european prehistory- neolithic to the iron age author(s)- marija gimbuta

Bernard Siegal

European Prehistory: Neolithic to the Iron AgeAuthor(s): Marija GimbutasSource: Biennial Review of Anthropology, Vol. 3 (1963), pp. 69-106Published by: Bernard SiegalStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2949171 .Accessed: 01/07/2011 08:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=siegal. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Bernard Siegal is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Biennial Review ofAnthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=siegal

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2949171?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=siegal

3

EUROPEAN PREHISTORY: NEOLITHIC TO THE IRON AGE

Marija Gimbutas . Harvard University

INTRODUCTION

A vast number of recent discoveries and the application of new techniques of dating have changed the picture of European prehistory so greatly that all the general books in this field hitherto used as text- books have become entirely outdated. If the first decade after World War II was marked by epoch-making discoveries such as the Carbon- 14 method for dating prehistoric objects and the deciphering of Linear B, the second decade has proved to be equally fruitful. During this period our archaeological knowledge has expanded both chrono- logically and geographically to the extent that archaeologists are now able, for the first time, to consider Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures on a pan-European scale. The old gaps on European maps for these millennia are being filled with names of new cultures hitherto unknown. The fantastic pace of excavations in the Balkans, central Europe, and Russia has brought these areas to the fore. Dis- coveries about the Early Neolithic cultures in the Balkans and the Pontic area, in particular, have been so extensive that a large portion of this survey will be devoted to this period. Another subject of considerable archaeological speculation, the origins of the Indo-Euro- peans and their expansion to Europe in the second half of the third millennium B.C., has been clarified by recent research. The formation and distribution of Bronze Age cultures and the beginnings of metallurgy in Europe have also been clarified by work during the last decade. These and related subjects will be discussed in this review for the period up to the decline of Mycenaean Greece and the beginning of the European Iron Age.

European archaeology has entered what one might call a positiv- istic stage of research. Scholars are more than ever aware of the

70 MARIJA GIMBUTAS

necessity of building a chronological and cultural framework based on systematic excavations. This has naturally resulted in the appearance of innumerable monographs dealing with material from a certain settlement or from cemeteries of a certain chronological phase. Attempts at synthesis, however, have not been entirely abandoned. Grahame Clark's World Prehistory deals with Europe, although very briefly (38). Chapters in the magnificent Dawn of Civilization, edited by S. Piggott (160), are devoted to the Aegean area (91) and to "barbarian" Europe (164). Larousse Encyclopaedia of Prehistoric and Ancient Art includes "The Rise of Europe" by Hawkes (85). The 900-page first volume of Manual de Historia Universal, prepared in Spanish by M. Almagro, covers Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron Age Europe (2). Two volumes of Vergleichende Weltgeschichte by Hof- statter and Pixa cover prehistoric periods up to ca. 1100 B.C. (88). It must be admitted, however, that a complete and up-to-date synthesis of European archaeology has not yet been attempted.

The Ancient Peoples and Places series edited by Glyn Daniel has given a new dimension to studies of European archaeology by popularizing the field for the first time. There are nearly 35 handsome volumes in this series, covering the following topics among others: the Celts (163), the Scythians (185), the Etruscans (24), the Phoe- nicians (82), the Balts (74), Sicily (20), Malta (59), Brittany (77), Wessex before the Celts (183), Denmark (104), the Low Countries (114), Sweden (181), and Czechoslovakia (149). These are splendid summaries, illustrated with fine plates and drawings, of the archaeological information on the peoples and places mentioned. The appearance of this admirable series is a very welcome event.

The number of archaeological publications for this period has been vast. In addition to books, around 1,500 periodicals with archaeological reports and monographs appear each year (including museum reports in all European languages). The bibliography at the end of the review covers hardly one-tenth of all that has been published between the Fifth International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences (Hamburg, 1958) and the Sixth (Rome, 1962), which can be considered milestones in the history of European archaeology. As this survey is the first of its kind, I shall discuss publications chiefly from the period between the two congresses.

EUROPEAN PREHISTORY 71

DATING TECHNIQUES

Analysis of European samples by the eighteen active C-14 centers in Europe and by the American laboratories, particularly that in Philadelphia, has provided us with an increasingly plentiful supply of dates. The discussions during the C-14 Symposium at Groningen in 1959 and the ensuing reports (211), however, made it clear that the C-14 method cannot be considered reliable for precision dating. Errors usually amount to a hundred or a few hundred years; hence, the age of a sample can only be stated in terms of probabilities (186). Discrepancies between historical dates and C-14 dates for objects of known age have been found to be considerable (105, 168), not to speak of discrepancies between dates obtained by other archaeological methods (stratigraphy and typology) and C-14 dates. Milojic6 has perhaps been the most severe critic of the new method for these reasons (132). The people working with C-14 dating, however, are aware of its inherent weaknesses due to the statistical treatment of radioactive decay, to contamination of materials, and to an incom- plete knowledge of the initial activity of the samples, and they are constantly attempting refinements. The use of increasingly precise techniques has produced indications that the C-14 content of the atmosphere may have differed in prehistoric times by 1, 2, or possibly 3 per cent, and that the previously accepted half-life value 5568 + 30 is not correct. Variations in exact dating are minimized if a higher half-life value is assumed. W. B. Mann and W. F. Marlow supported this contention by their work in 1961, which came up with a value of ca. 5800 as a more accurate half-life value (168). This new measure- ment will lead, it is hoped, to greater precision in dating.

In spite of statistical and other errors, the C-14 method is already very valuable, particularly for the upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic periods. There are certain arguments in favor of the relative correctness of the C-14 dates. For instance, the C-14 dates approximately agree with de Geer's varve chronology for the Aller0d and Younger Dryas periods, and for the Boreal-Atlantic border. C-14 dates for the Bronze and Iron Ages also conform to current archaeological views. And the great "revolution" that C-14 has produced is the overthrow of old dates for the Neolithic cultures in the Balkans

72 MARIJA GIMBUTAS

and central Europe; in some instances the difference was one thousand years or morel Such discrepancies, however, seem to have been diminished by information gained from a number of recently excavated, stratified Neolithic sites in Thessaly, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Rumania, Bohemia, and Holland, all of which were continually occupied over a long period.

Another method for dating, still in its initial phase of application but said to be in some ways more exact than C-14, is that of archaeomagnetism (44). The old pollen-dating method is still being effec- tively used in northwestern and central Europe (21), and the application of quantitative methods has been much discussed (87).

Several very useful books dealing with problems of excavation, restoration, and preservation have recently appeared (86, 102, 124). The field of deep-water archaeology is one of constantly growing importance for the Mediterranean area from Bronze Age to classical times (52). Many archaeologists have been attracted by this new branch of excavation, which has been the subject of separate congresses and new periodicals.

NEOLITHIC PERIOD

Until recently archaeologists thought that the food-producing type of economy diffused to Europe from the Near East around 3000 B.c. The Sesklo culture in Greece was held to be the earliest Neolithic culture and hence was called "Neolithic A." The Neolithic villages in central Europe and in the Balkans north of Greece were not considered to have existed prior to the early third millennium B.C. Recent discoveries have totally changed these views. C-14 dates have pushed back the date of the earliest Aegean Neolithic settlements more than 3000 years and those in central Europe nearly 2000 years. These new dates seem to accord with the many new strata of Neolithic habita- tions which have recently been uncovered in the Balkan mounds. Evidence of a long Neolithic chronology and the constant appearance of new cultures or new chronological phases have made research in the Neolithic period of Europe one of the most exciting fields of archaeological studies.


The "Neolithic transformation" started, as we know, in the low- lying hills that border the Fertile Crescent in the Near East. The process was a long one; a prolonged period of incipient land cultivation and domestication of animals seems to have preceded the earliest stage of effective village-farming communities which was under way by 7000 B.C. (29, 126). Diffusion of the food-producing economy to Europe was regulated by the nature of local climatic, soil, and vegetable zones. The fertile, alluvial plains surrounding the Aegean Sea were the first areas into which the earliest farming groups were able to penetrate. Excavations in Thessaly by Miloj6ic between 1953 and 1958 have revealed the existence of a long period of Neo- lithic culture prior to the Sesklo inhabitants, with a pre-ceramic stratum in the very beginning (130). In the mound of Argissa Magula at Gremnos, which contains about 11 meters of cultural deposits, a pre-ceramic layer was found above the Mesolithic (131, 133). The next layer included the earliest pottery: monochrome, globular in form. This was succeeded by a culture of extended duration provisionally called "Proto-Sesklo," traces of which remain in Argissa, Otzaki, and other mounds in Thessaly (130) and Nea Niko- medeia in Macedonia (171). Its characteristics include beautiful red-on-white painted pottery, followed by impressed ware, and then again by painted pottery.

The earliest pottery in Thessaly shows relationships in form with that of early Neolithic sites in southem Anatolia, whence, one may safely surmise, it reached the Aegean area. One C-14 date obtained from an early Neolithic or "Proto-Sesklo" site in the Plain of Mace- donia, Nea Nikomedeia (now under excavation), of 6220 B.C. ? 150 years (171), suggests, if it is correct (a C-14 date is, of course, not sufficient evidence), that the earliest pottery layers in Greece must precede the end of the seventh millennium B.C. Thus pottery in the Aegean area, as in southern Anatolia, may have appeared earlier than in Palestine and Syria. The earliest Neolithic settlements, represented by the pre-pottery layer at Argissa (unfortunately not dated by the C-14 method), hence date probably from not later than the second half or even the middle of the seventh millennium B.C. The remains of the settlement indicate that this was an effective village-farming

74 MARIJA GIMBUTAS

community which cultivated emmer, einkorn, spelt, barley, millet, and lentils, and which domesticated dogs, sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs. Traces of pre-ceramic Neolithic in Rumania are not regarded as certain (17).

Later developments in Greece-the Proto-Sesklo and Sesklo periods, each of which had at least three phases-were roughly contemporary with the late Neolithic and early Chalcolithic Hacilar in southwestern Anatolia, which has been dated by C-14 to the period between 5400 and 4800 B.C. These were followed by the Dimini period, subdivided into four phases according to evidence from Argissa, Otzaki, and Arapi in Thessaly (130), which showed further ties with Anatolia and contacts with the cultures north of Greece in the Balkans, southern Italy, and Sicily.

North of Greece much new light has been thrown on the Neolithic culture called Starcevo (or Starcevo-Koros), contemporaneous with Proto-Sesklo and Sesklo in Greece, which spread north to Hungary and to Moldavia in Rumania in the northeast (42). The stratified mound of Karanovo near Nova Zagora in southern Bulgaria, of particular interest for the study of this culture, was excavated between 1946 and 1957; the first reports in Western languages appeared in 1959 by Mikov (128) and in 1961 by Georgiev (69). Karanovo, with its 13 meters of cultural deposits belonging to seven definable periods between the Early Neolithic and Early Bronze Ages, has become a site crucial for determining Neolithic stratigraphy in the Balkans. The seven layers are presumed to be: I and II, Starcevo; III, Veseli- novo; IV and V, Boian; VI, Gumelnita; and VII, Early Bronze Age, influenced by western Anatolia and the Eurasiatic steppes. The bot- tom layers have yielded abundant materials on the Starcevo village- farming community (69).

Another stratified site of the Starcevo culture, discovered in Vrsnik, Yugoslavian Macedonia, yielded four layers. The C-14 date for the third layer, 4915 B.C., indicates that the beginning of the Starcevo period must lie in the second half of the sixth millennium B.C. (16).

On the Black Sea coast in eastern Rumania and Bulgaria, a new Neolithic culture called Hamangia was uncovered by Berciu's excavations between 1956 and 1961 (18). Its earliest phases are not known yet, but it appears at present to have been a fully developed


Neolithic culture of the early fourth millennium or before. The cemeteries of this culture yielded remarkable clay figurines, among them several exceptionally well-made female goddesses and one male figure (a sort of prototype of Rodin's "Thinker"), which is one of the masterpieces of Neolithic art ( 18, 75). The plastic art of Haman- gian culture shows a direct relationship to that of the Cycladic and the eastern Mediterranean areas.

A new "Southern Bug" or "Pre-Tripolye" culture has been revealed in the area northwest of the Black Sea. The flourishing Tripolye culture, renowned for its exceedingly beautiful pottery (54), had been discovered many years prior to this in the western Ukraine and Moldavia, and its early period, Tripolye A, was set around 3000 B.C.

By means of typological comparisons with the Starcevo and the Linear Danubian cultures and their C-14 dates, the pre-Tripolye culture has now been placed in the fifth millennium B.C. (153, 154). It is presumed that in this fertile region between the forest and steppe belts the local inhabitants adopted a Neolithic economy, since their microlithic flint industry shows clear ties with the preceding Meso- lithic culture. The chronology of Tripolye proper (or Cucuteni, as it is also called) during the fourth and third millennia B.C. has also been worked out with the aid of newly discovered stratified settlements (35, 36, 53, 152). That of Izvoare in Moldavia, described in a large monograph by Vulpe, is of extraordinary importance (209). The large accumulation of Tripolyan materials in the Dniester basin has prompted the appearance of a new volume by its top authority, T. S. Passek (152), and extensive studies by E. K. Chernysh (35, 36).

Another Neolithic culture-Boian-west of Hamangia in the lower Danube area, with pottery sui generis and an economy based on farming combined with hunting and fishing, has been proved by recent excavations to have had a long period of development ( 18, 43 ). Nearly 100 Boian sites have been found in a cluster southwest of Bucharest in Wallachia. The Tangiru mound in the lower Danube area, excavated during 1956 and 1957 by the Archaeological Insti- tute of the Academy of Sciences in Bucharest and the Museum of Giorgiu, is one of the most important Neolithic monuments of the region. It was found to have 21 habitation levels, 12 of which belong

76 MARIJA GIMBUTAS

to the Boian culture and the rest to the Late Neolithic-Chalcolithic Gumelnita period. Boian culture has been subdivided into five periods, the last four represented by Tangiru and an earlier or Proto- Boian phase called Bolinteanu (18). The sequence of the Neolithic culture in the lower Danubian region has been considerably clarified by the discovery of an earlier type of culture in the same region, called Dudesti (43). Vadastra, a western variant of Boian which occurs along the Olt River and west of it, has been proved through new excavations to have had four phases parallel to Tangiru. Its Late Neolithic-Chalcolithic successor, called Salcuta, has also been divided into four phases, which parallel those of the Gumelnita culture (18).

Neolithic cultural remains were discovered north of the Black Sea, in the lower Dnieper basin, the Crimea, and the area north of the Sea of Azov, through work done after World War II. Here, as in the Tripolye area, an indigenous lithic industry slowly evolved (64). The present author in 1956 called its earliest stage Sub-Neolithic, since there is no evidence of plant cultivation or animal domestication. Primitive pointed or flat-based and incised pottery and implements resembling the East European type of microlithic flint industry were produced. However, new excavations in the Crimea (specifically, a stratified site at Kaja-Arasy near Bakhchisaraj) have revealed pig and cattle bones, presumably domesticated in the same context. Hence we may have here an early Neolithic culture, although evidence of cereals and permanent villages has not yet been found. Although there are as yet no C-14 or pollen dates, the typological and strati- graphical material gathered indicates that the site dates from no later than the fifth millennium B.C. Over 150 sites from the later or developed Neolithic period, preceding or contemporary with the large cemetery of Mariupol (mid-third millennium B.C.), have to date been revealed in the same North Pontic area (188).

Another Early Neolithic culture, hitherto unknown, has been found on the Black Sea coast in the western Caucasus (64). Its flint industry, closely related to that of the Near Eastern Neolithic cultures (even to that of Karim Shahir in northern Iraq of the eighth millennium B.C.), produced articles found in association with barrel-shaped, flat-based, and undecorated pots. Unfortunately, one of the earliest sites, Shilovka, near Adler, has not yielded anything else because of


soil conditions and destruction; hence our knowledge thus far about the Caucasian Neolithic culture remains fragmentary.

The diffusion of food-producing economies along the western and northern Black Sea coasts seems to have been a movement separate from that into the Balkans; here, the transition from hunting and fishing to farming is a more probable interpretation of the development of Neolithic culture in this area than is colonizing. However, the Hamangia, Boian, and Tripolye cultures do show contacts with the central Balkans and the Aegean world. The North Pontic area could have received impulses either from the west or from the Cau- casus. The Caucasian Neolithic culture seems to have been a satellite of the cultures in northern Iran and Iraq.

The Starcevo culture in the central Balkans, by contrast, shows very close affinities with the Proto-Sesklo culture, elements of which were diffused, perhaps, by colonists from the Aegean. This is the process assumed to have taken place in central Europe, where the Danubian I (or Linear Spiral-Meander Pottery) culture, apparently linked with the Starcevo culture, spread rapidly over a large territory from the middle Danube to the Rhine (4, 134, 191, 192, 210). The late phases of Starcevo have been shown, by C-14 dates and by stratigraphy and typology, to be contemporaneous with the early Danu- bian period in central Europe. The earliest dates obtained for Danu- bian I in Czechoslovakia and central Germany occur in the mid-fifth millennium (15, 166, 191). Pollen analysis and corresponding C-14 dates indicate that the Danubian I sites were established in the middle of the Atlantic climatic period. The earliest cereal pollen in central Europe, however, belongs to the early Atlantic or even to the Boreal maximum period (131). This difference implies that the cultivation of cereals in central Europe may predate the appearance of the "Danubians," but the evidence is not yet conclusive.

Although the first ceramic culture in central Europe had much in common with the Starcevo culture, its economy and type of settlement developed variants which arose from the environment. The central European farmers had to deal with densely forested lands. Systematic investigations of Danubian villages have proved that their agriculture was of a migratory or "slash and burn" character. The results of pollen analyses carried out on Danubian I sites in Dutch

78 MARIJA GIMBUTAS

Limburg showed that the settlements were surrounded by dense woods (214). Apart from cereal pollen, no grassland or meadow plants were represented, indicating that after a short period of cultivation the fields were immediately overgrown by woods and had to be cleared by burning once more. Instead of permanent occupation of the Balkan type, where great accumulations of cultural remains on the same site resulted in the formation of mounds or tells, the Danubian villagers frequently reoccupied settlements, rebuilding their large timber houses (212). One of the most remarkable Danu- bian I villages, in Bylany, central Bohemia, was brought to light by excavations between 1953 and 1961 by Soudsk5 (179). This settlement, which had eight or more reoccupation stages, existed, according to the excavator's estimate, perhaps for 600 to 900 years; its life thus spanned a large part of the duration of the Danubian culture. The dates for this settlement are approximately from 4500 to the beginning or first half of the fourth millennium B.C. It thus bears elo- quent testimony to the long Danubian chronology now established and supports the C-14 dates for this culture, which, in the initial stages of the application of this method, seemed to be incredibly high.

While the central European Danubian I culture was fairly uni- form in character over a large area of Europe, the Starcevo culture rapidly developed variants, which have been given the names Vinca, Lengyel, and Tisza, owing to new influences from Anatolia. These changes may be connected with the appearance of new people, according to some hypotheses. The three variants, located in eastern Yugoslavia, western Bulgaria and Rumania, Hungary, lower Austria, Czechoslovakia, and southern Poland, with their highly sophisticated pottery and plastic art, used to be considered separate cultures. Now they tend to be regarded as part of the same cultural complex (66). No single general study has encompassed them all, but there has recently been a great accumulation of material, particularly in Hun- gary (11, 106). Dombay has written an outstanding monograph on the excavation of a Lengyel settlement at Zengovarhony, west of the Danube in Hungary (49).

C-14 dates for the beginning of Vinca indicate 4300-4200 B.C., a period that some authorities on Balkan archaeology consider unlikely; the archaeological date for it was thought to be about 2600 B.C. (16).


However, C-14 dates have been obtained for several phases of Vinca (the end of Vinca A, 4010 ? 85 B.C.; Late Vinca of stratum III in Gornja Tuzla, 3380 ? 60 B.C.), and, in addition to the first carelessly excavated Vinca site with 12 meters of cultural deposits, new stratified sites have been found in Bosnia (one in Gornja Tuzla with four layers of Vinca above Starcevo deposits and another in Varos, also of four strata). Therefore, it seems possible that the duration of the culture was about one thousand years.

The origins of Neolithic culture in Denmark and northwestern Germany continue to be a favorite topic of discussion. Was the spread of the Neolithic economy accomplished through acculturation or through colonization? Opinions are clearly divided into two groups. C. J. Becker, the authority on the Danish Funnel Beaker culture, has recently presented a summary of the whole Neolithic culture sequence in Denmark (13). His chronological classification of this culture, published in 1947, on the basis of finds from peat bogs has been very important for current studies of northern Euro- pean Neolithic culture. Becker expects to find the ancestors of the Funnel Beaker peoples somewhere in the east, perhaps in the western Ukraine. Behrens presents another view, emphasizing that the earliest phases of the northern Funnel Beaker culture are intimately related to the late Danubian Rossen culture. He has also presented the daring thesis that the Funnel Beaker culture is an extension of the Late Danubian culture, and that it hence belongs to the Danubian bloc (14). There is only one C-14 date for the latest Danubian or Rossen culture, 3345 ? 200 B.C. (15). Dates for the earliest Funnel Beaker culture cluster around the end of the fourth to the early part of the third millennium (ca. 3200 to 2600 B.C.). Hence there could be a chronological link between the two cultures.

One may also approach the question of the beginning of a food- producing economy in northern Europe from the point of view of the acculturation of local Mesolithic peoples. Schwabedissen's recent excavations in Schleswig-Holstein have given more substantiation to the thesis that the Ertb0lle-Ellerbek people of Atlantic times, hitherto considered Mesolithic, were actually already acquainted with agriculture and animal domestication (176). Hence this culture must be treated as early Neolithic. This view confirms the 1953

80 MARIJA GIMBUTAS

thesis of Troels-Smith, who considered it a semifarming culture. Schwabedissen relates the rise of Neolithic culture in northwestern Europe to the first wave of Neolithic influence in western Europe. In any case, if the introduction of Neolithic culture was a process of acculturation of local inhabitants, the subsequent development of the Funnel Beakers cannot be understood except as the result of continuous influence from central Europe before or around the middle of the third millennium B.C. The Late Danubian culture in the upper Rhine and upper Danube region seems to have been replaced by people of Funnel-necked Beaker derivation. A series of local groups arose, classified under the following names: Michelsberg for the upper Rhine area (177), Pfyn for northwestern Switzerland, Altheim in Bavaria, and Baalberg for central Germany (51).

Driehaus in his large monograph on the Altheim group (51) proposed the title of 'Plain Pottery culture" for all these local variants, including the northern Funnel-necked Beaker culture. And since the large area of northern Europe, more than 1,000 kilometers in length, which lies between the upper Danube and the Baltic Sea, was, in fact, occupied by culturally interrelated groups, it should, if only for the sake of simplification, be called by one name. A current appellation for this whole cultural bloc is "TRB," an abbreviation of the Danish Tragtbaegerkultur and the German Trichterbecher- kultur.

Thus far we have been considering new evidence on the origins, diffusion, and development of Neolithic culture in the Balkans, along the Black Sea coasts, and in central and northern Europe, leaving aside the Mediterranean area and western Europe. Recent research has provided nothing spectacularly new on these latter areas. Hence the view is still prevalent that the first wave of Neolithic culture to sweep over the Mediterranean was characterized by impressed pottery carried from the eastern Mediterranean to the west by pioneer- ing seafarers. New dates place this first wave somewhere in the second half of the sixth or fifth millennium B.C. The succeeding wave into the central part of the Mediterranean and the southern Adriatic coasts was characterized by painted pottery.

Splendid summaries of the Neolithic sequence in Sicily and Malta have been presented in books by Bernab6 Brea (20) and Evans (59)


in the Ancient Peoples and Places series. For the Adriatic region the excavations of stratified sites on the Dalmatian coast of Yugoslavia, in Hercegovina and Montenegro, have provided valuable new evidence. A. Benac and A. Brodar have excavated two outstanding sites, Crvena Stijena and Zelena Pecina, in the last decade and have found enormous cultural deposits ranging from the Paleolithic to the Iron Age (16). It has been shown that the culture on the Yugoslavian coast belongs to the Adriatic-central Mediterranean sphere (there are traces of colonists who arrived by a sea route) and that it was in continuous contact with the Balkan mainland and with Greece. On the basis of his discoveries, Benac has divided the Neolithic cultural sequence in this area into three stages: (1) Impressed Ware, (2) Painted and Incised Ware of the Danilo type, and (3) Hvar or Lisicici. All three are roughly parallel to the Neolithic sequences in Sicily (Impressed Stentinello, Serra d'Alto, Diana) and Greece (Proto-Sesklo, Dimini, Rakhmani). In Bosnia another Neolithic group roughly contemporary with late Starcevo and influenced by the Aegean Neolithic cultures has been discovered and given the name Kakanj (16).

There has been clarification of the chronology of western Euro- pean Neolithic cultures, particularly the Chassey-Cortaillod and the Windmill-Hill, although here early Neolithic cultures such as those in eastern Europe have not been discovered. According to C-14 dates, the earliest food producers in Great Britain and Ireland appeared in the later part of the fourth millennium B.C. (33, 39). In France, more attention has been paid to the chronology and development of the Chassey culture since 1958 (6), and in 1961 a study of Neolithic pottery appeared (5). This work gives a good general picture of the Neolithic period in France, a long neglected field. In Switzerland large-scale investigations of lakeshore villages have been carried out, contributing much to our knowledge of the way of life of the Cortaillod farmers in this region during the first half of the third millennium B.C. The villages of 'Egolzwill in Lucerne Can- ton (205) and Burgaischi near Bern (137) are two outstandingly well explored sites which have been dated by many C-14 tests and palaeo- botanical observations. Piggott has shown that the earliest Neolithic culture in the British Isles, the Windmill-Hill, which is thought to

82 MARIJA GIMBUTAS

have reached southern Britain from France through the English Channel sometime before 3000 B.C. and thus is classified as part of the western European Neolithic bloc, was in contact with the Rhine- land and central Europe (158).

The last area that must be considered is northwestern Russia, a region that the food producers did not penetrate. The earliest cultures in the Leningrad area and Karelia have been described in a monograph of almost 600 pages by Gurina (79). It covers the pre- ceramic period (tentatively dated to the fourth millennium), the earliest ceramic or Sperrings stage terminated by the Pit-marked Pottery culture coming up from central Russia, and later stages characterized by textile and asbestos pottery, which parallel the Euro- pean Bronze Age. The study is a great contribution to the prehistory of the Lapp and the Finno-Ugrian tribes.

TH COPPER AGE (EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE AEGEAN)

In this period European culture continued to be a peripheral development of the civilization of the Near East. New impulses were transmitted from Anatolia and the Cyclades to mainland Greece, to the area north of Greece, and along the Mediterranean coasts to the central Mediterranean islands, to southern France, to Spain, and to Portugal. Colonists swept over the Mediterranean Sea to the Iberian Peninsula. Blance (22) gives a detailed description of Aegean colonies in the Iberian Peninsula, which introduced to western Europe copper, gold, and silver, settlements fortified with substantial stone walls and bastions, and tholos tombs and rock-cut tombs with collective burials. Comparison of finds from the Iberian colonies with those from the Cyclades and with C-14 dates has shown that the Iberian colonies must have been established in the period between the beginning of the third millennium and ca. 2400 B.C. (23). An analogous colony has been found recently on the Mediterranean coast of southern France (7).

These Aegean colonies had a lasting effect on the future development of western European culture. The introduction of tholos and rock-cut tombs played a great role in the formation of the monu- mental megalithic tomb architecture which spread along the Atlantic coasts to Ireland, Scotland, Denmark, northwest Germany, and south-


ern Sweden. These tombs, most of which date from the later part of the third millennium and the early second millennium, have continued to be popular subjects for research. Daniel devoted a monograph to a description of the French megaliths (45), and Giot's book on Brittany (77) presents a summary of the monuments there. This work also gives a good picture of Brittany's impressive menhirs, standing in isolated circles or extending in lines for miles. Piggott has produced a handsome monograph on the West Kennet long barrow, which contains one of the most spectacular megalithic chamber tombs in Great Britain (159); and new aspects of long barrows and Irish court cairns have been discussed by de Valera (201, 202).

In the last centuries of the third millennium B.C. new waves of western Anatolian influences, which may have been connected with groups of migrating people, swept over the northern Balkans and up to the middle Danube and the Carpathian basin. This led to the formation of the P6cel (or Baden, also called Channeled Ware) culture in the middle Danube region, formerly possessed by the Len- gyel people, and of the Tisza-Polgatr culture and its later branch, the Bodrogkeresztur, in the Tisza basin and western Transylvania. On the basis of important new finds in Hungary, the Baden culture was described by Kalicz in 1963 in a separate monograph (98). Another voluminous monograph of 1963 is that by Kutzian, who analyzes the Tisza-Polgar materials in Hungary and deals with the general Cop- per Age problems in eastern central Europe (113).

While the Balkans and east-central Europe south of the Car- pathian range were entering the Copper Age, a menacing power, destined to cause substantial changes in European prehistory, appeared north of the Black Sea and in the Caucasus and rapidly approached Europe. This was the Eurasiatic Kurgan culture (named by Gimbutas after the Russian word for "barrow"), which before its expansion to the west occupied a vast steppe area east of the Volga- perhaps as far east as the Altai Mountains and the upper Yenisei. Other names used for the Kurgan culture are "Ochre-grave," "Cord- ed," and "Battle-axe."

Recent studies have greatly clarified the chronology of the Kurgan culture (73, 127). The appearance in these areas of totally different burial customs (local collective burials in trenches being super- seded by single graves under barrows) and habitation patterns (forti-

84 MARIJA GIMBUTAS

fled hilltop settlements (115) replacing villages on low riverbanks) gives evidence of the expansion of Kurgan people to the Black Sea coasts, the lower Don, the Sea of Azov, and the lower Dnieper area. Local physical types also changed, the massive east European Cro- Magnon man being replaced by a gracile, tall, and long-headed type. The same Kurgan people seem to have established hegemony over the entire northern Caucasus (140, 141), and to have come into contact with the Transcaucasian culture, which has been discovered during the last decade (161). They borrowed many elements from the Transcaucasian culture, including metallurgy and possibly the use of vehicles, which played an immense role in their subsequent history. Soon thereafter Kurgan graves appeared in the western Ukraine, in the Balkans, and in central Europe, the home of the Tripolye, Gumelnita, Salcuta, Bodrogkeresztur, and Baden cultures (68, 73, 108, 215). It is possible to trace the incursion of new people into these areas by noting burial rites (including the custom of bury- ing cattle and dogs with humans), grave equipment, the appearance of horses and vehicles (61), and changes in physical type. Evidence of changes in physical type has been extensively studied in Rumania (143, 144) and in Hungary (145). The invaders seem also to have caused changes in the native economy. The large Tripolyan villages of the western Ukraine and Moldavia and the mounds long inhabited by the Gumelnita people of Bulgaria and Rumania disintegrated, to be replaced by small villages appropriate to a pastoral economy. The art of beautiful painted pottery of the eastern Balkans degener- ated and soon disappeared.

The appearance of the Kurgan people in the Balkans is now being connected with the mysterious wave of destruction in the Aegean area and in western Anatolia which spelled doom to Lerna in the eastern Peloponnese in Early Helladic II times (ca. 2200 B.C.) (34), to Troy II (ca. 2300 B.C.), to Beicesultan (ca. 2300 B.C.), and to a number of other western Anatolian cities (125). The Kurgan expansion to central and Baltic Europe and to northwestern Europe seems to have taken place somewhat later. C-14 dates for this expansion (centered around 2200-2100 B.C.) indicate that the early Corded or Battle-axe culture deserves dating to a period prior to that heretofore assumed.

Those who have extensive knowledge of the last centuries of the

EUrROPEAN PREHISTORY 85 third millennium B.C. now unanimously interpret this period of great destruction and of the appearance of eastern elements as a result of the invasion by the Indo-European-speaking peoples to Europe and the beginning of their political domination of the inhabitants of western Anatolia. These events in Europe were paralleled by developments in the Near East, where hieroglyphic tablets bear witness to invasions and conquests by the Indo-European Hittites and Kassites in the early second millennium and later by the Hyksos and the Indo- Iranian rulers of the Mitanni state. Invasion of the Aegean area and of western Anatolia must have been carried out by the Indo-Euro- pean Proto-Luvians, whose presence in this area in the second millennium B.C. has been proved through linguistic studies and historic records.

Bosch-Gimpera's large monograph of 1961 (28) and Devoto's of 1962 (48), devoted to the problem of Indo-European origins and early history, unfortunately do not include the most recently accumulated archaeological data from eastern Europe and Anatolia. Hence both books are entirely outdated from the archaeological point of view. At present it seems doubtful that the Danubian, Funnel-necked Beaker, and North Pontic cultures were at all connected with the area from which the Indo-Europeans originated. Only the Eurasiatic Kurgan culture seems to fit in with the linguistic reconstruction and early historic records of the Indo-Europeans (76). The material evidence of Kurgan expansion to Europe and Anatolia, the upheaval this caused, and subsequent cultural developments are of utmost importance for elucidation of the origin of the Indo-Europeans.

A number of articles and books have been devoted to the central and northern European Corded or Battle-axe culture, which fused local and Kurgan elements and heralded the arrival of the European Bronze Age (184). Studies of settlements in Holland and eastern Denmark have shown that the beginning of this culture coincided with the spread of a pastoral economy (198). Changes in physical types in the east Baltic area and central Russia have been pains- takingly examined (122). In southern Sweden, however, owing probably to an insufficient number of well-preserved villages and graves and to the lack of an earliest Kurgan stratum, changes of this nature have not been really traceable. Malmer, the author of a thousand- page monograph devoted to meticulous analysis of all the late Neo-

86 MARIJA GIMBUTAS

lithic objects found in Sweden (119), does, however, state that "an innovation and change in religion" occurred at the beginning of the Battle-axe culture.

THE BRONZE AGE

In order to clarify analysis of this period in different areas, it should first be stated that the Early Bronze Age in the Aegean area is the Copper Age in central Europe; its period of duration is from ca. 2300 to ca. 1800 B.C. (113). The formation of the (Tnetice (Aun- jetitz) culture in central Europe around 1800 B.C. is the traditional date for the beginning of the central European Bronze Age. The initial dates vary for the beginning of local metallurgy in other parts of Europe. In southern Russia (i.e., the lower Volga area), for ex- ample, the Bronze Age started no later than ca. 2000 B.C. The terminology for the Metal Age is still in a state of confusion.

The determining factor in the efflorescence of local metallurgy was the presence of copper sources. The growth of the Bronze Age culture of central Europe was based on copper obtained from the central European mountains, first the Carpathians, and later the Bohemian and central German mountains and the Alps. The southern Russian and Caucasian metal-working cultures depended on copper from the Urals and the Caucasian Mountains.

In recent years considerable emphasis has been given to metallurgical studies. An international committee was formed by the Sixth Congress at Rome in 1962, with the title of "Comite des Analyses Spectrales"; its aim was to compare the principles and methods of optical spectrometry espoused by the various research teams now active in England, Germany, France, Italy, Czechoslovakia, and the USSR (84). A team of archaeologists in Germany (Sangmeister, Junghaus, Otto, and Schroder) is employing spectroanalysis to copper and bronze objects from all parts of Europe, hoping to clarify the beginnings of the European metal culture and its trading activities. Since the main constituents of metal objects differ, the objects were first sorted into groups according to the source of the copper em- ployed. The results of their work are being published in a series of monographs entitled "Untersuchungen zur friihesten Metallurgie." The first volume, dealing with metallurgy in the Iberian Peninsula


and with western Europe in general, appeared in 1960 (97). An active Austrian team of investigators-Neuninger, Pittioni, and Preu- schen-has brought out a number of reports on the results of spectro- analyses of central European tnetice-Tumulus-Urnfield copper and bronze artifacts, for which the sources of the metal ore lie in the western Carpathians and the eastern Alps (148). The Austrian team, in addition to its metallurgical studies, is undertaking spectroanalysis of blue glass beads. The Urnfield people, according to the Austrian reports, had developed a local glass industry in the Tyrol by the twelfth century B.C., if not earlier (147). Work in this field by British scholars has produced spectroanalytical studies of metal objects of the Early Bronze Age Wessex culture (30).

The Bronze Age of Europe is usually divided into the "Aegean Bronze Age" and the "European Bronze Age," the latter covering the area outside of Greece. The first, with its marvelous Minoan and Mycenaean cultures, has been fully described and popularized. In- formation on the second area is not yet available to lay readers, since no synthesis has been deemed possible at the present stage of research. Marinatos in 1959 (121) and Matz in 1962 (123) published elegant books with superb colored pictures in new efforts to synthe- size the Bronze Age of Crete and Greece. Both books can be easily adapted for classroom use. Sinclair Hood's summary "The Home of the Heroes" in The Dawn of Civilization (91) is also well suited for the same purpose. Schachermeyr produced a survey of the new discoveries in Aegean prehistory (174). Other recent studies examine various separate aspects of Mycenaean culture: tholos tombs (89), architecture (78), Mycenaean pottery in Italy and adjacent areas (187), Aegean bronze swords (173), and the fall of the Mycenaean empire (1, 203). Moon has produced a bibliography for publications on Mycenae from 1956 to 1960 (135).

All the problems connected with Linear B were not solved by its deciphering in 1952 by Michael Ventris, who proved that these clay tablets from Late Minoan Knossos, Late Helladic Pylos, and Mycenae were inscribed in a Greek dialect. New questions arose, and were given special attention by the Oxford philologist L. R. Palmer in his book Mycenaeans and Minoans, published in 1961 (151). The excavator of the palace of Knossos, Sir Arthur Evans, claimed that the Linear B tablets at Knossos belonged to the Late Minoan II period,

88 MARIJA GIMBUTAS

which is the second half of the fifteenth century B.C. The tablets found in the archives of Pylos, Nestor's capital, in the western Pelo- ponnese, discovered by Carl Blegen, date from the thirteenth century B.C. All the other tablets and pottery inscriptions found in Greece belong to the same period. To Palmer a gap of two hundred years between the Knossos and Pylos tablets seems impossible, since the script in both areas is similar down to the smallest strokes. He ad- vanced a number of philological and archaeological arguments to prove that the Knossos and Pylos tablets are roughly contemporary. This problem is now one of those most passionately discussed among archaeologists (90, 204).

The Linear A script, which precedes Linear B at Knossos, is as yet undeciphered, though hypotheses about it-by Cyrus Gordon of Brandeis that it is Akkadian (Semitic) and by Palmer that it is Luvian (Indo-European) -are being examined. Palmer deciphered some place names which sound Luvian and are comparable with the Luvian names in western Anatolia (151). The presence of Luvian elements in Crete was also proved by George Huxley, another Oxford philologist, in a recent study (95). He too has identified traces of Luvian in the Linear B script. Mylonas, however, questions the presence of Luvians in Greece before the Greeks (142).

Italy, where there have been many unsystematic excavations in the past and where studies of the culture of the Bronze Age were for long neglected, is slowly awakening. A large amount of the work has been done, however, not by Italians but by foreign scholars. Pittioni of Vienna, in a detailed compilation of Italy's prehistory (162), has drawn together all the information available on the Bronze Age, which will prove of great use to future scholars. The Apennine culture has been covered in monographs by Trump (199) and Puglisi (165). The Urnfield bronzes were studied by Peroni (155). Anati, in Camonica Valley (3), has presented an admirable study of the thousands of carvings that he found on rocks of the Alpine foothills. Their "deciphering" has opened a new page in the history of the Bronze Age culture of northern Italy, as well as in that of Bronze Age Europe in general. The book throws much light on cultural aspects of the life of these Bronze Age artists, such as their religion, their social structure, and their economy. Bernab6 Brea presents a concise

EUROPEAN PREHISTORY 89 summary of the Sicilian Bronze Age in the book already mentioned (20). Evans' work (59) deals with the Bronze Age of Malta, with its exotic temples, as does a study by Trump (200). The strange and unique architecture of Sardinia, with its tower-shaped houses built of stones (nuraghi) and its remarkable bronze figurines dating from the mid-second millennium to the third century B.C., has been described in a large monograph by Lilliu (116) and in a popular art book by Stacul (180).

The heart of the European (or, as it is sometimes called, "Bar- barian") Bronze Age lies in the Danubian basin, north of the Alps and south of the Carpathian Mountains. The vast amount of material from this area, the disorder of chronological classifications, and the fact that studies of isolated areas have been limited by political boundaries have hampered reconstruction of a coherent picture of the central and east-central European Bronze Age. This situation has, however, improved in recent years. The Bronze Age cultures of east-central Europe and the northern Balkans, heretofore known only by their site names (T6szeg, Periam, etc.), are now being recognized as cultural entities, owing to recent excavations of stratified mounds and cemeteries in these areas. New names for the Early Bronze Age cultural groups in Hungary and Rumania-Nagyrev, Vatya, Hatvan, Pecica, Verbicioara, and Otomani-have appeared. Some of these have been described in large monographs (98). Two well-illustrated reports describe the sophisticated pottery of the Urnfields in western Hungary and southern Rumania (55, 56). New finds of the Monte- oru culture in eastern Rumania were published (206-8, 213).

Studies made by G. von Merhart, G. Childe, V. Milojcic, and others in the 1950's and more recently (92, 129), which showed the importance of central European metallurgical centers and their contacts with the south, paved the way for reconstruction of the chronologies of the central and northern European Bronze Age on a more substantial basis. Typological studies of immense numbers of central European bronzes from hoards, graves, and layers of stratified sites provided another basis for chronological studies. In recent years a number of large monographs dealing with chronologies and typolo- gies have appeared. Muller-Karpe's work covers the north and south Alpine area (138), Torbriigge deals with Bavaria and the Oberpfalz (195, 196), Hachmann's study clarifies the western Baltic area (80),

90 MARIJA GIMBUTAS

and Lomborg covers southern Scandinavia (117). Pittioni has de- vised a chronological system for the Bronze Age in Italy, which relies on comparisons with central Europe and with Mycenaean Greece (162). The early phase of the El Argar culture in the Iberian Penin- sula was likewise subject to influences from central Europe; its chronology is, hence, based on that of central Europe (22). Sandars' chronology of Bronze Age France (172) has also been built chiefly on evidence of relations with central Europe and influences ema- nating from there. Even for the chronology of the east European Bronze Age, commercial relations with central Europe have been shown by the author to be of the utmost importance (70, 72). The products of central European and Caucasian metallurgical centers were exchanged in the region north of the Black Sea, thus providing a basis for chronological comparisons between central Europe and the Aegean area, and between the Caucasian and Near Eastern regions.

The dates for central Europe and its satellites (Early Bronze Age, ca. 1800-1450 B.C.; Middle Bronze Age, ca. 1450-1250 B.C.; and Late Bronze Age, ca. 1250-750 B.C.) depend on how well they can be equated with the dates of the Aegean area and then with those of Egypt. The C-14 dates from Holland, Sweden, Germany, and Italy, which fortunately agree with the archaeological dates, have provided another means of checking these relative chronologies (162, 182, 190). They are particularly useful for dating Bronze Age cultures in peripheral areas.

In addition to these chronological studies, the character and importance of the central European tnetice-Tumulus-Urnfield culture have been emphasized in excavation reports. Finds from many large cemeteries and hoards have been published (32, 37, 93, 139, 170). Interesting observations on burial customs and women's dress have been made (26), showing that the origin of this culture is to be found in the Eurasiatic Kurgan culture. The same has been shown by excavations of fortified hilltop villages (193) analogous to the Kurgan citadels in the lower Dnieper area and to those of the Mycenaeans. Recent finds have proved that throughout the Bronze Age the central Europeans piled earthen barrows above their graves and that their basic grave type was an imitation of a small, rectangular house (99, 118). From Moravia, Slovakia, Hungary, and Transylvania has come


evidence-parts of horse bridles and ornamental plates (136), clay models of spoked wheels and vehicles (27)-that points to the regular use of horses and vehicles and to the manufacture of war chariots in this area. Bronze armor dating from ca. 1200 B.C. was discovered in a chieftain's grave in Caka, western Slovakia (194). Another very rich royal grave was brought to light in Ockov, also in western Slo- vakia (154).

Sufficient material has now been accumulated to give a clear picture of the constantly growing creativity and power of this culture, which, according to Gimbutas, was a single cultural bloc, with early (Otnetice), middle (Tumulus), and late (Umfield) periods. (I presented this view at the Sixth Congress at Rome in 1962, and it is given detailed treatment in a forthcoming monograph.) The beginning of its middle phase (ca. 1450-1400 B.C.) marks its expansion to the middle Danube basin; the beginning of the Urnfield period (ca. 1250- 1180 B.C.) signals its further expansion to Italy, the Balkans, and the eastern Mediterranean area. The central European Urnfield people were responsible for the destruction of the Mycenaean culture in Greece and of the Hittite empire in Asia Minor. The amount of bronze artifacts produced by the central Europeans during the second half of the second millennium B.C. was not surpassed by any other European culture, including the Mycenaeans and Minoans. Count- less hoards, some including hundreds of bronze sickles, socketed celts, axes, swords, spearheads, daggers, sheet-metal vessels (probably used for wine trade), and ornaments, have been found and analyzed (62, 139, 156). No wonder the central Europeans shook the civilized world at the end of the thirteenth century B.C.! In fact, the new evidence highlights the injustice of their having been once called "northern barbarians," for their government and social structure seem to have been very similar to those of the Mycenaean Greeks and the Hittites.

Teachers of European archaeology, in reference to the Bronze Age, used to speak of the "Aunjetitz," "Lausitz," "Northern Area," and "Vessex" peoples. Because of recent work in this field, a drastic revision of terminology and concepts is now in order. Not only has the picture of central and east-central Europe during the Bronze Age changed, but more information is available on the cultures of Russia, beginning in the Caucasian and Black Sea areas and spreading up to

92 MARIJA GIMBUTAS

the Arctic. Krupnov has published a 500-page monograph on the north Caucasian cultures (112). Innumerable reports on excavations in the north Pontic region and the lower Volga area have thrown much light on the ancient Cimmerian and Proto-Scythian cultures (189). Many excavation reports have given ample documentation to the chronological phases of the Timber-grave (Proto-Scythian) culture (71). To the north, in east-central Russia, the Abashevo culture has been discovered; it seems to be a continuation of the Fatj'anovo culture during the Middle Bronze Age (100, 197). The tireless work of the "Kama expedition," headed by 0. N. Bader, has led to the best documentation yet of an early Russian culture, the Turbino, which existed throughout the second millennium B.C. (9, 10). This culture, in contrast to those mentioned above, belongs to the Eurasian bloc and indicates that there must have been substantial intercourse with Siberia east of the Urals. The present author has presented a summary of the distribution and chronologies of the cultures between central Europe and the Urals (72).

EARLY MRON AGE

The central European Iron Age started right after the wars of the middle Danubian Urnfield people with the southern civilized world, from which they learned about the use of iron in Anatolia and Trans- caucasia. Iron was first used in central Europe in the twelfth and eleventh centuries B.C.; its use became more widespread during the next two centuries. Around the end of the eighth century, east-central Europe was overwhelmed by Oriental (chiefly Caucasian) elements brought by the Proto-Scythians after they had pushed the Cimmerians from the Black Sea area. This new east-west wave brought not only Oriental cultural motifs but also an increased local use of iron.

The beginning of the true Iron Age Hallstatt culture in the heart of Europe-in northwestern Yugoslavia, north Adriatic Italy, and Austria-was largely coincidental with the arrival of new eastern influences, the growth of the Etruscan civilization, and the founding of Greek colonies in Italy. The Hallstatt culture reached its climax in the period between 700 and 400 B.C. The treasures from the Hallstatt cemetery excavated 90 years ago were described in a gigantic monograph in 1959, prepared by Kromer (111). Other monuments (110)


and aspects of the Hallstatt culture, such as its art, wagon burials, and weaving industry, have been dealt with in a number of separate studies (50, 94, 107). In the field of art, emphasis has been placed recently on the sheet bronze situlae decorated with embossed scenes portraying the life of the upper-class Illyrians-processions of men, horses, chariots, games, fights, and so on. Well-organized exhibits of situla art in Italy, Yugoslavia, and Austria (150) have popularized this remarkable achievement, comparable in some respects with early classical Greek art.

Archaeologists have long known of the existence of copper and salt mines in the Austrian Alps. Recently there has been more attention paid to the question of how our European ancestors got salt. Nenquin has written a general book on the problem of salt, a study in economic prehistory (146), and Schauberger has presented a reconstruction of the salt mines in Hallstattian Salzberg, Austria (175).

The Celtic civilization, which has its roots in the western branch of the Hallstatt culture and ultimately in the central European Bronze Age culture (83, 103, 120, 172), because of its wide commercial contacts grew rapidly during the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. In the following centuries it dominated the whole of western and central Europe. A number of studies on Celtic treasures, royal tombs, and oppida have now been published: specifically, the treasure of Vix in France (96), the Hohmichele, the royal mound at Heuneburg in southwestern Germany (169), and the oppidum of Manching (109). One of the best syntheses of the Celtic civilization, its art and expansion, has been written in Czech by Filip (60). Another Czech archaeologist has published all the known evidence on the Celtic La Tene culture in Moravia (178).

Early Iron Age studies for northwestern Europe have likewise been prolific; voluminous monographs have appeared to clarify the chronology and material culture of the Germanic tribes before the migrations (12, 31, 81, 101).

I am ending this review with the Early Iron Age, a period when European cultures became extremely complex and fruitful in all phases of cultural life. For further information the reader should direct his attention to the surveys and bibliographies published by the Council for Old World Archaeology.

94 MARIJA GIMBUTAS

LITERATURE CITED

In the references below the following short forms have been adopted: APP. Ancient peoples and places. Glyn Daniel, ed. London: Thames and

Hudson. New York: Frederick A. Praeger. MIA. Materialy i Issledovanija po Arkheologii SSSR. Symposium N6olithique. L'Europe a la fin de l'age de la pierre. Actes du

Symposium consacre aux problemes du Neolithique europ6en, Prague- Liblice-Brno 5-12 octobre, 1959. J. Bohm and S. J. DeLaet, eds. Prague,1961.

V. Intern. Congress. Bericht fiber den V. Internationalen Kongress fur Vor- und Friihgeschichte. Hamburg, vom 24. bis 30. August 1958. G. Bersu, ed. Berlin, 1961.

(1) Alin, P. Das Ende der mykenischen Fundstiitten auf dem griechi- schen Festland. Studies in Mediterranean Archeology, I. Lund, 1962.

(2) Almagro Basch, M. Manual de historia universal. I. Prehistoria. Madrid, 1962.

(3) Anati, E. G. Camonica Valley; a depiction of village life in the Alps from Neolithic times to the birth of Christ as revealed by thousands of newly found rock carvings. New York, 1961.

(4) Ankel, C. Eine linearbandkeramische Siedlung bei Duder-Stadt (sild-Hannover). Veraffentlichungen der urgeschichtlichen Sammlungen des Landesmuseums zu Hannover 16:11-58 (1960).

(5) Arnal, J., G. Bailloud, and R. Riquet. Les styles ceramiques du n6o- lithique frangais. Pre'histoire 14 (1960).

(6) Arnal, J., and C. Bumez. Die Struktur des franzbsischen Neolithi- kums auf Grund neuester Beobachtungen. Romisch-Germanische Kommission, Bericht 37-38: 1-90 (1958).

(7) Arnal, J., and H. Martin-Granel. Le chateau prehistorique du Lebous, Saint-Mathieu-de-Treviers (Herault). Bulletin de la Socie'te Pre'historique FranQaise 8, Nos. 8-10: 571-82 (1961).

(8) Ashbee, P. The Bronze Age round barrow in Britain. London, 1960.

(9) Bader, 0. N., ed. Otchety Kamskoj (Votkinskoj) arkheologicheskoj ekspeditsii (Reports of the Kama archaeological expedition). Vols. I and II. Institut Arkheologii Akademii Nauk SSSR. Mos- cow, 1959,1961.

(10) Bader [Bahder], 0. Kulturen der Bronzezeit in Zentrairussland. Suomen Muinaismnuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskiria 59: 1-40 (1958).

(11) Banner, J. The Neolithic settlement on the Kremenyak hill at


Csoka. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 12: 1-56 (1960).

(12) Becker, C. J. F0rromersk jernalder i Syd-og Midjytland. Copen- hagen,1961.

(13) . Probleme der neolithischen Kulturen in Nordeuropa vom Anfang der Trichterbecherkultur bis zum Auftreten der Schnur- keramiker. In Symposium N6olithique, pp. 585-95.

(14) Behrens, H. Die Rossener Kultur und die friihneolithische siud- skandinawische Trichterbecherkultur: ein Diskussionsbeitrag. Acta Archaeologica (Copenhagen) 30: 169-84 (1959).

(15) . C-14 Daten fur das mitteldeutsche Neolithikum. Jahres- schrift far mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 46: 41-45 (1960).

(16) Benac, A. Studien zur Stein- und Kupferzeit im nordwestlichen Balkan. Romisch-Germanische Kommission, Bericht 42: 1-170 (1962).

(17) Berciu, D. Asupra protoneoliticului Europei sud-estice (A propos du proto-n6olithique de l'Europe du sud-ouest). In Omagiu lui Constantin Daicoviciu (Bucharest, 1960), pp. 15-29.

(18) . Contributii la problemele neoliticului in Rominia in lumina noilar cercetari. Bucharest: Institutul de Arheologie al Acade- miei R.P.R., 1960.

(19) . Die Verbicioara-Kultur. Vorbericht fiber eine neue, in Rumanien entdeckte bronzezeitliche Kultur. Dacia 5: 123-63 (1961).

(20) Bernabo Brea, L. Sicily before the Greeks. APP 3, 1957. (21) Beug, H.-J., ed. Leitfaden der Pollenbestimmung fur Mitteleuropa

und angrenzende Gebiete. Stuttgart, 1961. (22) Blance, B. M. The origin and development of the Early Bronze Age

in the Iberian Peninsula. Thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1960. (23) . Early Bronze Age colonists in Iberia. Antiquity 35, No.

139: 192-203 (1961). (24) Bloch, R. The Etruscans. APP 7. London, 1958. (25) Bogaers, J. E., W. Glasbergen, P. Glazema, and H. T. Waterbolk,

eds. Hondert eeuwen Nederland (One Hundred Centuries of the Netherlands). Antiquity and Survival 2, Nos. 5-6 (1959).

(26) Bona, I. Az oroszvari 4. noi sir melldisze (The pectoral ornament of the female grave 4 at Oroszvar). Archeologiai Elrtesitd 2: 198-205 (1960).

(27) . Clay models of Bronze Age wagons and wheels in the Middle Danube Basin. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scienti- arum Hungaricae 12: 83-111 (1960).

(28) Bosch-Gimpera, P. Les Indoeurop6ens. Problemes archeologiques. Paris, 1961.

96 MARIJA GIMBUTAS

(29) Braidwood, R. J. The earliest village communities of southwestern Asia reconsidered. In Atti del VI Congresso Internazionale delle Scienze Preistoriche e Protostoriche (Firenze, 1962), pp. 115-27.

(30) Britton, D. A study of the composition of Wessex culture bronzes. Archaeometry 4: 39-52 (1958).

(31) Br0nsted, J. Danmarks oldtid. 3 vols. Copenhagen, 1957, 1958, 1960.

(32) Brunn, W. A. von. Bronzezeitliche Hortfunde. I: die Hortfunde der friihen Bronzezeit aus Sachsen-Anhalt, Sachsen, Thiiringen. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Schriften der Sektion fur Vor- und Friihgeschichte, No. 7 (1959).

(33) Case, H. Irish Neolithic pottery: distribution and sequence. Proc. Prehistoric Soc.27: 174-233 (1961).

(34) Caskey, J. L. The Early Helladic period in the Argolid. Hesperia 29: 285-303 (1960).

(35) Chernysh, E. K. Mnogoslojnyi pam'jatnik u s. Pechody na juzhnom Buge (A stratified settlement at Pechoda on the Southern Bug River). Arkheologicheskij Sbornik 1: 166-201 (1959).

(36) . K istorii naselenija eneoliticheskogo vremeni v Srednem Pridnestrov'e (A contribution to the history of the settlement during the Chalcolithic period in the middle Dniester area). MIA 102: 5-86 (1962).

(37) Chropovsk5r, B., B. Dusek, and B. Polla. Grabderfelder aus der iilt- eren Bronzezeit in der Slowakei, I. Archaeologica Slovaca Fontes 3: 1-387 (1960).

(38) Clark, J. G. D. World prehistory. An outline. Cambridge, Eng- land, 1961.

(39) Clarke, J. G. D., and H. Godwin. The Neolithic in the Cambridge- shire Fens. Antiquity 36, No. 141: 10-24 (1962).

(40) Clarke, R. R. East Anglia. APP 14, 1960. (41) Comsa, E. Betrachtungen iiber die Linearbandkeramik auf dem

Gebiet der Rumanischen Volksrepublik und der angrenzenden Lander. Dacia 3: 35-57 (1958).

(42) . La civilisation Cri? sur le territoire de la R. P. Roumaine. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 1, No. 2: 173-84 (1959).

(43) . Nouvelles donn6es relatives a l'6volution des civilisations neolithiques sur le territoire de la Roumanie. Nouvelles Etudes d'Histoire (Bucharest) 2: 7-17 (1960).

(44) Cook, R. M., and J. C. Belsh6. Dating by archaeomagnetism. Ar- chaeology 12: 158-62 (1959).

(45) Daniel, G. Prehistoric chamber tombs of France. Cambridge, 1960. (46) Danilenko, V. M. Neolit Pobuzh'ja i vopros o slozhenii tripolskoj

kul'tury (The Neolithic in the area of Southern Bug and the ques-


tion of formation of the Tripolye culture). Kratkie soobshchenija Instituta Arkheologii 9 (1960).

(47) Deshayes, J. Les outils de bronze de l'Indus au Danube (IVe au jIe millenaire). Vols. I, II. Paris, 1960.

(48) Devoto, G. Origini indoeuropee. Firenze, 1962. (49) Dombay, J. Die Siedlung und das Graberfeld in ZengovArhony.

Beitriige zur Kultur des Aeneolithikums in Ungarn. Archaeologia Hungaria, S.N. 37: 1-236 (1960).

(50) Drack, W. Wagengraber und Wagenbestandteile aus Hallstattgrab- hiigeln der Schweiz. Zeitschrift fur Schweizerische Archaologie und Kunstgeschichte 18, Nos. 1-2: 1-67 (1958).

(51) Driehaus, J. Die Altheimer Gruppe und das Jungneolithikum in Mitteleuropa. Mainz, 1960.

(52) Dumas, F. Deep-water archaeology. Translated from the French. London, 1962.

(53) Dumitrescu, V. Les fouilles de Habasesti et quelques-uns des problemes de la civilisation de Cucuteni-Tripolye. Pamdtky Ar- cheologickg 49, No. 1: 265-96 (1958).

(54) . La civilisation de Cucuteni. Berichten van de rijksdienst voor het oudheidkundig bodemonderzoek 9: 7-48 (1959).

(55) . Necropola de incinera4ie din epoca bronzului de la Cirna. Bucharest: Institutul de Arheologie al Academiei R.P.R., 1961.

(56) Dugek, M. Patince-pohrebisko severopanonskej kultGry (Patince, a cemetery of the North Pannonian culture). Graberfelder aus der alteren Bronzezeit in der Slowakei, I. Archaeologica Slovaca Fontes3: 219-344 (1960).

(57) . Die thrako-skythische Periode in der Slowakei. Slovenskd Archaeologia 9, Nos. 1-2: 155-74 (1961).

(58) Ehgartner, W. Die Schadel aus den friihbronzezeitlichen Grabern von Hainburg, Nieder6sterreich. Mitteilungen der Anthropolo- gischen Gesellschaft in Wien 88-89: 8-91 (1959).

(59) Evans, J. D. Malta. APP 11, 1959. (60) Filip, J. Keltska civilisace a jejl dedictvi (Celtic civilization and its

heritage). Prague, 1959. (61) Foltiny, S. The oldest representations of wheeled vehicles in cen-

tral and southeastern Europe. Amer. J. Archaeol. 63: 53-58 (1959).

(62) . Ein neuer Beitrag zur Frage der Handelsbeziehungen zwischen Siebenbiirgen, dem Ostalpengebiet und Nordostitalien wiihrend der mittleren Bronzezeit. Archaeologia Austriaca 29: 76-95 (1961).

(63) . Ober die Fundstelle und Bedeutung der angeblich aus Kiskoszeg stammenden hallstattzeitlichen Bronzen des Romisch-

98 MARIJA GIMBUTAS

Germanischen Zentralmuseums in Mainz. Jahrbuch des Romisch- Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 8: 175-89 (1961).

(64) Formozov, A. A. Neolit Kryma i Chernomorskogo poberezh'ja Kav- kaza (The Neolithic in the Crimea and the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus). MIA 102: 89-149 (1962).

(65) French, D. H. Late Chalcolithic pottery in northwest Turkey and the Aegean. Anatolian Studies 9: 99-141 (1961).

(66) Garasanin, M. Neolitikum und Bronzezeit in Serbien und Make- donien. Rdmisch-Germanische Kommission, Bericht 39: 1-139 (1958).

(67) . Der Stand der Neolithikumforschung in Serbien und Make- donien mit besonderer Riicksicht auf die neuen Ergebnisse inder Agais und am Ostbalkan. In V. Intern. Congress, pp. 307-12.

(68) . Der Utbergang vom Neolithikum zur friuhen Bronzezeit auf dem Balkan und der unteren Donau. In Symposium Neolithique, pp. 15-45.

(69) Georgiev, G. I. Kulturgruppen der Jungsteinzeit und der Kupfer- zeit in der Ebene von Thrazien (Siudbulgarien). In Symposium Neolithique, pp. 45-100.

(70) Gimbutas, M. A survey of the Bronze Age in the southeastern Baltic area. Swiatowit 23: 389-435 (1960).

(71) . A Proto-Scythian culture: the Timber-grave culture in southern Russia. Expedition, Bull. Univ. Pennsylvania 3: 14-22 (1961).

(72) . Die bronzezeitlichen Kulturen in Osteuropa. In V. Intern. Congress, pp. 337-443.

(73) . Notes on the chronology and expansion of the Pit-grave Kurgan culture. In Symposium N6olithique, pp. 193-200.

(74) . The Balts. APP 33. London, 1963. (75) . Masterpieces of Neolithic art from Rumania. Archaeology

16, No. 1: 54-56 (1963). (76) . The Indo-Europeans. Archaeological problems. Amer. An-

throp. 65, No. 4: 815-37 (1963). (77) Giot, P. R. Brittany. APP 13, 1960. (78) Graham, J. W. Mycenaean architecture. Archaeology 13: 46-54

(1960). (79) Gurina, N. N. Drevnjaja istorija Severo-Zapada Evropejskoj Chasti

SSSR (Ancient history of the northwestern part of the European USSR). MIA 87: 1-584 (1961).

(80) Hachmann, R. Die friihe Bronzezeit im westlichen Ostseegebiet. Beiheft zum Atlas der Urgeschichte (Hamburg) 6: 1-258 (1957).

(81) . Die Chronologie der jiingeren vorromischen Eisenzeit. Studien zum Stand der Forschung im nordlichen Mitteleuropa


und im Skandinavien. Romisch-Germanische Kommission, Bericht 41: 1-276 (1961).

(82) Harden, D. The Phoenicians. APP 26. London, 1960. (83) Hawkes, C. F. C. The southern British Bronze Age: archaeology

and the ethnic problem. In V. Intern. Congress, pp. 379-82. (84) . Analysis by optical spectrometry principally of objects of

copper, bronze and gold. In Atti del VI Congresso Internazionale delle Scienze Preistoriche e Protostoriche (Firenze, 1962), pp. 33-54.

(85) . The rise of Europe. Larousse Encyclopaedia of Prehistoric and Ancient Art, pp. 199-213 (1962).

(86) Hedvall, J. A. Chemie im Dienst der Archiiologie, Bautechnik, Denkmalpflege. With articles by G. Degelius and H. Granholm. Goteborg, 1962.

(87) Heizer, R. F., and S. F. Cook, eds. The application of quantitative methods in archaeology. Viking Fund Pub. 28, 1961.

(88) Hofstiitter, H. H., and H. Pixa. Vergleichende Weltgeschichte. Bd. 1, Von der Urzeit bis um 2500 v. Chr.; Bd. 2, Um 2500 v. Chr.-um 1100 v. Chr., 1962.

(89) Hood, M. S. F. Tholos tombs of the Aegean. Antiquity 34, No. 135: 166-76 (1960).

(90) . The date of the Linear B tablets at Knossos. Antiquity 35, No.137: 4-8 (1961).

(91) . The home of the heroes: The Aegean before the Greeks. Chapter in (160).

(92) Horedt, K. Siebenbiirgen und Mykena. Nouvelles E1tudes dcHis- toire (Bucharest) 2: 31-44 (1960).

(93) Hundt, H.-J. Katalog Straubing I. Die Funde der Glockenbecher- Kultur und der Straubinger Kultur. Materialhefte zur bayeri- schen Vorgeschichte 11 (1958).

(94) . Vorgeschichtliche Gewebe aus dem Hallstatter Salzberg. Jahrbuch des Rdmisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 6: 66-100 (1959).

(95) Huxley, G. L. Crete and the Luwians. Oxford, 1961. (96) Joffroy, R. Le tresor de Vix. Paris, 1961. (97) Junghans, S., E. Sangmeister, and M. Schroder. Metallanalysen

kupferzeitlicher und friihbronzezeitlicher Bodenfunde aus Eu- ropa. Untersuchungen zur friihesten Metallurgie. Berlin, 1960.

(98) Kalicz, N. Die Peceler (Badener) Kultur und Anatolien. Budapest: Akodemiai Kiado, 1963.

(99) Kasseroller, A. Das Urnenfeld von Volders. Schlern Schriften 204: 1-246 (1959).

(100) Khalikov, A. Kh. Pam'jatniki abashevskoj kul'tury v Marijskoj

100 MARIJA GIMBUTAS

ASSR (Finds of the Abashevo culture in the Mari SSR). MIA 97: 157-242 (1961).

(101) Kersten, K., and W. La Baume. Vorgeschichte der nordfriesischen Inseln. Unter Mitwirkung von H. Jankuhn, E. Dittmer u. A. Rust. Die Vor- und Fruhgsechichtliche Denkmaler und Funde in Schlestvig-Holstein 4: 1-664 (1959).

(102) Kleemann, G. Schwert und Urne; Ausgraben in Deutschland, Methoden und Funde. Stuttgart, 1962.

(103) Kimmig, W. Die Herkunft der Kelten als historisch-archiiol- ogisebes Problem. Hommages t Albert Grenier. Collection Latomus 58: 884-99 (1962).

(104) Klindt-Jensen, 0. Denmark before the Vikings. APP 4, 1957. (105) Kohler, E. L. C-14 dates for sites in the Mediterranean area.

Amer. J. Archaeol. 65: 357-67 (1961). (106) Korek, J. Lebb-Halm 'asatas 1950-ben (The excavation at Lebo-

Halom in 1950). Archelogiai Ertesitd 2: 132-55 (1958). (107) Kossack, G. Siidbayem wiihrend der Hallstattzeit, 2 vols. Romisch-

Germanische Forschungen, Bericht 24 (1929). (108) Koszegi, F. Adatok a Magyarorszagi okkersirok eredet6nek ker-

d6s6hez (summary in French: Contribution a la question de l'origine des tombes a ocre en Hongrie). Archeologiai Ertesito 89, 1: 15-22 (1962).

(109) Kraimer, W. The oppidum of Manching. Antiquity 34, No. 135: 191-200 (1960).

(110) Kromer, K. Brezje. Hallstiittische Hugelgraber aus Brezje bei Trebelno. Catalog Archaeologiae Sloveniae 2, in German and Slovenian (1959).

(111) Kromer, K., ed. Das Graberfeld von Hallstatt. With contributions by W. Ehgartner, A. Kloiber, F. Morton, and F. Strob. Vienna: Naturhistorisehes Museum, Oberosterreichisches Landesmuseum and Hallstatt Museum., Ass. Intern. d'Archeol. class., monogr. 1, 1959.

(112) Krupnov, E. I. Drevnjaja istorija severnogo Kavkaza. Moscow: Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1960.

(113) Kutzian (Bognar), I. The Copper Age cemetery of Tiszapolgar- Basatanya. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1963.

(114) Laet, S. J. de. The Low Countries. APP 5, 1958. (115) Lagodovska, 0. F., N. N. Saposhnikova, and M. L. Makarevich.

Mikhailivske posselenija (The settlements of Mikhailovka. In Ukrainian). Kiev, 1962.

(116) Lilliu, G. I nuraghi; torri preistoriche di Sardegna. Cagliari Edi- zioni "La Zattera," 1962.

(117) Lomborg, E. Donaulandische Kulturbeziehungen und die relative


Chronologie der friihen nordischen Bronzezeit. Acta Archaeo- logica (Copenhagen) 30: 51-146 (1960).

(118) Malinowski, T. Obrz4dek pogrzebowy ludnogci kultury luzyckiej w Polsce (Burial rites of the Lusatian culture in Poland). Przeglqd Archeologiczny 14: 5-135 (1962).

(119) Mahmer, M. P. Jungneolithische Studien. Lund, 1962. (120) Marien, M. E. Trouvailles du champ d'urnes et des tombelles

hallstattiennes de Court-Saint-Etienne. Monographies d'Arche'o- logie Nationale (Brussels) 1: 1-271 (1958).

(121) Marinatos, Sp. Kreta und das mykenische Hellas. Illus. by M. Hirmer. Munich, 1959. English translation, 1960.

(122) Mark, K. Zur Entstehung der gegenwairtigen Rassentypen im Ostbaltikum. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 59, No. 4: 1-59 (1958).

(123) Matz, F. Crete and early Greece; the prelude to Greek art. Lon- don, 1962 (trans. from German: Kreta und friihes Griechenland).

(124) Mazanetz, G. Erhaltung und Wiederherstellung von Bodenfunden. Bronze, Gold, Blei, Zinn. Wiener Schriften 12: 1-152 (1960).

(125) Mellaart, J. The end of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia and the Aegean. Amer. J. Archaeol. 62: 9-35 (1958).

(126) . The beginning of village and urban life. Chapter in (160). (127) Merpert, N. Ja. Eneolit stepnoj polosy evropejskoj chasti SSSR

(The Chalcolithic period in the steppe zone of the European part of the USSR). With a French translation: L'6n6olithique de la zone steppique de la partie europ6enne de l'URSS. In Symposium N6olithique, pp. 161-92.

(128) Mikov, V. The prehistoric mound of Karanovo. Archaeology 12: 88-97 (1959).

(129) Miloj6ic, V. Zur Chronologie der jiingeren Stein- und Bronzezeit Siudost und Mitteleuropas. Germania 37: 65-84 (1959).

(130) . Hauptergebnisse der deutschen Ausgrabungen in Thessa- lien 1953-58. Jahrbuch des Romisch-Germanischen Zentral- museums Mainz 4: 1-56 (1960).

(131) . Priikeramisches Neolithikum auf der Balkanhalbinsel. Ger- mania 38: 320-35 (1960).

(132) . Zur Anwendbarkeit der C 14-Datierung in der Vorge- schichtsforschung. Germania 39: 435-53 (1960).

(133) . (With contributions by Y. Boessneck and M. Hopf.) Die praikeramische neolithische Siedlung von Argissa in Thessalien. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen in Thessalien I. Beitrdge zur ur- und friihgeschichtlichen Archdologie des Mittelmeer-Kultur- raumes 2: 1-25 (1962).

102 MARIJA GIMBUTAS

(134) Modderman, P. J. R. Die bandkeramische Siedlung von Sittard. Palaeohistoria (Groningen) 6-7: 33-121 (1958-59).

(135) Moon, B. E. Mycenaean civilization. Publications 1956-1960. A second bibliography. Bull. Inst. Class. Stud. (London), Suppl. 12: 1-130 (1961).

(136) Mozsolics, A. Die Herkunftsfrage des iiltesten Hirschgeweihtren- sen. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 12: 125-37 (1960).

(137) Muller-Beck, H. Prehistoric Swiss lake dwellers. Scientific Ameri- can 205, No. 6: 138-44, 147 (1961).

(138) Miiller-Karpe, H. Beitraige zur Chronologie der Umenfelderzeit nbrdlich und siudlich der Alpen. Romisch-Germanische For- schungen, Bericht 22: 1-334 (1959).

(139) . Die Vollgriffsschwerter der Urnenfelderzeit aus Bayern. Munich, 1961.

(140) Munchaev, R. M. Drevneishaja kul'tura severo-vostochnogo Kav- kaza (The most ancient culture of the northeastern Caucasus). MIA 100: 1-165 (1961).

(141) . Pam'jatniki majkopskoj kul'tury v Checheno-Ingushetil (Sites of the Maikop culture in the Chechen-Ingush ASSR). Sovetskaja Arkheologija 3: 176-98 (1962).

(142) Mylonas, G. The Luvian invasions of Greece. Hesperia 31: 284- 310 (1962).

(143) Necrasov, 0. Consideratii asupra populatiilor din virsta pietrei ?i de la inceputul vi'stei metalelor pe teritoriul R.P.R. (Consid6ra- tions sur les populations de l'age de la pierre et du commence- ment de l'age des m6taux du territoire de la R. P. Roumaine). In Omagiu lui Constantin Daicoviciu (Bucharest, 1960), pp.415-26.

(144) . Essai de synthese sur la structure anthropologique des populations n6olithiques et 6n6olithiques qui v6curent sur le territoire roumain. V. Intern. Congress, p. 59.

(145) Nemesk6ri, J. Der iineolithische und kupferzeitliche Mensch in Ungarn. V. Intern. Congress, pp. 599-601.

(146) Nenquin, J. Salt. A study in economic prehistory. Gent. Diss. Arch. Gand 6: 1-162 (1961).

(147) Neuninger, H., and R. Pittioni. Woher stammen die blauen Glas- perlen der Urnenfelderkultur? Archaeologia Austriaca 26: 52-66 (1959).

(148) Neuninger, H., R. Pittioni, and E. Preuschen. Das Kupfer der Nordtiroler Urnenfelderkultur. Archaeologia Austriaca, Beiheft 5 (1960).

(149) Neustupny, J., and E. Neustupny. Czechoslovakia before the Slavs. APP 22, 1961.


(150) Pallottino, M., et al. Situlenkunst zwischen Po und Donau. Ver- zierte Bronzearbeiten aus dem ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr. Vien- na: Naturhistorisches Museum, 1962. Florence (in Italian), 1961.

(151) Palmer, L. R. Mycenaeans and Minoans. Aegean prehistory in the light of Linear B tablets. London, 1961.

(152) Passek, T. S. Rannezemledel'cheskie (Tripolskie) plemena podnes- trov'ja (Early farming communities in the River Dniester basin). MIA 84: 1-226 (1961).

(153) . Relations entre l'Europe Occidentale et l'Europe Orientale a 1'epoque n6olithique. In Atti del VI Congresso Intemazionale delle Scienze Preistoriche e Protostoriche (Firenze, 1962), I, pp. 127-44.

(154) Paulik, J. Das Velatice-Baierdorfer Hiigelgrab in Ockov. Slovenska Archeol6gia 10, No. 1: 5-97 (1962).

(155) Peroni, R. Bronzi dal territorio del Fucino nei Musei Preistorici di Roma e Perugia. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 16: 1-205 (1961).

(156) Piggott, S. A Late Bronze Age wine trade? Antiquity 33, No. 130: 122-23 (1959).

(157) . Neolithic and Bronze Age in East Europe. Antiquity 34, No.136: 285-94.

(158) . The British Neolithic cultures in their continental setting. In Symposium N6olithique, pp. 557-74.

(159) . The West Kennet Long Barrow; excavations, 1955-56. Ministry of Works, Archaeological Reports, No. 4: xii-103 (1962).

(160) Piggott, S., ed. The dawn of civilization. New York-Toronto-Lon- don, 1962.

(161) Piotrovsky, B. The aeneolithic culture of Transcaucasia in the third millennium B.C. In VI. Intern. Congress. Reports and communi- cations by archaeologists of the USSR. Moscow, 1962.

(162) Pittioni, R. Italien; urgeschichtliche Kulturen. Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopaedie der kdassischen Altertumswissenschaft. Sup- plementband 9: 105-372.

(163) Powell, T. G. E. The Celts. APP 6, 1960. (164) . Barbarian Europe. From the first farmers to the Celts.

Chapter in (160). (165) Puglisi, S. M. La civilta Appenninica. Origine delle comuniti

pastorali in Italia. Florence, 1959. (166) Quitta, H. Zur Frage der ailtesten Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa.

Prdhistorische Zeitschrift 38, H. 1-2: 1-38 (1960). (167) . Betrachtungen zum Siedlungswesen der Bandkeramik. V.

Intern. Congress, pp. 678-81.

104 MARIJA GIMBUTAS

(168) Ralph, E. K., and R. Stuckenrath. Carbon-14 measurements of known age samples. Nature 188: 185-87 (1960).

(169) Rieck, A., and H. J. Hundt. Der Hohmichele, ein Fiirstengrabhiigel der spaiten Hallstattzeit in der Heuneburg. Rdmisch-Germanische Forschungen, Bericht 25: 1-214 (1961).

(170) Rihovskl, J. Pocatky velaticke kultury na Morav6. With resum6 in German: Die Anfange der Velaticer Kultur in Maihren. Slo- venskd Archaeol6gia 9, Nos. 1-2: 107-52 (1961).

(171) Rodden, R. J. Excavations at the Early Neolithic site at Nea Niko- medeia, Greek Macedonia (1961 season). With contributions by G. W. Dimbleby, A. C. Western, E. H. Willis, E. S. Higgs, and W. J. Eleuch. Proc. Prehistoric Soc. 28: 267-88 (1962).

(172) Sandars, N. K. Bronze Age cultures in France. The later phases from the thirteenth to the seventh century B.C. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1957.

(173) . Later Aegean bronze swords. Amer. J. Archaeol. 67, No. 2: 117-55.

(174) Schachermeyr, F. Ausgrabungen und Neufunde zur aigaiischen Friihzeit. Archiiologischer Anzeiger fur 1962. Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, 1962.

(175) Schauberger, 0. Ein Rekonstruktionsversuch der prahistorischen Grubenbauen im Hallstatter Salzberg. Prihistorische Forschun- gen (Horn-Vienna), 5 (1961).

(176) Schwabedissen, H. Die Ausgrabungen im Satruper Moor; zur Frage nach Ursprung und friihester Entwicklung des nordischen Neolithikums. Off a 16: 5-28 (1960).

(177) Scollar, I. Regional groups in the Michelsberg culture. Proc. Pre- historic Soc. 25: 52-134 (1959).

(178) Simek, E. Posledn'i keltove na Morave (Les derniers Celtes en Moravie). Brno, 1958.

(179) SoudskV, B. The Neolithic site of Bylany. Antiquity 36, No. 143: 190-200 (1962).

(180) Stacul, G. Arte della Sardegna nuragica. Milan: Biblioteca mo- derna Mondadori, Secione arti figurative 704, 1961.

(181) Stenberger, M. Sweden. APP 30, 1962. (182) Stjernquist, B. Simris 2. Bronze Age problems in the light of the

Simris excavation. With contributions by I. Olsson and N.-G. Gejvall. Lund: Acta Arch. Lundensia, 1961.

(183) Stone, J. F. S. Wessex before the Celts. APP 9, 1958. (184) gturms, E. Die Herkunft der Becher-Bootaxt-Kultur. V. Intern.

Congress, pp. 779-89. (185) Talbot Rice, T. The Scythians. APP 2, 1958. (186) Tauber, H. Difficulties in the application of C-14 results in archae-

ology. Archaeologia Austriaca 24: 59-76 (1958).


(187) Taylour, W. Mycenaean pottery in Italy and adjacent areas. Cam- bridge, 1958.

(188) Telegin, D. Ja. K voprosu o Dnepro-Donetskoj kul'ture (Contribu- tion to the problem of the Dnieper-Donets culture). Sovetskaja Arkheologija 4 (1961).

(189) Terenozhkin, A. I. Predskifskij period na Dneprovskom Pravo- berezh'e (The Pre-Scythian period west of the lower Dnieper). Kiev: Akademija Nauk Ukrainskoj SSR, Institut Arkheologii, 1961.

(190) Thomas, H. L. The significance of radiocarbon dating for the Bronze Age chronology of central Europe. V. Intern. Congress, pp. 805-10.

(191) Tichy, R. K nejstarsi volutov6 keramice na Morave (A contribution to the earliest spiral-meander pottery in Moravia). Pamatky Archeologicke' 51, No. 2: 415-41 (1960).

(192) . Osidleni volutovou keramikou na Morave. With a resume in German: Die Besiedlung mit Voluten- (Linearband) Kera- mik in Miihren. Pamdtky Archeologicke 53, No. 2: 245-304 (1962).

(193) Tihelka, K. Moravski veterovskj typ. With a resum6 in German: Der maihrische Veterov Typus. Pamdtky Archeologicke' 51: 25- 135 (1960).

(194) Tocik, A., and J. Paulik. Vyskum mohyly v Cake v rokach 1950- 51. With a resume in German: Die Ausgrabung eines Grab- huigels in Caka in den Jahren 1950-51. Slovenskd Archaeol6gia 8, No. 1: 59-110 (1960).

(195) Torbriigge, W. Die Bronzezeit in Bayern. Stand der Forschungen zur relativen Chronologie. Romisch-Germanische Kommission, Bericht 40: 1-78 (1959).

(196) . Die Bronzezeit in der Oberpfalz. Materialhefte z. bayeri- schen Vorgeschichte 13: 1-240 (1959).

(197) Tret'jakov, P. N. Abashevskaja kul'tura. Pamatky Archeologicke' 52, No. 2: 374-83 (1961).

(198) Troels-Smith, J. Probleme im Zusammenhang mit Europas iiltester Bauernkultur in naturwissenschaftlichen Beleuchtung. In V. Intern. Congress, pp. 825-32.

(199) Trump, D. H. The Apennine culture of Italy. Proc. Prehistoric Soc. 24: 165-201 (1958).

(200) . The later prehistory of Malta. Proc. Prehistoric Soc. 27: 253-62 (1961).

(201) Valera, R. de. The "Carlingford culture," the Long Barrow and the Neolithic of Great Britain and Ireland. Proc. Prehistoric Soc. 27: 234-52 (1961).

106 MARIJA GIMBUTAS

(202) Valera, R. de, and S. O'Nuallaiin. Survey of the megalithic tombs of Ireland. I: County Clare. Dublin, 1961.

(203) Vermeule, E. T. The Fall of the Mycenaean Empire. Archaeology 13: 66-75 (1960).

(204) . The Fall of Knossos and the Palace style. Amer. J. Ar- chaeol. 67: 195-99 (1963).

(205) Vogt, E. Der Stand der neolithischen Forschung in der Schweiz. In Symposium N6olithique, pp. 459-89.

(206) Vulpe, A. K voprosu o periodizacii bronzovogo veka v Moldove (A propos des p6riodes de I'age du bronze en Moldavie). Dacia 5: 105-22 (1961).

(207) . Descoperiri arheologice pe cursul milojciu al Siretului (Resume in French: Decouvertes arch6ologiques sur le cours moyen du S6ret). Arheologia Moldovei 1: 65-80 (1961).

(208) . Sapaturile de la Costisa, r. Buhusi, reg. Bacau (The excavations of Costisa). Materiale Bi Cercetari Arheologice 8: 309-16 (1962).

(209) Vulpe, R. Izvoare: Sapaturile din 1936-48. Biblioteca de Arhe- ologie (Bucharest) 1: 1-396 (1957). With summaries in Rus- sian and French.

(210) Waterbolk, H. T. Die bandkeramische Siedlung von Geleen. Pa- laeohistoria (Groningen) 6-7: 121-63 (1958-59).

(211) . The 1959 Carbon-14 Symposium at Groningen. Antiquity 34, No. 133: 14-19 (1960).

(212) Waterbolk, H. T., and P. J. R. Modderman. Die Grossbauten der Bandkeramik. Palaeohistoria (Groningen) 6-7: 163-71 (1958- 59).

(213) Zaharia, E. Die Lockenringe von Sarata-Monteoru und ihre typo- logischen und chronologischen Beziehungen. Dacia 3: 103-34 (1959).

(214) Zeist, W. van. Palynologische Untersuchung eines Torfprofils bei Sittard. Palaeohistoria (Groningen) 6-7: 19-25 (1958-59).

(215) Zirra, V. Kul'tura pogrebenii s okhroj v zakarpatskikh oblastiakh RNR (The Ochre-grave culture in the Transcarpathian regions of Rumania). Materiali i Issledovanija po Arkheologii Jugo- zapada SSSR i Ruminskoj Narodnoj Respubliki (Kishinev), pp. 95-125 (1960).

european prehistory- neolithic to the iron age author(s)- marija gimbuta

Documents