Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:42:57.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The metal industry of continental Italy, 13th to the 11th century BC, and its connections with the Aegean1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

A. M. Bietti Sestieri
A. M. Bietti Sestieri
Affiliation:
Ellaina Macnamara Memorial Scholar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The existence of a close relationship between Mycenaean Greece and Italy is known to us through two main kinds of archaeological evidence: Mycenaean pottery found in Italy—mainly in Apulia and Siciliy, although a few finds also come from the Tyrrhenian coast (1)—and bronzes of Italian type present in Greece and Crete.

The amount of information derived from these two groups is unequal. The majority of the Mycenaean pottery found in Italy has been readily identified and has offered a sound basis for the chronology of the Italian Bronze Age cultures, but the bronzes of Italian type found in the Aegean area have often been included in a group of ‘European’ elements, for years the object of discussions and controversial interpretations (2).

The almost exclusive concentration of Mycenaean pottery in coastal sites of continental Italy and Sicily clearly indicates that it was only transported by sea, and was not used for large-scale exchanges with the populations of the inland areas (3). From the distribution map of Mycenaean pottery in Italy we can therefore see a series of fixed points—actual settlements or traces of sea-passages—but lack the possibility of identifying any kind of movement linking the Mycenaeans on the coasts with the interior and northern regions of Italy. It seems probable, on the other hand, that such movements actually took place, since some at least of the Italian-type bronzes found in the Aegean certainly were not produced in the same areas of Italy where the Mycenaean pottery is concentrated. For this reason, a close study of the distribution, cultural significance and relative chronology of these types in Italy would be important to explain their presence in the Aegean.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 39 , December 1973 , pp. 383 - 424
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1973

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

NOTES

(1) The first imports of Aegean pottery in Apulia and the Aeolian islands belong already to the MH; LH I and II pottery has been found in the same areas. The connections become particularly intense during LH III. LH IIIA pottery is plentiful in Apulia, Sicily and the Aeolian islands; LH IIIB and C is quite common in Apulia and the islands, nearly absent in Sicily, although Aegean influences are quite common in the local culture in this period. The few pieces of Mycenaean pottery which have been found along the Tyrrhenian coast come, respectively, from: Grotta di Polla (Salerno, Campania): 1 fragment, LH IIIC 1 l, Dialoghi, 4 (1972) 5 fGoogle Scholar; Paestum (Salerno, Campania): 2 fragments, LH IIIC 1, RM 76 (1969), 346 f., fig. 6, pl. 109: 4, 5; Ischia (Naples, Campania): 3 fragments, one being LH IIIA; Vivara (Naples, Campania): 2 fragments, not clearly identifiable; Monte Rovello (Rome, Latium): 1 fragment, LH IIIC, unpublished; Luni sul Mignone (Viterbo, Latium): 5 fragments, LH IIIB and C. See for a general study Taylour, Mycenaean Pottery in Italy and adjacent areas, 1958 (hereafter Taylour 1958); Biancofiore, , Civiltà Micenea nell'Italia Meridionale, 1967Google Scholar; for a detailed bibliography of the finds, Tinè-Vagnetti, , I micenei in Italia, 1967Google Scholar.

(2) See on the general problem of European bronzes in the Aegean, Merhart, Germania 24 (1940), 101 f.Google Scholar; id., 37–8, BerRGK (1956–1957), 91 ff.; id., JbRGZM Mainz, 3 (1956), 56 ff.; id., BJb 147 (1942), 1 ff.; Childe, , PPS 14 (1948), 177 ff.Google Scholar; Hawkes, , PPS 14 (1948), 196 ff.Google Scholar; Milojcic, , AA 43 (1948), 12 ff.Google Scholar; id.JbRGZM Mainz 2 (1955), 153 ff.; Müller-Karpe, , Germania 40 (1962), 255 ff.Google Scholar; Kimmig, , Studien aus Alteuropa 1 (1964), 220 ff.Google Scholar; see also, for the fibulae, Blinkenberg, , Fibules grecques et orientales, 1926 (hereafter Blinkenberg 1926)Google Scholar; Furumark, , Gnomon 23 (1941), 444 ff.Google Scholar; Sundwall, , Älteren Italischen Fibeln, 1943 (hereafter Sundwall 1943)Google Scholar. For the Griffzungeneschtverter Cowen, , 36 BerRGK (1955), 63 ff.Google Scholar; id., Bericht über den V Intern. Kongr. für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Hamburg 1958 (1961), 207 ff.; Catling, , PPS 21 (1956), 102 ff.Google Scholar; id., Antiquity 35 (1961), 115 ff. For the Peschiera daggers, Sprockhoff, , Germania 20 (1936), 116 ff.Google Scholar; Peroni, , Bad. Fundb. 20 (1956), 69 ffGoogle Scholar. For the knives, Sandars, , PPS 21 (1955), 174 ff.Google Scholar

(3) Marinatos, , Congr. Roma (1962–1965), I, 161 ff.Google Scholar

(4) For the Aegean chronology see Desbrough, , The last Mycenaeans and their Successors, 1964 (hereafter Desborough 1964)Google Scholar, and Snodgrass, , PPS 31 (1965), 229 ffGoogle Scholar. For the Italian and European chronology, the present work is based mainly on Müller-Karpe, , Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit Nördlich und Südlich der Alpen, 1959 (hereafter Müller-Karpe 1959)Google Scholar. For the Sicilian chronology see Brea, Bernabò, Sicily before the Greeks 1957 (hereafter Brea 1957)Google Scholar.

(5) Müller-Karpe, (1959), 34.

(6) Müller-Karpe (1959), 89 ff., 184.

(7) Säflund, , Le Terremare delle province di Modena, Reggio, Parma e Piacenza, 1939 (hereafter Säflund 1939)Google Scholar.

(8) Peroni, , Per una definizione dell'aspetto culturale subappenninico come facies cronologica a sè stante, 1959 (hereafter Peroni 1959)Google Scholar. For the correspondences among different chronological schemes regarding the Italian LBA see Peroni, , Archeologia della Puglia preistorica, 1967, 92 (hereafter Peroni 1967)Google Scholar.

(9) Brea (1957), 136 ff.; Brea-Cavalier, , BPI 65 (1956), 67 ff.Google Scholar

(10) Müller-Karpe has recognized 3 chronologically separate Protovillanovan horizons, mainly on the grounds of the metal finds. Peroni's study of the urnfield of Pianello, , AA (1963), 361 ff.Google Scholar, is the only relevant attempt to build up an internal relative chronology of a Protovillanovan complex; his conclusions are in agreement with those of Müller-Karpe, and based upon the evidence of both bronze and pottery types. As regards the absolute chronology, there is a slight difference between their schemes: Peroni (1967), 115 ff., places the beginning of his Età del bronzo finale around the end of the twelfth century, mainly on the grounds of the association of Protovillanovan and LH IIIC 2 pottery at Porto Perone and Saturo. Müller-Karpe's early Protovillanovan phase roughly corresponds to the twelfth century; this dating is based on the parallels between the Italian bronze typologies and the Aegean and central European ones. Our study of the Protovillanovan bronze industry seems to confirm that it appeared early in the twelfth century.

In northern Italy we have two main groups of Protovillanovan finds: The first is in Lombardy, where the most important complexes are the urnfields of Pavese, Bissone: BPI 22 (1896), 169 ff.Google Scholar; 23 (1897), 19 ff.; Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 85 C; Pavese, Badia: BPI 54 (1934), 140 ff.Google Scholar; Moncucco (Como): RAC 10 (1876), vol. 9, 8 ff.Google Scholar, vol. 10, 17 ff.; Ca' Morta (Como): Rittatore, , La necropoli preromana della Ca' Morta (1966), 83–94Google Scholar; Fontanella (Mantova): BPI (1951–1952), 140 ff.Google Scholar; Müller-Karpe (1959), pls. 86, 87A; and the settlement of Vidolasco (Cremona): Congr. Roma (1962–1965), II, 453 ff.Google Scholar; Insula Fulcheria 1 (1962), 11 ff.Google Scholar; 2 (1963), 17 ff.; 3 (1964), 21 ff. The second group is in Veneto, and includes the urnfields of Angarano (Vicenza): Ghislanzoni, , Studi Mistrorigo (1958), 653 ff.Google Scholar, and Garda (Verona): Fogolari, , Atti X Riunione scient. Ist. ItalianoPreistoria e Protostoria (1965–1966), 231 ffGoogle Scholar. The settlements are at Borgo Canevedo (Padova): NSc (1893), 99 ff.Google Scholar; Capitello di Lovara (Padova): Este Museum; Lozzo Atestino (Padova): NSc (1903), 537 ff.Google Scholar; (1904), 147 ff.; Mariconda di Melara (Rovigo): Padusa II, 2–3 (1966), 3 ff.Google Scholar; Villamarzana (Rovigo): Padusa VI, 2 (1970), 53 ff.Google Scholar; Frattesina (Rovigo): Padusa VIII, 2 (1972), 3 ff., 32 ffGoogle Scholar. (bronze hoard, surface finds, evidence of bronze and glass workmanship). In Emilia there are the urnfield of Bismantova (Reggio): BPI I (1875), 42 ff.Google Scholar; 2 (1876), 242 ff.; 8 (1882), 118 ff.; Müller-Karpe (1959), pls. 84, 85D; the settlement of Calbana (Forli): Studi Romagnoli 14 (1963), 1 ff.Google Scholar; the hoards of Casalecchio (Rimini), and Poggio Berni (Forli) (see below). See also Barfield, , Northern Italy before Rome, 1971 (hereafter Barfield 1971)Google Scholar. In all these complexes, the bronze types seem mainly to belong to the elventh–tenth century. For the earliest (twelfth century) phase we have only a violin-bow fibula from tomb 16 of the urnfield of Ascona (Canton Ticino): Primas, , Die Südschvieizerischen Grabfunde der älteren Eisenzeit (1970), 14Google Scholar, fig. 15 B (this Ticinese facies if very similar to the one which appears in Lombardy); some sporadic fibulae and Matrei knives from the Adige valley: Müller-Karpe (1959), 95, fig. 26, 14, 15; a violin-bow fibula with two knobs from Bobbio (Piacenza, Emilia), possibly from a tomb: BPI 14 (1888), 13Google Scholar, pl. 1: 6. The bronzes in the hoard of Merlara (Padova), which Müller-Karpe regards as being representative of the early Protovillanovan phase in the north, all belong to extremely peculiar Peschiera types (see note 12). Violin-bow fibulae have been found in the complexes of Mariconda di Melara and Frattesina: Padusa II (1966), 2–3, 3 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 2, 12; VIII (1972), 1–2, 32 ff., pls. 1, 1–4, 8–12; 11, 4–7. Although some of these belong to types known since the Pescheria period, it is rather likely that these complexes belong to an advanced moment in the development of the Protovillanovan groups, since, as a whole, they are closely linked to the Latial group of Tolfa-Allumiere and to the Sicilian facies of Cassibile–Mulino della Badia (eleventh–tenth century) (see below and our Figure 23).

For what concerns central and southern Italy, it is generally accepted that some archaic elements—the ones which, according to Müller-Karpe, allow us to identify a twelfth century phase of the Protovillanovan culture—appear in several regions. From north to south, this early phase, along with the more recent ones, can be recognized in the Mancianese group (southern Tuscany and northern Latium, provinces of Grosseto and Viterbo): cemeteries of Ponte S. Pietro, Crostoletto di Lamone, Castelfranco Lamoncello and Sticciano Scalo; settlements of Pianizza and Cantinaccia; hoards of Piano di Tallone and Manciano: RSP 6 (1951), 96 ff., 159 ff.Google Scholar; StEtr 29 (1961), 294 ff.Google Scholar; 35 (1967), 289 ff.; 37 (1969), 361 ff.; Atti primo Simposio Intern. Protostoria Italiana, Orvieto (1967–1970), 69 ff.Google Scholar; Inv. Arch. Italia 2, 1961Google Scholar. Many complexes also are in the province of Siena, e.g., the settlements of Casa Carletti and Cetona and the Grotta dell'Orso: StEtr 10 (1936), 329 ff.Google Scholar; Origini 2 (1968), 247 ff.Google Scholar; 5 (1971), 149 ff. According to Müller-Karpe (1959), 66, some early Protovillanovan elements occur in the caves of Belverde (Cetona).

In Umbria the urnfields of Monteleone di Spoleto: StEtr 38 (1970), 345 ff.Google Scholar, and of Terni, Cascata delle Marmore: NSc (1914), 62 ff.Google Scholar, have not yet been studied; they seem, however, to belong to a rather advanced moment. Another urnfield has been recently discovered at Tuoro, on Lake Trasimeno. The hoard of Gualdo Tadino and several sporadic finds are of the twelfth century (see below). For the Terni group and the late-Protovillanovan hoards connected with it see below and Note 159.

In the Marches, the best known Protovillanovan complex is the urnfield of Pianello: BPI 39 (1913), 19 ff.Google Scholar; 40 (1914), 121 ff.; 41 (1915), 48 ff.; Müller-Karpe (1959), 67 ff.; the earliest phase (Pianello I) is documented; for the other complexes (settlements of Monte La Rossa, Colle dei Cappuccini di Ancona, Monte Croce Guardia; hoard of Monte Primo) see BPI 65 (1956), 237 ff.Google Scholar; StEtr 28 (1960), 49 ff.Google Scholar; Rendiconti Istituto Marchigiano de Sc., Lett., Arti (1962), 2 ff.Google Scholar; Lollini, , Appenninici, Protovillanoviani e Piceni nella realtà culturale delle Marche, Atti II Convegno StEtr (1959)Google Scholar; Inv. Arch. Italia 3 (1963)Google Scholar; Bd'A 51 (1966), 210Google Scholar.

In Abruzzi there are several settlements with Protovillanovan elements (Chieti, Archaeological Museum); a stratified site is Grotta a Male (L'Aquila): BPI 78 (1969), 147 ff., 249 ff.Google Scholar; the twelfth century phase is known almost exclusively from isolated finds, mainly from the area of Lake Fucino: Peroni, , RSP 16 (1961), 125 ffGoogle Scholar. (see below).

In the Tyrrhenian region of central Italy we have the group of Tolfa-Allumiere and Sasso di Furbara, north of Rome, which is known mainly from funerary finds: NSc (1881), 88 ff.Google Scholar; (1883), 165; (1884), 101 f., 152 f.; (1939), 45 ff.; (1960), 341 ff.; BPI 36 (1910) 122 ff.Google Scholar; StEtr 16 (1942), 234 ffGoogle Scholar. Recent excavations of settlements are those of Narce, Monte Rovello, Luni: BPI 78 (1969), 79 ff.Google Scholar; NSc (1967), 48 ff.Google Scholar; Östenberg, , Luni sul Mignone e problemi delta preistoria d'Italia, 1967 (hereafter Östenberg 1967)Google Scholar: ‘iron age’ layers. See also the hoards of Coste del Marano, Monte Rovello and Tolfa: Inv. Arch. Italia I (1961)Google Scholar. A tomb from S. Angelo in Formis (Caserta, Campania) belongs to this group. No elements in the Tolfa-Allumiere group seem to be earlier than the eleventh century; also the group of Rome and Alban Hills, which is strongly influenced by Protovillanovan elements, has a rather late beginning: Müller-Karpe (1959), 43 ff.

In the eastern part of southern Italy (Basilicata and Apulia) we have the urnfield of Timmari (Matera): MonAnt 16 (1907), 5 ff.Google Scholar; Müller-Karpe (1959), p. 14 A; several unpublished tombs from Torre Castelluccia (Taranto); the settlements of Timmari: BPI 27 (1901), 35 ff.Google Scholar; Coppa Nevigata (Foggia), MonAnt 19 (1908), 305 ff.Google Scholar; Scoglio del Tonno (Taranto): Säflund, , Punta del Tonno, Nilsson, Dragma M. (1939)Google Scholar; Porto Perone and Saturo (Taranto): NSc (1963), 280 ff.Google Scholar; (1964), 177 ff.; the hoards of Surbo, Zinzulusa, Mottola (see below). A twelfth century horizon (Müller-Karpe's Timmari I phase) is widely represented.

In Calabria, the urnfield of Tropea (Catanzaro), and the few other finds from Castellace and Oliveto Lucania, do not seem to belong to an early moment: Kilian, , Früheisenzeitliche Funde aus der Südostnekropole von Sala Consiina (1970), 298 ff.Google Scholar, pls. 268, 9–11; 274,1; 280, 1-3. Also, the Sicilian urnfield of Milazzo (Messina) and the cemetery of Piazza Monfalcone (Lipari) do not seem to include any element which belongs to the early Protovillanovan phase of Müller-Karpe: Bernabò Brea, Cavalier, Mylai (1959), 33 ff.Google Scholar; Meligunis Lipara I (1960), 97 ff., 144 ffGoogle Scholar. (hereafter Brea-Cavalier 1959 and 1960).

The only complex in the southern Tyrrhenian area which includes several early Protovillanovan types is the stipe votiva esterna of the Pertosa cave (Salerno, Campania): MonAnt 24 (1916), 548 ff.Google Scholar

(11) Good excavation data for Peschiera complexes of northern Italy are those relative to the urnfields of Canegrate (Milan, Lombardy) and Montata dell'Orto (Reggio Emilia): Rittatore, , Sibrium I (1953–1954), 7 ff.Google Scholar; Preistoria dell'Emilia e Romagna I (1962), 63 ff.Google Scholar

(12) Bronze hoards of northern Italy which belong to the Peschiera horizon: Tarmassia (Verona, Veneto): BPI 34 (1908), 94 ffGoogle Scholar. Fragments, metal bars and completed pieces. Only a few objects (winged axes, pins, bracelet, hook and piece of metal bar) are preserved. Mezzocorona (Trento, Trentino): Archivi Trentini 10 (1891), 241 ffGoogle Scholar. Mostly fragments: winged axes, dagger, pin, sauroter, sickles, fragments of a sheet-bronze vase, metal bars. Belgrado (Udine, Venezia Giulia): Montelius, , La Civilisation Primitive en Italie depuis l'Introduction des métaux (1895–1910), I, 184Google Scholar, pl. 34: 3, 11, 12 (hereafter Montelius I, II). Most pieces are lost, and more recent pieces have been added to the original ones: winged axe, solid bronze hammer decorated with triangles, metal bars and fragments. Castions di Strada (Udine, Venezia Giulia): BPI 37 (1911), 22 ff.Google Scholar; NSc (1923), 231 ffGoogle Scholar. Two groups of bronzes, which were buried at a short distance from each other. Completed and broken pieces: winged and socketed axes, sickles, spear-heads, rings, knives, chisels, daggers, fragment of bronze ribbon, metal bars. Lozzo Atestino (Padova, Veneto): NSc (1940), 169 ffGoogle Scholar. Many fragments of sickles and metal bars. Partly lost. Merlara (Padova, Veneto): Müller-Karpe (1959), 93 ff., 193, pl. 83. Completed and broken pieces. Two vases, winged axes, sickles, sword blades, chisel, metal bars (partly lost). Müller-Karpe's tentative attribution of this complex to an early Protovillanovan horizon cannot be accepted, since all the pieces belong to Peschiera types. The winged axe which he considers to be post-Peschiera (pl 83: 3) has good Peschiera parallels, e.g., the two axes from Tarmassia. Soncino (Cremona, Lombardy): Castelfranco, , Atti Soc. Italiana Sc. Naturali, Milan 1892Google Scholar. Mostly fragments. Sickles, winged axes, spear-heads, a belt-hook, a sheet-bronze fragment, metal bars. All are lost. Muscoli (Udine, Friuli-Venezia Giulia): BPI 30 (1904), 138Google Scholar; Anelli, , Aquileia Nostra 20 (1949)Google Scholar; Peroni, Bianco, Le spade nell'Italia Continentale (1970), nr. 113, 140Google Scholar (hereafter Bianco Peroni 1970). Mostly completed pieces. Winged and socketed axes, sickles, two swords, metal bars. Partly lost. Anelli includes in this complex more recent pieces which were not found with the original ones.

(13) E.g., Leporano: NSc (1963), 301Google Scholar, fig. 24 (pin-head made of tin, from stratum b, with LH IIIB pottery). Grotta a Male: BPI 78 (1969), 220Google Scholar, fig. 41 (terracotta mould for winged axes, from stratum 3, Sub-apennine). Luni: Östenberg (1967), 125, fig. 23: 35, 36 (fragments of pin and other objects: Luni Apennine III–I), fig. 25: 22 (arrowhead: Luni Apennine III), fig. 26: 13, 14, 52; 53 (fragments of two pins or needles and other objects: Luni Apennine III).

(14) Müller-Karpe, , Germania 40 (1962), 255 ff.Google Scholar

(15) For the general picture of the Peschiera horizon see Müller-Karpe (1959), 89 ff.; ‘Peschiera’ bronzes in Hungary have been recently studied by Mozsolics, , in The European Community in Later Prehistory (1971), 59 ff.Google Scholar

(16) For the occurrence of Peschiera fibulae and daggers in the Peschiera-Terremare regions see Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 103, 1–11; Säflund (1939), pls. 55, 15–18; 46, 1–5. See also the daggers with a rounded hilt from the same areas: Müller-Karpe (1959), pls. 82: 9; 107: 6; Säflund (1939), pl. 46: 7, 10. A bronze knife from Castellaro di Gottolengo (Brescia, Lombardy): BPI (1947–1950), III, 78Google Scholar, fig. 9, right, is rather similar to the piece from Jalisos: Annuario 6–7 (1923–1924), 175Google Scholar, fig. 101: 26.

(17) Puglisi, , La civiltà Appenninica, 1959Google Scholar.

(18) Rellini, , MonAnt 24, 1916, 548 ff.Google Scholar, pls. I, II.

(19) Filottrano: Rellini, , MonAnt 34 (1932), 129 ffGoogle Scholar. Manaccora: Rellini-Baumgärtel, , BPI 54 (1934), 10 ff.Google Scholar; Baumgärtel, , BSR 19 (1951), 23 ff.Google Scholar; 21 (1953), 1 ff. Scoglio del Tonno: NSc (1900), 411 ff.Google Scholar; Müller-Karpe (1959), 33 ff. Torre Castelluccia: Müller-Karpe, , BPI 69–70 (1960–1961), 187 ffGoogle Scholar. Antro della Noce: Calzoni, , NSc (1933), 45 ff.Google Scholar, 98; Bianco Peroni (1970), 62 ff. S. Francesco cave: Calzoni, , Belverde I (1954), 41 ffGoogle Scholar. Grotta dell'Orso: Cremonesi, , Origini 2 (1968), 247 ff.Google Scholar

(20) BPI 69–70 (1960–1961)Google Scholar, fig. 1: 2; MonAnt 24 (1916)Google Scholar, pl. 1: 9; Origini 2 (1968)Google Scholar, fiig. 31, 7. Another piece probably comes from La Starza (Avellino, Campania): Congr. Roma (1962–1965) II, 407 ff.Google Scholar, pl. 83.

(21) MonAnt 34 (1932)Google Scholar, fig. 27; Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 13: 2; MonAnt 24 (1916)Google Scholar, pl. 1: 5. Compare, JbRGZM Mainz 2 (1955)Google Scholar, fig. 2: 1, 2, 5, 6.

(22) Pantalica, tomb 23 NW: MonAnt 9 (1899)Google Scholar, pl. VII, 17. Valledolmo (Caltanissetta): BPI 23 (1897), 11Google Scholar, fig. 3. Castelluccio (Siracusa): BPI 18 (1892)Google Scholar, pl. II, 10. Pantalica necropolis and S. Angelo Muxaro (Agrigento), tomb 15: BadFundb. 20 (1956), 72 ff.Google Scholar, nr. 1, 29, 32. Peroni attributes most of the pieces from Sicily to the same type as the one from Pertosa. We have, however, to remark that the typology of these Sicilian pieces is not very clear.

(23) BPI 69–70 (1960–1961)Google Scholar, fig. 1: 6. MonAnt 24 (1916)Google Scholar, pl. 1: 6. Compare, JbRGZM Mainz 2 (1955)Google Scholar, fig. 3: 13. For Protovillanovan parallels (which are concentrated in southern Italy and Sicily) see Torre Castelluccia, unpublished; Milazzo: Brea-Cavalier (1959), pl. 39, 4, 5. Tropea: Congr. Roma (1962–1965), IIIGoogle Scholar, pl. 100: 2. The Fucino group: our Figure 5: 6. The type also appears in the Pantalica culture: Müller-Karpe (1959), pls. 1F: 1; 2G: 1.

(24) NSc (1933), 45 f.Google Scholar, fig. 80; MonAnt 24 (1916)Google Scholar, pl. 1: 11; Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 13: 5, 8. For the Aegean parallels see our Notes 40 and 52.

(25) Brea (1957), 151 ff., fig. 32 H

(26) Bianco Peroni (1970), 62 ff., nr. 135–7, pl. 77 A; 57 ff., nr. 123, 127, 128, pl. 76 A.

(27) Bianco Peroni (1970), 73 f., nr 174; BPI 69–70 (1960–1961)Google Scholar, fig. 1, 3; Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 13: 9. For Aegean parallels see Sandar's class Ia knives, , PPS 21 (1955), 174 ff.Google Scholar

(28) MonAnt 24 (1916)Google Scholar, pl. 1: 4; Deshayes, J., Les outils de bronze de l'Indus au Danube (1960), 320 f.Google Scholar, nr 2587, pl. 43: 11 (hereafter Deshayes 1960).

(29) MonAnt 24 (1916)Google Scholar, pl. 1: 3; BPI 69–70 (1960–1961)Google Scholar, fig. 1: 3. Compare, JbRGZM Mainz 2 (1955)Google Scholar, fig. 1: 7. A similar decoration in Italy appears on Peschiera and Protovillanovan knives, e.g., the ones from Pieve S. Giacomo and Fontanella: Müller-Karpe (1959), pls. 86: 14; 88: 23.

(30) Bianco Peroni (1970), 22 ff., nr 38, 39. The Pertosa type should range between the Middle and Late BA; it appears in the interior and Adriatic regions of central and southern Italy.

(31) Calzoni, , Belverde I (1954)Google Scholar, fig. 10; Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 13: 12. A sporadic piece of similar type comes from Boschi (Perugia, Umbria): BPI 29 (1903), 218Google Scholar, fig. 36.

(32) BPI 50 (1930)Google Scholar, pl. IX, 10; BSR 21 (1953)Google Scholar, fig. 9: 9; NSc (1900), 464Google Scholar. See also the moulds from Coppa Nevigata: MonAnt 19 (1908), 349Google Scholar, pl. XI: 72, and Grotta a Male: our Note 13. At Cetona, in the Antro del Poggetto, there were five winged axes of rather archaic type (possibly MBA); the fact that one of them was broken, and the fragment had been forced through the wings, seems to point to the activity of a foundry: NSc (1933), 99 f.Google Scholar, fig. 82–4.

(33) BPI 69–70 (1960–1961)Google Scholar, fig. 2: 7,8; Origini 2 (1968)Google Scholar, fig. 33: 1, 2. Holste, Compare, Die Bronzezeit in nordmainischen Hessen (1939), 60Google Scholar, pls. 3: 1, 2; 5: 1; 7: 4; 12: 9.

(34) These pieces are unpublished; see for typological parallels Hampel, , Alterthümer der Bronzezeit in Ungarn (1887)Google Scholar, pls. VI: 3; VIII: 1; Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 195: 1 (South Bavaria).

(35) BSR 21 (1953)Google Scholar, pls. X: 1, 2,3; XI: 5. The spiral pendants and bracelet can be compared with pieces from nearly all the complexes illustrated by Benać, and Cović, , Glasinac I, 1956Google Scholar; they belong to phases II b to III b, which, according to the Authors, correspond to the central European phases Bz C, Bz D and Ha A. Also the tutuli and buttons (pl. XI: 2, 4) are represented in the same Balkan complexes. For the spiral pendants see also the Ha A2–B1 tombs of Croatia illustrated by Batović, , Inv. Arch. Jugoslavia 4 (1962), Y32Google Scholar: 2 (Zadar); Y33: 1, 2 (Privlaka); Y34: 1, 2 (Galovac). A bracelet which seems to be very similar to the fragment from Manaccora comes from the nearby settlement of Coppa Nevigata: MonAnt 19 (1908), 348Google Scholar, pl. 10, 70A.

(36) Peroni, , Par. Pass 125 (1969), 153Google Scholar.

(37) Macnamara, , PPS 36 (1970), 241 ff.Google Scholar

(38) According to Sandar's classification, AJA 67 (1963), 177 ff.Google Scholar, the Surbo hilt belongs to class F; this has been subdivided by Catling, , BSA 63 (1968), 89 ff.Google Scholar, and our piece must be assigned to F III. Good parallels for the hammer-heads can be found both in East Mediterranean and Aegean contexts: Enkomi, Foundry hoard: Schaeffer, , Enkomi-Alasia (1952), 29Google Scholar, pls. 64, 65; Catling, , Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean world (1964), 100Google Scholar, pl. 11: c (hereafter Catling 1964); Mycenae, Poros wall hoard: BSA 49 (1954), 294Google Scholar, nr 413, fig. 16; Athens, Acropolis hoard: Montelius, , La Grèce Préclassique (1924), 155Google Scholar, fig. 489 (hereafter Montelius 1924).

(39) Inv.Arch. Italia 3 (1963), I 6Google Scholar: Ripostiglio di Gualdo Tadino (Peroni).

(40) The violin-bow fibulae with two knobs on the bow can be compared to pieces from Mycenae, Tiryns and Thermos: Blinkenberg (1926), 49 f., I 5a–d, fig. 13, 14; I 6a, fig 15. Other pieces come from Crete (Heraklion Museum, possibly from a tomb, and Karphi): JbRGZM Mainz 2 (1955)Google Scholar, fig. 2: 7; 3: 18; another one was in tomb 10 of Langada (Cos): Annuario, 43–4, (1967), 102 f.Google Scholar, fig. 10. None of the Greek pieces can be closely dated; nevertheless, they were never found in Sub-Mycenaean contexts (the piece from Karphi had been re-used as an awl), and seem to belong to an earlier period. See for the dating of this group of fibulae, Sundwall (1943), 15; Milojčić, , AA 43 (1948), 16Google Scholar; Müller-Karpe (1959), 22 f., 34. The Italian pieces have been dated by Sundwall and Müller-Karpe in the twelfth century: a piece from Porto Perone was associated with an LH III C fragment. Some of them come from Peschiera contexts; most of the pieces appear in the early Protovillanovan phase, and are also present in the first phase of the Pantalica culture, in Sicily. For the distribution of this type in Italy, see Note 115.

The plain violin-bow fibula with parallel bow and pin can be compared with pieces from Mycenae and the Psychro cave: Blinkenberg (1926), 46, I 1a–f, fig. 9. For the Italian pieces see Sundwall (1943), 68, A IIc, d. They come from Valle Passiva (Verona, Veneto): NSc (1901), 293Google Scholar; Peschiera, Boccatura del Mincio: Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 103: 9 (the bow is decorated, and has a square section); Toscanella Imolese (Bologna, Emilia): MonAnt 24 (1916), 269Google Scholar, fig. 32: 1; Pianello: Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 56: 16. Conelle di Arcevia (Ancona, Marches): Dall'Osso, , Guida illustrata del Museo di Ancona (1915), 25Google Scholar; Filottrano: MonAnt 34 (1932)Google Scholar, fig. 27. Bacucco (Teramo, Abruzzi): NSc (1901), 519Google Scholar, fig. 6.

The violin-bow fibula with a twisted-wire bow, slightly raised by the foot, could also have Aegean parallels, e.g. two pieces from Crete: JbRGZM Mainz 2 (1955)Google Scholar, fig. 3: 19; Boardman, , The Cretan Collection in Oxford (1964), 37Google Scholar, nr 157, fig. 16, pl. XIII (hereafter Boardman 1964). According to Müller-Karpe (1959), 89 f., this type should be more recent than the one with parallel bow and needle, and belong to the twelfth century. We have, however, to remark that it seems to be present also in Peschiera and in rather late Protovillanovan contexts (e.g., the hoard of Frattesina, see Note 10, and, possibly, the hoard of Poggio Berni, see below and Figure 8: 19). For the Italian pieces see Sundwall (1943), 70 f., A II i. They come from the Adige valley and Ascona (see Note 10); Peschiera, Boccatura del Mincio: Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 103: 2, 3, 6, 11; Peschiera: BPI 35 (1909), 142Google Scholar, fig. 26; Monte Croce Guardia (Ancona, Marches)/ Bd'A (1966), 210Google Scholar; Pianello: Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 56: 13.

(41) Tyrol: Mülhau, tombs I and II, Ha A1: Wagner, , Nordtiroler Urnenfelder (1943) (hereafter Wagner 1943), 86, 88Google Scholar, pls. 9: 8; 11: 9 (two violin-bow fibulae of twisted wire, bow raised by the foot); Eastern Alps: Podrute, bronze-hoard: Vinski-Gasparini, , Vjesnik Arheol. Muz. Zagrebu 3, s. III (1968), 1 ff.Google Scholar, pl. III: 8 (one fibula, same type); Croatia: Brodski Varos, bronze hoard, Bz D-Ha Al; Karlovac, sporadic: two fragments of two violin-bow fibulae with two knobs. I owe this information to Dr Vinski-Gasparini.

(42) The tweezers from Gualdo Tadino are rather similar to Aegean specimens, e.g. Schliemann, Mycénes (1878), 308, fig. 469; Furtwängler, , Olympia IV (1890), 68Google Scholar, pl. 25, 493–4; Carapanos, , Dodone et ses ruines (1878), 95Google Scholar, pl. 51: 21. Nevertheless, the pieces from Peschiera contexts (Castellaro di Gottolengo and the palafitte of Lake Garda) offer very close parallels: BPI 35 (1909), 195Google Scholar, pl. XIII: 6, fig. 51.

(43) For the occurrence of gold and sheet-gold objects, and of decorative patterns which are similar to the one of the Gualdo Tadino discs in BA Europe, see Inv.Arch. Italia 3 (1963), I 6Google Scholar, nr 1, 3 (inquadramento e classificazione dei tipi); the disc from Matrei is illustrated by Wagner (1943), 83, pl. 7, 18; in Italy, the only LBA parallel are two sheet-gold discs from Borgo Panigale (Bologna, Emilia): Emilia Preromana 3 (1951–1952), 80 f.Google Scholar, pl. 1: 1, 2. It is, however, necessary to remark that several good parallels, both for the technique and the decoration of our pieces, can be found in the Aegean, e.g. Schliemann, , Mycénes (1878), 346 f.Google Scholar, fig. 414–22 (gold discs); Karo, , AM 55 (1930), 129Google Scholar, nr 6222, fig. 32 (four cones of sheet-gold, Tiryns hoard).

(44) Thaur, tombs; Mülhau, tombs 42, 47, 48, 54b, 75: Wagner (1943), pls. 14, 3; 16, 8; 18, 4.

(45) Müller-Karpe (1959), 278, pl. 128, A, 7.

(46) Two pieces are in the museum of Trento; two more, now in the Pigorini museum in Rome, come from the Terremare of Samboseto and Colombare di Bersano (Parma and Piacenza, Emilia). Other pieces come from Marendole (Padova, Veneto): BPI 23 (1897), 72Google Scholar, fig. 1, and Castelnuovo (L'Aquila, Abruzzi): BPI 42 (1923), 38 f.Google Scholar This kind of tool seems to have lasted a long time, since two pieces belong to the tenth century hoards of Pariana and Limone (Livorno, Tuscany): BPI 45 (1925), 122 f.Google Scholar, fig. 5; Montelius II, pl. 121, 17.

(47) See the pieces from Ognissanti (Cremona, Lombardy): Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 88, 30; Castellaro di Gottolengo: BPI (1947–1950), III, 74 f.Google Scholar, fig. 10; Cevola and Gorzano (Parma and Piacenza, Emilia): Säflund (1939), pls. 4: 11: 56: 7; Campeggine (Reggio Emilia): Montelius I, pl. 15: 11; Borgocollefegato (L'Aquila, Abruzzi): BPI 43 (1923), 34 fGoogle Scholar. A damaged piece, which probably is identical to the ones from Surbo and Gualdo Tadino, comes from Scoglio del Tonno: NSc (1900), 464Google Scholar.

(48) An unpublished piece from the palafitte of Lake Garda is in the museo Pigorini, Rome; a sporadic piece comes from Gualdo Cattaneo (Perugia, Umbria): BPI 38 (1912), 141 ff.Google Scholar, fig. C. The Sicilian pieces come mainly from the cemeteries of Mulino della Badia. The hoard of Adrano and the site of Tre Canali yielded a few more pieces, and a bone specimen has been found at Paternd (all these sites are in the province of Catania): BPI 31 (1905), 128Google Scholar, fig. 35, right; NSc (1969), 236 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 12, 1; 13, d; 15, a, d; 16, f; 21, i; 22, s.

(49) Montelius II, 635 f., pl. 131: 1, 2, 4, 9, 11. Peroni, , RSP 16 (1961), 155 f.Google Scholar, pls. 11: 4; 12: 1; 13: 1; 14: 1, 8.

(50) From Montelius' letter to Bellucci, 6.11.1902: ‘Voici les dessins des objets que vous avez eu la complaisance de faire photographier pour moi. Je vous prie de renvoier ces dessins, le plus tot possible, après avoir ajouté tous les renseignements que vous pouvez donner sur les localités et les circumstances. Je désire surtout de savoir si quelquesunes des bronzes ont été decouverts dans des sepultures, ou ils faisaient partie de dépôts.’ From Montelius' letter to Bellucci, 19.12.1902: ‘Je vous remercie vivement de cette lettre et des notices très importantes que vous m'avez donnees il y a quelque temps. Votre collection magnifique sera bien représentée dans mon ouvrage …’ (courtesy Prof. M. Bellucci, Perugia).

(51) Montelius II, 600, pl. 125: 23; the same piece in RSP 16 (1961)Google Scholar, pl. 13: 4.

(52) Blinkenberg (1926), 53 f., I 9a, fig. 23.

(53) Wace, , BSA 48 (1953), 15Google Scholar, pl. 9: b; Stubbings, , BSA 49 (1954), 297 f.Google Scholar, fig. 18.

(54) Müller-Karpe, , PZ 34–5 (1949–1950), 317 ffGoogle Scholar.

(55) Missiano (Bolzano, Alto Adige): Pittioni, Stand und Aufgaben der urgeschichtlichen Forschung im Oberetsch (1940), 2Google Scholar6, pl. III, I. Aldeno (Trento, Trentino): Archivio Storico Trieste, Istria e Trentino, III (1895), 171Google Scholar, pl. I: II. Monte Tesoro (Verona, Veneto): Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 87, B: 1. S. Polo d'Enza (Reggio Emilia): Montelius I, pl. 23, 6. Fucino region (L'Aquila, Abruzzi): Peroni, , RSP 16 (1961)Google Scholar, pls. 7: I; 8: 5; II: 2; 14: 7. The pieces from Tuscany belong to the hoard of Piano di Tallone (see below), and to the region of Arezzo (unpublished piece in the museum).

(56) Inv. Arch. Italia 2 (1961), I 4Google Scholar, Ripostiglio di Piano di Tallone, nr 1–53 (Peroni).

(57) E.g., the hoards of Augsdorf (Carinthia), Tschermoschnitz (Slovenia), Eitlbrunn (Oberpfalz), Stockheim (Franken): Müller-Karpe (1959), 108, 147, pls. 129, 27; 130A, 3; 132A, 7; 151C, 6, 7; 157, 12, 14, 18, 21, 29, 30.

(58) See Note 12.

(59) RSP 16 (1961), 129 ff.Google Scholar, pls. 1: 3; 2: 3, 4, 5, 6.

(60) Bianco Peroni (1970), 66 ff., nr 58, pl. 77 B. The Allerona type crorresponds to Catling's groups II and III in the Aegean and East Mediterranean: Antiquity 35 (1961), 115 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; BSA 63 (1968), 98 ff.Google Scholar, and to Cowen's Letten group in Europe: 36 Ber RGK (1955), 78 f.Google Scholar

(61) Mycenae, chamber tomb 61: Blinkenberg (1926), 48, I 3a, fig. II; Konjusa (Serbia): Starinar Beograd 7 (1890), 79 ff.Google Scholar, pl. 7, 1–3. See also the pieces from the tumuli of Bandin Odzak (Bosnia): MAGW 19 (1889), 138Google Scholar, fig. 175; and Strpci (Bosbia): Benac, Cović, Glasinac I (1956)Google Scholar, pl. 17: 8. According to the Jugoslavian scholars, these large fibulae can be dated in a period corresponding to the Bz D phase; they do not seem to be typologically related to the Italian and Greek fibula series. See Note 143 on this problem.

(62) Riegsee, Upper Bavaria: Müller-Karpe (1959), 22, pl. 180 G. Pantalica, tombs 8N and 68N: Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 1 C, and BPI 65 (1956), 429Google Scholar, fig. 18. Perati, tomb 12: Praktika (1954), 96Google Scholar, fig. 6. A good parallel for the Fucino knife is a fragment from the hoard of Peterd, in Hungary: Mozsolics, , in The European Community in Later Prehistory (1971)Google Scholar, fig. 6, 7.

(63) BPI 69–70 (1960–1961)Google Scholar, fig. 1, 3.

(64) See above and Note 23.

(65) E.g. Brea (1957), 189, fig. 45: b (hoard of Malvagna, Messina). Another piece of this type comes from the Fucino: RSP 16 (1961)Google Scholar, pl. 18: 6.

(66) See for another association of a dagger with two rivets and a knife with a bird's head handle, Pantalica, tomb 8N: Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 1 C

(67) Arch. Rep. (1965–1956), 12Google Scholar, fig. 17; BCH 90 (1966), 903Google Scholar, fig. 13; OpAth 9 (1969), 43Google Scholar, fig. 2D: 3.

(68) Quagliati, , BPI 29 (1903), 116 ff.Google Scholar; Müller-Karpe (1959), 36, pl. 12 B; Sestieri, Bietti, Quaternaria 10 (1969), 203 ff.Google Scholar

(69) For the pin see Kerameikos and Salamis, Sub-Mycenaean tombs, and Mouliana, tomb A: Jacobstahl, , Greek Pins (1956), 1 f.Google Scholar, nr 1–3; Müller-Karpe, , JbInst 77 (1962), 60 f.Google Scholar, fig. 1: 1, 7, 8; 2: 5, 6, 16; 3: 1, 12, 13; 32: 1–3. For the chronology of these pins see Desborough (1964), 53 f. A hammer of the same type as the one from Mottola belongs to an unpublished IA hoard from Avetrana (Taranto); a good Aegean parallel is in the Acropolis hoard of Athens: Montelius (1924), 153, fig. 489.

(70) See also for the dating Quaternaria 10 (1969), 203 ff.Google Scholar

(71) Inv. Arch Italia 1 (1961), I 1Google Scholar, Ripostiglio di Coste del Marano, nr 1–147 (Peroni).

(72) For the typological problems concerning European bronze cups and the ones from Coste del Marano see Sprockhoff, , Zur Handehgeschichte der germanischen Bronzezeit (1930), 32 ff., 49 ff., 67 ffGoogle Scholar. (hereafter Sprockhoff 1930); Merhart, , FestschZMusMainz, 2 (1952), 1 ff.Google Scholar; Müller-Karpe (1959), 157 ff.

(73) Kübler, , Kerameikos IV (1943), 29 f.Google Scholar, fig. 5, pl. 39; JbRGZM Mainz 2 (1955)Google Scholar, fig. 3: 10.

(74) For the leaf-shaped type with two knobs see Note 52; the leaf-shaped type without knobs is common in the Aegean; pieces comparable to the ones from Coste del Marano are those from Kolonaki (Thebes), tombs 14 and 15: Blinkenberg (1926), 52, I 8b, fig. 20; AD 3 (1917), 151, fig. III; Psychro cave (Crete): Blinkenberg (1926), 52, I 8e, fig. 21; Boardman (1964), 37, nr 158, fig. 16, pl. XIII; Kierion hoard, Thessaly: Kilian, , Fibeln aus Tessalien (1973)Google Scholar, pl. 1: 2.

(75) This piece is still unpublished.

(76) Stilted-bow fibulae with two knobs come from Sub-Mycenaean as well as Protogeometric tombs. Subs Mycenaean pieces usually have a thin bow, like the fibulae from Coste del Marano, whereas Protogeometric oneare rather thick. See Kerameikos, tombs 42, 108 and 33, Sub-Mycenaean: JbInst 77 (1962), 60Google Scholar, figs. 3: 10; 5: 12; 6: 7; tombs 39 and 48, Protogeometric: fig. 12: 1, 2; 15: 2. See also Desborough (1964), 57 f., and Protogeometric Pottery (1952), 309Google Scholar.

(77) Schliemann, , Mycénes (1878), 142Google Scholar, fig. 120 (two pieces); Deshayes, Argos, Les fouilles de la Deiras (1966), 60, 203Google Scholar, pls. 24: 8; 60: 5 (tomb 22, LH IIIC). The pattern of the pieces from Greece (which probably are Italian imports) is slightly different from the one of the pin-heads of our hoard, and can be better compared with one of the pendants (here fig. 7: 10). A similar pendant is in the Protovillanovan cemetery of Fontanella: Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 86: 34. Italian pin-heads which are very similar to the ones from Argos and Mycenae come from Porto Perone: NSc (1963), 301Google Scholar, fig. 24; in the same layer there was LH IIIB pottery; Borgo Panigale: Preistoria dell'Emilia e Romagna VII (1962), 159Google Scholar, pl. 50: 77, from the Sub-apennine settlement; Grotta di Polla, from a layer with Protovillanovan pottery and the LH IIIC fragment (see Note 1).

(78) BPI 31 (1905), 122Google Scholar, fig. 25 (Mulino della Badia); Inv.Arch. Jugoslavia I (1957), Y3Google Scholar: 6; Y5: 5 (Dobova, Slovenia, Ha B tombs). Also the figure-of-eight elements which appear on one of the fibulae of Coste del Marano are frequent in this area: Inv.Arch. Jugoslavia I (1957), Y10Google Scholar: 2 (Velika Gorika, Croatia, Ha B tombs).

(79) See the typological section of this article.

(80) Brea-Cavalier (1960), 153 ff.; embossed decoration: pl. 42: 3 (tomb 34); spoked-wheel pin: pl. 41: 1c (tomb 31); pendant: pl. 41, 2b (tomb 31).

(81) Mulino della Badia: BPI 31 (1905), 128Google Scholar, fig. 35. Madonna del Piano (the newly excavated necropolis of Mulino della Badia): NSc (1969), 210 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 14d (tomb 5); 18 f. (tomb 6). See also the decorated pieces from the area of Rovigo: here, below and fig. 23, 12, 13.

(82) Two pieces which belong to the same type also come from Latium: Pinza, , MonAnt 15 (1905), 438Google Scholar, pl. II: 13 (sporadic); De Rossi, , Pezzidi aes rude di peso definito (1886)Google Scholar, pl. VI, 27 (hoard of Grotta S. Stefano, Viterbo).

(83) See Peroni (1959), 49, pl. IV, C3, Dolio-Olla C3, Early Protovillanovan; 147, pl. XVII: 94, Mot. 94, still Subappennine; 149, pl. XVII: 2, Costolature oblique, Protovillanovan.

(84) BPI n.s. 3 (1939), 56 ff.Google Scholar; Müller-Karpe (1959), 78, fig. 6.

(85) Klemm, , Werkzeuge und Waffen (1854), 103Google Scholar, fig. 180; Deshayes (1960), 251, nr 1997.

(86) Deshayes (1960), 93, nr 874, pl. II: 20.

(87) AM 55 (1930), 133Google Scholar, pl. 34: 2.

(88) See Note 12; the pieces from Merlara are illustrated by Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 83: 7a, 24a.

(89) Bianco Peroni (1970), 70, 75, nr 167, 176, pl. 78B. For the attribution of these pieces to the Allerona type see the the typological section of this article.

(90) E.g. Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 126 B: 1 (Trösing, Steiermark).

(91) Tyrol: Wilten, tomb 68, Ha A1: Müller-Karpe (1959), fig. 28: 2. Germany: Untrehaching (München) tomb 5, Ha A1: fig. 29: 10; pl. 186B: 2. Gernlinden (München), tomb 130, Ha A2: pl. 189 F: 5. Region of Mannheim, Ha A2: fig. 38: 1.

(92) E.g. Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 132A, 2 (Tschermoschnitz, Slovenia, Bz D); pl. 127B: 2, 3 (Trösing, Steiermark, Ha A).

(93) Müller-Karpe, PZ 34–5 (1949–50), 322 ff.

(94) Montelius II, 169 ff., pl. 30; Müller-Karpe (1959), 78 f., pl. 52B.

(95) Archaeogicke Rozhledy 23–1 (1971), 3 ff.Google Scholar

(96) Montelius I, pl. 34: 12; BSR 21 (1953)Google Scholar, fig. 9:9 (mould).

(97) Quaternaria 10 (1969), 199 ff.Google Scholar

(98) Cović, , Akademija Nanka i Umjetnasti Bosne i Hercegovine, Godišniak VIII, Centar za Balkanološka Ispitivanja (1970), 67 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 17.

(99) Perugia, Archaeological Museum.

(100) Quaternaria 10 (1969), 199 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 1, 2.

(101) Florence, Archaeological Museum. The axe belonged to the Collezioni Medicee.

(102) Lecce, Archaeological Museum.

(103) See for the decoration a shaft-hole axe from the hoard of Soleto (Lecce, Apulia): Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 14B: 11; for the occurrence of faceted edges, two pieces from the hoards of Reinzano (Taranto) and Contigliano (Latium or Umbria): BPI 78 (1969), 259 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 1: 1, 2.

(104) See Note 31.

(105) Peschiera winged-axes: see Merlara: Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 83: 1, 2, 9; Peschiera: pl. 103: 34–40-For Protovillanovan pieces see below.

(106) Pertosa cave: MonAnt 24 (1916)Google Scholar, pl. 11: 1; Palestrina: Pinza, , MonAnt 15 (1905), 37Google Scholar, fig. 11; Blera: Pinza, , Materiali per la Etnografia antica Toscano-Laziale (1915), 13Google Scholar, pl. 1: 6; Foiano: Montelius II, pl. 125, 5; Cortona and Ripatransone: Quaternaria 10 (1969), 207 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 7, 8; Gubbio, Città di Castello and Serrasanquirico: Calzoni, , Il Museo Preistorico dell'Italia Centrale in Perugia (1940)Google Scholar, pl. 39, below, nr 3, 11, 16; Urbino: unpublished, Pigorini museum; Tronto or Vibrata valley: Dumitrescu, H., EphDacor V (1932), 250Google Scholar, fig. 21: 6; Aquileia: Anelli, , Aquileia Nostra 20 (1949), 8Google Scholar, fig. 23; this axe might be associated with the dagger, fig. 37. A few more pieces of this type, whose provenance is not certain, are in the mueums of Florence, Arezzo and Rome (Pigorini museum).

(107) Sprockhoff (1930), 90, pl. 11: d; Müller-Karpe (1959), 158. In the hoard of Mackovac (Croatia), Ha A1 according to Müller-Karpe (1959), 107, there is a fragment of a winged-axe which might belong to the Ortucchio type, and is associated with a violin-bow fibula: Holste, , Hortfunde Südosteuropas (1951)Google Scholar, pl. 9: 4, 10.

(108) I have been able to study the Mycenae mould on a cast that was made for me by the museum of Athens. See for other parallels which have been proposed, Stubbings, , BSA 49 (1954), 297Google Scholar; Gimbutas, , Bronze Age Cultures of Central and Eastern Europe (1965), 114CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. 19: 2; Hood, , Festschrift Grumach (1967), 120 ff.Google Scholar; Childe, , Civiltà del Ferro (1960), 577Google Scholar. According to Childe, two axes in the museum of Perugia belong to the same type as the Mycenae mould; it is quite probable that these are among the pieces listed above, which belong to the Ortucchio type.

(109) BSA 48 (1953), 9 ff.Google Scholar, 15.

(110) BSA 49 (1954), 298Google Scholar.

(111) I have asked the opinion of Dr F. H. Stubbings, and this is his answer: ‘I think that your suggestion that the axe-mould from the House of the Oil Merchant at Mycenae was dropped among the ruins of the building long after its destruction is not precluded. As you say, it was not on a floor level; and the suggestion that it had fallen from an upper floor was only a tentative explanation.’

(112) Siena: Milani, , Studi e Materiali di Archaeologia e Numismatica, 2 (1902), 219Google Scholar, fig. 368a: 3. Ponte S. Gio. vanni: Montelius II, pl. 125: 9. Casalecchio: Montelius I, pl. 30: 3. Cividale del Friuli: Montelius I, pl. 34: 5. Buie d'Istria: Trieste Archaeological museum, inv. 9711. An axe from Reggio Emilia and another one from Frattesina (Rovigo) have some characteristics in common with our type: Säflund (1939), pl. 54: 6; Padusa VIII (1972), 32 ff.Google Scholar, pl. III: 8.

(113) Marches or Abruzzi (Tronto or Vibrata valley), EphDacor V (1932), 250Google Scholar, fig. 21: 3. Monte Primo hoard: Inv. Arch, Italia 3 (1963), I 7Google Scholar. Central Italy: Calzoni, , Il Museo Preistorico dell'Italia Centrale in Perugia (1940)Google Scholar, pl. 39, below, centre. Piano di Tallone, sporadic: BPI (1938), 37Google Scholar, fig. 7. Grotta S. Stefano hoard: De Rossi, , Pezzi di Aes rude di peso definito e le asce di bronzo adoperato come valore monetale (1886)Google Scholar, pl. VI: 26. Pianizza: RSP 6, 1951, 161 f.Google Scholar, fig. 4. The blade fragment from the hoard of Piano di Tallone (here fig. 4: 4) probably belongs to this type.

(114) Goluzzo: Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 47: 22, 27, 32. Limone: Montelius II, pl. 121: 12. Gabbro: BPI 45 (1925), 116 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 1. Piediluco: Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 50: 1–25; 51: 12, 23, 24. Campese: StEtr 33 (1965), 515 ff.Google Scholar, pl. 119: 1, 2, 5, 6. Santa Marinella: NSc (1934), 443 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 2: h, i, m, p. Pariana: BPI 45 (1925), 122 ff.Google Scholar (this piece is not illustrated). Monte Rovello: Inv.Arch. Italia 1 (1961), I 2Google Scholar, nr 3.

(115) Sundwall (1943), 69 f., A II f, g, h. Peschiera palafitte: BPI 35 (1909), 136 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 22, pl. XIII: 1. Bobbio (Piacenza, Emilia-Romagna): see Note 10. Belmonte Piceno (Ascoli Piceno, Marches): Dumitrescu, V., L'età del ferro nel Piceno (1929), 120Google Scholar, fig. 15: 17. Pianello: Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 56: 14. Pertosa cave: MonAnt 24 (1916), 573Google Scholar, pl. 1: 11. Timmari: MonAnt 16 (1906), 84Google Scholar, fig. 91. Scoglio del Tonno: Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 13: 6–8. Porto Perone: NSc (1963), 358Google Scholar, Note 9; for the Mycenaean fragment see Taylour (1958), 140, nr. 10. Sicily: Cozzo del Pantano (Siracusa): Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 1H, 1. Pantalica (Siracusa): Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 1A: 3. Valledolmo (Caltanissetta): BadFundb 20 (1956)Google Scholar, pl.: 8B 4; Lipari: Acropolis (unpublished). For Aegean parallels see Note 40.

(116) See Müller-Karpe (1959), 78.

(117) Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 87A: 5; Ghislanzoni, , Studi Mistrorigo (1958)Google Scholar, pl. VII: 6c

(118) E.g. in the hoards of Goluzzo, Piediluco and Campese: Müller-Karpe (1959), pls. 47: 1, 4; 48: 4, 5, 7; StEtr 33 (1965)Google Scholar, pl. 120a: 1, 2. Terni, Acciaierie, tomb 118: NSc (1914), 44 f.Google Scholar, fig. 37. A few similar pieces also come from the north, e.g. from the cemetery of Moncucco: Sundwall (1943), B IIα f3.

(119) Brea-Cavalier (1959), 33, fig. 1.

(120) Brea (1957), 151 ff., fig. 32a. Sundwall (1943), B Iβ c. These fibulae come from Pantalica, tombs 64S and 49N, 1 NO; Dessueri, Canalotto, tomb 59; Montagna di Caltagirone. A piece without knobs belongs to the group of Valledolmo (tomb or hoard): MonAnt 21 (1913), 314, 386Google Scholar, pls. 18: 25; 6: 22. NSc (1904), 74Google Scholar, fig. 13; BPI 65 (1956), 387 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 7, 18; BadFundb 20 (1956), 69 ff.Google Scholar, pl. 8B 5. Two pieces which are very similar to this Sicilian type belong to a private collection of northern Italy, now in the Museo civico di Storia Naturale di Verona; their provenance is not known. I owe this information to Dr P. von Eles. A similar fibula without knobs and with the bow made of a bronze ribbon, comes from the stipe votiva esterna of Pertosa: BPI 52 (1932), 40Google Scholar, pl. 1: 10.

(121) Gualdo Tadino: Ancona, , Le armi, le fibule e qualche altro cimelio (1886)Google Scholar, nr. 171 (without knobs); Ortucchio: RSP 16 (1961), 175Google Scholar, pl. 15: 7 (here fig. 20: 8); Coste del Marano hoard: here fig. 7: 6, 7; 20: 5, 6; Coste del Marano, tomb; Tolfa, sporadic; Valle del Campaccio (Tolfa), tomb: BPI 35 (1909), 113Google Scholar, fig. 3, pl. 8: 2, 6. The fibula from Crostoletto di Lamone might belong to this group: StEtr 33 (1967), 289Google Scholar, fig. 4. A piece without knobs from the settlement of Montagna Cetona probably is related to it: Origini 5 (1971), 157 ff.Google Scholar, 177, fig. 9: 12. Also the fibula from the tomb of S. Angelo in Formis is similar to these pieces (see Note 10). See Sundwall (1943), B Iβ, a, b. It is possible that a fibula from the urnfield of Timmari, which has two multple knobs, belongs to a stilted type that could be related to the central Tyrrhenian ones: Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 14A: 4.

(122) MonAnt 21 (1913)Google Scholar, pl. 6: 26.

(123) Pantalica, tombs 3N, 44N, 51SC: MonAnt 9 (1899)Google Scholar, pl. 8: 10; BPI 65 (1956), 387 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 5, 14, 19; Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 1F: 1. Milazzo, tombs 107, 119: Brea-Cavalier (1959), pl. 39: 14, 17. A two-knobbed arched or stilted fibula of Sicilian type belongs to the stipe votiva esterna of the Pertosa cave: MonAnt 24 (1916)Google Scholar, pl. II: 10. The two-knobbed arched fibulae in the Aegean are not clearly dated: see Furumark, , The Chronology of Mycenaean pottery (1941), 91 ff.Google Scholar; Merhart, , BJb 147 (1942), 74 ff.Google Scholar; Milojcic, , JbRGZM Mainz 2 (1955), 166 ff.Google Scholar

(124) Batović, , Diadora I (1959), 37 ff.Google Scholar; Inv.Arch. Jugoslavia 4 (1962), Y31–34Google Scholar. Batović has identified an Ha A2–B1 horizon in the region of the ancient Liburnians, which is characterized by particular types of two-knobbed arched fibulae, spiral pendants, bracelets and amber beads. Among the numerous types of two-knobbed arched fibulae which are known in the Balkans, these seem to be the oldest, and also those which are closer to the Sicilian types. See the parallel between the fibula from Sali, , Diadora IGoogle Scholar, fig. 5; Inv.Arch. Jugoslavia 4, Y32Google Scholar: 1, and the one from Pantalica, tomb 3N, here Figure 20: 9.

(125) Timmari village: BPI 27 (1901), 36Google Scholar, fig. A Vieste: RSP II (1956), 19Google Scholar, fig. 13.

(126) Müller-Karpe (1959), pls. 56A: 24, 25, 31, 32; 85C: 11, 12, 16. These types are related with the large arched fibulae of Monte Primo: Inv.Arch. Italia 3, I 7Google Scholar, nr 2, 3.

(127) Sundwall (1943), 85 f., B Iα, g: Tolfa: BPI 35 (1909), 113Google Scholar, fig. 4. Pianello: BPI 40 (1914)Google Scholar, pls. VI: II; VII: 9. Central Italy: Montelius II, pl. 126, 15. The two-knobbed arch fibulae from Limone (probably tenth century) seem to represent an isolated case: Montelius II, pl. 121: 10.

(128) E.g., the fibulae from Goriano Sicoli (L'Aquila, Abruzzi): RSP 16 (1961), 168 f.Google Scholar, pl. 16: 1; Velletri (Rome): MonAnt 15 (1905), 343Google Scholar, fig. 128; Marino (Rome): NSc (1924), 488Google Scholar, fig. 41; near Rome: Undset, , Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 21 (1889), 226Google Scholar, fig. 40. The decorative pattern of these pieces is related to the groups of oblique parallel lines in alternating direction which appear on the most recent pieces of the two-knobbed fibula series. An IA sequence to these late-Protovillanovan types appears at Cumae and Torre Galli: Müller-Karpe (1959), pls. 16B: 2; 17B: 17, 18, 22, 23; 21A: 1; MonAnt 31 (1926), 91Google Scholar, fig. 78: 138; fig. 135.

(129) Sundwall (1943), 74 f., A IV β, c; Peschiera palafitte: BPI 35 (1909), 133Google Scholar, fig. 21, pl. 13: 4; Montelius I, A, pl. 4: 20. Poggio della Gaggiola (Bologna, Emilia): Montelius I, pl. 24: 4. Lapedona (Ascoli Piceno, Marches) BPI 35 (1909), 132Google Scholar, pl. XIII, 2. Cetona, Antro della Noce: NSc (1933), 98Google Scholar, fig. 80. Scoglio del Tonno: Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 13: 5.

(130) Inv.Arch. Italia 3 (1963), I 7Google Scholar, nr 5. For the derivation of the types a contorno quadrangolare from the leaf-shaped violin-bow one see Merhart, , BJb 147 (1942), 6 f.Google Scholar, pl. 6: 1.

(131) Bianco Peroni (1970), 78 ff.

(132) E.g., the sword with semicircular hilt from Manaccora, see Note 27.

(133) Pantalica, tomb 48N: MonaNT 9 (1899), 57Google Scholar, pl. 7: 16; BPI 65 (1956), 415Google Scholar, fig. 4; AJA 67 (1963), 137 ff.Google Scholar, pls. 25: 43 and 28: 69.

(134) Bianco Peroni (1970), 83, pl. 78D: 1, 2.

(135) PPS 36 (1970), 245Google Scholar.

(136) Bianco Peroni (1970), 66 ff., nr 153–63.

(137) Cowen, , 36, BerRGK (1955), 78 f.Google Scholar, pl. 7; Catling, , Antiquity 35 (1961), 115 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; BSA 63 (1968), 98Google Scholar.

(138) Bianco Peroni (1970), 66, nr 153, 154.

(139) Bianco Peroni (1970), 66 ff., nr 154, 155; 73, nr 176. For the Aegean origin of nervatures on the blades of Griffzungenschwerter see Antiquity 35 (1961), 120Google Scholar.

(140) Bianco Peroni (1970), 75 ff., nr 179: hoard of Contigliano (nr 180–9 are rather similar to this one; those with a known provenance come from the interior and Tyrrhenian regions of central and southern Italy); pl. 78C: 3–6 (hoards of Piediluco-Contigliano).

(141) Barfield (1971), 99 ff.; the hoard of Poggio Berni, so rich in pieces belonging to trans-Alpine types, may well represent these connections.

(142) See the central European connections of the hoard of Coste del Marano. As regards to the south, we can quote a pair of greaves decorated with embossed work from Canosa (Bari, Apulia): Johannowsky, , Rendiconti Accad. Arch. Napoli 45 (1970), 205 ff.Google Scholar

(143) During the thirteenth-twelfth century these contacts do not seem to be very intense. For the Peschiera period, we have the well-known fibula from Dalmatia: BJb 147 (1942), 6Google Scholar, fig. 3; and probably, the bronzes from Manaccora and Coppa Nevigata (see Note 35). According to Dr Vinski-Gasparini, who is studying the Balcanic violin-bow fibulae, the thirteenth-twelfth century fibulae from the proper Balcanic area, south of the river Sava, are not connected with the Italian and Aegean series. This connection, on the other hand, is seen in the north, the Drava-Sava-Danube triangle. It is worth noting that two violin-bow fibulae with two knobs and an axe of Italian type come from these areas (see Notes 41 and 107). Trans-Adriatic connections seem to increase during the eleventh century; in this period we have the spear-heads from Casalecchio, possibly a socketed axe from Primo, Monte (Inv.Arch. Italia 3 (1963), I 7Google Scholar, nr 41; compare WMBH 11, (1909), 71 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 32–9: Tesanj, Bosnia, bronze hoard). The most relevant evidence is offered by the fibulae of Sicilian type on the coast of Dalmatia–Croatia (see Note 124) and by the finds of Frattesina (see Note 10 and below).

(144) Brea-Cavalier (1959), 33 ff.; (1960), 153 ff. The dating proposed by the excavators for the cemeteries of Milazzo and Piazza Monfalcone (both Ausonian II, but Piazza Monfalcone slightly earlier than Milazzo) should probably be reversed; in fact, the fibulae from Milazzo belong to rather archaic types (see the typological section of this article and Peroni, , BPI 71–2 (1962–1963), 447Google Scholar) whereas the bronzes of Piazza Monfalcone show close connections both with the hoard of Coste del Marano and with the cemetery of Mulino della Badia: BPI 31 (1905), 96 ff.Google Scholar; NSc (1969), 210 ffGoogle Scholar. As regards to the burial rite at Piazza Monfalcone, the funerary implements were only in the enchytrisntos tombs; none of the objects comes from the cremations.

(145) Peroni, , ParPass 125 (1969), 153Google Scholar.

(146) See Note 143.

(147) The hypothesis that the bronzes from Pertosa constitute the link between the traffic routes on the continent and Sicily is supported by several elements. Apart from the Aegean knife (MonAnt 24 (1916)Google Scholar, pl. 1: 4), the group includes several Peschiera and Protovillanovan types which are also found in the Aegean: the Peschiera fibula and dagger (pl. I: 5, 9), the violin-bow fibula with two knobs (pl.: 11), an arch fibula of twisted wire (pl. I: 10), the winged-axe of Ortucchio type (pl. II: 1, and here fig. 14: 1), the razor (pl. I: 6). An arrow-head seems to be similar to Aegean types (pl. II. 11; compare Boardman (1964), 30 f., nr 119, 120, 126); the tanged axe (pl. II, 2) could be connected to East Mediterranean pieces (e.g. Deshayes (1960, 121, nr 1131, pl. XIV: 15, Lindos). There is also a belt hook (not illustrated) which is similar to trans-Alpine types, e.g. Müller-Karpe (1959), 153. pls. 186: A2, B1, C17, E5; 187, A1, B1, C1 (Ha Al tombs, Unterhaching, München); 155, pls. 188: D10 (Ha Al tomb, Gernlinden, München); 191 ff., fig. 28: 14 (Tyrol, Ha Al). Finally, the sword (pl. I: 2) and the fibulae (pl. I 8; II: 10) belong to Sicilian types. See above and Notes 120, 123.

(148) See Note 10.

(149) E.g., the shaft-hole axe of southern type from Casalecchio, here Figures 9: 12; 12: 2.

(150) The few finds of Mycenaean pottery along the Tyrrhenian coast up to northern Latium could indicate that this area was known at least since LH IIIB (sherds from Luni, see Note 1). There is also a spear-head belonging to Catling's Mouliana class (BSA 63 (1968), 94, 105Google Scholar, nr 8) which is said to be from Elba: I owe this information to Dr A. Harding.

(151) Padusa VIII, 2 (1972), 3 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 17–22, 12–16. Tiryns type beads in Jugoslavia come from Privlaka, tomb 87, and Vrsi, tomb 89: Diadora I (1959), 37 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 1: 1, 2, 4; pls. III: 15, 16; V: 18; Inv.Arch. Jugoslavia 4 (1962), Y31Google Scholar: 2. The Italian pieces come from Ponte S. Pietro: RSP 6 (1951), 96 ff.Google Scholar, 167 ff., fig. II; Lipari, Piazza Monfalcone, tomb 31: Brea-Cavalier (1960), pl. 43: 1; Coppa Nevigata: MonAnt 19 (1908), 305 ff.Google Scholar pl. XIII: 99H; Capitanata (Apulia): Reggio Emilia, museum; Borgo Panigale: Preistoria dell'Emilia e Romagna I (1962)Google Scholar. The type is known from several finds in the Aegean: Tiryns hoard: AM 55 (1930), 119 ff.Google Scholar, pls. 30–32); Crete, Dictaean cave: Boardman (1964), 73, nr 352; Thisbe, Boeotia: JHS 45 (1925), 2Google Scholar, fig. 1: h; Jalisos: Strong, , Catalogue of the carved ambers (1966), 33Google Scholar, pl. I: b, c. Many pieces also come from Kephallenia, Metaxata: AE (1933), 67 ff., fig. 2, 43. Beads of Allumiere type in Jugoslavia belong to tomb 87 of Privlaka: Diadora I (1959)Google Scholar, fig. 4: 3; pl. III: 17. One piece comes from the Mati valley in Albania. In Italy, several pieces have been found at Allumiere: NSc (1960), 341 ff.Google Scholar, fig. II: 17, 18 (La Pozza, tomb 2). Also several unpublished pieces in the Antiquarium of Allumiere. Another piece probably comes from Bismantova: BPI 2 (1876), 242 ff.Google Scholar, pl. VIII: 18

(152) Padusa II, 2, 3 (1966), 3 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 2: VIII, 2 (1972), 32 ff., pl. 1: 15, 18. See Note 81 for the Sicilian pieces.

(153) Padusa VIII, 2 (1972), 32 ff.Google Scholar, pl. II: 18. Allumiere, tomb 2: NSc (1960), 341 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 11: 13. Piazza Monfalcone, tomb 31: Brea-Cavalier (1960), pl. 41: 1c.

(154) Padusa VIII, 2 (1972), 32 ff.Google Scholar, pl. II: 10, 11. Manciano: Inv.Arch. Italia 2 (1961), I 5Google Scholar, nr 7–49. Nr 4–6 are wheel-headed pins.

(155) Padusa II, 2–3 (1966), 32 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 12: 12; VIII, 2 (1972), 32 ff., pls. 1: 12; 11: 7. The Balcanic pieces come from Korbovo (Serbia): Srejović, , Starinar II (1960), 47 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 29. Vinca (Serbia): M., and Garasanin, D., Katalog Metalla (1954), 64Google Scholar, pl. 63: 1. The Sicilian Cassibile fibulae are similar to the pieces from Jugoslavia and Veneto as regards to the general shape; moreover, they often are decorated with groups of annular lines, a pattern which is unknown in continental Italy and Sicily before the Cassibile (Pantalica II) phase, whereas it appears on Balcanic violin-bow fibulae since the thirteenth century (see Note 61). For the Sicilian pieces see Müller-Karpe (1959), pls. 4H: 3; 6: 9 (Cassibile and Mulino della Badia); NSc (1969), 210 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 15, m; 20, g (Madonna del Piano). An ultimate origin of the Cassibile fibula from the Balkans, therefore, is not unlikely.

(156) Padusa VIII, 2 (1972), 32 ff.Google Scholar, pls. I: 7; II: 3. For the Aegean pieces see Blinkenberg (1926), 62 f., II,3, a, b, fig. 32, 33; Salamis, Sub-Mycenaean tombs, and Kerameikos tomb 2, Sub-Mycenaean: Müller-Karpe, , JbInst 77 (1962), 60Google Scholar, fig. 1: 3–4; 32: 5. Kavousi, tomb 3: AJA (1901), 136Google Scholar, fig. 2. For this tomb see also Desborough, , Protogeometric Pottery (1952), 267 fGoogle Scholar. For the Sicilian pieces see Sundwall (1943), IIIB, IIα, d: Mulino della Badia: BPI 30 (1905), 114Google Scholar, fig. 15 (15 pieces). Dessueri: MonAnt 21 (1913), 360, 387Google Scholar, pl. 18: 29, 30. Cassibile: MonAnt 9 (1899), 131Google Scholar, pl. 13: 9. See also Müller-Karpe (1959), pls. 5: 20, 23–6.

(157) Padusa VIII, 2 (1972), 32 ff.Google Scholar, pl. 11: 17. Kerameikos, tomb 46, Sub-Mycenaean; tomb 22, Protogeometric: Müller-Karpe, , JbInst 77 (1963)Google Scholar, fig. 2: 8; Kübler, , Kerameikos IV (1943)Google Scholar, pl. 39, inv. 117; Athens: B. M. Quart. 23 (1960–1961), 102Google Scholar, pl. 44: 3, 5, 6. Allumiere, tomb 2: NSc (1960), 341 ff.Google Scholar, fig. II:8. There are also several other pieces from Frattesina which have good parallels at Allumiere; see Padusa VIII, 2 (1972), 3 ff., 32 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 9, pl. I: 18–20, and NSc (1960), 341 ff.Google Scholar, fig. II: 22 (tomb 2); II: 16 (tomb 4); II:7 (tomb 1). Moreover, the three violin-bow fibulae with figure-of-eight loops from Frattesina: Padusa VIII, 2 (1972), 32 ff.Google Scholar, pl. I: 1–3, can be compared, for their small size, to a fragment from the Dictaean cave: Boardman (1964), 35 ff., fig. 16A.

(158) See for the general problem of the Balcanic connection of the Italian IA cultures, Merhart, , BJb 147 (1942), 1 ffGoogle Scholar. For Apulia see Peroni (1967), 126, and the new excavations of S. and F. Tinè. For Sicily see the new necropolis of del Piano, Madonna, NSc (1969), 210 ff.Google Scholar; Campania and Calabria: Kilian, , Früheisenzeitliche Funde aus der Südostnekropole von Sala Consilina (1970)Google Scholar; Génière, De la, L'Age du Fer en Italie Meridionale (1968), 88 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the Terni group see Randall-MacIver, , The Iron Age in Italy (1927), 140 ffGoogle Scholar. See also Müller-Karpe (1959), passim. The central Adriatic area of Italy also is linked with the Balkans, but EIA finds are not frequent. See Lollini, , Atti I Simposio Intern. Protostoria Italiana, Orvieto (1965–1967), 89 ff.Google Scholar

(159) For the concentration of bronze types which inherit the Protovillanovan tradition in southern Italy, Sicily and the Tyrrhenian area, see above passim. The important Umbrian hoards connected to the Terni group are those of Goluzzo, Piediluco and Contigliano: the latter probably is a part of the hoard of Piediluco: Müller-Karpe (1959), 73, pls. 47–52A; BPI 79 (1970), 95 ffGoogle Scholar. The bronzes in these hoards belong to a peculiar sphere of metal craftsmanship, which also appears in Latium (hoards of Santa Marinella, Monte Rovello and Tolfa), and in the islands in front of the coast of Tuscany (hoard of Campese, sporadic find from Elba): NSc (1934), 443 ff.Google Scholar; Inv.Arch. Italia I (1961), I 3, I 4Google Scholar; StEtr 33 (1965), 515 ffGoogle Scholar. The hoards of Caggiano (Salerno, Campania), Reinzano and Scorrano (Apulia) and Cerchiara di Calabria also are connected with this group: Kilian, , Apollo 3–4 (1963–1964), 74 ff.Google Scholar; BPI 78 (1969), 259 ff.Google Scholar

(160) BPI 30 (1905), 96 ff.Google Scholar; Müller-Karpe (1959), pls. 3–7; NSc (1969), 210 ff.Google Scholar; to this facies also belong the hoards of Modica and Niscemi: Brea (1957), fig. 43, 44, 46.

(161) In the hoard of Piediluco-Contigliano there are two fragments probably belonging to the same tripod; two fragments of bronze cauldrons with vertical ring-handle, and a bronze wheel, which probably are East Mediterranean and Aegean imports: Müller-Karpe (1959), 74, fig. 5; pl. 52A: 1. Ponzi-Bonomi, , BPI 79 (1970), 95 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 13: 2, 3; 14: 3, 5, 7, 8; 15. See for the tripod Catling (1964), 190 ff.; for the cauldrons Furtwängler, , Olympia IV (1890)Google Scholar, pl. 36: 645; for the wheel Schaeffer, , Enkomi-Alasia I (1952), 29Google Scholar, pl. 64. Two fragments of cauldrons with ring-handle come from the Sicilian hoards of Adrano and Giarratana: Müller-Karpe (1959), pl. 9: 12–14; Brea (1957), fig. 50, a.

As regards to the contacts with the Balkans, apart from the general Balkanic connections of the Terni group, a winged axe which is quite similar to pieces from Goluzzo belongs to the Dalmatian hoard of Sitno: WMBH VI (1899), 519 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 10. See also BPI 78 (1959), 259 ff.Google Scholar for shaft-hole axes.

‘Cassibile’ fibulae, which, as we have seen, seem to be connected with the Balkans (see Note 155), come from several Aegean and East Mediterranean sites. See Blinkenberg (1926), 54 f.: Enkomi: I 10a, fig. 24. Vrokastro and Kavousi: I 11a–c, fig. 25, 26. Kydonia: I 12a, fig. 27. See also the pieces from Lapithos, tomb 422: Gjerstad, et al. , Swedish Cyprus Expedition I (1934)Google Scholar, pl. 44/5: 3. Megiddo: Loud, , Megiddo II (1948)Google Scholar, pl. 223, nr 78. Hama: Riis, , Hama, Les cimetières a crémation (1948), 132Google Scholar, fig. 167b. There is also a peculiar kind of arch fibula with two knobs and polygonal bow-section from Mulino della Badia, with parallels in Calabria and in the cemetery of Timmari, which can be compared to Jugoslavian and Aegean pieces. Mulino della Badia and Timmari: Müller-Karpe (1959), pls. 6: 24; 14A: 1. Calabria: unpublished pieces which have been shown to me by Dr F. Lo Schiavo. Bokavić (Bosnia), bronze-hoard, Ha B1: Cović, , Glasnik Zem. Muz. Sarajevo 10 (1955), 100 ff.Google Scholar, pl. 1; Kilian, , Actes du VIII Congrès Intern. Sc. Préhist. Protohist., Beograd (1971) I, 224Google Scholar. Mouliana, tomb A, and Praisos: Blinkenberg (1926), 69, II 11a, fig. 44; II 12e, fig. 48. See Note 123 for the problems concerning two-knobbed arch fibulae in the Aegean.

(162) The ‘Illyrian’ bronzes, which appear in Greek sanctuaries belong to Milojcic's third wave of migration from the Balkans: AA (1948), 12 ff., fig. 3. For spectacle fibulae, which represent one of the most important classes of Balkanic bronzes with parallels both in Greece and Italy, see Alexander, , AJA 69 (1965), 7 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar