Keleti tárgyak vagy nyugati utánzatok? Újabb eredmények, kérdésfelvetések A KR. E. 9-7. Századi bronztárgyak archaeometallurgiai vizsgálatainak tükrében

Translated title of the contribution: Eastern objects or western imitations? New results and questions raised in light of the archaeometallurgical investigations of bronze objects from the 9th–7th century B.C.

Géza Szabó, Veronika Horváth, Péter Barkóczy, Z. Erdélyi, Laura Juhász, Szilvia Gyöngyösi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The most important period in the history of Europe’s ancient history and in the formation of today’s peoples was the 9th–7th century B.C., which was one of the periods that perhaps evoked the most disputes at the same time. Especially in the area of the late Urnfield and the Hallstatt-culture significant changes were apparent both in the material and intellectual culture. However, the opinion of researchers remarkably differs regarding the time and nature of such processes. No uniform position could be achieved up to now regarding either the chronological or the local development or immigration. The most diverse viewpoints collide regarding even such seemingly simple issues as the location where the most typical findings of the era, i.e. harnesses, were produced: local imitations, or products alien in the area and proving the appearance of new ethnic groups arriving together with their tools and customs. The position of eastern researchers is well reflected in the writings of Sergey V. Makhortykh, who assumed organised exchange between the groups of the Eastern Central European elite or the appearance of the layers of Cimmerian leaders and their entourage behind the professional breeding and training of horses and the arrangement of an effective cavalry (Makhortykh 2003; 2008). Tibor Kemenczei – looking at the issue mainly from the areas of the Urnfield culture – referring to the results of international research, rejects”Thraco-Cimmerian” ethnical identification, as an outdated view. Although he handles as a fact the appearance in the Carpathian Basin of the harnesses of the area north from the Black sea in 9th-7th century B.C., in his opinion these were partly produced by the metallurgy of the urnfield age in the Tisza-Maros region based on steppe prefigurements (Kemenczei 1994; 2005). He named the variants spread in the Carpathian Basin and Central Europe and surviving in the Hallstatt-culture ‘East-Carpathian-region type’ (”ostkarpatenländischen Typs”), discontinuing the previous definitions and thus highlighting their independent internal development. To answer the increasingly intensively arising basic historical questions, we can obtain conclusive data representing new viewpoints with the help of archaeometrical tests. However, it is not always simple to interpret the factual, measured values or to assess the limitations of those, as we tried to point it out in our study.

Original languageHungarian
Pages (from-to)77-116
Number of pages40
JournalArcheometriai Muhely
Volume15
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Bronze
Imitation
Hallstatt
Carpathian Basin
Harness
Cavalry
Breeding
Entourage
Layer
Arrangement
Central Europe
Elites
History
Steppe
Metallurgy
Dispute
Immigration
Ethnic Groups
Black Sea
Urnfield Culture

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Archaeology

Cite this

Keleti tárgyak vagy nyugati utánzatok? Újabb eredmények, kérdésfelvetések A KR. E. 9-7. Századi bronztárgyak archaeometallurgiai vizsgálatainak tükrében. / Szabó, Géza; Horváth, Veronika; Barkóczy, Péter; Erdélyi, Z.; Juhász, Laura; Gyöngyösi, Szilvia.

In: Archeometriai Muhely, Vol. 15, No. 2, 01.01.2018, p. 77-116.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Szabó, Géza ; Horváth, Veronika ; Barkóczy, Péter ; Erdélyi, Z. ; Juhász, Laura ; Gyöngyösi, Szilvia. / Keleti tárgyak vagy nyugati utánzatok? Újabb eredmények, kérdésfelvetések A KR. E. 9-7. Századi bronztárgyak archaeometallurgiai vizsgálatainak tükrében. In: Archeometriai Muhely. 2018 ; Vol. 15, No. 2. pp. 77-116.
@article{7602435346384acb951917fd7f3349cc,
title = "Keleti t{\'a}rgyak vagy nyugati ut{\'a}nzatok? {\'U}jabb eredm{\'e}nyek, k{\'e}rd{\'e}sfelvet{\'e}sek A KR. E. 9-7. Sz{\'a}zadi bronzt{\'a}rgyak archaeometallurgiai vizsg{\'a}latainak t{\"u}kr{\'e}ben",
abstract = "The most important period in the history of Europe’s ancient history and in the formation of today’s peoples was the 9th–7th century B.C., which was one of the periods that perhaps evoked the most disputes at the same time. Especially in the area of the late Urnfield and the Hallstatt-culture significant changes were apparent both in the material and intellectual culture. However, the opinion of researchers remarkably differs regarding the time and nature of such processes. No uniform position could be achieved up to now regarding either the chronological or the local development or immigration. The most diverse viewpoints collide regarding even such seemingly simple issues as the location where the most typical findings of the era, i.e. harnesses, were produced: local imitations, or products alien in the area and proving the appearance of new ethnic groups arriving together with their tools and customs. The position of eastern researchers is well reflected in the writings of Sergey V. Makhortykh, who assumed organised exchange between the groups of the Eastern Central European elite or the appearance of the layers of Cimmerian leaders and their entourage behind the professional breeding and training of horses and the arrangement of an effective cavalry (Makhortykh 2003; 2008). Tibor Kemenczei – looking at the issue mainly from the areas of the Urnfield culture – referring to the results of international research, rejects”Thraco-Cimmerian” ethnical identification, as an outdated view. Although he handles as a fact the appearance in the Carpathian Basin of the harnesses of the area north from the Black sea in 9th-7th century B.C., in his opinion these were partly produced by the metallurgy of the urnfield age in the Tisza-Maros region based on steppe prefigurements (Kemenczei 1994; 2005). He named the variants spread in the Carpathian Basin and Central Europe and surviving in the Hallstatt-culture ‘East-Carpathian-region type’ (”ostkarpatenl{\"a}ndischen Typs”), discontinuing the previous definitions and thus highlighting their independent internal development. To answer the increasingly intensively arising basic historical questions, we can obtain conclusive data representing new viewpoints with the help of archaeometrical tests. However, it is not always simple to interpret the factual, measured values or to assess the limitations of those, as we tried to point it out in our study.",
keywords = "Arhaeometallurgy, Balc, Cimmerians, Hallstatt culture, Local and alien products, Methodological problems of metal tests, Pre-scythian, Remote connections, Surface enhancement, Urnfield culture",
author = "G{\'e}za Szab{\'o} and Veronika Horv{\'a}th and P{\'e}ter Bark{\'o}czy and Z. Erd{\'e}lyi and Laura Juh{\'a}sz and Szilvia Gy{\"o}ngy{\"o}si",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "Hungarian",
volume = "15",
pages = "77--116",
journal = "Archeometriai Muhely",
issn = "1786-271X",
publisher = "Hungarian National Museum",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Keleti tárgyak vagy nyugati utánzatok? Újabb eredmények, kérdésfelvetések A KR. E. 9-7. Századi bronztárgyak archaeometallurgiai vizsgálatainak tükrében

AU - Szabó, Géza

AU - Horváth, Veronika

AU - Barkóczy, Péter

AU - Erdélyi, Z.

AU - Juhász, Laura

AU - Gyöngyösi, Szilvia

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - The most important period in the history of Europe’s ancient history and in the formation of today’s peoples was the 9th–7th century B.C., which was one of the periods that perhaps evoked the most disputes at the same time. Especially in the area of the late Urnfield and the Hallstatt-culture significant changes were apparent both in the material and intellectual culture. However, the opinion of researchers remarkably differs regarding the time and nature of such processes. No uniform position could be achieved up to now regarding either the chronological or the local development or immigration. The most diverse viewpoints collide regarding even such seemingly simple issues as the location where the most typical findings of the era, i.e. harnesses, were produced: local imitations, or products alien in the area and proving the appearance of new ethnic groups arriving together with their tools and customs. The position of eastern researchers is well reflected in the writings of Sergey V. Makhortykh, who assumed organised exchange between the groups of the Eastern Central European elite or the appearance of the layers of Cimmerian leaders and their entourage behind the professional breeding and training of horses and the arrangement of an effective cavalry (Makhortykh 2003; 2008). Tibor Kemenczei – looking at the issue mainly from the areas of the Urnfield culture – referring to the results of international research, rejects”Thraco-Cimmerian” ethnical identification, as an outdated view. Although he handles as a fact the appearance in the Carpathian Basin of the harnesses of the area north from the Black sea in 9th-7th century B.C., in his opinion these were partly produced by the metallurgy of the urnfield age in the Tisza-Maros region based on steppe prefigurements (Kemenczei 1994; 2005). He named the variants spread in the Carpathian Basin and Central Europe and surviving in the Hallstatt-culture ‘East-Carpathian-region type’ (”ostkarpatenländischen Typs”), discontinuing the previous definitions and thus highlighting their independent internal development. To answer the increasingly intensively arising basic historical questions, we can obtain conclusive data representing new viewpoints with the help of archaeometrical tests. However, it is not always simple to interpret the factual, measured values or to assess the limitations of those, as we tried to point it out in our study.

AB - The most important period in the history of Europe’s ancient history and in the formation of today’s peoples was the 9th–7th century B.C., which was one of the periods that perhaps evoked the most disputes at the same time. Especially in the area of the late Urnfield and the Hallstatt-culture significant changes were apparent both in the material and intellectual culture. However, the opinion of researchers remarkably differs regarding the time and nature of such processes. No uniform position could be achieved up to now regarding either the chronological or the local development or immigration. The most diverse viewpoints collide regarding even such seemingly simple issues as the location where the most typical findings of the era, i.e. harnesses, were produced: local imitations, or products alien in the area and proving the appearance of new ethnic groups arriving together with their tools and customs. The position of eastern researchers is well reflected in the writings of Sergey V. Makhortykh, who assumed organised exchange between the groups of the Eastern Central European elite or the appearance of the layers of Cimmerian leaders and their entourage behind the professional breeding and training of horses and the arrangement of an effective cavalry (Makhortykh 2003; 2008). Tibor Kemenczei – looking at the issue mainly from the areas of the Urnfield culture – referring to the results of international research, rejects”Thraco-Cimmerian” ethnical identification, as an outdated view. Although he handles as a fact the appearance in the Carpathian Basin of the harnesses of the area north from the Black sea in 9th-7th century B.C., in his opinion these were partly produced by the metallurgy of the urnfield age in the Tisza-Maros region based on steppe prefigurements (Kemenczei 1994; 2005). He named the variants spread in the Carpathian Basin and Central Europe and surviving in the Hallstatt-culture ‘East-Carpathian-region type’ (”ostkarpatenländischen Typs”), discontinuing the previous definitions and thus highlighting their independent internal development. To answer the increasingly intensively arising basic historical questions, we can obtain conclusive data representing new viewpoints with the help of archaeometrical tests. However, it is not always simple to interpret the factual, measured values or to assess the limitations of those, as we tried to point it out in our study.

KW - Arhaeometallurgy

KW - Balc

KW - Cimmerians

KW - Hallstatt culture

KW - Local and alien products

KW - Methodological problems of metal tests

KW - Pre-scythian

KW - Remote connections

KW - Surface enhancement

KW - Urnfield culture

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068263994&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85068263994&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85068263994

VL - 15

SP - 77

EP - 116

JO - Archeometriai Muhely

JF - Archeometriai Muhely

SN - 1786-271X

IS - 2

ER -