Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T00:57:40.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE ORIGINS OF THE CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF SUCCINITE AND OTHER FOSSIL RESINS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN ZONE: THE STATE OF RESEARCH, FIRST INTERPRETATIONS AND QUESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2026

Janusz Czebreszuk Open the ORCID record for Janusz Czebreszuk [Opens in a new window]
Janusz Czebreszuk*
Affiliation:
Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
*
jancze@amu.edu.pl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents the first overview of the origins of the cultural significance of fossil resins throughout the Mediterranean zone. In particular, it focuses on one type of fossil resin – succinite, also called Baltic amber. However, it presents succinite in the context of other types, especially those whose deposits we register in the studied area. The article covers the several millennia from the beginnings of amber use in the Palaeolithic to the turn of the second and first millennia BC. The main analytical categories are space, shown by the presence of fossil resins in individual regions of the Mediterranean; time; raw material, as represented by the varieties of fossil resins; and cultural context, understood as the presence of artefacts from fossil resins in particular eras. Thanks to geology, we know the location of many fossil resin deposits, especially in Europe. The richest and most important deposits for the period under consideration, especially those of succinite, lay outside the Mediterranean zone, so succinite found there must have arrived through exchange. In recent years, methodological progress in recognising individual varieties of fossil resins, in which the Fourier transformation infrared spectrometry (FTIR) method is crucial, allows us to distinguish the basic varieties of fossil resins used in ancient times. This article is based on a new database of artefacts made of fossil resins from the Mediterranean area, and shows their diversity in terms of geography, time, and raw materials. The image that emerges is not simple; it shows a large degree of variability in all analytical categories. Nevertheless, it also reveals the growing interest in fossil resins by the increasing number of communities living in the Mediterranean and characterised by different cultural backgrounds. The author’s intention with this article is to create a starting point for further research and discussion on the cultural significance of fossil resins in the Mediterranean zone. This is an important issue in (pre-)history, not only for the geographical zone analysed, but for our entire continent.

Το παρόν άρθρο παρουσιάζει την πρώτη συνολική επισκόπηση της προέλευσης της πολιτισμικής σημασίας των απολιθωμένων ρητινών σε ολόκληρη τη μεσογειακή ζώνη. Ιδιαίτερη έμφαση δίνεται σε έναν τύπο απολιθωμένης ρητίνης, τον σουκινίτη, γνωστό και ως βαλτικό ήλεκτρο. O σουκινίτης συνεξετάζεται με άλλους τύπους σε ενιαίο πλαίσιο, ιδίως με εκείνους των οποίων τα κοιτάσματα εντοπίζονται στην υπό μελέτη περιοχή. Το άρθρο καλύπτει το χρονικό διάστημα αρκετών χιλιετιών, από τις απαρχές της χρήσης του ηλέκτρου στην Παλαιολιθική εποχή έως τη μετάβαση από τη 2η στην 1η χιλιετία π.Χ. Οι βασικές κατηγορίες ανάλυσης είναι ο χώρος, όπως αποτυπώνεται από την παρουσία απολιθωμένων ρητινών σε επιμέρους περιοχές της Μεσογείου, ο χρόνος, η πρώτη ύλη, όπως εκπροσωπείται από τις ποικιλίες απολιθωμένων ρητινών, και το πολιτισμικό πλαίσιο, που νοείται ως η παρουσία τεχνουργημάτων από απολιθωμένες ρητίνες σε συγκεκριμένες εποχές. Χάρη στη γεωλογία, γνωρίζουμε τη θέση πολλών κοιτασμάτων απολιθωμένων ρητινών, ιδίως στην Ευρώπη. Τα πλουσιότερα και σημαντικότερα κοιτάσματα για την εξεταζόμενη περίοδο, ιδίως εκείνα του σουκκινίτη, βρίσκονταν εκτός της μεσογειακής ζώνης· συνεπώς, ο σουκινίτης που εντοπίζεται σε αυτήν πρέπει να έφθασε μέσω ανταλλαγών. Τα τελευταία χρόνια, η μεθοδολογική πρόοδος στην αναγνώριση των επιμέρους ποικιλιών απολιθωμένων ρητινών και ο καθοριστικός ρόλος που διαδραματίζει η φασματοσκοπία υπερύθρου με μετασχηματισμό Fourier (FTIR), μας επιτρέπουν να διακρίνουμε τις βασικές ποικιλίες απολιθωμένων ρητινών που χρησιμοποιούνταν κατά την αρχαιότητα. Το άρθρο βασίζεται σε μια νέα βάση δεδομένων για αντικείμενα από απολιθωμένες ρητίνες από την περιοχή της Μεσογείου και αναδεικνύει την ποικιλομορφία τους ως προς τη γεωγραφία, τον χρόνο και τις πρώτες ύλες. Η εικόνα που προκύπτει δεν είναι απλή και παρουσιάζει υψηλό βαθμό μεταβλητότητας σε όλες τις κατηγορίες ανάλυσης. Παράλληλα, αποκαλύπτεται το αυξανόμενο ενδιαφέρον για τις απολιθωμένες ρητίνες από ολοένα και περισσότερες κοινότητες που ζούσαν στη Μεσόγειο και χαρακτηρίζονταν από διαφορετικά πολιτισμικά υπόβαθρα. Το παρόν άρθρο επιδιώκει να θέσει ένα σημείο εκκίνησης για περαιτέρω έρευνα και συζήτηση σχετικά με την πολιτισμική σημασία των απολιθωμένων ρητινών στη μεσογειακή ζώνη. Πρόκειται για ένα σημαντικό ζήτημα για την (προ)ιστορία, όχι μόνο για τη γεωγραφική περιοχή που αναλύεται, αλλά για ολόκληρη την ήπειρό μας.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , First View , pp. 1 - 24
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Council, British School at Athens

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Europe is rich in different varieties of fossil resins, or amber (Kosmowska-Ceranowicz Reference Kosmowska-Ceranowicz, Ganzlewski and Slotte1996). It is easier to point out regions without their own deposits than those where they are present. The former consists of the entire Aegean zone, the Western Balkans, the south-eastern Balkans (south of the lower Danube) and, to the south, the African zone of the Mediterranean. However, it cannot be ruled out that this list will shorten even further as geological work progresses.

Among the fossil resins known on our continent, succinite, or ‘Baltic amber’, is of particular importance. In nature, it is found from the east coast of England to the basin of the central Dnieper River (Katinas Reference Katinas1971). Nevertheless, its main accessible sources are concentrated in the southern Baltic from Jutland (Denmark) to Lithuania. Looking even more specifically, the largest known deposits are located in a small area from the Gulf of Gdańsk to the Sambia Peninsula. These have been exploited by people since settlement began in the area, after the final receding of the ice sheets (Mazurowski Reference Mazurowski1983).

It follows from the above that the most important amber-bearing areas were located far from the main cultural centres and classical civilisations of the Mediterranean zone. However, it is a well-known historical fact that succinite was already a widely used raw material throughout the Mediterranean at the time of Christ (Pasquinucci Reference Pasquinucci1978). The Romans valued its extraordinary properties and used it to create objects such as jewellery, figurines and cosmetics. The problem of how this ‘stone’ from the far north acquired such cultural importance has garnered the attention of researchers for several generations (de Navarro Reference Navarro1925; Harding and Hughes-Brock Reference Harding and Hughes-Brock1974; Harding Reference Harding1984; Hughes-Brock Reference Hughes-Brock1985; Negroni Catacchio Reference Negroni Catacchio, Palavestra, Beck and Todd2009; Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk2011; Murillo-Barroso, Cólliga and Martinón-Torres Reference Murillo-Barroso, Cólliga and Martinón-Torres2023; Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2023).

The purpose of this article is to publish the first account of the dynamic spread of succinite and other fossil resins throughout the Mediterranean zone. The existing scholarly consensus is that it was during the fourth through second millennia BC that the main cultural processes of fossil resin adaptation by various communities living in the Mediterranean zone took place. The crucial period for understanding these processes ends around the turn of the second and first millennia.

METHODOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS OF FOSSIL RESIN RESEARCH

The study of fossil resins faces several barriers which must be mentioned at the outset. These are: the diversity of geological origins of fossil resins, the speed of degradation of amber artefacts (the amber ‘aging’ process; see Beck Reference Beck1986; Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk, Borgna, Caloi, Carinci and Laffineur2019) from which problems with typological analysis arise, the scarcity of relevant artefacts, and chronological differences in artefact quantities (single versus mass finds).

The first barrier is the geological diversity of fossil resins, among which succinite is only one, though undoubtedly a key, variety. Geological knowledge about the places of origin of different varieties of fossil resins and their genesis is already quite considerable, especially in Europe (Katinas Reference Katinas1971; Matuszewska Reference Matuszewska2010; Cudny et al. Reference Cudny, Paprzycka, Stasiak and Włodarczyk2023). However, there are still problems with the identification of individual varieties by physical and chemical methods. The infrared spectrometry (IR) method was widely used (Beck, Wilbur and Meret Reference Beck, Wilbur and Meret1964). With it, it was possible to distinguish succinite from other fossil resins (Beck Reference Beck1986, 76–7, 84). However, this method was destructive in nature, necessitating irreversible changes to the artefacts under study. The integration of Fourier spectrometry with IR, resulting in the Fourier transformation infrared spectrometry (FTIR) method, has provided a non-destructive alternative (Matuszewska Reference Matuszewska2010, 133–6) able to distinguish additional varieties of fossil resins such as retinite (concentrated in the north-western Mediterranean) or simetite (Sicilian amber). While an important step forward, FTIR analyses can still end with results that can be classified as a number of different fossil resins. In part, this is due to the degradation of the studied material (impurities and oxidation). However, for the purposes of this article, it is emphasised that FTIR offers great opportunities for the study of succinite, simetite, and retinite. A larger problem is the small percentage of total archaeological amber finds that have been studied using IR/FTIR: more such studies are needed.

The second factor is the postdepositional degradation of amber. As a raw material of organic origin, it relatively quickly undergoes changes in its internal physical structure. Initially, this involves a loss of transparency, followed by a change in colour, and finally the appearance of cracks on the surface, which become deeper and deeper until they cover the whole piece and result in its disintegration (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk, Borgna, Caloi, Carinci and Laffineur2019). The speed of this process depends on external conditions. Oxygen availability, sun exposure, and high humidity (excluding complete submergence in water) are risk factors. An important accelerator of the degradation of fossil resins is when such environmental conditions are variable, as they by nature are when amber objects are in use.

Thirdly, due to this degradation process, amber artefacts are usually found in a dilapidated state, with portions missing or, in extreme situations, in the form of a shapeless nugget; this often makes their typological analysis impossible. To make matters worse, the act of excavating the artefact does not stop but can rather accelerate the process of degradation. All in all, there is a steady loss of typological (cultural) information associated with amber finds.

A fourth issue is the low number of known amber artefacts, which can be extreme depending on the scale of analysis. For example: what can a unitary (single in the whole region) finding of an artefact made of very geographically distant raw materials mean? It is possible to consider such a situation as an isolated event, a kind of curiosity, or an accidental cultural situation: the movement of a single object over long distances, possibly passed from hand to hand as a special something, foreign everywhere, incomprehensible, outside of any cultural rules/schemes and thus without social, ritual, magical, mythical or religious context.

In the case of amber, however, such an unequivocal conclusion should be blunted and the ‘curiosity model’ should be compared with other potential explanations. Given the degradation process outlined above, for fossil resins we should allow the hypothesis that the recording of individual artefacts represents a broader phenomenon. There was likely a greater presence of these artefacts, but some may have decomposed, some may have been intentionally burned as amber was often an ingredient of incense, and still others may not have been found by archaeologists and linger in the ‘archives of the earth’. This approach is methodologically better justified with regard to a raw material like amber, which by its organic nature has a much lower chance of survival compared to artefacts made of stone, metal or even antler. Thus, we cannot exclude the possibility that individual amber finds reveal the existence of trans-regional exchange networks.

Such an approach is further supported when single finds are found in a number of sites from the same region. This should unequivocally be considered a symptom of the cultural internalisation of amber by the regional community under study, which occurred as a result of the inclusion of this raw material in the network of long-distance exchange. Thus, amber in this case would also be a carrier of specific cultural content (mythological, magical, or religious).

Last but not least, one should not forget situations where dozens or hundreds of amber artefacts are found in a single archaeological assemblage in regions far from amber deposits. These cases may indicate a special, or even crucial, place of this raw material in the supra-regional network of exchange.

Given the issues identified above, this article makes the following assumptions:

  1. 1) FTIR is currently not only the most effective methodological tool for separating succinite, but also has great potential in defining other types of fossil resins, such as simetite and retinite.

  2. 2) Given the difficulties in identifying the forms of many amber finds due to postdepositional damage, typological methods will only play a supporting role here.

  3. 3) Any case of IR/FTIR-confirmed presence of succinite in regions remote from its deposits will be considered culturally significant.

  4. 4) A fundamental tool for analysing the importance of amber is the study of temporal and spatial trends: emergence, growth, decline, stagnation (steady low states), prosperity (steady high states), and disappearance. Comparisons of this kind are especially important in broad temporal and spatial frameworks, such as in the fifth to first millennia BC throughout the Mediterranean area.

Catalogued information about the finds is presented in Table A1 (see online-only Supplementary Material). Due to the large size of the database, the data was synthesised into basic parameters: site name, country and region, approximate chronological period, presence/results of IR/FTIR analyses, and key literature (in relation to fossil resin artefacts). As adequate locational data is not available for all finds, not all were included in the map (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

General distribution of fossil resin finds in the Mediterranean from the Palaeolithic to the turn of the 2nd and 1st millennia BC.

A grayscale topographic map of the Mediterranean region showing the distribution of fossil resin finds marked by black dots. See long description.
Fig. 1. Long description

The map displays a high density of fossil resin finds across Southern Europe and the Mediterranean coast.

* In the West, dots are scattered across the Iberian Peninsula, with higher concentrations along the northern and eastern coasts.

* Moving East into Central Europe, a dense cluster is visible in the Southern Alps and along the northern Italian coastline.

* In the Italian Peninsula, finds are distributed along the central spine and are particularly concentrated on the island of Sardinia.

* To the Northeast, dots follow the Adriatic coast and extend into the Balkan region, with some finds near the Carpathians.

* In the Southeast, a significant cluster is located in the southern Balkan Peninsula and across the Aegean islands.

* Along the Eastern Mediterranean coast, a linear series of dots follows the Levant coastline from modern-day Turkey down to Egypt.

* In the South, the North African coast shows very sparse distribution, with a small cluster near the Atlas Mountains and isolated finds along the Nile River.

Topographic features like the Alps, Carpathians, and Atlas Mountains are labeled in capital letters. A scale bar at the bottom indicates distances up to 1 200 k m, and a North arrow is located in the top-left corner.

A fundamental problem was to establish the chronology of individual finds. Exceptions included situations where cultural contexts with precise typochronological or absolute (14C/dendrochronological) data were available. Most finds had only general information on the subject, and the contexts in which finds were found further complicated issues. For example, the common deposition of amber in mass graves often used for hundreds of years is an objective barrier to trying to establish the exact chronology of the artefacts. The above limitations resulted in the following proposals. First, a dating framework model is proposed, including the following stages:

  1. 1) Palaeolithic (Fig. 2);

  2. 2) mainly fifth and fourth millennium BC – Neolithic (Fig. 3);

  3. 3) mainly third millennium BC – Chalcolithic (including Bell Beakers [BB]) (Fig. 4);

  4. 4) the turn of the third and second millennia BC to about 1700 BC – in Central and Western Europe: the beginning of the Bronze Age; in the Eastern Mediterranean: from the end of the Early Bronze Age to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (Fig. 5);

  5. 5) the developed second millennium BC (from about 1750/1700 to 1200 BC) – in Central and Western Europe: Bronze Age; in the Eastern Mediterranean: Late Bronze Age (Fig. 6);

  6. 6) the late second millennium BC (from 1200 to around 1000 BC) – in Central and Western Europe: the Late Bronze Age; in the Eastern Mediterranean: the turn of the Bronze and Iron Ages (Fig. 7);

  7. 7) the first half of the first millennium BC – in Central and Western Europe: the turn of the Bronze and Iron Ages; in the Eastern Mediterranean: the Iron Age.

Fig. 2.

Fossil resin finds in the Mediterranean dating back to the Palaeolithic. Legend: 1 – no FTIR/IR analysis; 4 – FTIR/IR analysis, which revealed the presence of retinite and other fossil resins (so-called Cretaceous amber). Map with site numbers from Table A1 (online-only Supplementary Material).

Topographic map of the Mediterranean region showing Palaeolithic fossil resin find sites concentrated in the Northwest. See long description.
Fig. 2. Long description

A grayscale topographic map of the Mediterranean basin and surrounding landmasses. A North arrow is in the top-left corner and a scale bar at the bottom indicates 0 to 1,200 kilometers. Major mountain ranges are labeled including the Atlas in the Southwest, the Alps in the North, and the Carpathians in the Northeast.

Archaeological sites are marked with two distinct symbols concentrated in the Northwest region (Iberian Peninsula and Southern France):

* Circular markers (Legend 1) representing sites without F T I R or I R analysis are located at:

- Site 85 on the Western coast of Portugal.

- Sites 334, 197, 161, 157, 317, 29, 277, and 240 clustered across Northern Spain and Southern France.

* Square markers (Legend 4) representing sites with F T I R or I R analysis confirming retinite or Cretaceous amber are located at:

- Sites 154, 199, and 18 clustered in Northern Spain near the Bay of Biscay.

Fig. 3.

Fossil resin finds in the Mediterranean dating back to the Neolithic period. Legend: 1 – no FTIR/IR analysis; 2 – FTIR/IR analysis which revealed the presence of succinite; 3 – FTIR/IR analysis which revealed the presence of simetite; 4 – FTIR/IR analysis, which revealed the presence of retinite and other fossil resins (so-called Cretaceous amber); 5 – FTIR/IR analysis which revealed other types of fossil resins (previously undefined geologically) or gave inconclusive results. Map with site numbers from Table A1 (online-only Supplementary Material).

Topographic map of the Mediterranean showing Neolithic fossil resin find sites categorized by F T I R analysis results. See long description.
Fig. 3. Long description

A grayscale topographic map of the Mediterranean basin and surrounding landmasses including the Alps, Carpathians, and Atlas mountains. A north arrow is in the top-left and a scale bar from 0 to 1200 kilometers is at the bottom-center. Sites are marked with five distinct symbols representing different F T I R or I R analysis outcomes.

* In the West (Iberian Peninsula), there is a high density of sites. Category 3 (triangles) representing simetite is concentrated in the Northwest (sites 128, 181, 23, 527). Category 1 (small dots) representing no analysis is found at site 25. Category 4 (square) representing retinite is at site 314. In the South of the peninsula, sites 179, 477, 184, 198, 177, and 159 show a mix of category 1, 3, and 5 (pentagon for undefined/inconclusive).

* In the North-Central region (Southern France and Northern Italy), a cluster includes sites 372, 253, 669, and 149. Site 149 is marked with a large circle (category 2) indicating the presence of succinite.

* In the East (Levantine coast), site 696 is marked with a category 1 small dot.

The legend in the bottom-left corner defines the symbols: 1 is a small dot (no analysis); 2 is a large circle (succinite); 3 is a triangle (simetite); 4 is a square (retinite/Cretaceous amber); 5 is a pentagon (other resins or inconclusive).

Fig. 4.

Fossil resin finds in the Mediterranean dating back to the Chalcolithic period. Legend: 1 – no FTIR/IR analysis; 2 – FTIR/IR analysis which revealed the presence of succinite; 3 – FTIR/IR analysis which revealed the presence of simetite; 4 – FTIR/IR analysis which revealed the presence of retinite and other fossil resins (so-called Cretaceous amber); 5 – FTIR/IR analysis which revealed other types of fossil resins (previously undefined geologically) or gave inconclusive results. Map with site numbers from Table A1 (online-only Supplementary Material).

A topographical map of the Mediterranean region showing Chalcolithic fossil resin find sites categorized by F T I R or I R analysis results. See long description.
Fig. 4. Long description

A grayscale topographical map of the Mediterranean and surrounding regions including the Alps, Carpathians, and Atlas mountains. A compass rose is in the top-left and a scale bar from 0 to 1,200 kilometers is at the bottom-center. Numbered sites are marked with five distinct symbols.

* Category 1 (small circles, no analysis): Scattered across the Iberian Peninsula (sites 60, 26, 428, 476, 424, 531, 182, 178, 57, 691, 350, 155, 156, 74, 174, 2), Southern France (sites 616, 221, 222, 689, 125), and single sites in Greece (259) and Egypt (36).

* Category 2 (large circles, succinite): Concentrated in Southern France and Northern Italy (sites 628, 625, 529, 427, 559) and Northern Iberia (sites 333, 244, 727, 216, 332, 430).

* Category 3 (triangles, simetite): Found in Western Iberia (sites 52, 27) and Sicily (site 86).

* Category 4 (squares, retinite or Cretaceous amber): Located in Southern France (sites 673, 676, 637, 671, 668) and Eastern Iberia (site 145).

* Category 5 (hexagons, other or inconclusive): Clustered on the Southern Iberian coast (sites 352, 355, 356, 353, 354) and site 78.

Fig. 5.

Fossil resin finds in the Mediterranean dating back to the turn of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC. Legend: 1 – no FTIR/IR analysis; 2 – FTIR/IR analysis showing the presence of succinite; 3 – FTIR/IR analysis showing the presence of simetite; 2, 5 – FTIR/IR analysis that showed the presence of succinite and other types of fossil resins (previously undefined geologically) or gave inconclusive results. Map with site numbers from Table A1 (online-only Supplementary Material).

A topographical map of the Mediterranean region showing archaeological sites with fossil resin finds categorized by F T I R or I R analysis results. See long description.
Fig. 5. Long description

A grayscale topographical map centered on the Mediterranean Sea. Major mountain ranges are labeled including the Alps in the North, the Carpathians in the Northeast, and the Atlas in the Southwest.

Archaeological sites are marked with numbered symbols across Southern Europe and North Africa.

* In the Northwest, near the French coast, sites 473, 474, 41, 403, and 34 are clustered.

* Moving East into Northern Italy and the Alps, sites 185, 611, 681, 337, 410, 687, and 319 are located.

* In the Southeast, on the island of Sicily, sites 110, 663, 108, and 109 are grouped.

* Further East in the Aegean region, sites 466 and 304 are marked.

A legend in the bottom-left corner defines the symbols.

* Small circle 1 represents no F T I R or I R analysis.

* Large circle 2 represents F T I R or I R analysis showing succinite.

* Triangle 3 represents F T I R or I R analysis showing simetite.

* Diamond 2, 5 represents F T I R or I R analysis showing succinite and other resins or inconclusive results.

A scale bar at the bottom center indicates distances from 0 to 1200 kilometers. A North arrow is located in the top-left corner.

Fig. 6.

Fossil resin finds in the Mediterranean dating back to the developed 2nd millennium BC (from around 1750/1700 to 1200 BC). Legend: 1 – no FTIR/IR analysis; 2 – FTIR/IR analysis showing the presence of succinite; 4 – FTIR/IR analysis showing the presence of retinite and other fossil resins (so-called Cretaceous amber); 5 – FTIR/IR analysis which revealed other types of fossil resins (previously undefined geologically) or gave inconclusive results; 2, 5 – FTIR/IR analysis that showed the presence of succinite and other types of fossil resins (previously undefined geologically) or gave inconclusive results. Map with site numbers from Table A1 (online-only Supplementary Material).

A topographical map of the Mediterranean region showing archaeological sites with fossil resin finds. Symbols indicate different F T I R or I R analysis results for succinite and other resins. See long description.
Fig. 6. Long description

A grayscale topographical map covers the Mediterranean basin, including parts of Southern Europe, North Africa, and the Levant. A compass rose is in the top left and a scale bar for 0 to 1200 kilometers is at the bottom center.

Legend symbols at the bottom left include:

* Small black dot (1): No F T I R or I R analysis.

* Large black circle (2): F T I R or I R analysis showing succinite.

* Dark gray square (4): F T I R or I R analysis showing retinite or Cretaceous amber.

* Dark gray circle (5): F T I R or I R analysis showing other or inconclusive fossil resins.

* Dark gray diamond (2, 5): F T I R or I R analysis showing both succinite and other/inconclusive resins.

Distribution of sites:

* West: A single square (4) is located in Northern Spain (site 351). Scattered dots (1) and circles (2) appear across the Iberian Peninsula and Southern France.

* North: High concentrations of succinite (2) are found along the Alps and the Northern Adriatic coast. A cluster of dots (1) is located in the Carpathians.

* Central: Sites are distributed along the Italian Peninsula and Sicily, with a mix of succinite (2) and inconclusive results (5).

* East: Numerous sites are marked across Greece, the Aegean islands, and the Levantine coast.

Three inset boxes provide detail:

1. Far West Inset: Magnifies Southern France and Northeast Spain, showing a dense cluster of succinite (2) and unanalyzed sites (1).

2. Central Inset: Magnifies Northern Italy and the Adriatic coast, showing a high density of succinite (2) and mixed results (2, 5).

3. East Inset: Magnifies Greece and the Aegean, showing a high concentration of succinite (2) and unanalyzed sites (1).

Fig. 7.

Fossil resin finds in the Mediterranean dating back to the turn of the 2nd and 1st millennia BC. 1 – no FTIR/IR analysis; 2 – FTIR/IR analysis showing the presence of succinite; 2, 3 – FTIR/IR analysis showing the presence of succinite and simetite; 2, 5 – FTIR/IR analysis that showed the presence of succinite and other types of fossil resins (previously undefined geologically) or gave inconclusive results. Map with site numbers from Table A1 (online-only Supplementary Material).

A geographical map of the Mediterranean region showing fossil resin find sites marked with numbered symbols indicating different F T I R or I R analysis results. See long description.
Fig. 7. Long description

A grayscale topographic map of the Mediterranean and surrounding regions. A legend in the bottom-left corner defines four symbols: 1 is a small circle (no F T I R or I R analysis), 2 is a large circle (succinite present), 2 and 3 is a pentagon (succinite and simetite present), and 2 and 5 is a diamond (succinite and other resins or inconclusive).

* Northwest (Iberia and France): Sites 665, 431, 258, 56, and 678 are marked with small circles.

* North (Alps and Central Europe): A high density of sites (e.g., 474, 219, 374, 530, 162, 308) follows the Alpine range. Most are small circles, with site 98 being a large circle.

* Northeast (Carpathians and Balkans): Sites 367 and 47 are in the Carpathians. Sites 726, 781, and 731-733 are in the Balkans.

* East (Levant): Sites 9 and 694 are large circles along the eastern Mediterranean coast.

* Central (Italy and Adriatic): Numerous sites line the Italian peninsula. Site 551-558 is a large circle. Sites 361-363 are pentagons. Diamonds (2, 5) are located at sites 721 and 545.

* Inset 1 (Sardinia): Located in the West-Central Mediterranean. It shows a high concentration of large circles (e.g., 227, 494, 642) and small circles (e.g., 648, 688, 638). Site 77 is a diamond.

* Inset 2 (Greece and Aegean): Located in the Northeast Mediterranean. It contains many small circles (e.g., 172, 376, 201-208) and several large circles (e.g., 713, 714, 121).

A scale bar at the bottom center indicates 0 to 1,200 kilometers. A North arrow is in the top-left corner.

Secondly, in the cartographic representations of periods (see Figs 2–7), only those finds whose chronology was limited to one of the above-mentioned stages were used.

In a similar way, data on the raw material sourcing was organised and simplified according to method of analysis and the type of fossil resin. Five categories were distinguished.

  1. 1) no FTIR/IR analysis;

  2. 2) FTIR/IR analysis which revealed the presence of succinite;

  3. 3) FTIR/IR analysis which revealed the presence of simetite;

  4. 4) FTIR/IR analysis which revealed the presence of retinite and others (so-called Cretaceous amber);

  5. 5) FTIR/IR analysis which revealed other types of fossil resins (previously undefined geologically) or gave inconclusive results.

The series of maps shows the dispersion of finds distinguished by raw material category in six of the seven chronological stages described earlier. While the final stage, the first millennium BC, represents the end of the initial processes of amber adaptation discussed in this article, it also represents the transition to and beginning of a new phase (Malinowski Reference Malinowski1971; Bukowski Reference Bukowski2002; Negroni Catacchio Reference Negroni Catacchio, Palavestra, Beck and Todd2009); it is therefore excluded.

THE INITIAL STAGE OF INTEREST IN FOSSIL RESINS

All sources of fossil resins that were available in prehistory aroused human interest. Amber has been used from the beginning of the settlement of our continent in the Palaeolithic (Burdukiewicz Reference Burdukiewicz, Kosmowska-Ceranowicz and Paner1999; Woltermann Reference Woltermann2016, 59–84). Initially, however, this use was always local and characterised by singular examples. An exception in this regard is the find from Moosbühl I in Switzerland (Schwab and Beck Reference Schwab and Beck1985). There, archaeologists have recorded the oldest succinite objects examined by the IR method (Schwab and Beck Reference Schwab and Beck1985, 266) outside their area of natural occurrence. This may indicate that succinite artefacts were already being moved long distances in the Palaeolithic (approx. 15000 BC; Schwab and Beck Reference Schwab and Beck1985, 266). It is possible that this was due to the seasonal migrations of Palaeolithic hunters.

The main effect of this initial stage was to familiarise various prehistoric communities with the properties of this material. As fossil resins with a biological genesis dating back many millions of years, they are a resource with unusual properties. It is a ‘stone’ that is lightweight, ‘warm’ and soft to the touch, usually transparent, and of a warm colour ranging from brown to yellow.

It is very likely that this raw material fascinated people with its properties and was imbued with specific mythological, magical, and religious meanings from early periods. It is not surprising, therefore, that interest in it, represented by increasing numbers of artefacts and their spread, grew over time.

OVERVIEW OF THE STATE OF AMBER RESEARCH IN REGIONS OF THE MEDITERRANEAN ZONE

The current state of research in each region of the Mediterranean will be presented before they are integrated into a dynamic narrative. From the west, the regions include: Iberia, southern France, the Central Mediterranean (Italian mainland with Sicily and Sardinia), the Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Northern Macedonia, Serbia, and Slovenia), the Eastern Balkans (Bulgaria), Greece, the eastern Aegean coast, the Levant, and Egypt. The absence of fossil resin finds in the African part of the Mediterranean apart from Egypt should be emphasised. This observation is surprising especially for the western part of the zone in question (modern Morocco), where contacts across the Strait of Gibraltar are dated as early as the Neolithic (Murillo-Barroso, Cólliga and Martinón-Torres Reference Murillo-Barroso, Cólliga and Martinón-Torres2023). These contacts were stable and intensive also at the BB stage (second half of the third millennium BC) (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk, Bogucki and Crabtree2003). It is likely only a matter of time before the first archaeological artefacts of fossil resins will appear there as well.

Iberia

A summary of recent intensive research on the cultural adaptation of fossil resins by societies inhabiting the Iberian Peninsula is provided above all by three articles: Odriozola et al. Reference Odriozola, Sousa, Mataloto, Boaventura, Andrade, Villalobos García, Garrido-Cordero, Rodríguez, Martínez-Blanes, Avilés, Daura, Sanz and Riquelme2017, Murillo-Barroso et al. Reference Murillo-Barroso, Martínez-Sánchez and Vera-Rodríguez2018, and most recently Murillo-Barroso, Cólliga and Martinón-Torres Reference Murillo-Barroso, Cólliga and Martinón-Torres2023. The areas analysed have numerous deposits of different varieties of fossil resins (Peñalver and Delclòs Reference Peñalver, Delclòs and Penney2010), concentrated mainly in the northern and north-eastern parts of Iberia. These deposits have been in use since the Palaeolithic and they were used until the Bronze Age (Murillo-Barroso et al. Reference Murillo-Barroso, Peñalver, Bueno, Barroso, de Balbín and Martinón-Torres2018, 31), mainly in the immediate vicinity of the outcrops. The first imported fossil resin was simetite from Sicily, which reached Iberia as early as the Neolithic (by the fourth millennium BC [Murillo-Barroso et al. Reference Murillo-Barroso, Peñalver, Bueno, Barroso, de Balbín and Martinón-Torres2018, 31] and possibly by the end of the fifth millennium BC [Odriozola et al. Reference Odriozola, Sousa, Mataloto, Boaventura, Andrade, Villalobos García, Garrido-Cordero, Rodríguez, Martínez-Blanes, Avilés, Daura, Sanz and Riquelme2017, 587]). Recent studies have shown that a succinite artefact from the Frare cave in Catalonia (Table A1:149 [online-only Supplementary Material]) dates to the mid fourth millennium BC (Murillo-Barroso, Cólliga and Martinón-Torres Reference Murillo-Barroso, Cólliga and Martinón-Torres2023). This find was probably the result of a trans-regional exchange network organised by the ‘Sepulcros de Fosa’ culture (Murillo-Barroso, Cólliga and Martinón-Torres Reference Murillo-Barroso, Cólliga and Martinón-Torres2023). In the Chalcolithic, the influx of simetite into Iberia assumes significant proportions, as evidenced by finds from Anta Grande to Zambujeiro (168 artefacts; Table A1:27; Odriozola et al. Reference Odriozola, Sousa, Mataloto, Boaventura, Andrade, Villalobos García, Garrido-Cordero, Rodríguez, Martínez-Blanes, Avilés, Daura, Sanz and Riquelme2017, table 1:16) or the Montelirio tholos (251 artefacts; Table A1:424; Odriozola et al. Reference Odriozola, Sousa, Mataloto, Boaventura, Andrade, Villalobos García, Garrido-Cordero, Rodríguez, Martínez-Blanes, Avilés, Daura, Sanz and Riquelme2017, table 1:27). In the same period, another site with succinite is recorded, on the north-eastern edge of the Peninsula at Larrarte (Table A1:332; Odriozola et al. Reference Odriozola, Sousa, Mataloto, Boaventura, Andrade, Villalobos García, Garrido-Cordero, Rodríguez, Martínez-Blanes, Avilés, Daura, Sanz and Riquelme2017, figs 21:19, 21:18 [sic]). It is possible that the artefacts from Llano de la Sabina 99 and 97 (Table A1:345,346; Murillo-Barroso et al. Reference Murillo-Barroso, Martínez-Sánchez and Vera-Rodríguez2018, 14,18), which are located in the southern (Mediterranean) part of the Peninsula in the province of Granada, are dated contemporaneously (third–first half of second millennia BC). Both finds in question were the result of a long-distance exchange within the BB network, which stretched across all of Europe at the time, from the Atlantic coast to the basin of the Vistula and the middle Danube (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk, Bogucki and Crabtree2003).

In the Iberian zone, the use of fossil resins occurred throughout the analysed area and included all major cultural communities. Nevertheless, the phenomenon in question was concentrated in coastal areas (Murillo-Barroso, Cólliga and Martinón-Torres Reference Murillo-Barroso, Cólliga and Martinón-Torres2023), settled by communities that participated most intensively in trans-regional exchange.

The second millennium BC, and in particular the first half of the millennium, was characterised by a marked regression in the use of fossil resins (Odriozola et al. Reference Odriozola, Sousa, Mataloto, Boaventura, Andrade, Villalobos García, Garrido-Cordero, Rodríguez, Martínez-Blanes, Avilés, Daura, Sanz and Riquelme2017, fig. 21; Murillo-Barroso, Cólliga and Martinón-Torres Reference Murillo-Barroso, Cólliga and Martinón-Torres2023). During this time, there were also changes in the hierarchy of importance of the different varieties. From the middle of the millennium, succinite is the most frequent find, though local Cretaceous amber and imported simetite are still used in trace amounts. Since the end of the second millennium BC (after 1200 BC), succinite was virtually the only fossil resin used by Iberian inhabitants. However, the relevant sites are sparse and have a small number of finds (usually single beads).

Southern France

Significant advances in the study of prehistoric amber in France took place in the last two decades of the twentieth century due to the efforts of one person: du Gardin (Reference Gardin1986; Reference Gardin1995; Reference Gardin, Mordant and Gaiffe1996; Reference Gardin1998). The result of her research was not only the collection and typological, chronological, and cultural classification of all the finds, but also IR analyses on a large group of artefacts. To this day, this effort positively distinguishes France in European amber studies.

The earliest fossil resin find, dating to the Late Palaeolithic, comes from the Isturitz cave (Table A1:277; White and Normand Reference White and Normand2015; Murillo-Barroso, Cólliga and Martinón-Torres Reference Murillo-Barroso, Cólliga and Martinón-Torres2023, 8) located on the eastern side of the northern Pyrenees. The number of finds increased in the Neolithic. During the third millennium BC, the oldest succinite artefacts are recorded in southern France, coming from a cemetery at Oye (Table A1:529; du Gardin Reference Gardin, Mordant and Gaiffe1996, 189) and settlement at Montpezat (Table A1:427; du Gardin Reference Gardin, Mordant and Gaiffe1996, 190). Both are considered the result of a long-distance exchange network organised by the BB. As in the case of the Granada find mentioned above, it was through this network that succinite first reached the Mediterranean coast. In southern France during this period, amber had a distinct dimension: succinite was found in many sites (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk, Galanaki, Tomas, Galanakis and Laffineur2007, 364). Of the approximately 50 sites from which IR analyses on finds from the third and second millennia BC were performed, only in one case (Viols-le-Fort – Table A1:765) were there doubts about inclusion in succinite (possible contamination; see du Gardin Reference Gardin1986, 568). This is a clear indicator of the stable and even monopolistic position of succinite lasting through the third and second millennia BC. Unlike Iberia, no regression in succinite use is recorded here in the first half of the second millennium BC. Conversely, from the middle of the second millennium with the Tumulus culture, the use of succinite becomes massive, although it should be emphasised that the group of the most numerous finds is concentrated in the central-eastern part of France, so not near its Mediterranean coasts (du Gardin Reference Gardin1986).

Central Mediterranean (Italian mainland, Sicily, Sardinia)

Italy is an example of the significant progress of research addressing the origins and use of fossil resins in recent years (e.g. Negroni Catacchio Reference Negroni Catacchio1971; Reference Negroni Catacchio, Palavestra, Beck and Todd2009; Reference Negroni Catacchio, Baldelli and Schiavo2014; Angelini and Bellintani Reference Angelini and Bellintani2005; Reference Angelini and Bellintani2016; Bellintani Reference Bellintani, Cazzella and Recchia2010; Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2023). Both the number of chemically analysed finds and the knowledge of find context are sufficiently large to allow us to paint a detailed picture of changes in fossil resin use through time. There was a gradual increase in interest in fossil resins beginning in the Chalcolithic (after 3500 BC; see Angelini and Bellintani Reference Angelini and Bellintani2016, fig. 5a). Initially, there were very few finds (Table A1:86). Only simetite was detected. Succinite appeared in northern Italy later at the lakeshore settlements of Lagazzi di Vho (Table A1:319) and Lavagnone (Table A1:337; Bellintani Reference Bellintani, Cazzella and Recchia2010, 140). Both are dated to the second phase of the Early Bronze Age (1800–1600 BC; see Bellintani Reference Bellintani, Cazzella and Recchia2010, 140; Angelini and Bellintani Reference Angelini and Bellintani2016, fig. 5b). At the same time (1800–1600 BC), the oldest succinite in Sicily is also recorded in a grave from Cava Secchiera near Syracuse (Table A1:663; Angelini and Bellintani Reference Angelini and Bellintani2016, table 1). In Phases 1–2 of the Middle Bronze Age (1600–1450 BC), six sites with succinite finds are already scattered throughout Italy (Angelini and Bellintani Reference Angelini and Bellintani2016, fig. 6a), a considerably higher number in comparison to the one site with local simetite. In the next period, covering the Middle Bronze Age 3 to Late Bronze Age (1450–1200 BC), the number of sites with succinite is even higher (12 sites; see Angelini and Bellintani Reference Angelini and Bellintani2016, fig. 6b). Succinite is also recorded for the first time on Sardinia (two sites in the southern part of the island; see Bellintani, Usai and Fadda Reference Bellintani, Usai and Fadda2012). During the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (c. 1200–800 BC), the number of sites with succinite finds remains similar, but the sites are clearly concentrated on Sardinia (Bellintani, Usai and Fadda Reference Bellintani, Usai and Fadda2012; Angelini and Bellintani Reference Angelini and Bellintani2016, fig. 7). This island became an important location for the concentration of succinite finds, which arrived there from mainland Italy as part of a trans-regional exchange network, the main elements of which were copper and lead from the island (Bellintani, Usai and Fadda Reference Bellintani, Usai and Fadda2012). Amber artefacts are found mainly in ritual places and tombs, used long-term, but on the basis of stylistic features, they can most likely be attributed to the times from the turn of the second and first millennia BC. It is worth noting, moreover, that a particularly high concentration of Tiryns and Allumiere type beads is recorded in Sardinia (Negroni Catacchio Reference Negroni Catacchio, Baldelli and Schiavo2014, fig. 1).

Throughout the period analysed fossil resins were used, but judging from the number of points recorded, this was not a massive use. Simetite was present throughout and prevailed until 1600 BC. Succinite was first recorded between 1800 and 1600 BC and became the primary fossil resin used in the Central Mediterranean after the latter date. Nevertheless, its mass use did not begin until the end of the second millennium BC, around 1100 BC. Moreover, it is associated with the remains of workshops where beads of the Tiryns and Allumiere types were produced. These are types geologically related to northern Italy (Cupitó and Leonardi Reference Cupitó, Leonardi, Cazzella and Recchia2010; Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk2011, 169; Negroni Catacchio Reference Negroni Catacchio, Baldelli and Schiavo2014). These workshops are the earliest archaeologically documented sites of amber processing in the Mediterranean zone.

Western Balkans

No fossil resin deposits have been recognised in the Western Balkans, so all fossil resin artefacts found there are considered to be made from imported raw materials. The classic work on the Western Balkans is the very important monograph by Palavestra (Reference Palavestra1993). The second work fundamental to the subject under discussion, showing the latest state of knowledge, is the monograph by Cwaliński (Reference Cwaliński2023).

At the outset, it should be noted that the amber artefacts previously considered to be the oldest in the Western Balkans – beads from Tomb A of Monkodonja in Istria – have been determined to be made of a different raw material. Originally, three amber beads were reported in this grave; a radiocarbon measurement on bone from the interred individual provided a date between the twenty-fourth and seventeenth centuries BC (Hänsel, Mihovilić and Teržan Reference Hänsel, Mihovilić and Teržan2015, 431, 434, 448–9, fig. 320). However, recent analyses revealed that these artefacts were not of organic origin at all (Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2020, 136, n. 8; Cwaliński, Kaur and Stout Reference Cwaliński, Kaur, Stout, Mihovilić and Teržan2022). Currently, graves 3, 7–8, 12–13 and tumulus B in Vrčin can be considered to contain the oldest amber finds in Istria, dating to 1700 BC (Buršić-Matijašić Reference Buršić-Matijašić1989; Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2023, 215–17). Recent FTIR analyses have revealed the presence of succinite in graves 3, 7, 8, 12, 13 and tumulus B (Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2023, table 36; Table A1:774,775,776,778,779,780).

Two other finds from Istria – more specifically the tumulus of Žamnjak (Table A1:788) and Novi Grad (Krmedski Novi Grad) Grave 1 (Table A1:493) – are dated slightly later, to around 1600 BC (Bačić Reference Bačić1960; Palavestra Reference Palavestra1993, 46–7; Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2023, 216–17). Succinite was recorded in the aforementioned tumulus from Žamnjak (Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2023, table 36). From the same period, amber is also known from the border of northern Croatia and Slovenia (Alilovci, survey E, ‘small house’; Table A1:13; see Mavrović Mokos and Pavličić Reference Mavrović Mokos and Pavličić2015, 21, fig. 16; Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2023, 231; diagnosed by FTIR as succinite; see Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2023, table 36) and from two regions located more to the south-east: the Glasinac region (Gučevo, Tumulus 4, Grave 1, excavated AD 1895; Table A1:257; see Benac and Cović Reference Benac and Cović1956, table V:31,32; Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2023, 245) and Podrinje and western Serbia (Savin Lakat; Table A1:654; see Lazić Reference Lazić2007, table IV:16; Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2023, 240). In the following centuries, amber products are known from practically the whole area, as far as Albania and Northern Macedonia.

It is worth noting, however, that amber artefacts appear relatively late (1400 BC) in the south-eastern edges of the study area, such as in Albania. These include: Tumulus 1, Grave 1 from Krumë (Table A1:310; Jubani Reference Jubani1982, table III:3; Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2023, 254–5) and Tumulus 16, Grave 19 from Çinamak (Table A1:129; Kurti Reference Kurti and Korkuti2017, fig. 4:5; Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2023, 254–5) (both: north-west Albania); Tumulus 2, Grave 9 from Shtogj (Mat valley) (Table A1:679; Kurti Reference Kurti and Korkuti2017, fig. 7:1; Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2023, 255–6); and Graves 186 and 201 from Rehovë (south Albania) (Table A1:605,607; Aliu Reference Aliu2004, table V:67–70; Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2023, 250–61).

In Northern Macedonia, amber appears in a similar period and is known from the Ulanci cemetery (Table A1:735; Videski Reference Videski, Galanaki, Tomas, Galanakis and Laffineur2007, 212), the eponymous site of a separate cultural group generally dated to the thirteenth/twelfth–twelfth/eleventh centuries BC (Mitrevski Reference Mitrevski2013, 187). The Ulanci group is considered to already have well-established contacts with the south and the classical (citadel) and late (post-citadel) phases of the Mycenaean culture. Probably, amber arrived there from the south, along with other Mycenaean features, just as it did in the northern part of modern Greece (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk2011, 125).

In addition, there are typological indications that there were amber processing workshops in the Western Balkans as early as the turn of the second and first millennia BC (Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2023, 577).

In conclusion, it is worth noting that succinite begins to be recorded in the area in question from the first half of the second millennium BC (c. 1700–1600 BC), starting in the north-west. While it quickly expands to many regions, the mass occurrence of succinite is dated only to the first millennium BC (Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2023).

Eastern Balkans

The state of research in modern Bulgaria is less advanced than in all parts of the Mediterranean zone discussed earlier. There are, however, some very significant finds there, such as the tomb from the village of Trigrad (Table A1:726), in West Rhodopes (Leshtakov Reference Leshtakov, Bonias and Perreault2009, 63, fig. 11). More than a dozen (min. 17) amber beads, copper/bronze wire twists, and one metal circle were discovered there. The beads typologically exhibit spherical and flattened spherical forms. However, they were made in a simple manner, adjusting the natural nugget to the desired shape by planing or chiselling without the use of a rotary tool. In terms of function, amber beads and twists of metal wire are components of necklaces and characteristic mainly of the Únětice culture (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk, Galanaki, Tomas, Galanakis and Laffineur2007, 365). Recently, this phenomenon was presented in depth by Ernée (Reference Ernée2012; Ernée and Langová Reference Ernée and Langová2020). Leshtakov (Reference Leshtakov, Bonias and Perreault2009, 63), on the other hand, discusses the find from Trigrad in the context of the Aegean Late Helladic (LH) IIIC, which undoubtedly makes it difficult to apply the Únětice analogy. Nevertheless, the phenomenon of a large temporal and geographic distance between the moment of manufacture (central Europe, Únětice culture, 1700 BC at the latest) and deposition (western Rhodopes, 1200 BC at the earliest) cannot be ruled out and it is possible the artefacts are heirlooms.Footnote 1

Greece

The Aegean zone is another region of Europe where no natural deposits of any fossil resins have been located to date, which allows us to assume that any such find in a cultural context is made of imported raw material. Moreover, typological analyses show that finished products were imported (Harding and Hughes-Brock Reference Harding and Hughes-Brock1974; Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk2011, 151–3, 170; Polychronakou and Nikolentzos Reference Polychronakou, Nikolentzos, Cellarosi, Chellini, Martini, Montanaro, Sarti and Capozzi2016) and underwent only minimal processing on site, though this does not exclude the possibility of significant functional differences (Maran Reference Maran, Hahn and Weiss2013). The last published catalogue of amber finds in the Aegean zone contained 225 items (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk2011), with at least 3523 artefacts recorded (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk, Bergerbrant and Sabatini2013, 557). Fossil resins appear in the studied zone in the Middle Helladic (MH): in Kolonna on the island of Aegina (Table A1:304), and in Mycenae probably in MH IIIB, although earlier dating cannot be ruled out. In Tomb I (jota) of Shaft Grave Circle B (Table A1:466), it is uncertain whether an amber bead (Mylonas Reference Mylonas1973, 121, no. I-331, 350–2, 401, 423, pl. 102β:1) was associated with the child burial, which is the oldest in the grave and comes from MH IIIA (Maran Reference Maran, Hänsel and Studeniková2004, 48). Due to the controversy over the absolute (calendar) dating of the different sub-periods in the late Middle and Late Bronze Age, the timing of amber (i.e., MH IIIA or the beginning of MH IIIB) can be dated to either c. 1775/1750 BC (so-called high chronology) or c. 1650 BC (low chronology).

From the very beginning, succinite predominated (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk2011, 17) and probably simetite (Beck Reference Beck1966, 208) and schraufite (Beck, Fellows and Adams Reference Beck, Fellows and Adams1970, 11–12) were also present. Over time, from about the middle of the second millennium BC, Baltic amber became the only fossil resin used by the Mycenaeans. This raw material was continuously present in finds deposited until the end of the Mycenaean culture around 1060 BC (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk, Bergerbrant and Sabatini2013, table 1).

Considering the spatial range of occurrence, it should be noted that amber in the Aegean zone was strongly associated with the area of the Mycenaean culture. At the end of the Middle Bronze Age, fossil resin artefacts appear in two regions: Messenia (Pylos and vicinity) and Argolid (Mycenae and vicinity). At the beginning of the Late Helladic (LH I–II, until 1420 BC), they were recorded in the Peloponnese and in Boeotia (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk, Bergerbrant and Sabatini2013, fig. 2). During its Classical period, the Mycenaean culture (LH IIIA2–B, to 1200 BC) covered regions from Thessaly to Crete and Rhodes (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk, Bergerbrant and Sabatini2013, fig. 3). It is only then that we also have the first finds outside the Mycenaean ecumene. For example, in the northern Aegean zone at the Phaia/Fea Petra Siderokastrou cemetery (Table A1:548), amber appears in LH IIIB1 (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk2011, 223). In the late stage (LH IIIC, up to 1060 BC), finds were concentrated in the Ionian Islands and around the Gulf of Corinth (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk, Bergerbrant and Sabatini2013, fig. 4). One can see a clear regression of the deposition of this raw material in Messenia and Argolid, i.e. in the oldest centres of the Mycenaean culture.

The Aegean zone stands out in terms of the number of amber finds. From the very beginning (1750–1700 BC), there is massive use (and deposition) of succinite in many places, mainly in burial contexts.

Eastern Aegean coast

There is a lack of information on amber finds in the literature from new research, although recent decades have seen spectacular intensification of excavations at Bronze Age sites on the eastern Aegean coast. In contrast, a special case from past research is Hisarlık (Troy). The presence of amber finds in the Early Bronze Age (i.e., dated to the end of the third millennium BC), like treasure L from Troy (Table A1:259), raised many doubts among researchers (Götze Reference Götze and Dorpfeld1902, 340; Harding and Hughes-Brock Reference Harding and Hughes-Brock1974, 146; Pieniążek Reference Pieniążek2016, 52). Of the two beads, one has retained its shape in its entirety (Pieniążek Reference Pieniążek2016, 52, fig. 1). It has a biconical asymmetrical form. The appearance of this type of amber form in the second half of the third millennium BC is unlikely. Also, the analogies given by Pieniążek (Reference Pieniążek2016, 52) refer to finds with a more symmetrical version of biconicality. Moreover, the good state of preservation of the artefact in question is also questionable (see Pieniążek Reference Pieniążek2016, fig. 1). Although it has a damaged (uneven/eroded) surface, it has maintained its transparency and a photo shows the course of the drilled hole. The main change is its intense cherry colour, which marks the first stage of the ‘aging’ of amber (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk, Borgna, Caloi, Carinci and Laffineur2019). Thus, for prehistoric conditions, it is a very well-preserved fossil resin object. In this context, the state of preservation of the second artefact from treasure L is puzzling: the inability to reconstruct the surface indicates a far-reaching stage of degradation, characteristic of the final stage of amber ‘aging’ (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk, Borgna, Caloi, Carinci and Laffineur2019). This raises the question of whether the two artefacts are really from a single context. Both the typology and the difference in the state of preservation of the two artefacts make us doubt the homogeneity of the analysed assemblage, and therefore such an early presence of amber in north-western Anatolia. Also unlikely is the hypothesis that the artefacts were actually from the site of Mycenae and were mistakenly mixed in with the Troy assemblage when deposited at the museum. It is ruled out by typology and also by the observation that one of the artefacts published by Pieniążek (Reference Pieniążek2016, 52, fig. 1) is preserved in good condition, incomparable to any find from Mycenae.

Levant

Fossil resin deposits dating to the end of the Jurassic period (about 145 million years ago; see Azar Reference Azar, Kosmowska-Ceranowicz and Gierłowski2014) are known from Lebanon, but their quality is clearly inferior to succinite. Although there are deposits of local fossil resin in this region, it was only with the advent of succinite that the use of fossil resins became widespread (Azar Reference Azar, Kosmowska-Ceranowicz and Gierłowski2014). The first list of finds (including doubtful ones) was published by Harding and Hughes-Brock (Reference Harding and Hughes-Brock1974, 169–70). The most extensive fossil resin use research project in the Levant was conducted 20 years ago by Todd (Reference Todd, Beck and Bouzek1993; see also Gestoso Singer Reference Gestoso Singer2016), who was assisted by Beck in a series of IR analyses. Her research showed that more than 500 fossil resin artefacts came from the area of ancient Palestine alone. Although less than 100 of them were subjected to IR analysis, 80% of the analysed pieces were made of succinite (Todd Reference Todd, Beck and Bouzek1993, 236). The earliest finds are from the Chalcolithic (Teleilat Ghassul; Table A1:696), but it is only for artefacts dating to the Late Bronze Age that we are certain they were made of succinite (Abu Huwam, Aphek and Wadi Tarafa; Table A1:1,31,787; Todd Reference Todd, Beck and Bouzek1993). The most spectacular are the finds from Ugarit (Ras Shamra; Table A1:734; Schaeffer Reference Schaeffer1939, 100), Mari (Table A1:369; Jean-Marie Reference Jean-Marie1999, 119–20, 122, 144, 151, 153, 158, 162), Alalakh (Table A1:11; Woolley Reference Woolley1955, 203, 208), and Enkomi on Cyprus (Table A1:214; Harding and Hughes-Brock Reference Harding and Hughes-Brock1974, 169). Both typological data (beads reminiscent of the Mycenaean style) and contextual data (occurring together with other finds of the Mycenaean provenance) indicate that the most plausible hypothesis of how amber goods found their way to these locations is their function as gifts from Mycenaean elites to local rulers (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk2011, 163).

Confirmation of such a hypothesis can be found from a shipwreck off Cape Uluburun (Table A1:736) off the coast of southern Anatolia which sank at the end of the fourteenth century BC (Pulak Reference Pulak and Cline2010, 862). It was a Levantine freighter, but there were probably two Mycenaean passengers travelling on board with amber beads (Pulak Reference Pulak, Laffineur and Halstead2005; Reference Pulak and Cline2010, 871).

Unique is an amber lion head (interpreted as a vessel) from Qatna (Table A1:601), stylistically betraying local, Syrian characteristics (Mukherjee et al. Reference Mukherjee, Rossberger, James, Pfälzer, Higgitt, White, Peggie, Azar and Evershed2008, 57). It was found in the context of other amber artefacts made in the Mycenaean style, which means that amber in Qatna is the result of an exchange with the Mycenaeans but also that with Mycenaean amber artefacts one piece of the raw material must have reached Syria. The lion head could therefore have been created as a result of a special request from the Qatna rulers to their Mycenaean partners for the transmission of a large piece of natural amber.

An exception is the recently published find of two beads from the site of Aššur (Iraq) in Mesopotamia, made of succinite and from a well-dated context (1800–1750 BC) (Bunnefeld et al. Reference Bunnefeld, Becker, Martin, Pausewein, Simon and Meller2023). It is a find located outside the Mediterranean zone, but important for the issues raised in this article. It indicates that before the Middle Eastern amber exchange network organised by the Mycenaeans appeared, there must have been another way for this raw material to reach Mesopotamia. This should be the subject of future research.

Egypt

Knowledge of fossil resin use in Egypt was summarised by Hood in Reference Hood, Beck and Bouzek1993. One find is mentioned (Armant near Thebes; Table A1:36) dating to the Predynastic period, where two fossil resin beads were undoubtedly recorded (Hood Reference Hood, Beck and Bouzek1993, 230; source work: Mond and Myers Reference Mond and Myers1937, 72, 94, 96–100). Hood (Reference Hood, Beck and Bouzek1993, 230) furthermore mentions several finds dating to the second millennium BC, i.e., to the period of the New Kingdom. Most are loose finds in the form of amber scarabs (Hood Reference Hood, Beck and Bouzek1993; Lamberg-Karlovsky Reference Lamberg-Karlovsky1963). Nevertheless, the most spectacular find of amber wares came from Tutankhamun’s tomb (Table A1:729), dated to the late fourteenth century BC (Carter and Mace Reference Carter and Mace1923; Carter Reference Carter1927; Reference Carter1933). These included a necklace of 60 beads, a ring (by the mummy), two large scarabs (by the mummy), a necklace of amber and lapis lazuli beads, a pair of earrings with amber and gold beads, a broken gold-covered artefact (probably an earring), a hair ring, and several other smaller artefacts (Hood Reference Hood, Beck and Bouzek1993). Hood published a photograph of the necklace (Hood Reference Hood, Beck and Bouzek1993, pl. XVI), which consists mostly of biconical beads. He aptly compared them to Tumulus culture finds in central Europe (Hood Reference Hood, Beck and Bouzek1993, 231). They are also known from the Classic phase (LH IIIA2–B) of the Mycenaean culture (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk2011, 79). Based on contextual analysis, Hood emphasised the rarity of the occurrence and unique value (probably in many cultural dimensions) of the fossil resin in the Pharaoh’s tomb.

In summary, except for the finding of an unknown fossil resin from Armant, artefacts from this raw material are concentrated in the second millennium BC. It is important to note that amber was processed in Egypt, as evidenced by the finds of scarabs. Some of them, like the necklace from Tutankhamun’s tomb, may have arrived there through diplomatic exchange and been used unaltered.

CHRONOLOGICAL AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

In the chronological and comparative analysis, I will focus on the regions that have provided the most data, in particular regarding the third and second millennia BC. These are: Iberia, southern France, the Apennine Peninsula, the Western Balkans, and the Greek mainland (Fig. 1). Of these, Iberia, southern France, and Italy have their own fossil resin deposits. In Iberia and Italy, these deposits were of interest to the communities living there, as confirmed by IR/FTIR analyses. In the Mediterranean part of France, we have no clear evidence of the use of local geologically confirmed fossil resin deposits (Perrichot et al. Reference Perrichot, Neraudeau, Nel and de Ploeg2007). The Isturitz site mentioned above lies on the margin of the northern Pyrenees. Only imported resins were used in the Balkans and Aegean.

Palaeolithic (Fig. 2 )

The Palaeolithic was characterised primarily by the use of local deposits on a local scale of low intensity, for which we have evidence mainly in the Iberian Peninsula and France. FTIR analyses in Iberia support this hypothesis (Table A1:157,161,199). Nevertheless, in the Alpine zone very close to the Mediterranean, the first succinite finds are present (Schwab and Beck Reference Schwab and Beck1985), which must have been imported from the north.

Neolithic (Fig. 3)

The spatial range of fossil resin use in the Neolithic included Iberia and France. It was the first period in which there was supra-regional exchange of fossil resin in the studied part of Europe. Sicilian amber (simetite) reached Iberia as early as the fifth millennium BC. This raw material was recorded at many sites (Table A1:23,128,177,181,184,349), but not in mass quantities. Also important is one FTIR-identified succinite artefact (Cova del Frare) dated to the mid-fourth millennium BC. This bead arrived in north-eastern Iberia as part of a trans-regional exchange organised by the ‘Sepulcros de Fosa’ culture. Furthermore, it should be remembered that local deposits were certainly still being used in Iberia (see Table A1:159), and probably in France as well.

Chalcolithic (Fig. 4)

In the Chalcolithic, the general picture of the dispersion of amber use in the Mediterranean did not change; it still covered the western part of the Mediterranean (up to Italy). However, it had a distinctly different internal structure and was characterised by a greater number of finds. Two exchange networks within which fossil resins spread are recognisable. The simetite exchange between Sicily and Iberia continued. In the Chalcolithic, we are dealing with the use of this fossil resin on a massive scale (compare very numerous assemblages: Table A1:27,424), which shows that the raw material in question was then an important component of cultural life and of a network of supra-regional exchange.

At the same time, and in particular during the second half of the third millennium BC, succinite also spread in Iberia. This phenomenon was related to the network of long-distance exchange organised by BB. However, Baltic amber did not reach the level of mass use during this period. In southern (Mediterranean) France, the oldest finds of succinite date to the second half of the third millennium BC and have also been linked to BB. The Apennine Peninsula has deposits of various fossil resins, including simetite in Sicily, which resulted in the appearance of the first amber finds probably as early as the early Chalcolithic (early third millennium BC). Such dating is considered most likely for finds from the Calafarina cave in Sicily (Table A1:86), discovered in the nineteenth century, which were subjected to FTIR analysis a century later. The studies showed them to be a local simetite (Cultraro Reference Cultraro, Galanaki, Tomas, Galanakis and Laffineur2007, 379; Angelini and Bellintani Reference Angelini and Bellintani2016; Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2023, 199). An isolated case in the Eastern Mediterranean is the tentative find from Troy (Pieniążek Reference Pieniążek2016) discussed above.

Turn of third/second millennia BC (Fig. 5)

This is the stage of prehistory when there is a significant change in the dispersion of fossil resin finds in the Mediterranean. We do not have any such sites (dated only to the late third/early second millennia BC) in Iberia, the main centre of use in earlier periods. They are instead present in France and Italy, where they formed the main concentration of fossil resin sites. The first finds of this type are also recorded in the Aegean. In France and Italy at the turn of the third and second millennia BC, succinite had a monopolistic position. This is especially evident in the former. In Italy at that time there were two centres of fossil resin deposition: on the Po Plain and in Sicily. Succinite is recorded in both, and in Sicily, moreover, well-dated finds of simetite appeared. In the Near-Alpine areas, Baltic amber may have appeared as a result of contacts between the Polada culture and the Únětice culture. At the end of the period in question (during the MH), the first sites with fossil resins appear in the Aegean, namely at Mycenae (Table A1:466; MH IIIA?) and at Kolonna on Aegina (Table A1:304; MH).

Developed second millennium BC (from about 1750/1700 to 1200 BC) (Fig. 6)

At the time, fossil resins were present in virtually the entire European Mediterranean zone, as well as in the Levant and Egypt. They were mainly concentrated in southern France, Italy, the Western Balkans and the Aegean. Nevertheless, it was the latter region that was then crucial in the consumption of fossil resins. It is also significant to emphasise the importance that the Adriatic Sea played in its spread in the Mediterranean basin.

By the second millennium BC, succinite already held an unambiguous monopolistic position, although local varieties were also used in Italy and Iberia (Table A1:143,351). The largest number of finds comes from the Mycenaean culture. On the Greek mainland, where no natural deposits of fossil resins are known, all amber finds are signs of supra-regional exchange. From an archaeological point of view, this was an abrupt process. Without any intermediate stages, amber appears at many sites in numbers going into the thousands along with the oldest finds of the mentioned culture (Maran Reference Maran, Hänsel and Studeniková2004), dated to around 1750–1700 BC. At first, amber artefacts were concentrated in the Peloponnese in the oldest grave finds of the Mycenaean culture. Physicochemical studies (unfortunately undertaken 50 years ago) indicate that succinite, probably simetite, and possibly other types of fossil resins reached the region at the same time. It is most likely that in a very short period of time (by the middle of the second millennium BC) only succinite remained in use, while other varieties of fossil resins disappeared from the palette of raw materials in use. This continued throughout the development of the Mycenaean culture until the end of the second millennium BC, although the number of preserved amber artefacts decreases. However, this is likely due to postdepositional factors: most of the richest tombs, in the form of tholoi and chamber tombs, characteristic of the classical and late phase of Mycenaean culture, were plundered as far back as the Bronze Age. Unfortunately, we have only a small number of IR analyses from Greece made by Beck and his team in the 1970s. They mostly point to the presence of succinite; but, given the level of accuracy of the IR spectrometry method at the time, it is highly likely that other varieties of fossil resins were also present, especially at the beginning of the Mycenaean culture.

Such intensity of use of fossil resins as in Greece was not found in any Mediterranean region in the second millennium BC or before. It can only be compared with the Únětice culture in Central Europe (mainly the first half of the second millennium BC), the partly contemporaneous Wessex culture in the British Isles, and the later Tumulus culture (the middle of the second millennium BC) which was spatially closest to the Mediterranean zone. All of the aforementioned cultures were in contact with the Mycenaean culture, and one of the most important objects of these connections was undoubtedly succinite. The main route of this contact was the Adriatic Sea and concentrations of finds marking this route are recorded in various places (Po valley, Istria, Apulia). A parallel/alternative route, especially at the stage of cooperation between Wessex and the Mycenaean cultures, could be the land route through modern France and then the sea route through the Tyrrhenian and Ionian Seas (Harding Reference Harding1984; Maran Reference Maran, Hänsel and Studeniková2004, 55–6; Reference Maran, Hahn and Weiss2013, 149).

It is also no coincidence that it was during the second millennium BC that the Western Balkans are covered with a dense network of amber finds, though it was not mass consumption as in Greece. A significant deficit is still the small number of FTIR analyses. On the other hand, an important factor was the lack of local fossil resin deposits, which can be treated as a circumstance facilitating the interpretation that the discussed finds were the result of a supra-regional exchange. With the above in mind, it can be concluded that the adaptation of succinite by the local communities followed a similar pattern to that of the other side of the Adriatic (Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2023).

In the literature to date, fossil resin finds dating to the Bronze Age and found in the Eastern Mediterranean have been treated as a symptom of contact with the Mycenaean world (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk2011). Nevertheless, the artefact from Qatna and above all from Aššur mentioned above indicate that there had to be another pattern to the movement of succinite to the Near East.

In conclusion, it should be emphasised that in the periods analysed in this paper (from the Palaeolithic to the beginning of the first millennium BC), the second millennium BC represents the culmination in usage of fossil resins by communities living in the Mediterranean zone. Unequivocally, succinite played a major role.

Turn of second/first millennia BC (Fig. 7)

The dispersion of amber finds does not change fundamentally compared to the previous stage, but the finds occur in lower density and numbers. This direction of change becomes apparent especially in southern France, where we record significantly fewer sites with amber than before. In Iberia, on the other hand, artefacts from this raw material come back into use. Unique in this picture is Sardinia, where many amber artefacts appear, revealing the increasing importance of this island in supra-regional exchange networks.

Succinite virtually dominates the entire Mediterranean, while local fossil resins decrease in importance even in their regions of origin. The main consumer of Baltic amber changes and becomes the inhabitants of Italy. Succinite reaches this region in the form of natural unprocessed pieces and there, specifically in the Po valley, it is processed into distinctive artefacts (mainly Tiryns and Allumiere type beads). The workshops at Fondo Paviani (Table A1:226; Cupitó and Leonardi Reference Cupitó, Leonardi, Cazzella and Recchia2010) and Campestrin (Table A1:88; Bellintani Reference Bellintani2014) are the oldest amber processing sites in the entire Mediterranean zone. Thus began a long tradition of Italian amber working which had its apogee during the Roman Empire in the first centuries AD.

From Italy, the aforementioned bead types reached Greece, which continued to consume much amber, although it was not a mass phenomenon. Fossil resin finds, however, are known from a number of sites dating to the turn of the second/first millennia BC. The Western Balkans also benefitted from this exchange and amber finds are still recorded, especially along the Adriatic coast.

Conclusion

Significant differences can be seen between the western and eastern parts of the Mediterranean. In the west, where local fossil resins were also used, amber entered cultural use very quickly (as early as during the Palaeolithic, and definitely during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic).

It was there that one of the varieties of fossil resins (simetite) was first included in the trans-regional exchange network. Simetite was thus the first fossil resin to be exchanged on our continent. It is paradoxical that the greatest number of finds made from this raw material was not recorded in its region of origin (Sicily), but in distant Iberia. From around the same period, we have examples of long-distance exchange networks with a similar structure, such as in the case of axes made of jade (Klassen Reference Klassen2004) or striped flint (Szmyt Reference Szmyt, Urbańczyk and Włodarczak2017, 238, fig. 22). They are interpreted as objects exchanged as part of extensive (trans-regional) cultural networks. Owning such objects indicated the high social prestige of those who possessed them, both regionally and supra-regionally. In terms of the first, they distinguished the few from the other members of the regional community excluded from the possibility of owning such axes; in terms of the latter, axes of jade and striped flint were the ‘hallmark’ of participants in supra-regional exchanges.

The first find of succinite in the Mediterranean zone is very early, as it is dated to the middle of the fourth millennium BC (Frare cave in Catalonia; see Murillo-Barroso, Cólliga and Martinón-Torres Reference Murillo-Barroso, Cólliga and Martinón-Torres2023). However, a greater number of succinite artefacts are recorded later, after 2500 BC. Then, it occurs at many sites, but in small quantities. This occurred in southern France and Iberia. This fact is linked to exchange within the BB network.

Based on the above-mentioned network, another structure of supra-regional exchange emerges, which can be described as ‘Early Bronze Age’ (turn of the third/second millennia BC). It covered Western and Central Europe, and its main nodes were in Central Europe (Únětice culture; 2100–1700 BC; see Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk2011; Ernée Reference Ernée2012), the British Isles (Wessex culture; 1950–1500 BC; see Beck and Shennan Reference Beck and Shennan1991; Needham et al. Reference Needham, Parker Pearson, Tyler, Richards and Jay2010, table 1) and the Caput Adriae area (Polada culture; Nicolis Reference Nicolis, Fokkens and Harding2013). All of the cultures of these nodes developed out of the BB and are located in ‘post-BB’ areas. It was through this network that Baltic amber reached the Aegean and specifically the Peloponnese where the Mycenaean culture was forming at the beginning of the second millennium BC (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk2011).

In the Eastern Mediterranean, the appearance of succinite also marks the beginning of the adaptation of fossil resins. At first, this raw material co-occurred with other resins, although in the Aegean it clearly predominated. Over time (late second and early first millennia BC) it remained the only fossil resin in use.

The great crisis of the year 1200 BC (Sandars Reference Sandars1978; Drews Reference Drews1993), which covered the entire Eastern Mediterranean, certainly affected the pattern of succinite exchange. The previous intermediary communities living in the Caput Adriae region took over the role of the main destination in the exchange with the north. Moreover, there were structural changes in the exchanges. After 1200 BC, finished goods no longer arrived in the Mediterranean, as they had previously; instead, raw material was imported and then processed locally (the Po valley). At that time, a particular northern Italian style of amber artefacts developed, with Tiryns and Allumiere type beads.

POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS OF CULTURAL PROCESSES

The beginning of the use of fossil resins in the Mediterranean world can be traced back several thousand years, indicating that it was a long-term phenomenon, covering a vast area that was inhabited by diverse communities with a specific cultural background. Several stages can be distinguished in this process.

Stage 1 was associated with the use of indigenous fossil resin varieties on a local/regional scale. It covered regions from Iberia to the Apennine Peninsula and took place in the Palaeolithic and early Neolithic. It should be remembered that succinite use is documented as early as the Palaeolithic very close to the Mediterranean zone (the Alps).

Stage 2 involved the full integration of fossil resins into the network of supra-regional exchange. The circulating variety of fossil resin, however, was not succinite. The exchange primarily involved simetite and covered regions from Sicily and the Apennine Peninsula to Iberia, areas with their own fossil resin resources. The phenomenon lasted from the end of the fifth to the second millennium BC, but its greatest intensity occurred in the fourth and third millennia BC. The circulation pattern of simetite was simple, involving the two centres of Sicily and Iberia, and unidirectional, from Sicily to Iberia. It is in the middle of the fourth millennium BC that the first find of succinite certified by FTIR analysis also appeared in the network of supra-regional exchanges then being organised by the ‘Sepulcros de Fosa’ culture.

Stage 3 can be dated from the second half of the third millennium BC to the end of the study period. During this time, there was a growing preference for succinite until it eventually became the sole amber type in use. This process had a pan-European dimension, and from the second millennium BC it also covered the entire northern Mediterranean. To some extent it was also present in the east in the Levant and Egypt. The process can be reconstructed in the form of several chronologically consecutive networks of supra-regional exchange that are interrelated in various ways. After entering supra-regional exchange networks as a raw material in the second half of the third millennium BC, Baltic amber remained in circulation for nearly 2000 years despite the cultural transformations that encompassed Europe. During this period, there was always one Mediterranean centre dominating and setting the tone of exchange with the north for the rest, though which centre this was changed.

At the beginning, in the second half of the third millennium BC, the network associated with BB was crucial. In the Mediterranean zone, its scope included only the north-western areas (Iberia and southern France) with a long tradition of fossil resin use. These areas constituted the south-western edge of the network of exchange of ideas and artefacts organised by the BB. The entire network reached from the Vistula basin in the north-east, to the British Isles in the north-west, southern Italy and Sicily in the south-east, and Morocco in the south-west (Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk, Bogucki and Crabtree2003). At the turn of the third and second millennia BC and in the first half of the second millennium BC, the main roles in the spread and use of Baltic amber were played by groups in Central Europe (Únětice culture), the British Isles (Wessex culture), and the Caput Adriae area (Polada culture). The aforementioned units formed the nodes of a network referred to in Western and Central Europe as the Early Bronze Exchange Network. This network was probably the one that played a key role in the genesis of the process of succinite adaptation by the Mycenaean culture around 1775/1750 BC.

From then on, a model was formed in which the Mycenaean culture was the main recipient of amber (in the form of ready-made artefacts) in the Mediterranean, which lasted until around 1200 BC. Its partners in the supply of Baltic amber probably changed. Over time, various Central European centres fulfilled this function. First it was the classical phase of the Únětice culture (in conjunction with the Polada culture), then the Wessex 1800–1500 BC culture (Needham et al. Reference Needham, Parker Pearson, Tyler, Richards and Jay2010, 365; Maran Reference Maran, Hahn and Weiss2013) and Vatya culture 1800/1750–1600 BC with Otomani-Füzesabony 1700–1500 BC (see Jaeger Reference Jaeger, Cellarosi, Chellini, Martini, Montanaro, Sarti and Capozzi2017; Reference Jaeger2022; Carpathian Basin), followed by the Tumulus culture 1500–1200 BC (see du Gardin Reference Gardin1986; Woltermann Reference Woltermann2016; Upper Rhine and Danube basins). The next stage of succinite exchange, after 1200 BC, partly beyond the scope of this study, was organised by the Urnfield circle communities. It also brought a change in the location of the main centre of consumption of Baltic amber in the Mediterranean. This area became Italy, especially the Po valley (more broadly, the Caput Adriae region), where the oldest amber processing workshops are recorded after 1200 BC (see Cwaliński Reference Cwaliński2023), which proves that the raw material arrived there en masse in the form of natural pieces of amber.

CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS FOR THE FUTURE

From the perspective of the process of cultural introduction of fossil resins, the entire Mediterranean area can be divided into three zones: (A) included, (B) marginal and (C) excluded.

  1. A. This includes the Iberian, Apennine, and Aegean peninsulas, along with the regions and islands in between. It is in these areas that fossil resin artefacts are most numerous, indicating that they also had significant cultural value for the communities living there, especially during the third and second millennia BC.

  2. B. The marginal zone consists of Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt, where we note, especially during the second millennium BC, isolated finds of fossil resins occurring in spectacular or extraordinary cultural contexts.

  3. C. The lack of fossil resin finds from the stages of history discussed here until the Roman Empire is observed in the areas of modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya. At least in some of them (Morocco, for example), this may be a result of the state of research.

Looking from a chronological perspective, in broad terms we can unequivocally state that only two varieties of fossil resins, namely simetite (Sicilian amber) and succinite (Baltic amber), have transcended the range of their natural occurrence.

Simetite was already in use in Iberia by the late fifth and early fourth millennia BC (Murillo-Barroso et al. Reference Murillo-Barroso, Martínez-Sánchez and Vera-Rodríguez2018). Moreover, the number of finds indicates that this use was on a massive scale. Nevertheless, this condition lasted only until the turn of the third and second millennia BC and was limited only to the region in question. Outside Iberia, simetite was known in small numbers. There are indications that in the first half of the second millennium BC it was also recorded in the finds of the early Mycenaean culture (Beck Reference Beck1966). Nevertheless, even in the Central Mediterranean (Italy) it was not used on a mass scale.

Succinite was the only variety of fossil resin to break through two major barriers on a pan-Mediterranean scale: locality (it occurred in all regions where fossil resins were recorded) and high abundance (it was used en masse). The process of the spread of Baltic amber in the studied zone of Europe began in the third millennium BC, although we also have a finding from the middle of the fourth millennium BC certified by FTIR analysis.

It is unlikely that the process of the spread of fossil resins in the Mediterranean zone can be framed as a single cultural phenomenon. This problem should be the subject of future research. From the data collected, it appears that the simetite and succinite exchange networks were two separate cultural processes. They can only be linked in a very general way: they are a cross-cultural and transtemporal externalisation of the growing need for the use of fossil resins among Mediterranean communities.

Another task still before us is to model the emergence of succinite in the Aegean zone: the sudden and widespread presence of this raw material from the very beginning of the Mycenaean culture. While this phenomenon has already been comprehensively described, we are far from explaining it. Undoubtedly, the way towards this goal is to increase the number of specialised analyses of the oldest amber finds in the Mediterranean zone. Another challenge facing researchers of the problem of the origins of succinite use in Europe is to date as many contexts as possible and determine their cultural character. The issues outlined above span a vast research perspective. It is time to fill it with concrete data.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245426100380.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wants to thank Dr Colette du Gardin for providing typescript data from her doctoral dissertation, Sylwia Żyłka, MA, for her assistance in compiling the catalogue, and Dr Mateusz Cwaliński and Prof. Marzena Szmyt for substantive consultation. I also thank Dr Giorgos Doulfis for his support in Greek translations. Many thanks also to Prof. Jakub Niebieszczański and Dr Jutta Kneisel for their help. The author also thanks both anonymous reviewers, especially Reviewer 1. Their comments and corrections were used in the text and will surely prove to be valuable in the author’s future research.

Footnotes

1 See the discussion on this topic in Czebreszuk Reference Czebreszuk, Borgna, Caloi, Carinci and Laffineur2019.

References

REFERENCES

Aliu, S. 2004. Tuma e Luarasit (Tiranë).Google Scholar
Angelini, I. and Bellintani, P. 2005. ‘Archaeological ambers from Northern Italy: an FTIR–DRIFT study of provenance by comparison with the geological amber’, Archaeometry 47.2, 441–54.10.1111/j.1475-4754.2005.00212.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angelini, I. and Bellintani, P. 2016. ‘The use of different amber sources in Italy during the Bronze Age: new archaeometric data’, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 9.4, 673–84.10.1007/s12520-016-0452-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azar, D. 2014. ‘Lebanese amber – age and outcrops’, in Kosmowska-Ceranowicz, B. and Gierłowski, W. (eds), Amber. Views, Opinions , vol. 2 (Gdańsk and Warsaw), 39.Google Scholar
Bačić, B. 1960. ‘Tumuli iz brončanog doba na Maklavunu i Zamnjaku u juznoj Istri’, Jadranski Zbornik 4, 197–210.Google Scholar
Beck, C.W. 1966. ‘Analysis and provenience of Minoan and Mycenaean amber. I’, GRBS 7, 191–211.Google Scholar
Beck, C.W. 1986. ‘Spectroscopic investigations of amber’, Applied Spectroscopy Reviews 22.1, 57–110.10.1080/05704928608060438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, C.W., Fellows, C.A. and Adams, A.B. 1970. ‘Analysis and provenience of Mycenaean amber. III. Kakovatos’, GRBS 11, 5–22.Google Scholar
Beck, C.W. and Shennan, S. 1991. Amber in Prehistoric Britain (Oxford).Google Scholar
Beck, C.W., Wilbur, E. and Meret, S. 1964. ‘Infrared spectra and the origin of amber’, Nature 201, 256.10.1038/201256a0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellintani, P. 2010. ‘Ambra. Una materia prima dal nord (ma non solo)’, in Cazzella, A. and Recchia, G. (eds), Ambra per Agamennone. Indigeni e Micenei tra Egeo, Ionio e Adriatico nel II millennio a.C. (Bari), 139–44.Google Scholar
Bellintani, P. 2014. ‘Baltic amber, Alpine copper and glass beads from the Po plain: amber trade at the time of Campestrin and Frattesina’, Padusa 50, 111–39.Google Scholar
Bellintani, P., Usai, A. and Fadda, M.A. 2012. ‘Ambre protostoriche della Sardegna: nuovi dati su tipologia e possibili indicatori di lavorazione locale’, in I.I.P.P. (eds), La preistoria e la protostoria della Sardegna. Atti della XLIV Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria (Cagliari, Barumini, Sassari 23–28 novembro 2009) (Florence), 1163–71.Google Scholar
Benac, A. and Cović, B. 1956. Glasinac I – Bronzano doba/Glasinac I – Bronzezeit. Katalog prehistorijske zbirke Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevo, sveska 1 (Sarajevo).Google Scholar
Bukowski, Z. 2002. Znaleziska bursztynu w zespołach z epoki brązu i z wczesnej epoki żelaza z dorzecza Odry oraz Wisły (Warsaw).Google Scholar
Bunnefeld, J., Becker, J., Martin, L., Pausewein, R., Simon, S. and Meller, H. 2023. ‘Baltic amber in Aššur: forms and significance of amber exchange between Europe and the Middle East, c.2000–1300 bc’, ActaArch 92.2, 228–43.Google Scholar
Burdukiewicz, J. 1999. ‘Late Palaeolithic amber in Northern Europe’, in Kosmowska-Ceranowicz, B. and Paner, H. (eds), Investigations into Amber (Gdańsk), 99–110.Google Scholar
Buršić-Matijašić, K. 1989. ‘Gradina Vrčin u okviru brončanog doba Istre’, ArhVest 39–40, 475–94.Google Scholar
Carter, H. 1927. The Tomb of Tut.ankh.amen. II (London).Google Scholar
Carter, H. 1933. The Tomb of Tut.ankh.amen. III (London).Google Scholar
Carter, H. and Mace, A.C. 1923. The Tomb of Tut.ankh.amen. I (London).Google Scholar
Cudny, W., Paprzycka, J., Stasiak, A. and Włodarczyk, B. 2023. ‘The contribution of amber to heritage tourism development’, Geographia Polonica 96.3, 339–60.10.7163/GPol.0259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cultraro, M. 2007. ‘Evidence of amber in Bronze Age Sicily: local sources and the Balkan-Mycenaean connection’, in Galanaki, I., Tomas, H., Galanakis, Y. and Laffineur, R. (eds), Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas. Prehistory across Borders (Aegaeum 27; Liège), 377–90.Google Scholar
Cupitó, M. and Leonardi, G. 2010. ‘Fondo Paviani’, in Cazzella, A. and Recchia, G. (eds), Ambra per Agamennone. Indigeni e Micenei tra Adriatico, Ionio ed Egeo (Bari), 160–3.Google Scholar
Cwaliński, M. 2020. ‘Bronze Age amber in Western and Central Balkans’, ArhVest 71, 133–72.Google Scholar
Cwaliński, M. 2023. Amber in the Circum-Adriatic Bronze Age. Acquisition, Circulation and Adaptation (Lausanne).10.3726/b20493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cwaliński, M., Kaur, S. and Stout, E. 2022. ‘Provenience of Bronze Age amber finds from Istria’, in Mihovilić, K. and Teržan, B. (eds), Monkodonja – istraživanje protourbanog naselja brončanog doba Istre, knijga 4: Mušego / Mon Sego, grobni tumuli – nekropola gradine Monkodonja i brončanodobni tumuli Istre. Arheološkog muzej Istre, Mušego (Monografije i katalozi Arheološkoga muzeja Istre, svezak broj 37; Pula), 329–44.Google Scholar
Czebreszuk, J. 2003. ‘Bell Beakers from West to East’, in Bogucki, P. and Crabtree, P.J. (eds), Ancient Europe 8000 bc–ad 1000: Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World (New York), 476–85.Google Scholar
Czebreszuk, J. 2007. ‘Amber between the Baltic and the Aegean in the 3rd and 2nd millennia bc (an outline of major issues)’, in Galanaki, I., Tomas, H., Galanakis, Y. and Laffineur, R. (eds), Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas. Prehistory across Borders (Aegaeum 27; Liège), 363–70.Google Scholar
Czebreszuk, J. 2011. Bursztyn w kulturze mykeńskiej. Zarys problematyki badawczej (Poznań).Google Scholar
Czebreszuk, J. 2013. ‘Mysterious raw material from the far north. Amber in Mycenaean culture’, in Bergerbrant, S. and Sabatini, S. (eds), Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies in Honour of Professor Kristian Kristiansen (Oxford), 557–63.Google Scholar
Czebreszuk, J. 2019. ‘A story about the consequences of one journey: possible effects of long-term amber jewelry usage by the Mycenaeans’, in Borgna, E., Caloi, I., Carinci, F.M. and Laffineur, R. (eds), MNHMH/MNEME. Past and Memory in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 43; Liège), 693–7.10.2307/j.ctv1q26q48.83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drews, R. 1993. The End of the Bronze Age (Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
Ernée, M. 2012. ‘Jantar v české únĕtické kultuře – k počátkům jantarové stezky’, Památky Archeologické 103, 71–172.Google Scholar
Ernée, M. and Langová, M. 2020. Mikulovice. Pohřebiště starši doby bronzové na Jantarové stezce/Early Bronze Age Cemetery on the Amber Road (Prague).Google Scholar
Gardin, C. du 1986. ‘La parure d’ambre à l’âge du Bronze en France’, BSPF 83.11–12, 546–80.10.3406/bspf.1986.8725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardin, C. du 1995. ‘La parure d’ambre au Néolithique et à l’âge du Bronze en Europe occidentale et nordique’, 2 vols (unpublished PhD thesis, Université de Rennes).Google Scholar
Gardin, C. du 1996. ‘L’ambre en France au Bronze ancien: données nouvelles’, in Mordant, C. and Gaiffe, O. (eds), Cultures et sociétés du Bronze ancien en Europe (Paris), 189–95.Google Scholar
Gardin, C. du 1998. ‘Le Campaniforme et l’ambre: mythe ou réalité?’, BSPF 95.3, 343–50.10.3406/bspf.1998.10809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gestoso Singer, G.N. 2016. ‘Amber exchange in the Late Bronze Age Levant in cross-cultural perspective’, Aula Orientalis 34.2, 251–64.Google Scholar
Götze, A. 1902. ‘Die Kleingerate aus Metal, Stein, Knochen, Thon und ähnlichen Stoffen’, in Dorpfeld, W. (ed.), Troia und Ilion. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in den vorhistorischen und historischen Schichten von Ilion 1870–1894 , vol. 1 (Athens), 320–423.Google Scholar
Hänsel, B., Mihovilić, K. and Teržan, B. 2015. Monkodonja: istraživanje protourbanog naselja brončanog doba Istre. Knjiga 1: Iskopavanje i nalazi gradevina (Pula).Google Scholar
Harding, A. 1984. Mycenaeans and Europe (London).Google Scholar
Harding, A. and Hughes-Brock, H. 1974. ‘Amber in the Mycenaean world’, BSA 69, 145–72.Google Scholar
Hood, S. 1993. ‘Amber in Egypt’, in Beck, C.W. and Bouzek, J. (eds), Amber in Archaeology (Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Amber in Archaeology, Libice 1990) (Prague), 230–5.Google Scholar
Hughes-Brock, H. 1985. ‘Amber and the Mycenaeans’, Journal of Baltic Studies 16, 257–67.10.1080/01629778500000161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, M. 2017. ‘Middle Bronze Age amber finds in Hungary’, in Cellarosi, P.J., Chellini, R., Martini, F., Montanaro, A.C., Sarti, J. and Capozzi, R.M. (eds), The Amber Roads: The Ancient Cultural and Commercial Communication between Peoples (Florence), 205–15.Google Scholar
Jaeger, M. 2022. ‘Early Bronze Age amber finds in Slovakia’, Fontes Archaeologici Posnaniensies 58, 7–20.Google Scholar
Jean-Marie, M. 1999. Tombes et nécropoles de Mari (Beirut).Google Scholar
Jubani, B. 1982. ‘Tumet e Krumes (Rrethi i Kukesit)’, Iliria 12.2, 147–95.10.3406/iliri.1982.1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katinas, V. 1971. Jantar i jantarnyje otlożenija Jużnoj Pribaltiki (Vilnius).Google Scholar
Klassen, L. 2004. Jade und Kupfer (Moesgård).Google Scholar
Kosmowska-Ceranowicz, B. 1996. ‘Bernstein – die Lagerstätte und ihre Entstehung’, in Ganzlewski, M. and Slotte, R. (eds), Bernstein – Tränen der Götter (Bochum), 161–8.Google Scholar
Kurti, R. 2017. ‘On some aspects of the Late Bronze Age burial costume from North Albania’, in Korkuti, M. (ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference ‘New Archaeological Discoveries in the Albanian Regions ’ (Tiranë), 83–129.Google Scholar
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. 1963. ‘Amber and faience’, Antiquity 37, 301–2.10.1017/S0003598X0010537XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazić, M. 2007. ‘A Bronze Age mound on the site of Savin Lakat near Prijepolje’, Archaica 1, 109–32.Google Scholar
Leshtakov, K. 2009. ‘The second millennium bc in the Northern Aegean and the adjacent Balkan lands: main dynamics of cultural interaction’, in Bonias, Z.I. and Perreault, J.Y. (eds), Greeks and Thracians. Acts of the International Symposium, Greeks and Thracians along the Coast and in the Hinterland of Thrace during the Years before and after the Great Colonization (Thasos), 53–82.Google Scholar
Malinowski, T. 1971. ‘Über den Bernsteinhandel zwischen den südostlichen baltischen Ufergebieten und dem Süden Europas in der frühen Eisenzeit’, PZ 46, 102–10.Google Scholar
Maran, J. 2004. ‘Wessex and Mykeny. Zur Deutung des Bernsteins in der Schachtgräberzeit Südgriechenlandes’, in Hänsel, B. and Studeniková, E. (eds), Zwischen Karpaten und Ägäis. Neolithikum und ältere Bronzezeit. Gedenkschrift für Viera Němejcová-Pavúková (Rahden), 47–65.Google Scholar
Maran, J. 2013. ‘Bright as the sun: the appropriation of amber objects in Mycenaean Greece’, in Hahn, H.P. and Weiss, H. (eds), Mobility, Meaning and the Transformations of Things (Oxford), 147–69.10.2307/j.ctvh1dn08.14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matuszewska, A. 2010. Bursztyn (sukcynit), inne żywice kopalne, subfosylne i współczesne (Katowice).Google Scholar
Mavrović Mokos, J. and Pavličić, M. 2015. Alilovci, zivot prije 3700 godina. Exhibition Catalogue (Požega).Google Scholar
Mazurowski, R. 1983. ‘Bursztyn w epoce kamienia na ziemiach polskich’, Materiały Starożytne i Wczesnośredniowieczne 5, 7–130.Google Scholar
Mitrevski, D. 2013. Праисторија на Pепублика Mакедонија, Македонија: милениумски културно-историски факти (Prehistory of the Republic of Macedonia, Macedonia: Millennia of Cultural-Historical Facts), vol. 2 (Skopje).Google Scholar
Mond, R. and Myers, O.H. 1937. Cemeteries of Amarna, I (London).Google Scholar
Mukherjee, A.J., Rossberger, E., James, M.A., Pfälzer, P., Higgitt, C.L., White, R., Peggie, D.A., Azar, D. and Evershed, R. 2008. ‘The Qatna lion: scientific confirmation of Baltic amber in late Bronze Age Syria’, Antiquity 82, 49–59.10.1017/S0003598X00096435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murillo-Barroso, M., Cólliga, A.M. and Martinón-Torres, M. 2023. ‘The earliest Baltic amber in Western Europe’, Scientific Reports 13, no. 14250.10.1038/s41598-023-41293-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murillo-Barroso, M., Martínez-Sánchez, R.M. and Vera-Rodríguez, J.C. 2018. ‘El ámbar de la Cueva de los Cuarenta (Priego de Córdoba, Córdoba)’, Trabajos de Prehistoria 75.2, 332–43.10.3989/tp.2018.12219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murillo-Barroso, M., Peñalver, E., Bueno, P., Barroso, R., de Balbín, R. and Martinón-Torres, M. 2018. ‘Amber in prehistoric Iberia: new data and a review’, PLOS One 13.8, no. 0202235.10.1371/journal.pone.0202235CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mylonas, G.E. 1973. Ο Ταφικός Κύκλος Β των Μυκηνών (Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 73; Athens).Google Scholar
Navarro, J.M. de 1925. ‘Prehistoric routes between northern Europe and Italy defined by the amber trade’, The Geographical Journal 66.6, 481–507.10.2307/1783003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, S., Parker Pearson, M., Tyler, A., Richards, M. and Jay, M. 2010. ‘A first “Wessex 1” date from Wessex’, Antiquity 84.324, 363–73.10.1017/S0003598X00066631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Negroni Catacchio, N. 1971. ‘La problematica dell’ambra nella protostoria Italiana. Le ambre intagliate delle culture protostoriche dell’area lombardo-veneta-tridentina’, Memorie Museo Civico Storia Naturale Verona 18, 319–36.Google Scholar
Negroni Catacchio, N. 2009. ‘Amber as prestige and social indicator in Late Prehistoric Italy’, in Palavestra, A., Beck, C.W. and Todd, J.M. (eds), Amber in Archaeology: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of Amber in Archaeology (Belgrade), 190–209.Google Scholar
Negroni Catacchio, N. 2014. ‘I vaghi tipo Tirinto e Allumiere come indicatori di status. Nuovi dati su cronologia e diffusione’, in Baldelli, G. and Schiavo, F. Lo (eds), Amore per l’Antico. Dal Tirreno all’Adriatico, dalla Preistoria al Medioevo e oltre. Studi di antichità. in memoria di Giuliano de Marinis (Rome), 3–14.Google Scholar
Nicolis, F. 2013. ‘Northern Italy’, in Fokkens, H. and Harding, A. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age (Oxford), 692–705.Google Scholar
Odriozola, C.P., Sousa, A.C., Mataloto, R., Boaventura, R., Andrade, M., Villalobos García, R., Garrido-Cordero, J.Á., Rodríguez, E., Martínez-Blanes, J.M., Avilés, M.Á., Daura, J., Sanz, M. and Riquelme, J.A. 2017. ‘Amber, beads and social interaction in the Late Prehistory of the Iberian Peninsula: an update’, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 11, 567–95.10.1007/s12520-017-0549-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palavestra, A. 1993. Praistorijski Ćilibar na centralnom i zapadnom Balkanu (Belgrade).Google Scholar
Pasquinucci, M. 1978. ‘Il commercio dell’ambra nel mondo romano’, in Ambra oro del Nord, Catalogo (Venice), 92–6.Google Scholar
Peñalver, E. and Delclòs, X. 2010. ‘Spanish amber’, in Penney, D. (ed.), Biodiversity of Fossils in Amber from the Major World Deposits (Manchester), 236–70.Google Scholar
Perrichot, V., Neraudeau, D., Nel, A. and de Ploeg, G. 2007. ‘A reassessment of the Cretaceous amber deposits from France and their palaeontological significance’, African Invertebrates 48.1, 213–27.Google Scholar
Pieniążek, M. 2016. ‘Amber and carnelian: two different careers in the Aegean Bronze Age’, Fontes Archaeologici Posnaniensies 52, 51–66.Google Scholar
Polychronakou, P.S. and Nikolentzos, K. 2016. ‘The amber in Greece during the Late Bronze Age and its presence at Kakovatos, Western Greece’, in Cellarosi, P.L., Chellini, R., Martini, F., Montanaro, A.C., Sarti, L. and Capozzi, R.M. (eds), The Amber Roads. The Ancient Cultural and Commercial Communication between the Peoples (Rome), 243–56.Google Scholar
Pulak, C. 2005. ‘Who were the Mycenaeans aboard the Uluburun ship’, in Laffineur, R. and Halstead, P. (eds), Emporia, Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean (Aegaeum 25; Liège), 295–312.Google Scholar
Pulak, C. 2010. ‘Uluburun shipwreck’, in Cline, E.H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (Oxford), 862–76.Google Scholar
Sandars, N.K. 1978. The Sea Peoples. Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean 1250–1150 bc (London).Google Scholar
Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1939. Ugaritica I (Paris).Google Scholar
Schwab, H. and Beck, C.W. 1985. ‘Gagat und Bernstein auf dem Rentierjaegerhalt Moosbühl bei Moosseedorf (Kanton Bern)’, JBernHistMus 63/4 (1983–4), 259–66.Google Scholar
Szmyt, M. 2017. ‘Collective graves, flint axes, and cows: the people of Globular Amphora culture on the Vistula and Odra’, in Urbańczyk, P. and Włodarczak, P. (eds), The Past Societies , vol. 2. 5500–2000 bc (Warsaw), 211–73.Google Scholar
Todd, J.M. 1993. ‘The continuity of amber artifacts in ancient Palestine from the Bronze Age to the Byzantine’, in Beck, G.W. and Bouzek, J. (eds), Amber in Archaeology (Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Amber in Archaeology, Liblice 1990 . Institute of Archaeology) (Prague), 236–48.Google Scholar
Videski, Z. 2007. ‘Mycenaean influences in the FYRO Macedonia identified in the Late Bronze Age cemeteries’, in Galanaki, I., Tomas, H., Galanakis, Y. and Laffineur, R. (eds), Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas. Prehistory across Borders (Aegaeum 27; Liège), 211–17.Google Scholar
White, R. and Normand, Ch. 2015. ‘Early and archaic Aurignacian personal ornaments from Isturitz cave: technological and regional perspectives’, Palethnologie 7.7, 139–64.10.4000/palethnologie.789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woltermann, G. 2016. Die prähistorischen Bernsteinartefakte aus Deutschland vom Paläolithikum bis zur Bronzezeit (Bonn).Google Scholar
Woolley, L. 1955. Alalakh. An Account of the Excavations at Tell Achana in the Hatay, 1937–1949 (London).Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. General distribution of fossil resin finds in the Mediterranean from the Palaeolithic to the turn of the 2nd and 1st millennia BC.Fig. 1. long description.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Fossil resin finds in the Mediterranean dating back to the Palaeolithic. Legend: 1 – no FTIR/IR analysis; 4 – FTIR/IR analysis, which revealed the presence of retinite and other fossil resins (so-called Cretaceous amber). Map with site numbers from Table A1 (online-only Supplementary Material).Fig. 2. long description.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Fossil resin finds in the Mediterranean dating back to the Neolithic period. Legend: 1 – no FTIR/IR analysis; 2 – FTIR/IR analysis which revealed the presence of succinite; 3 – FTIR/IR analysis which revealed the presence of simetite; 4 – FTIR/IR analysis, which revealed the presence of retinite and other fossil resins (so-called Cretaceous amber); 5 – FTIR/IR analysis which revealed other types of fossil resins (previously undefined geologically) or gave inconclusive results. Map with site numbers from Table A1 (online-only Supplementary Material).Fig. 3. long description.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Fossil resin finds in the Mediterranean dating back to the Chalcolithic period. Legend: 1 – no FTIR/IR analysis; 2 – FTIR/IR analysis which revealed the presence of succinite; 3 – FTIR/IR analysis which revealed the presence of simetite; 4 – FTIR/IR analysis which revealed the presence of retinite and other fossil resins (so-called Cretaceous amber); 5 – FTIR/IR analysis which revealed other types of fossil resins (previously undefined geologically) or gave inconclusive results. Map with site numbers from Table A1 (online-only Supplementary Material).Fig. 4. long description.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Fossil resin finds in the Mediterranean dating back to the turn of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC. Legend: 1 – no FTIR/IR analysis; 2 – FTIR/IR analysis showing the presence of succinite; 3 – FTIR/IR analysis showing the presence of simetite; 2, 5 – FTIR/IR analysis that showed the presence of succinite and other types of fossil resins (previously undefined geologically) or gave inconclusive results. Map with site numbers from Table A1 (online-only Supplementary Material).Fig. 5. long description.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Fossil resin finds in the Mediterranean dating back to the developed 2nd millennium BC (from around 1750/1700 to 1200 BC). Legend: 1 – no FTIR/IR analysis; 2 – FTIR/IR analysis showing the presence of succinite; 4 – FTIR/IR analysis showing the presence of retinite and other fossil resins (so-called Cretaceous amber); 5 – FTIR/IR analysis which revealed other types of fossil resins (previously undefined geologically) or gave inconclusive results; 2, 5 – FTIR/IR analysis that showed the presence of succinite and other types of fossil resins (previously undefined geologically) or gave inconclusive results. Map with site numbers from Table A1 (online-only Supplementary Material).Fig. 6. long description.

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Fossil resin finds in the Mediterranean dating back to the turn of the 2nd and 1st millennia BC. 1 – no FTIR/IR analysis; 2 – FTIR/IR analysis showing the presence of succinite; 2, 3 – FTIR/IR analysis showing the presence of succinite and simetite; 2, 5 – FTIR/IR analysis that showed the presence of succinite and other types of fossil resins (previously undefined geologically) or gave inconclusive results. Map with site numbers from Table A1 (online-only Supplementary Material).Fig. 7. long description.

Supplementary material: File

Czebreszuk supplementary material

Czebreszuk supplementary material
Download Czebreszuk supplementary material(File)
File 62.2 KB