Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

12. Bronze Age Burial Customs in the Middle and Lower Danube Basin

Abstract

The study of funerary phenomena, as an expression of a typically human conscious activity, is not just one branch of prehistoric archaeology, but constitutes its own domain in archaeology. With the continuous increase in the amount of documentation on the subject and given the specific issues it raises, as well as the methodology it entails, this field comes to represent a self-sufficient archaeological discipline. The careful examination of the funerary practices, which has brought to light their structure, is susceptible to reveal a number of social facts serving as a complement to the strictly chronological preoccupations which carry so much weight in the specialized literature. However, it is necessary to focus on the study of the funeral practices’ variability as well as on sociological, structural research, when defining the great number of archaeological phenomena which belong to the Central European and South-East-European Bronze Age. This could be the way to brace up against all the manifestations of national pride fostered by the typically Balkan mentality and likely to impair honest research while also being wary of the excessive, often insidious, politicization affecting archaeology under communism in this part of the world. Even nowadays, unfortunately, such abusive syntagms as “the ethno-cultural aspect”, “the ethno-linguistic crystallization” or, in general, thracism references will crop up in archaeological research at all costs when dealing with the Bronze Age north of the Danube; these mark the archaeological research by their compulsive intention of creating ethnical attributions for practically every archaeological phenomenon. The growing multitude of “cultures”, “cultural groups”, “aspects or facies” should be added to this, spawned by research on rather limited areas or by superficial documentation paired with hasty analyses. In contrast, the original study proposed here considers the Danubian Bronze Age cultures as ceramic groups and tries to make a clear statement about the correspondence between these and the burial practices, in view of the fact that both of these factors can be circumscribed more widely and more precisely in space and time. For the Bronze Age, an impressive number of burial finds exists in the Middle and Lower Danube Basin, some of them belonging to large cemeteries. In spite of this, there are no comprehensive studies which manifest more than the strictly archaeological aspects: the social factors, supported by the chronological and spatial dynamics characteristic for the funerary phenomenon. The present study does not undertake to fill the gaps in the literature, being aware only too well that such an undertaking would be as good as impossible given the continuous increase in the archaeological documentation. Instead, it undertakes to review the discussions preliminary to defining certain archaeological phenomena from the perspective of

the burial customs. Based on already published research material rather than on the latest finds, I am quite aware of the shortcomings due to lacunae in on-site research or to the less than satisfactory publication of some funerary discoveries. The choice of the geographical space is related to the territorial expansion of the Bronze Age archaeological phenomena recorded on the territory of Romania. However, since some of these transcend the modern political frontiers, it is high time the research area is extended. This does not mean, however, that the consequent extension of the research area, with a view to including more material treated in a more unitary manner, can be achieved in a sufficiently satisfactory way; consequently, for the periphery of the work-space studied, the limits considered have had to be a quite arbitrary merger of the natural and archaeological borders for the area studied; the area extends roughly from the Black Sea, to the Stara Planina mountains, and then to the Danube and the Tisza.

One further difficulty comes from the fact that there is no unitary chronological system covering the space under consideration. The reference to the older, or newer, systems used for Central Europe or for the area of the Aegean are not always satisfactory, though a clear tendency to adopt a common system for the Bronze Age archaeology in the Mid-Danubian and Lower Danube basin can be noticed, following the Aegean system as a model. Our study takes into consideration over one thousand funerary finds, starting approximately with the second half of the 4th millennium BC and ending towards the year 1000 BC. The number of finds is only apparently great, since many of them are either isolated grave discoveries or groups of burials and cemeteries with just a few burials; further, the quality of their publication is often poor, which causes them to be hardly worth considering for in-depth analysis. Consequently, the time-interval gains in importance, overriding other considerations, which is why it is becoming essential to consider that the archaeological phenomena still currently attributed to the so-called “transition period” actually have features that require their integration into the Bronze Age, starting from the end of the Eneolithic period and following a rhythm of development closer to that in the Aegean area.

Setting out to open a discussion about funerary practices, the present publication rests on the collection of material as its core structural configuration. This recommends it primarily as an attempt to order and classify existing material in accordance based on the criteria of the funerary finds, in a kind of research that has become more than necessary at a time when cultural groups are growing almost as numerous as the sherds themselves! The catalogue of funerary finds includes publications to the year 1999. I have included, however, a number of recent finds, the last of which were made shortly before the final drafting of my

5

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu study. One problem that arose during the cataloguing operation was the presentation of the finds. An integral redrawing of the data was out of the question, since it entailed repeating the catalogues for each cemetery or group of tombs. The problem was all the more complex as, in this case, only apparently an ideal one, there would have resulted a palpable inequality, very hard to handle, owing to the fact that quite a large number of finds were fortuitous, and they were only documented by the name of the respective localities. We have, therefore, arrived at a compromise; making succinct presentations of only a number of principal elements since the majority of the finds are already known in the literature. The structure of the study was determined, for the most part, by problems which appeared in the course of processing the overwhelming quantity of data, while also attempting to cope with the ambiguities regarding the stage of the research concerning the Bronze Age in the Middle and Lower Danube Basin. The methodology of the research was determined in its turn by these factors, the mass of documentation permitting – and, indeed, inviting a statistical approach; in itself directed the research towards the sociological perspective. Illustration is also selective: I have chosen to illustrate the funerary objects whose relevant character was obvious; as regards the tombs, here too the choice was to illustrate those layout drawings whose planimetric study proved relevant. The documentary basis consists in over one thousand finds of funerary character, or considered as such in nature; they correspond to circa eight hundred localities and cover a chronological interval beginning roughly in the second half of the fourth millennium BC and extending to the end of the second millennium BC. The fact that they come in quite considerable numbers appears as a promising feature for the examination of the Bronze Age funerary practices – but this is a mere first-sight impression. One first observation worth making concerns the distribution of the research over geographical regions. The area under consideration consists of relatively strictly delimited geo-morphological and archaeological zones: the eastern half of the Middle Danube basin and the entirety of its lower basin. The geographical space allows the distinguishing of three zones: Western, Southern and Eastern. Almost half of our finds come from the Western Zone, including part of Vojvodina and the Serbian Banat region, Eastern Hungary, the Banat, Crişana and Transylvania in Romania, Slovakia and the Trans-Carpathian Ukraine; almost one fourth of the finds are derived from the South, consisting of the region between the Stara Planina range and the Danube, Oltenia, Muntenia and Dobrudja; 35 % of the finds come from the East, extending over Moldova and Basarabia. Further, if we take into consideration that for the Eastern and Southern Zones the majority of finds come from barrows or from the Noua and Mnogovalikovaja cultures, the imbalance which gives prominence to the West appears even more pronounced. As regards the character of the research, for the 1119 funerary finds, the overall situation appears as following: 65 % of the finds come from archaeological excavations, systematic in nature,

from salvage excavations and from more or less restricted surveys – in other words they derive from sufficiently methodical research activities – while the remaining 35 % represent merely surface surveys or fortuitous excavations, whose circumstances remain unknown. On balance, we have benefited from a solid documentary basis, since almost two thirds of the finds come from systematic research, quite recent in the majority of cases, while the fortuitous finds or the finds deriving from surface surveys hardly exceed one third of the total number, mostly dating from the first half of the 20th century. As regards the archaeological context, the funerary finds are graves in their majority (33.70%) or groups of graves (34.80%), the isolated tombs being relatively fewer in number (26.00%). In rare cases (4.67%), the literature mentions “ceramic material” which was usually excavated by chance and considered to be a part of destroyed funerary inventories; finally, there are extremely few (0.83%) special situations involving excavated human bones or other archaeological material quite possibly representing burials. Nearly two thirds of the funerary finds belong to ample contexts so this fact again offers extensive possibilities for their examination and interpretation. In direct dependence on the research period, the quality of the field investigations can be seen to develop from enthusiastic and really diligent digging to systematic excavations and research, which involves increasingly well structured technologies. Ostensibly, the character of the research has influenced the quality of the information even in recent times. This means, for example, that it is hard to say when and if we can consider that a funerary object has been exhaustively researched. There are frequent cases when research on a cemetery desisted well before the object of interest had had a chance to be fully researched; often, natural or human factors may have had a limiting effect from the start, too. There are quite a lot of fortuitous finds, which should be added to the excavations of isolated graves or to surface surveys and to excavations made in unspecified conditions, which remain inconclusive. The topographical distribution of the funerary finds as a whole is not at all uniform, and there exist zones where research remains patchy, especially in highly reliefed terrain areas or in wooded land; there is no uniformity either in regard to the links with archaeological phenomena. Taking into account these general remarks, it is quite clear that we cannot do without an evaluation of the strictest kind for the mass of data both as regards the quantitative and the qualitative aspects; it is also obvious that the entire time scale needs to be taken into consideration. No simple historical account of the research, done in what we could term “the traditional manner”, can satisfy us to date. The plain, monotonous perhaps, chronological ordering of localities, with names and titles in sequence has to be replaced by distinctions made between, on the one hand, the main stages in the evolution of field research and the analytical office-research and, on the other hand, in the evolution of the interpretative systems. In close connection with these, it is fair to say that the methods employed for the publication of the funerary finds has evolved as well, advancing from mere reports, which were

6

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

sometimes extremely sparse, to seriously drafted monographs. Under the circumstances, it stands to reason that a cemetery with hundreds of graves, which remained in focus over long years of research but came to be known only through sparse occasional reports, was given less importance than it should have been, in comparison with lesser finds which were, nevertheless, put in circulation by very correct scientific means. Quite often the literature overlooks the fact that many cemeteries are published without general layout plans or even without individual grave structures, and with no correctly drawn up catalogues, not to mention the incomplete illustrations. Perhaps most startling is the fact that many an interpretative model has been launched from an often incomplete, uncertain documentary basis because much of the processed data covers separately discovered tombs, or groups of graves, or cemeteries with few burials and with limited inventories; given that they are also communicated by below-standard research or publications they become hardly usable for an in-depth analysis. The most important problem is the archaeological condition of the primary data, especially since it stands in direct relationship to the evolution of the research. The state of the funerary monuments’ preservation is often precarious, the material possibilities are unsatisfactory, and experience is deficient; these and a downright lack of professionalism have acted as limiting factors to recording the important observations made, also leading to the definitive loss of data.... One cannot overlook political factors either, more precisely the unpropitious influence of dialectical and historical materialism with its serious bearing upon the mode of interpretation both in Romania and in the other countries incorporated in what used to be called “the socialist camp”. This is all the more serious as the majority of the investigations were conducted and published between 1945 and 1989. The funerary finds in question were discovered over a period of more than 160 years which can be divided into sections of twenty years, except for the interval 1941-1945, corresponding to the Second World War, and the short interval between the years 1990 and 2000. I have not made the same distinction for the First World-War conflagration because the results of the last war were more numerous and more considerable in scientific research, in all domains, irrespective of the discipline. An examination of the evolution in the archaeological domain of the funerary monuments of the Bronze Age throughout this period points to an evolution including the ostensible crystallization of archaeology as a self-sufficient scientific discipline and showing that the amount of work increased under the influence of extra-archaeological factors such as industrialization and intensive agriculture, more often than not boosted by the social direction coming from “above”. The oldest mention of a find with a funerary character in the studied region was that of a burial, a chance discovery of circa 1837-1838, from Şişcani, in the (Romanian) Vrancea region. From then onwards, the number of funerary objects recorded – whether they appeared accidentally or owing to the scientific research proper - increased owing to the accumulation of experience which led

to archaeology becoming an autonomous scientific discipline. During a first bi-decade, the funerary finds became known thanks to the activity of art collectors or by fortuitous finds. The number is not great (three) and they represent a mere 0.27% in the mass of data. This is also the time when the beginnings of Romanian archaeology, as yet very modest, must be placed, and must be seen as being fostered by the remarkable evolution in Western Europe. The next stage, the period from 1861 to 1880, is characterized, for the area of interest to us, by the beginning of local political stability quite propitious for the appearance and development of cultural institutions. It was a time when the beginnings of Romanian archaeology as a scientific discipline were due mainly to Alexandru Odobescu’s contribution. At the time, there were other historical periods that held the attention of researchers, the Bronze Age recording no more than 9 funerary finds (0.82%). Though the majority of these were fortuitous as yet, first excavations were, nevertheless, recorded; the most important are those at Ogorodnoe in the Bugeac region and at Ocna Sibiului, in Transylvania. Mention should be made also of the barrow surveys of Rusăneşti in Oltenia and of Viziru in the Bărăgan, which open the series of research projects into this category of funerary monuments in the Romanian Plains. Some equally important finds are those at Kiszombor and Periam in the lower Mureş Basin. It is worth noting that research was also conducted at that time in a number of prehistoric site locations, which contributed not only to the accumulation of methodological experience in archaeological excavation, but also permitted subtler interpretations of the funerary finds. For the next period, between 1881 and 1900, when archaeology became entrenched as a scientific discipline, there is a record of seventy-two funerary finds (6.59%). Ample systematic excavations were still missing, most of the archaeological phenomena not yet being defined, which left room for oscillating interpretations; very few of these were subsequently confirmed. We must signal some instances of diligent research, lacking though they were in research methodology; that were conducted in the Banat region and put in circulation numerous materials which were later attributed to the Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare and Cruceni-Belegiš cultures. Transylvania sees the first excavations of barrows in the Western Carpathians and the first finds of cist graves, in the Ţara Bârsei area. To the north of this province, the Suciu de Sus excavation sites were now opened, and in Bucovina the sites at Horodnicu de Jos. At the same time excavations of barrows were inaugurated on the plains to the west of the river Tisza, in Hungary or Serbia. Randomly distributed cist graves were attested, during this period, in Muntenia, in the Muscel region and the first surveys of barrows in Moldova. In Basarabia, east of the river Prut, less methodical but wide-scale excavations continued to be made by teams working under the leadership of the Stempkovskis on the prehistoric barrows around Tiraspol. The ensuing years saw the continuation of the research already begun, but the efforts of archaeologists were cut short by the outbreak of the

7

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu First World War, which led, as we know, to significant changes in the political configuration of Central and Eastern Europe. Here is to be found the explanation for the small number of Bronze Age funerary finds in the 1901-1920 period: it only amounted to an insignificant quantity, not exceeding 4.39 %. We have to notice, nevertheless, the continuation of the excavations in the Debrecen area and, especially, those at the Beba Veche cemetery. In south-east Transylvania further cist graves were discovered around Braşov and, to the south, the excavations of Caşolţ were now inaugurated – and they were resumed after the Second World War. At the same time and also in Braşov, in the Noua area of the city, the small group of graves was found that was to give the name to the Late Bronze Age group. In Moldova, a salvage excavation was made on the Broşteni barrow, and in Oltenia, near the Danube a number of funerary finds were recorded due to surface surveys or to fortuitous excavations. In Dobrudja, during the German occupation, one barrow was excavated by C. Schuchardt at Constanţa-Anadolchioi. Mention should be made, for Muntenia, of the excellent systematic research for the Bronze Age conducted at Sărata Monteoru by Hubert Schmidt in cooperation with W. Dörpfeld, which continued the less methodical excavations begun by the German engineer E. Honzik in 1895. A number of studies can be singled out, published in the same period, before the outbreak of the First World War, of which I wish to mention those authored by B. Milleker, M. Vasić and M. Wosinsky; they put in circulation the finds from the Banat region and Serbia. The reconfiguration of the states in the period following the First World War and the political stability achieved in its wake offered extremely favorable conditions to the archaeological centers in the south-eastern European countries. This is reflected in the increasing number of field research activities and specialized publications, some of which constitute genuine foundations for subsequent research. We can count sixty-six funerary finds belonging to the Bronze Age, which represents circa 6% of the total number of 1092. Though the quantity is not significant, a qualitative change comes to the fore owing to the large number of the systematic research enterprises (twenty-eight) to which must be added the more limited surveys (fourteen), testifying to the fact that over half of the funeral finds made in this period came from methodical, correctly recorded excavations. We must note the rarity of the funerary finds due to surface surveys as an outstanding feature. This can be accounted for in terms of the small number of specialists concentrating mainly on excavating large sites, and less on making systematic surveys on wide expanses of land. The higher quality of the results is manifested also by the context of the finds. Of the sixty-six finds, twenty-eight were cemeteries researched further in the ensuing periods, supplemented by another sixteen groups of graves – which are in keeping with the report about the character of this research. I would like to single out the most important funerary finds of this period and start with the group of cemeteries situated near the confluence of the rivers Mureş and the Tisza; these were studied in parallel with more or less limited excavations in

settlements that served to define an important Bronze Age archaeological phenomenon, named even at that time as the Mureş culture by J. Banner or as Periam-Pecica by others. The excavations of the graves from the Füzesabony group are of equal importance for the Western zone. In the Lower Danube Basin, in Oltenia, this is the period when some, actually not very systematic, new excavations began in the great cemetery at Ostrovu Mare -”Bivolării”, then at Balta Verde. In conjunction with the finds from the east bank of the Danube, in Serbia, these were among the first funerary finds to serve for defining the Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare group. In Transylvania, finds of isolated graves belonging to the Schneckenberg group continued to appear. Several barrows were examined in the region of the Hungarian plains (the puszta), at Debrecen, and they revealed graves subsequently attributed to the group of red ochre burials. Some barrow burials were examined by limited surveys in Oltenia, Muntenia and Dobrudja. There were also some excavations of the utmost importance made on the right bank of the Danube, in Bulgaria, at Tsarevbrod, Kalugerica, Kjulevca and Madara. In Moldova, at Cut and Şcheia - “Humărie”, random excavations brought to light the first graves belonging to the Globular Amphora group. The systematic excavations at Sărata Monteoru are extremely important for this period. They were resumed by I. Andrieşescu together with I. Nestor, and led to the discovery of further burials apparently disposed in three funerary zones that were situated immediately adjoining to the settlement on the Cetăţuie. These heights were also excavated and studied on this occasion, being subsequently denominated Cemetery No 1, No 2 and No 4 respectively. A great part of the finds of the 1921-1940 period was published as excavation reports, for example those by A. Bărcăcilă for Ostrovu Mare, by J. Banner, for the burials of the Lower Tisza Basin, by E. Dunărenu-Vulpe, for the Poiana cemetery, and by D. Popescu, for the Casimcea barrow. What singled out this period, however, was the publication of a number of studies which are really important for understanding the archaeological phenomena of the Bronze Age. Even if it is less useful today for the study of the fourth to the second millennia BC, Vasile Pârvan’s, Getica, printed in 1926, played a central part in orienting a new generation of Romanian specialists. Grounded in a historicist interpretation increasingly criticized today but at the time hailed as outstandingly fitting, Pârvan’s treatise took over Reinecke’s chronological system and attempted to provide an overall interpretation of the Bronze and Iron Ages in what was then called “the Carpatho-Danubian region”. The year 1929 saw the publication in Britain of V. G. Childe’s work dedicated to the prehistoric archaeology of the Danubian Basin. Childe's main contribution consisted in the correlation of Reinecke’s dating methodology with the stratigraphical data obtained as a result of excavating the multi-layered settlements of which the foremost, in Childe’s view, was Tószég. For Romanian prehistoric archaeology, however, the leading title remains Ion Nestor’s Der Stand der Vorgeschichtsforschungen in Rumänien, which appeared in 1933. Apart from an extremely pertinent critical discussion of the chronological systems

8

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

current at the time, Nestor defined the main pottery cultures/groups of the Bronze Age in Romania, resting, in his demonstration, upon the just ordering of the documentation then available: Coţofeni, Glina, Otomani, Periam-Pecica, Wietenberg, Tei and Monteoru. On the same occasion, and referring to what available material there was at the time, he discussed succinctly a number of barrow burials from Transylvania or Dobrudja. Commenting on some views held by Childe about the relationship between the barrow graves of Russia and those of the Hungarian Puszta, Nestor called the specialists’ attention to the risk of making hasty judgments when lumping graves together and regarding them as barrows, and stressed the necessity of first establishing the inherent characteristics of the graves before drawing any general conclusions. Even if some of I. Nestor’s final judgments have lost their validity in part and are perhaps open to criticism, in the context of today’s much ampler documentation, the main research directions and the cultural group definitions put forward by I. Nestor remain as standing gains and lead to his study constituting the dominant influence in Romanian archaeology throughout the 20th century. For Transylvanian prehistory, a series of data regarding funerary finds, and their discussion in the frame of general archaeological evolution, as understood at the time, can be found in H. Schroller’s work which features numerous still valid considerations. The publication of von Tompa’s study on the funerary practices of the Bronze Age in the Middle Danube Basin was momentous and offered the occasion for making known the great cemeteries of Hernadkak and Megyaszó. In 1939, D. Berciu’s well-known study of Oltenia’s prehistory appeared as a continuation of some older projects mentioning funerary finds on the east bank of the river Olt. The twenty year period preceding the outbreak of the Second World War can be characterized as one marked by archaeologists striving to produce syntheses about the prehistory of certain more or less extensive regions. They came as expressions of the efforts made to interpret the material data, to order them and elaborate theoretical models, some of which were to become reference studies for later research, for example I. Nestor’s. The following studies relevant to the space in question cannot be overlooked: J. Schranil, J. Eisner, P. Patay and K. Willvonseder. To them should be added a number of extremely important reports or monographs, such as J. Szombathy’s ample report on the Gemeinlebarn cemeteries, W. A. Heurtley’s very extensive work on the finds from Macedonia and, of course, G. Karo’s exceptional report on the Mycenaean shaft-graves. The outbreak of the Second World War brought Central European archaeological research to a standstill for a considerable period of time, work being resumed in completely changed circumstances after the end of the hostilities. Archaeological activity was not interrupted, however, on the territory of Romania during that period, from 1941 till the first half of 1944. Bronze Age funerary finds were signaled in 17 cases, the majority of them (fourteen) being the result of systematic research conducted by the specialists from the National Museum of Antiquities. The most significant of these were those at Sărata Monteoru, where excavations continued both in the

perimeter of the settlement and in Cemetery No 3, as well as at Ploieşti Triaj, in Muntenia. Further, in Oltenia there were excavations at Basarabi, Hunia and Rast, and in Moldova at Bogonos. In 1942, excavations began in the great cemetery belonging to the Gârla Mare group, at Cârna/Dunăreni. More burials of the same kind were noted along the Danube at Rast. In spite of the war, the archaeologists of the Bronze Age continued to publish their results – this being the time when a number of extremely significant studies appeared, for example Banner’s, Prox’s and Popescu’s. One of the most important works of this period, however, is doubtlessly M. Roska’s repertoire for Transylvania, which records, alongside other archaeological observations, numberless funerary finds that belong to the Bronze Age, though not always recording them with the full range of required details. This is also the time when in extenso reports were published about the great Periam-Pecica cemetery at Szörég and the cemetery at Kisapostág, the latter belonging to the encrusted pottery group of the Middle Danubian Basin. The end of the war brought along with it a whole range of changes for the space under consideration, not the least of which regard the new configuration of the frontiers. There were whole provinces, or, at any rate, large regions which had been under Central European authority before the war and now came under Soviet jurisdiction; this, of course, entailed a break in tradition, not only from the research point of view, but also isolation, which became more pronounced with the passage of time. The establishment of communist regimes very seriously impaired scientific research in general, and given the hostility it encouraged vis-à-vis Western Europe, whose research traditions were not affected by the War, the free circulation of information was truncated in most serious ways. The methodology imposed, based on historical and dialectical materialism, involved a single set of theoretical models applicable for interpretations, in social sciences especially. In the first couple of decades, therefore, Sovietization was the outstanding characteristic, at its most intense in the first years of the period 1946-1966. The consequence of putting such ideological pressure on research was that interpretations became far-fetched and archaeological research results were forced incessantly to provide new arguments in favor of the Marxist and Leninist theses. At a cursory look, the large number of finds gives the deceitful impression that there existed a propitious climate for archaeological research. However, one should not overlook the fact that the excavations at the time were boosted by the so-called socialist industrialization or by the would-be fully intensive agriculture, whose foremost effect was the destruction of some archaeological sites. Between 1946 and 1966, 253 (23.16%) new finds were reported which could be attributed to the Bronze Age. More than half of these were the outcome of systematic excavations (129 = 50.98%); salvage excavations and surveys (33 = 13.04%, 15 = 6.32 % respectively) must be added. Over a quarter of these were random finds (60 = 23.71%) and little more than a dozen (16= 5.12%) were the result of surface surveys. Not infrequently, we are here dealing with older excavations resumed in sites of

9

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu primary importance, such as those of Sărata Monteoru or Cârna, not to mention other similar cases. As regards the context of these finds, the large number of cemeteries is worth noting (98= 38.73%) as well as the numerous groups of graves (95= 37.54%); together they amount to more than half of the total number of finds in this category. Not a few isolated graves were also found, either as random finds or as part of different objectives of research (54=2134%). It is obvious that in spite of the difficulties of all kinds, the documentary basis increased substantially between 1946 and 1966, both from a quantitative and from a qualitative perspective, all the more so as intense research was aimed now at settlements belonging to the Bronze Age, and consequently numerous, important contributions were made to scientifically describing and understanding them. The 234 new funerary finds of the Bronze Age from the period between 1946 and 1966 are not uniformly situated in space. It can be noticed that these finds are concentrated in particular areas – which is due to the connections existing between research sites and industrial projects or real estate improvements. But the large number of research sites resulted mainly in the wider knowledge of the period, as even previously unknown or less well documented groups were identified. In this period, several funerary objects, then attributed to the “ochre burial” group were researched. In Basarabia, where such monuments were researched predominantly, they were located at Borisăuca/Borisovca, Bolgrad, Glubokoe, Nerušaj and Valea Perjei. In Moldova, mention should be made of the similar sites at Corlăteni, Glăvăneştii Vechi, Holboca, Larga Jijia, Stoicani, Şuletea and especially Valea Lupului. In Dobrudja we can note the finds at Baia, where in fact previous excavations were resumed, and those at Hârşova and Piatra Frecăţei, and in Muntenia, the barrow at Gherăseni and the exemplarily excavated barrow at Smeeni. In Oltenia, the barrows at Pleniţa were studied, these being resumed excavations, as well as at Verbiţa. Also in Oltenia, in the northern area, excavations on the barrows of Milostea were recorded, which were somewhat unusual in character. In Bulgaria the burial mounds of Kavarna, Placidol II and Tărnava were excavated during this period, and in Serbia, the barrow of Vojlovica. In Transylvania a salvage excavation was made on a barrow of this kind, at Câmpia Turzii in 1963 (excavations were subsequently resumed here), while in Hungary barrows situated in the vicinity of Balmasújváros and Nagyheges were excavated; in 1966 excavations started in the field of barrows near Ketegyháza. As regards these excavations, their attribution followed a fixed pattern, that of the “ochre graves”, and, in the absence of relevant inventories, the only differentiations were made in accordance with the type of pit. Subsequently, however, after the definition of the Mnogovalikovaja pottery group for the Middle Bronze Age, representative for the Ukraine and Russia, many of the funerary finds on the burial mounds of Basarabia and of Moldova, came to be attributed to this group, though not always rightfully.... On the other hand, the ochre burial mound group was relegated to the beginning of the Bronze Age, so all these graves were considered roughly to predate the classical Bronze

Age cultures in the Lower Danube Basin. This is also the period when excavations started at the great necropolis of Brăiliţa with over 250 graves seemingly ranging in time from the beginnings of the Bronze Age to its middle period. In 1955 a random find was reported at Piatra Neamţ: a triple burial grave; judging by the cist that housed the skeletons, it was attributed to the Globular Amphorae period. Two years later, in 1957, at Dolheştii Mari a group of similar graves was unearthed, which opened the way for researching these monuments; there followed similar finds at Băceşti, Bârgăoani, Calu and Şerbeşti. To the south-west of the area in question a number of sites stand out, such as those at Belegiš, Belgrad- Rospi Cuprija and -Karaburma, Bobda, Cruceni, Ileandza and Orešac, which contain numerous graves that were attributed later to the Cruceni-Belegiš group. All along the Danube excavations of sites belonging to the Gârla Mare group also continued at Korbovo, Moldova Veche, Orešac, Surčin; they accompanied the Cârna/Dunăreni excavations resumed in 1955. At the confluence of the rivers Tisza and Mureş, intense research was conducted in the Mokrin and Battonya cemeteries, the excavations of the latter cemetery beginning now and both of the excavations also continuing after 1966. For the Otomani-Füzesabony group, the cemeteries of Gelej and Tiszafüred, both in Hungary, were excavated; in Slovakia, the Streda nad Bodrogom cemetery was excavated, and in Transylvania, the one at Pir, as well as the grave groups of Berea (Otomani), or those which are situated in the Sălacea and Tiream settlements; to these can be added several isolated finds which can nevertheless be regarded together with those researched in the earlier period, and which can be seen to provide a solid working-basis for the burials of this important Bronze Age culture. Originally it was to Otomani I that the cemetery of Ciumeşti was attributed. We should also mention in the West and South-West the great cemetery at Tapé consisting of 600 graves, and the cemeteries of Idoš and Mezőcsát, attributed to the Tumular Grave group. In Transylvania, a number of cemeteries and burial groups belonging to the Wietenberg culture were excavated, for example those at Bistriţa and Iernut and the bi-ritual cemetery at Sibişeni; isolated graves were excavated as well, such as those at Archiud, Laslea or Giurtelecu Şimleului. For the Monteoru culture, we can note, in this period, the continuation of research in the cemeteries surrounding the eponymous settlement; a complex ritual object was also discovered at the point known as Poiana Scoruşului, which had a special character and, although only partially researched, was considered to act as a “funerary pyre”. This period also sees the beginning of the excavations of what was to turn, in the course of time, into the most widespread cemetery of the Monteoru group, that at Cândeşti, in the region of the Carpathian Curve. To the North-West, Medieşu Aurit - Togul lui Schweitzer was excavated, which belonged to the Suciu de Sus culture. For the Noua culture the excavations conducted in the great cemetery at Truşeşti are to be noted, and subsequently in the cemetery at Doina, the first excavations in the area, then the excavations at Hilişeu-Crişan, Holboca and Probota in Moldova, while in Basarabia the excavations at Bădragii

10

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

Vechi, and in Transylvania those at Moreşti and Teiuş are remarkable – all of which should be associated with several other groups of two to three graves or isolated funerary finds. The results of the research conducted in this period were communicated by reports, not too detailed as a rule. The most outstanding are the reported excavations at Sărata Monteoru which remained for a long time the sole source of information about this important archaeological site. Some of the skeletons found at Sărata Monteoru and the skeletons of the Poiana cemetery served as objects for an anthropological study whose utility is undeniable. This is also the time when the knowledge about the funerary practices at the end of the Middle Bronze Age was completed by the publication of the cemetery of Balinteşti-Cioinagi, attributed to the Monteoru culture by the archaeologists who discovered it, while other specialists consider it to belong to the Noua culture; and this knowledge was also enriched by the publication of some more graves from the Poiana settlement. The not too numerous reports about the Verbicioara excavations are also very important, and were followed by a study about this culture, which was identified no earlier than 1949; their importance rests on the fact that they stress the scarcity of the funerary finds which belong to this group, and show it to be insufficiently defined. The excavations in Oltenia were presented in a number of reports about finds of the Gârla Mare type, which were completed by the presentation of the cemetery at Klicevac, in Serbia. However, the main contribution to the knowledge about the funerary practices of the Gârla Mare culture remains V. Dumitrescu’s monograph, presenting the now well-known cemetery of Cârna. The cist graves belonging to the Globular Amphorae culture, which were unearthed in northern Moldova, were presented in a number of succinct reports followed by a detailed study that discussed these monuments for the first time in the context of Romanian archaeology. Some studies issued in this period are very important for understanding the funerary practices of cultural groups or widespread regions. I would like to commend first Olga Krivcova-Grakova’s synthesis dedicated to the barrow burials on the north Pontic steppes for ordering an impressive number of older finds. Next, the research of numerous barrows from the Ukraine or southern Russia still offers a starting point today for studying the barrows on the north Pontic steppes, all the more so as the number of barrows investigated in the regions mentioned increases continuously, by comparison with the area in the immediate neighborhood of the Danube, where the excavations on barrows are still insufficient. For the archaeological area of Romania, this period includes a number of studies concerning the older barrow finds, of which we would like to mention the contributions of M. Petrescu-Dâmboviţa, V. Zirra, D. V. Rosetti and the excavation reports for the sites at Stoicani, Valea Lupului and Smeeni; all of these laid the foundations of later research or brought to light entirely new data regarding this category of funerary monuments. It is a great pity that the important cemetery at Brăiliţa, dated to the beginning of the Bronze Age, has remained known as yet only through two rather cursory reports in

spite of its being studied in the post-war years. One valuable contribution from the same period is A. C. Florescu’s synthesis about the Noua culture, discussing the entire documentation corpus for this Late Bronze Age culture. The year 1966 saw the appearance of the monograph on another culture from the Bronze Age, V. Leahu’s, dedicated to the Tei culture. Unfortunately, the state of the documentation did not permit the author to present more than a summary discussion about some of the graves considered to belong to the Tei culture – Puieni, Baldovineşti, Ploieşti-Triaj and Brazi. For the funerary Bronze Age finds in Serbia, M. Garašanin’s synthesis holds pride of place while discussing, though succinctly, the finds at Belotic and Bela Crkva, the Gârla Mare graves at Dubovac and the grave with a miniature clay wagon of Dupljaja, as well as other finds that belong to some as yet insufficiently identified or defined groups researched at the time. Now also the first report about the excavations in the cemetery at Belegiš was published. As regards the research documenting the Bronze Age burials in Transylvania we must mention the reports about the cemeteries of Pir, Bistriţa, Teiuş and Moreşti, which put into circulation finds of the Otomani, Wietenberg and Noua types, thus increasing considerably the documentation about the funerary practices of these groups. In fact, in 1960 the important cemetery Streda nad Bodrogom of Slovacia, which belonged to the Otomani culture was also published. As regards the Bronze Age burials in Hungary, I. Boná’s study should be mentioned, which contributed some well published cemeteries, in addition to knowledge about the Pitvaros group (which marks the beginning stage of the Periam-Pecica culture), and the Somogyvár-Vinkovci and Nagyrév groups. The large number of excavation reports of varying lengths can only be regarded as satisfactory if we are content to look at things hastily. In spite of the evident importance of the funerary finds, the direct excavation reports were deficient in really essential elements. First of all there existed no layout plans of the cemeteries, in so far as they were researched, and it even happened that some burials were just mentioned in the text, with no drawings and insufficient descriptions of the graves. All these pointed to a deficiency in methodology which affected the research as a whole. This is all the more regrettable as many of the cursory reports published between 1945 and1966 have remained, to date, the only sources available, in spite of the pretentious interpretations forwarded, which were not entirely absent. The exceptions to mention are the monographic reports, such as those for the cemeteries of Cârna, Streda nad Bodrogom, Bistriţa and a few others, while for the groups like Monteoru or Noua it was necessary to wait a considerably longer time before getting any complete reports. With a very few exceptions the treatment of the burials’ aspect was influenced by the need to make periodizations of the already-known cultural groups; consequently there were only timid efforts to understand the funerary phenomenon itself. In fact, given the pretense of marxist theory to be alone in possession of the keys to knowledge in all prehistoric matters, it was hard to embark upon research, always likely to contradict the sacrosanct

11

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu values of the time. From the point of view of interpretation, fixed keys, like Gorodtstov’s, for example, still reigned supreme, while the schemata used for establishing cultural and chronological frames were becoming more and more outdated. But in spite of all the shortcomings of publications, the increase in published documentation remains a fact and it gave impetus to the research of the funerary monuments of the Bronze Age, and not only these. Methodologically, U. Fischer’s synthesis occupies a place apart. While concentrating on the region of Central Germany, Fisher’s study gave extensive attention to the funerary finds of the cultural groups that held the attention of researchers at that time, namely the Late Neolithic cultural groups or those belonging to the Early Bronze Age, including the Globular Amphorae culture, Aunjetitz, the Bell Beaker Culture, the various Corded Ware groups etc. For each of the groups, funerary finds are discussed in connection with the area they occupy, the evolution in time of the respective group, the internal and external funerary structure, the treatment of the corpses and the way they were laid out in the graves, giving special attention to the grave variants and types (single, double and collective graves), and also focusing on the inventories, on the relationship with the anthropological diagnosis, and including a brief excursus regarding funerary sociological issues and discussing the so-called princely graves (Fürstengräber). Consequently, U. Fischer’s book can justly be considered one of the first studies done with a solid methodology and dealing with the funerary practices, even though it did not come to public attention immediately and its research lines were not followed. As regards the general orientation towards chronological interpretations, but not only in this area, one study that had considerable influence was R. Hachmann’s, which constituted the source of inspiration for numerous periodizations and interpretations of the phenomena concerning the Bronze Age in the area under consideration here – especially in the associations this study made with the Mycenaean civilization. The publication in 1960 of Istoria României (The History of Romania) provided a series of specifications regarding the Bronze Age in the Romanian archaeological area; the book employed clear terms in a threefold periodization that took the Glina phenomenon to mark the beginning of the Bronze Age and the evolution of the Noua group as its end. As regards the interval between the end of the Chalcolithic Age and the beginning of the Bronze Age, “a transition period” was seen to have existed, marked mainly by the manifestations of the Coţofeni culture. This model was used on a large scale in Romanian archaeology, although there were different models in the neighboring areas, sometimes differing even in essential aspects connected with the chronology proposed. It was within the frame of this synthetic treatment of the Bronze Age in Romania, in accordance with the state of archaeological research in the mid 20th century, that the funerary practices of this period were presented for the first time, offering some more richly nuanced considerations in addition. The cemeteries’ tribal character was mentioned and they were seen to be situated near settlements “being consequently the concrete expression of settlements that belonged to

the living and existing side by side with those of the dead in their dwelling-places, which maintained, thereby, an uninterrupted stream of human life.” The concern for the departed ones, in principle connected with either the intention of eliciting a favorable attitude from them or the fear of their “hostility”, was seen to be a determining factor for some ritual practices, for example the depositing of oblations, or, by contrast, the maiming of corpses which were also laid under boulder piles. We should note that the practice of burying corpses in barrows disappears in the course of the Bronze Age, being retained as a funerary rite connected only with the pastoral mode of life among the eastern steppe populations dwelling between the Rivers Prut and Volga. Special attention was given to the appearance of cremation, whose significance was put in relation to a different view of the relationships between the material appearance of the human being and its less material part. The moment when cremation made its way into the funerary landscape was also discussed by citing the grave of Cârna-Măgura Tomii, which was attributed to the Coţofeni culture and seen as one of the first examples of the adoption of this practice. For the period between 1967 and 1989, it is more difficult to give precise quantifications of the funerary finds of the Bronze Age. To a large extent, these were the result of continuing excavations which had begun earlier. We could advance 457 as a precise number. Starting from here and maintaining due reservations, it can be noted that the majority of finds were made as part of systematic excavations (265 = 57.98%), followed by salvage excavations (64 = 14.00%) and trial digs (14 = 3.06%), also by random finds (67 = 14.66%) and finds resulting from surface surveys (47 = 10.28%), which come to represent barely one quarter of the excavations. The large number of systematic research projects is due to the continuous consolidation of the institutional network consisting of museums, and specialized academic departments, which increased the number of specialists. But it is fair to note that this is the period of the climax of national-communism, which, though it disappeared briskly as a political regime at the end of this period, has unfortunately disseminated many of its commandments regarding historical or archaeological research in damaging ways up to the present. The majority of specialists did not adhere to what the communist party documents decreed, but one cannot overlook the ideological pressure, the isolation from the West and the consequent autistic character of the research. One expression of the national-communist pressure to search for a millennial national identity, which also resulted in Romania’s distancing from the USSR, was the establishment, by presidential decree No 256 of July 6th 1979, of the Institute of Thracology which, in the course of time, turned into a forum for the downright passionate promoters of unconditional Thracianism. From this moment onwards, by ignoring the fact that the Indo-European issue was a linguistic one and that archaeology does not have the necessary instruments for dealing with it and is simply doomed to failure, the importance of the so-called “Indo-Europeanization” was exaggerated; allegedly, Indo-Europeanization began as early as the Neolithic Age, causing the archaeological cultures of the Bronze

12

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

Age in Romania and in the immediately neighboring regions to be regarded as Thracian, although no language “monuments” to attest it have as yet been found. The considerable quantity of systematic research brought about a corresponding qualitative increase in the number of sources regarding the funerary customs of the Bronze Age. About three quarters of the funerary finds belong to cemeteries (156 = 34.13%) or to groups of graves (190 = 41.57.05%); while the isolated graves represent barely another quarter (100 = 21.18%), and the number of uncertain finds is utterly negligible. The excavations on the Basarabian barrows were extremely numerous, for example those at Balaban, Bogatoe, Cimişlia, Cazaclia, Ostrovnoe and Vinogradovka, which contained also burials that belonged to the newly defined Mnogovalikovaja group in addition to the red ochre graves that were identified. In Dobrudja the most important mounds were those at Chilia Veche, Mihai Bravu, Murighiol/Independenţa and Nalbant, where excavations led to the identification of graves that belong to the “Bugeac variant” of the Yamnaya culture. In Moldova the barrows of Erbiceni and Fălciu were excavated, and in Muntenia those of Vităneşti and Sănduliţa. In southern Dobrudja there were excavations at Belogradec, Plačidol I, Poručik Gešanovo and Žeglarci-Orleak; these should be added to the older excavations from the western Black Sea region and from today’s northern Bulgaria. The finds from the barrows at Mokrin, Novi Knezevac and Perlez, in the Serbian Banat region, were also attributed to the “ochre burials” group; in the Hungarian Puszta/Plain, apart from the continuation of the Ketegyhaza excavations, research work was begun on other funerary mounds at Pűspőkladány. The excavations at Orsoja also belong to this period, and yielded the most wide spaced cemetery of the Gârla Mare group. In Banat two cinerary burial sites were unearthed at this time, one at Liubcova, and the second at Ticvaniu Mare. As regards the former, it remained virtually unresearched since only one grave, whose inventory included several fragmentary metal parts, was excavated, which is why it came to be thought of as the grave pertaining to a metallurgical “master-craftsman”, attributed to the Gârla Mare culture. As regards the publication of funerary finds from the period 1967-1989, there appeared numerous reports, detailed in varying degrees. The two cemeteries of the Bronze Age from Zimnicea, published by A. D. Alexandrescu, should be mentioned. In Transylvania the publication of the cemeteries at Archiud, Deva, Moreşti and Târnava contributed to completing the knowledge about the funerary practices of the communities of the Noua culture. One important contribution was the publication of cemeteries No. 3 and 4 at Sărata Monteoru. Unfortunately, for the documentation of the Cândeşti cemetery only studies with partial themes appeared, sometimes presented in an extremely confused way and accompanied by a general report whose only discernible attribute is its being general. The results of the research conducted on the important barrow cemetery at Lăpuş were made public in a study whose circulation was limited, which did not prevent it from making directly available very pertinent data for the extremely important understanding of the funerary

practices characteristic of the Suciu de Sus communities. Mention should be made of the report on the excavations on the barrows at Cotârgaci, in northern Moldova, which signaled a series of particularities for burials that belonged to several periods of the Bronze Age. Some of the most important excavation reports of this period are the report on the Ciumeşti cemetery and on the funerary finds in the area around Carei, as well as the report dedicated, though only partially, to the Cruceni necropolis. For Basarabia, V. A. Dergačev’s studies must be cited as useful for the understanding of the funerary phenomenon, though they represent rather uneven presentations, yet having the merit that they make available the data related to the excavations on the east bank of the River Prut, some of which are traceable to the time of the Czars’ rule. For the region of east Hungary, we should mention the ample reports about the cemeteries at Pusztaszikszo, Tiszafüred and Gelej, which belonged to the Füzesabony/Otomani cultures, as well as the report about the Battonya cemetery that belonged to the Periam-Pecica culture. In this period Serbian archaeologists published the important cemetery at Mokrin and partially the Ostojicevo cemetery, which were presented in a cursory manner and belonged to the same cultural group, and they published other data especially about the barrows attributed to the “ochre burial” group; last but not least, the cemetery of Belegiš, at Beograd-Karaburma, was published now, which permitted an extremely important archaeological group to be identified. The same period is responsible for the publication of the materials from Orsoja, on the east bank of the Danube – presented for publication in completely unsatisfactory conditions, devoid of minimal graphical documentation, and with mixed-up inventories, which makes the site virtually unusable. Beside the excavation reports, in the 1967-1989 period there appeared a series of important methodological publications concerning the study of funerary practices. Lewis Binford’s already famous study is the first in the series, but did not appear out of nowhere. The preoccupation of the American and British scholars for going beyond the strictly archaeological material was, of course, older, the fruit of serious cultural anthropological studies existing in this tradition. In a longer series of articles, Binford tackled the issue of the funerary practices by corroborating the archaeological observations obtained on site with statistics and sociological studies as well as with ethnological parallels. Several other specialists followed in the path of Binford’s study, some of them discovering new potentialities in the sociologically geared research. There is no use entering here a theoretical discussion, in the complete absence of ethnological data and given the fact that the order of the archaeological phenomena was not yet sufficiently established by means of direct materials, thus being, on the contrary, superfluous. In 1967 the study by P. Ucko, unfortunately scarcely noted at the time, was published. While drawing attention to the abuse inherent in comparisons with ethnological data, it cited a multitude of facts recorded by ethnographers, which proved the versatility of human behavior, including funerary behavior - if there was a need for proving such versatility at all. Setting out from the sociological fold in examining cemeteries, many of

13

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu the Anglo-American authors managed to create a methodological frame targeted at the study of systems and employing statistical procedures as their analytical technique. Unfortunately, on the European Continent, there was no aftermath to the Anglo-American studies. The methodology outlined in the 1950s by U. Fischer was followed by A. Häusler both in papers that set out to study the ochre burials on the north Pontic steppes and in other studies dedicated to prehistoric funerary practices. One valuable contribution from the methodological point of view and indebted to the lines of research on the Bronze Age funerary phenomenon is Margarita Primas’s study; using as its starting point the directions of research established by Fisher, her work managed to sketch out the funerary standards for the main cultural groups of the Early Bronze Age in Central Europe, and established the relationships between the sex and age groups and the funerary structures, inventories and lay-out of the corpses. It is only at the end of the period in focus that we can talk of paleosociologic preoccupations, of reconsidered methods, especially of the very popular “horizontal stratigraphy” of cemeteries. Actually, for the region in question, the interest in the chronological ordering, primarily of the cemeteries, was predominant though it was conducted at the expense of structural studies that would have revealed paleosociologic data. N. Kalicz’s and I. Boná’s efforts are especially commendable in this respect: they managed to offer hypotheses regarding the succession of burials, while providing fewer explanations about the structure of the communities buried there. In Romania, S. Morintz’s book dedicated to the Middle Bronze Age in the region between the Carpathians and the Balkans carried more weight; referring to finds made beyond the frontiers of present Romania, Morintz discussed Hungarian, Serbian, Bulgarian and Basarabian excavations, and it aimed at being “an attentive, sufficiently detailed analysis .... for researching the issue of the Thracians’ origins”, following “the entire historical evolution, from the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (i.e., the 17th century B.C) to the middle period of the First Iron Age (the 7th c. BC)”. Indebted to the research tradition of that time as regards possibilities of documentation, the author only managed to draw up a partial repertoire of the main groups/cultures of the Middle and End of the Bronze Age, producing a study whose comments were based on the then known ceramic material and on the conclusions of the specialists of the day. The only novelties worth reporting are its reference to the “area between the Carpathians and the Balkans” and a sui generis chronology which divided the Bronze Age into the early period, between 2000 and 1700 BC, the middle period, spreading from 1700 to 1350/1300 BC (with a first part of the middle period, between 1700 and 1500 and the second part of the middle period between 1500 to 1350/1300) and the late period between 1350/1300 and 1200/1100 BC; this was not accompanied by any rigorous argumentative line on the periodization of the Gârla Mare culture, supporting the periodization only by R. Hachmann’s observations and by the attempt to define the Coslogeni “culture”, which was considered to have eastern origins, just like the Noua and Sabatinovka groups. Funerary practices were only dealt with even partially, if we do not accept a

division into chronological horizons of the barrow burials considered to belong to a population of eastern origin. Another contribution dedicated to the Bronze Age, in which burials were taken into consideration but without discussing the funerary practices per se, was T. Bader’s research in north-western Transylvania. However, perhaps the best example of the attempt at a chronological ordering of cemeteries is to be found in the polemic between R. Hachmann and B. Hänsel about the chronological ordering of the Cârna cemetery. While the former, in a small-scale review of the investigations made, tried to sketch the order of the burials by studying the planimetric distribution of some decorative motifs within the Cârna cemetery, the latter resorted to a more complex procedure, analyzing the combinations of types and reaching different conclusions; he came to reject Hachmann’s interpretation, justly drawing attention to the fact that the Cârna cemetery was probably organized into ethnic groups and did not permit proving a linear evolution in time. T. Soroceanu tried a similar analysis to R. Hachmann’s for the Mokrin cemetery, arriving at successive burial stages which were later contested. A. Oancea followed the same procedure for the analysis of the Pietroasa Mică cemetery in the region of the Carpathian Curve and ended up with similarly artificial results, both authors erring by omitting the relationship between the inventories and the sex/age groups and by nourishing their obsession with a possible linear evolution for prehistoric cemeteries. Nevertheless, these contributions can be commended for their attempt to leave behind the strict, narrow pattern of chronological orderings, which work on summarily defined burial horizons in trying to provide answers to the usual questions raised incessantly by the mass of archaeological material. In 1979 I. Ecsedy published his book dedicated to the Yamnaya burials of Eastern Hungary. The author stressed his excavation in the kurgan field near Kétegyháza, but added a new repertoire with all the kurgan burials of Yamnaya then known to the east of the Tisza, including the grave at Csongrád-Kettőshalom, which was similar to the cemetery at Decea Mureşului. The author took pains to discuss the issues related to funerary structures, to the corpse lay-out modalities, to the funerary inventories and to the presence of the red ochre, and the result is outstanding. A similarly remarkable enterprise is E. Jarovoj’s attempt to complete, with improved documentation, the older observations made by Häusler, even though he sometimes resorted to rudimentary statistical procedures, which I would venture to call “stuff-in-stock procedures”, and which led him to place the information collected in an excessive hierarchy, preventing him from seeing the forest behind the trees .... He focused on the type of burial, which for him meant signaling the general layout of the corpses, the position of the limbs, their orientation, the kind of pit, the existence of fixtures, for example wooden covers, etc. He discussed inventory categories such as pottery, weapons, tools and dress items. The fact that the anthropological determinations, few though they may have been at the time, were overlooked limited the possibilities of the analysis. The author exaggerated in paying attention to the position of the limbs, striving to

14

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

identify types of positions in which the deceased were placed and this led him to finding no less than 60 variants. The validity of this “typology” was illustrated by percentages of 0.1, 0.2 and 0.5, which corresponded to groups of 1 - 7 graves in a total of 1,000 burials, namely to completely insignificant “variants”, or, statistically, non-existent variants. As regards the rules for the graves orientation, Jarovoj starts from a general analysis of the groups that he isolated in this way, omitting the possibility for each barrow to have had its own orientation system with regard to the depositing of the corpses in the grave - which would make the overall view practically irrelevant. Moreover, the diagrams provided allowed observing the disposition of the study material into opposed groups, which would seem to indicate in these cases too the principle of the bi-polar and complementary disposition, and could have been proved valid if it had been possible to examine this issue by means of anthropological diagnoses as well. Among the main shortcomings to note is the fact that the relationship between the modalities of putting the dead bodies in place and the categories of inventories was not examined, not taking into consideration the sex/age groups either. Another limitation comes from the relatively small area considered. The so-called “Yamnaya” burials were spread over an exceptionally wide area, allowing the identification of general characteristics alongside regional ones. Moreover, the very notion of a Yamnaya culture can hardly be taken into consideration nowadays, when we know that there existed, rather, a sort of funerary fashion common to several groups. This work, however, being one of the few of its kind, succeeded in bringing to the fore the variability of the funerary rite in the so-called Yamnaya burials. There are two further studies of comparable importance which present in detail the barrow burials to the south of the Danube. The first of them is I. Panayotov’s which presents the funerary finds belonging to the “Yamnaya culture” in Bulgaria. In this study all the funerary finds belonging to the Yamnaya group from the south of the Danube known up to that moment were presented; the study was complete with details regarding the funerary structures, the layout of the corpses, inventories, and anthropological diagnoses, wherever applicable. The most important of them were those at Tărnava and Plačidol I, which also provided two very important 14C determinations. At most, the author could be criticized for his superficiality in the research proper, for his sometimes slovenly, hasty lay-out drawings of barrows. But it is worth mentioning that Panayotov strove to present all these finds, sometimes even the less clear ones, for example those of Belogradec, Hărlec and Smolnica. The second study, signed by G. Kitov, I. Panayotov and P. Pavlov, presented the barrow cemetery at Goran-Slatina apparently in an almost monographic way. Mention should be made of A. Bonev’s book that contained a number of specifications about the cemetery at Orsoja and discussed the inventories of these graves in relation to the Aegean world. In response to a generally increasing demand for archeological finds to be recorded, archaeological repertoires appeared in this period for the counties of Botoşani and Iaşi, both of which were drawn up in accordance with methodological

rules that made scientifically known some less spectacular, but not always less important, finds. The last period considered is the one between 1990 and 2000. The interval is far too short, but making this differentiation is necessary because of the political changes after the year 1989 which have had and will have influence over future research. One change comes from the institutional restructuration that gradually led to the elimination of the Soviet kind of system and its replacement by “make-shift” arrangements, another change is represented by the massive circulation of information, all these being unfortunately associated with distortions of the financial resources. A further differentiating factor is the change of mentality that appeared as a result of people’s freedom to circulate; this was a change likely to bring about a new attitude to the special aspects of archaeology, among which the study of funerary practices. However, there is a price to be paid too: the excessive theoretical tendency that makes its practitioners (enthusiastic beginners or people inclined to theory as a species of neo-imposture) liable to lose sight of the forest because of the trees. Fifty-six funerary finds were reported between 1990 and 1996, thirty-three of which came from systematic excavations, some of them being continuations of earlier archaeological activity, one being a salvage excavation and seven being surface surveys or random finds. As regards the context, there were nineteen cemeteries, twenty grave groups, sixteen isolated graves and only one of them was an uncommon find. The research in the Ampoiţa cemetery was very significant as it provided precise information about the barrow burials in Romania’s western Carpathians; these permitted understanding some older finds. The excavations at Crasnaleuca were very important for understanding the Noua group burial practices. The triple burial grave discovered at Năeni-Zănoaga, near a Monteoru settlement is also worth noting. Further finds to be mentioned are the incineration cemetery at Cârna - Ostrovogania consisting of sixty-nine tombs which primarily belonged to the Gârla Mare culture; to them should be added the new cemetery identified on the south banks of the Bistreţ lake, which is still being excavated, in the area of the Plosca village, increasing the number of the Gârla Mare burials in the Bistreţ region to 250. Some studies of real significance for the understanding of the Bronze Age funerary phenomenon came out after 1991. The first of these is the excellent repertoire of the Noua culture authored by A. C. Florescu. The author gathered all the information regarding the Noua group, which he had collected since 1970, among these are 40 funerary discoveries and more random finds, with ceramic material more or less legitimately supposed to come from dilapidated graves. At the same time, in the author’s opinion, the cemeteries at Căbeşti, Balinteşti-Cioinagi and Săbăoani belong to the Noua culture, just as the entire “zol’niki” found at Gârbovăţ, while some of the graves at Baldovineşti, Bogonos, Brăiliţa, Glăvăneştii Vechi, Hamangia, Holboca, Iacobeni, Stoicani, Vârghiş-Crăciuneşti and Zorleni are attributed to the Srubno-Hvalinsk group, which is considered to have participated as one of the main components to the constitution of the Noua culture. In 1993 M. Gumă published his

15

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu book dedicated predominantly to the Iron Age, which was relevant because in it the author also presented a series of funerary discoveries dating from the end of the Bronze Age or from the beginning of the Iron Age, such as the “craftsman’s” grave at Liubcova and the incineration burial at Ticvaniu Mare. For the Transylvanian Bronze Age we have Andriţoiu’s synthetic presentation. It can be remarked that the author included the barrow graves found in the Western Carpathians in the newly identified “Şoimuş cultural group”, although the settlements which belong to this group are situated in another area. In short Andriţoiu also discussed the funerary finds attributed to the Wietenberg, Otomani and Noua groups of south-Western Transylvania. The 33 Wietenberg burials known to exist in 1994 were studied in detail by N. Boroffka, who divided them into categories and demonstrated a funerary practice characterized by a large number of isolated graves or by graves situated in the perimeter of settlements as well as by small number of cemeteries, which were not as a rule too widespread. The Wietenberg funerary behavior was compared by the author with the funerary practices of the other Bronze Age groups of finds between the rivers Tisza and Dniester. A further important contribution for the Transylvanian region is H. Ciugudean’s. Unlike other authors and resting upon investigations of his own, he isolated in the area of the Western Carpathians the Livezile group, which was characterized by burials in mounds with mantles made of stones. If the Livezile group lent itself more easily to specifications about its funerary custom because of the great number of graves which could be researched, in the Copăceni, Şoimuş and especially the Iernut group, things fare less well since no funerary finds have been reported as yet in the last of the series. To complete the knowledge about the Wietenberg funerary practices, I. Paul’s contribution can be singled out for publishing the important bi-ritual cemetery at Sibişeni, as well as a series of reports that introduced in the scientific circuit new funerary finds. We must mention here the remarkable re-publication, in accordance with the latest requirements, of the Füzesabony graves at Hernádkak and Megyasző, which we owe to E. Schalk, and Neugebauer’s synthesis of the data regarding the Austrian Bronze Age referring at length to the cemeteries of the Unterwölbling group. The Bronze Age burials in Transylvania’s south-eastern corner were briefly discussed by Zs. Kékédy Székely who stressed the cemetery at Brăduţ. Ch. Schuster tried to discuss the funerary finds in a limited area of Muntenia in 1997 but did not get too far because of the scarcity of the finds. A number of cist graves in the Muscel zone were discussed more amply by referring to older excavations. The last two studies mentioned have the artificial fragmentation of the research space in common and consequently they precluded any more pertinent discussions about such an important phenomenon as the funerary custom. Another limit is the outdated chronological system adopted, the mentioned “transition period”, which is what prevented the two authors, just as H. Ciugudeanu and I. Andriţoiu, from explaining the way cultural groups were constituted in the Early Bronze Age. For the eastern region, Dergačev and Manzura’s catalogue for the later Tripol’ye culture

burials and the German variant published by Dergačev alone are especially important. The brisk appearance of a very well structured funerary practice is signaled, which is in complete opposition with the documentation corresponding to the former stages of the complex object represented by the Cucuteni and Tripol’ye cultures. The core of this enterprise is represented by the catalogue of 97 funerary finds consisting of isolated graves, groups of graves or graves spread in the Lower Danube basin and as far as the Don River. Many of these finds were not recorded in a satisfactory archaeological way and we can sometimes notice the blatant lack of agreement between the authors of different excavations that belong to various periods, sometimes situated 60 years apart from each other. The later Tripol’ye culture finds were divided into several types - Usatovo, Vîhvatinţi, Gordineşti, Serezlievka, Sofievka; further groups were defined in addition to these by considering the pottery found, but for them we have not discovered any burials. V. A. Dergačev’s division is not supported, however, by comparisons, albeit cursory, of the material that the graves contained, and the examination of the funerary finds yields an overall configuration of the types which is also questionable. In addition, I consider the inclusion in this class of the Sofievka incineration group very unlikely (which may also include the cemetery at Suceava-Parcul Cetăţii with over 100 incineration graves) by referring only to a number of inventory elements that may well have come there as mere contacts among populations with different funerary customs. On the other hand, it is not at all clear whether some of the funerary objects described are flat or mound-shaped. As a matter of fact, Dergačev’s “division” into types was criticized by Rassamakin, who proposes a completely different cultural layout corresponding to the respective area and time. The knowledge about the barrow burials in southern Basarabia was completed by yet another of E. Jarovoy’s contributions. Some studies by specialists at Chişinău, which introduced syntheses of the Bronze Age research in Basarabia, were published in a recent number of the Thraco-Dacica magazine. Funerary finds were emphasized there because they were the main category of archaeological sources for the beginning of the Bronze Age and their number is impressive in the research of the area between the Rivers Prut and Dniester. The publication in an ample report of the barrow necropolis at Sărăţeni should also be mentioned as representative for the eastern zone, presenting barrows that date from the Eneolithic groups (Hadgier-Cernavoda I), from the Yamnaya culture and from the Middle as well as the Late Bronze Age. One recent attempt of discussing, from an unexpected point of view, the funerary customs of the Bronze Age in the region to the north of the Danube was due to Alexandra Comşa. The author tried to produce a systematic presentation of the funerary behavioral elements by discussing numerous funerary finds from different contexts. But the fact that she took over in a selective, uncritical way some rather doubtfully documented finds seriously limits her analysis and makes her conclusions unacceptable, if we leave aside the commonplaces that she corroborated. The publication of the massive excavation report about Sintašta, situated to the east of the

16

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

Urals, a vast object of the Bronze Age with burials in the vicinity of settlements and impressive inventories, had a very special echo. Apparently, these remote finds from beyond the Ural Range were insignificant for the North-Danubian regions but some of the inventory items can be related to the areas situated to the north of the Black Sea and in the Carpathians. The discovery of war chariots in the Middle Bronze Age tombs situated in the Ural Mountains permitted the identification of some groups of individuals, i.e., male elites, whose social identity was archaeologically expressed in the funerary code by weapons, two-wheel chariots and sacrificed horses. Such equine bone deposits, sometimes even entire horse skeleton, were also reported in other barrow burials, such as those of the Abaševo type and those belonging to the Mnogovalikovaja culture, which lie in the region between the River Don and the Danube mouth. Another important contribution for the area of interest to us here and for the funerary monuments from the north of the Black Sea is E. Sava’s book, which studied the Mnogovalikovaja culture and is based mainly on the archaeological information obtained by researching the graves. The author used 169 funerary finds attributed by him to this group. One first limitation to be signaled, however, comes from the restriction of the research to the region between the Rivers Dniester and Prut, although the mass of this culture was to be found mainly in the Ukraine. The wide expanse of land corresponding to the Mnogovalikovaia group raises the question of whether or not the definition of a culture only by means of a ceramic style is justified, and to what extent it is so. Also, we need to note that E. Sava was hasty when he added a number of finds from the Romanian Plain to the Mnogovalikovaja group. Some of these could hardly be ascribed to a cultural group that stopped short at the line of the river Prut. E. Sava’s contribution remains greatly indebted to traditional, absolutist dating when he places the Mnogovalikovaja group in the interval between the 18th and 17th centuries BC. E. Sava’s most recent and more interesting contribution, also documents the Noua culture burials, which are remarkable both by their dimensions and from a scientific point of view. This is true in spite of the fact that the study of this author from Chişinău has a number of shortcomings deriving from the importance he attaches to the eastern component of the Noua culture and from its erroneous appreciation of some funerary standard elements. But none of these impair the merits of the study, among which is that it put into circulation a considerable repertoire of burials that enabled the author of this book to produce a complete presentation of the funerary customs present in one group of the Bronze Age to the north of the Danube. What is still less well understood is H. Peter-Röcher’s contribution, which succeeds in drastically censuring the prehistoric cannibalism myth by its ample discussion of archaeological data, based on the use of ethnographical records and written sources. The author also takes advantage of discussing some finds of human skeleton parts, often rather disparate, in open or fortified settlements, often in caves, but without having enough arguments to prove their intentional funerary character. Peter-Röcher’s study derives its full justification if we also

take into account some researchers’ persistent faith in the possibility of documenting anthropophagy for some Bronze Age groups in Central Europe. One cannot leave out from a presentation like this the two-volume monograph dedicated to the funerary finds on the barrows situated at Velika Gruda and Mala Gruda, in the vicinity of the Kotor Golf, on the east coast of the Adriatic. The two volumes bring their own contribution each to the research about the now famous tombs with a special character in Mala Gruda and about the later burials on the same site, offering methodological clarifications about funerary object research on this occasion as well. We can add to the long series of theoretical contributions on the subject of funerary customs J. P. Mohen’s ample work, which is less well known in Romania. Starting from the first funerary finds and going as far as the modern age to embrace an extensive area, which includes the Old World and the New World, the author attempted to examine the relationship between death as a social phenomenon and the human communities that are in a position to respond to it. Using archaeological documents and ethnographic observations, J. P. Mohen stresses the symbolic character of the funerary ceremony, the relationship between the disappearance of individuals, their social rank and the type of response of particular collectivities, which leads to variations in the funerary practices in dependence on the type of social structure. By a general reckoning, we have over 10,000 burials that come from almost 1,100 finds for the Bronze Age in the region between the Rivers Tisza and Danube via the Black Sea and to the River Dniester. But, as shown previously, these represent a solid, ample documentary basis only at first sight. In reality things are completely different because the number mentioned above appears simply insignificant for the demographic factor in an interval of time covering two millennia. I also have in mind the fact that documentation is patchy both in time and in space, since there are geographical regions or archaeological areas for which the finds are utterly insufficient. While we have 1,233 burials for the sites belonging to the Otomani culture only in the area which interests us, for the Periam-Pecica culture we have 850, for the Belegiš group, 517, while other cultures or groups which are certainly significant and cover remarkable time spans are less well documented in this respect, for instance Monteoru with only 432 known burials and Gârla Mare with just a little over 400. These differences, however, are mainly due to research that covers only limited areas or to insufficiently spread knowledge, since it is obvious that had the Cemeteries No. 1 and 2 of the eponymous locality, Cândeşti, been put into circulation, they would have amounted to a total number of 1,500. However, there are cases when the small number of available burials reflects the content and internal character of a particular group, for example the Schneckenberg finds, with 44 burials or the Kugelamphorenkultur finds in northern Moldova consisting of 93 graves, both of which represented isolated tombs or small groups of tombs. As regards the Wietenberg group, the number of burials discovered is really small, which seems to indicate that it consists of small-scale cemeteries and isolated tombs within the settlement perimeter, or in the vicinity, as a characteristic trait, though only at face

17

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu value, which certainly made its funerary practices appear as distinct by comparison to other groups of the Bronze Age in the area lying to the north of the Danube. We come against a difficulty in connection with the funerary customs of the Glina and Tei groups, which are spread in quite well-defined areas, but have no ascertained finds for the former, while for the latter we have 20 burials that come from 8 different places, not all of which have been thoroughly put into circulation. In such cases we could even ask ourselves if the existence of these groups is real or if they are figments of the imagination in archaeological studies of pottery. It stands to reason that the comparative analysis is limited from the start in these cases. I have forwarded no numbers for barrow burials. Those researched in the area in focus here are too few so I decided to extend their examination, in this case only, and to work with a sample of circa 2,200 burials spread in the area from the Hungarian Puszta/Plain to the Middle Volga region. However, in sofar as the funerary barrows are concerned, often the presence of a costume piece or of particular vessels has determined the authors of excavations to make far-fetched cultural, chronological and even ethnical statements about the groups to which they belonged. The efforts directed to ordering tombs chronologically by overlooking the internal structure aspects and without establishing any standards are not to be blamed only on the people who authored them. Rather, they are the direct expression of a need arising from the amalgamation of cultures, cultural groups, aspects and facies which were as numerous as mushrooms growing in the rainy season, due to excavations made according to subjective criteria mainly and in the absence of any coordination of the research project themes. One of the great problems that arose not long ago and got worse in the period between 1967 and 1989 is the problem of the new groups identified. It can be seen that they spread over areas which are directly proportional with the price of the bus tickets for faring from a county capital to the archaeological site, and they are directly dependent on the personal possibilities of the researchers as regards traveling and gathering documentation, so that the archaeological, scientific interest is intimately connected with tiny human commandments. The result can be assessed when thinking of the Cernavoda I-III, Folteşti I-III, Grumăzeşti, Copăceni, Iernut, Zoltan, Foieni, Roşia, Şoimuş, Odaia Turcului, Năeni-Schneckenberg and Govora-Fundeni groups, and even of the Coslogeni group, and so on. The lack of communication, the existence of “explanatory panacea” of the Marxist militant kind, with corollaries in the form of Thracian or Indo-European nationalism, have inspired many investigators who resorted to facile solutions. It goes without saying that excessive fragmentation of the archaeological horizon represents a hindrance for the study of the funerary practices of the Bronze Age. I think the main, though not the sole, causes are zonal limited research, lack of experience and professionalism, exaggeration in using (misunderstood) theoretical models, lack of communication and a historicist trend inherited from the precursors of the 19th century, who were eager to recover state models in accordance with the antique

ones. Consequently, numberless “cultural groups” were “born”, which were even devoid of one major feature, the graves. They entered the scientific circuit in the narrowest of areas such as that which was also earlier called “plasă” (old Romanian administrative unit), by a more adequate term; this is why any attempt at chorological circumscribing the newly arrived groups often led to stupefying results! Under the circumstances, we have the alternative of accepting the existence of communities spread over reduced areas, with no thoroughly defined habitats, with pottery selected by the descendants (i.e., ourselves) and with no burials, or else we can examine groups minutely before setting out to oust them, minutely and mercilessly. This issue becomes all the more serious in what the “ethno-cultural” attribution or “ethno-cultural-linguistic” attribution is concerned, when overlooking the very likely fact that in prehistory the collective mind was entirely different from that of the 20th century! The matter could well be solved by revising some theoretical concepts, among which culture comes the first. The term has been repeatedly explained, “established” and, moreover, it has been used indiscriminately. Its archaeological content has been forgotten and the corresponding limits of the notion have been overlooked so that it has been ascribed an ethnic and/or historical content, with very unpleasant consequences. The term culture has been in use in archaeology for long. In the course of time it acquired new meanings and subtexts, so that increasingly more people use it nowadays in order to designate large ethnically or linguistically distinctive collectivities, or both. Leaving aside political and ideological determinations, it is stunning to see specialists who have managed to determine the ethnic or linguistic character of “cultures” and to identify populations, migrations, invasions, and so on, going only by finds such as bones, sherds, tombs and stones, in the absence of any written sources. Mysteries accumulate and acquire absurd dimensions when we count the numberless cultures, cultural aspects and facies, some of them with not few phases and sub-phases, which have appeared in these last decades if we take into consideration just the Bronze Age. Things grow even more complicated when the newcomers in the domain move about, migrate, invade and influence other archaeological areas, while they open up to influences from outside in their turn. The overcharging of the term “culture” has, quite naturally, led it to exhaustion, if not really to downright demise, causing it to enter a state of crisis and leading to the necessity of rendering the term specific by criticizing the kind of significance it was granted in order to relieve the poor notion and bring it back to the plainer, and more honorable, condition of being a term from the professional jargon. But even so a number of unclear things, which are precisely the things conducive to the exaggeration of the notion, cannot be waved aside. There are several definitions for it. Culture is, of course, a term borrowed from the social sciences, where it has different meanings and uses. In the Anglo-Saxon milieu, where prehistoric archaeology is subsumed to cultural anthropology, we can note attempts to define culture from the ethnological perspective and we can cite L. Binford, who considers culture to be the sum of the adaptation processes to which a

18

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

human community resorts in response to external stimuli (the environment or other human communities) as well as in response to internal stimuli of its own. Talking of the social system, Binford attaches importance to two of its sub-systems primarily, the extra-somatic system, independent of the biological processes, and the subsystem of the functions serving for adapting to the biological and social environment. Focusing on the artefacts’ variability in time, Binford divides material culture per se into three sub-classes: the technomic, whose primary function is connected with the unmediated contact with the environment, the socio-technical, whose function is expressed in the frame of social intra- and extra-community relationships and the ideo-technical, which is expressed in the ideological department of the social system. Unlike Binford, European prehistorians have not had access to any direct ethnographic observations, any notes or written sources of different kinds and were therefore in a position to confine their studies to strictly material finds, which were often in a merely partial state of preservation and represented discoveries made on wide areas, but not uniform, which is why their association remains indebted to typological studies. These remains can only be situated in time from a strictly archaeological perspective by charting the stratigraphical reports, which can restrict the possibility of grouping material vestiges. It is easy to forget that the first definitions of archaeological “cultures” were provided unilaterally, resting on limited categories of materials: lithical parts, for the Paleolithic Age or ceramic materials, for other, later “cultures”. Wherever possible, other groups of finds, such as settlements, dress items, weapons and tools fashioned from other raw material than stone, and, last but not least, burials were added to these material remains. They could obviously be included in Binford’s technomic class in their majority, except for funerary finds, which can be seen to belong to the socio-technical sub-class, even though the emphasis is laid on pottery, in this case too. Consequently, it is more sensible to speak of ceramic groups rather than of cultures, it seems, especially when “new cultural formations” are in question. Also, by observing the same criteria, we should not exclude the possibility of making potentially dramatic revisions of some “cultures” that have a long career behind them. The discovery of graves and even the discovery of widespread cemeteries with several tombs do not automatically trigger the identification of prehistorically deceased people’s “spiritual life”, which remains an interpretation, and is mainly fuelled by enthusiasm. I would not like to overlook the attempts at providing theoretical explanations of some ampler objects consisting of vestigial material of this kind and I hasten to acknowledge that there are some really interesting interpretations, such as those which come from the so-called New Archaeology; but I consider that for European prehistory the haste in the domain should be replaced by a kind of fearful hesitation, by a downright emotional state which would leave room for skepticism as the scientists’ characteristic state of mind. We must remain critical in respect to the notion of archaeological culture in the enterprise represented by this study. Not a few of the funerary discoveries or of the discoveries considered as such

situated in the region between the rivers Tisza and Dniester have been “culturally” ascribed on more than superficial grounds, while the dynamic patterns in the evolution and succession of funerary practices has been understood and used erroneously. This has resulted in considering funerary fashion the feature of an artificially created “culture”. For very objective reasons, the notion of culture has increasingly become subject to doubt. The numerous cultures of prehistory were defined a long time ago, going by more or less unilateral criteria. In the course of time, with the considerable increase in the archaeological documentation, many of the cultures defined previously, before the 50´s mainly, have come to no longer correspond to the objective reality of present research. Examples are numerous. The so-called “transition period from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age” is still an extremely eloquent one. While in 1960, when the first volume of The History of Romania was published the transition period appeared to be fully justified as a result of incomplete research, later many of the “cultures” which belonged with it came to be reconsidered due to on-site excavations, or they even simply disappeared. Subsequently, the chronological interval associated with this “period of transition” suffered dramatic changes, both as regards its place in time and space. There is a clear tendency today to exclude this completely hybrid creation and the archaeological phenomena attributed to it have been assimilated to the beginnings of the Bronze Age. “The red ochre burial complex”, which was once considered to be a most important phenomenon that documented the advent of pastoralists in the area of the steppes to the north of the Black Sea, cannot be considered unitary today as it used to be more than half a century ago; rather, they constitute a widespread funerary fashion common to several ceramic groups that extend from the Ural to the Rhodopi Mountains and the river Tisza. The term “Yamnaya package” has even been recently proposed for denoting a series of features characteristic to this kind of burials. The Monteoru culture, which has long been considered a landmark for the Romanian Bronze Age as a whole, has proved to have too numerous unclear features, especially connected with the way its internal “periodization” was conceived and documented by specialized publications. Having appeared overnight and being supported only by a number of surface surveys which can be seen as merely superficial, the Coslogeni “culture” does not have a precise identity either, and some authors contest its reality altogether. The beginning of the Otomani culture is differently regarded nowadays by comparison with the simplistic perspective corresponding to the time when Phase I was defined. Considered to be representative for the Middle and Late Bronze Age, the Verbicioara culture proves to be a problematic “thing” rather than a culture. And we could offer further examples of this kind..... It is obvious that until recently there has been no attempt at creating a synthesis about the research of the Bronze Age in the manner proposed by Ion Nestor after 1930. I consequently think that it is preferable to use the term ceramic group instead of culture, though the total exclusion of the term would create confusion. On the other hand, it would be a good idea to use the term “ceramic group”

19

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu because this would favor a review of the typologically established phases and would allow them to be replaced by the term ceramic style, which is neutral and could therefore help researchers to refine the rigid periodizations of ceramic groups/cultures. I have presented my views about the funerary finds of the Bronze Age recently, in a rather succinct form, and have proposed determining the chronology by 14C calibration. By and large, very recently many of the shortcomings of works published in the second half of the 20th century have been corrected when taking a stand about the Bronze Age. I have in mind an article written in collaboration by A. Vulpe and M. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, which appeared not long ago. In this study, A. Vulpe discusses the notion of “culture” briefly, opting for its understanding in accordance with L. Binford’s terms, without any artificial ethnically charged meanings attached to it. The vision of the author about the definition and periodization of the Bronze Age is also very important, since the author proposes the middle of the fourth millennium BC as the beginning of the Bronze Age, in correlation with the Aegean Bronze Age. The main funerary finds of the Bronze Age are presented together with the review of the main archaeological phenomena of the Age, though without pointing out the fact that for some groups attested in the text there are no funerary finds. By using most modern literature about recent finds, some of which were completely new, A. Vulpe refers very briefly to the social status represented in deposited material, i.e. in hoards, and in burial features which derive from inventories or from considering the amount of effort spent in building a grave, whether in plane or mound-shaped ones, and, I would like to add, measuring this effort in terms of the social energy spent, which includes the sustained effort to observe the rite’s requirements. Anthropological analysis represents yet another problematic issue. It is necessary to establish, as precisely as possible, the burials’ age and sex groups, irrespective of the period they belong to, and to clarify the relations between these and the funerary structure elements, since they are likely to produce more than chronological information. We should stress the fact that the greater number of funerary finds, including those in wide-flung cemeteries, has not benefited of anthropological examination, although there are enough anthropological diagnosis studies. In Romanian archaeology one notices the predilection for “Europoid”, “Dinaric”, “Northern” determinations and so on, which overlook the probably intense mixing of population in prehistoric times. The publication of some anthropological studies about prehistoric bone remains has had practically no echo in the literature in our country, and even less have the internal contradictions inherent to this kind of study reached us. Mention should be made, for the Romanian area, however, of D. Nicolăescu-Plopşor and Wanda Wolski’s general study which attempted to discuss the Otomani, Gârla Mare and Monteoru burials from the perspective of anthropological analysis. Often, the methodological contradictions of physical anthropology are blatant, maintaining the dilemma between anthropological or archaeological gender.

Palaeontological determination is strictly connected with anthropological research and animal bones, even entire skeletons, are to be found in graves. But there are no in-depth studies about the relationship between the state of these osteological remains and the structure of the tomb, the layout of the body, the inventory categories and the food deposited. Animal burials are not a rarity and their exact function is difficult to understand. It is almost impossible to make a statistic presentation of the mode in which Bronze Age funerary finds have been published. Most of them were presented in reports of varying length, with not a few instances of unsatisfactory archaeological documentation. We should keep in mind, however, that no cemetery has been or can be investigated in its entirety. Since chronological ordering has prevailed in archaeological research, many details were omitted and this is the reason why practically each of the funerary objects is incomplete and the overall analysis becomes very difficult. Barrow research raises special problems. It often involves wide expanses of land to be researched, that is almost whole fields of barrows, of which only less than 5% have been investigated and the conclusions must, therefore, be regarded warily. Digging barrows with heavy-weight mechanical devices does not appear as a felicitous solution because it causes the loss of important information regarding the levels of the excavations in funerary pits, their structure and, last but not least, the stratigraphy of the entire barrow. On the other hand, given the insufficient funding, it has not been possible to produce thorough research of barrows and barrow-fields from all points of view, which is why the only systematic research of this kind already charted in the Romanian Plain and the Hungarian Puszta can be held responsible for the false image conveyed about their being just a few. The situation could have been different for the plains situated to the north of the Black Sea if there had not been an overriding tendency to dig with heavyweight mechanical implements, which allowed opportunities to pass... Still, the great number of excavated barrows offers a good enough sample for an overall view. However, we have no observations enabling us to make connections between cemeteries and settlements, given that the mere proximity in space is not, in itself, conducive to relevant answers, though, on the other hand, we should not forget that no settlements which could be placed in relation to the barrow groups are known in the Romanian Plains or the Hungarian Puszta. The majority of research projects still support the idea of the cemeteries’ linear evolution and from here derives a propensity for making rigid, artificial horizontal stratigraphical observations, which cannot but lead to specifications of zones/stages situated from one end of the necropolis to the next, in strict chronological order. Consequently archaeologists overlook the fact that there may be funerary plots of land, each with their own chronology of burials and situated in random order within the funerary precincts. As regards the graves, inventories have always been in focus at the expense of general burial structures, which is why graves with about four or five pots have been hastily considered “rich” finds, forgetting how much effort and social energy was invested in barrow graves

20

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

whose inventories may have hardly any non-perishable materials but which reflect precisely the importance or the important social status of the deceased by comparison with a burial by whose side nothing but a pot was found. There are only a few archaeological Bronze Age phenomena with precise funerary standards in the area studied here. Archaeologists speak of cremation predominantly at the beginning of a particular culture, then of burials, then, at the end, again burials reported side by side with cremation. The ratio between these two modalities in which corpses were treated (being improperly called rites) has to be established by thorough sampling, which will further permit tentative interpretations to be advanced, keeping in mind the fact that the limited occurrences of differing funerary customs may well be the result of contacts between communities with different funerary customs rather than the expression of any internal lines of evolution. Reports often give less attention to the layout of skeletons, rarely mentioning their exact position, the presence or absence of anatomical connections or their orientation. As regards the orientation, there is still a naive belief that the disposition of the corpse´s head in one or another direction followed the sun whereas in reality it was dictated by corpse layout rules depending on age and sex groups, bi-polar and complementary dispositions often being the rule. The study of Bronze Age funerary practices can only very rarely reach final research conclusions in relation with the mass and quality of the direct sources. The main goal is to look for correspondences between funerary customs and ceramic groups or cultures in the course of time and in space generally. Standard funerary practices may be seen to emerge in some cultural areas, eventually, which will then have to be chorological and chronologically studied in order to observe how they tend to move in time and space and to thereby increase the documentation. It is most likely that the hypothesis of funerary customs being the object of exchanges will have to be examined as well, which will qualify in this way the migrationist conception still held as true by many specialists. Once funerary standards have taken shape, their study corroborated with that of the habitat systems and also with the study of pottery and of the industrial uses of stone and bone, as well as with the study of material processing will surely lead to more precise redefinitions of archaeological groups/cultures. It will be possible to begin ordering the burial “horizons” more precisely in time and for wider areas if the cemeteries’ structure criteria have been established. A detailed discussion of the Bronze Age chronology for South-Eastern Europe would have been out of place in the current study. On the other hand, the fact that the 14C data have increased overturns the chronological systems proposed in the course of time by various Bronze Age and other specialists. Even though the radiocarbon data obtained several decades ago are debatable, the more recent analyses, which are based on improvement of the sampling and processing techniques, can no longer be ignored, all the more so as their number increases daily. I cannot possibly start a detailed discussion about this data. For the moment, one need

call attention to the easily perceivable tendency of dates becoming earlier. At the same time, the series of radiocarbon dates for particular sites and cultural areas increases considerably. We can hardly be content with the older data; we must expect that further new analyses, which will take archaeology to sensibly earlier times, will crop up. Bearing this in mind, we have proposed a possible chronological diagram for the Bronze Age in the Middle and Lower Danube basin, which is meant to serve as the chronological frame for examining funerary behavior. The chronological diagram has not been drawn up in order to see it embraced by proselytes; its purpose is to frame the way I understand time so as to make it usable for the description of funerary practices. I am quite prepared to see criticism of many of the stages tentatively proposed by me, since they were delineated by referring to what published information there has been available to date. Early Bronze Age I: - circa 3700-3000 BC. Ia: the beginning of the Baden group, coexisting with the Neolithic elements - 3700-3400 BC.

Ib: the appearance of the “Baden-Coţofeni block” and of the late Tripol’ye group “with the Gorodsk-Usatovo aspect”, corresponding with the “Cernavoda I” group - 3400-3000 BC.

Middle Bronze II: - circa 3000-1600 BC. IIa: the Kugelamphorenkultur, Zimnicea, “Cernavodă II”, Glina, Schneckenberg, and early (Zănoaga stage) Monteoru groups - 3000-2500 BC. IIb: the Late Zók groups : Besenstrich, Nagyrév, Hatvan, “Otomani I”, the beginnings of the Periam-Pecica culture with the Monteoru Ic43-Ic3 phases and the Verbicioara I-II“ phases”, the beginnings of the Wietenberg and Tei groups - circa 2500-2200 BC . IIc: the middle phases of the “classical” cultures, the period of the deposits and hoards of the Pierşinari, Măcin types, etc., corresponding to the periods Bz A1-A2 - circa 2200-1900 BC. IId: the late phases of the Middle Bronze Age cultures, the crystallization of the Gârla Mare and Govora groups, the “tumular” aspect of the Otomani/Füzesabony group and the end of the end of the Periam-Pecica group, circa 1900-1600 BC.

Late Bronze: - circa 1600-1200/1100 BC. IIIa: the first “Mycenaean artefacts/influences” to the north of the Danube, the constitution of the Noua block to the east and of the Cruceni-Belegiš group to the west, the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group - circa 1600-1400 BC. IIIb: the last Noua and Belegiš manifestations, the Cincu-Suseni type hoards - circa 1400-1200/1100 BC. Today we have an impressive number of

funerary finds for the Bronze Age in the Middle and Lower Danube basin, some of which are represented by extensive cemeteries with numerous burials. For Romania, there are, nevertheless, few overall studies presenting more than the strictly archaeological aspects, the social or other aspects, too, which are

21

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu connected with the variability in time and space of the funerary phenomenon.

The study of the funerary phenomenon as specifically human constitutes its own domain for archaeology, not only the pdomain that seems to become a self-sufficient archaeological discipline, given the specific problems it raises and the methodological procedures of its own. The careful analysis of funerary customs, which sheds light upon their structure, is likely to reveal social, maybe even religious data that will complete the strictly chronological knowledge prevailing in the literature to date. The study of the funerary practices’ variability in time and space as well as the sociological, structural research of the funerary phenomenon must be taken into consideration especially for the definitions of the numerous phenomena of the Bronze Age archaeological phenomena in Central and South-Eastern Europe, all the more because here genuine, commonsensical research has been impaired by both national vanities characteristic for the Balkans and by excessive, tendentious politicization of archaeology which was characteristic in this part of the Continent in the communist age. The current study starts from the consideration of the Bronze Age cultures discovered along the line of the Danube rather as ceramic groups and tries to establish primarily the correspondence between ceramic groups and funerary models, in so far as the latter can be regionally specified, with a view to granting them ampler, more precise chorologic and chronological contours.

rehistoric branch, a This discussion is older and ampler and it is intimately connected from the start with the way one understands the motivation of burials as a characteristically human practice. Though at the beginning archaeology took into consideration the social group’s emotion in response to death and its response in terms of religious beliefs, both responses being held responsible for the diversity of the funerary custom developments, later a sociological approach was adopted, especially after the publication of Van Gennep’s well-known work. This was accompanied by the attempt at cultural and historical reconstructions connected with the supposed spreading of burial models. Ethnographic recordings were consistently shown to have practically no counterpart in archaeological finds, both as far as working method and distance in time were concerned, so it is no wonder that hasty, barely subtle, comparisons appeared, which had bad results. It stands to reason, though, that one should not abandon ethnographical parallels and sociological research altogether, but in prehistoric archaeology the ordering of on-site documents on the basis of precise definitions and descriptive analyses are essential and they should precede hypotheses. Further, not all finds that contain human osteological remains need to be interpreted as graves at all costs. Corpse abandonment, for example, may be part of a funerary custom conceived as such, but the location where a deceased person was left, at random perhaps, can scarcely be considered a grave. There are human remains in settlements whose context was not expressly devised and in places with no special funerary function, in caves, for example, which may not be typical at a particular time and in zones where already constituted cemeteries had already appeared. This calls for evoking other motivations than the care for the deceased and requires that other types of customs than those connected with funerary practices should be considered. The behavior of the social group in respect to one of its deceased members follows certain customs that become more or less strict rules in the course of time and amount to entire funerary ceremonials whose duration and complexity cannot be (wishfully) reconstructed by archaeology. The aim of funerary archaeology is to find the material remains of the funerary ceremony, in the funeral, which is expressed as already shown. Usually a funeral involves depositing a deceased person in the grave in a rigorously observed manner, which is more often than not marked by piety, and it calls for a special place, even if its traces may have been lost. The discovery and careful study of the extant material traces, which are, again, the very aim of archaeological research, are likely to show the intentionality of depositing bodies during a ceremony. But ceremonies are funerary only in so far as the deceased play the leading role in them and if all the stages of the ritual are destined for them. If the deceased play a secondary role in ceremonials with another destination, we have to do with practices of a different kind, which are still connected with ritual but devoid of the funerary character. In some special cases, when we are dealing with funerals proper from the point of view

In the literature there is an impressive number of finds which include human osteological remains traceable back to the earliest ages and forward to modern times. Their importance for the development of archaeology need hardly be stressed. The majority of these are burials, but there are quite a number of finds whose character is less easy to ascertain at first sight and from this point of view. Not much is known about the onset of funerary customs. It is considered that in a first stage, roughly corresponding to the Lower Paleolithic Age, parts of the human skeleton were manipulated, i.e., selections were made, as a rule, and the skull, either in its entirety or partially, was given special attention. It was followed, in the later Paleolithic Age, by the practice of depositing bones, sometimes mere parts of the skeleton segments which followed the skull itself or the skull in conjunction with skeleton parts, or skulls per se. Though the context is far from being clear in the majority of deposits of this kind, there are some which seem, nevertheless, to indicate a certain regularity and express an incipient rite, which is about to be followed, by burials proper, especially in the Upper Paleolithic Age. In this respect, I find it extremely significant how far back in time the first collective burials and cremations can be traced, since they serve to confirm the constitution of the funerary customs proper. The problem is, and also becomes, more complex owing to the pronounced variability of the funerary finds, which can be measured not only on the vertical time-lines of archaeological discoveries but also on the ethnographical parallel lines, which have been so frequently quoted of late. This has made it mandatory to define as thoroughly as possible the

funerary character, in order to discriminate between ascertained funerary finds and other archaeological situations/objects which contain human osteological remains but are different in nature.

22

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

of the deceased, there may be different people who appear to accompany the deceased, but they are there for events with some other significance, not funerary.

When one member of a group dies, the social group is forced to recognize a radical change in the statute of the deceased all of a sudden, which affects, though in different ways, many of the group’s activities and can affect some of its members and even all of the individuals from that group. As an inevitable biological phenomenon, death becomes a social must in response to which the human group reacts by creating institutions/customs with a well-defined structure. It has been thoroughly shown that “death, such as it can be observed in social life, represents in an objective way a series of gestures and rites that express agony at the grave and beyond it” The mutually supportive, principled and complex response of the human community to this profound change is represented by the funerary ceremonial as a whole, by the whole articulation of the rites of passage, destined to solve this problem. From this perspective, the funerary ceremony appears as a culminating point in the collective attempts of a group to re-assert its identity at a time when it has been challenged. The funerary rite begins once the death of an individual has been ascertained and it extends over a considerable period of time, comprising several episodes, each representing certain rites of passage – the threshold rites, the separation and return rites. Of all these episodes, the burial per se leaves the greater number of material traces, given its accompanying fixtures and procedures. It is generally known from several direct observations and from written sources that the succession of episodes in the funerary ceremonial is dictated by a carefully observed scenario, which, for all its variability, has been seen to be frequent. This regularity also applies to the place destined for depositing the deceased. Apart from the cemeteries proper there exist isolated burials. It can hardly be doubted that many of these finds have a funerary character but what is unusual is the place chosen for them, given the fact that we deal with human groups that use cemeteries at the same time. The structure of the funerary precinct is more difficult to study. The exhaustive treatment from the archaeological point of view has been possible in remarkably few cases and for this reason the necropolis structure could only be determined very tentatively. On the other hand, the tendency to interpret any overlapping or crossing-over of graves as expressing the succession in time of the burials in the entire cemetery is obviously excessive, since one cannot leave aside the possibility of organizing the funerary space going by certain criteria, so that the “crossing-over” of graves may express the order of the deaths in a social segment (e.g. a clan or a family). The structure of graves, even the simplest of them, and their relationship with the settlements of the living or with other graves are all decided in advance, in conformity with the same customs, which partake of the entire scale of funerary practices specific to a region at a certain moment in time. In this connection, it should be noted that in some ancient societies and for the persons with a high social status the funerary constructions reached monumental sizes and consisted of extremely complex structures. This also means they must have required huge efforts to

build and must have been started long before the demise of the people they were destined for. This leads to the idea that, at least in these cases, the presumed death of these individuals was manipulated with a view to accumulating social prestige, this leading, more often than not, to a kind of competition which was prolonged by what has been called “the cult of the dead” beyond the moment of the respective persons’ demise, and which sometimes suffered interesting changes. From the archaeological point of view, the so-called “funerary finds” should be considered as objects which contain human and/or animal osteological remains (i.e., full skeletons, or parts of them), which were found in distinct configurations and from whose parts the intentional depositing of osteological remains could be deduced as the main purpose, while they also reveal the special character of the layout in accordance with certain rules – all of which invite the interpretation that they constituted the social answer given to death. But in practice all this is not as feasible as could be hoped, given the often precarious state of preservation of the material found and the great diversity of the archaeologically discovered cases, not to mention the cases that were ethnologically recorded or otherwise. Under the circumstances, one of the main elements to be necessarily taken into consideration for the definition of funerary finds appears to be the intentionality of depositing/ritually handling the corpses but it also functions in finds of other categories, such as sacrifices, which increases the difficulty of interpretation. There exist many cases when it is hard to make a differential interpretation of graves versus sacrificial deposits from the point of view of the osteological remains layout, and this is due either to the situation on site, where some material elements are missing, or it is due to the singularity of the cases, or even, in quite frequent cases, unfortunately, it is due to the subjectivism of hasty interpretations. This is also true of osteological remains situated outside the observable, clearly laid-out cemeteries, since deposits of human osteological remains were also found in dwelling-places, and outside them in the settlement areas, isolated from the settlements or sometimes in other places too, such as caves, cervices in the rocks, on trees, in hollows of trees, on heights, and so on. It is necessary to pay more attention to the burial layout, to see whether we are dealing with isolated funerary finds or with cemeteries, since in a number of cases it is obvious that there are connections between the settlement of the living and the “dwelling” place of the dead. There are also great variations in the type and structure of graves themselves, with a very wide range of exterior as well as interior funerary structures. The treatment of the corpse comprises, on the one hand, preparations made before the burial itself, which are known from ethnographical notes, but they are not likely to leave archaeological material traces, and, on the other hand, it comprises the funerary rite itself, which consists in either a burial or a cremation, both of which are practices that lend themselves to being archaeologically discovered, alongside other customs which are less expressive for archaeologists. The customs related to the ways in which what is left of the corpse is deposited are important from the archaeological point of view, both because they leave behind

23

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu clearly visible material traces and because of their variability, which can and must be studied. Today it is a recognized fact that the different modalities of depositing the corpse – the position, the orientation of the corpse and, indirectly, the view orientation – are closely related to the sex group of the deceased, to the affiliation of the deceased to particular social groups, to the cause or place of the demise, to the type of subsistence techniques practiced by particular communities and to the customs that enforce them, which, in their turn, also depend on the function and structure of the group and on the lapse of time, which can modify the funerary practices. In my opinion, in the approach proposed here, it goes without saying that, in prehistory at least, the corpse constituted “the firm ground” on which a community constructed the material expression of its mentality, which it subsequently manipulated with favorable results, as I affirmed earlier. It is necessary to pay particular attention to the state of preservation of the unearthed skeletons. If we exclude the otherwise quite frequent cases of later disturbance of the skeleton, which is due to diverse, usually non-deliberate reasons, and the cases when the acid or alkali soil composition led to the “melting” of less resistant skeleton parts, the lack of anatomical connection of some skeleton components may be the expression of a series of practices such as the secondary and tertiary burial or the chopping up of the corpse resorted to in the frame of a funerary custom in certain communities. We should add to the ways corpses were treated a category apart represented by the placing of corpses in coffins, sarcophagi, pots or wrappings made of various materials, the addition of coloring substances, of which ochre is the best known. In cremation graves the funerary urn and, where applicable, the lid is considered by many archaeologists to belong with the funerary inventory, while their function is actually identical with that of a coffin or vessel, and thus entirely different. The existence of special corpse wrappings or the use of special substances when burning the deceased on pyres cannot be left out either in dealing with cremation graves and often it is possible to put in evidence traces of such substances burnt out in the fire by means of not very sophisticated but minute analyses. By the same analyses the position of the deceased on the pyre, the amount and kind of fuel used, the resort to flammable substances and so on used in cremations can be ascertained. Anthropological analyses can reveal further information, such as the treatment given to the cremated bodies and, more specifically, to what extent the osteological remains were gathered from the pyre or not, precisely what parts of the corpse were given precedence over others and, last but not least, the orderly or disorderly way in which they were deposited in urns. The issue of the treatment given to the deceased cannot be separated from the fairly familiar phenomenon of grave plundering. Leaving aside the probability of plunder prompted by meanness, which is rather closer to the modern mentality, grave plundering is often ritual in nature, being more or less closely connected with funerary customs. But the appreciation of such situations presupposes careful on-site observation before everything else and observations that are correctly recorded, usable for subsequent comparative

statistical study. The so-called “symbolic” graves or cenotaphs are a relatively frequent category of Bronze Age discoveries and not only in this time. This notion is associated with data about later archaeological periods, namely written sources, but the idea of extending it to prehistory is somewhat far-fetched. Practically, any tomb without bones in it tends to be directly considered a cenotaph. It is true that some such tombs have, often very poor, inventories, which consist of a pot or some sherds only, but I do not think this constitutes a good enough reason for interpreting them doubtlessly as symbolic graves. The archaeological context is simply insufficient if we want to ascertain if these objects were built/dug in order to bury someone who died in foreign land or if we are dealing with a ritual practice connected with the cult of the dead, accompanying the burial or ulterior to it. A complex terminology which comprises terms such as Wagengrab, Schiffsgrab, Fürstengrab, Kammergrab, Einzelkammergrab etc. has been created around funerary layout and sometimes around the “wealth” of the inventories. In general these terms denote real distinctions but only in so far as they rest upon correct archaeological observations. One should not overlook the fact that the terms regarding the types of tombs/graves/pits and/or the funerary layout patterns discernible in the barrows on the steppes to the north of the Black Sea were used to refer to archaeological “cultures”, such as Yamnaya/Pitgrave/Grubengrab, Katakombnaya or Srubnaya/Balkengrab, each of them with “variants” which have recently proved unsustainable, not to mention the well-known term “Ockergrabkultur”/The red ochre burial culture, which has been over-used until quite recently. It is to be expected generally that a certain standard, even though roughly expressed, of funerary customs or general rules can be found in a material culture/ceramic group or even in a corresponding community. What I mean by “standard”, i.e. the notion of standard ritual/practice, is an overall configuration of funerary rite elements that are specific to a cemetery or community by virtue of the structure, and that is destined to express the social identity of the deceased. The standard ritual is a theoretical construct not necessarily to be encountered as such. Of all the ritual elements studied in connection with the funerary customs, such as exterior and interior layout elements, the treatment of the corpses and the way they are deposited, some are of primary importance and should never be absent while others are merely secondary and can, therefore, be overlooked. Their presence/absence, the frequency of some elements and their dynamics in time can be singled out and established as standard, alongside some regional and/or chronological characteristics of particular funerary customs studied. By contrast to these standards, whether they are clearly delineated or not, presumed funerary finds may be recorded quite frequently, which differ from the former either by their full structure or by some major elements, which can make them blatantly different. This is the case of the so-called “Special Burials”/“Sonderbestattungen”. This category of finds has been intensely discussed and variously interpreted, both in the past and at present, and the inclusion in this group of some funerary finds is due

24

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

either to the incomplete research of the respective discovery or to the fact that the variability of funerary practices has been overlooked even in respect to standards belonging to a particular culture or ceramic group or community. Funerary inventories consist of several different categories of material. Dress items strictly considered are by far the most frequent category and, in connection to them, weapons and various tools, followed by pottery or vessels made of other materials, edible oblations and, more exactly, the remains of such stuff, in so far as they can still be recovered from the archaeological point of view. The presence or absence of some of the categories mentioned, the quantities in which they appeared in graves, the quality of the materials, their state of preservation ab antiquo, as well as the place where they were laid and their relation to osteological remains are all elements which differ in respect to the same factors, just as is the case with the ways corpses were treated or graves were laid out. The quantity of items which constitute funerary inventories of graves is often interpreted as a sign of economic prosperity, which is not always correct. One intrinsic characteristic of funerary practices is their symbolic expression, the existence of codes, which can be hard to decode in the absence of written testimonials as is often the case with prehistoric burials whose existence cannot be doubted. In this respect, the absence of funerary inventories can be the token of a sobriety of sorts, which may have been the distinctive mark of a special social group, potentially not at all one of the most destitute and miserable of groups. In all these situations, the specifically funerary character of the finds can be deduced by careful research and by detailed studies, which ought to make manifest, as shown above, the convergence of relations between the following groups of factors: the motivation for the manipulation of corpses and the way they were deposited and, as the case may be, their favorable state of preservation, the accompanying archaeological material, the structural elements of the places where corpses were deposited, the layout within the funerary area and, if applicable, the relations to the habitat structures and to the rest of the environment. So far, prehistoric funerary finds have been used to define cultural groups together with other features, to establish relative chronological relations and, not infrequently, they have also served for arguing in favor of more widely significant phenomena such as massive population displacements or mass migrations, invasions, catastrophes, profound economic, social and religious changes as well as ethnogenetic phenomena. All these kinds of research laid emphasis on the conservative character of funerary customs and they sometimes overlooked the variability of funerary practices, which could sometimes be at work even within communities themselves. This can be explained either by the initial working conception and, consequently, sometimes by the limited methodologies, which could produce confusion by this very fact, or they can be attributed to insufficient documentation. The treatment of burials from the archaeological perspective, which, in methodological respect, is essentially marked by the fact that it takes variability

for granted and it is likely to produce, in conjunction with structural studies committed to using statistical methods, specifications and corrections required both for the definition of cultural groups on the one hand,, of their structure and of their internal dynamics and, on the other hand, for the critique of older models used when interpreting more extensive phenomena such as migrations, ethnogenetic processes etc. The potential funerary finds have for the internal study of human groups was intuitively ascertained from the very beginning and it was subsequently emphasized quite often. In several lines of research, the ethnological one in particular, the connection between the social structure of human communities and their funerary practices has already been made and it has been regarded in the light of funerary practices’ variability. There is a lot of literature on this subject at present, although studies that tackle burials from the strictly chronological perspective continue to appear as well as a great number of studies that, without dwelling upon details, still use burials to support outdated theories. As a whole, when it is regarded in the frame of archaeological research, funerary ceremonial often appears as characteristic to human groups of variable sizes, which are chronologically or chorological circumscribed. The component elements, however, may be encountered separately or with variations in other areas as well and they are applicable to different communities that do not necessarily have connections with each other. Distinctions are produced by the structures in which these elements combine, by the emphasis falling on different aspects of ceremonials, on quantitative or qualitative expressiveness, all of which factors create the diversity of funerary manifestations. It has also been noticed empirically, but not only, that connections exist between forms of funerary expression and the main elements of social systems as well as their modes of organization and the permanent existence of these connections, whichever they were, has been the rule, irrespective of the actual connections considered. In fact this is precisely the role of funerary custom studies: to point out the existence of this rule and its evolution in the course of time as well as across spaces and to manifest the variability of funerary customs. Embarking upon this course of study presupposes, from the start, the exact definition of the elements of social importance, whose relation with funerary practices has been thoroughly proved both in the experimental sense and as far as theoretical concepts elaborated on these grounds are concerned. A felicitous event worth noticing in the study of funerary practices was the introduction of the social person notion, which defines the precise social position held by a deceased person within the human group. As a complex concept, the term covers the attribution to a sex group, an age group, the rank and different social positions occupied by deceased people in a social group during their lives, the degree of affiliation and appurtenance to different segments of the group and the position occupied within the system of inter-community relations. Each of these elements as well as the modes of articulation which are specific to each individual get symbolically expressed in the course of the funerary ceremony and they can be recovered

25

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu more or less precisely by archaeological research. Another term which is also symbolically expressed in the funerary practices, being naturally connected with the former notion, is the term social unity, which, in the first place, refers to the social group and lays stress upon its two main features: the structure, which reflects the number of elements and sub-systems composing the group as well as the nature and mode of their articulation and, in the second place, refers to all the rules and customs that regulate the movements of a group. I think that one needs to emphasize the fact that the dead do not bury themselves, since the involvement of the community in the funerary practice tends to be forgotten, together with the consequences of this involvement. In funerary customs, the relationship between the individual or social person and the social group/object is thoroughly defined by means of the notion of social energy, which expresses the various kinds of expenditure which are occasioned by the funeral and which the community incurs depending on the degree of implication of deceased individuals in particular groups. This last term is capable of weighing both quantitatively and qualitatively a series of material elements belonging to funerary find archaeology, among which are: the complexity and dimensions of funerary finds, the complexity of the corpse handling or the complexity of the deposits accompanying the corpse. Although not all funerary finds or all groups of funerary finds are capable, of course, to offer the entire range of information required for specifying the social identity of the deceased and the community the deceased belonged to, or to give indications about the social energy spent, the general direction of the investigation should be channeled towards this goal, while not neglecting the ordering on the time scale either. Going in this research direction is a difficult enterprise. The difficulties arising along the way can be very varied. The chance factor in research can make archaeological zones or phenomena remain completely unknown from the point of view of funerary customs, since it may happen that the actual situation on site, with reliefed terrain or forest areas, can only lead to “poor” finds, which offer only few archaeological data fit for study, while in other cases the scarcity of finds may be due to improper site-research or to slovenly, superficial communication about finds. More often than not it is the theoretical premises, however, that come to the fore as unsurpassable obstacles. Research procedures have often not been chosen in the most felicitous ways. Because research was focused on chronological ordering, only elements from this agenda were taken to be relevant, while others were left aside, though their relevance, which appeared quite negligible at first sight, proved to be of crucial importance later. The absence of anthropological determinations, or the superficial determinations of this kind constituted another category of obstacles. One special difficulty comes from the symbolic way in which things are expressed during funerals, which puts in circulation codes and systems of symbols impossible to decode completely, as previously shown, and whose significance is often only presumptively recovered. I think it is worth noting that the distance between the archaeologist of today and the particular prehistoric communities studied has barely been taken into

consideration. I have previously mentioned that, in this respect, ethnological parallels are of limited use for archaeologists, and it can be quite risky to use them with little or no reservations, while it should be taken into account, since the situations observed and recorded by direct contact with life in the so-called primitive populations of the 19th or 20th century cannot be deemed identical with the situation in remote prehistoric time, given the fact that the systems of symbolic expression are constituted in accordance with criteria that cannot be archaeologically studied. The cemetery at Decea Mureşului still constitutes one of the starting points for a discussion that grows more and more ample and far-reaching with respect to the understanding of the Neolithic Age and the beginnings of the Bronze Age. Examination of the burials at Decea Mureşului is, therefore, a very suitable beginning when embarking upon the study of the Bronze Age funerary customs. Situated in the middle basin of the river Mureş, the cemetery consisted of 15 plain inhumation graves, to which another four dilapidated, unnumbered graves should be added. The cemetery has certainly not been exhaustively researched and there must still be graves which have not been found as yet. The unusual element, which stirred the emotion of the final Neolithic Age and Early Bronze Age specialists, was the presence of ochre in the graves. All the graves had skeletons lying on their backs with skulls oriented SSW or SW, feet bent at the knees and fallen to one side laterally. The inventories included pottery, dress items, jewelry sets worn around the waist and consisting of circular beads made of Unio shells, copper beads, a copper bar Halsring with flat ends, flint blades, knives probably, copper piercing implements, to which were added a stone club with four protuberances discovered in grave 12. One axe-adze was also found in the vicinity of the cemetery and was assumed to come from a destroyed grave, which was later attributed to the Jászladány type. We owe the first appreciation of the Decea cemetery to V. Childe, who considered it proof for a migration from the east. A few years later, I. Nestor discussed the cemetery and showed that the pottery unearthed from the graves was partly identical with that from the repertoire of the Bodrogkeresztúr-Pusztaistvánháza culture and, in spite of obvious eastern influences, it is impossible to speak of migration in the case of Decea. In 1963, the Decea Mureşului cemetery was minutely analyzed and discussed by I. Bognár-Kutzián. After charting the funerary rite differences between the burials of the Mureş valley and those in the Tiszaplogá-Basatanya cemetery, the presence of the red ochre, the pottery and, to a certain extent, other inventory elements among which the stone club from grave 12, together with the axe-adze with cruciform blades, supposedly from a destroyed burial, are the more important, and after also considering the comparisons that could be made with the finds from the north of the Black Sea, I. Bognár-Kutzián concluded that the Decea Mureşului cemetery could be attributed to Yamnaya cultural penetration. Among the various positions expressed at the time with respect to this research, we can mention the point of view proposed by P. Roman, who associated these finds with those of the Brăiliţa site, namely with the Cernavoda I culture,

26

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

which was little known at the time. Disputes have continued since, and more specifically after, the discovery of a similar grave at Csongrád and after the introduction into the circuit of another grave found at Feldioara, which had been known for some time. The dispute has grown, leaving the uncertainties in place. Today it is largely agreed that the Decea Mureşului cemetery together with the grave at Csongrád constitute the same cultural phenomenon, which combines elements of the late Tiszapolgár culture with elements of cultures from the northern Black Sea regions and ends up creating an equivocal formulation showing the difficulty of understanding this important object of research due to the fact that no find of the same kind has been recorded so far. The archaeological settlement represented by the Decea Mureşului cemetery is completely stunted in the parameters it offers for complex internal analysis. The only remaining element for its very correct assessment is one which belongs to its main structure, different though it is from the late Neolithic Age burials in the area, including both the cemetery of Decea Mureşului and the isolated graves at Csongrád and Feldioara. There seem to have been no local antecedents and this makes the hypothesis about the foreign population that penetrated into the basin of the lower and middle Mureş or the hypothesis about the adoption by some autochthonous communities of foreign customs appear as the handiest ways to understand things and to classify them from the cultural-archaeological point of view. The importance of the group constituted by the cemetery of Decea Mureş and the isolated graves at Csongrád and Feldioara lies in the fact that it casts light upon the differences between the last groups of finds related to the funerary practices of the Neolithic and those of the earliest Bronze Age, even though there are a lot of related problems left unsolved in any satisfactory way. The burials in the “Baden-Coţofeni” block can provide the starting point for a study of Bronze Age funerary phenomena. But in itself the “Baden-Coţofeni” term, which is accepted in the Romanian literature, is not fully clear: firstly, because partially it expresses the attempt to delineate a phenomenon widespread in Central Europe as well as in the south, while, secondly, it points to the failure in defining the Coţofeni phenomenon. The integrity of the notion is debatable, primarily, because what characterizes it is precisely the sharp contrast between, on the one hand, the clear archaeological definition of the Baden component and, on the other hand, the less clear, even equivocal, outlines of the Coţofeni branch. By using the series of carbon calibration data, it can be stated that the duration of the Coţofeni group extended from the second half of the 4th millennium BC to the first half of the next millennium. The chronological position justifies the incorporation of the Coţofeni culture in the Early Bronze Age, which is supported by the marked differences from the preceding age. Such incorporation is further connected to the observed existence of numerous structural elements that are held in common with the Early Bronze Age groups. Nowadays the Coţofeni culture can be plainly seen to extend over a remarkably wide area, which comprises the whole of Transylvania, Banat, Oltenia, and part of western Muntenia, crossing to

the south bank of the Danube into Serbia and northern Bulgaria. However, only 22 funerary finds of this culture have been reported, which is little in the context of the hundreds of settlements currently known (see the list in Chapter 7.2). This shows plainly, from the very start, the contradiction existing between the area ascribed to the Coţofeni phenomenon and the limited number of funerary finds attributed to it at present. It can easily be seen, too, that the majority of funerary finds considered to belong to the Coţofeni type appear in very dense clusters along the line of the Danube, where cinerary graves are specific, while in Transylvania they are rare, and, except for the necropolis at Medieşu Aurit, they are burial tombs in their majority. This casts doubt upon the unity of the Coţofeni culture, since enough of its settlements have been researched, and they are secure finds, therefore, in all parts of the region of the Coţofeni milieu. Consequently, the chorologic ordering is the result of definitely uniform research, all the more so as the most numerous excavations of Coţofeni settlements are to be found in Transylvania. S. Alexandrov has recently dealt with the Coţofeni funerary finds, but he included here the graves situated on barrows, referring to their ceramic inventories, while many of these were in fact Yamnaya tombs with Coţofeni vessels. The majority of funerary finds attributed to the Coţofeni group come from systematic and salvage excavations - 9 (40.00%) and 5 (23.00%) respectively; even fewer of them are random funerary finds - 5 (23.00%) – and finds due to mere surveys - 2 (9.00%) . But things are slightly different in reality, because most of the systematic excavations that led to the discovery of funerary objects attributed to the Coţofeni group have never had these as their main research target, which means they appeared completely by chance; consequently this also reduces the difference resulting from the primary statistics. The simple examination of the archaeological context in which they appeared stresses once again the always patchy character of the archaeological documentation provided for the funerary finds of the Coţofeni type. This means that of the mere 22 funerary finds attributed to the Coţofeni culture more than a half - 14 (64.00%) - are isolated graves, grave groups, which consist of 2 or 3 graves, hardly reach one quarter of the total of six (27.00%), while the cemeteries for which we only have cases mentioned in the literature are no more than two (9.00%). This calculation puts the Coţofeni burials in a particular kind of light from the start, since they show the social units or communities to be very small and somehow contradict the dimensions and duration of some settlements, or else it runs counter somehow to some of the settlements’ dimension and duration, or else, again, there is something wrong with this culture’s definition, given the extremely small number of burials in relation to the area and duration of this group. There are Coţofeni cemeteries at Medieşu Aurit and Padina, but the precise number of burials has not been ascertained for any of these. The inhumation graves at Buiceşti cannot be ascribed to the Coţofeni group, neither can those of Suharu and Vădastra, Reci and Tărtăria be included here, and as for the site at Cârna/Dunăreni-Grindul Branişte, this is not a grave but … a regrettable mess. Neither can the

27

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu attribution to Coţofeni of the grave at Baia de Fier be accepted without hesitation. Consequently the only burial left, which can be plausibly attributed to the Coţofeni group, is the one at Băile Herculane-Peştera hoţilor, which leaves cremation as the characteristic rite for the Coţofeni communities. We have very little information enabling us to delimit the Coţofeni funerary standard. There are no data which can permit specifying the relationship between settlements and funerary zones. The grave at Herculane-Peştera hoţilor, which is situated within an in-cave dwelling site, and is the grave of a child, constitutes an exception so far in the area of its group. But similar burials situated inside the settlement have been reported elsewhere, too, for example at Copăceni, which shows that this was a current, though maybe not very frequent, practice characteristic for wider areas. An uncommon element, which is specific for the layout of the Coţofeni graves, comes from the cinerary graves found on the Tărnava barrows placed in secondary position. Only at Ostrovu Şimian and in another stone ring which was mentioned for one of the graves at Padina have any special elements been recorded. But since Padina also lies in the contact zone between the Kostolac or Vučedol groups, this ring, too, may be the expression of borrowings. The other Coţofeni inhumation graves were not laid out as barrows, which places them in the comprehensive category of flat-graves. We do not know the form of the pits or any other details, such as their filling. Anthropological determinations are also missing. Little though we know, however, the graves are sure to be in the Urnengrab category. In only two cases – in grave 5 of Tărnava and in one grave at Padina - a vessel was found adjoining to the urn but it did not function as a lid. Graves with the calcinated remains deposited directly on the ground, or in urns, which were still placed right on the ground and were sometimes covered with stones or surrounded by a stone-ring, were only found at Ostrovu Şimian. Such variety of ritual has no other incidence in the Coţofeni area and it is in contrast with the rest of the cremation graves of the group. The Ostrovu Şimian situation resembles that encountered in two Vučedol graves, which were discovered not too far away, on the islet facing the locality Moldova Veche. In this connection, the ritual variety noticed at Ostrovu Şimian seems to have been the result of the contacts between the two cultural areas and this is also the ostensible explanation of the special position they hold within the Coţofeni area. It is quite possible that, if the information regarding the Gornea Dealul Bulfecea discovery should prove real, we might witness a similar situation even in this place situated at the junction of the Coţofeni and Vučedol areas. In both situations, the inventories are as good as missing, with only two cases of finds - at Padina and Tărnava - where an adjacent vessel and a copper piercing tool were found in the grave on the Măgura Tomii sandbank, at Cârna. Judging by the few funerary finds for Coţofeni so far, they tell us very little, especially by comparison with finds from the adjoining cultures and milieux. Whether or not this is a true image can only be ascertained, however, if/when further, quantitatively as well as qualitatively more substantial, funerary finds appear and if more

attention is given to the types of habitat and subsistence, which appear to be varied, since the Coţofeni communities were situated, as can be easily seen, in regions which ranged from quite high mountainous zones to very low plains and floor plains along the Danube line. The Baden culture, one of the most important phenomena of the final Neolithic Age and the Early European Bronze Age, occupies a very large area in Central Europe. Not all the problems of the Baden culture, especially those related to the regional groups or the beginning phases, have found accepted and satisfactory solutions. By contrast to the older views about its absolute chronology, the 14C calibration and tree-ring/dendrological data allow us to assign the Baden culture to the second half of the 4th millennium BC and the beginning of the next millennium, i.e., the interval between 3600-2800 BC. There are numerous funerary finds in the Baden area as a whole. There was a relatively large variety of funerary practices and we have found both cremation and inhumation graves, which were sometimes associated with large size animals in the same funerary areas. There are no full studies about the funerary customs of the Baden group. In the space under consideration here, the Baden group is documented by just a number of settlements and random finds, and the number of corresponding funerary finds is very small (only eight); even some of these are uncertain, and they are located away from the centre, to the north-west (see the list in Chapter 7.2.2). The eight Baden funerary finds are random finds, coming from surface surveys or amateurish digging, and only the two points in the perimeter of the locality Mezőcsát are the result of systematic excavations. Cemeteries, though not very large, are the ones at Mezőcsát, Ocna Sibiului and Tiszavasvári. As regards Valea lui Mihai, the existence of a grave group is presupposed but the number of graves remains uncertain. At Berea, Mokrin and Skorenovac there are isolated tombs. As things stand now, the discovery at Berea should be left aside, for the moment at least. A flat cemetery consisting of sixteen cremation graves was discovered at Ocna Sibiului, in the place known as Zmiţe, by excavations made between 1964 and 1965. We do not know the layout of the cemetery, but from the excavation drawing it appears to have extended over a pretty large area. As regards ritual, the cemetery consists of both cremation urn-graves and cremation pit-graves, where the calcinated remains were covered with sherds. The ceramic forms and decoration are not what we should have expected, which is why we cannot be completely sure to what culture to assign this site to. At the same time, the position of the Ocna Sibiului-Zimţe cemetery is completely excentric in respect to the Baden area, and it is situated in the core of the Coţofeni zone. There are no good analogies as regards the repertoire of this group for the vessels in the cemetery either. Given the difficulties in the understanding of this cemetery, the possibility of attributing it to the Baden group should be regarded with reservations. It is possible, however, that at least some of the graves – for example Nos. 1, 2, 7, 10, 11 and 15 -, belong to the Bronze Age in Transylvania. Only six of the Baden funerary finds situated in the space mentioned are certain, namely

28

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

those at Mezőcsát - Hörcsögös 1, Mezőcsát - Hörcsögös 2, Mokrin - Araðanska humka, Skorenovac, Tiszavasvári - Gyepáros and, perhaps Valea lui Mihai. The available data are not enough to specify the spatial relation between the funerary and the dwelling zones. As regards the exterior layout, it should be remarked that there exist flat burials as well as barrow graves. This is not an uncommon situation, as Baden burials in barrows have been encountered since the beginning stages of this culture. At Mezőcsát-Hörcsögös, fourteen bi-ritual Baden burials were found on a barrow. The central grave of the barrow has not been found. A tall stone stele of 1.70 m was discovered buried in the ancient soil circa 15 m from the centre of the barrow. This discovery raised the question of the origin of this custom, which at first sight resembled the Yamnaya group. The stone stele from Mezőcsát-Hörcsögös is not singular in the Baden area. Other stelae were discovered at Budakalász-Lupa Csárda, in the cemetery at Center and Kaposztásmegyer-Farkaserdő, in the vicinity of some human inhumation graves and of four animal graves (bovid graves) situated inside the dwelling area. It cannot be doubted that these stelae/menhirs represent funerary tokens related to the social status of the deceased, who may have been group leaders, but it is hard to prove that the custom of depositing stelae by the side of the graves appeared in the Baden milieu, as is thought, as a result of the penetration of the Yamnaya communities into the area. However, contact with the Yamnaya funerary practices seems to have been proved at Mokrin-Araðanska humka and Tiszavasvári – Gyepáros at least. It appears that the funerary customs in the central Baden area, quite vast too, are varied in respect to the external layout, the way the deceased were treated, in regard to the structures as well, in respect to some special inventory items and as graves with skeletons of large size animals. The Baden funerary behavior apparently corresponds to some communities whose dynamic is expressed by synchronically and diachronically complex funerary practices. Such manifestations have not, however, been attested as yet at the eastern periphery of the group, where the eight Baden funerary finds discussed here are situated. The only grave belonging to the Kostolac group largely contemporary with the burials of the Baden-Coţofeni group is one at Gomolava. It is a singular burial grave containing a crouched skeleton, which was discovered during the 1966 excavations of the settlement. Being an utterly peripheral find, the Gomolava grave does not have great importance for the current discussion. The funerary practices specific to the final state of the Cucuteni-Tripol’ye cultural object have importance for the study of the space under discussion here. If it is true that such finds were exceptionally rare in the earlier or middle stages of the Cucuteni-Tripol’ye cultural group, which constituted a characteristic of the group precisely in view of their strict absence, in the final stage of the culture burials appear to be not only very numerous, but also very structurally complex. This dramatic change in a domain as important as this is for considering the life of prehistoric communities illustrates not only the break with an effete age, but it also contributes by numberless elements to the construction of funerary customs of other

archaeological groups about to follow once the Bronze Age with its own mode of life became entrenched. There exist various points of view in understanding the final stage of the Cucuteni-Tripol’ye complex: some of them oscillate largely between considering it a final phase within the economy of the while others consider it a completely different cultural phenomenon, but no complete solution has been conceived as yet. Chronologically, the numerous 14C calibration data available suggest the plausible dating of the late Cucuteni-Tripol’ye phases to the second half of the 4th millennium BC. The brisk appearance of an utterly different treatment of the deceased, in association with changes in the material content of the group, was attributed to the contacts with populations living on the neighboring steppes situated to the east of the Tripol’ye area and the influence of the Srednii Stog communities was given special emphasis. It is beside the point to discuss here the origin of these new funerary customs, all the more so as all attempt at giving a final solution to the issue is actually quite difficult. What matters is ultimately the appearance of a new funerary standard, and, moreover, the way in which it influenced other modes of funerary expression in the period at the beginning of the Bronze Age, as well as the way it further influenced later groups. This is the reason why we have included in the late Tripol’ye finds other discoveries as well, which are isolated and, more specifically, those recorded to the west of the river Prut, whose attribution continues to be the subject of debate. When tackling this issue, I actually lump together all these finds, as being “late Tripol’ye” finds, rather than taking them all as belonging to groups of their own. The forty-six late Tripol’ye finds (see the list in Chapter 7.3) are situated in the main area of the Cucuteni-Tripol’ye complex, but most of the isolated funerary finds come from the west of the River Prut, from the Pontic seashore, from Usatovo and Majaki, for example. For the entire late Tripol’ye area as envisaged by Dergačev, there exist 96 localities spread in the region between the Rivers Prut and Dniester, most of them concentrated near the Black Sea, from the outflow of the Danube to the area where the Dniester falls into the sea. The chorologic disposition of the funerary finds discussed has a lot to do with the way chance intervenes in archaeological research, which can be seen in the series of finds on the west bank of the Prut brought to light by the river melioration works. It is also obvious from the chorologic point of view that the findings at Aldeşti, Bogdăneşti, Boldeşti, Bradu and Târpeşti, all of which consist of one or two graves each and whose attribution is uncertain, are situated outside the late Tripol’ye area. We could add to the isolated funerary finds in the hilly region of Moldova a number of graves identified a long time ago as well as quite recently at Costişa. Most of the late Tripol’ye funerary finds derive from systematic excavations (38) and those due to trial digs (1) or to salvage excavations (1) are few. The surface surveys (1) and random finds (3) represent less than 10%. Things are less promising than they appear at first, however, since what matters from the perspective of the research character is, firstly, the quality of the documentation for each site researched. It has not always been the

29

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu case that a project declared to be systematical also provided observations recorded under desirable qualitative conditions. I would like to mention first the cemetery at Suceava, which has never been satisfactorily published, and the cemetery at Brăiliţa, whose recent publication offers a perfectly negative example. Other similar cases are those of the Usatovo and Vîkhvatintsi cemeteries, which align research pertaining to different periods in time and have contradictions between the data published in the course of time and in reference to the two incompletely excavated cemeteries. I cannot overlook the issue of the excavation techniques, noting in particular the tendency to use heavy-weight machinery, such as tractors, bulldozers or scrapers, to dig on barrows, when it is known that such procedures are likely to irremediably destroy the monuments and cause the loss of very important information. As regards the context, the information available appears at first sight as satisfactory, too. There being only eight isolated graves, they do not carry much weight, which means that the great majority of finds consist of grave groups (35) or cemeteries (3). We should take into consideration, nevertheless, the fact that a necropolis does not always mean a great number of graves. This is so in the cemeteries of Dancu I and II, which have only four graves each. The discussion of late Tripol’ye funerary customs as presented by Dergačev also has to deal with the issue of the regional distribution within this group. Late Tripol’ye funerary finds have been divided into several types/groups depending on the material content: the Vykhvatintsi type, with 3 finds along the line of the middle Dniester; the Usatovo type, with the most numerous monuments spread in the lower Dniester basin, in the Bugeac region or along the seashore, from the Danube to the place where the river Bug runs into the Black Sea; the Gordineşti type, with six discoveries along the line of the upper Prut; the Serezlievka type, in the area between the rivers Bug and Dnieper; the Sofievka type, which was characterized by cremation graves and was restricted to a small area on the banks of the middle Dnieper. The Trojanov and Gorodsk types are situated in Volynia, and they are both documented only by settlements, just like the Kukashi type in the area of the middle Dnieper. Since there are plenty of graves for the Usatovo type/group, while for the others, except for the Sofievka group, the number is much smaller, it is obvious that regional classes are faulty. When materials, pottery especially, are examined, no differences appear which can justify the groups/types proposed. The Serezlievka and Sofievka groups could be seen as defined more thoroughly, although the presence of some later Tripol’ye ceramic types does not define them as pertaining to this group but rather as being the product of direct contacts or long-distance exchanges with other cultures, all the more so as the Sofievka group stands out because in it cremation makes it differ categorically from the rest of the regional groups/types. Yet another complication is represented by the Zhivotilovka-Volchansk group, which occupies a special place, on the northern Azov seashore and has western extensions. It has, therefore, been compared with the finds of the

Gordineşti kind. Another problem arises when considering the relation between these groups and the contemporary finds from the eastern steppes to the north of the Black Sea as far as the river Volga. It is clear that in the current stage of research there is no consensus about the exact content of these groups, which are still considered by many to be traceable to the final Neolithic or to the Eneolithic. Under the circumstances, a global examination seems entirely preferable for distinguishing the main elements of the funerary practices to the north-west of the Black Sea, leaving the already noted regional differences aside for the time being. The most important late Tripol’ye monument so far is the site consisting of two cemeteries of barrows and two flat-grave cemeteries situated in the vicinity of a contemporary settlement near the village of Usatovo. Archaeological research began as early as the beginning of the 1920s and was continued with frequent interruptions until 1985. For acceptable reasons, the four cemeteries failed to be entirely researched. The No. 1 flat-grave cemetery was studied in 1936 when only two graves were found. Immediately adjoining, 80 m to the south-east is the No. 1 barrow cemetery consisting of 20 kurgans, of which 15 have been studied, and 41 burials as well as 10 ritual structures were found. The flat-grave cemetery No. 2 lay 460 m south of the settlement and had in its vicinity, to the north, another three dilapidated kurgans. In the period from 1961 to 1973, thirty burials and fifteen ritual pits were discovered, which were situated mainly in two zones, north and south. The graves formed groups situated at distances varying between 8 and 66 m, and inside the groups consisting of 3 to12 burials, situated at distances ranging from 0.5 to 4 m from each other. Lastly, the No. 2 barrow cemetery was situated 500 m south of the settlement and 640 m south of the first barrow cemetery, and consisted of 10 kurgans, of which only three were researched in 1936, but 8 graves and 3 ritual objects were discovered. Between 1984 and 1985 another six kurgans were studied, but the results were not published. Even though the archaeological documentation is not always satisfactory and the anthropological determination is almost entirely missing, it is possible, however, to use the Usatovo finds, which provide so many funerary objects and such complexity of funerary layout and inventories, as to devise a model of the funerary practices which can later be applied to the rest of the late Tripol’ye area and can also be compared with other funerary finds of the same age in the immediately adjoining regions. As already shown, the appearance of burials in the late Tripol’ye group is surprising in a way, by comparison to the burial objects which preceded them, few and difficult to decipher. This prompts questions about the origins of the new behavior. Explanations based on “real” facts or supposedly foreign influences can barely solve the problem, they can postpone it, at most. The internal causes are insufficiently clear and the presumed demographic increase should be well argued before it can be taken into account. I tend to think, rather, that we had better talk of a complex of causes which joined internal evolution with external factors to determine the profound changes expressed only by

30

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

the phenomenon of burials that had a spectacular character by comparison with the immediately preceding period. One should not overlook the fact that in many late Tripol’ye funerary sites there are items such as daggers of copper-arsenic alloy and silver lock rings, and that these imply long-distance exchanges which will not only have permitted the circulation of certain artifacts but will also have led to social changes. These may account for the changes in the funerary expressions; at the same time underlining the internal hierarchy of the communities and their component objects and indicating the competition existing between them. The Suvorovo group is an altogether artificial creation and the stratigraphy of the archaeological objects attributed to it does not reflect the anteriority of the “group” but the anteriority of some Usatovo graves in respect to other Usatovo graves and the succession of graves on the same burial site. Barrow burials with complicated stone structures are already known in the Maikop group, and the relations between the Tripol’ye C2 and the Maikop sites mediated by the Nijnyi/Nizhni Mikhailovka group are well known. At present it is impossible to specify which of the groups played the main role, though noting a tendency of precedence by Usatovo communities. These relations could provide explanations for the borrowings of funerary elements, but they cannot help establish which of the two groups came first. In the Crimea, in the Kemi-Oba milieu, there are many graves in barrows where cists made of stone slabs were discovered. There is a series of finds, especially pottery, that testify to contacts with the Globular Amphorae Culture and indicate potential ways in which certain funerary fashions may have penetrated, the construction of slab cists or the erection of barrows, for example, both of which are fully attested customs in the area where the Globular Amphorae Culture was spread. One important point of view expressed in this discussion is Y. Rassamakin’s argument. In his opinion, in the last and fourth stage of a long process of evolution of funerary traditions, which could be placed between 3500/3400 - 3000/2900 BC (?), it is possible to note the merging of some Usatovo customs, including the use of barrow burials, with other customs that arrived from the Maikop/Novosvobodnaia area. Rassamakin is convinced that these mutual relations must have been the result of migrations that occurred in the context of a general crisis. The appearance in this region of Repin pottery from the region of the Don constitutes, in the opinion of the same author, the first affirmation of the Yamnaya tradition. Rassamakin’s opinions are worth retaining in their majority. But they need to be qualified precisely in respect to the Maikop or Usatovo migrations. I prefer to believe that here we have to do with increasing contacts between two groups with a strong individuality each and engaged in exchanges of goods and customs and fiercely competing with each other. I think the main structural element of the late Tripol’ye funerary standard is the organization of strictly delimited funerary areas adjacent to settlements, since this is the time when we no longer find clear instances of burials or deposits of human osteological remains within settlements. The clearest proof for this is at Usatovo or Majaki. Once the

funerary area was circumscribed, it was structured inside once again. Apart from the family plots, at Usatovo we have the proof for two distinct funerary zones distinguished by means of ritual elements which were articulated by means of exterior layout structures. One of the zones is characterized by barrows, the other by their absence. And the situation seems even more complicated because the two zones crossed each other in the case of Usatovo. But we cannot deduce the opposition of the two from the site layout; rather, we have to do with a dialogue of sorts, maybe the equivalent of the dialogue existing between the social sub-units to which the respective areas were destined. Today we cannot tell what the realities of everyday life were, which the barrow zones and the flat-grave zones at Usatovo corresponded to, but it is obvious that they reflected the structure of the community in the neighboring settlement. The funerary units or barrows which make up the barrow graves at Usatovo, just like the numerous kurgans with such burials on the steppes of the Bugeac region or in the more northern region towards Basarabia, prove in their turn to be collective funerary structures. It is quite probable that they were “family” plots of land, and that the people buried in the kurgans were related to each other, kinship and blood relations as well as matrimonial relations, which played the main role. But there is a certain hierarchic tendency to be noticed inside these collective funerary structures, which is indicated by the variability of the external and internal structure, since it is obvious that a greater effort or social energy was spent for a grave with a ring or with a stone cist, than for one represented by a mere pit. Again, it is hard to know who such expensive funerary layout structures were destined for, but we can observe the existence of a group hierarchy which determined such funerary expressions. Burial was the exclusive funerary rite. There are no deviations as regards the way corpses were treated, though here and there isolated cremation graves were found. Incineration is the funerary rite of the Sofievka group, but in spite of the presence of certain ceramic forms or little modeled figures among the objects of this group, it does not pertain to the Usatovo world which it came into contact with. The position of the corpses in the funerary sites of the later Tripol’ye period is a lateral crouch. A fair number of skeletons can be seen to be lying on their backs but they are not in the majority. In all the three cemeteries at Usatovo, of the 49 tombs where skeletal position could be established, those lying on their backs are no more than 9, i.e., 18.36%. At Vîhvatinţi, of the 39 skeletons only 5 were lying on their backs, i.e, 12.82 %, and at Majaki, of the 31 skeletons that had a specified position only four were laying on their backs, i.e., 12.90%. The percentages for the three main funerary sites of the Usatovo group do not reflect reality, since many of the graves were destroyed. This means that the real per cent values were certainly different, but if we accept the margin of error for each cemetery, it seems likely that the quantity of dead lying on their backs was about 15 %. We do not know the significance of this fraction of the whole. Neither does it seem that sexual differentiations were its cause, so far as we can tell

31

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu from the very few graves analyzed. The lack of anthropological determinations for the greater part of the later Tripol’ye burials makes the attempt to pinpoint the gender difference in each ritual or episode of the funerary ceremony difficult. However, there are elements – such as the alternation of oval pits with rectangular pits – that seem to indicate a certain degree of differentiation of this kind, although it is not also expressed in the way the corpses were laid out, if we take into consideration their orientation in space, which makes them appear as approximately unitary. Another feature of the late Tripol’ye funerary standard emerges from this point of view, namely the way the deceased were laid in the grave, similar for the two sex groups, and children, too. This means that the expression of the fact that they belonged to one or the other sex was relegated to other practices than the funerary ones. Objects completely devoid of human osteological remains and, in rare cases, with just a few such remains were found in some great funerary structures of the Usatovo culture. Most of these objects belonged to collective kurgan-type funerary structures and some of them had complicated plans, presupposing great social energy spent. Their automatic interpretation as symbolic graves, however, is not always archaeologically supported, since at Usatovo at least some of these graves did have remains of human bones, although they were in extremely tiny fragments. This precludes, in these cases at least, their interpretation as cenotaphs. I think that in order to even begin to understand their significance we need to recall the not very uncommon graves, in the area as a whole, in which skulls were found but no post-cranial skeletons. I will again express my opinion that these presumed “skull graves”, next to which objects with human bone remains in very tiny and very few fragments were found, could actually be regarded as the heritage of older traditions that had to do with deceased people. It is quite probable that these objects are archaeological proofs of postmortem manipulation of corpses, which were in time deposited in other places or disinterred. Consequently, the objects encountered at Usatovo in wide cemeteries, which were called “ritual pits” and were devoid of osteological remains, just like other smaller groups of graves, must still be regarded as family graves, as was the case at Dancu, for example. Given that they are relatively frequent, they cannot be considered symbolic graves for individuals whose corpses could not be retrieved, since we would then have to accept that every family encountered this problem, which is very hard to believe... If we also take into account, as we should, the common presence of hearths at the bottom of graves or the traces of cremation, then the “ritual objects”, the hearths and traces of cremation may be considered material traces of secondary rites which were part of funerals, more exactly part of the episode destined for the burial proper. The fact that many graves did not have such an adjacent object may mean that these ritual practices were reserved for the preferential treatment of only some individuals, or else, at least when such practices are met with inside collective structures like the kurgans, they were rites destined for all of the people buried inside such mounds. These assertions

I make are not much more than a supposition, a working hypothesis which needs to be verified by new finds. As regards practices related to the funeral, it is likely that their last episode could be the animal skeletons or skulls deposited either in the graves, or adjacent to the graves, in the barrows’ very strictly delimited space. Pottery is the inventory category that appears in almost all of the Usatovo graves and as main category, at least statistically. It points to the ceremonial obligation to deposit food for the long journey of “the departed”... Sometimes the number of vessels deposited near the deceased is very considerable, as at Vîhvatinţi, in Grave M. 18, for example. But even if we leave aside this exceptional case, there are still enough graves with more vessels than was strictly necessary for the deposits of food intended for the deceased. It is already known, for example, that in the later Bronze Age in Italy there was a custom of depositing vessel assortments which expressed the privilege of the deceased, sometimes of the feminine gender, to give feasts. Given that the large number of vessels is associated every time with special inventory items, like formal dress items made of precious metals and daggers, it is obvious that such complex sets of funerary inventories ought to be explained by the personal prestige of such deceased and they should not be connected only to their symbolic function as food offerings for the deceased. But the fact is that the social prestige of each individual is expressed primarily by the structure of the grave in which s/he was placed and only secondarily by the accompanying inventory. When the two categories of funerary expressions are associated, however, it is clear that we have to do with prestigious persons, reflected in the first place by the privileged position they occupy within such collective funerary configurations as the kurgans and, in the second place, reflected in the community structure. It all amounts to saying that here we have, in all likelihood, graves belonging to leaders of presumed social sub-divisions, heads of families or nations, whose burials in kurgans created a centre around which other graves clustered in each orbit. If we regard the barrows in this way, then we can see, in our mind’s eye, a virtual funerary space which is more complex than its material expression. But at the same time we could catch sight in this way of the nether world as another kind of virtual space, differently imagined and equally complicated, even when it is expressed by flat-grave burials. At Usatovo, the two funerary zones seem to be in a sort of continuous dialogue or perhaps competition that in all likelihood exactly mirrors the relations between the two sub-divisions of the living people’s community. Simultaneously, the preoccupation of the living for the funerary ceremonials in the two zones proves that another uninterrupted dialogue went on between the settlement and the funerary zone as a whole. I believe this may be the perspective in which the Tripol’ye burials should be regarded, since they were situated at the onset of a long journey leading far into subsequent ages. If it was possible to circumscribe a funerary standard for the later Tripol’ye area quite satisfactorily, and even consider it as a cultural defining element, for the immediately adjoining zone to the west of the River Prut things fare less

32

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

well in this respect. The reduced number of funerary finds here (see the list in Chapter 7.3) raises problems about the conditions of their discovery, which are not always satisfactory. The difficulties in understanding increase because of the excessive fragmentation of the archaeological landscape and because of the artificial creation of some cultural groups and grouplets that prove inexistent when examined closely. If we leave aside the “offstage” or “study” distinctions, however, we must remember that there are certain elements in the scarce funerary sites that make them different from the Tripol’ye area, on the one hand, while placing them chronologically close to them, on the other, which encourages one to think that they will give insight into the whole range of related archaeological phenomena, if they are approached by systematic excavations and the systematic ordering of the information. It would be advisable to start at the two ends of the region, to the north, that is, by the adequate study of the cemetery at Suceava-Parcul cetăţii, and to the south, by re-examining the finds from the Brăiliţa cemetery, for example, which allegedly pertain to the Cernavoda culture. Instead, we are confronted in both cases with two exceptional archaeological monuments which, on the one hand, are very important, while on the other hand they have been treated with a remarkable lack of professionalism in research, publication and explanatory discussion. The scarcity of the Globular Amphora Culture finds in Moldova (see the list in Chapter 7.4) and generally in the area considered here and their patchy character do not permit us to propose more than a sketch of the funerary standard, consisting of the following main elements: stone-slab cists, a relatively unitary layout of the deceased, collective graves that indicate how important it was that the deceased pertained to particular social sub-units/families, inventories in which weapons - flint axes - rank first, alongside numerous large vessels, about which one wonders if they could be indicative of commensalism, prevailing masculine inventories, which were associated with the “main” position that men presumably had. The inclusion of bovines in the ceremonial sphere could also be added to the list, possibly as the result of subsistence and exchange techniques, which were based on raising large animals. This is not much, but one can already see in it a change of emphasis to a very expensive funerary expression, characteristic for small communities that were led by a “head”. This was the extension of a practice specific to other media and not met with in former times, but bearing the completely novel signs of an emerging new age. What is even more important is, however, the fact that some of the elements specific for the funerary behavior of this group were transmitted to the cultural groups immediately following. There are a number of funerary finds of some importance at least as regards the structures, if not also for the chronological and cultural attribution, some of which have been cited in the literature and attributed rather imprecisely either to the “transition period from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age” or to the beginning of the Bronze Age. They are all to be found in Muntenia, Transylvania and the Banat. Their common and distinctive feature is their uncertainty in respect to the character of the

finds as a whole, which was mainly caused by the absence of documentation, but which has also failed to prompt any specialist so far to embark upon an even minimal review of the conditions that led to the discoveries so as to ascertain their real archaeological context on site. Twelve finds are in question here (see the list in Chapter 7.5), only eight of which are the result of relatively systematic excavations while the rest of them are fortuitous finds. None of them has been satisfactorily published, however, and the only information we have comes from references too cursory as to be for serious discussion. Only at Borduşani, Coşereni, Lişcoteanca, Ostrovu Moldova Veche and Sânnicolau Mare, perhaps is baldly stated, there was more than one grave, all the others being cases of singular grave finds. The most important of these seems to be that of Ostrovu Moldova Veche, where two barrows were discovered on the islet of Ostrovu; the first of them with a diameter of 12 m diameter, was covered by a mantle made of earth and had a ring of boulders, which surrounded a cinerary urn-grave and some adjacent vessels, all of these covered by stones. A copper ring was also found. In the second barrow, two cinerary urn-graves were discovered, one that had at its side other vessels while the second held only the vessel that served as urn. A very important fact is the find of “a small hoard” between the two graves on the second barrow, which consisted of dress items made of metal – one lock-ring with a leaf-shaped end and one end of plain copper wire as well as two Noppenringe made of twisted copper wire. The documentation of Ostrovu Moldova Veche has never been published. The graves were attributed to the Vučedol culture, justly counted as the only funerary find of this kind on this side of the Danube. All we know about Boldeşti is that several cemeteries were found here, of which the №3 necropolis “consisted of inhumation graves with deceased dating to the transition period towards the Bronze Age”. This cemetery may have its own importance since the materials available for the “transition period” in this region indicate, on the basis of the painted pottery discovered, a late Tripol’ye/Cernavodă-type presence, whose relation with the first strands of the Monteoru culture is far from being elucidated. Some burials ascribable to the Cernavoda group were mentioned in a short excavation report, having been discovered during the systematic excavations at Borduşani. An inhumation grave with a crouched skeleton was discovered at Checea as a result of surveying a barrow. There is no other information about this find. The presence of a barrow grave in this part of the Banat is not surprising because there are sufficient finds of this kind that belong to the Yamnaya group, which could well include the grave at Checea. The older finds at Coşereni could have contributed to solving several problems regarding the beginnings of the Bronze Age in the Bărăgan Plain, if we judge by the few data available for the respective prehistoric settlement, studied by salvage excavations in 1963. They say some flat-grave burials were discovered in the area, which contained crouched skeletons that could be related to the settlement, but we do not know anything beside that. Judging by the extremely few published data on the ceramics in the settlement, we can say that it comes close to the Cernavodă-type finds. In 1962, during

33

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu archaeological excavations in the vicinity of Cuci village, situated on the banks of the river Mureş, some “cremation and inhumation graves” were found on the site which bears the name Szörösdomb and they were dated to the Early Bronze Age. But the total lack of details reduces this find to a mere piece of actually useless information. A stone-cist burial grave discovered in the tell-settlement at Gumelniţa has long been in circulation. It is only known to have been discovered in the “Gumelniţa D layer” and to have contained a crouched child skeleton together with a vessel characteristic for the “stage D”. The find has never been presented in detail, so that we cannot give an answer about its attribution, which is, therefore, as promising as it is useless. Another flat-grave burial with a crouched skeleton was discovered in unspecified conditions at Jucu de Sus and was considered “to date from the Neolithic or Bronze Age”, but with absolutely no supporting arguments. Like the other finds discussed here, the Jucu de Sus grave is of little use. The ten inhumation graves at Lişcoteanca, discovered on the surface of a Gumelniţa tell during systematic excavations dating from the years 1970-1976, are frequently mentioned in the literature. There are no plans for any of the graves unearthed here which could provide a clue about the structure of the entire find, and only five of all the graves mentioned are documented by in situ photographs. The short presentation allows us to retain the information about grave 1, which had a skeleton lying on its back, oriented west-south, just as the skeleton of grave 4, which was oriented west-south-west and east-north-east and each had one vessel at its side. The skeleton of grave 11 also lay on its back, but was oriented east-west. As regards the rest of the graves, graves 11, 14, 16 and 20-21 had skeletons crouched on the left side and grave 22 on the right. Graves 20 and 22 had the skeletons oriented north-east – south-west and west-east, respectively, while the rest were oriented in the east-west direction. Judging by the decoration of the vessels, grave 1 may be placed in a mature moment in the Bronze Age evolution, while grave 4, which had in it a bowl decorated with garlands impressed by cord, comes close to the barrow burials of Katakombnaya type, especially, if we take into consideration the position of the skeleton lying on its back. Another three vessels were discovered, one in grave 11 and one in grave 12, which had uncharacteristic shapes, for example, a jar, a cup, a bowl resembling in shape that found in grave 4. Being lumped together, the graves at Lişcoteanca were considered as being contemporary to those unearthed at Hârşova, judging by the presence of the cord-impressed decoration. Following S. Morintz, the Lişcoteanca burials, could be included in a later stage of the eastern penetrations into the Romanian Plains. They were seen as contemporary with the burials at Stoicani, Baldovineşti, Gârceni, Bogonos and with some of the graves at Ploieşti Triaj dated to the Middle Bronze Age by taking into consideration a vessel considered as belonging to the Tei culture discovered in grave 5 at Baldovineşti as well as relating it to some Monteoru-type Ia vessels found at Ploieşti Triaj, in barrow №1. The same author also argues that some inventory elements have “analogies in the catacomb culture and the Early Srubnaia culture”. One other grave occupying the

same chronological position was discovered at Râmnicelu during systematic excavations in a settlement ascribed to the Cernavodă I culture. It contained a buried man with the skeleton crouched on the left, oriented east-west and having a jar-vessel by its side, which served for considering the grave contemporary with the discoveries at Baldovineşti. In 1900, during some industrial improvement works, a barrow situated in the vicinity of the Sânnicolau Mare locality was destroyed. “11 vessels filled with ashes” were found, which normally indicated the presence of a funerary site. Again, the lack of details prevents any qualified discussion of the case, but we should not exclude the possibility that the find at Sânnicolau may have been one of the barrow burials so thoroughly documented in the plains region situated at the confluence of the rivers Mureş and Tisza. As the result of a small-scale survey on a barrow lying on the upper slopes of a hill near the Valea Argovei locality, “a deep pit, 1.40 m from the current ground level, and containing the same kind of earth as initially deposited for building the barrow” was discovered; it was considered a cenotaph and dated by the author of the excavation to “the period of the ochre burial practices spreading from the end of the Neolithic Age to the end of the Bronze Age”. The information is synthetic, clear and it excuses me from making any comments! Last but not least, one more burial grave is reported to have been discovered in very imprecise conditions at Valea Mare, near the town of Olteniţa and it is considered as one of the burials which “illustrate the last stage of the period of transition towards the Bronze Age”. Maybe some of the funerary finds discussed above deserved more competent attention, but they are only some of the examples on whose basis archaeological phenomena of varying importance were assessed and defined, leaving just their conclusions to be recycled later and causing the loss of the “solid” archaeological documentation. In reality these funerary finds are less than useful for our current discussion since they are hard, if not really impossible, to place in relation to any particular archaeological phenomenon. The chorologic position of the phenomena from the east of Muntenia calls for establishing relations with the problematic Cernavodă group and especially with the red ochre barrow burials which have appeared in the region ever since the beginnings of the Bronze Age. The burials from Transylvania and Banat cannot serve as grounds for making more nuanced observations about the horizon of the earliest Bronze Age. They are sure to find their natural place only when thorough research has been made at last in the areas where they were discovered. The barrow graves in the north Pontic steppes attributed to the Bronze Age drew the attention of the antique collectors and archaeologists as early as the 19th century and thousands of them have been excavated so far. Apart from the sometimes impressively big barrows, many of these burials were also characterized by the presence of red ochre spread, as it were, over the bones, which was responsible for the name they were given as “the red ochre burial group”. The very large area of these burials lay from the Ural and the Caspian seaboard to the east as far as the line of the river Tisza to the west, already in Central Europe. To the south and south-west, the limit is the Caucasus range and the north and west

34

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

bank of the Black Sea. Quite a large number of barrow burials was discovered in the south-western part of this area, on the right bank of the Danube, between the line of the river Danube and the Stara Planina range, and further barrows were found as far as the river Maritsa. A group of burials of this kind has been known from older and more recent research projects in today’s Serbia, being concentrated approximately in the area of the confluence between the rivers Tisza and Danube as we can see it today and reaching down south to the river Morava, where they are less frequent. As a whole, the Yamnaya (Pit-Grave) burials have quite a uniform aspect in respect to the funerary zones and structures, even though the area which this category of funerary monuments occupies is vast. One first observation to make is that the Yamnaya burials pertained to well delimited funerary zones that consisted of barrows. The numerous situations where nothing more than isolated graves which belong to a single barrow are known are, as we could see, due to summary research and to the high costs of exhaustive research, which were often forbidding. Wherever exhaustive research was possible the groups are more than evident and we have been able to observe distinct funerary zones or cemeteries for the entire Yamnaya area. Unfortunately the type of habitat characteristic of these communities is such that up to now we have been unable to detect the settlements that should go with them, in spite of the widespread area and the long duration of this funerary custom. There is no way we can tell to what extent we have to do here with communities that were on the move over quite large areas or with stable communities. However, one thing is sure: resorting to barrows and barrow-clusters was permanence and the barrow cemeteries most certainly belonged to distinct communities, even though we cannot pinpoint their settlements. At present, it is not possible to examine the relation between the funerary area and the dwelling places. At most we can presuppose that the relation between the cemetery and the settlement did not carry much weight in the Yamnaya funerary standard. The main characteristic of the Yamnaya funerary monuments is given by barrows, some of which were of considerable size. Sometimes researchers stressed the relation between the dimensions of the barrows – the diameter and depth – and the number of burials, which seems sensible enough, since the barrow “grows” with every burial while new layers of earth, or mantles, are added. The amount of work required, which is shown clearly not only by the mass of earth handled but also by the “final” structure, stands as proof for the observance of certain rules and of the social energy spent, which in its turn reveals the important role of constituting a funerary zone corresponding to the social status of a social sub-unit that also bore traces of hierarchical structuring. The huge number of funerary barrows recorded in the entire Yamnaya area and the barrows’ chorologic structure exclude their ascription to characters with any special functions. It is very probable that these barrows constituted one way of expressing the solidarity of some smaller communities which had a poignant individual existence and a corresponding type of technological subsistence of their own, probably deriving from the practice of transhumant grazing, which, in its turn,

explains to a certain extent the absence of settlement traces. As seen in the already analyzed cases, the concentration of barrows seems o indicate in itself a certain “inclination” towards placing the members of these small communities according to specific postmortem layout patterns in zones that may have been previously consecrated. Layout structures such as peripheral ditches and stone rings are quite frequently met with, especially in primary burials. Peripheral ditches usually circumscribe earlier graves and were later covered with successive mantles of barrows. For the archaeological area studied here, such instances were found at Balaban, Baştanovka, Glubokoe and Ogorodnoe, all of them situated in the Bugeac region, while they are missing in the rest of the area. Circular ditches for the late Tripol’ye funerary objects were found at Baştanovka, Nerušaj and Ogorodnoe, where they underlay the Yamnaya burials and they consequently leave room for speculating that this kind of funerary layout was incorporated in the Yamnaya funerary standard as a tradition from the preceding stage. Round stone ditches were recorded in the same area at Balaban, Baştanovka, Bolgrad, Goran-Slatina, Gura Galbenei, Kalugerica, Kjulevca, Mihai Bravu, Milostea, Nerušaj, Ploieşti DN1 and Sărăţeni. To the east, in the remaining parts of the Yamnaya area, quite a large number of barrows with round stone ditches were found in the Ukraine and the Crimea, usually being destined for primary burials, which makes this kind of layout an element of the Yamnaya funerary standard. Precedents from the earlier Usatovo stage are also known in the circular stone ditches. It appears as quite evident that the peripheral ditches or the stone rings surrounding the barrows, which sometimes occurred in association, had the role of strictly delimiting the funerary zone and they corresponded to some regulations which were as categorical as the funerary standard itself. Once the funerary area, that is the barrow, was thus circumscribed, it did not become necessarily closed, and the subsequent burials, which sometimes followed at short time intervals, stand as living proof for this. The delimitation achieved in this way underlined the fact that the respective barrow belonged to a small social sub-unit whose members had exclusive rights for the use of the respective funerary space. To a certain extent, these ways of designating a funerary area could be seen to indicate the competition between communities, as did the barrows themselves. The structure of a Yamnaya funerary mound as such is displayed most clearly on the sites at Corlăteni, Glăvăneştii Vechi, Valea Lupului and Smeeni. In all four cases it can be observed that the funerary episodes - the burials – came in succession and allowed, therefore, both the primary funerary structures and their relation with the burials that followed to be visible. For the primary graves, with pits dug at the earlier occupational level, the sterile soil was usually deposited on either side of the pit, so that there characteristically existed smaller size mounds which covering the graves and it is likely that they were partially formed from the earth dug out of the peripheral ditches, wherever applicable, or they were made of earth brought from elsewhere. The absence of specialized anthropological determinations (e.g. DNA analyses) rules out any

35

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu attempt to establish possible kinship relations between the deceased who were successively buried in the mounds, but the general structure of the barrow “fields” allows us to suppose that each barrow represented one distinct funerary plot that belonged to one social sub-unit - a family, a clan (!?) - and there probably existed precise social relations that connected the deceased deposited on barrows, of which we cannot exclude ties of kinship, blood and/or marriage relationships. The few cases where 14C calibration allows us to determine the time intervals between successive burials seem to indicate that the funerary tradition, which was sometimes expressed by the use of the same barrow/mound for remarkably long time intervals, was retained. This is the case with the Zatoka-Akiembietskij Kurgan, where the earliest Yamnaya grave - № 14, is followed by other graves - № 17, M. 13 and M. 21, placed within an interval of circa 200 years. If this time succession model remains valid in the entire Yamnaya area, and I do not see any reasons to doubt it, then the entire object of the funerary plot or barrow was determined precisely by the social relations who existed in everyday life among those who were buried there after a while. One of the most important elements of the Yamnaya funerary standard is contributed by the type of funerary pit. There are three types of pits: rectangular, rectangular with steps and oblong ones. Starting from the fact that on numerous barrows primary barrows with a rectangular pit underlie stratigraphical the rectangular stepped ones, there is a time succession underlining distinct Yamnaya stages. Of a total lot of 1,020 Yamnaya graves in the area under discussion, it was possible to specify that the pit was rectangular in shape for 382 of them, for 167, the pit was rectangular with a step and for another 45 the pits’ shape in plan was oblong. Almost 40 % of the simple rectangular pits belonged to primary graves as compared to only 16.17% for the rectangular ones with a step and 15.55% for the oblong ones, thus indicating a higher age for the rectangular pits. But it should be stressed that the statistical analysis in question is heavily biased by archaeological research, more precisely to the degree of professionalism of the on-site observations, which was in this case minimal. From the chorologic point of view, it can be noted that rectangular pits were found in the entire area. Rectangular pits with steps reached no further than the line of the river Mostiştea, at Gurbăneşti, for instance, and to the south-west they stopped north of Kamča, at Carevbrod. Though more numerous on the east bank of the river Siret, oval pits reached as far as Perlez, Goran-Slatina or Kjulevca, and their chorologic distribution resembled, to a certain extent, that of the plain rectangular pits, while in the Tisza region they are missing. When they are correlated with the figures for pit types as regards position in the mound, the chorologic distribution suggested that the plain rectangular pits, compared with stepped pits, are slightly older. This indicates that apparently the Yamnaya funerary standard characterized by the presence of plain rectangular pits was spread in the entire area in the first stage, but then, in the subsequent stage, characterized by the appearance of stepped pits, the Yamnaya funerary standard became spatially reduced to a zone limited to the west approximately by the rivers Mostiştea, Buzău and

Siret. The fact that the oblong pits were well known in the late Tripol’ye milieu, whence they were very probably borrowed, is conducive to the same conclusion. Rectangular pits stepped or not, were often covered by wooden timbers and corpses were deposited on vegetal mats, while the pit bottom was covered by a chalk-like substance. In only two cases (at Baştanovka K. 4/gr. 13 and Glubokoe K. 1/gr. 14) were the graves with this kind of pits covered with stones. Considering the often patchy character of the archaeological information, it is hard to say if and how these last funerary standard elements developed in the course of time. Irrespective of the answer to these questions, it should be stressed that the passage to the rectangular pit with a step covered with beams represents an even more sophisticated expression of the social rank that the deceased had, and this new development corresponded to some social and inter-community changes, most probably standing for the increasing ferocity of the intra- and inter-community competition. Anthropomorphic stelae have often been found on Yamnaya barrows. It has not always been possible to specify their archaeological position or their relation to the funerary objects of the respective barrows, as anthropomorphic stelae or menhirs were even discovered in secondary positions on other barrows, one significant such case being that at Glubokoe where stone artifacts of this kind were used to cover the funerary pits. There are eight localities where anthropomorphic stelae have been discovered in Yamnaya barrows so far, and to them should be added another two from the region south of the Danube delta, where menhirs were found by accident, in a region with red ochre burial mounds too. Lastly, two more finds without a specified archaeological context were discovered at Baia de Criş, Gherla and Sărata, localities in northern Transylvania, where the only other Yamnaya funerary finds in the vicinity are those at Câmpia Turzii, Cipău and Răscruci. I have also placed on the map, together with finds of this sort, the excavations at Căuşani, Gura Bâcului, Krasnoe, and Olăneşti and, of course, Usatovo so as to outline their organic relation with the rest of the Yamnaya area. One first chorologic observation to make concerns the identity of the distribution in this area both of the menhirs and of the rectangular graves with steps, even though the relationship between the anthropomorphic stelae and the rectangular pits with steps could not actually be established in all cases. Another important element of the Yamnaya funerary structures are the stone rings surrounding the barrows. These rings are sometimes associated with the peripheral ditches since they have a similar role in the delimitation of the funerary precinct. There are a few cases, however, in which such structures do not define the collective funerary space, i.e., the barrow, but individual funerary objects in the barrow. The known situations are too few and the corresponding inventories are not always the most telling when they do exist, so they are of no use in determining more precisely the chorologic position. This is all the more so since such structures are also known in Usatovo graves, which points to the high probability that this tradition was actually inherited. It cannot be doubted that the observably high amount of social energy spent should be connected with the social status of

36

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

the deceased. Chorological, except for the grave at Ploieşti DN1, recently discovered and therefore still unknown, the rest of the graves with rings or individual structures with stones are distributed in the same locations as the graves with menhirs. Taking into account the existence of similar layout structures in the Usatovo burials, it is worth considering that this tradition may have been retained in some Yamnaya graves. Stone slab cists are a less frequent structure in Yamnaya burials. Thirteen such graves are known so far, in 9 localities, in the area discussed here. Most of them are secondary graves, the only exceptions being those at Czászárszállás and Oros-Nyirés in the Hungarian Puszta, where the cist graves appeared as singular in their respective barrows, in each of the two cases. The grave 2/14 at Boloteşti, which was secondary and lay in the north-western sector of the barrow, at - 0.70 m, contained the skeleton of an adult crouched on the left side, being oriented north-north-east and south-south-west and having a biconical bowl at its side. The very ordinary form of the vessel did not permit placing it in time any more precisely than did the stratigraphical position of the grave, equally unspecified. Another secondary grave, grave 8, with a cup of the Monteoru Ic2 type, found at Boloteşti in Barrow 2 is worth mentioning. It is most likely that the grave was closer to the similar burials of the Mnogovalikovaja group, though it is situated to the west of this culture’s area. At Glubokoe, in Kurgan 1/gr. 11, a skeleton was found crouched on its back with the legs oriented to the left in the north-east and south-west direction and it had been placed in a rectangular pit that had another massive stone slab as its lid, which was propped at the two ends on two slabs. It had a broken vessel as its inventory. The information for Hagieni is downright precarious since it is only known that the cist, in which a scattered skeleton was found, occupied a central position. Grave 5/4 at Kalugerica is a cremation one and the cist was placed in the mantle of the barrow. The urn used is a biconical vessel and has four lateral handles, which recall the Coţofeni milieu to a certain extent. Grave 5/4 of Kjulevca, with a buried man placed crouching on the left, with the skull oriented southward, had no inventory and was placed between two parallel stone rows rather than in a cist proper. The three graves at Tărnava were discovered inside some “cists”, which in fact large rectangular structures were made of stones, differing from cists proper. The connection between graves 5 and 6, on the one hand, and the rectangular stone structure, on the other hand, is not very clear, as the only certain relation between the layout with stones and the burial tomb is for Barrow 1/4. The other two graves were situated inside another big size rectangular structure, grave 5 having a cremated deceased in it, whose remains had been placed in a vessel with two vertical handles. Grave 6, with a buried deceased person whose skeleton had been interred lying on its back, in west-east direction and devoid of inventory, can be associated to the other Yamnaya tombs in the same barrow because of the rite and ritual. Due to the vessel with good analogies found at Măceşu de Jos, Grave 5 at Tărnava differs both owing to the funerary rite and the vessel used as an urn, which is specific for Coţofeni pottery. In the spatial perspective, such structures typical for the

Yamnaya funerary objects have been found in the area discussed here especially along the Danube, in its lower basin, with two finds located away from the area, in the Hungarian Puszta. Yamnaya tombs are known, however, in the region beyond the Dniester, in the Ukraine and the Crimea, among graves of the Kemi-Oba group. According to D. Telegin, the cist graves of the Ukraine belong to the Nijni Mikhailovka group, where they were found in association with menhirs too, as is the case at Ivanovka. In the late Tripol’ye milieu, precedents were recorded in the area of the northern Black Sea bank, at Usatovo, for example, so that it is likely that this custom was taken over from the burials of that archaeological group. But at the same time we should not forget that in the area dealt with here such graves have been well documented for the Early Bronze Age, and they most certainly represent, maybe only partially, offshoots of the Globular Amphorae Culture. It is relatively hard to specify the moment when the habit of erecting such funerary structures was incorporated in the Yamnaya funerary habits. The precedents recorded, which belonged to the Usatovo group, the Kemi-Oba type, the milieu of the Globular Amphorae Culture and the eastern areas, seem to indicate a quite early moment in time, but we should stress the fact that no primary Yamnaya grave has been found so far with such a layout. The relatively contemporary presence of funerary structures of this kind in the hilly parts of the Oriental and Meridional Carpathian ranges, in different cultural contexts, for example in the Schneckenberg group, invites the hypothesis that the stone slab cists penetrated in the Yamnaya milieux as “borrowings”, which were taken also from these last areas. This hypothesis is somehow supported by the often different ceramic inventories of the cists found on the barrows belonging to the “red ochre burial group”. Given their infrequent occurrence and chorologic disposition, the funerary layout of the stone cist graves constitute an adjacent, secondary element, though not completely unimportant, within the Yamnaya funerary standard, which would support the hypothesis of some borrowing, even if from neighboring areas. One of the most significant expressions of the Yamnaya funerary standard are the graves with wooden wagons, or rather the remains of wooden wagons, namely the wooden wheels that we find in funerary contexts. But it is necessary to insist from the start that this expression of the Yamnaya funerary standard is not omnipresent. The number of such graves is quite reduced in respect to the area as a whole, which makes them appear uncommon. The presence of remains from wagons in funerary contexts, which is specific for the burials in the steppes surrounding the Black Sea, and not the Black Sea only, has been much remarked. One of the main issues debated is, quite naturally, the significance of such deposits and their relation with the social status of the deceased. The discussion about the origin of this custom lies well beyond the scope of the present work, and it would at the same time require a remarkable extension of the geographical area, which is why we can only touch upon this subject in passing here. As the specialists of the late Eneolithic and of the beginning of the Bronze Age in the north Pontic region and Transcaucasia claim, the oldest graves of this kind

37

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu seem to have appeared in the Maikop culture, as has been ascertained for Kurgan 2/ Grave 18 of Starokorsunskaja, in the Kuban region, at a time corresponding to the latter half of the 4th millennium BC, noting that from here the custom spread into the Yamnaya milieu on the northern Black Sea steppes. At the same time we cannot ignore numerous finds that prove that wagons were in use in the Baden milieu of Central Europe, even though no graves with actual wooden carts were found. One cannot doubt the importance of means of transportation for the human communities of the time, such as the wagons with solid wheels, which explains the penetration of wooden wagons and of draft animals from the Baden milieu into the funerary ceremonies in various forms, one of which would be that of depositing wagons as such in graves. This is why the examination of their social significance and, consequently, of the place they have in the Yamnaya funerary standard and the Katakombnaya standard which succeeds it, must come first in the following discussion. In the area examined, 13 such graves are known, which were discovered in 10 localities, all of them situated on the Bugeac steppes, with two present in the middle Prut basin and one located away from the centre, in the region south of the Danube delta. These are the cemeteries at Balaban I - Kurgan 13/gr. 13, Etulia - K. 1/gr. 14, Holmskoe - K. 1/gr. 7, K. 2/gr 10, K. 2/gr 17, Kurči - K. 20/gr. 16, Novoselica - K. 19/gr. 21, Petreşti - K. 3/gr. 9, Placidol I - K. 1/gr. 1, Sărăţeni - K. 1/gr. 1, Taraclija - K. 1/gr. 16 and K. 10/gr. 18, Tatarbunar - K. 19/gr. 16. Of these, Etulia, Holmskoe - K. 1/gr. 7, Sărăţeni and Taraclija - K. 1/gr. 18 are primary in the second or the third mantle, but none of them are in a central position. They are ulterior to the first burials on the barrows. We have a 14C calibration for the Kurči grave, which places it at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC. Unfortunately, the series of four 14C calibrations of Kurgan 19 at Novoselica does not cover grave 21, but the oldest grave from this kurgan - K. 19/gr. 7 – was dated to between 3370 and 3000 BC, while the latest - K. 19/gr. 11 -, which was Yamnaya too, dates between 2360 and 2020 BC, so that it is quite likely that grave 21 too, which has a wooden wagons, could be dated to the first half of the 3rd millennium BC. By means of the radiocarbon dating of Barrow 1/grave 1 at Placidol I, we can assume that the wagon grave from the same mound dates to a similar period of time. One insignificant problem related to the place is the relatively small number of graves of this kind in the area studied here, especially if we take into consideration the quite large number of such funerary objects found north of the Black Sea or in Transcaucasia. But we could expect that the actual number of such finds was, in fact, much greater in the space examined here, if we take into account Ju. Rassamakin’s very pertinent observation concerning the infelicitous idea of using bulldozers to excavate funerary mounds, which may have led more often than not to the destruction of traces in the graves. It is quite interesting that, of the two graves with wood chariots for which there are anthropological determinations available, one - the Placidol I grave - had a skeleton of a woman, while the second - K. 1/M. 18 – was masculine. The lack of anthropological determinations is regrettable, moreover for graves that have very special

characteristics, as it prevents us from clarifying the relation between the uncommon funerary structures and the sex or age groups. For the Yamnaya graves with wooden wagon remains, which were discovered in the region to the west of the Dniester, the two graves with anthropologically determined skeletons are not sufficient. Not much more than seventy graves of this kind are known in the entire Yamnaya area, to which can be added perhaps also the area of the Novotitorovka culture, from the mouth of the river Kuban. Of these, only 14 had anthropologically determined skeletons, 11 of the graves being masculine, and 3 feminine. The statistical stock of the graves with completed anthropological diagnoses is not sufficient to allow us to say that the placing of wooden wagons in graves represented a privilege granted only to masculine individuals, even though the data available today would suggest that, but it justifies us instead to note that the placing of wooden wagons in graves predominated for men and was rare for women. One very important thing is that all these graves had a rectangular pit with a step, which situates them as belonging to the second stage in the evolution of this funerary standard. Further, the considerable quantity of earth excavated for such pits and the placing of wagons prove that the social energy spent for them was uncommonly great. The more recent interpretations of some finds in south Ukraine support the idea that such graves, which also express the fact that wheeled transport had already been invented, also existed in the Životilovka-Volčansk milieu, considered as late Neolithic. Such is the case with grave 7 of Kurgan 14 at Koldyri, in the basin of the lower Don river, in the region of Kuban and at Starokorsunskaja - K. 2/grave 18 -, in a surrounding considered to be contemporary with the late Usatovo groups, like the Kasperovtsy/Gordineşti and the Horodiştea-Erbiceni types, where numerous clay miniatures of wagon wheels were found. This seems to point, therefore, to a pretty early onset of this funerary custom that continued after the Yamnaya burials in the subsequent Katakombnaya group. It suggests that the custom of depositing wagons with solid wooden wheels in graves originated precisely where they were found, in the groups lying to the north of the Black Sea, which were traditionally dated to the late Neolithic. The remains of wagons which were found in the Yamnaya funerary objects usually consisted of solid wooden wheels, which were fully or partially preserved, usually four at a time, sometimes only two and placed on top of the grave, over the wooden beams that covered it, which further suggests that their hypothetical role as ceremonial funerary “hearses” on which the deceased were deposited becomes less plausible. The placing of wagon remains, of whole wagons even, in graves was undoubtedly the privilege of some outstanding individuals who came to the fore because of their social status, but I do not think this distinction acquired dimensions as dramatic as all this in everyday life as to encourage their interpretation in the sense of an “aristocracy” of the Yamnaya communities. As regards the funerary inventory, the wooden wagon graves do not have specific furniture, but fall within the range of the general Yamnaya funerary standard, rather characterized by “sobriety”. But the wagon graves of Kurči, Taraclija and Tatarbunar stand out because of the silver lock

38

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

rings that were found in them. Two more vessels were discovered in the grave of Taraclija, and one vessel together with some animal bones were found at Etulia, while the grave of Holmskoe yielded again a single vessel and the remains of one item made of bone. This sobriety of the inventory does not reduce, however, the importance of the graves with wooden wagons, so long as the entire funerary structure proves a kind of complexity which surely had a complicated ceremonial as its counterpart; this will have been brought about by the combined efforts of the community members, involving a remarkable expenditure of social energy, which certainly reflected the special position of the deceased. In itself, the custom of depositing wooden wagons in some Yamnaya graves should be retained as one element of this group’s funerary standard, an indubitably conditioned funerary standard, which also explains the fact that it was only of limited occurrence in space. In many of the Yamnaya burials hearths or charcoal remains and ash have also been discovered, which indicate a specific funeral practice. We have no way of find out whether or not the cases where hearths or charcoal were discovered were singular occurrences, since the objective research conditions could not be discerned. On the map, these cases shows an increased frequency, which was to be expected, in Basarabia, Moldova and Bugeac. The four finds of this kind in Muntenia and Oltenia provide sufficient research material for these areas, too. But surprisingly enough no such traces were found in the Bulgarian or Serbian burials, while in the Hungarian Puszta they were present and formed a quite distinctive group. Hearths doubtlessly attest a specific episode of the funeral ceremony, but it is hard to see what the exact significance of this practice was. Whatever the custom was, it is clearly attested in the archaeological sense and it should be retained as one of the secondary elements of the Yamnaya funerary standard. The way the deceased were placed in the Yamnaya graves is naturally one of the elements which define the funerary standard, especially in conjunction with the orientation and definitely in relation with the sex and age groups. When regarded synchronically, the variability in depositing the deceased – which involves the position and the orientation – may indicate the regional groups, which differ in respect to the funerary customs, and when it is regarded diachronically it may indicate an evolution of these practices, just as, when the two perspectives are combined, they may further indicate possible reciprocal borrowings of funerary fashions. The position of the skeletons in the red ochre burials has always constituted a favorite subject for specialists who have struggled to put together, no matter how precariously, the most adequate typologies applicable, as a starting point for determining the significance of various funerary fashions, on the one hand, and so as to attempt, on the other hand, their ordering in time. I would like to make it clear that various imaginable ways of connecting them need not be set in relation to the data from the anthropological diagnoses, and that this is still far from having been achieved with “red ochre burials”. I would also like to draw attention to certain statistical analysis procedures which are responsible for the fact that, as will be seen in what

follows, the proposed typologies, many of them detailed to the point of fantasy, are frequently contradicted by the statistical report. By following faithfully the model proposed almost fifty years ago by Ulrich Fischer, who established a typology of the positions in which the deceased were placed in their graves in various late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age groups of Central Europe, other specialists extended their determinations to further archaeological groups. The first attempt was made for the red ochre graves in the north Pontic steppes by A. Häusler, who took over U. Fischer’s typology and established 10 types - A-L - which were differentiated by the general position of the skeletons, either lying on their backs or laterally crouched, as well as by the position of the arms. We should note that the difference between types A-C, which came from the position of a single arm, was minimal and it could be just a matter of chance. The same can be affirmed about the types F-L. It can be noticed that in practice type E, which was introduced by Buchvaldek, is almost absent in the Yamnaya burials. At the same time, the state of preservation of the skeletons, which was not always ideal, did not permit using this typology in a satisfactory manner. But matters become more complicated only at this point, when numerous authors strove to quantify, in their reports, the degree of the skeletons’ crouching - slight, medium, pronounced - and the assessment criteria are very imprecise, even though they come complete with the values of the angles between the arm and the forearm, or between the hip and the calf etc. At the same time, I find inadequate the way of describing the skeletons as “crouched on their backs”, by contrast with skeletons “laterally crouched”, both of which were used by Häusler, since, in the first case, it is obvious that the corpse was placed in the grave lying on its back and with bent feet, raised above the ground but then allowed, by the laws of nature, to fall either together, on one side or the other, or separately, causing, in the last instance, the resulting position to be described by the figurative term “frog-legged” (Froschlage), while, in the second case, the corpse was placed laterally crouched, in a position that suggests the mental connection between sleep and death. Very minute observations were made on an impressive stock, consisting of 1,000 graves which were discovered in Basarabia, in their majority, but which were also found in the region of Odessa, by E. Jarovoj, who took the same methodological line, to establish an excessively detailed typology, featuring no less than 60 variants. At first sight, this was a downright impressive enterprise, but the statistical analysis made by the author of the typology himself throws a foggy veil, instead of shedding light, upon using the results obtained, since 38 of the variants were casuistically represented by examples of less than 1%, which means that they were statistically simply inexistent! One wonders also if the preservation state of the whole set of the 1, 000 Yamnaya graves were as satisfactory as to permit making such a “fine” typology! In fact Jarovoj was aware of these difficulties, but he did not give up the gratuitous minuteness of the analysis and ordered the 60 variants so as to obtain four groups with the following content: Group I – including the variants 1 to 27 -, with the highest casuistic frequency (604

39

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu cases or 60.4%), defined by skeletons stretched on their backs with the legs “in a diamond shape” or frog-legged (Froschlage), and consisting of the very densely representative variants 1 (129 cases or 12.9%) and 11 (246 cases or 24.6%); Group II - including the variants from 28 to 41 -, which had middle casuistic frequency (304 cases or 30.4%), and were defined by crouched skeletons lying on their backs with their legs on the right or on the left and featuring as best represented variants the following: 30 (117 cases or 11.7%) and 37 (108 cases or 10.8%); Group III – including the variants from 43 to 53 -, with low casuistic frequency (71 cases or 7.1%), and which were defined by skeletons crouched laterally on the right or the left side and which featured as best represented variants 45 (21 cases or 2.1%) and 50 (23 cases or 2.3%); Group IV – including the variants from 54 to 60 -, which had very low casuistic density (21 cases or 2.1%), were defined by skeletons lying on their backs and with stretched legs, and they featured as the best represented variant 55 (13 graves or 1.3%). It can be observed that in fact we have to do with two main positions - I the dorsal decubitus position and II, the lateral decubitus position, including variants whose objective reality is yet to be proven, since, as I said before, in the case of the corpses placed lying on their backs and with feet raised, the way they had fallen by chance, left or right, is the real “author” of the numberless variants established by Jarovoj. When regarding matters objectively, there are clearly two variants of graves with skeletons lying on their backs: those which were placed with the legs straight from the start, and those which were deposited with raised, bending legs; this means that the groups I, II and IV established by Jarovoj form a single, bigger group, in reality, which I shall provisionally term Group 1, and which has two sub-groups 1a and 1b. Even if its casuistic frequency is far from being impressive, Jarovoj’s group III, which consisted of graves with laterally crouched skeletons remains real and becomes what I term, again, provisionally, Group 2, and which represents the way of depositing the deceased in the so called “red ochre” graves. Jarovoj’s analysis did not confine itself to differentiating between the position of the upper and lower limbs, but went further to appreciate the degree of their bending, especially referring to the flexed legs, and attempted in this way to discover significant shades of meaning. “The statistic methodology” put forward by Jarovoj remains indebted to what can be called stuff-in-stock statistics, an elaborate variant, which rests, for its success, on the important issue of reckoning the stuff in stock in the diagonal line. What is to be regretted is that such absurd methodology was adopted without reservations by other authors who regarded the typology of this author from Chişinău as a kind of passepartout for dealing with the unknown quantities in the Yamnaya equation. One separate aspect of the groups and customs related to the way the deceased were placed in the Yamnaya graves is the frequency of the primary positions in which the graves of Group 1 and Group 2 appeared in the funerary mounds. In a data base consisting of 653 graves situated in the area under discussion, we can note a different pattern of development for the two groups. In the graves of Group 1, which contained skeletons lying on their backs, the primary positions

exceeded those which corresponded to those in the graves of Group 2, with laterally crouched skeletons. As regards the secondary graves, the frequency of those in Group 1 increases almost two times, while in the graves of Group 2, the frequency increases almost eight times. On the other hand, in the graves with the scattered skeletons, the frequency increases at least two times in the secondary burials by comparison with the primary burials. It results from here that most of the graves of Group 2, with crouched skeletons, are more recent than many of those in Group 1, with skeletons lying on their backs. But this is only the statistical tendency, not a final result, as it may well be the case that at least some of the Yamnaya graves with the laterally crouched skeletons are in fact quite ancient. However, we have already seen that there was many a double or collective grave in which the deceased had been placed in different positions in the same graves. There were graves with skeletons lying on their back side by side with laterally crouched skeletons, while in other double graves both skeletons were laterally crouched and generally facing each other, on the right and on the left, but had precisely the same orientation. It can be deduced with a quite high level of certainty that the different placement modalities and the combination between the two were determined by the social relations within the community, but there is no way to produce evidence for this. The absence of anthropological determinations is a major obstacle in understanding the relation between the two modes of placing the deceased, on the one hand, and the sex/age groups, on the other hand, and this problem is even more poignant as regards the graves with crouched skeletons. Chorological, it can be easily noticed that whereas the graves with skeletons lying on their backs are spread as far as the river Tisza, the skeletons with laterally crouched skeletons, though present on the same barrows as the deceased who were placed lying on their backs, do not reach any further west than a line corresponding to the confluence of the rivers Olt and Danube. The only exception in this respect is the grave at Tiszaeszlár. The attempts to chart the graves with skeletons lying on their backs in accordance with the two sub-groups is an extremely difficult enterprise, since the state of preservation did not always allow researchers to make detailed differentiations, which would have produced random chorologic results, consequently distorted. The orientation of the Yamnaya burials constitutes a difficult issue. The frequent attempts of the specialists to discover potential rules have had no convincing results, which can be seen when following the connections of this kind made for the Jarovoj groups. I think the first thing to blame in this matter is the attempt to make “global” hypotheses, without taking into account the individuality of each barrow or kurgan as a self-standing funerary precinct, although the barrows have indeed been grouped so as to designate a larger funerary zone. This is shown by the separate graphs which gather groups of positions – with the skeletons lying on their backs and with the laterally crouched skeletons – both cases graphically showing the radial position clearly, valid also for the skeletons crouched on the left or on the right. But since the position of the graves on the barrows is conditioned by the date of

40

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

the burial, I have selected the primary graves of this date, which were, again, differentiated in terms of their position. The diagrams obtained in this way are perfectly similar. But there are some things to note in both cases. In the graves with skeletons lying on their backs there are no big differences between the orientations of the primary as compared to the secondary ones. However, there is a noticeable difference between the graves with the straight skeletons and the laterally crouched skeletons. Two main groups of graves with skeletons laid on their backs can be established, also taking into consideration the frequency of their occurrence: one is inclined to take the west-south direction, and another inclines in the opposite direction, oriented primarily S-E and N-W. For the graves with laterally crouched skeletons two main tendencies can be noticed, which take into consideration the frequency of their occurrence too: one tends to take the direction to the east, another, with fewer cases, taking the opposite direction, oriented towards the western sector. We need to make two corrections here. The first one refers to the not always very adequate method employed in establishing the “orientation”; sometimes the east-north-east orientation may well have been appreciated grosso modo as being north-east, or east, just as the east-south-east orientation could have been taken to be east or south-east etc. and this would somehow modify the diagrams, but without changing the concentration of their incidence factor. Yet another observation concerns the anthropological determinations. There are absolutely no anthropological data for most of the Yamnaya graves, which prevents us from deciding to what extent the recorded “preferences” in the orientation of the corpses in the direction of one or another sector, are connected with the sex groups. The problem must be left unsolved for the time being and is open to two diverging interpretations. Either we accept that there existed a bipolar and complementary rule for the placement of the corpses, if it can be proved that the placing of the male deceased followed its own criteria, separate from the criteria for the female deceased, or we take into consideration the possibility that the differentiations followed other rules, such as the fact that the deceased belonged to other categories, which cannot be archaeologically ascertained. On the other hand, as can be noticed in the case of the Yamnaya graves in the Hungarian Puszta, there are regional differences too, which complicates the situation and threatens to affect, even if just apparent, the “unity” of the Yamnaya funerary fashion. Taking into consideration everything, including these regional differences, which in fact are not manifest elsewhere than at the north-western periphery of the area under study, we must remark that there is a uniformity of sorts in the spatial orientation of the Yamnaya graves. This is so in spite of the modifications which may have appeared in the course of time as regards the placing of the corpses in the grave, either lying on their backs or laterally crouched, and appeared also associated with the restriction of the area, if we may put it like that, regarding the group as a whole. Though the orientation was relatively unitary and was dictated by the layout rules at work inside the limited space of the funerary precinct, the layout of the graves in

the barrows seems to have been differential, if the burials were sensibly close in time. The peripheral layout of the secondary graves in respect to the centre is opposed to the central layout of the primary graves. But the literature also records cases of secondary graves placed in the middle. The primary versus secondary graves is an opposition connected with the time factor, but irrespective of the chronological position, the grave layout on the barrow itself seems to express the relations existing between the particular ways in which the deceased themselves were buried. It is highly doubtful that the solution to the problem could be found along archaeological lines, but we should not exclude the possibility that the peripheral position of some graves reflected a different social status, which was in relation but also in opposition to the, potentially higher, status of the graves situated in the middle. In this respect, the Hügelrandprinzip, which was sketched out by Häusler, appears as perfectly natural and significant too, in view of the fact that it has endured. The continuation of the rule in the secondary burial horizon would also point in the direction of the endurance of funerary customs. The preservation of the rules of this kind for a remarkably long time seems to indicate a kind of conservatism and a kind of reservation in respect to the foreign influences, especially those from the west. When considering side by side the external and the internal structure of the burials, the methods of placing the deceased in graves and the common set of ceremonial rules and the various ways of placing the deceased in graves reveal more than a common set of ceremonial rules: the marked individuality of the family plots or barrows, which represent a characteristic of the Yamnaya funerary standard, corresponding to a particular system of social relations deriving from a specific subsistence technology in which the sub-units of each wider community enjoyed a certain degree of independence, while, at the same time, they laid stress on the group/family/clan solidarity when confronted with environmental stress. The funerary inventories of the 1107 graves investigated are represented by pottery in their majority (in 212 graves) and are followed by formal dress items made of precious metals (in 60 graves), copper (in 55 graves) or bone (in 21 graves). Weapons, as a masculine attribute par excellence, are represented by those made of metal (in 10 graves) or stone (in 17 graves), whose number represents a fairly small amount. But the numbers do not express the actual reality as regards the funerary furniture of the Yamnaya burials. I must invoke again the missing anthropological determinations which have prevented researchers from making connections between the various categories of items from the inventories, on the one hand, and the sex/age groups, on the other hand, not only in a synchronic but also in the diachronic perspective. Another limiting factor consists in the not always satisfactory state of preservation of the funerary objects, especially of the ones discovered in unpropitious conditions, when, as a rule, the inventories were completely recovered or lost, which makes the above numbers represent reality only partially. Research is also hindered by the intervention of chance in the investigations, for it is

41

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu not always and everywhere the case that excavations followed faithfully the Yamnaya burials, not to mention the “stakhanovist” digging procedures resorted to on state-funded sites. The analysis of the Yamnaya funerary structures and customs observed in placing the deceased in the graves has revealed at least two comprehensive categories every time, which call for a differentiated examination, all the more so as there are hardly any other differences to be made than the ones between children and adults, although they doubtlessly existed and were expressed by the corpse-placing customs in each of the funerary sites. No matter the configurations, it is easily observable that the majority of the graves of this kind do not have archaeologically examinable inventories, actually an element that serves for the definition of the Yamnaya funerary standard, if we regard things in a general statistical perspective. In trying to understand the significance of the presence or the absence of funerary inventories, I have considered it profitable to separate the Yamnaya graves from the start taking into consideration their – primary or secondary - order or position in the funerary mound and each of the two main categories of layout positions – lying on their backs or lying in a laterally crouched position. I have followed this procedure by taking into account the fact that, on the one hand, there existed a time interval between the two ways of placing the deceased in the graves, which is also statistically supported, while, on the other hand, the structure of the funerary precincts represented by the barrows provides archaeological proofs for the existence of a certain internal hierarchy. The frequency in the occurrence of the dress items made of precious metals, in this case silver and gold lock rings, is ostensibly higher in the primary graves with skeletons lying on their backs, by contrast to those pertaining to the same order but whose skeletons have been found laterally crouched. This difference is maintained in the two burial groups for the secondary graves also. We have come across a reversed situation for the copper or bronze dress items, as the laterally crouched skeletons are “richer” in such formal dress items. But since the silver or gold lock rings are typologically identical with those made of copper or bonze and their frequent associations are similar too, it is obvious that we do not have a chronological difference and a difference in sense. This is the case moreover, since the precious metal jewelry had a certain prestige value, which is also proved, when looking at things from another perspective, by the fact that they were widespread and appear beyond the corresponding zones with raw material deposits. Whereas the dress items made of bone have an incidence indicative of an approximately equal distribution, and weapons, whether they were made of metal, stone or bone, do not have statistically significant incidences, pottery has a specific dynamic profile. The presence of pottery in the graves with skeletons found lying on their backs is similar in the primary and secondary graves, comparatively and when relating it to the frequency of the dress items made of precious metals it is indicative of observable rigorous rules in funerary customs. For the graves with laterally crouched skeletons, the presence of clay pottery is over seven times greater in the secondary by contrast

to the primary graves. This difference is hard to explain since we have no way to know which of these positions crouched on the left or on the right, corresponded to the masculine and feminine burials. I find an apparently balanced occurrence of vases in the overall number of primary and secondary graves with skeletons lying on their backs as well as in the corresponding graves with laterally crouched skeletons – but it is very hard to give a bona fide archaeological explanation to this even occurrence. This indicates very clearly that the attempt to make a thorough, enduring discrimination of masculine versus feminine inventories along archaeological lines and criteria is doomed to fail. But the chorologic study of the main funerary inventory elements of the Yamnaya burials, in addition to the statistic analysis, is likely to bring clarifications. The different distribution of the silver, gold, copper or bronze dress items is obvious. Silver lock rings are the most widespread, since they cover the entire Yamnaya area under study here, reaching from the mouth of the Danube to the river Tisza. The gold items, fewer as a whole, occupy a correspondingly limited area, but not much more limited, being found in the Serbian Banat region. By comparison with the silver ornament, the smaller area of the dress items made of copper or bronze is very significant since they reach no “further” than Goran-Slatina. The chorologic difference can hardly have a chronological explanation. Precious metal ornaments, especially silver ones, with their prestigious significance constituted a product very liable to distant exchanges, which was precisely how it may have come to accompany the funerary custom “exports” that reached as far as the river Tisza, or even into other cultural areas. The dress ornaments made of bone had a more limited area and they were most “at home” in the area of the Danube mouth. The small number of weapon finds in the Yamnaya funerary objects came from a restricted area, which included the mouth of the Danube and the lower half of Basarabia. They appeared in rare incidents at Goran-Slatina and Ploieşti-Triaj. The scarcity of weaponry in the Yamnaya graves must be of considerable significance. But since no conclusions have been reached so far as regards the isolated weapons or weapon deposits found, which corresponded to the respective time, it is hard to tell whether or not the absence of weapons from the graves was due to their potentially separate regime, resembling other periods of the Bronze Age. At the same time, the absence of weapons, be they from metal, stone, or bone, raises the question of the possibility or impossibility to give archaeological shape to masculine attributes as they were expressed in the funerary ceremonial. Among the metal weapons the shaft-hole axes found in II K. 9/gr. 15 at Cuconeştii Vechi and Fălciu come first as tokens of prestige, being followed by the hatchets found at Ploieşti-Triaj and Goran-Slatina. As regards the other weapons, daggers follow - found in II K. 16/gr. 4, at Cazaclia, K. 1/gr 17, at Grădişte, 1 K. 1/gr 2 at Kurči and K. 1/graves. 6 and 17 and K. 10/gr. 19 at Taraclia-Hlinaia. Even though the daggers found were small in size, they can still be considered as tokens of prestige, not only in view of their rarity, but also because of the context of the discovery, for example that of K. 10/gr. 19 at Taraclia, where the dagger was found in association with two silver lock

42

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

rings, another two made of copper/bronze and two bone pearls. Stone weapons are less “spectacular” and they are represented by axes, which were sometimes found in association with other important items, such as the copper axe found at Fălciu and some flint arrowheads. A cudgel has been long known as a find in the grave at Hamangia. The inventory of the grave already mentioned at Fălciu allows identifying the significance of stone weapons with that of comparable metal items. Considered to be a proof for the custom of depositing food next to the deceased, bone animals were discovered in 32 Yamnaya funerary contexts at 19 localities. But two of these cases were discoveries of entire animal skeletons: a bird skeleton found in K. 5/Grave 10a at Gradeşka and a dog skeleton found in K. 9/gr. 9a, at Nerušaj, which raised the issue of whether we may not have to do here with symbolic deposits, i.e. sacrificial oblations, rather than with food deposits. A horse skeleton and one of a dog were discovered at Baştanovka, in kurgan 7, but their relationship to either of the graves remains unspecified, though they definitely constituted cases of sacrificed animals. This is also the interpretation proposed by the contexts for the discovery of big animal skulls in K. 1/Grave 1 at Coslogeni (2000), where a bovine skull and some horse bones were discovered, or at Gradeška, where a skull was found in the mantle of kurgan 5 II, but without specifying the animal it had belonged to, one horse skull and another bovine skull discovered in K. 1/gr. 14 and one bovine skull in K. 10/gr. 14 at Nerušaj, one bovine skull in K. 3/gr. 11 at Sărăţeni, and another bovine skull in Barrow 3/Grave 1 at Verbiţa. In the other cases the specification is simply, as a rule, “animal bones”, very rarely mentioning which bones have been found, and even more seldom mentioning the animal species. It is very probable that we have food offerings in the cases where disparate bones have been found, but the significance is of a very different nature wherever entire skeletons or skulls of large animals have been found, as they indicate in this way the social status of the deceased. The Yamnaya funerary inventory often includes objects classifiable in the general category of tools, such as flint splinters, even, sometimes tools such as metal awls. Their presence, related to the mass of Yamnaya burials, can be described as reduced. It is impossible to dwell long upon their significance, but one must stress the presence of copper awls in the already mentioned graves at Cuconeştii Vechi or Taraclia. In the course of time there have existed many attempts to make syntheses about the Yamnaya burials, and Häusler’s study still remains the most adequate. But since the area of his preoccupations does not extend any further west than the river Prut he has left out the very distinct groups of burials of this kind in the region between the Middle Carpathians and the Danube, the Dobrudja and the so called Cadrilater, as well as the burials in the Banat and the Hungarian Puzsta. It is now possible to indicate a few elements of the Yamnaya standard for the area studied. The discussion of the funerary zones has shown the existence of distinct funerary precincts, which belonged to correspondingly distinct social sub-units of the everyday life as one of the main components of this standard. The archaeological investigation cannot decide if these were families,

clans or other kinds of social segments, but their existence as such is undisputable. I think this is the corner-stone of the Yamnaya funerary standard, since it is in dependence of the mortuary precincts, so visibly delimited in the funerary zones as a whole, inside which the other elements of the mortuary practices could be placed. The layout of the corpses, which points to the existence of an internal hierarchy of the funerary precincts, comes first and is indicated by material traces in the structure of the kurgans. Häusler’s well-known Hügelrandprinzip derives from the same internal hierarchy rule. The rules inspiring the orientation were evidently determined by this ordering principle, even if they depended on the sex groups. This pairing would lead to the recognition of a set of funerary customs consisting of the rules for depositing the deceased, the rules for delimiting the mortuary precinct from the exterior and the rules for the internal hierarchy structure, all of which remained unchanged in the course of time and constituted the nucleus of the Yamnaya funerary standard. The corpse layout is another very important component of the standard, though not included in the nucleus. As corpses had been laid in the grave on their backs as a characteristic for the entire locale in an earlier stage, it becomes easily noticeable that in the course of time the laterally crouched position appeared as a novelty, as we could see, even in association with the first position, in some double graves. In time, the custom of lying the corpses laterally crouched became entrenched as a general rule. The internal layout structures, of which the form of the pits was the most important, were naturally connected with each individual burial and it became a modality of expressing the social person of the deceased by the social energy spent. The pronounced variability has to be stressed, observable not only in the appearance of some new pit types, since there have never actually existed more than two pit types, but also in the co-occurrence of other kinds of layout, such as the wooden structures or the individual rings and so on, whose not very high frequency indicates their social importance, on the one hand, and the same variability as was noted in the position of the corpses, on the other hand. These last two components would, therefore, constitute another set of rules characteristically variable and governed by the main nucleus of the funerary standard. It is hard to pinpoint the causes of this variability in the Yamnaya funerary custom by strictly archaeological means, but it must have depended to quite a large extent upon the dynamic of the intra- and inter-community relations, which were in turn determined by the relations with the environment, i.e., by the subsistence strategies. As regards the material deposited in association with the corpses, one of the characteristics of the Yamnaya burials was the wooden wagon deposits. But a certain amount of variability was noticeable here also, since these deposits did not turn into strictly observed customs. The same observation can be made for the inventories as a whole, whether they consisted of pottery, dress items made of various materials, weapons or tools. As already shown, the scarcity of these categories of inventories pleads for their significance as tokens of prestige, especially as concerns the precious metal items or metal weapons.

43

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu This also holds true for the sacrificial animals, which seemed quite well represented and in various forms, though they were not the most numerous cases. I think it could be stated, therefore, that the Yamnaya standard was characterized by a main nucleus left unchanged in the course of time, alongside some funerary practices that had a certain variability, which did not affect in the least, however, the individuality of the standard. And I think that this apparent conservatism can rather be regarded as the need to lay stress also on the identity of the group and the intra-community solidarity as a sine qua non for survival by means of the mortuary expression, rather than as a manifestation of the resistance to any pressing “novelties” from outside. This is all the more so given the fact that some of the inventory elements prove a solid involvement in the system of long-distance exchanges. The Yamnaya burials were followed, in very general lines, by the burials ascribed to the Katakombnaya group, which most of the specialists of the Bronze Age in South-East and East Europe agree to situate in the Middle Bronze Age, irrespective of the specific content ascribed to this notion by the various national schools. However, it is a fact that catacomb graves were spread over an extremely large area, reaching much farther than what is understood today by “the culture of the graves with catacombs” or Katakombnaya. As they had a complicated structure, whose construction required a considerable effort, the graves with a catacomb or lateral mortuary chamber were used as prominent expressions of the elevated social status of some deceased. But the idea could have derived from the steppes lying to the northern Black Sea, where this kind of graves seemed to be “at home”. The graves pertaining to the Katakombnaya groups were a little less time-resistant in southern Basarabia and were equally rare and scattered in both north and south Moldova, though this is precisely the route by which they reached the east of the Bărăgan Plain, where they count as the westernmost discovery of their kind so far. They are represented by the Smeeni and Sudiţi burials, on the River Călmăţui. There have been attempts to add some more graves situated immediately to the west of the river Prut to the Katakombnaya finds but they cannot be taken into consideration as such either because of the less clear character of the find, or owing to the materials accompanying them, which show that they stand for other archaeological phenomena. The isolated discovery of some materials (vessels or stone weapons), does not attest any undeniable Katakombnaya “presence” but are proofs for the existence of certain exchange relations among the groups of the Bronze Age in the Carpathians and those in the adjoining regions of the plains, as the vessel characteristic for the Monteoru Ic3 style from the catacomb grave find at Matca proves. In fact we can make such limiting observations from the same point of view for the 12 “certain” finds (for which see the list in Chapter 8.1.2). But from the start we can note quite clearly that the number of Katakombnaya sites to the west of the Prut is by far smaller in comparison with the Yamnaya finds, which seems to indicate a considerable restriction of the area controlled by the shepherd populations who appear to have constructed these burials. All the funerary finds attributed to Katakombnaya come

from systematic excavations, but the archaeological information has not always been published thoroughly. In fact, except for the graves at Balaban I, Matca and Smeeni, there are no plans of the grave pits, since the catacomb itself is the main element which enables investigators to make sure classifications of these finds I think we should keep in mind the quite significant fact that to the west of the river Prut, Smeeni is the only place offering such a group of graves, while for the other locations, Stoicani, for example, we dab in uncertainties. By comparison with the great number of preceding Yamnaya burials, the few catacomb graves in Basarabia and on the right, western, bank of the river Prut show that the influences from the east dwindled, whether they are actual population groups or funerary practice borrowings. This reduction occurred when the local groups “got consolidated”, as we can tell by the extension of their areas, for example the area of the Tei culture. At the same time, the actually meager presence of Katakombnaya burials does not justify the modifications claimed in cultural areas, such as the Glina group. The chronological interval for these graves situated to the west of the river Prut is not easy to fix clearly. A stone axe discovered at Năeni-Zănoaga, in the Zn.IIa layer, which is characterized by pottery of the Monteoru Ic4-1 style attests the oldest contact known so far between the Monteoru milieus in an incipient phase of Katakombnaya. A Spendegefäß vessel, specific for the Monteoru Ic3 repertoire, was found in a catacomb grave at Matca and it might indicate the continuity of these contacts. But we should not overlook the fact that at roughly the same time, in the “Ic3-Ic2 phases", flat-grave burials with catacombs were found at Cândeşti, and one of the funerary inventories features a disc-shaped buckle made of bone, an item characteristic to the Mnogovalikovaja group, in which catacomb graves were reported, though definitely not in large numbers. On the steppes to the north of the Black Sea, more precisely in the region between the Azov and the Caspian Sea, there are several catacomb graves for which we have recent radiocarbon calibrations which date the oldest burials of this type to the first quarter of the 3rd millennium BC. The series continues and the most recent graves were dated after 2000 BC, which underlies the debate about the attribution of the last catacomb graves to the Katakombnaya group itself, or already to the Mnogovalikovaja group, well documented at the time in Basarabia, the Ukraine and southern Belarus. In anticipation to the Mnogovalikovaia finds, we should note that it was possible to date this group by a series of radiocarbon dates to the time immediately following 2400 BC. For the level Ic3 from Sărata Monteoru we have one radiocarbon date which places it in the interval between 2230 and 1910 BC, when the first flat-grave burials with catacombs found at Cândeşti were also dated, but for the fact that owing to the disc-shaped buckle they ought to be seen as appearing there owing to contacts with the Mnogovalikovaia group. Consequently, the time interval to which the Katakombnaya graves proper, as known from Smeeni or Matca in the area of the plains adjoining the Carpathian Curve, were dated would correspond roughly to Monteoru Ic4-1 - and the beginning of the Ic4-3 phases/styles expressed in relative chronology terms. In absolute chronology,

44

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

the interval cannot be lengthy since one 14C date for the Zn.IIa level at Năeni places the contacts with the Katakombnaja milieu in the interval between 2350 and 1950 BC, then, shortly afterwards, in the Monteoru Ic3 phase/style, contacts with the Mnogovalikovaja group were already attested, which succeeded the Katakombnaja group burials in Basarabia, Bugeac and the Ukraine. But things are far from clear, since the grave at Matca seems contemporary with the burials ascribed to the Mnogovalikovaia tradition, as deduced from the vessel unearthed at Cândeşti and considered to belong to the Ic3 style. The short interval of the Katakombnaya burials also raises the problem of where some of the catacomb graves from the discussed area should be placed. Due to the absence of inventory elements, especially in the graves with crouched skeletons, it is very hard to specify if we are dealing with graves of the same group or graves that belong to the Mnogovalikovaia communities. Being defined for the first time once the Early Bronze Age burial cemetery at Zimnicea was published, the homonymous culture has not been sufficiently investigated, so that its area cannot be specified. This is fully regrettable in view of the exceptional importance of this Early Bronze Age group. The finds attributed to it are situated in a relatively narrow strip of land on the west bank of the Danube, between lake Suhaia and Călăraşi – Ostrov, and in the southern half of Dobrudja, judging by some materials of often unspecified finds. There are funerary finds reported south of the Danube, especially in the flood plain of the Danube, but the area of the group might be wider, since some materials from the lacustrine settlements at Ezerovo resemble them so closely as to even become identical. Because of two 14C calibration dates, the Ezerovo settlement could be dated to the first half of the 3rd millennium BC, and there are other radiocarbon dates from Kiten-Urdoviza and Junacite which help make a similar plea and provide correspondences with the Zimnicea group. The characteristic element is a cup with an oblique rim, also called askoid cup, with one handle raised above the rim. Similar vessels were found, in graves especially, in a large area upstream of the Danube in the Bârsa area, Muntenia, Moldova and even Bugeac, and they induced specialists to speak of Zimnicea communities moving to the north, when in fact they are more likely materials spread through exchange. For the moment, we have 4 Zimnicea funerary finds, all of which came from the banks of the Danube, and perhaps another three funerary contexts found in north-east Bulgaria. The latter are attributed to the Ezerovo II group but they cannot be ascribed to any particular archaeological group really, since the information is so scant. They are all finds of the latter half of the 20th Century., two graves, which were found at Mircea-Vodă and Olteniţa-Calomfirescu, were fortuitous finds and the cemetery at Zimnicea, with 54 graves, as well as the cemetery found at Batin, with 13 graves, have been systematically researched and end up as the only finds which allow discussing the funerary customs of the Zimnicea culture. It is possible to add the little group of four flat-grave burials found at Devnya and attributed to the Ezerovo II culture, considered contemporary with the cemeteries at Batin and Zimnicea, if we focus on explanations of the

funerary rite, the ritual details and the pottery in the funerary inventories. Only inhumation graves with crouched skeletons have been discovered in the Early Bronze Age Zimnicea group. It is not easy to specify the funerary standard of the Zimnicea communities with the data obtained from the cemeteries investigated. We can only state that these communities used large flat-burial cemeteries, in which the dead were laid down in laterally crouched position, generally on the right and oriented to the south. As we do not have any precise anthropological diagnoses, we cannot tell if the differences noticed in the rite had anything to do with the sex or age groups. For example, the use of red ochre and the dress may be related to the sex or age groups. But it can be stated with some degree of certainty that in the Zimnicea and Batin cemeteries the respective populations did not have the habit of laying the deceased in the grave differently depending on the sex or age groups. The funerary inventories are, in general, modest since only 31(46.30%) of the ascertained burials have vessels and only 6 (8.95%) have inventories. There are very rare exceptions, in cases where the dress items made of silver or copper have been found in association with layout structures made of stone and most probably belonged to individuals with an elevated social status. In this connection we must stress that, judging by the documentation available at present, the mortuary inventories do not include any weapons or tools that may have been in use in this culture and the status or rank of the individuals was expressed by dress items and the funerary structure. We have no observations about the relations with the settlements and the anthropological diagnoses did not provide any further clarifications. But what is surprising is the presence of some communities that had flat-grave burials in an area with numerous barrow graves, many of them definitely contemporary, but having different mortuary practices/standards. This could be accounted for by considering that the Zimnicea area was strictly confined to the flood plain of the Danube, if we regard the river Danube as an axis which permitted the circulation of pottery, dress items and mortuary habits. I find this a plausible explanation for the presence of red ochre in a number of Zimnicea graves and in one at Batin, and for the frequency of askoid-cups, or for the silver lock rings found in the barrows already mentioned. The discoveries at Devnya indicate a territorial extension, in this case at least, if not in the case of Durankulak or Topolite. The lack of askoid-cups, so characteristic for Zimnicea, in the finds at Devnya has been emphasized and used to plead for the existence of differences. However, as far as we know today, from the point of view of funerary customs the differences are just minor and this is what interests us for the moment. Considered characteristic for the Early Bronze Age four decades ago, the Glina culture, which is widespread, stretching over the greater part of Muntenia and over almost all of Oltenia and reaching to the line of the Danube at Ostrovu Corbului, is one of the most important archaeological manifestations of the Bronze Age in the region between the Southern Carpathians and the Danube. It is also problematic, since one of its “characteristics” is unsatisfactory archaeological

45

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu documentation. Although it was already known or identified in the third decade of the 20th century, the Glina group was researched only sporadically from the start, which is why there is no correct settlement stratigraphy available for it. The archaeological documentation consists primarily of pottery, which is completely non-descriptive. There are a number of settlements, studied in a cursory manner, of use in attempting to establish the characteristic periods and the later phases for this culture, but the ‘results’ are far from convincing. The origin and the end of this culture are as yet unsolved issues, in spite of the hypotheses proposed. Absolute chronology would situate this culture approximately between 3000 and 2500 BC, by reference to neighboring cultures and by means of calibrated radiocarbon dating. Another issue related to the Glina culture is its relation with the Monteoru, Verbicioara and Tei groups, the subsequent phenomena in the same area. One of the main unsolved problems of the Glina culture is that of its funerary customs. The theme has never been studied by specialists. Quite a large number of Glina settlements are known today, from surface surveys or superficial excavations that have revealed thin deposits, indicative of short-term dwelling. Burials are extremely few and uncertain more often than not. There are seven funerary finds known so far that have been ascribed to the Glina culture (see the list in Chapter 8.3). In time, other burials came to be added, for example the graves in the barrows at Verbiţa, which in reality have nothing in common with Glina besides their occupying the same area and the fact that their ceramic inventories comprise some forms which resemble the Glina repertoire. At first glance we note that most of the mortuary finds occupy the eastern half of the Glina area. Except for the group of graves found by chance at Făurei, the rest of the finds come from systematic excavations, salvage excavations or trial digs. As regards the context, groups of graves have been found at Drăgăneşti-Olt and Făurei and isolated graves at Bucureşti-Fundeni, Căscioarele, Mătăsaru and Runcuri. The small number of finds prevents any attempt at statistical evaluation. The way these finds have been researched is less than satisfactory too. The mortuary finds taken by various specialists to belong to the Glina culture are uncertain since the main criterion in attributing them was the position they occupy in the area of the culture. As regards the grave at Căscioarele, C. Schuster expressed doubts both about attributing it to the Glina culture and about the discovery as a whole. The burials in the barrows at Verbiţa are similar to the so-called larger category “Yamnaya” in respect to the way the skeletons were laid out, lying on their backs, and as such they differ categorically from the burials at Bucureşti-Fundeni, Drăgăneşti-Olt and Căscioarele, where laterally crouched skeletons were found in flat graves. The vessels belonging to the inventories discovered in the graves at Verbiţa will have to wait a while before they can be classified, given that a well-specified ceramic repertoire is no more than a dearest wish at present. So these finds cannot serve as a genuinely solid argument for attributing any specific grave to a culture, but rather remains a chronological reference. The graves at Verbiţa differ from the rest of the “Glina” burials because of the barrows covering them, but they may also be due either to the

penetration of an alien group or a borrowed funerary practice, or they may come from incorrect excavations. If we exclude the graves underlying the barrows at Verbiţa, not too much is known about the remaining 6 finds considered to belong to the Glina culture. All the graves are flat-inhumation graves, except for those at Mătăsaru and Runcuri, which occupy a northern place in the Glina area and which have been doubtfully attributed. The corpses were laid in the ground in a unitary manner, laterally crouched, on the left. As regards the orientation of the graves, the group at Drăgăneşti-Olt consists of graves which are constantly oriented to the west, and the isolated graves at Bucureşti-Fundeni and Căscioarele had the skeleton heads oriented south-west and east, respectively. This could be indicative of locally differentiated practices. The cist at Runcuri is relatively isolated, and might be connected with the usual practice in the Dâmboviţa-Muscel area, but the attribution of the grave is doubtful in this case too. The only known inventory element is the flat hatchet in Grave 5 at Drăgăneşti-Olt. We should acknowledge that at present the documentation about the funerary finds of the Glina group is totally insufficient to serve as the basis even for sketching the funerary standard of this group. There are clear differences of behavior between the small number of Glina funerary finds and those belonging to the Dâmboviţa-Muscel group, and the absence of vessels decorated with holes and knobs in the stone cist graves at the foot of the Middle Carpathians is one argument for this difference. However, since there are some, even if not too many, sherds decorated with hole-knob patterns in Schneckenberg settlements or Schneckenberg finds in settlements lying south of the Carpathians, I must put the question why the fashion of the stone cist graves was not adopted by the Glina communities? Cremation graves are especially important if it can be proved that they certainly belonged to the Glina culture, since it would mark yet another moment when this funerary custom made its way into the area south of the Carpathians. The cemetery at Vârtopu, in the north half of the Gorj county, where several Glina settlements have been found, constitutes an entirely unexpected presence. It could be the sign of an alien element present in the Glina area, which would have to be excluded from the funerary findings of this group. The problem this consequently raises is the direction where the small community at Vârtopu came from. The only preceding funerary custom similar to that at Vârtopu could be the set of barrows found at Moldova Veche, which had dimensions closely resembling the barrows at Vârtopu. We do not know the exact number of graves, which were attributed to the Vučedol culture, but they are said to have been of cremation in only two cases, with the cinerary remains deposited in urns placed on the ground. The parallel with Vârtopu is insecure, since the situation at Moldova Veche is not clear enough either. The possible relation with the Vučedol area is worth considering nevertheless, especially if we take into consideration both that cremation was the exclusive funerary rite for the late Vučedol/Zók group and that there were small funerary barrows in the same cultural context. Judging by the vessels unearthed at Vârtopu, it can be stated that the burials are to be

46

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

traced to the end of the evolution of the Glina culture, at a time when cremation also penetrated here more strongly from Transylvania. Even if the rest of the finds discussed here - amounting to eleven – are certain to belong to the Glina culture, we still have to admit the existence of a funerary practice which is difficult to circumscribe archaeologically, in which isolated graves or groups of a few graves devoid of inventories are predominant. This observation, corroborated with the type of habitat, in so far as it is known, might indicate small communities, with scant social stratification, which invested little or no interest in the funerary expression. This conclusion must be re-evaluated by future finds. At the end of the 19th century, a number of graves were discovered at Braşov and Hălchiu, which had cists made of stone slabs and constituted a category of their own, hard to understand in the light of the research of the respective period. The Schneckenberg culture was introduced in literature some time later by H. Schroller, who used it to designate the finds near Braşov, which consisted of graves in cists made of big stone slabs. In 1932, I. Nestor drew the general outlines of the Glina III-Schneckenberg culture, basing his study of this culture, which he traced to the beginning of the Bronze Age, on the finds at Glina, Layer III and on their resemblance with the finds in the Bârsa region. The detailed presentation of the Schneckenberg finds, which in their majority were fortuitous and older, was due to Alfred Prox. The definition and division into three phases proposed by him remained the reference for a considerable time. It was I. Nestor again who re-evaluated the Glina-Schneckenberg culture in 1960, basing his study on new finds. He considered this culture the main manifestation of the Early Bronze Age. Subsequent research led to the separation of the two groups - Glina and Schneckenberg, respectively, which had some common elements but differed as regards their evolution and duration. A diverging position has repeatedly been expressed by A. Vulpe, who thinks the definition given by Prox to the Schneckenberg culture is no longer acceptable and has proposed instead the notion of Năeni-Schneckenberg, especially on the basis of the finds at Năeni-Colarea. A. Vulpe’s opinion has been adopted in proportion of almost 100% by R. Băjenaru. The difficulties in defining the Schneckenberg culture are at the root of the theoretical contortions caused by patchy research, especially as regards Schneckenberg settlements, for which it has been often impossible to establish successions with stratigraphy. In the current stage of research, the “Schneckenberg culture” cannot be rejected as a notion. A. Vulpe’s Năeni-Schneckenberg notion appears as an artificial construct by the way it was documented, because the pottery found in the Năeni-Colarea graves is utterly insufficient for the definition of a ceramic group, and the sherds unearthed from the surface, in the vicinity of the Colarea cemetery, have been drastically selected; the source for some of them is very dubious, which is why I do not think we can give up the notion of Schneckenberg, as a pottery group whose reality cannot be doubted. Actually, there are two more recent finds, with completely characteristic elements, which seem to prove that the Schneckenberg group crossed the Carpathians into

the Buzău County but went no further than the line of the river Nişcov. The first instance is the settlement at Târcov, which was researched and put into circulation insufficiently, as a matter of fact, and the second are the graves at Pietricica, on a site no more than circa 6.5 km north of the Early Monteoru settlement at Năeni-Zănoaga. The origin of the Schneckenberg group is unknown. The excessive fragmentation of the cultural landscape for the Early Bronze Age in Transylvania led to a variegated collection of groups, some of them insignificant both as regards the content and the area, ruling out the general view that allows us to start a thorough methodological discussion in whose frame the directions for the correct research and the solution to the problems would be set out. These concerns the Copăceni, Jigodin-Leliceni, Iernut, Roşia, Şoimuş, Zăbala and Zoltan groups, which already have been discussed. Their relation to the Coţofeni group is not yet clearly known, either. The periodization of the Schneckenberg culture, taking into consideration three stages from A to C as proposed by Prox, has been studied, but the results are actually unconvincing, especially owing to some of the characteristics of the Schneckenberg settlements, which lie, as a rule, at the top of stony hills. We must refer to the neighboring regions in order to date the Schneckenberg group, because we have radiometric dating for them, but this procedure is difficult since we do not have such determinations for the neighboring areas either. The interval recently proposed for the Glina culture, 2650 to 2450 BC, takes into consideration the groups for which there are calibrated radiocarbon dates. We can agree about a similar interval for the evolution of the Schneckenberg culture, but with reservations as regards the chronology of the Glina culture, perhaps considering that it ended slightly later. The Zimnicea type askoid cups found at Moacşa, Sânzieni and Turia slightly later, allow us to consider “earlier” beginnings for this group, which also date the Schneckenberg culture roughly to the first part of the 3rd millennium BC. The distribution of the Schneckenberg group seems to occupy a quite coherently circumscribed area, in the south-eastern corner of the Carpathians bow, especially the Bârsa region, but since the above mentioned groupuscules are not sufficiently known, the area may well extend beyond the course of the two rivers Târnava. The Schneckenberg funerary finds are surprisingly numerous for the rather small area of the group, consisting of 19 localities and 23 funerary contexts which are known today. The quality of the archaeological documentation for the Schneckenberg funerary objects is proportional with the documentation regarding the habitat, even more precarious perhaps. We have to do for the most part with chance finds (perhaps three quarters of the total), some of them very old, superficially researched and they have not been verified subsequently, as has been the case with the finds at Braşov and Prejmer, which were brought to light at the end of the 19th century, or with the finds at Hălchiu and Râşnov, discovered in 1900. Very few of the Schneckenberg funerary sites have been researched by systematic excavations, which

47

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu accounts for the constant lack of details about the area occupied by the funerary zones, the relations with the settlements, the funerary structure and even the ritual elements. The lack of details due to the fortuitous character of the finds in their majority makes the correct attribution quite doubtful, as for example at Bahna, Băgara or Sfântu Gheorghe-Őrkö. I have not included here one burial in a cist grave said to have been discovered in the locality of Stupini, owing to the lack of information which could confirm the find. Another characteristic of these discoveries is the great number of isolated graves discovered, over 50%, and yet another characteristic feature is the fact that none of the funerary sites with several burials contains more than 4 or 5 graves, as happens in Ghimbav and Mediaş. The situation at Brăduţ should also be singled out as a larger funerary zone, which in fact comes closer to the funerary zones of the Livezile/Bedeleu group owing to its geographical position. The trial digs at Pietricica-La mesteceni and the associated surveys on the same site indicate quite clearly for this case as well that there may be several other burials, but this fact needs to be ascertained by further excavations in future. The same patchy character of documentation leaves undecided the question whether the Schneckenberg graves were included in barrows or not. As the greater part of the Schneckenberg graves were discovered by chance and a long time ago, we do not have any correctly recorded details about the structure for most of them. This is why the statement that at least some of these graves were flat burial ones is anything but judicious. The attempt to circumscribe standard funerary practices of the Schneckenberg group is far from feasible with the currently available data. The archaeological documentation is patchy in what the older finds are concerned or, more recently, done with a practically no degree of professionalism and the most “outstanding” example in this respect is the cemetery at Brăduţ. On the other hand, the settlements of this group are not known for certain either, and the efforts of researchers have not been decisively targeted on objectively reviewing Prox’s typology, which could have led to a wave of new analytical engagement with the content of the settlements, by systematic, correct excavations. The archaeological mushrooms which grew after the season of rainy days at the end of the 20th century, if we may thus refer figuratively to the “cultural groups” discovered with hasty enthusiasm at that time, have complicated the archaeological perspective and caused the definition of the Schneckenberg group or culture to be shaky. The exact content of the group is not known, and it is quite correct to consider A. Vulpe’s point of view about the limitations of A. Prox’s work. But we should not replace something that is little known by another even less known thing. The attempt to solve this problem is beside the scope of our present work, but I think the best way is to discuss the Schneckenberg phenomenon for the time being as a ceramic group and to pursue this by a verification of the correspondence between the places where such pottery was found and the funerary objects which can be related to it. One direct result of this crisis in the definition of the Schneckenberg group is that archaeologists should hesitate about attributing the

funerary sites. If we consider the isolated graves as one characteristic of the Schneckenberg group, since there is a majority of such isolated graves, then the mortuary complexes at Brăduţ, Ocland and Pietricica for example, ought to belong to other archaeological phenomena, drastically restricting the Schneckenberg area. I do not think that the absence of cemeteries is a characteristic of the Schneckenberg group. This is rather a mere appearance, which is mainly due to the random character of the finds and which can be set right by referring not only to the cemeteries of the localities mentioned but also to the situation at Codlea, for example, which proves that in one place at least there was a group of graves, no more than three, actually, but there is nothing to prove that the respective group was not, in fact, bigger. The relation to the settlements is not known at present, but they cannot have been too far from the mortuary zones, if we compare things to the situation at Braşov and Sânzieni. Bi-ritualism is one important element, which has been quite certainly attested, it appears, for the Schneckenberg burials. The local antecedents are hard to perceive, the one find in the area being at Reci. However, here we have to do with buried people, and the attribution is, to say the least, doubtful. There are two cremation sites close to the Schneckenberg area. At Bratei, one small cemetery consisting of 14 cinerary graves and dated to the “transition period” in view of the rite and pottery has been studied. This small cemetery is a discovery that stands apart in the Transylvanian landscape but resembles the cemetery at Ciumeşti in northern Transylvania, initially attributed to an incipient phase of the Otomani culture but is in fact connected with the late Zók funerary objects, as it has been justly shown. Very likely it is from this last area that the practice of cremating the dead gradually spread to the Bârsa area and beyond, this practice subsequently becoming “the order of the day” in the Wietenberg group. It is hard to decide whether or not the appearance of cremation graves in the Schneckenberg area is proof for the actual presence here of “foreigners”. The exterior aspect of the graves in the Schneckenberg group is a pretty clear matter because the isolated graves discovered by chance a long time ago appear to be flat-inhumation graves, while the recently found mortuary objects attributed to the same group prove to represent barrow-burials. A similar situation is met with in the graves of the Dâmboviţa-Muscel group, which have stone cists. Since the two groups are roughly contemporary and immediately adjacent, I think we should consider the possibility that these burials, which were “very formal”, as is proved by their cists made of sandstone slabs, may have been covered by mounds. The custom of making stone cists, which is considered characteristic for the Schneckenberg culture, is frequent to the north of the Danube, and not only there. This custom, which was costly as regards the effort spent for the graves, is the expression of the social energy spent and it served to represent the social person of the deceased, expressing their social status. But since no Schneckenberg graves without cists are known as yet, this privilege seems to have been common to all the individuals of the group. I do not think this was the case in reality. We should not overlook the fact that the total number of Schneckenberg graves

48

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

known so far barely exceeds fifty and they are chorological divergent, which cannot possibly reflect the demographical reality of the time, no matter how sparse the population may have been. Also, we should not overlook the main “argument” for attributing the graves has been precisely the cist, so that some of the graves that had no cists and whose inventories were specific for the Early Bronze Age could splendidly be attributed to other “cultures”. This may be the case with the graves at Zăbala and Reci... But supposing it were eventually proved that the stone slab cist acted as one of the specific elements of the Schneckenberg funerary standard, and since graves are often collective, would it not be proved, then, that this alleged privilege did not belong to one individual or another but to the social sub-unit – the clan or family? As regards the origin of this custom, which is in the megalithic tradition, it is almost certain that it was taken over from the Globular Amphorae Group, which preceded the Schneckenberg group farther to the north-east or maybe even in the same area, as the yet unpublished grave of Sânmartin proves which was attributed to the Globular Amphorae Culture. The insufficiency of the information and the lack of anthropological diagnoses do not allow us to discuss other elements of the mortuary structures or their relation with gender/age groups. What we do know with certainty is that the deceased were laid crouched on their backs in the inhumation graves. We do not have sufficient observations to examine the statistical relationship between the two skeleton positions or their predominant orientation. We have ascertained information about collective graves - at Codlea, with four or five individuals buried together, or with two individuals at Braşov, Hălchiu and Râşnov - and this seems to indicate that we have to do with plots of funerary land belonging to certain groups or families, even when the graves are bi-ritual. The inventories contain only pottery, except for the foliform blade dagger from Ocland. We need to indicate the contrast in the Schneckenberg group between the absences of metal weapons, or of weapons made of any other materials, on the one hand and the great number of metal artifacts axes mainly, known either in settlements or in deposits and other isolated finds. Though it is not possible to establish a precise funerary standard for the Schneckenberg culture as yet for the reasons given above, some general remarks can be made. Ostensibly, there are no extensive cemeteries with numerous graves at Brăduţ, Codlea and Pietricica, in the first place, and in fact we have to do with groups of cemeteries, which are distinct and correspond to the distinct social segments of large communities. Bi-ritualism may be indicative of contacts with the north-western areas and equally these may be due to exchange of goods and circulation of persons. The practice of building stone slab cists, inherited from predecessors, continues as a “common good” for various milieux of small communities for whom internal solidarity of social sub-units as expressed by family graves was a pre-condition for their distinctive existence. On the upper Dâmboviţa, in the hilly Muscel region, we know of a larger number of funerary sites from older or more recent finds, which were discussed under the heading of “the Dâmboviţa-Muscel group”, but I want to insist that

this name refers strictly to the geographical area where these graves are found. Most of them are very hard to attribute culturally, firstly because they do not have inventories, and secondly because they are difficult to attribute to the well-defined cultural areas in their immediate vicinity, on the one hand, or because when inventory elements are present, they are not relevant or are not specific enough. This applies to the Schneckenberg and Glina groups primarily. After the Cetăţeni graves had been published and research had been carried out in the vicinity, leading to further finds of graves of the same kind, they were ascribed to the Glina group, at the same time underlining the similarities with the Trans-Carpathian Schneckenberg group and going even further, making connections at a distance with graves such as those at Verbiţa and Belotic-Bela Crkva. The older proposal to attribute the cist graves which had been identified up to that time on the upper Dâmboviţa to the Monteoru culture should also be mentioned. Settlements assignable to the Bronze Age are almost completely missing in the quite limited region of these funerary sites. The dating/attribution of these burials have constantly run into difficulties for this reason. The only Early Bronze Age settlements studied in the piedmont to the south of the Middle Carpathians, between the rivers Olt and Prahova are those at Retevoieşti, where there have been finds of Coţofeni material, at Valea Calului on the river Topolog, and at Valea Iaşului on the eastern bank of the river Argeş valley. These finds are considered to belong to the Glina group. Further south, in the high plain at the foot of the hilly region are the settlements at Băleni, Cazaci, Morteni and Văcăreşti, which are also attributed to the Glina group. A little further south but not very far away from the latter are the Odaia Turcului and the Costeştii din Vale settlements. If we take into consideration the pottery finds, we might also add one further settlement known only through surface surveys, near a hilltop south of the Ţâţa locality, near Pietroşiţa, on the western bank of the river Ialomiţa. Most of the 14 funerary finds (see the list in Chapter 8.5) are in the hilly woodland, at quite high altitudes, and they all lie along the river Dâmboviţa. The southernmost of them - Gorgota - lies virtually on the edge of the hilly zone, where the high Târgovişte plateau begins. But we should not lose sight of the fact that only about 20 km south of Gorgota the Movila cist graves were found, attributable to the Monteoru culture on the basis of their inventory. Of the 14 finds, only those at Albeşti, Cetăţeni, Gorgota, Văleni-Dâmboviţa and Voineşti have benefited from archaeological research, mostly salvage excavations immediately after accidental discovery. The rest of these fortuitous finds have not benefited even of land surveys, recovered materials or useful observations. This was largely due to the difficult access, since the terrain was strongly reliefed woodland. The results of the investigations, whether systematic, salvage excavations or land surveys have been practically unknown until recently. The difficulties inherent in hilly regions have not allowed us to make exact evaluations of the archaeological context for the stone cist graves found in the Dâmboviţa-Muscel area. According to

49

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu the observations made at Albeşti, Apa Sărată, Cetăţeni, Gorgota, Malu cu Flori, Râu Alb de Sus and Văleni-Dâmboviţa, we can state these funerary complexes were often part of small groups of graves and the isolated finds were the result of fortuitous discoveries that were not subsequently verified. I think it is significant that such groups of graves have been found especially in the Schneckenberg area, which lies very near Dâmboviţa-Muscel in the area across the Carpathians to which there is a very easy access through the Rucăr-Bran corridor. The observations made at Albeşti and Apa Sărată are very important from the point of view of the funerary rite since they have revealed both inhumation and cremation. The case of the Gorgota finds seems similar but here the information is very summary and does not allow us to rely on it. It is hard to decide whether or not the cist with cinerary traces found at Văleni-Dâmboviţa at the point known as La Vică, at a certain distance from the main grave, could be connected with the custom of cremating the dead. However, with the little ascertained information available we may consider that we are dealing with bi-ritualism and this is something to be taken into consideration for establishing the funerary rite of this group of finds. The cist graves found at Albeşti, Gorgota and Văleni-Dâmboviţa were in barrows. No detailed stratigraphy is known for the first two sites. The stratigraphy achieved at Văleni-Dâmboviţa revealed that the pit of this grave was covered with layers of earth brought there (i.e. not local) which constituted a barrow over which a layer of flat, small stones of crystalline schist or sandstone was spread mixed with an ashy kind of soil to make the top layer of the barrow. No traces of external layout structures were observed at Cetăţeni in any of the two excavation points, so all the burials were in flat graves. The fortuitous character of all the other finds did not allow any observations about external layout structures, which is why we have to record that all the cist burials at Dâmboviţa-Muscel were in flat graves. It appears that, just as in the records for Albeşti and Gorgota, we have to do with groups of graves in all the places where barrows have been found, except for the grave at Văleni-Dâmboviţa, where the site of the object, on top of a hill was very narrow. I also think it should be stressed that these groups of graves underlying barrows resemble the flat-grave burials in this respect. The main characteristic of all these burials is the fact that they consist of cists made of stone slabs. We have to do with “boxes” - cists or sarcophagi - usually made of sandstone slabs placed on edge and lining the four sides of the grave. At Văleni-Dâmboviţa it could be noticed that the graves were dug deeper in order to better fix the slabs lining the sides of the grave in place, just as in Grave 1 at Apa Sărată. Two sandstone slabs had been placed at the bottom of the cist, which was smaller than the pit where the cist had been constructed, once again just as at Apa Sărată. We need hardly insist that such funerary structures were extremely demanding, not so much because of the difficulty in procuring the necessary materials, since sandstone was very much at home in the hilly region on the upper Dâmboviţa, as because of the effort spent in transporting the slabs, and sometimes in carving them, let alone the effort required for the actual construction of the cist itself.

The amount of energy spent in the process underlines the social significance of such a funerary structure and we cannot but resent the total lack of enlightening anthropological determination for this kind of mortuary finds. Since we have to do with random finds mainly, the osteological remains discovered have been scattered, which is why there are so few cases when the position of the corpses could be specified. Although one double grave and two individual ones have been reported at Gorgota, we have no specifications of the positions or state of preservation. We have no such information about Cetăţeni, Albeşti and Apa Sărată either. The skeleton at Văleni-Dâmboviţa had been disturbed by the time salvage excavations began. Still, it was possible to obtain information about the skeleton lying crouched on the right, with the head pointing SSE. Though few so far, the ascertained cremation graves found in the Dâmboviţa-Muscel cists have not revealed as yet the placing of calcined bones in urns. This indicates that we have to do with an entire group integrated in the category of cremation pit-graves/Brandgräber, if this is what the calcined remains found in the cists are considered. The nearest and most significant parallel is in the cemetery consisting of rock graves at Năeni-Colarea, which I consider to belong to an early stage of the Monteoru culture. One sine qua non for the discussion of bi-ritualism in the Dâmboviţa-Muscel burial group is the availability of anthropological diagnoses for as many such discoveries as possible. Similarly unpropitious conditions are to blame for the fact that we have difficulty in specifying and examining the inventories of the cist graves found in the area of Dâmboviţa-Muscel. In another seven cases, at Apa Sărată, Cetăţeni, Gorgota Izvoarele, Malu cu Flori, Văleni-Dâmboviţa and Voineşti, finds of vessels have been recorded. For the vessels found, the main problem was the difficulty of relating them to the Glina or Schneckenberg ceramic repertoire, relationships which seem to have been the most reasonable and the most probable, whether in view of the resemblance of these funerary objects with those of Schneckenberg, or for their immediate proximity to the Glina area. There are very good analogies, though no clear indication of identity, in the repertoire of the early Monteoru styles although the pottery coming from this type of burial is much reduced in number s. I think we should take serious account of these analogies, because in approaching the pottery style of early Monteoru culture one can have a better overview of the entire funerary ensemble than by making associations at great distances, since graves in stone cists made of slabs are well known within the Monteoru culture. Dress items are rare and exceptional, as for example the silver lock ring found in the grave at Văleni-Dâmboviţa. This is certainly an outstanding piece, but in association with the copper/bronze bracelet found at Cetăţeni and the daggers found at Apa Sărată and Malu cu Flori they are tokens of the social status of the persons buried in the stone-slab cist graves. A copper/bronze Ösenhalsring, said to come from a cist grave, was also found at Cetăţeni. The provenance is not certain, but if the Ösenhalsring, which is a token of social prestige too, does come from such a grave, it will be a mark of the lower limit of the time interval when the stone cist graves of the Dâmboviţa-Muscel type were put

50

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

in place. The individuality of cist burials in the Dâmboviţa-Muscel area is extremely clear, not only from the characteristic funerary layout, from the sparse territorial distribution, and from the ceramic inventories, which are hard to catalogue, but also from its lack of a future, in that it stops short at the end of the Middle Bronze Age. Here again they are closely connected with the Monteoru cist graves which have a duration ending more or less at the same time – and this fact ought to be kept in mind. I have already expressed my views about the manner in which the custom of depositing the deceased in stone cists penetrated into the area, when discussing the Schneckenberg cist graves. It is highly probable, I would add, that this custom crossed the mountains via the Bran-Rucăr corridor. In the present state of our documentation we cannot enlarge upon the funerary practices in north central Muntenia in the Early Bronze Age. We cannot clearly distinguish, at present, the corresponding archaeological manifestation of this practice in the Dâmboviţa-Muscel zone. But we can, at the same time, be sure that the cist-grave burials lasted beyond a mere “horizon”, and were therefore not a cultural attribution indicator, but rather what I would call the “festive” nature of their funerary expression which imposed itself and was a borrowing as such. The point of origin of this custom in the Dâmboviţa-Muscel zone is also indicated by the incidence of incineration, just as in the Monteoru area. A whole series of finds from central Transylvania, long known to us but variously interpreted, was quite recently grouped under the heading of “Livezile group”. The basic documentation is mostly from funerary finds, together with a number of relatively recently studied settlements. The origin of the Livezile group has not as yet been completely elucidated, but a participation of the Coţofeni group should be envisaged. The individuality of the Livezile group seems fairly well established, especially in view of its area, mostly on the western slopes of the Western Carpathians. Quite a number of wholly debatable finds on the edge of the Livezile area, which were too hastily interpreted as “cultural groups” (Copăceni, Iernut, Roşia, Şoimuş and Zăbala), confuse issues by making the relationships to the Schneckenberg group and the late Zók groups Makó and Nyírseg unclear. In terms of relative chronology, the Livezile group follows the Coţofeni culture and therefore belongs to the Early Bronze Age. It is not very clear what followed the Livezile group. The so-called Şoimuş and Copăceni “groups”, which may be slightly more recent than some of the Livezile settlements in the mountainous region, are extensions of the group in question, perhaps slightly later. But any attempts at constructing chronological systems are ultimately subject to revision in the light of the numerous 14C data. This, to a certain extent, is the case with the Livezile group, where one sample taken from the Livezile settlement shows that the latter was being lived in already at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC. The quite numerous funerary finds for the, as yet, apparently not very large area of the group constitute a very consistent stock of 35 sites spread over 23 localities (see the list in Chapter 8.6). Most of the funerary finds at Livezile come from

systematic excavations, which mean that if we add the finds from salvage excavations and trial digs the majority of the documentation has evidently been obtained under close archaeological supervision. But the available information is actually much less than it seems, for there are only two consistent works in the literature with detailed information about the funerary complexes apart from summary excavation reports, some of which date from the 19th century, or casual references. A significant percentage of the Livezile group funerary finds are from cemeteries. Twenty-one of the cases, or circa 66%, are cemeteries; a further eight, or circa 25% cases, are groups of graves; and a mere 3 cases, or circa 9%, are isolated graves. We should stress the remarkable incidence of cemeteries in the overall number of finds. It is more than likely that in almost all these cases we are in fact dealing with cemeteries, and that the small number of funerary structures unearthed in different places is due to the character of the finds or limited research. This singles out the existence of distinct funerary complexes as a primary characteristic in defining the funerary standard of the Livezile group. To judge by the situation at Cetea, Livezile, Meteş, Râmeţi, Tureni and Zlatna, funerary zones consisted of barrow groups situated in the vicinity of settlements. What is peculiar to them is that they are not all clustered in the same place but spread in smaller groups, in all probability differently located around the same settlement. One could speak of funerary spaces organized into sub-units/plots of land each in its orbit around a virtual centre represented by the settlement. But in many cases such a hypothesis must be archaeologically verified, since the data practically available at present seem to support this hypothesis only partially. This layout and the not very large number of burials in each group suggests, however, that these groups, which consisted of a maximum of eight or ten barrows, may have belonged to equally distinct social segments consisting of not very many individuals. The dominance of sheep- farming in Livezile group subsistence strategies, suggested by the nature of the settlements’ mountainous environment, has substantially determined the placement of cemeteries. Each barrow represented another spatially distinct structure within these funerary sectors/plots and it corresponded, as already shown, to the social sub-units. The not very large number of burials on each of these barrows, which in their turn were small, reflects the demographic structure of each sub-unit, clan or family: number of individuals, mortality rate, etc. Most of the settlements lie at very high altitudes, between 400 and 800 m, sometimes even higher, on spurs or ridges of rocky hills, covered with pastures. The construction of funerary spaces was conditioned not only by the relationship with the settlement, 200 meters away on average, but by the nature of a very rough terrain. One of the problems of the Livezile funerary system is to what extent the barrow mantles were made of stone boulders, especially limestone, or of earth, given the difficulty of digging in stony ground, or whether this was dictated by ceremonial requirements. Barrows were more often than not erected with successive rows of boulders layered with earth. In my opinion the absence of pits as well as the placement of corpses directly on the ground both represents a practical solution which must

51

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu naturally have arisen in mountain areas with rocky ground. But apart from the mantles made of boulders another series of structures cropped up, for example in the Ampoiţa-Dealu Doştiorului and Ţelna stone rings, or platforms, as at Ampoiţa-Peret Barrow VI, where the four skeletons rested on a platform of rectangular limestone slabs –the structure being finally covered with a mantle of boulders. In three cases a number of stone slab structures were discovered, exaggeratedly interpreted as stone cists. At Sănduleşti-Sulihegy, in Barrow 1 Grave 4, for example, a “stone box” was found in which there were human bones with no anatomical interconnection and in Barrow 1/ 5, remains of human bones were found placed between two edge stones. At Tureni-La furci, on the periphery of the barrow investigated, which was of large dimensions and had two rings of boulders, a “flat limestone slab cask containing some bird skeleton bones and pieces of charcoal” was found. The find at Ampoiţa-Peret is somewhat related to the cist-burial custom in that a deceased person covered by a stone slab was excavated from Barrow II/grave 5. We should not exclude the possible contemporaneity of the Livezile group with the Schneckenberg group and need not consequently be surprised by the presence of such individual structures as cists that may well have penetrated as a funerary fashion or custom to the region of the Western Carpathians too. One indicator, though perhaps not the surest, may be the cist claimed from Băgara grave, which was situated more or less in the same geographical area. The cases quoted show that in addition to the general element of collective structures, i.e., the barrow consisting of the stone boulder mantle and of circles that surrounded them, there were other stone structures in the Livezile barrows, which expressed individual mortuary customs connected with social intra-community rank differences. It is indisputable that the construction of such sophisticated barrows, although they are not as impressive in size in the Livezile area, required considerable efforts from the small communities of that time to transport and lay out such large quantities of boulders. The great amount of social energy invested in the erection of the barrow itself stood as proof for the social status of the people buried there. But we must also point out that the social energy spent was destined for a collective building, namely the barrow in which several individuals would be deposited after they passed away. Thus the barrows ought to be considered as collective funeral structures that marked the prestige of the intra-community segments for they had been constructed. The internal structures were meant to mark the social status of each deceased person inside these collective structures and were consequently less conspicuous for the mourners, being observable only during one episode of the funerary ceremony. The relationship between the two components, the collective, corporative and predominant one, and the individual one, which was subordinated to the former, is a basic feature of this group’s funerary standard but can be found among other Bronze Age barrow burials, of which chronologically the closest is, of course, the Yamnaya group. The idea of erecting barrows of varying sizes over a grave need not be a foreign model borrowed, even if it has no local antecedents. It is definitely useless to look for

the origin of this practice, even if Yamnaya kurgans were found in the immediate vicinity of the Livezile area, for example at Câmpia Turzii, or farther away, at Cipău, Răscruci and Tureni-La furci, where the skeleton found in Grave 03 lay on its back, in the so-called frog-legged (Froschlage) position, which was specific for the Yamnaya burials and had red ochre by its side. The barrows are the only resemblance to the Yamnaya graves, since the interior layout structures and the relationship with the settlement are completely different. The relation between the collective structures and the individual ones they contain is the same, but this is due to the social and economic imperatives of the time rather than to any reciprocal influences. However, we cannot exclude some partial borrowing of funerary fashions from the Vučedol area as a possible influence, where similar structures, including stone cists, are well known. Since they practiced long-distance exchanges anyway, the Livezile communities may have thus borrowed some funerary fashion elements, which would naturally become all the more charged with prestige significance once they had been brought home. The find at Moldova Veche might perhaps be an argument for the “penetration” of these practices from the Vučedol area, were it not that the spread of the practice of erecting earthen barrows over graves cannot be explained by diffusion in a single direction, or as initially due to certain communities. The large area where such funerary structures have been found stands as proof for this, considering for example barrow burials with stone structures, including cists, which are specific for the Corded Ware (Schnurkeramik) in Central Europe that came from the western and northern Europe’s megalithic traditions rather than from those of the east. For the barrow graves of the Livezile group we cannot speak of pits, as bones were usually laid on the ancient barren ground and were then covered by mounds. In some cases it was considered that the deceased had been placed in crevices and other natural alveolae of the rocky ground, but the latter situations cannot be taken to document pit layout structures. In other cases it was observed that some graves, secondary ones, had pierced the boulder mantle of the barrow, but the structure of the barrows did not allow us to record the shape of the pits. Traces of hearths, charcoal, adobe, in some cases, animal bones and sherds have been recorded at the bottom of the barrows as well as between the mantle boulders. The specifications for the exact position of such remains are highly unsatisfactory since they cannot be connected with particular graves. We may be tempted to regard the remains of hearths, sherds and animal bones as remains of funerary banquets, but I think it is more prudent to regard them as remains of ceremonial episodes, since we have no clear traces of banquets in the cases of sherds found in barrow mantles. The isolated object found in Tum. I at Tureni-La furci, a stone slab “chest” containing bird bones and charcoal, could be a quite similar occurrence, but the structure is too sophisticated and, in addition, it evokes a burial more probably. I rather doubt it is a bird’s grave; it may rather be a cenotaph, or could equally be the token of a ceremonial episode connected with the main burial. “Cenotaphs” are indicated in another two cases - at Ampoiţa - Dealul Doştiorului Barrow II and Sălciua de Jos Barrow I -,

52

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

but the argument from archaeology for them was unimpressive. Inhumation seems to dominate the Livezile group, but cremation has been found in a few places, at Ampoiţa-Peret Barrow 7/Graves. 2-3 and Barrow 8/Grave 5, at Livezile-Baia Barrow 3/Grave 3 and at Meteş Barrow 1/Grave 1 and Barrow 1/Grave 8, and consequently cannot be ignored. The cases cited indicate a low incidence (in a stock of 199 graves, the six count as only 3%), and chorological they represent only three localities. However, we should not forget that both at Ampoiţa and at Meteş two graves have been found in each place. I do not think that we should speak of bi-ritualism and consider cremation as the secondary, adjacent rite in the Livezile group.... But we cannot overlook these cases as a matter of incidental origin, and we should be prepared to consider cremation a statistically rare intrusive rite. The information available suggests that only one of the graves had the calcinated remains deposited in an urn - the grave at Meteş Barrow 1/Grave 1, as a secondary burial in the mantle. For another two of the graves the sources mention that the cinerary remains were deposited directly on the ground, Ampoiţa-Peret Barrow 8/Grave 5 and Livezile-Baia Barrow 3/Grave 3, these being simple graves of the Brandgrab category, but with one adjoining vase discovered in the Livezile grave. The other three cinerary graves are secondary ones, in the barrow mantles, and probably ought to be included in the Brandgrab category too. In the light of the documentation we have at present, it can be stated that the penetration of cremation as a funerary practice, which had been already known in the Baden-Coţofeni culture, corresponded at a later date to a possible extension of the late Zók groups to the east, with cemeteries or groups of graves as such, for example the Nyírseg group in Crişana and in central Transylvania, at Bratei, or else was the result of “influences” or diffusion of certain funerary fashions responsible for cremations connected with the Schneckenberg group or to those to the south of the Middle Carpathians. The very recently researched flat-grave cemetery at Hăpria-Capu dosului is known only through summary excavation reports at present. But it is at Hăpria also, at Cetăţuie as it is known, that two barrows have been reported, one of which is made of clay, while the other has “a mantle with a layer of fine stones and with Coţofeni sherds”. The attribution of the Hăpria cemetery to the Livezile group is debatable, of course, since it is a flat-grave burial cemetery. The isolated find at Covăsânţ, to the west, does not have the archaeological documentation which could allow an attribution to the Livezile group. While the Hăpria cemetery and the find at Covăsânţ are doubtful, I think there is a reverse case in the isolated grave discovered at Băgara, at the bottom of the mantle in one barrow, which had been attributed with reservations to the Schneckenberg group only on the basis of the stone cist. What prompts my rejection of the idea that it might be a Schneckenberg find and the belief that it might be a Livezile group find is precisely its geographical position, a long way from the Schneckenberg area and much closer to Livezile. Many of the inhumation graves of the Livezile group have been found with their bones

already scattered and with no anatomical interconnection. For some of the latter it has been noticed that the bones had no anatomical interconnection and although they were scattered, they had been laid “in a batch” and observed a certain order. This applies to the graves at Livezile-Baia Barrow II/Grave 2 and Meteş Barrow I/Grave 7. In other graves, at Ampoiţa-Peret Barrow II/Grave 8, the scattering of the bones was interpreted as proof that they had been re-interred. There is a stock of 57 graves where “the skeletons were dismembered”; they have been given special attention by the excavation author who considers all of them re-interments, but it is risky to make too hasty appreciations, which can be hard to support, all the more so as we do not have available details, such as legible plans of the graves, which could serve as a base for discussion. The situation is somewhat different in the graves with skeletons placed “in batches”. This proves a clearly deliberate action, which followed certain pre-existing rules. The question to ask is if we have to do with an older grave, which was opened on the occasion of another burial, or if we are dealing with already “fleshless” skeletons that had previously been in another mortuary location, as has been presumed. We do not have detailed profiles for the sections across the Livezile barrows already studied. For this reason it is not known whether these graves with disturbed skeletons corresponded to the different occasions when the mantles were perforated in order to introduce “newcomers” in barrows or were all of them covered by the mantles. In the first case, corpses had been allowed to rot or dry on platforms or in specially designed places, but surely not in closed mortuary precincts, and after the natural destruction of the greater part of the tissues had been complete they were wrapped and deposited in barrows. For the graves with scattered skeletons discovered under the stone structures or mantles, the skeletons subjected to the same procedure and exhibited in specially designed places may have then been wrapped and placed in the ground at the same time as the traditional burials. The second case would presuppose a particular set of rules, which were dictated by the different social status of some individuals belonging to a small social segment - very probably a family – and which allowed the previously deceased people to be interred only after the demise of an important member of the same family. Such pre-existing rules, most probably connected with kinship relations, also appear as basic the structure of the 24 collective graves (for two to four individuals). As a whole, the number of graves of this kind is relatively great by comparison with the burials of other cultural groups, which singles out the Livezile funerary finds. At the same time, the great number of such burials, including 65 inhumation ones, does not allow us to consider all of them simplistically as consequences of simultaneous deaths, since in the latter case the Livezile group would have had an inconveniently short duration... When considering the two quadruple graves at Ampoiţa-Peret Barrow VI/Grave 1 and Ţelna Barrow 2/Grave 4 and the four triple graves at Ampoiţa-Peret Barrow II/Grave 7, Geoagiu Barrow I/Grave 7, Poiana Aiudului Barrow VI/Grave11 and Ţelna Barrow I/Grave 1, I think it likely that the burials proper happened at the same time and within

53

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu the same funerary ceremony determined by the death of an illustrious member, which would confer more importance on it. But we must not forget that uncertainties may show up during archaeological excavations, so the stock of such burials in the Livezile locales is expected to increase in number and to improve qualitatively. Of the 190 inhumation funerals, 78 graves or 41.05% had undisturbed skeletons, which enabled us to make detailed observations about their layout. In these cases corpses were interred in two main positions: laterally crouched - in 71 cases, 38 of which on the right side, and 33 on the left; and lying on their backs - in 7 cases (which represent 8.97%). Unfortunately there are no anthropological determinations for most of the Livezile funerary finds. Except for the small cemetery at Ampoiţa-Peret, the other determinations are impressionistic guesses about the skeletons, of adults or of children. Under the circumstances, we cannot tell whether or not the left or right placement of the skeletons was connected with their belonging to one or another of the sex groups. The little Ampoiţa-Peret lot analyzed seems to indicate that there existed no such rule; of the eight graves with masculine skeletons two were found lying on their backs, one was crouched on the right side, one on the left, while the position of the remaining four could not be specified; of the 14 feminine skeletons 5 were crouched on the right side, another five on the left, none lying on their backs, and the situation did not allow specifying the position of the remaining three. But the placing on one or the other side observed strict rules, as is shown by the situation at Ampoiţa-Peret: Barrow II/Graves 4a-b, where one skeleton was found lying on the right side, with the skull towards the SW, the other laying on the right, also, but with the head pointing NE, and the skeletons faced one another, each with the head against the legs of the other; Barrow III/Grave 4, with both skeletons in the same position - crouched left - and with a similar orientation, to the E, one skeleton being feminine and the other belonging to a juvens. In the find from Izvoarele-Dealu Nioarcei Barrow I/grave 1a-b, both skeletons were oriented NW, but one lay crouched on the right side, the other on the left, “facing each other” as it were. The variations in position and orientation resulting from the objects mentioned cannot be the product of random placing in the graves, but must have been prompted by rules dictated by social relationships, that is, kinship relations, and, in all probability, grouping by sex. Even though the current stage of documentation does not allow us to make anything more than a broad judgment, in trying to sketch the Livezile funerary standard we have to refer to the sum of observations made so far. The skeletons found lying on their backs constitute a significant category in spite of their not being very numerous and consequently having a reduced casuistic incidence. In view of this, it is obvious that the placement of the skeletons lying on their backs was a custom “foreign” to the Livezile group. There is no question of chronological differences in this case, given the find at Ampoiţa-Dealu Doştiorului Barrow I/Grave 2, where a double grave contained together an adult skeleton lying on its back and oriented SE-NW and a laterally crouched child’s skeleton oriented SW-NE. However, since in the find at Tureni-La furci Barrow

I/Grave 3 the skeleton was lying on its back with knees raised (in the frog position) and it had lumps of red ochre at its side, we are prompted to believe that this method of laying out corpses may have been borrowed from the Yamnaya communities, which were already in existence by this time in central Transylvania, as was seen before. One way of discovering the corpse placement rules is by examining their orientation. But I would like to call attention to the fact that all the specifications about the orientation of graves are simplistic, made in observance of only eight cardinal points and, very significantly, never specifying the degrees. According to the author of the excavation himself, “in the Ampoiţa-Peret cemetery it has not been possible to specify the preferential orientation of the skeletons, which holds true for the rest of the cemeteries researched”! Indeed, the reduced number of undisturbed graves for each of the Livezile groups of barrows cannot offer conclusive results. This, however, is true especially when studying this issue for each of the grave groups or cemeteries, whereas when the overall situation is taken into consideration things change, if one starts from the premise that the rules for depositing the deceased in graves were the same for the entire Livezile group. Orientations have been specified for only 84, or 42.21%, of the whole number of 199 graves, which represents a quite satisfactory sample. The fact that the respective orientations have been determined in respect to only eight points and without indicating the respective degrees and further divisions is a factor of uncertainty, but there is little to chose when verifications are impossible. We have a first diagram of the graves with laterally crouched skeletons, which is not very explicit since it was drawn up on the basis of the crude information available at the moment, mentioning the orientation NNW (2) and WNW (2) for only 4 graves, while for the rest of the graves the orientation is given in respect to only eight cardinal points. If we revise the calculation, re-distributing the 4 graves for which the “fine” orientation is specified, we end up with another diagram in which the existence of two orientation groups becomes visible: group A, with predominant orientation to the N-NE-E-SE sector, and group B, with predominant orientation to the opposite sector, S-SW-W-NW. The two orientation groups are once again revealed by the separately drawn diagrams of the skeletons laterally crouched on the right and the ones crouched on the left, which consequently confirm the bi-polar orientation. The anthropological diagnosis of as many of these graves as possible would have been of great help, as it would have certainly revealed the relation between the two orientation groups, on the one hand, and the sex/age groups, on the other hand, and, from here, further, the relationship between the position and orientation, on the one hand, and the sex groups, on the other. Doubtlessly, the two orientation groups, A oriented towards the east sector and B towards the west sector, as they appear now, can be discussed from the point of view of their archaeological documentation, but the clear tendency of the statistical group cannot be denied and ought to be taken into account in defining the funerary standard of the Livezile group. This is all the more necessary because the examination of the corpse disposition revealed the existence of a certain

54

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

relationship, not easy to perceive at first, between the disposition of the skeletons and their orientation in the double burials. Most probably, the communities of the Livezeni group also had everyday life and segmentations of the social unit effected along the same lines and by similarly variable rules as in the area as a whole, depending on the blood/kinship relationships and quite naturally reflecting, therefore, matrimonial relationships. This is one of the fundamental features of the Livezile funerary standard. Unfortunately, the settlements in question have not so far provided enough information about their internal structure, so that we cannot satisfactorily correlate this category of information with that deriving from the funerary spaces. The funerary furnishings of the graves in the Livezile group are not outstandingly “rich”, as most of the graves do not have any accompanying goods. Of the 196 burials (from which I have excluded only the cist with bird bones, as well as the debatable cenotaphs), 133, or 70.46% had no inventories. Of those equipped with funerary inventory, one outstanding group is tiny, consisting of some graves with “rich” materials. This is true of the finds at Ampoiţa-Peret Barrow III/grave 1, containing a set of dress items including two Zimnicea type lock rings, made of gold, one spectacle spiral (Brillenspirale) pendant, two wire spirals and a pendant fragment, all made of copper or bronze; to these should be added an amphora found at Poiana Aiudului, Barrow IX/grave 4, together with one set of dress items made of copper or bronze, consisting of a bracelet, a spectacle spiral (Brillenspirale) pendant and another pendant fragment plus two wire spirals, and an axe or adze made of diabase, plus two vessels – a tiny amphora and a cup placed near the skeleton, by whose side there were also some animal bones; yet another find is the one at Livezile-Dealul sârbului, Barrow I/grave 1, with one set of dress items including two spectacle spiral (Brillenspirale) pendants, three stone axes/adzes, one awl made of copper or bronze, a grinder and two vessels; a last find is that at Poiana Aiudului, Barrow V/grave. 6, with a spiral Lockenring made of silver and one cup. A second outstanding group is the one with inventories consisting of several items and comprising the finds at Petreştii de Sus, Barrow II/grave 6, which had a stone axe and a vessel; the finds at Livezile-Dealul sârbului, Barrow II/grave 1, with a stone axe, a bone “spatula” and a vessel; the finds at Vălişoara, Barrow I/grave 2, with a stone axe and a vessel; the finds at Poiana Aiudului Barrow V/grave 2, with one entire axe and one in fragments, both made of stone, a flint scraper, a vessel and a deer’s tooth; and the finds at Izvoarele T. III/M. 1, with two stone axes and several flint arrowheads. The other graves with funerary furnishings usually had a vessel or a chip or a blade made of flint or obsidian. The ten graves with somewhat richer inventories represent 15.86% of the total of 63 burials with funerary furnishings, which ought to be kept in mind. Many of them are centrally situated graves, which could be “primary”, if we accept that all burials formed series in the course of time. In so far as they could be distinguished, the main categories of materials present in the funerary inventories were: pottery, dress items made of gold or silver and copper or

bronze, stone weapons, stone or bone tools, and a special type of statuette, in a single instance. They differ in their casual incidence, vessels being represented best, followed closely by tools. Weapons generally appear in the graves with “rich” inventories, in association with dress items made of metals. The dress items made of precious metals or copper and those made of bone have a relatively average incidence. The clay statuette of a very special type represents an unprecedented find whose significance in the strict frame of the Livezile burials is hard to decipher. A clay bead is signaled as a very exceptional find. Animal bones, probably food oblations, do not actually belong to the funerary inventories but are ceremonial deposits. The group of 10 graves with special inventories represents only 5.10% of the total of 193 finds. The most expressive inventory elements are dress items, among which those made of precious metals, and weapons or items considered as such. It is indubitable that their function was connected with the social status of the deceased by whose side they were found, all the more so as the two lock rings made of precious metal had been acquired by means of remote exchange, which increased their value as dress or prestige elements. The frequency of the metal, bone or stone tools is less expressive from this point of view, but for the cases where such items appear side by side of jewelry or weapons they do underline the social status. Considering the structure of the inventories and their position in the barrows, the 10 “rich” graves belonged to a distinct social category. The notion of “elites” is abusively used today in the discussions about burials. I do not think it adequate for the case of the Livezile group. In my opinion, keeping in mind the other elements of the funerary standard of this group after analyzing them more closely, the respective group of graves belong to individuals who had a central position in the structure of the social segments of communities, as “family heads” perhaps. I find it excessive to include all of them in the “elite” category, since this would mean running counter to the real content of the notion, which covers a more copious, distinct category, expressed not only through tokens of prestige but also through their capacity to influence everyday life – which is something harder to ascertain archaeologically at the time of the Livezile group... The presence of pottery is less directly connected with the expression of the deceased individual’s social person and has more to do with the customs rooted in the collective mind, revolving around the beliefs about the netherworld which prompted the living to deposit food stuff, liquids mostly, in the present case, by the side of the departed. Pottery, which is absent in most of the graves, does not entail a corresponding carelessness about the deceased, and we are dealing with most likely cases of post mortem manipulation of the corpses, which would include re-interrement. This was not usually accompanied by deposits of food oblations or other kinds of depositions. Summing things up, today we may characterize the funerary standard of the Livezile group by: a - the predominance of inhumation as the main funerary rite with cremation occurring as an exterior, incidental rite; b - a communal funerary space consisting of distinct funerary zones which corresponded to the social sub-units of communities;

55

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu c – funerary zones, fragmentary, again, consisting of barrows that had an interior structure and layout elements serving as collective funerary expressions related to each social sub-unit, i.e., a family or clan, and reflected in the hierarchical structure of the funerary ceremonies, which observed the individuals’ social rank and each consisted of a chain of distinct episodes; d – the probability of post mortem corpse manipulation practices, reflecting ceremonial episodes subordinated to the principle of collective representation of the dead by graves of the clan or family heads, this constituting the specific feature of the Livezile group from the funerary point of view. Except for this last feature, the funerary standard of the Livezile group is consonant with the features of the general picture of an age whose ways were those of the small community in dialogue with an environment that was hard to administer and which was locked into an internal competition meant to maintain the solidarity of the group. For the traditional period of the Early Bronze Age in Transylvania other finds of a funerary nature have been reported, too. In twenty places, or more, limited investigation has brought to light burials that “did not match” the rest of the archaeological landscape, this being one of the reasons why they have been individually “analyzed” and considered as defining features for groups like Copăceni, Ciomortan, Roşia and Zăbala. In time, some of these could be assimilated to the major cultural phenomena of the period, while others remained “singular”. There is a group of funerary finds which can be attributed to the late Zók phenomena: the Makó and Nyírség cultures, 5 and 8 respectively; the Nagyrév and Hatvan groups, 1 and 2, respectively. All of them are sufficiently well defined on the Lower Danube. A grave attributed to the Vinkovci group is also included, in the south-western corner of the area in question. There are another 10 funerary finds in the central Transylvanian plateau for which the cultural attribution or association with the major cultural groups of the area is debatable, to say the least. (See the list in Chapter 8.7). The discoveries for the Makó, Nyírség, Nagyrév and Hatvan groups, are few and far between. They are to the west of the Middle Carpathian ranges, but the space under consideration here only includes the respective areas to a small extent, which are otherwise quite well represented as cultural groups by the local funerary finds. The finds we have designated as singular are scattered and do not allow us to distinguish any significant groups that might represent them and they lie in the vicinity of the well-defined zones occupied by well-defined groups. For the late Zók burials, Nagyrév and Hatvan, the dominant funerary rite is incineration, with a small number of known inhumation graves - usually isolated. Isolated objects are in question usually, or groups of graves at most, which are not sufficiently eloquent so far as their funerary rite is concerned. The Makó group, dated to the Early Bronze Age by the overwhelming majority of the archaeologists who are specialized in problems of this group, only benefits of a single 14C date, which has been provided by the Szeghalom settlement; the calibrated determination indicating the interval 2610-2270 BC. One characteristic of this group’s funerary customs seems to be the absence of

cemeteries proper, the majority of Makó funerary finds being singular graves, and only sometimes small groups of burials. Ritually, the cremation graves usually hold the cinerary remains deposited in urns, with adjacent vessels, or with the cremated bones deposited in pits, in fewer cases. Thus at Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa a cremation urn-grave with three adjacent vases has been found. At Valea lui Mihai a cinerary urn-grave with nine pendants made of perforated animal teeth was found. The discovery was for a while considered as belonging to the Otomani culture, being subsequently attributed to the Makó group. The attribution of the inhumation graves is highly debatable, because the graves tend to stand proof for foreign presences, as is the case at Hódmezővásárhely, where an inhumation grave was found in the location called Kotacspart, but whose inventory vessel belonged to the Nagyrév repertoire, an argument for the attribution of this grave to the Periam-Pecica group! The finds at Călăţea and Roşia appear as utterly unfamiliar, just as indicated by their eccentric position in the Makó area. But the two finds have to be drastically corrected, given that in both cases we are dealing with remains of human skeletons found in caves, in conditions which do not allow us to grasp the real archaeological context. The reality of the Roşia group, which is only supported by the ceramic materials, should be regarded with serious reservations because it is difficult to know today whether the materials have been chosen ‘selectively’ or 'arbitrarily'. On the other hand, we cannot speak of funerary discoveries characteristic for this “group” given the precarious nature of the information. For the area in question, the most representative find in the Nyírség group is the flat-grave cemetery at Ciumeşti. Twenty-three graves were discovered thanks to systematic excavations made between 1962 and 1964 in the place known as Bostănărie; subsequently, between 1964 and 1965, in the place known as Grajduri another three graves were brought to light. Although the two places are 600 m away from each other, the authors of the excavations considered that they were dealing with a single flat-grave cemetery with burials in urns, which was initially attributed to phase I of the Otomani culture. This attribution was received with due reservations and today these cremation graves are considered a typical Nyírség find. We should stress from the start that unlike the rest of the Nyírség area, we are dealing with a cemetery at Ciumeşti. One further thing to note is that the idea that the graves at Bostănărie and at Grajduri could belong to the same cemetery is excessive in the extreme and cannot be taken into account, since it would indicate a cemetery extending over an unusually large area, with hundreds of burials in its perimeter. Rather, we have to do with two distinct funerary areas, none of which has been exhaustively researched. One difficulty is the relationship to one or the other of the settlements. A large Nyírség settlement has been recorded nearby, in the place known as Lăpuşul acastăului , and another one in the point known as Lăpuşul mare, but we have no details about the exact situation of the sites allowing us to appreciate to what extent these two settlements could be brought into relationship with the two funerary zones. The plan drawings for the graves found at Bostănărie do not permit us to see groups

56

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

of graves, and the authors of the publication have considered that the twenty-three graves were “located at random”. We can no longer tell now how many burials there were and how they were organized within the funerary zone, since their being “located at random” is not in the least plausible. All the graves are cremation-urn graves, and usually there is a single vessel used. Four graves are exceptions, as they had one adjacent vessel to one side and another one whose urn had a deep dish as a lid. Vessels of the tiny amphora kind were used as urns in 9 cases, a jar vessel, which sometimes had a striated surface in 7 cases, cups of varying size have been used twice, and only once a bowl was used, while for the rest of the graves it has been impossible to recover the shapes of the urns, which were very poorly preserved. Several graves have been brought to light at Pişcolt, at the place known as “Nisipărie”, some of which form a group consisting of seven cremation graves, whose calcinated remains lay in urns. The inventories do not leave room for doubt: they are Nyírség burials. Two graves had urns covered with bowls as lids and adjacent vessels. Another two graves had urns covered with lids, and the urns of the remaining three graves had no lid and no vessels placed at their side. The pits could not be distinguished, and their depths ranged from 0.50 to 0.80 m. From the description of the graves we deduce that they did not form groups. There is a Nyírség culture settlement in their vicinity and it is most likely that the grave groups belonged to it. The discovery of this group of urn-graves at Pişcolt is quite important for the entire Nyírség group, and especially so in the light of the present discussion, because it documents a small cemetery. We have no reasons to doubt that the mortuary areas of Nyírség have not been exhausted yet. At the time when this cemetery was published it was assumed that the other prehistoric graves at Pişcolt-Nisipărie, five of them being inhumation burials with crouched skeletons and another four being skull depositions, none of them with inventories, could be attributed to the Nyírség group. But this assumption cannot be taken into account since no case of bi-ritualism has been signaled in the area of the respective group. Other graves which belonged to the same group are the isolated ones at Foeni, Sanislău, Kántorjánosi and Kotáj. However, the most outstanding finds of this kind remain those at Ciumeşti and Pişcolt, which demonstrate the existence of distinct funerary zones with several burials adjacent to the settlements in their immediate vicinity. The late Zók funerary finds in the area studied here are especially important, not only due to their number or their spectacular character, but also owing to the cremation practice as a well-structured rite put into circulation in the area studied by us, at least referring to the Nyírség group. It is doubtless that from this area the custom spread or was taken over, allowing the practice of cremating the dead to become the adjacent, secondary funerary rite in the early Otomani culture. If cremation was accidental for the Otomani communities, in the Central Transylvanian plain, in the Wietenberg milieu the situation is just the reverse, cremation being the main funerary rite and inhumation occupying a secondary position, as an adjacent rite. Some time ago, a group of speleologists with archaeological interests discovered several

“situations” with human bones in the Izbucul Topliţei cave, in the Western Carpathians. Access to the cave is difficult and can be only through a siphon which is permanently flooded, letting in nobody apart from the thoroughly equipped and trained archaeologists and, indeed, an amateur archaeologist who received the necessary aid and has consequently proved that it is impossible to conduct systematic research here. In the opinion of the speleologists, the access gallery leading outside was intentionally obstructed, the only access way now being through the flooded siphon. Just as in other Western Carpathian caves, at Izbucul Topliţei numerous and largely scattered archaeological materials have been found in the interior, together with human skeletons, most of which had been scattered by the periodic floodings of the cave. It can be observed on the published photographs that the osteological remains are not in situ, and the vessels as well as the metal axe laid by their side can hardly be attributed to any specific burial. Judging by the pottery, the find as a whole has been ascribed to a phase of the early Nagyrév culture. One undoubtedly important fact is that the pottery has analogies in the Nagyrév repertoire, even if the position occupied by the Izbucul Topliţei cave is far away from the centre of the culture. The Nagyrév area as a whole has come to the fore owing to a group of finds from the Danube and the Tisza rivers, whose line they traversed southward, without reaching to the Western Carpathian range. Their dominant rite was cremation and the small number of inhumation graves is ascribed to the contacts with Periam-Pecica group. In this respect, the situation encountered in the Izbucul Topliţei cave appears as singular. Unfortunately, the site is extremely difficult to research, so as to verify archaeologically the potential analogies of the osteological remains and the artifacts in the cave, and, last but not least, the significance of the entire object, taking into consideration that generally cave finds are evidence for special funerary practices. At any rate, the discovery of human bones in association with pottery and metal items dating from the Early Bronze Age in the Izbucul Topliţei cave is not instrumental for “deciphering the funerary rites and ceremonial practices in use four millennia ago”, as the over-optimistic authors of this find were hoping. The two funerary finds at Hernádkak and Nyíregyháza attributed to the Hatvan milieu are a completely insignificant presence in the light of our discussion here, because they are isolated and peripheral in respect to the area under consideration. Cremation was the only funerary rite in the entire group, and cremation pit-graves were much commoner than the tombs with calcined remains placed in urns, which were rarer. The only grave belonging to the Vinkovci culture found in the area under study, at the periphery again is that at Sljunkara, unearthed in 1985. It was an isolated inhumation grave, with a laterally crouched skeleton, oriented WNW-ESE, 8 vessels placed near the head and a golden diadem placed at the feet. Anthropological analysis of the skeleton showed it to be a woman’s. Of all the isolated funerary complexes discovered in Transylvania, by far the most important is the cemetery at Bratei. It was a flat, cremation grave cemetery lying on the left bank of

57

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu the river Târnava Mare on a terrace researched in 1975. Fourteen cinerary graves were found, with only one grave, M. 14, without vessels. In this grave the calcinated remains had been deposited in a mound, covering a surface of 0.10 x 0.05 m. The first 13 graves were in a row circa 10m long, oriented E-W. The pits of the graves cut a sandy, fawn-colored deposit with Coţofeni sherds. When it was published, this cemetery was dated to the transition period from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age, and it had no specific cultural attribution. There is no plan drawing of the cemetery, and the osteological remains have not been anthropologically examined. The burials at Caşolţ have long been known, the first of them being brought to light at the end of the 19th century and in 1909. Later, by means of systematic research conducted between the years 1955 and 1956, several funerary complexes were investigated and 15 inhumation and cremation graves were found in barrows. But the presentation of the research results was far from satisfactory. Sometimes one, sometimes two, even three graves have been found in the investigated barrows. For one case it was observed that the cremation grave was “above” another inhumation grave; for another case, the cinerary graves were “at the edge of the barrow”, which prompted the assumption that cremation was more recent and it, therefore “gradually replaced” inhumation. The inhumation graves, all of them in stone cists, have been shown to contain one skeleton in each grave, sometimes two or even three skeletons. The statement made about all the skeletons was that they “were crouched on the left, with their head pointing NW and facing east”. The inventories published were only selective. It was only possible to provide cultural and chronological framing for the burials whose vessels were typical, belonging to the Noua culture. It seems that there was a time interval between the burials in the inhumation and the cremation graves, because the vessel from Barrow III, grave 1 differs from the Noua pottery, some of its characteristics bringing it closer to forms which were characteristic for the Early Bronze Age cultures on the Middle Danube such as the Nagyrév or even Late Zók kind, or to forms in the Schneckenberg repertoire, which could be an indication for the integration here of some of the cist-inhumation graves at Caşolţ. Consequently, through the inhumation rite and the custom of placing the deceased in stone cists, some of the Caşolţ-Trei morminţi graves can be set in relation to the Schneckenberg culture, well attested in Transylvania. During investigation of a Bronze Age settlement, a collective inhumation ground was found at Copăceni under the floor of a building belonging to Level II. What we can retain from the summary presentation of the find is that it consisted of “5 human skeletons (one adult and 4 fetuses)”. We have no archaeological details about the exact level of the pit, its shape, position and the orientation of the skeletons, about potential inventory elements and no detailed plan of the find. The whole situation is considered to belong to Level II of the excavated settlement which overlies a Coţofeni III deposit and is covered, in its turn, by another deposit with Wietenberg materials. Bu using the materials unearthed from the respective settlement and some

further materials in the same area, for example “part of the cemetery at Ampoiţa”, the author of the excavation tried to define the “Copăceni Group”, placing it in stage II of the Early Bronze Age, according to the chronological diagram borrowed from P. Roman. The inconsistency of this groupuscles, with an area barely exceeding that of a few neighboring communes is evident. However, we can keep in mind the importance of this funerary complex and a verification of this find’s stratigraphy is absolutely necessary, allowing us to reassert or to contradict its status as an intra muros burial, since such finds are really exceptional for the time span they have been assigned to. We have one summary report about one peripheral object lying under a barrow and surrounded by a stone ring at Floreşti. Coţofeni sherds have been retrieved from the mantle of the barrow. It appears that it could be attributed to the Early Bronze Age, but there is no way of attributing it to one cultural group or another. Other funerary finds that might well belong to the same category are the ones at Călăţea, Izbucul Topliţei and Roşia, and the one made at Luncasprie. Here we only have the record about a cemetery that “provided a complex, lasting landmark for the centuries at the end of the Neolithic Age and the beginning of the Bronze Age”. Since then the existence of these funerary objects has not been brought up in the literature, although it can serve to demonstrate that there are further such funerary finds which could be dated to the Early Bronze Age in the Western Carpathian region, given the geographical position, so close to the caves at Călăţea, Izbucul Topliţei and Roşia. Between 1893 and 1895, 18 barrows that belonged to a larger group, consisting of 38 barrows, sometimes in groups of 6 or 7 were researched at Ocland, on the point known as Kunhalmok. Broken human bones were found in numerous barrows, at various depths in the ground, ranging from 1.10 to 1.50 m. In another three barrows three graves were found, which were all of inhumation. One thing known about two of the graves, which were both individual, is that the occupants were found lying on their backs “with their eyes directed to the east”. The third grave contained two skeletons deposited in a stone slab cist. Lastly, a vessel with a funnel-shaped mouth was found in another cist. The information is summary, but the importance of this find should not be minimized. The inhumation rite, involving the placement of the corpse, sometimes two corpses at a time, in stone slab cists together with the vessel with analogies in the Funnel Beaker (Trichterbecherkultur) group allow us to, albeit tentatively, find a similarity with the Schneckenberg objects situated in the vicinity at Brăduţ or slightly further away at Moacşa or Sânzieni, once again belonging to the Schneckenberg group. During investigation of a Noua culture settlement at Peteni, a flat-grave inhumation grave was found within the precinct. Its late Bronze Age stratigraphic position is not specified. It has been stated that the grave’s form was oval. A skeleton lying on one side in a pronounced crouched position and oriented SW-NE was found at the bottom of the pit. It was devoid of inventory items. The grave was attributed to “an early phase of the first Iron Age” with absolutely no archaeological arguments. It is hard to tell from the summary excavation report what the two authors of

58

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

the excavation meant when they referred to an early phase of the first Iron Age. Given that a Noua settlement has been documented in the place known as Hotarul de jos-Panta de mesteceni, it is quite difficult to attribute to it the grave as well, owing to the fact that intra-mural Noua burials are a rarity, and in Transylvania at least only one such find is known so far, the one claimed as such at Zoltan. Since Middle Bronze Age Wietenberg burials in cremation graves have been reported in the Covasna County also, the grave at Peteni may well belong to an earlier period, to the Early Bronze Age that is, which is a tentative appreciation I am voicing here. In a short contribution dedicated to the funerary rites of the Bronze Age in south-east Transylvania, specialists were for the first time informed about the existence of an inhumation grave that belonged to the Ciomortan culture at Poian. It was a flat-grave burial, with a laterally crouched child’s skeleton whose head pointed south, and whose eyes were directed to the east, which means he was lying on his right side. The grave had a deep dish of reduced dimensions. The grave at Poian seems very important as the single funerary find of the Ciomortan group! But since this group, whose definition has been more than disputable, can hardly represent a self-sufficient archaeological reality, the identity of the poor deceased child at Poian remains undefined. The grave at Zăbala, in the place known as Movila Tătarului is in a very similar situation. According to the authors of the excavation, the subject of research on that site was an Early Bronze Age settlement although they make the following explicit statement: “the prehistoric settlement, the cultural layer dating to the Early Bronze Age, has been washed away during erosions”!! Under the circumstances, they also say that “the burial rite of this culture is known through a single grave that was found on the plateau of the barrow, probably occupying a site near a dwelling.”! According to the published description, the grave contained a single crouched skeleton, oriented east-west “with the face to the east”. As inventory it had “an amphora or pseudo-amphora” and a piece of jewelry for the neck which only left a green patina trace where it had been. The anthropological analysis has shown that it was an adult woman who could be connected to the Atlantic-Mediterranean type. As the grave plan indicates, the skeleton lay crouched on the left and its orientation was SW 215̊ - NE 35̊. The vessel with the two handles on its shoulder, as the author quoted believes, has a decoration which is hard to make out from the published drawing. Its form is relatively common in the Early Bronze Age. It seems to have had a series of marks in a row on the shoulder, which had probably been incisions. We cannot say anything more about it. Considering the way the grave was published and the fact that the only pottery comes from the settlement without an underlying cultural layer, and since no other “Zăbala type” finds have been reported anywhere else, I think I am entitled vehemently to veto “the reality” of this cultural groupuscle and all the ensuing gratuitous discussions. What we are left with is the grave as such, which we consequently have the right to leave safely accommodated within the Early Bronze Age, while waiting for finds produced by professional on-site research and thorough

publication likely to enlighten us about Early and incipient Middle Bronze Age situation in south-eastern Transylvania! Back to the Transylvanian funerary finds as a whole, which have been attributed to the Early Bronze Age on varying grounds, we must begin by noting that the archaeological documentation is disastrous because, on the one hand, we have finds which may be substantial, as those at Ocland, for example, but they are old and put into circulation in unsatisfactory ways, though there can be clearer situations, also, at Bratei for instance, and, on the other hand, we have anti-archaeological finds, as those at Covasna, or utterly uncertain finds, as those of the Western Carpathian caves. At the same time and in spite of the patchy, contradictory aspect of the documentation, it can be noticed first that the inhumation rite is retained and is clearly structured too, as the slab cists point to a standard that was ritually related to the social position of the deceased and, secondly, we can observe at the same time the clear, albeit chorological as yet undocumented, penetration as far as the river Târnava Mare of the practice of cremating the dead. The latter practice is inevitably to be connected with the same funerary customs of the Hungarian Puszta, which must actually be its place of origin and from where it was borrowed together with certain forms of pottery, which were naturally more numerous in the area west of the Western Carpathians. It can be observed that in relation with this new funerary fashion the two clearly defined inhumation “blocks”, Livezile and Schneckenberg, are rather permissive, though in varying proportions, which could be the explanation for this funerary custom crossing the Carpathians to the south. As there are no traces of any new forms of habitat which might also indicate new subsistence strategies in support of the idea of foreign populations penetrating to the area, we should consider that the new mortuary practices cannot have been brought in the newcomers’ luggage but were borrowings brought along with the practice of brush-stroked pots and pans, in force at the beginning at least. However, one more issue still to be elucidated in relation with the Middle Bronze Age is why cremation became the dominant rite in the central Transylvanian flatland while inhumation was retained as the praiseworthy funerary custom to the west, in the Otomani area, and to the south-west, in the Periam-Pecica surroundings. The solution to this problem must be preceded, however, by the re-ordering of its data, namely the elimination of such groupuscles as Ciomortan, Copăceni, Roşia, and Zăbala to which can be added those utterly devoid of funerary finds, for example Iernut, Zoltan, etc., all of which have been legitimated of late in pretentious syntheses with absolutely no grounds. The east and south Trans-Carpathian zone has a greater number of funerary finds dated to the Early Bronze Age in the traditionally accepted sense of this archaeological period, whose attribution is either ungrounded or debatable, if the finds have been singular (See the list in Chapter 8.8). The main package of problems comes from what the specialists at Chişinău have termed the “Edineţ culture”, an archaeological phenomenon considered to belong to the Early Bronze Age. The first monument which served for the definition of this “Edineţ culture” is a small group of inhumation

59

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu graves unearthed on the territory of the locality Brânzeni, in Basarabia. Another group of graves was subsequently researched in the vicinity of Cuconeştii Vechi, together with two further barrow graves at Văratic, all of which were in the former Edineţ district, hence the denomination of this “culture”. In time, other finds were attributed to it too, but the area of the group has remained utterly limited and featuring no settlements so far. By invoking the pottery finds, parallels have been found for it in Glina-Schneckenberg or even farther away, in Mureş/Periam-Pecica, Vinkovci-Somogyvár and Hatvan, and the appearance on the Upper Prut of the Edineţ culture was appreciated as the result of the “partial migration of the population from nowadays’ north-east Hungary and it might be traced to the 18th century or the beginning of the 17th BC”. This “culture” is debatable in the extreme with a more than limited territory and materially supported only by the inventories of a few graves. I think we ought to regard them as a limited group of finds, albeit each with an individuality of its own, which remain open to closer examination and allow us to hope that in future more relevant finds, might indicate a different situation. We can already discern some telling factors. The pottery known from the Edineţ finds has analogies with the early Monteoru pottery. In addition, very closely resembling pottery has been found between the Carpathian Curve and the Edineţ district, but it has tended to be ignored after being discovered some time ago in the Monteoru settlement at Poiana, on the river Siret. It is more natural to see analogies between the Basarabian finds discovered now and the ones in the early Monteoru milieu, which is chorological closer, than to accept the appearance of this indeterminately new group of graves on the Upper Prut as the result of some exilic population displacement from the Hungarian Puszta! The evident relationship with the early Monteoru culture allows us to date firmly what has been called the “Edineţ culture” to a period not very much later than 2500 BC. The Edineţ finds are limited to a rather reduced area on or near the left bank of the Prut. According to Dergačev, it is possible to add to them the “recently discovered cemetery with an unclear stratigraphy in the Noua-Costeşti VIII settlement, which preliminarily was attributed to the Early Iron Age”. In 1986 the “Edineţ culture” came to incorporate graves found at Tochile-Răducani and materials found by chance at Pruteni. All the excavations that led to the discovery of the graves were of salvage archaeology. The results of the excavations at Brânzeni have remained virtually unknown and the only information available concerns the finding of 6 flat-grave burials yielding a single cup with two handles drawn from the rim. For the group of 6 graves at Cuconeştii Vechi we have a synthetic presentation, which accompanies a general excavation layout drawing, the plan of one grave and the inventory items. The Văratic barrow is documented by a summary plan, in fact a sketch, with no details and no scale. The two “Edineţ” graves found at Văratic were in a barrow; while at Brânzeni and Cuconeştii Vechi the graves were in a flat-grave burial group. The Cuconeştii Vechi graves are said to be in a curvilinear row which in fact describes the excavated surface and makes the remark pointless. The excavations at Brânzeni and Cuconeştii Vechi were limited, making

it hard to tell if the graves in both places formed a whole or belonged to a larger funerary zone. As we do not know anything about the settlements of the “Edineţ culture”, we cannot decipher the relationship between the funerary zone and the dwelling area. The fact that the Văratic tombs were in barrows should give us reason to think, as we know the well-documented tradition already existing in that part of Basarabia for barrow burials, at Cuconeştii Vechi, at least, where Yamnaya and Katakombnaya graves have been discovered before. The published “layout drawing” of the Cuconeştii Vechi grave group allows us to see that all the graves followed the same long axis orientation: N-S. One important element is contributed by the individual funerary structures. Three graves have been found at Brânzeni, each with its own limestone slab cist and the bottom lined with slabs. No such cists have been found at Cuconeştii Vechi or in the barrow at Văratic, which seems to indicate that it was not one of the basic elements of the Edineţ funerary standard. Stepped pits are another important funerary structure element and four such graves have been found at Cuconeştii Vechi. The practice of filling pits with stones is another element of funerary structures. The skeletons unearthed were in the laterally crouched position, most of them laid on the right, and some laid on the left. The inventories of the graves at Brânzeni and Cuconeştii Vechi mainly consist of pottery and 4 or 5 vessels have been found at the head or the foot of the corpses in some graves. Weapons are represented by arrow-heads made of flint found in 6 graves, which is quite a large quantity, and by two stone axes. Dress items are less frequent and consist of lock rings of copper and copper, bronze or even gold bracelets and in only one case a few bone beads. This indicates, as it were, that in the Edineţ group masculine attributes are more conspicuous than the feminine, but the available stock is insignificant and we have no anthropological determinations. Two of the funerary structures of the Edineţ type seem to me worth discussing: the stepped pits and the habit of filling pits with stones. Similar cases are known in the Monteoru culture area at Cândeşti and Cârlomăneşti, which brings to the fore the relationship between the Monteoru culture and the group of graves in the Edineţ district: it involves the dependency of the funerary elements on the collective mind and on funerary practices/mentality rather than on material culture in itself, although we have seen how in this particular domain pottery has always revealed existing analogies. I do not think we can find arguments for a Hatvan participation through migration to the genesis of the “Edineţ culture”, but we should consider as another possibility the existence of a larger area in which there was a measure of common possession of material goods and funerary customs made possible by long-distance exchanges. The common possession of material and spiritual goods is hard to interpret at present. We still need settlements corresponding to the Brânzeni and Cuconeştii Vechi graves and further researched burials. At the same time we should not forget for a moment that the two elements of the Edineţ funerary structure - the stepped pits and stone filling of graves - are to be found in the Monteoru, Komarów-Costişa and Mnogovalikovaja medium too, and that the latter two immediately

60

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

follow the group of graves found in the Edineţ department and occupying precisely the characteristic area of the “Edineţ” culture. In the rest of the Trans-Carpathian region, and in Dobrudja and Banat too, another 15 funerary situations are known, most of which come from fortuitous finds (See the list in Chapter 8.8). Quite a lot of them have often been mentioned in the literature as belonging to the Early Bronze Age. Most of them are in Moldova, but this is due to their inclusion in studies containing records of more extensive archaeological surveys, which were missing in other provinces or regions. The correct dating to the Early Bronze Age of all these funerary objects cannot be supported by archaeological records underlying every one of them. For paradigmatic reasons, they were almost mechanically analyzed and dated, instead of resorting to much more desirable neutral presentations. The purpose of the study undertaken here is not to correct, at all costs, various particular attributions or date determinations, but to attempt drawing wider funerary practice standards. This undertaking is hindered by the existence of such an archipelago of small, yet numerous, “islets” of uncertainty. In this category, the finds are almost insignificant and the information they provide is scant. Very rarely is it the case that we learn about details. Such is the case of the Gura Văii -"Dealul Găunesei" find including 6 inhumation graves with crouched skeletons and three vessels by the side of some skeletons. A “stone cobbling consisting of regularly laid boulders” covered the graves at 0.40 m depth, which were appreciated to belong to the Bronze Age. Little more is know about the equally fortuitous find at Brăteni apart from the discovery of a few inhumation graves with human skeletons and one with the skeleton of a horse. The information about the graves at Cucuteni, Leţcani is similarly scant, with the mere mention that they had “crouched” skeletons “lying face down”. By contrast to the already mentioned graves, supposed to be most likely flat-grave burials, at Pogorăşti some graves were found by chance in a barrow, and at Tudor Vladimirescu a grave is mentioned in a barrow destroyed by bulldozer and said to have contained human bones. None of these finds can be turned to account, but the barrow at Tudor Vladimirescu might complete the map of burials in barrows and the stone cobbling adjoining to the Gura Văii burials might signal an analogy with similar structures found in Bronze Age tombs. However, we should remain lucid and opt for rather more prudent ways in our research. The inhumation flat-grave at Lichitişeni, which was found in unknown circumstances, had in its inventory a vessel considered to have “analogies with the Ezerovo II and Folteşti finds”. This grave has been included, along others, in the archaeological discussion about the cultural evolution of the Early Bronze Age east of the Carpathians. If we look at things in chorologic perspective and accept the analogies proposed for the vessel found here, the grave at Lichitişeni can be taken precisely as a mark in the “blank space” between the group of the Edineţ finds and those of early Monteoru, which confers it some importance. The find at Lungoci, where the destruction of a barrow in 1970 brought to light a

grave with an exceptional inventory, is as important as it is debatable. The rectangular form of the pit and the traces of red ochre at its bottom should be arguments for ascribing it to the Yamnaya group, since the locale of the find is within the distribution of the respective burials. But the inventory, which consists of a massive gold bracelet with round cross-section and open ends, a necklace made of 44 gold rings, a bronze awl, three river shell beads and a flint blade does not in the least match the Yamnaya inventories, which are very poor. Precisely owing to the lack of correspondence between the dress items found at Lungoci and those of the Yamnaya type and starting from analogies with some items from Varna, it has been proposed quite recently that the grave in question should be dated “to the Late Neolithic Age, namely the end of the 4th millennium BC.” This chronology comes very close to the calibrated radiocarbon dating for some “red ochre” graves, for example the one at Baia-Hamangia. However, this leaves open the issue of whether the golden items with analogies in the Late Neolithic found south of the Danube really belonged to the Yamnaya funerary standard – as this pit and the red ochre at its bottom would indicate, or if they belonged to an unidentified group. I think we should also stress the fact that none of the Yamnaya burials recorded on the current territory of Bulgaria, some of them very close to Varna, have boasted finds such as the Lungoci bracelet, which is reason enough for the increase of uncertainty surrounding the Siret find. The salvage excavations at Trifeşti led to the discovery of two inhumation graves, flat graves most probably. The skeleton was found “seated” in the first circular pit, with the eyes directed NE and with animal bones near the skull. The second grave had only a few human bones left at the bottom and two overlaid skeletons of big bovines. A small hearth was also found near the grave. The find has not been culturally or chronologically classified since it had no inventory. The presence of the two bovine skeletons, however, may well indicate that the respective grave belonged to the northern Moldavian group of the Globular Amphorae Culture. One important find for the Early Bronze Age in Muntenia may well have been the fortuitous find at Balaci. It consists of a group of four objects excavated from the periphery of a Gumelniţa tell and representing a bracelet, a “pectoral” piece and a wire, all of them made of gold. The golden pectoral piece was reviewed and dated as Copper Age (Kupferzeit) by K. Horedt and the find as a whole was quite judiciously connected to the Lungoci find, especially because of the bracelet. Consequently, I think we are entitled to ask if the Balaci “hoard” might not be a funerary inventory, just as the one at Lungoci. Three more inhumation flat graves have been found at Chirnogi-Terasa rudarilor in southern Muntenia. They were attributed to the Bronze Age with no arguments. One isolated inhumation grave has been reported from the Bărăgan, at Cireşu, found during the excavation of a Gumelniţa tell-settlement and attributed to the Bronze Age too. We do not know the criteria that served for their attribution to the Bronze Age, but they were not ascribed thus owing to the inventories, because they had none. The inhumation grave at Chirnogi may belong to practically any period of the Bronze Age, the Tei culture perhaps being more likely, but verifications

61

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu are needed before finalizing the attribution. The grave at Cireşu is similar, both finds being of little use. In Oltenia, only one such find is known, possibly belonging to the Early Bronze. It is at Jupâneşti, a locality lying at circa 550 m altitude and circa 20-25 km south of the Iron Gates (Porţile de Fier), and yielding as early as the beginning of the 20th century an inhumation grave, including one diorite and one copper or bronze axe. The find is important and we can only regret that we have nothing but this short mention to go by. The stone and metal axes leave us in do doubt about this being a funerary monument dating to the Bronze Age and since the Middle and Late Bronze period was one with cremation as the overriding funerary custom, the most probable dating for this find is the Early Bronze Age, leaving the matter of its cultural attribution in suspension. The data from Dobrudja include the discovery of a grave during investigation of a barrow at Baia-Hamangia 1974. An inhumation grave was found, which contained a skeleton crouched on the left, red ochre and a battered bronze object. The reasoning for dating it reads as follows: “Das Grab ist versuchsweise der Endperiode der mittleren Bronzezeit zuzuschreiben”. We cannot accept this dating due to the absence of red ochre burials in barrows from the end of the Middle Bronze, so we propose regarding it as a Yamnaya or even later burial. One very important find is that at Izvoarele, a locality on the right bank of the Danube. Two vessels and a stone axe have been recovered from a destroyed grave. One of the vessels has a globular body and four perforated protuberances on its shoulder and a corded decoration, which served to associate it with some vessels found in the Yamnaya group and makes the Izvoarele grave ascribable to the horizon of Early Bronze Age burials. There is no more than a telegraphic signal accompanying the cremation cemetery at Polsko Kosovo. It tells us that: “колко погребения, извършени чрез изгаряне. Костите и пепелта са били поставени в глинени урни. Няма данни за инвентара им. Явно - отнася се за некропол о т края бронзовата епоха”. In the valley of the Danube, such cinerary urn-graves are to be found only in funerary structures belonging to the Yamnaya group, for example at Tărnava, while for the Middle and Late periods the zone has yielded only inhumation graves. As it is singular and not supported with information, the find at Plosko Kosovo should be left in suspension. The Periam-Pecica culture occupied a distinct area at the confluence of the rivers Mureş and Tisza, with the meandering line of the river Galatca as its southern border and the Dry Er/Szárazér as the northern limit. The presence of Periam-Pecica communities proper further than the river Tisza is disputable since some cemeteries have burials with somewhat differing rites and ritual, side by side with Periam-Pecica burials, which would indicate the presence of communities with Periam-Pecica and Vatya acculturation. The finds at Ghioroc and Văsoaia seem to be the easternmost ones, which shows that the area of the group was bordered to the east by the hilly regions before the Western Carpathians north of the river Mureş and it was

bordered to the south of the same river by the Lipova hills and the river Timiş. The current aspect of this area differs from the one of antiquity, when it was a marshland traversed by numerous rivers and a kind of delta of the river Mureş, which was a sort of “spinal chord” for the Periam-Pecica zone. I think we ought to take into account the possibility that the population which occupied this "delta" in antiquity exploited the gold sands carried by the river Mureş and by one of its former streams, nowadays a river very suggestively called Aranka/Zlatica. Of all the Bronze Age phenomena in the area in question here, the Periam-Pecica culture, which other authors name Mureş culture, has been most intensely researched as regards burials in particular. It has been defined from two somewhat different perspectives, which is reflected in its double name used as such in Romanian literature. The origin of the Periam-Pecica culture is still a difficult issue for many specialists who have been exposed to it, without being able to arrive at definitive conclusions. The participation of the late Zók, i.e., Makó groups, and of other Early Bronze groups from the Hungarian Puszta is most unlikely, in view of the fact that inhumation is dominant in the Periam-Pecica communities by contrast to cremation characteristic to the surrounding groups with late Zók origins. The chronology of the group is yet another difficulty, for radiocarbon dating indicates them as contemporary. There are calibrated radiocarbon dates, albeit not very reliable, which traces the beginning of the Periam-Pecica group to 2200 BC, i.e. the same time as some Makó settlements, for example at Szeghalom-Környe. It should be noted that brushed (Besenstrich) pottery, which is characteristic of the late Zók groups, appears only rarely in Periam-Pecica sites, and in cemeteries it is significantly associated with cremation graves. As shown before and in another context, the end of the culture cannot possibly reach beyond the Middle Bronze Age, since a whole series of Pecica finds including grooved/fluted pottery indicate quite clearly that the Periam-Pecica group had ceased to develop at the time when the new species of pottery appeared. The Periam-Pecica habitat has been known for some time through the eponymous settlements of tell type. Metallurgical activities are among the characteristic technical and economic features of the Periam-Pecica communities. Although the Periam-Pecica group does not have metal ore, and especially no copper, it amazingly proves quite well stocked with metal objects of all sorts, from copper or bronze weapons or dress items made of the same metal/alloy or of gold, many of these being present in funerary inventories. The metal casting utensils found in Periam-Pecica settlements are even more striking and they prove that the respective communities obtained the raw material needed for home-production of metal objects. Irrespective of the form, the raw material was obtained by distant exchanges as the Periam-Pecica area occupied a privileged position in the thoroughly structured routes that benefited by traditions of exchange connecting large areas. The distant exchange had the effect of configuring the social status of certain individuals, which can be traced in funerary inventories, and sometimes in funerary structures too. The archaeological documentation for the

62

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

Periam-Pecica group comes from the funerary finds of the group of 33 localities (see the list in Chapter 9.1), some of which have been long known. Most of the mortuary finds attributed to the Periam-Pecica group have been due to archaeological excavations, systematic digs on large sites, salvage excavations or mere trial digs of variable amplitudes (amounting to two thirds). Fortuitous finds amount to almost one third, while other funerary contexts identified, albeit not always very precisely, form a limited stock which is not statistically relevant. What enhances the quality of the archaeological documentation for the Periam-Pecica mortuary groups is the fact that the larger cemeteries have been published, even when, as for the case of Szőreg, the published material may have contained inadvertent data, however actually published with almost complete information, with general and individual plan drawings and with illustrated inventories. We must concede that the methodology of the excavations has not always been ideal as we can tell by the graphic documentation available and when considering some on-site observations making the older research at Beba Veche, Ószéntiván, Pitváros and Szőreg incomplete. Also, we must deplore the fact that the cemetery at Ostojičevo, with its great number of burials, some of which have particularities, has not been put into circulation. The quality of the archaeological documentation in question is also remarkable by the fact that more than 800 of the graves found in total come from cemeteries which contribute an overriding percentage, (46%), of the information. One major shortcoming in the information about the Periam-Pecica culture is the major absence of anthropological diagnoses, given only for 325 (37.05%) of the over 800 burials. The main group of analyzed graves is the one at Mokrin, with 218 anthropologically determined burials. For the Periam-Pecica/Mureş burials, one of the issues left unsolved is that of the relation of cemeteries (or funerary precincts) to settlements. The widespread cemeteries which should have corresponded to the great eponymous settlements of Periam and Pecica and, more recently, Klárafalva have not been found, just as the settlements which corresponded to the great cemeteries of Mokrin, Szőreg, Battonya and Deszk, for example, have not been found either. Actually traces of a settlement have been found at Mokrin, in the vicinity of the cemetery, but this settlement has not been researched and, consequently, we have no data enabling us to make a comparative study. This also causes a complication, because it has been observed that there are two kinds of Periam-Pecica settlements: tells and so-called “open settlements”, for example at Ószentiván-Nagyhalom, Mokrin-Popin paor and, more recently, Kiszombor-Új Élet, which calls for the specification of the relationship between each of these settlement types and their funerary precincts. The limited number of indications available today, apart from the human bone finds and the excavations in isolated funerary contexts, seems, quite naturally, to indicate that the cemeteries lay in the vicinity of the settlements. One issue intimately connected to this is that of the funerary area size, including the surface, number of burials and duration in time. The fact that at Deszk, in a relatively limited perimeter there are three

topographically distinct cemeteries or funerary precincts is extremely important. The habitation area has not, unfortunately, been found yet so that the question whether the three cemeteries - A, F and Véno - belong to a single settlement, perhaps as those at Pecica and Periam, or if they each had a distinct settlement corresponding to it remains unsolved. The cemeteries at Battonya, Mokrin and Szőreg and, maybe even Ostojićevo with their numerous graves found in distinct mortuary zones, must have had corresponding settlements to match them, and the very same will have been true for the other cemeteries. We feel entitled, therefore, to believe that at Beba Veche, Ószentiván and Pitvaros too, the cemeteries were equally large, with a great number of burials to match the size of the settlements. The distribution and number of burials in the cemeteries show the internal layout of the funerary precincts. I seriously doubt that the distribution of some inventory items, dress items and weapons, could in itself indicate any potential territorial units or funerary plots, and we must not forget the random factors inherent in human behavior, that can be conducive to erroneous assumptions. At the same time it is hard to believe that burials were made at random. Although not many in the Periam-Pecica area - at Battonya, Mokrin and Szőreg - double or collective graves demonstrate that precisely the opposite was the case, as do some graves lying very close to each other and resembling “permanent lots” for families. We have already seen how hard it is to delimit any grave groups, and funerary plots, but this can simply be due to the fact that the funerary precinct as a whole and the individual funerary plots were crowded all the time when the cemetery was in use and this indirectly indicates that the funerary zones were marked. Under the circumstances, it is impossible to consider the ordering of the grave into “rows of graves” applicable, since this organization or paradigm would make the cemetery practically unlimited. In fact at Mokrin it is possible to discern a radial structure in the organization of the funerary precinct, with the four large parcels converging to the centre, where the special burials are accommodated. Similar distinctions may have been made at Szőreg too, and then the difficulty would have been considerably minimized by comparing the two large cemeteries, but the absence of a general plan has prevented us from approaching things in this way. Archaeological investigation has been discontinuous in space and time at Battonya, so no direct connections can be made between the two “cemeteries”; but we already have indications that the funerary area, which is quite large, was divided into two contemporary plots of land, as the inventories show quite clearly. It has already been noted that at Deszk we can suspect that the drawings of the cemeteries A and F were adjusted, being drawn up at a later date and using incomplete manuscripts, which is why the “grave rows” which Bóna thought to observe were actually the result of the modern organization rather than of the Bronze Age structures. In this connection, I need to insist that whenever the literature mentions small groups of graves they may all actually be larger scale cemeteries only partially discovered or researched. If excavations continued they would prove to be large cemeteries.

63

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu Difficulties in examining the structure of the funerary precincts are largely due to insufficient research. The absence of general or individual plan drawings for cemeteries and graves, summary records unable to provide details about the skeleton position and orientation, hasty and paradigmatic interpretation impair the potential value of some great funerary sites, such as that of Szőreg. This does not allow us to provide a clear solution for the organization of the funerary precincts in the Periam-Pecica groups. But one thing to remember, albeit as a simple statistical tendency, is the fact that the funerary zones with numerous burials had a structure based on territorial units which could be large, for example at Battonya, and Mokrin too, perhaps, since there we do not deal with simple family parcels but with whole funerary districts, actually accommodating the deceased from various segments of the respective communities. It is hard to decide if the three cemeteries discovered at Deszk are illustrative of an identical situation, but this may well be the case. The sociological significance of this segmentation lies in the fact that it reflects in funerary terms the organization of everyday life, the division into districts being expressive of the group affiliations, which I believe can be considered applicable to the funerary customs of the Periam-Pecica culture. As I have repeatedly stated, all the Periam-Pecica funerary finds are flat graves. This may seem a mere commonplace at first glance, but if we recall that not too long before the same area had seen barrow burials, the fact acquires new dimensions. I have no intention of entering headlong in my study on the muddled path of the Periam-Pecica origins, but the adoption of a new funerary practice or formula, with flat graves and large flat-burial cemeteries, constitutes a novelty at a time when the new group comes into its own in the area situated at the confluence between the rivers Tisza and Mureş; it is also worth noting that the novelty is not an isolated phenomenon but is significant in a wider sense, since barrows disappeared in the Hungarian Puszta when the new funerary fashion became common practice. Except for the Battonya cemetery, cremation appears as an incidental, adjacent funerary rite in all the Periam-Pecica funerary objects, no matter if they were cemeteries or isolated grave finds. It has been repeatedly and justly emphasized that these burials are proof for contacts with the neighboring funerary habits which resorted to cremation. It is hard to decide whether the cremated dead at Čoka, Mokrin, Ostojićevo, Szőreg and maybe also at Ghioroc, Deszk or Sânnicolau Mare are “intruders” in the Periam-Pecica settlements, but the utterly incidental occurrence of cremation at the beginning of this group’s evolution and in the middle seems to indicate precisely this - an actually foreign presence - rather than borrowings of the cremation practice. Borrowings appeared only in a later phase, when some of the Periam-Pecica communities, especially those most peripherical in the area in question, were sure to have gradually adopted the custom of burning some of their deceased as a result of the prolonged contacts with the surrounding areas; this happened at Battonya, where we can already assert that we deal with a bi-ritual cemetery, in which cremation appears as a

secondary funerary rite. The Battonya cemetery illustrates a situation which is similar with that recorded in the Otomani/Füzesabony area, where the end of the culture saw an increase in the incidence of cremation, which also became a secondary rite and persuaded many specialists to change the identity of the group. The phenomenon occurred uninterruptedly in the Hungarian Puszta in the former Periam Pecica area, which brings us to the cemetery of Tápé, with its 687 burials, an extremely complex cemetery, in which cremation is well represented side by side with inhumation, where the inventories are mixed and which is in itself a problem for the understanding of the Late Bronze Age funerary practices in the area where the Mureş runs into the Tisza. We cannot know, with the data available at present, if the massive penetration of cremation in this area is due to some corresponding penetration of foreign population groups, or if we are confronted with the gradual passage to other forms of funerary expression. Whatever the case may be, we are witnessing the “disappearance” of the Periam-Pecica funerary standard. The first observation to make when examining the interiors of the Periam-Pecica cemeteries is that no special purpose structures have appeared during excavations. Although there have existed indications, albeit doubtful, about the presence of “leather” remains together with other organic remains that served, presumably, as lining to some of the graves, the rarity of such indications and the imprecision of the reports point to faulty research rather than to any valid archaeological realities. One thing worth remembering, especially from the observations made at Mokrin, is that two concomitant types of pits existed: oval and rectangular. Unfortunately there is no satisfactory equivalent in other great cemeteries for the precision achieved in the observations made at Mokrin, so we can conclude that there are no records of variable interior structures for the Periam-Pecica burials, except for the burials at Battonya and Sándorfalva and maybe at Szőreg, which make them irrelevant from the chorologic point of view. The attempt to connect the pit types with the sex or age groups in the Mokrin cemetery has not revealed any special “preferences”, the records being evenly balanced in this respect. There are indications that oval pits may be slightly prevalent in women’s graves, but this holds true only after considering the effect of the random factor in archaeological research. The two pit types definitely exist, however. We cannot mark ostensible distinctions on the general plans, but the difference is real and its significance must be explained, or at least it must be grappled with. The segmentation of the Bronze Age community at Mokrin must have been made by considering several aspects or perspectives, one of these being the “preference” for a rectangular or oval pit. In all likelihood the shape was not a matter of sheer “preference”, but it must have been indicative of affiliations to particular community sub-units, as each of these will have had their own ceremonial codes. There is no archaeological method of ascertaining the respective affiliations and their significance, but they ought to provide the most suitable explanation in this case. Judging by the finds at Mokrin, rectangular pits were generally bigger, which has already been directly connected

64

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

with the more special inventories or with the higher status of the deceased. Since skull burial has been clearly documented only at Beba Veche, Battonya and Mokrin, they can be set in relation to the osteological human remains found in isolation in settlements and can be considered as potentially an indication of postmortem manipulation of the corpses. Only a substantial stock of similar finds, with skull burials and human remains in their respective habitats, which should also be thoroughly presented, could provide an answer, a clear solution to this problem – but no such data exists at present. Symbolic burials have been attested at Mokrin and Pitvaros, and subsequently, in a more developed stage, at Battonya. The view that certain objects found without bones in the cemetery precincts were necessarily symbolic graves will lead to interminable discussion. When necessary, we have already shown that the structure of some objects of this kind closely resembles the structure of bona fide graves with bones, which means we can accept this view. But we have to ask ourselves to what extent such contexts were actual simulacra of burials for people who had perished in alien places or whether they were connected once again with the postmortem manipulation of corpses. Pithos burials are documented for Szőreg, Deszk A and (probably) Battonya. In each case they are few, and therefore of very minor incident. But the fact that there is a summary mention of them in large numbers – 43 - at Ostojicevo is likely to alter the way we look at the data. Unfortunately these very important graves have not been published, so we will avoid commenting about them further. One thing is clear, however: that if we keep this information in mind we must note that the data related to these burials’ as being destined for children in the main are to be regarded in a rather different light from the suggestion previously put forward. Osteological remains were rarely subjected to anthropological examination before the period following the Second World War. Research started from the assumption that graves with several dress items were certain to belong to women, while skeletons accompanied by weapons were indisputably masculine; then the positions and orientations of these burials were linked, which led to the creation of the paradigmatic interpretation model of archaeological gender. This made everything appear to be in order and many of the specialists launched general considerations regarding the standard disposition of the corpses for the Periam-Pecica/Mureş group, and not only this. Welcome gender diagnoses, however, which rested upon methodological anthropological examinations, produced the first desirable contradictions in respect to the interpretative paradigm – but given the fact that the number of cases was limited, they were disregarded as insignificant deviations from the paradigmatic sets. Since we now have a considerable quantity of analyses of this kind, albeit still insufficient, we can no longer regard them as deviation cases, and must consequently examine them. I have already pointed out the problems related to the great cemeteries and it is no use my taking up the subject and this discussion again. I should like to conclude by a number of general

observations. The first issue we must raise is that of the layout of corpses in dependence of the sex group. What matters is not the fact that in some graves men were laid on their left, while in others they were laid on their right – this is a minor matter, so long as each time men were found lying on one side, and women on the other side, to mark the difference by the funerary expression, in a manner that was supported by the “orientation” rules, in their turn different every time and translating the principle of bi-polar and complementary corpse layout as a means of expressing gender-related differences or identity features dependent on the gender factor as a basic element of the Periam-Pecica funerary standard. This is strongly supported by the fact that this principle was observed also in the burials of children. We have often noticed deviations, however, for example the very clear deviations noticed at Mokrin, which constitute a small number of cases constantly, repeated in the same proportion as in other cemeteries (Pitvaros, Deszk A, Szőreg, and Sándorfalva). Almost every time, these “deviations” have been accompanied by special parameters of the funerary standard, which regard the furnishing, the dimensions of the pit and some other elements. At least in the case of grave 10 at Mokrin we should consider the possibility that the individual buried there had been involved, directly or indirectly, in the ritual activities, which would justify the layout of the old man in accordance with the “feminine” burial rules. At Battonya we are again confronted with a fracture in the burial practices. However, I think this is only apparent, for if we change the classification into groups A and B, we may have to do with the (theoretical) groups A’ and B’, which allows the “fracture” to heal... (in the Battonya case). The Periam-Pecica funerary furnishing may represent one of group and individual social distinction elements, equally standing, in all likelihood, for the affiliation to social sub-units and for the social person of the deceased. As O’Shea has justly observed, the presence of sophisticated sets of jewelry in children’s graves, which occupied positions that were not at all matched with their function, indicates the hereditary character of the respective “goods”. Consequently, they are tokens of the affiliation to one family at least and possibly to one of the diverse social segments of the communities identifiable by means of wearing precisely that kind of jewelry. A further perfect example could be the dagger wrapped as a bracelet on the right arm of a young girl in grave 267 at Mokrin. I think that, in the light of what has been observed at Mokrin, a further element expressed in the Periam-Pecica mortuary is the hereditary character of some inventory elements that were tokens of the deceased belonging to higher ranks in the social group or sub-unit. Pottery, the main inventory category present in the overwhelming majority of cases, is proof for the custom of depositing edible substances for the deceased. Cups, kantharos vessels and other shapes destined for liquids predominate and prove the major importance of this kind of nourishment by contrast to the presence of solid food attested by bowls. Funerary pottery sets, which can be very sophisticated, are associated with other inventory categories and emphasize social rank in their turn.

65

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu As the cases of association are documented more extensively at Mokrin and Battonya, the two best published of the cemeteries, it would be risky to enter the tempting domain of speculations about the pottery in this group’s graves, for the examination of reports like those at Deszk or Szőreg often goes to prove the important gaps which limit the discussion. Dress items and weapons have already been discussed. While they expressed mainly feminine attributes, dress items, sometimes associated in sophisticated sets predominated, among which head-dress decorations made of copper plates, “spectacle” pendants, shells and so on, are not missing from the graves with masculine skeletons, which goes to prove, as already shown, that the wearing of such jewelry items served to identify particular social groups or segments, which did not in itself necessarily prove fewer privileges in the frame of everyday life. Necklaces made of a copper or bonze metal bar, the so called Ösenhalsringe, were not missing, either. In the Periam-Pecica area they occurred in a number of burials at Szőreg, Sándorfalva, Klárafalva, Beba Veche, Mokrin and Pitvaros, where they occupied positions which showed they were worn around the neck, but they were also found at Battonya, where they proved to have been worn around the ankle. It is not possible to use them for making gender group distinctions because necklaces appear evenly balanced in women’s and men’s graves. Their rarity and the fact that they frequently appear in association with other jewels or with sophisticated pottery sets indicates that they were tokens of prestige, except perhaps for those at Battonya. We should not overlook the fact that these necklaces have frequently appeared in deposits which consisted only of these items and were used for transporting the raw material, i.e. copper, in distant exchange. The presence of the already mentioned metal axes at Szőreg, Deszk, Battonya and Mokrin clearly illustrates the relation between funerary inventories and “exotic” goods obtained by exchanges. The contacts of Periam-Pecica/Mureş with neighbors have been frequently emphasized and there is no need for me to reiterate them, but I will only insist that these contacts were determined to a large extent by the metallurgical activity, which was directly connected with distant exchange, both in what concerns the procurement of raw material and the “distribution” of finished products. Yet another proof directly connected to this is the massive presence of “faience” beads, as by-products of metallurgical activities. I believe that the rare occurrence of weapons in the Periam-Pecica burials can be explained by linking it with the singular finds or deposits which contained such items. I. Bóna has remarked the absence of bronze deposits in the area of the Szőreg and Gerjen groups within the Perjamus group, but the resulting image is not realistic enough, since it overlooks the small size of the Periam-Pecica area in itself and the isolated finds and at the same time fails to explain their absence from graves when we have proofs that they were produced in settlements. The absence of weapons from graves is not specific to the Periam-Pecica group, but appears also in the neighboring groups, which may be accounted for by the fact that they were present in the masses in deposits or in

numerous singular finds showing that there was another ceremonial practice which governed weapons and expressed masculine attributes mainly. The entire set of Periam-Pecica funerary practices proves to have been rigorously structured. The funerary area, which occupied a considerable space and had a significant number of burials, proves to have turned into an alternative ground for the deployment of the patterns of competition among the community members, either because they were affiliated to one of the community segments, or in view of their own social person. We will be able to tell whether the strictness of these ceremonial rules was something specific to the Periam-Pecica group or it was common over a wider area only after we have examined the neighboring cultural situations from the same point of view. But the strategy of combining elements spread over larger areas into a clearly hierarchical and highly individualized structure, which had geographical and temporal coherence, supports identity as an archaeological phenomenon of the Periam-Pecica culture in respect to the same neighbors. The Monteoru culture constitutes one of the most important phenomena of the north-Danubian Bronze Age both in view of its remarkably long duration and owing to the central position it occupies in the region treated here. The area of this culture covers much of the territory of Muntenia, from the Middle Danube basin, with one limit to the south in the high plain and another to the north, in the Middle Carpathian ranges, then to the area of the hills of the Carpathian Curve and to the north as far as the area of the Moldavian piedmont, covering most of the Central Plateau of Moldavia, without ostensibly, or only very rarely, reaching any further north than the Costişa - Vaslui line. Throughout its evolution, the Monteoru culture was distributed in the area of the peri-Carpathian hills and its communities most probably specialized in subsistence techniques adapted to this kind of environment; only in its early or late phases have Monteoru finds been recorded in isolation to the south in the plains beyond the hilly regions. The issue of the Monteoru culture beginnings has not been elucidated yet and represents a controversial problem, none of the hypotheses advanced so far being completely free from error and information gaps. In contrast to the traditional opinion that the Monteoru culture stemmed from the same root as Glina, which was its early contemporary culture in the area of the plains, another point of view was advanced, which argued that the Odaia Turcului and Năeni-Schneckenberg “groups”, both of which followed the Glina culture, developed in the future Monteoru area. Recent research at Năeni-Zănoaga and a re-interpretation of the research at Năeni-Colarea and Odaia Turcului has disproved this point of view and has reinforced the Glina-Monteoru contemporaneity. The periodization of the Monteoru culture rests on the stratigraphy of the eponymous settlement. If the cornerstone of the periodization is the succession resulting from the Sărata Monteoru stratigraphy, the content of the phases as resulting form the publication is by far less solid. Practically, the definition of the culture’s evolution stages has followed a unilateral path, resting only on the study of the pottery which had remained on the archaeologist’s desk after a most draconic selection.

66

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

Again, if the periodization conceived in this spirit has turned into a paradigm after being repeatedly invoked and is, consequently, patchy in the extreme, the question of absolute chronology has been approached correspondingly in an utterly mistaken way. Starting from presumed relationships to the Mycenaean civilization, it has been considered that what came to be termed Phase Ia of the culture was contemporary with the so-called shaft-grave period (Schachtgräberzeit), dating it to the 15th or 14th century BC. The existence of some 14C determinations was ignored in view of their being “absurdly high”, although there are indirect indications which argue in their favor at present. Even if one chooses to overlook the radiocarbon dating of some Monteoru finds the period such dating indicates for the beginning stages, namely the first half of the 3rd millennium BC, cannot be left aside. The relation of the Monteoru group with some neighboring cultural phenomena permits us to use pretty successfully some radiocarbon data from remoter archaeological groups, for example those from Mnogovalikovaja. The indirect relations with Periam-Pecica, Nitra, Aunjetitz and Mierzanowice are conducive to the same conclusion. The end of this culture is seen differently by the archaeologists who specialize in the Bronze Age. Traditionally, the last phase of the culture was seen to be represented by Level I of the “zol’niki” at Gârbovăţ and by the cemetery at Balinteşti-Cionagi, whose finds have been used to define the so-called “Balinteşti-Gârbovăţ phase”. In another view, the end of the Monteoru culture was determined by the appearance on its eastern edge of a group with origins further east, which was designated as “the Petrişoru-Racoviţeni aspect” and served as a kind of avant-garde formation for the Noua-Sabatinovka complex. But a relatively recent examination has demonstrated that both Level I at Gârbovăţ and the cemetery at Balinteşti-Cioinagi belong to the Noua culture. In yet another, last view, which is mine, the Monteoru culture came to an end differently in the two main halves of its area. To the east, the phase which corresponded to the IIb pottery style which is represented, among others, by the lower Gârbovăţ level and in the cemeteries at Balinteşti-Cionagi, Căbeşti and Săbăoani, was followed by the beginning phase of the Noua culture,. In the area that occupied the mountain region, Monteoru communities continued to exist in parallel with the first Noua communities, as is ostensibly proved by some elements of the latter culture which were present in the last Monteoru level at Năeni-Zănoaga Cetatea 1 and indicated this as the moment when, eventually, we can speak of penetrations of Aegean influences, more precisely the beginning of the Late Bronze Age: around 1600 BC. The funerary practices of the Monteoru culture have not been approached by any general study, since this culture has not formed the subject of far-reaching, synthetically research so far. Some observations have been made about the Monteoru funerary customs, especially about the cemetery at Cândeşti, but they remain mere opinions since the entire cemetery has not been published yet. We know of 60 funerary finds which are spread quite harmoniously in the expanse of the Monteoru area and can be attributed to the Monteoru culture with varying degrees of certainty (See the list in Chapter

9.2). From the point of view of the research, 23 or 38.34% of the 60 finds come from systematic excavations, three finds or 5.00% have been brought to light by salvage excavations, another three or 5.00% have been found by trial digs, 17 or 28.33% of the finds are due to surface surveys, and 14 or 23.33% are fortuitous finds. In the entire Monteoru area the large cemeteries, for example those excavated in the eponymous settlement and at Pietroasa Mică, Cândeşti and Poiana, are ostensibly concentrated in the area of the Carpathian Curve, while in the rest of the area no widespread cemeteries have been researched. In view of the archaeological context, the situation of the finds is as follows: 25 of the cases or 41.70% are cemeteries, 15 or 25.00% are groups of graves, 18 or 30.00% consist of isolated graves, and two more, or 3.30%, appear as special situations. When regarded globally, these numbers seem to outline a favorable situation of the archaeological documentation, but this is only an appearance. This statement is prompted by the consideration of the way these finds have been introduced into scientific circuit. The large cemeteries, for example that at Cândeşti, with its 800 graves, the Sărata Monteoru Cemeteries 1 and 2, each with over 100 graves, have not been published yet and we have them merely mentioned, sometimes as part of general presentations, and the situation at Poiana Scoruşului, from the eponymous settlement, has been erroneously presented as a pyre; from Coroteni, where there is a large cemetery which was in existence for a considerable period of time, only a few graves have been published accompanied by an unacceptable illustration (the drawing of the graves). The cemetery at Poiana has been partially excavated, adding to the initial lot of graves published in 1936 several graves researched in 1991-1992, which showed that the cemetery was much larger than believed at first. For several of the Monteoru finds we have no more than mentions, sometimes telegraphically too. We need to stress the fact that, for often objective reasons, none of the cemeteries, not even that at Cândeşti, could be exhaustively researched. This entitles us to suppose that these sites spread over greater areas, since one of the characteristics of the Monteoru culture was that it had widespread cemeteries in the proximity of settlements, as was the case at Cândeşti for example. In so far as the context is concerned, the terms “grave groups” or “isolated graves” are obviously inadequately used in connection to the Monteoru group, since we know only too well today that these communities were used to burying their dead in large cemeteries. Thus, any “grave groups” or “isolated graves” are the result of incomplete or incipient research, and we ought to expect that greater cemeteries will be subsequently found. This is true for example in the case of the find at Cârlomăneşti-La arman, where a cemetery has been identified, but the situation on-site, where the land is held in private property, has limited exploration. There are two sure cases of isolated graves, those discovered in the settlement at Cârlomăneşti-Cetăţuie and at Năeni-Zănoaga. In the former case, we have to do with a child’s grave dug in the precinct of the settlement, which is a good enough explanation for the situation; in the latter case, a threefold inhumation grave has been found at the periphery of a complex vast settlement where the

67

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu same private property regime does not permit extending the excavations for a final verification of the find’s context. Quite satisfactorily for us, the Monteoru mortuary finds cover the area of the culture as it is known today. The easternmost point is represented by a find made in rather uncertain conditions at Pruteni, on the west bank of the river Prut. The ceramic material has nothing in common with the Monteoru repertoire and it stands apart in the mass of Monteoru finds by the position it occupies. We have already shown that the area of the Monteoru finds covers the hilly region. In the region of the plains there are two funerary finds that do not match the chorologic pattern of the Monteoru group. The most important one is at Movila, in the Sălcioara commune, Dâmboviţa County. It is an older fortuitous find left unverified on site by specialists. Two stone-cist inhumation graves have been found on a low-lying terrace of Ilfov County. Judging by the vessels published, the grave belongs to the Monteoru culture, Phase/Style Ic4-2, and its eccentric position probably shows that the initial Monteoru area extended into the plains area. The second exception is represented by the probable cremation graves found at Tinosu a long time ago. The published pottery is typical for the end of the Monteoru culture at a time when it seems that the communities of this group had again reached as far as the plain, as is proved by the Monteoru pottery at Târgşor, which is not yet published. The two finds of the Bârsa region, at Sfântu Gheorghe and Târgu Secuiesc respectively, have to be excluded from the list of Monteoru finds. There are no archaeologically convincing material proofs attesting Monteoru settlements beyond the Carpathian bow. Some Wietenberg ceramic materials have long been known in the Monteoru area and they prove the permanent contacts between the two cultural areas, which may have been determined by exchanges, especially raw material that served the bronze metallurgy in the Monteoru settlements, which lacked the necessary resources. Consequently, “the Monteoru finds” from the south-eastern corner of the Carpathian curve are precisely the expression of such contacts rather than signs of real presence grave. Grave 2 at Tămăşeni raises a special problem since it occupies an eccentric position as the northernmost Monteoru grave known. It has no ceramic inventory, which makes its attribution to the Monteoru culture doubtful, all the more so as another grave (M. 1), which has been found in the vicinity, had typically early Noua vessels in its inventory. However, grave 2 had a disk-shaped bone buckle with two small holes, which represents a dress item (a belt buckle) specific for the Mnogovalikovaja culture. Since the relationship between the Mnogovalikovaja and the Noua culture is clear today, as it is known that the latter succeeds the former, grave 2 at Tămăşeni can only be anterior to grave 1. Costişa settlements and graves, which predate the Noua culture, have been known to exist in the northern corner of Moldavia, but grave 2 at Tămăşeni does not resemble any such finds, which means it can be attributed to the Monteoru culture with due reservations. I have deliberately left last the cemeteries at Balinteşti-Cioinagi, Căbeşti and Săbăoani. Ever since the publication of the first cemetery and owing to its ceramic inventory it has been considered to characteristically belong to the

last Monteoru stage together with Level I of the small settlement or zol’niki at Gârbovăţ. By the evident analogies of their ceramic repertoire, the cemeteries of Căbeşti and Săbăoani have been attributed to the same final Monteoru stage. However, recently it has been argued quite convincingly, especially through the existence of a Noua “zol’niki” side by side with Monteoru IIb graves at Cândeşti that the three cemeteries actually belong to the Noua culture, which is a point of view I share. If we take an all-embracing look at the burials of the Monteoru culture and consider the examples mentioned, we can begin to draw some conclusions. They can be merely preliminary conclusions, as none of the Monteoru funerary monuments or cemeteries has been investigated exhaustively, on the one hand, and as the evolution of the research, on the other hand, may offer new data likely to change the work-perspective and conclusions. The first thing to note about the relation between the dwelling and the funerary zones is that the Monteoru cemeteries were observably situated in the immediate vicinity of the settlements, and sometimes the two zones, albeit separate, ran into each other, as for example at Cândeşti and Sărata Monteoru. It is actually hard to tell whether natural relief served to separate the two zones in fact/in the field, but since graves were sometimes rather close to the dwellings at Sărata Monteoru and Cândeşti the land separations may simply not have been functional at a certain moment. The absence of details about the burials on the hill occupied by the Poiana settlement does not allow us to dwell minutely on the details in the relation between the cemetery and the settlement. Judging by the child’s grave at Cârlomăneşti-Cetăţuia and by the threefold grave at Năeni-Zănoaga, it appears that the location of some burials may have been different, inside the settlements or adjoining them, but separated from their cemeteries. One especially different situation has been recorded at Sărata Monteoru-Poiana Scoruşului, where, should it be proved that the complex is a funerary one; it is located outside the official funerary zone, maybe owing to the special social status of the presumptive deceased individual, which is also proved by the special structure of the situation. One obvious characteristic worth noting even though it has been derived by reference to only a few cases so far - at Sărata Monteoru, Poiana, Cândeşti, Pietroasa Mică -, is the large number of burials that continue in time, which indicates that the Monteoru communities were sedentary. At the same time, however, the dynamic pattern of settlements that usually extended to the slopes which surrounded a central nucleus indicates that the funerary zone extended congruently in its turn, with only a few surface “interruptions”, which were imposed by the uneven relief of the terrain or as a result of incomplete research. Almost twenty years ago now the idea of “the funerary area discontinuity” was in the air as representing a particularity of the Monteoru hilly region. The arguments brought in support of this hypothesis were the situations at Sărata Monteoru and at Pietroasa Mică and it was considered that there was one cemetery which corresponded to each dwelling phase (or cultural

68

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

phase) of the adjoining settlements, quite in contrast with the situation at Cândeşti. But if the evolution of the excavations at Sărata Monteoru, then at Pietroasa Mică had been examined more carefully, it could have been noticed that in the latter eponymous settlement the excavations had not been placed in such a way as to exhaust the entire surface of Cemetery 4, on the one hand and, on the other hand, it would have been seen that from the point of view of the archaeologically researched space there was no connection between the areas of the Cemeteries 1, 2 and 4, which are on the slopes surrounding the point known as Cetăţuia. At Pietroasa Mică the cemetery research had to stop short to the north at the limit of the forest, which forbade excavations and consequently created another incompletely researched cemetery. This means that if we consider the situation at Cândeşti and the on-site reality at Sărata Monteoru and Pietroasa Mică, the so-called “discontinuity of the funerary zone” becomes immaterial and proves to be a merely impressionistic statement imposed by incomplete site research and an extremely uneven terrain. As the ground is extremely uneven both at Pietroasa Mică and at Sărata Monteoru it is more plausible to suppose that the funerary zone has been naturally interrupted by the irregularities of the ground. Even though we do not have a detailed plan drawing for the Cândeşti cemetery, we should not deliberately ignore that the cemetery had, in its central zone, the special graves, for example family ring graves, stepped pit graves, graves which had human skulls laid next to the skeletons and graves with “rich” inventories. This should make us see that they constitute arguments for a nuclear-radial evolution. The existence of cemeteries which belonged to each individual phase would indicate a strictly linear evolution for each cemetery and the already conscious reflexion at the time about “phases” inherent to the culture or everyday life. In reality these are rather artificial as well as debatable creations of 20th century archaeology. In close connection with the considerable number of graves is the question of the structure of the Monteoru funerary area. It is more than obvious that we cannot speak of a “linear” evolution of the cemeteries from one end to the other. There seem to be distinct quarters from the point of view of the ritual customs, i.e., the layout of the deceased, at Pietroasa Mică, where one group is concentrated near the western limit of the cemetery. It consisted largely of masculine graves with predominant east or north-east orientation. Duly observing the caveats imposed by the currently incipient stage of the research, I should think that at Cârlomăneşti-La arman there is one funerary quarter consisting of graves which tend to point SW or SSW predominantly. One zone apart seems to have existed also at Cândeşti comprising the catacomb graves situated at the periphery of the funerary zone. Also, the presence of several skeletons inside the stone slab cist graves or in the graves dug in the rock at Cândeşti and Năeni-Colarea respectively and the particular inventory elements, i.e., the skulls deposited near the individual skeletons at Cândeşti constitute indications at least for the organization of the funerary space in relation with certain social segments of the communities, families/clans most probably, which would actually presuppose a

nuclear/radial evolution of the funerary zones. However, no final conclusion can be offered in this respect since none of the cemeteries has been exhaustively researched and also, I tend to think, neither can final statements be made in the absence of a comparative study about the contexts inside the settlements, which would indicate a structure of the dwelling zones that may well have observed the same rules. At Cândeşti, the authors of the excavations affirm that “ten groups of family graves have been found lying next to each other in a ring. Each group comprises from 4 to 6 graves whose pits are at equal distances from each other so as to enclose a circular surface, or radially, but outlining eventually the length of an imaginary ring with one of their narrow sides”. These groups of graves, which are more numerous in stages IIa-IIb, are considered to demonstrate the growing importance of families within the respective communities. In this connection, the same authors also state that they could notice inside the settlements “small groups of dwellings that ought to have been inhabited by the related members of the same family”, but no strictly archaeological data have been produced enabling us to comment this statement. One special issue connected to the Monteoru funerary practices is the treatment of the deceased. From the available data it becomes perfectly obvious that inhumation was the practice preferred in the Monteoru communities and that cremation appeared rather incidentally. By contrast to the inhumation practice, the custom of cremating the dead appears in small proportion and has been attested as early as the Style Ic4-2, at Năeni-Colarea. The small number of cinerary graves known so far in the Monteoru area had the osteological remains deposited directly in the pits, sometimes with an adjoining vessel – in the Brandgrab manner -, or had the osteological remains deposited in urns with or without lids – in the Urnengrab manner. Judging by the statements included in the excavation reports, at Cândeşti we seem to witness a kind of “evolution” of the cinerary practices since here the graves with calcinated bones deposited in pits are more numerous in the early stages but later the graves with remains deposited in urns become predominant. As asserted earlier, this practice does not have a local antecedent which means that this custom must have been adopted from outside the Monteoru area. Cremation as such occurs in the Schneckenberg milieu alongside inhumation. There are records of a similar situation in the stone-cist graves of the Dâmboviţa-Muscel area. But the direction from which the practice of cremating the dead was adopted is not clear for these groups either. Cremation as a dominant funerary rite has been ascertained, as shown above, in the Late Zók area - Makó and Nyirség. In Transylvania cremation appears in some cases in the Coţofeni group and in less clearly specified contexts and it has been recorded as a secondary mortuary practice in the Livezile group. It is likely to have penetrated from there to northern Muntenia, where it appears as a secondary/adjacent rite, in a symmetrically opposed situation by comparison to the situation in the Wietenberg area, where inhumation is the rite adjacent to predominant cremation. Judging by the pretty numerous elements which attest the reciprocal relations with Wietenberg, the presence of some

69

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu cremation graves in the Middle or Late phases of the Monteoru group can only be explained by the contacts with the Intra-Carpathian regions. However, the oldest Monteoru cinerary graves, those at Năeni-Colarea and Vadu Săpat-Budureasca, are in all likelihood anterior to the Wietenberg group, and we should seek other explanations for the appearance of cremation beyond the Carpathians. Even if we admit to some extent a Late Tripol’ye contribution to the beginnings of the Monteoru culture, it still remains hard to accept the penetration from the east of the practice of burning the dead, perhaps from the Sofievka group, even if the cemetery at Suceava should be placed in relation with this group. But the existence of cinerary graves in Transylvania most certainly indicates where the custom of cremating the dead came from in the Carpathian Curve region. Whichever direction it came from, cremation never exceeded the status of an adjacent and secondary funerary rite for the Monteoru group. This is a chorologically confirmed fact. It can be noted that the practice of cremating the dead was not uniformly distributed, and it often appeared together with inhumation; wherever cremation is documented in isolation the finds are either fortuitous or due to incomplete research. Of a stock consisting of 385 Monteoru graves, only 14 are cremation graves, although some mentions, for example those about the Cândeşti cemetery, which provide no details, however, would suggest a much greater number. This does not make them be a group numerically comparable with that of the cinerary graves. Under the circumstances, it would mean that a discussion of the way this funerary rite developed in the Monteoru area would be conducted in the absence of a satisfactory data base/documentation, which is precisely why I have left this topic aside. The fact that cremation graves in the early phases of the culture were usually in a pit and the fact that later the graves had the remains deposited in urns may largely indicate a certain evolution, but instead of being an evolution inherent to the Monteoru area itself it is due to the evolution of this funerary practice in the areas where it was specific. In the Monteoru area the known types of graves are those with calcinated bones deposited straight into the pit – the Brandgrab type – which sometimes also contained a vessel deposited with the mouth down in the vicinity, as was the case in the cemetery at Ciumeşti, those with the cinerary remains deposited in vessels (urns) - the Urnengrab type -, which were sometimes covered with another vessel or a stone slab, in analogy to the Wietenberg area in the last case. There are no detailed observations enabling us to see which of the graves with calcinated bones deposited in pits may have been simple cinerary pit-graves and which might have belonged to the category of the so-called “cinerary graves with scattered ashes” - of the Brandschüttungsgrab type. Very few of these graves have been anthropologically analyzed, so that the current knowledge will not allow us to appreciate if this manner of treating the dead was restricted to particular sexually differentiated groups or to particular age groups. Grave 1 at Năeni-Colarea proves that no such differences were made because in it laid the cinerary remains of three adults and two children. We cannot notice any particular kind of funerary structures associated to the cinerary

practice in the small stock of burnt dead found in the Monteoru area. As could be observed at Năeni-Colarea and at Budureasca, there existed from the very beginning cremation graves found in pits dug in rocky grounds or in stone cists. Later on, pits, which were sometimes circular and sometimes covered with boulders, came to be used. The cremation graves of the Monteoru culture have almost no inventories whatsoever. We need to insist here that in cinerary graves the vessels used as urns and the vessels which serve as lids are not part of the funerary inventory proper but are elements of the funerary structure itself, just as the pit and the potentially accompanying layout elements. Adjacent vessels have rarely been found, dress items or other personal inventory elements never; in only two cases have animal bones been found, and in one case, in grave 30 at Pietroasa Mică, they were calcinated pig bones, which could indicate that this oblation was placed on the pyre at the same time as the deceased. As regards inhumation, in addition to noting that for the Monteoru culture this was the dominant practice in altogether evident ways, there are contexts, albeit rare, which raise the question whether or not the communities resorted to the practice of keeping their dead in a primary funerary location only to re-interre them later. This has been suggested in attested cases at Cândeşti, as known, first by the adult skulls deposited in inhumation graves by the side of integrally preserved skeletons and next by the three skulls deposited under the conglomerate stone slab at the bottom of the Năeni-Colarea M. 1 cist before the inhumation proper. There are burials of skulls mentioned at Cândeşti also. To them should be added the graves at Cârlomăneşti - La arman, with other disparate human bone remains found by the side of the main skeleton. A human mandibula was found among the habitation remains of level Ia in the Năeni-Zănoaga settlement during the 1989 campaign, and during the 2002 campaign a further human molar was found at level Zn IIa. Further fragments of human bones appeared when preparing to make the palaeontological analysis of some of the animal bones which were to be used as samples for the radiocarbon determinations sent to Berlin and which had either been discovered at Năeni-Zănoaga in objects situated at level Zn IIa during the campaign of 1992, or had been sampled from the Sărata Monteoru settlement. There are no other similar cases in the Monteoru area, but even so we can wonder whether this group did not appear by its manner of manipulating human osteological remains, which involved depositing the deceased in a certain place within the settlement for being buried in the cemetery subsequently, or whether, given the reduced number of human bones in settlements, this was not rather connected to the special regime reserved for some deceased in accordance with the social position they had had while alive, just as is shown in some well-known ethnographical cases. As regards the external layout of the burials in the Monteoru group, it can be considered that they were flat graves. The presence of tiny piles or mounds made of stones or even of earth is not sufficient to make us believe that the Monteoru graves were barrows, all the more so as the

70

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

comparison with the funerary practices contemporary to them suggests that barrows tend to include several burials. One special situation has been encountered in the well-known family rings at Cândeşti. Unfortunately, we do not have detailed archaeological observations entitling us to decide whether or not the rings of several graves had been covered by earth. What is more, the inventories of the graves in these rings indicate that they were contemporary with other graves which did not have such an external element and this ought to indicate that the rings illustrate the special status of groups or families and are not, therefore, a general characteristic. In addition, the fact that the catacomb graves at Cândeşti did not have barrows to cover them indicates that the practice of building barrows was not present in the Monteoru communities. The stone structures in Cemetery 2 at Sărata Monteoru, where such elaborated structures have been found, are relatively little known as the cemetery has unfortunately not been thoroughly published yet. The point where a remarkable variety can be noted in the Monteoru funerary objects is in the interior structures. But we must note that this variability rests too much on the situations encountered at Cândeşti, some of which have been barely mentioned so far, which does not permit us to discuss this topic extensively. The graves with stone cists occupy the most important position among the interior structures. One very significant aspect is to be found in their territorial distribution over the Monteoru area, because the moldavian half does not have such graves, since the northernmost point where cist graves have been recorded is the cemetery at Cândeşti, situated south of the river Milcov, which constitutes the traditional “border” between two romanian provinces. The concentration of cist-graves attributed to the Monteoru culture in the hilly region between the basin of the rivers Râmnicul Sărat and Prahova connects this funerary practice to the identical customs of the Schneckenberg and Dâmboviţa-Muscel groups, which were contemporary and located on either side of the Carpathian Range. The cremation practice has also been documented for these last groups, which is very significant as it indicates that these funerary practices came at the same time in the areas to the south of the Carpathians. If it is true then we must direct ourselves to the Middle Danube basin to find the path for the penetration of cremation to this region; the practice of placing the dead in stone-slab boxes, which presupposed considerable collective efforts, has antecedents in the area of the Eastern Carpathians, in the burial group that can be attributed to the Globular Amphorae Culture. It is difficult to specify if the practice of building stone cists, which has been documented only as far as “Phase” Ic2, was “downgraded” later so as to become the practice of “lining” the pit with stones, but since the stone “lining” of the pit has not been registered in any cultural areas in the vicinity of the Monteoru group, we can suppose that this is what happened. The presence of cist-graves in the Monteoru area also attests another mortuary practice, however: the practice of making collective or family graves, as could be seen at Năeni-Colarea and Cândeşti; this was also true for the Schneckenberg or Globular Amphorae cists.

Another kind of internal layout structure that has considerable significance is contributed by the catacomb graves, which have been attested at Cândeşti most certainly and probably also at Sărata Monteoru, these being the only localities where this funerary fashion has been attested in the Monteoru area so far. Although catacomb graves are only known in these two localities so far, it is more than plausible that their position near the plains region, where the only certain catacomb graves have been attested, indicates diffusion, which may also be supported by small population groups likely to have brought along this practice, as seems to be the case at Cândeşti. Although we have absolutely no information regarding this kind of graves at Sărata Monteoru, things are slightly clearer at Cândeşti. The catacomb graves here stand out through their prevailing orientation to the east and through some inventory elements and are grouped in a certain zone of the cemetery which they seem to have occupied exclusively. They had no exterior layout structures, being flat graves. This is what distinguishes the catacomb graves at Cândeşti when compared to those at Matca and Smeeni, both of which are barrow graves. Such contacts between the Monteoru communities and the communities that buried their dead in barrows built on the plains are proved by the typical Monteoru Ic3 vessel found in the grave at Matca and by another Monteoru vessel, of the Ic2 style, which was discovered at Boloteşti, in Barrow 2 grave 14, in a stone-cist. The catacomb graves at Cândeşti were attributed to the phases Monteoru Ic3-Ic2 and this practice was not attested later. When considering some of the funerary furnishing elements, however, they appear to be connected more likely to the Mnogovalikovaja phenomenon, since it is there that such graves have been generally documented. In most cases we have no records about the form of the pits, but it appears in drawings that their shape was quasi-rectangular, sometimes their corners being rounded. There are numerous cases of stones discovered in the funerary pits; sometimes they were ranged near the pit walls, or else on only one side of the pit. Some stepped pits belonging to actual graves and to “cenotaphs” have been found during recent research at Cârlomăneşti-La Arman. As I have shown already, this modality of digging the pits can also be seen to have come to the Monteoru area, together with the practice of filling pits with stones, from Mnogovalikovaja where they have been attested, albeit not in great, but sufficient numbers; on the steppes to the north of the Black Sea their antecedents were the Jamnaja burials. Apart from the observations at Cârlomăneşti-La Arman and from some mentions for the cemetery at Cândeşti we know of no other information about deposits of conglomerate stone boulders but the few cases registered in the two localities raise the question whether the conglomerate stone blocks may not have had some significance in the frame of the Monteoru funerary ceremony. Numerous burnt ceramic fragments have been found in the pit fillings at Pietroasa Mică, Coroteni, Sărata Monteoru, Cemeteries 4 and 3, Năeni-Zănoaga, Cândeşti and Gura Văii. They have been clearly observed at Pietroasa Mică, but even more pointedly in the triple grave at Năeni. The latter find has revealed that several of the sherds had

71

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu been burnt, just as the pieces of adobe which came from a construction which had been set on fire. The presence of these materials in the Monteoru funerary contexts sheds light upon a complex funerary ceremony which possibly included a funerary banquet, part of its remains being subsequently burnt and thrown into the graves. The very special situation recorded at Sărata Monteoru-Poiana Scoruşului, where such a burnt construction containing partially cremated skeletons too, seems to provide arguments for this interpretation. Undoubtedly such a completely sophisticated ceremony, implicitly involving a great number of individuals and consequently requiring a considerable amount of social energy cannot have been destined for the ordinary members of the community but will have been an indication of the elevated status that some members enjoyed, also reflected by the uncommon funerary location. Some other structures will have had the same significance, albeit less strict, in so far as they are reflected by a greater number of cases, for example the layout in individual rings, which was encountered especially in the second half of the Monteoru evolution, at Cândeşti, Sărata Monteoru, Pietroasa Mică, or the structures with small barrows erected with stones. I have already tackled the topic of special layout structures at Cândeşti, which are all the more special because they have not been observed in other Monteoru cemeteries. I have in mind the hearths found at the margin in some graves or the graves with a step on one side. In each of their occurrences they – the hearths - seem to have served for one particular episode in the funerary ceremony or for depositing some particular funerary furnishing elements or oblations. Unfortunately, since the strictly archaeological information about these cases is more than precarious, we can only suppose that, at least at Cândeşti, the funeral as a whole presupposed further practices that complicated the funerary ceremony and once again expressed certain aspects of the social personality of the deceased. We need to stress that in these cases and in all the others which involved special layouts the funerary inventory itself does not stand out either through the quality or through the quantity of the component items, which is an argument for some kind of “independence” of some funerary practice elements. I think we ought to include among these special structures the graves at Cârlomăneşti-La arman, whose pits have been filled with considerable quantities of items brought from distant places. One very uncommon case is that of the child grave in a pythos at Cândeşti. It is the only inhumation grave of its kind, so far, in the Trans-Carpathian area. The nearest cultural area that has such characteristic graves is Periam-Pecica. It is highly probable that this practice came to the Monteoru area from the Mureş outflow region, being brought along with distant exchange, which is proved by the circulation of some prestige goods, such as the necklaces of the Ösenhalsring type. We do not have a detailed anthropological analysis here and in fact the grave has only been mentioned, so that we have not been able to decide if the child grave in a pythos attests the presence of a foreign individual, albeit a child, in the Monteoru area. We cannot conclude the discussion about the Monteoru funerary layout structures without

trying to see them in conjunction with the ritual groups/segments and the age groups already ascertained. In anticipation of the discussion about the distinct groups observable in the layout of the corpses which have been identified for the Monteoru group. We can note that the group of graves with skeletons lying on their left have funerary structures, which are either rings or boulder mounds, while such structures are completely incidental in the group of skeletons lying on their right. This may be indicative of different modes of expressing the social person, and moreover, of different ways of spending social energy, which was demonstrably greater for the corpses laid on their left and less for the other group. No difference appears between the sex or age groups as regards the layout, except maybe in childrens graves where such structures are rarely documented and show that in all probability the efforts to express social identity depended on the age category, adults being entitled to such post mortem privileges. The layout of the corpses, which is a central element in the prehistoric funerary standard, varies very little in Monteoru burials. But we must call attention to the scarcity of anthropological determinations which limits the possibility of discussing this aspect of the Monteoru culture funerary practices. Further limitations come from finding already disturbed graves or graves that had already been destroyed in antiquity and from the often insufficient way in which the graves were published, often as a result of incompetent on-site work. The Monteoru graves had laterally crouched skeletons almost in their totality. Skeletons lay crouched on the left in most of the cases and on the right in much fewer. More precisely, of the 378 graves available in the entire Monteoru area the position has been ascertained for only 255 (67.46%) and of these 188 (73.73%) were crouched on the left, 58 (22.74%) on the right, 8 (3.14%) lay on their backs and only one (0.39%) was in ventral decubitus. As regards the sex group, of the 56 graves diagnosed as masculine 38 (67.86%) lay on the left, 15 (26.79%) on the right, and 3 (5.35%) have been found lying on their backs; of the 46 graves diagnosed as feminine 35 (76.08%) had skeletons lying on the left, 9 (19.55%) lay on their right and another two (4.37%) have been found lying on their backs. The situation for children’s graves is as follows: of the 98 diagnosed graves 52 (53.06%) had skeletons lying on the left, 21 (21.43%), on the right, 2 (1.04%) lay on their backs and for a set of 23 (23.47%) it has not been possible to specify their position. At first sight it would seem that the right-hand side position was more frequent for the deceased males, but this is so only in appearance since the number of graves diagnosed for the entire Monteoru group is very small and most of the cemeteries found have been superficially researched. Judging by the few available cemeteries which are relevant for the current discussion, the right-hand side position appears in a significant proportion only in Cemetery 4 at Sărata Monteoru, where of the 149 burials 79 (53.02%) had skeletons crouched on the left, 50 (33.56%) on the right, 2 (1.34%) lay on their backs, and for another 18 (12.08%) the position failed to be determined. As this proportion comes very close to the one observed in children’s graves in the entire Monteoru area it appears as the most plausible proportion. The situation is as follows in

72

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

the other cemeteries: at Cândeşti the skeletons crouched on the left are said to predominate, those crouched on the right being less numerous; at Poiana of the 33 graves 26 had skeletons crouched on the left and the position of the remaining 7 was not specified; at Sărata Monteoru, all the skeletons preserved in Cemetery 3 were crouched on the left; at Pietroasa Mică of the 65 burials in only one case was the skeleton crouched on the left, another five lying on their backs; at Cârlomăneşti-La Arman only one of the graves researched so far had the skeleton crouched on the right and the anthropological diagnosis showed that it was a man. The relationships between the two main positions for laying out the deceased in the Monteoru area becomes slightly clearer if it they are related to the “orientation” of the burials. The overall view of the thoroughly researched graves in the entire Monteoru area shows the existence of a number of distinct groups. The graves with skeletons crouched on their left side are concentrated in two groups, of which the most numerous is one whose predominant orientation is to the SW-WSW-W-WNW-NW-NNW sector and the second, with fewer burials, has the predominant orientation to the ESE-E-ENE sector, namely in the opposed direction. The situation is somehow similar for the burials with skeletons crouched on their right, as the slightly larger group is predominantly SSW-SW-W oriented, while the second, with slightly fewer graves, is predominantly oriented to the NNE-NE-ENE-E sector, namely, again, in the opposite direction from the other. We can see things even more clearly when examining the orientation variants separately in the anthropologically diagnosed graves which indicate the sex groups. In masculine graves, the dispersion of the orientation follows again the two main groups, which we may term the West Group and the East Group, but there appears a distinct, smaller group that has the NE orientation. The situation is similar once again for the skeletons crouched on the left, which are more numerous, and for those crouched on their right, who are fewer. In feminine graves, the dispersion is characterized by a West orientation group, which is large, and opposed to it a second, smaller, East orientation group. There is one feminine grave group which is restricted and has NE orientation and another, quite numerous and predominantly oriented SW-WSW, which, in my opinion, is very significantly missing from the male graves, except for grave 5 at Cârlomăneşti. The analytical examination of the relation between the position and the orientation shows that in the communities of the Monteoru group there were several ritual codes for laying the deceased in their graves, which were used in the same cemeteries and were very close to each other everywhere in the area. In fact these “codes” reflect the bi-polar, complementary layout principle, which has been observed for some time now; it is not restricted to the two sex groups, but proves the existence of ritually different segments/groups within the same communities, in a way which is specific to the entire Monteoru culture. The statistical diagrams may be very satisfactory in indicating the main social rules = segments, but it is more difficult to see them reflected on site in their concrete combinations. I am making this assertion because we have little available data enabling us to recognize such

separations in the precincts of the cemeteries. We are aware of the number of trustworthy insights we could have gained if we had found a great number of ascertained double graves or collective graves that would have enabled us to tell what the layout combinations were depending on the sex groups, and maybe the age groups too. For the Monteoru culture there are not enough funerary finds thoroughly researched, thoroughly published and with thorough anthropological diagnoses at the same time. I am trying to use five double graves in Cemetery 4 at Sărata Monteoru – graves 8-9, 35, 90 and 115. The five cases illustrate four layout combinations (of positions + orientations). Grave 8 had in it an adult woman’s skeleton, crouched on the right and a child’s skeleton crouched on the left, both being oriented in the direction 228° SW, namely they had been laid into the grave “back to back”. In grave 9, which consisted of a masculine skeleton crouched on the left and a child’s skeleton crouched on the right, both pointing 278° W, the combination is “face to face”. The same combination has been encountered in grave 35, which consisted of an adult feminine skeleton crouched on the left by the side of a right crouched child’s skeleton and both skeletons pointed WSW 254°grave. Grave 90 had in it a sexually undiagnosed adult who lay crouched on the left, with the skull pointing SSW and, by its side, a child’s skeleton, crouched on its right, with the head pointing NNE, namely in the opposite direction, which made the two lie “back to back and in opposed directions”. Lastly, grave 115, consisted of an adult’s skeleton crouched on the right, with its head pointing WSW 235° and another skeleton, belonging to an adolescent who had the same position and orientation and had been placed in front of the former in a combination describable as being “ in line” with it. The above cases are certainly too few, but they add up to the general examination of the orientation variants in respect to the position and support the hypothesis that the Monteoru communities were divided into specific segments whose differentiation in everyday life was also expressed by specific practices of laying the deceased in their graves. Consequently, we could speculate about the existence of a first segment, characterized by depositing the deceased on their left, and divided, as far as the orientation is concerned, into the western, more numerous sub-group, and the eastern, numerically more reduced sub-group and a second segment next, characterized by skeletons placed on their right and, in its turn, by a further division into sub-groups oriented West and East respectively. The fact that these segments did not correspond to family groups strictly can be seen in the double graves which held an adult and a child, in which the disposition of the two skeletons differs and therefore suggests that differentiations depended on criteria which can hardly be archaeologically identified. The burials with the skeletons lying on their backs are very few, only 8 cases and only at Sărata Monteoru, grave 4 and at Pietroasa Mică. The cases of skeletons lying face down have only been documented in grave 500 at Cândeşti and in graves 11 and 17 at Cârlomăneşti-La arman, as mentioned before. The small number of skeletons lying on their backs or face down does not allow us to discuss matters any more exhaustively, all the more so as in

73

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu these cases we do not have skeletons laid straight, but in the position designated as “crouched on the back or face down”, this being a variant, albeit definitely rarer, of the standard position. Once again, for a more fruitful examination, we must wait for further similar finds capable of showing whether such burials are a rarer ritual group or simple variations or deviations. In spite of some impressionistic views that have been expressed, the Monteoru graves are never outstanding through their inventories, all the more so when compared with other cultural groups, especially those of Central Europe. Although they may not have “rich” inventories, the Monteoru funerary finds differ from other contemporary groups in the immediate vicinity. We are again hindered here by the limited, incorrect archaeological documentation available and we know how restricted the discussion can be. At present, of the 378 Monteoru burials only 243 (64.28%) have inventories consisting of one or several elements. But this fact has limited value, and we must not forget for a minute that we have only some plain mentions from the big cemetery at Cândeşti and only a few of the graves with inventories have been published. To this should be added the fact that other cemeteries are only known through 2 or 3 graves and sometimes even by a single grave, not to mention the dilapidated graves with inventories that have got lost. All this means that the 64.28% percentage should only be regarded as a representation of the statistical tendency. The other statistical relations which will crop up should be consequently approached in the same spirit. The main inventory categories specific to Monteoru burials are pottery, dress items made of metal – copper or bronze and gold -, bone and other materials, weapons and tools made of metal, stone, bone or animal horns and bones, which may come from edible oblations or may be charged with another ritual significance related to the funerary ritual. One especially interesting aspect is that of the relationship between, on the one hand, the two corpse layout patterns, i.e., crouching on the left or on the right, and, on the other hand, the categories of inventory found in graves. It can be clearly noticed that the group of graves with skeletons crouched on the left, which is also the most numerous, has the “richest” inventories. In the group of skeletons laid on their right, funerary inventories are scarcer but the statistical proportion is the same as in the previous group. One exception to mark is connected to the presence of animal bones, but the situation here may be due to the random character of the finds, so that the situation should not be made more significant than it is. More detailed examination reveals differences within each of the two groups as regards the corpse layout. In graves with skeletons crouched on the left there is a clear difference between the dead lying with their head pointing to the west, i.e., the West Group – and the dead with heads pointing east, the East Group. If the proportions within the various inventory categories are roughly the same, it is obvious that the graves in the Left West Group have richer and more varied inventories, if we take into account that weapons and stone tools are present in the graves of this group. No weapons and stone “tools” and no dress items, except for one case with gold objects, have been

found in the graves of the Left-East Group. We should also note that dress items made of bone or horn are more frequent in the same group. It is hard to interpret this difference between the two groups; the only thing we can assert is that the concern to represent the social identity of the deceased is expressed in archaeologically more pertinent ways for the Left West Group than for the group with the other orientation. A pretty similar situation has been observed in the graves with skeletons laid on their right. We can note from the very beginning the less diverse structure of the graves with skeletons crouched on the right. Apart from the pottery, which is the most well represented category, we must state once again that there appear only dress items in this category of graves, with no weapons, “tools” or animal bones. Even in these cases it is possible to discern two groups judging by the inventories - the Right West and the Right East which differ in respect to the frequency of the inventory elements, because in this case also the group with the deceased laid with their head in the eastern sector is “poorer”. In other words, the graves with skeletons crouched on the right follow the same division prompted by the modality of expressing the identity of the deceased as was the case in the previous group. This observation confirms once again the segmentation of the Monteoru communities, which is visible not only through the principle of bi-polar and complementary layout of the deceased, but also by the ways in which mortuary inventories were constituted. The way inventory items were allotted depending on the age or sex groups offers an image just as expected, because dress items appear more frequently in feminine graves, while for men, weapons, in so far as they have been found, could represent one of the characteristics defining the social expression. But since weaponry elements are only incidental in statistical terms, here, in the Monteoru communities, as elsewhere, they did not play an important role in the funerary ceremonies destined for men, but had a completely different significance in the ritual scenarios, as has been ascertained in singular finds or in metal axe deposits. In children’s graves the distribution is identical with that registered for adults, which is again doubtlessly due to the fact that certain inventory elements - dress items - served for expressing the sex, probably irrespective of the age. Pottery represents the most significant inventory category discovered in 200 of the 378 available Monteoru graves. Most vessels have been found in grave 6/89 at Poiana: an amphora, 3 cups with two handles, 3 bowls and two vessels of the bag-shape or jar kind, with no other inventory elements. Unfortunately the grave which had a SW-NE orientation had been disturbed, which prevented us from observing the exact position of the skeleton, for which we do not have an anthropological diagnosis either. This find is followed by a small group of 6 graves with 5 vessels each, then another group with several inventory items, i.e., three or four vessels. Another distinct group consists of graves with two vessels, followed by a group of graves with only one vessel, usually a cup. As regards the main types or shapes of vessels, cups with one handle are the most frequent category and they dominate inventories by the 130 cases of pottery found in Monteoru inventories. Next comes the bag-shaped or

74

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

jar kind which appears 29 times, but its incidence might be modified since it has often been used as an urn in cinerary graves. Pixidae and two handle cups come next as they appear 25 times each. The vessels designated as Spendegefäß or “oblation receptacle”, known ever since the beginning of the Sărata Monteoru excavations, can hardly have had a simply utilitarian value judging by their shape, all the more so as they have been recorded in other settlement finds than graves, namely in contexts of a very special character, which may have been connected to ritual practices. Their very special function in Monteoru burials is emphasized by the fact that they have been found lying on one side in the graves, at the foot of the skeletons. The discussions revolving around the issue of the presence or absence of this type of vessels in the Monteoru graves have sought explanations connected to the stages in the evolution of the Monteoru culture, or to the territorial differences in the funerary function of these vessels, or to the modifications of their function in the funerary ritual. Since the presence of vessels of this type is documented in practically the entire area occupied by the Monteoru group, the explanation provided about some communities using it for burials and others not using it so is hard to accept if we take into consideration how uneven is the distribution within the same area of the thoroughly researched cemeteries... On the other hand, vessels of this special kind, which can be of considerable sizes too, have been found in funerary contexts where the social person of the deceased was especially valued, so they cannot be expected to have the same frequency as the cups. The askos is another special form characteristic for the Monteoru ceramic repertoire from the very beginning, as has been seen in the item found in grave 2 at Năeni-Colarea, and extending to the last stages of the culture, as resulting by deduction from the very few sherds found in grave 1 at Tinosu. The askos is present in 11 finds recorded in the Monteoru mortuary inventories, which means it is slightly rarer. Stepped vessels, a form that appeared towards the end of the culture, rarely occur in the funerary inventories of the group, being present in only three graves at Pietroasa Mică. Another form which has been recorded only once in funerary inventories but is otherwise quite frequent in Monteoru settlements is the cup of grave 2 at Cârlomăneşti-La arman. The examination of the relations between the main types of pottery and the sex or age groups indicates the statistical possibility that the funerary ceramic repertoire is related to the age groups so that more varied and consistent ceramic inventories are characteristically deposited in adult graves of both men and women and of sexually indeterminate adults and perhaps they directly correspond to funerary layout structures, providing full social expression. The presence and shape of the vessels, except for the amphorae, must have been connected to the food they held. There are no material traces in this respect. One clue about the symbolic character of the food deposits comes from the joint cases of graves 19 and 24 at Cârlomăneşti-La arman, where one pixida has been found by each of the cups placed near the skeletons. Thus we can suppose that some of the vessels, for example the cups, were destined for liquids while others were for solid

edible substances, even though there is no way to prove this. It is very likely that some vessels, those deposited in the vicinity of the skull or in front of the trunk, had this function. We are faced with a special situation in the threefold grave at Năeni-Zănoaga, where the askos was found in the grave filling not next to the bones. In this case the askos must be associated to the more than 400 fragments of pottery, some of which had already been burnt and broken in antiquity and have been found in the same position, which makes them certainly function together as the archaeological proof of one ceremonial episode in the entire funeral. But the role of the vessels deposited directly near the deceased was to contain the food and/or drink which were functionally meant to accompany them in death, not being linked to the still living persons who participated to the “funerary feast”. This is also indicated by the extremely rare finds of adjacent vessels in the cremation graves of the Monteoru area, since in such cases the cremated deceased could scarcely be supposed to need either solid or liquid edible substances. The observations about the statistical distribution of pottery in the general landscape of the Monteoru funerary furnishing can lead to some conclusions, which may not be final, of course, since the statistical stock available has been in fact limited. Two standard practices can be discerned: the presence of pottery and its absence. In the first class, or standard procedure, the variations in quantity and quality seem to have depended on the social person of the deceased, on the age category first, adults being “privileged”, more than depending on the sex group. Statistical examination shows that there may have existed yet another relationship between, on the one hand, the ritual groups configured by the disposition of the corpses and the quantities of clay vessels present in the graves, on the other hand. It is quite obvious that the presence of pottery, apart from the potential belief that the deceased might have needed food in the other world, was significant as a constitutive factor of social expression, which makes the absence of pottery, significant in certain ways too. Another extremely important category of funerary furnishing is the dress items made of metal: gold or copper/bronze. The first group, made of gold, consists of only 11 graves published, which have been found at Movila, Năeni-Colarea, Pietroasa Mică, Poiana and Sărata Monteoru, Cemeteries 3 and 4. We can add to them the mentions we have about the cemetery at Cândeşti. The discovery at Odobeşti represents a special situation but the uncertainties associated with the find leave it out. Of the 11 cases in question, 8 graves had lock rings, 3 were burials with necklace elements and only one was a ring. In two cases there were men’s graves, another three were women’s graves, only one belonged to a child, and one to a sexually unidentified adult. In my opinion it is significant that in two cases, at Pietroasa Mică 2 and Sărata Monteoru Cemetery 4 grave 35a, the gold pieces have been found in association with ceramic inventories that consisted of four vessels each, in another three cases, with three vessel ceramic inventories, in yet another three cases, with two-vessel inventories, in only one case with a one-vessel inventory and in two cases there were no

75

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu vessels in the graves. Dress items made of gold have been found similarly associated in 8 cases with sets of items with the same function but made of copper or bronze, in 2 cases, with amber beads, and in only one case with 9 beads made of “faience”, i.e., of some glassy paste. At Pietroasa Mică, in grave 37, the gold lock ring was also associated with the little “dagger” taken to be a weapon. The relationship with the groups of standard corpse layout is equally significant. Thus, the Left-West group has 7 cases of gold finds documented, the Right-West group has only one case, the Left-East group has one and the Right-East group has no case whatsoever. It is obvious that the dress items made of precious metal emphasized the social status of the deceased, which was, as already seen, related to other elements of the funerary practices. Dress items made of copper or bronze are more numerous, as they occur in 93 cases, which correspond to 24.60% of the total of 378 graves, and they are more varied. As was to be expected, most of the cases in the entire group are feminine burials with 29 graves, followed by children graves, in 18 cases, and then only by men’s graves, in 12 cases. If, on the one hand, we assume that approximately half of the adult graves that have not been sexually diagnosed, which means 10 graves with dress items made of metal and the same number of graves with no anthropological determinations, namely 24 graves with dress elements made of metal, must have been women’s graves and, on the other hand, we consider that some of the children’s graves must have been feminine, it becomes obvious that it was women who wore these jewels. The statistical study of the dress items has led to a similar conclusion. The most frequent item is the lock ring or Lockenring, which appears 25 times in feminine graves and only 6 times in masculine graves. The metal bar necklace with twisted ends – the Ösenhalsring – stands out among the neckpieces: of the 7 items known in Monteoru graves, 3 have been fond in graves with feminine skeletons and the remaining 4, in graves which have not been anthropologically examined. Neckpieces also include spirals made of copper wires, beads and pendants, which appear predominantly in feminine graves too, and more rarely in childrens graves. The same holds true for body jewels, pins and buttons, which have been attested almost exclusively in feminine graves. Most of the bronze or copper bracelets found in Monteoru graves belonged to women - in 5 cases - another 6 have been found in sexually unidentified graves, and only one in a child grave. The situation of the copper or bronze rings is less obvious, but the quite high proportion of rings that appear in sexually undifferentiated graves - 12 cases - may be indicative of their predominant use as decoration of deceased women since only one case has been recorded in masculine graves. The relation between the incidences of dress items made of copper or bronze and the standard groups of the deceased layout in the Monteoru area is extremely significant because it repeats and at the same time underlines the situation observed for the gold items. Some individual cases that represent actual illustrations of the statistical graph situation can be cited. One case in question is grave 1 of Cârlomăneşti-La arman, which belongs to the Left West group and has one set in which the copper

necklace - Ösenhalsring - ranks first having been found in association with a lock ring and a bracelet fragment and one cup with two handles and another case is that of graves 3 and 31 at Pietroasa Mică, the first of which has a set consisting of a pin, one more Ösenhalsring, 4 lock rings and a bracelet, in association with 3 vessels, and the second has an inventory consisting of a set of dress items comprising a pin, two lock rings, a pendant, six saltaleone and a plate, all of which are made of copper or bronze and 4 associated vessels. We must also mention grave 17 at Poiana as one of the similar examples of this group of finds, which had one copper or bronze ring in association with 4 vessels, a diorite axe and two flint arrowheads and grave 2 at Bonţeşti, in which the lock ring is associated with two cups and with a stone axe, once again. Grave 142, which belongs to the Left East group, found in the well-known Cemetery 4 of Sărata Monteoru, is a case from whose inventory we must cite the sophisticated jewelry consisting of 417 “faience” beads in addition to the copper or bronze Lockenring. For the Right West group we can cite grave 2 at Pietroasa Mică, where in addition to two lock rings and 8 saltaleone made of copper or bronze, another gold saltaleone has been found besides 4 vessels. Dress items made of metal have naturally been dwelt upon more attentively, stressing their chronological value, but the reference has often been to confused typologies and a limited number of finds. Here there is no room for extending this discussion, all the more so as the “traditionally” established relative chronology of the Monteoru culture is increasingly disproved by the newer finds. What interests us, however, is the significance of the dress items for expressing social identity during funerals. In the course of time dress items have appeared in graves in various ways and we cannot make clear distinctions in this respect for the Monteoru area unless we concentrate on the appearance of items which came from different cultural media as a result of distant exchange, namely on metal necklaces, amber or glassy paste beads, whose rarity is definitely indicative of the social status that the deceased who were entitled to own such objects with “exotic” origins must have had. Amber beads are another category of jewels discovered in Monteoru graves, albeit in a relatively small number. They have been found at Cândeşti in the inventory of grave 245, at Pietroasa Mică - grave 2, 8 - and at Sărata Monteoru, Cemetery 4 - grave 10, 35a, 122 and 133 -. Amber beads appeared in 4 feminine graves, in one masculine grave, in one child´s grave as well as in one with a skeleton that has not been anthropologically determined, thus being more frequent in women’s graves. The limited number of finds does not allow us to make clear distinctions by taking into consideration the groups observing the layout of the deceased. At the same time, however, the very limited number of graves with amber beads fails to reflect the reality since the great cemetery at Cândeşti has not been published yet, and we can expect more items of this kind to crop up, just as it is to be expected in Cemeteries 1 and 2 of the eponymous settlement, and others. The comparative analysis of these beads with the geological samples

76

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

of amber from the Baltic region, from the Buzău area (namely from the region surrounding the Colţi locality) and from Olăneşti has revealed the fact that the items found at Pietroasa Mică seem to have a local origin, while the beads found at Sărata Monteoru are Baltic in origin and will have come by distant exchange, which increased their value. The beads said to be made of faience but which were actually made of glassy white paste are equally important. For the moment we know of 10 graves with such beads, at Cândeşti, in the same inventory of grave 245, at Poiana - grave 3 - and at Sărata Monteoru, in Cemetery 4 - graves 21, 32, 35a, 72, 88, 103, 122 and 142-grave. Grave 142 at Sărata Monteoru, Cemetery 4 is especially interesting due to the large number of “faience” beads - 417 - which is a more than uncommon find in the Romanian Trans-Carpathians. Known inventories with a large number of “faience” beads are those in Periam-Pecica and Otomani-Füzesabony, and in Central Europe, in Nitra, Aunjetitz and Mierzanowice media, where their presence is linked to the processing of copper ore and such beads may have been by-products of the smelting of the ore, as has been observed in a grave found at Nyžná Myšl’a, Slovakia. It is hard to tell whether or not the “faience” beads were secondary products of the bronze metallurgy in the Monteoru area. However, we can state with some degree of certainty that the rather limited number of “faience” beads came to the Monteoru area, just as amber beads did, by exchange with the northern regions which have already seen to be local producers of such beads in very considerable amounts. I believe that the circulation of such dress items connected to the bronze metallurgy was paralleled by the circulation in various forms of the raw material required for producing metal artifacts, since copper ore is known to lack in the Monteoru area. This no longer allows us to defend the older opinion which saw the existence of connections between the Monteoru culture and the Mycenaean world. The items made of bone or horn make up another category of jewels. Of the 378 thoroughly researched and published graves, only 11 had such objects, but the number ought to be much greater judging by the mentions for the cemetery at Cândeşti and considering the quite high probability for the as yet insufficiently researched cemeteries to yield graves with similar items of jewelry. The dress items in the cited graves consist of pendants made of pierced animal teeth (5 cases), beads (2 cases), one belt plate - in grave 9 at Sărata Monteoru, Cemetery 4 -, one boar fang - in grave 77 of the same cemetery -, one disk-shaped buckle and one ring, both made of bone - in grave 2 at Tămăşeni. In one catacomb grave at Cândeşti another disk-shaped bone buckle, considered a “trinket”, is mentioned. Tubular bone beads and animal tooth pendants are relatively common items in an area that exceeds by far the region in question here, hence their low importance, but the situation differs completely in the other dress items made of bone, namely the boar fang, the belt plate and the disk-shaped buckles. The presence of boar fangs in the Monteoru graves, just as of the “faience” and amber beads and of the circular cheek pieces, has been linked to the Aegean world, more precisely, it has been linked to the period of the shaft-graves at Mycenae. Boar fangs, however, have

been found as early as the beginnings of the Bronze Age in Poland in the Schnurkeramik, in Globular Amphorae graves, then, to the north also, in cemeteries of the Mierzanowice culture, and in Central Europe, in graves from the Nitra, Aunjetitz and Mad’arovce groups. Boar fangs appear even closer to the Monteoru area in graves belonging to the Otomani-Füzesabony culture and in those of the Periam-Pecica group. Obviously we do not need to look for necessary connections of such jewelry items with the Aegean world if they are seen to have been largely worn in the areas to the north and north-west of the Monteoru area and if they have been probably brought to the south of the Carpathians by the same means as other dress items, for example “faience” beads. Pierced boar fangs, which come in pairs sometimes, sometimes in greater numbers, predominate in masculine graves, but they have been found more rarely in graves with feminine skeletons. The crouched skeleton which has been emphatically placed on the left and points West-East in grave 77 at Sărata Monteoru Cemetery 4 has been diagnosed as masculine and it has the pierced fang as its only inventory item. One frequent category of finds of the Bronze Age but rarer in the Monteoru area are the necklaces made of shells and cockles, namely Cardium, Unio, Columbella and Dentalium. We can see once again that the situation in question does not seem very real since some of the graves at Cândeşti actually have mentions of some Cardium marine shells or of Unio fresh water shells, which sometimes also have tiny copper ears, or of Columbella shells strung together with a crescent-shaped pendant made of copper. In another inhumation grave, which was found fortuitously at Colţi, two Dentalium shells are reported together with a cup with one handle. Fossil shells have also been found in a few graves at Pietroasa Mică and in only one Sărata Monteoru grave, in Cemetery 4. However, we must express reservations about the latter finds because the Pietroasa Mică cemetery, for one, definitely occupies a hilly ridge which is rich in lime with shell fossils. The Cardium, Columbella and Dentalium shells have definitely been brought to Monteoru by distant exchange since they are frequently found in Otomani and Periam-Pecica and also in Central Europe, in Nitra and Aunjetitz cemeteries, and they appear mostly in feminine graves. Unio shell finds of local origin, which appear relatively frequently in late Tripol’ye graves and Jamnaja graves, might represent food offerings, but the purpose of depositing them in these graves is not always clear. The scarcity of weapons is one characteristic of the Monteoru burials, which might reflect ceremonial reticence about giving funerary expression to men’s statute. If we leave out, as we probably should, the two “weapons” found at Pietroasa Mică, the only sure metal weapons found is the Griffpalttendolch dagger excavated from a stone slab cist grave at Homorâciu and another dagger found in a grave at Ursoaia. Stone weapons are slightly better documented, but there are still only a few graves with such items, no more than 9. Grave 17 at Poiana should be noted first, which had a diorite axe with a metal nut and two flint arrowheads, this being the most solidly “armed” grave in the Monteoru area. Next comes a series of

77

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu graves with one stone axe each, also found at Poiana – grave 18, and at Bonţeşti - grave 1, Coroteni - grave 27, Gura Văii, Sărata Monteoru, in Cemetery 4 - grave 144, Năeni-Zănoaga and the grave with two axes, at Bonţeşti - grave 2. In the threefold grave at Năeni, the item found had already been broken and recycled in antiquity, which changes our perspective but as we cannot know what it was used for after being recycled or if it was simply “treasured” we cannot continue this discussion. Lastly, the only horn weapon known is a club found in grave 6/89 at Poiana, in the cemetery which stands out by the presence of so many weapons. I must express my regrets again for the mere mentions of the inventories at Cândeşti, because we know, from cursory communications, of daggers, flat hatchets and an arrowhead with tubular hafting, all of which are made of metal and have been found in Ic3 phase graves. The daggers and hatchets at Cândeşti are most probably of eastern origin. Even if we take into account the weapons found at Cândeşti the number of items of this sort does not become large, especially by comparison with the dress items made of various materials. Dress items made of metal – gold and copper or bronze -, as observable from the data available in Monteoru, are characteristic for women, whose status is expressed in funerary ceremonies also by the presence of jewelry. The absence of hoards of dress items in the space occupied by the Monteoru communities indicates that they had a special regime by comparison with weapons, which are less frequent in funerary objects, while they are permanently present in settlements and deposits, and especially in isolated finds. So far we know of only three graves with harness pieces in the Trans-Carpathian region and not too many details, which make them rare. The first one is in grave 141 of Cemetery 4 at Sărata Monteoru, whose stone layout structure had been destroyed and which contained an adult skeleton and an inventory consisting of a single “corne d’animal perforée, ayant probablement servi comme gourmette de frein”. One more cheek-piece of the Stangenknebel kind with “Mycenaean” decoration has been found in one of the graves of Cemetery 2 and in the settlement of the same time, but the details of this find are as yet unknown. Lastly, an inhumation grave with calcinated bones deposited in a vessel has been found at Cândeşti, together with 14 buttons regarded as harness pieces. In the absence of pertinent palaeontological examination of the calcinated bones we must wonder how small this horse might have been, albeit cremated, to be accommodated within a vessel! The presence in graves of harness pieces made of bone or horn is characteristic for the north Pontic steppes and the Urals and is infrequent in the Trans-Carpathian or Central European regions, with psalia found especially in settlements or in fortuitous finds, disk-shaped check-pieces - Scheibenknebel - having been already found in the Monteoru group in the eponymous settlement. Consequently the appearance of harness pieces in Monteoru funerary contexts should indicate the borrowing of an eastern “fashion”, which is evidently important for the social status of the deceased and not really surprising if we take into consideration other

elements of similar origin present both in the material culture and in the funerary practices. Irrespective of their material, metal, stone and bone or horn, tools, are limited in number and consist of awls, flint blades or flakes, and not very relevant for the current discussion. Statistically, it is possible to have a reversal of the situation once the cemetery at Cândeşti has been published and with the natural growth of research. One last category of funerary “inventories”, which is not insignificant in the least, are the animal bones. So far animal bones have been ascertained at Gura Văii, Năeni-Colarea – in grave 1, where some leg bones of ovicaprids and phalanxes of horses and bovids have been found, and in grave 3 [♀], one ovicaprid skull and rib, plus in graves 8 [♀] and 9 [♂], bovid bones, then at Năeni-Zănoaga, where one mandible and some ovicaprid leg-bones have been found, and at Pietroasa Mică - grave 30 [a child’s grave] with calcinated pig bones, grave 37 [♂], with bovid bone finds and M. 61[♂], with a bovid skull and an ovicaprid mandible. Most of these graves are nondescript as regards their funerary structure and inventory elements, except for grave 37 at Pietroasa Mică, which had two cups, one lock ring made of gold and another two made of copper. The available data is extremely scant, but we can always turn to the Cândeşti cemetery to enlighten us with further, more diverse data. Here we have mentions of pit structures that left space for depositing animals and mentions of bones from various parts of animals’ bodies, which were remains of food oblations. What is more, there are mentions of graves that yielded “seulement des ofrandes animaliers”. Since we have no way of judging, in thoroughly archaeological terms, these most likely animal “graves”, nothing can prevent us from accepting that a series of animal species, especially domesticated animals, came to play an important role in the subsistence of the Monteoru communities, acquiring a certain significance, and consequently being introduced in the complex system of mortuary and other ritual practices. We could even speculate and say that the presence of animal bones, especially if they belonged to large size animals, constituted indications of the social rank. This perspective suggests that the presence of equid osteological remains had a special significance for, even if they are considered to have served as food, the cheek-piece finds, two of which were in mortuary context, cannot be ignored and this proves that horses were used for draft or ridden, albeit in only a few cases. In conclusion, so far as we can draw conclusions from the insufficient documentation available, the mortuary customs of the Monteoru group or culture appear as pretty standardized but also diverse, with a range that does not run counter to the unity of the mortuary practices in the entire area. Funerary precincts were constituted quite naturally, from the beginnings of the settlements to which they correspond. There are no archaeological proofs permitting us to affirm that the funerary precincts were delimited by signs visible on the surface. There may have been separate signs for each grave, however, and even if they actually made the funerary precincts stand out clearly, their actual limits were not real and in time the area used for

78

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

burials became more widespread, reaching as far as the dwelling zone sometimes, as can be proved by the finds at Sărata Monteoru. Planimetric examinations have not shown any coherent grave organization and have been drastically limited, on the one hand, because none of the Monteoru cemeteries has been exhaustively excavated yet and, on the other hand, because of the absence of anthropological determinations, as well as the great number of graves that have no inventories and the naturally destructive factors. However, we have enough indications and even some older observations, which have been ignored of late, that firmly suggest the Monteoru cemeteries to have been organized into plots of land or quarters which corresponded to people of the same kin/family so that the development of the funerary surface followed these plots or quarters, growing in accordance with the mortality rate for each of the corresponding social units. This is the reason why the attempts to establish the evolution in time of the Monteoru cemeteries from one end to another by following a linear model has been invariably doomed to fail and the horizontal stratigraphy “obtained” in this way has been utterly unreal. Another equally unreal statement is one which has been repeatedly made, that each of the “phases” of the Monteoru culture had its own cemetery in places where long term settlements have been found, for example in the eponymous settlement or at Cândeşti. Being actually perfectly integrated in the type of habitat characteristic for the communities which dwelt on hilltops and hillsides, funerary precincts used the area immediately surrounding the dwelling areas and were determined by uneven landscapes to interrupt the space destined for the graves dug so as to suit the mortality rate of the respective population. The continuation of research on all the hillsides at Sărata Monteoru Cetăţuia will doubtlessly prove that this was the general standard practice and that the discontinuity of the funerary area is a mere impression caused by incomplete research. We should not forget that in very few sites of the Monteoru settlements, just as in the entire Bronze Age, only rarely have both the settlement and the cemeteries been simultaneously researched. The same habitat form and concomitant demographical rhythms created some distinct units/conglomerates of the settlement + cemetery kind, for example, once again, that at Sărata Monteoru, where Cemeteries 1, 2 and 4 are actually parts of the same funerary zone corresponding to the settlement at the point known as Cetăţuie, while Cemetery 3, which occupies the SW slope of the Leagănului Hill/Viei Hill, belongs to the settlement on the corresponding hilltop, which has been destroyed in the meantime. In the vicinity of the Monteoru mortuary finds there are plentiful traces of dwellings, which will have been contemporary with the burials in most cases. But we must not for a moment forget that, in spite of the numerous excavations in settlements, the solution of the specific Monteoru habitat forms is in an incipient phase. We must have patience before setting up a documentation and data base for starting the study of the relationship between the dwelling and funerary precincts in the Monteoru area, all the more so as no research projects whose strategic object is to excavate at the same time the settlements and the

cemeteries are under way, excepting from the older investigations at Sărata Monteoru, Poiana and Cândeşti. One special situation, because it is unclear, is that of Poiana, where the cemetery researched in the first half of the 20th century has subsequently proved to be larger and to extend over a considerably longer period of time. At the same time the relationship between the graves discovered at Cetăţuie and the cemetery at the foot of the hill has not been clarified. The resulting situation is very interesting since, if it is realistic, it would point to the existence of two distinct funerary zones. There are exceptions to the uniformity of the Monteoru funerary habits. One is that of the ritual complex at Monteoru-Poiana Scoruşului. Far from being a “pyre” used several times for cremating the dead, namely a sui generis furnace, it appears to have been a funerary structure dedicated to someone who had a very high rank since it includes a very complex and impressively large structure and because of its contents, especially skeletons found under the debris of the burnt construction. This also proved by the amount of social energy spent for erecting the sophisticated structure of this object. It lies outside the funerary zone destined for the other members of the community. One other clearer exception is to be found in the threefold grave on the edge of the settlement at Năeni-Zănoaga. This mortuary find shows us three characters with a very high/uncommon status who required a funerary location situated outside the ordinary mortuary zone, owing to the fact that it had an uncommon funerary structure consisting of the pit itself and the remains of the cremated construction which had been thrown in its filling and because of the association with a matching inventory. Yet another case is the childs grave at Cârlomăneşti-Cetăţuie. Here, neither the structure of the grave, nor the inventories support an uncommon social rank, but as the direct relationship between, on the one hand, the dwelling levels and the child’s grave has been specified, this grave with its still eccentric funerary location may have been dug in the already deserted precinct of the settlement. As has been repeatedly stated, inhumation is the dominant funerary rite of the Monteoru communities, which is made clear by the fact that of the 378 graves inhumation is the rite of 354 burials or 93.65%. The inhumation practice seems unitarily spread over the entire Monteoru area and the only particular cases have been recorded at Cândeşti, where they are referred to as graves in which the corpse “was laid in the grave over the burning fire”, a situation that we find hard to comment in the absence of thorough archaeological documentation and anthropological analysis. Bi-ritualism, which consists of inhumated skeletons and cremated bones, has been definitely documented at Năeni-Colarea, in grave 1, and it has also been mentioned at Cândeşti. One still unclear situation has been reported at Pietricica, where several fragments of calcinated bones have been found in the filling of the cist in grave 2. Judging by the situation at Năeni-Colarea and by the mentions from Cândeşti, the two main modes of treating corpses did not exclude each other, either in time or within the funeral proper, even if the cases of bi-ritualism are as yet few.

79

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu Cremation, which is documented in 14 clear cases of the 378 and therefore represents circa 3.70%, is obviously the secondary and adjacent funerary rite. Even if the numbers I am now using may change once the Cândeşti cemetery will be published, the ratio of the inhumations and incinerations cannot change radically. This practice, which probably came here from the Middle Danube basin, namely from the predominantly cinerary media at the beginning of the Bronze Age, has not increased numerically in spite of some older assertions based on observations limited to the various cemeteries and on the traditional chronology of the Monteoru group. One particular evolution of the practice of cremating the dead seems to be followed by the decrease of the number of cinerary pit-graves and the corresponding increase of those with the calcinated bones placed in urns, this being an evolution which can be recorded for the cremation groups. I think that today we are right in considering cremation in the Monteoru culture as the expression of contacts with neighboring areas, especially Wietenberg, where an inversely symmetrical situation has been recorded, as funerary “fashion” borrowings, that still left room for the possibility that some of the cremations recorded to the south of the mountain region came here from Transylvania together with the exchanges of material goods. As an obviously foreign practice almost certainly coming from the north-west, cremation of the dead is maintained as a secondary and adjacent funerary rite throughout the evolution of the Monteoru culture and as such it acquires the status of a particular feature of the mortuary practice of the communities which dwelt in the region of the Carpathian Curve. I do not think that we waive the possibility for cinerary graves to constitute documents which, at the beginnings of the Monteoru culture at least, attested the presence of individuals who came from foreign parts but were accepted by the members of the Monteoru communities and were allowed to retain their own funerary practices. “Cenotaphs” are a problematic issue as yet and they have been documented only at Cârlomăneşti-La arman so far. It cannot be decided if they were truly symbolic graves of persons who had died away from home or in circumstances that either prevented their corpses from being recovered or caused the community to refuse their recovery. It is to be hoped, however, that once the archaeological documentation has increased, the problem can be taken up more successfully. The discussion about the treatment given to the corpses has to dwell upon the cases, known as yet only from mentions at Cândeşti, where inhumation graves held not only the so-called main skeleton but also from 1 to 4 skulls of adults or where some undisturbed graves only held one skull each. We should add to these the finds of some human osteological remains at Năeni-Zănoaga and Sărata Monteoru. All of these suggest the possibility that some individuals may have been allotted a first funerary location within the settlement immediately after death, only their skulls being subsequently deposited near other skeletons of adults. One cannot offer an acceptable solution to this problem at the current research stage owing to the rarity of these situations. Neither will the comparison with similar situations known from ethnography be of great help

either, since the ethnographical cases include much more complete observations, which could hardly be compared with the insufficiency of the archaeological observations. Monteoru funerary structures seem to have varied, albeit less within each cemetery but in the entire cultural area quite visibly. This may not be a real situation as there are few exhaustively excavated and thoroughly published cemeteries. The first and most well-known observation is that all the Monteoru cemeteries are flat-grave ones. If this conclusion is regarded in the limited context of the Monteoru area, it does not seem to carry too much weight, but when it is compared directly with the plains immediately adjoining to the hillside region of the Carpathian Curve the perspective changes. Often only a few kilometers away from complex settlements which were occupied for a considerable length of time, for example at Cândeşti, Sărata Monteoru and Năeni, there are barrows, sometimes even imposing ones, as that at Movila Banului, that rise against the skyline and have a funerary precinct completely different in its organization. This stands for mortuary practices that differ greatly as regards the structure and layout of the corpses and document the presence of utterly distinct populations from the Monteoru communities with whom they were in contact. If, as it seems to have been the case, the mortuary standards of neither community changed, this must have been how the Monteoru communities took over either mortuary ceremonial elements or material culture elements, because they were included in the funerary practices of the “barrow-people”, by reciprocal but asymmetrical exchange that had echoes in the funerary practices. This can be seen in the stone rings, which have been solidly documented in Monteoru cemeteries, sometimes even in the form of “family” rings. It was a kind of layout that required a great expense of social energy and reflected the privileged position of a social segment, family, or kin within the community, rings being a frequent layout structure in “Late Tripol’ye” funerary sites, such as Vîhvatinţi and Usatovo, in the barrow graves of the plain region and even in the Costişa milieu, at Rusăieşti, this being a series of finds which has emphasized the eastern filiations of such structures. Significantly enough, family rings disappeared from the Monteoru funerary practices at a certain moment, at a time which roughly corresponds with the disappearance of some types of burials with collective rings on barrows. This habit does not become completely extinct in the Monteoru area, where rings became individual in response to certain social reshufflings of the mortuary practices. One special kind of layout is to be found in the presence of stone cists which, just like rings, represented quite demanding funerary structures and it seems to me very significant that, at Cândeşti at least, some cists held two or more skeletons. This conferred a “family” status to this kind of structure identical with that of collective rings and representing a feature emphatically illustrated in at least one case by the skulls deposited before the inhumation under the slab at the bottom of one cist. The practice of building stone boxes for the deceased has also been attested in the Schneckenberg milieu, which was contemporary to the beginning of the Monteoru group, explaining thereby this common funerary “fashion” that both

80

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

groups must have borrowed from their antecessors. At approximately the same time, catacomb graves are attested at Cândeşti. Having no barrows, the skeleton layout and inventories with items of eastern origin, the catacombs at Cândeşti and the practice of filling graves with riverbed stones, at Cârlomăneşti-La arman for example, must have appeared in the wake of contacts with the Mnogovalikovaja group, which was the easterly neighbour of the Monteoru group after the extinction of the catacomb burials. The fact that these burials occupy a distinct quarter at Cândeşti could be brought up as an argument for the hypothesis that this group of graves prove a foreign presence archaeologically, but the continuation of this practice at an even slightly later moment, as shown by Cemetery 4 at Sărata Monteoru, contradicts this hypothesis and invites the interpretation that some funerary “fashions” had indeed been borrowed from the east. The complexity of the interior funerary structures observed at Cândeşti, for example stepped pits, hearths, cinerary pits, etc. has not been encountered anywhere else and maybe the publication of all the excavation results from the eponymous settlement or from the new cemetery at Cârlomăneşti-La arman, with such outstanding finds as stepped pits, stone fillings and “cenotaphs”, can enlarge the area of variability a little from this point of view. We expect that future research will enrich the archaeological documentation. Meanwhile, since there are no details about the situations at Cândeşti and the research at Cârlomăneşti has just begun we had better put an end to this discussion. What remains, on the future agenda, is to notice the difference between Cândeşti, maybe Cârlomăneşti also, and the other “less spectacular” cemeteries, where the interior structures consist only of stone-lining for the pits and stone mounds. As was to be expected, the examination of the funerary structures in relation with the ways the deceased were deposited in their graves depending on the sex or age groups and in relation with the inventories has shown how certain funerary structure types represent modes of expressing the identity of the deceased in the frame of the funerary ceremony. Such practices, very attractive from this point of view, may have been taken over/”borrowed” from the neighbours within what must have been a very dynamic society, which was socially competitive at the intra- and inter-community levels. This will have been the basic significance of the ritual complex at Sărata Monteoru-Poiana Scoruşului, where the very remarkable amount of social energy spent cannot have had any other finality than to express, in this way too, the special status of one or several individuals who belonged to a very limited group within the community in question. This seems also to have been indicated by such finds as the riverbed stone structures in some of the dwellings and in the fortification of the civil settlement, which thus proves to have been very complex. The layout of the corpses is another main element of the Monteoru culture funerary standard. Most of the skeletons in the Monteoru graves have been found lying laterally crouched. The dominant position is crouched on the left side but there are graves in which the deceased have been found lying on their right. We cannot observe a clear preference in view of the sex or the age. Skeletons found lying

on their right are in evident minority in each cemetery and it is only in the area as a whole that they amount to a higher percentage. After studying the position of the skeletons in relation with their “orientation”, i.e., the axis of the head and the legs, we can discern 4 groups which we have termed, in accordance with the dominant position and orientation, the Left-West Group, the Left-East Group, the Right-West Group and the Right-East Group. The distinctions between them are perfectly clear through their relation with the funerary structures and the inventory elements. Since both men and women belong to these groups, the principle of the bi-polar and complementary layout of the deceased is not in relation with the sex groups, but with the ritual groups, and it reveals a reverse symmetrical opposition between the Left-West and Right-West Groups, on the one hand, and the Left-East and Right-East Groups, on the other hand. We can only justly suspect, therefore, that the 4 groups, associated two by two, as has been observed in the mortuary ritual, correspond to an equal number of demographically unequal segments of the Monteoru social units or communities, in what the mortuary expression is concerned and which were associated in similar ways. Their exact significance, more precisely the social practice that governed their formation, cannot be archaeologically ascertained and so far in settlements we have found only very vague indications about corresponding identification structures. At any rate, the ritual differences which have been archaeologically identified in the funerary practices of the two pairs of groups represent one of the main structural elements of the Monteoru funerary standard. Funerary inventories - pottery, dress items, weapons, tools, animal bones - are tightly connected in the Monteoru burials with the sex and age groups. Masculine attributes are more subtly expressed, by certain funerary structure elements, while the feminine are emphasized, I should say, by head-dress items, by decorations for the body or objects made of various materials, some of which came to the Monteoru area by distant exchange and consequently acquired a special, exotic value. This is the place to underline the fact that though dress items show the presence of more materials imported from the west, funerary structures, more precisely rings or catacombs, show in equally obvious ways the presence of elements of eastern origin, which indicates another outstanding element of the funerary standard governing the group or culture in question now. In the course of time, Monteoru funerary practices saw just a few structural changes, only detail elements being subject to the “evolution” inherent in longer time spans, and this caused the Monteoru culture to retain its individuality throughout its development, as can be observed in the burials attributed to it. However we have no possibility of deriving a complete image of the Monteoru culture funerary practices, since the multitude of unpublished finds, for example those in Cemeteries 1 and 2 at Sărata Monteoru and especially at Cândeşti, leaves room both for corrections and for new specifications, which are also to be expected as the result of new finds. But whichever the outcome, the Monteoru mortuary standard has its own well defined individuality and

81

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu as such it contributes to the definition of the Monteoru archaeological phenomenon, together with others, such as the habitat and material culture, to which the mortuary practices are tightly and dynamically connected. At the same time, the existence of elements of eastern origin which can be discerned in the Monteoru funerary structures sheds light upon the origin of this archaeological phenomenon. I do not mean that the Monteoru phenomenon may have originated in the east but just that some eastern elements pre-existed in the future Monteoru area and were adopted at the same time as other elements, of western origin, among which the practice of cremating the dead was obviously the most important. In this respect, I think that the continuing study of the Monteoru funerary practices could contribute to solving the problem of how the respective archaeological phenomenon came into being. Having seen that there is no way of solving the main problems connected to the evolution of the Monteoru culture, its internal chronology and the exact content of some researched sites and, moreover, of their levels or phases, which risks turning the diachronically discussion of the Monteoru funerary practices into something sterile and useless, I have avoided it. The Costişa culture represents a relatively new phenomenon for the Bronze Age archaeological landscape, since it was defined at the beginning of the 1970s starting with excavations of the eponymous settlement. For a long time what is now called the Costişa culture has not been a preoccupation for Bronze Age specialists because there has been little archaeological research dedicated to this group. On the basis of the ceramic material typology, the Costişa group has been connected to the Komarów and Bilyi Potok group, even though their relations have not been completely clarified as yet. This is due to a number of features which grant to the north Moldavian finds a sure individuality. The area of the culture seems to have covered the upper basin of the river Prut, spreading from there to the hilly region of the upper basin of the rivers Siret and Suceava and extending to the south in the direction of the river Moldova and the eponymous settlement, which is the southernmost find of this culture. Some discoveries seem to extend the Costişa area also to the north-east, even beyond the rivers Siret and Jijia. Recently, by including some Transylvanian finds, for example those of the “Ciomortan type”, the Costişa area seems to have been extended as far as the upper river Olt. One chorologic “curiosity” is the fact that the area of the Costişa culture is marked by settlements which occupy the southern half of the area, where burials are very rare, while the funerary finds are grouped in the northern half that has no known settlements! Defining the origins of the culture is a task for the future, for by the side of some common elements that link the Costişa culture to the Komarów and Bilyi Potok groups, some recent finds open the possibility of local participations in the formation of this group and this would support the individuality of the Costişa finds on the territory of today’s Romania as part of an ampler complex called the Komarów-Bilyi Potok-Costişa group. Yet another issue to solve is the relationship between the Costişa group and the Monteoru culture. Ever since the first

research in the fortified settlement at Costişa there have appeared sites with Ic2-Ib Monteoru material overlying contexts with Costişa pottery, which illustrated the occupation by force of the Costişa settlement by a neighboring Monteoru community. The new excavations of the eponympus settlement have not produced any further data helpful in circumscribing the situation in a satisfactory way. One of the finds reported is in the area beyond the Middle Carpathians, at Păuleni, and it is a Wietenberg pit-house which disturbed a vallum that belonged to the Ciomortan facies of the Costişa settlement. But since the finds of this kind and the general stratigraphy do no offer any precise data which can tell us which of the Costişa stages underlay which of the Wietenberg or Monteoru phases, their value is limited and their generalizing treatment will only lead to false conclusions. This is the result of merely scant systematic research and studies devoted to the content of the Costişa culture that alone could lead to the discovery of an internal chronology of the group. The duration of the Costişa culture can be appreciated through the presence of these earlier materials, some of which have elements in common with the finds in the Ediniţa/Edineţ zone in Basarabia, which may well constitute a terminus post quem, and through the frequent observations of the ways in which Komarów-Costişa elements participated in the formation of the Noua culture. In this way it can be appreciated that the duration of the Costişa group is roughly inscribed in the middle period of the Bronze Age in a traditional sense, which is somehow confirmed by the only radiocarbon data available for the late phase of the Komarów group of Trans-Carpathian Ukraine. At present, we can presume that the group of Costişa finds is the only Middle Bronze Age manifestation in the wooded hill zone of northern Moldova. In the current state of documentation we know of 15 funerary finds attributed to the Costişa culture and inscribed in the area in question (See the list in Chapter 9.3). Further funerary Komarów finds have been reported in Basarabia, at Bădragii Vechi and Şeptebani and, very far south, at Gura Bâcului and Purcari, on the upper and lower Dniester. All four finds do not actually belong to the Komarów-Bilyi Potok-Costişa complex but either document elements of this kind in Noua medium, for example at Bădragii Vechi, or they represent elements imported in Mnogovalikovaja context, as must be the case at Gura Bâcului and Purcari for example. The funerary finds of the Costişa group are very few and they have been found as a result of systematic excavations in 10 cases or 67%, only two coming from salvage excavations and only three from fortuitous finds. But in reality the situation has been influenced also by the way we have come by the data. For Horodnicu de Jos, which is a quite important find, we have incomplete, even somewhat contradictory data. The graves at Corpaci, Costişa, Dumeni and Medveja have only been mentioned with lacking details. As regards the group or cemetery at Adâncata, research is in an incipient phase, and the material published consists of only two preliminary excavation reports. The special situation at Şerbăneşti, which is also part of a preliminary excavation report, needs a much more detailed presentation before it can be judged seriously. At Cajvana and Volovăţ what we have is

82

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

reconsiderations of previous attributions, but in the absence of complete observations. As regards the archaeological context of six finds, namely those of Adâncata, Corpaci, Dumeni, Horodnicu de Jos, Medveja and Prăjeni – we seem to deal with cemeteries, but must not forget for a moment that the graves considered to be Costişa at Corpaci, Cotârgaci, Dumeni and Medveja are in fact singular from this point of view, as they have been discovered as secondary graves on barrows with Jamnaja and Mnogovalikovaja graves. This casts doubt even on the attribution which took into consideration only the vessels in the inventory. Actually the only clear cemeteries are those at Adâncata and Horodnicu de Jos, as in the other cases we deal with 2 to 3 graves, although it is very likely that the number of graves at Cajvana, Cotârgaci, maybe at Prăjeni and Volovăţ too, will increase with the potential progress of the research. The situation at Şerbăneşti is not very clear as the only grave found occupied a position at the periphery of a barrow, being therefore secondary. What is more, the barrow belonged to a group of three, which leaves open the possibility of identifying a group of graves after further research. The isolated graves at Costişa, Hârtop, Rusăieşti and Vlăsineşti represent a particular case owing to the fact that no other funerary situations have been observed in the places where they were found. One of these finds, the one at Hârtop, which consisted of a stone slab cist, can be seen to illustrate the fashion specific for such isolated burials. The grave at Costişa, which has been found in the settlement, can be considered as part of the group in question only in view of its locale, since the attribution cannot be proved or disproved in the absence of inventory and funerary structure elements. The situation at Şoimeni is singular owing to the position of the 3 graves in a very special context, since the find is part of a settlement with several layers. One characteristic of the Costişa funerary finds, as it appears to us nowadays, comes from the imprecision of the research, with confused descriptions belonging to hesitant research put into circulation by correspondingly hesitant publications. By referring to documentation whose quality is as shown, the Costişa funerary standard can only be described in very general terms. First, we must note that the majority of these finds are in/on barrows, but the funerary mounds are not large and only have few graves, one or two as a rule. Judging by the situation at Adâncata and Horodnicu de Jos, one characteristic seems to derive from the widespread cemeteries with numerous burials, which were probably organized into clan groups, as ostensibly proved by the double burials and by their location near settlements. As regards the funerary rite, bi-ritualism appears as a certainty, but it is hard to decide whether inhumation and cremation, the two modes of treating corpses, were concomitant practices or not. Cinerary graves show both the practice of depositing cremated remains directly on the ground covering them subsequently by erecting a barrow made of earth, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, they show the practice of depositing the cinerary remains in a vessel which was subsequently placed at ground level or in a pit and covered by erecting a barrow over them. Inhumation graves have shown the use of stone slab cists, following the

line of an older tradition. The limited number of Costişa graves of this kind which are known so far does not allow us to specify rules for the layout of the corpses on either side, but we should not forget that, with very few exceptions, we do not have anthropological diagnoses which can help us connect the practices to the sex or age groups. The inventories are “poor”, consisting of pottery mainly and only exceptionally, at Cajvana and Adâncata, of dress items. Even if the archaeological documentation available is deficient, we can nevertheless notice the individualized character of the finds by comparison with the neighboring groups, for example Monteoru to the south, Wietenberg to the west and Mnogovalikovaja to the east. At the same time it is easy to notice that, although from the point of view of advanced ceramic studies, the Noua culture takes over traditions of the Costişa pottery, but in matters concerning the funerary practice the distinction between the two cultures is quite clear. The Tei culture, which has been defined by a pottery style, represents one of the main manifestations of the Middle Bronze Age for a great part of Muntenia. In the current stage of research the Tei culture spread over most of central Muntenia, its eastern limit being marked by the river Mostiştea, and reaching no further than the Vedea-Teleorman basin to the west. To the north, at one moment of its evolution, the Tei group seems to have extended as far as the Bârsa region, with finds in not very well specified contexts which have make it impossible to know if we deal with an actual presence or with “imports” resulting from exchange. To the south, the finds of pottery decorated in the Furchenstich technique entitles us to admit that the Tei culture reached beyond the Danube. Yet on the one hand these finds are scant, while on the other hand, through the decoration of the vessels, they are connected to ceramic groups from the region of the Rhodopi Mountains and even further to their south, so that we cannot draw certain conclusions about a Tei presence south of the river Danube. At the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the Zimnicea-Plovdiv group is documented north of the Danube, especially in the low-lying region of the Zimnicea-Călăraşi sector, which means that the Tei area proper did not extend into the flood plain of the Danube. We do not have a satisfactory solution to the problem of the Tei origins. Therefore it is impossible to thoroughly specify its periodization and actual duration. The end of the culture is also debated. Notched bovid shoulder blades have been found in some Late Tei settlements and Tei sherds of the final phase are known to exist in late Monteoru contexts, mixed with Noua materials and inviting us to accept a late Tei phase as contemporary with the first part of the Noua culture, at a time when there had already been Govora finds on the western edge of this area. No satisfactory answer has been found to the question of the relation between the late Tei finds and those of the “Radovanu type”, which is mainly due to the uncertainties surrounding the Coslogeni “culture”. Either way, a southern limit seems to be marked approximately along the lines of Câlniştea-Neajlov-Argeş, because further south from this “frontier” the finds have been linked rather to the Zimnicea-Plovdiv group. A solution, unexpected to say the least, has been offered in order to provide

83

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu chronological specifications and for determining the end of the Tei and Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Čerkovna cultures by the attempt to define “Fundeni-Govora” as a new cultural group. The starting point in defining this “newcomer” is an inept selection of ceramic material, especially fragments, from the settlement at Popeşti, used to draw up a so-called repertoire of forms that included materials from other settlements, no matter if they were Tei, phases IV and V, or Tei-Fundeni and Tei-Fundenii Doamnei, or if they belonged to the so-called Verbicioara IV-V/Govora phases, including incomplete mappings and profuse considerations which regarded especially some 14C data from the respective settlement. The very grounds of this discussion are biased drastically, not only because of the way the material was selected, but also because of the uncertainties in the stratigraphy of the contexts from which the samples for radiocarbon dating have been taken. The materials from Chitila-Fermă, which are totally puzzling, seem to indicate that immediately after the end of the Bronze Age; a completely different ceramic group had come into existence right in the middle of the former Tei area and by the contribution of some extraneous elements. But things are far from clear and the Chitila find, which remains isolated, may well have been in fact an infelicitous mixture of materials. The small number of funerary finds constitutes one of the main problems of the Tei group. Today we have 8 funerary finds attributed to the Tei culture (See the list in Chapter 9.4). Proportionally speaking, the small number of Tei funerary finds consists of sites known through (systematic, salvage and trial) excavations, which amount to over one half of the stock. From the point of view of the context, the situation seems quite good with more than half of the finds being cemeteries or groups of graves, but the statistics hide the fact that the number of burials for the Tei group rests on an extremely limited number of burials; the available total is of only 13 or 14 graves! If we verify each find it results that we have only 5 sure mortuary contexts, which occupy an area near the southern end of the area, the sole find in a more northern location being at Brazi. Unfortunately we do not have archaeological observations for the Brazi graves so as to tell whether they are flat or barrow graves, just as for the very near finds at Ploieşti-Triaj and Smeeni for example. Maybe one explanation for the rarity of Tei funerary finds is the practice of burying the dead in small cemeteries, consisting of few graves. Inhumation and the fact that the deceased were laid in the graves laterally crouched is another characteristic. The small number of graves researched and the absence of anthropological diagnoses, except in the graves at Căscioarele, make the discussion of this topic sterile. The inventories with pottery seem to predominate. The only special inventory elements are the gold bead found at Chirnogi and the bronze arrowhead with a hafting-thorn found at Puieni. The bead at Chirnogi, which is a common, widespread item, is not of great use, but this arrowhead type is very special. They appear very rarely in the region between the rivers Tisza and Dniester, but they are characteristic for the tumular grave culture (Hügelgräberkultur) burials in Central Europe. One similar item has been found in one of the graves at

Gârla Mare near Plosca, and a sandstone mould for casting such arrowheads has been found not far away from the respective cemetery, on the banks of the lake, which allows us to presume that maybe the arrow at Puieni came here somehow along the valley of the Danube from the west. It therefore dates the respective find contemporary with the tumular grave culture of the Middle Danube basin and, of course, contemporary with the burials at Gârla Mare in southern Oltenia. The graves discovered at Brazi call our attention again to the relationship between the pottery groups or cultures in Muntenia, on the one hand, and the barrow burials in the Romanian plain, on the other hand. By and large, the Tei burials, albeit very few, belong to the comprehensive class of deceased laid in flat-grave inhumation areas, which include the north-eastern Monteoru group and Zimnicea-Plovdiv to the south-east and beyond the Danube and have no connection, from the point of view of the mortuary practices, with the larger cremation areas adjoining to the west (Verbicioara/Govora and Gârla Mare) or to the north (Wietenberg). The limited number of excavations on the barrows found in the plains region occupying the north bank of the Danube in the immediate vicinity does not offer us enough data to examine the relation between the Tei burials and the barrow burials. For the time being we can note only that no later burials, like those at Smeeni, Sudiţi and Ploieşti Triaj, for example, have been recorded in barrows to the west of the river Mostiştea, whereas east of this river there are secondary graves in barrows which attest finds contemporary with the Tei group and seem to have “blocked” the penetration to the west of the barrow burial practice in the Middle Bronze Age. We cannot tell now whether this mirrors the reality or is the natural outcome of incomplete research in the Tei area as a whole, just as we cannot attempt now a more detailed definition of the funerary standard for the Tei group. The Verbicioara “culture”, which was identified by the 1949 excavations in the eponymous settlement, has been supported for a long time only by the results of this particular site and by those of the neighboring settlement at Verbiţa. The first, very succinct presentation, asserted that it was of western origin and linked to the Periam-Pecica and Vatina groups, which had come to Oltenia after Glina III, which was said to have consequently been pushed further east. However, this latter assertion has not been proved. Shortly afterwards, the detailed presentation of the Verbicioara culture was given by D. Berciu, who mainly used his own results from the research of the eponymous settlement and added to them further finds in Oltenia and in the Banat also, for example those made at Băile Herculane, Moldova Veche and Visag and south of the Danube, in the cave at Devetaki. The Verbicioara culture has been divided into five phases and its beginning was dated to the second stage of Phase Reinecke Bz A2 - the transition from A2 to B1. The last phase, Verbicioara V, was dated to the Reinecke Bz D period and divided into two sub-phases, of which the second, designated Vb, was considered to express the transition to the First Iron Age. So far as burials are concerned, it has been considered that the initial practice was inhumation but in the third phase cremation set in as the standard practice. At the time, the specification was that no cemeteries had been

84

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

found and the only funerary finds were one inhumation grave where a pin of the “Cypriot” kind and a lock ring, both of which were made of bronze, were found and subsequently two urn-cremation graves. The conclusions of 1961 were adopted in the literature and kept in use quite long, all the more so as there was no systematic research to infirm or to confirm the respective observations. One funerary find considered as important was put into circulation in 1967: a presumptive cremation cemetery found at Visag. Shortly afterwards B. Hänsel reconsidered critically all the Verbicioara finds, by separating the materials in southern Oltenia, i.e., those attributed to the Verbicioara I-III phases, from the materials in northern Oltenia, especially those attributed to the Verbicioara IV-V phases, which he considered part of a separate group he named Govora. The same author also separated the materials considered Verbicioara Vb and included them in another group that he designated as Işalniţa. In 1978, the Verbicioara culture was presented again by S. Morintz, who retained D. Berciu’s older viewpoint and emphasized the Verbicioara Va-b classification. Further contributions, albeit minor, were in the same line and their main merit was that they increased the repertoire of Verbicioara finds. As regards the origin, A. Vulpe has dealt briefly with the issue of the participation of manifestations characterized by notched pottery of the Gornea-Orleşti type, which have “roots in the Early Bronze Age” and are related to the Corneşti-Crvenka aspect in Banat, forgetting to mention that in both cases he was dealing mainly with selections of ceramic material rather than with clear groups. The last point of view expressed in this controversy was due to G. Crăciunescu, who followed faithfully in the wake of the “directives” stipulated by D. Berciu, in respect to the funerary practices too. By and large, the Verbicioara area comprises the entire region of Oltenia, with some finds east of the river Olt and some south of the Danube in the Serbian part of the Banat. The Visag find does not obviously belong to the Verbicioara “culture”, but rather to the Balta Sărată group, just as the sherds in the Devetaki cave do not prove the presence of Verbicioara at the foot of the Stara Planina range but are rather results of distant exchange . The newer, more refined points of view expressed about the cultural evolution of the Bronze Age in the Banat exclude the actual presence of the Verbicioara group in this region, but they show the necessity of making specifications about the relationship of the finds in question with the Vatina group, both genetically and chronologically. Although research in the Verbicioara settlements has not brought enough data to confirm the periodization of this “culture” with stratigraphy, the ceramic material has allowed us to make distinctions between the forms attributed to “phases” I-II, on the one hand, and those attributed, especially in view of the decoration, to “phase” III. As regards “phases IV-V”, B. Hänsel’s observation that the materials attributed to them are a distinct group actually remains valid, at least because there is no systematic research in northern Oltenia. While things are quite clear in respect to what D. Berciu and S. Morintz have called Verbicioara Va materials, showing that the definition of the Govora group as self-sufficient is obviously well argued, the materials designated as “Verbicioara Vb” have no connection with the

Verbicioara group or the Govora group, from which they also differ chorological, having been attributed to the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group. For dating the Verbicioara group (phases I-III) we can retain the older classification as Reinecke Bz A, which was proposed by D. Berciu in 1961 (!), but only provided we take into account the absolute chronology recently adopted for this period, especially after radiocarbon determinations, i.e. dating to 2300-1900 BC. The Verbicioara funerary finds are not numerous, 15 finds having been discussed so far on different occasions (see the list in Chapter 9.5). The find at Visag, which is actually debatable, can no longer be attributed to the Verbicioara group. Under the circumstances, it can be easily noticed that the Verbicioara funerary finds occupy mainly the southern half of the traditional area of the group. On the other hand, it can also be noticed that all the “southern” finds are attributed to “phases” I-III, the only late funerary find being that at Râmnicu-Vâlcea, in the hilly region adjacent to the Carpathian Range, which places it in the area of the Govora group. Grave 63, a grave with calcinated bones in a pit and covered by some sherds, has been found in the cremation cemetery at Cârna/Dunăreni-Ostrovogania. In view of the decoration of the ceramic fragments, the grave might be attributed to “phases” I-II Verbicioara. But it is almost impossible to decide if the grave in question belonged to a “Verbicioara” individual or it was the grave of a local resident for whose burial a Verbicioara vessel was used, that had come by exchange to the spit of land in the middle of the Bistreţ lake. The cremation grave at Râmnicu Vâlcea is an equally problematic find. We have no data about the archaeological context of this find. What is more, in northern Oltenia the grave at Râmnicu Vâlcea stands apart occupying an eccentric north-easterly position in respect with the mass of finds which are concentrated in southern Oltenia. Two urns with calcinated bones were found at Godeanu in the cave Cincioara some time ago. The two vessels were considered to be of the “Gârla Mare type”, which is why the graves have been thought to belong to a late phase of the Verbicioara culture. As regards the find at Săpata - of an isolated vessel - we do not have information about its archaeological context, so it is not clear why it should be a grave at all. Although it may seem too early to make a statistical observation of the Verbicioara burials on account of so few ascertained finds and the fact that exact contexts are not known either, we can remark that most of them come from salvage excavations (5 cases = 33.33%) and from fortuitous finds (5 cases =33.33%), followed by 3 cases (= 20%) of graves uncovered by systematic excavations and by one case for each of the categories of finds from trial digs and surface surveys. As regards the context, except for the situations at Dunăreni-Ostrovogania, and Desa, and probably Gruia, no cases of Verbicioara graves in cemeteries are known. The rumor goes that at Ghidici there was a Verbicioara grave in the area, but there is no precise information about this. In fact, as far as the Verbicioara graves are concerned, we can identify them only at Desa, where we might rather have a group of graves. Then we should not forget that the grave at Ostrovogania only had

85

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu Verbicioara pottery, and that at Gruia the archaeological situation is utterly confusing. Otherwise we can signal the groups of two graves at Godeanu, that of four graves at Padea and that of two cremation graves and one inhumation grave at Verbicioara. In the absence of coherent research reflected by systematic excavations, the documentation about the mortuary practices of the Verbicioara group may be considered patchy in the extreme. But even so the cremation practice seemed to have been generalized from the very beginning and spread uniformly over the more or less entire area. The Verbicioara settlement is not the only one which had been inhabited relatively intensely and for a quite a long time, which raises the question of the funerary zones. I do not exclude the possibility of documenting a cemetery, at least a smaller one in the case of Gruia. In fact the practice of placing the graves in isolated places or in little groups is not singular for the first part of the Bronze Age north of the Danube, all the more so as in the areas immediately neighboring to the Verbicioara phenomenon, or anterior to it, similar situations have been recorded. Although the cremation practice is solidly documented for the limited number of ascertained Verbicioara burials, we lack details about the ritual. The practice of depositing calcinated bones in vessels, which were sometimes also covered by vessels, has been attested in the majority of cases, except for that of grave 63 at Cârna-Ostrovogania, where the calcinated bones were covered with s. The recent finds at Desa-Castraviţa have offered the first certain data about the whole set of graves. In grave 1, the oval pit was filled with ashes, which has allowed us to include the grave in the Brandschüttungsgrab category, namely the category of graves “with scattered ashes”, whose pit also held other remains gathered from the site of the cremation beside the urn with calcinated bones which will have been deposited concomitantly, as was the case of the fragment of a secondary burnt grinder, which was found in the grave 2 urn. In the case of grave 1 it was also thought that the calcinated bones had “initially been deposited in a small sack” before being introduced into the vessel. In the case of the second grave one extremely pertinent observation is that the cremated bones deposited at the bottom of the urn had been covered by skull cap fragments, which represented a practice that has been documented in the area in question so far only in the Gârla Mare area. But the observations at Desa bear no comparison and remain singular until further equally precise documentation becomes available. One particularly thorny question is raised by the inhumation grave at Verbicioara. We have limited data about the on-site conditions of this find. First, no date is specified for this find. It is known that it was discovered outside the area of Settlement A, at a point where the land had been disturbed by tilling so that Verbicioara human bones and sherds became visible at the surface, some of them having analogies in phase V. They were supposed to belong to at least one group of graves, but on the plan drawing of 1959 the location of this find was not specified. This makes me believe that they were found fortuitously somewhere around the settlement and reduces their significance... The grave contained

one skeleton which had been laid in a crouched position on the left with the head pointing south. The declared inventory included a metal “Cypriot” pin with a curved stem and the head broken and a lock ring also made of metal. Judging by the “Cypriot” pin and the lock ring, the grave can be dated to a time corresponding to the Periam-Pecica graves, which are known to have such items in their inventories and consequently confirm the suggested dating. There are no inhumation antecedents from Glina, which precedes the Verbicioara group, and the inventory is too late for this. Inhumation graves have been mentioned in Tei context, but the penetration west of the river Olt of this group, with inhumation included, is still to be proved in future. Either way, the inhumation grave at Verbicioara is a singular find, and we should wait and see if future research will reveal similar finds in the Verbicioara area, which might confirm with certainty the practice of inhumation or not. The two cremation graves found in the eponymous settlement were inside the settlement, which is quite significant as the practice of burials inside the inhabited area could provide a reason for the absence of autonomous cemeteries. But we have no on-site observations for these two graves either, excepting the specification of the grave depth and of their being found in trench III (the first one) and in trench IV (the second one). Both have been found in the layers of the culture and did not permit the identification of the pits. The first grave consisted of an urn and a lid, and the second of an urn only. Both urns only contained calcinated bones. The situation at Gruia seems more felicitous at first sight because here there were 3 Verbicioara cremation graves, found in a cemetery with Gârla Mare and Early Hallstatt graves. The first Verbicioara grave has been disturbed by another Gârla Mare grave, which has allowed us to retrieve only the lower part of the vessel used as an urn. Inside it were found only calcinated bones and ashes. The second Verbicioara grave was ill-fated enough to be destroyed twice in the course of time, once by a Gârla Mare grave, then by a Hallstatt one. The third Verbicioara grave met with similar ill-luck, being destroyed by grave 16, Gârla Mare. Nothing is specified about any calcinated bones and we do not have grave plans or profiles. The remaining part of the preserved urn is insufficient for deciding which of the Verbicioara “phases”, actually not sufficiently well defined themselves, it may have belonged two. The overall situation at Gruia repeats that of Dunăreni-Ostrovogania and seems to indicate either the slight anteriority of the Verbicioara burials in the Danube valley or traces of material borrowings. Unfortunately we do not have any satisfactory data about the four graves at Padea, apart from mere mentions. The situation is sufficiently relevant, as the number of graves may indicate a Verbicioara funerary grouping. As regards the graves at Mărăcinele, Tismana, Crivina and Sălcuţa, we cannot deal with them at length because they are fortuitous finds with no accompanying observations. The only thing they attest is the presence of the cremation practice at a time which corresponds to what has been traditionally designated as “phases II-III” of the Verbicioara group. Neither is the find at Korbovo - a vessel covered with a lid - of too much

86

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

use, all the more so as it is considered to belong to the cenotaph category of finds. It stands to reason that the state of the research about the Verbicioara “culture”, with its patchy, often incoherent character, affects all attempts at examining the mortuary habits of this ceramic group. The scarcity of concrete data, their doubtful character, the absence of well-sustained observations about the stratigraphy and of pertinent material analyses make me consider this phenomenon a problem rather than a well-defined archaeological culture. In the current documentation stage we can state that the cinerary custom had already become entrenched, and it included urn deposits of calcinated remains as well as pits subsequently covered with sherds. This practice, already well-known in west and north-west Oltenia in the traditional Early Bronze Age, in the Makó and Nirség groups, in combination with the presence of combed/brushed pottery, indicates a western component of this culture, as already shown. But the decorative repertoire allows us to discern affinities with the Vatina group, which, being quite familiar with cremation, leaves room for the presupposition that the Verbicioara group may be a “synthesis” of these two elements - late Zók and Vatina. The few ascertained mortuary finds, which only appeared in groups in a small number of cases, seem to indicate that the funerary precinct followed other criteria in its organization, at least in the Verbicioara cremation graves, and it also included the settlement, as has been known more clearly from the Wietenberg milieu. If we could make sure that the find at Godeanu should be attributed to the Verbicioara group, this would indicate that caves were also used for the burials of this group, which has almost never been the case in the area to the north of the Danube. The only grave attributable to the Govora group, namely the case at Râmnicu Vâlcea, does not benefit from a satisfactory “archaeological characterization sheet” either, and it remains a singular case which makes us stop short here. There is one very recent case which, above all, introduces a completely new situation in the oltenian area, from the point of view of funerary practices: the cinerary graves found on barrows at Vârtopu, at the point known as “Vârtoapele”, in the Gorj County piedmont. This find is important but we have only extremely summary descriptions to go by, which are accompanied by faulty, and therefore almost entirely inconclusive illustrations, and by considerations which are not only nonsensical but also ridiculous. It consists of 13 barrow graves which held groups of 2 to 4 vessels deposited on the bare ground in association with piles of calcinated bones and covered with earth to create barrows with diameters of 6 to 10 m and circa 0.40-0.70 m height, as preserved today. In three cases, the “offered” vessels and the calcinated bones had been deposited on a kind of pedestal, irregular in shape and made of riverbed stones. Most of the vessels adjacent to the calcinated bones bear traces of secondary burning and prove that they had been placed on the pyre at the same time as the corpse. Judging by the ceramic material, this find has been related to the Early Bronze Age. It appears that the discovery at Vârtopu points to cremation pre-dating the beginnings of the Verbicioara ceramic group. Whether or not the find

at Vârtopu in the sub-Carpathian hills of northern Oltenia was related with the Verbicioara ceramic group to the south of the province is something still to be proved. For the time being, the barrow cemetery at Vârtopu is a very singular presence, hard to relate even to the nearest zones. While waiting for new finds and desirable clarifications, I cannot exclude this find’s relation with the bi-ritual graves that also have stone cists, which were found on the barrows at Caşolţ-Trei morminţi, and with the cremation urn-grave deposited in a stone-slab cist at Runcuri, which lies in the same geographical area and has been attributed to the Glina group. But the uncertainty persists, since the main characteristic of these finds, albeit no more than two, is the imprecision of the way they have been researched... As a major phenomenon of the Bronze Age in Central Europe, the Otomani culture has been known through several finds researched for a long time, but not given unitary treatment until the third decade of the 20th century. In his synthesis dedicated to the prehistory of the Danube Basin, V. G. Childe grouped the Bronze Age finds known at the time as “East Hungarian group II”, occupying the area between the river Mureş and the upper Tisza, which he tried to date according to the stratigraphy of the Tószeg-Laposhalom settlement. After only three years, following the excavations of M. Roska at Otomani-Cetăţuia and those in the Hungarian Puszta, I. Nestor introduced the term Otomani culture and defined the main characteristics of this archaeological phenomenon from the point of view of the content and relations with the neighboring media of Aunjetitz and Periam-Pecica. After emphasizing the “affinities” of the Otomani culture with Aunjetitz, Nestor concluded that this group began in the late Aunjetitz phase and endured during the Reinecke Bz B and D stages and he showed that, given the state of the research at the time, it was not possible to specify its end. At the same time, the Otomani finds in Slovakia were presented by J. Eisner. Numerous excavations followed in settlements or cemeteries of the Otomani culture, which term was adopted as such by Slovak archaeology, while Hungarian specialists used the names Gyulavarsánd and especially Füzesabony. Quite naturally, site research was continued by contributions which modified the perspective on the Otomani group. We must mention von Tompa’s work, which put into circulation the cemeteries at Hernádkak and Megyasző, in addition to other Otomani settlements, and D. Popescu’s synthesis, which resumed discussion of some older Otomani finds and discussed some newer ones, following in the line of research opened by I. Nestor. Of the long series of contributions about the Otomani culture we should note that made by Amalia Mozsolics, who created the frame for the way Hungarian archaeology understands this phenomenon when it considers that the Füzesabony culture is followed and put an end to by the tumular burials of the Middle Danube basin, and the work contributed by J. Banner and his coworkers, which was once again dedicated to the important settlement at Tószeg. In one synthetic presentation of 1960, I. Nestor considered that the Otomani culture appeared “against the Baden background” and continued to develop for a long time in insufficiently specified ways. As regards funerary customs, Nestor asserted

87

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu that whereas in the older stages inhumation predominated, cremation appeared later but was practiced “more intensively”. Working in a wider frame, B. Hänsel placed the Füzesabony-Otomani group within his periods MD I-II and considered that the Piliny, Hajdubagos and Egyek groups appeared in the former Füzesabony-Otomani area. One greatly significant contribution is I. Bóna’s, which reserves ample space to the Gyulavarsánd and Füzesabony groups and discusses not only their habitat, economy and wealth of material– pottery, dress items, weapons, implements etc. - but also their burials. Using the observations of the Békés settlement, Bóna isolated an Ottomány-Gruppe, which he saw as being of the Hatvan type, and emphasized the Baden (Pecel), Hatvan and Nyírseg contributions to constituting the Gyulavarsánd and Füzesabony groups. One very important observation made here is that cremation is due to the influence of the late Zók Nyírseg group. Hungarian archaeology has emphasized the deposit “horizons”, which it thought could be placed in parallel with the evolution of the Gyulavarsánd/Füsezabony groups, whose end was connected to the appearance of the Koszider deposits. The appearance of Koszider metal objects, associated with the growing spread of cremation, is seen to prove jointly some foreign influences, which are observable in cemeteries, for example Streda nad Bodrogom, Pir and Tiszafüred-Majoroshalom, which characterize the period at the end of the Füzesabony group. In his synthesis about the Bronze Age in north-western Transylvania, T. Bader added a new phase to the Otomani culture, the 4th phase and dwelt upon the mortuary sites known in the region. In Bader’s opinion the cremation rite is specific to Phase I, which included the Otomani funerary finds and the cemetery at Ciumeşti, and the practice of cremating the dead had been taken over from the earlier Baden and Coţofeni background or from the neighboring groups - Nyírseg, Nagyrév and Hatvan. One major correction is the exclusion of Otomani Phase I from the context of the group and its attribution to the Early Bronze Age Nyírseg culture. Recently, a number of new cultural groups, which are considered to succeed to the Otomani culture in the Late Bronze Age, such as Igriţa and Cehăluţ, have been “identified and defined”, especially by the selection of pottery from several settlements studied in the west of Romania. These issues have been discussed from opposed perspectives by N. Boroffka and C. Kacsó. In the Slovak sector of the Otomani area, the beginnings of this culture can be linked with the presence of the Hatvan group, although research has not yet clarified the relations of these two manifestations. The entire Otomani culture is divided into Koštany-Otomani, classical group, with two sub-phases, and the post-classical group. In the Late Bronze Age, the Piliny group, which belongs to the larger Urnfield Culture complex, appeared in the former Otomani area. There are several 14C determinations available for the absolute chronology of the Otomani/Füzesabony culture, many of which are debatable from the point of view of the stratigraphical context of the samples. But there are also trustworthy radiocarbon data, which have enabled us to place the beginning of the culture before 2000 BC. For example, the samples from the Vésztő-Mágor settlement dated to the interval 2290-

1920 BC, those from Ganovce, dated to the interval 2150-1550 BC, and from Füzesabony-Őregdomb, dated in the interval 2030-1740 BC. According to the radiocarbon determination of one sample from the Berettyoújfalu-Herpály settlement, the end of the culture has been dated 1670-1490 BC, while, according to another sample from the Esztar settlement - Bln-1641 - 3145±60 BP, the end is dated 1540-1260 BC, which by and large corresponds to the chronological frame proposed by B. Hänsel. However, things are far from crystal clear owing to the attempt of the Hungarian archaeologists to define a number of Late Bronze groups in the middle Tisza region, for example Berkesz-Demecser, Hajdubagos or Egyek, in support of the idea that the Füzesabony culture was brought to an end by the penetration of the tumular (Hügelgräber) communities from the north-west. The area of the culture, as it is known today, spreads from east Slovakia to north-east Hungary and across to the western area at the foot of the Western Carpathians, but Otomani finds have been claimed to exist east of the Porţile Mezeşului region and south, in the valley of the river Mureş, beyond Deva. The southern neighbour of the Otomani area is the Periam-Pecica region, which appears to have been conclusively proved by some of the Battonya burials. Another Otomani settlement has been found very recently north of the Dukla corridor. From the geo-morphological point of view, a great part of the Otomani/Füzesabony area occupies the east Slovak hill country while the rest of the Otomani finds are spread on the plain between the river Tisza and the western slopes of the Western Carpathians, which has influenced the habitat too, creating differences between the tell settlements in the Hungarian Puszta and the settlements that occupy the hill country, stationed on hill tops. In such a considerable area there are plenty of funerary finds, some of them cemeteries with numerous burials, for example at Čana, Košice, Nyžna Myšl’a, Streda nad Bodrogom and Valaliky, in Slovakia, at Füzesabony, Gelej, Hajdúbágos, Hernadkak, Megyaszó, Mezőcsát Rákóczifalva and Tiszafüred in Hungary. Funerary finds in north-western Romania do not cover such a wide range but appear in small cemeteries, for example at Pir and Sântion, or in small groups of graves found, some of them, in unpropitious conditions. This has prompted me to also include among the Otomani finds some which are outside the area in focus in this study, for example the cemeteries at Gelej, Golop, Hernádkak, Megyaszó, Tiszafüred and Tiszakeszi, which are funerary sites whose examination enables us to outline the Otomani culture funerary standard. We have retained 33 such finds in the area in question here (See the list in Chapter 9.6). The Otomani funerary finds naturally occupy the north-western corner of the space considered here. The find at Stolna is completely eccentric, lying on the upper flow of the river Someş where no Otomani stations proper are known, but all the others are “at home”. The excitement caused from the very first by the Otomani-Füzesabony vestiges is reflected to a certain extent in the funerary research. Over half of these have been methodically investigated, by systematic excavations, salvage excavations or trial digs and there are only 21% finds that come from less thoroughly monitored archaeological

88

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

investigations. This encourages us to assert that the documentary basis for the study of the funerary practices of this group is pretty satisfactory. But we should not overlook the fact that the statistical examinations take into account a group of finds that come from north-western Transylvania to which are added, for methodological reasons, further funerary contexts that belong to other regions of the Otomani-Füzesabony area. Consequently the presented graph does not express a reality so much as a tendency that cannot be categorically extended to the entire cultural area, even if there are other funerary sites discovered by chance or identified only by surface surveys in Slovakia or the rest of Hungary. This has also been the case from the perspective of the archaeological context, as more than three quarters of the stock of funerary discoveries is represented by cemeteries or groups of graves, while the last case naturally includes cemeteries researched only in a limited proportion. We must also keep in mind that the total examined here is somehow artificially created, precisely because in north-western Transylvania there are no sites which, by the number of burials and the quality of the research, could serve for specifying the elements of the funerary practice. But even after expressing these reservations, if we take into account the fact that some of the cemeteries researched have over 1000 graves, as for example the Nyžna Myšl’a cemetery with circa 1500 graves, , or the Tiszafüred cemetery with about 3000 burials, we can still mention as a first characteristic element for the Otomani-Füzesabony funerary standard the existence of vast funerary spaces with several burials and corresponding to prosperous communities, if we judge by the inventories, the habitation structures, the metallurgy and the involvement in distant exchange. At Tiszafüred and Gelej, at least, it has been noticed that the funerary precinct is extremely vast and comprises numerous burials, which is similar to the situation emerging at Nyžna Myšľa. The small number of graves at Streda nad Bodrogom, Pir and at Füzesabony or Pusztaszikszo, to which can be added some isolated finds, for example such as Emőd, Mezőkeresztes and Vizsoly, all of them in County Borsod, are due to limited research, none of the cases mentioned indicating reality. This points to the existence of large cemeteries as a first element of the Otomani-Füzesabony funerary practice and indicates a certain continuity of the funerary traditions, while habitation is characterized by matching settlements. The fact that we speak of two or even more separate cemeteries at both Tiszafüred and Gelej is due to the discontinuity of the research both in time and in space and in the latter case it is also due to the uneven relief of the terrain. Unfortunately, except for the Nyžna Myšľa cemetery, which is still little known, there is no research attesting the structure and character of the settlements in relation with the characteristics of the adjacent funerary spaces. But it is quite clear, through the few available indications, that a link existed between the day to day habitation and the funerary zone, which is, of course, natural if we think of the importance of the funerary ceremony for all those still living. At Otomani, Sălacea, Tiream, at least, and, again at Nyžna Myšľa, the practice of burying people within the settlements is documented, but the number of such finds is still

low and they appear as isolated cases in the Otomani-Füzesabony area. Unfortunately the data available for such cases are again summary or even contradictory, so that it is quite hard to compare the funerary objects situated in habitation precincts with those found in the regular funerary precincts, which, as is known about Nyžna Myšľa, existed at exactly the same time. Judging by the two graves at Sălacea, we can suppose that in these cases the in-settlement burials were the privilege granted to some individuals whose activity was somehow connected to the rites, but at present this hypothesis only rests on the evidence of the childs grave located in the vicinity of the “temple” at Sălacea, and perhaps on the evidence of grave 2b at Tiream with a ceramic funerary assortment consisting of 10 vessels deposited by the side of a skeleton oriented NNW-SSE. At the same time we cannot leave aside the finds of human bones in settlements, even if such situations, for example those at Nyžna Myšľa, still do not have their equivalent in other settlements spread over the entire area of this group. I tend to think that the existence of human osteological remains in the settlements can be linked to the practice of manipulating the deceased postmortem rather than the alleged cannibalistic associations or other similarly frightful deeds as those invoked in explaining the collective grave at Sălacea. The same practice of postmortem manipulation of corpses, perhaps after the decomposition of the flesh, seems to be indicated, albeit indirectly, also by the existence of some undisturbed graves, on the one hand, in which the skeletons were not in anatomical connection. This which leaves room for supposing that they represent re-inhumations, and, on the other hand, by skull burials, for example those at Gelej and Tiszafüred, to which could be added further cases found in the Otomani cemeteries at Čaňa and Valaliky or, discovered later, at Mezőcsát. One entirely unprecedented situation is the one in the Tiream settlement, where only one skull has been found in grave 1, with a circular pit, while in grave 2b, the skeleton has been found with its skull missing. We unfortunately do not have DNA examinations of these finds to see whether or not the skull in grave 1 belongs to the skeleton in grave 2b, but this would have supported so well the hypothesis of the postmortem manipulation of the bones belonging to some individuals with a special status within the community. If, as I think it is to be expected, the disparate bones found in settlements and the re-inhumations or skull graves in the cemeteries proper can be used to prove the existence of this kind of postmortem manipulation of the deceased, this will further prove, by its mere existence, a closer, even non-dichotomic, relationship between the funerary precinct and the area of the day-to-day life. I do not think I am mistaken if I attack, in this light, the issue of the cenotaphs, or symbolic graves, known to exist at Gelej, Streda nad Bodrogom and, rarer, at Hernádkak, since they are also known in other cemeteries of the Otomani group in Slovakia, though in a reduced proportion. The frequency of these situations, sometimes even within the same cemeteries, for example at Gelej-Kanálisdülő or at Streda nad Bodrogom is quite high. Their structure, even the inventories of some of them, brings them close to the funerary units proper; hence their

89

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu interpretation as graves belonging to members of communities deceased in conditions that did not allow retrieving their bodies. The high incidence, however, of these symbolic graves found at Gelej would come to mean that, at Hernádkak, for example, there were a great number of community members who lost their lives in strange places when others, the people closest to them stayed put at home most of the time! I tend to think that in some of these rather too hastily interpreted objects we deal with deficient research, as I think is the case of the so-called “muddled” graves at Tiszafüred. Looking at things in this light we should also consider the possibility that some of these “cenotaphs” were actually structures connected to the entire funerary ceremonial, as collateral, associated or ulterior episodes of the funerals proper, or else the strong likelihood that they were graves from which bones had been removed for a while, as part of these postmortem manipulations attested by the human bones found in settlements or by intra-mural inhumations or skull burials. Back to the genuine funerary zones, namely the cemeteries: one of the funerary standard issues or problems left in suspension is that of their internal organization. If it is true that it has been possible to prove an organization into plots or grave groups at Tiszafüred-Majaroshalom, on a remarkably large surface with 365 graves, and if the same has been true at Streda nad Bodrogom, both cases being confirmed by the statistical and spatial analysis, the situation is different at Gelej-Kanálisdülő, where it has been asserted that the cemetery is organized into rows, and this has been confirmed, partially at least, by statistical and spatial research procedures. However, it is impossible for the statistical and spatial procedures to be fruitful when finds are recorded with errors – as is the case in Gelej, or when too few graves are available – as in the case at Mezsőcsát, especially as in none of these cases the cemeteries have been exhaustively researched, and at Gelej there are not two separate burial zones but two separate research surfaces! In the Čaňa cemetery the statistical and spatial analysis has been obviously fruitful in what the discovery of a clustered organization is concerned, as it results from the Voronoi-Dirichlet-Theissen and Delaunay triangulation. By contrast, in the Otomani cemetery at Košice/Kaschau, the same procedures indicate a “regular” kind of layout. I want to voice reservations regarding the interpretations which assert that this or that cemetery is organized into rows; as such interpretations are impressionistic and are not the outcome of rigorous examination. But even when funerary precincts are organized into rows, what is of utmost importance is that the cemeteries are organized into sub-units of the funerary precinct which correspond to some social sub-units, whichever these may have been. If we take into account the sometimes impressive number of burials, for example in the cemetery of Tiszafüred, some kind of organization of the funerary spaces was to be expected, just as it was to be expected that the settlements corresponding to such graves would have matching habitation structures. Unfortunately, as already seen, we have no available information in this respect, maybe just some indications. An example is the settlement at Pir with its more complex structure, which has, regrettably, been left

unresearched. In view of the material we have available at present, we are obliged to accept the existence of two modes of internal organization, one with plots and an approximately oval layout, which was adapted to the terrain or surface and the other with linear rows. The data we have are as yet uncertain, if not contradictory, as already seen, which leaves the issue in suspension and still to be verified both chorological, in order to see whether these principles of the funerary precinct organization had coherence or not in the area of the group, and in order to discover its significance. Either way, we can keep in mind that people struggled to organize the funerary precinct as a presumably virtual projection of the structures of everyday social life. Another first order issue connected to the mortuary practices of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture is that regarding the funerary rite. Generally speaking, we can identify three stages, namely one at the beginning, in which inhumation predominated and cremation appeared only very incidentally, with the custom of cremating the dead as adjacent. In this “first stage” the cinerary pit- graves have less complex structures. The predominance of inhumation considerably curtails the thesis of the Otomani culture appearing in the wake of the late Zók phenomenon, Hatvan especially, which had an exclusively cinerary habit, but at the same time constitutes the “source” for the appearance of this rite in Otomani. As already seen, there are also cremation graves with pits that have complex structures, claimed to derive from the encrusted pottery milieu. In a later stage, the incidence of cremation increases in proportion to the increase of the cinerary urn-graves. The ceramic repertoire used - for example urns or adjacent vessels - does not have major differences and it is easy to argue in favor of the continuity of the pottery techniques. This must also be taken into consideration at the same time as observing that the inhumation practices remain unaltered, as has been plentifully proved by the evidence we have. It is true that dress items and weapons are different, but not enough to justify an ethnical change, if we are justified, that is, to talk about ethnic groups in relation to archaeological cultures at all and refer to massive arrivals of alien populations. The structures of some funerary plots, which may be distinct to a certain extent, as already seen at Tiszafüred and Streda nad Bodrogom for example, demonstrate the common participation of the inhumated and cremated deceased to the same territorial sub-units and testify to the peaceful incorporation of foreigners into the community. When judging by the Otomani-Füzesabony funerary structures visible today, I think, we rather have to do with numerically limited infiltrations of foreigners, which happen at the same time as gradual changes of the fashion, the manner of dressing and at the same time as the potential changes of everyday life styles, but these are changes that may have been caused by reciprocal influences or changes resulting from direct contacts. Even if we admit the penetration of populations from outside, they cannot possibly have amounted to a critical mass capable to determine a radical change in the structure, which is proved by the fact that there are other elements of the standard funerary practice still rigorously observed even later, as can be seen perfectly well in the Mezőcsát cemetery.

90

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

The archaeological documentation about the Otomani-Füzesabony mortuary precincts, albeit often patchy, leaves no room for doubts regarding the exterior structures. All the funerary finds consist of flat graves and there is no need for further comments in this regard. Things are obviously not as clear in what the interior structures are concerned. It has usually been noticed that graves have approximately rectangular shapes although on paper they often happened to appear oval in drawings/plans. The data available do not permit discussing the dimensions of each cemetery and do not indicate any changes in the course of time. It is hard to state that each grave has dimensions fitting the size of the skeleton about to be deposited in it. Some exceptions to point are the cases of somewhat larger pits associated with more consistent inventories, which indicates that there was a connection between the volume of the pits (and implicitly the amount of work required for digging them) and the status of the deceased. But a clear connection between these appears when we link inventories that correspond to the sex and age groups to the depth of the pits, wherever this is possible. It has been noticed that the depth of the graves is in a certain relationship with the sex and age groups of the deceased, with the inventories and, not too rarely, with the types of funerary objects, symbolic graves, cremation graves etc. The amount of work expresses one part of the social energy spent during the funeral, and differences are obviously a matter of status. Consequently, the expression of the status through the funerary structure becomes another element of the Otomani-Füzesabony funerary standard. Judging by the dress items, it has been considered for a long time now that the position of the skeletons in the Otomani-Füzesabony burials can immediately lead to the determination of the sex group, since men have usually been found crouched on the right side while women were found crouched on the left. Also, men’s skulls always pointed west and women’s east. In fact things are not as simple as that, because we must first stress that we do not have anthropological determinations for most of the burials of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture, which are the only means of confirming or rejecting the conclusions mentioned. It has been noticed, in the cases studied in order to deduce the general rule for the orientation and layout of the deceased, that there also exist smaller groups with differing regulations. They cannot stand for errors in the observation on site since they appear constantly, in several cases, and are consequently a characteristic trait. Taking an all-embracing view, in a total of 184 graves in which it has been possible to specify the position and orientation, it has been noted that there are four main orientations for the two basic positions. Every time we have noticed very clear-cut oppositions, which can be presented synthetically through three main layout variants: A, which represents the majority of cases – graves with skeletons laid on their right and oriented W-E, in opposition with those laid on their left and oriented E-W; variant B, with medium incidence - in which skeletons are laid on their right and oriented S-N, in oppositions with those laid on their left and oriented N-S; variant C, with reduced incidence and the skeletons laid on their right and oriented E-W, in opposition to those crouched on the

left and oriented W-E, the eyes being directed in the same direction in all three cases. Of the 184 stock of graves there are anthropological determinations for 78, 38 being masculine graves and 40 feminine. The diagrams used for charting the orientation in relation to the position in each of these groups have shown a situation identical with the general one, and with the same positional variants. The three variants, which have been encountered in repeatable cases in various locations in the Otomani-Füzesabony area, demonstrate the system of customs which governed the layout of the deceased in graves in accordance with the principle of bi-polar and complementary layout, depending on the sex groups to which the deceased belonged. It is very important that all three variants appear in almost every cemetery which has permitted us to make these distinctions and that variant C always has the lowest incidence. The choice of one of all the possible mortuary expression codes cannot have been a matter of chance but it reflected the fact that the deceased belonged to a particular sub-unit of the respective communities, which differed in everyday life from the others. The system of rules for the layout of the deceased in the ways observed on site constitutes one of the main elements of the Otomani-Füzesabony funerary practices constituting ways of expressing affiliations to the social unit. We should not forget that variant C is opposed to variant A, in so far as in the former men, just as women, have a postmortem position which is the reverse of their counterpart in the second group. The case of grave 88 of Mezőcsát, with a woman’s skeleton which is oriented “in the male manner” and has a dagger in its inventory, may constitute an example in this respect, and to it can be added grave 242 at Gelej-Kanálisdülő, with one skeleton crouched on its left side but oriented W-E and having an inventory consisting of 9 vessels, but with no anthropological diagnosis, unfortunately, which reduces its significance considerably. The limited number of burials of this kind, whose main feature is their reversal of the positioning rules, pleads for the fact that they point to a small category of persons with probably different roles in everyday life, determining a different code of mortuary rules. It is impossible to discuss more about the significance of these burials archaeologically, especially as the number of such objects is limited. Ceramic inventories are present in most Otomani-Füzesabony burials. Often we have ceramic assortments consisting of a considerable number of vessels and of various shapes occurring in association, which suggests more than the intention of supplying food for the deceased on their way to the other world, but conferred them the privilege of commensalisms, which was reserved for persons with a certain social status. The graphs drawn up for the cemeteries discussed here seem to support this hypothesis, maybe all the more so as, in view of the skeleton’s position, the already mentioned grave 242 at Gelej belongs to the special category of burials. Grave 110 at Megyaszó is one of these graves with a complex funerary inventory and which contains a bronze dagger by the side of a skeleton crouched on the right and oriented W-E, possibly a man’s skeleton and another case is that of grave 6 at Streda nad Bodrogom, with 8 vessels, which has unfortunately been found disturbed. But the standard for funerary pottery in the Otomani-Füzesabony

91

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu culture is provided by the presence of cups, which have a high statistical incidence and appear both in association with other forms, the bowl, for example, and also in singular finds, and consequently point to the importance of liquid victuals in the funerary ceremony. The fact that they were placed at the foot of the deceased preferably or in the area of the basin/pelvis, in association with the frequent cases when the vessels were deposited inside each other proves that the vessels had nothing in them and they were only placed there as tokens of liquid or solid edible substances. Food deposits proper seem to be documented by a number of vessels in which animal bones have been found. They are rare in the area as a whole and we do not have access to details that would enable us to conclude that we really had such deposits. This should be seen in conjunction with the finds such as the grave in the Otomani settlement with a dog’s skull by its side, which might have been deposited there for reasons that had to do with the religious practices rather than with virtual food necessities. I think that, in this connection, the presence of some equine molars in grave 187 at Tiszafüred-Majaroshalom and in grave 107 at Čaňa and in grave 30 at Valaliky should also be mentioned. Dress items made of metal, especially bronze or copper are present in the area as a whole in circa 30% of the graves, with reference to a total of over 1300 relevant burials. The jewels’ presence has proved more than useful for the efforts made by most of the specialists to order the cemeteries chronologically, define the phases of the Otomani culture and to specify the relations with the neighboring groups. The starting assumption, which has been proved in some cases, stated that these jewels generally represent women rather than men, who ought to have weapons instead. This has been verified in reality. Of the 142 burials among those for which we have data about the position of the skeletons and their orientation, 54 graves with dress items made of bronze or copper had skeletons crouched on their right and the rest of 88 skeletons have been found lying crouched on their left. As can be seen from the diagram of these graves’ orientation, the set of rules regarding the layout of the deceased is verified in this category of burials. This fact is important in itself since it proves quite clearly that the respective set of rules extends to all the Otomani-Füzesabony communities, irrespective of the status distinctions suggested by the practice of wearing certain jewels. At the same time, the situation, as it can be known from the documentation and the way it has been examined, shows that the wearing of metallic dress accessories is not always a sure indicator of the sex group. One similar situation can be observed in the graves with gold objects in them. But even if we cannot be sure that dress items indicate women’s graves, the statistical tendency proves that their presence lays special emphasis on expressing feminine attributes in funerary context rather than masculine ones, in which dress items have been much less visible. In the group in question the relatively few finds of dress items, irrespective of the metal, in funerary context, should be related to the deposits or hoards which contain dress items and prove that such items were known at the respective time and in the respective area. As shown before, sometimes the

metal jewels placed in hoards or deposits form assemblages comparable to those in funerary finds, which can explain their low frequency in graves. One less clear thing is the motivation determining the “transfer” of these items to deposits at the expense of funerary inventories. This problem arises even more acutely in connection with weapons, which are almost completely absent from Otomani-Füzesabony funerary inventories, with some notable exceptions represented by 28 of the circa 1300 graves - Adoni, Berea, Hernádkak, Megyaszó, Pir and Tiszafüred – to which can be added graves in Slovakia at Čaňa, Košice, Nyžna Myšľa or in the cemetery at Mezőcsát, considered to belong to the tumular grave culture. Two bronze halberds found at Tiszafüred-Majaroshalom in the inhumation graves of the Füzesabony “cemetery”- graves 54 and 115 - are very important. Unfortunately these two graves have not been published in detail, except as regards these two weapons. According to T. Kovács, the two halberds - Stabdolche or Halberds, which are unusual finds in the respective zone, have their nearest parallels in Silesia, in the Aunjetitz group, from where this type of weapon must come; in grave 115, it is associated to a Nakenkammaxt, which is specific to the group. The two halberds are also especially important as imported items, which increases their significance as tokens of prestige. They are not many and “get lost” in the mass of burials, since the graves with weapons are hard to locate within each of their cemeteries as a whole, all the more so as the necessary data – general and individual plan drawings etc. - are missing, just as in the latter two graves, and not only for these. We repeat that masculine “warrior” attributes are only scantily expressed in the Otomani-Füzesabony funerary inventories but they are outstanding in hoards. One possible explanation is that there existed separate domains or scenes in which social competition was expressed, so that women held pride of place in the virtual, symbolic space of burials, while men had the space of the hoards reserved for them. This custom is not singular; it has been encountered outside the Otomani-Füzesabony area, where in fact it is one of the elements of the funerary standard. It may be observed on wide expanses in the Central European or the West-European Bronze Age, which is why we can examine it by comparing the patterns of evolution in weaponry and jewelry found in graves, deposits/hoards, settlements and singular finds. However, here there is no room for making such a discussion, which is too extensive for the limited range of the present study. What we must not forget is, however, that by this element of the funerary standard, the Otomani-Füzesabony communities became integrated in the environment they were in permanent contact with, maybe not always in conflictual ways. I have left last the necklace elements made of “faience” and amber. If the latter are proofs for distant exchanges and, as such, they do not call for any comments about their social significance as funerary inventory elements, evident if we consider their origin, the beads made of glassy paste or so-called “faience” are worth dwelling on briefly. In the Bronze Age graves in Slovakia “faience” beads are extremely frequent, being found in considerably

92

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

large numbers in the same grave, for example grave 49 at Valaliky, which had over 2000 such beads and grave 282 at Nyžná Myšľa, with 2666 “faience” beads. Being associated with the Bronze Age metallurgy as secondary products, glassy paste beads incorporated in the dress spread through remote exchange, as can be seen for example in the Mierzanowice cemetery at Szarbia, in the Periam-Pecica and Monteoru contexts. Grave 142 of cemetery 4 at Sărata Monteoru, with its 417 “faience” beads, should count among the graves with the largest number of such dress items. Their connections with the metallurgical activity is important since, on the one hand, it has a significance in itself, while, on the other hand, it indicates the association with distant exchange of metal artifacts, most of which will have counted as prestige goods. This is how some customs related to funerary practices will have penetrated at the same time with the material goods proper and it can explain to what extent some such traces penetrated in the area of the Otomani-Füzesabony funerary practices which seems rigorous and clearly structured/standardized. In time, the funerary practices in the area occupied by Otomani-Füzesabony communities do not seem to have suffered changes of substance and of structure and the continuity of the mortuary traditions is firmly attested, even if new elements appeared. But there were changes which occurred in a wider area that extended into the neighboring regions. The best means of examining this phenomenon is by referring to the great cemetery at Tápé, which shall be dealt with further down. The Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare culture has already been presented in a large monograph, which enables me to simply add and refine some things in the few cases where I do not fully agree with the conclusions drawn. The first question is the time interval for this culture’s evolution. The contact of Verbicioara, the so-called “phase III”, and the first Gârla Mare manifestation has been observed already. The “Cypriot” pin in the inhumation grave at Verbicioara belongs to the Reinecke A period, which would date, by extension, the Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare at a corresponding time. The mysterious clay objects known as bread-loaf idols (Brotlaibidole) are some of the items characteristic for this group. These objects, whose significance has not been deciphered yet, have been frequently found in sites from the Mađarovce, Polada and Věteřov groups, but also in Aunjetitz, Unterwölbling and Otomani settlements, which makes them definitely contemporary with the Gârla Mare group. There is a considerable set of 14C calibrated determinations for the Central European groups which indicate absolute dates immediately after 2000 BC. In fact these Brotlaibidole appear in the groups in question at a time corresponding to the Reinecke A period. We have no reason to reject this dating of the Gârla Mare beginnings and the mentioned objects allow it. The calibrated singular radiocarbon date from Balej, level IV belongs to the interval 1530-1390 BC. The settlement is little known and the content of level IV is not clear. The six already published Balej vessels are rather closer to the ceramic style of the Gârla Mare culture, and the radiocarbon date should be accepted as such. The end of the Gârla Mare culture is marked by the appearance of the Bistreţ-Işalniţa

group, which allows us to observe pottery easily and see that the western elements of Belegiš origin are its structural basis in combination with some Gârla Mare decoration, which in its turn is the element adopted earlier, albeit not as easy to observe. The appearance of this group, which occupies the area upstream of the Iron Gates (Porţile de Fier) or the former Gârla Mare area, corresponds to the second stage of the Belegiš culture. Two Belegiš levels have been identified at Gomolava: IVb and IVc. The ceramic repertoire of the latter is characteristic for the phase Belegiš II. It is also from Gomolava that we have the only radiocarbon date for the Belegiš group, but its provenance is imprecise: level IV, which does not allow us to connect it to either one or the other of the two stages of the Belegiš settlement. Calibrated dating of the Gomolava site indicates the interval 1530-1300 BC. The dating of Late Bronze Age to the 14th century BC for South-Eastern Europe too, has been recently proposed, which allows us to accept the Bistreţ-Işalniţa dating to a corresponding interval. We cannot accept the dating of this group as late as 1100 BC, because the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group is followed in the Danube Valley by the early Hallstatt complex, and its second stage includes, for example, finds like those in the Zimnicea and Sborjanovo cemeteries, both of which can be dated to the 11th and 10th centuries BC. Therefore I think that we are entitled to assume that the duration of the Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare extended from 1900 to 1400 BC. The periodization of the group as presented by M. Şandor-Chicideanu therefore seems justified. I do have some reservations about the Late Orsoja phase, which has been defined by some ceramic material, quite distinct in fact, and coming from an incorrectly published grave, whose inventories are mixed up. This is why the relationship between this phase and the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group is not clear, its contemporaniteity being out of the question, as indicated clearly enough by the Makreš find from the area immediately adjoining to the south of the Danube. The area which this group occupies at present is quite clearly restricted to the Danube flood plain, one exception to it being the series of finds of this kind in the eastern Serbian region of Deliblat. The Szeremle group occupies the area of upstream the Danube beyond Belgrade, which includes in its material content elements that come close to the Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare group, both groups originating in the group with incrusted pottery of the middle Danube basin. The suggestion that the Gârla Mare culture may have reached north of the Danube flood plain is ungrounded because all the finds that led to this suggestion are mere reflections of reciprocal exchanges with the neighboring Govora group. Penetration, albeit never in considerable proportions, may have occurred along some of the Danube tributaries, the geo-morphological conditions characteristic for the low-lying flood plains permitting it, which will have granted mobility to limited communities that depended for a living upon a set of subsistence technologies firmly adapted to this kind of environment. Funerary finds, which are 59 in number and spread quite uniformly in the entire Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare area, are the basis of the archaeological documentation for the entire culture or group, whose settlements are very little known and researched

93

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu most unsatisfactorily. There have been some investigations of the Gârla Mare funerary practices in the course of time, even though their main purpose was to isolate the succession of phases, stages and horizons. The westernmost find is at Surcin, an actually isolated site in Belegiš I surrounding, which is contemporary with the Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare culture. The easternmost find is at Corabia, which shows that the group in question does not reach beyond the confluence of the rivers Danube and Olt (see the list of finds in Chapter 9.7). Of the 58 funerary finds, more than half - 20 (34.50%) from systematic excavations, 9 (15.51%) from salvage excavations and 4 from trial digs (6.90%) - are due to archaeological research and are theoretically ascertained by detailed on-site observations of the funerary structures, inventories and the layout of graves in drawings. But there is a great number of these finds that come from surface surveys, - 11 (18.96%), or from fortuitous finds - 14 (24.13%), which proves, from the start, that the details mentioned cover only a limited number of cases. It is less easy to isolate the ways in which systematic excavations have been put into circulation with all the details mentioned by statistical means. One outstanding study is V. Dumitrescu’s, which presents each grave in detail, even though he offers no layout drawings and on site profiles. No other Gârla Mare cemetery was professionally published before the in extenso monograph about the Cârna-Ostrovogania cemetery. The cemetery at Orsoja occupies the other, utterly unacceptable extreme as regards its publication, though it could have offered a very solid basis for researching the Gârla Mare funerary standard by the extremely large number of burials which might have offered an extremely solid basis to investigations. As far as other cemeteries, with fewer graves, are concerned, we also have a pretty detailed research report for that at Balta Verde and some more research reports, albeit less satisfactory, for example those about the cemeteries at Korbovo-Glamija and Korbovo-Pesak, Orešac. Another cemetery with a great number of graves is that at Ostrovu Mare-Bivolării, but the way it has been researched and published has turned it into a patchy document of very little use. The only information we have about the cemeteries at Ghidici and Liubcova are summary descriptions of graves, general references to materials and one or two published inventories. It is obvious that the archaeological documentation for the study of the Gârla Mare funerary practices proves less felicitous and enlightening than we would have wished and, because of the isolated location of the cemeteries at Cârna - Grindu Tomii, Cârna - Ostrovogania and Plosca - Cabana de metal, it provides also a drastically limited area of research if we wish to make an overall examination. Yet another severe shortcoming is due to the fact that we have anthropological diagnoses for the Gârla Mare burials in only 101 cases (75.93%) of the Cârna - Grindu Tomii cases, and in 24% cases of a total of 422 burials that can be archaeologically discussed, and this is utterly insufficient. As regards the archaeological context of the Gârla Mare funerary finds, cemeteries are by far the most numerous and they are represented by 74 cases (75.86%), being followed by groups of graves with 8 cases (13.79%). Isolated graves have been

observed in only 4 cases (6.90%), and in two cases (3.45%) some fortuitously found ceramic materials have been taken to represent graves - at Novo Selo and Orşova. We can already note that one of the Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare funerary standard elements was to deposit the dead in large cemeteries, with numerous burials, which indicates that the cases recorded as “groups” of graves or isolated graves ought to be considered as insufficiently researched cemeteries too. One other aspect of this last issue is the number of burials and the extent of the funerary precincts. If we judge by the situation reported at Orsoja - 267 graves, or 343 -, then by the number of funerary situations at Cârna-Grindu Tomiii - 133 -, at Cârna-Ostrovogania - 66 – and, more recently, by the situation at Plosca-Cabana de metal - over 90 -, or if we take into account the data we have from the cemetery at Ostrovu Mare-Bivolării and the fact that in almost all cases we have to do with cemeteries that have already been destroyed by natural factors, the Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare group must have been characterized by large funerary precincts, which included numerous burials of 200 burials or more. One situation that stands out is that of the cemeteries surrounding the Bistreţ lake. The surveys added to the systematic excavations made between 1983 and 2004 in the immediately adjoining areas on the banks of what is left today of the Bistreţ lake led to the identification of five Gârla Mare cemeteries which occupy the northern and southern banks of the current basins 1 to 4 and an islet visible today in the middle of the lake, which lie no more than 3 or 4 km from each other. We can add to them one cremation grave on the northern continuation of the spit of land called Grindul Rostii, on the southern bank of the former Nasta lake, circa 3 km east of Grindu Tomii. At the same time, it has been possible to identify no more than one settlement, also studied by systematic excavation. It occupies the southern bank and is circa 600 m south of the Ostrovogania cemetery. Further habitation traces have been found five hundred meters south of the cemetery, on the south bank of Ostrovogania, but as the settlement has been completely destroyed, no verifications was possible. Other graves have been discovered also on the south bank of Lake Bistreţ, at the point known as Ferma 3, circa 1 km east of the point known as Cabana de metal, but the unpropitious on site conditions have made research by archaeological excavations impossible. During the surface surveys of 1983-1995 the area south of the Bistreţ, basin 1, have led to the discovery of a cemetery which has been almost entirely destroyed by erosion but occupies the spit of land known as Grindu lui Dănilă, circa 1 km SSE from the point known as Cabana de metal. The comparison of the inventories belonging to the three cemeteries researched in the area of the Bistreţ lake prove that they were contemporary, at a time when the identity of the area was determined by the funerary contexts in the precinct. We can ask which was or were the settlement(s) that such distinct funerary zones corresponded to. It is extremely hard to give an answer because the settlement found in the point known as Prundu Măgarilor-La rampa boţogului has been largely destroyed by the water and no further settlements have been identified. There is no comparable situation, with a representative stock of

94

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

burials that could be subjected to close inspection, but I think it is still possible to consider the existence of large funerary precincts, which had been fragmented into distinct active zones used at the same time, as another element of the funerary standard for this culture, if we judge by the situation of various finds, such as Korbovo, Moldova Veche, Novo Selo, Orešac, Ostrovu Mare and Vatin. In neighboring, albeit distinct, zones with Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare burials, for example at Ostrovu Corbului, where a Gârla Mare cemetery has been identified in the point known as Botul Piscului and on the western bank of the River Danube, in the area of the village commons, further graves have been unearthed, not far away from the first find, and having a settlement in the vicinity, so that similar situations existed. The exact relation between these funerary precincts and their corresponding settlements cannot be clarified because of the patchy archaeological documentation. But if we refer to the position of the settlement occupying the point known as Prundu Măgarilor, right in the middle of the funerary precinct and delimited by the five clearly identified cemeteries, we can consider the possibility for the settlements to have been spread along the same lines. Settlements have been observed in the vicinity of Gârla Mare cemeteries in other places also, one special situation being that of Korbovo-Obala where a cinerary urn-grave was found during the 1985 excavations. The find is completely uncertain since two cremation urn-graves have been found during some salvage excavations. One of these, which consist of a globular vessel and a bowl used as lid, described as having no “restes de défunt incineré” and considered a “cenotaph” has been attributed to the Verbicioara culture. The second, which did have calcinated remains inside, can be attributed to this group owing to the vessels used as urns and therefore it is to be excluded from the Gârla Mare funerary finds. The conditions in which most of the Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare finds have been found force us to have reservations. One cemetery has been found at Altimir, but we have no specifications about the site limits. The Corabia museum holds not only Gârla Mare exhibits, found on the spit of land at Răcaru Mare, which lies approximately between Orlea and Corabia in the former riverbed at the bottom of the former lake Potelu, but it also has similar materials from other spits of land, which come from fortuitous finds made in the course of time and brought to the museum, about whose exact discovery conditions we know nothing today. The isolated grave observed in the vicinity of the locality Desa is a sure indication of another cemetery, but other Gârla Mare materials have also been found on the bank of the Danube at Arcer, as well as on the bank which occupies a position across the river from the Bulgarian locality Arčar. The find at Desa may well come from Arcer, a little village which has virtually disappeared today, but has always belonged to the Desa commune. Another cemetery is said to be at Kozloduj, but we have no details related to it. We only have entirely unsatisfactory mentions for the finds at Ostrovu Corbului, where a settlement has been found too. Another mere mention refers to Selanovci. A few Žuto Brdo graves have been found at Surčin, in a large Vatina and Belegiš cemetery. They are no more than a few graves in a larger cemetery, but the

documentation is not uniform also because we have no detailed archaeological observations for most finds. This is why the discussion of the Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare funerary practices has concentrated upon the cemeteries at Cârna-Grindu Tomii, Cârna-Ostrovogania and Plosca-Cabana de metal, which are located in the fluvial lacustrine area of Călugăreni-Bistreţ-Cârna-Nedeia. It is difficult to use any other cemeteries, for example those at Balta Verde, Ghidici, Korbovo, Liubcova and Orsoja, because they have been faultily published and superficially researched. We can outline a funerary standard quite sketchily by means of the documentation made available in the ways shown for the Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare group or culture by indicating the structural elements, both synchronically and diachronically. As the exclusive funerary rite, cremation places the Žuto Brdo-Gârla group within a pretty clearly defined world belonging to the middle Danube basin, where this funerary practice has firmly established antecedents. In the course of time, the expression of the cremation ceremony underwent a series of changes and the practice of placing funerary remains in subsequently buried urns became entrenched as a predominant element. We have seen that cremation pit-graves have also been found in the three Bistreţ cemeteries, with uncremated animal bones occasionally associated in very small numbers. Judging in these terms we can naturally wonder if there were not also remains of animals cremated on pyres among the human calcined bones, but in the absence of specialized determination we have no way of providing affirmative or negative answers. If we answer in the affirmative, the presence of animal bones cremated at the same time as the human ones could indicate that the cremation ceremony proper changed, with food oblations not being deposited on the pyre, while in the second case they were deposited on the pyre together with the adjacent vessels, or maybe inside them. Studying the relation between settlements and funerary zones is difficult owing to the utterly insufficient condition of the documentation about the settlements of the group. It is nevertheless obvious from the limited information available, that settlements were placed in the same area with well known sources of subsistence - but we can say no more than that. Nevertheless, the unusual situation encountered, at first sight, in the area of the Bistreţ lake, where there are at least three cemeteries which are largely contemporary, have numerous burials and are situated circa 2.5 or 3 km apart from each other, increases the importance of the relation between the inhabited and the funerary zones. Only one settlement has been identified at Bistreţ, which is already destroyed and situated approximately in the middle, between the three cemeteries, but the research on site is confined, for objective reasons, to the area immediately adjoining to the lake. It is not at all improbable, therefore, that there were further settlements in the area. At the same time the structure of the cemeteries - at Grindu Tomii and Cabana de metal anyway - does not allow us to consider that the three cemeteries belonged to a corresponding number of segments of the same community. So we must, for the time being until there is proof to the contrary, accept that there were

95

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu some fairly small, fairly long-lived communities coexisting in an extraordinarily favorable environment,. The situations at Ostrovu Corbului and Korbovo are not alone in the area of the fluvial lagunar area of Bistreţ-Nedeia, but they apply throughout the entire segment of the Danube valley that was occupied in the Bronze Age by the Gârla Mare communities. In itself, the structure of the Gârla Mare cemeteries seems to have been quite sophisticated. The funerary precincts at Grindu Tomii and Cabana de metal, if not also at Ostrovogania, was divided into two segments, but this differentiation did not impair the unity of the burial zone, or the relation between the two segments for that matter. The inversely proportional ratio of the two ceramic sets used in graves in the two halves reveals a dialogue of sorts between the two sub-units, which was extended beyond the realm of day-to-day existence. Funerary inventories represented modes of expressing this dialogue, which served for affirming not only the matrimonial and blood relationships but also the internal hierarchy of each social sub-unit. And all this included at the same time particularities that distinguished them from the neighborhood, so far as we know. I state this by reference to the association in double graves of masculine adults, on the one hand, and children, which seems to be the token of the patrilineal postmortem layout of the deceased. The results of the statistical and combinatorial analyses of the three Bistreţ cemeteries will have to be verified by means of the results of future analyses, which will surely be of the same substantial import. For the time being the model established for the three cemeteries can be considered one of the structural elements of the Gârla Mare funerary standard. The “care” for the deceased is expressed by the inventory in amount and variety, which can appear to be in excess in the Gârla Mare group. In fact the structure of a Gârla Mare grave reflects not so much the “care” for the deceased as the social energy expenses related to the disappearance of various individuals, and sometimes it does not depend on the sex or age group. The stock of anthropologically diagnosed graves at Grindu Tomii, and the observations of the ceramic assortments which resembled each other in the burials at Ostrovogania and Cabana de metal seem to prove that some inventories lend themselves to the interpretation of differences which follow the sex groups by archaeological criteria. This possibility, that has been proved only partially, reflects the segregation, in the positive sense of the word, of sex groups in everyday life, which imposed the rules for the constitution or construction of the funerary inventories. We cannot tell if the inversely symmetrical situation reflects exchanges of mortuary inventories, as known in cultural anthropological research, but the dialogue of the communities’ sub-units is obvious. The presence of anthropomorphic clay figurines in only some of the child burials constitutes a clear structural characteristic of the Gârla Mare funerary standard. The functionality of these figurines - all of them representing females, with only one exception - cannot be specified, and the explanations offered range from considering them “toys”, or mother-substitutes, to

representations of divinities, but the crux of the matter is their presence, by and large, or their absence, which cannot be regarded as otherwise than very significant for the denizens of that age, even if this significance escapes us today. Their importance is also underlined by their appearance, sometimes, in graves whose inventory stand out either owing to the quantity or to the quality. This fact invites us to consider, from the start, that the placing of such figurines was the privilege of only some of the deceased of the infans or juvens ages. Since we cannot go beyond the limitations of strictly archaeological documentation, the most sensible thing to do is to consider them as marking the prestige of descendants of more outstanding sub-units rather than the prestige of outstanding children as such! That this ought to be the most correct interpretation is indicated also in these cases of infantile graves by the preferential use as urns of large size vessels less suitable from this point of view, for example amphorae, rather than cups, which were ordinarily used in similar cases for the majority of the deceased. It is known that the only other area in which clay figurines have been deposited in graves is the Later Helladic region, and, indeed, it has been attempted to relate the two areas, the Gârla Mare and the Mycenaean. However, the relationship is hard to prove in the absence of clear tokens of their reciprocal contacts, especially, however, if we take into consideration the chronological differences. I might have been expected to discuss the items from Dupljaja, but my enterprise is comparative and statistical and cannot fit in the two items which constitute an exception, all the more so as the exact condition of their finding is debatable. I have left them aside, therefore, and wait for further similar finds. In fact there are further ritual or inventory elements encountered in adults’ graves, which constitute arguments for the existence of one social category which consumed larger amounts of social energy in the funerary ceremony. In the first place, the custom, which has been attested only for some adults’ graves at Ostrovogania and Cabana de metal, of ordering the cremated bones when placing them inside the urns, by putting the skull cap on top. Unfortunately there are no similar observations in other cemeteries, and I have in mind primarily the cemetery at Grindu Tomii, which means it is impossible to examine a larger stock or one with anthropological sex determinations. Anyway, once the habit has been proved, it shows how much attention was certainly given to ceremonial rules for some, not very numerous, individuals. But these cases are not always associated with impressive inventories, as we might have expected, which goes to prove that a “rich” grave is not always the sign of an important individual. Looked at more attentively, grave pits, which have considerable dimensions, show that the ashes were deposited inside at the same time as the vessels - the urn, its lid and the adjacent vessels - while the pit was being filled with a soil in which the ash, most probably fallen from the pyre, was already present. Some of the cases with ceramic fragments or even calcinated bones found under the urns show that we do not have to do, in these cases anyway, with simple cremation urn-graves but with graves

96

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

into which the ashes were thrown at the same time as other remains picked from the pyre. The cases with dress items made of metal or other materials interspersed with the calcinated bones are few. But their absence can be explained by the high temperatures traceable in the warped vessels and also in the aspect of the bones, which indicates that the temperature rose to 800-1000°C and that the fire was constantly fed in the pyre, rather than leaving it unattended. There are no archaeological proofs left of the pyres themselves. They will have been ad-hoc constructions for each and every death and will have been outside the funerary precinct as they are archaeologically outlined. A series of situations from Ostrovogania and in the vicinity of the Grindu Tomii cemetery could, however, be documents about other episodes of the cremation ceremony, albeit not offering direct documents about the existence of pyres. I have in mind the remains found in some cases - for example at Cârna - Groapa lui Mihalache, which seem to indicate that some ceremonies employed structures of adobe and poles, maybe like a kind of house for the dead (Totenhaus). Unfortunately we have not been able to research some circular pits at Ostrovogania because of the infiltrations of water, but it has been possible to observe the amount of adobe that they contained. Whereas it is likely that dress items were consumed by the fire burning in pyres in their majority, it is obvious that weapons were no part of the funerary inventories and masculine attributes were expressed by ceramic assortments. In the area of the Gârla Mare group there are very few and very debatable weapon finds, which is why we are not allowed to make a statistical comparison between the singular weapon deposits and hoards, but many of the weapons may be part of the group of Wetfinds and today be lying at the bottom of lakes, riverbeds or the Danube. In general, the Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare mortuary inventories does not differ when regarded in the wider perspective of the Bronze Age in the middle Danube basin, in spite of the “richness” of some graves’ inventories. They can even stand out by their apparent monotony, while standing out also by the absence of dress items, which of course may be due to cremation. The differences to note and to be emphasized come from the complex organization of the funerary precinct, which indicates communities equally complex in their internal structure and proportionally so, having intra- and extra-community hierarchies, as it results from the competition mirrored by the graves. Being the main manifestation of the Middle and Late Bronze Age on the Transylvanian plateau, the Wietenberg culture has been defined as such by H. Schroller first, using C. Seraphin’s older research at Dealul Turcului/Wietenberg, near Sighişoara. But the definition provided by Schroller, who referred to some older ceramic material from Turda, already mentioned earlier by Hubert Schmidt, and to materials characterized by pottery from the Fürchenstichkeramik and Linsenkeramik categories, did not permit dating the culture correctly. We owe to I. Nestor its correct dating to the Bronze Age, followed by the first thorough discussion of some Wietenberg finds, and mentions of materials of the same kind found in Moldova, at Poiana. Although

strictly documented on the Romanian territory, the Wietenberg group has been repeatedly discussed by European Bonze Age specialists, and one contribution that cannot be left aside is M. Roska’s, who put into circulation numerous Wietenberg finds from Transylvania. One other important moment in the study of the Wietenberg group between the World Wars is D. Popescu’s study of the Bronze Age in Transylvania, which has brought some documentation addenda along the lines of Nestor’s studies. After the War, in 1960, the publication of K. Horedt’s study provided rich documentation which specified that cremation was the specific rite for the Wietenberg group and that the evolution of the culture covered the periods Reinecke Bronze A2 to D, which in absolute dates corresponds to the interval between the 16th and 13th centuries BC. I. Nestor made another short presentation of the culture in the same year. This is where the attention of the specialists was called to the fact that one of the “distinguishing” features of the Wietenberg group was the cremation rite, which was usually documented by isolated graves rather than by cemeteries. This was a mortuary practice through which the respective communities came closer to those of the middle Danube basin. One other characteristic of the Wietenberg group, which this work emphasized and which we should pay considerable attention to, is the fact that it was refractory to “becoming contaminated”. In the ensuing years the documentation about the Wietenberg group increased significantly owing to some contributions of which the most important were the excavations in the cemetery at Bistriţa, the settlement at Derşida and the cemetery at Dumbrăviţa. At present, however, we owe the most important contribution to the study of the Wietenberg culture to Nikolaus Boroffka’s book, which was published at the end of the last century and offered records of all the finds and a study of the entire content of the culture based on minute typological and chorologic examination, which have permitted the author to draw noteworthy conclusions, some of them regarding the mortuary practices. The origin of the Wietenberg culture has not yet been satisfactorily solved, mainly because of the uneven studies of the Early Bronze Age in Transylvania, in traditional terms. Some of the material content and the cremation rite itself leave open the probability that this group is “genetically” related to manifestations of the advance from the west of the late Zók types of Early Bronze Age cultures. The appearance of the Wietenberg group in the central Transylvanian area largely coincides with the end of the brushed/combed (Besenstrich) pottery, which is traditionally considered to mark the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. One strange theory will have it that the appearance of the Wietenberg group, and more particularly the appearance of the spiral-meandering decoration, might have been connected with the Cyclad and it was proposed some time ago by A. S. Dimitriu, only to re-surface recently in A. Vulpe’s work. But as there are no intermediate finds to support the would-be journeys of passionate spiral-meandering decorators from the marine environments of the Cyclades all the way to the Transylvanian plateau,

97

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu this theory can only be recorded as a curio, all the more so as the differences related to the mortuary practices are as evident as could be. The Wietenberg archaeological phenomenon is confined to the interior of the Carpathian bow and the Transylvanian plateau but some sites can reach higher up on the mountain slopes, to over 1500 m. The known settlements, which exceed 500, should be a token of dense habitation, if it were not for the rarity of funerary finds, in their majority isolated graves. The Wietenberg habitat is known little and has been observed especially through the settlement at Derşida, which lies near the western limit of the area, but also, very recently, through the excavations in the eponymous settlement. Both through the material content of the culture and through the numerous Wietenberg ceramic material found in the area beyond the Transylvanian frontiers, the Wietenberg culture proves to have been permanently in contact with the neighbors - Otomani, Monteoru, Suciu de Sus, Periam-Pecica - even though the marked individuality of this group seems to have been influenced just a little. The contact with the Noua culture, which was already coming into Transylvania during the 16th century BC, poses a special problem. This problem has not been clarified yet, although the recently researched settlement at Ţichindeal allows us to see patterns of “coexistence” between the Noua and the late Wietenberg communities. Older attempts at establishing the periodization of the Wietenberg culture rested entirely on the stratigraphy of the settlement at Derşida, since other settlements had thin habitation deposits that did not leave room for stratigraphical observations. Starting from a typology of the forms and decorative patterns of Wietenberg pottery, N. Boroffka tried to divide the entire evolution of the group into four phases: A, B, C and D, which extended in an interval corresponding to the periods from Reinecke Bronze A2 to (the beginning of ) Bronze D. Although it was little understood by specialists, the serial organization obtained by this author is convincing and supported by very thorough chorologic studies and by the presence of some materials which allow us to discern synchronizations with the evolutionary stages of the immediately neighboring groups. I can certainly voice reservations in respect to Boroffka’s periodization, considering the patchy character of the research in particular, but he is not to be blamed for this, so I choose to give credit to his by and large most complete periodization. By working in the absolute dating frame and following the most recent radiocarbon dating we know that the period Reinecke Bronze A occupies the interval 2250-1800 BC. On the basis of synchronisms with the Otomani and Periam-Pecica groups, the Wietenberg phenomenon most probably begins prior to the period Reinecke Bz A1, namely at least before 2300 BC. The dating of the group in absolute terms takes into consideration various ways of understanding the relationship between the late Wietenberg and Noua habitation patterns. Nevertheless, the settlement at Ţichindeal has provided data which clearly confirm the contemporaneity of late Wietenberg, Noua and Monteoru IIb. For the Noua group, newer radiocarbon dating, at Crasnaleuca for example, indicates its beginning in the 16th century BC

anyway. The sample Bln-4622 - 3380±51 BP from a Wietenberg deposit with Noua material found at Sighişoara has been calibrated in the domain of 2 sigma and it has indicated the interval 1780-1520 BC, which is in keeping with the newer 14C dating for the Noua group. We can therefore allow the dating to the 16th or 15th centuries of the late Wietenberg stage, without knowing so far when the end of the group may have occurred. As regards mortuary finds in the Wietenberg group, we now have 49 finds corresponding to over 200 burials; they are uneven from the point of view of their contexts (see the list in Chapter 9.8). Chorological, the Wietenberg funerary finds are uniformly spread over the area of the group. There are no finds in the area between the line of the river Hârtibaciu and the northern range and slopes of the Făgăraş Mountains, although Wietenberg settlements, albeit rare, have been found at Agnita, Cincu, Şercaia, Toarcla, Ţichindeal and Ungra. Systematic research has only been conducted at Ţichindeal, where it has been possible to observe a habitation level in which Wietenberg ceramic material was in association with Noua and Monteoru materials, and the materials from other settlements prove that the group is also present south of the river Hârtibaciu, which means that the absence of mortuary finds can only be due to the haphazard factor of research. Of all the Wietenberg funerary finds, we must express serious reservations when examining the finds at Poiana Aiudului and Oarţa de Sus. A human skull with Wietenberg sherds at its side has been found at Poiana Aiudului, in one of the Livezile barrows, at a depth of - 0.15 m in the mantle of the barrow. This object is secondary in respect to the other burials in that barrow and skull burials are exceptionally rare in the Livezile group, where the only known case is that at Ţelna; skull burials are, nevertheless, attested in the Wietenberg area. This find, though discussed by several specialists, is only mentioned, with no detailed archaeological information, and the sherds found have not been published. At Oarţa de Sus, if we judge by the extremely scant information available, we seem to have a site with an unusual structure. Five pits have been found here and the pit designated as A contained the skeletons of two animals which, in the opinion of the excavation’s author were horses, because cheek-pieces have been found in situ. Human bones have been found next to one of the animal skeletons. In the other pits - B-E - human calcinated bones have been found at the bottom. In yet another pit gold and silver lock rings, bronze bracelets and one tool fragment made of the same alloy were found. Other finds in the pits are several vessels and ceramic fragments, all of which bear traces of secondary burning, and two miniatures of wagons made of clay. The information available for the find at Oarţa de Sus is minimal, which prevents us from discussing the situation. As discernible today, its structure indicates that we have to do with a ritual site, but we need to ask ourselves whether it is a regular funerary context or not, as the human osteological remains may well come from postmortem manipulations, which need not have anything to do with funerary practices; this question can only be answered after the thorough publication of the entire site.

98

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

As regards the character of the research, over half of the Wietenberg funerary finds come from archaeological excavations - circa 44% are systematic ones, circa 8% are salvage excavations, and circa 6% trial digs -, which warrants the quality of the information to some extent. The way they have been published is less satisfactory, however, there being no individual grave drawings more often than not, their descriptions being a matter of routine and telegraphic. In the cemetery at Bistriţa, the general excavation layout has the north in a different position from that indicated in the drawing of the B, C and D surfaces. There is no catalogue of the graves for the cemetery at Sibişeni and it is extremely difficult to retrace the inventories going just by the illustrations, with no references. There are only a few grave plans and not very clear photographs. The north is missing from the cemetery plan drawing. In fact there are other Wietenberg cemeteries with no individual plans of the graves, which are generally illustrated by photographs that are not always eloquent, at Turia for example. Negligence in mentioning the exact condition of the graves is visible even in the publication of the Dumbrăviţa cemetery, which, though better published, lacks illustrations of the context even if this is compensated by the minute descriptions of pottery in the catalogue. For the cemetery at Ozun there is only one simple mention for the moment, which is of little use because the cemetery seems to have been bi-ritual. The cemetery at Ocna Sibiului researched a long time ago by J. Teutsch is practically unknown, since not even the exact number of graves found in it is specified. The same observations impair the information in respect to the archaeological context of the Wietenberg funerary finds. Though the number of cemeteries and grave groups is quite big at first sight (in sum 17 = 34%), which is encouraging, the information available contradicts the first impression. Similarly, the very great number of isolated graves, many of them not thoroughly presented, have the effect of diluting the archaeological information about the Wietenberg mortuary objects. One of the reasons why the information is precarious comes from paying too much attention to the ceramic inventories at the expense of the archaeological context, which justly prompts us to consider this methodological perspective, in jest, as merely “ciobologică” (which means based only on pottery fragments). If we add to this the unclear situations of the few cases in which the ceramic material found in unspecified conditions has been considered to document Wietenberg burials and the already mentioned lack of information for the “ritual site” at Oarţa de Sus, it is easily noticeable that the documentation about the funerary finds of the Wietenberg culture is largely unsatisfactory. On the other hand, the great number of isolated graves, of which 8 (16.33%) have been found in settlements indicates from the start one of the very characteristic elements of the Wietenberg group funerary standard, which neatly distinguishes it from its neighbours. The chorologic distribution shows that these finds are relatively evenly spread over the entire area of this culture, and we should expect that the number of cases for this category of finds will increase.

Another observation to make about the whole set of Wietenberg culture funerary finds is that the archaeological information is of very low quality. The main preoccupation of the persons involved in researching the Wietenberg mortuary objects, irrespective of their context, seems to have been the study of pottery, which has served as the basis for attempts at dating them over the entire span of this culture’s duration. On-site research has not been directed to detailed recording of the burials and the catalogues of the cemeteries do not often have details, not to mention the telegraphic mentions of the singular burials, and there are not only these lacunae. Yet another limiting factor is, as shown before, the lacking anthropological determinations, making it impossible to detect the potential relation of the ritual variants to the sex or age groups. For this reason a certain scarcity of funerary expressions has been deduced, though in completely artificial ways, for this is not real, at least sometimes as we will see. One other lacking element is related to the habitat characteristics since, apart from Derşida and, more recently, Sighişoara, the documentation in this domain is, to say the least, poor and it generally indicates thin layers which led researchers to deduce that Wietenberg communities were mobile. This is rather at odds with bronze metallurgy that has been proved to exist in the entire location of the group. For these reasons it is hard to answer the question of the relationship between the settlements and their adjacent funerary precincts. All that we can say today, with the little data available, is that cemeteries or groups of graves were often near settlements. But the fact that at Turia, for example, one further isolated grave was discovered quite far away from the graves of the cemetery allows us to think that there may have been several distinct funerary areas from the point of view of the layout. This would explain, by and large, the relatively small number of burials in the Wietenberg cemeteries known so far. Doubtlessly, these small cemeteries belonged to small-scale communities and the situations encountered at Bistriţa and Sibişeni support this view, offering information about the internal structure of the respective cemeteries which corresponded to limited social sub-units. This opens the way for considering that the funerary precincts may have been fragmented and consisted of distinct zones. In fact the existence of distinct funerary zones which consequently had distinct corresponding regimes is proved by the large number of burials found in settlements, sometimes repeatedly during the evolution of the respective settlements, at Derşida for example. Chorological, burials within settlements are quite uniformly spread in the entire Wietenberg area, and the phenomenon was attested from the beginnings to the later stages of the culture, which documents the first structural element of the Wietenberg funerary standard. The overwhelming majority of the Wietenberg funerary finds consists in flat graves, with the exception of the singular burials at Ampoiţa, Cetea and Poiana Aiudului, all of which usually lie at the western periphery of the Wietenberg group, where we always have to do with situations, funerary contexts in all probability, which

99

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu were deposited secondarily in the mantles of some Livezile barrows. We could assert that cremation is the dominant characteristic rite for the Wietenberg group, given the high percentage of these burials in comparison with inhumation. I underline the fact that in the three symbolic graves at Dumbrăviţa, Iernut and Sibişeni the ritual is specifically cinerary, every time with vessels symbolizing funerary urns. In a stock of 204 Wietenberg burials which can be taken into consideration, cremation is present in 92% of the cases and inhumation in only 8%. We cannot specify whether we can speak of biritualism in the Wietenberg communities or not. The small proportion of inhumations shows that the practice of burying the dead was no more than secondary and adjacent. But this is so only at first sight. I find it significant that of the 23 graves in settlements 11 are inhumation graves, also including the skull in grave 2 at Derşida and the two skulls in Object 14 at Şoimeni. Most of the inhumated Wietenberg deceased have been found in situations which were, to say the least, special. Of the 16 cases, four are buried skulls - at Derşida, Poiana Aiudului, Sibişeni and Şoimeni -, and in other cases - at Ampoiţa, Bernadea grave 2, Mereşti, Sibişeni grave 40a - the burials are of dismembered skeletons. The fragment of a skull found in the second Rotbav grave can be added to them. Buried skulls and dismembered skeletons indicate the postmortem manipulation of corpses whose funerary trajectory followed a particular path, often in connection with the social person of the deceased, who will have been leaders of social subunits/clans or people involved in ritual activities. There are no precise data about the other inhumation graves, except for those at Derşida and Sibişeni. In grave 21 at Sibişeni the fact that the lower members are sharply bent seems indicative of some special treatment, maybe the tying of the corpse, which could again suggest some kind of postmortem re-inhumation or manipulation. The vessels in the graves at Bernadea, Obreja or Sibişeni do not leave room for doubts about the graves belonging to the Wietenberg culture and the same must be true about the inhumation graves. Vis-a-vis all these cases, inhumation appears as a funerary rite with reduced incidence, most probably used in very special cases determined by the social identity of some individuals, since inhumation is known to be connected to the practice of postmortem manipulation of such corpses. The postmortem locales reserved for the inhumated, just as for the cremated corpses, varied from places in the settlement to plots reserved to them within the funerary precincts or graves proper, this being another overall characteristic of the of the Wietenberg standard mortuary practices. Burials in settlements do not appear in isolation but have been met with in the Otomani, Gelej, Hernadkák, Pişcolt, Tiream and Tiszafüred. The latter was a group that Wietenberg communities were in contact with. We have already seen the singular skull at Ţelna in the context of the Livezile barrow burials. In fact one flat-grave cemetery was researched at Hăpria-Capu dosului, in the period 1998-1999, which contained 18 inhumation graves and is attributed to the Early Bronze Age. Four graves with singular skulls have been discovered here – in graves 3b, 3c, 10 and 15. The cemetery at Hăpria, which is hard to attribute

culturally, probably predates the Wietenberg culture and the skulls buried there are the direct antecedent of this practice. As regards the other neighbors of the Wietenberg group, skull burials have been met with in Periam-Pecica - at Battonya and Mokrin -, then in the context of the large cemetery at Tápé, which is so hard to analyze with its numerous skull burials, then in Noua also, for example at Archiud in graves 22, 43 and 48. Only two skull burials have been found in the Monteoru area, at Poiana, in graves 6 and 8 -, which places the settlement and the cemetery of that particular locality first as regards the Wietenberg “imports”. Buried skulls have been found further west, in Central Europe, in the groups Nitra, Unterwölbling, Aunjetitz and Maďarovce, which indicates a funerary practice documented in a wider area and with some antecedents in the Early Bronze Age. Cremation, as the dominant rite, has been documented in only a few cremation pit-graves - Brandgrubengrab - at Aiton, Diviciorii Mari, Sibişeni and Turia -, most graves being variants of the cremation urn-grave type - Urnengrab. In their majority, graves have the remains deposited in plain vessels which served as urns and were deposited in the grave subsequently, but there are frequent cases of graves with urns covered with another vessel which served as a lid, and sometimes also with adjacent vessels deposited inside or outside the urn, just as there are graves with urns left uncovered but with vessels by their side. At Bistriţa there were graves in which the urns had been placed inside a larger vessel that the author of the excavation considered a protective vase. One category of very specific finds in the Wietenberg group are the cremation graves whose urns have been found covered with stone slabs with the slabs sometimes placed over the vessel that served as a lid. The situation at Turia, where grave 26, the only one whose urn was covered with a slab, occupied a distant position from the rest of the cemetery seems to indicate the existence of ritually distinct burial zones, but the case is singular and could be determined by completely different reasons, since the other Wietenberg burials lay next to those with urns that were not covered with vessels. The absence of anthropological determinations prevents us from linking these types and variants of funerary groups with the sex and age groups. The same documentary shortcoming prevents us from discussing the state of the calcinated remains and from specifying if the cremation-fire was strong or not, though the rare mentions of secondary firing traces on funerary vessels seem to indicate that the vessels, which may have contained edible substances, were put on the pyre by the side of the corpse and vitrified by the strong fire. In one case, at Dumbrăviţa, we may have to do with a cremation grave with the ashes deposited both in the urn and in the pit - Brandschuttungsgrab/grave with scattered ashes, one clear case in question being the second grave at Rotbav. It could be observed that at Turia, the grave pits, which were circular, had considerable dimensions and left enough room around the funerary assortment. With no specifications about whether the grave fillings had ashes in them or not, we have no way of verifying the possibility of other cinerary-urn graves being also in the category with scattered ashes, as it has been proved possible in a

100

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

few of the Gârla Mare cremation graves. In one of the Dumbrăviţa graves adobe pieces which have been interpreted as remains of pyres were found. The fragments in question have not been published as such and we do not know, therefore, whether or not they had paling or wattle impressions. Their presence, however, leaves room for considering the possibility that the cremation rite was rather more complex and the cremation may have taken place in an ad-hoc construction of the Totenhaus kind. However, we have no way of giving the archaeological proof of this in the current state of documentation. It has been asserted that (fragments of) funerary pyres were visible at Dumbrăviţa and Sibişeni. But we cannot retain these assertions as true, nor can we take for granted the relation proposed between these would-be pyre remains and the clay miniatures of wagon wheels. The most sensible thing to do is to presuppose that corpses were cremated each time in another place, which must have been separated both from the settlement and from the funerary precinct. Except for the funerary contexts of the Suciu de Sus group, funerary pyres, whether individual or collective, have not been documented with any degree of certitude in any of the Bronze Age finds, and therefore the Wietenberg group does not differ from its neighbours. In some cases it has been noticed that the cremation urn-graves also had some stone structures consisting of boulders massed around the urns. Since the on-site research has almost always been superficial, we cannot tell whether or not these were piles of stones covering the graves - so-called Steinpackung structures. A similar superficiality in the on-site research prevents us from charting these cases, which are not very many anyway. The repertoire of vessel forms found in Wietenberg funerary objects is not really varied. Usually amphora-shaped or bag-shaped vessels have been used in the Wietenberg funerary contexts, but also bowls or deep dishes. Lids are usually deep dishes or ceramic fragments, more rarely and cups, which symbolize liquid substances, are used as adjacent vessels. Another characteristic of the Wietenberg burials seems to come from the absence of funerary inventories. Dress items have been found in a number of cases - Derşida, Dumbrăviţa, perhaps Mereşti - and they are represented by the bronze pin at Mereşti, whorls and even a Krummesser. Some dress items may have been destroyed during the cremation but their absence may again be blamed on the lack of attention in the study of calcinated remains! I have already discussed the frequency of the metal weapon items found in the Wietenberg area, either in isolation or in deposits, which proves that weapons and metal tools, just as stone ones, were subjected to entirely different deposition patterns. If it had been thoroughly published, the situation at Oarţa de Sus may have helped solve many issues connected to ritual practices characteristic for the Wietenberg communities, even funerary customs in particular. The data we now have are insufficient for a discussion, but we should recall that a situation with an indubitable ritual function has been documented in the Wietenberg area. Pits with human osteological remains, whether cremated or not, prove the special regime of some

individuals, whether indicating sacrifices or burials proper. Very powerfully individualized by comparison with the neighboring areas in which inhumation predominates, with the exception of the burials in the Govora group, the Wietenberg set of funerary practices proves to be very promising through its complexity and it announces to fulfill its promises once systematic research has become entrenched. Yet another issue that future research will have to answer is that of the ways in which the relationships between the late Wietenberg and the Noua communities, which coexisted on the Transylvanian plateau as proved by the settlement at Ţichindeal, led to influences or borrowings of funerary expressions. At present it appears that the Wietenberg communities were immune to borrowings and remained steadfast in their identity. Not long ago, a series of older finds from the Ukraine were separated from those belonging to the Katakombnaja and Srubnaja type, mainly by Sofia Berezanskaja, who is responsible for introducing into the literature the Kuľtura mnogovalokovoj keramiki notion by referring especially to pottery. Through the way it has been defined, the Mnogovalikovaja culture is documented on an extremely large area, in the steppe and forest-steppe regions lying east of the middle and lower basin of the Volga, in the Tsaritsyn/Volgograd zone, where the area reaches the line of the big river, extending at least as far west as the river Prut. Mnogovalikovaja settlements are very scantily known and because of the absence of stratigraphical observations we have no fine, satisfactory periodization of the culture. One slightly different point of view about the denomination of the group has been put forward by I. Pâslaru who suggested that it be named the Delacău-Babino culture, in view of the only researched settlements, but his argumentation is not satisfactory. Apart from the ceramic repertoire, which includes as a defining trait the species of vessels decorated with geometrical motifs consisting of ribs and rib fragments applied upon vessels and sometimes associated to lentils. Another element is represented by the disk-shaped buckles made of bone or horn, representing a dress item specific (?) to the Mnogovalikovaja communities, which have served for attributing some burials, in excessive ways sometimes, to the respective group. The origin of the culture is as yet insufficiently clarified, some of the features demonstrating a phylogenic relationship, especially in view of the mortuary practices, with the Katakombnaja communities. The appearance of the Mnogovalikovaja culture first in the region between the two big rivers Dnieper and Don seems to have been the result of a general reshuffling that occurred on a large area covering the greater part of the former Katakombnaja region, and was somehow contemporary with the appearance of the Abaševo group in the middle Volga region, said to have determined the “migration west and south-west of the Mnogovalikovaja culture bearers”. The end of the Mnogovalikovaja culture seems somewhat clearer after the appearance of the first Srubnaja signs at the eastern periphery, and the well-known finds of the Noua and Sabatinovka groups in the

101

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu western half, which replaced it everywhere in Basarabia and the Bugeac plain. Absolute chronology has dated the Mnogovalikovaja group in the interval between the 17th and the 15th/14th centuries BC, namely between the Late Katakombnaja stage and the earliest Sabatinovka manifestations, but current 14C determinations impose earlier dates. What is more, the new 14C data attest precisely the participation of the regions west of the Dniester to the formation of the Mnogovalikovaja group. For not too long now there have been a series of radiocarbon dates from the Zatoka-Akiembetskij Kurgan, which refer to four burials appreciated to belong to the Mnogovalikovaja group but which, after calibration, indicate 2400 BC as one beginning of the group. V. Trifonov dates the Mnogovalikovaja group to the interval 2400/2300-2000 BC when he discusses the phenomenon of the Bronze Age in the region between the Danube, the Urals and the Caucasus by taking into consideration the most recent 14C dating and synchronisms with other cultural groups. He accepts a slightly later end of the culture, around 1800 BC, which makes the duration of the Mnogovalikovaja group correspond to the periods Reinecke BzA1-BzA2. Actually such dating, which is earlier than that proposed by E. Sava, corresponds with the newer tendency of dating the beginnings of the Noua culture earlier by taking into consideration radiocarbon dating. Recently, I. Pâslaru has tried to comment on the older proposals regarding the relative and absolute chronology of what he calls “the Delacău-Babino culture”. As regards the radiocarbon data, this author who is not familiar in the least with 14C dating, mentions the fact that “ the graves in the village of Nikolaevka, the Kremennoe district, t. 14 have been dated with radiocarbon to 1800-1750 BC, and the grave near the town Svatovo to the years 1880±30 BC.”. In fact, the find at Nikolaevka is a catacomb grave whose radio-carbon date is 3840±40 BP, placing it in the interval 2470-2190 BC (95.4%) when calibrated in the domain 2 sigma. At Svatovo we have to do with a Mnogovalikovaja grave, more precisely K. 2/M. 1 whose radiocarbon data SOAN-1044, 3830±30 BP, when calibrated in the 2 sigma domain, is placed in the interval 2460-2190 BC (93.8%). These two dates argue in favor of an earlier dating of the group in which pottery with multiple ribs has been found, according to V. Trifonov’s diagram. In the space in question, the Mnogovalikovaja group should be seen incipiently as a manifestation only partially present at the eastern and south-eastern periphery, whereas most of the area lies much further east. It is profitable to know about the Mnogovalikovaja finds in order to understand the relationships with the autochthonous Bronze Age groups. And we have already dwelt upon the existence of some “eastern elements” identified especially in the content of the Monteoru culture and already used in order to make direct reference to the funerary practices. The documentary basis for the study of the Mnogovalikovaja phenomenon consists almost entirely of funerary finds. E. Sava has recorded a catalogue of 145 such finds - groups of graves and less frequently isolated graves - which correspond to circa 400 funerary complexes, but his examination does not include the very unclear comparisons with the other Mnogovalikovaja burials across the area,

thus not allowing him to emphasize any potential regional characteristics. There is another examination of the Mnogovalikovaja burials by I. Pâslaru, which is less successful and mainly repeats E. Sava’s conclusions. In the area in question the number of localities with ascertained Mnogovalikovaja burials is 87, to which should be added another four localities with uncertain Mnogovalikovaja funerary finds, all of them west of the Prut. (See the list in Chapter 9.9). The area of the Mnogovalikovaja burials has its eastern limit in Basarabia and the plain of Bugeac, where the basins of the rivers Dniester and Prut come close to each other. It reaches even to the right bank of the river Prut where some older finds have been reconsidered and attributed, especially on the bases of some buckles, to the Mnogovalikovaja group. The latter group of finds is represented at Bogonos, Gârceni, Giurcani, Holboca, and Stoicani. On the left bank of the Prut, the Mnogovalikovaja funerary finds are seen to occupy the edge of the plateau and hilly area of central Moldavia, Gârceni, Măcişeni and Giurcani being the westernmost points, probably because the subsistence technology of these communities was not adequate for the environment of the central Moldavian plateau or the hilly region surrounding the Carpathians, even if some of the materials of this culture can also be found in isolation in other regions. Eugen Sava added to the Mnogovalikovaja culture some burials at Brăiliţa, Corlăteni Barrow 1/grave 3, Galaţi-cartierul Dunărea Barrow 1/graves 2, 4, Glăvăneştii Vechi (unspecified), Gurbăneşti Barrow 1/graves 1, 3, Barrow 2/graves 1 and 7, Hagieni, Hamangia Barrow 1/1925 and grave. 2/1952 and 35, Piatra Frecăţei, Râmnicelu grave 1, Smeeni graves 7, 9 and 25, Stoicani graves 3, 7 and 12, Sultana, Valea Lupului grave 21 and Vânători Barrow 1/graves 2, 6 and 14. But we must keep in check E. Sava’s generous attempt to enrich the Mnogovalikovaja funerary finds west of the Prut, saying from the start that in reality there are no elements to support E. Sava’s attribution either at Hagieni, Râmnicelu, Smeeni or Sultana. The Brăiliţa find is a flat cemetery, which excludes its attribution to the Mnogovalikovaja group. The specifications about the skeleton disposition and orientation are not supported by enough arguments. On the other hand, the funerary objects at Hagieni and Sultana, which are situated as far south-west as can be from the Mnogovalikovaja area, in reality belong to other cultural groups. The situation is similar with the graves at Gurbăneşti, Hamangia and Piatra Frecăţei, even though the graves at Gurbăneşti are the most recent. At Corlăteni, Galaţi-Cartierul Dunărea, Valea Lupului and Vânători, all of which lie close to the river Prut, it is possible to accept some Mnogovalikovaja influences, but every time we make attributions precise inventory elements are needed, missing in the cases quoted. This is the reason why I have not included them in the list of Mnogovalikovaja burials and I consider their attribution to this group somehow artificial, even though at the moment their cultural group has not been specified yet. In fact many of Sava’s Mnogovalikovaja attributions are more than questionable since they come close either to the Jamnaja or to the Katakombnaja burials in view of their funeral rite and only finds with specific inventories can be accepted as such. The image

102

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

offered by Sava’s group may therefore be far less solid and the presence of the Mnogovalikovaja group in the lower basin of Prut is less noticeable. All the Mnogovalikovaja finds come from systematic excavations. But, instead of offering them the documentary value which was to be expected, the results do not present what we would have expected owing to the ways in which they have been published, and on the other hand the Mnogovalikovaja funerary sites in the region between the rivers Prut and Dniester represent only a small part of the mass of finds spread across an extremely large area. The detailed analysis of these finds presupposes the study of the entire area, which is an incommensurate, excessive task in the frame of our enterprise here. At the same time we must not forget the fact that the Mnogovalikovaja settlements are practically unknown. I shall therefore limit myself to a review of the finds in Basarabia and Bugeac, naturally accompanied by a critical approach. Many of the Mnogovalikovaja burials in Basarabia have been published by V. Dergačev in a study representing a catalogue with comments, which has summary information and illustrations to match this. However, many come from older sites, for which the extant information is patchy. The access to the excavation reports for most of the recent research is as good as impossible, or else, in the best of cases, they can be reached with difficulty, which makes control difficult and prevents us from specifying the details. Even the reports of recent research have lacks and the illustrations are unusable, especially those of the stratigraphical profiles of the funerary mounds. Many details of the Mnogovalikovaja funerary sites have been lost or destroyed because of the bulldozer excavations, just as in the other- Jamnaja and Katakombnaja - barrow burials in the former Soviet area. Anthropological determinations have been rare, and whenever they exist they come as mere mentions, which are hard to verify. The first main elements of the mortuary practices in the Mnogovalikovaja communities of Basarabia and Bugeac are represented by inhumation as the exclusive funerary rite and by an overwhelming majority of barrow burials, which are usually older. Only two exceptions are known so far. The graves at Beşalma come first and their situation is not clear as they may well be barrows like so many others in the area of this locality. The second exception is the group of graves at Gârceni. Nine inhumation graves were found during the 1956-1957 research, most of them in stone cists and they were attributed to the Late Bronze Age. The grave no. 2/1957, which was covered with a stone slab structure, had a skeleton crouched on the left and oriented NE-SW. The skeleton had a disk-shaped bone buckle in its inventory. All the graves were flat and they underlay a Monteoru deposit whose phase was not specified, which casts doubts on their attribution to the Mnogovalikovaja group. The sole argument for this attribution is the disk-shaped bone buckle, but this item may well have been brought beyond the Prut by exchange. Stone structures and stone-slab cists are known in the proximity, in the group of burials attributed to the “Edineţ culture” and the graves at Gârceni may be part of this group. But then another problem to solve is the presence of

the bone buckle, which would indicate the contemporaneity of the Edineţ group and the Mnogovalikovaja culture, a dating hard to accept in the current state of documentation and in the traditional interpretation frame. The charts of the main inventory categories show that the majority of finds of this kind are to be found in southern Basarabia and especially in Bugeac, which is a zone where the Mnogovalikovaja group is well represented before it peters out to the north. It is quite possible that some burials of northern Basarabia may include Mnogovalikovaja elements extended in foreign surroundings, rather than Mnogovalikovaja burials proper. One such example is the grave at Burlăneşti - M. 22a-b - which has been found in the perimeter of a Noua cemetery, being considered by means of the vessels as belonging to the Mnogovalikovaja culture. The situation must be similar in another two funerary contexts at Cotârgaci Barrow 2/grave. 1 and Ripiceni Barrow 1/grave 2 and Obj. 1. These finds, just as those at Bogonos, Corlăteni, Galaţi-cartierul Dunărea, Gârceni, Glăvăneştii Vechi, Giurcani, Holboca, Stoicani, Valea Lupului and Vânători, lie in the region between the rivers Siret and Prut, which Sofia Berezanskaja regards as the interference zone of the Monteoru culture and the south-western variant of the Mnogovalikovaja culture, to which the finds between the rivers Prut and Dniester characteristically belong. As the Monteoru culture does not reach to north Moldavia, the finds in question, north of the line Bacău - Vaslui, may document the contacts between the Mnogovalikovaja and the Kómarów communities - as appears to be the case at Cotârgaci - or perhaps they document contacts with the early Noua communities, if we take into account the double grave at Burlăneşti. In sum, the area of the Mnogovalikovaja burials proper seems more limited than it has been presented by Sava and the frequent Mnogovalikovaja elements encountered west of the Prut, among which are some directly connected to funerary practices, can rather be explained by the intensity of direct contacts, which led to borrowings of funerary Mnogovalikovaja customs in some cases in Monteoru, by a process that cannot, however, be documented in the reverse sense too. In all probability, some graves at Baldovineşti and Boloteşti, for example, and some more recent graves found in the barrows at Gurbăneşti and Smeeni can be added to the group of graves which are scattered across a wide area in Moldova and are hard to attribute culturally. The main element of the Mnogovalikovaja funerary standard is inhumation, the exclusive funerary rite. The second element is the predominance of barrow burials. We know of no exceptions for the south-western variant of the Mnogovalikovaja group, as has been documented in the region between the rivers Prut and Dniester, but in the rest of the area we know of some flat graves. The fashion of making graves in barrows - whether they are in older barrows that are used again or they are primary graves proper, if we refer to what we know about the layout of the graves in barrows and the inhumation rite as such - was inherited by the Mnogovalikovaja communities from the cultural background preceding them. The use of matting to line the bottom of the sepulchral pits and the

103

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu continuation of the practice of scattering red ochre over the corpses are in the same line. In fact, the issue of the origin of this Middle Bronze Age group, which occupies the steppes on the shores of the Black Sea, is not fully solved because of its strong individuality with respect to the Katakombnaja burials and its less distinct character in the wider frame of the more diverse restructuring that occurred on the steppes or the forest-steppes of the same region and which resulted in the groups Mnogovalikovaja, the Middle Dnieper Culture, Srubnaja, and partially Abaševo, which differed little in their interference or direct contact areas. There is a series of not very numerous funerary structures, for example stepped pits with wooden constructions or stone cists, to which should be added the habit of using coffins made of tree-trunks, which attest a more complex funerary ceremony, matching the social identity of a limited number of individuals, most probably leaders of social sub-units. Funerary inventories, in these cases, do not match the complexity of the funerary structures but are as monotonous and “exiguous” as in ordinary burials. The absence of metal weapons here, as in other cases, can be largely explained by the different ceremonial regime of weaponry, many of the items of this kind being known in hoards, for example those at Kolontaevo, Râbakovka and Skakun. Mnogovalikovaja burials, which have been found in barrows, sometimes with very complex funerary structures, are far from being modest as they required a remarkable expense of social energy, the means of expressing the social person of the deceased. The use of barrows as funerary precincts for groups of graves, albeit sometimes very few or even singular, indicates a social structure that resembles that observable in Jamnaja and Katakombnaja, as a result of the same subsistence technologies based on pastoralism. Unfortunately, many aspects of the Mnogovalikovaja mortuary practices remain unclear, largely owing to incomplete research, caused, for example, by less thorough publication and routine, merely pragmatic conclusions. What is today considered as being the Coslogeni culture by most Bronze Age researchers of the north-Danubian region was first presented in 1970, only by reference to some surface surveys and partial trial digs which covered a limited area to the south of the Baragan Plain. The 1970 conclusions were discussed by B. Hänsel six years later. He accepted the notion of the Coslogeni culture, making a few corrections from the perspective of his chronological system. In 1978, in a study with an ampler scope, the Coslogeni culture was presented in detail by S. Morintz. The documentary basis for defining this culture were the materials from surveys and finds sampled from eroded banks, dilapidated settlements etc. or from salvage excavations and trial digs which remained largely unpublished. The most important settlements are those at Grădiştea-Coslogeni, only partially researched, Lupşanu, investigated this time by “minute surface surveys and trial digs in three mounds (dwellings) of the 14", Ulmu, where the research covered only the preserved half of a mound that had toppled into the Mostiştea lagoon, and, last but not least, the settlement at Radovanu, the only one whose excavation reports have been published. According

to S. Morintz, the material content of the Coslogeni culture, which stands out through the numerous elements it has in common with the Noua and Sabatinovka cultures, supports the idea of an eastern origin due to “a great inflow of populations coming west from the region beyond the Dnieper and occupying the expanse of flatland between the Dnieper and the Mostiştea”. A similar view is A. C. Florescu’s, who regarded this “process of great structural complexity, manifested across the area of the upper (?) Danube and the steppes along the line of the Volga” as involved in the continental preliminaries of the great Aegean migrations. In contrast to S. Morintz, A. Florescu considers the Coslogeni culture as one facies of the Noua group situated in Muntenia and Dobrudja. Both authors considered the Noua-Coslogeni group as belonging to the early Thracians, or as a “component of the pair which resulted in defining an enduring Thracian ethnos”. We owe to A. Vulpe a more temperate presentation of the Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni concept in the last synthesis about the Metal Ages in Romania. As it is known today, the area occupied by the Coslogeni culture comprises eastern Muntenia as far as the valley of the river Mostiştea, the southern half of Romanian Dobrudja and, possibly, north-eastern Bulgaria. Chronologically speaking, in view of the elements it shares with the Noua group, the Coslogeni phenomenon can be dated to roughly to the same time, especially if we take into consideration the radiocarbon data which indicate an earlier incipit than traditionally accepted for the Noua group. Here I have to make a few observations about the general concept of the Coslogeni culture as presented not only in the studies mentioned. Firstly, the definition of the culture does not rest on systematic documentation but on materials which come from limited excavations and, moreover, from selectively published surface surveys. Many of the newer Coslogeni “type” finds have been put into circulation after the paradigms of the beginning. There are no detailed stratigraphical observations about the small number of researched settlements. The south Danube Coslogeni area consists mainly of assertions and no satisfactory archaeological documentation. The relations with the immediately neighboring surroundings have not been clarified. The only settlement thoroughly researched and published is at Radovanu and it does not make things too clear. The authors of the excavation have noticed the differences between the Coslogeni settlements in the rest of the area and the materials at Radovanu. The long-winded and rather unclear explanation provided is that we might have to do here with the second stage of an “ethno-cultural process” in which the Coslogeni elements combine with those of the southern type, for example those of the Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Čerkovna culture. In reality, the situation at Radovanu has the merit of showing how difficult it is to put in relation these two archaeological phenomena of the Late Bronze Age in the region of the Lower Danube. The confirmed existence of south-Danubian elements at Radovanu, and not only there, cannot be explained by the extension of the Coslogeni area south of the Danube but by examining the archaeological phenomena in situ and consequently by understanding the way

104

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

these elements made their way to the area beyond the big river, whether as a result of direct contacts or as the expression of some new cultural synthesis. However, since at the moment we do not have any clear enough answers about the north-eastern corner of today’s Bulgaria, the so-called Cadrilater, we must wait longer. The issue of the Coslogeni culture’s end is further complicated by the finds at Chitila. Here we have to do with a site consisting of a mixture of ceramic fragments that can be partly attributed to a Late Tei facies, partly to the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group, and which also contains sherds of Besenstrich pottery side by side with vessels whose forms and decorations are largely unknown. The find at Chitila-Fermă is far from helpful in clarifying at least the end of the Tei culture, as Morintz and Şerbănescu believed, because the 14C data, which dates it to an extensive time interval – c. 15th - 19th centuries BC - , only complicates things, and in addition this has remained a singular find for the twenty years since its publication. It is obvious that the individuality of the Coslogeni group, which ought to have existed as a ceramic group anyway, has not been thoroughly determined as yet and this makes the presentations remain equivocal. The uncertainties about the definition of the Coslogeni “culture” also increase with the obvious scarcity of the funerary finds, although it is now more than forty years since it was first”defined”. In the absence of actual research for such finds, we have only nine mortuaries finds that belong to the Coslogeni group (See the list in Chapter 10.1). Except for the finds at Galaţi-Dunărea and Sabangia Movila lui Pandrea/M. 5, all the other finds belong to the area which is accepted to be Coslogeni. We must stress that the way most of the nine cases have been found, in so far as the funerary practices are concerned, is really deficient. One case in question is the find of an inhumation grave at Batin, for which there is only one mention with no details and which has been attributed on the basis of a vessel in the inventory, another is the case of the two graves at Stancea with a summary description, without graphical documentation, then of the grave at Stelnica, which rests on mere oral information, and even the case of Coslogeni itself, whose importance once alleged should have been honored by a coherent excavation report. As regards the character of the excavations, except for the grave at Medgidia, which has been found fortuitously, all the others come from more or less systematic excavations, but those graves found by research that was not focused on funerary finds remain products of archaeological haphazard chance ... One significant aspect is the archaeological context of the finds, all of which are isolated graves, except for the two graves at Stancea. This is not altogether puzzling, given that there are no graves proper in the Sabatinovka group either, which is approximately contemporary, or slightly anterior, or in the Tei group. But not even all these finds can be accepted uncritically as belonging to the Coslogeni culture. It is obvious that the graves at Galaţi-Dunărea and Sabangia cannot be included in the list of Coslogeni burials, since they are clearly located in the Noua area. The same holds true for a grave at Lişcoteanca, for which such an attribution was proposed a long time ago. The inhumation grave at

Radovanu lay at the eastern end of the Coslogeni area. Because it had no ceramic inventory, it was initially included in the Early Iron Age, and later re-integrated in the Coslogeni group on the basis of the chorologic position. The inventory of the grave consists only of a bronze tongued knife with a triangular blade decorated with notches, one of a category of items known in the area of the Lower Danube, for example at the Zimnicea cemetery, or which have been found in less precise contexts, for example at Chirnogi, in a settlement “studied” by surface survey. In a different study it has been shown that these knives, which come from the south as demonstrated by their distribution, are characteristic of the Iron Age, and this shows that the Radovanu grave was correctly dated at its first publication and cannot be part of the Coslogeni funerary finds. If the correct publication of all the burials in the barrow at Coslogeni were to lead to the correct attribution of even some of the finds, these burials would seem to indicate that they were not very far away from the corresponding settlements. Similarly, at Stelnica, the inhumation grave was in the vicinity of a Coslogeni settlement. We can presuppose that at Sultana and Stancea settlements were similarly close by. The exterior structures are completely uncertain. At Batin we have a flat grave. Similarly, the graves at Medgidia, Stancea and Stelnica are flat, but the graves at Coslogeni and Sultana are in barrows. The number of Coslogeni graves is far too small to permit appreciating the real situation and we can only accept the respective information as coming from an inventory of sorts! The few funerary finds at Coslogeni provide us with an appearance that inhumation was a unitary feature, at least for this small portion of the group’s area, but we have no details whatsoever about the corpse layout and the interior funerary structures. Inventories have consisted of vessels in most cases, “which has made it easier” to attribute some of them. But this is not true for the Sultana and Stancea finds of vessels that are known to resemble those of the Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Čerkovna ceramic repertoire, hence the hesitations about their attribution. One situation which is rightfully considered special is that of the grave at Medgidia with a Mycenaean sword. Its context is not clear in the least because it has been fortuitously found. It is claimed to be an inhumation grave in which the skeleton was surrounded by stones and had animal bones by its side, but without any further specifications. The only element of the context still preserved is the sword, initially kept in a school of that locality. The sword belongs to the C1/2 type, according to N. Sandars’ typology and to the C3 type according to Hänsel, who has defined a group consisting of the item found in isolation at Doktor Josifovo and another two that presumably belonged to some graves at Dolno Levski and Peruštica. Through the sword found in its inventory, the Medgidia grave is singular in Romania. If the few details we know about the structure of the grave are real, then the entire assembly of the Medgidia find differs from the rest of the Coslogeni funerary discoveries, which are not many anyway. However,

105

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu it comes close to the funerary finds supposed to exist in Bulgaria and the only arguments for incorporating it among the Coslogeni graves is its geographical position and the date indicated by the sword. The presence of a sword that belonged to a small category of people, namely an individual with high social status, confers distinction to this Late Bronze Age deceased person at Medgidia. Such burials, together with the diffusion of the fashion of wearing such “Mycenaean” weapons might have been connected to distance or commercial exchanges in which the efforts to discover new sources of metal might, in their turn, have played an important role. The presence of such a grave in the Coslogeni area would plead for the relationship of the find in question to long-distance exchange without, consequently, offering to the deceased individual buried at Medgidia the Coslogeni citizenship. It is more than obvious that the archaeological documentation we have at our disposal today is utterly insufficient and we must go without even trying to sketch the funerary standard of the Coslogeni group. But since the funerary standard is precisely one of the main elements needed for defining a culture and the rest of the archaeological documentation for this phenomenon comes mainly from “careful” on-site research, we must say that the definition of the Coslogeni “culture” has one clay leg while the second is still missing.... For the Late Bronze Age, the main phenomenon which occupies most of the centre and the entire eastern half of the area in question is the Noua Culture. At the beginning of the 20th century, J. Teutsch presented a number of graves with crouched skeletons, which had by their side cups with two handles, found in the Noua quarter of Braşov. By means of these graves and of further materials characterized by the presence of cups with two handles and a button - Knopfhenkel - I. Nestor outlined a group of finds that he already connected at the time with the east European “zol’niki” (ash-pile) settlements. Later, with the increase of the archaeological documentation, there were further studies that tried to dwell on this issue in depth and outlined what has ended up as today’s Noua culture. The area occupied by the Noua culture characteristically lies on the forest-steppes that extend over a great part of Trans-Carpathian Ukraine, on both banks of the Dniester, in Basarabia especially, reaching across Moldavia and most of Transylvania. The characteristic elements of this culture are the ceramic repertoire dominated by the cup with two handles and a button on their ridge, by settlements which preferred the low-lying regions more fit for herding, apparently as the main habitat of these communities. Yet another characteristic are the so-called “zol’niki”, which have been interpreted as remains of dwellings and appear in groups on the settlements’ surface. There is one more characteristic of this culture’s material finds: the bovine shoulder blades with short nothces on the glenoid cavity - which have been interpreted as instruments with an unspecified function and are specific only for the Noua culture. The importance of metalwork of eastern origin is yet another characteristic of this group. The origin of the Noua culture has only been solved in general. In the specialist circles it is largely acceptable today that

the Noua culture is part of a widespread cultural complex, Noua-Sabatinovka, whose formation from local ancestors was helped by elements of eastern origin, among which components of the Mnogovalikovaja tradition. Without wishing to underplay the elements of eastern origin, M. Florescu and A. C. Florescu consider that, in discussing the origin of the Noua culture, we should focus first on some components/traditions related in particular to the Komarów and Monteoru groups and then consider the Noua communities as overlaying these at a later date. The moment when the Noua communities penetrated in Transylvania and their relation to the Wietenberg culture constitutes another problem for whose solution various proposals have been made. The Noua Culture has been divided by A. C. Florescu into two great stages: Noua I and Noua II, the cultural crystallization and finally established stages respectively, and the full evolution of the group has been assigned by the author to the interval of the 14th to 12th centuries BC. A similar periodization has been proposed by G. I. Smirnova, who used her own research at Mahala and the analyses of some Noua monuments in Basarabia. Of late, under the pressure of the increase in archaeological documentation, some working-hypotheses have been re-examined and one of the most important changes is the modification of the absolute Noua chronology. Although he considers that the 14C data at Mahala and Sighişoara are “ridiculously high”, A. Vulpe asserts that the beginnings or premises of the Noua phenomenon should be in the 15th century BC. Yet another similar reconsideration is E. Sava’s recent indication of an earlier date for the beginnings of the Noua culture, which he places in the interval Reinecke BzC-BzD or, in terms of B. Hänsel periodization, in the interval MDII-SDII, or in the absolute chronology interval between the 15th and 13th centuries BC. When considering the 14C data from Mahala, Sighişoara, for an object with Wietenberg and Noua materials, and the newer data from Crasnaleuca, we must accept at least the 16th century BC for the beginning of the Noua culture. The end of the culture is quite clearly observable in the middle of the 13th or the 12th century BC, being marked by the penetration into Noua of some cultural groups without local antecedents, which belonged to the great Early Iron Age complex with grooved ceramic. The funerary monuments of the Noua culture are extremely numerous (see the list in Chapter 10.2). For the space in question we know 144 such finds, which are spread approximately uniformly across the distribution of the group, from the middle Dniester basin to the Western Carpathians, the westernmost Noua funerary find being that with ceramic material believed to come from a grave at Şoimuş and the southernmost being apparently represented by two inhumation cemeteries with “Noua pottery of the Tei tradition”, which probably belong to a cemetery and have been found in the area of Ştefan cel Mare, on the lower course of the river Buzău. I am in agreement with the point of view expressed by M. Florescu and A. C. Florescu and have considered the Balinteşti-Cionagi, Căbeşti and Săbaoani cemeteries as belonging to the Noua culture, by comparison with other points of view which included them among the Monteoru culture monuments. Outside of the area in

106

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

question, we can note as further funerary finds the cemeteries at Bovšiv and Ostrivec, in the Ukraine, on the upper course of the Dniester and another four finds in east Basarabia, at Cobâlnea, Ghindeşti, Petruşeni and Vladimirovca. The documentary basis seems pretty solid at first sight, but when examining the character of the research we notice that of the 144 Noua mortuary finds over one half, i.e. 78 (54.17%) are fortuitous, another 14 (9.72%) come from surface surveys which are more or less certain. Thirty-nine (27.08%) finds have been researched by systematic excavations, another 8 (5.55%) by salvage excavations, and the research of yet another 5 (3.48%) has been extremely partial, consisting of limited surveys. One further limitation comes from the examination of these finds’ context. Thus, we know 33 (22.91%) cemeteries, 38 (26.39%) groups of graves, which actually ought to be widespread cemeteries, but they have been only partially excavated, and to them are added 37 (25.70%) isolated and completely unspecified graves, as well as 36 (25%) cases where some ceramic elements, which in general have been fortuitously found a long time ago, have been interpreted as being remains of Noua graves in view of the frequency of such situations in Transylvania. I would like to stress the numerous Noua funerary monuments put into circulation recently by means of reports and special purpose studies, which have been instrumental in creating a pretty good documentary basis. But not all these communications have been made professionally enough, since there are many cases of missing plans and layout drawings - for example at Căbeşti and Săbăoani in Moldova, at Cluj in Transylvania - and some structural elements, especially those of cremation graves, for example, have been presented grosso modo. Noua funerary practices have recently been studied by Eugen Sava, who has discussed most of the finds of this kind, some of them lesser known Basarabian finds, and has mentioned those of Trans-Carpathian Ukraine. Although very complete and employing a new methodology, E. Sava’s study lays too much stress on the evolution of culture in its chronological stages, and tries to isolate the funerary finds from this point of view, because he wants to remain consistent with the perspective adopted at the beginning of his analysis of the mortuary objects. He also overrates the eastern factors’ contribution to the genesis of the culture, the author in question paying too much attention to ceramic repertoire, which is quite non-descript anyway, so that he ends up “charging” his analysis too much. But the typological details established for the pottery types do not correspond to the specifications of the ritual elements - and I have in mind the orientation of the skeletons, mainly -, which has made the resulting outline of the Noua funerary standard incomplete. E. Sava has also retained the cultural attribution of the cemeteries at Balinteşti-Cionagi and Căbeşti as being Monteoru but has not retained it for the cemetery at Săbăoani, which may impair his conclusions. The most important Noua funerary monuments in view of the number of mortuary contexts found are the cemeteries at Truşeşti, with 129 burials, Pererîta, with 101 burials, Chirileni, with 46 burials, Cluj, with 45 burials, Crasnaleuca,

with 43 burials, Burlăneşti, with 41 burials, Balinteşti-Cioinagi, with 38 burials, Bădragii Vechi, with 38 burials, Doina, with 35 burials, Moreşti, with 24 burials and Archiud, with another 27. There are other known Noua cemeteries, either little excavated, as for example at Teiuş, in Transylvania, and in Moldova at Căbeşti and Săbăoani, or only identified by surface surveys, which decreases their value by and large. The same is true for the isolated graves, which are quite often mentioned without details about the layout and even inventory, and therefore can only be used for charting the Noua mortuary finds. Since, judging by the number of burials, the funerary precincts have not been exhaustively researched in the first two mentioned Noua cemeteries either, it stands to reason that in each of the other cases, which have more than half of the number of funerary contexts identified in the former cemeteries, we must consider that even in the latter cases we have to do with widespread cemeteries with several graves. This observation emphasizes the limited amount of data we have had at our disposal in contrast with the full archaeological potential of the group in question. One separate issue is that of the “cemeteries” identified by their ceramic material, which constituted fortuitous finds and have been interpreted as graves rather hastily. We must show the great number of such finds to be dubious enough in so far as they have led to a considerable and in fact doubtful number of Noua funerary finds by comparison with other contemporary cultural groups. It can be noticed that the majority of such Noua funerary finds are in Transylvania, which is likely to modify the general picture of the Noua burials chorological, too. Other funerary finds are known across the Noua area (see the list), but they are isolated or doubtful graves that cannot add much to the discussion of the funerary practices of this group. We can sketch a funerary standard for the Noua culture only by reference to the great funerary sites and especially those researched in the best ways, which can shed light upon the elements of this standard. But before we get down to outlining this standard we must underline the incomplete character of the archaeological documentation available, even though at first sight it is more than impressive. First, none of the cemeteries can be considered completely researched, which has implications upon the way we can examine their organization. On the other hand, the cases where the settlement and the corresponding cemeteries have been concomitantly researched are rare, and wherever there have been attempts to study them in this way they have not succeeded to bring to light data which could indicate the relationship between the habitation and the funerary zone. Thus we must content ourselves with recording the inconsequential observations that the settlements lay on the same terrace or in the same area as the cemeteries, even though this location was very natural and to be expected. Things become more complicated when there are one or two settlements identified near cemeteries, for example at Truşeşti and Iaşi, where a trial dig of 1964 has revealed two inhumation graves at Dealul Galata, attesting the existence of a cemetery in whose immediate vicinity there are traces of Noua habitation. If this case is real, we

107

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu might have mortuary contexts common to several settlements in the surrounding area. One clue to this may come from the clearer situation at Truşeşti, where a great number of graves and traces of surrounding Noua settlements have been found. On the other hand, it is again at Truşeşti, in the settlement of the point known as Movila din şesul Jijiei, that the two graves mentioned have been found, which should, again, indicate the existence of two distinct and contemporary funerary zones, one exterior and wider, and the other interior, with a limited number of burials. The situation is somehow singular, for, although there are other known cases of isolated graves, at Gârbovăţ, for example, or in some Basarabian settlements, we do not know whether cemeteries of various sizes have been identified or not in their vicinity and this does not permit us to seriously consider the find in question. The often summary ways in which the Noua settlements have been researched is another evident shortcoming, which causes the habitat of this culture to be still actually only superficially known, one example being that of the discussions in contradictory about the so-called “zol’niki”. The one thing to consider valid in this connection is that just as in other Bronze Age groups, the funerary precincts - cemeteries - of the Noua group and the settlements were not distant from each other and constituted for some communities bio-social units in whose precincts daily life activities merged with the funerary ceremony. In a number of cemeteries - Balinteşti-Cioinagi, Bădragii Vechi-Stânca, Burlăneşti, Pererîta and, of course, Truşeşti - which have a larger number of graves, it has been possible to make examinations by statistical and spatial procedures, while other Noua funerary sites have not permitted this method of examination because of the small number of graves researched. Though we cannot speak of exhaustive research in any of the five cemeteries mentioned, the results of the Dirichlet-Voronoi-Theissen and Delaunay triangulations, together with the associated statistics, indicate that the funerary precinct has always appeared to be covered with graves regularly, which has not permitted us to distinguish groups. We should stress that we have used the two procedures planimetrically only because the funerary structure elements or the inventory elements vary too little and, in addition, some research deficiencies do not permit a detailed bi-dimensional presentation by following any further criteria. Therefore we have indicated the tendency of cemeteries to adopt such an organization with burials laid out at equal distances. The situation at Săbăoani seems to constitute an exception, because here two distinct groups of graves have been found. However, since this little cemetery can be clearly seen not to have been completely researched, the observation is provisional and it should be subject to corrections if further research is undertaken. The existence of double cemeteries is far from indicating the “succession of the burial stages” and the lack of signs for the graves goes to prove that the kinship relations were reflected in the mortuary ceremony, which allows us to presuppose that there existed family plots which are hard to tell apart owing to the scarcity of the archaeological expression. This could indicate that in the Noua mortuary ceremony the

integration to the community as a whole was in focus rather than the attachment to certain social segments or sub-units. The general appearance of the Noua cemeteries indicates that they were flat-grave, with exceptions recorded in Basarabia, at Bădragii Vechi, Burlăneşti, Chirileni and Pererîta, in cases where at least some of the Noua graves have been found in barrows. In fact at Bădragii Vechi, Burlăneşti and Pererîta only part of the graves are on an older barrow and the rest of the burials are in flat graves. At Pererîta, anyway, it is possible to identify the graves dug in the barrow rather than eccentric by means of some elements of the structure - especially the depth – or of some inventory elements. At Burlăneşti it is more difficult to make such a distinction, especially as some graves with special structures occupy positions outside the barrow. At Chirileni we have to do with barrow burials only apparently, as they are burials on older barrows but as regards the barrow itself we have a funerary precinct that includes both graves laid on the barrow and flat graves, in an eccentric position in respect to the funerary mound and this points to a funerary practice similar to the cases at Pererîta and Burlăneşti. The fact that some of the Noua graves have been found on older barrows is not sufficient to characterize the burials of this group as barrow graves proper because if barrow burials were to act as an element of the Noua funerary standard, it ought to have been encountered in other parts of the distinctive area. I rather think we have to do with a reminiscence of the mortuary practices, which has been taken over from the preceding cultural groups, in the case of the Noua culture from Mnogovalikovaja, or else this is a case of “borrowing” from the contemporary Sabatinovka communities, which had this characteristic practice. This “reminiscence” is expressed by the use of barrows as a funerary precinct for some graves, which must have belonged to groups with a differing social status for whom the respective practice represented a custom. The custom of placing graves on older funerary barrows is especially attested in northern Basarabia in the localities already mentioned. A similar situation has been recorded, however, in northern Moldavia, at Holboca, where the small number of graves reduces the value of the observations. To the north of the same province, at Cotârgaci, a burial on a barrow is known and attributed to the Noua culture, namely in the grave on Barrow 2, which has an oval pit that contained a mature skeleton crouched on the left, oriented N-S and having a vessel at the back of the skull. The cultural attribution of this grave has taken into consideration in the first place the vessel, whose parallel is to be found in a barrow grave at Galaţi-cartierul Dunărea, and in the second place the position of the skeleton. The arguments for this attribution are rather “thin”, which has prompted our rejection of this grave. Cremation, which is not frequent, appears for the Noua group, just as for the Monteoru group, which precedes it in the wider Moldavian expanse, as a secondary and adjacent funerary rite. I think that the small number of cremation graves in the Noua cemeteries cannot support the biritualist interpretation, and I also think we should replace it by the accepted secondary rite as a term that reflects

108

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

more faithfully the percentage or proportion of inhumation against cremation. The charts of the cremation graves indicate their rather higher concentration in the area east of the Oriental Carpathians, where two groups can be distinguished, one in the middle Siret basin and the other to the north of the province and reaching to the left bank of the Prut. In Transylvania, the few cases are scattered. When defined chorological, the situation is doubtlessly incomplete and future research will surely fill the gaps. Nevertheless, the two groups east of the Oriental Carpathians seem to reveal that the custom of cremating the dead was adopted by the Noua communities either from Monteoru, in the case of those in the middle Siret basin, or from the Komarów-Costişa group for those of the northern province sites. I think it is worth emphasizing that the Noua cremation graves of the middle Siret basin occupy an area where the greater number of Wietenberg influences is known to have existed at the time of the Monteoru group, which might indicate the older origin of this funerary practice only for the Noua communities. The Noua cremation graves are not typologically various - most of them being cinerary urn-graves, with rare adjacent vessels and fewer being cremation pit-graves, and the vessels used as urns belong to the specific Noua repertoire. There are no cremation grave groups in the cemeteries researched, which may well explain the fact that the deceased given this treatment did not stand out in the community as a group apart, since the cremation practice had been borrowed in the funerary ceremonial. E. Sava expresses a different point of view and considers that in view of the typological characteristics of the vessels used as urns in some of the cremation graves in the Noua cemeteries some cremation graves found in Noua cemeteries represent foreign elements, especially in the two cremation cemeteries at Archiud, both of which have the cinerary remains in stone slab cists. But the separation of the cremation graves that have stone slab cists as proposed by Sava is not justified, since cists have also been found with inhumation graves and they represent interior structures common to both rites. This goes to prove once again, if it need be proved at all, the coexistence of the two practices as elements of the Noua cultural standard. It is true that the urn-vessel in grave 65 at Archiud does not belong to the Noua ceramic repertoire, but this does not mean much, given the known long-distance exchanges characteristic for the Bronze Age, and not only. The discussion of the vessels used as urns at Săbăoani, Căbeşti and Balinteşti-Cioinagi is simplified if we take into account that the three cemeteries belong to the Noua group, as shown before, namely to a beginning stage of this culture characterized precisely by the fact that it still retained the Monteoru and Komarów ceramic traditions. No matter how “sophisticated” the pottery typology analyses are in order to establish whether or not cremation graves are a foreign element in the Noua group, they cannot lead to any concrete results, firstly because most typologies of this kind are wrong in paying autistically much attention to one settlement in exclusivity, and secondly because they end up “defining” numberless types, variants and sub-variants, which are very often represented by one or two exemplary elements, whose effect is that they dilute the information until it disappears,

since it is a known fact that whatever happens once is a good as what never happens! Although not many, there are some cases of interior structures recorded in Noua burials. Some are stone structures, which could not be specified, because there are many Noua graves with stones, but it was not possible to specify whether they were instances of the so-called Steinpackung or stones deposited in the graves. The clearer cases are those where slab cists made of sandstone or other kinds of rock have been found in graves, but such funerary objects are infrequent, being attested only at Bădragii Vechi and Burlăneşti, in Basarabia and Archiud, Jigodin (?) and Moreşti in Transylvania. One particular case is that of grave 22 at Burlăneşti, where the two skeletons had been laid in the middle of a ring of stones. Chorological examined these types of funerary structures appear in two pretty distinct zones, in northern Basarabia and central Transylvania. We can deduce the origin of the stone structures in the Noua graves of Basarabia to be in the Komarów context, where such structures - stone slab cists especially - are known, or perhaps in Mnogovalikovaja, Srubnaja or Sabatinovka, as Sava was tempted to demonstrate. The connection with the Monteoru cists is less plausible, because, on the one hand, cists are missing from the southern part of the Noua area and, on the other hand, the practice of using stone slab cists, usually for multiple burials, disappears during the stage Ic2 of the Monteoru culture, which means it has no links with the Noua group. It is more difficult to find an anterior tradition in Transylvania. Although the attribution of grave 92 to the Noua cemetery at Moreşti is certain owing to its position and its inventory, the situation at Archiud is different, because here both cist graves have been found at a distance from the funerary area occupied by the rest of the graves and the urn in grave 65 does not belong to the Noua repertoire. As regards the cist grave at Jigodin, we only have at our disposal a mention about it, which cannot be used in this discussion. No such structures are known in Wietenberg, and the cists found in Transylvania are much older, which means in this case we cannot discern the continuation of a local tradition. Consequently the stone cists at Archiud, Jigodin and Moreşti are the expression of a fashion which penetrated from the north-east. However, I still think that it is worth noting that the presence of stone structures of the cist or ring kind should not be seen as doubled by an ethnic presence, but rather as a borrowed funerary ceremonial element whose role is to emphasize the social status of some deceased, which is also indicated by the more consistent inventories, for example at Archiud grave 58, Jigodin, Moreşti grave 92, Teiuş-Sub drum grave 1 -, and constitutes a rarer presence in the Noua context. It has not always been possible to observe the shapes of the pits in Noua cemeteries. So far, pits have been rectangular - at Bădragii Vechi, Chirileni, Costeşti, Crasnaleuca, Pererîta, Târnava, Teiuş and Truşeşti - or oval - at Brăeşti, Chirileni, Costeşti, Crasnaleuca, Pererîta and Truşeşti. As resulting from the cases at Brăeşti, Chirileni, Costeşti, Crasnaleuca, Pererîta and Truşeşti, both kinds of pits have been used in the same cemeteries. Before we go on to examine this fact, we should show that the specification of the pit form has often been a matter of the impression held by the authors of the

109

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu excavations and this information can, therefore, be subjective. Also, the research conditions have been such as to prevent archaeologists from exactly observing the form of the pits, which means that the data available only reflect the real situation partially, as we can notice at Pererîta, for example, where the shape of 27 pits could be observed, or at Truşeşti, where this has only been possible for 4 pits. Under the circumstances, archaeological determinations cannot be of much help either in indicating whether pit shapes are linked or not with the sex or age groups. Neither have we been able to observe a difference between the cemeteries with rectangular and those with oval pits. One exception is at Chirileni, mound 4/grave 8, with a rectangular stepped pit covered with wooden beams. Inside a skeleton has been found lying sharply crouched on its left and oriented SE, with a biconical vessel abreast of the trunk. Such a funerary structure has not been documented in any other Noua cemetery and the vessel does not have a shape frequently encountered in the repertoire of this group. According to E. Sava, the grave might belong to Mnogovalikovaja. One other exceptional element in a Noua grave is a mat made of some kind of organic material, which has been found in grave 1 at Burlăneşti, just as uncommon as the river-bed stone at the bottom of the pit of grave 5 at Crasnaleuca. The depths of the funerary pits should have provided further clues for defining one more element of the Noua funerary structures. But the fact that most of the Noua cemeteries have not been exhaustively researched, and in some cases the research has used curious methods for the depth measurements, to say the least, - in the cemeteries at Burlăneşti and Chirileni, for example - drastically reduces the value of this information. It goes without saying that there is a degree of conventionality in pre-established depth stages, which forces us to have reservations about the conclusions, but the procedure remains in the frame of the general statistical approaches, and as such it cannot be left aside. It is obvious that in almost every cemetery discussed here there have been cases of graves with very deep pits, at one extreme, and graves with shallow pits, at the other extreme. This cannot be a matter of mere chance, and in order to understand its potential significance, it should be analyzed statistically and, moreover, in relation with other elements of the funerary structure. Unfortunately, the anthropological determinations we have do not satisfactorily cover the archaeological data and therefore one of the most important criteria for the analysis is reduced from the start. The best case in question comes from the cemetery at Truşeşti, where the pit depths established by three pre-established stages seem to reveal the central position of the groups of graves with deeper pits. At first sight there would seem to be a contradiction between these groups and the fact that the statistical spatial analysis has not indicated them. The two statistical procedures have revealed some regularity in the distances between graves, which does not leave out of the question the potential existence of funerary plots. This is probably the very reason why they were less visible in planimetric view, though there must have existed graves for which the effort, and, consequently, the expense of social energy was greater, most probably, to match the social status of

particular deceased persons. One indication of this may be the great number of men’s graves with deep pits and some graves with more unusual inventories. A similar situation seems to exist at Bădragii Vechi, where the special inventories belong to the deep graves especially. At Pererîta, the graves located on barrows occupied a place apart within the entire cemetery, had the deepest pits, and sometimes unusual inventory elements have been found in precisely the same graves. Judging the frequency of stone elements in conjunction with the position on the barrow or outside it, and with the statistical distribution of the pit depths, in the Noua cemeteries we can discern the probable existence of some burials for which more than the considerable effort was spent in digging those pits whose vertical dimensions prove exceptional; in addition, those who dug the pits took the trouble to lay them out in a particular area, which also goes to prove the considerable expense of social energy determined by certain ceremonial privileges. There are very few such burials and they are hard to discern because, on the other hand, Noua cemeteries stand out through their “regular” organization and seem to correspond, therefore, to communities characterized by an egalitarianism of sorts, devoid of strong social competitiveness among their individuals and interested, rather, in affirming their common social identity postmortem. The practice of “discerning” the varying degrees of crouching in the skeletons of the prehistoric inhumation graves is entrenched among archaeologists at present. We have noted somewhere else that methodological precision in this respect leads, more often than not, to absurd situations. If we were to appreciate precisely the degree of crouching - strongly, moderately or loosely - of the skeleton, there should first be some objective criteria, which are hard to observe during excavations, especially if we have to do with graves whose state of preservation is precarious. I do not doubt all the observations about the crouching degree, but I note the fact that some researchers have made different observations than others, which is why what we have to go by are lots of data, often contradictory. Consequently, the categories established by the degree of crouching are utterly conventional and, as such, of little use, all the more so as the anthropological determinations are too few to prove relevant from this point of view. Anyway, from what we have at our disposal, the degree of crouching does not seem to have been related to the sex or age groups. The layout of the corpses on their right or left side in those graves where we have managed to specify the position of the skeletons does not reveal any overriding tendency and, as a whole, the cases noted are numerically balanced. There are cemeteries, as a rule with few graves, in which the skeletons on one or the other side seem to predominate, but this impression is only apparent since the research is incomplete. Not even in the anthropologically diagnosed graves have we noticed distinctions in view of skeleton positions. But their position, when laid on one or the other side, cannot be a matter of chance, as some researchers naively believed. There are enough cases of burials with skeletons lying “face to face” or “back to back”, just as there are graves with skeletons lying on the same

110

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

side. Since there is no way of archaeologically proving the relationship with the sex groups, we must consider another set of criteria, and the kinship system explanation is the most probable. Some clarifications can come when analyzing the corpse “orientation” practices. We have noticed in many cases that it is possible to discern groups of graves with opposed orientations that seem to suggest a bi-polar and complementary layout rule, which is, however, unrelated with the sex groups. The situation of the Noua burials as a whole is quite clear in the cases that allow us to establish the orientation of the corpses. Three main groups, which are quite balanced numerically, can be established for the graves with skeletons crouched on the left, one predominantly oriented NW, the second more fragmented, with skeletons oriented to the NE - E sector, and the third, with its skeletons oriented SE. In the graves with skeletons crouched on their right there is one numerically greater group whose average dominant orientation is N-W and another less numerous group with skeletons placed in opposition and oriented S-SE. Apart from these, one other group, which has low incidence and is oriented NE-E, can also be isolated and yet another opposed group, with the skulls pointing SW. Indisputably, we are confronted with ceremonial rules which reflect social distinctions in everyday life. We cannot overlook the variations from this rule in the situations specific to one or another cemetery, although we have to do again with incompletely excavated cemeteries. What is in question is which criteria were used at the time of the burials, as the principle of bi-polar and complementary layout is evident when the statistical stock is sufficient, and differences reflect criteria. Should we keep explaining that the orientation of the corpses depended on the sun, this would simply mean acknowledging the idea that in the Noua communities of that time people died in only two seasons of the year and this would be nonplussing ... One way of finding out the layout criteria would be to specify the topographical relation between the settlements and the cemeteries. However, the cases in which both the settlement and the cemetery have been researched are very rare, and we cannot have the certainty of the correspondence between the two sites while, on the other hand, we cannot tell if the layout of the deceased was related to the settlement or not. The variability of the main orientation rule is low, as resulting from the diagrams, and it seems to indicate a general relational system valid over the entire area and belonging to a kind of ceremonial code specific to the Noua group; but we cannot confirm or reject this hypothesis before we have acquired substantial stocks of cases (cemeteries with enough graves), which is not the case as yet. And we should not forget for a moment that we are not in possession of precise data regarding the position of the pretty consistent stock of Noua burials, not to mention the absence of anthropological diagnoses, which might have offered us some clue.... This is why E. Sava’s attempt to outline regional variants by means of the graves’ orientation is insubstantial, all the more so as the analysis is methodologically superficial, being based on only 8 cardinal points. Noua funerary inventories consist of pottery mainly and they stand out through their “poverty” and monotony, remarkable deposits

having been found only in rare cases. The main forms are represented by the cup with two handles - kantharos -, the cup with one handle, the bowl and the bag-shaped vessel, with variants that are usually due to local features and do not change the general picture. E. Sava attempted to provide a “fine” typology for the pottery in the Noua graves and to derive from here a pattern of time differentiation. This laborious enterprise ended in the identification of variants and sub-variants, of which some consist of no more than two or three representative items, or even fewer. This is true about variants IB1, with only 4 items, IB4, with 3 items found only at Burlăneşti and Pererîta, IC3 with 3 items, only from Doina, ID 3 with 3 items, IIB2 with 2 items, only from Pererîta, IIB3 with 3 items, again only from Pererîta, IIC1 with 2 items, one of which is doubtful, IID1-D3 with 5 items only from Truşeşti, IIIA1-A3 with 6 items, VIA-C with 5 items, only from Burlăneşti and Pererîta, VIIA-C with 3 items, only from Burlăneşti and Pererîta, again, IXA2 with two items, one doubtful, IXA3 with a single item, IXB2 with only 2 items and Sondervariante XIII, copiously represented by a single item from Pererîta. It is obvious that this “methodological” path does not lead us on firm ground and it is pointless to take into consideration, just as the equally “fine” typology of the decoration. Naturally, a ceramic typology is necessary, but the methodology should consider that not each “variant” and “sub-variant” is significant, especially if it consists of percentages lower than 10%, while it is obligatory for each typology to take into account not only the vessels from cemeteries but also the pottery found in settlements or other funerary objects. They should be complete with clear archaeological circumstances, or else are utterly irrelevant, as is the case with the typology “established” by E. Sava. The vessel types are more important for the study of cemeteries, since they indirectly document the categories of edible substances, liquid or solid, in the graves. These are very rarely present in the Noua culture, which has no special forms to indicate the presence of “exotic” goods in funerary inventories. Not all the Noua burials had ceramic inventories, since of the total 725 graves there are ceramic inventories only for 387 and sherds have been found in another 64 graves. In most graves - 321 - only one vessel has been found, in 54, two vessels and in very few cases, 4 or 5 vessels. The few many graves with more than 2 vessels have other outstanding elements, either inventory items or funerary layout structures, which means that the deposits of more vessels were indicative of postmortem privileges. As regards the uses of recipients for the Noua burials, it is obvious that some forms - for example the cups with one or two handles -, which were destined for liquids exclusively or symbolized their presence, were more frequent, while other forms - bowls for example -, which indicated solid food, were less frequent. In the absence of organic remains to give us concrete clues after being accurately analyzed we are obliged to limit ourselves to making more or less justified hypotheses, especially if we take into consideration the relatively high frequency of jar-vessels or bag-shaped vessels, which could be used with the two

111

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu functions shown above but also, albeit no very frequently, as cinerary urns. We cannot observe differences of sex or age groups in the ceramic inventories of the Noua burials but we must express reservations in this respect, given the small number of graves with anthropological diagnoses. Neither can we see a difference in the manner of laying vessels by the side of the corpses which lay on their right or their left. As a rule, vessels have been found placed in front of the corpses, with insignificant differences between the corpses laid on their right and those laid on their left. The most frequent position was in front of the skull, i.e. of the face. Vessels are placed behind the corpses sensibly less frequently, with most of the vessels deposited near the skull at the back of the head, indicating the placing of vessels abreast of the skull as the ritual rule. The small number of cases with vessels deposited at the feet indicates that they are insignificant deviations from the ritual. Food oblations have been indicated in only 25 cases, by animal bones found in Noua graves. Again, we must note the absence of anthropological determinations that would enable us to see the relation of these deposits with the sex and age groups or of the palaeontological determinations that would permit us to verify the extent to which one rather than another animal species was “preferred” in these practices. Mention must be made of the four cases of deposits from which the shoulder blade and ribs have been preserved, which can indicate the part of the animal body ritually deposited in the grave. Another thing to emphasize again is that ceramic inventories are missing in only 6 of all these cases. The apparently infrequent finds of animal bones in funerary objects is surprising, given the well known frequency of such remains in Noua settlements, little though the latter may have been researched so far. Metal tools - two awls, stone tools - curved stone knives, and bone tools appear only very incidentally, and the number of graves with such finds, which is drastically limited, is incompatible with a detailed discussion. The number of Noua graves with finds of dress items made of metal is extremely small. There are only 20 sure cases, only two with anthropological determinations which would enable us to see if their presence was linked with the sex or the age of the deceased. In view of the most frequent items - pins, bracelets, lock rings - these graves may have belonged to women. I think it is worth noting that of these 20 cases only four have no ceramic inventories and in some of these vessels are present in great numbers – at Moreşti in grave 92, with two bracelets and 4 vessels, at Teiuş - Sub drum grave 1, with one lock ring and 4 vessels once again -, which shows that wherever burials have dress items made of metal we have to do with persons who enjoyed a special social status and whose ceremonial was more sophisticated, as also proved by the graves with both dress items and deeper pits. The same seems to be true in the few graves with dress items - lock rings - made of gold. Weapons are completely missing from the Noua graves, and the case cited by E. Sava at Pererîta cannot be taken into consideration. The situation is somewhat strange, for we cannot speak of the absence of dress items made of metal and weapons made of copper or bronze in the Noua area. Such objects are known either in settlements or,

weapons especially, in hoards, where they are frequent enough. The comparison with the Monteoru burials, which preceded those of the Noua type on one side of the area, reveals some similarities as well as some differences. The absence of weapons in mortuary context seems to be a common characteristic for the two groups, whereas the practice of expressing the status of women - by dress items of all kinds, including metal ones - is much more pronounced in the Monteoru communities, while in the Noua communities it is a very insubstantial presence. The overview of the Noua culture mortuary practices allows us to identify a number of components of the funerary structure and the proportion of the two main rites, which give prominence to the “phylogenic” relation of the Monteoru and Komarów groups as ancestors of the Noua culture and at the same time leaves behind the much fewer elements supportive of an “eastern” contribution in the formation of this culture. There are elements which can support “borrowings” from Mnogovalikovaja, whose area is occupied in its former western sector by the Noua culture, and the same is true for Sabatinovka. But what primarily gives distinction to the Noua funerary contexts, in comparison with the rest of the contemporary cultural setting, is the fact that so little attention is paid to the individual identity of the deceased in the mortuary ceremony - which is reflected by the meager archaeological expression reserved for each grave while emphasizing instead their belonging to the community. This tendency is traceable in the extremely irrelevant organization of the cemeteries, which do not have distinct quarters indicative of a preoccupation for ritually reflecting the social sub-units to which the deceased belonged. I think we can account for this “monotony” of the funerary precincts in terms of the importance attached, instead, to vigorously signaling the identity of the community or social unit to which the deceased belonged at the expense of their belonging to any social sub-units/clans or families, and I also think this reflects an egalitarianism of sorts, in its turn dependent upon the subsistence techniques, in which the much clamored transhumance will have had a part to play... But after all it may be possible to speak of a daily confrontation of the Basarabian Noua “culture-bearers” with the ukrainian “bearers” of the Sabatinovka culture, which might provide an explanation for the situation at Chirileni, and not only there ... If the Noua communities coexisted with the Wietenberg ones in Transylvania, as it stands to reason they did, then we should consider that, whatever the relations of the two groups, each group’s funerary practices retained their individuality. Even though the Noua graves as a whole seem less expressive from the archaeological point of view, the funerary standard of the group, as it can be described, can successfully serve to define the Noua culture. This is a demonstrable gain, while it barely serves for establishing an internal periodization of the group. The Noua funerary practices are not sensitive to the passage of time, as will have been the case for communities bent on preserving their tradition at all costs, for whom this meant the need to enforce their collective identity and was consequently a condition for surviving with all their moments of joy, with the constellation of

112

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

their hopes and ready to bear their own misfortunes.... Relatively recently defined, the Sabatinovka group represents a vast complex of finds which are unitary enough thanks to a series of elements related to the type of habitat, the material content and, last but not least, to the mortuary practices, and it also represents a Late Bronze Age archaeological group. The area occupied by the Sabatinovka culture is quite widespread and comprises especially the north-Pontic steppe zones, reaching to southern Basarabia and to Bugeac, where it is very representative. Although there are numerous funerary sites that belong to the Sabatinovka culture, this group remains a peripheral archaeological manifestation for the area studied here and it is not too important for the cultural evolution of the other parts of this area. The understanding of the Sabatinovka culture and of its role in respect to the Late Bronze in the lower Danube basin can be said to stop short when confronted by the theoretical positions or paradigms that ground the explanations about the origin, content or end of this culture. Largely, as already asserted, the Sabatinovka group is a continuation of the Srubnaja group with ascertained eastern origins. It is hard to say to what extent this group’s relation with the immediately neighboring groups in the area west of the river Prut led to reciprocal content modifications, given the evident eastern filiations of the Sabatinovka group. The idea of a conglomerate of the Noua and Sabatinovka groups, and even of the Coslogeni “culture” to create a large complex – the Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni complex -, is not justified on close examination. Firstly, because the crystallization of the Noua culture occurred against completely different earlier backgrounds and it happened in areas that differed a lot from those that the Sabatinovka culture overlapped or originated from, and so far as the definition of the Coslogeni “culture” is concerned, it rests, as noted, almost exclusively on research at the surface, which may be enthusiastic but remains superficial rather than originating in systematic observations of settlements and funerary contexts. At the same time, the inclusion of the Coslogeni “culture” in a thoroughly documented phenomenon of the northern Pontic steppes would consequently involve an artificial extension of a phenomenon which stems from pre-existing archaeological realities of the lower Dnieper basin, but also of the lower Don basin, and even of the Volga, in other words has roots that are quite incompatible with the archaeological background of the lower Danube basin. There must have existed contacts between the Sabatinovka group and the neighboring western ones but their consequences, which are not easy to specify, have not affected the individuality of any of the concerned parties, so that a merger in the above sense offers the doubtful benefits of all judgments that are merely simplistic, rudimentary! From the point of view of absolute chronology specialists generally incline to date this culture rather late, although there are other opinions that date the beginnings of the group to the 16th and 15th centuries BC. Today we have four 14C data for the settlements at Iličevsk, in Trans-Carpathian Ukraine and Usovo Ozero, in the lower Dnieper basin. Another, not completely indirect, indication

for an earlier dating of the Sabatinovka complex is provided by the series of 14C data of samples from the barrow cemetery at Hordeevka, where the oldest graves have been attributed to the Černoles-Belozerka group. There are six radiocarbon dates for the mortuary contexts of Hordeevka which indicate the interval 1500-1000 BC. Taking into account the contemporaneity, which is partial, with the Noua group, we can consider pretty plausibly the evolution of the Sabatinovka culture in the interval that begins with the 16th and ends with the 14th and 13th centuries BC. The greater part of the documentation for the Sabatinovka culture comes from funerary finds but there are some settlement finds, too. The numerous burials available today are impressive and they serve as a basis for specifying the Sabatinovka funerary standard quite thoroughly by comparison with the groups lying to the west of this group. In the study area we know of 32 funerary finds which have been attributed more or less clearly to the Sabatinovka group (See the list in Chapter 10.3). As was to be expected, in respect to the area in question, all the Sabatinovka funerary finds are either in Bugeac, or, fewer, in southern Basarabia, bordering on the Noua group to the north. There is only one exception, at Ploieşti-Triaj, which lies very eccentrically west in respect to the mass of other finds. Even if it were only for its chorologic position, the find at Ploieşti is doubtful. We should also note that the Sabatinovka burials, which occupy the area of the previous Yamnaya, Kakatombnaja and Mnogovalikovaja groups in succession, seems to indicate a certain continuity of the mortuary practices in the respective regions, as shown by their chorologic position, especially when considering certain funerary structure elements, and even the continuity of the standard itself, with only minor, often unsubstantial modifications. Some of the burials at Chirileni, which have been attributed to the Noua culture but occupied places on funerary mounds, might well be incorporated to Sabatinovka, given the fact that the ceramic inventories of these two groups are very similar, but we cannot make a definite attribution. By the same token, some burials on the barrows in northern Dobrudja at Chilia Veche, Luncaviţa and Mihai Bravu, for example, might be connected to the Sabationvka phenomenon, as can some later burials on the barrows north of Galaţi, immediately east of the river Prut, for example at Galaţi-Cartierul Dunărea and Vânători, but here again there are no certified elements for identification. Anyway, the Sabatinovka communities seem not to have reached to the other banks of the rivers Prut and Danube. All these Sabatinovka mortuary finds come from systematic excavations. Unfortunately, the attribution is not always certain, which makes it difficult to establish all the funerary standard elements of the group. But as the Sabatinovka group is marginal in respect to the “core” of the area in question here and has fewer effects upon the neighboring groups, I shall limit myself to making some observations about other specialists’ examinations of the funerary groups that belong to this group. It has been obvious for some time now that the “bearers” of the Sabatinovka group were in the habit of depositing their dead in the earth. The

113

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu predominance of inhumation as the principal funerary rite, as the structural and defining element for the Sabatinovka funerary standard cannot be doubted even if cremation graves have sometimes been found in its distribution area. It is, therefore, hard to say to what extent cremation, as an exceptional occurrence in the Sabatinovka context, can be considered the secondary and adjacent funerary rite or whether, consequently, the whole group can be considered bi-ritual. I think these rare cases could point to foreign presences variously in the communities in question, and therefore the uniformity of the Sabatinovka mortuary rite remains unimpaired. We can conceive of influences coming from the bi-ritual Noua group or even Trzciniec, in the western part of the Sabatinovka distribution, as a result of reciprocal contacts. We would welcome a chorologic examination of the entire area, which could show exactly where the cremation graves are located across the Sabatinovka area, and it could indicate if this perspective supports Šarafutdinova’s assertions about the cremation graves found to the east of this region. There is no available information which would enable us to appreciate the relation between the Sabatinovka settlements and funerary zones. By and large, we can consider the probability of an immediate relationship between these precincts due to their location close to each other. We have no way of telling whether the funerary zones were marked or not. One amendment to the probability that precincts dedicated to burials were situated very close to the settlements comes in the natural logic of things from the custom of using earlier barrows for depositing the dead, since this would mean that settlements had appeared because of these higher earth structures, which is unacceptable. But as we have no exact observations on this subject, the discussion becomes pointless. Sabatinovka burials have been found on earlier barrows and they are never numerous. At Kislica, for example, 7 Sabatinovka burials were discovered. Numerous mortuary objects of the same group have been unearthed at Kurči, where 12 burials are recorded and then another 14 burials have been found in the Nagornoe barrow field. In other localities that occupy the space in question the number of Sabatinovka graves is lesser. Funerary precincts are not large, at first sight anyway, and they most likely correspond to restricted communities, but what is needed is a chorologic examination of the entire Sabatinovka area from this perspective too, so as to see whether this constituted a uniformly spread phenomenon or a regional characteristic of the western area. As regards the funerary structures, the favorite exterior layout is doubtlessly the barrow. But this indicates primarily the location of the funerary objects, which are often secondary graves. As there are a number of “main/primary” Sabatinovka graves in some barrows, we must, nevertheless, take into consideration the propensity of these communities to using the barrow layout, whether they took advantage of earlier barrows, or, if they did not have any such previous mounds, they erected barrows over graves themselves. As regards the category of Sabatinovka principal graves in barrows, in the space in question there are four cases which can be attributed “with a greater degree of

certainty” to the Sabatinovka group - Beloles’e, Borisovka and Kurči - and to them should be added another one which is certainly primary and has the pit dug from the ancient occupation level, at Cârnăţeni, on the Dniester riverbanks. Another seven graves in the same area - Gradeşka, Holmskoe, Nagornoe, Ogorodnoe, Plavni and one at Višnevoe are also principal graves, but their attribution is uncertain. I think we can add to the ascertained Sabatinovka primary graves one more, at Borisovka, which increases the number of cases of this kind and goes to prove that they are not exceptions. The existence of such graves should not be surprising if we come to think of the filiations of the group and the mortuary practices. But we must emphasize that these “main” graves have been considered as such because it has been possible to observe they have mantles “of their own”, as it were, erected on top of older mounds, which increase the height of the pre-existing mound and make them appear in an ulterior position in the funerary sequence of the respective barrows. This is the reason why, at the moment, we know few primary Sabatinovka graves proper, namely with the pit dug in the earth from the ancient occupation level and with a barrow of their own on top. The fact that no mantles of their own have been found for the other Sabatinovka graves may also be due to the use of bulldozers or other heavy machinery which has prevented us from making detailed stratigraphical observations. One special situation seems to be that at Taraclia, where eight Sabatinovka graves have been found beyond the perimeter of the kurgan. This makes the situation appear uncommon, while it is not too clear either, and it marks as hasty the statement that this argues in favor of “the existence of mixed barrow graves and flat graves”. I find equally hasty the comparison of these graves with the Noua cemeteries at Burlăneşti, Chirileni and Pererîta, where most of the graves are beyond the perimeter of the barrows they overlie. One important observation that has been made is that the Sabatinovka burials predominantly occupy the southern sector of the barrows. In the absence of precise data about the topographical relations with the settlement and about the relations among the settlement, the funerary zone and the immediate environment, it is actually too difficult to try an explanation for the significance of the practice. Sabatinovka settlements are far from superficial, as can be seen anyway at Usovo Ozero and Mosolovka. It would have been normal to have widespread funerary areas with numerous burials corresponding, on the one hand, to the internal demographical structure of these communities, and on the other hand, to their respective duration. However, no cemeteries but only groups of graves have been found so far, which are not too big and which lie, scattered to a variable extent, on earlier barrows. This reality might reflect the fragmentation of the social units or communities into sub-units, each of which has its own funerary precinct occupying distinct locations. There is no ample systematic research focused on the associated study of the settlements and their adjacent funerary precinct, which means we have to wait still longer to receive the confirmation or infirmation of this hypothesis. From the methodological perspective of Sava and Agulnikov, internal layout structures –

114

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

funerary constructions, as they are termed by the two authors -, or sepulchral pits, seem to be quite varied. After they very justly draw attention to the fact that of the 662 graves analyzed it has been possible to indicate the pit shape for only a little over one third, - 222 cases (33.5%) -, the two authors enumerate the forms of the “funerary constructions”: oval pits, oval pits with mortuary chambers, stepped oval pits, rectangular pits, stepped rectangular pits, cists. Statistically, these forms are represented by casuistic incidence values, which range from substantial, as is the case for oval pits - 134 cases or circa 20%, respectively - and for rectangular pits - 77 cases or 11.6%, respectively -, or are utterly insignificant, as is the case for the other “forms”, which are statistically inexistent. This is also true for the primary grave Barrow 6/grave 2 at Borisovka, which has its grave dug from the ancient occupation level, with the earth dug out of it observable and has a rectangular cist made on site by using stone slabs, ultimately covered by a slab and wood. On top was erected a – “kuppelförmige, runde Steinlage” - stone mound, whose diameter was of 6 m. Everything was covered by the mantle of the barrow, as resulting from the unpublished profile. A reed mat was found at the bottom of the cist and on it an adult’s skeleton crouched on its left and oriented S-N. The inventory consisted of a globular vessel with two raised handles drawn from the rim and no decorations. It had been placed on a tiny stone slab and a wooden club with flint point - hölzener Schlaggegenstand. We know of cist graves, albeit earlier ones, in the barrows at Bugeac and not only there. But the stratigraphical position of grave K. 6/2 at Borisovka constitutes the argument for a later dating, while the vessel is typically Sabatinovka and has a good parallel at Cârnăţeni in the grave that is, again, primary: K. 1/M. 3. Further stone cist graves, albeit just a few, are known in the area, from the earlier Mnogovalikovaja context, where this practice may well have come from. However, we cannot waive aside the possibility for this practice to be somehow connected with the Kîzîl-Koba milieux of the Crimean Late Bronze Age, in which the stone slab cist tradition is impressively old. If we leave aside the pit types with a low statistical incidence, it becomes clear that in the Sabatinovka funerary standard there are two main types of pits: oval and rectangular, the former being numerically dominant. The authors have not provided a chorologic examination which would have enabled us to show if the two pit types are spread in a uniform or an uneven way. As far as the interior layout elements are concerned, we can also mention the presence of red ochre, of mats made of vegetal material and of chalk dust, all of which represent the incidental continuation of some older traditions, if the graves were proved to belong to the Sabatinovka group for sure. Although it does not belong to the area treated here, the grave at Cârnăţeni deserves special attention, with its pit dug at the ancient occupation level and the dug earth subsequently deposited to one and the other side of the pit. In plan, the pit was rectangular and it had four little pits in the four corners, probably destined for posts, which suggests the existence of a rather more complex wooden structure. The grave was covered with beams whose remains have been preserved. The skeleton lay crouched on the left and

was oriented E-W, as resulting from the published plan, and not SE-NW, as stated in its description and it belonged to an adult, judging by the dimensions (its anthropological diagnosis is missing). The whole structure of the grave resembles that specific to the Srubnaja group, from which some practices will have been borrowed. In their discussion of the corpse layout in Sabatinovka funerary objects, Sava and Agulnikov have dwelt quite insistently, as was actually to be expected, upon the position and orientation. Being apparently aware of the risks involved in proposing an excessive information hierarchism, they confined themselves to establishing three main positions of the corpses, but in direct contradiction with their own assumed sense of precision, they end up exactly by establishing further categories whose casuistic incidence is devoid of statistical value: sharply crouched skeletons are represented by 638 graves (95.5%), moderately crouched skeletons, by only 19 cases (2.7%), and lax, unemphasized crouching, by a single case (0.1%)! They make the same count of the arm positions, by showing the same unhesitating commitment and obtaining equally useless results. As far as the position of the corpses on one or the other side is concerned, skeletons crouched on the left predominate (453 cases, 67.8%) by comparison with those crouched on the right (172 cases, 25.7%). It is known well enough that in most Bronze Age graves which were discovered a long time ago in the former Soviet area have no anthropological determinations and this is also the situation of the Sabatinovka burials. For this reason we cannot stipulate the relationship between the corpse position and the sex and age groups. The orientation of the corpses, another important element of the funerary standard, has been established by the two authors for only eight sectors: NE, E, SE, S, SW, W and NW. This option has been largely prompted by the superficial measurements made during the excavations, and the orientation of the skeletons has been assessed grosso modo. Generally it can be observed that skeletons are predominantly placed with the skulls pointing E, irrespective of their position. Again, unfortunately the absence of anthropological determinations is a drastic limitation when trying to specify the rules for the placement of the deceased in accordance with the sex or age groups. Under the circumstances, with no possibility of making differences based on anthropological diagnoses, the comparisons with the specific Monteoru or Noua groups are utterly pointless, since in both cases it has been possible to specify nuances in the position and orientation in respect to the sex or age groups. One other characteristic of the Sabatinovka funerary standard is the low frequency of furnishing elements in the mortuary complexes. In the stock of 662 graves examined by E. Sava and Agulnikov it can be noticed that funerary inventories have been found in only 200 graves (circa 30%), and in the greater number of cases (in 169, namely 84.5% of the graves with furnishings) they consisted of pottery. The ceramic repertoire of the Sabatinovka burials is limited to 4 main forms: vessels with two handles, the so-called kantharoi, cups with one handle, jar vessels and short biconical vessels. Jar vessels are the most frequent category, followed by cups and vessels with two handles, the

115

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu latter being functionally connected to liquid substances. There is no evidence about the positions in which the vessels have been found, but from the published cases we deduce that they lay generally near the skull. And again, we cannot make differences by the sex or age group. Dress items consist of pendants made of pierced animal teeth, and in a single case - at Kočkovatoe K. 25/M. 3 - in a pierced boar (?) fang. Such dress items, which belonged to necklaces, are, as the two authors rightly emphasize, frequent finds across a widespread area in different Bronze Age contexts, traceable as far back in time as the Globular Amphorae Culture. The presence of dress items made of metal can be assumed by taking into consideration some remains found in a number of graves but we do not have the clear archaeological proof of this. Weapons are represented by five arrow heads made of flint, which were found at Nikolskoe (3 items), Purcari and Răscăieţii Noi. One very uncommon situation is the inventory of the cremation grave K. 3/2 at Borisovka, which stands out not only through its rite and funerary structure, but also owing to its very special inventory. A short sword/Kurzschwert of the Krasnyi Majak type, a circular plate made of bronze and decorated - скрепленный и украшенный бронзовыми заклепками -, a clay vessel and another one made of wood as well as animal bones have been found in the grave’s pit. The short sword is very probably locally manufactured, as we know of moulds for similar items in Basarabia, in Noua and Sabatinovka contexts. The bronze plate, which is probably decorated by the au repoussé technique, has a pattern that somehow resembles the finds in a Srubnaja grave from Baškirija at Novye Jabalakly including, among others; a set of dress items with a complicated decoration consisting of bronze discs decorated au repoussé, with spiral and cruciform motifs. Tools, generally represented by awls made of animal bones, are rather more frequent. The scarcity of Sabatinovka graves with animal bones inside - in 19 cases or 2.9%, cited by the two authors without mentioning the species -, is somewhat surprising, knowing that animal bones are often present in Srubnaja contexts and even in some Mnogovalikovaja graves, though less frequently. Astragals, probably from sheep or goats, which retain the marks of their presumable functionality, cannot be included in the category of “animal bones”. They are present in 9 graves, being placed next to the skulls, which underline their special significance. As a whole, Sabatinovka funerary inventories prove to be poor and monotonous. Sex or age differentiation into groups cannot be made, as already noted. The expression of the social status in the funerary rite is not reflected by inventories, except for the grave at Borisovka K. 3/2, where the short sword and the decorated metal disk, which has been interpreted later as a part of a wooden shield, are the material means for expressing the social prestige of the deceased. The social status of the deceased person at Borisovka is also underlined by the metal disk, which is a dress item in all likelihood. In some cases, as at Cârnăţeni for example, and in the stone cist grave at Borisovka K. 6/2, the complex structure of the entire burial, with a considerable expense of social energy, is again expressive of a high social status. One singular

element is the presence of the wooden vessel, which proves clearly enough that, apart from the cinerary remains gathered from the pyre, there were other objects deposited in graves as well, in the present case, edible substances, most likely. But such funerary objects are rare in the Sabatinovka group. What is more, we do not have a complete image of the Sabatinovka grave groups to be able to ascertain by the planimetric study their position in plan, namely the structure of the entire funerary precincts. From what we know so far, however, funerary precincts seem to have been fragmented in accordance with the social sub-units - clans, families? -, which allowed detecting the burials of the respective leaders and of the persons close to them by following different criteria. Such a structure of the funerary precinct must have corresponded to a habitat based on a subsistence technology imposed by the steppe environment, which encouraged mainly herding, with animals belonging to a particular clan or family. Social competition for prestige seems very discrete when it is traced in the funerary standard of the Sabatinovka group, but becomes more traceable in the presence of weapons in hoards or in singular deposits of metal items characteristic for that particular period, which means that these hoards and deposits successfully compete with burials. The discreteness of the Sabatinovka funerary expression is not surprising. It has antecedents, especially where inventories are concerned, in the Mnogovalikovaja group which preceded it, and in its Noua neighbours. By and large, this is, as dictated by direct archaeological documentation, the main content of the Sabatinovka funerary standard in so far as it is discernible on the little portion of the area treated here. During the ample archaeological research at the end of the 1950s, on a site excavated by a team led by Ion Nestor and conducted in the surroundings of the town Zimnicea, several inhumation graves which belonged to a cemetery dated to the end of the Bronze Age were found. Alexandrina D. Alexandrescu’s publication of this cemetery in 1973 allowed the definition of a Late Bronze archaeological manifestation to which several finds of the northern flood plain of the Danube were subsequently attributed as well as some more finds, of which the most expressive was the vessel hoard at Plovdiv, on the territory of modern Bulgaria. Whereas for the Romanian specialists this manifestation has remained known as Zimnicea-Plovdiv, Bulgarian archaeology also use the designations Asenovec, Nova Zagora and Čerkovna for it; the latest preferred use is “the Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Čerkovna culture/group”. In addition to the not very many localities in the Romanian zone immediately north of the Danube which have yielded, albeit in not very clear conditions, ceramic materials attributed to this group, the area of the culture is marked by several finds which are strewn along the right bank of the Danube and whose archaeological condition is equally uncertain, and it is marked by some finds which occupy the region south of the Stara Planina Mountains, such as those at Atia, Nova Zagora, Plovdiv, Razkopanica and Batak, where the area reaches as far as the northern slopes of the Rhodopi range. The content of the culture has been specified

116

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

mostly by reference to the ceramic material, many of the issues regarding the habitat, the relationships with the neighboring groups being as yet insufficiently known. The origin of the culture is not clear as yet, although the cups with two raised handles and especially the cups with oblique rims and a single handle allow us to discern the persistence of some well-known ceramic traditions of the Early Bronze Age in the region between the Danube and the Rhodopi Mountains. If we take into consideration the area of the group too, it appears clear enough that it represents an archaeological manifestation of the southern Danube, with some consistent connections to the contemporary finds between the Rhodopi Mountains and the north-Aegean seashore. The Zimnicea-Plovdiv “imports” from Troy, Level VII, which have been so frequently cited, are rather presences of the ceramic groups from the south of the river Marica or from the north-Aegean littoral plain, both of which lie closer to the north-western edge of Anatolia, and they naturally resemble the Čerkovna vessels, but only this. The same is surely very possible as regards the finds at Kastanas and the finds in Greek Macedonia, for example at Akbounar, Čaušitsa, Saratse, Vardarophtsa and even further east, in the cemeteries at Exochi and Potami, to which should be added the ceramic materials at Assiros, to the north of the Chalcis Peninsula, or even Thasos. The chronological position can be assessed firstly through the find at Zimnicea of a cup which is typical for the Gârla Mare culture in grave 41, and then through the further find in grave 17 of another cup with two raised handles and decorated with rhomboid motifs made by successive punching, which is considered specific for the Tei IV phase. I would like to draw attention again to the cup with two handles in grave 11, which belongs to the repertoire of the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group. A find from the settlement at Radovanu, whose ceramic material shows a mixture of the Coslogeni pottery, again includes twin vessels - Zwillingsgefäße – together with vessels with square horizontal crossection in plan, both of which are specifically Bistreţ-Işalniţa forms. We cannot make specifications about the beginning of the group, but the association with Gârla Mare materials at Zimnicea and at Cârna shows that at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, anyway, the Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Čerkovna group already existed. The presumable “Fundeni-Govora” group, which has been dated around 1460-1425/1410 BC by radiocarbon analysis, is an expression of the Zimnicea-Plovdiv culture rather than something separate, and is followed by another stage of the same group in which the penetration of foreign elements can be felt, for example vessels with a square flat-horizontal section, which can be observed at Popeşti and Radovanu. I think this is what is proved also by the remains which have been found in the vicinity of the eponymous cemetery and which appear to be more similar to those at Radovanu, being considered by A. D. Alexandrescu as “peuvant provenir des dernières phases de cultures voisines, Verbicioara et Tei”, in accordance with the documentation available at that time. Yet another chronological indication for the later stage of the group is the rapier blade type A, from northern Bulgaria, which is part of the hoard at Sokol-Dičevo, near Silistra and which must have

belonged to a contemporary group neighboring the Zimnicea-Plovdiv one, for example that of the Radovanu settlement, which is therefore very similar to the milieux of the Late Bronze Age in Transylvania, Noua, most probably, which usually had such blades. We owe the batch of uncertainties regarding the Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Čerkovna group’s evolution largely to the uncertainties in defining the Coslogeni “culture“. If we consent to give up such passepartout explanations as the movements of populations, it seems more logical to admit an evolution of the same archaeological group with two stages. We would then have reason enough to appreciate, at least presumptively, the duration of the Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Čerkovna group from the last period of the Middle Bronze Age to the moment when the early hallstattian grooved ceramic appeared in the valley of the lower Danube from Zimnicea to Silistra to mark the end of the Late Bronze Age in these parts of the world sometime between the 12th and 11th centuries BC. Unfortunately, the way most of the finds in the region to the south of the Danube have been put into circulation is faulty. This is precisely what makes the correct understanding of the relations between the finds south of the Danube and the finds in the region between the Danube and the Stara Planina, those in the Maritza valley or on the northern slopes of the Rhodopi range so difficult. The characterization of a distinct ceramic group connected to the finds on the northern Aegean seashore is to be expected in future, all the more so as, for all the existence of flat-grave cemeteries at Nova Zagora and Malka Detelina, for example, cremation graves in barrows seem to be this group’s characteristic, like at Batak, Borino, Čepelare, Jagodina, Lubča, Satovča, all of which are in the Rhodopi Mountains or in the Maritsa basin at Goljama Detelina and which resemble, through their rite and exterior layout structures, the barrow burials of the Late Bronze Age in the plain of eastern Macedonia. There are rather few mortuary finds attributable to the Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Čerkovna group in the northern Danube zone and as far as the Stara Planina mountains, where materials appear to be more unitary, but the scarcity of the finds prevent us from using them as a solid documentary basis. At the moment we have five funerary contexts from the Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Čerkovna group located in the area treated here (See the List in Chapter 10.4). In view of the great number of burials, the most representative find for the Zimnicea group is still the flat-grave inhumation cemetery in the eponymous locality. We can add to it a few inhumation graves with crouched skeletons found at Izvoru, but in conditions which are insufficiently known. At Remuş we know only that “further to the works connected to the greenhouses constructed in the area, a Bronze Age cemetery which belonged to the bearers of the Zimnicea-Plovdiv culture has been found.” Another cemetery which consists of 12 inhumation graves, unfortunately destroyed, was signaled at Krušovica quite long ago, and for the find at Vassil Levski/Cenino we only have the mention of an inhumation grave. In the actually very widespread area of the Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Čerkovna culture funerary finds are thus rather few and somehow contradictory in their exterior layout, in so

117

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu far as in the southern area there are mainly barrow burials. The overview of the Zimnicea cemetery brings to light a Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Čerkovna funerary standard that differs from the contemporary and immediately adjoining groups north of the Danube. The main characteristic comes from the absence of funerary expression forms that would correspond to the internal differentiation of the community and it is emphasized by the rule of the unitary orientation. The potential differentiation according to the sex groups would reflect the natural, sexual differences, but no other separations can be discerned. The absence of dress items and of weapons could be justified by the corresponding hoards, which do contain these artifacts, for example the hoard at Sokol and, perhaps, the isolated rapier at Jonkovo, as well as the hoards at Oinac, Pobit Kămak, Vărbica, Zelju Voivoda etc., which might suggest that the deposits of weapons and tools had a special regime since they were not deposited in graves but used different means to express the masculine attributes of the fighters, just as in the neighboring groups. The fact that these were not isolated, autarchic communities is proved anyway by the Gârla Mare, Tei and Bistreţ-Işalniţa ceramic material, whose presence demonstrates that these communities participated to exchange of some measure. However, as the cemetery discussed now has not been exhaustively researched and as we do not have any other equally representative Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Čerkovna funerary finds, the funerary standard of this group which has been so sketchily presented here is rather provisional. The Belegiš culture draws its name from the cremation cemetery of the eponymous locality which lies north of Belgrade, not far away on the Danube. Some Romanian authors refer to it by using the term Cruceni-Belegiš, naming it after the cremation cemetery at Cruceni. The finds which can be incorporated in the Belegiš group nowadays have been long known, but their correct attribution has not been possible in the older stages of documentation. The most important of these is the cremation cemetery at Dubovac which has in its precinct both Žuto Brdo and Belegiš graves. The area of the Belegiš culture was widespread in eastern Croatia - Slavonia -, partially in northern Serbia, crossing Vojvodina and the Serbian Banat to reach the Iron Gates (Porţile de Fier) and from here to the modern region of the Romanian Banat, skirting the mountain slopes. In 1939, for the first time a cremation grave was discussed that had been found at the end of the 19th century at Zschornewitz, in Sachsen-Anhalt, in Germany, whose inventory included a biconical vessel, a cup with one raised handle, a pin with a profiled head and a bronze fragment, which brought it as close as can be to the Belegiš culture. This find, which was, naturally, stunning for the German specialists of that time, remained unknown to their Serbian and Romanian opposite numbers, although its importance cannot be set aside. The documentary basis for this group consists again mainly of funerary finds, some of them being large flat-grave cremation cemeteries, sometimes with over one hundred burials, settlements being less known. Of the few researched Belegiš settlements, that at Gomolava is by far the

most important, with its levels IVb-c belonging to the group in question. From the material content of this culture it is possible to deduce relationships with the groups of the Bronze Age in Pannonia, which, in their turn, serve as the basis for understanding the appearance of the Belegiš group. The relation with the Vattina group is also important, as there are Vojvodina settlements attested at Feudvar and in the Romanian Banat region, at Corneşti. The most important relation, however, from the point of view of the present enterprise anyway, is that with the Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare group, since in some views the Belegiš group, which lasted longer, replaced the Gârla Mare group across most of its area, while, in other views, they developed in parallel in different areas. As a whole, the Belegiš group is considered to have evolved in two distinct phases, the first one characterized by pottery with cord-impressed decoration, while the second, is defined by grooved ceramics in which biconical vessels dominate in a kind of ceramic repertoire that announces the early hallstattian complex. In this connection, it seems that the Belegiš culture had an important contribution to the appearance of the archaeological complex of the Iron Age beginnings on a widespread area. The first in question is the Gáva group mainly, which was situated to the north, in the immediate neighborhood and was greatly indebted to the Belegiš group as far as the form and decoration repertoire is concerned. One extension of the Belegiš pottery traditions, upstream of the Danube towards the Romanian Plains, is proved first by the appearance of the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group, which owes most of its pottery to Belegiš, then by the different finds that have been attributed to the so-called Vârtop culture in Oltenia, but also by finds occupying farther locations in Muntenia. Traditionally, the Belegiš culture becomes entrenched at the end of the Middle Bronze Age and its evolution ends after the termination of the Late Bronze Age. Although there are no debates regarding the relative chronology of this period, which is unanimously acknowledged to belong to the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the first Iron Age, as regards absolute chronology recent radiocarbon dating have enabled us at last to circumscribe more narrowly the duration of the Belegiš culture. One first division into stages ordered in absolute chronology terms was attempted by I. Todorović some time ago, especially by using the pottery in the Beograd-Karaburma cemetery. In his opinion, which rests on utterly debatable “historical dates” at present, the Karaburma cemetery had an evolution in 4 phases in the interval 1550-760 BC. In B. Hänsel’s terms, the same cemetery can be dated to the MDII-SDI stages of his chronological system. In Ph. Della Casa’s view, which also used the radiocarbon data at Velika Gruda, the duration of the cemetery at Karaburma can be dated to the interval 1450/1400-1200/1150 BC. In Ch. Pare’s opinion, the first stage of the Cruceni-Belegiš culture is contemporary with the last Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare manifestations and with the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group in the interval 1300-1200 BC, while the second group, which is illustrated by the unpublished cemetery at Bobda, is dated between 1200 and 1100, when the Gârla Mare group was no longer in existence. The 14C data in Level IV

118

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

of the Gomolava settlement is very important, GrN-7370 - 3155±55 BP, since it has grooved pottery specific to the second stage of the Belegiš culture, thus indicating the interval 1540-1290 BC, when it is calibrated in the 2 sigma domain. We have enough grounds, therefore, for considering that the duration of the Belegiš culture is largely datable to the interval 1500-1200 BC and this allows us to attribute to it also some bronze hoards, for example that at Cornuţel. One recent contribution to the relative chronology of the Cruceni-Belegiš group lays emphasis on dating the group’s first stage at roughly the same time as stage II of the Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare group, which in its turn was then replaced by the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group, whose appearance was the result of the advance of Belegiš communities along the Danube. The end of this phenomenon is a rather more problematic issue, which is hard to distinguish from the ceramic groups specific to the beginning of the Iron Age, the one termed Gáva being the most important… The Belegiš funerary finds are quite numerous, namely 51, in the zone of interest to us in the frame of this study (see the list in Chapter 10.5). Chorological we can observe the density of funerary finds which cover the area of the Belegiš culture under discussion pretty uniformly. To the west, the distribution extends further, but because the finds in those locations do not belong to the area treated, they have not been mapped. The most south-eastern finds are at Hinova and Vajuga, but in both of these cases the situations are not the most enlightening, which has sometimes given rise to hasty and, consequently, debatable interpretations. The penetration of the Belegiš culture along the gorge of the Danube, documented by the two finds mentioned, did not stop very far away from the large river’s outflow from the gorge, and it contributed, upstream, to the appearance of the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group, the end of the Gârla Mare group. As regards the character of the research, circa 44% of the Belegiš funerary finds come from archaeological research but a very big stock derives from surface surveys or random finds. Since the main stock of operational burials has been unearthed during systematic excavations and salvage excavations, the quality of the documentation, from the point of view of the research character, is satisfactory. What limits their value is, however, the way the results of this research have been put into circulation. For Dubovac, for example, there are no correct repertoires of all the inventories, which have been kept in separate places for a long time. The Bobda cemetery is practically unknown, the one at Cruceni has been partially published, and the results of the excavations at Peciu Nou, Timişoara-Fratelia and Voiteni, have not been communicated at all yet. From the point of view of the archaeological context of the Belegiš funerary finds, the greater part of them are cemeteries (circa 74%), some of them even with very numerous mortuary situations, followed by the groups of graves (circa 16%). It is more than obvious that the limited number of isolated graves or ceramic materials interpreted as remains of graves does not reflect an archaeological reality, and the specific trait of the Belegiš group is the fact that the deceased were buried in large cemeteries, proved to have been near settlements in some cases. But this is again a matter

of appearances, since, as already mentioned, there is either no information about five cemeteries, some pretty large ones, for example that at Timişoara-Fratelia, or the information is partial, for example in the cases of the Cruceni and Bobda sites, while in Gaj, the research is very old and the publication of the results is not adequate in terms of modern research standards. Speaking about the number of burials researched, Timişoara-Fratelia ranks first among the known cemeteries, and we know about it only that it had over 270 tombs, which makes us leave it out of our account, as it has not been published. The cemeteries of Beograd-Karaburma, Pančevo-Vojlovica and Belegiš, with 229, 183 and 178 graves, respectively, are the actual basis of documentation for the study of the funerary practices of this group. Being relatively recently introduced in the scientific circuit, the cemetery at Ticvaniu Mare provides considerable additions to the documentation about the Belegiš mortuary objects, even though the author of the excavation considers it representative for a limited territorial group. I have already mentioned how things stand for the small cemetery at Gaj. In the Peciu Nou and Voiteni cemeteries we are confronted with two unknown monuments. Though it features only 23 graves, the cemetery at Beograd-Rospi Čuprija brings a most welcome completion to the cemetery at Karaburma because, by lying near this cemetery, it indicates that the funerary precinct was actually more extended. If we take into account all the Belegiš funerary finds known today, we have at our disposal almost 2000 funerary contexts, but in reality the number of useable graves is not greater than 517, which is only one fourth of what could have represented an excellent data-base for the examination of funerary practices.

The content of the Belegiš/Cruceni-Belegiš/Belegiš-Bobda/Belegiš-Gáva group and its chronological position confers it first-order importance, especially owing to its evident contribution to the formation of the Early Hallstatt cultural complex with grooved ceramic. This is a group that acquires different local aspects and extends north-east as far as the Hungarian Puszta and east across entire Transylvania as well as south of the Middle Carpathians to contribute to the appearance of what has been rightly termed “the counter-offensive of the Carpathian block”. In this light, it is hard to study the funerary practices of the Belegiš culture only by comparison with the groups specific to the Bronze Age, even if we refer just to those that cover strictly the Late Bronze period. For what is quasi-unanimously accepted as being the second stage or phase of the Belegiš group anyway, the funerary situations which can be included must be examined in a larger context. This is entirely different when compared to the very limited number of burials known in the area at the beginning of the Iron Age. This is the reason why I am trying to restrict the range of the discussion about the funerary practices of this very important archaeological phenomenon. One of the issues that needs to be dwelt upon, even though only briefly, is that referring to the way in which the Belegiš group became entrenched in the western half of the Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare area and the way in which it manifested its individuality forcefully so as to engender the

119

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu Bistreţ-Işalniţa group in the rest of the Gârla Mare area. The relation between the two groups can be thoroughly clarified by reference to some cemeteries, enumerated here proceeding from the west to the east: Surćin, Dubovac, Liubcova, Vajuga and Hinova. In them we may refer to inventories that allow us to distinguish, on the one hand, typical Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare graves, then, on the other hand, graves with ceramic inventories which are, again typical, but this time have Belegiš pottery, reckoning by the cemetery at Liubcova. There is a series of graves excavated in the cemetery on the very bank of the Danube which have an inventory consisting of vessels with forms and a decoration as typical as can be for the Gârla Mare group. Graves with Žuto-Brdo inventories are also known at Surćin in the cemetery attributed to the “urn-field culture”, apart from the graves attributed to the Belegiš group, which represent the majority in this cemetery. We have already seen that at Dubovac there are burials specific to both groups. The cemetery at Liubcova-Ţiglărie is considered to belong entirely to the Gârla Mare culture. But the same cemetery also has graves whose ceramic inventory secures their inclusion in the Belegiš group, for example grave 41 and, most probably the famous grave 15, which is also considered as the “hoard or grave of a master-craftsman” and has often been invoked for dating the Gârla Mare culture later. Therefore, the situation at Liubcova repeats that at Dubovac, with both Gârla Mare, and Belegiš burials, which confused B. Hänsel when trying to establish the chronology of the cemetery, at a time when the difference between these two categories of ceramic material had not been made. One utterly special situation is that of the Hinova cemetery. The less systematic research of this cemetery, its superficial communication and, in addition to this, the paradigmatic interpretations proposed, cooperate in preventing any effort to understand thoroughly this important monument for the moment. There are no layout drawings of the cemetery and no plans or photographs of the graves, not to mention the absence of anthropological analyses. We only know at the moment that at Hinova a cremation cemetery was found during excavations made in 1976 in search for a Roman castrum. Forty-five cinerary urn-graves were discovered, but the cemetery was considered to have been possibly larger. Some double graves were found, as well as a symbolic grave, with no calcinated remains in it. As regards the structure of the funerary contexts, the statement made at the time was that “each grave had one principal urn and further vessels, bowls, mugs, cups, smaller vessels etc by its side”. Metal items were found in some graves, among which “knives, pins, bracelets, an axe and a “pen-knife (sic!) blade made of bronze”. We understand from the “preliminary” data that the majority of the vessels used as urns were biconical. In grave 1, “the lid of the urn in grave No 1 is certainly Gârla Mare”. “The hoard” found in a biconical vessel decorated with grooves contained several dress items among which a diadem, bracelets of different types, made of bands or wires, pendants, beads, wiring etc., all of them made of gold and has been attributed to the Insula Banului culture, but it most obviously belonged to the cremation cemetery. The deposits attest a custom connected to the funerary practices that resembled those in the so-

called “master-craftsman” grave or hoard found in the Belegiš cemetery at Liubcova. The decoration on the lid-bowl found in grave 1 and the anthropomorphic figurine mentioned for another grave can prove the approximate contemporaneity of Belegiš phase I with the last Gârla Mare manifestations, just as is indicated, as a matter of fact by some cups of the kantharos kind, that have protomae, similar to those found in some graves at Karaburma. In the cemetery at Beograd-Karaburma, the decorated urns in graves 57, 61 and 277 were considered to be of the Žuto Brdo type, but the motifs were specifically Belegiš I. What we should remember from the examples mentioned is that, apart form the succession of the two archaeological phenomena, the fact that the Belegiš communities retained the same funerary precincts seems to be one of the elements of the funerary standard, for the eastern area of the group. Even if in the Belegiš culture as a whole large cemeteries with a great number of burials have been excavated the information in itself is much scantier than it appears at first sight, either because some cemeteries have not been published, e.g. those at Timişoara-Fratelia, Peciu Nou and Voiteni, or because the information has not always been sufficiently rigorously presented. With the documentation we have at our disposal now, we can give no more than the general outline of this group’s funerary standard and its component elements. Though the practices of this culture are unitary as regards the way corpses were treated, cremation being the exclusive funerary rite, we have observed some variability in the funerary practices in a number of graves that the documentation show to differ structurally. This ritual variability is accompanied by differentiations in the inventories, especially as regards dress items. These differentiations may depend on the sex and age groups, but it should be proved by anthropological diagnoses, which are missing for most of the burials. The surface occupied by the cemeteries and the number of graves, which proves to be relatively high in certain cases, are indications of stability in the communities, which must have been balanced from the socio-economical point of view. The few, but also quite clear, indications about the internal organization of the funerary precincts, which were very close to the settlements as can be seen most definitely at Timişoara-Fratelia, offer arguments for considering that the communities were organized strictly hierarchically, probably starting from kinship connections. Many of the dress items and many of the weapons, which have been found not only in the mortuary contexts, are of foreign origin and prove that the communities were engaged in long-distance exchange. Through their presence in the graves, they also prove that there was prestige competition going inside the communities, which sometimes becomes manifest in funerary structures, especially if we judge after grave 15 at Liubcova... Although the various nuances wrought into the data provided by specialists regarding the staging and duration of the Belegiš group have a limited importance for the subjects discussed in this study, the two quite clearly configured stages raise the issue of the potentially corresponding changes in the funerary practices. There are some indications that, apart from the drastic transformation of the ceramic style, in the

120

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

second stage funerary expressions become more austere, most probably in the context of the reorganization, as yet not very clear in its social anatomy, which was under way at the time and had special consequences for the immediately following period. Ever since the middle of the past century, ceramic materials have been observed, especially in the area of the Danube floodplain, which differed from the pottery of the Gârla Mare culture. These materials, characterized by tiny amphorae and bowls with square flat-horizontal crossection and, mainly on bowls, characterized by lobes moulded straight from the rim, biconical vessels with knobs on their body and decorated by grooves, have also been found further north from the course of the Danube. Some of them appear in association with two-handled cups decorated by the technique of the successive impressions with motifs close to those known to belong to the already treated “Verbicioara culture”. It has been in view of this that they have been called the “Verbicioara Vb phase”, which is dated to the end of the Bronze Age. This point of view has eventually been shared by most of the specialists who have dwelt on the Bronze Age in Oltenia, all the more so as the grooved decoration supported the theory that the appearance of this group with grooved pottery specific to the Iron Age, namely the Vârtop culture in Oltenia, was based on local sources. Further similar finds have been made, the most important of which is the funerary complex at Işalniţa, whose interpretation continued to be uncertain for quite a long while after its discovery. In 1976, when discussing the end of the Bronze Age in the lower Danube basin, B. Hänsel separated the pottery decorated by successive impression technique, which had been overwhelmingly found in the hill regions in northern Oltenia and included, for example, the vessel hoard at Govora, from the Verbicioara culture, and proposed what came to be known as “the Govora Group”. This is when, by placing the find at Işalniţa at the centre, he gathered similar materials, especially the vessels decorated with grooves, which had been found in the southern part of the province, under the name of “the Işalniţa group”. Not long afterwards, research in the area of the Bistreţ lake provided the basis of a re-assessment of these materials, which led to the proposal of the term “the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group”. The group has been defined as an archaeological phenomenon in itself, especially on the basis of the ceramic repertoire, and it has been chronologically situated between the Gârla Mare culture and the first Iron Age. It is distributed in an area corresponding to the Danube sector that extends from the entrance to the Iron Gate gorge (Porţile de Fier) to the confluence with the river Olt, abreast of the town Corabia. In the current state of documentation, it is not possible to offer a more precise definition, owing to the fact that there are only a few ascertained sites in the area and all the documentation rests on funerary finds, since there are no settlements known as yet which could be attributed to this group. From what we can notice at present, it is clear that from the point of view of the ceramic style that there is a change in respect to the earlier stage, as represented by the last manifestations of the Gârla Mare culture. The repertoire of shapes changed very much and the

cups with one handle raised from the rim and the one- or two-handled bowls or the pixidae disappeared, only the kantharos or two-handled cups and the tiny amphorae surviving, in both latter cases the horizontal crossection in plan being square, just as in the case of the twin-vessels o - Zwillingsgefäß – type. They appear very frequently in combination with new shapes, for example the biconical vessels with pairs of knobs on the main body and, again, having a rectangular flat-horizontal crossection or in combination with the hemispherical bowls with the interior rim drawn inwards. A radical change can be noticed in the manner of ornamenting the vessels, grooves being now the dominant motifs, placed in different positions and patterns on bowls or biconical vessels and on the kantharos cups, while the rich decoration with successive impressions, which used to be specific to the Gârla Mare pottery, gradually disappeared. One significant difference in respect to Gârla Mare is to be found in the absence of anthropomorphic statues in the Bistreţ-Işalniţa funerary finds. Regarded in this perspective, the appearance of the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group is doubtlessly due to the penetration of Belegiš elements from the west along the course of the Danube, as part of an ampler re-organization which resulted in the disappearance of the Gârla Mare culture and its replacement by a regional variant of the Belegiš group, which was just about to become entrenched upstream, from the region of the Belgrade segment of the Danube as far as approximately the area of the Iron Gate gorge (Porţile de Fier). Thus the area of the Gârla Mare culture came to be occupied now by the hybrid, yet self-consistent, Bistreţ-Işalniţa group. At this late date it is impossible to specify whether in this case we have to do with a change of the ceramic style, which did not involve also a displacement of populations, or we have in fact an influx of human groups along the Danube. Judging by some traditional elements which are still visible in the Bistreţ-Işalniţa pottery we seem to be more entitled to the former rather than the latter assumption. In the relative chronology system, the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group is securely accommodated between the last Gârla Mare stage and the first manifestations of the early Hallstatt complex with grooved ceramic, which is designated in Oltenia as the “Vârtop culture”. However, in what the absolute chronology is concerned there are dating difficulties. Recently, the Gârla Mare culture has been dated to the interval 1650-1250/1200 BC and the evolution of the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group has been seen to cease “around 1100 BC”. I have already presented my point of view regarding the absolute chronology of the Gârla Mare culture, proposing an interval between 1900 and 1400 BC for its duration. Consequently, the duration of the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group throughout the 13th century BC must be accepted, which corresponds to the second stage of the Belegiš culture. As mentioned above, funerary finds are the basis of the archaeological documentation for the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group. These discoveries, which are not too numerous (only 24), have been found in some Gârla Mare precincts, but also in isolation from the Gârla Mare sites. Though the ceramic materials which can be attributed to the group as a whole have been found in an area that reaches

121

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu beyond the Danube floodplain between Hinova and Corabia to distant settlements, for example those at Vultureşti and the Govora region, along the course of the Olt and at Popeşti or Radovanu on the course of the lower Argeş, in themselves there are no funerary objects known beyond the Danube floodplain or the extensions of this region along the courses of the Danube tributaries, at Işalniţa, for example. The 24 Bistreţ-Işalniţa funerary finds, of which only 21 are sure, lie along the line of the Danube, the westernmost being those at Korbovo-Pesak, Ostrovu Corbului and Vajuga, and the easternmost lying in the vicinity of the town Corabia (See the list in Chapter 10.6). But there is a chance that more finds of this kind will be found especially in insufficiently researched Gârla Mare cemeteries. Some time ago, a cremation cemetery was mentioned as a fortuitous find in the immediate vicinity of the locality Plosca, on the northern bank of the Bistreţ lake and the materials retrieved then included a biconical vessel with out-turned rim, which was decorated with oblique grooves and knobs on the belly and might well come from another funerary context. Then, during a surface survey of 1985, the very probable remains of some cremation graves destroyed by a tractor were found south of Cârna, near the former location of the Grindu Tomii cemetery. During salvage excavations of 1996-1997 several pits were found at the point known as Groapa lu’ Mihalache, actually the present day toponym of the older point known as Grindul Tomii, among which complex No. 4 with Bistreţ-Işalniţa material. Further Bistreţ-Işalniţa materials have been found on the south bank of the Bistreţ lake, for example at the point known as Ferma 2 an intact vessel - a cup with two raised handles moulded straight from the rim, whose body had a rectangular plano-horizontal cross-section decorated with grooves. Further intact Bistreţ-Işalniţa vessels can still be found in the collection of the General School at Cârna or in possession of various other “collectors” from the villages on the banks of the Bistreţ lake; they certainly come from other unidentified finds. In the area of the former lake Potelu, which is now dry and has been “gloriously reclaimed” in the revolutionary agrarian years 1961-1966, several Bistreţ-Işalniţa materials are known, which come from the spits of land leveled away on the same “glorious reclaiming” occasion, not without also yielding numerous Gârla Mare finds too, from the same points. Yet another vessel, which has been published as originating from Level IV c of the Vinča settlement at Liubcova-Orniţa, is in point of fact a bowl with lobes moulded straight from the rim and with a square horizontal cross-section, typical for the Bistreţ-Işalniţa repertoire. The find at Pristol also provides a vessel with fine analogies at Balta Verde in grave 1, which in all likelihood belonged to a Bistreţ-Işalniţa grave. Consequently, we may expect that further research will specify the area of the group more thoroughly, maybe even extending it, while also augmenting the number of funerary finds. This is why we must mention also the vessel with a previously unknown shape found in the area of the locality Călăraşi, which occupies a position on the northern banks of the former lake Potelu. The vessel from Călăraşi may well come from a Bistreţ-Işalniţa site, but its

importance is enhanced owing to the silver phalera also found at Călăraşi, which has very good analogies in the hoard found at Vălči Trăn in Bulgaria. Such a connection between the finds of the Bistreţ-Işalniţa type and the hoard at Vălči Trăn was somehow to be expected. The well-known hoard has been discussed by several specialists, who have proposed various dates for it. What we must bear in mind is that through the phalera at Călăraşi the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group might be put in relation with the horizon of the Vălči Trăn-Rădeni-Kryžovlin hoards that belong to the end of the Bronze Age, providing precisely the dating proposed as corresponding to the time when the Noua and Sabatinovka groups were developing in the central Transylvanian plateau and east of the space in question, respectively. The very limited research whose target has been the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group cannot possibly constitute too much of a solid documentary basis. On the one hand, the identification of the group was only completed in the 1980s, and on the other hand, most of the finds appeared during excavations aimed at very different archaeological situations, which explains some of the fuzziness associated with the understanding of the exact content of the group. It is a fact that, although the character of the research seems to confer some significant quality to the information about the 21 Bistreţ-Işalniţa funerary finds, half of which are systematic or salvage excavations, in reality things are utterly different owing to the rather few cases in which Bistreţ-Işalniţa finds have been communicated, either without being thoroughly understood or by very unsatisfactory publication, depriving us of strictly archaeological information. We must especially not forget the fortuitous finds or finds that come from surface surveys, which make us see the empty half of the half-filled glass! This is also true, I must say, about the eponymous cemetery on the site at Bistreţ-Ciumaţi/Târla lu’ Brânză, for which no general layout drawings of the graves and no plans and profiles of the graves found could be produced, indeed for objective reasons, and the funerary inventories have no way of being retrieved There are only more or less telegraphic mentions about many of the other finds, for example those at Corabia, Damian, Ghidici, Orlea, Makreš, Rast, Salcia, which limits very drastically the value of the archaeological documentation of the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group. The archaeological context of the Bistreţ-Işalniţa funerary finds indicates from the start a possible structural element for the group’s funerary standard. I have in mind the fact that a considerable part of the mortuary discoveries attributed to it come from cemeteries or groups of graves, of which that at Bistreţ-Ciumaţi has at least 10 graves. The isolated find at Nedeia may be less isolated than it appears at first sight, owing to its fortuitous character, and the situation is certainly replicated by the other cases. We are, therefore, sufficiently justified in considering that the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group was characterized by the practice of depositing the deceased in cemeteries, albeit not very extensive, and the total number of bona fide Bistreţ-Işalniţa burials amounts to no more than 38 at the present moment. Such a documentary base is obviously far from encouraging. Another limitation of the

122

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

information is determined by the fact that so far there is no anthropological determination for any of the Bistreţ-Işalniţa funerary finds. In the current state of documentation about the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group, there are not enough precise aspects, which is also true for the elements of the funerary customs. The small number of finds available, which can be mere mentions, is very little likely to shed light upon the ritual details and even less upon the structure of the funerary precincts. We can enumerate among the elements of the funerary standard, first the unity of the funerary rite - cremation -, and the fact that all the burials are in flat graves, secondly, which means that the earlier traditions have been retained, indifferent whether we have in mind Gârla Mare or Belegiš. The kantharos type cup at Plosca-Ferma 2 could indicate another funerary precinct situated not far from that at Cabana de metal, but this situation requires a verification on site to determine more certainly whether the funerary precinct in question is spatially fragmented or not. As regards the rite, most of the graves found have calcinated remains deposited in urns, which are covered or not, but in addition there are cinerary pit-graves whose calcinated remains are covered with secondarily burnt and broken vessels, constituting a burial variant unknown in Gârla Mare and Belegiš. Apparently, one novelty is contributed by the situations observed at Cârna-Ostrovogania, but the situation at Cârna-Groapa lu Mihalache forces us to take into consideration the existence of similar structures in Gârla Mare as well, even if for the moment we have not identified them on more than one site. It is quite sure that we must not overlook, first, the frequency of such situations in the Bistreţ-Işalniţa funerary context on the Ostrovogania islet in comparison with the uniqueness of the Groapa lu Mihalache find, and secondly, that we need to voice reservations as regards the position of the point known as Groapa lu Mihalache in respect to the cemetery researched in 1955-1956, owing to the terrain modifications which may have occurred in the fifty years that passed between the closing of the Grindu Tomii research site and the research of 1996-1998 on the banks of the former lagoon Nasta. Some of the layout structures observed here, for example in the case of complex K at Ostrovogania, may well represent remains of a funerary pyre, but we must acknowledge that there is no definitive proof about this as yet, even though we find similarities between these situations and others like it in the Late Bronze Age. The Ostrovogania/Complex U pit, which was filled with adobe, demonstrates more than the practice of setting fire to certain structures during funerary ceremonies - it also proves to have been retained in the subsequent period, documented by one find from the beginning of the Iron Age, when it is actually associated to the postmortem manipulation of corpses. This is a habit for which we have no information from Bistreţ-Işalniţa contexts. In at least two disturbed graves found on the spit of land at Grindu Ciumaţi, the funerary inventories consist of several vessels, among which the twin vessels/Zwillingsgefäß, which has considerable dimensions, is central. Such double vessels appear in the Gârla Mare ceramic repertoire,

but items of this kind are said to have been found also in the discoveries haphazardly considered funerary and unearthed at Vârtop, a little to the north of the Bistreţ lagoon. The Vârtop materials are very important, especially as they have been used to define the Vârtop culture concept, which is specific to the early Iron Age in Oltenia. However, the archaeological documentation of these important materials is not among the most adequate for legitimating an archaeological phenomenon. The materials at Vârtop have been “reaped” from enthusiastic rather than fully archaeological digs. If the situation has any real basis, the construction of a stone mound is neither usually attested as a funerary custom in Bistreţ-Işalniţa nor in Gârla Mare, and it consequently seems something of a novelty. But it is not attested anywhere else in the context of the “Vârtop culture”, which has no burials as a matter of fact! I do not exclude the possibility that a funerary situation does exist at Vârtop, which comes close to the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group, at least in view of the known ceramic, but I could do with more specifications before dwelling on it further... The quite frequent cases where the same funerary precincts have been used by the Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare, and then by the Bistreţ-Işalniţa communities, are arguments for a solid connection between the two archaeological phenomena. However, from the point of view of the ceramic style they differ drastically, which entitles me to assert that we do have a self-sufficient archaeological entity. Having appeared as the result of the re-organization of the anteceding background, the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group seems to bring new elements on the prehistoric scene of the Bronze Age in the Oltenian or Bulgarian basin of the Danube and these elements continue in existence partly in the immediately following period. Just as in the Gârla Mare culture, there is no information regarding the settlements of the Bistreţ-Işalniţa group, hence the impossibility of relating the funerary and the day-to-day dwelling zones. But the small number of burials, which cannot be explained only by the haphazard character of archaeological research, seems to indicate a short duration for the entire group. This is somehow explicable by the involvement of these communities in a very dynamic process of restructuration that covered an extensive area along the Danube, and which resulted in the reconstitution of archaeological groups on considerably extended areas. The term “Suciu de Sus pottery” was used by M. Roska for the first time, after the research of the site that became eponymous. In time, the material content of these finds has grown increasingly clearer and today most of the specialists accept the notion of the Suciu de Sus/Felsőszőcs/Suciu culture. The area occupied by the Suciu de Sus culture is not very ample and it covers part of south-eastern Slovakia, spreading along the Tisza in north-eastern Hungary and a western portion of Trans-Carpathian Ukraine and reaching to north-western Romania. It includes both hilly regions, even mountain regions in Romania, and the plains in Hungary, which proves its capacity to control the environment, even when the environment features are varied, most probably as a result of an excellently adapted combination of

123

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu subsistence technologies. Last but not least the mining occupation developed because of the well-known poly-metallic ore deposits in the distribution area of this culture. Settlements are known especially at Boineşti, Culciu Mare and Medieşul Aurit. No special elements have been found in the perimeter of the settlements to match the great complexity of the funerary expressions, but in the same region there are settlements fortified with ramparts and trenches that we know today, some of these having impressive sizes. Although the latter are attributed to the beginning of the immediately following period, they cannot be separated so drastically from the greater context represented by the socio-economic practices of the communities who remained in place, in spite of the periodizations imposed on them across the millennia... The material content, which is outstanding through its well-asserted individuality, proved mainly by the ceramic style, shows an extremely active participation in long-distance exchange, which is doubtlessly directly conditioned by bronze metallurgy as one of the main preoccupations of the Suciu de Sus communities. This is demonstrated by the numerous finished items which have been found by chance or in hoards and by the moulds needed for casting these items. The metallurgical activity and the involvement in long-distance exchange had as their main consequence the promotion of some local elites, whose prosperity doubtlessly determined sophisticated funerary expressions. The origin of the culture is still discussed, one solution to everybody’s taste being hard to describe as yet, and especially hard to argue. The research about the Suciu de Sus culture is still traversing its first part, and specialists are therefore still overwhelmed by the luxuriance of the finds, especially the pottery, and less interested in the closed contexts.... The participation of the Otomani, Wietenberg, Komarów, even Nyírség groups, has been taken into consideration and researchers have sought quite devotedly for the origins of the decoration with floral patterns, even considering the remote Mycenaean world of the Aegean. In the opinion of some other authors, the origin of the Suciu de Sus culture can be seen as the result of the regionalization occurring in the Otomani group. As it firmly belongs to regions where the unconditional partisans of the Reinecke system have pitched camp and fortified themselves across the millennia, the evolution of the Suciu de Sus group has been fixed to the interval Reinecke BzB1-BzD. In Hänsel’s view, who made comparisons with Füzesabony, the barrow at Medieşu Aurit belongs to the “classical phase” of the named group, whereas, based on a bracelet at Boineşti and a mould found at Culciu Mic, the more developed phase of the Suciu de Sus group, designated by T. Bader as the Culciu Mic phase, belongs to his MD I phase. One other point of view has been expressed by G. Hüttel, who thought that the Suciu de Sus group appeared sometime in the Reinecke BzA2/Hänsel FD III period. The earlier dating proposed by Hüttel seems disproved by the situation at Oarţa de Sus, where one level attributed to the Wietenberg II phase, with materials considered specific to the Reinecke BzAa stage, underlies another level with Suciu de Sus materials that have analogies at Medieşu Aurit. The third

phase, designated by Bader as Culciu Mare phase and synchronized with Phase I of the cemetery at Lăpuş, has been hypothetically dated “to the Bronz D period, with one extension, maybe, to the beginning of the early Hallstatt”. In absolute chronology terms, the Suciu de Sus culture can be dated to an interval which appears to begin by and large at the end of the Reinecke A2 phase, namely around 1700-1600 BC and seems to end around 1200 BC. The end of the Suciu de Sus culture has, for a long time, been the favorite topic in the discussions revolving around the so called “hallstattization process”. The appearance of the ceramic species with grooved decoration has been considered as the sign defining a new age in this region. The consequence of this essentially ceramologic perspective is the separation of the Lăpuş cemetery into two different entities, Lăpuş I, which has been dated to the late period of the Bronze Age, and Lăpuş II, which has been dated to the beginning of the Iron Age. Through their complexity and the variety of the materials found, the funerary sites of the Suciu de Sus culture have always held the attention of archaeologists. In fact, a considerable part of the archaeological documentation for the Suciu de Sus group comes from such contexts, even though one cannot say that they have been researched in great numbers. For the fragment of the Suciu de Sus area which lies within the scope of this study, 10 such finds are known (See the list in Chapter 10.7). The Suciu de Sus funerary finds cover the area of the group uniformly enough, some concentrations of finds being due to more intense micro-regional research, for example in an outstanding way those in the Lăpuş-Suciu de Sus area. One very important find in view of its locale is the merely signaled cemetery at Sighetu Marmaţiei-Cămara Cireghi, which occupies the region of the confluence of the rivers Tisza and Iza, across the Ţibleş range, in an area where such finds had previously been missing. Even if in the Suciu de Sus area as a whole we know of further mortuary finds, not being catalogued and charted here because they lie beyond the limits of the treated area, their number is still low enough by comparison with the range of complex issues raised for the understanding of the funerary practices of these communities. From the “character of research” point of view, the overwhelming majority of the 10 finds in the area in question comes from systematic research. But we must stress that, apart from the research at Libotin and Medieşu Aurit, for the other systematic excavations there are not yet satisfactory publications of the results obtained, but mere mentions with partial information, so we lack the necessary documentation for their correct understanding. The situation is even worse, for precisely in the case at Lăpuş, for example, the research of the site has not been exhausted in the least, which means that the detailed publication of all the results will take some more time. Until then we must remain content with extremely limited publications, minutes or comments which lay stress on pottery and less on funerary structures. With a few exceptions, at Medieşu Aurit-La leşu, Lăpuş-Gruiul târgului and at Libotin, cemeteries are present everywhere, albeit some more and others less extensive. The three cases stand for

124

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

sufficiently verified situations, which allows us to consider, without too many reservations, the custom of using cemeteries with several burials as being one element of the Suciu de Sus funerary standard. Some structural elements of the funerary constructions or the ritual indicate Komarów as a potential source of the mortuary practices of the Suciu de Sus group, as suggested some time ago by A. Mozsolics too. I daresay that the most important aspect is the custom of on-site cremation and of the subsequent covering of all the remains with an earth mound, as is known well from the cemetery at Komarów - in mound 11, 19 and possibly, also, mound 27 and mound 29 -, or, and this time in view of the structure, as known to be the case at Komarów, in the mounds with vessels and charcoal in the mantle or in some burials of the Costişa variant, discussed above. This possibility ought to be regarded with reservations, however, given the bi-ritualism of the Komarów group, which has not been proved as a practice in the Suciu de Sus communities. The issue of the origins of the Suciu de Sus mortuary practices is, nevertheless, very hard to solve, since we do not know as yet which was the archaeological phenomenon that preceded the Suciu de Sus group especially in the northern Romanian sector of the area. Even in the Hungarian Puszta or in Slovakia this is unclear, since it is known that in the Nyírség-Zatin group, which may have been an exclusively cinerary group, neither the on-site ritual cremation variant nor the practice of erecting funerary mounds on top of the cinerary remains left lying on the ground have been observed. If we look towards the area of the Wietenberg culture, which also predominantly practiced cremation, we cannot think of influences/borrowings, since, on the one hand, the Wietenberg funerary expression is characteristically quite austere, and on the other hand, all the cemeteries and isolated Wietenberg graves known are exclusively of the flat burial type. Neither is it the case that any mortuary tradition may have been taken over from the Otomani milieu, which has been inhumation-dominated until its ultimate phase, when bi-ritualism is well documented. Even though the number of individual graves published thoroughly for the Suciu de Sus group is extremely small, which means that we do not have much information that could come in handy for studying the Suciu de Sus funerary standard, it is possible to record some main elements. I think one of them is the extremely eloquent manner in which the social identity of the community elites is emphasized in the funerary contexts that belong to them. Not only the expenditure of social energy expressed by the sophisticated character of the funerary structures of type A, but also of type B, which are adjacent to them, underlines the rank distinctions. It also shows the segmentation of the funerary precincts, which is more rigorous than anywhere else in other groups, and it therefore implies a ritually distinct variant represented by the barrows and their adjacent elements, simultaneous with the existence of flat-grave cemeteries. The cremated deceased subsequently deposited in the flat-graves at Suciu de Sus, Medieşu Aurit and Zemplínske Kopčany were not completely “poor”, proof of this being offered not only by the inventories with dress items too, but also by the

large number of vessels in the funerary assortments, and testify to a quite complicated ceremonial in these cases as well. The variability of the funerary customs within both of the main funerary-social modes of expression in the Suciu de Sus group is demonstrated by some uncommon situations, for example by the urns which have lids as compared with those that do not have lids, through the little stone “cists” or the big fragments of other vessels used to protect some graves proper. Sometimes the differences discernible, in type B structures, as in the case at Lăpuş for example, are between the graves where the cinerary remains were deposited in the shape of a crescent and the graves with immediate deposits in the barrow mantles. This probably indicates a unitary construction in its turn segmented, however, into ceremonial sequences/episodes that suggest the supplementary complexity of the burials destined for individuals with a higher social rank. The strategy of emphasizing the Suciu de Sus pottery and the corresponding attempt to offer “finest” nuances in the descriptions of the would-be phases, sub-phases, and, why not, sub-sub-phases, has perverted to a great extent the overall image of one of the most important phenomena at the end of the Bronze Age in Central and Eastern Europe. I do not contest the importance of the ceramic style in defining some stages of the Suciu de Sus group, but the mono-directional orientation of efforts towards ceramologic examination has consequently led to a delay in the study of some archaeological situations, whose structure would have been very enlightening for understanding the funerary practices and maybe also could help to identify the reality of some sub-phases or phases so interminably rendered through nuancations... The continuity of the ceramic style of the last Suciu de Sus stage, or Phase I of the Lăpuş group according to C. Kacsó, in the phase that the same author, and others, name Lăpuş II, should have calmed the ferocity of this dichotomy beyond the modern steel boundary separating the Bronze and the Iron Ages. I think that a more open-minded vision aimed at comprehensively examining the restructuring that occurred in the Belegiš area, in the regions of the north-eastern Hungarian Puszta and in the area of the Lăpuş group, not only of the pottery or the bronze hoards judged regionally, could elucidate the changes which occurred and their premises, which led to the appearance of a new archaeological phenomenon fully characteristic of the new period in an extremely large area. I believe that the changes, even the extremely notable innovations in funerary practice, which can be shown to resort to funerary expressions of the most costly kind, are not only more important but also more fertile for understanding the process. The burials in type A barrows or at Nyirkarász are not singular but have parallels, as shown before, in Slovakia, where the “princely” barrow at Očkov is not singular at all, and they are integrated in a set of funerary practices which are widespread in Europe and bespeak of a mode of life both ostentatious and common to the elites of the final European Bronze Age. Maybe the immense costs of such funerary ceremonies could be explain the high costs underlying the practice of “hiding” some considerable fortunes as hoards during the same period. Such hoards were often buried in the

125

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu proximity of the funerary precinct. The constructions of the earthen fortifications, some of considerable sizes, belong to the same group of features, all of which were meant to express the boastfulness of a new elite. Their social ascent was probably due to mining and the bronze metallurgy, to long-distance exchange, especially of prestige objects, and they were consequently involved in continuous intra- and extra-community competition. Shortly after I had finished writing the above lines I learned about the considerations of the well known specialist Biba Teržan referring to the structure and signification of the Lăpuş burials. The author did not have at her disposal C. Kacsó PhD dissertation, so she had no way of discussing the funerary structures. Her considerations rested on general commentaries about the cemetery at Lăpuş and, especially, on the recently published materials. In her opinion the funerary customs/practices, inventories and topographical situation demonstrate some marked distinctions between various social, intra-community groups, both as regards the sex group and the groups of specialization in everyday living activities. Biba Teržan considers that the western group of barrows belonged to an elite from whose ranks the burials of warriors show by the presence of weaponry, vessels with knobs or zoomorphic protomae with incised ornamentation and, only in some cases, dress items made of gold. In the same group, feminine burials are claimed to have been represented by dress items and especially by large vessels with grooved decoration, in opposition to the vessels in the graves deemed as masculine. In the author’s opinion, the group of barrows in the south and south-eastern areas, which have more modest inventories and include also cenotaphs or remains of different funerary practices, could point to a group of people involved mainly in metallurgy, as it results from the casting moulds and the other tools related to metal processing. The cemetery at Lăpuş as a whole demonstrates the way in which a group of population with obvious traditions situated within the range of the Suciu de Sus culture was influenced by a series of foreign elements, leading to the appearance of a new ideology reflected in the mortuary practices. The exceptional motifs of the decoration in the incised and excised pottery together with the funerary practices must be regarded as the strong expression of an elite’s distinct identity. To large extent Biba Teržan’s observations about the barrow cemetery at Lăpuş is in accord with the ideas that I have expressed earlier, especially those about the funerary precinct structure. By programmatically avoiding the discussion of the Suciu de Sus pottery, and not only this, I have tried to distinguish the site at Lăpuş from this perspective. I have avoided this analytical path also because it has not always been the case that the exact conditions in which the pottery was situated in the context of each barrow can be specified, and all the more only a tiny part of the ceramic material has been published! This is also the fact from which I think the first limiting factor appears for the interpretations proposed by B. Teržan. Reservation in the attribution of some graves to either one or the other of the sex groups in the absence of anthropological determinations comes next. If we then take into account the fact that for the group of

barrows on the Podancu mic, only in mound 18 can we speak of burials, and these secondary anyway, we must accept that for the group of persons involved in the metallurgical operations there are no bona fide burials but only piles of cinerary remains from which human bones have disappeared, while for the warriors and their consorts there are cremation graves (with bodies cremated on the spot), from which, however, the cinerary remains are lacking. It is evident that the cemetery at Lăpuş, whose unusual structure and ceremonially lavish inventory proves that it belonged to an elite, represents an archaeological monument of primary importance, which can be related to other similar manifestations in Central Europe, all of them placed at a moment in time which represented a watershed, beyond which we usually say we are in the Iron Age already. There is a series of funerary discoveries with a relatively small importance for our discussion so far about the second half of the Middle Bronze Age and the period of the Late Bronze Age at the western extremity of the area treated, some of them extremely consistent finds. Their cultural attribution is connected to areas which lie much further west and they are “intrusions”, making a detailed discussion about them excessive... However, there are sites such as the immense cemetery at Tápé which cannot be by-passed in this study, no matter how one tried... The connections to make on the basis of its inventories and inherent funerary structures with the neighboring areas or phenomena are multiple and extremely important, so that the cemetery near Szeged is really a turntable at the crossroads of time. However, there are other “funerary” finds attributed to some artificial creations/cultures which encumber research and need to be drastically corrected. As regards the end of the Otomani culture, various hypotheses have been advanced which we have discussed already. The result of these discussions is mainly a multitude of several cultural groups which are considered as being distinct from the Otomani phenomenon, or as belated continuations of the same. Among them, the Berkesz- Demecser group is present in the area treated here through five funerary finds: Berkesz, Demecser, Nyíregyháza, Szakoly and Vajdácska. Since Berkesz-Demecser, including its origin, is more a problem than a group, and the funerary finds quoted are of insignificant quantity, their contribution to the problems discussed now is proportionally limited. However, since their existence cannot be denied, we have to note some of their principal elements. All these finds are finds, which consist of isolated graves, except for a group of 3 graves at Vajdácska. The graves are of the flat-burial type. From the point of view of the rite, all are cremation graves, which stresses the fact that towards the end of the Bronze Age the custom of burning the deceased became more and more widespread and ended up as being the exclusive rite at a given moment. The research conducted for a long time in the archaeological site at Biharea has provided S. Dumitraşcu with the occasion of defining what he called the “Biharea culture”, for which he also claims to have discovered two graves. In fact these

126

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

are two archaeological situations which are very hard to accept as funerary contexts in the way they have been described and without any calcinated remains. Two funerary finds are known for the Igriţa group, that at Igriţa/Peştera Igriţa, near the village Peştera, and the group of four flat-burial cremation urn-graves at Suplacu de Barcău. The find in the Igriţa cave should be regarded with lots of reservations. It is an amateurish research, albeit conducted by enthusiasts who had a genuine taste for archaeology, but still merely amateurs! The cave has actually been a favorite raking place for the treasure hunters who have been very instrumental in disturbing the deposits inside the cave. Agglomerations of pottery and some metal items - dress items, weapons etc.-, some of which have strong burning traces observable alongside charcoal and ashes, have been registered at several places in the cave, accompanied by the mention that calcinated bones “are utterly missing”. It stands to reason that we do not deal with graves proper, but rather, and very significantly too, with transported and deposited cinerary remains which are more or less similar with the situations of what we have termed the B type contexts at Lăpuş, so far as the manner and ceremonial procedure is concerned. In order to accept this likelihood we need systematic archaeological research with detailed records. At Suplacu de Barcău, a locality situated at the foot of the western slopes of the Western Carpathians, nevertheless, we know graves in the best sense of the word. The location of these graves is very important, as it seems they were found circa 50 m from a contemporary settlement, when judging by the ceramic material. Neither the general layout drawing of the excavations, indicative of the position of the four graves, nor the plans of the burials have been published. The descriptions are telegraphic, but at least they specify that calcinated bones have been found, which makes us sure about their character as funerary finds. The graves are flat and of the cremation urn-type. I think we must mention the fact that some pits have been found in the perimeter of the settlement which, in view of their content and of some structural elements - cremation traces and especially vessels that could be reconstructed completely - seem to have had a function which differed from that of everyday life, in which case they would come close to the cremation graves or the presumed Biharea graves. In view of their pottery they can be seen as culturally and chronologically similar. Judging by the forms and decorations of the pottery, the graves at Suplacu de Barcău have been seen to resemble the burials at Hajdubagos. Just as the funerary finds at Berkesz, the finds in the Igriţa group demonstrate that the custom of cremating the dead had become vigorously entrenched in the former Otomani area, although the funerary finds of the small “Igriţa group” can be counted on the fingers of one hand only, for the time being. The issue of the funerary finds in the Cehăluţ group is slightly more complicated as, at the moment, it still lacks any such discoveries... The find at Mezőcsát is located roughly in the former Otomani area. In 1958-1962, some3,8 km south of the locality, a small group consisting of six flat-grave cinerary urn-graves was archaeological

excavated here. The find was attributed to the Kyjatice culture. However, in the same former Otomani/Füzesabony area we must note, in the respective region, a few finds attributed to the Piliny culture, for example those at Bőcs, Bodrogkeresztur, Borsodszirák, Gelej, Halmáj, Hernadkák and Megyaszó. Their detailed discussion would be out of place here for reasons already outlined. What we need to remember is, firstly, the fact that all of these are cremation graves, and as such they confirm what is already evident: that this funerary rite extended across the area previously occupied by the Otomani/Füzesabony group, by a phenomenon that involved the “borrowing” or “migration” of a funerary fashion which had already started some time before, as shown by the cemeteries at Streda nad Bodrogom and Tiszafüred. Secondly, at the same time we see the appearance of some solidly constituted archaeological phenomena, for example those of the groups Piliny and Kyjatice, which may shed more light upon the older dispute around the way the Otomani culture ended. Slightly further south, the situation is more confused. Some Vatya funerary finds, in their variant best illustrated by the bi-ritual cemetery at Kelebia, for example here those at Csongrad are all flat cremation urn-graves which do not raise any special problems. They contribute to the issues discussed here only by attesting the intake of cremation already as far away from the Tisza as the area in question during the Middle Bronze Age. There is also the issue of the Vatina burials, confined to the south-western corner of the area treated here. At present we know of funerary finds from At, Ostrovu Moldova Veche-Spitz, Surčin and Vatin. Some flat cinerary urn-graves have been discovered near At, which can be added to some older finds attributed to the Vatina group, and which, owing to the ceramic forms and decoration, have been linked to a “migration” of the Transdanubian encrusted pottery culture of the Szeremle type arriving in the Banat. At Ostrovu Moldova Veche, in the point known as Spitz, some cremation urn-graves are mentioned near a place where a Vatina settlement is known. At Surčin there are graves which belong to a bigger cemetery and which are said to belong to the Vatina culture or the Belegiš group. At Vatin there are some cremation graves that have been known for a long time and which are said to have yielded bronze weapons, but these finds, some of which have been attributed to the Vatina culture, are not published as yet and their attribution oscillates between the Dubovac and Vatina groups. All the uncertainties concerning these objects, especially those deriving from older and insufficiently documented research, actually have two main causes. The first is due to the uncertainties regarding the origin and evolution of the culture itself. Newer research has drastically changed the frame of reference for this discussion, leaving behind the older models, which were largely paradigmatic. Firstly, the research at Ljuljaci, with its important consequences for the origin and dating of the Vatina culture, has provided four 14C data from Levels I-II, indicating that the group began earlier than was thought. The second hitch was an older publication of an inhumation grave found precisely at Vatin, which contained a flange hilted sword and a dagger of the same type and which

127

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu prompted specialists for a long time to consider that the funerary rite of the group was inhumation. Later, the grave was attributed to the Tumular burial culture (Hügelgräberkultur). At this point we must remember the 1906 find of an inhumation grave at Unip, in the Romanian Banat region, whose skeleton had at its side a spearhead and a sword of the Griffzungenschwert category, which belonged to the Unip variant of the Uriu/Aranyos type,; this typological frame gives the object a date at the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age, corresponding to the Uriu-Domăneşti-Cincu-Suseni hoards. Some recent research in settlements in Vojvodina and the Banat have proved that the Vatina group has been well represented in these regions, maybe even in the earlier stages of its evolution, and it most likely followed on the late Zók settlements. This also seems to be the case with the finds designated as Corneşti-Crvenka. As regards the burials, I think we must mention the funerary contexts at Krstac-Ivkovo Brdo and Jancic, in Serbian Macedonia. At Ivkovo Brdo there is a small group of cremation urn-graves covered by barrows, while at Jancic-Dubac there are inhumation graves with the skeletons deposited on the ground in laterally crouched position, on the right, as well as on the left. The two cemeteries are categorically different in terms of the funerary rite, but the ceramic inventories, as well as the dress items found, including those in the cremation graves at Krstac-Ivkovo Brdo, resemble those in the Vatina group, to which the last cemetery definitely belongs. The attribution of the second cemetery, which is also not chronologically unitary, seems to document inhumation at the eastern confines of the Vatina group, as a foreign rite whose origin is as yet insufficiently known. Seeing that there is no hope of finally solving the issue of the Vatina burials from the space treated here, we can turn to the finds in the Romanian Banat region which have been considered for some time now to belong to the “Balta Sărată group”. They are the finds from Româneşti, Valea Timişului and Visag. We have already mentioned that there is no point in speaking of any kind of funerary context at Visag. Some time ago, at Româneşti, on the upper Bega stream, in the Peştera cu apă (Cave with water) two hollows were found which contained human bones with no anatomical connection and animal bones together with sherds attributed to Phase III of the Balta Sărată group. There is no documentation and no satisfactory description of these materials. In the cave there are also remains of the Early Hallstatt and Basarabi, Latène, mediaeval and modern periods. The osteological material has been anthropologically examined and the existence of an “inhumation cemetery” in the cave has been suggested. Nevertheless, the association of the bones with the Balta Sărată ceramic fragments is only supported by word of mouth. Secondly, the lack of anatomical connection in the human and animal bones seems to indicate the disturbance of the site, probably including the disturbance of the Bronze Age ceramic deposits. The utterly precarious archaeological condition can hardly be convincing, which is why the “Balta Sărată graves” at Româneşti must be left aside until some clear find presents itself to our

attention for understanding the Bronze Age situation in the upper Bega basin. After some surface surveys at Valea Timişului, a find believed to be a flat cremation-grave cemetery has been identified. Yet another telegraphic communication mentions “the appearance of two cremation urn-graves on the outskirts of the Bronze Age settlement at Valea Timişului-Rovină, both of which contained biconical urns decorated with groups of conical protuberances”. But this is the only information available for the situation at Valea Timişului. The scarcity of funerary finds associated with the Balta Sărată group explains why the topic has been avoided every time this ceramic group of the Romanian hilly Banat region has come up. Under these circumstances the connection to the barrow at Susani is senseless too. The mentions above have already insinuated a Tumular Grave culture (Hügelgräberkultur) presence, manifest both through influences upon the pottery of the different cultural groups or groupuscles to the west of the area under review and through some funerary finds, among which the cemetery at Tápé is of key importance. In the treated region, the Tumular Culture funerary finds are 15, as follows: Bela Crkva, Carani, Felnac, Ghilad, Horgos, Idos, Mezőcsát, Târgu Mureş, Sânzieni, Senčanskj Tresnejevac, Senta, Srpski Krstur, Tápé, Vârghiş, Velebit; we might well add to them the bronze weapon grave at Unip, mentioned above. The 37 main Tumular Culture funerary finds, which have been attributed to 8 archaeological groups, mainly occupy the former Otomani/Füzesabony area, the Igriţa, Kyjatice and Piliny area, with one isolated find at Mezőcsát, for the north-western sector, the area of Periam-Pecica or Belegiš, , and the area of the slightly older finds at Vatina and Balta Sărată, all of these groups/areas almost certainly belonging together to an archaeological phenomenon insufficiently defined. There are also three “finds” situated in the eastern half of the Transylvanian plateau, whose utterly eccentric spatial position also makes them suspect from the start, contrary to their claim as Tumular Culture materials. From the point of view of the research character, most are fortuitous finds or only relatively certain identifications resting on surface surveys. But if the character of the research and the archaeological context are related, it can be seen that, although sometimes excavations are professional and details are attentively recorded, the range of the finds must be reduced, as at Suplacu de Barcău and at Ostrovu Moldova Veche-Spitz for example, which have remained unpublished so long. Apart from the cemetery at Mezőcsát, which I have introduced by force in the discussion of the Otomani/Füzesabony, the only funerary situation that is consistent and consequently very useful too, owing to the amount of information recorded during systematic excavations, remains the cemetery at Tápé. We definitely cannot ignore the other finds altogether; especially those attributed to the Tumular Culture, but their final assessment can only come successfully after we have looked more attentively at the cemetery of Tápé. Situated at the confluence of the river Tisza and the stream Tápé, at the north-western edge of the eponymous quarter of Szeged, the cemetery

128

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

has been affected a lot by the activity of a brickyard, which is also responsible for the accidental find of the first skeletons in the autumn of 1960. The research that started immediately afterwards was conducted in unpropitious conditions and did not permit the exhaustive research of the funerary precinct. Apart from the brickyard’s digging for clay, the Bronze Age burials have also been disturbed and even destroyed by other Sarmatian, Gepid, Avar or Arpadian age overlying burials, which is why the 682 graves discovered there do not represent the total number of Bronze Age graves in that cemetery. There is a pretty detailed catalogue of the graves, some of them with individual plans as well, and the documentation included a general layout drawing. The cemetery is flat and has no exterior layout elements. From the point of view of the rite, the cemetery is bi-ritual, but the inhumated deceased are predominant, with 627 burials as against the 33 cremations. Apart from these graves, complete with osteological remains, there are another 22 contexts with no bones, some of them having inventories which perfectly resembled ordinary burials but have been regarded as symbolic tombs. The position of the three categories of graves – inhumations, cremations and symbolic graves - shows no distinct grouping. The osteological remains in 579 graves have been anthropologically analyzed and another 48 have been assessed through the dimensions of he graves and the remains, so it has been possible to gather diagnoses for 627 burials, which is of great help for examining the cemetery from various points of view. Judging by the 660 graves with osteological remains, the structure of the cemetery seems quite balanced as regards the ratio of the sex groups - the 172 burials of men being 24.43%, and the 154 burials of women, 24.56% in the stock of 627 anthropologically analyzed graves; only the number of 153 child burials, which amount to 24.40%, is slightly too small, as the infantile death rate is known to have been of circa 30-33% in prehistory. We should have some reservations about the anthropological determinations, because the skeletons of children or adolescents may have been attributed to one or the other of the sex groups, knowing that such differentiations appear gradually, only after puberty, and the general reference to inventories is not always certain. The burial distribution in respect to the sex and age groups on the layout drawing is diffuse, and we cannot make out any groups. It is only possible to discern some zones with more crowded burials especially in the south-eastern half of the cemetery, where we can also observe a “blank” produced by ulterior disturbance. However, this is only an impression due to the graphical expression on the cemetery layout drawing. It is not possible to make a planimetric study of the cemetery in all its 35 separate segments, since it is necessary to reconstruct a general plan which, owing to the large size of the excavated surface, diminishes the effect of many details visible in the segments mentioned. This also explains the “uniform” aspect of the cemetery, both for the distribution of the graves in accordance with the rite/ritual, and for their distribution in accordance with the anthropological determinations. Sometimes we can observe, in the

segments mentioned, groups of two and more rarely 3 or 4 graves, sometimes with overlapping or cutting of graves, which are cases that constitute arguments for the existence of family plots, especially where both adults and children are present. In the view of Trogmayer, who led the research team, the layout of the graves without a special kind of order is only apparent, for he sighted groups of graves whose orientation was considered similar, at the same time voicing the opinion that for the cemetery as a whole there was no particular rule-system regulating the layout of the deceased with their head pointing in one or another direction. In his view, these groups represent families or kinship groups and they are linked to the similar ordering in the Tumular Culture groups of the Czech zone by a practice regarded as new, which differed from the older traditions in the ordering of the graves into rows, just as they are seen to be in the Periam-Pecica cemeteries at Deszk. Farkas and Lipták, the two anthropologists, are also in favor of the ordering of the cemetery, and they bring as arguments for their thesis the cases of adult graves by whose side children were identified. They represent others than the groups observed by Trogmayer and are alleged to indicate kinship relations. There are seven double graves identified as such during the anthropological analysis. In every case the archaeological research had identified and recorded in the catalogue just one skeleton, and it was only the anthropological analysis that also identified osteological remains from a second individual. Unfortunately the text of the two anthropologists does not offer any details about the parts of skeleton identified for the two individuals in each of these cases. In consequence, for grave 42 in the catalogue the conclusion is that the find refers to one skeleton which has been archaeologically interpreted to be a man’s, lying crouched on his left and oriented SE 130°-NW 310°, with no inventory. According to Farkas and Lipták, skeleton 42a belongs to a woman of the adultus age, by whose side lay the bones, which were in all probability disparate, of another individual - 42b - whose sex /age group has not been determined; grave 110, the catalogue entry says, is an inhumation grave with no inventory and whose skeleton is archaeologically considered to belong to a child, having been disturbed by tilling. According to Farkas and Lipták, skeleton 110a belongs to a child of the infans I age and by its side have been found probably bits of the skeleton which belong to a man of the Maturus age; grave 113 in the catalogue records a child skeleton in an oval pit with the position and orientation unspecified and by its side three fragments from a pendant and sherds from a bowl and a cup. In the table by Farkas and Lipták, skeleton 113a is recorded as belonging to a child aged infans II, and the skeleton 113b, consisting of just some bones probably, as belonging to a woman whose age is not specified; grave 280, in the catalogue is shown to have a childs skeleton found in a rectangular pit rounded at the ends, lying crouched on its left, oriented E 90°-V 270° and having in its inventory a cup, three rings made of a copper or bronze, three lunulae pendants and one horn tool . In Table 1 skeleton 280a figures as belonging to a juvens, and 280b, again, records only parts of a sexually indeterminate skeleton of the Adultus age; grave

129

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu 328, is described in the catalogue as a man’s grave with a skeleton crouched on the right, oriented SSE 150°-NNW 330°, with a few sherds by its side. In Table 1 the skeleton 328a figures as belonging to a man of the Maturus age, and 328b very probably has parts of the skeleton of a woman of the same age; grave 432 is recorded in the catalogue as being an inhumation grave in a rectangular pit with rounded ends, in which has been found an “auf dem Rücken liegendes Skelett in linker Hockerstellung”, oriented SE 170°-NW 350°, with a hemispherical bronze button by its side. In Table 1, the skeleton 432a is recorded as belonging to a woman of the Adultus age and entry 43b records a child of the Infans II age; grave 668, is recorded in the catalogue as a woman’s grave, with the skeleton crouched on the left, oriented SE 135°-NW 315°, with the upper part disturbed by animal burrows and with one cup and sherds from another cup by its side. According to Farkas and Lipták, 668a is a woman’s skeleton, of undetermined age and 668b lists the remains of a child of the Infans I age. These are seven graves which are important due to the problems they pose, because by the side of the main skeleton there are remains of other individuals. In the grave 280 case the excavation has anyway been correct, but the anthropological analysis has revealed the presence of some skeleton parts which must have been few and fragmented or else they would have been recorded on the grave plan. The catalogue descriptions show that in none of these seven graves there could have been burials that disturbed and destroyed most of the older graves, and the animals whose burrows through grave 668 cannot be held responsible for the presence of bone remains. In the whole impressive stock of burials at Tápé, the seven cases represent incidences which are statistically unimpressive but this does not entitle us to leave them aside. No equivalent situations have been observed, and I have in mind qualitative observations, which means that we cannot come up with a comparative judgment or chorologic evidence. Taking into consideration some very recent information, it is only in Monteoru that similar situations, albeit very few, have been recorded, and this is a context in which, as we have already shown, disparate human bones have been found in two settlements, i.e., in houses. We have seen that the finds of disparate bones in settlements have definitely been attested in the Otomani/Füzesabony sites. I do not know of similar situations in the settlements corresponding to the cemeteries of the Tápé type in the area at the confluence of the river Tisza with the river Mureş, but the 7 graves seem to attest, albeit with a limited casuitistic incidence, the practice of postmortem manipulating of corpses, which is a practice identified in other areas, at various moments in the Bronze Age. In this connection, the seven graves at Tápé might attest the survival of some older traditions of bone manipulation. Returning to the issue of the Tápé funerary precinct organization, it is quite clear that the problem is not easy to solve, all the more so as the cemetery has not been exhausted. If we take into consideration Trogmayer’s opinion, that there were originally around 1300-1500 burials at Tápé, which spanned a period of time corresponding to the

periods Reinecke Br BB2 - C, then it means we only have half of the burials that were spread over a quite long time interval, complicating the situation. The later disturbance of the graves has affected precisely the middle of the surfaces researched, which again frustrates our best hopes.... Nevertheless, we must keep in mind that there are clear cases of overlapping graves and graves which lie very close to each other, whose inventories make them resemble each other very often. Even without resorting to the planimetric optic of those anthropologists who have dealt with the remains, it is possible to record adult graves with child graves in their vicinity. All of these constitute clear indications about the fact that family relations were included in the funerary expression, in other words it is worth considering that a cemetery organization into family or clan parcels existed. Through the two procedures of statistical and spatial analysis, the analyses obtained for the coefficients, especially the value 12.179 Clark-Evans, indicate an organization of the cemetery of the clustered kind, into groups of graves. I think it is possible to show such grouping by strictly archaeological means, but the sizeable amount of information which needs to be processed for examining each situation of this kind in detail would lead to an equally sizeable extension of this work beyond the acceptable limits, and I have no intention of resorting to it! As one trend of the research, I shall only retain the data of the spatial statistic supported by the situations in which either graves overlap or they are very close to each other. Exterior funerary structures are missing at Tápé since the cemetery is entirely flat. As regards the interior structures, the shape of the pit has been recorded for 218 inhumation graves, 111 of these belonging to adults differentiated by sex group. There are rectangular, then oval pits, the former being dominant. The situation somehow resembles that noted at Mokrin, in the Periam-Pecica culture, which predates the cemetery at Tápé, and it may well stand for another retained tradition. No differentiation into sex groups or according to the corpse layout position seems to be observable, which is again similar to Mokrin. At the same time, the numerical balance between the masculine and feminine graves for which rectangular pits have been used is obvious, just as in the cases with oval pits, which demonstrates that either one or the other type of pit traversed the distinction into sex groups, showing it to be a fully independent funerary expression element; nevertheless, through its notable casuistic incidence, in both situations, it proves to have most probably been an element that underlined some group affiliation, which again is not supported by any other elements of the funerary structures, such as the inventories. It is possible to obtain slightly more clarifications about the cemetery structure from the analysis of the ways corpses were laid out, i.e., their positions and orientation. From the graph of the graves divided into groups of sex and age, considering just the anthropologically determined ones, we can notice that most of the skeletons in the cemetery at Tápé were deposited on the right or on the left, with a relative numerical balance, recorded both in general and in relation to the sex/age groups. Some corpses were laid on their backs, especially male ones and more rarely children or women. Only

130

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

incidentally have corpses laid face down been recorded, in only two cases of men. It is obvious that there were two different cultural codes expressed by two main positions - on the right or on the left - and they represented positions which, just as the pit type, cut across the sex differences and very probably express intra-community affiliations, as in the case cited above, and as such they indicate a society/community with a complex structure. The issue of the orientation seems perhaps to be the most complicated. We have already seen Trogmayer convinced that at Tápé there is no specific system of rules in this respect and at first sight this is indeed the case. Apart from the numerically major groups, in both of the main positions, in graves oriented to the S-SSE-SE sector, there are noticeable “peaks” which indicate groups of graves, and, again for both positions, oriented in no matter how many different ways, they have a radial aspect. The bi-polar and complementary layout of the corpses for marking the sex differences in the burials discussed now is a practice fully attested throughout the Bronze Age in time and across the entire area treated here. This practice has been thoroughly documented both for the Periam-Pecica and for the Otomani/Füzesabony area and we have no reason to suppose it might have been abandoned, it being the easiest means to express the mentioned differences in the funerary ceremony. If we regard the “variety” of the orientations at Tápé from this point of view, things become ordered somehow. Thus, if we take into consideration the opposition between the men laid on their right and the women laid on their left, we can observe the existence of a theoretical pair, with similar orientation diagrams in the statistical spectrum and a similar casuistic incidence (pair A) and conversely, we have a reciprocal situation for the men laid on the left as compared to the women laid on their right (pair B). As we can always note those peaks on the orientation diagrams, it is obvious that, if we start from the two main positions which cut across the sex differences but express the affiliations, in combination with the “orientations” that should have the same symbolic signification, we arrive at models or “ideal pairs”. These express the affiliation and sex group by opposition, which can explain the apparent “lack” of any system of orientation rules, as was the case in the Periam-Pecica or Otomani burials, if we take into account those variations which represent an opposed model, but are much lower numerically. If we were to analyze in great detail each of the anthropologically diagnosed graves at Tápé, verifying the positions, orientation and potential inventory symmetries, especially the ceramic ones, we would definitely be able to single out some of the practical cases in which, starting from the opposition of the two pairs, A and B, one or the other model could be seen at work either at Tápé or in similar burials. But such an enterprise would exceed by far the limits of the study undertaken here... Pottery is the main inventory category at Tápé. However, vessels are present in 251 graves, by comparison to the 376 graves with no pottery - which represent 36.80%, as against 63.20% respectively in a stock of 682 graves - indicating that it is only for one third of the deceased that the custom of placing deposits as such or depositing symbolic food oblations was observed, while this

ritual was not obligatory for the others. From the mere counting we cannot tell which was the real significance of this situation, but we don’t want to look at it as expressing privileges or other social advantages, knowing that the structure of the mortuary ceremonial cannot be correctly judged by reference to only one of its component element. We can obtain more clues if we verify the presence of the vessels in relation with the sex/age groups and we then observe the greater care paid to this aspect in the graves with feminine skeletons, fewer of which have no pottery. We derive significant information when linking the presence of pottery to the position of the skeletons. This shows more than clearly the inverse symmetry between the two positions as reflected in the differences between the graves with vessels and the graves without vessels, in so far as this practice is predominant in the graves with skeletons crouched on their right by comparison to the graves with skeletons crouched on their left. I think that the two statistical examinations shed light on two significant aspects of the funerary standard observed by the Late Bronze Age community at Tápé. First, they indicate quite clearly that the presence or absence of funerary pottery is far from signifying who was rich and who was poor, pottery being rather organically integrated in the overall funerary structure. The variability from this point of view is interdependent, taking into account criteria connected to affiliation. At the same time they support the previous remarks about the positions and orientations and, consequently, about the organization of the funerary space in accordance with the affiliation - kinship or matrimonial – criteria. The cup is by far the numerically overwhelming presence or shape in the Tápé funerary assortment, followed by the bowl and vessels, which can be called, courtesy to the fanatics of ceramologic analysis, amphorae or amphoroidal. The predominance of the cup demonstrates unequivocally the importance of liquids deposited near the deceased. We have no way of knowing if the cups and the other vessels were deposited only symbolically, with no food that is, or whether, on the contrary, they contained food and beverages. In the latter case we should wonder what kind of beverages will have been poured into the cups, if the consumption of liquids, for example wine or beer, which must have been easy to brew even at that time, was, as we are wont to think today, an almost exclusively masculine attribute... Unfortunately grave 687, the one with a Gârla Mare cup in its inventory was fortuitously discovered in or about 1968, and so we have no details which would allow us to date it and its import into one of the presumptive groups. Dress items, which are very important for the chronology of the cemetery, especially the metal ones, are quite satisfactorily represented in the Tápé cemetery, just as the dress items made of bone, various shells and beads made of so-called “faience”. It is none of my aims to discuss the, otherwise very important, typology of these materials. Their main interest lies in the relation with the funerary structures of the cemetery, as elements of individual expression. Again, the relation of these categories with the sex groups and the main

131

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu positions in which the respective corpses were laid in the graves proves significant. Thus it appears quite clearly that in the group of women laid on their right together with the men crouched on their left - who correspond to the “pair” B - the incidence of the dress items is lower than in the opposite group, consisting of women crouched on their left together with the men crouched on their right – who correspond to the “pair” A. One other inventory category, less frequent at Tápé, consists of weapons. They are present in 15 graves. Most of them are inhumation graves, only one, grave 403, is a cremation grave. Of the inhumation graves, one special situation is that of grave 26, with a skeleton diagnosed as belonging to a woman of the Adultus age, whose inventory, apart from some sherds, a ring with spiral ends and a fragment of wire, included two bronze arrowheads. Given the uniqueness of the situation, it is hard to specify if the two arrowheads were part of the inventory or the cause of death... Arrowheads of this kind have been found in other graves too, appearing in numbers of more than one usually, for example in grave 508, with three arrows, and in grave 307 with two arrows. The rarity of these weapons in the graves at Tápé is satisfactorily explained by their presence in finds whose ritual regime is completely different - in hoards or single finds -, as archaeological contexts in which weaponry appears predominantly. In fact the other weapons are arrowheads which have been found in isolation, some simple blades whose origin and use is not known and a small triangular dagger found in grave 283, which is an item with good analogies at Mokrin. Except for the arrowheads whose position in the funerary inventories is a serious issue, the other items should be considered dress accessories, rather, since it is hard for anyone to imagine that an enemy could be confronted successfully by means of the tiny triangular dagger. The only item which can be considered a weapon proper is the dagger of the Griffplattendolch category with two rivets, found in grave 534, a grave which stands out through the clear position of the male skeleton lying on its back. Whether they represent dress items or weapons proper, the presence of these items is a separate phenomenon from that of the dress items in the usual sense and they must be taken into consideration accordingly, as an inventory category of its own kind. I find it quite significant that these items, whether they are dress accessories or weapons, appeared differently, in relationship with the position of the skeletons. Thus weapons are dominant articles in the graves with skeletons crouched on their right - 9 cases -, by comparison to those crouched on their left - 3 cases -, and to those with skeletons lying on their backs - 2 cases - or to the cremation graves - with only one case. This underlines the differences between the skeletons crouched on the right and those crouched on the left. The problems of the cemetery at Tápé cannot definitely be clarified, just as the issues related to funerary practices, in a discussion as brief as the one her. In fact, knowing how extensive such an analysis should be, I have here preferred to simply sketch whatever has seemed to me more significant for making out the trend in understanding the funerary practices of the community which dwelt in the Lower Tisza basin at that time. The overall

discussion, which would have taken an examination of the entire area with Tumular Culture burials, or at least of those belonging to what Trogmayer rightfully proposed to call the Tápé Group, would have affected the rest of my enterprise. In fact, what is important now is the opportunity of clarifying the persistence of some older funerary traditions in confrontation with some quite evident changes, manifested through the ceramic style and the other everyday goods, which included the dress items also, weapons and so on... The fact that this change, whose beginnings can be discerned only at Tápé, spread over a more extensive area is proved among others by the “mysterious” grave at Peciu Nou, with its known long pins...

I think that one of the aspects worth noting from the sketch I have proposed about the funerary practices in the Tápé cemetery is that the customs of the community that using the cemetery show the permanence of older traditions, especially those deriving from the Periam-Pecica milieu, and one proof comes from the two burials in pythoi - in graves 3 and 79 – which appear as singular in this zone. If it is a fact that mortuary practices are strongly indebted to older traditions, changes are visible in the dress items and the ceramic style as direct archaeological proofs. For indirect archaeological proofs are the ones which show the intense variability of funerary practices, which I hope I have managed to place in a causal relationship with the extremely complex structural changes of the social unit/community at Tápé. The importance of the cemetery discussed so far has determined J. Blischke to make a more profound analysis of the entire context. By and large, his conclusions are in accordance with mine, especially as regards the type of organization of the funerary precinct into family plots. I would only like to observe that the importance given to the depths of the graves, though promising at the beginning, is ultimately not justified. This is so because the fact that archaeological excavations have been conducted in several stages and on a large area, and we are forced to accept a margin of errors, which can be seen on the graphs in Figures 64-66, where depths appear as ordered by the “bell-shaped” Gauss curve, and not in accordance with the peaks specific to the sex groups. In this way, his analysis of the grave structure - Grabbau - has been affected by the introduction of a more than uncertain element. J. Blischkes analysis rather laid stress on inventories, and on an inherently hierarchical typology, which has made him deal with many descriptors, diluting the information in places. The modalities of laying the deceased in the graves have been treated by Blischke in a less detailed way, especially as regards the rules of orientation, which makes the difference between our studies. But the analytical spirit of the author has provided a coherent image which, beside the inadvertencies mentioned, exceeds the one proposed here. According to Trogmayer, the cemetery is the expression of a new population, a distinct archaeological phenomenon which places it in the Reinecke BzBB2-BC interval, by analogies which start from the dress items. I have no reasons to contest this dating so far, but I wonder if it is possible to notice, at Tápé, a continuation for precisely the last

132

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

stage of the Bronze Age. I think the answer could be provided by the cemetery at Csorva... At the end of a long journey through the Bronze Age graves I can only look back and examine whatever may be left to say. In fact, every time I have started a discussion about one or another cultural group I have tried to arrive at some conclusions which are natural, albeit not always perhaps complete. This would mean that at the end of the journey I should start anew, speaking more briefly. But I do not think this would be a very useful course, all the more so as not all the conclusions at which I have arrived can possibly withstand the biting criticism that is sure to be brought, but especially the severe exam of the increasing documentation which is sure to come too... Documentation has seemed the greatest difficulty to surpass in the current study. The “splendid” cultures or cultural groups which flourished in the Bronze Age of the Carpatho-Danubian area have proved to be, in many cases, merely artificial creations which lacked precisely one of the obligatory defining criteria: burials. An excess of typology, sometimes verging on the absurd and coming complete with barnyard statistics - which rested upon a narrow outlook - made autism reign supreme in research and spawned numerous groups, aspects, facies, phenomena - naturally, all of them subsumed to the cultures as was to be expected - which ended up fragmenting the real archaeological landscape of the Bronze Age, in fact annihilating it. Things have actually gone even further.... In almost inexplicable ways, these artificial creations have been scientifically sanctioned, hallowed even, in the highest academic circles, although it was easy to see that almost each of these groupuscles was no more than a sorry bag of sherds, selected already when collected and especially afterwards... All of these are now confronted with archaeological phenomena with an increasingly clear content, including mortuary practices of the most complex kinds, better represented, now long since solidly defined, albeit not all published also in correspondingly useful quality. This state of things is more than obvious for the beginnings of the Bronze Age which started under the auspices of sayings like: “There are as many customs as there are hovels”... Suffice it to mention the passionate debates about “the transition from the Neolithic/Eneolithic to the Bronze Age”, which was a notion rightfully said to reflect the mere patchiness of a documentation preventing specialists from correctly understanding a structural change which, of course, had neither occurred over night and everywhere, nor during a couple of centuries here, and a score of years, there... The increase of research, as dictated by the haphazard finds, has cooperated with the “skill” of the researchers in changing this notion, which is only rarely used as a professional jargon term now and is losing its flesh from its bare bones day by day. We fare slightly better in what the Middle Bronze Age is concerned, since here monuments are as real as the classical Bronze Age cultures and they cannot be dressed and re-dressed at the will of whomsoever. But even in these cases, not in reality, but in publications, the great funerary objects are missing, of which we

know only by hearsay or from mere mentions. There are still inadvertencies here and there. Not small, but as big as the Verbicioara “culture”, or as the often invoked anti-Glina migration that ends up pushing it west or east or south, or, indeed, wherever there is some unoccupied patch of land.... The documentary peace of the Middle Bronze Age, albeit never in excess anyway, is transformed to conceptual tragicomedy, just at the onset of the Late Bronze Age. The solidity of the Noua culture in the east is definitely hard to break unless we resort to the circumstantial marriage with the Eurasian bearers of the Sabatinovka culture, while to the west even great entities, such as the Otomani/Füzesabony group, are liable to be attacked with the sledgehammers of the Berkesz, Egyek, Igriţa or Cehăluţ groups for instance, for which, apart from a smile in the office, there are hardly any bones to produce from properly labeled burials. The best example in question is the “cultural warehouse” of Mezocsát, where the acre of land offers us an assortment and a crowd of here some rather later Füzesabony, there some Tumular Culture, and Piliny, and Kyjatice and what not... In the idiomatic words of some local sage, we lack for nuffin... But all our mirth evaporates if we turn our view to the Danube. Here we must witness the process whereby, in trying to avoid difficulties, for understanding a culture such as Gârla Mare, the solution found has been to discuss some random materials found pell-mell in an old arm of the Danube. The most important cemetery of the group, at Orsoja, has not come to be known in detail so far, the number of graves varies with each specialist who tackless the issue, inventories have been mixed up in publication, and there is no hope for the pressingly necessary rectifications; what is more, the leading figure of the research there ended up in jail..... According to the generally shared opinion, the Belegiš culture is the outcome of some large scale changes in the western regions. Luckily this opinion rests on some very trustworthy large cemetery finds, but unfortunately less on their very attentive analysis. This fact has consequences of its own, in the ray of hope we are expecting from the Gáva group, which is increasingly proved to have been a considerable phenomenon with echoes in the region beyond the Eastern Carpathians; this process was under way at the very time when Chişinău archaeology was trying to persuade itself that everyone who breathed under the sun at or near the Dniester was bound west, being pressed by the dire Криза металла to rise in numbers and make for faraway lands... The patchiness of documentation has always had an ally in its own product, that is the barbed wire fences of endless chronological nuances which have been directly and diligently invested in systems, diagrams, sketches and, of course, tables and chronological charts, sometimes reaching mural dimensions, put together from various sources by copy and paste operations rather than by any aspirations to soar high. They have patched and plastered the holes in the walls of the old citadel put up by the Teutonic meticulousness of the founding father Reinecke, hoisting the flags of Danubian victory on its battlements in a festivity that has lasted almost half a century now, and is still alive! The system, has affected the publication of excavations, in addition to the more palpable

133

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu influence it has had upon the limitations of people’s clear thought. But I think there is one more thing to add. The current enterprise, aimed at embracing the whole of the Bronze Age, rests on exactly 7567 graves, of which barely one half had archaeological flesh on their needy bones! This has been the real basis of the documentation that served me for sketching some funerary practice standards. I have tried, not in order to offer any final solutions, but to try and see how things stand in reality... The first thing to note is that the situation as a whole is not in order, which can be seen when we stumble against the first block on our way in reaching the cemetery at Decea Mureşului. As an uncommon manifestation against the background of our own and everybody’s documentation, the cemetery at Decea Mureşului seems to be a break in the landscape of the older Neolithic burial practices; it shows a number of pronounced ritual changes in respect to the older Neolithic mortuary habits and some evident connections with the Eurasian steppes, which then turned into a permanence during the Bronze Age. This took the form of a confrontation, already under way at the time it seems, and featuring a new dramatic performance on a scene with old sets. The little cemetery is, as has already been asserted, and not only by myself, still hard to understand, largely because of the not too rich information for the rest of the field. This is an indication, from the start, about the limiting condition of the entire enterprise. But Decea Mureşului retains its whole potential of promises that will surely confront and reward us once similar finds have been made. The majestic dimensions of the Coţofeni, culture, spawned by the ample debates around this or that typological variants of its pottery, grows unsettlingly less when confronted with the scarcity of its absolutely certain mortuary finds. The meager quantitative condition of the elements that give it funerary expression by comparison to its eastern, western, northern and southern neighbours, as has insistently been shown to be the case, is surprising and can become chilling for us when it comes to finding major explanations for this fact. But we cannot neglect the appearance on the Bronze Age mortuary scene, from the Dniester to the Tisza, of the “strange” custom of burning one’s own dear deceased, a practice that seems characteristic of the communities influenced by the Coţofeni group. The relationship with the Baden group, largely bi-ritual, has only been enlightened as far as pottery is concerned and less as regards the mortuary customs, which is why I can only timidly guess that it is from there that the cremation rite, as a rite ready to develop a very successful record by the end of the period, was imported. The reality of the Coţofeni group has to be admitted and we are forced into this by the vessels with typical decorations, namely by the vessels found in the cremation graves on the barrow at Tărnava. This is perhaps indicative of the hospitality or permissivity of some communities that were inhumated in their own funerary precincts as a result of peaceful, reciprocally profitable cohabitation. As if this needed to be proved anyway, the direct link of the Coţofeni group with the wider circle of the Yamnaya burials in this way also justifies its dating to the first period of the Bronze Age, just as the current state of the documentation,

which has been on the increase constantly, obliges us increasingly to reexamine this culture. Beside its splendor, whose colors have been publicly paraded so often, the resplendent Cucuteni-Tripolje culture has zero significance for the understanding of the Bronze Age, in whose formation it took such an active part. I am saying this because when I take time over understanding the beginning of things, from the Eastern Carpathians all the way to the Dniester, it is possible to catch sight of those promises which turn into the corresponding elements of a large circulation and free-breathing set of funerary practices for so long now. At Majaki and Usatovo, for example, the mortuary precinct generously reflects the image of a cross-roads society and a society where pressing needs criss-crossed too, but were successfully managed by the society also by the manifestations of a passionately sophisticated funerary expression. Only apparently, the opposition between cemeteries and settlements is vigorously imprinted and the relation between these two categories was, in fact, one form of the daily dialogue which went on to show how the most active factors were those who remained outside the graves, in so far as they laboured heartily to put up the self-important sophisticated structures of the Usatovo-style kurgans, whether we give the eponymous name or designated them as Suvorovo or by any other name. The funerary space, integrated just like the nearby settlements, was a controlled precinct and thus became the genuine arena of a blistering inter-community competition, whose dimensions could safely compare with the famous potlatch ceremonies of the Tlingit Amerindians, who went whale hunting on the west coast of America. As a matter of fact the amount of social energy spent proves to have been exceptional, not only through the structure of each kurgan, but also by the attentive segmenting of the funerary space, mirroring a similarly blistering competition, this time at the intra-community level. With our yearning for knowledge left unsatisfied by the lack of anthropological determination, there is no way we can tell what woman will have meant for the men whom we call Usatovian today, but judging by some items in the grave furnishing which accompanied the deceased, we understand that the wistfulness of love also became invested in the means of mortuary expression. Talking of (inventory) items, we must not forget the arsenic bronze daggers which were present at the Danube outflow coming from the remote Caucasus by exchange of gifts, goods, or dowries perhaps, which might also shed light upon some funerary expression forms such as stone cists, which were at the time known beyond the Kuban area, but also in the Crimea, at Kemi Oba or on the Baltic expanses, in the cold world of the Globular Amphorae. But west of the Danube outflow, on the mortuary scene of the Bronze Age appeared an unprecedented structure, or maybe with precedents in the constructions among the remote Atlantic megaliths or on far away on the Baltic seashore. I have in mind the barrow, one of the oddest funerary structures not only by their aspect but also by what they hide and put to rest in their entrails. As can be seen in Bugeac, or beyond to the east, kurgans sheltered the dead pertaining to kins or families, whose leaders, as the exponents of these clans’ prestige and at the same time as warrants of these communities’ survival locked in

134

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

confrontation with an environment that was hard to control and to tap, played the role of protagonists on the prehistoric stage. When they are judged in plan or in the sections of archaeological excavations, kurgans allow us to discern a very solidly configured universe, with a virtually pyramidal hierarchy, whose top is always represented by the primary grave - the grave of the leader. His presence determines the entire ceremonial program observed in the succession of further burials, including the repetitive episodes which still allow us to observe primary graves found in mantles which the constructive report/ration/relation prove to have been erected, again and again, new kurgans on ground that had already been brimful with sacrality and prestige. In this way, the kurgan need not be regarded only as a place for burial but also as a memorial, a repository of tradition, which gave strength to the community, if only by being looked at. The community would also feel consolidated through the competition between its clans, as can be discerned from the funerary mound fields at Majaki or Usatovo. The new funerary expression did not become generalized. The late Tripol’ye society, with its complex structure, expressed in the funerary way also by flat-grave cemeteries, very significantly placed side by side, in dialogue I should say, with the barrow-graves. The distribution of some dress items made of precious metals or of “exotic” weaponry, as is the case of the daggers mentioned, supports the dialogue where prestige and boastfulness are at stake. In other words, we have to do with the social manipulation of death. This is not a new practice. The modes of expression change in respect to the previous age and the change comes almost of a sudden, almost in spite of the partisans of transition as it were. And indeed, it is as sudden as can be, if we take into consideration the almost complete absence of funerary expression archaeologically detected in the preceding Cucuteni-Tripolje “phase”. Doubtlessly such a society exerted an indisputable influence over its neighbours. But we can no longer shed light on this, for modern reasons. On the one hand, the fragmentation of reality by the creation of cultural groups which have often been defined as occupying areas as big as a “plasă” (a small administrative-territorial unit of interwar Romania) whose finds came mostly from “attentive” surface surveys done on a week-end and, more rarely, from finds of sorry little graves lying ready at hand on some tillable plot. I have already discussed them and there is no sense in further efforts. The Tripol’ye complex could have done with a series of clarification for the areas at its confines. But here are, to its north as well as to its south, the cemeteries at Suceava-Parcul cetăţii and at Brăiliţa, respectively. Being execrably excavated and equally badly published, plus correspondingly ill understood and “put up” for discussion, these two objects, which had originally carried so much weight, ended up as some dark holes for Romanian archaeological research. The information lost at Suceava, with the oldest cremation cemetery of the Bronze Age, and also at what still seems to be the great cemetery at Brăiliţa will be retrieved only with lots of difficulty and only in time, once similar objects have been identified and thoroughly researched. Until this goal is reached, we will have to struggle with those

hybrid constructions whose content and sense has already been lost track of by the very artisans who produced them. I also have in mind the assortment of issues from Cernavoda, which are real but clumsily wrapped and put into circulation. The Late Tripol’ye mortuary complex has a counterpart, both as regards its structures and the aspects which can be deduced from the ceremonial scenarios, in the similar manifestations of the Globular Amphorae Culture, even though its presence in northern Moldavia is as yet discreet, although, as proved by a recent find, it has reached to the western slopes of the Eastern Carpathians, to the upper basin of the river Olt, whose course has facilitated circulation from Transylvania as far as the lower Danube. Located in an utterly unpropitious region for archaeological research, the Globular Amphorae Culture proves to have founded a tradition destined to be transmitted to further cultures. The costly structures of cists made of massive stone slabs are meant, as their repeated use to accommodate successive burials proves them to be collective funerary structures, even in the absence of funerary precincts organized into cemeteries. We have no way of knowing whether this was a reality that appeared from the relation between the small but strong communities and the environment that they strived to control or whether it was the result of the chance research, dictated by the difficulty of investigating mountainous, wooded regions. Contacts with the late Tripol’ye groups are thoroughly documented today over an extensive area, which has prompted many researchers to envisage reciprocal borrowings, even borrowings of funerary expression, favored by a common vision and a common structure specific to the new age. One of the dominant funerary fashions that ruled dominantly for a long time in the widest expanses of land was that of the “red ochre” barrow burials. Their structure includes blatant structural elements which are the heritage from the late Tripol’ye world, adapted to a new lifestyle seen by many to have been pastoral and specific to the Indo-European advance. This concept, which is structurally solid and expressed in genuinely prestigious studies with a wide circulation has been the subject of political manipulation, one of its outcomes being the fact that the research on various barrows on the north-Pontic steppes has been encouraged. Even today there are a lot of specialists who faithfully follow in the wake of the Indo-European paradigm. The Indo-European question has been one of the first golden dreams of European archaeology, a dream that in time became a most unpleasant nightmare. There are numerous queries regarding the beginnings of the south-eastern European Bronze Age which got stuck in the Indo-European brushwood and were there to stay amassed with all those who brought them there. Lately we have witnessed the efforts that some have made to extricate themselves from this nightmare, but as yet these efforts have appeared as no more than meager attempts when compared with the uncompromising Indo-Europeanophiles who take shelter in the citadel of autistic discourses which remain impenetrable to any new information or interpretation, which has gradually transformed the debate into a parallel competition of sorts entertained by two discourses which have ceased to see each other. But I think that

135

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu the most adequate commentary about this paradigm was offered by Yuri Rassamakin not long ago. The territorial extension of the Yamnaya funerary manner is one of the main internal contradictions of the concept. How could such restricted herding communities, even if they were tenacious and pugnacious, ever have controlled a region as widespread as to reach from the Tisza to the Volga outflow and from the Pripjat to the Rhodopi Mountains? Where are their settlements and how can one explain the luxuriance of the funerary inventories of the Novotitorovka finds, in the Kuban delta or on the banks of the river Ingul, when these finds are put in relation with the time and energy spent for maintaining the constant pendular movements to Csongrád and back? These are questions that can only be answered by putting forward hypotheses and saying that what actually circulated by the to-and fro movements, and perhaps during the movements across more limited areas which can be covered by documentary explanations and acceptable conclusions, was the impressive manner of expressing prestige by funerary structures of the kurgan type. They represented funerary structures that could answer the needs of some limited communities who were just beginning to forge their own survival strategies. The differences of ritual between, on the one hand, the western region located in the Tisza vicinity and, on the other hand, the region of the Danube outflow, appear in explicit ways when charting the dynamic of the internal kurgan structure, since changes succeeded each other rapidly in Bugeac and the vicinities of Odessa, while in the Hungarian Puszta or in the Banat they are less palpable. Radiocarbon dating and the indirect links which should be made with the regions still deprived of this modern physics benefaction show that in the wide expanse of the Yamnaya ocean limited archipelagos appeared here and there, for example, the Zimnicea group. The eponymous cemetery of this Early Bronze Age group is no stranger to the elements which can be encountered almost everywhere in the surrounding plains. Not only red ochre is meant here, but also some ceramic shapes also present in the kurgans and the plains surrounding them. We also have in mind more than the red ochre finds: some ceramic forms present in the barrows and the flat-grave cemetery on the Danube banks. In the hilly regions we can only tentatively touch the Yamnaya hybrid forms which gave their own answer to death, whose certification has to be supported by archaeological means. The widespread plains situated immediately north of the Danube have constituted a favorable environment for barrow-burials, which often appeared in the guise of kurgan fields, as is the case at Gurbăneşti and Sănduliţa, at Smeeni, Vităneşti and Seaca de Câmp, or beyond the Danube - between Bulgaria and Romania, in the area known in this part of the world as the Cadrilater, where the most south-western graves that contains a wagon with massive wooden wheels have been found, which resemble the graves at Vinogradnoe and Zarečnoe in the Ukraine and Bolotnoe in the southern Crimea or of the Novotitorovka group, at Ostanniji, Lebedi or Dinskoj. Through their characteristics these wagons - since they are massive and have solid wheels made of wooden planks - can hardly have been of use as vehicles serving for the

presumable Yamnaya migration. They actually represent another sophisticated funerary expression, especially if we take into account the complexity of Kurgan 9 at Elista or the kurgans in the Kuban delta. Basically, although it proved to remain unaltered for a considerable length of time, the main nucleus of the Yamnaya standard, which emerged thanks to the internal hierarchy of kurgans as funerary expressions or plots that showed the solidarity of some limited communities grouped around authoritarian leaders, managed to respond to the social or environmental challenges, by its remarkable variability, which is evident in numerous ritual details and in this way secured its individuality and permanence. One of the most notable changes, which indicated a major difference in the underlying vision upon corpses, was, doubtlessly, the practice of cremating the dead, whose origin was probably western. The ceremonial will have been most likely impressive, and this manner of socially manipulating death must have been responsible for preserving the prestige of the ceremonial officiants, who successfully hid and insinuated their own prestige behind the prestige of the deceased, which enabled them to assert, stress and increase their own prestige in their bereavement. It was only natural for the new rite to fit into the pattern of funerary structures which had the same social destination. This is how we can explain the presence of cremation in a few barrows near the Danube, some of which have been mentioned above. The right thing to do, actually, may be to recall that cremation and the construction of funerary mounds began to cooperate and secure a common successful career towards the end of the Bronze Age, as can be seen at Nyírkarasz and Lăpuş. I think we can conclude that in the Early Bronze Age the condition for the establishment of funerary practices was to be found in the confrontation between the Usatovo traditions, on the one hand, and the traditions which came from Central Europe, whose core could be represented by the custom of burning the dead. The originally timid cohabitation became a solid matrimony in the course of time, which led to a permanent overall biritualism, which we have studied at length in the present book. As the social response provided to a dramatic biological event, the funerary ceremonial did not suffer changes in more than its expressive details, or, more exactly, in the combinations of basic elements, each of which was in reality the answer produced by each cultural group, in accordance with its socio-economic possibilities. I find it hard to employ the term funerary ideology, forty years after the intensive abusive, and utterly downgrading, use of the notion, and especially in reference to populations which have no certificates or authentifying credentials to their credit, and whose script is utterly unknown too.... I think it is preferable to use the term ceremony, because its significance is closer and more neutral, or maybe the term “ceremonial program”, which represents a more workable notion than the term ideology, which seems to me to involve too closely the people who perished millennia ago. Doubtlessly it is absolutely necessary to specify some funerary standards for this and that group or culture and I have often reinforced my viewpoint when taking down this or that cultural

136

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

groupuscles. However before we heap upon the back of burials as a whole the burden of social identities, we should, nevertheless, cast a wary, vigilant look at what we can actually regard as the crisis of the notion of culture, in the archaeological sense of course... I do not intend to launch here, where the place and time are not propitious, a discussion, albeit confined within normal limits, about this topic. But I want to underline the fact that, as noticeable quite often, I have used the terms culture and group alternatively, precisely because of this conceptual crisis that I am only pointing out here. I do not intend to enter a discussion, even a limited discussion, on this topic, since I can tell it is not fit to do so. All I want to underline is that, as has sometimes been noticed, I have used the terms culture or group precisely because of this conceptual crisis that I wish to point out, no more than that. While talking to a topmost hierarch of European archaeology, it became obvious that the term ceramic group would be more appropriate for several cultures; I fully agreed. But I could not use it, for my subject were the people, not the sherds of their pots. Moreover, I have spoken about people, who, in their poverty and neediness, were quite unaware of the burdens borne on their back such as the “Cernavoda III-Boleraz”, or “of steppe kind” or in their smaller bags when matching the Roşia or Fundeni-Govora groups! As a matter of fact, among the targets followed was to question, from the point of view of funerary finds, those artificial creations mentioned. I do not know to what extent I can make a convincing point in my enterprise, but in scientific debates what matters is to pinpoint the doubtful points... The truth is that whereas the Early Bronze Age needs the outline of this or that funerary standard, the Middle Bronze Age needs comparison, given that archaeological documentation can rest on a few impressive monuments, represented by several cemeteries which can, to a certain extent, be related to settlement structures sufficiently well defined. The east-west confrontation and actually interaction continues through the last Yamnaya type manifestations and their Katakombnaja sequel. Without going into the details already discussed, what we must remember is that the confrontation arena reduces its locale and barrow burials stop somewhere at the line of the river Mostiştea, very probably as a result of the formation of some archaeological entities generically known as the classical cultures of the north-Danubian Bronze. Taking an overview of the area in question, the appearance of these entities is not only characteristic to the Romanian territory but can be noted to be thoroughly entrenched in Central Europe, in Slovakia, Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, even, where the apparent confusions are due to a singular terminological approach, which involves the belated penetration, currently, of the “culture” notion. I think I am entitled to speak of the large restructuring characteristic to the Middle Bronze Age, irrespective if we look at it from the battlements of the Reinecke “citadel” or through the prismatic lense of a more versatile system, in the best sense of the word, such as that employed by the Romanian archaeological research for a long time now. There are chronological conditionings to make, necessarily, and I am, of course, not going to deny their value.

But I think that this conditioning cannot be successfully confronted if we do not seriously take into account the 14C dating and the consequent assault of the schemata previously mentioned, which is likely to send them all to the museum of the long and short chronology! One really obvious change is the appearance of widespread cemeteries with numerous burials, which differ so much from the clumps of burials which used to be more frequent and characteristic for the Early Bronze Age. The great Monteoru, Otomani, Periam-Pecica, Gârla Mare cemeteries are proofs of the existence of communities that consisted of numerous individuals and sometimes had a considerable life-duration, manifested by stratigraphical reference successions, such as that at Sărata Monteoru, and not only there... This is why the almost total absence of funerary finds for some groups, for example Glina, or its descendant in the same area, the Tei culture, which are quite well defined through their pottery, is so surprising. As the research of these two groups, albeit discontinuous, has continued for some time now, the rarity of the funerary finds likely to be attributed to them seems to be an archaeological reality which is hard to explain today. I think the answer is to be found at the end of a long road, which is aimed at studying the habitat structures and could, thereby, manifest strategies of survival imposed by a less favorable environment, and I have in mind the Vlăsiei Forest and, why not?, the small scale settlements with small adjoining cemeteries, as at Brazi or Căscioarele... Often, the literature discusses in detail, on the basis of ceramic fragments, influences, borrowings, overlappings and cases when some populations were displaced by others. Their ceramologic fragrance and incense has made me shy away from them so far... Especially as funerary inventories have hardly ever held, as a rule, any tools specialized in the dislocation of population groups. But I have come upon jewelry which matched luxurious dress, expensive weapons sometimes, domestic implements and animal bones. Older paradigms, still in use, have attempted to convey the image of antagonistic social categories, of rich men and poor men. There may have been a time when such interpretations were big capital on the political market, but things are very different today. Anglo-American archaeology – and not only – has propounded the methodology of ethnographical comparisons, starting from some exceptional opportunities of researching the graves and the settlements of some American Indians already known quite well from ethnological research. The procedure is quite old and few people know that the Marxian notion of the “Asian mode of production” was mercilessly censured in the 1960s by a team of Japanese anthropologists who studied for years on end the reciprocal, complex relationships of the Ibu populations of animists who cultivated the igname and the mahomedan warriors Hausa in Nigeria. This is what supported Professor Ucko’s severe and justified critique of the paradigmatic modalities in the interpretation of funerary finds, especially those regarding the orientation rules and position of the corpses and, moreover, of the funerary precincts.... But the

137

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu ethnographical parallel cannot always be used. Far from being a universal panacea and universal solution for the interpretation of burials, as is always attempted in the so-called ethno-archaeological projects, ethnological, or, rather cultural anthropological - ethnological parallels can lead to excesses and counter-productive results, i.e., to aberrations. The model which has always appealed to me is that propounded over fifty years ago by U. Fischer, who analyzed the late Neolithic burials in the basin of the rivers Saale and Elbe and obtained remarkable results. The discrete way in which he has used the cultural anthropological comparison is entirely justified, since the ethnographic cases he referred to are far away in time and space from the prehistoric dwellers of the Old World, hence the natural reservations in using them. But I think that the moment or episode when we can analyze the funerary finds and we can and have to use the ethnological turn of the screw is only after we have made careful counts of whatever is stashed in the documentation basket. Hence the apparent statistical attacks on the monuments discussed during the entire study here. I am no unconditional adept of statistics, but the procedures resorted to in research have helped me complete the indication of the trend, whatever may have been missing because of the patchy documentation. I have not for a moment been tempted to theorize, since I am convinced that archaeology, which is an empirical science, has no business to tie handkerchiefs over its eyes and blindfold itself. I therefore take this opportunity to say that I am convinced the excess of theorizing is specific to two moments of key importance in the professional archaeological career. The first is that of the inexperienced beginner, especially when one sets out putting the wrong foot first in the profession and taking very long to complete formation; the second moment is the lame, climacterical moment, whose onset can be unpleasantly early... I have tried to sketch the guide-lines, and, why not, the limits of my journey through the Bronze Age graves, for the finds of this kind which have been attributed to the Middle Bronze Age have challenged me and I have therefore tried to find a good enough fork with sharp prongs to make hay... As stated at the end of the concluding chapter, I do not think it would be useful to take up all the conclusions for each group or culture. They can be referred to in extenso where they belong. I think it is useful, nevertheless, after drawing attention to one of the main differences to the previous period, namely the appearance all over the area of large cemeteries with several burials, to strive to match the various standards that I have managed to sketch. I mentioned an overall bi-ritualism earlier. I am sure there were groups/cultures with exclusive funerary rites, for example Gârla Mare and Zimnicea-Plovdiv, but it is possible to identify regions where inhumation or cremation was predominant, and this is an important fact in itself. The ideal case is offered by the Monteoru-Wietenberg relation. As neighboring groups, with frequent, solidly attested contacts which were certainly occasioned by long-distance exchange, the two archaeological phenomena are of central importance for the area in question and differ in inversely symmetrical ways as regards resorting to one or the other funerary rite. At Monteoru,

inhumation is the main, predominant rite and cremation proves to be the secondary and completely adjacent rite, while for the Wietenberg area cremation was the favorite procedure, by far, whereas inhumation appears as a secondary and adjacent rite. The central position of the two cultures in the space in question pinpoints and helps understanding the other sectors from this point of view. Internal bi-ritualism is ascertained by the documentation and has the same structural relation as in the Monteoru communities, with a completely identical situation attested in the stronger northern neighbour, the Otomani/Füzesabony culture, at its beginning. Internal biritualism is felt also in the small group of the Komarów burials in the Buhuşi-Costişa area, but it is missing on the plains of Muntenia. There differences are more radical, in so far as on the west bank of the Olt the discrete inhumations of the Tei group are known, while on the east bank of the Olt, and more to the south, in sunny Oltenia, the denizens of Verbicioara Phases I to III were burning their deceased so piously. I think this is the time to voice my reservations about the singular inhumated corpse that belongs to the Verbicioara culture and was found somewhere on the crest or at the peak, or somewhere around the hill... In the Danube floodplain the Gârla Mare communities haughtily chose to ignore inhumation and since they had many a reed and clumps of common trees within reach they cremated their dead, as had done their predecessors in the Szeremle area, before descending along the course of the big river. Overall bi-ritualism grows stronger on the western margin, where in some cemeteries of the Periam-Pecica group, for example at Battonya, the number of the deceased increased, just as at Streda nad Bodrogom and at Tiszafüred, in the Otomani surrounding, perhaps acknowledging of some new-comers... This change in the western zone was to become, in defiance of the theoretical steel boundary of the periods, one of the features of the entire region, differentiated through almost exclusive cremation by comparison to the inhumations in southern Muntenia, in the Zimnicea-Plovdiv-Asenovec-Čerkovna group. The cradle and starting point for the practice of cremating the dead can be quite precisely indicated as being the late Zók manifestations, whence it penetrated, through the forefront groups of Makó and Nyírség-Zatin, to the centre of the Transylvanian plateau and from there crossed the mountains to go south, as demonstrated by the aspect of the grouping Gornea-Runcuri which had no graves... Not only the combed and brushed (Besenstrich) ceramic which is associated with cremation shows that to be true but also the modalities of solving such a burial, namely the ritual variants of the cremation graves. It would certainly have been useful to know where the cremated deceased belonged culturally in bi-ritual groups such as Monteoru, few though they are. For objective reasons, anthropologists have usually extracted from the urns all the information we would have needed, so it is hard to choose now between saying that we are in the presence of adopted foreigners, who retained their mortuary customs, or of a mortuary custom adopted by the locals. One thing is sure: the low incidence does not justify the interpretation of some complicated vestiges as repeatedly used pyres or furnaces, as some have attempted to do in the case

138

Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară

of the situation at Poiana Scoruşului. For, even in the predominantly cremation contexts, for example Wietenberg, we have no traces of such installations, since we can hardly regard the poor hearth at Sibişeni as such an installation... The integration of cremation, in groups where inhumation predominated, naturally led to an increase in the variety of funerary expression, especially in Monteoru. Unfortunately the funerary monument at Cândeşti is not accessible and we must be content with disparate information collected from all over the Monteoru area in order to attempt a partial reconstruction anyway, of the extremely animated picture of the Monteoru funerary practices. The older traditions of permanent burial sites corresponding to the importance or social person of the deceased bequeathed by the Globular Amphorae communities at Sânmartin, not far from the Carpathian Curve, were transmitted by the Schneckenberg group. The expression was slightly more powerful now, judging by the cists found at Pietricica, or the cists in the Muscel area, which belonged to the same Monteoru communities mentioned earlier. The use of stone cists seems limited to the eastern half of the area in question, only a few more being noted to the west, for example at Mediaş, or in the hills at the foot of the mountains at Govora. The penetration of the catacomb graves is characteristic to the same eastern half, in the Monteoru context at Cândeşti and probably at Sărata Monteoru. This fact is important, for it proves clearly enough that one of the fundamental components in the structure of the Monteoru mortuary standard is of eastern origin, as a component that can be perceived through some particularities of the orientation (predominantly NE), through the “family” stone rings that take over the rings from the Late Yamnaya or Katakombnaja barrows, the stepped pits or the pits with stone filling. But apart from these, through the cremation rite incorporated to its own funerary precincts, the Monteoru culture also integrated a western element, which is usually accompanied by numerous dress items whose origin in surroundings such as Periam-Pecica or even further ones has been demonstrated. The eastern funerary structural elements did not reach farther to the west beyond the Monteoru culture, which can be ascertained in the external layout structures manifest in the perimeter of these areas, while retaining their individuality as a whole. But every time, whether we speak of catacombs, rings or other forms, these structures appear as additions to graves that belonged to persons whose social rank was high, which emphatically expressed the social energy consumed. Apparently the high social rank as notion is synonymous with rich, a term that we have criticized. But things are only apparently so, for the high rank, as known, was not only the product of this or that material standard, it was rather dependent on the internal position within the social sub-unit and unit to which the deceased belonged, i.e., it testified to affiliation. In a famous work, while dealing with the populations from northern Burma, Edmund Leach drew attention to the distinction between “donors of women” as opposed to “receivers of women”, both of which notions referred to the matrimonial system and the affiliation relations. A central position and the capacity to

control others can grant lots of privileges to a person and consequent advantages, among which the capacity to enjoy a special funerary expression. Inside a community, nobody will feel frustrated or underprivileged by this, but, on the contrary, satisfied, since such manifestations warrant the importance of one’s own position, one’s daily security and free access to women… I am quite sure that this is one of the keys to open the front door for interpreting mortuary practices and this is why I have insisted on the significance of several elements of the funerary structure. The Monteoru case is one of the most promising and this explains why we have dwelt more upon it. Unfortunately the documentation has not always been such as to support us in our enterprise. This has been proved by the frequent attempts at spatial analysis through Voronoi-Dirichlet-Theissen and Delaunay triangulations. Being just simple senseless work-tools, the two triangulations are not answerable in cases of deficient cemetery layout drawings, hence the frequent imprecissions. But taking into consideration the equivalent error margin, we can obtain an average of the coefficients which can shed some light even under these circumstances. The careful attempt to express individual identity, in so far as it has been established within various communities, is expressed in the mortuary contexts through the funerary furnishing. It is often forgotten that the very different functionality of the pottery and dress items sets them apart from the start. The older find-combination (Fundkombination) instances to which various authors resorted suffered from the forced association between pottery and the rest of the inventory items. But when separating pottery from jewelry and weaponry we can more satisfactorily identify the modalities of expressing the social person and can then use this distinction to observe the differences between distinct cultural areas. I think we can therefore speak, from this perspective, about a tacit, unanimous agreement about the funerary expression of social identity in the entirety of the area discussed here. This is required by the particularity of the age in which the intra- and extra-community confrontation has known other forms of expression than the funerary. I have in mind the bronze hoards or the singular finds which are responsible for “stealing” weaponry from the mortuary stage in the overall competition. And this is true not only for the Monteoru group but for others too, perhaps more acute in the Wietenberg case, although when cremation is practiced we can always fall back upon the facile explanation that all the finds we have not found were consumed at the pyre.... The rare bone items - pins - found in Wietenberg or Gârla Mare urns, which should have been consumed by fire before the metal items, prove that this was not the case. Pottery has almost always been considered to attest the deposition of food “oblations” as such or their symbolic presence. But what are we to make of those graves in which the funerary set is numerous? Or of those cases where vessels are deposited inside each other? I have mentioned the so-called servizio a tavolla, which attests the privilege of the deceased to offer feasts while still alive and, consequently, accompanies them when going over the threshold

139

Ion Motzoi-Chicideanu that separates the everyday world from the other world. But it is forgotten, lost from sight, that this privilege is nothing but the expression of affiliation relations, not only internal, but also affiliations exterior to the social units/sub-units to which characters belonged. To a certain extent, dress items, which also include presumable weapons, for example the small triangular daggers which appear frequently in the Periam-Pecica contexts, but factually also found in the early Monteoru settlement at Odaia Turcului and in Glina context, are connected to the relationships between individuals. Just as nowadays we have Sunday clothes which enable us to address others unconsciously with a message of sorts, in the Bronze Age, similarly, dress items were heavy-weight arms in the intra-community dialogue or competition. And just to think of the great value of a jewel that had been brought from the other end of the word... Both horses and dogs have been friends to man since the beginning of time. Maybe cattle and sheep, too, though their friendship has been proved more often by their impressively unilateral self-sacrifice when appearing cooked in bowls, at the table... The presence of large animal skeletons in the cists at Dolheştii Mari goes to prove, as we have seen at the beginning of the Bronze Age, their incorporation in the ceremonial/ritual system, which shows that they had gone beyond the condition of simply serving as food-sources or helpers in heavy work. And again, the deposits of animal bones, when they appear as whole skeletons, not chopped up, in association with graves that had sophisticated structures, goes to prove the high rank, not of the cattle definitely, in the same competitive frame. The best examples are offered in areas which are rather remote from the area in question, beyond the Urals, at Sintašta, or slightly closer, at Krivoe Ozero, where we witness the affirmation of an elite with warrior propensities, who has been appreciated with an excessive amount of enthusiasm as predecessors of the Arians. There is no counterpart for this in the funerary expressions in the area treated here. We can make an indirect connection, however, with the presence of cheek pieces that have analogies in the

Abaševo and Srubnaja milieux but that have been found in our area only in settlements, since the only harness-piece in a grave is the Stangenknebel in grave 512 at Tápé, which has no connection with the disk-shaped check pieces like the ones at Ulmeni and Sărata Monteoru. We can say that the boastful society studied here through the Middle Bronze Age burials has dug its own grave with its teeth, if we think of its accumulation of goods and problems on which the present work has dwelt. This is so because at Belgrade, on the Danube or on the Tisza an impending change could be sensed and the need for change opened the society. The forms of funerary expression bespeak a self-sufficient society which spent itself in constant attempts to express itself in confrontations with the surrounding world. It is the increasing social energy expenditure and not material expenditure that brought the Bronze Age societies to the brink of collapse and made a major reorganization the only way out. Without proposing a catastrophic vision, I must say that the changes which had already begun to appear in the area of the future Gáva culture direct us towards such a conclusion. And this at a time when the Noua communities in the eastern half of the area in question did not seem sensitive to what was going to come... We can note again the differences in social rhythms of development between the pastoral east and the west with its greater implication in metallurgy, long-distance exchange, more competitive at the heart of its communities, which differences are as visible as can be in the forms of funerary expression. It is the time when the Late, and in fact the entire, Bronze Age had arrived at the natural limits of its evolution...

Translated by Ioana Zirra and Nikolaus Boroffka

140