from both sides, and when
both are content, they pack the good of the other side and leave.
2. The next step is the merchant coming in regular intervals and expecting
his customers waiting. Both sides have to gain some knowledge on the
other, including the rules of hospitality, even if sometimes this was dam-
aged by piracy or bandits.
3. The third stage requires marketing places and agents on the spot (port
of call, the main village in the area, under the supervision of the local
ruler).
4. The more sophisticated stage requires metoikoi living in the place and
organizing the system of trade/exchange.
 PART 4: Late geometric 151

5. If more merchants settled, an emporion is founded or a quarter of for-

eign traders (like the Assyrian merchants had at Boghazköy). Fine pottery
starts to play more important role only in the stage 5, in which the settlers
try to continue their specific dining habits as expression of their identity
and transmit it also to their local neighbours.
6. The first stage of colonization is founded to improve the conditions of
trade with the locals and safeguarding the naval base against the rivals
(as did the Phoenicians against the Greeks, the Portuguese stations in
16th century in Africa or the Genuans in the medieval Black Sea). The first
groups of settlers have usually few women with them and they take wives
from the local population.
7. Full scale colonization including large groups of settlers with their
families was nearly everywhere in human history caused primarily by
economic or political difficulties in the original homeland. In the Black
Sea, the main reason for large-scale emigration was the pressure of the
eastern neighbours of the Ionian cities; in Miletus the diminishing of
agricultural chora by the Lydians in late 7th century and after the Persian
occupation in the 540’s (cf. Tsekhladze 2002).

MAIN COMMODITIES TRADED IN THE PRE-COLONIAL

AND EARLY COLONIAL PERIOD

The pre-pottery phase of Greek trade with the Black Sea was apparently
concentrated in the more important commodities; metals were as important
for antiquity as the crude oil is for us now. Besides the copper and gold also
iron was much in demand, and the areas in the SE corner of the Black Sea
were one of the first centres of ironworking. The areas of Histria and of
Apollonia (the latter in Strandja) had important metal production. When
the rich depositions of iron objects disappear from the Colchidean graves
it may have been caused by its higher price of metal paid by Greek traders.
The business during the early stage may have been similarly profitable as
that by Kolaios of Samos mentioned by Herodotus (IV, 52) and worth of
risking even the life. As against the Bronze Age with its state-organized
international trade, Iron Age trade was privatized and depending of the
initiatives of private entrepreneurs.

CONCLUSIONS

For all these reasons mentioned above, there is at least very probable that
there existed in the Black Sea, as did in the Mediterranean, a precolonisation
phase of Greek trade, in which ships travelled across the Bosporus north-
wards, and made use of trade possibilities at least with metals, the nervus
152 PART 4: Late geometric

rerum of all ancient civilisations. The pre-colonial phase prior to the second
quarter of the 7th century prepared the know-how for the sudden outburst of
Greek interest in the Black Sea and also the willingness of the Scythians and
of other peoples of the region to accept Greek wares, merchants and crafts-
men. A symbiosis evolved, useful for all participants. It created a community
in which all participants preserved their identity for centuries, but they also
participated in the same network of a broader commonwealth for the ben-
efit of all, similarly as we try to do it in our days. Greek sanctuaries received
gifts from the east, north and Italy, the metals preceded usually the pottery
(I. Kilian 1985, 2003, 2007; Hägg, ed. 1985; Bielefeld 1968).
 PART 4: Late geometric 153

DIPYLON

FORTETSA

THERA

Fig. 75: Types of graves. Dipylon cemetery Athens, Fortetsa near Knossos, Crete, and Thera.
After GAE.
154 PART 4: Late geometric

Fig. 76: “Plattenbau”, burial district of an aristocratic family in Kerameikos. After HG.

Fig. 77: Two scenes of prothesis on Attic LG vases in Oxford and Louvre. After HG.
 PART 4: Late geometric 155

Fig. 78: South Italy and Sicily in 8th century BC. 1 Middle Geometric pottery, 2 Late Geometric,
3 Early Potocorinthian, 5 historically known colonies without safe finds of 8th century. Full
symbols – Greek sites, empty – Italic and Phoenician sites. 1 Motya, 2 Gela, 3 Modica,
4 Finocchito, 5 Castellucchio, 6 Syracusae, 7 Thapsos, 8 Megara Hyblaea, 9 Leontinoi,
10 Ossini, 11 Catane, 12 Naxos,13 Taormina, 14 Zancle, 15 Mylai, 16 Rhegion, 17 Canale,
18 Kroton, 19 Sybaris, 20 Metapont, 21 Tarent, 22 Leporano, 23 Pithekoussai, 24 Kyme,
25 Nola, 26 Suessula, 27 Capua, 28 Rome, 29 Vei, 30 Narce, 31 Tarquinia, 32 Vulci, 33 Bisenzio,
34 Chiusi. After HG.
156 PART 4: Late geometric

Fig. 79: Charioteers with one or two horses, Attic LG I B – II A, after HG.

Fig. 80: Old Smyrna in 8th century BC. After Nicholls. and HG
 PART 4: Late geometric 157

3 4
2

6
5 8

7
9

Fig. 81: 8th–7th century BC tools and implements. 1 Amyklai, 2 Athens, Acropolis,
3–9 Arkades, Crete. After HG.

2
1 3 4

Fig. 82: Late Geometric gems. 1 Argive Heraeum, 2 Perachora, 3 Melos, 5 base of horse figurine
from Argive Heraeum. After HG.
158 PART 4: Late geometric

6
3 5
2 4
1 7

11
10

8 9

12
13 14 15

Fig. 83: Macedonian and North Greek pendants. 1 Aetos, Ithaca, 2–3 Olympia,
4–5, 8 Macedonia, 6–7 Chalcidice, 9–10, 15 Tegea, 11, 13–14 Pherai, 12 Dodona. After HG.

Fig. 84: Late Geometric I kantharos: birds and solar wheel. After GAE.
 PART 4: Late geometric 159

1 3

Fig. 85: Heracles and Centaur, Heracles and lion, man and horse, groups of Late Geometric
figurines. After GAE.

1 2

3 4 5

Fig. 86: Bronze figurines from Olympia. After Furtwängler.

160 PART 4: Late geometric

Fig. 87: Odysseus on wrack on an Attic Late Geometric pitcher. After HG.

Fig. 88: Nestor in racing contest with twins Actorions/Molions on Attic LG I vase.
 PART 4: Late geometric 161

4.5 XOANA AND LACONIAN WOODEN SCULPTURE

The actual appearance of xoana, the slightly adapted tree frunk, and dressed
in a real textile gown, is a matter of intensive discussions since the begin-
nings of Classical Archaeology. Crude wooden statues are known from peat
bogs in Britain and Denmark (Bouzek 2000) and comparable clay figurines
from Olympia (Heilmeyer 1972), LH III C Phylakopi (Renfrew et alii 1985) and
in Central Europe (figs. 37.4–6 and 89.2; cf. here ch. 2.2). The Protogeometric
bronze statuettes are also very similar, and as shown above for birds, Sparta
conserved archaic traits more closely related to the art of prehistoric Europe
than it was in other Greek poleis. The sophisticated level of wooden sculp-
ture seems to be reflected by Late Geometric ivory figurines from the Dipy-
lon cemetery and several small wooden statues from Samos and Sicily (GAE
140, 147, HG 184; cf. Rolley 1994; Donohue 1988, 12–16, 195–218; Bouzek 2000).
The Spartans were considered—partly correctly—as a community with
no sense for finer arts, though this was not always so.7 Tyrtaios wrote for
military education and warfare, Terpandros, Thaletas and Alkman for reli-
gious festivals and to deal with internal problems of the polis. But Pausanias
knew one Spartan artist named Gitiadas, who became famous as an archi-
tect, sculptor and poet in one person. Very probably the artistic production
known from Sparta in the 7th and 6th century BC was mainly in the hands
of perioikoi, not in those of the full-right citizens, but the metoikoi or the
non-Doric part of population in various Doric cities played the major role in
artistic production almost everywhere, with only few exceptions. Certainly
until c. 550 BC, Sparta could be measured in her artistic achievements as well
comparable with other Greek centres. It was only after the Graeco-Persian
wars that Sparta became a military garrison with few full-right citizens, fear-
ful of possible rebellions. As Sparta had no great historians comparable to
that of Thucydides, it became also too much an object of one-sided caricatur-
izing description of those, who were Spartan enemies (cf. Oliva 1971).
In the beginning Sparta was not entirely different from other Greek poleis.
There was a Mycenaean palace below the Menelaion, lying east of Sparta, at
the site well protected in antiquity by steep rocks and by the river. There may
have been a kind of sanctuary of Helen and the Dioskouroi there already in
the Dark Age, but the evidence is fairly slight, and perhaps only the ruins of
the Mycenaean palace gave site to the legends and to the foundation of the
sanctuary here in the late 7th century BC. The Amyklaion, lying some 5 km
south of Sparta, was considered the main sanctuary of Laconia by Polybios
(V,19). Not much has been preserved, but the architectonic remains date from

7 First part is a brief summary of a paper in Bouzek 2000, 109–113, the second part was first pub-
lished in Festschrift Frel, Eirene 36, 36–42; cf. also Pipili 1991; Salapata 1993; Todd – Wace 1906.
162 PART 4: Late geometric

the 6th century, and the description by Pausanias of the main architectonic
monument as a kind of throne (XI, 2, 3) does not contradict this date; many
finds from the Amyklaion, however, originate from the 7th century BC. The
best known Archaic sanctuary of Sparta is that of Artemis Orthia, extensively
examined by the British School (Dawkins et alii 1929).
Eleusinion, lying at the foot of the western mountain ridge of Taygetos,
is only described by Pausanias (III, 20, 3–5); according to Herodotus (IV, 1),
Minyans expelled from overseas settled there. The mythical tradition of the
sanctuary of Demeter placed its origins in the Bronze Age, but the earliest
finds from the site are Hellenistic.
The artistic level of Laconian pottery produced since the Late Geometric
period was well comparable with that of other Greek centres, notably during
the Archaic stage. Exports of Laconian pottery started in the late 7th century
and continued until the middle of the 6th, but later faded off. This was due not
only to the interior situation of Sparta, but equally to the superior quality of
Attic products, which ousted also other Greek fabrics from the market (Stibbe
1996, 163–203, 1972, 1984, 1994).
The beginnings of the Laconian bronze sculpture show some types of
Geometric animal figurines: horses and birds in the first place; the simple
types often come near to woodcarvings (Bouzek 1967 and 1997a, 200.202). The
small bronze sculpture is often of high quality, and several independent types
evolved.
The Vix krater and its parallels from Trebenište stem from the Laconian
artistic tradition, but were probably made in Magna Graecia (contra Stibbe
1996, 128–162, cf. esp. Rolley 1983 etc.). Croissant (1988, 150–166), who favours
Corinth, shows certainly more distant parallels, but all schools in the Pelo-
ponnese must have been interrelated, and this is also true of Great Greece.
Two Laconian sculptors known to Pausanias, Ariston and Telestas, were
bronziers (Paus. VI, 23, 7 mentions their statue of Zeus standing in the altis);
the name of Telestas is engraved on one rim fragment of a bronze hydria.
The piece dates from the beginnings of the 6th century, and the girl’s head
attached to the handle finds parallels, as Stibbe points out, both in the ivory
heads found in the “Kroisos treasure” at Delphi and in the Hera head from
Olympia (Stibbe 1996, 144–8).
Laconian ivories and bone carvings from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia
in Sparta (Dawkins a. o. 1929; Marangou 1969) belong to the best items of
their kind we have from all Greek lands. Laconian carvings of the 7th and
the first part of the 6th century offer the best preserved series in all Greece.
The artistic level of the preserved monuments differs, but the best items, like
Marangou 1969, fig. 30, no. 15 366 show real mastery, superior to many con-
temporary works from other parts of the Greek world.
 PART 4: Late geometric 163

Laconian stone reliefs and ivories show a particular iconography differ-

ing from other Greek landscapes. Artemis Orthia herself is best represented
in the ivories from her sanctuary; of the Athena representations, the palla-
dion type prevails (Pipili 1987, 41–43). Zeus is well represented on vases by the
Laconian Naukratis painter (o. c. 46–8) and elsewhere; Poseidon is mainly
known from lead figurines, while Apollo cannot be recognized in certainty,
though some lyre-players may well represent this deity (Pipili 1987, 49–52).
Dionysus and Hermes and Hephaistus are only occasionally represented.
Of the heroes, Dioskouroi were a popular pair in Laconia, having been
born there (Pipili 1987, 54–58). Representations of the mighty Doric hero
Heracles are more frequent than all other heroes, but Perseus with Gorgon,
Bellerophon with Chimaira, the Kalydonian boar-hunt and the ambush of
Troilos were popular subjects for Laconian vase painters as well, besides the
story of the blinding of Polyphemus, and one cup bears the best-known rep-
resentation of Prometheus in all Greek art.
Reliefs of dead heroes illustrate also Dionysus and Demeter, thus resem-
bling the Egyptian tradition of Isis and Osiris as the divinities of resurrec-
tion; the famous pillar-shaped stele has usually be interpreted as Menelaos
and Helen, but other suggestions have also been made (Pipili 1987, 30–31).
One statue of a helmeted warrior from Samos is related to Spartan sculp-
ture (Stibbe 1996, 234–240); one fragment of a statue has been reconstructed
as bearing goddess helped by two small male figurines, Daktyloi or perhaps
Dioskuroi (reconstruction Stibbe 1996, 245–253).
Of the stone sculpture, the famous Hera head from Olympia might well
have been the work of a Laconian sculptor. It shows the features character-
istic for woodcarving—flat relief tractation, respect for the characteristic
inner structure of the wood. The same quality can also be observed in many
Spartan reliefs (Hibler 1991, 1993; Lorenz 1991; Rolley 1994, 238–40). This is
equally characteristic for Spartan ivories: carving in ivory was always near
to woodcarving, especially hard wood.
Most of the reliefs in Sparta and in other museums (cf. esp. the pair in
Berlin) shows a particular traits of execution: the outlines and the curves
are not made by point after point, as is usual in working marble, but by
long movements of the chisel: this is rather characteristic for woodcarving.
Though a few parallels exist in Early Archaic art from other parts of Greece
(e.g. the relief from Pythion in Thasos, Rolley 1994, 224 fig. 217), this particular
technique was nowhere as common as in Laconia. Similarly the flatness of all
protruding relief features, reminding one of the splitting of wooden planks,
is more suited to woodcarving, and rare outside Laconia. The deep incuts of
facial and other details remind one of the traces of knife incuts in woodcarv-
ing, too. Compared with the techniques used in other parts of Greece at the
time, this particularity is striking, and cannot be explained by the particular-
164 PART 4: Late geometric

ities of the local stone. The Spartan sculptors worked more often with wood,
and some of their habits persisted when they worked with stone. Laconia
had more forests on Taygetos and other mountains of the region than most
of other Greek landscapes; this is still the case, and wood was apparently con-
siderably cheaper than marble.
Pausanias mentions 6–8 Laconian sculptors who produced their works
for Olympia (Stibbe 1996, 114–16), most of them of wood or chyselephantine
(Doreikles, Medon,Theokles and his son, cf. Paus. V, 17, 1–2 for the Heraion,
VI, 19, 8 for the Treasury of Epidamnians). Dontas produced oeuvres of cedar
wood for the treasury of the Megarians: Heracles fighting Acheloos, Zeus,
Deianeira and Atlas helping Acheloos (cf. Paus. VI, 19, 12 and 14).
According to Pausanias wooden sculpture seems to have been especially
characteristic for the Laconian school, its sculptors were trained in wood-
carvings and this would confirm the observation that Laconian sculpture in
stone, as well as in bone and ivory, resemble in the style and execution tech-
nique of the main field of the traditional Spartan sculptural art, the wood-
carving, even if it is until now lost to us. Perhaps some happy circumstances
may help us to find at least some wooden sculpture in Laconia, as has already
happened in Samos.
Of course the history of Laconian art is shorter than that of Athens, but
not uninteresting in its specific traits. Still in the middle of the 5th century at
least one sculptor existed in Sparta, whose works were found in Jeraki and in
Neapolis Bion, in the south-eastern corner of Laconia. He followed the tradi-
tion of flat reliefs (it seems that he was also influenced by woodcarving, prob-
ably himself working in wood more often than in stone), but the stelae show
a fine lyrical approach comparable to the great poets of his period (Stibbe
1996, 254–258, figs. 136–137).
In any case, the high mountains surrounding Sparta offered enough
timber; wooden xoana were the first Greek statues everywhere (cf. Bouzek
2000). It was only natural that traditional Spartan artists first used wood
when they sought the most useful material for their artistic efforts, and for
their customers, who also apparently preferred less expensive monuments
than the richer Greek poleis.
 PART 4: Late geometric 165

1 2

Fig. 89: 1 Ralagham, England, wood, 2 Phylacopi, clay. After Bouzek 2000, and Renfrew.
PART 5: HOMER AND ARCHAEOLOGY

5.1 HOMER—HOW HE PERCEIVED HIS REAL ENVIRONMENT

At least a small chapter must be devoted to Homeric poems and the Trojan
War. Epic poetry existed in the Near East; the miniature fresco in Thera and
the Pylos mural scene of a bard with an oversize flying bird are strong sug-
gestions that it existed also in the Bronze Age Aegean.
The Epos volume (Aegaeum 28) was devoted to Bronze Age, and the origi-
nal heroes had still something to do with the final stage of the Mycenaean
period, but the Homeric poems were compiled later. The Trojan War was
put by ancient authors to ca. 1200 BC, the most exact date given was 1183 BC.
Homer should have been born 120 years after the Trojan War or 622 years
before Xerxes’ expedition to Greece, i.e. his life span would be approxi-
mately contemporary with that of the Lefkandi hero, whose real picture is
well matched with Homer’s descriptions. Very few pieces of weaponry in the
Iliad, like the armour of Ajax, are still fully Mycenaean, other material items
described there fit best into Early Protogeometric, i.e. one generation before
Homer’s own life-span. Ancient authors had more oral information to their
disposal than we have, and a date suggested by most of them for the Trojan
War and at least a Proto-Homer should be taken seriously (Nagy 2010). This
was clear already after the famous book by H. Lorimer (1950) and confirmed
later by the series Archaeologia Homerica and other monographs on this sub-
ject, like Colloquium Rauricum 2, 1991, K. Raddatz in PWRE 16 Hbb. etc (cf. Burk-
ert 1985; 2009). Cf. Ahlberg-Cornell 1992; Boardman 2002; Hägg, ed. 1999.
Moses Finley (The World of Odysseus, 1954) described the society best fit-
ting into 11th century BC, as it was mythologized by adding the memory in the
sense of the lieux et objets de mémoire of P. Nora. Against the earlier myths on
gods and even around Heracles, Trojan War is more rationalized, but Odyssey
in the person of its hero is facing much irrational, too.
A strong possibility was opened by new Hittite sources that Homeric
heroes had some historical models, as had the story of Late Bronze Age mili-
tary expeditions; historical models of characters of early medieval poetry
existed without any doubt. The Trojan War is a myth, but it would be strange
if it had no background. Chanson de Roland developed on the base of the
little important Roncevaux battle, the legends of King Arthur and his table,
 PART 5: Homer and archaeology 167

of Percival etc. All may well have had some living models, so why not the Iliad
and Odyssey as well? Some story told about Assyrian war machines (turtles,
etc.), may have been behind the idea of Trojan wooden horse, but the ongoing
discussion brought little new insights of importance.
A similarity between Geometric and Homeric description of human body
was first observed by Bruno Snell (1950), but now we know similar figural
representations from LH III C already (cf. Bouzek 2011d; Snodgrass 1998). The
belly omitted in the drawings of figures is not mentioned with Homeric heroes
either; only the hungry beggars at the court of Odysseus have bellies. More
important persons are marked by a larger scale in visual art as with Homer.
The structure of the Iliad was studied by many, but J. L. Myres (1932) and
C. L. Whitman (1958, cf. also Whitley 1991) came from different angles to simi-
lar conclusions. The symmetrical patterns go beyond the triglyph-metopes
scheme to more complicated systems, as for instance A–B–C–D–E–F–E–D–C–
B–A. This was correctly seen as Late Geometric compositional motif, but it was
known already to the Late Protogeometric Close Style.1
Odyssey has slightly more Late PG elements than the Iliad, for ex. in the
descriptions of the Phoenicians, but the difference does not go beyond one
generation. The name Sidonians for the Phoenicians in the Odyssey would not
be out of place. Even Egypt had some Dark Age, for a short time even Tyros,
re-founded from Sidon, and the Neo-Hittite cities had also modest darker
period in the 12th and 11th centuries.
Many scholars did not believe that oral poetry could be memorized by
succeeding generations without script, but this argument does not stand any
more, like e.g. Bhagavad Ghita or some native eposes in Africa have shown.
Nibelungenlied, Chanson de Roland and the stories on King Arthur’s circular
table, were recited long before being fixed literary, as was Beowulf and the
Serbian legends as well.
Homer wrote for the Ionians and in the first phase probably for Aeolians,
but Dorians are nearly absent. From all parts of the Trojan cycle only the two
are exceptional masterpieces and their author genius, who was rather the
founder of the Greek EIA renaissance than its result. His Homeric heroes of
the Iliad could serve as models for self-projection to 8th century aristocrats,
cunning Odysseus even to merchant ventures.
Sack of Troy supported the common Greek identity feeling: it was us who
won against the bigger enemy in the East, acquired Trojan palladium and got
final victory by truce. The core was the story of new intellectual capacity and
new identity. Against the earlier mythology on acts of gods, Trojan War was
rationalized mythology understandable to the public listening to Homer and

1 Cf. already the discussion with references Bouzek 1997a (GAE), 48–51, and especially the “Proto-
Homer” discussion, p. 321. esp. with Schefold 1985.
168 PART 5: Homer and archaeology

his followers at their stage, but criticized by Socrates in Plato’s Ion for lack of
personal distanced approach.

5.2 REVIEWS

A. Gregory Nagy, Homer the Preclassic, University of California Press 2010.2

The book written by one of the leading scholars in this field brings an excellent
survey of many aspects of Homeric studies, using very broad and multi-
sided approach, but from the point of view of an archaeologist other aspects
should be added to the evidence discussed in the book under review. Of the
Part I (A preclassical Homer of the Dark Age), the chapters on Homer and
the Athenian empire can be supplemented notably by analysis of Homeric
scenes on Attic vases. First they propagate the aristocratic values and dignity
of self-representation of the upper class. This aspect was stressed also at the
period of Peisistratid tyranny, while at the time of Graeco-Persian wars the
Trojans represented the Persian enemy and the fall of Troy the Greek victory
over its mighty eastern neighbour.
Also other chapters of the first part (Homer outside his poetry, Homer and
his genealogy, Homer in the Homeric Odyssey, Iliadic multiformities) deserve
some commentary based on the archaeological evidence. Old Smyrna and
Kyme, the most canonical birth places of Homer and his wife, were originally
Aeolian cities and there are problems in all preserved versions of his “biogra-
phy”, but the dates given do not contradict the archaeological picture (p. 141).
According to the Aeolian version 130 years after Fall of Troy Aeolian cities
were founded on Lesbos, 20 years later Kyme, then 18 years later Aeolians
founded Smyrna and Homer was born, i.e. his birthday was 168 years after
the capture of Troy, dated by this source 1270 BC. Herodotus believed that
Homer and Hesiod lived 400 years before his own time—in 9th century BC
and Aristarchus of Alexandria calculated birth of Homer 140 years after the
fall of Troy.
Part II of the book is called “A preclassical Homer of the Bronze Age” and it
is divided into six chapters: Variations on a theme of Homer, Conflicting claims
on Homer, Homeric variations on a Theme of Empire, Further variations on
a theme of Homer, Homer and the poetics in variation. Again archaeological
sources are considered only exceptionally, and without detailed insight into
the structure of available evidence. One example: on p. 310 a variety of crested
helmets is held only for palatial, but LH III C warriors on the Warrior Vase
still wore similar helmets with floating horsetail to frighten the enemy. The

2 First published here.

 PART 5: Homer and archaeology 169

high esteem of pattern-weaving goes back to the Bronze Age (cf. pp. 278–285),
but the importance of weaving patterns is especially typical for Geometric
period, as shown by its pottery decoration which stems from textiles in its
basic structure and composition.
It should be remembered, however, that the helmeted warriors and noble
women on the frescoes in the palaces could be seen there until ca. 1200 BC,
and that the Trojan War, respectively its original model for the poetry, must
have preceded the 1200 BC destructions; the middle of the 13th century may fit
best from the archaeological point of view. The story was gradually enlarged,
blown up in time and exaggerations added, as it happened in the similar case
of Roncevaux in Chanson de Roland. The volume closes with Epilegomena
called “A preclassical text of Homer in the making.”
The author distinguishes in the language of Iliad and Odyssey the first
Aeolian version, the Ionian phase of Homeric tradition gradually enlarging
and the later redaction, while he sees in the background of the Urtext also
a few traits of the Mycenaean dialect. Similarly in archaeological evidence
the overwhelming realia in the Homeric poems are of the 10th century, with
some earlier relics and very few later additions. This was clear already after
the analysis by H. L. Lorimer and was confirmed since by many others.3 The
great Homer was preliterate performer, who created the best part of the Tro-
jan cycle poems in a way much superior to the composers of Little Iliad, Iliou
Persis, and other parts of the story.4
Homeric society is certainly an ideal picture, but the ideal picture was
derived from something existing, as were Chanson Roland and Nibelun-
genlied. However, many analogies have shown that several levels of reality
do exist, but most of the realia reflect the Early Dark Age, as known since
Lorimer, Finley etc. The criticism now repeated again by A. Snodgrass does
take in account the number of analogies, some of which may fit for other
periods, too, but the complex can hardly be found anywhere else. Ancient
Greeks believed that Homer lived in the 10th century BC or around 900 BC,
and the progress made in the Dark Age archaeology only confirmed that not
only the realia, but also the structure of the Iliad and Odyssey can also find
parallels that early. If we look after parallels for the Greek Renaissance of the
8th century, we can remind us that e.g. Petrarca was earlier than quatrocento,
and that the Early Medieval eposes had their models, and the first versions in
the 6th–7th century AD. Perhaps the idea of a Proto-Homer may be the way
out in the controversy.

3 Cf. Lorimer, H. L. 1950: Homer and the Monuments, London, and the series Archaeologia Homerica,
Göttingen.
4 Cf. Bouzek, J. 2012: Three essays on Homeric Greece, Studia Hercynia 16/2, 2012, 62–65.
170 PART 5: Homer and archaeology

B. Edith Hall, The Return of Ulysses. A Cultural History of Homer’s Odyssey, Bal-
timore, John Hopkins University 2008. Library of Congress Control Number
2007942538.5

The book is devoted to reflections of Odyssey in later periods. The first part
deals with generic mutations of the story (Embarcation, Turning Phrases,
Shape Sifting, Telling Tales and Singing Songs), the second analyses the
changes of perceptions of Homeric World and society (Frontiers, Colonial
conflict, Rite of Man, Women Work and Class Consciousness) and the third
is devoted to Mind and Psyche area (Brain Power, Exile from Ithaca, Blood
Bath, Sex and Sexuality, Dialogue with Death.) The volume contains many
footnotes, exhaustive bibliography and a well organized index. But against
the reviewer’s expectations the book deals only marginally with the original
narrative and structure of Odyssey, the questions dealing with historical and
sociological stories of the time of origin of the poem are only slightly touched
as are the problems of the change of identity at the dawn of the Iron Age, the
way from myth to logos. The book deals with later perceptions, interpreta-
tions and adaptations of Homer’s Odyssey. Most of it is devoted to modern
times, though there are also comments on Roman approaches to Odysseus and
his story, including a brief commentary on visual arts as well. The approaches
taken in individual chapters show that the author in her approach was well
balanced, avoiding extreme positions; she does not go the now fashionable
way of shocking the reader with slogan-like formulations. The book shows
how the story could be reinterpreted in many ways, how its motives could be
transposed to support aesthetic, social and political views of the interpreters,
including those of fashionable gender studies. In all parts of the books she
has chosen to discuss rather interpretations and remakes of the story than
translations of Odyssey in other languages, what also reflected the position
of the translator and his or her cultural milieu.
The three parts bring interesting insights into the reflection: of stories,
narratives, recite, singing in the first part, of politics and sociology in the
second part, of state of mind in the third. So far so good, and the author can
be congratulated especially for her analysis of the history of dramatic per-
formances and theatre in the context of changing approaches and fashions in
modern theatre performances; in this field her expertise is well-founded and
especially competent. But of course—as symptomatic for our age—the prob-
lem is tackled mainly through the sources of the English-speaking milieu,
less attention is given to cultural history of Odyssey in other languages.
Several notes on modern Greek authors, however, are welcome, while the
reflections of Odyssey in France and Germany, against earlier books on this

5 First published in Ancient West and East 12, 2013, 381–382.

 PART 5: Homer and archaeology 171

subject, are limited. No attention is focused on the role of translations and

adaptations of Odyssey into minor European languages, to whose formalisa-
tion Homer’s translations of the 19th century essentially contributed, a.o. in
Finnish and Icelandic. The community of the previous generation of intellec-
tuals in Europe and America could more frequently read in several languages,
and also use those languages for their study, but it has to be admitted that the
author of the book under review is much better equipped in this field than
most of her American contemporaries, among whose the new lingua franca
seems to have largely ousted the more internationally based attitudes of the
previous generations. The book under review shows less interest in what hap-
pened with Odyssey in other languages’ novels, poetry and visual arts, but it
must be stressed that in the field of theatre history, in which the author is
apparently a very good expert, is tackled with deep knowledge even outside
the English-speaking community, and analysed with high degree of compe-
tency. And the richness of reinterpretations of various aspects of Odyssey,
notable in modern and post-modern times, in arts and philosophy as well, is
fascinating.
 PART 6: PHOENICIANS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

In the Iliad and the Odyssey, the Phoenicians are depicted as morally unclean,
not only because they were not “us”, but because their habits showed the new
qualities of the human mind born slightly later in Greece, qualities which
tended to destroy the earlier aristocratic system of values of those to whom
Homer recited his songs, of his audience. The merchants had to make their
living by trade, not by receiving taxes and services from their clients as the
aristocrats did, so that the aristocratic system of keimelia, gifts and exchange-
gifts could not be used by them. Even if the Phoenicians obeyed their kings,
they appear to have acted more independently in their enterprises. This seems
to be reflected in the story of Solomon, describing the building of the temple
and the expeditions (I. Kings 9. 27–28, 10, 22). The Phoenicians, like Hiram the
Temple-builder, acted as men free to make their own decisions. On the way
towards the emancipation of the individual from blood and pyramidal-state
relations, the Phoenicians were the predecessors of the Greeks, though later
surpassed by their pupils (cf. Niemeyer 1984; Celestino – Rafel – Amada, eds.
2008; Brandherm 2008).
Phonetic script created by Phoenicians, who developed entrepreneurial
spirit of privately run sailing, connected both to trade and piracy, was an
outcome of abstraction as well as progress in mathematics and astronomy. It
liberated human mind from overloaded memory and it was an indispensable
step of the progress in speculative philosophical thought.1

1 The following part is compiled from three previous papers on this subject, with some additi-
ons: 1. Phéniciens en Mer Noir?, in Civilisation grecque et cultures antiques périphériques, Hommage
à P. Alexandrescu, Bucarest 2000, 134–137; 2. Phoenicians in the Black Sea II, Il Mar Nero, Annali di
archeologia e storia VIII, Roma–Paris 2012, 125–132; 3. Phoenicians and Central Europe. In Gediga, B. –
Piotrowski W., eds. 2010: Rola głownych centrów kulturówych w ksztaltowaniu oblicza kulturowego
Europy środkowej we wczesnych okresach epoki želaza, Biskupin–Wroclaw, 27–40. Bouzek, J. 2011:
Prehistory of Europe as seen from its centre, Prague.
 PART 6: Phoenicians 173

6.2 PHOENICIANS IN THE BLACK SEA?

The large number of glass and faience beads in the North Pontic (Alexeeva
1975, 1978, 1982) posited since long this question, and the of syro-phoenician
terracottas from Histria (Alexandrescu-Vianu 1994) with parallels from
areas with Phoenician presence (Moscati 1980, pls. XII–XIII) in the first vol-
ume of Il Mar Nero brought this question again in the centre of interest.
It is generally known that the Phoenicians were predecessors of Greeks in
the peripheral zones of the Mediterranean, in the Atlantique and the Red
Sea (cf. Niemeyer 1984, 1995; Niemeyer, ed. 1982; Bouzek, GAE 1997, 160–167).
Phoenician sanctuary was uncovered at Kommos in southern Crete (Shaw
1989). Phoenician presence in the Aegean during the Dark Age is known from
the Homeric tradition (Il. XXIII, 741–745; Od. XIII, 271–786, XIX, 283–300, XV,
414–482) and confirmed by the broader archaeological evidence (Coldstream
1982). The famous Phoenician multi-coloured textiles (cf. Il. VI, 289-296)
are unknown as yet, but they were reflected in Greek Orientalizing pottery
and in Phoenician silver plate with engraved figures. Besides the tradition
of Phoenician thalassocracy (here ch. 3.2), their presence in the Northern
Aegean (for their gold mines on Thasos cf. Herod. II, 44) and in the Propon-
tis is recorded by many. According to a legend Pronectus in Bithynia was
founded by Phoenix or by the Phoenicians (Bunnens 1979, 360–365). Phoeni-
cians are better known as merchants than as producers, and also for their
religious ativities (cf. Bonnet 1988, 378–380 for the sanctuary of Aphrodite
Potnia on Kos, identified with Astarte marine and her partner Baal identified
with Zeus Soter), already mentioned by M. Alexandrescu (1996, 139–140). The
region of the Black Sea had important sources of metal ores, raw materials
of essential importance in antiquity.
John Boardman (1991) refused the alleged provenance of Late Geomet-
ric sherds at Histria (against Alexandrescu 1990) and Berezan, while a few
Cypriot White Painted and Black on Red sherds from Histria (Alexandrescu
1978, 63; Dimitriou 1978) cannot be dated with certainty before the second
quarter of the 7th century, the period into which the first bird bowls and
Middle White Goat I in the Black Sea belong (cf. Bouzek 1997a, 162–164; 2015;
Tsetskhladze 2015), but the situation in the field of metal objects is differ-
ent. The Lukaševka violin-bow and bow fibulae and the Hordeevka amber
beads are linked to 11th–10th centuries BC Aegean, the Transcaucasian bow
fibulae are closely similar to the insular type of Blinkenberg and those with
triangular bowl in Transcaucasia resemble the Syrian variety, also known
from the Phoenician settlements in Spain—cf. Curtis, ed. 1988 and G. Falsone
(Falsone 1988a) in the same volume; Bouzek 1990a, 15; 1997b, 190; 2013c; 2012b;
Tsetskhladze 2002; Martirosjan 1964, 276, pl. 207.4 and 109.1). From the Cyp-
riot White Painted IV–V a specific class developed in Greek North Aegean and
174 PART 6: Phoenicians

Pontic colonies (cf. Robinson, Olynthus V 1933, Pls. 32–33; Panayotova 2005 for
Apollonia Pontica, Bouzek 2013bc).
Production of glass beads in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea was
inaugurated by the Phoenicians. Beads with composed eyes are common in
the North Pontic region (Alekseeva 1975, 1978, 1982; Ščapova 1983, 97–118;
Bouzek 1990a, 129; cf. also Venclová 1990, 45–127). The raw glass came from
the Levant, some of the beads were imports, others from local workshops,
but after Phoenician models. Phoenicians produced glass and faience on
Rhodes (cf. Webb 1978) and elsewhere in Ionian cities. At the time of Great
Colonisation the Greeks and Phoenicians could collaborate for profit at
Pithekoussai and elsewhere in the western Mediterranean. In Sicily they
did not like to fight with the Greeks and withdraw to the western part of the
island (Thuc. VII, 1–3). During Persian occupation of Thrace and during the
Peloponnesian War the Bosporus Straits were easier available to Phoenician
ships than to Athenians. Their network consisted from small stations with
magazines and sanctuaries mainly, rarely from larger colonies (cf. Mielke –
Tappert 1997).
Sanctuaries of Aphrodite in the East Aegean and in the Pontic area, as in
Histria and perhaps Orgame (cf. V. Lungu, P. Hermary in the Istanbul Pontic
Congress—Hermary 2009; Lungu 2009), seem to have been a kind of “cultural
centres” of the Phoenicians and other Cypriots, who lived in these places
or visited them frequently. Even if Cypriot figurines appear also in other
sanctuaries, they are most characteristic just for those of Aphrodite–Astarte
(Karageorghis – Kouka, eds. 2009). Their products found their markets even
in areas situated more inland towards north and north-west.

6.3 PHOENICIAN MERCHANT VENTURES IN CENTRAL

AND WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN
AND IN CONTINENTAL EUROPE

First we should remember that some relations of the Levant with Central
Europe were also transmitted by the Philistines, who settled in Palestine.
They were probably of European origin; Goliath still wore the Central
European metal sheet armour. As believed by some, the Dan in northern
Palestine may also have been descendants of the Sea Peoples. There are,
however, reports and documents of Levantine and Phoenician activi-
ties in other parts of Europe during the Early Iron Age. The Phoenicians
had, similarly as the Hebrews, no Dark Age between the Bronze and Iron
Age like the Greeks. In the maritime adventures they much surpassed the
Greeks. Their settlements in the Mediterranean and beyond preceded
the Greek colonisation (cf. Niemeyer 1984, Niemeyer, ed. 1982; Bouzek 1997a,
 PART 6: Phoenicians 175

160–167; for the new higher dates by C14 Brandkerm 2008, for evidence in
Portugal Mayet – Tanares de Silva et alii 2000). Their ships sailed also along
the African and European shores of the Atlantic Ocean, as well as in the
Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. The foundation of their trade stations in the
West Mediterranean and beyond are dated historically around 1100 BC or
even slightly earlier. Their ships were also serving King Salomon for trans-
ports of metals from the land Ophir in South Arabian peninsula, and from
Tarshish in Spain behind the columns of Heracles (I. Kings, 9, 27–28, 10, 22).
Mogadir on the Atlantic coast of Morocco was according to the tradition
founded already in the 12th century, similarly as some other emporia in the
west (cf. Bouzek 1997a, 160–168). The Phoenicians had similar mercantile
stations and later cities in Sardinia, Sicily, Balearic Islands, in Spain and
Portugal (Celestino – Rafel – Amada, eds. 2008). Homeric poems describe
Phoenicians as excellent sailors and merchants (Il. XXIII, 741–45; Od. XIII,
271–286, XIV, 283–300, XV, 414–482). From Herodotus, Odyssey and other
written sources is known that the main interests of Phoenician activities
were rare metals, and British tin is typical for their focus of interest; gold,
silver and even amber were commodities much in demand.
Among the earliest material documents of their presence in the west are
the figurines of the Smiting God, so called Reshef figurines (Seeden 1980).
Similar figurines, however, have been found also in Šernai near Klaipeda in
Lithuania, and imitation of the type in Sweden, while a related earlier figu-
rine of female charioteer was found in Bohemia (Bouzek 1985, 69–70). Phoe-
nicians—with the only exception of Carthage—did not create mighty powers
and their penetration was more based on private initiative in the Early Iron
Age than community-based as was in the case of Greek colonisation (cf. Nie-
meyer 1984, 1995, 2003). Many Phoenicians settled as metoikoi in Etruria; the
Etruscans closed with Carthaginians an alliance which was only abandoned
when Etruria came under the rule of Rome.

PHOENICIANS AS GLASS MAKERS

The Uluburun shipwreck yielded glass ingots of probably Levantine origin

(Nicholson 1997). Large part of the raw glass known from Late Bronze Age
settlement at Frattesina in North Italy is of Levantine origin (Bieti Sestieri
1984ab; Brill 1992; Henderson 1988), as are many beads found in Hauterive–
Champréveyeres in Switzerland and in Stadtallendorf in Germany dating
from Late Urnfield period, i.e. from the 10th to 9th centuries BC (Ha B 2–3,
Henderson 1993; Lorenz 2006), and also those from Rathgall in Britain of the
9th century BC (mentioned by Brill 1992). Apparently even the technique of
producing beads was brought with the raw material, and used also by their
pupils according to the Phoenician recipes. The Dark Age glass beads in Greece
176 PART 6: Phoenicians

and Italy are also in all probability Phoenician products and brought to their
destinations by Phoenician merchants. The same concerns the Early Iron
Age scarabs found in the Adriatic and in Serbia (Bouzek 1997a, 228, fig. 277
Pilatovići-Trnjaci; Bouzek 2000b).
The Urnfield glass beads found in Bohemia were analysed as identical with
those from Frattesina (Venclová et al. 2011). The raw glass from Frattesina in
North Italy, and that used for beads from Swiss palafitti and German Urnfield
period hoards are similar; their production was probably inspired from the
Levant and was probably introduced by the Phoenicians, who stood behind
their technology, know-how. Phoenician commercial activities in marginal
regions surpassed those by the Greeks and Etruscans and their impact even
on Central European region deserves more attention.
In the Hallstatt Age beads with eyes, multiple eyes etc. are all of the Phoe-
nician designs, and some of them—very probably—even Phoenician imports
(figs. 90–91). In any case they are originally designed by Phoenician masters
who very probably also founded the secondary centres. Though most of the
beads found were not made by Phoenician masters themselves, the spirit of
their craftsmanship remained; their technology was also applied in the pro-
duction of La Tène large beads and bracelets.
Through Etruria the Phoenician merchants, eventually their agents, prob-
ably also penetrated into Central Europe, while one of their glass-making
centres was in Etruria. The green translucent beads found at Býčí skála are
very rare in Central Europe; they came probably from Italy, being very com-
mon in 8th–7th century Etruscan graves (Haevernick 1979, cf. Venclová 1990,
50 type 123; cf. Haevernick et alii 1983, 1987). The glass beads found at Závist
(pl. A 7.1–2) may also have come from Italy. Other glass-producing centres of
the Hallstatt period existed in the area of Caput Adriae, in southern France
and Spain and one also in the Northern Black Sea (Haevernick-Kunter 1995;
Venclová 1990, Bouzek 1997a, 236f., cf. figs. 90–91). The masque beads, of their
eastern or/and western variety, may well have been a source of inspiration
for masques on Early Celtic fibulae and other objects (Karwowski 2005). Later
masque beads in Slovenia (pl. A 7.4) and in Balkan La Tène contexts (fig. 92)
also derive finally from the Phoenician class (Karwowski 2005; cf. Alexeeva
1975, 1978, 1982; Ščapova 1983; Bouzek 2000b).
The maps of distribution of specific varieties show the preference of
individual variants in specific areas. From these centres, secondary centres
of glass production emerged later more in the north. Certainly not all glass
beads and other objects were made by the Phoenicians only, but it was their
ideas, their spirit, which stood behind the technology and partly also their
raw material (Wells 1980; Vagnetti 2000).
6th–5th century vessels of sand-core glass, finished by grinding, are
known also from Central Europe, a. o. from South Bohemia. The fragment
 PART 6: Phoenicians 177

of blue glass with multicoloured threads from Strakonice is of originally

Greek shape, but was apparently made in Phoenician workshop in Rhodes.
(Michálek 1991; Michálek – Venclová 1992; pl. A 7.5). Phoenician metoikoi in
Rhodes are attested also by their inscriptions and graffiti until the Hellenistic
times. They also produced faience (fig. 93; Webb 1978).
Cypriots and Phoenicians had much in common already in 11th century
(cf. Karageorghis, ed. 1994).
Their pottery was rather unattractive and not much exported, but the
4th century pottery imitating Cypriot models from Macedonia and Black Sea
could not have been made without a Cypriot inspiration (Panayotova 2005).
The Phoenician Hellenistic aryballoi in the Black Sea (Lungu 2007) show that
contacts with the Levant existed even during the Hellenistic age. Glass and
faience were specific domains of the Phoenician metoikoi everywhere in
the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea area was no exception; especially the
Bosporean kingdom had a large industry producing glass beads and faience
pendants after Phoenician models (cf. Alexeeva 1975, 1978, 1982; Šcapova 1983;
Bouzek 2000).

Phoenicians—with the only one exception of Carthage—did not create

mighty powers and their penetration was more based on private initiative in
the Early Iron Age than community-based as was in the case of Greek coloni-
sation (cf. Niemeyer 1984, 1995, 2003). Their cities in Phoenicia were usually
under some protectorate of their mightier neighbours, in the Early Iron Age
mainly Assyrians. Many Phoenicians settled as metoikoi in Etruria and also
produced glass; with the Etruscans they closed an alliance which was only
abandoned when Etruria came under the rule of Rome.
The Syrian bronze situla found at Bavaria (Mielke – Tappert 1997) was also
probably made in the Levant.
From Greek authors we know that Phoenicians were mainly interested in
metals, the most important commodities of antiquity. Herodotus (III, 114–115)
mentions in one sentence gold, tin and amber as the three main substances
coming from the north. In the 5th century, when the eastern branch of the
Amber Route was closed, Bohemia was especially important as a link in amber
trade. It had enough gold in its rivers and perhaps some tin available, too. In
this case, it would be the last mention of Bohemian tin, important commodity
during the Bronze Age and also in the Middle Ages.
Not only Etruscans and Greeks, also Phoenicians were involved in the
trade with the margins of that-time known world. Their glass beads pene-
trated much deeper in the continental Europe than any other imported Medi-
terranean objects and/or their imitations. At any case, Phoenicians cannot
be omitted when the southern influences in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age
Europe are discussed.
178 PART 6: Phoenicians

Fig. 90: Distribution of Phoenician beads with multiple eyes and their imitations in Europe
and the Mediterranean (after Haevernick – Kunter 1995).

Fig. 91: Distribution of Phoenician beads with inserted eyes and their imitations in the
Mediterraenan and in Europe (after Haevernick- Kunter 1995). Rings—on blue or light blue
ground, triangles—on yellow ground.
 PART 6: Phoenicians 179

Fig. 92: Fragment of glass from Strakonice, after Michálek – Venclová 1992.

1 2 3 4

Fig. 93: Faience scarabs from Panticapaeum. After Alexeeva.

 PART 7: MACEDONIAN BRONZES

7.1 MACEDONIAN BRONZES IN ITALY (=MB VI)

Many Macedonian bronzes from of 8th–7th centuries arrived into Greek

sanctuaries as ex vota, and they also inspired the production of similar items
in Thessalian, Boeotian and Peloponnesian workshops, but also the produc-
tion in the western Balkans, with exports to Bosnia, Serbia and even Hun-
gary; other beads and pendants were found in Greek colonies in Libya and
in Carthage. The genuine Macedonian beads in Italy are in graves mainly as
single pieces, not as many as usual for heavy necklaces in Macedonia; this is
typical elsewhere, along the periphery of their distribution (Bouzek 1989).1
Among Macedonian bronzes in Italy three groups of imported pendants,
beads, etc. can be distinguished, besides local imitations. The earliest imports
date from the second half of the 8th century; they are known from Pithekous-
sai and Cumae. The Pithekoussai graves with Macedonian bronzes date from
Late Geometric II; the juglet from Cumae came from a grave dated ca. 725 BC;
thus in both colonies the early stage of Macedonian bronzes is better dated
than in most Greek sanctuaries (cf. AAE 110–111).
Of particular interest are the in Pithekoussai I published contexts. One of
amulets (juglet) was in grave of a lady of ripe age, one bird pendant in grave
of a young boy, and other similar items had also a 15 years old girl. The earliest
Macedonian bronzes from Cumae are of the same horizon as the Pithekoussai
series, but anthropological analysis is lacking (cf. AAE 110–112).
In Pithekoussai the Greek identity did not play a decisive role; Phoeni-
cians and Syrians lived there together with the Greeks. If the modern histo-
rians the ethnicity stressed, it was more based on Thucydides report on Sicily,
where the Phoenicians preferred not to fight and let the Greeks to settle in
the south-east of the island (Thuc. VI, 2–3). Macedonian bronze talismans
in Cumae and Pithekoussai show that this category was available in Sicily in
a way comparable to Egyptian scarabs and Syrian gems.

1 First published as: Makedonische Bronzen in Italien, in Akten des Symposions Die Ägäis und
das westliche Mittelmeer, Beziehungen und Wechselwirkungen, 8. bis 5. Jh. v. Chr., Wien 1999
(2000), eds. V. Gassner, M. Kerschner, U. Muss, G. Wlach, 363–369.
 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes 181

Nicolas Coldstream (1993) analyzed the Pithekoussai bronze ornaments

and came to the conclusion that most of them were found in graves of Italic
women, married the Greek colonists. Even is some amulets even men wore,
their majority was female jewellery. It is probable that women took part in
the colonial expeditions. About Sappho is reported that she travelled several
times, and some of women who died in the colonies may have come from
Chalcidice, the area where the “Macedonian” bronzes were made. The Chal-
cidian colonies in Chalcidice were neighbours of the area of production of
Macedonian bronzes, including the inland living Chalcidians (Hammond
1995; Snodgrass 1994). Cf. elsewhere Bouzek 1997c.
The second group of imports of Macedonian bronzes belong to middle
and late phases; they are mainly known from Sicily. They came from sanc-
tuaries and graves; some of them are imports, the remaining close copies of
Macedonian models (cf. Pingel 1980).
In some sanctuaries, notably at the temple of Demeter Malophoros in
Selinus, have been found as ex-vota bronzes coming from Thessaly and Mace-
donia. This situation resembles similar finds in Greek sanctuaries in Ionia,
where similar items are represented, too (cf. Bouzek 1974b, 300–305 and
Kilian 1985, Pingel 1980, 170–173, for Ephesus Klebinder 2000). These deco-
rative and talismanic objects were also memories of the donors, presented
either by Greek colonists, or by metoiks living in them.
Of the Sicilian graves with Macedonian bronzes the Grave 660 of Megara
Hyblaea contained a rich set of Macedonian bronzes; in other graves only
beads or other single pieces, perhaps of talismanic value, were offered. The
graves at Megara Hyblaea are known from descriptions. The dead were buried
in sarcophagi, the dedications to the deceased included fine Greek pottery;
they were representing the local upper class (cf. the list below). The dating
of grave 660 is uncertain, the grave context cannot be recontructed safely,
but the dating into the third quarter of the 7th century is the most probable
(cf. Bouzek 1997a, 111). Other graves of Megara Hyblaea with late Macedonian
bronzes contained Greek 7th century pottery, too. In the case of Grave 660
the set of ornaments suggests that the deceased was a missionary of her sect
from Macedonia or her daughter (fig. 94 above). The isolated ornaments from
other graves may have had a talismanic value for their masters; they were in
similar position also when dedicated to the sanctuary, and were probably free
accessible in the market (cf. Hodos 1999).
In Sicily there are relatively common locally made bronze beads similar to
Macedonian, but also to those in the Corinthian sphere produced forms; this
concerns notably two varieties of beads and also the local variety of peacock.
Syracusae may have played a substantial role in the distribution of Macedo-
nian and related bronzes in Sicily.
182 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes

But the commonest variety of bronze beads is longer and without collars
on the ends. They belong to usual ornaments on Siculan necropoleis, even
if inspired from Macedonian models. Two varieties can be distinguished,
(MB = Bouzek 1974a, 105 group C 2, p. 119 group L), and both show only distant
relation to the “genuine” Macedonian bronzes, which are represented in Sic-
ily in Greek graves mainly but even in the graves of the local Siculi (Bouzek
1974b, 306, 1989; Pingel 1980).
Thessaly and the neighbouring Macedonia were considered homeland
of witches and sorcerers: The Thessalian witches were famous in Greece.
Much in the Macedonian bronzes is similar to the Caucasian and Cimmerian
symbolic objects and their parallels are even recently used by shamans para-
phernalia (Bouzek 1974b, 326–335, cf. Bouzek 1997a, 187–207). The magic con-
notations of Macedonian and related objects are reflected also in jewellery in
the Balkans in Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic periods (Bouzek – Ondřejová
1991). Even in recent Caucasian folklore there are traces of similar beliefs. It is
probable that these objects: pendants, beads, small vessels, had also in Sicily
the significance of magic amulets, a belief which could easily be understood
by the broad public (pl. B 4, 1–3).
The fragment of pyxis pendant from Vei belongs to a type of advanced
7th century. With its unique appearance in Etruria there is difficult to find out
how it arrived there, but the existence of the Macedonian-related bronzes in
Albania, Serbia and Bosnia, even in Dalmatia (Bouzek 1974b, 295–297), and the
links between Dalmatia and Picenum, may suggest the possible way how the
Macedonian pendant arrived at Vei. Maybe that even the similarity of a group
of amber figurines with the drinkers on “jug-stoppers‘ is not accidental.
Their shape remembers the faience “monkeys” (Langdon 1990; Voyatzis 1990,
110–115), but already Karl Scheffold called them rightfully kobolds, wilder
relatives of Greek Satyrs (cf. Bouzek 1974a, 79–80; 1997, 144); they are known
in Etruria, too. The pendant in shape of tree trunk with short branches
and the drinker on its top seems to represent the shaman climbing the tree
(pl. B 4.1–3). The possible relation between Etruscan miniature pitchers,
which sometimes Turan holds, with Macedonian juglets, is questionable
(Bouzek 1980,67–69), but both contained some organic substance and were
worn around the neck as part of heavy necklace.
 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes 183

LIST OF MACEDONIAN AND RELATED BRONZES

IN MAGNA GRAECIA

CUMAE

Grave 16. E. Gábrici, Mon. Ant. 22 1913, 226–229, Group A juglet with pottery
around the transition from Late Geometric to Early Protocorinthian. Cf. also
Pingel 1980, 168.
Cemetery, no context: E. Gábrici, Mon. Ant. 22, 1913, 74, fig. 21; cf. also
fig. 20—horse. Bird belongs to periphery types of Macedonian bronzes
(cf. Bouzek 1974a, 16 group C 3, fig. 2), but the horses (tre cavallini, only one
illustrated) represent changes of the class of the MB-tradition, which were
made in the Adriatic area along the northern frontier of the distribution
of MB. The pendants on fig. 34 (col. 89–90) are similar periphery varieties
of originally Macedonian class (globular pendants, long beads, cf. also the
globular pendants and long beads, esp. the bead fig. 35). The bird pendant col.
88 pl. XXV: 4 should also be mentioned; it attests also some relations with the
Adriatic region.

FINOCHITÒ

Grave 7, 22, 30 (with two fibulae a navicella) and 41, BPI 20, 1894, 39f., 45–48,
pl. 4. Beads B 2,2–4 and L 3.

MEGARA HYBLAEA

Grave 239: Double interment in sarcophagus, grown person and baby. P. Orsi,
Mon. Ant. I 1889, 888–889, Bronze bead Bouzek 1974a, type M 2, fig. 37: 13,
with Early Corinthian pottery from the end of the 6th century.
Grave 240. Two skeletons in small sarcophagus. P. Orsi, Mon. Ant. I, 1889,
889–890, fig. 1. Long bead type L, of three items one illustrated. Bouzek 1974a,
119 fig. 37:5.
Grave 660. P. Orsi, Not. Sc. 1892, 173; W. Pingel, Marb. WPr. 1971, 7 ff., fig. 6.
Bouzek 1974b, 306, fig. 53:3–7; Kilian, PZ 50, 1975, pl. I and II:1. Pingel 1980,
166, fig. 1:1–5. Late Protocorinthian alabastron after Pingel 1980, 166 does not
belong here, but the local kylix and the rippled alabastron from the second
half of the 7th century. Bird of type A 6,4 and peacock B 1, 3, wheel type B 1,1
wheel pendant and pin.
Grave 69, Mon. Ant. 1 1889, col. 827–828, fig. Pendant, similar to Macedo-
nian beads.
From the necropolis. Bird pendant P. Orsi, Mon. Ant. I, 1892, 910, fig. Bouzek
1967, 128, fig. 6:12; 1974a, type A 6, 3, fig. 1:11.
184 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes

Mulino dell’ Badia, Mus. Syracuse, Siculan necropolis, Pingel 1980, 166,
fig. 1:12, 168. Bead type F.
Monte San Mauro, Mus. Syracuse, Grave of the colonizing period. Pingel
1980, 166, fig. 1:13, 168. Openwork roundel.
Pithekoussai, female grave T 208. Buchner – Ridgeway 1993, 264–267 and
77ff., taf. 91:24 and CXXVI: 24. SG II, 725–700 v. Chr. Juglet group A.
Grave of a youth T 329. Buchner – Ridgeway 1993, 386–387, taf. 126:4 und
CLVI: 4. SG II, 725–700 BC. Bird group A.
Girl grave T 544. Buchner – Ridgeway 1993, 537–539, pl. 160:13-14 and
CLXXI: 13, 14–15. Bulla-shaped pendant, perhaps related to Macedonian spool
pendants (Bouzek 1974a, 94), and bell with incuts, reminding one of Cauca-
sian, dating similar to previous.
Selinus, Sanctuary of Demeter Malophoros. One genuine Macedonian
bead; two pendants probably imitations, but very near to genuine. E. Gábrici,
Mon. Ant. 32, 1927, 358–363, fig. 154e, bead G 11, fig. 155 p and q globular pen-
dants B 3, 1 and C 2, 1. Bouzek 1974a, figs. 15:9, 17:6 and 36:3. Roundel with cuts,
Gábrici Abb. 154 n., Pingel 1980, 166 fig. 1: 7–9.
Syracusae, Athenaion. P. Orsi, Mon. Ant. 25, 1918, 578, fig. 164. Beads B 2, 1
and L 1, Bouzek 1974b, fig. 11.
Tremenzano, cemetery. BPI 18 1892, 87, taf. 6–7. 21. Bronze beads Bouzek
1974a, 105, List B 2,5.

7.2 MACEDONIAN BRONZES—30 YEARS LATER2

The Macedonian bronzes were my subject of study in the sixties and early
seventies of the last century,3 but new discoveries and publications, especially
those made in the Republic of Macedonia, much enlarged our knowledge.
The publication of the Dedeli cemetery by D. Mitrevski, a series of articles in
Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica and the exhibition in Skopje organized by
Zlato Videski in 2004 brought much new essential information. Much work
has also been done in Albania on the other side of the Preshpan lake, notably
at Kuç i Zi, and in Greek Central, Western and Eastern Macedonia. All this
gives enough reasons to return to this subject in the Festschrift of my old
friend Prof. Bitrakova, who helped me to improve my understanding of the
archaeology of her country, especially in the area of the Preshpan and Ohrid
lakes, one of the main homelands of Macedonian bronzes (cf. esp. Bitrakova-
Grozdanova, 1986; 1995, 53–60). New important finds are also known from

2 First published in: Folia Archaeologica Balcanica I, in honorem V. Bitrakova-Grozdanova, Skopje

2006, 97–110.
3 MB I–VII. Cf. Bailey 1969.
 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes 185

Asia Minor (esp. Ephesus) and from Western Greece and the books by D. Mit-
revski and E. Petkova have outlined the general picture of the Early Iron Age
in the Republic of Macedonia (Mitrevski 1997; Petrova 1996).
The aim of this contribution is to improve the picture of relations of this
group of ornaments with other areas of Early Iron Age Europe, including
Greece, and its impact. The position of Macedonian bronzes documenting
relations along the Axios valley between south and north is central, especially
as they are autonomous artistic creations of their own, even if inspired from
several more or less distant roots.
Some forerunners of the canonical bronzes exist in biconical beads from
Greece4 and in the Vitsa grave 113 pyxis (Vokotopoulou 1986, 151–7, pls. 243–245;
MB VI, 60); all still of a 9th century BC date, but the origins of the canonical
bronzes can best be placed in the earlier part of the 8th century (MB IV, 41,
MB V, 48–49). The main reasons for this date have been thoroughly discussed
elsewhere5 and have corrected the originally slightly lower chronology in
MB I, 163–168. The main arguments are some finds in Macedonian graves
in early 8th century BC and the raising of European Ha B chronology. It
should, however, be remembered that the majority of graves known as yet
date only from late 8th and 7th century BC (figs. 95–96).
The main sources of inspiration of Macedonian bronzes can still be seen
in the North Caucasian area (Kuban group); this phenomenon can probably
be connected with the alliance of Thracian Edoni and Cimmerians recorded
by Strabo (Strabo C 329, fr. 11, cf. MB III, 42–45 and MB IV, 45). The recent Cau-
casian chronology leaves enough time for an earlier dating of some parallel
objects in the Caucasus area, and the earliest so-called Cimmerian bronzes
in the eastern part of Central Europe and the Balkans are now dated in the
(early) 9th century BC (cf. Bouzek 1997a, 197–199).
The Macedonian bronzes developed from traditions connected with horse
harness and shamanism. Some simple objects apparently derived from the
common Balkan Urnfield koine. This applies notably to dress fasteners and
wheels as ancient sun symbols. Some Aegean links can be traced for sheet
gold leaves, for miniature double axes and for some elements of the earlier
cist graves, like at Vergina, Dion, Saraj-Brod, Papadin Dol etc.6 The Aegean
links may perhaps be connected with Late Mycenaean settlements and the
first Greek colonies (Torone) in the gulf of Thessaloniki and in the Chalcidice.7

4 Esp. pithos Grave 2 at Drepanon, Achaea, I. Dekoulakou, Erch. Ef. 1973, 18–22, pl. 1b; Bouzek,
MB IV, 411; Vrokastro tomb 3, Hall 2008, p. 143, no. 6, fig. 85 and Spelaion, grave A, Rhomiopoulou
1971, 38–40; cf. Bouzek, MB I, 103, 166.
5 MB IV, 41, MB V, 48–49.
6 Cf. MB II, 327–3278
7 Cf. Bouzek 1997a, 246–248; According to Strabo, C 279, C 282 and C 329, Bottiaea was a Cretan
colony founded at a same time as Taras. Cf. Hammond 1972, 153, 295–296.
186 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes

The chronological sequence of evolution remains basically valid even

after thirty years. Five main chronological groups can be distinguished: the
earliest group, the early and middle stages, the manneristic and the post-
manneristic bronzes (figs. 95–96).8 The earliest group belongs to earlier
part of the 8th century (cf. already Chauchitsa graves 13 and 22); the sub-PG
skyphos from Chauchitsa 2 gives a good example.9 For the Early Stage, char-
acterized formerly by Chauchitsa graves 4, 9 and 10 and by the Edinburgh
group C, many new examples can be added. Cumae grave 16 and the Pithek-
oussai graves confirm the dating of this stage in the Late Geometric period
(cf. now esp. MB VII).
The first (rather limited) links of Macedonian bronzes with proper Greece
attested in more sophisticated objects date from the 8th century BC (Bouzek
1997a, 200–201). The prototype of the drinkers sitting on “jug-stoppers”
seem to have been the Peloponnesian flute-players rather than the faience
monkeys;10 one similar smith was found as far north as at Vranište near Bela
Palanka in Serbia.11 Some 8th century BC Macedonian bronzes also found
their way into various Greek sanctuaries.12
The Middle Stage is now very well represented in all cemeteries newly
excavated.13 Pyxis pendants comparable to the beginnings of this stage were
found in Samos in a context dating ca. 730–670 BC, most probably ca. 700 BC.14
The Middle Stage is the period in which the production expanded and when
the first Greek impacts were felt more clearly in the stylisation of birds and
horses. Both derive ultimately from Corinthian artistic tradition, but were
probably transmitted via Chalcidice and Thessaly. New excavations in Greece15

8 Cf. MB I, 163–175; MB II, 307–11; MB IV, 41–43, and MB VI, 47–49. The alternative chronologies put
forward by Garašanin 1976, and by Kilian 1975, 10–140, are too general and schematic, though
useful for comparisen with other West Balkan groups. Kilian-Dirlmeier in her very useful corpus
(Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979) gives no detailed chronology at all.
9 Cf. for Geometric pottery of similar date Sakellariou 1965, B 305, pls. 471–472. Tiverios revealed
there a floor with Euboean pottery dated ca. 800 BC, cf. esp. AEMT, 4 1990, 315–332 and later ex-
cavation reports in the same periodical.
10 10 MB I, 79–80, MB II, 51. K Schefold called them kobolds, ancient forerunners of satyrs (Meister-
werke griechischer Kunst 127, no. 50). Langdon 1990, 47–54, derives them from apes, but there are
hardly any connecting links. Even if there might have been some iconographic inspiration, the
shamanistic imagination characteristic for Macedonian bronzes was nearer to bears; apes would
be out of context here. This seems to apply also to her interpretation of Italic amber figurines of
a similar character, where an inspiration from Phoenician or Egyptian faience figurines is more
plausible. Cf. Bouzek 1993a, 61–63.
11 Popović 1974.
12 A list MB II, 299–307, addenda MB IV, 46–59 and MB V, 49–59.
13 Cf. esp. D. Mitrevski, 1991 and 1988, 83–102; Videski 2004; 1996–7 (1998), 91–111. For other
preliminary reports cf. Georgijev 1983 (1979–1982), 65–72; 1987, 37–53; Pašić 1975–1978, 21–52;
1979–1982, 61–64.
14 Cf. Gehrig 1964, 24–25 and MB I, 165 and 173.
15 At Agrosykia near Giannitsa, Chrysostomou (1994, 127–136) are important especially the “anchor
object”, fig. 10, and a belt with ring pendants (p. 133, fig. 3). Nice jug-stoppers of the middle stage
 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes 187

and in the Republic of Macedonia revealed many items of this stage.16 Videski
(2004) published in the exhibition catalogue also new, previously unknown
varieties, of which the spoon pendant from Glos, Grciste, the pyxis pendant
with suspended bird cages cat. no. 130 from Suva Reka—Gevgelia, the double-
bird or horse (?) cat. no. 131 from Lisičin Dol—Marvinci, the double bird with
axe cat. no. 140 from Milci, Gevgelia, and the handled bowl pendant cat. no.
169 from Milci, Gevgelia, deserve particular attention (cf. fig. 83, 1–9).
The late (Manneristic) phase started in the Axios valley with Gevgelia
groups A and B and with the Veles bronzes in the Benaki Museum,17 while it
is also well represented in the new finds from the Macedonian Republic, only
partly published as yet. The Kuç i Zi necropolis with mainly late Macedonian
bronzes has been published by Zh. Andrea and M. Korkuti.18 All these finds rep-
resent the western branch of the production, while the eastern province is best
known from the Chalcidice: from the finds from Trilophon-Messiméry in the
Stathatos collection and in the Benaki Museum, from the lots reputedly found
at Amphipolis and in other places in Eastern Macedonia, or from other objects
in private and public collections with no known provenance at all. 19 As for chro-
nology, the Megara Hyblaea grave 660 gives a good date for the beginnings of
the late stage (cf. MB II, 306, MB IV, 41 and MB VII). The photograph published
by K. Kilian shows that the alabastron is Late Protocorinthian or Transitional,
so the date around 640–630 seems to be the most suitable for other contents
of the grave as well. The quatrefoil aryballos from Olynthus grave 616 dates
from the second quarter of the 6th century, while the Aivasil grave with late

were found at Aiani (Karamitrious-Mentesidi 1988, 48, 54 Fig. 1), Apidea and Kastoria (Cg. Tson-
garides, AEMT 11 1997, 25), Mavropygi (Ead., AEMT 12, 1998, 368: 34 , “anchor” objects in Agrosykia
near Giannitsa (Chrysostomou 1991, 127–136), similar in openwork with bird finials at Axioupolis
(former Bohemitsa), Stavropoulou 1988, 91–101. Cf. also the new survey of the Axios valley in
Greece by Savvapoulou 2004, 307–316.
16 For a general survey of Macedonian bronzes from Bottiaea and Almopia cf. Chrysostomou 1993,
259–280, with a chart of sites indicating where the items have been found.
17 Cf. now also Vokotopoulou 1990, grave 5, pl. 6, (late 6th century: bead, openwork roundels, rings)
and grave 6, pl. 63, cas. 500 BC pendants, beads, rings). Other lots Asomata near Veria Kouk-
ounou 2000, 572, fig. 2 (bird-cage pendant); Nea Zoe near Edessa (Chrysostomou 1993, 121–122
(pendants and beads), A. Athanasios in Thessaly (Tsimpidou-Aulonti 1993, 264, bracelet), Aeneia,
Tsigarida 1994, 221 (pendants, beads and rings), Vergina (bead, Falakris 1994, 124), Phagres in
Pieria (Nikolaidou-Patera 1996, 846, bird on cage). Nea Zoni (Chrysostomou 1997, 153, full-globe
pendants), Trapeza Lembet (Lioula – Gioula 1997, 326 (rings, spectacle fibula, rings). Interesting
is also a Thracian axe pendant from Anchialos, Double Table (Tiverios et al. 1997, 304).
18 Andrea 1985, cf. also Korkuti 1985. The collective tumuli are large (14–43 m in diameter), and the
foundations usually of stones. Pit graves, cist and urn burials exist side by side. His phase Barç
II contains some LH III C pottery and is dated by him c. 1200–750, his phase Barç IV (c. 750–580)
includes graves with Macedonian bronzes (like Kuç i Zi tumulus I). Cf. also Eggebrecht et al. 1988,
which gives in figs. 66–78, 80–82 excellent illustrations of Macedonian bronzes from Kuç i Zi and
other localities in Albania, and Korkuti 1995, 119–148.
19 Cf. MB VII and Orient und frühes Griechenland, nos. 10–12 (jug, pyxis pendant, bracelet). Another
gold bead comes from Koukou in the Chalcidice (Arch. Rep. 1987/88, 49, fig. 56).
188 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes

bronzes is of similar date.20 A grave uncovered at Aedonochorion near Drama

with a G type bead and a ring with protrusions contained an amphoriskos dat-
ing from the second quarter of the 6th century as well, while a similar date can
given to the lot in the Prähistorische Staatssammlung in Munich, said to have
come from a grave between Kavalla and Drama, with C, E and F beads and with
a late drop-shaped pendant.21
In the second part of the 6th century bronze ornaments went out of fash-
ion, though some last remnants were in use until early 5th century,22 and they
have descendants in the western Balkans reaching even the La Tène fashion
(jug-stoppers, beads; cf. MB I, 83–86 and 118–120).
Macedonian bronzes of the Middle and Late Stages and their imitations
are known from the main Peloponnesian sanctuaries, from Samos, Ephesus,23
Rhodes and (partly) Thessaly, while the late Macedonian bronzes are com-
mon in Central Greece, Ithaca, Olympia and the eastern Aegean.24 The East
Macedonian manneristic bronzes were less frequently exported, though one
of the jug-stoppers found its way as far north as to Donja Dolina in northern
Bosnia, and beads have been found even in Hungary (fig. 98).25
The big bronze beads were apparently worn in heavy colliers in Mace-
donia. Elsewhere they are less common in sets (as are also their local imita-
tions), but they enjoyed the largest distribution of all Macedonian bronzes.
All Macedonian bronzes were apparently considered to be of some magi-
cal, talismanic character, which made them popular as gifts to sanctuaries.
In the grave of a Paeonian priestess (or witch?) at Marvinci with a full set of
bronze “jewellery” the pyxis contained opium, what may well be the general
use of these vessels (Mitrevski 1996–1997 (1998), 69–88). The most plausible
explanation of the jug-stoppers is that they represent the shaman (or rather
shamaness?),26 while drinking his or her magic potion and magically climbing
a tree.27 These objects have parallels also in modern shamanistic rituals and
also analogies for other objects from the East where shamanistic rituals were
common. Macedonian and related Thessalian bronzes frequently appear as
gifts in Thessalian sanctuaries (cf. now Kilian-Dirlmeier 2003, pls. 61–65), in

20 Aivasil Gardner, BSA 23 1918, 19–24; Olynthus X, 66, 121 and Olynthus V, pl. 44: 3; MB I, 166 and 175
Fig. 38. The majority of other beads found at Olynthus also date from the 6th century BC.
21 Kilian 1975b, 7 and 33; MB IV, 42, fig. 2: 1–12 satyr presented with a lot of 6th century Macedonian
bronzes to the Ashmolean Museum by Prof. Herbert Cahn also suggests a similar date.
22 For ex. Hochstätter 1987, 37 pl. 3: 2. Another bead has also been found at Pistiros, allegedly in early
5th century BC context.
23 For Ephesus and parallels cf. now esp. Muss (2000, 149–155), and Klebinder-Gauss 2004, 109–116.
24 Cf. MB II and the lists composed by Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985, 215–253, and also note 33. The Macedo-
nian bronzes were as common in Greece as the Italic imports.
25 Surveys in MB II, 293–306, with addenda MB IV, 46–58.
26 In Eastern Asia (like e.g. in Korea) the shamanistic rituals are performed by women. In Siberia
the shamans are men, but they dress as women and call themselves in the feminine form as “she”.
27 Cf. notes 10 and 19.
 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes 189

a country famous for its witches and sorcerers during the whole of Classical
antiquity (figs. 97–98; Metzler 1982, 75–82; Bouzek–Ondřejová 1991, 51–58;
Bouzek 1997a, 38–39; cf., also Čausidis 1988, 69–89).
At Pithekoussai they were apparently put into graves of the second gen-
eration as talismanic items, perhaps by mothers to her prematurely died chil-
dren. Grave 660 of Megara Hyblaea many well have been one of a priestess
or witch. These ladies apparently came with the colonists from Macedonia
to Magna Graecia and prolonged their religious activities there (cf. MB IV,
57–58, MB VII and Pingel 1980, 165–175; Pace 2001, 33–69 (Dalmatian and Mace-
donian).
Macedonian bronzes were mainly produced and worn by the Paeonians
in the Vardar valley and by the south-western Thracians, notably by the Edo-
nians, known from their alliance with the Cimmerians mentioned above,
while their neighbours (Mygdonians, Crestonians and the smaller tribes on
the Chalcidice) also participated. In the second half of the 6th century the
bronze items were largely replaced by gold and silver jewellery, but earlier
the bronze pendants and beads represented the noble aristocratic women in
the whole area; the aristocratic class had similar taste and values in all the
areas of the tribal kingdoms mentioned, as was the case with gold and silver
jewellery of late 6th and 5th century BC, known from Sindos and Trebenište
(cf. Bouzek – Ondřejová 1991, 84–94). In Pieria, the centre of the Macedonian
kingdom, only a few items were found, while there was much more response
to the Macedonian style in Thessaly in the workshops producing votive offer-
ings for Thessalian sanctuaries at Pherai, Philia and even at Kalapodi further
south (cf. the lists in MB II, and Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979 (note 31).
The Macedonian bronzes enriched the vocabulary of Early Greek artists
at a time when they eagerly took over much inspiration from various parts
of the world. Their links with Dionysiac rituals of drinking and some links
with shamanism many also have influenced Greek religion of the time. On
the other hand, they became the models for production of bronze jewellery in
other cultural groups in the central Balkans. Some items found their way as
far north as to Hungary, where they appear in graves of the nomadic Szentes-
Vekerzug culture, and to Donja Dolina in northern Bosnia.
Chalcidice and its vicinity had several Greek colonies; the first of them
was Torone, founded already in the Submycenaean period, but their num-
ber much enlarged in the second half of the 8th and 7th century BC. These
colonies apparently transmitted Greek artistic achievements to the north, but
also the elements of Thracian, Macedonian, Paeonian and Molossian artistic
features to the south. They were apparently connected with some religious
ideas and rituals. The Greek had much admiration of the religion of their
northern neighbours. The priestly families of main Greek mystery sanctuar-
ies claimed Thracian origin, like at Eleusis. Dionysus and orphic teachings
190 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes

came to Greece from the north; even Apollo had strong links with his Hyper-
boreans. The priestess from Marvinci (figs. 97a, b) and another from Megara
Hyblaea (fig. 94 above) were carrying a similar religious message, even for
the Greeks in the colonial outposts. The literary traditions on itinerant magi-
cians and diviners, and also those on shamanism (cf. Burkert 1983, 115–119;
1962, 36–55) find thus parallels among archaeological finds.
Archaic Greece owed much to its eastern neighbours, but also to impulses
from the north, among them from the area where the studies of Vera Bitra-
kova-Grozdanova were concentrated.

Abbreviations:

AAA – here Archaikogika Analekta ex Athenon.

Arch. Ef. – Archaiologike Efemeris.
Arch. Delt. – Archaiologikon Deltion.
AEMT – To Archaiologiko Ergo ex Makedonias kai Thrakes.
GAE – Bouzek 1997: J. Bouzek, Greece, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Interrelations during the
Early Iron Age, Jonsered.
MB I – J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian Bronzes, Analysis and Chronology, Prague 1974.
MB II – Id., Macedonian Bronzes: their origins, distribution and relation to other cultural
groups of the Early Iron Age, Památky archeologické 65, 1974, 278–341.
MB III – Id., Macedonian Bronzes and history, Graecolatina Pragensia 7, 1976, 39–62.
MB IV – Id., Addenda to Macedonian Bronzes, Eirene 18, 1982, 35–60.
MB V – Id., Thessalian and Macedonian bronzes, Macedonian beads, Graecolatina Pragensia 11,
1987 (1989), 77–101.
MB VI – Id., Macedonian and Thessalian Bronzes, Efemeris Archaiologike 1988, 47–60.
MB VII – Id., Makedonische Bronzen in Italien, in Akten des Symposions Die Ägäis und das
westliche Mittelmeer, Beziehungen und Wechselwirkungen, 8. bis 5. Jh. v. Chr., Wien 1999
(2000), eds. V. Gassner, M. Kerschner, U. Muss, G. Wlach, 363–369.
MEFRA – Melanges d’Ecole Francaise d’Archeologie à Rome, Antiquité.
Mitrevski, Dedeli: D. Mitrevski, Dedeli, Nekropola od železnoto vreme vo dolina Povardarja,
Skopje 1991.
PZ – Prähistorische Zeitschrift.
Videski, Makedonski bronzi: Z. Videski, Makedonski bronzi – Macedonian Bronzes, Exhibition
catalogue, Skopje 2004.
 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes 191

Fig. 94: Above Megara Hyblaea, grave of priestess, below Macedonian bronzes from Sicily.
192 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes

Fig. 95: Development of Macedonian pendants: birds, pyxidae, juglets, anchor objects and
horse. After MB I, completed.
 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes 193

Fig. 96: Development of Macedonian bronzes: bird cage and globe pendants, birds, plaques,
arm rings and bell pendants. After MB I, completed.
194 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes

Fig. 97a: Grave of a Macedonian

priestess at Marvinci.
After Mitrevski 1998.

Fig. 97b: Objects from the grave of

a Macedonian priestess at Marvinci.
After Mitrevski 1998.
 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes 195

Fig. 98: Distribution of Macedonian beads. After MB III and IV, completed.
196 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes

1
5 7 8
2
6

3 4 9 10 11
13

14

10
15
19

16
20
17

18
21
24
25

22

23
28
36
31 27
26
29 34

32

33 35
30 37 38 39

Fig. 99: Comparative chart of bronze objects from northern Caucasus (Kuban area, 1–4 ,12,
17–18, 22–23, 26, 29–30, 37), from the Balkans (5 Adaševci, 6 Somlyóhegy, 13 Somlyóvásárhely,
14 from Hungary, 19 Ugra, 20 Prozor, 24 Nagyenyed-Kakasdomb, 27, 31–32 Battina [Kisköszeg],
33–34 Glasinac) and Macedonia (7–8 and 16 Trilophon-Messimeri, 9 Belasica, 10 Kumanovo,
11 Amphipolis, 15 Gevgelia, 21, 34–35 Chauchitsa, 25 Donja Dolina, 28 Radanja, 36 Olynthus,
39 Kumanovo.
 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes 197

3
1

5
6

8
9
10

11 12 13 14

17 18
15 16 19

Fig. 100: Macedonian and Thracian bronzes and their parallels. 1 from Bulgaria, 2 Kuban area,
3 Stara Zagora, Bulgaria, 4 and 9 from the Kuban area, 5 Štip, 6 near Rila monastery,
7 Transylvania, 8 Radanja, 10 Prozor, 11 Luristan, 12 Redkin Lager, Armenia, 13 Upper Kuban,
14 Rusanoviči (Glasinac), 15 Třtěno, Bohemia, 16 Iljak (Glasinac), 17 and 18 Bex and Subingen
(both Switzerland), 19 Staraja mogila near Kelermes.
198 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes

7.3 THE HISTORY OF MACEDONIAN BRONZES

THE HISTORY OF EARLY EXCAVATIONS AND COLLECTING28

The first collector of Macedonian bronzes lived in Hellenistic times and

his collection was found when excavating Vardarski Rid (Mitrevski 2005,
238–240, figs. 21–22), but for long period he had no followers. There are very
few documents on collecting EIA bronzes from Macedonia prior to the First
World War, one of them is a mention in the catalogue of the first collection
of Sir Arthur Evans, who later excavated the Knossos palace, but in his early
years he was much involved in politics of the SW Balkans. Some items, how-
ever, were known earlier; among the first mentions of this category of bronze
objects is the famous book by Konstantin Jireček, Die Heeresstrasse von Belgrad
nach Konstantinopel und die Balkanpässe, published in Prague in 1877.29 The
Russian Institute at Constantinople excavated at Pateli (H. Panteleimon) on
the Ostrov Lake.30
But the great impact to their history was the First World War. The trenches
made by soldiers from all armies participating in the ditch war across Mace-
donia uncovered a number of EIA graves with bronzes. Some of the armies
at the time when the front line did not move substantially organized special
archaeological units to conduct rescue excavations. The British unit excavated
especially graves at Chauchitsa at the Doiran lake (cf. Popov 1981, 164) just
south of the present frontier, the French units those further west, especially
at Bohemitsa,31 and the German army notably the tombs near Dedeli32 more
to the north. Even Bulgarians participated in these activities in some way
(cf. Popov 1981, 164), though the most important from their projects were the
rescue excavations of Trebenište, conducted by another Czech, Karel Škorpil.
After the end of the war, the objects found there were presented by some acts
mainly to the states with victorious armies, but even the Germans took their
share to Germany, and large part of it, notably the small bronzes from Dedeli,
went to the Museum für Völkekunde at Leipzig and later, in the GDR time,
some part of them was transferred into the German Historical Museum in
Berlin. In Bulgaria some other items of uncertain provenance but acquired
just after the First World War are kept in the Sofia Archaeological Museum.
In France many of them, excavated or acquired by Léon Rey and his group,
remained in private collections, while a number of them was presented to the
Louvre. In Britain, besides the Edinburgh Museum, where several grave units

28 First published in: Grozdanov, ed. 2007, 107–122.

29 Bronze birds and other objects from Batak, o.c. p. 40.
30 Published only partly, in various small contributions. For bibliography cf. MB II, 293.
31 Now Axioupolis – Rey 1928, 40–61.
32 Rescued by H. Draggendorf, cf. Pingel 1970, 8–12.
 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes 199

from Chauchitsa are kept, also the British Museum, the Fitzwillian Museum
in Cambridge and the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford received various gifts
of these items. Cf. Casson 1918–1919.
In the twenties, the most important were S. Casson’s excavations at
Chauchitsa. The looting of tombs was also widespread in the south; many
objects went to rich Greek collectors, the best known of them were the Sta-
thatos (fig. 7C) and Benaki collections, now kept in the National and Benaki
Museum at Athens. Especially the Benaki Museum received already before
a large lot of the items from Veles, of which substantial part has not yet been
published, notably the jug-stoppers not cast in one, but composed of small
triquetra hung on a cord originally.
But still after the Second World War a number of lots appeared on the
market of antiquities, and such acquisitions became popular. Among them
a number of American private collectors took a large share. But of course the
new finds much surpass what was known before.

THE SOURCES OF INSPIRATION

The Macedonian bronzes developed from several traditions, some of them

connected with horse harness and shamanism. Some simple objects among
them apparently derived from the common Balkan Urnfield koine. This
applies notably to dress fasteners and wheels as ancient sun symbols. Some
Mycenaean links can be traced for sheet gold leaves, for miniature double
axes and for some elements of the earlier cist graves, like at Vergina, Dion,
Saraj-Brod, Papadin Dol etc (cf. MB II, 327–328). The Aegean links marked by
the popularity of double axes and the small metal beads, mainly known in
Cypriot jewellery, may perhaps be connected with late Mycenaean settle-
ments producing LH III C pottery and/or the first Greek colonies (Torone)
in the gulf of Thessaloniki and in the Chalcidice,33 and with their impacts on
their neighbours.
The main sources of inspiration of Macedonian bronzes, however, can
still be seen in the North Caucasian area (Kuban group, cf. figs. 99–100); this
phenomenon can probably be connected with the alliance of Thracian Edoni
and Cimmerians recorded by Strabo (Strabo C 329, fr. 11, cf. MB III, 42–45 and
MB IV, 45). The recent Caucasian chronology leaves enough time for an earlier
dating of some parallel objects in the Caucasus area, and the earliest so-called
Cimmerian bronzes in the eastern part of Central Europe and the Balkans are
now dated in the (early) 9th century BC (cf. Bouzek 1997a, 197–199).

33 Cf. Bouzek 1997a, 246–248; according to Strabo, C 279, C 282 and C 329, Bottiaea was a Cretan
colony founded at a same time as Taras. Cf. Hammond 1972, 153, 295–296. The cemetery of Torone
now Papadopoulos, The EIA Cemetery of Torone I, Malibu 2005.
200 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes

Many traits characteristic for Macedonian bronzes can also be connected

with the Early Iron Age art of northern Eurasia further north and east, with
the Cimmerians and their contemporaries, with the equestrian/shamanistic
area of Turan. Many parallels to Macedonian bronzes and groups related
to them can be seen in the Volga-Oka region (now mainly Tatarstan), in the
western and Eastern Siberia and as far as in the Ordos province of China. The
recent scholarship has shown that these comparable objects developed in the
9th and 8th centuries in the East, i.e, roughly at the same time as their west-
ern parallels among the Cimmerian and Thraco-Cimmerian bronzes, and, as
the recent chronology appears to show, the first Macedonian bronzes are not
essentially later.

THEIR EMERGENCE AND DEVELOPMENT

Their immediate predecessors, like the Vitsa pyxis, still date from late
9th century, while the beginning of the main series is roughly contemporary
with the main wave of Greek expansion to Chalcidice, the Greek colonisation
there and in Magna Graecia. The earliest graves with such bronzes can now be
dated in the second quarter of the 8th century, while most of those of the early
stage date from the second half of the 8th century.34 But the representation
itself has its roots in the shamanistic ritual objects (cf. below).The first centre
of production may well have been in Paeonia (so the name Macedonian schol-
ars now sometimes use, Paeonian bronzes may be used as well), but soon the
neighbours in Thrace produced them as well. Apparently they were symbols
and jewellery of the upper class of the whole area, and were less considered
signs of ethnic particularity: This “internationalisation of fashion” is even
more apparent in later jewellery of gold and silver, in the field where close
links between the Trebenište and Sindos jewellery can be traced (see below).
The first (rather limited) links of Macedonian bronzes with proper Greece
attested in more sophisticated objects date from the 8th century BC (Bouzek
1997a, 200–201). The models of the drinkers sitting on “jug-stoppers” may
have been the Peloponnesian flute-players and also the faience monkeys.35 It
is of interest that one similar 8th century smith was found as far north as at
Vranište near Bela Palanka in Serbia (Popović 1974, 37, no. 170, pl. 16).

34 A list MB II, 299–307, addenda MB IV, 46–59 and MB V, 49–59.

35 58 MB I, 79–80, MB II, 51. K. Schefold called them kobolds, ancient forerunners of satyrs (Meister-
werke griechischer Kunst 127, no. 50). Langdon 1990, 47–54, derives them from apes, but there are
hardly any connecting links. Even if there might have been some iconographic inspiration, the
shamanistic imagination characteristic for Macedonian bronzes was nearer to bears; apes would
be out of context here. This seems to apply also to her interpretation of Italic amber figurines of
a similar character, where an inspiration from Phoenician or Egyptian faience figurines is more
plausible. Cf. Bouzek 1993a, 61–63.
 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes 201

Macedonian bronzes were mainly produced and worn by the Paeonians

in the Vardar valley and by the south-western Thracians, notably by the Edo-
nians, known from their alliance with the Cimmerians mentioned above,
while their neighbours (Mygdonians, Crestonians and the smaller tribes on
the Chalcidice) also participated. In the second half of the 6th century the
bronze items were largely replaced by gold and silver jewellery, but earlier
the bronze pendants and beads represented the noble aristocratic women in
the whole area; the aristocratic class had similar taste and values in all the
areas of the tribal kingdoms mentioned, as was the case with gold and silver
jewellery of late 6th and 5th century BC, known from Sindos and Trebenište
(cf. Bouzek – Ondřejová 1991, 84–94). Also the predecessors of this jewellery
enjoyed popularity beyond ethnic territories of individual tribes, Paeonians
and SW Thracians, around the same area. In Pieria, however, the centre of the
Macedonian kingdom, only a few items were found, while there was much
more response to the Macedonian style in Thessaly in the workshops produc-
ing votive offerings for Thessalian sanctuaries at Pherai, Philia and even at
Kalapodi further south.36

THEIR IMPACT: MESSAGE OF MACEDONIAN BRONZES IN GREECE,

ITALY AND IN THE NORTHERN BALKANS

Some 8th century BC Macedonian bronzes and their imitations also found
their way into various Greek sanctuaries, while Macedonian bronzes of
the Middle and Late Stages and their imitations are known from the main
mainland sanctuaries (Olympia, Delphi, Athenian Acropolis, Aegina, etc.)
and from the eastern Aegean:37 Samos, Ephesus,38 Rhodes. They were com-
mon in Thessaly and in the western Greece also in Ithaca. The East Mace-
donian manneristic bronzes (produced in the Chalcidice area) were less
frequently exported, though one of the jug-stoppers found its way as far
north as to Donja Dolina in northern Bosnia and beads reached even Hun-
gary (fig. 98).39
The big bronze beads were apparently worn in heavy colliers in Macedo-
nia. Elsewhere they are less common in sets (as are also their local imitations),
but they enjoyed the largest distribution of all Macedonian bronzes, and were
known throughout Italy (even outside the Greek colonies, in Picenum and
Etruria) and even in Carthage.

36 Cf. the lists in MB II, and Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979.

37 Cf. MB II and the lists composed by Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985, 215–253, and also note 33. The Macedo-
nian bronzes were as common in Greece as the Italic imports, cf. Bouzek 1997a, 108–114.
38 For Ephesus and parallels cf, now esp. Muss (2000, 149–155), and Klebinder-Gauss 2004, 109–116.
39 Surveys in MB II, 293–306, with addenda MB IV, 46–58.
202 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes

The colonies in Chalcidice apparently transmitted not only Greek artistic

achievements to the north, but also the elements of Thracian, Macedonian,
Paeonian and Molossian artistic features to the south. They were apparently
connected with some religious ideas and rituals. The Macedonian bronzes
enriched the vocabulary of Early Greek artists at a time when they eagerly
took over much inspiration from various parts of the world.
In the main area the corpus of finds is enlarging. I was deeply impressed
when seeing many more items in the National Museum in Skopje and in what
I could get information about new projects and finds. Among the new publi-
cations, I would appreciate a new spoon pendant, rare object, from northern
Macedonia (Krstevski – Sokolovska 1997–1999, 65–87, esp. 82, fig. 21) and it
gave me again the impetus to look more after the knobs with petals, as found at
Milci (Husenovski 1997–1999, 89–118, pl. IV:2, 104). The six petals with the cen-
tral disc in the middle may well have meant the sun with moon and five other
planets, as usual also in the Caucasian and Etruscan bronze sheet ornaments.
New publications discussing the graves of priestesses or comparable noble
women in Festschrift for Bibi Teržan (Situla 44, 2007)40 underline the impor-
tance of the spiritual life which lie behind these modest bronze ornaments.

THEIR SIGNIFICANCE

All Macedonian bronzes were apparently considered to be not only decora-

tive jewellery, but objects of some magical, talismanic character, what made
them also proper gifts to sanctuaries. In the grave of a Paeonian priestess (or
witch?) at Marvinci with a full set of bronze “jewellery” (fig. 97a, b), the pyxis
contained opium, what may well be the general use of these vessels (Mitrevski
1996–1997, 69–88). The most plausible explanation of the “jug-stoppers” with
drinkers is that they represent the shaman (or shamaness?),41 while drinking
his or her magic potion and magically climbing up a tree (pl. B 4.1–3; cf. notes
10, 27 and 29). These objects have parallels also in modern shamanistic rituals
and analogies exist even for other objects from the East where shamanistic
rituals were common. Macedonian and related Thessalian bronzes frequently
appear as gifts in Thessalian sanctuaries (cf. Kilian-Dirlmeier 2003, 61–65), in
a country famous for its witches and sorcerers during the whole of Classical
antiquity (Metzler 1982, 75–82; Bouzek – Ondřejová 1988 (1991), 51–58; Bouzek
1997a, 38–39; cf. also Čausidis 1988, 69–89).
Their links with Dionysiac rituals of drinking and some links with sha-
manism may also have influenced Greek religion of the time. On the other

40 Mitrevski 2009, 563–582, and Temov 2009, 657–665 (Liščin Dol 15, Bučinci 12).
41 In Eastern Asia, (like e.g. in Korea) the shamanistic rituals are performed by women. In Siberia
the shamans are men, but they dress as women and call themselves in the feminine form as “she”.
 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes 203

hand, they became the models for production of bronze jewellery in other
cultural groups in the central Balkans. The Greeks had much admiration of
the religion of their northern neighbours.42 The priestly families of main
Greek mystery sanctuaries claimed Thracian origin, like at Eleusis, Dionysus
and orphic teachings came to Greece from the north; even Apollo had strong
links with his Hyperboreans. The priestess from Marvinci (figs. 77 a, b) and
another from Megara Hyblaea (fig. 94) were carrying a similar religious mes-
sage, even for the Greeks in the colonial outposts and for their neighbours,
the Etruscans and Picenians. The literary traditions on itinerant magicians
and diviners, and also those on shamanism43 find thus confirmation by the
new archaeological finds in the core area of production and use of the Mace-
donian (Paeonian) bronzes.44

7.4 MACEDONIAN BRONZES TODAY

Macedonian bronzes represent one of the most interesting members of the

koine of Geometric styles of the Early Iron Age, which developed over a large
area including most parts of Europe, Transcaucasia, Northern Iran and also
the Eurasian steppes up to Northern China. As in other transitional periods
of development of human mind, the abstract Geometric styles represented
a new attempt to approach reality throughout its geometric and math-
ematical structure; we see a similar development of our times, with modern
abstract art and the mathematisation in the fields of physics, chemistry and
even biology.
The emergence of the so-called philosophical mind has one of its aspects
in Greek philosophy, but the imposing of human will to horse, which enabled
the emergence of real cavalry, was accomplished by the nomadic people,
among the first by the Cimmerians. The art of horsemanship brought to
Europe also some elements of magic of which we still have traces in modern
shamanism; all this field was another expression of strong individual will
which can also master individually the animals, of the liberation from the
earlier Bronze Age system of social order based on supreme authorities and
unchangeable tradition. Some part of the new approach to reality were the
Dionysiac rituals which liberated the individuals from the blood relations and
enabled them to close new relations by their own will—in Dionysiac religion
and in the leader-and-his-followers (Gefolgschaft) system of social life.

42 For more general perspective cf. also Petrova 1999, 113–120.

43 Cf. Burkert 1983, 115–119; 1962, 36–55.
44 I would like to express my warm thanks for the hospitality I enjoyed during the conference at
Skopje to the Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences and all my friends and colleagues there.
204 PART 7: Macedonian bronzes

The school of Macedonian bronzes arose as a response to the new state of

mind at the threshold of several worlds. At the beginnings, in mid 8th cen-
tury BC, it took much inspiration from the eastern nomadic world of the
North Caucasian steppes, together with inspiration of riding ideology and
some kind of shamanism concentrated in ruling over animal forces. It also
used some drugs for its purpose and much importance had the priestesses
who performed the magic rituals for their kin, as shown before shortly by
D. Mitrevski. The aristocracy of the Paeonians and neighbouring Thracians
found in the sophisticated style of bronze ornaments the proper expression
of their will to representation, but they were also implements of magical
rituals establishing and confirming their cultural identity and social order.
They became popular even in Greece and in the north. They found the way
to most of Greek sanctuaries in the Aegean, including the Ionian centres in
Asia Minor and the Western Greeks, apparently with the magic connected
with them. Similarly, they also came north to the Illyrians, Dardanoi and even
arrived in the Scythian tombs in Hungary. While using bronze for their orna-
ments this society remained more egalitarian and it kept its social coherence,
before—in mid 6th century BC—it developed the new phase of social order
reflected in the Trebenište, Sindos and related rich burials, a system enabling
more sophisticated, self-representation of rich aristocracy in the world of
emerging from the earlier tribal system to tribal kingdoms, among them that
of the Paeonians.45
The Macedonian bronzes represent important artistic message of the
past. Their inspiration can even be traced in modern art, whose goals in
achieving the new deeper and more proper understanding of our world
needs inspirations from similar attempts in the past. We, as archaeologists
and scholars dealing with the distant past, have to help to transmit the voice
of the old message which should be listened as a source of inspiration just in
our transitional time with its rising difficulties.

45 Of the newly published bronzes those from private collections gain again more importance, cf.
esp. Marazov 2011, nos. 16–22, 24–27. The openwork bird has best parallels in Transcaucasia; Pas-
pas 2014, 527–541.
 PART 8: GEOMETRIC KOINE

8.1 R
 ELATIONS BETWEEN THE AEGEAN AND THE NORTH.
THE AMBER ROUTE

Amber was considered in antiquity a very particular substance with heal-

ing qualities, and also connected with the Hyperborean links of Greek
Apollo; the legends on the Hyperborean maidens and the Herodotus’ report
underline its particular significance in Greece. Similarly as raw metals, it
belonged to important materials of long-distance trade during the Bronze
and Early Iron Age.
Amber was known as rare jewel already in the earlier Bronze Age, notably
in 17th–15th century BC. The Shaft Graves at Mycenae, Kakovatos, Myrsino
and Routsi tombs (NM Athens 7936–7937, 39, 41, cf. fig. 102.1–11), contained
rather large amount of amber beads and some spacer-beads, resembling
those known from the Wessex culture mostly, while the Central European
group had another wear (cf. Harding 1984, 58–61; AAE, 54–58; Hughes-Brock
2003). The Knossos roundel (fig. 102.12) has been lost, but it can well be com-
pared with those of the Wessex culture. As some amber was found also in the
shipwrecks of Yassi Ada and Kaş, and even Egyptian scarabs of amber are
known (besides the famous amber necklace in the tomb of Tutankhamun, cf.
esp. Hood 2002), this substance was widely known and esteemed since the
18th century BC. The western route for this early amber was held for more
probable than the Central European one (cf. fig. 101), the main route later
should also be considered. Other new finds, like the Nebra disc, underline
again the existence of a kind of koine of ideas, in which large parts of prehis-
toric Europe participated together with the Aegean and East Mediterranean
civilisations. In all these links, the Amber Route played an important role.
The West Bohemian gold roundels (fig. 6.1–3 with twelve bosses are simplified
calendars of the gold cones (Schauer 1985; cf. also May – Zimpe 2000).
There are a number of documents showing contacts between the north-
ern Balkans and Greece during the times of Early Mycenaean culture and
the Thera eruption (cf. ch. 1.2). New finds of amber items with signs in Lin-
ear script related to Mycenaean from Bavaria (Gebhard – Rieder 2002)—if
genuine—underline this specific importance of amber which also served for
fumigation.
206 PART 8: geometric koine

As the traditional date of the Trojan War was in the 12th century BC, the
previous Trojan War, in which also Heracles participated, was in its mytho-
logical date several generations earlier. Heracles also took part in the mythi-
cal history of the Argonauts, the earliest Greek heroic legend on the Black
Sea and Adriatic contacts of Greek heroes (Rossignoli 2001). It may well be
placed in the Shaft Graves period, i.e. roughly towards the end of the Central
European Early Bronze Age; according to the contemporary chronology in
the 17th century BC approximately. The Argonauts returned to Greece via
Danube, Sava/Drava and Caput Adriae, these rivers and the northern end of
the Adriatic Sea were also the extreme north of the inhabitable land in the
geography of Early Greek mythologies (Shefton 2001; Schauer, ed. 1995; esp.
Delpino 1995).
The Adriatic area was marked archaeologically by a certain koine during
the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, though its Middle Bronze Age predecessor
also existed. As well known since Merhart’s studies, the area of the NW Balkans
and around the eastern Alps was the territory in which the Sprockhoff I and
IIa flange-hilted swords emerged (figs. 17, 21.1–3, 23), together with the earli-
est sheet armour and probably also the lanceolate spearheads. This armour
arose from some Aegean inspiration and it penetrated in the Aegean and to
Cyprus (ch. 2.1). The Adriatic was very probably one of the routes through
which the Central Europeans participated in the Sea Peoples movements (AAE,
92–152). The violin-bow fibulae (fig. 16) and the first bow fibulae (fig. 51) show
similar distribution pattern as the weapons and armour and they originated
in the same area around the NE tip of the Adriatic Sea (cf. AAE, 152–160; for
the northern Adriatic esp. van Eles Masi 1986, pl. 1–3 violin bow, pl. 3–12 simple
bow; Glogović 2003; Vasić 1999, violin bow pl. 61, simple bow pl. 63, pl. 62 spec-
tacle). The distribution of spectacle fibulae followed a similar pattern (fig. 53).
The bird protomae on the prows of ships of the Sea Peoples and the birds
on LH III C vases in Greece, Cyprus and on the Philistine vases in Palestine
derived from the koine of symbols typical for Central Europe and for Scan-
dinavia (Kaul 2002; Bouzek AAE, 176–180, GAE, 34–44; here figs. 42 and 43).
The Philistines are among the best candidates for the Central European par-
ticipation in the Sea Peoples movement. Still Goliath wore typical “European”
armour of bronze sheet (I. Sam. 17, 6). On the other hand, the Macedonian
Lausitz Ware (fig. 27) is best comparable with the pottery known around the
eastern Alps and from Croatia, from where its bearers probably came (AAE,
190–192; cf. Paulík 1999–2001, 2002–2003).
The first and larger LBA koine belonged to 13th–12th century BC, the sec-
ond to the 11th century and the third and fourth to Late Urnfields and to the
Early Hallstatt culture of Ha C. Since the beginnings of written reports in
Greece, Adriatic was known as an area of Illyrian piracy (cf. Mihovilić 2004;
Nava 2004), but amber relay trade was well organized on religious pattern
 PART 8: geometric koine 207

(Herod. IV. 33–35). The amber trade with the north was in Illyrian hands dur-
ing the Early Iron Age, transmitted by them to the Etruscans and the Greeks.
Amber is very light, easily transportable; even a rucksack may bring
fortune. But in Mediterranean BA shipwrecks it formed less than 1% of the
cargo. In most cases it was rather small addition to other commodities car-
ried by ships, wagons or pack animals. While until LBA the amber jewellery
was exclusively possessed by top elite, since 1200 BC much broader middle
class might afford some of it. The private merchants replaced most of the gift
exchange between rulers ca. 1000 BC in the Mediterranean.
Parallels between the “figure-of-eight”of gold wire (pl. B 1.4) and the
Tiryns wheel show the way amber was traded from the Baltic Sea in late sec-
ond millennium BC, and this Central European Amber Route is well marked,
since the end of the second millennium BC, by various objects of southern
origin or inspiration found along the Morava and Oder rivers. The Tiryns and
Allumière beads (fig. 103) are among the main characteristics of the Adriatic
koine of the earliest Iron Age (Sprinz 1993; Hughes-Brock 2003). These links
are also marked by the Urnfield glass beads, which seem to have been origi-
nally of Syrian/Phoenician inspiration (GAE, 122–123). During the Greek Dark
Age climate changed several times (fig. 13). After the optimum around 1200,
ca. 1050 came another cris of dryness, and colder, ca. 900 BC recovery and ca.
800 catastrophic decline in Central Europe.
The Greek name for amber is elektron, the same as for alloy of gold and
silver the name signifies its value. Amber jewellery went from mother to
daughter, as part of dowry in diplomatic marriages, it was kept as part of
family treasury, keimelion. It may well be also good gift of lover to his fiancé,
be exchanged as confirmation of a treaty, and be dedicated to goddesses in
their sanctuaries.
The Hordeevka cemetery (Berezanskaja 1998, amber beads here fig. 104)
shows relations with Central Europe, with the Caucasus area, with the Bal-
tic, and also some with the Balkans (Otroščenko 1998, Kločko 1998, cf. GAE,
179–185). Anyway, this part of western Ukraine participated in the area in
which this type of beads was used. The Tiryns and Alumière types beads
from Hordeevka are of the same shape and size as those from the Adriatic
area and from Greece (Negroni Catacchio 1998, 2000; Hughes-Brock 2003,
Bouzek 1997a, 122–123, 2016). It is difficult to find explanation of this phenom-
enon, but the route between the Black Sea and the Adriatic was also known
and considered fluvial one, as known also from the legend on the Argonauts
(cf. Rossignoli 2001). The second, Allumière type of amber beads, reminding
one of gold spirals, had a similar distribution, and a Tiryns type bead has
also been found at Ras Shamra (AAE 172–173, GAE, 122–123). An amber spacer
bead reused in the pendant found in the Teke tholos tomb near Knossos also
seems to have been a solar symbol (Coldstream 2003, 99–201, fig. 32). But any-
208 PART 8: geometric koine

way, the Central European route along Oder, Morava and along the Eastern
Alps to Caput Adriae was the most important of all; most of amber found in
the western Balkans, Italy and Greece apparently came by this route (Naso
2001; Palavestra 1993; cf. Negroni Catacchio 1998; Delpino 2005; Shefton 2001;
Naso 2001, Bakarić et alii 2006). The area of the NW Balkans and SE Central
Europe also played basic role in the development of weapons and armour of
the Late Bronze Age (cf. ch. 2.1) and the symbolics (ch. 2.2), including the bird
and cauldron vessels, used at Thessalian Krannon for calling rain and other
symbols used a.o. for protection of greaves. Frattesina and other sites at the
mouth of Po produced glass beads already for Urnfield Europe (cf. ch. 5.1).
The Greeks during their colonisation period for long time had no chance
to settle in the Adriatic more to the north than at Taras and Dyrrhachion
(Nava 2004; Cambi – Čače – Kirigin, eds. 2002). Still in later 6th century BC
only the best and fastest ships of the Aeginetans established links with Adria
and Spina; but even these cities were more Etruscan than Greek. Apulian
(Daunian) pottery came to the territory of Croatia quite often, and its pat-
terns were models for the Kalendeberg ornaments and those of the Moravian,
Bohemian and Silesian painted wares of Ha C (GAE, 232–233). This pattern
of Early Iron Age contact links much resembles the earlier situation, and it
may have worked similarly also in the Late Bronze Age (Shefton 2001; GAE
232–237).
The Amber route was an axis for various contacts between north and
south, bringing various ideas both ways. Among those coming from the south
and among those coming from the north religious movements and pilgrim-
ages took apparently an important role. They prepared what may be called
the first European identity already felt during the Bronze Age and during the
earliest Iron Age. The bird and cauldron wagons connected the Aegean with
Central Europe (Hiller 1989; Bouzek 1977 and 1990c).
 PART 8: geometric koine 209

Fig. 101: Main Amber routes. 1 amber space beads, 2 amber discs cased with gold, 3 Lusation
figure-of-eight gold wire and the Tiryns wheel, 4 suggested main amber routes. After Bouzek
1985, with additions.

1 2 4
3

9
8
5 7
6 10 11 12

17
13 19
14 15
16 18
20
23
21 22

27

24 25 26

Fig. 102: Amber spacers and other beads. 1–4, 7–11 Mycenae, Shaft Grave B O, 5–6 Kakovatos,
tholos Grave A, 12 Knossos, Tomb of the Double Axes, 19 Tiryns, 13–15 and 17–18 Wessex
culture, SW England, 16 Knowes of Trotty, Orkney Islands, 20–21 two types of Danish amber
beads after Becker, 22–26 South Germany, 27 Velká Dobrá, Bohemia. After Bouzek 1985.
210 PART 8: geometric koine

Fig. 103: Generalized distribution of Tiryns and Allumière amber beads. After Negroni
Catacchio, map courtessy M. Tisucká.

Fig. 104: Hordeevka, amber beads.

After Berezanskaja 1998.
 PART 8: geometric koine 211

1 2 3

6
4 5 7

Fig. 105: Italic Early Iron Age figurines. 1–2 Grottaferrata, clay, 3 Grottaferrata, handle of
bronze vessel, 4 “east of the Apennines”, 5 Vetulonia, 6 Villanova, 7 Novillara, all bronze.
212 PART 8: geometric koine

8.2 KOINE OF EARLY IRON AGE GEOMETRIC STYLES

The koine of Early Iron Age Geometric styles comprizes a large area from the
Iranian plateau to the fringes of Western Europe, and it includes the Geomet-
ric styles of Greece, Asia Minor, Etruscan Villanova, Sardinia etc., even the
rock arts of Scandinavia and the Alps; in the east the North Pontic, Caucasian,
Transcaucasian and Luristan branches, with some aspects also Siberia and
Northern China.
There were several geometric styles preceding the EIA koine. One in Late
Paleolithic transition from “naturalism” to geometrization, the second in
Neolithic, when the first human bee-hive dwellings were replaced by houses
of rectilinear quadrangular ground-plan, connected with some kind of mea-
suring of fields for cultivation and, eventually, irrigation. Eneolithic art,
roughly contemporary with the rise of the first Near Eastern civilisations,
marked substantial progress in acquiring deeper knowledge of geometry, and
this was expressed, among other things, in the geometry of the pyramids and
the ziggurats, in the construction of Cycladic idols and other items of the
Early Bronze Age (cf. the general surveys, e.g. Sandars 1985a; for more general
questions Jung – Kerényi 1985; Todorov 1980).
In children psychology, the transition from curvilinear to rectilinear
drawings is the mark of substantial progress towards abstract thought in
the individual child, and it seems that even in human history the geometric
styles usually mark a new step towards a more mature stage of the human
mind. In a way, for art historians geometrisation means a period of decline of
the visual arts; it is rather an involution than evolution, but the preparation
for a new artistic cycle first requires a period of concentration, which may
appear less attractive, but which contains the seeds of future more mature
artistic achievements.
The koine of Early Iron Age Geometric styles shows that all its provinces
participated not only in accepting new technology, but also the new Early
Iron Age mind, whose first stages it reflected. The new mind enabled master-
ing of the art of cavalry in the east and the roots of a more clever mind, as
represented by Odysseus in Greece and by David and Salomon in the Old Tes-
tament; these figures were predecessors of those who prepared the slightly
later rise of philosophy not only in Greece, but also in India and China.
As earlier in the Eneolithic period or in Late Antiquity the Geometric
styles represented periods of involution, and of preparation of new chapter
of human history. The koine of Geometric style later gave the way to a more
sophisticated, so-called Orientalizing koine of styles, to which belonged the
art of the Scythians, Thracians and the Situla art.
In Greece, almost the whole development of Mycenaean art from its
Minoan predecessor can be seen as the dissolving and geometrisation of origi-
 PART 8: geometric koine 213

nally naturalistic motifs, gradually replaced by symmetry and by attempts to

organize the decoration into a rhythm of fields and dividing members, into
a firm rhythmic ductus. Mycenaean artists did not achieve the later degree of
geometrical structure fully, but they opened the way to it.
A similar development can be traced in Central Europe. Reinecke in one
of his deep insights called the style of the Urnfield period already “Hallstatt”,
and, from the beginning of his Ha A, the path towards rectilinear geome-
trisation began, of which already Ha B, which knew the use of fine chisels
and punches of iron for fine decoration, made a decisive step forward. The
rhythm of main (field) and arbitrary (framing) members of the friezes,
the disappearance of flowing curvilinear decoration and its replacement
by a sharper ductus of by intermembers (“triglyphs”) separated main pat-
terns, also emerged gradually in different areas; that of Protovillanovan Italy
(fig. 105) shows strong ties with the NW Balkans and eastern Central Europe;
Central Europe again with the western and southern Balkans.

THE NORTHERN FRINGES OF GREECE

AND THE EUROPEAN URN FIELDS

At the northern fringes of Greece some tradition of Middle Helladic Matt

Painted Wares continued in local varieties of Mycenaean and it may well be
one of the the roots of the EIA Matt-Painted Pottery formerly called Bobousti
style around the lakes forming recent frontiers of northern Greece. Some part
of it is hand-made (Vitsa Zagoriou, Vokotopoulou 1986) and another wheel-
turned, but the patterns in both classes are similar. Related artistic provinces
of Matt-Painted Pottery (Bouzek 1997a, 151–159) can be traced in Daunia in
SE Italy, Phrygia and Northern Iran (figs. 106–108). This resemblance uses
to be explained by migrations of some Brygi to Phrygia and of Armenians
to Transcaucasia, similar patterns appear also on rock carvings of Phrygian
tombs. Its Daunain branch in Italy influenced through the area of Croatia and
Slovenia the Kalendeberg culture and also the vocabulary of other Hallstatt
provinces of the Geometric koine (cf. Bouzek 1997a, 232–238), from which all
other Central European figural arts took their inspiration (Gediga 2002; Eib-
ner 2002; Hallstattkultur 1980).
One of roots of the Geometric koine derived from the North and Central
European Urnfield cultures. Their common vocabulary in ornaments, in
signs depicted and in its structural system, was also the result of the mutual
trajectory with the south. Much inspiration was taken over from textile and
basketry (Bouzek 1969b), the wooden architecture and xoana (Mazarakis
Ainian 1997a, cf. here ch. 22 and 9.2), depiction of birds and solar symbols
were inspired from the north (figs. 37–43), vocabulary of solar symbols (Kaul
214 PART 8: geometric koine

1998; AAE, 176–179) was taken over almost universally: the rosette, the swas-
tika, the solar disc, the birds and bird protomae as part of the solar barque,
the horses drawing the chariot of the Sun (fig. 18), the stylisation of birds and
horses (fig. 44–45). The koine of Geometric styles of the EIA in Europe and in
large parts of Asia is a complex phenomenon, contemporary with transition
from prephilosophical to the philosophical mind (if we use the terminology
of Auguste Comte).
One of its backgrounds is the use of iron which tends towards a sharper,
stronger expression by its own qualities, and this influence of the new metal
can be seen as early as when the first small iron implements in Central and
Western Europe were used for incised and punched decoration in bronze
since ca. 1000 BC (Drescher 1980; GAE 44–47). They gave it a new hardness,
firmness, already at the close of what was still the Bronze Age, together with
the impacts from the east (Crowley 1989).
The most developed representatives of this family of styles developed in
Greece and in Villanovan Italy, while the Hallstatt styles of Central Europe
are its more simple varieties. Reinecke correctly observed that its first stage
of development can be put into his stage Hallstatt A, when iron was very little
known, but when rectilinear motifs prevailed over the curvolinear, still more
popular in Bronze Age D.
The great goddess of the earth, the partner of the solar god in her various
aspects, is often depicted in abbreviated form even in vessels with breast-like
knobs, and may also be accompanied by birds and animals (fig. 105.1 and 6).
The Tree of Life was common to many religions, and we find it stylized in
many—if not all—styles of our koine (Crowley 1989, cf. here p. 64). The eastern
branch of our koine also took over many symbols connected with equitation
and. cavalry, which was admired by in this field less experienced members of
the koine, who also took into their artistic vocabulary much that went with this
repertory and was connected with Eurasian shamanism (figs. 113, 122–124). In
the west, however, these objects became smaller and lost part of their original
significance, becoming folklore personal ornaments protecting their bearer
against evil forces rather than cult paraphernalia (Bouzek – Ondřejová 1991).
All geometric styles, however, have something to do with geometry. We
just mentioned how this represents a reflection of the new Iron Age mind.
Multiplication is one of the popular geometrical plays. Thus we have storeyed
vessels, multi-storeyed vessels in different provinces, and a similar tendency
to multiply e.g. the heads of pins, the knobs on the lids of vessels (fig. 73).
Another play is to join several vessels together, either in one line, or three
joined in a triangle. Various animals and their parts are also joined this way,
most notably in Villanovan Italy (Bouzek 1997a, 140–149).
Archaeologically, the discussion deals mainly with bronze objects and
pottery. Textile and woodcarvings were apparently more common, and we
 PART 8: geometric koine 215

must try to keep an eye on both the meagre corpus preserved from the wet
sites and on what influenced other materials, like pottery and metalwork; but
with the scarcity of textiles and woodcarving in corpore it might be danger-
ous to proceed too far (Bouzek 1969b,c).
In all areas compared pottery shows a general tendency to clear-cut,
“rational” forms, but these parallels are of a very general nature. Pottery deco-
ration offers a more promising field. Incised, stamped and fluted potteries can
be discussed briefly, but here we find mainly either too simple and general
phenomena, or simply too little evidence compared to the more sophisticated
styles of painted potteries in Greece, Etruscan Italy and Anatolia. Still, non-
Greek painted potteries and some provinces with richly stamped and incised
decoration complete the picture gained from a comparison of painted pottery
styles (Bouzek 1997a, 83–90).
Geometric motifs and ornaments were applied to different objects. Two-
dimensional representations are known from pottery, stone stelae and from
incised and punched (simple repoussé) decoration on bronze sheets (figs. 15
and 18), the three-dimensional versions include some specific pottery shapes,
like animal vases or those with protomae, and a long row of bronze objects,
e.g. globes in openwork, crosses, triquetras, chain pendants, etc. (fig. 99–100)
resemble them substantially, though other models for their further develop-
ment also existed: besides the local tradition there was some inspiration
coming from the South-East (cf. Crowley 1989). It is interesting to compare
the further development of the common model in various areas. While in
Central Europe the simple stick-like linear Hallstatt stylisation was the result
of a development from earlier less articulated forms, the Villanovan artists
played with multiplication, joining elements and various additions (Hencken
1961); in Greece the path lead towards a more true and sophisticated, more
“realistic” depiction of men and animals (Coldstream 2003), reflecting strict
geometrical orientation along the three basic directions of three-dimensional
space (Himmelmann 1968; Bouzek 1997a, 140–150).
Greek Geometric art surpassed all other provinces in creating a sophisti-
cated system of proportional relations systemizing the whole into a holistic
unit of a decorated vase, and tried to perform this service for the representa-
tion of the universe, as on the shield of Achilles (fig. 71). In two-dimensional
art, the first human and animal representations on Greek pottery resemble
those in the rock art of Scandinavia and the Alpine regions, but it soon
became model for simpler Geometric pottery styles in Italy and the western
Mediterranean.
Parallels can also be traced in the similar evolution of the Caucasian cul-
tures, whose Geometric style shows analogous predecessors (Lordkipanidze
1991, 70–92), and Vanden Berghe’s chronology of the so-called Luristan cul-
ture (fig. 125.1–7) made a similar processus clear also for the Iranian moun-
216 PART 8: geometric koine

tains (Vanden Berghe 1981). The so-called pre-Cimmerian bronzes of Ha A 1

in eastern Central Europe (fig. 113) and a reciprocical influence from the
Carpathian area in the North Caucasian development, were followed by the
Cimmerian Geometric (figs. 114–116, cf. Bouzek 1997a, 202–207; 2012a; 2013).
In late second millennium the group of so-called pre-Cimmerian bronzes
(fig. 113) brought impulses froom the east, while the North Pontic Belozerka
and the Caucasian region took other impulses from the west (Bouzek 2013d
and 1983, GAE 187–204).
In the west, men and animals are rarely depicted in motion, while this is
more often in the east, where the more intensively perceived energy of wild
animals, and also of the nomads often engaged in battles, had to be depicted
in more expressive manner: the most sophisticated and informative category
of this artistic province is that of the Transcaucasian belt engravings (Chi-
daseli 1986; Essayan 1984, fig. 119) and Caucasian bronze figurines, while
there is less pictorial representation in the “Cimmerian” art proper and in its
western outlets (Bouzek 1997a, 179–207). The arts of the mountain peoples of
Iran, most notably the Luristan bronzes combine dramatic expression with
some magic and are influenced by higher neighbouring civilisations (cf. for
ex. Moorey 1974 and Potratz 1968). The eastern Geometric art was, in its way,
a similar predecessor of the later Animal Style of the Scythians, as the Greek
Geometric and Villanovan arts were predecesors of the so-called Oriental-
izing arts in Greece and Etruria; the Late Geometric “Flächenstil” developed
in a similar way in Greece and the Caucasus area and parallel developments
can be seen also in the Balkans (fig. 109–111, 119).
The Cimmerian and Thraco-Cimmerian bronze items are connected with
the new mastery of horsemanship and its ideology, including some kind of
shamanismus (cf. above ch. 7). Map (fig 114) shows the distribution of Cim-
merian sites and of those of their neighbours, figures their bridles, bimetal-
lic daggers, standarts and decorative objects including Maltese crosses and
openwork rattles (bird cage bronzes, fig. 122–124).
The so-called Thracian bronzes known mainly from Central Thrace belong
here (fig. 100.1–4, 110) and, most notably, the Macedonian bronzes of the 8th
and 7th centuries BC, with their centre of distribution along the Axios valley
(Bouzek 1974, here ch. 7) and the Caucasian region (Bouzek 2012, 2013). On the
engraved sheet bronze the motifs are usually arranged into fields and friezes,
framed horizontally and vertically, and treated as part of the ornament, like
on Greek Geometric vases of the Ripe and Late phases (Hampe 1952). Quite
often the figural representation may give a clue to abstract motifs similarly
arranged, and probably transmitted this message to those who understood
the signs. The bird cage finials and pendants were, sometimes as rattles,
popular from Northern China to Spain and Britain (figs. 122–124, cf. Bouzek
1997a, 202–205, Schüle 1969).
 PART 8: geometric koine 217

The koine of Geometric styles reflects the beginnings of a new kind of

mind, but it cannot be considered without taking into consideration other,
non-artistic phenomena of the culture of the time. The class of noble warriors
acted as individuals able to join forces not only according to blood relations,
but also by means of the Gefolgschaft system. It existed all over this koine, but
in the east they were cavaliers, in the west charioteers.
The eastern province with cavalry as the main military force included
the Pontic steppes, Transcaucasia and the northern part of Iran. Its western
boundary was in the Balkans. Short swords or daggers (fig. 118) and bows
with arrows were the principal weapons: the spear was less substantial. The
protective armour was mainly of leather, belts with metallic elements were
part of military dress.1
The Central European/Italic and Early Greek koine of weaponry shows
a continuation of its Late Bronze Age predecessor (cf. GAE 104–120). The
later stage of the koine still included Dark Age Italy and Greece, the western
Balkans, Central Europe from eastern France to Poland and Romania, and
southern Scandinavia. Most of the swords used (mainly made of iron in
Greece since 1000 BC, of bronze in other areas) derived from the Naue II type
tradition: in central and northern Europe they also often appear with a full-
grip cast of bronze. With the sword, two spears were often used (one of them
mainly as a javelin).2 The protective armour consisted of a helmet, corslet,
shield and greaves, usually of leather, but occasionally of sheet bronze. This
weaponry and armour remained in existence until the end of the 7th century
in the south and even hundred years later in the north. Some eastern ele-
ments developed for cavalry were taken over from the eastern province, but
not many, while some Near Eastern models were adopted in the weaponry of
the western Mediterranean, apparently under Phoenician influence. Figured
scenes display heroic deeds and life of noble women (figs. 111–112).

1 Shields often of wood, cf. after GAE 90–95 notably Uckelmann 2013 and Überlegungen zum Ur-
sprung einer Ornamentform der Bronzezeit, in Durch die Zeiten, Festschr. A. Jockenhövel, 2008,
259–268.
2 Cf. AAE 41, 135–141 , GAE 105, Avilla 1983. Some varieties specific for area around the Alps Salač,
2016, 202–223.
218 PART 8: geometric koine

2 3
4

Fig. 106: Distribution of Matt-Painted Pottery. 1 Apulian and related, 2 SW Balkan (“Brygian”),
3 Phrygian, 4 Tepe Sialk B. After GAE.

Fig. 107: Decorated motifs of the Thessalian matt painted handmade ware, Marmariani. After
GAE.
 PART 8: geometric koine 219

1 2 3

6
4
5

Fig. 108: Phrygian painted pottery from Alisar. After GAE.

Fig. 109: Distribution of ring pendants. After Vasić, added the set of the Marvinci priestess.
220 PART 8: geometric koine

Fig. 110: Distribution of Thracian bronzes(1–4), ring pendants (5), hollow crosses for crossing of
straps (6), Macedonian buttons with 6–8 petals (7) and related (8). After MB II.
 PART 8: geometric koine 221

Fig. 111: Engraved stone stele from

Razlog in Bulgaria, and detail.
After GAE.

Fig. 112: Sopron: spinning and weaving women entertained by music. After GAE.
222 PART 8: geometric koine

8.3 CENTRAL EUROPE AND CAUCASUS

IN THE EARLY IRON AGE

THE PREDECESSORS

The area between the Carpathians and the Caucasus, north of the Black Sea,
was mainly steppe, and the steppe was rather free country. In the famous pas-
sage of Herodotus on Scythians, in which the question of the Persian envoy:
Why you do not fight to protect your country?—the Scythians answered
that they have neither cities nor agricultural land to fight for (Herod. 4, 127).
Steppe was for the nomads nearly like desert or sea: free space across which
various groups could move rather freely with their herds. This concerned the
steppe, not the forest-steppe north of it, and in this southern zone only
the periods in which agriculture was not developed. We may remember the
Neolithic Precucuteni-Tripolje culture in its early stages, and, partly,
the Sabatinovka culture of the advanced Bronze Age. Otherwise, the bear-
ers of the Kurgan (Pit and Catacomb cultures, as well as the earliest Srubno
culture), were largely pastoralist peoples without permanent settlements
(cf. now esp. Apakidze et alii, eds. 2009).
The horses became common domestic animals since Eneolithic in temper-
ate zone of Europe and Asia and they draw wagons. The relations between
the Caucasus and Central Europe in the Eneolithic were also connected with
horses, as shown by the mace-heads in shape of horse head, besides other
objects and pottery with impressions of cord, etc. Since ca. 2000 BC also
light-wheeled chariots were used for military purposes. Mitanni and Hyksos
invading Egypt were among the first who used war chariots on a large scale
successfully, but the real nomads in the full sense of this word only developed
together with the mastery of horse riding, in which rider ca. fully impose his
will to the horse (cf. Hänsel – Machnik, eds. 1998, Schauer, ed. 1998). This level
of horsemanship was developed in the steppes north of the Caucasus and first
widely used by two groups of Pontic nomads, first by the Cimmerians and
later by the Scythians as well. Contemporary with the nomads of the Euro-
pean steppe were other groups between the Ural and northern China; many
Early Iron Age particles of horse harness are distributed from northern China
(Ordos area) to Europe (cf. esp. Maoqinggou, Höllmann – Kosack 1992). The
horse was for the nomads the basic means of transport, source of food, and
the main force of their military equipment. The riding enabled much faster
transport of men and women across large distances than it was possible by
foot, means accessible to large groups of people, not only to their leaders, like
the earlier chariots.
 PART 8: geometric koine 223

The developed Srubno culture of the North Pontic area was divided (first
by A. I. Terenožkin) into an earlier Sabatinovka culture, and a later Belozerka
group (Terenožkin 1965). The Sabatinovka culture represented a floruit of the
Pontic Late Bronze Age civilisation, with large-scale agricultural activity and
sophisticated metallurgy, while the Belozerka stage showed more modest
occupation concentrated along the main rivers only, as the steppe dried up.
The Sabatinovka culture can best be compared with Ha A 2. This concerns
also the cheek-pieces of horse-bits, like one from Susanskoje, with parallels
in Central European Ha A 1–2 (Gedl 1994, Otroščenko 1998, Kločko 1998,
Kemenczei 1985, 1996).
Very important for external relations both to west and east is the evidence
of the Hordeevka cemetery in western Ukraine (Berezanskaja 1998). The
amber beads of the Tiryns and Alumière types show relations with Greece
and Italy (fig. 104), other items with Central Europe and with the east. Of
particular importance are also the results of excavations of Valentina Kozen-
kova in the Caucasus area, the Zmejskoe settlement and the Seržen Jurt cem-
etery (Kozenkova 1977, 1989, 1992, 1999), and those of the Tli cemetery in the
central Caucasus (southern Ossetia, Techov 1980, 1981, 1985, Pruss 1993–1994).
A selection of Caucasian objects with good parallels in Ha A–B Central Europe,
Italy and Greece is illustrated on figs. 113 and 115.
The Belozerka fibulae represent in the North Pontic area a phenomenon
to some degree exceptional, as are also other characteristics of the Belozerka
culture. Their general survey of them, notably of those from the Moldova and
the western Ukraine, was published by a number of scholars; most recently
Vančugov (2008) brings an exhaustive survey of the Belozerka fibulae. The
violin-bow fibulae with double loop come from Lukaševski kurgan, Širokoe
and Strumok, the knee-shaped from Kazaklia, Strumok, Sepnoj, and Saharna,
the early bow-shaped variety from Stepnoj and Kazaklia, the snake-shaped
from Lukaševskoe poselenie. Alll came from female graves, which also con-
tained amber and glass beads (Vančugov 2008, 210–214). They can be roughly
compared to the Submycenaean fibulae in Greece (fig. 16), but they are sim-
pler in execution and apparently local products, though not without southern
and western inspiration (Bouzek 2011d). This all allows a similar date for the
Ukrainian fibulae, so it seems to be more plausible to put the transition Sabati-
novka/Belozerka to ca. 1100 BC (cf. Otroščenko 1998, Vančugov 1996). While the
Belozerka people still partly employed agriculture, the successive Cimmerian
culture was typical for the nomads. The Cimmerian culture belonged to the
koine of Geometric styles, but here the newly accomplished art of riding was in
foreground. The Caucasian fibulae are more closely connected with the Greek
series (Bouzek 1983, 204–205, here fig. 115).
224 PART 8: geometric koine

HORSE AND RIDING, NOMADISM

Horse was an animal much admired in Greek and even other Indo-European
mythologies. The winged horse Pegasus helped Perseus to win his victory over
Gorgon and also over the sea dragon menacing Andromeda, thus opening the
way into the new Iron Age. Pegasus represented wisdom inspiring poetry,
and the connection of the horse with the forces of wisdom was equally valid
for “normal” horses. The nomadism in the full sense of the word, as described
for ex. by Strabo (Geogr. 7, 3, 7 and 17, 4, 6) only became possible with the
horse-riding in the steppes. It concerned cattle herdsmen. Cattle, horses and
camels prefer long grass, sheep and goats the short one, and also do not move
rapidly enough for real nomads.
This great invention in human history developed in the first centuries of
the last millennium BC: the first masters emerged in the area north of Cauca-
sus and the Black and Caspian seas. From the 9th century BC on the Assyrian
army employed cavalry using bow and arrow. The groups of mounted war-
rior and squire in Assyrian reliefs show that the Assyrian army adapted the
old system of charioteer and warrior to the new cavalry. But the innovation
brought a decisive striking force only after the refinement of horse harness-
ing and skill of riding.
9th–8th centuries BC saw the first successful attacks by mounted war-
riors, first in temperate Europe, and later, in 8th–7th century BC, in Anatolia
and the Near East. The military success of the Cimmerian and Scythian raids
in the Near East struck fear anywhere: even the Jewish prophets Jeremiah
and Isaiah used the simile of their raids (Gumurru) as examples of the worst
menace for their compatriots.
Of course the mastery of riding was one of the achievements of the new
Iron Age mind, of whose employment the Greeks were the protagonists, but
just this particular role in the Early Iron Age drama was performed by the
Pontic nomads, and the Greek only slowly followed their models. Archaeo-
logically, the area of the Eurasian steppes and neighbouring countries both
in the west and the east (China) is marked by identical or similar types of
harness: horse-bits (fig. 117.4), other metallic parts used for keeping leather
straps in position, where they cross each other (fig. 117.7), and for decoration
(phalerae, fig. 117.5, rattles (figs. 122–124) and the like (cf. Bouzek 1997a—
GAE, 179–203).
The vast Eurasian area is also marked by horse burials. The sacrifice of
horses to the dead, whose soul they should accompany, is sometimes marked
only symbolically by placing bridles or yokes with the funeral chariot in the
grave (most of the Hallstatt burials), while the cases of sacrificing horses in
the kind described by Herodotus (IV, 72) cannot be revealed archaeologically.
 PART 8: geometric koine 225

Still, the area of distribution of horse burials is immense, reaching from

China to Europe. The first horse burials in the Pontic area date from the 3rd
millennium BC, and not much later they also appear in Greece (the Middle
Helladic Marathon tumulus) and in the Middle East. From Dark Age Greece,
we have first the Lefkandi Hero of the 10th century, but the majority of exam-
ples everywhere date from 8th to 4th century BC.
Nearly as large as the distribution of horse burials is that of the specific
types of Early Iron Age horse-bits. The so-called North Caucasian types
after Potratz (=all Jessen’s types and also those of Kosack, here fig. 117.4) are
enabling finer leading of the horse than the earlier types of the Bronze Age
(Trancaucasian types after Potratz 1968, cf. Podborský 1970), which were
mainly destined for the team of horses drawing a chariot. On the Hungarian
plain, these nomads found a land similar to their steppe and they seem to
have stayed there for some time, before being absorbed by the local popula-
tion, but their raids seem to reach (like those of later Huns, Hungarians and
Tatars) even France, and their impact was also felt in Spain.
Mounted warriors brought to their neighbours not only their skill in
cavalry warfare, but also their beliefs, connected with the Eurasian Animal
style and with shamanism (Raevskij 1975, Eliade 1958). The first, Geomet-
ric stage of this style was transmitted by the Cimmerians and their allies.
Among the objects connected with shamanism, rattles and bells, partly in
openwork, may be named, further the so-called “jug-stoppers” known in the
Caucasian and Macedonian schools of bronzework (pl. B 4.1–3), the crosswise
objects characteristic for the Cimmerians (pl. A 7, 8; fig. 117.3, 7), mace heads
and pendants with protrusions (figs. 117.2 and 6) and wheels with spokes
(figs. 99.24, 27 and 28). Admiration for the successful cavalry brought not
only imitation of the way of life of the Cimmerians by the leading military
aristocracies of European Final Bronze Age and Early Hallstatt cultures, but
also admiration for their beliefs: some symbolic motifs used in shamanistic
rituals were transformed into personal ornaments (cf. Bouzek 1997a, 197–205
and 2007, Mitrevski 1991; here figs. 123–124). The majority of the European
and Greek Early Iron Age bits derive from the “North Caucasian-Cimmerian”
series, which penetrated into large parts of Europe, as studied by A. A. Jessen
(Jessen 1952), G. Kossack (Kossack 1980), V. Podborský (Podborský 1970): the
types Jessen I and III and the Szentes-Vekerzug horse-bits (figs. 117.4 and
114.2) were also known in some parts of western Europe, including Spain
(Bouzek 1997a, 197–199). It may be resumed that the nomadic impact of 10th–
9th century BC, deriving from “Cimmerian” raids, affected large parts of
Europe and established another aspect of the koine of Early Iron Age Geomet-
ric styles, connected with horses and riding: this impact also inspired the life
style of the new Hallstatt C aristocracy in large parts of temperate Europe.
226 PART 8: geometric koine

CIMMERIANS AND “THRACO-CIMMERIANS”

The main period of Central European contacts with the Caucasus area is the
period of “Cimmerian” raids and the beginning of the Thraco-Cimmerian
bronzes in Central Europe, which has been dated independently by G. Kos-
sack (1980) and myself (1973, 1974) to the 9th century BC, a date now further
raised to late 10th century by dendrochronological studies in Switzerland and
Germany. These are not much earlier than the dates given by A. I. Terenožkin
(1976, 1981) for the earlier of both Cimmerian stages (Černogorovka,
900–750 BC), while the later stage Novočerkassk (after the Novočerkasskij
klad) should be dated, according to him, ca. 750–650 BC, a date which may
also be probably slightly raised. The Thraco-Cimmerian objects in the eastern
part of Central Europe are, according to Müller-Karpe’s chronology, typical
for Ha B 3, but also the nearly complete absence of typical Ha B 2 hoards east
of Bavaria suggested an earlier date for their arrival.
The Cimmerian culture, as defined by Terenožkin (1976), had several
roots: one of them was local, a certain degree of tradition from the previous
Belozerka phase, a second was in the Caucasian (Koban culture) tradition,
the third in the Volga-Kama area (Chalikov 1977) and a fourth in the Ananino
culture and the Minussinsk area. This all suggest that the bulk of the cultural
phenomena of the Cimmerian culture was of a similar nomadic descent as the
later culture of the Scythians. The stelae (so-called stag-stones) and the dag-
gers (fig. 118, map fig. 114.1) show eastern links, most other bronze objects,
including mace-heads with figural motifs (fig. 117.2, 6; pl. A7.7–8), link the
Cimmerians with the Koban culture, while pottery seems to show some
degree of local Pontic tradition of the Belozerka phase. Graves of both stages
of the Cimmerian culture are distributed over vast territories from the Kuban
and Volga-Kama area over the Crimea, Ukraine and Moldavia to north-east-
ern Bulgaria (Belogradec, Endža, fig. 117.2, 6; pl. A7.7–8). The most character-
istic objects are daggers of the Gamów-Berezovka types, of horse bits of the
North Caucasian types according to Potratz, particular arrowheads and less
specific spearheads (cf. Bouzek 1997a, 194–196, Ivantchik 2001). Decorative
parts of horse harness and personal ornaments are rare. Rattles in openwork
(figs. 122–124) were probably ritual objects, and Maltese crosses seem to have
possessed a particular symbolic significance (fig. 99.22–28; 127.3), perhaps
solar (understandable with a northern people neighbours to the mythical
Hyperboreans, cf. Diod. Sic. 2, 47), or perhaps representing the centre of the
universe, of the four-sided world like in Scythian mythology (Raevskij 1979).
G. Kossack in a paper presented to the Schlesswig conference in 1991 found
models of this ornament on Assyrian reliefs, which may be correct, but it does
not explain the particular meaning of the motif in the Cimmerian culture
(Kossack 1994). The Cimmerian mounted warriors were the leading force in
 PART 8: geometric koine 227

the movement to Central Europe. The Mezöcsád culture is the archaeological

name for the central region of this nomadic entity in the Hungarian basin, its
impact in other parts of Central Europe is known under the name “Thraco-
Cimmerian bronzes”; in both cases Cimmerian and Caucasian relations are
clearly traceable (Kemenczei 1985, 1996, Kalicz – Koós 1998, Metzger – Nebel-
sick 1998, 2004, Machortych 1998, Smirnova 1998; here figs. 114, 116, 122–123).

LITERARY SOURCES ON CIMMERIANS AND ARCHAEOLOGY

There are two main groups of literary sources for the Cimmerians: Near
Eastern and Greek. The former are mainly contemporary documents on wars
within the Assyrian border zone, the latter mostly stories taken over from
old traditions or memories. Both are mainly concerned with those aspects of
Cimmerian history which directly affected the civilized world, i.e. there are
viewed from angle different from their position. For Homer (Odyssey I, 14) the
Cimmerians were a people living in a mythical land of fog and darkness, on
the fringes of the inhabitable world (cf. Strabo I, 2, 9). The first references on
the Cimmerians with the Assyrians date from 722–713. In a letter, Sancherib
informs his father Sargon II about the presence of Cimmerians in the region
of Urartu, and Scythians are also mentioned. During the reign of Sancherib
(705–681 BC) the Cimmerians attacked Asia Minor and destroyed the Phry-
gian empire: the Phrygian king Midas committed suicide (cf. Herod. I, 6, 15).
This presumably happened in 696/695 BC (Eusebius’ date) although a date
twenty years later cannot be excluded. American excavations at Gordion
uncovered considerable destructions (dated, however, by C14 much earlier),
but no characteristic “Cimmerian” objects. A group of Cimmerians probably
settled for some time near Sinope, and Asarhaddon mentions an Assyrian
victory over them in 679 BC. The military leader of the Cimmerians in their
679/678 campaign is called Tušpa in Assyrian records.
Another group of Cimmerians probably entered Anatolia from Thrace.
This is suggested by Strabo, when he speaks about an alliance between the
Cimmerians and the Thracian Treres and Edoni (for Treres Str. I, 1, 10, I, 3, 21,
VII frgs. 11 and 36, for Edoni cf. XII, 3, 34, XII, 8, 7 and XIII, 4, 8), tribes later
living in Central Bulgaria (Treres), in the area of the Thracian bronzes (map
fig. 114.5 and fig. 100.1–3) and in Chalcidice (Edoni), where the Macedonian
bronzes developed (map fig. 98 and fig. 99 right, fig. 95–97; cf. Bouzek 1974,
2007a). Lydian king Gyges even sought aid against them from Assurbanipal.
A second attack on Lydia in 652 BC was successful. Sardis (with the exception
of the citadel) was sacked and Gyges killed.
The traces of similar horsemen impact on the Mezöcsád culture in the
Hungarian basin and in the Thraco-Cimmerian bronzes are not recorded in
written sources, but traceable archaeologically. Herodotus explicitly men-
228 PART 8: geometric koine

tions Tyras (Dniester) in present-time Moldova as the place where the Cim-
merian kings fought a fratricidal battle and were buried, and from where the
common people left their homes. After this, Herodotus describes the escape
of the reminder of the Cimmerians along the Black Sea west of the Caucasus
to the area of Sinope (IV, 12), and this may be the story of one of their main
military forces, while other rather moved westwards. Strabo’s reference to
the Cimmerians joining forces with the Thracian Treres and Edoni (cf. above
p. 227) makes it highly probable that some Cimmerians moved west from
the Pontic steppes. The Edoni and Paeonians shared the territory where the
first canonical Macedonian bronzes with Caucasian relations started, and
this could not have happened much after 800 BC. The Thraco-Cimmerian
bronzes in the eastern part of Central Europe originated ca. 900 BC, i.e. about
150 years earlier than the first Assyrian reports of Cimmerians in the region
of Urartu (Bouzek 2007b; here p. 203–204).
The leader of the Cimmerian troops in 652 BC is named Lygdamis in Greek
sources, and there is a parallel name Tugdamme in the Assyrian records.
According to Strabo, Lygdamis was later killed in Cilicia, and Assyrian
archives probably confirm this report. This happened between 637 and 625 BC
and the second foundation of Sinope in ca. 630 BC may probably be a result
of the defeat of the Cimmerians. Herodotus, however, mentions (I, 16) that
the last Cimmerians were only driven out of Asia Minor by Alyattes, in about
600 BC. The Scythians, who followed them, were lords of Urartu between 625
and 585 BC, and their Near Eastern campaign lasted, according to Herodotus
(IV, 1), 28 years. The “Pre-Scythian” arrowheads and other objects usually
ascribed to the Cimmerians (rather than to Early Scythians, cf. Bouzek 2007b,
were found in several sites in Anatolia (cf. map fig. 114).
If we restrict the name Cimmerians to military bands invading Anatolia
and the Near East (Lafranchi 1990, Ivančik 1993, Sauter 2000), we do not
respect other Greek sources mentioning of them in the Pontic area. By the
latter sources we are entitled to use the name of the Cimmerians in a sense
similar to that Herodotus used the name Scythians, in rather general terms.
This would also allow us to explain why their military attacks in Europe
brought similar impulses there as those of the Scythians two centuries later.
To reject other sources and stick only to Assyrian records, or to reduce their
story only to its latest phase, and cut off the Černogorovka-Novočerkassk
complex from their material heritage, creates more problems than it solves.
The traditional explanation still seems to be more reasonable than later
attempts to change it, which only respect some select part of the available
archaeological and literary evidence. It should, however, be reminded that
the first Kelermes tumuli contain Novočerkassk type offering; the transition
from Cimmerian to Scythian style was fluent (Galanina 1997, Dubovskaja
1997, Bouzek 2001).
 PART 8: geometric koine 229

3
4
5

1 2 8 9
7

10 11 12

Fig. 113: “Pre-Cimmerian” bronzes in Europe. 1–2 cheek pieces of horse-bits from Staré Sedlo
in Bohemia and Larnaud in France, 3, 6–7 animal figurines from Orsova in Transylvania,
Poljanci and Battina in Croatia, 4 Thracian axe pendant in Mus. Benaki, 5 bell-shaped pendant
from Brodski Varoš, 8 chain pendant with birds from Bingula-Divoš, 9–12 pole-tops (?) wheel
button and bead from Brodski Varoš. After GAE.

Fig. 114: Generalized map of distribution of Cimmerian and related bronzes. 1 bimetallic
daggers, 2 horse-bits, 3 sceptres, 4 “Cimmerian” arrowheads in Asia Minor, 5 Thracian
bronzes, 6 other Cimmerian finds from the Pontic area. MB – area of the Macedonian bronzes,
K – Kobanand Kuban (Proto-Meotic) cultures, TC – Central Transcaucasian group, C . Colchis.
After GAE.
230 PART 8: geometric koine

3
1

5
2 4

7
6 8

9
10
11 12

Fig. 115: Late Bronze Age, western elements in North Pontic and Caucasus areas. 1 Lukaševka,
Moldova, 2, 7–8, 10–11 Koban culture: 2 Zmejskoe, 7 Styrgaz, 8 and 10 Tli, 11 Seržen Jurt, 3–4, 6,
12 Colchis, 3 Novyj Afona, 4, 6 and 9 Abarchuk, 5 and 12 Eščeri. After GAE.

4
5
1a 3

6 7 8 9

Fig. 116: The Koban culture bronze objects from Upper Caucasus. 1 Kazbek treasure,
2 Chrtnos, 3 and 6 Koban, 4 Kumbulta, 5 and 7 Upper Kuban, 6 Samtavro, 8 Suagrom.
After GAE.
 PART 8: geometric koine 231

2
3
1

5 6 7
Fig. 117: Thraco-Cimmerian horse bit (4), sceptres (2 ad 6), buttons (1, 3, 5) and cross-
shaped tubular object (7). 1 and 6 Adaševci in Croatia, 2 and 4 Sárvíz canal and Ugra, 5 and 7
Nagyenyed-Kakasdomb (all Hungary), 6 Turiec area, Slovakia. After GAE.

4
3

2
1 8
5 6 9
7

10
11

12 15

13 14 16 17 18
Fig. 118: Bimetallic daggers. 1–9 type Golovjatino-Leibnitz: 1 Leibnitz, Austria,
2 Klein Neundorf, Lausitz, 3 Panad, Romania, 4 Kamenomostskoe, Ukraine, 5 Brigetio-
Komárom, Hungary, 6 Demkino, Volga area, 7 near Kiev, 8 Keskem, 9 Biljarsk, Russia;
10–18 type Gamów-Berezovka: 10 Abadzechskaja, 11 Kotouč near Štramberk, Moravia,
12 and 16 Achmolovskij mogilnik, Upper Mari region, 13 Tatarskoe Burnaševo near Kujbyšev,
14 Blagodarnoe, reg. Otradno, 15 Gamów, Poland, 17 Kolca Gora near Kislovodsk, 18 Vysokaja
mogila near Chisinau, Moldova. After GAE.
232 PART 8: geometric koine

Fig. 119: Bronze belts with animals and hunters from Samtavro, grave C 59 and Sagaredzo
grave 5. After Chidašeli 1986 and GAE.

1 2

4
3
5

Fig. 120: Cimmerian stelae (“stag-stones”). 1 Olbia, 2 Belogradec near Varna, 3 Sosnovka, Tuva,
4 Gumarevo, reg. Orenburg, 5 Novo Mordovo, Middle Volga region. After GAE.
 PART 8: geometric koine 233

Fig. 121: Axes from Kaliště-Bezděkov near

Pilsen, and the Ananino culture near Ural.
After V. Šaldová and GAE.

Fig. 122: Distribution of bird-cage bronzes in Upper Eurasia, after GAE.

Fig. 123: Distribution of bird-cage bronzes in Europe. 1–2 Thrako-Cimmerian bronzes,

3 Macedonian bronzes, 4 and 5 West Balkan (Illyrian), Italic and West Alpine groups. After GAE.
234 PART 8: geometric koine

4 5
1 2
3

6
7 8 9 10

12 13

11

Fig. 124: Bird cage bronzes from Glasinac (1–5), Pečina in Bosnia (6), Italy (7 Bologna,
8 Syracusae, 9 C’a Morta, 10 Falerii), Switzerland and French Jura (11), Wetzikon, 12 Poitiers,
13 Les Maydons—Papilard). After GAE.

3
4

8
6 7
1

Fig. 125: Bronze objects from Luristan (1–7), 8 dagger from Amlash. After GAE.
 PART 8: geometric koine 235

8.4 THE WESTERNMOST PART OF THE EIA KOINE

Harrison’s monograph (Harrison 2004) of the Extramadura stelae, with a use-

ful catalogue, discusses not only Spain, but also generally the Copper, Bronze
and Iron Age stelae in western Europe and the second chapter the Atlantic
Bronze—Early Iron Age and its general characteristics. Other chapters are
devoted to iconographical analyses in general, to the social interpretations
of the stelae, their role in the society, to the context and meaning of the ste-
lae, heroic, symbolic and behind the symbols. Chapter 8 tries to interpret the
stelae in the context of European Late Bronze and Early Iron Age religion and
society and its ideals. Chapter 9 brings a summary of the results, and the final
part an exhaustive catalogue of the stelae. This part is especially important;
they are well accessible to the reader in clearly recognizable linear drawings,
sometimes also supplemented with photographs, supplied by his Spanish col-
leagues.
The stelae were in use between 1200 and 750 BC, and later. The icono-
graphic analysis starts with a quotation of Ricardo Olmos, who defined the
representations on the stelae as “a model of the reality itself ” (p. 82). As in
any art, there is of course a dialectic relation between art and reality: the art
mirrors the reality perceived, and also gives its model for further perceiving.
The art of stelae developed form simple signs to figurative. Sword, spear and
shield (usually of the Herzsprung type) were the main components of re-
presenting, but helmet (usually the conical variety, with comb-shaped crest)
was often added. Sometimes also a lyre, a mirror (a sign of beauty or of access
to the other world, as with the Etruscans?), a bow with arrow, a chariot and
other symbols more difficult to interpret were added. A number of figures are
horned—perhaps they were wearing horned helmets, but more probably it
was just a sign of heroisation (fig. 126). The arms of the figures are normally
hanging down, but in a few cases raised, or one of them holding sword. In
rare cases, the figure wears a kind of diadem. As in most other parts of the
world, this phase of representation of heroic armed manhood of the deceased
went out of fashion in more “civilized” societies of the Archaic age, here the
Tartessian culture (cf. Wožny 2016).
This culture had contacts mainly in two directions. One is Atlantic Late
Bronze Age, a larger cultural identity developed along the coastal parts of
Spain and France up to Britain, and the second the first Phoenician impact,
deriving from their—first very small—colonies, whose foundation was dated
in later memory ca. 1200 BC. The weights on some stelae may show that these
men were also involved in trade relations with merchants coming from over-
seas, much more probably Phoenicians than Greeks.
The self-stylisation of the family through a grave monument with ideal-
ized picture of the deceased had two main periods in prehistoric Europe: the
236 PART 8: geometric koine

first was in Eneolithic, the second in the earliest Iron Age. Both periods are
of important transition to a new kind of mind. The first was contemporary
and connected with what happened in the Near East at the time of the rise of
the writing and of the first states, the second with the transition from pre-
philosophic to philosophic mind. In both periods, the heroes, men and women
considered by their contemporaries as being superhuman at least to some
extent, were worshipped as mediators between the divine and human worlds,
and their graves also venerated. Most of the Extramadura stelae were not
those of real heroes, similarly as in Late Geometric and Archaic Greece the
monumental tombs under tumuli were rather sings of recollection of heroic
past, of a trend to imitate on a more modest level what was considered really
heroic. But in Spain, southern France, southern Germany and Italy (fig. 126,
127) the stelae had similar importance, as they had in Cimmerian and Scyth-
ian societies in the east. The whole family was proud of its ancestors, and its
members were proud of his grave, which was kept and marked by the stele, in
its pictorial signs symbolizing his importance. Large bronze cauldrons along
the Atlantic coast were markers of heroic feast (Gerloff 2010).
 PART 8: geometric koine 237

Fig. 126: Geometric ornaments on Daunian stelae. After M. Nava 1980.

1 2 3

Fig. 127: Iberian stelae. 1 Santa Anna de Trujillo (Cáceres), 2 Cabeza de Buey (Badajos),
3 Figuera (Algarve). After J. Blázques Martinez 1970.
 PART 9: RELIGIONS

9.1 INTRODUCTION
The solar symbols of gold, the importance of amber, and also wooden archi-
tecture of temples, the xoana and the symbols depicted had much in common
in the whole area of the EIA koine. Of the papers in this section one discusses
the Apolline link between Greece and the north (fig. 128), the other the Dio-
nysiac relations, the third the relations between Early Greek and Thracian
religion and the fourth the goddess—mother.
From the East, shamanistic and with horse riding connected elements
came, and from the west the Atlantic megalithic teachings, probably in con-
nection with ideas known from the European Hallstatt cultures. Pantheon of
the time of the European Urnfields was not much different from the Medi-
terranean; here also most of the gods represented powers behind natural
forces and only few of them had direct link to human soul: Aphrodite–Venus,
goddess of love, rules us until now; she does it, however, more in the sub-
consciousness than in clear consciousness. But there is also Athena inspir-
ing and guiding individual human mind; Apollo with close relationship to
Hyperboreans at the Baltic Sea.
Dionysus came to Greece over Thrace, Orpheus was Thracian king, mys-
teries of Samothrace of Thracian origin and Thracian goddesses were closely
similar to their Greek counterparts.

9.2 HYPERBOREAN APOLLO, SOLAR HEROS

AND HUMAN SOUL
Greek legends show the importance of their northern neighbours for the
development of the religion of Greece proper. From one side the Greeks con-
sidered their northern neighbours barbarian, on the other hand they admired
their sanctuaries and religious messages as superior to theirs (Burkert 1977;
1979; Bouzek 1993b, 105–124).
Apollo, as all Greek gods, had many aspects and roots; any explication can give
only some of aspects of his history and importance. Thanks to LIMC and other
studies the mythology is widely known also in its pictorial language. However,
mythology was never quite fixed, and could be retold in a number of varieties.
 PART 9: Religions 239

Karl Kerényi has once mentioned that a participation in a ritual on Bali

opened him the eyes for understanding Greek religion. In my case participation
on some Buddhist and Hindu rituals in Sri Lanka and South India helped me
similarly, besides of some meetings with Australian aborigines and western
Indians.
Explanation of ancient myths was never closed in antiquity; even the
authors of Greek tragedies adopted variants which fitted best into the nar-
rative. For those who were accepted into Greek mysteries different expla-
nations of them were given on different degrees of initiation, from simple
pictures to more elevated (cf. Eliade 1958; 1978).
In Greek myths Apollo left Delphi every winter and entrusted the sanc-
tuary to Dionysus, another Greek divinity who—against the majority of
them—did no govern over forces of nature, but of qualities of human mind.
Aphrodite, goddess of love, near to Apollo, also used for transport swan or
goose (fig. 130.1–2). But her power which also governs us was less affected by
the “philosophical mind”. Both Apollo and Dionysus were considered divine
founders of Greek civilisation, of its rationality (cf. Snell 1955; Kaschnitz
von Weinberg 1965, 252–260; Himmelmann 1964), and both came to Greece
from the north. In Northern Europe even models of Aegean xoana of LH III
C and Protogeometric can be found (figs. 37 and 89; cf. Sandars 1968, fig.
214–216; Renfrew et al. 1985, pl. 36–37, nos. 1550 and 1553). LIMC (LIMC II, s. v.
Apollon, n° 995) brought useful lists of documents useful for knowledge of
how Greeks and Etruscans represented Greek Apollo and Etruscan Aplu. An
amphora of 4th century shows Leto with her children and the dragon Python
(Krauskopf 1984, 34; fig. 131), Etruscan Red-Figured vases (fig. 130; Kraus-
kopf 1984, loc. cit.—n. 5, 346, nos. 565*–568*; cf. fig. 129) and other documents,
as the bell krater by the Meleagros Painter,1 show Aplu on swan, Vatican G
119 on biga drawn by swan; other monuments show Apollo with the Hyper-
boreans, his arrival at Delos with the Hyperborean maidens (fig. 129). In other
scenes Apollo is represented as Helios, His solar function is later transmit-
ted to Helios, while some functions remained with Zeus (cf. A. Rapp, MRL 2,
1886–1890, s. v. Helios, col. 1994 sqq.; Lambrinoudakis, loc. cit.—n. 5, 229–231;
Krauskopf, op. cit. 338–339; Smejtek – Švédová 2016).
The supreme divinity of Late Bronze and Early Iron Central Europe had
before all the solar function. Later on in Celtic art the swans are replaced
by dragons (cf. Ginoux 1996) and Celtic Taranis is usually represented with
wheel as the Solar deity in Scandinavia (Hatt 1989, 30–35, 89–95). In Greece
Apollo is also riding a griffon, for ex. on an Attic Red-Figured cup of first quar-
ter of the 5th century BC (LIMC II, s. v. Apollon, n° 367) In the “Nordic” area
the solar cult is well documented from 14/13th century BC; the best known
examples are the Trundholm chariot (Sprockhoff, 1954, 37–71; Galling –

1 British Museum 1917.7–25.2.

240 PART 9: Religions

Davidson 1969) wagon and that from Dupljaja (pl. B 1.5); other bronze figu-
rines related to Trundholm and the PG Greek figurines have been found
also in Bohemia and Silesia (Smejtek 2016, Bouzek – Vokolek 2016). The dis-
tribution of them and of vessel-wagons confirms the existence of a koine
of mutual relations between the area of the Urnfields, the Mediterranean
and the Black Sea (cf. Kossack 1954; Bouzek 1985, 176–181, fig. 88–90 and
pl. 12–13).
Their distribution in large parts of Europe (fig. 128) can best be explained
by a religious movement of a kind similar to the reform of Akhenaten in
Egypt (cf. Bouzek 1997a, 106–109 and 1999a, 57–62).
After the fall of Amarna Egypt became civilization of tombs and Moses
had to leave it to find a pathway for the future.
Annual visits of Apollo with the Hyperboreans (cf. Ahl 1982, 373–411;
Hegyi 1989, 5–21), arrival of the Hyperborean Maidens and later of their gifts
sent to Delos (Herod. IV 33–35), show that both centres continued to be linked
until the Classical period. In some aspects Greek Apollo is comparable to Nor-
dic Solar Hero, Persian Mithra, Marduk in Mesopotamia, and also to Michael
of the Old Testament. He and his sister Artemis are representing the human
ideal shown in Greek kouroi and korai, the two ideal images approaching the
divine model. This idea of divine model reflected in human body is a parallel
to the idea of ego eimi of burnig bush to Moses, preparing the ΕΓΩ ΕΙΜΙ of
Christ (cf. Schefold 1983).
The Apolline mythos is one of those marking path towards the New Age,
from mythos to rationally understood cosmos. The Coming of the Age of Iron
belongs to myths of enlightenment of human mind on the threshold of the so-
called axial time. Even in small-scale works of art this period is well marked.
The modest beginnings around 1000 BC laid the foundations of arrival of
so-called philosophical mind. The birth of these events marked the begin-
ning of this process during the so-called Dark Age involution, enlightened
by the spiritual movements, notably in Greece, Israel and Phoenicia, but also
in the steppes northeast of the Black Sea and elsewhere. Ancient world had
much less tourists than there are nowadays, but pilgrims existed, important
sanctuaries were targets of long-distance pilgrimage, and the most advanced
individuals were preparing the new age of philosophical mind, of enlarge-
ment of human individual wisdom.
The Early Iron Ages heroes and heroines visited famous sanctuaries
important for large communities, surpassing those of only local importance.
Greek admiration for other spiritual centres enabled understanding beyond
the local groups. Greek admiration for other religious movements, among
them for those in Europe and the Black Sea area (cf. Bouzek 1999b, 11–16;
2007c, 357–362), contrasted with the usual attitude against the primitive “bar-
barians”. Even high-in-rank Greek mystery sanctuaries were open to aliens,
non-Greeks, to men and women alike, free persons and slaves as well. This
 PART 9: Religions 241

atmosphere of respect to other important religious messages is reflected even

in the story of three magicians of Matheus gospel.

9.3 EARLY GREEK RELIGION AND THRACE

Many reports mention Thracian share in the origins of Greek religion (Burkert
1977, 176–179, 291–298; Burkert 2009, 1–58); amazing feature due to the fact
that the Greeks otherwise much less valued their northern neighbours.2
Among the greatest deities who according to myth came to Greece from
Thrace was the god of wine and ecstatic joy, Dionysus. According to the most
popular version of the story he was born as the son of the god Zeus and of
Semele, the daughter of the founder of the Samothracian sanctuary, Kad-
mos. But already the start of his life was much troubled. His mortal mother
Semele wished to see the ruler of gods in his real appearance. Zeus was
refusing for a long time but in the end he could not withstand the pleas
of his beloved and what he expected happened. The lightning of his shin-
ing appearance burned Semele and Zeus had to carry Dionysus (out of the
womb) in his own thigh.
According to Orphic teaching, which was probably closer to Thracian tra-
dition, this was already the second birth of Dionysus, respectively Zagreus, as
he was called by his second name. First he was the child of Zeus and of Deme-
ter’s daughter Persephone. He was to have become the new ruler of the world
but the Titans, the ancient barbarian demigods, tore Zagreus into pieces and
ate him. Zeus killed them by lightning. Apollo collected the parts of Zagreus
body that remained in the ashes after the meal of Titans, and brought them to
Delphi. Wise Athena saved the heart of Zagreus and Zeus from it begot a new
Dionysus with Semele.
Dionysus gained his wife Ariadne on the island of Naxos (she was the
daughter of the king of Crete and the Athenian hero Theseus abandoned her
there, being advised to do so by oracle). Dionysus first entered Thrace from
Asia Minor, and after his arrival he severely punished the Thracian king Lyc-
urgos, who killed the maenads (fig. 132) who were sent ahead by the god to
Europe (Fol 1993, 1995, 2002). Dionysus was accompanied by a joyful, wine-
drunk procession of Satyrs, Silens and maenads. Satyrs had human head but
horse’s ears and tail and always erected phallus. With Silens and Satyrs mae-
nads danced; they were mortal women dressed in animal skins and carrying
thyrsus, a stick with a pinecone as the finial (fig. 132). In drunken state of
religious exaltation the maenads ran about in the mountains together with
Satyrs or Silens. In their holy ecstasy the maenads tore animals to pieces and

2 The chapter gives a sumary of the survey of Thracian religion in the book: Bouzek 2005a, 42–51.
242 PART 9: Religions

once they even killed the Thracian king Orpheus, the second greatest figure
of Thracian religion for the Greeks (fig. 133).
Orpheus was the son of the Thracian king Oiagres and the Muse of epic
songs and music Kalliope; according to another version his father was Apollo
himself. Orpheus was initiated into Dionysiac mysteries but he changed
them to solar (Apolline). According to one version of the story maintained
by Aeschylus and Diodorus Siculus (Bibl. Hist. III, 65, 6) he was therefore
punished by the priests of Dionysus, who sent the maenads after him and
they killed him.
Orpheus was an insuperable singer. By his singing, accompanying
himself on the lyre, he could tame wild animals and nature elements; even
stones and trees started to move to follow his songs. He also participated
in the Argonauts expedition to Colchis for the Golden Fleece. According to
mythological time he lived long before the Trojan War. His beloved wife
Eurydice died of snakebite. Orpheus went after her to the underworld,
where his singing so moved Hades and Persephone that he was allowed to
take Eurydice back to the earth, under one condition: that he would not turn
to look at her during the whole journey out of the underworld. Orpheus
tried hard but he turned in the end, and lost her for the second time. He
never recovered from this disaster. He wandered alone in the mountains
and finally was torn to pieces by maenads in their orgiastic madness; they
took him for a wild animal. His head and lyre were taken by sea current
to the island of Lesbos and this dead head both foretold and explained the
basics of Orphic teaching, formed on the borderline between religion and
philosophy. According to the Orphics the oldest principle is Time, which
created a big egg in the aether from which the Firstborn emerged, contain-
ing the embryos of gods. The Firstborn was swallowed by Zeus; the gods
came out from Zeus and since then they are masters of the forces of nature.
The moral principles of the world are controlled by Moirs (Fates, goddesses
of consciousness), Charities (Graces, goddesses of grace and beauty), by
Dike and Nemesis and above all by Nomos, the Order of the World. Accord-
ing to the Orphics the body is the grave of the soul and until the human soul
does not reach perfection it would have to return from the heavenly world
again into a human body (Fol 1991; Bogdanov 1991).
Similar teaching in northern Thrace, which taught reincarnation and
the eternal life of human soul, can be found also in the legend of Zalmoxis.
Herodotus (IV, 94–95) tried to rationalize this legend. According to one of his
stories Zalmoxis (or Zamolxis) was a Getic slave of Pythagoras, who after
some time of learning from his master got freedom, returned to the Geti and
hid for three years in a tomb (Eliade 1972; Popov 1989; Sirbu 1994). The story of
Herodotus is interesting mainly by connecting Zalmoxis teaching to Pythago-
rean; this similarity was stated also for the Orphics.
 PART 9: Religions 243

Herodotus says elsewhere that the Thracians worshiped three main

gods: Ares, Dionysus and Artemis (i.e. probably Bendis; Popov 1981) and
their kings above all worshiped Hermes. Last remark might refer to the idea
of heroisation of the king’s ancestors, which was very strong with the Thra-
cians. The Thracian king Rhesus, who took part in the Trojan War and was
famous for hunting and horse breeding, became after his untimely death
the keeper of Dionysus’ oracle in the Pangaion mountains. Of early Thracian
sanctuaries we know mainly those on the top of the mountains and sur-
rounded with walls (Domaradzki 2002; Venedikov et al. 1980), but springs,
woods and other places of special natural beauty were also considered
sacred. The main god worshipped in the mountain sanctuaries was a Solar
God. Greeks compared him with Apollo who left Delphi every winter to visit
the mythic Hyperboreans in the north, situated mostly by the eastern Baltic
Sea, but by some Greek authors also in Thrace. One remark by Xenophon
indicates that this god was probably called Sitalces by the Thracians; this
was also one of the apellatives of the Delphic Apollo. The Thracian Sun God
can also be compared to the Persian Ormuzd, while Mithra, the Sun Hero,
seems to be a kind of predecessor of the Thracian Hero-Rider, the divine
hero first represented in Thracian art in the 4th century BC. On one rhyton
from Panagjurište Apollo is depicted with Hera and Artemis (all three iden-
tified by inscriptions), and this may represent—in Greek translation—the
main Thracian divine triad; also the Thracian Rider is usually accompanied
by two goddesses—perhaps mother and sister or spouse. Artemis was
related to Thracian Bendis and the Greeks often contaminated the images
of both goddesses.
The new treasure of silver vessels from Rogozen has significantly
enriched our knowledge on iconography of this Thracian goddess. Like Apollo
on the golden jug from Vraca, she is also usually depicted twice: she sits on
a panther, with bow and arrow, on pitcher no. 155 (fig. 135 middle); on pitcher
no. 157 she is depicted on a chariot with a female charioteer (fig. 136). On
a plaque from Letnitsa the head of the goddess is depicted as a protectrice of
the hero, and there is a similar scene with two hunters attacking a boar on the
Rogozen pitcher no. 159 (fig. 135 above). It may be another aspect of the Great
Goddess (related to Anatolian Cybele) when she is depicted in hieros gamos on
one of the Letnitsa plaques (fig. 137 right).
The already mentioned rhyton from Panagjurište suggests that besides
the huntress Bendis there was in Thracian pantheon a goddess-mother (per-
haps the mother of the Thracian Hero), identified with Greek Hera. Deco-
rative escharai—altars in Thracian houses at Seuthopolis and Pistiros may
testify to a cult of a household (fireplace) deity similar to Greek Hestia.
The prototype of the king-hero or Thracian Hero-Rider could also be the
mythical Thracian king Rhesus, participating in the Trojan War. Thracian
244 PART 9: Religions

kings had also—or above all—priestly functions; their royal status had to be
confirmed by a sacred marriage with the Great Goddess of the Earth.
The most honoured of all sanctuaries connected to the Thracian world
was the sanctuary of the Great Gods on the island of Samothrace. Three of
the names of Samothracian gods are derived from the name of the river Axios
(Vardar). According to the most popular story the Samothracian sanctuary
was founded by Iasion, brother of the forefather of the Trojans, Dardanos;
their mother Electra, daughter of Titan Atlas, conceived them with Zeus
himself. The Samothracian sanctuary was much more important than the
centres dedicated to only one people—access to it and to initiations were
open to everybody regardless of nationality, gender, age or social status, even
to slaves; in this it went beyond the rules of usual social and ethnic order in
classical times. Iasion was the lover of Demeter and thus the myth connects
Samothrace with Eleusis.
The second founder of mysteries, Syrian Kadmos (it indicates again
the international status of higher mystery religion in comparison to lower
national cults) came to the island after founding the Theban Kabeirion and
marrying Harmonia, the daughter of the illegitimate love affair between Ares
and Aphrodite, a symbol of harmonization of the polar forces of both deities
(cf. esp. Lehmann 1975; Conze 1875, 1890; Samothrace 1958–1995; Bouzek –
Ondřejová 1985).
At the Mikrovouli site on the island a prehistoric settlement was founded
earlier than Troy I; it finally disappeared at the same time as Troy VII B.
Near to the modern village of Chora there are a Thracian Early Iron Age
fortress and megalithic graves of the same period. Both ceased to be used
during Greek colonization around 700 BC, but Thracians lived on the island
even later, together with Greek colonists, and the sacred language of the
Samothracian mysteries remained Thracian. The main feasts on Samothrace
included dancing, also that of the Korybantes, wild men resembling Satyrs,
and symbolic performances showing stories from the life of Demeter and
Kore, of Iasion and Demeter, of the marriage of Kadmos and Harmonia. The
lower initiation was called myesis; the higher called epopteia required longer
preparation, confession and proof of sufficient moral qualities—and only
few of the candidates reached it. There may have been a third degree of ini-
tiation between the two, like in Eleusis, but the evidence is not reliable.
The main Samothracian gods, Kabeiroi, were four: Axieros, Axiokersos,
Axiokersa and Kadmilos; According to one group of sources they were gods
of the unconscious primordial creation of the world in its early stages. Goethe
in the second volume of Faust says of them: “...though they possess divine
powers they do not know what they do” respectively “only the fourth is the
one who thinks for all of them” (i.e. Kadmilos). Other interpretation of Late
Antiquity sources identified Axieros with Demeter, Axiokersos with Hades,
 PART 9: Religions 245

Axiokersa with Persephone and Kadmilos with Hermes; other explanations

connect them to planetary deities (Sun, Mars, Mercury). The figures of
Kabeiroi were according to other reports showed in the smoke getting out
of vessels, formed by the breath of the hierophant. The representative of
our technical civilization, Homunculus, in Faust, describes them: “Do I see
gods?—rather only pots. They look as though made of clay. While trying to
understand them schollars crack their heads.”

9.4 R
 EVIEWS: DIONYSUS AND HIS COMPANIONS,
SEA PEOPLES.3

A. Cornelia Isler-Kerényi, Dionysos in Archaic Greece: An Understanding through

Images, Leiden – Boston (Brill) 2007 Ead., Civilizing Violence: Satyrs on 6th cen-
tury Greek Vases, Fribourg/ Göttingen 1994

The Dionysus volume is in a way complementary to the previous book by

the author. In the new book she attempts to civilize Dionysus himself and
argues against the prevailing modern interpretations (like esp. Nietzsche),
which developed a generally accepted picture of the oppositional roles in
Greek religion—Apollo vs. Dionysus. The first chapter deals with 7th cen-
tury representations, the second and third with the images on vases in
6th century BC, the fourth and fifth with the thiasos of Dionysus and Ari-
adne and with representations of Dionysiac happiness on small vases in
later 6th century. The seventh chapter summarizes the results and the
final eighth chapter is a polemic with the modern mythological views on
Dionysus—with Nietzsche and with modern scholarship before and after
Nietzsche. The survey of iconography is exhaustive and well organized
and it gives a very detailed picture of representations of Dionysus on Attic
and Corinthian vases, including also addenda in other minor production
centres. The illustrations of vase scenes on photographic plates are fully
sufficient to follow the argumentation by the author. Sculptural images are
dealt with only in outline; the contemporary images from Etruria are not
considered, except for the Caeretan hydriae.
The attitude of the author is similar as to that expressed in her previous
book; it reflects similar basic approach to the subject (in Heidegger’s words
Stimmung), trying to soften the usually accepted antinomy between Apollo
and Dionysus and also to pacify the general meaning of Greek gods. Of
course Dionysus was also accepted as an official god of Greek polis; despite
of his otherness in comparison with most other deities, his feasts were part

3 The text is based on several reviews, mainly in Gnomon.

246 PART 9: Religions

of the year’s cycle. The wild sides of his feasts were tamed by the priests and
priestesses to some extent, but still he was the force of ekstasis, i.e. another
religious path than quiet inner meditation, which was taken over from the
Apolline path by Greek philosophy. He was, however, friend of Apollo, he
governed at the Delphi sanctuary during the winter holidays of Apollo. The
final aim of initiations of both divinities was at the end the same—unity with
the divine universe, but the path was different. Dionysus of the polis was less
wild than Dionysus in the wild country or in the agriculturally used land-
scape, where also his satyrs and their female companions lived mainly. In
her discussion the author very rarely quotes Karl Schefold and Erika Simon,
who might be nearer to her attitude, a few notes mention the last book by
her father, but much more she discusses the views expressed in recent stud-
ies similar to her views. There are a number of polemics with Willamowitz,
Rohde etc., and finally she quotes Burkert as the decisive authority. The book
ends in expressing needs to re-examine all the evidence, literary, epigraphic,
pictorial. “Such studies must bear in mind that Apollo, or Dionysus, or all
the gods are manifestations not only of streams, nor even of a divine will
over and above cultures, but of the cultural polycentrism and the historical
dynamics active in Greece from the 2nd millennium BC right until the very
end of antiquity.”
For many others this would mean to leave the religious studies and the
insight into the more substantial part of the story, but she is not alone in
this position now. One can summarize: Even if her conclusions would seem
to be too suppressing the wild side of Dionysus and his cult and too much
“educating” or “civilizing” the picture of Dionysus, as known not only with
the Greeks, but with Thracians as well, the book is certainly interesting and
shows a good progress of research after the LIMC entries, and also against the
previous papers by the author. For her position in the discussion on Dionysus
in Thrace cf. her contribution “Dionysos, la Thrace, la Mer Noire” in Pontica
32, 1999, 39–49; it shows similar Stimmung. I read some part of the book under
review in Italian, and the Italian edition sounds better; but this is the situa-
tion of all translations from one language in which the original book is writ-
ten into another for which it fits less.

B. Shelley Wachsmann, The Gurob Ship-Cart Model and Its Mediterranean Con-
text, Ed Rachel Foundation Nautical Archaeology Series in association with
the Institute of Nautical Archaeology, Texas A & M University Press, College
Station 2013, 321 pp. with many illustrations.

S. W. is one of the leading world specialists in the field of Bronze and Early
Iron Age ships and seafaring in the Mediterranean, he is the author of the
main synthetic monograph in this field (Wachsmann 1998). In his new book
 PART 9: Religions 247

he brings a detailed reconstruction of the Gurob ship model, a unique artefact

of its kind, a model of funeral ship on wheels placed as the only artefact into
New Kingdom tomb 611 at Gurob, a site situated at the entrance to the Falyum
oasis. It was found by Flinders Petrie in 1920 and is kept in the Petrie Egypto-
logical Museum. The first chapter of the book describes in detail, piece after
piece, all parts of the artefact, the technique of its manufacture, its colours
and dating; the second discuss its iconographic parallels. Besides well-known
Medinet Habu reliefs also other less well known Egyptian representations of
Sea Peoples ships (Dakhla Oasis) are thoroughly discussed, then the Aegean
parallels, and for the bird protomae the author mentions as distant models
even the North- and Central European Vogelbarke, what seems to fit well into
the general scenery of the given period. The ship model is closely related to
ships of the Sea Peoples and to those of the LH III C Mycenaean ships, espe-
cially close parallels of the Gurob model are depicted on the LH III C shards
found at Kynos in Thessaly in northern Greece (cf. Yon 1992, 394–407 and
Bouzek 2011a, 188–193). The broad knowledge enabled the author to collect
much other little known evidence on ships depicted in the Levant, as well
as complete corpus of representations of the Sea Peoples; the author brings
a substantial enlargement of evidence discussed in his monograph mention
above and in his later papers (cf. esp. Wachsmann 2000, 103–143). The third
chapter deals with transport of ship on wheels and wagons overland and it
also brings useful corpus of representations of the subject in Egyptian and
Greek art. The diolkos across the Corinthian Isthmus is thoroughly discussed
and even modern photographs from Egypt used for reconstruction the ways
of ship transport overland in antiquity. The fourth chapter investigates the
document of presence of foreigners at Gurob, which was probably identical
with the New Kingdom harem city Mi-Wer, with significant textile produc-
tion. Syro-Canaanites and notably Libyans are known as its inhabitants from
various sources, written and archaeological. Mycenaean and Cypriot pottery
was found there and some literary sources mention the presence at Gurob
of other East Mediterranean people. The dignitary Amen-Tursha was held
for a Teresh already by Petrie, and the Sherden are reported in the area in
other sources, besides the Philistines. Strange phenomenon are also holes
with burned properties of individuals, reminding one of cremation rite, com-
pletely alien to Egyptian habits; the author beliefs that they represent traces
of an Urnfield element in the midst of acculturation, an opinion which seems
to fit well into the general picture of historical situation of the end of Bronze
Age in the Mediterranean (cf. Bouzek 2011b, 983–1003). Even the presence of
amber beads at Gurob and of the spindle whorls which the Egyptians did not
use suggest that though the majority of Gurob population were the Egyptians,
many foreigners were also living there, among them also people coming from
Central Europe.
248 PART 9: Religions

The conclusions by the author sum up the whole evidence. The ship is
very near to those with pointed horizontal forefoot, known from LH III C to
Geometric warships representations in Greece, the diagonal member resem-
bles the beam used as large phallus on ship-cart of Dionysus, as described by
Herodotus (Herod. II, 48–49) and represented on Attic Black-Figured vases.
A significant number of foreigners lived at Gurob were more or less accul-
turated, among them descendants of the invaders from beyond the sea. In
papyrus Harris’ report on attack during Ramses III year 8 only the Sherden
and Weshesh (Urnfield group?) are expressively called the Sea Peoples. The
Gurob model derived from their actual ships, while behind the bird protomae
on their prows an inspiration of the Urnfield culture Vogelbarke4 can be seen.5
The book shows how even the careful study of long underestimated item
in museum enables better understanding of the historical situation on much
larger scale. Starting from a small neglected artefact in old museum collec-
tion which was nearly forgotten and putting it into the frame of other new
evidence collected from many archaeological and written sources the author
gives a thorough survey of the general historical situation in the East Medi-
terranean countries in late 2nd millennium BC, in which also the prehistoric
groups of temperate Europe participated. The book under review is an essen-
tial contribution to our knowledge of the period of collapse of Bronze Age
empires and of a new start of Greek, Phoenician and Hebrew cultures; the
sophisticated approach opens new horizons to historians, archaeologists and
philologists and should be widely read.

9.5 GODDESS WITH ARMS

The book on the Geometric koine seems to be a good occasion to discuss

a subject, which I tried to explain on several occasions, the last time in the
Festschrift for Ljuba Ognenova in French (Stoyanov, ed. 2005, 30–34) but not
enough clearly; it affects something of personal experience what we share
still with ancient myths. We can start with the story of Thetis. Married with-
out love with a mortal, she bore a hero, but mortal, too. She managed to pro-
tect her son against all kinds of wounds, with the exception of the heel. Her
son decided to choose from his fate offers the short but famous fate instead
of a long modest and plain. When Agamemnon took him his mistress Bri-
seis, he borrowed his armour to his best but less competent friend Patroclus.
He was in next battle killed by Hector, who took the Achilles’ armour. Thetis
commanded a new set with Hephaestus and brought it personally to her son.

4 Cf. esp. Kaul 1998.

5 Bouzek 2011a.
 PART 9: Religions 249

When Paris arrow killed him, his mother took his soul from the pyre and
brought it to the Leuke island in the Black Sea, where he after his rebirth
married the reborn Helen; she bore him a son called Euphorion, the Hope.
This resembles the birth of Eleusinian Iakchus, of Horus, son of Isis and
Osiris, Widar of Nordic mythology and even the birth of Jesus. Without the
mother of the hero, later even his grandmother, the future destiny could not
be realized, but even later it may get a second chance. The centre of cult of
Achilles on Leuke (now Zmejnyj) island had other secondary centres on the
Lower Bug and Dniester (cf. Buyskich 2005) and the youth of Achilles became
popular subject on Scythian gorytos.
Thetis being goddess was more powerful than her son and protected him
even beyond the earthly life. This pattern appears with variations in many
legends. Sacred marriage with the goddess of the country was inauguration
of the rule of Thracian and other Early Iron Age kings (fig. 137), Venus pro-
cured the best weapons from Vulcan to her son. The Excalibur sword was kept
by a sea nymph, the dragons-snakes on the Late Bronze Age swords and on
La Tène sheaths of swords (Bouzek 2005b) have another parallel in dragons
drawing—the chariot of Medea (fig. 134).
Goddess of the Vratsa greave (Marazov 1980, Venedikov – Gerasimov
1975, pls. 231–234) resembles Greek Gorgo, often represented on Greek graves
found at Olympia and Great Greece (Kunze 1991). But the Vratsa goddess can
also be compared with Athena, Enyo and their Indian relatives.
Artemis–Bendis on oenochoai Rogozen 155 and 157, and winged Artemis
on Rogozen 158 represent similar goddess (cf. also Marazov et alii 1989,
Bouzek – Ondřejová 1988, Gergova 1989, Byvanck-Quarles van Ufford 1990).
On the Letnitsa plaques Thetis on hippocampus is represented as Nereid in
Greece (Venedikov – Gerasimov 1975, pl. 287, here figs. 135–136), and a Hero-
Rider on another plaque is accompanied by a female head, perhaps of his
mother or wife (for ex. Venedikov 1975, nos. 238, 239, 243, for the discus-
sion cf. Alexandrescu 1983, 1984, 1996). On a Hellenistic relief in the Thasos
Museum the Hero-Rider is accompanied by two women. Comparable is also
the Delian triad on the Panagjurishte rhyton, where the names of divini-
ties are changed: Goddess–Mother is called Hera instead of Leto, who was
not important enough for the Thracian artist (cf. Bouzek – Ondřejová 1987,
78, fig. 15, 80 f.). Thracian triad was similar to that of Delos (Marazov 1996,
137–139).
It can be summarized that goddess with arms supporting her son or hus-
band is common in Indo-European and other myths (cf. also Alexandrescu
1996, Bouzek 2002b, 98–101). To be supported by a goddess was important
even for the most advanced heroes. Generally, human destiny cannot be
achieved without collaboration with other forces. For men, even the most
strong, support of his wife or patroness is as necessary as their own forces.
250 PART 9: Religions

1 2 3

Fig. 128: Solar symbols. 1 Solar boat with bird heads, Samos near Szatmár, Hungary, 2 handle
of bronze vessel from Bisenzio, Solar Hero, 3 wheel with protomae of birds, Siem, Denmark;
all bronze.

Fig. 129: Apollo with Hyperboreans, rear plate of

corselet, Olympia, 6th century BC.

Fig. 130: Apollo on Italic vases of

4th century, 1 Apollo on swan,
girl with mirror, 2 Apollo on swan,
Satyrs and maenad.
 PART 9: Religions 251

Fig. 131: Leto with children and

dragon, from a lost Italic 4th century
BC vase. After Bouzek 2000.

Fig. 132: Dionysus and maenads,

after Attic vase of 6th century BC.

Fig. 133: Maenad killing Orpheus,

after Attic vase of 5th century BC.
252 PART 9: Religions

Fig. 134: Chariot of Medea with dragons (right) and

dragons on sheath of Celtic sword from Taljandörögd,
Hungary (left). After Bouzek 2002.

Fig. 135: Scenes on silver vessels 1159, 155 and 158 of the Rogozen hoard. Goddesses.
 PART 9: Religions 253

Fig. 136: Scene on silver vessel Rogozen 157. Goddesses on chariots.

Fig. 137: Two representations of royal investiture, left gold ring bezel from Malkata mogila
near Šipka, right one of the Letnitsa plaques.
 PART 10: SUMMARY

FROM BRONZE AGE MYTHOS TO IRON AGE COSMOS:

THE PROTAGONISTS AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS

LH III C laid the foundations of Iron Age development by attempts to over-

come the collapse of the bureaucratic pyramidal Bronze Age system by cre-
ating independent smaller self-sustaining units, by taking new inspiration
from south and north in the fields of religion, architecture, ironworking,
agriculture, and in the way of perception of the world. It started the new path
in art by changing iconography and stylisation of human and animal figures
from the Mycenaean dilution of already degenerated schematic forms to new
simpler geometric formulae, thus planting the seeds fully developed later in
Geometric art, together with introducing clay figurines reflecting the wooden
xoana. It made the first step towards the new understanding of the principles
of wooden architecture from which later the architectonic orders arose, of
structure and rhythm of vase painting and sculpture. Even if not yet com-
pletely freed from the Bronze Age stylisations, the LH III C represents a tran-
sition towards the EIA Greek synthesis of reflecting and depicting the world.
Homeric heroes and the first Hebrew kings show attempts to reach the
new individual identity, the Sea Peoples phenomenon the rise of Gefolgschaft
over the blood ties and the privatisation of international trade ventures the
freeing of divine—state authority by enterprising spirit
Submycenaean period signalled the arrival of stronger individualisa-
tion by change from family tombs to individual inhumations flanked by
stone slabs, and the Protogeometric to cremations, aiming at sharper fron-
tier between the spheres of living and dead. The spiral, symbol of eternal
retour, was replaced by separate concentric circles, symbolising sun, female
breasts and by its five or seven circles the spheres of the universe. The male
and female varieties of amphorae whose shape was understood as reflection
of human body (including breasts represented on the female version), into
which burials of both sexes were put, show the first steps of human—centred
civilisation, in which the man is the measure of all things. The anthropocen-
tric character of Greek culture from its EIA beginnings replaced the pyrami-
dal Bronze Age hierarchy by the society of free citizens, homoioi.
 Part 10: Summary 255

The masterly drawing of multiple circles in one draft, which could not be
corrected, with multiple brush compass, required high awakening of mind
paralleled for ex. in the zen exercises of training of supreme concentration,
as bow shooting into the preceding arrow. The LPG Close Style, notably in
Athens, achieved sophisticated level in combination of rhythmic structures,
from triglyph-metopes to five and more members of symmetric patterns and
in the application of modules, probably at the time of legendary synoicism;
these patterns are also applied in the structure of the Iliad and Odyssey. Men
went in arms, and they followed them into their graves, as did women follow
the jewellery. The constitution of synoicism also reflects the similar differ-
ence in the Iliad between Troy, founded by the gods, and the Greek camp, with
through human agreements introduced its laws.
Both PG and Geometric styles owed much inspiration to textiles and bas-
ketry. The strictly rectilinear Geometric style is paralleled in children’s psy-
chology, where the transition from spirals to straight lines in children’s draw-
ings is explained as the birth of abstract thought. The angular meander fixed
the sharp transitions from one to another direction as against the fluent old
spirals. The LPG and EG art offer the best parallels to the Iliad, the Lefkandi
burial to its heroes. Of the main three generations of Homeric characters, the
earliest is best represented by Aias with Bronze Age shield and helmet, who
had least clear mind and out of shame committed suicide, the middle level
by Hector and Achilles, who were also enable to enter the new world, into
which after many troubles the cunning Odysseus arrived, supported by god-
dess of wisdom Athena, after stealing her palladium from Troy. The change of
identity needed individual intelligence of logos even of those with less moral
character; David in the Old Testament is similar to Odysseus; the Lord sup-
ported him also with accepting of problematic sides of his character: both
were examples of the way from pre-philosophic to philosophic mind in the
sense of August Comte. Oval houses and circular huts change into rectangu-
lar ground plan to be able to join the urban grid of streets and squares of the
synoicismus, the physical foundation of the polis.

776 BC, the date of the first Olympiad, saw already the beginnings of rise
of the city states in Greece and Etruria, being soon followed by Rome. Late
Geometric art refined the structure and modular systems with great prog-
ress of mathematic understanding of space and formed the scaffolding for all
later development of Greek art. The competitive spirit lead creations of local
styles, notably in the poleis; the ethnoi tried less. Being the most sophisticated
province of the EIA koine of Geometric arts, including large parts of Europe
and northern Eurasia, Greek model gave them inspiration, but it also took
another in reverse direction from Villanovan Italy, Hallstatt style of Central
Europe, and Geometric Animal styles of the East Balkan and North Pontic
256 Part 10: Summary

areas, Transcaucasia and Luristan. Imports (in Greek sanctuaries brought by

pilgrims) and exports of bronze items preceded that of pottery in some direc-
tions, while the latter was known in the Levant and Italy since the LPG period.
At the turn of the 8th and 7th century and during the 7th century the
Greek art adopted more inspiration from the Near East, while it formed as
leader of the EIA koine and via its colonies the new Orientalizing koine, includ-
ing Etruscans and other Italics in Italy, Iberians in Spain, Thracian, Paeonian
and Illyrian arts in the Balkans, Situla art north of the Adriatic, Scythian in
the northern Black Sea. Even in Asia Minor and the Levant Greek art influ-
enced its eastern neighbours and similar situation existed in Transcaucasia.
With some retard the Greek Orientalizing art inspired even the Celts further
northwards. But in addition to general resemblances the new evidence knows
fragments of East Greek ad Early Archaic pottery even far inland in the Bal-
kans, Italy, Spain and southern France.
The Geometric koine and its “Orientalizing” follower reflected and founded
the new identity, the base of philosophical creative personal individual mind
of the Age of Iron, freed from the old, by rigid theocratic authority gov-
erned mind of the Bronze Age. This threshold towards philosophical mind
from which the civilisation of Classical antiquity and its further heritage
arose, came through collapse of the old system of royalties of divine-based
authority to constitutions based on human rational agreement of Greek polis
and Roman and Etruscan civitas. The artistic development first proceeded
through dissolving of earlier forms into abstract formulae and signs and
compiling from them the new langue by the means of scaffolding the founda-
tion, skeleton of newly created forms, their analysing elements—parallel to
isolating vocals and consonants in the alphabetic script—and later creating
new order based on anthropocentric principle. In the first phase Phoenicians
with discovery of alphabet and courageous private maritime enterprise went
faster, but soon the leading position fell to the Greeks and on another field
to the Hebrews. Besides protagonists the overcoming the threshold was also
the work of other so-called nations in the shade; in the east by the mastery
of horsemanship, the capacity of fully imposing the will of the rider to the
horse, in most parts of Europe by the individual bravery of strong indi-
viduals freed on Apolline and Dionysiac paths from blood ties and able to
develop through free decisions created communities of Gefolgschaft, ethnos
and polis—civitas. The archaeology and art history of the Dark Age enable
through study of its illiterate sources more profound understanding of one
of the basic thresholds of human history and development of human mind,
including understanding of the community of participants playing together
with the protagonists their minor roles, but imminent for the accomplish-
ing of the complete performance. The aim of this book was to contribute to
understanding this process of special importance nowadays, when we have
 Part 10: Summary 257

to clear our mind to be able to face our problems and to find the way out from
our present crisis endangered by threat of another collapse.
While the way out from the late third millennium BC crisis in the Mediter-
ranean was found in creating sufficient reserves of foodstuff of centralized
state economy, the late second millennium BC escape from the collapse was
found in the modesty of small self-sustaining communities and individuals
based on locally available sources, in courage and in the clearance of mind, of
substantial progress of human mental capacity.

Addendum: Chronological chart of the Early Iron Age Geometric koine groups (1300–700 BC)

LH III B 1300–1200, LH III C 1200–1100, subMyc 1100–1025,

Greece
Protogeometric 1025–900, Geometric 900–700, since 700 Orientalising
Ha A 1 ca. 1250–1100, Ha A 2 ca. 1100–1025, Ha B 1 ca. 1025–925, Ha B 2 ca.
Central Europe
925–876, Ha B 3 ca. 875–800, Ha C 1 ca. 800–675
Protovillanovan ca. 1100–900, Villanovan 900–700, since 700
Italy
Orientalising
LBA ca. 1300–1100, Early Iron Age 1100–800, Geometric 8th–7th century,
Thrace
Archaic 6th cent. BC, Classical 5th century
Sabatinovka ca. 1200–1075, Belozerka 1075–950, Cimmerians 950–700
(Chernogorovka, Novocherkassk), Early Scythian starts ca. 700 BC,
North Pontic
Koban culture and Transcaucasia EIA ca. 1000–700, Luristan bronzes
area
ca. 1100–700 BC, since 700 The “Orientalising” koine, with the Celts only
in 5th century
258 Part 10: Summary

ADDENDUM 2014–2017

For the North Adriatic the most important is the publication od the exca-
vated Middle Bronze Age castelliere in Istria: Monkodonja I, Hänsel-Teržan
et alii, Pula 2015, and the pottery from the fort, vol. II 2016 comparable to the
lowland terramare settlements in the Po valley.
The new periodical Archaiologiko ergo tes Thessalias kai Stereas Ellados
reports refers a.o. on new finds of Macedonian and Thessalian bronzes.
Several important new books on the subject:
Dietz, S. et alii 2015: Prehistoric Aegean and Near Eastern Metal Types, Copenhagen-Aarhus.
Papadopoulos, J. – Kontorli-Papadoupoulou, L. 2014: Vravron: The Mycenaean Cemetery, Uppsala.
Vlachou, V. – Gadolou, A., eds. 2017: Terpsis Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology in Honour of
Nota Kourou, Brussels.
Bintliff, J., Rutter, K. 2016: The Archaeology of Greece and Rome: Studies in Honour of Anthony Snod-
grass, Edinburgh.
Knapp, A. B. – Demasticha, S. 2017: Mediterranean Connections: Maritime Transport Containers and
Seaborne Trade in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages, Uppsala.
Driessen, J., ed. 2017: RA-PI-NE-U, Studies on the Mycenaean World Offered to Robert Laffineur for
His 70th Birthday, Louvain.
Sideris, A. 2016: Metal vases in the Vassil Bojkov Collection, Sofia.
Murray, S. 2017: The Collapse of the Mycenaean Economy, 1300–1700 BCE, Cambridge.
Kleibrink, M. et alii 2016: Excavations at Francavilla Marittima, 1991–2004: Finds Related to Tex-
tile Production from the Timpone Della Motta. Spindle whorls, BAR Oxford.
Mazarakis Ainian A. et alii, eds. 2016 announced: ARISTEIA. Regional Stories towards a New Per-
ception of the Early Greek World. An International Symposium in the honour of Professor Jan Bouzek,
Volos.
Gorogianni, E. – Pavúk, P. – Girella, L., eds. 2016: Beyond Thalassocracies. Understanding Processes
of Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation in the Aegean, Oxford.

Sources of illustrations
The linear drawings are taken over from earlier books and papers by
the author and adopted and completed by Andrea Waldhauserová: from
HG figs. 16–17, 19, 21, 24–27, 33, 47–55, 59–63 65–72, 74–88; AAE figs. 1–4, 18,
29–30, 32; GAE figs. 13, 20, 57–58, 64, 89, 106–112, 113–127, 128–131; Bouzek
2005, figs. 132–137; Bouzek 2011; figs. 5–9, 11–13 and several papers; figs. 34–43
after Bouzek 2007c; 44–46 after Bouzek 2004b; 73-74 after Bouzek 2005; figs.
90–93 after Bouzek 2007e; figs. 94, 96–100 after MB 2 and MB 3–7; fig. 28 from
Mazarakis Ainian 1997a, fig. 31 from Kytlicová 1988, fig. 55 courtesy J. N. Cold-
stream, fig. 75 after Doncheva 2010.
Of the photographs, pls. B 1–6 and A7 are reproduced from earlier books
and papers by the author. The photographs on colour plates A 1–3 and 8 and
B 16 below are by the author, pl. B 2 after Bouzek 2005; pl. B 3 after Bouzek –
Vokolek 2016; pl. B 4–5 courtesy Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Athens,
Pl. A 4, pl. 6, 2–4 courtesy National Museum Prague, pls. A 4, 1; 6, 11, B 8–15
after CVA Prague 1–2 and pl. A5, 4 courtesy Ústav archeologické památkové
péče středních Čech.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahl, F. M. 1982: Amber, Avallon, and Apollo’s Singing Swans, AJP 103/4, 373–411.
Ahlberg-Cornell, G. 1992: Myth and Epos in Early Greek Art: Representation and Interpretation,
Jonsered.
Alcock, S. E. – Osborne, R. 1988: Classical Archaeology, Oxford.
Alexandrescu, P. 1978: Histria IV, La céramique de l’époque archaïque et classique (VIIé–IVé s.), Bu-
curesti.
— — — 1983: Le groupe des trésors thraces du nord des Balkans, Dacia 27, 45–66.
— — — 1984: Le groupe des trésors thraces du Nord des Balkans II, Dacia 28, 85–97.
— — — 1990: Les Eubéens et le début de la navigation en Mer Noire. In: V. Besançon, Mélanges
P. Lévêque V, Paris, 1–8.
— — — 1996: L’ atelier Agighiol et l’Iran pré-achémenide, Il Mar Nero II, 1995/1996, 9–28.
— — — 2000: L’ aigle et le dauphin, Bucuresti.
Alexandrescu-Vianu, M. 1994: Trois statuettes archaïques syro-phéniciennes à Histria, Il Mar
Nero I, 137–144.
Alexeeva, E. M. 1975, 1978, 1982: Antičnyje busy Severnogo Pričernomorja, Svod archeologičeskich
istočnikov G 1–12, Moskva.
Ǻlin, P. 1962: Das Ende der mykenischen Fundstätten auf dem griechischen Festland, Lund.
Alram-Stern, E. – Nightingale, G., eds. 2007: Keimelion: Elitenbildung und elitärer Konsum von
der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur Homerischen Epoche: Akten des internationalen Kongresses vom
3. bis 5. Februar 2005 in Salzburg, Wien.
Ambra 1996: Atti UISPP Congresso Forli vol. 6/1, Workshop 7: L’ambra in archeologia, 371–514.
Andrea, Zh. 1985: Kultura ilire e tumave në pellgun e Korçës, Tirana.
Andronikos, M. 1968: Totenkult, Arch. Homerica III, Göttingen.
— — — 1969: Vergina I. To nekrotafeion ton tymbon, Athens.
Angel, J. L. 1945: Skeletal Material from Attica, Hesperia 14, 279–363.
Angelova, Ch. – Lazarov, M., eds. 1994: Thracia Pontica 5, Sozopol.
Anthony, D. W. 1990: Imigration in Archaeology: The baby and the bathwater, American Anthro-
pologist 92, 895–914.
Apakidze, J. – Govedarica, B. – Hänsel, B., eds. 2009: Das Schwarzmeerraum vom Äneolithikum
bis in die Früheisenzeit (5000–500 v. Chr.): Kommunikationsebenen zwischen Kaukasus und
Karpaten: Internationale Fachtagung von Humboldtianern für Humboldtianer im Humboldt-
-Kolleg in Tiflis/Georgien (17.–20. Mai 2007), Rahden/Westfalen.
Argonautis: Vlachopoulos, A. – Birtacha, K., eds. 2003: Timitikos tomos gia ton Kathigiti Christo
G. Douma apo tous Mathites tou sto Panepistimio Athenon, Athens.
Avilla, R. A. J. 1983: Bronzene Lanzen und Pfeilspitzen der griechischen Spätbronzezeit, München.
Bader, T. 1991: Die Schwerter in Rumänien. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV, 8, München.
Badre, L. 2003: Handmade Burnished Ware and Contemporary Imported Pottery from Tell Ka-
zel. In: Stampolides – Karageorghis, eds.: 83–99.
Bailey, D. M. 1969: Some grave groups from Chauchitsa in Macedonia, OpAth 9, 21–40.
Bakarić, V. et alii, eds., 2006: Scripta praehistorica in honorem Biba Teržan, Situla 44.
Barakos, T. J. 2003: The changing perception of the Sea Peoples phenomenon. In: Stampolides –
Karageorghis, eds., 173–186.
260 Bibliography

Baray, L. 2008: Dimension socio-économique et symbolique des depôts funéraires aristocra-

tiques d’Europe occidentale, VIIIe–Ier s. av. J.-C., Préhistoire et anthropologie méditerraéennes
2005–2008, 5–38.
Bayne, N. 2000: The Grey Wares of North-West Anatolia: In the Middle and Late Bronze Age and the
Early Iron Age and Their Relation to the Early Greek Settlements (Asia Minor Studien), Bonn.
Barber, E. 1991: Prehistoric textiles, Princeton, NJ.
Beck, C. W. – Bouzek, J., eds. 1993: Amber in Archaeology, Proceedings of the 2nd international con-
ference on amber in archaeology, Liblice 1990, Prague.
Becker, B. – Schmidt, B. 1982: Verlängerung der mitteleuropäeischen Eichenjahrechronologie in
das zweite vorchristliche Jahrtausend, ArchKorrBl 1982, 101–106.
Belke-Voigt, I. 2016: Eine Widderfigur im östlichen Brandeburg ud ihre Beziehungen. In: Gediga
et alii, eds., 87–121.
Beneš, A. 1984: Pravěká osada z doby bronzové na soutoku Lužnice a Vltavy, Týn nad Vltavou.
Benson, J. L. 1970: Horse, Bird and Man, The Origins of Greek Painting, Amherst.
— — — 1975: Birds on Cypro-Geometric Pottery. In: N. Robinson, ed., The Archaeology of Cyprus,
Recent Developments, Edinburgh, 129–190.
Berezanskaja, S., 1998: Hordeevka, Ein bronzezeitliches Kurgangräberfeld im Südlichen Bug.
In: Hänsel – Machnik, eds., 325–342.
Bergerbrant, S. – Sabatini, S., eds. 2013: Counterpoint. Essays in Archaeology and Heritage, Studies
in Honour of K. Kristiansen, BAR IS 2508, Oxford.
Betancourt, Ph. 1999: Discontinuity in the Minoan-Mycenaean religion: smooth development
or disruptions and war. In: Polemos, Aegaeum 19, 219–225.
— — — 2000: The Aegean and the origin of the Sea Peoples. In: Oren, ed., 297–304.
Bielefeld, E. 1968: Schmuck, Arch. Homerica, Göttingen.
Bieti Sestieri, A. M. 1984a: Elementi per lo studio dell’abitato protoistorico di Frattesina di Fratta
Polesine (Rovigo), Padusa 20, 209–222.
— — — 1984b: L’abittato di Frattesina, Padusa 20, 413–427.
Bitrakova-Grozdanova 1987: L’agglomeration de Golem Grad sur le lac de Preshpa, Macedoniae,
Acta Arch 10, 100–133.
— — — 1996: Notes sur les relations entre la Péonie et la Thrace. In: The Thracian world at the
Crossroad of Civilisations, Proceedings of the 7th international congress of Thracology, 1996,
Bucuresti, 362–372.
Blake, E. – Knapp, A. B., eds. 2005: The archaeology of Mediterranean prehistory, Blackwell.
Blakolmer, F. et alii, eds. 2010: Österreichische Beiträge zur ägäischen Bronzezeit, Vienna.
Blegen, C. W. et alii 1953–1958: Troy III–IV, Princeton.
Boardman, J. 1980: The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade.
— — — 1991: Early Greek pottery on Black Sea sites?, OJA 10, 387–390.
— — — 2002: The Archaeology of Nostalgia, How the Greeks recreated their mythical past, London.
— — — 2004: Copies of pottery—by and for whom? In: K. Lomas, ed., Greek Identity in the West-
ern Mediterranean, Papers in Honour of Brian Shefton, Mnemosyne suppl. 246, 149–162.
— — — 2006: Greeks in the East Mediterranean. In: Tsetskhladze, G., ed., 507–534.
Bodinaku, N. 1990: Sur l’origine et les porteurs de la céramique peinte matte de l’Age du Bronze Récent
et de celui de Fer, Iliria 2.
Bogdanov, B. 1991: Orpheus and the ancient mythology of Thrace, Sofia.
Bonev, A. 1988: Trakia i egejski svjat prez vtora polovina na II hiliadoletie pr. n. e, Sofia.
— — — 2003: Ranna Trakia, formirovane na trakijskata kultura, kraj na vtoroto—nachala na prvoto
hiliadoletie pr. n. e., Sofia.
Bonnet, C. 1988: Melqart. Cultes et mythes d’Héracle Tyrien en Méditerranée, Studia Phoenicia 8,
Paris.
Bononi, S. 2004: Il porto di Adria tra VI ed V sec. a. C. Aspetti de la documentazione archeologica.
In: Guggisberg, ed., 65–70.
Borgna, E. 1999: The North Adriatic region between Europe and the Aegean World (12th –
8th century BC). Social strategies and symbols of power in the long-distance exchange.
 Bibliography 261

In: Eliten in der Bronzezeit, Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen, RGZM Monogra-
phie 49, 1, 151–18.
Bossi F. 2001: Rinvenimenti di elementi pondeali nelle culture delle steppe dell’Europa orien-
tale. In: Corti – Giordani, eds., 29–32.
Bouzek, J. 1959: Die attisch-geometrische Keramik im Nationalmuseum in Prag und in anderen
tschechoslowakischen Sammlungen, Acta Musei Nationalis A XIII, no. 3, 97–140.
— — — 1962: K istorii Attiky v 11. – 8. vv. do n. e., VDI 1, 104–114.
— — — 1967: Die griechisch-geometrischen Bronzevögel, Eirene 6, 115–139.
— — — 1969a: HG = Homerisches Griechenland, Prague.
— — — 1969b: The beginnings of the Protogeometric pottery and the “Dorian” Ware, OpAth 9,
41–57.
— — — 1969c: Three rare shapes of Geometric pottery, Listy Filologické 92, 264–270.
— — — 1970: Die Anfänge des griechisch-geometrischen Symbolguts, Eirene 8, 97–122.
— — — 1971a: Die europäischen Beziehungen der neugefundenen Enkomi-Schwerter. In:
C. Schaeffer, ed., Alasia I, Paris, 433–448.
— — — 1971b: Syrian and Anatolian Bronze Age figurines in Europe, PPS 38, 156–164.
— — — 1971c: The openwork “bird-cage” bronzes. In: The European Community in Later Prehis-
tory, Studies in Honour of C. F. C. Hawkes, 77–104.
— — — 1971d: Caucasus, Luristan and Greek Geometric bronzes, AAS 21, 89—94.
— — — 1974a: GMB = Graeco-Macedonian Bronzes: Analysis and Chronology, Praha.
— — — 1974b: Macedonian Bronzes: Their origins, distribution and relation to other cultural
groups of the Early Iron Age, Památky archeologické 65, 278–341.
— — — 1974c: The Attic Dark Age Incised Ware, Sborník NM Prague, A 28 fasc. 1.
— — — 1977: Sonnenwagen und Kesselwagen, Arch. rozhledy 29, 192–202.
— — — 1979a: Bulgaria and the Greek Dark Age Incised Ware, Listy filologické 101, 1979 8–11.
— — — 1979b: Local schools of bronzework of European inspiration, 1300–1100 B. C., Studies
presented in memory of P. Dikaios, Nicosia, 49–52.
— — — 1980: Unknown Italic vases and bronzes in Czechoslovak collections, Eirene 17, 65–76.
— — — 1982: Addenda to Macedonian Bronzes, Eirene 18, 35–60.
— — — 1983: Caucasus and Europe and the Cimmerian problem, Sborník NM Prague A 37, no. 4,
177–232.
— — — 1985: AAE = The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural interrelations in the second millen-
nium BC, Studies in Mediterranean archaeology, 29, Göteborg, Åström and Prague.
— — — 1988a: Archäologie und Geschichte: Probleme der Verständigung und Zusammenarbeit.
In: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Rostock, G-Reihe 37, 2, 41–43.
— — — 1988b: Macedonian and Thessalian bronzes, Efemeris archaiologiki, 47–60.
— — — 1989: Thessalian and Macedonian bronzes, Macedonian beads, Graecolatina Pragensia 11,
77–101.
— — — 1990a: Studies of Greek Pottery in the Black Sea Area, Prague.
— — — 1990b: The Rogozen treasure and the art of the Triballoi, Eirene 27, 81–91.
— — — 1990c: Die etruskischen Rindvogelwagen. In: Welt der Etrusker, Kolloquium Berlin 1988,
H. Heres and M. Kunze, eds., Berlin, 135–138.
— — — 1993a: Some new aspects of the amber trade and the use of amber during the LBA and
EIA ages. In: Miscellanea Archaeologica T. Malinowski dedicata, Slupsk-Poznań, 61–63.
— — — 1993b: The Early Greek religion and the Coming of the Age of Iron, Religio 1, 105–124.
— — — 1994a: Invasions and migrations in the Bronze Age Aegean—how to decipher the archaeo-
logical evidence, Eirene 30, 155–160.
— — — 1994b: Late Bronze Age Greece and the Balkans: A review of the present picture, BSA
89, 217–234.
— — — 1996a: The problem of migrations in Mycenaean Greece. In: Atti e memorie del Secondo
Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia, Roma-Napoli 1991, 685–692.
— — — 1996b: Crete, Greece and the Balkans: problem of migrations, Cretan Studies 4, 56–61.
262 Bibliography

— — — 1997a: GAE = Greece, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Interrelations in the Early Iron Age, SIMA
122, Jonsered.
— — — 1997b: Greece and the Aegean area and its relationship with continental Europe. In:
Absolute Chronology, Archaeological Europe 2500–500 BC, Acta Archaeologica København, Suppl.
vol. I, 1996 (1997), 175–182.
— — — 1997c: Zwischenehen. In: Chronos, Festschrift, F. B. Hänsel, 437–442.
— — — 2000: Xoana, OJA 19, 1, 109–113.
— — — 1999a: Communications in LBA Europe: the case of the Urnfields. In: C. Örling, ed., Com-
munications in Bronze Age Europe., Museum of. National Antiquities Stockholm 9, 1999, 57–62.
— — — 1999b: The “syncretism” and the transition of religious ideas in the Black Sea area. In:
Religions du Pont-Euxin, VIIe coll. sur la région de la Mer Noire, Vani 1996, 11–16.
— — — 2000a: Apollon Hyperboréen, le Héros solaire et l’âme humaine. In: Mythes et Cultes,
Etudes en honneur de Lilly Kahil, BCH Suppl. 38, Paris 2000, 57–62.
— — — 2000b: Phéniciens en Mer Noir? In: Civilisation grecque et cultures antiques péripériques,
Hommage a P. Alexandrescu, Bucarest, 134–137.
— — — 2002a: Die keltische Kunst und der Osten. In: A. Lang – V. Salač, eds. 2000: Fernkontakte
in der Eisenzeit, Dálkové kontakty v době železné, Prague, 98–105.
— — — 2002b: When did the Iron Age Greece start and how to explain its beginnings. In:
Sborník prací filosofické fakulty Brněnské university 6–7 (Festschrift A. Bartoněk), 41–50.
— — — 2004a: International weight units and the coming of the Age of Iron in Europe. In: From
Megaliths to Metals, Studies in Honour of G. Eogan, Oxford, 215–221.
— — — 2004b: Les images d’oiseaux: du HR III C au Géométrique Récent en Grèce. In: NumAntCl
33, 13–27.
— — — 2004c: Supra-regional system of weight units during the Bronze Age, Archeologické
rozhledy 56, 297–309.
— — — 2005a: Thracians and Their Neighbours, Their Destiny, Art and Heritage, Studia Hercy-
nia IX.
— — — 2005b: Zur Funktion der urnenfelderzeitlichen Hortfunde und zur Deutung der An-
tenneschwerter. In: Scripta Praehistorica, Miscellanea in honorem nonagenarii magistri Mir-
cea Petrescu-Dîmboviţa oblata, V. Spinei, C.-M. Lazarovici et D. Monah, eds., Trinitas, Iaşi,
575–588.
— — — 2007a: Cimmerians and Scythians in Anatolia. In: CALBIS, Mélanges offerts à Baki Öğün,
Ankara, 29–38.
— — — 2007b: Greek fine pottery in the Black Sea region. In: D. V. Grammenos and E. K. Petro-
poulos, eds., Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea 2, 2 vols., BAR IS 1675 (II), 1221–1262.
— — — 2007c: LH III C Iconography: an interim period of artistic development in Greece.
In: Stefanos Aristeios, Festschrift S. Hiller, F. Lang, C. Reinholder, J. Weilhartner, eds., Wien,
49–64.
— — — 2007d: The Amber Route, Apollo and the Hyperboreans. In: Galanaki, I. et al., eds., Be-
tween the Aegean and the Baltic Seas, Aegaeum 27, Liège, 357–362.
— — — 2007e: Thracian Thalassocracy: Fact or Fiction? In: Ancient Civilisations and The Sea.
Festschrift Mihail Lazarov. Acta Musei Varnensis V, 109–120.
— — — 2008: Poznámky k náboženství doby bronzové po nálezech z Nebry a Bernsdorfu, Pra-
věk NŘ 18, 2008, 375–395.
— — — 2010a: Migrations: Their Character and Interpretative Possibilities Concerning the
Bronze Age. In: Diegelewski, K., ed., Migration in Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Europe.
Prace archeologiczne 63, Krakow.
— — — 2010b: Phoenicians and Central Europe. In: B. Gediga – W. Piotrowski, eds., Rola głow-
nych centrów kulturówych w ksztaltowaniu oblicza kulturowego Europy środkowej. We wczesnychh
okresach epoki želaza, Biskupin – Wroclaw, 27–40.
— — — 2011a: Bird-shaped prows of boats, Sea Peoples and the Pelasgians. In: A. Vianello, ed.,
Exotica in Prehistoric Mediterranean, Oxford, 188–193.
 Bibliography 263

— — — 2011b: Controversies in Aegean chronology: method of comparison and European rela-

tions. In: Megalithic Monuments and Cult Practice, Kjustendil, 13–21.
— — — 2011c: Prehistory of Europe as seen from its centre, = Studia Hercynia XV/1.
— — — 2011d: The iconography of the Dark Age, From LH III C to Geometric, continuity and
change. In: The Dark Ages Revisited, Acts of an international symposium in memory of Willam D. E.
Coulson, University of Thessaly, Volos 14.–17. June 2007, vol. II, Volos, 983–1003.
— — — 2012a: Central Europe and Caucasus in the Early Iron Age. In: W. Blajer, ed., Peregratio-
nes Archaeologicae in Asia et Europa Joanni Chochorowski dedicatae, Kraków, 537–548.
— — — 2012b: Phoenicians in the Black Sea (II), Il Mar Nero 8, 134–137.
— — — 2013a: Cretan and Attic Incised Ware revisited. In: G. Graziadio et alii, eds., Φυλικη
Συναυλια, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology for Mario Benzi, 61–68.
— — — 2013b: The Belozerka fibulae in a broader concept, Studia Hercynia 17/1, 123-130.
— — — 2013c: Precolonisation in the Black Sea: The first Greek pottery finds in the Black Sea.
In: The Bosporus: Gateway between the Ancient West and East (1st millennium BC—5th century AD)
Proceed ings of the 4th international Congress on Black Sea Antiquities 2009, G. Tsetskhladze et al.,
eds., BAR IS 2517, 19–21.
— — — 2013d: Thracian Thalassocracy and the beginnings of the Greek colonization in Thrace
reconsidered, Studia Hercynia 17/1, 87-101.
— — — 2016: Amber as jewellery, status symbol and work of art, Studia Hercynia 20, 13–18.
— — — – Domaradzka, L., eds. 2005: The Culture of Thracians and Their Neighbours, BAR 1350,
201–207.
— — — – Koutecký, D. – Kruta, V. 1991: Analogies d’antiquité classique et d’ethnographie: un
essai d’interprétation des trouvailles du village lusacien de Chabařovice (Bohême du Nord),
Graecolatina Pragensia 13, 176–185.
— — — – Kruta, V., eds. 2002: Figuration et Abstraction, Figuration et abstraction dans l’art de
l’Europe ancienne, VIIIème – Ier s. av. J.-C., Acta Musei Nationalis Pragae A 56, Prague.
— — — – Ondřejová I. 1985: Samothrace 1923/1927/1978, Prague.
— — — – Ondřejová, I. 1987: Some notes on the relations of the Thracian, Macedonian, Iranian
and Scythian arts in the fourth century BC, Eirene 24, 67–93.
— — — – Ondřejová, I. 1988: Sindos—Trebenište—Duvanli, Interrelations between Thrace,
Macedonia and Greece in the 6th and 5th centuries BC, MeditArch I, 84–94.
— — — – Ondřejová, I. 1991: La tradition caucasienne, hallstattienne et cimmérienne dans
l’orfèvrerie archaïque. In: Thracia Pontica IV, 1988, 51–58.
— — — – Vokolek, V. 2016: Oltáře z Černého Vola: Prolegomena k publikaci, Archeologie ve střed-
ních Čechách 20, 711–722.
Brandherm, D. – Trachsel M., eds. 2008: A New Dawn for the Dark Age: Shifting paradigms in Me-
diterranean Iron Age Chronology, BAR IS 1871, Oxford.
— — — 2008a: Erneut zur Datierung der ältesten griechischen und phönizischen Importkera-
mik auf der iberischen Halbinsel, MM 49, 114–144.
Braun-Holzinger, E. 1988: Bronze objects from Babylonia. In: Curtis, ed., 119–134.
Briard, J. 1987a: Mythes et symbols de l’Europe préceltique, Paris.
— — — 1987b: Systèmes prémonetaires en Europe protohistorique: fiction ou réalité. In:
G. Depyrot et alii, eds., Rhythmes de la production monétaire d’antiquité à nos jours, Louvain—La
Neuve, 731–743.
Brill, R. H. 1992: Chemical analyses of some glasses from Frattesina, JGS 34, 11–22.
Briquel, D. 1984: Les Pélasques en Italie. Récherches sur l’histoire d’une légende, Paris.
Brunn, P. – Mordaut, C., eds. 1986: La dynamique du Bronze Final en Europe, Colloquium
Namours.
Brunn, W. A. 1980: Eine Deutung spätbz. Hortfunde zwischen Elbe und Weichsel, BerRGK 61,
92–150.
Březinová, G. 2011: Náhrdelník zo skleněných korálikov z Veľkých Ripnian, okr. Topoľčany, Zbor-
ník Slovenského Národného múzea CV 2011, Archeológia 23, 61–64.
264 Bibliography

Buchholz, H.-G. 1983: Doppeläxte und die Frage der Balkanbeziehungen des ägäischen Kultur-
kreises. In: A. G. Boulter, ed. 1983: Ancient Bulgaria, Nottingham, 43–134.
Buchner, G. – Ridgway, D. 1993: Pithekoussai I, (MonAnt. Monographiae IV), Rome.
Bunnens, G. 1979: L’expansion phénicienne en Méditerranée: Essai fondée sur les traditions littéraires,
Bruxelles et Rome, Bruxelles.
Burkert, W. 1962: Zum griechische Schamanismus, RhM 105, 36–55.
— — — 1975: Rešep-Figurinen, Apollo von Amyklai und die Erfindung des Opfers auf Zypern,
GrazBeitr 4 1975, 51–75.
— — — 1977: Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Zeit, Cambridge.
— — — 1979: Structure and History of Greek Mythology, Cambridge.
— — — 1983: Itinerant diviners and magicians, Greek Renaissance in the 8th century, Symposium
Sw. Inst. Athens 1981, 115–119.
— — — 1985: Greek Religion, Harvard.
— — — 1988: Katagogia, anagogia and the Goddess from Knossos. In: R. Hagg, ed., Early Greek
Cult Practice, Proceedings 5th International symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens 1986,
Stockholm, 81–87.
— — — 1998: The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early
Archaic Age, Cambridge.
— — — 2009: Kleine Schriften I – Homerica, Goetingen.
Burmeister, S. 1996: Migrationen und ihre archäologische Nachweisbarkeit, ArchInf 19, 13–21.
Buyskich, A. V. 2005: A sanctuary of Achilles in the north-western Black Sea area. In: Bouzek –
Domaradzka, eds., 201–207.
Byvanck-Quarles van Ufford, L. 1990: A propos de trésor de Rogozen, BABesch 65, 51–72.
Cadogan, C., ed. 1986: The End of the Early Bronze Age in the Cyclades, Leiden.
Cambi, N. – Čače, S. – Kirigin, B., eds. 2002: Grčki utesaj na istočni obali Jadrana (Greek influence
along the East Adriatic coast), Proc. conference Split 1998, Split.
Cambitoglou, A. et alii 1988: Zagora 2, Athens.
— — — 1997: Torone. I, Excavations 1975–1976, Athens.
Cardarelli, A. – Pacciarelli, M. – Pallante, P. 2001: Pesi i bilance dell’etá del bronzo italiana. In:
Corti – Giordani, eds., 33–58.
Carpenter, R. 1966: Discontinuity in Greek Civilisation, Cambridge.
Casson, S. 1918–19: in Casson-Gardner, Antiquities found in the British zone, 1915–1918, BSA 23,
32–33.
— — — 1921: Dorian Invasion reviewed in the light of some new evidence, AntJ I, 199–221.
Catling, H. W. 1956: Bronze Cut-and-Thrust Swords in the Eastern Mediterranean, PPS 22:102–126.
— — — 1966: Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World, Oxford.
Catling, R. 1998: The typology of Protogeometric and sub Protogeometric pottery from Troia and
its Aegean context. In: Studia Troica 8, 151–187.
Cattani, M. 2001: I pesi in pietra in Etruria padana. In: Corti – Giordani, eds., 89–94.
Cavannagh, W. – Mee, Ch. 1997: Mourning before and after the Dark Age. In: Essays in Honour of
J. N. Coldstream, BICS suppl., London, 45–51.
Celestino, S. – Rafel, N. – Amada, X.-L., eds. 2008: Contacto cultural entrée el Mediterráneo y el
Attlantido (siglos XII–VIII an), La precolonización a debate, Madrid.
Chadwick, J. 1956a: The Greek Dialects and Greek Pre-History, Greece and Rome 3.
— — — 1956b: Documents in Mycenaean Greek, Cambridge.
— — — 1976: The use of Mycenaean documents as historical evidence. In: Colloquium Mycenae-
um VI, 21–33.
— — — 1984: What do we know about Mycenaean religion, Proceedings of the Mycenaean col-
loquium Dublin, 191–202.
Chalikov, A. Ch. 1977: Volgo-Kamje v načale epochi rannego železa, Juškar-Ola.
Chernykh, E. N. 1977: Ob evropejskoj zone circumpontijskoj metalurgičeskoj provincii, Acta Ar-
chaeologica Carpathica 17, 29–53.
Chidaseli, M 1986: Die Gürtelbleche der älteren Eisenzeit in Georgien, AVA-Beiträge 9, 7–72.
 Bibliography 265

Chidiosan, N. – Ordentlich, I. 1975: Un templu-magaron din epoca bronzului descoperit la

Sălacea, Crisia 5, 15–26.
Childe, V. G. 1956: Piecing together the Past, London.
Chochorowski, J. 1993: Expanzia kimmerijska na terenie Evropy środkowiej, Kraków.
— — — ed. 2004: Kimmeriowie, Scytowie, Sarmaci, Kraków.
Chrysostomou, A. 1993: Sostikes anaskafes kata 1993 sti Nea Zoni kai tin Edessa, Nomou Pellas
AEMT 7, 121–122.
— — — 1994: Nekrotafeio tis epochis siderou sti Agrosykia Giannitson, AEMT 5, 127–136.
— — — 1997: Archontiko Gianitsou Trapeza, AEMT 11, 179–191
Chytráček, M. 2007: Časně laténské sídliště v Chržíně s napodobeninou červenofigurové
keramiky, s doklady kovolitectví a zpracování jantaru. Early La Tène settlement site in Chržín
with the evidence of an imitation of the red-figured pottery and documentation of metal
smelting and amber working, Archeologické rozhledy 59, 461–517.
Clausing, C, 2003: Geschnürte Beinschienen der späten Bronze und älteren Eisenzeit, JRGZM
49, 149–187.
Cline, E. H. 2014: 1177: The Year Civilisation Collapsed, Princeton.
Coldstream, J. N. 1982: Phoenicians in the Aegean. In: Niemayer, H.-G., ed., Phönizier im Westen,
Die Beiträge des Internationalen Symposiums über “Die phönizische Expansion in westlichen Mit-
telmeerraum” in Köln von 24. bis 27. April 1979, Suppl. à Madrider Beiträge, Bd. 8, 261–275.
— — — 1983: The meaning of the regional styles in the 8th century. In: The Greek renaissance in the
8th century BC: Tradition and Innovation, Symposium held in the Swedish Institute Athens 1982,
Stockholm, 17–25.
— — — 1988: Phönizier im Westen, Actes du colloque, Madrider Mitteilungen Suppl. 8.
— — — 1993: Mixed marriages at the frontier of the Early Greek world, O JA 12, 89–107.
— — — 2003: Geometric Greece, 900–700 BC, London – New York.
— — — 2006a: Ceramic borrowing between the Early Greeks and the Levantins in various Medi-
terranean contexts. In: Across Frontiers, studies presented to D. and F. Ridgway, London, 49–55.
— — — 2006b: The long, pictureless hiatus: some thoughts on Greek figured art between My-
cenaean pictorial and Attic Geometric. In: Rystedt – Wells, eds., 159–163.
— — — 2008: Greek Geometric Pottery. A survey of ten local styles and their chronology, Bristol.
Cook, B. F., ed. 1989: The Rogozen Treasure, Papers of the Anglo-Bulgarian conference, London.
Conze A. et al., 1875, 1890: Archäologische Untersuchungen auf Samothrake, Vienna.
Corti, C. – Giordani, N., eds. 2001: Pondera, Pesi i misure nell’Antichitá, Modena.
Coulson, W. D. E. 1986: The Dark Age Pottery from Messenia, Göteborg.
— — — 1991: The Protogeometric from Polis Reconsidered, BSA 86, 42–64.
Courbin, P. 1988: What is archaeology. An essay on the Nature of Archaeological Research, Chicago.
Cour-Marty, M.-A. 1990: Les poids égyptiens, de précieux jalons archéologiques. In: Sociétés ur-
baines en Egypte et au Sudan (Cahiers de recherches de l’Institut de papyrologie et d’egyptologie de
Lille 12), Lille, 17–55.
Courtois, J.-C. 1983: Le trésor de poids de Kalavassos—Aghios Dimitrios 1982, RDAC 1983, 117–130.
— — — 1990: Poids, prix, taxes et salaries a Ougarit (Syrie) au IIe millénaire. In: R. Gyselen, ed.,
Prix, saleries, poids et mesures, (Res Orentales II), Paris, 119–127.
Cowen, J. D. 1966: The Origins of the Flange Hilted Sword of Bronze in Continental Europe, PPS
32, 262–312.
Cremation Burials 2013: Brandbestattungen zwischen mittleren Donau bis zur Ägäis zwischen
1350 und 750 v. Chr., Wien.
Croissant, M. 1988: Tradition et innovation dans les ateliers corinthiens archaïques: matériaux pour
l’histoire d’un style, BCH 112, 91–166.
Crouwell, J. H., 1991: The Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery, Well Built Mycenae 21, Oxford.
— — — 1999: Fighting on land and sea in Late Mycenaean times. In: Polemos, Aegaeum 19, 455–
466.
— — — 2006: Chariot depictions—from Mycenaean to Geometric Greece and Etruria. In:
Rystedt – Wells, eds., 165–170.
266 Bibliography

Crowley, J. 1989: The Aegean and the Near East: An Investigation into the Transference of Artistic
Motifs between the Aegean and the Near East in the Bronze Age, Jonsered.
Curtis, J., ed. 1988: Bronze-Working Centres of Eastern Asia, c. 1000–539 BC, London.
Čausidis, D. 1988: The symbolic and cult use of Macedonian bronzes, Ziva Antika 38, 69–89.
D’Agata, A. – L., Moody, J., eds. 2005: Ariadne’s Thread. Connections between Crete and the Greek
Mainland in LM III., Athens.
Dakoronia, F. 1997: War ships on sherds of LH III C krater from Kynos. In: Tropis II, 2nd interna-
tional Syposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Delhi, 117–122.
— — — 1987: Marmara, ta hypomykenaika nekrotafeia ton tymbon, Athens.
— — — 2006a: Mycenaean pictorial style at Kynos, East Lokris. In: Rystedt – Wells, eds., 23–29.
— — — 2006b: Bronze Age pictorial tradition on Geometric pottery, In: Rystedt – Wells, eds.,
170–175.
Dakoronia, F. – Deger-Jalkotzy, S. 2001: Beisetzungen mit Leichenbrand aus der Felsenkammer-
nekropole bei Elateia-Alonaki, Griechenland, ArchAustr 84, 137–153.
David, W. 2007: Bronzene Goldornamente aus Süddeutschland und ihre donauländisch-balka-
nische Beziehungen. In: The Struma/Strymon Valley in Prehistory, Sofia, 421–441.
Dawkins, R. M., et al. 1929: The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta, London.
de Boer, J. 2007: The earliest possible dates of the Greek colonisation along the West Pontic coast.
In: Festschrift M. Lazarov, Acta Musei Varnensis V, 123–139.
Deger-Jalkotzy, S. 1978: E-QE-TA, Zur Rolle des Gefolgschaftwesens in der Sozialstruktur der myke-
nischen Reiche, Wien.
— — — 1982: Die carinierte Tasse FS 240, ein “Leitfossil” der mykenischen Chronologie und
seine Geschichte. In: Pro arte antiqua, Festschrift f. Hedwig Kenner I, 54–61.
— — — ed. 1983: Griechenland, Agäis und die Levante während der Dark Ages vom 12. bis 9. Jh., Wien.
— — — 1991: Diskontinuität und Kontinuität: Aspekte politischer und sozialer Organisation in
Zeit und in der Welt der homerischen Epen. In: La transizione del miceneo all’ alto arcaismo, Da
palazzo alla città, Roma 1988, 53–66.
— — — 1998: The Aegean islands and the breakdown of the Mycenaean palaces around 1200 BC.
In: Karageorghis, ed., 105–120.
— — — ed 2003: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. In: S. Deger-Jalkotzy – M. Zavadil,
eds. 2003: Proceedings of the International Workshop held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at
Vienna, May 7th—8th 2001, Wien.
— — — 2007: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. II, with E. Bächle.
— — — 2009: LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms. III, with E. Bächle.
— — — 2009a: From LH III C to the Early Iron Age: The SubMycenaean at Elateia. In: LH Chro-
nology and Synchronicism III, 77–116.
— — — ed. 1983: Grichenland, die Ägäis und die Levante während der “Dark Ages“, Vienna.
— — — – Lemos, I. S., eds. 2006: Ancient Greece: from the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer,
Edinburgh.
— — — ed. 2009: LH III C Chronology and Synchronism III: LH IIIC late and the transition to the EIA,
Die Erforschung des Zusammenbruchs der sog. Mykenischen Kultur und der sog. dunklen
Jahrhunderte. In: Zweihundert Jahre Homer-Forschung, Rückblick und Ausblick, Colloquium
Rauricum 2, 127–154.
de la Genière, J. 1987: La colonisation grecque en Italie méridionale et en Sicilie et l’aculturation
de non Grecs, RA, 2, 257–270.
Delpino, F. 1995: Sui rapporti tra Etruria, Italia settentrionale ed Europa transalpina nell‘età del
bronzo finale. In: Schauer, ed., 17–35.
Demakopoulou, K. – Konsola, D., 1981: Archaeological Museum of Thebes, Guide, Athens.
Desboroough, V. R. d’A. 1952: Greek Protogeometric Pottery, Oxford.
— — — 1964: Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors, Cambridge.
— — — 1972: The Greek Dark Ages, London.
Deshayes, J. 1960: Les outils de bronze de l’Indus au Danube, Paris.
— — — 1966: Argos, les fouilles de la Deiras, Paris.
 Bibliography 267

Dialismas, A. 2001a: Metal artefacts as recorded in the Linear B tablets. In: Michailidou, ed.,
121–143.
— — — 2001b: The databases on the quantities recorded in Linear B tablets. In: Michailidou, ed.,
337–349.
Dickinson, O. 2006: The Aegean from Bronze to Iron Age. Continuity and Change Between the Twelfth
and Eight Centuries BC, Abingdon and New York.
Dimitriakoudis, S. – Papaspyrou, P. – Pelousis, V. 2006: Archaic artefacts resembling celestial
sphere, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 6, no. 3, 93–99.
Dimitriou, A. 1978: Die Datierung der Periode Zypro-archaisch I nach Fundzusammenhängen
mit der griechischen Keramik, AA 1978, 12–25.
Dobesch, G. 1983: Historische Fragestellungen in der Urgeschichte. In: Degger-Jakoltzy, ed.,
129–230.
Dobiat, C. – Matthäus, H. – Raftery, B. 1987: Glasperlen der vorrömischen Eisenzeit II: Ringau-
genperlen und verwandte Perlengruppen, Marburger Studien 9.
Dobrzańska, H. – Megaw, V. – Poleska, P. 2005: Celts on the Margin, Studies of European Cultural
Interaction, 7th century BC—1st century AD, dedicated to Zenon Wożniak, Kraków.
Domaradzki, M. – Karaiotov, I. – Gotzev, A. 1991: Le habitat du premier âge du fer de Malkoto
Kale, Thracia Pontica 4.
— — — 2002: Trakijske kultove mesta, Sofia.
Doncheva, D. 2010: Einflüsse der mykenischen Kultur auf dem Gebiet von Bulgarien. In: Bla-
kolmer, F., ed., 81–95.
Donohue, A. 1988: Xoana and the origins of Greek Sculpture, Atlanta.
Doonan, O. 2007: Colony and Conjecture: the Early Greek colony at Sinope. In: Colbert et al.,
eds., Milesische Forschungen 5, Mainz, 613–620.
Dothan, T. 1982: The Philistines and Their Material Culture, New Haven.
— — — 1992: People of the Sea, New York.
Doumas, Ch. 1998: Quelques indications concernant les contacts entre la mer Egée et la Mer
Noire avant la colonisation grecque, Thracia Pontica 4, 15–20.
— — — 1993: EH III and the Coming of the Greeks, Cretan Studies 5, 51–61.
Drescher, H. 1980: Zur Technik der Hallstattzeit. In: Hallstattkultur, Katalog. Austellung Steyr
1980, Linz, 54–66.
Drerup, H. 1969: Griechische Baukunst der geometrischen Zeit, Göttingen.
Drews, R. 1993: The End of the Bronze Age, Princeton.
Dubovskaja, O. 1997: Zur ethnischen und kulturellen Einordnung der Novočerkassk-Gruppe,
EA 3, 277–328.
Dudaev, S. A. 1999: Vzaimnootnošenija plemen severnogo Kavaza s kočevnikami jugo-vostočnoj Jevropy
v predskifskuju Epochu, Armavir.
Dunand, Ch. – C. Rolley, C. 1998: Bronzes macedoniens à l‘Artemision de Thasos, Arch. Efem.
1998, 47–60.
Eder, B. 1998: Argolis, Lakonien, Messenien, Vom Ende der mykenischen Palastzeit zur Einwanderung
der Dorier, Vienna.
Eggebrecht, A. – Eggebrecht, E. et al. 1988: Albanien. Schätze aus dem Land der Skipetaren, Mainz.
Eibner, A. 2002: Woher stammt die Figuralverzierung im Osthallstattkreis? In: Bouzek – Kruta,
eds., 125–142.
— — — 2016: Kulturelle Einflussnahme aus Etrurien auf die benachbarten Kulturräume der
europäischen Eisenzeit. In: Gediga et alii, eds. 2016, 147–190.
Eiwanger J. 1989: Talanton, ein bz. Goldstandard zwischen Ägäis und Mitteleuropa, Germania
67, 443–462.
— — — 1997: Hair-rings and European Late Bronze Age society, Antiquity 71, 308–320.
Eliade, M. 1957: Chamanism et la technique de l’extase, Paris.
— — — 1958: Patterns in Comparative Religion, Chicago.
— — — 1972: Zalmoxis, The Vanishing God, Chicago.
— — — 1978: Histoire des croyances et des idées religieuses Il, Paris.
268 Bibliography

Eogan, G. 1983: The Hoards of the Irish Later Bronze Age, Dublin.
— — — 1990: Possible connection between Britain and Ireland and the East Mediterranean
region during the Bronze Age. In: Orientalisch-ägäische Einflüsse in der europäischen Bronzezeit,
Bonn.
Evely, D., ed. 2006: Lefkandi IV, The Bronze Age, Athens.
Essayan, S. A. 1984: Gürtelbleche der älteren Eisenzeit in Armenien, AVA-Beiträge 6, 97–198.
Fagerström, K. 1988: Greek Iron Age Architeture, SIMA 81, Jonsered.
Falsone, G. 1988a: Phoenicia as a bronzeworking center in the Early Iron Age. In: Curtis, ed., 227–250.
— — — 1988b: La Fenicia comme centro di lavorazione del bronzo nell’età del ferro, DialArch 6,
79–110.
Felmann, B, 1984: Frühe Gürtelscheiben aus Olympia, OlForsch 16, 68–118.
Filolakón – Filolakón, Studies presented to H. Catling, ed. by J. Motyka Sandars, London 1991.
Finley, M. 1954: The World of Odysseus, London.
Fittschen, K. 1969: Untersuchungen zu Sagendarstellungen bei den Griechen, Berlin.
Florea, C. – Sirbu, V. 2000: Géto-Daces, Iconographie et imaginaire, Cluj-Napoca.
Fol, A. 1991: Thracian Orphism, Sofia.
— — — 1993: Der Thrakische Dionysos I . Zagreus, Sofia.
— — — 1995: Der Thrakische Dionysos II. Sabacij, Sofia.
— — — 2002: Der Thrakische Dionysos III. Nazovane i vjara, Sofia.
Fol, A. – Nikolov, B. – Hodinnot, R. F. 1987: The New Thracian Treasure from Rogozen, Bulgaria,
London.
Furumark, A. 1941: Mycenaean Pottery, Analysis and Classification, Stockholm.
Frey, O.-H. 1989: I rapporti commerciali tra l’Italia Setentrionale e l’Europa Centrale dal VII–IV
secolo, a. C. In: Atti di 2o congresso di etruscologia, Firenze 1985, Roma 1989, vol. 2, 11ff.
— — — 2004: Das westliche Hallstattkreis und das adriatische Gebiet. In: A. Guggisberg, ed.,
55–63.
— — — 2007: Über die Ostalpen zur Keltiké: Bezeihungen zwischen der Situlen-Este-Kunst und
dem Latène A-Kreis. In: M. Blečić et alii, Hrsg.: Scripta praehistorica in honorem Biba Teržan.
Situla 44, Ljubljana, 777–788.
Frey, O.-H. et al. 1983: Glasperlen der vorrömischen Eisenzeit I, Marburger Studien 5.
— — — 1996: Hallstatt und Italien, Zur Bedeutung des mediterranen Imports. In: P. Schauer,
ed., 265–284.
Gábrici, E. 1913: Sicilia, MonAnt 22.
Gaignerot-Driessen, F. 2012: The “Temple House” at Lato reconsidered, OJA 31/1, 59–82.
Galanina, L. K. 1997: Die Kurgane von Kelermes, Moscow.
Gale, N. H. 1991: Copper Oxhide ingots, their origin and their place in the Bronze Age metal
trade in the Mediterranean. In: N. H. Gale, ed., Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, SIMA
90, Jonsered, 197–239.
Galling, P. – Davidson, H. E. 1969: The Chariot of the Sun and Other Rites and Symbols of the Nordic
Bronze Age, London.
Gassner, V. – Kerschner, M. – Muss, A., – Wlach, G. 2000: Akten des Symposions Die Ägäis und das
westliche Mittelmeer: Beziehungen und Wechselwirkungen, 8. bis 5. Jh. v. Chr., Wien.
Gauer, W. 2001: Das Ende der mykenischen Paläste und die politisch-patriarchale Revolution
der Griechen. In: S. Böhm – K.-V. von Eickstedt, eds., ITHAKI, Festschrift f. Jörg Schäfer zum
75. Geburtstag, 65–76.
Gebhard, R. 1999: Der Goldfund von Bernstorf, Bayer. Vorgsblätter 64, 1–18.
— — — – Rieder, K.-H. 2002: Zwei bronzezeitliche Bernsteinobjekte mit Bild und Schriftzei-
chen aus Bernstorf (Ldkr. Freising), Germania 80, 115–134.
Gediga, B. 2002: Die narrativen Szenen auf der Keramik der Lausitzer und Pommerschen Kultur
in Polen. In: Bouzek – Kruta, eds, 117–124.
— — — – Grossman, A. – Piotrowski, W., eds. 2016: Europa w okresie od VIII w. pr. n. Chr. do
I w. n. e., Biskupin–Wroclaw.
 Bibliography 269

— — — – Piotrowski, W., eds. 2010: Rola glownych centrów kulturówych w ksztaltowaniu oblicza
kulturowego Europy środkowej ve wczesnych okresach epoki železa, Biskupin – Wroclaw.
Gedl, M. 1994. Archäologische Untersuchungen zum Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in
Polen, Regensburg, 263–292. In: Archäologische Untersuchungen zum Übergang von der Bronze-
zur Eisenzeit, Regensburg. Bonn.
Gehrig, U. 1964: Die geometrischen Bronzen aus Samos, Hamburg.
Gelder, K. van den, 1991: The Iron Age hiatus in Attica and the synoikismos of Theseus, MeditArch 4,
55–64.
Georgijev, Z. 1983: Grobot 31/35 ot nekropolata Milci kod Gevgelia, Zbornik Skopje, 10–11.
— — — 1987: Karakterit i značenijeto von grobite naodu v južnovardarski nekropoli ot železnoto
vreme, Macedoniae Acta Arch. 6, 37–53.
Gerloff, S. 2010: Bronze Cauldrons and Buckets of Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in the Atlantic
Zone, PBF, Stuttgart.
Gergova, D. 1989: The find from Rogozen and one religious feast in the Thracian lands, Klio 71,
30–50.
Gierolanou, M. – Stamatopoulou, M., eds. 2005: Architecture and Archaeology of the Cycladies,
Papers in Honour of J. J. Coulton, BAR 1455, Oxford.
Gimbutas, M. 1965: The Bronze Age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe, Haag.
Gillis, C. et alii, eds. 1996: Die Himmelscheibe von Nebra, Halle.
Gillis, C. – Risberg, Ch. – Gleirscher, P. 2007: Zum Bildprogramm der Himmelsscheibe von Neb-
ra: Schiff oder Sichel?, Germania 85, 2007, 23–33.
Ginoux, N. 1996: Le thème symbolique de la paire de dragons dans l’Europe celtique du Ve s. v. J.-C.,
thése de doctorat, Paris.
Glogović, D. 2003: Fibeln im kroatischen Küstengebiet, PBF 14, 13, Stuttgart.
Gold und Kult der Bronzezeit, exh. Kat. Nürnberg 2003, there: Sabine Gerloff, Goldkegel, Kappe
und Axt: Insignie bz. Kultes und Macht, 191–204, W. Menghin, Goldene Kegelhüte –Manifesta-
tionen bz. Kalenderwerke, 221–238.
Graham, A. J. 1980: Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece, Manchester.
Grozdanov, S., ed. 2007: Otkrivaneto i pručivaneto na Makedonija vo evropskata nauka o formiraneto
na makedonskite državne insttuciii, Skopje, 107–122.
Guba, Sz. – Szeverényi, V. 2007: Bronze Age bird representations from the Carpathian Basin,
Communicationes arch. Hung. 2008, 75–110.
Guggisberg, M. A. 1996: Frühgriechische Tierkeramik, Zur Entwicklung und Bedeutung der Tierge-
fässe und der hohlen Tierfiguren in der Spätbronzeund frühen Eisenzeit, Mainz.
— — — ed. 2004: Die Hydria von Grächwill. Zur Funktion und Rezeption mediterraner Importe im
6. u. 5. Jh. v. Chr., Bern.
Güntner, W. 2000: Figürlich bemalte mykenische Keramik aus Tiryns, Tiryns XII, Mainz.
Haevernick, Th. A., 1979: Die Glasperlen der Býčí Skála—Höhle, MAGW 109, 113–119.
— — — et alii 1983, 1987, 1995: Glasperlen der vorrömischen Eisenzeit I–IV, Marburg.
Haggis, D. C. 1993: Intesive survey, traditional settlement patterns and Dark Age Crete: The case
of Kavousi, JMA 6, 131–174.
— — — – Antonaccio, M. 2015: Classical Archaeology in Context: theory and praxis in excavation in
the Greek World, Berlin.
Hall, E. 1914: Excavations in Eastern Crete, Vrokastro, Philadelphia.
— — — 2008: The Return of Ulysses. A cultural History of Homer’s Odyssey. Baltimore.
Hallager, E.-B. 2000: The Greek-Swedish Excavations at the Aghia Aikaterini Square, Kastelli, Khania,
1970–1987, Stockholm.
Hallstattkultur I–II 1980: Die Hallstatkultur – Frühform der europäischen Einheit, Schloss Lemberg.
Hammond, N. G. L. 1972: History of Macedonia I, Oxford.
— — — 1995: The Chalcidians and “Apollonia of the Thraceward Ionians“, BSA 90, 307–315.
Hampe, R. 1936: Frühe griechische Sagenbilder aus Böotien, Athens.
— — — 1952: Gleichnisse Homers und Bildkunst seiner Zeit, Tübingen.
270 Bibliography

Hansen, S. 1999: Migration und Kommunikation während der späten Bronzezeit. Die Depotfun-
de als Quelle für ihren Nachweis, Dacia 40–42, 1996–98, 5–28.
Hansen, S. 2005: Über bz. Horte in Ungarn – Horte als soziale Praxis. In: Horejs et alii, eds., 211–230.
Harding, A. 1984: Mycenaeans and Europe. London and Orlando.
— — — 1995: Die Schwerter im ehemaligen Jugoslawien. Prähistorische Bronzefunde 4,14.
— — — 2000: European Societies in the Bronze Age, Cambridge.
— — — 2007: Warriors and Weapons in Bronze Age Europe, Budapest.
— — — – Fokkes, H., eds. 2013: The Oxford Handbook of European Bronze Age, Oxford.
Harrison, R. J. 2004: Symbols and Warriors: Images of the European Bronze Age, Bristol.
Hatt, J. J. 1989: Mythes et dieux de la Gaule I, Paris.
Hägg, R. 1974: Die Gräber in der Argolis in submykenischer, protogeometrischer und geometrischer
Zeit I: Lage und Form der Gräber, Uppsala.
— — — 1985: Gifts tothe gods, symposium Uppsala.
— — — 1990: The Cretan hut models, OpAth 77 95–10790 .
— — — ed. 1999: Ancient Greek Hero Cult, Athens.
— — — – Marinatos, N. – Nordquist, D., eds. 1988: Early Greek Cult Practice, Athens.
Hänsel, B., ed. 1995: Tausch und Verkehr in bronze- und früheisenzeitlicher Südosteuropa, Prähisto-
rische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 11, Leihdorf.
— — — 1998: Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas—Man and Environment in Bronze Age
Europe, Kiel.
— — — – Machnik, J., eds. 1998: Das Karpatenbecken und die osteuropäische Steppe, Nomadenbewe-
gungen und Kulturaustausch, München.
Härke, H. 1988: Archaeologists and Migration. A problem of attitudes, CurrAnth 39, 19–45.
Hegyi, D. 1989: Prehistoric roots of the Greek cult of Apollo, AntHung 32.
Heilmeyer, W. D. 1972: Frühe olympische Tierfigürchen, Berlin.
— — — 1979: Frühe olympische Bronzefiguren: Die Tiervotive, Berlin.
Hencken, H. 1961: Tarquinia, Villanovans and Early Etruscans, BASPR 23, Cambridge.
Henderson, J. 1988: Glass production in Bronze Age Europe, Antiquity 62, 435–451.
— — — 1993: Chemical analysis of the glass and faience from Hauterive–Champréveyeres, Swit-
zerland. In: M. Rycher-Faraggi, ed., Métal et parure au Bronze Final, Hauterive–Champréveyeres
9, Archéologie neuchâteloise 17 1993, 111–117.
Herfort-Koch, M. 1986: Archaische Bronzeplastik Lakoniens, Boreas Beiheft 4,Münster.
— — — 1993: The Hero reliefs of Lakonia: Changes in form and function. In: O. Pelagia –
W. Coulson, eds., Sculpture from Arcadia and Laconia, 199–204.
Hermary, A. 1993: Phoenicians, Greeks and the Indigenous People in the Western Mediterranean, coll.
Amsterdam 1992, Hamburger Beiträge zur Archäologie 19–20.
— — — 2013: Aphrodite travels around the Black Sea. In: Tsetskhladze et alii, eds. 2013, 47–61.
Héros Hephaistos 2005: Héros Hephaistos, Studia in honorem Liubae Ognenova – Marinova, eds.
T. Stoyanov et alii, Veliko Tarnovo.
Hibler, D. 1991: Three reliefs from Sparta, Filolakou, Sculn, 115–122.
— — — 1993: The Hero reliefs in Laconia, Changes in form and function. In: O. Pelagia- W. Coul-
son, eds., Sculpture from Arcadia and Laconia, Athens, 199–204.
Hiller, S. 1984: The Mycenaeans and their northern neighbours. In: Temple University Aegean
Symposium 9, Philadelphia, 14–20.
— — — 1989: Der Gott auf dem Vogelwagen. Zu einem mitteleuropäischen Bildthema in der
griechischen Kunst, Akten des 3. Österreichischen Archäologentages, Wien, 89–94.
— — — 1991: The Greek Dark Ages. Helladic traditions, Mycenaean traditions in culture and art.
In: La transizione dal Miceneo all’alto arcaismo, Roma, 117–132.
— — — 1999: Scenes of warfare and combat in the arts of Aegean Late Bronze Age, Reflections
on typology and development, Polemos, Aegaeum 19, 319–330.
Himmelmann, N. 1964: Bemerkungen zur geometrischen Plastik, Berlin.
— — — 1968: Über einige gegenständliche Bedeutungsmöglichkeiten des frühgriechischen
Ornaments, AbhMainz, Reihe 7, 261–346.
 Bibliography 271

Hlásek, D. et alii 2015: Vrcovice, hradiště z počátku střední doby bronzové, České Budějovice – Plzeň,
Pl. 21:8.
Hodos, T. 1999: Intermarriage in the western Greek colonies, OJA 18, 61–78.
— — — 2006: Local Responses to Colonisation in the Iron Age Mediterranean, Abingdon.
Hochstätter, A., 1984: Kastanas, die handgemachte Keramik, Berlin.
— — — 1987: Kastanas – Die Kleinfunde, Berlin.
Hood, S. 1982: Northern Barbarian elements in Early Greek civilization ca. 1200–1500 BC In:
Concilium Eirene XVI, Prague, vol. 3, 98–103.
— — — 1993: Amber in Egypt. In: Beck – Bouzek, eds., 230–235.
Horejs, B. – Jung, R. – Kaiser, E. –Teržan, B., eds. 2005: Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit, Berlin.
Hope Simpson R. – Hagel D. K. 2006: Mycenaean Fortifications, Highways, Dams and Canals, Säve-
dalen.
Höllmann, T. O. – Kosack, G. 1992: Maoquinggou. Ein Eisenzeitliches Gräberfeld in der Ordos-Region
(Innere Mongolei). Materialien zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie 50.
Hrubý, V. 1958: Kultovní objekty lidu střední doby bronzové na Moravě, Památky archeologické
40/1, 40–57.
Hughes-Brock, H. 2003: Amber in the Aegean in the Late Bronze Age. In: Beck – Bouzek, eds.,
219–229.
Husenovski, B. 1997–9: Makedonski bronzi, ActaArch. Maced. 8, Skopje.
Hurwit, J. M. 1985: The art and culture of Early Greece, Ithaca.
Iacovou, M. 1988: The Pictorial Pottery in 11th century BC, Göteborg.
Iakovides, S. 1970: Perati, To nekrotafeion ton tymbon, Athens.
— — — 1994: The topography in the 11th century BC Cyprus. In: V. Karageorghis, ed., Proceedings
of the International Symposion “Cyprus in the 11th century BC”, Nicosia, 149–166.
Immerwahr, S. 1995: Death on the Tanagra larnakes. In: J. P. Carter – S. Morris, eds., The Ages of
Homer, Tribute to E. Vermeule, University of Texas, 109–121.
Isler-Kerényi 2007: Dionysos in Archaic Greece: An Understanding through Images, Leiden–Boston.
— — — 1994: Civilizing Violence: Satyrs on 6th Century Greek Vases, Fribourg–Göttingen.
Ivančik, A. 1993: Les Cimmériens au Proche Orien, Fribourg.
Ivanchik, A. 2001: Kimerier und Skythen, Moscow.
Jessen, A. A. 1952: K voprosu o pamjatnikach 8.–7. vv. do n. e. v evropejskoj časti SSSR, SovArch
18, 49–110.
Jiráň, L., ed. 2015: The Prehistory of Bohemia 4: The Bronze Age, Prague.
Jockenhövel, 2011: Bronzen im Spannungsfeld zwischen praktischer Nutzung und symbolischer Bedeu-
tung, Humboldt-Tagung, Stuttgart, 1–18.
Johansen, K. F., 1957: Exochi, ActaArch 28.
Jung, C. G. – Kerényi, K. 1985: Einführung in das Wesen der Mythologie, Stuttgart.
Jung, R. 2007: Goldene Vögel und Sonnen, Ideologische Kontakte zwischen Italien und der post-
palastischen Ägäis. In: A. Stern – G. Nightingale, eds., Keimelion, Elitenbildung und Elitenkon-
sum in mykenischer Palastzeit bis zur mykenischen Epoche, Wien, 219–256.
Kalicz, N. – Koós, J. 1998: Siedlungsfunde der Früheisenzeit in Nordostungarn. In: Hänsel –
Machnik, eds., 423–436.
Karageorghis, V. 1975: Alaas, A Protogeometric Necropolis in Cyprus, Nicosia.
— — — 2001: Notes on the origin of Cypriote wheelmade terracotta figurines. In: S. Böhm –
K.-V. von Eickstedt, eds., ITHAKI, Festschrift f. Jörg Schäfer zum 75. Geburtstag, Ergon Verlag.
— — — ed. 1986: Cyprus between Orient and Occident, Nicosia.
— — — 1994: Proceedings of the international symposium Cyprus in the 11th century BC, Nicosia.
— — — 1998: Eastern Mediterranean, Cyprus – Dodecanese – Crete, 16th to 6th century BC Proceed-
ings conference Rethymnon May 1997, Athens.
— — — – Kouka, Ou., eds. 2009: Cyprus and the East Aegean, Intercultural contacts from 3000
to 500 BC, An international archaeological symposum helt at Pythagoreion, Samos, October 2008,
Nicosia.
272 Bibliography

— — — – Morris, C. E. 2001: Defensible settlements in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean,
after c. 1200 BC, Athens.
— — — – Stampolidis, N. Chr., eds. 2003: Ploes., Sea Routes, Interconnections in the Mediterranean,
16th – 6th c. BC, Proceedings of the International Symposium at Rethymnon, 2002, Athens.
Karwowski, M. 2005: The earliest types of eastern-Celtic glass ornaments. In: H. Dobrzańska –
V. Megaw – P. Poleska, eds., Celts on the Margin, Studies in European Cultural Interaction,
7th century BC—1st century AD, dedicated to Zenon Wożniak, Kraków, 163–172.
Kaschnitz von Weinberg, G. 1965: Ausgewählte Schriften III, Mittelmeerische Kunst: Eine Darstellung
ihrer Strukturen, Berlin.
Kaul, F. 1998: Ships on Bronzes, A Study in Bronze Age Religion and Iconography, Copenhagen.
— — — 2002: The horse, the ship and the wheel in the Nordic Bronze Age, Reality and abstrac-
tion, symbols and metaphors—Conceiving figures of sacred images, Acta Musei Nationalis
Pragae series A 56, 143–154.
Kemenczei, T. 1985: Die Spätbronzezeit Nordostungarns, Budapest.
— — — 1988: Die Schwerter in Ungarn I. Prähistorische Bronzefunde 4, 6. München.
— — — 1996: Angaben zur Frage der endbronzezeitlichen Hortfundstufen im Donau-Theissge-
biet, Communicaciones Arch. Hungariae, 53–57.
Kerameikos IV/1 = Kübler, K. 1954.
Kerschner, M., 2004–2006: Neue archäologische und archäometrische Forschungen zu den Töp-
ferzentren in der Ostägäis, Il Mar Nero 7–8, 79–93.
Killebrew, A. E – Lehmann, G. 2013: The Philistines and Other Sea Peoples, Atlanta.
Kilian, K. 1971: L’ Italia meridionale e la Grecia Settentrionale: rapporti culturali nell’ VIII–VII
secolo a.C.. In: Actes Chieti, 35–40.
— — — 1975a: Trachtzubehör der Eisenzeit zwischen Ägäis und Adria, PZ 50, 10–140.
— — — 1975b: Fibeln in Thessalien von der mykenischen bis zur archaischen Zeit, Prahistorische
Bronzefunde XIV–2.
— — — 2007: Die handgemachte geglättete Keramik mykenischer Zeitstellung, Tiryns XV.
Kilian, I. 1984: Der dorische Peplos: Ein archäologisches Zeugnis der dorischen Wanderung?,
ArchKorrBl. 14 1984, 281–291.
— — — 1985: Fremde Weihungen in griechischen Heiligtümern, JRGZM 32, 215–253.
— — — 1993: Die Schwerter in Griechenland (Ausserhalb der Peloponnes), Bulgarien und Albanien.
Prähistorische Bronzefunde 4, 12, München.
— — — 2003: Kleinfunde aus dem Itonia-Heiligtum bei Philia (Thessalien), Bonn.
Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. 1979: Anhänger in Griechenland von der mykenischen bis zur spätarchaischen
Zeit, Praehistorishe Bronzefunde XI–2, München.
— — — 2007: Orientalia in Griechenland vom 13.–9. JJh. Festschrift f. Baku Ögün, 151–163.
Kimmig, W. 1964: Seevölkerbewegungen und die Urnenfelderkultur. In: Studien aus Alteuropa,
Festschr. K. Tackenberg, Graz, Bd. I, 220–283.
Klebinder, G. 2000: Formen festländischen Bronzen im Artemision von Ephesos. In: Die Ägäis
und das westliche Mittelmeer, 8. bis 5. Jh. v. Chr., Akten der Tagung Wien, März 1999, 371–373.
— — — – Gauss, G. 2004: Bronzeschmuck aus dem Artemision von Ephesos. In: Anodos, Studies
of the Ancient World III, Trnava, 109–116.
Kločko, V. I. 1998: Die Süd- und Westbeziehungen der Ukraine im 2. und frühen 1. Jt. v. Chr. In:
Hänsel – Machnik, eds., 343–351.
Korkuti, M. 1985: Barç, collective tumuli, Iliria.
— — — 1996: Fouilles de tumuli de Barç, Iliria, 1–2, 119–148.
Korres, G. S. 1989: Representation of a Late Mycenaean ship on the pyxis from Tragana, Pylos.
In: Tropis I, Piraeus 1985, 178–184.
Kossack, G. 1954: Studien zum Symbolgut der Urnenfelder- und Hallstattzeit Mitteleuropas, Berlin.
— — — 1980: Kimmerische Bronzen, Situla 20–21, 109–141.
— — — 1994: Neufunde aus dem Novočerkassk-Formenkreis und ihre Bedeutung für die Ge-
schichte der steppenbezogener Reitervölker der späten Bronzezeit, Il Mar Nero, 119–154.
 Bibliography 273

Koutsoflakis, D. 1999: Ship emblems and akrospolia in Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: an
analysis. In: Eliten in der Bronzezeit, Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen, RGZM Mo-
nographies 49,1, 133–150.
Kourou, N. 1987: A propos de quelques ateliers de céramique fine non tournée du type “argive
monochrome“, BCH 111, 31–53.
Kozenkova 1977: Kobanskaja kultura, vostočnyj variant, Moskva.
— — — 1989: Kobanskaja kultura, zapadnoj variant, Moskva.
— — — 1992: Seržen Jurt, Ein Friedhof der späten Bronzezeit und der frühen Eisenzeit im Nordkau-
kasus, Mainz.
— — — 1998: Materialna osnova kobanskych plemen, Svod arch. pamjatnikov Rosii V 2 – 5, Moskva.
Kraiker, W. – Kübler, K. 1939: Kerameikos I, Berlin.
Krauskopf, I. 1984: Apollon/Aplu, LIMC II, Zurich.
Kristiansen, K. 1998: Europe Before History, Cambridge.
— — — – Larssson, T. B. 2005: The Rise of Bronze Age Societies, Cambridge UP.
Krstevski, C. – V. Sokolovska 1999: Novi nahodi na makedonsko-pajonski bronzi, Maced. Acta
Arch. 16, 165–87.
Kull, B. 1997: Orient und Occident: Aspekte der Datierung und Deutung des Hortes von Rogozen.
In: Chronos, Festschr. B. Hänsel, Espelkamp, 689–710.
Kunter, K. 1995a: Glasperlen der vorrömischen Eisenzeit IV: Schichtaugenperlen, Marburger Studien 10.
— — — 1995b: Zur Verteilung späthallstattzeitlichen Glasperlen in Unterkrain, Festschrift O.-H. Frey,
353–371.
Kunze, E. 1991: Beischienen: Olympische Forschungen, Berlin.
Kübler, K. 1954: Kerameikos, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen IV/1, Berlin.
Kytlicová, O. 1986: Der Schild der Depotfund aus Plzeň-Jíkalka, Památky archeologické 77, 413–454.
— — — 1988: Příspěvek k poblematice kožených pancířů zdobených bronzem v době popelni-
cových polí, Arch. rozhledy 40, 306–321.
— — — 2007: Jungbronzezeitliche Hortfunde in Böhmen, PBF XIX–12, Stuttgart.
Lahtov, V. 1965: Problem trebeniške kulture, Ohrid.
Laka, J. 2002: Identifying migrations in the archaeological records in Anatolia. In: Identifying
Changes: The transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its neibourghing Regions, Istanbul,
11–14.
— — — 2002: Migration und Kulturwandel: Der Wandel vorder- und zentralasiatischer Kul-
turen im Unbruch vom 2. zum 1. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend, Akten des Kolloquiums Berlin
1999, Bonn.
Lambrinoudakis, V. 1984: Apollon, LIMC II, Zurich.
Lang, A. – Salač, V., eds. 2002: Fernkontakte in der Eisenzeit, Konferenz Liblice 2000, Prague.
Langdon, S. 1990: From monkey to man: the evolution of the Geometric sculptural type, AJA 94,
47–64.
— — — 1993: From Pasture to Polis, Art in the Age of Homer, Exploring the Culture, Columbia–Lon-
don.
Lassen, H. 2000: Introduction to weight systems in the Bronze Age East Mediterranean, the case
of Kalavasos—Aghios Dhimitrios. In: Pare, ed. 2000, 233–246.
László, A. 1994: Incepturile epocii fierului la est de Carpaţii, Studia Thraco-dacica, vol. VI.
Lehmann, K. 1975: Samothrace, A Guide to the Excavations and the Museum, Princeton.
Lemos, I. S. 2002: The Protogeometric Aegean, Oxford.
Lenz, D. 1995: Vogeldarstellungen in der ägäischen und zyprischen Vasenmalerei des 12.–9. Jh. v. Chr.,
Espelkamp (Internat. Arch. 27).
Lepore, E. 1970: Struttura della colonisazione focea in Occidente, PP 25, 19–54.
Lewantovski, K. 2000: Late Helladic Single Graves, BAR IS 878, Oxford.
Lichardus, J. et al. 2001: Izsledovanija v mikroregiona na s. Drama (Jugo-iztočna Bulgarija), Obobšte-
nije na osnovnite rezultati na b’lgarsko-germanskite razkopki ot 1983 do 1999 g., Sofia.
— — — – Echt, R. – Iljev, I. K. – Christov, O. Ch. 2002: Die Spätbronzezeit an der unteren Tundža
und die ostägäischen Verbindungen in Södostbulgarien, ESA 8, 135–184.
274 Bibliography

Linders, T. – Nordquist, G., eds. 1987: Gifts to the Gods. Proc. symposium Uppsala, Boreas 15, Up-
psala.
Lorenz, A. 2006: Der spätbronzezeitliche Hortfund von Stadtallendorf unter besonderer Berücksich-
tigung seiner Gläser, Bonn.
Lorenz, Th. 1991: Lakonisches Relief aus der Werkstatt des Bathykles, Stips Votiva, 103–109.
Lordkipanidze, O. D. 1991: Archäologie in Georgien, Von der Altsteinzeit bis zum Mittelalter, Wein-
heim.
Lorimer, H. L. 1950: Homer and the Monuments, London.
Lo Schiavo, F. 2001: Late Cypriot bronzework and bronzeworkers in Sardinia, Italy and else-
where in the west. In: Bonfante – Karageorghis, eds., 131–152.
Lungu, V. 2007: Amphorisque phénicien au bord de la Mer Noir, PONTICA 40, 111–119.
— — — 2009: An ancient nocromantion at Orgame. In: G. Tsetskhladze, ed. 2009, 63–64.
Machortych, S. V. 1998: Neues über die Beziehungen der Kimmerier zur Karpaten-Donauwelt.
In: Hänsel – Machnik, eds., 437–449.
Maggiani, A. 2001: Pesi i balance in Etruria. In: Corti – Giordani, eds., 67–74.
Malkin, I. 2011: A Small Greek World. Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean, Oxford.
Malmer, M. 1992: Weight systems of the Scandinavian Bronze Age, Antiquity 66, 377–388.
Manucu-Adamsteanu, M. 2001: Orgamé – Argamum, Tulcea.
Marangou, L. 1969: Lakonische Elfenbein und Beinschnitzereien, Tübingen.
Marazov, I. 1978: Ritonite v drevna Trakija, Sofia.
— — — 1980: Nakolennik ot Vraca, Sofia.
— — — 1984: Mitologia na Trakite, Sofia.
— — — 1996: The Rogozen Treasure, Sofia.
— — — 2011: The Vassil Bojkov Collection, Sofia.
— — — et alii 1989: The Rogozen Treasure, Sofia.
— — — – Fol, A. et al. 1998: Ancient Gold, The Wealth of the Thracians, New York.
— — — – Nikolov, B. et al. 1999: The Rogozen Treasury, Sofia.
Marazzi, M. – Tusa, S. – Vagnetti, L., eds. 1986: Traffici micenei nel Mediterraneo, Taranto.
Marinatos, N. 1997: Minoan and Mycenaean larnakes. a comparison. In: J. Driessen – A. Farnoux,
eds., La Crète mycénienne, BCH Suppl. 30, 281–293.
— — — 2001: The Palladion across a cultural barrier? – Mycenaean and Greek, In: ITHAKI, Fest-
schrift f. Jörg Schäfer zum 75. Geburtstag, 107–114.
Marinatos, S. 1974: Crete and Mycenaean Hellas, Athens.
Marinatos, N. 1993: Minoan Religion, S. Columbia.
— — — 2000: The Goddess and the Warrior: the Naked Goddess and the Mistress of Animals in Early
Greek Religion, London.
Martirosjan, A. A. 1964: Armenija v epochu bronzy i rannego železa, Erivan.
Matthäus, H. 1979: Protovillanovazeitliche Goldbleche aua Delos, MarbWPr 1979, 3–12.
— — — 1980: Italien und Griechenland in der ausgehenden Bronzezeit, JdI 95, 109–139.
— — — 1985: Metallgefässe und Metalluntersätze der Bronzezeit, der geometrischen und archaischen
Periode in Zypern, PBF II, 8, München.
May, J. – Zumpe, R. 2000: Ein Buckel-Ein Tag. Zur Nutzbarkeit buckeldekorerter Schilde, Hän-
gebecken und Amphoren der jüngeren Bz. als Kalender, Goldscheibe von Nebra: Exhibition cat.,
Vienna, 253–265.
Mayet, F. – Tavares de Silva, C. 2006: Le site phénicien d’Abul (Portugal), Comptoir et sanctuaire,
Paris.
Maximova, M. I. 1956: Antichnyye goroda yugo-vostochnogo Prichernomoria, Moscow – Leningrad.
Mazarakis Ainian, A. 1995: Klados, BICS Suppl. 63.
— — — 1997a: From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples: Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age
Greece (1100–700 BC), SIMA 121, Jonsered.
— — — 1997b: From huts to houses in EIA Greece. In: From Huts to Houses. Proceedings of seminar
organized by Norwegian and Swedish Institutes in Rome, 139–161.
— — — 2000: Ομερος και αρχαιολoγια, Athens.
 Bibliography 275

— — — 2002: Les fouilles d’Oropos et la fonction des périboles… Habitat et urbanism dans le
mond grec de la fin des palais mycéniens a la prise de Milet, REA 58, 183–227.
— — — 2007: Buried among the living. In: G. Bartolini – M. Gilda Benedettini, eds.: Sepoltri tra
i vivi, conf., Roma 2006, Roma.
— — — ed. 2011: The Dark Ages Revisited, Acts of an international symposium in memory of Willam
D. E. Coulson, University of Thessaly, Volos 14.–17. June 2007, vol. II, Volos.
— — — et alii, ed. 2016: Regional Studies towards a new perception of the Early Greek world, Actes of
conference Volos 2015, Volos.
McDonald, A., ed. 1972: Excavaions at Nichoria I, Minneapolis.
McKesson, C. J. 1983: A severe drought at the end of the 8th century BC and its consequences for
the colonisation, Annuario della Scuola Italiana Atene 43, 54–62.
McNairn, B. 1980: The Method and Theory of V. Gordon Childe, Edinburgh.
Mee, Ch. 2011: Greek Archaeology; A Thematic Approach, Oxford.
Meller, H., ed. 2004: Der geschmiedete Himmel, Stuttgart.
Merhart, G. v. 1969: Halstatt und Italien, Mainz.
Metzger-Nebelsick, C. 2004: Wo sind die Frauen der KimmerIer. In: Chochorowski, ed., 271–297.
— — — 2008: Symbole der Macht in der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Europas. In: Beiträge zur Hallstatt
und Latenezeit in Nordostbayern und Thüringen, 13–26.
Metzler, D. 1982: Zum Schamanismus in Griechenland. In: Antidoron, Festschrift für Jürgen Thim-
me zum 65. Geburtstag, Karlsruhe, 75–82.
Middleton, G. D. 2010: The Collapse of the Palatial Society in LBA Greece and the Post-Palatial Period,
BAR I IS 2110.
Michailidou, A., ed. 2001a: Manufacture and Measurement, Counting, Measuring and Recording:
Craft Items from Early Aegean Societies, Athens (Research Centre of Greek and Roman Antiq-
uity, National Hellenic Research Foundation), Meletemata 33.
— — — 2001b: Script and metrology: practical processes of cognitive inventions. In: A. Micha-
ilidou, ed., 43–82.
— — — 2001c: Recording quantities of metal in Bronze Age societies in the Aegean and the Near
East. In: A. Michailidou, ed., 85–119.
Michálek, J. 1991: Eine mediterrane Glasscherbe aus Böhmen, Germania 70, 123–126.
— — — – Venclová, N. 1992: Ein mediterranes Glasfragment aus der späthallstatt-zeitlichen
Siedlung bei Strakonice in Südböhmen, Ostbaierische Grenzmarken 34, 4–24.
Mielke, D. P. – Tappert, C. 1997: Eine kleine syrische Bronzesitula aus frühkeltischer Zeit, Jb. des
Historischen Vereins für Straubing und Umgebung 99, 15–31.
Mikov, V. 1958: Zlatnoto sokrovište ot Valčitran, Sofia.
Milojčić, V. 1949: Dorische Wanderung im Lichte der archäologischen Quellen, AA 1948/49,
12–36.
Mihovilić, K. 2004: La situla di Nesazio con naumachia, Hesperia 19, 93–98.
Mitrevski, D. 1988: Karakteristični formy na Makedonski bronzi od naogalište po dolinata na
Vardar, Macedoniae Acta Arch. 9, 83–102.
— — — 1991: Dedeli, nekropola od železnoto vreme v dolina Povardarja, Skopje.
— — — 1997: Protoistoriskite zaednici vo Makedonia (Proto-historical communities in Macedonia),
Skopje.
— — — 1996–97 (1998): Grobot na Pajonska sveštenička od Marvinci – prilog kon vrednuvanjeto
na pajonska religia na železnoto vreme, Macedoniae Acta Arch. 15, 69–80.
— — — 2005: Vardarski Rid I, Skopje, 238–240.
— — — 2009: Pogrebavanje na svetničkite zo železno vreme vo Makedonija. In: Scripta praehis-
torica in honorem . B. Teržan, 563–582.
Moorey, P. R. S. 1974: Ancient Bronzes from Luristan, London.
Morgan, C. 2003: Early Greek States beyond the Polis, London.
Morricone, L. 1978: Sepulture della prima età dell ferro a Coo, ASAtene 40, 9–42.
Morris, I. 1987: Burial and Ancient Society, the rise of the Greek city state, Cambridge.
— — — 1999: Archaeology as Cultural History. The rise of the Greek city state, Oxford.
276 Bibliography

— — — ed. 1994: Classical Greece: Ancient histories and modern archaeologies, Cambridge.
Moscati, S. 1980: Nuove scoperte sui Fenici in Italia, Napoli.
Motyka Sandars, J. 1991: The early Lakonian Dioskuroi reliefs. In: Filolakón, 205–210.
Mountjoy, P-A. 1995: Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery, Leidorf.
— — — 2005: Mycenaean connections with the Near East in LH III C: Ships and Sea Peoples,
Aegaeum 25, 424–427.
Mozsolics, A. 1985–2001, Bronzefunde in Ungarn, Budapest.
Muss, A. 1999 (2000): Das Artemison von Ephesos – Wege von und nach Westen. In: V. Gassner
– M. Kerschner – U. Muss – G. Wlach, eds., Akten des Symposions Die Ägäis und das westliche
Mittelmeer: Beziehungen und Wechselwirkungen, 8. bis 5. Jh. v. Chr., Wien.
Müller-Karpe, H. 1962: Zur spätbronzezeitlichen Bewaffnung in Mitteleuropa und Griechen-
land, Germania 40, 255–287.
— — — 1998: Grundzüge früher Menschheitsgeschichte. Bd. 1. Von den Anfängen bis zum 3. Jahrtau-
send v. Chr.; Bd. 2: 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Darmstadt – Stuttgart.
Myres, J. L. 1932: The structure of the Iliad, JHS 52, 268–254.
Nagy, G. 2010: Homer the Preclassics, Berkeley.
Naso, A. 2001: Egeo, Piceno ed Europa centrale in periodo archaico, l‘Adriatico, i Greci e l‘Europa,
Anemos II, 81–110.
Nava, M. 1980: Le stele daunie I, Firenze.
— — — 2004: I pirati e il mare nelle stele daunie. In: La pirateria d’Adriatico antico, Hesperia
19, 75–91.
Negroni Cattacchio, N. ed. 1998: Amber in Archaeology, Atti del XIII congresso UISPP Forli, work-
shop I/7, 371–514.
Nicholson, P. T. 1997: The Ulu Burun glass ingots, cylindrical vessels and Egyptian glass, JEA 83,
143–153.
Niemeyer, H.-G. 1984: Die Phönizier in der Mittelmeerwelt im Zeitalter Homers, JRGZM 31, 3–94.
— — — 1995: The Phoenicians in the Mediterranean: A non-Greek model for expansion and
settlement in antiquity. In: Greek Colonies and Native Populations, Sydney, 469–481.
— — — 2003: On Phoenician art and its role in trans-Mediterranean interconnection. In:
Stampolides – Karageorghis, eds., 201–208.
— — — 2006: The Phoenicians in the Mediterranean. Between expansion and colonisation.
A Non-Greek model of Overseas settlement and presence. In: Tsetskhladze, ed., 143–168.
— — — ed. 1982: Phönizier im Westen, actes du colloque, suppl. à MM 8.
Niemeyer, W. D. et alii, eds. 2013: Krete in der geometrischen und archaischen Zeit, Acta Koloquium
Athen 2006, Athenaia 2.
Nikolova, L., ed. 2000: Technology, Style and Society: contributions to the innovations between the
Alps and the Black Sea in prehistory, BAR int. ser. 409, Oxford.
Nowicki, K. 1988: Fortifications in Dark Age Crete. In: Fortificationes Antiquae, Ottawa, 53–76.
— — — 2000: Defensible Sites in Crete, ca. 1200–800 BC, Aegaeum 21, Liège.
Ohly, D. 1953: Griechische Goldbleche des 8. Jh. v. Chr., Berlin.
Oliva, P. 1971: Sparta and Her Social Problems, Prague.
Oren, E. D., ed. 2000: The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment. In: University Museum
Monograph 108, University Museum Symposium Series 11, Philadelphia.
Orsi, P. 1889: Sicilia, MonAnt 1.
Osborne, R. 2009: Greece in the Making, 1200–479 BC, London 2009.
Otroščenko, V. V. 1998: Die Westbeziehungen der Belozerka-Kultur. In: Hänsel-Machník, eds.,
353–360.
Pabst, S. 2013: Naue II-Schwerter mit Knaufzunge und die Außenbeziehungen der mykenischen
Kriegerelite in postpalatialer Zeit, JRGZM 60, 105–152.
Pace, R. 2001: Les objets en bronze du site de Cozzo Michelicchio (CS), MEFRA 113, 33–69.
Panayotova, K. 2005: Amfori “kiperski tip” ot Apolonia Pontika, Studia arch. Universitatis Serdi-
censis suppl. IV, 549–554.
 Bibliography 277

Papadopoulos, J. 1991: Birds from Torone, In: Emousia Studies presented to N. Cambitoglou, Sydney,
13–24.
— — — 2005: Early Iron Age Cemetery at Torone, Los Angeles.
Pappi, E. 2006: Argive Geometric figured style—the rule and the exception. In: Rystedt – Wells,
eds., 229–237.
Pare, C. F. E., 1999: Weights and weighing in Bronze Age Central Europe. In: Die Eliten in der Bronze-
zeit, Mainz (RGZM Monographien 43/2), 421–514.
— — — 2000: Bronze and the Bronze Age. In: Pare, ed., 1–38.
— — — ed. 2000: Metals Make the World Go Round, The Supply and Circulation of Metals in
Bronze Age Europe, Oxford.
Parise, N. F. 1986: Unitá ponderali egee. In: Marazzi et alii, eds., 303–314.
Parst, S. 2013: Naue II Schwerter mit Knauftunge und die Aussenbeziehungen der mykenischen
Kriegerschicht der postpalatier Zeit, JRGZM 60, 105–152.
Paspas, S. A. 2014: MB Juglet from Zagora, Andros. In: Egrapsen kai epoiesen, Festschrift M. Tive-
rios, 527–541.
Pašić, R., 1975–1978: Arheološki ispitivanja na lokalitet Suva Reka vo Gevgelija, Zbornik Skopje
8–9, 21–52.
— — — 1979–1982: Nekropolata od postaro železno vreme vo seloto Dedeli kaj Valandovo, Zbor-
nik Skopje, 10–11.
Paulík, J. 1962: Mazanica s plastickou výzdobou v dobe bronzovej na Slovensku, Študijné Zvesti
10, 27–57.
— — — 1999–2001: Nález hlinenej vtáčej lodky v Dvorníkoch – Posádke. In: Zborník Slovenského
Národného Múzea 93 1999, 29–54; II o. c. 94 2000, 29–60; III o. c. 95 2001, 9–62.
— — — 2002–2003: Príspevok ku kultu doby bronzovej I, Zborník Slovenského Národného múzea
90, 7–16; 91, 15–63.
Pelagia, O. – Coulson, W., eds. 1993: Sculpture from Arcadia and Laconia, Oxford.
Peroni, R. 2001: Sistemi ponderali nella circolazione dei metalli dell’etá del bronzo europea. In:
Corti – Giordani, eds., 21–28.
Peschel, K. 1979: Mittelmeerwelt und keltischer Norden nach archäologischen Quellen. In: Von
der Quelle zur historischen Aussage, Berlin, 221–248.
Petrova, E. 1996: Brigite na centralniot Balkan vo II i I milenium před n. e., Skopje.
— — — 1999: The cults, symbolism and deities in Paeonia and neighbouring areas. In: Macedonia
and Neighbouring Regions, Symposium Struga 1997, Skopje.
Petrruso, K. M. 1978a: Systems of Weight on the Bronze Age, Ann Arbor.
— — — 1978b: Marks on some Minoan balance weights, Kadmos 17, 26–42.
— — — 1992: Aia Irini, The Balance Weights, Keos VIII, Mayence.
Pieta, K. 2007: Der frühlatènezeiliche Burgwall in Horné Orešany, Westslowakei, Slovenská ar-
cheológia 55, 295–310.
Pilides, D. 1994: Hand-made burnished ware of the LBA in Cyprus, Jonsered.
Pingel, V. 1970: Eisenzeitliche Gräber in Mravinca in jug. Mazedonien, Marburger Winckel-
mann-Programm 1970, 7–28.
— — — 1980: “Balkanische” Bronzen der älteren Eisenzeit in Sizilien und Unteritalien, Situla
20/21, Lubljana.
Pipili, M. 1987: Laconian iconography of the 6th century BC, Oxford.
— — — 1991: A Laconian ivory reconsidered, Filolakón, 179–184.
Podborský, V. 1970: Mähren in der Spätbronzezeit und an der Schwelle der Hallstattzeit, Brno.
— — — 2006: Náboženství pravěkých Evropanů, Brno.
Popham, M. R. et alii, eds. 1990–1993: Lefkandi I.–II. Athens.
— — — – Lemos, I. S. 1996: Lefkandi III, The Early Iron Age Cemetery at Toumba, Athens.
Popov, D. 1981: Trakijska boginja Bendida, Sofia.
— — — 1989: Zalmoxis, Sofia.
Popović, L. 1974: Catalogue Greek-Illyrian Treasures from Yugoslavia, Sheffield.
278 Bibliography

Porožanov, K. 1989: Datirovka na kamenite kotvi s otvori ot Bulgarskoto Černomorje, Archeolo-

gija 1/1989, 6–15.
Potratz, H. A. 1968: Luristanbronzen, Sammlung Prof. Sarre, Berlin – Istanbul.
Prendi, F. 1966: La civilisation préhistorique de Maliq, Studia albanica 1966, 255–280.
— — — 1975: Un aperçu sur la civilisation de la première période du fer en Albanie, Iliria 3,
109–138.
Primas, M. 2014: Klima und Eisen, Die Anfangsbedingungen der Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa, Ja-
hresschrift f. mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 94, Hale 2014, 271–378.
— — — – Pernicka, E. 1998: Der Depotfund von Oberwilflingen. Neue Ergebnise zur Zirkulation
von Metallbarren, Germania 76, 25–65.
Pruss, A. 1993: Zur Chronologie des Gräberfeldes von Tli, Georgica 16, 25–47.
— — — 1994: Zur Chronologie des Gräberfeldes von Tli, Georgica 17, 13–22.
Pulak, C. 2000: The balance weights from the LBA shipwreck at Uluburun. In: Pare, ed. 2000,
247–266.
Raevskij, D. S. 1975: Očerki ideologii skifo-sarmatskich plemen, Moskva.
Rahmsdorf, L. 2003: Clay spools from Tiryns and other contemporary sites. An indication of
foreign influence in LH III C? In: The periphery of the Mycenaean World, Lamia 1999, Athens,
397–415.
— — — 2005: Ethnicity and changes in weaving technology in Cyprus and the eastern Medi-
terranean in the 12th century BC. In: V. Karageorghis – H. Matthaeus – S. Rogge, eds., Cyprus:
Religion and Society from the LBA to the end of the Archaic period, Proceedings of an International
Symposium on Cypriot Archaeology Erlangen 23–24 July 2004, Bibliopolis, 143–169.
Randsborg, K., ed. 1996: Absolute Chronology, Archaeological Europe, 2500–500 BC, Supplementum
to ActaArch 67, Kobenavn.
Rapp, G., ed. 1978: Exc. at Nichoria II, Minneapolis.
Raselli-Nydegger, L. 2004: Zur Herkunft eines hallstatzeitlichen Bucchero-Fragments von der
Engehalbinsel in Bern. In: Guggisberg, ed. 2004, 121–125.
Reber K, 1991: Untersuchungen zur handgemachten Keramik Griechenlands in der submykenischen,
protogeometrischen und geometrischen Zeit, Jonsered.
Reide, Ch. 2005: Vogelmenschen und Menschenvögel: bz. Vogel-Mensch Darstelungen im mit-
tleren und unteren Donauraum. In: Horejs et alii, eds., 231–239.
Reinhold, S. 2005: Vom Ende Europas, zu den Depotfunden im Kaukasus. In: Horejs et alii, eds.,
345–373.
Renfrew, C. 1968: Wessex without Mycenae, BSA 63, 277–285.
— — — 1969: The Autonomy of the East European Copper Age, PPS 35, 12–47.
— — — et al. 1985: The Archaeology of Cult. The Sanctuary of Phylakopi, London.
Rey, L. 1928: Axioupolis: Albania 4, 40–61.
Rhomiopoulou, K. 1971: Some Pottery of the Early Iron Age in Western Macedonia, BSA 66,
353–363.
Ridgway, D. 2005: Aspects of the “Italian Connections“. In: Deger-Jalkotzy – Lemos, eds., 299–313.
Roes, A. 1933: Greek Geometric Art. Its symbolism and its origin, London – Haarlem.
Rolley, C. 1975: Bronzes et bronziers des ages obscures, XII-VIII s. av. J.-C., RA 1975, 155–166.
— — — 1985, 1987: Les bronzes grecs, recherches récentes, RA 1985, 277–96; 1987, 335–360.
— — — 1994: La sculpture grecque I, Paris.
— — — 1989: Les bronzes grecs, Fribourg.
Rossignoli, B. 2001: La via argonautica: il ritorno, Anemos II, 279–283.
Royaume d’Ougarit 2004: Le royaume d’Ougarit – Aux origines de l’alphabet, Paris-Lyon.
Ruiz Gálvez, M. 2000: Weight system and exchange networks in Bronze Age Europe. In: Pare
2000, 267–279.
Ruppenstein, F. 2007: Die submykenische Nekropole: Neufunde und Neubewertung. Kerameikos,
Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen XVIII, München.
 Bibliography 279

Rystedt, E. – Wells, B. 2006: Pictorial Pursuits: Figurative painting on Mycenaean and Geometric
pottery, Papers of two seminars at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 1999, 2001, ActaAth, Regni
Sueciae 4 LIII, Stockholm.
Říhovský, J. 1982: Hospodářský a společenský život velatické osady v Lovčičkách, Památky ar-
cheologické 73, 5–56.
Sakellarakis I. and A. 2011: Idaio antro, to spelaio ton Dia kai oi thesauroi tou, Athens.
— — — 2013: To Idaio antro: iero kai manteio, Athens, Etaireia.
Sakellarakis, G. 1992: The Mycenaean Pictorial Style in the National Archaeological Museum of Ath-
ens, Athens.
Sakellariou, M. 1980: Les Proto-Grecs, Athens.
Salač, V. 2006: O obchodu v pravěku a době laténské především, Arch. rozhledy 58, 33–58.
Salapata, G. 1993: The Laconian Hero reliefs in the light of terracotta plates. In: O. Pelagia –
W. Coulson, eds., Sculpture from Arcadia and Laconia, 189–197.
Samothrace, Excavations conducted by the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, Princeton,
vols. 1–6, 1958–1995.
— — — 2004: He periochi tou Axiou sten proime epoche to siderou. In: H. Chr. Stambolides –
A. Giannikoure, eds., To Aigaio sten proimie epopche tou siderou, Acts of the Rhodos conference
2002, Athens, 307–316.
Sandars, N. 1983: North and South at the End of the Mycenaean Age, OJA 2, 43–68.
Sandars, N. K. 1961. The First Aegean Swords and Their Ancestry, AJA 65, s. 17–29.
— — — 1963: Later Aegean Bronze Swords, AJA 67, s. 117–153.
— — — 1968: Prehistoric Art, London.
— — — 1978: The Sea Peoples: Warriors of the Mediterranean, London.
— — — 1985a: Prehistoric Art in Europe,
— — — 1985b: The Sea Peoples, Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean, London.
Sauter, H. 2000: Studien zum Kimerierproblem, Bonn.
Schachermeyr, F. 1976-1983: Ägäische Frühzeit 1-7, Vienna.
Schauer, P. 1985: Die Goldblechkegel. Ein Beitrag zur Kulturverbindung zwischen Orient und Mit-
teleuropa, RGZM Monographien 8, Bonn.
— — — ed. 1988: Archäologische Untresuchungen zu den Beziehungen zwischen Altitalien und der
Zone nordwärts der Alpen während der frühen Eisenzeit Alteuropas, Regensburg.
— — — 1996: Archäologische Forschungen zum Kultgeschehen in der jüngeren Bronzezeit und der
frühen Eisenzeit Alteuropas, Regensburg.
Schefold, K. 1983: Die Bedeutung der griechischen Kunst für das Verständnis des Evangeliums,
Mainz.
Schoinas, Ch. 1999: Eikonistiki parastasi se ostraka kratira apo tin Ayia Triada Eleias. In: I per-
feria tou mykenaikou kosmou, Lamia 1994, 257–263.
Schefold, K. 1985: Homer und der Erzählungsstil der archaischen Kunst. In: EIDOLOPOIA, Actes
du colloque Lourmarin en Provence, ed. Rome, Brettschneider 1985, 3–26.
— — — 2003: Eikonistike parastase se ostraka kratera apo ten Agia Triada Eleias. In: Stampolides –
Karageorghis, eds., 257–262.
Schweitzer, . B. 1918: Geometrische Kunst, Ath. Mitt. 43, 1-152.
— — — 1969: Die geometrische Kunst Griechenlands, Köln.
Schüle, W. 1969: Die Meseta-Kulturen der iberischen Halbinsel, Madrider Forschungen 3.
Seeden, H. 1980: The Standing Armed Figurines in the Levant, München, PBF I, 1.
Shaw, J. W. 1989: Excavations at Kommos, Phoenicians in Southern Crete, AJA 99, 165–183.
Shefton, B. 2001: Adriatic links between Aegean Greece and Early Iron Age Europe during the
Archaic and Early Classical periods; facts and some hypotheses, Anemos 2, 7–44.
— — — 2004: The Grächwill hydria—the object and its milieu beyond Grächwill. In: Guggisberg,
ed., 29–47.
Sherratt, A. 1993: What would a Bronze Age world system look like? Relations between temper-
ate Europe and the Mediterranean in Later Prehistory, EJA 1(2), 1–5.
280 Bibliography

Sherrat, S. 1992: Immigration and archaeology. In: P. Ǻström, ed., Acta Cypria 2, Jonsered,
316–347.
— — — 1994: Commerce, iron and ideology. In: Cyprus in the 11th century BC, Nicosia, 59–106.
Simon, K. 1999: Ein Bucchero-Fragment vom Alten Gleisberg bei Bürgel (Thüringen). Arcbeits-
und Forschungber, Sachsen 41, 61–96.
Sîrbu, V. – Vaida, D.-L., eds. 2006: Thracians and Celts, Proceedings of the International Colloquium
from Bistrita, Cluj-Napoca.
— — — 1994: L’art thraco-dace, Bucuresti.
Sjöberg, B., ed. 1996: Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece: Acquisition and Distribution of
Raw Materials and Finished Products, Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop 1996, Jon-
sered (SIMA pocket-book 154).
Smejtek, L. 2011: Osídlení z doby bronzové v Kněževsi u Prahy, Praha.
— — — – Švédová, J. 2016: Bronzový koník z Mladé Boleslavi, Archeologie ve středních Čechách
20, 1–30.
Smirnova, G.I. 1998 Die Ostkarpatenregion zur Vorskythen- und Skythenzeit. In: Hänsel-Mach-
nik, eds., 451–465.
Snell, B. 955: Die Entdeckung des Geistes, Hamburg.
Snodgrass, A. M. 1967: Arms and armour of the Greeks, TaH.
— — — 1971: The Dark Age of Greece, Edinburgh.
— — — 1980: Archaic Greece, the age of experiment, Los Angeles.
— — — 1987: An archaeology of Greece: the present state and future scope of a discipline, Los Angeles.
— — — 1994: The Euboeans in Macedonia: A new precedent for the westward expansion. In:
Apoikia, Scritti in onore die Giorgio Buchner, (Annali di archeologia e storia antica NS vol. I), Na-
poli, 87–93.
— — — 1998: Homer and the artists: text and picture in Early Greek art, Cambridge.
Sprinz, E. 1993: Veneter – Skythen – Bernsteinhaldel. In: Beck – Bouzek, eds., 179–186.
Sprockhof, E. 1954: Nordische Bronzezeit und frühes Griechentum, JRGZM 1, 37–71
Spyropoulos, T. 1969, 1970: To mykenaikon nekrotafeion tis Tanagras, AAA 2, 20–25 and AAA 3,
184–197.
— — — – A. Giannikouri, eds. 2004: To Agaio stin proimi epochi tou siderou, Conference Rhodos
2002.
— — — – Kotsonas, A. 2006: Phoenicians in Crete. In: Deger-Jalkotzy – Lemos, eds., 337–360.
Stampolides, N. Ch., ed. 2004: To Aigeio sten proime epoche tou Siderou: Praktika tes Diethnous
symposiou, Rhodos.
— — — – Karageorghis, V., eds. 2003: Ploes: Sea Routes: Interconnections in the Mediterranean,
16th–6th Centuries BC. Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Rethymnon,
Crete, September 29th–October 2nd, 2002, Athens.
Stavropoulou, Th. 1988: Ysterominoikoi thesauroi, AAA 21, 91–101.
Stibbe, C. M. 1972: Lakonische Vasenmaler des 6. Jh., Amsterdam.
— — — 1984: Laconian mixing bowls, A history of krater Lakonikos from the 7th to the 5th century
BC, Amsterdam.
— — — 1994: Laconian Drinking Vessels and Other Open Shapes, Amsterdam.
— — — 1996: Das andere Sparta, Mainz.
Stig-Sørensen M.-L. – Thomas, R., eds. 1989: The Bronze Age–Iron Age transition in Europe: Aspects
of continuity and change in European societies c. 1200 to 500 BC, Oxford.
Stips Votiva: Stips Votiva, Papers presented to C. M. Stibbe, Amsterdam 1991.
Stoss-Gale, S. 2000: Trade in metals in the Bronze Age Mediterranean: an overview. In: Pare
2000, 59–69.
— — — 1995: Greece and the Aegean area and its relationship with continental Europe. In: Abso-
lute Chronology, Archaeological Europe 2500–500 BC, ActaArch, Suppl. vol. I, 1996 (1997), 175–182.
Stoyanov, T. et alii, eds. 2005: Héros Hephaistos, Veliko Tarnovo 2005.
Strack, S. 2007: Regional Dynamics and Social Change in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages: A Study
of Handmade Pottery in Southern and Central Greece, Edinburgh, CD Rom.
 Bibliography 281

Styrenius, C.-G. 1967: Submycenaean Studies, Lund.

Ščapova, Ju. L. 1983: Očerki istorii drevnego steklovedenija, Moskva.
Taylor, T. 1984: Thracian Bronze Age and international relations, Thracian Congress Boston.
Techov, B. V. 1980, 1981, 1985: Tlijskij mogilnik I–III, Tbilisi.
Temov, S. 2009: An Iron Age burial in Macedonia. In: Scripta praehistorica in honorem B. Teržan,
657–665.
Terenožkin, A. I. 1965: Osnovy chronologii predskifskogo perioda, Sovetskaja archeologia 1965/1,
63–75.
— — — 1976: Kimmerijci, Kiev.
— — — 1981: Kimmerier und ihre Kultur. In: Die Hallstattkultur, vol. II, Linz, 20–29.
Teržan, B. 2005: Metamorphose – eine Vegetationsgottheit in der Spätbronzezeit. In: Horejs et
alii, eds., 241–261.
Thomatos, M. 2000: The Final Revival of the Aegean Bronze Age. A case study of the Argolid, Corinthia,
Attica, Euboea, the Cyclades and the Dodecanese during the LH III C Middle, BAR IS 1498, 200.
Tiverios, M. 2008: Greek Colonisation of the Northern Aegean. In: Tsetskhladze, G., ed., Greek
Colonisation 2, Leiden – Boston, 1–154.
Todd, M. N. – Wace, A. J. B. 1906: A Catalogue of the Sparta Museum, Oxford.
Todorov, Tz. 1980: Théorie du symbole, Paris.
Tončeva, G. 1980: Chronologie du Hallstatt ancien dans la Bulgarie de nord-est, Studia Thracica
5, Sofia.
Trachsel, M. 2008: Steps towards revised chronology of Greek Geometric pottery. In: D. Brand-
herm – M. Trachsel, eds., A new dawn for the Dark Age?: Shifting paradigms in Mediterranean
Iron Age chronology, Oxford.
Tsetskhladze, G. R. 1998: The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area, Stuttgart.
— — — 2002: Ionians abroad. In: G. R. Tsetskhladze – A. M. Snodgrass, eds., Greek Settlements in
the Eastern Mediterranean and in the Black Sea, BAR IS 1062, 81–96.
— — — 2007: Pots and pandemium: the earliest East Greek pottery from North Pontic native
settlements, Pontica 40, 37–70.
— — — 2015: Greeks, locals and others around the Black Sea and its hinterland. In: G.
Tseckhladze – A. Avram – J. Hargrave, eds., The Danubian Lands between the Black, Aegean and
Adriatic Seas, Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Black Sea Studies, Belgrade 2013,
Oxford.
— — — ed. 2006, 2008: Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements
Overseas. Vols. 1–2, Leiden – Boston.
— — — ed. 2009: 4th International Congress of Black Sea Antiquities, Istanbul, September 2009,
Summaries of papers, Istanbul.
— — — et alii, eds. 2013: The Bosporus Gateway between the Ancient West and East, BAR 2517, Ox-
ford.
Tsipopoulou, M. 2005: I anatoliki Kriti stin proimi epochi tou sidirou, Irakleio.
Uckelmann, M. 2012: Die Schilde der Bronzezeit in Nord-, West und Zentraleuropa, PBF, Stuttgart.
Vagnetti, L. 2000: Western Mediterranean overview: Peninsular Italy, Sicily and Sardinia at the
time of the Sea Peoples. In: Oren, ed., 2000, 305–326.
Vančugov, V. P. 1996: Das Ende der Bronzezeit im nördlichen Schwarzmeergebiet, die Belozer-
ka-Kultur, ESA 2, 287–309.
— — — 2008: Drevnejšie fibuly Severnogo Pričernomorja. In: Pontika 2006. Recent Research in
Northern Black Sea Coast Greek Colonies, Krakow, 205–217.
Vanden Berghe, L. 1981: Vorgeschichtliche Bronzekunst aus Iran, Exh. Cat. Munich.
van Eles Masi, P. 1986: Le fibule dell’Italia settentrionale, PBF 14, 5, Munich.
Vanschoonwinkel, J. 1991: L’Egée et la Mé́diterranée orientale à la fin du deuxiéme millenaire, témoi-
nages archéologiques et sources écrites, Louvain-la-Neuve.
— — — 2006: Greek Migrations to Aegean Anatolia in the Early Dark Age. In: Tsetskhladze,
ed., 2006: 115–142.
Vasić, R. 1999: Die Fibeln im Zentralbalkan, PBF 14, 12, Munich.
282 Bibliography

Vašíček, Z. 1994: L’archéologie, l’histoire, le passé, Paris.

Vencl, S, 2016: Pravěké zápalné objekty: případ knovízských objektů z Prahy 9 – Běchovic,
Archeologie ve stř. Čechách 20, 277–306.
Venclová, N. 1990: Prehistoric Glass in Bohemia, Prague.
— — — 2013: The Prehistory of Bohemia 5, The Early Iron Age. The Halstatt Period, Prague.
Venclová, N. – Hulínský, V. – Henderson, J. – Chenery, S. – Šulová, S. – Hložek, J. 2011: Late Bronze
Age mixed-alkali glasses from Bohemia, Archeologické rozhledy 63, 559–585.
Venedikov, I. 1975: Sokrovišteto ot Vraca, Sofia.
— — — 1989: Hyperborean deities in the Thracian pantheon. In: The Rogozen Treasure, Sofia,
72–99.
— — — – et al., 1975: Goldschätze der Thraker, Wien.
— — — – et al., 1980: Trakijski svetilišta, Sofia.
— — — – Gerasimov, T. 1975: Trakijsko izkustvo—Thracian Art, Sofia.
Verdelis, N. 1958: Ho protogeometrikos rhythmos tes Thessalias, Athens.
Vermeule, E. – Karageorghis, V. 1982: Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting, Cambridge – London.
Vianello, A., ed. 2011: Exotica in the Prehistoric Mediterranean, Oxford.
Videski, Z. 2004: Makedonski bronzi, Skopje.
— — — 1996–7 (1998): Lisičin Dol—Marvinci, nekropola od železnoto vreme (istraživanja 1997),
Macedoniae Acta Arch. 15.
Vladár, J. – Bartoněk, A. 1977: Zu den Beziehungen des ägäischen, balkanischen und karpathi-
schen Raumes in der mittleren Bronzezeit und die kulturelle Ausstrahlung der ägäischen
Schriften in die Nachbarländer, Slov. arch. 25, 371–342.
Vokotopoulou, J. 1986: Βίτσα. Τα Νεκροταφεία μίας Μολοσσικής Κομής, Athen.
— — — 1990: Oi tafikoi tymboi tis Aineas, Athens.
Voyatzis, M. 1990: The Early Sanctuary of Athena Alea in Tegea and other archaic sanctuaries in
Arcadia, Götteborg.
Wace, A. J. B. 1932: The Tholos Tombs of Mycenae, Archaeologia 82.
Wachsmann, S. 1998: Seagoing Ship and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant, College Station and
London.
— — — 2000: To the Sea of the Philistines. In: Oren, ed., 103–143.
— — — 2013: The Gurob ship-cart model and its Mediterranean context, College Station.
Wallace, S. 2010: Ancient Crete. From succesful Collapse to Democracy Alternatives, Twelfth to Fifth
Centuries BC, Cambridge.
Wardle, K. 1977: Cultural Groups of the LBA and EIA in Northern Greece. Glasnik Sarajevo, 15,
153–196.
Watrous, L. V. 1982: Lasithi, A History of Settlement on Highland Plain in Crete, Hesp. Suppl. 18,
Princeton.
Webb, V. 1978: Archaic Greek Faience, Warminster.
Wedde, M. 2008: On the alleged connection between the Early Greek galley and the watercraft
in Nordic rock art. In: Whittaker, H., ed., 45–72.
— — — 1999: War at Sea: The Mycenaean and Early Iron Age oared galley. In: Polemos, Aegaeum
19, 465–476.
— — — 2000: Towards a Hermeneutics of Aegean Bronze Age Ship Imagery, Bibliopolis.
— — — 2006: Pictorial evidence for partial system survival in the Greek Bronze to Iron Age
transition. In: Rystedt – Wells, eds., 255–269.
Wells, P. 1980: Cultural Contact and Cultural Change, Early Iron Age Europe and the Mediterranean
World, Cambridge.
Wertime, T. A. – Muhly, J. D., eds. 1980: The Coming of the Age of Iron, New Haven.
Wesse, A. 1990: Die Ärmchenbeile der alten Welt, ein Beitrag zum Beginn der Eisenzeit im östlichen
Mitteleuropa, Bonn.
Whitley, J. 1991: Style and society in Dark Age Greece, Cambridge.
— — — 2001: The archaeology of ancient Greece, Cambridge.
Whitmann, C. E. 1958: Homer and the Heroic Tradition, Cambridge.
 Bibliography 283

Whittaker, H. 2008a: Warfare and religion in the Bronze Age. In: Whittaker 2008b, 73–94.
— — — ed. 2008b: The Aegean Bronze Age in Relation to the Wider European Context, BAR IS
Oxford, 174.
— — — 1997: Mycenaean Cult Buildings. A study of their architecture and function in the context of
the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, Bergen.
Wiel-Mariu, F. 2005: La ceramica attica a figure rosse di Adria. La famiglia Bocchi e l’archeologia,
Padova.
Winter, L. 2008: From diffusion to interaction: Connections between the Nordic area and Val-
camonica during the first millennium BC. In: Whittaker 2008b, 35–44.
Wožny, J. 2016: Starožytne monolity antropomorfyczne jak symptomy przemian kulurowych
w epoce osiowej. In: Gediga et alii, eds., 227–238.
Yasur-Landau, A. 2010: The Philistines and the Aegean Migration at the End of the Late Bronze Age,
Cambridge.
Yon, M. 1992: Duck’s travels. In: Acta Cypria 2, Göteborg, 394–407.
Zimmermann, J.-L. 1988: Oiseux géométriques de la Grèce centrale et septentrionale, Numisma-
tica e Antichità Classice—Quaderni Ticinesi 17, 37–53.
— — — 1989: Les chevaux de bronze dans l’art géométrique grec, Geneva.

The abbreviations of journals in the bibliography follow the rules of American Journal of
Archaeology (AJA).
 INDEX

A Albania 96, 97, 102, 182, 184, Anaximenes 68

Aalborg 50 187 Anchialos 187
Abadzechskaja 231 Albanians 45, 70 Andromeda 224
Abarchuk 230 Alexandria 168 Andros 118, 140, 142
Achaea 73, 185 Algarve 237 Animal Style 216, 225, 255
Acheloos 164 Alisar 219 Anklam 50
Achilles 67, 69, 126, 215, 248, Alkman 161 antenna swords 64
249, 255 Almopia 187 Aphrodite (see also Venus)
Achmolovskij mogilnik 231 Alps/Alpine 27, 41–43, 64, 91, 20, 22, 69, 83, 173, 174, 238,
Acropolis 52, 59, 87, 140, 157, 206, 208, 212, 215, 217, 233 239, 244
201 Alstrupt 50 Apidea 187
Actorions 160 Altai 15, 82 Aplu 239
Adaševci 196, 231 Alumière beads 150, 207, 223 Apollo Archegetes 147
Adria/Adriatic 20, 31, 33, Alyattes 228 Apollo/Apolline 6, 67, 70, 83,
42–44, 46, 60, 87, 88, 133, 136, Amarna 32, 240 132, 147, 163, 190, 203, 205.
137, 147, 176, 183, 206–208, Amathus 125 238–243, 245, 246, 250, 256
256, 258 Amber 18, 20, 41, 44, 65, 82, Apollonia 151
Aegean Bronze Age 14, 17, 24, 89, 150, 173, 175, 177, 182, 186, — Pontica 132, 174
28, 30, 47, 80, 166 200, 205–210, 223, 238, 247 Apulia(n) 136, 208, 218
Aegeans 64 — route 6, 43, 177, 205, Arab 45, 71, 91
Aegina 138, 201 207–209 Arabian peninsula 175
Aeginetans 208 Amenhotep III 32 Arcadia(n) 83, 92
Aeneia 187 Amen-Tursha 247 Ares 243, 244
Aeolian Grey Ware: see Trojan America(n) 142, 171, 199, 227 Argive 81, 82, 95, 139
Grey Ware — School at Athens 8 — Heraion/Heraeum 15, 122,
Aeolians 46, 167, 168 Amissos 149 157
Aeolis/Aeolian 101, 132, 168, Amlash 234 Argolis 86, 87, 91, 93–95, 101,
169 Amorgos 101 102, 105, 107
Aeschylus 242 Amphipolis 187, 196 Argonauts 42, 149, 206, 207,
Aetos 95, 158 amphora(e) 61, 86, 93, 94, 96, 242
Africa(n) 27, 31, 45, 127, 136, 151, 102, 106, 107, 109, 110, 121, Argos 47, 54, 79, 83, 85, 86, 88,
167, 175 132, 138, 139, 148, 239, 254 89, 94, 101, 109, 113, 140
Agamemnon 67, 248 amphoriskos/amphoriskoi Archaic 66, 71, 94, 95, 161, 162,
Agrosykia 186, 187 96, 188 235, 256, 257
Aiani 187 amulet(s) 180–182 — Greece 62, 71, 83, 131, 141,
Aias 69, 255 Amyklai 95, 157 146, 163, 190, 236, 245
Aivasil 187 Amyklaion 161, 162 — Period 61, 143, 182
Ajax 166 Ananino culture 226, 233 Aristarchus of Alexandria 168
Ǻketorp 50 Anatolia(n) 10, 23, 26, 28, 92, Ariston 162
Akhenaten 240 110, 132, 142, 143, 190, 215, Arkades 73, 157
Al Mina 125 224, 227, 228, 243 Armenia 197
Ǻland 50 Anaximandros 68 Armenians 131, 213
 Index 285

Artemis 240, 243, 249 Axios (see also Vardar) 129, Bikiorema (see also Phtiotis)
— Bendis 243, 249 131, 185, 187, 216, 244 102
— Orthia 84, 162, 163 Axioupolis 187, 198 Biljarsk 231
Artemision 37, 46, 65, 100 Ayia Irini 125 Bisenzio 155, 250
Arthur, King 166, 167 Ayia Triada Eleias 63, 66, 77 Bithynia 45, 173
arybalos/arybaloi 139, 177, 187 Bithynians 132
Asarhaddon 227 B Bjalata Prst 130
Ashmolean Museum 188, 199 Baal 173 Black Sea 5, 6, 10, 21, 42, 130,
Asia Minor 46, 68, 86, 87, Babadag 132 132, 133, 137, 147–152, 172–174,
104, 131, 132, 185, 204, 212, Bacchiades 139 176, 177, 206, 207, 222, 228,
227–229, 241, 256 Backa 75 240, 249, 256
Asia(n) 46, 68, 86, 87, 94, 104, Badajos 237 Blagodarnoe 231
131, 132, 185, 188, 202, 204, Bademgedighi Warriors 64, 78 Blučina 35
212–214, 222, 227–229, 256 Bădeni 129 Bobousti
Asine 38, 72, 87, 94, 96, 101, 109 Bajč 56 — Matt Painted Pottery 55,
Asomata 187 Balearic Islands 175 96, 97
Assarlik 73, 94 Bali 239 — Ware/Group/Style 97, 213
Assiros 31, 101 Balkan/Balkans 8, 17, 18, 28, 31, Boeotia(n) 83, 105, 107, 108,
Assurbanipal 227 33, 37, 42, 43–45, 47, 60–62, 124, 139, 180
Assyria(n) 32, 110, 131, 138, 149, 82, 87, 89, 91, 92, 96, 98–100, Boghazköy 151
151, 167, 224, 226–228 111, 131, 135, 144, 150, 176, 180, Bohemia(n) 17, 20, 38–40, 74,
Assyrians 26, 177, 227 182, 185, 186, 188, 189, 196, 175–177, 197, 205, 208, 209,
Astarte 20, 22, 173, 174 198, 199, 201, 203, 205–208, 229, 240
Athena 69, 163, 238, 241, 249, 213, 216–218, 233, 255, 256 Bohemitsa 187, 198
255 Baltic 18, 41, 65, 150, 207, 238, Bologna 234
Athenians 138, 174 243 Bordjoš 39
Athens/Athenian 8, 10, 13, Banat 39 Börstel 50
21, 30, 31, 59, 70–72, 81, 86, Barbarian Ware 28, 31, 33, 44, Bosnia 180, 182, 188, 189, 201,
87, 89, 91, 93–96, 99, 102, 60, 61, 86 234
106–111, 117, 120, 137–140, 142, Barç 187 Bosporean Kingdom 177
153, 157, 164, 168, 199, 201, Batak 198 Bosporus 151, 174
205, 255, 258 Battina 196, 229 Boston 126, 245
Atlantic 11, 173, 175, 235, 236, Bavaria 20, 58, 74, 84, 177, 205, Bottiaea 185, 187, 199
238 226 bowl(s) 89, 96, 99, 110, 120, 121,
Atlantique 173 bead(s) 18, 20, 41, 47, 82, 88, 126, 132, 140, 148, 173, 187
Atlantis 33 89, 96, 100, 109, 140, 143, 150, Br D 19, 44
Atlas 164, 244 173–178, 180–185, 187–190, bracelet(s) 89, 120, 140, 143,
Attic 195199, 201, 205, 207–210, 176, 187
— Incised Ware 55, 60, 95 223, 229, 247 Brigetio-Komárom 231
— Geometric 72 Beirut 10 Briseis 69, 248
Attica/Attic 31, 88, 90–96, 102, Bela Palanka 186, 200 Britain/British 7, 41, 47, 62,
104, 105, 107–109, 125, 139, Belasica 196 145, 161, 162, 175, 198, 216, 235
141, 142, 154, 156, 160, 162, Belgrad 198 British Museum 48, 199, 239
168, 239, 245, 248, 251 Belogradec 226, 232 Brodski Varoš 229
Austria 38, 56, 84, 88, 231 Belozerka 150, 216, 223, 226, Bronze Age 5, 13–15, 17–22,
axe(s) 36, 37, 43, 59, 81, 89, 257 24, 28–30, 32, 33, 42, 45, 47,
98–100, 109, 129, 185, 187, Benaki Museum 187, 199, 229 67, 68–70, 80, 107, 128, 130,
199, 209, 229, 233 Beowulf 167 131, 141, 149, 150, 151, 162,
Axial Age 9, 11 Berezan 148–150, 173 166, 168, 169, 177, 203, 205,
Axieros 244 Berlin 13, 124, 163, 198 208, 214, 222, 225, 247, 248,
Axiokersa 244, 245 Bex 197 254–256
Axiokersos 244 Bhagavad Gita 127, 167 — Early 42, 206, 212
286 Index

— Middle (see also LBA) 27, Cepina 55 Cumae 180, 183, 186
42, 206, 258 Chalcidians 181 cup(s) 93, 94, 95, 105, 106, 129,
— Late (see also LBA) 9, 20, 21, Chalcidice 46, 86, 92, 94, 158, 132, 139, 163, 239
32, 38, 41, 47, 65, 80, 129, 130, 181, 185, 186, 187, 189, 199, Cybele 243
131, 166, 175, 208, 217, 223, 200–202, 227 Cyclades 27, 44, 47, 93, 101,
230, 235, 249, 260 Chalcis 94 108, 127,
Brygi(an) 45, 131, 213, 218 Chanson de Roland 166, 167, 169 Cycladic 24, 27, 140
Buckelkeramik 92, 94 Charities (see also Graces) 242 — idols 212
Bučinci 202 Chauchitsa 186, 196, 198, 199 Cyclopean 31
Buddhist rituals 239 Chernogorovka 257 Cypriot White Painted 173
Bulgaria(n) 8, 21, 26, 39, 55, chimaira 163 Cypriots 41, 174, 177
128–132, 134, 149, 150, 197, China 11, 200, 203, 212, 216, Cyprus/Cypriot 28, 32, 33,
198, 221, 226, 227 222, 224, 225 39, 42–46, 55, 60, 63, 80, 86,
Bulgarians 198 Chisinau 231 92, 94, 96–101, 108, 124, 125,
Burgas 130, 134 Chiusi 155 130–132, 140–142, 147, 150,
Býčí skála 176 Chora 244 173, 174, 177, 199, 206, 247
Chrtnos 230 Cyrenaica 71
C Cilicia 33, 228
C’a Morta 234 Cimmerian 81, 82, 99, 100, 149, Č
Cabeza de Buey 237 150, 182, 185, 199, 200, 216, Čaka (Čaka-Očkov) culture
Cáceres 237 223–229, 231–233, 236, 257 45, 56
Caere(tan) 137, 245 Cimmerians 81, 131, 132, 185, Čatalka 55
Canale 155 189, 199–201, 203, 222, Čenovo 130
Cape Kaliakra 130 225–228, 257 Černogorovka 226
Capua 155 Circus pot 52, 63–65 Černogorovka-Novočerkassk
Caput Adriae 42, 176, 206, 208 Cirna culture 55 complex 228
Carpathia(n) 36, 216 Cist graves 87, 89, 91, 92, 113, Černozem 130
Carpathians 222 122, 185, 199
Carthage/Carthaginian 137, Classical 14, 104, 189, 202, 244, D
175, 177, 180, 201 256, 257 Daedalic Art 71
Carthaginians 175 — archaeology 7, 14, 145, 161 Daedalus 108, 137
Caspian sea 224 — Greece 71 dagger(s) 59, 88, 98, 112, 113,
Castellucchio 155 — Period 61, 100, 182, 240 216, 217, 226, 229, 231, 234
Catacomb culture 222 Close style 90, 94, 167 Dakhla Oasis 247
Catane 136, 155 Colchis/Colchidean 148, 151, Daktyloi 163
Catling Swords 88, 98 230, 242 Dalmatia(n) 182, 189
Caucasus/Caucasian 6, 7, 81, Constantinople 198 Dan people 174
99, 131, 132, 150, 182, 184, 185, cooking pot(s) 60, 95, 107 Danish 209
196, 199, 202, 204, 207, 212, Copper Age 23, 235 Danube/Danubian 42, 131, 206
215, 216, 222–228, 230 Corfu 137, Danubian Group 55
Celtic 27, 64, 176, 239, 252 Corinth(ian) 72, 82, 83, 85, 82, Dardanoi 204
Celts 67, 256, 257 83, 85, 94, 101, 107, 136, 139, Dardanos 244
centaur(s) 68, 159 140, 145, 162, 181, 183, 186, Dark Age 5, 9, 10, 30, 31, 47, 60,
Central Europe(an) 6, 7, 10, 14, 245, 247 62, 68, 70, 71, 80, 83, 86, 93,
18–20, 23, 27, 33, 38, 42, 43, Corinthia 86, 105, 107 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 128, 131,
45, 64–66, 81, 82, 87, 94, 100, Crestonians 189, 201 141, 142, 144–146, 149, 150,
102, 132, 143, 150, 161, 172, Crete 10, 26, 44, 45, 63, 71, 161, 167–169, 173–175, 207,
174, 176, 185, 199, 205–208, 87, 88, 90–93, 95, 98, 99, 217, 225, 240, 256
213–217, 222, 223, 226–228, 101–103, 108–112, 124, 139, — Dark Age I 142
239, 247, 255, 257 140, 142, 153, 157, 173, 241 — Dark Age II 95, 107, 108, 142
Central Europeans 43, 206 Crimea 226 Daunia(n) 208, 237
Central Transcaucasian Croatia(n) 42, 43, 55, 206, 208, Daunians 137
Group 229 213, 229, 231 David 23, 66, 69, 212, 255
 Index 287

Dedeli 184, 190, 198 Duck Vases 61 Etruria/Etruscan 109, 136, 139,
Deianeira 164 Dupljaja 240 142, 143, 175–177, 182, 201,
Deiras 87, 113 Duvanli 100 202, 208, 212, 215, 216, 239,
Delian triad 249 Dyrrhachion 208 245, 255, 256
Delilah 69 earrings 17, 110 Etruscans 44, 67, 68, 137, 146,
Delos 20, 37, 46, 65, 100, 101, 175–177, 203, 207, 235, 239,
239, 240, 249 E 256
Delphi 62, 86, 91, 94, 101, 140, Edessa 187 etruscology 7
147, 162, 201, 239, 241, 243, Edinghburgh Euboea(n) 86, 94, 101, 102,
246 — group 186 108–110, 136, 137, 139, 143,
Delphic — Museum 198 183, 186, 188
— Oracle 147 Edoni/Edonians 185, 199, 201, Euboeans 46
— Apollo 243 227, 228 Euphorion 249
Demeter 66, 162, 163, 241, 244 EG (see also Geometric, Early) Eurasia(n) 200, 203, 214, 224,
— Malophoros 181, 184 106, 107, 110, 225 225, 233, 255
Demkino 231 Egypt(ian) 15, 18, 20–22, 32, 33, Eurydice 242
Dendra 31 41, 44, 47, 63, 66, 70, 71, 90, Eusebius 127, 227
Denmark 64, 161, 250 99, 103, 110, 131, 136, 138, 143, Excalibur sword 249
Derveni 95 163, 167, 180, 186, 200, 205, Extramadura stelae 235, 236
Devetaki cave 116 222, 240, 247
Diakata 51 Egyptians 247 F
Dictaean Cave 51, 89, 90 EH (see also Heladic, Early) 27 faience 18, 29, 46, 63, 89, 100,
Dike 242 EIA (see also Iron Age, Early) 108–110, 147, 173, 174, 177, 179,
Diodoros Sicilus (Diod. Sic.) 3, 6, 7, 40, 61, 167, 198, 199, 182, 186, 200
226, 242 212–214, 235, 238, 254, Faiyum oasis 247
Diomedes 69, 128, 129 255–257 Falerii 234
Dion 55, 64, 90, 92, 101, 185, 199 Eioneus 129 Faust 244, 245
Dionysius of Halicarnassus Elateia (Phokis) 46, 102 fibula(e) 31, 33, 43, 48, 51, 82,
141 Elateia-Alonaki (see also 87–90, 92, 100, 109–111,
Dionysus/Dionysiac 23, 67, Phokis) 62 113–116, 120, 126, 132, 139,
128–130, 138, 141, 163, 189, Electra 244 140, 150, 173, 176, 183, 187,
202, 203, 238, 239, 241–243, Eleias 63, 66, 77 206, 223
245, 246, 248, 251, 256 elektron (see also amber) 207 Figuera 237
Dioskouroi 161, 163 Eleusinion 162 Finnish 171
Dipylon 138, 139, 153, 161 Eleusis/Eleusinian 139, 189, Finocchitò 183
Dniester (see also Tyras) 228, 203, 244, 249 First World War 198
249 Elis (see also Palea Elis) 86 Fitzwilliam Museum 199
Dobrodgea 128 , 112 Flächenstil 216
Dodecanese 86, 92–94, 99 Emden 50 Fortetsa 73, 153
Dodona 51, 59, 97, 158 Emmen 50 Fossum 75
Doiran lake 198 Emporio 137 Francavilla Maritima 126
Donau 89 Endža 226 France 7, 25, 27, 44, 66, 170,
Donja Dolina 98, 188, 189, 196, Eneolithic 212, 222, 236 176, 198, 217, 225, 229, 235,
201 English Civil War 127 236, 256
Doreikles 164 Enkomi 124 François Vase 68
Dorian 26, 28, 47, 70, 87, 90, 91, Enyo 249 Francs 25, 45
102, 161, 163 Ephesus 62, 93, 94, 101, 107, Frattesina 47, 175, 176, 208
Dorians 27, 47, 70, 90, 92, 167 181, 185, 188, 201 Fredrikstad 50
Doric (order) 94 Epirus 92 Freising 20
Drama 128, 188 Eretria(n) 118, 140 French Jura 234
Drava 42, 206 Eris 68
Drepanon 185 Eščeri 230 G
Dreros 140 Eteocypriot 140 Gamów 231
288 Index

Gamów-Berezovka daggers — discs 20, 36, 209 Hauterive-Champreveryeres

226, 231 — jewellery 20, 82, 140, 189, 47, 175
Gazi larnax 78 200, 201 Hebrew 248, 254
Gefolgschaft 23, 45, 67, 130, 203, — mines 173 Hebrews 26, 174, 256
217, 254, 256 — rings 100, 110, 253 Hecataeus 127
Gela 71, 155 — roundel(s) 37, 65, 205 Hector 69, 248, 255
gem(s) 140, 141, 157, 180 — spirals 100, 207 Hefaisteia 99
Genovans 45 Golden Age 5, 13 Heidelberg 73
Geometric 5, 6, 10, 11, 24, 30, Golden Fleece 242 Helen 141, 161, 163, 249
46, 60–64, 66, 71, 72, 80–82, Goliath 33, 43, 66, 69, 174, 206 Helios 239
91, 92, 95, 97–101, 103–105, Golovjatino-Leibnitz daggers Helladic 24
107, 108, 110, 111, 118, 124, 125, 231 — Early (see also EH) 27, 41
132, 137, 138, 140, 141, 143–146, Gordion 131, 227 — Middle 18, 38, 41, 47, 60,
150, 162, 167, 169, 186, 203, Gorgon 163, 224, 249 102, 213, 225
205, 212–217, 223, 225, 237, Gortyn 101, 108 — Late (see also LH) 5, 27,
248, 254–257 Goths 70 41, 70
— Early (see also EG) 5, 61, Graces (see also Charities) 242 Hellenes 147
82, 99, 100, 105, 107, 109–111, Graditsa 112 Hellenic 147
119, 123 Graeco-Macedonian Bronzes Hellenistic 61, 127, 162, 177, 182,
— Middle (see also MG) 5, 61, 10, 190 198, 249
86, 105, 110, 111, 155 Graeco-Persian Wars 161, 168 helmet(s) 44, 54, 64, 88, 89,
— Late (see also LG) 5, 70, 79, Granary Style 86 99, 109, 112, 163, 168, 169, 217,
83, 85, 122, 136, 139, 140, 141, Grciste 187 235, 255
155, 157–162, 167, 173, 180, Great Colonisation 137, 174 Hephaestus 137, 248
183, 186, 216, 236, 255 Great Goddess 214, 243, 244 Hera 83, 162, 163, 243, 249
— sub-Geometric 80, 82 Great Gods 244 Heracles 42, 68, 147, 159, 163,
Georgia 8 Great Migration Period 27, 164, 166, 175, 206
German 7, 8, 67, 176, 198 33, 45 Heraclids 47, 60
German Historical Museum Greek myths 21, 63, 129, 239 Heraclites 91
198 Greeks 24, 44, 46, 68 Heraion, Heraeum 15, 82, 109,
Germanic 25, 26, 27 Greenland 25 122, 124, 150, 157, 164
Germans 198 Grotta (Naxos) 101 Herakleion-Mastaba 99
Germany 7, 47, 170, 175, 198, Grottaferrata 211 Hermes 163, 243, 245
209, 226, 236 Gurob 247 Hero Tomb (Lefkandi) 99
Geti 242 — ship-cart model 32, 246, Herodotus (Herod.) 44, 65, 131,
Getic 242 247, 248 136, 147, 150, 151, 162, 168, 173,
Gevgelia 187, 196 Gyges 227 175, 177, 205, 207, 222, 224,
Giannitsa 186, 187, 258 Gypsades 51, 113 227, 228, 240, 242, 243, 248
Gibraltar 137, 147 Hero-Raider 243, 249
Gitiadas 161 H Herzogenburg 56
Glasinac 196, 197, 234 Ha B 44, 47, 51, 64, 81, 175, 185, Herzsprung Shields 44, 235
glass 10, 29, 41, 47, 63, 88, 109, 213, 226, 257 Hesiod 23, 66–68, 146, 168
147, 173–177, 179 Hader 84 hieros gamos 243
— beads 18, 41, 47, 89, 100, 110, Hadersleben 50 Hindu rituals 239
174–177, 207, 208, 223 Hades 242, 244 Hiram 146, 172
Glos 187 Hallstatt (Ha A, B, C) 43, 44, Histria (see also Istria, Istros,
Goddess with Arms 6, 248, 47, 51, 64, 81, 175, 176, 185, Istrpolis) 132, 148–151, 173,
249 206, 208, 213–216, 223–226, 174
Goethe 69, 244 238, 255, 257 Hittite 21, 32, 42, 47, 63, 68,
gold 13, 18, 19, 22, 41, 66, 100, Hama 125 104, 110, 131, 138, 166, 167
110, 129, 130, 143, 149, 151, 175, Hammurabi 32 Hittites 32, 41, 69, 97, 113
177, 185, 187, 199, 205, 207, Harmonia 244 Homer(ic) 5, 9, 10, 30, 33, 66,
209, 238, 243 Harsefeld 50 68, 69, 102, 104, 108, 127–129,
 Index 289

138, 141, 144, 146, 166–173, Iran(ian) 7, 203, 212, 213, jug(s) 95, 96, 102, 107, 187, 243
227, 254, 255 215–217 juglet(s) 180, 182–184, 192
Homerisches Griechenland Iron Age 5, 9, 14, 23, 30, 62, 63, Jugoslavia 8
7, 10 66, 67, 69, 70, 92, 94, 98, 101, jug-stopper(s) 182, 186, 188,
Hordeevka 150, 173, 207, 210, 103–105, 127, 128, 144, 151, 199–202, 225
223 170, 174, 207, 208, 214, 224,
Horus 249 235, 236, 254 K
Hungarians 26, 225 — Early (see also EIA) 6, 9, 10, Kabeirion 244
Hungary/Hungarian 7, 19, 26, 14, 23, 42, 44, 67, 69, 90, 102, Kabeiroi 244, 245
27, 45, 59, 79, 180, 188, 189, 104, 130, 131, 146, 174–177, Kadesh 32
196, 201, 204, 225, 227, 231, 185, 190, 200, 203, 205–208, Kadmilos 244, 245
250, 252 211, 212, 222, 224, 225, 235, Kadmos 128, 241, 244
Huns 46, 225 240, 244, 246, 249, 257, 258 Kakovatos 35, 205, 209
hydria(e) 94, 162, 245 Isaiah 224 Kalapodi 46, 62, 87, 94, 101,
Hyksos 32, 222 Ischia 136, 137 109, 189, 201
Hyperborean 6, 65, 205, Isis 163, 249 kalathos/kalathoi 99
238–240 Israel 69, 94, 141, 144, 240 Kalendeberg 208, 213
Hyperboreans 65, 190, 203, Isthmus 247 Kaliště-Bezděkov 233
226, 238–240, 243, 250 Istria (see also Histria, Istros, Kalliope 242
Istropolis) 132, 258 Kallithea 52
I Istropolis (see also Istros, Kaloriziki 33, 44, 58, 88
Iakchus 249 Histria, Istria) 132 Kalydonian boar 163
Ialyssos 51, 72, 73, 79, 124 Istros (see also Histria, Istria, Kalymnos 64, 76
Iapygoi 136 Istropolis) 132 Kamenomostskoe 231
Iasion 244 Italic 19, 39, 47, 65, 111, 155, 181, kantharos 116, 129, 138, 158
Icelandic 9, 171 186, 188, 200, 201, 211, 217, Karphi 89, 90, 122, 141, 142
iconography 5, 10, 17, 46, 60, 233, 250, 251 — Incised Ware 55
63, 65, 66, 107, 146, 163, 243, Italics 67, 256 Kaş 130, 205
245, 254 Italy/Italian 6, 11, 18, 19, 20, 24, Kastanas 31, 91, 101
Idaean Cave 126 27, 31, 33, 37, 43–48, 60, 61, Kastoria 187
Idalion 125 62, 70, 80, 89–91, 95, 97, 100, Kastritsa 97
Iliad (Il.) 47, 67–69, 99, 108, 102, 105, 109, 136, 139, 141, Kaška 97
129, 144, 166–169, 172, 173, 142, 147, 152, 155, 175, 176, 180, Kavalla 188
255 201, 208, 213–215, 217, 223, Kavousi 101
Iliou Persis 169 234, 236, 246, 255–257 Kazaklia 223
Iljak 197 Itanos 45 Kazbek treasure 230
Illyria(n) 44, 55, 133, 206, 207, Ithaca(n) 95, 97, 101, 108, 158, Kazičane 129
233, 256 170, 188, 201 Kea 18
Illyrians 82, 204 Iynx 83 keimelia/keimelion 172, 207
in antis 62, 143 Kelermes 197, 228
Iňa 56 J Kephalenia 51
India(n) 127, 212, 239, 249 Jeraki 164 Kerameikos 7, 72, 73, 81, 84,
— Ocean 175 Jeremiah 224 87–89, 91, 103, 109, 110, 112,
Indians 239 Jessen‘s horse-bits 225 113, 119, 154
Indo-European 224, 249 Jesus 249 Keskem 231
Iolkos 87, 94, 101 jewellery 17, 18, 20, 21, 29, 82, Kiev 231
Ionia(n) 24, 26, 46, 86, 93, 87, 83, 87, 89, 100, 103, 108, 131, Kirilovo 130
92–94, 101, 108, 109, 140, 142, 140, 143, 149, 150, 181, 182, Kisköszeg 196
149, 167, 181 188, 189, 199–203, 205, 207, Kislovodsk 231
Ionians 46, 92, 147, 149, 167 255 Kition 140
Ionic (order) 94 Jewish 224 Klaipeda 175
Ipeľský Sokolec 56 Jíkalka shield 44, 58 Klein Neundorf 231
Joshua 26 knive(s) 51, 59, 98, 99, 119
290 Index

Knobbed Ware 33, 132 Laconia(n) 5, 47, 82, 85, 93, 95, 91, 95, 96, 99, 101, 111–113,
Knossos 51, 90, 101, 117, 137, 145, 140, 161–164 116, 138, 142, 161, 167, 168,
153, 198, 205, 207, 209 Lakithra 51 187, 199, 206, 239, 247, 248,
Knowes of Trotty 209 Lambanskoto kladenče 130 254, 257
Koban culture 226, 229, 230, Lamia 102 Libanon 35, 109
257 Langada 51, 52 Libya 180
koine 3, 6, 11, 14, 42, 43, 60, 66, Langobards 45, 70 Libyans 247
80, 110, 143, 185, 199, 203, Lapiths 68 Lindos 85
205–207, 212–214, 217, 223, Larissa 101 Linear script 18, 20, 205
225, 238, 240, 248, 255–257 Larnaca 125 — Linear B 28, 70, 92
kobolds 182, 186, 200 Larnaud 229 Liptov Swords 50, 74
Kolaios 151 Lathourza 142 Lislebyfjord 50
Kolca Gora 231 Latin 4, 26 Liščin Dol 202
Kommos 93, 103, 108, 173 Lato 141 Lithuania 175
Konstantinopel 198 Laurion 137 LM (see also Minoan, Late) 71
Koprivlen 128 LBA (see also Late Bronze Locris 99
korai 94, 240 Age) 7, 37, 40, 43, 45, 62, 150, logos 9, 11, 106, 144, 146, 170
Kore 244 206, 207, 257 Louvre 22, 154, 198
Korea 188, 202 leaf star 138 Lovčičky 51
Korybantes 244 Lebanon 68, 104 Lower Bug 249
Kos 51, 52, 64, 93, 94, 99, 102, Lefkandi 10, 47, 57, 63, 71, 87, Lucretius 67
109, 124, 173 94, 95, 98–101, 103, 107, 110, Lukaševka 173, 230
Kotouč near Štramberk 231 116, 118, 166, 225, 255 Lukaševski kurgan 223
kotyle 139 — Pyre 99 Lukaševskoe poselenie 223
Koukos 101 LG (see also Geometric, Late) Luristan 99, 197, 212, 215, 216,
Koukou 187 117, 125, 154, 156, 160 234, 256, 257
Koukounaries 101 LH (see also Helladic, Late) Lusation figure-of-eight 209
Koukounou 187 5, 23, 28, 41–48, 51, 52, 54, Lycurgos 241
Koumasa 35 59–65, 70–73, 76, 78–80, 82, Lydia(n) 110, 227
kouroi 94, 240 86–89, 91, 95, 96, 99, 101, Lydians 151
Krannon 83, 208 111–113, 116, 138, 142, 161, 167, Lygdamis (see also Tug-
krater(s) 54, 63, 77, 109, 139, 168, 187, 199, 206, 239, 247, damme) 228
162, 239 248, 254, 257
Križovlin 129 Leibnitz 231 M
Kroisos treasure 162 Leipzig 198 Maa (see also Paleokastro-
Kroton 155 lekythos/lekythoi 86, 94, 106 Maa) 45
Kuban 196, 197, 226, 229, 230 Lelantine War 143 Macedonia(n) 45, 55, 81, 83,
— group 185, 199 Lemnos 46 89, 90, 92, 96, 97, 100, 102,
Kuç i Zi tumuli 97, 184, 187 Leontinoi 136, 155 131, 140, 158, 177, 180–185,
Kujbyšev 231 Leporano 155 187–189, 192, 194, 196, 198,
Kumanovo 196 Les Maydons— Papilard 234 200–203, 220, 225
Kumbulta 230 Lesbos 101, 168, 242 — bead(s) 180, 183, 184, 190,
Kurgan 222 Letnitsa 243, 249, 253 195
Kurion 125 Leto 239, 249, 251 — Bronze(s) (see also MB)
kylix 183 Leuke 249 6, 10, 11, 81, 180–191, 193,
Kyme 101, 136, 155, 168 Levant(ine) 32, 33, 41, 44, 46, 197–204, 216, 227–229, 258
Kynos 63, 64, 66, 78, 247 47, 60, 62, 63, 65, 70, 90, 93, — Lausitz Ware 43, 55, 56, 206
Kynosarges iron buckle 99 99, 100, 103, 105, 108, 110, Maenads 67, 241, 242, 250, 251
Kyrenia-Karpathani 125 136, 140, 142, 174–176, 177, Magna Graecia 162, 183, 189,
Kythera 145 247, 256 200
LH = Late Helladic 5, 23, 28, Malkata Mogila 253
L 41–48, 51, 52, 54, 59–65, Malkoto Kale 132
La Tène 176, 188, 249 70–73, 76, 78–80, 82, 86–89, Maltese crosses 100, 216, 226
 Index 291

Maolles-sur-Seine 39 Merope 97 Muses 137

Marathon tumulus 225 Merseburg 50 — Kalliope 242
Marduk 240 Mersin 125 — Klio 17, 33
Mari Mesopotamia 22, 25, 240 Museum für Völkerkunde
— Archives 32 Messenia 47, 86, 91, 93, 95, 198
— region 231 107, 108 Mycenae(an) 5, 17, 18–22, 24,
Marion 125 Metapont 155 26, 28, 31, 36–38, 41–44, 46,
Marmara 41, 129, 130 Metaxata 52 47, 51, 52, 54, 58, 60–64, 66,
Marmariani 97, 218 Mezöcsád culture 227 68, 70–73, 79, 87, 88, 89, 91,
Marmor Parium 127 MG (see also Geometric, 94, 102, 104, 105, 127–131, 141,
Marvinci 187, 188, 190, 194, Middle) 125 143, 149, 161, 166, 169, 185,
202, 203, 219 Midas 227 199, 205, 209, 212, 213, 247,
Massilia 137 Middle Ages 177 254, 258
Matt-Painted Pottery 55, 96, Michael 240 — Circus Pot 63, 64
97, 213, 218 Mikrovouli 244 — Early 18, 205
Matt Painted Wares 213 Milavče 58 — Late 70, 99, 185, 199
Mavropygi 187 Milci 187, 202 Mycenaeans 8, 30, 32, 41, 42,
Maya 22 Milesians 137 46
Mayence 20 Milet(us)/Milesian 13, 68, 93, Mygdonians 189, 201
MB (see also Macedonian 94, 101, 107, 132, 137, 140, 151 Mylai 155
Bronzes) 6, 97, 180, 182–190, Milínov 37 Myrsino 205
192, 193, 195, 198–201, 220, Minoan and Mycenaean Mysia 45, 132
229, 258 cultures 21 Mysians 131, 132
MBA (see also Bronze Age, Minoan-Mycenaean iconog- mythologies 42, 64, 67, 206,
Middle) 17, 35, 38 raphy 17 224
meander 105–107, 139, 255 Minussinsk area 226 mythology/mythological 8,
Medea 249, 252 Minya 101 21, 30, 42, 63, 64, 66–68, 146,
Medgidia 128 Minyans 162 149, 167, 206, 226, 238, 242,
Mediana 55 Mithra 240, 243 245, 249
Medinet Habu 33, 48, 65, 80, Mittani 32, 222 Mytilene 101
247 Mi-Wer 247
Mediterranean 5, 6, 18, 19, 21, Mochov 38 N
27, 29, 32, 33, 39, 41, 44–47, Modica 155 Nagyenyed-Kakasdomb 196,
60, 63, 66, 68, 69, 80, 91, 99, Mogadir 175 231
104, 111, 130, 133, 136, 137, Moira/Moirs 242 Narce 155
141–143, 146–148, 150, 151, Mokodonja 258 Nature Goddess 92
173–175, 177, 178, 205, 207, Moldavia 226 Naue II swords 33, 43, 47, 88,
215, 217, 238, 240, 247, 248, Moldova 129, 223, 228, 230, 231 217
257, 258 Molions 139, 160 Naukratis 147
Medon 164 Molossian 189, 202 — painter 163
Megara Hyblaea 136, 148, 155, Monte Gargano 137 Naxos Incised Ware 55
181, 183, 187, 189–191, 203 Monte San Mauro 184 Naxos/Naxian 101, 108, 114,
Megiddo 32, 125 Morava river 207, 208 136, 140, 155, 241
Mehlbeck 50 Moravia(n) 35, 51, 208, 231 Nea Anchialos 99
Meleagros Painter 239 Morocco 175 Nea Ionia 94, 101
Melos 140, 157 Moscow 8 Nea Zoe 187
Melqart 147 Moselle 38 Nea Zoni 187
menadism 130 Moses 240 Neapolis Bion 164
Menagerie vases 63, 64 Mosul 63, 138 Near East(ern) 18–24, 31, 41,
Mende 92, 94, 101 Motya 155 42, 70, 80, 100, 144, 166, 212,
Menelaion 161 Mouliana 88, 90, 99, 112 217, 224, 227, 228, 236, 256,
Menelaos 163 Mulino dell’Badia 184 258
Meppen 50 Munich 73, 188 Nebra disc 20, 205
292 Index

Nemesis 242 Ormuzd 243 Perachora 83, 122, 126, 157

Neolithic 14, 22, 212, 222 Orpheus 130, 238, 242, 251 Perati 46, 63, 71, 86
Nereid 249 Orphic Religion/Teaching/ periboloi 114
Nestor 139, 160 Orphism 128, 130, 189, 203, Persephone 241, 242, 245
New Kingdom 247 241, 242 Perseus 68, 163, 224
Nibelungenlied 167, 169 Orphics 242 Persia(n) 24, 151, 168, 174, 222,
Nicosia 124 Orsova 229 240
Nichoria 31, 47, 57, 87, 91, 142 Osiris 163, 249 Peschiera (Psychro) 59, 88, 112
Nimrud 149 Ossini 155 — daggers 59, 112
Nola 155 Ostrogoths 45, 46 — fibulae 43, 88
Nomos 242 Ostrov Lake 198 PG (see also Protogeometric)
Nordic 239, 240 Otradno 231 46, 47, 62, 73, 84, 87, 89, 90,
— mythology 64, 249 Oxford 17, 30, 127, 146, 154, 199 93, 95, 96, 99–101, 103, 106,
— rock carvings 111 107, 110, 112, 113, 117, 118, 122,
Nová Huť 37 P 125, 167, 240, 255, 256
Novillara 211 Paeonian 189, 202, 203, 256 Phaestus 35
Novočerkassk 226 Paeonians 45, 82, 201, 204 Phagres 187
Novočerkasskij klad 226 Palaikastro 45, 88 phalerae 99, 224
Novyj Afona 230 Palea Elis (see also Elis) 88 Pharsala 97
Nyírtura shield 58 Paleokastro-Maa (Cyprus; see Pherai 98, 126, 158, 189, 201
also Maa) 141 Philakopi
O Palestine 43, 46, 60, 66, 68, 94, Philia 189
Octopus Style 76 104, 174, 206 Philistine 43, 80, 206
Očkov 56 Panad 231 Philistines 32, 43, 46, 65, 66,
Oder river 207, 208 Panagjurište 243, 249 68, 80, 104, 174, 206, 247
Odessa 129 Pangaion mountains 243 Phoenicia(n) 6, 24, 41, 47, 63,
Odoakar 46 Panticapaeum 179 69, 89, 91, 93, 94, 100, 103,
Odysseus 23, 69, 128, 129, 138, Papadin Dol 185, 199 108, 110, 126, 128, 130, 136,
139, 160, 166, 167, 170, 212, Paphos 125, 140 137, 139, 140, 144, 147, 148, 155,
255 Paris 7, 67, 172, 249 173–178, 186, 200, 217, 235,
Odyssey 47, 108, 166–172, 175, Paros/Parian 101, 127, 140 240, 248
227, 255 Parthenon 137 — Syro-phoenician 173
Oedipus 70 Pass Lueg 88 Phoenicians 10, 47, 68, 69, 71,
oenochoe/oenochoai 106, 249 Pateli 198 93, 104, 105, 109, 110, 128,
Ohrid Lake 184 Patroclus 69, 248 136, 137, 140, 143, 146, 147,
Oiagres 242 Pausanias (Paus.) 161, 162, 164 150, 151, 167, 172–177, 180,
Okeanos 68 Pečina 234 207, 235, 256
Olbia 232 Pedina 97 Phoenix 173
Old Testament 26, 69, 212, Pegasus 224 Phoibos 60, 68
240, 255 Peisistratos 127, 168 Phokaians 147
Olympia 62, 74, 82, 85, 91, 99, Pelasgoi/Pelasgians 31, 46, 60, Phokis (see also Elateia,
101, 111, 140, 158, 159, 161–164, 64, 70, 71, 128, 133, 141, 149 Elateia-Alonaki) 62, 94, 102
188, 201, 249, 250 Peleus 68 Phrygia(n) 33, 45, 213, 218,
Olympiad 142, 255 Peloponnese/Peloponnesian 219, 227
Olympic (games) 69, 111, 136 10, 47, 82, 86, 87, 90, 92, 93, Phrygians 131, 132
Olynthus 83, 174, 187, 188, 196 97, 102, 107, 109, 120, 126, 139, Phtiotis (see also Bikiorema)
Ophir 175 162, 174, 180, 186, 188, 200 102
Ordos 200, 222 pendant(s) 17, 82, 100, 110, Phylakopi 62, 63, 74, 161, 165
Orgame 132, 148, 174 136, 140, 143, 158, 177, 180, Picenians 203
Orientalizing 71, 73, 83, 95, 182–184, 186-189, 192, 193, Picenum 182, 201
108, 139, 141, 143, 173, 212, 201, 202, 207, 215, 216, 219, Pieria 187, 189, 201
216, 256, 257 220, 225, 229 Piersznice Wielke 84
Orkney Islands 209 Pépeville 38 Pilatovići-Trnjaci 176
 Index 293

Pilsen 233 — Late 94, 167 — ring pendants 186, 219, 220
Pindaros 132 — Subgeometric 97 — shield ring(s) 89, 100
Pireus 87 Proto-Homer 10, 127, 166, 167, — signet ring(s) 17, 89
Pistiros 188, 243 169 Rinyasyentkirály 59
Pit culture 222 Proto-Meiotic culture 229 Roccavecchia 37
Pithekoussai 136, 137, 139, 147, Protovillanovan culture 213, Rogozen 243, 249, 252, 253
155, 174, 180, 181, 184, 186, 189 257 Roman 104, 131, 142, 170, 256
pithos/pithoi 17, 102, 140, 185 Proto-White-Painted Pottery — Empire 30, 146
pitcher(s) 99, 139, 141, 160, 86, 92 Romania(n) 8, 44, 66, 128, 129,
182, 243 Prozor 196, 197 149, 217, 231
plaque(s) 143, 193, 243, 249, 253 Psychro 59, 112, 126 Rome 7, 24, 137, 142, 155, 175,
Plato 168 Pšeničevo 55 177, 190, 255, 258
Pleven 129 Pylos 27, 31, 65, 166 Roncevaux 166, 169
Po delta 46 pyramids/pyramidal 22, 33, Roos Carr 75
Po river 46, 208, 258 61, 130, 172, 212, 254 rosette(s) 65, 89, 106, 138, 214
Poitiers 234 Pyrgos Livanaton 63, 78 Rossin 50
Poland 24, 44, 66, 217, 231 Pythagoras/Pythagorean 242 Routsi tombs 205
Polis Pythion 163 Rusanoviči 197
— Cave 95, 101 Python 239 Rusia(n) 8, 198, 231
— Pottery 97 pyxis/pyxidae 81, 86, 95, 96,
Poljanci 229 106, 107, 111, 182, 185–188, S
Polybios 161 192, 200, 202 Sabatinovka culture 222, 223,
Polyphemus 141, 163 257
Pontic 27, 100, 131, 173, 174, 212, R Sagaredzo 232
216, 217, 222–226, 228–230, Radanja 196, 197 Saharna 223
246255, 257 Ralagham 165 Salamis 72, 86, 87, 90, 93, 94,
— nomads 24, 222 Ramses III 66, 131, 248 125
Portugal/Portuguese 151, 175 Ras Shamra 207 Salic laws 45
Poseidi 86, 101 Rathgall 47, 175 Salomon, King 146, 175, 212
Poseidon 163 Ravenna 25, 66 Samaria 125
Prague 7, 10, 83, 172, 190, 198, Razlog 221 Samos (Hungary) 250
258 Red Sea 173 Samos/Samian 15, 82, 107, 109,
Prähistorische Staatssam- Red-Figured vases 239 122, 124, 132, 140, 150, 151, 161,
mlung, Munich 188 Redkin Lager 197 163, 164, 186, 188, 201, 250
Preclassical 168, 169 Religion 6, 11, 15, 17, 20, 21, 29, Samothrace/Samothracian
Precucuteni-Tripolje culture 33, 128, 129, 189, 202, 203, 238, 241, 244
222 214, 235, 238, 239, 241–245, Samson 69
Preshpan lake 184 254 Samtavro 230, 232
Prometheus 163 Reshef figurines 62, 175 sanctuary/sanctuaries 17, 35,
Pronectus 173 Rhegion 155 41, 62, 81–83, 93, 101, 103, 108,
Prosymna 73, 89 Rhesus 128, 129, 243 109, 128, 140, 143, 147, 152,
prothesis 63, 65, 70, 138, 154 Rhineland 25 161–163, 173, 174, 180, 181, 184,
Protoattic 72, 139 Rhodes 51, 65, 76, 85, 93, 94, 186, 188, 189, 201–204, 207,
Protobulgars 26 102, 108, 109, 124, 147, 174, 238–241, 243, 244, 246, 256
Protocorinthian 155, 183, 187 177, 188, 201 Sandars
Protogeometric 5, 8, 10, 30, 31, Rhodians 71 — swords 37
46, 60, 61–63, 65, 73, 80, 81, Richemont 38 — knives 59
86–95, 98, 99, 102, 103, 105, Rila monastery 197 Sancherib 227
108, 109, 161, 239, 254, 257 Ring(s) 59, 113, 178, 187, 188, 253 Santa Anna de Trujillo 237
— Early 93, 94, 106, 110, 112, — arm ring(s) 193 Sappho 181
119, 120, 121, 127, 128, 142, — finger ring(s) 58, 87, 89, Saraj-Brod 185, 199
144, 166 100, 109–111 sarcophagos/sarcophagi 63,
— Middle 94 — neck ring(s) 140 65, 77, 181, 183
294 Index

Sardinia(n) 42, 60, 88, 94, 99, silver 18, 22, 82, 101, 126, 129, Spartans 161
105, 136, 175, 212 130, 137, 140, 173, 175, 189, spearhead(s) 33, 37, 43, 44, 59,
Sardis 81, 227 200, 201, 207, 243, 252, 253 88, 92, 98, 109, 112, 113, 128,
Sargon II 227 Sinaranu 31 206, 226
Sárvíz canal 231 Sindos 189, 200, 201, 204 Spelaion 185
Satyrs 67, 182, 186, 188, 200, Sinope 227, 228 Sphinx 63, 70
241, 244, 250 Siphnos 117 sphyrelata 140
Sava 42, 206 Sitalces 243 Spina 208
Sava-Conevo 132 Sithonia 101 Spišský Štvrtok 37
Scandinavia 43, 44, 62, 64, 66, situla 177, 202 Sprockhoff swords 42, 44, 49,
80, 138, 206, 212, 215, 217, 239 — art 212, 256 52, 59, 88, 98, 206
Scandinavian Rock Art 8, 64 Skopje 184, 190, 202, 203 Sri Lanka 239
scarab(s) 63, 176, 179, 180, 205 skyphos/skyphoi 86, 94, 96, Srubno culture 222, 223
sceptre(s) 37, 129, 229, 231 105–107, 121, 125, 136, 186 Stade 50
Schonen 50 Skyros 46, 79, 93, 94, 96, 100, Stadtallendorf 47, 175
Scythian 148, 149, 204, 224, 102, 107 Stara Zagora 197
226, 228, 236, 249, 256, 257 Slavonic 45, 96, 97 Staraja Mogila 197
Scythians 132, 148, 149, 152, Slavs 70 Staré Sedlo 229
212, 216, 222, 226–228 Slovakia 45, 50, 56, 74, 231 Stathatos collection 187, 199
Sea Peoples 27, 31–33, 43, 44, Slovenia 176, 213 Steinbrunn 38
46, 60, 61, 64–66, 68, 71, 80, Smyrna 93, 94, 101, 109, 117, Steinburg 50
81, 91, 104, 128, 131–133, 141, 141, 142, 156, 168 Steinfurth 38
174, 206, 245, 247, 248, 254 Socrates 168 Sto Trochili 124
Second World War 87, 199 Sofia 129 Stockholm 13, 21
Sedlec-Hůrka 37 — Archaeological Museum Strabo 131, 185, 199, 224, 227,
Seine et Marne 39 198 228
Selinus 181, 184 — Group 55 Strakonice 177, 179
Semele 241 Solar Strandja 151
Sepnoj 223 — Barque/Boat 65, 80, 214, Stránky 74
Serbia(n) 48, 55, 167, 176, 180, 250 Strict Style 104, 107, 111, 138
182, 186, 200 — Cult/Mysteries 239, 242 Struma 129
Serraglio 99, 124 — Disc 213 Strumok 223
Seržen Jurt 223, 230 — Function 239 Stuttgart 21, 39
Shaft Graves 17, 18, 28, 41, 42, — God/Deity 213, 214, 239 Stylli 125
149, 205, 206 — Hero(s) 6, 238, 240, 250 Styrgaz 230
shaman(s) 182, 188, 202 — Motif 93 Suagrom 230
shamanism/shamanistic 185, — Symbol 65, 89, 92, 94, 100, Subingen 197
186, 188, 189, 190, 199, 200, 105, 106, 139, 207, 213, 226, Subminoan 5, 86, 90–92, 122
202–204, 214, 216, 225, 238 238, 250 Submycenaean 5, 23, 31, 60, 61,
Sherden 247, 248 — Wheel 20, 158 65, 72, 73, 81, 86–89, 90–92,
Schonen 50 Soli 125 94, 95, 98, 100, 103, 112, 113,
Siberia 7, 188, 200, 202, 212 Solomon, King 172 142, 189, 223, 254
Sicily/Sicilian 94, 105, 136, 139, Somlyóhegy 196 Sub-PG (see also sub-Pro-
147, 155, 161, 174, 175, 180–182, Somlyóvásárhely 196 togeometric) 105, 108, 186
191 Sopron 221 sub-Protogeometric (see also
Siculan 182, 184 South Bohemia 17, 176 sub-PG) 95, 106, 107
Siculi 182 Soviet Union 8 Suebia 21, 42
Sidon 47, 110, 167 Sozopol 134 Suedia 125
Sidonians 47, 167 Spain/Spanish 25, 27, 31, 45, Suessula 155
Siebeneich 84 173, 175, 176, 216, 225, 235, Susa 39
Siem 50, 250 236, 256 Susanskoje 223
Silen(s) 241 Sparta 26, 47, 71, 81, 83, 84, 126, Suva Reka–Gevgelia 187
Silesia(n) 43, 84, 208, 240 136, 140, 161–164 swastika 89, 105, 106, 111, 214
 Index 295

Sweden 75, 175 — Sukas 125 Tli cemetery 223, 230

Swiss 176 — Tayianat 125 Tolfa 79
Switzerland 47, 175, 197, 226, temple(s) 5, 18, 21, 22, 29, 46, Tomb T 68 (Lefkandi) 99
234 62, 66, 101, 104, 108, 109, 118, Topoľčany 56
sword(s) 13, 33, 37, 42–44, 122, 141, 143, 172, 181, 238 Torone 46, 81, 84, 92, 185, 189,
47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 59, 64, 74, Tenos 140 199
88–90, 92, 98, 103, 109, 112, Tepe Sialk B 218 Tószeg 35
113, 116, 128, 149, 206, 217, Teresh 247 Toumba 47, 100, 101
235, 249, 252 Terpandros 161 Tragana 63, 78
Sybaris 155 thalassocracy 5, 24, 127, 128, Transcaucasia(n) 173, 203,
Syracusae 136, 148, 155, 181, 132, 133, 149, 173 204, 212, 213, 216, 217, 229,
184, 234 Thales 68 256, 257
Syria(n) 33, 68, 69, 104, 110, Thaletas 161 Transylvania(n) 36, 41, 149,
131, 136, 173, 177, 180, 207, 244 Thapsos 48, 155 197, 229
Syrians 143, 147, 180 Thasos 55, 83, 110, 163, 173, 249 Trapeza Lembet 187
Syro-Canaanites 247 Thebes 86 Treasury of Epidamnians 164
Syro-Phoenician 173 Theodoric 25 Trebenište 162, 189, 198, 200,
Szatmár 250 Theokles 164 201, 204
Székelyhid 36 Thera 21, 33, 140, 153, 166, 205 Tree of Life 63, 64, 107, 214
Szentes-Vekerzug Thermon 109, 118 Tremenzano 184
— culture 189 Theseus 241 Tren cave 97
— horse-bits 225 Thessalian Treres 227, 228
— bronzes 81, 190, 202, 258 Trilophon-Messiméry 187, 196
Š — matt painted handmade tripod(s) 63, 81, 99, 140
Šernai 175 ware 218 Troad 45
Šipka 253 Thessaloniki 99, 101, 185, 199 Troilos 163
Širokoe 223 Thessaly/Thessalian 60, 70, Trojan 69, 132, 167, 169
Štip 197 82, 83, 86, 87, 89, 93, 94, 96, — (Aeolian) Grey Ware 33,
97, 99–101, 107, 108, 112, 140, 101, 132, 133
T 180–182, 186–189, 201, 202, — Knobbed Ware 33, 132, 167
Tababt-al-Hammam 125 208, 247, 258 — War 32, 33, 42, 129, 131, 147,
Taganrog 148 Thetis 68, 248, 249 149, 166, 167, 169, 206, 242,
Taljandörögd 252 Thrace/Thracian 5, 6, 45, 55, 81, 243
Tanagra Sarcophagi 63, 65, 77 96, 127–133, 134, 149, 174, 185, Trojans 128, 129, 168, 244
Taormina 155 187, 189, 199–200, 202, 203, Troy 67, 129, 132, 167, 168, 244,
Tarent 79, 136, 155 216, 227–230, 238, 241–244, 255
Tarquinia 137, 155 246, 249, 256, 257 Trundholm 240
Tarshish 175 Thracian bronzes 197, 216, 220, — chariot 239
Tarsus 125 227, 229 Třtěno 197
Tartessian culture 235 Thracians 65, 82, 128, 129, Tufalau 36
Tatars 225 131–133, 148, 189, 201, 204, Tugdamme (see also Lygda-
Tatarskoe Burnaševo 231 212, 243, 246 mis) 228
Tatarstan 200 Thraco-Cimmerian Bronzes tumulus/tumuli 37, 89, 97,
Taygetos 162, 164 81, 200, 216, 226–228, 231 102, 103, 114, 148, 187, 225,
Tegea 83, 158 Thraco-Cimmerians 226 228, 236
Teke tholos tomb 207 Thucydides (Thuc.) 103, 147, Tumulus culture 18, 20, 27, 38
Telestas 162 161, 174, 180 Turan 182, 200
Tell thyrsus 241 Turiec 231
— Abu Hawam 125 Tiryns 20, 31, 37, 46–48, 63, 65, Turkey/Turkish 130
— Atchana 35 71, 79, 87, 88, 94, 99, 101, 112, Turks 26
— Judaiah 125 150, 207, 209, 210, 223 Tušpa 227
— Halaf 125 Tiszafüred 35 Tutankhamun 22, 205
— Rehov 144 Titan(s) 241, 244 Tyras (see also Dniester) 228
296 Index

Tyros 47, 167 Velká Dobrá 209 West Balkan Swords 98

Tyrtaios 161 Venetians 45 Wetteraukreis 38
Venus (see also Aphrodite) 20, Wetzikon 234
U 22, 238, 249 White Goat Pottery 132, 148,
Ugarit (Ougarit) 31, 63, 78, Vergina 55, 72, 86, 90, 92, 99, 173
79, 131 101, 114, 116, 185, 187, 199 Widar 249
Ugra 196, 231 Vetulonia 211 Wild Goat Style 132, 140
Uherský Brod 17, 35 Vikings 25
Ukraine/Ukrainian 62, 129, Vikletice 39 X
207, 223, 226, 231 Villanova(n) 211, 212, 214–216, Xenophon 243
Uluburun shipwreck 18, 32, 255, 257 Xerxes 166
47, 175 Visigothic Spain 27 xoana 5, 46, 62, 91, 161, 164, 213,
Ural 222, 233 Visigoths 25, 31, 45 238, 239, 254
Urartu 110, 227, 228 Vitlycke 75
Urnfield(s) 43, 47, 65, 66, 92, Vitruvius 104 Y
102, 175, 176, 185, 199, 206, Vitsa 81, 97, 185, 200 Yassi Ada 130, 205
208, 213, 238, 240, 247, 248 — Zagoriou 97, 141, 213 Yggdrasil 63
— Glassbeads 176, 207 Vix krater 162
— Pottery 93 Vogelbarke 247, 248 Z
— Sonnenbarke 33 Vojens Gaard 50 Zagora 96
— Swords 51, 52, 64, 94, 99, Volga 231, 232 Zagora (Andros) 118, 140,
102, 109 Volga-Kama area 226 142
Volga-Oka region 200 Zagora (Naxos) 108
V Volos 8, 9, 46, 60, 62, 85, 94, Zagori 97
Valčitran hoard/treasure 129 258 Zagreus 241
Vandal Africa 27 Vourvatsi 72 Zalmoxis/Zamolxis 242
Vandals 31, 45 Vranište 186, 200 Zancle 155
Vardar (see also Axios) 131, Vratsa 249 Závist 176
189, 201, 244 Vrcovice 17 Zemun 48
Vardarophtsa 56 Vrokastro 45, 101, 185 Zeus 17, 20, 22, 69, 83, 162–164,
Vardarski Rid 198 Vulcan 249 239, 241, 242, 244
Vardina 56 Vulci 155 — Soter 173
Varna 21, 127, 130, 232 Vysokaja Mogila 231 ziggurat(s) 22, 212
Vatican 239 Zmejnyj 249
Vattina 35 W Zmejskoe 223, 230
Vei 155, 182 Warrior vase 58, 64, 168
Veles 187, 199 Weshesh 248 Ž
Velestino 97 Wessex culture 205, 209 Žuto Brdo 55