UNION INTERNATIONALE DES SCIENCES PRÉHISTORIQUES ET PROTOHISTORIQUES INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR PREHISTORIC AND PROTOHISTORIC SCIENCES PROCEEDINGS OF THE

XV WORLD CONGRESS (LISBON, 4-9 SEPTEMBER 2006) ACTES DU XV CONGRÈS MONDIAL (LISBONNE, 4-9 SEPTEMBRE 2006) Series Editor: Luiz Oosterbeek VOL. 9

Session C35

A New Dawn for the Dark Age? Shifting Paradigms in Mediterranean Iron Age Chronology L'âge obscur se fait-il jour de nouveau? Les paradigmes changeants de la chronologie de l'âge du Fer en Méditerranée
Edited by

Dirk Brandherm and Martin Trachsel

BAR International Series 1871 2008

This title published by Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED England
bar@archaeopress.com www.archaeopress.com

BAR S1871
Proceedings of the XV World Congress of the International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences Actes du XV Congrès Mondial de l’Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques Outgoing President: Vítor Oliveira Jorge Outgoing Secretary General: Jean Bourgeois Congress Secretary General: Luiz Oosterbeek (Series Editor) Incoming President: Pedro Ignacio Shmitz Incoming Secretary General: Luiz Oosterbeek

New Dawn for the Dark Age? Shifting Paradigms in Mediterranean Iron Age Chronology / L'âge obscur se fait-il jour de nouveau? Les paradigmes changeants de la chronologie de l'âge du Fer en Méditerranée, vol.9, Section C35
© UISPP / IUPPS and authors 2008

ISBN 978 1 4073 0351 2
Signed papers are the responsibility of their authors alone. Les texts signés sont de la seule responsabilité de ses auteurs. Contacts : Secretary of U.I.S.P.P. – International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences Instituto Politécnico de Tomar, Av. Dr. Cândido Madureira 13, 2300 TOMAR Email: uispp@ipt.pt www.uispp.ipt.pt

Printed in England by Alden HenDi, Oxfordshire All BAR titles are available from: Hadrian Books Ltd 122 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7BP England
bar@hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

On the one hand. Schlüsselwörter: Spätbronzezeit. The aim of this analysis is to identify the main chronological horizons in Italy within Bronzo Finale (BF) and at the start of the Early Iron Age (Primo Ferro. Elle est basée sur ces données. Auf Basis dieser Daten wird hier ein Vorschlag zur absoluten Chronologie des jüngeren Abschnitts der italischen Spätbronzezeit entwickelt. work continued evaluating the implications of dendrochronological dates from the Swiss lake-shore settlements for the fine chronology of the later Urnfield (PF) IB corresponds to Villanoviano tipico. where a high-quality series of dendrochronological dates has been developed: the lake-shore settlements of Switzerland. le mobilier funéraire et les dépôts du nord-est de l’Italie sont d’une importance cruciale. considerable and welcome progress has been made. new publications of cemeteries confirmed the relative chronology devised by L. the Levant and the Iberian Peninsula are investigated. eastern France and south-west Germany. Pour ce qui est des périodes obscures en méditerranée. Davon ausgehend wird ein Vorschlag zur Korrelation der wesentlichen chronologischen Horizonte des “Dunklen Zeitalters” im Mittelmeerraum zur Diskussion gestellt. Before the discussion of contacts within the Mediterranean. Primo Ferro 77 . Chypre. une chronologie absolue de la partie récente de l’âge du Bronze final en Italie est proposée. Grabfunde und Horte aus Nordostitalien spielen dabei eine entscheidende Rolle. in order to link the Italian chronological sequence with evidence for long-distance contacts across the Mediterranean. Contacts with the Aegean. Cemetery evidence and hoards from north-east Italy are crucial for this purpose. âge du Fer ancien. The chronological scheme used here for Italy is different in some details from those normally used in current Italian research. 3 Sperber 1987. Chr. Schillerstrasse 11. Early Iron Age. et avec la Péninsule Ibérique sont étudiées. Keywords: Late Bronze Age. particularly in Switzerland and in the area northwest of the Alps (so-called Rhin-Suisse-France orientale or RSFO Urnfield group). David-Elbiali on Lausanne-Vidy6. datation par recoupement Abriss: Die Dendrodaten aus den nordwestalpinen Seeufersiedlungen bieten eine zuverlässige Datierungsgrundlage für die Zeit zwischen dem 11. les données dendrochronologiques obtenues dans les habitats lacustres au nord-ouest des Alpes fournissent des données de datation précises. In turn. Mittelmeer. um die italische Chronologie mit Nachweisen mediterraner Fernkontakte zu verknüpfen.ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN Christopher PARE Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz. in die Levante und zur Iberischen Halbinsel wird nachgegangen. Méditerranée. PF) and.. Mediterranean. dendrochronologie. A correlation of the major chronological horizons in the Dark Age Mediterranean is put forward for discussion. there is one region. Pare 1999a. Matter on Regensdorf-Adlikon4. les relations avec l’Égée. e-mail: pare@mail. The article uses this evidence to suggest an absolute chronology for the later part of the Italian Final Bronze Age. 2 Pare 1998. and P. Früheisenzeit. This new work will be summarised very briefly. as far as possible. Verbindungen zur Ägäis. In the terminology used here the last stage of Bronzo Finale (BF 3b) is contemporary with the first stage of Primo Ferro (PF IA): in the second half of the 10th century BC some regions of Italy are classified as terminal Bronze Age (Bronzo Finale/BF 3b) while others are classified as initial Early Iron Age (Primo Ferro/PF IA). J. these north-west Alpine regions are connected by traditions of bronze metalworking with northern. If so. and then through central and southern Italy. central and even southern Italy. Dans le présent article. 5 Brestrich 1998. Central and West Mediterranean. 4 Matter 1992. W. Sperber3: most important are publications by A. cross-dating Résumé: Pour la période comprise entre le 11e et le 9e siècle av. Here I explore the question whether the dendro-dates of the lake-shore settlements can provide absolute dating anchors for the Italian peninsula.de Abstract: The dendrochronological dates from the lake-shore settlements north-west of the Alps provide precise dating evidence for the period from the 11th to the 9th centuries BC. Mots clé: âge du Bronze final. Germany. the Italian sequence can then provide additional evidence for dating contacts between the East. Dendrochronologie. Institut für Vor.-C. mainly concentrating on fibulae and swords. However. 6 Moinat – David-Elbiali 2003. some distance removed from the sea. D-55116 Mainz. une corrélation des horizons chronologiques majeurs est avancée et soumise à la discussion. Moinat and M. Brestrich on Singen5. 1 SWITZERLAND AND THE RSFO Since first writing on the question of late Urnfield and early Hallstatt chronology in Central Europe in the 1990s2. le Levant. dendrochronology. und dem 9 Jahrhundert v. PF IC is a transitional stage to Villanoviano evoluto (PF II). link them with the dendrochronological sequence north-west of the Alps1. À cet effet.und Frühgeschichte. Afin de relier la séquence chronologique italienne avec les témoins de contacts à longue distance à travers la Méditerranée. it is necessary to trace the chronological links from Switzerland across the Alps to the Po valley. Überkreuzdatierung Absolute dates are few and far between in the period from the 11th to the 9th century BC in the Mediterranean. On the other hand. Cyprus. nach Zypern.uni-mainz.

sometime in the late 10th century BC. Considering the fluid development over the period in question (mid 11th–9th century BC). Ha B1b. The aim of this article is instead to address the question whether the tree-ring dates of the north-west Alpine lakeshore settlements can contribute to the wider debate on chronology in the Mediterranean region around the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age. 1060 – 1035/1010 BC 1035/1010 – ca. might have been longer than Ha B2 or Ha B3b. 7 8 it is worth stating clearly the strengths and weaknesses of the information. 910 BC – ca. might have been longer than the early Ha B1 phase with elements of Ha A2 metalwork (Ha B1a in the Swiss terminology). The tree-ring dates still allow room for differences of opinion on these questions.A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY Fig. and Hauterive-Champréveyres. David-Elbiali – Dunning 2005. Ha B2. or a short phase mainly occupying the middle of the century (around 1060–1035 BC)? As for the following phase. which could potentially provide direct dating evidence. Take for example the phase Ha B1a: is this a long phase occupying the middle and the whole of the second half of the 11th century BC. an overview of the main chronological schemes is shown here on Fig. David-Elbiali and C. Moinat and David-Elbiali – has much to commend it. The present state of research has been summarised clearly in recent publications by P. 78 . with a treering date of 778 ± 5 BC is still crucial for dating the start of the Hallstatt period11. the end of the Ha B1b lake-shore settlements seems to correspond with a phase of climatic crisis north-west of the Alps around 963–954 BC10. Chindrieux-Châtillon and Ürschhausen-Horn for distinguishing Ha B3a and B3b. Zug-Sumpf. which provide some basis for more farreaching conclusions. heralding the start of Ha B2. Friedrich 2001. 10 Billamboz 2004/05. Nevertheless. it is important to stress the point that some of these phases were probably longer than others. David-Elbiali and C. Rychner9. As the Swiss dates are of fundamental importance for the arguments in this article. Moinat – David-Elbiali 2003. As the lakeshore settlements do not contain imports from far-distant lands. with important results published in volume 3 of “La Suisse du Paléolithique à l’aube du MoyenAge”7. Moinat. exemplified in a diagram by V. 24.1. M. 960/950 BC ca. 850/830 – 810/780 BC In view of the recent publications by P. a schematic absolute chronology in half-centuries – as proposed by Dunning. Likewise “classic Ha B3”. Hauterive-Champréveyres. is unclear. 910 BC ca. Hagnau-Burg. but the precise end of Ha B2. or Ha B1b in the Swiss terminology. Rychner 1998. Moinat. 960/950 – ca. 9 Rychner 1995. 483 fig. Overview of the main chronological schemes for the later Urnfield period (Ha B) in the area north-west of the Alps period (Ha B). 11 Bolliger-Schreyer – Seifert 1998. Mörigen. Zürich-Großer Hafner and Cortaillod-Est for the definition of the phases Ha B1a and B1b. Auvernier-Nord. Ha B3a and Ha B3b. 5. 103 fig. Dunning8. For the area northwest of the Alps it is possible to identify five phases within the younger and late Urnfield period: Ha B1a. 850/830 BC ca. We may simply mention some of the sites which play a crucial role: Greifensee-Böschen.1. or Swiss Ha B3a. 6 a. For the sake of clarity the phases and their dates are summarised: Ha B1a: Ha B1b: Ha B2: Ha B3a: Ha B3b: ca. it is necessary to look in detail at the relationship with the cultural groups directly to the south of the Alps. Augsburg). 5. M. Tumulus 8 from Wehringen “Hexenbergle” (Kr. Le Landeron for the start of Ha B2. “Classic Ha B1”. Dunning there is no need to discuss the foundations of this chronology in any detail.

and Golasecca IA1 with Ha B312. see De Marinis 2005. Basing their conclusions particularly on grave finds from Morano sul Po (Prov. and typical for Ha B3a north of the Alps. 5. Gambari. my view of the present state De Marinis – Gambari 2005. Beilage I).2. L. see examples in the hoard from Lešany. 34 (“Strichstil”). Narde grave 227 corresponding to Ha B1a. 5. 218 pl. 16 Rychner-Faraggi 1993. De Marinis and F. M. 5. 33. In an earlier publication. today it is clear that the engraved pins actually indicate a link between Ha B3a and Bologna IA. 152–154. or the mid/late 11th century BC18. A1. 58 no. I suggested that this type of pin demonstrates the contemporaneity of Ha B3 and Bologna IA–B13. Carancini and R. Zürich-Großer Hafner layer 3. Fontanella grave 7 and Frattesina. however. see Mäder 2001. see De Marinis – Gambari 2005. 79 ě Ř . Both graves contain bronze flangehilted knives of Fontanella type. – A local Bolognese variant of this pin type seems to have been developed in Bologna IB. 6.5. 5. particularly common in graves from Bologna. 13 Following the work of A. 23. Mäder. A3–8). but also from Fontanella Grazioli (Prov.2). 18 The most important context is from Hauterive-Champréveyres. 17. 5. See also David-Elbiali – Dunning 2005. Vanzetti14. p. 5. but also with regions further south in Italy and beyond. Protogolasecca III/Ca’Morta-Malpensa with Ha B1b. 12 of research can be summarised in tabular form without further discussion (Fig. 40–43 pl. Grave finds particularly from Frattesina (Fratta Polesine. Peroni and A. 31. 30. associated in Fontanella grave 7 with a pin of type Ala. 311 fig. – For the pin with three globules. Narde grave 227 deserve mention first (Fig. 22 note 34) correctly noted some mistakes in my 1998 article: in particular. 27.-M. 32. 1. Rovigo). 562. 15 For the same opinion. Rychner-Faraggi’s Form 216.C. C. okr. At the same conference there was also considerable debate on the chronological relevance of the pins with small vase-shaped heads and engraved shaft. These parallels provide a reliable date for Fontanella grave 7 and Frattesina. 14 Peroni – Vanzetti 2005. Mantova) and Gazzo Veronese (Prov. 7 (types 17 and 23). types 46 and 47 were mistakenly swopped on the seriation table (Pare 1998. This combination of types is also found north-west of the Alps: the knife blades correspond to A. 301 fig. 561. Synchronisation between chronological phases for the Urnfield period in the area north-west of the Alps and in northern Italy BETWEEN THE ALPS AND THE APENNINES At the Rome conference in 2003 a detailed treatment of late Protogolasecca and early Golasecca chronology in north-west Italy was presented by R. – For a pin of the Bolognese variant from Como-Ca’Morta grave 289. pl. 7–9. I am convinced that these pins provide a reliable foundation – based on tree-ring dates – for dating Bologna IA to the first half of the 9th century BC15. are of considerable importance. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN Fig. Despite the criticism of over-simplification by R. Owing to the identical pins of type Fontanella. Verona). 2. Alessandria) and Como-Ca’Morta. Peroni have recently introduced a new knife type “Tragno/ Narde”. 51 fig. – De Marinis (p. HauteriveChampréveyres zone A–B/layer 3 and Hagnau-Burg17. 7. as they demonstrate links not only with the area north of the Alps. – G. the Narde grave 227 knife is clearly different to Tragno and all the other late Matrei knives. Instead it is more important to concentrate on finds of Bronzo Finale in the Veneto. Two finds characteristic for north Italian BF 2.5. 17 David-Elbiali – Dunning 2005. the authors were able to demonstrate contacts linking Protogolasecca II/Ascona II with Ha B1a. 51. As these questions were reviewed in detail by scholars at the recent Rome conference. variant A and in Frattesina grave 227 with a pin with three globules. 1. with tree-ring dates ranging between 1054 and 1037 BC: see David-Elbiali – Dunning 2005. Moravia: íhovský 1979. 179 pl. 1. Prov. the latter grave with a razor of type Fontanella should be assigned the same date (Fig. and similar pins are found in GreifenseeBöschen. see Carancini – Peroni 1999. Prost jov. variant A in Fontanella graves 7 and 10. 172 f. see Pare 1998.

B. 5. Synchronisation between chronological schemes for the Late Bronze Age of Central Europe and different parts of the Mediterranean 2). 196. 5. in some cases the wire bow is formed by a series of figures-of-eight (Fig. B2. A3. 5. 192 fig. Macerata)19 or the grave from Castellace (Prov. All four contexts have fibulae with triangular outline (“knee-fibulae”).6. Simple semi80 . which is important in view of similar knives in contexts such as the hoard from Monte Primo (Prov. 48. 111. I.3. Pacciarelli 2001. F3). Most important are Narde grave 39. Synchronisation between regional chronologies for the BF and PF from different parts of Italy and their relationship to the chronological phases in Central Europe Fig. F). E. A. 19 20 Peroni 1963. with or without a loop at the knee. Zanotto graves 41/1980 and III/1978 and Frattesina hoard I (Fig. There are further finds from Frattesina which provide additional information on the later part of Bronzo Finale. 5.7. These associations provide a date for knives of Fontanella type. Reggio Calabria)20.4.6. 1.A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY Fig.

2 Fontanella. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN Fig. A Graves with pins and knives of BF 2 in northern Italy: 1.5. 5–8 Fontanella.C. grave 7. grave 10. B Fibulae from the Limone hoard. 4 Frattesina. Narde grave 227. typical for BF 3a 81 . 5. 3.

a date corresponding to Ha B1a might be suggested for these contexts. and those in the Early Iron Age (for example Bologna IA) often have a D-shaped pin29. C. F1).6. 181–185. 25 Angarano grave 42. Narde grave 39 also has a fragment of an arched fibula with three swellings (Fig. 5). In the preceding paragraphs I argued for a division of Bronzo Finale into four phases. 23 Morico 1984. 7). the same is true for the one-piece serpentine fibulae: Fig.6. 2. G) and are associated with arched fibulae with thickened bow. Finally we should mention one further important context from Frattesina: Zanotto grave 31/1980 has a more developed serpentine fibula with curved pin and sheet bronze foot.A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY circular arched fibulae with twisted bow are also represented. 196. 2001. in the mid/late 11th century BC (BF 2) – the date also suggested for the hoard of Poggio Berni (Prov. a fibula of this kind has been dated by A. – Ponte Nuovo di Gazzo Veronese: De Marinis 1999. and the pins and knife from hoards I and IV are similar to examples already discussed (Fig. 6. the fibulae in BF 3b have a more gently curving pin and clearly define a separate chronological phase (see for example Fig. G. E). D. For typological reasons.6. however. 5. Nijboer to around 1000 BC by 14C and wigglematching26. G. see De Marinis 1999. a type of decoration dated by N. 1. which starts in Ha B1b)22. 5. Rychner-Faraggi 1993. 6. provides an absolute date for the latter phase31. 5. the serpentine fibulae with concave curved back and kneeloop (Fig. 5. Fig. Negroni Catacchio to the later part of BF 327 (Fig. Le Ripaie: Zanini 1997. 5. compare Bismantova. However. – For typical finds of BF 3b see. for which the difference between BF 2 (palette a cannone and pani a piccone are See Bietti Sestieri et al. corresponding to the following phases north of the Alps.6. for example. E7). G) should be assigned a slightly later date than the triangular fibulae with straight shanks (Fig. 5. B5–8) are typical for Bronzo Finale 3a. 8 (Lavagnone). 5. B) start in BF 2. associated with an urn with complex engraved decoration including the “n-ramificata” motif. Fig. 5. see Pacciarelli 2001. 28 27 82 . 18. G. dated by Nijboer to around 1000 BC.7. compare Fig. 5. B1. 5. F).6. which indicates a chronological link between BF 3b south of the Alps with Ha B2 in the north30. 31 See note 26.2. The fibula from Celano. see: Jockenhövel 1971.5. C). E1. 19–23. – Morano sul Po grave 5/1994 and grave 1/1995 (with “Bombenkopfnadel”).g. 540 fig.6. 5. A). see Gambari 1999. 127. A second support for the distinction between these two phases is provided by bronze hoards. B6–8). E4.g. F. 26 The results are reported by Nijboer in this volume. with a pin of Verucchio type and amber beads of Tiryns and Allumiere types (Fig. 7.5. B5. In Frattesina hoard I the fibulae are associated. Fig. Pacciarelli 2001. 124. 6. B3. p. These contexts with earliest serpentine fibulae (Fig. 5. 5.5. 191. 5. Comparable serpentine fibulae are known from the hoard of Limone (Prov. Volterra. The concave curve of the Bismantova fibula bow is repeated in a related serpentine fibula from Frattesina.7. E8. E1. 12. 205–209. Cosentino 1999. 13. together with fragments of heavily ribbed serpentine fibulae with straight pins from Narde grave 80 and Zanotto grave 21/197924 (Fig. 5.7. 3. 5. 5.6. A. 24 Associated with the fibula in grave 21/1979 is a bowl with n-shaped “motivi angolari”. Forlì)23. F1. compare Fig. – On the Celano graves. Fig. 301 fig. As an amber bead of Allumiere type has been found in a Ha B1a context at Hauterive-Champréveyres21.7. The development of arched fibulae from female graves is more difficult to pursue. 5. in one case with three swellings (Fig. – For the development from Matrei to Vadena knives. compare Narde grave 52. already in BF 3a. 5.6. the Vadena type of flangehilted knife is normally dated later than the Fontanella type (some Vadena knives have a blade of Rychner-Faraggi’s form 3. Bianco-Peroni 1976.6. 529 fig. along with simple arched fibulae with twisted bow (e. 3. see D’Ercole 1998. E.6. A) – corresponding to BF 3b as described by M.6. and a fragment of a serpentine fibula with rectangular outline (Fig. A1. 5.7. B5–8) begin in BF 3a. 234–244. F1. It is important to note that a two-piece fibula of this kind is associated in Gazzo Veronese grave 74 with a razor of type Herrenbaumgarten (Fig. 5. 5. 36–39.6.6.6. 5. 129. 5. 5.5. E4. B2. whereas the serpentine fibulae with concave-curved bow (e.5. Pacciarelli28. Livorno): these examples again have the typical concave curve of the bow (Fig. 8. 22 21 E3. E3. typical hoards are given as examples: Ha A1/2 Ha B1a Ha B1b Ha B2 BF 1 BF 2 BF 3a BF 3b Gualdo Tadino Coste del Marano Limone Piediluco The distinction between BF 2 and 3a is based partly on typological considerations: in my opinion the triangular fibulae with straight shanks. F1). Among the objects from the Frattesina graves.5. the selection from Gazzo Veronese grave 96 can be assigned with some confidence to BF 3b (Fig. Fragments of comparable fibulae have been found at Morano sul Po (grave 5/1994) and Angarano (grave 42) together with pins of type Fiavè and pins with cylindro-conical head which – according to Morano sul Po grave 1/1995 – were used during the first half of the 10th century BC (Ha B1b)25. A3. Fig. among other things. it is not unlikely that Vadena knives already came into production at the same time as the Fontanella type. B1). Fig. see Bietti Sestieri et al. 2001. 4.6. A similar pin is associated with a knife of Vadena type in Frattesina hoard IV (Fig. Weber 1996. Whereas the two-piece serpentine fibulae in BF 3a typically have a straight pin (Fig. 5. B). E1. pl. E8). Furthermore at Celano (Abruzzo). 30 Razors of type Herrenbaumgarten differ from type Oblekovice/ Fontanella in having the triangular protrusion close to the handle. Fig. – For parallels between the swords from Poggio Berni and Castellace. 5. 531 fig. see Bianchin Citton 1982. 29 See for example graves in Bologna IA: Pare 1998. Zanotto grave III/1978 (Fig.

C Hoard IV.6. G Zanotto grave 21/1979 83 . D Hoard II. E1–6 Narde grave 39 (E7 Narde grave 52 and E8 Bismantova are shown as suggested reconstructions for E3. 5. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN Fig. B Hoard I. 4). F Zanotto grave III/1978.C. Objects from graves and hoards of BF 2 (A-D) and BF 3a (E-G) from Frattesina: A Zanotto grave 41/1980.

grave 134. grave 111. B Gazzo Veronese. grave 96 84 . grave 74.7. F Gazzo Veronese.A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY Fig. Grave finds of BF 3b in north-east Italy: A Frattesina. 5. Zanotto grave 31/80. C Gazzo Veronese. D Angarano. E Gazzo Veronese.

Etruria and Emilia-Romagna. pls. 139. “Early Br D” material from Elgg-Breiti has been dated to the second half of the 13th century BC (1230 BC or later). – Santa Marinella: Bastianelli 1934. And finally. according to the Danish oak coffins. pl. some parts of Italy are still classified as belonging to the end of Bronzo Finale (north Italy. suggesting that “later Br D” continued for some time into the first half of the 12th century BC38. 17–19. Kilian 1975. for example: Ponzi Bonomi 1970. See Randsborg – Christensen 2006. see Carancini – Peroni 1999. 117 fig. According to this reasoning. knives with wide blades of type Piediluco42.7. – Piediluco II/“Contigliano” (Mus. 45 For Torre Galli. 5. see: Trampuž Orel – Heath 2001. instead my understanding of the situation is represented in Fig. – For Osteria dell’Osa. 5. 145. including flanged axes34. It is important to note that in the second half of the 10th century BC (corresponding to Ha B2 north of the Alps). 1125/1100 BC). 5 pl. for example discussed in Müller-Karpe 1949/50. 371. 5. M. – In Piediluco I and II there are apparently fragments of later fibulae: Müller-Karpe 1959. Jung39 argues that swords of Allerona/Stätzling type began in the East Mediterranean in advanced LH IIIC. Beilage VI. 122. 93 fig. b–d. 48. 3. 149 etc. heavy thickened arched fibulae43 and fibulae with flanged torsion44. The links between BF 2 and Ha B1a seem convincing. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN particularly characteristic) and BF 3 is widely accepted by scholars32. It is important to note that this horizon has clear parallels in Latial phase IIA1 and particularly in Torre Galli IA45. 5. 1–3. 74 fig. 2. based mainly on the development of arched fibulae: Pantalica 2a is characterised by lightly thickened arched fibulae and early forms of knee-fibula. 38 Mäder – Sormaz 2000. 10. – Goluzzo: Müller-Karpe 1959. See Pacciarelli 2001. Among the characteristic types are heavily ribbed serpentine fibulae of the developed kind already encountered in Frattesina. 1. slightly later (ca. and pani a piccone37 are found in Ha B1 contexts (hoard horizon IV) in the Carpathian Basin and north of the Alps. the last stage in Bronzo Finale. type from the Poggio Berni hoard: Morico 1984. 11. 447 fig. 48. 452 (serpentine fibulae). 39 Jung 2006. Ponzi Bonomi 1970. 48. Given the dendrochronological date for the beginning of Ha B1a by ca. BF 3b. 34. it is uncertain to what extent (and which) Villanovan centres were already intensively settled at this time46. indicating that Ha A1 continued into the second half of the same century. C. 25. 36 See particularly the knives of type Pfatten/Vadena. Canton Zürich. It is not necessary here to discuss the state of research in detail. 44 For example: Bastianelli 1934. 5. 64–66. 208. 19 fig. 1060 BC. see below). 48 A useful introduction to the Cassibile phase is provided in Turco 2000. With the start of the Iron Age. A. 156 fig. 85 . the transition from Ha A1 to A2 must be located in the late 12th century BC (ca. In this context it is worth drawing attention to the question of the correlation of the start of Bronzo Finale with the Central European sequence. Perugia): Ponzi Bonomi 1970. pl. and the end of Br D2 not earlier than ca. 13. 5. the beginning of BF 1 should be set between 1140 and 1100 BC. BF 2 is assigned a date in the mid/late 11th century BC. is relevant for this question. Furthermore.6. (arched fibulae) and 75. pl. Beilage III. R. perhaps the second quarter of the 12th century BC (probably not before 1180/1170 BC). 2002/03. pl. and parallels north of the Alps: Teržan 1996. – Elba: Kilian 1975. fig. the large inhumation and cremation cemeteries provide a much sounder basis for chronology. 14. cf. 20–21. 36–39. Beilage VII. 5. Ponzi Bonomi 1970. – In the Nordic Zone. for example fibulae from graves 104. 117 fig. Turco has argued for a division of the Pantalica 2 phase. 41 Some of the fibulae have a sheet bronze foot. spearheads35. – Piediluco III (Mus. 2. see also Merklingen: Schauer 1971. D).3. 7. – See. 47. A– E). Fontanella and Vadena knives36. pl. seems reliably founded on both grave and hoard evidence33. Poggio Berni and Casalecchio. 7. 8. Should BF 1 be paralleled with Ha A2 or Ha A1 north of the Alps? Dendrochronological research on finds from Elgg-Breiti. 3. 42 Bianco Peroni 1976. 117 fig. As argued here. 35 See for example the spearhead of München-Widenmayerstr. This would suggest a correspondingly lower start for Ha A1. 12. Gazzo Veronese and Angarano41 (Fig. 900 BC) in Campania. 37 For distribution maps. Recently.C. 1180/1170 BC. not only on account of the graves from Frattesina and Fontanella mentioned above. A number of other bronzes from BF 2 hoards. while Ha A1 should mainly be linked to the latest part of Bronzo Recente. Finally. which shows a number of important local sequences between the Po valley and Sicily47. 8. 47. 8. 117 fig. Ponzi Bonomi 1970. Müller-Karpe 1959. earlier in Calabria and Latium (mid 10th century BC). 13. 47. 46 See the discussion in Pacciarelli 1999. 68 fig. 363. This leaves us with the question of BF 1. 3 (distribution map). Latium: “PF IA”). Copenhagen): Dietz 1982. 7. 153. see: Pacciarelli 1999. Naz. 47 Many details in this correlation of the Iron Age sequences have been derived from Pacciarelli 1999. BF 1 mainly ran parallel with Ha A2 north of the Alps. the transition from Period II to III (corresponding with the transition from Br C2 to D in Central Europe) dates between 1340 and 1319 BC. 56 f. Etruria: “BF 3b”) whereas in other areas major Iron Age settlements and cemeteries have already come into prominence (Calabria. For a useful summary. By contrast. 1. Pare 1999a. Pigorini): Müller-Karpe 1959. pls. Müller-Karpe 1959. 43 For example: Müller-Karpe 1959. 33 32 CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN ITALY The latest phase of Bronzo Finale in the Po valley has clear links to BF 3b in Umbria and Etruria. 48–52. see: Bietti Sestieri 1992. late Period II (contemporary with Br C2 in Central Europe) is dated to the second and third quarter of the 14th century BC. the Italian BF 3b/PF IA horizon (second half of the 10th century BC) can be traced further to Sicily (Pantalica 2b). Pare 1998. 34 See for example the axes with protruding flanges from Frattesina hoard II (Fig. 8. Bachmann et al. best known from the hoards of Piediluco/“Contigliano” type40. 2b in contrast by heavily 40 Piediluco I (Mus. for which I suggest a date in the late 12th and first half of the 11th century BC (according to Aegean parallels. 48. where Cassibile fibulae48 clearly represent a contemporary phenomenon.

Grave inventories from Madonna del Piano (Catania): A grave 26. B grave 194 86 .8. 5.A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY Fig.

51 For example Castelluccio: Di Stefano – Giardino 1990/91.7. The new scabbard type was used with all these kinds of sword. A2). along with the Calabrian grave finds from Castellace. B1). the hoard from “Contigliano” (Fig.9. 98 fig. F1. – For a discussion of these swords. 7. Jung on the comparative chronology of southern Greece and southern Italy from LH I–IIIC59. date before the Piediluco/Torre Galli IA/Pantalica 2b horizon (Fig.12. 5. 2. see Clausing 2002. grave 74 (Fig.6. as exactly this feature is found on the fore-runners of the well-known Ha B3 solid-hilted swords of Auvernier and Weltenburg type58 (Fig. B4) and from Kastav (Fig. A1) and the grave from Montagna di Campo on Elba (Fig.C. 280. – Compare the Cassibile fibula from Modica with two-looped examples in graves from Castiglione di Paludi: Bianco Peroni 1979. grave 40. compare Fig.9. a similar date in the second half of the 10th century BC seems likely: with the earliest well dated examples coming from Late Protogeometric contexts and from Vergina in phase IIIA. see: Harding 1995. The same date is indicated by the Celldömölk-Sághegy hoards.9 provide a strong indication that Italian BF 3b/PF IA can be regarded as contemporary with Central European Ha B2. A3. “Mušja jama”. 360. see: Hein 1989. pl. 5. see: La Rosa 1989. Parallels for the fibulae can be mentioned. 156. suggesting the contemporaneity of BF 3b/PF IA.9. 5. A4–6). 5. Turco 2000. see for example Fig. 516 fig. Fig.8. Finally. 29. Furthermore. 8. 92. 5. 274. A). Quillfeldt 1995. as was also noted above on the basis of the razor of Herrenbaumgarten type from Gazzo Veronese. A similar sword and scabbard is known from southern Italy. 56. The swords on Fig. B2 with Fig.9. Quillfeldt types Corcelettes. 5. 55–58. 3) from the Aegean. A4. 275. Two swords from BF 3b contexts in west central Italy. – The swords from Modica belong to the Torre Galli type. In Trilj (Fig. B3) the scabbards contained bronze swords corresponding to an Aegean iron type known from Lefkandi and Athens from Late Protogeometric and Early Geometric graves55. – For an iron sword of this type from Škocjan/San Canziano. 5. 2.9. . 124 f.9. As for the iron parallels for the flange-hilted swords from Trilj and Sághegy (Fig. 92. 216–225. found in Torre Galli already in the earliest phase of the cemetery. 950/920 BC. 5. “Mušja jama”. 5. After the introduction of the scabbard form in BF 3a. 5. If we may consider this as a characteristic feature of BF 3b swords. and see below). see: Szombathy 1937. B2) and in Celldömölk-Sághegy hoard II (Fig. 5. 91. see: Szombathy 1937.5. he collected information on “transitional” forms between late violin-bow60 and arched fibulae (Fig. see: Leighton 1993. see: v. F. for example. Compare the Mühlau variant found in the Alps and around the Caput Adriae: Betzler 1974. pls. A1–3). dating to phase IB of the settlement. fig. see: Albanese Procelli – Lo Schiavo 2004. see for example graves 34 and 65: Pacciarelli 1999.5. 5. 52 For the greaves from grave 26. Late Protogeometric and Ha B2 in the second half of the 10th century BC. various styles of armament were used together in the Adriatic in BF 3b/PF IA: Italic. 60 The later violin-bow fibulae are characterised by a high foot. 1. 336–339. 5. 5. 5. Turco notes that the Cassibile fibulae themselves apparently underwent a development from lighter forms with straight shanks50 (e. 5.10. 278. a feature typical of BF 3a. 54 For examples with ivory hilt and scabbard-mouth elements. from Limone in the case of the arched fibula in grave 194 (compare Fig. Riedlingen. B1). 5. Further examples come from Vergina in phase IIIA. B4). with a similar chape. which at 57 Apart from the example from Celldömölk-Sághegy (Fig. Kilian-Dirlmeier began around 925 BC56.8. nos. Fig. 315 fig. 11–13. E1. 6.g. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN thickened arched fibulae and the typical Cassibile fibula type49. 5. once again from Celldömölk-Sághegy hoard II (Fig. 24 fig. 88–91. B5). – For the start of Vergina IIIA at ca. CONTACTS WITH THE EAST AND WEST MEDITERRANEAN Bronzo Finale 1 Fibulae provide a useful starting point for a review of the international relations of Italy in Bronzo Finale. 5. 5. B4). may be compared with a third sword from Brežec. 22. pl. B2. Greek and Central European. we now have available the study by R. the bow the fibula is slightly concave. The two recently excavated graves 26 and 194 from Molino della Badia. A. The short-sword from Madonna del Piano grave 26 was provided with a bronze sheet scabbard with scale-like decoration and a characteristic chape with terminal button53 (Fig. Madonna del Piano (Prov. and for a comparison of the Vergina sequence with other regions of the Balkans. along with decorated scabbards and elaborate scabbard-mouths. as examples from Torre Galli show54. 1) to heavier. from the cemetery of Molino della Badia. – For a sword of type Torre Galli. 55 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993.9. Catania). or from Frattesina for the fibula in grave 2652 (Fig. 5. 53 Another very similar short-sword and chape come from Madonna del Piano. (e. 5. 405 fig.8. 661. Fortunately. 56 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993. Fig. grave 124/5 which was sheathed in a scabbard of the kind discussed above57 (Fig. see: Pare 1998. 87 . became more common in Primo Ferro IA. 14. All three swords share the common feature of having a rounded swelling on the lower part of their hilts. and the type was transmitted up the Adriatic Sea and even into the Carpathian Basin. as in the case of Madonna del Piano grave 26. 11. Hostomice).9.9. 361. 18. For example Modica: Giardino 1995. but without a precise provenance (Fig. Auvernier.g. 147 fig. 321.9. 74. 59 Jung 2006. 363). then we once again find a link with Ha B2 in the area north of the Alps. B4). similar scabbard components are found with solid-hilted swords. 93. 5. a BF 3a date is preferable. which according to I. 50 49 These swords represent the final stage of development of bowl-pommel swords (Schalenknaufschwerter) and for typological reasons can be understood as typical for the phase Ha B2 in the Carpathian Basin. This type of chape. 58 For a discussion of the origins of the Auvernier and Weltenburg swords (v. Among other things.8).9. 5. B5). compare also a scabbard from Škocjan/San Canziano.9. 11. 5. 206–213.For possible Atlantic predecessors for this type of chape.g. – A mould for this type of chape has been found at Morgantina. 10.12. nos. giving the fibula a triangular outline. 164 fig. thickened forms51 (e.

4 Weinheim. 5.A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY Fig. 6 unprovenanced (Moravia?).9. 4 Celldömölk-Sághegy. grave 124/125. 2 Montagna del Campo. 3 Škocjan-Brežec. 2 Trilj. hoard II. 5 Kirschgartshausen. 5 Kastav (B Not to scale) 88 . 3. B Swords of BF 3a (1) and BF 3b/Ha B2 (2–5): 1 Southern Italy. A Swords of BF 3b/Ha B2: 1 Piediluco II/“Contigliano”.

Kerameikos SM grave 41. B2 Athens. Kerameikos grave 108. Skoubris grave 62. 2) compared with Submycenean pins from Athens and Lefkandi (3–7): C1 Fontanella. 4 Lefkandi. chamber-tomb 4. B1 Lefkandi. B9 Lefkandi. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN Fig. A. Skoubris grave 15B. Skoubris grave 43. C3. Kerameikos grave 33. hoard I. C5 Athens. B5 Athens. grave 7. B6 Athens. B3 Athens. 5. 7 Athens. B4 Athens. Kerameikos SM grave 70 89 . B7 Lefkandi. B Latest Mycenean and Submycenean fibulae: A1 Perati. Kerameikos grave 42. C Italian pins of BF 2 (1. C6. Skoubris grave 22.10.C. chamber-tomb 74. A2 Elátia. chamber-tomb 12. A3 Pilóna. Kerameikos grave 108. Kerameikos grave 44. Skoubris grave 19. C2 Frattesina. B8 Lefkandi.

A) and on the north-west coast of the Black Sea we can mention the beads of Tiryns type72 from Hordeevka on the Southern Bug in eastern Podolia.10. ca. Argos. 5.10. It is. and a similar exchange network along the Save and Danube has also been postulated by N. 5. Trípes. A possible route for the contacts shown by the fibulae and amber beads between the northern Adriatic and the Black Sea along the Save and the lower Danube has been suggested by M. 5. although a possible start in LH IIIC-advanced cannot be excluded. Milazzo and Gualdo Tadino. Mycenean pottery in Italian settlements (mainly Broglio di Trebisacce and Torre Mordillo in the Sibaritide) also indicates that the transition from Bronzo Recente 2 to Bronzo Finale 1 should be located during LH IIIC-advanced62. C3–7)66. 207–211. 415 fig. Evade Viere. see: Negroni Catacchio 1999. Elátia. 143–171. B8) of the Submycenean period are quite distinct from LH IIIC forms. According to I. for example from Casalmoro (Prov. 5) and the asymmetrical arched fibulae (e. It is surely no coincidence that fibulae related to BF 2 in Italy are often found in the same areas as the amber beads. can be dated to LH IIIC-late. 2004. – Note also the similar fibula from the Sliven region in Bulgaria: Gergova 1987. 4. B4). note the curious so-called “Stangenbuckel” from Athens. Mouliana (Crete) and Pilóna (Rhodes). Fig. mentioned above (Fig. The contemporaneity of BF 2 and Submycenean is underlined by the use of similar pins in north-east Italy and the Aegean. Harding 2000. 1150/1140– 1100/1090 BC for LH IIIC-advanced. 14. upper layer of grave 6 of the French excavations: Vagnetti 1986. C1. 64 Peroni 1961. 139. Bellintani 1997. 62 61 Frattesina offer the clearest evidence68. Bronzo Finale 2 The arched fibulae with symmetrical twisted bow (e. 4. 10.g. 5. pl. 6. 13. 524 fig. 191 fig. 66 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1984. paired bronze pins were first worn in the Aegean during the Submycenean period (“Typengruppe A”). Kerameikos PG grave 24 (transition from Submycenean to early Protogeometric or early Protogeometric) and from Kelheim. the two-looped fibulae from Korbovo. 134. a two-looped stilted fibula and a symmetrical arched fibula were found in a hoard together with a bead of Allumiere type (Fig. 156 fig. L. 90 ă ć . and M. e. 88 fig. because these kinds of fibula. see: Bietti Sestieri 1982. Coste del Marano (Prov. 18-21.A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY sites such as Perati. Rome)64. Sperber). compare Fig. Jones – Vagnetti 1991. – Furthermore. 8. Apart from the fibulae and amber beads from Wallachia and the north-west Black Sea coast. 54 fig. Jung 2006. Clearly. Related fibulae can be mentioned. 22. See also Alberti – M. 65. Vinski-Gaparini 1973.11. 3. Kilian-Dirlmeier.10. Fig. 7. this suggests a lower date for the start of BF 1 (1140/1100 BC) than has hitherto been estimated – providing of course that the conventional chronology in the Aegean is correct (ca.10. These finds seem to show a route of contact running between the northern Adriatic and the lower Danube and Black Sea and it is probably no coincidence that this region forms the southern extent of the rich bronze production of the eastern Urnfield culture – centred in the Carpathian Basin but with numerous hoards 68 See for example Cassola Guida 1999. Mala Vrbica and Vajuga-Pesak also deserve mention78 (Fig. 212 fig. Fig. 70 For a discussion of LC IIIB absolute chronology.g. The exotic finds from Bietti Sestieri 1973. 5. 5. 5. B2. 76 Kašuba forthcoming. B4–7). grave 1: Càssola Guida et al. Kašuba76. I. 101. 5. 4.10. 6. another well known piece is an ivory comb of a type commonly found at Frattesina from Enkomi in a Late Cypriot IIIB1 context69 – perhaps corresponding to a date around the first half of the 11th century BC70. These are similar – if not identical – to the pins of types Verucchio and Fontanella described by G. grave 213 (transition from SB IIc to IIIa1 in the terminology of L. for example. 67 Carancini 1975.g. At Dridu (Wallachia). 8. Contact is also demonstrated by the distribution of amber beads of Tiryns and Allumiere type71 (Fig.12. Pare 1998. the stilted fibulae (often with two knobs. Eder 2003. 21. p. the Aegean and Cyprus were in contact at this time. 402–404.g. 49. 71 On Tiryns and Allumiere beads. 35. 6. Mantova)63. 8. B4–7. 5. 2)67. 66–69. – Further evidence for contact is provided by female dress ornaments: compare for example Castions di Strada and Dridu: Castions di Strada.g. 74 Pedde 2000. 115 fig. well known that Italy. B1–3). 2. Carancini (Fig. when examples with a swollen neck (sometimes facetted) and thickened head came into use (Fig. 11–14. Trampuž Orel77. A. 87 fig. 2.11. 63 De Marinis 1999. B5). and it is not unlikely that this mode of dress reached Greece from the west – quite likely via the Adriatic coast (Albania) from north-east Italy. particularly examples with miniature footdisc and earliest forms with stilted bow. – Montagna di Caltagirone: Tanasi 2004. A1. 434 fig. – For imported LH IIIC-late and Protogeometric pottery from Frattesina. Finally it is worth mentioning a similar fibula with swollen bow and one knob from Hama in Syria74. Steinhauser – Primas 1987. from Fucino. 73 Kašuba forthcoming. 7. pl. pl. This is most important for Italy. and provide good parallels for BF 2 fibulae in Italy: this is clear not only for the symmetrical arched fibulae with twisted bow. 78 Vasi 1999 pl. 5. of course. Bietti Sestieri – De Grossi Mazzorin 1995. – Dridu: En chiuc 1995. 72 On the date of Tiryns beads in the Aegean (later LH IIIC and Submycenean) see: Metzner-Nebelsick 2005. pl. see: Müller-Karpe 1962.11. 117 f. 75 Negroni Catacchio 1999.1 nos.6. Bettelli 2005. 89. e. characterise the start of Bronzo Finale (BF 1)61.13). 1100/1090– 1060 BC for LH IIIC-late). see for example: Gilboa – Sharon 2003. 69 Enkomi.11. Pantalica Nord and Caltagirone (Sicily)65. but particularly for the stilted examples with two knobs. not far from the Tiryns amber beads from Ugarit and Achziv75. Fig. Kašuba has recently drawn attention to a series of twolooped knee-fibulae with triangular outline of the type we have already encountered in Frattesina in BF 273 (e. 5. 2. 5. Drmno. 77 Trampuž-Orel – Heath 2001. 65 Pantalica Nord: Orsi 1912. 4. 5. 308 note 69.

Lukjanovka (4). Wallachia. graves 5. 22. 5.11. A Bronze fibulae and amber beads from Dridu. B Bronze two-looped knee-fibulae from Drmno (1). Strumok (5). Cazaclia (6) and Luca ueca (7). C Arched fibulae from Lefkandi. 27 and 32 ş 91 . Toumba cemetery. Korbovo (2).C. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN Fig. Vajuga (3).

see: Giardino 1994. Similar short-swords are represented among the earliest iron weapons from the Aegean84 and Cyprus85. 11. 5. 23. 10. with Amathus grave 523 (Fig. Ferro IA in Italy – from sites such as Knossos87 and Kydonia88 in Crete or Patos grave 6789 in Albania. and they are sometimes fitted with ivory hilt-plates and pommels. fig. this would date the Huelva pieces no earlier than Pantalica 2b (Italian BF 3b/PF IA. 158. – The dagger comes from the destruction layer of the south gate. northern Serbia and Romania. 5) finds a satisfactory parallel in Palia Perivolia grave 3 at Lefkandi (Fig. a. 88–91. 960/950–910 BC)92. 81 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1993. Guzzo 1969. Primo Ferro IB The Monachil (Fig. 5. As M. 90 See for example Hencken 1956. Skoubris grave 46: Popham et al. again suggesting a date in the second half of the 10th century BC. with the Iron Age IB. according to Francisco J. 6) and Megiddo fibula types (Fig. fig. 779 f. f7. 1. graves 64 and 89: Karageorghis 1983. – Achziv. 182–188. pl. Bronzo Finale 3a Apart from amber and fibulae.67. 9.12. with a symmetrical triangular outline and central kink. 93 For a comprehensive review of the chronological debate on Iron Age IIA. A. 46. – For Troy see: Genz 2006. Ruíz Delgado 1989. pls. Cosenza). 115 fig.A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY from northern Croatia. corresponding to layer VIA of the Chicago excavations. 188. A fibula of Huelva type from Cerro de la Miel (Prov. 80 A sword similar to Madonna del Piano grave 194 comes from Bisignano (Prov. According to the arguments put forward above. 45 pl. 6. 82 North Cemetery. 89 fig. 16. room C (corresponding to layer III/pottery phase 3): Pedde 2000. Torre Galli grave 136 – again assigned to phase IB – contains a parallel for the fibula from Mola d’Agris. pl. Becks et al. 12. comm. – A horned Iberian fibula from the Castelluccio hoard has a parallel in Torre Galli phase IB (grave 181).12. B1). for example from the hoard of Castelluccio. – Amathus.) would prefer a date in Iron Age IIB. but also in Subminoan Knossos82 and at Megiddo in phase VIA83.8. – See the fibulae from: Megiddo. 5. According to the chronological scheme used in this article. 105.f4 (on p. the burial was associated with transitional Cypro-Geometric II/III pottery and would date to Iron Age IIA. 96. Ayelet Gilboa (pers. it is not unlikely that some were imported from the East Mediterranean. 2006. Nijboer in this volume. 688–702. 12) containing both Cypro87 North Cemetery. 721 fig. The Cypriot fibulae of Megiddo type (Buchholz types I–III94) are less clearly dated. 3. Cypro-Geometric and Proto-Geometric examples from Canaan. 161 pl. 63 f. 1) to thickened pieces with concave curved shanks (Fig. 85 See for example Palaepaphos-Skales. 9). and has already been discussed by numerous authors90. swords provide additional information on chronology and contact at this time. – Lefkandi. 44 pl. 5. Kilian. 86 For early iron production in Cyprus. 1979. ca. Madonna del Piano grave 194 has a sword which presumably represents the direct precursor of the Torre Galli type80 (Fig. as late as the end of the 9th or 8th century BC. 97. 15). 138 fig. 89 Korkuti 1981. with the maximum expansion of the pottery with fluted decoration (“Kannelierte Keramik” or “Buckelkeramik”). – Samaria. 67. 47. Núñez (pers. 2006. 45. Giardino 1995. 23. from Prodani. 91 Turco 2000. – The date of the sword from the Amyklaion near Sparta is unclear (Protogeometric or Late Geometric). Almagro 1966.12. found as far as Troy in period VIIb2-3 (late 12th to first half of 10th century BC)79. – According to K. pl. Interestingly. 406–409 fig. 193. As the Early Protogeometric examples represent the earliest iron weapons in use in the Aegean. KilianDirlmeier 1993. see Levy – Higham 2005. but they do not provide precise chronological information. 2081 (corresponding to layer VA): Pedde 2000. 1999. 2). 55 pl. 4). see KilianDirlmeier 1993. 122. 273. that offers the best parallels for the fibulae from the Huelva hoard (Fig. Fundstelle Qc. Bronzo Finale 3b/Primo Ferro IA Returning to the subject of fibulae. 277 fig. dating from Early Protogeometric/Cypro-Geometric IA onwards. also A. at least according to the gold fibula of a similar kind from grave 13 of the Toumba cemetery at Lefkandi (Fig. Perhaps it was the plentiful bronze (amber and gold?) in this region which attracted contacts with north Adriatic exchange partners. 45 fig. see: Sherratt 1994. 5. for a recent discussion of the stratigraphy. 5. 106. 13. the pieces in the Central Mediterranean could be understood as copies of a new type of weaponry first developed further east – perhaps on Cyprus86. 14. no. 88 Sapouna-Sakellarakis 1978. 84 See for example early Protogeometric examples from Athens. grave 45: Coldstream – Catling 1996. see: Finkelstein et al.12. 1. Indeed. 5.12. Carrasco – Pachón 2006. it not only has parallels in Albania81. 46/7. comm. “Megiddo fibulae”) is much more important.12. grave 523: Karageorghis 1987.12. 237–249. 7. 5. 92 As the Castelluccio fibula represents a developed form of the Cassibile fibula (for example compared to the Modica examples). developed in the first half of the 9th century. Watzinger 1929. 106. 83 Shalev 2004. Granada. 28. see: Kilian 1985. grave 67 belongs to phase II of the Patos cemetery. quadrant L7. 5. 251–254. this is the time of the apogee of the south-eastern Urnfield culture. grave 5: Aliu 1984. – For a useful review of the Spanish fibulae (Huelva and Monachil types) see: Carrasco et al.12. In that case. I am grateful to Núñez and Gilboa for their kind assistance with the dating of the Achziv fibula. 128 f. there are some examples with convex curved back. grave N1. 7. Cyprus and the Aegean all probably dating to the 10th century BC.12. Kerameikos PG graves A and 2N: Müller-Karpe 1962. V. Pickles – Peltenburg 1998. knee-loop and straight pin – corresponding to types of BF 3b/Primo 79 Pare 1998. 92 . Knossos would appear to be the earliest well dated example of this kind of dagger or short-sword. dating to the Late Protogeometric period. illustrated here on Fig. 5. 40 no. It is the latter kind. grave 201: Coldstream – Catling 1996. a date in the later 10th century BC might be preferred. dated to Subprotogeometric II) and the probable date of the Levantine examples in Iron Age IIA93.).12. pl. 5. Fig. Turco has noted91 the Cassibile fibulae undergo a development from thinner examples with straight shanks (Fig. 180. 7. – The sword from Madonna del Piano grave 26 also has a good parallel in Albania. furthermore. 120. 5. 163. 9. 94 Buchholz 1986. The socalled Cassibile fibula and its derivatives (“Huelva fibulae”. phase 1: Mazar 2004. 551 Catling states that the tomb was in use by LPG).

8 Cerro Alcalà. 4. 7 pl. 95 of the 10th century BC. 5. IX–XI). The fibula from Beaume-les-Créancey is shown here on Fig. 9 Lefkandi. which were possibly developed (in Spain? Sardinia?) from the Huelva type. 5.12.C. 5. Greece. 3. 11. 5.12. 12. see Karageorghis 1987. 3 Beaume-les-Créancey. 5. 5. 13 Ayia Irini. 2) is typical for the start of the Italian Iron Age. and other examples coming from disturbed graves96.12. 5. “Megiddo” (11. 14 Megiddo. 4 Huelva. 9) and Subprotogeometric (Fig. Drechsler-Biži 1976. 1. 2. 15 Achziv (Not to scale) Geometric I and II pottery95. C3. 11 Cyprus. Toumba grave 13. 5.12. Côte-d’Or). 98 For a date in the 9th–8th century BC for the Sardinian fibula from Barumini. 13) is important for Giesen’s argumentation: Giesen 2001. the local chronological schemes of Sicily. 180 no. K. 5 pl. VIII and XIII97 and finally. Giesen suggests a three-stage development for the Cypriot fibula: first Buchholz types I–III. 239 f. 5 Cerro de la Miel. As Catling argued. 97 The fibula from Ayia Irini. Giesen 2001. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN Fig. 16. in my opinion. ć 93 . 180 no. and the examples with 99 100 Catling – Catling 1980.12.11. 1. – For the example from Amathus grave 243 and a discussion of this fibula type. 507. Nuoro) and Beaume-les-Créancey (Dép. see Chavane 1990. 44. 2) in the second half The grave also contains a rotating spit of Atlantic type. 64 no. The development of the Huelva fibula (Fig. Catling noted that in Subprotogeometric graves cast arched fibulae appear. The simple arched fibulae with thickened undecorated bow (Fig. and then the development of the symmetrical Monachil (Fig. and indeed parallels from Italy and the Adriatic are close. 5. H. 5. with symmetrical swollen bow and broad catch-plate99. The examples from Lefkandi from Late Protogeometric (Fig.12. 14. 15) and “Cypriot” (13) fibulae from the Cassibile type (1. 15) in the first half of the 9th century BC is. 96 See Giesen 2001. Phoenicia and Palestine can be correlated at this time. Cyprus. 5. At the present state of research the Cypriot material is not capable of providing a more precise chronological sequence. 6 Monachil. pl. see Lo Schiavo 1992. these represent external influence. 12. grave 394100. 193.12. VI. 5) from the Cassibile type (Fig. W. the examples with three groups of engraved lines (Fig. Palia Perivolia grave 3. 10 Lefkandi. Further evidence comes once again from Lefkandi.11. 723 fig. grave 523. The development of the “Monachil” (6). 10) provide a valuable support for this hypothesis. C1. mainly in Cypro-Archaic. grave 3 (Fig. Spain. 2 Castelluccio. 2): 1 Modica. nuraghe Su Nuraxi. 12 Amathus. – Lo Schiavo also discusses the fibulae from Orani. 6) and Megiddo types (Fig.12.12. 44. 301. clearly demonstrated by the available evidence. 4) find parallels in Kompolje. On the basis of the fibulae. then Buchholz types IV. the fibulae with large ribbed knob98 (Buchholz types V. 14. 179 f. Karageorghis – Lo Schiavo 1989. nuraghe Nurdole (Prov. 7 Mola d’Agris. 507 pl. grave 3.

CONCLUSIONS To make use of the dendrodates from the Swiss lakeshore settlements for helping to date the Italian Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. 850/830 BC). 13. 1060–1035/1010 BC) and with Submycenean Greece. According to my arguments. 960/950–ca. a reliable and fine chronology in Italy is obviously a precondition. 5. again suggesting a date in the mid to late 11th century. The start of Bronzo Finale is at present best dated by advanced LH IIIC pottery from Calabria. Limone. it is possible to link BF 2 with Ha B1a north of the Alps (ca. 9. Fig. This is the case for Ha B3a and PF IB/Bologna IA/Villanoviano tipico (ca.5.12. mainly because the Italian phases BF 1. pl. by contrast. well defined and dated both north and south of the Alps. crossdating is now quite reliable. These fibulae would seem to provide the first evidence for direct Euboean contact with the Central Mediterranean. The earliest forms of serpentine fibula. with a concave curved bow.11. Distribution of amber beads of Tiryns (circles) and Allumiere type (triangles) three beads (Fig. would then belong to the end of the 11th century and first half of the 10th century (1035/1010–960/950 BC according to the north Alpine sequence).A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY Fig. 910– 101 v. and for this period (Ha A1–2) absolute dates are completely lacking in Central Europe. along with arched fibulae with lightly thickened bow (e. 910 BC). The earlier chronology of Bronzo Finale is more difficult. I am also convinced by the parallels between Ha B2 and BF 3b/PF IA in the second half of the 10th century BC (ca. C5. typical for BF 3a. 5. which according to the Swiss dendrodates can be dated to ca. B). 235. For some phases. 6) are common in north-east Italy. At the moment. BF 2 and BF 3a are still not easy to define. 5. and not with Sicily or Spain. Eles Masi 1986. The very restricted range of bronzes typical of BF 1 makes it difficult to trace contacts with the area north of the Alps. but the finds of LH IIIClate and Submycenean pottery from Apulia. apparently 94 . 5. 910–850/830 BC. it is still difficult to correlate the latest Mycenean pottery with the bronze production of continental Italy.13. for example from Lozzo Atestino101.g. 10) probably represent contact between Lefkandi and Cyprus. These new types in Subprotogeometric Lefkandi (corresponding to Athenian EG–MG I) provide a link to Primo Ferro IB in Italy. the symmetrical fibulae with central kink discussed above (Fig.

Levy – Higham 2005. Swords provide a good example: distinct traditions of Central European production can be recognised. starting now. Italy. Dor. Fibula production in Greece and Italy remained surprisingly similar until the mid 11th century BC. central and southern Italy. 65. dates currently used for the Greek sequence (for example by R. In the intervening ‘Dark Age’ (11th and first half of 10th century BC) contacts between the various regions are punctual. Now longdistance exchange becomes more general. Dodecanese.4) is based on the one hand on dendrochronology (mainly Switzerland) and on the other hand on the low 14C-chronology worked out in recent years in Israel107. for example between Achaea and Apulia. C). The decline of the ‘palatial’ World System in the later 12th century and the gradual rise of the Iron Age World System based on Mediterranean city-states from the second half of the 10th century BC play a fundamental role for the typological analysis in the present article. which resulted in exchange and acculturation. Lemos) are in good accordance with these dendro. 109 Gilboa – Sharon 2003. According to the evidence discussed above. Longdistance exchange clearly did not cease in the 11th century. 107 Arguments for the low chronology have mainly been put forward by Israel Finkelstein. some conclusions present themselves. but restricted to individual important centres. based on the Caput Adriae. 5. 105 Albanese Procelli – Lo Schiavo 2004. Cyprus and Canaan is a further indication of this exchange network. suggesting that contacts across the Ionian Sea continued to be frequent. This is most clear for Central Europe: in Ha A2 and B1 (1125/1100–960/950 BC) bronze production developed independently. but the areas involved were much smaller.C. continued to find their way north as far as the Po valley. Maria di Leuca. 22. the scheme used in this article to discuss the typological parallels between Central Europe and various Mediterranean regions (Fig. the north-west Balkans. Punta Meliso102. However. 108 ‘Italo-Mycenean’ wares. the Aegean. 475 g104). Aegean pottery became extremely rare after the 12th century BC. Cyprus and the Levantine coast became increasingly important. For a short summary. Late Protogeometric pottery demonstrates the presence of Euboeans in Cyprus (Amathus) in Cypro-Geometric IB–II and in the Levant in Iron Age I/II (Tyre. The “Dark Age” period in question follows the decline – in the late 12th century BC – of the koinè of “International Bronzes” linking regions from the East Mediterranean. the Aegean. 68-72. Southern Italy (e. Protogeometric and Geometric pottery still remains of crucial importance. 106 For the Sardinian connection. The Aegean sequence of Mycenean. all sharing a heavy wide sword-blade indicating a different type of warfare than south of the Alps. 496 f. Tel Hadar)109.and radiocarbon dates. The hoards of Piediluco/“Contigliano” type offer further examples of regular contacts.g. For the Central Mediterranean. The establishment of trading-posts and colonies by Phoenicans and Greeks followed soon after. such as Frattesina near the mouth of the Po. were adopted for local use in central and northern Italy. In the East Mediterranean. I. While most evidence in the 11th and 10th century BC points to the importance of the East Mediterranean (Cyprus. Sardinia. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN associated with BF 2 material at Roca Veccia and S. 95 . and on the other hand by the fibulae and amber beads along the Save-lower Danube route to the Black Sea. Eder – Jung 2005. involving individual important centres without the formation of a generalised koinè in production. as shown on the one hand by the pani a piccone (probably made in standard weights based on a unit of ca. B1) with parallels in Crete. Central European prestige goods such as solid-hilted swords. 411 f. Turning once again to the subject of absolute chronology. without substantive contact with Italy or the wider Mediterranean. from Apulia. as the large quantities of ivory at Torre Mordillo (Calabria) and Madonna del Piano (Catania) surely demonstrate105. bronze vessels and helmets. Castellace) and Sicily were probably more regularly engaged in exchange with the East Mediterranean. Jung 2005. intensive long-distance exchange seems not to have been generalised. The examples discussed in this article demonstrate exchange relationships which sometimes operated over surprisingly long distances. will doubtless provide important information on the transition from BF 1 to 2. The sword from Madonna del Piano (Fig. – For more detail. early evidence of direct contact between Italy and the Greek mainland dates to the first half of the 9th century in the form of the Italian fibula types from Lefkandi in Euboea (Fig. and up the Adriatic coast via Albania. Central and even northern Europe in a vast World System103. “Pre-colonial” contact becomes much clearer in the second half of the 10th century BC (BF 3b/PF IA). 118 fig. Although I cannot offer a systematic review of the question. as it provides by far the most reliable relative chronology available. Important exchange systems continued. as the Huelva hoard most clearly demonstrates. eastern Crete) as active trading partners.8. with LH IIIC-late and Submycenean only being supplied to Apulia108. when publication of the pottery and bronze hoards is completed. 5. 5. see for example the sword of Zürich type from Ploaghe: Gras 1985. Submycenean. in this case particularly via Sardinia106. The typo-chronological method can only function when networks of contact were in place. Carancini – Peroni 1997. 104 Pare 1999b. see Finkelstein 2004. see Gilboa – Sharon 2003. Jung.11. for example 102 103 once again linking sword production north and south of the Alps. During the second half of the 10th and the first half of the 9th centuries BC the network of exchange linking Spain.

pls. 10. 14. fig. p. fundamental questions could not be addressed in this article.12. – Fig. pl. – Fig. p. 246. 520. A3: after Karantzali 2001. – Fig. M. SPICHAL. 19. 16. 5. 5. Eles Masi 1986. C2: after Bellintani – Peretto 1984. 4. Laffineur. 5. 2133. in particular the nature of trade indicated by the examples for contacts. Santa Marinella – Ripostiglio di bronzi arcaici. 19. 27–67. – Fig. 5. – Fig. 123 fig. 31.12. 4. Aegaeum 25 (Liège 2005) 547– 560. 26. p. 5. pl. 1. 58. pl. amber. B1–3: after Vasi 1999. – Fig. B5: after Cateni 1977. Eles Masi 1986. ALMAGRO. 2. 22/19. 19. 2. 1. Iliria 1. 7. Zur bronzezeitlichen Metallversorgung im mittleren Westdeutschland. 5. 4. 186. A1. fig. S. 87 fig. 32 fig. 43/5. p. sea-borne trade in other things. 9–10: after Popham et al. 18. ivory). 1. 1971. – Fig. R. Atti della XXXVII Riunione Scientifica. fig. 516 fig. 3. 5–7. p. La comunità di Madonna del Piano presso Grammichele (Catania): rapporti con l’area Calabra.1478. 1. 11. 32/11.. 5. Contextual problems of Mycenaean pottery in Italy. G. 22. A.9. 41. 5. 258. 1476. B1: after Bianco Peroni 1970. 1934. 8. 14. 5. 6. 78. 15. – Fig. Ayelet Gilboa (Haifa). p. Bericht der Kommission für Archäologische Landesforschung in Hessen 7. Von der Lagerstätte zum Endprodukt. – Fig. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria (Firenze 2004) 403–420. 2. 1994. 157 figs.11. 5. 5. – Fig. 67–120. C1–6: after Popham et al. E. A1.5. A3. 83. pl.10. – Fig. 2002/03. B. 118 fig. 10. – Fig. 5. 2005.9. 2. – Fig. 17. 5. B4–7: after Kašuba forthcoming. pl. 5. 14. Francisco Núñez (Barcelona) and Wolfgang Zwickel (Mainz). – Fig.9. 40. 4. 5. 200. E. 5. 113 fig. 18. 5. L. – Fig. gold. 5: after Harding 1995. 27/9. – Fig.9. – Fig.. Athens 14th –18th April 2004. – Fig.12. B6–8: Negroni Catacchio 1984.7. 1–4. pl.9. 5. – Fig. 9. foodstuffs) or slaves is less convincing for the Dark Ages.12. 19. 39 fig. – Fig. 2002/03.10. 8: after Lo Schiavo – D’Oriano 1990. pls. – Fig. 62/2. 40. 96 ă ć Although the broad outlines of chronological development seem fairly evident. copper. F. 5. 8: after Bianco Peroni 1976. tin.6.6. 5/17. 111. 22. 156 fig. 171. 14. 7. – Fig. Illustration credits Figs.11. 5. – Fig.. In: Preistoria e Protostoria della Calabria. B2. 165 pl. 13. Emporia. – Fig. E1–6: after Salzani 1990/91. 13/15. 370. 3: after Cunisset-Carnot et al. 6: after Carancini 1975. 4: after Salzani 1989.5. – Fig. in: La Presenza Etrusca nella Campania Meridionale. B. In: R. 86 fig. 1979. B4: after Kemenczei 1991. 7. pl. A23. 6. 17. 3. Salerno – Pontecagnano 1990 (Firenze 1994) 153–170. pl.10. 2: after Bianco Peroni 1970. 24. 1966. D: after Salzani 2000. 2. A.8: after Albanese Procelli 1994. M. pl. pl. 181. 139. A: after De Min 1986. 169 fig. Las estelas decoradas del Suroeste peninsular. p. 5. 7. 70 pl. 1476. 1. C1: after Carancini 1975. 5. – Fig. – Fig.. 3. 5. A5: after Kubach 1978/79. 5. B5.12. 170 fig. H. pls. 85 References ALBANESE PROCELLI. 6–8: after Zanini 1997. 1934. 17. 2. 48. 15. 1979. 5. 3.g. such as bulk commodities (e.5. 104. 1450. 5. D : after v. 19/10. 112. 3. – Fig. 1. 302 fig. B1–4. 5. – Fig. Credit for the French translation of the abstract text goes to Renate Heckendorf. 12. B1. 3.7. E8: after Catarsi – Dall’Aglio 1978. 5. 5.4: tables by the author. 1979. While evidence for precious materials is sometimes clear (e. 22. 5.10. 225 fig. 119 fig. NSc (Series 6) 10. – Fig. – Fig. 5. 19. A2: after Bianco Peroni 1979. – Fig. Istituto Nazionale di Studi Etruschi e Italici. 18.10. 95.12. 20/22. bronze. 24. A. 5. 1. A1: after Jung 2006. 184. 7: after Gil Mascarell – Peña Sánchez 1989. p. A12. 245 no. U. C3–4: after Popham et al. 15B/5.13: after previous maps by Bellintani 1997. 7. 5. pl. 39 fig. Albert Nijboer (Groningen). JOCKENHÖVEL.7. 163. 74. 41. 8.G. 303 fig. 5. – Fig. 83 figs. 125. – Fig. 11: after Buchholz 1986. 10. A4: after Schauer 1971.10. C: after Salzani 1987. . 37. 5.11. 309 fig. c. 25 fig. 41. 11. 12. 47. 4. 5. 1: after Giardino 1995. pls.6. C5–7: after Müller-Karpe 1962. 5.g. 5. 5. 88 fig. 5. Harding 2000.A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY Acknowledgements My thanks are due to the following colleagues who gave their generous help during the preparation of this article: Rosa Maria Albanese (Catania). 244. – Fig. – Fig. Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri (Rome). 3. 8. F. WOLF. 1.12. 28. 5. 7–9: after Popham et al.9. 7.9. R. BiblPraehistHisp 6 (Madrid 1966). A3: after Harding 1995. 5. 298. A6: after Krämer 1985.3. exchange and influence discussed above. 10.5.. E7: after Salzani 1989. 2.10.5. p. – Fig.11. – Fig. B1–4: after v. 1984. 5. 1–3. Steinhauser – Primas 1987. 1. 86 fig. – Fig. A2: after Demakopoulou 1988. S. 44. A. 195A. 178.12. 11. 10. B2–6: after Müller-Karpe 1962.12. 10. A: after En chiuc 1995.6. 5. BASTIANELLI. 13: after Giesen 2001. – Fig. 4. 2: after Di Stefano – Giardino 1990/91. p. 215 figs.. 16. 28.6. 5.9. BETTELLI. p. pls. 23. – Fig. 27. – Fig.6. 155 fig. 115 fig. Considerazioni sulla necropoli di Madonna del Piano di Grammichele (Catania). 2004. 3/26. 173. Atti delle Giornate di Studio. 166 pl. 10. – Fig. 45. 5.12. – Fig. G: after De Min 1986. 9. 1984. 21. 70 pl.9. 204. 4.6. 3. 131 fig. 309 fig. pl.6. pl. BACHMANN. p. pl.5. 5. 5. C. Tuma e Prodanit. 2. – Fig. 1. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference. 186. 48. 47. 443–450. 1. 39.. 38 fig. – Fig. 604 fig. pl. 143.1–5. Negroni Catacchio 1999. 5.). 5.6. 3. 9: Bellintani – Peretto 1984. 1979. 161 pl. pls. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. 123 fig. 18. ALBANESE PROCELLI.M. 15: after Mazar 2004.10.10. p. B3: after Kemenczei 1988. 5. p. – Fig. 160 pl. 4. A. – Fig. 227 fig. 7. 5. ALIU. Eder 2003. 209 fig. 21. A7. F: after Salzani 2001. 144. LO SCHIAVO. – Fig. 99. 42. 21. 98.10.12. 5. 3. c. – Fig.M. ALBERTI. 25. – Fig. 5. 5. 226 fig. Greco (eds. 13. pl.

). BELLINTANI. 97– 105. Importazione di materie prime organiche di origine esotica nell’abitato protostorico di Frattesina (RO). HNILA. 2 (München 1975). Troia. BIETTI SESTIERI.C. Les petits objets. A. (ed. Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft (Mainz 2006) 181– 188. Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium “Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident”. G. CATENI. 1976. M. Österreich und der Schweiz I. Themelis (eds.. 2001. P. Lefkandi I. A. QuadProtostoria 2 (Perugia 1999). U. 123–142. ProcPrehisSoc 39. H. R.). 3 (München 1974). DE GROSSI MAZZORIN. CASSOLA GUIDA. F. FONTANA. Objects in Bronze. Le Terramare.. PACHÓN ROMERO.A. ZANINI. 97 BOLLINGER-SCHREYER. BIANCHIN CITTON. 1982. Nicosia 8th–14th September 1985 (Nicosia 1986) 223–245. NEGRONI CATACCHIO. Giorgio di Angarano nel Museo Civico di Bassano del Grappa. Una aproximación a su tipologia.. L. BIANCO-PERONI. in: Atti del 1o Convegno Nazionale di Archeozoologia. XXII Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. 1978.. KOCH. 2004. in: M. Gli spilloni nell’Italia continentale. Complutum 17.H. CORAZZA. I reperti della necropoli di S.). 1990. 1979. 103–119. CARRASCO.).A. S. 1980. in: M. 1999. W.. Cremaschi (eds. CARRASCO RUS.. P. Clasificación secuencial tecnotipológica de las fíbulas de codo de la península Ibérica. PERETTO. PBF VIII. Die Wasserburg Buchau im Jahrringkalender. M. 1973. J. 1997. 1999.).G. Denkmäler der Frühzeit (Mainz 2001). L’ambra e la produzione vitrea nel contesto delle relazioni transalpine. La necropoli Laziale di Osteria dell’Osa (Roma 1992). Collezioni e Musei Archeologici del Veneto 24 (Roma 1982). Frattesina. BELLINTANI. 2001. Études Chypriotes 12 (Nicosia 1990). BIETTI SESTIERI. Cardarelli. The metal industry of continental Italy... La Rosa. G. M. J.M. Tombes 110–385. 1977. 29 settembre – 2 ottobre 1999 (Firenze 2001) 125–134. Sackett. Magna Grecia e Mondo Miceneo. 1970. in: Atti della XXXIV Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria. QuadSezioneA 6 (Trento 1997) 116–129. 1998.L. 55–72.).L. La fíbula de codo tipo Huelva. in: M. Die Fibeln in Süddeutschland. Bernabò Brea. Per una cronologia della produzione metallurgica. BSA Suppl. V. BIETTI SESTIERI.A. P. R. PBF VII... P. La nécropole d’Amathonte. J. 1977. J. P. H. Rychner (eds. VITRI. G. in: V.. La koinè metallurgica. 1982. in: D.. La più antica civiltà padana (Milano 1997) 595–601. PIENIAZEK-SIKORA. 1975.. Age du Bronze. in: L. SEIFERT. PERONI.). J. V. BIANCO-PERONI. PBF IV. A. A.. N. Hispania Antiqua. Ori delle Alpi. BIANCO PERONI. The Iron Age. M. Atti del Congresso Nazionale. 1986. Il ripostiglio di Frattesina ed altri manufatti enei raccolti in superficie. P. KUNST (eds). L’âge du Bronze final.. 1 (München 1970). Vagnetti (eds. in: V. 3–17. La protostoria della Toscana dall’età del bronzo recente al passaggio alla prima età del ferro. 1999.-J. 1995. A. 1998. 11 (Oxford 1980) 231–264. Roma 18–20 febbraio 1998 (Roma 1999) 487–497. L’età del bronzo recente in Italia.. Complutum 10. CARANCINI. Niffeler. CARANCINI.und spätbronzezeitlichen Grabfunde auf der Nordstadtterrasse von Singen am Hohentwiel. D. A. Simposio italiano di Studi Egei dedicato a Luigi Bernabò Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli. CASSOLA GUIDA. S. ARANDA. M. Die mittel. G.M. TASCA. L. Karageorghis (ed. Troia VIIb1–VIIb3.). CATARSI. Korfmann (ed. PBF XIV.. 2006. DALL’AGLIO. Taranto 7–11 ottobre 1982 (Taranto 1982) 201–208.. StEtr 45.R.L. BIETTI SESTIERI.L. PBF XIII. G..W. DE ANGELIS.. FBerBadWürt 67 (Stuttgart 1998). IV. 2006. 2004/05. 2004/05. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN BECKS. E. 1984. BRESTRICH. 1973.M. E. M. Padusa 20. A. Troia in der frühen Eisenzeit.M. ιονεμοξαλπ νοτνοπ ιπε . Popham. CARANCINI. R. M. Il ripostiglio di Limone (Livorno). Vagnetti (ed. BUCHHOLZ..A... Firenze. 1984. La Suisse du Paléolithique à l’aube du Moyen-Age 3 (Basel 1998) 80–92.-G. Endrizzi. .).C. Frattesina. CATLING. CATLING. La necropoli protovillanoviana di Campo Pianelli di Bismantova (Reggio Emilia 1978). I castellieri arginati del Friuli. BIETTI SESTIERI. G. A. Padusa Quaderni 1 (Rovigo 1995) 367–370. Suisse centrale et orientale.. Iron and Lead. Lido di Camaiore 26–29 ottobre 2000 (Lucca 2004) 77–89. Ein kyprischer Fibeltypus und seine auswärtige Verbreitung. Indizi di presenze egeoorientali nell’alto Adriatico alla fine dell’età del bronzo. M. J. ESQUIVEL. A. L’età del bronzo in Italia. PERONI. in: S. Palermo. V.F. S. 2006. I rasoi nell’Italia continentale. I coltelli nell’Italia continentale. 1999. G.. 13th to the 11th century BC..). 383–424. BILLAMBOZ. BETZLER. BLECH. Marzatico (eds. M. and its connections with the Aegean. 1974.. R. 1992. 2 (München 1979). Rovigo 5–7 marzo 1993. Cocchi Genick (ed. CHAVANE. PACHÓN. 2 (München 1976). Le spade nell’Italia continentale.. Hochuli..M. Plattform 13/14. 1997. P. Exhibition catalogue Castello del Buonconsiglio. V. in: L.

2004. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. ein Volk Europas. GIARDINO.. GAMBARI. Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology. B. NICOLARDOT. Cairoli (eds. Gräber der Hallstattzeit in Bayerisch-Schwaben. 1971. H. Emporia. 1999. DE MARINIS.. BSocPrehistFr 68. Metodi e discipline a confronto. 2005. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. J.. The 1998–2002 Seasons. Oriente e occidente. Delpino (eds.. Greco (eds. Laffineur.M. MOHEN. D. Il confine occidentale del mondo proto-veneto/paleoveneto dal pronzo finale alle invasioni Galliche del 388 a. C..). Ejlers (ed. in: M. Frattesina di Fratta Polesine. . 489–546.. CUNISSET-CARNOT. Bronzefunde aus Rumänien. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. NSc (Series 9) 1/2. K.. DAVID-ELBIALI. Livet og doden hos et oldtidsfolk i Italien (København 1982) 42–44..). PBF XIV. Cronologia relativa e correlazioni con altre aree culturali. D. Typologie und Chronologie. 602–609. USSISHKIN. J. in: V. in: G. M. Soroceanu (ed. Atti dell’incontro di studio. Heimat der Helden Homers (Athen 1988).). JbRGZM 49. Atti dell’incontro di studio. 2005. in: R. 1987. in: G.). Porijeklo lu nih jednopetljastih fibula u Japoda. F. V. Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 15–52.). Oriente e occidente. 2005. Früh. R.A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY COLDSTREAM. La necropoli dell’età del bronzo finale delle “Paludi” di Celano. Le fibule dell’Italia settentrionale. La necropoli protostorica. DE MARINIS. C. DE MIN. Metodi e discipline a confronto. von. Une fibule “chypriote” trouvée en Côte-d’Or. Geschnürte Beinschienen der späten Bronze. COSENTINO. GAMBARI. Kr. V. On the character of social relations between Greece and Italy in the 12th/11th c. (ed. 1995. Bartoloni. M. F.. R. Portogruaro – Quarto d’Altino – Este – Padova 1996 (Pisa 1999) 511–564. PAS 10 (Berlin 1995) 279–310.. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Patterns of Contact and Communication between the Regions South and North of the Corinthian Gulf in LH IIIC.. 143–152. Una necropoli dell’età del bronzo finale a Morano sul Po (Alessandria 1999). J. 2004. D’ERCOLE. 2nd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium. DRECHSLER-BIŽI . in: G. in: Ch. C.. 1971. Die Picener. Exhibition Catalogue Adria and Rovigo (Padua 1986) 143–169. Delpino (eds. in: Protostoria e storia del ‘Venetorum angulus’. Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 197–225. Institute of Archaeology Monograph 24 (Tel Aviv 2006). GENZ. 1976. GIARDINO. R. Nekropole von Celano. crossdating e datazioni cronometriche tra bronzo finale e primo ferro: qualche spunto di riflessione metodologica. C. DUNNING. 1986. Bartoloni. Ragusa. 7 (München 1987). F. D’Ercole. C. Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft (Mainz 2006) 71–80. FINKELSTEIN. 2003..-P.). EDER.V. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. 1990/91. Die frühe Eisenzeit in West. SHARON.C. M. 2005. Il Mediterraneo Occidentale fra XIV ed VIII secolo a. in: H.und ältereisenzeitliche Fibeln in Bulgarien. FINKELSTEIN. in: R. Oriente e occidente. P. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference. ELES MASI.-P.). Etruskernes Verden. La cultura di Golasecca dal X agli inizi del VII secolo a. Ialomi a. Trucco (eds. Levant 36.. Archeologia in Abruzzo (Montalto di Castro 1998) 157–166. R. Exhibition catalogue Frankfurt (Roma 1999) 183–185. Das mykenische Hellas. DIETZ. 1999. Hennig. FRIEDRICH. Etruriens forhistorie. A.und älteren Eisenzeit. C. 181–188. in: G. 1995. 2006. Lamia 26th–30th September 1999 (Athens 2003) 37–54..).. Colonna (ed.C. R. Knossos North Cemetery. S. Zyprische Fibeln. Ein neues Metall macht Furore. 2002. In riva al fiume Eridano. Le cadre chronologique relatif et absolu au nord-ouest des Alpes entre 1060 et 600 av. in: L’Antico Polesine... B. 1988... GERGOVA. CATLING (eds. K. 1994. BC. BARIntSer 612 (Oxford 1995). Enotri e Micenei nella Sibaritide (Taranto 1994) 185–264. I. GILBOA.. in: T.. Atti dell’incontro di studio.).C.. 1976. 1998. C. PBF XIV.W.). Athens 14th –18th April 2004. Megiddo IV. 1996. Grab 4. S. Il ripostiglio di bronzi in contrada Castelluccio sull’Irminio. Aegaeum 25 (Liège 2005) 485–496. 2006. DI STEFANO. B. Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 145–195. G. HALPERN (eds. F. Lkr.. Tel Aviv University. R.). I materiali dell’età del bronzo recente. 1986.C. P.. 2003. Cronologia relativa. EDER. H. 2002. DEMAKOPOLOU. M. 5 (München 1986). An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Chronological ţ Ă 98 č Ć CLAUSING. 1982. Dendrochronologische Untersuchung der Hölzer des hallstattzeitlichen Wagengrabes 8 aus Wehringen. GIESEN. Monographien der Archäologischen Staatssammlung München 2 (Stuttgart 2001) 137–144.N. Atti del XX Convegno di Studi Etruschi e Italici.).. E. JUNG. Godišnjak Centar zu Balkanološka Ispitivanja 13. Der Bronzefund von Dridu.. DE MARINIS. 2001. Early Greek Tombs (London 1996). Troia. 1999.. in: The Periphery of the Mycenaean World. Bartoloni. J. Delpino (eds. Korfmann (ed. 149–187.. Augsburg. Peroni. Cerchie minerarie e metallurgiche.). 1990/91.-C. 2001. EN CHIUC. T.und Zentralanatolien. SIMA Pocket-Book 161 (Jonsered 2001). I. GIARDINO. I.

.). 1975. KUBACH. 1989. F.E. FortLinksfeiler.. Epiro e Macedonia nell’età del ferro. 1984.. Sardinia in the Mediterranean. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN Debate. M. Archäologische Monographien 11 (Egg 1992) 287– 336.1 at the northern cemetery of Achziv (10th–6th centuries BCE). LA ROSA. K. in: La Magna Grecia e il Lontano Occidente. PBF IV. 1956. D’ORIANO. PBF IV. 8 (München 1984). LEVY.L. X Chronologie von Südgriechenland und Süditalien von ca. 1988. 1989... A. in: Magna Grecia. Natter (eds.. BARIntSer 988 (Oxford 2001). comparata. in: G. KILIAN. forthcoming. Die Schwerter in Ungarn II. 1989. 1991. 1992. MAZAR.. 1978/79. 301– 326.. T. Epiro e Macedonia.. Ruckstuhl. HENCKEN. 2006. 10 (München 1985). A. LO SCHIAVO. Magna Grecia. M. 1971. Morgantina Studies 4 (Princeton 1993). C.. Athens 14th –18th April 2004. 12 (Stuttgart 1993). 99 αίγολονορ ετοΠ . 1989. 2000. in: R. Traders and Craftsmen in the Central Mediterranean. R. 1993. KORKUTI. T. KARAGEORGHIS. E.. Die spätbronzezeitlichen Brandgräber von Regensdorf-Adlikon. Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 26 (Wien 2006).. HARDING. 1989. BCH 111. 2001. A. Studies in Sardinian Archaeology presented to Miriam S. 9 (Stuttgart 1991).. 1992. A West Mediterranean Obelos from Amathus. Berichte der Zürcher Denkmalplflege.. Eine früheisenzeitliche Fundgruppe von der Insel Elba. An Iron Age cemetery in Cyprus. Saguntum 22. of Huelva.. T. Pugliese Carratelli (ed. HEIN. Laffineur. Tykot. Cyprus and Greece. Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. LO SCHIAVO. K.C. La fibula “ad occhio” del yacimiento de la Mola d’Agres. Elimi. A.. KILIAN-DIRLMEIER. The Mycenaean Cemetery at Pylona on Rhodes. 1969. V. MÄDER. B. 1 (München 1971).). 1956.. Zürich-Alpenquai I. Emporia. 14 (Stuttgart 1995). 2000.. 1981. A Footprint in the Sea. KARAGEORGHIS. PBF IV.). 1983. 7– 55. 7–80. 1991. 1987. 213–215. Die Rasiermesser in Mitteleuropa. PBF XIII.. Le populazioni della Sicilia. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference. W. AKorrBl 5. Sicani. 1985. P. R. R. Die Metallfunde.. Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant. F.. KAŠUBA. PBF IV. Italia omnium terrarum parens (Milano 1989) 1–110. KEMENCZEI. La Sardegna sulle rotte dell’Occidente. European Societies in the Bronze Age (Cambridge 2000). V.G. PEÑA SÁNCHEZ. Text and Science (London 2005). MÄDER. The Protohistoric Settlement on the Cittadella. Greco (eds. RStFen 17. PBF VIII... 2000. Die Dendrodaten der beginnenden Spätbronzezeit (Bz D) von Elgg ZHBreiti. 2005. Taranto 5–10 ottobre 1984 (Taranto 1985) 237–288. V. V. in: R. Zürcher Archäologie 3 (Zürich 2001). ? Quando? Wann? Quand? When? JUNG. JONES. 1981. F. Considerazioni sulle fibule del ripostiglio dal Ria de Huelva. W. 1987. 663–733. 1995. in: I. MATTER. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 3 (Sheffield 1992) 296–303. Bauer. Iliria 11. VAGNETTI. 1985. Atti del XXIX Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. Alt-Paphos 3 (Konstanz 1983). LEIGHTON.. Nadeln der frühhelladischen bis archaischen Zeit von der Peloponnes. LO SCHIAVO. 2005. A. H. Trafics tyrrhéniens archaiques (Roma 1985). CuadAMediterranea 10 (Barcelona 2004). Palaepaphos-Skales. GRAS. The Phoenician family tomb N. Hauser. KILIAN-DIRLMEIER. JbRGZM 36. 2003. KARAGEORGHIS. Die ältesten Fibeln im Nordpontikum. KILIAN. 189–310. I.). 1700/1600 bis 1000 v.. KRÄMER. 1990. E. Bulgarien und Albanien. The Fibulae ProcPrehistSoc 22. M.. 1989. BASOR 332. 1975. 121–124. JberVgFrankf 1978/79. JOCKENHÖVEL. R. 125–145. Archaeology. Tuma e Patosit. KEMENCZEI. 2001. Atti del XXIV Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. 1969. Z.. A.. 15–29. R. 65–78. A.. The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. 2004.E. PBF IV. Die Schwerter im ehemaligen Jugoslawien.K. I. 6 (München 1988). Gale (ed. Un’altra fibula ‘Cipriota’ dalla Sardinia. SORMAZ. 1989. T. Die Schwerter in Ungarn I. u. Ein Scheidenendbeschlag vom Heiligenberg bei Heidelberg. T. L.. HIGHAM (eds.).).H. Vergleichende JUNG. in: N. Bronzezeitliche Landsiedlungen und Gräber. EurAnt 12. Die Schwerter in Griechenland (außerhalb der Peloponnes). 1993.. T. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1986. RScPreist 24. Aegaeum 25 (Liège 2005) 473– 484. Deponierungen in Mooren der südhessischen Oberrheinebene. 2006. Die Vollgriffschwerter in Österreich und der Schweiz. E. M. SIMA 90 (Jonsered 1991) 127–147. 299–309.. Andrews (eds. A. 1985.H. J. Taranto 1989 (Taranto 1990) 99– 162. JbSchwUrgesch 83. D. M. Translating Italo-Aegean Synchronisms. Hasenfratz. KARANTZALI. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Siculi. HARDING. Balmuth. GUZZO.. GIL MASCARELL..

J. Hochuli.. Metallurgy. C. Padusa 37.A NEW DAWN FOR THE DARK AGE? SHIFTING PARADIGMS IN MEDITERRANEAN IRON AGE CHRONOLOGY METZNER-NEBELSICK. F. 100 . L.. RGZM Monographie 43 (Mainz 1999) 421–514. Delpino (eds. Atti del XX Convegno di Studi Etruschi ed Italici. QUILLFELDT. L. ActaArch Suppl. 1999. RYCHNER-FARAGGI. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 121 (Bonn 2005) 293–315.. VANZETTI. 5–42.1 (Firenze 1961). The Iron Age. K. 301–346. Society and the Bronze/Iron Transition in the East Mediterranean and the Near East. CahARomande 93 (Lausanne 2003). Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. PARE. ÍHOVSKÝ. 2 da Frattesina. Italia. 1993. Italia. Horejs. PZ 34/35. Suisse occidentale et Valais. 2000..F. PARE. PERONI. Torre Galli. 2001.. 1970. 1912. Jung. Produzione e commercio dei vaghi d’ambra tipo Tirinto e tipo Allumiere alla luce delle recenti scoperte. Vor der Levante bis Iran. 1970. bûchers et céramiques: la nécropole de Lausanne-Vidy (VD) et les pratiques funéraires sur le Plateau suisse du XIe au VIIIe s. MORICO.. PONZI BONOMI. 5 (München 1979). JbRGZM 46. JdI 77. BSA Suppl. Oriente e occidente. NEGRONI CATACCHIO.zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa I. C. Il ripostiglio di bronzi n. PERONI.. 2005. Stand und Aufgaben dendrochronologischer Forschung zur Urnenfelderzeit. 3 (Roma 1963)... Beiträge zum Übergang von der Bronze. R. 1984. K. 2006. in: Eliten in der Bronzezeit. fasc. Teržan.zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa II. MOINAT.. MÜLLER-KARPE. RGZM Monographie 35 (Bonn 1995) 455– 487. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidmet. Prima nota.. 2001. 313–325. Hauterive-Champréveyres 9 (Neuchâtel 1993). 125–206. L. Il ripostiglio di Contigliano. L. RYCHNER. Fíbulas protohistóricas en el Sur de la Península Ibérica (Sevilla 1989). M. NEGRONI CATACCHIO.. 1995. 1989. La problematica dell’ambra nella protostoria italiana: le ambre intagliate di Fratta Polesine e le rotte mercantili nell’Alto Adriatico... in: G.F.. Bartoloni. 1984. N. 219–231. Intorno alla cronologia della prima età del ferro italiana da H. von. 175–315. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana. Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen. PBF XIII. PEDDE. 2003.). 7 (København 2006). Padusa 26/27.. Défunts. Inventaria Archaeologica. RGF 22 (Berlin 1959).).). Die Nadeln in Mähren und im Ostalpengebiet. Beiträge zum Übergang von der Bronze. R.-C. M. Vorderasiatische Fibeln. 1912. 1949/50. Lefkandi I. 1990/91. 1999b. 1998.. Necropoli dell’età del bronzo finale alle Narde di Fratta Polesine. H. La necropoli sicula di Pantalica. 1998. POPHAM. SALZANI. Roma 30–31 ottobre 2003 (Pisa 2005) 53–80. H. RANDSBORG.. QuadAVen 16. 1990/91. Ripostigli dell’Appennino umbromarchigiano. 1979. 95–154. 2005. 1999. M. I. Tombe protostoriche dalla necropoli della Colombara (Gazzo Veronese).).E. ADOG 24 (Saarbrücken 2000). PARE. C. 2001. M.. 1989. 38–46.R. V.. 2000. SACKETT. av. 1987. SALZANI. PACCIARELLI. SALZANI. Niffeler. Necropoli dell’età del bronzo finale alle Narde di Fratte Polesine. 16–19 ottobre 1996 (Pisa 1999) 241–265. Pare. PICKLES. Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. A. Ripostigli del Massiccio della Tolfa. Die Vollgriffschwerter in Süddeutschland. PBF IV. Die Metallbeigaben der früheisenzeitlichen Kerameikos-Gräber. 1962. 1995. La Suisse du Paléolithique à l’aube du Moyen-Age 3 (Basel 1998) 70–79. Seconda nota. Bronze Age Oak-Coffin Graves. Un nuovo ripostiglio di bronzi da Frattesina. Weights and weighing in Bronze Age Europe. 1959. 1979. (ed. 1998. E. L. R. Grünwalder Gräber. Padusa 25... J. R. 2000. La necropoli della prima età del ferro (Soveria Manelli 1999). S. in: Beiträge zur Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. JbRGZM 45. 1987. 1999. MonAnt 21. L. 1961. 1962. L. RYCHNER. B.. Métal et parure au Bronze final.. Age du Bronze. Inventaria Archaeologica. Metodi e discipline a confronto. Rychner (eds.. 1963. Il ripostiglio di Poggio Berni (Roma 1984). in: Protostoria e storia del ‘Venetorum angulus’. C. Grandi contesti e problemi della protostoria italiana 4 (Firenze 2001). PACCIARELLI. 73–90. in: S. E. 1998. 1999a. MüllerKarpe a Chr. fasc. N. 1989. 59–129.. 1984. 67– 100. SALZANI. M. THEMELIS (eds. Kaiser. Das bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Hordeevka am Südlichen Bug im Spannungsfeld seiner auswärtigen Bezüge. 83–132. CHRISTENSEN. 293–433. Atti dell’incontro di studio. 11 (Oxford 1979).H. in: H. Padusa 23. MÜLLER-KARPE. V..G. PERONI. U. 11 (Stuttgart 1995). BPI 21. V. ORSI.E. G.. Dal villaggio alla città. Fratta Polesine. P. F..E. RDAC 1998. SALZANI. H. Archaeology and DendroDating. MÜLLER-KARPE. Padusa 20.F. L’âge du Bronze final... Ř RUIZ-DELGADO. P. DAVID ELBIALI. 1949/50. Portogruaro – Quarto d’Altino – Este – Adria. A. PELTENBURG.-M. P.

. 1994. STEINHAUSER. P. Cyprus in the 11th Century BC (Nicosia 1994) 59–107. Karageorghis (ed.C. Siracusa 15–16 dicembre 2003 (Padua 2004) 399–447. S. PRIMAS. SCHAUER. M. Kultura polja sa žarama u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj (Zadar 1973).. 1996. Cahiers du Centre Jean Bérard 21 (Roma 2000). 1999.J.. K. E. Katalogi in monografije 30 (Ljubljana 1996). Die Rasiermesser in Südosteuropa. PBF VIII. 1973.. J. SPERBER. D. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderkultur im nördlichen Alpenvorland von der Schweiz bis Oberösterreich. 2004. R.n. Karageorghis (ed. 2 (München 1971).š. St. 1986. tiso letja pr. La necropoli di Cassibile. TRAMPUŽ OREL. Il II Millennio a.). Depo Kanalski Vrh. ZANINI. Die Fibeln der griechischen Inseln.). TANASI. SHALEV. Exhibition catalogue Livorno (Pisa 1997). 203–208. PBF IV... PBF XIV. 4 (München 1978). Schweiz). 1929. (ed. TURCO. Der Bernsteinfund vom Montlingerberg (Kt. in: V. TERŽAN. 1937. Germania 65...C. AVes 52. Dal bronzo al ferro. S. HEATH. 1971. WEBER. Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium “Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident”. R. C. Per una rilettura delle necropoli sulla Montagna di Caltagirone. MPrähistKomWien 2. Österreich und der Schweiz I. 5 (Stuttgart 1996). VAGNETTI. 2001.. 2000. Ć č č 101 . Študija o metalurškem znanju in kovinah na za etku 1. L. 1987. PBF XIV. Altertumsfunde aus Höhlen bei St. VINSKI-GASPARINI. Die Funde (Leipzig 1929). Cypriot Elements Beyond the Aegean in the Bronze Age. 13 (Stuttgart 2004)... La Rosa (ed. nella Toscana centro-occidentale. M. Swords and Daggers in Late Bronze Age Canaan. 1997. SHERRATT. Nicosia 8th–14th September 1985 (Nicosia 1986) 201– 214. 1937. Die Fibeln im Zentralbalkan. 2001. PARE: ITALIAN METALWORK OF THE 11TH–9TH CENTURIES BC AND THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE DARK AGE MEDITERRANEAN SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKIS. 127–169. Metallurgical Innovation in 12th–11th Century Cyprus. Gallen. in: V. Scavi Paolo Orsi 1897 e 1923.. A. VASI . Hoards and Individual Metal Finds from the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages in Slovenia.. 12 (Stuttgart 1999). Iron and Ideology. SZOMBATHY. 1978.. Antiquitas 3 A/29 (Bonn 1987). B. 1o Simposio Siracusano di Preistoria Siciliana. WATZINGER. Commerce. PBF IV. Kanzian im österreichischen Küstenlande. Die Schwerter in Süddeutschland. N. L. 1987.). 1996. Tell El-Mutesellim II.. 2004.. in: V. Le presenze micenee nel territorio siracusano. 1987.). D. C. 143–171.