Advertisement

The Amber Trail in Early Medieval Eastern Europe

  • Florin Curta
Part of the The New Middle Ages book series (TNMA)

Abstract

Prestige goods of Scandinavian origin have often been excavated along the northern frontier of the early Byzantine Empire. For instance, several dress accessories (brooches and buckles) and bracteates found in sixth-century burial assemblages in Hungary display ornamental patterns that are most typical for the so-called Animal Style I, a tradition characteristic of the ornamental arts of early medieval Scandinavia.1 Conversely, eagle-headed buckles produced in the region of present-day Hungary have been found on sites in Mazuria (northeastern Poland) that have been dated to the 500s.2 Artifacts from the Middle Danube region have also been found in rich warrior burials in the Baltic lands, such as Taurapilis in Lithuania and Warnikam in the Kaliningrad oblast’ of Russia.3 The focus here is on a different type of prestige goods: amber beads. Against commercial conceptions of an Amber Trail, this essay argues that Baltic amber reached eastern Europe as a status marker acquired through inter-elite gift exchange.

Keywords

Caucasus Region Sixth Century Baltic Amber Gift Exchange Grave Good 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Morten Axboe, “Ein C-Brakteat aus Ungarn,” Acta Archaeologica 49 (1978): 198–202.Google Scholar
  2. Günther Haseloff, Die germanische Tierornamentik der Völkerwanderungszeit: Studien zu Salin’s Stil I (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1981), pp. 187–88, 702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 2.
    Vladimir I. Kulakov, “Mogil’niki zapadnoi chasti Mazurskogo Poozer’ia kontsa V-nachala VIII vv. (po materialom raskopok 1878–1938 gg.),” Barbaricum 1 (1989): 183.Google Scholar
  4. Margit Nagy, “A gepida sasfejes csatok és kapcsolataik,” Mόra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 8 (2002): 209–43.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    Joachim Werner, “Der Grabfund von Taurapilis, Rayon Utna (Litauen) und die Verbindung der Balten zum Reich Theoderichs,” in Archäologische Beiträge zur Chronologie der Völkerwanderungszeit, ed. Georg Kossack and Joachim Reichstein (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1977), pp. 87–92.Google Scholar
  6. Vladimir I. Kulakov, “Gräber pruzzischer Stammesführer aus Warnikam,” Eurasia antiqua 3 (1997): 598 [595–628].Google Scholar
  7. 4.
    C.W. Beck, E. Wilbur, S. Meret, D. Kossove, and K. Kermani, “The Infrared Spectra of Amber and the Identification of Baltic Amber,” Archaeometry 8 (1965): 96–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 6.
    N. Repnikov, “Nekotorye mogil’niki oblasti krymskikh gotov,“ Izvestiia imperatorskoi arkheologicheskoi kommissii 19 (1906): 1–80.Google Scholar
  9. N. Repnikov, “Nekotorye mogil’niki oblasti krymskikh gotov,” Zapiski Odesskogo obshchestva istorii i drevnostei 27 (1907): 101–48.Google Scholar
  10. Vera B. Kovalevskaia, Khronologiia vostochno-evro- peiskikh drevnostei V–IX vekov: Kammenye busy Kavkaza i Kryma (Moscow: Institut Arkheologii RAN, 1998), pp. 28–32.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 11.
    Jerzy Wielowiejski, “Bernsteinstrasse und Bernsteinweg während der römischen Kaiserzeit im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte 3.2 (1984): 69–87.Google Scholar
  13. Annalisa Giovannini, “Le ambre di Aquileia: connotazioni generali e correlazioni culturali,” in Roma sul Danubio: Da Aquileia a Carnuntum lungo la via dell’ambra, ed. Maurizio Buora and Werner Jobst (Udine: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 2002), pp. 159–64.Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    Jerzy Wielowiejski, “Depositi dell’ambra sul territorio tra la parte media del Danubio e il mar Baltico dal I secolo a.C. al V secolo d.C.,“ Archaeologia Polona 25–26 (1987): 75–84.Google Scholar
  15. 13.
    Raimundas V. Sidrys, “Vakarų baltų gintaro įkapės geležies amžiuje,“ in Klaipėdos miesto ir regiono archeologijos ir istorijos problemos, ed. Alvydas Nikžentaitis and Vladas Žulkus (Klaipeda: Klaipedos Universiteto, 1994), p. 63.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Michael McCormick, Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce, A.D. 300–900 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 693.Google Scholar
  17. 19.
    Paul M., “Identity and Material Culture: Did the Early Slavs Follow the Rules or Did They Make Up Their Own?” East Central Europe 31.1 (2004): 99–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 20.
    Colin Renfrew, “Alternative Models for Exchange and Spatial Distribution,” in Exchange Systems in Prehistory, ed. Timothy K. Earle and Jonathan E. Ericson (New York: Academic Press, 1977), pp. 71–90.Google Scholar
  19. Stephen Shennan, “Exchange and Ranking: The Role of Amber in the Earlier Bronze Age of Europe,” in Ranking, Resource, and Exchange: Aspects of the Archaeology of Early European Society, ed. Colin Renfrew and Stephen Shennan (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 33–45.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Richard Hodges, “Henri Pirenne and the Question of Demand in the Sixth Century,” in The Sixth Century: Production, Distribution, and Demand, ed. Richard Hodges and William Bowden (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Karl Polanyi, “The Economy as Instituted Process,” in Trade and Market in the Early Empires: Economies in History and Theory, ed. Karl Polanyi, Conrad M. Arensberg, and Harry W. Pearson (Glencoe: Free Press, 1957), pp. 243–70.Google Scholar
  22. Richard Hodges, Dark Age Economics: The Origins of Towns and Trade, A.D. 600–1000 (London: St. Martin’s Press, 1982).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Philip Grierson, “Commerce in the Dark Ages: A Critique of the Evidence,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 5 (1959): 123–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Richard Hodges, Towns and Trade in the Age of Charlemagne (London: Duckworth, 2000).Google Scholar
  25. 27.
    Lotte Hedeager, “Warrior Economy and Trading Economy in Viking-Age Scandinavia,” Journal of European Archaeology 2 (1994): 130–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 32.
    A.I. Aibabin, “Kompleksy s bolshymi dvuplastinchatymi fibulami iz Luchistogo,” Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii 4 (1994): 137–38.Google Scholar
  27. 33.
    A.K. Ambroz, “Dunaiskie elementy v srednevekov’e kul’tury Kryma (VI–VII vv.),” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii Akademii Nauk SSSR 113 (1968): 14.Google Scholar
  28. A.I. Aibabin, “Khronologiia mogil’nikov Kryma pozdnerimskogo i rannesrednevekovogo vremeni,” Materialy po arkheologii, istori i etnografii Tavrii 1 (1990): 32–35.Google Scholar
  29. A.K. Ambroz, “Iuzhnye khudozhestvennye sviazi naselenie verkhnego Podneprov’ia v VI v.,” in Drevnie slaviani i ikh sosedi, ed. I.V. Kukharenko, (Moscow: Nauka, 1970), pp. 70–74.Google Scholar
  30. 34.
    Wojciech Szymaǹki, Szeligipod Piockiem nadpoczątku wczesnośredniowiecza. Zespόi osadniczy z VI–VII w. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1967).Google Scholar
  31. Zbigniew Kobyliński and Zdisław Hensel, ”Imports or Local Products? Trace Elements Analysis of Copper-Alloy Artefacts from Haćki, Białystok Province, Poland,” Archaeologia Polona 31 (1993): 129–40.Google Scholar
  32. V.V. Aulikh, Zymnivs’ke horodishche—slov’ians’ka pam’iatka VI–VII st. n.e. (Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1972).Google Scholar
  33. 35.
    R.V. Terpilovskii, “Kolochinskaia kul’tura,” in Etnokul’turnaia karta territorii Ukrainskoi v Itys. n.e., eds. V.D. Baran, R.V. Terpilovskii, and E.V. Maksimov (Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1985), pp. 93–98.Google Scholar
  34. 36.
    K. Deemant, “Das Steingräberfeld von Proosa bei Tallinn,“ Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised: Ühiskonnateaduste seeria 24 (1975): 79 [78–80].Google Scholar
  35. 37.
    G.F. Korzukhina, “Klady i sluchainye nakhodki veshchei kruga ‘drevnostei antov’ v srednem Podneprov’e,” Materialy po istorii, arkheologii i etnografii Tavrii 5 (1996): 397–402, 403–05.Google Scholar
  36. I.O. Gavritukhin and A.M. Oblomskii, Gaponovskii klad i ego kul’turno-istoricheskii kontekst (St. Petersburg: Institut Arkheologii RAN, 1996), pp. 45–46.Google Scholar
  37. V.S. Aksenov and L.I. Babenko, “Pogrebenie VI–VII vv. n.e. u sela Mokhnach,” Rossiiskaia arkheologiia 3 (1998): 111–18.Google Scholar
  38. Rasho Rashev, Prabǎlgarite prez V–VII vek (Sofia: Faber, 2000), pp. 17.Google Scholar
  39. Oleg M. Prikhodniuk, Pen’kovskaia kul’tura: kul’turno-khronologicheskii aspekt issledovaniia (Voronezh: Izdatel’stvo Voronezhskogo universiteta, 1998).Google Scholar
  40. 38.
    M.R. Polesskikh, “Armievskii mogil’nik,” in Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki mordvy Itysiacheletiian.e., ed. G.A. Fedorov-Davydov (Saransk: Mordovskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, 1979), p. 25 [5–56].Google Scholar
  41. 39.
    Herbert Kühn, Die germanischen Bügelfibeln der Völkerwanderungszeit in der Rheinprovinz (Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1965), pp. 95–101.Google Scholar
  42. Herbert Kühn, Die germanischen Bügelfibeln der Völkerwanderungszeit in Süddeutschland (Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1974), pp. 728–42.Google Scholar
  43. 40.
    Elzara A. Khairedinova, “Zhenskii kostium s iuzhnokrymskimi orlinogolovymi priazhkami,” Materialy po arkheologii, istorii i etnografii Tavrii 7 (2000): 91–133.Google Scholar
  44. 41.
    János Cseh, “Adatok az V.–VII. századi Gepida emlékanyag egységéhez,” A Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve 7 (1984–1988): 60 [29–80].Google Scholar
  45. K.F. Sokolova, “Antropologichni materiali mogil’nikov Inkermans’koi dolini,” Arkheologichni pam’iatki URSR 13 (1963): 124–59.Google Scholar
  46. 42.
    D.L. Talis, “Nekotorye problemy istorii rannesrednevekovoi Tavriki i literatura poslednikh let,” Vizantiiskii vremennik 19 (1961): 240–61.Google Scholar
  47. 43.
    Frank E. Wozniak, “Byzantine Diplomacy and the Lombard-Gepidic Wars,” Balkan Studies 20 (1979): 139–58.Google Scholar
  48. Walter Pohl, “The Empire and the Lombards: Treaties and Negotiations in the Sixth Century,” in Kingdoms of the Empire: The Integration of Barbarians in Late Antiquity, ed. Walter Pohl (Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 75–133.Google Scholar
  49. 44.
    Ian Hodder, Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982).Google Scholar
  50. Roy Larick, “Age Grading and Ethnicity in the Style of Loikop (Samburu) Spears,” World Archaeology 18 (1986): 269–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 45.
    V.B. Deopik, “Klassifikatsiia bus Iugo-Vostochnoi Evropy VI–IX vv.,” Sovetskaia Arkheologiia 3 (1961): 214.Google Scholar
  52. 47.
    Danuta Shanzer, “Two Clocks and a Wedding: Theodoric’s Diplomatic Relations with the Burgundians,” Romanobarbarica 14 (1996–1997): 225–28.Google Scholar
  53. 50.
    Attila Kiss, Das awarenzeitlich-gepidische Gräberfeld von Kölked-Feketekapu A (Innsbruck: Universitätsverlag Wagner, 1996), p. 142.Google Scholar
  54. Éva Garam, Das awarenzeitliche Gräberfeld von Kisköre (Budapest: Akadémiai kiadό, 1979), p. 17.Google Scholar
  55. 51.
    Przemyslaw Urbańczyk, “Geneza wczesnośredniowiecznej metalowych pochew broni białej ze stanowisk kultury pruskiej,” Przegląd Archeologiczne 25 (1977): 107–45.Google Scholar
  56. 52.
    M.I. Braichevskii, “Pastirs’kiy skarb 1949 r.,” Arkheolohiia 7 (1952): 161–73.Google Scholar
  57. 53.
    Vladimir I. Kulakov, Prussy, V–XIII vv. (Moscow: Geoeko, 1994), p. 118.Google Scholar
  58. 55.
    Svetalana A. Pletneva, Ocherki khazarskoi arkheologii (Moscow: Mosty kul’tury and Jerusalem: Gesharim, 1999), pp. 151–76.Google Scholar
  59. 56.
    Valentin V. Sedov, Slaviane v drevnosti (Moscow: Institut Arkheologii RAN, 1994), p. 76.Google Scholar
  60. 58.
    Nebojša Stanojević, “Naselja VIII–IX veka u Vojvodini,” Rad Vojvodanskih Muzeja 30 (1987): 130–31.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Celia Chazelle and Felice Lifshitz 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florin Curta

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations