Page 85 - Lazar, Irena, Aleksander Panjek in Jonatan Vinkler. Ur. 2020. Mikro in makro. Pristopi in prispevki k humanističnim vedam ob dvajsetletnici UP Fakultete za humanistične študije, 1. knjiga. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem
P. 85
stik civilizacij: zgodovina interpretacij keltskega nakita iz isthmije
Waldhauser, J. 1978. Das Keltische Gräberfeld bei Jenišův újezd in Böhmen.
Archeologický výzkum v severních Čechách 6–7. Teplice: Regionální mu-
zeum Teplice.
Zaninović, M. 2003. »Područje Neretve i srednjojadransko otočje.« Izdanja
Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 22: 277–87.
Zirra, V. 1971. »Stand der Forschung der Keltischen Spätlatènezeit in
Rumänien.« Archeologické rozhledy 23: 529–603.
Summary
Contact of Civilization
History of interpretations of Celtic jewelry from Isthmia
One of the main topics of prehistoric archaeology in the last 50 years has
been the discussion of the chronology of contacts between the prehistoric
communities of Europe and the civilizations of the Eastern Mediterranean
– especially the Greek states and ancient Macedonia. This process was
mostly seen as a one-way flow of goods and information towards the north,
and only a few discoveries of objects of Celtic provenance pointed out that
it was, in fact, a cooperation and communication of relatively equal inter-
locutors. The discovery of Celtic ankle rings from the vicinity of Poseidon’s
Sanctuary in Isthmia was one of the few in the Greek world with a known
clear stratigraphic and chronological context. The interpretation of its
chronology has sparked heated debate in the decades since its discovery.
The proposed Mediterranean and Central European chronology of objects
did not appear to match – they were discovered together with pottery from
the late 4th century BC, while in Central Europe, their presumable place of
origin, they were dated into the middle of the 3rd century BC. Having prob-
lems with conceptually explaining their presence in Isthmia most authors
have taken refuge in the haven of historical determinism and attributed the
find to the period after the Celtic raid on Delphi in 279 BC when the Celtic
presence was indisputably attested. Such an approach further complicat-
ed the explanation of the contact since it ignored the dating of their con-
text of discovery – detailed archaeological results were overrun by a super-
ficial historical explanation. And even today, almost a century after their
discovery, only a handful of authors dare to interpret them as one of the
main illustrations of contact of civilizations and as an illustration of two
major problems – historical determinism in classical archaeology on one
and chronological problems of prehistoric archaeology on the other side.
83
Waldhauser, J. 1978. Das Keltische Gräberfeld bei Jenišův újezd in Böhmen.
Archeologický výzkum v severních Čechách 6–7. Teplice: Regionální mu-
zeum Teplice.
Zaninović, M. 2003. »Područje Neretve i srednjojadransko otočje.« Izdanja
Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 22: 277–87.
Zirra, V. 1971. »Stand der Forschung der Keltischen Spätlatènezeit in
Rumänien.« Archeologické rozhledy 23: 529–603.
Summary
Contact of Civilization
History of interpretations of Celtic jewelry from Isthmia
One of the main topics of prehistoric archaeology in the last 50 years has
been the discussion of the chronology of contacts between the prehistoric
communities of Europe and the civilizations of the Eastern Mediterranean
– especially the Greek states and ancient Macedonia. This process was
mostly seen as a one-way flow of goods and information towards the north,
and only a few discoveries of objects of Celtic provenance pointed out that
it was, in fact, a cooperation and communication of relatively equal inter-
locutors. The discovery of Celtic ankle rings from the vicinity of Poseidon’s
Sanctuary in Isthmia was one of the few in the Greek world with a known
clear stratigraphic and chronological context. The interpretation of its
chronology has sparked heated debate in the decades since its discovery.
The proposed Mediterranean and Central European chronology of objects
did not appear to match – they were discovered together with pottery from
the late 4th century BC, while in Central Europe, their presumable place of
origin, they were dated into the middle of the 3rd century BC. Having prob-
lems with conceptually explaining their presence in Isthmia most authors
have taken refuge in the haven of historical determinism and attributed the
find to the period after the Celtic raid on Delphi in 279 BC when the Celtic
presence was indisputably attested. Such an approach further complicat-
ed the explanation of the contact since it ignored the dating of their con-
text of discovery – detailed archaeological results were overrun by a super-
ficial historical explanation. And even today, almost a century after their
discovery, only a handful of authors dare to interpret them as one of the
main illustrations of contact of civilizations and as an illustration of two
major problems – historical determinism in classical archaeology on one
and chronological problems of prehistoric archaeology on the other side.
83
