bronze age rites and rituals in the carpathian basin

Transcription

BRONZE AGE RITES AND RITUALS
IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN
Proceedings of the International Colloquium
from Târgu Mureş
8–10 October 2010
Edited by
Sándor Berecki
Rita E. Németh
Botond Rezi
Editura MEGA
Târgu Mureș
2011
Content
Preface....................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Aleksandar Kapuran
Relationship between Settlements and Necropoles of the Bronze Age in Eastern Serbia......................... 9
Horia Ciugudean
Mounds and Mountains: Burial Rituals in Early Bronze Age Transylvania............................................. 21
Sándor BERECKI–Áldor Csaba Balázs
Discoveries belonging to the Schneckenberg Culture from Şincai, Transylvania.................................... 59
Tiberiu Ioan TECAR–Monica Voichiţa TECAR
A Unique Cult Object belonging to the Wietenberg Culture..................................................................... 77
Oliver Dietrich
Kinderspielzeug oder Kultobjekte? Überlegungen zu anthropomorphen Figurinen
der Wietenberg- und Tei-Kultur..................................................................................................................... 87
Florea COSTEA–Zsolt SZÉKELY
Aspects of the Ritual Life of the Wietenberg Culture. Miniature Religious Shrines from Racoş,
Transylvania.................................................................................................................................................... 107
Attila László
Eine Kultstelle der Wietenberg-Kultur auf der Füvenyestető Anhöhe bei Malnaş Băi
(Südost-Siebenbürgen)?................................................................................................................................. 115
Laura Dietrich
„Aschehügel“ der Noua-Kultur als Plätze von Arbeit und Fest................................................................ 131
Jens Notroff
Menace from the Afterlife? Some Remarks about the Archaeological Evidence for Fearing and
Banishing the Dead and a Contribution to Otomani and Füzesabony Sepulchral Rite........................ 143
Malvinka Urák–Liviu Marta
Human Remains of the Late Bronze Age Settlements in the Upper Tisza Area. New Researches
and New Evidence.......................................................................................................................................... 155
Florin Gogâltan–Rita E. Németh–Emese Apai
Eine rituelle Grube bei Vlaha, Gemeinde Săvădisla (Kreis Cluj)............................................................. 163
János EMŐDI
About the so-called ‘Hand Protectors’ of the Bronze Age......................................................................... 185
6 ‌|
Tiberius BADER
Grossgrabhügel von Medieşu Aurit/Aranyosmeggyes, Bez. Satu Mare, Rumänien.............................. 189
Carol Kacsó
Die Hügelnekropole von Lăpuş. Eine zusammenfassende Einleitung.................................................... 213
Daria Ložnjak Dizdar
Funerary Practices of Late Bronze Age Communities in Continental Croatia...................................... 245
Mihai Wittenberger–Mihai Rotea
Aspects of the Bronze Metallurgy in Transylvania..................................................................................... 261
Tudor soroceanu
Zweigeteilte Einheit oder geeinte Zweiheit? Zur Frage der Dualität in den bronzezeitlichen
Deponierungen............................................................................................................................................... 269
Wojciech BLAJER
Zwischen dem Karpatenbecken und der Ostsee. Bemerkungen zu den besonderen Fundumständen
der Bronzehorte in Polen............................................................................................................................... 295
Botond REZI
Voluntary Destruction and Fragmentation in Late Bronze Age Hoards
from Central Transylvania............................................................................................................................. 303
Gábor V. SZABÓ
Spätbronzezeitliche Bronzehortfunde im Siedlungskontext – Neue Forschungsergebnisse
aus Ostungarn................................................................................................................................................. 335
Tobias MÖRTZ
At the Head of Concealment. The Deposition of Bronze Age Helmets in the Carpathian Basin........ 357
Abbreviations....................................................................................................................................................... 377
Menace from the Afterlife?
Some Remarks about the Archaeological Evidence for
Fearing and Banishing the Dead and a Contribution to
Otomani and Füzesabony Sepulchral Rite
Jens Notroff
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut
Berlin, Germany
[email protected]
Keywords: deviant burial, secondary grave opening, burial ritual, amulet,
Otomani–Füzesabony complex, Totenangst, Totenbann
Next to settlements and depositions, grave finds are the most important sources of information
in prehistoric archaeology. Grave customs and burial rites allow us to distinguish and define patterns of
funeral traditions which can be understood as culture-specific and indeed definitive aspects of human
behaviour. Graves which are seen as aberrations of these rules are mainly denoted as ‘deviant burials’
(Sonderbestattungen, ‘special burials’ in the German terminology),1 a concept which is rather vague, since
there is no precise definition about what such a ‘special’ burial actually is. This remark should not be understood as criticism since it is the conceptual ambiguity caused by the multifaceted character of these burials
themselves which makes it so difficult to define this term clearly or find binding criteria to describe it.
The concept of special burials covers a rather wide range of meaning and content. In anthropology, where the term was first used in the context of paleodemographical analysis, it means the absence of
certain demographic relevant sections of a population in burials, such as certain age groups or the numerical relation of sexes, etc. (Schwidetzky 1965). In cultural anthropology respectively ethnology the same
term is used to describe the sepulchral rite and the ceremonies connected to it in a very active meaning
while archaeology in contrast usually only is able to document the remaining material leftovers of these
actions (as far as these are preserved). Generally, in archaeology special or deviant burials mean all burials different from what is considered the normative in the funeral rite of a group, community or society.
This can be referring to the spatial situation of the dead and its grave, the grave construction itself, the
treatment of the deceased as well as conspicuous or unusual grave goods and contents. The impossibility
to cover the complete funeral behaviour of a prehistoric society is obvious. Too many traditions of diverse
relevance may have asked for a special treatment of certain individuals for different reasons; there seems
to be no chance trying to define consistent, universally valid features.
Totenangst and Totenbann
While the explanations and the appearances of special burials are various, their interpretation usually is surprisingly uniform (especially in Continental research tradition). Quite often these deviant burials
are explained rather monocausally and connected to a certain diffuse fear of the dead.2 For lack of a better
1 A more detailed discussion of the German-language and Anglophone research on this topic and the concepts behind both
terms can be found at Aspöck 2008.
2. For an insight into the younger discussion on the connection between special burials and fear of the dead cf. Meyer-Orlac
1982 and 1997 as well as U. Veits remarks concerning her works (Veit 1988).
Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin, 2011, p. 143–153
144 ‌| Jens Notroff
English catchphrase it seems suitable to introduce the German term Totenangst (meaning exactly this: fear
of the dead) and use it in the following. This assumed Totenangst is the reason why we are confronted with
‘the living dead’, ‘revenants’ and even ‘vampires’ in the archaeological specialist literature (Kyll 1964, 175;
Wilke 1931). Again here lies a problematic vagueness in the meaning of this fear. Is it the fear of death and
knowledge of the own mortality? Is it the fear of anything dead in general or a specific dead individual in
particular? If so, does this mean people were afraid of hurtful actions by the dead out of their grave3 or of a
real carnal return of the deceased? Adapted from later written sources and against the background of historical tradition a number of peculiarities in the context of burials (as discussed in the following) are often
seen as protective measures against possibly harmful dead individuals.4 In contrast to the aforementioned
Totenangst, we may apply and use another German term here to describe this situation: Totenbann (meaning the banishment of the dead). Most of the graves showing these characteristics are seen as measures to
detain the deceased from a return in a very physical meaning. This is owed to the nature of these finds and
features. Among those we find bound and tied bodies, bodies burdened with stones and such in an unusual
position as well as separated and dislocated body parts.
An interpretation like this of course is a less subtle and most obvious one seen through the eyes
of our very modern understanding of deference. One should not wonder that there is disagreement and
criticism questioning explanation models like these (Meyer-Orlac 1997, 5f.; Schaub 2009). Maintaining
the examples given before, it is probable that bodies might have been tied for better and easier transport, stones might found there way into the graves for other reasons as part of the ritual, unusual positions may be connected to post-depositional processes in at least the one or other case and dislocated
body parts could hint at an earlier injury or be part of the burial rite (Schaub 2009, 6–10). Therefore the
term Sonderbestattung (‘special burial’) should be preferred over ‘deviant burial’, since the first one itself
is value-free and more neutrally than the rather negative connotated latter term (cf. Aspöck 2008, 29).
Appearances can be deceiving
The aim of this paper is not to deny that the special treatment of certain dead individuals might
have been caused by beliefs involving Totenangst and Totenbann. However, it is important to disengage
ourselves from postulating such interpretations based on the mere fact that a burial differs from what is
considered the normative ritual. Special treatment of the dead does not necessarily involve a negative
reason; it could also indicate an increased appreciation. If we could find other parameters supporting the
concept of defensive measures against such deceased individuals thought to be potentially dangerous this
would add to the interpretation of special burials.
To illustrate this point a number of selected examples of conspicuous burials from the Bronze Age
Carpathian Basin should be addressed, focussing at the area of north-eastern Hungary and Slovakia (Fig. 1),
especially the Otomani–Füzesabony cemeteries of Gelej–Beltelek and Gelej–Kanálisdűlő (1), Hernádkak
(2), Pusztaszikszó (3), Streda nad Bodrogom (4), Tarnaméra–Uszoda (5), Tiszafüred–Majoroshalom,
Tiszaörvény–Temetődomb (6) and the Late Bronze Age5 burials from Mezőcsát (7).6
The attempt to approach the topic of deviant burials in the Bronze Age material confronts us with
the – in this case problematic – introduction of cremation. Obviously this caused a large-scale change in burial customs and makes it even more difficult to address a differing treatment of the deceased. Especially in
these times following the increased appearance of cremation we are confronted with a side by side of inhumation and cremation burials; both that numerous that it seems a bit of a stress to denote them exceptions.7
While in the Middle Bronze Age cemetery of Gelej nearly exclusively crouched burials were documented
(Kemenczei 1979, 27), at other contemporary places, cremation burial was already adopted. The urn graves
3. According to popular belief, a revenant – German: Nachzehrer from nach (afterwards) and zehren (feeding upon something
or somebody) – would not leave his grave, but harm people (mostly own family members) from within it by exhausting their
vitality (for more information cf. Schürmann 1990).
4. A number of examples and analogies are listed in Trauwitz-Hellwig 1935 and Jankuhn Et Al. 1978.
5. Chronological terms used here are always referring to the common Hungarian chronology systems (for an overview cf. e.g.
Hänsel 1968).
6. The close relation of these burials at Mezőcsát and their connection to the nearby cemetery of Gelej in terms of burial ritual
and similarities in the treatment of the dead despite the chronological distance was pointed out by B. Hänsel and N. Kalicz
already (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 71–73). Given that, including the features and finds from Mezőcsát was self-evident and only
consequent, especially in the view of the secondary grave openings there as well as in Gelej and other related sites.
7. This does, by the way, raise the question from what percentage on and to what number we would and should exemplify such
exceptional cases.
Menace from the Afterlife? | 145
at Igrici–Matata (Hänsel 1968, 151ff.; Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 67–70) from the Middle Bronze Age, and
the not yet completely researched cremation cemetery at Biharszentjános (Bóna 1975, 121ff.; Bader 1998,
80 (annotation 15) may serve as examples. Among the burials at Mezőcsát, dating into the Late Bronze Age
and having a noticeable shorter phase of occupation than the aforementioned sites, only five8 of a total of 39
graves were cremations. The new custom was clearly evident here but statistically of subordinate relevance.
These cremation burials seem to belong to the earliest burial activity in Mezőcsát, chronologically interfering with the later phases of Igrici judging by the antiquated pottery in these graves (Hänsel 1968, 151ff.;
Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 67). This would mean that after the introduction of cremation there was a recurrence
of the older tradition of inhumation burial again. What usually in the best case (with an accordingly large
enough number of both customs) would have been considered as a bi-ritual burial rite and in particular
cases (meaning an only low number of differing burials) as special burial turned out to be a dynamic, repetitive change in funeral behaviour.
Fig. 1. Location of the Otomani–Füzesabony cemeteries mentioned in the text.
This leads to the discussion of symbolic burials or cenotaphs (cf. e.g. Bátora 1999) which were
found at Gelej–Kanálisdűlő9 and Gelej–Beltelek10. Their interpretation has to be rethought in light of a parallel existence of inhumation and cremation burial customs. Often interpreted as substitutional graves for
individuals who could not be buried for certain reasons or seen as cultic vessel depositions within burial
grounds (Thomas 2008, 82–85), there is another aspect to be taken into consideration. In Hernádkak such
burials without any skeletal material11 contained nothing but ceramics and had few in common with the
majority of inhumation burials. But they did show a striking similarity with the number, shape and position of vessels enclosed to unurned cremation burials of contemporary sites such as Tarnaméra–Uszoda
and Tiszaörvény–Temetődomb as Schalk (1992, 37f.) pointed out. Also, Thomas (2008, 130f.) noted
that the cremation graves from the cemetery of Pusztaszikszó just a few kilometres north of Gelej showed
a related scheme of integration into the zones of inhumation graves like the symbolic ones do there.
Together this should allow taking into consideration that we are confronted with unurned cremations in
this case, too – probably not always recognizable because of unfavourable preservation circumstances.
8. Graves 21, 38, 80, 85, and 75 (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 20–33).
9. Graves 24, 25, 54, 56, 67, 95, 97, 145, 149, 160, 175, 176, 195, 211, 212, 216 and 217 (Kemenczei 1979, 7–26).
10. Graves 32, 66 and 71 (Kemenczei 1979, 7–26).
11. Graves 1–4, 23, 24, 28, 29, 56, 101 and 124 (Schalk 1992, 37f.).
Other explanatory models, such as multiple-stage burials or differing rites carried out by minorities with their own sepulchral behaviour, seem suitable for related features, especially in view of ethnographic parallels.12 Two case studies may illustrate this: The Dayak of Borneo, for instance, follow a twostep burial rite. After the unburned body is buried for a certain amount of time, the ritual demands an
exhumation and a new funeral of the discarnate bones. Since it is connected with extensive and expensive
feasting, this second step often is delayed and not uncommonly completely left undone (Miles 1965). It
is not hard to imagine how this would appear to be confusing in the archaeological record, when most of
the deceased are present in an accumulation of loose bones among very few completely preserved skeletons. Another unusual feature would be the burials of Vishnu and Shiva devotees in India, if it were not
for the written record to explain this conspicuous situation. Although part of one ethnicity both groups
differ in burial rites; one group practicing inhumation, the other cremation burial (Schlenther 1960).
Depending on the structure of population, one of these funeral types may dominate the archaeological
record making the other one appear extraordinary.
These examples demonstrate that a simple aberration from what is considered the norm in burial
practice because of numeral predominance does indeed not define a special burial. In contrast, a minority
of finds could lose their character as exception with progressing research and figures are about to adapt
from a different point of view.
Desecration of graves as part of the rite
From virtually all of the cemeteries mentioned above a number of burials are reported as either
missing certain body parts or only containing those (Kemenczei 1979, 27–30; Hänsel–Kalicz 1986,
50–52; Schalk 1992, 81–84; Thomas 2008, 36–39, 89), which has become a topos in the interpretations
of special burials as expression of Totenangst (e.g. Pauli 1975, 176; Olexa 2002, 89; Schaub 2009, 10f.).
In Gelej we know of such graves, where especially the bones of the lower extremities are missing13
or such with not more than a single skull or mandible.14 Other examples are known from Hernádkak and
Mezőcsát.15 Apart from the possibility that this could reflect one or another earlier injury during lifetime
caused by an accident or brute force in some examples, the phenomenon of removed extremities is not
unknown but rather frequent in the Otomani–Füzesabony culture (O’Shea 1996, 176ff.) and seems to be
part of the burial rite. Furthermore, the majority of these partial burials (but not all) were obviously disturbed – the already existing graves were secondary opened (Pástor 1969, 82f.; Hänsel–Kalicz 1986,
50f.; Schalk 1992, 81–84; Thomas 2008, 39). In Gelej–Kanálisdűlő some graves exhibit signs of a secondary opening and manipulation as well: in grave 18 the skull was missing and the area of the pelvis was
disturbed (Kemenczei 1979, 8), in grave 106 the jaw was dislocated (Kemenczei 1979, 12) and in grave
137, again, the skull was disassembled while an additional skull was placed in the same grave (Kemenczei
1979, 15).
From the 30 burials of the bi-ritual cemetery of Pusztaszikszó three disturbed graves are reported
(Kõszegi 1968, 113), from Streda nad Bodrogom, also bi-ritual, 14 disturbed burials are known of a total
of 67 (Polla 1960, 327–331). However, for both sites more recent damage must be considered (Thomas
2008, 122 and 156f.). From Hernádkak there are a number of burials referred to as being found in a stirred
up state,16 but the vague sources make it difficult to address any details. We can only state that skull and
chest section apparently have been disturbed in these examples and that objects were taken out (Schalk
1992, 81f.).
Of the burials in Mezőcsát more than 50% were disturbed or partly disturbed (Hänsel–Kalicz
1986, 50) and the damage clearly reveals why these graves were opened: they show a complete lack of
metal objects, although small remaining rests serve witness of a more wealthy burial equipment in the first
place. Grave 66 from Mezőcsát, for instance, shows a secondary pit in the head area of the body buried
there. A headdress formerly located there (as a few remaining buttons and spirals attest), was removed,
while a collar and an arm bracelet were left untouched (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 31). A similar picture is
12. Of course, such analogies are not proving anything, but demonstrate a wide range of possible models. On the use and benefit
of ethnography in the archaeological interpretation cf. Ucko 1969 (especially p. 262f.), Fischer 1990 and Gramsch 2000.
13. Graves 13, 15 and 151 (Kemenczei 1979, 27–29; Thomas 2008, 36–39).
14. Graves 53, 131 and 150A (Kemenczei 1979; Thomas 2008).
15. Graves 4–5, 58, 61–63 and (103–) 104 from Hernádkak (Schalk 1992, 81); graves 9, 10, 15, 25, 34, 36, 47, 66 and 86 from
Mezőcsát (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 14–38).
16. Graves 43, 92, 110, 122 (Schalk 1992, 82).
revealed in grave 47 from the same site. Again, the area of the head was disturbed, the head being dislocated. While a necklace was left at its place, yet again the headdress (from which only small remains were
present) was removed. Two more pits were directed at the arms, leaving nothing but a disarrangement of
bones and bronze fragments (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 27).
This well directed removal of grave goods while neighbouring areas of the same burial stay mostly
untouched is evidence for people acting here with a detailed knowledge of the grave and maybe even for
persons who were present at the burial itself. The question about the intentions behind this behaviour has
to come up. Was it all about the value of the material, thus indeed to be understood as grave robbery by
all means? Or are we confronted with a tolerated, even purposed mannerism here? The frequency of these
secondary grave openings as demonstrated in the examples above makes it a rather common practice. It
does not appear to be looting of graves in the meaning of grave robbery17 but more a rather regular element of the burial rite (Primas 1977, 106f.). The minimization of destruction inflicted upon the dead
body underlines this and indicates some degree of respect for the deceased. B. Hänsel and N. Kalicz
(1986, 52) suggested a sepulchral rite including the opening of graves and removing of grave goods based
on a belief that the dead individual was only allowed (or needing) to possess the given objects as long
as their own physicality was given; after the decomposition of the dead body the more valuable objects
returned into the property of the bereaved.18
Obviously, this did not apply to all grave goods, not even to all metal ones, since some were still left
behind in the graves. Thus, it is probable that the removal of objects was not the sole motivation to open
burials again. A comprehensive ritual with a more complex content has to be suspected behind this, most
likely connected to a cult of ancestor worship. Furthermore these objects removed from the graves and
therefore taken back from the dead could have been connected to another aspect of numinous nature, if
they were not to go back into the property of the living but offered to a higher force and withdrawn from
any profane use in this way. It was K.-F. Rittershofer (1987, 21) who noticed that numerous hoards
containing multiple elements of attire, so called Ausstattunsghorte (outfit / equipment hoards), are found
exactly in these cultural regions where the burials are manipulated and objects removed. The content
of these depositions seems to correspond with the missing (removed) objects in the graves,19 a thought
which also recalls H.-J. Hundt’s (1955, 107ff.) Totenschätze (treasures of the dead). Without going too
much into detail since this complex topic deserves and needs an analysis on its own going beyond the
frame of this paper, it is important to point out the depositions of the type Koszider and Tolnanémedi
(Bóna 1958; Ruttkay 1983) and the objects of jewellery and attire accumulated there (especially pendants); items, also playing an important role in ritual activity concerning burial and beyond, as will be
discussed in the following.
Amulet and talisman
If the aberration from burial rite does not suffice to understand special – deviant – burials as
expression of Totenangst, it is necessary to explicate what other parameters may have to be taken into
account for such an interpretation. This is also important because of the apparent conflict between the
disturbance of burials brought up above – be it a disrespectful act or intended part of the rite – and the
often claimed fear of the dead.
As a result of this, the role of grave goods must be re-examined. Especially objects destroyed and
therewith made unusable could be interpreted as being disturbed motivated through the fear of the dead.
On one hand they satisfy the duty to equip the deceased for the afterlife, on the other hand they also prevent the real use of these items any longer. However, to think of this as a kind of banishment, Totenbann,
would also mean that a great many of dead individuals was put under the general suspicion of being a
potential revenant, considering the frequent appearance and distribution of this phenomenon.
17.For a more detailed survey on grave robbery in prehistoric times cf. Jankuhn Et Al. 1978 and Kümmel 2009. Secondary
grave openings are not unknown in Central and Eastern Europe starting on a widespread basis as early as the Chalcolithic (cf.
Bertemes 1989, 131f.).
18. Neugebauer (1991, 126f.) expresses doubts concerning the interpretation of secondary grave openings in this way. With
reference to the situation at the cemetery of Gemeinlebarn, Lower Austria, he speaks in favour of actual looting of the graves
for the material value of grave furnishings and points out the high degree of destruction done. Interestingly, he also mentions
a frequent disturbance of the skull area and he explains the removing of skulls from the graves with the fear of revenge by the
dead, which of course could be listed under Totenbann as discussed above.
19.For the correlation of hoard and grave finds and items of attire respectively jewellery in the Danube-Carpathian region cf.
especially Schumacher-Matthäus 1985, 126ff. and 140ff.
An alternative approach is more favourable. Burial furnishings usually can be divided into two
groups: attire as well as personal items from the dead’s property and additional equipment for the afterlife.
L. Pauli (1975, 11) suggested a third group of objects with amulet character.20 The term ‘amulet’ is used
here to describe objects which have been assigned spiritual powers, providing salvation and – even more
emphasized in the frame of this paper – protection and defence.21 Objects understood in this way could
have been of different nature and shape. They may have found their way into the grave as part of the personal dress in life and it is likely that a supposed protective character of these objects in a lifetime was also
exceeded into the afterlife. In regard to L. Pauli’s thoughts on this topic, the question at hand is whether
grave goods interpreted in means of amulets have to be expanded in their meaning to another facet: what
if at least some of them were used as a spiritual defence mechanism, not to protect the dead from dangers
in the other world, but to guard the living descendants from possibly harmful deceased relatives and actually banish them right there in the grave (Pauli 1975, 171)?
Is it possible to apply this concept also to the Bronze Age burials introduced and discussed above?
If so, where among the material could such thoughts best be based? When in many cases a large number of
needles and buttons were reported found concentrated in the head area of these burials (Hänsel–Kalicz
1986, 56; Schalk 1992, 68f.; Thomas 2008, 75f.), the suggested interpretation of a garment or cloth originally covering the head or whole body is convincing, leaving these objects rather unlikely amulets.
A stronger approach suggests that such pendants were made of animal teeth, of which we know
examples from grave 111 in Hernádkak where three worked boar tusks were found lying close to each
other (Schalk 1992, 72f.) and grave 13 from Streda nad Bodrogom where two perforated wolf (?) teeth
were found (Polla 1960, 337). The finds of boar tusks have several analogies in their wider vicinity and
especially among the grave finds of the Košt´any culture in the eastern Slovakian Košice basin (Schalk
1992, Abb. 25 and 26). Comparatively, the finds from Streda nad Bodrogom are unknown in other
Füzesabony cemeteries but find parallels in the younger burials from Tiszafüred–Majoroshalom (Kovács
1975, Taf. 27). In Mezõcsát animal teeth were found among the grave goods, too. While grave 7 contained
the remains of a necklace made of dog teeth (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 14), in grave 15 a canine tooth of
boar was found together with other remains of pig and disarranged human bones (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986,
18). Grave 87 is significant because it is explicitly mentioned as special burial holding the body of a senile
man who was put into the pit head first. There were nearly no grave goods apart from two tusks of a boar,
one at each of the temples (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 38). While this is seen as remaining braid of a cap or
headband by the excavators and the deceased interpreted as shaman, one could also stress the apotropaic
nature of animal tusks and their use as amulets (Pauli 1975, 129; Primas 1977, 101). However, it is necessary to determine that burial offerings of perforated tusks may reflect an older, widely spread tradition
of such elements in common dress (Schalk 1992, 72f.) and therefore are hard to differentiate from what
might have served as protective charm.22 This is the general dilemma in addressing grave goods with amulet character; it needs careful and close observance to distinguish elements of attire (worn on the body)
and an explicit addition to the grave.
Returning to grave 66 in Mezõcsát we have another closer look at its grave furnishings. As stated
above, the headdress of the young woman buried there was removed when the grave was reopened again
at a later date while a necklace (Fig. 2/15) was left untouched. The deceased also had a second necklace of
four reverted heart-shaped pendants (Fig. 2/16–19) in her hand (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 31). Considering
the other jewellery around her neck and the fact that pendants and necklaces apparently are not part of
the common equipment in other graves – proof of corresponding jewellery is only evident from two more
graves: remains of similar pendants from the secondarily opened grave 47 (Fig. 2/6–14) and one more
(Fig. 2/5) from the badly preserved child burial in grave 51 (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 27–29) – underlines the outstanding character of these finds within graves. From Gelej–Beltelek three related pieces are
reported (Fig. 2/1–3), all coming from just one burial, grave 68 (Kemenczei 1979, 39). They might have
been part of a necklet originally, together with four spirals and seven other beads found there as well. The
larger of these pendants is crescent-shaped, the other two are smaller and of reverted heart-shape. Another
20.Pauli (1975, 185–190) also noted, that an increase of amulets in graves can be connected to periods of social change, which
also go along with an increase in unusual burial practices.
21. For a more detailed discussion concerning objects with amulet character cf. Hansmann–Kriss-Rettenbeck 1966.
22. While not present in the examples examined here, objects made of antler are known from burial contexts of the Otomani–
Füzesabony complex as well. Therefore it should not be neglected to note their outstanding character among finds with an
emphasized apotropaic meaning (Pauli 1975, 172).
crescent-shaped example (Fig. 2/4), but considerably larger, is known from Tiszafüred–Majoroshalom
(Kovács 1984, 242).
Pendants of this type are common in the Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin and are known
in several variants and sub types (Hänsel 1968, 115–118). Their character as part of female dress was
pointed out with reference to their appearance and association in hoards and grave finds (Bóna 1975,
284f.) and depictions on anthropomorphic clay idols (e.g. Hájek 1957, 323f., Abb. 5; Ruttkay 1983,
12–14). The amulet character of these pendants was also suggested (Mozsolics 1988, 33, also mentioning
their association with animal teeth), above all because of the connection to other types of finds interpreted
in means of more refined, spiritual and cultic realms like the aforementioned clay idols and depositions
(Ruttkay 1983, 1, 9 and 14). Emerging in the Early Bronze Age and becoming more frequent in the
Middle Bronze Age (Hänsel 1968, 145; Furmanek 1980, 16–23; Mozsolics 1988, 33) they show a long
lasting tradition (Bóna 1975, 285f.).
Fig. 2. Examples of heart-shaped and crescent-shaped pendants. 1–3. Gelej–Beltelek, grave 68 (after Kemenczei
1979, Taf. IX/8–10); 4. Tiszafüred–Majoroshalom, grave D345 (after Kovács 1984, Taf. LXIX/13); 5. Mezőcsát,
grave 51 (after Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, Taf. 8/51c); 6–14. Mezőcsát, grave 47 (after Hänsel–Kalicz 1986,
Taf. 8/47 m, n, t); 15–19. Mezőcsát, grave 66 (after Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, Taf. 9/66 k and h). No scale.
There is a variety of classification and nomenclature in the archaeological literature concerning
the different forms of these types of pendants and their various subtypes. Below are outlined only those
two general forms appearing in the material discussed:
1. The open heart-shaped examples are formed by two arms bending downwards. Their backside
is flat, the front often convex. There are several subtypes differing in how far both arms are mutually
curved, nearly or totally touching each other and therefore closing the ‘heart’. Another typological criterion would be the shaping of a central spine and its connection to the arms (e.g. Hänsel 1968, 115–118;
Furmanek 1980, 15f.)
2. The crescent-shaped forms appear like a sickle downwards opened, showing a perforated tong
at the upper end and an extension (often larger and anchor-shaped, sometimes not more than a small
tip) pointing down from the centre of the crescent. Variants are mostly differing in decoration only (e.g.
Hänsel 1968, 121f.; Furmanek 1980, 16f.).
The three specimens from Gelej belong to the earlier examples, especially the large crescentshaped piece with its middle decoration having parallels in finds of the Koszider Horizon (Mozsolics
1967, 87f., Schumacher-Matthäus 1985, 36). The appropriate items from the Mezõcsát burials are
corresponding to the later forms according to
Hänsel – the chronological unsusceptible variants 1 and 2 (Hänsel 1968, 115) and variant 7
(Hänsel 1968, 118) – showing the long lifetime
of this group and their unbroken tradition especially in the sphere of the Otomani–Füzesabony
complex. The crescent-shaped example from
Tiszafüred–Majoroshalom shows a barely developed decorative tip in the middle – a basic type
characteristic for the younger phase.
Despite this range of typological and
chronological characteristics all those types
are beyond question closely related, most
likely representing the same motif. They can
be regarded as anthropomorphic depictions
as J. Blischke (2000, 34f.) demonstrated
Fig. 3. The Bronze sheet pendant from Kisapostag, grave 2 convincingly on the basis of a closely related
(1) visualizes the anthropomorphic nature of heart shaped
pendant (made of sheet bronze) from a burial
pendants (2) as well as parallels to postures of the Cîrna idols
at Kisapostag (Mozsolics 1942, Taf. I/86).
(3). (No scale; after Blischke 2000, Abb. 5).
J. Blischke was not only able to determine
that they indeed depict a human with arms brought together above the abdomen (Fig. 3), he also
pointed out a striking resemblance with postures and the top of the clay idols from Cîrna in southern
Romania and the arm position in inhumation burials of the Middle Bronze Age Carpathian region,
where it seems to be a common cultic gesture.
The connection to the Cîrna type idols has to be emphasized particularly. Figurines like these
are known from a broad range of contexts. Reported finds include settlements and cemeteries alike.23 In
the cemetery of Cîrna these clay figurines are almost exclusively found in a number of children burials
(Hachmann 1968, 369).24 It was suggested to read them as marker of individuals with a higher social rank
(Reich 2002, 162) or even as guardian divinities (Schumacher-Matthäus 1985, 8). If this indicates a
similar role and function as stated for the pendants, and if these also should be understood as representation of an idealized character in the meaning of a deity alluding to special status and rank, is open to question. A large number of these figurines apparently wearing the same pendants we find with the deceased
in their graves and offered in depositions intensify the importance attached to them.
Bearing in mind the already discussed phenomenon of secondary grave openings and their role
in the sepulchral rite, one can only presume why some of these objects with amulet character were left
in otherwise emptied graves while another large number of similar items apparently were removed (and
transferred into hoards?). It is unlikely that these few pieces were disesteemed or of lower value. More
likely they are marking a somehow special person when staying in the grave, indicating the known and
accepted apotropaic role of these symbols encouraging their interpretation as amulet.25
One more example from Mezõcsát confronts us with a shackled female individual in grave 81,
buried in a rather flat pit. The heavily smashed skull hints at an injury inflicted on purpose (Hänsel–
Kalicz 1986, 46). Was tried here to get rid of an unpopular, disliked woman as B. Hänsel and N. Kalicz
suggest? Assuming that the trauma was not only inflicted pre-mortal but maybe even lethal, this could be
considered a ‘bad death’ and therefore decisive for the special treatment (altering the violent act from a
part of this treatment to its very reason). The concept of ‘bad death’ is known from ethnological field study.
It describes the ill-timed death as well as one in an unusual way, i.e. death by violence (warriors, victims
23. That figurine finds within settlements do not necessarily exclude a cultic interpretation is demonstrated by O. Dietrich with
his contribution to this volume.
24. This adds to L. Pauli’s (1975, 152) opinion, that the gifting of amulets is dependent on the age of a person and the time of
its death (while he stated a dominance of amulets especially in children’s burials and those of young adults for the Iron Age
examples he examined, the situation seems to be reversed here, replacing the stylized apotropaic symbol by a more concrete
depiction).
25. Even J. W. Neugebauer, who argues for a very aggressive and comprehensive grave robbery in Gemeinlebarn, mentions bronze
objects which were left in the looted tombs because of a certain symbolic value; although he prefers an interpretation in means
of insignia or regalia (Neugebauer 1991, 126).
of murder and manslaughter as well as executed individuals), death by accident, suicides, death by disease
and death in childbed (Sell 1955, 3).26
There is another example of at first stance unusual treatment experienced by the young women
in grave 19b at Mezőcsát, who was thrown into the grave pit head first (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 48). As
peculiar as this appears, the woman was treated commonly in the further process of the ritual. A later
opening of graves together with the removal of a large number of grave goods was discussed in detail and
shown above to be part of a complex burial rite. The individual in grave 19b was not an exception anymore
– her originally wealthy burial equipment (of which only a piece of sheet gold remained) was taken out
at a later time (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 48). While the original entombment was varied, the following rite
was apparently fulfilled. The millstone found in this burial among the few remaining grave goods might
be seen in context with working activity or even as symbolic gift. M. Primas (1977, 103), for instance,
pointed out the underestimated role of stones (although she was referring to unworked stones and pebbles) in the sense of amulets.
***
The aim of this paper was to discuss the meaning of deviant burials to contribute to our understanding of prehistoric burial rite and concepts of the afterlife. Especially an omnipresent model explaining so called ‘special’ burials with fearing and banishing the dead, Totenangst and Totenbann, served as
starting ground of the thoughts presented above. Consulting only the conspicuous aberrant feature means
to assume with tacit understanding that the archaeological record depicts a general rule of rather simplified behaviour. That there are many reasons for possible infringements of the norm, that sometimes even
‘the norm’ needs to be questioned, was demonstrated with a number of examples and with the help of
ethnographic analogies. It could hardly be negated, that there are indeed sometimes burials which stand
out by their unique and most remarkable way of how the deceased were treated.
The role of amulets in burial ritual was also analyzed in the course of this study. Within several
graves, even those emptied some time after the burial, a number of objects were found which could be
connected to an amulet nature. Especially the heart- and crescent-shaped pendants, a find group rather
common and widely spread in the Early and Middle Bronze Age attracted our attention. Recognizing
them as stylized anthropomorphic depictions and linking them to contemporary idols and figurines
emphasized their supposed significance in cultic activity, particularly their apotropaic role. The frequent
appearance of these pendants in hoards does not only underline this cultic interpretation (recognizing
at least some of these hoards as offerings through which the objects are entrusted to a numinous sphere
as well) but also draws another close line between burials and depositions and the related concepts of an
‘other world’ behind both.
That these beliefs might also contain a fear of returning dangerous dead is not unimaginable,
judging by the countless examples from historical and ethnographical sources this is even more likely. It
is not enough to state the obvious deviation, since the reasons can be numerous. Closer examination is
necessary where the burial rite seems to make an exception. To evaluate how ‘special’ a burial really is, the
complexity of the rite itself must be understood. Sometimes the smaller details among grave furnishing
and equipment indicate many more commonalities than the obvious aberration of what is considered the
norm would make one believe.
References
Aspöck 2008
Bader 1998
Aspöck, E., What Actually is a ‘Deviant Burial’? Comparing German-Language
and Anglophone Research on ‘Deviant Burials’, IN: Murphy, E. M. (ed.), Deviant
Burial in the Archaeological Record, Oxford, 17–34.
Bader, T., Bemerkungen zur Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken. Otomani/Füzesabony-Komplex, JahrMV, 80, 43–108.
26.That in the end such a sudden and unexpected death might be connected with malevolent and vengeful dead cannot be
excluded (Sell 1955, 9) and may also lead to a special treatment of the deceased in terms of protective measures (Sell 1955,
191–199, 225).
Bátora 1999
Bátora, J., Symbolische (?) Gräber in der älteren Bronzezeit in der Slowakei, IN:
Bátora, J.–Peška, J. (Hrsg.), Aktuelle Probleme der Erforschung der Frühbronzezeit
in Böhmen und Mähren und in der Slowakei, Nitra, 63–73.
Bertemes 1989
Bertemes, F., Das frühbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Gemeinlebarn, SAB, 45.
Blischke 2000
Blischke, J., Die Sprache der Toten. Grabbeigaben und gesellschaftlicher Kontext,
MittBGAEU, 21, 29–36.
Bóna 1958
Bóna, I., Chronologie der Hortfunde vom Koszider Typus, ActaArch, 9, 213–243.
Bóna 1975
Bóna, I., Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen,
ArchHung, 49, Budapest.
Fischer 1990
Fischer, U., Analogie und Urgeschichte, Saeculum, 41, 3, 318–325.
Furmanek 1980
Furmanek, V., Die Anhänger in der Slowakei, PBF, Abteilung XI, 3.
Gramsch 2000
Gramsch, A. (ed.), Vergleichen als archäologische Methode. Analogien in den
Archäologien, BAR, International Series, 825, Oxford.
Hachmann 1968
Hachmann, R., Besprechung von: Dumitrescu, Vl., Necropola de incinerație din
epoca bronzului de la Cîrna, Germania, 46, 368–370.
Hájek 1957
Hájek, L., Hlinĕné lidské plastiky z doby bronzové v Barci u Košic, SlovArch, 5,
323–338.
Hänsel 1968
Hänsel, B., Beiträge zur Chronologie der mittleren Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken,
Bonn.
Hänsel–Kalicz 1986
Hänsel, B.–Kalicz, N., Das bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Mezőcsát, Kom.
Borsod, Nordostungarn [with a contribution by I. Lengyel], BerRGK, 67, 5–88.
Hansmann–Kriss-Rettenbeck Hansmann, L.–Kriss-Rettenbeck, L., Amulett und Talisman. Erscheinungsform
1966
und Geschichte, München.
Hundt, H.-J., Versuch zur Deutung der Depotfunde der nordischen jüngeren BronzeHundt 1955
zeit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Mecklenburgs, Jahrbuch RGZM, 2, 95–140.
Jankuhn Et Al. 1978
Jankuhn, H.–Nelsen, H.–Roth, H. (Hrsg.), Zum Grabfrevel in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit. Untersuchungen zu Grabraub und „haugbrot“ in Mittel- und
Nordeuropa, Bericht über ein Kolloquium der Kommission für die Altertumskunde Mittel- und Nordeuropas vom 14. bis 16. Februar 1977, Abhandlungen
der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse
Folge 3, 113, Göttingen.
Kemenczei 1979
Kemenczei, T., Das mittelbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Gelej, Budapest.
KŐszegi 1968
Kőszegi, F., Mittelbronzezeitliches Gräberfeld in Pusztaszikszó, ActaArch, 20, 101–141.
Kovács 1975
Kovács, T., Tumulus Culture Cemeteries of Tiszafüred, RégFüz, Series II, 17, Budapest.
Kovács 1984
Kovács, T., Füzesabony-Kultur, IN: Tasić, N. (ed.), Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit
des Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans, Belgrad, 235–256.
Kovács 1992
Kovács, T., Bestattungssitten der Füzesabony-Kultur und das Gräberfeld von
Tiszafüred–Majoroshalom, IN: Meier-Arendt, W. (ed.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn.
Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an der Donau und Theiss, Frankfurt, 96–98.
Kümmel 2009
Kümmel, Ch., Ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Grabraub. Archäologische Interpretation
und kulturanthropologische Erklärung, TübSchr, 9.
Kyll 1968
Kyll, N., Die Bestattung der Toten mit dem Gesight nach unten, Trierer Zeitschirft
27, 168–183.
Meyer-Orlac 1982
Meyer-Orlac, R., Mensch und Tod: Archäologischer Befund – Grenzen der
Interpretation, Hohenschäftlarm.
Meyer-Orlac 1997
Meyer-Orlac, R., Zur Problematik der „Sonderbestattungen“ in der Archäologie,
IN: Rittershofer, K.-F. (ed.), Sonderbestattungen in der Bronzezeit im östlichen
Mitteleuropa, West- und Süddeutscher Verband für Altertumsforschung,
Jahrestagung vom 5.–20. Juni 1990 in Pottenstein (Fränkische Schweiz).
Kolloquium der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bronzezeit, IA 37, Espelkamp, 1–10.
Miles 1965
Miles, D., Socio-Economic Aspects of Secondary Burial, Oceania, 35(3), 161–174.
Mozsolics 1942
Mozsolics, A., Der frühbronzezeitliche Urnenfriedhof von Kisapostag, ArchHung,
26, Budapest.
Mozsolics 1967
Mozsolics, A., Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von
Hajdúsámson und Kosziderpadlás, Budapest.
Mozsolics 1988
Mozsolics, A., Der Bronzefund aus der oberen Remete-Höhle, ActaArch, 40, 26–64.
Neugebauer 1991
O’Shea 1996
Olexa 2002
Pástor 1969
Pauli 1975
Polla 1960
Primas 1977
Reich 2002
Rittershofer 1987
Ruttkay 1983
Schalk 1992
Schaub 2009
Schlenther 1960
Schumacher-Matthäus 1985
Schürmann 1990
Schwidetzky 1965
Sell 1955
Thomas 2008
Trauwitz-Hellwig 1935
Ucko 1969
Veit 1988
Wilke 1931
Neugebauer, J. W., Die Nekropole F von Gemeinlebarn, Niederösterreich. Untersuchungen zu den Bestattungssitten und zum Grabraub in der ausgehenden Frühbronzezeit in Niederösterreich südlich der Donau zwischen Enns und Wienerwald, RGF, 49.
O’Shea, J. M., Villagers of the Maros. A Portrait of an Early Bronze Age Society,
New York.
Olexa, L., Kult. Religious Worship, IN: Gancarski, J. (ed.), Miedzy Mykenami a
Bałtykiem. Kultura Otomani–Füzesabony. Between Mycenae and the Baltic Sea.
The Otomani–Füzesabony Culture, Krosno–Warszawa, 89–94.
Pástor, J., Košické Pohrebisko, Košice.
Pauli, L., Keltischer Volksglaube. Amulette und Sonderbestattungen am Dürrnberg
bei Hallein und im eisenzeitlichen Mitteleuropa, Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und
Frühgeschichte, 28, München.
Polla, B., Birituelle Füzesabonyer Begräbnisstätte in Streda nad Bodrogom, IN:
Chropovsky, B.–Dúšek, M.–Polla, P. (eds.), Pohrebiská zo staršej doby bronzvej,
Bratislava, 299–386.
Primas, M., Untersuchungen zu den Bestattungssitten der ausgehenden Kupferund frühen Bronzezeit, BerRGK, 58, 1–160.
Reich, Chr., Das Gräberfeld von Cîrna, PZ, 77, 159–179.
Rittershofer, K.-F., Grabraub in der Bronzezeit, BerRGK, 68, 5–23.
Ruttkay, E., Zur Deutung der Depotfunde vom Typus Tolnanémedi im
Zusammenhang mit dem Idol von Babska, AnnalenWien, 85, 1–17.
Schalk, E., Das Gräberfeld von Hernádkak. Studien zum Beginn der Frühbronzezeit
im nordöstlichen Karpatenbecken, UPA, 9.
Schaub, H., Knochen und Bestattungssitten. Die Bedeutung archäologischer
Funde zum Wiedergänger- bzw. Vampirglauben, Kakanien Revisited 12 [online],
Available at: http://www.kakanien.ac.at/beitr/vamp/HSchaub1.pdf [Accessed: 14
November 2010].
Schlenther, U., Brandbestattung und Seelenglauben. Verbreitung und Ursachen der
Leichenverbrennung bei außereuropäischen Völkern, Berlin.
Schumacher-Matthäus, G., Studien zu bronzezeitlichen Schmucktrachten im
Karpatenbecken, MSVF, 6.
Schürmann, Th., Der Nachzehrerglauben in Mitteleuropa, Marburg.
Schwidetzky, I., Sonderbestattungen und ihre paläodemographische Bedeutung,
Homo, 16, 230–247.
Sell, H.-J., Der schlimme Tod bei den Völkern Indonesiens, 's-Gravenhage.
Thomas, M., Studien zu Chronologie und Totenritual der Otomani–FüzesabonyKultur, SAB, 86.
Trauwitz-Hellwig, J., Totenverehrung, Totenabwehr und Vorgeschichte, München.
Ucko, P. J., Ethnography and Archaeological Interpretation of Funerary Remains,
WArch, 1, 262–280.
Veit, U., Des Fürsten neue Schuhe – Überlegungen zum Befund von Hochdorf,
Germania, 66, 162–169.
Wilke, G., Die Bestattung in Bauchlage, Mannus, 23, 202–206.
List of figures
Fig. 1. Location of the Otomani–Füzesabony cemeteries mentioned in the text: 1. Gelej–Beltelek, and Gelej–
Kanálisdűlő, 2. Hernádkak, 3. Pusztaszikszó, 4. Streda nad Bodrogom, 5. Tarnaméra–Uszoda, 6. Tiszafüred–
Majoroshalom and Tiszaörvény–Temetődomb, 7. Mezőcsát. (Base map: www.donau-archaeologie.de).
Fig. 2. Examples of heart-shaped and crescent-shaped pendants. 1–3. Gelej–Beltelek, grave 68 (after Kemenczei
1979, Taf. IX/8–10); 4. Tiszafüred–Majoroshalom, grave D345 (after Kovács 1984, Taf. LXIX/13); 5. Mezőcsát,
grave 51 (after Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, Taf. 8/51c); 6–14. Mezőcsát, grave 47 (after Hänsel–Kalicz 1986,
Taf. 8/47 m, n, t); 15–19. Mezőcsát, grave 66 (after Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, Taf. 9/66 k and h). No scale.
Fig. 3. The Bronze sheet pendant from Kisapostag, grave 2 (1) visualizes the anthropomorphic nature of heart shaped
pendants (2) as well as parallels to postures of the Cîrna idols (3). (No scale; after Blischke 2000, Abb. 5).
Abbreviations
AABW
AB
Acta
ActaArch
ActaMB
ActaMN
ActaMP
ActaMPa
ActaPraehistArch
ActaTS
AFSB
Agria
AIBW
AIH
AJ
AJA
AJB
Alba Regia
Aluta
AmAnt
Analele Banatului
AnnalenWien
AnnalesIA
Angustia
ANOOH
Antiquity
AO
AÖ
Apulum
ArchAustr
ArchE
ArchÉrt
ArchHung
ArchD
ArchKorr
ArchPol
ArchRoz
ArhMold
ArhRR
ArhVest
Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart
Ausgrabungen in Berlin
Acta (Siculica), Muzeul Naţional Secuiesc, Sfântu Gheorghe
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Budapest
Acta Musei Brukenthal, Sibiu
Acta Musei Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca
Acta Musei Porolissensis, Zalău
Acta Musei Papensis, Pápa
Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica, Berlin
Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, Sibiu
Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur Sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege
Agria, Az Egri Múzeum Évkönyve (1982), Eger
Archäologische Informationen aus Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart
Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon / Archaeological Investigation in Hungary,
Budapest
The Archaeological Journal, London
American Journal of Archaeology
Das Archäologische Jahr in Bayern
Alba Regia, Annales Musei Stephani Regis, Székesfehérvár
Aluta, Revista Muzeului Naţional Secuiesc, Sfântu Gheorghe
American Antiquity
Analele Banatului, Muzeul Banatului, Timişoara
Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien
Annales Instituti Archaeologici, Zagreb
Angustia, Muzeul Carpaţilor Răsăriteni, Sfântu Gheorghe
Aarboger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed Og Historie
Antiquity, London
Arhivele Olteniei, Craiova
Archäologie Österreichs
Apulum, Acta Musei Apulensis, Alba Iulia
Archaeologia Austriaca, Wien
Archäologie in Eurasien, Mainz am Rhein
Archaeologiai Értesítő, Budapest
Archaeologia Hungarica, Budapest
Archäologie in Deutschland
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum in
Mainz
Archeologia Polski
Archeologické Rozhledy, Prague
Arheologia Moldovei, Iaşi
Arheološki radovi i rasprave, Zagreb
Arheološki vestnik (Acta Archaeologica), Inštitut za arheologijo, Lubljana
378 ‌|
ASA
ASF
ASGE
AVSL
BA
BArch
Balcanica
Banatica
BAR
BayerVorgeschbl
BB
BBVF
BCŞS
Beiträge UFMV
BerRGK
BIP
BJV
BM
BMA
BMAnt
BMG
BMM
BMN
BMS
BpRég
Bremer ArchBl
BSE
BT
BTMM
Bulletin SPF
BZ
CA
CAB
Carpica
CCA
CI
ComArchHung
Corviniana
Crisia
Cumidava
Dacia
DolgKolozsvár
EA
Ea-online
EAZ
EJA
EphemNap
ESA
FAS
FBBW
FBSMB
FMSt
Anzeiger für Schweizerische Altertumskunde, Zürich
Archaeologia Slovaca Fontes, Bratislava
Arheologičeskij Sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaža, Leningrad
Archiv des Vereins für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde
Biblioteca de Arheologie, Bucureşti
Biblioteka Archeologiczna, Warszawa-Wrocław
Balcanica, Beograd
Banatica, Muzeul de Istorie al Judeţului Caraş-Severin, Reşiţa
British Archaeological Reports, International Series, Oxford
Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter, München
Bibliotheca Brukenthal, Sibiu
Berliner Blätter für Vor- und Frühgeschichte
Buletinul Cercurilor Ştiinţifice Studenţeşti, Alba Iulia
Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns
Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission
Biblioteca Istro-Pontica, Seria Arheologie, Institutul de Cercetări Eco-Muzeale Tulcea
Berliner Jahrbuch für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Berlin
Bibliotheca Marmatia, Baia Mare
Biblioteca Mvsei Apvlensis, Alba Iulia
Bibliotheca Memoriae Antiquitatis, Muzeul de istorie Piatra Neamţ
Bibliotheka Mvsei Giurgiuvensis, Giurgiu
Bibliotheca Mvsei Marisiensis, Seria Archaeologica, Târgu Mureș, Cluj Napoca
Bibliotheca Mvsei Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca
Bibliotheca Mvsei Sabesiensis, Sebeş
Budapest Régiségei, Budapest
Bremer Archäologische Blätter, Focke-Museum, Bremer Landesmuseum
Biblioteca di “Studi etruschi”
Bibliotheca Thracologica, Bucureşti
Budapest Történeti Múzeum, Műhely
Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française
Bjelovarski zbornik, Bjelovar
Cercetări Arheologice
Cercetări Arheologice în Bucureşti
Carpica, Muzeul Judeţean de Istorie şi Artă „Iulian Antonescu”, Bacău
Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România
Cercetări Istorice
Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, Budapest
Corviniana, Acta Musei Corviniensis, Hunedoara
Crisia, Muzeul Ţării Crişurilor, Oradea
Cumidava, Anuarul Muzeelor Braşovene
Dacia, Recherches et décuvertes archéologiques en Roumanie, I–XII (1924–1948),
Bucureşti; Nouvelle série (N. S.), Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire anciene,
Bucureşti
Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából, Kolozsvár
Eurasia Antiqua, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut
European archaeology – online (www.archaeology.ro)
Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift, Berlin
European Journal of Archaeology
Ephemeris Napocensis, Cluj–Napoca
Eurasia septentrionalis antiqua
Freiburger Archäologische Studien
Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg
Forschungen und Berichte der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin
Frühmittelalterliche Studien, Münster
| 379
FolArch
Godišnjak Sarajevo
Germania
Glasnik ZM
Historia Carpatica
HOMÉ
IA
IHAD
IPH
Istros
JAA
Jahrbuch RGZM
JahrBB
JahrBern
JahrDAI
JahrMV
JahrVMGA
JahrVSTL
JAMÉ
JAnR
JEA
JPMÉ
JRAI
Лесковачки зборник
Közlemények Debrecen
Közlemények Kolozsvár
Litua
Marisia
MatArch
MatBV
MatZach
MCA
MemAnt
MFMÉ
MittAGW
MittBGAEU
MittBSM
MittCCEB
MΩMOΣ
Mousaios
MPK
MSVF
MVFBW
Notizie ArchBerg
NotizieS
OIAS
OJA
OpArch
OTTÉ
OZ
Ősrégészeti levelek
Folia Archeologica, a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Évkönyve, Budapest
Godišnjak Centra za Balkanoloska Ispitivanja Akademije Nauka i Umjetnosti, Bosne i
Hercegovine, Sarajevo
Germania, Frankfurt am Main
Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu
Historica Carpatica, Zborník Východoslovenského múzeá v Košiciach, Kosice
A Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve, Miskolc
Internationale Archäologie, Buch am Erlbach, Espelkamp, Rahden/Westf.
Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, Zagreb
Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae, Budapest
Istros, Buletinul Muzeului Brăilei, Brăila
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Amsterdam
Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz
Jahresbericht der Bayerischen Bodendenkmalpflege, München
Jahresbericht des Historischen Museums in Bern
Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Berlin
Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte, Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften
for the Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte (Halle), Berlin
Jahrbücher des Vereins für Mecklenburgische Geschichte und Altertumskunde
Jahresschrift für die Vorgeschichte der Sächsisch-Thüringischen Länder
A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve, Nyíregyháza
Journal of Anthropological Research
Journal of European Archaeology, Durham, UK
A Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve, Pécs
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain
Народни музеј у Лесковцу, Лесковац
Közlemények a Debreceni M. Kir. Tisza István Tudomány Egyetem Régészeti Intézetéből, Debrecen
Közlemények az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából, Cluj
Litua, Muzeul Gorjului
Marisia (V–), Studii şi Materiale, Târgu Mureş
Materiały Archeologiczne, Kraków
Materialien zur Bayerischen Vorgeschichte
Materiały Zachodniopomorskie, Muzeum Narodowe w Szczecinie
Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice, Bucureşti
Memoria Antiquitatis, Acta Musei Petrodavensis, Bucureşti
A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, Szeged
Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft Wien
Mitteilungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte
Mitteilungen des Burzenländer Sächsischen Museums
Mittheilungen der Central-Commission zur Erhaltung der Baudenkmale
MΩMOΣ, Őskoros Kutatók Összejövetelének Konferenciakötete
Mousaios, Muzeul Judeţean Buzău, Muzeul Brăilei
Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommision, Viena
Marbuger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Mainz
Materialhefte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart
Notizie Archeologiche Bergomensi, Civico Museo Archeologico di Bergamo
Notizie degli Scavi
Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae
Oxford Journal of Archaeology
Opuscula Archaeologica, Arheološki zavod, Filozofski fakultet u Zagrebu
Orvos- és Természettudományi Értesítő, Kolozsvár
Osječki Zbornik, Osijek
Ősrégészeti levelek / Prehistoric newsletter, Budapest
380 ‌|
PA
PamArch
PAS
PBF
Peuce
PMAAE
PPS
Pravĕk NŘ
Preistoria Alpina
Prilozi IAZ
PrzArch
PZ
RegBPA
RégFüz
RevBis
RevMuz
RGF
RKM
RoczB
SAB
Sargetia
Savaria
SCIV(A)
SJ
SJA
SlovArch
SpJ
SSA
SSUF
Starinar
StCom Satu Mare
StCom Sibiu
StudiaAA
Studie AUCAB
Študijné zvesti
SymThrac
Thraco-Dacica
Tibiscus
Tisicum
TübSchr
UPA
VAH
VAMZ
VHAD
VMMK
WA
WArch
WMMÉ
WPZ
Zalai Múzeum
Zbornik Bor
Zborník SNM
ZfA
Patrimonium Apulense, Alba Iulia
Památky Archeologické, Praha
Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, Berlin, Kiel, München
Prähistorische Bronzefunde, München, Stuttgart
Peuce, Studii şi cercetări de istorie şi arheologie, Institutul de Cercetari Eco-Muzeale
Tulcea, Institutul de Istorie si Arheologie, Tulcea
Prace i Materiały Antropologiczno-Archeologiczne i Etnograficzne, Kraków
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, London
Pravĕk NŘ, Masarykova univerzita Brno
Preistoria Alpina, Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali
Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju iz Zagreba
Przegląd Archeologiczny, Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk
Praehistorische Zeitschrift, Berlin
Regensburger Beiträge zur Prähistorischen Archäologie
Régészeti Füzetek, Budapest
Revista Bistriţei, Complexul Judeţean Muzeal Bistriţa-Năsăud
Revista Muzeelor, București
Römisch-Germanische Forschungen, Mainz, Berlin
Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon
Rocznik Białostocki
Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde, Bonn
Sargeţia, Buletinul Muzeului Judeţului Hunedoara, Acta Musei Devensis, Deva
Savaria, A Vas Megyei Múzeumok Értesítője, Szombathely
Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche (şi Arheologie 1974–), Bucureşti
Saalburg Jahrbuch, Berlin
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology
Slovenská Archeológia, Bratislava
Speläologisches Jahrbuch, Wien
Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne, Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego
Schriften der Sektion für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Berlin
Starinar, Arheološki institute, Beograd
Studii şi Comunicări Satu Mare
Studii şi Comunicări, Muzeul Brukenthal, Sibiu
Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, Iaşi
Studie Archeologického Ústavu Československé Akademie vĕd v Brnĕ, Praha
Študijné zvesti, Archeologického Ústavu Slovenskej Akadémie Vied, Nitra
Symposia Thracologica, Institutul Român de Tracologie, Bucureşti
Thraco-Dacica, Institutul de Tracologie, Bucureşti
Tibiscus, Muzeul Banatului, Timişoara
Tisicum, A Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve, Szolnok
Tübinger Schriften zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie, Münster
Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, Bonn
Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, Budapest
Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu
Vjesnik Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, Zagreb
A Veszprém Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei
Wiadomości Archeologiczne, Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne, Warsaw
World Archaeology, Oxford, Oxbow
Wosinsky Mór Múzeum Évkönyve, Szekszárd
Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift, Wien
Zalai Múzeum, Közlemények Zala megye múzeumaiból, Zalaegerszeg
Zbornik radova muzeja rudarstva i metalurgije u Boru
Zborník Slovenského Národného Múzea, Bratislava
Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters, Bonn

bronze age rites and rituals in the carpathian basin

Transcription

Similar documents

A Shell Hungary zRt. vidéki töltőállomás

INDEX OF SITES

Die Nordlandtrilogie