Svend Hansen
Communication and exchange between the Northern Caucasus
and Central Europe in the fourth millennium BC
In the following I shall concentrate upon the social
utilisation of metal objects and their “visible pres-
ence” in archaeological sources. The aim is to dis-
tinguish the dimensions of metallurgy practised
during the fourth and third millennia BC.
The second half of the fourth and the early third
millennium BC are marked by the initial emer-
gence of basic techniques of production in Central
and East Europe. Amongst these are new develop-
ments in metallurgy. In addition to items of copper
and gold, for the first time a large number of ob-
jects made of silver also appear. Different kinds of
copper alloys are used simultaneously, including
arsenic, silver, antimony, nickel and tin.1 This is as-
sociated with the appearance of new kinds of weap-
onry and tools. And along with the domestication
of the horse, the wagon becomes widespread as a
new means of transport.
Yet, innovative techniques are not assumed, dis-
seminated and developed further, because they
are practical and useful. Far more instead, a corre-
sponding state of technical development must have
already existed, into which the innovations could be
integrated. In particular, a social framework must
have been present in which these innovations could
be effective. Indeed, many useful innovations are
not adapted, because no appropriate social frame-
work exists into which they can be absorbed. Thus,
it is necessary that not only discuss the technical
details of innovation, but also stake out the field in
which they were effective. Here I mean the network
of relations to which an object, for instance a techni-
cal innovation, is connected.
Concerning archaeology of the fourth and third
millennia BC, there is still a lot of work to be ac-
complished in the description of this network of
relations. Until quite recently, the cultural phenom-
ena, which we shall discuss, were dated within a
relatively narrow time-horizon, namely the end of
the third and beginning of the second millennium
BC. Only with the use of datings that are independ-
ent of typology has essential progress been made.
New finds from the past fiÂeen years and, above
all, the dendrochronological results from wetland
se¥lements and calibrated radiocarbon dates have
led to major changes in our picture of the cultural
development in Europe during the fourth and third
millennia BC.2
Widespread cultural phenomena such as the
Baden Culture, Globular Amphorae and Corded
Ware, Bell-Beakers and the Pit-and Catacomb Grave
cultures have now been revealed as not only as be-
ing older than previously thought, but also that they
encompassed a distinctly longer time-span.
Surprising and new questions as to the inter-
pretation of these cultural phenomena have arisen
through the synchronisation and comparison with
early Bronze Age appearances in Southeast Europe.
Thereby, early civilisations in Egypt and Meso-
potamia as well as the Iranian highlands must be
taken into account. These fundamental changes in
archaeological relationships between East and West
call for a new definition of the character of cultural
appearances in Europe and a reconsideration of
their significance for the emergence of a “European
Bronze Age”.
Although today radiocarbon dates enable an
overview of the general chronological framework
of the Corded Ware-, Bell-Beaker- and Pit-Grave-
and Catacomb Grave cultures, the internal division
of the archaeological material remains an unsolved
problem. No great progress can be achieved in
ordering the fourth and third millennia BC using
purely typological arguments alone. This becomes
clear when comparing radiocarbon dates with the
traditional division into phases and sub-phases,
which as a rule is scarcely founded. The longevity
of metal forms as well as that of ceramic forms is a
topic of its own. Thus, my approach to the mate-
Fig. 1. Vessels from the Majkop kurgan, Russia (aÂer
Кореневский 2004).
1
HªÌò¬ 1982; CîñÇÌ ôî 1992; S¬ÇùîÏ 1994; YùҞÙÌ
2000.
2
KÊÇðÏùÌÌ 2004, 109 ff.
298 Svend Hansen

Fig. 2. Klady, grave 5, kurgan 31, Russia (aÂer RñŸñÉÔÙÌ 2000 rearranged).

Fig. 3. Klady, grave 5, kurgan 31, Russia (aÂer RñŸñÉÔÙÌ 2000 rearranged).
Communication and exchange between the Nothern Caucasus and Central Europe 299

Fig. 4. Klady, grave 5, kurgan 31, Russia (aÂer RñŸñÉÔÙÌ 2000 rearranged).

Fig. 5. Klady, grave 5, kurgan 31, Russia (aÂer RñŸñÉÔÙÌ 2000 rearranged).
300 Svend Hansen

Fig. 6. Klady, grave 5, kurgan 31, Russia (aÂer RñŸñÉÔÙÌ

2000 rearranged).

Fig. 7. Klady, grave 5, kurgan 31, Russia (aÂer RñŸñÉÔÙÌ Fig. 8. Klady, grave 5, kurgan 31, Russia (aÂer RñŸñÉÔÙÌ
2000 rearranged). 2000 rearranged).
 Communication and exchange between the Nothern Caucasus and Central Europe
Fig. 9. Klady, grave 5, kurgan 31, Russia (aÂer RñŸñÉÔÙÌ 2000 rearranged).
rial will not base upon fine chronological differen-
tiations. Here I shall address one major period of
time: starting at ca. 3 500 BC with the Kura-Araxes-,
Maikop-, Usatovo-, Cernavoda I-, Baden-, later Fun-
nel Beaker- and Globular Amphora cultures, I shall
then briefly touch upon the time period aÂer 3 000
BC with the Single Grave Culture, Corded Ware, Pit
Grave- and Catacomb Grave cultures. To simplify
things, I shall proceed from one of the prominent
graves in Maikop and follow various connections
between the North Caucasus frontier and Central
Europe.
From the beginning, the renowned grave at
Maikop drew great international interest in early
research.3 Special a¥ention was directed towards
the metal vessels (Fig. 1) and zoomorphic figures
produced in the lost-wax technique. Mesopotamia
was always seen as the source of inspiration or the
donor of these astounding grave goods, although
no convincing comparisons could be presented.
This was quite surprising as long as the grave was
dated to the 24th (twenty-fourth) century BC.
In the meantime basing upon radiocarbon dat-
ings, the placement of the Maikop burial in 3500
BC or the second half of the fourth millennium has
been proposed.4 This means that the Maikop Cul-
ture correlates with the middle and late Uruk peri-
od in Mesopotamia and eastern Anatolia. However,
since richly furnished graves of powerful persons
are lacking in these areas, there is likewise a paucity
of material that might be compared typologically
301
with the Maikop grave goods. We must, therefore,
view the Maikop inventory as the reflection of that
which is no longer preserved.
The tumulus cemetery of Klady near Novosvo-
bodnaja was excavated in its entirety, and a few ex-
ceptional burials were recovered.5 Amongst these is
kurgan 31, which measures four metres in height
and 67 metres in diameter. The kurgan contained
five graves, of which the richly furnished grave five
represents the latest burial in the tumulus. The grave
is a two-part stone chamber that was covered with
two slabs (Fig. 2). It held the inhumation of an adult,
placed in contracted position on the right side, and
a seven-year old child. Among the finds recovered
from this grave were six metal vessels (Fig. 3), six
axes of different shapes, nine daggers (two of which
stood vertically among the stones of the chamber),
one sword (Fig. 5), several chisels (Fig. 6), two stone
pillows (Fig. 7), a bronze wheel with four spokes
(Fig. 8) as well as a myriad of beads of gold, silver
and carnelian, rings, pendants (Fig. 9–13) and pot-
tery (Fig. 14). A. D. Rezepkin assigned the burial to
his phase III. Unfortunately, no directly connected
radiocarbon dates are available. Nevertheless, from
the rather unusual form of published data one can
3
TùÒÒïÇñÌ 1926, 80 ff.; КоÉñнñвский 2004.
4
CîñÇÌ Ôî 1992, 67 ff.; GʧñòùÇÙôù 2002, 781 ff.;
ЧñÉных / ОÉловскùя 2004a.
5
RñŸñÉÔÙÌ 2000.
302 Svend Hansen

Fig. 10. Klady, grave 5, kurgan 31, Russia (aÂer RñŸñÉÔÙÌ

2000 rearranged).

Fig. 11. Klady, grave 5, kurgan 31, Russia (aÂer RñŸñÉÔÙÌ

2000 rearranged).

Fig. 13. Klady, grave 5, kurgan 31, Russia (aÂer RñŸñÉÔÙÌ

2000 rearranged).

Fig. 12. Klady, grave 5, kurgan 31, Russia (aÂer RñŸñÉÔÙÌ

2000 rearranged).
 Communication and exchange between the Nothern Caucasus and Central Europe 303

deduce, that the cemetery must belong to the sec-

ond half of the third millennium BC. And one can
cautiously propose that grave 5 in kurgan 31 should
be dated to the last quarter of the fourth millennium
BC. The arsenal of arms found in the grave does not
represent a functioning set of weapons for a warri-
or; instead, it can be described as an “over-display”
of weapons.6
In kurgan 28 grave 1 in the same cemetery re-
mains of paintings were discovered upon the stone
slabs, some depicting bows and arrows. Rezepkin
already compared these paintings with depictions
upon the megalithic slabs at Leuna-Göhlitzsch near
Merseburg. There figures of bows and arrows can
also be discerned among the red and black pa¥erns
covering the stones. Whereas Rezepkin assigned
the burial to the Corded Ware Culture, W. Ma¥hias
had already assumed that it most likely belongs to
the Bernburg Culture, which corresponds with the
present state of research.7 As far as absolute chro-
nology is concerned, the grave lies somewhere be-
tween 3 100 and 2 900/2 800 BC.8

6
Fig. 14. Klady, grave 5, kurgan 31, Russia (aÂer RñŸñÉÔÙÌ HùÌ°ñÌ 2002, 151 ff.
7
2000 rearranged). RñŸñÉÔÙÌ 2000, 26 f.; Mù¬¬îÙù° 1969; D. M"ÒÒñÇ 1994.
8
J. M"ÒÒñÇ 2001.

Fig. 15. Leuna-Göhlitzsch, Germany. Megalithic slab (aÂer M"ÒÒñÇ 1994).

304 Svend Hansen

One of the representations on a slab in Leuna

Fig. 16. Axe from Reiffenhausen, Germany (aÂer GÇʬñ
2004).
Fig. 17. Axe from Müsleringen, Germany (aÂer JùôÊö-
FÇÙñ°ñÌ 1970).
is that of an axe (Fig. 15). A comparable axe with
a metal tang made of copper alloyed with 3 % ar-
senic was found in Reiffenhausen in Lower Saxony
(Fig. 16).9 Another axe of similar shape and with
1.8% arsenic is reported from Müsleringen (Fig. 17)
near Nienburg in the Weser river area.10 Thus, it
can be surmised that these axes are older than pre-
sumed until now and that they should be dated to
the fourth millennium BC. They probably emerged
from the milieu of the later Funnel-Beaker Culture,
that is to say, they were introduced into this milieu.
A further comparable axe derives from a pit-grave
in Cuconeştii Vechi in Moldavia (Fig. 18). Dergačev
has already compared the axe with the examples
from Klady (Fig. 4, 8), but proposed a date in the
middle or second half of the third millennium
BC.11
It is precisely during the time between 3 500 and
3300 that a comparably large number of metal finds
are evidenced in the area of the Funnel-Beaker Cul-
ture.12 The “visible presence” of metal is enacted
foremost through depositions, which can be seen as
offerings in a broad sense.13 Whereas this “visible
presence” of metals in the Maikop area is expressed
through grave furnishings, in western Europe met-
als are entrusted to the earth as offerings. Here it
should be stressed that the massive onset of depo-
sitions should be considered as an element of so-
cial innovation. Examples to mention here are the
Funnel-Beaker hoard of metal objects in Bygholm
(Denmark) and the coeval hoard with amber neck-
laces and copper beads in Årupgård (Denmark)
(Fig. 19).14 It remains an open question as to wheth-
er the treasure of Staromyšastovskaja was a hoard
or a destroyed grave (Fig. 20).15
Earlier Nandor Kalicz pointed out the gouge-
like chisel of Caucasian type in the hoard from
Brno-Lišeň (Fig. 20).16 Not only the chisel but the
flat axe and the shaÂ-hole axe as well find convinc-
ing analogies in Klady, kurgan 31, grave 5. The
Brno-Lišeň hoard was discovered in the hillfort set-
tlement Staré Zamky, whose po¥ery “corresponds
in part to the phase Jevišovice C1, but mostly al-
ready to phase Jevišovice B”.17 The hoard from

9
GÇʬñ 2004, 321 ff.
10
Lùª¡ 2000, 192 f.
11
DñÇïù ñ§ 2002.
12
KÒù°°ñÌ 2000, 79 ff.
13
The visibility of the metal in general depends
upon the existence of grave goods and votive offering in
general. Cf. HùÌ°ñÌ 1994.
14
JñÌ°ÊÌ 2001, 430 ff. with plate.
15
TùÒÒïÇñÌ 1928, 389.
16
Fig. 18. Axe from Cuconeştii Vechi, Moldova (aÂer DñÇ- KùÒÙôŸ 1968, 46–49.
17
ïù ñ§ 2002). BñÌñ9ʧž 1956; ŘÙîʧ°ÔÝ 1992, 38.
 Communication and exchange between the Nothern Caucasus and Central Europe
Fig. 19. Hoard from Aarupgaard, Denmark (aÂer JñÌ°ñÌ
2001).
Fajsz contains a similar chisel, together with three
shaÂ-hole axes and a further chisel.18 Unfortunate-
ly the three shaÂ-hole axes (Fig. 22) are lost, but the
chisel is still in the Hungarian National Museum
(Fig. 23).
The southernmost find of a Caucasian chisel
comes from Petralona on the Chalkidike in north-
ern Greece (Fig. 24). It was found in a hoard to-
gether with five shaÂ-hole axes and 36 flat axes.19
The published drawings of the chisel are not very
comprehensive, but the typical shaÂing part is vis-
ible. Of all of the objects of the hoards, the chisel
has the highest content of arsenic, amounting to
3.4 %.20
Chisels of this specific shape are otherwise prac-
tically unknown in southeastern Europe, so they
are indeed of cultural as well as chronological
significance. With the hoard of Fajsz the possibil-
ity also arises that some of the shaÂ-hole axes can
already be a¥ributed to the Baden Culture of the
fourth millennium BC. This would apply above all
to the squat and massive forms of the type Baniabic
(Fig. 25),21 whose development led to the axe-type
Kozarac (Fig. 26) in the third millennium BC.22 All
of these early axes are part of monotype hoards
305
Fig. 20. Staromyšastovskaja, Russia (aÂer TùÒÒïÇñÌ 1928).
containing up to 43 axes or single finds without any
dating association.
Farther to the west the copper axe of the so-called
“Ötzi” mummy (Fig. 27)23 and the cemetery and
hoard of Remedello (Fig. 28) are well dated proof
of the existence of a flourishing copper production
in the second half of the fourth millennium BC. It
would be worthwhile to identify the flat axes and
18
Kalicz 1968, Taf. 16–17; 19–21.
19
GÇùÏÏñÌÊ° / TŸùôîÙÒÙ° 1994; MùÇùÌ 2001, 275 ff.
20
JªÌïîùÌ° / SùÌïÏñÙ°¬ñÇ / SôîÇLòñÇ 1968–1972, SAM
2,2, 263 f. Taf. 64, 9337.
21
Early axes of the type Baniabic: e.g. Vilcele / Banya-
bükk (RÊ°Ôù 1927–1930, 352 f. with figure; RÊ°Ôù 1959,
24 ff. Fig. 7–8; VªÒÉñ 1970, 27 no. 1–32 Pl. 1,1–3.32); Otok,
dist. Split (ŽñÇù§Ùôù 1993, 20 no. 44 Pl. 5, 44); Brachwitz
(MÙÒòñÌöñÇïñÇ 1950, 27 Fig. 1); Zscheiplitz (MÙÒòñÌöñÇïñÇ
1950, 28 Fig. 2); Šarengrad, Slavonia (GùÇù9ùÌÙÌ 1951–
1953, 70 no. 47 Fig. 1,7).
22
Later axes of the type Kozarac: e.g. Kozarac,
Bosnia (ŽñÇù§Ùôù 1993, 23 f. no. 48–56 Pl. 6,48–6,56);
Meżyhirci (MùôîÌÙÔ / TÔùôŸªÔ 2003, 485 with figure);
Cheile-Vârghişului (DšÌñ° / SŸùöW 1998, 109 Fig. 4–5);
Brekinjska, dist. Pakrac (DªÇÏùÌ 1988, 34 with figure;
163 no. 221).23 Egg 1992, 254 ff. with figures.
306 Svend Hansen
early flanged axes of the fourth and third millen-
nium BC in Europe and to collect the material.24
Especially the fourth millennium has been de-
scribed as a break between the flourishing copper
metallurgy of the fiÂh millennium and the metal-
lurgy of the third millennium.25 However, it does
indeed seem to be possible to fill the second half of
the fourth millennium with specific types of bronze
metallurgy. Unfortunately, the no advancing analy-
ses can be carried out due to the completely insuffi-
cient publication of the material. If my deliberations
about the dating of the Fajsz hoard should prove to
be sound, they would a¥ach a new meaning to the
term “metal shock”, which Andrew Sherra¥ liked
to use in association with po¥ery of the Baden Cul-
ture.26 The visibility of metal objects depends upon
the social practices in which they were involved.
Whereas in the Caucasus region axes were part of
grave furnishings, they were collected in hoards in
the Carpathian basin.
Aside from finds of early copper objects, the
wagon was the most significant innovation to ap-
pear during the fourth millennium BC.27 Evidence
of wheeled vehicles is abundant. Here I need only
mention the model of a spoked wheel from kurgan
31, grave 5 in Klady. The remains of a wooden wag-
on in a grave of the Maikop Culture in Starokorsun-
skaya is important evidence as well.28 Finds of clay
fragments interpreted to be zoomorphic vessels on
wheels derive from the advanced Tripolye Culture.29
The renowned models of wagons a¥ributed to the
Baden Culture should be added here as well.30 The
beaker from Bronocice in Poland must be named,
when regarding the sphere of the Funnel-Beaker
Culture.31 The copper figures representing a team
of bovines, found in Bytyn in the district of Poznan,
can also be counted among the models. This repre-
sentation was found together with six copper axes,
which are likewise datable to the late fourth millen-
nium BC.32 Consequently, aÂer 3 500 BC the wide-
spread appearance of wagons can be observed in
the Funnel-Beaker Culture, the Baden Culture and
the north Pontic steppe.
This dense distribution denoted by original evi-
dence of models and disc wheels as well as de-
pictions of wagons has led to the impression of a
polycentric emergence of the wagon that was in-
dependent of the Near East. Joseph Maran holds a
more differentiated position: While conceding an
essential role as mediator to the Caucasus, he at-
tributes the invention of the wagon to the context
of Uruk-expansion. Nevertheless, he does surmise
that the primary centre of emerging wagon technol-
ogy was in the advanced and late Tripolye Culture
of the northwest Pontic region.33 Andrew Sherra¥,
contrarily, upheld the view that the wheel originat-
ed in the early urban civilisations of Mesopotamia,
and he a¥empted to promote the significance of
Anatolia as mediator, despite the incontestable lack
of finds there. The invention of the wagon does in-
deed seem to be in the Tigris-Euphrates area, from
where the revolving po¥er’s wheel and cylinder
seals were incepted. Trifonov also assumes that the
Maikop Culture adapted the wagon from Mesopo-
tamia. Thereby, an stimulating thought is whether
or not the tools found in the eponymous barrow of
Maikop can be seen as woodworking tools for con-
structing wagons.34
In association with wagons, reference should be
made to fork-like signs, usually in pairs, found in
stone cist graves of the Wartberg Culture. In War-
burg in Westphalia and Züschen in northern Hesse
this sign denotes a team of bovines. However, such
signs also appear in the Alps and the Ukraine; and
examples in the Ukraine definitely show a wagon.35
Furthermore, megalithic tombs themselves are part
of an innovative package and can be a¥ested in the
sphere of the Funnel-Beaker Culture and the Wart-
berg group adjoining to the south as of 3 500 BC.
Huge earthworks are likewise a new phenomenon
during this innovation-horizon between 3500 and
3 300 BC. From an architectural viewpoint the meg-
alithic structures of the Wartberg Culture in north-
ern Hesse represent a variation, which has parallels
in the Paris basin. The structures are characterised
by naturally flat stone slabs and the presence of a
so-called porthole at the front, which can measure
between 30 and 80 cm in diameter. These elements
are found in Klady, in kurgans 28 and 31, as well.
A further important innovation is the domestica-
tion of the horse, as of the last quarter of the fourth
millennium BC.36 Of particular note in central Ger-
many are the horse remains found in context with
the Bernburg Culture. Apparently imports from
eastern Europe played a role in the domestication
of the horse. Similar inferences can be made in the
Cham Culture as well. The domestication of the
horse brought with it a profound advancement in
transport, that is, speed in transport, which was
24
Cp. flat axes: MLöñ° 1978; Lª¬Ÿ et al. 1997, 41 ff.;
flanged axes: Lùª¡ 2000 Pl. 1,1–2.20; see also HùÌ°ñÌ
2001; BÊÇÌ / HùÌ°ñÌ 2001, 24 Fig. 4.
25
Mù¬ª°ôîÙÔ 1996, 29; S¬ÇùîÏ 1994, 2 ff.
26
SîñÇÇù¬¬ 2003, 42.
27
Mù¬ª°ôîÙÔ 2006; KùÙ°ñÇ 2007.
28
TÇÙðÊÌʧ 2004, 168 Fig. 2.
29
MùÇùÌ 2004b, 436.
30
MùÇùÌ 2004a, 265 ff.
31
MÙÒÙ°ùª°Ôù° / KÇªÔ 1982, 141 ff.
32
Mù¬ª°ôîÙÔ 2002, 111 ff.
33
MùÇùÌ 2004, 439.
34
PÙïïʬ¬ 1983, 58; TÇÙðÊÌʧ 2004, 171 ff. Fig. 6.
35
G"̬îñÇ 1990.
36
BñÌñôÔñ 2002, 208 ff.
 Communication and exchange between the Nothern Caucasus and Central Europe 307

Fig. 21. Hoard of Brno-Lišeň, Moravia (aÂer BñÌñ9ʧž 1956).

only surpassed historically by the train and air-

plane. No less important was yet another inception,
namely the introduction of the wooly sheep at the
end of the fourth millennium BC. It originated from
the Near East, whereby Norbert Benecke a¥ributes
the role of mediator to the east European steppes.37
The Funnel-Beaker-, Tripolye- and later also the
Globular Amphora cultures actually formed strong
connecting links between northwestern and eastern
Europe. Through comparisons of the archaeological
material, the Tripolje, Usatovo, Cernavoda III and
Baden cultures can be linked via the Danube River
with southern Germany. This complex structure re-
flects the far-reaching, international trade systems
through which innovations were mediated.
As we have seen, starting with grave 5 in kurgan
31 in Novosvobodnaja, during the second half of
the fourth millennium BC a series of technical inno-
vations were disseminated throughout the vast geo-
graphic area between the Caucasus and the Atlantic
Ocean. If we view the “over-representation” of the
grave as a social innovation, there are no other like
examples which might be drawn in comparison.
For that we must look to the south.
Located near Malatya on the upper Euphrates
River in eastern Anatolia, Arslantepe can be seen
within the se¥ing of the Uruk-expansion. The set-
tlement is of significance for the “visible presence”
of metals in a twofold aspect.
First, a¥ention must be directed at a hoard with
nine swords and twelve spearheads discovered
there.38 Three of the swords have a handle with
silver inlay (Fig. 29). The length of the swords var-
ies between 46 and 51 cm, the weight between 410
and 540 grams. A notably larger sword is 62 cm
long and weighs 960 grams. These weapons were

37
BñÌñôÔñ 1994, 136 ff.; for the Maikop region, see
SîÙ°îÒÙÌù / OÇðÙÌ°Ôù ù / GÊÒÙÔʧ 2003, 331 ff.
38
Fig. 22. Hoard of Fajsz, Hungary (aÂer KùÒÙôŸ 1968). FÇùÌïÙÉùÌñ / PùÒÏÙñÇÙ 1988, 394 ff. Fig. 58–61.
308 Svend Hansen

Fig. 24. Chisel from a hoard from Petralona, Greece (aÂer

JªÌïîùÌ° et al. 1968–72).

Fig. 23. The chisel from Fajsz, Hungary (photo National

Museum Budapest).

Fig. 25. Hoard from Vâlcele, Romania (aÂer RÊ°Ôù 1959).

 Communication and exchange between the Nothern Caucasus and Central Europe
Fig. 26. Axe from a hoard found in Cheile-Vârghişului,
Romania (photo Hansen).
Fig. 27. Flanged axe of the mummy from the Hauslab-
joch, Italy (aÂer Eïï 1992).
found inside a monumental public building in level
VI A (building III / room A 113), which can be cor-
related with the late Uruk period in Mesopotamia
and, therewith, dated to the end of the fourth mil-
lennium BC. And here the sword from grave 5 kur-
gan 31 in Klady, which I have already pointed out,
can be ordered, alongside these oldest swords. At
this point the problem of the “visible presence of
metals” becomes distinct: Namely, the next oldest
swords in Anatolia come from the princely graves
in Alaca Höyük and are dated to the middle of the
third millennium or somewhat later.39 This means
that for a time-span of over 500 years we have no
evidence of a development in swords. Whereupon,
the question naturally arises as to whether this sce-
nario is realistic.
309
Fig. 28. Hoard from Remedello, Italy (aÂer Eïï 1992).
An important recent find made in Arslantepe is
the so-called “King’s grave”.40 Marcella Frangipane
dates the grave to shortly aÂer 3000 BC (period VI B
in Arslantepe), a time directly following the col-
lapse of the centralised organisation. The large stone
cist grave held the burial of a 34–45 year-old man,
placed in contracted position. The grave furnishings
included a multitude of clay vessels and an especial-
ly rich assemblage of 64 metal objects, comprising
weapons, tools, and jewellery and vessels made of
copper, arsenic bronze, silver and gold (including
three beads and a spiral hairring). Most of the metal
objects were found in a pile behind the deceased.
Seven lance heads were propped against the wall of
the grave chamber, near the deceased’s head.
With this series of weapons we have once again
a real arsenal. The most valuable aspect of this bur-
ial – in our view – was that four youths had been
slain and laid in the grave as well. There is a note-
worthy combination of Mesopotamian wheelmade
po¥ery with Transcaucasian hand-formed po¥ery,
which points to the origin of the deceased man.
On the other hand, it must be emphasised that the
weaponry (Fig. 30–32) of the man is characterised in
particular by its very lack of shaÂ-hole axes. Instead
we find lance heads (Fig. 30), which are already at-
tested in the sword deposition in level VI A in Ars-
lantepe. Flat axes and gouge-like chisels (Fig. 31) are
present as well. And, in addition, it is easy to see that
the principle of a¥aching the sha – for the chisels
and the lance heads – is the same.
39
M"ÒÒñÇ-KùÇÉñ 1994, 431 ff.
40
FÇùÌïÙÉùÌñ 2001; FÇùÌïÙÉùÌñ et al. 2001; WÇÙïî¬ 2007.
310 Svend Hansen

Fig. 30. “Royal burial” from Arslantepe, Turkey (aÂer

FÇùÌïÙÉùÌñ u. a. 2001).

Fig. 31. “Royal burial” from Arslantepe, Turkey (aÂer

FÇùÌïÙÉùÌñ u. a. 2001).

Fig. 29. Sword from Arslantepe, Turkey (aÂer FÇùÌïÙÉùÌñ /

Palmieri 1988).
 Communication and exchange between the Nothern Caucasus and Central Europe 311

We find graves with comparable “over-represen-

tation” only later, around the middle of the third
millennium BC, in the royal graves of Alaca Höyük41
in northern Cappadocia and in Ur in southern
Mesopotamia.42 The situation differs radically from
Central Europe. There graves with extraordinary
furnishings form a qualitatively distinct category,
which can be comprehended immediately.
The characterising feature of funerary furnish-
ings in Central and East Europe during the third
millennium BC is their comprehensive standar-
disation. The number and quality of grave goods
are held at a relatively low level. Thereby the vast
geographic dimensions displayed by the Pit-Grave
and Catacomb Grave cultures, the Corded Ware
Culture and the Bell-Beakers in their specific system
of funerary goods are all the more astounding.
Since the 1970s Stephen Shennan and others have
held the opinion that the astonishingly wide distri-
bution of “Beaker Packages” is not to be a¥ributed
to the immigration of a people, but instead to the
expansion of a specific concept, such as social sta-
tus.43 Accordingly, the Bell-Beakers and the system
of grave goods associated with them are seen as ele-
ments of a cultural code within an existing sphere
of interaction. Therefore, today one no longer re-
fers to the “Bell Beaker Culture”, but to the “Bell
Beaker phenomenon”, in order to avoid insinuating
a people or the like.44 It is obvious that the funer-
ary culture and system of grave goods of the other
two widespread “cultures” are likewise not to be
comprehended as a “people” or “peoples”, but as a
system of funerary furnishings.
In the case of the Corded Ware this system cen-
tres around amphorae, beakers and axes, yet only
the fewest of graves contain all of these goods to-
gether. Metal objects, above all, are extremely rare.
One of the graves most richly furnished with metals
was discovered in Bleckendorf, in Sachsen-Anhalt,
whose hammerhead pin clearly displays east Eu-
ropean influence.45 In the Yamnaya Culture too the
deceased are sparingly bestowed with grave goods.
Tumulus burials that are covered with ochre now
become obligatory.46 Only in a few cases can the fu-
nerary furnishings of the Catacomb Grave Culture
with a stone axe, knife and po¥ery (including an in-
cense bowl) be described as an analogous phenom-
enon. In their north Caucasian variant and in the
west Balkan Vučedol Culture there are sets of metal

41
KÊ8ù  1951.
42
Fig. 32. “Royal burial” from Arslantepe, Turkey (aÂer WÊÊÒÒñ  1934; Zñ¬¬ÒñÇ / HÊÇÌñ 1998.
43
FÇùÌïÙÉùÌñ u. a. 2001). SîñÌÌùÌ 1975, 173 ff.
44
S¬ÇùîÏ 1995.
45
BñîÇñÌ° 1952, 53 ff. with figures.
46
H‰ª°ÒñÇ 1974; 1976; PùǟÙÌïñÇ 1998, 468.
312 Svend Hansen
grave goods. These established facts are well illus-
trated by the distribution map presented by Jozef
Bátora.47
Conclusion
A bundle of innovations in the spheres of metallur-
gy, techniques in transport and the use of animals is
a¥ested in an area that extends from the Caucasus
to northwestern Europe. I have pointed out some
examples of the connections between these areas as
can be seen in objects from the graves of the Maikop
Culture and Central Europe. These are key innova-
tions, which had direct consequences upon means
of transportation (the horse), conveyance (the wag-
on), production of goods (wool, metallurgy) and
trade (metal objects).
The graves of Novosvobodnaja have illustrated
that these innovations were also accompanied by
changes in social structure. The series of innova-
tions was designated by Andrew Sherra¥ as the
“secondary products revolution”. He considered it
ultimately as a side-product of the urban revolution
in the Near East with a corresponding concentra-
tion of capital and economic system.48
One outcome of this bundle of innovations was
the gradual and immeasurable development to-
wards conformity during the third millennium
BC, as manifested in specific burial rites and grave
goods. These functioned as a status symbol and
also reflect a functioning network within which ex-
change could take place. Should this development
appear like a phase of stagnation, it is due to the
lack of archaeological material from se¥lements
and graves. Pollen analyses, for example, show that
during the third millennium BC land was cultivated
throughout Europe.49 The conservative sets of grave
goods reveal only a relatively weak social division.
Perhaps the graves represent solely the leading or
upper level of society.50
More efforts in research on the fourth and third
millennia BC must be made in order to a¥ain a
chronologically secure basis and, in turn, to develop
upon this basis a social historical interpretation of
these new forms of appropriating wealth and dem-
onstrating power.
The “over-representation” of weapons in graves,
as we have observed in Novosvobodnaja for the
first time, is the expression of an early Bronze Age
warrior-ideology, about which we know nothing,
due to the lack of wri¥en sources. Nonetheless, the
epic of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia does lead us
back to the beginning of the third millennium BC.51
Before Gilgamesh and his friend Enkidu departed
for the cedar forest, they went to the weaponsmiths:
“Great celts they cast and axes each weighing one-
hundred and eighty pounds; great daggers they
cast, one hundred and twenty pound each blade
weighed; thirty pounds the guard at the grip; thirty
pounds of gold to decorate them. Gilgamesh and
Enkidu each carried six hundred pounds.”52 With
their large weapons Gilgamesh and Enkidu set off
to the cedar forest in the west. There they slay the
guardian of the forest, Humbaba, and cut down the
valuable cedar trees, which they then sent down the
Euphrates river to Uruk. Thus, the subject ma¥er
here is the violent usurpation of valuable raw mate-
rials; as is well-known, Mesopotamia did not have
any cedar trees. The epic reports prolifically how
raw materials such as copper and tin were obtained
by single individuals. And the weapons in graves
document this violent action in mute silence.
Acknowledgements
Tibor Kemenczei kindly provided the picture of the
Fajsz chisel, Waltraut Rust rearranged the finds in
the Klady publication, and Emily Schalk translated
the German text.
Literature
Bž¬ÊÇù 2003
J. Bž¬ÊÇù, Kupferne SchaÂlochäxte in Mi¥el-, Ost und
Südosteuropa (Zu Kulturkontakten und Datierung –
Äneolithikum/Frühbronzezeit). Slovenská Archeológia
51, 2003, 1–38.
BñîÇñÌ° 1952
H. BñîÇñÌ°, Ein neolithisches Bechergrab aus Mi¥el-
deutschland mit beinerner Hammerkopfnadel und
Kupfergeräten. Jahresschri für mi¥eldeutsche Vorge-
schichte 36, 1952, 53–69.
BñÌñôÔñ 1994
N. BñÌñôÔñ, Der Mensch und seine Haustiere (Stu¥gart
1994)
BñÌñôÔñ 2002
N. BñÌñôÔñ, Zu den Anfängen der Pferdehaltung in
Eurasien. Aktuelle archäozoologische Beiträge aus drei
Regionen. Ethnographisch Archäologische Zeitschri 43,
2002, 187–226.
BñÌñ9ʧž 1956
A. BñÌñ9ʧž, Nález mědeých předmetů na Starých Za-
ámích v Brnĕ-Líšni. Pamatky Archeologické 47, 1956,
236–244.
47
Bž¬ÊÇù 2003.
48
SîñÇÇù¬¬ 2004; LÙ§ñÇùÌÙ 2006.
49
Hùù° / GÙñ°ñôÔñ / KùÇï 2002.
50
S¬ÇùîÏ 2002.
51
GñÊÇïñ 1999.
52
SôîÇʬ¬ 2001, 194; GñÊÇïñ 1999, 20; GñÊÇïñ 2003, 201.
 Communication and exchange between the Nothern Caucasus and Central Europe
BªÇÏñÙ°¬ñÇ 2004
S¬. BªÇÏñÙ°¬ñÇ (Hrsg.), Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung
einer Innovation. Wagen im Vorderen Orient und Eu-
ropa (Mainz 2004).
CîñÇÌ Ôî 1992
E. N. CîñÇÌ Ôî, Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR. The
Early Metal Age (Cambridge 1992).
ČñÇÌ ôî 2003
L. ČñÇÌ ôî, Spektralanalyse und Metallverarbeitung
in den früh- und mi¥elbronzezeitliäen Kulturen der
ukrainisäen Steppe als Forsäungsproblem. Eurasia
Antiqua 9, 2003, 27–62.
DšÌñ° / SŸùöW 1998
I. DšÌñ° / G. V. SŸùöW, Der frühbronzezeitliche Bron-
zedepotfund aus der Höhle 1200/9 in der Enge des
Vyrgyas-Baches (Cheile-Vârghişului) in Südost-Sieben-
bürgen. In: H. Ciugudean / F. Golgâtan (Hrsg.), The
Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin.
Proceedings of the International Symposium in Alba
Iulia 1997 (Alba Iulia 1998) 89–110.
DñÇïù ñ§ 2002
V. DñÇïù ñ§, Die äneolithisäen und bronzezeitliäen
Metallfunde aus Moldavien (Stu¥gart 2002).
DªÇÏùÌ 1988
A. DªÇÏùÌ (Hrsg.), Vučedol. Three thousand years b.c.
Ausstellungskatalog Zagreb (Zagreb 1988).
Eïï 1992
M. Eïï, Zur Aussta¥ung des Toten vom Hauslab-
joä, Gem. Sänals (Südtirol). In: F. Höpfel / W. Plat-
zer / K. Spindler (Hrsg.), Der Mann im Eis (Innsbruã
1982) 254–272.
FÇùÌïÙÉùÌñ / PùÒÏÙñÇÙ 1988
M. FÇùÌïÙÉùÌñ / A. PùÒÏÙñÇÙ, A Protourban Centre of
the Late Uruk Period. Origini 12, 1988, 287–454.
FÇùÌïÙÉùÌñ 2001
M. FÇùÌïÙÉùÌñ, The Transition Between Two Opposing
Forms of Power at Arslantepe (Malatya) at the Begin-
ning of the 3rd Millenium. TÜBA-AR 4, 2001, 1–24.
FÇùÌïÙÉùÌñ 2004
M. FÇùÌïÙÉùÌñ, Alle origini del potere. Arslantepe la
collina dei leoni (Milano 2004).
FÇùÌïÙÉùÌñ u. a. 2001
M. FÇùÌïÙÉùÌñ u. a., New Symbols of a New Power
in a “Royal” Tomb from 3000 BC Arslantepe, Malatya
(Turkey). Paléorient 27/2, 2001, 105–139.
GùÇù9ùÌÙÌ 1951–53
M. V. GùÇùšùÌÙÌ, SchaÂlochäxte aus Kupfer in den
Sammlungen serbischer Museen. Bericht der Römisch-
Germanischen Kommission 34, 1951–53, 61–76.
GñÊÇïñ 1999
A. GñÊÇïñ, The epic of Gilgamesh (London 1999).
GñÊÇïñ 2003
A. R. GñÊÇïñ, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Intro-
duction, critical Edition and cuneiform Texts 1–2 (Ox-
ford 2003).
GʧñòùÇÙôù 2002
B. GʧñòùÇÙôù, Die Majkop-Kultur zwisäen Europa
und Asien: Zur Entstehung einer Hoäkultur im Nord-
313
kaukasus während des 4. Jts. v. Chr. In: R. Aslan u. a.
(Hrsg.), Mauersäau. Festsäri für Manfred Korf-
mann 2 (Remshalden, Grumbaä 2002) 781–799.
GÇùÏÏñÌÊ° / TŸùôîÙÒÙ° 1994
D. B. GÇùÏÏñÌÊ°. / I. TŸùôîÙÒÙ°, O θησαυρόσ των Πε-
τραλώνων τησ Χαλκιδικήσ και άλλα χαλκινα εργα-
λεια τησ ΠΕΧ απο την ευρύτερη περιοχή. Aräaiolo-
gike Ephemeris 133, 1994, 75–116.
GÇʬñ 2004
K. GÇʬñ, Die spätneolithisäe Kupferaxt von Reiffen-
hausen, Ldkr. Gö¥ingen, Südniedersaäsen. Arääolo-
gisäes Korrespondenzbla¥ 34, 2004, 321–336.
G"̬îñÇ 1990
K. G"̬îñÇ, Neolithisäe Bildzeiäen an einem ehe-
maligen Megalithgrab bei Warburg, Kr. Höxter (West-
falen). Germania 68, 1990, 39–65.
Hùù° / GÙñ°ñôÔñ / KùÇï 2002
J. N. Hùù° / T. GÙñ°ñôÔñ / S. KùÇï, Die mi¥eleuropäi-
sche Subsistenzwirtscha des 3. bis 2. Jahrtausends
v. Chr. aus paläökologischer Sicht. In: J. Müller (Hrsg.),
Vom Endneolithikum zur Frühbronzezeit: Muster
sozialen Wandels? (Tagung Bamberg 14.–16. Juni 2001)
(Bonn 2002) 21–28.
H‰ª°ÒñÇ 1974
A. H‰ª°ÒñÇ, Die Gräber der älteren Ockergrabkultur
zwischen Ural und Dnepr (Berlin 1974).
H‰ª°ÒñÇ 1976
A. H‰ª°ÒñÇ, Die Gräber der älteren Ockergrabkultur
zwischen Dnepr und Karpaten (Berlin 1976).
H‰ª°ÒñÇ 1994
A. H‰ª°°ÒñÇ, Die Majkop-Kultur und Mi¥eleuropa.
Zeitschri für Archäologie 28, 1994, 191–246.
HùÌ°ñÌ 1994
S. HùÌ°ñÌ, Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen wäh-
rend der älteren Urnenfelderzeit zwischen Rhônetal
und Karpatenbecken (Bonn 1994).
HùÌ°ñÌ 2001
S. HùÌ°ñÌ, Rezension zu Friedrich Laux, Die Äxte und
Beile in Niedersachsen I (Flach-, Randleisten- und Ab-
satzbeile) (Stu¥gart 2000). Bonner Jahrbücher 201, 2001
(2004) 501–504.
HùÌ°ñÌ 2002
S. HùÌ°ñÌ, „Überaussta¥ungen“ in Gräbern und Hor-
ten der Frühbronzezeit. In: J. Müller (Hrsg.), Vom End-
neolithikum zur Frühbronzezeit: Muster sozialen Wan-
dels? (Tagung Bamberg 14.–16. Juni 2001) (Bonn 2002)
151–173.
HªÌò¬ 1982
H.-J. HªÌò¬, Einige teänologisä-äronologisäe Be-
merkungen zu den SäaÂloääxten. In: Il passaggio dal
neolitico all’età del bronzo nell’Europa centrale e nella
regione alpina. Problemi cronologici e terminologici.
A¥i del X Simposio internazionale sulla fine del neoliti-
co e gli inizi dell’età del bronzo in Europa, Lazise – Ve-
rona 8–12 aprile 1980 (Verona 1982) 207–223.
JùôÊö-FÇÙñ°ñÌ 1970
G. JùôÊö-FÇÙñ°ñÌ, Die Kupferäxte vom Typ Escholl-
brücken. Die Kunde 21, 1970, 20–65.
314 Svend Hansen
JñÌ°ñÌ 2001
J. JñÌ°ñÌ, Danmarks oldtid Bd. 1 Stenalderen 13 000–
2 000 f. Kr. (København 2001).
JªÌïîùÌ° et al. 1968-72
S. JªÌïîùÌ° / E. SùÌïÏñÙ°¬ñÇ / M. SôîÇLòñÇ, Kupfer und
Bronze in der frühen Metallzeit Europas. Studien zu den
Anfängen der Metallurgie 2 (Berlin 1968–72) 1–4.
KùÒÙôŸ 1968
N. KùÒÙôŸ, Die Frühbronzezeit in Nordost-Ungarn.
Abriss der Geschichte des 19.–16. Jahrhunderts v. u. Z.
(Budapest 1968).
KùÙ°ñÇ 2007
E. KùÙ°ñÇ, Wagenbesta¥ungen des 3. vorchristlichen
Jahrtausends in der osteuropäischen Steppe. In: M. Ble-
čić u. a. (Hrsg.) Scripta Praehistorica in honorem Biba
Teržan. Situla 44 (Ljubljana 2007) 129–149.
KÒù°°ñÌ 2000
L. KÒù°°ñÌ, Frühes Kupfer im Norden. Untersuchun-
gen zu Chronologie, Herkun und Bedeutung der
Kupferfunde der Nordgruppe der Trichterbecherkul-
tur (Aarhus 2000).
KÊÇðÏùÌÌ 2004
M. KÊÇðÏùÌÌ, Zum Stand der Chronologiediskussion
ca. 1980 oder „Zum absoluten Zeitansatz beim kompara-
tiven Stratigrafiesystem von V. Milojčić. Eine Rückschau.
In: B. Hänsel / E. Studeníková (Hrsg.), „Zwischen Kar-
paten und Ägäis“. Gedenkschri für Viera Nĕmejcová-
Pavúková (Rahden/Westfalen 2004) 109–119.
Lùª¡ 2000
F. Lùª¡, Die Äxte und Beile in Niedersachsen I (Flach-,
Randleisten- und Absatzbeile) (Stu¥gart 2000).
LÙ§ñÇùÌÙ 2006
M. LÙ§ñÇùÌÙ, Uruk. The First City (London, Oakville
2006).
Lª¬Ÿ u. a. 1997
J. Lª¬Ÿ u. a., Die frühesten Metallfunde in Mecklen-
burg-Vorpommern im Lichte neuer Metallanalysen.
Jahrbuch der Bodendenmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vor-
pommern 45, 1997, 41–67.
MùôîÌÙÔ / TÔùôŸªÔ 2003
J. MùôîÌÙÔ / T. K. TÔùôŸªÔ, Interesting and impor-
tant artifacts from the beginning of the Bronze Age
in the vicinity of Halicz (upper basin of the Dnestr
River). In: E. Jerem / P. Raczky (Hrsg.), Morgenrot der
Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Mensäheitsgesäiä-
te in Mi¥el- und Südosteuropa. Festsäri für Nán-
dor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag (Budapest 2003) 483–
496.
MùÇùÌ 2001
J. MùÇùÌ, Zur Westausbreitung von Boleráz-Elemen-
ten in Mi¥eleuropa. In: P. Roman / S. Diamandi (Hrsg.),
Cernavodă III-Boleráz. Ein vorgesäiätliäes Phäno-
men zwisäem dem Oberrhein und der Unteren Do-
nau. Symposium Mangalia/Neptun 1999 (Bucureşti
2001) 733–752.
MùÇùÌ 2001
J. MùÇùÌ, Der Depotfund von Petralona (Nordgrie-
äenland) und der Symbolgehalt von Waffen in der
ersten HälÂe des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. zwisäen Kar-
patenbeãen und Ägäis. In: R. M. Boehmer / J. Maran
(Hrsg.), Lux Orientis. Arääologie zwisäen Asien und
Europa. Festsäri für Harald Hauptmann (Rahden/
Westfalen 2001) 275–284.
MùÇùÌ 2004a
J. MùÇùÌ, Die Badener Kultur und ihre Räderfahrzeu-
ge. In: St. Burmeister (Hrsg.), Rad und Wagen. Der
Ursprung einer Innovation. Wagen im Vorderen Orient
und Europa (Mainz 2004) 265–282.
MùÇùÌ 2004ö
J. Maran, Kulturkontakte und Wege der Ausbreitung
der Wagentechnologie im 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr. In:
St. Burmeister (Hrsg.), Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung
einer Innovation. Wagen im Vorderen Orient und Eu-
ropa (Mainz 2004) 429–442.
òñ MùÇÙÌÙ° 1992
R. C. òñ MùÇÙÌÙ°, La più antica metallurgia nell´Italia
se¥entrionale. In: F. Höpfel / W. Platzer / K. Spindler
(Hrsg.), Der Mann im Eis (Innsbruã 1992) 389–409.
Mù¬¬îÙù° 1969
W. Mù¬¬îÙù°, Die Sänurkeramik im westliäen Mi¥el-
deutsäland. Veröffentliäungen des Landesmuseums
für Vorgesäiäte Halle 24, 1969, 9–28.
Mù¬ª°ôîÙÔ 1996
I. Mù¬ª°ôîÙÔ, Brillen- und Hakenspiralen der frühen
Metallzeit Europas. Germania 74, 1996, 1–43.
Mù¬ª°ôîÙÔ 2002
I. Mù¬ª°ôîÙÔ, Kupferne Rindergespann-Darstellungen
der mi¥eleuropäisäen Kupferzeit. In. J. Köninger u. a.
(Hrsg.), Säleife, Säli¥en, Rad und Wagen. Zur Frage
früher Transportmi¥el nördliä der Alpen. Rundge-
spräche Hemmenhofen 2001 (2002) 111–122.
Mù¬ª°ôîÙÔ 2006
I. Mù¬ª°ôîÙÔ, Invention et diffusion de la roue dans
l´ancien monde: l´apport de l´iconographie. In: P. Pétre-
quin / R.-M. Arbogast / A.-M. Pétrequin / S. van Willi-
gen / M. Bailly (Hrsg.), Premiers chariots, premiers
araires. La diffusion de la traction animale en Europe
pendant le IVe et IIIe millénaires avant notre ère (Paris
2006) 279–298.
MÙÒòñÌöñÇïñÇ 1950
G. MÙÒòñÌöñÇïñÇ, Zwei kupferzeitliche SchaÂhalsäxte
aus Mi¥eldeutschland. Jahreschri für Mi¥eldeutsche
Vorgeschichte 34, 1950, 27–31.
MÙÒÙ°ùª°Ôù° / KÇªÔ 1982
S. MÙÒÙ°ùª°Ôù° / J. KǪÔ, Die Wagendarstellung auf
einem Trichterbecher aus Bronocice in Polen. Archäolo-
gisches Korrespondenzbla¥ 12, 1982, 141–144.
MLöñ° 1978
G. MLöñ°,Äneolithisäe Kupferbeile im Bereiäe der Kup-
ferstraße. Ausgrabungen und Funde 23, 1978, 219–224.
MLÒÒñÇ 1912
A. MLÒÒñÇ, Der Derfflinger Hügel bei Kalbsrieth (Groß-
herzogtum Saäsen) (Jena 1912).
M"ÒÒñÇ 1994
D. M"ÒÒñÇ, Die Bernburger Kultur Mi¥eldeutsälands
im Spiegel ihrer niätmegalithisäen Kollektivgräber.
 Communication and exchange between the Nothern Caucasus and Central Europe
Jahresäri für Mi¥eldeutsäe Vorgesäiäte 76, 1994,
75–200.
M"ÒÒñÇ 2001
J. M"ÒÒñÇ, Sozioäronologisäe Studien zum Jung- und
Spätneolithikum im Mi¥elelbe-Saale-Gebiet (4 100–
2 700 v. Chr) (Rahden/Westfalen 2001).
M"ÒÒñÇ 2004
J. M"ÒÒñÇ, Zur Innovationsbereitsäa mi¥eleuropä-
isäer GesellsäaÂen im 4. voräristliäen Jahrtausend.
In: St. Burmeister (Hrsg.), Rad und Wagen. Der Ur-
sprung einer Innovation. Wagen im Vorderen Orient
und Europa (Mainz 2004) 255–264.
M"ÒÒñÇ-KùÇÉñ 1994
A. M"ÒÒñÇ-KùÇÉñ, Anatolisäe Bronzesäwerter und
Südosteuropa. In: C. Dobiat (Hrsg.), Festsäri für O.-
H. Frey zum 65. Geburtstag (Marburg 1994) 431–444.
PùǟÙÌïñÇ 1998
H. PùǟÙÌïñÇ, Kulturverhältnisse in der eurasisäen
Steppe während der Bronzezeit. In: B. Hänsel (Hrsg.),
Mensä und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas (Kiel
1998) 456–479.
PÙïïʬ¬ 1968
S¬. PÙïïʬ¬, The Earliest Wheeled Vehicles and the
Caucasian Evidence. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society 34, 1968, 266–318.
PÙïïʬ¬ 1983
St. Piggo¥, The Earliest Wheeled Transport. From the
Atlantic to the Caspian Sea (London 1983)
PÇÙÏù° 1996
M. Primas, Velika Gruda I. Hügelgräber des frühen
3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im Adriagebiet – Velika Gruda,
Mala Gruda und ihr Kontext (Bonn 1996).
RñŸñÉÔÙÌ 2000
A. D. Rezepkin, Das frühbronzezeitliäe Gräberfeld
von Klady und die Majkop-Kultur in Nordwestkau-
kasien. Arääologie in Eurasien 10 (Rahden/Westfalen
2000).
Řîʧ°ÔÝ 1992
J. Řîʧ°ÔÝ, Die Äxte, Beile, Meißel und Hämmer in
Mähren. Prähistorisäe Bronzefunde 17, Abteilung 9
(Stu¥gart 1992).
RÊ°Ôù 1927–32
M. Roska, Le dépôt de haches en cuivré de Bania-
bic, département de Turda-Arieş. Dacia 3/4, 1927–32,
352–355.
RÊ°Ôù 1959
M. RÊ°Ôù, A Bánnyabükki rézelet. Le dépôt de haches
en cuivre de Bányabükk (Baniabic). Folia Aräaeologia
11, 1959, 25–35.
SôîÇʬ¬ 2001
R. SôîÇʬ¬, Gilgamesh Epos (München 2001).
SîñÌÌùÌ 1975
S. J. SîñÌÌùÌ, Die soziale Bedeutung der Glocken-
becker in Mi¥eleuropa. Acta Archaeologica Carpathi-
ca 15, 1975, 173–180.
SîñÇÇù¬¬ 1991
A. SîñÇÇù¬, Sacred and Profane Substances: The Ritual
Use of Narcotics in Later Neolithic Europe. In: Gar-
315
wood u. a., Sacred and profane. Proceedings of a con-
ference on archaeology, ritual and religion (Oxford
1991) 50–64.
SîñÇÇù¬¬ 2003
A. Sherra¥, The Baden (Pécel) culture and Anatolia:
perspectives on a cultural transformantion. In: E. Je-
rem / P. Raczky (Hrsg.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe
Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mi¥el- und Sü-
dosteuropa. Festsäri für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Ge-
burtstag (Budapest 2003) 415–429.
SîñÇÇù¬¬ 2004
A. SîñÇÇù¬¬, Wagen, Pflug, Rind: ihre Ausbreitung und
Nutzung – Probleme der Quelleninterpretation. In:
St. Burmeister (Hrsg.), Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung
einer Innovation. Wagen im Vorderen Orient und Eu-
ropa (Mainz 2004) 409–428.
SîÙ°îÒÙÌù / OÇðÙÌ°Ôù ù / GÊÒÙÔʧ
N. I. SîÙ°îÒÙÌù / O. V. OÇðÙÌ°Ôù ù / V. P. GÊÒÙÔʧ,
Bronze Age Textiles from the North Caucasus: New
Evidences of Hourth Millennium BC Fibres and Fab-
rics. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22, 2003, 331–344.
S¬ÇùîÏ 1994
C. S¬ÇùîÏ, Die Anfänge der Metallurgie in Mi¥eleuro-
pa. Helvetia Archaeologia 25, 1994, 2–39.
S¬ÇùîÏ 1995
CîÇ. S¬ÇùîÏ (Hrsg.), Das Gloãenbeäer-Phänomen
(Freiburg 1995)
S¬ÇùîÏ 2002
C. S¬ÇùîÏ, Tradition und Wandel der sozialen Struk-
turen vom 3. zum 2. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. In:
J. Müller (Hrsg.), Vom Endneolithikum zur Frühbron-
zezeit: Muster sozialen Wandels? (Tagung Bamberg
14.–16. Juni 2001) (Bonn 2002) 175–194.
TùÒÒïÇñÌ 1926
A. M. TùÒÒïÇñÌ, La pontide préskythique après l´intro-
duction des métaux. Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua 2,
1926, 1–248.
TùÒÒïÇñÌ 1928
A. M. TùÒÒïÇñÌ, s. v. Staromyšastovskaja. In: M. Ebert,
Reallexikon der Vorgesäiäte 12 (Berlin 1928) 389.
TùÒÒïÇñÌ 1931
A. M. TùÒÒïÇñÌ, Zu der nordkaukasisäen frühen Bron-
zezeit. Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua 6, 1931, 126–145.
TÇÙðÊÌʧ 2004
V. TÇÙðÊÌʧ, Die Majkop-Kultur und die ersten Wagen
in der südrussisäen Steppe. In: St. Burmeister (Hrsg.),
Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation. Wa-
gen im Vorderen Orient und Europa (Mainz 2004)
167–176.
VªÒÉñ 1970
A. VªÒÉñ, Die Äxte und Beile in Rumänien I. Prähisto-
rische Bronzefunde 2, Abteilung 9 (München 1970).
WÇÙïî¬ 2007
H. T. WÇÙïî¬, Ancient Agency: Using Models of In-
tentionality to Unterstand the Dawn of Despotism.
In: E. C. Stone (Hrsg.), Se¥lement and Society. Essays
Dedicated to Robert McCormick Adams (Los Angeles,
Chicago 2007) 173–184.
316 Svend Hansen
YùҞÙÌ 2000
Ü. YùҞÙÌ, Anfänge der Metallverwendung in Anato-
lien. In: Ü. Yalçin (Hrsg.), Anatolian Metal I (Bochum
2000) 17–30.
ŽñÇù§Ùôù 1993
Z. ŽñÇù§Ùôù, Äxte und Beile aus Dalmatien und ande-
ren Teilen Kroatiens, Montenegro, Bosnien und Herze-
gowina (Stu¥gart 1993).
Гей 2000
А. Н. Гей, Новотитаровская культура (Москва 2000).
Кùлмыков / КоÉñнñвский 2001
A. A. Кùлмыков / С. Н. КоÉñнñвский, Новое погре-
бение с бронзовым топором эпохи средней бронзы
из степного Предкавказья. In: Материалы по иэу-
чению историко-культурного наследия Северного
Кавказа II (Москва 2001) 52–63.
КоÉñнñвский 2004
С. Н. КоÉñнñвский, Древнейшие земледельцы и ско-
товоды Предкавказья (Москва 2004)
К шнùÉñвù / МùÉковин 1994
К. Х. К шнùÉñвù / В. И. МùÉковин (ред.), Эпоха бро-
нзы Кавказа и Средней Азии. Археология 18 (Мос-
ква 1994)
ЧñÉных / ОÉловскùя 2004a
Е. Н. Чepных / Л. Б. Оpловскaя, Радиоуглеродная хро-
нология древнеямной общности и истоки курганных
культур. Российская aрхеология 2004, H. 1, 84–99.
ЧñÉных / ОÉловскùя 2004b
Е. Н. ЧñÉных / Л. Б. ОÉловскùя, Радиоуглеродная хро-
нология катакомбной культурной истоўической об-
щности. Российская aрхеология 2004, H. 2, 15–29.
Svend Hansen
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut
Eurasien-Abteilung
Im Dol 2–6
14195 Berlin
svh@eurasien.dainst.de