What is the evidence?

observation

Some archaeometric results from Sant’Imbenia have been interpreted as compatible with ore sources in Iberian coastal or southwest ranges.

Inspect the sources →
Review and provenance

Specialist reviewer: not recorded. Review date: not recorded.

Dataset workflow: proposed. This is separate from specialist review.

Confidence describes the stated assessment; it does not certify expert approval. How review works.

Chronology

Dating intervals may describe uncertainty or phases; their width alone does not establish event duration.

Preferred assertion

900 BCE–800 BCE

Precision: range

moderate

Preferred display range for this release. It preserves BCE ordering and does not suppress narrower samples, phase dates or alternatives listed separately.

Alternative assertion

850 BCE–800 BCE

Precision: broad range

moderate

A later ninth- to eighth-century range may better match the analysed market-square contexts.

Interpretation and caveats

The evidence supports a provenance hypothesis for particular metal, not a named merchant, colony, migration or direct sailing route.

Event context

Classification

Event type: object provenance horizon

Evidence layer: archaeological

Timeline role: cross regional context

Why it matters to the timeline

The connection is included because source-based provenance can materially inform Iberian metal exchange; direct movement mechanisms remain uncertain.

Alternative interpretations

  • A narrower later ninth- or eighth-century horizon may fit the analysed market-square contexts better than the whole 900–800 BCE range. (moderate confidence)

Research notes

  • Provides the specific archaeometric hypothesis. Role: proposes interpretation. Locator: article 181, provenance discussion.
  • Provides a check against overextended contact models. Role: critiques interpretation. Locator: pp. 423–448.

Evidence and sources

Where to go next

Referenced records