P. Jelínek – J. Vavák: Human Remains in Settlement Pits of the Maďarovce Culture in Slovakia...

‚Irreguläre‘ Bestattungen in der Urgeschichte:Norm, Ritual, Strafe …?

RÖMISCH-GERMANISCHE KOMMISSION, FRANKFURT A. M.EURASIEN-ABTEILUNG, BERLIN

des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts

Kolloquien zur Vor- und FrühgeschichteBand 19

Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH ∙ Bonn 2013

Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH ∙ Bonn 2013

RÖMISCH-GERMANISCHE KOMMISSION DESDEUTSCHEN ARCHÄOLOGISCHEN INSTITUTS

‚Irreguläre‘ Bestattungen in der Urgeschichte:Norm, Ritual, Strafe …?

Akten der Internationalen Tagung in Frankfurt a. M.vom 3. bis 5. Februar 2012

herausgegeben vonNils Müller-Scheeßel

X und 518 Seiten, 239 Abbildungen und 34 Tabellen

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikationin der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografischeDaten sind im Internet über <https: // portal.dnb.de> abrufbar

© 2013 by Römisch-Germanische Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen InstitutsFrankfurt a. M.

Redaktion: N. Müller-Scheeßel und N. BaumannSatz: Müller-Scheeßel, Frankfurt a. M.

Einband: S. Berg, unter Verwendung einer Grafik von J. SchroeterDruck: ruksaldruck GmbH, Berlin

gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem PapierISBN 978-3-7749-3862-2

Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der , Düsseldorf

Inhalt

Vorwort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vorwort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vorwort IX

Nils Müller-Scheeßel‚Irreguläre‘ Bestattungen in der Urgeschichte: einführende Vorbemerkungen . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Theorie und Methode

Ulrich Veit‚Sonderbestattungen‘: Vorüberlegungen zu einem integrierten Ansatz ihrer Erforschung . . . 11

Edeltraud AspöckÜber die Variabilität von Totenpraktiken. Oder: Probleme einer dichotomen Auffassung von Toten- bzw. Bestattungsbrauchtum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Cătălin PavelThe Social Construction of Disability in Prehistoric Societies – What Funerary Archaeology Can and Cannot Say . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Janina DuerrDie verkehrte Jenseitswelt (mundus inversus): Eine Deutung zerbrochener, verbogener oder vertauschter Grabbeigaben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Andy Reymann‚Schamane‘ oder nicht ‚Schamane‘? Zur Problematik der Nutzung eines ethnologischenTerminus bei der Analyse vorgeschichtlicher Bestattungen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Július JakabBrüche an menschlichen Knochen aus urgeschichtlichen Siedlungsgruben derSüdwestslowakei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Antje KohseSonderbestattungen in Ägypten von der prädynastischen Zeit bis zum Mittleren Reich(ca. 4500–1750 v. Chr.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Das 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr. und früher

Reena PerschkeKopf und Körper – der ‚Schädelkult‘ im vorderasiatischen Neolithikum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Christian Meyer, Christian Lohr, Hans-Christoph Strien, Detlef Gronenborn und Kurt W. AltInterpretationsansätze zu ,irregulären‘ Bestattungen während derlinearbandkeramischen Kultur: Gräber en masse und Massengräber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Joachim Pechtl and Daniela HofmannIrregular Burials in the LBK – All or None? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Lech Czerniak and Joanna PyzelUnusual Funerary Practices in the Brześć Kujawski Culture in the Polish Lowland . . . . . . . 139

InhaltVI

Noémi Pažinová und Alena BistákováDie Bestattungssitten der Lengyel-Kultur im Lichte ausgewählter Beispieleaus der südwestlichen Slowakei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Das 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr.

Claudia SachßeSonderbestattungen in der Badener Kultur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Amelie AlteraugeSilobestattungen aus unbefestigten Siedlungen der Michelsberger Kultur in Süd- und Südwestdeutschland – Versuch einer Annäherung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Sara SchiesbergÜberlegungen zu Normen und Abweichungen im Bestattungsbrauch der Trichterbecherzeitunter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Gräberfeldes von Ostorf-Tannenwerder . . . . . . . . . 197

Christoph Rinne und Katharina FuchsBestattungen in Siedlungen. Norm und Sonderfall in der Bernburger Kultur . . . . . . . . . . . . 211


Michal ErnéeUniformität oder Kreativität im Totenbrauchtum? Zum Bestattungsritusder Aunjetitzer Kultur aus Sicht der Phosphatanalyse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Michaela Langová und Alžběta DanielisováBestattungsritus der Aunjetitzer Kultur in Brandýs an der Elbe (Mittelböhmen): ,Siedlungsbestattungen‘ – ein ganz normaler Teil des Bestattungsritus? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Anna Pankowská, Miroslav Daňhel and Jaroslav PeškaFormal Classification of Settlement Burials from Moravia (Czech Republic)Dating to the Early Bronze Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

Pavol Jelínek and Július VavákHuman Remains in Settlement Pits of the Maďarovce Culture in Slovakia(Early Bronze Age) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Vera Hubensack und Carola Metzner-NebelsickMitteldeutsche frühbronzezeitliche Sonderbestattungen in Siedlungsgruben . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

Immo Heske und Silke Grefen-PetersRückkehr in die Bestattungsgemeinschaft – ,Zerrupfte‘ Bestattungen der Bronze- undfrühen Eisenzeit am Nordharz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289


Ágnes Király, Katalin Sebők, Zsuzsanna K. Zoffmann and Gabriella KovácsEarly Iron Age ‘Mass Graves’ in the Middle Tisza Region:Investigation and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

Inhalt VII

Monika Griebl und Irmtraud HellerschmidMenschenknochen und Menschenniederlegungen in Siedlungsgruben der befestigten Höhensiedlung von Stillfried an der March, Niederösterreich: Gängige Praxis der Totenbehandlung in der jüngeren Urnenfelderkultur? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

Stefan Flindt, Susanne Hummel, Verena Seidenberg, Reinhold Schoon, Gisela Wolf, Henning Haßmann und Thomas Saile

Die Lichtensteinhöhle. Ein ,irregulärer‘ Ort mit menschlichen Skelettresten aus der Urnenfelderzeit – Vorbericht über die Ausgrabungen der Jahre 1993–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347

Melanie Augstein‚Reguläre‘ und ‚irreguläre‘ Bestattungen der Hallstattzeit Nordostbayerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365

Lydia Hendel und Elisabeth NoackRegel- oder Sonderfall? Die eisenzeitlichen Menschenknochen am Hohlen Steinbei Schwabthal, Lkr. Lichtenfels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377

Peter TrebscheDie Regelhaftigkeit der ‚irregulären‘ Bestattungen im österreichischen Donauraumwährend der Latènezeit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387

Nils Müller-Scheeßel, Carola Berszin, Gisela Grupe, Annette Schwentke, Anja Staskiewiczund Joachim Wahl

Ältereisenzeitliche Siedlungsbestattungen in Baden-Württemberg und Bayern . . . . . . . . . . 409

Christian Meyer, Leif Hansen, Frauke Jacobi, Corina Knipper, Marc Fecher, Christina Rothund Kurt W. Alt

Irreguläre Bestattungen in der Eisenzeit? Bioarchäologische Ansätze zur Deutungam Beispiel der menschlichen Skelettfunde vom Glauberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425

Felix Fleischer, Michaël Landolt und Muriel Roth-ZehnerDie eisenzeitlichen Siedlungsbestattungen des Elsass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439

Sandra Pichler, Hannele Rissanen, Norbert Spichtig, Kurt W. Alt, Brigitte Röder, Jörg Schiblerund Guido Lassau

Die Regelmäßigkeit des Irregulären: Menschliche Skelettreste vom spätlatènezeitlichenFundplatz Basel-Gasfabrik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471

Stefan BurmeisterMoorleichen – Sonderbestattung, Strafjustiz, Opfer? Annäherungen an einekulturgeschichtliche Deutung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485

Schlussbetrachtungen

Alexander GramschWer will schon normal sein? Kommentare zur Interpretation ‚irregulärer‘ Bestattungen . . . 509

Der vorliegende Band ist aus einer Tagung entstan-den, die unter dem Titel „‚Irreguläre‘ Bestattungen in der Urgeschichte: Norm, Ritual, Strafe …?“ vom 3. bis 5. Februar 2012 in Frankfurt a. Main von der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission und dem Institut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt a. M. organisiert wurde1. Die Gerda Henkel-Stiftung hat zu dieser Tagung einen substantiellen Beitrag gestiftet, ohne den sie in der Form, wie sie durchgeführt wurde, nicht hätte rea-lisiert werden können. Auch zur Herstellung dieses Bandes hat sie unbürokratisch einen erheblichen Beitrag geleistet. Für dieses doppelte finanziel-le Engagement danke ich ihr an dieser Stelle ganz herzlich.

Gegenüber dem ursprünglichen Tagungspro-gramm2 sind eine Reihe von Änderungen zu ver-zeichnen. Einige Vortragenden sahen sich zeitlich nicht in der Lage, ihre Ergebnisse zu Papier zu bringen, bzw. teilweise sind sie in ähnlicher Form inzwischen anderswo veröffentlicht3. Dafür wurden die Autoren einiger während der Tagung präsen-tierten Poster gebeten, diese für den Tagungsband auszuarbeiten, da sie m. E. neuartige Aspekte in die Diskussion einbringen. Der Vortragsvorschlag von Melanie Augstein konnte ursprünglich aus Zeitgrün-den nicht mehr berücksichtigt werden, hat nun aber

in gedruckter Form Eingang in den Band gefunden. Ebenfalls neu hinzugekommen ist das Resümee von Alexander Gramsch.

Ich danke Susanne Sievers und Svend Hansen, die sich spontan bereit erklärt haben, den vorlie-genden Band in die Reihe „Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte“ aufzunehmen. Susanne Sie-vers hat die Entstehung des Bandes darüber hinaus mit Rat und Tat begleitet, wofür ich ihr herzlich danke.

Zum erfolgreichen Zustandekommen dieses Ban-des haben ferner in erheblichem Umfang beigetra-gen Nadine Baumann, der ich für ihre sorgfältige Textkorrektur danken möchte, sowie Christoph v. Rummel, dem ich für die Korrektur der englischen Texte und Summaries Dank schulde. Kirstine Rup-pel hat dankenswerterweise einen Teil der Grafiken überarbeitet und Silke Berg den Umschlagentwurf erstellt. Martin Sorg von ruksaldruck, Berlin, sorgte für einen reibungslosen Ablauf bei der Drucklegung des Buches.

Schließlich ist es mir eine besondere Freude, den zahlreichen Autorinnen und Autoren für die ange-nehme Zusammenarbeit bei der Erstellung dieses Bandes zu danken.

Frankfurt a. M., Juli 2013 Der Herausgeber

Vorwort

1 Siehe den Tagungsbericht von Reena Perschke: <http: // hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de / tagungsberich-te / id=4216> (15.06.2013).

2 Siehe dazu <http: // hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de / termine / id=16614> und <http: // hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de / termine / id=18078> (15.06.2013).

3 So der Vortrag von S. Sievers „Menschliche Ske-lettreste aus dem Oppidum von Manching im Wechsel-spiel der Interpretationen“, der in den Schriften des Kel-ten Römer Museums Manching erscheinen wird.

Introduction

The Maďarovce culture represents the culmination of the Early Bronze Age in southwestern Slovakia. According to Reinecke’s chronological system it runs parallel to the phases A2 to B1, i. e. to the Mid-dle Bronze Age. It follows the Únětice culture, and runs parallel to the phases A2 to B1, i. e. to the Mid-dle Bronze Age. It follows the Únětice culture, and runs parallel to the phases A2 to B1, i. e. to the Mid-

in its final phase it plays a major role in the forma-tion of the Tumulus cultures of the Middle Bronze Age. Several burial sites demonstrate this continu-ity. The usual burial rite consists of the deposition of whole bodies, although cremation and grave mounds (Majcichov, Jelšovce, Jablonec, Sv. Peter) also appear towards the end of the Maďarovce cul-ture. The deceased are deposited according to gen-der – women on their left, men on their right side. In southwestern Slovakia, this funeral habit has been known since the Early Bronze Age. Research of the Maďarovce culture is concentrated primarily on for-tified settlements (Nitriansky Hrádok, Veselé, Vrá-ble, Malé Kosihy and others)1.

From August to September 2010, the Slovak Ar-chaeological and Historical Institute, together with the Small Carpathians Museum in Pezinok, carried out research and documentation work in the area of the fortified settlement of Budmerice, located in Sušička (Farárova roľa). The site is situated at the southwestern loess border in the region of Trna-va near the Small Carpathians, at an elevation of c. 180 m. The location of the site is on the left raised

bank of the Gidra river, on the boundary of the Bud-merice and Jablonec cadasters (fig. 1).

The existence of this fortified settlement and its dating is known since 1950s, when unbroken pot-tery and other artifacts were discovered2. Surveys and rescue excavations in 1976 and 1977 produced significant archaeological data, associated with the Maďarovce culture, the La Téne period, the Luda-nice group, the High Middle Ages and – to a lesser extent – other periods3. The survey work identified mainly pottery fragments4, but also a deposit of bronze artifacts5. Evaluation of aerial photography led to the identification of several ditch sections6. A very important part of the research was the geo-physical (magnetometric) survey of the settlement. It has been initiated by the Small Carpathians Muse-um in Pezinok and managed by the Archaeological Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences in 2007 and 20087. On the basis of this information we have

1 FURMÁNEK et al. 1991, 78–80.2 TOČÍK 1962; NOVOTNÝ / FUHRHERR 1971, 9.3 FARKAŠ et al. 1980.4 PICHLEROVÁ 1971; BÁTORA 1985; BARTÍK / ŠTRBÍK

1995; BÁTORA / MARKOVÁ 1998; OŽDÁNI 1998, 52.5 BARTÍK 1993.6 HANZELYOVÁ et al. 1995, 54; KUZMA / BARTÍK

2009, 124.7 TIRPÁK 2008.

Pavol Jelínek and Július Vavák

Human Remains in Settlement Pitsof the Maďarovce Culture in Slovakia (Early Bronze Age)

Zusammenfassung: 2010 wurden in Budmerice, Slowakei, zwei Siedlungsgruben der Maďarovce-Kultur ausgegraben, die jeweils menschliche Überreste enthielten. Deren Kontexte deuten auf spezielle rituelle Praktiken hin, während der die Knochen deponiert wurden. Die Funde werden mit ähnlichen Befunden aus anderen Siedlungen der Maďarovce-Kultur verglichen. Offenbar repräsentieren die menschlichen Über-reste das Ergebnis differenzierter ritueller Aktivitäten, die möglicherweise mit dem Glauben an Götter der Unterwelt verbunden waren. Für eine angemessene Interpretation dieser Befunde sind jedoch noch weitere Forschungen notwendig.

Summary: In 2010 two Maďarovce culture storage pits with human remains were excavated in Budmerice, Slovakia. Their contexts indicate peculiar ritual practices during which the human remains must have been deposited. These finds are compared with similar remains from other settlements of the Maďarovce Cul-ture. It seems that the human remains within settlement pits represent the outcome of differentiated ritual activities that could have been connected to the belief of divine entities of the underworld. For a proper interpretation of these finds further research is necessary.

Pavol Jelínek and Július Vavák266

realized that the settlement was surrounded by four irregular bow-shaped ditches, which ended at a pre-cipitous terrace. Even today it is possible to see the dark shaded line of the ditches and a few remnants of walls inside the settlement area. The results of the rescue research outside the fortified settlement are also very interesting8.

Trench I (10 × 10 m) was placed in the enclosed area of the former Sušička locality in the west cor-ner (fig. 1) with the highest concentration of geo-physical anomalies. We used machines to remove up to 55 cm depth of top soil. The rest was manually excavated in artificial strata, to an average depth of 80–90 cm, where most of the objects were encoun-tered. We found nine objects during the excavation. The biggest surprise was the discovery of an Eneo-lithic ditch. Further, we investigated three storage pits. Three more pits at the edge of the excavated area and a corner of a house have not yet been inves-tigated. One cluster of artifacts (Object 3) consisted of charred ground, daub and a cavity. Object 8 was an older storage pit that was disturbed by Object 1 and mainly situated outside the trench. Object 4 (the house corner) was left in situ and will be the subject of future research. These objects are remnants of the Maďarovce culture; however, age determination of one remains hypothetic (Object 5).

In this preliminary report we would like to pres-ent two objects (Object 1 and Object 1 and Object Object 2), the position Object 2), the position Objectand content of which appears to imply special ritual activities.

Archaeological contexts

Object 1 (fig. 2)Object 1 was located in the north corner of trench I. It was a huge storage pit with a diameter of 201–228 cm at the top and 232–276 cm at the bottom, preserved to a depth of up to 218 cm. The north-western part of Object 1 damaged the older Object 8, as was visible by differences in soil and ceram-ics identified in the wall of Object 1. After Object 8 was damaged, the north-western part was filled with loess to prevent the contamination of the actual pit content. This modification was probably carried out in prehistoric time, immediately after digging Object 1.

The object consisted of two different strata: The top stratum was gray and funnel-shaped, perhaps

8 KUZMA 2002.

Fig. 1. Budmerice. Map of magnetic anomalies. Black square denotes the location of trench 1 (map after TIRPÁK2008).

Human Remains in Settlement Pits of the Maďarovce Culture in Slovakia 267

created naturally. The lower brownish stratum con-tained the burial of a human individual in the south-eastern part of the object. The skeleton lay on the bottom of the pit on its left side, with strongly flexed legs, and was oriented due north. Its skull lay in an unnatural position on the right temple on a frag-mented vessel. A larger jug with lid was deposited next to the legs. Around them were scattered shells and mussels (fig. 3). On the left side of the neck, a little bronze spiral had coloured the area behind the left ear and the right zygomatic arch green, and a fragment of a grain grinding plate had been placed below the pelvis. Further, we discovered two pieces of rectangular carbonized wood during the removal of the cervical vertebra.

It is possible that the almost complete jug found beside the skeleton belonged to a grave inven-tory. The most interesting shards are unique deco-rated fragments which are presumably influenced

by the Vatya culture, southern neighbours of the Maďarovce culture. We also discovered a bronze earring in the top stratum (perhaps moved as a result of bioturbation?). On the bottom we found further artifacts: a shard of a crucible, slag, daub and an artifact (jewellery?) from perforated mussels origi-nally arranged on a cord, parts of grinding stones, stones, spindle whorls and other artifacts. We also excavated animal remains, including dog bones. Based on the palynological analysis of the pollen sample taken from the bottom of the pit, the skel-eton was buried in summer9.

The human individual was a female, most likely 30 years old10. Her body height was estimated to

9 JAMRICHOVÁ 2011.10 BEŇUŠ 2011.

Fig. 2. Budmerice. Object 1. The situation at the bottom of the storage pit.


be 155–163 cm. The right side of the ethmoid bone appears to indicate inflammatory changes, though this is uncertain because the bone was taphonomi-cally disturbed. Neither hyoid bone nor cervical vertebra were broken, the head was probably put in its unnatural position by putrefaction processes. The rectangular pieces of carbonized wood found beneath the skull could have played a part in these processes (fig. 4). We assume that a wooden pad had been placed under the head of the female individual; when the pad collapsed, it caused the unnatural po-

sition of the skull – the head was turned to the oppo-site side in respect to the rest of the body. Pathologi-cal changes indicate that this middle-aged woman worked rather hard. Several markers show that she lifted and carried heavy loads and also carried out hard domestic work. Her teeth were affected by dental enamel hypoplasia11.

11 BEŇUŠ 2011.

Fig. 4. Budmerice. Object 1. Skull during excavation. On the left a white dash-line denotes the location of a carbonized wooden pad. On the right the other pad, which originally lay beneath the skeleton, is shown.

Fig. 3. Budmerice. Object 1. Detail of the shells surrounding the skeleton’s legs.


Object 2 (fig. 5–6)

Object 2 was located in the north-eastern corner of trench I, next to Object 1. It was a large cylindrical shaped storage pit with a diameter of 200–224 cm at the top and of 256–292 cm at the bottom. The depth of the feature was 212 cm. Like Object 1, Object 2 consisted of two different strata. The top stratum was gray and funnel-shaped, and had been formed naturally. The lower, brownish stratum was artificial and contained an exceptional deposit of artifacts.

In the lower part of the stratum and on the bottom of the pit a total of 29 pottery vessels were discov-ered. Except for a few pieces, the pottery was un-broken and found together. It was situated in three strata, mostly in the south-eastern area. Most of the pots were placed upside down or lying on the side, the ‘normal’ position with the opening facing up-wards was rare. Small vessels (jugs, cups and small amphorae) had been inserted into some larger ves-sels (pots, amphora-shaped vessels and a cup). One pot contained a shard, another vessel, itself found in a bigger one, a fish bone and mussels. It appears that these finds are evidence of boiled liquid food. One of the numerous shards shows an influence or import of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture from the eastern and south-eastern neighbourhood of the Maďarovce culture. We discovered various grinding plate frag-ments for grain grinding, some other grinders and

also loom weights. Among the finds were daub and charred stones. The discovery of moulds serves as evidence of metallurgy: one ingot mould and one mould for two pins; a ceramic nozzle, a fragment of a melting pot and pieces of slag are further metallur-gical evidence. Other artifacts found are as follows: a bronze ringlet, a little bronze knob and a fragment of a bread-like idol, a part of a ceramic wheel with spokes and spindle whorls. Rare are finds of bone or antler implements, including one arrowhead. On the bottom of the pit was charred grain in and on which the pottery and the remains of several human adults lay (fig. 7). The central part of the pit contained the upper fragment of a human femur, and parallel to it lay another intact femur as well as a radius frag-ment. The human remains have been found among pottery, animal remains and mussels, of which some had a hole. Above the layer containing the grain and the human remains a carbonized oak beam fragment was excavated.

Based on anthropological analysis12 the two fem-ora, one left and one right, belonged to two differ-ent male individuals. Both were broken post-mor-tem, the left one probably one month after death.

12 BEŇUŠ 2011.

Fig. 5. Budmerice. Object 2. Pit section.


Fig. 6. Budmerice. Object 2. Individual strata of the pit.


The left femur contained a pathological anomaly: the cancellous bone was formed transversely, which was probably caused by cancer processes inside the bone. The joint parts of bones had bite marks, prob-ably made by dog teeth13. Both femora were found in the same level with their heads oriented in the same direction. The original anatomical position of two upper human legs was not copied exactly, but the positioning seems intentional. Another human bone lay nearby on the same level, this a broken left radius, which probably belonged to a young man. The bone was broken peri-mortem or immediately after the man died14. The upper stratum contained more human remains, most likely a femur fragment (?) and a fragment from a juvenile occipital bone. These remains, however, have come from a stratum formed after the event when the aforementioned artifacts and human remains were deposited and buried in the pit. For this reason it is not certain if these human bones came into the object intention-ally. Based on palynological analysis the object was filled in the summertime15.

Interpretation parallels

Object 1Skeleton finds in settlements are fairly common in the Maďarovce culture (tab. 1)16. The human skele-tons from Veselé, Nitra castle and Fedýmeš nad

Žitavou (today Úľany nad Žitavou) mentioned by J. Eisner17 are not included because further informa-tion is missing. On the other hand, we have included two human skeletons from Štúrovo- Obidská pusta, tion is missing. On the other hand, we have included two human skeletons from Štúrovo- Obidská pusta, tion is missing. On the other hand, we have included

which are dated to the beginning of the Carpathi-an Tumulus culture from the Middle Bronze Age. The ceramic material from this object also included finds of the so-called Litzenkeramik, dating them to the Dolný Peter horizon of the Maďarovce culture. This represents the transitional horizon between the Maďarovce culture and the Carpathian Tumulus culture18. Children burials in ceramic vessels are not included in the list.

The position of the female in object 1 on her left side corresponds with the burial rite in southwestern Slovakia throughout the course of the Early Bronze Age, when females were buried on the left and males on the right side. An earlier find of a skeleton placed on the left side, discovered during rescue excavations in Budmerice in 1977, was also identi-fied as female. There is insufficient anthropological data from skeleton finds within settlements to af-

13 BEŇUŠ 2011.14 Ibid.15 JAMRICHOVÁ 2011.16 See also: JELÍNEK 2009; VAVÁK 2004.17 EISNER 1933, 58.18 OŽDÁNI 1985.

Fig. 7. Budmerice. Object 2. Detail of human remains.


firm whether this observation is generally true for all these individuals. However, the children from the settlement pit in Štúrovo-Obidská pusta were buried on their left or right side in accordance with their determined sex.

Some artifacts found near the skeleton in object 1 have to be addressed as grave-goods: a bronze spi-ral near the left ear was obviously part of personal jewellery. A vessel and a jug placed next to the head and legs originally contained food supplies. Pottery and personal jewellery were also found near other skeletons lying in settlement pits, but are not al-ways identified as grave goods19. Originally, at least the pottery probably contained or represented food supplies; in the case of the female in object 1 this was also symbolically compensated for in the form of empty shells of limnic shellfish beside her legs

(fig. 3). As shells are fairly common in settlement objects of the Maďarovce culture, we can assume that they were part of the regular diet20. Their sym-bolic significance within Early Bronze Age society is analyzed elsewhere21.

The presumed wooden pad under the head of the individual in object 1 is not a common feature of Maďarovce culture, nor is it found in other contem-porary surrounding cultures. In part, however, this could be a result of the overall degradation of or-ganic material. The only appropriate analogy might be the placing of bowls under heads which occurs in

19 TOČÍK 1981a, 46.20 LOŽEK 1981, 172.21 JELÍNEK in print.

Site Feature Number of bodies

Pos-ture Sex Grave

artefactsOrien-tation

Publi-cation Literature

Budmerice Obj. 1 1 L F Pos. W–O T, Z FARKAŠ et al. 1980

Hoste Obj. 1 2 ? ? ? ? T BÁTORA 1983Hoste Obj. 52/84 1 R? ? ? NO–SW T MARKOVÁ 1985Ivanovce ? 2 ? ? ? ? T VAVÁK 2004Malé Kosihy Obj. 37 1 S ? Pos. NO–SW T, D TOČÍK 1981aMalé Kosihy Obj. 57 1 S ? Pos. NNW–SSO T, D TOČÍK 1981a

Nitriansky Hrádok ? 2 + skull R, R ? Pos. SO–NW, W–O T, F EISNER 1933

Nitriansky Hrádok ? 1 L CH Pos. ? T EISNER 1933

Nitriansky Hrádok Obj. 3 4? R, R, ?, ? ? ? S–N?,

W–O?, ?, ? T, D, F TOČÍK 1981b; KNOR 1952

Nitriansky Hrádok Obj. 120 1 R ? Pos.? S–N T, D, F TOČÍK 1981bNitriansky Hrádok Obj. 228 1 R ? Neg. N–S T, D, F TOČÍK 1981bNitriansky Hrádok Obj. 230 1 R ? Neg. N–S T, D, F TOČÍK 1981bNitriansky Hrádok Obj. 237 1 L ? Neg. N–S T, D, F TOČÍK 1981bNitriansky Hrádok Obj. 242 1 L Pos. NNW–SSO T, D, F TOČÍK 1981bNitriansky Hrádok Obj. 296 2 R, ? ?, CH Pos.? O–W, ? T, Z, F TOČÍK 1981bNitriansky Hrádok Obj. 325 2 ? ?, ? Pos. ? T, TOČÍK 1981b

Nitra galéria Obj. 1 2 R, L CH, CH Pos. N–S, S–N T, D MARKOVÁ/SAMU-

EL 2008

Štúrovo Obid Obj. 10/84 2 R, L CH, CH Pos. N–S, S–N T, D OŽDÁNI 1985

Unín Schicht 1 ? CH Pos. ? T STUDENÍKOVÁ1983

Veselé Obj. 18 2 L, S? ?, ? Neg. N–S, NW–SO T VAVÁK 2004

Veselé ? 1 ? M ? ? T STAŠŠÍKOVÁ-ŠTUKOVSKÁ 2001

Tab. 1. Human skeleton finds within settlement objects of the Maďarovce Culture. L postured left; R postured right; S postured straight; F female; M male; CH child; Pos. additional artefacts included; Neg. additional artefacts not in-

cluded; T verbal communication; D drawings; F photography; ? no further information available.


there is a theory that these graves are a provisional solution due to a funeral in the winter season30. M. Salaš, on the other hand, thinks that the deceased were buried into empty storage pits in spring or summer, when the pits had lost their primary func-tion31. Palynological analysis shows that the female skeleton in object 1 was interred in summer. The argument that the deceased female was buried in the hot season is supported by the fact that her feet were surrounded by shells. In winter, clams migrate to sites where the water is not frozen, so they can-not be gathered. It was also necessary to eat clams immediately after gathering because in prehistoric times there was no possibility to preserve them. As such the observation concerning the female in ob-ject 1 is really helpful; however, in order to confirm this interpretation additional palynologic tests from other objects are required.

Based on our find of female skeletons in Object 1 in Budmerice, we conclude that some skeletons in settlement objects may represent regular graves of individuals who have been denied burial in the burial ground of the community. We pay particular attention to the fact that the finds and their context show similar attributes as in burials, i. e. in terms of burial position and grave goods. The main dif-ference to burial grounds concerns the orientation of the body, which could be a demonstration of ‘otherness’ of the deceased. Perhaps this difference could be further enhanced by the absence of grave goods or the presence of atypical ones (in this case shells).

Finds which do not exhibit such significant fu-neral character represent non-reverently deposited dead (e. g. Malé Kosihy). Conspicuous finds also include objects with two children (Nitra-Galéria, Štúrovo-Obid). In these cases, it is possible to include objects with two children (Nitra-Galéria, Štúrovo-Obid). In these cases, it is possible to include objects with two children (Nitra-Galéria,

consider ritual activities associated with sacrifices or executions. The current state of research on the Maďarovce culture does not allow specification of more concrete conclusions. Compared to burial grounds, we can observe more variability in the po-sition and orientation of the bodies. Unfortunately,

isolated cases in the Únětice culture in the western part of the Czech Republic22.

According to V. Podborský individuals buried in-side settlements are marginalized from a social point of view23. This opinion is partially contradicted by burials from settlement objects where grave goods, even coffins or stone structure were excavated. Skel-etons with grave goods inside settlements could be regular graves. Some of the skeletons were tied up or had been disturbed after the onset of decay of the body. The observation that post-mortem tying up of bodies also frequently occurred on burial grounds24

makes it doubtful that tied individuals within settle-ment objects were sacrificed or executed by default. Some of the tied skeletons from settlements were not in the typical flexed position. One such exam-ple is the skeleton in object no. 57 in Malé Kosihy, which was laid on the back with its elbow flexed under the body. In our view, such cases probably represent individuals having been tied up before their sacrifice or execution.

It is very interesting that many of the skeletons found in settlements had their head oriented to the north, just like the individual from Object 1. Two graves in Štúrovo and Nitra contained the remains north, just like the individual from Object 1. Two graves in Štúrovo and Nitra contained the remains north, just like the individual from Object 1. Two

of children oriented north–south and south–north. In these cases the main idea was probably to enable the deceased to face towards the west. This orienta-tion is a burial rite anomaly because during the Ear-ly Bronze Age of southwestern Slovakia, the burial community tried to turn the view of the deceased southwards25. The analysis of the Maďarovce cul-ture burial rite shows that head orientation to-wards the north is not common on ‘regular’ burial grounds: The typical head orientation is East–West, West–East, or Southeast–Northwest and North-west–Southeast26. Three graves are known from the nearby burial ground in Jablonec, where the inhabi-tants of the fortified settlement in Budmerice prob-ably buried their dead. The head of the individual in grave 1 points west, the one of grave 2 to the north-east. The third burial was a cremation27. The Late Maďarovce culture burial ground in Majcichov is extraordinary in this respect: excavations uncovered 56 skeletal graves with various orientations as well as 22 cremation graves. Four graves were oriented north / northwest–south / southeast and three graves south / southeast–north / northwest28. Publications about this burial ground are incomplete, making discussion of these anomalies difficult. The atypi-cal skeleton orientation of the settlement burials indicates that these deceased had no rights on the regular burial rite or were not primarily put into the pit for funeral purposes. However, the merid-ian orientation is typical for the Únětice culture in the pit for funeral purposes. However, the merid-ian orientation is typical for the Únětice culture in the pit for funeral purposes. However, the merid-

Bohemia29.For our analysis it is also very important to iden-

tify in which season the deceased were deposited:

22 JELÍNKOVÁ / SLÁMA 1959; PLEINEROVÁ 1960, 513 f.; JELÍNEK 2009, 81 f.

23 PODBORSKÝ 1988, 76.24 FURMÁNEK et al. 1991, 283.25 VELIAČIK / FURMÁNEK 1988, 99.26 VLADÁR 1973, 181; TOČÍK 1979, 15, BÁTORA 2000,

547.27 PICHLEROVÁ 1971, 12f.28 CHROPOVSKÝ 1958, 489.29 VELIAČIK / FURMÁNEK 1988, 99.30 PAVÚK / BÁTORA 1995; KOVÁRNÍK 2010.31 SALAŠ 1990.


we have to conclude that these kinds of finds are often insufficiently published, primarily in terms of their contexts and wider research (especially paleo-pathological and anthropological analyses).

Object 2

Maďarovce culture settlements frequently contain human remains and bones. Some of them were modified by cooking or gnawed by dogs. Some skull fragments could have been worn as cult masks (Nitriansky Hrádok, Veselé). Unfortunately, pub-lished sources do not contain enough information to identify the circumstances of deposition of the hu-man bones32. The same is true for newly discovered settlements of the Maďarovce culture. Obviously, many pits bear similarities to our object 2; however, so far only preliminary results of the rescue research have been published.

Many settlement pits with similar content to ob-ject 2 come from Veselé. The most striking are pit no. 5 on field NW 24 and pit no. 8 on field NW 2933. On the bottom of the first pit a layer of charred, melted and deformed shards also contained – beside other artifacts – unbroken pots, cylindrical weights, small daub fragments, a human skull fragment, animal remains, a casting mould fragment, a frag-ment of a grinding stone, and four bone and horn hammer-axes. The backfill of pit no. 8 contained ceramic shards, a zoomorphic pot-shard, animal bones, grinding artifact fragments, a weight frag-ment among other finds. A small lump of amber was discovered in the mouth of this pit. A smaller amount of charred grain and a human maxilla frag-ment were found at the base of the pit. We have also investigated the inventories of other storage pits on this site. According to A. Točík, five contained – among others – unbroken artifacts and isolated human remains34.

Many settlement pits holding rich inventories were also investigated in Nitriansky Hrádok35. Be-side settlement pottery the pits included the fol-lowing artifacts: uncommon shaped pottery, little ceramic circles, clay bread-like idols, weights, cast-ing moulds, human and animal remains and other material. Some objects were related to ritual activi-ties, some were probably used profanely. Generally, the finds and their contexts from Nitriansky Hrádok merit far more discussion in detail than is possible here36.

In Object 34 from Nitra, Mostná ulica, a lot of pottery was deposited in a pit37. One human bone was found, too. The left radius bone of an adult (female?) was broken post-mortem, no other patho-logical processes or traumata were identifiable38. Grave 4 was discovered in another part of the site Nitra, Mostná ulica39: a partially disturbed pit con-tained a storage pot with a decapitated human skull

with visible traces of violence as well as a few other human and animal remains. The pit also contained two grinding stone fragments and shards. These ar-tifacts indicate that the whole inventory dates to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, or rather to the beginning of the Carpathian Tumulus culture. The anthropologist J. Jakab stated that skull and bones looked like they had been boiled, and that the skull bore marks that had been made by an axe40.

In Object 141 of the newly discovered Maďarovce culture settlement of Nitra-Mlynárce41, several ves-sels and a human skull were found42. Anthropo-logical analysis showed that the skull belonged to a child43.

The most analogue object in the neighbourhood of the Maďarovce culture is the ‘cult object’ of the Otomani culture investigated in Gánovce-Hrádok44Otomani culture investigated in Gánovce-Hrádok44Otomani culture investigated in Gánovce-Hrádok . In a water well excavated into travertine rock, several human remains including arm bones (humerus, ulna and radius) and two bracelets (fig. 8) were excavated under a layer of charred grain. From the same site come a casting mould, fragments of faience artifacts (beads?) as well as bronze, golden and even iron ar-tifacts.

These analogies point to the fact that during the Early Bronze Age human bones were regularly de-posited in settlement objects. Finds from Gánovce, Nitra-Mostná ulica and our object 2 in Budmerice with carefully documented archaeological context show that it was not just accidentally deposited waste45. On the contrary, their careful depositing as

Fig. 8. Gánovce. Three human bones joined together by two bracelets (after FURMÁNEK 2007, 65 fig. 4).

32 AMBROS 1971; FURMÁNEK / JAKAB 1997.33 TOČÍK 1964, 116 f. 1296 f.34 TOČÍK 1964.35 TOČÍK 1981a.36 Cf. PALÁTOVÁ / SALAŠ 2002, 56 f.37 SAMUEL 2008, 139.38 KOLENA unpubl.39 BŘEZINOVÁ 2009, 52.40 JAKAB 2011, 120.41 KUZMA / KOPČEKOVÁ 2009.42 Oral information from M. Kopčeková.43 JAKAB 2009, 98.44 VLČEK / HÁJEK 1963; FURMÁNEK 2007.45 TOČÍK 1964, 16.


well as collateral finds indicate deliberate intention-ality, most likely in the context of ritual activities.

Conclusion

The finds listed above demonstrate that in the Early Bronze Age burials not only occurred in cemeter-ies. The best example of a burial with reverent mo-tivation including the deposition of grave goods is an Únětice culture burial in a coffin from Znojmo, tivation including the deposition of grave goods is an Únětice culture burial in a coffin from Znojmo, tivation including the deposition of grave goods is

which was found in a settlement object46.The interpretation of irreverent burials is more

problematic; we can see evidence of violence and skeleton disturbance. This corresponds with the idea of human sacrifice and the post-mortem ma-nipulation of human remains, which represent a significant deviation of the burial rite norm of the Early Bronze Age. The grain pits were clearly often used secondarily for the depositing of artifacts with ritual character. Based on the inventory of these pits – including finds such as ceramic deposits, so called mass graves etc. – we can suppose that bloody and non-bloody sacrifices of human beings and animals were performed47.

We think that the deposition of human remains in settlement objects and their intentional manipu-lation post-mortem is a demonstration of a symbol-ic connection with the underworld. It is typical for European folklore – the agrarian or chthonic ritu-als are connected with death, rebirth and dead an-cestors48. This connection with an agrarian cult of flora and fertility gods – of a telluric and chthonic nature – is merely hypothetic. However, the place where these ritual relics were deposited, i. e. in storage pits, matches this hypothesis – sacrificed objects were buried underground, it is the place where gods of the earth and the underworld rule49. There is a possibility that human sacrifices – not necessarily connected to anthropophagy – merged together with burial rites. These rites resulted in human remains being buried (reverently?) in set-tlement pits (also with grave goods), which we are not able to distinguish from regular burials archae-ologically.

The large number of pits with unbroken pottery, human skeletons, metallurgic tools and other arti-facts which are common in Maďarovce culture set-tlements, seem to contradict our pits-used-secondar-ily-as-cult-objects hypothesis. But the current state of the documentation and publication of earlier finds does not allow to reject it, either. Earlier reports of-ten lack information about the detailed distribution of finds; mostly, only find content is referred to, or even just a selection of finds. Also, we are not suf-ficiently informed about the object stratigraphy. We do not know whether the objects were buried inten-

tionally or filled up gradually and, thus, whether or not the finds got inside as waste.

However, if we take into account the question of the number of functional pits in one settlement at any one point in time, the many pits with ‘ritual’ waste find a plausible explanation. Basically, we can only guess at the amount of opened and filled up pits, for example during one year. We also do not know if the storage pits were opened and used only once or over several years. Furthermore, their functionality from a technological point of view did not necessar-ily have to be the criterion for the termination of the primary function of these pits; they could equally have been used for other (including ritual) purposes ‘prematurely’. We also do not know the periodicity of the ritual activities, the time when they depos-ited the so-called sacral waste into the pits and how many times per year(s) they did it. The palynologi-cal analysis of objects 1 and 2 indicates that both were filled up in summer (see above), but just two cases are not enough for any valid statistic.

Another reason why so many pits with rich in-ventory were found could be connected with the social relationships within the settlements. It is not certain if the whole community or smaller social groups (like families, guilds) filled up one pit each. Did they perhaps use more than one pit at the same time? Did the relations between the groups blend to-gether well? We should also consider the possibility that ritual activities could have been performed ran-domly in separate parts of the settlement as well as in different types of settlements (e. g. fortified and open settlements). For example, J. Bátora supposes that the fortified settlement in Santovka-Malinovec, built on a travertine hill, was a cult center, for other settlements assumed economic and administrative functions50. However, we think that research on the Maďarovce culture is not yet at a stage to come to such conclusions.

With the exception of the cultic water well in Gánovce, there are no craft tools or human re-mains in the pottery deposits of adjacent cultures. Therefore, this seems to be a specific religious prac-tice of the Maďarovce people. With sufficient data we can partially reconstruct the funeral ceremony; finds from settlement pits can be helpful to deduce events leading to concrete situations. However, the diversity of find situations also allows a greater range of interpretative possibilities.

46 FOJTÍK 2006, 34. – Cf. also the grave of Pravcice 2: Pankowska et al. in this volume, fig. 5.

47 PALÁTOVÁ / SALAŠ 2002, 104–107; JELÍNEK 2009, 76–86.

48 ELIADE 2004, 345 f.49 ČIŽMÁŘ / SALAŠ 2005, 166.50 BÁTORA 2009.


Bibliography

AMBROS 1971C. AMBROS, Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Anthropopha-gie in den bronzezeitlichen Siedlungen in der Slowa-kei. Acta Fac. Rerum Naturalium Univ. Comenianae Anthr. 17, 1971, 1–14.

BARTÍK 1993J. BARTÍK, Hromadný nález bronzov z Budmeríc-Jab-lonca (Ein Bronzehortfund aus Budmerice-Jablonec). Zborník Slovenského Národného Múz. Arch. 87, 3, 1993, 13–17.

BARTÍK / ŠTRBÍK 1995J. BARTÍK / J. ŠTRBÍK, Prieskum v povodí malokarpat-ských potokov. Arch. Výskumy a Nálezy na Sloven-sku 1994 (1995) 25.

BÁTORA 1983J. BÁTORA, Opevnená osada zo staršej doby bronzovej v Hostiach. Arch. Rozhledy 35, 1983, 72–79.

BÁTORA 1985J. BÁTORA, Prieskum zameraný na sídlisk zo začiatku doby bronzovej na Juhozápadnom Slovensku. Arch. Výskumy a Nálezy na Slovensku 1984 (1985) 42–45.

BÁTORA 2000J. BÁTORA, Das Gräberfeld von Jelšovce / Slowakei: ein Beitrag zur Frühbronzezeit im nordwestlichen Karpatenbecken. Prähist. Arch. Südosteuropa 16 (Kiel 2000).

BÁTORA 2009J. BÁTORA, Metallurgy and Early Bronze Age Fortified Settlements in Slovakia. Slovenská Arch. 58, 2009, 195–219.

BÁTORA / MARKOVÁ 1998J. BÁTORA / K. MARKOVÁ, Z prieskumu Budmeríc a Jablonca. Arch. Výskumy a Nálezy na Slovensku 1996 (1998) 27–28.

BEŇUŠ 2011R. BEŇUŠ, Antropologická analýza kostí nájdených na lokalite Budmerice-Sušička In: P. Jelínek / J. Vavák, Documentation from Archaeological Research in Budmerice, locality ‘Sušička’, season: 2010. Exter-nal expertise (unpubl. report Malokarpatské múzeum v Pezinku, Bratislava, Pezinok 2011).

BŘEZINOVÁ 2009G. BŘEZINOVÁ, Ďalšia preskúmaná parcela na Mostnej ulici v Nitre. Arch. Výskumy a Nálezy na Slovensku 2008 (2009) 52–53.

CHROPOVSKÝ 1958B. CHROPOVSKÝ, Birituálne maďarovské pohrebsko v Majcichove na Slovensku. Arch. Rozhledy 10, 1958, 448–492; 509–510.

ČIŽMÁŘ / SALAŠ 2005Z. ČIŽMÁŘ / M. SALAŠ, Rituální depozita v zásobních jamách únětické kultury z Hrádku (okr. Znojmo) (Ri-tuelle Deponierungen in Vorratsgruben der Aunjetitzer Kultur von Hrádek [Bez. Znojmo]). Pravěk (Brno) NŘ 15, 2005, 127–180.

EISNER 1933J. EISNER, Slovensko v Pravěku (Bratislava 1933).

ELIADE 2004M. ELIADE, Pojednání o dějinách náboženství (Praha 2004).

FARKAŠ et al. 1980Z. FARKAŠ / I. CHEBEN / I. KUZMA, Nové nálezy z Budmeríc. Arch. Rozhledy 32, 1980, 491–500.

FOJTÍK 2006P. FOJTÍK, Starší doba bronzová. In: M. Čižmář / K. Geislerová (ed.), Výzkumy-Ausgrabungen 1999–2004 (Brno 2006) 31–36.

FURMÁNEK 2007V. FURMÁNEK, Nová interpretácia najstaršieho železného predmetu z Gánoviec. In: M. Bekessová (ed.), Neandertálec z Gánoviec (Poprad 2007) 53–66.

FURMÁNEK / JAKAB 1997V. FURMÁNEK / J. JAKAB, Menschliche Skelettreste aus bronzezeitlichen Siedlungen in der Slowakei. In: K.-F. Rittershofer (ed.), Sonderbestattungen in der Bronzezeit im östlichen Mitteleuropa: West- und Süddeutscher Verband für Altertumsforschung, Jahrestagung vom 5.–20. Juni 1990 in Pottenstein (Fränkische Schweiz) – Kolloquium der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bronzezeit. In-ternat. Arch. 37 (Espelkamp 1997) 14–23.

FURMÁNEK et al. 1991V. FURMÁNEK / L. VELIAČIK / J. VLADÁR, Slovensko v dobe bronzovej (Bratislava 1991).

HANZELYOVÁ et al. 1995E. HANZELYOVÁ / I. KUZMA / J. RAJTÁR, Letecká prospekcia na juhozápadnom Slovensku. Arch. Výs-kumy a Nálezy na Slovensku 1993 (1995) 54–55.

JAKAB 2009J. JAKAB, Analýza ľudských kostier ludanickej skupiny v Nitre. Arch. Výskumy a Nálezy na Slovensku 2007 (2009) 97–98.

JAKAB 2011J. JAKAB, Nové antropologické nálezy z Nitry. Arch. Výskumy a Nálezy na Slovensku 2008 (2011) 118–122.

JAMRICHOVÁ 2011E. Jamrichová, Palynologická analýza lokality ‘Bud-merice’. In: P. Jelínek / J. Vavák, Documentation from Archaeological Research in Budmerice, locality ‘Sušička’, season: 2010. External expertise (unpubl. report Malokarpatské múzeum v Pezinku, Bratislava, Pezinok 2011).

JELÍNEK 2009P. JELÍNEK, Nálezy skeletov v sídliskových objek-toch – ich interpretácia a význam (unpubl. diss. Nitra 2009).

JELÍNEK in printP. JELÍNEK, Príspevok k duchovnému životu nositeľov maďarovskej kultúry. Archeology at Three Continents 2002–2011 (in print).

JELÍNKOVÁ / SLÁMA 1959Z. JELÍNKOVÁ / J. SLÁMA, Hromadné pohřby únětické


kultury v Tursku u Prahy. Arch. Rozhledy 11, 1959, 323–334.

KNOR 1952A. KNOR, Zámeček v Nitranském Hrádku u Šuran na Slovensku. Arch. Rozhledy 4, 1952, 241–250.

KOLENA unpubl.B. KOLENA, Antropologický záznam (unpubl. manu-script).

KOVÁRNÍK 2010J. KOVÁRNÍK, Proč jsou hroby také na sídlištích z neol-itu a eneolitu? In: R. Tichý (ed.), Hroby, pohřby a lid-ské pozůstatky na pravěkých a středověkých sídlištích. Živá Arch. Suppl. 3 (Hradec Králové 2010) 50–57.

KUZMA 2002I. KUZMA, Výskum na trase optického kábla Bud-merice-Jablonec. Arch. Výskumy a Nálezy na Sloven-sku 2001 (2002) 96–98.

KUZMA / BARTÍK 2009I. KUZMA / M. BARTÍK, Letecká prospekcia na juhozá-padnom Slovensku. Arch. Výskumy a Nálezy na Slov-ensku 2007 (2009) 124–128.

KUZMA / KOPČEKOVÁ 2009I. KUZMA / M. KOPČEKOVÁ, Pokračovanie výskumu v Nitre-Mlynárciach. Arch. Výskumy a Nálezy na Slovensku 2007 (2009) 142–126.

LOŽEK 1981V. LOŽEK, Měkkýši v archeologii. Arch. Rozhledy 33, 1981, 166–175.

MARKOVÁ 1985K. MARKOVÁ, Ďalší terénny výskum v Hostiach. Arch. Výskumy a Nálezy na Slovensku 1984 (1985) 155–156.

MARKOVÁ / SAMUEL 2008K. MARKOVÁ / M. SAMUEL, Nálezy zo staršej a začiatku strednej doby bronzovej z Ponitrianskej galérie v Nitre. Štud. Zvesti 43, 2008, 63–91.

NOVOTNÝ / FUHRHERR 1971B. NOVOTNÝ / V. FUHRHERR, Katalóg archeologickej zbierky Západoslovenského múzea v Trnave (Brati-slava 1971).

OŽDÁNI 1985O. OŽDÁNI, Výsledky záchranného výskumu v Obid-skej puste. Arch. Výskumy a Nálezy na Slovensku 1984 (1985) 182–183.

OŽDÁNI 1998O. OŽDÁNI, Einige Anmerkungen zum Vorkommen der ,Litzen‘-Verzierung im Milieu der Otomani-Kul-tur und ihr chronologischer Aspekt. Východoslovens-ký Pravek 5, 1998, 51–58.

PALÁTOVÁ / SALAŠ 2002H. PALÁTOVÁ / M. SALAŠ, Depoty keramických ná-dob doby bronzové na Moravě a v sousedních zemích (Bronzezeitliche Gefässdepotfunde in Mähren und benachbarten Gebieten). Pravěk (Brno) Suppl. 9 (Brno 2002).

PAVÚK / BÁTORA 1995J. PAVÚK / J. BÁTORA, Siedlung und Gräber der Luda-

nice-Gruppe in Jelšovce. Arch. Slovaca Monogr. Stud. 5 (Nitra 1995).

PICHLEROVÁ 1971M. PICHLEROVÁ, Nové nálezy maďarovskej kultúry v Zbierkach SNM v Bratislave. Zborník Slovenského Národného Múz. Hist. 11, 1971, 5–23.

PLEINEROVÁ 1960I. PLEINEROVÁ, Únětické pohřebiště a osada v Blšanech u Loun. Památky Arch. 51, 1960, 488–526.

PODBORSKÝ 1988V. PODBORSKÝ, K problémům pohřebního ritu a druhotného otvírání hrobů lidu únětické kultury. In: M. Dočkalová (ed.), Antropofagie a pohřební ritus doby bronzové (Brno 1988) 71–82.

SALAŠ 1990M. SALAŠ, Únětická sídlištní jáma s lidskými kosterní-mi pozůstatky na Cezavách u Blučiny. Památky Arch. 81, 1990, 275–307.

SAMUEL 2008M. SAMUEL, Ďalší záchranný výskum na Mostnej ulici v Nitre. Arch. Výskumy a Nálezy na Slovensku 2006 (2008) 138–141.

STAŠŠÍKOVÁ-ŠTUKOVSKÁ 2001D. STAŠŠÍKOVÁ-ŠTUKOVSKÁ, Záchranný výskum na opevnenom sídlisku vo Veselom. Arch. Výskumy a Nálezy na Slovensku 2000 (2001) 192–193.

STUDENÍKOVÁ 1983E. STUDENÍKOVÁ, Tretia výskumná sezna na Zámčisku v Uníne. Arch. Výskumy a Nálezy na Slovensku 1982 (1983) 233–234.

TIRPÁK 2008J. TIRÁK, Geofyzikálny prieskum Budmerice, poloha Farárova roľa (unpubl. report Malokarpatské muzeum v Pezinku Nitra 2008).

TOČÍK 1962A. TOČÍK, Nález maďarovskej keramiky v Budmeri-ciach. Štud. Zvesti 9, 1962, 81–97.

TOČÍK 1964A. TOČÍK, Opevnená osada z doby bronzovej vo Ves-elom. Arch. Slovaca Monogr. Fontes 5 (Bratislava 1964).

TOČÍK 1979A. TOČÍK, Výčapy-Opatovce a dálšie pohrebiská zo staršej doby bronzovej na juhozápadnom Slovensku (Výčapy-Opatovce und weitere altbronzezeitliche Gräberfelder in der Südwestslowakei). Mat. Arch. Slovaca 1 (Nitra 1979).

TOČÍK 1981aA. TOČÍK, Nitriansky Hrádok-Zámeček: Bronzezeitli-che befestigte Ansiedlung der Maďarovce Kultur. Mat. Arch. Slovaca 3 (Nitra 1981).

TOČÍK 1981bA. TOČÍK, Malé Kosihy: Osada zo staršej doby bron-zovej. Mat. Arch. Slovaca 4 (Nitra 1981).

VAVÁK 2004J. VAVÁK, Západná skupina maďarovskej kultúry (un-publ. diploma thesis Nitra 2004).


VELIAČIK / FURMÁNEK 1988L. VELIAČIK / V. FURMÁNEK, Pohrebný rítus v dobe bronzovej na Slovensku. In: M. Dočkalová (ed.), Antropofagie a pohřební ritus doby bronzové (Brno 1988) 97–108.

VLADÁR 1973J. VLADÁR, Pohrebiská zo staršej doby bronzovej v Branči. Arch. Slovaca Monogr. Fontes 12 (Bratislava 1973).

VLČEK / HÁJEK 1963E. VLČEK / L. HÁJEK, A Ritual Well and the Find of an Early Bronze Age Iron Dagger at Gánovce near Poprad (Czechoslovakia). In: A Pedro Bosch-Gim-pera en al septuagésimo aniversario de su nacimiento (México 1963) 427–439.

Pavol JelínekSlovenský archeologický a historický inštitút, o. z.

Vajnorská 8 / ASK-831 04 Bratislava

[email protected]

Július VavákMalokarpatské múzeum v Pezinku

M.R. Štefánika 4Malokarpatské múzeum v Pezinku

M.R. Štefánika 4Malokarpatské múzeum v Pezinku

SK-902 01 [email protected]

P. Jelínek – J. Vavák: Human Remains in Settlement Pits of the Maďarovce Culture in Slovakia...

Documents

Transcript of P. Jelínek – J. Vavák: Human Remains in Settlement Pits of the Maďarovce Culture in Slovakia...