Specialised households in the Carpathian Basin during the Early and Middle Bronze Age

BRONZE AGE CRAFTS AND CRAFTSMEN IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN

Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş

5–7 October 2012

B I B L I O T H E C A M V S E I M A R I S I E N S I S

SERIA ARCHAEOLOGICA

VI

PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUMSFROM TÂRGU MUREŞ

EditorSÁNDOR BERECKI

Bronze Age Crafts and Craftsmen in the Carpathian Basin

PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM FROM TÂRGU MUREŞ

5–7 October 2012

Edited byBOTOND REZI

RITA E. NÉMETHSÁNDOR BERECKI

Editura MEGATârgu Mureș

2013

© Mureş County Museum, 2013Executive editor: Zoltán Soós, Director

Muzeul Judeţean MureşCP 85, str. Mărăşti nr. 8A, 540328

Târgu Mureş, România

Editura Mega | www.edituramega.roe-mail: [email protected]

ISBN 978-606-543-407-3

Contents

Preface 7

Klára P. FISCHL–Viktória KISS– Gabriella KULCSÁRSpecialised Households in the Carpathian Basin during the Early and Middle Bronze Age 9

Aleksandar KAPURAN–Aleksandar BULATOVIĆBird Images on Serbian Bronze Age Ceramics 23

Neculai BOLOHANOn Clay and Pots in the Middle Bronze Age. A Case Study from Siliştea–Pe Cetățuie, Neamț County 33

T. Gabriella NÉMETH Angaben zum spätbronzezeitlichen Salzverkehr 57

Daria Ložnjak DIZDARA Middle Bronze Age Metallurgical Workshop in Vinkovici 65

Gábor SÁNTAMetal Analysis of Koszider and Tumulus Culture Bronzes: Contents, Similarities and the Question of Source Area 77

Wolfgang DAVIDEine mit Spiralhakenranken verzierte altbronzezeitliche Nackenkammaxt siebenbürgischen Typs aus Südwestböhmen. Wo wurden die Schaftlochäxte vom Typ Apa–Nehoiu hergestellt? 91

Bianka NESSELThe ‘Absence’ of Smiths and Founders – Why Tools are Rare in Bronze Age Burials 139

Mario GAVRANOVIĆUrnenfelderzeitliche Gussformen aus dem Westlichen Balkan 149

Zoltán CZAJLIKLokaler, regionaler oder Fernhandel? Probleme der spätbronzezeitlichen Metallversorgung am Velem–St. Veit Berg (Westungarn) 167

Gábor ILONDas II. Buckelpaar des Goldschatzes von St. Veit bei Velem 181

Oliver DIETRICH–Laura DIETRICHTüllenhämmer als funktionale Bestandteile von Depotfunden des Karpatenbeckens. Das Beispiel Şpălnaca II 191

Liviu MARTANew Data on the Practice of Metallurgy in the Upper Tisza Basin in the Late Bronze Age 207

Carol KACSÓBeiträge zur Kenntnis des bronzezeitlichen Metallhandwerks in der Maramuresch 225

Botond REZIReconstructing a Bronze Smith’s Toolkit. Special Remarks Regarding the Decoration of the Bronze Belts from Band 239

Attila LÁSZLÓÜber die Verbreitung der Bronzenen Streitäxte mit Nackenscheibe in den aussenkarpatischen Gebieten Eine neue in der Moldau entdeckte Nackenscheibenaxt 251

Tobias MÖRTZHauptsache. Argumente für eine eigenständige Entwicklung der Kammhelme in Mitteleuropa 265

Marianne MÖDLINGERBronze Age Metal Defensive Armour in Eastern Europe: Status Symbol and Symbolic Weapons only? Indications for the Usage as Weapons 279

Géza SZABÓ What Archaeometallurgy Tells Us about the Changes of Bronze Craftwork in the Carpathian Basin at the Transition of the Bronze Age into Iron Age 291

Frank TROMMER–Tiberius BADERLanzenspitzenherstellung 313

Abbreviations 341

Bronze Age Crafts and Craftsmen in the Carpathian Basin, 2013, p. 9–22

Specialised Households in the Carpathian Basin during the Early and Middle Bronze Age

Klára P. FISCHL*–Viktória KISS**– Gabriella KULCSÁR*** University of Miskolc, Faculty of Arts

Department of Prehistory and ArchaeologyMiskolc, [email protected]

** Research Center for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Science,

Institute of ArchaeologyBudapest, Hungary

[email protected]@btk.mta.hu

Keywords: Bronze Age, Carpathian Basin, specialised households, craftsmanship, chaîne opératoire

This paper summarises avaliable information on households engaged in standardised production of artefacts during the final phases of the EBA and throughout the MBA (2200–1600/1500 BC, Reinecke Br A1–B1) in the Carpathian Basin. We seek to answer whether specialised craftsmen can be identified in the archaeological record in this particular time period. Can any stage of the operational chain be associ-ated with a specific gender? Were both men and women involved in the production of ceramics? Was the production of bronze artefacts an exclusively male role? Were children involved in craft production, and if so, in what way? Were the workshops located within the settlement, and in what ways can these be identi-fied? Did specialised households occupy a certain plot within the settlement? And on a larger scale, can settlements specialised in craft production be identified and – if yes – do they distibute regionally?

Scholars concerned with the identification of raw materials, production technology and the social aspects of craft production can now rely on studies by cultural anthropology, gender studies, experimen-tal archaeology and scientific data to look beyond the archaeological record itself. Fingerprints found on Neolithic vessels associated with the Körös complex for instance were dermatologically tested showing that the vessel was produced by a male potter; and fingerprints of adults and children were preserved on the surface of clay animal figurines dating to the Copper Age (Cseplák 1980; 1991; 2005; Pucher–Ruttkay 2006). Recent studies on ore mines discovered in Ireland and Scotland, and on salt mines in the Hallstatt area suggest that the entire community regardless of gender was involved in the mining activities including children (Wager 2009; Pany-Kucera et al. 2010).

In order to sum up the archaeological information from different regions of the Carpathian Basin, the current study also considers the new perspectives provided by the above mentioned interdisciplinary approaches relating to the production technologies of ceramics, metal artefacts, lithics and bone objects.

10 | K. P. Fischl–V. Kiss–G. Kulcsár

By this we attempt to map out the complete operational chains (chaîne opératoire), and to follow each step of the production, from the raw material to the finished product.

CeramicsCurrently there is no comprehensive study availabe on prehistoric ceramic technologies for the

Carpathian Basin, however, there are a few recently completed essays focusing on certain regions and time periods (e.g. Neolithic: Szakmány–Starnini 2007; Kreiter et al. 2009; Copper Age: Gucsi 2006, 2009; Gherdán et al. 2010; Horváth 2010). Ceramic technologies of the Early and MBA have been the subject of recent papers. A. Kreiter carried out a study on ceramics of the Vatya style focusing specifically on storage vessels; S. Budden analysed the potting technologies of the Vatya society, while K. Michelaki looked at the vessels of the Maros style in detail. K. Gherdán, as well as J. Antoni and their colleagues, have analysed the Kisapostag style ceramics. According to these studies the following can be ascertained of the ceramic operational chain.

Ethnographic studies suggest that potters producing on a non-industrial scale exploit raw mate-rial in a seven kilometer radius of their dwellings, nonetheless the preferred distance is within a one kilometer range (Arnold 1985, 35–57; Kreiter 2007b, 125; Kreiter 2010, 70). XRF analyses carried out on ceramic pieces associated with the Kisapostag style from Vörs–Máriaasszony-sziget and Vörs–Tótok dombja showed that the composition of the fragments from Máriaasszony-sziget were very similar to local soil samples rather than to raw material samples from the clay source of Vörs–Battyánpuszta circa two kilometers away (Gherdán et al. 2007, fig. 3–7; see also Gherdán 2009, 33). Exploitation of local clay sources was strongly implied by Nagyrév and Vatya ceramic fragments analysed from Százhalombatta–Földvár (Kreiter et al. 2007, 44), and by Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery ceramic fragments from Mernye–Nagy-árok (Kreiter–Tóth 2010).

After collecting the raw material the clay was prepared for building the vessels: during this process various components were added or taken out of the paste (Kreiter 2010, 72, fig. 5). There are a number of impurities (e.g. carbonate granules, argillaceous fragments or clay pellets) present in the clay fabric, which occur naturally in the raw material and can not be interpreted as temper. The high propotion of inclusions found in the fabric of domestic vessels imply that the clay was not levigated before building, whereas con-sumption vessels can show considerable preparation of their raw material (Kreiter–Tóth 2010, 300–302; Antoni et al. 2011, 148).

In most cases, grog and sand were used as temper (Gherdán 2009, 33). According to Kreiter’s study the amount of grog generally ranges between one and seven percent in the majority of vessels. This ratio does not effect the physical qualities of ceramic vessels, and therefore the presence of low amount of grog in the paste cannot be explained by functional reasons. Kreiter assumes that the addition of such small amount of grog temper was a socially regulated practice, relating to a particular potting tradition where previously used vessels (belonging to the ancestors?) were ground up and incorporated into newly produced ceramic wares (Kreiter 2007a; Kreiter–Tóth 2010, 305).

Coil-, slab-building, and Morsel-techniques were used for constructing the vessels. The breadth of the slabs ranged between 5 and 15 cm with variable length depending on the shape and size of the vessel. The wall thickness of storage vessels is generally between 0.6 and 0.9 cm, while consumption vessels have thinner walls of 0.2–0.4 cm (Kreiter et al. 2004, 87; 2007; Kreiter 2007b, 47; Budden–Sofaer 2009, 209; Kreiter 2010, 77–78; Antoni et al. 2011, 146–147, 150). After the construction, the vessels were then dried and fired.

Firing in most cases took place in a reducing athmosphere with moderate control over fir-ing temperatures resulting in uneven colour and cloudy surfaces (grey or brown exterior with orange patches; Antoni et al. 2011, 152). Based on ceramic technological data from Százhalombatta, Tószeg and Berettyóújfalu the temperature reached 650–850ºC. The presence of carbonate granules such as calcite and dolomite occuring in the clay fabric and the fact that these components remained unchanged strongly suggests that the vessels were fired at a relatively low temperature, around 700ºC (Kreiter et al. 2007, 44; Kreiter 2010, 69, fig. 3). Tests carried out on ceramic fragments from Kiszombor and Klárafalva associated with the Maros style also showed firing temperatures below 650ºC (Michelaki 2008). All this infers that pottery was fired in pits or in bonfires (Michelaki 2008; Kreiter 2010); however, traces of firing locations are lacking (Copper Age: Bondár et al. 2000, 98). Grid-ovens suitable for ceramic fir-ing known from other regions and time periods (e.g. Oates–Oates 1983, 42, fig. 32; Kreiter 2008) also remain undocumented from the Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin (a similar griddle-oven excavated at

K. P. FISCHL–V. KISS–G. KULCSÁR

Specialised Households in the Carpathian Basin during the Early and Middle Bronze Age | 11

Százhalombatta–Földvár was most possibly used for food preparation, see Lakatos-Pammer 2005, pl. 1; Sørensen 2010, 142, pl. 5/3; Vicze 2013, fig. 4–5). It is still in question whether the simple, dome-ovens were used for firing pottery (see Ilon 1996, 143; Horváth 2010, 54–58), examples of which were found during the recent excavation of settlement features belonging to the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery complex (Palotabozsok, Szűr–Völgyföldek, see below).

Detailed information on decorating technologies is still scarce, in one or two cases it was possible to identify bone tools used for creating decorative indentation on ceramic surfaces. However, in most cases the use of pebbles or organic materials (wooden tools, grass, animal hair) can be assumed (Méri 1942; Şandor–Chicideanu 2003, pl. 111/4; Reich 2006, 31; Szabó 2009, 34; Antoni et al. 2011, 151–152). Craftsmen of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery style filled the encrustation beds with white inlay of finely ground calcined bone or with a mixture of calcined bone and calcium carbonate extracted probably from crushed shell (Gherdán et al. 2005; Roberts et al. 2008; Kreiter–Tóth 2010, 306–310).

1

43

2

Fig. 1. Vessels of varying quality at Százhalombatta–Földvár (after Budden–Sofaer 2009, fig. 4).

Specialised ceramic production is inferred by components selected according to vessel function, by the presence of various vessel forms and tempering materials (Antoni et al. 2011, 148), and by the distinct ceramic ‘recipes’ applied by potters. K. Michelaki suggested that in the case of the Early Maros style people engaged in ceramic production on a part-time basis which resulted in vessels of varying quality (Fig. 1; Michelaki 2008, fig. 13; Budden-Sofaer 2009, fig. 4), and that the complete vessels were fired in pits. S. Budden and J. Sofaer drew attention to more complex, biconical vessel forms with distinctly shaped rims and handles (e.g. ansa lunata) appearing towards the end of the MBA. These special features could have caused the vessel to undergo strong thermodynamic stress during firing, requiring significant skill and knowledge on the craftsman’s side to create such vessels which held their shapes throughout the process. These characteristic wares of the late MBA period were fired black under reducing conditions (Fig. 1/4; Budden–Sofaer 2009, fig. 3, table 2; Kreiter 2010; Sofaer 2010, 195). There is evidence for 40–50 cm, sometimes 70 cm tall, large storage vessels with the capacity of 100–150 liter appearing among the mate-rial of the Nagyrév, Vatya, Füzesabony, Kisapostag and Maros complexes. The construction of these ves-sels required high level of craftsmanship and would have taken a long time (at least one day) to produce (Kreiter et al. 2007, 86; Szathmári 2009, 298; Antoni et al. 2011, 126). The varying quality of the Nagyrév, Vatya and Maros vessels implies that craftsmen possessing both higher and lower level of skills were engaged in ceramic production which also suggests some level of craft specialisation in these societies.

Settlement patterns of the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery style can shed light on the issue of regional distribution of specialised sites. I. Bóna assumed that the well-fired and richly ornated fine


ceramic wares of outstanding quality associated with this society were produced in potting centres then distributed to Transdanubia and also to the wider Carpathian region (Bóna 1975, 222). Until recently evidence was lacking either to support or to disprove this assumption which can be explained by the shortage of large-scale settlement excava-tions. However, in recent years as a result of motor-way rescue excavations in Transdanubia, two sites unearthed at Patotabozsok and Szűr–Völgyföldek were interpreted as ‘potting villages’ by the exca-vators. At Szűr, three pit-complexes each with a diameter of 20 meter and the depth of 2 meter were uncovered, revealing a complex system of firing ovens and ashpits (Voicsek–Ligner 2009; Gutay–Kárpáti 2010; Ligner–Voicsek 2010). Although clear conclusions cannot be drawn until the com-prehensive publication of these sites, the close dis-tribution of ‘potting villages’ suggest that these sites produced primarily for local rather than regional consumption.

By looking at the wide distribution of vessels applied with spouts and fake-spouts (Fig. 2) appear-ing in territories of a number of ceramic styles in the Carpathian Basin it has been suggested by O. Trogmayer that these vessels were produced by itinerant potters. Spouts and fake-spouts in this instance were interpreted as potters’ marks (Horváth 2000). However, the detailed study of spouted vessels proved that their significant role in Bronze Age rituals and ruled out their production by itinerant craftsmen (P. Fischl 1999).

Information about potters’ burials is similarly scarce. J. O’Shea (1996, 229) interpreted graves of males, females and young girls furnished with smoothing pebbles and bone (although somewhat ambigu-ous) tools as potters’ burials of the Maros society.

Metal artefactsThe chaîne opératoire of metal artefacts begins with the mining of ores. Component analyses of

artefacts and geological data related to ore-deposits suggest that by the end of the Copper Age and the beginning of the Bronze Age ores deposited in the oxidation zone had been exhausted therefore min-ing moved into the cementation zone exploiting ores deposited in the lower layers, namely sulfide-ores and fahlores (Boroffka 1994, Karte 3; Strahm 1994, Abb. 25; Schalk 1998, Abb. 3; Rassmann et al. 2001; Furmánek–Vladár 2002; Rassmann 2005; Molnár 2008, fig. 1.; Lockhoff 2009, Abb. 2). In some cases mines themselves have been unearthed such as Mitterberg in Austria, and Špania Dolina in Slovakia (Pittioni 1957; Točík–Žebrák 1987; Žebrák 1990; Shennan 1995; Krause 2003, Abb. 7; Stöllner et al. 2009; Schreiner 2007; see also Czajlik 1993; 2012). The preparation and roasting of the ore prior to smelting most probably took place in the vicinity of the mine (Eibner 1982, Abb. 2; Shennan 1995). The use of fahlores was convenient since these ores contain impurities such as arsenic and antimony what make smelting possible at lower temperatures (700–800 ºC), as opposed to the higher melting point of pure cop-per (1082 ºC). After smelting, the raw material entered the exchange network in a form of semi-finished products, as bronze ingots (Mozsolics 1984; Lenerz de Wilde 1995; Butler 2002; Kiss 2009b, 201–202).

Lead-isotope analysis serves as an essential tool in the identification of raw material sources. For example, bronze artefacts found in the graves of the Gáta/Wieselburg population (Hainburg, Mannersdorf) dating to the MBA (BzA2; show clear connections with copper ore deposits located in the Lower Tatra region, whereas usage of copper extracted from mines of the Lower Alpine region (Mitterberg) dates to the end of MBA, to the Koszider period (BrB1; Duberow et al. 2009; see also Höppner et al. 2005).

The next step towards the finished bronze product is the process of casting. This was probably carried out in a pit-like furnace, or clay-lined hearth built on the surface, possibly equipped with a grid-dle. Oxigen was provided either by a number of bellows (equipped with tuyères) or by natural draught. Experiments show that the temperature is uneven inside these hearths (Szabó 1996, 269; Szabó, 2013,

Fig. 2. Vessel applied with fake-spouts from Túrkeve–Terehalom (after Csányi–Tárnoki 2013, fig. 9/1).


86). Microstuctural analyses of finished products provide valuable details about metal production tech-nologies such as hammering and annealing of objects (Mödlinger 2004; Kienlin et al. 2006; Kienlin 2008; Barkóczy et al. 2011; Szabó 2013).

The studies by B. S. Ottaway showed that sand moulds were widely used during the Copper Age and the EBA. Artefacts produced in these moulds were harder and more brittle as the mould cooled at a slow rate, therefore later this technology became less practised (Ottaway–Seibel 1998; Eccleston–Ottaway 2002). Characteristic artefact types of the late Copper Age, and the EBA shafthole axes were pro-duced in clay moulds (Ecsedy 1983; Bátora 2003). From the end of EBA, and the beginning of the MBA, stone moulds (sandstone) are known generally, however data from Slovakia and the site of Várvölgy–Kis-Láz-hegy show that clay moulds remained in use simultaneously until the LBA (Szabó 1996, 268–270; Horváth 2004a; Péterdi 2004, 490–491; Ilon 2006; Müller 2006; Bátora 2009). The inside of the clay moulds was coated with a white, lime-powder (Ecsedy 1983), serving as an insulator and slag-producer. The inside of stone moulds was coated with a sooty (fatty) material to prevent the artefact sticking in the mould. It has been suggested that the two production processes could possibly signal technological and chronological differences (Ecsedy 1995, 34–35; Horváth 2004a, 33).

Bellows’ clay tuyères, crucibles, two-piece moulds and metalworking tools (hammers, chisels, awls) serve as evidence for casting practices on settlement sites. A concentrated cluster of these metal-working implements could imply the presence of workshops. Nevertheless, clear archaeological evidence for in situ workshops are scarce.

One of the most important in situ workshops was excavated at Mošorin–Feudvar, a settlement associated with the Vattina/Vatin complex. Here in the southeast corner of a 9.5 m by 5 m partitioned house, crucibles, moulds, wood and charcoal remains were uncovered (Fig. 3/1; Hänsel–Medović 2004; Kienlin 2007). Similarly at Lovasberény–Mihályvár, a site of the Vatya style, a building measuring 8.5 m by 5.5 m was unearthed, located within the fortified area. Hearths, crucibles, two casting moulds were documented along with small features sunken into the floor possibly serving as casting moulds for ingots (Fig. 3/2; F. Petres–Bándi 1969, 174–175, fig. 6; Kovács 1995, 39, fig. 18). Several further sites are referred to as bronze casting locations in the archaeological literature based on the large numbers of moulds, tuyères, and other metalworking implements found here, however only a few can be mentioned here. At Százhalombatta–Földvár, seven casting moulds imply the presence of a workshop (Horváth 2004a, 11, 13: with further data on possible Vatya workshops). At the Maďarovce settlement of Veselé a bronze casting workshop was identified based on nine moulds found within an area of 15 m (the nine moulds represented 17 different artefact types). At the site of Nitriansky Hrádok, close to the boundaries of the settlement, concentrated in four locations, 14 clay tuyères and eight moulds were found (Bátora 2009). At Nižna Myšl’a, in the younger occupation phase of the Füzesabony/Otomani complex, bronzeworking activities were practiced in the unused ditch created during the settlement’s older phase (Gancarski 2002, 31, fig. 4). At Füzesabony–Öregdomb, 10 moulds, and at Tiszafüred–Ásotthalom seven moulds came to light, the latter representing 12 artefact types (Bóna 1960; Horváth et al. in print).

Evidence of bronzeworking is known primarily from fortified, central and tell settlements (e.g. Găvan 2012). Nevertheless, features implying metalworking activities have recently been unearthed from single-layered settlements of the Maďarovce, the Vatya and the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery complexes as well (Bátora 2009, 209–210; Kiss 2009a, fig. 3; Szeverényi–Kulcsár 2012, 336). It is important to point out that while craftsmen of the Maďarovce and the Füzesabony styles exploited locally available ore sources, societies of the Vatya and the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery had to import the raw material. However, evidence for local bronze working and certain characteristic ornament types (e.g. types associated with the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery style) suggest that craftsmen practiced their skills locally (Kiss 2009a; 2009b). Traces of bronze casting can even be found on smaller settle-ments, which negates the idea of itinerant metalworkers (cf. Fontijn 2002, 28; Kienlin 2007; see also: Nørgaard in prep.).


1 2

Fig. 3. Metalworking workshops. 1. Mošorin–Feudvar (after Hänsel–Medović 2004, 89, fig. 2); 2. Lovasberény–Mihályvár (after F. Petres–Bándi 1969, fig. 6).

The selection of components according to function can also be regarded as proof for specialised metalworking. For instance the tin content of weapons is higher than the tin content of dress ornaments (Liversage 1994, 75–84, fig. 6–8, table XVIII). Special knowledge needed for production of metal artefacts, as well as graves containing metalworking implements interpreted as burials of metalwork-ers further emphasise the possible existence of persons engaged in standardised production of metal artefacts (Dunaújváros–Dunadűlő, grave 960; Nižna Myšľa, grave 280; Mozsolics 1967, Taf. 19/1–4; Olexa 1987; Kovács 1995, 40, 19, fig. 1–2; Vicze 2011, pl. 75/11–14; Bátora 2002; Horváth 2004a, 41, 47, note 70).

Chipped and polished stone tools Among the polished stone tool assemblages, grinding implements are one of the most character-

istic, such as grinding stones, slabs and mortars, but moulds and other tools (e.g. axes and whetstones) can also be produced by stone polishing techniques. Arrowheads and sickle blades were generally created by chipping. T. Horváth and her colleagues suggest that the large number of unfinished polished axes at the site of Füzesabony–Öregdomb indicate the presence of a lithic workshop. Here remains of half-shafted roughouts, grinding and polishing stones all support the interpretation of an axe producing workshop operating at the site (Horváth et al. in print).1

The stone-tool production usually relied on locally available raw materials. In the case of the Füzesabony–Öregdomb workshop stone sources in the Mátra mountains and foothills were exploited (e.g. andesite and rhyolite tuff), the Vatya society extracted hornstone from the Buda Hills, whereas the Transdanubian Encrusted Pottery complex quarried various radiolarite sources along with flint around Sümeg and Tevel (Horváth et al. 2000a; 2000b; Horváth 2004b; 2009). The stone moulds found at Füzesabony–Öregdomb according to the petrographic analysis by B. Péterdi (2004) were produced of sandstone, rhyolite tuff and mica and were also locally available. Petrographic analyses carried out on chipped stone tools found in the Slovakian region too show similar use of local raw material sources (e.g. Mýtna Nová Ves, Veselé; Bátora 1994; 2009, 207; Horváth 2009, 416). Although imported lithic raw material also occurs on sites, the chipped stone-tool assemblage of Százhalombatta sheds light on pos-sible underlying reasons of exploitation of local lithic sources. The majority of chipped stone tools (92%) at Százhalombatta–Földvár was produced from locally available, fairly low quality hornstone (quarried in the Buda Hills (within the distribution of the Vatya style) which could indicate the difficulties of entering

1 We wish to express our thanks to Tünde Horváth, Anna Farkas-Pető, and István Farkas for allowing us to refer to their forthcoming paper regarding the stone tools.


other lithic exchange networks or the significance of long-standing cultural practice (Horváth et al. 2000a; Horváth 2004a; Sofaer 2010, 196–197).

Bone toolsTools made of bone and antler can only

be discussed briefly here. The assemblage includes primarily everyday objects like needles, axes, smoothers, but also artefacts of horse equipment like cheek-pieces and strap-distributers. In most cases these are ad hoc, ‘second class’ objects which did not require any special skills to produce (Class II: Choyke et al. 2004, 184–185, fig. 11–14; Choyke–Bartosiewicz 2009, 360, fig. 3).

However, artefacts with incised decora-tion (Class I; ornamented bone containers, horse equipment, bone protectors applied onto wooden sticks, sword hilts) required significant plan-ning and skill. An assemblage interpreted as the byproducts or waste material of boneworking implies the presence of a bone workshop at Cetea site (Fig. 4; Boroffka 1998; Choyke et al. 2004, 184–185, fig. 10; Sofaer 2010, 198–200).

Specialised craftsmen, specialised settlements? The existence of specialised households

have now been archaeologically proven within settlements. There is further evidence, that on a larger scale, specialised settlements can be identified within the network of sites occupied contemporane-ously in the Carpathian Basin. The fortified site of Spišsky Štvrtok was interpreted as such settlement (Fig. 5), where the different craft areas had been spatially separated from each other and from locations of ritual function. Sites like Spišsky Štvrtok support the proposition of so called protourban settle-ments or ‘central places’ in the MBA (BrA2) and particularly in the Koszider period (BrB1) (Vladár

1975; Jockenhövel 1990; for a summary see Gogâltan 2010).

To sum up the above, data available in the archaeological record – specifically on ceramics and metal artefacts – now undoubtedly proves the operation of specialised craftsmen in the Carpathian Basin during the Bronze Age. The careful selection of material components, the production of high quality ceramic vessels and metal objects, the appearance of ‘master’ and ‘apprentice’ craftsmen represented in varying quality products and the spatial separation of specialised craft activities within the settlements all support this argument.

However, the question of whether craftsmen were operating on a part-time or on a full-time basis remains, for the time being, unanswered (Sofaer 2010, table 7/1). Nevertheless it is apparent that craftsmen of the time were accompanied by their tools after death – such as burial assemblages of metal

workers, moreover the assumed graves of potters and weavers in the Maros complex – which implies that ‘work or creative’ identity was an important factor in Bronze Age societies (Budden–Sofaer 2009, 207). The distinguished social role of craftsmen has also been emphasised by M. Eliade in his

Fig. 5. Spatial separation of specialised craft activities within the settlements of Spišsky Štvrtok (after

Jockenhövel 1990, Abb. 4).

Fig. 4. Byproducts of boneworking at Cetea (after Boroffka 1998, Abb. 2).


study of ‘primitive societies’: “The first smith, the first shaman and the first potter were blood broth-ers” (Eliade 1978, 81).

In this paper we aimed to summarise the available archaeological information on specialised craft activities and also to draw attention to potential future avenues of research. There are striking similari-ties in the technological and social aspects of craftsmenship, although the lack or the abundance of raw materials in different micro-regions can cause a significant imbalance in the reconstruction of operational chains. Pursuing the avenue of research of specialised craft activities can nevertheless broaden our per-spectives of Bronze Age societies.

References

Antoni et al. 2011 Antoni, J.–Csupor, I.–Udvardi, B., Régi fazekasok öreg cserepei (Adalékok a korabronzkori fazekassághoz), IN: Kvassay, J. (ed.), Évkönyv és jelentés a Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Szakszolgálat 2009. évi feltárásairól – Field Service for Cultural Heritage 2009 Yearbook and Review of Archaeological Investigations, Budapest, 137–161.

Arnold 1985 Arnold, D., Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process, Cambridge.Barkóczy et al. 2011 Barkóczy, P.– Kovács, Á.–P. Fischl, K., Réz és bronz leletek metallográfiai és

metallurgiai vizsgálatai, Archeometriai Műhely, 8, 4, 293–304.Bátora 1994 Bátora, J., Hunting in the Early Bronze Age in Slovakia, IN: Pamiatky a Múzeá.

Bronze Age in Slovakia. Historical Monuments and Museums. The Cultural Heritage Review, Bratislava, 11–12.

Bátora 2002 Bátora, J., Contribution to the problem of „craftsmen” graves at the end of Aeneolithic and in the Early Bronze Age in Central, Western and Eastern Europe, SlovArch, 50, 179–228.

Bátora 2003 Bátora, J., Kupferne Schaftlochäxte in Mittel-, Ost- und Südosteuropa (Zu Kulturkontakten und Datierung – Äneolithikum/Frühbronzezeit), SlovArch, 51, 1–38.

Bátora 2009 Bátora, J., Metallurgy and Early Bronze Age Fortified Settlements in Slovakia, SlovArch, 57, 195–219.

Bóna 1960 Bóna, I., Bronzezeitliche Schmuckgiesserei in Tiszafüred-Ásotthalom, AUBSH, 2, 261–270.

Bóna 1975 Bóna, I., Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen, ArchHung, 49, Budapest.

Bondár et al. 2000 Bondár, M.–Honti, Sz.–Kiss, V., A tervezett M7 autópálya Somogy megyei szakaszának megelőző régészeti feltárása (1992–1999). Előzetes jelentés I, SMK, 14, 93–114.

Boroffka 1994 Boroffka, N., Die Wietenberg-Kultur. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Bronzezeit in Südosteuropa, UPA, 19, Bonn.

Boroffka 1998 Boroffka, N., Bronze- und früheisenzeitliche Geweihtrensenknebel aus Rumänien und ihre Beziehungen. Alte Funde aus dem Museum für Geschichte Aiud, Teil II, EA, 4, 81–135.

Budden–Sofaer 2009 Budden, S.–Sofaer, J., Non-discursive knowledge and the construction of identity. Potters, potting and performance at the Bronze Age tell of Százhalombatta, Hungary, CAJ, 19, 203–220.

Butler 2002 Butler, J. J., Ingots and insights: reflections on rings and ribs, IN: Bartelheim, M.–Pernicka, E.–Krause, R. (Hrsg.), Die Anfänge der Metallurgie in der Alten Welt. Rahden/Westfalen, 229–243.

Choyke–Bartosiewicz 2009 Choyke, A. M.–Bartosiewicz, L., Telltale tools from a tell: Bone and antler manufacturing at Bronze Age Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom, Hungary, Tisicum, 19, 357–375.

Choyke et al. 2004 Choyke, A. M.–Vretemark, M.–Sten, S., Levels of social identity expressed in the refuse and worked bone from the Middle Bronze Age site of Százhalombatta-Földvár, Vatya culture, Hungary, IN: O’Day, S. J.–Van Neer, W.–Ervynck, A. (eds.), Behaviour behind Bones. The Zooarchaeology of ritual, Religion, Status and Identity, Oxford, 177–189.


Czajlik 1993 Czajlik, Z., Exploration geoarcheologique du Mont Szent Vid. Recherches franco-hongroises a Velem, ActaArchHung, 45, 317–347.

Czajlik 2012 Czajlik, Z., A Kárpát-medence fémnyersanyag-forgalma a későbronzkorban és a vaskorban, Budapest.

Csányi–Tárnoki 2013 Csányi, M.–Tárnoki, J., A Dinner Set from a Bronze Age House in Level 2 of the Túrkeve-Terehalom Settlement, IN: Anders, A.–Kulcsár, G. with Kalla, G.–Kiss, V.–V. Szabó, G. (eds.), Moments in Time: Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on his 60th Birthday. Ősrégészeti Tanulmányok/Prehistoric Studies I, Budapest, 707–723.

Cseplák 1980 Cseplák, Gy., Archeo-dermatológiai megfigyelések újkőkori edénytöredékeken, MKCsM, 121–128.

Cseplák 1991 Cseplák, Gy., A dunántúli vonaldíszes kerámia kultúrája „Tapolcai csoportjának” kerámiájáról és annak archeodermatológiai vizsgálatáról, IN: Törőcsik, Z. (ed.), A dunántúli vonaldíszes kerámia kultúrája „Tapolcai csoportjának” Balaton környéki lelőhelyei. Die Fundorte der zur Kultur der Transdanubischen Linienbandkeramik gehörenden „Tapolca-Gruppe“ in der Balatongegend, BMT, 1, Tapolca, 241–266.

Cseplák 2005 Cseplák, Gy., Árulkodó ujjnyomok – Vallatóra fogott kőkori cserepek, Budapest.Duberow et al. 2009 Duberow, E.–Pernicka, E.–Krenn-Leeb, A., Eastern Alps or Western Carpathians:

Early Bronze Age Metal within the Wieselburg Culture, IN: Kienlin, T. L.–Roberts, B. W. (eds.), Metals and Societies. Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway, UPA, 169, Bonn, 336–349.

Eccleston–Ottaway 2002 Eccleston, M.–Ottaway, B., Experimental casting of copper and bronze in sand moulds, IN: Jerem, E.–T. Biró, K. (eds.), Archaeometry 98: Proceeding of the 31st Symposium, Budapest, April 26–May 3, 1998, Volume I, BAR IS, 1043, Oxford, 185–189.

Ecsedy 1983 Ecsedy, I., Ásatások Zók-Várhegyen (1977–1982). Előzetes jelentés, JPMÉ, 27, 59–105.

Ecsedy 1995 Ecsedy, I., Rézkori hagyományok és a bronzkori technika kezdetei, IN: Maráz, B. (ed.), A bronzkor kincsei Magyarországon, Pécs, 31–37.

Eibner 1982 Eibner, C., Kupfererzbergbau in Österreichs Alpen, IN: Hänsel, B. (Hrsg.), Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa. Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v. Chr., Berlin, 399–408.

Eliade 1978 Eliade, M., The Forge and the Crucible, Chicago [Forgerons et alchimistes, Paris, (1956)].

P. Fischl 1999 P. Fischl, K., Szertartási edények a bronzkorból, HOMÉ, 37, 129–138.Fontijn 2002 Fontijn, D. R.: Sacrificial landscapes. The cultural biographies of persons, objects and

natural places in the Bronze Age of the Southern Netherlands, c. 2300–600 BC., APL, 33–34, Leiden.

Furmánek–Vladár 2002 Furmánek, V.–Vladár, J., Der Stand der Metallanalysentätigkeit in der Slowakei, IN: Bartelheim, M.–Pernicka, E.–Krauβ, R. (Hrsg.), Anfänge der Metallurgie in der Alten Welt. Forschungen zur Archäometrie und Altertumswissenschaft, 1, Rahden/Westfalen, 255–263.

Gancarski 2002 Gancarski, J., Między Mykenami a Baltykiem. Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony – Between Mycenae and the Baltic Sea. The Otomani-Füzesabony Culture, Krosno–Warszawa.

Găvan 2012 Găvan, Al., Metallurgy and Bronze Age tell-settlements from western Romania, EphemNap, 22, 57–90.

Gherdán 2009 Gherdán, K., 7000 év kerámiái, Vörs, Máriaasszony-sziget őskori kerámialeleteinek archeometriai összehasonlító vizsgálata területi kitekintéssel, Archeometriai Műhely, 6, 4, 31–36.

Gherdán et al. 2005 Gherdán, K.–T. Biró, K.–Szakmány, Gy.–Tóth, M.–G. Sólymos, K., Analysis of incrusted pottery from Vörs, Southwest Hungary, IN: Pruedencio, M. I.–Dias, M.I.–Waerenborogh, J. C. (eds.), Understanding people through their pottery. Proceedings of the 7th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics, Lisbon, Portugal, (EMAC’03), Trabalhos de arqueologia, 42, 103–108.

Gherdán et al. 2007 Gherdán, K.–Szakmány, G.–Tóth, M.–T. Biró, K.–Kiss, V., Archaeometric studies on Early Bronze Age pottery from Vörs-Máriaasszony-sziget, Archeometriai Műhely, 4, 2, 21–32.


Gherdán et al. 2010 Gherdán, K.–Tóth, M.–Herbich, K.–Hajnalová, M.–Hložek, M.–Prokeš, L.–Mihály J.–Horváth T., Természettudományos megfigyelések a középső és késő rézkori kultúrák fazekasáruin Balatonőszöd-Temetői dűlő lelőhelyen, Archeometriai Műhely, 7, 83–104.

Gogâltan 2010 Gogâltan, Fl., Die Tells und der Urbanisierungsprozess, IN: Horejs, B.–Kienlin, T. (Hrsg.), Siedlungen und Handwerk. Studien zu sozialen Kontexten in der Bronzezeit, UPA, 194, Bonn, 13–46.

Gucsi 2006 Gucsi, L., Rézkori és kora bronzkori kerámiákon végzett technikai megfigyelések, IN: Holló, A. Sz.–Szulovszky, J. (szerk.), Az agyagművesség évezredei a Kárpát-medencében, Budapest–Veszprém, 7–18.

Gucsi 2009 Gucsi, L., The manufacturing techniques of the grave pottery from Budakalász, IN: Bondár, M.–Raczky, P. (eds.), The Copper Age cemetery of Budakalász, Budapest, 450–456.

Gutay–Kárpáti 2010 Gutay, M.–Kárpáti, Z., Palotabozsok-Szérűskertek, IN: Kvassay, J. (ed.), Évkönyv és jelentés a Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Szakszolgálat 2008. évi feltárásairó. Field Service for Cultural Heritage 2008 Yearbook and Review of Archaeological Investigations, Budapest, 19–20.

Hänsel–Medović 2004 Hänsel, B.–Medović, P., Eine Bronzegießerwerkstatt der frühen Bronzezeit in Feudvar bei Mošorin in der Vojvodina, IN: Hänsel, B. (Hrsg.), Parerga Praehistorica. Jubiläumsschrift zur prähistorischen Archäologie. 15 Jahre UPA, UPA, 100, Bonn, 83–111.

Horváth 2000 Horváth, L. A., Eine besondere Gefässform aus der mittleren Bronzezeit, ActaArchHung, 51, 169–181.

Horváth 2004a Horváth, T., Néhány megjegyzés a vatyai kultúra fémművességéhez – Technológiai megfigyelések a kultúra kőeszközein, CommArchHung, 11–64.

Horváth 2004b Horváth, T., Előzetes jelentés a Kaposvár–61. út 1. lelőhely középső bronzkori településének kőanyagáról, IN: Ilon G. (ed.), ΜΩΜΟΣ III. Őskoros Kutatók III. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete, Szombathely, 108–113.

Horváth 2009 Horváth, T., Pattintással készült eszközök kronológiai szerepe a kora- és középső bronzkor folyamán, Tisicum, 19, 413–433.

Horváth 2010 Horváth, T., Megfigyelések a középső és késő rézkori kultúrák fazekasáruin Balatonőszöd–Temetői dűlő lelőhelyen. Készítéstechnikai vizsgálatok, Archeometriai Műhely, 1, 51–82.

Horváth et al. 2000a Horváth, T.–Kozák, M.–Pető, A., The stone-tools of Százhalombatta-Sánchegy, IN: Poroszlai, I.–Vicze, M. (eds.), SAX. Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition. Annual Report 1 – Field Season 1998, Százhalombatta, 103–119.

Horváth et al. 2000b Horváth, T.–Kozák, M.–Pető, A., Újabb adatok a középső bronzkor kőiparához: Bölcske-Vörösgyír bronzkori tell-település kőanyagának komplex (petrográfiai, régészeti) feldolgozása – Neue Angaben über die Steinverarbeitung in der mittleren Bronzezeit. Die Aufarbeitung des Komplexes des Steinmaterials der bronzezeitlichen Höhensiedlung von Bölcske-Vörösgyír (pertographisch–archäologisch), KEMMK, 7, 61–107.

Horváth et al. in print Horváth, T.–Farkas-Pető, A.–Farkas, I., Füzesabony-Öregdomb bronzkori tell-település kőanyaga, KEMMK (in print).

Höppner et al. 2005 Höppner, B.–Bartelheim, M.–Huijsmans, M.–Krauss, R.–Martinek, K.-P.–Pernicka, E.–Schwab, R., Prehistoric copper production in the Inn Valley (Austria), and the earliest copper in Central Europe, Archaeometry, 47, 293–315.

Ilon 1996 Ilon, G., A késő halomsíros–kora urnamezős kultúra temetője és tell települése Németbánya határában, ActaMPa, 6, 89–208.

Ilon 2006 Ilon, G., Bronzezeitliche Gussformen in dem Karpatenbecken, IN: Kobal’, J. (Hrsg.), Bronzezeitliche Depotfunde – Problem der Interpretation. Materialien der Festkonferenz für Tivodor Lehocky zum 175. Geburtstag. Ushhorod 5.–6. Oktober 2005, Usgorod, 273–301.

Jockenhövel 1990 Jockenhövel, A., Bronzezeitliche Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa. Untersuchungen zur Struktur frühmetallzeitlicher Gesellschaften, IN: Schauer, P. (Hrsg.), Orientalisch–Ägäische Einflüsse in der europäischen Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums. Koll. Mainz 16.–19.10.1985, Monographien RGZM, 15, Bonn, 209–228.


Kienlin 2007 Kienlin, T. L., Von den Schmieden der Beile: Zu Verbreitung und Angleichung metallurgischen Wissens im Verlauf der Frühbronzezeit, PZ, 82, 1–22.

Kienlin 2008 Kienlin, T. L., Frühes Metall im nordalpinen Raum: Eine Untersuchung zu technologischen und kognitiven Aspekten früher Metallurgie anhand der Gefüge frühbronzezeitlicher Beile, UPA, 162, Bonn.

Kienlin 2013 Kienlin, T. L., Copper and Bronze: Bronze Age Metalworking in Context, IN: Fokkens, H.–Harding, A. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age, Oxford, 414–436.

Kienlin et al. 2006 Kienlin, T. L.–Bischoff, E.–Opielka, H., Copper and bronze during the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age: a metallographic examination of axes from the Northalpine region, Archaeometry, 48, 453–468.

Kiss 2009a Kiss, V., The Life Cycle of Middle Bronze Age Bronze Artefacts from the Western Part of the Carpathian Basin. In: Kienlin, T.–Roberts, B. (eds.), Metals and Societies. Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway, UPA, 169, Bonn, 328–335.

Kiss 2009b Kiss, V., A fém nyersanyag-felhasználás kérdései a Dunántúl kora és középső bronzkorában, IN: Ilon, G. (szerk.), MΩMOΣ VI. Őskoros Kutatók VI. Összejövetele. Nyersanyagok és kereskedelem, Szombathely, 197–212.

Kovács 1995 Kovács, T., Bronzművesek, harcosok, kincsleletek, IN: Maráz, B. (ed.), A bronzkor kincsei Magyarországon, Pécs, 37–44.

Krause 2003 Krause, R., Studien zur kupfer- und frühbronzezeitlichen Metallurgie zwischen Karpatenbecken und Ostsee, Rahden/Westfalen.

Kreiter 2007a Kreiter, A., Kerámia technológai tradíció és az idő koncepciója a bronzkorban, Ősrégészeti Levelek, 8–9, 146–166.

Kreiter 2007b Kreiter, A., Technological choices and material meanings in Early and Middle Bronze Age Hungary: understanding the active role of material culture through ceramic analysis, BAR IS, 1604, Oxford.

Kreiter 2008 Kreiter, A., A Celtic pottery kiln and ceramic technological study from Zalakomár-Alsó Csalit (S-W Hungary), Zalai Múzeum, 17, 131–148.

Kreiter 2010 Kreiter, A., II.3.B. Kerámiavizsgálat, IN: Pető, Á.–Kreiter, A. (ed.), Mikroszkóppal a régészet szolgálatában. A Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Szakszolgálat Alkalmazott Természettudományi Laboratóriumában végzett természet- és környezettudományos vizsgálatok bemutatása, Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Szakszolgálat, Budapest, 66–77.

Kreiter et al. 2004 Kreiter, A.–Sofaer, J.–Budden, S. A., Early and Middle Bronze Age storage vessel building techniques, Ősrégészeti Levelek, 6, 85–91.

Kreiter et al. 2007 Kreiter, A.–Bajnóczi, B.–Sipos, P.–Szakmány Gy.–Tóth, M., Archaeometric examination of Early and Middle Bronze Age ceramics from Százhalombatta-Földvár, Hungary, Archeometriai Műhely, 4, 2, 33–46.

Kreiter et al. 2009 Kreiter, A.–Szakmány, Gy.–Kázmér, M., Ceramic technology and social process in Late Neolithic Hungary, IN: Quinn, P. S. (ed.), Interpreting Silent Artefacts. Petrographic Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics, Oxford, 101–119.

Kreiter–Tóth 2010 Kreiter, A.–Tóth, M., A dunántúli mészbetétes kultúra kerámiáinak petrográfiai vizsgálata, és az inkrusztáció összetételének meghatározása röntgen pordiffrakciós vizsgálattal Mernye-Nagy-árok lelőhelyről, IN: Kvassay, J. (ed.), Évkönyv és jelentés a Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Szakszolgálat 2008. évi feltárásairól. Field Service for Cultural Heritage 2008 Yearbook and Review of Archaeological Investigations, Budapest, 299–319.

Lakatos-Pammer 2005 Lakatos-Pammer, G., Middle Bronze Age grated oven from Százhalombatta, IN: Poroszlai, I.–Vicze, M. (eds.), SAX. Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition. Report 2, Százhalombatta, 195–207.

Lenerz de Wilde 1995 Lenerz de Wilde, M., Prämonetäre Zahlungsmittel in der Kupfer- und Bronzezeit Mitteleuropas, FBBW, 20, 229–327.

Ligner–Voicsek 2010 Ligner, J.–Voicsek, V., Szűr-Völgyföldek, IN: Kvassay J. (ed.), Évkönyv és jelentés a Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Szakszolgálat 2008. évi feltárásairól – Field Service for Cultural Heritage 2008 Yearbook and Review of Archaeological Investigations, Budapest, 21–22.

Liversage 1994 Liversage, D., Interpreting composition patterns in ancient bronze: the Carpathian Basin, ActaArch, 65, 57–134.


Lockhoff 2009 Lockhoff, N., Modul NW5: Teil Kupferisotopie (δ65Cu)-Promille für die Bronzezeit, IN: Lutz, J. (Hrsg.), Die Geschichte des Bergbaus in Tirol und seinen angrenzenden Gebieten – Auswirkungen auf Umwelt und Gesellschaft (Spezialforschungsbereich HiMAT), Curt-Engelhorn-Zentrum Archäometrie Jahresbericht, 14–16.

Méri 1942 Méri, I., A mészbetétágy elkészítésének módja a kisapostagi edényeken, ArchHung, 26, 45–53.

Michelaki 2008 Michelaki, K., Making pots and potters in the Bronze Age Maros Villages of Kiszombor-Új-Élet and Klárafalva-Hajdova, CAJ, 18, 355–380.

Molnár 2008 Molnár, S., Ércek, salakok, fémek, Miskolci Egyetem Közleménye, A sorozat, Bányászat, 74, 113–136.

Mozsolics 1967 Mozsolics, A., Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von Hajdúsámson und Kosziderpadlás, Budapest.

Mozsolics 1984 Mozsolics, A., Ein Beitrag zum Metallhandwerk der ungarischen Bronzezeit, BRGK, 65, 19–72.

Mödlinger 2004 Mödlinger, M., Metallographisch-analytische Untersuchungen an einem frühbronzezeitlichen Dolch aus Niederfellabrunn, Niederösterreich, AÖ, 15, 26–28.

Müller 2006 Müller, R., A Várvölgy-Nagy-Lázhegyen feltárt későbronzkori magaslati településrészlet szerkezete [Die Struktur des Várvölgy am Nagy-Lázhegy erschlossenen, spätbronze-zeitlichen Höhensiedlungsdetails], Zalai Múzeum, 15, 189–201.

Nørgaard in prep. Nørgaard, H. W., Are Valued Craftsmen as Important as Prestige Goods? Ideas about itinerant craftsmanship in the Nordic Bronze Age, IN: Reiter, S.–Nørgaard, H. W.–Kölcze, Zs.–Rassmann, C. (eds.), Rooted in Movement. Aspects of Mobility in Bronze Age Europe, Aarhus (in preparation).

Oates–Oates 1983 Oates, D.–Oates, C., A civilizáció hajnala, Budapest [The rise of civilization, Lausanne, (1976)].

Olexa 1987 Olexa, L., Gräber von Metallgiesseren in Nizna Mysla, ArchRoz, 39, 255–275.O’Shea 1996 O’Shea, J. M., Villagers of the Maros. A Portrait of an Early. Bronze Age Society, New

York.Ottaway–Seibel 1998 Ottaway, B.–Seibel, S., Dust in the Wind: Experimental Casting of Bronze in Sand

Moulds, IN: Frére-Sautot, M.-C. (ed.), Paléometallurgie des cuivres. Actes du colloque de Bourg-en-Bresse et Beauneu 17–18 oct. 1997, Monographies Instrumentum, 5, Montagnac, 59–63.

Pany-Kucera et al. 2010 Pany-Kucera, D.–Reschreiter, H.–Kern, A., Auf den Kopf gestellt? – Überlegungen zu Kinderarbeit und Transport im prähistorischen Salzbergwerk Hallstatt, MAGW, 140, 39–68.

Péterdi 2004 Péterdi, B., Bronzkori és vaskori öntőformák petrográfiai vizsgálata, IN: Ilon, G. (ed.), MΩMOΣ III. Őskoros Kutatók III. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete. Halottkultusz és temetkezés, Szombathely, 487–525.

F. Petres–Bándi 1969 F. Petres, É.–Bándi, G., Ásatás Lovasberény-Mihályváron, ArchÉrt, 96, 170–177.Pittioni 1957 Pittioni, R., Urzeitlicher Bergbau auf Kupfererz und Spurenanalyse. Beiträge zur

Relation Lagestätte–Fertigobjekt, ArchAust, Beiheft 1, Wien.Pucher–Ruttkay 2006 Pucher, E.–Ruttkay, E., Votivfiguren oder Spielzeug? Tierplastiken aus einer

Pfahlbausiedlung im Oberösterreichischen Mondsee, Altertum, 51, 229–250.Rassmann 2005 Rassmann, K., Die innere Chronologie der Hortfunde der klassischen Aunjetitzer

Kultur – Eine Auswertung von Metallanalysen aus dem Forschungsvorhaben „Frühe Metallurgie im zentralen Mitteleuropa“, IN: Horejs, B.–Jung, R.–Kaiser, E.–Teržan B. (Hrsg.), Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidmet, UPA, 121, Bonn, 463–480.

Rassmann et al. 2001 Rassmann, K.–Lutz, J.–Pernicka, E., Frühbronzezeitliche Vollgriffdolche vom Malchiner Typ – „Importe“ oder erste Zeugnisse nordischen Bronzehandwerks?, IN: Meyer, M. (Hrsg.), „Trans Albim fluvium“. Festschrift für Achim Leube zum 65. Geburtstag, Internationale Archäologie – Studia honoraria, 10, Rahden/Westfalen, 89–100.

Reich 2006 Reich, Ch., Das Gräberfeld von Szeremle und die Gruppen mit inkrustierter Keramik entlang mittlerer und unterer Donau, Berliner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 13, Berlin.


Roberts et al. 2008 Roberts, S.–Sofaer, J.–Kiss, V., Characterization and textural analysis of Middle Bronze Age Transdanubian inlaid wares of the Encrusted Pottery Culture, Hungary: a preliminary study, JAS, 35, 322–330.

Şandor-Chicideanu 2003 Şandor-Chicideanu, M., Cultura Žuto Brdo-Gârla Mare. Contribuţii la cunoaşterea epocii bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară, Cluj-Napoca.

Schalk 1998 Schalk, E., Die Entwicklung der prähistorischen Metallurgie im nördlichen Karpatenbecken. Eine typologische und metallanalytische Untersuchung, Internationale Archäologie–Naturwissenschaft und Technologie, 1, Rahden/Westfalen.

Schreiner 2007 Schreiner, M., Erzlagerstätten im Hrontal, Slowakei: Genese und prähistorische Nutzung, Forschungen zur Archäometrie und Altertumswissenschaft, 3, Rahden/Westfalen.

Shennan 1995 Shennan, S. J., Bronze Age copper producers of the Eastern-Alps. Excavation at St. Veit-Klinglberg, UPA, 27, Bonn.

Sofaer 2010 Sofaer, J. with contributions by Bech, J-H.–Budden, S.–Choyke, A.–Eriksen, B. V.–Horváth, T.–Kovács, G.–Kreiter, A.–Muhlenbock, C.–Sticka, H.-P., Chapter 7. Technology and Craft, IN: Earle, T.–Kristiansen, K. (eds.), Organizing Bronze Age Societies. The Mediterranean, Central Europe, and Scandinavia compared, Cambridge, 185–217.

Sørensen 2010 Sørensen, M. L. with contributions by Bech, J.-H.–Kulcsarne-Berzsenyi, B.–Kristiansen, K.–Mühlenbock, Ch.–Prescott, Ch.–Vicze, M., Chapter 5. Households, IN: Earle, T.–Kristiansen, K. (eds.), Organizing Bronze Age Societies. The Mediterranean, Central Europe, and Scandinavia compared, Cambridge, 122–154.

Stöllner et al. 2009 Stöllner, Th.–Cierny, J.–Eibner, C.–Boenke, N.–Herd, R.–Maass, A.–Röttger, K.–Sormaz, T.–Steffens, G.–Thomas, P., Der bronzezeitliche Bergbau im Südrevier des Mitterberggebietes – Bericht zu den Forschungen der Jahre 2002 bis 2006, ArchAust, 90, (2006), 87–137.

Strahm 1994 Strahm, C., Die Anfänge der Metallurgie in Mitteleuropa, HelvArch, 25, 2–39.Szabó 1996 Szabó, G., Az urnamezős kultúra fémművessége a régészeti kísérletek tükrében,

ActaMPa, 6, 265–276.Szabó 2009 Szabó, G., Pannónia kincse. A mészbetétes edények népének bonyhádi temetője. Schatz

von Pannonien. Das Gräberfeld der inkrustierten Keramik von Bonyhád, Szekszárd.Szabó 2013 Szabó, G., A dunántúli urnamezős kultúra fémművessége az archaeometallurgiai

vizsgálatok tükrében. The metallurgy of the Transdanubian Urnfield Culture in light of archaeometallurgical investigations, Specimina Electronica Antiquitatis – Libri 1, Pécs.

Szakmány–Starnini 2007 Szakmány, Gy.–Starnini, E., Archaeometric research on the first pottery production in the Carpathian Basin: manufacturing traditions of the Early Neolithic, Körös Culture ceramics, Archeometriai Műhely, 4, 2, 5–19.

Szathmári 2009 Szathmári, I., Megjegyzések a bronzkori háztartások edénykészletéről, Tisicum, 19, 295–307.

Szeverényi–Kulcsár 2012 Szeverényi, V.–Kulcsár, G., Middle Bronze Age Settlement and Society in Central Hungary, IN: Jaeger, M.–Czebreszuk, J.–P. Fischl, K. (eds.), Enclosed Space–Open Society. Contact and Exchange in the Context of Bronze Age Fortified Settlements in Central Europe, SAO, 9, Poznań–Bonn, 287–351.

Točík–Žebrák 1987 Točík, A.–Žebrák, P., Ausgrabungen in Špania Dolina-Piesky. Zum Problem des urzeitlichen Kupferbergbaus in der Slowakei, IN: Hauptmann, A.–Pernicka, E.–Wagner G. (eds.), Archäometallurgie der Alten Welt. Beiträge zum Internationalen Symposium “Old World Archaeometallurgy”, Heidelberg 1987, Der Anschnitt, 7, Bochum, 71–78.

Vicze 2011 Vicze, M., Bronze Age Cemetery at Dunaújváros-Duna-dűlő, DissPann, IV, 1, Budapest.

Vicze 2013 Vicze, M., Middle Bronze Age Households at Százhalombatta-Földvár, IN: Anders, A.–Kulcsár, G. with Kalla, G.–Kiss, V.–V. Szabó, G. (eds.), Moments in Time: Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on his 60th Birthday, Ősrégészeti Tanulmányok/Prehistoric Studies, I, Budapest, 757–769.

Vladár 1975 Vladár, J., Spišský Štvrtok. Befestigte Siedlung der Otomani-Kultur. Nitra.


Voicsek–Ligner 2009 Voicsek, V.–Ligner, J., Szűr, Völgyföldek, M6 autópálya, IN: Csornay, B. (ed.), Tájékoztató a K. Ö. SZ. 2008. évi tevékenységéről, Budapest, 23.

Wager 2009 Wager, E. C., Mining Ore and Making People: Re-thinking Notions of Gender and Age in Bronze Age Mining Communities, IN: Kienlin, T. L.–Roberts, B. (eds.), Metals and Societies. Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway, UPA, 169, Bonn, 105–115.

Žebrák 1990 Žebrák, P., The traces of the primary mining of non-ferrous metals in Slovakia, IN: Jovanović, B. (ed.), Ancient Mining and Metallurgy in Southeast Europe, AIBM, 27, Bor, 13–21.

List of figures

Fig. 1. Vessels of varying quality at Százhalombatta–Földvár (after Budden–Sofaer 2009, fig. 4).Fig. 2. Vessel applied with fake-spouts from Túrkeve–Terehalom (after Csányi–Tárnoki 2013, fig. 9/1).Fig. 3. Metalworking workshops. 1. Mošorin–Feudvar (after Hänsel–Medović 2004, 89, fig. 2); 2. Lovasberény–

Mihályvár (after F. Petres–Bándi 1969, fig. 6).Fig. 4. Byproducts of boneworking at Cetea (after Boroffka 1998, Abb. 2).Fig. 5. Spatial separation of specialised craft activities within the settlements of Spišsky Štvrtok (after Jockenhövel

1990, Abb. 4).

Abbreviations

AA Archiv für Anthropologie, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte

ABB Arbeitsberichte zur Bodendenkmalpflege in Brandenburg, BrandenburgABSA The annual of the British school at Athens, LondonActa Humaniora Acta Humaniora, Universitetet I OsloActaAntArch Acta Antiqua et Achaeologica, SzegedActaArch Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, BudapestActaArchCop Acta Archaeologica, CopenhagenActaMM Acta Musei Maramoriensis, Baia MareActaMN Acta Musei Napocensis, Cluj-NapocaActaMP Acta Musei Porolissensis, ZalăuActaMPa Acta Musei Papensis, PápaActaPraehistArch Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica, BerlinAegaeum Annales d’archéologie égéenne de l’Université deLiègeet UT-PASPAFSB Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur Sächsischen BodendenkmalpflegeAGN Anzeiger des Germanischen Nationalmuseums, NürnbergAI Archäologische Informationen, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ur- und FrühgeschichteAIBM Archaeological Institute Beograd Monographs, Archaeological Institute, BelgradeAJA American Journal of Archaeology, Archaeological Institute of America, BostonAlba Regia Alba Regia, Annales Musei Stephani Regis, SzékesfehérvárAlManach Almanach der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften, WienAltertum Das Altertum, BerlinAluta Aluta, Revista Muzeului Naţional Secuiesc, Sfântu GheorgheAngustia Angustia, Muzeul Carpaţilor Răsăriteni, Sfântu GheorgheANODOS Anados, Studies of the Ancient World, Trnavska univerzitaAntaeus Antaeus, Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Régészeti Intézet, BudapestAntiquaries Journal The Antiquaries Journal, LondonAntiquitas Antiquitas, BonnAntiquitas Hungarica Antiquitas Hungarica, Pázmány Péter Tudományegyetem, BudapestAntiquités Nationales Antiquités Nationales, ParisAntiquity Antiquity, LondonAÖ Archäologie ÖsterreichsAPL Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, Universiteit LeidenApulum Apulum, Acta Musei Apulensis, Alba IuliaARA Annual Review of Anthropology, Palo AltoArchaeologia Romanica Archaeologia Romanica, BistrițaArchaeometry Archaeometry, OxfordArchaeologia Archaeologia, LondonArchAustr Archaeologia Austriaca, WienArchBulgarica Archaeologica Bulgarica, SofiaArchČechách Archeologické výzkumy v jižních Čechách, České BudejoviceArchD Archäologie in DeutschlandArcheo Tirol Archaeo Tirol, Kleine Schriften, Universität InnsbruckArcheometriai Műhely Archeometriai Műhely, Magyar Nemyeti Múzeum, Budapest.ArchÉrt Archaeologiai Értesítő, BudapestArchHung Archaeologia Hungarica, Budapest

342 | Abbreviations

ArchivVSL Archiv des Vereins für siebenbürgische LandeskundeArchKiev Archeologija, KievArchKorr Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum in

MainzArchPol Archeologia PolskiArchRoz Archeologické Rozhledy, PragueArchS Archäologie in SalzburgArchSofia Archeologija, SofiaArhMold Arheologia Moldovei, IaşiArhVest Arheološki Vestnik (Acta Archaeologica), Inštitut za arheologijo, LubljanaArrabona Arrabona, a Győri Múzeum ÉvkönyveASA Ars slovaca antiqua, BratislavaASF Archaeologia Slovaca Fontes, BratislavaASM Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae, NitraASPR American School of Prehistoric Research, CambridgeAuF Ausgrabungen und Funde, Nachrichtenblatt der LandesarchäologieAUSB Annales Universitatis Scientiarium Budapestinensis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae.

– Sectio Historica, Budapest.BA Biblioteca de Arheologie, BucureştiBaltic-Pontic Studies Baltic-Pontic Studies, Adam Mickiewicz University, PoznańBAR British Archaeological Reports, International Series, OxfordBayerVorgeschbl Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter, MünchenBCMI Buletinul comisiunii monumentelor istorice, BucureştiBeih. Atlas Urgesch Beiheft zum Atlas der Urgeschichte, HamburgBerRGK Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen KommissionBH Burgenländische Heimatsblätter, Amt der Burgenländischen Landesregierung

Landesarchiv und LandesbibliothekBHAB Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica, TimişoaraBKL Bányászati és Kohászati Lapok, BudapestBL Bányászati Lapok, Országos Magyar Bányászati és Kohászati Egyesület, BudapestBM Bibliotheca Marmatia, Baia MareBMA Biblioteca Mvsei Apvlensis, Alba IuliaBMBistriţa Biblioteca Muzeului BistriţaBMMK A Békés Megyei Múzeumok KözleményeiBMT Bibliotheca Musei Tapolcensis, Tapolca.Boletin SEHUMED Sede para el Estudio de los Humedales Mediterráneos – Universidad de Valencia,

ValenciaBonner Jahrb Bonner Jahrbücher, BonnBPI Bullettino die Paletnologia Italiana, RomaBT Bibliotheca Thracologica, BucureştiCA Cercetări Arheologice, BucureştiCAJ Cambridge Archaeological Journal, CambridgeCarpica Carpica, Muzeul Judeţean de Istorie şi Artă „Iulian Antonescu“, BacăuCCA Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din RomâniaCeramics International Ceramics International, ElsevierCI Cercetări IstoriceCmapuHap CmapuHap, BeogradCommArchHung Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, BudapestCRC Cercetări de Restaurare şi Conservare, Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României,

BucureştiCrisia Crisia, Muzeul Ţării Crişurilor, OradeaCsMF Csongrádi Múzeumi Füzetek, CsongrádCurrAnth Current Anthropology, University of Chicago Press

Abbreviations | 343

Dacia Dacia, Recherches et décuvertes archéologiques en Roumanie, I–XII (1924–1948), Bucureşti; Nouvelle série (N. S.), Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire anciene, Bucureşti

Der Anschnitt Der Anschnitt, Deutsches Bergbau-Museum BochumDiadora Glasilo Arheološkog Muzeja u ZadruDIG Dări de seamă ale şedinţelor Institutului Geologic al RomânieiDissPannonicae Dissertationes Pannonicae, BudapestDJELA Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i HercegovineDjerdapske sveske Djerdapske sveske, Arheološki institut i Narodni muzej, BelgradDolgKolozsvár Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából, KolozsvárEA Eurasia Antiqua, Deutsches Archäologisches InstitutEAZ Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift, BerlinEJHG European Journal of Human Genetics, LeidenEphemNap Ephemeris Napocensis, Cluj–NapocaESA Eurasia Septentrionalis AntiquaExpArch Experimentelle Archäologie in Deutschland (in Europa), OldenburgFAH Fontes Archaeologici Hungariae, BudapestFolArch Folia Archeologica, a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Évkönyve, BudapestForschStillfried Forschungen in StillfriedGermania Germania, Frankfurt am MainGlasnik Sarajevo Glasnik Sarajevo, Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja u Sarajevu –SarajevoGlasnik ZM Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u SarajevuHAG Hrvatski archeološki godišnjak, Hammaburg Hammaburg, Vor- und frühgeschichtliche Forschungen aus dem niederelbischen

Raum, HamburgHelvArch Helvetia Archaeologica, Official newsletter of the Swiss Archaeological Society,

ZürichHOMÉ A Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve, MiskolcHyperfine Interactions Springer Verlag, NetherlandsIA Internationale Archäologie, Buch am Erlbach, Espelkamp, Rahden/Westf.IAP Inventaria Archaeologia Pologne, LódzIBAD Izvestija na Bulgarskoto Archeologičesko Družestvo, SofijaIHAD Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, ZagrebIJCS International Journal of Conservation Science, IaşiInvArch Ungarn Inventaria Archaeologica Hungarica, BudapestInvArchRoumanie Inventaria Archaeologica Roumanie, BucureştiIPH Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae, A magyar Nemzeti Múzeum BudapestISR Interdisciplinary Science ReviewsJahrBM Jahrbuch zur Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg, Museum für Ur- und

Frühgeschichte SchwerinJahrbuch RGZM Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums MainzJahrIVUF Jahresbericht des Instituts für Vorgeschichte der Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt am

MainJahrMV Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte, HalleJahrSGUF Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Ur-und Frühgeschichte, BaselJAMÉ A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve, NyíregyházaJAS Journal of Archaeological Science, ElsevierJHS Journal of Hellenic Studies, Cambridge University PressJPMÉ A Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve, PécsKEMMK Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei, Közlemények Közlemények az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem-és Régiségtárából, Kolozsvár.Kratkie Soobs Краткие Сообщения, О докладах полевых исследованиях ИститутаKunde Die Kunde, HamburgMAGW Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien

344 | Abbreviations

Man Man. A monthly Record of Anthropological Science, LondonMarburger Studien Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Rahden/Westf.Marisia Marisia (V–), Studii şi Materiale, Târgu MureşMarmatia Marmatia, Anuarul Muzeului Judeţean MaraureşMAS Materialia archaeologica Slovaca, NitraMCA Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice, BucureştiMemAnt Memoria Antiquitatis, Acta Musei Petrodavensis, BucureştiMFMÉ A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, SzegedMGB Muzej Grada BeogradaMinaria Helvetica Minaria Helvetica, Bulletin de la Société Suisse d’Histoire des MinesMiskolci Egyetem Közleménye, A. sorozat, Bányászat

Miskolci Egyetem Közleménye, A. sorozat, Bányászat, Miskolc

MittBGAEU Mitteilungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte

MittDAI Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, AthenMittDO Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft, BerlinMittFBVF Mitteilungen der Freunde der Bayerischen Vor- und FrühgeschichteMKAM Monographs and cataloguesof the Archaeological Museum of Istria, PulaMPK Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission der Österreichischen Akademie der

Wissenschaften, VienaMSPF Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française, ParisMSROA Materiały i Sprawozdania Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka Archeologicznego, RzeszóvMUÖ Materialien zur Urgeschichte Österreichs, WienMusaica Musaica, Sborníc Filozofickej fakulty Univerzity KomenskéhoMuzejski Vijesnik Glasilo muzeja Sjeverozapadne HrvatskeMúzeumi Füzetek Múzeumi Füzetek, Petőfi Múzeum, AszódMΩMOΣ MΩMOΣ, Őskoros Kutatók Összejövetelének konferenciaköteteOGPJ Ostbairische Grenzmarken: Passauer Jahrbuch für Geschichte, Kunst und

Volkskunde, PassauOJA Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyÖK Österreichische Kunsttopographie, WienOMRTÉ Országos Magyar Régészeti Társulat Évkönyve – Jahrbuch der Ungarischen

Archaeologischen GesellschaftOlympische Forschungen Olympische Forschungen, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, BerlinOpArch Opuscula Archaeologica, Arheološki zavod, Filozofski fakultet u ZagrebuŐsrégészeti Levelek Ősrégészeti Levelek / Prehistoric newsletter, BudapestÖZBH Österreichische Zeitschrift für Berg- und Hüttenwesen Paideuma Paideuma, Frobenius-Institut, Frankfurt am MainPamArch Památky Archeologické, PrahaPAS Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, Berlin, Kiel, MünchenPBF Prähistorische Bronzefunde, München, StuttgartPeuce Peuce, Studii şi cercetări de istorie şi arheologie, Institutul de Cercetări Eco-Muzeale

Tulcea, Institutul de Istorie si Arheologie, TulceaPJZ Prajistoria Jugoslovenskih zemalja, SarajevoPMÉ Pápai Múzeumi Értesítő, PápaPodravski Zbornik Podravski Zbornik, KoprivnicePPS Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, LondonPrilozi IAZ Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju iz ZagrebaPSV Praistorijske ostave u Srbiji I Voivodini, BeogradPZ Prähistorische Zeitschrift, BerlinRBPA Regensburger Beiträge zur Prähistorischen Archäologie, RegensburgRégFüz Régészeti Füzetek, BudapestRevArh Revista Arheologică, ChişinăuRevBis Revista Bistriţei, Complexul Judeţean Muzeal Bistriţa-Năsăud

Abbreviations | 345

Revista Minelor Revista Minelor, PetroşaniRGF Römisch-Germanische Forschungen, Mainz, BerlinRKM Régészeti Kutatások MagyarországonRSP Rivista die Scienze Preistoriche, FirenzeRVM Rad Vojvodanskih Muzeja, Novi SadSA Sozialanthropologische Arbeitspapiere, BerlinSAM Studien zu den Anfängen der Metallurgie, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum

MainzSAO Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa, Poznan, Bamberg, Rahden/Westf.Savaria Savaria, a Vas Megyei Múzeumok Értesítője, SzombathelySBA Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde, BonnScienze dell’Antichità Scienze dell’Antichità. Storia – Archeologia – Antropologia, RomaSCIV(A) Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche (şi Arheologie 1974–), BucureştiSFFBU Sborníc prací Filozofické Fakulty Brnenské University, BrnoSlovArch Slovenská Archeológia, NitraSMK Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei, SomogySMMK Somogy Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei, KaposvárSovArch Sovetskaja Archeologija, MoskvaStarinar Starinar (N.S)., Arheološki institute, BeogradStC Maramureşene Studii şi Cercetări Maramureşene, Baia MareStCeltica Studia Celtica, University of WalesStCom Satu Mare Studii şi Comunicări Satu MareStudArch Studia Archaeologica, SzegedStudia Comitatensia Studia Comitatensia, Régészeti tanulmányok Pest megyébőlStudiaUBB Geologia Studia Universitatis Babeş–Bolyai, seria Geologia, Cluj-NapocaŠtudijne Zvesti AÚSAV Študijne Zvesti Archeologického Ústavu Slovenskej Akadémie ViedSWLS Sammlungen des Württembergischen Landesmuseums StuttgartThraco-Dacica Thraco-Dacica, Institutul de Tracologie, BucureştiTibiscum Tibiscum, Acta Musei Caransebesiensis, CaraşsebenTibiscus Tibiscus, Muzeul Banatului, TimişoaraTisicum Tisicum, A Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve, SzolnokTLVH Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle, HalleTyragetia Tyragetia (S.N.), Muzeul Național de Istorie a MoldoveiUPA Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, BonnVAH Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, BudapestVAHD Vijesnik za Arheologiju I Historiju DalamtinskuVAMZ Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u ZagrebuVasárnapi Ujság Vasárnapi Ujság, MáramarosVMMK A Veszprém Megyei Múzeumok Közlményei, VeszprémVMUF Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, PotsdamWArch World Archaeology, OxfordWMBH Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und Herzegowina, WienVÖAUF Veröffentlichungen der Österreichischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Ur- und

Frühgeschichte, WienWPZ Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift, WienZalai Múzeum Zalai Múzeum, Közlemények Zala megye múzeumaiból, ZalaegerszegZborník SNM Zborník Slovenského Národného Múzea, BratislavaZE Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, Berlin

Specialised households in the Carpathian Basin during the Early and Middle Bronze Age

Documents

Transcript of Specialised households in the Carpathian Basin during the Early and Middle Bronze Age