EASTERN INFLUENCES AND THE TRANSITION TO NEW TYPES …

33MUSAICA ARCHAEOLOGICA 2/2018 33-49

EASTERN INFLUENCES AND THE TRANSITION TO NEW TYPESOF METAL WORKING AT THE END OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE

IN CENTRAL EUROPE

Stanislav Grigoriev*

____________________

* Institute of History and Archaeology, Ural Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences (620990, Kovelevskoj-str., 16, Ekaterinburg, Russia), [email protected]

Abstrakt: Východné vplyvy a nové technológie spracovania kovov na konci staršej doby bronzovej v strednej Európe. Prvé cínové zliatiny bronzu sa v Európe objavujú v priebehu Reineckeho stupňa A1. Následne vo fáze A2 sa objavujú prvé nástroje s tuľajkou a tiež hroty kopijí s tuľajkou. Rozšírenie týchto hrotov kopijí koreluje s rozšírením nástro-jov s vysokým podielom cínu v zliatine bronzu. Predpokladá sa, že k najstarším hrotom kopijí s tuľajkou patrili nálezy z Dyje na Morave a z Děteníc v Čechách. Ale paralelne zaznamenávame v Euroázii podobné procesy súvisiace s rozšírením technologickej tradície kultúrneho fenoménu Sejma-Turbino s nástrojmi s tuľajkou a vysokým podielom cínu v zliatine bronzu. Na základe morfologických charakteristík môžeme priradiť väčšinu kopijí z európskych nálezísk k typom príznačným už pre kultúry a kultúrne skupiny, ktoré nasledovali po kultúrnom fenoméne Sejma-Turbino. Článok pouka-zuje na relatívne neskoré zaradenie hrotov kopijí z Dyje a z Děteníc a tiež na ich vznik pod vplyvom východných impulzov. V Európe sa neobjavujú v klasickej forme, ale transformované ako výsledok interakcie tradícií kultúr post-Sintašta, Petro-vka a Alakul.

Kľúčové slová: Sejma-Turbino, metalurgia, nástroje s tuľajkou, stredná Európa, andronovský komponent

Abstract: The first tin alloys appeared in Europe within the framework of the Reinecke’s phase A1. After that, in phase A2, the first socketed tools appeared, and socketed spearheads. The distribution of these spearheads coincided with the distribution of tools with a high degree of tin alloying. It is assumed that the earliest socketed spearheads were those from Dyje in Moravia and Dětenice in Bohemia. But at the same period in Eurasia, we see similar processes associated with the spread to the west of the Seima-Turbino tradition of metalworking with socketed tools and high tin bronze. And the ma-jority of European spearheads in their morphological characteristics can be considered as post-Seima ones. The article shows a relatively late chronological position of the spearheads from Dyje and Dětenice, and the formation of this tradi-tion under the influence of eastern impulses. However, in Europe, this tradition did not appear in its classical form, but transformed as a result of interaction with the post-Sintashta, Petrovka and Alakul traditions. This caused significant transformations in the European area.

Key words: Seima-Turbino, metallurgy, socketed tools, Central Europe, chronology, Andronovo component

1. Introduction

For Eurasia, the early 2nd millennium BC was the time of introduction of tin alloys and transition to the casting socketed tools and weapons. In the forest-steppe and forest zone of Northern Eurasia, this was caused by the move-ment from the Altai to the west of Seima-Turbino tribes and corresponding metalworking traditions. This phenom-enon is represented by a series of cemeteries, burials and finds with a new complex of metal objects. The peculiarity is that everywhere between the Altai and Volga, despite the similarity of burials, these objects are accompanied by local ceramic complexes. Therefore, the phenomenon is called ‘transcultural’. Analysis of distribution of morpho-

34 Stanislav Grigoriev Eastern Influences and the Transition to New Types...

logical and chemical characteristics led to a conclusion of migration (Черных – Кузьминых 1989, 183–203, 208–216, 251–253). Unfortunately, there are few radiocarbon dates for these monuments, but the existing ones fall within the range 2290–1880 BC, however it seems to be too early (Молодин и др. 2014, 141). The most western point of pene-tration of this tradition is the Borodino hoard in Moldavia, with two typical Seima-Turbino spearheads (Fig. 1: 1, 2). To the west, classic Seima-Turbino objects are absent. However, just since that time the tin alloys and casting sock-eted spearheads spread in Europe.

Based on the analysis of complexes of hoards, the Early Bronze Age1 of Central Europe was divided by P. Reinecke into two main phases, A1 and A2 (see Coles, Harding 1973, 49; Bartelheim 1988, 148), whose chronological boundary is the 19th century BC. Tin bronzes are present in Central Europe already within the A1 phase, but only since the A2 phase they become mass, and objects with a high tin content began to dominate (Krause 2003, 216, 219, 220, Abb. 200; Kienlin 2008, 184). It is also noteworthy that only since this time spearheads appeared in this region (Tarot 2000, 2, 3, 9, 10, 51). In the previous period, only tanged spearheads of Greece are known, and in Moravia a fragment of spear blade was found in a burial of the Nitra culture at the Holešov cemetery, but more likely it is a fragment of a dagger (Říhovský 1996, 11).

This fundamental chronological coincidence of the mass transition to tin alloys and socketed casting in both Europe and Eurasia, as well as the movement of the Seima-Turbino tradition westwards shown by the above-men-tioned authors, allows us to raise a question that these transformations in the metalworking of Europe and Eurasia can be described within a single process (Grigoriev 2002, 213–222). However, specific mechanisms and exact chronol-ogy of this process are not completely understood. For orientation in the text, a table of synchronization of com-plexes of various areas is presented, which, of course, requires future corrections and changes as each scheme with strong horizontal lines.

PhasesReine-cke

NE Europe S. Germany L. Austria Czechia, Moravia

W. Slovakia C. and E. Slovakia

Hungary Poland Greece Ukraine Eurasia

B1 Wessex II Nordic BA – IB

Tumulus Tumulus, Věteřov

Tumulus, Věteřov, Maďarovce

Tumulus, Maďarovce

Maďarovce, North-Pannonian, Otomani- Fü-zesabony

Koszider period, Vatya III

Trzciniec-Kamorów

LH I Srubnaja SrubnajaAlakulFyodorovka (Andronovo)Suskan-Lugavskaya

A2c Wessex II Nordic BA – IA

Arbon Věteřov Věteřov Věteřov, Maďarovce

Maďarovce, North-Pannonian, Otomani- Fü-zesabony

Hajdúsám-son-ApaEncrusted Pottery

Trzciniec-Kamorów

LH I Early SrubnajaBorodino

Seima-TurbinoEarly Srubnaja – PokrovskAlakulPetrovkaLate AbashevoFyodorovka (Andronovo)Suskan-Lugavskaya

A2b Nordic BA – IAWessex II

ArbonLangquaid

Věteřov, UnterwölblingGemeinlebarn III

Únětice- Věteřov

Únětice –Maďarovce

Maďarovce, Otomani- Fü-zesabony, Hatvan

Vatya IIEncrusted Pottery

Trzciniec-KamorówNowa Gerekwia

MH III Babino SintashtaAbashevoSeima-TurbinoEarly AlakulPetrovka

A2a Wessex INordic LN

Straubing, Adlerberg

UnterwölblingGemeinlebarn II

Únětice Únětice Hatvan Košťany, Otomani

Vatya I, Encrusted Pottery

Mierzanowi-ce

MH III Babino SintashtaSeima-TurbinoAbashevoEarly AlakulPetrovka

A1c Wessex INordic LN

Straubing, Adlerberg

UnterwölblingGemeinlebarn II

Únětice Únětice -Nitra Hatvan Košťany, Otomani

Vatya Ia, Nagyrév II, Szőreg 2Kisapostag 3,

Mierzanowi-ce

MH III Babino SintashtaAbashevoEarly AlakulPetrovkaSeima-Turbino (?)

Table 1. Synchronization of the Bronze Age cultures in Central Europe with those in Eurasia.

One of the main hoards, on whose basis the phase A2 was separated, is the Langquaid hoard in Bavaria contained a cast socketed spearhead and flat axes of the Langquaid type with a semicircular blade, typical of Central Europe (Fig. 2: 7, 8; Říhovský 1992, 6, 7; Pászthory – Mayer 1998, 9, 42–45; Laux 2000, 7, 8, 38, 38, 199). Scholars divide this EBA phase into several subphases, and the Langquaid period falls into A2b. But diagnostic axes of this type appeared

1 Further in the text abbreviations are used :Early Bronze Age – EBA ,Middle Bronze Age – MBA ,Late Bronze Age – LBA ,Early Helladic – EH, Middle Helladic – MH.


Fig. 1. Seima-Turbino socketed artefacts: 1-7 – speaheads, 8, 9 – axes. 1 – Borodino (KD-20), 2 – Borodino (KD-34), 3 – Djangeldy V (KD-40), 4 – Krivoe Ozero (KD-36), 5 – Bekteniz (KD-36), 6 – Taktalachuk (KD-40), 7 – Gribžiniai; 8

– Sokolovo (K-24), 9 – Seima (K-18) (based on Черных – Кузьминых 1989), the figures were made by Oksana Orlova.Obr. 1. Sejma-Turbino – artefakty s tuľajkou: 1-7 – hroty kopijí, 8, 9 – sekery, autorka ilustrácií O. Orlova.


perhaps earlier, within the previous subphase A2a, occur occasionally in burials of the Unterwölbing group, and in the subsequent phase of the Bühl hoard (Mayer 1977, 91, 95, 96).

This provokes an impression that the Seima-Turbino metalworking traditions penetrated into Europe not at the beginning of the younger EBA phase (A2a), but only since the A2b phase, i.e., after the appearance of the Langquaid axes (Grigoriev 2002, 219; Grigoriev 2018, 14). But the characteristic feature of these axes is a high tin content (Kienlin 2008, 224). In this case, the discussed above single process splits into two separate processes: 1) the introduction of alloys with the high tin content within the subphase A2a; 2) the subsequent introduction of the socketed casting within the subphase A2b. And we can imagine this as a local independent development, only accidentally coinciding with similar processes in the east. Contrary to this, despite a number of morphological differences, general propor-tions of the majority of early Central European spearheads correspond to the Seima-Turbino ones. The purpose of this article is to discuss these paradoxes.

2. Socketed spearheads

The Seima spearheads have a leaf-shaped blade with an extension in the lower part, and according to the struc-ture of the rod of the blade they can be divided into three groups: with a forked, rhombic and round rod. We will touch upon only some types; detailed typology should be viewed in the author’s work (Черных – Кузьминых 1989, 63–90). Spearheads with the round rod are most interesting for us, since these are typical for European complex-es. They are divided into spearheads of type KD-38 with a loop on the socket and KD-40, without loop, but some have opposite holes on the socket (Fig. 1: 3, 6). Spearheads of type KD-40 are considered within the framework of the Seima-Turbino tradition, but have not been found in the Seima-Turbino cemeteries; they are known on sites of Petrovka, Alakul, Srubnaja and Abashevo cultures (Черных – Кузьминых 1989, 88, 184, рис. 48, таб. 17). And it should be noted that in the famous Borodino hoard, where two Seima-Turbino silver spearheads were found, one belongs to the type KD-20 with the classic forked rod of the blade (Fig. 1: 1), and the second does to the type KD-34 with a rhombic rod and a cuff on the socket (Fig. 1: 2). The first spearhead has parallels in the Turbino cemetery in the Volga-Kama region, and the second type is absent from the Seima-Turbino burials, and is represented by the spearhead from Borodino, occasional finds and a specimen from the Alakul burial mound Bliznetsy in the Southern Urals. The closest type are spearheads KD-36 with a rhombic rod, without cuff, but with opposite holes on the socket. They are considered within the so-called “Eurasian” types, formed as a result of interaction between the previous traditions of the Ural metalworking and Seima-Turbino one (Черных – Кузьминых 1989, 70, 80, 88, 184, рис. 34, 46, 48). Finally, there is a spearhead of type KD-32 from Gribžiniai in Lithuania (Fig. 1: 7). This type includes specimens with a rhombic rod and a lateral triangular loop near the edge of the trumpet-shaped socket. Only one of them was found at the Seima-Turbino monument Reshnoye. The rest are represented by chance finds from Eastern Europe, as well as specimens from Zasechnoye (Pozdnyakovo cul-ture on the Oka) and Korkino (Alakul culture, the Southern Transurals) (Черных – Кузьминых 1989, 79, рис. 45). All this means that the traditions of the Seima-Turbino metallurgy (KD-20 type spearhead from the Borodino hoard) penetrate into Europe to a lesser extent, but mainly the Seima-Turbino traditions transformed as a result of interactions with the forest-steppe and steppe traditions of the Ural-Irtysh interfluve.

A local European invention of the socketed spearheads might be indicated by finds in hoards with the Únětice metal of Dyje in Moravia and Dětenice in Bohemia (Fig. 2: 1, 2) (Hájek 1953, 202, 205; Tihelka 1965, 9, 10). These are spearheads with a short socket with elongated opposite ends, and with opposite holes on the socket. The end of the sockets is decorated with a ribbed ornament (the so-called Rippenstil) in the form of angles (Dětenice) or semi-circles (Dyje), rising in the direction of the blade. The socket proceeds as a round rod of the blade. The shape of the blades is different. The spearhead from Dětenice has a leaf-shaped blade extended in its lower part, which is similar to proportions of the Seima-Turbino spearheads. At the spearhead from Dyje, the transition from the base of the blade to its upper part is sharper, creating an almost rhombic shape. These are the earliest socketed spearheads in the European context. Therefore, E. Schubert believed that they were prototypes for spearheads of the Langquaid hori-zon, although together with the latter they are recognized as early ones in the series of socketed spearheads (Schubert 1974, 25, 88; Moucha 2005, 68).


Fig. 2. Metal of the horizon A2b: 1-7, 9, 10 – spearheads, 8 – axe: 1 – Dětenice, 2 – Dyje, 3 – Flonheim; 4 – Nitriansky Hradok; 5, 6 – Rederzhausen; 7, 8 – Langquaid, 9 – Grethelmark-Forst, 10 – Neuhof an der Zenn. (based on: 1, 2 – Hájek 1953, obr. 3, 4; 3 – Gebers 1978, Taf. 72; 4 – Schubert 1974; 5, 6 – Müller-Karpe 1980, Taf. 310; Tihelka 1965, Taf. 8; 7, 8 – Stein

1979, Taf. 33; 9, 10 – Berger 1984, Taf. 26).Obr. 2. Kovové artefakty horizontu A2b: 1-7, 9, 10 – hroty kopijí, 8 – sekera; autorka ilustrácií O. Orlova.


However, morphology of the majority of Central European spearheads is closer to that of Seima ones than to those from Dyje and Dětenice. In Central Europe, in many hoards of this time, socketed spearheads have been found, in proportions very close to the Seima-Turbino ones: these are the hoards of Langquaid, Flonheim, Reder-zhausen; Nitriansky Hrádok, Bullendorf, Forchheim-Serlbach, Neuhof an der Zenn and Grethelmark-Forst (Stein 1979, 56, Taf. 33: 9; Gebers 1978, Taf. 72: 2; Müller-Karpe 1980, Taf. 310H; Novotná 1970, Taf. 49; Schubert 1974, Taf. 34: 9; Berger 1984, 28, 49, Taf. 26: 2–4, 11, 45: 3). All of these spearheads have a short or medium-sized socket, ornamented with triangles or zigzags, and a rounded rod of a leaf-shaped blade expanded at the base (Fig. 3: 7, 9, 10). In terms of their proportions, they fit perfectly into the Seima-Turbino morphology, but the KD-40 spear-heads are closest to them.

There is a further development of this tradition, expressed in spearheads with a smooth socket of the Bühl type. In Bohemia, three spearheads are known from this context: from Lužice, Neumětely and Smederov (Fig. 3: 1–3; Moucha 2005, 68, Taf. 179, 186, 187). At the same time, the spearhead from Smederov has a greater extension of the base of the blade, which is closer to the proportions of Eurasian spearheads. Since the spearhead from Dětenice has parallels in the casting mold from the Josefov settlement of the Věteřov group, it is related to the late period of the Únětice culture (A2b), while others are considered within the Bühl hoard horizon (Moucha 2005, 68). But this hoard is dated to the MBA, and in the Neumětely and Dětenice hoards there are Únětice artifacts, from which it has been concluded that the Bühl-type spearheads appeared earlier, within the EBA (when there the Maďarovce culture exist-ed), and within the Reinecke’s chronology this period can be considered as phase A3 (Bartelheim 1998, 88, 129, 145).

In Poland, the earliest are spearheads of the Forchheim type (Bonin, Czeszewo, Dolice) with a non-decorated socket and a leaf-shaped blade (Fig. 3: 4, 5). The rod of the blade is round. Chronologically, they belong to the transition from period 1 to period 2, i.e., to the end of the Central European EBA. This is the time of formation of the Nowa Gerekwia culture, which is close to the cultures of Věteřov and Maďarovce. The only exception is the spearhead from Bonin with a rhombic rod and opposite holes on the socket (Gedl 2009, 13, 47, Taf. 13). A similar spearhead with ornamentation in the style of Hajdúsámson-Apa was found in a nameless hoard in Hun-gary (museum in Mainz). It is regarded as the earliest in this group of hoards (David 2002, 390). These spearheads have analogues in complexes inherited the Seima traditions: in the Petrovka culture cemeteries of Bekteniz and Krivoe Ozero (KD-36) (Fig. 1: 4, 5) (Черных – Кузьминых 1989, рис. 47). Moreover, it is impossible to say that these sites are later. During this period the processes of cultural genesis in the Transurals were extremely dynam-ic, and those cultural types that we previously considered to be of different times coexisted there: Sintashta, Petrovka, Alakul and Seima-Turbino. And their coexistence immediately preceded the A2b subphase in Central Europe (Григорьев 2016, 47–50; Григорьев и др. 2018, 158–175).

In the Carpathian Basin, spearheads with the smooth socket and opposite holes on it, close to those of the Langq-uaid and Bühl types, appeared at the stage of Hajdúsámson-Apa. They have been synchronized with the hoards at Ni-triansky Hrádok, Hajdúsámson, Apa and Langquaid (Mozsolics 1967, 26, 27, 61, Taf. 18; Mozsolics 1973, 33; Bátora – Pölhös 2005). In the Vatya culture area, two spearheads with a smooth socket (one with a rhombic rod, the second with a round rod) have been found; they are similar to those from Bühl, Neumětely, Smederov, and Bonin, and are attributed to the third period of the culture preceding the Koszider horizon (Bóna 1975, 71, Taf. 57: 2, 3).

Thus, in Central Europe, within the framework of the EBA, it was possible to distinguish three main stages in the development of the socketed spearheads. Individual objects may be present in another stage, but the general trend is as follows.

The first stage is represented very modestly, only by spearheads from Dětenice and Dyje, with a ribbed socket and a round rod of the blade. They are considered as preceding the spearheads of the Langquaid hoard (it will be shown below that this is not the case), so their belonging to the A2a subphase is not excluded. The second stage is connected with the horizon of the Langquaid hoard (A2b, late Únětice culture, early Maďarovce, early Věteřov, Nowa Gerekwia). At this time, spearheads with decorated socket and a round or rhombic rod of the blade spread widely. In the east, analogues of these spearheads are known not in the Seima-Turbino cemeteries, but at the for-est-steppe and steppe sites of Petrovka, Alakul and Srubnaja cultures. From this we can conclude that the Sei-ma-Turbino tradition penetrated into this region mainly not in its classic form, it was changed through interaction with the Eurasian metalworking tradition. The only spearhead of the classic Seima-Turbino tradition is represented in the Borodino hoard. Consequently, it can be assumed that, although this tradition is widely distributed in the A2b


Fig. 3. Spearheads of the end of the European EBA: 1 – Lužice, 2 – Smederov (without scale), 3 – Neumětely, 4 – Czeszewo, 5 – Bonin, 6 – Virring, 7 – Horn, 8 – Akeley, 9 – Ebnar. (based on: 1 – Moucha 2005, Taf. 179, 186, 187; 4, 5 –

Gedl 2004, Taf. 13; 6, 7 – Jacob-Friesen 1967, Taf. 2, 12; 8, 9 – Gerloff 1975, pl. 48, 56).Obr. 3. Hroty kopijí z konca európskej staršej doby bronzovej; autorka ilustrácií O. Orlova


subphase, its initial appearance could have occurred within the previous A2a subphase. In principle, the introduction of socketed casting actually occurred within the Gemeinlebarn 2 phase (Mayer 1977, 31), which corresponds to the time of the classic Únětice culture and subphase A2a.

But a good and detailed analysis of metal of this period was recently published, in which it was shown that the ornamental style Hajdúsámson-Apa did not appear before the A2c subphase, but most of the finds relate to the beginning of phase B (David 2002, 401). Accordingly, since finds from the Borodino hoard belong to this ornamen-tal style (Черных – Кузьминых 1989, 260), we have another paradox, when the classic Seima-Turbino objects are later then the Seima-Turbino derivatives in Central Europe.

In northern Germany and southern Scandinavia, the first spearheads with a leaf-shaped blade, similar in mor-phology to the post-Seima ones in Europe, appeared at the beginning of the Nordic Bronze Age IA period, synchro-nous to the subphase A2b in Central Europe (c. 1700 – 1600 BC) (Vandkilde 2010/11, 56, 61). Some details of these spearheads have parallels in southern Germany of this period, for example, rows of dots along the socket on the blade. Therefore, scholars suppose a south impulse for their origins. The earliest type here is Bagterp, and these spearheads differ from the southern prototypes in a shortened form: their length usually does not exceed 10-15 cm. The rod of the blade is often round, but there is a series of specimens with a rhombic rod (Jacob-Friesen 1967, 89–92, 102–104) that we saw to the south in the spearhead from Bonin, and it has eastern Eurasian prototypes (Fig. 3: 6, 9).

Probably at the same time, the tradition of cast socketed spearheads penetrated into Britain. Previously (Wessex I), only tanged spearheads were known here. But at the transition to the next period, the Arreton met-alworking tradition arises, which is synchronous with the late burials of the Kamerton-Snowhill series (Wessex II), where these spearheads appear for the first time. The Arreton industry is not represented in the Wessex complexes proper, it is peripheral. Unlike continental spearheads, the blade of the British ones is more solid, but its shape has analogues in the preceding local tanged spearheads (Fig. 3: 7, 8). And these spearheads have loops on the socket, as on the Seima-Turbino spearheads. Together with them, typical for continental Europe cast-flanged axes came into Britain, and the Únětice ornamentation appeared on daggers. It is noteworthy that some spearheads have, as on the continent, decoration in the form of rows of dots on the blade. Analysis of these complexes led to a conclusion that they were formed as a result of continental influences in the period of the Langquaid hoard, i.e., A2b (Burgess 1974; Gerloff 1975, 128–130, 142–148, 154–156, 235–243). And fur-ther into Ireland the tradition of socketed spearheads penetrated only at the beginning of the MBA, in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC, already from Britain (Eogan 1983, 5, 6).

In Eastern France, the tradition of socketed spearheads appeared also at the end of the EBA, and is also associ-ated with tin alloys (see, for example, Junghans u.a. 1968, Taf. 46). The latest was its penetration into Italy at the be-ginning of the MBA, and Iberia in the Final Bronze Age.

To the south, in Greece, the tradition of manufacturing cast socketed spearheads did not penetrate. During the periods of EBA and MBA (EH and MH) all the spearheads there are represented by specimens with a flat tang and holes for fastening. The only exceptions are two spearheads with an open socket from Agia Photia (EM I-II) and Malthi (MH) (Branigan 1974, 17–19; Avila 1983, 80). In the LBA, the socketed spearheads are already widely present, but their blades are very narrow, and the open socket is often reinforced with a cuff (Höckmann 1987; Avila 1983, 81). Their blades have nothing in common with the Seima-Turbino blades, which makes chronological comparisons impossible. In the Shaft Tombs, there is only one spearhead with a loop on the socket, known from Schliemann’s drawings, which allows them to be synchronized with the Seima-Turbino spearheads (Penner 1998, 184, Abb. 35).

Thus, we see a certain paradox. Within the A2b subphase, the tradition of socketed spearheads, which can be considered as post-Seima ones, begins to spread rapidly in different regions of Europe. In principle, some deviations from the strict Seima stereotypes with the introduction of this innovation are quite possible. The same took place in Eurasia. But the problem is these spearheads with ribbed sockets, which are generally considered to precede the spearheads of subphase A2b, and can be attributed to the subphase A2a, when the socketed casting appeared in Central Europe for the first time. They break the typological row between the Seima-Turbino spearheads and those of the A2b subphase. And there is another paradox: a noticeable lag in the appearance of the second component of the Seima-Turbino complexes, axes with a vertical socket (Fig. 1: 8, 9).


3. Socketed axes

Axes with a vertical socket (‘celts’ in the Russian archaeological literature) did not appear together with socketed spearheads in the younger phase of the Central European EBA. They were occasionally present in the MBA of South-Eastern Europe, but their mass occurrence took place there in the LBA (Wanzek 1989, 18). In Slovakia, the socketed axes appeared in the Koszider period, but they also become numerous already in the period of the Urnfield culture (Novotná 1970, 70, 71).

In the north-western Balkans, the emergence of socketed axes occurred at the very end of the MBA, but most of the finds are later (Žeravica 1993, 75–108). In Poland, Moravia, Bavaria and Lower Saxony, socketed axes also ap-peared only since the LBA, since the Urnfield culture (Kuśnierz 1998; Gedl 2004; Říhovský 1992, 12; Pászthory 1998; Laux 2005). To the west and south, in France, Italy and Iberia, these axes are present in the complexes not earlier than the beginning of the Central European LBA and have Central European and North-Western European forms (Chardenoux – Courtois 1979; Carancini 1984; Monteagudo 1977, 241). In Ireland and Britain, they also began to be man-ufactured relatively late, in the 13th and 12th centuries BC (Taunton and Bishopsland phases), and they had prototypes in the Northwest of continental Europe (Rowlands 1976, 41–43; Eagan 2000, 4, 12). In Britain, only one type is known (Wallington), which can be synchronized with the B1 phase in Central Europe, but these are rare finds and often found out of context (Schmidt – Burgess 1981, 176). In any case, the finds of the socketed axes in Britain are dated to a much later period than the socketed spearheads, and their appearance was caused by impulses from the continent.

This is a difficult question to explain: why after the appearance of the eastern tradition of manufacturing sock-eted spearheads, were not manufactured socketed axes, the second integral part of the Seima-Turbino complex? K. Kibbert considers the introduction of socketed axes as a technological revolution, and also asks a question: why did the introduction of these axes occur so late after the appearance of socketed casting? In the initial period, when spearheads with cast socket appeared, there are some socketed axes, but these are just five finds scattered around the old publications (Kibbert 1984, 118–121). It should be noted that the situation in Europe is identical to the situation in Northern Eurasia, where, also after the appearance of the Seima-Turbino metalworking tradition, spearheads with the cast socket become typical for both the steppe and forest zones almost immediately, and the socketed axes are widely spread only in the Final Bronze Age, although in the Volga-Kama region, this tradition probably continued from the Seima period. In the post-Seima period of this region, the tradition is known at the sites of the Suskan and Lugavskaja cultures, dated to the 17th – 15th centuries BC (Лыганов 2018, 129).

The explanation is probably quite simple. The socketed axes of the Seima-Turbino type were less effective than the Eurasian axes and the European cast-flanged axes. Only after the development of later forms with an elongated wedge did they gain the advantage described by K. Kibbert: the socket is a continuation of the wedge, which leads to saving metal at the same tool efficiency (Kibbert 1984, 118). And only after this, the traditions of the Volga-Kama metalworking penetrate into Ukraine, where the objects of the Ingul-Krasnomayatsky metallurgical area are closely connected with Western European metallurgy, but some eastern impulses took place (Черных 1976, 176–178). And above, we discussed that these objects appeared most early in the South-east of Europe, then spreading to the west, north and south. Researchers in Scandinavia also suggested borrowing of the idea of casting axes from the Vol-ga-Kama region through Fennoscandia at the beginning of the Northern Late Bronze Age (Melheim 2015, 199, 200).

However, during the period of penetration of the Seima-Turbino traditions into Europe, there were attempts to adapt this idea. First of all, it is a hoard of the younger EBA phase (A2) in Kütten-Drobitz, Saalkreis, in which an axe with a vertical oval ribbed socket was found (Fig. 4: 1). The axe blade is semicircular, and its sides are flanged (von Brunn 1959, 16, 21, 40, 61, Taf. 57: 1, 2). This axe makes an impression of a strange symbiosis. On the one hand, its blade is rounded off, and this tendency to blade rounding is characteristic of flat axes of this period, and we can assume that the idea of the socket was borrowed from the Seima-Turbino axes.

In addition, this axe is present in the Stuttgart database of analyzes of ancient metal (an. 9549). The analysis re-vealed 6.8% tin, and typologically the axe is dated within the subphase A2a (see Stuttgart database in the CD: Krause 2003). This means, this axe preceded the horizon of the Langquaid hoard.

In Slovakia, Křtěnov-type axes with tubular socket (Fig. 4: 2), which are synchronized with the classic Maďarovce culture, the Langquaid and Hajdusamson periods, also have ribbed socket (Novotná 1970, 53–55). The same design of the socket is present on axes of types A and B of the horizon of Hajdúsámson and Apa in Hungary (Fig. 4: 4),


Figure 4. Axes and chisels: 1 – Kütten-Drobitz, 2, 3 – Nitriansky Hradok, 4 – Budapest, 5 – Dunajvaros, 6 – Unter-nalb, 7 – Cegled, 8 – Chojnow, 9 – Przečmino, 10 – Gemeinlebarn, 11 – Bullendorf, 12 – Vedrovice, 13 – Wangford. 4, 5, 7 – without scale. (based on: 1 – von Brunn 1959, Taf. 57; 2, 3 – Schubert 1974, Taf. 9; 4, 7 – Mozsolics 1967, Taf. 6; 5 – Bóna 1975, Taf. 57; 6, 10, 11 – Mayer 1977, Taf. 7, 88; 8, 9 – Gedl 2004, Taf. 4; 12 – Hájek 1953, obr. 1; 13 – Gerloff 1975, pl. 56).

Obr. 4. Sekery a dláta; autorka ilustrácií O. Orlova.


where they, in turn, have been synchronized with the hoards of Langquaid and Nitriansky Hrádok (Mozsolics 1967, 26, 27, Abb. 3, Taf. 10). In the last hoard, an axe with a long, slightly curved wedge and a crest on the butt was also found (Fig. 4: 3), which occurred in the phases of Gemeinlebarn II and III. And similar ones are known in hoard of the Hajdúsámson period (Fig. 4: 7; see Mozsolics 1967, 27).

In Poland, the type of Křtěnov axes is also known with a similar design of the socket (for example, an axe from Chojnow, Fig. 4: 8), but there was found another interesting axe from Przečmino of the type Şanţ-Dragomireşti (Fig. 4: 9). It has also a tubular socket, but it is smooth. However, the upper part of the wedge under the socket is solid and round, and decorated in the same ribbed style (Gedl 2004, Taf. 4: 36, 37). Thus, here this decoration is made on the vertical part of the wedge, as on the vertical socket of the axe from Kütten-Drobitz. Identical ones were found in the Tiszafüred cemetery in Eastern Hungary, and they have been dated to the time between the horizons of Haj-dúsámson-Apa and Koszider (Bátora 2006, 227).

In Austria, the earliest in these series is an axe with the ribbed socket, a long wedge and an elongated butt of the Gemeinlebarn type (Fig. 4: 10) that definitely belongs to the Gemeinlebarn III / Langquaid phase, as probably the axes of the Unternalb variant2 (Fig. 4: 6); and later Křtěnov and Mozsolics’s type A can even be dated to the transition between the periods Hajdúsámson and Koszider (Neugebauer 1991, 12–15; David 2002, Abb. 5: 8).

Socketed chisels are also associated with these finds. They are not typical for the Seima-Turbino burials. Only in Rostovka cemetery a mold for casting a similar object has been found (Матющенко – Синицына 1988, рис. 38: 3). In Central Europe, socketed chisels also appeared in a period earlier and synchronous to the Langquaid hoard. These are the chisels from Uherské Hradiště and Vedrovice (Fig. 4: 12); the socket of the second chisel is also ribbed and its opposite ends are elongated, as in the spearheads from Dyje and Dětenice; and it has been found in the same complex with the Langquaid axe (Hájek 1953, 201, obr. 1; Říhovsky 1992, 8, Taf. 74: 1188). Perhaps the earliest chisel designed in this style is a chisel from Austria from the Bullendorf hoard, dated to the period of Gemeinlebarn II (Fig. 4: 11; Mayer 1977, 222, Taf. 119C, 88: 1292).

In Hungary, in the cemetery Dunaújváros (grave A 39) belonging to the period of Vatya III, a Křtěnov-type axe with a ribbed socket was found. And there is a find of the same period of the Bánov-type axe with elongated oppo-site ends of the ribbed socket, like the spearhead from Dětenice (Fig. 4: 5). Moreover, this period is synchronous with Füzesabony, and immediately preceded the Koszider period (Bóna 1975, 71, 73, 77, Taf. 57). Accordingly, this com-plex can be attributed to the A2c period, but not earlier then the A2b (David 2002, 347, 361, Abb. 5: 7, 8). All this makes it doubtful that this type of ribbed-socketed spearheads was the basis for the emergence of socketed spear-heads in Central Europe and preceded spearheads that go back to the Seima-Turbino tradition.

I used to assume that the appearance of the Seima-Turbino tradition in Central Europe occurred at the beginning of the A2b subphase (Grigoriev 2002, 136; Grigoriev 2018, 14), but some of the listed finds (chisel from Bullendorf) allow us to assume that this occurred at the end of the Gemeinlebarn II phase in Austria and the A2a subphase of Southern Germany. But most of the objects with the ribbed decoration are synchronous, in general, to the subphase A2b, and some of them are later. Therefore, it is more likely that the eastern traditions of metalworking appeared at the very end of the previous subphase A2a (it needs additional examination), but are becoming widespread during the subsequent subphase.

The socketed chisels allow us to link the time of the appearance of the Seima-Turbino bronzes in Europe with the Wessex culture. At the end of classic Wessex, the so-called Arreton industry arises. Above, we already cited the opinion of Gerloff that the penetration of this tradition was caused by European impulses in the Langquaid period. In one of the complexes of this industry (the Wangford hoard in Cambridgeshire) a chisel with a ribbed socket has been found together with a cast socketed spearhead (Fig. 4: 13; Gerloff 1975, 128–130, 139, 145, 154–156). Many years ago, Brunn pointed out the existence of this parallel to the socketed objects from Central Europe, describing this as an axe (von Brunn 1959, 44). Indeed, the edges of the blade of the object from Wangford are slightly diverged, and its sides are flanged. Therefore, this probably reflects an attempt to adapt the idea of the vertical socket to flat flanged axes of European types.

2 Previously it was assumed that the axes of the Unternalb variant appeared before the Langquaid hoard, although they can be also found in synchro-nous complexes (Mayer 1977, Taf. 7: 73, 74).


4. Conclusions

Thus, the penetration of traditions of socketed casting into Europe took place at the end of phase A2a / Ge-meinlebarn II, and their interaction with local metalworking traditions of the Únětice culture caused the appearance of objects with socket decorated in the ribbed style. But, reliably this tradition of socketed spearheads is dated from the subphase A2b, when it spread quite rapidly in different regions of Europe. In Northern Germany and Southern Scandinavia, the Northern Bronze Age begins with the penetration of this tradition. In Britain, Central European impulses are also felt at this time, and the transition from the Wessex I period to the Wessex II occurs. This tradition penetrates into the southern regions of Europe (Iberia, Italy, and Greece) much later, and it is completely unrelated to this primary process.

This allows us to synchronize the Seima-Turbino metalworking and the late stage of the Sintashta culture with the A2b subphase, but some Sintashta complexes (Kamenniy Ambar 5, kurgan 2; Епимахов 2002, рис. 6: 4, and discussion of the later date: Григорьев 2018, 47, 48) could exist within the subphase A2c. From the subphase A2c, but mainly from the beginning of phase B, after the formation of late phases of Otomani-Füzesabony culture, Wieten-berg culture, the appearance of Shaft Tombs in Mycenae, a system of connections from Northern Europe to Myce-nae and Kazakhstan appeared, which manifested itself in the Hajdúsámson-Apa style (David 2002, 400–402), which allows us to synchronize with this period the Borodino hoard and complexes with decorated cheek peaces in Eastern Europe (Late Abashevo, Pokrovsk and some of the Potapovo ones).

Nowhere in Europe do we see an adaptation of the second component of the Seima-Turbino complexes: axes with a vertical socket. Probably it can be explained by the fact that local forms of axes were more effective, which prevented the perception of this innovation. Axes with the vertical socket are widely distributed only in the LBA, and possibly under influences of other eastern impulses.

But the penetration of this casting into Europe was accompanied within the same phase of Gemeinlebarn III / Langquaid also by other eastern components absent from the Seima-Turbino sites: the first manifestations of the kurgan burial rite, the appearance of finger rings and bracelets with spiral ends, richly decorated ceramics with geo-metric pattern, dense arrangement of houses in fortified settlements, as in Petrovka settlements3 (Neugebauer 1991, 31–34, 53; Bátora 2004; Köninger 2006, 151, 154, 171; Köninger – Schlichtherle 2009, 363–370). Earlier, based on the generally accepted periodization, I assumed that there were two consecutive penetrations in Europe, in the Seima and Fyodorovo periods (Grigoriev 2002, 213–222, 267–273). However, only one is clearly visible, in which different features of Seima-Turbino and, in a broad sense, Andronovo tradition are mixed. And it fits into a new chronology in the Transurals, where the Alakul and Petrovka complexes coexist with the Sintashta and Seima-Turbino ones, and significant transformations began, apparently, with the appearance of the Fyodorovo population, when the Sintash-ta and Petrovka cultures disappeared, and the classic Alakul and Cherkaskul cultures formed (Григорьев и др. 2018, 158–176). Probably, these events in the east served as a generator of the described changes in Central Europe.

There is one more remarkable feature of this process. In Central and South-Eastern Europe, classic Seima-Turbi-no objects are rare. The Seima-Turbino tradition transformed as a result of interaction with the Transural metal-working traditions born in the Sintashta culture, penetrated here. Similarly, it is not the Eurasian tradition that pene-trated into Britain, but the Central European one, with Únětice inclusions, but it was immediately transformed as a result of interaction with local traditions. Probably, this is a standard situation when different cultural components from the huge spaces participated in the process of cultural genesis. And it should be noted that we must talk not about the distribution of technology, but about migration, since in parallel some transformations occurred in the ceramic complex and the burial rite. But this does not mean a significant change in population in Central Europe. Many cultural transformations were accompanied by the arrival of a new population. But as it has been demonstrat-ed by studies of the Jelšovce cemetery in Slovakia, the funeral rite remained relatively stable in various periods of its functioning (Nitra, Únětice, Maďarovce cultures), despite some deviations (Bátora 2000). This means that the former population is preserved. Perhaps this process triggered the mechanisms of globalization and interconnections in Europe, whose start c. 1600/1500 BC is well demonstrated by archaeometallurgical studies (Radivojević et al. 2018, 22).

3 It should be noted that the appearance of fortifications in Central Europe itself occurred earlier (for example, Hatvan culture), and almost simultane-ously with the appearance of fortifications in the Sintashta culture. We are discussing the emergence of the dense arrangement of houses.


Acknowledgments

This study was possible thanks to the support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, which provided an opportunity to work in the libraries of the University of Göttingen and the Free University (Berlin) and a grant from the Slovak Agency for Academic Information, which supported the work at the University of Bratislava. And I would like to express my gratitude to colleagues from these universities who helped organize this work and provided excellent opportunities for its implementation: Professor Lorentz Ramstorf (University of Göttingen), Professor Elke Kaiser (Free University of Berlin) and Professor Josef Bátora (Bratislava University).

The figures were made by Oksana Orlova. For sources, see the corresponding references in the text.

Bibliography

Avila, R. A. J. 1983: Bronzene Lanzen- und Pfeilspitzen der griechischen Spätbronzezeit. Prähistorische Bronze-funde V/1, München.

Bartelheim, M. 1998: Studien zur böhmischen Aunjetitzer Kultur – chronologische und chorologische Untersuchun-gen. T. I, Bonn.

Bátora, J. 2000: Das Gräberfeld von Jelšovce. Ein Beitrag zur Frühbronzezeit im nordwestlichen Karpatenbecken. Band II, Kiel.

Bátora, J. 2004: Die Anfänge der Hügelgrabbestattungen in der Mittelbronzezeit im Mittleren Donaugebiet. In: J. Bátora – V. Furmánek – L. Veliačik (Hrsg.): Einflüsse und Kontakte alteuropäischer Kulturen. Nitra, 241–253.

Bátora, J. 2006: Štúdie ku komunikácii medzi strednou a východnou Európou v dobe bronzovej. Vyd. 1, Bratislava.

Bátora, J. – Pölhös, M. 2005: Ojedinelý nález bronzového hrotu kopije z Tekovských Lužian. Archeologické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku 2004, 25–26.

Berger, A. 1984: Die Bronzezeit in Ober- und Mittelfranken. Kallmünz.

Bóna, I. 1992: Bronzeguss und Metallbearbeitung bis zum Ende der mitteren Bronzezeit. In: W. Meier-Arendt (Hrsg.): Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Frankfurt am Main, 48–65.

Bóna, I. 1975: Die Mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen. Budapest.

Branigan, K. 1974: Aegean Metalwork of the Early and Middle Bronze Age. Oxford.

Burgess, C. 1974: The Bronze Age. In: C. Renfrew (ed.): British prehistory. A new outline. London, 165–232.

Carancini, G. L. 1984: Le asce nell’Italia continentale II. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX/12, München.

Chardenoux, M.-B. – Courtois, J.-C. 1979: La haches dans la France Méridionale. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX/11, München.

Coles, J. M. – Harding, A. F. 1973: The Bronze Age in Europe. London.

David, W. 2002: Studien zu Ornamentik und Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Depotfundgruppe Hajdúsám-son-Apa-Ighiel-Zajta. T. I, Alba Iulia.


Eagan, G. 2000: The socketed bronze axes in Ireland. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX/22, Stuttgart.

Eogan, G. 1983: The hoards of the Irish Late Bronze Age. Dublin.

Gebers, W. 1978: Endneolithikum und Frühbronzezeit im Mittelrheingebiet. Bonn.

Gedl, M. 2004: Die Beile in Polen IV. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX/24, Stuttgart.

Gedl, M. 2009: Die Lanzenspitzen in Polen. Prähistorische Bronzefunde V/3, Stuttgart.

Gerloff, S. 1975: The Early Bronze Age daggers in Great Britain. Prähistorische Bronzefunde VI/2, München.

Grigoriev, S. A. 2002: Ancient Indo-Europeans. Chelyabinsk.

Grigoriev, S. A. 2018: Social processes in ancient Europe and changes in the use of ore and alloys in metallurgical production. Archaeoastronomy and Ancient Technologies 6 (2), 1–30.

Hachmann, R. 1957: Die frühe Bronzezeit im westlichen Ostseegebiet und ihre mittel- und südosteuropäischen Verbindungen. Hamburg.

Hájek, L. 1953: Drobné příspěvky k poznání únětické kultury. Památky Archeologické XLIV, 201–211.

Hájek L., 1954: Černy ve starší době bronzově. Památky Archeologické XLV, 115–183.

Herity, M. – Eogan, G. 1997: Ireland in prehistory. London, Henley and Boston.

Höckmann, O. 1987: Lanzen und Speere der ägäischen Bronzezeit und des Übergangs zur Eisenzeit. In: H.-G. Buch-holz (Hrsg.): Ägäische Bronzezeit. Darmstadt, 329–358.

Jacob-Friesen, G. 1967: Bronzezeitliche Lanzespitzen. Norddeutschland und Skandinaviens. Hidesheim.

Junghans, S. – Sangmeister, E. – Schröder, M. 1968: Kupfer und Bronze in der frühen Metallzeit Europas. Bd. 2, Teil 1, Berlin.

Kibbert, K. 1984: Die Äxte und Beile im mittleren Westdeutschland II. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX/13, München.

Kienlin, T. L. 2008: Frühes Metall im nordalpinen Raum. Eine Untersuchung zu technologischen und kognitiven Aspekten früher Metallurgie anhand der Gefüge frühbronzezeitlicher Beilen. T. I, Bonn.

Köninger, J. 2006: Siedlungsarchäologie im Alpenvorland VIII. Stuttgart.

Köninger, J. – Schlichtherle, H. 2009: Die Siedlung Forschner im siedlungsarchäologischen Kontext des nördlichen Al-penvorlands. In: Siedlungsarchäologie im Alpenvorland XI. Stuttgart, 361–398.

Krause, R. 2003: Studien zur kupfer- und frühbronzezeitlichen Metallurgie zwischen Karpatenbecken und Ostsee. Rahden/Westf.

Kuśnierz, J. 1998: Die Beile in Polen III. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX/21, Stuttgart.

Laux, F. 2005: Die Äxte und Beile in Niedersachsen II (Lappen- und Tüllenbeile, Tüllenmeißel und -hämmer). Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX/23, Stuttgart.


Mayer, E. F. 1977: Die Äxte und Beile in Österreich. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX/9, München.

Melheim, L. 2015: Late Bronze Age axe traffic from Volga-Kama to Scandinavia? In: A. Hauptmann (Hrsg.): Archae-ometallurgy in Europe III. Der Anschnitt. Beiheft 26, Bochum, 193–202.

Monteagudo, L. 1977: Die Beile auf der Iberischen Halbinsel. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX/6, München.

Moucha, V. 2005: Hortfunde der Frühen Bronzezeit in Böhmen. Praha.

Mozsolics, A. 1967: Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von Hajdúsámson und Kosziderpadlás. Budapest.

Mozsolics, A. 1973: Bronze- und Goldfunde des Karpatenbeckens. Budapest.

Müller-Karpe, H. 1980: Handbuch der Vorgeschichte. Bd. IV. München.

Neugebauer, J.-W. 1991: Die Nekropole F von Gemeinlebarn, Niederösterreich. Mainz am Rhein.

Novotná, M. 1970: Die Äxte und Beile in der Slowakei. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX/3, München.

Pászthory, K. – Mayer, E. F. 1998: Die Äxte und Beile in Bayern II. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX/23, Stuttgart.

Penner, S. 1998: Schliemanns Schlachtgräberrund und der Europäische Nordosten. Bonn.

Radivojević et al. 2018 – Radivojević, M. – Roberts, B. – Pernicka, E. – Stos-Gale, Z. – Martinon-Torres, M. – Rehren, T. – Bray, P., Brandherm, D. – Ling, J. – Mei, J. – Vandkilde, H. – Kristiansen, K. – Shennan, S. J. – Broodbank, C. 2018: The Provenance, Use and Circulation of Metals in the European Bronze Age: The state of debate. Jour-nal of Archaeological Research 27 (2), 1–55.

Říhovský, J. 1992: Die Äxte, Beile, Meißel und Hämmer in Mähren. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX/17, Stuttgart.

Říhovský, J. 1996: Die Lanzen-, Speer- und Pfeilspitzen in Mähren. Prähistorische Bronzefunde V/2, Stuttgart.

Rowlands, M. J. 1976: The production and distribution of metalwork in the Midde Bronze Age in Southern Britain. British Archaeological Reports 31 (i).

Schmidt, P. K. – Burgess, C. B. 1981: The axes of Schotland and Northern England. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX/7, München.

Schubert, E. 1974: Studien zur frühen Bronzezeit an der mittleren Donau. 54. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 1973. Berlin, 1–106.

Stein, F. 1979: Katalog der vorgeschichtlichen Hortfunde in Süddeutschland. Bonn.

Tarot, J. 2000: Die bronzezeitlichen Lanzespitzen der Schweiz. Bonn.

Tihelka, K. 1965: Hort- und Einzelfunde der ūněticer Kultur und des Větěrov Typus in Mähren. Fontes Archaeolo-giae Moravicae IV, Brno.

Točík, A. 1981: Nitriansky Hrádok-Zámeček. Bronzezeitliche befestigte Ansiedlung der Madarovce Kultur. Nitra.


Vandkilde, H. 2010/11: Cultural Perspectives on the Beginnings of the Nordic Bronze Age. Offa. Berichte und Mit-teilungen zur Urgeschichte, Frühgeschichte und Mittelalterarchäologie 67/68, 51–78.

Wanzek, B. 1989: Die Gußmodel fur Tüllenbeile im südöstlichen Europa. Bonn.

Žeravica, Z. 1993: Äxte und Beile aus Dalmatien und anderen Teilen Kroatiens, Montenegro, Bosnien und Herzegow-ina. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX/18, Stuttgart.

Григорьев, С.А. 2016: Проблема хронологии и происхождения алакульской культуры в свете новых раскопок в Южном Зауралье. Вестник археологии, антропологии и этнографии 3(34), 44–53.

Григорьев, С.А. 2018: Проблема хронологии синташтинской культуры. In: Д.Г. Зданович (ред.): Степная Евразия в эпоху бронзы: культуры, идеи, технологии. Челябинск 2018, 37–61.

Григорьев, С.А. – Петрова, Л.Ю. – Плешанов, М.Л. – Гущина, Е.В., Васина, Ю.В. 2018: Поселение Мочище и андроновская проблема. Челябинск.

Епимахов, A.B., 2002. Южное Зауралье в эпоху средней бронзы. Челябинск.

Лыганов, А.В. 2018: Андроноидные традиции в культурах позднего бронзового века лесостепного Поволжья. In: А.А. Выборнов – К.М. Андреев – Ю.И. Колев – А.Ф. Кочкина – П.Ф. Кузнецов – В.Н. Мышкин – Д.А. Сташенков – М.А. Турецкий (ред.): XXI Уральское археологическое совещание, посвященное 85-летию со дня рождения Г.И. Матвеевой и 70-летию со дня рождения И.Б. Васильева. Материалы Всероссийской научной конференции с международным участием. Самара, 128–130.

Матющенко В.И. – Синицина Г.В. 1988: Могильник у деревни Ростовка вблизи Омска. Томск.

Молодин В.И. – Епимахов А.В. – Марченко Ж.В., 2014: Радиоуглеродная хронология культур эпохи бронзы Урала и юга Западной Сибири: принципы и подходы, достижения и проблемы. Вестник Новосибирского университета 13 (3), 136–167.

Черных, Е.Н. 1976: Древняя металлообработка на юго-западе СССР. Москва.

Черных, Е.Н. – Кузьминых, S.B. 1989: Древняя металлургия Северной Евразии (сейминско-турбинский феномен). Москва.

Zhrnutie

V prvej polovici 2. tisícročia pred Kr. v Európe a v severných regiónoch Eurázie pozorujeme fenomén v podobe synchrónneho rozšírenia bronzových arterfaktov s vysokým obsahom cínu a liatych nástrojov s tuľajkou.

Preto predpokladáme, že ich rozšírenie navzájom spolu súviselo. V Euroázii bol tento proces spôsobený vplyvom šírenia bronzových výrobkov kultúrneho fenoménu Sejma-Turbino, ktoré boli distribuované z Altaja do východnej Európy. Najzápadnejší depot, v ktorom sa našli artefakty v podobe hrotov kopijí, pochádza z Borodina. Aj v Európe sa v rovnakom období objavujú hroty kopijí, ktoré majú prototypy v Sejma-Turbino a nie sú datované skôr ako do Reineckeho fázy A2b. Podľa názoru niektorých bádateľov prototypmi hrotov kopijí z európskych nálezísk však boli hroty kopijí s rebrovanou tuľajkou z Dyje a Děteníc. Avšak analýza predmetných artefaktov s tuľajkou naznačuje, že by nemali byť datované skôr ako do fázy A2b a boli by tak súčasné s hrotmi kopijí z depotov Langquaid a Bühl. Z toho vyplýva, že zavedenie tejto technológie v Európe bolo podmienené východnými impulzami súvisiacimi s tech-nológiou kultúrneho fenoménu Sejma-Turbino až vo fáze A2b. Aj napriek tomuto konštatovaniu za prototypy hro-


tov kopijí z európskych nálezísk by nemali byť považované klasické typy Sejma-Turbino, ale mali by sme ich hľadať medzi “eurázijskými” typmi, ktoré reflektujú interakcie medzi tradíciou kultúrneho fenoménu Sejma-Turbino s výrobnými tradíciami uralských a západosibírskych kultúr v priestore stepí a lesostepí (Sintašta, Petrovka, Alakul).

Rovnako zaujímavé je, že v tomto období sa v strednej Európe objavujú aj iné artefakty a javy, ktoré nachádzame na lokalitách tejto skupiny, ale ktoré absentujú na sejma-turbinských pohrebiskách (náramky a prstene so špirálovými koncami, pohreboy pod mohylami a keramika s geometrickými motívmi).

Preto je pravdepodobné, že by sme mali skôr uvažovať o migrácii, ako o rozšírení technológie. Výsledkom tejto migrácie však nebola kompletná výmena populácie, ako to indikujú pretrvávajúce lokálne pohrebné rituály v tejto oblasti. Tradícia výroby hrotov kopijí s tuľajkou sa v zápätí začala šíriť zo strednej Európy na sever a severozápad až do Škandinávie a Británie, ale v tejto fáze neprenikla do južnej Európy (Španielsko, Taliansko a Grécko). Je tiež par-adoxné, že spolu s hrotmi kopijí s tuľajkou neprenikli do Európy aj sekerky s tuľajkou - druhý dôležitý prvok nálezových celkov kultúrneho fenoménu Sejma-Turbino. Tieto sa v európskom priestore rozšírili predovšetkým v neskorej dobe bronzovej, čo zjavne súviselo s opakovanými impulzami z regiónov povodia Volgy a Kamy. Tento proces nám umožňuje spoľahlivo prepojiť chronologické systémy Euroázie a strednej Európy. Fáza A2b korešpon-duje s neskorou fázou kultúry Sintašta v južnej časti zauralskej oblasti Ruska, s väčšinou pamiatok kultúrneho fenoménu Sejma-Turbino, s abaševskou kultúrou na západnom Urale a v Povolží (okrem jej včasnej fázy), čiastočne s pamiatkami kultúry Petrovka v Kazachstane, s včasnými pamiatkami alakulskej kultúry v lesostepiach zauralskej oblasti Ruska a sčasti s pamiatkami potapovského typu v Povolží. Do fázy A2c môžeme zaradiť nálezy s ornamen-tikou horizontu Hajdúsámson-Apa: depot z Borodina, nálezy neskorej fázy abaševskej kultúry z povodia Donu, nálezy z včasnej fázy zrubovej kultúry pokrovského typu a alakulskej kultúry. Z nálezov kultúry Sintašta do tohto obdobia môžeme zaradiť iba dve mohyly na pohrebisku Kamennyj Ambar 5. Pravdepodobne sem patrili aj iné mo-hyly, o čom ale nemáme spoľahlivé doklady

Spúšťačom tohto procesu je príchod skupín z lesostepnej fedorovskej kultúry z východu. To zapríčinilo migráciu skupín obyvateľstva včasnej fázy alakulskej kultúry a kultúry Petrovka do oblasti stepí zauralskej časti Ruska (do oblasti osídlenej kultúrou Sintašta) a časť zmiešaných skupín sa presunula ďalej na západ. Z toho dôvodu môžeme v strednej Európe sledovať nárast zmiešaných kultúrnych prejavov. Ako sa tento process šíril západnejšie, zahŕňal už aj lokálne stredoeurópske prvky, ktoré sú jasne viditeľné v materiálnej náplni wessexskej kultúry (prechodná fáza medzi Wessex I a Wessex II) v Británii.

Documents

EASTERN INFLUENCES AND THE TRANSITION TO NEW TYPES …