bronze age rites and rituals in the carpathian basin

2 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size Report
Cercetări Istorice. ComArchHung. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, Budapest. Corviniana. Corviniana, Acta Musei Corviniensis, Hunedoara. Crisia.
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.).

146 ‌| Jens Notroff

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).

Menace from the Afterlife? | 147

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.

148 ‌| Jens Notroff

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).

Menace from the Afterlife? | 149

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

150 ‌| Jens Notroff

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).

Menace from the Afterlife? | 151

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).

152 ‌| Jens Notroff 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.

Menace from the Afterlife? | 153 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