Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-jbkpb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-15T03:55:20.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dating of some Burials in Tumuli in South Albania

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

N. G. L. Hammond
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In May 1970 an Albanian delegation attended the Second International Congress of Southeast European Studies at Athens, and one of the delegates, Professor Frano Prendi, with his characteristic kindness, sent me copies of three Communications which were delivered to the Congress. As the illustrations in these Communications were of poor quality, he sent me two photographs from which two of the illustrations had been made. I reproduce these photographs here as Plates 34 and 35.

The general thesis of the delegation was that the formation of the Illyrian ethnos in central and south Albania began at the end of the ‘Eneolithic’ period; that an autochthonous evolution followed which spanned the entire Bronze Age and continued into the Early Iron Age; and that during this long period the ‘Ur-Illyrians’, if I may style them so, had reciprocal exchanges with other people, but preserved their own ethnic character.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 66 , November 1971 , pp. 229 - 241
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Published in Éditions du Comité national albanais des Études balkaniques, Tirana (1970), they are entitled Communications de la délégation de la R.P. d'Albanie. I refer to them as follows: C 1 = Muzafer Korkuti, ‘Les rapports de civilisation illyro-égéens à l'âge du bronze et la survivance de certains objets de type Mycènes à l'âge du fer’; C 2 = Frano Prendi and Dhimosten Budina, ‘La civilisation illyrienne de la vallèe du Drinos’; C 3 = Skender Anamali, ‘Les villes de Dyrrhachion et d'Apollonie et leurs rapports avec les Illyriens’.

2 Here the term is used in addition to the term ‘Late Neolithic’, so that it is regarded as a transitional phase between L.N.A. and E.B.A.

3 C 1, 5 as in Studia Albanica 1966, i (cited hereafter as SA); and my article in BSA lxii. 98 ff., which was based on the preliminary report in SA 1964, i.

4 C I, 28 as in SA 1964, i; BSA lxii. 77 ff., where I gave the following sentence in translation from SA 1964, i: ‘the finds of the central burials—daggers, long spearheads and tweezers—are dated on the basis of their characteristic Helladic type to the Middle Helladic period towards the years 1800–1700 B.C.’

5 C 1, 9 ff. and BSA lxii. 79 ff. with pl. 19, a, showing a sword, and pl. 20, 1, showing a two-zoned cylindrical cup. Korkuti illustrates these in C 1, pl. iii, 6 and pl. iv, 3 and confirms that they came from the same grave, as I had in ferred in BSA loc. cit. I quoted also from the Pazhok report that ‘the finds of the additional (outer) tumulus—long swords, spearheads, the spiral of gold, and the pottery containers, including the vase of Mycenaean type—belong to the Late Helladic period’. For Vodhinë see Epirus 201 ff. and 346 ff.; C 2, 6–10, and C 1, 28 where ‘the tumuli of Dropull’ includes Vodhinë. For Vajzë see Epirus 228 ff. and 341 ff.; C 1, 28 for the Late Bronze Age, and C 2, 9.

6 C 1, 9 f., 16 f., and 28, and C 2, 9 f.: Epirus 346 ff. and 401. The difference between us is that I did not carry the use of the tumuli at these sites far into the Early Iron Age.

7 C 1, pl. iii, 1–3 and 7, and pl. ii, 9.

8 Prendi, F., ‘Tumat në fushën e fshatit Vajzë’ in BUSS 1957, ii. 76 ff.Google Scholar: Korkuti in C 1, 10 ff., and Prendi and Budina in C 2, 16 ‘Les tumuli illyriens de l'âge du fer de Vajzë’.

9 Prendi, F., ‘Mbi rezultatet e gërmimeve në fashtin Vodhinë, te rrethit te Gjinokastres’ in BUSS 1956, i. 180 ff.Google Scholar and especially 186; and in C 2, 8.

10 For studies of these daggers see Branigan, K., Copper and Bronze Working in Early Bronze Age Crete (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, xix. Lund, 1968) 13Google Scholar, Type IV and fig. i, 4; ‘The Early Bronze Age daggers of Crete’ in BSA lxii (1967) 211 ff.; and ‘A transitional phase in Minoan metallurgy’ in BSA lxiii (1968) 185 ff.

11 C 2, 7.

12 C 2, 7 ‘cette sepulture … recouvrait la sepulture 17 a inhumation’.

13 For a study of leaf-shaped and flame-shaped spearheads in Epirus-in-Greece see Vokotopoulou, I. P. in AE 1969, 195 ff.Google Scholar with illustrations on pls. 27 and 28. The proposal of Catling, H. W. in BSA lxiii (1968) 106Google Scholar to include in one class the weapons ‘variously called “flame-shaped” (Sandars), “Fiddle-shaped” (Hammond), “ogival” or “leaf-shaped” (various authorities)’ would turn a blind eye to the distinctions in shape which are often of significance.

14 The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors 67 with pl. 22d (‘near Thebes’), and Epirus 339 with fig. 24, 4; Desborough includes this spearhead from near Thebes in a class with spearheads from Kalbaki and Gribiani which are leafshaped, and lack the waist of the fiddle-shaped spearhead (see Dakaris, S. I. in PAE 1956, 115 and 131Google Scholar).

15 C 2, 8 and pl. ii, 4 as mentioned on p. 5. For the Mati valley spearhead see Epirus 339, citing BUSS 1955, i, pl. 2, no. 2, in which the spearhead was photographed from above and the waist of the blade is not clearly shown.

16 It is doubtful if burials were made in the Pazhok tumuli down to the end of the Bronze Age (see BSA lxii. 82).

17 The waist of the fiddle-shaped blade is badly designed, because the flesh would tend to close round it in a wound of similar depth and extraction would be difficult; the shape of the socket may have been intended to give a better grip for extracting the head.

18 K. Branigan, Copper and Bronze Working in Early Bronze Age Crete 29; V. G. Childe, Daum of European Civilization 32.

19 If I seem to labour the point, it is because in C 2, 7 f. my argument seems not to have been understood; it is expounded in Epirus 203, 310, and 339.

20 C 2, 9 f.

21 Epirus 320, 346, 348, 351.

22 BSA lxiii. 104.

23 C 2, 16 f.

24 My reasons are given in Epirus 203 and 351, with p. 360 for long pins.

25 Apparently the sword has lost part of one of its ears since 1959.

26 In discussing sword C on pp. 323–4 with the notes, I said that it was ‘not a typically Mycenaean form’, did not fit any of Catling's categories in Antiquity xxxv, was a slashing sword of a non-Mycenaean type which is an intruder in the Mediterranean region, and probably reached Epirus from the north. Later on the same page I said that ‘swords H and J from Vajzë, sword I from Vodhinë, and sword K from Kakavi are also of northern types.’

27 Antiquity xxxv (1961) 118.

28 BSA lxiii, 100 and his summary on p. 102.

29 The other Type II swords from Epirus are sword H and sword J, both from Vajzë. Catling classifies the former as of ‘Unknown Type’ and the latter as ‘Uncanonical’ (BSA lxiii. 102). Again I see affinities with features of his canonical categories. Thus sword H has lost the top of the haft, so that there is no evidence of a pommel-tang; otherwise it has features of Catling's Group IV, namely the long haft, three rivets in the haft, one rivet on each shoulder, curving shoulders, and short length (BUSS 1957, ii. 83 and Antiquity xxxv. 120 with fig. 2). Sword J has the following features of ‘Group II Developed’: elongated spur, straight-topped ears as in Catling's no. 12, ridges, and a nearly horizontal curve at the junction of the haft and blade below the shoulders.

In these respects sword J resembles the second sword from Graditsa in Thessaly (Antiquity xxxv, pl. xvi (c), no. 12 in the list).Google Scholar On the other hand, sword J has fewer rivets and less length than the canonical requirement, and the blade has a slight expansion which was reported by Prendi, in BUSS 1957, iiGoogle Scholar: ‘prefsa e shpatës nga maja vjen pak tue u zgjanue’, and was shown in my drawing in Epirus, fig. 20, J (here Fig. 3 J).

30 I must apologize for a misprint in Epirus 349 where ‘Grave 4’ should not be in italics; it goes with ‘Kalbaki’. If one reads on, the summary makes this clear.

31 Desborough, op. cit. 61.

32 In AE 1956, 125 f. and AE 1969, 184, in which both knives are shown on pl. 24, d.

33 See Epirus 349.

34 As Prendi, said in BUSS 1957, ii. 109.Google Scholar

35 See Vokotopoulou, I. P. in ADelt xxiii (1968) Chronika 287–90.Google Scholar

36 ADelt xvii 242 and BCH lxxxv (1961) 794; Catling sees its points of resemblance with his Group I swords but downgrades it as ‘Uncanonical’ both in workmanship and in dating (BSA lxiii. 101). Snodgrass, A. M. in PPS xxxi (1965) 239Google Scholar, supposing burial Β with an iron sword to have been the central burial in the tumulus (I think wrongly, as burial Γ is central to the circumference given by Petsas), thought that the bronze sword might be of Geometric date; if so, it would be a freak in Macedonia on present evidence.

37 BSA xxviii (1926/7) 197 for gold; a mould for bronze axes found at Kravari in Pelagonia; O. Davies in Heurtley, Prehistoric Macedonia 255 for copper and bronze; ibid. 102 for lead; BSA xxviii. 197 and 199 for iron.

38 Studime Historike (Tirana) 1969, i. 145 ‘la richesse de la région en gisements cuprifères, où l'on en extrait encore de nos jours’; cf. BUSS 1955, i. 135.

39 In AJA lxvii (1963) 120 f.; the swords stated there to have come from Perama came from Mesoyefira (see Epirus 321).

40 C 1, 23 and pl. iii, 4; and for the Bulgarian swords AJA lxvii, 121.Google Scholar

41 AJA lxvii. 122, with pl. 23, 17 (Olympus); Man xxiii (1923) 172, fig. 2, upper (Grevena). The top of the hilt of the Grevena sword is unusual in this category.

42 AE 1969, Chronika 14, fig. 4; I am grateful to Mr. V. R. d'A. Desborough for lending me an offprint of this article.

43 Epirus 318 and fig. 19, A, where there are grooves rather than rivet holes but, serving the same purpose, attachment of a pommel.

44 AE 1969, 192 with fig. 4 and pl. 27, b; for D i and D ii see AJA lxvii. 123 and 130.

45 AE 1969, Chronika 14 with fig. 4; in the knob on the convex face and in the loop on the concave side they resemble the phalara from Chauchitsa, illustrated by Casson in Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria 149, figs. 59–61. For the wide range of dates for phalara see Epirus 355 ff. under ‘shield-bosses’.

46 By Vokotopoulou, I. P. in AE 1969, 193 and 203.Google Scholar

47 Korkuti in C 1, 22 f. dates the buttons and therefore the swords to the first phase of the Early Iron Age; but such buttons have been dated to c. 1200 B.C. in Grave XI at Saraj in Pelagonia in Starinar xi (1960) 199 ff.Google Scholar with fig. 22 and in Archaeologia Iugoslavica v (1964) 72. For buttons see Epirus 205, 346, and 402.

48 See the illustration in ADelt xvii (1961–2) A pl. 146 and in Makedonika vii (1966–7) pl. 42.

49 Engraving of spirals was found earlier on Cretan swords (see AJA lxvii, pl. 21, 1 and 147); for engraving on spear and knife see AE 1969, 185, fig. 2 and 196, fig. 6b, from Mazaraki and Elaphotopos in Central Epirus.

50 In AJA lxvii. 125 Miss Sandars stated the problem, but only in relation to the separable group of C i swords, and she thought possibly of a Cretan-trained or mainlandtrained craftsman ‘selling his skill in the northern mountains’. I think not of one itinerant craftsman but of an indigenous school or schools in the rich areas of Albania or/and Macedonia which had connections with central Europe and with the Aegean area.

51 BSA lxiii. 96, listing four specimens from Epirus; others can now be added from Paramythia, (PPS xxxiii (1967) 34)Google Scholar and Kalbaki, (ADelt xxiii (1968) 294).Google Scholar

52 For instance at Vajzë, of which Prendi, wrote in BUSS 1957, ii. 109Google Scholar ‘l'analyse des objets trouvés a porté l'auteur à chercher leurs prototypes dans le bassin de l'Égée, non plus tard que l'époque des tombeaux sous formes de fosse de Mycènes’s.