No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
‘Princely graves’ of the central Balkans – A critical history of research
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 January 2017
Abstract
This article critically explores the century-long history of research into a particular set of archaeological finds. The ‘princely graves’ – funerary assemblages dated to the early Iron Age (seventh to fifth centuries BC) containing, among other things, luxurious objects produced in Archaic Greek workshops – are known from various parts of temperate Europe, and were first recorded in the central Balkans region by the end of the nineteenth century. By their very nature, these finds pose several important theoretical and methodological problems, one of them being the need to bridge the divide between the procedures of prehistoric and classical archaeologies. The first attempts to account for these exceptional finds, in Europe as well as in the Balkans, were guided by the culture-historical procedure, typical of the archaeological investigation of the time. During the 1960s New Archaeology brought about the notion of chiefdom as a tool to account for the Iron Age societies. The concept was introduced into research on the central Balkan finds, proving successful in overcoming the shortcomings of the previous explanations, but at the same time creating new ones, encapsulated in the critique of the evolutionary approach. This review of research into the ‘princely graves’ concludes in proposing several new lines of inquiry, already introduced in the European archaeological theory: issues of group identity and individual actors, and phenomenological approaches to time and space.
Cet article étudie de façon critique la recherche, datant déjà de plusieurs siècles, sur un ensemble particulier de trouvailles archéologiques. Les ”tombes princières” – des ensembles funéraires datant de l'âge du fer ancien (septième au cinquième siècle av.JC) contenant entre autres des objets luxueux crées dans des ateliers de la Grèce archaïque – sont connues de différentes parties de l'Europe tempérée, et furent décrites pour la première fois dans la région des Balkans à la fin du 19e siècle. Ces découvertes, de par leur nature même, soulèvent d'importants problèmes théoriques et méthodologiques, à savoir, par exemple, comment combler le fossé entre les procédures de l'archéologie préhistorique et de l'archéologie classique. Les premières tentatives d'expliquer ces découvertes exceptionnelles, en Europe aussi bien qu'aux Balkans, reposaient sur les moyens de l'histoire culturelle, typiques à la recherche archéologique à cette date. Dans les années soixante, la “New Archeology” proposait le terme de chefferie pour faire comprendre les sociétés de l'âge du fer. Ce concepte fût introduit dans la recherche aux Balkans et s'avérait fructueux pour maîtriser les défauts des explications précédentes. Mais cette approche créait aussi de nouveaux problèmes, à savoir la désapprobation de cette démarche évolutionniste. Cette revue de la recherche sur les “tombes princières” se termine en proposant plusieurs nouvelles approches, déjà introduites dans la théorie archéologique européenne: la question d'une identité collective de groupe et d'acteurs individuels, et approches phénoménologiques du temps et de l'espace.
Zusammenfassung
Dieser Aufsatz ist eine kritische Untersuchung der bereits Jahrhunderte währenden Untersuchung einer besonderen archäologischen Fundgattung. Die “Fürstengräber” – Grabkomplexe, die in die frühe Eisenzeit (7.–5. Jh. BC) datiert werden und neben anderen Gegenständen auch Luxusobjekte aus Werkstätten des archaischen Griechenland enthalten – sind zahlreich aus Europa bekannt; sie wurden gegen Ende des 19. Jh. zuerst im Zentralbalkan beobachtet. Durch ihre außergewöhnliche Stellung sind mit ihnen verschiedene theoretische und methodische Probleme, so z.B. die notwendige Überwindung der Kluft zwischen den Vorgehensweisen der Prähistorischen und der Klassischen Archäologie, verknüpft. Die ersten Versuche, diese außergewöhnlichen Funde zu behandeln, basierten in Europa wie auch in der Balkanregion auf dem kulturgeschichtlichen Ansatz – typisch für die archäologischen Forschungen dieser Zeit. Während der 1960er Jahre prägte die New Archaeology den Begriff “Chiefdom” als Werkzeug zur Untersuchung eisenzeitlicher Gesellschaften. Dieses Konzept wurde auch in die Erforschung der Funde aus dem Zentralbalkan eingeführt und half einerseits erfolgreich bei der Überwindung der Unzulänglichkeiten früherer Erklärungsversuche – schuf jedoch andererseits dabei neue Probleme, die in der Kritik evolutionistischer Ansätze eingeschlossen waren. Dieser Rückblick auf die Erforschung der “Fürstengräber” mündet in verschiedene neue Untersuchungslinien, die bereits in die europäische Archäologietheorie eingeführt wurden: Fragen zu Gruppenidentität bzw. individuellen Handlungsträgern sowie phänomenologische Ansätze zu Raum und Zeit.
Keywords
central Balkans Iron Agechiefdom and polisculture-historical approachhistory of researchindividualspace and time‘princely graves’âge du fer des Balkansapproche historico-culturellechefferie et polisespace et tempshistoire de la rechercheindividu“tombes princières”Chiefdom und PolisEisenzeit des Zentralbalkans“Fürstengräber”ForschungsgeschichteIndividuumRaum und Zeitkulturgeschichtlicher Ansatz
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2002 Sage Publications
References
Austin, M.M. and Vidal-Naquet, P., 1986. Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece, An Introduction. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Babić, S., 1995. Vrednost srebra u protoistorijskim zajednicama. In Popović, I., Cvjetićanin, T. and Borić-Brešković, B. (eds), Radionice i kovnice srebra:
71–76. Beograd: Narodni muzej.Google Scholar
Babić, S., 1998. Kulturni kontakti i promene u kulturi — Starije gvozdeno doba centralnog Balkana i grčki svet. PhD dissertation, University of Belgrade.Google Scholar
Babić, S., 2001. Headgear of the early Iron Age tribal chieftains — social and symbolic aspects. Zbornik Narodnog muzeja (Recueil du Musée Nationale)
XV11:83–93. Belgrade.Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 2000. A thesis on agency. In Dobres, M.-A. and Robb, J. (eds), Agency in Archaeology:
61–68. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beaumont, R.L., 1936. Greek influence in the Adriatic Sea before the fourth century BC. Journal of Hellenic Studies
56:159–204.Google Scholar
Beaumont, R.L., 1952. Corinth, Ambracia, Apollonia. Journal of Hellenic Studies
72:62–73.Google Scholar
Benac, A. and Čović, B., 1957. Glasinac, dio II – Željezno doba. Sarajevo: Zemaljski muzej.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J., 1984. Iron Age Europe, in the context of social evolution from the Bronze Age through to historic times. In Bintliff, J. (ed.), European Social Evolution: Archaeological Perspectives:
157–215. Bradford: University of Bradford Press.Google Scholar
Canuto, M.A. and Yaeger, J., eds, 2000. The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Champion, T.C., ed., 1989. Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology. London: Hyman.Google Scholar
Čović, B., 1963. Pogrebni običaji praistorijskih stanovnika glasinačog područja. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja
18:41–62. Sarajevo.Google Scholar
Čović, B., 1979. Kneževski grobovi glasinačkog područja. In Garašanin, M. (ed.), Sahranjivanje kod Ilira:
143–169. Beograd: Srpska akademija naukai, umetnosti.Google Scholar
Čović, B., 1987. Glasinačka kultura. Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja
5:575–643. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine.Google Scholar
Dietler, M., 1990. Driven by drink: The role of drinking in the political economy and the case of early Iron Age France. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
9:352–406.Google Scholar
Djuknić, M. and Jovanović, B., 1966. Ilirska kneževska nekropola u Atenici
Čačak: Narodni muzej.Google Scholar
Earle, T. ed., 1991. Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Filow, B., and Schkorpil, K., 1927. Die archaiche Nekropole am Ochrida-See. Berlin and Leipzig: Verlag von Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Frankenstein, S. and Rowlands, M.J., 1978. The internal structure and regional context of early Iron Age society in south-western Germany. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology
15:73–112. University of London.Google Scholar
Garašanin, M., 1991. Problemes de l'ethnogenèse des peuples paléobalkaniques. In Benac, A. (ed.), Paleobalkanska plemena između Jadranskog i Crnog mora od eneolota do helenističkog doba:
9–32. Sarajevo-Beograd: Anubih-Sanu.Google Scholar
Garašanin, M., 1992. Značenje funerarnih maski u bogatim (kneževskim) grobovima Makedonije. Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja
28(1992–1997):59–68.Google Scholar
Gibson, O.B. and Geselowitz, M.N., 1988. The evolution of complex society in late prehistoric Europe: toward a paradigm. In Gibson, O.B. and Geselowitz, M.N. (eds), Tribe and Polity in Late Prehistoric Europe:
3–37. New York and London: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Gosden, C., 1997. Iron Age landscapes and cultural biographies. In Gwilt, A. and Haselgrove, C. (eds), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies - New Approaches to the British Iron Age:
303–307. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Govedarica, B. and Babić, S., 1992. Metodologija istraživanja gradinskog naselja Klisura u Kadića Brdu (The Methodology of Excavation at the Hillfort Klisura, Kadića Brdo). Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva
8:53–63.Google Scholar
Gwilt, A. and Haselgrove, C., eds, 1997. Reconstructing Iron Age Societies: New Approaches to the British Iron Age. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Hall, E., 1989. Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition Through Tragedy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hall, J.M., 1997. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halstead, P. and O'Shea, J., 1982. A friend in need is a friend indeed. In Renfrew, C. and Shennan, S. (eds), Ranking, Resource and Exchange:
92–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hedeager, L., 1992. Iron-Age Societies: From Tribe to State in Northern Europe, 500 BC to AD 700. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hirth, K.G., 1978. Interregional trade and the formation of prehistoric gateway communities. American Antiquity
43:35–46.Google Scholar
Hodges, R., 1982. The evolution of gateway communities: their socio-economic implications. In Renfrew, C. and Shennan, S. (eds), Ranking, Resource and Exchange:
117–123. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Isbell, W.H., 2000. What we should be studying: the ‘imagined community’ and the ‘natural community’. In Canuto, M.A. and Yaeger, J. (eds), The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective. London and NewYork: Routledge.Google Scholar
Johnson, M., 1999. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. JONES, S., 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kopytoff, I., 1986. The cultural biography of things - commoditization as process. In Appadurai, A. (ed.), The Social Life of Things:
64–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mauss, M., 1954. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: Cohen & West.Google Scholar
Mano-Zisi, Dj. and Popović, Lj., 1969. Novi Pazar - ilirsko-grčki nalaz. Beograd: Narodni muzej.Google Scholar
Mitchell, L.G., 1997. Greeks Bearing Gifts: The Public Use of Private Relationships in the Greek World, 435-323 BC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mohen, J.-P., Duval, A. and Eluere, C., 1987. Les tresors des princes celtes. Paris: Editions de le Réunion des Musées Nationaux.Google Scholar
Morgan, C., 1988. Corinth, the Corinthian gulf and western Greece during the eighth century BC. Annual of the British School at Athens
83:313–338.Google Scholar
Morris, I., 1987. Burial and Ancient Society: The Rise of the Greek City-State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morris, I., 1994. Archaeologies of Greece. In Morris, I. (ed.), Classical Greece - Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Olivier, L., 1999. The Hochdorf ‘princely’ grave and the question of the nature of archaeological funerary assemblages. In Murray, T. (ed.), Time and Archaeology. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Palavestra, A., 1984. Kneževski grobovi starijeg gvozdenog doba na centralnom Balkanu. Beograd: Balkanološki Institut.Google Scholar
Palavestra, A., 1994. Prehistoric trade and the cultural model for princely tombs in the central Balkans. In Kristiansen, K. and Jensen, J. (eds), Europe in the First Millennium BC:
45–57. Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications.Google Scholar
Palavestra, A., 1998. Landmarks of power: princely tombs in the central Balkan Iron Age. In Bailey, D. (ed.), The Archaeology of Value: Essays in Prestige and Processes of Valuation:
55–69. International Series 730. Oxford: BAR.Google Scholar
Parker Pearson, M., 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud: Sutton Publishing.Google Scholar
Parović-Pešikan, M., 1960. O karakteru grčkog materijala na Glasincu i putevima njegovog prodiranja. Starinar
11:21–45.Google Scholar
Paynter, R. and Mcguire, R.H., 1991. The archaeology of inequality: material culture, domination, and resistance. In McGuire, R. H. and Paynter, R. (eds), The Archaeology of Inequality:
1–27. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Peebles, C.S. and Kus, S.M., 1977. Some archaeological correlates of ranked societies. American Antiquity
42:421–448.Google Scholar
Popović, Lj., 1975. Arhajska grčka kultura na srednjem Balkanu. Beograd: Narodni muzej.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1976. The Great Tradition versus the Great Divide: archaeology as anthropology. American Journal of Archaeology
84:287–298.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., and Cherry, J.F., eds, 1986. Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rowlands, M., Larsen, M. and Kristiansen, K., eds, 1987. Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
Saxe, A., 1970. Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., 1996. Classical Archaeology of Greece: Experiences of the Discipline. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, A.M., 1980. Archaic Greece: The Age of Experiment. London: Dent. THOMAS, J., ed., 2000. Interpretive Archaeology: A Reader. Leicester: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
Tilley, C., 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford and Providence, RI: Berg.Google Scholar
Vasić, R., 1977. The Chronology of the Early Iron Age in Serbia. International Series 31. Oxford: BAR.Google Scholar
Vasić, R., 1987a. Kneževski grobovi iz Novog Pazara i Atenice. Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja
5:644–650. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine.Google Scholar
Vasić, R., 1987b. Centralnobalkanska regija. Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja
5:651–733. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine.Google Scholar
Vasić, R., 1991. Cultural groups of the early Iron Age in the west and central Balkans and the possibilities of their ethnic identification. In Benac, A. (ed.), Paleobalkanska plemena između Jadranskog i Crnog mora od eneolota do helenističkog doba:
73–82. Sarajevo-Beograd: Anubih-Sanu.Google Scholar
Wells, P.S., 1980. Culture Contact and Culture Change: Early Iron Age Europe and the Mediterranean World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yoffee, N., 1993. Too many chiefs? (or, Safe texts for the ‘90s). In Yoffee, N. and Sherratt, A. (eds), Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda?:
60–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zotović, M., 1985. Arheološki i etnički problemi bronzanog i gvozdenog doba zapadne Srbije. Titovo Užice – Beograd: Zavičajni muzej – Savez arheoloških društava Jugoslavije.Google Scholar