Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 September 2016
In Taranto Archaeological Museum is a group of bronze objects, which are believed to have been found at Surbo, a village some 5 kilometres north of Lecce in Apulia. When Professor Drago was Director of the Museum, he heard of the existence of a group of bronzes, already partly dispersed: he bought the remaining bronzes but could gain no further information concerning the provenance or the dispersed objects. The Atto d'Immissione of Taranto Museum, No. 679, dated 20 March 1952, mentions seven objects under the Inventory Nos. 17140–17144 and lists the sword hilt, shaft-hole axes, hammer-heads and chisel. Under No. 17142, it describes ‘Una accetta a margini rialzati o coltello ascia. Cms. 2,3 × 0,7’. The measurement must be an error and the description might apply to the medial winged axe or to the spatulate axe. In view of this ambiguity, the eight bronze objects from Surbo, now grouped together in the Museum, are described here, noting that, if the spatulate axe could with confidence be omitted from the group, the remaining bronzes cohere well and an Apulian source is credible. It will be wise to keep these points in mind throughout the following discussion, where the bronzes will first be considered individually and then as a group.
1. Sandars, , AJA, 67 (1963), 117 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Catling, , BSA, 63 (1968), 89 ff.Google Scholar
3. For all references, see Sandars and Catling, op. cit.
4. Mylonas, , AJA, 66 (1962), 406 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and pl. 121, fig. 4.
5. Sandars, , AJA, 67 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. 25, no. 36.
6. Benton, , PPS, 18 (1952)Google Scholar, pl. 27, fig. 2. On the right.
7. Sandars, , AJA, 67 (1963), 152 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and pl. 25, fig. 44.
8. Anati has suggested that a shouldered type of sword depicted on the rocks of the Val Camonica ( Anati, , Camonica Valley (1964) 65 Google Scholar and fig. 72) represents an Aegean type. The precise typology of swords and daggers is extremely difficult to judge from the pictographs but the identification may well be justified. The type however did not affect the series of swords or daggers in either the Po Valley or the neighbouring regions.
9. Miss Sandars has listed the miniatures from Pantalica N 48 and Dessueri Tomb 44 ( Sandars, , AJA, 67 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. 28, no. 69 and pl. 28, no. 68): one may add the miniature from Pantalica SE 57, as Peroni has done ( BPI, 65 (1956), 387 ffGoogle Scholar. See 415 and fig. 4). Modica daggers: BPI, 26 (1900)Google ScholarPubMed, tav. 12, 1 and 5; Brea, , Sicily before the Greeks (1957), 186 Google Scholar, fig. 43, d and h. This hoard belongs to the period Pantalica II; the writer hopes to return to this subject in a forthcoming article.
10. Punta del Tonno: NSc, 1900, 442 Google ScholarPubMed, fig. 12; Müller-Karpe, H., Beiträge sur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen (1959)Google Scholar, taf. 13, 12. Hereafter Müller-Karpe 1959. Pertosa: MonAnt, 24 (1916)Google Scholar, col. 630 f., tav. 2, 1. See Gervasio, , I Dolmen e la Civiltà del Bronzo nel Puglia (1913), 297 Google Scholar, fig. 103. The three winged axes from Torre Castelluccia all have wings continuing towards the butt: BPI, NS 8, pt. 5 (1953), 158 Google ScholarPubMed.
11. Gimbutas, , Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe, (1965), 114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12. Montelius, O., La Civilisation Primitive en Italie depuis l'Introduction des Metaux (1895–1910)Google Scholar, pl. 5, 4–5, (hereafter Montelius 1910), and Müller-Karpe (1959), taf. 103, 34–40. See, too Säflund, , Le Terramare (1939), 167 Google Scholar and pls. 53 and 54.
13. Belverde: NSc, 1933, 100 Google ScholarPubMed, figs. 82–4; Calzoni, Il Museo Preistorico dell'Italia Centrale ‘Giuseppe Bellucci’ in Perugia, pl. 50. Coste del Marano, Tolfa: Montelius (1910), pl. 119, 10; Inv. Arch., Italy 1 (1961)Google Scholar, No. 138. Monte Primo: Montelius (1910), pl. 120, 16–18; Inv. Arch., Italy 3 (1963)Google Scholar. Many examples.
14. See below for dating evidence. Wace, , BSA, 48 (1953), 15 Google Scholar and pl. 9b. See Childe, Civiltà del Ferro (1959), 573 Google Scholar for references to some Italian medial winged axes.
15. Gimbutas, , Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe (1965), 114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and pl. 19, 3.
16. There are constant references to ascie ad occhio in the literature which, when sought out, are found to be double-axes or adze-axes. It may therefore be helpful to list the early examples of both these types known to me from Italy.
Adze-Axes
Sardinia
Ozieri hoard near Chilivani: NSc, 1922, 289 Google ScholarPubMed, fig. 2; BPI, 43 (1923), 155 Google ScholarPubMed, fig. 2; Guido, , Sardinia (1963), 165 Google Scholar. Unknown Provenance: MonAnt, 11 (1901)Google Scholar, tav. 17, 10, Mould from Belvi: MonAnt, 11 (1901)Google Scholar, col. 166 and fig. 94b.
Italy
Montagna di Campo, Elba: Montelius (1910), pl. 125, 18. A second example is mentioned by Pinza, , MonAnt, 11 (1901)Google Scholar, col. 176, footnote 3, from Pollenzo in Piemonte.
For a discussion of the type and a distribution map, see Schaeffer, , Enkomi-Alasia, (1952), 46 ffGoogle Scholar. See Catling, , Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World (1964), 90 Google Scholar and Deshayes, J., Les Outils de Bronze de l'Indus au Danube (1960), 279 ffGoogle Scholar. Hereafter Deshayes 1960. Deshayes 1960, 288, notes the possible relationship between the Sardinian specimens and the Danubian type C3.
Double-Axe
Sardinia
There are both symbolic and utilitarian examples: some may well have been influenced by the ‘ingot’ axes discussed below; see MonAnt, 11 (1901) col. 174 ff.Google Scholar and tav. 17, 2 from Abini. For a particularly Sardinian type of double-axe with drooping blades and a tubular extension of the shaft-hole below the body, see Ozieri hoard: NSc, 1922, 288 Google ScholarPubMed, fig. 1; Guido, , Sardinia (1963), 165 Google Scholar and 156–7, and Forraxi Nioi hoard: MonAnt, 11 (1901)Google Scholar tav. 16, 30. For moulds from Sardinia, see BPI, 42 (1918), 96 Google ScholarPubMed and an example from Belvi, mentioned above, which also has moulds for double-axe and double-adze, of a type perhaps comparable to those illustrated by Catling, , Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World (1964)Google Scholar, fig. 9 and pl. 7 and Deshayes (1960), pl. 35. The Sardinian double-axes may have been influenced by the adze-axe type: they have been rightly omitted by Piggott from his distribution map of late Mycenaean bronzes in west Europe; PPS, 19 (1953), 224 Google ScholarPubMed and Ancient Europe (1965), 139 Google ScholarPubMed, fig. 76. It is, however, difficult to dissociate the Sardinian double-axes altogether from east Mediterranean types, particularly those of Crete and Cyprus.
Italy
No provenance: Sforesco Museum, Milan: Barfield, , Antiquity, 40 (1966), 48 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. A fine example of a working double-axe is in the Florence Archaeological Museum, inv. 79123, and said to come from Prov. Orano, Apulia. It is a heavy tool, some 0·3 metres in length and 0·04 metres in height; the top and lower surface are almost flat, the sides widen at the centre, where the round shaft-hole is set. It resembles the type of axe from the Enkomi Foundry hoards: Catling, Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World, pl. 6, 1 and fig. 9, 2.
In Italy there are several examples of the ‘ingot’ axes discussed by Hawkes, , BSA, 37 (1936–1937), 141 ff.Google Scholar, which are non-utilitarian and probably used as units of value. The Italian examples belong to the west Alpine group: Madriolo, prov. Udine: BPI, 16 (1890), 136 Google ScholarPubMed and illustrated BPI, 21 (1895)Google ScholarPubMed, pl. 1; Montelius (1910), pl. 34, 14 and 15. No provenance: Bellucci Collection, Perugia Archaeological Museum Guide, pl. 56. Many fragments from the Manciano hoard, prov. Grosseto, now in Grosseto Archaeological Museum: Inv. Arch., Italy 2 (1961)Google Scholar; here dated to the tenth century; see for a list of French and north Alpine analogies. It is worth noting that this hoard has been called ‘from Saturnia’: Montelius (1910), pl. 119, 15–18, the ‘Barbini’ hoard, from the name of its original publisher; and also Montemerano 3: BPI, NS 3 (1939), 29 ffGoogle ScholarPubMed. The double-axe does not re-appear in Italy until the colonization of the Greeks, when it is known from the cemetery of Fusco, Siracusa: Hencken, , AJA, 62 (1958), 259 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. and pl. 63, and thence travelled north to Tuscany. There it is known as the form of the fascis from the tomb of the Lictor: Montelius (1910), pl. 194, 5, and is seen grasped in the hand of Avele Feluske on his stele: Montelius (1910), pl. 189, 11. The single shaft-hole axe from S Antonino in Veneto ( BPI, Volume fuori Serie. Battaglia 67–8 (1958 1959), 289 Google Scholar, fig. 103) has a tubular extension at the base of the shaft-hole and may be compared with the axe from Hungary illustrated by Childe: Bronze Age (1930), fig. 6, 3. It has no relations in Italy, though possibly the tubular extension is related to that of the Sardinian adze-axes and double-axes.
17. Deshayes (1960), 153 ff. and pls. 23 and 25. They are listed under sub-divisions.
18. Maxwell-Hyslop, . Iraq, 11 (1949), 90 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Megiddo: Deshayes (1960) 227, no. 1822, pl. 23, 6. L 0·1 metres. Dated to the end of the second millenium. Bosnia: Deshayes (1960), 227, no. 1823, pl. 25, 15. L 0·207 metres. Dated? to the end of the second millenium.
20. Cf. the example from Ras Shamra: Deshayes (1960), no. 1481, pl. 23, 4 or that from Jerusalem: Deshayes (1960), no. 1518, pl. 22, 14.
21. None of the axes illustrated by Hammond, , Epirus (1967)Google Scholar, fig. 22 are comparable. See Deshayes (1960), 227, where he refers to the Peoples of the Sea, presumably suggesting a west to east movement, as against the above emphasis. Deshayes also noted the resemblance of the Megiddo axe to one from Piediluco: the Surbo examples are far closer and provide the link.
22. BPI, 17 (1891)Google ScholarPubMed, tav. 11, 18. Orsi compared this with the miniature axes from Palaikastro: Antiquary, 25 (1892)Google Scholar, pt. 1, 116; Deshayes (1960), 1541. On page 192 he calls these ‘amulets’.
23. For imports to Sicily at this time, see Taylour, , Mycenaean Pottery in Italy (1958)Google Scholar, Chapter III; Müller-Karpe (1959), 15 ff., and Sandars, , AJA, 65 (1961), 26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar on the rapiers.
24. MonAnt, 9 (1899)Google Scholar, col. 78, fig. 31.
25. BPI, 29 (1903), 116 ffGoogle ScholarPubMed. Müller-Karpe (1959), taf. 12 B. Here I should mention a strange mould from Manaccora: I have not seen the object nor is the description adequate but the size and shape shown in the illustration suggest it might be that of a shaft-hole axe: BPI, 50–1 (1930–1931)Google ScholarPubMed, tav. 9, 10.
26. Soleto: Müller-Karpe (1959), taf. 14 B. Manduria: BPI, 29 (1903), 108 Google ScholarPubMed; Müller-Karpe (1959), taf. 15. No. 12 cannot date much before the ninth century. Martina Franca: BPI, 26 (1900), 190 Google ScholarPubMed. Four examples are included in a hoard from Scorrano, Lecce: BPI, NS 8, pt. 5 (1953), 152 Google ScholarPubMed. There is an isolated example from Ruvo: BPI, 30 (1904), 55 Google ScholarPubMed and two axes of unknown provenance in the Lucera Archaeological Museum. See Trump, , Central and Southern Italy (1960), 154 Google Scholar where he suggests a Sicilian origin fro the Apulian shaft-hole axes: there are, however, none of the well defined Sicilian axes with knobbed butts from Apulia and the influence is more likely to have been in the other direction in the case of the plain axes. The only Sicilian knobbed axe from the peninsula is among the bronzes of the Stevens Collection, bought and found near Cuma ( MonAnt, 22 (1913)Google Scholar, tav. 28, 1b): it is worthy of note that a similar axe travelled much further and reached the British Isles: Hawkes, , Antiquity, 12 (1938), 225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
27. Fucino: RSP, 16 (1961)Google Scholar, tav. 4,1 and tav. 18,6. Casalecchio: Montelius (1910), pl. 30. This group of objects, which Montelius thought was a hoard, may come from a group of tombs: BPI, NS 3 (1939), 58 Google ScholarPubMed. Against this opinion, it should be noted that the group does include moulds.
28. Here and elsewhere, I have based the dating of the great hoards of west central Italy upon that of Müller-Karpe (1959). However, Dr Close-Brooks has been good enough to tell me that, from a close study of the fibula sequence and of the Villanovan I graves at Veii, she has reached the conclusion that the hoards of the Piediluco group date from late in the tenth century. This is not a full list but see: Goluzzo: BPI, 13 (1887), 109 Google ScholarPubMed. Contigliano: unpublished hoard in the Perugia Archaeological Museum. Piediluco: Montelius (1910), pl. 122, 11; Müller-Karpe (1959), taf. 49, 20, 21 and 27. Rovello: Montelius (1910), pl. 121, 21 and 27: Inv. Arch., Italy 1 (1960)Google Scholar, Rovello no. 17 and 18. Ardea: Peroni, , BPI, NS 17, 75 (1966), 175 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 2, 8; Inv. Arch., Italy 4 (1967)Google Scholar, nos. 189–96, 264, 268 and 292. See for a list of shaft-hole axes, including many Sicilian examples. Valentano: Montelius (1910), pl. 142, 14. Terni: hoard in Copenhagen National Museum, inv. 8169. For the theory that these axes were used as units of value, see Leopold, , BPI, NS 3 (1939), 145 ffGoogle Scholar. and footnote 16 above.
29. Pertosa: Apollo, 3–4 (1963–1964), 69 Google Scholar, no. 41. Unfortunately this is impossible to date. Torre Galli: MontAnt, 31, (1926)Google Scholar col. 98, fig. 87. This miniature confirms the type was known in Calabria during the ninth century and suggests a Sicilian influence. Cirò, Calabria: NSc, 1934, 175 Google ScholarPubMed; BPI, 53 (1933), 51 Google Scholar, six examples now in Reggio Archaeological Museum. Cerchiara di Calabria, Cosenza: BPI, NS 8, pt. 5 (1953), 153 Google ScholarPubMed, six axes. Crichi, north Calabria: BPI, 8 (1882)Google ScholarPubMed, tav. 4. Irsina, south Campania: four axes in the Potenza Archaeological Museum. Pozzuoli, near Naples: British Museum Guide to the Antiquities of the Bronze Age (1920), 150 Google Scholar. Cuma: MonAnt, 22 (1913)Google Scholar, tav. 28, 1b, 2a and 3a. Col. 71. Note the Sicilian knobbed shaft-hole axe mentioned above in Footnote 26. These axes all come, unfortunately, from the Stevens Collection, most of which was excavated from the pre-Hellenic graves at Cuma, though some of which were bought locally. Most of the objects date from the ninth and eight centuries. Pinza mentions, but does not illustrate, an example from Sardinia: MonAnt, 11 (1901)Google Scholar, col. 177 and there is an axe in the Florence Archaeological Museum, said to be from Sardinia.
While this paper was being printed, an article has come to my notice which describes two further shaft-hole axes from Apulia: see Sestieri, Anna Maria Bietti, Quaternaria 10 (1969) 199 ffGoogle Scholar. The two axes come from the Grotta ‘La Zinzulusa’. Otranto, Apulia; the first is a close analogy of the Surbo shaft-hole axes, though it is somewhat more elaborate in form and is decorated at the butt with incised lines and dots. The second axe is probably of a slightly later date and the two axes were dated on typological grounds to the eleventh or early tenth century: in view of the evidence of the Surbo group, a somewhat earlier date may be proposed for the decorated axe, especially as a good analogy for the decoration is cited on a medial winged axe, similar to the Surbo example.
30. San Francesco hoard: Zannoni, , La Fonderia di San Francesco (1888)Google Scholar, tav. 25; Montelius (1910), pl. 68, 1–5. ? Piemonte: BPI, 25 (1899)Google ScholarPubMed, tav. 8, 2. Abano.near Padua: Montelius (1910) pl. 33, 16. Gorzia: BPI, 3 (1877), 116 Google ScholarPubMed, tav. 6. Nesazio near Pola: BPI, Volume fuori Serie, Battaglia. 67–8 (1958–1959), 288 Google Scholar.
31. See Deshayes, (1960) 85 ff. for a wide ranging description of chisel types. Here I have called tools over 0·12 metre chisels; the smaller scalpels are not listed. See too Bellucci, , BPI, 43 (1923), 31 ffGoogle Scholar. for scalpels.
32. Deshayes (1960), 96.
33. Säflund, , Le Terramare (1939), 169 Google Scholar.
34. Gournia: Boyd-Hawes, , Gournia and Vasiliki (1908)Google Scholar, pl. 4, 15; Deshayes (1960), no. 794, L 0·205 metres and dated between the sixteenth and thirteenth centuries. Ras Shamra: Schaeffer, , Ugaritica III (1956), 250 Google ScholarPubMed, fig. 237; Deshayes (1960), no. 791. L 0·223 metres.
35. Tiryns: Schliemann, , Tiryns. The Prehistoric Palace (1886), 167 Google Scholar, fig. 99; Deshayes (1960), no. 923. L circa 0·135 metres and dated from the fourteenth to twelfth centuries. Argive Heraeum: Waldstein, , The Argive Heraeum, II (1905)Google Scholar, pl. 127, no. 2291. L 0·221 metres; Deshayes (1960), no. 922, dated from the fourteenth to twelfth centuries. The polygonal sectioned chisel from Mycenae is 0·173 metres in length: Deshayes (1960), no. 874, pl. 11, 20.
36. Taranto Archaeological Museum. Probably mentioned NSc, 1900, 464 Google ScholarPubMed but not illustrated.
37. Taranto Archaeological Museum. Judging by the size of the section, this chisel must have been of comparable length. Probably mentioned by Drago, , BPI, NS 8, pt. 5 (1953) 158 Google Scholar.
38. BPI, 29 (1903), 118 Google ScholarPubMed; Müller-Karpe (1959) taf. 12, B 1 and 2. The chisels measure 0·17–0·215 metres.
39. Cevola: Säflund, , Le Terramare (1939), 169 Google Scholar, pl. 56, 7. L 0·175 metres. Cornocchio: Säflund, op. cit., pl. 56, 8. L 0·24 metres. Gorzano: Säflund, op. cit., pl. 4, 11. L 0·155 metres. Cremona: Müller-Karpe (1959) taf. 88, 30. L 0·15 metres.
40. Peschiera: Montelius (1910), pl. 5, 6 with an octagonal rod and a square butt. L 0·2 metres. Campeggini: Montelius (1910), pl. 15, 10–11. Ls 0·165 and 0·13 metres respectively. Castellaro: there are several examples, one with a bone handle fixed to the square butt: BPI, NS 8, pt. 3 (1947–1950), 65 ff.Google ScholarPubMed, fig. 10. Trebbio Sei Vie: Civiltà del Ferro, 526, fig. 3. L 0·21 metres and fig. 4, a small example of the Mottola flanged type. Forli: BPI, NS 3 (1939), 51 Google ScholarPubMed and fig. 1, nos. 8 and 9. The former has a square butt and octagonal rod, L 0·18 metres. The second has a square section and apparently a round butt. L 0·15 metres. Contraguerra: Montelius (1910), pl. 118, 13. No associations.
41. Belverde: Perugia Archaeological Museum. Square section and L circa 0·23 metres. Not mentioned in the report. Gualdo Tadino: BPI, NS 8, pt. 5 (1953), 175 ffGoogle ScholarPubMed. and fig. 2; Inv. Arch., Italy 3 (1963)Google Scholar, Gualdo Tadino no. 30. Round sectioned with a square butt. L 0·23 metres. Contigliano: unpublished hoard in the Perugia Archaeological Museum; octagonal section. From Tuscany the rod chisel presumably passed to Sardinia, where it is already present in the Ozieri hoard: NSc, 1922, 289 Google ScholarPubMed, fig. 2 and BPI, 43 (1923), 150 Google ScholarPubMed, fig. 1; Guido, , Sardinia (1963), 165 Google Scholar quotes five examples, up to ·32 metres in length. Later specimens come from Forraxi Nioi: MonAnt, 11 (1901)Google Scholar, pl. 16, 29 and col. 160. Quadrilateral section and L 0·19 metres. S. Idda: MonAnt, 27 (1921)Google Scholar, col. 50, figs. 64 and 65. S. Vittoria di Serri: MonAnt, 23 (1914)Google Scholar, col. 379. fig. 51. Round section and L 0·18 metres.
42. Pariana: BPI, 45 (1925), 122 ffGoogle ScholarPubMed. L 0·21 metres. Limone: BPI, 13 (1887), 117 Google ScholarPubMed, tav. 4,4 and 5; Montelius (1910), pl. 121, 18 and 19. One is broken and the other measures 0·2 metres. Goluzzo: BPI, 13 (1887), 109 Google ScholarPubMed, no. 27; Müller-Karpe (1939), taf. 47, 15. Broken. Contigliano: unpublished hoard in the Perugia Archaeological Museum. Piediluco: BPI, NS 3 (1939), 143 ff.Google ScholarPubMed; Montelius (1910), pl. 122, 7 and 13; Müller-Karpe (1959), taf. 49, 11 and 17. Both are broken. Gabbro: BPI, 45 (1925), 116 ffGoogle ScholarPubMed. L 0·2 metres. San Francesco hoard: Montelius (1910), pl. 68, 6. L 0·24 metres; Zannoni, , La Fonderia (1888)Google Scholar, tav. 28, 46–55 and tav. 29. Manduria: Müller-Karpe (1959), taf. 15, 9. L 0·15 metres.
43. Circolo degli Ulivastri: Montelius (1910), pl. 195, 7.
44. Mottola: Müller-Karpe (1959), taf. 12, B 5; Deshayes (1960) no. 2319 and pl. 40, 4, who gives a wrong measurement. Casalecchio: Montelius (1910), pl. 30, 8 and text col. 173. See footnote 27 above. Manciano: Inv. Arch., Italy 2 (1961)Google Scholar, Manciano no. 52.
45. Montelius, , La Grèce Préclassique (1924), 153 Google Scholar, fig. 489. L 0·14 metres. See Deshayes (1960), 297 for a similar opinion.
46. BSA, 49 (1954), 295 Google ScholarPubMed, no. 413, fig. 16.
47. Schaeffer, , Enkomi-Alasia (1952), 29 Google Scholar and pls. 64–5; Catling, , Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World (1964), 100 Google Scholar and pl. 11 c; Deshayes (1960), nos. 2312 and 2313.
48. Müller-Karpe, , BPI, NS 13, 69–70 (1960–1961), 201 Google Scholar, fig. 4, 2.
49. BPI, 23 (1897), 8 ff.Google ScholarPubMed, tav. 2, 8 and 9. Brea, , Sicily before the Greeks (1957), 131 Google Scholar and fig. 26. Diam. circa 0·3 metres.
50. Brea, op. cit., 131–2.
51. Taylour, , Mycenaean Pottery in Italy (1958), 75 Google Scholar.
52. Catling, Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World, fig. 17, 10 and pl. 21b; Diam. 0·319 metres. See, too, the smaller bowls from Megiddo, Late Bronze II, cited by Catling, op. cit., 166, footnote 1.
53. See Piggott, , Ancient Europe (1965), 154 ffGoogle Scholar. for the beginning of beaten bronzework in central Europe. See Müller-Karpe's account of the Tolfa cups: (1959), 50. The earliest examples of situlae in Italy come from Merlara: Müller-Karpe (1959), taf. 83, 7 and 24. The fragment of bronze sheet from Monte Primo may have been part of a situla: Inv. Arch., 3 (1963)Google Scholar, pl. 8, 6 and that from Goluzzo certainly is: Müller-Karpe (1959), taf. 47, 8 and see page 63.
54. Gersbach, , Badische Fundberichte, 20 (1956), 45 ffGoogle Scholar. See distribution map on 49, abb. 5b.
55. Gersbach, op. cit.; Sandars, , Bronze Age Cultures in France (1957)Google Scholar. See, too, Drack, , L'Age du Bronze en Suisse (1959)Google Scholar, pl. 2 and Courtois, , Gallia Préhistoire, 3 (1960), 47 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. I am indebted to Dr Gerloff for these references and she has also kindly informed me that the spatulate axes of the Rhône culture have been placed within Bronze A on the basis of a few associations and may continue into Bronze B, which ended circa 1400 B.C., or even the following period. It is thus possible the type has been given too short a duration. See, too, Childe, , The Danube in Prehistory, 354 Google Scholar, and fig. 199.
56. Gersbach, op. cit., 57. Type B, no. 28. This axe is probably the same as that published BPI Volume fuori serie. Battaglia. 67–8 (1958–1959), 288 Google Scholar, fig. 102.
57. Gersbach, op. cit. Type B, no. 30; this axe appears on the distribution map with those ‘ohne Absatz’ but the only example I have seen in the Perugia Museum, inv. 7620, has a haft.
58. Gersbach, op. cit., Type B, no. 2. From Ascoli Satriano, Prov. Foggia. Reported to be in Taranto Museum but not seen by the writer.
59. See French, , BSA, 62 (1967), 149 ff.Google Scholar
60. Müller-Karpe (1959), 228, abb. 64. For later examples see Merlara: Müller-Karpe (1959), taf. 83, 1 and 2 or even the San Francesco hoard: Montelius (1910) pl. 66, 2.
61. For a recent summary of the dating evidence for Mycenaean III B, see Desborough, V. R. d'A., The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors (1964), 237 ffGoogle Scholar. Hereafter Desborough 1964.
62. Catling, , BSA, 63 (1968), 96 Google Scholar.
63. Catling, , Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World (1964), 281 Google Scholar.
64. See above footnotes 36–41 for references.
65. For the date of the appearance of arch fibulae in Greece, see Desborough (1964), 58. It is not yet clear in what area the arch fibula developed or even if this occurred severally in separate areas: the opinion that the arch fibula appeared in Greece and Italy more or less simultaneously is based upon the close similarity between the fibula sequence in both countries at this moment.
66. Mottola: BPI, 29 (1903), 116 Google ScholarPubMed; Müller-Karpe (1959), taf. 12 B. For the pin: Jacobsthal, , Greek Pins (1956), 181 Google Scholar, no. 595. Timmari: MonAnt, 16 (1906), col. 6 ff.Google Scholar, tomb 220, fig. 104 and tomb 68, fig. 105. Jacobsthal, op. cit., nos. 593 and 594. See Jacobsthal's suggestion that the type re-appears at Novilara and Bologna.
67. Desborough (1964), 53; PPS, 31 (1965), 226 Google ScholarPubMed.
68. See Hammond, , Epirus (1967)Google Scholar, fig. 25 E and 359, where he stresses the number of pins in Epirus. Jacobsthal, , Greek Pins (1956)Google Scholar, no. 596 comes from Novigrad on the Save. Milojčic, , AA, 63/64, (1948–1949), 12 ffGoogle Scholar. believes the pins originated in Bosnia and Croatia. But see Deshayes, , Argos. Les Fouilles de la Deiros (1966), 205 Google Scholar, who has suggested an older Mycenaean form as prototype for the late Helladic III C pins in bronze and iron, sometimes with ivory or glass globes on their shanks.
69. Müller-Karpe (1959), 36.
70. Civiltà del Ferro, 527, fig. 13, 4. I am, however, indebted to Dr Close-Brooks for pointing out to me that the objects from this site are from surface finds and may not all date from the same period
71. Taylour, , Mycenaean Pottery in Italy (1958)Google Scholar, passim. Desborough (1964), 215. Biancofiori, , La Civiltà Micencea nell' Italia Meridionale (1963)Google Scholar, passim. This remains true of the discoveries made since the publication of Mycenaean Pottery, but special mention should be made of the Mycenaean sherds from Luni, Tuscany, reported as dating from Mycenaean III A–C: AJA, 68 (1964), 373 ffGoogle Scholar. Important new evidence also comes from S Sabina near Brindisi, where Mycenaean III B pottery is reported from fossa graves under a tumulus: Lo Porto, , B d' A, 48 (1963), 123 Google Scholar and from Ledro, Trentino, where a cup has been found, which may copy a Mycenaean model: Antiquity, 40 (1966), 48 Google ScholarPubMed.
72. Herodotus VII, 170. Dunbabin, , BSR, 16 (1948), 1 ffGoogle Scholar. The whole episode is very difficult to date: see Taylour, , Mycenaean Pottery in Italy, 188 Google Scholar.
73. See Bérard, , La Colonisation Greque en Italie (1957)Google Scholar, Introduction and Hencken, , Tarquinia, Villanovans and Early Etruscans (1968)Google Scholar, for further references. See Hencken, op. cit., 604, fig. 495 for a map showing known provenances of Mycenaean pottery in Italy and epic foundation sites.
74. Sandars, , Antiquity, 38 (1964), 258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Catling, , BSA, 63 (1968), 89 Google Scholar. Taylour noted a link between Taranto and the Ionian islands ‘towards the end of Mycenaean III C’ and local variants of late Mycenaean pottery may well have flourished late in these islands. This diaspora could explain the continued Rhodian contacts noted by Taylour and could also lie behind the Cypriot connections, suggested above.
75. This opinion is at variance with that expressed by Trump, , PPS, 24 (1958), 165 ff.Google Scholar, who suggested the main period of Adriatic trade occurred after the withdrawal of the Mycenaeans. Trump believed the economic vacuum left by their departure was filled by the cosmopolitan people of Taranto, who became the chief merchants. Trump here dated the beginning of the Terramara II B phase to 1150 B.C., following Hawkes, , PPS, 14 (1948), 208 and 216 Google Scholar, who was writing before the mould of a medial winged axe had been found at Mycenae. This down-dating would confuse the events and their consequences.
76. This should be connected with Desborough's second occasion when non-Mycenaean objects entered Greece: Desborough (1964), 69 ff. and 230 ff. Miss Sandars has further suggested that this should be recognized as the Dorian invasion, a rather local movement of people during the eleventh century, which brought, among other things, the cist grave and long shanked pins into Greece: Antiquity, 38 (1964), 258 ffCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. See Peet, , AAA, 3 (1910), 118 ffGoogle Scholar. for observations on trans-Adriatic connections at this time.
77. Dr John Alexander in a lecture given at the Society of Antiquaries, Burlington House, London, on December 20th, 1967.
78. See Furumark, , The Chronology of Mycenaean Pottery (1941), 91 ff.Google Scholar; his types II, 15 and 17, here dated to Late Hellenic III C 2. See Sundwall, , Die älteren italischen Fibeln (1943), 86 Google Scholar, types B I beta a, b and c.
79. Snodgrass, , PPS, 31 (1965), 229 ff.Google Scholar
80. Taylour, , Mycenaean Pottery in Italy (1958), 118 Google Scholar mentions two imported proto-geometric sherds from Punta del Tonno, Taranto, nos. 165 and 166. Lo Porto reports proto-geometric sherds, probably Cycladic, from the site of Satyrion, near Leporano: NSc, 1964, 221 Google ScholarPubMed and B d'A, 74, and fig. 19 but see Coldstream, , Greek Geometric Pottery (1968), 373 Google Scholar, footnote 6. See Taylour, op. cit., 5, 159, 162 and 166 for references and classification of other sherds of painted ware from Apulia, which have been considered to be Greek proto-geometric. The terms ‘proto-geometric’ is still frequently used for early examples of local Apulian painted wares. A slight contact between Greece and Apulia at this time is accepted by Müller-Karpe (1959), 33, but the tenuousness should be emphasized. See, however, Peroni, , East and West, 5 (1954), 114 ffGoogle Scholar. for another opinion. For Greek Geometric pottery in Italy, see Blakeway, , BSA, 33 (1932–1933), 170 ffGoogle Scholar. and JRS, 25 (1935), 129 ff.Google Scholar; Coldstream, op. cit., 355 and 370 ff. and Ridgway, , StEt, 35 (1967), 311 ff.Google Scholar
81. The earliest iron in Italy from a datable context known to the writer is a fragmentary iron knife blade from the Modica hoard: BPI, 26 (1900), 166 ff.Google ScholarPubMed, no. 23, noted by Hawkes, , Antiquity, 12 (1938), 228 Google Scholar. This hoard dates from the Pantalica II period, or in absolute dates, probably to the tenth century B.C. A clue to the source of the knowledge of iron is given by the contemporary Sicilian fibulae, two of which are included in the Modica hoard; these fibulae show a renewed connection with the east Mediterranean. For this type of fibula, Sundwall's, D I beta b, Die älteren italischen Fibeln (1943), 137 Google Scholar, a gomito with straight fore-arms, a slightly elongated catch-plate, bent backs with a round section and probably even a wire binding at the elbow, as is shown in the original publication of the Modica hoard, influenced those of the east Mediterranean sequence. This connection has frequently been accepted but with differing explanations: see Myres, , AAA, 3 (1910), 144 Google Scholar; Maxwell-Hyslop, , PPS, 22 (1956), 126 ff.Google Scholar; Hencken, , PPS, 22 (1956), 213 ff.Google Scholar; Birmingham, , PEQ, 95 (1963), 80 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The first group of iron tools and weapons in Italy comes from Torre Galli, Calabria: MonAnt, 31 (1926)Google Scholar, passim and see de la Genière, , MélRome, 76 (1964), 7 ffGoogle Scholar. for the dating of this site, the earlier period of which dates to the ninth and early eighth century. From Calabria, the knowledge of iron passed northwards up the west coast to Campania and Tuscany, where it is found sometimes, but not often, in Villanovan I contexts, that is, during the ninth century.
