Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T17:52:39.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Bronze Age to Iron Age: Middle Europe, Italy, and the North and West

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

C. F. C. Hawkes
C. F. C. Hawkes
Affiliation:
Professor of European Archaeology, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper is intended as a sequel, reaching into the Early Iron Age, to the preceding one by Professor Childe on ‘The Final Bronze Age in the Near East and in Temperate Europe.’ When he and I were invited to prepare these papers first, as addresses to the Prehistoric Society's Conference in London in April 1948, we purposely agreed to do most of our work on them separately, he approaching the problem of the European Bronze—Iron Age transition from its Bronze Age end, and I from its Iron Age end. But now, through his kindness, I am writing with his paper in its final form before me; and I want therefore to begin by considering what he has written, in order to fit my contribution squarely into his. I shall then turn to Italy, and to its relations with Europe beyond the Alps and with Greece and the Orient, and so approach the Hallstatt question and the Final Bronze Ages of the North and West, upon which the Iron Age, in due time, supervened. I am most grateful to Childe for his approval to this course; and his paper is truly so important, that I cannot but make it the starting-point for mine.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 14 , 1948 , pp. 196 - 218
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1948

Access options

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

References

page 196 note 1 Under the provisional title ‘Italy, Hallstatt, and the West and North’: see Archaeological News Letter, no. 2, May 1948, 11–13 Google Scholar.

page 196 note 2 Dawn of European Civilization, ed. 4 (1947), 122 Google Scholar; so too, for Germany, S., Reinecke in Germania XVII (1933). 13 Google Scholar.

page 196 note 3 Prehistoric Foundations of Europe, 294–5.

page 196 note 4 In Childe's Danubian system (Dawn, ch. VII, and The Danube in Prehistory), in which the numbering runs through from the Neolithic onwards, it is period IV.

page 197 note 1 e.g. by Schumacher, , Siedlungs- und Kulturgeschichte der Rheinlande, I Google Scholar, and Behrens, , Bronzezeit Süddeutschlands, cited by Childe, p. 179 Google Scholar.

page 197 note 2 Willvonseder, K., Die mittlere Bronzezeit in Österreich (Vienna, 1937)Google Scholar, esp. ch. v (277 ff.); reviewed by me in Antiquity, June 1938, 240–2Google Scholar.

page 197 note 3 Böhm, J., Zàklady Hallstattské Periody v Čechách (Prague, 1937)Google Scholar, whence my Foundations, 360–1 (‘Bronze Age A’ here means ‘A1’).

page 197 note 4 Foundations, 361, reading ‘A1’ for ‘A’ as before.

page 197 note 5 Germania XVII (1933), 12 Google Scholar: ‘schwerlich mehr als 200, kaum aber etwa 250 Jahre.’

page 198 note 1 Danube in Prehistory, ch. XVII.

page 199 note 1 Danube, 292–3, 386, and Table opp. 418: ‘Tószeg D’ beginning c. 1200, with floruit from c. 1000 onwards; for the difficulties, see 293–5 and 387.

page 199 note 2 XXIV–V Bericht der Röm.-Gernt. Kommission, 1934–1935, 102, TableGoogle Scholar.

page 200 note 1 Cf. Childe, in Dawn, ed. 4, 121 Google Scholar.

page 200 note 2 Forssander, J. E., ‘Europäische Bronzezeit,’ in Meddelanden fr. Lunds Univ. Hist. Museum (K. Hum. Vet. Lund Arsberättelse 1938–1939, 111 Google Scholar), 38–111, 58 ff., 71–74: with the weapons abb. 16 from the Shaft-Graves of Mycenae, cf. the Hungarian battle-axe abb. 12 ( Childe, , Danube, 271–2Google Scholar, fig. 148a). For the Hajdu-Samson hoard, abb. 4, see also Man, 1926, 84, and Childe, Danube, fig. 147 (opp. p. 266) 272.

page 200 note 3 Childe, , Dawn ed. 4, 30–1, 121 Google Scholar; and e.g. The Bronze Age (Cambridge, 1930), 83–4Google Scholar.

page 200 note 4 This therefore makes it necessary to give the matter a different complexion from that given it by Sprockhoff, E., Die Germanischen Griffzungenschwerter (1931), 18–19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: it bears also on Kraiker, and Kübler, , Kerameikos I (1939), 173–4Google Scholar, and on the older literature discussed by Childe, in Danube, 249–52Google Scholar (read now with chronology adjusted to his present paper). This iron sword from Egypt (Tell Firaun in the Delta: Ebert, Reallexikon XI, taf. 144 a; cf. c, bronze, also from Egypt) is a cut-and-thrust weapon hiked apparently on an arched butt like the Hungarian, etc. ‘cut-and-thrust rapiers’ of Childe, Danube, pl. II, A2, A3. For the corresponding North-Italian type, see Säflund, Le Terremare, tav. 49, 2 and text p. 157 (‘tipo 2’) with discussion. With such weapons, however, the early true cut-and-thrust swords were certainly contemporary, whether solidhilted (Childe, ibid. B2-4) or grip-tongued (C2–3): see e.g. the Hungarian hoard of Rima-Szombat ( Åberg, , Chronologie V, 8–10 Google Scholar, abb. 9, from Hampel 112–3). For grip-tongued swords found in Greece, Crete, and Egypt, see e.g. the sketches in Peake, , The Bronze Age and the Celtic World (1922)Google Scholar, pl. XII, 1–7, 9–10 (but not 8, which is our Tell Firaun iron sword misrepresented).

page 200 note 5 See Wainwright, G. A. in Antiquity, Sept. 1948, 167 Google Scholar, reviewing SirGardiner, Alan's Ancient Egyptian Onomastica (Oxford, 1947)Google Scholar.

page 201 note 1 Furumark, A., The Chronology of Mycenean Pottery (Stockholm 1941), 110–115 Google Scholar, Table, dates his last phase (III C 2) from c. 1125; I take 1150 as a round figure after Kübler, and Kraiker, , Kerameikos I (Berlin 1939), 162–4, 165–77Google Scholar; both review the Palestinian and other Oriental as well as Greek evidence, and the latter particularly show that while Sub-Mycenean Greece began to enter the Early Iron Age from c. 1100, vases to be accounted Proto-Geometric begin at latest c. 1050 (p. 163). The Early phase of Geometric (ibid. 164) then begins in the two decades starting c. 950.

page 202 note 1 I am here passing by the claim for Unětician fibulae, mentioned by Childe, p. 187, in view of Willvonseder, , Mittlere Bronzezeit in Österreich, 233–5Google Scholar; cf. Antiquity, June 1938, 241 Google Scholar.

page 203 note 1 I Kings VII, 27–8 (cf. II Chron. IV, 6): see pp. 38–41 in Sir John Myres's new study of the Temple and its furnishings in Palestine Exploration Quarterly 1948, 14 ff.Google Scholar: Cyprus bases, p. 41 (1–4; but there are only two from Enkomi, for 3=4: see Brit. Mus. Exc. in Cyprus, 10–11, 15–16, figs. 23 A–25; date proposed, c. 850–700). See also Childe, , Danube, 338 Google Scholar, with notes 5–6.

page 204 note 1 Sprockhoff, , Zur Handelsgeschichte der Germanischen Bronzezeit (Berlin, 1930), 124 ff.Google Scholar; Broholm, H. C., Danmarks Bronzealder (Copenhagen, 1943–4–6–Google Scholar) 11, 172: Skallerup cauldron, 170, fig. 67, associated with sword as ibid. 152–4 in grave, no. 1415, ibid. I, 142; sword-type is of Northern period in, for which see p. 215 below. The fourth cauldron comes from Ystad on the S. coast of Sweden.

page 204 note 2 Associated with native bronzes typical of Northern period IV, for which see p. 215 below: Broholm, op. cit. III, 188–91 (M 42), figs.; Brøndsted, , Danmarks Oldtid, II, Bronzealderen (1939), 167–8, 190–1Google Scholar, with fig. 177, c.

page 204 note 3 For distribution-maps of all the cup-types (to 1930), see Sprockhoff, Zur Handelsgeschichte, as cited.

page 204 note 4 Filip, J., Popelnicova Pole a Pocátky Železné Doby v Čechách, Die Urnenfelder und die Anfänge der Eisenzeit in Böhmen (Prague, 1936/1937), pp. (German) 150–1Google Scholar.

page 204 note 5 In the course of his large-scale study of Italian-Danubian connexions in Bonner Jahrbücher 147 (1942), 1–90 Google Scholar. To discuss this adequately here would not be possible: although much Greek evidence for our present Italian chronology was not available to him when writing, it must remain an outstanding contribution to the study of its subject.

page 204 note 6 Prähistoriscke Zeitschrift XXIV (1933), 283–93Google Scholar: particularly important is his claim for this chronology for arc fibulae there, and for their helpfulness towards distinguishing ‘Hallstatt A,’ beginning then and lasting out the tenth and ninth centuries, from a ‘Hallstatt B’ beginning only after that: these are exactly Childe's E and F respectively, as will appear below (pp. 213–15).

page 204 note 7 As Jacobsthal well insisted in his lecture ‘The European Face of Archaic Greece’ at Oxford in August 1948; he said much of these connexions, and will I hope soon publish more.

page 204 note 8 Heurtley, and Skeat, , Ann. Brit. Sch. Athens XXXI (1930–1931), 1–55 Google Scholar: brooches, 35-6, whence Childe's fig. 4, p. 187.

page 205 note 1 Kimmig, W., Die Urnenfelder in Baden (Röm.-Germ. Forschungen XIV, 1940), 119 Google Scholar.

page 205 note 2 Vogt, E., Die spätbronzezeitliche Keramik der Schweiz (Mem. Soc. Helv. Sci. Nat., LXVI, 1), 1930 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 205 note 3 Archaeological News Letter No. 2, May, 1948, 13-15, with Table 9.

page 206 note 1 Åberg, N., Bronzeseitliche und Früheisenzeitliche Chronologie (I–V, Stockholm, 1930–1935)Google Scholar, I (Italien), summary and Table, 208 ff.; V (Hochbronzezeit), 160–5, with final Table.

page 207 note 1 Sundwall, J., in Acta Academiae Aboensis: Humaniora, V, I, and VIII (Åbo, 1928, 1932)Google Scholar.

page 207 note 2 Säflund, G., Le Terremare (Acta Inst. Sued. Rom., no. 7), 1939 Google Scholar.

page 207 note 3 Journ. Rom. Stud. XXX (1940), 89–97 Google Scholar.

page 208 note 1 For the grip-tongue daggers of Gorzano (S's p. 154) came from the IIA stratum, and cannot well be accepted as weapons of IIB buried below their proper level: J..R.S. XXX, 95.

page 208 note 2 Säflund, in Dragma Martino Nilsson Dedicatum (Lund, 1939), 458–90Google Scholar, reviewed in Antiquity, June 1942, 189–91Google Scholar: this pottery is of Furumark's III CI (e) class (cf. Table, p. 216 and note 1 on p. 201).

page 208 note 3 Sundwall, J., Die älteren italischen Fibeln (Berlin, 1943)Google Scholar, chronological type-list, 266 ff., with e.g. pp. 70–1, abb. 47, 49, and pp. 78–85, abb. 72, 74, 85.

page 209 note 1 That is, of Archaic, post-Mycenean vases. The Mycenean pottery found in S. Italy (as at Punta del Tonno), and Sicily, lies outside our present scope: see now Dunbabin in Pap. Br. Sch. Rome, XVI, 1 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 210 note 1 Chap. I, with Appendix I on ‘The Chronology of the Western Colonies,’ pp. 435–71.

page 210 note 2 Dunbabin, op, cit. (summarizing from the Appendix just cited), p. 5.

page 210 note 3 Ibid., p. 6, from Bull. Pal. Ital. n.s.I (1936–1937), 65 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 210 note 4 Monumenti Antichi XXII, Pl. VIII, 7 and 9.

page 210 note 5 Payne, , Perachora, I, Pl. 12, 1Google Scholar; Pl. 13, 13–14.

page 210 note 6 Blakeway, A. A., ‘Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Commerce with Italy, Sicily, … ’ etc., in Ann. Br. Sch. Athens XXIII (1932–1933), 170 ffGoogle Scholar; and ‘Demaratos,’ in Journ. Rom. Stud. XXV (1935), 129 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 210 note 7 Villa Giulia No. 4815: Ann. Br. Sch. Athens XXIII, Pl. 31, 75; J.R.S. XXV, Pl. 21, B3, with p. 132, note 18. Blakeway compared Johansen, Les Vases Sicyoniens, Pl. 2, 2; Dunbabin now compares Payne, Perachora, Pl. 121, 7, which is not one of the latest in the Perachora Geometric deposit.

page 211 note 1 That great numbers of Etruscan tombs remain unknown is well shown by Bradford, J. S. P. in Antiquity, June 1947, 74–83 Google Scholar, with air-photographs.

page 211 note 2 Mon. Antichi XXII, 110, 114 Google Scholar, figs. 51, 54.

page 211 note 3 ibid., Pl. XXIX, 2.

page 212 note 1 In his Der Geometrische Stil in Italien (Lund, 1943)Google Scholar.

page 212 note 2 Sundwall, J., Zur Vorgeschichte Etruriens, 174 ff.Google Scholar; on the dating of the Geometric material whence the Greek influence will have come, see Dunbabin, op. cit. 466–70, as against Åkerström, and his forthcoming review above mentioned.

page 212 note 3 Bull. Pal. Ital. XXXV, 104 ff., 177 ff.Google Scholar; XXXVI, 96 ff.; Randall-MacIver, , Villanovans and Early Etruscans, 87 ff.Google Scholar; Forssander, op. cit. (note 14 above), 91 ff.

page 212 note 4 Sundwall, op. cit., 176–7, with fig. XVIII, 19.

page 212 note 5 Forssander, op. cit., 98 ff.

page 212 note 6 Mon. Antichi, XXII, Pl. XXII, 5.

page 212 note 7 Sundwall, op. cit., 178–81; confirmation from bronze razors and from fibulae, 181–6.

page 213 note 1 Arch. Journ. CII (1946), 1 ff.Google Scholar, 7–8, reviewing my introductory paper read to the 1944 London Conference, on European Archaeology ( Univ. Lond. Inst. Arch. Occ. Pap. no. 6, 1945, 50–59 Google Scholar).

page 214 note 1 In his Spätbronzezeitliche Keramik der Schweiz: see note 2 on p. 205.

page 214 note 2 In his Das Wittnauer Horn (Monogr. zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Schweiz, IV, Basel 1945 Google Scholar); summary, 176ff.

page 214 note 3 In his Die Urnenfelder in Baden: see note 1 on p. 205.

page 214 note 4 I put it so because some were perhaps made in North-Adriatic regions outside Italy: one might say Italian or sub-Italian.’

page 215 note 1 He called it ‘Benacci III,’ but on this idiosyncrasy see p. 206 above.

page 217 note 1 On its pollen-dating in Ireland, see Mitchell, O'Leary, and Raftery on the Ballynakill spearhead from Co. Westmeath, found in peat of Jessen's Zone VII: Proc. R. Irish Academy XLVI, C (1941), 287–98Google Scholar.

page 217 note 2 On the pollen-dating of the Methwold Fen (Norfolk) specimen to Zone VII–VIII, see Godwin, , Clark, , and Clifford, in P.S.E.A. VII, iii (1934), 395–8Google Scholar.

page 217 note 3 Mainzer Zeitschrift XXIV (1934), 56 ff.Google Scholar; Kimmig, op. cit., 101, 155, Taf. 8, B.

page 217 note 4 Proc. Prehist. Soc., 1941, VII, 128–31Google Scholar; Arch. Journ. CIV (1948), 24–5Google Scholar.

page 217 note 5 If I dated Plumpton Plain A and Ramsgate somewhat too early in Proc. Prehist. Soc. 1935, I, 39–59 Google Scholar, and 1942, VIII, 26ff.,it must be remembered that Mid-European datings were then still being quoted above the level we now assign to them. The relative dating of those sites to the Continental Urnfield story still seems to me quite sound.

page 217 note 6 Proc. Prehist. Soc., 1942, VIII, 42–4Google Scholar.

page 218 note 1 After all, as Cowen says (p. 233), these begin in our Late Bronze Age I, not II.

page 218 note 2 Ampurias, II (Barcelona, 1940), 85–143 Google Scholar.

page 218 note 3 ibid., VII/VIII (1945/6), 115–184: ‘Las Culturas Hallstátticas en Cataluña.’ Maluquer here revises the earlier dating proposed by Gimpera, Bosch (Two Celtic Waves in Spain: Proc. Brit. Academy XXVI 1939)Google Scholar for this ‘First Celtic Wave.’

page 218 note 4 Antiq. Journ. XVIII (1938), 186–7Google Scholar, based on J. D. Cowen; cf. the late ‘naturalized’–derivative form found in Ireland with ‘flat-rimmed’ situlate pottery at the Knockanlappa crannog, Co. Clare: Proc. Prehist. Soc. 1937. III. 387–9Google Scholar.

page 218 note 5 Proc. R. Irish. Academy XLVII, C (1942), 21–9Google Scholar. Cf. the pottery and small vase-headed pin from the site at Totternhoe, Beds, discussed in Antiq. Journ. XX (1940), 487–91Google Scholar. The important bronze hoard from Welby, Leics., will shortly be published, in the Archaeological Journal, by Mr T. G. E. Powell.