Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 56

EPHEMERIS NAPOCENSIS

XXII 2012

ROMANIAN ACADEMY INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF ART CLUJ-NAPOCA


EDITORIAL BOARD Editor: Coriolan Horaiu Opreanu Members: Sorin Coci, Vlad-Andrei Lzrescu, Ioan Stanciu ADVISORY BOARD Alexandru Avram (Le Mans, France); Mihai Brbulescu (Rome, Italy); Alexander Bursche (Warsaw, Poland); Falko Daim (Mainz, Germany); Andreas Lippert (Vienna, Austria); Bernd Pffgen (Munich, Germany); Marius Porumb (Cluj-Napoca, Romania); Alexander Rubel (Iai, Romania); Peter Scherrer (Graz, Austria); Alexandru Vulpe (Bucharest, Romania).

Responsible of the volume: Ioan Stanciu


n ar revista se poate procura prin pot, pe baz de abonament la: EDITURA ACADEMIEI ROMNE, Calea 13 Septembrie nr. 13, sector 5, P. O. Box 542, Bucureti, Romnia, RO76117, Tel. 021411.90.08, 021410.32.00; fax. 021410.39.83; RODIPET SA, Piaa Presei Libere nr. 1, Sector 1, P. O. Box 3357, Fax 021222.64.07. Tel. 021618.51.03, 021222.41.26, Bucureti, Romnia; ORION PRESS IMPEX 2000, P.O.Box 7719, Bucureti 3 Romnia, Tel. 021301.87.86, 021335.02.96.

EPHEMERIS NAPOCENSIS
Any correspondence will be sent to the editor: INSTITUTUL DE ARHEOLOGIE I ISTORIA ARTEI Str.M.Koglniceanu nr.1214, 400084 ClujNapoca, RO e-mail: choprean@yahoo.com All responsability for the content, interpretations and opinions expressed in the volume belongs exclusively to the authors. DTP and print: MEGA PRINT Cover: Roxana Sfrlea

2012 EDITURA ACADEMIEI ROMNE Calea 13 Septembrie nr.13, Sector 5, Bucureti 76117 Telefon 021410.38.46; 021410.32.00/2107, 2119

ACADEMIA ROMN INSTITUTUL DE ARHEOLOGIE I ISTORIA ARTEI

EPHEMERIS NAPOCENSIS
XXII 2012

EDITURA ACADEMIEI ROMNE

SOMMAIRE CONTENTS INHALT

STUDIES FLORIN GOGLTAN Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin. A Methodological Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ALEXANDRA GVAN Metallurgy and Bronze Age Tell-Settlements from Western Romania (I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 DVID PETRU Everyday Life in the Research Concerning the Roman Army in the Western European Part of the Empire and the Province of Dacia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 CORIOLAN HORAIU OPREANU From to Colonia Dacica Sarmizegetusa. A File of the Problem. . . . . . . . . 113 CLIN COSMA Ethnische und politische Gegebenheiten im Westen und Nordwesten Rumniens im 8.10. Jh. n.Chr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND EPIGRAPHICAL NOTES AUREL RUSTOIU Commentaria Archaeologica et Historica (I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 VITALIE BRC Some Remarks on Metal Cups with Zoomorphic Handles in the Sarmatian Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 FLORIN FODOREAN Spa Vignettes in Tabula Peutingeriana. Travelling Ad Aquas: thermal Water Resources in Roman Dacia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 DAN AUGUSTIN DEAC Note on Apis Bull Representations in Roman Dacia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 SILVIA MUSTA, SORIN COCI, VALENTIN VOIIAN Instrumentum Balnei from Roman Napoca. Two Iron Vessels Discovered on the Site from Victor Deleu Street. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 IOAN STANCIU About the Use of the So-Called Clay Breadcakes in the Milieu of the Early Slav Settlements (6th7th Centuries). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

DAN BCUE-CRIAN Contributions to the Study of Elites and Power Centers in Transylvania during the second Half of the 9th first Half of the 10th Centuries. Proposal of Identification Criteria Based on archaeological Discoveries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 ADRIANA ISAC, ERWIN GLL, SZILRD GL A 12th Century Cemetery Fragment from Gilu (Cluj County) (Germ.: Julmarkt; Hung.: Gyalu). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 ADRIAN ANDREI RUSU Stove Tiles with the Royal Coat of Arms of King Matthias I Corvinus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

REVIEWS IULIAN MOGA, Culte solare i lunare n Asia Mic n timpul Principatului/Solar and Lunar Cults in Asia Minor in the Age of the Principate, Editura Universitii Alexandru Ioan Cuza Iai (Iai 2011), 752 p.(Szab Csaba) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 DAN GH. TEODOR, Un centru meteugresc din evul mediu timpuriu. Cercetrile arheologice de la Lozna-Botoani/An Artisan centre from the Early Middle Ages. The archaeological research from Lozna-Botoani, Bibliotheca Archaeologica Moldaviae XV, Academia Romn Filiala Iai, Institutul de Arheologie, Editura Istros (Brila 2011), 200 p.(including 118 figures), abstract and list of figures in French (Ioan Stanciu). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 CLIN COSMA, Funerary Pottery in Transylvania of the 7th10th Centuries, Series Ethnic and Cultural Interferences in the 1st Millenium B.C. to the 1st Millenium AD. 18, Romanian Academy Institute of Archaeology and Art History ClujNapoca, Mega Publishing House (Cluj-Napoca 2011), 183 p., 49 plates (Aurel Dragot). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

RESEARCH PROJECTS Crossing the Boundaries. Remodeling Cultural Identities at the End of Antiquity in Central and Eastern Europe. A Case Study (Coriolan H.Oprean, Vlad-Andrei Lzrescu) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 Warriors and military retainers in Transylvania of the 7th9th centuries (Clin Cosma). . . . . . . . . . 349 Seeing the Unseen. Landscape Archaeology on the Northern Frontier of the Roman Empire at Porolissvm (Romania) (Coriolan H.Oprean, Vlad-Andrei Lzrescu) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352

Abbreviations that can not be found in Bericht der Rmisch-Germanische Kommission. . . . . . 363 Guidelines for Ephemeris Napocensis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366

STUDIES

RITUAL ASPECTS OF THE BRONZE AGE TELL-SETTLEMENTS IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN. A METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH1
Florin Gogltan2

To Professor Gheorghe Lazarovici at his 70th anniversary

Abstract: When trying to find traces of spiritual manifestations in a settlement, certain discoveries must be taken into account such as: 1. cult structures (sanctuaries or other features with ritual function); 2.deviant burials (Sonderbestattungen); 3.ritual deposits of ceramics or metal artifacts; 4.artifacts with ritual function (idols, vessels with symbolic representations, altars etc.); 5.fireplaces with ritual function. Besides the already mentioned discoveries, one should take into consideration that there must have been other categories of objects or places in the settlement with special meanings. One may suppose the existence of wooden idols. Probably there also existed sacred trees, pillars and stones with supernatural powers. Keywords: Bronze Age, tell settlements, Carpathian Basin, ritual, religious life
This topic was the subject of my conference paper held at the 8th annual conference of the European Archaeologists Association on September 24th29th 2002, Thessaloniki, Greece, in the section The archaeology of beliefs and ritual practices (GOGLTAN 2002a, 215). The intent of the organizers to publish a conference volume was unfortunatly not realized. In the meantime, several books and articles dealing with the subject of Bronze Age rituals and the archaeology of religion have been published (MCCAULEY/LAWSON 2002; MLLER F. 2002; GRUENWALD 2003; METZNER-NEBELSICK 2003a, 99117; INSOLL 2004; BRADLEY 2005; KRISTIANSEN/LARSSON 2005, 142356; KYRIAKIDIS 2007; BARROWCLONGH/MALONE 2007; DAGATA/van de MOORTEL 2009; BERGGREN/NILSSON STUTZ 2010 etc.) as well as a number of publications focused on Bronze Age tells from the Carpathian Basin (GOGLTAN 2002b, 1145; DANI/ MTH/SZAB 2003, 93118; OLEXA 2003; GAAJ 2003, 2151; HNSEL/MEDOVI 2004, 83111; GOGLTAN 2005a, 161179; OSHEA ET AL. 2005, 81109; GOGLTAN 2005b, 1143; POROSZLAI/ VICZE 2005; FISCHL 2006; MOLNR/IMECS 2006, 2987; GOGLTAN 2006, 6174; MOLNR 2006, 75119; NMETI/MOLNR 2007; GOGLTAN 2008, 3956; BTORA ET AL. 2008, 97107; MOLNR 2008, 3360; FURMNEK/MARKOV 2008; DANI 2009, 1721; DAVID 2009, 563594; KULCSR 2009; ANDERS ET AL. 2010, 147160; GOGLTAN 2010, 1346; EARLE/KRISTIANSEN 2010; MOLNR 2011, 269330; KALICZ ET AL. 2011; GOGLTAN 2011, 934; BTORA ET AL. 2012, 111130 etc). Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Bonn/Bad Godesberg, Germany) offered me the opportunity to research the topic of the Bronze Age tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin (under the direct lead of prof.B.Hnsel at Freie Universitt Berlin20012002) which also included the participation at the Thessaloniki symposium. I am indebted also to Anca Gogltan, Raluca Burlacu-Timofte, Mihaela Savu and Demjn Andrea who helped me with editing the present article. The bibliographical additions were possible with the financial support of the Sectoral Operational Programme for Human Development 20072013, co-financed by the European Social Fund, under the project number POSDRU/89/1.5/S/61104 with the title Social sciences and humanities in the context of global development development and implementation of postdoctoral research and a scholarship offered by MTA Domus Hungarica Scientiarum et Artium (Budapest 2012). 2 Institute of Archaeology and Art History ClujNapoca, Romanian Academy Cluj Branch, M.Koglniceanu str.1214, 400084, ClujNapoca, Cluj county, RO; e-mail: gogaltan@yahoo.com.
1

Ephemeris Napocensis, XXII, 2012, p. 756

Florin Gogltan

Religion is as ancient as language3. Prehistoric, ancient or medieval people used to put all their faith and belief in supernatural forces to protect them in case of natural disasters or against other threats. These beliefs made the difference between those people of the past and todays, rational human beings. Who were these Gods, what were their names and in which ways were they adored? Mircea Eliade was right when he emphasized the opacity of the prehistoric sources concerning various aspects of spiritual life4. Without written sources, reconstruction of thereligious life is one of the hardest tasks for an archaeologist5. How close are we to what Colin Renfrew6 referred to as the ancient mind? Anthony Harding considered that it is impossible to enter into the psyche of prehistoric peoples or chart the psychological processes7. Many primitive societies did not make any difference between profane and sacred actions, between what was practical and symbolic. In that case, are we able to make the distinction between the domestic remains and the rests of a ritual banquet? Are the human, the animal figurines and the miniature vessels votive objects or simple toys? Was a fireplace, found outside the house, used for cooking everyday meals or was it destined also for burning offerings for the Gods?

Fig. 1. Bronze Age tells, tell-like and mound-like settlements in the Carpathian Basin. RAPPAPORT 1999, 16. ELIADE 1991, 1518. 5 In a debate on archaeologys methods and theory written 50 years ago, Christopher Hawkes established a scale of difficulties in archaeological researches: 1. To infer from the archaeological phenomena to the techniques producing them I take to be relatively easy...; 2. To infer to the subsistence-economies of the human groups concerned is fairly easy...; 3. To infer to the socio/political institutions of the groups, however, is considerably harder; 4. To infer to the religious institutions and spiritual life is the hardest inference of all (HAWKES 1954, 161162). Janet E.Levy held a similar position: The identification and interpretation of material remains as evidence of prehistoric ritual activity is one of the most complex and frustrating tasks for an archaeologist (LEVY 1981, 174). 6 This notion was defined in the context of the debate around the so-called cognitive archaeology (see: RENFREW 1994a, 312). In the same book C.Renfrew emphasized that any attempt to encompass the archaeology of mind must inevitably consider the archaeological approach towards religion (RENFREW 1994b, 47). 7 HARDING 2000, 308.
3 4

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

Along with the rites and funerary rituals8, the so-called natural sanctuaries (caves, cliffs, springs etc.)9, presented by Martin P.Nilsson in 1927 in The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion10, the sanctuaries located outside the settlements (peak-sanctuaries)11, the bronze hoards12 as well as the discoveries inside the settlements may offer more details to the research of the spiritual life13. It is very difficult to make a presentation of ritual aspects of the Bronze Age tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin. In order to reconstruct an overall image of the elements composing different rituals, I will begin with a survey of all the types of information available on this subject. An important issue, debated by scholars, was the notion of ritual itself, whether it should be interpreted as a sacred or as a profane practice. Similar questions were raised concerning sacrifices and votive offerings14. Beginning with the late 19th century, important contributions to the archaeological interpretation of such practices were offered by ethnographic studies about prehistoric communities, as well as by the historians of antique religions. In spite of the fact that an impressive literature was published around this subject15, of the existing theories only some are convincing. For example, William H.D.Rouse suggested that for the ancient Greeks a votive offering was whatever is given of freewill to a being conceived as superhuman16. Gerardus van der Leeuw developed the principle, now classic, of do ut des17. The practical purpose of an offering is the so-called do ut accipiam18. In one of the main writings referring to the sacrifice and its archaeological interpretation, Berta Stjernquist explained the implications of this concept in Europe: she understood those objects which were deposited with a religious purpose as Opferfund19. Both archaeologists and anthropologists have elaborated numerous and various definitions of ritual which have been literally accepted by some, and reformulated by others, without reaching a common view20. If anthropologists couldnt get to an agreement concerning the ritual as a consequence of the multitude of contradictory examples21, for archaeologists the
8 For example: ROBERTS/LEE/BINTLIFF 1989; STJERNQUIST 1994; BRANIGAN 1998; LICHTER 2001 etc. 9 New perspective by JANKUHN 1970; HGG/MARINATOS 1981; CARMICHAEL ET AL. 1994; SCHAUER 1996, 381416; BUSCH 2000; BIEHL/BERTEMES/MELLER 2001; CASTLEDEN 2001, 5963 etc. 10 NILSSON 1950, 5371. 11 RUTKOWSKI 1985, 345359; RUTKOWSKI 1986; CASTLEDEN 2001, 5359 etc. 12 The interpretation of the bronze deposits found in bogs as ritual gestures was already proposed by WORSAAE 1866, 313326. Out of the large number of works available on this matter I have selected those that may give an idea about how the debate developed over time: MLLER 1897; STJERNQUIST 1963, 564; JENSEN 1972, 115164; TORBRGGE 1972, 1146; v. BRUNN 1980, 91150; LEVY 1982; WILLROTH 1985, 361400; BRADLEY 1990; HANSEN 1994; SOROCEANU 1995, 1580; HNSEL A./HNSEL B. 1997; HARDING 2000, 361368; HANSEN 2000, 3162 etc. See also: OSBORNE 2004, 110; HANSEN 2005, 211230; SALA 2005; MARASZEK 2006; LUND/MELHEIM 2011, 441446 etc. 13 HILL 1995. Find a more recent perspective in BRADLEY 2005. 14 As in Latin, there is a difference between sacrificium and votum in the modern languages as well. For example, in English is used sacrifice and votive-offering, and in German Opfer and Weihungen. See also HANSEN 1994, 382 n. 95. 15 See also the Romanian translations for these writings: FRAZER 1890; MAUSS/HUBERT 1898, 29138; MAUSS/HUBERT 1903, 1146; van GENNEP 1909; DURKHEIM 1912 etc. For a brief presentation of the older anthropological literature see MORRIS 1987. More recent contributions are CARTER 2003; NEGEL 2005. 16 ROUSE 1998, 1 (first edition published in Cambridge in 1902, and the second one in New York in 1975). S.Hansen, talking about Votivopfer is using this definition (HANSEN 1994, 382). 17 van der LEEUW 1921, 241253. 18 BERTHOLET 1942, 1819. 19 STJERNQUIST 1963, 8 (Der Begriff Opferfund ist ganz allgemein eine Bezeichnung fr solche Fundgegenstnde, deren Niederlegung einen religisen Sinn und Zweck hatte). 20 BELL 1992, 1366; BELL 1997, 389. 21 One should take into account the opinion of Catherine Bell I have not proposed a new theory of ritual because I believe that a new theory of ritual, by definition, would do little to solve the real conundrums that the study of ritual

10

Florin Gogltan

problem was simpler. They agreed that ritual practices may be considered those acts fundamentally different from other daily activities22. It is difficult to interpret, from our contemporary perspective, which actions were non-functional, irrational, and symbolically valuable for prehistoric societies. Some specialists consider that interpreting the archaeological material, from a religious point of view, means crossing the borders of the research. There are others who dont have such restraints: for them a thorough knowledge of the relevant data coupled with the free exercise of the creative human gift for sympathetic imagination can together lead directly to valid insights into long-vanished belief systems23. With a characteristic English humor, Paul Bahn defined the ritual as an all-purpose explanation used where nothing else comes to mind24. In this case it may be debatable if the gesture of throwing a coin into the Fontana di Trevi in Rome or lighting a candle in a church represents a ritual or it is just a superstition for many of us.

Fig. 2. Tiszaug Kmnytet. A house of the Nagyrv culture (after CSNYI/STANCZIK 1992). has come up against. Instead, I have proposed a new framework within which to reconsider traditional questions about ritual. In this framework, ritual activities are restored to their rightful context, the multitude of ways of acting in a particular culture. This might be the reason why she insists on what she defines as ritualization: the production of ritualized acts can be described, in part, as that way of acting that sets itself off from other ways of acting by virtue of the way in which it does what it does (BELL 1992, 140). Lately her concept was adopted by some archaeologists (BRADLEY 2003, 1221). In a following work, she establishes six categories of ritual action: They are rites of passage, which are also called life-cycle rites; calendrical and commemorative rites; rites of exchange and communion; rites of affliction; rites of feasting, fasting, and festivals; and, finally, political rituals (BELL 1997, 94). 22 After LEVY 1981, 173 I understand religious ritual (often referred to simply as ritual in this paper) to be repeated, stereotyped (although not necessarily rigidly) behaviors directed toward a non-empirical, supernatural world. Such behaviors may involve individuals or groups, may consist of any number of physical and verbal activities, and may be directed at entities conceived of as beings, natural objects, essences, immanent forces etc. In Colin Renfrews opinion Ritual behavior is readily recognized in life through its formality, through the elements of repetition involved, and through its evidently purposive character it has to be seen to be done, whether publicly by a gathering of people, or privately in the presence of the deity (RENFREW 1985, 14). A more recent presentation of that debate may be found in BRCK 1999, 314344. Also important is her conclusion, according to which This equation of ritual with non-functional action is, I would argue, the single most important characteristic of both archaeological and anthropological approaches to ritual (BRCK 1999, 317). 23 RENFREW 1985, 1. 24 BAHN 1989, 62.

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

11

More recently, post-processual and interpretative archaeology has paid more attention to symbolic meanings of the archaeological data. All sorts of arguments were given in order to prove that the whole existence of primitive societies must have been bound by rituals. The great majority of these studies didnt make a distinction between sacred and profane; they insisted on the social role of ritual practices that would permit the reproduction and renegotiation of the social order25. Therefore, it became customary to consider all human creations, starting with the artifacts from the waste pits to the administration of wider territories, as metaphoric representations of the social and cosmic order26. They insist on the fact that ritual had to be incorporated in all the aspects of daily life in prehistoric societies. This is why it is very difficult to reconstruct the pre and proto historical past because everything could be a reflection of our imagination27. Nevertheless, this opinion is not fully embraced by all post-processualists; some are aware of the danger of interpreting everything under the category of ritual. This being the case, it surely appears more and more obvious that human actions are both practical and symbolic. These two sides are not to be considered separately, as they can describe the same thing, and this is the reason why Joanna Brck referred to it as the coin of human action28. The late Roy Rappaport, former professor at the University of Ann Arbor/Michigan, came with a new anthropological interpretation of the matters of ritual and religion in 1999. Hedefined ritual as the performance of, more or less, invariant sequences of formal acts and utterances not entirely encoded by performers29. For this reason, he considered the ritual to be a basic activity of the society. However, he pointed out that ... as all ritual is not religions, notall religions acts are ritual30. Another important issue of the theoretical approach concerning ritual regarded the means by which archaeologists could trace such manifestations31. It is well-known that in the Ancient world the offerings accompanied by prayers were meant to connect humans with their deities32. Beyond archaeological proofs, literary sources support the idea that almost anything could have served as an offering33. This was proved by W.H.D. Rouse already in the beginning of the 20th century in his above-mentioned work34. More recently, a series of other contributions published in collective volumes35, synthesis concerning the archaic sanctuaries in Ionia36, the cult places for Hera37 as well as the votive depositions on the Acropolis of Athens, from the geometric and sub-geometric periods contributed to a better knowledge of the matter38.
BARRETT 1991, 19; GARWOOD 1991, 1032; BARRETT 1994, 7285 etc. PARKER PEARSON/RICHARDS 1994, 3872; HILL 1995, 96101. 27 A reply to the post-processualist criticism is made by RENFREW 1994a, 9. 28 BRCK 1999, 325. 29 RAPPAPORT 1999, 24. 30 RAPPAPORT 1999, 25. 31 Beyond the contributions of B.Stjernquist (STJERNQUIST 1963, 564) and H.Kirchner (KIRCHNER 1968, 379389), in the German archaeological school the position of C.Colpe is now classical. He proposed several means by which ritual deposits may be identified: Von dem Material, auf das zu achten ist, fallen Haus und Siedlungsgrundrisse aus, nur tragbare Gegenstnde und Tiere kommen in Frage. Wiederholung der Niederlegung drfte leicht festzustellen sein; die Auergewhnlichkeit kann sich an der Wahl der Gegenstnde (Kostbarkeit, Seltenheit in der Umgebung) bzw. Tiere (Bevorzugung einer Art, Altersstufe, eines Geschlechts) und dem Ort und der Art ihrer Niederlegung zeigen (Gruppierungen, die sich nicht zufllig ergeben; bestimmte Ttungsarten; Anordnung der Knochen unw.). Wiederholung und Auergewhnlichkeit der Niederlegung drfen wir unter dem Begriff der Ritualisierung zusammenfassen (COLPE 1970, 36). 32 van STRATEN 1981, 65. 33 van STRATEN 1981, 80. 34 ROUSE 1998. 35 van STRATEN 1992, 247284; SIMON 1997, 125143 etc. 36 SIMON 1986. 37 BAUMBACH 2004. 38 SCHOLL 2007, 42173.
25 26

12

Florin Gogltan

Whereas in the study of Antiquity one may correlate archaeological finds with written sources, in the case of Prehistory it is harder to determine which were the offerings for the Gods.

Fig. 3. Slacea Dealul Vida. The plan of megaron-temple (after CHIDIOAN/ORDENTLICH 1975).

Based on ethnographic observations, J.Levy discovered some general criteria defining rituals that, in my opinion, may be still considered valid: There are several generalizations about material remains of offering rituals which can be drawn from this survey: (1) You can expect ritual remains to be located in some special limited location, forbidden to or hidden from most of the population. (2) You can expect ritual remains to be a special subclass of the communitys material culture, characterized by restrictions of form, color, quality etc. (3) You can expect ritual remains to be arranged in special required patterns. (4) You can expect ritual remains to be associated with remains of food, such as ritual meals, slaughtering, and libations39. There are archaeologists, especially Germans, as well as other specialists anchored in the German literature, who are more concerned with methodology and less with a theoretical approach40. They adopted a more neutral point of view concerning the concept of communication with the Gods41. According to them, the offerings were Gifts to the Gods42 or Gaben an die Gtter43. For those deities, people were ready to sacrifice golden vessels and even humans44. Other methods of analysis focus on the order of offering the goods. Horst Kirchner proposed to arrange these practices according to the geographical space, the chronological and cultural horizon, the category of deposited goods, the place of the offering, the person
LEVY 1981, 176. The new generations of German specialists were also influenced by the debates from the Anglo-American literature. See: BERNBECK 1997; BERTEMES/BIEHL 2001, 1124; MLLER F. 2002; ZIPF 2003, 916; METZNER-NEBELSICK 2003a, 99117 etc. More recently TRACHSEL 2008, 15. 41 GLADIGOW 1984, 1943; BURKERT 1987, 4350. 42 GREGORY 1980, 626652; van STRATEN 1981, 65151; LINDERS/NORDQUIST 1987. 43 HNSEL/HNSEL 1997. 44 The Tn 316 tablet from Pylos cited at the end of this article is a well-known example. A discussion on this subject, starting with the representations on the frescoes from Knossos may be found in BOULOTIS 1987, 145155.
39 40

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

13

making the sacrifice, the reason, the goal and the receiver of the offering45. According to Hermann Mller-Karpe, when dealing with the question of sacrifice and the cultic structures in Europe (without including the Mycenaean world), more important are the place, the way and the cathegories of offerings. As cultic places he took into consideration swamps, rivers, caves, hill and mountain tops, as well as settlements. He analysed several of the procedures in which offerings were deposited, such as sinking, burial and burning. The ritual deposited goods were represented by weapons, jewelry, tools, vessels with contents, animals respectively parts of animals and other cultic objects46. In the debate about spiritual life, it will also be useful to trace some general aspects concerning the problem of Bronze Age tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin. The artificial mounds began to draw the attention of specialists already in the beginning of the 18th century47. Starting with the second half of the 19th century, these settlements had been archaeologically investigated with the methods available at that time48. After publishing the first results of the excavations49, experts like Flris Rmer50, Luigi Pigorini51, Rudolf Virchow52, Johanna Mestorf53 and later Lajos Mrton54 and Vere Gordon Childe55 related the settlements of Tszeg, Nagyrv, Fzesabony, Pecica, Periam, etc, with the so-called terramare from Northern Italy. In an article written in 1937, Ferencz Tompa was the first one to associate the multilayered settlements in Hungary with those in the Near East, naming them with the general term of tells56. Several scholars, such as Pl Patay57, Nndor Kalicz58, Istvn Bna59, Jnos Makkay60, John Chapman61 etc., debated the problem of the tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin, but they didnt propose a definition. N.Kalicz and P Pl Raczky classified tells into genuine tell
45 KIRCHNER 1968, 386389: Geographischer Bereich, Zeitstellung und Kulturzugehrigkeit, Gegenstand des Opfers, Umstnde des Opfers, Spender des Opfers, Anlass des Opfers (des Opferns), Sinn des Opfers (des Opferns), Empfnger des Opfers. 46 MLLER-KARPE 1980, 682: An Deponierungspltzen kommen in Betracht: Moore, Gewsser, Hhlen, vor allem Spalthhlen, Anhhen, aber auch Siedlungen; an Behandlungsarten: Versenken, Vergraben oder Verbrennen; an rituell deponierten Gegenstnden: Waffen, Schmuck, Gerte, Gefe mit Inhalt, Tiere bzw. Teile von Tieren und ausgesprochene Kultobjekte.. 47 The earliest reliable information concerning the existence of some fortified elements that surrounded the artificial mounds is provided by Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli (16581730). He mentioned and sketched the defense system of the Feudvar tell that he had seen in 1693 in his work Danubius Pannonico-Mysicus (1726) (NEBEHAY 1981, 7588). See also GOGLTAN 2008, 4142, Fig.3/1. 48 KUBINYI 1861, 104113. 49 KUBINYI 1861, 104113 (Gomba Vrhegy); FOLTINY 1870, 442455 (Szihalom rpdvr = Fldvr) etc. 50 RMER 1878, 1838. 51 PIGORINI 1876, 230241. 52 VIRCHOW 1876, 243255. 53 MESTORF 1876. 54 MRTON 1910, 8687. 55 CHILDE 1929, 216, 263264 etc. 56 TOMPA 1937, Pl.39 Unsere Abb. zeigt das Hherwachsen des Tells durch Erneuerung der Huser an der gleichen Stelle. 57 PATAY 1938, 29, 32, 57 (Tell-frmig). 58 KALICZ 1965, 31 in geschichtete Siedlung (Schnitt-Tiefe von 50150 cm) mit Tell-Eigenschaften. 59 BNA 1975, 1617 Der Tell ist ein mehrschichtiger, aus dem Flachland emporragender Siedlungsrest. Damit die Schichten entsthehen, mssen sich nicht unbedingt mehrere Kulturen an derselben Stelle ansiedeln, doch kommt das wegen der gnstigen Lage oft vor. Die Tells stammen von Bewohnern, die sehaft waren, vornehmlich intensiv wirtschafteten und Mehrfelderwirtschaft betriben. Zu ihrer Entstehung ist also die Kenntnis der Mehrfelderwirtschaft notwendig. 60 MAKKAY 1982, 104106. 61 CHAPMAN 1989, 39 a physical and social expression of continuity with the ancestors, who once lived in the same place.

14

Florin Gogltan

settlements, and tell-like settlements62. Genuine tell settlements were described as having a stratigraphy of 34 m and a long period of living, while tell-like settlements were occupied for a shorter period of time and had a stratigraphy of maximum 1 to 2.5 m. This definition was adopted by other scholars as well63.

Fig. 4. Nin Myla (after GASAJ 1994).

Taking into consideration all these opinions and the existing realities in the Carpathian Basin, I include in the category of tells those multilayered settlements which have been created by accumulation of successive sequences of building and rebuilding of surface houses, created in the wattle and daub technique64. I established a catalogue of tell settlements based on this definition and on the principle that these multilayered settlements belong to a certain archaeological culture. According to the number of layers and their thickness, I proposed to divide them into tell settlements and tell-like settlements. Furthermore, I suggested to consider tells those sites with over 1 m stratigraphy and with 3 or more layers. The tell-like settlements represent those cases with at least two archaeological levels and a stratigraphy up to 1 m height. As for those settlements which werent archeologically researched but have the structure and materials similar to those usually present in tell settlements, I included them in another category: mound-like settlements65. Based on these criteria, I took into account 188 settlements, as shown on the map (Fig. 1). As it may be seen, they are concentrated in different areas of the Carpathian Basin: along the high terrace of the Danube, on the lower course of the Mure river, the lower plains of the Tisa, Cri, Barcu and Er rivers, the hilly area on the north-eastern part
KALICZ/RACZKY 1987, 15. MEIER-ARENDT 1991, 7785. 64 Terminological aspects were discussed in several articles: GOGLTAN 2002B, 1145; GOGLTAN 2003a, 224; GOGLTAN 2003b, 4593; GOGLTAN 2005a, 161 etc. 65 Recent additions appear in LINK 2006, 714. See the comments regarding my opinions and those of Thomas Link in HORVTH 2009, 159165.
62 63

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

15

of Budapest (the hills of Gdl) and the foot of the Bkk mountains. Chronologically speaking, they are representative for a period of 1000 years, approximately between 2500 B.C. and 1500 B.C.66. What kind of information offered the Bronze Age tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin concerning spiritual life? Writing about the cult places in the Mycenaean settlements, Gabriele Albers divided them in five categories: 1. cult places inside homes (Kultsttten in Husern); 2. cult places with protective function in profane spaces (Kultausstattung mit religiser Schutzfunktion im Profanbereich)67; 3. shrine-gates (Torheiligtmer); 4. cult places in palaces (Kultsttten in Palsten); 5. public sanctuaries (Stadtheiligtmer)68. Discussing the Bronze Age rituals in Slovakia, Vclav Furmnek and Jozef Vladr referred to three aspects to be taken into consideration: 1. the so-called built sanctuary, 2. offerings with a ritual character and 3. cultic objects69. Considering the second point in the list of difficulties, Andrea Stapel established three major types of ritual offerings in settlements: ceramic deposits (Keramikdeposition), graves in settlements (Siedlungsbestattung) and the pits or other features with ritual significance (Opfergrube/-befund)70. When trying to find traces of spiritual manifestations in a settlement, certain discoveries must be taken into account such as: 1. cult structures (sanctuaries or other features with ritual function)71; 2. deviant burials (Sonderbestattungen); 3. ritual deposits of ceramics or metal artifacts; 4. artifacts with ritual function (idols, vessels with symbolic representations, altars etc.); 5. fireplaces with ritual function. Besides the already mentioned discoveries, one should take into consideration that there must have been other categories of objects or places in thesettlement with special meanings. One may suppose the existence of wooden idols, following the examples of Northern Europe, England or Ireland, where such items were discovered and
GOGLTAN 2005a, 161179. In which category may be included the placing of idols at the entrance in a house, on fireplaces, against the walls or in workshops etc. 68 ALBERS 1994, 78. See also the synthesis proposed by Helene Whittaker (WHITTAKER 1997). 69 FURMNEK/VLADR 1996, 497. 70 STAPEL 1999, 19. 71 Still a valid theory that establishes the characteristics of a cult place is the List of Correlates proposed by C.Renfrew. He argued that: 1. Ritual may take place in a spot with special, natural associations: e.g. a cave, a grove of trees, a spring, a mountain top. 2. Alternatively it may take place in a special building set apart from sacred function. 3. It may involve both conspicuous public display, and hidden exclusive mysteries, whose practice will be reflected in the architecture. 4. Worship will involve prayer and special movements gesture of adoration and these may be reflected in the iconography of decorations or images. 5. The ritual may employ devices for inducing religious experience, such as dance, music and drugs. 6. The structure and equipment used may employ a number of attention-focusing devices, reflected in the architecture and in the movable equipment. 7. The association with the omnipotent power(s) may be reflected in the use of a cult image of the power, or its an-iconic representation. 8. The chosen place will have special facilities for the practice of ritual, e.g. altars, benches, pools or basins of water, hearths, pits for libations. 9. The sacrifice of animals or humans may be practiced. 10. Food and drink may be brought, and possibly consumed as offerings, or burnt/poured away. 11. Other material objects may be brought and offered (votives). The act of offering may entail breakage. 12. Special portable equipment may be employed in the cult practice, e.g. special receptacles, lamps etc. 13. The sacred area is likely to be rich in repeated symbols (redundancy). 14. The symbols used will often relate from an iconographic point of view to the deities worshipped and their associated myth. In particular specific animal symbolism (of real or mythical animals) may be employed, particular animals relating to specific deities or powers. 15. The symbolism used may relate to that seen also in funerary rituals, and in other rites of passage. 16. Concepts of cleanliness and pollution may be reflected in the facilities and maintenance of sacred area. 17. Great investment of wealth may be reflected both in the equipment used and in the offerings made. 18. Great investment of wealth and resources may be reflected in the structure itself and its facilities (RENFREW 1985, 1920).
66 67

16

Florin Gogltan

were interpreted as being representations of certain deities72. Probably there also existed sacred trees, pillars73 and stones with supernatural powers74.

Fig. 5. PocsajLenyvr(after BNA 1992).

In the first category (cult structures) should be probably included a house from Tiszaug Kmnytet75. This has the exterior walls decorated with geometric motifs similar to those on the ceramics of the Nagyrv culture76 (Fig.2). The sacred symbolism of the decorations77, and the fact that these dont have any analogy in the Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin78, might indicate that the building had a special function in the community. And if we cannot consider it to be a sanctuary, we may at least interpret it as the dwelling of an important member of thelocal community, a member who was perhaps in charge with religious practices. The detailed research of the tell in Slacea Dealul Vida led by Ivan Ordentlich between 19641969, made possible the discovery of a so-called megaron-temple in this area79. The building was placed in the Southern part of the settlement, at the periphery. However, it was not isolated from the community, as the only access into the fortification was in that area. The construction was rectangular with the dimensions of 8.80m5.20m, being oriented North-West-South-East (Fig. 3). It consisted of three rooms: a porch with one opened side, a small rectangular room and a large rectangular one. No archaeological material was discovered in the entrance area. The second room (the vestibule) had a square, clay platform, probably suspended. Near it were discovered compact pieces of coal along with small, broken pottery fragments. The third room, and the largest one, contained two clay altar pieces of a certain height above the floor, which presented traces of repeated burning.
More recently COLES 1990, 315333 with bibliography. EVANS 1901, 99204; NILSSON 1950, 262288; BRUNAUX 1993, 5765. 74 VLADR 1973, 294. Auf dem Opferplatz der Otomani-Kultur in Spisk tvrtok fand man drei massive, herzfrmig zugehauene Travertinsteine (FURMNEK/VELIAIK/VLADR 1999, 170). 75 CSNYI/STANCZIK 1992, 116, 118. 76 KALICZ-SCHREIBER 1990, 59107. 77 SCHREIBER 1984, 328; CSNYI 1992, 8384. 78 The decoration from a house in Feudvar is very different (HNSEL/MEDOVI 1991, Abb. 10). 79 ORDENTLICH 1972, 71, 83, Fig.56; CHIDIOAN/ORDENTLICH 1975, 1526.
72 73

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

17

On them were found 9 clay pyramid-shaped loom-weights, 3 stone knives and 1 clay support (Pl.I). These were the only objects found in the third room. It is important to mention that the interior wall was decorated and some of its areas were painted in white.

Fig. 6. 1 Pecicaanul Mare(after Soroceanu 1991). 2 Feudvar (after HNSEL/MEDOVI 1991).

The researchers who discovered this building interpreted it as being a megarontemple80. There are more scholars like John M.Coles and A.F. Harding who acknowledged the special function of this building in their writing regarding the European Bronze Age81. Kurt Horedt82, Tibr Kovcs83 and more recently, Klavs Randsborg84 in his analysis about war and sacrifice in the prehistory of Europe considered it a megaron. Comparing it with the megara from the Mycenaean world, we may find some obvious similarities as well as certain differences such as the lack of columns in the porch and the absence of the fireplace in the central room (Pl.II). This may be probably explained by the fact that this building is older than those of the Mycenaean and Minoan worlds and it has a different geographical location and cultural background. It is also well known that there are certain differences among themegara themselves85.
80 Unfortunately, the first publication in an international language about this unusual Bronze Age building from the Carpathian Basin by Tiberiu Bader is not complete and contains errors (BADER 1990, 182183 Abb. 12). For example: the building is situated in the Southern part of the tell and not in im sdstlichen Teil as the author claims (BADER 1990, 182); the plan of the building is presented more simple than the original one (BADER 1990, Abb. 2); the archaeologists who excavated there, didnt ignore ob etwa das griechische Megaron hier als Vorbild gedient haben knnte (BADER 1990, 183). This hypothesis is reflected even in the title of Nicolae Chidioan and I.Ordentlichs article which refers to a megaron-temple. Their conclusion is that the entire assembly imitates megaron constructions which are specific for the Greek culture (CHIDIOAN/ORDENTLICH 1975, 20). 81 COLES/HARDING 1979, 8688, Fig.33. 82 HOREDT 1988, 155, Abb. 34. 83 KOVCS 1992, 77 ... das als Tempel oder Heiligtum fungiert haben drfte. 84 RANDSBORG 1995, 121, Fig.33. 85 DARCQUE 1990, 2131; JUNG 2000, 7577.

18

Florin Gogltan

Fig. 7. TszegLaposhalom(after BANNER/BNA/MRTON 1959).

We may also include in the category of cult structures a stone block (1.01m1.41m0.57m), discovered in the area of the acropolis at Spisk trvtok Myia hrka = Barimberg, which was considered by J.Vladr to be an Opferplatte. Its special significance may be proved by two incineration urns which contain the cremated remains of two children, together with numerous incinerated animal bones and the remains of the offerings deposited there86. It is more than probable that there were more buildings in the tell settlements with special purposes than those which were discovered until now. Some were identified by excavating entire settlements like the one at Slacea or larger areas as in the case of Spisk tvrtok were 6600 m2 were investigated87. The second and the third categories of archaeological data are the offerings with ritual purposes. Out of these, one group is represented by deviant burials (Sonderbestattungen) of people and animals88. In almost all the tell settlements, that were systematically researched and where bone analysis were also made, were found human remains as well. Burying human and animal remains in houses or near them is not a surprising behavior, being an old practice. There are many examples dating back to Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic89, as well as to the Bronze Age90, Iron Age91 and even later92.
VLADR 1973, 294. FURMNEK/VLADR 1996, 502 talks about eine Brandbestattung eines Tires. VLADR 1975, 224. 88 For the definition of this term see WAHL 1994, 85106. I quoted a more recent article (ASPCK 2008, 1734) as well as the other studies from MURPHY 2008. See also CHAPMAN 2010, 3045; KOODZIEJ 2011, 141358; NOTROFF 2011, 143 (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). 89 HAPP 1991; VEIT 1996. 90 RITTERSHOFER 1997; STAPEL 1999, 203255. A recently published article about this kind of discoveries from the Carpathian Basin is URK/MARTA 2011, 155162. 91 CAPELLE 1987, 182205. I also quote some articles about these kinds of Iron Age complexes from Romania SRBU 1993; AILINCI 2008, 933; GOGLTAN/APAI/KELEMEN 2008, 109124 etc. 92 MAKIEWICZ 1988; RIND 1996.
86 87

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

19

Twenty-four pits containing human bones and entire skeletons along with three Pithosbestattungen with children remains were found at Nitriansky Hrdok Zmeek93 (Pl.III/26). In the case of deviant burials (Sonderbestattungen), one notices the deposit in the same pit of several individuals, some presenting certain marks of violence: Spisk tvrtok94, Carei Bobald95 (Pl.III/1), Nin Mya Vrhegy96 (Pl.IV/2). Entire skeletons of adults and children (Nitriansky Hrdok, Jszdzsa Kpolnahalom97) or some separate anatomic parts (three skull calottes) were discovered under the floor of a building in Semlac Livada lui Onea98, and at Andrid Curtea grajdurilor99 (Pl.IV/1). Concerning the existence of certain practices which suppose the depositing of animals or parts of animals as offerings100, an example can be Jszdzsa. There, an incomplete dog skeleton was recovered from one of thewalls of ahouse101 (Pl.V/1, 3). A similar case of building offering was considered a dog skull discovered at Tszeg Laposhalom102. Among the recent findings at Jszdzsa was a small pit located in the defense ditch which contained 1012 animal skulls of aurochs, deer, bear and boar103. In a ritual pit from Nitriansky Hrdok an entire calf skeleton was unearthed104 and there are many other similar examples (Pl.V/2). Another archaeological category among ritual offerings are the ceramic deposits (Keramikdepotfund)105. When referring to these specific offerings, we should mention 2 cases in which the deposit was connected to the fireplace. For example, at Corneti Dealul Cornet, 23 vessels were found on a fireplace106. Out of them, 19 were drinking vessels, 2 were large dishes, one represented a big, globular vessel and another one was a strainer. At Vrand Movila dintre vii = Laposhalom, several drinking vessels were discovered in a decorated fireplace107. Another example is a group of 6 cups placed under the floor of a house from Nin Myla108 (Fig.4).
93 It concerns the pits: 3, 27, 28, 105, 116, 120, 134, 216, 220, 228, 230, 237, 242, 243, 252, 266, 268, 285, 296298, 306 and 325. Children Pithosbestattungen were found in Sektor G/18, H/22 and N/22 (TOK 1981). 94 JAKAB 1978, 139141. 95 NMETI 1996, 2930, Fig.12/3. 96 JAKAB/OLEXA/VLADR 1999, 91127. 97 A child was buried under the floor of a house, together with a funerary inventory consisting of three golden rings (CSNYI/STANCZIK/TRNOKI 2000, 151, 165). 98 Archaeological researches by Florin Gogltan 1994. 99 In this tell-like settlement, a ditch having the walls and the bottom burned to red, was studied (the length at the top is 1.30m and at the bottom is 1.05m). In the researched area of 4.70m, a lot of sherds were found, along with charcoal and human bones of several people. The fragments of long bones, vertebrae and skulls were not placed in anatomic position. Also, the human bones were covered with ash and ceramic fragments, but they didnt present any secondary burning marks. The function of this complex inside the settlement couldnt be explained, due to incomplete researches (NMETI 1996, 2829 Fig.: 11/3; 12/1, 2, 47). 100 See CAPELLE 1985, 498501; CAPELLE 1987, 182205, for the older literature. A more recent perspective appears in KOODZIEJ 2011, 141358. 101 VRS 1996, 6988. 102 STANCZIK 1980, 67, 76 br. 6. 103 STANCZIK/TRNOKI 1992, 127 Hier handelt es sich mglicherweise um ein Bauopfer nach Beendigung des Grabenbaus. 104 TOK 1981, Plan 71/4. 105 EIBNER 1969, 1952; STAPEL 1999, 76117. Regarding this subject I have recently published an article where the bibliography may be found (GOGLTAN/NMETH/APAI 2011, 163183). In Stapels opinion: Unter Keramikdeposition wird die Niederlegung eines oder mehrerer vollstndiger oder z.T. stark beschdigter Gefe verstanden (STAPEL 1999, 19) 106 RADU 1972, 272277 Fig.37. 107 DOMONKOS 1908, 7576, br. VI. 108 GAAJ 1994, 8186.

20

Florin Gogltan

There were many debates concerning the role played by the metal hoards in a settlement. The core of the discussions was the sacred versus profane character of those deposits109. Some recent discoveries, such as the second deposit from Velince Lszlfala110 (Pl. VI/23) or the one from Jszdzsa111 3b 1 (Pl. VI/1), both under the dwellings floors, are cases of intentional burials with religious character. As M. Eliade argued, metallurgy was regarded as a spiritual activity as well112. There are tell settlements, like those at Pecica 2b 3a anul Mare113 and Moorin Feudvr114, where metal workshops were identified115. The archaeological discoveries suggest that similar workshops must have existed in other settlements too116. Beyond their main purpose of supplying with metal products 2a the local and the neighborhood communities, such settlements also received spiritual powers. Thiswas a consequence of the smiths Fig. 8. 1 TszegLaposhalom. position in the society due his knowledge in 2 DunajvrosDunapentele-Koziderpadls. 3 MendeLenyvr(after KOVCS 1988). working themetals. Archaeological researches made in Bronze Age tell settlements from the Carpathian Basin led to the discovery of a great number of objects that may have been used in religious practices. The clay figurines constitute thefirst category of such objects117. These are stylized figurines of human, animals, weapons and tools etc.118. In comparison to the Neolithic and Copper Age, in the Bronze Age the animal idols were more spread than the human ones. There are two main types of such objects: with a sketched head, decorated or not (Koice Barca, Nin Myla Vrhegy, Spisk tvrtok119 Pl.VII/18) and with a mobile one (Tibolddarc Brct120, Slacea121 Pl.VII/910). However, if they were not found in an evident ritual context, it is hard to establish whether these clay objects were representations of certain individuals122,
MOZSOLICS 1987, 9398; CSNYI/STANCZIK/TRNOKI 2000, 164165. FURMNEK/MARKOV 1996, 137146. 111 CSNYI/STANCZIK/TRNOKI 2000, 149151, 164165. 112 ELIADE 1991b. 113 GOGLTAN 1999, 100101, 127128. 114 HNSEL/MEDOVI 2004, 83111. 115 See also the article published in the same volume by Alexandra Gvan. 116 See the recent discoveries from Nin Mya Vrhegy (OLEXA 2003, Tab.: VII; XI; XIII) or Velince (FURMNEK/MARKOV 2008, Obr. 21). 117 KOSSACK 1954, 2. 118 KOVCS 1990a, 3151; BKNYI 1992, 69 Fig.30; KOVCS 1992, 77 Fig.39; MARKOV 2001, 353364. Recently OLEXA 2003, Tab. XXII. 119 FURMNEK/VELIAIK/VLADR 1999, 170; MARKOV 2001, Abb.: 3/15, 78; 4/1, 34. 120 BALSZ 1907, br. 17. 121 ORDENTLICH 1967, 147154. 122 Such interpretation was offered by D.W. Bailey for the Chalcolithic figurines in South-Eastern Europe (BAILEY 1994, 321331). A more convincing analysis of these idols was proposed by BIEHL 2003; HANSEN 2007.
109 110

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

21

toys123, or idols124. Nevertheless, the last hypothesis must be considered the least plausible125. The animal idols were found in almost all tell settlements and they were inspired by thedomestic and wild fauna of that time: pigs, sheep, horses, oxen, bears etc.126. The miniature clay representations of some weapons as a double axe at Jszdzsa, provide other information concerning the cults practiced during the Bronze Age127. The functionality of such objects is still debated but a great number of scholars argue that such artifacts had ritual purpose128. Miniature vessels, as for example those discovered at Vrand, were labeled as toys129, but they could have also been models for ceramic pots. Another specific category of objects, characteristic for the tell settlements, were the miniature clay wagons: Bks Vrdomb, Pir Cetate = Vrsziget, Pocsaj Lenyvr (Fig. 5), Scueni Cetatea Boului = krvr = krdomb, Slacea, Trksezentmikls Terehalomrl, Vrand, Derida Dealul lui Balot (Pl. VIII/14, 7, 9) etc.130. Besides these, a great number of wagon wheels decorated with all sorts of ornaments or undecorated were found131 (Pl.VIII/6, 8, 10). There are also cases in which the wagons present animal protoma (Derida132), that were not precisely identified (horse?) (Pl. VIII/9). The special character of these miniature clay wagons is indicated by their discovery in necropolis like that of the tell settlement from Nin Mya133. Besides wagons, a large variety of small altars with or without legs, circular or rectangular (Bakonszeg Kdrdomb = Krgypuszta134, Berettyjfalu Herply-Fldvr = Herplyidomb135, Derida136, Jszdzsa137, Pecica138, Tarcal Mzmjtet139, Feudvar140 etc.) was discovered (Fig.6). These objects must have served as house altars upon which small offers could have been burnt or placed141. In the same group may be included the fireplaces, especially the decorated ones (Tiszafred sotthalom142,
A recent discussion concerning such objects contemporary with those from the tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin in DIETRICH 2011, 87106. 124 GIMBUTAS 1974; GIMBUTAS 1999, 342. 125 A debate about the possibility to identify them as deities of the Bronze Age see at RENFREW 1985, 2223. 126 HAIMOVICI 1987, 3754; BKNYI 1992, 6972; FURMNEK/VELIAIK/VLADR 1999, 132 133. See, for example, the animal idols from Alsvadsz Vrdomb (KALICZ 1968, Taf.LIX/715; CSNYI/ TRNOKI 1992, 417419); Jszdzsa (CSNYI/TRNOKI 1992, 403413), Szihalom rpdvr = Fldvr (KALICZ 1968, Taf.LXXXI/1, 311)), Tibolddarc (BALSZ 1907, br. 316; KALICZ 1968, Taf.LXIV/1 18); Tiszaluc Dankadomb (KALICZ 1968, Taf.XLV/13) etc. 127 STANCZIK/TRNOKI 1992, 125; CSNYI/TRNOKI 1992, 205 nr.421. See also the new discoveries at Velince (FURMNEK/MARKOV 2008, Obr. F. 10). 128 BUCHHOLZ 1959. 129 BANNER 1959, 245252. 130 BNA 1960, 83111; ORDENTLICH/CHIDIOAN 1975, 2744; MESTERHZY 1976, 223230; BNA 1992, 7375; SCHUSTER 1996, 117137; TRNOKI 1999, 165177. 131 BNA 1960, 9293. New views and discoveries on this matter appear in BOROFFKA 2004, 347354; KOVCS 2006, 3943, Abb. 4 (Fzesabony regdomb). 132 CHIDIOAN 1980, Pl.25/7, 9. 133 OLEXA 1982, 390391, Abb.: 1; 2/2. 134 MTH 1988, Pl.21/4. 135 MTH 1992, Abb. 129. 136 CHIDIOAN 1980, Pl.26. 137 CSNYI/TRNOKI 1992, 447. 138 SOROCEANU 1991, Taf.: 32/5, 15; 39/3. 139 KALICZ 1968, Taf.LVIII/16. 140 HNSEL/MEDOVI 1991, Taf.23. 141 Similar altars were also identified in the cemeteries of the middle Bronze Age (BNA 1975, Taf.: 221/18; 222/4; 230/7; 232/14; 236/10 Kirlyszentistvn). 142 BNA 1975, Taf.197/2.
123

22

Florin Gogltan

Tszeg143, Vrand144 etc.), a hypothesis recently suggested by Christian Schuster145 (Fig.7). More than probable, a ritual purpose must have had the smoking vessels (Tonrhren), like the ones found in the tell settlement from Derida146 (Pl.VIII/1112). Among the archaeological sources important for interpreting the ritual practices in the tell settlements one may also include the pottery. Although this is usually analyzed from the perspective of its functionality when ceramic objects are found in ritual contexts, they gain special values. One good example is a pyraunos from Spisk tvrtok which was found in a pit, together with 9 human skeletons147. Without any doubt, a certain role in the ritual practices must have had those vessels which depict the shape of a bird (bird-shaped askoi, bird-shaped vessels): Dunajvros Dunapentele-Koziderpadls, Fzesabony regdomb = Nagyhalom = Cignydomb, Jszdzsa, Mal Kosihy Trkdomb, Nitriansky Hrdok, Pkozd, Santovka Nad Brom = Maarovce = Malinovec etc.148 (Pl. IX). Among the vessels with special meanings we may include those with anthropomorphic representations due to their rarity and symbolic decorations: Igar Vmpuszta-Galstya149, Mende Lenyvr150 (Fig.8/3), Tszeg151 (Fig. 8/1). Connected to such depictions are dagger representations such as the ones on the vessels discovered in Mende152 or in Tszeg153 (Fig. 8/1, 3) or the one which suggests an ax, on a vessel from Pkozd Vrhegy154. Along with these examples it was proved that a certain category of vessels, the so-called Gefe mit sulenartigen Henkeln, were used to pour liquids in offerings (Nitriansky Hrdok, Trkeve Terehalom, Bks, Vrand)155 (Pl.X). The symbols existing on vessels contain valuable information. For example, on the pottery discovered in the
BANNER/BNA/MRTON 1959, Abb. 4/1, 2425. BNA 1975, Taf.146/17. 145 SCHUSTER/COMA/POPA 2001. 146 CHIDIOAN 1980, Pl.25/1112. The attention on this category of vessel was drawn by BOROFFKA 1994, 169 (Ruchergefe) and mostly by Carol Kacs. He wrote about the existence of such artifacts (diegeschlitzte Tonrhre) discovered in the open sanctuary that functioned in the time of the communities Wietenberg II and III on the hill called Ghiile Botii in Oara de Sus (KACS 1998, 255266). See a presentation of this interesting cult place from the Middle Bronze Age investigated by C.Kacs and the bibliography in GOGLTAN/NMETH/ APAI 2011, 172 n. 30. 147 FURMNEK/VLADR 1996, 506. 148 KOVCS 1972, 728; KOVCS/STANCZIK 1980, 4452. More recently SZATHMRI 2003, 513523; GUBA/SZEVERNYI 2007, 75110 (with the complete list). On the neck of an askos type vessel, accidentally found in the area close to the tell settlement from Tiszafred, a human face is depicted (KOVCS 1990b, 927). Together with other discoveries from the Middle Bronze Age, this vessel type may be related to a feminine deity like Hera from the Greek Pantheon (REICH 2005, 231239). Interesting observations on this subject were also made by Szilvia Guba and Vajk Szevernyi: In the case of bird-shaped askoi we may assume with some certainty that they were the paraphernalia of rites connected with blood sacrifice, probably carried out at tell settlements, which functioned as religious centers as well. At the same time we may suggest in the case of both the askoi and the bird-shaped vessels that they were used to contain special, valuable, ritually significant perhaps psychoactive liquids as well (GUBA/SZEVERNYI 2007, 87). 149 KOVCS 1973, 10 Fig.5. 150 KOVCS 1973, 10 Fig.4. 151 The human face fragment from Tszeg which was initially published in KOVCS 1973, 12 Fig. 8, was proved to be part of a vessel on which a dagger was also represented (KOVCS 1988, 8192). 152 KOVCS 1973, 710, Fig.13. From the tell settlements cemetery in Dunajvros was unearthed an urn fragment with a human depiction, together with a dagger similar to the one published in (MAKKAY 1971, 1928; KOVCS 1973, 1011, Fig.6). 153 KOVCS 1973, 12 Fig.8; KOVCS 1988, 8192. 154 KOVCS 1973, 11 Fig.7. 155 BANNER/BNA 1974, 50 Abb. 20; HORVTH. L. A.2000, 169181. Without questioning the role they must have played in rituals, Szilvia Honti argued that this type of vessel was mainly used for smoke-drying (HONTI 1994, 6, tb. VI/12).
143 144

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

23

tell settlements belonging to the Nagyrv culture (Pl. XI), a multitude of human, solar and animal representations may be seen156. In some tells or tell-like settlements from Slovakia (Koice Barca, Nitriansky Hrdok, Spisk trvtok, Vesel Hradisko-Podzmske, Vrble Fldvr = Fidvr)157 (Fig.9) and Hungary Hrsashegy, Stt Hosszuvlgy, 2 1 3 (Kisterenye158 Tiszafred) , was discovered a puzzling type of objects. The so-called pintadere (Brotlaibidole) made of clay are representative for the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning of the Late Bronze 0 Age in a vast area from Northern Italy to Middle and 4 Lower Danube. Their functionality is still debated. 5 Some scholars believe that they had a practical 5 cm purpose, being used to decorate ceramics or mark the quality or quantity of amber; others argue that these could have been used like pendants, having a symbolic value159. ***
6

What do all these discoveries suggest? First of all, they point out that in the Bronze Age Fig. 9. 13, 6, 7 VeselHradisko-Podzmske. tell settlements of the Carpathian Basin, like in the Mycenaean world160, a so-called official cult 45, 8 Nitriansky HrdokZmecek was practiced in specific buildings, but there (after BARTK/BACA 1999). also existed a family cult. The fireplace of each dwelling, the small altar pieces or the miniature wagons made of clay could have been used in cult practices in the house161. On the other hand, altars such as those discovered in the megaron-temple at Slacea could have been destined to serve the entire community. The characteristics of the sanctuary in Slacea are similar to the classic megara in Mycenae, Pylos and Tiryns dating from a later period. It is difficult to establish if in the case of Slacea we may suppose the existence of a ruler like wanakas (wa-na-ka) mentioned in the Linear B tablets from Pylos and Knossos162. Even in the Mycenaean world the role played by the wanakas in the megaron remains uncertain163. Some scholars believe that such buildings were used by
KALICZ-SCHREIBER 1990, 59107; CSNYI 1992, 8387. BARTK/BAA 1999, 1325. 158 BNDI 1974, 237252. 159 The most recent article concerning this type of objects is that of Monica andor-Chicideanu where may be found almost the complete bibliography on this matter (ANDOR-CHICIDEANU 2003, 413428). Unfortunately, for those who dont have access to the libraries in Germany will not be able to find the complete titles of the literature referring to this type of artifacts. Illustrations of these artifacts, such as those made by Gbor Bandi, Juraj Bartk and R. Baa, would have also been useful. To this bibliography, one should add Gerhard Trinkas article, from the same publication (TRNKA 2003, 483486) as well as an earlier article of Michael M.Rind. He published a Brotlaibidole discovered in the fortification from Frauenberg hill, placed near Weltenburg Monastery in Southern Germany (RIND 1999, 8998). 160 HGG 1981, 3539; WRIGHT 1994, 7276. HGG 1996, 387 wrote about the official level and the popular level. 161 WRIGHT 1994, 5760. 162 KILIAN 1988, 291302. 163 DARCQUE 1990, 2131; Jung 2000, 7195.
156 157

24

Florin Gogltan

the wanaks/wanakas164 for official political purposes as throne rooms like in Mycenae, Tiryns or Pylos. Others argue that these were also destined for cult practices. In that case, wanakas were in the same time rulers and high priests165. If there is information about the divinities oftheMycenaean and Minoan civilization, in the case of the Bronze Age from the Carpathian Basin very little is known. However, based on analogies with the Greek world, several attempts to reconstruct the Bronze Age Pantheon in Central Europe were made166. Concerning the tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin, it is arguable that the solar cult was representative in the spiritual life of the human communities. There are various depictions of the sun, of water birds on vessels and metal artifacts along with miniature wagons made of clay167, all of them recalling the practice of Zeus/Apollos cult168. An interesting argument is provided by a discovery in Vesel which probably represented a clay boat pulled by two horses recalling Apollos chariot169 (Pl. XII/1). The cult of the sun is better known in a later period170, when the Urnfields culture developed in Central Europe. The classical examples are the chariot of Dupljaja (Serbia)171 and Trundholm in the Nordic Bronze Age172 (Pl.XII/23). Besides the cult of the sun, the cult of the dead, known in the Homeric world mostly through funerary discoveries173, must have been practiced in settlements too. Some of the deviant burial (Sonderbestattungen), identified in the Bronze Age tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin, could be interpreted in this sense174. Human sacrifices might have been addressed to a deity of war, (such as Ares175), as signs of respect and gratitude for the protection offered and/or as a consequence of a military victory obtained by the local community176. Following the same pattern, we may suggest, that the offerings consisting of food might have represented gifts for some deity of fertility, like the Great Mother. This cult survived for millennia177, reinventing itself, in the field of practice, during the Bronze Age178. The stylized
KILIAN 1987, 2138; REHAK 1995a, 95118. Recently WRIGHT 2006, 952. PALAIMA 1995, 119139; STAVRIANOPOULOU 1995, 423433. Recently PALAIMA 2006, 5372. 166 KOSSACK 1999, 520. An attempt to identify, on iconographic basis, the different Minoic and Mycenaean deities may be found at LAFFINEUR 2001, 387392. 167 NOVOTN 2001, 365375. A new point of view at GUBA/SZEVERNYI 2007, 75110. 168 HEGYI 1989, 521; KAUL 1998; PAULK 1999, 2954; PAULK 2000, 2960; PAULK 2001, 972. Among the recent works debating the whole matter of the solar deity in the Bronze Age, see PAULK 2002, 716; KAUL 2003, 3651; KAUL 2004; MARINATOS 2010. For the Greek civilization see LARSON 2007, 86100. 169 PAULK 1999, Obr. 4/1a-b. 170 VERHAGEN 1986, 114148. 171 BOKOVI 1959, 4145; GARAANIN 1983, 530 T.LXXXIII/1. 172 ANER/KERSTEN 1976, Taf.139; KAUL 2003, 3651. 173 ANDRONIKOS 1968; MARINATOS 1993, mostly the second chapter. J.Btora and J.Vladr consider that the image of the chariot on the well-known vessel belonging to Suciu de Sus culture from Velk Rakovce in South-Eastern Slovakia (VIZDAL 1972, Abb. 1), must be related to a funerary practice (BTORA/VLADR 2001, 178179). A recent view at GALLOU 2005. 174 RITTERSHOFER 1997; STAPEL 1999, 203255. 175 LARSON 2007, 156157. 176 For the different aspects of human sacrifices in Bronze Age, along with the cited bibliography, see the story of the events that took place in the Minoic temple of Anemspilia (SAKELLARAKIS/SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKIS 1981, 205222). Other ritual gestures in the antic Greece appear at HUGHES 1991 and BONNECHERE 1994. Reinhard Jung has also an interesting analysis about representations of human sacrifices (JUNG 1997, 133194). New general approaches on this matter in BREMMER 2007; PETER-RCHER 2007. 177 GIMBUTAS 1974, 152200; GIMBUTAS 1999, 127213. See Demeter and Kore/Persephone from the Greek world (LARSON 2007, 6985). 178 GOODISON/MORRIS 1998, 113132; YIANNOULI 1998, 6584.
164 165

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

25

animal idols might be considered symbols of certain types of offerings destined to protect thehealth and the prosperity of the herds179. Offerings consisting of drinking vessels such as those from Corneti or Vrand make us think to the same Great Mother or to a God like Dionysus, form the Mycenaean world180. The grape kernels discovered in tells181 indicate that wine was obtained like in the Aegean world182. In libation practices, wine wasnt the only drink used; water, oil, milk, mead, beer were sometimes part of the ritual too183. Like in the Minoan civilization184, or in other regions185, the cult of the double axe (labrys) seems to have existed in the tell settlements of the Carpathian Basin as well. A hero cult186 or a God like Hephaestus could have inspired the offerings consisting in weapons and other metal objects187. One must not ignore the deities of the house, to whom animals or other types of offerings were given like in other historical periods (Bauopfern)188. Good examples for such practices are the discovery of a dog skull placed in the wall of a house in Jszdzsa or thevessel deposit found under the floor of a house in Nina Myla. The everyday respect shown to house Gods (similar to Hestia/Vesta in the Greco-Roman Pantheon) might explain the care with which the fireplaces were made or to the great number of small clay altars189. Unfortunately, our knowledge about the religious life and the practices performed in Bronze Age tell settlements of the Carpathian Basin, is very limited. However, even if we are not acquainted with the names of Gods venerated in this area, the archaeological discoveries provide various hints about their existence190. The inhabitants of Bronze Age tell settlements must have also acknowledged, like those in Mycenaean Greece, Orient or Egypt, the strength of Gods power along with the price to pray and pay for their protection: For Poseidon: one golden cup, two women For Zeus: one golden bowl, one man For Hera: one golden bowl, one woman For Hermes: one golden cup, one man191.
BIBLIOGRAPHY AILINCI 2008 S.C. AILINCI, The Place for the Dead in Early and Middle Iron Age Lower Danube Area. In: V. Srbu/D. L. Vaida (Eds.), Funerary Practices of the Bronze and Iron Ages in Central and South-Eastern Europe. Proceedings of the 9th International Colloquium of Funerary Archaeology. Bistria, Romania May 9th11th, 2008 (Cluj-Napoca 2008), 933.
HAMILAKIS/KONSOLAKI 2004, Fig.5. ANTONELLI 1996, 169176; KONSOLAKI-YNNOPOULOU 2001, 213220. See as well WRIGHT 2004; WHITTAKER 2008, 8996; LARSON 2007, 126143. 181 For the discoveries in the Carpathian Basin see FACSAR/JEREM 1985, 121144. 182 PALMER 1994. 183 Recent contributions on this topic appear in GOGLTAN/NMETH/APAI 2011, 173, with the bibliography. 184 See HAYSOM 2010, 3555, with an extent bibliography on this subject. 185 BOUZEK 1985, 4146. 186 See the works from HGG 1999. Recently LARSON 2007, 183187, 196207. 187 LARSON 2007, 159160. 188 See MEDELE 1991, 82 with some important bibliographical references. The comparison with other spaces and cultural realities should be also taken into consideration (RECH 1981, 505528). 189 For this, see the classic work of Denis Fustel de Coulanges The Ancient City (La Cit antique), published in 1864; LARSON 2007, 160162. 190 HNSEL 2000, 331344; BOUZEK 2000, 345354. 191 Pylos Table Tn 316 after MYLONAS 1966, 136.
179 180

26

Florin Gogltan

ALBERS 1994 G. ALBERS, Sptmykenische Stadtheiligtmer. Systematische Analyse und vergleichende Auswertung der archologischen Befunde (Oxford 1994). ANDERS ET AL. 2010 AL. ANDERS/Z. CZAJLIK/M. CSNYI/N. KALICZ/E.G. NAGY/P. RACZKY/J. TRNOKI, Archaeological Register of Tell Settlements in Hungary. Arch. rt 135, 2010, 147160. ANDRONIKOS 1968 M. ANDRONIKOS, Totenkult. Archaeologia Homerica, Band III, Kapitel W (Gttingen 1968). ANER/KERSTEN 1976 E. ANER/K. KERSTEN, Die Funde der lteren Bronzezeit des nordischen Kreises in Dnemark, Schleswig-Holstein und Niedersachsen, II, Hlbk, Sor und Prst Amter (Neumnster 1976). ANTONELLI 1996 C. ANTONELLI, Dioniso: una divinit micenea. In: E.de Miro/L. Godart/A. Sacconi (Eds.), Atti e memorie del secondo congresso internazionale di micenologia, Roma-Napoli, 1420 ottobre 1991 (Roma 1996), 169176. ASPCK 2008 E. ASPCK, What Actually is a Deviant Burial? Comparing German-Language and Anglophone Research on Deviant Burials. In: MURPHY 2008, 1734. BADER 1990 T. BADER, Bemerkungen ber gischen Einflsse auf die alt und mittelbronzezeitliche Entwiecklung im Donau-Karpatenraum. In: Orientalisch-gische Einflsse in der europischen Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums. Mainz 1985 (Bonn 1990), 181205. BAHN 1989 P. BAHN, Bluff Your Way in Arcaeology (Horsham 1989). BAILEY 1994 D.W. BAILEY, Reading prehistoric figurines as individuals. World Arch. 23/3, 1994, 321331. BALSZ 1907 B. BALSZ, A tibold-darczi (Borsod megye) brczti stelep (Msodik kzlemny). Arch. rt. 26, 1906, 346354. BNDI 1974 G. BNDI, ber den Ursprung und die historischen Beziehungen der Tonstempel derbronzezeitlichen Gruppen: Madarove und Polada. Preist. Alpina 10, 1974, 237252. BANNER 1959 B. BANNER, Kinderspielzeuge im Fundmaterial der bronzezeitlichen Siedlung GyulavarsndLaposhalom. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 9, 1959, 245252. BANNER/BNA 1974 J. BANNER/I. BNA, Mittelbronzezeitliche Tell-Siedlung bei Bks (Budapest 1974). BANNER/BNA/MRTON 1959 J. BANNER/I. BNA/L. MRTON, Die Ausgrabungen von L. Mrton in Tszeg. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 10, 1959, 1140. BARRETT 1991 J. C.BARRETT, Towards an Archaeology of Ritual. In: P.Garwood/D. Jennings/R.Skeates/ J.Toms (Eds.), Sacred and Profane. Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion. Oxford, 1989 (Oxford 1991), 19. BARRETT 1994 J. C.BARRETT, Fragments from Antiquity. An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900 1200 BC (Oxford 1994). BARROWCLONGH/MALONE 2007 D. A. BARROWCLONGH/C. MALONE, Cult in Context. Reconsidering Ritual in Archaeology (Oxford 2007). BARTK/BAA 1999 J. BARTK/R. BAA, Bocghnkov idoly z Veselho. Prspevok k bochnkovm idolom z zemia Slovenska. Zbornk Slovenskho Nrod. Mz. Arch. 93/9, 1999, 1325.

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

27

BTORA/VLADR 2001 J. BTORA/J. VLADR, Die Kunstuerung des Nordkarpatenraumes in der Bronzezeit. In: B. Gediga/A. Mierzwiski/W. Piotrowski (Red.), Sztuka epoki brzu i wczesnej epoki elaza w europie rodkowej/Die Kunst der Bronzezeit und der frhen Eisenzeit im Mitteleuropa (Wrocaw-Biskupin 2001), 173182. BTORA ET AL. 2008 J. BTORA/B. EITEL/F. FALKENSTEIN/K. RASSMANN, Fidvr bei Vrble Eine befestigte Zentralsiedlung der Frhenbronzezeit in der Slowakei. In: J.Czebreszuk/S. Kadrow/ J.Mller (Eds.), Defensive Structures from Central Europe to the Aegean in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC (Poznan/Bonn 2008), 97107. BTORA ET AL. 2012 J. BTORA/A. BEHRENS/J. GRESKY/M. IVANOVA/K. RASSMANN/P. TTH/ K. WINKELMANN, The Rise and Decline of the Early Bronze Age Settlement, Fidvr near Vrble, Slovakia. In: J.Kneisel/W. Kirleis/M. Dal Corson/N. Tayler/V. Tiedtke (Eds.), Collapse or Continuity? Environment and Development of Bronze Age Human Landscapes. Proceedings of the International Workshop Socio-Environmental Dynamics over the Last 12.000 Years: The Creation of Landscapes II (14th18th March 2011) in Kiel. Volume 1 (Bonn 2012), 111130. BAUMBACH 2004 J. D. BAUMBACH, The Significance of Votive Offerings in Selected Hera Sanctuaries in thePeloponnese, Ionia and Western Greece (Oxford 2004). BELL 1992 C. BELL, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (Oxford 1992). BELL 1997 C. BELL, Ritual. Perspectives and Dimensions (Oxford 1997). BERGGREN/NILSSON STUTZ 2010 . BERGGREN/L. NILSSON STUTZ, From spectator to critic and participant a new role for archaeology in ritual studies. Journal Social Arch. 10/2, 2010, 171197. BERNBECK 1997 R. BERNBECK, Theorien in der Archologie (Tbingen/Basel 1997). BERTEMES/BIEHL 2001 F. BERTEMES/P. F. BIEHL, The Archaeology of Cult and Religion: An Introduction. In:BIEHL/BERTEMES/MELLER 2001, 1124. BERTHOLET 1942 A. BERTHOLET, Der Sinn des kultischen Opfers. Abhandl. Dt. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 2, 1942, 127. BIEHL 2003 P. F. BIEHL, Studien zum Symbolgut des Neolithikums und der Kupferzeit in Sdosteuropa (Bonn 2003). BIEHL/BERTEMES/MELLER 2001 P. F. BIEHL/F. BERTEMES/H. MELLER (Eds.), The Archaeology of Cult and Religion (Budapest 2001). BKNYI 1992 S. BKNYI, Jagd und Tierzucht. In: W. Meier-Arendt (Hrsg.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main 1992), 6972. BOKOVI 1959 D. Bokovi, Quelques observations sur le char cultuel de Dupljaja. Arch. Iugoslavica 3, 1959, 4145. BNA 1960 I. BNA, Clay models of Bronze Age Wagons and Wheels in the Middle Danube Basin. ActaArch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 12, 1960, 83111. BNA 1975 I. Bna, Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre sdstlichen Beziehungen (Budapest 1975).

28

Florin Gogltan

BNA 1992 I. BNA, Wagen und Wagenmodelle in den Tell-Kulturen. In: W. Meier-Arendt (Hrsg.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main 1992), 7375. BONNECHERE 1994 P. BONNECHERE, Le sacrifice humain en Grce ancienne (Lige 1994). BOROFFKA 1994 N. BOROFFKA, Die Wietenberg-Kultur. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Bronzezeit in Sdosteuropa (Bonn 1994). BOROFFKA 2004 N. BOROFFKA, Bronzezeitliche Wagenmodelle im Karpatenbecken. In: M. Fansa/ S. Baumeister (Hrsg.), Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Inovation. Wagen im Vorderen Orient und Europa (Mainz am Rhein 2004), 347354. BOULOTIS 1987 C. BOULOTIS, Nochmals zum Prozessionsfresko von Knossos: Palast und Darbringung von Prestige-Objekten. In: R. Hgg/N. Marinatos (Eds.), Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 10 16June, 1984 (Stockholm 1987), 145155. BOUZEK 1985 J. BOUZEK, The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe: cultural interrelations in the second millenium BC (Praha 1985). BOUZEK 2000 J. BOUZEK, Versuch einer Rekonstruktion des Pantheons der Urnenfelderzeit. In: B.Gediga/ D.Piotrowska (Red.), Kultura symboliczna krgu pl popielnicowych epoki brzu i wczesnej epoki elaza w europie rodkowej (Warszawa/Wrcaw/Biskupin 2000), 345354. BRADLEY 1990 R. BRADLEY, The passage of arms. An archaeological analysis of prehistoric hoards and votive deposits (Cambridge 1990). BRADLEY 2003 R. BRADLEY, A Life Less Ordinary: the Ritualization of the Domestic Sphere in Later Prehistoric Europe. Cambridge Arch. Journal 13/1, 2003, 523. BRADLEY 2005 R. BRADLEY, Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe (London/New York 2005). BRANIGAN 1998 K. BRANIGAN (Ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield 1998). BREMMER 2007 J. D.BREMMER, The Strange World of Human Sacrifice (Leuven 2007). BRCK 1999 J. BRCK, Ritual and rationality: Some problems of interpretation in European archaeology. European Journal Arch. 2/3, 1999, 313344. V. BRUNN 1980 W. A.v. BRUNN, Eine Deutung sptbronzezeitlicher Hortfunde zwischen Elbe und Weichsel. Ber. RGK 61, 1980, 91150. BRUNAUX 1993 J.-L. BRUNAUX, Les bois sacrs des Celtes et des Germains. In: Les bois sacrs. Actes du colloque international organis par le Centre Jean Brard et lEcole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Ve section). Naples, 2325 Novembre 1988 (Naples 1993), 5765. BUCHHOLZ 1959 H.-G. BUCHHOLZ, Zur Herkunft der kretischen Doppelaxt. Geschichte und auswrtige Beziehungen eines minoischen Kultsymbols (Mnchen 1959). BURKERT 1987 W. BURKERT, Offerings in Perspective: Surrender, Distribution, Exchange. In: LINDERS/ NORDQUIST 1987, 4350.

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

29

BUSCH 2000 R. BUSCH (Hrsg.), Opferplatz und Heiligtum. Kult der Vorzeit in Norddeutschland (Neumnster 2000). CAPELLE 1985 T. CAPELLE, Programmatisches zu einer Untersuchung frhgeschichtlicher Bauopfer. Frhmittelalterl. Stud. 19, 1985, 498501. CAPELLE 1987 T. CAPELLE, Eisenzeitliche Bauopfer. Frhmittelalterl. Stud. 21, 1987, 182205. CARMICHAEL ET AL. 1994 D. L. CARMICHAEL/J. HUBERT/B. REEVES/A. SCHANCHE (Eds.), Sacred sites, sacred places (New York 1994). CARTER 2003 J. CARTER, Understanding religious sacrifice: a reader (New York 2003). CASTLEDEN 2001 R. CASTLEDEN, Minoas. Life in Bronze Age Crete (New York/London 2001). CHAPMAN 1989 J. CHAPMAN, The early Balkan village. In: S.Bkny (Ed.), Neolithic of southeastern Europe and ist Near Eastern connection. International Conference 1987 Szolnok-Szeged (Budapest 1989), 3353. CHAPMAN 2010 J. CHAPMAN, Deviant burials in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Central and South Eastern Europe. In: K.Rebay-Salisbury/M. L. Stig Srensen/J. Hughes (Eds.), Body Parts and Bodies Whole. Changing Relations and Meanings (Oxford 2010), 3045. CHIDIOAN 1980 N. CHIDIOAN, Contribuii la istoria tracilor din nord-vestul Romniei. Aezarea Wietenberg de la Derida (Oradea 1980). CHIDIOAN/ORDENTLICH 1975 N. CHIDIOAN/I. ORDENTLICH, Un templu-megaron din epoca bronzului descoperit la Slacea. Crisia 5, 1975, 1526. CHILDE 1929 V. G.CHILDE, The Danube in Prehistory (Oxford 1929). COLES 1990 B. COLES, Anthropomorphic Wooden Figures from Britain and Ireland. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 56, 1990, 315333. COLES/HARDING 1979 J. M.COLES/A. F. HARDING, The Bronze Age in Europe. An introduction to the prehistory of Europe c. 2000700 BC (London 1979). COLPE 1970 C. COLPE, Theoretische Mglichkeiten zur Identifizierung von Heiligtmern und Interpretation von Opfern in ur und parahistorischen Epochen. In: JANKUHN 1970, 1839. CSNYI 1992 M. CSNYI, Bestattungen, Kult und sakrale Symbole der Nagyrv-Kultur. In: W.Meier-Arendt (Hrsg.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main 1992), 8387. CSNYI/STANCZIK 1992 M. CSNYI/I. STANCZIK, Tiszaug-Kmnytet. In: W. Meier-Arendt (Hrsg.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main 1992), 115119. CSNYI/TRNOKI 1992 M. CSNYI/J. TRNOKI, Katalog der ausgestellten Funde. In: W. Meier-Arendt (Hrsg.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main 1992), 175210.

30

Florin Gogltan

CSNYI/STANCZIK/TRNOKI 2000 M. CSNYI/I. STANCZIK/J. TRNOKI, Der bronzezeitliche Schatzfund von JszdszaKpolnahalom. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 51, 19992000 [2000], 147167. DAGATA/VAN DE MOORTEL 2009 L. DAGATA/A. van de MOORTEL (Eds.), Archaeologies of Cult. Essays on Ritual and Cult in Crete in Honor of Geraldine C.Gesell (Athens 2009). DARCQUE 1990 P. DARCQUE, Pour labandon du terme Mgaron. In: P. Darcque/R. Treuil (ds.), Lhabitatgen prhistorique. Actes de la Table Ronde internationale organise par le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, lUniversit de Paris I et lcole franaise dAthnes (Athnes, 2325 juin 1987) (Paris 1990), 2131. DANI 2009 J. DANI, A Beretty-vlgy kzps bronzkori erdtett tell-teleplseinek trsadalmi vonatkozsai. Debreceni Dri-Mz. vk., 20082009 [2009], 1721. DANI/MTH/SZAB 2003 J. DANI/M.SZ. MTH/G. V. SZAB, Ausgrabungen in der bronzezeitlichen TellSiedlung und im Grberfeld von Polgr-Kenderfld (Vorbericht ber die Freilegung des mittelbronzezeitlichen Grberfeldes von Polgr-Kenderfld, Majoros-Tanya). In: C. Kacs (Hrsg.), Bronzezeitliche Kulturerscheinungen im karpatischen Raum. Die Beziehungen zu den benachbarten Gebieten. Ehrensymposium fr Alexandru Vulpe zum 70. Geburstag Baia Mare 10.13. Oktober 2001 (Baia Mare 2003), 93118. DAVID 2009 W. DAVID, Nascita e Crollo della Civilt dei Tell dellAntica Et del Bronzo nel Bacino Carpatico ed Indizi di Possibili, Analoghi Fenomeni Culturali Coevi nella Regione dellAlto e Medio Danubio nella Prima Met del II Millennio A.C. Scien. Ant. 15, 2009, 563594. DIETRICH 2011 O. DIETRICH, Kinderspielzeug oder Kultobjekte? berlegungen zu anthropomorphen Figurinen der Wietenberg und Tei-Kultur. In: S.Berecki/E. Nmeth/B. Rezi (Eds.), Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Trgu Mure 810 October 2010 (Trgu Mure 2011), 87106. DOMONKOS 1908 J. DOMONKOS, A laps halom (Arad m.). Arch. rt 28, 1908, 5578. DURKHEIM 1912 E. DURKHEIM, Les formes lmentaires de la vie religieuse (Paris 1912). EARLE/KRISTIANSEN 2010 T. EARLE/K. KRISTIANSEN (Eds.), Organizing Bronze Age Societies. The Mediterranean, Central Europe and Scandinavia Compared (Cambridge 2010). EIBNER 1969 C. EIBNER, Ein mittelbronzezeitlicher Gefverwahrfund von Schrattenburg, p.B. Mistelbach, N. Zur Interpretation der sog. Tpfereiwarenlager. Arch. Austriaca 46, 1969, 1952. ELIADE 1991A M. ELIADE, Istoria credinelor i ideilor religioase2, I (Bucureti 1991). ELIADE 1991B M. ELIADE, Alchimie asiatic (Bucureti 1991). EVANS 1901 A. J.EVANS, Mycenaean tree and pillar cult and its Mediterranean relations. Journal Hellenic Stud. 21, 1901, 99204. FACSAR/JEREM 1985 G. FACSAR/E. JEREM, Zum urgeschichtlichen Weinbau in Mitteleuropa. Wiss. Arbeiten aus dem Burgenland 71, 1985, 121144. FISCHL 2006 K. P. FISCHL, rokt-Donghalom bronzkori tell telep. Bronzezeitliche Tell-Siedlung in rakt-Donghalom (Miskolc 2006).

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

31

FOLTINY 1870 J. FOLTINY, A szhalmi rpdvr, vagy Fldvrhalom satsnak s az ott lelt targyaknak ismertetse. Szzadok 4, 1870, 442455. FRAZER 1890 J. G.FRAZER, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion (London 1890). FURMNEK/VLADR 1996 V. FURMNEK/J. VLADR, Kultsttten und Votivdeponierungen in der Bronzezeit der Slowakei. In: P. Schauer (Hrsg.), Archologische Forschungen zum Kultgeschehen in derjngeren Bronzezeit und frhen Eisenzezeit Alteuropas. Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums in Regensburg 4.7. Oktober 1993 (Bonn 1996), 497516. FURMNEK/MARKOV 1996 V. FURMNEK/K. MARKOV, Ein zweiter Bronzehortfund aus Velince. In: T. Kovcs (Hrsg.), Studien zur Metallindustrie im Karpatenbecken und den benachbarten Regionen. Festschrift fr Amlia Mozsolics zum 85. Geburtstag (Budapest 1996), 137146. FURMNEK/MARKOV 2008 V. FURMNEK/K. MARKOV, Velince. Archv dvnej minulosti (Nitra 2008). FURMNEK/VELIAIK/VLADR 1999 V. FURMNEK/L. VELIAIK/J. VLADR, Die Bronzezeit im slowakischen Raum (Rahden/ Westf. 1999). GALLOU 2005 CH. GALLOU, The Mycenaen Cult of the Dead (Oxford 2005). GARAANIN 1983 M. GARAANIN, Dubovako-utobrdska grupa. In: A.Benac (Ed.), Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja. IV. Bronzano doba (Sarajevo 1983). GARWOOD 1991 P. GARWOOD, Ritual Tradition and the Reconstitution of Society. In:P.Garwood/D.Jennings/R.Skeates/J. Toms (Eds.), Sacred and Profane. Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion. Oxford, 1989 (Oxford 1991), 1032. GAAJ 1994 D. GAAJ, Keramick depot zo starej doby bronzovey v Ninej Myli. Hist. Carpatica 2324, 1993 [1994], 8186. GAAJ 2003 D. GAAJ, Osady warowne i zycie gospodarcze/Fortified settlements and their economic life. In: J. Gancarski (Red.), Wystawa. Midzy Mykenami a Batykiem. Kultura OtomaniFzesabony/Exhibition. Between Mycenae and the Baltic See. The Otomani-Fzesabony Culture (Krosno2003), 2151. VAN GENNEP 1909 A. van GENNEP, Les rites de passage (Paris 1909). GIMBUTAS 1974 M. GIMBUTAS, The Gods and Goddess of Old Europe. 7000 to 3500 BC: Miths and Cult Images (London 1974). GIMBUTAS 1999 M. GIMBUTAS, The Living Goggesses (Berkely/Los Angeles/London 1999). GLADIGOW 1984 B. GLADIGOW, Die Teilung des Opfers. Zur Interpretation von Opfern in vor und frhgeschichtlichen Epochen. Frhmittelalterl. Stud. 18, 1984, 1943. GOODISON/MORRIS 1998 L. GOODISON/C. MORRIS, Beyond the Great Mother: The sacred world of the Minoans. In: L. Goodison/C. Morris (Eds.), Ancient Goddesses (London 1998), 113132. GOGLTAN 1999 FL. GOGLTAN, Bronzul timpuriu i mijlociu n Banatul romnesc i pe cursul inferior al Mureului. I.Cronologia i descoperirile de metal (Timioara 1999).

32

Florin Gogltan

GOGLTAN 2002a FL. GOGLTAN, Ritual locations in Bronze Age tell settlements of the Carpathian Basin. In: European Association of Archaeologist. 8th EAA Annual Meeting. 2429 september 2002 Thessaloniki, Hellas. Abstracts Book (Thessaloniki) 2002, 215. GOGLTAN 2002b FL. GOGLTAN, Zur Terminologie der bronzezeitliche Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken. In: A.Rustoiu/A. Ursuiu (Hrsg.), Interregionale und Kulturelle Beziehungen im Karpatenraum (2.Jht. v.Chr.1. Jht. n.Chr.) (Cluj-Napoca 2002), 1145. GOGLTAN 2003a FL. GOGLTAN, Die neolitische Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken. Ein berblick. In: E.Jerem/ P.Raczky (Hrsg.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frhe Etappen der Menschengeschichte in Mittel und Sdeuropa. Festschrift fr Nndor Kalicz zu 75. Geburtstag (Budapest 2003), 223262. GOGLTAN 2003b FL. GOGLTAN, Tell-urile epocii bronzului n Bazinul Carpatic. Probleme de terminologie. Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis 2, 2003, 4593. GOGLTAN 2005a FL. GOGLTAN, Der Beginn der bronzezeitlichen Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken: Chronologische Probleme. In: B.Horejs/R. Jung/E. Kaiser/B. Teran (Hrsg.), Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hnsel von seinen Schlern gewidment (Bonn 2005), 161179. GOGLTAN 2005b FL. GOGLTAN, Funcia social i economic a tell-urilor epocii bronzului din Bazinul Carpatic. I.Aspecte teoretice. In: C.Cosma/A. Rustoiu (Eds.), Comer i civilizaie. Transilvania n contextul schimburilor comerciale i culturale n antichitate/Trade and civilization. Transylvania in the frame of trade and cultural exchanges in antiquity (Cluj-Napoca 2005), 1143. GOGLTAN 2006 FL. GOGLTAN, Zur Entsthehung der bronzezeitlichen Tellkulturen im Karpatenbecken. Einallgemeiner berblick. In: C.Gaiu/Cr. Gzdac (Eds.), Fontes Historiae. Studia in honorem Demetrii Protase (Bistria/Cluj Napoca 2006), 6174. GOGLTAN 2008 FL. GOGLTAN, Fortified Bronze Age Tell Settlements in the Carpathian Basin. A General Overview. In: J. Czebreszuk/S. Kadrow/J. Mller (Eds.), Defensive Structures from Central Europe to the Aegean in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC (Pozna/Bonn 2008), 3956. GOGLTAN 2010 FL. GOGLTAN, Die Tells und der Urbanisierungsprozess. In: B. Horejs/T. L. Kienlin (Hrsg.), Siedlung und Handwerk. Studien zu sozialen Kontexten in der Bronzezeit. Beitrge zu den Sitzungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bronzezeit auf der Jahrestagung desNordwestdeutschen Verbandes fr Altertumsforschung in Schleswig 2007 und auf dem Deutschen Archologenkongress in Mannheim 2008 (Bonn 2010), 1346. GOGLTAN 2011 FL. GOGLTAN, Funcia economic i social a tell-urilor epocii bronzului din Bazinul Carpatic. II. Tell-urile i procesul de urbanizare. Crisia 41, 2011, 934. GOGLTAN/APAI/KELEMEN 2008 FL. GOGLTAN/E. APAI/I. KELEMEN, Leben mit den Toten. Ein ltereisenzeitliches Grab von Vlaha, Kr. Cluj. In: V.Srbu/D. L. Vaida (Eds.), Funerary Practices of the Bronze and Iron Ages in Central and South-Eastern Europe. Proceedings of the 9th International Colloquium of Funerary Archaeology. Bistria, Romania May 9th11th, 2008 (Cluj-Napoca 2008), 109124. GOGLTAN/NMETH/APAI 2011 FL. GOGLTAN/R. E. NMETH/E. APAI, Eine rituelle Grube bei Vlaha, Gemeinde Svdisla (Kreis Cluj). In: S.Berecki/E. Nmeth/B. Rezi (Eds.), Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Trgu Mure 810 October 2010 (Trgu Mure 2011), 163183.

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

33

GREGORY 1980 C. A.GREGORY, Gifts to men and gifts to gods. Man 15, 1980, 626652. GRUENWALD 2003 I. GRUENWALD, Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel (Leiden/Boston 2003). GUBA/SZEVERNYI 2007 S. GUBA/V. SZEVERNYI, Bronze Age bird representations from the Carpathian Basin. Commun. Arch. Hungariae, 2007, 75110. HAIMOVICI 1987 S. HAIMOVICI, Studiul paleofaunei din aezarea eponim a culturii Otomani epoca bronzului. Crisia 17, 1987, 3754. HANSEN 1994 S. HANSEN, Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen whrend der lteren Urnenfelderzeit zwischen Rhhnetal und Karpatenbecken (Bonn 1994). HANSEN 2000 S. HANSEN, Gewsserfunde im bronzezetlichen Europa. Ein Panorama. Altertum 46, 2000, 3162. HANSEN 2005 S. HANSEN, ber bronzezeitliche Horte in Ungarn Horte als soziale Praxis. In: B.Horejs/ R. Jung/E. Kaiser/B. Teran (Hrsg.), Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hnsel von seinen Schlern gewidment (Bonn 2005), 211230. HANSEN 2007 S. HANSEN, Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit. Untersuchungen zur anthropomorphen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit in Sdosteuropa (Mainz 2007). HGG 1981 R. HAGG, Official and popular cults in Mycenaean Greece. In: R. Hgg/N. Marinatos (Eds.), Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 1016 June, 1984 (Stockholm 1987), 3539. HGG 1996 R. HGG, State and Religion in Mycenaean Greece. In: E. De Miro/L. Godart/A. Saconi (Eds.), Atti e memorie del secondo congresso internazionale di micenologia, Roma-Napoli, 1420 ottobre 1991 (Roma 1996), 387391. HGG 1999 R. HGG (Ed.), Ancient Greek Hero Cult. Proceedings of the Fifth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, Gteborg 1995 (Stockholm 1999). HGG/MARINATOS 1981 R. HGG/N. MARINATOS (Eds.), Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 1213 May, 1980 (Stockholm 1981). HAMILAKIS/KONSOLAKI 2004 Y. HAMILAKIS/E. KONSOLAKI, Pigs for the Gods: Burnt Animal Sacrifices as Embodied Rituals at a Mycenaean Sanctuary. European Journal Arch. 23/2, 2004, 135151. HNSEL 2000 B. HNSEL, Die Gtter Griechenlands und die sdost bis mitteleuropische Sptbronzezeit. In: B.Gediga/D. Piotrowska (Red.), Kultura symboliczna krgu pl popielnicowych epoki brzu i wczesnej epoki elaza w europie rodkowej (Warszawa/Wrcaw/Biskupin, 2000), 331344. HNSEL/MEDOVI 1991 B. HNSEL/P. MEDOVI, Vorbericht ber die jugoslawisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen in der Siedlung von Feudvar bei Moorin (Gem. Titel, Vojvodina) von 19861990. BronzezeitVorrmische Eisenzeit. Ber. RGK 72, 1991, 45204. HNSEL/MEDOVI 2004 B. HNSEL/P. MEDOVI, Eine Bronzegieerwerkstatt der Frhen Bronzezeit in Feudvar bei Moorin in der Vojvodina. In: B.Hnsel (Hrsg.), Parerga Praehistorica. Jubilumsschrift zur Prhistorischen Archologie. 15 Jahre. Universittsforsch. zur prhist. Arch. 100 (Bonn2004), 83111.

34

Florin Gogltan

HAPP 1991 G. HAPP, Bestattungen und Menschenreste in Husern und Siedlungen des steinzeitlichen Mitteleuropa (Frankfurt am Main 1991). HARDING 2000 F. HARDING, European Societies in the Bronze Age (Cambridge 2000). HAYSOM 2010 M. HAYSOM, The Double-Axe: A contextual approach to the understanding of a cretan symbol in the Neopalatial period. Oxford Journal Arch. 29/1, 2010, 3555. HAWKES 1954 CH. HAWKES, Archaeological Theory and Method: Some Suggesstions from the Old World. American Anthr. 56, 1954, 155168. HEGYI 1989 D. HEGYI, Prehellenic roots of the greek cult of Apollo. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 32, 1989, 521. HILL 1995 J. D. HILL, Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex. A study on the formation of a particular archaeological record (Oxford 1995). HONTI 1994 S. HONTI, A mszbettes kermia kultrja leletei Somogyvrrl. Somogyi Mz. Kzl. 10, 1994, 521. HOREDT 1988 K. HOREDT, Zur Zeitstellung der Otomani und der Wietenbergkultur. Germania 66/1, 1988, 155161. HORVTH 2009 F. HORVTH, Comments on the Tells in the Carpathian Basin: Terminology, Classification and Formation. In: Fl. Draovean/D.L. Ciobotaru/M. Maddison (Eds.), Ten years after: The Neolithic of the Balkans, as uncovered by the last decade of research. Proceedings of the Conference held at the Museum of Banat on November 9th10th, 2007 (Timioara 2009), 159165. HORVTH L. A.2000 L. A.HORVTH, Eine besondere Gefssform aus der mittleren Bronzezeit. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 51, 1999/2000 [2000], 169181. HUGHES 1991 D. D.HUGHES, Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece (London/New York) 1991. INSOLL 2004 T. INSOLL, Archaeology, Ritual, Religion (London/New York) 2004. JAKAB 1978 J. JAKAB, Intentional Interference on the Skeletons of the Otomani People Found at the Cultic Object in Spisk tvrtok. Anthr. (Brno) 16/2, 1978, 139141. JAKAB/OLEXA/VLADR 1999 J. JAKAB/L. OLEXA/J. VLADR, Ein Kultobjekt der Otomani-Kultur in Nin Myla. Slovensk Arch. 47/1, 1999, 91127. JANKUHN 1970 H. JANKUHN (Hrsg.), Vorgeschichtliche Heiligtmer und Opferpltze in Mittel und Nordeuropa. Bericht ber ein Symposium in Reinhausen bei Gttingen in der Zeit vom 14. bis. 16. Oktober 1968 (Gttingen 1970). JENSEN 1972 J. JENSEN, Ein neues Hallstattschwert aus Danemark. Beitrag zur Problematik der jungbronzezeitlichen Votivfunde. Acta Arch. (Kbenhavn) 43, 1972, 115164. JUNG 1997 R. JUNG, Menschenopferdarstellungen? Zur Analyse minoischer und mykenischer Siegelbilder. Prhist. Zeitschr. 72, 1997, 133194. JUNG 2000 R. JUNG, Das Megaron Ein Analogie(kurz)schluss der gischen Archologie. In: AL. Gramsch (Hrsg.), Vergleichen als archologische Methode. Analogien in den

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

35

Archologien. Mit Beitrgen einer Tagung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Theorie (T-AG) und einer Kommentierten Bibliographie (Oxford 2000), 7195. KACS 1998 C. KACS, Eine Sonderform der Wietenberg-Keramik: die geschlitzte Tonrhre. In: H.Ciugudean/Fl. Gogltan (Eds.), The Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Alba Iulia, 2428 September 1997 (Alba Iulia 1998), 255266. KALICZ 1965 N. KALICZ, Siedlungsgeschichtliche Probleme der Krs und Theiss Kultur. Acta Ant. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 8, 1965, 2740. KALICZ 1968 N. Kalicz, Die Frhbronzezeit in Nordost-Ungarn. Abriss der Geschichte des 19.16. Jahrhunderts v.u.Z. (Budapest 1968). KALICZ/RACZKY 1987 N. KALICZ/P. RACZKY, The Late Neolithic of the Tisza region. A survey of recent archaeological research. In: L. Tlos/P. Raczky (Eds.), The Late Neolithic of the Tisza region. A survey of recent excavations and their findings: Hdmezvsrhely-Gorzsa, Szegvr-Tzkves, csdKovshalom, Vszt-Mgor, Berettyjfalu-Herply (Budapest/Szolnok 1987), 1130. KALICZ ET AL. 2011 N. KALICZ/P. RACZKY/AL. ANDERS/K. KOVCS, Preserved by Ancestral Fires. Pictures of an excavation. The Neolithic village at Berettyjfalu-Herply (Budapest 2011). KALICZ-SCHREIBER 1990 R. KALICZ-SCHREIBER, Symbolic representations on Early Bronze Age vessels. Journal Indo-European Stud. 18/12, 1990, 59107. KAUL 1998 F. KAUL, Ships on Bronzes. A Study in Bronze Age Religion and Iconography (Copenhagen 1998). KAUL 2003 F. KAUL, Der Mythos von der Reise der Sonne. Darstellungen auf Bronzegegenstnden der spten Nordischen Bronzezeit. In: T. Springer (Hrsg.), Gold und Kult der Bronzezeit (Nrenberg 2003), 3651. KAUL 2004 F. KAUL, Bronzealderens religion. Studier af den nordiske bronze alders ikonografi (Kbenhavn 2004). KILIAN 1987 K. KILIAN, Zur Funktion der mykenischen residenzen auf dem griechischen Festland. In:R. Hgg/N. Marinatos (Eds.), Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 1016 June, 1984 (Stockholm 1987), 2138. KILIAN 1988 K. KILIAN, The emergence of Wanax ideology in the Mycenaean palaces. Oxford Journal Arch. 7, 1988, 291302. KIRCHNER 1968 H. KIRCHNER, Bemerkungen zu einer systematischen Opferfundforschung. In: M.Claus/ W. Haarnagel/K. Raddatz (Hrsg.), Studien zur europischen Vor und Frhgeschichte (Neumnster 1968), 379389. KOODZIEJ 2011 B. KOODZIEJ, Animal Burials in the Early Bronze Age in Central and Eastern Europe. Analecta Arch. Ressoviensia 5, 2010 [2011], 141358. KONSOLAKI-YNNOPOULOU 2001 E. KONSOLAKI-YNNOPOULOU, New evidence for the practice of libations in the Aegean Bronze Age. In: R. Laffineur/R. Hgg (Eds.), POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegaen

36

Florin Gogltan

Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th Aegaen Conference Gteborg, Gteborg University, 1215 April 2000 (Lige/Austin 2001), 213220. KOSSACK 1954 G. KOSSACK, Studien zum Symbolgut der Urnenfelder und Hallstattzeit Mitteleuropas (Berlin 1954). KOSSACK 1999 G. KOSSACK, Religises Denken in dinglicher und bildlicher berlieferung Alteuropas aus der Sptbronze und frhen Eisenzeit (9.6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Geb.) (Mnchen 1999). KOVCS 1972 T. KOVCS, Askoi, Bird-Shaped Vessels, Bird-Shaped Rattles in Bronze Age Hungary. Folia Arch. 23, 1972, 728. KOVCS 1973 T. KOVCS, Representations of Weapons on Bronze Age Pottery. Folia Arch. 24, 1973, 731. KOVCS 1988 T. KOVCS, A face pot with dagger representation from Tszeg. Folia Arch. 39, 1988, 8192. KOVCS 1990A T. KOVCS, Menschen und Tierdarstellungen an der bronzezeitlichen Siedlung von Fzesabony-regdomb. Agria 2526, 19891990 [1990], 3151. KOVCS 1990B T. KOVCS, Eine bronzezeitliche Raritt: Askos mit menschlichem Gesicht von Tiszafred und seine sdstlichen Beziehungen. Folia Arch. 41, 1990, 927. KOVCS 1992 T. KOVCS, Glaubenswelt und Kunst. In: W.Meier-Arendt (Hrsg.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main 1992), 7682. KOVCS 2006 T. KOVCS, Bisher unbekannte kupfer und bronzezeitliche Wagenmodelle aus Ungarn. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 57, 2006, 3545. KOVCS/STANCZIK 1980 T. KOVCS/I. STANCZIK, Bronzkori aszkosz Nagyrvrl. Arch. rt 107, 1980, 4452. KRISTIANSEN/LARSSON 2005 K. KRISTIANSEN/TH. B.LARSSON, The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and Transformation (Cambridge 2005). KUBINYI 1861 F. KUBINYI, Magyarorszgban tallt k s bronzkori rgisgek. Arch. Kzl. 2, 1861, 81113. KULCSR 2009 G. KULCSR, The Beginnings of the Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. The Mak-Kosihyaka and the Somogyvr-Vinkovci Cultures in Hungary (Budapest 2009). KYRIAKIDIS 2007 E. KYRIAKIDIS (Ed.), The Archaeology of Ritual (Los Angeles 2007). LAFFINEUR 2001 R. LAFFINEUR, Seeing is Believing: Reflections on Divine Imagery in the Aegean Bronze Age. In: R. Laffineur/R. Hgg (Eds.), POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegaen Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th Aegaen Conference Gteborg, Gteborg University, 1215 April 2000 (Lige/Austin 2001), 387392. LARSON 2007 J. LARSON, Ancient Greek Cults. A Guide (New York 2007). VAN DER LEEUW 1921 G. van der LEEUW, Die do-ut-des-Formel in der Opfertheorie. Archiv Religionwiss. 20, 1920/21, 241253. LEVY 1981 J. E.LEVY, Religious Ritual ans Social Stratification in Prehistoric Societies: An Example from Bronze Age Denmark. Hist. Religions 21/2, 1981, 172188.

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

37

LEVY 1982 J. LEVY, Social and Religious Organization in Bronze Age Denmark: An Analysis of Ritual Hoard Finds (Oxford 1982). LICHTER 2001 C. LICHTER, Untersuchungen zu den Bestattungssitten des sdosteuropischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums (Mainz am Rhein 2001). LINDERS/NORDQUIST 1987 T. LINDERS/G. NORDQUIST (Eds.), Gifts to the Gods. Papers read at the International Symposium in Uppsala 1985 (Uppsala 1987). LINK 2006 T. LINK, Das Ende der neolitischen Tellsiedlungen. Ein kulturgeschichtliches Phnomen des 5. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im Karpatenbecken (Bonn 2006). LUND/MELHEIM 2011 J. LUND/L. MELHEIM, Heads and Tails Minds and Bodies: Reconsidering the Late Bronze Age Vestby Hoard in Light of Symbolist and Body Perspectives. European Journal Arch. 14/3, 2011, 441446. MAKIEWICZ 1988 T. MAKIEWICZ, Opfer und Opferpltze der vorrmischen und rmischen Eisenzeit in Polen. Prhist. Zeitschr. 63, 1988, 81112. MAKKAY 1971 J. MAKKAY, A Dagger of Mycenaean Type Represented on a Bronze Age Urn from Dunajvros. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 23, 1971, 1928. MAKKAY 1982 J. MAKKAY, A magyarorszgi neolitikum kutatsnak j eredmnyei (Budapest 1982). MARASZEK 2006 R. MARASZEK, Sptbronzezeitliche Hortfundlandschaften in atlantischer und nordischer Metalltradition (Halle 2006). MARINATOS 1993 N. MARINATOS, Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image, and Symbol (Columbia 1993). MARINATOS 2010 N. MARINATOS, Minoan kingship and the solar goddess. A Near Eastern koine (Chicago 2010). MARKOV 2001 K. MARKOV, Die Plastik in der lteren Bronzezeit in der Slowakei. In: B. Gediga/ A. Mierzwiski/W. Piotrowski (Red.), Sztuka epoki brzu i wczesnej epoki elaza w europie rodkowej. Die Kunst der Bronzezeit und der frhen Eisenzeit im Mitteleuropa (Wrocaw/ Biskupin 2001), 353364. MRTON 1910 L. MRTON, Aphorismen ber Ethnographie und Kunstgewerbe in der prhistorischen Archaeologie von Dr. J.L. Pi. Arch. rt. 30, 1910, 8687. MTH 1988 M. SZ. MTH, Bronze Age tells in the Beretty valley. In: T.Kovcs/I. Stanczik (Eds.), Bronze Age Tell Settlements on the Great Hungarian Plain (Budapest 1988), 27122. MTH 1992 M. SZ. MTH, Berettyjfalu-Herply-Fldvr (Die bronzezeitlichen Schichten des fr die neolitische Herply-Kultur Fundortes). In: W. Meier-Arendt (Hrsg.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main 1992), 170173. MAUSS/HUBERT 1898 M. MAUSS/H. HUBERT, Essai sur la nature et la fonction du sacrifice. LAnne sociologique, deuxime anne (18971898), 29138. MAUSS/HUBERT 1903 M. MAUSS/H. HUBERT, Esquisse dune thorie generale de la Magie. LAnnee sociologique, septime anne (19021903), 1146.

38

Florin Gogltan

MCCAULEY/LAWSON 2002 R. N. MCCAULEY/E.T. LAWSON, Bringing Ritual to Mind. Psycological Foundations of Cultural Forms (Cambridge 2002). MEDELE 1991 FL. MEDELE, O locuin hallstattian de la Remetea Mare Gomila lui Gabor (jud. Timi). Thraco-Dacico 12, 1991, 6383. MEIER-ARENDT 1991 W. MEIER-ARENDT, Zu Tells und tellartigen Siedlungen im Sptneolithikum Ost-Ungarns, Siebenbrgens und des Banat: berlegungen zu Enstehung und Funktion. Banatica 11, 1991, 7785. MESTERHZY 1976 K. MESTERHZY, Agyag kocsimodell Pocsajrl. Arch. rt 103/1, 1976, 223230. MESTORF 1876 J. MESTORF, Der internationale Anthropologen und Archologen-Congress in Budapest vom 4. bis 11. September 1876 (Hamburg 1876). METZNER-NEBELSICK 2003A C. METZNER-NEBELSICK, Ritual und Herrschaft. Zur Struktur von sptbronzezeitlichen Metallgefdepots zwischen Nord-und Sdosteuropa. In: C. Metzner-Nebelsick (Hrsg.), Rituale in der Vorgeschichte, Antike und Gegenwart. Studien zur Vorderasiatischen, Prhistorischen und Klassischen Archologie, gyptologie, Alten Geschichte, Theologie und Religionswissenschaft. Interdisziplinre Tagung vom 1.2. Februar 2002 an der Freien Universitt Berlin (Rahden/Westf. 2003), 99117. MYLONAS 1966 G. E.MYLONAS, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton 1966). MOLNR 2006 ZS. MOLNR, Daten zur Problematik der frhen Entwicklungsphase der Otomani-Kultur. In: C.Gaiu/Cr. Gzdac (Eds.), Fontes Historiae. Studia in honorem Demetrii Protase (Bistria/ Cluj Napoca 2006), 75119. MOLNR 2008 ZS. MOLNR, Habitatul culturii Otomani din Cmpia Careiului i valea Eriului. Stud. iComun. (Satu Mare) 22/1, 2005 (2008), 3360. MOLNR 2011 ZS. MOLNR, Die Bronzemetallurgie in den Otomani-Gemeinschaften von der Carei-Ebene und dem Eriul-Tal. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 62/2, 2011, 269330. MOLNR/IMECS 2006 ZS. MOLNR/Z. IMECS, Adatok a Nagykrolyi sksg s az r vidk teleplshlozatnak kutatshoz. Dolgozatok Erdlyi Nemzeti Mz. 1, 2006, 2987. MORRIS 1987 B. MORRIS, Anthropological studies of religion: an introductory text (Cambridge 1987). MOZSOLICS 1987 A. MOZSOLICS, Verwahr oder Opferfunde?. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 39, 1987, 9398. MLLER S.1897 S. MLLER, Vor Oldtid. Danmarks forhistoriske Archologi (Kjbenhavn 1897). MLLER F. 2002 F. MLLER, Gtter, Gaben, Rituale. Religion in der Frhgeschichte Europas (Mainz am Rhein 2002). MURPHY 2008 E. M.MURPHY (Ed.), Deviant Burial in the Archaeological Record (Oxford 2008). MLLER-KARPE 1980 H. MLLER-KARPE, Handbuch der Vorgeschichte. IV. Bronzezeit (Mnchen 1980). NEBEHAY 1981 S. NEBEHAY, Prhistorisches bei Marsigli. Arch. Austriaca 65, 1981, 7588.

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

39

NEGEL 2005 J. NEGEL, Ambivalentes Opfer. Studien zur Symbolik, Dialektik und Aporetik eines theologischen Fundamentalbegriffs (Paderborn 2005). NMETI 1996 I. NMETI, Cteva consideraii privind descoperirile funerare din epoca bronzului din nordvestul Romniei. Stud. i Comun. (Satu Mare) 13, 1996, 2755. NMETI/MOLNR 2007 J. NMETI/ZS. MOLNR, A tell-telepek fejldse s vge a Nagykrolyi-sksgon s az rvlgyben (Cluj-Napoca 2007). NILSSON 1950 M. P.NILSSON, The Minoan-Mycenaean religion and its survival in Greek religion2 (Lund 1950). NOVOTN 2001 M. NOVOTN, Symbole vom Rad und Sonne in der Kunst der Bronzezeit. In: B.Gediga/ A. Mierzwiski/W. Piotrowski (Red.), Sztuka epoki brzu i wczesnej epoki elaza w europie rodkowej/Die Kunst der Bronzezeit und der frhen Eisenzeit im Mitteleuropa (Wrocaw/ Biskupin 2001), 365375. NOTROFF 2011 J. NOTROFF, Menace from the Afterlife? Some Remarks about the Archaeological Evidence for Fearing and Banishing the Dead and a Contribution to Otomani and Fzesabony Sepulchral Rite. In: S.Berecki/E. Nmeth/B. Rezi (Eds.), Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Trgu Mure 810 October 2010 (Trgu Mure 2011), 143153. OSBORNE 2004 R. OSBORNE, Hoards, votives, offerings: the archaeology of the dedicated object. World Arch. 23/1, 2004, 110. OSHEA ET AL. 2005 J. OSHEA/A. W. BARKER/S. SHERWOOD/A. SZENTMIKLOSI, New Archeaeological Investigations at Pecica-anul Mare. An. Banatului 1213, 20042005 [2005], 81109. OLEXA 1982 L. OLEXA, Siedlungen und Grberfelder aus der Bronzezeit von Nin Myla in der Ostslowakei. In: B.Hnsel (Hrsg.), Sdosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v.Chr. (Berlin 1982), 387397. OLEXA 2003 L. OLEXA, Nizn Myla. Osada a pohrebisko z doby bronzovej (Koice 2003). ORDENTLICH 1967 I. ORDENTLICH, Dou statuete cu cap mobil descoperite la Slacea. Stud. i Cerc. Istor. Veche 18/1, 1967, 147154. ORDENTLICH 1972 I. ORDENTLICH, Contribuia spturilor arheologice de pe Dealul Vida (com. Slacea, jud.Bihor) la cunoaterea culturii Otomani. Stud. i Comun. (Satu Mare) 2, 1972, 6384. ORDENTLICH/CHIDIOAN 1975 I. ORDENTLICH/N. CHIODIOAN, Crucioare miniatur din lut aparinnd culturii Otomani (epoca bronzului) de pe teritoriul Romniei. Crisia 5, 1975, 2744. PALAIMA 1995 TH. G. PALAIMA, The Nature of the Mycenaean Wanax: Non-Indo-European Origins and Priestly Functions. In: P. Rehak (Ed.), The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean. Proceedings of a Panel Discussion presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America New Orleans, Louisiana 28 December 1992 with Additions (Lige/Austin 1995), 119139. PALAIMA 2006 TH. G. PALAIMA, Wanaks and related power terms in Mycenaean and later Greek. In:S.Deger-Jalkotzy/I. S.Lemos (Eds.), Ancient Greece. From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer (Edinburgh 2006), 5372.

40

Florin Gogltan

PALMER 1994 R. PALMER, Wine in the Mycenean Palace Economy (Lige/Austin 1994). PARKER PEARSON/RICHARDS 1994 M. PARKER PEARSON/C. RICHARDS, Architecture and order: spatial representation and archaeology. In: M.Parker Pearson/C. Richards (Eds.), Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space (London 1994), 3872. PATAY 1938 P. PATAY, Frhbronzezeitliche Kulturen in Ungarn (Budapest 1938). PAULK 1999 J. PAULK, Nlezhlinenej vtej oky v Dvornkoch-Posdke. I.Zbornk Slovenskho Nrod. Mz.-Arch. 9 (XCIII), 1999, 2954. PAULK 2000 J. PAULK, Nlezhlinenej vtej oky v Dvornkoch-Posdke. II. Zbornk Slovenskho Nrod. Mz.-Arch. 10 (XCIV), 2000, 2960. PAULK 2001 J. PAULK, Nlezhlinenej vtej oky v Dvornkoch-Posdke. III. Zbornk Slovenskho Nrod. Mz.-Arch. 11 (XCV), 2001, 972. PAULK 2002 J. PAULK, Prspevok ku kultu doby bronzovej. I.Zbornk Slovenskho Nrod. Mz.-Arch. 12 (XCVI), 2002, 716. PETER-RCHER 2007 H. PETER-RCHER, Gewalt und Krieg im prhistorischen Europa. Beitrge zur Konfliktforschung auf der Grundlage archologischer, antropologischer und ethnologischer Quellen (Bonn 2007). PIGORINI 1876 L. PIGORINI, Terra Mare ungheresi. Bull. Paletn. Italiana 1516, 1876, 230241. POROSZLAI/VICZE 2005 I. POROSZLAI/M. VICZE (Eds.), Szzhalombatta Archaeological Expedition. SAX. Szzhalombatta Archaeological Expedition. Report 2 Field Season 20002003, (Szzhalombatta 2005). RECH 1981 M. RECH, Bauopfer und Deponierungssitten in Mesoamerika. Allgemeine und vergleichende Archologie Beitrge2, 1980 [1981], 505528. RADU 1972 O. RADU, Contribuii la cunoaterea culturii Vatina Spturile de la Corneti, jud.Timi. Stud. i Cer. Istor. Veche 23/2, 1972, 271283. RANDSBORG 1995 K. RANDSBORG, Hjortspring. Warfare and sacrifice in early Europe (Aarhaus/Oxford 1995). RAPPAPORT 1999 R. A.RAPPAPORT, Ritual and religion in the making of humanity (Cambridge 1999). REHAK 1995 P. REHAK, Enthroned Figures in Aegean Art and the Function of the Mycenaean Megaron. In: P. Rehak (Ed.), The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean. Proceedings of a Panel Discussion presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America New Orleans, Louisiana 28 December 1992 with Additions (Lige/Austin 1995), 95118. REICH 2005 CH. REICH, Vogelmenschen und Menschenvgel. Bronzezeitliche Vogel-MenschDarstellungen im mittleren und unteren Donauraum. In: B.Horejs/R. Jung/E. Kaiser/B. Teran (Hrsg.), Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hnsel von seinen Schlern gewidment (Bonn 2005), 231239. RENFREW 1985 C. RENFREW, The archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at Philakopi (London 1985).

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

41

RENFREW 1994a C. RENFREW, Towards a cognitive archaeology. In: C. Renfrew/E. B. W. Zubrow (Eds.), Theancient mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology (Cambridge 1994), 312. RENFREW 1994b C. RENFREW, The archaeology of religion. In: C. Renfrew/E. B. W. Zubrow (Eds.), Theancient mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology (Cambridge 1994), 4754. RIND 1996 M. M.RIND, Menschenopfer. Vom Kult der Grausamkeit (Regensburg 1996). RIND 1999 M. M. RIND, Hhenbefestigungen der Bronze und Urnenfelderzeit. Der Frauenberg oberhalb Kloster Weltenburg I/12 (Exkurs. Das tnerne, sog. Brotlaibidol aus Weltenburg im Beziehungsgeflecht frhbronzezeitlicher Kulturgruppen in Mitteleuropa). Regensburger Beitr. zur Prhist. Arch. 6, 1999, 8998. RITTERSHOFER 1997 K.-F. RITTERSHOFER (Hrsg.), Sonderbestattungen in der Bronzezeit im stlichen Mitteleuropa. West und Sddeutscher Verband fr Altertumsforschung Jahrestagung vom 5.20. Juni 1990 in Pottenstein (Frnkische Schweiz) Kolloquium der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bronzezeit (Espelkamp 1997). ROBERTS/LEE/BINTLIFF 1989 CH. A. ROBERTS/F. LEE/J. BINTLIFF (Eds.), Burial Archaeology, Current Research, Methods and Developments (Oxford 1989). RMER 1878 FL. RMER, Rsultats gnraux du mouvement archologique en Hongrie. Avant la VIIIe session du congrs international danthropologie et darchologie prhistoriques Budapest 1876. Compte-rendu de la huitime session Budapest 1876. Second volume. I.Partie. Resultats gnreaux (Budapest 1878). ROUSE 1998 W. D.H.ROUSE, Greek votive offerings: an essay in the history of the Greek religion (Chicago 1998). RUTKOWSKI 1985 B. RUTKOWSKI, Untersuchungen zu bronzezeitlichen Bergheiligtmern auf Kreta. Germania 63/2, 1985, 345359. RUTKOWSKI 1986 B. RUTKOWSKI, The cult places of the Aegean (New Haven 1986). SAKELLARAKIS/SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKIS 1981 J. SAKELLARAKIS/E. SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKIS, Drama of Death in a Minoan Temple. National Geographic 159/2, 1981, 205222. SALA 2005 M. SALA, Bronzov depoty stedn a pozdn doby bronzov na Morav a ve Slezsku (Brno2005). SCHAUER 1996 P. SCHAUER, Naturheilige Pltze, Opfersttten, Deponierungsfunde und Symbolgut der jngeren Bronzezeit Sddeutschland. In: P.Schauer (Hrsg.), Archologische Forschungen zum Kultgeschehen in der jngeren Bronzezeit und frhen Eisenzezeit Alteuropas. Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums in Regensburg 4.7. Oktober 1993 (Bonn 1996), 381416. SCHOLL 2007 A. SCHOLL, TN APXAIN. Die Akropolisvotive aus dem 8. bis frhen 6. Jahrhundert v.Chr. und die Staatswerdung Athens. Jahrb. DAI 121, 2006 (2007), 1173. SCHREIBER 1984 R. SCHREIBER, Szimbolikus brzolsok korabronzkori ednyeken. Arch. rt 111/1, 1984, 328. SCHUSTER 1996 CH. SCHUSTER, Despre crucioarele din lut ars din Epoca bronzului de pe teritoriul Romniei. Thraco-Dacica 17, 1996, 117137.

42

Florin Gogltan

SCHUSTER/COMA/POPA 2001 CH. SCHUSTER/AL. COMA/T. POPA, The archaeology of fire in the Bronze Age ofRomania (Giurgiu 2001). SIMON 1986 C. G. SIMON, The Archaic votive offerings and cults of Ionia. PhD thesis, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley (Ann Arbor 1986). SIMON 1997 C. G. SIMON, The archaeology of cult in Geometric Greece: Ionian temples, altars and dedications. In: S.Langdon (Ed.), New Light on a Dark Age: Exploring the Culture of Geometric Greece (Columbia 1997), 125143. SRBU 1993 V. SRBU, Credine i practici funerare, religioase i magice n lumea geto-dacilor (pornind de la descoperiri arheologice din Cmpia Brilei) (Galai 1993). SRBU/VAIDA 2008 V. SRBU/D. L. VAIDA (Eds.), Funerary Practices of the Bronze and Iron Ages in Central and South-Eastern Europe. Proceedings of the 9th International Colloquium of Funerary Archaeology. Bistria, Romania May 9th11th, 2008 (Cluj-Napoca 2008). SOROCEANU 1991 T. SOROCEANU, Studien zur Mure-Kultur (Buch am Erlbach 1991). SOROCEANU 1995 T. SOROCEANU, Die Fundumstnde bronzezeitlicher Deponierungen Ein Beitrag zur Hortdeutung beiderseits der Karpaten. In: T. Soroceanu (Bearb. u. Red.), Bronzefunde aus Rumnien (Berlin 1995), 1580. STANCZIK 1980 I. STANCZIK, Az 197374 vi tszegi satsok. Szolnok Megyei Mz. vk. 19781980 [1980], 6381. STANCZIK/TRNOKI 1992 I. STANCZIK/J. TRNOKI, Jszdzsa-Kpolnahalom. In: W. Meier-Arendt (Hrsg.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main 1992), 120127. STAPEL 1999 A. STAPEL, Bronzezeitliche Deponierungen im Siedlungsbereich. Altdorf-Rmerfeld und Altheim, Landkreis Landshut (Mnster/New York/ Mnchen/Berlin 1999). STAVRIANOPOULOU 1995 E. STAVRIANOPOULOU, Die Verflechtung des Politischen mit dem Religisen im mykenischen Pylos. In: R. Laffineur/W.-D. Niemeier (Hrsg.), Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, 1013 April 1994 (Liege 1995), 423433. STJERNQUIST 1963 B. STJERNQUIST, Prliminarien zu einer Untersuchung von Opferfunden. Begriffsbestimmung und Theoriebildung. Meddel. Lund Univ. Hist. Mus. 19621963 [1963], 564. STJERNQUIST 1994 B. STJERNQUIST (Ed.), Prehistoric Graves as a Source of Information. Symposium atKastlsa, land, may 2123, 1992 (Stockholm 1994). VAN STRATEN 1981 F. T.van STRATEN, Gifts for the gods. In: H.S. Versnel (Ed.), Faith, Hope and Worship. Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (Leiden 1981), 65151. VAN STRATEN 1992 F. T. van STRATEN, Votives and votaries in Greek sanctuaries. In: A. Schachter (Ed.), LeSanctuaire grec (Geneva 1992), 247284. SZATHMRI 2003 I. SZATHMRI, Beitrge zu den Vorgeldarstellungen der bronzezeitlichen TellKulturen. In: E. Jerem/P. Raczky (Hrsg.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frhe Etappen der

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

43

Menschengeschichte in Mittel und Sdeuropa. Festschrift fr Nndor Kalicz zu 75. Geburtstag (Budapest 2003), 513523. ANDOR-CHICIDEANU 2003 M. ANDOR-CHICIDEANU, Neue Brotlaibidole aus Ton aus dem Becken der unteren Donau. In: C. Kacs (Hrsg.), Bronzezeitliche Kulturerscheinungen im karpatischen Raum. DieBeziehungen zu den benachbarten Gebieten. Ehrensymposium fr Alexandru Vulpe zum 70. Geburstag Baia Mare 10.13. Oktober 2001 (Baia Mare 2003), 413428. TRNOKI 1999 J. TRNOKI, Bronzkori kocsimodell Trksezentmikls-Terehalomrl. Savaria 24/3, 1998 1999 [1999], 165177. TOK 1981 A. TOK, Nitriansky Hrdok-Zmeek. Bronzezeitliche Befestigte Ansiedlung der Madarovce Kultur (Nitra 1981). TORBRGGE 1972 W. TORBRGGE, Vor und frhgeschichtliche Flufunde. Zur Ordung und Bestimmung einer Denkmlergruppe. Ber. RGK 5152, 19701971 [1972], 1146. TOMPA 1937 F. v. TOMPA, 25 Jahre Urgeschichtsforschung in Ungarn 19121936. Ber. RGK 25, 1934 1935 [1937], 27127. TRACHSEL 2008 M. TRACHSEL, Rituale in der Prhistorischen Archologie. Definition Identifikation Interpretation. In: Ch. Eggl/P. Trebsche/I. Balzer/J. Fries-Knoblach/J. K.Koch/H. Nortmann/ J. Wiethold (Hrsg.), Ritus und Religion in der Eisenzeit. Beitrge zur Sitzung der AG Eisenzeit whrend der Jahrestagung des Mittel und Ostdeutschen Verbandes fr Altertumsforschung e. V.in Halle an der Saale 2007 (Langenweissbach 2008), 15. TRNKA 2003 G. TRNKA, Neue frhbronzezeitliche Brotlaibidolfunde in sterreich. In: C.Kacs (Hrsg.), Bronzezeitliche Kulturerscheinungen im karpatischen Raum. Die Beziehungen zu den benachbarten Gebieten. Ehrensymposium fr Alexandru Vulpe zum 70. Geburstag Baia Mare 10.13. Oktober 2001 (Baia Mare 2003), 483486. URK/MARTA 2011 M. URK/L. MARTA, Human Remains of the Late Bronze Age Settlements in the Upper Tisza Area. New Researches and New Evidence. In: S.Berecki/E. Nmeth/B. Rezi (Eds.), Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Trgu Mure 810 October 2010 (Trgu Mure 2011), 155162. VERHAGEN 1986 B. VERHAGEN, Gtter Kulte und Bruche der Nordgermanen. Kulturelle Wurzeln des Abendlandes in der nordeuropischen Bronzezeit (Herrsching 1986). VEIT 1996 U. VEIT, Studien zum Problem der Siedlungsbestattung im europischen Neolithikum (Mnster/New York 1996). VIRCHOW 1876 R. VIRCHOW, Terramare an der Theiss und ber ungarische Alterthmer berhaupt. Zeitschr. Ethn. 8, 1876, 243255. VIZDAL 1972 J. VIZDAL, Erste bildliche Darstellung eines zweirdrigen Wagens vom Ende der mittleren Bronzezeit in der Slowakei. Slovensk Arch. 20/1, 1972, 223231. VLADR 1973 J. VLADR, Osteuropische und mediterrane Einflsse im Gebiet der Slowakei whrend der Bronzezeit. Slovensk Arch. 21/2, 1973, 253357. VLADR 1975 J. VLADR, Spisk tvrtok, befestigte Siedlung der Otomani-Kultur. In: III. Internationaler Kongress fr slawische Archologie Bratislava, 7.14. September 1975 (Nitra 1975), 224.

44

Florin Gogltan

VRS 1996 I. VRS, Dog as building offering from the Bronze Age Tell at Jszdzsa. Folia Arch. 45, 1996, 6990. WAHL 1994 J. WAHL, Zur Ansprache und Definition von Sonderbestattungen. In: M. Kokabi/J. Wahl (Zusammengestellt), Beitrge zur Archozoologie und Prhistorischen Anthropologie. 8. Arbeitstreffen der Osteologen Konstanz 1993 im Andeken an Joachim Boessneck (Stuttgart 1994), 85106. WHITTAKER 1997 H. WHITTAKER, Mycenaean Cult Buildings. A Study of their Architecture and Function in the Context of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean (Bergen/Athens 1997). WHITTAKER 2008 H. WHITTAKER, The Role of Drinking in Religious Ritual in the Mycenaean Period. In: L. A. Hitchcock/R. Laffineur/J. Crowley (Eds.), DAIS. The Aegean Feast. Proceedings of the 12th International Aegean Conference University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, 2529 March 2008 (Lige 2008), 8996. WILLROTH 1985 K.-H. WILLROTH, Aspekte lterbronzezeitlicher Deponierungen im sdlichen Skandinavien. Germania 63/2, 1985, 361400. WORSAAE 1866 J. J. A. WORSAAE, Om nogle mosefund fra Broncealderen. In: Aarbger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie (Aarbger 1866), 313326. WRIGHT 1994 J.C. WRIGHT, The Spatial Configuration of Belief: The Archaeology of Mycenaean Religion. In: S.E. Alcock/R. Osborne (Eds.), Placing the Gods. Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece (Oxford 1995), 3778. WRIGHT 2004 J. C.WRIGHT (Ed.), The Mycenaean Feast (Princeton 2004). WRIGHT 2006 J. C.Wright, The formation of the Mycenean palace. In: S.Deger-Jalkotzy/I. S.Lemos (Eds.), Ancient Greece. From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer (Edinburgh 2006), 952. YIANNOULI 1998 E. YIANNOULI, Fecundity and the Sacred. Some Preliminary Thoughts Regarding Bronze Age Greece. Journal Prehist. Religion 1112, 1998, 6584. ZIPF 2003 G. ZIPF, Formalisierung, Reduzierung, Inszenierung Zur wissenschaftlichen Konzeption von Ritualen und ihrer Umsetzung in der Interpretation archologischer (Be-)Funde. In: C.Metzner-Nebelsick (Hrsg.), Rituale in der Vorgeschichte, Antike und Gegenwart. Studien zur Vorderasiatischen, Prhistorischen und Klassischen Archologie, gyptologie, Alten Geschichte, Theologie und Religionswissenschaft. Interdisziplinre Tagung vom 1.2. Februar 2002 an der Freien Universitt Berlin (Rahden/Westf. 2003), 916.

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

45

11 10

12

13

Pl. I. SalaceaDealul Vida. Inventary objects from the megaron-temple (after CHIDIOAN/ORDENTLICH 1975).

46

Florin Gogltan

MH SLACEA EUTRESIS LHIIB

MENELAION LHIIIA1

TIRYNS

PHYLAKOPI HAGIA TRIADA

LHIIIB2

TIRYNS

MYCENAE

PYLOS
0

PHYLAKOPI
10 20 m

Pl. II. The megaron-temple from SlaceaDelul Vidaand the architectural layout of residential nuclei in Mycenaean palaces (after KILIAN 1988).

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

47

1m

1m

1m

Pl. III. 1 CareiBobld (after NMETI 1996). 26 Nitriansky HrdokZmecek (after TOCIK 1981).

48

Florin Gogltan

Pl. IV. 1 AndridCurtea grajdurilor (after NMETI 1996). 2 Nin MylaVrhegy (after JAKAB/ OLEXA/VLADR 1999).

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

49

1
0 1 m

Pl. V. 1, 3 JszdzsaKpolnahalom (after VRS 1996). 2 Nitriansky HrdokZmecek (after TOCIK 1981).

50

Florin Gogltan

2
0 0

Pl. VI. 1 JszdzsaKpolnahalom (after CSNYI/STANCZIK/TRNOKI 2000). 23 Vcelince Lszlfala (after FURMNEK/MARKOV 1996).

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

51

1 3

5 cm

10

Pl. VII. 1, 48 KoiceBarca. 2 Nin MylaVrhegy. 3 Spisk tvrtokMyia hrka=Barimberg (after MARKOV 2001); 910. SalaceaDealul Vida (after ORDENTLICH 1967).

52

Florin Gogltan

2
a b

10 9

11

12

Pl. VIII. DeridaDealul lui Balot. Clay wagons, wagon wheels, smoking vessels (after CHIDIOAN 1980).

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

53

Pl. IX. Bird-shaped askoi, bird-shaped vessels (after KOVCS 1972).

54

Florin Gogltan

Pl. X. Gefe mit sulenartigen Henkeln (after HORVTH L. A. 2000).

Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

55

Pl. XI. Symbols on the pottery discovered in the Nagyrv tell settlements (after KALICZ-SCHREIBER 1990).

56

Florin Gogltan

3 cm

Pl. XII. 1 VeselHradisko-Podzmske (after PAULK 1999). 2 Dupljaja (after GARAANIN 1983). 3 Trundholm (after ANER/KERSTEN 1976).