167-186

8/10/2019 167-186

1/20

8/10/2019 167-186

2/20

8/10/2019 167-186

3/20

8/10/2019 167-186

4/20

Sergey V. Makhortykh170

of their mediation, the Olbia goods got to the Sarma-tians (1996). Penetration of antique im-

ports into the forest-steppe has also been connectedwith trade activity of Scythians.

Of considerable interest is Strabons reference(XI, V, 8) about the Sarmatian tribe (Aorsi), whoconducted a caravan trade with Indian and Babylongoods, receiving them through an exchange with theArmenians and the Medians. Written sources inform,that the Avars were also thoroughly engaged in trade.From the beginning of the Avarian period in CentralEurope they seized river crossings and crossroadsof trade routes (1986, 330). Similar exam-

ples of nomadic trade activity could be mentioned.At the same time, the failure of satisfying the needfor exchange of the nomadic peoples frequently re-

sulted in conflicts. So, the Mongols often were atwar with China, and demanded permission to tradefor nomads as the Peking government pursued a pol-icy of the trade prohibitions in 15th 16thcenturies,

providing a severe punishment for its infringement(1958).

The spreading of imitations of Cimmerian ar-tifacts in Central Europe was determined by theiradoption by the local Central European craftsmen.The separate elements of nomadic traditions that re-sulted in appearance of the syncretic artifacts. Thisborrowing occurred as a result of direct contacts withnomads or through acquaintances, with their findsdistributed by means of trade or prestige exchange.The familiarity of the population of Central Europewith nomadic advanced weapons and horse gearcaused the appearance of their own products to de-velop under the influence of Cimmerian traditions.Some of the most important and informative catego-ries of these finds will be considered below.

3.1. Daggers and swords

Central Europe belongs to the second region (afterthe northern Caucasus) of the greatest abundance of

the Pre-Scythian swords and daggers with a cross-shaped hilt. The main territory of their distribution- western Hungary and adjacent areas of Matrasmountains and the East Alpine fringe as well as Si-lesia and East Germany. What almost all the CentralEuropean finds (except for two completely bronzedaggers from Gamw and Klein Neudorf) have incommon is that they were made of the combinationtwo metals, the iron blades and the bronze hilts.

The origin of the bimetallic daggers is connect-ed with the Pontic region where they and metal scab-bard endings are already known in the monuments

of the Belozerka Culture in 12th

10th

centuries BC(Kalanchak, Kchkovatoe, Stepnoe, etc.) (

2003, 42). Probably, due to contacts with steppetribes and migrations of the separate nomadic groupsto the North Caucasus, there bimetallic swords anddaggers of the Cimmerian type received a wide

distribution and further development.The Pre-Scythian daggers with a cross-shaped

hilt from Central Europe could be divided intoseveral types. The first type is represented by thedaggers with knoblike or flat horizontal pommel, aopenwork hilt decorated by a single row of open ringsand a guard of right-angled or sub-triangular con-tours: Gamw (Poland), tramberk (Czech), Mtra(Hungary) (Pftzenreiter 1936, ryc. 1-2 tab. VI,1-2;Gallus/Horvth 1939, fig. 5; Podborsk 1970, tab.35,5-11.76.6) (pl. 3,5.11).

Morphologically the previously mentioned ex-

amples are similar to a series of 10 daggers from theNorth Caucasus: Klin-Yar, Psekups, Kislovodsk, etc.( et al. 1980, fig. 1,20; 3,6; 1985, tab. 15,3). The fact that the majority of simi-lar daggers have been found in the North Caucasianarea, allow us to assume their origin in the Ciscau-casian-Cimmerian environment, from where some ofthem were distributed to other territories, includingCentral Europe.

The second type of Cimmerian daggers is rep-resented, in the Trans-Danube area, by a single exam-

ple. It was found in the kurgan burial near the Pcs inHungary (Trk 1950, tab. 3-4; Marz 1978). Thedagger has a flat handle, which is decorated by adouble row of open rings (pl. 3,2). Such an ornamentis usually considered as later derivative from daggerswith a single row of decoration. However, a bronzedagger with a similar decorated hilt was found inthe grave 15 from the cemetery 1 of Kislovodsk(et al. 1980, fig. 2,12), which is datedto the 9th 8thcenturies BC (1992, 26).This fact is evidence that some daggers of the secondand the first types existed simultaneously. It is alsointeresting to note a similarity in the decoration ofguards with the isosceles triangles pattern on daggers

from Pcs-Jakabhegy (with a doublerow hilt) andtramberk (with a single-row hilt), that probably, in-dicates their chronological similarity.

Concluding consideration this group of dag-gers, it is necessary to mention the bronze fittings forsheaths decorated by similar a double-row pattern.Such finds are known from a number of sites on ter-ritory of Hungary: Biharugra, Kakasd as well as inthe Hungarian National Museum (pl. 3,7-9). Besides those previously discussed, there isalso other group of the bimetallic weaponry in Cen-tral Europe. They are represented by the daggers

and short swords of the third type with cap-formedpommel, undecorated hilts of oval or rectangular sec-

8/10/2019 167-186

5/20

On the Question of Cimmerian Imports and Imitations in Central Europe 171

tion and the straight advanced guard (variant Golov-jatino after V. Podborsk or Leibnitz after J. Cho-chorowski). They have no local roots in Central Eu-rope and their appearance is connected with the Cim-

merian influence: Leibnitz (Austria), Klein Neudorf(Germany), Szny (Hungary), Pnade (Romania)(Podkowinska 1932-1933, fig. 2; Marton 1934, tab.38,5; Podborsk 1970, fig. 26,1; Vulpe 1990, pl.1,1) (pl. 3,1.3.4.6). From Austria (Stillfried cem-etery) is known a find of the bronze hilt of a daggerwhich, probably, belongs to this type (Strohschned-er/Vahlkampf, 1980, tab. 55,1-4) (pl. 3,10).

Though the previously considered daggers be-long to various types, together they form a compactgroup, probably, relating to fairly narrow period oftime (9th- 8thcenturies BC).

Not all of the Cimmerian daggers from theCarpathian-Danubian region are imported from theeast. Some of them are imitations. The handle of adagger from tramberk, was made of local metalwhich corresponds in the details with certain bronzeobjects in the Chernotin hoard (Podborsk 1967,220). Furthermore, other Central European findshave morphological features that are not peculiar tothe East European items. These are a very narrowblade or a round-shaped pommel on the daggers asfrom the Klein Neudorf and Pnade. A short swordfrom Leibnitz which has considerable widening of itsblade in the lower part, characteristic of Late BronzeAge swords in Central Europe, but practically un-known among the East European bimetallic weap-onry should also be mentioned.

Thus, in the Pre-Scythian time, there existedthe primary centers of manufacturing of daggers andswords with cross-shaped hilts concentrated in east-ern Europe, and secondary centers among which wasthe Carpatho-Danubian area. As this takes place, thesecondary centers could themselves made local pro-duction spreading at the considerable distances.

3.2. Bits

3.2.1. Bits with single end-rings

During the Pre-Scythian epoch, there is a wide dis-tribution in the Carpatho-Danubian area of bronzebits with the ends in the form of circular rings. Theseare known from the following finds of these elementsof horse gear in Central Europe: Austria (Seeboden,Stillfried), Croatia (Batina, Legrad), Czech (Plten-ice, Pedmice, Zbo), Germany (Steinkirchen),Hungary (Biharugra, Dinnys, Dunakmld, Pcs-Jakabhegy, Szanda, Szeged, Fgd), Italy (Este),

Slovakia (Santovka), Romania (Cipu, Veti). In ad-

dition, no less than three examples without specify-ing the place of origin are kept in different Hungar-ian museums (Gallus, Horvth 1939, taf. 1,9; 9,13;12,6; 10,18.19; 18,6; 20,13; Neviznsky 1985;

Kaus 1984, taf. 9,j; Kaus 1988/89, taf. 2,6.7; Cho-chorowski 1993, ryc. 1; 2; Metzner-Nebelsick 1994,fig. 17a.5.6). All these bits consist of two parts con-nected by rings on their inside ends. The form oftheir outside loops varies from a precise ring up tooval or drop outlines, and the bars are frequently cov-ered with incised line markings. Almost half of thelisted finds have extra elements in the form of thebuttons at the end for connection with a bridle rein(pl. 4,1.6-9.11).

Bits of such form had a wide territorial distri-bution in the 9th 7th centuries BC. They are most

numerous in the south of East Europe and in CentralEurope. There are single examples found in Tran-scaucasia, Kazakhstan and Central Asia (1994, 69ff.). In the eastern Europe and Caucasusbronze bits with single end-rings are mainly dated tothe 9th- first half of 8thcenturies BC. In 7thcenturyBC they were replaced by the iron bits of the sametype. In the Hallstatt Culture area the majority ofthe bronze bits with the ends in the form of circularrings are dated to the 8th - 7th centuries BC (Kos-sack 1954, 167 fig. 18,B1-2; 20,B1, C2; Pare 1991,9 ff. fig. 9; Chochorowski 1993, 42 f., 54 fig. 1,1-3). It must be stressed that these bits consist of twomovable jointed parts whereas Central Europe wasfor a long time dominated by a one-compound typeof a bit (Balkwill 1973). I have to agree with the ma-

jority of researchers who connect their origin with anarea of eastern Europe.

3.2.2. Bits with the ends in the form of a reversestirrup (D-shape)

Of particular interest are the bronze bits with outsideends in the form of a stirrup. The basic territory oftheir distribution is the East Alpine area and Pan-

nonia, though separate finds are also known in Tran-sylvania and the neighbouring areas of Hungary. At

present there is evidence about the following finds:Austria (Alland, Haslau-Regelsbrunn, Pamhagen,Stillfried); Germany (Steinkirchen), Croatia (Ba-tina, Dalj), Romania (Cipu), Hungary (Biharugra)(pl. 5,6-12). In addition no less than four exampleswithout specifying the place of origin are kept in theHungarian National Museum (Frey 1905, fig. A,7;Gallus/Horvth 1939, pl. 11,5; 18,7; 46,4; 47,4;Mller-Karpe 1959, pl. 143A,13-14; Foltiny 1961,

pl. 1; Vinski-Gasparini 1973, pl. 119,13; Kaus 1984,

pl. 9,m; Kaus 1988/89, pl. 2,5; Metzner-Nebelsick1994, 398).

8/10/2019 167-186

6/20

8/10/2019 167-186

7/20


and Central Europe. Among them can be distin-guished several types which I have examined on dif-ferent occasion (2002; 2003).

The cheek-pieces of the Kamyshevakha type

were found in the most ancient East European buri-als of the Pre-Scythian period dated to the 9 thcenturyBC. In Austria, a find of the Kamyshevakha cheek-

piece, the nearest in time to the oldest East Europeanobjects, is known from the Haslau-Regelsbrunn hoard(Mller-Karpe 1959). This type of cheek-piece had

undergone some morphological changes that contin-ued to occur in Central Europe during the 8thcenturyBC (Chochorowski 1993; Metzner-Nebelsick 1994).

The Kamyshevakha type of cheek-piece is rep-resented in Central Europe by a considerable amountof finds (more than 30 examples). The majority of

such objects are found in Austria (Haslau-Regelsb-runn, Hohe Wand, Frg, Parndorf, Stillfried, Stock-ern) (Mller-Karpe 1959, pl. 143A,15-16; Kaus1984, pl. 9,i.p; Adler 1985/86, fig. 188.189; Terzan1990, fig. 50,4.5; Lochner 1991, pl. 94,1), Hungary(Dinnys, Tolna, Fzesabony, Hungary (Gallus,Horvth 1939, pl. 1,1; 9,10; 40,1; 45,4), Germany(Urach-Runder Berg, Steinkirchen) (Holste 1940, 9fig. 2,10-16) and Serbia (daevci, Rudovci, Mesic(Vasi 1987, pl. 54,6.7; Metzner-Nebelsick 1994,443). Similar in forms, but in single finds are knownin Bulgaria (Trojan), Romania (Cipu), Czech(Ttno), Kroatia (Batina) and Slovakia (Okov)(Eisner 1933, pl. 40,5; Gallus, Horvth 1939, pl.41,2; Kytlicov 1991, pl. 55,6.7). It should be alsonoted that three or four cheek-pieces probably foundin Hungary (Hallus, Horvth 1939, pl. 1,8; 41,3;Kossack 1954, 135, fig. 11; Foltiny 1961, pl. 71,2)(pl. 8,9-20).

The most numerous (more than 20 examples)and morphologically close to the cheek-pieces ofthe Kamyshevakha type is the Dinnys variant afterJ.Chochorowski or type VI after C. Metzner-Nebel-sick (Chochorowski 1993, 59; Metzner-Nebelsick1994, 393). They are interpreted as the oldest and

dated to the period Ha B2.As a later version of the Kamyshevakha type of

cheek-piece should be considered in the finds fromBatina (Croatia) and Hohe Wand (Austria).These arecharacterized by the squared design of their open-ings which is typical for the cheek-pieces of theHa C period.

The cheek-pieces of Ttno type, characterizedby the biplane position of central and two farthest tothe ends tubular openings (Adaevci, Steinkirchen,Ttno) belong to the independent modification ofthe Kamyshevakha type of cheek-piece. Such objects

are considered as the younger ones and dated to HaB3 (Chochorowski 1993, 67 fig. 3). It is not im-

probable that part of the Kamyshevakha cheek-piecesfrom Central Europe are imports, however, sometheir versions (the cheek-pieces with decorated caps,the Ttno type, etc.) must be interpreted as local

imitations.

3.3.4. Combined tubular-looped cheek-pieces

Among these is the Szanda type of cheek-piece (afterJ. Chochorowski and type X after C. Metzner-Nebel-sick) which is represented by bronze barlike cheek-

pieces with a bent end (pl. 7,11-14). Their endings aredecorated with semicircular or flat cups. Strap holesfacing in different directions were made in the formof two round loops and one tubular opening. Suchcheek pieces are distributed on the Great Hungarian

Plain and the southern foothills of Carpathians. Theyhave been found in hoards (Biharugra, Szanda) andburials (Gura-Padinii, Dalj) (Gallus, Horvth 1939,

pl. 10,14-15; 12,3; 37,4-5) Archaeologists attributethis type of cheek-piece to a syncretic form devel-oped in Central Europe as a result of meeting thelocal three tubular cheek-pieces with eastern threeloop ones ( 1953; Chochorowski 1993, 71;Metzner-Nebelsick 1994, 395).

3.4. Cylindrical pendants

Interesting adornments represented by the cylindri-cal-blade pendants were found in two Pre-Scythi-ans burials in Hungary: Czeged-thalom and Sirok(Reizner 1904; Patek 1989-1990) (pl. 9,8-10). Thenearest parallels to them are known in steppe Cim-merian burials from the Lower Don (Balabinskiy1, kurgan 10, grave 13; Novonikolaevka , kurgan2, grave 7) and the Volga region (Mirnoe, kurganA1), as well as from the so-called Proto-Maeoticmonuments in Trans-Kuban area, some of themhave developed under influence of steppe traditionsof the North Black Sea area (Nikolaevskoe, Psh-ish I, Psekups) ( 1961; 1994;1995; /1996) (pl. 9,1-5). A single bronze pendant of this type in the Kobanculture is known from the Verkhniy Akbash cem-etery (Kabardino-Balkariya)(pl. 9,6).V. Kozenkova has attributed these pendants to theMichalkov type ( 1990), whereas C.Metzner-Nebelsick attributed them to the arengradtype (Metzner-Nebelsick 1996). However, in myopinion, the unification of the above mentionedfinds within the frame of these types (Michalkovor arengrad) is not correct. Ornaments from theMichalkov hoard from the Ternopol Oblast, relate to

the beads or fittings (Hadaczek 1904) (pl. 9,7). Theyare made in the form of solid cylinders with bent

8/10/2019 167-186

8/20


and flattened ends. They differed from the discussedcylindrical-blade pendants which were usually usedas hair ornaments or ear-rings (Metzner-Nebelsick,Chochorowski). It is necessary to note, that these

pendants can be divided into two groups.The first group includes practically all the

East European objects and Hungarian pendants fromSzeged-thalom and Sirok (pl. 9,1-10). They areconstructed of two flat cylinders with one bent edge.From the top both cylinders are connected with eachother by a loop. The second group is represented bythe pendants from the arengrad hoard and collectivetomb 2 on the Gomolava settlement (pl. 9,11-17).They consist of one large cylinder with two bent edg-es. Furthermore, the edges of cylinder are connectedhorizontally by a lug or a wire, and their external

surface is decorated in distinctive technique. Theseexamples are made from bronze (Vinski-Gasparini1973, tab. 131,2-8). Virtually all the pendants of thefirst group from the eastern Europe are dated to 9th 8thcenturies BC (2003, 53). A similar

pendant from Hungary (Szeged - thalom), proba-bly, marks a route of penetration of such adornmentsin the west and further to the south, in the south-east Pannonia and to northern Balkans. The pen-dants of the second type revealed there (Gomolava,arengrad) differ by their originality and, probably,represent later derivatives. It is also evidenced fromtheir dating within the 8thcentury BC (Tasi1972,30 ff.; Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 163 f., 210, 220;Metzner-Nebelsick 1994, 410, 420).

Conclusion

Cimmerian imports and imitations, spreading intoCentral Europe in the Pre-Scythian epoch were a re-sult of variety of factors connected with an appearanceof nomads on the historical arena and their impacton settled agricultural communities. Trade contactsand prestige goods exchange, eastern invasion and

the adoption of separate elements of Cimmerian Cul-ture resulting in appearance of the syncretic artifactsmanufactured by the local craftsmen are reflectedin a number of models of cultural contact between

the Cimmerians and Central European population(2003). They show the several stages ina process of culture transfer and perception of itselements, distinguished by R. Linton (Linton 1940).Owing to exchange, trade, migration, and militarycollisions, there was the initial adaptation to the newkinds of horse equipment and Cimmerian weaponryamong the local inhabitants of Central Europe (thefirst stage). Initial borrowing, besides the technical

preferences, occurred, probably, in expectation ofreceiving advantages from the possession of new ar-tifacts. Imports themselves often had high prestigious

value, and the growth of prestige was accompaniedby advantages in the field of the social status and po-litical influence. The elite adopted new cultural ele-ments, hoping to strengthen their social position andfor the improvement of warfare. As a result nomadicweapons and horse gear were distributed in CentralEuropean communities, where under the Cimmerianinfluence there appeared a new social layer repre-sented by the mounted warriors (the second stage).In turn, its formation caused the distribution of newritual and social forms of behaviour that was possibleonly as a result of direct contacts and long mutualrelations with Cimmerians, in contrast to the objectsof material culture which spread faster and did notrequire direct contact (Linton, 1940). In due course,the borrowed artifacts of Cimmerian origin weremodified by the local Central European populationswho developed their own versions of bits, cheek-

pieces and daggers and definitively integrated theminto their cultural system (the third stage). Thus theexamination of the relations between the two areashas exceeded the limits of a purely archaeological

problem and also brought forward the necessity offinding asolution of important questions connectedwith the history of society and its social sphere.

8/10/2019 167-186

9/20


References

Adler 1985/86H. Adler, Urnenfelderzeit. Burgenland, Parndorf. Fund-

ber. sterreich 24/25, 1985/86, 237.1961. . , ., In: . . (ed.), (1961) 103126.

Balkwill 1973C. J. Balkwill, The earliest horse-bits of western Europe.Proc. Prehist. Society 39, 1973, 425452.

1958 . , , (1958).

et al. 1987. . /. . /. . -(1987).

et al. 1980. . /. . /. . ,- In: . . (ed.) (1980) 184199.

Chochorowski 1993.J. Chochorowski, Ekspansja kimmeryjska na tereny Eu-ropy Srodkowej (Krakow 1993).

1997. . , - . 6, 1997, 364.

/1996. . /. . , . In: . . (ed.), - (1996) 102109.

1999. . , - (1999).

Eisner 1933J. Eisner, Slovensko v pravku (Bratislava 1933).

1953.., VIII-VII ..., 18, 1953, 49110.

Foltiny 1961S. Foltiny, ber die Fundstelle und Bedeutung der an-geblich aus Kiskoszeg stammenden hallstattzeitlichenBronzen des Rmisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum inMainz. Jahrb. RGZM 8, 1961, 175189.

Frey 1905J. Frey, A kiskzegi bronzlelet. Arch. Ertesit XXV, 1905,189191.

Gallus/Horvath 1939S. Gallus/T. Horvth, Un peuple cavalier prscythique enHongrie (Budapest 1939).

Hadaczek 1904K. Hadaczek, Zote skarby Michaikowskie (Krakw1904).

Holste 1940F. Holste Zur Bedeutung und Zeitstellung der sogenanntenthrako-kimmerischen Pferdegeschirrbronzen. WienerPrhist. Zeitschr. 27, 1940, 732.

Httel 1981H.-G. Httel, Bronzezeitliche Trensen in Mittel- und Os-

teuropa. PBF XVI/2 (Mnchen 1981).Kaus 1984M. Kaus, Das Grberfeld der jngeren Urnenfelderzeitvon Stillfried an der March. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen1975-1977. Forsch. Stillfried 6 (Wien 1984).

Kaus 1988/1989M. Kaus, Kimmerischer Pferdeschmuck im Karpatenbeck-en. Das Stillfried Depot aus neuer Sicht. Mitt. Anthr. Ges.Wien 118/119, 1988-1989, 247257.

Kemenczei 1984T. A. Kemenczei, Die Sptbronzezeit Nordostungarns (Bu-dapest 1984).

1990. . , :, , ,3, 1990, 6492.

Kossack 1954G. Kossack, Pferdegeschirr aus Grbern der lteren Hall-stattzeit Bayerns. Jahrb. RGZM 1, 1954, 111178.

Kossack 1998G. Kossack, Horse and wagon during the Early Iron Agein Central Europe -Technical considerations, nature ofevidence and conceptual content. In: B. Hnsel/A. Hard-ing (eds.), Towards translating the past (Rahden 1998)

97106.

Kristiansen 1998K. Kristiansen, Europe before history (Cambridge 1998).

Kytlicov 1991O. Kytlicov, Die Bronzegefe in Bhmen. PBF II/12(Stuttgart 1991).

1985. . , . In: . . (ed.), (1985) 1664.

8/10/2019 167-186

10/20


1991. . , . In:..(ed.), . (1991)76102.

Linton 1940R. Linton, Acculturation in Seven American Indian tribes(New York 1940).

Lochner 1991.M. Lochner, Studien zur Urnenfelderkultur im Waldviertel- Niedersterreich (Wien 1991).

Mrton 1905L. Mrton, Scytha aranylelet gyomai halomsrbl. Arch.Ertesit XXV, 1905, 234240.

Maraz 1978B. Maraz, Zur Frhhallstattzeit in Sd-Pannonien. Janus

Pannonius Muzeum Evkonyve 23, 1978, 145164.Maraz 1996B. Maraz, Pecs-Jakabhegy. Ausgrabungsergebnisse und dieFragen der Frhhallstattkultur in Sdostpannonien. In: E.Jerem/A. Lippert (eds.), Die Osthallstattkultur (Budapest1996) 255265.

Marton 1934L. Marton, Der Verwandtenkreis des Parierstangendolchesvon Klein Neudorf, Kr. Grlitz. Altschlesien 5, 1934,209214.

1992C.., .

1, 1992, 2331.1993. . , . In: . . (ed.), (1993) 4151.

1994. . , (1994).

1996. . , - . .. . 4, 1996, 924.

2002. . , .In: . . /. . (eds.), (-2002) 9092.

2003. . , (2003).

Metzner-Nebelsick 1994C. Metzner-Nebelsick, Die frheisenzeitliche Trensen-entwicklung zwischen Kaukasus und Mitteleuropa. In: P.Schauer (ed.), Archologische Untersuchungen zum ber-gang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit zwischen Nordsee undKaukasus. Regensburger Beitr. Prhist. Arch. 1 (Bonn1994) 383446.

Metzner-Nebelsick 1996C. Metzner-Nebelsick, Die Urnenfelder- und Hallstattzeitin Sdostpannonien. Eine Region im Spannungfeldzwischen Osthallstattkreis, karpatenlndisch-balkanischerEisenzeit und Steppenkultur. In: E. Jerem/A. Lippert(eds.), Die Osthallstattkultur (Budapest 1996) 283314.

Mller-Karpe 1959H. Mller-Karpe, Beitrge zur Chronologie der Urnen-felderzeit nrdlich und sdlich der Alpen (Berlin 1959).

Neviznsky 1985G. Neviznsky, Bronzov depot tzv. trcko-kimmer-skeho horizontu zo Santovky. Arch. Rozhledy 37, 1985,601606.

Pare 1991C. Pare, Swords, wagon-graves, and the beginning of theearly iron age in Central Europe. Kl. Schr. Vorgesch. Sem-inar Marburg (Marburg 1991).

Patek 1974E. Patek, Prskythische Grberfelder in Ostungarn. In: B.Chropovsky (ed.), Symposium zu Problemen der jngerenHallstattzeit in Mitteleuropa (Bratislava 1974) 337362

Patek 1989/1990E. Patek, A Szab Jns Gyz ltal feltrt presktasranyag. Egri Mzeum vknzve 25/26, 1989/1990,61118.

Patek 1993E. Patek, Westungarn in der Hallstattzeit (Weinheim1993).

1981. . , 8-7 . .. . 170, 1981, 7073.

Pftzenreiter 1936

F. Pftzenreiter, Oberschlesische Bronzeschwerter. Altsch-lesien 6, 1936, 7584.

Podborsk 1967V. Podborsk, trambersk dka s kznovm jilcem aotzka rozeni, puvodu a datovntchto dk v Evrop.Arh. Rozhledy XIX, 1967, 194220.

Podborsk 1970V. Podborsk, Mhren in der Sptbronzezeit und an derSchwelle der Eisenzeit (Brno 1970).

8/10/2019 167-186

11/20


Podkowiska 1932/1933Z. Podkowiska, Miecze bronzowe z Wojciechowic wpow. Jdrzejowskim w woj. Kieleckim. Swiatowit XV,1932/1933, 116168.

Reizner 1904J. Reizner, Lebi, thalomi s obbai satsok. Arch. Er-tesit 24, 1904, 7688.

Romsauer 1999P. Romsauer, Zur Frage der Westgrenze der Mezocsat-Gruppe. In: E. Jerem/I. Poroszlai (eds.), Archaeology ofthe Bronze and Iron Age (Budapest 1999) 167176.

1961. . , . 1,1961, 215.

1995. . , -1. In: . . (ed.), (1995) 84107.

Seger 1907H. Seger, Depotfunde aus der Bronze- und Hallstattzeit.Schlesiens Vorzeit Bild u. Schr. IV, 1907, 943.

/1997. . /. . , - , . In: . /. (eds.),

( 1997)151170.

Strohscheider/Vahlkampf 1980M. Strohscheider/G. Vahlkampf, Das spturnenfelderzeitli-che Grberfeld von Stillfried. Verff. sterreich. Arbeits-gem. Ur- u. Frhgesch. XIII/XIV, 1980, 143145.

Tasi1972N. Tasi, An Early Iron Age collective tomb at Gomolava.Arch. Iugoslavica XIII, 1972, 2737.

Teran 1990B. Teran, Stareja elezna doba na Slovenskem tajerskem.Katalogi in monografije 25 (Ljubljana 1990).Trk 1950Gy. Trk, Pecs-Jakabhegyi foldvar es tumulusok. Archa.Ertesit 7, 1950, 49.

/1984. . /. . , -- . In: .. (ed.), -(1984) 3548.

Vasi1987R. Vasic, The chronology of the Early Iron Age in thesocialist republic of Serbia. BAR Suppl. Ser. 31 (Oxford1987).

Vinski-Gasparini 1973K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura polja sa zarama u severvnojHrvatskoj (Zadar 1973).

Vulpe 1990A. Vulpe, Die Kurzschwerter, Dolche und Streitmesser derHallstattzeit in Rumanien. PBF VI/9 (Mnchen 1990).

1986. , VI-XI . In: . /

. (eds.), ( 1986)310346.

1994. . , (1994).

8/10/2019 167-186

12/20


Pl. 1. Cimmerian burial from Slobodzeya (middle Dniester)

8/10/2019 167-186

13/20

8/10/2019 167-186

14/20


Pl. 3. Daggers and short swords of Cimmerian type and bronze fittings for sheathsfrom Central Europe: 1. Szny; 2. Pcs-Jakabhegy; 3. Pnade; 4. Klein Neudorf;

5. Gamw; 6. Leibnitz; 7. Kakasd; 8,9. Biharugra; 10. Stillfried; 11. Mtra; 12,13.Dunakmld

8/10/2019 167-186

15/20

8/10/2019 167-186

16/20

8/10/2019 167-186

17/20


Pl. 6. Three-holed cheek-pieces from eastern and Central Europe: 1-7. Pshish 1; 8,10. Kazazovo

3; 9. Aleksandrovskoe; 11. Nikolaevskoe; 12. Balabinskiy; 13. Gurov; 14. Moschanets; 15.Slobodzeya; 16,17. Chernotin; 18. Karmin III

8/10/2019 167-186

18/20


Pl. 7. Bronze cheek-pieces: three-looped: 1. Gyula; 2. Tereze; 3. Hungary; 4. Koban; 5.

Khanskaya; 6,7. Purkary; 8-10. Fars; tubular-looped: 11. Biharugra; 12. Szanda;13. Dalj; 14. Gura Padinii

8/10/2019 167-186

19/20


Pl. 8. Bronze cheek-pieces of Kamyshevakha type from eastern and Central Europe: 1. Ilin-skaya; 2. Pshish 1; 3-5. Kazazovo 3; 6. Kamyshevakha; 7,8. Serzhen-Yurt; 9. Parndorf;10. Okov; 11. Ismeretlen; 12. Dinnys; 13. Steinkirchen; 14. Tolna; 15. Ttno; 16. Ha-

slau-Regelsbrunn; 17. Stillfried; 18. Frg; 19. Adaevci; 20. Urach-Runder Berg

8/10/2019 167-186

20/20


Pl. 9. Gold and bronze adornments: 1. Nikolaevskoe, grave 5; 2. Pshish 1, grave 3; 3. Mirnoe,kurgan A1; 4. Balabinskiy, kurgan 10, grave 13; 5. Novonikolaevka II, kurgan 2, grave 7;

6. Verkhniy Akbash; 7. Michalkov; 8. Sirok, grave 8; 9,10. Czeged-thalom; 11. Gomolava,grave 2; 12-17. arengrad

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sasa-zivanovic
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

167-186

Documents