The Nordic Scimitar: External relations and the creation of elite ideology 9781841714318, 9781407324395

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Acknowledgements
INTRODUCTION
PART I. THE NORDIC SCIMITAR
PART II. THE 17TH CENTURY BC
PART III. THE CREATION OF ELITE IDEOLOGY

Citation preview

BAR S1050 2002

The The Nordic Nordic Scimitar Scimitar

External relations and the creation of elite ideology External relations and the creation of elite ideology

Ørjan Ørjan Engedal Engedal ENGEDAL: THE NORDIC SCIMITAR

BAR International Series 1050 BAR International Series 1050 2002 2002 B A R

The Nordic Scimitar External relations and the creation of elite ideology

0rj an Engedal

BAR International Series 1050 2002

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1050 The Nordic Scimitar

© 0 Engedal and the Publisher 2002 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841714318 paperback ISBN 9781407324395 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841714318 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd/ Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2002. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

EMAIL

PHONE FAX

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

For my parents

Contents

List of figures: --------------------------------

iii

Acknowledgements: ---------------------------------------------------

iv

Introduction: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1

Part I: The Nordic Scimitar

3

Chapter 1: The Nordic Scimitar -------------------------

3

Chapter 2: On the Relevant Environments of Objects -----------------

9

Part II: The 1ih Century BC

15

Chapter 3: The Circumpontic Zone ------------------------

18

Chapter 4: Anatolia - On the Fringes of Civilization ------------------

32

Chapter 5: The Shaft Grave Kings, the Hittites and the Circumpontic Zone ---------

36

Chapter 6: Along the Oder ---------------------------

49

Part III: The Creation of Elite Ideology ------------------------------------------------------------------57 Chapter 7: The Individual and the Event in Social Changes ---------------

58

Chapter 8: The Ship in the Bronze Age -----------------------

62

Chapter 9: The Rorby Case ---------------------------

65

Chapter 10: The Sun, the Ship and the Scimitar --------------------

71

Conclusion---------------------------------

74

Notes:

76

Litterature:

79

- ii -

List of figures:

Fig. 1. The scimitars from N orre, Favrskov and Viby ---------------------------------------------------------------

4

Fig. 2. The scimitars from Knutstorp and Agard ---------------------------------------------------------------------

5

Fig. 3. The scimitars from R0rby ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6

Fig. 4. Various suggested parallels to the Nordic scimitars ---------------------------------------------------------

7

Fig. 5. Map showing the distribution of the scimitars ----------------------------------------------------------------

8

Fig. 6. Chronological table: Scandinavia, Central Europe and the Carpathians ----------------------------------

10

Fig. 7. Similarities in formal elements ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12

Fig. 8. Tentative parallels to the scimitars and the Balkakra "sun-drum" -----------------------------------------

16

Fig. 9. Map of Scandinavia, the Carpathians, Anatolia and Caucasus ---------------------------------------------

17

Fig. 10. Map of the Circumpontic zone: 4500-4000 BC --------------------------------------------------------------

19

Fig. 11. Chronological table: 6000-2000 BC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

20

Fig. 12. Map of the Circumpontic zone: 3200-3000 BC --------------------------------------------------------------

22

Fig. 13. Wagon burial at Tri Brata ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25

Fig. 14. Maikop imagery and bronze hooks ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

26

Fig. 15. Map of sites reflecting an Anatolian-Caucasian relationship -----------------------------------------------

27

Fig. 16. Burials at Alaca Hiiyiik and Dorak -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

28

Fig. 17. "Sun-sceptres" and "ritual standards" from Alaca Hiiyiik ---------------------------------------------------

29

Fig. 18. Chronological table: 2300-1500 BC----------------------------------------------------------------------------

31

Fig. 19. Map of the Assyrian karum system -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

33

Fig. 20. The Hittite curved sword/staff -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

35

Fig. 21. The Circumpontic zone in the 1ih century BC: archaeological cultures ----------------------------------

37

Fig. 22. The Circumpontic zone in the 1ih century BC: sites mentioned in the text -------------------------------

38

Fig. 23 . Cheek-pieces -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

41

Fig. 24. Distribution of the Carpathian stangenknebel and strap-dividers -------------------------------------------

42

Fig. 25. Distribution of the scheibenknebel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

43

Fig. 26. Early iron objects and the pyraunos ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

47

Fig. 27. Distribution of Nordic and Carpathian shaft-hole axes ------------------------------------------------------

50

Fig. 28. Carpathian metalwork: Hajdusamson horizon ----------------------------------------------------------------

51

Fig. 29. Swords of the Hajdusamson class ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

52

Fig. 30. Scandinavian shaft-hole axes and their parallels --------------------------------------------------------------

55

Fig. 31. The transmission of an elite ideology --------------------------------------------------------------------------

58

Fig. 32. Categories of outside specialists --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

61

Fig. 33. The Journey: Europe from a Scandinavian perspective ------------------------------------------------------

67

Fig. 34. The R0rby Case ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

70

Fig. 35. The Bronze Age Metaphor ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

73

- iii -

Acknowledgements This paper was originally handed in as a MA-thesis at the Department of Archaeology, University of Bergen in February 2002. Some minor revisions have been made on the original manuscript. Thanks to Randi Haland, my supervisor during the work with the thesis, for references, advice and always interesting discussions. Melanie Wrigglesworth has given me invaluable help with my written English, as well as contributed with usefull discussions. She deserves my outmost gratitude. Trond Linge has read several chapters and given interesting comments and insights. Gro Mandt has kindly assisted and should be thanked for once upon a time lending me a little green book by T.B. Larsson. I wish to thank the members of my exam-comitee, Christopher Prescott and Erik 0stby, for encouragment and critical assessment of my work. I would also like to express my gratitude to Flemming Kaul for inviting me to the "Ships on Bronzes" seminar at Roskilde, January 2001. The participants were delighted with a video of the tests made with the Hjortspring-reconstruction Tilia. I guess some writers have inspired me to such a degree that its only fair to mention them in particular. I was introduced to the Bronze Age mainly through the works of Flemming Kaul, Kristian Kristiansen, Thomas B. Larsson and Helle Vandkilde. These works comprice a major and important body oflitterature on the Scandinavian Bronze Age, diverse in its scope and perspective on the past. They have kindly given advice and information in the final work with the manuscript. Special thanks to Kristiansen who encouraged me to publish the thesis. Finally, I would like to thank all those students and archaeologists in Bergen I got to know during these years, for all discussions of archaeological relevance - most of all for those of no relevance at all. For any errors that remain I am of course entirely responsible.

0rjan Engedal Nordnes, June 2002

- iv -

Introduction

of them might hamper a discussion of the complex relationships in the border area between Europe, Asia and the Near East.

Introduction The European Bronze Age constitutes roughly the period from the mid-3rd to the mid-I st millennium BC (all dates are calibrated BC unless stated otherwise). Certain theoretical and methodological issues become particularly evident in the study of this period. Perha~s most important of these is the problem of geographic scale and context. Copper and tin were metals circumscribed to a few narrow geographic sources. Still, before the end of the Bronze Age, societies in virtually all comers of Europe admired and consumed bronze objects. If material culture is believed to be essential in the continous reproduction of society, surely bronze was a major medium for such reproduction for two millennia. In addition to metal itself, the wide occurrence of similar symbols and ritual practices makes archaeologists's relationship to distance in their interpretative strategies a matter of importance. Perhaps the most characteristic feature of the Bronze Age was that social reproduction to such a large degree involved "outside" materials. It thus becomes increasingly difficult to sustain local or regional perspectives and to ignore external contact. Exotic substances, e.g. precious stones and shells, had of course been distributed far and wide in the Stone Age; but the amounts of bronze and the distance over which it was exchanged make the methodological problem of relevant scale and context particularly evident. As preliminary levels of scale, I could mention the: a) local (e.g. village), b) regional (e.g. Scandinavia), and c) inter-regional (e.g. Europe). Even a European scale would not capture the total "outsideness" in Bronze Age material culture. Europe was open against the vast steppe land to the east, and through Bosporus to the southeast. In addition, the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea were potential spheres of maritime communication. A European perspective is problematic at certain periods of prehistory when important "European" centres were situated along the eastern and southern borders of Europe (the Carpathians, the Balkans, Greece). Most archaeologists would agree that in the course of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, European societies were deeply affected by processes originating to the east and southeast of Europe. I tentatively embrace these processes under two headlines: 1) the Ex Oriente Lux: e.g. agriculture, animal husbandry, ceramics, urbanization, metallurgical innovations, elite ideology, and 2) the Steppe-Influence: e.g. the horse, weaponry and religious and ideological concepts. In the view of many scholars the last of the above would be synonymous with a process of Indo-Europeanization, having both cultural and linguistic effects on all of Europe. I will attempt to explore the diffusion of knowledge and ideas without specific referance to any of these larger frameworks. This does not mean that I do not believe they are important or useful, but adherance to one

- 1-

The problem of large-scale studies is that they tend to diminish the importance of, or fail to encompass the local reproduction of societies. The choice of scale in Bronze Age studies, ranging from the single site to most of Eurasia and the Near East, is thus a difficult one, but essential for what insights gained. The large-scale processes affecting Europe, observable through a macrostudy, were brought about by a multitude of singular events - the actions of individuals who were unable to comprehend their part in these processes. The grand narratives of large-scale processes are alone insufficient, as are the narrative windows into individual lives (cf Hodder 2000: 30p.). They give different insights and are thus complementary, but only through combining the two are we able to explore the relationship between event and process. I will attempt to make an experiment with varying scale, hoping to embrace some of the different insights given by different scales, and to explore the relationship between event/individual and process/structure. The Bronze Age was the last strictly prehistoric phase of Europe. When European societies step into the light of history, they are organized as stratified tribal chiefdoms. Thus, increasing social stratification or elitization is perhaps the most common feature of Bronze Age studies. Certainly forms of leadership and ideologies of leadership were transformed during the two millennia, from the collective, group-mentalities of the Neolithic towards more individualized elites through the Bronze Age. The problems of distance and scale of study are particularly evident in attempts to explore the rise of elites in the Bronze Age. It seems clear that social hierarchies grow out of relations between the individuals and groups in the society in question, e.g. a chiefdom. It is furthermore unlikely that the chiefdoms of the Bronze Age encompassed very large territories. It is rather the internationality in the symbolic expressions of local elites, which put scale into question. Some of these symbols, e.g. the chariot, are presently hotly debated whether to be the result of the Ex Oriente Lux or the Steppe-Influence (Drews 1988; Piggott 1992; Littauer & Crouwel 1996a; 1996b; Penner 1998; Kaiser 2000; Crouwel 2001). What is clear is that the chariot as an expression of elite ideology rapidly became widespread from China to the Atlantic, from Norway to Egypt. Within and parallel to my experiment with scale I will explore this seeming paradox of local hierarchies and international symbolism. The Nordic Bronze Age in many ways highlights the problems stated above. The region provides rich and well-preserved material, including large amounts of Central European bronze. It was the northern extention of the European Bronze Age cultures, and was included in this sphere rather late. But when it happened, Nordic

Introduction

societies got fully engaged in large-scale bronze metallurgy and adopted many elements of foreign symbolism. In this study I will focus on the earliest Nordic Bronze Age, at the outset of large-scale bronze import and metallurgy - when new forms of hierarchies and leadership were in the making. A specific category of objects, the bronze scimitars of Southeastern Scandinavia, gives me the opportunity to explore the issues of scale, distance and context.

-2-

The Nordic Scimitar

Part I

The Nordic Scimitar The curved sword from Norre is considered to be one of the great mysteries of the European Bronze Age (Forssander 1935: 36, my translation)

Chapter 1: The Nordic Scimitar The scimitar from Norre was found in Ostergotland, Sweden, during peat digging in 1879 (Fig.1.1). It was Oscar Montelius who first published and presented some careful thoughts on this mysterious artefact. He concluded that similar objects had not been found anywhere else in Europe (Montelius 1879; 1880: 11pp.). It was later acknowledged that the Favrskov sword from Denmark was a close parallel, although it was made of flint. This was discovered as early as 1846, in Fynen, Denmark (Fig.1.2) (Montelius 1917: 33). Montelius soon found what he considered to be relevant parallels outside Europe. Egyptian and Near Eastern scimitars were pointed at, especially the Egyptian, since the Near Eastern types did not have in-turned ends (ibid). For a while the scimitar from Norre was thought of as an Egyptian import (Norden 1925: 17). When discussing the recently discovered scimitar from Knutstorp in Scania, F orssander took a different stand (Fig. 2.1). It was clear that the ornamentation on the Knutstorp scimitar was purely European, and Forssander argued that it had probably been made somewhere in the eastern Unetice area (1935: 55pp.; 1936: 198pp.). An Oriental origin of the impulse was still considered plausible (Forssander 1935: 54p.). The hilt of a sword from Viby, Zealand, was then reconsidered and found to be a close parallel, although somewhat younger because of the spiral decoration (Fig.1.3) (Glob 1936). Almost twenty years passed before a new piece to the puzzle was discovered, this time on western Zealand. In 1952 a farmer digging a ditch in a bog near R.0rby, found another bronze scimitar (Fig. 3.1) (Mathiassen 1953: 229). This was very similar to the Knutstorp scimitar and much better preserved. The ornamentation was somewhat different from that on the Knutstorp scimitar, but it was the same shallow, strictly geometric style (Mathiassen 1953: 231 ). Mathiassen supported Forssander's thoughts of an eastern Unetice production, and a date in the earliest Nordic Bronze Age (ibid: 233).

-3-

Six years later while harvesting potatoes, the same farmer found another, almost identical artefact only 10 metres from the previous find-spot. Mathiassen presumed that they had been part of the same deposition since the last one was found in a seemingly disturbed and secondary context (1958: 39p.). The second R.0rby scimitar (from now on termed R0rby II) was even better preserved, with a somewhat richer geometrical decoration, including the image of a ship (Fig. 3.2) (ibid: 42). It was clear that six scimitars, three of them nearly identical, had been discovered within Southern Scandinavia. The idea of a single, common workshop for the two R.0rby scimitars and the one from Knutstorp, was supported by several arguments (ibid: 43p.). A domestic production, probably on Zealand was therefore assumed (ibid: 46). The fact that the metals used in the R.0rby scimitars were of quite similar composition, and that the ship-figure on the R.0rby II had parallels in the Nordic rock carvings supported the idea ofa Nordic production (ibid: 46p., 51). In spite of this, the idea of an Oriental impulse was not given up. Mathiassen argued that Montelius's Egyptian parallel, the painting of a scimitar in the tomb of Ramesses III, was far too young (Fig. 4.1) (Montelius 1895; Mathiassen 1958: 51). Forssander's parallel from Lagash was dismissed because the outline was not very close (Fig. 4.2). The fragment of a curved bronze artefact from Nikolajev, Ukraine, presented by Hachmann in 1957 as an important parallel to the Nordic scimitars, did not convince Mathiassen (Fig. 4.3). The piece was much thinner, and the date of the context was uncertain (Hachmann 1957: 111; Mathiassen 1958: 51). A Hungarian curved copper artefact and the image of one on a ceramic pot, were argued to be close parallels, but these were dated to the Eneolithic (Csalog 1960). The status of the scimitars was still ''Nordic Orientalism", and no plausible explanations for the origin of the idea were presented. Bo Griislund came up with this explanation, and presented an influential hypothesis in 1964. He argued that one should not look for curved swords as parallels, but sheaths with a curved ferrule (end-piece) (containing straight swords). A "misunderstanding" among Nordic metallurgists was presented as the most plausible explanation (Griislund 1964: 290pp.). The variant with curved sheaths was found in plenty on contemporary imagery from Hittite Anatolia (cf Fig. 20). The curved end-piece of bronze found at Troy (levels VI or VII) seemed also to fit (Fig. 4.4). Griislund concluded on both the place of origin and the most plausible route of contact: the symbol originated in Anatolia, and was transmitted by the Bronze Age cultures of Hungary and Romania via the Black Sea and the major European rivers (Griislund 1964: 296p.). A seventh scimitar was discovered in 1981, at Agard in Scania. Although the hilt was missing, it left no doubt of its nature since the blade was unmistakeably curved

The Nordic Scimitar

3

2

Fig. 1: 1 Norre; 2 Favrskov; Viby (1 after Hachmann; 2 after Lomborg 1973; 3 after Aner & Kersten). -4-

The Nordic Scimitar

Fig. 2: I Knutstorp;2 Agard (1 after Forssander 1935; 2 after Jacobsson 1986). -5-

The Nordic Scimitar

Fig. 3: 1 R0rby I, 2 Rorby II (after Aner & Kersten 1976). -6-

The Nordic Scimitar

2

3

r,i_·:·,;c_

v··,...,,

;;..~-~···:-'.

5

6

Fig. 4: 1 painting from the tomb of Ramesses III; 2 scimitar from Lagash; 3 bronze fragment from Nikolajev, Ukraine; 4 curved end-piece with the point of a sword preserved in situ; 5 axe from Drajna de Jos, Romania; 6 axe from Susa, Iran (1 after Montelius 1895; 2,4 after Griislund 1964; 3 after Hachmann 1957; 5,6 after Schauer 1985).

-7-

The Nordic Scimitar

(Fig. 2.2) (Jacobsson 1986). These seven artefacts make up the category termed the Nordic scimitars (Fig. 5). A group of ceremonial curved axes was later pointed out as another possible source of inspiration for the scimitars (Schauer 1985: 135p., abb. 9-10; Kaul 1995: 62p., Fig. 4). These are found in the Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria and Iran (Fig. 4.5,6). Although it is an interesting idea, these axes are at present given a later date than the scimitars (cf Kaul 1995: 62).

Fardrup metalwork, and that they ought to be seen as Fardrup-style artefacts (Vandkilde 1996: 231). The date of the Fardrup-horizon is revised by Vandkilde to BA IB, while it was given an early BA I date (IA) in earlier works (cf Fig. 6) (ibid: 227). The most important revision of the relative chronology of the Early Bronze Age in Southern Scandinavia is that the different styles of metalwork: Fardrup, S0gel, W ohlde, Vals0magle and Hajdusamson-Apa; are now considered to be contemporary, and all belonging to Period IB. These

Fig. 5: Distribution of the seven scimitars. In recent years four archaeologists in particular have been concerned with the Nordic scimitars; Preben R0nne (1990)1, Helle Vandkilde (1996), Thomas B. Larsson (1997; 1999a; 2000) and Flemming Kaul (1995; 1998) R0nne from a technological perspective; Kaul in his study of Bronze Age iconography and cosmology, and Larsson in his "neo-diffusionist" studies of the Nordic Bronze Age. Vandkilde has made an excellent study of the early Danish metalwork, including the scimitars.

different styles were previously given a chronological explanation (ibid: 159). The dating of the R0rby scimitars (and also the ones from Knutstorp and Agard) to BA 1B is in accordance with the metal used, and the fact that the Viby-hilt belongs to BA II (ibid: 231 ). It seems clear that at least the scimitars from R0rby, Agard and Knutstorp belong to Period IB, possibly to the transition IA/IB. This transition is tentatively given an absolute date to 1600 BC (ibid: 175).

R0nne has brought forward some interesting views on the techniques used in the production of the scimitars. The old question of whether the ship figure on the R0rby II scimitar was made initially or at a later stage, now got a scientifically founded answer. The artefact was most likely cast a cire perdue (lost-wax) and all ornamentation was carved into a wax- model. The ''Nordic" ship-figure on the R0rby II scimitar, and the fact that all artefacts belonging to this category are found in Scandinavia, are taken as proof that these were manufactured within the Nordic area (Griislund 1964: 301p.; Vandkilde 1996: 232).

Kaul has looked at the scimitars from a religious/cosmological perspective. He points out the interesting similarity between their curved form and the ship-prows on rock-art ships (Fig. 7). Considering the importance of the ship in the Nordic Bronze Age cosmology, he argues that the R0rby II sword might be a multi-level ship-symbol (Kaul 1995: 61pp.; 1998: 85p.). Kaul states that these objects could hardly be the result of a misunderstanding by Nordic metallurgists, but rather a deliberate attempt to create a paramount ship-symbol (ibid). Kaul's thoughts may be termed the "shiphypothesis".

Vandkilde has considered the R0rby scimitars in relation to the early Danish metalwork in general. She concludes that they show strong decorative similarities with the

Larsson has in his book and several articles revived earlier thoughts on long-distance contacts and Oriental influence on Bronze Age Scandinavia (1997; 1999a;

-8-

The Nordic Scimitar

1999b; 2000). The scimitars are at the core of his argumentation:

Like Kaul, I find it difficult to believe that the manufacturing of the Scandinavian scimitars was caused by a true misunderstanding, but instead I would like to suggest that the scimitar was a deliberate attempt to copy a powerful foreign symbol, which was strongly associated with both divinity and rulership in the Hittite view of the world (e.g. the relief of the "God of War" at the King's Gate at Bogazkoy). In fact, it might have been the knowledge of the connection between the hooked object (the form), divinity (in generaV and profane power that made the form worthwhile copying in South Scandinavia. The ship rendering - a Nordic symbol of the sun god - on the R0rby scimitar was perhaps a way to emphasize the divine powers embedded in the object, or invested in the person who owned the scimitar( ... ) (Larsson 2000: 68). He draws on several elements from the Nordic Bronze Age in his comparison with material from Hittite Anatolia and the Near East. Larsson's view represents a continuation of Graslund's point of view. I will term this the "Hittite-hypothesis". Forssander's statement from 1935 becomes highly relevant even in the present discussion:

Their to some degree oriental character, they have attained because they, most likely, were inspired by Near Eastern models, which the European Bronze Age at a very early stage encountered and transformed in its own will (1935: 196p., my translation). I will take the perspective argued most notably by Montelius, Forssander, Graslund and Larsson, as a point of departure: that the Nordic scimitars reflect a foreign impulse, and that this impulse came from Anatolia. 1) A more theoretically founded discussion is called for: on whether the Anatolian images should be considered in connection with the Nordic scimitars, or not. 2) If they should, by what route was this impulse transmitted? 3) And further, what social mechanisms may have transmitted this impulse? I shall now proceed to the first point, a discussion of the relevant environments of objects.

Chapter 2: On the Relevant Environments of Objects Why are the scimitars curved? What is their content of meaning? I aim to retrieve meaning from a particular class of prehistoric objects. The approach used lies within what is known as contextualism in archaeological theory,

-9-

most notably presented by Ian Hodder (e.g. 1986; 1990; cf Trigger 1996: 251pp.; Olsen 1997: 66p.). An object may "speak" to us only when it is put in a relationship, in a "sentence" or a "text". It is acknowledged that the parallel between written text and material culture is to some degree superficial, since: "material-culture meaning is multiply coded and multidimensional while linguistic meaning is singly coded and linear" (Preucel & Hodder 1996: 300). As long as we recognize that the artefact itself does not tell us much, context must be a central concept of archaeology (Vandkilde 2000: 14) - one must attempt to look at the relationship of the object in question. The term context may be defined as done by Hodder:

The context of an archaeological attribute is the totality of the relevant environment, where 'relevant' refers to a significant relationship to the object - that is, a relationship necessary for discerning the object's meaning (1986: 143). Context is thus an expandable feature, varying according to the question asked (ibid; Vandkilde 2000: 11). Ifl ask the question: why were the scimitars made in the form they were? - an initial approach would be to decide what other prehistoric material attributes make up the relevant environment of the scimitars, i.e. showing a significant relationship to them. I believe that a hermeneutic approach where different "narrower" contexts are explored is useful since the totality is difficult to grasp and to describe adequately in one operation. A division into similarities in different formal elements may thus be made. In what time-gap and in what geographical area should I look for attributes showing a significant relationship to Nordic curved swords?

Temporal dimensions The artefacts have to a large degree been dated on the basis of decoration, to a lesser degree on form and substance. A significant relationship in the discussion of the scimitars is thus other objects with geometrical decoration, most notably the artefacts of the Fardrup horizon. In addition, the form of the hilt suggests a significant relationship to the first Nordic metal- hilted swords, i.e. the Carpathian imports or derivatives of these. The particular composition of metal strengthens the above relations (Vandkilde 1996: 231). That these artefacts belong in the first period of the Bronze Age is thus beyond reasonable doubt. The period 1700-1500 BC, should be considered, at least initially, as the most relevant temporal environment.

The Nordic Scimitar

(Cal. BC).

Southern Scandinavia

Central Europe

The Carpathians

2350

Early EBA

LNI

Br.Al Early Unetice Singen

1950 Middle EBA

LNII

Br.Alb Classic Unetice Leubingen Hehnsdorf

1700

BAIA

Late EBA

Br.A2

Ottomany "Spiral Ceramics" HAJDUSAMSON HORIZON

1600

BAIB

Early MBA

Br.Bl TumulusCulture

1500

BAIi

KOSZIDERPADLAS HORIZON

Br.B2

Fig. 6: Chronological table (based on discussions and tables in Lichardus & Vladar 1996: 29p.; O'Shea 1991; 1996: Fig. 3.3; Vandkilde 1996: 139pp., Fig. 134).

- 10 -

The Nordic Scimitar

Spatial dimensions

If I consider the same elements as above: the geometrical decoration, the form of the hilt and the particular composition of metal, the relevant area is the same as the Nordic Bronze Age culture area. This may be expanded to include Central Europe where all these elements have parallels and seem to originate. This area should be considered as a relevant spatial dimension also because the very substance, bronze, was imported from Hungary/Romania, and was exchanged across Europe to Scandinavia. The Nordic Bronze Age starts around 1700 BC (cf Fig. 6). This date does not indicate the introduction of bronze to Southern Scandinavia, since this happened much earlier in the Neolithic. Nor did Nordic societies at this time become dependent on bronze imports as some kind of "social glue". In her study of early Danish met~l artefacts V andkilde argues that bronze had already m Late Ne~lithic II (1950-1700 BC) acquired this social quality, and that especially central and east~rn parts of Denmark were dependent on external relat10ns (1996: 289, 299pp.). These relations were directed towards the dominant metalworking centre of Central Europe, the Unetice culture. The nature of this relationship is characterized as a "selective, long-distance relationship" of centre-periphery character, because of the depen~en~e on a single core area (ibid: 289p.). Southern Scandmavia was thus integrated in a European macro-system from c. 1900 onwards. Although the term Bronze Age does not refer in an exact way to the "age of bronzes", this period sees the breakthrough of local metalworking traditions and increasing amounts of bronze. In addition, most archaeologists have found indications of social changes in the material from this period. The processes of increasing social stratification and the growth of chiefdoms are perhaps the most common features of literature dealing with the Early Bronze Age (e.g. Rowlands 1984; Kristiansen 1978; 1982; 1987a; 1987b; 1989; 1992; S0rensen 1997; Randsborg 1998). The notion of individuality in burials and the large scale of bronze offerings, underlies such assumptions of change in social organization. There is clearly an increased amount of labour and valuable goods invested in the mortuary rites of certain dead individuals. A range of new symbols are introduced or at least given a new material expression. I will thus take into account that the earliest Nordic Bronze Age was an era when a complex, interrelated set of changes occurred. The period from 1950 BC to 1300 BC, comprises LN (Late Neolithic) II (1950-1700 BC); EBA (Early Bronze Age) IA (1700-1600 BC); EBA 1B (1600-1500 BC) and EBA II (1500-1300 BC). It is commonly believed that during these 700 years Scandinavia saw the development of more ranked societies, from the tribal soceties of the

- 11 -

Neolithic to the "Classic" Bronze Age chiefdoms. Within this time-span BA 1B appears to have been a particularly "eventful" century: The sword is introduced. Bronze metalwork enters the burials. Several features characteristic of the "classic" Nordic Bronze Age (BA II), are already visible in BA IB: - The warrior ethos; the male individual, buried with a set of weapons and "toiletry equipment" (although the razor has not been found earlier than BA II). The characteristic decorative spiral-style is introduced. The final separation in metalwork between functionality and prestige now occurs (axes) (Vandkilde: 2000: 27, Fig. 10). In addition to these trends, there is the notion of "eliteethnicity" visible in the 16th century BC, a division into two geographical zones, characterized by metalwork of S0gel-Wohlde (Zone II) and Vals0magle (Zone I) s~les. This division is seen only in the metalwork of the nchest burials, and is not evident in the overall deposition of metalwork (offerings, poorer burials) (Vandkilde 1996: 250pp.). The two zones visible in t~e metalw?rk are interesting in several ways. Zone I, which compnses the Vals0magle metalwork, consists of the Danish Islands, North-East Jutland and Southern Sweden. Zone II includes the rest of Jutland and parts of Northern Germany. Fardrup style metalwork, which is the traditional, common style, appears in both zones. In addition to Vals0magle, S0gel-Wohlde and Fardrup, there is a fourth style of metalwork: the Hajdusamson imports (from the Carpathians) and local copies of these objects. In total, Zone I appears as the most innova!ive when metalwork is considered. It is here that the HaJdusamson imports are found, which consist of the earliest swords in Scandinavia. Other extraordinary objects are also found in Zone I: the scimitars, the Balkakra "sun-drum", the unique Fardrup clubhead, pointed we_apons, lockhalsnadeln and a gold spiral (ibid: 252). It is also within the Vals0magle metalwork we see the introduction of the spiral/circular ornament, foreshadowing the dominant style of the following centuries. In short: in the 16th century two zones are visible in the burial material of a male individually-oriented elite. Zone I with the Vals0~gle metalwork shows a more free_standi~g, innovative style of metalwork and intimate relat10ns with Carpathian societies. The marked increase in the amount of metal should be taken as direct evidence for increased mobility across cultural borders. Neither tin nor copper are locally obtained in Scandinavia, ergo it all had to be obtained by long-distance exchange. How many links had such .a network? How far did one travel? How many hands did e.g. the Torupgarde sword pass through before i! ended up in a bog in Denmark? These are _quest10ns of importance and they will be returned to m chapter 6.

The Nordic Scimitar

2

4

Fig. 7: Similarities in formal elements. The ship: 1 Rorby I, 2 outline of geometrical decoration on Rorby II, 3 the shipimage on Rorby IL The sword: 4 hilt ofRorby II, 5 hilt of the Stensgarde sword. The hittite royal attribute: 6 Rorby II, 7 trojan ferrule, 8 hittite imagery (1,4-6 after Aner & Kersten; 2-3 after Kaul 1998; 7 after Graslund 1964; 8 after Gurney 1990). - 12 -

The Nordic Scimitar

In spite of all foreign material brought in (bronze), there are surprisingly few finished objects showing foreign provenance. There are paradoxically fewer imported finished objects than in LN II and BA IA, although the mobility and outside contact must have been more intense. There are in total 14 imported objects in Denmark from BA IB. The most impressive of these are the two swords of Hajdusamson type, Torupgarde and Stensgard (Fig. 29.3,4). Sweden has one such sword from Bragby (Fig. 29.7). From Norra Stro in Scania there is a shaftrohrenaxt ofHajdusamson type, and the peculiar axe from Sosdala is probably also of Central European origin (Fig. 30). The Balkakra "sun-drum" from Scania has only one known parallel in Hasfalva, Hungary (Fig. 8.1,2) (Knape & Nordstrom 1994).3 The rest of the Danish imports may be characterized as ornaments and dress items: seven lockhalsnadeln, one of them in gold, a gold spiral and four other gold ornaments (Vandkilde 1996: 243). The seven scimitars are not considered as imports but rather as a reflection of foreign symbolism. One explanation to the relative low number of imports, is that there was evidently a certain desire to re-cast, to transform and to create a new autonomous Nordic style. The higher level and long-term interpretation of some of these trends has often been the "decline of communal authority", the downfall of the Neolithic "collective, group-oriented society", and the breakthrough of a "new innovative, individually-oriented elite society" (cf ibid: 259pp.). The conflict between the collective and individual aspects of societies is a potential source to social change. In a longer perspective, the individual aspects of society are hardly visible in the Late Neolithic (ibid: 307p.). The larger group may have been strong enough to control and suppress the individual dimension. If such a development should be traced from a more detailed chronological perspective, LN II and BA IA bear only weak testimonies of such innovative individuals, whilst in BA II the individual is praised in hundreds of large mounds containing the elite and their valuables. The 16th century in Southern Scandinavia may be interpreted as a step in the collapse of this collective power. And, as mentioned above, such a collapse is most evident in Zone I and the Vals0magle burials. Another aspect of change in the Nordic Bronze Age, is the religious/cosmological change evident in the material (Kaul 1998). It seems most reasonable to try to integrate social and religious changes in theoretical approaches. If one considers the enormous amount of ship images, both in bronze work and in rock-art, to be a reflection of a ship-centred religion/cosmology, the first reliable traces of this new belief is seen in BA IB. This ship-depiction appear on one of the scimitars from R.0rby, a product of the new, innovative elite in Zone I. I thus consider the 16th century BC in Scandinavia as a formative phase in all aspects of social life, where negotiation and definition of new social statuses and new religious symbols occurred (Engedal 1999: 137pp.).

- 13 -

I will further attempt to "deconstruct" the scimitar as it appears to me as a composite form. This division is of course a result of my own subjectivity. The form of the scimitars may be divided into three parts: hilt, blade and curve. (The scimitars from Favrskov and Viby are excluded in the following discussion). 4 The hilt: The hilt is clearly a hilt, showing clear resemblance to the hilts of the contemporary straight swords and daggers (Fig. 7.4,5). But there are differences: the type of hilt on the scimitars was clearly designed for the purpose, the top of the hilt is sloping and gives a good grip when holding the scimitar horizontally with the curve turned upwards. This is not the case on the Norre scimitar, where the hilt is similar to e.g. the straight sword from Bragby. In the cases where decoration is found on the hilts, this is in accordance with the patterns and outline of the decoration on the hilts of straight swords. The blade: The blades have parallel sides (except the Norre sword), and are thus not in accordance with the ogival form of the blades on the contemporary straight swords). The blade thickens into a profile, which slopes into an edge. The thickness of the base of the edge naturally makes the edges far from sharp, and clearly a sharp edge was not of primary importance to the craftsman. The Norre scimitar is somewhat different with its slightly curved blade. The curve: The curves are continuations of the blades. The base of the edge becomes even thicker on the curve. The Norre sword differs in this respect as well. The tip of the curve is more turned in, and the outline is closer to the spiral form. The points where these three parts are connected, hiltblade and blade-curve, are of particular interest. The projection of the hilt onto the blade was discussed by Forssander and argued to be analogous to the projections on Unetice halberds (1935: 194). Similarities are not found in contemporary metalwork, and certainly it is different from the hilt-blade transition on the straight swords. The fastening "ear" is also placed in this area (Norre lacks this feature). Both this fastening "ear" and the curved end, make it clear that these artefacts were to be carried without a sheath, and/or as Griislund argued, they reflected a composite artefact - both sword and sheath. Round "knots" mark the blade-curve transition. These are double on the scimitars from R.0rby and single on the Norre scimitar. These are similar to those termed "fake nits" on daggers and swords. Such "fake nits" are found on the hilt plates of daggers and swords, reflecting the real, functional nits of earlier types where the hilts were riveted onto the blades. This fact may be of interest, as Griislund pointed out (1964). If the "nits" on the scimitars were to give an impression of being functional, the idea must have been that the curved end was riveted onto the

The Nordic Scimitar

blade. It is a fact that "fake nits" are never used purely ornamentally in the contemporary metalwork, but are always placed such that they could have been functional. It was this line of argumentation that led Griislund to the idea that the Nordic scimitars reflected straight swords in sheaths with curved end-pieces. As mentioned in chapter 1 there are no immediate parallels to the Nordic scimitars, and the curved end is of course at heart of the uniqueness. It is also on this point that the hypotheses on the scimitars diverge. Kaul points at a significant relationship between the R0rby sword and the curved stem of the Nordic ship images. This relationship may be supported on several points, including 1) the curved outline of the artefact itself, 2) the outline of the geometrical decoration and the placing of the fake nits (in this line of argumentation these must be purely ornamental, making up the image of a ship); and 3) the ship figure itself(Fig. 7.1-3) (Kaul 1998: 84pp.). The following attributes strengthen a relationship between the Nordic scimitars and the Anatolian parallels: The hilts show a clear similarity with the earliest metalhilted swords of Nordic production. There is thus an association with the sword, and the fastening "ear" to some degree strengthens this further. This is found at the point where it would have been found on a sheath. If hanging from a belt, the R0rby sword would appear as a sword in its sheath, although not being functional. Griislund's idea of a mixture of the sword and the sheath in one object has thus a foundation even without considering the curved form. The hilt of a sword and the fastening attribute of a sheath suggest this alone. If we see this fact together with the curved form, the following associative pattern appears: SWORD - SHEATH CURVED POINT. And this is, as Griislund pointed out, exactly what was carried around in Anatolia at the time. The "fake nits", as discussed above, may be used positively in this line of argumentation (reflecting functional nits). It might be emphasized once again that there are found no artefacts that parallel the Nordic type. The similarity, if such it is, is to a straight sword in a sheath with a curved end. Such a "deconstruction" of the scimitar has not really brought me any closer to the question of the relevance of the Anatolian environment. Both the Nordic ship and the Anatolian images could be part of the scimitar's relevant environment. It might be summarized that the "ship hypothesis" explains more of the decorative attributes, in addition to the curved outline itself. On the other hand the "Anatolian hypothesis" explains more of the attributes that make up the total form of the object, including the "fake nits". It explains why the sword is used as the basic form for further innovation. Why is the "Anatolian hypothesis" problematic? Simply because there is a vast distance between Anatolia and Scandinavia, without any objects of this form which could fit in a line of diffusion. Larsson made a mental experiment, i.e. moving the Nordic scimitars into a Hittite context, and argued that

- 14 -

they would probably have been understood as such (Larsson 1997: 77p.). I will make another experiment here: let us imagine that an object similar to the Troyan ferrule (Fig. 7. 7) was found within the area of the Hajdusamson horizon. There would thus have been a shorter geographical distance, and I believe that the Hittite/ Anatolian origin of this phenomenon would have been more easily accepted. Geographical distance is seemingly an important factor when discussing the relevant environment of an object. How far is too far? I would argue that what is an acceptable geographical distance, depends mainly on two points: 1. The degree of similarity, the complexity of the similarity (cf Larsson 1999a: 347pp.). 2. The in-between social space, social processes, mobility, migrations, exchange etc. in the areas involved. Such a situation, i.e. a similar distribution of analogous material traits from a different period e.g. the Migration Period or the Viking Age, would perhaps have been interpreted in favour of contact because we know there was a high degree of human mobility at the time. I have now considered the complexity of the similarity between the Nordic scimitars and different parallels, the ''Nordic ship" and the "Hittite Royal Attribute" in particular. To further explore whether the Anatolian curved objects should be reckoned as part of the context or the relevant environment, the second point has to be considered: What happened in the areas most likely involved? What social processes went on in Scandinavia, Central and Eastern Europe and Anatolia around 1600 BC? What social mechanisms may have transmitted such a symbol as the curved sword? This is of course an immense geographical area, and complex changes in material culture occur at this particular time. Part II will be an attempt to draw a socio-historical map of the 17th century BC.

The 17th Century BC

and Anatolian expressions in order to get a better understanding of the Carpathian and Scandinavian expressions? The following chapters will attempt to illuminate these possible relations.

Part II

The 17th Century BC It seems clear that towards the end of the 1ih century a new route of communication between elite groups in Southern Scandinavia and the Carpathians was established. In addition to local processes in Southern Scandinavia, this new linkage was a reflection of larger processes in the central and eastern parts of Europe. A shift in balance from west to east occurred at this time. The Unetice culture, which supplied Scandinavia with metal during the Late Neolithic, lost its dominance towards 1700 BC. This process was paralleled by the rise of a more eastern centre situated in the Carpathian mountain range on the present day border of Romania and Hungary (Sherratt 1994b: 261p.; Kristiansen 1998a: 368p.). The transition to Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathians around 1700 BC is characterized by the presence of fortified settlements, "baroque" spiral decorated pottery and advanced metallurgy in the Ottomany culture. 5 The flourishing Carpathian metalwork-horizon termed Hajdusamson (HajdusamsonApa), influenced the Scandinavian metalwork both in forms and decoration. This is particularly evident in the early Scandinavian swords (Vandkilde 1996: 224pp.).

I will attempt to illuminate the nature of this longdistance relationship between elite groups of Southern Scandinavia and the Carpathians. The relationship evident in the archaeological material may reflect the diffusion and sharing of not only technological and decorative innovations, but also of ideological and religious ideas. The question soon arises: by what sources were the Carpathian elites themselves influenced? Is it likely that Carpathian elites were familiar with Hittite and Trojan symbolism? A tentative outline of parallels and origins of the Nordic scimitars and the Balkakra "sundrum", hints at complex relations within a vast geographical area and time-span (Fig. 8,9): 1. The Balkakra "sun-drum" has an exact parallel from Hasfalva, Hungary. The "sun-sceptres" from Alaca Hiiyiik in Central Anatolia, dated to c. 2500 BC, show the same elements of "sun & wheels" manifested by complex bronze casting techniques. A "sun-disc" and a bronze spoked wheel from a 4th millennium North Caucasian burial at Novosvobodnaya, follow the same symbolic scheme. 2. The Nordic scimitars have their closest parallels in contemporary Hittite imagery, and a curved ferrule from Troy. Are these material expressions related? Are they part of each other's context, or relevant environment? Or put in another way: is it necessary to understand the Caucasian

- 15 -

The end of the 17th century BC was a period of complex changes and processes, in both Eurasia and the Near East. Attempts have often been made to look at the rise of the Carpathian Middle Bronze Age in relation to Aegean and Anatolian influence (e.g. Bona 1975, Bouzek 1985; Sherratt 1993). This will be another such attempt, but I will follow a recent trend by including the area around the Black Sea (cf Chernykh 1992; Lichardus & Vladar 1996). The overall question asked is whether the Ottomany culture of the Carpathians was the link between Northern Europe and the complex societies of Anatolia, providing incipient elite groups with technological, stylistic, ideological and religious ideas (e.g. the idea of the scimitar)? The further work will seek to explore the southern and eastern relations of the Carpathian societies, before returning to their Scandinavian relations (chapter 6). A sketch of the historical situation of the 17th century BC, shows that the matter is more complex than just the possibility of a Carpathian-Anatolian relationship (cf Lichardus & Vladar 1996): 1. The rise of the Carpathian centre early in the 17th century; Mycenaean, Anatolian and steppe influence have been discussed in literature (Bona 1975; Vladar 1981; Bouzek 1985; Chropovsky 1992; Sherratt 1993; 1994b; Lichardus & Vladar 1996). 2. In the Argolid advanced metallurgical skills and enormous quantities of valuables are evident in the Mycenaean Shaft Graves at this time. The development seems to have been quite rapid. Minoan, Carpathian, Anatolian and steppe/Transcaucasian influence (even migrations) have been suggested (e.g. Muhly 1979; Drews 1988; Dietz 1991: 297pp.; Penner 1998).6 3. The Hittite Old Kingdom in Central Anatolia is founded early in the 17th century (Gurney 1990: 16pp.; Macqueen 1996: 20p.). 4. In Transcaucasus the riches of the 17th century Late Trialeti tombs are a continuation of an old phenomenon in the area, going back at least to the mid-3rd millennium BC (cf Rubinson 1977; Edens 1995). This fact has made some archaeologists postulate this area as the cradle of both the Mycenaeans and the Hittites (Drews 1988; Muhly 1979). 5. Major transformations are evident on the steppe in the 17th century as the vast, homogenous Catacomb complex has changed into the Mnogovalikovaya and Abashevo cultures. At Sintashta, east of the Urals, evidence indicates hierarchical social organisation unprecedented on the steppe. The steppe is moreover considered to have been the scene of wars and

The 17th Centurv BC

2

4

3

Fig. 8: I Balkiikra; 2 Hasfalva; 3 Alaca Htiyilk; 4 Novosvobodnaya "Klady"; 5 Rorby II; 6 Troy; 7 Charchemish (1.2 after Knape & Nord\·trom; 3 after Akurgal, E. 1961; 4 after Chernykh 1992; 5 after Aner & Kersten 1976; 6 after Griislund 1964; 7 qfter Muller-Karpe 1980). - 16 -

The 17th Century BC

Fig. 9: Scandinavia, the Carpathians, Anatolia and Caucasus.

migrations at this time (Chernykh 1992: 190pp.; Lichardus & Vladar 1996). 6. In Scandinavia there is a marked increase in bronze work from c.1600 BC, now also entering the burials. There is evidence for intimate relations with the Carpathian centre. At about the same time scimitars showing close similarity to Hittite (and Trojan) royal insignia are made. The relations within the Circumpontic zone at this time involved the spread of technology and styles related to: horse harnesses, wheeled transportation, metallurgy, weaponry and elite symbolism in general. I will explore these relations in more detail in chapter 5. Based on the factors mentioned above, I will suggest the following: The Ottomany culture may be considered from a "Black Sea" point of view. In Chernykh's terms the

- 17 -

Carpathians were the northwestern part of a collapsing system of a Circumpontic Metallurgical Province, functioning around the Black Sea for two millennia (Chernykh 1992). The broader assumption behind such a choice of scale, is that the Carpathian societies were integrated in, and largely influenced by large-scale processes occurring within the Black Sea region. Such processes were related to innovations of transport (domestication of the horse; wheeled wagons), production and exchange (copper and bronze metallurgy). 7 Two landward routes of communication between the Near East and temperate Europe went through the Circumpontic zone: 1. Through Anatolia, the Bosporus and the Balkans. 2. Through the Caucasian Mountains and westwards across the steppe.

The 17th Century BC

The complexity of the situation in the 1ih century BC leads me to the following approach: An account of the prehistory of the area around the Black Sea will be given, from the Chalcolithic (or Eneolithic, Copper Age) to 1600 BC. This will be done in order to capture some of the dynamics that resulted in the kind of relations evident in the 17th century. I thus consider the area around the Black Sea as a

prehistoric region of communication, or a "system" where changes in one region affected the developmental course of others. Anatolia is particularly interesting from such a perspective since Anatolian societies may have been on the fringes of both a "Black Sea System" and a ''Near Eastern System" (Thissen 1993: 220). The Carpathian cultures are notable for being the link between the Circumpontic zone and Western and Northern Europe (cf Sherratt 1983/1984: 273).

Chapter 3: The Circumpontic Zone The term the Circumpontic zone will embrace the south of Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Carpathians, Anatolia and the Caucasus. 8 The introduction of farming into Southeast Europe from about 6000 BC was a relatively swift process. This was a region sparsely populated by Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, and presented no major obstacles to colonizing agriculturalists from Anatolia and the Near East (Whittle 1994: 137, 139). This new way of life was focused on sedentary clusters of timber-framed houses and an economy of wheat and barley, and sheep, goats, cattle and pigs (ibid: 139, 141). Farming populations expanded rapidly northwards to Southern Hungary, and eastwards on the forest-steppe towards the Dnieper Valley (Sherratt 1983/84: 278; Anthony 1986: 292p.; Whittle 1994pp.). This expansion was determined by ecological factors favouring an agricultural economy, avoiding the lowland steppe area along the Black Sea coast (Anthony 1986: 292). In the forest-steppe zone east of the Dnieper, indigenous Mesolithic ("sub-Neolithic") societies adopted elements of the farming economies (ibid: 294). River Dnieper became the eastern border of the broad belt of farming cultures, with the Tripolye culture to the west of it and indigenous North Pontic groups to the east of it (ibid: 293). People of the Tripolye culture seem further to have avoided the lowland steppe to the west of the Dnieper (ibid: 294). A swift colonization of Anatolian farmers into a sparsely populated Southeast Europe may have avoided the cultural transformations likely to have occurred if large indigenous populations were to be integrated. This could explain the similarities within the large region from the Balkans along the Black Sea littoral into Northern Anatolia (Thissen 1993; Steadman 1995). It has been

- 18 -

proposed that this sharing of styles, forms and decorative techniques should be interpreted as a reflection of a cultural interaction sphere rather than one of economic exchange (Steadman 1995: 21). The following picture may thus be drawn of the western Black Sea region in the 5th millennium BC (Fig. 10): In the Eastern Balkans and Northern Anatolia a broad belt of cultures had evolved, with tell occupation, similar ceramic styles and an economy focused on crops and animal husbandry. The somewhat distinctive Tripolye culture northwest of the Black Sea constituted the eastern extension of these complex farming societies. In the forest-steppe zone east of the Dnieper, Neolithic economies were developed among indigenous populations pressed between Tripolye farmers and the arid zone of the interior steppe (Anthony 1986: 294). I will in the following stress two phenomena occurring from the situation outlined above: 1. The development of metallurgy - copper and gold initially, and later arsenic and tin bronzes. Metal was a fundamental innovation as a medium of display and prestige, and only later as a functional innovation (Sherratt 1994a: 170). Still the production and acquisition of metal objects became a major focus of human occupation. 2. The domestication of the horse for transport and riding. This, together with the innovation of the wheeled wagon, was the main factor allowing the full exploitation of the steppe zone as a new ecological niche (Anthony 1986: 294). This development had major effects on neighbouring regions. These may have been important factors contributing to the development of the area around the Black Sea as a region of interacting and dependent societies. Major copper sources in the Balkans, Transylvania, Caucasus and Anatolia supplied the entire Black Sea area. The mobile, horse-mounted pastoralists of the steppe became the crucial northern link between Caucasus (and the Near East) and Europe, and many innovations may have been brought on horseback by this route. The Early Metal People of the Neolithic were not only concerned with self-sufficiency and food production. Material such as flint, hard rocks, obsidian and seashells were admired and exchanged over large distances within established systems of gift-exchange (Sherratt 1987a: 320). Evidently there was already a foundation for the expansion in regional and interregional exchange later evidenced by copper objects. The search for precious and high-quality stones and rocks is thus a likely context for the discovery of copper. Transylvanian and Balkan metal ores seem to have been exploited on a larger scale from about 4500

The 17th Century BC

BC onwards. These early copper using cultures west of the Black Sea have been termed the Carpatho-Balkan Eneolithic Metallurgical Province (CBMP), i.e. a "system" of societies "dependent" on supplies of metal (Chernykh 1992: 48p.). This earliest "metal-system" is characterized by its sudden formation and demise, and the high-level of technology evident in its centres (ibid).

Varna indicate that the individuals inside occupied special positions in their groups (Anthony 1986: 293; 1996: 4). Gift-exchange evidently became a path to power in addition to the raising of domestic animals. In the final phase before the decline, in the Karonovo VIGumelnita horizon, Balkan groups surely expanded maritime relations and included Northern Anatolia in

Fig. 10: The Circumpontic zone, 4500-4000 BC (Cal.) (based on Chernykh 1992: fig. 15; Manzura 1994:fig; Thissen 1993). It was mainly the Tiszapolgar and Karanovo groups that were responsible for the rapid rise in metallurgy. The innovating centre was located on the Balkans, and both advanced metalworking and new social identities are evident in the Karanovo VI-Gumelnita horizon (KGK VI) and the Varna culture of the coastal zone (Anthony 1996: 4). Metallurgical analyses of copper artefacts found on Tripolye sites indicate "pure" copper corresponding to the ores of Transylvania, and especially the Northern Balkans. The Tripolye culture is therefore regarded as part of the CBMP, although the technology of Tripolye metalworkers was clearly less advanced compared to the casting technology within the Carpatho-Balkan main zones (Chernykh 1992: 37pp.). Thus, there already existed a large interacting zone in Eastern/South Eastern Europe, with its main focus of innovation in the metal-rich areas of the Balkans, in the territory of the Gumelnita-Karonova culture (cf the MIS and KGK VI of Price 1993). This early metal functioned as a medium of display and prestige within agricultural groups living in tell sites. A certain degree of social stratification is likely to have existed, e.g. the burials of

- 19 -

their network of exchange. Metal objects and figurines paralleled in the Balkans are found at coastal sites in Northern Anatolia, and fragments of figurines and sherds of graphite pottery occur even at inland Alisar (Thissen 1993: 217p., 220; Steadman 1995: 26, 28, note3; Ballard et al. 2001: 608). This may be indicative of the range of the Karanova VI network of gift-exchange (Thissen 1993: 208). Anatolian sites seem to have been located between two larger spheres of exhange, the Karanova VIVarna sphere to the northwest, and the Mesopotamian Uruk trade-system to the south - Central Anatolia may actually have been part of both (ibid: 220). Around 4000 BC there was a clear decline in telloccupation, and a sharp and unison decline in metal finds over the entire CBMP area, indicating that the cultures included in the CBMP clearly were interrelated and dependent (Chernykh 1992: 52, fig.16). The reasons for this sudden decline are hard to find, and in light of the discussion below it may be noted that it is difficult to blame it on invading horseback-riders at such an early time (cf Anthony 1991: 208; 1996: 5). If the small-scale migrations (possibly) seen in the material at this time, were an important factor, the cultural system of the Balkans must have been quite vulnerable. 9 I will now

Cal. BC

Carpathian

2000-

z

. ;,. < > ~ ~
0

TransCaucasus

MARTKOPIBEDENI

Dolmen Culture

~

~

>

3000-

CATACOMB ~

U

~

NORTHCAUCASIAN

::.::r.n

0

North-West-Cis Caucasus

Sioni, Tsopi, Berikldeebi, Leilatepsi

00

ex::

SVOBODNOYE NALCHIK

ENEOLITHIC GROUPS

u

''

f

53< :E~ oCl ~

E-< 0

u ::i u ~ 0...

z

;$ 0

~

Wu E--•::. ~•.:.:v•·-~::· .;,•·_,,J,1 ..,,1,...,.,. ..-· .. ,;:• !-- / e

.. ! ✓-;..-\

.;.

---

...·-1 . .

·.·..

. ..

......._ ..... ,,.,,. . ~

.\r {\~-J .._~~;~,,~~-e-~~~~;~~'-',=~... _ . f, ... :::· i•, ;,i~;:?:{~fij/,-:::--:·JL ;,::-:~.:::: . :· :·::·:::. ......~::;.;.;~_ ~,;·-···'-······ ..

~, ......, ~..J.Z~- .......

:··:t=~?~/tA ~ ---~~~®~~tftt:::·~:. ··.t . :_~:~·,·. . :.: ..

...~.

:••····

~

•·:•........

.,

•• t

,,,--,.'.:.::·::; .:~.:~

~

:.;

•;i .....:

:. .

••

&

..

.·:

. ,..-;,, i

h•-•---,-~•:/.-:~i.,:••\t:!-.'

#.,::::,:, \~;•:•••••••••••••• -•• •

c.,.~~i~~~S.""1.1:'1:,::.-,-...::"""~"""...-...--

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

\'./Ji:~iI\t!i\=/:-~ -----;d·:.:·:: ·.:.:K,1

:··::ff.:::::·.:~ ·.\_::_: .:.:·.

i!{-: //::-·_: :_::·_ -:::).:>:!./ i;j-:;. ::-: .... ..: . . . . . -~-.::.:• ·.·

.

.

.

'

. •·

Fig. 13: Wagon burial at Tri Brata, Pit Grave horizon (after Piggott 1983). - 25 -

. ...

The 17th Centu ) BC

2

-,,

> >,, > > >g >> )

4

3

,

)

> >

5

, > >) >, ,> >) J.

>) J '

--Fig. 14: 1,2 examples of Near Eastern inspired pictoral style, from two silver vessels from the Maikop kurgan. Socketed hooks: 3 Esheri (Trialeti culture), 4 Lola (Catacomb culture), 5 Psebaiskaya (Maikop culture) (1,2,4,5 after Chernykh 1992; 3 after Gimbutas 1965). -26 -

The I ih Centu

BC

Fig. 15: Sites reflecting an Anatolian-Caucasian relationship.

of the tool-types found in burial assemblages, such as chisels and gauges, probably reflect the importance of quite advanced woodworking, such as the building of wagons (Piggott 1983: 58). Recent re-examinations of preserved wagons of the steppe indicate their use as ceremonial, status-conferring vehicles, rather than vehicles for workaday use (Littauer & Crouwel 1996b: 937). It is thus possible that the ox-goad, together with wagons and bulls, was elevated to a symbolic expression of power and prestige, signalling control of main forms of capital: bronze and cattle. Gimbutas classified such a socketed hook tentatively as a "sheath" for a dagger (1965: 493). I will return to these particular artefacts in the next chapter. The settled farmers of Transcaucasus seem thus to have communicated Late-Uruk impulses to Maikop elites. A comparable range of relations that existed between Tripolye and Sredny Stog/Pit-Grave may have existed between Maikop and Transcaucasian farmers (KuroAraks/ETC). One must here speak of the diffusion of technology, "know-how", ideas and styles of imagery; and probably some knowledge of the ideological /religious codes behind these images. After c. 3000 BC the Kuro-Araks expands southwards into eastern Anatolia and Syro-Palestine (Edens 1995: 53; Yener 2000: 51, 60; Greaves & Helwing 2001: 476p.).This occurred at the same time as the collapse of the Uruk-related trading system (Edens 1995: 53). Some centuries later the pastoralist populations north of the Caucasian mountains seem also to have moved southwards, as Kuro-Araks settlements in Transcaucasus are replaced by settlements

- 27 -

and kurgan burials termed the Martkopi/Bedeni culture c. 2700 BC (Chernykh 1992:100; Edens 1995: 54 pp.). From this time on it is in Transcaucasus rather than in Northern Caucasus that lavish equipped burials appear. They continue to appear in the subsequent Transcaucasian phase of Trialeti from c. 2500 BC. Control of exchange routes and the very sources of copper in Transcaucasus may have motivated such a movement of people. If the Maikop people were horseback riders, what we see at this time is a movement out of the ideal horse region, the open steppe. It is also possible that they experienced a certain "push-factor" from hostile Pit-Grave tribes to the north, as the new steppe-adapted economy is likely to have been expansive, pushing groups into other regions. The Transcaucasian region may have been attractive for reasons new to this specific period. Tin-alloys were introduced in a wide area around 2500 BC (Muhly & Pernicka 1992: 312 pp.). The sources of this tin have been debated for decades, and at present an Afghan source of the tin seems the most plausible (Muhly & Pernicka 1992; Weeks 1999; contra Yener 2000). 10 This network may have linked Troy and the Aegean in the west to Transcaucasus, and probably even Central Asia in the East; and to Syria, Mesopotamia and Iran in the south (Edens 1995: 60p.). It is thus possible that highly important exchange routes carried tin from Afghanistan through Transcaucasus to Anatolian and Mesopotamian consumers. The strategic position of Transcaucasus on this route may explain the riches m these burials (ibid: 61). Several aspects of Anatolian material culture from c.

The 17th Centur BC

·. :.·.

.... : .

:·.:·:

__

"

,

..

Fig. 16: 1 tomb MA at Alaca Hilyiik, one of the Dorak tombs (1 afier Piggott 1962; 2 after Mellaart 1966). - 28 -

The I ih Centu

BC

Fig. 17: "Sun-scepres" and "ritual standards" from the tombs at Alaca Hiiyiik (redrawn from Akurgal1961: Taf 7,8,10). 2500 BC onwards, suggest that together with the introduction of tin-bronze there was a further movement of people from the Caucasus region into Anatolia. A series of treasures and "royal" tombs forms a zone from Troy to Caucasus (Fig. 15) (Mellaart 1966: 155; Yakar 1985: 29; Mallory 1989: 232; Edens 1995:58pp.). 11 Both the cultural and chronological relationship between the treasures and tombs from Troy II, the "royal" tombs at Dorak, Horoztepe, Alaca Hiiyiik, and the early Trialeti (Martkopi/Bedeni) and Maikop, are disputed (Mellaart 1966: 151p.; Akurgal 1989: lp.; Burger 1992: 105; Makkay 1992: 200pp.; Edens 1995: 58p.). 12 Arslantepe may now be added to the list, but this burial probably belongs to the earlier Kuro Arax intrusion, c. 3000 BC (Yener 2000: 54; Greaves & Helwing 2001: 476p. fig. 46). An amazing variety of metals and alloys: copper, gold, tin, lead, silver, iron, electrum; sheet metal production and lost-wax casting; all are evident in these assemblages (Mellaart 1966: 152pp.; Yener 2000: 67pp.). Yakar points out that the former burial traditions of Anatolia (intra-mural cemeteries) were not replaced at this time, but existed alongside the new features (Yakar 1985: 29). The Alaca Hiiyiik tombs may be described as large, shallow shaft graves, lined with low stone-walls, while wooden posts in the comers supported a wooden roof (Fig. 16.1) (Piggott 1962: 112p., fig.3; Mellaart 1966: 152; Yakar 1985: 30). Both Piggott and Yakar argue that these tombs follow the same principle as the Maikop and Mycenaean shaft graves (Piggott 1962: 115; Yakar 1985: 29pp.). Within the tombs at Alaca Hiiyiik there were objects of classic Circumpontic type, including shaft-hole axes. An iron knife from the Bichkin-Buluk cemetery belonging to the Catacomb culture finds analogies in iron objects in the Alaca Hiiyiik tombs (Fig. 30.2) (Mellaart 1966:153; Chemykh 1992:110,128). The tanged dagger is also found in the Alaca Hiiyiik tombs: lengthened into long swords, as they are in the Dorak tombs and earlier at Arslantepe and at

- 29 -

Novosvobodnaya, Northern Caucasus (Sandars 1961: 18p., pl. 15.3-5; Mellaart 1966: 158p., pl. XVIIa,b; Chemykh 1992: 69 p.; Yener 2000: 50). Mellaart even reports a "great iron sword found at Dorak" (1966: 159). In one of the Dorak tombs a piece of gold sheath, probably part of an armchair or throne, carried the hieroglyphic inscription of the Egyptian pharaoh Sahure (c. 2494-2345 BC) (ibid: 152). One of the Dorak swords carried images of three ships, perhaps reflecting the maritime engagement of its owner (ibid: 167, Fig. 53.13). An "amber axe" is also reported from the Dorak tombs, although this has not yet been confirmed by recent archaeological studies (cf Bouzek 1985: 58). 13 In the Alaca tombs there were also artefacts pointing more directly to earlier Maikop assemblages. A number of bronze sceptres or "ritual standards" symbolizing the sun, spoked wheels and stags, find their closest analogies in "sun-discs" and "sun-sceptres" in the earlier Maikop burials (Fig. 17) (Akurgal 1989: 1; Makkay 1992: 200pp.). In this period the classic artefact type of the northern part of the Circumpontic zone, the shaft hole axe, was widely used in Anatolia and the Near East (Chemykh 1992: 153, fig.57-58). Earlier, gold in the Circumpontic zone was found mainly in North Caucasus (Maikop ), now gold is found mainly in the Transcaucasus (Markopi/Bedeni-Trialeti) and Anatolia (ibid: fig. 48). In a Trialeti kurgan near Yerevan, a body was accompanied by no less than c. 2000 objects of gold, in addition to various metal vessels (Chemykh 1991: 390). The southeastern part of the Black Sea region was therefore at this time clearly linked to a larger trade system of the Near East. Such a system may evidently have been a channel through which religious and ideological ideas spread.

The I ih Centu

Horseback Riders -Towards the 1ih Century BC

The Pit Grave cultures represented a new way of life, a life adapted to the steppe environment. Anthony (1986: 310; 1995: 561) has characterized this change as the first successful combination of the triad of: 1. Sheep, cattle 2. Horseback riding 3. Ox-wagon transport Stock-keeping was introduced through communication with the Carpatho-Balkan farming cultures, and wheeled wagon technology from the Near East across the Caucasus. These factors combined with the indigenous "invention" of horseback riding, gave people the possibility to exploit the arid steppe zone. A bridge between the Near East and Europe, and even China, was thus created in the late 4th millennium BC (Anthony 1995: 562). From that time onwards, the people of the steppe changed the dynamics of historical development across the Eurasian landmass (ibid). Broad cultural similarities characterize the Dnieper-Ural steppe from the Pit-Grave horizon and through the subsequent Catacomb horizon. The transition from Pit-Grave to Catacomb was not unanimous in all areas. It may first and foremost be characterized as a religious development, since the evidence available to us is mainly burials. The burial rite included a contracted position of the body, most often laying on its right side. The presence of ochre is also characteristic. The change is mainly in the construction of the tomb, now a catacomb instead of a pit within the mound (Chernykh 1992: 124p.). The number of preserved large, four-wheeled wagons in burials increases. Settlements are few as before, situated along the major rivers, with thin cultural deposits and no traces of houses. Chernykh distinguishes at least two foci of metalworking: the Kalmykian focus in the lower Volga and Sub-Caucasian steppes, and the Dnieper-Don focus in the Black Sea region (ibid: 126pp.). The chemical composition of the metalwork of the Catacomb horizon totally corresponds to Caucasian ores (Chernykh 1992: 128). Changes are evident in the later phases of the Catacomb horizon. Unique settlement structures were discovered on the lower Don, at Liventsovka and Karataevskaya. These were stone-built fortresses with massive walls. It is possible that such structures are a reflection of a general trend towards sedentism at the end of the Catacomb horizon (ibid). The ritual practice of offerings, which seems to have been non-existent on the steppe in EBA (Pit-Grave), and widespread in LBA (from c.1700 BC), now start to appear (ibid: 130). There are also some interesting parallels between Europe and the eastern part of the steppe/North Caucasus. The characteristic Late North Caucasian axe type, with long shaft hole and narrow blade, is totally missing from the steppe area, while several such axes are found in the Stublo hoard in Moldova (ibid).

- 30 -

BC

With the beginning of the Mnogovalikovaya and Abashevo horizons from c. 2000 BC the stage is set for the changes of the 17th century (cf Lichardus & Vladar 1996: 42pp.). Changes in weaponry, metallurgy and the popularity of cheek-pieces for horse harnesses within these horizons, will be important for later discussions (chapter 5). Changes are thus evident in the steppe region from the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. East of the Ural, horse-pastoralists of the Sintashta-Petrovka horizon created heavily fortified settlements and engaged in largescale bronze metallurgy (Anthony 1995: 561). Both burial-grounds and settlements are strictly organized (Lichardus & Vladar 1996: 39pp., taf.5-7,10). Wagon burials now appear for the first time east of the Ural. These represent perhaps the earliest evidence of a new type of vehicle, the horse-drawn spoke-wheeled chariot, dated to c. 2000-1800 BC. (Piggott 1983: 92, fig.48; 1992:53p.; Anthony 1995: 561, note 2; Littauer & Crouwel 1996b:Fig.4). In the subsequent Andronovo horizon, these eastern horseback riders seem to have expanded far to the east, all the way to Tien Shan (Anthony 1995: 562). The massive evidence of chariotry at Sintashta, with horse teams buried along with the vehicles, must be considered when early 2nd millennium chariotry in the Near East, Greece and the Carpathians is discussed. Some central elements in the cultural history of the Black Sea region up to around 1700 BC have now been roughly outlined (cf Fig. 18). On this background I will attempt to illuminate the complex changes occurring in the 1ih century BC: 1. The Mnogovalikovaya, Abashevo and Sintashta/ Andronovo cultures exhibit new forms of weaponry, elite symbolism and a metallurgical activity of unprecedented scale on the steppe. 2. In Transcaucasus lavish burials continue to appear in the Late Trialeti culture. 3. Processes of centralization in Central Anatolia leads to the founding of the Hittite Kingdom early in the 17th century BC. 4. In the Argolid similar processes are on their way, evidenced by the enormous amounts of valuables gathered on the hands of the Mycenaean Shaft Grave Kings. 5. In Central Europe, as earlier described, there is a shift of gravity towards the east. The Carpathian cultures are at the centre of this new focus of gravity, and take over and strengthen the connections with Scandinavian societies. Whether these processes were related or not has been discussed for a very long time. There are indications that they were. The lavish burials of late Trialeti continued a tradition going back through Martkopi/Bedeni to Maikop. The Hittites are by some thought to derive from earlier Caucasian immigrants. The Mycenaeans have in the same

Cal.BC

MYCENAE

!I I I

I

1600 -

1700 • I

w

~

KOSZIDERPADLAS HORIZON

I

HAJDUSAMSON HORIZON

c.1700: Gr. Circle A founded ~ Rich graves also in Circle B - 5:: Fortified settlements,spiral steppe disc-piecesand first '"r decoratedceramics,cheek imagesof chariots • rapiers - ;$ pieces amber present in quantities ::c: OITOMANY '"r

I I I I I

I

J ~ ~ ~

I ~ I II

= ::c:

j

II

i;

@ 00

ffi

6 ~ ~

~

~

~

i i

~

~

00

00

HATTUSILISI Carpathian LABARNASI pyraunos and cheek pieces Experimentswith chariot warfare ANIITA fll

00

0

1RANSCAUCASUS

I

~

1800-

THE STEPPE

I

CCI

!I

TELIPINUS HUZZIYASI AMMUNAS ZIDANTAS HANTILISI MURSILISstrikes againstBabylonc. 1600

I

Shaft graves appear in the ~ Argolid.Grave Circle B ; foundedc. 1770-1750. •

1900-

ANATOLIA

THE CARPATHIANS

1500 -

>

i I

>

:>ot

~

PITHANA

j ·l fll