eszter melis - uniba.sk...eszter melis1 1 research assistant, has rch institute of archaeology,...

7MUSAICA ARCHAELOGICA 1/2017 7-22

ŠTÚDIE / STUDIES• • •

ANALYSIS OF SECONDARY MORTUARY PRACTICES IN THE EARLY BRONZE AGE INHUMATION BURIALSFROM NORTH-WESTERN HUNGARY

Eszter Melis1

______________

1 Research Assistant, HAS RCH Institute of Archaeology, Tóth Kálmán u. 4., H-1097 Budapest, [email protected]

Abstract: The practice of re-opening of graves and the removal of grave goods is well-known from large inhu-mation cemeteries dating to the Early Bronze Age, primarily from the territory of Austria. These events are generally explained by material/economic motivations. Thus, more recently, the re-opening of Bronze Age graves is interpreted within a complex system of a multi-phase mortuary praxis or rite, including temporary burial depositions and post-fu-nerary activities. In this paper I intend to focus on these particular post-funerary activities which transformed the orig-inal, primary depositions of inhumation burials dating to the Early Bronze Age recovered from the case-study region of my forthcoming PhD thesis. The closer study region is situated at the confluence of the Danube the Morava River and the Rába River, between 2000–1600 BC, according to the Hungarian terminology, the end of Early Bronze Age and first half of the Middle Bronze Age.

Keywords: re-opening of the graves, grave-manipulation, consecutive burials, multi-stage burials, Gáta-Wieselburg Culture

Abstrakt: Analýza druhotných pohrebných zásahov v hroboch zo staršej doby bronzovej v severozápadnom Maďarsku. Zvyk druhotného otvárania hrobov a vyberania hrobových príloh je dobre známy z veľkých inhumačných pohrebísk datovaných do staršej doby bronzovej, najmä z územia Rakúska. Tento jav je obvykle vysvetľovaný materiálnou/ekonomickou motiváciou. Novšie je opätovné otváranie hrobov z doby bronzovej interpretované v rámci komplexného systému viacfázových pohrebných zvyklostí či rítu, vrátane dočasných hrobových depozícií a post-funerálnych aktivít. V tejto štúdii sa zameriavam na tieto post-funerálne aktivity, ktoré transformovali pôvodné, primárne uloženia inhumač-ných pohrebov datovaných do staršej doby bronzovej, pričom vychádzam z regiónu prípadovej štúdie z mojej chystanej dizertačnej práce. Región, ktorému sa bližšie venujem, je situovaný na sútoku riek Dunaj, Morava a Rába, v období rokov 2000–1600 BC, čo je podľa maďarskej terminológie záver staršej a prvá polovica strednej doby bronzovej.

Kľúčové slová: druhotné otváranie hrobov, manipulácia s hrobmi, viacfázové pochovávanie, viacúrovňové pochová-vanie, wieselburgská kultúra

1. Introduction

The practice of re-opening of graves and the removal of grave goods is well-known from large inhumation cemeteries dating to the Early Bronze Age, primarily from the territory of Austria (Gemeinlebarn – Neugebauer 1991, 125–129, Franzhausen – Neugebauer – Neugebauer-Maresch 1997, 26–29; and the early phase of Pitten – Rittershofer 1987, 11–12). These events are generally explained by material/economic motivations, assuming that bronze objects represented such high value that people in the Bronze Age were not deterred even by the fear of the dead to retrieve

8 Eszter Melis Analysis of Secondary Mortuary Practices in the Early Bronze Age Inhumation Burials from North-Western Hungary

artefacts from graves (Neugebauer 1991, 125–129, Abb. 34). However, the frequent occurrence of the phenomenon along with manipulated and missing body parts suggest perhaps a more complex tradition: evidence for the contin-uous and deliberate interaction with the dead is increasing (see the burial depositions from Pitten: Sørensen – Rebay 2008, 65–66). Thus, more recently, the re-opening of Bronze Age graves is interpreted within a complex system of a multi-phase mortuary praxis or rite, including temporary burial depositions and post-funerary activities (Weiss-Krejci 2011, Fig.4. 1).

The (social) processes taking place after the completion of the funeral, that can also be archaeologically de-tected, are referred to by a range of terms. The neutral expression of ‘disturbance’ (Grabstörung) includes all processes that change the original arrangement of the primary burial, either inflicted by animal or recent con-struction activities. In contrast, the most commonly used phrase of ‘grave-robbing’ (Grabraub) is perhaps too interpretative, suggesting the illegitimate re-opening of burials; a targeted activity for the removal of grave goods. The word ‘re-opening’ (Wiederöffnung) implies an intentional (but neutral) human activity (including the process of excavation), however it bears no reflection (either positive or negative) upon the removal of grave goods or body parts (Rittershofer 1987, 5; Aspöck 2003, 225–226). Another preferred terminus is ‘manipulation’; a process which induces changes in the original arrangement of the burial, assuming motivations beyond economic needs (Kümmel 2009, 109–111, Tab. 3.1).

In this paper I intend to focus on these particular post-funerary activities which transformed the original, primary depositions of inhumation burials dating to the Early Bronze Age recovered from the case-study region of my forthcoming PhD thesis. The study area lies within a broad geographical region that stretches between the Alps and the Carpathian Mountains in northwest Hungary; territories which have long been considered to be the gateways to the Carpathian Basin from the direction of central Europe. The closer study region is situated at the confluence of the Danube - one of Europe’s main arteries -, and the Morava River; a route which is assumed to be the forerunner of the Amber Road (Figler 1994, 20). Further south, skirting the Alps, flows the Rába River, anoth-er channel of communication joining the Danube from the west. In the Early Bronze Age (between 2000–1600 BC; RB A1 – B1, according to the Hungarian terminology, the end of Early Bronze Age and first half of the Mid-dle Bronze Age) this area represented the boundary zone between cremation burial rites characteristic of Bronze Age groups in the Carpathian Basin, and the Únětice Complex’s inhumation tradition (including related groups, for instance the Gáta-Wieselburg culture)(Krenn-Leeb 2011a, 11, Abb. 2, Abb. 11; Krenn-Leeb 2011b, 258–259, Abb. 2, Abb. 3, Abb. 4; Kiss 2012, Fig. 3). This territory today lies in the marginal regions of three countries: Austria, Hungary and Slovakia.

2. Material and Methods

Inhumation burials of the Gáta-Wieselburg group accompanied by beakers with hourglass-shaped handles, two-handled jugs and deep bowls with 3-4 handles are known mainly from the territory of Austria (e.g. Hainburg an der Teichtal with around 320 unearthed burials, Mannersdorf with nearly 100 burials: Krenn-Leeb 2011a, 11 – 12; Weiden am See over 200 burials: Aspöck – Banerjea 2016, 2, Fig. 2). Unfortunately, so far only a small number of these graves have been published and even these works refer to systematically looted graves in generic terms, like for instance at the site Prellenkirchen (Beninger et al. 1930; Neugebauer 1994, 57–68; Sauer 2004; Krenn-Leeb 2011a, 18–25). Post-deposition manipulations (e.g. missing skulls) were also observed at the cemetery of Rusovce in the outskirts of Bratislava (Kőszegi 1958). The original documentation of the 21 Rusovce burials, excavated in 1942 and published later by Frigyes Kőszegi and István Bóna (Bóna 1975, 237–241) were examined here. A further 15 Early Bronze Age inhumation graves were excavated and published from three different locations within the boundaries of Rusovce town in the 1970s and 1980s. While these works mention a few secondary re-opened burials, due to the lack of burial plans this data could not be used for the purposes of the present study (Pichlerová 1980; Bazovský – Šefčáková 1996; Bartík et al. 2016, 49–54). In Slovakia - apart from the Rusovce burials - some Únětice cemeteries also contained graves with material characteristic of Gáta-Wieselburg burials (e.g. Velký Grob – Benkovsky-Pivovarová – Chropovský


Fig. 1. The distribution of Gáta-Wieselburg sites marked with the investigated cemeteries(after Leeb 1987, 233, Abb. 1; Nagy 2013, Abb. 1).

Legend: – Gáta-Wieselburg sites; – Únětice cemetries with Gáta-Wieselburg pottery; – sporadic finds in the adjacent areas; – Gáta-Wieselburg sites in county Vas; – Zsennye cemetery

Obr. 1. Rozšírenie lokalít kultúry Gáta-Wieselburg s vyznačením skúmaných pohrebísk(podľa Leeb 1987, 233, Abb. 1; Nagy 2013, Abb. 1)

Legenda: – lokality Gáta-Wieselburg; – únětické pohrebiská s (Gáta-)wieselburskou keramikou; – ojedinelé nálezy v priľahlých oblastiach; – lokality Gáta-Wieselburg v regióne Vas; – pohrebiská Zsennye

2015, 144–150). From the territory of Hungary, around 200 Gáta burials have been collected by Marcella Nagy in County Vas and Győr-Moson-Sopron by myself (Nagy 2013, 75–78, Abb. 1, Abb. 2; Melis in press). The largest Gáta-Wieselburg cemetery from Hungary was documented at Hegyeshalom (Szathmári 1988; Nagy – Figler 2009) with altogether 59, significantly disturbed burials. Further burials were salvaged in the vicinity of Petőháza (Nováki 1956), Iván (Ilon 1996, 27), Szakony (Ilon 1996, 25–26, IV. tábla 7–10, V. table), and Pusztasomorja (Szathmári 1988, 68, 7. ábra 8–10.) in the 1960-70s. More recently, 9 burials associated with the Gáta-Wieselburg group were found east of the population’s core distribution area at Győr-Ménfőcsanak, where a large surface area was archaeologically investigated in the early 2000s (Egry 2007, 30–31; 5. kép; Melis 2015). Thus, the cemeteries under examination here all represent the eastern peripheries of the Gáta-Wieselburg group, dating to 1900–1600 BC based on the partly unpublished (7) 14C samples (Table 1, Fig. 1).


Poor soil conditions and the methods em-ployed during earlier rescue excavations had a neg-ative effect on the preservation of human bones. Thanks to the efforts of János Nemeskéri, Zsu-zsanna Zoffmnann, Gábor Tóth and Tamás Ha-jdu, I had anthropological information related to 101 individual skeletons (Zoffmann 1999; Tóth – Me-lis – Ilon 2016, 747–750, I. táblázat, II. táblázat). The poor preservation of the human remains re-sulted in a fair degree of uncertainty during the anthropological examination which is reflected in the broad estimate of biological age in the case of all cemeteries under investigation. However, the scientific aging of individuals is a hotly debated methodological issue among physical anthropolo-gists themselves (Sosna 2009, 50–51; Appleby 2011, 235, Fig. 1).Therefore the individuals under study here (101 cases) were ranked into four categories: female, male (the gender distinction includes some uncertainties), adult and child (Fig. 2). The cate-gorisation of 4 individuals between 15–18 years of age (Juvenis) was problematic, thus these were lumped together with other adults of non-deter-minable sex, because one would assume that each

Fig. 2. Rate of the identified sex categoriesin sum and in the different sites

Obr. 2. Pomer identifikovaných kategórií pohlavia celkovoa na jednotlivých lokalitách

Site Year of ex-cavation References Anthropolgy No. of

burials Radicarbon data (2 σ)

Hegyeshalom - Újlakótelep 1965, 1966

Szathmári 1988; Nagy – Figler 2009

Zoffmann 1999 59 N.D.

Petőháza -Ik-va-mente 1954 Nováki 1956 T. Hajdu un-

publ. 3 N.D.

Zsennye - Kavics-bánya 2002, 2003 Nagy 2013 G. Tóth 23

1951–1703 cal BC (95,4 %) 1879–1637 cal BC(95,4 %) 1933–1683 cal BC (95,4 %) 1876–1617 cal BC(95,4 %)

Bratislava - Ru-sovce (Oroszvár) 1942, 1943 Kőszegi 1958;

Bóna 1975J. Nemeskéri; T. Hajdu unpubl. 21 N.D.

Iván - Szerda-ta-dűlő/ Homok-bánya

1960 T. Hajdu un-publ. 4 N.D.

Szakony - Kavics-bánya

1959, 1960,1961 Ilon 1996 T. Hajdu un-

publ. 11 1916 - 1746 calBC (95,4%) (un-publ)

Ménfőcsanak - Széles-földek/ Eperföldek

2006, 2009 - 2011

Egry 2007; Tóth - Ilon - Melis 2016

G. Tóth. 9 1891–1746 cal BC (95,4 %) 1912- 1756 calBC (95,4%) (unpubl)

Pusztasomorja - Tímárdomb

1965, 1968, 1970, 1971 Szathmári 1988 N.D. 12 N.D.

142

Table 1. The main data of the sites under study (Legend: N. D. = No data)Tab. 1. Hlavné dáta k skúmaným lokalitám (Legenda: N.D. = žiadne dáta)


person became the full member of their community after they reached sexual maturation. There is an overall dom-inance of female individuals in the examined material. The physical anthropological analysis of the Hainburg cem-etery suggested that the Gáta-Wieselburg population continued the Bell-Beaker type bipolar deposition practice in their burial traditions: the majority of males were placed on their left, while females on their right sides, all oriented mostly towards the southwest (Ehrgartner 1959, 11–12; Neugebauer-Maresch – Neugebauer 2001, 239–243; Krenn-Leeb 2011a, 20). Although in the examined Gáta-Wieselburg cemeteries the overlap between the placement and the iden-tifiable, sexed skeletons is small, it seems that among both genders the placement of individuals on their right side dominates with the skeletons being oriented slightly off the N-S axis. In the 1970s, István Bóna has remarked upon the ‘local’ characteristics of Gáta-Wieselburg cemeteries in terms of the orientation of burials: Deutschkreutz/ So-pronkereszttúr NW-SE, SE-NW, SW-NE, E-W, in Mannersdorf an der Leithagebirge NW-SE, in Purbach SW-NE, in Wulkaprodersdorf/ Vulkapordány and Mörbisch/ Fertőmeggyes N-S, S-N (Bóna 1975, 237–238).

The 142 analysed burials were categorised - using burial plans and descriptions – based on the level of disturbance and the number of targeted (manipulated) body parts (Neugebauer 1991, 115–117, Tab. 22; Spatzier 2007, 240; Kümmel 2009, 227–232). The undisturbed category (no. 1) included burials affected merely by natural taphonomic processes such as an-imal disturbance or soil conditions. Considering that some of the analysed burials suffered the effects of recent activities (e.g. construction work or quarrying), it required the introduction of category 0, in which cases the destruction of graves was so severe that it prevented the examination of human remains altogether. Disturbances limited to one or two body parts were characterised as ‘moderately manipulated’ (no. 2), while the category of ‘manipulated burials’ (no. 3) included 3-4 disturbed body parts, missing or relocated skeletal units. These showed the highest occurrence in the examined material. The ‘highly manipulated’ category no. 4 contained burials with only a few remaining bones or strongly disturbed bones in the gravepit. Category no. 5 included burials with empty gravepits, or with only a few bone-fragments present (Fig. 3).

3. Results

The highest number of grave re-openings was observed at Hegyeshalom, Zsennye and Rusovce, however the amount of re-opened graves at these sites represents less than half of the overall number of burials (38%). A few buri-als were documented as ‘manipulated’ at Szakony, Ménfőcsanak and Pusztasomorja, while at Petőháza only ‘moderate manipulation’ could be observed (Fig. 4). Manipulated graves seem to occur in higher proportions (45–95 %) in cem-eteries of the Middle Danubian region: in Moravia, Austria and Slovakia (Rittershofer 1987, 17; Kümmel 2009, 170–173, Abb. 4.2, Tab. 4.3; Benkovsky-Pivovarová – Chropovský 2015, 96–97, Abb. 104). Grave re-openings and burial manipulations are not so frequent in cemeteries associated with the Nitra- culture (e.g. Branč, Výčapy-Opatovce – 10–20%), while in

Fig. 3. The categories of disturbance: 0- recent/ later disturbed (Hegyeshalom grave No. 2), 1- undisturbed (Hegyeshalom grave No. 40), 2- moderate manipulated (Hegyeshalom grave No. 33, 3 – manipulated (Hegyeshalom grave No. 23), 4- ex-

tremely manipulated (Hegyeshalom grave No. 6), 5 – removed/ relocated (Hegyeshalom grave No. 41) (Pusztai 1965)Obr. 3. Kategórie porušenia: 0 – recentné/porušený neskôr (Hegyeshalom, hrob č. 2), 1 – neporušený (Hegyeshalom, hrob č. 40), 2 – mierne porušený (Hegyeshalom, hrob č. 33), 3 – porušený (Hegyeshalom, hrob č. 23), 4 – extrémne

porušený (Hegyeshalom, hrob č. 6), 5 – odstránený/premiestnený (Hegyeshalom, hrob č. 41) (Pusztai 1965)


Slovakian burial grounds, where multiple socio-cultural identities are represented, this rate is higher (Jelšovce, Abrahám, Ma-jcichov) (Kümmel 2009, Abb.4.2, Tab. 4.3; Benkovsky-Pivovarová – Chropovský 2015, 96, Abb. 104). Well-known and thoroughly an-alysed are the large Unterwölbing cemeter-ies (e.g. Gemeinlebarn A, F, Franzhausen I) with many disturbed burials. Here, a gradual increase in re-opened graves was observed throughout the subsequent chronological phases (Bertemes 1989, 121–133; Neugebau-er 1991, 125–129; Spatzier 2007, 240–245). Grave-manipulation appears to be a wide-spread practice among the Únětice-com-plex’s south-eastern group, including the so-called Hurbanovo group associated with encrusted pottery (Rittershofer 1987, 17–18; Kümmel 2009, 170–173, Abb. 4.2, Tab. 4.3; Benkovsky-Pivovarová –Chropovský 2015, 96–97, Abb. 104). From the Únětice cem-etery of Veľký Grob, characterised by Gá-ta-Wieselburg type ceramics, the number of re-opened graves is known exactly (39 out of 65 burials, Rittershofer 1987, 17–18; Ben-kovsky-Pivovarová – Chropovský 2015, 96–97, Abb. 104). In Prellenkirchen, a Gáta-Wie-selburg cemetery in Austria, only one grave remained undisturbed, while in relation to the cemetery of Hainburg the systematic ‘robbing’ of graves was mentioned only in broad terms (Neugebauer 1994, 57–68; Sauer 2004; Krenn-Leeb 2011a, 18–25).

While examining the burial material of Gáta-Wieselburg cemeteries situated on the eastern peripheries of its distribution, it was found that the majority of identifiable infant burials remained undisturbed, furthermore the number of undisturbed male burials is in fact lower than the manipulated ones (10:12) (Fig. 5). Similar age-related trends could be observed at Gemeinlebarn F, where out of 250 graves 220 burials were ‘looted’: infant burials dominated among the graves recorded as undisturbed (Rittershofer 1987, 13). In the Early Bronze Age site of Einigen, a grave of a young boy buried with an axe, a dagger and two pins remained untouched while right next to it a ‘robbed’ burial of a man of 40–45 years of age was documented, which seems to confirm the correlation between the practice of grave re-opening and the age of individuals (Rittershofer 1987, 19). In contrast, in the cemeteries under study here the proportion of manipulated female burials is lower than the male’s (40 % and 54 % respectively, based on the dataset of 52 cases), former works indicate that in the Middle Danubian Early Bronze Age cemeteries this rate (i.e. the proportion of re-opened female burials) is noted to be three times higher (Rittershofer 1987, 14–17).

Beyond the simple removal of grave goods, some manipulated burials provide evidence for deliberate, second-ary burial treatment. In a few burials at Hegyeshalom, some skeletal parts appear to be systematically relocated (e.g. grave No. 51). In the case of a female burial at Ménfőcsanak, skeletal units still held together by soft tissue were repositioned: legs were placed on top of the skull and upper body, the hip bone was found in the upper layers of the fill which itself shows later structural disturbance (Fig. 6). The post-mortem manipulation of the body in this case

Fig. 5. Rate of the disturbance categories accordingto the identified sex categories

Obr. 5. Zastúpenie kategórií porušenia podľaidentifikovaných kategórií pohlavia

Fig. 4. Rate of the disturbance categories in the investigated cemeteriesObr. 4. Zastúpenie kategórií porušenia na skúmaných pohrebiskách


must have taken place one year after the primary burial (estimated by Gábor Tóth, Neugebauer 1991, Tab. 22). Another female skeleton in Ménfőcsanak whose bent right arm was discovered in non-anatomical po-sition within the ‘gravepit’ showed no cut-marks according to the physical anthropol-ogist Gábor Tóth, however it is possible that instead of post-deposition manipu-lation, the limb was removed during the funerary preparations (Weiss-Krejci 2011, 72–73, Fig. 4.).

The problem of ‘empty’ gravepits or disturbance category no. 5 is worth men-tioning here. In the analysed cemeteries, especially in the shallower, smaller grave-pits at Zsennye, it is possible that the ‘empty’ gravepits contained the remains of young children. In another case, two small cups placed in the middle of the gravepit could imply a symbolic burial (Nagy 2013, 81, Taf. 3). However, apart from these instances, three deeper graves at Hegyeshalom (grave No. 4, 29, 36) and five at Zsennye (grave No. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) were without human remains, while the leading archaeologist at the Hegyeshalom excavation (Rezső Pusztai) described the fill of grave No. 29 within which ‘a buri-al took place’ (Pusztai 1965). Phosphate analyses carried out on Únětice burials in the Czech Republic more recently (for ex-ample at the cemeteries of Prag-Miskov-ice, Vliněves) showed the decomposing of organic materials in ‘empty’ gravepits, suggesting the multi-stage post-deposition utilisation of graves (Ernée 2013, 235–236; Limburský 2015). Burial no. 7 at Zsennye contained only a few ceramic fragments, but the structure of the gravepit showed signs of re-opening at a later stage (judged by the contour of ‘robbing-pit’, Nagy 2013, 82, Taf. 7). Thus, in relation to ‘the problem of empty gravepits’ the possibility of a multi-stage mortuary deposition practice also has to be taken into account during the period of the Early Bronze Age (Weiss-Krejci 2011, 73–75, Fig. 4.1).

At Szakony, consecutive burials were documented in two cases. A similar situation was observed at Hegye-shalom where two, and at Iván where three levels of body depositions could be distinguished above one another (Fig. 7). The human remains belonged to a number of age and sex categories in these burials (3 female, one male, two unsexed adults, two infants and an individual of uncertain age). This is not an unusual phenomenon in the context of the Central European Early Bronze Age (RB A1-A2): a small number of similar, consecutive burials are known from the southern territories of the Únětice complex, furthermore from related cemeteries of the

Fig. 6. Ménfőcsanak burial No. 9148 (photo by Ferenc Halász)Obr. 6. Ménfőcsanak, pohreb č. 9148 (foto: Ferenc Halász)

Fig. 7. Reconstruction of consecutive burial made by Zoltán Tóthbased on Gyula Nováki’s burial plans: 1., Iván grave

No. 2, 3, 4; 2., Szakony grave No. 3, 8; 3., Szakony grave No. 6, 7Obr. 7. Rekonštrukcia viacfázového pohrebu od Zoltána Tótha zho-tovená na základe plánov Gyulu Novákiho: 1 – Iván, hrob č. 2, 3, 4;

2 – Szakony, hrob č. 3, 8; 3 – Szakony, hrob č. 6, 7


Unterwölbing, Böheimkirchen, Maďarovce Culture (Roggendorf: Scheibenreiter 1958, 69–71, Abb. 21–22; Velké Pavlovice: Stuchlík – Stuchlíková 1996, 138–140; Jelšovce: Bátora 2000, 466–467, 480, Abb. 16, Abb. 287, Abb. 360, Taf. 73,2; Gemeinlebarn F: Neugebauer 1991, 77, Taf. 19, Taf. 39). A further caveat that one has to consider when dealing with archival material (e.g. Roggendorf) is the possibility of superimposed burials and that bodies or body parts thrown back into the robbing pit cannot be interpreted as consecutive burials (Nachbestattung – Scheibenreit-er 1958, 69–71, Abb. 21–22; Neugebauer 1991, 77; Neugebauer – Neugebauer-Maresch 1997, Abb. 8, 339., 840, Abb. 9). The most recent example for a re-opened and re-used gravepit (with two bodies) is known from the Gáta-Wiesel-burg cemetery of Weiden am See. Here, with the application of 3D imagery and soil micromorphological analyses it was possible to reconstruct the sequence of depositions in detail (Aspöck – Banerjea 2016). Unfortunately, no such data are available from the cemeteries under study here; in general, the condition of the lower skeleton is considered as an indicator for the stage of body-decomposition at the time when the re-opening of the grave took place. In the Carpathian Basin the complete decomposition of a human body is estimated to at least 7 years (Bátora 2000, 466; Dani – Szabó 2002, 102). More detailed examinations of soil conditions at Franzhausen and Gemeinlebarn imply partial decomposition in 3 to 5 years, and complete decomposition in 10 years in a gravelly matrix (which could take 3 to 5 years longer in clayey soils; Neugebauer 1991, 116, Tabelle 22). Burial no. 8 at Sza-kony could have been re-opened when the body was in an almost decomposed state, and based on this estimate, burial no. 3 (above it?) was deposited at least 8 years later. However, as it is clear from the studies carried out at Weiden am See, that the first re-opening of the primary burial and the deposition of the second individual could have been separate actions, taking place 10-40 years after the initial creation of the gravepit (Aspöck – Banerjea 2016, Fig. 9). The inhumation burial no. 56 at Hegyeshalom contained the cremated remains of an individual of uncertain age, but whether this second deposition was part of the primary burial or a later addition, it is difficult to say. At Franzhausen II, a second cremated individual was placed above a female coffin burial richly furnished with grave goods (Reiter 2008, 35). Information is still scarce regarding the grave goods deposited in the upper fills of graves alike, however in burial no. 9 at Szakony fragments of large ceramic vessels and in burial no. 21 at Hegyeshalom a small cup was placed 20 cm above the hipbone, perhaps as evidence for re-opening.

To return to the main types of burial manipulations, correspondence analysis was carried out comparing types of grave goods with the age categories of individuals and stages of disturbance. Given that each stage of disturbance represents less than 5 percent of the overall burial count, manipulation category no. 2 and 3

Fig. 8. Results of correspondence analysis for disturbance and sex categories with the main grave good types.Legend: shape: - female; - male; - no anthropological data; *- ad./juv.; + - child.

Obr. 8. Výsledky korešpondenčnej analýzy pre kategórie porušenia a pohlavia s hlavnými typmi hrobových príloh. Legenda: tvar: – žena; – muž; – bez antropologických údajov; * – ad./juv.; + – dieťa.


were lumped together during the current examination: manipulated male burials showed a correspondence with bronze artefacts (daggers, torques and precious metals), while the undisturbed male buri-als contained dominantly ceramic grave goods. Skeletons belonging to the cate-gories no. 4 and 5 were mainly without grave goods, and in the majority of cas-es human remains were unidentifiable. Metal-types represented in female burials (pins, dress-ornaments, neck-rings, hair-rings) also stood out markedly during the analysis (Fig. 8).

Based on the grave goods found in 23 burials at Zsennye, Marcella Nagy drew up four main social categories (Nagy 2013,

116–119, Taf. 40), which I also applied during my own examination programme. Category IV represented burials accompanied by heavy bronze objects (for example an axe from Pusztasomorja) precious metals or amber. Category III encompassed burials with bronze artefacts, Category II included burials with ceramic grave goods, while Catego-ry I burials were without grave furniture. I did not include ‘empty’ gravepits which lacked human remains and their grave goods as analytical units, since it is difficult to establish in which category they should belong. (At a later stage I would like draw up more nuanced social categories based on the broader source material, including the stages of manipulation). The graph below demonstrates that the number of undisturbed burials almost equals the number of manipulated burials in Category III (Fig. 9). Furthermore the correspondence analysis indicates that manipulation category no. 2 and 3, and Category III and IV are largely associated with male and female burials placed on their right side. Infant burials are generally without grave goods and left undisturbed, characterised by their placement on the left side (Fig. 10).

Fig. 10. Results of correspondence analysis for disturbance and sex categories with social categories and main orientation - posi-tion types. Legend: shape: - female; - male; - no anthropological data; *- ad./juv.; + - child.

Obr. 10. Výsledky korešpondenčnej analýzy pre kategórie porušenia a pohlavia so sociálnymi kategóriami a hlavnými typmi ori-entácie – pozície. Legenda: tvar: – žena; – muž; – bez antropologických údajov; * – ad./juv.; + – dieťa.

Fig. 9. Rate of the disturbance categories within the social categoriesObr. 9. Zastúpenie kategórií porušenia v jednotlivých

sociálnych kategóriách


The examination of body parts sub-ject to manipulation (as far as the ar-chaeological documentation allows) could shed light on deliberate targeting of body parts (Kümmel 2009, 228–232). The upper body, such as the skull, torso and arms were manipulated to a similar degree in about 20% of the cases, while in the case of the lower limbs this was only 10%. The analysis was later extend-ed to specific genders which showed the manipulation of the upper body in pre-dominantly male burials while in female burials certain body parts (limited chiefly to the skull and torso) were targeted by manipulation (Fig. 11).

In the cemeteries under study, over-all the skull and its appendages were re-moved most frequently (24%), primarily due the high number of documented cases in the Hegyeshalom cemetery (Fig. 11). Here, at least in four cases, dark or-ganic matter (perhaps traces of leather?) was documented at the place where the skull could have been (Fig. 12). Physical anthropological examination showed that in three cases the deceased was a female, while the 4th individual was unidentifiable, nevertheless the grave goods (a hair-ring and a dress-ornament) suggest the buri-al of a female as well. In these instances, it is possible that some kind of leather headdress embellished with bronze ornaments was removed with the skull, perhaps as a symbolic act. Similar types of headdresses dating to the Early Bronze Age are known from the cemetery of Franzhausen I., including a pointy variety covered with bronze plates and headband type ornament from burial no. 747 (Neugebauer 1994, 86–89, Abb. 41). In relation to a Gáta-Wieselburg burial of a young girl at Nagycenk, János Gömöri mentions the presence of a similar piece of adornment: a bronze headband (Gömöri 2012, 12). Thus, based on the examined burials, there seems to be a trend emerging which shows grave re-opening activities deliberately targeted female burial attire in particular (Rittershofer 1987, 22). The relocation or removal of skulls are also frequent phenomena in the Middle Danubian Early Bronze Age cemeteries (e.g. Veľký Grob 9 cases – Rittershofer 1987, 15–16; Ge-meinlebarn F, out of 216 graves, 29 relocated skulls, in 123 burials at least the cranium missing – Neugebauer 1991, 127). Some scholars explain this treatment of the body with the belief of the ‘fear of the dead’ based on histor-ical written records and 18th century folklore (Neugebauer 1991, 127; Schaub 2009, 6–7), however, with regards to ethnographic data collection among 60 cultural groups archived by the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) the negative perspective upon dead bodies, the legend of the uncanny, restless souls and ‘vampires’ are rare among the non-state communities (Kümmel 2009, 185–190, 223–225, Abb. 5.15; Notroff 2011, 144–146). In addition, few cas-es from the Early Bronze Age support the assumption of the separate deposition of the skull (Ybbs: Reiter 2015, 331–332, Abb. 2) or its reuse as an object (e.g. a mask or a cup) in the Danube region (Böheimkirchen: Neugebauer 1994, 133; Iváncsa: http://intercisamuzeum.hu/muzeumblog/2017-februar-honap-mutargya--bronzkori-kopon-yamaszk-ivancsarol, Accessed: 2nd of February, 2017.)

Fig. 11. Rate of manipulated body parts according to sex categories and the sum of missing body parts.

Obr. 11. Zastúpenie manipulovaných častí tela podľa kategórií pohlavia a súčet chýbajúcich častí tela.


Discussion and furtheravenues of research

Given the fragmented nature of both the archaeological documentation and the skeletal material, in order to investigate the practice of consecutive burials more thor-oughly, the examination of recently exca-vated, large Early Bronze Age cemeteries would be required, aided by methods of archaeometry. Traces of bronze patina on the skeletons could be investigated in col-laboration with physical anthropologists that could lead to the more exact estimation of the number of bronze artefacts placed with the burials, and thus the refinement of social categories (Spatzier 2007, 243). The current examination of burial assemblages showed clear, deliberate manipulation of human remains targeting the upper body, grave goods and dress ornaments. Since in the majority of cases these disturbances had little impact on the targeted body part, it could be assumed that the graves were re-opened relatively soon after the primary deposition took place, at the time when the

location of the burial was still known or grave markers were still present. Based on the position of bones, post-depo-sition manipulations were carried out when the body was already in a considerably decomposed state, at least 7 years after the primary burial (Neugebauer 1991, 115–116, Tab. 22; Kümmel 2009, 121–129, Abb. 3.8, Tab. 3. 13.) However, the percentage of manipulated Early Bronze Age burials documented in Austria and Slovakia is significantly higher which could be explained by the Hungarian cemeteries of similar age being located on the eastern peripheries of the inhumation tradition. Post-deposition manipulation similarly to the investigated cases in Austria is strongly associated with bronzes, however the removal of bronze objects from graves cannot simply be explained by economic/material motivations and it could have been part of a broader, legitimised social conduct (Neugebauer 1991, 127). Consecutive and multi-stage burials documented in the cemeteries under study imply the presence of the practice of secondary burial rituals. This tradition of re-opening and the re-use of gravepits could be interpreted as the derivative of the ideology behind communal burial mounds constructed during the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age in the Fertő region (e.g. Jois, Oggau: Hicke 1987; Neusiedl am See: Ruttkay 2002; Gattendorf: Bóna 1975, 237, Plan 28).

Although the ratio of missing body parts is slightly lower than the manipulated ones (41 to 49 cases), both phenomena suggest ritual activities beyond material motivations which took place after the primary burial. There are several ethno-graphic and historic examples for collected and re-used body parts retrieved from graves, favouring the skull in particular (Kümmel 2009, 204–221; Chroustovský – Průchová 2011, 57–59, Table 1; Weiss-Krejci 2013, 291–293). Thus, the re-opening of graves could form part of a broader social tradition which requires the manipulation or the complete removal of body parts in order for these to be used during re-burials, cleansing, magical or healing rituals, or for the acquisition of prestige (Chroustovský – Průchová 2011, 57–59, Table 1). The prohibition of post-deposition grave manipulation goes back to the Roman legal system (adopted later by institutionalised Christianity), while ethnographic examples testify the opposite: the re-opening of graves was a significant part of ancestor worship by many cultural groups (Rittershofer 1987, 5, 8–9; Kümmel 2009, 197–226). The retrieval of metal artefacts and body parts following a transitional period can be seen as the recycling of objects, raw materials and symbols in order to rejuvenate or preserve the life-force of the community.

Fig. 12. Burial plan of Hegyeshalom grave No. 39 with remains of dark organic matter at the place of the skull (Pusztai 1965)

Obr. 12. Plán hrobu č. 39 v Hegyeshalome so zvyškami tmavej organ-ickej hmoty na mieste lebky (Pusztai 1965).


Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the leading archaeologists, Gábor Ilon (Ménfőcsanak – Széles-földek, 2009–2011) and Gyu-la Nováki (Szakony – Kavicsbánya, Iván – Szerdata-dűlő, Homokbánya, Petőháza – Ikva-mente) for providing per-missions to publish their findings. I express my thanks particularly to the physical anthropologists: Tamás Hajdu and Gábor Tóth for allowing me access to the largely unpublished, basic anthropological identification of the individuals under study. I am grateful for Borbála Nyíri for the English text. This paper was supported by HAS RCH Institute of Archaeology Lendület/Momentum research programme (principal investigator: Viktória Kiss).

Bibliography

Appleby, J. E. P. 2011: Bodies, burials and ageing: Accessing the temporality of old age in prehistoric societies. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 30/3, 231–246.

Aspöck, E. 2003: Graböffnungen im Frühmittelalter und das Fallbeispiel der langobardenzeitlichen Gräber von Brunn und Gebirge, Flur Wolfholz, Niederösterreich. Archaeologia Austriaca 87, 225‒264.

Aspöck, E. – Banerjea, R. Y. 2016: Formation processes of a reopened early Bronze Age inhumation grave in Austria: The soil thin section analyses, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016. 07. 003, 1-19.

Bartík, J. – Bazovský, I. – Jelínek, P. – Šefčáková, A. 2016: Osídlenie Bratislavy-Rusoviec v staršej dobe bronzovej. Be-siedlung von Bratislava-Rusovce während der älteren Bronzezeit. Besiedlung von Bratislava-Rusovce während der älteren Bronzezeit. Zborník Slovenského Národného Múzea – Archeológia Supplementum 11. Zborník na Pamiatku Magdy Pichlerovej Štúdie, 45–74

Bazovský, I. – Šefčáková, A. 1999: Die neuesten Grabfunde der Wieselburger kultur in Bratislava–Rusovce. In: Bátora, J. – Peška, J. (Hrsg.), Aktuelle Probleme der Erforschung der Frühbronzezeit in Böhmen und Mähren und in der Slowakei. Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae Communicationes Tomus 1, Nitra, 53–61.

Bátora, J. 2000: Das Gräberfeld von Jelšovce/Slowakei – Ein Beitrag zur Frühbronzezeit im nordwestlichen Karpat-enbecken. PAS 16, Kiel.

Beninger, E. – Mühlhofer, F. – Geyer, E. 1930: Das frühbronzezeitliche Reihengräberfeld bei Hainburg–Teichtal. Mittei-lungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft Wien 60, 65–140.

Benkovsky-Pivovarová, Z. – Chropovský, B. 2015: Grabfunde der frühen und der beginnenden mittleren Bronzezeit in der Westslowakei. Teil II. Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae 22, Nitra.

Bertemes, F. 1989: Das frühbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Gemeinlebarn. Kulturhistorische und paläometallurgische Studien. Saarbrücker Beiträge zum Altertumskunde 45, Bonn.

Bóna, I. 1975: Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen. Archaeologia Hungarica 49, Budapest.

Chroustovský, L. – Průchová, E. 2011: Classification of Post-medieval Secondary Mortuary Practices and Disturbances. Interdisciplinaria archaeologica - Natural sciences in archaeology Vol. II., Issue 1/ 2011, 55–62.

Dani, J. – Szabó, G. 2002: Temetkezési szokások a Polgár határában feltárt középső bronzkori temetőkben. Bestat-tungsgebräuche in der Friedhöfen aus der mittleren Bronzezeit freigelegt in der Feldmark von Polgár. In: Ilon,


G. (szerk.) MΩMOΣ III.: Őskoros kutatók III. összejövetelének konferenciakötete: Halottkultusz és temetkezés, Szombathely – Bozsok 2002. okt. 7–9. Szombathely, 91–119.

Ehrgartner, W. 1959: Die Schädel aus den frühbronzezeitlichen Gräbern von Hainburg, Niederösterreich. Mitteilun-gen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft Wien Band 88-89. 8–91.

Egry, I. 2007: Előzetes beszámoló a Győr–Ménfőcsanak, Eperföldeken végzett megelőző feltárásokról (2005–2006). Prelimi-nary report on the investment-led excavation at Győr-Ménfőcsanak, Eperföldek (2005 – 2006). In: Kisfaludi, J. (szerk./ed.) Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon 2006 – Archaeological Investigation in Hungary 2006, Budapest, 27–52.

Ernée, M. 2013: Uniformität oder Kreativität im Totenbrauchtum? Zum Bestattungsritus der Aunjetitzer Kultur aus Sicht der Phosphatanalyse. In: Müller-Scheeßel, N. (hrsg.) ‚Irreguläre‘ Bestattungen in der Urgeschichte: Norm, Ritual, Strafe…? Akten der Internationalen Tagung in Frankfurt a. M. vom 3. bis 5. Februar 2012. Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte Band 19.

Figler, A. 1994: Die Fragen der Frühbronzezeit in NW-Transdanubien. Zalai Múzeum 5, 21–38.

Gömöri, J. 2012: Fertő-Hanság Nemzeti Park, a Fertő D-i partszakaszának régészeti lelőhelyei (2012-ig). In: Kárpá-ti, L. F – Josef, F. (eds.) Fertő–Hanság – Neusiedler See–Seewinkel. Nemzeti Park – Monografikus tanulmányok a Fertő és a Hanság vidékéről. Budapest, 258–270.

Hicke, W. 1987: Hügel- und Flachgräber der Frühbronzezeit aus Jois und Oggau. Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten aus dem Burgenland 75 Eisenstadt, 5–229.

Ilon, G. 1996: Régészeti adatok Csepreg és vidéke őstörténetéhez. In: Dénes, J. (szerk.) Tanulmányok Csepreg történetéből. Csepreg, 6–43.

Kiss, V. 2012: Central European and Southeastern Alpine Influences upon Western Transdanubia’s Early and Middle Bronze Age. In: Anreiter, P. et al. (ed.) Archaeological, Cultural and Linguistic Heritage – Festschrift for Erzsébet Jerem in Honour of her 70th Birthday. Budapest, 321–335.

Kőszegi, F. 1958: Az oroszvári bronzkori temető. The Bronze Age Cemetery at Oroszvár (Rusovce). Folia Archaeo-logica 10, 43–59.

Krenn-Leeb, A. 2011a: Zwischen Buckliger Welt und Kleinen Karpaten – Die Lebenswelt der Wieselburg-Kultur. Archäologie Österreichs 22, 11–26.

Krenn-Leeb, A. 2011b: Grenzräume im Spannungsfeld Identität, Mobilität und Kommunikation: Frühbronzezeitliche Identitätengemeinschaften im mittleren Donauraum. In: Doppler, T. – Ramminger, B. – Schimmelpfennig, D. (Hrsg.): Grenzen und Grenzräume? Beispiele aus Neolithikum und Bronzezeit. Fokus Jungsteinzeit. Berichte der AG Neolithikum 2. Kerpen-Loogh, 257–276.

Kümmel, C. 2009: Ur- und frühgeschitlicher Grabraub. Archäologische Interpretation und kulturanthropologische Erklärung Tübinger Schriften zur Ur-und Frühgeschitlichen Archäologie 9, Münster, New York, München.

Leeb, A. 1987: Überblick über Chorologie, Typologie und Chronologie der Wieselburgerkultur. 100 Jahre Forschungs-stand. In: Hicke, W. Hügel- und Flachgräber der Frühbronzezeit aus Jois und Oggau. Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten aus dem Burgenland 75, Eisenstadt, 231–283.

Limburský, P. 2015: Variabilita konstrukcí úpravy hrobů na pohřebišti ve Vliněvsi. K problematice interpretace fos-


fátových analýz. Variability of grave construction arrangements in Vliněves burial site. On the issue of the phos-phate analyses interpretation. In: Bátora, J. – Tóth, P. (ed.) Keď bronz vystriedal meď. Zborník príspevkov z XXIII. medzinárodného symposia „Staršia doba bronzová v Čechách, na Morave a na Slovensku“ Levice 8.–11. októbra 2013. Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae Communicationes Tomus XVIII, Bratislava – Nitra, 339–354.

Melis, E. in press: On the Border of Inhumation Burial Rite in the Early Bronze Age Northwestern Carpathian Basin (2000 – 1600 B.C.)? In: Nakoinz, O. (ed.): Tipping point in the Bronze Age – Modes of change – inhumation versus cremation in Bronze Age burial rites. Kiel.

Melis, E. 2015: Inhumation burials from the Early Bronze Age in Győr – Ménfőcsanak. In: Bátora, J. – Tóth, P. (ed.) Keď bronz vystriedal meď. Zborník príspevkov z XXIII. medzinárodného symposia „Staršia doba bronzová v Čechách, na Morave a na Slovensku“ Levice 8.–11. októbra 2013. Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae Com-municationes Tomus XVIII. Bratislava – Nitra, 339–354.

Nagy, M. 2013: Der südlichste Fundort der Gáta-Wieselburg-Kultur in Zsennye– Kavicsbánya/Schottergrube, Ko-mitat Vas, Westungarn. Savaria 36, 75–173.

Nagy, M. – Figler A. 2009: Dentáliumékszerek a Gáta-Wieselburg kultúra temetkezéseiben. Dentalium jewellery in the burials of the Gáta-Wieselburg culture. In: Ilon, G. (szerk.) MΩMΟΣ VI. Őskoros kutatók VI. összejövetelének konferenciakötete – Nyersanyagok és kereskedelem, Kőszeg, 2009. március 19–21. Szombathely, 255–266.

Neugebauer, J.-W. 1991: Die Nekropole F von Gemeinlebarn, Niederösterreich : Untersuchungen zu den Bestattungs-sitten und zum Grabraub in der ausgehenden Frühbronzezeit in Niederösterreich südlich der Donau zwischen Enns und Wienerwald. Mainz am Rhein.

Neugebauer, J.-W.1994: Bronzezeit in Ostösterreich. St. Pölten–Wien.

Neugebauer, J.-W. – Neugebauer-Maresch, C. 1997: Franzhausen das frühbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld I. Fundberichte aus Österreich- Materialhefte, Reihe A 5/1 Wien.

Neugebauer, J.-W. – Neugebauer-Maresch, C. 2001: Zu den Bestattungssitten der endneolitischen Becherkulturen und der Frühbronzezeit Ostösterreichs – zum Forschungsstand. In: Lippert, A. et al. (Hrsg.) Mensch und Umwelt während des Neolithikums und der Frühbronzezeit in Mitteleuropa. Internationale Archäologie 2, Rahden/Westf., 231–244.

Notroff, J. 2011: Menace from the Afterlife? Some Remarks about the Archaeological Evidence for Fearing and Banishing the Dead and a Contribution to Otomani and Fuzesabony Sepulchral Rite. In: Berecki, S. - Németh, E. R. - Rezi, B. (eds.): Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş, Bibliotheca Musei Marisiensis, Seria Archaeologica 4, Târgu Mureș, 143–153.

Nováki, Gy.1956: Petőháza–Ikvamente. Archaeológiai Értesítő 83, 96.

Pichlerová, M. 1980: Praveké osídlenie Bratislavy–Rusoviec. Zur urzeitlichen Besiedlung von Bratislava–Rusovce. Zborník slovenského národného múzea 74., Historia 20, 5–24, 35–37.

Pusztai, R. 1965: Hegyeshalom – Újlakótelep (Győr-Moson-Sopron megye) Pusztai Rezső 1965. évi leletmentése – gátai kultúrás temető (documentation of the excavation). MNM Ad. XXIII.312/1966.

Reiter, V. 2008: Die frühbronzezeitlichen Brandbestattungen von Franzhausen II und Ratzersdorf im Unteren Traisental. Schriftliche Arbeit zum Erlangen der 1. Diplomprüfung am Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Wien.


Reiter, V. 2015: Neumarkt an der Ybbs, ein Gräberfeld der Böheimkirchner-Gruppe der Věteřov-Kultur mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Frauenspezifika. In: Bátora, J. – Tóth, P. (ed.) Keď bronz vystriedal meď. Zborník príspevkov z XXIII. medzinárodného symposia „Staršia doba bronzová v Čechách, na Morave a na Slovensku“ Levice 8.–11. októbra 2013. Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae Communicationes Tomus XVIII. Bratislava–Nitra, 329 – 338.

Rittershofer, K.-F. 1987: Grabraub in der Bronzezeit. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 68, 5-23.

Ruttkay, E. 2002: Das endneolithische Hügelgrab von Neusidel am See, Burgenland: zweite Vorlage, Teil 1., Die Fazies Neusiedl. Egy későneolitikus halomsír Nezsiderből (Neusidel am See, Burgenland). Budapest Régiségei 36 – In memoriam Rózsa Kalicz-Schreiber (1929–2001), 145–170.

Sauer, P. 2004: A6 Nordost Autobahn – Fundstelle Prellenkirchen. In: WegZeiten – Archäologie und Straßenbau. Fundberichte aus Österreich Materialhefte A, Sonderheft 1, Wien, 98.

Schaub, H. 2009: Knochen und Bestattungssitten. Die Bedeutung archaologischerFunde zum Wiederganger- bzw. Vampirglauben, Kakanien Revisited 12, 2009 [online], Available at: http://www.kakanien.ac.at/beitr/vamp/HSchaub1.pdf [Accessed on 2013. január 8 /08 Januar 2013]

Scheibenreiter, F. 1958: Das Aunjetitzer Gräberfeld Steinleiten in Roggendorf, Niederösterreich. Archaeologica Aus-triaca 23, 31–86.

Sosna, D. 2009: Social Differentiation in the Late Copper Age and the Early Bronze Age in South Moravia (Czech Republic). British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1994, Oxford.

Sørensen, M. L. S. – Rebay, K. 2008: From substantial bodies to the substance of bodies: analysis of the transition from inhumation to cremation during the Middle Bronze Age in central Europe. In: Borić, D. – Robb, J. (eds.) Past Bodies. Body-Centred Research in Archaeology. Oxford, 59–68.

Spatzier, A. 2007: Untersuchungen zu Chronologie, Grabstörung und Struktur des frühbronzezeitlichen Gräberfelds Franzhausen I, Niederösterreich. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 82, 215–242.

Stuchlík, S. – Stuchlíková, J. 1996: Aunjetitzer Gräberfeld in Velké Pavlovice, Südmähren. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 71, 125–169.

Szathmári, I. 1988: Korai tűtípusok a bronzkorban a Dunántúlon. Frühe Nadeltypen aus der Bronzezeit Transdanu-biens. Folia Archaeologica 39, 1988, 59–80.

Tóth, G. – Melis, E. – Ilon, G. 2016: A ménfőcsanaki feltárás (2009–2011) bronzkori leletanyagának embertani és azokkal összefüggő régészeti eredményei. In: Csécs, T. - Takács M. (szerk.) Beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam. Ünnepi kötet Tomka Péter 75. születésnapjára. Győr, 737–755.

Weiss-Krejci, E. 2011: The formation of mortuary deposits: implications for understanding mortuary behavior of past populations. In: Agarwal, S. C. – Glencross, B. (ed.) Social Bioarchaeology. Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeol-ogy. Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, 68–106.

Weiss-Krejci, E. 2013: The unburied dead. In: Tarlow, S. – Stutz, L.V. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial. Oxford, 281–301.

Zoffmann 1999: A bronzkori Gáta–Wieselburg kultúra embertani leletei Hegyeshalom-Újtelep lelőhelyről. Die anthropolo-gischen Funde der bronzezeitlichen Gáta–Wieselburg-Kultur vom Fundort Hegyeshalom-Újtelep. Arrabona 37, 65–82.


Résumé

Zvyk druhotného otvárania hrobov a vyberania hrobových príloh je obvykle vysvetľovaný materiálnou/eko-nomickou motiváciou, pričom sa predpokladá, že bronzové predmety mali tak vysokú hodnotu, že ľudí v dobe bronzovej neodradil ani strach z mŕtvych pri získavaní artefaktov z hrobov. Novšie je opätovné otváranie hrobov z doby bronzovej interpretované v rámci komplexného systému viacfázových pohrebných zvyklostí či rítu, vrátane dočasných hrobových depozícií a post-funerálnych aktivít.

V tejto štúdii sa zameriavam na tieto post-funerálne aktivity, ktoré transformovali pôvodné, primárne uloženia inhumačných pohrebov datovaných do staršej doby bronzovej, pričom vychádzam z regiónu prípadovej štúdie z mo-jej chystanej dizertačnej práce. Región, ktorému sa bližšie venujem, je situovaný na sútoku riek Dunaj a Morava; na trase považovanej za predchodcu Jantárovej cesty. Ďalej na juh popri Alpách tečie rieka Rába, ďalší komunikačný kanál napájajúci sa na Dunaj zo západu. V staršej dobe bronzovej toto územie predstavovalo hraničnú oblasť medzi kremačným pohrebným rítom charakteristickým pre kultúry doby bronzovej v Karpatskej kotline, a inhumačnou tradíciou únětického kultúrneho komplexu (vrátane príbuzných skupín, napríklad (Gáta-)wieselburskej kultúry). Vš-etky skúmané pohrebiská predstavujú východnú perifériu tejto kultúry, datovanej do obdobia 1900–1600 BC na základe čiastočne nepublikovaných (7) C14 vzoriek (tab. 1, obr. 1). Súbor 142 analyzovaných pohrebov bol kate-gorizovaný – s použitím plánov a popisov pohrebov – na základe stupňa rozrušenia a počtu cielených (manipulo-vaných) častí tela (obr. 3). Najvyšší počet druhotne otvorených hrobov bol pozorovaný na lokalitách Hegyeshalom, Zsennye a Rusovce, hoci podiel druhotne otvorených hrobov na týchto pohrebiskách predstavuje menej ako polovi-cu celkového počtu pohrebov (38%).

Najnovší výskum hrobových celkov ukázal jasnú úmyselnú manipuláciu s ľudskými pozostatkami zameranú na hornú časť tela, hrobové prílohy a ozdoby šiat. Keďže vo väčšine prípadov mali tieto zásahy malý vplyv na danú časť tela, môžeme predpokladať, že hroby boli otvorené pomerne skoro po prvotnom uložení, v čase, keď bolo miesto pochovania ešte stále známe alebo označené. Vzhľadom na polohu kostí, postdepozičné manipulácie pre-biehali v čase, keď bolo telo už v pokročilom štádiu rozkladu, najmenej 7 rokov po prvotnom pochovaní. Podiel rozrušených hrobov zo staršej doby bronzovej dokumentovaných v Rakúsku a na Slovensku je výrazne vyšší, čo môžeme vysvetliť tým, že maďarské pohrebiská z rovnakého obdobia ležali na východnej periférii inhumačnej tradí-cie. Viacfázové a viacstupňové pohreby zachytené na skúmaných pohrebiskách naznačujú prítomnosť sekundárnych pohrebných rituálov. Túto tradíciu otvárania a druhotného využitia hrobových jám môžeme interpretovať ako derivát ideológie komunálnych mohýl budovaných v období eneolitu a staršej doby bronzovej v oblasti Nezider-ského jazera. Hoci je pomer chýbajúcich častí tela o niečo nižší než tých, s ktorými bolo hýbané (41 ku 49 prípadom), oba fenomény naznačujú rituálne aktivity siahajúce ďalej než len k materiálnej motivácii, vykonávané po prvotnom pohrebe. Znovuzískanie kovových artefaktov a častí tela po prechodovom období môžeme vidieť ako recykláciu predmetov, surovín a symbolov za účelom obnovenia či zachovania životnej sily komunity.

eszter melis - uniba.sk...eszter melis1 1 research assistant, has rch institute of archaeology,...

Documents