Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:06:06.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The East European Relations of the Dimini Culture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

V. Gordon Childe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The second neolithic period in Eastern Thessaly is sharply severed from the first by the intrusion of a new culture which appears as something foreign and alien on the shores of the Pagasean Gulf. The pottery, for example, seems utterly different from that of the first period. The forms belong to a distinct series and are typologically older. The absence of feet and strap handles, so well developed in the A wares, precludes us from deriving Dimini ware from any of the latter. The characteristic designs, too, based on the spiral and the meander, are entirely foreign to the earlier series. Moreover, the use of fortifications beginning with this pottery (the traces of an earlier wall at Sesklo are exceedingly problematical), and restricted to its area, heightens this impression of foreignness. So too do the ‘megaron’ houses of Dimini and Sesklo, which do not seem to find their explanation in the curvilinear or square huts of the first period.

As to the provenance of this culture, the recent declaration of Sir Arthur Evans, that the origin of the spiral motive in Minoan ceramics is not to be sought in Crete itself, should dispose of the only reason for deriving it from the south; for there seems no ground for supposing that the Cycladic spirals antedate those of Dimini. Indeed I have argued in a previous paper, and my conclusion has been supported by more recent investigations, that Thessaly II. must be dated well back in the Early Cycladic Period. On the other hand, the theory of a northern origin has been strengthened by the discovery of Dimini ware in the Strymon valley. Indeed the general analogies between Dimini ware and the widespread group of painted and incised spiral-meander pottery north of the Balkans have been long recognised, and elaborate theories of an invasion, not only of Thessaly, but even of Crete itself, have been built up thereon.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , 1922 , pp. 254 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1922

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 Wace, and Thompson, , Prehistoric Thessaly, p. 243.Google Scholar

2 A progressive degeneration of ceramic technique not associated with any breach in the tradition is, of course, a common phenomenon. But this is to be distin guished from a reversion to a more primitive type.

3 Wace, and Thompson, , Prehistoric Thessaly, p. 64.Google Scholar

4 Oval near Sesklo, ibid. p. 74; square at Tsangli, ibid. p. 115.

5 Palace of Minos, p. 114.

6 J.H.S. xxxv. p. 201.

7 B.S.A. xxii. p. 187. Blegen, , Korakou, p. 123Google Scholar, reports the occurrence of wares of Thessaly II. below as well as in company with the oldest Early Helladic sherds at Gonia.

8 B.S.A. xxiii, p. 45.

9 Wilke, Spiral-Mäander Keramik und Gefass-Malerei Hellenen und Thraker; Hadaczek, La Colonie Industrielle de Koszylowce; and to some extent Schmidt, , Zeitschr. für Ethnologie, xliii, p. 601.Google Scholar

10 Cf. Hoernes, , Die Formentwicklung der präh. Tongefässe, Jahrb. f. Altertumskunde, 1911, pp. 2 ff.Google ScholarUrgeschichte der bildenden Kunst (2nd ed.), pp. 262 f.

11 Prehistoric Thessaly, pp. 257–8.

12 Ibid. p. 16.

13 Die prämykenische Kultur in Südrussland, p. 58.

14 Trudy, XI. archeol. S'ezda, p. 769; Izvestia. Imp. Archeol. Kommissia, xii. 1904, p. 99.

15 Mitt. präh. Comm. Wien, l.c. p. 390, fig. 134.

16 Waoe and Thompson, op. cit.

17 L.c.

18 Cf. Taountas, , D. and S., Pl. LXXVII.Google Scholar, with W. and T., Pl. I.

19 Mitt, der prähist. Comm. d. K. Akad. Wien, 1903, p. 390, Fig. 135 and text.

20 Cf. Hadaczek, op. cit., Figs. 59, 74, and 128, and description.

21 Jahrb. d. k. k. Zentral-Kommission zur Erhaltung usw., 1904, p. 22.

22 Trudy, XI. arch. S'ezda, p. 805, esp. par. (4) and Tabi. XXVIII. 1, 2, and 11 in colours; cf. Minns, , Scythians and Greeks, p. 139Google Scholar and Fig. 30.

23 Cf., e. g., for Petreny von Stern, op. cit., Pl. X. 2; Kiev area, Trudy, PI. XXIII. 7; for Galicia, Hoernes, N.K.O. Fig. 255, and Hadaczek, No. 115; for Bukowina, Jahrb. l.c., Figs. 7 and 10; for Erösd, Mitt. l.c., Fig. 135, etc.

24 Von Stern, op. cit., Pl. II. 3, IX. 4 and 6 (men), IX. 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 (animals).

25 Zapiski Imp. Arch. Obshchestva Russ. Slav. Otdel., 1904, Tabi. III. 2 and 5.

26 Koszylowce, Hadaczek, op. cit. Pl. XVIII. 154, XIX. 162, XXI. 188 ff.

27 For a convenient study of analogous transformations in the pottery of Susa, cf. Spearing, , The Childhood of Art, pp. 258 f.Google Scholar

28 E. g. von Stern, op. cit. Plate XII. 4 and 5.

29 Zapiski Imp. Odessk. Obshchestva Istor. i Drevnoas. xxiii, p. 199. The second sign in the middle row on the plate there is plainly the same as some of von Stern's animals.

30 W. and T., Pl. I.

31 Tsountas, D. and S., Pl. X.

32 Ibid. Pl. XXI. No. 3.

33 Trudy, l.c. Tabl. XXVIII. 9 and 11, XXVI. 21, Jahrb. k. k. Zentral-Komm., 1903, Figs. 106 ff., 1904, p. 26, Fig. 22 (Szipenitz); Hadaczek, l.c. xix. 168.

34 Trudy, l.c. Tabl. XXVIII (Kiev A); von Stern, op. cit., Pls. X. 8, XII. 3, etc. (Petreny), Jahrb. 1904, p. 43, Fig. 45 (Szipenitz), ibid. 1905, p. 114, Figs. 253 and 254 (Bilcze Zlota); Hadaczek, xv. 123, 124, and 128 (Kosz.), Zeitechr. f. Eth. xliii. Fig. 3, No. 2 (Cucuteni).

35 Von Stern, Pl. VI., 10, 11, etc., Jahrb. 1903, p. 103, Figs. 101 and 103; Hadaczek, viii. 51, ix. 59, etc., Zeitechr. l.c. Fig. 3, No. 2, etc.

36 Von Stern, Pl. IV. 8, etc., Jahrb. 1904, l.c. Figs. 46 and 47; Hadaczek, xiii. 105, etc.

37 Hadaczek, xiii. 116 and 119. The ‘Nordic’ ware is in the National Museum at Prague.

38 Von Stern, Pl. VI., 9.

39 E. g. Hadaczek, x. 74; Von Stern, ibid.; cf. his remarks on p. 68.

40 Op. cit. p. 257.

41 Hoernes, , N.K.O. p. 120.Google Scholar A comparison between Chwoiko's double and single stands, Trudy, Tabl. XXVI. 20 and 21, will illustrate this point.

42 Cf. W. and T., Pl. I., with von Stern, ii. 1. xii. 11, etc.; and Hadaozek, xvii. 147, etc.

43 Cf. esp. Tsountas, Pl. XXIII. 3, and Trudy, Tabl. XXIV. 10.

44 Op. cit. p. 4.

45 Chwoiko in Trudy, l.c. pp. 805 ff.; cf. Minns, op. cit. pp. 139 ff.

46 Schmidt, , Zeitschr. für Ethnol., xliii. pp. 594 f.Google Scholar

47 Op. cit. p. 257.

48 The original contrast between orna mentation with solid running designs or ribbons and simple single lines such as the impress of a string which formed the original basis of the division into Bandkeramik, Schnurkeramik, etc., is regarded by Hoernes, whom I am in general following, as less significant than that between designs which run continuously round the vase surface—constituting a sort of band—and those which divide up the surface as it were into metopes. Actually the two classifications largely coincide, but there is naturally a tendency to modify the meaning of Band under the influence of the newer division. In his latest work Hoernes therefore occasionally uses the word quite in the sense of the English ‘band.’ With this proviso I feel justified in retaining Bandkeramik—a term which is convenient and familiar and which has at least a precise denotation.

49 Die neolith. Station von Butmir, Pl. II.

50 Hoernes, N.K.O. Fig. 83.

51 Palliardi, in Mitt. d. präh. Comm-Wien, 1897, Pl. IV.Google Scholar

52 Tsountas, op. cit. Pl. XXXII. 1.

53 E. g. Hoernes, Les premières Céramiques en Europe central, Figs. 18 f.

54 With Tsountas, Pl. XXXV. 2, cf. von Stern, Pl. VI. 16, Jahrb. der k. k. Z. Kom. 1904, p. 23, ibid. 1905; Hoernes, Fig. 269, Trudy, Tabl. XXII. 1, etc.

55 Hoernes, P.C. l.c.

56 Zapiski Imp. Russ. Arch. Obshchestva, 1904, Tabl. I. 3 and 5; cf. Tsountas, Pl. XXXI. 2.

57 Trudy, Tabl. XXII. 3 and 7; cf. Minns, Fig. 33.

58 Von Stern, Pl. VI. 13, 14, 18.

59 Hadaczek, Pls. XXXI and XXXII.

60 Mitt. der präh. Comm. 1903 Fig. 16, p. 370.

61 Tsountas, op. cit. Pls. XXXIV. Nos. 10 and 11, XXXVI. No. 8.

62 Mitt. der präh. Comm. 1903, p. 366.

63 Hadaczek, p. 4.

64 Cf. Trudy, l.c. Pl. XXI. 11 and Schliemann's Sammlung, No. 7196.

65 Trudy, Tabl. XXI. 5 and 10, and Schmidt, l.c. Fig. 14.

66 Tsountas, op. cit. p. 352 and Figs. 292 and 293.

67 Mitt. präh. Comm. 1903, p. 387.

68 Chwoiko, , Trudy, pp. 808 f.Google Scholar, Zap. Imp. Russ. Arch. Obshchestva, 1904, p. 1 ff.; von Stern, op. cit., esp. pp. 64 f. and 71 ff.

69 Trudy, pp. 779 and 794.

70 Zap. I. R. A. Obshch. l.c., pp. 20–3.

71 Ibid., Trudy, 776 and 786.

72 Minns, op. cit. p. 142.

73 One of the so-called pyramids may be seen in Minns, Fig. 28, top row, and a pedestal in Fig. 31, top. Plenty of bones of horses and other animals were, in fact, found in the areas (Trudy, pp. 754–6, 780–4, 794 f., etc., von Stern, p. 52) sometimes partially burnt—von Stern explains them as burnt-offerings to the ghost—as well as remains of various grains. On the other hand, the areas do seem in some cases too large for ordinary houses, varying in size from 5½ m. by 4 m. (Tripolje) to 18 m. by 12 m. (Zhukovtsy, area 2). Minns, however, mentions later and more conclusive evidence not yet published. Still Ailio's recently published criticism should finally dispose of the cremation theory (Fragen der russ. Steinzeit, pp. 91 ƒ.).

74 Op. cit. p. 7.

75 Zapiski, l.c. p. 24. In construction the neolithic huts of Grossgartach provide a close parallel. Cf. Déchelette, , Manuel d' Archéologie, Vol. I. p. 360.Google Scholar

76 Jahrb. der. k. k. Z. Komm. 1903, p. 102.

77 Mitt. präh. Comm. Wien, 1903, p. 387.

78 Von Stern, op. cit. p. 78.

79 Ibid. p. 77, Mitt., l.c., etc.

80 Ibid.

81 Hadaczek, p. 7.

82 E. g., Die neol. Station von Butmir, Pl. VIII. 12 and 15 (solid designs), XII. 15 (chequers), XII. 15 and 16, and Hoernes, N.K.O. Figs. 11 and 13 (alternation of designs).

83 Butmir, Pl. VII. 9 (dish).

84 Ibid. Pl. III. 8, 1, and 13.

85 Hoernes, , N.K.O. pp. 9 f.Google ScholarCf. Butmir, Pl. II. 21, etc.

86 E. g., Butmir, VI. 3.

87 Ibid. VII. 7.

88 Ibid. VII. 9.

89 B.S.A. xiv. p. 3 and Fig. 3.

90 Butmir, I. 1, 3 and 5, II. 1 and 2.

91 Hoernes, N.K.O., calls attention to the progressive degeneration of the ceramics of Butmir, p. 12. The analogies quoted by Tsountas, op. cit. pp. 371 ff., are between his third period and the rougher Butmir wares.

92 J.A.I., xxxiii, pp. 367 f.

93 Op. cit. p. 37.

94 Ibid. Fig. 9, p. 30.

95 B.S.A. xxiii, p. 45. I can find no evidence for the statement there made that similar wares were found further west. The sherds from the Vardar all seem utterly different from the black-on-red Dimini ware from Bereketli now in the Ashmolean.

96 B.C.H. 1906, pp. 365 ff., and Revue Archéologique, 1901, pp. 328 ff.

97 B.C.H. l.c. Fig. 36.

98 Ibid. Fig. 64, wrongly described as grey.

99 B.S.A. xxiii, p. 44.

100 Rev. Arch. I.c. Figs. 3, 4, 5, and 7.

101 Cf., e. g., Rev. Arch. Fig. 18 with Tsountas, op. cit. Pl. XXX. and ibid. Fig. 4 with Trudy, I.c. Pl. XXVIII. 77.

102 B.S.A. xiv. pp. 319 ff. and Fig. 8.

103 Peet, , Stone and Bronze Ages in Italy, p. 401Google Scholar, and Fig. 209. Cf. also Hoernes, , Urgeschichte, p. 399.Google Scholar

104 Palliardi, , Die rel. Chronologie der jüng. Steinzeit in Mähren, Wiener prähist. Zeitschrift, 1914, p. 10Google Scholar, Figs. 8 and 9.

105 Hoernes, N.K.O. Figs. 189–91.

106 Ibid. Fig. 216.

107 Ibid. p. 13.

108 It is convenient to use the words in the sense which they had prior to 1919.

109 Zeitsch. für Ethnol. 1903, p. 448, and Figs. 26–30. (There is one sherd in the Ashmolean Museum.)

110 Geographically the passage from the valley of the Alt to that of the Maros would offer no obstacles, and the traffic in Hungarian obsidian may have followed this route like the railways from Buda-Pest to Kronstadt (Brasso).

111 Wosinski, , Die prähistorische Schanzwerk von Lengyel, Vol. III.Google Scholar and von Stern, op. cit. p. 75.

112 The most accessible illustration is in Hoernes, N.K.O. Fig. 18, but Wosinsky gives two colour plates in Tolnavármegye Története, I. p. 134, Pls. XXXIV, and XXXV.

113 Hoernes, I.c. p. 14.

114 Ibid. p. 81; the comparison between the ladles pierced horizontally, Fig. 208, and the square vases with four holes, Figs. 22 and 212, are striking.

115 Vide Hoernes, I.c. p. 33.

116 Relative Chronologie, pp. 9 f.

117 Mitt. präh. Comm. Wien, 1897, 243, and Pl. IV., esp. No. 11.

118 Ibid. p. 248 and Pl. V. 7.

119 Ibid. Pl. V. 6. The sherds are at Vienna.

120 Palliarci, , Rel. Chronologie, p. 11.Google Scholar

121 Cf. Jira, , Mannus, iii. pp. 238 ff.Google Scholar and plates. This excavator mentions the presence of a red colour on the sherds, but other Czech archaeologists deny this, and I certainly could detect no trace of it on the examples in. the National Museum at Prague.

122 Mitt. Anthrop. Gesell. Wien, xxx Pl. VI. 13, and Mitt. präh. Comm. Wien, 1903, Figs. 80–4.

123 Hoernes, , N.K.O. p. 81.Google Scholar

124 Mitt. I.c.

125 Cf. Trudy, I.c. Tabl. XXVI. 31, with Hoernes, Prim. Geram. Fig. 4.

126 Supra, p. 269, and note 92.

127 Urgeschichte, p. 306.

128 N.K.O. pp. 25 and 32.

129 Ibid., Vide supra, p. 260.

130 Ibid., cf. also Prim. Céram., pp. 23–5. The further consequences to be arrived at from a development of this dissociation of the whole painted series from the realm of the peripheral style would lead to most interesting ethnological results.

131 l. e. venturing on ethnological terms that both were branches of the Mediterranean race. That would retain the connection with the still more widely distributed range of female figurines.

132 Schuchhardt, , Die technichischen Elemente in dem Anfang der Kunst, Prähist. Zeitschr. I.Google Scholar

133 Wilke, op. cit., makes out a strong case for this alternative.

134 Hoernes, , Die Formentwicklung der prăhistor. Tongefässe, Jahrbuch für Altertumskunde, 1911, pp. 2 ff.Google Scholar, gives many examples.

135 In South Russia these vessels are open at each end. The examples in Trudy, Pl. XXVI. Nos. 20 and 21, show the relation of the double stand to the simple form.

136 This occurs with the binocular vases at Szipenitz and with the already specialised bowl at Dimini and Sesklo.

137 J.A.I. xxxiii. Note especially the map on p. 370; but our red-faced wares occur still in an area of fairly heavy rainfall, and, as von Stern points out, the South Russian plains must have been more heavily wooded in neolithic times than to-day.

138 The material from East Bulgaria must be ascribed to a section of the invaders left behind in this movement, and would for the most part represent a later stage in their development than Thessaly II.

139 Zeitschr. ƒ. Ethnol. l.c. p. 601.

140 But if it is really East Thessalian polychrome ware (B 3 β) that has been found below the lowest Early Helladic sherds at Gonia, as Blegen, states (Korakou, p. 123)Google Scholar, it will be necessary entirely to revise our views on this question.