Inter contacts... Inter contacts in the Western Carpathian area at the turn of the 2nd and 1st millennia BC MARCIN S. PRZYBYŁA This publication was inanced by the National Centre for Culture Competition for the best doctoral dissertation in the field of historical and related studies DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Wojciech Blajer, Ph.D. Assoc Prof. DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Prof. Marek Gedl, Ph.D. Prof. Václav Furmánek, Ph.D. TRANSLATORS Małgorzata Godlewska and Piotr Godlewski EDITOR Edyta Tomczyk PROOFREADER Barbara Przybylska COVER DESIGN/ GRAPHIC DESIGN / TYPOGRAPHY Tomasz M. Wiśniewski / www.zonedesign.pl TYPESETTING Bartosz Fabiszewski / ushuaia.pl fonts used in this publication EFN Weiss, Letter Gothic © National Centre for Culture First edition, Warsaw 2009 All rights reserved Permission in writing from the Publisher is required for the reproduction of this book or any of its parts. Permission may be requested by contacting the National Center of Culture. ISBN 978-83-926238-5-4 National Centre for Culture ul. Senatorska 12 00-082 Warszawa tel. +48 22 2 100 100 fax +48 22 2 100 101 www.nck.pl Acknowledgments This book is an attempt to answer the question of which social processes or short-term events resulted in the appearance of artifacts typical of the middle and lower Danube basin at the transition of the 2nd and 1st millennia BC in the territories north of the Carpathians. This study is based on my doctoral thesis, prepared during 2002–2007 under the supervision of Wojciech Blajer, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof. at the Jagiellonian University Institute of Archeology in Kraków. I wish to express my gratitude to my supervisor for his eforts in providing a deinitive shape to particular chapters, for his time spent on consultations, and for his valuable remarks, allowing me to see my conclusions more critically and from a suicient distance. I would also like to thank Prof. Jan Chochorowski, Ph.D. for encouraging me to study the issue of intercultural contacts in the Carpathian zone. As Head of Jagiellonian University’s Institute of Archeology, he greatly supported me in preparing this book for publication as well. A number of sources analyzed in this work are unpublished materials, sometimes of crucial importance for the conclusions obtained. I wish to express my thanks to all the persons who were willing to make available materials from their excavations or who granted me access to unpublished source studies. I sincerely thank: Urszula Bąk, M.A., Lucia Benadiková, Ph.D., Anna Bochnak, M.A., Prof. Sylwester Czopek, Ph.D., Jan Gancarski, M.A., Jacek Górski, Ph.D., Paweł Jarosz, M.A., Elżbieta Kłosińska, Ph.D., Jerzy Kuśnierz, M.A., Bartłomiej Konieczny, M.A., Adam Kostek, M.A., Paweł Madej, M.A., Marek Materna, M.A., Irena Pieróg, M.A., Wojciech Poradyło, M.A., Andrzej Szpunar, M.A., Bartłomiej Urbański, M.A., and Prof. Paweł Valde-Nowak, Ph.D.  While collecting sources at the beginning of 2005, I sent out an inquiry to several museums – particularly those located in northern and western Poland. I asked for information on artifacts, especially pottery, deviating from the standards characteristic of the Lusatian culture. Although the data acquired in this way did not extend the collection of Transcarpathian pottery presented here, I would like to thank the archeologists who kindly found time to answer my questions: Mirosława Andrzejowska, M.A., Jerzy Gołubkow, M.A., Irena Jadczykowa, Ph.D., Dorota KozłowskaSkoczka, M.A., Jarosław Lewczuk, Ph.D., Monika Michnik, M.A., Marian Pawliński, M.A., Edward Pudełko, M.A., Sławomira Ruta, M.A., and Ignacy Skrzypek, M.A. A number of people, knowingly or not, played a part in crystallizing the views presented in this book. I would like to acknowledge in particular those scholars whose remarks especially inspired me, as well as those who helped solve some detailed questions. I would like to mention here: Prof. Václav Furmánek, Ph.D., Florin Gogâltan, Ph.D., Mirosław Hofmann, Ph.D., Prof. Sławomir Kadrow, Ph.D., Tobias Kienlin, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., Rudolf Kujovský, Ph.D., Attila László, Ph.D., Renata Madyda-Legutko, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., Róbert Malček, M.A., Vladímir Mitáš, M.A., Józef Niedźwiedź, M.A., Marek Nowak, Ph.D., Krzysztof Tunia, Ph.D., and Ladislav Veliačik, Ph.D. In addition, I am very grateful to Prof. Frank Falkenstein, Ph.D., Carol Kacsó, Ph.D., Josip Kobal, Ph.D., and Thomas Saile, Ph.D. for their help in making several papers available. I thank my colleagues, young archeologists from the Jagiellonian University interested in the Bronze Age, for their stimulating and amicable discussions: Karol Dzięgielewski, M.A., Anna Gawlik Ph.D., Piotr Godlewski, M.A., Michał Mazur, M.A. and Roman Szczerba, M.A. The remarks of the reviewers, Prof. Václav Furmánek, Ph.D., and Prof. Marek Gedl, Ph.D., were also very valuable. The eforts of Małgorzata Godlewska and Piotr Godlewski enabled this book to be translated within the deadline set by the publisher. I am very  grateful to both of them for their commitment and the immense efort they put into this work. I acknowledge the management and the staf of the National Center of Culture (NCK) in Warsaw for the opportunity to publish this book and for their perseverance in preparing it as thoroughly as possible. Finally, I wish to thank my family: my wife Marzena, who not only supported me in my work but was also this publication’s irst and critical reader, my sister and brother, and most of all my parents Ewa and Józef, to whom I dedicate this book.  ChApteR 1 StudIeS oN INteRCuLtuRAL CoNtACtS IN the BRoNze AGe — tRAdItIoNS ANd peRSpeCtIveS 1.1. Main trends in the research on intercultural contacts in the Western Carpathian area during the Bronze Age It is stating the obvious that research traditions or fashions signiicantly inluence how historical processes and patterns observed in human culture are explained. These inluences are more clearly visible in such areas where methodological relection is more developed, and “research traditions tend to oscillate between oppositions, like a historical pendulum” (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005, 5). Until the 1990s, Central European archeology was focused more on describing prehistoric phenomena than on interpreting it. However, here also certain assumed tendencies are noticed when sources are characterized. Among other things, this relates to how the presence of “foreign” cultural elements is perceived, or how settlement in the borderlands between great cultural circles is approached. Below, I will try to present a short discussion of research trends on Transcarpathian linkages during the Bronze Age, which can be found in Polish archeological literature.1 1 A more detailed presentation of the state of research in this ield (including a discussion of results of ield work) will be provided in speciic chapters devoted to characterizing sources in individual regions. 10 The earliest concepts linking some indings from the territory of Poland with “southern inluences” reach back to the second half of the 19th century. At that time – during the period of discussion on the Three Ages System – some researchers thought that the Stone Age in the basins of Vistula, Oder and Dniester rivers lasted until early historical time. The scarce bronze indings found in those regions should be treated as originating from trade contacts with the Mediterranean. Accordingly, Jan Nepomucen Sadowski treated central European bronze indings as Etruscan imports, while Józef Ignacy Kraszewski regarded the inding of an Únĕtice culture halberd as a manifestation of Egyptian inluences (Kostrzewski 1948, 18, 25–26). Progress in archeological studies, especially after Poland regained independence in 1918, resulted in attempts to present a synthesis of Polish prehistory. These studies also referred to the links of the Vistula basin with Transcarpathian territories. Attention was paid to the presence of “Hungarian” type bronzes in hoards from Lesser Poland (Małopolska), and to examples of knobbed pottery (Buckelkeramik) related to cultures from the Hungarian territory (Kostrzewski 1919, 164–166; 1924, 181–182; Żurowski 1927, 85; Kozłowski 1928, 98– 100; Sulimirski 1929, 56–60). It should be noted however, that, in fact, the “Hungarian” analogies were indings from various areas of the Carpathian Basin. They were included in successive volumes of Joseph Hampel’s Alterthümer der Bronzezeit in Ungarn, edited in 1886–1896. In the beginning of the 20th century, this book was a basic compendium of Bronze Age indings from the middle Danube basin. While the Transcarpathian origin of some metal indings was rather unquestionable, there were difering opinions about the impact of southern inluences (especially migrations from the south) on the cultural development of Poland. This polemics was closely related to intensiied studies on ethnic issues in archeology. Gustaf Kossinna (1912) considered the population inhabiting what was then eastern Germany (represented by the Lusatian culture) as being of Indo-German, Illyrian descent. Illyrians were 11 to wander to the Oder basin from western Hungary and Moravia. This view was countered by Józef Kostrzewski, who believed that the Lusatian culture was not introduced as a result of an invasion from the south, but originated from “old, local elements and is a continuation of so-called preLusatian culture, which in turn developed mainly from the Únĕtice culture” (Kostrzewski 1924, 183). Kostrzewski was inclined to trace the settlement and ethnic continuity in the Greater Poland district (Wielkopolska) until contemporary times (ibidem). This issue was presented diferently by Leon Kozłowski (1928) in his work on the impact of climatic changes on Bronze Age development in Poland. Although this archeologist also noted a connection of the Lusatian culture with an older foundation (especially in relation to Silesian indings), he also perceived its genesis as resulting from “foreign invasions, which slowly occupied practically unpopulated areas”. In the case of indings from certain areas (e.g. central Lesser Poland group), he noted associations with the territories of “Slovakia and northwestern Hungary” (Kozłowski 1928, 62, 124). The opinions of Kozłowski were strongly criticized by Kostrzewski (1929, 30–32), who (also in his post-war papers) minimized the importance of foreign inluences, considering them as indications of trade or looting raids. In his opinion, such phenomena did not afect the ethnic composition of the population inhabiting Poland. According to Kostrzewski, the ethnic composition remained unchanged from the beginning of the Bronze Age until current time (e.g., Kostrzewski 1961a, 5–6). The polemics of the 1920s inally closed the discussion about the origins of cultures from the earlier stages of the Bronze Age in Poland. It was agreed – which is still maintained today – that the western groups of the Lusatian culture had developed on the basis of local, older cultural traditions, and not as a result of a great migration from the south. However, the question of Transcarpathian links to cultural phenomena in southern Poland remained open. Pre-war archeology was unequivocally of the opinion that indings from the northern Carpathian forelands (known in 12 small numbers at the time) should also be included in the Lusatian culture (Żurowski 1927, 87, 92–93; Antoniewicz 1928, 97, 106; Kozłowski 1939, 56). This opinion was maintained without signiicant modiication through the following decades. It was not until the late 1960s that new ield work results convinced Zbigniew Bukowski (1967, 42–43) and Marek Gedl (1967, 312–313; 1970, 380–385) to emphasize the importance of Transcarpathian inluences in the genesis of the Tarnobrzeg group from the San River basin. At the same time, Bukowski (1967, 36–40, 47; 1969, 335–337) rejected the idea of deining separate cultural units in the Polish Carpathian zone, emphasizing their connections with the Lusatian culture (as in the case of the Dunajec River valley). The 1960s and 1970s brought several new discoveries and conclusions, which in the next decades were a signiicant factor in assessing the role of Transcarpathian inluences in the process of cultural formation in southern Poland. In particular, one should mention here the results of excavations led by Maria Cabalska (1972) in Maszkowice, Nowy Sącz district, new indings on Transcarpathian links in the pottery of the Trzciniec culture (Kempisty 1978), the discovery of central European Urnield culture type pottery at a cemetery in Kietrz, Głubczyce district (Gedl 1979, 36–37, 69–70), attempted synchronization of indings from Poland with the hoard horizons identiied for the Carpathian Basin (Kostrzewski 1964, 8–17; Dąbrowski 1972) and the identiication of pottery originating from the Tisza River basin among materials of the Lusatian culture settlements in Nowa Huta (Sochacki 1975; Bazielich 1978). The latter was included in a synthesis of the prehistory of Poland, summarizing the state of research at that time (Gardawski 1979). An interesting hypothesis, related to the issues discussed here, was proposed by Tadeusz Malinowski (1975). The presence of inhumation graves at the cemeteries of the Upper Silesia-Lesser Poland group (grupa górnośląsko-małopolska) provided him with evidence for the presence of incomers from the Illyrian cultural circle. However, this hypothesis was not accepted by more recent studies (Szydłowska 1982; 13 Gedl 2002b, 217). The opinion that the Polish Carpathian zone belongs to the Lusatian culture prevailed until the beginning of the 1980s (Cabalska 1982, 358; Gedl 1982, 31). The direction of research indicated by some of the above-mentioned discoveries was followed during the next decade. Maria Bazielich presented research (1982b; 1984) on the relation of Lusatian culture pottery from western Lesser Poland and the Tarnobrzeg group of the San River basin with the cultural phenomena from the Tisza River basin, described at the time as the Gáva culture. The problem of southern inluences in the Tarnobrzeg group was also addressed by other researchers. They based their studies both on analyses of pottery (Chochorowski 1989) and metal objects (Blajer 1989). New, spectacular discoveries from the Polish Carpathian zone – in particular, studies of settlements with Otomani culture materials in Trzcinica, Jasło district, Jasło (Gancarski 1988; 1992a), and the Piliny culture cemetery in Chełmiec, Nowy Sącz district (Szymaszkiewicz 1985) – caused Polish archeologists to change their opinion about the cultural ailiation of sites from that region. More recent studies on the typology and chronology of bronze indings also contributed signiicantly to the investigation of their Transcarpathian connections. Several deposits from the Vistula River basin were determined to belong to the hoards horizons described for the Tisza River basin (Blajer, Szpunar 1981, 304–305, 309). Of great importance for the issues discussed here is also the publication of bronze indings from the territory of Poland, published since the 1980s in the Praehistorische Bronzefunde series (in particular: Blajer 1984; Kuśnierz 1998; Gedl 2001b; 2002a; 2004; 2004a; compare also Kuśnierz 1989). In the last dozen or so years, particular attention has been paid to studies of various aspects of Bronze Age settlement in the Polish Carpathian region (e.g. Bąk 1996; Gedl 1998; Gancarski 2002; Valde-Nowak 2003; Dąbrowski 2003; 2004; Czopek 2005). These studies present a general tendency to minimize the signiicance of “northern” cultures (the Trzciniec and Lusatian cultures) in this area. On the other hand, a picture 14 – formed already in the 1980s – of relatively isolated mountain valleys and northern foothills of the Western Carpathians, supposedly occupied by populations representing exotic cultures typical of the Tisza River basin (where they were deined), became more established. It seems that being “Transcarpathian” has become an evaluative feature in the trends prevailing over the last two decades. The sources described this way appear to be more attractive than those representing the Lusatian culture. The discussion on the legitimacy of ailiating the indings from the northern Carpathian foreland to the cultures of the Tisza River basin (treated as some closed entities) will repeatedly reappear in the next chapters of this book. In this book, some detailed conclusions presented in recent publications will be used or discussed, in particular: conclusions from the studies of Jacek Górski (2003; 2007) on dating and the linkages of Transcarpathianrelated pottery from Trzciniec culture assemblages; attempts to date indings from the eastern Polish Carpathians presented by Marek Gedl (1998); remarks made by Sylwester Czopek on pottery related to the Tisza River area found in the territory of the Tarnobrzeg group (2003), and, by the same author, remarks on the regional diferentiation of culture in the Polish Carpathian zone (2005). And inally, recent, extensive settlement studies, particularly in the middle part of the Dunajec River, present a new quality in research on Western Carpathian communities (Kienlin, Valde-Nowak, 2008; in print). 1.2. Interpreting the material culture The fundamental question for all attempts to reconstruct prehistoric processes is the approach used to interpret the material culture. Assuming a speciic attitude to this issue results not only in using particular research procedures, but also deines the researcher’s general beliefs. The original view of archeological culture derived from 19th century sociological and ethnological schools was presented as a closed entity: an assemblage of speciic features (types of objects, grave forms and buildings) (Childe 1929, v–vi) related to a certain territory and being the property of a particular group of people (Burmeister, Müller-Scheeßel 2006, 19). In time, this view gradually disappeared. The discussion concentrated on two basic issues: (i) the possibility, based on archeological data, of deining internally consistent patterns of material culture, and (ii) relationships between such patterns and the collective and individual identity of prehistoric people. In this publication, it is assumed that prehistoric populations were functioning within a framework of certain behavioral patterns, which can – at least partially – be reconstructed using current analytic methods (interpretation models), but only if the historical context of the described phenomena is taken into account. The material culture and, in particular, stylistic diferences in its products (Sackett 1977) is understood here as a manifestation of the behavioral patterns mentioned above: “passive” patterns and determined more by conformism than by individual expression. At the same time, I agree with the opinion that objects (or the very process of their making) could have been creatively modiied, and thus became diferent from their ideal prototypes, but they still remained within the cultural habitus (“system of durable dispositions” according to 15 1 Pierre Bourdieu) characteristic of a given society (Dietler, Herbich 1998, 245–256). A style of material culture could thus emerge as the result of combining manufacturing traditions (entrenched and inherited in a given community), innovations of either social or economic basis and, inally, the adaptation of “foreign” patterns to the local convention (compare Knopf 2002, 195–236). According to some researchers, the stylistic variety of material culture products may result from the more “active” role that this culture plays to convey meanings, and the extent it is used by individuals to create new “social roles” (e.g. Hodder 1995, passim). In the discussion of such an approach, attention is drawn to the fact that the traces preserved in the material culture only “invoke” meanings, and do not literally “represent” them. This is why interpretation may be prone to the risk of oversimpliication and actualization, given our lack of knowledge about the world of prehistoric symbols and the possible variability of their meaning depending on context (Dietler, Herbich 1998, 240–244; Burmeister, Müller-Scheeßel 2006, 24)2. However, there is no doubt that the symbolic meaning of artifacts must be taken into account in analyses based on the material culture and in the resulting conclusions on reconstructing social structures (e.g. Zeeb-Lanz 2006) or cultural interactions (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005). The postulate of always taking into account the historical context of the analyzed phenomena is also of great importance. This postulate is most distinctly expressed in several studies on the symbolic content of the material culture. This implies the need to attempt to verify universal assumptions (for instance, attributing a meaning of prestige 2 It should be noted that diferent schools of modern archeology investigate the production, especially of pottery, based to a large extent on ethnographic observations of colonial or post-colonial societies. The results are thus inluenced by such factors as the presence of pottery trade in speciied trading places and the specialized workshop manufacture, which might be nonexistent over most of the prehistory (e.g. Welbourn 1985, 124–125; Brosseder 2006, 121–122). 1 to some categories of objects) based on speciic “contextual data” (e.g. Hodder 1995; Kristiansen, Larsson 2005). The approach presented in this book requires adopting only the “technical” role of archeological cultures as a theoretical product of sources classiication (Eggert 1978, 18), and not as a manifestation of historic or esthetic phenomena, as in some cultural-historical and post-processual perspectives (compare Hodder 1978; Shennan 1978; Brather 2004, 71–74). Symbolic meanings were attributed rather to single items or contexts and could have had an intercultural character. In this book, many archeological cultures or local groups of indings are understood only as the result of a speciic stage of source organizing. In fact, all cultural units result from the process of detecting and grouping similarities, with this process ceasing somewhere between a homogeneous set of sources originating from one site and a very broad level of generalization (cycles and cultural circles). According to a common view, archeological cultures should not be deined as a set of leading artifact types (or its categories), but as a polythethic set, characterized by a certain combination of objects and the contexts of their appearance (Clarke 1968, passim). As is shown by detailed analyses, the boundaries between cultural units deined this way (even accepting signiicant deviations from an ideal model) remain blurred (Brather, Wotzka 2006, 151–157, 160–162). This is one of the reasons why studies on the diferentiation of small, local cultural models can be seen as potentially the most efective. It may be necessary to reject the term “archeological culture” and to focus on chosen aspects of the material culture when describing the phenomena appearing in large areas. In this study, an attempt is presented to deine several currents in pottery manufacturing styles (see chapter 3.2). A common (though arguable in the literature) deinition of a style was adopted: a set of those attributes of an object that are not related to its function or technical limitations (Sackett 1977, 370–374; Dietler, Herbich 1998, 237). 18 The conviction about the descriptive character of cultural models deined by archeologists has some consequences when inferring about the connections between models and speciic human groups. A traditional understanding of an ethnic group as a set of habits, material culture, language and common territory favored its identiication with the view of archeological cultures deined as closed entities (Brather 2004, 61–66). An extreme example of such an approach is the settlement archeology school of Gustaf Kossinna (Trigger 2007, 235–241). However, sociological and ethnographical studies proved that an ethnic group, deined as a group of people sharing a common identity, can be built around a symbol belonging to the material culture (Müller 2006, 104), a tradition accepted as common, or the remembrance of a real or mythical migration, as in the theory of the development of German tribes by Reinhard Wenskus (1961, 64– 82, 335–374, 439–445, 448–453). However, an ethnic group is not necessarily characterized by a common language and its boundaries may difer from the ranges of material culture styles (Dietler, Herbich 1998, 254, 256; Sommer 2003, 206–212; Brather 2004, 48, 205). Searching for a “central symbol” as a distinguishing factor for a group with a common tradition or institution is the object of interest in some modern approaches to archeology (e.g. Czebreszuk 1998; Kristiansen, Larsson 2005). Assuming a descriptive character of distinguished cultural units allows only agreement with the statement that the frequency of appearance of common features in the material culture of two regions in the same time frame corresponds to the intensity of contacts between populations inhabiting those regions (Müller 2006, 105). And vice versa, rejecting assemblages of sources showing no connection with the one studied allows a very general “identity constellation” (Identitätkonstelationen) to be deined of the societies under analysis (Burmeister, Müller-Scheeßel 2006, 28). The main problem associated with the interpretation of material culture lies in the diiculty of reconstructing a correlation between the image of an ideal society functioning in the consciousness of prehistoric people, 1 their real behaviors, and its relection in the material culture (objects), and inally the image of this culture as revealed by archeological research (e.g. Eggers 1974, 258–262; Hodder 1995, 44; Müller, Bernbeck 1996, 17–18; Bernbeck 1997, 65–84). Theoretical models based on cultural anthropology can explain processes from the past, but we still should remember that “the farther the interpretation is from the sources, (...) the less reliable it is” (Brather, Wotzka 2006, 218; compare Krauße 1999, 339–340). Therefore, an essential part of this book has been prepared in the spirit of traditional, source-focused archeology, addressing issues related to the description, classiication and periodization of artifacts, as well as characterizing the environment in which they were found. In the second half of the 20th century, such studies were performed mainly by Central European archeology, where heated discussions about the potential and aims of prehistory were avoided. As a result, while Anglo-Saxon archeologists were developing methodological relection, their continental colleagues developed solid foundations to verify theoretical conclusions. I agree with the opinion (expressed in the motto “think globally – act locally”) of Christoph Kümmel (2001, 3, 115–118), that the most efective studies are based on speciic, well identiied source bases, but at the same time supported by more general theoretical relection, which enables the use of appropriate analytic methods and procedures. Finally, we should pay attention to opinions indicating the need to combine diferent perspectives when interpreting sources. As stated by John Bintlif (1993, 100), “archeology is the human science of a complementary discourse”, so there is a place here for both a structural and historical approach to analyzing material culture. A similar view, presented in other studies (e.g. Mante 2000, 14–15; Kadrow 2001, 18–19; Brather 2004, 592– 593), may be an attempt to relate the approaches to archeology with diferent horizons of historical events (Braudel 1992, 56–73). Individual life stories and short-lived events (such as, for example, mass migrations) interact with long cycles of the history of ideology and socio-economic structures. 20 1.3. Intercultural contacts in the european Bronze Age — research perspectives The issue of cultural interactions has always been one of the main topics used to build theories and of attempts by researchers to present a general “character” of individual prehistoric periods. According to current opinions, the inluences of eastern Mediterranean cultural centers and the development of long-distance contacts between the higher classes of European societies contributed to the speciicity of the period discussed in this work as a separate historical age (e.g. Sherratt 1993; Kristiansen 1998; Kristiansen, Rowlands 1998; Harding 2000; Kadrow 2001; Kristiansen, Larsson 2005). This general discussion contains some elements describing the European Bronze Age societies that are worth closer examination. They include: the domination of intercultural connections by core-andperiphery type relations (with the core zone located in the Middle East); the presence of elites engaged in prestige-goods exchange systems; early chiefdom type political organizations; the functioning of long-distance trade routes, connecting the Mediterranean world with Northern Europe; the existence of an over-regional network of marriage exchanges; and inally, the role of migrations and individual activities as factors responsible for processes of cultural changes. World system, prestige goods and elites The theory – developed by Immanuel Wallerstein – of a world system, “a system, that creates the world” by concentrating market societ- 21 ies around a central economy (e.g. Champion 1995, 5–9) was adopted by archeology in two main ways (Kümmel 2001, 39–106). The irst is represented by approaches attempting to grasp general tendencies in long-term historical processes, based on the idea of one prehistoric cultural center inluencing peripheral and marginal zones. In the context of the European Bronze Age, an attempt was made, among others, to reconstruct the longdistance trade network and “local exchange circles”, and to describe their role in spreading inluences from the Near East civilization center to the Mediterranean peripheries and the western and central European marginal zones (Sherratt 1993; Pydyn 1999). As a result of these interactions, by successive evolution and devolution cycles, early modern European civilization emerged, forming the foundation of the modern “world system” (Frank 1993; Kristiansen 1998, 412–417). Such an approach to macro-historical processes from the Bronze Age may seem an attractive attempt to search for the roots of present phenomena in prehistory. However, it may also raise doubts, due to signiicant over-simpliications in the analysis of sources (in particular, the failure to take into account regional diferences in the dynamics of change – compare Frank 1993, 390–403) and the reception of the primary interpretative model.3 A second way of extending the world system theory to archeology is more important for the discussions presented in this book. It is represented by a concept of prestige goods economy, based on the Marxist structural assumption about the inequality of exchange in primitive societies (Bernbeck 1997, 297–301; Kristiansen, Rowlands 1998, 5–13). In 3 As expressed by Christoph Kümmel (2001, 115): „Wallerstein’s model is an abstraction of a speciic historical development. In archeological studies of the same name, this abstraction was signiicantly simpliied and inally, more or less literally adopted, without reconsidering the assumptions themselves”. It should be noted that a number of reconstructions and analyses of regional, rather than global scale issues are also based on the broadly understood “core and periphery” type of relation (e.g.: Champion 1995, 11–19; Kadrow, Machnik 1997, 77–78). 22 this perspective, archeologists are interested not in civilization centers, but in periphery zones and the changes occurring “within” the populations inhabiting them (Kümmel 2001, 43–44). This concept describes the growth of political power as supported by controlling locally unavailable resources derived from external trade. The resources involved are not utilitarian ones, but rather objects needed for “social transactions and the payment of social debts” (Frankenstein, Rowlands 1978, 76). A starting point for the changes under discussion is lineage groups, which maintained a relative equality by a system of ritual gift exchange and were ruled by competitive leaders. The disturbance of this state caused by establishing external contacts, and particularly by achieving food production surpluses by one of the groups, initiated a process of developing social hierarchies. Because of surpluses, a dominant group could acquire “exotic” luxury goods from the outside. These goods – introduced into the system of ritual exchange – increased the spiral of prestige activities, leading to the indebtedness of poorer groups in relation to more prosperous ones. Gradually, this process drifted towards the formalization of a dominant family group leader’s control over the inlow of prestige goods. Dominated groups provided resources (needed as an equivalent in external trade) and women (necessary to conduct the policy of marriage alliances with trade partners), but their leaders acquired a share of prestige goods within the framework of a formalized redistribution system (Frankenstein, Rowlands 1978, 75–79). When discussing this concept, as well as other archeological models based on core-and-periphery relations, its founding on a conviction about the cultural inferiority of peripheral zones and the dependence of their development on activities of a civilization center was stressed (Renfrew 1986, 5–6; Kümmel 2001, 89; Dobesch 2004, 13; Kristiansen, Larsson 2005, 6). This observation led Colin Renfrew (1986, 6–8) to propose an alternative concept, investigating relations between autonomous sociopolitical units in a state of equilibrium (peer polity) and their inluence on 23 the process of cultural change. It is worth noting however, that the evaluation of the role of external interactions in the theory of prestige goods economy depends on which side of the relationship the initiative of establishing long-distance contacts is assigned to. It may be assumed that this initiative did not originate with a cultural center, which – for its own purposes – had created partners in peripheral zones (Kümmel 2001, 90–94), but instead resulted from the activity of the latter. Objects introduced into the local exchange systems as symbols of prestige would become such only as a result of the “socio-technical” eforts of the local population’s representatives. When considering the use of the prestige goods economy theory in analyzing the phenomena discussed here, the problem of identifying “prestige goods” in the archeological record and the opportunity to evaluate the extent of social stratiication during the central European Bronze Age should be noted. The risk arising from simply identifying prestige goods with objects of a universally high value (that are also a manifestation of wealth for modern people) has already been pointed out in the literature (Müller, Bernbeck 1996, 1–2, 16–17, 19; Kümmel 2001, 108). Prestige is a quality attributed to an individual by society. Power is based on authority, which, contrary to commanding, does not need to manifest itself by aluence (e.g. in Big Man systems). Therefore, the value of prestige objects is inseparable with prestigious behavior: special forms of exchange, redistribution or the ritual destruction of some goods. At the same time however, these objects can present a universal means of exchange, enabling control over trade relations (as part of the so-called token economy – Halstead, O’Shea 1982; Müller, Bernbeck 1996, 12). According to Johannes Müller and Reinhard Bernbeck (1996, 18–27), the circulation of prestige goods among prehistoric societies may be evidenced by regularities in the layout and manner speciic objects were deposited and cases of their destruction. The luxury of grave furniture is less indicative, as it is conditioned by various factors (compare e.g. Bockisch-Bräuer 1999, 562–563; Brather, Wotzka 2006, ig. 30). 24 Ethnographic examples point out that objects existed, which played the role of social status symbols, but lacked a universal value. In my opinion however, this by no means weakens the claim that artifacts made of rare materials or characterized by an outstanding decoration or lack of utilitarian purpose had a prestigious character. From our perspective, the manufacture of local imitations of products originating from distant areas – a phenomenon recurring during the Bronze Age – is of particular importance. It might be that the “exoticism” was precisely that particularly common – if not universal – feature of prestige objects (Müller, Bernbeck 1996, 24–25; Bradley 1998, 132– 135; Pydyn 1999, 14–15,17; 2000, 230; Kristiansen, Larsson 2005, 13– 14, 40), granting them the role of “indicators of otherness, later autonomy, and inally social superiority of some group members in relation to others” (Czebreszuk 2001, 197, 199–200). In approaches to the evolution of forms of power in prehistoric Europe, it was proposed that prestige exchange among unranked communities be restricted to the Neolithic period (Müller 1996, 115–117). Ii is believed that in the beginning of the Bronze Age (around 2200–1500 BC), the ideological source of power based on command (warriors’ symbolism) was developed, which, along with the changes described by a prestige goods economy, led – already in the developed Bronze Age – to an interregional system of alliances between elites (e.g. Kristiansen 1998, passim; Kristiansen, Rowlands 1998, 57–58, 63; Vandkilde 1999, 256–258, 272– 273). The existence of higher social classes, together with the simultaneous stabilization of settlement and demographic growth, might lie at the heart of the development of chiefdoms (Renfrew 1994, 161; Kadrow 2001, 159). However, studies of this type of early political organization (Upham 1990; Earle 1991) indicate that the criteria of their identiication, as well as their suggested origins, are more complex and signiicantly depend on the approach used in interpreting sources. Three groups of phenomena: richly equipped graves, hierarchic settlement structures clustered around a “central place” type settlement and 25 highly qualiied craftsmen (especially metallurgists) are to indicate that socio-political elites had emerged in the Bronze Age. One of the proofs of this process could be the “prince’s” or “chieftain’s” necropolises of the Únĕtice culture, distinguished by a richness of burial equipment, the presence of insignia type objects and grave construction (e.g. Primas 1977, 93; Knapp 1999, 264–267). Burials equipped with speciic sets of bronze vessels, weaponry or cart elements, dated back as far as the Urnield culture period, were interpreted in a similar manner as elite graves (e.g. Schauer 1984, Kytlicová 1988; Clausing 1999; Sperber 1999). As stated by Heiko Steuer (2006, 14–19), these features could be recognized as the residues of an elaborate burial ritual, resulting from the authority of the deceased and distinguishing him from the rest of the society. However, it should be stressed that we lack evidence proving the existence of a stable, “dynastic” rule in Late Bronze Age communities. Source data suggest that elites (rich burials) had rather an episodic character (Clausing 1999, 392–393). Equally ambiguous are the results of settlement investigations (e.g. Harding 2000, 393–394, 422–430). It is impossible to decide whether the construction of fortiied settlements (especially along important communication routes) – which sometimes is connected with the centralized power of elites (e.g. Champion 1982; Winghart 1994) – is conditioned by economic factors or actions aimed at securing the safety of an entire local community (Kienlin 2007, 14–15). The latter alternative interpretation could be supported by the observation that some of the fortiied, Early Bronze Age settlements of the Carpathian Basin were not centers of extended settlement structures (so they were not at the top of some type of hierarchy). Instead, their development resulted from depopulation and the concentration of a settlement in one place (Falkenstein 1998, 264–277; Hänsel 2003, 213–214). Finally, the discussion on the social context of specialized craftwork and on the related concept of “traveling metallurgist” still remains open (e.g. Welbourn 1985, 126–127; Neipert 2006, 70–75, 104–105; Kienlin 2007, 13–18; Primas 2008, 87–88). 2 The reality was surely diferent from the general patterns of power relations development, and views about the widespread appearance of elites may have resulted – at least to some extent – from focusing Bronze Age archeology on particularly striking artifacts and assemblages (Harding 2000, 410–411). Instead, we should rather consider the long duration of the “Neolithic” tradition of unranked communities in some territories or the coexistence of diferent power forms, based on authority or rule (compare Müller, Bernbeck 1996, 3–4). It is possible that the distance from metallurgical centers together with the resulting rise in the value of bronze objects arriving through long-distance exchange could have intensiied the phenomenon of ranking and the emergence of elites (Pydyn 2000, 231), although such a conclusion may be over-simpliied as well. At the same time, a reconstruction of the organizational structures and social diversiication of speciic populations is necessary to explain their intercultural relations. In this book, such an attempt will be made based on two data groups. The irst will comprise conclusions from settlement studies (compare Kadrow, 2007, 109). A starting point for the second direction of discussion will be the interpretation (provided by the work of Heiko Steuer [2006]) of certain grave goods as being the remains of social behaviors (in this case related to burial rituals) rather than as objects having “practical” use in the afterlife. In the inal part of the book, I will present, as an example, a certain group of artifacts which can be treated as the material markers of status. Such a conclusion is based on an analysis of the way they were deposited. I argue that some objects could have been used during diferent ritual activities and, in consequence, could have been deposited in a diferent context while still performing the same function (social, religious). Observations indicating the widespread occurrence of complementarity of rich grave assemblages and hoards in the central European Bronze Age (Rittershofer 1984, 338–352; Bradley 1998, 95–114; Blajer 2001, 302–304), or even the very close similarities in the equipment of some 2 burials with chronologically corresponding mass deposits (Winghart 1999, 531–532) are very inspiring here. Forms of goods exchange The term mentioned above, “long-distance trade or exchange”, requires clariication. According to a very broad deinition by Anthony Harding (1987, 297), any product or resource that has been transported from one place to another can be treated as a trade object. Trade understood in this way would be identical not only with various forms of exchange, but also with other types of contacts, for example, those resulting in the receipt of gifts (unrequited) or the acquisition of booty (e.g. Kern 2003, 93–94). According to a very diferent opinion, the term “trade” should be restricted only to an exchange between communities with a monetary economy, people specializing in trade and specialized market places (Steuer 1999, 502). Between these two deinitions is one asserting that trade (exchange) includes all bilateral transactions concluded between communities or individuals (Stjernquist 1985, 63–65). This means that other ways of distributing products and resources, such as unilateral gifts, looting and particularly redistribution inside “vertical” social structures, are not treated as exchange. In the context of prehistoric communities, it is admitted that exchange based on gifts and their reciprocity played a dominant role, which was already proposed in a classic essay by Marcel Mauss (2001). Sometimes it is thought that trade in these societies had no economic signiicance at all, reducing the phenomenon of exchange to the socio-technical eforts of elites, aimed at establishing interregional alliances (Hansen 1995, 80). Attention is simultaneously drawn to the possible existence of diferent levels of exchange, distinguishing between local trade, related to a considerable extent to economic factors, and a long-distance one. The latter 28 was to be dependent on the initiative of the upper classes of prehistoric societies: there is no evidence in the European Bronze Age – including the Aegean world (e.g. Pangl 1995, 50) – of the existence of independent individuals or institutions occupied with long-distance trade. Permanent trading places probably appeared only with the onset of a monetary economy (Wenskus 1985, 87). Moreover, a certain number of trade types are distinguished, describing the way a product “follows” a route from the manufacturing area to the territory where it was found (e.g. Stjernquist 1985, 71–77; Steuer 1999, 504–510; Renfrew, Bahn 2002, 352). Some of these categories are related to more developed exchange forms, with distinct, exterritorial trading places (ports of trade) or trading factories. In the case of prehistoric communities, one should take into account exchange consisting of a direct transfer of an object and its equivalent – on the territory of one of the participants or in the border zone – and a “chain” exchange, being the sequence of transactions between neighboring populations. In creating an image of spreading “imports”, one should also take into account the simultaneous existence of various trade types (e.g. Ottaway 1981, 139–140), the signiicant role of local exchange networks and the phenomenon of redistribution, all secondary to long-distance trade. It is widely assumed that a permanent network of long-distance connections developed and functioned in central European territories in the Bronze Age. Its supposed basis was the unequal distribution of natural resources and the economic specialization of individual regions (Kadrow 2001, 151–152). Simplifying the numerous theses reported in the literature, one can generally state that a trade route existed for a long time (from the beginning of the Bronze Age until the Early Iron Age) along the Danube River, and then the Elbe to southern Scandinavia (e.g. Bukowski 1989a; Sherrat 1993; Pydyn 1999 – and references cited therein). Its side branch could have been the route leading through the Moravian Gate, along the Oder River and further through Kuyavia (Kujawy) to the mouth of Vistula River (e.g. Czebreszuk 2001, 201–202). The latter of the above-men- 2 tioned routes was active especially during the period of Únĕtice culture development, and later, beginning from the end of the Late Bronze Age (HaB) until the Early Iron Age. When considering the economic grounds for long-distance exchange between the Baltic Sea coast and the territories on the Danube River, there is some diiculty in identifying the goods that were to be “traded” by northern European communities. The following goods are mentioned: salt (Bukowski 1985, 52), furs, slaves (Harding 1987, 307) and particularly Baltic amber (e.g. Czebreszuk 2007 – and references cited there), although the latter could have been acquired in Sicily and in the Eastern Carpathians as well (Beck, Hartnett 1993, 43; Bukowski 2002, 11–12, ig. 1; Marková 2003, 339). Inter-regional marriage exchange — a fremde Frauen concept The widely described phenomenon in cultural anthropology (LéviStrauss 1992; 2000, 59–64) of marriage exchange in the so-called primitive communities was adopted by Central European archeology to interpret the processes of standardization and transformation of cultural image without resorting to ethnic interpretation (e.g. Dąbrowski 1988a, 72, 82; Kadrow 1996, 164–166; Bouzek 1997; Brosseder 2006, 135). The domination of patrilocal residence, that is the “marriage travel” of women, is assumed. Such a conclusion can be supported by archeological and ethnoarcheological studies on the forms of settlement (Ember 1973) or the organization of cemeteries (e.g. Rysiewska 1996; Trybała 2003). Some suggestions can also be provided by historical data about societies from northern and central Europe in the irst centuries of the modern age (e.g. Wenskus 1961, 17–32). An attempt to inquire about this phenomenon, based on speciic source data, is provided by studies using the so-called “foreign women” concept (fremde Frauen – Krämer 1961, 315; Jockenhövel 2007). A starting point is 30 the assumption of regional diversiication in the forms or sets of ornaments worn by women during their entire life from adolescence to death, also after moving (due to marriage) to foreign groups (compare Burmeister 1997). Analyses conducted on western Tumulus culture groups and their borderlands with the Nordic circle have proven that the travel of women between local groups at distances of about 50–250 km was an exchange (was reciprocal) and probably followed a speciic pattern (Jockenhövel 1991, 60). The probable presence of similar activity in the Lusatian culture from the HaA period was discovered by Wojciech Blajer (1996). In some local subgroups of this culture, unique ornament sets occurred, probably corresponding to the distribution range of the products of local metallurgy centers. However, isolated ornament sets that may have been an indication of a “marriage travel” have been found beyond the range of these clusters – at distances of up to about 200 km (Blajer 1996, 103). In a detailed study of the Tumulus culture community from the Lüneburger Heide area (northern Germany), Sabine Lehmkühler (1990, 30–32; 1991, 157–158) demonstrated that marriage travels of women took place not only between neighboring groups, but also through their territory to more distant (especially coastal) communities, with only a small part of the population participating in this exchange system. In his critique of that concept, Sebastian Brather (2004, 588–590) noted that it failed to take into account other possibilities of how ornaments and women’s dress elements spread. It also refers to a speciic longdistance variant of marriage exchange rather than to its form of exchange between neighboring groups, common in human societies. This second objection is worth noting, because it inevitably leads to an assumption that the described cases of “marriage migration” (Heiratsmigrationen) resulted not from biological, but rather social, or even political factors. Therefore, the fremde Frauen concept should be examined together with the theoretical reconstruction of social relations in the European Bronze Age (see above), and not in the context of local circles of “everyday” marriage exchange 31 (Heiratskreise). Inter-regional marriages would thus be an element of a system of alliances between representatives of local elites, struggling for domination in their groups (Kristiansen 1986, 306; Kristiansen, Rowlands 1998, 57–58). The long-distance marriage exchange could at the same time be related to other forms of inter-group relations, such as prestige goods circulation (also as a form of payment for wives – see The Iliad 11, 242–245). It has been noted that the routes of “marriage exchange” between western Tumulus circle groups deined by Albrecht Jockenhövel (1991) correspond – to some degree – to the territory where some weaponry forms typical of the Nordic zone spread (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005, 232–234). Migrations of people and ideas Not many views in archeology have been subject to such an equally categorical criticism as the explanation of cultural changes by mass migrations. From an extremely evolutionist perspective, migrations in European prehistory were recognized simply as a “research myth” (Renfrew 1994, 165). Such an approach resulted not only in a one-sided interpretation – accepting the new, “universal” (adaptive) explanation of cultural change – but also in a regionalization of research on prehistory and a certain impoverishment of factual competence in some scientiic circles (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005, 5–6). Skepticism about the possibility of examining prehistoric migrations has also marked Central European archeology, which traditionally pays more attention to difusion. As for the Bronze Age, we should mention here the studies by Bernhard Hänsel and other scientists, mainly those related to his school (Hänsel 1976, 100; Vulpe 1979, 210; Szabó 1996, 53; Pankau 2004). However, at least from the 1990s, a renewed interest of archeology in migration can be noted. Of particular interest are attempts to approach this issue within the framework of coherent interpretative models. 32 In his paper, characteristically entitled Migration in Archeology: the Baby and the Bathwater, David Anthony (1990) has divided migrations into shortdistance and long-distance movements. He posits that the more complex the migrant community, the more likely it was to preserve its original lifestyle after occupying a new territory. He used the sociological theory of Everett S. Lee and distinguished “positive” factors encouraging migrations to a speciic region (pull factors), and “negative” processes taking place in the area of origin (push factors), as, for example, stress caused by the accumulation of unfavorable environmental changes (compare e.g. Tinner et al. 2005, 62–63). Among the pull factors, special importance was attributed by David Anthony (1990, 899, 902) to information transmitted by single members (warriors, traders, craftsmen) of a potentially migrant community, which had already penetrated the prospective destination territory. Therefore, such a migration was an organized undertaking of the entire community, preceded by “reconnaissance”. Another type of movement was earlier described by Albert J. Ammerman and Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza (1973, 347–352) in their wave-of-advance model. In this model, migration is described as a process of broadening and shifting an economically exploited zone taking place over many generations, in other words, as a sequence of short-distance movements, with migrating populations themselves unaware of having migrated (Anthony 1990, 901–902). In his studies, Stefan Burmeister (1996; 2000) focused on establishing criteria for inferring about long-distance migrations from the archeological record. Of particular importance is his observation that it is necessary to grasp those elements of migrant community culture which remained conservative and stable both during and after accomplishing the move. Stefan Burmeister (1996, 17–18; 2000, 542) opposed this “internal cultural domain” to a “public” or “external” one. The latter quickly adapted to new environmental conditions and new inter-group relationships. That domain could also include burial rituals, providing they played a formal role instead of being attributed to the private sphere. The issue of a migrating 33 community’s adaptation to a new cultural environment was addressed by Marc Andersen (1996) as well. On the basis of earlier indings and a detailed analysis of historical migrations, Roland Prien (2005) has once more deined the criteria for exploring prehistoric migrations. In his model, he emphasized the time aspect of the migration process, deining its subsequent phases (differently evidenced in the archeological record): (i) reconnaissance and migrant-native contact in the destination area; (ii) migration proper; (iii) settlement stabilization in the new environment; (iv) a period after the acculturation of settlers, when contacts with groups that stayed in the place of origin were re-established (Prien 2005, 316–318). Similarly to David Anthony and Stefan Burmeister, Roland Prien (2005, 322–323) emphasized the causes of migration in the area of origin. One signiicant feature in the description of migration appearing in the works of all three authors is the leapfrog character of migratory movements; migrating groups did not inhabit peripheral zones, but directed themselves towards the centers of colonized areas. The relation between migration and demographic and structural changes within populations of both the home and destination territories is also very important. In the case of the latter, one should also take into account violent changes caused by military events (as to the Bronze Age: see e.g. Chochorowski 1993, 227–229, 241, 276; Bátora 1999; Jockenhövel 2005). In attempts to interpret the phenomenon of the “relocation” of some cultural elements, other forms of difusion, such as the so-called “migration of ideas” (Prien 2005, 10) may constitute an alternative to mass migration. Such a phenomenon was described in the “cultural package” concept (Burgess 1979, 309–312), used by Janusz Czebreszuk (1998; 2001) to explain the spread of the Trzciniec culture in the Oder and Vistula river basins at the close of the Early Bronze Age. According to this view, a cultural package is a set of material cultural elements, related to a strictly speciic custom or institution that spread over a large territory basically without 34 afecting other features of the recipient cultural environment. Contrary to migration, this process would have a gradual, not “leaping” character, would not cause demographic or structural changes in the populations involved, and inally, would be archeologically evidenced only by the spread of one category of artifacts, for example, speciic types of vessels related to ritual activities. Those artifacts would be distributed through “traditional channels of cultural contact” (Czebreszuk 2001) – the relations formed in the course of long lasting contacts between diferent populations and established with the signiicant participation of individual migration. Travels of individuals and their role in establishing intercultural contacts are given a special place in the characteristics of the Bronze Age as presented by Kristian Kristiansen and Thomas B. Larsson (2005). According to these researchers, stories presented in such literary works as The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Iliad and The Odyssey as well as in Celtic myths and Nordic sagas, preserved a kind of Bronze Age archetype of the hero returning from a long expedition. This ideal model would be emulated by social elites making long journeys (war, trade) that provided exotic objects and knowledge of mythic spheres from outside the boundaries of the known world. Consequently, the returning heroes gained supernatural power and authority (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005, 32–61). The issue of the migration of individuals can also be considered from a diferent perspective, predicated on the assumption of the general mobility of Bronze Age societies, not only at the level of elites, but also within “everyday” activities (Kienlin 2007, 17–18). The latter could include periodic migrations of herdsmen groups, commonly occurring in the mountain areas of Europe in historical times (Braudel 2004, 92–104). The importance of transhumance or other forms of herding for establishing exchange contact networks among settled societies of the Bronze Age has already been noted in the studies on the spread of Alpine metallurgical workshop products in northern Italy (Pearce, De Guio 1999, 291–292) or in the attempted reconstruction of the Middle Helladic period society 35 from the Balkans (Hielte 2004, 57–62). Groups of herdsmen (sometimes belonging to basically settled populations) could be the irst to establish relationships with more distant communities, thus building “channels of cultural contact” later followed by routes of exchange or migration (compare Metzner-Nebelsick, 1998, 404–411).4 digression — climatic crisis as a cause of mass migrations in the 12th century BC In a following part of the book, the phenomenon of sudden changes in the cultural image of the Carpathian Basin will be described in more detail. These changes belong to a broader horizon of transformations dated to the 12th century BC, recorded in various European regions. While staying with the phenomenon of migrations discussed above, I propose here an attempt to identify a “negative” factor, which could have initiated the possible translocation of human groups at that time. The process of cultural transformations in the early phase of the Urnield period in Europe has been already addressed in earlier studies, where the question of identifying of its primary causes was discussed. As it was vividly stated by Wolfgang Kimmig: “We don’t know yet for sure where the stone was thrown into the smooth water surface of the developed Bronze Age world. Generally, we only recognize the rings of the waves that spread in all directions and mutually intersected until, after a long time, they inally calmed down” (Kimmig 1964, 269). To ind the answer – although not for the question of “where” the migra- 4 For an earlier period of prehistory (Linear Band Pottery culture), recent studies of bone material from the Talheim population in Germany using the strontium isotope demonstrated the occurrence of “small” migrations and contacts between mountain and low-lying communities (Price, Wahl, Bentley 2006, 273–276). 3 tions began, but “for what reason” – we can draw inspiration from study results on the short-term, though catastrophic, episodes of climate luctuations from the distant past (Falkenstein 1997; in press; Burgess 2001; Przybyła 2006). One of these episodes is particularly important, dated by Michael G. L. Baillie to 1159–1141 BC, based on the scale developed for Irish oaks (Baillie, Munro 1988, 345–346; Baillie 1995, 77–78; 1996; 1998). His method consisted of recording periods characterized by a distinct narrowing of tree-ring growth (vegetation inhibition) in fossilized trees. In the same time period (mid-12th century BC), this phenomenon was recorded in the dendrochronological scales of such distant regions as Fennoscandia (Baillie 1996, 296; 1998, 53) and Anatolia (Kuniholm et al. 1996, 781–782), as well as in the so-called “black oaks” sequence of western Lesser Poland calculated by Marek Krąpiec (Kalicki, Krąpiec 1991, 166–167; Krąpiec 1998, 101–104). However, it should be noted that this phenomenon was not recorded in some other sequences, neither for central European ones (Leuschner, Delorme 1988, 128; Krąpiec 1998, 104) nor for Californian pines (LaMarche, Hirschboeck 1984). According to Baillie’s conclusions (Baillie, Munro 1988, 346; Baillie 1995, 78; 1996, 295), the narrowing of the trees’ annual growth rings can be correlated by dating to 1120±50 BC or 1190±40 BC, when the Greenland ice was characterized by a layer of increased acidity (Hammer et al. 1980, 233, table 1; Zieliński et al. 1994, table 2). In most studies, this layer is associated with the strongest known eruption of the Hekla volcano (symbol H3) in Iceland (e.g. Hammer et al. 1980; Baillie 1995, 78; 1996) (ig. 1). During this eruption, large amounts of volcanic ash were discharged into the atmosphere (Hammer et al. 1980, 233) and its layers (tephra) are found on the bottom of the northern Atlantic and in the marshy sediments of Ireland, Scotland, Scandinavia and northern Germany (van den Bogaard et al. 2002, 319, ig. 1). These layers were radiocarbon dated to the time span between the 13th and 11th centuries BC (Knudsen, Eiríksson 2002, 172; van den Bogaard et al. 2002, 319, table 3). However, the fac- 3 BC 1050 after: Hammer et al. 1980; Zielinski et al. 1994; Baillie 1995; 1998; Kuniholm et al. 1996; Krąpiec 1998 levels of the Greenland ice dendrochronology 1075 1100 dendrochronology – “floating” scales “acidic” level on the site Camp Century 1120±50 1125 1150 episode of narrowing of tree-rings in the Irish Oaks dendrochronological record 1159–1141 BC 1175 1200 1225 catastrophic climate fluctuations in the “black oaks” sequence from the western Lesser Poland ca. 1161 BC “acidic” level on the site GISP 2 1190±40 cold climatic episode in Fennoskandia 1150±50 cold climatic episode in Anatolia 1171+76/-22 Fig. 1. the basis for dating the climate crisis to the mid-12th century BC. tor that actually afected the climate was the emission of volcanic gases (particularly sulfur dioxide, responsible for the acidic layer of Greenland ice). Contemporary observations (e.g. the eruption of the El Chichon volcano in 1982 – Rampino, Self 1984, 103–104) showed that a cloud of volcanic fumes can, in a short time, spread to a distance of several hundred kilometers, and then remain at the same height for many months, blocking solar radiation and resulting in a long-term temperature drop (Cronin 1999, 292). In 1816 (called “year without summer” at the time), this phenomenon, caused by the eruption of the Indonesian volcano Tambora, led to famine in diferent parts of the world. Food prices in Paris reached a level close to that recorded later during the 1848 revolution (Stommel, Stommel 1984). 38 The discussed cataclysm probably took place during a longer period of coolness and increased precipitation, observed particularly in mountain regions (studies on the Carpathians: Kovalukh, Petrenko, Kovalenko 1996, 114–115; Krąpiec, Margielewski 2003, 28–29). These circumstances – at least in some regions – could have intensiied efects of the eruption. A consequence, especially for farming communities occupying densely populated areas, could have been the collapse of the basis for their existence (e.g. Harding 2000, 20; Cierny 2003; Falkenstein, in print), forcing these groups – or parts of them – to begin migrating. The translocations initiated in some regions could have caused further migrations and a general undermining of the connection systems and social structures previously functioning. 3 1.4. the method assumed and initial presumptions The present work focuses mainly on a description of material culture diversity ascertained from the archeological record. Following the deliberations of Cliford Geertz (2005), I assume that empirical observation remains the basic tool for studying culture. Therefore, theories (concepts, models) cannot function in isolation from speciic data and cannot be used on their own as the basis for formulating rules. Their role is limited to “ordering” the description and to creating a framework to facilitate the explanation of observed patterns. In this work, I have assumed the following sequence of subject treatment: the initial and simultaneously fundamental phase will be a description of material culture in the Late Bronze Age (16th–9th century BC) in the Carpathian Basin, and in particular in the northern foreland of the Western Carpathians. Next, I will consider the possibilities of using some of the above-mentioned approaches on longdistance contacts in the context of the given historical conditions of interest to us here. A scheme of the mechanism of transmitting cultural models universal interpretation models critique of sources process of reconstruction speciic prehistoric context veriication Fig. 2. Relation between the description of sources and the reconstruction of prehistoric processes. 40 established in this manner will then be tested, based on a previously generated picture of the spatial and temporal variability in the material culture (ig. 2). Proceeding from the views and debates quoted above, I can already assume several diferentiations about the forms of intercultural contacts in Late Bronze Age societies (ig. 3). At least two criteria of division can be mentioned here. The irst criterion is the level where an exchange, both of goods and marriage, takes place. It can be assumed that two basic forms of contacts were functioning (simultaneously?) during the period of interest. The irst was a long-distance exchange. It was institutionalized in some way or another and was probably related to the presence of elites, or at least with active competition for status within the exchanging populations. It can also be assumed that this exchange had some economic basis, although I am inclined to agree with those archeologists who view it as the establishing cultural contact – migration of individuals looting “everyday” exchange networks “everyday” exchange networks “everyday” exchange networks luxury goods redistribution looting “everyday” exchange networks mass migrations Fig. 3. Forms and “channels” of intercultural contacts in Bronze Age communities. Black arrows indicate permanent relations, grey arrows indicate incidental contacts. other families local/regional groups other families mobile groups (shepherding, migration of individuals) elites prestige rivalry long-distance networks of exchange between elites prestige rivalry local/regional groups luxury goods redistribution elites “everyday” exchange networks 41 result of socio-technical measures and as the efect of creating political alliances. The second type of exchange can be described as “structures of everyday life”, after Fernand Braudel (les structures du quotidien). This means just an “everyday” exchange, occurring within local or regional social structures, conditioned by economic needs to probably a greater extent than the long-distance trade of elites, but exhibiting a smaller degree of institutionalization. Even though everyday life structures were connected with local communities, one cannot neglect their role in the spread of “foreign” objects and stylistic patterns, and probably of some other cultural elements unrecorded by archeology. Their role was not necessarily constrained to the dissemination of patterns adopted from the outside via elites and “itting” them into the local culture. In the world of settled farming groups described here, we must take into account the presence of more mobile groups or individuals, particularly shepherd communities (also those generally belonging to settled populations, but seasonally driving animals). It is possible that outside the ecumene occupied by farmers, other communities existed as well (e.g. forest groups of hunter-gatherers), with a lifestyle signiicantly diferent than the settled populations, but maintaining contacts with them (compare Kadrow 2001, 37–38). Shepherd communities or other mobile groups could have acted as intermediaries, who, operating in areas of dispersed settlement (e.g. mountain regions), enabled cultural contacts to be established and ideas, technology, resources and objects to be transferred even between distant farming populations. The second criterion – important from the standpoint of the diachronic perspective applied in archeology – is the duration of particular forms of intercultural contacts. Undoubtedly, the “everyday” exchange networks inside settled farming populations had a permanent character. Their formation and functioning was made possible by the relation of local and regional groups with a speciic settlement ecumene, relected by the continuity of their settlement over several hundred years (see chapter 6.1). Networks of long-distance relations between elites could have been permanent as 42 well, regardless of the supposed ephemeral existence of the latter. Based on the already established “traditional channels of cultural contact”, relations between the upper classes of distant communities could have been renewed through subsequent acts of exchange. Their existence was linked to the presence of elites – the latter created them, but at the same time needed them for the constant consolidation of power (possessed already earlier or acquired through rivalry inside local groups). These durable channels of contacts between representatives of distant populations formed a kind of broad network of trans-regional connections – certain “identity constellations”, as described by Stefan Burmeister and Nils Müller-Scheessel (2006). Despite their general permanence, the transregional relational networks could have been subject to change with time: some channels disappeared, some were replaced by others, or the intensity of contacts also changed. A certain role in the formation of this picture was played by those forms of intercultural relations of a much more incidental character. We should here take into account the “heroic” expeditions of people aspiring to be elite. Such expeditions allowed contacts to be established with distant populations (with their higher classes) and provided exotic goods, elevating the status of their owner. The exchange “channels” related to prestige rivalry and the redistribution of goods practiced by already existing elites within local populations could also be ephemeral. Some objects (or people) from distant places could also have ended up in farmers’ communities via the mobile groups, who had acquired them in their turn by looting. And inally, the equally one-sided form of an incidental trans-cultural contact that should be taken into account in the analysis could have been mass migration. At the end of the presentation of my initial presumptions, I must draw attention to the analytical perspective (somewhat asymmetric) assumed in this work on intercultural contacts. I concentrate only on inluences directed from south to north, that is, from the Carpathian Basin to the territory of the northern Carpathian foothills. Such a perspective is partially 43 the result of many more available indings from the territory within the present borders of Poland, which, as a consequence, enables a more thorough analysis to be made of them. This can be also supported by the fact that even a cursory review of the material culture in the central European Bronze Age indicates north as the predominant direction of inluences in the Carpathian Basin and not the opposite direction. This is logically justiied given the distribution of copper deposits and related important metallurgical centers in the territories of the Danube River. 45 ChApteR 2 ChRoNoLoGICAL FRAMeWoRk One of the aims of the present work is to synchronize the ind assemblages from the northern part of the Western Carpathians with the cultural phenomena developing in the middle and lower Danube basin. To accomplish this task, it is necessary to correctly assign the analyzed artifacts to the source periodization systems used for the Carpathian Basin territory. This is further justiied by the fact that the analogies from this territory are the basis for dating the inds described here. Therefore, it would not be correct to “translate” the chronological system appropriate for a given artifact to the terminology traditionally applied for dating assemblages from the Oder and Vistula river basins each time. In other words, the principle accepted here consists of using the periodization systems that are appropriate from the standpoint of artifact origin. For that reason, one of the systems worked out for Tisza River basin assemblages (Kacsó 1990) will be used here as the framework to temporally order artifacts exhibiting Transcarpathian inluences (both metals and pottery). In this periodization, the segment of time between the decline of Tell cultures and the spread of the Tumulus culture, and the beginning of the Early Iron Age indicated by artifacts of the so-called Kimmerian horizon, is described as “Late Bronze Age” (ibidem, 41–42). This terminology refers to the chronological systems used by Hungarian archeologists since the 1950s. In individual chapters, other systems of source periodization will be used as well. With reference to the stylistic phases of Lusatian culture pottery, the traditional terms of “Younger Bronze Age” and “Youngest Bronze Age” will be used. For the Silesia group (grupa śląska) pottery, originating 4 both from the Głubczyce Plateau (Wyżyna Głubczycka) and western Lesser Poland (Małopolska), the chronology worked out for the Kietrz cemetery by Marek Gedl (1979) will be applied. Successive phases of Lusatian culture development will be named – in agreement with the common practice in Polish archeology – according to the terminology adopted from the Nordic zone chronological system. And inally, references to the source periodization system worked out for the North Alpine zone will often appear. The usefulness of this scheme for dating inds from Poland has been postulated for a long time (e.g. Bukowski 1969, 519–520; Gedl 1979; Gediga 1982). In the present work, the North Alpine chronology will be accepted as the “common denominator” for the phenomena discussed (compare Blajer 2001, 19, 41–42). In particular, it will be applied for dating assemblages of the Middle Danubian Urnield culture and related inventories from Poland. Due to reasons which will be articulated in detail elsewhere, the chronological framework of the problems discussed in this book will not be strictly limited to the period corresponding to the Late Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. Some issues related to cultural inluences from the Carpathian Basin – particularly in the initial phase of the discussed period and at the turn of the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age – are subject to more recent or currently performed research, and thus will be only generally mentioned. On the other hand, in the case of regional cultural phenomena from the Carpathian zone, both the problems connected with the end of the Middle Bronze Age (in the scheme worked out for the territories on the Tisza River) and coming already inds from the Early Iron Age will be discussed. 4 2.1. Relative chronology schemes in the North Alpine zone and in the Nordic culture The periodization system created by Paul Reinecke (e.g. 1924) for the Bronze Age in the North Alpine zone is currently used in a signiicantly modiied form, resulting from the work of successive generations of researchers (compare Sperber 1987, 23–29, annex 1; Innerhofer 2000, 219–225, ig. 9). At present, the scheme used by Walter Torbrügge for younger phases of the Tumulus culture and covering Bronze phases B1 and C1–C2 (later on: BrB1, BrC1, BrC2) is regarded as valid (1959, 94–95; 1961 – the criticism of Friedrich Holste is also found here). The basis for dating Urnield indings is still constituted by the division proposed by Hermann Müller-Karpe (1959), with the BrD period and Hallstatt periods A and B (later: HaA, HaB) subdivided into shorter phases.5 Phases of Paul Reinecke’s system with modiications – worked out mainly from Bavarian inds – are also used for adjacent territories (in particular: Müller-Karpe 1959). The methodological grounds for such an approach were only occasionally criticized (Cowen 1961, 42), although the legitimacy of distinguishing some narrower chronological periods outside the zone for which they were deined was controversial (in particular, it concerns distinguishing phases HaA2 and HaB2 – e.g. Herrmann 1966, 30–35; Pare 1999, 299, 312; Reichel 2000, 275). 5 In this work the diferentiation between periods, e.g. HaA (German Hallstattzeit) and phases, e.g. HaA1 will be consistently used. 48 Later chronological studies proceeding from Hermann Müller-Karpe’s proposition brought attempts of further subdivisions and reinement of the periodization schemes used, especially with regard to the early phases of the Urnield culture (Dehn 1972, 43–48; Unz 1973, 62–66; Beck 1980, 119–122; Sperber 1987). It should be stressed, however, that these propositions were worked out on the basis of regional ind groups and the possibility of their wider use is controversial. Among more recent studies, the division proposed by Philippe Della Casa and Calista Fischer (1997) is of particular interest. Regional diferentiation of the dynamics of stylistic changes is emphasized in more recent works on the Nordic zone chronology. It has been demonstrated that in western Jutland and Schleswig-Holstein, the irst objects typical of Montelius Period III already appear in the context of inds from the end of Period II. On the other hand, the long lifespan of Period II stylistics has been recorded in Zeeland, Bornholm and Scania (Randsborg 1968, 131–132). In a later period, when objects in the style characteristic of Period IV already appear in the territory of Zeeland, the Period III style still existed in northwestern Jutland, Schleswig-Holstein, southern Sweden and Bornholm (Randsborg 1972, 71; Zimmermann 1988, 167–168). The possibility of synchronizing the chronological systems used in the Nordic zone with the systems used in territories north of the Alps was already postulated by Paul Reinecke (1924, 44; compare Innerhofer 2000, 219). Later studies showed that early Period III is the same as the BrD phase and the beginning of Period IV, or that the surviving Period III is contemporaneous with HaA2 (Randsborg 1968, 131–133; 1972, 71; 1996, ig. 5; Randsborg, Christensen 2006, 11–12, 21–22). The end of Period V in the Nordic zone would correspond to the end of the HaB3 phase and the beginning of HaC1 (Jensen 1997, 205). 4 2.2 Relative chronology of the Late Bronze Age in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin The periodization of Late Bronze Age inds from the Carpathian Basin is based, above all, on the sequences of bronze hoards that are distinguished in that territory. The history of research on the chronology of the discussed time period, and of other periods of the Bronze Age in the Danube River basin, was summarized in several recent studies (e.g. Furmánek 1980a; Gogâltan 1998; David 2002), so I will present below only chosen aspects of this discussion. As was already mentioned above, the periodization system introduced by Carol Kacsó (1990) will be used in the present work for assemblages from the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin and to corresponding indings from the territory of Poland. Kacsó’s division is already well established in more recent Romanian literature (e.g. Gogâltan 2001), although the detailed typological and chronological studies conducted in the last decade allowed some corrections to be introduced to his original proposition (discussion by e.g. Ciugudean, Aldea 2005, 108–111). In the older stages of the Late Bronze Age, west from the middle Tisza River, a local metallurgical center related to the Piliny culture was thriving. The sequence of hoards representing this metallurgical center can be only partially synchronized with the chronology worked out for territories east of the Tisza, and thus will be discussed separately. hoards of the Forró type This series was distinguished by Amalia Mozsolics (1973) as a group of a dozen or so indings from the territory of the Piliny culture. The basis 50 for its dating was to be yielded from the hoard in Forró (Mozsolics 1973, 105, 111), where a sword with an octagonal hilt was found in the inventory – a leading form for the Tumulus culture in the BrC2 phase (e.g. Holste 1953, 21; Sicherl 2004, 40–42). A sword of the same type was found in the assemblage from Tachlovice in Bohemia (Felcman 1898), together with a battle-axe with a disc-shaped head of the B2 type (according to Alexandru Vulpe), analogous to the specimen known from the Slovakian hoard from Blh. According to Mozsolics (1973, 15–16), this proves that indings from Blh and Forró are contemporaneous. However, the majority of artifacts in hoards of the Forró type are forms that had a long lifespan and represent a local, “Piliny” metallurgical center (Salgótárjan type armlets, two-arm scepters, bracelets made from broad ribbon with arc-like cross sections, various types of pendants). Also, some objects of northwestern origin in the assemblages discussed above may have chronology younger than the BrC2 phase. This fact induced Tibor Kemenczei (1965a, 106; 1974, 63–64) to “rejuvenate” some assemblages assigned by Mozsolics to the Forró type. A series reduced in this way included – besides the eponymous site – mainly hoards from Slovakia. Finally, in 1970, Mária Novotná pointed out that the criteria used to distinguish Forró type hoards were not adequate for the Blh hoard inventory and further Slovakian indings. She proposed to name these assemblages Dreveník II–Blh, however without changing their synchronization with the BrC2 phase of the Tumulus culture (Novotná 1970a, 20). At the same time, she proposed a relatively earlier chronology for hoard no. I from Dreveník (Neustupný 1939) and on this basis distinguished a separate chronological horizon (corresponding to phase BrC1) (Novotná 1978, 333, 337). While not entering into a detailed criticism of this view, it should, however, be emphasized that the basis for such a dating of the Dreveník hoard no. I, i.e. pins with a discshaped head topped with a button (Novotná 1978, 336), also inds good analogies in assemblages from the BrC2 phase (e.g. Kraskovská 1969, 227, ig. 5; Gedl 1983, 63). 51 HaB3 Hajdúböszörmény HaB2 950 1050 HaB1 HaA2 1100 HaA1 1200 1250 BrD Rimavská Sobota 1150 LB IV D E Early Geometric Period 900 Protogeometric Period 1400 LB III LH III C PH III C 1100 1150 1200 LB II LH III B LH III B 1250 1300 BrC 2 Forró BrC 1 LH III A2 LH III A1 LB I 1450 BC 950 1000 1300 1350 850 1050 Cincu-Suseni-Kurd 1000 Uriu-Ópályi 900 C Románd 850 B Protoscythian Period A BrB LH III A2 1400 LH II B LH II A 1350 LH III A1 Fig.4 Synchronization and absolute dating of the chosen schemes of relative chronology of the Late Bronze Age: A — the North Alpine zone; B — series of hoards in the Carpathian Basin; C — periodization of the Late Bronze Age on the tisza River according to Carol kascó; d — chronology of Greece (traditional dating — according to Warren, hankey 18); e — chronology of Greece (taking into account the dating of the thera eruption in the mid-1th century BC — according to Manning 1). 1450 BC 52 Whether the chronological divisions proposed by Mária Novotná are justiied or not, equating the hoards of Forró or Dreveník-Blh type with North Alpine BrC2 phase can raise well-founded doubts. As shown by Vaclav Furmánek (1977, 267, 326), this synchronization relies exclusively on a sword with an octagonal hilt from the hoard of Forró. The remaining artifacts representing Tumulus culture metallurgy, such as battle-axes of the B2 type and bracelets from ribbon having a roof-shaped (dachförmig) cross-section can be dated to phase BrB2(C1) as well (e.g. Furmánek 1977, 326; Blajer 1987, 88–100, 103; 1999, 65–66). From the discussion presented above, two solutions follow: a simpliication of the applied terminology and a widening of the chronological framework for the discussed series of indings. Therefore, the term “hoards of the Forró type” will be used in the present work similarly to the meaning deined earlier by Tibor Kemenczei (1974, 63–66), that is, as the name for all inds representing the older phase of the Piliny culture metallurgical center, which – based on the objects imported from the Tumulus circle – can be synchronized with the BrB2(C1)–BrC2 phases in the North Alpine zone. hoards of the Rimavská Sobota series (Rimaszombat) According to Tibor Kemenczei (1965a), this group of indings represents a younger phase of Piliny culture metallurgical development. A considerable number of the objects included in these inventories are local products, already appearing in the hoards of the Forró series. Apart from these, hoards of the Rimavská Sobota type also contain objects typical of the Urnield culture from the North and East Alpine zones, together with scarce artifacts characteristic of the regions east of the Tisza River (Kemenczei 1965a, 1974). According to the propositions of Mária Novotná (1970a, 31; 2001, 2) and Amalia Mozsolics (1973), an earlier horizon (Oždany series accord- 53 ing to Novotná and Ópályi series according to Mozsolics) can be distinguished among younger hoards of the Piliny culture, which can be synchronized with an older segment of the BrD period in the Urnield culture. However, this view lacks a credible basis and has been subject to criticism since it was presented (Kemenczei 1974; 1984, 31; 1990, 307–308). In particular, it should be noted that neither the products of the local metallurgical center (showing little variability in time) nor most of the broadly dated “imports” from the Urnield culture allow such precise divisions to be made (Innerhofer 2000, 267). As shown by Tibor Kemenczei (1974, 67–70; 1984, 31; 1990, 307–308), all the hoards included by Novotná and Mozsolics in the Oždany and Ópályi horizons (including the eponymous indings) should in fact be included either to the Rimavská Sobota type or to a separate metallurgical style, characteristic of the territories east of the middle Tisza River (hoards of the Uriu-Ópályi type – see later). A mutual territorial exclusion of inds from the Ópályi series and – extended more towards the west – hoards of the Aranyos type (corresponding to Kemenczei’s term “Rimavská Sobota type”) was noted even by Mozsolics herself (1973, 106). For determining the chronological position of the Rimavská Sobota hoards, “imports” from the Urnield culture territory found in their inventories are of vital signiicance. Among them, single items are chronological indicators of the BrD period in the North Alpine zone (e.g. Kemenczei 1965a, 121, 123; Mozsolics 1973, 30; compare Sperber 1987, 65–66, 68; Della Casa, Fisher 1997, 201, 205). Objects that can be synchronized with an early phase of the Middle Danubian Urnield culture are more numerous, that is, with the turn of the BrD phase and HaA1, and products already characteristic of the HaA1 phase (Kemenczei 1965a; 1974; 1984; Mozsolics 1985). Therefore, objects of “western” origin make it possible to conclude that the period when hoards of the Rimavská Sobota type were deposited is simultaneous with the BrD period and at least with the beginning of the HaA1 phase in the North Alpine zone. 54 Late Bronze I phase (LB I) on the territories east of the tisza River This phase probably corresponded to the period when older assemblages included in the Forró series were deposited on the territory of the Piliny culture. Among the scarce hoards that may be assigned to this phase, one should mention deposit no. 1 from Pecica, Arad district (PetrescuDîmboviţa 1977, plate 6). It contains objects with references to the Tumulus circle from the BrB2(C1) phase and battle-axes of the B1 type representing a local metallurgical tradition (according to Alexandru Vulpe). Further metal objects dated to the LB I phase are known from settlement sites. Thus, this time period is identiied with speciic stages of development of the taxonomic units deined for Transylvania and the upper Tisza, rather than with a speciic hoard series (Gogâltan 2001, 196–197). Late Bronze II phase (LB II) This chronological range corresponds to the period of the Uriu-Ópályi series hoard deposits (alternatively: Uriu-Dragomireşti horizon after Vulpe 1970, Uriu-Domaneşti after Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1977 and Kriva after Kobal’ 2000) in the area of Transylvania and the upper Tisza region. This series was at irst synchronized with period BrD of the North Alpine zone (e.g. Müller-Karpe 1959, 103, 185; von Brunn 1968, 67; PetrescuDîmboviţa 1977, 166). Subsequent chronological studies – especially those dedicated to B3 and B4 type battle-axes (with symmetrical edges), which are the most characteristic element of the Uriu-Ópályi series inventories, allowed signiicant corrections to be introduced in the dating of that ind group. Postulated earlier based on typological reasons, new indings from the Transcarpathian area in Ukraine (Kobal’ 2000, 18, 86–87; 2005, 220; 2007) conirmed that the oldest variants of B3 type battle-axes 55 are contemporary with battle-axes having saber-like curved blades (B2 type), characteristic of the Forró hoards and of assemblages from younger phases of the Tumulus culture. Therefore, one can date the beginning of the deposition of Uriu-Ópályi series hoards already to a time corresponding to phase BrC2 (Kemenczei 1974, 69; 1984, 31, 88; Kobal’ 2000, 220; Gogâltan 2001, 196). Based on the rare objects characteristic of the start of the Middle Danubian Urnield culture (BrD/HaA1) found in inventories of the hoards discussed here (Kemenczei 1974, 68–69; 1984, 32–33; Bader 1983, 17, plate 53), and taking into account the presence of B3 and B4 battle-axes in the Rimavská Sobota series inds (especially in the hoard from Viss, dated to the beginning of HaA period already – Mozsolics 1985, plates 12–15) and in the Drslavice type hoards (BrD/HaA1) from Moravia (Salaš 1997, 34, 65–71), the youngest inventories of the Uriu-Ópályi type may be synchronized with phase HaA1 of the North Alpine zone (Kacsó 1995b, 135– 136; 2001, 233). It should be stressed however, that such speciication of the upper chronological limit for this group of indings (and thus the end of phase LB II) may be inaccurate, since it is derived from the presence of single artifacts from the LB II phase (particularly battle-axes) in obviously younger contexts. The beginning of the HaA period would then be rather a time when rare (antiquarian?) objects were still being circulated in an existing culture, and not a period when those objects were being produced and deemed “popular”. Late Bronze III phase (LB III) In the beginning of this period, signiicant changes in metallurgical production occurred in the Carpathian Basin. Following the concept proposed by Valentin Dergachev (1997; 1997a; 2002) a dominant role was played by a metallurgical center located in the Transdanubia area at that time 5 (thus in Urnield culture territory), represented by hoards of the Amalia Mozsolics’ Kurd type (1985, 78–83; alternatively: Kisapáti-Lengyeltóti horizon according to Wilhelm Albert von Brunn 1968). Products of the Transdanubian center were to spread eastwards, with the process of “hallstattization” (understood as the formation of a circle of cultures with luted pottery – compare chapter 3.1), replacing the older tradition of the Transylvanian center. As a result, a metallurgical center of the Gáva culture was formed on the Tisza River (hoards of the Cincu-Suseni type according to Mircea Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1977), which was closely related to the Transdanubian center (Dergachev 1997, 62–64; 1997a, 135, 165– 168; 2002, 187–191). In essence, the end of the LB II phase and the beginning of LB III constituted the end of a certain tradition in the areas east of the Tisza River. The typological development of battle-axes ended (with a disc-like or the so-called suspended head) with phase LB II – a kind of weapon typical of this area since the beginning of the Bronze Age. Swords became popular and new forms of ring ornaments and numerous objects appeared, imported from the Urnield culture area. At the same time however, certain local types of artifacts known already from phase LB II still continued in phase LB III and later. Thanks to the stylistic standardization of metallurgical production – noticeable to a signiicant extent in the entire Carpathian Basin – and the presence of numerous “imports” from the northwestern part of central Europe, a relatively accurate synchronization of the LB III phase with the chronological system developed for the North Alpine zone becomes possible. With reference to most of the hoards representing this phase (jointly described as the Cincu-Seseni-Kurd type), it is justiied to treat them as contemporary with phase HaA1 (e.g. Mozsolics 1985; Soroceanu 1996, 368–272). This concerns, among others, the large deposits (the so-called metallurgical hoards) from southern Transylvania (e.g. Aiud, Guşteriţa II, Şpălnaca II, Uioara de Sus). However, in more recent literature, the validity of determining a separate horizon corresponding to 5 phase HaA2 (Gyermely type hoards according to Mozsolics 1985 and the Turia-Jupalnic type according to Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1977) is challenged. Attention is drawn especially to the negligible number of objects allowing such synchronization to be made and to the fact that some of the Gyermely type hoards are already contemporaneous with the beginning of the HaB period (Vulpe, Lăzar 1989, 243–244; Hansen 1994, 399–405; 1996, 438; Novotná 2000, 365, 375–377). Distinguishing a separate period corresponding to phase HaA2 proposed by some scholars (Kemenczei 1996, 75–78; Pare 1999, 423) and based on possible typological changes of local products is also controversial. Therefore, phase LB III will be synchronized with the entire HaA period of the North Alpine zone in this work. Late Bronze Iv phase (LB Iv) This is the last period of prosperity of the metallurgical center on the Tisza River. Contrary to phase LB III, hoards from Transdanubia dated for this period are rare. Most indings concentrate in the northwestern part of the Great Hungarian Plain (Kemenczei 1996, 78; Mozsolics 2000, ig. 2). A certain number of bronze objects from phase LB IV are also found in the fortiied settlements of the Gáva culture in Transylvania (e.g. Vasiliev 1995, 102–103, 152–153). The LB IV phase is represented by hoards of the Hajdüböszörmeny type according to Amalia Mozsolics (2000; also Rohod-Szentes according to von Brunn 1968 and Moigrad-Tăutău according to Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1977). They contain new types of objects for the most part, unknown from the previous period (Kemenczei 1996, 78). The most characteristic are bronze buckets of the Hajdüböszörmeny type, socketed axes decorated with ribs, swords with cup-shaped pommels and – among artifacts of a broader central European range – cups of the Kirkendrup-Jenisovice type and pins with an onion-shaped or vase-like head (e.g. Kemenczei 58 1996, 78–84; Pare 1999, 361–362; Mozsolics 2000, 23–25). Numerous references to the Urnield culture allow hoards of the Hajdüböszörmeny type to be synchronized with older segments of the HaB period (e.g. Pare 1999, 362). the end of the Late Bronze Age east of the tisza River The younger phase of the HaB period (phases HaB2–HaB3/HaC) is represented by hoards of the Románd and Bükkszentlászló series in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin (Mozsolics 2000). A characteristic feature of these assemblages, which are a continuation of the previous period’s metallurgical tradition (e.g. Kemenczei 1996, 81–88), is the presence of objects representing the so-called Kimmerian horizon (e.g. Chochorowski 1993, 181–183). 2.3 Absolute chronology of the central european Late Bronze Age A traditional method for determining an absolute chronology of the Bronze Age indings in central Europe consists in synchronizing the above periodization systems with cultures from the eastern part of the Mediterranean, whose dating is based on historical records. This procedure was used, above all, to determine the age of cultures from the Early and Middle Bronze Ages (BrA1–BrA2/B1) in southeastern as well as central and western Europe (e.g. Gerlof 1993; Gogâltan 1999; Primas 2008, 5–9 – and references cited herein). These studies allowed, among others, the turning of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages in the Carpathian Basin to be dated to circa 1500 BC (Gogâltan 1999, 386). For the period of development of the Urnield culture, Hermann Müller-Karpe (1959) made an attempt to ascertain dates based on references to the Mediterranean. Proceeding from an analysis of Italian indings (which served to link the Urnield culture and the Aegean zone), he proposed dating phase BrD to the 13th century BC, and phase HaB3 to the 8th century BC. Müller-Karpe mechanically assigned the remaining chronological periods to successive centuries. Despite critical opinions stressing the obvious oversimpliication resulting from this approach (e.g. Cowen 1961, 42–43), this system was considered valid in the literature for a long time. The signiicance of Italian sites for studies of absolute chronology is questioned in more recent work (Randsborg 1992, 98; Della Casa, Fischer 1997, 196). Precisely dated Greek imports appear in larger numbers in that area not before the Villanova II phase (the 8th century BC) in assemblages contemporaneous with the HaC phase north of the Alps (Pare 1999, 310–312). In some sites from the earlier period (the proto-Villanova 5 0 phase), late Mycenae pottery was found that, however, has broad chronological limits (Peroni 1995, 228; Pare 1999, 317). The previously accepted (Müller-Karpe 1959, 184, 226; Sperber 1987, 139–141) full synchronization of phase BrD with the north-Italian Peschiera phase is also questioned (Urban 1993, 272). In the context of chronological studies, the problem of the presence of metal artifacts originating from the Urnield territory (especially of various types of lange-hilted swords) on sites in the eastern part of the Mediterranean was also extensively discussed (e.g. Catling 1961; Cowen 1961a; Schauer 1971, 148–149; Bouzek 1985, 128–130, 142–159; Izak 1986; Burgess 2001, 277–281). Summarizing the conclusions of these studies, it can be stated that metal objects dated to the BrD–HaA phases already appeared in the Aegean zone in LH III B phase assemblages, although they are most numerous in the LH III C phase. Given the diiculties of unambiguously placing some of those metals within the North Alpine chronological system, and the long lifespan of some variants in the Mediterranean, it does not seem possible to say more than is generally accepted, i.e. that, at least partially, phase BrD is contemporaneous with LH III B, and HaA with the LH III C period. In the traditional chronology of the Mycenae culture (e.g. Warren, Hankey 1989; Yasur-Landau 2003), phase LH III B is dated from the mid-14th to the beginning of the 12th century, and phase LH III C from the irst or second decade of the 12th century to the mid-11th century. This is supported by dendrochronological analyses and attempted precise radiocarbon dating (Manning, Weninger 1992, 654–655, ig. 12; Kuniholm et al. 1996, 782). They enable the beginning of periods BrD, HaA and HaB to be identiied as the mid-14th century, the beginning of the 12th century and the mid-11th century BC respectively. For the problems discussed in this book, it is interesting to note the presence of single artifacts allowing the chronology used for the eastern Carpathian Basin and the Aegean zone to be synchronized. A pin with a bulge on its handle, typical of hoards from the LB II phase (the Uriu-Ópályi 1 series) discovered at the well-known site at Kastanas, Thessaloniki district, in a layer linked with the early LH III C period, allows the end of phase LB II to be placed in the 12th century BC (Hochstetter 1981). On the other hand, rapier-like blades of swords found in hoards from the Lower Danube (Hänsel 1973; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1977, plate 92:3; Krauß 2005), appearing together with battle-axes typical of LB II in the Tisza River basin (Vulpe 1970, 59, 99–100; Kacsó 2003, 272–273) suggest the synchronization of the beginning of LB II at the latest with the LH III A2 phase (e.g. Sicherl 2004, 22–23, and references cited therein), that is, with the irst half of the 14th century BC (in a modiied chronology, taking into account the implications of the Thera eruption dating – e.g. Manning 1996, 24). The presence of pottery typical of north Balkan culture groups at the above-mentioned Kastanas settlement also provided the opportunity to determine absolute dates of cultural phenomena in this region (Hochstetter 1982; 1984). The application of radiocarbon dating to determine the absolute chronology of the Late Bronze Age is limited mainly by the capacity of the method itself – calibrated dates have a wider range than those resulting from traditional archeological methods. Therefore, the proposed absolute dating of the central European Bronze Age based exclusively on radiocarbon analyses (e.g. Harding 1980; 2000, 17, ig. 1.1; Ignaczak, ŚlusarskaMichalik 2003) should be considered only as a suggestion for further discussion (among others, on the methodological basis for determining chronological schemes and on stylistic variations – Chochorowski 2007) and not as inal conclusions.6 At the same time, the signiicance of this 6 Uncritical reliance on radiocarbon dating – particularly in the period of domination of the evolutionist approach – has led to many erroneous conclusions (compare Kristiansen, Larsson 2005, 17–18, footnote 7), among others, to questioning the cultural links between the Aegean world and central and western European communities from the Early and Middle Bronze Age. This view can also be found in some more recent works (e.g. Renfrew, Bahn 2002, 125–126), although its validity has been questioned – also on the basis of later natural science analyses (Randsborg 1992, 89–92; Gerlof 1993, 61, 80–81). 2 method for dating cultural phenomena poorly situated within schemes of relative chronology cannot be overestimated. Dendrochronology provides signiicantly greater potential. Based on materials dated in this manner from North Alpine zone lakeside settlements, the beginning of phase HaA2 can be placed at about 1100 BC (Rychner 1995, 467), while the turn of the HaA2 and HaB1 phases can be relatively well dated to about 1050 BC or slightly later (Rychner 1995, 457–460; Friedrich, Henning 1995, 298–299; Rychner, Böhringer, Gassmann 1996, 309). The formation of the HaB3 style (also partially comprising artifacts from phase HaB2 according to Hermann MüllerKarpe) took place between 950 and 875 BC (Rychner 1995, 468–485; Rychner, Böhringer, Gassmann 1996, 312); its end and the beginning of the HaC1 phase is dated to about 780 BC (e.g. Friedrich, Henning 1995, 297–300). Earlier segments of the Bronze Age can be dated with less conidence. For phase BrD, the terminus post quem are the dates (ca. 1380–1330 BC) of Scandinavian oak-coin graves, assigned to late Period II, contemporary with the North Alpine BrC2 phase (Jensen 1991; Randsborg 1996, 67; Della Casa, Fischer 1997, ig. 27; Randsborg, Christensen 2006). This agrees with data recently acquired for the site at Elgg in the Zürich canton. Assemblages with BrD1 pottery were dated here to the second half of the 13th century BC (Mäder, Sormaz 2000; Mäder 2002; Primas 2008, 7). However, dendrochronological analyses, which could have clariied the absolute dating of the turn of periods BrD and HaA are lacking. Attempts to assume a hypothetical, ixed duration of relative chronological phases (Sperber 1987, 137–138; 143–144) cannot be considered reliable. One can expect that in the future new studies on the absolute chronology of the Alpine zone, among others, the work on establishing a dendrochronological scale for the Hallstatt salt mine region (Grabner et al. 2007), will bring progress in this ield. The above presented remarks on the absolute dating of the Late Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin can be summarized as follows: the beginning 3 of phase LB I occurred at the turn of 16th and 15th centuries. Phase LB II began in the irst half of the 14th century, that is, at a similar time as phase BrC2 in the North Alpine zone (irst quarter of the 14th century). The end of phase LB II probably coincided with the beginning of phase HaA, that is, in the 12th century (mid-12th?). The beginning of phase LB IV can be synchronized with the beginning of the HaB period, that is, with the mid11th century, while its end falls to the mid-10th century, when the style of the younger HaB (HaB2–HaB3) developed in the North Alpine zone. E ar ly Late Komarov culture sat ian cult Berkesz group ure Su c i Čaka culture ns o f Velatice culture o Traditi Lu u de Piliny culture Sus p rou ca g 4 500 Be Igrița group cu leg ltu ? re Felnac group iš I cult ure Carpathian Basin (phase BrD) 0 cu l tu r e us 100 km Badeni III– Deva group e W L at b e rg ul Lăpuş I group ie t en viti 1000 m e Viro m a.s.l. Tu tur t e cu l La Cehăluț group Noua cult ur e Baltă-Sărăta group Du bo va c-C Verbicioara îrn culture ac ult ure Tei culture Zimnicea culture Fig. 5. Main taxonomic units from phase Brd (LB II) in the Carpathian Basin. Coslogeni culture 5 ChApteR 3 ARCheoLoGICAL CuLtuReS ANd potteRy StyLeS oF the CARpAthIAN BASIN IN the SeCoNd hALF oF the 2Nd ANd BeGINNING oF the 1St MILLeNNIA BC 3.1 A cultural and historical review the northwestern part of the Carpathian Basin – the Middle Danubian Urnield circle in the Late Bronze Age According to the currently accepted view, the rise of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle did not result from the migration of the Lusatian culture population – as proposed in studies from the irst half of the 20th century (e.g. Childe 1929; von Richthofen 1935) – but was the outcome of evolutionary changes within the Tumulus circle environment, with the participation of inluences from the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin (Paulík 1963, 318–319; Novotný, Novotná 1981, 242; Říhovský 1982, 87–88, 96; Salaš 1993, 287–289; Novotná 1995, 373–375). This process can be illustrated by assemblages of a transient character dated to phases BrC2–BrD, recorded in the area of southern Moravia, on the western fringes of Slovakia (the so-called Blučina-Kopčany horizon – Říhovský 1982, Pichlerová 1984; Novotná 1991, 50), in the Danubian part of southwestern Slovakia (the so called pre-Čaka horizon – Paulík 1960; 1963, 315–317; critically: Novotná 1995, 374) and in Lower Austria (Neugebauer 1976, 63; 1994, 163; Benkovsky-Pivovarová 1987). A inal crystallization of groups from the early phase of the Middle Danubian  Urnield circle was to take place at the end of phase BrD and the beginning of HaA1.7 Based on diferences in cultural backgrounds and burial rituals (Novotná 1991, 47) one can distinguish the Velatice culture of Lower Austria, southern Moravia and Slovakian Zohorie (ig. 6) and the Čaka culture of southwestern Slovakia, the northern part of Transdanubia and Burgenland (here as the so-called Siegendorf type) (e.g. Paulík 1963; Řihovský 1967; Kaus 1983; Kőszegi 1988; Lochner 1991; Novotná 1991; 1995; Salaš 1993) (ig. 7). Also, the youngest assemblages from the Tumulus culture cemeteries of northern Transdanubia, particularly the Bakony Forest region (the so-called Farkasgyepű-Jánosháza group – e.g. Kemenczei 1989; Jankovits 1992) exhibit links with both cultures mentioned above. However, the hypothesis about the existence of a separate “Carpathian” variant of the Velatice culture in western Slovakia, which was to be formed as a result of expansion from Moravia already after the decline of the Čaka culture, should be treated as controversial (Paulík 1963, 321–326; 1965, 163; Plachá, Paulík 2000, 39; a slightly diferent approach: Novotná 1991, 51).8 Taxonomic units representing an early phase of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle still show clear references to the Tumulus circle tradition. Although cremation became widespread, the custom of burying the deceased in large pits with stone constructions (Velatice culture) and under barrow mounds (Čaka culture and assemblages from northern 7 8 Understood as the period of occurrence of bronze objects characteristic of phase Riegsee (BrD), already in the context of indings typical of phase HaA1 (e.g. Lochner 1986, 271–272, 279; 1991a, 163; Helgert 1995, 211; Salaš 1997, 65–71). Detailed settlement studies proved that territories occupied by these cultures do not overlap (Veliačik, Romsauer 1994). The essential simultaneity of the Čaka and Velatice cultures should be accepted as well. A dissimilarity of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle assemblages from the Váh valley – previously treated as younger than the Čaka culture – may result not from their chronological position, but from contacts with the neighboring Lusatian culture environment (Romsauer, Veliačik 1987, 298; Veliačik 1996; Furmánek 2003, 102–103).  Transdanubia) was still practiced. The lavish equipment of some graves attracts attention, being evidence of signiicant social stratiication. The question of the presence and possible historical role of elites in communities from an early phase of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle was emphasized, especially in the context of the interpretation of the so-called 1 2 8 3 9 16 4 24 23 25 7 12 13 14 18 19 22 6 11 10 17 5 15 21 20 27 26 28 29 Fig. . pottery of the early phase of the velatice culture: 1,5,14–15, 1–20,23,25 — horn (Lochner 11), 2, — Getzersdorf (Groiß 1), 3,–,10–13 — Baierdorf (Lochner 18), 4,8,2 — unter Radl (eppel 14), 1,24 — Leobersdorf (Berg 15), 21 — oberbergen (Lochner 14), 2,28,30 — Gemainlebarn (Szombathy 12). pottery of the Čaka culture: 2 — Ipel’ský Sokolec (paulík 13). drawings are not to scale. 30 8 prince graves of the Čaka culture and fortiied upland settlements emerging at that time in diferent regions (e.g. Točik 1951; Furmánek, Veliačik, Romsauer 1982, 160; Bándi 1982, 81–82, 84; Paulík 1985, 49–50; 1992, 59–61; Plachá, Paulík 2000, 62). A signiicant change in the cultural image of the discussed area, accompanied in some regions by a distinct settlement crisis, took place during the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 13 18 17 19 22 20 16 23 21 Fig. . pottery of the Čaka culture 1–3,,8,10,14–15,18–23 — Čaka (Točík, Paulík 1960; Paulík 1963), 4–5,16 — Dedinka (paulík 184), ,1 — zundorf (helgert 15),  — komjatice (Točík 1980), 11–12 — Marcelová (Paulík 1962a), 13 — Šladeč­ kovce (paulík 10), 24 — Neusiedl (kaus 14). drawings are not to scale. 24  HaA period. In Moravia and Lower Austria (probably contemporarily with the style of phase HaA1), one can observe the abandonment of some settlements and cemeteries with rich pit burials (Podborský 1970, 66). The grave assemblages following them, which can be dated either still to phase HaA1 (Říhovský 1979, 145–153; Lochner 1991, 184) or to phase HaA2 and the HaA/HaB19 transition on the basis of rare bronze indings, are characterized by considerable impoverishment, an “egalitarianism” of grave equipment (Lochner 1991, 339) and by the dominance of a cremation burial rite. Pottery found in cemeteries from the late Velatice culture represents partly local traditions and partly follows foreign stylistic trends typical of the Urnield culture from the North Alpine zone (ig. 8:9–12; Beninger 1961; Lochner 1986a; 1991, 339–340; Nebelsick 1994, 320–321) and the Czech Basin (ig. 8:3–6; Říhovský 1958; 1966, 478; Berg 1962, 28; Salaš 1990, 46), as well as of the Lusatian culture (ig. 8:13; Eibner, Schrattbauer 1963, 13; Lochner 1991, 298) and the eastern Carpathian Basin (Nebelsick 1994, 310). The inal segment of the HaA period also brought changes in the spread of the Middle Danubian Urnield sites. Sites of the Moravian group of the Lusatian culture emerged in the territories along the middle Morava River previously occupied Velatice culture. In the area between Brno and Vyškov, a zone appeared where inds of the Lusatian culture were mixed with Middle Danubian Urnield circle artifacts (Říhovský 1958a, 208–210, igs. 99, 109; Podborský 1970, 18–55, map; Nekvasil 1977, 69–70, ig. 2). A decline in settlement density in phase HaA2 was also found during settlement studies in Lower Austria (Lochner 1991, 335–337). The settlement crisis of the HaA period is even more clearly manifested in southwestern Slovakia. There is no basis to date the assemblages of the Čaka and Velatice cultures from the Vag valley to later than phase 9 Phases: Oblekovice and Klentnice (Velatice-Podoli transitional phase) respectively, according to Jiří Říhovský’s scheme (1966). 0 HaA1. On the other hand, Lusatian culture indings along the Middle Vag and Nitra rivers are synchronized with phase HaA2 (Romsauer, Veliačik 1987, 298–300, ig. 2; Kujovský 1994, ig. 2; Furmánek 2003, 103, ig. 7). In several cases, sites of the Lusatian culture are located in places occupied earlier by Čaka culture settlement complexes (compare: Veliačik, Romsauer 1994). On some sites located in the Nitra River valley, single assemblages with Middle Danubian Urnield circle pottery were found, dated already to the turn of periods HaA and HaB (Kujovský 1994, 285). They indicate the possibility of continued contacts between that area and southern Moravia, occupied at the time by communities of the VelaticePodoli transitional phase. The tradition of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle is also represented by a cemetery in Chotín, located on the Danube River (Dušek 1957; Říhovský 1966)10 (ig. 8). The onset of the cremation cemeteries cluster in northeastern Transdanubia, described as the Vál group (Patek 1968, 13) is dated to phase HaA2 (Říhovský 1966, 462, 475–477) or, alternatively, to the end of HaA1 (Nebelsick, 1994, 316–317). According to Frigyes Kőszegi (1988, 62), the formation of this group was preceded by a short break in settlement in northern Transdanubia following the decline of the Tumulus culture in phase HaA1. Despite some individual features, pottery from cemeteries of the Vál group show clear links to assemblages from the late Velatice culture and to the so-called Velatice-Podoli transitional phase (e.g. Říhovský 1966). These similarities induced Peter Romsauer and Ladislav Veliačik to propose that the appearance of this inds group was due to the migration of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle population from southwestern Slovakia (Romsauer, Veliačik 1987, 303). 10 At present, the beginning of this necropolis is still dated to phase HaA1 (Novotná 1991, 52; 1995, 382; 2001, 21; Nebelsick 1994, 311, footnote 12; Pare 1999, 401) while younger burials are synchronized with phases HaA2 and HaB1 (Říhovský 1966, 475–477; Stegmann-Rajtár 1992, 61). 1 Some of the assemblages dated to the turn of phases HaA/HaB and associated with the so-called Velatice-Podoli transitional phase are graves initiating the functioning of large necropolises from the younger stages of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle (e.g. Říhovský 1965; Stegmann-Rajtár 1 2 4 5 3 15 16 17 18 19 6 8 7 14 9 10 21 20 11 12 13 Fig. 8. pottery of the late velatice culture and of the transitional phase between the velatice and podoli cultures: 1,4,–8,10 — oblekovice (Říhovský 18), 2,5 — klentnice (Říhovský 15), 3 — Tetčice (Salaš 1990), 9,11–12 — Oberravelsbach (Lochner 1986a), Maiersch (Berg 1962). Pottery from the Middle Danubian Urnield circle assemblages in southwestern Slovakia, at the turn of phases haA and haB: 14–18,21 — Chotín (Říhovský 1; Stegmann-Rajtár 12), 1–20 — kamenný Most (paulík 12b). drawings are not to scale. 2 1992, 40, 50–51; Wewerka 2003). In southern Moravia during the HaB period, this circle was represented by the Podoli culture (Říhovský 1960; Podborský 1970, 56–88; Stegmann-Rajtár 1992, 36). Rare sites of this culture are also known from the Slovakian Danubian Lowland, where they concentrate in two enclaves – around Bratislava and between the mouths of the Žitava and Hron rivers (Novotná 1955; Romsauer, Veliačik 1987, 298–302, igs. 2–3; Kujovský 1994, map 2). Further groups corresponding to the Podoli culture are included as a younger phase of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle. They are: the Stillfried group in Lower Austria, younger assemblages of the Val group (the so called Val II) in Transdanubia, the Dobova-Ruše culture between the Drava and Sava rivers and the Dalj group in Slovenia (e.g. Peters 1960, 35–42; Patek 1968; Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 16–17, 132–135, 176; 1983, 599–617; Kaus 1984; 1987, 101–104; Kőszegi 1988, 76–80; Lamut 1989; Stegmann-Rajtár 1992, 42–60; Šimić 1994, 214–215; Pare 1999, 343–347, 385–388, 404–405; Teržan 1995, 338–361; 1999). Single indings characteristic of a younger phase of the Middle Danubian Urnield culture (especially of the Podoli culture) or traces of its inluences can also be found in the northeastern Carpathian Basin (see below). Some symptoms of a crisis appear in the cultural environment discussed here already at the beginning of the younger stage of the HaB period (HaB2), seen – among other things – by the abandonment of some cemeteries (particularly in Transdanubia – e.g. Patek 1984, 165; Chochorowski 1993, 219–224, 269; Kemenczei 1996, 127, ig. 21; Pare 1999, 401, 404). The functioning of some settlements was also disrupted. It can be supposed (at least in some of the known cases) that this was caused by events of a political character (Chochorowski 1993, 219–224, 269). In phase HaB3,11 new 11 The youngest burials in some sites of the Podoli culture are still dated to this phase, or even to HaC. 3 cemeteries were established that continued to be used throughout the period of development of the Eastern Hallstatt culture (e.g. Gabrovec 1973; Dular 1978; Dobiat 1981, 195; Patek 1984, 166–167; Chochorowski 1993, 213–218; Nebelsick 1994, 330). These cemeteries functioned as part of settlement structures that difered from the structures of the Urnield culture proper and were characterized by the existence of open settlement clusters concentrated around centrally placed fortiied settlements. The construction of fortiied settlements – observed simultaneously in the eastern Carpathian Basin and in the Dniester basin as well – could have been related to the development of a more stratiied social structure in the face of external danger (e.g. Kromer 1986, 34–36; Chochorowski 1993, 215, 218–219). This view is conirmed by the presence of graves distinguished by their construction and rich equipment when compared against the backdrop of the “egalitarian” burials of the Urnield culture at that time. Concurrently, a group of rich grave assemblages from the last period of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age exhibit connections with the steppe zone of eastern Europe, relected both in burial rites and in elements of the equipment (artifacts of the so-called Kimmerian horizon – Chochorowski 1993, 189, 191, 213–218, 270–272 – and references cited herein). Southern transdanubia and the territories between the drava and Sava rivers in the older phases of the Late Bronze Age In the area between the Drava and Sava rivers, contemporarily with the younger phase of the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture and the formation period of the Velatice and Čaka cultures, small urn cemeteries assigned to the Virovitica group were used. As compared with the earlier conclusions of Ksenija Vinski-Gasparini (1973, 35–47; 1983, 552–554), broader chronological limits in more recent literature are accepted for this phe- 4 nomenon and cover the period between phase BrB2(C1) and phase HaA1 (Majnarić-Pandžić 1988, 17; Teržan 1995, 325, 327; 1999, 101; Dular 1999, 90; 2002, 171–174, 197–206, 218–220; Ložnjak Dizdar 2005, 28, 37). In some approaches (especially: Teržan 1995, 324–325, 327, footnote 9), this group contains, apart from northern Croatian assemblages, also sites from western Slavonia and eastern Slovenia (Šimić 1994, 197; Dular 2002, 143– 181; Knavs, Mlinar 2005), as well as the group of necropolises located on the Sava River.12 Close relations with the Virovitica group are also detectable in the materials from southern Transdanubia (Honti 1994, 155), in particular from cemeteries and settlements located between Little Balaton and the Zala River (Patek 1968, 37, plate 50; Kőszegi 1988, 20, plate 2; Honti 1994; Horváth 1994; Kemenczei 2003, 18; also as the Balaton group – Dular 2002, 184–194). The material culture of the above named areas, despite clear references to the Tumulus circle – the expansion of which was previously connected with the origin of the Virovitica group (Vinski-Gasparini 1973; 1983) – exhibits certain individual features at the same time. The individual character of the region is also emphasized by an earlier appearance of the cremation burial rite in comparison to the Middle Danubian Urnield circle. Perhaps this phenomenon should be linked with older cultural traditions, particularly with the community of the Szeremle group (e.g. Bándi, Kovács 1970; Bóna 1975, 57; Kovács 1988). This latter group, basically dated to period BrB, is associated with the southeastern expansion of cremation and some stylistic elements typical of Middle Bronze Age Transdanubian cultures (especially incrusted pottery and the so-called Litzenkeramik – see below). Younger assemblages than those of the Virovitica group, described as the Zagreb group (Vinski-Gasparini 1983, 567), are known mainly from northern Croatia and western Slavonia (Šimić 1994, 197, footnote 19; Ložnjak 12 They are designated sometimes as the Barice-Gredani group (Čović 1958; Vinski-Gasparini 1983, 620– 622; Karavanić, Mihajlević, Kalafatić 2002, 54–55; Dular 2002, 206–213; Ložnjak Dizdar 2005, 34). 5 Dizdar 2005, map 1). The view of Ksenija Vinsky-Gasparini (1973, 66–74, 125–128; 1983, 576) on the connections between these inventories and the Velatice culture or – more widely – the Middle Danubian Urnield circle (e.g. Honti 1994, 147; Vrdoljak 1994) is sustained in more recent papers. These connections are seen both in pottery styles (the presence of luted pottery and the so-called Velatice type cups – ig. 9) and in burial rites (the appearance of pit graves and stone constructions). At the same time, attention is drawn to the survival of some local cultural traditions, expressed, among other things, by the continuation of some cemeteries and settle- 1 2 3 12 4 5 7 13 14 6 16 8 15 17 18 9 10 11 19 Fig. . pottery of the zagreb group: 1–2,4, — zagreb (vinskiGasparini 1983), 3 — Sarvaš (Vinski­Gasparini 1983), 5–8,10 — kalnik (vrdoljak 14), 11 — Martijanec (vinski-Gasparini 183). Fluted pottery from phase haA in southern transdanubia: 12–14,1,18–20 — Balatonmagyaród (honti 13), 15,1 — vörs (horváth 14). drawings are not to scale. 20  ments of the Virovitica group (Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 36–37; MajnarićPandžić 1988, 14–15, 19, 25). Recent studies enabled a more precise dating of the horizon of the Velatice cultural inluences in the area between the Drava and Sava rivers. The chronology of metal objects and analogies for some pottery types (especially the so-called Wasserkrüge – ig. 9:8; compare Patek 1968, 96–97), together with a changed dating of the late Virovitica group (see above), indicate that the appearance of assemblages of the Zagreb group falls within the HaA period, perhaps even its younger stage (Vrdoljak 1994, 38–39; Majnarić-Pandžić 1998, 250–252; Ložnjak Dizdar 2005, 37). This phenomenon was thus simultaneous with the late phase of the Velatice culture development and with a settlement crisis observed in its territory. Similar transformations within the so-called Balaton group of southwestern Transdanubia (Honti 1994, 149; Horváth 1994, 221; Dular 2002, 189–193; Barna 2003, 52–53) and perhaps also the onset of fortiied settlements concentrated in the Tolna County (Patek 1968, 58–60, 64–65) should probably be dated to the same period. Beginning of the Late Bronze Age (BrB2–Brd) in the area between the danube and tisza rivers The beginning of the Late Bronze Age in the territory between the Danube and Tisza rivers is determined by archeological records from Tumulus circle sites (mainly biritual cemeteries). The origins of this inds group were previously attributed – particularly in the tradition of Hungarian archeology – to the efects of the Tumulus population incursion on the so-called Tell cultures from the Middle Bronze Age (Mozsolics 1958; Kalicz 1958, 63–64; Bóna 1959; 1975; 1992, 32–38; Kovács 1965, 86; 1975, 42; Trogmayer, Szekeres 1968; Kemenczei 1984, 9–10; compare David 2002, 23–26). The chronological grounds for such a view were discussed already in earlier literature (Lomborg 1959; Hänsel 1968, 15–19, 159–165, 169; Rittershofer 1984). At  present, it is rather believed that the process of cultural change at the end of the Middle Bronze Age was longer and more complicated (e.g. Novotná 1999; David 1998; 2002, 413–414; Gogâltan 2005, 171–173). This view is supported by the existence of elements in the “Carpathian” inventories of the Tumulus culture groups (already previously emphasized) indicating the survival of Middle Bronze Age traditions, such as cremation, certain manners of forming and decorating pottery, and some variants of bronze objects (Kalicz 1958, 61–63; Kovács 1965, 86; 1975, 42, 44–49; Kemenczei 1968, 186–187; 1984, 10; Müller 1999) (ig. 10). However, opinions completely 1 2 3 6 5 4 8 7 13 9 10 11 12 Fig. 10. pottery of the tumulus culture from the Great hungarian plain: vessels showing references to the tumulus circle tradition (above) and to local tell cultures (below) from the cemetery in tiszafüred (kovács 15). drawings are not to scale. 14 8 excluding the possibility that human groups translocated and instead assuming that the rise of the Carpathian Tumulus culture (in a broad sense) was the exclusive result of local development based on an Early Bronze Age tradition (e.g. Lichardus, Vladár 1996, 33) should be treated as extreme. The southern limit to the Tumulus culture “expansion” is determined by indings (single grave assemblages and vessels found in the context of the Belegiš I culture inventories) from Slavonia and Vojvodina (Foltiny 1968a; Trogmayer, Szekeres 1968; Tasić 1974, 233–240; 1989, 97–98; Uzelac 1996, 32–33). Another distinguishing cluster comprised sites from the vicinity of Szeged (the so-called Tápé group – Trogmayer 1975) together with a concentration located farther up the Tisza River, between the mouths of the Körös and Zagyva rivers (the so-called Rákóczifalva group – Kovács 1981). However, more recent investigations have proven that these local groups in fact form one cluster, extending on both banks of the lower Tisza River and penetrating through the Mureş River valley farther eastwards (PetrescuDîmboviţa 1977, 93, plate 142:9–17; Kacsó 1992; Gumă 1993, 166; 1995, 103; Kustár, Wicker 2002; Sánta 2004). Its continuation to the north is evidenced by huge biritual cemeteries, located along the middle course of the Tisza River, particularly between the mouths of the Zagyva and Sajó rivers (the so-called Egyek group – Kovács 1975; Csányi 1980; Hänsel, Kalicz 1986; Furmánek, Ožďáni 1989; Kemenczei 1989a, 73–79, 92–93). From the beginning of the Late Bronze Age or even from the Koszider horizon (BrB1), vast territories between the Bodrog and Hron rivers were occupied by the Piliny culture (e.g. Furmánek 1981, 40–41; Kemenczei 1989a; Furmánek, Marková 2001, 107). Contrary to the remaining groups arising after the Tumulus “expansion”, only the urn cremation burial rite was found in the Piliny culture, which may indicate that the traditions connected with the Hatvan culture still survived in this area (Furmánek, Veliačik 1991, 32, 35). Individual large cemeteries of the Piliny culture show certain diferences, particularly with regard to pottery styles (Furmánek 1977, 299–312; Kemenczei 1984, 16–20, 29–30). These diferences resulted in  a discussion about an internal territorial division of this group (Kemenczei 1964, 23–28; 1965; 1966; 1967; 1984, 13; Čujanová-Jílková 1967; Furmánek 1977, 254, 321). Proceeding from the currently available data, it can be assumed that the features characteristic of the older phase of the Piliny culture, such as the presence of vessels representing the traditions of the Tumulus and Middle Bronze Age cultures (ig. 11) and relatively rich grave equipment 1 2 3 4 5 10 7 16 19 8 17 20 9 11 14 13 6 12 15 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 21 Fig. 11. pottery of the older phase of the piliny culture: 1–2,4–8,11–13,16–17,19,21–22,24–25,27 — Šafarikovo (Furmánek 1), 3,–10,2 — zagyvapálfalva (kemenczei 1), 18,20 — Radzovce (Furmánek 10), 14,23 — Nagybátony (patay 154), 15 — vizlás (kemenczei 184). drawings are not to scale. 80 with bronze objects originating from the local metallurgical center, were still contemporary with phase LB II on the Tisza River (BrC2–BrD) (e.g. Kemenczei 1965, 26; 1966, 96–97; 1989a, 91–92; Furmánek 1977, 302; 1982a, 110). However, based on single observations, one can suppose that the transition between the older and younger phases of the Piliny culture (see below) took place simultaneously with the beginning of the HaA period (phase LB III). Pottery inventories from that phase are accompanied either by broadly dated bronze objects or by artifacts already assigned to phase HaA or LB III (Kemenczei 1989a, 91; Hellebrandt 1996, 29–31). Moreover, the co-occurrence of pottery from the younger phase of the Piliny culture together with vessels typical of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle and of the Belegiš II culture is conirmed (see below). Beginning of the Late Bronze Age (BrB2–Brd) on the middle and upper tisza River and in northern transylvania Communities continuing the Middle Bronze Age tradition were developing in the territories of the Berettyó and Eriu rivers and on the upper course of the Crasna River, east of the zone occupied by “Carpathian” Tumulus groups.13 These inventories, designated as the Hajdúbagos group (Kovács 1970, 46), the Cehăluţ group (Kacsó 1987) or phase IV of the Otomani culture (Bader 1978) are known particularly from settlements and from rare urn cemeteries or pottery deposits (Kovács 1970, 46; Bader 1978; Németi 1978, 111; 1996, 37–38; Poroszlai 1984, 99–100; Kacsó 1999; Bejinariu, Lakó 2000). The majority of these sites can be roughly dated to phases LB I–LB II (BrB2–BrD/HaA1) (Németi 1978, 119, 121; 1990, 53; Kacsó 13 Separated from it by vast swamps during prehistory (e.g. Hänsel, Medović 1991, plate 1). 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Fig. 12. Pottery of the Cehăluţ­Hájdúbagos group:1 — Ciumeşti (Kacsó 1999), 2,4,14 — Hájdúbagos (Kovács 1970), 3,5,9–10,12 — Pişcolt (Németi 1978), 6–7,11,13 — Crasna (Bejinariu, Lakó 2000), 8 — Valea lui Mihai (Németi 1978). Drawings are not to scale. 1987, 75; 1995, 111; 1999, 101). Otomani culture styles predominate in the richly decorated pottery from these sites (ig. 12), but they also exhibit inluences of other groups from the late Middle Bronze Age (Kovács 1970, 47; Németi 1978, 118, 121; Kacsó 1987, 72; 1990, 42; 1995, 111; 1999, 97, 101). A similar, mixed character is also revealed in indings excavated from cave sites at the northern approaches to the Bihor Mountains (Emödi 1978; 1980; Chidioşan, Emödi 1983) and from rare open sites on the Körös and Mureş rivers (Emödi 1978; Dumitraşcu 1980; Andriţoiu 1983, 131–132; Kacsó 1990, 43; 1995, 109; Vasiliev 1992, 21; 1995, 152; 1995a, 95; Gumă 1993, 166–168; Ciugudean 1994, 35). These indings were described as the Igriţa group (Emödi 1980). Proceeding from metal objects and pottery demonstrating references to the products of Belegiš II and the younger phase of the Piliny cultures, it is thought that these sites were used not only in phases LB I–LB II, but also in the following period of the development of 82 luted pottery groups (Emödi 1978, 494; 1980, 272–273; 1997, 488–489; Kacsó 1990, 43–44; 1995, 110–111; 1999, 104; Vasiliev 1995a, 94). Since the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the territories on the upper Tisza and Szamos rivers were occupied by the Suciu de Sus culture – a taxonomic unit characterized, among others, by an exceptionally richly ornamented pottery, which – with regard to decoration techniques and motifs – demonstrated links to the neighboring Otomani and Wietenberg cultures (see e.g. Bader 1978; 1979; Hüttel 1979; Kacsó 1987).The possibility of still dating the youngest assemblages of the Suciu de Sus culture to phase LB II is suggested (Kacsó 1990, 46; 2001, 240; 2004, 339; Balahuri 2001, 255; Kobal’ 2007, 589–599). In particular, this concerns settlements where luted vessels and other forms of a “pre-Hallstatt” character were found, in addition to incised and incrusted pottery (Bader 1979, 23; Kobal’ 2005, 216; Marta 2005, 81–84) (ig. 14). In several cases, such pottery was accompanied by single bronze objects or the Uriu-Ópályi hoards (phase LB II), conirming the relatively late chronology of these materials (Kacsó 1987, 73–74; 2001, 239; Lazin, Pop 1997, 77; Kobal’ 2005; 2007; Marta 2005). The older phase of the cemetery at Lăpuş, Maramureş district, is dated to the same chronological range. It is represented by cremation burials in the form of pyre remains covered by a mound (Kacsó 1975, 48–49, 65–66; 2001, 231, 236; 2001a, 37). Vessels from the older phase of the Lăpuş cemetery are similar to Suciu de Sus culture ware, although local forms or forms referring to the Noua culture are also present (Kascó 1975, 55–59, 68; 1987, 74; 2001, 241) (ig. 14). Carol Kacsó included other cemeteries and settlements located on the upper Tisza to a separate Lăpuş I group (Kacsó 1987, 74; 1990, 47; 1990a; 1993, 31–33; 49; 2001, 240; 2004, 331–333; compare Mozsolics 1960; Marinescu 1979; Gogâltan, Isac 1995, 9–10; Almássy et al. 1997, 20–24; Gogâltan 2001, 195). With regard to burial rites and pottery styles, the barrow cemeteries from Transcarpathian Ukraine, dated also to phase LB II, demonstrate a signiicant similarity to this group (Potushniak 1958, 75–76; Penjak 1983; Kobal’ 83 14 12 2 1 13 3 15 4 5 6 18 17 7 16 19 8 22 20 9 10 21 11 23 25 24 Fig. 13. older (1–11) and younger (1–25) materials of the Igriţa group: 1–2,7–8 — Biharea (Dumitraşcu 1980), 4–6,9–11 — Igriţa cave (Emödi 1980), 17,20–21,24 — Ungurului cave (Emödi 1997), 18–19,22–23 — Izbîdniş cave (Chidiosan, Emödi 1983), 25 — Simeria (Andriţoiu 1983). Pottery of phase LB III from central transylvania: 12,15 — uioara de Jos (Ciugudean 14), 13–14,1 — Cugir (Ciugudean 14). drawings are not to scale. 1992, 173; 1996, 202–204; 2000, 16, 20 – as a separate Chomonin group). In the same period, inluences of the groups inheriting the Suciu de Sus cultural tradition are also recorded to the north of the eastern Carpathian Arch – on the upper Dniester River (Maleev, Kobal’ 2005).14 14 Particularly compare the grave assemblage from Kavsko (Berniakovich 1959, 34–42; plate 3:4; Mozsolics 1960, 116; Sulimirski 1968, ig. 29:5). 84 At that time, the lat cremation cemeteries located on the upper Tisza (especially on its left bank) and in the Eastern Slovakian Lowland were considered a separate cultural phenomenon. Hungarian scholars designate these assemblages as the Berkesz-Demecser group (Kovács 1967; Kemenczei 1981; 1984), while their Slovakian colleagues describe them as a local variant of the Suciu de Sus culture (Demeterová 1984; Furmánek 2 3 15 16 1 18 17 19 5 4 20 6 21 8 7 9 22 10 13 11 24 23 12 14 25 26 Fig. 14. Pottery of the Lăpuş I group (1–14) and from assemblages of the Suciu de Sus tradition in northern Romania and ukraine (15– 27): 1–2,5–6,10–14 — Lăpuş (Kacsó 1975; 2001), 3 — Libotin (Kacsó 1990a), 4,7–9 — Căşeiu (Gogâltan, Isac 1995), 15,19 — Culciu Mare (Bader 1979), 16–17,20 — Oarţa de Sus (Kacsó 2004), 18 — Mediesu Aurit (Bader 1), 21 — Nyírkaras (Almáss at al. 1), 22 — kriva (kobal’ 2000), 23 — Činadievo (kobal’ 2000), 24–2 — Čomonin (kobal’ 1), 2 — kavsko (Sulimirski 18). drawings not to scale. 27 85 1997). However, the identity of both these inds groups is indicated in literature (Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár, 1991, 144; Furmánek 1998, 261). In fact, they reveal strong similarities both in pottery styles (ig. 15) and burial rites. It is worth noting that materials from cremation cemeteries of the upper Tisza basin yield artifacts related to the Noua culture (see later on). Previously, on this observation was based the opinion that the cultural 1 2 3 20 4 5 6 23 7 8 9 11 10 13 16 15 27 14 19 28 33 18 17 25 24 26 12 22 21 30 29 31 34 32 Fig. 15. pottery of the Berkesz-demecser group (left) and from the cinerary urn cemeteries in the eastern Slovakian Lowland (right): 1–4,13,1,1–18 — Alsóberecki (kemenczei 181), 5 — vajdácska (kemenczei 184), –8,11–12,14 — Nyíregyháza (kovács 1),  — Nyírbrony (kovács 1), 10 — Berkesz (kovács 1), 1 — tiszárd (kovács 1), 20–34,36 — Zemplínske Kopčany (Demeterová 1984), 35 — Hojné (demeterová 184). drawings are not to scale. 36 8 phenomenon discussed here was the efect of “eastern” inluences superposed on an earlier cultural synthesis of the Egyek group and the Suciu de Sus culture was based on this observation (Kovács 1967, 27–30, 49–58; 1970, 47; Hüttel 1979, 46; Kemenczei 1984, 29, 31, 33–36, 38–39). This view tends to be questioned though (Mozsolics 1973, 107; Kacsó 1975, 47–48; 1994, 43; Furmánek 1998, 261). older phases of the Late Bronze Age in transylvania The beginning of the Late Bronze Age (phase LB I) in the area of Transylvania is marked by the appearance of the Noua culture in its central and southern parts (Andriţoiu 1986; Marinescu 1986; Andriţoiu, Vasiliev 1993; Popa, Borofka 1996, 51–55, 60; Ciugudean 1999, 129; Gogâltan 2001, 196). This group was completely separated from the earlier background of the Wietenberg culture (Borofka 1994), being a part of the Noua-Coslogeni-Sabatinovka cultural complex genetically connected with the North-Pontic zone (e.g. Florescu 1964; Morintz, Anghelescu 1970; Chernyakov 1985; Berezanskaya et al. 1986, 83–116; Dergachev 1986, 153–171; Krushel’nychka 1990; Munteanu 1996; Simon 2001; Sava 2005). However, outside the range of the Noua culture in Transylvania – in the northern part of the Transylvanian Plateau (Marinescu 1979, 97–100; Bejinariu 2003, 32–33) and particularly on the middle Mureş River – the communities of the Wietenberg culture were still to survive. A group of sites known from the middle Mureş River (the so called Bădeni III-Deva group, according to Rotea 1994, 56) yielded besides the discovery of pottery related to the Tumulus culture and to the post-Otomani groups from the middle Tisza, vessels representing the Wietenberg tradition (Lazarovici 1971, 81–82; Chidioşan 1974, 166–170; Winkler, Takács 1980, 23–59; Soroceanu, Retegean 1981, 207; Andriţoiu 1992, 53–54; Gogâltan, Cosiş, Paki 1992, 17; Borofka 1994, 251, 268, 277, 288; 1999, 119–124; 8 Ciugudean 1999, 122–130) (ig. 16). There is some evidence suggesting that these inventories are still datable to phases BrC–BrD (Lazarovici, Milea 1976, plate 5:3; Vasiliev, Aldea, Ciugudean 1991, 173; Gogâltan, Cociş, Paki 1992, 17; Borofka 1994, 288; Ciugudean 1999, 129–130). According to Horia Ciugudean (1999, 129), the territories on the lower Mureş could 19 2 1 20 21 22 3 23 5 4 6 9 7 8 10 24 25 26 27 28 11 12 15 16 17 13 14 18 29 30 31 Fig. 1. pottery from the beginning of the Late Bronze Age on the lower Mureş (1–18), pottery of the third phase of the Baltă Sărăta group (19–23) and the youngest materials of the Wietenberg culture (24–32): 1–12,15–1 — pecica, layer I (Soroceanu 1991), 13–14,17–18 — Păuliş (Pădureanu 1990), 19–23 — Peştera cu Apă (Rogozea 1994), 24–25 — Georgiu de Sus (Ciugudean 1999), 26 — Dumbrăviţa (Soroceanu, Retegan 1981), 2 — Cluj (Rotea 14), 28 — oiejdea (Boroffka 14), 2,33 — Strajta (Boroffka 1994), 30–31 — Măhăceni (Ciugudean 1994), 31 — Băcăinţi (Marinescu 1986). Drawings are not to scale. 32 33 88 have been an intermediary area for contacts between the post-Otomani groups from the middle Tisza basin and the Wietenberg culture from western Transylvania. Connections with both cultural phenomena can be seen in pottery assemblages from the youngest layer of the Tell site in Pecica, Arad district (Soroceanu 1991, 74–79, 89–92, 126), as well as in some other sites located in the Arad district (the so called Păuliş group according to Gogăltan 1999, 210, 386; compare Pădureanu 1990, 159; 1992, 508–509, 512–513; Rusu, Dörner, Ordentlich 1999, igs. 8–9) (ig. 16). Relations between southwestern Transylvania and the middle Tisza basin territories were also maintained at the beginning of the development of groups with luted pottery. Pottery from sites of the middle Mureş, dated to HaA, demonstrate links to the Igriţa group and to inds related to the spread of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle and the Belegiš II culture (the Cugir-Band group according to Ciugudean 1994, 25–35; compare Horedt 1967a; Andriţoiu 1983, 131–132; Vasiliev 1992, 21; 1995, 152; 1995a, 95–96; Gumă 1995, plate 17) (ig. 13). The same links were recorded in the case of assemblages from the piedmont of Banat (the so-called Balta Sărată group) (ig. 16). These inds are believed to represent the earliest phase of a local cultural phenomenon, developing there since the Middle Bronze Age (Stratan, Vulpe 1977, 30–31; Gumă 1993, 163–166, 168; 1995, 102–103; Rogozea 1994, 163; 1995, 84; Gogâltan 1999, 384–386). The cultural picture of central Transylvania is not well examined. It is thought that after the Noua culture expanded, a type of syncretic group was formed there, combining the elements of the Noua culture with the earlier traditions of the Wietenberg culture (the so called Buza-Teiuş horizon, according to Bădău-Wittenberger 1994, 155). This view is supported, among others, by the coexistence of materials from both these groups at the same sites within the same cultural layers or even within closed assemblages, the presence of skeletal burials typical of the Noua culture in the youngest Wietenberg cemeteries, and by the presence of single vessels combining stylistic elements of both cultures (Winkler, Takács 1980, 28–33; Andriţoiu 8 1986, 43, 45; 1987, 59; Marinescu 1986, 55, 57; Vasiliev 1992, 23; Andriţoiu, Vasiliev 1993, 128, 134; Bădău-Wittenberger 1994, 152–155; Borofka 1994, 251, 288, 293–294; Popa, Borofka 1996, 51–56, 60; Ciugudean 1999, 129; Gogâltan 2001, 197–198; Szekély 2001, 176). It is supposed that the mixed, Noua-Wietenberg tradition can already be dated to phase LB III (Soroceanu 1981, 259–261; Vasiliev 1983, 55; 1992, 20–21; 1995, 152; 1995a, 95; Vasiliev, Aldea, Ciugudean 1991, 174; Andriţoiu, Vasiliev 1993, 134; Gogâltan 2001, 198). At the same time in the northern Transylvanian Plateau on the middle Szamos and upper Mureş rivers, single assemblages with luted pottery appeared, exhibiting connections with the territory of the Gáva culture formation (or with the Lăpuş II group) and with the Middle Danubian Urnield circle and the Belegiš II culture (Horedt 1979, 35, ig. 8; 1981, igs. 6:16–17, 7:7; Gogâltan, Isac 1995, 13, ig. 4; Gogâltan 1998, 198; 2001, 198). However, the total number of settlement and cemetery traces in the entire Transylvanian area from the time corresponding to phase PB III is scanty. Perhaps a signiicant depopulation of this territory in the last two centuries of the 2nd millennium BC should be taken into consideration. Culture group circle with luted pottery in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin – terminological problems The similarity of the “Villanova-type urns” from the Danubian territories and the vessels from northern Italy induced scholars in the irst half of the 20th century to consider these indings as evidence of contacts between the above mentioned territories (Bukvić 2000, 18) and to accept the parallel nature of their cultural development (Childe 1929, 291, 386–387). This view was modiied by the determination of an earlier chronology for vessels originating in the Carpathian Basin (Nestor 1933, 113, footnote 454). The spread of this ceramics, now described as “protoVillanova urns”, was believed to be an indication of a great migration from 0 the Danubian territories, which reached, among other locations, northern Italy (Mozsolics 1958, 146; Patek 1961, 67–68). Already at the end of the 1960s, the relation between luted pottery from Italy and the Carpathian Basin began to be questioned (Trogmayer 1963, 104–106; Foltiny 1968, 339, 354–355). The term “proto-Villanova urns” was then replaced by the equally ambiguously deined concept of “vessels of the Gáva type”. The term “Gáva culture (or type)” was introduced by Amalia Mozsolics (1958, 120–121, 147). It was quickly adopted by scholars from Hungary, Romania and Slovakia (Šolle 1957; Patek 1961; Jílková 1961; Trogmayer 1963; Zaharia 1965; Zaharia, Morintz 1965; Kemenczei 1966; Horedt 1966, 16–20, 23, ig. 10; 1967, 20–26). An especially broad territorial range for “the Gáva culture” was assumed by Jozef Paulík (1968), who included all the indings from the Tisza basin into it, together with the rare sites of the Belegiš culture known at the time. However, with more archeological data available, the distinctiveness of luted pottery from the southern Carpathian Basin (Belegiš II type) with respect to Gáva culture vessels from the middle and upper Tisza can be shown (Foltiny 1967, 58–59; 1968, 340–348, 350; 1989, 232; Forenbaher 1988, 34; 1994, 49–50; Borofka 1994a, 18). It was also noted that these phenomena are chronologically exclusive in some areas (Gumă 1993, 181–194; 1995, 111–112). Still, in the Serbian literature, the term “Gáva complex” or “Gáva-Belegiš complex (circle, horizon)” is used to describe materials from Vojvodina (e.g. Garašanin M. 1983, 675; Medović 1989, 48; Tasić 1993, 87–90; 1999, 132; Vasić 1995, 349; Uzelac 1996, 34; Pap 1998, 29–31; Bukvić 2000, 32, 91, 95–96; Koledin 2003, 30–31, 33). Shortly after the term “Gáva culture” was introduced, it was noted that in fact this described a rather general circle of pottery styles and not a proper archeological culture (László 1973, 605; Smirnova 1974; Hänsel 1976, 88). Therefore, a proposal was made to replace this term by more neutral expressions, such as a stylistic circle of luted pottery, “the only and proper pottery of the Hallstatt period” (Hänsel 1976, 88) or “a circle of culture groups with luted pottery” (Tasić 1999, 127), understood as an actual cultural commu- 1 nity (koine) (Pare 1999, 406) or as a manifestation of a supra-cultural stylistic uniication (Szabó 1996, 53). The division of this circle into smaller factions is proposed (Smirnova 1990, 32; Dergachev 1997a, 135): a southern part (Belegiš II culture and related local groups from the Wallachian Plain and Moldavia), and a northern one (the Gáva or the Gáva-Holihrady culture). The latter – in its territorially limited understanding – can already be perceived as “the sum of diferent features [including burial rites and settlement forms] constituting a speciic combination that distinguishes this culture from others” (Pankau 2004, 33). On the other hand, the view of Slovakian archeologists who proposed to include the Gáva culture into the Urnield circle (Furmánek 1986; 1986a, 322; 1987, 317; 1987a; 2000; 2003, 101; Demeterová 1989, 168; Furmánek, Veliačik 1991, 29; Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1991, 137–138; 1999, 70) is disputable (e.g. Pankau 2004, 27). urn cemeteries in the southern part of the Carpathian Basin – the Belegiš culture The appearance of urn cemeteries in Slavonia and Vojvodina can be related to the spread towards the southeast of some cultural elements typical of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in Transdanubia. The process already manifested itself in the late phase of the Vattina culture (BrA2/BrB1). Incrusted pottery was found in the inventories of this group, exhibiting links with the Szeremle group from southern Transdanubia (Tasić 1982, 261–262, 265; 1988, 47; 1989, 94–96; 1996, 149, 153; Foltiny 1987, 83; Hänsel, Medović 1994, 191–192; Uzelac 1996, 29; Medović 1996, 169–170; 1997, 339; Ihde 2001, 138). At the turn of the Middle Bronze Age – according to Nikola Tasić (1996, 153) already in phase BrB1– the territories of Slavonia, Vojvodina and the Iron Gates region became involved in a process of cultural transformation related to the spreading of the Tumulus circle. This is evidenced by the discovery of artifacts typical of cultural phenomena from the northwestern Carpathian Basin, such as Maďarovce mugs (Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 27; 2 Hänsel, Roman 1984, 225–228; Tasić 1982, 262; 1989, 95; 1996, 152), and inventories of the “Carpathian” Tumulus culture, known particularly from Vojvodina (see above). During this time, urn cemeteries were established on both sides of the Iron Gates. In western Oltenia, northwestern Bulgaria and Đerdap, they are included in the Dubovac-Cîrna culture (Kovács 1988, 155; Tasić 1996),15 also characterized by the presence of incrusted pottery (e.g. Dumitrescu 1961; Filipov 1974; Georgiev 1982, 192–198; Krstić 2003). They are mainly designated as the Belegiš I culture in the areas of Slavonia and Vojvodina (Tasić 1974, 240–241; 245–246; in the Romanian literature Cruceni-Belegiš – Morintz 1978, 40–45). Based on the pottery style of this group (ig. 17), it is believed that its origin lies in a synthesis of local, Vattina culture – especially manifested by the presence of vessels with ansa cornuta handles (Trbuhović 1968, 66–67; Radu 1973, 505; Tasić 1988, 51; Borofka 1994, 281; Šimić 1994, 199; Uzelac 1996, 34) and Transdanubian traditions, seen in the pottery shape and ornamentation characteristic of the so-called Litzenkeramik (Benkovsky-Pivovarová 1972, 208; Majnarić-Pandžić 1976, 74–76; Foltiny 1987, 79; Fischl, Kiss 2002, 144–145). Contrary to occasionally expressed opinions (Medović 1989, 46; Bukvić 2000, 98), it should be accepted that a culture-settlement continuity existed in the time segment between the older phases of the Bronze Age (characterized by the Belegiš I cemeteries) and the period of development of luted pottery groups (represented here by the Belegiš II culture) in the areas of Slavonia and Vojvodina. This is indicated by the uninterrupted use of cemeteries, some of the better examined settlements (Tasić 1988, 51–53; Forenbaher 1991, 49, 57, 63; 1994, 53, 58; Šimić 1994, 198–199; 2001, 28–29; Medović 2007), the coexistence of pottery from both phases in single assemblages (Medeleţ 1996, 236), and the presence of a separate transitional stage, characterized by 15 This group appears under diferent names in the literature (compare Borofka 1994, 274, footnote 44). The one used here best renders its territorial range. 3 luted decoration (typical of the Belegiš II culture) with the continuation of earlier vessel forms (Horedt 1967, 18; Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 27; Radu 1973, 505–507; Todorović 1977, 144–146; Chicideanu 1986, 32, 37, 40; Forenbaher 1988, 26–28; Tasić 1989, 99; Gumă 1993, 154–156; 1995, 100–101; Della Casa 1996, 171–173, ig. 173) (ig. 17). Based on scarce data (graves with bronze 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 18 16 20 19 22 23 11 10 12 25 24 21 13 14 17 26 27 Fig. 17. Pottery of the Belegiš I culture and the Bistreţ­ Işalniţa group (left), and vessels from assemblages of the transitional phase to the Belegiš II culture (right). 1–4,7,17–18,23 — Beograd­Karaburma (Todorović 1977), 2– 3,5,8–11,15–16,25–26,28 — Cruceni (Radu 1973), 6 — Belegiš (Trbuhović 1961), 11–14 — Bistreţ (Chicideanu 1986), 19 — Vojlovica (Bukvić 2000), 20,24,27 — Kovačica (Bukvić 2000), 21–22 — Ilandža (Bukvić 2000). Drawings are not to scale. 28 4 objects from Cruceni, Kovačica and Vojlovica, and dating of hoards from Pecica and Cornuţel – Stratan 1964; Kemenczei 1991; Borofka 1997; Bukvić 2000; Koledin 2003) assemblages from the transitional phase may have still corresponded to phase LB II in northern Transylvania, while the developed Belegiš II culture (ig. 18) probably began already in phase LB III. The dating of the decline of this group is also discussed in the literature. The com- 1 2 4 3 5 17 18 19 6 21 20 8 7 22 10 23 24 9 11 12 25 13 14 26 15 16 27 28 Fig. 18. Slavonia-Syrmia (left) and Banat (right) variants of pottery of the Belegiš II culture: 1,10,14,16 — Vučedol (Forenbaher 1990), 2–3,5,9 — Opovo (Bukvić 2000), 4 — Privlaka (Forenbaher 1991), 5 — Trpinja (Forenbaher 1991), 7 — Palanka (Bukvić 2000), 8 — Sarvaš (Forenbaher 1991), 11–12 — Vojlovica (Bukvić 2000), 13,15 — Dubovac (Bukvić 2000), 17,25–26 — Moldova Nouă (Gumă 1993), 18–20,23–24,27 — Ticvaniul Mare (Gumă 1993, 21–22 — Bobda (Gumă 1995), 28 — Kovačica (Bukvić 2000). Drawings are not to scale. 5 monly accepted view connects it with period HaA, or the turn of HaA2/HaB1 (e.g. Forenbaher 1988, 31–33; Roeder 1991, 134–135; Gumă 1995, 104–107; Falkenstein 1998, 49–50; Bukvić 2000, 91, 109). After that time, the Belegiš II culture was replaced by assemblages of the Dalj culture in Slavonia (Šimić 1994, 198, 214–215), by the Gornea-Kalakača group in southern Voivodina (Medović 1991, 147; Bukvić 2000, 108) and by the younger phase of the Gáva culture on the lower Tisza (Medeleţ 1991; 1993, 137; Gumă 1993, 180–194; 1995, 111–112). The suggestions indicating the survival of this group into phase HaB (Pare 1999, 408) should be treated as controversial. Two basic settlement concentrations can be distinguished within the range of the Belegiš II culture. Its western zone was limited to eastern Slavonia, while to the east the settlement was concentrated in the western part of Syrmia, the lowland part of Banat and in Đerdap. The two principal zones reveal certain diferences. This particularly concerns the predominant site form – multilayer settlements in the western zone (Tasić 1988, 51–53; Forenbaher 1991; 1994; Šimić 1994; Gumă 1995, 106–107) and urn cemeteries east of the Tisza mouth. Some diferences can be also noted in pottery styles (see chapter 3.2). Based on these observations, it was proposed that a separate eastern (Banat) variant of the Belegiš II culture be distinguished (Forenbaher 1988, 29–30). More controversial are the proposals to replace this group with a number of smaller taxonomic units (Horedt 1967, 18–20; Stratan, Vulpe 1977, 58, 60; Medeleţ 1993, 136; Gumă 1993, 179; 1995, 104–108; Jevtić, Vukmanović 1996, 287; Pare 1999, 408–410). Groups with luted pottery in the territory of the Wallachian plain and in Moldavia The assessment of cultural development in the Wallachian Plain and Moldavia is signiicantly inluenced by diferences in the state of investigations within this area. Apart from relatively well examined areas (western Oltenia, Moldavian Plateau), there are zones where only single sites have been  excavated (Leviţki 1994, ig. 1; Motzoi-Chicideanu 2001, ig. 16). Assemblages with luted pottery in the discussed area were considered, above all, in the context of the cultural phenomena preceding or following them. In particular, Bernhard Hänsel’s views resulted in treating groups from „the older Hallstatt period” as a continuation of earlier cultural units (Hänsel 1976, 99–104, 110; compare Vulpe 1979, 209). More recent studies, however, allow a clearer emphasis on the role of a “foreign” cultural element, genetically related to the Belegiš II culture. A considerable concentration of this group’s sites was found east of the Iron Gates, also including the area of northwestern Bulgaria (e.g. Georgiev 1982, igs. 2:7, 4:6; Gumă 1993, 168–180; 1995, 108–109; Šalganova 1994, 186–190; Jevtić, Vukmanović 1996, 287–289, map 2; Tasić 1999, 129–132) (ig. 19). Less numerous inventories are also known from central Oltenia (the so called Vîrtop-Plopşor group – Nestor 1933, 110; Berciu 1961, ig. 20:1–5; Hänsel 1976, 101; Moscalu 1976, 85). Despite their unquestionable connection with the Belegiš II culture or with its stylistic circle (Motzoi-Chicideanu 2001, 217–218, 221–222), artifacts and objects found at some of those sites were attributed to the Dubovac-Cîrna culture (e.g. Gumă 1995, 108), so it was proposed that a separate horizon be distinguished, having a transitional character between these units (the so called Bistreţ-Işalniţa groups – Chicideanu 1986) (ig. 17). These observations supported the suggestion, already present in earlier literature, about the relation between cultures with incrusted and stampdecorated pottery from the beginning of the Late Bronze Age and the Insula Banului culture dated to the end of the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, representing a younger set of cultures with stamp-decorated ware (Morintz, Roman 1969, 420–423; Hänsel 1976, 163–164; László 1976, 97; Moscalu 1976, 85–86; Muscă 1980; Petre 1980, 137; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1988, 182). Single, precisely dated assemblages allow the beginning of the Insula Banului culture and the decline of local luted pottery groups to be placed in the older stage of the HaB period (e.g. Davidescu 1981; Smirnova 1993, 96; Gumă 1995, 108; Vasić 1995, 357; Kossack 1996, 305).  3 1 2 5 4 13 14 15 6 9 7 16 17 20 8 18 19 21 10 11 12 22 23 Fig. 1. Fluted pottery from the oltenia (left) and Muntenia (right) territories: 1–6 — Vajuga­Pesak (Vasić 1995), 7–9 — Prundu Măgarilor (Motzoi­Chicideanu 2001), 10–12 — Vîrtop (Hänsel 1976), 13,20,23 — Zimnicea (Gumă 1995), 14–16,21 — Popeşti (Palincaş 2005), 17,22 — Meri (Moscalu 1976), 18 — Rîureni (Moscalu 181). drawings are not to scale. The cultural situation in northeastern Oltenia is much less known. Single sites with luted pottery from the lower Olt region are believed to be a continuation of the Verbicioara culture of the older stages of the Bronze Age (Petre 1980, 137–140). A small cluster, corresponding perhaps to the luted pottery horizon is also known from the middle Olt (the so called Rîureni group – Moscalu 1981, 346–347, compare Vulpe 1990, 105, footnote 17; Gumă 1995, 109–110). The situation is similar in Muntenia. Pottery related to the Belegiš II culture is known here from single settlements and grave assemblages (ig. 19), where it appears in the context of stamp decorated pottery (Christescu 1925, 276–303; Vulpe 1965, 106–107; 2005, 19–23; Vulpe, Lu sat g un Yo er ian cu ltu Ve lat ice No re ? Gáva I culture Lăpuş Il group rlă te Igriţa group Csorva group re Wietenberg-Noua ia synthesis ? Zagreb group Belegiš II culture Carpathian Basin (phase HaA1) 0 Baltă-Sărăta group Meri Vîrtop-Plopşor group Popeşti Zimnicea 100 km Fig. 20. Main taxonomic units in phase haA1 (beginning of LB III) of the Carpathian Basin. 8 ig n da nu b 500 re Co d el s nfi an Ur Tr in cu ltu 1000 ltu Late Piliny culture Vál I group m a.s.l. cu K išinev- cultu re ua ro up  Veselovschi-Buşilă 1967, 101; Hänsel 1976, 97–98; Moscalu 1976, 79–86 [as the Meri group]; Boroneanţ 1984, 165–166; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1988, 182). It is proposed, however, that some of those inventories be dated to the period directly preceding the Basarabi culture, that is, only to the 9th century BC (Palincaş 2005, 61). Vessels representing this trend appeared in the context of inds of the Zimnicea-Plovdiv culture on the lower Danube, at present dated contemporaneously with the Noua-Coslogeni-Sabatinovka complex, that is, to phase LB III at the latest (Palincaş 1996, 267–270, 287). The relation between luted pottery inventories and a local culture background (Noua culture) was also formerly accepted for the territory of Moldavia (e.g. Florescu 1959, 334, 337). In fact, more convincing arguments to assume a continuation of the Noua tradition and its participation in the genesis of the so-called Kišinev-Corlăteni group are lacking (ig. 21). Although some settlements of this group are located in sites occupied during the preceding period (e.g. Nestor 1952; Florescu 1957, 214, 217; 1959, 335–337; 1959a, 126; 1964, 48; Dragomir 1960, 161; Hänsel 1976, 68–70; 106), both the pottery styles 4 1 2 5 6 3 11 7 8 9 10 Fig. 21. Fluted pottery from Moldavia (the Kishinev­Corlăteni group): 1,3–4 — Trifeşti (Hänsel 1976; Leviţki 1994), 2 — Corlăteni (Nestor 1952), 5 — Mâdreşti (Leviţki 1994), 6­7 — Dănceni (Leviţki 1994), 8 — Zăikana (Leviţki 1994), 9 — Trinca (Leviţki 1994), 10 — Cucorăni (Leviţki 1994), 11–12 — Cotu Mori (Iconomu, Tanasachi 12). drawings are not to scale. 12 100 (ig. 21) and the appearance of the cremation burial rite allow one to assume that its formation should be attributed to inluences or even to the migration of people from the Belegiš II culture range (László 1976, 96; 1994, 202–203; Smirnova 1990, 25, 30–32; 1993, 91, 93; Leviţki 1992, 120; 1994, 152–154; 165–170; 1994a, 210–211; Dergachev 1997, 57; 1997a, 135; 2002, 189). This conclusion is supported by an analysis of metal objects that, from the HaA1 phase on, reveal a connection (also with regard to the origin of raw materials) with the territories of the middle Danube basin and not, as in the preceding period, with the eastern European zone (Dergachev 1975, 85; 1997, 62–64; 1997a, 165–168; 2002, 185–191). A detailed chronological study (dating of assemblages containing bronzes, stratigraphy) permits the dynamics of this process to be followed (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1964, 255–256; 1977, 119–120; Foit 1967, 469; Smirnova 1993, 96; László 1994, 205; Dergachev 2002, 47– 52). In the case of the southern part of the Kishinev-Corlăteni group, close to the Danube delta, its existence from the beginning of LB III phase (HaA1) is conirmed, and its decline occurred already before the beginning of period HaB (László 1994, 203; Leviţki 1994, 142–143). For the Moldavian Plateau and Bessarabian Upland, the occupation of the youngest sites of this group is admitted still in phase HaB1 (e.g. Iconomu, Piu 1992, 180; Iconomu, Tanasachi 1992, 43; Iconomu, Şovan 1999, 18), although at that time the Cozia-Saharna culture – a Moldavian variant of the stamped pottery complex – had already developed (Leviţki 1994a, 159; Kashuba 2000, 352–358). the middle tisza basin at the beginning of the development of luted pottery groups Forms and modes of pottery decoration, typical of the older phase of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle and the Belegiš II culture, became popular in the middle Tisza basin as well (ig. 22). The combination of both these groups’ stylistic trends was a characteristic feature of a local 101 cultural phenomenon, designated as the Csorva group and directly succeeding the period of development of „Carpathian” Tumulus groups (Trogmayer 1963, 100–109; 120–122). Although the basis for distinguishing this group and for assigning it individual sites was disputed and questioned (e.g. Kemenczei 1975, 54–56; 1982a, 276–277; 1984, 31, 39, 61, 86; 1989a, 91; Kőszegi 1988, 60; Hellebrandt 1990, 109), the existence, at the turn of phases BrD and HaA1, of a distinct horizon of Middle Danubian Urnield circle inluences was commonly accepted (e.g. Paulík 1968, 11–12; 1 2 14 3 4 15 17 5 16 18 19 6 20 8 21 10 7 9 22 11 12 23 13 Fig. 22. Fluted pottery from phase LB III on the Great hungarian plain (left) and pottery from the Susani barrow (right): 1– — tiszacsege (Szabó 2004), 8 — Csongrád (Szabó 2004a),  — polgar (Szabó 2004a), 10–11 — Gelej (kemenczei 18a), 12 — Battonya (kállay 18), 13 — Igrici (hellebrandt 10), 14–24 — Susani (Stratan, vulpe 1). drawings are not to scale. 24 102 Kemenczei 1975, 62–63). Only more recent works attempted to prove the continuation of a local culture background tradition as well (Nebelsick 1994, 315–316; Szabó 1996, 28, 38; 2004a, 100; 2007; Jankovits 2004, 73). According to the concept proposed by Gábor Szabó (1996, 26–31, 38, 52–55; 2004, 169; 2004a, 99–100), stylistic transformations took place in the milieu of local Tumulus groups during phases BrD–HaA1, inspired by inluences from the Middle Danubian Urnield circle and the Belegiš II culture. From this phenomenon (the Csorva-Jánosszállás-Nagyhegy circle – Szabó 1996, 26, 53), the Gáva culture later developed. It should be noted though, that luted pottery assemblages on the middle Tisza do not form a compact cultural unit. Instead, they form a kind of a territorially widespread stylistic horizon, crossing the borders of “traditional” taxonomic units. The interpretation of this phenomenon will be presented in a later part of this chapter. the Gáva culture According to some of the more recent studies, the term “Gáva culture” in its early phase (Gáva I according to Kemenczei 1984) should be limited to inventories with luted pottery, in particular with the characteristically knobbed vessels appearing in the upper Tisza basin and east of its middle course (ig. 23). In the literature, two theories explain the formation of this group. In older studies, a local origin of the Gáva culture was assumed and attention was drawn to the similarities in some of the ways Gáva vessels and pottery of the groups from the beginning of the Late Bronze Age were decorated (e.g. the Berkesz-Demescer culture, Hajdúbagos group) (Paulík 1963, 318–319; Horedt 1966, 17–20, 23; 1967, 24; Foltiny 1968, 348; László 1973, 608). This view was strengthened by more recent studies, where – apart from a stylistic analysis – it was also supported by the coexistence of Gáva inds and preceding cultures at the same sites (Németi 1990, 53; Kacsó 1990, 49; 103 1 2 3 4 6 8 9 5 10 7 Fig. 23. Pottery of the early Gáva culture and Lăpuş II phase, and a vessel from the LB III hoard from Jánkmajtis (10): 1 — Košice­Barca (Furmánek, Veliačik, Vládar 1999), 2 — Gávavencsellö (Kemenczei 1984), 3,7 — Borša (Gašaj, Olexa 1980), 4 — Nagykálló (Kemenczei 1982b), 5–6 — Lăpuş (kacsó 15; 2001), 8 — Muhi (kemenczei 184),  — debrecen (kemenczei 184), 10 — Jánkmajtis (Almássy et al. 1). drawings are not to scale. Vasiliev 1995a, 94; Borofka 1999, 124–125). The author of a second theory, which also is accepted in some recent studies, is Tibor Kemenczei (1975, 46–47; 1982a, 276–277; 1984, 31, 39, 61, 86; Genito, Kemenczei 1990, 120). He presented the Gáva culture genesis as the result of a northward translocation of Belegiš II population groups, expelled from southern parts of the Carpathian Basin by the expanding Middle Danubian Urnield circle (see also Kőszegi 1988, 60; Kossack 1996, 307–308; Dergachev 1997, 135). Regardless of how the reasons for the rise of the Gáva culture are assessed, it is a hallmark in the cultural development of territories on the Tisza River. Proceeding from grave assemblages of the Lăpuş cemetery, single hoards containing pottery, and bronzes found in settlements, this turning point can be synchronized with the end of the LB II phase and the 104 beginning of LB III (compare Mozsolics 1963; 1985, 154–155, 210–211; Kacsó 1975, 62; 1987, 74; 1995a, 99; 2001, 237–238; Patay 1976, 200; Kemenczei 1982b, 90; 1984, 65; Németi 1990, 53; Motzoi-Chicideanu, Luga 1995; Marta 2005). At that time, the cultural tradition still being formed at the end of the Middle and beginning of the Late Bronze Age was interrupted. This tradition manifested itself, among other things, by the presence of cremation cemeteries, pottery decorated with stamp, incrustation and spiral motifs (see above) and by speciic sets of bronze and gold objects, manufactured in a local metallurgical center (Dergachev 1997a, 167). The process of change was not identical in the entire area where early Gáva pottery appeared. In the northern part of the Great Hungarian Plain and in neighboring areas (Košice Basin, Eastern Slovakian Lowland, Crişana), these materials are found on newly located sites (Kemenczei 1982b, 92) and on sites replacing earlier settlements from LB II (Gašaj, Olexa 1980, 247–249; Németi 1990, 43–53; Marta 2005, 78–85; Marta, Tóth 2006). However, unambiguous evidence of culture-settlement continuation is lacking. On the other hand, on the Szamos River, early Gáva pottery was excavated from sites representing the second phase of the Lăpuş group (Kacsó 1990, 49; Kacsó 1993, 30; 2001, 241). It should be noted however, that here also the transformation process at the turn of LB II /LB III did not consist only in the spread of luted pottery. Barrows with luted pottery occupy a separate zone and are characterized by a burial rite difering from the one used previously in the eponymous Lăpuş site (Kacsó 1975, 65–66; 2001, 236; Teržan 2005, 249, ig. 6). A cultural phenomenon designated as the younger phase of the Gáva culture (Gáva II according to Kemenczei 1984) extends over almost the entire eastern part of the Carpathian Basin and adjacent areas located northwest of the Carpathian Arch. Given this vast range, it may seem controversial to treat it as a coherent cultural unit, although in fact, apart from minor regionalisms (e.g. Pankau 2004, 65–67), Gáva II pottery is characterized by substantial similarity in the entire area of its extension (e.g. 105 Kacsó 2001a, 38; Pankau 2004, 34–36) (ig. 24). As the present state of research on the younger phase of Gáva culture is part of regional studies, it has become customary to operate with smaller taxonomic units in the literature, describing local Gáva variants. However, their dating is mainly based on single “reference” sites. Outside the Carpathian Arch, the chronological sequence of the 1 2 3 14 15 16 18 19 17 4 5 6 20 21 22 7 8 9 24 23 25 12 26 10 11 13 Fig. 24. pottery of the younger phase of the Gáva culture: 1,3,5–,1–18,20–22,24–2 — teleac (vasiliev, Aldea, Ciugudean 1991), 2,15 — Mediaş (Pankau 2004), 4 — Hódmezővásárhely (Szabó 1), ,10 — Gyoma (Genito, kemenczei 10), 8– — taktábáj (kemenczei 184), 13,1 — „Szabolcs-Megye” (kemenczei 184), 14 — tekuc cha (Bandrivskyj al. 13). drawings are not to scale. 27 10 so-called Holihrady group is based on the stratigraphy of the Mahala settlement in the Tscherniovce province (Smirnova 1969, 15–25, fig. 7; 1972; 1974, 370–379, figs. 2–3; 1993, 93, fig. 2; László 1984, 157–158; 1994, 193). Other settlements concentrated between the Prut and Dniester rivers are synchronized with this site (Smirnova 1974, fig. 1; Krushel’nychka 1979, 75–76, 83; 1985, 42–49; Maleev 1988, 106–112, fig. 13; Krushel’nychka, Maleev 1990, 123–126, fig. 13; Bandrivskyj et al. 1993, 56–122) similary to the dispersed finds on the upper course of the Dniester up to the mouth of the Stryi River (Krushel’nychka, Maleev 1990, fig. 13; Bandrivskyj 2002), The latter were believed by Larisa Krushel’nychka (1979, 81–86; 1995, 405) to represent a separate, “Lusatian-Gáva” group. The chronological scheme worked out for the Holihrady group is also applied to findings from northern Moldavia (the so called Grăniceşti group – László 1984, 156–157; 1994, 194– 195). In eastern Slovakia, the periodization of the younger phase of the Gáva culture is based on the stratigraphy of fortified settlement at Somotorská hora, Trebišov district (Pleinerová, Olmerová 1958; Pastor 1958; Paulík 1968, 21–30, 34–36). Other sites dated to HaA–HaB correspond to its older phase, (Demeterová 1983a; 1986, 113–114; 1989). The younger phase (the so-called Somotorská hora type) is believed to function already at the turn of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (compare Budinský-Krička 1976, 128–137; Miroššayová 1982; 1987; Budinský-Krička, Miroššayová 1992, 59–60). Sites assigned in the Transcarpathian Ukraine to the “pre-Kuštanovice horizon” correspond to this second period (Smirnova 1966; Balahuri 1975; 2001, 291–297; Popovich 1989; 1990, 135; 1999, 137–140, 145–146; 2006, 46–53, 83–84; Kobal’ 1992, 174, 177–179). This period was to be characterized by the erection of fortified settlements in the piedmont zone, related – according to some scholars – to the same cultural-historical processes (“steppe peoples” infiltrating the Carpathian Basin) leading to the decline of the Gáva culture on the Great Hungarian Plain 10 (Kemenczei 1982, 276–277; Chochorowski 1989a, 90–95; 1993, 211– 213, 230; Kobal’ 1992, 174–175; Popovich 1999, 145). In the latter territory, Gáva II sites (including cemeteries – Dani 2001) are assigned to phases HaA2–HaB1. This conclusion is based especially on grave assemblages dated by bronzes from the cemetery at Taktabáj, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén district, and on the chronology of the Debrecen hoard (Kemenczei 1982a, 278, 281–283; 1984, 65, 84, 96, 165; 1990, 308; Mozsolics 1985, 111–112; Genito, Kemenczei 1990, 120– 122). The decline of the Gáva II culture on the Great Hungarian Plain – in the course of period HaB – is indicated by the appearance of “pre-Scythian” cultural elements (e.g. Kemenczei 1971, 69; 1984, 84–85; Chochorowski 1993, 211; Pare 1999, 421). A similar time frame is also accepted for inventories of the younger phase of the Gáva culture on the territories of Crişana (Németi 1982, 51–57; 1990, 47–53) and Maramureş (Kacsó 1990, 49; 1999a, 51). The older segment of the HaB period (LB III phase) was the time when the Gáva culture lourished in the Tisza basin. Its range extended, also covering territories on the middle and upper course of the Tisza. The signiicant growth in the number of sites may also suggest settlement stabilization (Kemenczei 1984, 62, 86; Genito, Kemenczei 1990; Szabó 1996, 55–56). It is symptomatic that the last period of development of local metallurgical centers on the Tisza River occurs at the same time (Hajdúböszörmény hoards – Mozsolics 2000). In earlier literature, the periodization of inds from the younger Gáva phase in Transylvania, designated as the Reci-Mediaş group, was based on the cultural connections of pottery from both eponymous settlements, dated to phases HaA2–HaB1 and HaB/HaC respectively (Rusu 1963, 195; Zaharia 1965, 100–103; Zaharia, Morintz 1965, 461; PetrescuDîmboviţa 1977, 31–32). The basis of this division was discredited in some recent papers, where it was postulated to date the Gáva settlements in Transylvania already starting from the beginning of HaA (Hänsel 1976, layer III layer I layer II ? 108 Fig. 25. Selected vessel types in the stratigraphical scheme of the settlement at teleac, Alba district (according to vasiliev, Aldea, Ciugudean 11). 10 91–92; Borofka 1994, 285; Pankau 2004, 97–98). Without going into a more detailed criticism of this view, it should, however, be noted that this proposal does not take into account the following factors: the taxonomic identity of early Gáva phase inventories (relected also in northern Transylvania by Lăpuş II group indings), the stylistic connections of Transylvanian pottery with other pottery, the independently dated variants of the younger Gáva culture (in particular the Gáva II phase on the middle Tisza), and the lack of any metal objects older than phase HaB1 among indings from the Reci-Mediaş group settlements (Rusu 1963, 195; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1977, 31, 136–137; Rusu, Pintea 1977; Vasiliev, Gaiu 1980, 61; Soroceanu 1982, 368, igs. 4–5; Vasiliev 1983, 56; 1992, 22; 1994, 44–45; 1995, 152; Marta 2003, 356). Among others, the beginning of the functioning of the Teleac, Alba district, settlement, presently the most important reference point for the chronology of Gáva culture indings in Transylvania, can be dated to the latter time period (for a diferent opinion – see Pare 1999, 420–421). Three layers distinguished in the stratigraphy of this site were dated (based on the presence of bronzes and fragments of “imported” vessels from a stampdecorated pottery circle) to: the older segment of period HaB (I), the younger segment of period HaB (II) and period HaC (III) respectively (Fig. 25; Vasiliev, Aldea, Ciugudean 1991, 170–188). The southwestern limits of the younger Gáva phase are indicated by settlements and grave indings from Banat, designated as the Remetea Mare group (Medović 1989, 48; Gumă 1993, 181–194; 1995, 111–112). Bronze artifacts from the eponymous site can be assigned to the older segment of phase HaB (Gumă 1993, 194; 1995, 111; Medeleţ 1993, 137). However, some observations suggest the continuation of the Remetea Mare group contemporaneously with the Gornea-Kalakača group (Medeleţ 1991, 78–82), that is, during the younger segment of the HaB period. 110 Culture groups with luted pottery in the northern part of the Carpathian Basin It was probably at the turn of phases LB II and LB III (simultaneously with the beginning of HaA1 in the North Alpine zone) that transformations within the Piliny culture took place, resulting in the development of a set of features characteristic of its younger phase. These comprise the presence of luted pottery (Jílková 1961, 9–94; Kemenczei 1966, 96; 1967, 283; 1984, 17–19; Furmánek 1977, 328) (ig. 26), an almost total lack of grave furniture other than pottery, and the appearance of stone constructions in burials (Furmánek 1977, 328–329, 335–337; 1982a, 109; 1987, 321; Kemenczei 1984, 15). These transformations proceeded within steadily developing settlement structures (continuation of large cemeteries), and were not accompanied by any considerable changes in the Piliny culture extension. Its territorial range was partially limited (Hornád River basin and Košice Basin occupied by the Gáva culture) only during the LB III phase and in the beginning of LB IV (turning of phases HaA and HaB). The sites dated from that time on – previously still related to the Piliny culture (Eisner 1933, 89; Budinský-Krička 1947, 79) – are currently attributed to the Kyjatice culture (Filip 1951, 243; Paulík 1962, 136; 1965, 172). It is thought – based particularly on pottery style analysis (ig. 26) – that this group was formed on the basis of the Piliny culture, under the inluences of several cultures, i.e.: Lusatian, Gáva, Middle Danubian Urnield, as well as groups from the southern Carpathian Basin dated to periods HaB–HaC (Kemenczei 1970; 51–52; 1984, 43–47; Furmánek 1982, 114; Matuz 2001). The fundamental role played by the local tradition of the Piliny culture can be conirmed by the continuation of burial rites and settlement structures, together with the possibility of distinguishing a transitional, Piliny-Kyjatice horizon (dated to the end of HaA) in materials from large cemeteries (Furmánek 1982, 109; 1983, 27; 1986a, 324–325; 1987, 321–322; 1990, 69–70, ig. 61; 1994; compare Kemenczei 1984, 96). 111 1 4 18 20 19 3 2 23 21 22 6 5 7 25 8 11 9 12 10 13 28 27 24 16 29 31 14 32 30 15 26 17 33 34 Fig. 2. pottery of the late phase of the piliny culture (left) and pottery of the kyjatice culture (right): 1–8,14–1 — Jászberény (Kemenczei 1966), 9,11–13,17 — Gelej (Kemenczei 1989a), 10 — Včelínce (Furmánek 1977), 18–21,24–26,30,32 — Radzovce (Furmánek 1982; Furmánek, Veliačik, Vládar 1999), 22,34 — Kyjatice (Furmánek, Veliačik, Vládar 1999), 23,27 — Szajla (kemenczei 184), 28,33 — Ózd (kemenczei 184), 2 — Szirmabesenyő (Kemenczei 1984), 31 — Borsod­Harsány (Paulík 12a). drawings are not to scale. The Kyjatice culture proper is divided into a “classic” phase, represented particularly by indings from urn cemeteries and dated to the older segment of the HaB period (e.g. Kemenczei 1970, 53; 1984, 48, 56, 96), and a late phase, from the end of the HaB period, and perhaps from HaC as well (Kemenczei 1982, 274–275; 1984, 48, 55–57, 96; Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1991, 148; Matuz 1992, 84; 1994, 52, 54; Matuz, Kállay 1994, 112 64–65). One can probably link the intensiication of building fortiied settlements to this second segment of time (Kemenczei 1970, 49–50; 1982, 274–275; Furmánek, Veliačik, Romsauer 1982, 166–169; Furmánek 1983, 27–31; 1987, 318–320; Furmánek, Ožďani 2000). This process would be contemporaneous to the fortiied settlements being built in the piedmont areas of the northern zone of the Gáva settlement (see above). It should be noted though, that the dating of the Kyjatice culture fortiications still remains open to discussion (Kemenczei 1970, 50; Matuz 1992, 83; 2001, 303–304; Furmánek, Ožďani 2000, 415–416). the period of development of culture groups with luted pottery south of the Sava and danube rivers The oldest inds of luted and faceted pottery in northern Bosnia are known from the Barice-Gredani group cemeteries (see above). However, the number of indings dated to HaA is small on this territory (Marić 1964, 80; Vinski-Gasparini 1983, 618–619, 627–628, 635). With them, one can synchronize the younger phases of the occupation of fortiied settlements in the Dinaric Alps (the so-called gradinas), with the great majority included in the Posušje culture, developing during phases BrA1–BrC2/BrD (Čović 1989). The end of functioning for some of these sites is determined by the luted pottery horizon dated to BrD–HaA1. Others were probably still inhabited until the beginning of the HaB period (Benac 1950, 28, plate 7:14; 1956, 165–166; 1959, 50; Marić 1961, 170–171; Vinski-Gasparini 1983, 620–621, 624; Čović 1983; 1989, ig. 16; Della Casa 1996, 153–156). The presence of luted pottery south of the Sava River and in the mountains of Bosnia and Herzegovina was connected by some authors with the expansion of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle (e.g. Gimbutas 1965, 331; VinskiGasparini 1983, 636). 113 A relatively small number of inds can be assigned to the Late Bronze Age in the entire area of the Dalmatian Coast – these are mainly grave assemblages (Dreschler-Bižić 1980; Della Casa 1996). At the turn of 13th and 12th centuries BC, a fortiied settlement at Mokodonja in Istria was abandoned, a site that conirmed relations between the north Adriatic coast and the Aegean world (Teržan, Mihovilić, Hänsel 1998; Hänsel, Teržan, Mihovilić 2007). In the territory of Albania, a continuation of a local, Bronze Age tradition (the Maliq culture) is accepted for the same time period. However, the relations of that area with central Europe are manifested by the presence of bronze artifacts, and – to a limited degree – by inluences in pottery styles (luted vessels) (Prendi 1982, 224–228; Bodinaku 1995, 268). Beginning with period BrB, cemeteries functioned in the Glasinac upland area and on the Drina River with burial rites related to the central European Tumulus complex (Benac, Čović 1956; Govedarica 1978; Kosorić, Krstić 1988; Madas 1996; Vasić 2003). Recently, attention has been drawn to the fact that the youngest Bronze Age assemblages at these cemeteries (Glasinac IIIb phase) can be dated to no later then the turn of phases BrD/HaA1; the next distinct chronological range is represented by inventories already assigned to the 10th or 9th century BC (Čović 1981, 111–129; 1983a, 416, 418; Della Casa 1996, 161–162; Della Casa, Fischer 1997, 218; Pare 1999, 333). Perhaps – as postulated by Borivoj Čović (1981, 123, 127–128) – one should take into account a signiicant reduction of settlement, or even a hiatus, during the HaA period, at its end and at the beginning of HaB. The Late Bronze Age is represented in the area of Kosovo and on the Southern Morava River by settlements and urn cemeteries included in the Mediana-Brnjica group (Srejović 1960; Garašanin M. 1996; Jevtić 1983; Luci 1984; Krstić 1992; Stojić 1994; 2000; Garašanin D. 1996; Tasić 1997; 2002). Today, its start is placed as early as the end of phase BrD and the beginning of HaA1 (Garašanin M. 1996, 213; Stojić 2000, 22–23). This culture group would be genetically connected with the east-Serbian Paraćin 114 group, the latter continuing the traditions of the Middle Bronze Age (Jovanović, Janković 1996, 193). Pottery typical of the Mediana-Brnjica group is also known from southwestern Serbia (Letica 1981) and northern Macedonia, where sites with imported Mycenae ceramics were found on the Mediana-Brnjica (Kitanoski 1980; Hochstetter 1984, 348; Mitrevski 1993; 1998). Pottery characteristic of the Morava River basin also found its way via the Vardar valley to sites located in central and eastern Macedonia – to the northern limits of the Mycenaean culture in period LH III B and at the beginning of LH III C (e.g. Heurtley 1939; Wardle 1980; Grammenos 1982; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1982; Hochstetter 1982; 1984; Hänsel 1989). Both in Serbia and Macedonia, an important turning point in the development of cultural traditions described above was the appearance of luted pottery, related to Middle Danubian Urnield and Belegiš II vessels (Garašanin M. 1996, 213–216; Stojić 1996, 254–255; 2000, 28) (ig. 27). On central Macedonian tell sites, a connection between the appearance of the irst luted vessels and the destruction of settlements from the initial segment of LH III C period was conirmed (Heurtley 1939, 35, 39; Wardle 1980, 242–244; Hänsel 1981, 214; 1989; 188–189, 337; 1997, 42– 44; Bouzek 1983, 272–273; Hochstetter 1984, 281–302; Falkenstein, in print) (ig. 27). Close relations with the materials of the Mediana-Brnjica group from the Morava basin are seen in the pottery of the Zimnicea-Plovdiv culture (Čerkovna group, according to Bernhard Hänsel). Finds belonging to this group were clustered mainly on both banks of the lower Danube, but single sites are also known from central and eastern Bulgaria (Hänsel 1976, 76–87; Morintz 1978, 52–59; Nikolov 1978; Nikolov, Zhekova 1982; Georgiev 1982, 198–200; Hochstetter 1984, 366–367; Palincaş 1996, 267–271). In the communities of this group in northern Bulgaria, the presence of luted pottery related to Carpathian Basin cultures is recorded (e.g. Comşa 1964; Alexandrescu 1978; Tončeva 1980, 24, 38–39; Gumă 1995, 109–110). Further inventories of this type are known from 115 northeastern (the Kamčija River valley – Tončeva 1980, 26–27, 54) and central Bulgaria. Some of them show close analogies to Belegiš II pottery (Čičkova 1968, 17–19; 1974, 74; Tončeva 1980, 29–31; Georgiev 1983, 263; Šalganova 1994, 189). Vase-shaped vessels with horn-like knobs surrounded by grooves (ig. 27:14–16), discovered in central Bulgaria 6 1 3 7 5 8 2 4 9 10 14 16 15 17 11 12 13 Fig. 2. Fluted pottery from southern Serbia and Macedonia (1–), northern Bosnia (10–12) and Bulgaria (13–1), and a knobbed vessel from Troy VIIb2: 1 — Šamac (Bouzek 1983), 2 — Skopije­Klučka (Mitrevski 1993), 3,5 — Axiohorion (Heurtley 13), 4,– — kastanas (hochstetter 184), 10–12 — donja Dolina (Marić 1964), 13 — Manole (Čičkova 1974), 14 — Gabarevo (Čičkova 1974), 15 — Asenovec (Tončeva 1980), 16 — Goljamo Dalčevo (Tončeva 1980), 17 — Troy (Tončeva 1980). Drawings are not to scale. 11 and on sites from the Kamčija valley, were probably younger (Dimitrov 1968; Čičkova 1974, 76; Georgiev 1983, 267; Tončeva 1980, 27–29; Gotzev 1994, 104). This type of vessel was particularly representative of inventories of the younger phase of the Gáva culture in Transylvania (see above), dated to the beginning of HaB, and of chronologically corresponding assemblages of the Insula Banului and the Babadag cultures from Dobrudza (see below). Traditionally, the basis for establishing the chronology of that variant of knobbed vessels was their presence among the so-called “barbarian pottery” inds from Troy VIIb2 (e.g. Dimitrov 1968; Hänsel 1976, 229–236). Based on more recent studies, it was concluded that this phase (Troy VIIb3) should be synchronized already with the beginning of the proto-geometric period (that is about the year 1000 BC – Pare 1999, 412–413, 418; Becks, Thumm 2001, 423–424). Such a chronology, even though it complicates the identiication of Troy VIIb with the legendary city of Priam, corresponds well to the dating of the above-mentioned knobbed vessels from Transylvania, Wallachian Plain and Bulgaria to the beginning of HaB. the end of the Late Bronze Age in the southern part of the Carpathian Basin and on the lower danube The Gornea-Kalakača group (alternatively: Bosut IIIa or Kalakača horizons) probably already developed in phase HaB1 (Hänsel, Medović 1991, ig. 4; Gumă 1995, 113), inluenced by the western Balkans and southeastern Alpine areas, with some participation of the local tradition of the Belegiš II culture (Medović 1991, 147; Gumă 1995, 112), and extended through the territories of Syrmia, northern Serbia and Banat (e.g. Medović 1978; 1988; Popović 1981; Jevtić 1983; Gumă 1993, 194–203; 1995, 112–114, plate 18; Popović, Vukmanović 1998, 33, ig. 29). The Gornea-Kalakača group is known almost exclusively from settlement materials, including those 11 originating from multilayer tell type sites, related mainly to the second and third phases of its development (the younger segment of period HaB). The decline of the Gornea-Kalakača group is connected with the spread of the Basarabi culture (Chochorowski 1993, 227; Gumă 1995, 113–114; Popović, Vukmanović 1998, 45–62). Groups with stamp-decorated pottery were developing at the end of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Early Iron Age in the lower Danube and Moldavia. The oldest stage of this circle, dated to the turn of phases HaA2 and HaB1 and to phase HaB1, is represented by the Pšeničevo I group from central Bulgaria and by associated inds from northern Bulgaria: the Babadag I group from Dobrudza and the Horlecani-Tămăoani group distinguished in southern Moldavia (e.g. Hänsel 1976, 195 [as the Čatalka group]; Morintz 1987, 70–71; Gotzev 1994, 98–99; Leviţki 1994a, 211). Apart from vessels decorated with incised lines and stamp imprints, these groups were characterized also by the appearance of luted pottery. In the subsequent stage of this culture circle’s development (period HaB, and particularly its younger segment), besides Bulgaria (Pšeničevo II group and related culture units) and the area at the mouth of the Danube (Babadag II), groups with stamped pottery occupied Oltenia, northwestern Bulgaria up to Đerdap to the west, the Moldavian Plateau and the Bessarabian Upland to the northeast. The western limits of this complex were marked at that period by the Insula Banului group (Morinzt, Roman 1969; Hänsel 1976, 118–169 [as the Ostrov group]; Gumă 1995, 114–115; Pare 1999, 412). The northeastern borderland comprised the Cozia-Saharna group from the Moldavian Plateau and the Bessarabian Upland, at present dated from the end or middle of the 10th century BC (Smirnova 1985, 36–41; Leviţki 1994a, 212; Kashuba 2000, 352–358). Finally, the third phase of stamped pottery groups already corresponds to the development of the Basarabi culture, dated from the beginning of the 8th to the middle of the 7th century BC (Vulpe 1986, 49; 1990, 10). This culture extended over vast areas from 118 Moldavia to the east,16 through the territories on the lower Danube to Banat and Syrmia to the west (Vulpe 1965; 1986; Popović, Vukmanović 1998, 61–62). Moreover, attention is drawn to the signiicant expansion of Basarabi culture pottery indings in the foreign cultural milieu, both at sites from the Carpathian Basin and in the territory of the Hallstatt culture, particularly in the East Alpine zone (e.g. Dular 1973, 554–558; Dobiat 1981, 194–195; Tasić 1988, 55). It is supposed that the process of cultural uniication – connected with the rise of the Basarabi culture and its extension to the west (especially to areas previously occupied by the Gornea-Kalakača group) – could have resulted from the inlow of nomadic groups originating from the eastern European steppes to the territories on the Lower Danube. This could, at least partially, be connected with military events (Chochorowski 1993, 227, 229, 241, 276). Such an approach would enable this phenomenon to be placed in the broader context of changes occurring in the western part of the Carpathian Basin and in the North and East Alpine zones, related to the formation of the Hallstatt culture. 16 Here as the Basarabi-Šoldaneshty group (Leviţki 1994a, 213) 3.2. pottery manufacturing patterns in the Carpathian Basin at the turn of the 2nd and 1st millennia BC Although pottery diferentiation is one of the fundamental criteria of basing traditional taxonomic divisions, the extension (territorial and temporal) of vessel forms and manner of their decoration rarely coincide with cultural unit borders. Pottery styles at the turn of the 2nd and 1st millennia BC in the Carpathian Basin are mainly of supra-regional character, and at the same time they may constitute only part of the pottery manufacture of individual, traditionally deined cultural units. In this book, I assume that each local community had its own pattern of pottery production, changing in time, comprising elements of local tradition and adapting others borrowed from the outside. When comparing local patterns of pottery manufacture (characteristic, for instance, of artifact series from individual sites) it can be noted that – generally speaking – they consist of certain groups of stylistic elements, either revealing a formal resemblance (e.g. a distinct dismemberment of vessel shape, emphasized by an appropriate decoration) or particularly one often coexisting with another. These features, especially micromorphology and decoration, make up a pottery style, enabling – again speaking generally – a speciic chronological and territorial range to be assigned. One can indicate the region of its origin, observe its evolution and combination with other trends and inally, determine its approximate frequency at particular sites and in regional inds groups. Below, I will present a description of several pottery styles deined in this way. Due to the character of pottery production in the period of interest to us here (i.e. lack of specialized crafts production) that resulted in every single vessel being more or less unique, distinguishing pottery styles must 11 120 remain an efort based on an intuitive and subjective analysis of available sources. However, in the inal part of this chapter, I will present an attempt to verify the conclusions using statistical analysis methods. tumulus-post-otomani style (igs. 10–12, 13:1–11, 14–16) This style developed at the turn of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (BrA2/BrB1–BrB1) as a result of a synthesis of the stylistic traditions typical for the inal phase of the Otomani culture (already then showing a mixing of stylistic traits of diferent Middle Bronze Age culture groups – Müller 1999, 77–79) with the eastern Tumulus groups. This pottery variant is characteristic of the middle and upper Tisza River and the Mureş River basins in the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (LB I–II). Although the majority of forms and ornamental motifs can be detected in the entire area where this style existed, regional diferentiations in their frequency can be noted. This is due to the difering signiicance of its two main components (the Tumulus and Otomani cultures), other local cultural groups representing the spiral-knobbed (Spiralbuckel) pottery tradition of the Middle Bronze Age (the Suciu de Sus and Wietenberg cultures) and inluences of the Danubian cultures (Belegiš I, Dubovac-Cîrna), genetically related to the Middle Bronze Age tradition in Transdanubia (the Pannonian incrusted pottery culture, the Vatya culture) (ig. 28). Outside the core area, this pottery – as a clear element of cultural inluences – can be traced to the territories of the upper Dniester River. Among the taxonomic units distinguished, the Tumulus-post-Otomani style was characteristic of: the older phase of the Piliny culture, the Berkesz-Demecser group and the Suciu de Sus sites in Slovakia, the Egyek group, the Hajdúbagos group, the Cehăluţ group, phase Lăpuş I, the Rákóczifalva group, the older phase of the Igriţa group, the Păuliş group, the Bădeni III-Deva group and the Buza-Teiuş horizon (compare Borofka 1999, 114). 121 Maramureş middle Tisza area Crişana Mureş and east Transylvania Igrici Battonya Meőcsát 1 Tiszafüred 2 4 3 Safárikovo 5 Nagybátony Vizlás 7 Zagyvapalfalva Včelince 6 9 8 Bukkaranyos 10 Demecser 11 Alsóberecki 12 Lastovce 13 Nyíregyháza Vajdácska 14 Zemplínske Kopčany 15 17 Hajdúbagos Igriţa 16 19 Pişcolt Biharea 18 Rákóczifalva 21 20 Acâş Ciceu Crasna Nicula 22 24 23 25 Bădeni Cluj-Becaş Pauliş Pecica w-wa 1 27 28 26 29 Lăpuş Româneşti Libotin 30 32 Oarţa de Jos Culciu Mare 31 34 33 Fig. 28. diagram showing the presence of selected vessel forms and decorative motifs in a group of sites from phases LB I and LB II situated in the tisza River basin (compare appendix 1). Some of the most characteristic forms representing the Tumulus tradition include: amphoras with bulbous belly and cylindrical or conical neck (igs. 10:1–2, 11:20), bowls with protrusions on the lip, sharply proiled cups (igs. 10:4,6–8, 11:14,23–26, 12:4,12, 15:13,16,31, 16:10–11; e.g. Furmánek 1977, 312; Soroceanu 1991, 81, 126; Borofka 1994, 154–158, 214, 251, 279), and also a decoration with cross-hatching triangles and vertical and arc-like ribs (igs. 10:2–3,5,7, 11:20, 14:21, 15:5,26,28–29; compare e.g. Kemenczei 1967, 271; Kustár, Wicker 2002, 183). In pottery from the end phases of the Tell cultures, one can identify prototypes for the richly decorated cups (the so called Streda nad Bodrogom type – igs. 10:9–12, 11:4–5,10–11, 12:5,9, 15:14,35; 16:15; compare Koós 2003, 304–305), bowls with large knobs pushed out from the inside of the vessel (igs. 10:14, 11:27, 12:14, 15:18, 16:8,27) and for a majority of the ornamental motifs. 122 8 15 4 7 m a.s.l. 9 2 1000 500 0 100 km 1 14 6 3 10 12 11 13 5 Fig. 29. The range of cups decorated with horizontal lutes (for site list and comments see appendix 2). Just the rich ornamentation is a characteristic feature of Tumulus-postOtomani style. The majority of vessels are decorated non-schematically or even chaotically, using various decoration techniques simultaneously. Flutes were used – mainly vertical on bellies and horizontal on necks, also sporadically in a turban-like arrangement (igs. 10:12–13, 11:1–3,9,15,19,6,10, 12:1– 2, 15:2,6, 16:2,5,7,16,26,28; compare Borofka 1994, 268; 1999, 121–124). Cups decorated with lutes on almost the entire area of the vessel’s walls are 123 known from Transylvania. This manner of decorating originates from the tradition of the Middle Bronze Age (Bader 1978, 136, Soroceanu 1984, 65, 71; Máthé 2001, 40–41), and in a later period it is also present in the pottery of the Velatice-Čaka and Belegiš II styles (ig. 29). Small knobs are common, surrounded by grooves, pointing down or up, as well as larger knobs pushed out from the inside, which gives the vessel a quadrate outline in projection (igs. 10:13, 11:27, 12:1–2,11–12,14, 15:18,22,26,35, 16:3,18). Lines engraved horizontally or spirally (mainly on vessel necks) are sometimes – particularly in the case of Transylvanian pottery – illed with incrustation paste. Covering the entire ield with engraving is not uncommon as well (especially in the so-called arcade ornament – igs. 12:13, 16:9,14,31; compare e.g. Soroceanu 1991, 76; Borofka 1999, 114–121). The range of decorating techniques is supplemented by bands of round or triangle stamp imprints (the latter appears especially in northern Transylvania), sometimes forming separate motifs such as crossing lines or rosettes (igs. 11:1–3,9–10,20,27, 12:5, 13:7,10, 15:1–4,29, 16:4,13,15,23,27; compare Borofka 1994a, 7–8). In the case of thick-walled pottery – particularly in Transylvania – a custom of smearing the walls using a brush (Besenstrich in German) is observed, recorded in this area already in the Early Bronze Age (Borofka 1994, 207). the late piliny-kyjatice style (ig. 26:1–6,8,10–12,14,17,18–23,26) This style developed in the Piliny cultural environment, perhaps in connection with the appearance of other trends in luted pottery on the middle Tisza (the Velatice-Čaka and Belegiš II styles – see below). It can be briely deined as a synthesis of an older tradition (the Tumulus-post-Otomani style) with a trend speciic to various cultural groups with luted pottery. This style is represented by various vessel forms (vases, amphoras, cups, and deep bowls) with a clearly distinguished neck and a biconical belly. Some of this pottery reveals technological features typical for cultural groups from “the 124 luted pottery circle” (blackened, polished outer surface). Ornamentation is dominated by vertical lutes on the upper part of the belly. On the other hand, both stamped ornament in the form of bands or rosettes on the neck (ig. 26:3,5,8,14,17–19), as well as decoration with knobs underlined by grooves (ig. 26:8,19) represent the older tradition. Other motifs, such as concentric circles (ig. 26:21) appear sporadically on the vessels’ bellies. In its canonical form, the late Piliny-Kyjatice style was present during the younger phase of the Piliny culture, the transitional Piliny-Kyjatice horizon or eventually in the early Kyjatice culture assemblages, that is, from phase LB III (HaA). In phase LB IV, this style was subject to signiicant transformation, allowing younger inds to be easily identiied. Among other things, the transformation consisted in replacing vertical grooves with diagonal lutes and the appearance of horizontal lines on necks. It is supposed that the presence of these motifs resulted from the stylistic inluences of the Tisza River basin (Furmánek 1982, 114; Kemenczei 1984, 44). Besides the above-mentioned groups, pottery of the late Piliny-Kyjatice style was found within the range of the Middle Danubian Urnield culture (ig. 8:20; compare Patek 1961, 67–68; 1968, 114; Paulík 1962b, 118– 122; Kemenczei 1970, 55; Romsauer, Veliačik 1987, 299, 301). Certain elements of this style can be also traced to some of the younger indings of the Igriţa group (ig. 13:20). velatice-Čaka style (igs. 6:1–4,8–15,19–21, 7:1–6,10–11,14,20–24, 9:1–3,8–10,13–14,18–19, 22:4,11) Pottery of the Velatice-Čaka style is characterized by an elegant simplicity of decoration, based exclusively on the luting technique, used to emphasize vessel tectonics. The particular parts of the vessel (lip, neck, belly, sometimes base) are very distinct. Decoration is usually limited to the belly and lip (faceting). Sometimes the handles are also decorated (grooving, twisting). 125 other luted pottery other types of pottery other luted pottery other types of pottery Fig. 30. the frequency diagram of selected vessel forms on Čaka (left) and velatice (right) culture sites. types representing the velatice-Čaka style are marked black, types assigned to the tumulus tradition are marked light grey (compare appendix 3). This style developed at the end of the late Tumulus culture and the beginning of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle in Lower Austria, Moravia, Burgenland and southwestern Slovakia (the turn of phases BrD and HaA1 – the end of phase LB II). During the HaA period, most features of this style disappeared. However some (faceted lips) still continued into the younger phase of the central European Urnield. To the southeast, the Velatice-Čaka style indings spread relatively early (BrD/HaA1) to northern Transdanubia and the southern parts of the Great Hungarian Plain (cemetery at Csorva). Finds from territories on the Tisza River (from the zone where mixing occurred with the Belegiš II style – see below), assemblages from southern Transdanubia, northern Croatia and Slavonia (the Zagreb group), as well as traces of this style’s inluence in Transylvania and the northern Balkans are assigned to period HaA (see chapter 3.1). 12 It should be noted that in its core area, that is, in assemblages from the early phase of the Middle Danubian Urnield culture, Velatice-Čaka style vessels constitute only part of the pottery discovered there (ig. 30). In the materials of the Velatice and Čaka cultures, a signiicant portion includes pottery also representing the Tumulus traditions – such as amphoras with a cylindrical neck or softly proiled bowls and cups (igs. 6:4–7, 7:7,15– 16,21; compare e.g. Točík, Paulík 1960, 84–88; Paulík 1963, 288–293, 317; Říhovský 1982; Ožďáni 1986, 47) – and vessels linked with external inluences, from the milieu of the Lusatian culture (especially biconical vases – igs. 6:16–18, 7:8; Lochner 1991a, 164; diferent opinion: Říhovský 1982, 15, 39–40; Plesl 1991, 60–69; Dohnal 1995, 210) and from the Tisza basin cultures (ig. 6:26–30). The coexistence of pottery representing older traditions and the Velatice-Čaka style was also conirmed in areas occupied by this style during the HaA period, among others in northern Croatia (Vrdoljak 1994, 16, 18, 20, 29, 32–33, 35, 37, igs. 9–12). Among the Velatice-Čaka style pottery, regional diferences are seen in the frequency of particular vessel types. In the area of the Velatice culture, as well as in southern Transdanubia and Croatia, forms with cylindrical neck and a spreading, faceted lip (igs. 6:1–3, 9:2–3,13), bowls with rounded belly decorated with lutes (igs. 6:11–15, 7:14, 9:9,14) and the so-called Velatice-type cups (igs. 6:19–21, 7:13, 9:10,18–19) are more frequent. Forms such as vessels with funnel-like splaying necks (igs. 6:8–9, 7:1–3) and luted jugs (ig. 7:4–6,10–11) spread more to the east (the Čaka culture, sites from northern Transdanubia). Belegiš II style (igs. 17:15–28, 18–19, 21–22) Contrary to the trends described above, distinguishing the Belegiš II style is based not on the common traits shared by diferent vessel categories, but on the presence of several leading forms. The most important is 12 a biconical vase with spreading lip, decorated by double knobs (pointing upwards and downwards), vertical or diagonal lutes on the belly and horizontal ones on the neck (Forenbaher 1988). This form shows a signiicant degree of standardization and despite the existence of slightly difering variants, identical vessels of this type from the extreme ends of the Belegiš II style territorial range can be easily indicated. The second characteristic vessel type of this style is bowls with rims bent inward, faceted or often decorated with horizontal ribs. This form – characteristic for numerous Carpathian Basin groups starting with phase LB III – was probably formed in the Belegiš II cultural environment, where it already appeared in the transitional phase from period BrD (ig. 19:24). The described stylistic trend developed at the turn of phases LB II and LB III in the Belegiš II cultural environment, that is, in the areas of eastern Slavonia, Syrmia, Banat and northern (Danubian) Serbia. The Belegiš II style was particularly characteristic of phase LB III, although it is assumed that it survived in phase LB IV (the beginning of period HaB) in diferent areas. Some elements of this style also survived in pottery from the Early Iron Age. Within the Carpathian Basin and neighboring areas, the Belegiš II style spread to the middle and (partially) upper Tisza, the Wallachian Plain territory (particularly Oltenia) and Moldavia (the Kišinev-Corlăteni group). Single inds are also known from the area of the Middle Danubian Urnield culture and the Balkans (igs. 6:26–28, 27:1,13) – from the milieu of the Donja-Brnjica (the Morava River valley) and Pšeničevo I (central Bulgaria) cultures. Its inluences are also found in assemblages from Transylvania, particularly in the younger materials of the Igriţa group (igs. 13:19,23,25) (see chapter 3.1). Regional diferentiation in the frequency of some vessel forms and decorative motifs can be observed in the areas where the Belegiš II style existed. In the territory where it developed, two groups of inds are distinguished – a western and an eastern one (ig. 31; compare Forenbaher 1988, 29–30). In the irst group, biconical vases of more dumpy proportions 128 56 43 m a.s.l. 4 1000 27 500 40 0 23 26 29 34 80 km 39 8 6 51 9 44 35 45 1 16 37 32 14 52 58 54 42 33 60 3 46 47 2 31 41 12 22 13 10 53 57 48 7 20 38 55 11 17 28 24 36 21 18 49 19 50 5 15 25 30 Fig. 31. the range of selected vessel forms characteristic of assemblages from phase LB III in Banat, northern Serbia, Slavonia and southern transdanubia (compare appendix 4). (ig. 18:1–3) are predominant. They are accompanied by vessels – typical of that region – with horn-like knobs on the handles (ig. 18:6), bowls with biconical bellies (ig. 19:8) or with triangle ledges on the lip (ig. 18:12,14) and by pottery typical of the Velatice-Čaka style (vessels with cylindrical neck and the so-called Velatice-type cups). In the eastern, “Banat” variant, more slender biconical vases, often decorated with garland motif on the neck (ig. 18:17–19) predominate. Bowls with inverted and faceted rim are also more numerous (ig. 18:23). Pottery of the eastern group is more diferentiated with regard to the ornamental motifs used. Good examples are the inventories of pottery deposits from the barrow mound in Susani, 12 46 9 13 51 10 29 47 36 5 21 27 12 1 30 25 35 45 22 48 43 A 17 23 14 15 m a.s.l. 31 1000 54 39 500 0 53 2 50 34 19 100 km 16 8 7 44 41 48 33 26 42 20 ? 18 24 3 6 32 37 4 38 28 52 40 55 Fig. 32. The range of luted pottery inds on the lower Danube and in Moldavia (site list and comments in appendix 5). Timiş district (ig. 22:14–24, Stratan, Vulpe 1977), where the inluences of the Tumulus-post-Otomani traditions are evident (decoration with stamp or presence of knobs surrounded by incised grooves). In the territory of 130 Banat, a decoration in the form of twisted vessel handles can also be found, a popular technique in diferent central European groups from the end of the 2nd millennium BC (Bouzek 1992; Kossack 2002). Pottery typical of the Belegiš II style also appears in assemblages from the Great Hungarian Plain, Wallachian Plain and Moldavia, dated to the HaA period (igs. 32–33). In the latter of the above-mentioned regions, the transfer of an entire set of vessel forms and decorative motifs in their “pure” form from the home area of the Belegiš II style is observed (ig. 21). In the Wallachian Plain, especially in its eastern region, the presence of the discussed style is manifested only by single vessels (ig. 19:13,22) or by stylistic elements in pottery representing diferent traditions. Stylistic diferentiation of ceramics from phase LB III (HaA) in the Great Hungarian Plain is particularly complicated.17 I will now pay more attention to this issue. Proceeding from a mapping of the sites from the territories on the Tisza River (ig. 33) dated to that segment of time, one can distinguish several concentrations. The irst includes sites located on both banks of the lower Mureş and in the area between this river and the Körös. The second includes sites from the area where the Mureş River lows into the Tisza and west of the latter. Further up the Tisza, a distinct drop in the density of settlement is observed – single sites can be indicated only around the Zagyva mouth. The next distinct cluster includes sites located on the Tisza River between the mouths of the Sajó and Bodrog rivers. Only iso- 17 Recently published results of excavations at a settlement in Polgar yielded new data on the chronology of the phenomena discussed here. A well was discovered at this site, dated by radiocarbon (2σ) to the 1430–1210 BC range (Szabó 2007, 158, 165). According to the presently accepted absolute chronology of the Late Bronze Age in the Tisza basin, this would correspond to phase LB II (BrD) rather than to LB III (HaA). However, it should be noted that the site yielded a large series of Tumulus pottery. Among other things, vessels found in the well may be assigned to this latter tradition (ibidem, 156–157, 165, ig. 7). It is thus probable that the dating obtained corresponds rather to the horizon of settlement at this site, preceding the period of the development of groups with luted pottery. 131 lated pottery inds are known from the upper Tisza basin. However, one should take into account the possibility that this may be due to the worse state of published sources from that area. 1 2 Piliny 6 5 7 culture 4 8 9 10 13 3 12 11 14 21 22 gr 28 23 24 2526 29 31 33 34 32 35 30 – Velatice-Čaka style 44 36 iţa 17-18 Igr 20 ou 27 16 19 p 15 38 41 37 m a.s.l. 1000 – Belegiš II style – Tumulus–post-Otomani style and the younger stage of Piliny culture 500 0 100 km Fig. 33. pottery inventories on the tisza River from phase LB III and contemporaneous inds from central Transylvania (for site list see appendix , sites are numbered according to the table in ig. 34). 43 42 39 40 132 Figure 34 presents a diferentiation of pottery originating from the analyzed sites. The sources were divided into four groups – vessels representing the Velatice-Čaka style, pottery of the Belegiš II style, forms characteristic of the older traditions (the Tumulus-post-Otomani style) and of the younger phase of the Piliny culture, and inally local forms, without analogies outside the discussed group of sources. Conclusions from the stylistic analysis based on this division can be recapitulated as follows: (i) in phase LB III, the territories on the lower and middle Tisza were a contact zone between the two most dynamically developing pottery manufacturing traditions at that time: the Velatice-Čaka and Belegiš II styles; (ii) pottery of the Velatice-Čaka style is particularly numerous in the southern part of the analyzed territory, where it “penetrates” deeply into areas on the Mureş River – such a distribution suggests that potential inluences could run especially from southern Transdanubia or from the Zagreb group area; (iii) among the pottery representing the Middle Danubian Urnield tradition – apart from the leading variants of the Velatice-Čaka style – types exist belonging to the Tumulus tradition, as well as forms appearing only during period HaA; (iv) the range of Belegiš II style pottery follows the course of the Tisza River; (v) the stylistic “purity” of vessels representing this tradition remains unchanged up the river even at distances of 250–300 km from its home area, which suggests the dynamic character of how the Belegiš II style spread; (vi) pottery representing the Tumulus-post-Otomani style was found on some sites on the Tisza River, therefore one may assume that a chronological “point of contact” existed between the phenomenon discussed here and the groups representing this style; (vii) single inds (Gelej, Muhi, Jászbéreny) of the Velatice-Čaka or Belegiš II style pottery are known from Piliny culture cemeteries, which permits the younger Piliny phase to be synchronized with the process discussed here; at the same time, we may assume that the area of dense Piliny settlement constituted a barrier for the spread of both stylistic trends. site source Velatice-Čaka style Belegiš II style local forms site source Tumuluspost-Otomani style u p p e r Ti s z a a r e a 3. Viss, kom. BAZ Kemenczei 1984 4. Demecser, kom. SSB cemetery of Berkesz-Demecser group Kovács 1967 Zagyva mouth region Zatlukal, Zatlukal 1937 7. Emőd, kom. BAZ Hellebrandt 1991 8. Polgár, kom. HB Szabó 2004a 9. Igrici, kom. BAZ Hellebrandt 1990; Szabó 2004 12. Tiszacsege kom. HB cemetery of younger stage of Piliny culture te r r i t o r i e s b e t w e e n t h e m o u t h s o f K ö r ö s a n d M u r e ş Sajó mouth region cemetery of younger stage of Piliny culture Kemenczei 1965 Kemenczei 1975; 1989a 14. Tiszabő, kom. JNS Kemenczei 1975 15. Tiszapüspöki, kom. JNS 16. Csongrád Tompa 1937 10. Gelej, kom. BAZ Kemenczei 1966 Szabó 2004 5. Taktabáj, kom. BAZ 6. Muhi, kom. BAZ 13. Jászbéreny kom. JNS, gr. 40 Szabó 2004a 17. SzentesBelsőecser, kom. Cs. Szabó 1996 Belegiš II style local forms site source Tumuluspost-Otomani style cemetery of younger stage of Piliny culture t e r r i t o r i e s b e t w e e n t h e m o u t h s o f Kö r ö s a n d M u r e ş 2. Mukačevo Velatice-Čaka style 18. SzentesNegyhegy, kom. Cs. Szabó 1996 19. Kömpöc, kom. Cs. Szabó 1996 20. Pusztamérges, kom. Cs. Trogmayer 1963; Szabó 1996 21. Csorva, kom. Cs. Trogmayer 1963 Belegiš II style Velatice-Čaka style local forms Tumuluspost-Otomani style 22. Jánossállás kom. Cs Szabó 1996 23. Hódmezővásárhely, kom. Cs. Szabó 1996 24. Deszk, kom. Cs. Szabó 1996 25. Szőreg, kom. Cs., st. C Szabó 1996 26. Szőreg, kom. Cs., st. E Szabó 1996 27. Sarkadkeresztur, kom. Békés Jankovits 2004 28. Mezőkovácshaza, kom. Békés Kemenczei 1984 29. Battonya, kom. Békés Kállay 1986 ? 30. Periam, jud. Arad Soroceanu 1991 31. Pecica, jud. Arad Kemenczei 1991 32. Arad-Gai Rusu et al. 1999 Szabó 2004 33. Sântana, jud. Arad Rusu et al. 1999 133 Fig. 34. Pottery inds dated to LB III from territories on the Tisza River. Closed ind groups are shown on a grey background. Site numbers are shown on the map in ig. 33. pottery of Wietenberg and Otomani cultures 134 The inds discussed in this chapter do not form a coherent whole – they represent several coexisting stylistic traditions. They cannot be assigned either to the Belegiš II culture or to the central European Urnield. At the same time, they cannot be classiied as a separate taxonomic unit. The present analysis suggests that they are not the efect of a gradual development of an older cultural tradition (taking place in diferent parts of the Tisza basin) but rather the result of a dynamic process. Therefore, the interpretation of the inds from the territories on the Tisza River proposed here is closer to the earlier theories about migration (particularly presented by Tibor Kemenczei [1975; 1984]) rather than to the concept of “standardization tendencies in pottery” recently proposed by Gábor Szabó (1996; 2004). Gáva I style (ig. 23:1–9) This style developed in phase LB III in the upper Tisza basin (northeastern part of the Great Hungarian Plain, Eastern Slovakian Lowland, Košice Basin, Crişana, and northern Transylvania) (ig. 35). A large portion of its range coincides with the territory of the early phase of the Gáva culture, but it also covers the younger phase of the Lăpuş group (without doubt, a separate unit diferent from the Gáva culture, if only with regard to the presence of barrow cemeteries) (see chapter 3.1). Vessels representing the Gáva I style have also been recorded on the lower Tisza (Szabó 1996, 54–55, ig. 49:1), while their connection with fragments of knobbed vessels from southern Transylvania and northern Moldavia is controversial (e.g. László 1994, 50, 194–195; Pankau 2004, 78). Leading forms of the Gáva I style are vases with knobs pushed from the inside, horizontal lute decorations on the neck and diagonal, arc-like or spiral lutes on the belly (igs. 23:1–2, 5) and low proiled cups (ig. 23:8– 9). Other types included vessels with protuberances on the rim (ig. 23:3) y c t ul ur e m a.s.l. 4 2 Pi 27 26 14 1000 500 6 li n 135 32 31 12 0 24 3 19 7 8 33 13 10 16 23 22 o 29 up 9 ța g r 11 100 km 21 20 18 25 A 1 Ig ri 5 17 15 30 28 Fig. 35. Range of selected Gáva I style forms in the eastern Carpathian Basin; a — inds of horn­like knobs decorated with surrounding grooves (site list in appendix ). and bowls decorated inside with surroundi ng lutes (ig. 23:6). The two latter forms also appeared in younger assemblages dated to phase LB IV. The style described here probably developed on the basis of the older tradition of the Tumulus-post-Otomani stylistics, where decorative motifs, such as grooved knobs pushed from inside, horizontal lutes on the necks or triangle protuberances on the lip, were already present (e.g. 13 Borofka 1999, 124–125). A good illustration of this process can be seen in the stylistic change between pottery of the older and younger phases of the Lăpuş necropolis (Kacsó 1975, 61–62; 2001, 235). At the same time, it cannot be excluded that this process was also inluenced by other luted pottery stylistic traditions appearing on the middle Tisza (the VelaticeČaka and Belegiš II styles). Gáva II style (ig. 24) Contrary to the style described above, Gáva II was not a local phenomenon, but a widespread trend in the entire eastern part of the Carpathian Basin and also partially outside the Carpathian Arch (upper Dniester basin, northern Moldavia). This pottery is traditionally considered as typical of the younger phase of the Gáva culture, or of its local variants such as: the Holihrady, Graniceşti and Reci-Mediaş groups and the Remetea Mare type (compare e.g. Paulík 1968; Kemenczei 1984; Vasiliev, Aldea, Ciugudean 1991; Pankau 2004). This stylistic tradition developed in phase LB IV, probably as a result of the development of Gáva I style, with the participation of other trends in pottery manufacture (Belegiš II style, younger phase of the Middle Danubian Urnield). In the transitional period preceding the Early Bronze Age (the younger segment of period HaB and the beginning of period HaC), regional diferentiation of this pottery group increased considerably. On the northern peripheries of the Gáva II style range, local variants are distinguished from this time (the Somotor type, the Mahala IV phase or the pre-Kuštanovice horizon), characterized by, among others, impoverished ornamentation (see chapter 3.1). The leading forms of Gáva II style include: vessels with a distinct foot and everted rim (ig. 24:1–2), vessels with a funnel-like neck (ig. 24:7–9), double-bodied vessels (ig. 24:6,10–11) and various variants of bowls or small cups with a wavy-shaped lip (ig. 24:18–19,23). The latter form is 13 encountered particularly in the northern part of the Gáva II style range (ig. 36), while a form typical of the Transylvanian territory is kidneyshaped cups (ig. 24:24; see Pankau 2004, 65–67). Flutes dominate among the decorative motifs: diagonal, horizontal, vertical or garland-like on the belly, and much more rarely, horizontal on the neck. Decoration of the inner parts of bowls with lutes and faceting of the everted rims is often encountered. Particularly characteristic motifs representing other decoration techniques include vertical ribs applied on the bellies (ig. 24:18), m a.s.l. 1000 0 100 km 500 Fig. 3. Range of selected Gáva II style vessel forms (according to pankau 2004). 138 knobs pushed out from vessel walls (ig. 24:14) and wavy lines made with a multi-toothed tool (ig. 24:19). The surface of thick-walled pottery was smeared using a brush, and in the later period (end of HaB) coarsened and decorated with cordons or small knobs (e.g. Smirnova 1974, 370–379, igs. 2–3; László 1994, 193). It should be noted that such decorative motifs as horizontal lutes on the upper parts of the bellies, horizontal grooves on the inner walls of the bowls and diagonal grooves on the lips of semispherical bowls (which replaced earlier faceting) are not exclusively characteristic of the Gáva II style. They constitute a certain supra-cultural element, found in period HaB in the entire northern Carpathian Basin (e.g. in the Kyjatice culture and in the younger phase of the Middle Danubian Urnields). Stylistic traditions in pottery manufacture in the view of a cluster analysis The aim of this analysis is to determine whether the described group of sources contains stylistic elements that – regardless of the context – appeared together and with similar intensity. For such a question, cluster analysis is the most appropriate tool to examine the data. Cluster analysis, however, requires that the data be prepared in an appropriate manner. For each case examined (here – a stylistic element) a set of numeric values describing its properties should be provided. In the present study, these values describe the contexts in which the element occurs in the entire set of sources, and more precisely, the frequency of its occurrence together with other stylistic elements. An initial stage of the study consisted in distinguishing 54 stylistic elements (micro-morphologic features and decorative motifs) and determining their frequency on 162 archeological sites from periods BrC–HaB in the territory of the Carpathian Basin (list 8). The criterion for choosing the sites was the number of published materials. In some cases, artifacts from 13 the older and younger phases of a site’s functioning were distinguished. Particular sites were treated as closed assemblages, as was already done in some other pottery analyses (e.g. Borofka 1994). A set of vessels from the entire site was treated as a sample of a local model of pottery styles (speciic for a certain small population). Only the presence or absence of a speciic stylistic element was taken into account, and not the number of vessels showing this element. This improved the comparability of sites yielding relatively small numbers of inds with sites where large series were found. In particular, settlement and sepulchral data could be compared. Data from the table presenting the number of coexistent cases of 54 analyzed elements were next converted using the ainity coeicient formula with the corrections proposed by Thomas Saile (1999). The result obtained (K* coeicient within the range 0 to 1) allows the frequency to be determined of how often given elements coexist. At the same time, differences caused by a very high or very low frequency of some stylistic elements in the entire analyzed set are eliminated, although not completely. The values of K* coeicient obtained for individual stylistic elements can be presented in the form of a diagram (ig. 37). The curves relect the frequency of the coexistence of a given element with all other elements. This 1K* 0, 4 3 (n 33) 21 (n 38) 24 (n 56) 41 (n 38) 43 (n 57) 44 (n 27) 45 (n 29) 0, 2 49 (n 25) 50 (n 30) 0, 8 0, 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Fig. 3. exemplary curves (cluster d in the cluster analysis, compare ig. 38), characterized by similar values of the afinity coeficient for individual variables. Arrows below the diagram indicate areas where the curve has a “natural” tendency to rise or fall, caused by a very high or very low number of a given element in the whole set. 140 permits a grouping of not only elements with a particularly high coexistence rate, but also those having similar (equally low or high) ainity coeicients with other elements. In the next step of the study, the table of ainity coeicients was subject to a cluster analysis. One can attempt to interpret the obtained result – in the form of a dendrogram – together with the conclusions from the stylistic analysis presented above (ig. 38). At distance values of around 1.7, three main groups of stylistic elements become noticeable. The irst (on the left side of the diagram – clusters A–E) contains the most often encountered features in the cultural environments developed after the Tumulus circle expansion (assemblages of Tumulus-post-Otomani and Late Piliny-Kyjatice styles in the Tisza basin and older traditions within the Belegiš II style). The second group (clusters F–L) contains stylistic elements characteristic of the trends developed during the period of development of luted pottery groups (Velatice-Čaka, Gáva I and Gáva II styles, and features of Belegiš II style that do not represent the older tradition). Finally, the third group is a compact concentration (marked by letter M on the diagram) of three decorative motifs: spiral ornamentation, stroked arcs (the so-called arcade ornament) and bands of triangle stamp. Earlier in this book, those decoration methods were assigned to the Tumulus-post-Otomani style and represent there the tradition of Tell cultures from the Middle Bronze Age. More narrow “beams” of features appear at distances of around 1.5 and 1.25. The latter ones can be characterized in more detail. The irst of these (A) contains three elements (biconical vessels, doubled knobs and horizontal lists on lower parts of vessels) characteristic for the Belegiš II style. However, within it they represent an older tradition from the period of the development of the Belegiš I culture. This group is connected with two more clusters, grouping such motifs as vertical and diagonal lutes and bowls with inverted rim (B), and also bowls with triangular protuberances on lips, footed vessels and sharply proiled vessels (cluster C) (linked with the Tumulus traditions). Two concentrations are <1,5 <1,25 1 48 A 47 tree of average linkeage euclidean distance 5 6 23 B 31 37 14 C 8 3 49 44 24 45 52 50 21 41 43 53 D E 10 17 18 26 30 F 15 2 51 G 27 20 4 46 H 12 28 54 35 16 9 I 19 36 J 25 7 L 29 39 33 34 K 32 38 40 42 M 1 48 47 5 23 6 31 8 37 14 3 24 21 49 44 50 45 43 41 10 17 18 52 53 2 15 26 30 27 51 4 46 9 12 35 54 16 19 36 20 28 25 29 32 7 39 33 34 13 22 38 40 42 11 13 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 11 22 distance 2,0 2,2 2,4 2,6 Fig. 38. Cluster analysis of a set of decorative motifs and micro-morphological features of pottery from the Carpathian Basin at the turn of the 2nd and 1st millennia BC. For a list of analyzed sites, see appendix 8. 141 142 more distinct: cluster D, with stamp motifs, knobs surrounded by grooves and arc-like ribs, and cluster E with two-handled vessels and ornament of knobs on the handles. This group of ornamental motifs and morphological features was typical of the Tumulus-post-Otomani style starting from the turn of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (BrB1), but it still appears in assemblages from the younger phase of the Piliny culture or in the Igriţa group from phase LB III (HaA). Five subsequent clusters represent the stylistic trends with luted pottery. Cluster F contains motifs (horizontal lutes on the necks and garlandlike grooves) known mainly from the Belegiš II, Gáva I and Gáva II styles. The next cluster (G) contains two elements originating from the Middle Bronze Age tradition (horizontal lines on the necks and knobs pushed out from inside of the vessel) but present also in the Gáva I style and then in various local trends from period HaB. Cluster H groups two features (vessels with rounded belly and horn-like knobs) particularly characteristic of the Gáva II style. Finally, clusters I and J contain elements that are especially frequent in Velatice-Čaka style (e.g. faceting of lips or the manner of fastening a handle typical of Velatice-type cups). The latter three of the above-mentioned clusters share such decorative motifs as twisted handle and horizontal lutes on the upper part of the bowls, close to the lip. A subsequent distinct cluster (K) includes stylistic elements (horizontal grooves at the base of necks, diagonal incising of the bowls lips, lutes on inner surface of the vessels) characteristic of various trends from the end of the Bronze Age (Gáva II, pottery of the Kyjatice culture and of the younger phase of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle). The last cluster (L) comprises two motifs (bowls and cups with soft proiles and hatched triangles) typical of assemblages of the Tumulus culture in its “pure” form. Summarizing the observations collected here, one can describe the development of pottery manufacture in the second half of the 2nd millennium BC and the beginning of the 1st millennium BC in the Carpathian Basin in the categories of a long-lasting presence and mutual penetration 143 of several main traditions. In the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, the trend connected with the Tumulus circle was present in the northwestern part of that area, while a much more diversiied and rich tradition of cultures from the Middle Bronze Age existed in the eastern part. In the central part of the Carpathian Basin, a meridionally located zone of mixed inluences was formed. This division remained noticeable even after the appearance of luted pottery styles. The simplicity and standardization of vessel forms is still more distinct in the western part of the discussed area (Velatice-Čaka style) than in the Tisza basin, where, apart from lutes, other decoration techniques were popular as well. A change took place only at the end of the Bronze Age (HaB), when the division between stylistic traditions in the Carpathian Basin occurred not meridionally but in parallel. It separated the northern part, where trends with luted pottery still continued, from the southern part, where styles with stamp-decorated pottery became predominant. 145 ChApteR 4 the LAte BRoNze AGe IN the WeSteRN CARpAthIANS – A pReSeNtAtIoN oF ARCheoLoGICAL ReCoRdS 4.1 the characterization of Late Bronze Age findings in the southern approaches to the Western Carpathians To interpret the relations between the Carpathian Basin communities and peoples inhabiting the territories north of the Carpathians in the Late Bronze Age, it is necessary to shed more light on the cultural situation in the piedmont areas of Slovakia and the Moravian Gate. The populations occupying these territories formed the northern periphery of “the Bronze Age world” in the Carpathian Basin, described in the preceding chapter. On the other hand, they lived in the same landscape zones (mountain valleys and highlands) as the populations inhabiting the northern slopes of the Western Carpathians. Contacts between these populations were possible through passes in the eastern Beskid Mountains and Spiš to the east and the Moravian Gate to the west. Also, northern inluences penetrated southwards through these passes, especially from the upper Vistula basin. In the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (period BrC – 15th–14th century BC), this latter territory was occupied by communities of the TrzciniecKomarow complex, genetically linked with the North European Plain zone (e.g. Kośko, Czebreszuk 1998). Artifact assemblages from the upper Vistula basin, originating from an already later period are assigned to the Lusatian culture (in the broad sense of this term as used in Polish archeol- 14 ogy) – a complex of various cultural phenomena, but with a set of common features and constituting the northeastern border of the European Urnield area (Gedl 1975; 1988, 63–64; Gediga 1980; 1983; Dąbrowski 1980, 44–46; 1988, 85–89; Bukowski 1980, 58–73; 1988). Below, I will shortly characterize Late Bronze Age archeological inds from the piedmont regions in eastern Slovakia and Spiš. Next, I will present selected issues concerning the contact zone between the Lusatian and Danubian cultures, which existed in the areas of western Slovakia and Moravia. The Ondava Upland and Šariš Northeastern Slovakia is an unexplored region on the maps of Bronze Age settlement, clearly contrasting with the densely populated areas of the Eastern Slovakian Lowland and the Košice Basin (e.g. Furmánek, Veliačik, Vládar 1991, map 9). This picture, at least partially, results from the state of research and from the fact that archeologists used to focus their attention on the more attractive inds numerous in the lowlands. In the territory of northeastern Slovakia, the Piliny culture indings and the assemblages connected by Slovakian scholars with the Suciu de Sus culture can be assigned to older segments of the Late Bronze Age (phases LB I–LB II). According to the classiication accepted here, those materials represent the Tumuluspost-Otomani style. The Piliny culture settlement, although sparse, is conirmed on the northern border of the Košice Basin (settlements and grave inventories from Prešov and Gregorovce, Prešov district), but only single inds or hoards of metal objects with unclear cultural ailiation are known from the Ondava Upland (Furmánek 1977, 256–257, ig. 13). Suciu de Sus culture inds are more numerous, penetrating into more elevated regions through the valleys of the Laborec, Ondava and Topl’a rivers from centers on the Tisza River (Furmánek 1997, 155; Furmánek, Vládar 2001, 85). First of 14 all, one should mention here two settlements from the Humenné area. Archeologists found numerous series of pottery in the objects explored there revealing close analogies to inventories from lat cremation cemeteries on the Tisza River (Strakošová 1990; 1995; 2003; compare chapter 3.1). Characteristic vessel forms were also discovered at the settlement in Skrabské, Vranov nad Topľou district (Demeterová 1984, 18, plate 30:8–15) and the settlement in Kladzany, Vranov nad Topľou district, where a fragment decorated with a spiral motif and incrustation was found among numerous pottery series (Budinský-Krička 1977, 66, ig. 22:2; Demeterová 1984, 18). Additionally, the literature provides information about farther Suciu de Sus settlements already situated at the edge of the Eastern Slovakian Lowland (Furmánek 1997, 155). The cultural situation in northeastern Slovakia at the height of luted pottery groups (phases LB III– LB IV) is not clear. Numerous indings associated with the Gáva culture are recorded (Gáva I and Gáva II styles) for that time in the Košice region and in the southern part of the Eastern Slovakian Lowland. In the piedmont zone, early indings of this group are probably represented by a fortiied settlement in Jastrabie, Vranov nad Topľou district (ig. 39:1–2), where, among other things, a fragment of a vessel decorated with horizontal lutes on the neck and a proiled bowl decorated with oblique grooves were found (Demeterová 1986, 107; Budinský-Krička 1976a, 60, ig. 36:3,9). Some artifacts from the settlement in Humenné (the „Dubník-Kotnová” site) – especially a pottery sherd decorated with oblique ribs on the bend – probably may be also assigned to the height of luted pottery groups (Strakošová 1995, 124, ig. 98:14; 2003, 445, ig. 4:16). Materials excavated at the Hradný kopec site, in the vicinity of Veľký Šariš, Prešov district, were dated to the Late Bronze Age and linked to the Gáva culture (from period HaB) (Slivka 1982, 150–154; Demeterová 1983, 34; Budinský-Krička, Miroššayová 1992, 60). However, more recent studies proved that part of the pottery from this settlement still represented the late Piliny-Kyjatice style from 148 6 7 1 8 2 3 9 5 10 11 13 14 4 20 12 19 18 21 22 15 16 17 Fig. 3. examples of Late Bronze Age ceramics of northeastern Slovakia: 1–2 — Jastrabie (Budinský­Krička 1976a); 5,18–19 — Vel’ký Šariš (Slivka 1982); 3–4 — Kapušany (Budinský­Krička 1976); 20–22 — Vlača (Kotorová­Jenčová 2004); 6–17,21 — Terňa (Budinský­Krička, Miroššayová 1992). Drawings are not to scale. phase LB III (e.g. ig. 39:5; Slivka 1982, ig. 7:8,10; Karabinoš, Vizdal 2007). Perhaps one should assign the pottery decorated with grooves and bands of hollows from the older stage of development of the nearby settlement in Ostrovany, Prešov district (dated by a bronze pin to period HaA), to that style, and not to the Gáva culture (Lamiová-Schmiedlová, Tomášová 1992, 68–69, ig. 25:1–2). This becomes even more plausible considering that sites undoubtedly representing the Piliny culture are conirmed in the same area (Prešov region) (Furmánek 1977, 256–257). Single inds of luted pottery also come from sites on the upper Topl’a, investigated by ield survey (Tunia 2008, igs. 55:a, 65:g). An exceptional discovery is known from Kapušany, Prešov district, in the vicinity of the Veľký Šariš settlement. It is a cremation burial in urn (ig. 39:3–4), among other things, equipped with a pin dated to period HaA and a bronze razor and pincers revealing distant, north European connections. This assemblage was interpreted as the efect of inluences from the 14 Lusatian cultural area (Budinský-Krička 1976, 135; Novotná 1980, cat. no. 941; Gedl 1998, 143; 2001a, 337). Traces of inluences from the territories north of the Carpathians were also found in the area of dense Piliny culture settlement. Such inluences are indicated by certain vessels from the cemetery in Kechenec, Košice district (Lamiová-Schmiedlová 1961, 328–329; Furmánek 1988, 218). It is worth emphasizing that in the same period (HaA), metal inds associated with the milieu of the Lusatian culture also appeared in Transcarpathian Ukraine, occupied at the time by Gáva cultural settlement (Kobaľ 1992). A set of artifacts from the above-mentioned settlement in Hradný Kopec already represents the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age transition (HaB2/B3–HaC) to a signiicant extent. According to Elena Miroššayová who studied this problem (1982, 25; 1987, 130–132; 2005, 195–200), the Early Iron Age culture groups in east Slovakia gradually evolved from the local Gáva culture, stimulated by cultural transformations taking place at the same time on the Tisza River and inluenced by the east European forest-steppe zone. In the Eastern Slovakian Lowland, this chronological segment is represented by inds from settlements representing Jozef Paulík’s “Somotor type” (1968, 34–36) (the younger phase of the Somotorská hora fortiied settlement [Pleinerová, Olmerová 1958; Pastor 1958]) and by small lat cremation cemeteries (particularly Vojnatina, Michalovce district) or single burials, usually poorly equipped, sometimes containing in their inventories the irst iron objects of the area (Pleinerová, Olmerová 1958, 109; Budinský-Krička 1976, 128, 134–135; Demeterová 1983a, 120–121; Miroššayová 1987, 111; Gašaj 1988; Gačková 2004, 57). Pottery inventories from these sites – similarly to corresponding assemblages from Transcarpathian Ukraine assigned to the “pre-Kuštanovice horizon” – show, apart from the Gáva tradition, also elements of other cultures. Some vessel types (especially biconical or double-handled vases) are interpreted as a Lusatian cultural inluence from the territories on the upper Vistula basin. Certain decorative elements refer to Hallstatt culture 150 techniques, others – such as perforation below the rim of thick-walled pots – to styles typical of western Ukraine in the beginning of the Early Iron Age (e.g. Budinský-Krička 1976, 128–137; Budinský-Krička, Miroššayová 1992, 52–59; Kobal’ 1992, 177–179; Miroššayová 2005, 200–202). In eastern Slovakia – apart from the already mentioned settlement in Veľký Šariš – most of the materials from the end of the Late Bronze Age and beginning of the Early Iron Age were found at Lysá Stráž Mountain in Terňa, Prešov district. It is possible to distinguish two chronological groups in the ceramics discovered at this site: (i) an older group, dated to the end of period HaB3, characterized, among others, by the presence of vessels decorated with lutes on necks and bellies (although this ornament could have survived until the beginning of the Early Iron Age – Miroššayová 1987, 116; compare e.g. Gašaj 1988, ig. 1:1–2), bowls with grooved lip and vessels decorated with horn-like knobs, surrounded by bands of hollows (ig. 39:11–13,15–16); (ii) a younger group – associated already with phase HaC – of vessels decorated with horizontal ribs or indented lists (similar ornament was found in pottery of the late Kyjatice culture and also of the EastHallstatt culture – Studeniková 1986, 205–206, ig. 3:12) or with knobs surrounded by ribs and with zoomorphic knobs having analogies in the Hallstatt culture (Budinský-Krička 1976, 134; Budinský-Krička, Miroššayová 1992, 59). Farther sites are synchronized with a settlement in Terňa, also situated along the middle course of the Torysa River: an upland settlement in Kanaš, Prešov district, known from ield survey (Budinský-Krička 1977, 74–75), the younger phase of an open settlement in Ostrovany, Prešov district (Lamiová-Schmiedlová, Tomášová 1988, 83–84, ig. 7) and probably also settlements in Šariške Sokolovce and Močidlany, both in the Prešov district (Demeterová 1983, 34; Miroššayová 1987, 109). On the southern fringes of the Ondava Upland, the time period in question here is represented mainly by indings from a settlement in Vlača, Vranov nad Topľou district (ig. 39:20,22; Kotorová-Jenčová 2004, 98, ig. 60). A settlement in Sedliská, Vranov nad Topľou district, should be dated to the end of the Late Bronze 151 Age and beginning of the Early Iron Age (Demeterová 1983, 34; KotorováJenčová 2006), as well as settlements from Jasenov and Kochanovce, both Humenné district, where fragments of thick-walled vessels decorated with inger-tipped cordons were found (Vizdal 1985, 250, ig. 121:2,4; Strakošová 1992, 116, ig. 82:1). A fragment of a similar vessel originates from a fortiied settlement (also known from ield survey) on the Pivničký Mountain (851 m above sea level) in Nižný Tvarožec, Bardejov district, situated at the southern end of the Tylicz Pass (Budinský-Krička 1976, 128; Demeterová 1983, 34; Miroššayová 1987, 109, 132, plate 12:10). In this region, i.e. the northern part of the Ondava Upland, farther sites were also identiied from the period of the Bronze Age/ Early Iron Age transition, clustered in the valleys separated by the Low Beskid Mountains. (Gancarski, Lukáč 2001, 106–107; Machnik, Mačala 2008, ig. 2; Tunia 2008, 132)18. Among the sites excavated is a settlement in Oľšavce, Bardejov district, which yielded, among other things, pottery typical of the Lusatian culture from the end of HaB period and phase HaC (Jarosz, Tunia 2008, 315–316). Similar materials also originate from sounding excavations in the nearby settlement in Porúbka, Bardejov district (Mačalová, Mačala 2008, 342–344). The Spiš region The territory of Spiš, and the broad Hornád valley in particular, were one of the main centers of Otomani culture settlement in the Middle Bronze Age, conirmed here both in its classic and post-classic phases 18 One of these sites (Mokroluh-Vyšná roveň, Bardejov district) was excavated in 2006 by Jan Gancarski, Gabor Lukač and Mária Kotorová-Jenčová. Besides inventories from the Late Bronze Age/ Early Iron Age transition period, objects were discovered from the younger phase of the Piliny culture (information obtained from the authors of the study). 152 1 2 3 7 4 8 9 6 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 19 17 20 18 21 Fig. 40. pottery from sites of the so-called pre-Lusatian phase in western Slovakia (1–10) and examples of pottery from older phases of the Late Bronze Age in Spiš (11–21): 1–4 — Liptovský Michal (Veliačik 1983); 5–9 — Liptovská Teplá (Veliačik 1981); 10 — Martin (Veliačik 1983); 11 — Gánovce (Soják 2003); 12–21 — Spišski Štvrtok (Kučerová­Giertlová 2003). All drawings unscaled. (e.g. Furmánek, Vládar 2001, ig. 1; Soják 2003, 130–133). Finds from the Nemešany settlement, Levoča district, may suggest that these areas were also one of the regions where the Piliny culture formed at the transition from the Middle to Late Bronze Age (Soják 2004, 174). One should remember, however, that contrary to the Great Hungarian Plain and adjacent territories, Spiš was not included in the process of cultural transformation stimu- 153 lated by the Tumulus circle during period BrB. Therefore, the emergence of the Piliny culture and the decline of the Otomani culture could have had a diferent course there than in the lowlands. This means that the continuation of stylistics characteristic of the end stages of the Otomani culture in this territory should be considered at least as a theoretical possibility. This would explain why inds of the Piliny culture are represented relatively modestly in Spiš, compared with the rich Otomani settlement. Archeologists attempting to recapitulate the state of research on the Bronze Age in that area had already previously faced the problem that only mass indings of bronze artifacts can be assigned to the Piliny culture (e.g. Novotný 1972, 11; Novotná 2003, 57–59; Soják 2003, 133–135). Some of the sites mentioned in the literature as potential settlements of the Piliny culture (Furmánek 1977, 256–257; Javorský 1981, 108–109, 111, 117; Miroššayová, Šarudyová 1999, ig. 4; Kučerova-Giertlová 2003, 102; Soják 2003, 135) did not yield sources that would have allowed for their clear cultural classiication (Novotná 2003, 56). In the Poprad valley, the following sites can more surely be included in this cultural group: the ind of a miniature vessel from Huncovce, Poprad district, grave inventories from Kežmarok-Ľubca, a settlement in Poprad-Matejovce and, on the Hornád River, the inding of a storage vessel in Gánovce, Poprad district (Novotný 1972, 10; Novotná 2003, 57; Soják 2003, 135; 2003a, 472–473). An interesting discovery was made in the latter location – a grave in a stone cist, equipped with a vessel representing the older phase of the Piliny culture (the Tumulus-post-Otomani style, ig. 40:11) and a pin, typical of the earliest Lusatian culture assemblages in Slovakia (Soják 2003, 135, ig. 12). According to Marian Soják (ibidem), this inding is an early trace of Lusatian culture communities iniltrating Spiš, which might have resulted in the emergence of a mixed phenomenon, described by this author as the “Piliny-Lusatian culture”. Materials possibly relecting this process were also found at excavations of the „Ku Čenčiciam” site in Spišski Štvrtok, Levoča district (ig. 40:12–21). A numerous series of pottery discovered 154 there can be compared with the indings of the “Tumulus-post-Otomani” style and early Lusatian culture (S-shaped pots, knobs surrounded by semicircle grooves) from phases LB I–LB II–BrB2–BrD (Kučerová-Giertlová 2003, 100–102). However, a relatively large number of sharply proiled vessels decorated with vertical grooves (ibidem, e.g. plate 1:4), may point to the functioning of this settlement still in the period of late Piliny-Kyjatice style development (phase LB III). If in reality the Piliny culture continued its development in Spiš until phase LB III, it is plausible that it coexisted (as part of a syncretic cultural phenomenon?) with the Lusatian culture, whose presence in the western part of the Hornád valley is conirmed by burial assemblages dated to HaA from Gánovce (Soják, Soják, Suchý 2004, 177, ig. 137:1) and Švábovce, Poprad district (Budinský-Kričká 1969, ig. 15; Miroššayová 1976, 159–160), and by settlement indings from Poprad-Matejovce (Novotná, Soják 1997; Soják 2003a, 468, 473) and Kežmarok (Kučerová, Novák 2006). The signiicance of Spiš as a region, where the inluences of the Lusatian culture and cultures originating in the eastern Carpathian Basin crossed in the younger stages of the Late Bronze Age, has already been stressed previously (e.g. Bukowski 1969, 313–317; Miroššayová 1992, 133; Kučerová-Giertlová 2003, 102). In fact, one of the few natural communication routes linking eastern Slovakia with river valleys (especially the Váh) occupied by the Lusatian culture settlement led through this territory (Furmánek 1988, 217). Towards the end of the HaA period (LB III), a settlement system based on the existence of fortiied upland settlements developed in the Hornád valley (Miroššayová 1992, 134; 1999, 129). During excavations at one of these settlements – in Vítkovce, Spišská Nová Ves district – it was observed that after the settlement from the Piliny culture period (Furmánek 1983, 27), two more building phases had functioned there in the younger stages of the Late Bronze Age (Veliačik, Javorský 1983, 143–144). An older one is thought to correspond with the „Kláštorisko” settlement in Letanovce, Spišská Nová Ves district, dated (among other things) by a Liptov type 155 sword (HaA2) and a fragment of a Spindlersfeld ibula from the beginning of the HaB period (Miroššayová 1999, 137–138, 143). According to Elena Miroššayová (1999, 143), this fortiied settlement was destroyed during phase HaB1, as well as the older settlement in Vítkovce. In the younger segment of period HaB and at the turn of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, only the latter site was still occupied (a younger construction phase) (Veliačik, Javorský 1983, 146). But the phenomenon of the existence of fortiied settlements on the Hornád River also continued during the Early Iron Age, when settlement of the Orava group of the Lusatian culture appeared in that territory (Miroššayová 1992, 133). 1 4 7 9 2 3 5 6 8 10 Fig. 41. Selected pottery from younger phases of the Late Bronze Age in Spiš: 1–2,4–11 — Letanovce (Miroššayová 1999); 3 — Vítkovce (Veliačik, Javorský 1983). All drawings unscaled. 11 15 The cultural milieu represented by the fortiied settlements in Letanovce and Vítkovce and by farther settlements in Smižany (Miroššayová 1999, 143) and Spišskie Tomášovce, both Spišská Nová Ves district (Soják 2003, 136), was characterized by a combination of Lusatian, Gáva and Kyjatice cultural elements. This is seen in the vessel forms and manner of their decoration – the common motifs are lutes, horizontal grooves on necks, stamped ornaments, horizontally outturned rims; one can also observe bowls with a turban-shaped rim. At the same time, carinated bowls and biconical vases typical of the Lusatian culture appear (ig. 41; Veliačik, Javorský 1983, 145–146; Miroššayová 1999, 139–141). The phenomenon itself of building upland settlements protected by walls in stone-andwood construction (e.g. Furmánek 1983, 27) should be treated as a trait characteristic of the younger phases of the Kyjatice and Gáva cultures. It should also be remembered that the process of developing fortiied settlement systems, similar to that recorded in Spiš, was observed as well in the neighboring territories of Sariš and the Ondava Upland in the younger stage of period HaB. the oldest phase of the Lusatian culture settlement in the upper váh valley A local Slovakian group of the Lusatian culture emerged in the upper Váh valley at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (Veliačik 1983). Its development continued into the Early Iron Age by the so-called Ondava group of the Lusatian culture (Čaplovič 1977; 1987, 109–177; Benadiková 2006). Contrary to the territories discussed above, the Váh valley was not a zone of crossing inluences from the Lusatian culture and the Carpathian Basin culture groups in younger stages of the Late Bronze Age. However, the inluence of Carpathian elements is recorded at the emergence of the Lusatian culture in the period corresponding to BrB–BrC in the North Alpine chronology. 15 a A D B E Lusatian culture C 48 18 36 21 19 31 20 29 35 22 30 1 32 7 13 42 3 41 4 12 28 25 ? 39 43 34 6 9 14 49 50 Suciu de Sus culture and the pottery of Gáva I style P iliny cultur e 23 b A C B D 26 Lusatian culture 28 17 42 40 27 37 44 11 33 47 24 45 46 16 2 23 Kyjatice culture m a.s.l. 1000 0 15 10 sites of Somotorská hora type 50 8 5 38 100 km 500 Fig. 42. Archeological sites from the Carpathian zone of central and eastern Slovakia. the cultural situation in southwestern Slovakia according to Romsauer, Veliačik 1987. See appendix 9 for the site list. periods BrC–haA (a): A — piliny culture sites, mixed “piliny– early Lusatian” sites and sites with material from the so-called pre-Lusatian stage in Slovakia; B — sites of the early phase of the Lusatian culture; C — sites of the Slovakian Suciu de Sus culture; d — sites of the Gáva I (?) culture; e — sites of the Middle Danubian Urnield area. periods haA/haB–haC (b): A — sites with mixed “Lusatian-kyjatice” materials; B — Lusatian culture sites; C — fortiied settlements with mixed “Lusatian-kyjatice-Gáva” material; d — velatice-podoli transitional phase sites and podoli culture sites. 158 The possibility of distinguishing an early phase of the Lusatian culture in Slovakia was suggested only in the mid-1960s (Pivovarová 1965, 136–139; Bukowski 1969, 304–305; Točík, Vladár 1969, 295–299). Still today, materials acquired during excavations at the cemetery in Martin are of crucial importance for reconstructing the genesis of the Slovakian variant of the Lusatian culture. Based on the analysis of pottery and metal objects (numerous in grave inventories), Zoja Benkovsky-Pivovarová (1972a, 286–290; 1974, 154–155, ig. 1) proposed a division of the Martin assemblages into four stages, dated between phases BrC1 and HaA. This scholar drew attention to the possibility of synchronizing the oldest inds from the Martin cemetery with the so-called “pre-Lusatian horizon” in Moravia (see below) and with the oldest Lusatian materials from Silesia. She also showed a genetic connection between some vessels from Martin and the pottery of the Maďarovce culture with the Carpathian and Middle Danubian Tumulus cultures (Benkovsky-Pivovarová 1972a, 276–286, 290–294; 1974). Associations with the two latter cultural areas had been already postulated earlier, especially in the context of attempting to interpret the barrow graves surrounded by stone circles or circular rows, typical of the early phase of the Lusatian culture in Slovakia (Budinský-Kričká 1947, 78–79; Pivovarová 1965, 136–139). At the same time, more recent studies stipulate that – except for the middle Váh basin – the ranges of the early indings of the Lusatian and Maďarovce cultures are mutually exclusive. In addition, materials are lacking in the case of the latter that might be dated to period BrB (Veliačik 1983, 167; Furmánek, Veliačik 1991, 40). More recent studies allowed the set of early Lusatian indings in Slovakia to be supplemented by assemblages from a cemetery in Púchov, Považská Bystrica district (Kujovský 2004), and probably also by the oldest inventories from cemeteries in Ľuborča, Trenčin district, Liptovský Mikuláš-Ondrašova and Vyšný Kubín, Dolný Kubín district (Veliačik 1983, 166–168, 182, 186, 189, plates 6–7, 10:1,4; Furmánek, Veliačik 1991, 38). These indings reveal the interregional features of the oldest Lusatian 15 pottery (vessels with a bulbous body and cylindrical neck, decorated with horizontal lists, and footed carinated bowls) and generally correspond to materials from the second stage of the existence of the Martin cemetery dated to BrC2 (Benkovsky-Pivovarová 1972a, 287; 1974, 152). According to Ladislav Veliačik’s periodization (1982; 78–92; 1983, 167–173, ig. 8), these inventories (designated as the Martin phase) are followed by inventories continuing earlier stylistics, though with a visible tendency to sharper vessel proiles (dated to period BrD). Then – contemporary with the beginning of HaA – a set of vessel forms and decorative motifs characteristic of the Slovakian group of the Lusatian culture developed, which lourished during stages Diviaky nad Nitricou I and II, dated to younger segments of HaA. In the latter of the above-mentioned stages, a local “Lusatian” metallurgical center was developing as well. Its products replaced artifacts imported earlier, mostly from the territory of the Piliny culture (Veliačik 1983, 169, 171). Field work conducted in the 1980s and the veriication of earlier discoveries from the Liptov region provided assemblages, which – as was signaled already in earlier literature (Budinský-Krička 1965, 184) – could be dated to the turn of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, and might be connected with inluences from the eastern Carpathian Basin (ig. 40:1–9). The most numerous pottery series is from the settlement in Liptovská Teplá, Liptovský Mikuláš district. Distinctive elements in this set are pieces decorated with nodule-shaped knobs, fragments of brush smeared vessels and a fragment decorated with oblique lutes (Veliačik 1981, 323–324, igs. 184–185; Furmánek, Veliačik 1991, 41–42). Another important site is the settlement in Liptovsky Michal, Liptovský Mikulaš district, where sherds decorated by brush smearing and nodule-shaped knobs were found as well, together with carinated cups decorated with rows of hollows (Veliačik 1982, 76– 78, ig. 2; 1983, 164, ig. 1; Furmánek, Veliačik 1991, 42). Apart from the above-mentioned settlements (among which Liptovsky Michal is considered a bit younger), farther sites along the upper Váh valley (Liptovská 10 Mara, Ráztoky, Paludza and Podtureň, all Liptovský Mikulaš district) and from the upper Nitra can also be assigned to the “pre-Lusatian” phase in northern central Slovakia (Partizánske, Topoľčany district and Bystričany, Prievidza district) (Budinský-Krička 1965, 184, ig. 1:1; Veliačik 1983, 164; Furmánek, Veliačik 1991, 41–42, igs. 6–7). According to Slovakian archeologists, artifacts from the “pre-Lusatian stage” signiicantly resemble the indings of the late phase of the Otomani culture in Spiš. Yet, they should not be fully identiied with this cultural group, but rather treated as a separate, mixed group (with elements of the Tumulus culture and perhaps also of Maďarovce traditions), characteristic of phases BrB1–C1 in the mountainous part of central Slovakia, the basis for Lusatian culture development during BrC2 (Veliačik 1983, 166; Furmánek, Veliačik 1991, 42). Thus, in the upper Váh valley we would have a local (and the most westward) variant of a trend designated here as the Tumuluspost-Otomani style, maybe genetically closely related to the contemporary indings discovered in the Spiš area originating from the older Piliny phase (or from the Otomani tradition surviving there), and at the same time corresponding to the oldest (irst) stage of the Martin cemetery. the zvolen group of Lusatian culture and its links with groups from the Carpathian Basin The term “Zvolen group” was introduced by Jozef Bátora (1979, 76–78) to describe inds (grave assemblages) from the upper Hron River valley (including the Zvolen Basin) and from basins of Štiavnica and Krupinica rivers, characterized by strong Danubian inluences (the Velatice and Čaka cultures, younger phase of the Piliny culture, the Kyjatice culture) and – in the Early Iron Age – also by the Hallstatt culture. The oldest stage of the Zvolen group settlement was thought to correspond with phases BrD–HaA1. The cemetery in Medovarce, Zvolen dis- 11 trict, is dated to this period (Eisner 1933, plate 37:10–14; Bátora 1979, 61, 76, igs. 3, 8; compare Furmánek 1977, 257 – as the Piliny culture cemetery). It is situated on the Krupinica River, in the direct neighborhood of a zone of dense Piliny culture settlement (Furmánek 1977, ig. 13). The Piliny inluences are noticeable in the ornamentation and forms of pottery discovered in Medovarce (a tendency to make vessels with well deined body and neck, grooved decoration); one can mention here a vessel analogous to those representing the Piliny-Kyjatice transitional horizon as well (Bátora 1979, ig. 3:3). Metal objects (Beljak 2002, 36–36) and pottery representing the younger Piliny phase were also discovered in the city of Zvolen (Malček 2002, 127; 2006, 62–66). According to Bátora (1979, 77) some of the pottery discovered at the Medovarce cemetery may suggest connections between the Zvolen group and the Čaka cultural milieu. The same line of inluences may be indicated by the Velatice-Čaka style pottery found in one of the graves at the Lusatian culture cemetery in Žiar nad Hronom, loco district, situated in the Hron valley (Trgina 1983, ig. 165:1,2). A next developmental stage of the Zvolen group, dated to the end of HaA and to HaB, is characterized in particular by inds from a cemetery in Zvolen-Balkán (Balaša 1964, 19–20). Pottery from that time period contains – apart from vessels typical of the Slovakian group of the Lusatian culture – numerous forms characteristic of the Kyjatice and Podoli cultures (Bátora 1979, 77–78). Their coexistence induced Jozef Paulík (1962b, 122–125) to designate the materials from Zvolen as a „Kyjatice-Podoli” horizon. Apart from the Zvolen necropolis, pottery typical of the Kyjatice culture (particularly vase-like vessels with rounded bodies, decorated with horizontal grooves on the necks) was found in several farther cemeteries (Domaníki, Krupina, Lišov, Hontianske Nemce, all Zwolen district) situated in the Krupinica and Štiavnica river basins. A mix of elements from the Lusatian, Kyjatice and Podoli cultures was also conirmed by excavations of a fortiied settlement at Sitno Mountain in Ilija, Žiar nad Hronom district, situated at the foot of the Štiavnickie Mountains (Labuda 1981; Žebrák 12 1987, 332–333; Kujovský 1994, 288). Within the borders of Zwolen itself – apart from the cemetery at the „Balkán” site – mixed “Lusatian-Kyjatice” materials were discovered in a fortiied upland settlement „Pustý hrad” and in an open settlement situated at its foot (Paulík 1962b, 125–126, ig. 9:1–5; Malček 1996, 129; Hanuliak, Malček, Pieta 2000, 48). Further sites from this town are associated with younger segments of the Late Bronze Age (e.g. Žebrák 1982, 310–313; Beljak 2002, 35–36, ig. 1). Finds of the Zwolen group constitute the furthest southeastern enclave of Lusatian culture. Its geographical position within river valleys opening towards the Danubian Lowland favored contacts with groups from the northern part of the Carpathian Basin. Situated on the border between diferent cultural areas, the Zwolen group can be treated as a model example of a syncretic group, uniting various traditions. the so-called proto-Lusatian horizon in Moravia and its connections with the Carpathian Basin To study the genesis of the Lusatian culture in central Moravia, materials from the fortiied settlement in Hradisko, Kroměříž district, are of key importance. The following sequence of layers was registered at this site: layer A – containing Věteřov culture pottery – was recorded at the foot of the fortiications and within the embankment; it was covered by layer B, where, apart from Věteřov pottery, younger vessel forms were present (e.g. knobbed amphoras); this younger current was continued in inds from layer C (Spurný 1961, 125–130). Unburned human remains were also found within layer B (Spurný 1969). In his irst attempt to interpret the Hradisko discoveries, Václav Spurný (1954, 374) designated pottery from layer B as belonging to mixed Věteřov and Tumulus cultural traditions. In later studies he modiied his views and identiied the inds from layer C as an early phase of Lusatian 13 culture and introduced the term “pre- or proto-Lusatian horizon” for materials from layer B (Spurný 1961, 126; 1972, 240). He also proposed a synchronization of particular stages of Hradisko settlement with farther settlements – in Hulín, Kroměříž district (Spurný 1961), Uherský Brodz, Uherské Hradišté district (Hrubý 1958), and Bezměrow, Kroměříž district (Spurný 1972). According to Spurný, a process had already begun at the transition of BrA2/BrB1, resulting in a parallel cultural division in Moravia in phase BrC1 – with its southern part occupied by the Tumulus culture and the central and northern areas by the proto-Lusatian horizon (layer B in Hradisko); the latter developed as a result of Tumulus inluences and Middle Bronze Age (Early Bronze Age in the original) traditions from the Carpathian Basin on the late Věteřov culture milieu. In the younger segment, and at the latest at the end of period BrC, the Lusatian culture was inally formed – with layer C from Hradisko corresponding to this period (Spurný 1982, 132). Based on Václav Spurný’s conclusions, Jindra Nekvasil (1964, 228–229, 246) assumed that the earliest cremation burials from central Moravia may also be associated with the pre-Lusatian horizon. In more recent literature, this line of thought was also accepted by Vít Dohnal (1995), who once again presented arguments to support dating the formation of Lusatian culture in Moravia to phase BrB, and showed that Carpathian Basin cultures participated in this process. He described the cultural picture of central Moravia at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age as follows: a cultural layer containing pottery representative of the Middle Bronze Age and Tumulus traditions appeared at some of the settlements (particularly – fortiied settlements) succeeding the late Věteřov phase. These settlements should be dated to period BrB (not later than BrB2). The irst urn burials at Lusatian culture cemeteries also originate from the same time period. These facts were to prove that the oldest Lusatian culture – being a continuation of the “Věteřov” tradition – was developing in Moravia simultaneously with the Tumulus culture (Dohnal 1995, 225–226). 14 The concept proposed by Václav Spurný and accepted by Vít Dohnal has several weak points worth noting here. First, it assumes a homogeneity of individual layers from the Hradisko settlement (Benkovsky-Pivovarová 1974, 154), although a characteristic mixing of inds typical of diferent cultures might rather indicate that older layers were disturbed by younger ones (as conirmed for a settlement with mixed, Věteřov-Lusatian materials at Olomuniec – Dohnal 1995, 200). Since the “proto-Lusatian” horizon sites yielded almost no bronze objects for dating, their chronology is based on a typological analysis of pottery. One of the very few exceptions is a bronze pin from layer B of the Hradisko settlement, which should not be dated earlier than phase BrC2 (Furmánek 1973, 131; Říhovský 1979, cat. no. 499). Based on this artifact, Zoja Benkovsky-Pivovarová (1982, 148) proposed layer B be synchronized with the second stage of the Martin cemetery (see above), at the same time concluding that such dating would exclude a direct chronological succession of inds from layer B after the late phase of the Věteřov culture (layer A) as assumed by Spurný. On the other hand, pottery analogous to that found in layer C at Hradisko was discovered in a pit at a settlement in Hulín, together with bronze objects dated to period BrD (Benkovsky-Pivovarová 1974, 154). The chronological position of urn burials from Kostelec, Kroměříž district, and Moravičany (containing pins typical of BrB), as well as of other “antiquarian” artifacts from the Lusatian culture assemblages in Moravia, is also questioned (Nekvasil 1964, 250; 1982, 173; Stuchlík 2003, 447). These inds also used to be presented as evidence to support the direct succession of the Věteřov culture (Dohnal 1995, 221–222) by the Lusatian culture. As a result of these controversies (among other things), the concept of a very early chronology for the onset of the Lusatian culture and a parallel cultural division in Moravia has not been commonly accepted (Podborský 1993, 309–310). Based on the results of more recent ield research (e.g. Štrof 1995; Šmíd 1998; Peška, Bém 1999; Šabatová, Vitula 2002; Šabatová 2004), some Czech archeologists believe that a settlement of a local 15 Tumulus culture variant existed that inherited some elements of the older Věteřov culture background during periods BrB–BrC in central and northern Moravia. According to this view, the BrC/BrD transition is thought to be represented by materials included in a transitional “Tumulus-Lusatian” horizon, which would correspond to the Martin phase in Slovakia and to the oldest Lusatian culture assemblages in Upper Silesia (Górny Śląsk) (Podborský 1993, 310; Stuchlík 1993, 274; Štrof 1995, 105–106; Šabatová 2004; 2006). Middle Danubian Urnield inds in Lusatian culture assemblages of Moravia and western Slovakia During the period when the Lusatian and Middle Danubian Urnield cultures in Moravia and western Slovakia coexisted, two stages can be distinguished, each characterized by a diferent course of the border zone and a diferent intensity of each culture’s settlement. The irst stage corresponds to phases BrD–HaA1, that is, to the older phase of the Middle Danubian Urnield (Velatice and Čaka cultures) and to the so-called Lusatian phase. The younger stage includes the development of a transitional Velatice-Podoli phase, the Podoli culture and the so-called Silesia or Silesia-Platenice phase of the Lusatian culture. At its start, the range of the Moravian group of the Lusatian culture (Podborský 1970, 20; Štrof 1993, 310) was limited almost exclusively to the central Morava River basin. However, the intensiication of settlement in western Moravia (Boskovická brázdá) and the Moravian Gate region (Nekvasil 1969, 132–133, ig. 1; 1977, 62–64, ig. 1) can already be observed during its early phase (beginning of HaA). The inluence of this group – in the form of individual, characteristic vessel forms – is also seen during that time at Velatice culture sites, both in southern Moravia and Lower Austria. 1 As was already noted by Vladimír Podborský (1960, 35), the Lusatian and Velatice cultures shared a number of similar pottery forms in period HaA, representing the Tumulus tradition and common for both those cultures. Despite that fact, some – although relatively scarce – indings of Velatice-Čaka style pottery (vessels decorated with broad, oblique lutes, the so-called Wasserkrug – ig. 43:1–6) appearing in a foreign, “Lusatian” context can be indicated (Říhovský 1961, 230, ig. 100:5–7; Nekvasil 1969, ig. 4:2–3; Dohnal 1995, plates 6:4, 7:1,3). According to Jindra Nekvasil (1964, 250; 1969, 134, 136, ig. 3; compare also: Veliačik 1983, 174), the impact of this stylistic trend, together with simultaneous inluences from the Slovakian group of the Lusatian culture, was associated with the appearance – in the beginning of HaA in central Moravian assemblages – of vessels decorated with grooves, sharply carinated vessel forms and ornaments of hollows. In western Slovakia, conformity between cultural divisions and landscape zones is more distinct than in Moravia. During phases BrD–HaA1, Lusatian culture settlement was generally limited to mountain river valleys, while the Middle Danubian Urnield circle mainly occupied the Danubian Lowland (e.g. Kujovský 1994, 284). In the beginning of the Lusatian culture development, which corresponded to the end phase of the Tumulus culture, the so-called pre-Čaka horizon and the Čaka culture (see chapter 3.1), both cultural areas were separated by a broad 10–20 km strip of unoccupied land (Romsauer, Veliačik 1987, 298). The situation changed in period HaA , when a zone formed where indings of both cultures became intermixed along the entire length of the border between the Lusatian and Middle Danubian Urnield cultures, running roughly through today’s districts of Trenčin, Topoľčany, Nitra and Levice (Romsauer, Veliačik 1987, 298, ig. 1; Kujovský 1994, 285; Veliačik 1996, 504, 509–510, ig. 1). This phenomenon is particularly noticeable in the Váh River valley, where Lusatian culture sites “penetrate” up to 30 km into the Velatice culture settlement zone (Veliačik 1996, 510, ig. 1). 1 3 2 1 4 5 6 7 8 12 9 10 11 Fig. 43. Middle Danubian Urnield vessels found in the Lusatian culture assemblages in Moravia in phases Brd–haA1 (1–) and at the HaA/HaB transition (7–11): 1,6 — Vésky (Nekvasil 1969); 2–3 — Kněždub (Dohnal 1995); 4–5 — Mostkovice (Říhovský 11); 7–8,11 — Uničov (Nekvasil 1982); 9 — Moravičany (Nekvasil 1978); 10 — vlachovice (dohnal 1); 12 — ostrokovice (dohnal 1). It is diicult to specify concrete examples of artifacts from the early phase of the Middle Danubian Urnield in assemblages of the Slovakian group of the Lusatian culture. Bowls with inverted rims, some variants of cups, a custom of faceting vessel lips, and oblique luting on vessel bodies are considered a result of southern inluences on this cultural milieu (Točík, Vladár 1971, 399). Ladislav Veliačik (1983, 174) was more skeptical about other stylistic elements (the way certain cup variants are shaped, decoration with lutes) which, in his opinion, were of local origin, and their similarity to Velatice or Čaka culture artifacts resulted from common, Tumulus roots. 18 At the close of the HaA period and at the HaA/HaB transition, some Lusatian culture sites in central Moravia exhibit a horizon of stylistic interactions lowing from the environment of the Velatice culture and VelaticePodoli transitional phase (Podborský 1970, 14). This phenomenon coincides with the time of a settlement crisis afecting the Middle Danubian Urnield culture and with a shifting of the Lusatian culture extension down along the Morava River. From the end of the HaA period until the beginning of HaB, the presence of vessels or of entire grave assemblages of a “Lusatian” character is recorded at sites in southern Moravia and Lower Austria. At the end of this time period, a type of a mixed zone was formed in the Brno Basin area, where not only were numerous forms of Lusatian culture vessels observed, but also the custom of blackening and polishing pottery surfaces (typical of the Silesian phase of the Lusatian culture) became popular. Pottery of the Middle Danubian Urnield from the Lusatian culture assemblages in Moravia can be divided into two categories. The irst includes double-bodied vessels (ig. 43:7–8), both the variants typical of the Czech Basin (Nekvasil 1978, ig. 12:8; 1982, ig. 12:8; compare Bouzek 1958) and – characteristic of the Velatice-Podoli transitional phase assemblages – amphoras with bulging necks. These latter became permanently ingrained in the pottery form repertoire from the end of the Lusatian phase and from the Silesian phase in northern and central Moravia (e.g. Podborský 1960, ig. 5:11; Nekvasil 1969, ig. 7:2; 1978, ig. 16:5; 1982, ig. 13:15; 1982a, plate 350:10; Dohnal 1977, cat. no. 288). A second group of vessels – with clear associations to the Velatice culture tradition – are vases with cylindrical necks and everted rims (ig. 43:9–11). A variant decorated with a list at the base of the neck can be found in the Lusatian culture assemblages (Dohnal 1977, cat. no. 454; Nekvasil 1982, ig. 9:16; 1982a, plate 125:7). Specimens also appear with no decoration (Dohnal 1977, 789; Nekvasil 1978, igs. 14:1, 16:3), with a coarsened surface (Nekvasil 1982, ig. 12:15) or with a faceted lip, which is a particularly clear reference to the VelaticeČaka style tradition (Nekvasil 1982a, plates 48:15–16, 346:10). 1 Apart from the above-mentioned vessel categories, other “southern” stylistic elements can be indicated, such as the turban-like shaping of bowls edges (Nekvasil 1982, ig. 9:13) or amphoras decorated with horizontal grooves on the upper part of the body and at the base of the neck (e.g. Dohnal 1977, cat. no. 452, 475, 492, 678, 867). It should be noted that during the period under discussion (end of HaA until the beginning of HaB), indings of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle were relatively most numerous at Lusatian culture sites in Moravia. They are even distinguished as a speciic, chronologically limited “horizon of inluences” (Podborský 1970, 14). However, the proportion of these indings – and the same with the intensity of inluences they represent – is marginal in comparison with the all of the Lusatian culture materials. Contacts between the Lusatian culture and the younger phase of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle in Slovakia were totally diferent than in the case of Moravia. The settlement crisis was much deeper there. The penetration of the Lusatian culture was much stronger as well, and its extension at the transition of HaA/HaB went as far as almost 30 km to the south into certain regions. Finds of the Middle Danubian Urnield culture in Lusatian culture assemblages or sites are known from that particular zone of Lusatian culture expansion. Amphoras decorated with vertical grooves on the body and bowls with turban-shaped rim from the cemetery in Zlate Moravce correspond chronologically to the Velatice-Podoli transitional phase in southern Moravia (Kujovský 1994, 285, plates 3–6). A cup with a faceted rim and decorated with horizontal lutes found at the Lusatian cemetery in Nitra-Mlynárice19 can be associated with the end of the Velatice culture or with the Velatice-Podoli transitional phase. The youngest objects 19 The author expresses his gratitude to Róbert Malček of the Archeologický ústav SAV from Nitra for making the unpublished study on that cemetery available. 10 connected with that culture at a settlement in Horna Seč, Levice district, fall to the same period of Middle Danubian Urnield development. In the case of this site, the continuation of its occupation “by the Lusatian culture with Kyjatice culture elements” is conirmed (Romsauer, Veliačik 1987, 301; Kujovský 1994, 285). A vessel of the late Piliny-Kyjatice style can also be found at a cemetery in Zlate Moravce (Kujovský 1994, 268, plate 6:15), which may suggest that we are dealing with a phenomenon – known also from the Zwolen group sites – of a mixed cultural milieu in the Nitra River basin during period BrB, unifying elements of various traditionally deined archeological cultures. 11 4.2. Late Bronze Age assemblages in the northern part of the eastern Beskid Mountains Transcarpathian inluences on the trzciniec culture An analysis of the Transcarpathian associations of Late Bronze Age inds from the zone stretching across the upper parts of the Wisłoka, Wisłok and San River basins should commence by signaling two problems directly related to the issues addressed in this chapter. They are the following: the presence of “Transcarpathian” pottery groups in the Trzciniec culture and the problem of distinguishing and interpreting the so-called Jasło group – a unit combining elements of the Trzciniec and Otomani cultures. Both phenomena mentioned here should most probably be dated already to the end of the Middle Bronze Age (BrA2–BrB1) onward, but they surely continued into the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. Contrary to contemporary inds from the Dunajec River valley, neither assemblages with Transcarpathian pottery from the Trzciniec culture milieu nor materials of the Jasło group will be analyzed here in detail. I will restrict myself only to a short outline of the present state of research in this ield. This inconsistency has two reasons. First, attempts to review these problems have been presented in the literature (Gancarski 1994; 2002; Górski 2003; 2007). Second, no connection has thus far been found between the horizon of southern inluences from the beginning of the Late Bronze Age and assemblages from the younger phases of that period in the territory occupied by the Jasło group – contrary to sites from the Dunajec valley region. It has also not been possible to prove continuity 12 between Carpathian Basin inluences on the Trzciniec culture and similar interactions seen in the early Lusatian cultural milieu. Briely speaking, we are dealing here with phenomena that developed or began at the transition from the Middle to Late Bronze Ages, and that cannot be shown to have directly afected the younger phenomena being investigated. The motif of Transcarpathian associations of the Trzciniec culture societies typical of the lowland and highland zones of the Oder and Vistula basins in phases BrA2/BrB1–BrC2 has been present since this cultural phenomenon started to be investigated (Kostrzewski 1924, 181; Kozłowski 1928, 98–100; Jażdżewski 1948, 99, 101, 106–110; Gardawski 1959, 142–143; Kempisty 1978, 405–407; Cabalska 1980; Dobrzańska, Rydzewski 1992, 96–103). Signiicant progress in these studies was brought about by more recent conclusions on Trzciniec culture periodization. This is especially related to the loess area of western Lesser Poland (Małopolska). Proceeding from an analysis of closed grave assemblages and accumulated ind assemblages from settlement pits, a local scheme of periodization was developed, illustrating the tendencies in the development of Trzciniec pottery and also allowing vessels with “southern” features to be placed within the local cultural context (Rydzewski 1991, 251–258; Górski 1997; 2004; 2007). According to Jacek Górski’s conclusions, the presence of pottery with Transcarpathian features is limited in western Lesser Poland to classic (type A assemblages) and post-classic (type B assemblages) phases of the Trzciniec culture. He proposed the following sequence of particular vessel groups with “southern” features: (i) luted vases, accompanying the earliest Trzciniec pottery decorated with incised lines (A1 type assemblages – phase BrA2); (ii) amphoras, knobbed jugs and jugs on a foot – forms particularly typical of the end phase of the Otomani culture (Streda nad Bodrogom) – appearing in assemblages together with younger pottery variants of the classic Trzciniec phase (A2 and A3 type assemblages – BrA/BrB transition); (iii) at the same time, segment jugs with elongated necks appeared, characteristic of the Maďarovce culture and of the oldest assemblages of the Carpathian Tumulus culture; 13 19 20 4 22 17 12 21 ? 11 10 23 – a 18 2 5 3 7 1 – b 15 8 14 9 6 16 – c 13 – d – e – f 0 100 km Fig. 44. the cultural situation between the end of the Middle Bronze Age and phase LB II (BrA2–Brd) in southeastern poland: a — trzciniec culture sites (after Górski 2005); b — trzciniec culture sites with “southern” pottery (after Górski 2003 with supplement); c — selected sites of the Jasło group; d — sites from the dunajec River valley contemporaneous to “c”; e — the earliest assemblages of the tarnobrzeg group; f — metal indings from phases BrB1–BrD. For site list see appendix 10. 14 (iv) amphoras combining older (knobbed decoration) and younger (vertical ribs ornament) stylistic features correspond to the inal stage of the BrB period; (v) in the post-classic phase of the Trzciniec culture (period BrC), numerous vessels decorated with vertical decorative elements (ribs, “tendrils” below handles) appear, having references especially to the Piliny culture and to assemblages included in the Suciu de Sus culture in Slovakia (Górski 1999, 255–262; 2003, 107–114, 118–124). The presence of Transcarpathian inds is not typical of the entire Trzciniec culture area. On the contrary, it constitutes one of the indicators of its regional diferentiation (e.g. Blajer 1987a, 31). Proceeding from the frequency of “southern” pottery, Przemysław Makarowicz (1999, 242– 244, ig. 1) proposed to distinguish three zones in Poland, difering by the degree of their subjection to Transcarpathian inluences. Zone A in this model consists of Carpathian sites, representing a “pure” Otomani culture or a mixed, “Trzciniec-Otomani” group. Zone B – penetrating into the Trzciniec culture territory, but strongly saturated with Transcarpathian pottery (appearing sometimes in close assemblages without the presence of any local forms) – includes western Lesser Poland (compare Górski 2003, 114). The area with the lowest saturation of Transcarpathian pottery was described by Przemysław Makarowicz (1999) as zone C. Sites from the Sandomierz loess area and the Polish Plain (Niż Polski) are ascribed to this zone. Only certain variants of “southern” pottery are known from zone C, such as knobbed vessels and footed vessels. The situation in the San basin is unclear – artifacts representing Transcarpathian features mentioned in earlier literature are scarce. However, this paucity may be only apparent as a result of the state of research (Górski 2003, 118; 2005, 260–261), which seems to be indicated, among other things, by the results of the last several excavation seasons at a settlement in Lipnik, Przeworsk district. This site yielded fragments of vessels with horizontally out-turned rims and fragments decorated with ribs and “tendrils” below handles (Blajer 2004, ig. 4:d–e; 2007, ig. 2:b) These artifacts have so far been represented almost 15 exclusively in younger (post-classic) assemblages of the Trzciniec culture from the loess area in western Lesser Poland. Summarizing the opinions above about Transcarpathian inluences on Trzciniec culture pottery, several points should be emphasized. First, this process, in essence, afected only certain areas of this group – those directly adjoining the Carpathian zone. It is negligible in other territories, especially in the lowlands. A second important feature of this process is its long duration and, at the same time, its low – in the sense of quality – intensity. Southern inluences are limited to changes in pottery manufacturing styles and are not manifested more distinctly in other aspects of the culture. This prolonged inlow of esthetic inspirations may be divided into two stages, but without indicating a precise chronological division between them. From the irst stage – corresponding to the period of classic Trzciniec culture stylistics – come high jugs with a foot (associated with the late Madarovce culture, the Tumulus culture and other cultural phenomena from the western part of the Carpathian Basin in the BrB period) and vessel forms or decorative motifs characteristic of the classic and late Otomani culture. A younger group is represented by ceramic inds for which – as was correctly observed by Jacek Górski (2003, 127) – it is true that one can indicate references to many Carpathian Basin groups, but it is much more diicult to ind their exact equivalents. In fact, those vessels represent one more variant – perhaps enriched by a local tradition – of stylistics described here as the Tumulus-post-Otomani style. For further discussion it is important to signal the potential role that cultural groups from Polish and Slovakian Carpathians might have played in transmitting Tumulus-post-Otomani esthetic patterns from the Tisza River basin into the Trzciniec culture area. I will return to this point later. It is also worth remembering that southern inluences end together with the post-classic phase in sites of western Lesser Poland. We lack these types of artifacts from the end of the Trzciniec culture context, corresponding to period BrD in the North Alpine zone. 1 A diferent cultural tradition was developing contemporaneously in the Jasło-Krosno Basin (Kotlina Jasielsko-Krośnieńska) – separated from the Trzciniec culture by an unpopulated plateau (Gedl 1998, 22; 1998a, 29; Czopek 2006a, 81). It was deined relatively recently as the Jasło group (Gancarski 1992, 58). Although the majority of its known sites have been recognized only during the last dozen or so years, its irst discoveries date to the middle of the last century. Following an accidental inding of a luted jug (Żaki 1949; 1950, 83, ig. 69) in a medieval fortiied settlement in Bóbrka, Krosno district (Wietrzno-Bóbrka), large-scale excavations were conducted here in the mid-1950s. A small series of Bronze Age pottery fragments was acquired, including fragments decorated with lutes (Żaki 1957, 14–15, 17–18, plate 1; Gancarski 1992a, ig. 27:12–16). Although at irst these artifacts were assigned to the Lusatian culture by Andrzej Żaki (1957), he next noted their distinctiveness and possible southern connections (Żaki 1962, 205). The attribution of a luted jug from a fortiied settlement in Bóbrka to the Otomani culture was made slightly later by Janusz K. Kozłowski (Jamka 1972, 45). This view was supported by the discovery of a large series of pottery with Transcarpathian features in the open settlement in Jasło (Gancarski 1988)20 and in a fortiied settlement in Trzcinica, Jasło district (Gancarski 1992). Veriication of the chronology of some of the earlier inds from this latter site (Gedl 1989a, 112) also supported the above view. Further excavations provided the source basis for the Jasło group, enriched with materials from several other settlements in the Jasło Basin and the Jasło Piedmont (Pogórze Jasielskie) (Gancarski 1992c, 1994; 2002, 20 Interesting observations relate to the location of an eponymous settlement in Jasło, site 29 (Gancarski 1988). The Bronze Age settlement is found here on a naturally defended hill situated within a lat, and originally probably marshy, valley of the Jasiółka River. It should be noted that such a location is characteristic of several tell sites in the Carpathian Basin. 1 105; Muzyczuk 2007). According to Jan Gancarski (1992a, 39; 1994, 88), about 50 additional sites recognized during ield surveys in the region may be associated with this group. But it extended also further to the east, to the valley of the upper San River. The association of a settlement in Sanok, site 65 (Bober 1992, 154; Gancarski 1994, 98) with the Jasło group has not been unambiguously accepted until now, due to a relatively late (BrD– HaA1) chronology proposed for this site and its isolation in relationship to sites from the vicinity of Jasło and Krosno (Pohorska-Kleja, Zielińska 1992, 163; 1993, 159; Gedl 1998, 85). However, such an ailiation may be conirmed by more recent discoveries at a nearby fortiied settlement in Trepcza, Sanok district, where pottery typical of the Jasło group was found (Gancarski, Ginalski 2001).21 Materials from the Jasło group sites are characterized by a speciic syncretism, consisting in the presence of pottery typical of the Trzciniec culture, the Otomani culture, and of single forms combining the styles or technological elements characteristic of both cultures (Gancarski 1988, 67–80; 1992, 56; 1992b, 41–43; 1994, 78–88). The proportions of pottery belonging to these two groups are diferent in various sites, which may result from the chronological diferentiation of these materials (Gancarski 1992b, 46; 1994, 83, 97). Jan Gancarski (1988, 79–80; 1994, 97) regards the materials from settlements in Trzcinica and Wietrzno-Bóbrka as the earlier ones, associated – by the presence of decoration with oblique lutes and spiral motifs – with assemblages from the classic phase of the Otomani culture. Settlements in Jasło and Potok (ibidem) would be younger. In these sites, apart from numerous forms typical of the Trzciniec culture (especially S-shaped pots decorated with horizontal ribs), vessels with knobs pushed from the inside and surrounded by grooves, and fragments 21 Jan Gancarski (2002, 105) found fragments of Jasło group pottery in sites further away the Sanok region (Hłomcza, site 1; Sanok, site 55). 18 of vessels on a foot were discovered, thus the forms typical of the Streda nad Bodogom phase and of the Tumulus-post-Otomani style assemblages (Gancarski 1988, ig. 9:1,4,9; 1992, igs. 22:1,4,9, 24:11; 1994, 97, ig. 7:1–2). A similar set of pottery was also found in a fortiied settlement in Trepcza (Gancarski, Ginalski 2001, 317). The chronological position of the Jasło group is indirectly indicated by the fact that it succeeded a settlement horizon of the Pleszów group of the Mierzanowice culture, recorded at sites in Trzcinica and Jasło (Gancarski 1988, 75; 1992, 56; 1994, 77). However, it is diicult to determine the dating of vessels decorated with ribs coming from the latter site (Gancarski 1988, ig. 4:2). They are probably not earlier than the end of the Late Bronze Age or the Early Iron Age. Similar dating may be attributed, according to Gancarski (1992, 53), to pottery found together with pieces of the Jasło group ware from a settlement in Pilzno, Dębica district. In establishing the chronological limits of the Jasło group, bronze artifacts may also be useful. A battle-axe with comb-shaped head known from a fortiied settlement in Trzcinica can probably be dated to phase BrA2 (Gancarski 1994, 83, compare David 2002, 285, 313–314). Chronologically close (BrA2–BrB1) is a langed axe found in a settlement in Jasło (Szpunar 1987, 56–57; Gancarski 1988, 75; 1994, 83, 97; 1999, 146–147). Also similarly dated (Koszider hoards horizon – phase BrB1) is a hoard found within the range of the Jasło group in Jaworze Dolne, Dębica district (Blajer 2003, 246). A langed axe from the fortiied settlement in Trepcza may be slightly younger, and should be synchronized generally with period BrB (Szpunar 1987, 51–54; Blajer 1990, 23; Gancarski, Ginalski 2001, 312). As the presence of Jasło group type materials is also conirmed in the upper San territories, one should most probably associate the hoard from Stefkowa, Ustrzyki Dolne district, already dated to the older phase of “Piliny” metallurgy (phase LB I or phases BrC1–BrC2), with this cultural context (Blajer 1987; 1999, 136–137 – and references cited therein). On the other hand, if we accept the continuation of that group into phase LB II (see below), then 1 the Jasło group should also be connected with the inlow of other similarly dated bronze objects – especially B3 type battle axes with disc-shaped heads from Strachocina, Sanok district, and Ulucz, Brzozów district (Parczewski 1984, 206–208; Gedl 2004a, cat. no. 53–54), as well as perhaps some of the decorated rings with thinned ends (compare chapter 5.1). References to the Otomani culture periodization, together with the diferentiation of materials in particular sites, make it possible to distinguish two phases of Jasło group development. Of course, there is no strict boundary between the older stage – corresponding to the classic phase of the Otomani culture – and the younger one, characterized by artifacts typical of the end segment of this taxonomic unit and of the Tumulus-postOtomani groups. At the same time, the Jasło group materials as a whole can be synchronized – based on stylistic currents – with the older stage of southern inluences on the Trzciniec culture in western Lesser Poland, encompassed by the Trzciniec classic phase. It should be emphasized that almost all of the Transcarpathian pottery forms and ornaments from those sites are of the types originating from the late-Otomani pottery tradition, though they continued into phases LB I–LB II. Thus they also “lean” to a relatively earlier chronology. As examples, one can mention here jugs and footed cups, vessels decorated with knobs encircled by grooves, rows of hollows and nodule-shaped knobs or with horizontal lutes on the necks (e.g. Gancarski 1988, igs. 5:13, 9:1,4,9). Of diferent origin are only the bowls with triangle protuberances on the rims (Gancarski 1988, igs. 6:8– 9, 11) found at a settlement in Jasło, but known also from Trzciniec culture sites (Górski 2003, 107), representing a “western” superstratum in assemblages of the Tumulus-post-Otomani style (see chapter 3.2). Among younger inds of the Jasło group, materials from the settlement in Sanok, site 56, deserve particular attention. The site yielded pottery representing the Tumulus-post-Otomani style: pieces of footed cups (Bober 1992, plate 1:2,11; Pohorska-Kleja, Zielińska 1992, plate 3:11) and of a vessel decorated with a nodule-shaped knob (Pohorska-Kleja, 180 Zielińska 1993, ig. 2:e), as well as fragments of a vessel decorated with knobs pushed from the inside, covered with semi-circular grooves and a band of stamp imprints (Pohorska-Kleja, Zielińska 1992, plate 3:10). A fragment decorated with a double band of stamp imprints is connected with the same trend, but particularly with the LB II inventories from the northern part of the Great Hungarian Plain (Pohorska-Kleja, Zielińska 1992, plate 2:12). A second group of pottery from that site is comprised of vessels representing the Trzciniec tradition. Analogies are found for Sshaped pots or pots with “shoulder”, with thinned or “stretched” lips in assemblages from a late stage of development of this culture in the middle San basin or in chronologically subsequent assemblages of the early Tarnobrzeg group (Bober 1992, plates 1:1, 10; Pohorska-Kleja, Zielińska 1992, plates 1, 2:4,1,10, 3:12). Therefore, an analysis of pottery from site 56 in Sanok allows the functioning of this settlement to be placed in the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, and perhaps, more precisely, in phase LB II (BrC2–BrD/HaA1). In the context of the Jasło group chronology, one should also mention the problem of radiocarbon dating samples derived from the Bronze Age layers in Trzcinica, Jasło and Trepcza settlements. Analyses of samples from Trzcinica may suggest placing the beginning of the Jasło group settlement to around 1600 BC, and its decline to around 1350–1300 BC (1σ conidence) (Gancarski 1999). Based on these data, Gancarski (1999, 150–151; 2002, 109, 121) suggested that the formation of this group occurred only during the BrA2/BrB1 transition – as a result of the arrival of the Otomani culture population, “pushed out from the south”. It is diicult, however, to reconcile this concept with pottery from the classic phase of the Otomani culture (BrA2) especially abundantly represented at the Trzcinica settlement, unless one assumes – as has already been postulated for Spiš – a longer life for classic Otomani stylistics in its peripheral zones. Even more diicult to accept are the dates marking the decline of the Jasło group settlement in Trzcinica, especially given that the dates acquired for probably younger 181 (based on archeological indicators) settlements in Trepcza and Jasło were 1520±87 BC and 1750–1460 BC (2σ ) respectively (Gancarski 1999, igs. 14–15; Gancarski, Ginalski 2001, 312), that is, at least one century earlier. Leaving open the question of interpreting radiocarbon dating, a probable beginning of the Jasło group can be accepted as phase BrA2 (19th–17th century BC), that is, in the period when Otomani cultural materials are extended to the most southern and western distances away from its core region (compare Furmánek, Marková 1999; Gogâltan 1999a). As Sławomir Kadrow remarked (2001, 212), the formation of the Jasło group could have been signiicantly inluenced by the Pleszów group of the Mierzanowice cultural background. The “Otomani” component of the culture group discussed here would then appear not as the result of migration from the south, but as an efect of transformations within the local populations, as it could have occurred in the Košice Basin (where the background would be the Kosťany group)22. The decline of the Jasło group is marked by Tumuluspost-Otomani pottery from younger settlements, especially from site 56 in Sanok, and by bronze artifacts dated to phases LB I–LB II (16th–13th century BC) found without a settlement context. Assemblages with transcarpathian pottery from younger segments of the Late Bronze Age – the state of research and sources Dissimilarities between pottery discovered during excavations in a fortiied settlement in Wietrzno-Bóbrka and other – known at the time – materials of the Lusatian culture were used by Andrzej Żaki (1962, 205) 22 It should be noted here that Otomani culture sites have been identiied in the Ondava Upland region, separating until recently the settlement cluster of the Otomani culture in the Košice Basin from the Jasło group (Machnik, Mačala 2001, 16; Gancarski, Lukáč 2001, 107–108). 182 to distinguish the “Dukla” group within this taxonomic unit, marked by Transcarpathian inluences. This view was subject to criticism. Zbigniew Bukowski (1967, 47) stated that distinguishing a separate cultural group in the Carpathians was premature due to the limited number of available sources (especially from Wietrzno-Bóbrka) (see Gedl 1969, 389). However, he drew attention to another interesting ind from an open settlement in Wietrzno. Excavations at this site were initiated in 1959 by Józef Janowski. Continued (with intervals) until the beginning of the 1970s, they resulted in the discovery of a settlement and a small cemetery from the Bronze Age (Janowski 1966, 32–34; 1968, 139–141; Gedl 1998, plates 45–47). During the irst excavation season, the site yielded, among other things, fragments of a large vessel (ig. 45), which was soon published by Janowski (1961, 99, ig. 1) as a Lusatian culture form. However, Zbigniew Bukowski (1967, 47) suggested that it corresponded to vessels from the Carpathian Basin region, described at that time as Villanova type (compare chapter 3.1). Such an origin of the ind was also accepted by Jozef Paulík (1965, 172) and then repeated in later studies (Jamka 1972, 48; Gedl 1976, 29–30; 1989a, 113; Bazielich 1978, 343; 1984, ig. 20; Krushel’nychka 1985, 55). Bronze Age materials were also acquired from the excavations of a fortiied settlement in Mymoń, Sanok district. These inds, designated initially as „Lusatian culture” (Gajewski 1958, 119; Cabalska 1973a, 115), were later termed (1975a, 99) as “Dacian-Lusatian” by Maria Cabalska, though without an explanation of the Transcarpathian links assumed by this term. Scarce inds dated to the Late Bronze Age are also provided by small-scale research led by Antoni Kunysz (1961) at Góra Zamkowa in Biecz, Gorlice district (Lenarczyk 1984; Gedl 1998, 171), and by Antoni Jodłowski at a settlement in Temeszów, Brzozów district (Jodłowski 1963; Gedl 1998, 233, plate 14:15). In summarizing this stage of research in his monograph on the Lusatian culture in southeastern Poland, Kazimierz Moskwa (1976, 17, 143) drew attention to the possible existence of a separate cultural unit in the Carpathians, primarily represented by Transcarpathian inds from the open settlement in Wietrzno. 183 0 6 cm Fig. 45. Wietrzno, krosno district, site 4, settlement: vessel from 15 or 10 excavations, reconstructed in the krosno Museum. The end of 1970s and the 1980s brought signiicant progress in research on the Tarnobrzeg group from the San River basin. Discoveries from the cemetery in Bachórz Chodorówka, Rzeszów district (Gedl 1994), made possible the creation of a comparative database for the Tarnobrzeg group materials known from ield surveys or small-scale excavations on the upper 184 San (e.g. Parczewski 1984; 1988). At that time, larger-scale excavations were conducted at a Bronze Age settlement in Hłomcza, Sanok district (Muzyczuk, Pohorska-Kleja 1985, 176–178). Jan Gancarski’s distinction of the Jasło group (1992) and assigning to it materials from a fortiied settlement in Wietrzno-Bóbrka compelled opinions to be revised about the presence of the Lusatian culture in the western part of the Jasło-Krosno Basin (Kotlina Jasielsko-Krośnieńska). In his review of the cultural picture of the Bronze Age in the Polish Carpathians, Marek Gedl (1989a, 110–112) irmly resisted including these territories into the Lusatian culture. He drew attention to a possible connection of pottery from the Wietrzno settlement, and several other less recognized sites, with the Gáva culture (Gedl 1989, 113; compare also Bukowski 1989, 66). At the turn of the 1980s further excavations of Bronze Age sites were conducted. In the Jasło-Krosno Basin area, several settlements from the Bronze/Early Iron Age transition were identiied and yielded artifacts exhibiting references to the Tarnobrzeg group (e.g. Błażkowa, Niepla, Wrocanka, district Jasło – Gancarski 1989; 1992; 1992b). However, of particular importance for the topic discussed here are sounding excavations performed in Nienaszów, Krosno district. The remains of a settlement were uncovered, assigned by researchers (Cieślik, Madej, Gancarski 1991, 235) to a younger phase of the Piliny culture or to the Gáva culture. A small number of Late Bronze Age artifacts were discovered during survey excavations at site 25 in Rymanów, Krosno district (Gedl 1998, 222, plate 13:25). Pieces of luted pottery from this period are also known from sites discovered during a ield survey in the San valley (Sanok, site 13, Nowosielce, district Sanok) and in the Jasło Piedmont (Pogórze Jasielskie) (Kobylany, district Krosno, site 17 and 24, Nienaszów, site 14) (Gedl 1998, 194, 208–109, 224; Ginalski, Muzyczuk 2001, plate 2: d–f). West of the Jasło-Sanok Basin – in the Biała River valley – similar pottery was found at site 7 in Bistuszowa, Tarnów district (unpublished material from the Tarnów Museum collection). 185 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 9 10 8 11 15 14 16 13 12 18 17 19 22 21 23 20 24 26 27 28 0 25 6 cm Fig. 4. Wietrzno, krosno district, site 4, settlement: feature 1/15 (1–), feature 2/10 (–8) and material from humus (–28). 18 In a new attempt to present a review of Bronze Age settlement in the eastern Polish Carpathians, Marek Gedl (1998, 84–86, 138–143, 145–148; 2001a) proposed a regional periodization scheme, which – due to the minimal number of assemblages with precise chronological determinants – is based on a generalized course of changes in the cultural picture. Marek Gedl distinguished six phases and treated them as broad periods, able to be subdivided into additional segments. The deined phases correspond to: (i) the development of the Mierzanowice culture; (ii) settlement of the Trzciniec culture in the San River valley and of the Jasło group in the western Jasło-Krosno Basin; (iii) an early phase of the Tarnobrzeg group, the end of the Jasło group and the period when the small cemetery in Wietrzno functioned; (iv) younger developmental stages of the Tarnobrzeg group (including also, among others, a settlement in Hłomcza) and inds of the Gáva culture type from settlements in Wietrzno, Nienaszów and Biecz (already synchronized by Marek Gedl with period HaB); (v) the end phase of the Tarnobrzeg group (represented in the Carpathians by, among others, a cemetery in Zasław, Sanok district) and other settlements characterized especially by the presence of pots decorated with inger-tipped cordons and bowls with inverted rims (e.g. Niepla); (vi) inds of graphite pottery, typical of the La Tène culture. The chronological scheme introduced by Marek Gedl was applied by Sylwester Czopek (2005) in his attempt to summarize the state of research on the cultural ailiations of Bronze and Early Iron Age inds in the Polish Carpathians. With regard to the upper San and Wisłoka basins, this author emphasized the signiicance of an environmental barrier, the plateau areas, for the cultures from the great valleys zone (the Trzciniec culture, the Tarnobrzeg group). He described the region discussed here as a “zone B” – characterized by the most visible connections with Transcarpathian areas, and particularly with the neighboring Ondava Upland (Czopek 2005, 41, 44–47, 53–54). Among ield work conducted in recent years, the discovery of the remains of a Jasło group settlement within the area of a fortiied settlement 18 in Trepcza is undoubtedly of signiicance for the issues discussed here, as it conirmed the settlement of the Jasło group on the upper San (see above). New sources were also derived from research in the Jasło-Krosno Basin. Survey excavations of settlements in Jasło, site 42 (conducted by Jan Gancarski in 2005), and Korczyna, Krosno district (conducted by Jan Gancarski in 2001), should be mentioned here. But results of studies on a settlement in Warzyce, Jasło district, were particularly important (Pawłowska, Poradyło 2004; Czopek, Poradyło, in print). Among the more than 100 features discovered there, pottery with Transcarpathian references were found in 12. The remaining pits contained pottery material resembling inventories from sites of the Tarnobrzeg group dated to the Early Iron Age. As was already remarked by Marek Gedl (1998, 82–84), archeological sources for studies on younger segments of the Bronze Age in the eastern Polish Carpathians are very modest, both from the point of view of their quantity and (especially) quality. Scarce cemeteries originate from diferent time periods and have not yielded enough number of grave assemblages to enable their statistical analysis. Larger, multi-phase settlements are lacking, especially among sites from where artifacts with Transcarpathian features were found. A local diferentiation of materials, which must be taken into account in the case of sites situated in the mountain zone, can render attempts to develop a coherent periodization system diicult (or may bias such attempts). Thus, the dating of the inds group discussed here must be based on references to neighboring areas. As a point of reference one can assume the taxonomy of vessels from the Tarnobrzeg group cemetery in Bachórz Chodorówka (Gedl 1994, 23–47) and other attempted classiications of this group’s pottery (Czopek 1996, 30–43; Przybyła 2003). During the analysis of a second – southern – line of connections, I will direct myself both to the sites from the eastern Slovakian Carpathian zone, directly adjoining the area in question, and to the more distant but better recognized assemblages from the Tisza River basin. 188 periodization of Late Bronze Age inventories from the eastern polish Carpathians In developing a chronological sequence, one can begin from the most reliably dated ind assemblages. Two urn burials from a small cemetery in Wietrzno contained bronze objects. Together with one of the S-shaped pots decorated with knobs (ig. 47:4), a broken bronze razor, dated to Montelius Period IV was found (Gedl 1998, 59). A club-headed pin – an artifact characteristic of the Carpathian Basin and East Alpine zone in HaA period, especially in its older segment (e.g. Říhovský 1979, 151–152) – was found in a similar vessel (ig. 47:3). A pot decorated with a knob at the widest portion of its body was found at a settlement in Ladzin, Krosno district (Ginalski 1992), where it was accompanied by forms typical of the early phase of the Tarnobrzeg group (softly proiled S-shaped pot, carinated cup decorated with knobs and grooves). Vessels of this type were also discovered at a settlement in Warzyce within the same objects that contained pottery with Transcarpathian features. The manner the pottery material in these pits was arranged (heaps of sherds at pit bottoms making up whole vessels) allows one to assume that they contain contemporary assemblages of artifacts (Czopek, Poradyło, in print). Other fragments of pots with knobs on the body were found in materials from Nienaszów, site 8, and from a settlement in Wietrzno (igs. 46:14, 50:9). A dumpy specimen from a cemetery in Bachórz Chodorówka, representing transitional assemblages between the older and younger phases of this site, can be mentioned as their parallel in the Tarnobrzeg group (Gedl 1994, 56, plate 76:17). In inds from the Tisza basin and the upper Dniester, decorated pots with single or double knobs are very common and this cannot be perceived as a chronologically sensitive feature. However, it is worth remembering that with regard to the Gáva II style assemblages, a connection was postulated between the forms decorated in this way and the older horizon 18 2 1 4 3 5–6 0 0 5 4 cm 6 cm 6 Fig. 4. Wietrzno, krosno district, site 4, cemetery: grave 2/15 (1), 1/15 (2), 3/1 (3–4), 4/1 (5–). 1– after Gedl 18. 10 of inds (Mahala III phase in the Ukraine) corresponding to phase LB IV. Assuming this, the S-shaped pots with knobs on the widest portion of the body can be considered as forms typical of the Carpathian zone in phase LB III and LB IV (period HaA and older segment of HaB). In another burial from the cemetery in Wietrzno, a vase with a well separated neck and biconical body, decorated by groups of vertical grooves separated by vertical knobs, served as an urn (ig. 47:2). This vessel exhibits elements of a stylistic current described here as the Late Piliny-Kyjatice style. Such identiication is corroborated by analogous forms from a settlement in Warzyce, additionally decorated with horizontal bands of hollows, i.e. in a manner particularly characteristic of the trend in question (Czopek, Poradyło, in print). Another vase belonging to this variant occurred on a settlement in Hłomcza (ig. 49:6). Together with pieces of luted vessels and S-shaped pots with soft proiles, this form indicates the older stage of this site’s functioning, corresponding to the early phase of the Tarnobrzeg group. Obvious associations with the Late Piliny-Kyjatice style pottery are exhibited by another vessel from the Warzyce settlement, a biconical vase with everted rim, decorated with grooves and knobs on a carination and an array of concentric circles on the neck (Czopek, Poradyło, in print). This latter motif is very rare. A vessel decorated this way from a barrow in Susani, representing the Belegiš II style, was already mentioned several times. But in the case discussed here, a close analogy – with regard both to the vessel form and decoration – is an amphora from the Piliny-Kyjatice transitional horizon at a cemetery in Radzovce (Furmánek 1982, ig. 2:6). Other vessels with Transcarpathian features from the sites discussed here may also be assigned to the above-mentioned Belegiš II style. First of all, a large vase from a settlement in Wietrzno should be mentioned here (ig. 45). A garland motif on its neck was originally particularly typical of the Banat variant of the Belegiš II culture. After the spread of the Belegiš II pottery stylistics, vessels with such decoration appeared along the Tisza as well. A settlement in Wietrzno also yielded other vessel fragments typi- 11 1 2 4 3 7 6 5 8 13 18 9 10 14 12 16 15 19 11 17 20 0 6 cm 21 Fig. 48. Late Bronze Age artifacts from the eastern polish Carpathians, discovered during ield prospects and sounding excavations. korczyna, krosno district, site 80 (1–2); Biecz, Gorlice district, site 1: feature 1 (3–7); Jasło, loco district, site 42 (8–13); Bistuszowa, tarnów district, site  (14); kobylany, krosno district, site 1 (1–1) and 24 (15); temeszów, Brzozów district, site 1 (18); Rymanów, krosno district, site 25 (1); Nienaszów, krosno district, site 14 (20); Sanok, loco district, site 13 (21); Nowosielce, Sanok district, site 2 (22). 3– after Lenarczyk 184; 15–1,18–22 after Gedl 18; 1 after Ginalski, Muzyczuk 2001. 22 12 cal of the Belegiš II style: a piece of vase decorated with lutes and double knob on the carination, and a fragment of the upper part of a bowl with inverted, faceted rim (igs. 46:6, 10). Allied with this style are fragments of lengthwise luted handles from Wietrzno, Hłomcza and from a site in Kobylany (recognized by ield survey) (igs. 46:3, 48:16, 49:3), although this decoration type might represent the tradition of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle as well. This combination of diferent stylistic currents, which may seem troublesome in the description above, is a feature indirectly indicating the direction and time of the inluences being analyzed. One can recall here the pottery inventories on the Tisza River from phase LB III described earlier. It is exactly these inventories that document the spreading of the Belegiš II style to the north and its blending with “western” Velatice-Čaka style and local traditions. The presence of Belegiš II style vessels at cemeteries from the younger phase of the Piliny culture is also connected with this process. Coming back to inds from the Polish Carpathians, one can also propose a connection with Belegiš II style in the faceted rim of a vessel from Bistuszowa and fragments of vessels with necks decorated with horizontal lutes (igs. 46:8, 20–21, 25, 27–28, 48:14). An alternative to such assignment in the case of the latter decorative motif is also its presence on leading forms of the Gáva I style. Vessels of the Kyjatice culture are ornamented in a diferent way (grooves are usually narrower). Only occasionally is this type of ornament also found on Gáva II style pottery and in assemblages from the transition of the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age in eastern Slovakia. Therefore, it is justiied to assume that this ornament – in the form known from inds in the eastern Polish Carpathians – was limited to phase LB III (style Belegiš II or Gáva I). Thus, a settlement at site 42 in Jasło (ig. 48:10) may be dated to this phase, as well as (with a question mark) single pottery sherds from settlements in Temeszów and Rymanów, and fragments from ield prospects (Nowosielce, Sanok, site 13 10) (ig. 48:18–19,21–22). A large vase with cylindrical neck and everted rim from Warzyce should be assigned to the same time period (Czopek, Poradyło, in print). This form has no close references in the Carpathian Basin pottery, but its decoration (horizontal lutes and concentric circles on the neck) permits it to be included in the Belegiš II style. The chronology of other luted motifs must be less clear. Although the oblique and “turban-like” lutes – especially those placed on the vessel body – already commonly appear in assemblages from phase LB III, they also occur in the later period. This type of ornament became popular in central Slovakia only with the advent of the Kyjatice culture. The same dating (phase LB IV – older segment of period HaB) applies to bowls and cups decorated with oblique lutes from Gáva II style inds, e.g. from the Holihrady group inventories. Several bowls with a rounded or biconical body decorated with oblique lutes are from the group of sites discussed here (Hłomcza, Korczyna, Nienaszów, site 8, Warzyce – igs. 48:2, 49:5, 50:5; perhaps also Błażkowa: Gancarski 1992, ig. 30:9). Proceeding from an analysis of the coexistence of vessel forms, mainly in assemblages from Bachórz Chodorówka, I have proposed to treat this form as one of the indicators of the older segment of the middle phase (II a) of the Tarnobrzeg group (Przybyła 2003, 40, 43). Such a position in the pottery periodization scheme corresponds with the widespread occurrence of obliquely luted vessels in inds from the older segment of period HaB mentioned above. A fragment of a vessel decorated with horizontal lutes was also found at a settlement in Biecz (ig. 48:3). It is a rounded body sherd rather than a neck sherd. Thus, one may take into account the decoration on its upper part, at the base of the neck (as on vessels of the Kyjatice culture or the Holihrady group) or on a bulged neck of the type known from the Gáva II style pottery. Another reconstructive possibility is provided by eggshaped pots decorated with horizontal lutes, known from the Holihrady group (Krushel’nychka 1979, igs. 3:5; 6:4). Although reconstruction of 14 2 3 4 1 6 5 7 8 9 11 10 13 12 14 0 6 cm 15 16 17 0 Fig.49. Hłomcza, Sanok district, site 1, selection of Late Bronze Age materials: object 3 (5–1), 5 (1–2) and artifacts from area 23 (3–4). 1–1 after Muzyczuk, pohorska-kleja 14. 4 cm 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 7 0 Fig. 50. Nienaszów, krosno district, site 8, selection of Late Bronze Age materials. 1–9 after Cieślik, Gancarski, Madej 11. 6 cm 1 the form of the vessel from Biecz is not possible of course, its chronology within period HaB, and perhaps even within its younger segment, is probable. The pit containing the described fragment yielded no sherds of S-shaped pots – the most numerous forms in materials corresponding to the irst phase of the Tarnobrzeg group. On the other hand, a fragment of a thick-walled pot decorated with inger-tipped cordon was found. A vessel fragment decorated on its inner wall with grooved circles and a band of round stamp impressions may also have relatively younger connections (ig. 48:7). Such a combination of decorative motifs is typical of pottery from the end of the Late Bronze Age (e.g. Slivka 1982, ig. 7:8; Bandrivskyj 2002, ig. 7:8). An important issue is the dating of site 8 in Nienaszów. Some artifacts from this site exhibit links to the already discussed sites in Hłomcza, Ladzin, Wietrzno and Warzyce, such as the presence of pots with knobs on the widest portion of the body and bowls decorated with oblique lutes. One sherd shows traces of brush smearing, also recorded on pottery from Hłomcza and Wietrzno. This manner of surface processing appeared at the beginning of the Bronze Age. In its younger phases, it was especially typical of the Holihrady group, where brush smeared vessels belong to leading forms of the Mahala III phase (see chapter 3). At the Nienaszów settlement, a large number of S-shaped pot fragments were found, including specimens revealing technological traits characteristic of the early phase of the Tarnobrzeg group. At the same time, although we have numerous series of pottery at our disposal, we lack fragments decorated with horizontal lutes on the neck, or fragments with shapes or decoration resembling the Late Piliny-Kyjatice style. Other forms are present instead. A reconstructed vase with a strongly narrowing neck (ig. 50:1) has the closest analogies to vessels typical of the Gáva II style. On several fragments of another vessel, an ornament in the form of a row of knobs is preserved (ig. 50:3). This kind of decoration (although with slightly wider spaces between the knobs) is known from Gáva II style 1 sites (e.g. László 1994, plate 50:1; Pankau 2004, plates 27:10, 28:8) and is also regarded as characteristic of only the Mahala IV phase (e.g. Smirnova 1974, 370–379, igs. 2–3; László 1994, 193). Analogies – with regard to decoration – are found for two small vessels with horn-like knobs (ig. 50:2; Gedl 1998, plate 28:8) from the cemetery in Bachórz Chodorówka. This will be discussed in a later section of this work. Here we can indicate their closest territorial analogy – a carinated vessel decorated with hornlike knobs from the settlement in Błażkowa (Gedl 1998, plate 11:1). It is worth reminding that decoration with horn-like knobs was characteristic of Gáva II style pottery. Based on the stratigraphy of the settlement in Teleac, this type of decoration may be linked with older inds of this trend at phase LB IV (see chapter 3). The analogies mentioned above suggest the dating of settlement in Nienaszów to be phase LB IV and link its Transcarpathian pottery to Gáva II style inluences from the Tisza basin or western Ukraine. It should be noted that such a chronology agrees with the radiocarbon dating of this site to the 10th/9th century BC transition (Gancarski 1992, 50). The above-mentioned site in Błażkowa yielded pottery inds that can be already synchronized with the middle (II) phase of the Tarnobrzeg group. Further sites from this segment of time are situated on the upper San River (e.g. Ulucz, Brzozów district, Solina, Ustrzyki Dolne district, perhaps also Sanok-Olchowce – Strupiechowski 1968; Parczewski 1985; Gedl 1998, 228, 236; Zielińska 2005a). S-shaped pots and bowls with a soft proile are still present there, but younger types also appear, such as bowls with a separated, biconical body and bowls decorated with groups of strokes (a vessel of this type was also found at a settlement in Warzyce) (compare Przybyła 2003, 40–41, plate 5:8–10). A fragment of a handle decorated with a knob on its top is from settlement in Solina. This artifact probably may be linked with inluences from the forest-steppe zone of eastern Europe, dated to the end of the Late Bronze Age and beginning of the Early Iron Age (Gawlik, Przybyła 2005, 331, ig. 10:IV–V). 18 2 15 1 4 14 6 9 3 5 7 13 8 16 11 10 12 – a – b – c – d 0 50 km Fig. 51. the cultural situation of the eastern polish Carpathians in phases LB III–LB Iv (from haA1 to the older segment of haB): a — single vessels or pottery sherds showing “southern” traits; b — extensively excavated settlements dominated by pottery showing “southern” traits; c — extensively excavated settlement with a few artifacts showing “southern” traits and a domination of tarnobrzeg group pottery; d — selected sites with early tarnobrzeg group pottery. For site list see appendix 11. Tisza basin Tarnobrzeg group upper San basin Jasło-Krosno basin Early Iron Age Younger HB phase (900– 800/700 BC) Warzyce II proiled and semispherical bowls, egg-shaped pots decorated with cordons Wrocanka phase III Wietrzno II Niepla 510±50 BC Zasław Hłomcza II Mymoń II ? Biecz ? ? Solina Ulucz Błażkowa phase II Sanok-Olchowce Korczyna Phase LB IV (1050/ 1000– 900 BC) ? phase Ib Graves Wietrzno I Settlement Nienaszów 890±40 BC Phase LB III (1150– 1050/1000 BC) Warzyce I pottery of Belegiş II style and late Piliny-Kyjatice style Ladzin Hłomcza I Mymoń Sanok-Biała Góra Jasło phase Ia Fig. 52. periodization scheme for Late Bronze Age sites in the northern part of the east Beskid mountains. Inventories containing pottery referring to the tisza cultures are presented against a grey background. 1 200 The chronological sequence of inds from the Bronze and Early Iron Ages in the Polish Carpathians closes with inventories containing egg-shaped pots with coarsened surface, decorated with inger-tipped imprints, known, among others, from the younger phases of settlements in Hłomcza, Mymoń (Cabalska 1975a, plate 2:5), Warzyce, Wietrzno (e.g. ig. 46:12–13), a settlement in Wrocanka (Gancarski 1992b, ig. 7:7–8) and a cemetery in Zasław (Gedl 1998, plate 50:1). This type of pottery exhibits close links to materials of the Tarnobrzeg group, where vessels decorated with cordons have a well-conirmed, late dating (HaD–Lt – 6th–4th century BC) (Moskwa 1976, 55, 57, 59–61; Poradyło 1995, 42; Czopek 1989, 249; 1996, 35–36, 118; 2001, 174; Przybyła 2003, 41–42). In the Carpathian zone, their dating can be conirmed by a hoard of metal objects from the Early Iron Age, discovered in Hłomcza (Muzyczuk, Pohorska-Kleja 1996; Muzyczuk 2003, 350). 201 4.3. Inventories with transcarpathian pottery in the dunajec River valley and in neighboring territories An outline of studies on the Late Bronze Age settlement in the dunajec River valley The history of research, particularly ield work at prehistoric sites from the western Polish Carpathians, has already been presented in several studies (e.g. Cabalska 1982, 353–358; Madyda-Legutko 1996, 9–13), absolving me of the necessity to discuss this issue in detail. The remarks that follow are therefore limited to the characterization of the main stages in research on the Late Bronze Age assemblages from the territory in question, and in particular, to the discussion of studies on intercultural relations for this inds group. Until the 1930s, attempts to reconstruct cultural relations in the Dunajec River valley were based exclusively on bronze inds. Józef Kostrzewski (1924, 182) assumed a connection between these inds and inluences from Hungary. A diferent opinion was presented by Józef Żurowski (1927, 87, 92–93). According to Żurowski, the plateau and the Sącz Basin (Kotlina Sądecka) region became settled as an efect of the migration of the Lusatian culture population, driven south by pressure from the Pomeranian culture, and then moved even further south. In the 1930s, Gabriel Leńczyk (1933, 39; 1934, 29–30) catalogued the medieval and prehistoric fortiied settlements in the Dunajec River valley, and in 1938 he began excavating a fortiied settlement in Zawada Lanckorońska, Tarnów district (“Zamczysko” site – Leńczyk 1938; 1950). 202 3 2 1 0 4 5 6m 1 2 A C E B D F G Fig. 53. Marcinkowice, Now Sącz district, stratigraphical scheme of the NW proile of trench I/II from R. Jamka’s excavations in 141; A — clay, B — burnt-out clay, C — ash, d — humus, e — coal, F — stones, G — range of artifacts from hoard (no. 2). 10 5 0-20 cm 113 25 20-40 cm 60-80 cm 80-100 cm 100-120 cm 140-160 cm 14 4 1 5 1 4 6 16 107 315 70 120-140 cm 2 328 30 40-60 cm 18 57 pottery of Mierzanowice Culture 2 2 13 3 ine pottery of Mierzanowice Culture or from Late Bronze Age 2 2 total: 1316 pottery fragments coarse pottery from Late Bronze Age ine (black or brown polished) pottery from Late Bronze Age medieval or modern pottery Fig. 54. Marcinkowice, Nowy Sącz district, frequency of individual pottery groups in succeeding layers in trenches I–I/II. 8 203 Prehistoric artifacts from these excavations were dated by Leńczyk (1950, 63–76) to Period V – HaD and assigned to the Lusatian culture. In his opinion, the Zawada Lanckorońska fortiications were an element of a defensive network erected along a trade route, including also other fortiied settlements that he considered prehistoric: in Naszacowice, Nowy Sącz district, Roztoka, Tarnów district, and Marcinkowice, Nowy Sącz district (Leńczyk 1950, 6–7, 75–76). At this latter site, known already to Żurowski (1927, 35), after the accidental discovery of a hoard of bronze objects (initially considered as rich grave equipment – Szkaradek 1941), Rudolf Jamka conducted excavations, yielding, among other things, a large series of Late Bronze Age pottery. He connected the remnants of earthworks discovered there with the Early Middle Ages based on the similarity of their construction to the Zawada Lanckorońska fortiications.23 The 1950s and 1960s were a period of most intense studies on prehistoric and early medieval settlement in the Dunajec River valley. Fragments of pottery assigned to the Lusatian culture from the Early Iron Age were discovered in 1953 in the territory of early medieval fortiied settlements in Naszacowice and Podegrodzie, Nowy Sącz district, and slightly later, also at fortiied settlements in Chełmiec, Nowy Sącz district, Białowoda and Nowy Sącz – Biegonice (Żaki 1954, 239–240, 244, 248; 1966, 358–359; 1966a, 284; Woźniak 1962, 25; Cabalska 1963, 45–46; 1963a, 52). In 1956 and 1963, excavations were conducted at the Early Iron Age fortiied settlement in Zabrzeż, Nowy Sącz district (Kozieł 1958, 109–112; Cabalska 1963b). At the beginning of the next decade, excavations encompassed small earthworks in Kurów, Nowy Sącz district, situated at the edge of the Dunajec River valley, opposite a settlement in Marcinkowice. Apart from pottery dated to Period V and the Early Iron Age, Andrzej Żaki also found a destroyed cremation 23 Comments in Rudolf Jamka’s ield register, now at the Institute of Archeology UJ. 204 burial at the foot of the earthworks in Kurów (Żaki 1964, 44–45; 1966, 363– 364; 368; 1966a, 283–284). The remnants of a destroyed cemetery together with a contemporary settlement in Stary Sącz (“Na Lipiu” site) were excavated in 1956–1957 by Maria Cabalska, who proposed that these features be dated to the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Early Iron Age (Trzepacz-Cabalska 1959, 179–180). A similar chronology was proposed for the cremation graves discovered accidentally during construction work in Chełmiec, Nowy Sącz district (Żaki 1962a). According to Maria Cabalska (1963, 46; 1966, 381–382; 1969a, 115–116), artifacts from the rescue excavations led in 1960 in Nowy Sącz – Biegonice should also be considered cemetery relics. Later studies on the materials (Cabalska, Madyda-Legutko, Tunia 1990, 177–178) did not conirm these assumptions. Excavations initiated in 1959 on a fortiied settlement from the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in Maszkowice, Nowy Sącz district, are of particular importance for the topic discussed here. Based on the results of early research seasons, the author concluded that the more distinct traces of the fortiied settlement’s population in Maszkowice are connected only with the Upper Silesia-Lesser Poland group of the Lusatian culture from phase HaC (Cabalska 1963, 52– 55; 1966, 383; 1968, 471–472; 1970, 95–100). The end of the 1960s brought the irst attempts of synthesis based on ield work from earlier decades. Particularly worth mentioning is the study of Zbigniew Bukowski (1967), who postulated the dating of fortiied settlements from the Dunajec River valley from the Early Iron Age and onward. This scholar also claimed that settlement of this area (in some regions, e.g. in the Sącz Basin already conirmed from Period III and onward24) was connected with the trade route rather than with migration 24 This was explicitly conirmed by single vessels decorated with knobbed ornament from Zawada Lanckorońska and by metal artifacts, especially the hoard from Radajowice, Nowy Sącz district (Żurowski 1927, 91; Cabalska 1963, 52; Bukowski 1967, footnote 17). 205 from the south. Contrary to the Orava, the Dunajec River valley was not an isolated cultural enclave, but was included in the range of the Upper Silesia-Lesser Poland group (grupa górnośląsko-małopolska) (Bukowski 1967, 36–40; 1969, 335–337). The assumption about Lusatian culture expansion in Period III was also accepted by Maria Cabalska, who cited information on Period IV artifacts and drew attention to the fact that settlement ceased to develop in the youngest period of the Bronze Age (Cabalska 1969a, 113–117). Also according to Cabalska, the Lusatian culture in the Sącz area began to lourish only in the Early Iron Age (Cabalska 1969a, 124). Further studies from this period focused on fortiied settlements from the end of the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. A detailed analysis of their construction was presented by Antoni Jodłowski (1967, 7–11). Andrzej Żaki (1966, 353–357, 374) drew attention to the similarity between the system of fortiied settlements from the Dunajec River valley and the settlement structures observed – on a larger scale – in the Orava group of the Lusatian culture from the Early Iron Age. The state of research on Bronze Age fortiied settlements in the Dunajec River valley was next summarized by Marek Gedl (1976, 12–17). Some of the earlier conclusions were also used in Anna Niesiołowska-Wędzka’s study (1974, 91–94) devoted to the fortiied settlement of the Lusatian culture. Of crucial signiicance for studies on cultural connections relected in Late Bronze Age inventories from the Dunajec River valley was the discovery of a layer (a dugout?) with Otomani culture pottery (ig. 55) at a settlement in Maszkowice (seasons 1971–1972). Based on these inds, the oldest phase of the settlement was identiied, and Maria Cabalska also assigned single artifacts found during earlier excavations to this phase (Cabalska 1972, 89; 1972a, 369–370; 1973; 1974, 53; 1974a; 1975, 178–179; 1976, 41–42). Simultaneously, she still emphasized the presence of single vessels of the Lusatian culture from Period III and IV at this site (Cabalska 1977, 107–108, 126–127). Apart from the excavations in Maszkowice, intensive ield survey (by Krzysztof Tunia, Paweł Valde-Nowak and Jacek 20 1 2 4 3 5 6 7 10 8 0 6 cm Fig. 55. Maszkowice, Nowy Sącz district, site 1, selection of spiral-knobbed pottery and materials from the oldest phases of the Late Bronze Age from the feature explored in 11–12. 1–11 after Cabalska 14. 9 11 20 Rydzewski) were conducted in the Dunajec River valley within the framework of studies on prehistoric settlement in mountain zones (compare e.g. Madyda-Legutko 1996, 12). We should mention here the survey by Krzysztof Tunia in the Polish section of the Poprad valley, which revealed a distinct contrast between the southern part of the Sącz Basin, densely populated in the Bronze Age, and the mountain zone of the prospected area, almost uninhabited during that period (Tunia 1977). Despite the discovery of Otomani culture traces at the fortiied settlement in Maszkowice, in the early 1980s it was still thought that Dunajec River valley settlement was the result of the migration of the Lusatian culture in Period III. Maria Cabalska (1982, 358), and also Marek Gedl with more caution (1982, 31) indicated here a population of the Silesian variant of the Lusatian culture from the vicinity of Kraków as a potential source of this expansion. A connection of some pottery fragments from Maszkowice with the Trzciniec culture was suggested as well in the literature (Blajer 1985, 62, 66). Summarizing the stage of studies on Bronze Age settlement in the Sącz Basin, Maria Cabalska maintained her earlier conclusions (1969a) about a two-phased settlement of the Lusatian culture, describing single inds from Periods III and IV, and the period of prosperity of fortiied settlement on the Dunajec River, corresponding to the Early Iron Age (Cabalska 1982, 358–360). This second stage was synchronized by Marek Gedl (1982, 31, ig. 13) with the Biskupice-Tyniec phase in western Lesser Poland (HaD–LT). Field work in the Dunajec River valley and neighboring areas revived in the 1980s and 1990s. Small-scale work was conducted at earlier explored settlements from the Late Bronze Age (excavations by Barbara and Adam Szybowicz in Marcinkowice during the 1984–1988 seasons, Dominik Abłamowicz, Kazimierz Reguła i Antoni Jodłowski in Stary Sącz „Na Lipiu” in 1986–1987 and Jacek Poleski in Zawada Lanckorońska in 1993). Of great importance for the issues of interest here were the excavations at a cremation cemetery in Chełmiec (by Marek Szymaszkiewicz and Renata 208 1 2 3 4 5 7 6 9 8 10 12 11 14 15 13 16 0 6 cm 17 18 19 Fig. 56. Maszkowice, Now Sącz district, site 1, spiral­knobbed pottery and materials from early phases of the Late Bronze Age from various parts of the site. ,8,13 and 1 after Cabalska 13. 20 20 1 2 3 7 6 8 12 11 13 16 4 5 9 10 14 18 15 19 17 22 20 23 21 24 0 6 cm Fig. 57. Marcinkowice, Now Sącz district, site 1, pottery dated to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, from the 141 and 18 excavations (18). 1–2,4,–8,12–13,14–1,20–21 taken from the documentation in the Jagiellonian university’s Institute of Archeology archives. 25 210 and Dominik Abłamowicz in 1983–1984), previously only preliminarily recognized by Andrzej Żaki. A series of Late Bronze Age artifacts was also acquired during long-term excavations (since 1983) conducted by Jacek Poleski at an early medieval fortiied settlement in Naszacowice. Materials from the Early Iron Age came from veriication studies at the “Zamczysko” site in Podegrodzie, Nowy Sącz district (Madyda-Legutko, Poleski 1995). Finally, interesting inds were acquired during studies at sites of the Dunajec River valley foreland. In 1990, a seriously destroyed cremation cemetery in Gwoździec, Tarnów district, was explored (Szpunar 1995; Okoński, Szpunar 2002, 122, 254–260; Szpunar, Szpunar 2003). Slightly later, Paweł Madej and Paweł Valde-Nowak preliminarily recognized Bronze Age settlement and cemetery remnants in Jurków, Brzesko district (Valde-Nowak, Madej 1998), as well as settlements in Wielka Wieś, Tarnów district (Madej, Valde-Nowak 1996; Valde-Nowak, Madej 1996; 1997; Okoński, Szpunar 2002, 55, 124, 315, ig. 22:A) and Czchów, Brzesko district (Madej, Valde-Nowak 1997; 1998; 2001). Work at the two latter sites was conducted in the framework of the Spiš Project (Projekt spiski) – a research campaign aimed at identifying Neolithic and Early Bronze Age settlements in the Czarna Orava River and Dunajec River valleys (Valde-Nowak, Madej 1996, 9; Soják 2003, 133, footnote 129). A cremation burial discovered in Łoniowa, Brzesko district, has great signiicance for an attempted characterization of the cultural phenomena at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age in the Dunajec River valley. It was discovered in 2004 during excavations of a Neolithic settlement conducted by Paweł Valde-Nowak. One should also mention the geomagnetic prospect and veriication ield surveys of 2006, carried out with the aim of identifying Bronze Age settlement structures in the piedmont section of the Dunajec River valley (Kienlin, Valde-Nowak, in print) and of their continuation, i.e. the excavations of a settlement in Janowice, Tarnów district. During the irst exploration season (2007), features representing three settlement horizons from the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age were discovered 211 there (Kienlin, Valde-Nowak, 2008). Equally important for studies on the cultural situation on the middle Dunajec River are data obtained from excavations of the settlement in Wojnicz, Tarnów district, already situated at the southern edge of the Vistula River valley. A complete settlement sequence from the Bronze and Early Iron Age was also registered here (Dzięgielewski, in print). Field work results shed new light on the cultural attribution of Late Bronze inds from the region in question. Undoubtedly, the excavation of a cemetery in Chełmiec, whose early phase exhibits indisputable connections with Carpathian Basin cultures (ig. 58) is a landmark. Assignment of these assemblages to the Piliny culture, already proposed by Marek Szymaszkiewicz (1985, 151), was accepted in all later studies. The discovery of the Piliny culture occurrence in the Sącz Basin – already signaled earlier on the basis of the work in Maszkowice (Cabalska 1972a, 370; 1974, 53) – coincided with the distinction of the Jasło group in the Jasło-Krosno Basin (also exhibiting close relations to the Transcarpathian groups) and with the publication of pottery linked to the Gáva culture from the San basin and western Lesser Poland (Małopolska) (see chapter 5). This revolutionized views on the cultural relations of inds from the Polish Carpathian zone. In the study of materials from a settlement in Nowy Sącz – Biegonice, attention was drawn to the possibility of linking some of the pottery from this site with the Piliny or Gáva cultures (Cabalska, Madyda-Legutko, Tunia 1990, 178). Urszula Bąk (1996, 62–80; 1996a) arrived at similar conclusions, indicating a number of forms and decorative motifs with analogies in the Gáva, Kyjatice and Piliny cultures after analyzing pottery from Jacek Poleski’s excavations of a fortiied settlement in Zawada Lanckorońska. The same cultural attribution was to be applied to materials from excavations in Marcinkowice (Szybowicz, Szybowicz, Poleski 1998, 80). A cemetery in Gwoździec was described as belonging to the spiralknobbed cycle (Szpunar, Szpunar 2003, 505). The same was assumed with regard to artifacts from the settlement in Czchów (Madej, Valde-Nowak 212 1 2 0 6 cm 4 3 5 Fig. 58. Chełmiec, Now Sącz district, site 2, pottery from a cemetery dated to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age: grave 1 (1) 2 (5), 3 (), 4 (2–3), 5 (4). 2,4–5 after Szymaszkiewicz 185. 6 213 1 2 3 4 5 7 6 8 9 15 17 10 11 16 12 13 14 0 6 cm 18 Fig. 5. Czchów, Brzesko district, site 10, selection of pottery from feature 1/ dated to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (1–5); Wielka Wieś, Tarnów district, site 16, pottery from a multi-phase Late Bronze Age settlement: feature 5/ (), 1/ (–18) and 5/ (–8). 1–5 after Madej, valdeNowak 18; –1 after valde-Nowak, Madej 1. 214 2 1 3 5 4 6 8 0 6 cm 7 Fig. 60. Zawada Lanckorońska, Tarnów district, site 1, selection of pottery from the early phase of the Lusatian culture. 1–5,7 and 9 after Bąk 1996; 6 and 8 after Leńczyk 150. 9 215 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 14 17 0 16 Fig. 61. Zawada Lanckorońska, Tarnów district, site 1, selection of luted pottery and pottery from the end of the Late Bronze Age. 1,3–4,6–8,10–17 after Bąk 1996; 2,5 and 9 after Leńczyk 1950. 6 cm 21 1 2 4 3 5 7 9 8 10 6 11 12 18 13 14 15 16 17 Fig. 62. Marcinkowice, Now Sącz district, site 1, pottery of the Silesian and Slovakian groups of the Lusatian culture from older phases of the Late Bronze Age, from the 141 and 18 excavations (1). 1–2,–8,10–11,15 and 18 taken from the documentation in the Jagiellonian university’s Institute of Archeology archives. 0 6 cm 21 1 6 2 7 3 8 4 9 5 10 11 13 12 15 16 14 21 20 18 26 17 24 22 25 27 29 28 32 33 19 30 34 0 23 6 cm 31 35 37 36 41 38 39 Fig. 63. Marcinkowice, Now Sącz district, site 1, grooved pottery from the Late Bronze Age, from the 123 (31) and 141 excavations. 4,,8–10,14,1–18,24–2,34,3,38–40 taken from the documentation in the Jagiellonian university’s Institute of Archeology archives. 40 218 1 2 4 3 5 6 7 0 6 cm Fig. 64. Gwoździec, Tarnów district, site 9, selection of pottery from a Late Bronze Age cemetery. 1–8 after Szpunar, Szpunar 2003. 8 21 1 2 3 5 4 7 6 8 10 9 11 0 6 cm 12 Fig. 65. Dąbrowa, Nowy Sącz, pottery from a settlement dated to the end of the Late Bronze Age (1–5); Stary Sącz, site 1, pottery from a destroyed cemetery and from a settlement dated to the end of the Late Bronze Age (–12). –10 after Cabalska 1. 220 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 6 cm Fig. 66. Nowy Sącz — Biegonice, site 20, pottery from a settlement dated to the end of the Late Bronze Age. 1– after Cabalska, Madyda-Legutko, tunia 10. 9 221 1 3 2 5 4 6 7 9 8 11 10 12 13 14 0 6 cm 15 16 17 Fig. . Selection of pottery from the transition between the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age at fortiied settlements in Marcinkowice, Nowy Sącz district (1–12) and Maszkowice, Nowy Sącz district (13–18). 5 and 10 taken from the documentation in the Jagiellonian university’s Institute of Archeology archives; 13, 15–1 after Cabalska 14a. 18 222 1997, 6–7; 1998, 20–21), although elsewhere they were more precisely described as representing the late phase of the Otomani culture (ValdeNowak 2003, 46). Some of the pottery found at a settlement in Wielka Wieś, in the piedmont zone of the Dunajec River valley, was assigned to the Piliny culture (Valde-Nowak, Madej 1997, 4–5; Okoński, Szpunar 2002, 55; Valde-Nowak 2003, 46). The northwestern extent of the Piliny culture inds is delineated by a vessel (an urn?) from a fortiied settlement in Chełm, Bochnia district (Rodak 2003, 207–211). Pottery discovered during ield prospects has also started to be assigned to Transcarpathian cultures (the Otomani culture in particular) (e.g. Okoński, Szpunar 2002, 267), with the technology of its manufacture being treated as one of the diagnostic features. From the 1980s onward, sources other than pottery (e.g. stone and lint artifacts) have been taken into consideration in studies on Bronze Age settlement in the Podhale-Beskid zone of the Western Carpathians. Proceeding from the materials acquired during ield prospects, Paweł Valde-Nowak (1986, 115) distinguished a group of non-pottery artifact collections, described as “Orava type inventories”. Due to the fact that their range and the zones of Neolithic settlement are mutually exclusive, and because of their distinct typological diferentiation with regard to Paleolithic materials, Valde-Nowak proposed the assignment of those inventories to the Early Bronze Age. Such a chronological position is moreover supported by their technological traits (bifacial treatment), typical of the assemblages of the epi-Corded Ware circum-Carpathian culture complex (Valde-Nowak 1986, 116–122; 1988, 43–45; 1989, 99; 1996, 45–46). In his studies deining the Orava type inventories, Valde-Nowak was skeptical about the possibility of linking them to younger settlements (the Trzciniec or Otomani culture). He argued that these types of lint objects were absent in the assemblage from the Otomani pit in Maszkowice, and that they difered from the Otomani lint industry, already known then from the core area of that culture (Valde-Nowak 1988, 45; 1989, 100). 223 On the basis of more recent ield work and inluenced by the above-mentioned “discovery” of the signiicance of southern cultures in populating the Polish Carpathian zone, he nevertheless broadened the interpretation of the lint inds in question, suggesting their possible dating even to the beginning of the Early Bronze Age (Valde-Nowak 2003, 46). At present, lint artifacts typical particularly of the Otomani culture are also distinguished, such as polished tools of the Krummesser type (Kopacz 2001, 39; Soják 2003a, 470–472; Valde-Nowak 2003, 46–49). It should be noted, however, that from the Slovakian perspective, this type of stone tool is sometimes considered an import from Poland (Soják 2003a, 472). In 1995, Renata Madyda-Legutko attempted a synthetic approach to Early Iron Age settlement in the western Polish Carpathians and in the Dunajec River valley in particular. Her conclusions can be summarized as follows: (i) Early Iron Age settlement in the western Beskid Mountains zone was characterized by the presence of fortiied settlement systems situated along river valleys – this scheme corresponds well to similar settlement structures known from Liptov, Orava, Spiš and eastern Slovakia; (ii) egg-shaped pots decorated with plastic cordons and knobs, as well as bowls with inverted rim are leading pottery forms; (iii) apart from these forms, pottery referring to the Upper Silesia-Lesser Poland group and to the culture groups from the Carpathian Basin appears; (iv) iron objects are numerous in the settlements; (v) their presence suggests that the development of Iron Age settlement structures started not earlier than phase HaD, which is conirmed by the chronology of numerous hoards from the Dunajec River valley; (vi) the decline of this phenomenon was connected with the emergence of the Púchov culture, and may chronologically correspond to youngest pre-Púchov settlements from northern Slovakia, dated to phases LtB2–C2. On the basis of the discussed group of sources, Renata Madyda-Legutko (1995, 256) proposed to distinguish a separate taxonomic unit designated as the “Zabrzeż-Podegrodzie horizon”. This culture group was to be connected with cultural phenomena developing at 224 that time in northern Slovakia, inluenced at the same time by the Lusatian culture milieu from Lesser Poland (Madyda-Legutko 1995, 251–253). In his attempt to summarize current views on the cultural attribution of the Polish Carpathian zone, Sylwester Czopek maintained earlier conclusions about the assignment of several sites from the Dunajec River valley to the Piliny culture. He also signaled a clear connection between this area (described as the zone A within the Polish Carpathians) and cultural groups from Spiš and Orava (Czopek 2005, 43, 48–49, 53). Comments on the interpretation of archeological records While not denying the importance of attempts to connect inds from the Dunajec River valley with the Carpathian Basin cultures undertaken in the last dozen or so years, attention should be drawn to certain negative tendencies in these attempts. Their conclusions were limited to a simple, “slogan-like” assignment of a given artifact assemblage to a particular group developing south of the Carpathians. Lack of a more thorough analysis of mutual relations of the sources in question and of the context in which the parallels were found can be explained by the pioneering character of these studies, and by the fact that they were mainly reports of ield work. In the last decade of discussion, there have only been a few voices recommending more caution in identifying inds from territories in Poland with speciic Transcarpathian cultures and to take into account the role of the Lusatian societies in populating the Dunajec River valley (Gedl 2003, 381–383), or proposing the use of more general terms, such as “spiral-knobbed cycle” (Madej, Valde-Nowak 1998, 20). Meanwhile – contrary to previously discussed inventories from the Jasło-Krosno Basin (Kotlina JasielskoKrośnieńska), accessible to territories on the Tisza River – only secondary, indirect inluences from cultural centers located in the Eastern Carpathian Basin can be taken into account in the case of the Dunajec River valley. The 225 role of an intermediary in these contacts was played by societies from Spiš, Liptov, Orava and Šariš, that is, from regions where the groups of Tisza origin (except for the Otomani culture in Spiš) did not occur in their “pure” form. We are dealing with syncretic inventories in these territories during the entire Late Bronze Age, which combine the elements of various groups, among whom the Slovakian group of the Lusatian culture played a special role. It is just these assemblages that constitute a reference point for sites from the Sącz region (Sądecczyzna), and, together with them, form a common “mountain” cultural milieu, developing in conditions completely different from those of “lowland” groups from territories on the Tisza basin. It is also not justiied to “a priori” reject the connection of the inds group in question with Lesser Poland’s (Małopolska) variant of the Lusatian culture – both in its early, Silesian form and during the development of the Upper Silesia-Lesser Poland (grupa górnośląsko-małopolska) group. The fact that the Dunajec River valley is mainly accessible to territories occupied by dense settlements of this taxonomic unit simply induces one to consider the northern direction each time before starting to look for parallels for the analyzed artifacts in the cultures from the Carpathian Basin. The periodization of cultural phenomena developing in the Dunajec River valley is of vital importance for an analysis of Transcarpathian relations. The source potential here is much greater than in the case of inventories from the eastern Polish Carpathians. The lack of larger cemeteries containing assemblages with chronologically sensitive bronze objects is compensated to a signiicant degree by large series of materials from multi-phase settlements. Other, only partially recognized objects can be matched to the scheme worked out based on the inner periodization of sites yielding the largest number of sources. The fortiied settlement in Zawada Lanckorońska has a relatively clear stratigraphy. The veriication studies by Jacek Poleski allowed a layer connected with the functioning of a Late Bronze Age settlement to be distinguished beneath the Early Medieval earthworks. This layer yielded more 22 than 200 pottery sherds. The remaining fragments of the set of more than 4000 pieces were found in a secondary deposit, within the Early Medieval layers. Poleski’s explorations did not conirm (but also did not exclude) the existence of fortiications corresponding to the Late Bronze Age settlement (Bąk 1996, 51–53; Poleski 2004, 348–349). According to Urszula Bąk (1996, 55, 77–80), artifacts from the prehistoric layer represent the oldest phase of Bronze Age settlement at this site, dated to the BrC/BrD transition, while the materials discovered in the secondary deposit may also be from younger stages (phases HaA–HaB). A homogeneous cultural layer was recorded at a fortiied settlement in Maszkowice, containing artifacts from diferent phases of the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Unfortunately, there is no data on stratigraphy in the zone where the embankment relics were discovered. Individual features also have only a small number of materials attributed to them. Especially conspicuous among these features is a large, channeled pit, discovered below Early Iron Age objects and containing spiral-knobbed pottery (Cabalska 1974, 39). The lack of accurate data on the structure of the ill of this pit, together with its large dimensions (Cabalska 1974, 39–43, igs. 2–3) does not permit relatively coherent chronological groups to be distinguished, which would correspond to the accumulated assemblages from pits of the T-feature type (compare Kadrow 1991, 36–38). Thus, one should take into account the possibility that the artifacts assemblage from this feature originate from diferent phases of settling this site in the Bronze Age. It should be mentioned that single fragments of pottery referring to the Otomani culture were also found in other parts of the site. The stratigraphy of the settlement in Marcinkowice was analyzed by Jacek Poleski (2004, 222–227) on the basis of documentation from Rudolf Jamka’s excavations and the results of more recent work by Barbara and Adam Szybowicz. For the issues discussed here, the following conclusions of Poleski are essential: (i) a layer (usually over 1 m thick) related to prehistoric settlement was recorded in all trenches, in most cases it was disturbed 22 in younger periods and the original arrangement of inds was disturbed as well; (ii) a stratigraphic ordering of inds was registered in a long trench from Barbara and Adam Szybowicz’s excavations, which means that pottery fragments considered typologically older were found in the lower part of the prehistoric cultural layer; (iii) in more recent work, as well as during Rudolf Jamka’s excavations, relics of multi-phase embankments were found, undoubtedly connected with the Late Bronze Age settlement – one of these phases is radiocarbon dated to ca 950 BC (Poleski 2004, footnote 137); (iv) most relics of the fortiications (traces of palisade, embankments and moat) are related to two lines of defense from the Early Medieval period; such a chronology is suggested by the scarce fragments of pottery and stratigraphic observations. One could try to verify the observations concerning the stratigraphic arrangement made in the course of Barbara and Adam Szybowicz’s excavations using the results of investigations from 1941. Although exploration was then conducted by arbitrary layers 20 cm thick, an approximate assignment of artifacts to main stratigraphic units is possible in the zone where the layer arrangement is nearest to a horizontal one (trenches I and I–II) (igs. 53–54). The bulk of material in the analyzed trenches (I–I/II) occurred in the uppermost layers – present day humus (0–20 cm), and particularly in the upper layer of clay (20–60 cm), which yielded about 2/3 of the discovered pottery fragments. Early Medieval and modern pottery was least numerous and was recorded only to a depth of about 40 cm, while already from the 0–20 cm layer, pieces of Early Bronze Age Mierzanowice culture pottery occurred. The amount of material significantly decreased from a depth of about 60 cm downward, that is, from the ceiling of the lower humus, recognized by both Rudolf Jamka (ield records from the 1941 excavations) and Jacek Poleski (2004, 226) as the exploitation level from the time the Early Medieval embankments were erected. The smallest amount of pottery sherds is from the loor segment of this layer (80–120 cm). Slightly more numerous is material from the 228 lower clay layer, deposited directly on undisturbed soil. Just as in the case of Zawada Lanckorońska, the lowest stratigraphic units from the settlement in Marcinkowice may be considered as partially undisturbed Bronze Age layers. However, it is impossible to establish the prehistoric pottery stratiication within these layers. In other, more extensively excavated settlements, Bronze Age pottery was found only within the younger layers (Naszacowice) and was collected without recording the stratigraphic context (Nowy Sącz – Biegonice). Sometimes, due to the degree of site destruction, its attribution to individual assemblages may be disputable (Stary Sącz – “Na Lipiu”). At settlements in Wielka Wieś and Czchów, the artifacts group in question constituted the inventories of archeological features. In Wielka Wieś, even the stratigraphic relation between two pits was registered (Valde-Nowak, Madej 1997, ig. 5). The chronological coherence of assemblages from these features must, however, be assumed with certain caution, due to the signiicant degree of destruction of both sites and their multi-cultural (Czchów) or at least multi-phase (Wielka Wieś) character. A cemetery in Chełmiec has a distinct horizontal stratigraphy. Graves representing the Early Iron Age form a dense cluster, separated from Bronze Age burials by a 50 meter wide gap (Abłamowicz, Abłamowicz 1989, ig 1). As this cemetery lacks burials with inventories representing the younger segments of the Late Bronze Age, one can accept that in fact we have two separate cemeteries in Chełmiec, from diferent chronological horizons. The remarks presented above leave no doubt that we must rely almost solely on a stylistic analysis of acquired pottery assemblages in attempts to periodize the Late Bronze Age assemblages from the Dunajec River valley. With reference to the periodization of the Lusatian culture inds in western Lesser Poland proposed by Marek Gedl (1982) and the conclusions of Renata Madyda-Legutko (1995a), the names of the locality (site) of inventories particularly representative of a given segment of time are used in the description of individual phases of cultural development (ig. 68). Dunajec valley chronology of Carpathian Basin HB/HC 900–600 BC 3 Wielka Wieś LB III (HA) 1150– 1050/1000 BC Gwoździec Naszacowice 1 4 4 Chełm Chełmiec Maszkowice 2 LB II (BC2-BD) 1380– 1150 BC 2 Chełmiec older cemetery Czchów 1 3 3 2 2 Mierzanowice culture – 1 Zawada Lanckorońska Łoniowa Mierzanowice culture – 1 Wielka Wieś LB I (BC1) 1500– 1380 BC Stary Sącz Dąbrowa 5 Nowy SączBiegonice MB III (BA2/B1–BB1) before 1500 BC Naszacowice 2 LB IV (HA/HB) 1050/1000– 900 BC 6 6 5 Marcinkowice 4 HaD/Lt after 600 BC Zabrzeż-Podegrodzie Chełmiecyounger cemetery Stary Sącz Maszkowice 6 Marcinkowice Maszkowice Fig. 8. periodization scheme of Bronze Age and early Iron Age sites in the dunajec River valley. 22 230 the periodization of Bronze Age and Early Iron Age inds from the dunajec River valley The earliest stage of the Bronze Age settlement in the Sącz Basin (Kotlina Sądecka) is marked by inds of the Pleszów group of the Mierzanowice culture. In the territory in question, this culture group is represented by, above all, a large series of pottery from a settlement in Marcinkowice, materials from Stary Sącz and Wielopole – mentioned in the literature – (Machnik 1967, 80; Valde-Nowak 1988, 40, 145; Kadrow, Machnik 1997, 121–122, 130; Szybowicz, Szybowicz, Poleski 1998, 80) and also recently from Jurków (Valde-Nowak, Madej 1998, 2). It should be noted that various parts of a site from a settlement in Maszkowice yielded vessel sherds (including brush smeared fragments) technologically identical to Mierzanowice culture pottery from Marcinkowice (very good iring and grey, carefully smoothed surfaces). This pottery may correspond to a collection of lint artifacts from this site that Paweł Valde-Nowak (1988, 40; 1989, 99) assigned to the epi-Corded Ware cultural complex. The macrolithic lint inds (Valde-Nowak 1988, 146, plate 19:7), and particularly the above-mentioned Orava-type inventories, represent one more group of inds that can probably be related to the Mierzanowice culture settlement. For the Pleszów group, chronology corresponding to phase BrA2 style is accepted, falling into the period between about 1900 and 1600 BC (Kadrow, Machnik 1997, 130, ig. 70). Vessels manufactured in styles referring to the classic and post-classic (Streda nad Bodrogom) phase of the Otomani culture are considered representative for phase Maszkowice 2, a subsequent stage of the Bronze Age settlement in the Dunajec River valley. These are, above all, specimens decorated with spiral motifs as well as horizontal and turban-like lutes. This pottery is accompanied by fragments of vessels characteristic of the classic Trzciniec culture stylistics, in particular pots decorated 231 1 12 6 5 13 3 4 7 2 10 8 0 9 11 Maszkowice 2 – Chełmiec Stary Sącz Marcinkowice 4 Maszkowice 6 30 km Fig. . Chronology of selected Late Bronze Age sites in the dunajec River valley and eastern Wieliczka plateau. with horizontal cordons. A pottery assemblage from a pit excavated in 1971–1972 in Maszkowice refers to this time period, as well as further single sherds found at this site (igs. 55:1,3,7,10, 56:5). Apart from pottery revealing the above-mentioned stylistic elements, a connection with 232 the Otomani culture should be assumed in the case of egg-shaped pots decorated with horizontal ribbons and nodule-like knobs, found in the pit mentioned above (igs. 55:8, 56:4). A classic phase of the Trzciniec culture from a Maszkowice settlement is also represented by a fragment of vessel decorated with horizontal lines and a vertically perforated handle (ig. 56:15), in addition to pots with cordons. In the Marcinkowice settlement, one can date a fragment of vessel decorated with horizontal cordon and a jug decorated with horizontal lutes, and probably also a luted fragment with short incisions to the phase in question (ig. 57:12,20,25). In the settlement in Marcinkowice, and probably in Maszkowice as well, inds of the type of classic or post-classic Otomani phase “overlap” with the settlement of the Pleszów group of the Mierzanowice culture. Of course this refers only to the theoretical scheme, because in reality conirmative stratigraphic observations are lacking. Nevertheless, a chronological sequence analogous to that recorded in the Jasło-Krosno Basin (Kotlina Jasielsko-Krośnieńska) can be assumed as the probable one. The coexistence of pottery representing Otomani culture stylistics and the classic phase of the Trzciniec culture at the same sites is a striking similarity between the inventories in question and the Jasło group. These similarities permit phase Maszkowice 2 to be synchronized with the older materials of the Jasło group (especially a settlement in Trzcinica), and with the irst horizon of Transcarpathian inluences on the Trzciniec culture. South of the Carpathian Arch, inds of classic and post-classic phases of the Otomani culture in Spiš, dated to the end of the Middle Bronze Age (BrA2–BrB1), correspond to the chronological period in question. Inventories of the Chełmiec phase are characterized by the presence of Tumulus-post-Otomani style pottery. This phase can be distinguished on the basis of pottery sherd assemblages from fortiied settlements in Marcinkowice and Maszkowice, as well as single artifacts from Zawada Lanckorońska. It is also represented by materials from a Bronze Age cemetery in Chełmiec and from a pit (1/97) in a settlement in 233 Czchów, and probably by the older group of inds from a settlement in Wielka Wieś. In the Maszkowice fortiied settlement, part of the materials from the pit explored in the 1971–1972 seasons, and single artifacts from other parts of the site, should be assigned to the Chełmiec phase. These include sherds (and also partly reconstructed amphora-like vessels) decorated with nodule-shaped knobs and knobs pushed from inside, surrounded by semicircular grooves (igs. 55:2,4,5,9, 56:3,6,13). Both motifs mentioned above occurred already in the repertoire of the Otomani culture, but they became especially typical only for culture groups from phases LB I–LB II. Fragments of several proiled bowls also come from the above-mentioned pit, including specimens with triangle protuberances on the rim – a form appearing as a “western”, Tumulus element in culture groups residing on the Tisza River in the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (ig. 55:11). Of special interest is a vessel fragment decorated with the so-called arcade ornament (ig. 56:2) – a decorative motif occurring mainly in Transylvania and Crişana in phases LB I–LB II, but known also from eastern Slovakia (compare chapter 3.2). Similar pottery from the fortiied settlement in Marcinkowice may also be linked with the Chełmiec phase (ig. 57:7,14,16,24). The possibility of slightly later dating should be, however, considered in the case of pieces decorated with bands of hollows on the neck (ig. 57:5,13,15,19,23). Although this motif appeared in the Tisza basin already at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, it was appearing mainly in a later context in the mountain zone of Slovakia, which is closer to the territory in question. Among the inds from the Marcinkowice settlement, a fragment of a pot attracts attention – it exhibits technological traits typical of the Trzciniec culture and has a slightly “elongated” rim, characteristic of late Trzciniec pottery (ig. 57:22). Fragments of S-shaped pots, referring to the Trzciniec forms, were also found in settlements in Czchów and Wielka Wieś (ig. 59:5,7,11,14; Madej, Valde-Nowak 1998, 21). It should be noted that 234 these vessels (in most cases) do not have thickened, slantwise cut lips anymore, which are typical of the Trzciniec culture classic phase. Materials from the Bronze Age cemetery in Chełmiec constitute a stylistically homogeneous set (ig. 58). They are correctly linked with the older phase of the Piliny culture, although all the forms discovered there could have also occurred in sites of the more distant Tumulus-postOtomani style groups, e.g. in the Carpathian Tumulus culture (ig. 10). The relatively early chronological position of this cemetery, within the framework of older phases of the Bronze Age (LB I–LB II), is predicated on the presence of a jug of the Streda nad Bodrogom type (ig. 58:3) – a form very strongly connected with the Otomani pottery tradition. A cemetery in Chełmiec can be compared with the materials from feature 1/97 of Czchów. What attracts attention is the presence of a thinwalled vessel decorated with groups of vertical lines and a band of short incisions at the base of the neck (ig. 59:3) – an identical set of decorative motifs can be seen on the above-mentioned jug and on one of the amphoras from the cemetery in Chełmiec. Decoration with groups of vertical lines can be also found in pottery with Transcarpathian traits from the Trzciniec culture sites in western Lesser Poland (Małopolska) (e.g. Górski 2003, ig. 14:d). A territorially close analogy for a handle decorated with vertical grooves from a settlement in Czchów (ig. 59:2) is found in an artifact from the pit in Maszkowice already mentioned several times (Cabalska 1974, plate 27:7). Southern connections of pit inventory from Czchów can be conirmed by a small set of stone and lint objects discovered at this site (among other things, a Krummesser-type tool and a triangle blade with a saw-shaped edge), which reveal very close relations to the Bronze Age lint industry in the Carpathian Basin (Valde-Nowak 2003, 46–49). The time period in question is represented at the settlement in Wielka Wieś primarily by pottery sherds with technological and morphological features (thickened, elongated lips) characteristic of the younger development stages of the Trzciniec culture (ig. 59:7,11). A distinctly 235 “southern” accent in this assemblage is represented by a fragment of vessel with a brush smeared surface. The cultural connections of a partially preserved vase with rounded body, decorated with long, vertical channels (ig. 59:6) are much less clear. Pottery with such an ornament occurs in the Trzciniec culture milieu, especially in its inal phase. Similar vessels may be indicated, among other places, on sites in the Kraków area (e.g. Rydzewski 1991, ig. 4:10; Górski 1997, ig. 21:g). Chronology corresponding to the late phase of the Trzciniec culture (BrC2–BrD) may be corroborated by a little bronze disc with an eye found in the same feature (5/96) with analogies found, among others, in a hoard from Wola Żydowska, Pińczów district (Blajer 1999, plate 216:7,9–12). However, a decoration with similarly long lines – though arranged in groups accompanying other motifs – was recorded at sites from the Dunajec River valley (Chełmiec, Czchów, Maszkowice) in the context of Tumulus-postOtomani style pottery. The cremation burial from Łoniowa should also be assigned to the Chełmiec phase. Fragments of the upper part of a vessel known from this assemblage – probably with a soft, S-shaped proile – have the thickened and elongated rim typical of late Trzciniec culture materials. However, analogies for the technological traits (especially carefully smoothed surface) are found, apart from the Trzciniec culture, also in other groups (including Transcarpathian ones) from the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. Southern connections of this inventory may be suggested by the cremation burial rite, represented in this period by Transcarpathian burials from Chełmiec in the Dunajec River valley. Artifacts discovered at a fortiied settlement in Zawada Lanckorońska exhibit diferent connections. This particularly concerns a vase with rounded body decorated with horizontal cordons (ig. 60:7) from the 1993 excavations. This form – apart from carinated bowls on a hollow foot – is the main diagnostic form for the earliest, interregional horizon of the Lusatian culture, dated to period BrC (see chapter 4.1). Such a chronology for the 23 specimen from Zawada Lanckorońska may be supported by a Dreveník type bronze pin from the Early Medieval layers (Bąk 1996, 55). The Chełmiec phase may be synchronized with the post-classic and late phases of the Trzciniec culture in western Lesser Poland (the occurrence of Trzciniec culture pottery in Marcinkowice, Czchów, Łoniowa and Wielka Wieś). In the eastern Polish Carpathians, younger sites of the Jasło group correspond to this period (Jasło, Sanok, site 56). It is interesting to compare the inds group described here with the cultural situation observed for phases LB I–LB II in Spiš. The coexistence of Tumulus-post-Otomani and early Lusatian style materials, conirmed at the „Ku Čenčiciam” site in Spišsky Štvrtok (ig. 40:12–21) is worth recalling here. The indings of the Chełmiec phase also have close analogies in the pre-Lusatian horizon distinguished in the Liptov area (ig. 40:1–10) and in the earliest materials from the cemetery in Martin. The early Lusatian vessel from Zawada Lanckorońska corresponds to a second phase of this necropolis. Placing the Chełmiec phase artifacts in the broad context of groups from the eastern Carpathian Basin, one may assume their synchronization with the period of Tumulus-post-Otomani style development, i.e. with phases LB I–LB II or BrC1–BrD. One may try to narrow this broad dating with reference to individual artifact assemblages. Namely, the pottery from a cemetery in Chełmiec exhibits archaic traits and probably should be considered as not younger than LB I phase. Perhaps similar dating applies to a settlement in Czchów. The onset of settlement in Zawada Lanckorońska – established by a vessel from the oldest Lusatian horizon – should probably be placed only in the younger segment of period BrC (the beginning of LB II). The Marcinkowice 4 phase is the period when pottery termed in this book as “Late Piliny-Kyjatice style” (distinctly carinated forms decorated with vertical lutes) and vessels representing the developed early phase of the Lusatian culture stylistics, both in its Silesian and Slovakian variant, occurred. Large ceramic assemblages from fortiied settlements in Marcinkowice and Zawada Lanckorońska are especially representative 23 of this phase. Less numerous series of vessel sherds from this time segment were derived from settlements in Maszkowice and Naszacowice. Marcinkowice 4 phase is represented also by at least some of the graves from a cemetery in Gwoździec, and perhaps by a presumed grave from a fortiied settlement in Chełm. A Silesian variant of the Lusatian culture pottery from the Marcinkowice fortiied settlement includes not only small fragments of knobbed vessels, but also fragments of biconical vessels, inger-tipped on the carination and similarly decorated carinated bowls (ig. 62:3–4,5,11,15–16). This type of pottery is thought to be especially typical of assemblages from the beginning of period HaA (Gedl 1979, 30–31). Fragments of S-shaped pots (ig. 62:1,14) may also be connected with the early phase of the Lusatian culture (without assignment to individual groups). Relatively numerous artifacts represent the Slovakian group of the Lusatian culture stylistics. They include, above all, remnants of amphoras decorated with large, shallow hollows on the body, framed with groups of oblique strokes (ig. 62:6–8). This form is typical especially of inds from the Mikušovce phase (BrD/ HaA) in Ladislav Veliačik’s (1983) periodization, but may also occur in younger assemblages – dated to the end of period HaA. Sherds of thinwalled vessels and a carinated bowl, decorated with opposite groups of oblique strokes (ig. 62:2,9–12,17–18) are probably connected with the same stylistic trend. Some vase-shaped vessels decorated with vertical lutes may be also attributed to the Slovakian group of the Lusatian culture, as decoration with broad grooves became popular in this group during period HaA (Veliačik 1983, 106–109, 170). Basically however, this type of decoration occurred in northern Slovakia in the context of materials related to the Piliny culture tradition. In the case of the inds discussed here from the fortiied settlement in Marcinkowice and from other sites in the Dunajec River valley, the connection with the Late Piliny-Kyjatice style can undoubtedly be assumed with regard to the fragments of vaseshaped vessels having a distinct carination on the body and well separated 238 neck, decorated with lutes, and similarly decorated carinated bowls. This stylistic current also can be conirmed by vessel sherds decorated with bands of hollows (especially those arranged vertically) on the neck (igs. 57:19, 63:12,13,14,17,24,25,40). A rich set of pottery that may be assigned to the Late Piliny-Kyjatice style is from the fortiied settlement in Zawada Lanckorońska. It comprises fragments of vases decorated with vertical lutes and hollows on the necks, sometimes topped with an everted rim, and bowls decorated with vertical grooves (ig. 61:1–5,8). This site also yielded a large series of early Lusatian pottery. It is symptomatic that only a few sherds exhibit stylistic elements typical of the Slovakian variant of the Lusatian culture. On the other hand, one may include the knobbed pottery, biconical vessels ingertipped on a carination, and the characteristic forms of thin-walled pottery to the Silesian variant (ig. 60:1–6,8–9). At the settlement in Maszkowice, the phase in question is represented by a luted cup with everted rim and several vessel fragments of the Late Piliny-Kyjatice style (ig. 56:10,16,20). The sherds connected with that style are also known from the Early Medieval layers of a fortiied settlement in Naszacowice. Likewise, a cup found in a fortiied settlement in Chełm (Rodak 2003) matches this style, both with regard to its form and decoration. However, one should be very cautious in assessing the cultural attribution of this artifact due to its isolated localization compared with other inds described here, and because of traces of early Lusatian settlement recorded at the Chełm site and, more generally, in the western part of the Wieliczka Plateau (Pogórze Wielickie) (up to the lower Raba River valley) (Fraś, Reguła 2001, 322–324; Gedl 2003, 383–388; Górski et al. 2006, 571–572; Konieczny, Trela, in print) – even more so, considering that similar cups may be indicated on other sites of the Lusatian culture in western Lesser Poland (e.g. Kogus 1982, plate 2:5). Some of the graves from a cemetery in Gwoździec should also be assigned to Marcinkowice 4 phase. This particularly concerns the assem- 23 blages with vases decorated with vertical lutes, i.e. the forms typical of the Late Piliny-Kyjatice style (ig. 64:2,5). This type of vessel was accompanied by a bowl decorated with concentric circles on the inner side of the base in one of the graves (ig. 64:8). Decorating the inner parts of bowls became popular in the northern Carpathian Basin, particularly in the Kyjatice culture milieu, towards the end of period HaA. The beginning of this custom in various Lusatian culture groups is similarly dated, so this tendency may be an indication for dating the cemetery in Gwoździec. A vessel with everted rim, decorated below a carination with groups of vertical strokes and longer, horizontal lines is also of some chronological importance (ig. 64:4). Its form and decoration resemble that of a thin-walled vessel from a cemetery in Targowisko, Bochnia district, derived from the Lusatian culture grave.25 However, a much closer analogy is represented by a vessel from a hoard of bronze objects from Jánkmajtis, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg district, dated to phase LB III (ig. 23:10). Some of the pottery from a cemetery in Gwoździec (cups with the concave base – ig. 64:7) exhibit features already typical of the Upper Silesia-Lesser Poland (grupa górnośląskomałopolska) group of the Lusatian culture (from phases HaB2–HaB3 and period HaC), which permits one to think that this site was also used in younger chronological stages. While discussing grave inds, it is worth mentioning that a cemetery in Chełmiec may have continued to function during younger segments of the Late Bronze Age. Fragments of a biconical vessel with dark outer surface, found in a cluster of Bronze Age graves were discovered during the 1984 excavations (Abłamowicz, Abłamowicz 1989, 201, ig. 2:e). These traits may indicate that this feature is younger than the burials with Tumuluspost-Otomani style pottery. 25 Bartłomiej Konieczny provided all the remarks concerning the cemetery at Targowisko based on his explorations of this site, and kindly allowed them to be used here. 240 Numerous specimens of early Lusatian pottery found in Marcinkowice and Zawada Lanckorońska allow the Marcinkowice 4 phase to be synchronized with the Iwanowice-Wysyłek phase (BrD–HaA1) in western Lesser Poland. Pottery that would correspond with the Zoipole-Raciborsko phase, related to a younger stage of period HaA, is lacking in the Dunajec River valley (Gedl 1982, 23–24). In the eastern Polish Carpathians, the earliest inventories with Transcarpathian luted pottery corresponding to the time period in question contain – among others – vessels of the Late Piliny-Kyjatice style (Hłomcza, Warzyce, Wietrzno). South of the Carpathian Arch, geographically close analogies may be found in the Šariš region, in materials from the oldest phases of settlements in Ostrovany and Veľký Šariš (ig. 39:5). Particularly interesting, however, are correlations with the valley of the upper Hornád and Poprad rivers. As mentioned before, settlement of the Slovakian group of the Lusatian culture is conirmed in that territory in period HaA. However, observations made at the „Ku Čenčiciam” site in Spišsky Štvrtok indicate that the Piliny culture pottery tradition continued there (sherds of Late Piliny-Kyjatice style vessels – ig. 40:16–18,21). Assuming a broad chronology for ceramic trends representing the Marcinkowice 4 phase, this time period should be dated from the BrD/HaA transition to the younger stage of period HaA. It should be noted that a bronze hoard discovered at the Marcinkowice settlement (in great majority representing forms of Tisza origin, Kostrzewski 1964, 48; Blajer 1999, 114, 182–183) and a bronze axe from the same site (Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 11) were contemporaneous with pottery from the Marcinkowice 4 phase. The Stary Sącz phase is characterized by pottery decorated with horizontal grooves or strokes and horizontal bands of hollows on the necks and oblique grooves on the bodies. This type of ornament occurs both on thin-walled ware and on larger vessels. Pottery from this phase often has smoothened, black or dark grey outer surfaces. Apart from materials derived from the settlement and destroyed graves at an eponymous site, ceramic inventories from settlements in Dąbrowa, Marcinkowice, 241 Maszkowice, Naszacowice, Nowy Sącz – Biegonice, Wielka Wieś and Zawada Lanckorońska may also be considered as representative of the Stary Sącz phase. The above characteristics of Stary Sącz phase pottery are found in various cultural zones, but within a similar time period. In the previous part of this book, it was stated several times that the phenomenon of uniied pottery stylistics was observed in the entire northern Carpathian Basin at the beginning of period HaB (LB IV). These unifying tendencies also included the Lusatian culture from the Moravia and Silesia. On the other hand, the Slovakian group’s pottery stylistics was developing in greater isolation (Veliačik 1989, 161, ig. 4; Kujovský 1994, 268). The appearance of pottery decorated with horizontal lines and bands of hollows on vessel necks in the Lusatian assemblages in western Lesser Poland is very important for an analysis of cultural connections of the inds group discussed here. This phenomenon – mentioned earlier in Marek Gedl’s work (1982, 25) – is well illustrated by a vessel from a hoard discovered in Podłęże and dated to phase HaB1 (Potocki 1966, ig. 7; see chapter 3.3). Numerous examples of this pottery group (stylistically corresponding to the Kietrz IV phase in Upper Silesia [Górny Śląsk] – Gedl 1979) may be also indicated among recently acquired settlement materials (e.g. Pieróg 2003a, 58, ig. 8:14,15). Finally, of particular interest is the occurrence of a number of graves equipped with pottery of this type at a cemetery in Targowisko, situated in the Raba River valley. The assemblages containing Kietrz IV phase pottery mark the youngest stage of this cemetery’s functioning and testify that contacts between communities from western Lesser Poland and the territory of Upper Silesia continued at least to the beginning of period HaB. A partially preserved, black biconical vessel decorated with oblique grooves and, above them, horizontal lutes and bands of hollows (ig. 65:6) is of special interest among the pottery from a Stary Sącz site. As has been mentioned above, the decoration of this vessel is closely analogous to pottery of the Silesian variant of the Lusatian culture from period HaB (compare e.g. 242 Podborský 1970; Gedl 1982a; 1987). But parallels can be found south of the Carpathians also – in fortiied settlements from Spiš, assigned to a mixed, Lusatian-Kyjatice cultural milieu (ig. 41:1–3). It should be emphasized that the decoration of necks with horizontal lutes is considered one of the stylistic elements in these materials representing the Kyjatice culture (Kujovský 1994, 268). Vessels resembling the specimen from Stary Sącz and leading forms of the Kyjatice culture (with biconical body and everted rim, decorated with horizontal grooves or strokes on the lower part of the neck) also appeared in the HaB period in other regions occupied by the Slovakian variant of the Lusatian culture. In the Orava region, these forms continued to the younger stage of the Hallstatt period (Čaplovič 1974, 44–46, ig. 4). Parallels can be found for thin-walled vessels decorated with groups of thin strokes accompanied sometimes by bands of dots or short incisions in the Lusatian culture – and particularly in its Silesian variant. In addition to Stary Sącz, vessel sherds with the same ornament also come from a site in Dąbrowa (ig. 65:1–2,11–12). Pottery discovered here mainly contained fragments of medium- and thick-walled vessels with a blackened outer surface, including a fragment decorated with horizontal grooves and band of hollows. A cup with a concave base (ig. 65:5) from this site attracts attention, as this form is very popular in the materials of the Upper Silesia-Lesser Poland group. Fragments of vessels characteristic of this group (i.e. biconical vases decorated on or below a carination with short, horizontal ribs) are also known from other sites with pottery of the Stary Sącz phase (e.g. ig. 65:10). One must consider the presence of the Upper Silesia-Lesser Poland group settlement in the northern periphery of the Carpathian zone – in the Czchów region. This is suggested by pottery materials discovered in a medieval rampart in this locality (Szpunar, Szpunar 2003, 505).26 Perhaps pottery from 26 Pottery from the collection of the Regional Museum in Tarnów. My thanks to Andrzej Szpunar for this information. 243 a pit at a settlement in Jurków and a vessel from an urn grave discovered at the same site (Valde-Nowak, Madej 1998) should be linked with this group. Numerous analogies for these inventories can be found in materials from the nearest geographically and better recognized sites of the Upper SilesiaLesser Poland group on the lower Dunajec River (compare e.g. Cabalska et al. 1975, plates 3–6; Szpunar, Okoński 2003). The time period in question is represented at the Marcinkowice fortiied settlement by numerous series of vessel fragments decorated with horizontal strokes or grooves on the neck (ig. 63:1–2,5,7,9,15,21,28,30– 32). Sherds decorated with oblique lutes (ig. 63:22,27,38) probably can be linked to the Stary Sącz phase too. As has been already mentioned, this type of ornament – with a very long tradition in the Carpathian Basin – became widespread in younger luted pottery groups in its northern peripheries (e.g. in the Kyjatice culture from phase LB IV). In the southern zone of the Lusatian culture, decoration with oblique, and particularly with the so-called turban-like lutes, also appeared only in period HaB (Kietrz IV). It is probable that the same dating applies to this ornament in inventories from the Dunajec River valley. Fragments decorated with horizontal grooves, bands of hollows or oblique lutes also occurred at settlements in Dąbrowa, Maszkowice, Naszacowice, Wielka Wieś and Zawada Lanckorońska (e.g. igs. 56:17–19, 59:13,15, 61:6,9–10, 65:1–3). In this latter site, the remains of an untypical vessel were found, decorated with grooves and curved ribbons arranged horizontally (ig. 61:160). Urszula Bąk (1996, 71) noted the presence of similarly ornamented pottery in the Orava group of the Lusatian culture and at a fortiied settlement in Terňa in eastern Slovakia. South of the Carpathian Arch, one can also indicate the closest analogy to this form, i.e. a vessel (partially preserved) from a settlement in Letanovce in Spiš, dated to the HaA/HaB transition (ig. 41:7). The Stary Sącz phase may be synchronized with the presence of Kietrz IV phase pottery in western Lesser Poland, and particularly in the Kraków 244 region. It is, however, diicult to decide whether – as in Silesia – the period of development of this stylistic trend on the upper Vistula River corresponded to the entire HaB period or whether it preceded the classic assemblages of the Upper Silesia-Lesser Poland group (Prokocim-Skotniki phase), dated to the younger segment of this period. What is important is the fact that artifacts typical of this latter culture group occurred together in inventories from the Dunajec River valley with pottery of the Stary Sącz phase. In the case of cultural phenomena developing south of the Carpathians, the most important is the possibility to synchronize the Stary Sącz phase with the period when fortiied settlements of the Hornád valley functioned, such as Letanovce and Vítkovce. It is worth remembering that materials from these sites, dated to period HaB (or from the end of period HaA to the HaB/HaC transition), are to be characterized by the combination of Lusatian culture traditions with cultures from the northeastern part of the Carpathian Basin, especially the Kyjatice and Gáva cultures. In the broad context of cultural transformations taking place in the Carpathian Basin and neighboring areas, the inventories of the Stary Sącz phase may be synchronized with the younger luted pottery culture groups (younger phase of the Middle Danubian Urnield culture, the Kyjatice culture, Gáva II style) referred to period HaB and to its older segment in particular. The Maszkowice 6 phase was distinguished mainly on the basis of inds from the eponymous site. It yielded fragments of vases decorated with bands of hollows and big, horn-shaped knobs (ig. 67:14,18).This pottery is completely diferent than forms typical of the Lusatian culture. But analogies are found in fortiied settlements from the Šariš region, and especially at a site in Terňa (compare Madyda-Legutko 1995a, 245–249; 1996, 21), where pottery decorated with knobs encircled by bands of hollows represents an older stage of settlement dated to the end of period HaB (e.g. ig. 39:10,12–13). Vase-shaped vessels decorated on the upper part of the body with a horizontal band of hollows are also known from a fortiied settlement in Zawada Lanckorońska (ig. 61:14). Besides Terňa, this type of ornament 245 can also be recorded in materials of the Holihrady and Grăniceşti groups, representing the Gáva II style (Smirnova 1974, ig. 4:13; Bandrivskyj et al. 1993, plate 44:8; László 1994, plates 33:3, 41:2–3). Vessels decorated with horn-shaped knobs are found in various culture groups assigned to that stylistic trend. Their chronological position can be determined by the stratigraphy of the settlement in Teleac, where this type of decoration was characteristic of the phase equivalent to the older segment of period HaB (ig. 25). Vessels with horn-shaped knobs known from Transylvania (ig. 24:15) may constitute very close analogies for a specimen from a settlement in Nowy Sącz – Biegonice (ig. 66:1). In the context of the above-mentioned references to the foreland zone of eastern Slovakia, possible connections of another vessel from Maszkowice, also decorated – apart from bands of hollows – with rich ornament consisting of groups of strokes in angular arrangement (ig. 67:15) are very interesting. A similar motif is known from the sherd discovered on the surface of a site in Wielka Wieś (ig. 59:18). I have already quoted the opinion expressed by Elena Miroššayova about the connections between materials from the close of the Bronze Age in eastern Slovakia and the eastern European forest-steppe zone. This direction of inluences is indicated, among other things, by sherds decorated with groups of oblique strokes known from a settlement in Terňa (Budinský-Krička, Miroššayová 1992, plate 4:10,12,14,17,25) and are a good analogy for the artifacts from the Dunajec River valley discussed here. At the transition between the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, the form of ornamental band decoration consisting of groups of incised oblique strokes (motifs of multiplied zigzag, hatched triangles and the like) was typical of the stampdecorated pottery complex from Moldavia and assemblages of the late phase of the Chernolesskaia culture (Gawlik, Przybyła 2005, 329–331 – see there for older references). Allied with the stamp-decorated pottery complex may also be an S-shaped vessel decorated with ribbon with transverse incisions, found at a site in Dąbrowa (ig. 65:4) and a similarly decorated fragment of pot- 24 tery from a settlement in Podegrodzie (Madyda-Legutko 1995, ig. 4). Ornament of this type, found in assemblages of the East Hallstatt culture, in the late phase of the Kyjatice culture and among younger inds from Terňa (ig. 39:21), is connected in the literature with Basarabi culture inluences (see chapter 3). In the Maszkowice settlement, pottery with southern and southwestern connections described here was found in the context of numerous materials that may most likely be assigned to the Upper Silesia-Lesser Poland group of the Lusatian culture. The classic phase of this group is synchronized with the younger segment of period HaB and with period HaC. On the basis of the exhibited references, especially at a settlement in Terňa, the already mentioned vessels decorated with rows of hollows, hatched bands and horn-shaped knobs can also be dated to the same time segment (younger HaB and HaB/HaC), although these motifs – and the latter in particular – may be earlier as well. One must consider the possibility that the materials described above in the framework of the Stary Sącz phase and synchronized with period HaB, could be contemporaneous in many cases with artifacts assigned to the chronological segment discussed here (Maszkowice 6 phase). To a certain extent, both phases should be understood as simultaneous phenomena, possibly with a tendency to earlier dating (to the older segment of period HaB – Stary Sącz phase) or later dating (the HaB/HaC transition – Maszkowice 6 phase) and varying rather by the direction of the connections they represent. In the case of artifacts assigned to the Stary Sącz phase, these were, above all, references to Lusatian culture pottery, and especially to its local, “mountain” variant from Spiš. The Marcinkowice 6 phase has more distant, southeastern connections, being related – via cultural phenomena from eastern Slovakia – to processes occurring at the close of the Bronze Age in the eastern Carpathian Basin. The chronological sequence of inds from the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Dunajec River valley is closed by inventories of the Zabrzeż- 24 Podegrodzie phase (horizon), distinguished by Renata Madyda-Legutko (1995a, 256; 1996, 20–22). This scholar assumed the materials from fortiied settlements in Zabrzeż, Maszkowice, Podegrodzie, Marcinkowice, Kurów and from a younger cemetery in Chełmiec as especially representative of this chronological segment. Pottery from these sites – mainly thick-walled pots with various spacial ornaments (multiplied knobs, inger-tipped cordons) and bowls with inverted rim – have numerous parallels in groups from the Early Iron Age. Connections with assemblages from eastern Slovakia dated to that time period (compare Miroššayová 1982; 1987) are particularly discernible. It should be stated, however, that inds from both the Sącz region and eastern Slovakia are part of a broader process of cultural uniication in central eastern Europe in the Early Iron Age, stimulated by the impact of steppe people. Most pottery forms from the Zabrzeż-Podegrodzie phase ind their parallels in any group belonging to the eastern zone of the Lusatian culture (including the Tarnobrzeg group), in assemblages from the Great Hungarian Plain or Transylvania, and in the cultures from the forest-steppe zone of eastern Europe along the periphery of the Scythian world. Distant, eastern connections may be testiied by a pin head from a settlement in Podegrodzie, considered an artifact typical of the Western Podolia group of the Scythian culture (Madyda-Legutko 1995a, 249, ig. 12:4). Sherds of wheel-made pottery from Podegrodzie and Marcinkowice are related to the Vekerzug culture of the Great Hungarian Plain (Madyda-Legutko 1995, 253; Szybowicz, Szybowicz, Poleski 1998, 80). In addition to similarities in pottery forms and decoration (Madyda-Legutko 1995a, 255), the connection of inventories from the Dunajec River valley with the Tarnobrzeg group is indicated by a characteristic variant of a nail-type earring,27 found 27 I express my gratitude to Anna Gawlik for her opinions on this issue. 248 in one of the assemblages from an “exemplary” Zabrzeż-Podegrodzie phase cemetery in Chełmiec. At the end of this description of archeological sources from the Late Bronze Age in the Dunajec River valley, I would like to remark that continued settlement of some sites in successive chronological periods (particularly Marcinkowice, Maszkowice and Zawada Lanckorońska), and the similar directions of connections maintained during that time, allow one to assume a continuity of settlement and culture in this area between phase LB I (BrB2–BrC) and the beginning of the Early Iron Age. The lack of “foreign” inventories, unrelated to an earlier background, does not permit assumptions to be made about any essential political processes, such as the inflow of new population groups. The populations inhabiting the area in question and the neighboring territory of Spiš were subject to the same rhythm of cultural transformations in the Late Bronze Age as those from the territories situated in the Váh valley (the Slovakian group of the Lusatian culture), western Lesser Poland and the northeastern periphery of the Carpathian Basin. The communities analyzed occupied vital communication routes linking the above-mentioned territories and acted as an intermediary in the transmission of ideas and cultural phenomena, while at the same time yielding to their influences. As a result, the assemblages discovered here have a syncretic character on one hand and, on the other hand, they are internally homogeneous due to the permanent flow of patterns. The latter feature manifests itself, among other things, by the presence of specific traits distinguishing the discussed mountain cultural phenomenon from the cultural complexes of the lowland and Great Valleys zones. In the first place, a specific characteristic (forced by environmental conditions) is the predominance of settlements situated on naturally defended hills, towering over river valleys. The second trait is this syncretic character of the materials mentioned several times already, manifested in the occurrence of specific pottery sets rep- 24 resenting different cultural traditions, and of vessels having no parallels outside the western Carpathians, either in respect to the ornament (e.g. vases with half-moon ribs from Zawada Lanckorońska and Letanovce) or technological features (widespread use of red Tatra granite temper in ceramic paste). 85 43 34 21 46 36-37 9 32 68 103 104 57 25 55 2 54 29 75 87 14 51 109 0 12 94 16 5 42 3 100 km 41 23 27 63 7 66 13 60 74 77 24 99 49 59 93 67 97 44 69 18 88 6 20 75 96 56 31 30 52 58 39 15 x2 0 250 Fig. 0. distribution of danubian type bronze axes in poland. For site list see appendix 13. 100 km 251 ChApteR 5 “tRANSCARpAthIAN” ARtIFACtS IN the CoNtext oF LuSAtIAN CuLtuRe ASSeMBLAGeS FRoM the odeR ANd vIStuLA RIveR BASINS 5.1 the inflow of bronze objects from the danube basin into regions north of the Carpathians Characterization of sources Bronze objects originating from workshops situated in the Carpathian Basin or their imitations come from more than 100 sites in Poland. Most pieces are single inds or hoards. Other contexts, such as grave assemblages and settlement sites, are relatively scarce. “Imports” from the Carpathian Basin known at the present time are listed in appendix 12. Individual categories of bronze objects originating from the Carpathian Basin and found in the Vistula and Oder River basins have been the subject of several earlier and more recent studies. In the great majority, the conclusions reached are still valid for bronze axes (Kuśnierz 1989; 1998), spearheads with ribs on the socket (Fogel 1979; 1988; Gedl 2001), Liptov swords and swords with a cup-shaped pommel (Müller-Karpe 1961; Fogel 1979), battle-axes (Blajer 1987; Gedl 2004a), ring decorations (Blajer 1984; 1990; 1999; Malinowski 1984; Gedl 2002a) and scarce ibulae forms, as well as for bronze vessels of “southern” origin (Gedl 2001b, cat. no. 1,35,37; 2004, cat. no. 219–220). The studies above can be veriied by the more important monographs on bronze inds from the Carpathian Basin and neighboring regions (Mozsolics 1967; 1973; 1985; 2000; Novotná 1970a; Vinski-Gasparini 1973; Garašanin M. 1975; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 252 1977; 1978; Kemenczei 1984; Kobal’ 2000; Dergachev 2002; Salaš 2005) and numerous papers on individual types of bronze objects from the Danubian area (e.g. Kemenczei 1965; 1974; 1991a; 1996a; Podborský 1970; Vulpe 1970; Novotná 1970; 2001; Bader 1983; Furmánek 1977; 1980; 2001; Mayer 1977; Malinowski, Novotná 1982; Stuchlík 1988; Patay 1990; Hansen 1994; Kacsó 1995; 2003; Pászthory, Mayer 1998; Pare 1999; David 2002; Clausing 2003; Sicherl 2004). Bronze socketed axes are the most numerous category of Danubian inds discovered in the Vistula and Oder River basins. One may notice certain regularities in their distribution (ig. 70). Types with an archshaped socket (ig. 71:1–3), associated mainly with period HaA and produced in the Tisza River basin, are known exclusively from the Lesser Poland (Małopolska). Outside this area, i.e. in Silesia (Śląsk) and Greater Poland (Wielkopolska), specimens with a straight socket, decorated with ribs arranged into triangles (ig. 71:4), occur as well, similarly dated mainly to HaA, however, common not only in the Tisza basin, but also in the Western Carpathian Basin. Finally, younger variants of axes (ig. 71:7– 9) assigned to HaB and common in the entire middle Danube basin, are found in Poland almost exclusively in the Oder basin. The distribution of weaponry elements is less explicit. Spearheads with ribs on the socket (ig. 72:5–6) (especially characteristic of the Tisza basin in phases BrD–HaB1) are scattered throughout the area of the Vistula and Oder basins. A small group of swords of southern origin, dated to phases HaA1–HaB1, was found in Silesia and Greater Poland (4 specimens) and in southern Lesser Poland (1 specimen). Two inds (one certain and one probable) of a battle-axe with a disc-shaped head (B3 type according to Vulpe 1970) come from the latter region. This is a leading form of Uriu-Ópályi hoards in the Tisza basin (BrC2–BrD/HaA1). Ornaments and elements of dress are known almost exclusively from assemblages discovered in Lesser Poland. The great majority of them are forms with a relatively early chronology (BrC1–HaA), associated with Piliny culture metallurgical centers (i.e. 253 1 2 7 3 8 9 4 10 5 11 6 12 13 17 14 15 16 18 19 Fig. 1. danubian types of socketed axes from poland: Maćkówka (1,4); Marcinkowice (2); Witów (3); Błaskowizna (5); Kulów (6); Podłęże (7); Starzyny (8); Czarków (9); Gąsawa (10); Gilów (11); karmin (12–13); Miejsce (14); Godzieszewo (15); Husów (16); Przemyśl (17); Lichwin (18); Rosko (19). 1,3–6,9–16 after Kuśnierz 1998; 2 — taken from the documentation in the Jagiellonian university’s Institute of Archeology archives; 7 — after Potocki 1966; 8 — after Błaszczyk 2001; 1 — after Gedl 1b; 18 — after Blajer 18; 1 — after Machajewski 2002. drawings are not to scale. heart-shaped and conical pendants; bracelets made from triangle-sectioned band; armlets of the Ighiel-Zajta and Sálgotarján types) or centers in Transylvania (richly decorated bracelets made from oval or round sectioned bars with thinned ends). A few types, characteristic of the Middle Danubian Urnield area (the so-called Nadelschützer – ig. 72:11–12) and Slovakian group of the Lusatian culture (Rimavská Sobota ibulae) are the exception, having only been found in the Silesia region. 254 5 6 4 1 7 8 9 10 11 3 2 Fig. 2. types of bronze objects imported from the Carpathian Basin in poland: sword from Wysowa (1), Liptov type sword (2), sword with cup-shaped pommel (3), battle-axe with comb-shaped head of Nestor B3 type (4), spearheads with ribs on a socket (5–), small discs (phaleare) (–8), funnel pendants (–10), heart-shaped pendant (11), pin guard (germ. Nadelschützer) (12), tube-shaped ferule (13), bracelet made from triangle-sectioned band (germ. hohle Armring), decorated bracelets with thinned ends (15–1), bracelet made from 12 13 255 3 15 15 14 11 3 19 17 15 16 18 oval-sectioned bar (18), bracelet made from rhomb-sectioned bar (19). Wysowa (1); Lubiń (2); Odolanów (3); Strachocina (4); Rogowo (5); Witów (6); Maćkówka (4,19); Marcinkowice (8,10); Radymno (9); Załęże (11,14); Wrocław­Księże Małe (12); Grodzisko dolne (13,1–1); Albigowa (15); Lipnik (18). 1–3 after Fogel 1; 4 after Gedl 2004a; 5– after Gedl 2001; –11,14,1 after Blajer 1; 12 after kleemann 1; 13,1–1 after Czopek 1; 15 after Gedl 18b; 18 after Blajer 2000. drawings are not to scale. 25 According to Wojciech Blajer, several hoards from Lesser Poland may be considered imported assemblages. Their inventories consist of artifacts having analogies only or primarily in the Carpathian Basin area. Two of these assemblages – Stefkowa, Ustrzyki Dolne district, and Załęże, Krosno district (Kraus 1956; Blajer 1987; 1999; 2003), may be associated with metallurgy centers developing in the Piliny culture communities. Hoards from Radymno, Jarosław district, and from the previously described fortiied settlement in Marcinkowice, Nowy Sącz district, have similar content – they contain, among other things, numerous tiny pendants or ferrules resembling funnel pendants and also lat discs decorated with beaten points (Blajer 1999). Most probably, both assemblages should be synchronized with phase LB III, i.e. contemporaneously with period HaA in the North Alpine zone (Blajer 1999, 136). A hoard from Śniatycze, Zamość district (Kłosińska, in print), can probably be placed in the same time period. Small discs (so-called phalerae) discovered in this inventory have their closest parallels in a slightly younger hoard from Podłęże, but similar artifacts – dated from phase LB II onward – can also be indicated in the Carpathian Basin (e.g. Mozsolics 1985, 135, plate 150:1; 2000, plate 19:1). On the other hand, the chronology of a tube-shaped ferrule, decorated with groups of transverse lines, commonly encountered in the middle Danube basin (Garašanin M. 1975, plate 49:22; Vinski-Gasparini 1973, e.g. plate 44:21–22; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1977, plates 126:20; 210:25; Salaš 2005, 147; compare Blajer 1989, 128), may be attributed to period HaA (LB III). Determining phases for the inlow of bronze objects north of the Carpathians and directions of ensuing relations An analysis of the spatial and chronological limits of the inlow of bronze objects from the Carpathian Basin into the Vistula and Oder River basins should begin with the fact that very few artifacts exist representing the oldest phase of the Late Bronze Age (LB I, corresponding to phases 25 BrC1–BrC2 in the North Alpine zone). In essence, one can mention here only a hoard from Stefkowa – an imported assemblage, linked with the older phase of Piliny culture metallurgy. In the same region as the Stefkowa assemblage – the eastern area of the northern Carpathian foreland – other inds are situated that can already be synchronized with phase LB II (BrC2–BrD/HaA1). A hoard from Załęże contained artifacts associated with the younger phase of the Piliny metallurgical center development, represented by assemblages of the Rimavská Sobota type. On the other hand, several objects were found from manufacturing centers on the upper Tisza and to its east: a B3 battle-axe from Strachocina, Sanok district, and perhaps also a similar specimen from Ulucz, Brzozów district (Parczewski 1984, 206–208; Gedl 2004a, cat. no. 53–54), rings with thinning ends, decorated with herring-bone pattern, zigzag or LB III 30 LB IILB IV 25 LB IV number of sites 20 HB2HB3 (HC) 15 LB II 10 5 HB LB I Fig. 73. Inlow of bronze imports from the Carpathian Basin in individual chronological periods. 82 8 47 4 43 85 34 92 62 36-37 21 46 32 53 9 68 80 103 104 65 25 55 81 2 33 87 87 57 29 54 75 91 30 3 93 14 51 23 27 41 38 100 km 12 88 75 94 40 6 16 96 20 109 10 90 18 22 56 73 39 17 35 42 59 67 66 77 99 64 24 93 1 11 97 7 50 26 28 45 49 30 79 44 72 110 5 63 89 0 74 13 109 60 BB2– BD/HA1 HA HB1 or BD– HB1 HB2– HB3 106 61 85 15 95 107 48 71 70 69 ? 58 52 31 84 105 1 artefact 2–6 artefacts more than 6 artefacts or a hoard of imported objects 258 Fig. 4. distribution of bronze objects from the Carpathian Basin in subsequent chronological periods. For site list see appendix 13. 0 100 km 25 entangled triangles, all of them widely present in the oldest grave assemblages of the Tarnobrzeg group (see chapter 5.2). The two types of objects mentioned above are leading forms in hoards of the Uriu-Ópályi series. The link of these artifacts to contact routes running through Carpathian passes is rather unquestionable. At the same time, one should take into account the role of the upper Dniester basin, with its Noua culture, as an intermediary zone in the transmission of bronze products originating from the Tisza metallurgical centers. Such a role is suggested by the concentration of inds in the middle San valley, which opens onto the Przemyśl Gate. The only “Transcarpathian” metal object from phases BrD–HaA1 found in the western zone of the Lusatian culture, i.e. a bronze cup of the Blatnica type form hoard at Białowieża (Siodłary), Nysa district (Gedl 2001, cat. no. 1), may rather be connected with Moravia or the Czech Basin, where such artifacts also occur. Bronze objects comprise the most numerous group of “imports” that may be dated to phase LB III or to its equivalent in the North Alpine zone, i.e. period HaA. A signiicant portion of spearheads with ribs on the socket and axes with an arch-shaped socket arrived in Polish territories probably during this time period. With regard to the chronological segment in question, one may speak about several regions with distinct concentrations of objects of “southern” origin rather than about one such region. The irst region is situated at the Carpathian periphery of the Tarnobrzeg group – a rich assemblage of “imports” of a hoard inventory from Maćkówka, Przeworsk district (Blajer 1987; 1999), and the already cited assemblage from Radymno should especially be mentioned. Artifacts of Transcarpathian origin are also scattered – relatively evenly – to the west of the upper San. This zone extends to the Dunajec valley, where some objects from the Marcinkowice fortiied settlement can be dated to phase LB III, as well as a deposit found at this site and bearing close resemblances to the Radymno hoard. An imported assemblage discovered at Śniatycze is isolated in southeastern Poland. A second, dis- 20 tinct concentration of Transcarpathian “imports” dated to phase LB III was found on the upper Vistula River between the mouths of Skawa and Nida rivers. A less compact cluster is situated in Lower Silesia (Dolny Śląsk) (especially in the vicinity of Wrocław) and along the border of Silesia and Greater Poland (Wielkopolska). Scattered inds also appear in other parts of northern Poland. It should be emphasized that almost all bronze objects of Transcarpathian origin dated to LB III and discovered in western and northern Poland are elements of weaponry or tools. The geographical distribution of Transcarpathian metal objects completely changed in period HaB. Only a few inds from this period are known from the upper Vistula basin, which so far had been the most strongly “import saturated” region. Except for a hoard from Przemyśl – dated to the end of period HaB (e.g. Gedl 1999; Bugaj 2005, 72–73) – all can be synchronized with phase LB IV (HaB1), corresponding to the last period of lourishing bronze metallurgy in the Tisza basin (Hajdúböszörmény hoards). The sources in question are even more rarely represented in other regions of eastern Poland. On the other hand, a distinct concentration of inds appears on the middle Oder River and even further, in Greater Poland, reaching the Noteć River to the north. Artifacts from this region – except for a Hajdúböszörmény bucket and swords with cup-shaped pommel – represent types spread over the entire Carpathian Basin and in the North and East Alpine zones. Some of them (especially several inds from Greater Poland) can already be placed in the younger segment of period HaB and even in phase HaC. Two hoards from Karmin, Milicz district, each containing several specimens of “southern” axes, merit special attention here. In one of these assemblages, artifacts representing the so-called Cimmerian horizon were also present (e.g. Chochorowski 1993, 152–156; Kemenczei 1996a, 85; 1996b, 264; Pare 1999, 379). From the review presented here, it follows that southeastern Poland (especially the region occupied by the Tarnobrzeg group) and the northern Carpathian foreland were strongly inluenced by metallurgical centers 21 located on the Tisza River. These inluences are even more signiicant considering that artifacts typical of western Lusatian culture groups reached this territory only to a negligible degree at that time. Perhaps as a result of these inluences, a local metallurgical center was established in the Tarnobrzeg group milieu in phase LB III, represented by decorations of the so-called Sieniawa style (Blajer, Szpunar 1981, 312). Some forms characteristic of this trend (richly decorated bracelets with thinned ends) may have been inspired by rings typical of phase LB II in the Tisza basin. At the same time, the distinct isolation of the early Tarnobrzeg group metallurgy is noted with regard to other manufacturing centers situated within the Lusatian cultural area (Blajer 1996, 99). The same is also true for objects manufactured in the Silesia group milieu. In Lesser Poland (Małopolska) however, bronze objects characteristic of the Silesia region were discovered in inds from the Kraków area (Blajer 1994). Sometimes (both hoards from Witów, Koszyce district, and a hoard from Niepołomice, Wieliczka district – Blajer 1999; Reguła 2005) these objects were accompanied by relatively numerous Transcarpathian “imports” from phases LB III–LB IV. The occurrence of bronze artifacts originating from the Tisza basin in Lesser Poland is understandable, as these areas neighbored and contacts were relatively easy, either directly through Carpathian passes or indirectly via the closely culturally related areas on the Dniester River. It is, however, more diicult to explain the relatively large number of artifacts representing the category in question (dated to period HaA and – especially numerous – to period HaB) in Lower Silesia and southern Greater Poland. This phenomenon continues to the beginning of the Early Iron Age, the time when almost all “imports” from the East Alpine and Italian zones are concentrated in these territories (e.g. Bukowski 1993, 119–120, ig.2). To comprehend this phenomenon, the inds from the Oder and Vistula basins should be placed within a broader central European context – against the background of the distribution of certain types of artifacts. Then it appears that “imports” from Silesia and Greater Poland belong 22 to (or speaking more strictly: are the eastern periphery of) a “route” of long-distance exchange contacts crossing central Europe. Beginning at the transition from BrA to BrB until the Early Iron Age, this route led from Jutland through the Elbe basin, Czech Basin and the areas on the upper and middle Danube to Transylvania. However, this was not a manifestation of one cultural community’s existence in the above-named territories, but rather it crossed a number of diferent phenomena – from the mosaic of the Carpathian basin groups, through the Middle Danubian and South German Urnields, to the western periphery of the Lusatian culture and the Nordic circle. This phenomenon, noted already in earlier studies (e.g. Sprockhof 1954), was recently recalled by Tudor Soroceanu (1996, 272– 276), who suggested the possibility that this did not relect a long-distance trade route, but rather a widespread zone of a gradual “chain” exchange (compare Kristiansen 1998, 88–98). Summarizing the remarks above about the inlow of metal artifacts originating from the Carpathian Basin into the present territory of Poland, the diferences observed between the situation in the upper Vistula basin and the Oder basin should be emphasized once more. They are expressed by the following: (i) the inlow of Transcarpathian bronzes to Lesser Poland already began at the transition from the Middle to Late Bronze Age (Koszider type hoards) and then continued through phases LB I–LB II to reach its height in phase LB III and to cease in phase LB IV (HaB1); the Oder basin is devoid of artifacts dated earlier than to phase LB III (HaA); bronze artifacts become most numerous in phase LB IV and in the younger segment of period HaB; (ii) a signiicant portion of “imports” found in the upper Vistula basin are forms typical almost exclusively of the Tisza basin, while in western Poland, types also occurring in the East Alpine zone or in the Slovakian group of the Lusatian culture are much more numerous; (iii) tools and weaponry predominate among artifacts of Transcarpathian origin derived from the Oder basin; there is an almost total lack of decoration and dress elements common to Lesser Poland; (iv) imported 23 - lange-hilted swords of Reutlingen type - broze cups of Blatnica type - ibulae of Gemeinlebarn type - bronze buckets of Hajdúböszörmény type - bowls of B2a type after Merhart - bronze artefacts imported from Carpathian Basin on the territory of Poland 0 Fig. 5. distribution of bronze objects imported from the Carpathian Basin to poland compared to the distribution of selected artifact types assigned to younger segments of the Late Bronze Age, the long-distance “route” of exchange contacts between Scandinavia and the Carpathian Basin. 350 km 24 assemblages (hoards) – occurring in the latter area – are not known from the Oder basin; (v) “imported” bronze objects in the upper Vistula basin concentrate in regions where other elements of culture also bear traces of “southern” inluences – so they are part of an entire gamut of inluences; the situation is diferent in western and northern Poland, where – except for Upper Silesia (Górny Śląsk) – metal artifacts from the Carpathian Basin are not accompanied by other “foreign” cultural elements. 25 5.2. the influence of Carpathian Basin cultural traditions in the territory of the Lusatian culture in the San basin the state of research on the origin of the tarnobrzeg group and the role of Transcarpathian inluences in this process The irst eforts to present a review of the Bronze Age in Poland attempted to address the question on the connections between the middle and lower San basin and territories south of the Carpathians (Kostrzewski 1924, 181; 1927, 111, 115; Antoniewicz 1928, 97, 106; Kozłowski 1928, 124; 1939, 56; Sulimirski 1929, 56–60). Some of these monographs proposed assigning San River basin artifact assemblages to the Lusatian culture, and this was also assumed in post-war studies, where the term “Tarnobrzeg group” or “culture” was already widely used to describe the cultural phenomenon of this area (e.g. Kostrzewski 1949, 106; Kostrzewski, Chmielewski, Jażdżewski 1965, 174). A crucial role in the formation of this group was then ascribed to the inluences of the Middle Poland group from Period IV, although some contribution of the local Trzciniec culture tradition was admitted as well (Żaki 1950, 132). A diferent view was presented by Marek Gedl in the late 1960’s. He emphasized the distinctiveness of the Tarnobrzeg group when compared with other local variants of the Lusatian culture. He connected this fact with the speciic role played by Carpathian and Dniester basin inluences (the Noua culture and then the Holihrady group – Gedl 1967, 312–313; 1969, 389; 1970, 380–385) in the Tarnobrzeg group’s emergence. The same direction of connections was discerned in the San basin’s Late Bronze 2 assemblages by Zbigniew Bukowski (1967, 42–43; 1969, 338–340) (but at the same time, he stressed the signiicance of the Trzciniec culture substrate). These conclusions were undoubtedly inluenced by the irst results of research at the Bachórz Chodorówka cemetery, already situated in the Carpathian zone on the southern periphery of the Tarnobrzeg group (Gedl 1962a), where Marek Gedl distinguished a group of pottery with associations to “Hungary-Transylvanian” cultures (Gedl 1970, 383; later also: 1994, 29, 32, 54, 57; 1998, 68, 70, 76, 83). The discovery of graves with pottery referring to the Noua culture at a cemetery in Grodzisko Dolne, Leżajsk district, was very important (Gedl 1960, 86–87), as well as studies on the cultural connections of some metal objects found in the San basin (compare Bukowski 1976, 50–52; 1978, 32, 35–36). These latter inds were also discussed by Marija Gimbutas (1965, 469) in a review of the Bronze Age in central and eastern Europe, where they were assigned to the NorthCarpathian cultural complex together with inds from the Dniester basin. Kazimierz Moskwa also assumed this view about the role of Transcarpathian inluences, particularly with regard to the spread of bronze metallurgy and the cremation burial ritual. In his opinion, the Tarnobrzeg group’s genesis was the result of “a merging process of Trzciniec and Thracian elements” (Moskwa 1973, 24), with Trzciniec inluences clearly noticeable particularly in the pottery styles (Moskwa 1976, 143–144; 1982, 307–308). In assessing the Trzciniec culture’s role in the origins of the Tarnobrzeg group, Adam Krauss (1977) went considerably further. In discussing the “Łódź phase” concept, i.e. the transitional Trzciniec-Lusatian phase distinguished on the basis of inds from central Poland (Gardawski 1959, 135–138, 140–141, 169; Wiklak 1963), this author proposed considering the San river basin cultural changes taking place in Period III as a gradual transformation from the Trzciniec culture to the Tarnobrzeg group, parallel to changes being seen in the entire eastern zone of Lusatian culture. Possible Transcarpathian interactions during this period were to be limited to exchange contacts, manifested in the archeological record by 2 the presence of “imported” bronze objects (Krauss 1977, 43–45; similarly: Dąbrowski 1972, 120). A basic weakness of the concepts on the role of the Trzciniec culture in the Tarnobrzeg group’s genesis was the fact that Trzciniec culture materials were known in southeastern Poland almost exclusively from the region where the San lows into the Vistula River. This changed only when Wojciech Blajer published data indicating the existence of a vast Trzciniec culture settlement concentration on the middle San River (Blajer 1985, 69; 1987a, 31; 1987b, 191). This discovery caused a re-evaluation of the views on the role of the Trzciniec culture in the Tarnobrzeg group’s genesis (e.g. Gedl 1987a, 359; 1989b, 30; Bukowski 1989, 73–75). However, attention was still being drawn to the signiicance of Transcarpathian (and particularly the Dniester region) inluences, as they were to be responsible for the speciicity of the Tarnobrzeg group’s early phase and its distinctiveness with regard to other Lusatian culture groups (especially: Bukowski 1989). Such opinions were conirmed by new ield work results (Lewandowski 1978; 1979) and in detailed studies on the origins of bronze objects from the early phase of the Tarnobrzeg group milieu (Blajer 1987; 1989). At the same time, it was claimed that southern and southeastern inluences in the San basin territory were not limited to the period when the Tarnobrzeg group emerged, but also took place during its developed stages (Blajer, Czopek, Kostek 1991, 288–289). This especially concerns the Gáva culture or Holihrady group inluences discernible in pottery (Bazielich 1982b, 292–293; 1984, 340–341; 1989, 165; Chochorowski 1989, 603; 607; Gedl 1994, 55–57; Czopek 1996, 67). This issue was later addressed by Sylwester Czopek. In his proposed characterization of the presence of “Transcarpathian” pottery in Tarnobrzeg group assemblages, the following conclusions should be emphasized: (i) the necessity to accept a broad chronology for possible inluences that may have consisted of “long-term neighboring contacts”; (ii) the assumed importance of the Carpathian zone as an “intermediary” in transmitting Transcarpathian esthetic patterns; 28 (iii) noting the fact that most pottery thought to be Transcarpathian is in fact local imitation, diverging to a large extent from the originals (Czopek 2003, 219, 224–225). Research conducted in the past several years has signiicantly enriched studies on the Tarnobrzeg group’s origins and the potential role of Transcarpathian contacts. First and foremost, progress was made in studies on the San basin’s Trzciniec culture settlement, including the problem of the continuation of regional settlement structures in the transition period between this cultural unit and the Tarnobrzeg group (Czopek 1996, 110– 113; 1998; 2003a; 2006a; Gedl 1998a; Blajer, Przybyła 2003, 265–266, 284– 285; Górski 2005, 263–264; Przybyła, Blajer 2008, 95–97). Chronological analyses, especially those based on detailed studies of changes in pottery-making styles (Chochorowski 1989; Blajer, Czopek, Kostek 1991; Czopek 1996; Przybyła 2003), allowed a distinct “post-Trzciniec” trend to be distinguished within the materials of the Tarnobrzeg group’s early phase (Czopek 1996, 113, 116; 1999, 122; 2005, 45; 2006a, 83–85; Gedl 1998, 141; Blajer, Przybyła 2003, 278, 284–286; Przybyła 2003, 30, 40, 44; Czopek, Trybała 2005, 155–156; Gawlik, Przybyła 2005, 314–315, ig. 1). Finally, new ield discoveries proved – previously considered only as a hypothesis – the existence of sources representing the transition period between these two cultural units (ig. 76). These include, in the irst place, artifacts recovered from a small, probably briely occupied settlement in Dylągówka, Rzeszów district (Blajer, Czopek 1996, 40), and inds from farther sites in the Kolbuszowa Plateau (Płaskowyż Kolbuszowski) and Rzeszów Foreland (Pogórze Rzeszowskie) (Czopek 2003a, 146; 2006a, 79–81; Blajer, Przybyła 2003, 267; 2006, 66–67, ig. 3; Przybyła 2003a, 94–95; 2006, 62–63; Przybyła, Blajer 2008, map 4). With respect to morphology and decoration, pottery found at those sites refers to materials of the post-classic and inal phases of the Trzciniec culture in western Lesser Poland (Małopolska) (Górski 1994; 1997; 2004; 2007) and to other assemblages connected with the end of the Trzciniec culture (e.g. Wiklak 1963; 2 1 2 4 3 5 7 0 6 cm 6 Fig. 76. Pottery forms from the inal phase of the Trzciniec culture in the San basin: Lipnik, Przeworsk district (1,3–4); Dylągówka, Rzeszów district (2,5–). 1,5– after Blajer, Czopek 1. Węgrzynowicz 1981; Ścibior, Ścibior 1990; Matoga 1991; Taras 1995). Of particular importance was the discovery of a cremation grave equipped with pottery in the style of the Trzciniec culture’s late phase at a site in Lipnik, Przeworsk district (ig. 77:9–10). This burial, chronologically corresponding to the site’s youngest settlement features at the same time, marks the beginning of the development of a Tarnobrzeg group cemetery 20 3 7 0 1 2 6 cm 5 0 6 6 cm 0 4 8 3 cm 3–5 11 9 0 10 6 cm 12 13 14 0 6 cm 0 3 cm 12 Fig. . Selected assemblages from the initial phase of the Tarnobrzeg group in the middle San basin: Grodzisko Dolne, Leżajsk district, grave 1 (1–2); grave 138 (3–8); Lipnik, przeworsk district, grave 355 (–10); paluchy, przeworsk district, grave 180 (10–15). 1–2 after Gedl 10; 3–8 after Czopek 1; 11–15 after Lewandowski 18. 15 21 that functioned over the next several hundred years. Proceeding from this example, we were able to conirm – thus far only presumed – the chronological “interrelation” between the late-Trzciniec settlement materials and the early-Tarnobrzeg graves, and to propose that the “Trzciniec-Tarnobrzeg transitional phase” be considered a longer term process of transformation of the local cultural background, probably taking place within unchanged settlement structures (Blajer, Przybyła 2003, 267–276; 2006, 68; Przybyła 2003a, 96–98; 2007, 603–620; Przybyła, Blajer 2008, 53–55). Studies on the origins of biritual burials in the early phase of the Tarnobrzeg group are also related to the issue discussed here (Czopek 2002, 237–240; Czopek, Trybała 2005, 160–162; Czopek, Ormian, Trybała 2005, 63–67; Ormian, Wróbel 2007, 555–560). The occurrence of inhumation graves in this group is mainly perceived as a continuation of the earlier tradition characteristic of the Trzciniec culture. These assumptions are corroborated by the presence of inhumation in a San variant of the latter cultural phenomenon, conirmed recently by the discovery of inhumation graves from the Trzciniec culture’s early phase at site 22 in Grodzisko Dolne (Czopek 1998, 159; 2007, 43–65). However, alternative possibilities for the appearance of this custom are also indicated, such as western inluences from the Tumulus circle area (Czopek 2002, 241–242) or those from territories on the Dniester (Gedl 2005, 58). Among the problems related to the Tarnobrzeg group’s origins that are still current and under discussion, two issues are at the forefront. The irst concerns the character of contacts between the Tarnobrzeg group and the oldest phase of the Wysocko culture from the Volinia territory. In the opinion of Ukrainian archeologists (Bandrivskyj, Krushel’nychka 1998, 212– 213), the appearance of inhumation graves in the San basin was related to inluences from the Wysocko cultural group. But as has been recently demonstrated by Piotr Godlewski (2005), such presumptions are not justiied due to the small number of Wysocko culture assemblages corresponding to graves of the Tarnobrzeg group’s early phase. On the contrary, inhumation 22 in the Tarnobrzeg group may be earlier than the oldest assemblages from the cemetery in Petrikìv, Ternopiľ district, cited by Ukrainian archeologists in this context. However – in agreement with these authors’ suggestions presented elsewhere (Bandrivskyj, Krushelnychka 1998, 210) – the distinct similarities between the early materials of the Wysocko culture and the Tarnobrzeg group may be treated as a manifestation of their common genetic relationship from the development period of the Trzciniec-Komarov complex (Czopek, Ormian, Trybała 2005, 78; Godlewski 2005, 41–42). From the perspective of the issues in question, the second problem addressed in the literature is of particular importance. This concerns the possibility of determining the source of cultural impulses leading the population of the Trzciniec culture’s inal phase to adopt the urn cremation burial ritual. According to Sylwester Czopek (1996, 115–116), this process should be considered together with parallel changes observed in the entire area where the Lusatian culture’s eastern group formed. Thus, these inluences might have originated in the Silesian variant of western Lesser Poland’s Lusatian culture or the Konstantynów group in central Poland. Marek Gedl had a diferent view (1998, 141) and was inclined to link the appearance of cremation urn graves in the San basin to cultural inluences from the Carpathian Basin. I will return to this discussion later in this chapter. Assemblages testifying to „southern” and „eastern” inluences in the initial phase of the tarnobrzeg group A previously mentioned burial from Lipnik belongs to the oldest horizon of the functioning of the Tarnobrzeg group’s cemeteries. Due to the detailed traits of burial rite, such as the presence of a layer of cremated bones within a relatively large pit (about 1 m in diameter), this grave exhibits references to two objects (no. I and no. II) from a cemetery in Grodzisko Dolne (Gedl 1960, 86–87). In these burials – apart from a tulip-shaped, 23 “post-Trzciniec” pot – vessels with two handles decorated with knobs on top also were found (ig. 77:1–2). This speciic type of pottery is known from a few more Tarnobrzeg group sites. A specimen from Piaseczno, Sandomierz district, should be mentioned here, belonging to a pottery collection from a cemetery assigned by Adam Krauss (1977, 40, plate 6:27, ig. 14) to the oldest phase of the Tarnobrzeg group. In the middle San basin, cups with two handles were found in an inhumation grave at a cemetery in Paluchy, Przeworsk district (Lewandowski 1978, 144, ig. 10). Vessels of this kind or their fragments also were discovered at a cemetery in Tarnobrzeg Machów (Krauss 1977, 40) and – without a grave context – at a cemetery in Lipnik (Blajer 2000, ig. 8:d) and a settlement in Przemyśl Nehrybka (Lewandowski 1978, 149; 1978a, 185). A westernmost (already outside the Tarnobrzeg group’s territorial range) ind of a Bronze Age cup with two handles, i.e. the specimen from Olszanica, Kraków district,28 and a handle fragment with knobs from a settlement in Podlodów, Tomaszów Lubelski district (Niedźwiedź, Taras 2006, 95–96, 103–104, ig. 5:1), should also be mentioned. The connections of such pottery have been repeatedly discussed in the literature. Traditionally, this form was related to the Noua culture (e.g. Czopek 2003, 217–219), where double-handled cups represented the older tradition of the Monteoru culture. Less frequently, a possible connection with the Komarov culture (Czopek 1996, 38) was proposed, where such vessels occurred in younger assemblages (Sveshnikov 1967, 73; Dąbrowski 1972, 37–38; 51–53), contemporaneous already with the Noua culture settlements on the Dniester River (compare Krushel’nychka 1990; Maleev 2006). In the Komarov culture milieu, double-handed cups represent southeastern inluences (Bukowski 1978, 36), manifested mainly 28 I would like to thank Tomasz Bochnak for this information. 24 by the presence of bronze objects typical of Noua culture metallurgy, or more widely, of the territories on the lower Danube and Pontic zone (e.g. Sulimirski 1938, 135–137, ig. 2:b–c, plates I; II:1–2,4,6; Sveshnikov 1968, ig. 4:2,10). It should be noted that the pottery variant discussed here, as well as metal objects typical of the Noua culture, are also known from LB II inventories on the Tisza basin, assigned to the so-called Lăpuş and BerkeszDemecser groups (igs. 15:10,12, 16:12). Other assemblages (a grave from Kavsko in the vicinity of Drohobych [Bernjakovich 1959, 34–42; plate 3:4; Mozsolics 1960, 116; Sulimirski 1968, ig. 29:5] and inds of metal objects (Maleev, Kobal’ 2005) prove the inluence of the two latter cultural groups in the territory occupied by Komarov culture settlement. Thus, doublehandled vessels from graves of the Tarnobrzeg group’s oldest phase may not relect inluences of a particular cultural unit, but rather are evidence of the San basin’s adherence to a system of multilateral cultural relations, also encompassing the middle and upper Tisza basin, Volinia and Podolia in phase LB II. Such a perspective is well illustrated by the already mentioned grave 180 from the cemetery in Paluchy (ig. 77:11–15). In addition to two cups with knobs on the handles, this burial’s inventory included a bowl with thickened rim, representing the “post-Trzciniec” tradition, and a straightened bracelet (used as a necklace) with thinned ends, decorated with the herring-bone pattern and transverse strokes. This latter artifact is of particular importance. Bracelets made from a rod with thinned ends – both decorated with the herringbone pattern and other motifs (hatched triangles, zigzags) – should be linked to the metallurgy of the Tisza center from LB II phase, i.e. to the period of Uriu-Ópályi series hoards deposition (see above). In the territory of the Tarnobrzeg group, decorated bracelets with thinned ends are known from several grave inventories. These assemblages may be synchronized with the LB II phase south of the Carpathians, and may be considered as chronologically corresponding to graves from Lipnik and Grodzisko Dolne (no. I and no. II) (ig. 44). Five 25 are inhumation burials: Furmany, Tarnobrzeg district, grave 101 (SzarekWaszkowska 1993, PL 396:18); Grodzisko Dolne, grave 127 (Czopek 1996, 138, plate 39:1,7); Łazy, Jarosław district (Jarosz, Szczepanek 2007, 34–35); Manasterz, Jarosław district, grave 110 (Czopek, Trybała 2005, 132–134, 154, ig. 4:a); Paluchy, grave 180 (Lewandowski 1978, 144, ig. 10: f). On the other hand, burned human remains were found in a small pit in grave 138 from Grodzisko Dolne (ig. 77:3–8) (Czopek 1996, 139, plate 43:4). A bracelet from Albigowa, Łańcut district, is also probably from the equipment of a destroyed grave (Gedl 1998b, 35, ig. 9:8). Thus, two ways of treating the deceased can be indicated in the horizon of the oldest burials “founding” the Tarnobrzeg group cemeteries: inhumation burials and cremation burials with bones scattered in a pit. The origin of the irst has already been presented above. The presence of pit cremation graves ofers just as many opportunities for interpretation. This burial type occurred in the Trzciniec culture, although it was limited there to the territories east of the Vistula and lower San (Kłosińska 1983, 3–4; Blajer 1987a, 24; 1989a, 453; Taras 1995, 47–59). However, at the time of transition between the Trzciniec and Lusatian cultures, of interest to us here, pit graves occur more commonly, among others in western Lesser Poland (Małopolska) (Matoga 1987, 119; 1991, 238). At the same time, similar burial customs (pit graves with a layer of burned bones) also are conirmed east and south of the Tarnobrzeg group’s territorial range, in the Komarov culture (Sveshnikov 1967, 52) and in cemeteries dated to phase LB II from the Tisza basin (e.g. Mozsolics 1960, 117–118; Demeterová 1984, 20–21; Kacsó 2001, 231). As in the graves from Grodzisko Dolne, Lipnik and Paluchy, ceramic equipment of the above-mentioned burials consisted mainly of vessels representing the “post-Trzciniec” tendency (tulip-shaped pots, conical bowls with thickened rim). New forms in these inventories are carinated cups decorated with grooves. The appearance of this type of vessels in the oldest Tarnobrzeg group assemblages was linked to the eastern inluences 2 mentioned previously (i.e. the Noua culture – Czopek 2003, 219). Such an origin was acknowledged especially in the case of specimens decorated with a knob on the handle (Blajer, Czopek, Kostek 1991, 289). Similar cups from the same time period are known from other assemblages of the transitional Trzciniec-Lusatian phase also (e.g. Wiklak 1963, igs. 4:9; 5:2; Matoga 1991, ig. 6:b), but analogies can be indicated in vessels of the Tumuluspost-Otomani groups from the Tisza basin as well (e.g. ig. 16:9,13). In addition to graves and settlement materials, single bronze inds also may be connected with the transition between the Trzciniec culture and the Tarnobrzeg group in the San basin. For the issues under analysis here, short swords or daggers from Jarosław, Przemyśl and Rożubowice are especially interesting. They are related to the metallurgical center situated on the lower Volga river (daggers of Sosnovaia Maza type) and, in a broader context, also to culture groups from the Pontic zone (e.g. Bukowski 1976, 50–52; Klochko 1993, 16; 2004, 210–14; Gedl 1998, 51). However, it is worth emphasizing that the specimens from the Tarnobrzeg culture milieu ind their closest geographic parallel in a sword discovered at Zavadka in the Transcarpathian Ukraine (Kobal’ 2000, 33, plate 50:A1). The location of this ind may be symptomatic – it was found at the entrance of the Veretskyi Pass on the route linking the Tisza basin with the territories of the upper Dniester.29 29 The specimen from Zavadka is not the only Carpathian Basin analogue of daggers from the San area. A fragment of a hilt, probably an element of the same weapon type (compare Klochko 1993, 17; 2004, 213–214; Kobal’ 2000, 33, footnote 26) was found in a hoard from Ardud, Satu Mare district (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1977, 51, plate 22:4 – as a fragment of a scabbard). A sword from an LB III hoard from Döge, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg district (Kemenczei 1984, 172, plate 179:1; Klochko 2004, 213), while longer than specimens found in Poland, has a similarly shaped hilt. So one cannot exclude that groups from the upper Tisza basin – strongly inluenced in phase LB II by the NouaCoslogeni-Sabatinovka cultural area (inluences from the Dniester basin and central and eastern Transylvania as well) could have possibly participated in the transmission of part of products of this cultural complex to southeastern Poland (compare Klochko 2004, 213–214). 2 Generalizing the remarks above, one can say that in essence, two basic directions of connections can be discerned in all the known cultural aspects of the populations residing on the middle and lower San in the period of Trzciniec culture decline and the onset of the Tarnobrzeg group. The irst is the traditional connection with neighboring settlement clusters of the Trzciniec culture (and perhaps the Komarov culture as well), including phenomena representing its inal phase, transitional to the Lusatian culture. In essence, both the known settlement materials and scarce grave inventories are still representing the Trzciniec culture. Settlement continuance is conirmed, both on a macro-scale (the existence of two main settlement clusters on the middle San and in the area where it lows into the Vistula – compare ig. 44), as well as on a mezzo- and micro-regional scale. Uninterrupted occupation of some sites is also conirmed. The tradition of pottery manufacture is continued as well. Forms known from settlements and graves represent a trend typical of the Trzciniec culture’s inal phase in other areas occupied by this unit. Finally, it seems that the form of burial ritual (inhumation graves and urn graves in pits) used in the oldest graves of the Tarnobrzeg group should also be considered as a sign of the “Trzciniec” tradition’s continuation. At the same time, however, “late-Trzciniec” populations from the San River basin were in the orbit of inluences from another cultural center in phase LB II. Bronze objects manufactured on the Tisza may have appeared in the cultural milieu in question from communities in the northern approaches of the eastern Beskid Mountains, represented by younger assemblages of the Jasło group (see chapter 4.2). Objects (pottery, metals) characteristic of the Black Sea zone and its genetically-related Noua culture also appeared in the territories on the San River. Traces of the same inluences – connected with unspeciied cultural processes – are also observed in the northeastern Carpathian Basin. It can be thus assumed that communities of the inal phase of Trzciniec culture residing on the San were in some way included into a system of multilateral relations, which also 28 encompassed the Tumulus-post-Otomani culture groups of the upper and middle Tisza, Noua culture populations of the Dniester and the late Komarov culture of southern Volinia inluenced by the Noua. Of crucial importance to this process could have been two events occurring in similar periods on territories, though not directly adjacent to the San basin, occupied up to that time by other groups representing the Trzciniec-Komarov complex. In the period corresponding to phase LB II (BrC2–BrD), assemblages of the Komarov culture were superseded on the upper Dniester by the Noua culture (e.g. Krushel’nychka 1990; Maleev 2006). At a similar time (phase BrD after Górski 2004, 189–194), local Trzciniec culture groups ceased to develop in western Lesser Poland with the advent of the early phase of the Lusatian culture’s Silesian group (e.g. Gedl 1982, 21–23; Blajer 1994). Both these processes are interpreted as having been a consequence of mass migrations rather than of an evolutionary transformation of the local cultural background. By breaking previously existent traditional channels of exchange between groups assigned to the Trzciniec-Komarov cultural complex, these events could have deinitely sealed the emergence of cultural distinctiveness in the middle San basin. The data provided here indicate that the area in question was already part of a separate exchange cycle in the period of the “Trzciniec-Tarnobrzeg transitional phase”, which also included groups from the middle and upper Tisza and upper Dniester. What attracts attention is the permanent disruption of connections between the San River basin and western Lesser Poland. The distinct lack of connections between these two regions is noticeable during the entire period of the early Tarnobrzeg group, particularly with respect to the directions products of local metallurgical workshops are distributed (Blajer 1996, 99). Proceeding from the same observations, one can assume, however, a continuation of connections between the population from the middle San basin and other “post-Trzciniec” populations, especially those occupying the area of the Sandomierz Upland (Wyżyna Sandomierska) and the regions north of the Roztocze area. 2 the origin of the urn cremation burial ritual in the early phase of the tarnobrzeg group Reconstructing the process resulting in the acceptance of the typical Urnield burial rite (i.e. lat cremation graves, with human remains inurned and often covered by a bowl, in most cases poorly equipped) by the Tarnobrzeg group communities is diicult owing to the small number of assemblages containing bronze objects with diagnostic features. However, it is symptomatic that none of the above discussed assemblages equipped with LB II bronzes was an urn burial. Presently, three assemblages can be accepted as the earliest (precisely dated) graves of this kind, from cemeteries dated to phase HaA1 (LB III) in Bachórz Chodorówka, Grodzisko Dolne and Lipnik. Lipnik provided a grave equipped with two richly decorated rings made in the so-called Sieniawa style (Blajer 2000, ig. 5:d–e). Artifacts of this type most probably were produced in a local metallurgical center, functioning in phase HaA1 in the San basin (Blajer 1987, 130; 1989, 121, 135; 1996, 95; 1999, 121, 123–125). However, it is worth emphasizing that single objects made in this style also come from hoards dated to the LB III phase from the Tisza basin (Blajer 1989, 121; 1999, 60; Mozsolics 1985, 91–92; plate 99:2; Kobal’ 2000, 78; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1998, 101, plate 88:1117). The assemblages mentioned above represent a slightly younger chronological horizon than inhumation and pit cremation burials from the initial phase of the Tarnobrzeg group. At the same time, it is worth stressing that they are contemporaneous with urn graves from a cemetery in Wietrzno and corresponding inventories with luted pottery (see chapter 4.2). Based on available data, the appearance of urn graves in the San basin can therefore be synchronized with the cultural LB II/LB III transition in the Carpathian Basin and with inds from the Jasło-Krosno Basin (Kotlina Jasielsko-Krośnieńska) related to this phenomenon. 280 The pottery analysis from assemblages of the Tarnobrzeg group’s early phase may provide certain indications for a discussion of urn cremation burial rite origins. As was remarked, in addition to vessels representing the “post-Trzciniec” trend, forms lacking references to earlier traditions are also distinguished in these inventories. This category includes, among other things, strongly carinated bowls. Symptomatic is the fact that vessels of this type occur mainly in the southern zone of the Tarnobrzeg group in the lower Wisłok and middle San basins (Przybyła 2003, 30, 47–49), but not where the San lows into the Vistula, a region accessible to the inluences of the early Lusatian culture. This observation may suggest that carinated bowls from the early phase of the Tarnobrzeg group – as well as the carinated cups mentioned above – were produced with stylistic patterns adopted from cultural groups from the northeastern Carpathian Basin. This vessel type commonly occurred there in the older Bronze Age phases (e.g. igs. 11:24–26, 16:33). Besides the bowls, biconical vases with sharply carinated body and a separated (to a various degree) neck, characterized by well developed tectonics, are also included in the group of vessels not allied to the Trzciniec tradition. This pottery form is typical of the Tarnobrzeg group. Its oldest variants should be dated to the early phase of this culture group; later, “biconical vessel stylistics” became particularly popular and continued to develop until the beginning of the Early Iron Age (Przybyła 2003, 30, 40–41; Gawlik, Przybyła 2005, 314–315, ig. 1). Although the forms of these vessels have only rather distant analogies to pottery of the Tisza basin cultures (e.g. ig. 16:20,22,25), connections with several decorative motifs found on biconical vases seem interesting. This particularly concerns pottery (Gedl 1994, plates 1, 18:9, 80:20, 87:14, 98:8, 100:12, 110:5, 115:4, 124:36, 125:31, ig. 70) from a Tarnobrzeg group necropolis in Bachórz Chodorówka, situated most deeply within the Carpathian zone, which should be emphasized here. Several vessels from grave assemblages and collections of artifacts without a speciied context have necks decorated with vertical or horizontal bands of hollows, 281 sometimes arranged in sets of parallel or crossing lines (ig. 78:2–2,4). Decoration of a band of hollows on the vessel neck and at its base also was seen on a cup from a cemetery in Łazy (ig. 78:3 – Jarosz, Szczepanek 2005, 74, ig. 4). Although there are some indications for dating at least some of these vessels only to the younger segment of the Tarnobrzeg group’s early phase (end of HaA and beginning of HaB), the most numerous analogies for decoration of vertical rows of hollows on the neck may be indicated 2 1 3 0 6 cm 4 Fig. 8. examples of vessels decorated with bands of hollows from cemeteries in Bachórz Chodorówka, Rzeszów district, gr. 1 (1); 465 (4); 506 (2) and Łazy, Jarosław district (3). 1–2,4 after Gedl 14; 3 after Jarosz, Szczepanek 2005. 282 in pottery from urn cemeteries in the northern Great Hungarian Plain, dated to phase LB II (ig. 16:27, see chapter 3.2). Simultaneously, these analogies are the only parallels for the crossing bands motif. Hollows on vessel neck ornamentation occurred moreover in the Piliny culture and then in the Kyjatice culture (e.g. igs. 11:8,17, 27:3,5,8,10,19,23), as well as on single pottery specimens from cave inds in the northern approaches to the Bihor Mountains (ig. 13:4). The possibility presented above of synchronizing the earliest urn graves in the San basin with cultural changes at the LB II/LB III transition in the northeastern Carpathian Basin, as well as the presence of single decorative motifs in early Tarnobrzeg pottery, and perhaps also of vessel forms linked with the tradition of LB II groups from the latter of the above-mentioned areas, corroborate the hypothesis formulated by Marek Gedl (1998, 141) connecting the appearance of this form of burial rite in the Tarnobrzeg group with Transcarpathian inluences. It should be noted that one of the clearest indicators of the changes mentioned at the beginning of LB II was the end of the functioning of urn cemeteries in the northern Great Hungarian Plain (see chapter 3). So, the picture is as follows: a certain tradition approaches its end south of the Carpathians (except for the Piliny culture) – a tradition characterized, among other things, by the presence of lat urn cemeteries with relatively poor, egalitarian equipment. At the same time, similar graves appear in the San basin. These burials contain single vessels with decoration referring to the tradition of the above-mentioned groups with urn cemeteries, but they also contain the irst luted pottery (see below), resembling forms known from the LB III culture groups in the Tisza basin and from sites in the Polish Carpathian zone. At least hypothetically therefore, one can consider the possibility that as a result of cultural processes taking place in the northeastern Carpathian Basin, new human groups arrived to the San basin from the south (along the route followed before by products of the Tisza metallurgical center), bringing new ideas, including the urn cremation burial rite. Further, one can assume that 283 these groups merged with the local milieu of the oldest, initial phase of the Tarnobrzeg group, through the introduction of a tradition previously foreign to the Trzciniec culture of burying all members of a given population in common cemeteries, standardized with regard to burial form and equipment. These new customs may not have been embraced by that part of the population, which had thus far honored their deceased as observed in other inal- or post-Trzciniec cultural phenomena, that is, in burials of lavishly furnished graves of inhumation or cremation rituals. More recent studies on inhumation in the Tarnobrzeg group (see above) indicate that part of this community could have manifested their uniqueness in such a manner, at least for as long as to the end of this group’s early phase (compare chapter 6.2). pottery with transcarpathian traits from assemblages of the early phase of the tarnobrzeg group I will now characterize a group of vessels appearing in assemblages of the early phase of the Tarnobrzeg group that may be linked with respect to their form or decoration to stylistic trends typical of the Carpathian Basin. Based on the chronology schemes used for pottery of the Tarnobrzeg group, most “Transcarpathian” forms can be roughly dated to period HaA or to the beginning of HaB (Chochorowski 1989, 607, ig. 10, plate 5; Czopek 1996, 37, 67; 2005, 45–46; Przybyła 2003, 30, 43). But only one assemblage with a vessel of that type is reliably dated by an “independent” diagnostic metal ind. This is a grave 139 from Grodzisko Dolne (Czopek 1996, 139–140, plate 43:11–16), equipped, among other things, with a pin with an onion-shaped head (ig. 79:4 – Blajer 1989, 136). This type of ornament is commonly considered a marker for the older segment of period HaB (e.g. Říhovský 1979, 186; 1983, 44; Novotná 1980, 149–150). It is worth remembering here that an onion-shape headed pin was found in the 284 2 4 3 5 1 6 9 11 10 7 0 8 0 6 cm 4 4 cm Fig. . Selected grave assemblages of the tarnobrzeg group with vessels showing transcarpathian traits: Grodzisko dolne, Leżajsk district, grave 139 (1–6); Lipnik, Przeworsk district, grave 141 (–11) and 10 (12). 1– after Czopek 1. 12 285 oldest layer of a Transylvanian settlement in Teleac (see chapter 3), corresponding to the beginning of the Gáva II style. In the case of a great majority of assemblages containing pottery with Transcarpathian features, more precise dating is possible only on the basis of a stylistic analysis of vessel forms. However, this brings us to another problem rightly emphasized by Sylwester Czopek (2003): exact analogies are not found south of the Carpathians for at least some of the vessels discussed here and they consist only of imitations, far from their potential originals. Therefore, a discussion about stylistic links should begin with artifacts whose morphology or decoration exhibits the most unambiguous connections with speciic cultural milieu. A vase-shaped vessel from a cemetery in Lipnik (grave 141 – Blajer, Przybyła 2006, ig. 6:1–13) has the proportions and proile especially characteristic of the Late Piliny-Kyjatice style pottery (ig. 79:7). The decoration on the body (oblique lutes, knobs with groups of hollows) also conforms to this trend. On the other hand, a motif of hanging arch-like lutes placed below the knobs, as well as faceting of the lips, only rarely occurs in this cultural milieu (Furmánek 1982, ig. 4:1–2). The irst ornament was especially typical of Gáva I style vases, while the second occurred particularly frequently at that time in assemblages on the middle Tisza River, the latter assemblages being a synthesis of western (the Velatice-Čaka style) and southern (the Belegiš II style) elements. Probably as a result of the same inluences, the faceting of lips (and forms close to the specimen from Lipnik) appeared in the northern approaches to the Bihor Mountains in materials of the younger phase of the Igriţa group (ig. 13:17–21). Therefore, the vessel under discussion from Lipnik grave 141 may be, relatively reliably, linked with cultural phenomena (e.g. younger Piliny culture, early Gáva culture, Igriţa group) from the middle and upper Tisza basin in phase LB III (HaA). A form identiied as typical of the early Gáva culture materials or of the younger phase of the Lăpuş group is known from the same cemetery (gr. 160 28 2 1 3 0 6 cm 4 Fig. 80. Selected vessels with transcarpathian traits from a cemetery in Bachórz Chodorówka, Rzeszów district: grave 13 (1), 548 (4), 18 (2), 53 (3) and 35 (5). After Gedl 14. 5 28 1 2 3 5 4 6 8 9 7 10 12 11 14 13 0 15 Fig. 81. pottery with transcarpathian traits from a cemetery in Paluchy, Leżajsk district, grave 216 (1–5); cemetery in Wietlin, Jarosław district (6–7); settlement in Przemyśl Nehrybka (8–10) and cemetery in tarnobrzeg Machów, grave 24 (11–15). – after kostek 11. 6 cm 288 – ig. 79:12) (compare ig. 24:1–2,5; Blajer, Przybyła 2003, 275; 2006, 68; Przybyła 2003, 43). A connection with the Lăpuş group is indicated by a combination of vertical ribs and a motif of festoons hanging below a knob pushed from the inside (compare Kacsó 2001, ig. 21). However, one should also take into account the possibility of a younger dating of this artifact, as its proportions (a highly placed and strongly narrowing neck) ind good parallels in Gáva II style vessels dated to phase LB IV (ig. 25:1–2). Also, decoration with knobs pushed from the inside and lutes arranged in hanging festoons is still conirmed for that period (ig. 25:5,17; compare Pankau 2004, plates 13:2; 16:6; 22:1; 30:7; 31:4; 45:8; 46:10). Two conical bowls with inverted rim (ig. 81:14–15) were discovered in grave 264 at a cemetery in Tarnobrzeg Machów (Pieróg 2005, 407–408). One was decorated on the upper part with horizontal lutes, the other with faceting of the lips. Similar vessels have been described already many times as the leading forms of the Belegiš II style, in addition to occurring commonly in other culture groups of the LB III phase. In the northern Carpathian basin, bowls decorated with horizontal lutes below the lip did not occur in other segments of the Late Bronze Age, reappearing in greater numbers only at the beginning of the Early Iron Age. The accompanying artifacts together (Krauss 1977, ig. 4:b) it a stylistic trend typical of the Lusatian culture in the Younger Bronze Age (compare e.g. Czopek 2001, ig. 18), thus conirming an early chronology of both bowls from Tarnobrzeg Machów. Vessels from grave 139 in Grodzisko Dolne and grave 173 in Bachórz Chodorówka (igs. 79:1, 80:1 – Czopek 1996, plate 43:16; Gedl 1994, plate 31:12) are decorated with horizontal lutes covering the entire surface of the neck. This type of ornament was typical of Belegiš II pottery, and particularly of Gáva I style knobbed vessels (compare igs. 19–20, 21–22, 24). A direct connection with both these trends (typical of phase LB III) may be challenged by the dating of grave 139, which – owing to the presence of the onion-shape headed pin – was undoubtedly placed in the framework of the older segment of HaB period (phase LB IV). Decoration with horizontal 28 lutes on the neck is only sporadically found on Gáva II style pottery and is usually limited to a few lutes placed below the lip or at the base of the neck, not covering the entire surface of the neck. Vessels from Grodzisko Dolne and Bachórz Chodorówka, as well as fragments of pottery decorated with horizontal lutes from a cemetery in Wietlin, Jarosław district (ig. 81:6–7 – Kostek 1991, 35, 41, plates 19:8; 20:8), therefore represent stylistics typical, irst and foremost, of phase LB III. However, examples of such ornamented vessels enduring to the beginning of the Early Iron Age are known from Slovakia, for instance (Gašaj 1988, ig. 1:1–2). They indicate that one should take into account a longer existence of this type of ornament in the Tarnobrzeg group, situated peripherally in comparison with groups of the Carpathian Basin. One may thus assume that the chronological position determined by the vase from Grodzisko Dolne (LB IV) or slightly earlier (phase LB III) is the most probable one for the specimens discussed here. A small pottery fragment decorated with horizontal lutes also was found in grave 216 at a cemetery in Paluchy (ig. 81:5).30 This assemblage, assigned to the early phase of the Tarnobrzeg group on the basis of pottery manufactured according to local tradition, also contained an upper part of a vessel with a faceted, funnel-like everted rim (ig. 81:4 – this is probably a remnant of an artifact other than the above-mentioned luted fragment). The preserved part of the vessel does not enable a reliable reconstruction of the original form to be made, but owing to the shape of the rim, its potential analogies should be sought in cultures from the Carpathian Basin. It seems that the closest parallels are biconical vases with funnellike neck, or double-bodied specimens with a similarly formed upper part (ig. 25:7–10). These forms are characteristic of the northern zone of the Gáva II style territorial range, including the Holihrady group. One may 30 Unpublished materials being elaborated by Adam Kostek from the National Museum in Przemyśl. 20 therefore assume that the dating of the vessel from grave 216 in Paluchy to phase LB IV (older segment of period HaB) is most probable. Three biconical vases with everted rim, decorated with several horizontal strokes and horizontal band of hollows on the neck (ig. 80:3–4 – Gedl 1994, plates 18:9; 87:14; 100:12) are known from the Bachórz Chodorówka cemetery. A very close parallel for these vessels is found in a specimen from grave 634 at cemetery in Radzovce (ig. 27:26) – an assemblage representative of the younger phase of the Kyjatice culture (Furmánek, Veliačik, Vládar 1999, ig. 44:2,4–5,8,11,13,17). It is worth remembering that similar vessels also are known from the mixed Lusatian-Kyjatice materials from Spiš dated to period HaB (ig. 41:1–3). Taking into account the analogies cited here, one should regard the discussed vessels from Bachórz Chodorówka as an indication of contacts with central Slovakia and not – as in the case of vessels analyzed earlier – with the Tisza or Dniester basins. The chronological position of vases decorated with bands of hollows might correspond with pottery associated with the Gáva II style (LB IV) or might be slightly younger (late HaB). In Bachórz Chodorówka cemetery graves 24 and 618, vessels were found decorated with relatively large, horn-shaped knobs (Gedl 1994, plates 3:9; 96:5). I have already addressed the issue of similarly decorated forms and their relation to the Gáva II style. Special attention should be drawn here to the vessel from grave 618 (ig. 80:2). With regard to its proportion and funnel-shaped upper part, this specimen may be considered as similar (made as an attempted imitation) to vessels typical of the Gáva II style, known from settlements at Teleac and Mediaş and dated to the older segment of period HaB (ig. 25:17). Pottery sherds found at a settlement in Przemyśl-Nehrybka (Kostek 2004, 45)31 (perhaps only a single vessel) are characterized by a combina- 31 Unpublished materials from excavations carried out by Stanisław Lewandowski, in the collection of the National Museum in Przemyśl. 21 tion of oblique lutes ornament and a horizontal rib, which originally also had vertical branches (ig. 81:8–10). The probable shape of the ribs matches the decoration of a vessel from the Kriva hoard, dated to phase LB II (ig. 15:22). With such early connections, these artifacts could correspond to pottery of the early phase of the Tarnobrzeg group known from the same site and to fragments linked to the Noua culture (see above). However, vessels decorated with ribs occurred in a later period too. One can be reminded here, among other things, of the specimen from the Zawada Lanckorońska settlement (ig. 61:16) and its parallels from the HaB sites of the Slovakia piedmont region. A vessel found in Bachórz Chodorówka grave 735 has a unique character (ig. 80:5 – Gedl 1994, plate 113:3). This small amphora with cylindrical neck decorated at its base with horizontal lines is one of the leading pottery forms from the Velatice-Podoli transitional phase period and the Podoli phase of the Middle Danubian Urnield complex (e.g. ig. 8:19). The same vessel type is found in Kyjatice culture assemblages (ig. 27:27), where it is regarded as a result of western inluences, as in the case of pottery with “Podoli” connections from sites of Gáva II style (see chapter 3). The specimen from grave 735 corresponds well with the earlier discussed vessels of the Kyjatice culture style, also recovered from the Bachórz Chodorówka cemetery. This specimen is also evidence of distant cultural connections and the uniication of stylistic patterns, a phenomenon which encompassed the entire northern part of the Carpathian Basin in period HaB. The occurrence of bowls with inverted rims, decorated with oblique grooves or cutting on the lip, known from several grave assemblages of Bachórz Chodorówka and Grodzisko Dolne may also be attributed to the same phenomenon (Gedl 1994, plates 48:7, 82:7, 103:10, Czopek 1996, plate 43:11,15). This form was widely spread in the Late Bronze Age, also in the Lusatian culture milieu, but its dating was limited to period HaB and the beginnings of the Early Iron Age. Such a chronological framework – in the case of inds from the Tarnobrzeg group – is conirmed by the pres- 22 ence of bowls with an obliquely grooved rim in the inventory of grave 139 from Grodzisko Dolne. The most numerous pottery group connected with Transcarpathian inluences are the vessels with everted rim, undecorated or decorated with grooves on the belly. In the case of some of these forms from the northern zone of the Tarnobrzeg group – such as the vessels from cemeteries in Tarnobrzeg-Dzików (Demetrykiewicz 1897, 137–139, ig. 3; Moskwa 1976, 183; Krauss 1977, plate 1:5) or Furmany (Ormian, Brylska, Guściora 2001, plate 3:21) – they are most probably connected with the tendency to shape horizontally outturned rims, observed in Periods IV and V in the Lusatian culture’s eastern groups. The remaining specimens found at cemeteries in Bachórz Chodorówka, Grodzisko Dolne and Lipnik, as well as their miniature equivalents from Chodaczów and Wierzawice (Gedl 1994, plates 3:5,12, 11:10, 12:2, 18:10, 74:4, 115:4; Czopek 1996, plates 17:10; 21:4, 23:11, 32:11; Blajer, Przybyła 2006, ig. 5; Ormian, Wróbel 2007, plate 1:4) form a relatively homogeneous group (e.g. ig. 82:1–3). These vessels do not ind close parallels in Carpathian Basin culture groups and are a variant speciic to the Tarnobrzeg group (particularly in the younger segment of its early phase). At the same time, it seems most probable that they are imitations of Late Bronze Age vessels from the Tisza River area. It may be suggested that, with regard to the form, these vessels (especially biconical specimens) are closer to the Late Piliny-Kyjatice style and to pottery of the Kyjatice culture’s younger phase than to forms typical of the broadly understood Gáva culture. However, the diference between these artifacts and their supposed originals does not permit their connections to be unambiguously indicated. The artifacts presented in the preceding part of this chapter and testifying to the Tarnobrzeg group’s contacts with the Carpathian Basin territory may be divided into groups corresponding to three developmental stages of these connections. The irst is determined by ring ornaments recovered from graves of the initial phase of the Tarnobrzeg group dated to phase 23 2 1 5 0 4 0 6 cm 5 6 cm Fig. 82. Local imitations of pottery styles typical of the Carpathian Basin from the tarnobrzeg group cemetery in Grodzisko Dolne, Leżajsk district (1–3) and from the Lublin region — cemetery in Gródek nad Bugiem, hrubieszów district, grave 22 (4) and a ind from Huszczka, Zamość district (5). 1–3 after Czopek 1996; 4 after Niedźwiedź 1999; 5 after unpublished materials of Jerzy Kuśnierz. 3 24 LB II. The second – by vessels, which in their form and decoration (especially the motif of crossing bands of hollows), represent the pottery tradition of phase LB II in the Tisza basin, and may be an indication of iniltration by foreign groups of people coming from the south to the Tarnobrzeg group milieu at the LB II/LB III transition. The same process might be responsible for the appearance of the irst urn graves in cemeteries of the San basin, as well as for the stylistic patterns of early luted pottery, represented by vessels from grave 141, perhaps also grave 160 from Lipnik and grave 264 from Tarnobrzeg Machów. In phase LB III, a large number of bronze objects of Tisza origin found their way into the San basin (ig. 74, 83), and on the basis of raw materials imported from the south, a local metallurgical center might have developed there (bronzes of Sieniawa type)32. The impact of the culture groups residing on the Tisza in phase LB III, also strong in other parts of Lesser Poland (Małopolska), could have permanently afected local styles of pottery manufacture in the San basin, determining its distinctiveness as compared with the material culture of other groups from the Lusatian culture’s eastern zone. Among the new forms that appeared as a result of those inluences are, in particular, biconical vessels with everted rim. At least some of these forms also occur in the context of pottery from the younger stage of the Tarnobrzeg group’s early phase. The third stage of the Tarnobrzeg group’s contacts with cultures from the Tisza and Dniester basin took place in the same time period. Two main directions of references can be distinguished among the artifacts representing this stage. The irst is conirmed by some of the vessels from the Bachórz Chodorówka cemetery, which clearly refer to Kyjatice culture pottery, including types constituting a foreign, western element in 32 It is diicult to determine how signiicant in the development of the Tarnobrzeg group metallurgy could have been a possible exploitation of copper deposits north of the Carpathian Arch (Gedl 1988a). 25 23 6 7 4 18 24 19 16 20 9 21 12 2 5 3 - a 22 11 10 8 15 17 1 - b - c 14 ? 13 - d 0 Fig. 83. Transcarpathian inds from the territory of the tarnobrzeg group and the Lusatian culture in the southeastern Lublin region: a — pottery decorated in the style of culture groups on the Tisza from phase LB II or luted pottery from phase LB III; b — pottery referring to the Gáva II style or to the kyjatice culture (phase LB Iv); c — local imitations of pottery from the Carpathian Basin; d — hoards and loose inds of bronze objects from phases Brd/haA–haB1. For site list see appendix 14. 50 km 2 this culture. These vessels should most probably be dated to the older segment of period HaB, although one should also consider the possibility of their younger chronology (compare Gedl 1994, 55–57). The vessels that should be related to groups of the Gáva II style from the Great Hungarian Plain, Transylvania and the Dniester basin are much more widely distributed. The dating of the analogies from this cultural milieu and the context of artifacts accompanying this group of Transcarpathian pottery in sites of the San basin permit its chronology to be placed within the older segment of period HaB (phase LB IV). This is the time when Gáva II vessels were most widely distributed and stylistically most uniform. The presence of forms representing the pottery under discussion in the San River valley (Przemyśl Nehrybka, Wietlin, Paluchy, Grodzisko Dolne, Chodaczów, Wierzawice), connected with the Dniester basin through the Przemyśl Gate, may suggest that esthetic patterns developed in the younger Gáva culture milieu found their way to the Tarnobrzeg group via the Holihrady group from the Dniester basin, rather than directly from the Tisza basin (ig. 83). Although the territories situated directly east of the Przemyśl Gate might have constituted a cultural frontier of some kind (as is believed owing to unfavorable settlement conditions [Bukowski 1989, 55]), sites already are known from the southeastern part of the Lviv district, geographically close to the area discussed, which can be assigned to the Holihrady group (Bandrivskyj 2002).33 To complete the discussion on the character of relations between groups from the Carpathian Basin (including neighboring areas) and the Tarnobrzeg group, it is worth analyzing the connection between the occurrence of pottery with “foreign” stylistic traits in grave assemblages and the 33 One should mention here, in particular, the Holihrady group settlement at Bykiv, Drohobych district, investigated by a Polish-Ukrainian expedition (Jan Machnik, Dimitri Pavliv, Volodymyr Petehyryc). 2 age and sex of the deceased. The relatively numerous series of burials having undergone anthropological analyses provides an opportunity to verify the hypothesis about the connection of “pottery imports” with the system of inter-group relations functioning in the framework of marital exchange. Of 22 examined graves (from Bachórz Chodorówka, Grodzisko Dolne and Lipnik – Szybowicz B. 1995; 2008; Czopek 1996) 4 were of children, 15 of adults and 3 cases of an adult with a child (two of these adults were women with a child). Such proportions do not deviate far from the average structure of age categories of deceased buried in Tarnobrzeg group cemeteries (i.e. among single graves, about 30% are of child burials – e.g. Szybowicz B. 1995, table 14). Among burials with adults, the remains were identiied as belonging to women in 6 cases, and to men in 4 cases. Grave 160 from the Lipnik cemetery belongs to this latter category, and contained a vessel that was probably the product of a manufacturer originating from the “Gáva” circle rather than a local imitation. Results of the anthropological analysis do not prove that the presence of pottery with Transcarpathian features was particularly typical of any category of age or sex. vessels with transcarpathian traits in the Lusatian culture assemblages in the eastern Lublin region In discussing Transcarpathian inluences in the San basin, artifacts from the neighboring Lublin region may be mentioned, as they represent the same direction of connections. Attempts to recapitulate the state of research on the Lusatian culture in this area have been presented in the work of Jan Dąbrowski (1982) and in a later study by Sylwester Czopek (1997). This picture has been supplemented by the results of more recent research in the last decade (e.g. Niedźwiedź 1999; 2001; Dziedziak 2001; Kłosińska 2005; 2005a; Kłosińska, Piotrowski 2005). Among other things, these studies produced new conclusions about the genesis of the local 28 variant of the Lusatian culture and more explicitly emphasized its connection to the local Trzciniec culture background (Niedźwiedź, Taras 2006). These studies also touched on the issue of links between the early phase of the Lusatian culture in the Lublin region and the cultures of the Carpathian Basin or, in a broader sense, the “southern” inluences on the area in question (Niedźwiedź 1999, 107; Kłosińska 2005, 171; Niedźwiedź, Taras 2006, 105). This problem has already been signaled before (Bazielich 1982b, 293–294), mainly on the basis of materials from Volinia acquired during excavations in the irst half of the 20th century (e.g. Kozłowski 1939, plate 22:1; Cynkałowski 1961, plate 11:2). Vessels referring to Carpathian Basin stylistics are known from only three sites situated in the eastern Lublin region. No close analogies can be indicated in the cultures of the Carpathian Basin for two vessels from Gródek nad Bugiem, Hrubieszów district (Niedźwiedź 1999, 107, igs. 2:1; 4:1). The closest parallels for the irst vessel – a biconical vase decorated with horizontal lines above a carination (ig. 82:4) – are found in some vessels from the Tarnobrzeg group’s territory, especially in forms regarded as possible local imitations of “Transcarpathian” originals. A vase-shaped vessel with a bulging neck found in another grave refers to pottery manufactured in the Tisza basin only by its ornament of horizontal strokes on the neck. Analogies from the northern Carpathian Basin (Kyjatice culture) and from the Tarnobrzeg group (vessels from Bachórz Chodorówka) allow this artifact to probably be dated to period HaB. Similar chronology, but with a similarly broad spectrum of potential connections, should be accepted for a bowl with inverted rim decorated with oblique grooves from the cemetery in Wołkowiany, Chełm district.34 Once more, one may be reminded of bowls of this type known from the Tarnobrzeg group, especially the 34 I would like to express my thanks to Elżbieta Kłosińska for the information concerning this artifact. 2 specimens from grave 139 in Grodzisko Dolne, dated to phase HaB1 (see above) as the closest analogies territorially. On the other hand, the connections of a small vessel found in a marsh in the vicinity of Huszczka (ig. 82:5 – Gajewski 1981, 241) may be a bit more precisely determined. The form and decoration of this artifact matches the miniature vases known from sites with Gáva II pottery (both in Transylvania and the Dniester basin) and the inds related to the Kyjatice culture (e.g. ig. 25:13). In the above-mentioned cultural phenomena, this form represents a western element, genetically related to the Middle Danubian Urnield culture, which appeared in the Tisza basin as a result of a process of stylistic uniication at the beginning of period HaB. The present state of the archeological record makes any attempts of unambiguously interpreting the presence of pottery with Transcarpathian traits in Lusatian culture assemblages in southeastern Lublin premature. However, one should note the following issues, which may help to elucidate this process: (i) the pottery in question from the southeastern Lublin region exhibits especially distinct connections with vessels showing Transcarpathian traits found in Tarnobrzeg group assemblages, particularly with forms being local imitations and difering from their “southern” originals; (ii) the chronological context of these artifacts, both in the Tarnobrzeg group and to the north of Roztocze, is similar and ends within the limits of periods HaA–HaB; (iii) connections between the Lublin region and the Tisza basin are conirmed by metal objects, dated to phases HaA–HaB1 (LB III–LB IV), and particularly by hoard inventory from Śniatycze – but also this group of artifacts could have found its way to the area in question through the San basin communities; (iv) artifacts resembling the discussed specimens from the Lublin region (vases with everted rim, bowls decorated with grooves on the lip) are known also from western Volinia, that is, from the Vysocko culture milieu; (v) this latter culture group was to be inluenced, according to Larysa Krushel’nychka, by the so-called “Thracian Hallstatt” (a phenomenon represented especially 300 by mixed “Lusatian-Holihrady” materials from a settlement in Zaliski, Tarnopol district – Krushel’nychka 1972, 32–33; 1976, ig. 10; compare Hozer 2005, 25). In short, it seems most probable that Transcarpathian elements iniltrated the Lusatian culture in the Lublin region as a result of contacts with directly neighboring groups (the Vysoko culture or the Tarnobrzeg group), where Transcarpathian inluences are much more strongly featured. 301 5.3. “Foreign” fluted pottery from Lusatian culture sites in western Lesser poland the state of research on transcarpathian inluences on the Lusatian culture of western Lesser poland Compared with the problem of artifacts exhibiting a “southern” connection occurring in the Polish Carpathian zone and San River basin, the issue addressed in this chapter has only been studied relatively recently. Although the discovery in Igołomia, Kraków district, of a faceted lip fragment atypical for the local Lusatian culture (described as “Hallstatt” or “Early La Tène”) was irst announced at the end of the 1950s (Gajewski 1959, 31), it was not until a decade later that Zenon Woźniak (1968, 13) raised the issue of the presence of luted pottery with Tisza connections in the vicinity of Kraków. A few years later, Zbigniew Sochacki (1975) proposed to assign vessels with everted rim – found in the course of rescue excavations in Kraków Nowa Huta – to the Gáva culture. At the same time, Evžen Plesl (1978, 231) indicated the possibility of Transcarpathian connections (and in particular, of those from the Middle Danubian Urnield area) in the case of the assemblage of thin-walled pottery from Pobiednik Wielki, Miechów district (Żurowski 1933, 161, ig. 22), which, however, should be assigned to the Neolithic Baden culture (Rook 1997, 148, 155). More extensive studies on the issue in question were presented by Maria Bazielich at the end of the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s. This author examined “Transcarpathian” materials collected during excavations 302 0 30 km 14 15 1 17 4 19 18 12 11 6 9 5 3 7 13 16 8 10 2 22 20 21 Fig. 84. Lusatian culture sites with pottery of transcarpathian connections (a) and hoards and loose inds of bronze objects originating from the Carpathian Basin and dated to period haA (or Brd–haB1) (b). For site list see appendix 15. in Pleszów (sites 17 and 20) and Zesławice (sites 21 and 22)35 (Bazielich 1978; 1982; 1982a) and attempted to correlate them with the taxonomic schemes used in the archeology of the Carpathian Basin (Bazielich 1982b; 1984; 1986; 1995a, 182; compare also Bukowski 1980a, 312; Dąbrowski 1988a, 91). Bazielich corroborated her conclusions with studies on the manufacturing technology of the “foreign” group of pottery. The conclusions of her studies may be summarized as follows: (i) pottery from the Kraków region is typical of the Gáva culture (in a broad meaning of this term used at that time), and particularly of Gáva sites on the Tisza; (ii) on the basis of the local context and the analogies, it may be assumed that the 35 Incorporated into Nowa Huta, a district of Kraków. 303 inluences in question were long-lasting and embraced the period from the beginning of HaA to the end of HaB or even to HaC; (iii) diferences in the technological parameters of pottery with Transcarpathian traits (use of chamotte temper) suggest that it was produced by potters who came from the core territory of the Gáva culture; (iv) these materials could indicate the existence of a “trade emporium” in the vicinity of Kraków that played the role of intermediary in the exchange between communities from western Lesser Poland (Małopolska) and eastern Slovakia. Since Bazielich’s initial work, sources for studying this issue have been somewhat enriched. The results of rescue excavations in other Kraków (Nowa Huta) sites, i.e. Mogiła (sites 53, 55A and 62) and Wyciąże (site 5) have been elaborated (Cabalska 1983; Rachwaniec 1985). The materials recovered from the complex of Lusatian culture settlements in Pleszów (sites 17, 18 and 20) were also published (Kogus 1984; 1985; Pieróg 2002). Features containing a “foreign” group of pottery were discovered at all of these sites. Also important is the identiication of pottery with Transcarpathian traits in the materials from a settlement in Witów, Proszowice district, studied in an unpublished master thesis by Anna Bochnak (2004). Excavations resumed at this site (Gawlik, Godlewski 2006) may bring new data in the future, helping to determine the context of the pottery group being analyzed. Finally, one should mention the signiicant discoveries made in the last decade. This concerns a set of Transcarpathian vessels and their fragments derived from a multi-culture settlement at Kraków Cło (excavations led by a team from the Nowa Huta department of the Museum of Archeology in Kraków) only partially published (Przybyła 2005, igs. 2:2,12, 3:1), and the materials collected in the course of Bartłomiej Konieczny’s excavations at a cemetery in Targowisko, Bochnia district. These latter are of vital signiicance for studies on the chronology of Late Bronze Age assemblages in the Kraków region (Górski et al. 2006; Konieczny, Trela, in print). 304 the cultural situation in the Late Bronze Age in western Lesser poland and the local context of the “foreign” pottery group During times corresponding to phases LB I and LB II, the western Lesser Poland (Małopolska) loess area was occupied by intensive settlement of post-classic and late phases of the Trzciniec culture (compare chapter 4.1). Its development in this area ended with the beginning of the Lusatian culture’s early phase. A genetic connection between the Lusatian culture materials from the Kraków region and respective assemblages from Silesia (Śląsk) was noted relatively early (Kozłowski 1928, 80). Later analyses of pottery manufacturing styles, burial rituals (Gedl 1967, 289–293; 1982, 21– 23; Bazielich 1993) and metal objects (Blajer 1994; 1996, 100), conirmed the assumption that the Kraków cluster of the Lusatian culture was formed as the result of the group migrations from the Upper Silesian (Górny Śląsk) area. Until recently, the appearance of a population representing the early phase of the Lusatian culture in western Lesser Poland was dated only to phase HaA1 (Gedl 1982, 21–22; Rydzewski 1991, 257–259; Górski 1994, 82; 1998, 66–67). At present, it is believed that this process took place at a time corresponding to period BrD, and the communities of the early phase of the Lusatian culture coexisted for a certain time with the population of the inal developmental stage of the Trzciniec culture (Górski 2002, 19–23, 34; 2004, 189–194; compare formerly: Rachwaniec 1982, 69). Sites of the earliest phase of the Lusatian culture in western Lesser Poland (the Iwanowice-Wysyłek phase according to Marek Gedl’s 1982 periodization) are grouped on the left bank terrace of the Vistula valley, in the area between the mouths of the Dłubnia and Nida rivers (Rydzewski 1997, ig. 1). One of the easternmost sites where numerous pottery of the early phase of the Lusatian culture’s Silesian group was found is the settlement in Witów, mentioned earlier. Early Lusatian settlement also pen- 305 etrated the Miechów Upland (Wyżyna Miechowska) along the Szreniawa River, although it was scattered and has an “island” character in this region (Rydzewski 1997, 263, 264). Sites of the Iwanowice-Wysyłek phase are also known south of the upper Vistula from the area of the Wieliczka Plateau (Pogórze Wielickie) (Jodłowski 1968, 88–89; Gedl 2003, 383–388; Fraś, Pawlikowski 2005, 358–360). Lusatian culture elements can be traced as well in the collection of artifacts from the Zawada Lanckorońska settlement situated already in the Dunajec valley (see chapter 4.3). Close contacts with the territory of Upper Silesia were maintained in the next stage of Lusatian culture development in western Lesser Poland, described in Marek Gedl’s (1982) periodization as the ZoipoleRaciborsko phase and synchronized with the younger segment of period HaA. During this phase, most of the settlements and cemeteries founded in the previous period were still functioning, and the Lusatian culture settlement extended over the same territory (Gedl 1982, 23). However – as in the previous developmental stage – single artifacts were found beyond the limits of dense settlement also in the Zoipole – Raciborsko phase (e.g. a vessel from Dębica, loco district – Szpunar 1996, 193, plate 1:e). The period of contacts between communities from the western Lesser Poland loess zone and the Silesian group of the Lusatian culture ends with assemblages with richly decorated pottery typical of the Kietrz IV phase (Gedl 1979). Until recently, the chronological position within phase HaB1of at least some of these vessels was indicated by a hoard from Podłęże, Wieliczka district, mentioned already several times. At present, graves from the youngest phase of the functioning of a cemetery at Targowisko, Bochnia district, are regarded as most representative of this time period. It is possible that some decorative elements typical of the Kietrz IV phase survived in western Lesser Poland to the end of period HaB, becoming part of the repertoire of decorative motifs of the Upper Silesian- Lesser Poland group (grupa górnośląko-małopolska) (Gedl 1982, 25–26). The emer- 30 gence of this cultural phenomenon in the Kraków region was connected with signiicant transformations of settlement structures. Cemeteries functioning so far were abandoned, while new ones appeared.36 At the same time, considerable demographic growth of the Lusatian culture population was observed, manifested by increasing number of sites and expanding settlement, which also covered territories outside the loess zone (Rydzewski 1997, 264, ig. 1). On the other hand, the functioning (to the end of period HaB) of some settlements founded in the early phase (e.g. Bazielich 1995, 78; 1995a, 181–184; Pieróg 2002, 47), and the maintenance of the urn cremation burial ritual, indicate the continuation of the Silesian group’s earlier settlement. In Late Bronze Age sites of the Kraków region, in addition to the predominant artifacts of the Lusatian culture’s Silesian group, a set of pottery showing diferent, “foreign” cultural connections is also recorded. This pottery is primarily represented by such forms as vessels with everted faceted rim and bowls with inverted rim, decorated with horizontal or oblique lutes. These artifacts are mainly from sites situated directly east of the Dłubnia River mouth, on the left bank terrace of the Vistula valley. However, single inds also extend towards the east (Igołomia, Witów), and occur on the Raba River (Targowisko), suggesting that the distribution of “foreign” pottery coincides with the range of the Lusatian culture from the Iwanowice-Wysyłek and Zoipole-Raciborsko phases, with the cluster noticeable on the mapping resulting rather from particularly intensive ield research in the area of Nowa Huta. All the sites yielding artifacts of the “foreign” pottery group were founded in the oldest phase of the Lusatian culture in western Lesser 36 The presence of single graves of the Upper Silesian-Lesser Poland group in cemeteries dated, in essence, to phases BrD–HaB1 is exceptional and very interesting. Such a situation was observed, among other places, at a cemetery in Kraków Bieżanów (Fraś, Reguła 2001, 330–333). 30 Poland (BrD–HaA1). Also, most archeological features discovered there come from that period, while materials from the HaA/HaB transition and inventories already assigned to the Upper Silesia-Lesser Poland group are less numerous. These latter are sometimes of a diferent character, as in the case of a complex of sites from Kraków Pleszów, where a biritual cemetery was established at the end of HaB period on the periphery of a settlement from phases BrD–HaB1, (Kogus 1982, 339–349). The chronology of the discussed phenomenon, earlier than the period of development of the Upper Silesia- Lesser Poland group, may be suggested by the complete lack of a “foreign” pottery group in large settlements of the classic phase of this taxonomic unit (younger segment of HaB and HaC), such as Podłęże, Kraków district (Rydzewski 1989), or Kraków Bieżanów and Kraków Rżąka (Pieróg 2003a). Finally, important arguments for establishing the chronological position of Transcarpathian pottery from western Lesser Poland may be provided by excavations of a cemetery in Targowisko. Although these materials have not been published yet, one can assume the following sequence as a working hypothesis: (i) knobbed pottery and vessels with cut carination from phases BrD–HaA1 – two assemblages yielded bowls with inverted rim decorated with lutes, representing the discussed “foreign” pottery group; (ii) biconical forms typical of the Kietrz III phase (HaA2) and accompanied by luted pottery (especially bowls with everted rim decorated with lutes), with references in assemblages containing “imported”, Middle Danubian Urnield circle pottery from Upper and central Silesia (see chapter 5.4); (iii) vessels richly decorated with bands of hollows and lutes, with their parallels found in the Kietrz IV phase (HaB) and also in the Dunajec valley (in Stary Sącz phase; chapter 4.3); (iv) a single grave assemblage with pottery already typical of the Upper Silesia- Lesser Poland group (younger segment of HaB?). Aside from the cemetery at Targowisko, luted pottery comes mainly from settlement pits. Some pottery sherds were also found in settlements, 308 but outside the features or in the secondary deposit, in the ill of younger settlement pits or in inventories of later burials. The features yielding the “foreign” pottery group are scarce compared with the total number of discovered Late Bronze Age pits. In a relatively well recognized complex of sites in Kraków Pleszów, the discussed group of artifacts was found in only 17 features among a total number of 178 from the period of Lusatian culture development. These pits did not form any distinct clusters and were scattered over the entire excavated area (Bazielich 1978, 348; 1982a, 88; 1984, 336). A concentration of pits with pottery exhibiting Transcarpathian connections is said to be recorded in a settlement at Kraków Zesławice, site 22 (Bazielich 1982a, 88), but these conclusions should be treated with caution owing to the only fragmentary examination of the site (compare ibidem). In the group of settlements from western Lesser Poland under analysis here, a total of 35 features were found (both Lusatian and of younger or unspeciied chronology) containing pottery with Transcarpathian connections. In as many as 22 of them, this group of sources decidedly predominated in the inventories – it was accompanied by only single sherds or larger preserved fragments of Lusatian culture vessels. In some pits, heaps of sherds were discovered, enabling the reconstruction of almost complete forms. Analogies to this situation are found in assemblages with pottery of a Transcarpathian character from a settlement in Warzyce in the Jasło-Krosno Basin (Kotlina Jasielsko-Krośnieńska) (see chapter 4.2), as well as in numerous sites in the Carpathian Basin. Only in a few pits (3 cases), undoubtedly linked to the period of Lusatian culture development, numerous Lusatian culture pottery was accompanied by single fragments with Transcarpathian references. These observations can be interpreted in two ways: either the numerous pits mentioned here with materials of prevalently Transcarpathian traits constitute a distinct stage of the functioning of these settlements, or these sites were occupied simultaneously by two populations, following diferent esthetic patterns in pottery manufacture. 30 To verify this irst possibility, a review of the Lusatian culture pottery occurring together with “foreign” vessel forms may be helpful. The most numerous group comprises fragments of biconical vessels or carinated bowls, decorated with cutting on the carination (e.g. ig. 85:20–23). These forms were typical of the Silesia group of the Lusatian culture in its early developmental phase. According to Marek Gedl (1979, 31–32) the dating of vessels with cut carination may be limited to the older segment of period HaA (phase Kietrz IIc). Analogies can also be found in assemblages of the early phase of the Silesia group (Kietrz II–III), (Gedl 1979, 30, 36; compare Bazielich 1993, 133) for amphoras with a separated, cylindrical neck, discovered in four pits. Relatively few are fragments of knobbed pottery, marking the oldest stage of Lusatian culture settlement in the area in question. Apart from the already mentioned vessels from graves in Targowisko occurring together with bowls decorated with lutes on the rim, one should mention here the knobbed pottery sherds recovered from features containing “foreign” ware in Kraków Cło (ig. 85:18–19), and perhaps also a fragment from Kraków Pleszów, site 18. Finally, small carinated cups discovered in eight features with pottery exhibiting Transcarpathian traits and S-shaped pots known from several other pits have broad dating, both within the period of development of the Silesia group and the Upper Silesia-Lesser Poland group (Bazielich 1993, 119). An interesting problem is related to the presence of a vase-shaped vessel decorated on the upper part of the body with shallow, circular hollows and groups of oblique strokes in one of the features analyzed here. Vases with the same decoration are observed in other Lusatian culture assemblages of the western Lesser Poland loess zone (Durczewski 1948, plate 30:13; Rook 1960, ig. 2:6; Pieróg 2002, 5:3), as well as in related inventories from Upper Silesia (Gedl 1979, 36–37). These vessels closely correspond to the pottery characteristic of the Lusatian culture’s Slovakian group in phases BrD/HaA–HaA (Veliačik 1983, 104–105, 129–130, 170). One may 310 2 3 1 4 5 6 7 9 0 8 10 11 6 cm 14 12 15 13 18 20 16 19 17 21 28 24 22 26 23 25 Fig. 85. An example of inventory of a feature with luted pottery: Kraków Cło, site 65, feature 111 (1–27). 29 27 311 suppose that their presence at sites in the Kraków region is related to the connections observed in period HaA (Marcinkowice 4 phase – compare ig. 62:6) between the Sącz region, accessible to the Vistula valley, and the territory of Spiš, being the eastern borderland of the Lusatian culture’s Slovakian group (see chapter 4.3) The conclusions resulting from an analysis of the local context of the “foreign” pottery group in western Lesser Poland may be recapitulated as follows: (i) distribution of the pottery type in question coincides with the area occupied by the Kraków subgroup of the Lusatian culture’s Silesia group; (ii) this phenomenon lasted for a relatively short time, conjectures about its prolonged duration (see above) are the result of taking into account cases where the discussed pottery lay in a secondary deposit, or from assigning forms typical of the Lusatian culture at the close of the Bronze Age to this pottery group (bowls with lip decorated with oblique grooves); (iii) characteristic vessel sherds occurring in pit ills together with the “foreign” pottery group, and the chronological sequence recorded in the cemetery in Targowisko allow the horizon of Transcarpathian inluences to be placed rather later than period BrD (the small number of cases of occurrence together with knobbed pottery, lack of end-Trzciniec forms) and rather earlier than phase HaA2 or the HaA/HaB transition (lack of pottery typical of Kietrz III phase in the analyzed pits, lack of the “foreign” pottery group in assemblages corresponding to Kietrz III phase in the Targowisko cemetery); (iv) the phenomenon in question was thus contemporaneous with the younger stage of the Iwanowice-Wysyłek phase, which means that it was not connected with the interruption of the local Lusatian culture tradition, the latter smoothly continues in the ZoipoleRaciborsko phase (HaA2); (v) these conclusions induce one to accept the second of the possible interpretations proposed above: two populations having two diferent traditions of pottery manufacturing styles coexisted for a short time (corresponding to phase HaA1) in the loess zone of western Lesser Poland. 312 1 2 3 4 0 6 cm 5 Fig. 86. Inventories with luted pottery from western Lesser Poland, examples of biconical vessels: Kraków Mogiła, site 55A (1), site 62 (4); Kraków Cło, site 65 (2) and Kraków Pleszów, site 1 (3,5). 1 after Bazielich 12; 3,5 after Bazielich 184. 313 the characterization of the “foreign” pottery group of western Lesser poland’s loess zone Contrary to most of the pottery materials exhibiting references to cultures from the Carpathian Basin area discussed so far, the vessels analyzed in this chapter constitute a group with a relatively homogeneous style. The close connection of this pottery with Transcarpathian stylistic trends and the total lack of references to the local tradition of the Silesia group are striking. Owing to these traits, the discussed inventories from the Lusatian culture settlements in western Lesser Poland (Małopolska) can be considered as a model example of the “foreign” pottery group. The analysis of this group of sources can begin with biconical vessels with everted rim (igs. 86–87). Some of them are decorated with horizontal lutes on the necks and vertical ones on the body (ig. 86:4–5). Some specimens have a faceted lip (ig. 86:2). These vessels may certainly be regarded as leading forms of the Belegiš II style (compare chapter 3.2). The best parallels for the conspicuous specimens in this group with untypical proportions or decoration are also found in materials from the territories encompassed by this style. The vessels from Kraków Pleszów and Kraków Zesławice with a soft, resembling S-shape proile, faceted rim, decorated with knobs or vertical grooves (ig. 88) have their closest analogies in materials from LB III sites on the lower and middle Tisza River. However, similar vessels are known also from Banat, from the Igriţa group and from the Kishinev-Corlăteni group of Moldavia. The connections resembling those described above are revealed by a partially preserved vase with a bulging neck from Kraków Zesławice (ig. 87:3), which – with regard to its form – corresponds to a specimen from a well-known barrow in Susani (Stratan, Vulpe 1977, cat. no. 94) and to vessels from younger inds of the Igriţa group (Emödi 1980, igs. 12:80, 26:229). 314 A diferent direction of connections is revealed by vessels with a cylindrical neck and everted rim (sometimes faceted), discovered at settlements in Kraków Pleszów, Kraków Wyciąże, Kraków Zesławice and Witów (e.g. ig. 89). As was mentioned previously, this type of pottery already appeared in the northwestern Carpathian Basin in the inal phase 2 1 0 6 cm 3 Fig. 87. Inventories with luted pottery from western Lesser Poland, examples of biconical vessels: Kraków Zesławice, site 21 (1); site 22 (3); kraków pleszów, site 1 (2). 2 after Bazielich 18. 315 of the Tumulus culture. During the period of development of groups with luted pottery, it was typical of the Velatice-Čaka style, both in its core area (Middle Danubian Urnield complex), in southern Transdanubia and Croatia (Zagreb group) and in the inventories on the Tisza from phase LB III. The Velatice-Čaka trend is represented by a thin-walled vessel from Kraków Zesławice (ig. 89:2). Although the surface of this vessel is strongly rubbed of, one can notice broad, oblique lutes covering most of the body. The form of this vessel, and in particular its well separated, funnel-like neck, enable it to be linked to the type known from Čaka culture sites. 1 2 0 6 cm 3 Fig. 88. Inventories with transcarpathian pottery from western Lesser Poland, S­shaped vessels: Kraków Zesławice, site 21 (1); kraków pleszów, site 1 (2–3). 1 after Bazielich 182; 2 after Bazielich 18. 31 0 6 cm 1 2 3 Fig. 8. Inventories with transcarpathian pottery from western Lesser poland, selected vessels with cylindrical neck: kraków Pleszów, site 17 (1); Kraków Zesławice, site 21 (3), site 22 (2). 3 after Bazielich 182. 31 2 1 3 4 5 6 8 7 9 11 0 6 cm Fig. 0. Inventories with transcarpathian pottery from western Lesser poland, selected bowls with inverted rim and cups: Kraków Mogiła, site 53 (1–2); site 55 A (8); site 62 (3); Kraków Pleszów, site 17 (4–5,9); site 20 (7); Kraków Cło, site 65 (6) and Kraków Zesławice, site 21 (10–11). 4–5 after Kogus 184;  after Bazielich 184; 10–11 after Bazielich 182. 10 318 The most numerous pottery type found in inventories with “foreign” pottery are bowls with inverted rim, decorated with horizontal lutes or faceting (e.g. igs. 85:1–10, 90:1–5). Fragments of 32 specimens are known from 15 features (including two graves in Targowisko). In the preceding chapters, I emphasized several times the connection of this vessel type with early trends in luted pottery, especially with the Belegiš II style. The specimens decorated with horizontal ribs, placed below a band of luted decoration are characteristic of this trend. Among the analyzed materials, this variant is known from Kraków Mogiła (ig. 90:2–3). The specimen from Kraków Pleszów, with a horizontally perforated handle placed below the decorated zone (ig. 90:4), may have diferent connections. Similar bowls were especially typical of inds of the Velatice-Čaka style and of younger materials from the Velatice-Podoli transitional phase. Among thin-walled pottery, small bowls or cups with an S-shaped proile and faceted lip found at Kraków Cło and Kraków Pleszów (ig. 90:6–7) may be assigned to the “foreign” group. Generally, these artifacts comply with the canons of the Velatice-Čaka style. Twisted or obliquely grooved handles are fragments of thin-walled vessels (bowls or cups). The irst of these decorative motifs may be found in materials from Kraków Mogiła (ig. 90:8). Its broad distribution, covering not only the area of the Velatice-Čaka and Belegiš II styles but also Saxony, Tyrol and the Balkan Peninsula, has already been noted in the literature (Bouzek 1992; Kossack 2002). References for a thin, twisted handle from Kraków Pleszów (ig. 90:9) are less numerous. A close analogy may be indicated in a cup from the Kishinev-Corlăteni group cemetery in Cotu Mori (ig. 22:12). A very speciic artifact is a deep cup decorated with vertical lutes found in Kraków Zesławice (ig. 90:10). A close parallel is found in a vessel from a pottery depot in Igrici on the middle Tisza. As a further analogy, one may indicate – after Magdolna Hellebrandt (1990, 105) – an undecorated cup from a cemetery in Gelej (Kemenczei 1989, ig. 10:5). The late Piliny culture phase was succeeded by graves with pottery of the Velatice-Čaka style in this cemetery (see chapter 3.2). 31 Finally, the untypical cup from Kraków Zesławice (ig. 90:11) should also be included in the thin-walled vessels representing the “foreign” group of pottery. This specimen has a faceted lip and a decoration consisting of a band of dome-shaped knobs around the body. It seems that the latter of these decorative motifs may be an attempted imitation of bronze vessels decoration, especially of Blatnica type cups (dated to phases BrD/ HaA–HaA1) or of younger (HaB1) cups of the Jenišovice type (compare e.g. Gedl 2001b, plates 1:1, 3:6–7, 4–6). Clay imitations of bronze vessels were popular in both the Lusatian culture and Urnield culture in the Alpine zone (e.g. Ząbkiewicz-Koszańska 1960; Mogielnicka-Urban 1984, 172). In addition, one may mention that blackening and polishing outer surfaces – typical of culture groups with luted pottery from the Carpathian Basin – is sometimes also regarded as attempted imitation of metal vessels (Pankau 2004, 29). The conclusions from the above analysis are as follows: (i) biconical vessels with everted rims belong to the canon of the Belegiš II style, the best parallels of some forms (specimens with soft, nearly S-shaped proile) are found in the Belegiš II style sites situated on the Tisza River; (ii) vessels with cylindrical neck and everted rim represent the VelaticeČaka style, although it should be emphasized that they occur also in the zone where this trend mixes with the Belegiš II style (Slavonia, Great Hungarian Plain); (iii) the above remark also applies to the custom of faceting vessel lips, genetically connected with Velatice-Čaka style but popular also on the Tisza in phase LB III (this type of decoration is the most characteristic and easily identiied trait of “foreign” pottery from western Lesser Poland; in addition to the vessels described above, such decoration was found on about 35 rim sherds coming from 18 features); (iv) thin-walled pottery (bowls, cups) has either broad connections, especially in the inds of Velatice-Čaka and Belegiš II styles, or refers exclusively to the inventories from phase LB III on the Tisza River (a cup from Kraków Zesławice). 320 From the above analysis it follows that the closest connection links the “foreign” pottery group of western Lesser Poland with inventories from LB III phase on the Tisza River (ig. 91). Their resemblance is manifested both by the references discernible in individual vessels and in the simultaneous occurrence of stylistic elements genetically related to the Velatice-Čaka and Belegiš II currents (Przybyła 2005, 225–232). It should be remembered here that similar connections may be observed in the case of inventories with luted pottery originating from the eastern part of the Polish Carpathians. vessels from zajezierze and zschornewitz — the presence of transcarpathian cultural elements in the southern Baltic zone This issue is related to the problems presented by a grave assemblage discovered at the end of the 19th century in Zajezierze, Ostróda district. A biconical vase with everted rim from this assemblage (ig. 92:1) was irst described by Hans Urbanek. As this vessel was completely diferent from forms typical of cemeteries in Warmia and Mazury, Urbanek expressed doubts as to the circumstances of its discovery and its actual connection with the area. He indicated its closest analogies in the Białowice (Billendorf) group from the Early Iron Age (Urbanek 1941, 34–35, 82–83, 192). In post-war studies, attention was drawn to the similarity of the Zajezierze vessel and Villanova type Italian vases (Kostrzewski 1949, 2; Łuka 1959, 15; Dąbrowski 1967, 332). However, after the publication of materials from the earlier mentioned sites in the Kraków region, this artifact was interpreted as a Gáva culture import that might have found its way to the Iława Lake district through the communities of western Lesser Poland (Małopolska) (Bazielich 1982, 294, Dąbrowski 1997, 32–33). It should be noted that a relatively late chronology was proposed for the vase from Zajezierze in more recent literature, i.e. within Period V (HaB2–HaB3) or even the Early Iron Age (Dąbrowski 1997, 33; Hofmann 1999, 194). 321 Kraków-Pleszów, site 17, pit 123 Tiszacsege Kraków-Pleszów, site 17, pit 688 Igrici Kraków-Zesławice, site 21, pit 230 Fig. 1. Comparison of inventories of selected pottery depots from the middle tisza River and inventories of settlement features from the kraków region. The Iława Lake district (where the grave from Zajezierze was discovered) is one of the most important regions of Lusatian culture settlement in the southeastern Baltic zone (Hofmann 2000, 223). Finds dated to Period IV–V from this area are traditionally assigned to the Mazury-Warmia group of the Lusatian culture. This region is characterized by both lat and barrow cemeteries with poorly equipped urn graves. Simple pot forms and biconical vessels, referring to the Lusatian culture stylistics from northern Mazovia (Mazowsze) and the Chełm region, predominate in the pottery 322 2 1 6 cm 0 1 3 Fig. 92. Pottery of the Belegiš II style (1–2) or its local imitation (3) from the North european plain territory: zajezierze, ostróda district (1); zschornewitz, Wittenberg district (2) and Skowarcz, Gdańsk district (3). 1 after Urbanek 141; 2 after kossack 1; 3 after petersen 140. (Dąbrowski 1997, 98–99; Hofmann 2000, 33, 86–89). From the information quoted by Urbanek (1941, 34), it was learned that the vessel in question was illed with burned bones. Therefore, as far as burial rite is concerned, the grave from Zajezierze would comply with the standards typical of Warmia and Mazury in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. However, 323 the urn itself – both its form and decoration – corresponds with leading forms of the Belegiš II style. Similar connections also may be discerned in the case of a bowl with inverted rim, decorated with “horizontal protuberances” found together with the urn (Urbanek 1941, 35). These references allow the grave from Zajezierze to be connected with the spread of the Belegiš II style during phase LB III in the Carpathian Basin. The vessel from Zajezierze is not the only example of pottery connected with groups from the southern Carpathian Basin in the North European Plain (Niż Środkowoeuropejski). Relatively early (e.g. Kostrzewski 1949, 2; Łuka 1959, 15) a similarity was noticed between this artifact and a specimen discovered in Zschornewitz (Tschornewitz), Wittenberg district (ig. 92:2), in the territory of the northwestern Lusatian culture boundary (Horst 1972). The connection of grave inventory from Zschornewitz with the Belegiš II culture was proven by Georg Kossak relatively recently (1996). In this assemblage, apart from a richly decorated vase, a cup with handle with a “saddle-shaped” back attract attention. Analogies to this stylistic element are found in cups from cemeteries located in Banat and at a site of the Kishinev-Corlăteni group in Cotu Mori. Both grave assemblages mentioned above (from Zajezierze and Zschornewitz) are characterized – besides their attribution to the same stylistic trend – also by the fact that they are completely diferent from the local cultural tradition. However, available sources do not allow these artifacts to be regarded as elements of a broader phenomenon, comparable with the horizon of Transcarpathian inluences on the Lusatian culture of the loess zone in western Lesser Poland. We are dealing here with single assemblages, located in a zone that neither in earlier time periods nor in the period corresponding to these graves (end of Period III) exhibited contacts with the Carpathian Basin. In this context, Urbanek’s doubts (1941, 35), may seem justiied that the 19th century discoverer of the Zajezierze pottery could have been the victim of a fraud, and the artifacts were in fact found elsewhere. 324 However, this interpretation is contradicted by the fact that the grave from Zajezierze is not an isolated phenomenon. The inventory from Zschornewitz is also of a similar character, unconnected to the local context. Yet another ind supports the assumption that vessels from Zajezierze are evidence of the inluence of the Transcarpathian cultural tradition on populations occupying the southeastern Baltic zone in the Late Bronze Age. A vase with everted rim, decorated with horizontal lines on the neck and horizontally protruding knobs on the body (ig. 92:3) was found in Skowarcz, Gdańsk district. This artifact, initially considered an element of Corded Ware culture grave inventory, was regarded by Ernst Petersen (1940, 19–20) as a sign of connections between the Pomeranian (Pomorze) area and the Vysocko culture. However, in the context of the issues discussed here, it should be proposed that both the form and decoration of this vessel be regarded as a local imitation of Belegiš II style forms, as seen in the specimens from Zajezierze and Zschornewitz. The vase from Skowarcz might thus be the material trace of the Baltic population’s references to the esthetic patterns brought with the impulse of “southern” cultural inluences. the attempt to interpret the horizon of Transcarpathian inluences in the Lusatian culture of western Lesser poland’s loess zone and of the Baltic zone To begin, the most important conclusions of the analysis presented above should be recalled: (i) the horizon of Transcarpathian inluences in western Lesser Poland (Małopolska), and probably also in the Baltic zone, was a relatively narrow segment of time and comprised the older segment of the HaA period; (ii) groups making “foreign” pottery coexisted in the same settlement structures with the local population of the Lusatian culture; (iii) the “foreign” pottery of western Lesser Poland and assemblages 325 from Zajezierze and Zschornewitz exhibit the strongest connections with inventories of phase LB III in the Great Hungarian Plain, characterized by a synthesis of Belegiš II and Velatice-Čaka styles with local pottery traditions. The loess area of western Lesser Poland is not directly adjacent to the territories occupied in the Late Bronze Age by groups connected with the traditions developed in the Tisza basin. Therefore, this area could not be a zone of mixed cultural patterns, formed on the basis of processes similar to those observed in the northern Carpathians, i.e. resulting from the functioning of long-term, regional connection systems. The appearance of “foreign” pottery in the area in question should rather be considered as the result of a single event. This may also be indicated by the identity of forms and decorations of vessels discovered in western Lesser Poland assemblages and pottery known from the Tisza basin. These observations lead to the conclusion that the analyzed “foreign” pottery groups from the Kraków region are the traces of migration of a community from the eastern Carpathian Basin. The route of this movement is to the north of the Carpathians, indicated by inds from the Jasło-Krosno Basin (Kotlina Jasielsko-Krośnieńska) and perhaps also by single pottery sherds from the Biała Dunajcowa valley (Bistuszowa) (chapter 4.2). The most probable time new groups arrived from the south to the loess zone of western Lesser Poland (phase HaA1) has been established analyzing the stylistics of “foreign” forms and their local context. This allows the phenomenon in question to be connected with the process of dynamic transformations of the cultural picture, observed at the transition from LB II to LB III in the entire Carpathian Basin. From the area of the Kraków subgroup of the Silesia group (grupa śląska), that is, from the region where “foreign” pottery inventories appeared at the beginning of phase LB III, a dozen or so inds are known of bronze objects “imported” from the Carpathian Basin broadly datable to phases BrD–HaB1, or more precisely to period HaA. One may add to them types 32 of metal object that, though widely distributed (particularly in the Alpine zone), are also known from assemblages dated to phase LB III from the Tisza basin. One should indicate here especially club-headed pins, discovered at settlements in Kraków-Pleszów (Kogus 1984, plate 53:12; Pieróg 2002, plate 6:1). It is worth remembering that the same type of artifact also occurred in one of the graves in Wietrzno in the Jasło-Krosno Basin (ig. 47:6). An interpretation has been presented in the literature (Bukowski 1985, 52), proposing that the Transcarpathian bronze objects lowing into Lesser Poland might be an equivalent for the salt obtained from the Kraków environs. This interpretation may provide a hint for answering the question of why incomers from the Tisza basin settled just in the loess zone of western Lesser Poland. However, there is as yet insuicient evidence to date the start of Kraków brine exploitation by the Lusatian culture population earlier than to the beginning of the Early Iron Age (Jodłowski 1971, 82–84; Bukowski 1985, 49–51; Kadrow, Nowak-Włodarczak 2003, 552). Thus, there is no reason to assume that the direction of migration was afected by an already existing trade route. It is also not clear how long the groups that came from the south maintained their own identity among the local Lusatian populations. However, proceeding from the above analysis, it may be assumed that this period was relatively brief. There are no artifacts made in the Tisza basin style from a reliable context that could be dated to the transition from HaA to HaB or later. Probably the total acculturation of newcomers occurred within a few generations at the very most. However, their permanent contribution to the development of the Lusatian communities from Lesser Poland could have been the changes evident in local pottery manufacturing styles. Maria Bazielich perhaps accurately remarked that the common use of chamotte and broken sherds temper in the pottery mass should be regarded as an inluence of the Transcarpathian tradition on Lusatian pottery. While this custom occurred only sporadically in early Lusatian materials, it became 32 dominant in the period of the development of the Upper Silesia-Lesser Poland group (grupa górnośląsko-małoposka) (Bazielich 1993, 125; 1995, 78). Perhaps this tradition is relected also by some stylistic elements typical of Lesser Poland pottery from period HaB, such as, for example, decoration with knobs applied on the lower part of biconical vessels. A diferent interpretation is ofered for single assemblages with Belegiš II style pottery from the North European Plain. Owing to the paucity of known artifacts, there is no reason to assume movements of larger groups of Transcarpathian populations to Warmia and the lower Elbe. Perhaps we are dealing here with the material manifestation of single persons or families migrating, presented in some theoretical studies as an important culture-forming factor (compare chapter 1). This iniltration might have occurred at the occasion of long-distance exchange contacts. After all, metal objects from metallurgical centers situated in the eastern Carpathian Basin are known from northeastern Poland (igs. 70, 74) and the assemblage from Zschornewitz is situated on one of the main routes of long-distance exchange, linking southern Scandinavia with the middle Danube basin (chapter 5.1; ig. 75) 328 5.4. Assemblages with Middle danubian urnfield pottery in sites of the Silesia group of the Lusatian culture The state of research on Middle Danubian Urnield area inluences on the Silesia group of the Lusatian culture The presence of artifacts conirming contacts of the Late Bronze Age community from Silesia (Śląsk) with territories on the Danube was already noted in earlier literature (Bukowski 1969, 253; Gedl 1962, 28–29, 53), but a more exhaustive discussion of this issue was presented only in the late 1970s. Proceeding from a series of vessels from the cemetery in Kietrz, Głubczyce district, Marek Gedl put forward the hypothesis that a horizon of inluences appeared at the end of HaA period from the younger phase of the Velatice culture into the Upper Silesia (Górny Śląsk) area (Gedl 1979, 36–37, 69–70; 1980, 97; 1989, 17–18, 20; 2002, 93–94). This postulate was supported by the discoveries of Moravian archeologists, who conirmed the existence, at the end of period HaA, of a short chronological horizon characterized by the presence of Middle Danubian Urnield artifacts in the Lusatian culture milieu in Moravia (see chapter 4.1). Gedl claimed that the range of potential southern inluences was probably restricted to the area of the Głubczyce subgroup (on the left bank of the Oder). He also remarked on the episodic character of this phenomenon, limited in time to Kietrz III phase (dated, in essence, to phase HaA2 – Gedl 1989, 25) and showing no traces of continuation in the following period (Gedl 1989, 17, 25). Gedl’s conclusions above are the starting point for the analysis to be conducted in this chapter. It is worth remembering that the extension of 32 bordering zones between the Lusatian culture and the Middle Danubian Urnield area south of the Moravian Gate, as well as their mutual interactions, should be discussed in the framework of two chronological horizons. The irst corresponds to the period of Velatice and Čaka culture development, and the second to the inal stage of the Velatice culture, the Velatice-Podoli transitional phase and the beginning of the Podoli culture. This scheme may be also applied in the analysis of inventories with Middle Danubian Urnields pottery from Silesia. Therefore, I will discuss the problem of southern inluences during the period of the development of the knobbed style (Kietrz IIb–c phase on the Głubczyce Plateau – BrD–HaA1) and the inventories with Middle Danubian Urnields pottery already corresponding to the Younger Bronze Age (phase Kietrz III – HaA2, or also HaB1) separately. Inluences from the northwestern Carpathian Basin on the Silesia group area in the early phase of the Lusatian culture Unambiguous evidence of the connections between the early phase of the Lusatian culture and culture groups from the middle Danube basin are lacking in the territories on the upper Oder.37 In essence, the connections of this area with the Velatice or Čaka cultures or, more generally, with 37 I do not address here the issue of the participation of the older and at the same time “southern” tradition (e.g. the Maďarovce culture) in the Lusatian culture genesis in Silesia. This problem requires conducting separate studies, which would also permit veriication of other, alternative theories about the rise of the Lusatian culture (e.g. Bouzek 1969). The discussion of the so-called “pre-Lusatian horizon” in Moravia presented in the previous part of this book (chapter 4.1) shows how much there still remains to be explained. At the present stage of research, the most probable still seems the assumption that the early phase of western Lusatian culture was a direct continuation of earlier Tumulus culture groups. It is probably this cultural milieu, rather than inluences from the Carpathian Basin, where one should seek the origins of the early Lusatian knobbed style (recently: Gedl 1999a, 254–265). 330 Carpathian Basin culture groups, may be postulated only on the basis of a few metal objects dated to phases BrD–HaA. In this regard, a bronze cup of Blatnica type from hoard at Białowieża, a sword of Liptov type from Wrocław Żerniki, socketed axe from Wrocław Stabłowice and the so-called pin guards from Jordanów Śląski, Kietrz, Smokowice and Wrocław Książe Małe (see appendix 12) can be mentioned here. These artifacts permit one to speak about the existence of a small cluster of “southern imports” in Silesia (Śląsk), dated to periods BrD and HaA (ig. 74). However, this direction of the Silesia group (grupa śląska) community’s connections is not very important, especially if one compares the few artifacts above with the number of Transcarpathian bronze objects from the same time period found in the upper Vistula basin. A signiicant portion of bronze objects discovered in grave assemblages from the early phase of the Silesia group has very wide distribution, covering not only the northern Carpathian Basin, but also the North Alpine zone and especially the western groups of the Lusatian culture (e.g. Gedl 1979, 30–32). A feature distinguishing the early phase of the Silesia group from its younger development stages, and recorded mainly at the Kietrz cemetery, is the occurrence of lavishly equipped cremation graves in pits, with human remains placed in wooden coins. These graves (the so-called Kietrz type) – probably covered by barrow mounds – refer, according to Gedl (1978, 302–303; 1979, 27; 1984), to the Tumulus culture tradition. At the same time, this author (ibidem) noticed a similarity in the construction and the very presence of lavish burials between these graves and the “prince’s” burials of the Čaka culture (compare chapter 3.1). Of course, the phenomenon of burials distinguishing themselves by the grand scale of their construction and lavishness of their inventory is known from the entire area of the Urnields, and was particularly intense in its early phases (e.g. Schauer 1984; Kytlicová 1988; Clausing 1999), but the territorial proximity and similarities in the construction quoted by Gedl make it plausible that there was a connection (temporal or resulting from similar social processes) of 331 Kietrz type graves with rich burials from the early phase of the Middle Danubian Urnields. Traces of the Silesia group’s southern relations are most diicult to discern in pottery styles. Vessels decorated with lutes, especially bowls with funnel-like necks, which refer to the Velatice-Čaka style, come from the Lower Silesia (Dolny Śląsk) territory (particularly the specimen from Trzebiel, Żary district – Miśkiewicz 1962, 383, plate 13:1). Similar forms occur in signiicantly larger number in HaA phase assemblages in the neighboring areas of Lusatia and in Saxony (ig. 93:1–4; Grünberg 1943, igs. 11:4, 26:1, 27:4; Gedl 1971, ig. 9:2; Dietzel, Coblenz 1975, igs. 3:6, 6:5; Buck 1989, ig. 3:C7b; Breddin 1989, ig. 7:47; 1992, plate 18:110:2–3; compare Plesl 1978, 231; Kossack 1996, 299). There they represent a horizon of cultural inluences, described as the so-called “foreign pottery groups” (Fremdgruppen) (Grünberg 1943, 9, 15–23; Plesl 1978, 232). Two bowls with inverted rim decorated with horizontal or turban-like lutes from Żukowice, Głogów district, and Jagłowice, Żary district, also refer to artifacts known from the Middle Danubian Urnield area (ig. 93:5–6; Marcinkian 1971; Jaszewska, Kałagate 2006). However, both vessels should be dated rather to the very end of period HaA. In the case of a specimen from Żukowice, such chronology is suggested by accompanying luted pottery of the Lusatian culture. A vessel from Jagłowice, although found in a cemetery dated mainly to Period III, has close analogies (with respect to the decoration) mainly in materials from the end of the Velatice culture and from the Velatice-Podoli transitional phase. At the same time, one should not forget that these inds come from Lower Silesia and Lusatia, an area not exposed to possible direct inluences from Moravia. The issue of interpreting these artifacts thus remains open. In discussing pottery, it should be remembered that contacts running through the Moravian Gate are conirmed by the presence of vessels made in the early Lusatian culture style in Velatice culture assemblages (particularly biconical vases with cutting on the carination – compare chapter 3). 332 Although we are dealing here rather with traces of local contacts – in the border zone between the Moravia group of the Lusatian culture and the Middle Danubian Urnield culture – one cannot exclude the southeastern direction of Silesia group contacts in the case of some of these vessels. Such a possibility can be illustrated by a richly decorated vessel with 1 2 4 3 6 5 0 6 cm 5–6 Fig. 3. pottery of the valetice-Čaka style from Saxony and Lusatia (1–4) and bowls decorated with lutes from cemeteries in Żukowice, Głogów district and Jagłowice, Żary district in Silesia. 1–2,4 after Grünberg 143; 3 after Coblenz 14; 5 after Marcinkian 1971; 6 after Jaszewska, Kałagate 2006. 333 funnel-like neck and a horizontally out-turned rim from a cemetery of the Middle Danubian Urnields in Horn, Lower Austria, dated to phase HaA1 (ig. 6:23; Lochner 1991a, plate 36:1). Specimens with a similar form, but difering in decorative details, may be indicated among the materials from the younger segment of the Velatice phase (HaA2), i.e. from a cemetery in Oblekovice (Říhovský 1968, plates 19:78b; 21:83b) or in assemblages of the Knoviz culture dated to HaA (e.g. Hrala 1973, 65, plate 24:1; Pleinerová, Hrala 1988, ig. 20:1). However, the closest formal analogy is a vessel from the early Lusatian zone of a cemetery in Kietrz (grave 1875 – Gedl 1996, plate 63:13). Summarizing the issue presented here, it should be stated that contacts of the Silesia group with territories south of the Moravian Gate were negligible in phases BrD–HaA1. It cannot be demonstrated that inluences from the northeastern Carpathian Basin played a role in the period of Lusatian culture formation in Silesia. There are no vessels or entire assemblages typical of the Velatice culture in the area in question (see chapter 4.1) known from the Moravian group of the Lusatian culture. Detectable inluences of the Middle Danubian Urnield complex on the Silesian group of the Lusatian culture in the available archeological record have been manifested only for the end of period HaA. Pottery of the Middle Danubian Urnield complex in Silesia group assemblages from the younger Bronze Age A much more numerous group of artifacts is pottery with Middle Danubian or, more generally, southern connections, occurring in assemblages from the Younger Bronze Age (HaA2 – beginning of HaB). Pottery of this type is known from several cemeteries in Upper Silesia and eastern part of Lower Silesia. A description of this artifacts group will be restricted to forms with close references to the pottery styles of the younger phase 334 of the Velatice culture and the so-called Velatice-Podoli transitional phase; vessels that could be a local imitation of “southern” originals will be disregarded (compare Przybyła 2007a). The discussion of this group will start with double-bodied vessels (Etagengefäße), both their variant referring closely to originals from the Czech Basin (compare Bouzek 1958), and forms occurring exclusively in the Middle Danubian Urnield area (ig. 94). The former, known from cemeteries in Branice, Kietrz and Dobrzeń Wielki, can be dated to phase HaA2 or HaB1. This is indicated, above all, by their simultaneous occurrence with biconical vessels decorated with the motif of hatched triangles in two graves from Kietrz (no. 1003 and 1031). It should also be noted that the above-mentioned inventories contained other forms as well that can be more or less unambiguously connected with inluences of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle. An earlier chronological position may be admitted for a grave from Branice, where a small, partially preserved biconical vessel occurred, decorated with cutting on the carination, i.e. with a motif already typical for the Kietrz IIb–c phases. On the other hand, one of the double-bodied vessels from Dobrzeń Wielki, found together with forms already typical for Kietrz IV phase (synchronous with period HaB), is younger. Vessels with a rounded body and a relatively low, bulging neck, known particularly from the Kietrz cemetery, are more numerous (e.g. ig. 94:3; Gedl 1989, plates 3:22, 9:11, 10:3, 13:3, 16:2,15, 52:15, 65:6), but also occur in central Silesia (e.g. Seger 1924, plate 2:4–5). As I have already mentioned, these forms developed in the territory of Middle Danubian Urnield complex, inluenced by the Czech Basin or Upper Austria (see chapter 3). In the case of inds from Poland, we must account for the possibility that they were developed locally, which is suggested by the decoration of some specimens with motifs typical of Lusatian culture pottery. The following general conclusion seems probable: vessels with bulging necks – both north and south of the Moravian Gate – represent the same stylistic tendency, inspired at the end of HaA period by inluences from 335 3 2 1 0 6 cm 4 5 Fig. 94. Pottery of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle from assemblages from Silesia, examples of double-bodied vessels: Branice, Głubczyce district (1); Dobrzeń Wielki, Opole district, grave 42/64 (2); Kietrz, Głubczyce district, grave 524 (3), 533 (5) and 1003 (4). 1 after zettler 148; 3–5 after Gedl 182. the eastern zone of the South Germany Urnield culture and the Knoviz culture. Another pottery type testifying to southern inluences on the Silesia group’s territory is vessels with everted rim. A particularly characteristic variant is comprised of vases with a separated, distinctly conical or cylindrical neck, with a lip formed in a faceted lange (ig. 95:1–2), decorated sometimes with oblique or vertical grooves on the body (ig. 95:3), sporadically also with strap handles and knobs, with the outer surface sometimes coarsened. These occur most numerously in the Kietrz cemetery in the Silesia group’s area. Aside from this site, a specimen with a faceted rim was also found in a grave in Wisznia Mała, Trzebnica district, in cen- 33 tral part of Silesia (ig. 95:1). Vessels with strongly everted but unfaceted rims resembling the above-mentioned specimens also come from Silesia group sites (Kietrz, Dobrzeń Wielki). As mentioned several times, this type of vessels was one of the leading forms of the Velatice-Čaka style. The vessels with cylindrical neck and faceted rim were also occurring later in assemblages of the Velatice-Podoli transitional phase, from the period of the HaA/HaB transition (see chapter 3.2). At the Kietrz cemetery, the chronological position of vessels with cylindrical neck and everted rim is established by the forms – accompanying them in two graves – typical of phase III of this necropolis’ development (thin-walled biconical vessels decorated with horizontal lines or hatched triangles). What attracts attention is the relatively frequent occurrence of the forms in question together with other variants of vessels having possible “southern” connections. On the other hand, a younger chronological position must be taken into account in the case of a grave in Wisznia Mała, which already may correspond to Kietrz IV phase. A biconical vessel with everted, faceted rim from the Kietrz cemetery is a speciic variant (ig. 95:4). It has no close analogies in the Middle Danubian Urnield culture. It is reminiscent of the territorially distant, but formally close analogies in inventories from LB III phase on the middle Tisza (see chapter 3.2, ig. 22:6) and their equivalents in assemblages from western Lesser Poland (Małopolska), discussed in the previous chapter. A partially preserved vessel found in grave 536a in Kietrz (ig. 96:1) is a unique form, completely foreign to the Lusatian culture in the younger Bronze Age. It should probably be reconstructed analogously to the specimen known from the Klentnice grave dated to the Velatice-Podoli transitional phase (Říhovský 1965, 32–33). A bowl with protuberances on the lip accompanying this artifact might suggest its dating already within the Kietrz IV phase (period HaB). A close connection with the Middle Danubian Urnields pottery stylistics is also revealed by a biconical vessel decorated with vertical grooves 33 1 2 3 0 6 cm 4 Fig. 95. Pottery of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle from assemblages from Silesia, examples of vessels with cylindrical neck: Wisznia Mała, Trzebnica district (1); Kietrz, Głubczyce district, grave 482 (3) 865 (4) and 1170 (2). 1 after Gołubkow 13; 2–4 after Gedl 182. from grave 1170 in the Kietrz cemetery (ig. 96:2), which also contained other vessels with “southern” references in its inventory. It is interesting that parallels for the discussed form may be found primarily in the area of the Vál group from northeastern Transdanubia and southwestern Slovakia (e.g. ig. 8:18), rather than in the geographically closest sites of southern Moravia. 338 3 1 2 5 4 0 6 Fig. 96. Pottery of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle from assemblages from Silesia: Kietrz, Głubczyce district, grave 536 A (1), 996 (3), 1031 (6), 1170 (2), 1267 (5); Wrocław Grabiszyn (4). 1–3,5– after Gedl 182; 4 after Seger 124. 6 cm 33 1 2 3 0 6 cm 4 Fig. . example of grave assemblage (no. 1242) from a cemetery in Kietrz, Głubczyce district, containing vessels in the Middle Danubian Urnield circle style. After Gedl 1982. Bowls with a high rim part, topped with a faceted lange have similar connections (ig. 8:10,17; compare Říhovský 1966, 470; Patek 1968, 105–106). Among the inds discussed here, this type is represented by specimens from cemeteries in Wrocław Grabiszyn and Kietrz (ig. 96:4–6). Finally, a small vessel from grave 966 in Kietrz (ig. 96:3) is related to another problem. It has a separated cylindrical neck and everted rim, and is decorated on the body with hollows and arch-shaped lines. Although establishing the cultural connections for small and miniature vessels requires much caution, it is dificult to regard this specimen as representing Lusatian culture stylistics. Parallels 340 to its proportions, and – to some extent – also its decoration, may be found in pottery from the eastern Carpathian Basin, assigned in this book to the Gáva II style (compare e.g. ig. 24:4–6). Such distant connections in the older segment of period HaB may be suggested by a biconical vessel from the Lusatian culture cemetery in Ostrokovice, Zlín district of Moravia (Dohnal 1977, cat. no. 343). This latter vessel has close analogies in Gáva II style materials. Attempted interpretation of assemblages with the Middle Danubian Urnield pottery in sites of the Lusatian culture’s Silesian group From the above review of vessel forms linked to Middle Danubian Urnield materials, it follows that traces of their inluence may be found not only at sites from the Głubczyce Plateau (Wyżyna Głubczycka) region already mentioned (Branice, Kietrz), but also in the northeastern periphery of the Silesian group (Dobrzeń Wielki) and central Silesia (Śląsk), especially the vicinity of Wrocław (Wisznia Mała, Wrocław Grabiszyn) (ig. 98). Some attention should be devoted to interpreting this phenomenon. It seems that possible inluences from the Danube River region were not very strong. Even accounting for the fact that the archeological records used here are based on published materials constituting only a portion of all the Silesian group (grupa śląska) sites known today, it can be stated that many sites from the younger Bronze Age lack vessels potentially indicating such a direction of inluence.38 To a signiicant degree, the repertoire of 38 However, one should remember that the paucity of artifacts belonging to the category analyzed here, results – to a certain degree – from the state of research, or rather the state of preservation of the sources acquired before the Second World War. A large number of sites, especially Lusatian cemeteries in Silesia (including also those dated to the younger Bronze Age) known from lists published in reviews 341 3 7 6 5 2 – a – b 1 0 4 100 km Fig. 98. Finds of the Middle Danubian Urnield circle pottery from period haA (a) and from the haA/haB transition (b). List of sites: 1. Branice; 2. Dobrzeń Wielki; 3. Jagłowice; 4. Kietrz; 5. Wrocław­Grabiszyn; 6. Wisznia Mała; 7. Żukowice. (e.g. Gedl 1962; Gediga 1967; Mierzwiński 1994) do not relect their actual scientiic value because only a relatively small segment of the discovered materials has been published. Numerous inds and unpublished source catalogues from the 1930s were destroyed during the war (Gedl 1980, 80–81). 342 typical Silesian group pottery forms in the younger Bronze Age segment is a direct continuation of the previous period’s stylistics. New trends in pottery-making and decoration, discerned at that time, are connected more to changes taking place in the entire western zone of the Lusatian culture, while ornamental motifs that could possibly be linked with southern inluences, such as vertical lutes on amphoras and grooves on the upper parts of carinated bowls, are found in forms originating from the local tradition. However, a number of vessels were found in individual sites that should be regarded as forms entirely foreign to the Silesian group pottery tradition, and typical of the younger phase of the Velatice culture and VelaticePodoli transitional phase in southern Moravia and Lower Austria, as well as of to the Vál group from southeastern Transdanubia and corresponding materials from southwestern Slovakia. In most cases, these vessels are found in the context of Lusatian pottery that may be dated to the younger segment of period HaA (Kietrz III phase), and already in some cases to the beginning of period HaB. Both the local context and Danubian analogies permit the interaction horizon in question to be placed within the times corresponding to phases HaA2–HaB1. The largest assemblage of inds of this type is from the cemetery in Kietrz. Almost 40 vessels may be linked with the stylistic trend in question (besides the forms described above, vessels are also counted that can only be generally connected with the HaA2–HaB1 stylistics in the Middle Danubian Urnield complex). They are part of the equipment of 24 graves, which is slightly more than 10% of the total number of burials dated to phases HaA2–HaB1 in this cemetery. Interestingly, some of these vessels were accompanied by other forms exhibiting southern traits (ig. 97). Certain regularities in the spatial distribution of graves with pottery having Middle Danubian Urnield links can be seen in the Kietrz cemetery (ig. 98). Of the 24 objects belonging to this group, 10 were found in the periphery of eastern concentration of graves, and also creating a small cluster of four graves. The remaining features were located on the eastern 343 edge of the western concentration of burials from the younger Bronze Age period and in a zone of scattered graves to the west of this. Single features also occurred in the cemetery’s southeast edge connected with the Younger Bronze Age period. As with the earlier discussed Tarnobrzeg group assemblages containing Transcarpathian pottery, the Kietrz cemetery graves provide an opportunity to verify the possible connection between the age and sex of the deceased and the occurrence of “foreign” vessel types. Of 12 assemblages having been anthropologically assessed and with pottery of unquestionably Danubian connections, 3 burials were of children and 9 of adults – 4 identiied as female and 2 as male. One cannot thus presume that grave burial with Middle Danubian Urnield pottery is ascribed to a particular anthropological category. It is probably more likely that the occurrence of these vessels characterized a certain part of the population (with an internal structure corresponding to the living population). Summarizing the above conclusions, one can state that: (i) Middle Danubian Urnield culture inluences were limited to the end of period HaA and the beginning of period HaB; (ii) southern elements spread to the entire territory of the Silesian group, though it is possible that their inluence was most intense in the Głubczyce group, occupying the area of the approach to the Moravian Gate; (iii) however, at the scale of the entire Silesian group, inventories with Middle Danubian Urnield items are not numerous; (iv) they probably distinguished a small part of the population that buried their deceased in cemeteries in the Silesia region; (v) this group included both adults and children; (vi) the example of the Kietrz cemetery indicates that these persons might also have been distinguished by burials in a speciic part of the necropolis. In concluding the above characterization of archeological sources, it should be remarked that the horizon dating of the southern inluences on the Silesian group coincides with a distinct increase of Danubian bronze imports to the Oder basin area (ig.74). One must reckon with the possibil- 344 other types Fig. 99. Kietrz, Głubczyce district. Pottery referring to the Middle Danubian Urnield circle against the planigraphy of the cemetery zone used in the younger Bronze Age: a — kietrz II phase; b — kietrz III phase; c — kietrz Iv phase (after Gedl 18). 345 ity that, apart from artifacts reliably dated to phase HaB1, numerous objects with less certain chronology (BrD–HaB1) found their way into Silesia and Greater Poland (Wielkopolska) territories at exactly that time. This is suggested by examples of spearheads with ribs on the socket (Bruszczewo, Sobótka, Stare Bojanowo – see appendix 12) from assemblages already dated to Period IV. 34 34 ChApteR  the FuNCtIoNING ANd deveLopMeNt oF A SupRA-ReGIoNAL CoMMuNICAtIoN NetWoRk IN the WeSteRN CARpAthIAN ReGIoN IN the LAte BRoNze AGe In previous chapters, I attempted to analyze Transcarpathian inluences in the northern foreland of the Western Carpathians and their efect on the cultural situation of individual regions described in this book. Now, the conclusions presented thus far will be generalized and used to verify the theoretical assumptions formulated in the introduction. As with any generalization, the reconstruction presented below can explain only some aspects of the past – particularly those that can be observed as the result of studies of cultural development over a large area and long time span. The initial assumptions will be veriied by comparing the picture of cultural diferentiation contained in the archeological record with the most likely dissemination mechanism of cultural traditions and patterns. Since almost all the information and data cited in this chapter were described in earlier sections, references to the literature will be provided only when discussing issues not mentioned previously. An attempt to reconstruct the development of a system of supraregional interactions in the Western Carpathian zone will be preceded by two proposed inferences about the degree of social organization and the role of exchange in Late Bronze Age populations from the Carpathian region. The two proposed approaches are intended to situate the theoretical assumptions in the historical context discussed here. 348 6.1. Settlement network as a reflection of social organization structures of Late Bronze Age populations in the Carpathian zone In the irst chapter, I signaled the necessity to answer the following questions about Late Bronze Age societies in the Carpathian zone: What did these societies, hidden behind the archeological taxonomy, really look like? How numerous could the human groups of interest to us here have been? What was the degree of their social organization and how stable were the structures they generated? Most scholars studying Bronze Age intercultural contacts focus their attention on archeological data about the highest classes of societies at that time. However, to evaluate the processes in question properly, it may be valuable to view the problem from a diferent standpoint. Such a perspective is named “grass-roots archeology” by Anthony Harding (2000, 410). In this type of investigation, conclusions are based not on the most conspicuous inds, but on large series of data representing the size and complexity of the analyzed populations in the most objective way possible. Data of this type are most suitably provided by demographic analyses and settlement studies. Progress in studies on the settlement of prehistoric populations from the northern Carpathian forelands provided several attempts to characterize the structures of social organization typical of the Bronze Age. These include the work of Sławomir Kadrow (1996; 2007), who investigated theEarly Bronze Age Mierzanowice culture societies of the western Lesser Poland (Małopolska) loess zone, as well as the conclusions of Sylwester Czopek (1996, 103–106), about the Tarnobrzeg group of the San River basin. Below, I will present an attempt to characterize the social organization of the Late Bronze Age populations 34 N m a.s.l. 1000 500 0 me sor egi on – re gio nal 5 km gro u p microregions – local groups set tl vil eme lag nt e c co om mp mu lex nit es ies - Fig. 100. Settlement and social organization structures in the Late Bronze Age as exempliied in the foreland loess plateau between the Wisłok and San rivers (after Przybyła, Blajer 2008). inhabiting the loess plateau of the Carpathian foreland, extending between the Wisłok and San rivers. I have worked out this reconstruction in cooperation with Wojciech Blajer, proceeding from a close examination of the settlement network structures in this area and their transformations during the nearly 2000 years of the Bronze and Early Iron Ages (Przybyła, Blajer 2008) (ig. 100). 350 It is generally assumed that the smallest, and also least durable, unit of social organization is the immediate family, numbering 4–5 people. In archeological records, this corresponds to groups of simultaneous settlement features, being the remnants of households. Several families may have constituted a larger structure. In the sub-Carpathian loess zone, the Bronze Age settlement pattern described here corresponds to concentrations of 2–3 archeological sites used over a longer time (Przybyła, Blajer 2008, 103–105, 121). Excavation studies show that these groups may have been composed of one cemetery and accompanying settlements in the Late Bronze Age. They were inhabited by relatively small human groups. Based on the demographic analysis of a cemetery in Lipnik, Przeworsk district, it can be stated that the settlements concentrated around this cemetery were inhabited in the period of the Tarnobrzeg group development by a population of only up to 20 people (Szybowicz B. 2008). However, during the over 700 years it functioned, the movements of several households led to the uniform distribution of artifacts over a surface of more than 23 ha. This resulted in apparently very intensive settlement in the Lipnik cemetery region (Przybyła, Blajer 2008, 80–83). Demographic analyses of other thoroughly examined Tarnobrzeg group cemeteries showed that the societies exploiting them also numbered up to twenty and only sporadically up to ifty people (Czopek 2006). One can therefore assume that small communities, consisting of 4 to 10 immediate families and concentrated around a common cemetery was a typical social organization form of the Late Bronze Age in the sub-Carpathian region.39 It is worth 39 It is worth presenting here Jacek Rydzewski’s (1982) calculations estimating the limiting size of permanent settlement populations of the Late Bronze Age in the loess zone to about 50 people. The estimates were based on site catchment analysis and took into account such factors as the demand for calories, the amount of work necessary to provide food, and the production capacities of a region situated at the edge of a loess zone and great river valley. 351 noting that such a social organization – described as a village community (Dorfgemeinschaft) – was also postulated by Sławomir Kadrow (1996, 2007) in relation to societies of the Early Bronze Age in western Lesser Poland. Because village communities were small, they could not function permanently as independent structures. The distribution of settlement very clearly shows that small settlement groups belonged to a larger concentrations of sites, described as micro-regions. In terms of social organization structures, these can correspond to local groups (Czopek 1996, 104–105; Kadrow 1996, 163; Przybyła, Blajer 2008, 105–107, 121–122). In the example of the sub-Carpathian loess settlement discussed here, micro-regions from the Late Bronze Age (the period of development of younger phases of the Trzciniec culture and the Tarnobrzeg group) correspond to concentrations of two to several settlement groups, separated by areas with no traces of settlement extending for one to several kilometers. Based on the estimations cited above, it may be assumed that the micro-regions were inhabited by about 50 to 300 people, having at their disposal about 500–2000 ha of land located in the direct environs of the settlements. Such a size of local groups enabled them to endure biologically for a long time (of course with the assumption of permanent marriage exchanges with neighboring populations). It should be noted that some of the micro-regions existed within unchanged boundaries during the entire Late Bronze Age in the discussed example. It is likely that a basic factor supporting the functioning of local groups was their relation to a deined territory – a feature also considered typical of settled agricultural societies (e.g. Nowicka 2005, 382–383). If local groups administered the land they used as an entity, it may be further supposed that they developed some organizational rules for the areas they inhabited, allowing land deserted by families or depopulated village communities to be settled. This would explain the discrepancy between the long-term functioning of Late Bronze Age cemeteries in the San River basin and the very small number of population members using them. 352 Regional groups may have been above local groups, which – in the picture of settlement distribution – correspond with the so-called mesoor macro-regions – areas of concentrated settlement separated by zones without any sites, extending for several or up to 20 km (e.g. Mierzwiński 1994, 20; Czopek 1996, 106). Our estimations for the mesoregion located in the sub-Carpathian loess zone indicate that regional groups might have had about 1000 or more inhabitants (Przybyła, Blajer 2008, 107– 108, 122). Contrary to local groups, constrained by permanent marriage exchanges with neighbors, regional groups – due to their large size – could be entirely endogamous. It seems that a key factor in the development of this social structure level might have been the long-lasting functioning of permanent marriage exchange networks among neighboring local groups, possible due to settlement stabilization. Movements of individuals created bonds between families and local groups that enabled the development of regional goods exchange networks (see e.g. Lévi-Strauss 1992, 1222–130) and led to complete cultural uniication, and possibly also to the development of institutions common to the entire group (Przybyła, Blajer 2008, 109). Thanks to the data collected during the Polish Archeological Record (AZP) – a program of inventorying archeological sites begun in the 1970s – we can reliably establish the distribution of mesoregions in the Polish Carpathian area (ig. 101). In most cases, the areas of concentrated settlement functioning throughout most of the Bronze Age do not exceed 20–30 km. This size may not be accidental. It corresponds to a “daily marching” distance – a distance mentioned in ethnographic studies as the preferred range of marriages (Lehmkühler 1991, 157 – see here for further references). Regional groups, homogenized by “everyday” internal exchanges, also maintained external contacts. These were the societies inhabiting settlement clusters, visible on the distribution maps of archeological sites, who were the partners and intermediaries in the long-distance relation network covering central Europe. Knowing the distribution of settlement and the 353 A 0 20 km B 0 20 km Fig. 101. distribution of Bronze Age sites in the polish Carpathian zone compared to the area examined within the Azp (polish Archeological Record) framework (A). only Late Bronze Age sites were shown on most of the mapped area. Below (B): areas of dense Bronze Age settlement (to 1 km of distance between sites). After: Czopek 1; Rydzewski 1997; Gedl 1998; Materna 1999; Cygan 2005; Urbański 2008; Przybyła, Blajer 2008; Mazur, in print. 354 “cultural content” of distinguished settlement clusters, we can determine the directions of their relations in particular chronological horizons. Such an attempt will be presented in further parts of this chapter. Compared to the picture of settlement distribution presented above, it will take into account not individual regional groups, but their agglomerations. This approach results, on one hand, from the necessity to simplify the obtained picture, and on the other hand, from an inability to compare the well-investigated settlement network in the areas within Polish borders with the more supericially studied areas south of the Carpathians. 6.2. the social structure of the Late Bronze Age populations in the Carpathian area and prestige goods identification in the archeological material in the example of tarnobrzeg group cemeteries in the San River basin Another question left open in the introduction of this work is the presence and character of elites in the Carpathian area societies described here, as well as the possibility of identifying prestigious objects and establishing their role in the formation of higher social classes. In the following part of my work, I will present an attempt to answer these questions, proceeding from an analysis of the population’s structure buried in a cemetery at Grodzisko Dolne (on site 1) in the San River basin during the oldest phase of its functioning. A thorough analysis of this example, including important conclusions concerning the diferentiation of grave equipment and the reconstruction of possible family relationships in the population using the Grodzisko Dolne cemetery, has already been presented by Sylwester Czopek (1996, 44–57, 99–107). It is, however, worthwhile to reconsider these data, attempting not only to assess the richness of grave equipment, but also to establish underlying norms and their deviations.40 40 The analysis was based on data published by Sylwester Czopek (1996). In my analysis, I did not include a certain number of assemblages that the author considered representative for phase Ia of the Tarnobrzeg group, and that in my opinion may be younger, or their preservation does not allow a credible chronology assessment to be made (graves: 29, 50, 69, 97, 100, 106, 108, 126, 131, and 134). The evaluation of grave 127, as belonging to an adult, was based on the distance between individual inventory elements. 355 35 It should be noted from the start that the population shown in the scheme presented in igure 102 does not correspond to a group using the cemetery in one temporal horizon, but it constitutes a “lattening” of at least several generations, probably living in the 13th and 12th centuries BC. At the same time, the picture is not complete, as some graves are not preserved or unexplored, though it can be assumed that it represents a reliable sample of the whole. Proceeding from demographic calculations carried out for a larger number of Tarnobrzeg group cemeteries and the conclusions of settlement studies, it is likely that the population in question (village community) numbered around twenty people, i.e. 4–5 immediate families, inhabiting an area adjoining the cemetery and part of a larger local group, identical to the entire settlement micro-region (see above). A great majority of the village community members in question were buried with a sort of standard equipment – burned remains were placed in an urn, with a thin-walled vessel (usually a clay cup) placed nearby and covered with a bowl. Small deviations from this rule (especially the lack of bowls) may have resulted from the decay of the equipment’s organic elements (possible wooden covers). Thus, the “egalitarian” equipment of graves with a given set of speciic vessels was the norm in the village community using the Grodzisko Dolne cemetery. This “normal treatment” does not exhibit signs of diferentiation related to the sex or age of the interred. Some deviations from this standard have been recorded, such as a larger number of pottery vessels or other than “normal” set of forms. These few burials are, without exception, supposed or conirmed skeleton graves. Due to the lack of preserved bones, it is not possible to establish whether this diference in equipment resulted from a kinship relation within this group of the deceased, from the circumstances of their death, their individual features or from speciic age or sex categories. Many factors exist which could be responsible for one or another given type of grave equipment (see e.g. Bockisch-Bräuer 1999, 562–563; Brather, Wotzka 2006, ig. 30). Only the age or sex category can be excluded here as a reason, as it did not 35 inluence the structure of graves with standard equipment. It should be emphasized however, that even in such a small population, two diferent traditions of equipment and burial ritual existed. Another small and distinguishing group is graves equipped with bronze objects. With regard to the set of vessels, they either comply with the “norm” (urn graves), or correspond to the burials with non-standard pottery inventories mentioned above (cremation graves in pits and inhumation graves). The presence of a bronze object, found in nine graves (corresponding to 20% of all analyzed graves), is in itself a striking diference compared to the graves equipped in a standard manner. It must be noted that, in principle, the custom of burning bronze objects together with the body on a pyre was lacking in the Tarnobrzeg group. Therefore, in the case of cremation burials, bronze objects were not an element of the clothes worn by the cremated body, but were deposited in graves as a separate act during the burial ritual – possibly evoking some speciic symbol, understood by the participants. I will come back to this later. As with graves having standard inventory, those equipped with bronze objects include burials of children as well as of adults (including remains designated as female or male). This phenomenon can be observed in the entire Tarnobrzeg group (Trybała 2003; Przybyła 2004, 100). Despite the fact that the group of bronze equipped graves deviates as a whole from the “norm”, one cannot neglect to note the diferences within this group itself. As the Tarnobrzeg group societies on the middle San River did not have access to their own copper deposits, it must be assumed that all objects found in this area made of copper alloys, or at least the material used to manufacture these objects, came from long-distance exchanges. In this situation, material consumption may used as a universal criterion for their valuation. Simplifying the accessible results of weight measurements for bronze objects found in the Lipnik cemetery, I propose a division into three categories: (i) small ornaments, like surety made of band and wire – generally not heavier than a few grams; (ii) oracle and pins, 358 that usually weigh up to 20 g; (iii) massive bracelets and necklaces made of thick rod, weighing at least 20–30 g, and sometimes more than 100 g. The latter category of inds, found in three burials in Grodzisko Dolne, requires special attention. Two correspond to the oldest horizon of graves, described earlier (graves 127 and 138, chapter 5.2), and one – urn grave 110 – should rather be assigned to the period corresponding to phase HaA1. The value of massive rings, from the present point of view, results not only from the amount of material used for their manufacture, but also from their universal esthetic qualities, especially the rich decoration and “solid” form. Massive rings found in the oldest graves of the Tarnobrzeg group are without exception specimens with narrowing ends, decorated with herringbone patterns, entangled triangles or zigzags, so they most probably come from Tisza River metallurgical centers (see above). In the inventories from the San River basin, they were exotic objects and their possession must have resulted from participating in long-distance exchange or direct contacts with societies living south of the Carpathians. Exoticism is therefore the irst feature responsible for their value – not according to present day criteria, but from the perspective of their speciic prehistoric context (see chapter 1.3). The bracelets did not meet this criterion of value in the areas of their manufacture, but they gained it as the distance traveled from the metallurgical center increased. Further contextual data important in reconstructing the social role of these objects is provided by the development of metal object stylistics in the Tisza River area after the period the discussed bracelets were manufactured. As I have already mentioned, in the beginning of period LB III (phase HaA), decorated rings with narrowing ends, as well as other objects typical of hoards of the Uriu-Ópályi series (especially battle-axes with disc-shaped head), were replaced in the eastern Carpathian Basin by a new repertoire of forms with western (Transdanubian) origin, including new kinds of rings (made of bars with lat-convex or oval cross-section). Although bronze objects from the Tisza basin were still reaching the territory of southeast- assemblages with massive, material-consuming bronze rings 138 3 2 32 small bronze objects 111 8 untypical pottery equipment below standard pottery equipment II 110 132 98 5 1 4 2 5 3 large bronze objects standard pottery equipment 3 127 10 2 2 3 101 6 8 7 121 38 136 140 141 2 2 2 2 I 22 20 5 39 21 35 10 17 16 12 1 26 94 without sex and age determination children 27 107 34 114 women men adults without sex determination 18 37 93 125 130 2 30 31 96 133 without sex and age determination Fig. 102. Structure of the population burying their deceased in cemeteries from the oldest phase of the tarnobrzeg group (13th –12/11th century BC) in Grodzisko Dolne, Leżajsk district: 1 — urn, 2 — bowl, 3 — cup, 4 — bronze pin, 5 — small ornament,  — bracelet made of thin band,  — massive bracelet or necklace, 8 — cremation grave in pit or inhumation grave. 35 30 ern Poland during this period (see chapter 5.1), the new types of rings had not yet replaced the “traditional” variant, made of a circularly sectioned bar with thinned ends, in the area in question. Probably, on the basis of imported raw material, a local metallurgical center developed in the middle San basin that was producing band ornaments with a speciic manner of decoration (the so-called Sieniawa style – Blajer 1987, 130; 1989, 121, 135; 1996, 95; 1999, 121, 123–125), but with a shape imitating earlier specimens from the Tisza basin. However, one must note an important change in the way they were deposited. Nearly all inds of the Sieniawa type bracelets, accompanied by closed rings with the same decorations (necklaces?), were individual or group deposits, sometimes found in a wet (water) environment (ibidem). So far, the only exceptions are two Sieniawa-type bracelets discovered in the grave of a one year-old child at the Lipnik cemetery (Blajer 2000, ig. 5).41 However, the context of these indings is also particular. Not only do they not match – in terms of their size and mass – to the person buried in the grave, but they were also deposited outside the urn, which is a distinct deviation from the common practice of placing bronze objects inside the urn, on the burned bones. Although the assignment of both bracelets to the grave assemblage and probably also to the deceased person does not raise doubts, the bracelets should be considered as a deposit connected with the burial ceremony, rather than as the buried child’s equipment in a narrow sense. As with inds contained in hoard inventories (and most other bronze ornaments from cremation graves of the Tarnobrzeg group), the bracelets had not been damaged during cremation, which emphasizes the act of their separate deposition. I touch here upon a previously mentioned problem of interpreting certain categories of objects found in graves not as gifts meant to serve the 41 The grave context of a Sieniawa-type bracelet found in the area of the Wietlina cemetery has not been conirmed (Kostek 1991, table19:12). 31 deceased in the afterlife, but as elements of burial ritual, material signs evoking some symbols and describing the status of the deceased in an ideal representation of society (Steuer 2006, 14–19). These objects did not have to change their meaning with the changed context of deposition. In some studies on hoard deposition during the Bronze Age, attention was drawn to the complementarity of hoard inventories and rich graves, as well as to the chronologically and spatially mutual exclusion of these two types of inds (Rittershofer 1984, 338–352; Bradley 1998, 95–114; Blajer 2001, 302–304). In the case of particularly rich grave inventories from the Urnield period, a similarity was noticed between these inventories and the content of mass deposits from the same period (Winghart 1999, 531–532). Thus, a common phenomenon in the central European Younger Bronze Age cultures might have been the relation between the non-standard, rich equipment of chosen graves and the custom of deposing bronze objects in the ground. The child’s grave from Lipnik constitutes a link between ornamented rings from the Tarnobrzeg group’s oldest graves and bracelets found in Sieniawa type hoards from phase HaA1. The predominant manner of depositing these latter allows bracelets with thinned ends to be linked to certain behaviors of Late Bronze Age societies in the San River basin area, manifested by the deposition of valuable, materially consuming bronze objects into the ground (or water environment). In the case of the Lipnik grave, however, the same objects were assigned to a speciic individual. Therefore, I am inclined to advance a thesis that the ritual behaviors mentioned above – in the given prehistorical context analyzed here – were related with some socio-technical manipulations, concentrated on individuals and on the social functions they performed. Similarly to gift exchange, the giver was more important than the receiver – in this case, the deceased. The purpose of these rituals – whether the objects were deposited into the ground during the burial ceremony or not, within the cemetery or outside settlement areas – might have been to win a competition 32 for prestige and its ensuing authority, based on respect. Ethnographical examples suggest that such an act might only have been executed once during an individual’s life, yet it would have permanently determined his or her social role (Müller, Bernbeck 1996, 7). As I have already mentioned, three burials containing decorated rings with thinned ends were found at the Grodzisko Dolne cemetery. Two of them can be associated with the transition period between the Trzciniec culture and the Tarnobrzeg group (phase LB II, probably 13th century BC). The third one is younger and is probably from the 12th century BC. In addition to these, there were six other graves containing smaller bronze objects, constituting an “intermediate level” between the richest graves and the normally equipped majority. However, bearing in mind the small size of the analyzed community, it is diicult to treat this picture as a relection of permanent social diferentiation within the studied population, even more so considering that the group of graves distinguished by the presence of bronze objects difers at the same time with regard to burial ritual. So, if we want to consider the presence of large bronze objects in graves as an expression of rituals connected with prestige rivalry, the lowest possible level of such rivalry would be the local groups (see above). From the perspective of settlement archeology, this level corresponds to micro-regions, such as the one where the Grodzisko Dolne cemetery was functioning (Czopek 1996, 75–79). In the previous discussion, this site was described in more detail not only because of its relatively well preserved and ample set of assemblages from the irst phase of the Tarnobrzeg culture’s existence, but also because there exists another, contemporaneous cemetery in its vicinity, examined and described in the literature (Czopek 1996, 121–130, tables 1–17). This is a unique situation. The Chodaczów site was probably founded a little later than the Grodzisko Dolne cemetery, and also provided a smaller number of assemblages from an early phase. Burials known from this site complying with the “norm” set by the Grodzisko Dolne village community include four urn graves and one skeleton grave. Nearly all 33 burials containing bronze objects belong to the latter category, with the exception of the richest burial (grave 101), containing a massive bracelet made of a bar with thinned ends, in which the remains were burned and scattered inside the pit. To interpret this situation, it is important to note that skeleton graves from Chodaczów, containing rings made of twisted rod are probably younger than the two rich burials (skeleton and pit burial) from Grodzisko Dolne (graves 127 and 138) (Czopek 1996, 28, Godlewski 2001, 52; see also: Blajer, Czopek, Kostek 1991, 280), but they may chronologically correspond to urn graves found at this site, including burials equipped with bronze objects. While analyzing the structure of the population buried at the Grodzisko Dolne cemetery, two diferentiating criteria were noted, independent of sex and age: the form of burial (urn or other) and the presence of standard or non-standard equipment. Let us assume at this point that the irst criterion was related to beliefs, or more generally, tradition, while the second depended on individual behavior, such as the prestige rivalry suggested above. In such a situation, the irst behavior will be related to long-lasting phenomena, whereas the second one will depend on the historical events level encompassed by the lifespan of an individual or family. In other words, the irst one will be permanent, and the second episodic. As there are reasons suggesting that urn graves in the San River basin are younger than the oldest skeleton burials (see chapter 5.2), it seems justiied to suppose that the Grodzisko Dolne cemetery was established for the segment of the population who buried their deceased in skeleton graves or cremation pit graves, i.e. according to the traditional ritual of the Trzciniec culture. This event already took place at a time corresponding to period BrD (probably the 13th century). Along with undoubtedly early, but “normally” equipped burials, very rich graves equipped with rings (graves 127 and 138) originating from the Tisza River basin also come from that phase of the site’s existence (graves I and II). At the time corresponding to phase HaA1 (so, already in the 12th century), the rest of the population 34 started to bury their deceased in the Grodzisko Dolne cemetery. These families adopted the urn cremation burial ritual. Apart from the “normally” equipped majority, some of the urn burials (especially grave 110) are equipped with bronze objects, thus replacing in this aspect the skeleton and pit burials. If burials maintaining the traditional Trzciniec burial ritual from phase HaA still existed in the Grodzisko Dolne cemetery, they were – as compared to the previous period – characterized by very poor equipment, limited to non-standard pottery inventory (graves: 8, 10, 38, 136 and 140–141). On the other hand, a rich pit burial (grave 101) and further skeleton graves from Chodaczów, equipped with bronze objects, may be dated to period HaA (even to the younger HaA period, i.e. 12th–11th centuries). Equipment of corresponding urn burials at this site complied with “the norm”. We may now try to generalize the discussion of the structure of populations burying their deceased in the cemeteries at Grodzisko Dolne and Chodaczów to present a more general model of local group development during the Late Bronze Age in the San River basin (ig. 103).42 This development would be conditioned by several factors: (i) the lack of stability of small village communities (in the scheme, three structures of that 42 Of course, one can ask to what degree such a generalization is justiied. Although the example of the thoroughly investigated Grodzisko Dolne and Chodaczów sites is the best illustration of the phenomenon in question, one may indicate other similar systems of directly neighboring early Tarnobrzeg group cemeteries. These include Manasterz (Godlewski 2001; Czopek, Trybała 2005) and Paluchy (Lewandowski 1978; Kostek 2002), or Albigowa (Blajer, Przybyła 2006a) and Lipnik (Blajer, Przybyła 2006). The Albigowa cemetery yielded, among other things, a bracelet decorated with herringbone patterns (Gedl 1998b), typical of the oldest Tarnobrzeg group assemblages (BrD), while at the Lipnik cemetery, situated about 4 km away, the richest burial (grave 140) is already dated to phase HaA1 (Blajer 2000). A generalization of this scheme that includes populations from other regions of the Western Carpathians may be more controversial. Outside the San River basin, in the circum-Carpathian zone, there are no larger cemeteries from the Late Bronze Age enabling the presented model to be veriied. 35 type are shown) belonging to a local group and of lineages forming them that could die out after a few generations; (ii) the possibility of families “switching” between village communities, e.g. to take over ields left by families that had died out or had left a local group (which might inluence changes in the population using the cemeteries at diferent time periods – see above); (iii) the existence of three levels of exchange – within a local group, between local groups and long-distance exchange; (iv) participation in these exchange levels that might afect the social status of local group members; (v) the parallel existence of two types of burial rituals, i.e. local group inhumation 13th century BC village community A (cemetery A) individual or family having prestige village community B (cemetery B) cremation cremation cremation cremation inhumation cremation inhumation 12th century BC cremation 11th century BC lineage village community B (cemetery C) “everyday” exchange within local group exchange (institutionalized?) between local groups long-distance exchange (exceeding limits of regional group): “trade”, marital exchange between lineages aspiring to be elite Fig. 103. development scheme for a hypothetical local group from the early phase of the tarnobrzeg group in the San basin. exchange (institutionalized?) between local groups 3 urn and cremation pit graves or skeleton graves; the latter chronologically preceding the irst. In such a picture of the development of early Tarnobrzeg group societies, the presence of “local elites” would not be a permanent phenomenon, but an episodic one, connected with the actions of individuals. Therefore, the presence of remarkably rich graves assigned to this period should not be considered a sign of establishing permanent, “dynastic” forms of leadership in local groups. These burials would rather be evidence of the aspirations of individuals or families for such leadership, manifested by prestige rivalry. The bonds established as a result of a multi-generational (possibly dating back to the onset of the Trzciniec culture) tradition of relationships between neighboring exogamic local groups could have possibly transferred this rivalry also onto the regional group level. These bonds could also have facilitated attempts to institutionalize competition, as well as to stimulate long-distance alliances and its accompanying exchange. However, one cannot presently answer the question of whether early political organizations of the chieftain type could have developed under Late Bronze Age conditions in the San River basin (or in the entire Western Carpathian zone and its forelands). While the condition of population size may have been fulilled (regional groups could count over 1000 people), the “episodic character” of local elites, described above, could have prevented the formation of a central hierarchic authority, considered an important feature of chieftain systems (e.g. Earle 1991, 3). 3 6.3. the onset of supra-regional connections in the Western Carpathian zone — an attempt to adapt the “core and periphery” model In an attempt to reconstruct the processes resulting in Late Bronze Age cultural inluences from the Danube River basin to areas situated north of the Carpathians, it is necessary to return to the beginning of the Bronze Age. During this period, the areas situated directly to the north and south of the main chain of the Western Carpathians were inhabited by societies representing one cultural complex, designated as the epi-Corded Ware circum-Carpathian culture complex (Machnik 1987, 142). The formation of this complex – both in the north Carpathian foreland loess zone and the mountain valleys – resulted from a complex process of historical, cultural and social transformations (Kadrow 2001, 206–213, 217–219). The efect of this process is a starting point for the reconstruction that follows. At the transition from the 20th–19th century BC, the valleys and piedmont areas of the Western Carpathians were inhabited by settled populations representing the epi-Corded Ware cultural tradition. In terms of archeological terminology, these populations are represented by late groups of the Mierzanowice culture and associated local cultural groups from central and eastern Slovakia, i.e. the Košťany and Nitra group. Around 1900 BC, epi-Corded Ware societies from the circum-Carpathian zone maintained contacts with populations residing on the Danube River, who were entering a period of lourishing at that time, represented by the classic phases of Tell cultures. These contacts were not limited to luxury goods exchange (e.g. faience beads). Common features shared by the Danubian cultures 38 and epi-Corded Ware groups, manifested in material culture (e.g. a high level of pottery-making techniques), the predominance of stable settlements and an agricultural economy, allow these groups to be included into one cultural community, referred to as the “central European Early Bronze Age civilization” by Jan Machnik (1987, 154–164). The process of cultural transformation initiated at the transition of the 20th and 19th centuries BC in southern (Slovakian) groups of the epi-Corded Ware culture complex coincides with the advent of the irst bronze manufacturing center in the Tisza River basin and with the development of a long-distance exchange route, linking the Carpathian Basin with the southern Baltic zone and the eastern Mediterranean. These transformations, especially the development of bronze metallurgy, and perhaps also the greater dynamics of social processes taking place in the Danube River basin (related to elite formation?), could be the origin of some of the “southern” cultural patterns spreading to the Vistula River basin. The process in question – illustrated in the scheme below – was conditioned by several factors (ig. 104). The prevalent direction of cultural inluences – from south to north – was determined by the location of the system’s core, i.e. the metallurgical and cultural center on the Tisza River, and of the peripheries “consuming” luxury goods. Accordingly, cultural inluences were running crosswise with regard to geographical areas located in parallel – from the Great Hungarian Plain, across the mountain valleys of the Carpathians and the highlands of their northern forelands (especially the loess zones of western Lesser Poland), up to the lowlands of central Europe. A determining factor in the “spreading” of a culture may have been the need for “exotic” luxury goods, connected with prestige rivalry within local groups, as well as the development of marriage exchange within particular regions and between them. The inlow of luxury objects from the Tisza River basin (black arrows on the scheme), such as early bronze products, copper ore and bone cheek-pieces, inluenced the process of social diferentiation of populations inhabiting the Carpathian c.a. 1600-1500 BC single “foreign” vessels single “foreign” vessels, inluence on local stylistics spiral-knobbed pottery, fortiied settlements mariages between kinships Inlow of luxury goods of southern origin epi-Corded Ware circumCarpathian culture complex epi-Corded Ware circumCarpathian culture complex Hatvan culture northern part of Great Hungarian Plain Otomani culture in northern part of Great Hungarian Plain epi-Corded Ware circumCarpathian culture complex valleys south of Carpathian range Otomani culture in Spiš and in Košice basin spiral-knobbed pottery, fortiied settlements, inhumation cemeteries, social stratiication Lowland traditions valleys north of Carpathian range Jasło grup, phase Maszkowice 2 in Dunajec valley Lowland traditions (e.g. Iwno culture) western Lesser Poland loess zone Trzciniec culture in western Lesser Poland loess zone and in San basin lowland zone Trzciniec culture on lowland areas 3 c.a. 1800-1700 BC ancestors Transmission of ideas (behaviour patterns, symbolic culture, expressed in, i.a. pottery making stylistics Fig. 104. Mechanism of cultural pattern transmission in the Western Carpathian zone in the Middle Bronze Age. 30 valleys. It cannot be excluded that “exotic” objects, introduced into the system of luxury goods’ circulation, could have resulted in social “debts” of some of the participants of prestige exchange. This led to a shorter or longer lasting distinction of elites within particular groups. The representatives of currently dominating families or lineages entered into marriage exchanges with societies supplying luxury goods. Spouses introduced into local groups brought with them an entire load of tradition and ideology, speciic for their home groups (grey arrows). As “exotic” and “foreign” was related to the prestige and authority of elites, new models spread quickly – they were copied and difused not only within local groups, but also between them. In the Carpathian area, the previously existing traditional connections (dashed arrows) between the epi-Corded Ware “ancestors” of the families adopting southern models could have been of special importance for this process. Thus, both supra-regional marital exchange and prestige goods circulation occurred in this area based on “traditional channels of cultural contact”. The spreading of southern cultural patterns was a gradual process. Subsequent local groups adopted some elements of the tradition and then passed them on. This had certain consequences. First, it may be thought – and accessible data corroborate this supposition – that the “signal” sent from the south gradually faded and became transformed; e.g. pottery designs that initially copied products from the Tisza River became limited to only a few stylistic elements (e.g. ornamentation) as the distance increased from the center. Similarly, luxury goods were most abundant in areas adjacent to the center, and they were spreading further by means of redistribution. Second, a signiicant delay is linked with this manner of spreading cultural patterns. This means that by the time a speciic cultural element reached a peripheral zone, it may not have been functioning anymore in its area of origin. The interpretation scheme presented here partially corresponds to the “core – periphery” model. However, an important diference is the 31 assumption that regional marriage exchange and permanent prestige rivalry within local groups played the dominant role in spreading culture, rather than long-distance trade. Thus, the process of spreading material culture and ideology was much more prolonged. Also, it did not disturb, but on the contrary, reinforced local relations, because it was transmitted by these relations, and not by activity of the system’s “center”. Of course, instead of (or apart from) the described mechanism, other processes could also have played a role in spreading culture; for instance, local small-scale migrations, transmission of stylistic patterns by trade exchanges or the movements of mobile groups (e.g. shepherd societies). Also, the formation of supra-regional marriage exchange systems could have been stimulated by factors other than the inlow of luxury goods. However, let us try to verify the model above about the spread of cultural patterns by analyzing the archeological records from the irst half of the 2nd millennium BC in the Western Carpathian region. The role of a center in the system formed at that time was played by classic Otomani culture societies from the northern part of the Great Hungarian Plain. They inluenced their northern neighbors, an example being the epi-Corded Ware populations of the Košice Basin (the Košťany group). The inclusion of their elites in luxury goods circulation and the marital exchange system, as well as colonization (especially of the Spiš region) brought about the incorporation of Carpathian valley populations, accessible to the Tisza River basin, into the spiral-knobbed pottery cultural area already in the 19th century BC. The manifestation of this fact was by no means limited to pottery forms and decoration. Large fortiied settlements are known from mountain valleys, which correspond to Tell settlements from the Great Hungarian Plain and might have served as centers of political organizations. Products conirming the participation of local societies in a network of long-distance exchange contacts are seen in the rich cemeteries. However, a major role in further cultural development of this region was played by the spread of copper acquisition and processing skills, permit- 32 ting local sources of this material to be exploited. This was also accompanied by a new cultural tradition. Traditional supra-regional contacts between societies represented by the epi-Corded Ware Košťany group and the Mierzanowice culture may have continued also after the former had transformed into a northern periphery of the “spiral-knobbed” area. As a result, after Košice Basin populations adopted “southern” patterns and settled in the neighboring Spiš region, the new cultural current also reached groups residing in valleys accessible to the northern forelands of the Carpathians. This process may have been delayed for at least several generations compared to the beginning of the Otomani classic phase, as indicated by the earliest radiocarbon dating of the Jasło group settlements (18th–17th century BC) and the small number of classic Otomani pottery inds from the Dunaj valley. One can assume that this most likely started after 1800 BC. Settlement continuity at sites occupied thus far by the Mierzanowice culture’s Pleszów group (Trzcinica, Maszkowice, Marcinkowice) during the discussed period can support the assumption that the spread of a new cultural tradition was not related to a change of population, but with the adoption of new patterns, possibly transferred by marriage exchange. Initiation of the adoption of “southern” cultural patterns also to the north of the Carpathians by its inclusion into the luxury goods circulation system cannot be excluded. However, bronze objects from the Tisza River area (battle-axe from Trzcinica) are still scarce at this time. The Jasło group materials from the Jasło-Krosno Basin (Kotlina JasielskoKrośnieńska) and pottery assemblages from the Sącz Basin (Kotlina Sądecka), here referred to as the Maszkowice 2 phase, serve as archeological traces of the process in question. In both cases, spiral-knobbed pottery prevails, the participation of the respective societies in local exchange has been conirmed (amber inds from Maszkowice) with the presence of fortiied settlements referring to the Otomani culture. However, contrary to Spiš or the Košice Basin region, an equally well-deined premise for assuming 33 the existence of permanent social diferentiation is lacking (centralized and hereditary leadership?). Vessel pieces typical of the classic (early) phase of the Trzciniec culture are found from both Jasło group settlements and Maszkowice 2 phase sites. The presence of these fragments in the spiral-knobbed pottery context is linked to a process taking place north of the Carpathians, almost simultaneously with the spread of the Otomani culture – the emergence of the Trzciniec culture in the loess zone of the upper Vistula River basin. This culture, representing a tradition typical of lowland central Europe, is a foreign element in the northern Carpathian forelands, genetically unrelated to the local Mierzanowice group societies. This statement remains true, regardless whether the spread of the Trzciniec culture was due to migration, as was assumed in the model proposed by Jacek Górski and Sławomir Kadrow (1996), or to the adoption of its “cultural package” by local societies living at the margin of the Mierzanowice ecumene, as postulated by Janusz Czebreszuk (1998). The Trzciniec populations’ gradual adoption of a settled, agricultural lifestyle eventually resulted in their adaptation in the loess area and to the acculturation of the Mierzanowice culture epigones. As a result, a variant of the Trzciniec culture speciic to the loess area was formed on the upper Vistula River (both in western Lesser Poland (Małopolska) and in the San River loess area, with the latter not as well recognized in this respect). As the Mierzanowice culturederived local groups from the Carpathian valleys and loess area (these latter now included into “Trzciniec” populations) were connected by traditional “cultural contact channels”, opportunities existed both for “southern” luxury goods transmission and inclusion into the marital exchange system, functioning in the Carpathian zone, to extend into the Trzciniec cultural environment of western Lesser Poland (Spiš-type check-piece from Jakuszowice, Kazimierza Wielka district, is the best example – Bąk 1992) and perhaps also to the San River basin (source data is lacking here). This was equivalent to the passage of “Trzciniec” spouses to Carpathian 34 groups, which may be evidenced by the isolated pottery inds mentioned above. It should be noted that “southern” cultural patterns in the western Lesser Poland loess zone are already markedly impoverished and considerably delayed in time, as compared to inds from the Carpathian zone. Settlement forms or burial ritual are completely unafected. Only chosen stylistic elements in pottery-making (decoration with lutes) can be referred to the classic Otomani culture, while more accurate imitations of vessels (also rather scarce) refer already to forms characteristic of this group’s late phase. Intensiication of Transcarpathian inluences on the Trzciniec culture occurred thus already in the 17th century BC, i.e. in the beginning of the Tell culture’s period of decline. Traditional connections, this time within lowland societies, being a basic transmission agent for the Trzciniec culture, could have also played a role in the emergence of Otomani cultural elements in the southern Baltic zone. However, traces of these contacts are very enigmatic and limited to isolated vessels or ornamental patterns (e.g. pottery from Kujawy sites – Makarowicz 1999). It is possible that the spread of “southern” cultural patterns in this area was not linked anymore with prestige behaviors, especially since mainly the Únĕtice culture center and later, the Tumulus culture area, inluenced the development of this region (e.g. Czebreszuk 1997). 6.4. decline of the “core-periphery” type of relations in the initial phases of the Late Bronze Age The system described above, based on relations between the Tisza River center and Western Carpathian peripheries, disintegrated with the end of the Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin (about 1500 BC) and with the collapse of Tell culture development. Regionalization and blending of various older traditions were predominant tendencies in the cultural picture of the initial Late Bronze Age phases in the entire middle Danube River basin. Contrary to the previous period, no single cultural and metallurgical center inluencing the upper Vistula River basin existed beginning from the 16th/15th century BC transition. In the Western Carpathian region, the Piliny metallurgical center was functioning (Forró type hoards), while a separate center was developing – after 1350 BC at the latest – to the east of the Tisza River (hoards of the UriuÓpályi series). Products of both centers reached groups inhabiting the Carpathian valleys (among other things, objects from hoard at Stefkowa and battle-axe from Strachocina), and in the case of the center east of the Tisza River, products also reached the late Trzciniec culture environment in the San River basin. During that period, exchange as a means of transmitting cultural patterns could have had a much more regional (limited) character than previously. Local groups residing in the Carpathian mountain valleys were maintaining the previously established contact network even when cremation, Tumulus-post-Otomani style pottery and products of the Piliny metallurgical center became popular in the Košice Basin and Spiš region. A phenomenon that should be emphasized, initiated at this time and characteristic of the whole Late Bronze Age, is the appearance 35 3 of settlement clusters in the Western Carpathian valleys as an autonomic cultural region, strongly linked by internal relations and, to a much lesser degree, connected with neighboring areas. Due to the complexity of the cultural picture after 1500 BC, the simple interaction scheme of the “core-periphery” type should be rejected, which in a slightly modiied version could still be useful for the Middle Bronze Age. One can assume that the basic mechanism of cultural interaction remained unchanged – luxury goods exchange linked with prestige rivalry stimulated a supra-regional marriage exchange, while cultural patterns brought by spouses joining a local group were adopted or modiied and transmitted within “everyday” exchange systems. However, these contacts cannot be reduced to interactions between several large zones anymore. One can assume, with certain simpliication, that the basic units of the connections network were clusters of regional groups, which in archeological taxonomy correspond to small culture groups or culture subgroups. A continuous exchange (both trade and marital) within these groups and attachment to the territory resulting from a settled lifestyle led to a relative cultural homogeneity of these units (see above – chapter 6.1). The picture of their culture was, however, luid, comprised of the previous generations’ traditions, local innovations and adopted “foreign” elements. The presence and connections of these “foreign” elements depended on the particular supra-regional exchange network a given regional society currently participated in and the changes occurring over time in the large networks of connections. This scheme can be explained by the example of connections existing in the Western Carpathians at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (phase LB I – 1500–1350 BC). Symbols used in igure 105 represent the distribution direction of bronze products (black arrows) and – in a simpliied manner – the presence of various trends in pottery styles (diferent signatures), showing how cultural patterns (customs, ideologies) were spreading by means of supra-regional contact systems, especially marriage exchange (grey arrows). 3 4 TC 2 12 1 3 10 15 14 9 13 6 TC bronze objects of Tumulus circle m a.s.l. 1000 500 5 11 7 earlier phase of metallurgical center of Piliny culture (Forró type hoards) 1500–1350 BC 0 8 1 2 3 100 km Fig. 105. Supra-regional communication network in the Western Carpathians and neighboring areas in phase LB I. pottery styles and cultural circles: a — interregional horizon of the oldest Lusatian culture; b — tumulus- post-otomani style; c — trzciniec-komarov complex; tC — tumulus circle. In the 15th–14th century BC, the northern Carpathian forelands had a supra-regional exchange system that included regional factions of the Trzciniec culture and the Komarov culture. This system’s duration could have been conditioned by the tradition of relations dating back to the period when the Trzciniec culture spread in its classic, early phase. A simi- 38 lar rhythm of variations in pottery forms, observed for the loess zones around Kraków (1), Sandomierz (2) and probably also the San River basin (3), allows one to assume that “Trzciniec” populations developing in these areas were still maintaining contacts. However, the participation of the Trzciniec culture of the eastern Lublin region (4) and the Komarov culture (5) in this connection network is more hypothetical. The southern area of the Western Carpathians was inhabited by groups with the Tumulus-post-Otomani pottery style. The center of this system was identical to the region where the Piliny metallurgical center functioned (6). Based on traditional “cultural contact channels”, Piliny culture societies maintained contacts with other post-Otomani groups – with populations using lat cremation cemeteries on the Tisza River (7) to the east, and with groups originating from the Suciu de Sus culture (8) further away. The Tumulus-post-Otomani style also was adopted by societies residing in the Carpathian valleys, which had previously been under the inluence of the spiral-knobbed pottery circle. The new trend is particularly seen in the Spiš region (9) and in Chełmiec phase assemblages in the Dunajec River valley (10). The cemetery in Chełmiec and grave in Łoniowa conirm the thesis that groups participating in supra-regional exchange also adopted other elements of “foreign” tradition together with patterns of vessel forms and decoration – namely in this case, the cremation burial ritual. The second example is particularly meaningful. A vessel found in the Łoniowa grave represents the stylistics of the Trzciniec culture’s younger phases. Together with a small collection of pottery from other sites situated on the Dunajec River, the persistence of connections between local societies and Trzciniec culture populations from the loess area around Kraków is conirmed. On the other hand, the existence of these contacts is conirmed by pottery referring to the Tumulus-post-Otomani style (e.g. vessels decorated with vertical elements) found at sites from the post-classic phase of the Trzciniec culture around Kraków. Thus, the interpretation 3 of the grave discovered in Łoniowa might be the following: people arriving from the loess area around Kraków and joining societies on the Dunajec River preserved a pottery decoration style typical of their original cultural background, but were subjected to the local burial ritual of “southern” origin dominating there. The Tumulus-post-Otomani style is manifested to a much lesser degree in the Jasło group area (11). However, both the results of pottery analysis and radiocarbon dating permit one to assume the continuation of a society with mixed post-Otomani-Trzciniec culture even into the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. Bronze artifacts from the Koszider horizon (the hoard from Jaworze Dolne) and then early products from the Piliny metallurgy center (the hoard from Stefkowa) were also arriving to this milieu. The presence of “southern” decorative motifs can also be recorded in Trzciniec pottery from the San River basin. However, the question of its interpretation as resulting either from contacts with the Jasło group or from relations with the Trzciniec culture in western Lesser Poland (Małopolska) still remains open. A third system of supra-regional exchange developed at the beginning of 14th century BC in the areas adjoining the Moravian Gate, which were unoccupied by younger phases of the Tumulus culture circle settlements (the Middle Danubian Tumulus culture and the pre-Lusatian culture). This system is represented by assemblages of the earliest, interregional phase of the Lusatian culture from Upper Silesia and eastern part of Lower Silesia (12) and the Váh valley (13), as well as by inds from the so-called pre-Lusatian horizon in Moravia (14). Local groups from the western Slovakia and Moravia regions maintained contacts with Western Carpathian societies that manufactured Tumulus-postOtomani style pottery. It is possible that populations inhabiting settlements in the Liptów area, dated to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, such as Liptovská Teplá and Liptovský Michal (15), were a link in these contacts. 380 After about 1350 BC, distinct changes occurred in the above described Western Carpathian system of supra-regional connections. There were several reasons for these changes (ig. 106): (i) development of a local metallurgical center east of the Tisza River (Uriu-Ópályi type hoards); (ii) the rise of a new culture in the Dniester River basin and Transylvania, genetically related to the northern Pontic area (the Noua culture); and (iii) the territorial development of early Lusatian culture (with knobbed style pottery) in the Oder River basin and its expansion into western Lesser Poland. An analysis of the impact of the above mentioned phenomena (seemingly unrelated) on the collapse of the connection system linking societies of the southern, peri-Carpathian Trzciniec culture area may be of particular interest. An entirely hypothetical, but perhaps major reason for this process may have been the gradual weakening of links between particular regions of the Trzciniec culture progressing over time. Remembering what was said several times so far about the mechanism for establishing and maintaining intercultural contacts, one would expect regional societies to prefer those directions of relations that could stimulate prestige competition in their area. Meanwhile, it is conceivable that traditional connections may no longer have continued to provide such opportunities for societies at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age – especially for those groups at the periphery of the Trzciniec-Komarov cultural circle. Assuming that the appearance of the Trzciniec culture in southern Poland resulted from an expansion of lowland population groups, the relative homogeneity of this culture in its classic (early) period can be considered an expression of the need to maintain traditional bonds by the irst generations residing in a foreign milieu. After 300–400 years, these bonds had to make way for new interactions, created independently by particular regional (or even local?) groups. Using the old “contact channels” of the Mierzanowice culture societies could have been part of this process, as discussed above. 381 8 7 1 ? 3 6 10 2 9 ? Black Sea bronze objects bronze objects of East Alpine metallurgical center m a.s.l. 1000 500 y ounger phase of metallurgical center of Piliny culture (Rimavská Sobota type hoards) 4 1350–1200 BC 0 100 km 5 metallurgical center of Uriu-Ópályi type hoards 1 2 3 4 5 6 Fig. 10. Supra-regional communication network in the Western Carpathians and neighboring areas in phase LB II. pottery styles and cultural circles: a — early phase of the Silesia group of the Lusatian culture; b — early phase of the Slovakia group of the Lusatian culture; c — tumulus-post-otomani style; d — Trzciniec­Komarov complex; e — inal phase of the Middle Danubian Urnield; f — Noua culture. The disintegration of the communication system within the TrzciniecKomarov circle societies in the northern Carpathian forelands was sealed by events that took place at the edges of this region in the 14th and 13th centuries. First, the Silesian variant of the Lusatian culture appeared in the loess area 382 around Kraków (1). This can only be explained by the way accepted thus far in the literature – that is, resulting from the migration of larger groups of people (white arrow in the scheme). The following elements are consistent with the conditions regarded as indispensable in assuming migration here (see chapters 1.3, 3.2): (i) the home region of expansion, probably the Głubczyce Plateau (Wyżyna Głubczycka), is separated from the loess zone around Kraków by a large, unsettled zone; (ii) the Kraków region’s Lusatian culture exhibits close links with the Silesia area, not only in terms of pottery styles, but also in bronze objects and burial ritual; (iii) the local tradition of the Trzciniec culture, even though it functioned for some time concurrently with Lusatian culture settlements, did not signiicantly inluence the character of the Kraków subgroup emerging as a result of the discussed phenomenon. The second, probably slightly earlier event occurred on the upper Dniester River. Sites related to the Noua culture (2) appeared in most of the heretofore Komarov culture territories. As with the case of the Lusatian culture in western Lesser Poland, the best interpretation of cultural change here is also the hitherto assumed migration of groups representing the Noua culture. The Noua culture’s appearance on the Dniester River is linked with the spread of bronze objects related to the north Pontic metallurgical tradition. Their distribution within the supra-regional exchange systems may have inluenced the establishment of alliances between newcomers and neighboring societies. As a result, individuals representing the Noua culture moved to neighboring regional groups and their cultural patterns were spread. These inluences were clearly seen in the continuing tradition of the Trzciniec-Komarov complex in southern Volinia (3). However, another direction of the Dniester River Noua culture connections is especially signiicant. Metal and pottery artifacts of this group are also found in the upper Tisza River basin – in assemblages assigned to the BerkeszDemecser (4) and Lăpuş I (5) groups. One must consider the possibility that inluences of the central Transylvanian Noua culture also played 383 a signiicant role in this region. However, traces of the upper Tisza River basin post-Otomani societies’ inluences found outside the Carpathian Arch denote a connection in the Dniester River direction. Namely, bronze objects typical of the Uriu-Ópályi series hoards are found in the Dniester basin; also, a single grave assemblage (Kavsko) is known from this area that should be linked with the Lăpuş or Čomonin group. Therefore, one may assume that the areas on the upper Tisza River and western Podolia belonged to one supra-regional system of marriage exchange and luxury goods circulation after 1350 BC. It is worth emphasizing that the directions of links established during this period were to be relected in the further cultural development of the areas in question. The transmission system of objects and ideology presented above also included some of the late Trzciniec culture regional groups, especially those inhabiting the middle San River basin (6). After the Trzciniec culture in western Lesser Poland was replaced by the Lusatian culture, and the Komarov culture by the Noua culture, the connections between these societies based on traditional “cultural contacts channels” had to be limited to: the Trzciniec groups from the Sandomierz loess area, the region where the San River lows into the Vistula (7), the eastern Lublin region (8), and perhaps also to the Komarov culture epigones of southern Volinia. All of these directions were also to be manifested in a later developmental period of the middle San River population. Probably in the 14th or 13th century BC, representatives of the late Trzciniec culture from the San River area encountered the Noua culture population inhabiting the areas east of the Przemyśl Gate. Bronze objects related to a broadly understood north Pontic or even lower Volga metallurgical tradition (Sosnovaia Maza type daggers) arriving through these contacts to the San River basin, could have started a spiral of prestige rivalry and ranking within the societies inhabiting this region. The need of aspiring elites to establish supraregional alliances resulted in the start of marriage exchanges with populations on the Dniester River. This exchange is relected by the presence of 384 Noua culture pottery at middle San River sites (Grodzisko Dolne, Lipnik, Paluchy). This process coincided with the beginning of a new metallurgical center development, represented by artifacts from Uriu-Ópályi type hoards, and the ensuing system of Transcarpathian connections between the upper Tisza River basin and western Podolia. Objects originating from the metallurgical center on the Tisza River were reaching the Jasło group through the Carpathian passes (battle-axe from Strachocina is the most spectacular example), and they were arriving along the middle San River through redistribution. Here these objects (especially massive decorated rings with narrowing ends) achieved the signiicance of exotic symbols of prestige and authority, and as such were deposited in graves. Thus, the will of individuals competing for prestige to conirm and strengthen their status could be why the irst cemeteries were founded, which later transformed into the large, egalitarian cemeteries of the Tarnobrzeg group (see above, chapter 6.2). Between about 1350 and 1200 BC, the tradition of Tumulus-postOtomani style in pottery was still being continued in the Western Carpathians. Here, supra-regional relationships especially connected the Spiš area (9) and the Dunajec valley (10) groups. However, changes in neighboring areas, especially the Lusatian culture development, were not without impact on the cultural picture of these territories. The replacement of the Trzciniec culture in the western Lesser Poland loess area by the Lusatian culture’s Silesia group did not interrupt contacts between the populations inhabiting that region and groups from the Dunajec valley. This is evidenced by the presence of Silesian style knobbed pottery at the Zawada Lanckorońska and Marcinkowice settlements. Some cultural patterns generated by the Silesian group milieu could have been adopted in the Carpathian zone and passed further on within the exchange system functioning there. This possibility is indicated by knobbed pottery found at a settlement in Spišski Štvrtok. 385 6.5. the period of fluted pottery culture development in the danube River basin and its impact on Western Carpathian and neighboring societies Initial phase of luted pottery culture development The middle part of the period described here as the Late Bronze Age was dominated in the Carpathian zone by the development of the luted pottery culture. The irst stage of development may already be placed at the end of phase LB II or in the chronological range referred to as the BrD/ HaA1 transition. This would probably correspond to a relatively short time period on the absolute time scale, situated approximately in the irst half of the 12th century BC. The changes occurring during this period did not seriously disturb the systems of supra-regional exchange hitherto functioning around the Western Carpathians (ig. 107). On the middle Tisza River, the Piliny culture metallurgical center and the center manufacturing metals deposited in Uriu-Ópályi series hoards continued their development. However, the inlow of bronze objects from the eastern Alpine center, connected with the then lourishing societies of the Middle Danubian Urnields (1), could have been more important. There are reasons to suppose that Noua culture settlements (2) still existed at the beginning of 12th century, and that the “Black Sea” bronze objects related to it were still being distributed. On the other hand, a new metallurgical center was created north of the Carpathians. In the middle San River basin (3), a local style of bronze manufacture developed (Sieniawa type ornaments), probably based on imported raw materials. The 38 ? bronze objects of Sieniawa type 3 7 6 8 2 Black Sea bronze objects 5 1 9 y ounger phase of metallurgical center of Piliny culture (Rimavská Sobota type hoards) bronze objects of East Alpine metallurgical center 1 m a.s.l. 1000 500 4 1200–1150 BC 0 100 km metallurgical center of Uriu-Ópályi type hoards 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Fig. 10. Supra-regional communication network in the Western Carpathians and neighboring areas in the inal segment of phase LB II (Brd/haA1). pottery styles and cultural circles: a — early phase of the Silesia group of the Lusatian culture; b — early phase of the Slovakia group of the Lusatian culture; c –tumulus-post-otomani style; d — trzciniec-komarov complex; e — velatice-Čaka style; f — Noua culture; g — Late Piliny­ Kyjatice style; h — Belegiš II style. products of this center, inspired by Tisza River metallurgy, were spreading to neighboring post-Trzciniec groups and to the south of the Carpathians, along exchange routes already established in previous periods. 38 At the beginning of its existence, Belegiš II style pottery, formed at the transition of the 13th and 12th centuries BC, was reaching the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain. Already in earlier periods, this was a region penetrated by the cultural traditions of the post-Otomani style, those of the lower Danube River basin and southern edges of the Carpathian Basin (Slavonia, Banat). The custom of decorating vessels with lutes may have difused among the middle Tisza River groups through old connection routes, especially in the Piliny culture (5). A new pottery style, designated here as Late Piliny-Kyjatice, resulted from the integration of traditional Tumulus-post-Otomani stylistic elements with new motifs. In the 12th century, this style was adopted by the mountain societies of Spiš (6), Šariš and the Dunajec River valley (phase Marcinkowice 4) (7), which had constituted one supra-regional system of exchange with the Piliny culture still earlier. These connections could have been stimulated by the inlow of bronze products from the Piliny metallurgical center (a hoard with bronze objects from a settlement in Marcinkowice is from this period). Probably in the same period, societies inhabiting the mountain valleys of the northern region of the Western Carpathians strengthened their connections with populations of the Slovakian Lusatian culture group from the Váh River (8), evidenced by the presence of this culture group’s pottery at sites in the Dunajec River valley, as well as the presence of “Lusatian” cemeteries in the Spiš region (e.g. Švábovcé). Another region in the Carpathian area where local groups manufactured both Late Piliny-Kyjatice style pottery and vessels typical of the Slovakian Lusatian culture group was the Zvolen Basin and neighboring valleys (9). During the discussed time period, links also existed between luted pottery groups of Banat and Slavonia and the Middle Danubian Urnield area, although they are signaled only by isolated artifacts (e.g. a Belegiš II urn from the cemetery in Gemeinlebarn, Lower Austria). Over the course of the 12th century BC, cultural traditions represented by these taxonomic units are supposed to have spread very dynamically over nearly the entire Carpathian Basin and some neighboring areas. A detailed description of this phenomenon is provided in chapter 3 of this book. 388 digression: the diffusion of luted pottery trends and the “cultural package” model The supposition of Gábor Szabó (1996) that luted pottery cultures difused because of “homogenizing tendencies in pottery” – i.e. stylistic transformations unrelated to signiicant migrations and cultural changes – is close to the understanding adopted by the “cultural package” model mentioned in the irst chapter. Later, I will try to answer the question of whether this approach can explain the mechanism forming the koine of luted pottery. At irst, it is necessary to identify and track down the genesis of this stylistic element, which could have spread together with the institutions and customs transferred in a “cultural package”. The above problem is not easy to solve, as lute decoration within various ornamental schemes and motifs was very widely spread. In the Danube River basin, this ornament is encountered from the Early Bronze Age onward and its eneolithic genesis cannot be excluded here, as vessels decorated with vertical grooves were also characteristic of the Baden culture (e.g. Nĕmejcová-Pavúková 1981 – see for numerous examples). However, during the lourishing period of Middle Bronze Age Tell cultures, certain decorative motifs developed in a much narrower, although still supracultural range. These included decoration with wide lutes arranged like a “turban” and horizontally (both on vessel bodies and necks). This manner of decorating was limited then to vessels from classic Otomani culture assemblages (including the Western Carpathian areas of its inluence) and the Mureş culture; it was also encountered in Wietenberg culture pottery. Identifying the origin of oblique and horizontal lute decorations in the Carpathian Basin is impossible. The relation of this ornamentation with the styles of metal vessels from the eastern Mediterranean may only be proposed as one possibility. Thus far, attention has been drawn to such links, especially in the context of spiral-knobbed pottery (e.g. Bouzek 38 1985, 49–50, 67–68). However, a striking resemblance can also be noticed between a golden conic cup decorated with horizontal lutes from Grave Circles A in Mycenae (e.g. Hood 1993, ig. 148:Z) and similar clay vessels from Marusza culture assemblages on the lower Tisza River. The decorative motifs characterized above practically vanished in the period of Tumulus culture domination in the Carpathian Basin. Isolated vessels decorated with oblique lutes can be found in Piliny culture materials; also, this motif survived longer east of the Tisza River – in areas little inluenced by Tumulus culture expansion. After about 300–400 years, at the transition of the 13th and 12th centuries (end of period BrD and beginning of phase HaA1), the decorative style in question revived. Vessels corresponding in form and decoration to the classic phase of the Otomani culture and Marusza culture, including the conic cups mentioned above (see ig. 29), appeared at two extremities of the Carpathian Basin – in the Middle–Danubian Urnield culture and in the Belegiš II culture. In these groups, wide horizontal or “turban-like” lutes also decorated other types of pottery – bowls with inverted rim and various types of amphoras and vases, while the Middle Danubian Urnield populations creatively applied the lute technique to adorn vessel rims, introducing the custom of decorating them with shallow grooves or faceting. The described phenomenon provokes relection about whether a connection existed between the luted pottery of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Of crucial signiicance in conirming this assumption is to ind a connecting link, which would have preserved the custom in question during the period of changes induced by the Tumulus expansion. It is now possible to do so. Local groups on the lower Mureş River may be the required cultural milieu. As shown by Tudor Soroceanu’s analysis (1991) of the Pecica tell inds, the Mureş culture pottery tradition, one of the Middle Bronze Age’s luted pottery centers, survived here down into the Late Bronze Age until the period of the Belegiš II culture formation. However, how this decoration type was further difused remains to be clariied. In most general terms, 30 luted decoration appeared at a similar time in Vojvodina and Slavonia (this phenomenon constitutes a turning point between the Belegiš I and Belegiš II cultures), as well as in the continuing Tumulus traditions of the Middle Danubian Urnield culture – from a cemetery in Csorva on the Great Hungarian Plain to the Velatice culture of Moravia and Lower Austria. The “cultural package” concept can be useful in interpreting this particular moment. It should be noted that the early spread of the phenomenon in question (decoration with oblique and horizontal lutes) complies with the criteria assumed for this model by Janusz Czebreszuk (1998; 2001): (i) the process concerns only one element of material culture and (probably) associated meanings; (ii) it does not disrupt the existing cultural system; (iii) it occurs through previously existing cultural contacts (here, within societies with a cultural model formed when the Tumulus circle spread); (iv) this element is creatively modiied within individual cultural environments. Thus, the package, including, among other things, a particular type of pottery decoration, was spreading and probably transmitted unspeciied elements of spiritual culture, also possibly representative of the “preTumulus” tradition. This custom must have been suiciently attractive to quickly dominate some societies that nevertheless kept a number of culture elements typical of the previous period. A separate problem is the subsequent phase of luted pottery difusion that probably took place in the course of the 12th century BC. In a relatively short time, pottery representing two previously developed stylistic trends – referred to here as Velatice-Čaka and Belegiš II – appeared in areas located up to several hundred kilometers from the region of their origin. This phenomenon was generally accompanied by an interruption of the preceding cultural tradition. In some regions, such as Moldavia, the appearance of a new pottery style was accompanied by a modiication in the burial ritual. In the Balkan area, data exists allowing a connection to be made between the spread of luted pottery and political events (destruction of older settlements). Finally, in the Middle Danubian Urnield area, 31 popularization of the Velatice-Čaka pottery style formed in this area coincides with a serious settlement crisis – some previously settled areas were deserted and most of the cemeteries ceased to function. The outline of the discussed phenomenon indicates that it took a completely diferent course compared to the slightly earlier process described above by the “cultural package” model. In my opinion, the speciic cultural transformations horizon in the Carpathian Basin of the 12th century BC can by explained by the mass movements of human groups – migration, once started, similar to a “billard ball efect”, disturbed the previous balance based on the system of connections between regional societies. The “push” factor for the migration process could have been related to the environmental crisis caused by catastrophic climatic cooling and increased precipitation after the volcanic eruption in the mid-12th century (see chapter 1.3). the impact of cultural transformations in LB III phase on supraregional connections systems in the Western Carpathian area Discussing the signiicance of the dynamic cultural transformations taking place on the middle and lower Danube River for the Western Carpathian cultural interaction system can start from the least impacted zone, or the area where this phenomenon is even barely noticeable (ig. 108). During phase LB III (around 1150–1050 BC), societies inhabiting the mountain valleys of the far Western Carpathians still constituted a stable connection system, maintaining contacts both with the Piliny culture, open to the Danubian area (1), as well as with the Lusatian culture of western Lesser Poland (Małopolska) (2) (via populations from the Dunajec River valley) and north-west Slovakia (3) (via populations from Spiš and the Zwoleń Basin). The material culture of this region is characterized by a speciic syncretism, combining the traditions of groups neighboring 32 16 ? 14 15 2 bronze objects of Sieniawa type 13 12 ? 11 ? 3 1 9 ? 4 7 5 8 6 10 metallurgical culture of Cincu-Suseni-Kurd type of hoards m a.s.l. 1000 500 1150–1050 BC 0 100 km 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Fig. 108. Supra-regional communication network in the Western Carpathians and neighboring areas in phase LB III. pottery styles and cultural circles: a — Lusatian culture from the younger Bronze Age (the Lusatian grooved pottery style); b — Slovakia group of the Lusatian culture; c — tumulus-post-otomani style; d — post-trzciniec traditions; e — velatice-Čaka style; f — Late piliny-kyjatice style; g — Belegiš II style; h — Gáva I style. the Carpathians with regard to vessel forms and ornamentation. In some regions (the Hornád River valley), a settlement model began to develop in this period, which became speciic for the Carpathian area in later periods and was based on fortiied settlements situated at valley edges. 33 The settlement crisis afecting the Middle Danubian Urnield culture in the mid-12th century had an important impact on the formation of the border area between this group and the Lusatian culture. The decrease of the Velatice culture’s settlement range (4) and the quasi-total desertion of the Danubian Lowland in southwestern Slovakia (5) was probably related to the appearance of new settlement enclaves of populations manufacturing Velatice-Čaka style pottery in the Danube loop region (6) (the Vál group) in southern Transdanubia and northern Croatia (the Zagreb group). The deserted territories were penetrated by Lusatian culture settlement that in some areas (e.g. on the Nitra River) came into contact with the Middle Danubian Urnield populations (7). The syncretic cultural environment emerging in these areas could have intensiied the exchange of cultural patterns between societies on the Danube River and populations represented by Lusatian culture groups residing further north. For the processes being investigated here, the most important transformations took place in the middle and upper Tisza River basin. The presence of groups migrating from the south and west is manifested on the middle Tisza River as a brief horizon of settlement with pottery combining Velatice-Čaka and Belgiš II leading forms (8). Artifacts representative of this cultural milieu also appear at some Piliny culture sites (1), sometimes marking the youngest phase of their existence, as in the case of a cemetery at Gelej. At the same time, cremation cemeteries from the northeastern Great Hungarian Plain (the Berkesz-Demecser group) ceased to function, while the local luted pottery style (the Gáva I style) developed on the upper Tisza River (10), also spreading to the middle part of this river during phase LB III. These transformations also coincided with the end of the functioning of the local metallurgical center on the Tisza River (hoards of the Uriu-Ópályi series), as well as with the popularization of products related to the center operating at this time in the Transdanubia region and of bronzes coming from the north-Alpine area (hoards of the Cincu-Suseni-Kurd series). 34 The cultural processes under discussion, which can be regarded as traces of human group movements, also left their mark in Polish territories. Populations manufacturing both Belegiš II style pottery and vessels resembling the Late Piliny-Kyjatice style settled in the Jasło-Krosno Basin (Kotlina Jasielsko-Krośnieńska) area (11), accessible to the Tisza basin. These groups probably coexisted with populations of a mixed, post-Otomani-Trzciniec culture that had previously inhabited these territories. On the other hand, in the neighboring upper San River valley, societies with luted pottery had direct contact with post-Trzciniec populations, having a culture resembling the Tarnobrzeg group from the middle part of this river (ig. 51). The process initiated in the Tisza River basin did not stop in the Carpathian area. A population enclave with pottery combining the Belegiš II and Velatice-Čaka styles, in sets identical to those known from the middle Tisza inds, also developed in western Lesser Poland (2). As indicated by most of the evidence, the newcomers were a minority here with respect to local Lusatian culture societies. Therefore, the cultural distinctiveness of this population completely disappeared after a few generations. However, two phenomena can be related to its presence in western Lesser Poland. The irst is the spread of ”Tisza” culture people – living within Lusatian culture societies – mostly through marriage exchange systems functioning between particular groups of this cultural area. This could explain the isolated assemblages with Belgiš II pottery known from the lowland region in Zschornewitz and Zajezierze. The second consequence could be the establishment of contacts between western Lesser Poland populations and the Tisza River basin (the newcomers’ home area), resulting in the inlow of LB III bronze objects, relatively numerous in that area. However, it cannot be excluded that the latter phenomenon could rather have resulted from the redistribution of bronze objects arriving in the societies residing in the Western Carpathian mountain valleys, with whom – as has already been mentioned – the Lusatian groups of western Lesser Poland were traditionally linked. 35 As mentioned above, the spread of luted pottery groups put an end to the development of societies using cremation cemeteries in the northern outskirts of the Great Hungarian Plain (9). Some data permit one to suppose that representatives of these populations moved to the north of the Carpathians at that time. Using exchange routes established in previous periods, these groups reached the areas of early Tarnobrzeg group settlement (12). Their integration with local societies, as well as the connections of the middle San populations with the Jasło-Krosno Basin (11) (already inhabited in this period by Tisza River incomers), resulted in the appearance of LB III bronze objects in the Tarnobrzeg group assemblages, as well as of various pottery forms of Transcarpathian origin, and inluenced local pottery manufacturing styles. But most important was the widespread adoption of burying all deceased members of local groups in common egalitarian cremation cemeteries. Individuals controlling the redistribution of bronze imports and who regarded cemeteries as family necropolises up to this time might have opposed the new custom. As a result, part of the population might have emphasized its distinctiveness by maintaining the custom of inhumation and rich equipment of burials. In this new situation, elites from the San River basin were also seeking new, supra-regional alliances, which might have resulted in the occurrence of skeleton burials in southern Volinia (13), closely resembling the early Tarnobrzeg group assemblages. Societies from the middle San also maintained permanent contacts with the post-Trzciniec populations of the Sandomierz loess zone, the San River mouth region (14) and eastern Lublin area (15). These contacts resulted in the appearance of single vessels imitating Tisza region pottery in these territories. At the same time, intensive contacts of these groups with the Lusatian culture of western Lesser Poland, and in the case of the Lublin region also possibly migrations from central Poland and Masovia (Mazowsze) (16), resulted in the popularization of the urn burial ritual also in this area, and adoption of ornamental motifs and forms typical of Lusatian luted pottery from the younger Bronze Age. 3 development of the connection system in the Western Carpathian region during the period when the last bronze metallurgy center on the tisza River was functioning In phase LB IV, which corresponds to North Alpine phase HaB1 (ca. 1050–950 BC), the Tisza River region saw a renewed “climax” of local bronze metallurgy (Hajdúböszörmény hoards). A younger variant of luted pottery (called Gáva II in this book) was then prevalent in this territory, as well as in the adjoining Transylvania region and outside the Carpathian Arch. From its core region, which probably coincided with the range of the earlier Gáva I style, the new variant spread through old exchange routes (ig.109). From the standpoint of the problems discussed in this work, of particular signiicance is the appearance of this pottery type in western Podolia (2), an area already connected with the Tisza basin in the 14th century BC (since the Noua culture development). Cultural patterns associated with this tradition (vessels ornamented with lutes) were difusing from there to Tarnobrzeg group societies in the San basin (3). Gáva II style inluences were also spreading to the west, reaching the Middle Danubian Urnield area (4). These contacts were mutual, as at the same time period pottery typical of the Moravian Podoli culture or of the Vál group from northern Transdanubia can be found at sites on the middle Tisza (1) and Transylvania (5). One can therefore assume that in the mid-11th century BC, a system of inter-social relations formed along parallel routes linking the most dynamically developing cultural centers in the northern Carpathian Basin. Doubtless, this system also was related to the redistribution of bronze products from the Tisza metallurgical center. Objects from the Tisza center were inding their way to, among others, western Lusatian culture groups via contact routes through the Moravian Gate formed at the end of the previous period (ig.74). Inter-group contacts, stimulated by the low of bronze objects, might also have resulted in 3 6 13 6 3 10 12 8 11 2 4 9 4 4 m a.s.l. 1000 500 7 1 metallurgical center of Hajdúböszörmény type of hoards 1050–950 BC 0 100 km 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Fig. 10. Supra-regional communication network in the Western Carpathians and neighboring areas in phase LB III. pottery styles and cultural circles: a — Lusatian culture from the younger Bronze Age (the Lusatian grooved pottery style); b — Slovakia group of the Lusatian culture; c — tumulus-postotomani style; d — post-trzciniec traditions; e — Middle Danubian Urnield in the period of the Velatice­Podoli transitional phase; f — Late piliny-kyjatice style; g — local trend of luted pottery from the eastern Polish Carpathians; h — Gáva II style. 38 attempts to build supra-regional exchange systems and in marriage migrations, the efects of which would be the assemblages with Middle Danubian Urnield pottery in the Kietrz cemetery and in other sites from the Silesia area (6). Societies inhabiting the piedmont areas on the right bank of the middle Tisza, representing the Kyjatice culture in the archeological record classiication scheme, also participated in the system of connections described above (7). Through the intermediary of groups from the mountain region, especially from the Zvolen Basin (9) and Spiš (8), Kyjatice culture populations were also adopting some stylistic patterns and traditions developed in the Lusatian culture area. The previously mentioned societies residing in Western Carpathian mountain valleys still remained within the system of mutual connections. New cultural patterns, relected in the archeological record as new trends in pottery styles, penetrated these groups, which were then adopted to varying degrees. Thus, in the Dunajec river valley (10) (Stary Sącz phase) vessels appeared that were linked both to Lusatian pottery of the Kietrz IV phase and with products typical of the Kyjatice culture or Gáva II style. A combination of the same traditions is seen in materials from Spiš (8) and from a settlement center on the Torisa River beginning to function (e.g. settlement at Ostrovany) (11), though in the latter two cases patterns adopted from the neighboring communities with Gáva II and Kyjatice culture group pottery predominate. It is worth emphasizing the stability of the system of connections between the groups residing in the western Carpathian mountain valleys. This system, already established at the transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Ages, survived the dynamic cultural transformations taking place in adjoining territories in the 12th century BC and continued on to the beginning of the Early Iron Age. Contrary to previous periods, societies of the Krosno-Jasło Basin (12) and upper San River valley further to the east found themselves at the margin of this system of connections. The isolation of these regions 3 might have already begun during the migration period of the 12th century, when these territories were settled by “Tisza” people unconnected with the earlier Otomani and Trzciniec cultural traditions. In the time period under discussion, with the Jasło-Krosno Basin represented especially by a pottery inventory from a settlement in Nienaszów, it is diicult to indicate clear relations to the Late Piliny-Kyjatice and Gáva II pottery styles that predominated south of the Carpathians. These relations are more distinct for Tarnobrzeg group sites on the upper San River (3). Here however, the presence of “Transcarpathian” elements may have resulted from their transmission by upper Dniester River populations (2). The almost complete lack of metal artifacts, which could have been linked to a center manufacturing Hajdúböszörmény type bronzes (ig. 74), also indicates that the connections between the San River basin and the Tisza River zone weakened in phase LB IV. The southern zone of the Tarnobrzeg group located on the middle San River was already separated at that time from Transcarpathian groups and from other post-Trzciniec cultural phenomena. A local pottery style developed here in the 11th century, with, among other things, vessels decorated with lutes, also present in inds from the Jasło-Krosno Basin. It may be that these two regions started to develop closer relations in the 11th–10th century BC, also relected in the trends observed in subsequent periods. At the same time, connections weakened between the middle San River populations and groups inhabiting the region where the San lows into the Vistula River (13). In the latter area, a regional pottery manufacturing style (the so-called “San style”), inspired by stylistics characteristic of the Younger Bronze Age Lusatian culture groups (Czopek 2001; Ormian 2005), began to develop during the time period under discussion. 400 6.6. Supra-regional links in the Western Carpathians and adjoining regions at the end of the Late Bronze Age The development of cultural relationships in the Western Carpathian territory at a time corresponding to the younger segment of period HaB (950– 800 BC) was stimulated by two processes. The irst took place inside the Carpathian Arch, in the middle Tisza basin. During this time, settlements with Gáva II pottery died out and the Tisza River bronze manufacture center also ceased to develop. At the transition from period HaB to HaC, this area was iniltrated by groups representing a cultural tradition developed in the steppes of eastern Europe. Their presence, as well as the collapse of the parallel relationships network functioning thus far in the northern Carpathian Basin, led to transformations within the Middle Danubian Urnield area and the “post-Gáva” societies occupying the foothill regions of eastern Slovakia and Transcarpathian Ukraine. In the Carpathian zone isolated from previous cultural centers, the construction of fortiied settlements intensiied and, above all, the regionalization of cultural traditions deepened. A second process of great signiicance to the issues discussed here was the development of a speciic branch of the Lusatian culture in the upper Vistula River basin, designated as the Upper Silesia-Lesser Poland group (grupa górnośląsko-małopolska). Communities represented by this taxonomic unit colonized the previously unpopulated area of the mountain foothills, thus exerting pressure on Dunajec valley populations. Patterns and ideas hidden in the material culture of the Upper Silesia-Lesser Poland group penetrated eastward, signiicantly afecting the development of the Tarnobrzeg group, and also indirectly inluencing related local groups from the Jasło-Krosno and upper San basins. 401 The system of exchanging ideas that functioned in the Western Carpathian valleys since the beginning of the Late Bronze Age transmitted new patterns, which uniied the cultural picture of this area. Thus biconical vessels or cups with a concave bottom – typical of the Upper SilesiaLesser Poland group – can be found at sites on the Torysa River or the Ondava Upland, while the richly decorated pottery – characteristic of the “post- Gáva” societies from the Carpathian Basin peripheries – is recorded among materials from sites in the Dunajec River valley. The stability of this system is demonstrated by the fact that in the course of the Early Iron Age, when the Tisza basin was subject to steppe inluences, stylistic elements of pottery manufacture relecting that eastern trend together with metal artifacts also reached populations inhabiting the Spiš and Sącz Basin (Kotlina Sądecka) regions via the “traditional cultural contact channels”. 402 6.7. Final conclusions The data and information presented in the previous chapters allow one to conclude that the Western Carpathian region did not constitute a barrier dividing two “worlds” or cultural traditions in the Late Bronze Age. On the contrary, the social processes within the populations inhabiting mountain valleys were a main factor stimulating the development of long-distance, Transcarpathian exchange networks. The partners in such contacts were small, local communities rather than large, centralized social organizations. Under conditions of long-lasting settlement stability, such communities could create exchange networks with neighboring groups. Over time, these contacts also enabled exotic objects from distant regions to reach them. In a new environment, these objects were becoming symbols of prestige and power, thus entering the social life of local communities. The aspirations of individuals participating in prestige rivalry increased the demand for exotic luxuries. This led to attempts to acquire such goods by long-distance expeditions or by establishing alliances between lineages from distant regions. In this way, “channels of contacts” developed. Movements of people followed these routes, either as the result of marriage exchange or of smaller or larger migrations. Migrants transferred their speciic cultural patterns, which next enriched the local tradition in the regions of their destination and were then further disseminated, appearing sometimes in cultural contexts distant by tens or hundreds of kilometers from where they originally developed. This process took place under conditions of uninterrupted development of settlement structures lasting for many centuries. In the time period analyzed here, only once was the system of inter-group relations disturbed. This occurred during a period of fundamental cultural transformations in the Carpathian Basin in the mid-12th 403 century BC, and was probably connected with mass migrations. In essence however, the Western Carpathian Late Bronze Age is a period when one system of inter-group connections functioned, gradually evolving through the inluences of cultural processes from various parts of that system. 404 Appendices Appendix 1 Selected LB I–LB II sites in the Tisza River basin (ig. 28): Battonya (Kállay 1983), Igrici (Kalicz 1958), Mezőcsát (Hänsel, Kalicz 1986), Tiszafüred (Kovács 1975), Nagybátony (Patay 1954), Safárikovo (Furmánek 1977), Zagyvapálfalva (Kemenczei 1967), Bukkaranyos (Kemenczei 1984), Vizlás (Kemenczei 1984), Včelince (Furmánek, Marková 2001), Alsóberecki (Kemenczei 1981), Demecser (Kovács 1967), Nyíregyháza (Kovács 1967), Zemplinske Kopčany (Demeterová 1984), Lastovce (Demeterová 1984), Vajdácska (Kemenczei 1984), Hajdúbagos (Kovács 1970), Rákóczifalva (Kovács 1981), Igriţa (Emödi 1980), Biharea (Dumitraşcu 1980), Pişcolt (Németi 1978; Kacsó 1999), Crasna (Bejinariu, Lakó 2000), Acâş (Kacsó 1999), Ciceu (Bejinariu 2001), Nicula (Borofka 1994), Cluj-Becaş (Gogâltan, Cociş, Paki 1992), Bădeni (Lazarovici, Milea 1976), Pecica (Soroceanu 1991), Păuliş (Pădureanu 1990), Româneşti (Rogozea 1994), Lăpuş (Kacsó 1975; 2001), Libotin (Kacsó 1990a), Culciu Mare (Bader 1978), Oarţa de Jos (Kacsó 2004). Appendix 2 Cups decorated with broad, horizontal lutes or with similar but narrower grooves (compare ig. 29). Specimens decorated with horizontal grooves but not covering the entire vessel surface and specimens preserved partially are also included. List of sites: 1. Battonya (Kállay 1986, ig. 4:6); 2. Čaka (Paulík 1963, ig. 6:6); 3. Cruceni (Radu 1973, plate 2:1); 4. Dedinka (Paulík 1963, plate 2:9); 5. Dubovac (Bukvić 2000, plate 44:6); 6. Iđžos (Bukvić 2000, plate 48:7); 405 7. Ipelský Sokolec (Paulík 1963, ig. 22:62); 8. Ludanice (Paulík 1963, ig. 29:2); 9. Marcelová (Paulík 1963, plate 25:1); 10. Novi Sad (Medović 1989, plate 8:4); 11. Opovo (Bukvić 2000, plate 11:8); 12. Perlez (Medović 1989, plate 7:5); 13. Potporanj (Bukvić 2000, plate 55:2); 14. Susani (Stratan, Vulpe 1977, plate 6:96); 15. Veľká Maňa (Paulík 1963, ig. 39:4). Partially preserved specimen from Vîrtop in Oltenia (Hänsel 1976, plate 38:3) is outside the distribution map. Appendix 3 List of the Middle Danubian Urnields cemeteries taken into consideration in the scheme in ig.30 (in brackets, the number of vessels included (complete or fully reconstructed forms) is given together with references to literature): Velatice culture – Baierdorf (22 – Lochner 1986); Gemeinlebarn (85 – Szombathy 1929); Getzersdorf (43 – Kaus 1971; Mauerer 1971; Groiß 1976); Horn (164 – Lochner 1991a); Lednice (30 – Rzehak 1905); Leobersdorf (9 – Berg 1957); Čaka culture – Čaka (24 – Točík, Paulík 1960; Paulík 1963); Dedinka (17 – Paulík 1984); Kolta (13 – Paulík 1966); Lužany (11 – Paulík 1969); Marcelová (9 – Paulík 1962a); Zurndorf (11 – Helgert 1995). Appendix 4 List of LB III sites in Slavonia and Banat (fig.31): 1. Aljmaš (Forenbaher 1991); 2. Aradac (Bukvić 2000); 3. Bačka-Palanka (Pap 1998); 4. Balatonmagyaród (Horváth 1994; Dular 2002); 5. Banatski Karlovac 40 (Bukvić 2000); 6. Batina (Foltiny 1967; Forenbaher 1991); 7. BeogradKaraburma (Todorović 1977); 8. Beli Monastir (Vinski-Gasparini 1973); 9. Bobda (Gumă 1995); 10. Botoš (Bukvić 2000); 11. Caransebeş (Gumă 1995); 12. Čenta (Bukvić 2000); 13. Cornuţel (Stratan 1964); 14. Dalj (Foltiny 1967; Forenbaher 1991; Šimić 1994); 15. Dubovac (Bukvić 2000); 16. Erdut (Foltiny 1967; Forenbaher 1991); 17. Fizeş (Gumă 1995); 18. Gomolava (Tasić 1988); 19. Iđoš (Bukvić 2000); 20. Ilandža (Bukvić 2000); 21. Jabuka (Bukvić 2000); 22. Jakovo (Tasić 1962); 23. Kalnik (Vrdoljak 1994); 24. Kovačica (Bukvić 2000); 25. Kovin (Bukvić 2000); 26. Križevci (Vrdoljak 1994); 27. Lengyel (Patek 1968; Kőszegi 1988); 28. Magrita (Bukvić 2000); 29. Martinec (Vrdoljak 1994); 30. Moldova Nouă (Gumă 1993); 31. Mužlja (Bukvić 2000); 32. Nemetin (Šimić 1994); 33. Novi Bečej (Bukvić 2000); 34. Novigrad Podravski (Vinski-Gasparini 1973); 35. Novigrad na Savi (Vinski-Gasparini 1973; 1983); 36. Opovo (Bukvić 2000); 37. Osijek (Forenbaher 1991; Šimić 2001); 38. Pančevo (Bukvić 2000); 39. Pécs (Patek 1968); 40. Pécsvárad (Kőszegi 1988); 41. Perlez (Bukvić 2000); 42. Privlaka (Forenbaher 1991); 43. Regöly (Patek 1968); 44. Samatovci (Šimić 1994); 45. Sarvaš (Forenbaher 1991); 46. Sotin (Foltiny 1967; Forenbaher 1991); 47. Stari Slankamen (Tasić 1962; Trbuhović 1968); 48. Surčin (Foltiny 1967; Vinski-Gasparini 1973); 49. Susani (Stratan, Vulpe 1977); 50. Ticvaniul Mare (Gumă 1993); 51. Timişoara (Gumă 1995); 52. Trpinja (Forenbaher 1991); 53. Vatin (Bukvić 2000); 54. Vinkovci (Forenbaher 1991); 55. Vojlovica (Bukvić 2000); 56. Vörs (Honti 1994); 57. Vršac (Bukvić 2000); 58. Vučedol (Forenbaher 1990); 59. Zagreb-Vrapče (Vinski-Gasparini 1973; 1983); 60. Zrenjanin (Bukvić 2000). 40 Appendix 5 Lists of sites for ig. 32 (on the map in ig. 32 there are shown the sites, from which come vessels types labeled with special signatures and the sites mentioned in the text, too; in the inset are shown other inds from “the older Halstatt period” (A), after O. Leviţki’s [1994] and I. Motzoi-Chcideanu’s [2001] maps): 1. Andrieşeni (Florescu 1959; Hänsel 1976); 2. Bălăbăneşti (Leviţki 1994); 3. Balta Verde (Berciu, Comşa 1956); 4. Boian (Christescu 1925); 5. Brănişte (Leviţki 1994); 6. Bukureşti-Chitila (Boroneanţ 1984); 7. Cândeşti (László 1994; Leviţki 1994); 8. Caradineşti (Dragomir 1960); 9. Corlăteni (Nestor 1952); 10. Costeşti (Leviţki 1994); 11. Coteşti (Leviţki 1994); 12. Cotu Mori-Iaşi (Iconomu, Tanasachi 1992); 13. Cucorăni (Leviţki 1994); 14. Dănceni (Leviţki 1994); 15. Dăneşti (Leviţki 1994); 16. Epureni (László 1994); 17. Ghidighici (Leviţki 1994); 18. Govora (Petre 1980); 19. Grumezoaia (László 1994); 20. Hinova (Gumă 1995); 21. Ilşeni (Foit 1967); 22. Ivancea (Leviţki 1994); 23. Kishynev (Meljukova 1961); 24. Korbovo (Gumă 1995); 25. Lukaševka (Leviţki 1994); 26. Mala Vrbica (Gumă 1995); 27. Mândreşti (Leviţki 1994); 28. Meri (Moscalu 1976); 29. Mihălăşeni (Iconomu, Şovan 1999); 30. Movileni (Leviţki 1994); 31. Negreştii (László 1994; Leviţki 1994); 32. Novaci (Vulpe, VeselovschiBuşilă 1967); 33. Ostrovul Mare (Hänsel 1976); 34. Pâhna (László 1994); 35. Petruha (Leviţki 1994); 36. Petruşeni (Leviţki 1994); 37. Plopşor (Hänsel 1976); 38. Popeşti (Palincaş 2005); 39. Prăjeşti (Hänsel 1976; László 1994; Leviţki 1994); 40. Prundu Măgrilor (Motzoi-Chicideanu 2001); 41. Rîureni (Moscalu 1981); 42. Şimian (Miclea, Florescu 1980); 43. Târpeşti (László 1994); 44. Tîgveni (Vulpe 1977; Moscalu 1981); 45. Trifeşti (László 1994); 46. Trinka (Leviţki 1994); 47. Truseşti (Florescu 1957); 48. Vajuga (Gumă 1995); 48. Valea Lupului (László 1994); 50. Vaslui (László 1994); 51. Văratic (Leviţki 1994); 52. Vîrtop (Hänsel 1976); 53. Zăicana (Leviţki 1994); 54. Zăpodeni (László 1994); 55. Zimnicea (Alexandrescu 1978). 408 Appendix  List of LB III sites on the Tisza River and in western Transylvania (ig. 33): 1. Košice-Barca (Jílková 1961); 2. Mukačevo (Zatlukál, Zatlukál 1937); 3. Viss (Kemenczei 1996); 4. Demecser (Kovács 1967); 5. Taktabáj (Tompa 1937); 6. Muhi (Kemenczei 1965); 7. Emőd (Hellebrandt 1991); 8. Polgár (Szabó 2004a); 9. Igrici (Hellebrandt 1990; Szabó 2004); 10. Gelej (Kemenczei 1975; 1989a); 11. Mezőcsat, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén (Mozsolics 1985); 12. Tiszacsege (Szabó 2004); 13. Jászbéreny (Kemenczei 1966); 14. Tiszabő (Kemenczei 1975); 15. Tiszapüspöki (Szabó 2004); 16. Csongrád (Szabó 2004a); 17. Szentes-Belsöecser (Szabó 1996); 18. Szentes-Negyhegy (Szabó 1996); 19. Kömpöc (Szabó 1996); 20. Pusztamérges (Trogmayer 1963; Szabó 1996); 21. Csorva (Trogmayer 1963); 22. Jánossállás (Szabó 1996); 23. Hódmezővásárhely (Szabó 1996); 24. Deszk (Szabó 1996); 25. Szőreg C (Szabó 1996); 26. Szőreg E (Szabó 1996); 27. Sarkadkeresztur (Jankovits 2004); 28. Mezőkovácshaza (Kemenczei 1984); 29. Battonya (Kállay 1986); 30. Periam (Soroceanu 1991); 31. Pecica (Kemenczei 1991); 32. Arad-Gai (Rusu et al. 1999); 33. Sântana (Rusu et al. 1999); 34. Aiud (Ciugudean 1994); 35. Alba Iulia (Ciugudean 1994); 36. Band (Horedt 1967a); 37. Cugir (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1977; Ciugudean 1994); 38. Deva (Andriţoiu 1983); 39. Moreşti (Horedt 1979); 40. Sângeorgiu de Pădure (Gogâltan 2001); 41. Simeria (Andriţoiu 1983); 42. Târgu Mureş (Gogâltan 2001); 43. Uioara de Jos (Ciugudean 1994); 44. Voivodeni (Horedt 1981). 40 Appendix  List of sites with Gáva I pottery (ig. 35): 1. Alsóberecki (Kemenczei 1984); 2. Barca (Jílková 1961); 3. Berveni (Németi 1990); 4. Blažice (Gašaj, Olexa 1980); 5. Bogata „Bercul Tărcilor” (Berciu, Berciu 1946); 6. Borša (Gašaj, Olexa 1980); 7. Carei (Németi 1990); 8. Ciumeşti (Németi 1990); 9. Cluj (Horedt 1967); 10. Culciu Mare (Németi 1990); 11. Debrecen (Kemenczei 1984); 12. Gávavencsellő (Kemenczei 1984); 13. Grăniceşti (László 1994); 14. Harsány (miniature vessel, Paulík 1968; Kemenczei 1984); 15. Kiszombor (Szabó 1996); 16. Lăpuş (Kacsó 1975; 2001); 17. Mediaş (Pankau 2004); 18. Nagykállo (Kemenczei 1982b); 19. Nyírbogat (Kemenczei 1984); 20. Nyíregyháza (Kemenczei 1984); 21. Nyírmada (Marta, Tóth 2006); 22. Oarţa de Jos (Németi 1990); 23. Oarţa de Sus (Németi 1990); 24. Petea (Marta 2005); 25. Poroszló (Patay 1976); 26. Prügy (Kemenczei 1984); 27. Rakamaz (Kemenczei 1984); 28. St. Gheorghe (Székely 1994); 29. Suciu de Sus (Kacsó 1993); 30. Teleac (Vasiliev, Aldea, Ciugudean 1991); 31. Tokaj – surroundings (Kemenczei 1971); 32. Vajdácska (Mozsolics 1985); 33. Valea lui Mihai (Bader 1978). Appendix 8 Sites included in the stylistic analysis of pottery from the Carpathian Basin (chapter 3.2). Note: in several cases one number represents combined materials from a couple of sites, at one locality; in the case of longfunctioning cemeteries division into phases has been introduced. 410 1. Strachotín (Říhovský 1982); 2. Velké Hostěrádki (Říhovský 1982); 3. Blučina „Cezavy” (Říhovský 1982); 4. Kopčany (Pichlerová 1966); 5. Zohor (Studeniková 1978); 6. Lednice (Rzehak 1905); 7. Baierdorf (Lochner 1986); 8. Horn (Lochner 1991a); 9. Oberbergen (Lochner 1986a); 10. Getzersdorf (Kaus 1971; Mauerer 1971; Groiß 1976); 11. Gemeinlebarn (Szombathy 1929); 12. Oblekovice (Říhovský 1968); 13. Wien-Leopoldsberg (Kerchler 1962); 14. Maiersch (Berg 1962); 15. Burgschleinitz (Lochner 1991); 16. Topolčany (Paulík 1960; 1963); 17. Sládečkovce (Paulík 1960; 1963); 18. Čaka (Točík, Paulík 1960; Paulík 1963); 19. Kolta (Paulík 1966); 20. Marcelová (Paulík 1963); 21. Dedinka (Paulík 1984); 22. Čapor (Točík, Paulík 1979); 23. Mosonszolnok (Patek 1968); 24. Očkov (Paulík 1962); 25. Chotín (Dušek 1957); 26. BudapestEgressy (Kőszegi 1988); 27. Budapest-Harrer Pál (Kőszegi 1988); 28. Mende (Kemenczei 1975); 29. Budapest-Békásmegyer (KaliczSchreiber 1991); 30. Tököl (Kőszegi 1988); 31. Szentendre (Patek 1968); 32. Csabrendek (Patek 1968; Kőszegi 1988; Kemenczei 1989); 33. Jánosháza (Kőszegi 1988; Kemanczei 1989; Jankovits 1992); 34. Kokoncó (Kőszegi 1988, Kemenczei 1989); 35. Bakonyjákó (Jankovits 1992a); 36. Bakonyszűcs (Patek 1970; Kemenczei 1989); 37. Isztimér (Kustár 2000); 38. Szombathely (Ilon 2004); 39. Petőhegy (Kemenczei 1989); 40. Sármellék (Patek 1968); 41. Virovitica (Vinski-Gasparini 1973); 42. Sirova Katalena (Vinski-Gasparini 1973); 43. Zagreb (Vinski-Gasparini 1983); 44. Kalnik (Vrdoljak 1994); 45. Vőrs – younger graves (Honti 1993); 46. Balatonmagyaród – younger graves (Horváth 1994); 47. Pécs (Patek 1968); 48. Lengyel (Kőszegi 1988); 49. Vučedol (Forenbaher 1990); 50. Sarvaš (Šimić 1994); 51. Osijek-Retfala (Šimić 2001); 52. Privlaka (Forenbaher 1991); 53. Beograd-Karaburma – older graves (Todorović 1977); 54. Cruceni (Radu 1973); 55. Bobda (Gumă 1995); 56. Belegiš – older graves (Trbuhović 1961); 57. Kovačica (Bukvić 2000); 58. Caransebeş (Gumă 1995); 59. Susani (Stratan, Vulpe 1977); 60. Opovo (Bukvić 2000); 61. Vojlovica (Bukvić 2000); 62. Ticvaniul Mare (Gumă 1993); 63. Beograd- 411 Karaburma – younger graves (Todorović 1977); 64. Moldova Noua (Gumă 1993); 65. Berzasca (Gumă 1993); 66. Vărădia (Gumă 1993); 67. Remetea Mare „Gomila lui Pituţ” (Gumă 1993); 68. Bocşa Română (Gumă 1993); 69. Pecica – layer 1 (Soroceanu 1991); 70. Pauliş (Pădureanu 1990); 71. Horia (Pădureanu 1992); 72. Sântana (Rusu, Dörner, Ordentlich 1999); 73. Csorva (Trogmayer 1963); 74. Csongrád (Szabó 2004a); 75. SzentesNagyhegy (Szabó 1996); 76. Kömpöc (Szabó 1996); 77. Sarkadkeresztúr (Jankovits 2004); 78. Szöreg C-E (Szabó 1996); 79. Tiszapüspöki (Szabó 2004); 80. Gyomá (Genito, Kemenczei 1990); 81. Baks-Temetőpart (Szabó 1996); 82. Hódmezővásárhely-Kopáncs (Szabó 1996); 83. Valea Timişului (Gumă 1993); 84. Româneşti (Rogozea 1994); 85. Deva-Ville Noi (Andriţoiu 1983); 86. Simeria (Andriţoiu 1983); 87. Bădeni (Rotea 1994); 88. Măhăceni (Ciugudean 1999); 89. Strajla (Ciugudean 1999); 90. Ciceu Corabia (Borofka 1994); 91. Cugir (Ciugudean 1994); 92. Uiara de Jos (Ciugudean 1994); 93. Voivodeni (Horedt 1981); 94. Mediaş „Cetate” (Pankau 2004); 95. Teleac (Vasiliev, Aldea, Ciugudean 1991); 96. Subcetate (Vasiliev 1995); 97. Acâş (Kacsó 1999); 98. Pişcolt (Németi 1978; Kacsó 1999); 99. Cehăluţ (Bader 1978); 100. cave Igriţa (Emödi 1980); 101. Biharea (Dumitraşcu 1980); 102. Hajdúbagos (Kovács 1970); 103. Carei – younger materials (Németi 1990); 104. Berveni – younger materials (Németi 1990); 105. Petea – younger materials (Marta 2005); 106. cave Izbîndiş (Chidioşan, Emödi 1983); 107. cave Ungurului (Emödi 1997); 108. Sanislău (Németi 1982); 109. Biharkeresztes (Szabó 2004a); 110. Zăuan (Bejinariu 2001); 111. Lăpuş I (Kacsó 1975; 2001); 112. Culciu Mare (Bader 1979); 113. Čomonin (Kobal’ 1996); 114. Oarţa de Jos (Kacsó 2004); 115. Crasna (Bejinariu, Lakó 2000); 116. Libotin (Kacsó 1990a); 117. Suciu de Sus „Pe şes” (Kacsó 1993); 118. Lăpuş II (Kacsó 1975; 2001); 119. Căşeiu (Gogâltan, Isac 1995); 120. Dej (Vasiliev 1995); 121. Bozna (Vasiliev 1995); 122. Zemplínske Kopčany (Demeterová 1984); 123. Budkovce (Demeterová 1984); 124. Lastovce (Demeterová 1984); 125. Alsóberecki (Kemenczei 1981); 126. Berkesz (Kovács 1967); 127. Debrecen (Poroszlai 412 1984); 128. Vajdácska (Kemenczei 1984); 129. Gávavencselő I (Kemenczei 1984); 130. Viss (Kemenczei 1984); 131. Borša (Gašaj, Olexa 1980); 132. Nagykálló (Kemenczei 1982); 133. Prügy (Kemenczei 1984); 134. Taktabáj (Kemenczei 1984); 135. Níregyháza-Bujtos (Kemenczei 1984); 136. Gávavencselő II (Dani 2001); 137. Kolčino (Smirnova 1966); 138. Somotorská horá (Demeterová 1986); 139. Halmaj (Kemenczei 1968); 140. Muhi (Kovács 1966; Kemenczei 1984); 141. Barca (Jílková 1961); 142. Gelej – selected materials (Kemenczei 1989); 143. Jászberény (Kemenczei 1966); 144. Igrici (Hellebrandt 1990; Szabó 2004); 145. Tiszacsege (Szabó 2004); 146. Polgár M3-29 (Szabó 2004); 147. Polgár M3–1 (Szabó 2004); 148. Köröm (Kemenczei 1984); 149. Tiszakeszi-Tiszapart (Kemenczei 1971); 150. Poroszló (Patay 1976; Kemenczei 1984); 151. Miskolc, cave Büdöspest (Kemenczei 1984); 152. Felsőtárkány (Matuz 1992); 153. Radzovce – selected materials (Furmánek 1982; Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999); 154. Vizlás (Kemenczei 1984); 155. Šafárikovo (Furmánek 1977); 156. Nagybátony (Patay 1954; Kemenczei 1984); 157. SalgótariánZagyvápalfalva (Kemenczei 1967); 158. Litke (Kemenczei 1984); 159. Szajla – older phase (Kemenczei 1984); 160. Szajla – younger phase (Kemenczei 1984); 161. Kyjatice – selected materials (Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999); 162. cave Aggtelek (Kemenczei 1984). Appendix  List of selected Late Bronze Age sites in the mountain part of Slovakia (ig. 42): 1. Bystričany; 2. Domaníki; 3. Ganovce; 4. Gregorovce; 5. Hontianske Nemce; 6. Hummene; 7. Huncovce; 8. Ilija-Sitno; 9. Jastrabie; 10. Jesenov; 11. Kanaš; 12. Kapušany; 13. Kežmarok-Ľubce; 14. Kladzany; 15. Kochanovice; 16. Krupina; 17. Letanovce; 18. Liptovská Mara; 19. 413 Liptovská Teplá; 20. Liptovský Michal; 21. Liptovský Mikuláš; 22. Martin; 23. Medovarce; 24. Močídlany; 25. Nemešany; 26. Nižný Tvarožec; 27. Ostrovany; 28. Paludza; 29. Partizanské; 30. Podtureň; 31. PopradMatejovce; 32. Prešov; 33. Púchov; 34. Ráztoki; 35. Šarišske Sokolovce; 36. Sedliska; 37. Skrabske; 38. Smižany; 39. Spišski Štvrtok; 40. Spišske Tomašovce; 41. Švábovce; 42. Terňa; 43. Veľký Šariš; 44. Vítkovce; 45. Vlača; 46. Vyšný Kubín; 47. Žiar nad Hronom; 48. Zvolen. Appendix 10 List of the selected Jasło group sites: 1. Bóbrka (Wietrzno-Bóbrka); 2. Jasło, site 29; 3. Łajsce; 4. Pilzno; 5. Potok; 6. Sanok, site 56; 7. Świerchowa; 8. Targowiska; 9. Trepcza; 10. Trzcinica; loose inds and bronze hoards from the Carpathian zone dated to phases BrB1–BrD: 11. Brzostek (?); 12. Jaworze Dolne; 13. Stefkowa; 14. Strachocina; 15. Ulucz; 16. Załęże; 17. Załuż; and the earliest Tarnobrzeg group assemblages: 18. Albigowa; 19. Bachórz Chodorówka; 20. Furmany; 21. Grodzisko Dolne, site 1; 22. Lipnik; 23. Manasterz; 24. Paluchy (compare ig. 44). Appendix 11 List of sites for ig. 51: 1. Biecz; 2. Bistuszowa; 3. Hłomcza; 4. Jasło, site 42; 5. Kobylany, site 17; 6. Korczyna; 7. Ladzin; 8. Mymoń; 9. Nieniaszów, site 8, 14; 10. Nowosielce; 11. Rymanów; 12. Sanok, site 13; 13. SanokBiała Góra; 14. Temeszów; 15. Warzyce; 16. Wietrzno. 414 Appendix 12 List of sites for ig. 59: 1. Chełm, 2. Chełmiec, 3. Czchów, 4. Dąbrowa, 5. Gwoździec, 6. Łoniowa, 7. Marcinkowice, 8. Maszkowice, 9. Naszacowice, 10. Nowy Sącz-Biegonice, 11. Stary Sącz, 12. Wielka Wieś, 13. Zawada Lanckorońska. Appendix 13 List of bronze inds characteristic of the Carpathian Basin on the present territory of Poland. Type of site: f. – isolated inds; h. – hoard; s. – settlement; g. – grave/cemetery. Artifacts categories: A – bronze axes with an arch-shaped socked; B – bronze axes with a straight socket, decorated with ribs or carinated; C – other types of Danubian axes; D – spearheads with ribs on the socket; E – swords; F – battle-axes; G – rings; H – pendants (including the so-called Nadelschützer); I – small bronze discs; J – ibulae of Rimavská Sobota type; K – bronze vessels (cup of Blatnica type, bucket of Hajdúböszörmény type , cross-handle-holder bowl). 1. Albigowa, Łańcut district (g. G; Gedl 1998b, 35, ig. 9:8); 2. Bakowice, Namysłów district (f.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 40); 3. Białowieża (formerly: Siodłary), Nysa district (h.; K; Blajer 1999, 201, plate 162; Gedl 2001b, cat. no. 1); 4. Biernacice, Poddębice district (h.; K; Gedl 2001b, cat. no. 37); 5. Biskupice, Kraków district (h.; A, B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 14); 6. Biskupin, Żnin district (f.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 67); 7. 415 Błaskowizna, Suwałki district (f.; B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 16); 8. Borowiec, Nowa Sól district (f.; D; Fogel 1988, 16; Gedl 2001, 7, ig. 2); 9. Bożeń, Wołów district (f.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 47); 10. Bruszczewo, Wołów district (g.; D; Kaczmarek 2002, 146, 350, plate15–16); 11. Brzostek, Jasło district (f.; G; Dmochowska-Orlińska 1992, 51, ig. 1:a; Blajer 2003a, 249, ig. 7:c); 12. Chłopowo, Choszczno district (h.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 61); 13. Chruszczyna Mała, Kazimierza Wielka district (h.; A; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 7; Blajer 1999, 156, plate 17:3); 14. Czarków, Gliwice district (h.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 43–44); 15. Czerteż, Sanok district (f.; A; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 1); 16. Deszczno, Gorzów Wielkopolski district (h.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 62); 17. Dobrzyń nad Wisłą, Lipno district (f.; D; Fogel 1988, 28; Gedl 2001, 7, ig. 4); 18. Dolina, Iława district (f.; B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 17); 19. Furmany, Tarnobrzeg district (g.; G; SzarekWaszkowska 1993, PL 396:18); 20. Gąsawa, Żnin district (f.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 48); 21. Gilów, Lubin district (f.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 57); 22. Głowińsk, Rypin district (f.; K; Gedl 2001b, cat. no. 35); 23. Godziszewo, Starogard Gdański district (f.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 68); 24. Gorzyce, Tarnów district (f.; A; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 7); 25. Gręboszów, Namysłów district (f.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 49); 26. Grodzisko Dolne, Leżajsk district (g.; G, H; Czopek 1996, 137–139, plate 33:6,9, 39:1,7, 43:3); 27. Gryino, loco district (f.; B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 24); 28. Grzęska, Przeworsk district (f.; D; Fogel 1988, 38; Gedl 2001, 7, ig. 7); 29. Hrubieszów (h.?; B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 37); 30. Husów, Łańcut district (f.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 72); 31. Jarosław, loco district (f.; B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 25); 32. Jerzmanice Zdrój, Złotoryja district (h.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 45); 33. Jordanów Śląski, Wrocław district (g.; H; Pfützenreiter 1931, ig. 1:6,8; Kleemann 1977, plate 8:b; 32:i); 34. Kajew, Pleszew district (f.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 50); 35. Kamień, Kraków district (f.; D; Fogel 1988, 45; Gedl 2001, 7–8, ig. 8); 36–37. Karmin, Milicz district, hoard no. 1 (h.; B, C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 41, 51, 56, 63–64, 70), hoard no. 2 (h.; B, C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 46, 65); 41 38. Kietrz, Głubczyce district (g.; H; Gedl 1984, 64); 39. Kościelna Wieś, Radziejów district (f.; B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 27); 40. Kowalewko, Oborniki district (h.; D; Szafrański 1955, 130, igs. 108–118; Fogel 1988, 52; Gedl 2001, 8, ig. 9); 41. Kraków-Salwator (f.; A; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 9); 42. Kraków Nowa Huta-Pleszów (s.; B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 33); 43. Kulów, Głogów district (f.; B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 18); 44. Lichwin, Tarnów district (f.; A; Blajer 1998, 201, ig. 1); 45. Lipnik, Przeworsk district (g.; G; Blajer 2000, 48, ig. 8:a); 46. Lubin, loco district (h.?; B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 30); 47. Lubiń, Kościan district (f.; E; Fogel 1979, 50–51, plate 5:3; 1988, 61); 48. Łazy, Jarosław district (g.; G; Jarosz, Szczepanek, in print); 49. Maćkówka, Przeworsk district (h.; A, B, G, I; Blajer 1987; 1999, 179–180, plate 87:3–4,7–8, 89:2, 90:2, 92; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 2–3, 10, 28–29); 50. Manasterz, Jarosław district (g.; G; Czopek, Trybała 2005, 132–134, 154, ig. 4:a); 51. Marchocice, Miechów district (f.; A; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 12); 52. Marcinkowice, Nowy Sącz district (s., h.; A; H; I; Szkaradek 1941; Kostrzewski 1964, 48; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 11; Blajer 1999, 181–182, plate 94:3,5–18; 95–99); 53. Michów, Lubartów district (f.; D; Gurba 1997, 273–274, ig. 1); 54. Miejsce, Namysłów district (h.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no.54, 58); 55. Miłoszyce, Oława district (f.; B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 73); 56. district Mława (f.; B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 20); 57. Motkowice, Jędrzejów district (h.; B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 22); 58. Mymoń, Sanok district (f.; B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 31); 59. Niepołomice, Wieliczka district (h., A; Reguła 2005, 322, 329, ig. 6:a–b,f); 60. Nowy Korczyn, Busko Zdrój district (h.; B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 26, 74); 61. Nowy Sącz-Biegonice (s.; D; Cabalska, Madyda-Legutko, Tunia 1990, 177–178, ig. 9; Gedl 2001, 8, ig. 10); 62. Odolanów, Ostrów Wielkopolski district (f.; E; MüllerKarpe 1961, 36, 109, plate 37:9; Fogel 1979, 56–57, plate 6:3; 1988, 75); 63. Ojców, Kraków district (f.; B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 32); 64. Paluchy, Przeworsk district (g.; G; Lewandowski 1978, 144, ig. 10:f; Blajer, Czopek, Kostek 1991, ig. 9:a); 65. Pawłowice Namysłowskie, Namysłów district 41 (h.; J; Blajer 1999, 191, plate 130:6; Gedl 2004, cat. no. 219); 66. Pławowice, Proszowice district (h.?; B; Pieróg 2007); 67. Podłęże, Wieliczka district (Potocki 1966, 157–158, ig. 5:2); 68. Polanka, Legnica district (f.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 71); 69. Przemyśl (h.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 266; Gedl 1999); 70. Przemyśl-Przekopana (f.; D; Kostek 2004, 41–42, ig. 2:b); 71. Radymno, Jarosław district (h.; H, I; Blajer 1999, 196, plate 147, 148); 72. Raźny, Węgrów district (f.; D; Fogel 1988, 90; Gedl 2001, 8, ig. 11); 73. Rogowo, Toruń district (h.?; D; Łęga 1924, 236–237, ig. 2–4; Kuśnierz 1998, 38; Blajer 2001, 350; mind the diferent localization: Fogel 1988, 90; Gedl 2001, 8); 74. Rogów, Kazimierza Wielka district (h.?; A, B; Beyer 1859, plate 7; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 4, 23); 75. Rosko, Czarnków district (h.; B; Machajewski 2002, 100, igs. 9, 12:43); 76. Rybna, Opole district (f.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 52); 77. Sarzyna, Leżajsk district (f.; A; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 15); 78. Senisławice, Kazimierza Wielka district (f.; A; Florek 2006); 79. Siedliska, Rzeszów district (f.; D; Gedl 2001, 8, ig. 13); 80. Smokowice, Legnica district (g.; H; Kleemann 1977, 132, 207, 298); 81. Sobótka, Wrocław district (g.; D; Petersen 1931, 215–216, plate 13:1, 14:1; Fogel 1988, 100; Gedl 2001, 8, ig. 14); 82. Stare Bojanowo, Kościan district (g.; D; Jasnosz 1958, 264, ig. 4:3; Fogel 1988, 101; Gedl 2001, 8, ig. 15); 83. Starzyny, Poddębice district (h.; B; Błaszczyk 2001, 213–214, ig. 2:2); 84. Stefkowa, Ustrzyki Dolne district (h.; F, G; Blajer 1987; 1999, 92, 136–137, plate 106–109); 85. Strachocina, Sanok district (f.; F, Gedl 2004a, cat. no. 53); 86. Strzelin, loco district (f.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 53); 87. Strzelinki, Brzeg district (f.; E; Müller-Karpe 1961, 36, 108, plate 37:3; Fogel 1979, 56–67; 1988, 105); 88. Suchoręcz, Nakło district (h.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 66); 89. Sudół, Racibórz district (h.; B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 38); 90. Szymankowo, Malbork district (f.?; D; Petersen 1940, plate 1:b; Fogel 1988, 110); 91. Śniatycze, Zamość district (h.; H, I; Kłosińska, in print); 92. Świerczów, Góra district (f.; J; Gedl 2004, cat. no. 220); 93. Trzciana, Rzeszów district (h.; A; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 5); 94. Turze, Pyrzyce district (f.; B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 19); 95. 418 Ulucz, Brzozów district (f.; F; Parczewski 1984, 206–208; Gedl 2004a, cat. no. 54); 96. Uścikówiec, Oborniki district (h.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 55); 97. Wadowice, loco district (h.?; A; Pieróg 2003, 149–150, ig. 1: a); 98–99. Witów, Proszowice district, hoard no. 1 (h.; A; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 13; Blajer 1999, 216, plate 199:5), settlement and hoard no. 2 (s.; h.; D, I; Fogel 1988, 122; Blajer 1999, 216, plate 200–202; Gedl 2001, 8, ig. 16); 100. Wola Żydowska, Pińczów district (h.; G, I; Blajer 1999, 220, plate 214:3,5); 101. Wrocław-Księże Małe (g.; H; Pfützenreiter 1931, 167, ig. 4; Kleemann 1977, plate 32:k); 102. Wrocław-Osobowice (f.; B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 34–35); 103. Wrocław-Stabłowice (f.; B; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 39); 104. Wrocław-Żerniki (f.; E; Müller-Karpe 1961, 23, 101, plate 19:6; Fogel 1979, 50–51; 1988, 126); 105. Wysowa, Gorlice district (f.; E; Müller-Karpe 1961, 27, 94, plate 3:6; Kostrzewski 1964, 126, ig. 110; Fogel 1979, 50–51; 1988, 127; Blajer 2003a, 348); 106. Załęże, Jasło district (h.; G, H; Kraus 1956; Blajer 1999, 218, plate 206–208; 2003a, 246–248, ig. 6); 107. Załuż, Sanok district (h.; G; Zielińska 2005, 61–63, ig. 1, 4:a–b); 108. Zawiszyce, Głubczyce district (h.; C; Kuśnierz 1998, cat. no. 42); 109. Zbąszyń, Nowy Tomyśl district (f.; D; Kurnatowski 1966, 187, ig. 85; Fogel 1988, 128); 110. Żanecin, Sokołów Podlaski district (f.; D; Fogel 1988, 130; Gedl 2001, 9, ig. 18); 111. Żupawa, Tarnobrzeg district (f.; D; Fogel 1988, 131; Gedl 2001, 9, ig. 19). Appendix 14 List of sites for ig. 83: 1. Bachórz Chodorówka; 2. Chodaczów; 3. Grodzisko Dolne; 4. Gródek nad Bugiem; 5. Grzęska; 6. Hrubieszów; 7. Huszczka; 8. Jarosław; 9. Lipnik; 10. Łazy; 11. Maćkówka; 12. Paluchy; 13. Przemyśl Nehrybka; 14. Przemyśl Przekopana; 15. Radymno; 16. Sarzyna; 41 17. Siedliska; 18. Śniatycze; 19. Tarnobrzeg Machów; 20. Trzciana; 21. Wierzawice; 22. Wietlin III; 23. Wołkowiany; 24. Żupawa. Appendix 15 List of sites for ig. 84: 1. Chruszczyna Mała; 2. Gorzyce; 3. Igołomia; 4. Kamień; 5. Kraków-Cło; 6. Kraków-Mogiła, site 53; 7. Kraków-Mogiła, site 55A; 8. Kraków-Mogiła, site 62; 9. Kraków-Pleszów (site 17–20); 10. Kraków-Salwator; 11. Kraków-Zesławice, site 21; 12. Kraków-Zesławice, site 22; 13. Kraków-Wyciąże; 14. Marchocice; 15. Nowy Korczyn; 16. Niepołomice; 17. Ojców; 18. Pławowice; 19. Rogowo; 20. Targowisko; 21. Wadowice; 22. Witów. References 420 AAASH Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Budapest. AAC Acta Archaeologica Carpathica, Kraków. APolski Archeologia Polski, Warszawa. AVANS Archeologické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku, Nitra. BRGK Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission, Franfurt am Main. DDMÉ A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve, Debrecen. FAP Fontes Archaeologici Posnaniensis, Poznań. GZM Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja, Sarajevo. HOMÉ A Miskolci Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve, Miskolc. JAMÉ A Nyiregyhazi Josa Andras Múzeum Évkönyve, Nyíregyhaza. JRGZM Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseums, Mainz. MA Materiały Archeologiczne, Kraków. MA Nowej Huty Materiały Archeologiczne Nowej Huty, Kraków. MFMÉ A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, Studia Archaeologica, Szeged. MSROA Materiały i Sprawozdania Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka Archeologicznego, Rzeszów. PMMAE Prace i Materiały Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograicznego w Łodzi, Łódź. PZ Praehistorische Zeitschrift, Berlin. SCIV Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche, Bucureşti (since 1973 – SCIVA). SCIVA Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie, Bucureşti. Slov.Arch. Slovenská archeológia, Nitra. Spr.Arch. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne, Kraków. SROA Sprawozdania Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka Archeologicznego, Rzeszów WA Wiadomości Archeologiczne, Warszawa. ZOW Z Otchłani Wieków, Wrocław. (since 1966 – MSROA). 421 Abłamowicz R. and Abłamowicz D. 1989 Badania wykopaliskowe przeprowadzone w roku 1984 na cmentarzysku ciałopalnym w Chełmcu, województwo nowosądeckie, stanowisko 2, AAC, 28, 199–212. Alexandrescu A. D. 1978 Sépultures du premier âge du fer à Zimnicea (dép. de Teleorman), Dacia, 22, 115–124. Almássy K., Benke Z., Csernák Z.S., Istvánovits E., Kurucz K., Lőrinczy G., Németh P., Ulrich A. and Vörös I. 1997 Das Gold von Nyíregyháza (Archäologische Fundkomplexe mit Goldgegenständen in der Sammlung des Jósa-András-Museums Nyíregyháza), Nyíregyháza. Ammerman A. J. and Cavalli-Sforza L. L. 1973 A population model for the difusion of early farming in Europe, (in:) The Explanation of Culture Change. Models in Prehistory (ed. C. Renfrew), London, 343–357. Andresen M. 1996 Akkulturation am Bestimmungsort einer Migration. Bemerkungen zum methodologischen Ansatz ihrer Erforschung, Archäologische Informationen, 19/1&2, 23–37. Andriţoiu I. 1983 Consideraţii asupra unor materiale arheologice aparţiniînd bronzului tîrziu descoperite în împrejurmile Devei, Sargetia, 16-17 (1982–1983), 125-137. 1986 Contribuţii la cunoaşterea culturii Noua în sud-vestul Transilvaniei, Thraco-Dacica, 7, 31–45. 1987 Contribuţii la cunoaştera culturii Wietenberg în sud-vestul Transilvaniei, Sargetia, 20, 45–63. 1992 Civilizaţia tracilor din sud-vestul Transilvaniei în epoca bronzului, Bibliotheca Thracologica, 2, Bucureşti. Androiţoiu I. and Vasiliev V. 1993 Câteva consideraţii privind cultura Noua în Transilvania, Apulum, 27-30 (1990-1993), 121–146. 422 Anthony D. 1990 Migration in archeology: The baby and the bathwater, American Anthropologist, 92, 895–914. Antoniewicz W. 1928 Archeologia Polski, Warszawa. Bădău-Wittenberger M. 1994 Consideraţii despre cultura Noua în Transilvania, Acta Musei Napocensis, 31, 151–172. Bader T. 1978 Epoca bronzului in nord-vestul Transilvaniei. Cultura pretracică şi tracică, Bucureşti. 1979 Die Suciu de Sus-Kultur in Nordwestrumänien, PZ, 54, 3–31. 1983 Die Fibeln in Rumänien, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, XIV, 6, München. Bąk U. 1992 Rogowe pobocznice typu „Spisz” z Jakuszowic, woj. kieleckie, AAC, 31, 157–162. 1996 Zabytki prehistoryczne z badań wykopaliskowych przeprowadzonych w 1993 roku w Zawadzie Lanckorońskiej, woj. Tarnów, stan. 1, „Zamczysko“, AAC, 33 (1995–1996), 51–84. 1996a Elementy zakarpackie w ceramice z Zawady lanckorońskiej, woj. Tarnów, stan. 1 – „Zamczysko“. Badania 1993, (in:) Problemy epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w Europie Środkowej. Księga jubileuszowa poświęcona Markowi Gedlowi (ed. J. Chochorowski), Kraków, 67–81. Baillie M.G.L. 1995 A Slice Through Time. Dendrochronology and precision dating, London. 1996 The Chronology of the Bronze Age 2354 BC to 431 BC, (in:) Absolute Chronology. Archaeological Europe 2500-500 BC, Acta Archaeologica Suplementa, 1, Acta Archaeologica (København), 67, 291–298. 1998 Evidence for Climatic Deterioration in the 12th and 17th Centuries BC, (in:) Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas. Die Bronzezeit: das erste goldene Zeitalter Europas (ed. B. Hänsel), Kiel, 49–55. 423 Baillie M.G.L. and Munro M.A.R. 1988 Irish tree rings, Santorini and volcanic dust veils, Nature, 332, 344–346. Balahuri E. A. 1975 Issledovania arkheologicheskikh pamiatnikov Zakarpat’ia za gody sovetskoj vlasti, Slov. Arch., 23, 261–282. 2001 Naseleie verkhnego potis’ia v epokhu bronzy, Uzhgorod. Balaša G. 1964 Zvolen v období lužickej kultúry, Banská Bystrica. Bándi G. 1982 Spätbronzezeitliche befestigte Höhensiedlungen in Westungarn, (in:) Beiträge zum bronzezeitlichen Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa (ed. J. Hermann), Berlin-Nitra, 81–95. Bándi G. and Kovács T. 1970 Die historischen Beziehungen der bronzezeitlichen Szeremle-Gruppe, AAASH, 22, 25–39. Bandrivskyj M. 2002 Rozkopky horodisha kul’tury Gava-Holihrady bilia sela Rozhirche ta rozvidkovi doslidzhennia na L’vivshyni, Zapysky Naukovogo Tovarystva imeni Shevchenka, 244, L’viv, 506–519. Bandrivskyj M., Kobal’ J., Krushel’nychka L., Pavliv D., Popovych I., Sulyk P., Filipchuk M. and Chopek S. 1993 Pam’iatky hal’tstachkoho periodu v mezhyrichchi Visly, Dnistra i Pryp’iati, Kiïv. Bandrivskyj M., Krushel’nychka L. 1998 Osnovni periody rozvitku vysoc’koi kuľtury, Zapysky Naukovogo Tovarystva imeni Shevchenka, 235, Ľviv, 193–247. Barna J. P. 2003 Middle Copper Age and Late Bronze Age settlement fragments from Tornyiszentmiklós, Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon 2001, 47–54. 424 Bátora J. 1979 Žiarové pohrebiská lužickej kultúry v oblasti Zvolena, Slov.Arch., 27/1, 57–81. 1999 Wafen und Belege von Kampftrefen während der Frühbronzezeit in der Südwestslowakei, (in:) Aktuelle Probleme der Erforschung der Frühbronzezeit in Böchmen und Mähren und in der Slowakei (eds. J. Bátora and J. Peška), Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae, 1, Nitra, 63–73. Bazielich M. 1978 Elementy kultury Gava z osady kultury łużyckiej w Nowej Hucie-Pleszowie, stan. 17, APolski, 23, 307–354. 1982 Materiały kultury łużyckiej i kultury Gava ze stanowiska 21 w Zesławicach-Dłubni (Kraków-Nowa Huta), WA, 47, 91–106. 1982a Materiały kultury łużyckiej i kultury Gava ze stanowiska 22 w Zesławicach-Dłubni (Kraków-Nowa Huta), WA, 47, 71–90. 1982b Zagadnienie występowania elementów kultury Gava w okolicach Krakowa oraz jej oddziaływań na grupę tarnobrzeską kultury łużyckiej, (in:) Południowa strefa kultury łużyckiej i powiązania tej kultury z południem (ed. M. Gedl), Kraków-Przemyśl, 287–297. 1982c Wyniki analiz technologicznych ceramiki kultury Gava i kultury łużyckiej ze stanowisk w Małopolsce i północno-zachodniej Mołdawii, WA, 47, 107–117. 1984 Elementy kultury Gáva w rejonie Krakowa-Nowej Huty, APolski, 29, 317–349. 1986 Die in Kraków gefundenen Elemente der Gáva-Kultur als Beitrag zu Forschungen über Kontakte Kleinpolens mit der Ostslowakei, (in:) Urzeitliche und frühhistorische Besiedlung der Ostslowakei in Bezug zu den Nachbargebieten (ed. B. Chropovský), Nitra, 145–150. 1989 Badania nad technologią produkcji ceramiki odkrytej w zasięgu grupy tarnobrzeskiej kultury łużyckiej a noszącej ślady powiązań z kulturą Gava, (in:) Grupa tarnobrzeska kultury łużyckiej (ed. A. Barłowska), Rzeszów, 165–183. 1992 Osada kultury łużyckiej w Nowej Hucie-Mogile na stan. 62. Część I – materiały, MA Nowej Huty, 15, 73–136. 1993 Osada kultury łużyckiej w Nowej Hucie-Mogile na stan. 62. Część II, MA Nowej Huty, 16, 103–146. 1995 Osada kultury łużyckiej w Nowej Hucie-Mogile, na stan. 62. Część III, MA Nowej Huty, 18, 45–81. 425 1995a Uwagi dotyczące wykształcenia się i funkcjonowania osady tzw. grupy górnośląskomałopolskiej kultury łużyckiej na stanowisku 62 w Mogile, (in:) Dziedzictwo kulturowe epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza na Górnym Śląsku i w Małopolsce (ed. J. Szydłowski), Śląskie Prace Prehistoryczne, 4, 181–186. Beck A. 1980 Beiträge zur frühen und älteren Urnenfelderkultur im nordwestlichen Alpenvorland, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, XX, 2, München. Beck C. W., Hartnett H. E. 1993 Sicilian amber, (in:) Amber in Archaeology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Amber in Archaeology – Liblice 1990 (eds. C.W. Beck and J. Bouzek), Praha, 36–43. Becks R. and Thumm D. 2001 Untergang der Stadt in der frühen Eisenzeit. Das Ende aus archäologischer Sicht, (in:) Troia – Traum und Wirklichkeit, Stuttgart, 419–424. Bejinariu I. 2001 Late Bronze Age in the Depression of Şimleu, (in:) Der nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit (ed. C. Kacsó) Bibliotheca Marmatia, 1, Baia Mare, 157–174. 2003 Opinions on the Wietenberg Type Finds from the Sălaj County, (in:) Bronzezeitliche Kulturerschienungen im karpatischen Raum, die Beziehungen zu den benachbarten Gebieten (ed. C. Kacsó), Bibliotheca Marmatia, 2, Baia Mare, 25–68. Bejinariu I. and Lakó É. 2000 Contribuţii la cunoaşterea bronzului târziu din nord-vestul României. Aşezarea de la Crasna, Acta Musei Porolissensis, 23, 153–219. Beljak J. 2002 Zvolener Mikroregion und ihre Bedeutung in der Bronzezeit, (in:) Studies of the Ancient World in Honour of Mária Novotná, Anodos, 2, 35–40. 42 Benac A. 1950 Istraživanja prehistorijskich nalazišta u dolni Bilo, GZM, 4/5 (1949–1950), 5–44. 1956 Prehistorijska gradina Zecovi kod Prijedora, GZM, 11, 147–166. 1959 Slavonska i ilirska kultura na prehistoriskoj gradini Zecovi kod Prijedora, GZM, 14, 13–51. Benac A. and Čović B. 1956 Glasinac, I – bronzanodoba, Katalog prehistoriske zbirke Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu, 1, Sarajevo. Benadiková L. 2006 Besiedlung der Westkarpaten und des nördlichen Teils der Ostkarpaten von der Hallstatt- bis zur Mittellatènezeit, typescript of PhD dissertation, AU SAV Nitra. Beninger E. 1961 Die Urnengräber von Wieselfeld, NÖ, Archaeologia Austriaca, 30, 39–63. Benkovsky (Benkovská)-Pivovarová Z. 1972 Zur Problematik der Litzenkeramik in der Österreich, PZ, 47, 198–212. 1972a Die Anfänge der Lausitzer Kultur in der Slowakei im Lichte der Grabfunde aus Martin, Slov. Arch., 20/2, 253–312. 1974 Metodologische Anmerkungen zur Forschung über die Anfänge der Lausitzer Kultur in der Tschechoslowakei, Archeologické rozhledy, 26, 152–159. 1982 K otázkam terminológie predlužickej kultúry na Slovensku, na Morave a v južnom Polsku, (in:) Południowa strefa kultury łużyckiej i powiązania tej kultury z południem (ed. M. Gedl), Kraków-Przemyśl, 135–152. 1987 Der Beginn der Urnenfelderzeit in Ostösterreich im Lichte der Grabfunde von Pitten, (in:) Die Urnenfelderkulturen Mitteleuropas (eds. E. Plesl and J. Hrala), Praha, 107–109. Berciu D. 1961 Die Verbicioara-Kultur, Dacia, 5, 123–161. Berciu D. and Berciu I. 1946 Cercetări şi săpături arheologice in judeţele Turda şi Alba, Apulum, 2 (1943–1945), 1–80. 42 Berciu D. and Comsa E. 1956 Săpăturile de la Balta Verde şi Gogosu, Materiale şi Cercetări Archeologice, 2, 251–490. Berezanskaya S. S., Otroshenko V. V., Cherednychenko N. N. and Sharafutdynova I. N. 1986 Kul’tury epokhi bronzy na territorii Ukrainy, Kiev. Berg F. 1957 Grabfunde der frühen Bronzezeit und der älteren Urnenfelderzeit aus Leobersdorf, N.-Ö., Archaeologia Austriaca, 22, 14–31. 1962 Ein Gräberfeld der älteren Urnenfelderkultur aus Maiersch, NÖ, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft, 92, 25–29. Bernjakovich K. V. 1959 Roboty Prykarpats’koï arkheologitsnoï ekspediciï v 1956–1957 r.r., (in:) Arkheologitsni roboty muzeju v 1952–1957 r.r., L’viv, s. 29–42. Bernbeck R. 1997 Theorien in der Archäologie, UTB Uni-Taschenbücher, 1964, Tübingen-Basel. Beyer K. 1859 Album fotograicznej wystawy starożytności i zabytków sztuki urządzonej przez c.k. Towarzystwo Naukowe w Krakowie 1858 i 1859, Warszawa. Bintlif J. 1993 Why Indiana Jones is smarter than the Post-Processualist, Norwegian Archaeological Review, 26/2, 91–100. Blajer W. 1984 Die Arm- und Beinbergen in Polen, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, X, 2, München. 1985 Stan badań nad południowym zasięgiem kultury trzcinieckiej, AAC, 24, 61–88. 1987 Skarby brązowe ze Stefkowej i Makówki, Materiały i Studia Muzealne, 6, 91–148. 1987a Problematyka zróżnicowania terytorialnego kultury trzcinieckiej (uwagi dyskusyjne), (in:) Kultura trzciniecka w Polsce (eds. P. Poleska and J. Rydzewski), Kraków, 19–33. 428 1987b Osada w Rzeszowie-Baranówce na tle południowej strefy kultury trzcinieckiej, (in:) Kultura trzciniecka w Polsce (eds. P. Poleska and J. Rydzewski), Kraków, s. 187–191. 1989 Z problematyki zabytków brązowych wczesnej fazy grupy tarnobrzeskiej, (in:) Grupa tarnobrzeska kultury łużyckiej (ed. A. Barłowska), Rzeszów, 111–141. 1989a Kultura trzciniecka, (in:) Pradzieje ziem polskich, 1/2, Warszawa-Łódź, 441–455. 1990 Skarby z wczesnej epoki brązu na ziemiach polskich, Prace Komisji Archeologicznej PAN, 28, Kraków. 1994 Przyczynek do zagadnienia powiązań Górnego Śląska i zachodniej Małopolski w III-IV okresie epoki brązu, Silesia Antiqua, 36/37, 29–40. 1996 Prinzessinnen und Schmiede. Einige Bemerkungen zur regionalen Diferenzierung des Ringschmucks in der frühen Phase der Lausitzer Kultur, (in:) Problemy epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w Europie Środkowej. Księga jubileuszowa poświęcona Markowi Gedlowi (ed. J. Chochorowski), Kraków, 83–110. 1998 Siekierka brązowa z Lichwina, woj. tarnowskie, MSROA, 19, 201–203. 1999 Skarby ze starszej i środkowej epoki brązu na ziemiach polskich, Prace Komisji Archeologicznej PAN, 30, Kraków. 2000 Drugi sezon ratowniczych badań wykopaliskowych na stanowisku 5 w Lipniku, pow. Przeworsk (stan. 155 na obszarze 104–79), Rocznik Przemyski, 36/1, Archeologia, 37–50. 2001 Skarby przedmiotów metalowych z epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza na ziemiach polskich, Kraków. 2003a Datowanie i przynależność kulturowa skarbów brązowych i luźnych wyrobów metalowych z dorzecza Wisłoki, (in:) Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Karpatach polskich (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 239–255. 2004a Szósty sezon ratowniczych badań wykopaliskowych na stan. 5 w Lipniku, pow. Przeworsk, Rocznik Przemyski, 40/2, Archeologia, 89–100. 2007 Dziewiąty sezon ratowniczych badań wykopaliskowych na st. 5 w Lipniku, pow. Przeworsk, Rocznik Przemyski, 43/2, Archeologia, 39–44. Blajer W. and Czopek S. 1996 Osada z początku środkowego okresu epoki brązu w Dylągówce, woj. rzeszowskie (stanowisko 1), MSROA, 17, 19–42. 42 Blajer W., Czopek S. and Kostek A. 1991 Początki grupy tarnobrzeskiej nad środkowym Sanem, (in:) Die Anfänge der Urnenfelderkulturen in Europa (ed. M. Gedl), Archaeologia Interregionalis, 13, Warszawa, 265–293. Blajer W. and Przybyła M.S. 2003 Ze studiów nad strukturami osadniczymi epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w zachodniej części Podgórza Rzeszowskiego, (in:) Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Karpatach polskich (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 257–301. 2006 Die Notgrabungen an der Fundstelle 5 in Lipnik, Kr. Przeworsk in den Jahren 1999–2003 (2.–6. Grabungssaison), Recherches Archeologiques 1999–2003, 66–79. 2006a Albigowa, Gde. Łańcut, Fundstelle 1 – eine neolitische Siedlung und ein Gräberfeld aus jüngeren Bronzezeit, Recherches Archeologiques 1999–2003, 55–60. Blajer W. and Szpunar A. 1981 O możliwościach wydzielania horyzontów skarbów brązowych na obszarze Polski, APolski, 26, 295–320. Błaszczyk J. 2001 Dwie siekierki brązowe ze Sarzyn gm. Wartkowice, Łódzkie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne, 7, 213–215. Bober J. 1992 Sprawozdanie z badań na stanowisku z epoki brązu w Sanoku w 1989 roku, MSROA 1985–1990, 151–154. Bochnak A. 2004 „Rowy“ ze stanowiska 1 w Witowie, powiat Proszowice. Próba interpretacji funkcji i chronologii, typescript of master thesis, IAUJ Kraków. Bockisch-Bräuer Ch. 1999 Zur Aussagefähigkeit von Gräbern bei der Rekonstruktion sozialer Strukturen – Überlegungen am Beispiel der Spätbronze- und Urnenfelderzeit in Nordbayern, (in:) Eliten in der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen, Monographien RGZM, 43/2, Mainz, 533–563. 430 Bodinaku N. 1995 The Late Bronze Age Culture of Albania and the Relations with the Balcanic and AegeanAdriatic Areas, (in:) Handel, Tausch und Verkehr im bronze- und früheisenzeitlichen Südosteuropa (ed. B. Hänsel), Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 11, München-Berlin, 259–268. Bogaard van den Ch., Dörler W., Glos R., Nadeau M-J., Grootes P.M. and Erlenkeuser H. 2002 Two Tephra Layers Bracketing Late Holocene Paleoecological Changes in Northern Germany, Quaternary Research, 57, 314–324. Bóna I. 1959 Chronologie der Hortfunde vom Koszider-Typus, AAASH, 9, 213–243. 1975 Die Mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen, Archaeologia Hungarica, N.S., IL, Budapest. 1992 Bronzezeitliche Tell-Kulturen in Ungarn, (in:) Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in TellSiedlungen an Donau un Theiß (ed. W. Meier-Arendt), Frankfurt am Main, 9–39. Borofka N.G.O. 1994 Die Wietenberg-Kultur. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Bronzezeit in Südosteuropa, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, 19, Bonn. 1994a Probleme der jungbronzezeitlichen Keramik in Ostungarn und Westrumänien, (in:) The Early Hallstatt period (1200–700 B.C.) in South-Eastern Europe (eds. H. Ciugudean and N. Borofka), Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis, 1, Alba Iulia, 7–23. 1997 Rasiermesser der Bronze- und Hallstattzeit aus Rumänien, (in:) Χρόνος. Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie zwischen Nord- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Bernhard Hänsel (eds. M. Roeder and B. Teržan), Internationale Archäologie, Studia honoraria, 1, Espelkamp, 563–576. 1999 Probleme der späten Otomani-Kultur, (in:) Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony – rozwój, chronologia, gospodarka (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 113–129. Boroneanţ V. 1984 Chitila-ferma, un aspect cultural al începutului primei epoci a ierului, date preliminare, Thraco-Dacica, 5, 156–166. 431 Bouzek J. 1958 Etážovite nádoby v Čechách, Archeologické rozhledy, 10, 345–348, 363–407. 1969 Zwei Hypothesen zu den Anfängen der Lausitzer Kultur, (in:) Beiträge zur Lausitzer Kultur, Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur Sächsischen Bodendenkmalplege, supplement 7, Berlin, 25–29. 1983 Die Vardar- und Morava-Bereich in seinem Verhältnis zu Griechenland zwischen 1200 und 900 v.u.Z, (in:) Griechenland, die Ägäis und die Levante während der “Dark Ages” vom 12. bis zum 9. Jh. v. Chr. (ed. S. Deger-Jalkotzy), Wien, 271–279. 1985 The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Interrelations in the Second Millenium B.C., Praha. 1992 Die tordierte Henkel der Urnenfelderzeit, (in:) Archäologie in Gebirgen (eds. H. Swozilek and G. Grabher), Schriften des Vorarlberger Landesmuseums, Ser. A, Archäologie, 5, Bregenz, 83–84. 1997 „Zwischenehen“, (in:) Χρόνος. Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie zwischen Nord- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Bernhard Hänsel (eds. M. Roeder and B. Teržan), Internationale Archäologie, Studia honoraria, 1, Espelkamp, 437–442. Bradley R. 1998 The Passage of Arms. An archaeological analysis of prehistoric hoard and votive deposits, Oxford. Brather S. 2004 Etnische Interpretation in der frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie. Geschichte, Grundlagen und Alternativen, Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, 42, Berlin-New York. Brather S. and Wotzka H.-P. 2006 Alemannen und Franken? Bestattungsmodi, ethnische Identitäten und wirtschaftliche Verhältnisse zur Merowingerzeit, (in:) Soziale Gruppen – kulturelle Grenzen. Die Interpretation sozialer Identitäten in der Prähistorischen Archäologie (eds. S. Burmeister and N. Müller-Scheeßel), Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher, 5, Münster-New York-München-Berlin, 139–224. 432 Braudel F. 1992 Kultura materialna, gospodarka i kapitalizm XV–XVIII wiek. Czas świata [Civilisation materielle, économie et capitalisme XVe–XVIIIe siècle. Le temps du monde], Warszawa. 2004 Morze Śródziemne i świat śródziemnomorski w epoce Filipa II [La Méditerranée et le Monde Méditerranéen à l’Époque de Philippe II], Warszawa. Breddin R. 1989 Die bronzezeitlichen Lausitzer Gräberfelder von Tornow, Kr. Calau, Veröfentlichungen des Museums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Potsdam, 23, 97–145. 1992 Die bronzezeitlichen Lausitzer Gräberfelder von Tornow, Kr. Calau. Teil II-Katalog, Veröfentlichungen des Museums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Potsdam, 23. Brosseder U. 2006 Ebenen sozialer Identitäten im Spiegel des Zeichensystems hallstattzeitlicher Keramik, (in:) Soziale Gruppen – kulturelle Grenzen. Die Interpretation sozialer Identitäten in der Prähistorischen Archäologie (eds. S. Burmeister and N. Müller-Scheeßel), Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher, 5, Münster-New York-MünchenBerlin, 119–138. Brunn W. A. von 1968 Mitteldeutsche Hortfunde der jüngeren Bronzezeit, Römisch-Germanische Forschungen, 29, Berlin. Buck D-W 1989 Zur chronologischen Gliederung der Lausitzer Gruppe, Veröfentlichungen des Museums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Potsdam, 23, 75–95. Budinský-Krička V. 1947 Slovensko v dobe bronzovej a halštatskej, (in:) Slovenské dejiny 1, Vlastivedná knižnica Slovenskej akadémie vied a umení, 3, Bratislava, 68–103. 1965 Správa o predbežnom archeologickom prieskumie v Liptove roku 1964, Študijné zvesti AUSAV, 15, 177–188. 1969 Záchranný výskum v rokoch 1965 a 1966 v Barci, okres Košice, Nové obzory, 11, 231–269. 433 1976 Predkuštanovické žiarové pohrebisko vo Vojnatine, Slov. Arch., 34/1, 119–149. 1976a Sídlisko z mladšej doby bronzovej a z včasnej doby historickej v Jastrabí nad Topľou, AVANS 1975, 60–61. 1977 Nálezy z prieskumu na východnom Slovensku, AVANS 1976, 65–82. Budinský-Krička V. and Miroššayová E. 1992 Terňa-Lysá stráž – sídlisko z neskorej doby bronzovej a halštatskej (Pokus o chronologické a kultúrne určenie), Slov.Arch. 40/1, 47–76. Bugaj U. 2005 Guzy-krępulce z epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza na ziemiach polskich, MA, 35, 67–92. Bukowski Z. 1967 Kultura łużycka w północnej części Karpat zachodnich, AAC, 9, 29–53. 1969 Studia nad południowym i południowo-wschodnim pograniczem kultury łużyckiej, WrocławWarszawa-Kraków. 1976 Elementy wschodnie w kulturze łużyckiej u schyłku epoki brązu, Wrocław. 1978 Oddziaływania obce w dorzeczu Sanu i górnego Bugu u schyłku II tysiąclecia p.n.e., Materiały i Studia Muzealne, 1, 29–49. 1980 W sprawie genezy podziału strefowego ziem polskich w epoce brązu, (in:) Zróżnicowanie wewnętrzne kultury łużyckiej (ed. M. Gedl), Kraków, 56–77. 1980a W sprawie wczesnych faz epoki brązu w południowej streie Polski, APolski, 25, 281–334. 1985 Salt production in Poland in prehistoric times, Archaeologia Polona, 24, 27–71. 1988 Die Lausizer Kultur. Einleitung zur Problematik, (in:) Forschungen zur Problematik der Lausitzer Kultur (ed. Z. Bukowski), Wrocław, 15–40. 1989 Grupa tarnobrzeska – problemy dyskusyjne, (in:) Grupa tarnobrzeska kultury łużyckiej (ed. A. Barłowska), Rzeszów, 43–84. 1989a Szlaki handlowe z południa na Pomorze w młodszej epoce brązu i we wczesnej epoce żelaza, (in:) Problemy kultury łużyckiej na Pomorzu (ed. T. Malinowski), Słupsk, 185–208. 1993 Über die früheisenzeitliche sog. Bernsteinstraße im Flußgebiet von Oder und Wichsel, (in:) Amber in Archaeology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Amber in Archaeology (eds. C.W. Beck and J. Bouzek), Praha, 117–128. 2002 Znaleziska bursztynu w zespołach z epoki brązu i z wczesnej epoki żelaza z dorzecza Odry oraz Wisły, Warszawa. 434 Bukvić L. 2000 Kanelovana keramika Gava kompleksa u Banatu, Novi Sad. Burgess C. 1979 The Beaker phenomenon: some suggestions. 1: General comments and the British evidence, (in:) Settlement and economy in the third and second millenia B.C. (eds. C. Burgess and R. Miket), BAR, 33, Oxford, 309–323. 2001 Swords, warfare and Sea Peoples: the end of the Late Bronze Age in the east Mediterranean, (in:) Du monde des Chasseurs à celui des métallurgistes: hommages à Jean L’Helgouac’h et Jacques Briard (ed. C.-T. Le Roux), Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest, supplement 9, 227–287. Burmeister S. 1996 Migration und ihre archäologische Nachweisbarkeit, Archäologische Informationen, 19/1&2, 13–21. 1997 Zum sozialen Gebrauch von Tracht. Aussagemöglichkeiten hinsichtlich des Nachweises von Migrationen, Etnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift, 38, 177–203. 2000 Archaeology and Migration. Approaches to an Archaeological Proof of Migration, Current Anthropology, 41/4, 539–567. Burmeister S. and Müller-Scheeßel N. 2006 Einführung: die Identiizierung sozialer Gruppen. Die Erkenntnismöglichkeiten der prähistorischen Archäologie auf dem Prüfstand, (in:) Soziale Gruppen – kulturelle Grenzen. Die Interpretation sozialer Identitäten in der prähistorischen Archäologie (eds. S. Burmeister and N. Müller-Scheeßel), Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher, 5, Münster-New York-München-Berlin, 9–38. Cabalska M. 1963 Osadnictwo kultury łużyckiej w rejonie średniego biegu Dunajca w świetle badań w Maszkowicach, pow. Nowy Sącz, Zeszyty Naukowe UJ, 73, Prace Archeologiczne, 5, 41–58. 1963a Sprawozdanie z prac wykopaliskowych prowadzonych na grodzisku w Chełmowej Górze w Chełmcu Polskim, pow. Nowy Sącz, (in:) Uniwersytet Jagielloński. Katedra Archeologii Polski. Wyniki badań wykopaliskowych prowadzonych w roku 1963, Kraków, 51–53. 435 1963b Sprawozdanie z prac wykopaliskowych prowadzonych na stanowisku Babia Góra w Zabrzeży, pow. Nowy Sącz, w 1963 r., (in:) Wyniki badań wykopaliskowych prowadzonych w 1963 r., Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Katedra Archeologii Polski, Kraków, 37–42. 1966 Sądecczyzna w badaniach Katedry Archeologii Polski UJ, Rocznik Sądecki, 7, 376–397. 1968 Sprawozdanie z badań archeologicznych przeprowadzonych w Maszkowicach, pow. Nowy Sącz w latach 1965 i 1967, Rocznik Sądecki, 9, 469–473. 1969 Marcinkowice, pow. Kolno, Informator Archeologiczny 1968, 266–267. 1969a Pradzieje powiatu nowosądeckiego, Rocznik Sądecki, 10, 103–143. 1970 Sprawozdanie z badań osady kultury łużyckiej w Maszkowicach, Spr. Arch., 22, 91–101. 1972 Maszkowice, pow. Nowy Sącz, Informator Archeologiczny 1971, 89–90. 1972a Z badań nad problematyką najstarszej ceramiki zdobionej ornamentem guzowym z terenu Polski, Sprawozdania z Posiedzeń Oddziału PAN w Krakowie, 16/2, 368–370. 1973 Maszkowice, pow. Nowy Sącz, Informator Archeologiczny 1972, 125. 1973a Sprawozdanie z badń wykopaliskowych prowadzonych na grodzisku w Mymoniu, pow. Sanok w 1969 r., MSROA 1968–1969, 112–118. 1974 Z badań nad problematyką najstarszej ceramiki zdobionej ornamentem guzowym z terenu polski południowej w świetle materiałów z Maszkowic, pow. Nowy Sącz, Slov. Arch., 22/1, 39–71. 1974a Die Problematik der ältesten, mit Buckelornamentik verzierten Keramik aus dem Gebiete Kleinpolens, unter Berücksichtigung des Materials aus Maszkowice, Kreis Nowy Sącz, Zeszyty naukowe UJ, 352, Prace Archeologiczne, 18, 57–92. 1975 Osadnictwo kultury łużyckiej w Maszkowicach w świetle dotychczasowych badań archeologicznych, Materiały Starożytne i Wczesnośredniowieczne, 3, 159–184. 1975a Sprawozdania z badań wykopaliskowych przeprowadzonych w 1970 roku w Mymoniu, pow. Korosno, MSROA 1970–1972, 95–100. 1976 Wehrsiedlung und Burg der Lausitzer Kultur in Maszkowice, (in:) Studien zu südpolnischen Wehranlagen (ed. M. Gedl), Zeszyty naukowe UJ, 424, Prace Archeologiczne, 23, 42–62. 1977 Hillfort and fortiied settlement of Lusatian Culture in Maszkowice, voivodship of Nowy Sącz, Archaeologia Polona, 18, 107–136. 1979 Pradzieje, (in:) Historia Starego Sącza (ed. H. Barycz), Kraków, 13–26. 43 1980 Związki między kulturą Otomani a kulturą trzciniecką, A.Polski, 24, 53–65. 1982 Uwagi o problematyce osadnictwa kultury łużyckiej z terenu Sądecczyzny, (in:) Południowa strefa kultury łużyckiej i powiązania tej kultury z południem (ed. M. Gedl), KrakówPrzemyśl, 353–370. 1983 Materiały z epoki brązu i wczesnego okresu epoki żelaza odkryte na stanowisku Nowa HutaWyciąże I (5) w latach 1950–1952, MA Nowej Huty, 7, 7–74. Cabalska M, Madyda-Legutko R. and Tunia K. 1990 Wyniki badań stanowiska z epoki brązu, początków epoki żelaza i z późnego okresu rzymskiego w Nowym Sączu-Biegonicach, AAC, 29, 163–214. Cabalska M., Madyda R., Parczewski M. and Tunia K. 1975 Materiały do pradziejów powiatu Dąbrowa Tarnowska, Materiały Starożytne i Wczesnośredniowieczne, 3, 387–422. Čaplovič P. 1974 Junghalstattzeitliche Funde in Orava-Gebiet, (in:) Symposium zu Problemen der jüngeren Hallstattzeit in Mitteleuropa (ed. B. Chropovský), Bratislava, 41–59. 1977 Dolný Kubín II. Halštatské popolnicové pohrebisko, Martin. 1987 Orava v praveku, vo včasnej dobe dejinnej a na začiatku stredoveku, Martin. Catling H. 1961 A new Bronze Sword from Cyprus, Antiquity, 35, 115–122. Champion T.C. 1982 Fortiication, ranking and subsistence, (in:) Ranking, resource and exchange. Aspects of the archaeology of early European society (eds. C. Renfrew and S. Shennan), Cambridge, 61–66. 1995 Introduction, (in:) Centre and Periphery. Comparative Studies in Archaeology (ed. T.C. Champion), London-New York, 1–21. Chernyakov I. T. 1985 Severo-Zapadnoje Pritsernomor’e vo vtoroj polovinje II tys. do n.e., Kiev. 43 Chicideanu I. 1986 Die Frühthrakische Kultur. Zur Bronzezeit in Südwest Rumänien, Dacia, 30, 7–47. Chidioşan N. 1974 Sincronismele apusene ale culturii Wietenberg stabile pe baza importurilor ceramica, Crisia, 4, 155–176. Chidioşan N. and Emödi I. 1983 Descoperirile arheologice din Peştera Izbîndiş (comuna Şuncuiuş) aparţinînd grupului cultural Igriţa, Crisia, 13, 7–16. Childe V.G. 1929 The Danube in Prehistory, Oxford. Chochorowski J. 1989 Cmentarzysko grupy tarnobrzeskiej w Manasterzu (stan. 6), gm. Wiązownica, woj. Przemyśl w świetle dotychczasowych badań, (in:) Grupa tarnobrzeska kultury łużyckiej (ed. A. Barłowska), Rzeszów, 585–615. 1989a Zur Genese und Funktion der Befestigten Siedlungen der Gáva-Kultur (Ein Disskusionbeitrag), (in:) Studia nad grodami epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w Europie Środkowej, Wrocław, 85–97. 1993 Ekspansja kimmeryjska na tereny Europy Środkowej, Rozprawy Habilitacyjne UJ, 260, Kraków. 2007 Metodyczne i metodologiczne problemy datowania radiowęglowego pozostałości kremacji z grobów ciałopalnych kultury łużyckiej (na przykładzie materiałów z cmentarzyska w Kietrzu), (in:) Studia nad epoką brązu i wczesną epoką żelaza w Europie. Księga poświęcona Profesorowi Markowi Gedlowi na pięćdziesięciolecie pracy w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim (ed. J. Chochorowski), Kraków, 103–138. Chorąży B. and Chorąży B. 2003 Stan badań nad problematyką osadnictwa epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza na terenie Podbeskidzia, pomiędzy Beczwą a Białą, (in:) Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Karpatach polskich (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 569–590. 438 Christescu V. 1925 Les stations protohistoriques du lac de Boïan, Dacia, 2, 249–303. Čičkova M. 1968 Keramika ot starata željazna epoha v Trakija, Arkheologiia (Soia), 10/4, 15–27. 1974 Frühthrakische Siedlungen in Bulgarien, (in:) Symposium zu Problemen der jüngeren Hallstattzeit in Mitteleuropa (ed. B. Chropovský), Bratislava, 61–84. Cieślik J., Gancarski J. and Madej P. 1991 Sprawozdanie z badań sondażowych osady z epoki brązu w Nienaszowie, gm. Nowy Żmigród, woj. Krośnieńskie, AAC, 30, 223–235. Cierny J. 2003 Vier Dinge verderben ein Bergwerk... – welche Ereignisse haben die Bergwerksproduktion in der Frühzeit beeinlusst, (in:) Mensch und Bergbau. Studies in Honour of Gerd Weisgerber on Occasion of his 65th Birthday (eds. T. Stöllner, G. Körlin, G. Stefens and J. Cierny), Bochum, 93–102. Ciugudean H. 1994 The Hallstatt A Period in Central Transylvania, (in:) The Early Hallstatt Period (1200–700 B.C.) in South-Eastern Europe (eds. H. Ciugudean and N. Borofka), Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis, 1, Alba Iulia, 25–40. 1999 Betrachtungen zum Ende der Wietenberg-Kultur, (in:) Transsilvanica. Archäologische Untersuchungen zur älteren Geschichte des südöstlichen Mitteleuropa – Gedenkschrift für Kurt Horedt (eds. N. Borofka and T. Soroceanu), Internationale Archäologie – Studia honoraria, 7, Rhaden, 107–131. Ciugudean H. and Aldea I.A. 2005 Der Bronzefund von Cugir, Kr. Alba und seine Beziehungen zu den spätbronzezeitlichen Kulturphänomen Siebenbürgens, (in:) Bronzefunde aus Rumänien II (ed. T. Soroceanu), Biblioteca Muzeului Bistriţa, Seria Historica, 11, Bistriţa-Cluj, 95–132. Clarke D. L. 1968 Analytical Archaeology, London. 43 Clausing Ch. 1999 Untersuchungen zur Sozialstruktur in der Urnenfelderzeit Mitteleuropas, (in:) Eliten in der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen, Monographien RGZM, 43/2, Mainz, 319–420. 2003 Ein Urnenfelderzeitlicher Hortfund von Slavonski Brod, Kroatien, JRGZM, 50, 47–205. Coblenz W. 1964 Jungbronzezeitliche Gräber an den „Grenzgebiet“ der Lausitzer Kultur aus Zauschwitz, Ausgrabungen und Funde, 9/2, 83–90. Comşa E. 1964 Mormint din prima epoca a ierului găsit la Radovanu (r. Olteniţa), SCIV, 15, 127–129. Čović B. 1958 Barice – nekropola kasnog bronzanog doba kod Gračanice, GZM, 13, 77–96. 1981 Neka pitanja hronologije bronzanog doba glasinačkog područja, GZM, 35/36 (1980– 1981), 99–140. 1983 Prelazna zona, (in:) Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, 4, Bronzano doba, Sarajevo, 390–412. 1983a Glasinačka kulturna skupina, (in:) Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, 4, Bronzano doba, Sarajevo, 413–432. 1989 Posuška kultura, GZM, 44, 61–127. Cowen J. D. 1961 The Late Bronze Age Chronology of Central Europe: Some Relections, Antiquity, 35, 40–44. 1961a The lange-hilted cutting sword of bronze: Was it irst developed in Central Europe, or in the Aegean Area?, (in:) Bericht über den V. Intrernationalen Kongress für Vor- und Frühgeschichte Hamburg (ed. G. Bersu), Berlin, 207–214. Cronin T.M. 1999 Principles of Paleoclimatology, New York. Csányi M.R. 1980 Árokkal körülvett sirok a halomsiros kultura Jánoshidai temetőjében, Archaeologiai Értesitő, 107, 153–165. 440 Čujanová-Jílková E. 1967 (review) Tibor Kemenczei: A pilinyi kultúra tagolása (Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Gliederung der Pilinyer Kultur), Archeologické rozhledy, 19, 395–397. Cygan S. 2005 Osadnictwo nad dolną Wisłoką w epoce brązu i we wczesnej epoce żelaza, (in:) Archeologia Kotliny Sandomierskiej (ed. M. Kuraś), Rocznik Muzeum Regionalnego w Stalowej Woli, 4, 353–366. Cynkałowski A. 1961 Materiały do pradziejów Wołynia i Polesia wołyńskiego, Warszawa. Czebreszuk J. 1997 Krąg mogiłowy i popielnicowy na Kujawach. Przyczynek do badań nad regionalną zmianą kulturową, (in:) Beiträge zur Deutung der bronzezeitlichen Hort- und Grabfunde in Mitteleuropa (ed. W. Blajer), Kraków, 91–105. 1998 Trzciniec – koniec pewnej tradycji, (in:) „Trzciniec“ – system kulturowy czy interkulturowy proces (eds. A. Kośko and J. Czebreszuk), Poznań, 411–429. 2001 Schyłek neolitu i początki epoki brązu w streie południowo-zachodniobałtyckiej (III i początki II tys. przed Chr.), Seria Archeologia Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 46, Poznań. 2007 The role of the Sambian centre in creating cultural meaning of amber in the third and second millenium BC. The outline of major problems, (in:) Long Distance Trade in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (eds. J. Baron and I. Lasak), Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis, 2960, Studia Archeologiczne, 40, Wrocław, 179–193. Czopek S. 1989 Z badań nad schyłkową fazą grupy tarnobrzeskiej, (in:) Grupa tarnobrzeska kultury łużyckiej (ed. A. Barłowska), Rzeszów, 241–260. 1996 Grupa tarnobrzeska nad środkowym Sanem i dolnym Wisłokiem, Rzeszów. 1997 Uwagi o kulturze łużyckiej na Lubelszczyźnie, Archeologia Polski Środkowowschodniej, 2, 210–226. 441 1998 Z badań nad osadnictwem kultury trzcinieckiej w Polsce południowo-wschodniej, (in:) „Trzciniec“ system kulturowy czy interkulturowy proces (eds. A. Kośko and J. Czebreszuk), Poznań, 149–160. 1999 Pradzieje Polski południowo-wschodniej, Rzeszów. 2001 Pysznica, pow. Stalowa Wola, stanowisko 1 – cmentarzysko ciałopalne z przełomu epok brązu i żelaza, Rzeszów. 2002 Inhumacja i kremacja na cmentarzyskach grupy tarnobrzeskiej, (in:) Popiół i Kość, Funeralia Lednickie 4, Sobótka-Wrocław, 231–246. 2003 Między południem a wschodem – importy i naśladownictwa ceramiki w materiałach grupy tarnobrzeskiej, (in:) Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Krapatach polskich (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 215–238. 2003a „Rzeszowskie“ skupisko osadnicze kultury trzcinieckiej, (in:) Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Karpatach polskich (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 139–150. 2005 Zur kulturgeschichtlichen Sonderstellung der polnischen Karpatenzone in der Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit, AAC, 40, 39–61. 2006 Czas użytkowania cmentarzysk tarnobrzeskiej kultury łużyckiej – możliwości interpretacyjne i uwagi dyskusyjne, Analecta Archaeologica Ressoviensia, 1, 101–132. 2006a Rola kultury trzcinieckiej w genezie tzw. łużyckiego kregu kulturowego (na przykładzie Polski południowo-wschodniej), (in:) Zmierzch kompleksu trzciniecko-komarowskiego. Kształtowanie się nowej rzeczywistości kulturowej w środkowej i młodszej epoce brązu (ed. H. Taras), Lubelskie Materiały Archeologiczne, 14, Lublin, 79–89. 2007 Grodzisko Dolne, stanowisko 22 – wielokulturowe stanowisko nad dolnym Wisłokiem. Część I od epoki kamienia do wczesnej epoki żelaza, Collectio Archaeologica Ressoviensis, 4, Rzeszów. Czopek S. and Poradyło W. in print Interpretacja kulturowo-chronologiczna materiałów ze stanowiska 17 w Warzycach k. Jasła, (in:) Aktualne problemy tarnobrzeskiej kultury łużyckiej, Rzeszów. Czopek S., Ormian K. and Trybała K. 2005 Groby szkieletowe w tarnobrzeskiej kulturze łuzyckiej a kultura wysocka, (in:) Problemy kultury wysockiej (ed. S. Czopek), Rzeszów, 63–81. 442 Czopek S. and Trybała K. 2005 Das zweite Körpergrab aus dem Gräberefeld in Manasterz. Die Probleme der Chronologie und der Diferenzierung des Körperbestattungsrituals in der Tarnobrzeg-Gruppe der Lausitzer Kultur – Drugi grób szkieletowy z cmentarzyska w Manasterzu a problem chronologii i zróżnicowania szkieletowego obrządku pogrzebowego w tarnobrzeskiej kulturze łużyckiej, Spr. Arch., 57, 131–163. Dąbrowski J. 1967 Przyczynki do poznania kultury łużyckiej na Warmii i Mazurach, APolski, 12, 319–341. 1972 Powiązania ziem polskich z terenami wschodnimi w epoce brązu, Wrocław. 1980 Przydatność ceramiki łużyckiej dla podziałów kulturowych, (in:) Zróżnicowanie wewnętrzne kultury łużyckiej (ed. M. Gedl), Kraków, 35–55. 1982 Kultura łużycka na Lubelszczyźnie, (in:) Południowa strefa kultury łużyckiej i powiązania tej kultury z południem (ed. M. Gedl), Kraków-Przemyśl, 261–269. 1988 Über die Unterschiedungsprinzipien der östlichen Zone der Lausitzer Kultur, (in:) Forschungen zur Problematik der Lausitzer Kultur (ed. Z. Bukowski), Wrocław, 85–104. 1988a Uwagi o rozchodzeniu się elementów kultury (na przykładzie ceramiki ręcznie lepionej), APolski, 33, 67–112. 1997 Epoka brązu w północno-wschodniej Polsce, Prace Białostockiego Towarzystwa Naukowego, 36, Białystok. 2003 Oddziaływania kulturowe na ziemie polskie podczas starszej epoki brązu, (in:) Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Karpatach polskich (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 77–88. 2004 Ältere Bronzezeit in Polen – Starsza epoka brązu w Polsce, Warszawa. Dani J. 2001 ”More Recent” Cemetery of the Gáva Culture at the Upper Tisza River Region, (in:) Der nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit (ed. C. Kacsó), Bibliotheca Marmatia, 1, Baia Mare, 279–297. David W. 1998 Zum Ende der bronzezeitlichen Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken, (in:) Archäologische Forschungen in urgeschichtlichen Siedlungslandschaften. Festschrift für Georg Kossack zum 75. 443 Geburtstag (eds. H. Küster, A. Lang and P. Schauer), Regensburger Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie, Regensburg, 231–267. 2002 Studien zu Ornamentik und Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Depotfundgruppe HajdúsámsonApa-Ighiel-Zajta, Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis, 18, Alba Iulia. Davidescu M. 1981 Un tezaur de podoabe tracice descoperit la Hinova-Mehedinţi, Thraco-Dacica, 2, 7–22. Dehn R. 1972 Die Urnenfelderkultur in Nordwürttemberg, Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg, 1, Stuttgart. Della Casa P. 1996 Velika Gruda II. Die bronzezeitliche Nekropole Velika Gruda (Opš. Kotor, Montenegro). Fundgruppen der mittleren und späten Bronzezeit zwischen Adria und Donau, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, 33, Bonn. Della Casa P. and Fischer C. 1997 Neftenbach (CH), Velika Gruda (YU), Kastanas (GR) und Trindhøj (DK) – Argumente für einen Beginn der Spätbronzezeit (Reinecke BzD) im 14. Jahrhundert V. Chr., PZ, 72, 195–233. Demeterová S. 1983 Hradiská kultúry Suciu de Sus a Gáva, Archeologické rozhledy, 35, 33–38. 1983a Žiarové hroby a objekty z neskorej doby bronzovej a zo začiatku staršej doby železnej v Zemplínskych Kopčanoch, Študijné zvesti AUSAV, 20, 113–123. 1984 Inluence de la culture de Suciu de Sus dans la plaine de la Slovakie orientale, Slov. Arch., 32, 11–74. 1986 Počiatky gávskej kultúry na východnom Slovensku, Slov. Arch., 34, 97–131. 1989 Stav výskumu juhovýchodných popolnicových polí, Archeologické rozhledy, 41, 168–181. Demetrykiewicz W. 1897 Cmentarzyska i osady przedhistoryczne w okolicy Tarnobrzega i Rozwadowa nad Sanem, Materiały Antropologiczno-Archeologiczne i Etnograiczne, 2, 135–152. 444 Dergachev V.A. 1975 Bronzovyie priedmety XIII–VIII vv. do n. e. iz dniestrovsko-prutskogo mezhdurjech’ja, Kishinev. 1986 Moldavija i sosednie territorii v epochu bronzy, Kishinev. 1997 Metallicheskije izdelija k problieme genezisa kultur rannego Gal’shtata karpato-danubnonordpontijskogo regiona, Kishinev. 1997a Piesele de metal – referinţe la problema genezi culturilor hallstattului timpuriu din regiunea carpato-danubiano-nord-pontică, Thraco-Dacica, 18, 135–205. 2002 Die äneolithischen und bronzezeitlichen Metallfunde aus Moldavien, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, XX, 9, Stuttgart. Dietler M. and Herbich I. 1998 Habitus, Techniques, Style: An Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries, (in:) The Archaeology of Social Boundaries (ed. M.T. Stark), Washington, 232–263. Dietzel A. and Coblenz W. 1975 Bronzezeitliche Gräber im Vorgelände des Burgwalles auf dem Göhrisch, Kr., Meißen, Ausgrabungen und Funde, 20/2, 67–77. Dimitrov D.P. 1968 Troja VIIb2 i balkanskite trakijski i mizijski plemena, Arkheologiia (Soia), 10/4, 1–14. Dmochowska-Orlińska G. 1992 Złote przedmioty ze zbiorów Państwowego Muzeum Archeologicznego w Warszawie, WA, 52, 51–53. Dobesch G. 2004 Zentrum, Peripherie und „Barbaren” in der Urgeschichte und der alten Geschichte, (in:) Zentrum und Peripherie – gesellschaftliche Phänomene in der Frühgeschichte (eds. H. Friesinger and A. Stuppner), Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission, 57, Wien, 11–93. 445 Dobiat C. 1981 Die Hallstattnekropole bei Kleinklein im Sulmtal, (in:) Die Hallstattkultur (eds. E. Jerem and A. Lippert), Linz, 185-204. Dobrzańska H. and Rydzewski J. 1992 Elementy zakarpackie w materiałach kultury trzcinieckiej w Mysławczycach, AAC, 31, 91–106. Dohnal V. 1977 Kultura lužických popelnicových polí na východní Moravě, Fontes Archaeologicae Moravicae, Brno. 1995 Zur Frage der so genannten Protolausitzer Horizontes und der Anfänge der Lausitzer Kultur in Mähren, PZ, 70, 190–227. Dragomir I.T. 1960 Săpăturile arheologice de la Caradineşti (r. Bereşti, reg. Galaţi), Materiale şi Cercetări Archeologice, 7, 151–162. Dreschler-Bižić R. 1980 Nekropola brončanog doba u pećini Bezdanjači kod Vrhovina, Vjesnik Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu, 3, 27–77. Dular J. 1973 Bela Krajina v starohalštatskem obdobju, Arheološki vestnik, 24, 544–591. 1978 Podzemelj, Katalogi i Monograije, 16, Ljubljana. 1999 Ältere, mittlere und jüngere Bronzezeit in Slowenien – Forschungsstand und Probleme, Arheološki vestnik, 50, 81–96. 2002 Dolnji Lakoš und die Jungbronzezeit zwischen Mur und der Save, (in:) Bronastodobno naselje Oloris pri Dolnjem Lakošu (eds. J. Dular, I. Šavel and S. Tecco Hvala), Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae, 5, Ljubljana, 141–228. Dumitraşcu S. 1980 Săpăturile arheologice de la Biharea, Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice 1980, 137–145. 44 Dumitrescu V. 1961 Necropola de incineraţie din epoca bronzului de la Cîrna, Biblioteca de Arheologie, 4, Bucureşti. Durczewski Z. 1946 Grupa górnośląsko-małopolska kultury łużyckiej w Polsce, cz. 1 (syntetyczna), Wydawnictwa Śląskie – Prace Prehistoryczne, 4 (1939–1946), Kraków. 1948 Grupa górnośląsko-małopolska kultury łużyckiej w Polsce, cz. 2 (materiały), Wydawnictwa Śląskie – Prace Prehistoryczne, 6, Kraków. Dušek M. 1957 Halštatská kultúra chotínskej skupiny na Slovensku, Slov. Arch., 5, 73–173. Dziedziak S. 2001 Cmentarzysko kultury łużyckiej w Wieprzcu, pow. Zamość, woj. lubelskie, Archeologia Polski Środkowowschodniej, 6, 222–243. Dzięgielewski K. in print Osada z młodszej i późnej epoki brązu na stanowisku 48 w Wojniczu, pow. Tarnów, (in:) Via Archaeologica. Źródła z badań wykopaliskowych na trasie autostrady A4 w Małopolsce, Kraków. Earle T. 1991 The evolution of chiefdoms, (in:) Chiefdoms: Power, Economy and Ideology (ed. T. Earle), Cambridge, 1–15. Eggers H.J. 1974 Einführung in die Vorgeschichte, München. Eggert M.K.H. 1978 Zum Kulturkonzept in der prähistorischen Archäologie, Bonner Jahrbuch, 178, 1–20. 44 Eibner C. and Schrattbauer K. 1963 Urnenfelderzeitliche Brandgräber aus Michelhausen, p. B. Tulln, NÖ, Archaeologia Austriaca, 33, 10–19. Eisner J 1933 Slovensko v pravěku, Práce Učené Společnosti Šafaříkovy v Bratislavě, 13, Bratislava. Ember M. 1973 An archaeological indicator of matrilocal versus patrilocal residence, American Antiquity, 38/2, 177–182. Emödi I. 1978 Noi date privind depozitul de la Cioclovina, SCIVA, 29, 481–495. 1980 Necropola de la sirşitul epocii bronzului din peştera Igriţa, SCIVA, 31, 229–273. 1997 Descoperiri de la sfârşitul epocii bronzului din Peştera Ungurului (jud. Bihor), Acta Musei Napocensis, 34, 485–504. Eppel F. 1949 Das urnenfelderzeitliche Gräberfeld von Unter-Radl, B.H. St. Pölten, Archaeologia Austriaca, 2, 33–63. Falkenstein F. 1997 Eine Katastrophen-Theorie zum Beginn der Urnenfelderkultur, (in:) Χρόνος. Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie zwischen Nord- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Bernhard Hänsel (eds. M. Roeder and B. Teržan), Internationale Archäologie, Studia Honoraria, 1, Espelkamp, 549–561. 1998 Feudwar. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer Mikroregion am Zusammenluß von Donau und Theiß II. Die Siedlungsgeschichte des Titeler Plateaus, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 14, Kiel. in print Cultural Change and Environmental Impact in the Late Bronze Age of Greece (Papers of the EAA 7th Annual Meeting in Esslingen, 19–23 September 2001). 448 Felcman J. 1898 Hromadný nález bronzů v Tachlovicích, Památky archeologické, 18, 246–251. Filip J. 1951 Pradzieje Czechosłowacji, Poznań. Filipov T. 1974 Keramika i idolna plastika ot kasnobronzovija nekropol pri s. Orsoj, Mihajlovgradski okrag, Archeologija (Soia), 16, 2, 12–23. Fischl K.P., Kiss V. 2002 A Vattina-kultúra kutatása ós escaki kapcsolatainak kérdése, MFMÉ, 8, 125–145. Florek M. 2006 Siekierka brązowa z miejscowości Senisławice, pow. kazimierski, WA, 58, 377–378. Florescu A. C. 1957 Şantierul arheologic Truşeşti (reg. Suceava, r. Truşeşti), Materiale şi Cercetări Archeologice, 3, 203–218. 1959 Săpăturile de la Andrieşeni (r. Iaşi, reg. Iaşi), Materiale şi Cercetări Archeologice, 5, 329–337. 1959a Săpăturile de la Andrieşeni (r. şi reg. Iaşi), Materiale şi Cercetări Archeologice, 6, 117–126. 1964 Contribuţii la cunoaşterea culturii Noua, Arheologia Moldovei, 2–3, 143–216. Fogel J. 1979 Studia nad uzbrojeniem ludności kultury łużyckiej w dorzeczu Odry i Wisły. Broń zaczepna, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu – Seria Archeologia, 14, Poznań. 1988 Militaria kultury łużyckiej z dorzecza Odry i Wisły (źródła), Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu – Seria Archeologia, 32, Poznań. 44 Foit G. 1967 Depozitul de obiecte de bronz de la Ilşeni (raionul Botoşani, reg. Suceava), Arheologia Moldovei, 2/3, 461–469. Foltiny S. 1967 Neue Angaben zur Kenntnis der urnenfelderzeitlichen Keramik im südlichen Teile des Karpatenbeckens, Apulum, 6, 49–71. 1968 Zum Problem der so genannten „Pseudo- Protovillanovaurnen“, Origini, 2, 333–355. 1968a Zur Frage der mitteldonauländischen Hügelgräberkultur in Nordostjugoslawien, Zborník Filozoickej fakulty Univerzity Kommenského, 19, Musaica, 7, 3–16. 1987 Ein Beitrag zur Frage der transdanubischen inkrustierten Keramik in Nordost-Jugoslavien, PZ, 62, 78–86. 1989 Einige Bemerkungen zur Frage der mittel- und spätbronzezeitlichen Keramik in der Bačka, in Syrmien und in Ostslawonien, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft, 118/119 (1988/89), 229–246. Forenbaher S. 1988 On „Pseudoprotovillanova“ Urns in Yugoslav Danube Area, Opuscula archaeologica, 13, 23–41. 1990 Vučedol – Streimov vinograd: horizont kasnog brončanog doba, Opuscula archaeologica, 14, 55–66. 1991 Nalazišta grupe “Belegiš II” u istočnoj Slavoniji, Opuscula archaeologica, 15, 47–69. 1994 The „Belegiš II“ Group in Eastern Slavonia, (in:) The Early Hallstatt Period (1200–700 B.C.) in South-Eastern Europe (eds. H. Ciugudean and N. Borofka), Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis, 1, Alba Iulia, 49–61. Frank A.G. 1993 Bronze Age World System Cycles, Current Anthropology, 34/4, 383–429. Frankenstein S. and Rowlands M.J. 1978 The internal structure and regional context of Early Iron Age society in south-western Germany, Institute of Archaeology Bulletin, 15, 73–112. 450 Fraś J. and Reguła K. 2001 Badania archeologiczne prowadzone przez Muzeum Żup Krakowskich Wieliczka w latach 1997–1998, Studia i materiały do dziejów żup solnych w Polsce, 21, 321–336. Fraś J. and Pawlikowski S. 2005 Badania archeologiczne prowadzone przez Muzeum Żup Krakowskich Wieliczka w latach 2003–2004, Studia i materiały do dziejów żup solnych w Polsce, 24, 353–368. Friedrich M. and Henning H. 1995 Dendrochronologische Untersuchungen der Hölzer des hallsttatzeitlichen Wagengrabes 8 aus Wehingen, Ldkr. Augsburg und andere Absolutdaten zur Hallstattzeit, Bayerische Vorgeschichts-Blätter, 60, 289–300. Furmánek V. 1973 Bronzová industrie středodunajské mohylové kultury na Moravě, Slov. Arch., 21, 25–145. 1977 Pilinyer Kultur, Slov. Arch., 25, 25–370. 1980 Die Anhänger in der Slowakei, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, XI, 3, München. 1980a Periodisation in the Central European Bronze Age, Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, 17, 117–127. 1981 Die Anfänge der Pilinyer Kultur, Slov. Arch., 29, 37–50. 1982 Metalurgie bronzu v piliňské kultuře, APolski, 27, 371–382. 1982a K otázce kontinuity piliňské a kyjatycké kultury, (in:) Południowa strefa kultury łużyckiej i powiązania tej kultury z południem (ed. M. Gedl), Kraków-Przemyśl, 107–119. 1983 Hradiská pilinskej a kyjatickej kultúry na Slovensku, Archeologické rozchledy, 35, 24–32. 1986 Südöstliche Urnenfelder in der Slowakei, (in:) Urzeitliche und frühhistorische Besiedlung der Ostslowakei in Bezug zu den Nachbargebieten (ed. B. Chropovský), Nitra, 183–188. 1986a Kyjatice – eponymní lokalita archeologické kultury, Slov.Arch., 34/2, 319–329. 1987 Die Kyjatyce-Kultur, (in:) Die Urnenfelderkulturen Mitteleuropas (eds. E. Plesl and J. Hrala), Praha, 317–323. 1987a Zu einigen Fragen der südöstlichen Urnenfelder in der Slowakei, Mitteilungen der Berliner Gesselschaft für Antropologie, Etnologie und Urgeschichte, 8, 39–54. 451 1988 Kontakte der Pilinyer und der Lausitzer Kultur, (in:) Forschungen zur Problematik der Lausitzer Kultur (ed. Z. Bukowski), Wrocław, 213–224. 1990 Radzovce – osada ľudu popolnicových polí, Bratislava. 1994 Grabkonstruktionen der Kyjatice-Kultur, (in:) The Early Hallstatt Period (1200–700 B.C.) in South-Eastern Europe (eds. H. Ciugudean and N. Borofka), Alba Iulia, 63–67. 1997 K problémům kultury Suciu de Sus na Slovensku, Sbornik prací Filozoické fakulty Brnĕnské univerzity, 1997/2, 155–167. 1998 Östliche Einlüsse in der Bronzeindustrie der südöstlichen Urnenfelderkultur in der mittleren und jüngeren Bronzezeit, (in:) Das Karpatenbecken und die osteuropäische Steppe (eds. B. Hänsel and J. Machnik), Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 12, München, 261–266. 2000 Popelnicová pole v Karpatské kotlině, Acta historica et museologica Universitatis Silesianae Opaviensis, 5, 95–106. 2001 Meč s vývalkovitou rukoväťou z Novohradu, Slov.Arch., 48/1, 87–100. 2003 Kulturmobilität im Gebiet der Slowakei von der Mittleren- bis zu Spätbronzezeit, (in:) Diachronic Settlement Studies in the Metal Ages (ed. H. Thrane), Moesgård, 99–107. Furmánek V. and Marková K. 1999 Die westliche Peripherie der Otomani-Kultur in der Slowakei, (in:) Kultura OtomaniFüzesabony – rozwój, chronologia, gospodarka (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 73–83. 2001 Beitrag der Ausgrabung der Siedlung in Včelince zur Problematik der Bronzezeit in Theißgebiet, (in:) Der nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit (ed. C. Kacsó), Bibliotheca Marmatia, 1, Baia Mare, 105–118. Furmánek V. and Ožd’áni O. 1989 Kontakte der Hügelgräberkulturen und des Kulturkomplexes der südöstlichen Urnenfelder, (in:) Beiträge zur mitteleuropaischen Bronzezeit (eds. V. Furmánek and F. Horst), Berlin-Nitra, 129–141. 2000 Pohanský vrch – hradisko kyjatickej kultúry v Horných Plachtinciach, Pravěk, 10, 411–419. Furmánek V. and Veliačik L. 1991 Anfänge der Urnenfelderkulturen in der Mittel- und Ostslowakei, (in:) Die Anfänge der Urnenfelderkulturen in Europa (ed. M. Gedl), Archaeologia Interregionalis, 13, Warszawa, 29–45. 452 Furmánek V., Veliačik L. and Romsauer P. 1982 Jungbronzezeitliche befestigte Siedlungen in der Slowakei, (in:) Beiträge zum bronzezeitlichen Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa (ed. J. Hermann), Berlin-Nitra, 159–175. Furmánek V., Veliačik L. and Vládar J. 1991 Slovensko v dobe bronzovej, Bratislava. 1999 Die Bronzezeit in slowakischen Raum, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 15, Rhaden. Furmánek V. and Vládar J. 2001 Synchronisation der historischen Entwicklung in Nordteil des Karpatenbeckens im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., (in:) Der nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit (ed. C. Kacsó), Bibliotheca Marmatia, 1, Baia Mare, 83–104. Gabrovec S. 1973 Začetek halštatskega obdobja v Sloveniji, Arheološki Vestnik, 338–385. Gačková L. 2004 Žiarový hrob gávskej kultúry zo Žbiniec, AVANS 2003, 56–57. Gajewski L. 1958 Zamczysko w miejscowości Mymoń, pow. Sanok (Polska), AAC, 1, 117–120. 1959 Sprawozdanie z prac badawczych, prowadzonych w 1957 r. w Igołomii, pow. Proszowice, i okolicy, Spr. Arch., 8, 17–44. 1981 Ciekawe znalezisko z bagna w miejscowości Huszczka Duża, gm. Skierbieszów, woj. Zamość, WA, 46, 240–241. Gancarski J. 1988 Wstępne sprawozdanie z badań osady kultury trzciniecko-otomańskiej na stanowisku nr 29 w Jaśle, województwo krośnieńskie, AAC, 27, 62–83. 1989 Badania sondażowe na stanowisku nr 3 w Niepli, gm. Jasło i na stanowisku nr 2 w Sieklówce Górnej, gm. Kołaczyce, woj. krośnieńskie, AAC, 28, 183–194. 1992 Pradzieje Kotliny Jasielskiej i jej obrzeży, wyniki badań archeologicznych w ostatnich latach, Jasło. 453 1992a Badania wykopaliskowe na stanowisku nr 1 w Trzcinicy, gm. Jasło, (in:) Badania archeologiczne w województwie krośnieńskim w latach 1990–1991, Krosno, 55–59. 1992b Sprawozdanie z ratowniczych badań wykopaliskowych na stanowisku nr 14 we Wrocance, gm. Tarnowiec, (in:) Badania archeologiczne w województwie krośnieńskim w latach 1990–1991, Krosno, 14–19. 1992c Sondażowe badania wykopaliskowe na stanowisku 2 w Świerchowej, gm. Osiek Jasielski, (in:) Badania archeologiczne w województwie krośnieńskim w latach 1990–1991, Krosno, 48–52. 1994 Pogranicze kultury trzcinieckiej i Otomani-Füzesabony – grupa jasielska, (in:) Problemy kultury trzcinieckiej (ed. P. Mitura), Rzeszów, 75–104. 1999 Chronologia grupy pleszowskiej kultury mierzanowickiej i kultury Otomani-Füzesabony w Polsce na podstawie wyników badań wykopaliskowych osad w Trzcinicy i Jaśle, (in:) Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony – rozwój, chronologia, gospodarka (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 145–180. 2002 Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony po północnej stronie Karpat, (in:) Między Mykenami a Bałtykiem. Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony, Krosno-Warszawa, 103–123. Gancarski J. and Ginalski J. 2001 Osada obronna z wczesnej epoki brązu w Trepczy koło Sanoka, (in:) Neolit i początki epoki brązu w Karpatach polskich (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 305–318. Gancarski J. and Lukáč G. 2001 Surface research of the southern approach of the Dukla Pass in the Ondava River Basin, (in:) Archaeology and Natural Background of the Lower Beskid Mountains, Carpathians, I (ed. J. Machnik), Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat, 2, Kraków, 103–110. Garašanin D. 1996 Zu den Problemen der Gruppe Donja Brnjica-Gornja Stražava auf dem mittleren Balkan, (in:) The Yugoslav Danube Basin and the Neighbouring Regions in the 2nd Millenium BC (ed. N. Tasić), Belgrad-Vrsač, 219–226. Garašanin M. 1975 Les dépôts préhistoriques de la Serbie et de la Voivodine, Fontes Archaeologae Serbiae, 1, Prehistorie, 1, Belgrade. 454 1983 Period polja sa urnama Vojvodine, (in:) Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, 4, Bronzano doba, Sarajevo, 668–684. 1996 Die kulturelle und chronologische Stellung der Mediana-Gruppe, (in:) The Yugoslav Danube Basin and the Neighbouring Regions in the 2nd Millenium BC (ed. N. Tasić), BelgradVrsač, 201–218. Gardawski A. 1959 Plemiona kultury trzcinieckiej w Polsce, Materiały Starożytne, 5, 7–189. 1979 Kultura Gava, (in:) Od środkowej epoki brązu do środkowego okresu lateńskiego, Prahistoria Ziem Polskich, 4, Wrocław, 204–205. Gašaj D. 1988 Žiarový hrob z neskorej doby bronzovej až začiatku staršej doby železnej v Zemplíne, Historica Carpathica, 19, 261–269. Gašaj D. and Olexa L. 1980 Nové nálezy gávskej kultúry v Borši, Historica Carpatica, 10 (1979), 247–259. Gawlik A. and Godlewski P. 2006 Ein Bericht von den Ausgrabungen an der Fundstelle 1 in Witów, Gde. Koszyce in der Saison 2002–2003, Recherches Archeologiques de 1999–2003, 113–118. Gawlik A. and Przybyła M.S. 2005 Początki wczesnej epoki żelaza w Kotlinie Sandomierskiej, (in:) Archeologia Kotliny Sandomierskiej (ed. M. Kuraś), Rocznik Muzeum Regionalnego w Stalowej Woli, 4, 313–352. Gediga B. 1967 Plemiona kultury łużyckiej na Śląsku środkowym, Wrocław. 1980 Zagadnienie zakresu pojęcia „kultura łużycka“ i jej wewnętrznego zróżnicowania, (in:) Zróżnicowanie wewnętrzne kultury łużyckiej, Kraków, 11–34. 1982 Zagadnienia periodyzacji okresu rozwoju kultury łużyckiej w świetle kontaktów z południem, (in:) Południowa strefa kultury łużyckiej i powiązania tej kultury z południem (ed. M. Gedl), Kraków-Przemyśl, 49–58. 455 1983 Das Deinitionsproblem der Lauzitzer Kultur und ihrer inneren Diferenzierung, Przegląd Archeologiczny, 31, 159–174. Gedl M. 1960 Sprawozdanie z drobnych prac archeologicznych prowadzonych na terenie województwa rzeszowskiego w 1955 roku, Spr. Arch., 9, 85–90. 1962 Kultura łużycka na Górnym Śląsku, Prace Komisji Archeologicznej PAN, 3, Wrocław. 1962a Badania na cmentarzysku kultury łużyckiej w Chodorówce (Bachórzu), pow. Brzozów, w 1960 roku, Spr. Arch., 14, 94–101. 1967 Studia nad wczesną fazą kultury łużyckiej w środkowej i wschodniej Polsce, APolski, 12, 280–318. 1969 Zróżnicowanie terytorialne kultury łużyckiej w południowej Polsce, (in:) I Międzynarodowy Kongres Archeologii Słowiańskiej, 2, Wrocław, 385–394. 1970 Ze studiów nad genezą i wczesną fazą grupy tarnobrzeskiej, APolski, 15, 365–386. 1971 Studia nad kulturą łużycką w Turyngii, Światowit, 32, 61–127. 1975 Kultura łużycka, Kraków. 1976 Burgen und Höhensiedlungen der Lausitzer Kultur in Kleinpolen, (in:) Studien zu südpolnischen Wehranlagen (ed. M. Gedl), Zeszyty Naukowe UJ, 424, Prace Archeologiczne, 23, 7–40. 1978 Wczesnołużyckie pochówki ciałopalne ze śladami trumien drewnianych na cmentarzysku w Kietrzu, woj. Opole, APolski, 23, 277–306. 1979 Stufengliederung und Chronologie des Gräberfeldes der Lausitzer Kultur in Kietrz, Prace Archeologiczne, 27, Kraków. 1980 Studia nad periodyzacją kultury łużyckiej w południowej części Śląska, APolski, 25, 79–129. 1982 Periodyzacja i chronologia kultury łużyckiej w zachodniej Małopolsce, (in:) Południowa strefa kultury łużyckiej i powiązania tej kultury z południem (ed. M. Gedl), KrakówPrzemyśl, 11–33. 1982a Cmentarzysko ze schyłku epoki brązu w Kietrzu I, Wrocław. 1983 Die Nadeln in Polen I, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, XIII, 7, München. 1984 Wczesnołużyckie groby z konstrukcjami drewnianymi, Prace Komisji Archeologicznej PAN – Oddział w Krakowie, 22, Wrocław. 1987 Cmentarzysko ze schyłku epoki brązu w Kietrzu II, Wrocław. 45 1987a Die Tranobrzeg-Gruppe der Urnenfelder Kultur, (in:) Die Urnenfelderkulturen Mitteleuropas (eds. E. Plesl, J. Hrala), Praha, 355–367. 1988 Bemerkungen über die sogenannte westliche Lausitzer Kultur, (in:) Forschungen zur Problematik der Lausitzer Kultur (ed. Z. Bukowski), Wrocław, 63–83. 1988a Możliwości wykorzystywania miedzi ze wschodniej części Karpat polskich w epoce brązu, AAC, 27, 85–94. 1989 Groby z młodszego okresu epoki brązu na cmentarzysku w Kietrzu, Kraków. 1989a Uwagi na temat przynależności kulturowej stanowisk z epoki brązu i z wczesnej epoki żelaza we wschodniej części polskich Karpat, AAC, 28, 109–117. 1989b Problemy grupy tarnobrzeskiej, (in:) Grupa tarnobrzeska kultury łużyckiej (ed. A. Barłowska), Rzeszów, 27–42. 1991 Wczesnołużyckie cmentarzysko w Kietrzu I, Kraków. 1992 Wczesnołużyckie cmentarzysko w Kietrzu II, Kraków. 1994 Cmentarzysko z epoki brązu w Bachórzu-Chodorówce, Kraków. 1996 Wczesnołużyckie cmentarzysko w Kietrzu III, Kraków. 1998 Młodsza epoka brązu we wschodniej części polskich Karpat, Kraków. 1998a Ze studiów nad starszym okresem epoki brązu we wschodniej części polskich Karpat, Rocznik Przemyski, 34/3, Archeologia, 21–36. 1998b Cmentarzyska grupy tarnobrzeskiej w okolicach Łańcuta, MSROA, 19, 27–42. 1999 Skarb wyrobów brązowych z Przemyśla, Rocznik Przemyski, 35/2, Archeologia, 67–73. 1999a Uwagi o dekoracji guzowej ceramiki kultury Otomani i wczesnej fazy kultury łużyckiej, (in:) Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony – rozwój, chronologia, gospodarka (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 249–271. 2001 Brązowe groty oszczepów z podłużnymi żeberkami na tulei po północnej stronie Karpat, Rocznik Przemyski, 37/1, 3–16. 2001a Die jüngere Bronzezeit im Ostteil der polnischen Karpaten, (in:) Der nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit (ed. C. Kacsó), Bibliotheca Marmatia, 1, Baia Mare, 335–352. 2001b Die Bronzegefäße in Polen, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, II, 15, Stuttgart. 2002 Wielkie cmentarzysko z epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w Kietrzu, pow. Głubczyce na Górnym Śląsku, (in:) Wielkie cmentarzyska z epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza (ed. M. Gedl), Prace Komitetu Nauk Pra- i Protohistorycznych, 5, 75–116. 2002a Die Halsringe und Halskragen in Polen I, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, XI, 6, Stuttgart. 45 2002b Współwystępowanie grobów ciałopalnych i szkieletowych na cmentarzyskach z epoki brązu na pograniczu Śląska i Małopolski, (in:) Popiół i Kość, Funeralia Lednickie 4, Sobótka-Wrocław, 205–220. 2003 Początki kultury łużyckiej w zachodniej części polskich Karpat, (in:) Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Karpatach polskich (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 279–395. 2004 Die Fibeln in Polen, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, XIV, 10, Stuttgart. 2004a Die Beile in Polen IV, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, IX, 24, Stuttgart. 2005 Szkieletowy obrządek pogrzebowy na peryferiach zasięgu kompleksu pól popielnicowych, (in:) Problemy kultury wysockiej (ed. S. Czopek), Rzeszów, 45–61. Geertz C. 2005 Interpretacja kultur. Wybrane eseje [Interpretation of Cultures. Selected Essays], Kraków. Genito B. and Kemenczei T. 1990 The Late Bronze Age Vessels from Gyoma 133 S. E. Hungary, Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 1990, 113–125. Georgiev G. I. 1982 Die Erforschung der Bronzezeit in Nordwestbulgarien, (in:) Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v. Chr. (ed. B. Hänsel), Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 1, Berlin, 187–202. 1983 Das Anfangsstadium der Früheisenzeit (12.–9. Jh. v.u.Z.) in Südost- und Nordostbulgarien, (in:) Griechenland, die Ägäis und die Levante während der „Dark Ages“ vom 12. bis zum 9. Jh. v. Chr. (ed. S. Deger-Jalkotzy), Wien, 259–268. Gerlof S. 1993 Zur Fragen mittelmeerländischer Kontakte und absolute Chronologie der Frühbronzezeit in Mittel- und Westeuropa, PZ, 68, 58–102. Gimbutas M. 1965 Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe, Paris-Hague-London. 458 Ginalski J. 1992 Osada wielokulturowa w Ladzinie, gm. Rymanów, stan. 12, (in:) Badania archeologiczne w województwie krośnieńskim w latach 1990–1991, Krosno, 11–13. Ginalski J. and Muzyczuk A. 2001 State of research on prehistoric and Early Medieval settlement on the northern approach of the Dukla Pass, (in:) Archaeology and natural background of the Lower Beskid Mountains, Carpathians, 1 (ed. J. Machnik), Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat PAN, 2, 191–203. Godlewski P. 2001 Cmentarzysko grupy tarnobrzeskiej w Manasterzu, stan. 6, MSROA, 22, 21–57. 2005 O nowych możliwościach datowania początków kultury wysockiej, (in:) Problemy kultury wysockiej (ed. S. Czopek), Rzeszów, 33–44. Gogâltan F. 1998 Early and Middle Bronze Age Chronology in South-West Romania. General Aspects, (in:) The Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin (eds. H. Ciugudean and F. Gogâltan), Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis, 8, Alba Iulia, 191–212. 1999 Bronzul timpuriu şi mijlociu în Banatul românesc şi pe cursul inferior al Mureşului. Cronologia şi descoperirile de metal, Bibliotheca Historica et Achaeologica Banatica, 23, Timişoara. 1999a The Southern Border of the Otomani Culture (in:) Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony – rozwój, chronologia, gospodarka (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 45–71. 2001 The Settlement of Căşeiu and some problems concerning the Late Bronze Age in the center and Northern Transylvania, (in:) Der nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit (ed. C. Kacsó), Bibliotheca Marmatia, 1, Baia Mare, 191–214. 2005 Der Beginn der bronzezeitlichen Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken: Chronologische Probleme, (in:) Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidmet (eds. B. Horejs et al.), Universitätsforschungen für prähistorische Archäologie, 121, Bonn, 161–179. Gogâltan F., Cociş S. and Paki A. 1992 Săpături de salvare la Cluj-Becaş – 1989, Ephemeris Napocensis, 2, 7–17. 45 Gogâltan F. and Isac A. 1995 Die spätbronzezeitliche Siedlung von Căşeiu, Ephemeris Napocensis, 5, 5–26. Gołubkow J. 1973 Wisznia Mała, pow. Trzebnica, Silesia Antiqua, 15, 375. Górski J. 1994 Osada kultury trzcinieckiej i łużyckiej w Nowej Hucie-Mogile, stan. 55. II, MA Nowej Huty, 17, 65–113. 1997 Główne etapy rozwoju kultury trzcinieckiej na obszarze Nowej Huty na tle przemian tej kultury w zachodniej Małopolsce, MA Nowej Huty, 20, 7–37. 1998 Podstawy taksonomii kultury trzcinieckiej w dorzeczu górnej Wisły, (in:) „Trzciniec” – system kulturowy czy interkulturowy proces (eds. A. Kosko and J. Czebreszuk), Poznań, 61–73 1999 Die Beziehungen zwischen dem westlichen Kleinpolen und dem Gebiet der Slowakei in der klassischen Phase der Trzciniec-Kultur (ausgewählte Aspekte), (in:) Aktuelle Probleme der Erforschung der Frühbronzezeit in Böhmen und Mähren und in der Slowakei (eds. J. Bátora and J. Peška), Nitra, 251–262. 2002 Zmiana organizacji sieci osadniczej na obszarze Nowej Huty w środkowym okresie epoki brązu, MA Nowej Huty, 23, 17–38. 2003 Uwagi o datowaniu i kontekście znalezisk ceramiki o „cechach południowych” w streie zasięgu kultury trzcinieckiej, (in:) Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Karpatach polskich (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 89–137. 2004 Die Grundlagen einer relativen Datierung und Periodisierung der Trzciniec-Kultur im Lößgebiet westlichen Kleinpolens – Podstawy datowania względnego i periodyzacji kultury trzcinieckiej na lessach zachodniej Małopolski, Spr. Arch., 56, 155–196. 2005 Kultura trzciniecka w Kotlinie Sandomierskiej na tle porównawczym. Zarys problematyki źródłoznawczej, chronologicznej i osadniczej, (in:) Archeologia Kotliny Sandomierskiej (ed. M. Kuraś), Rocznik Muzeum Regionalnego w Stalowej Woli, 4, 255–270. 2007 Chronologia kultury trzcinieckiej na lessach Niecki Nidziańskiej, Biblioteka Muzeum Archeologicznego w Krakowie, 3, Kraków. Górski J. and Kadrow S. 1996 Kultura mierzanowicka i kultura trzciniecka w zachodniej Małopolsce. Problem zmiany kulturowej, Spr. Arch., 48, 9–32. 40 Górski J., Grabowska B., Izdebska E., Konieczny B., Wilczyński J. and Wojenka M. 2006 Wyniki archeologicznych badań wykopaliskowych przeprowadzonych w obrębie stanowisk 8–11, 24 i 26 w Targowisku, gm. Klaj, woj. małopolskie w latach 2003–2004, (in:) Ogólnopolski Program Ochrony Dóbr Kultury Zagrożonych Planowaną Budową Autostrad, Raport 2003–2004, 2, Warszawa, 555–584. Gotzev A.M. 1994 Decoration of the Early Iron Age pottery from south-east Bulgaria, (in:) The Early Hallstatt Period (1200–700 B.C.) in South-Eastern Europe (eds. H. Ciugudean and N. Borofka), Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis, 1, Alba Iulia, 97–127. Govedarica B. 1978 Novi arheološki prilozi istraživanju tumula na glasinačkom području, Godišnjak, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, 17/15, 15–35. Grabner M., Klein A., Geihofer D., Reschreiter H., Barth F.E., Sormaz T. and Wimmer R. 2007 Bronze age dating of timber from the salt-mine at Hallstatt, Austria, Dendrochronologia, 24, 61–68. Grammenos D. 1982 Bronzezeitliche Forschungen in Ostmakedonien, (in:) Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v. Chr. (ed. B. Hänsel), Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 1, Berlin, 89–98. Groiß F. 1976 Urnenfelderzeitliche Brandgräber aus Getzersdorf, p.B. St. Pölten, NÖ, Archaeologia Austriaca, 59/60, 99–126. Grünberg W. 1943 Die Grabfunde der jüngeren und jüngsten Bronzezeit im Gau Sachsen, Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen, 13, Berlin. 41 Gumă M. 1993 Civilizaţia primei epoci a ierului în sud-vestul României, Bibliotheca Thracologica, 4, Bucureşti. 1995 The End of the Bronze Age and the Beginning of the Early Iron Age in South-Western Romania, Western Serbia and North-Western Bulgaria. A Short Review, Thraco-Dacica, 16, 99–137. Gurba J. 1997 Brązowy grot oszczepu z Michowa, woj. lubelskie, Archeologia Polski Środkowowschodniej, 2, 273–274. Halstead P. and O’Shea J. 1982 A friend in need is a friend indeed: social storage and the origins of social ranking, (in:) Ranking, resource and exchange. Aspects of the archaeology of early European society (ed. C. Renfrew), Cambridge, 92–99. Hammer C.U., Clausen H.B. and Dansgaard W. 1980 Greenland ice sheet evidence of post-glacial volcanism and its climatic impact, Nature, 288, 230–235. Hampel J. 1890 Alterthümer der Bronzezeit in Ungarn, 2, Budapest. Hänsel B. 1968 Beiträge zur Chronologie der mittleren Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken, Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes, 7–8, Bonn. 1973 Eine datierte Rapierklinge mykenischen Typs von der unteren Donau, PZ, 48, 200–206. 1976 Beiträge zur regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der älteren Hallstattzeit an der unteren Donau, Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des MittelmeerKulturraumes, 16, Bonn. 1981 Lausitzer Invasion in Nordgriechenland?, (in:) Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte I – Festschrift von W. Coblenz, Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte Dresden, supplement 16, Berlin, 207–223. 42 1989 Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die Grabung und die Baubefunde, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 7, Berlin. 1997 Wędrówka etniczna i jej dowodzenie przy użyciu metod archeologicznych (na przykładzie znalezisk z epoki brązu na terenie Macedonii), Sprawozdania z czynności i posiedzeń Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności, 61, 37–44. 2003 Bronzezeitliche Stadtkultur im Karpatenbecken? (in:) Bronzezeitliche Kulturerscheinungen im karpatischen Raum. Die Beziehungen zu den benachbarten Gebieten (ed. C. Kacsó), Bibliotheca Marmatia, 2, 207–216. Hänsel B. and Kalicz N. 1986 Das bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Mezőcsát, Kom. Borsod, Nordostungarn, BRGK, 67, 5–88. Hänsel B. and Medović P. 1991 Zum Forschungstand der Eisen- und Bronzezeit an der Theißmündung, (in:) Vorbericht über die jugoslawisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen in der Stellung von Feudvar bei Mošorin von 1986–1990, BRGK, 72, 61–65. 1994 Bronzezeitliche Inkrustationkeramik aus Feudvar bei Mošorin an der Theißmündung, (in:) Die Fragen der Bronzezeit, Zalai Múzeum, 5, 189–199. Hänsel B. and Roman P. 1984 Siedlungsfunde der bronzezeitlichen Gîrla Mare-Gruppe bei Ostrovu Corbului östlich des Eisernen Tores, PZ, 59, 188–229. Hänsel B., Teržan B. and Mihovilić K. 2007 Radiokarbondaten zur älteren und mittleren Bronzezeit Istriens, PZ, 82, 23–50. Hansen S. 1994 Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen während der älteren Urnenfelderzeit zwischen Rhönetal und Karpatenbecken, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, 21, Bonn. 1995 Aspekte des Gabentausch und Handel während der Urnenfelderzeit in Mittel- und Nordeuropa im Lichte der Fundüberlieferung, (in:) Handel, Tausch, Verkehr im bronze- und 43 früheisenzeitlichen Südosteuropa (ed. B. Hänsel), Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 11, München-Berlin, 67–80. 1996 Bemerkungen zur zeitlichen Stellung der Hortfunde des Typus Gyermely, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 26, 433-441. Hanuliak V., Malček R. and Pieta K. 2000 Záchranny výskum vo Zvolene, AVANS 1999, 47–49. Harding A.F. 1980 Radiocarbon Calibration and the Chronology of European Bronze Age, Archeologické rozhledy, 32, 178–186. 1987 Fernhandel in der Bronzezeit: Analyse und Interpretation, Saeculum. Jahrbuch für Universalgeschichte, 38, 297–311. 2000 European Societites in the Bronze Age, Cambridge. Helgert H. 1995 Grabfunde der Čaka-Kultur (Bz D/Ha A1-Übergangsperiode) aus Zundorf, p. B. Neusiedl am See, Burgenland. Ein Beitrag zur weiblichen Totentracht, Archaeologia Austriaca, 79, 197-239. Hellebrandt M. 1990 Az Igrici kerámiadepot, Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 1990, 93–111. 1991 A pilinyi kultúra nyomai emőd-tüzép lelőhelyről, HOMÉ, 28/29, 19–29. 1996 A Kurityáni bronzlelet, HOMÉ, 33/34, 5–31. Herrmann F.-R. 1966 Die Funde der Urnenfelderkultur in Mittel- und Südhessen, Römisch-Germanische Forschungen, 27, Berlin. Heurtley W.A. 1939 Prehistoric Macedonia. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Greek Macedonia (West of the Struma) in the Neolithic, Bronze, and Early Iron Ages, Cambridge. 44 Hielte M. 2004 Sendentary versus nomadic life-styles. The “Middle Helladic People” in southern Balkan (late 3rd & 1st half of the 2nd Millennium BC), Acta Archaeologica (København), 75, 27–94. Hochstetter A. 1981 Eine Nadel der Noua-Kultur aus Nordgriecheland. Ein Beitrag zur absoluten Chronologie der späten Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken, Germania, 59, 239–259. 1982 Spätbronzezeitliches und früheisenzeitliches Formengut in Makedonien und im Balkanraum, (in:) Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v. Chr. (ed. B. Hänsel), Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 1, Berlin, 99–118. 1984 Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens 1975–1979. Die handgemachte Keramik, Schichten 19 bis 1, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 3, Berlin. Hodder I. 1978 Simple correlations between material culture and society: A review, (in:) The Spatial Organisation of Culture (ed. I. Hodder), London, 3–24. 1995 Czytanie przeszłości. Współczesne podejścia do interpretacji w archeologii [Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology], Poznań. Hofmann M.J. 1999 Źródła do kultury i osadnictwa południowo-wschodniej strefy nadbałtyckiej w I tysiącleciu p.n.e., Rozprawy i Materiały Ośrodka Badań Naukowych im. Wojciecha Kętrzyńskiego, 177 Olsztyn. 2000 Kultura i osadnictwo południowo-wschodniej strefy nadbałtyckiej w I tysiącleciu p.n.e., Rozprawy i Materiały Ośrodka Badań Naukowych im. Wojciecha Kętrzyńskiego, 191, Olsztyn. Holste F. 1953 Die bronzezeitlichen Vollgrifschwerter Bayerns, Münchener Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 4, München. 45 Honti S. 1994 Angaben zur Geschichte der Urnenfelderkultur in südwest-Transdanubien, (in:) Actes du XIIe Congrès International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques (ed. J. Pavúk), Bratislava, 3, 147–155. Hood M.S.F. 1993 The Arts in Prehistoric Greece, Athens. Horedt K. 1966 Aşezarea fortiicată din perioada tîrzie a bronzului de lă Sighetul Marmaţiei, Baia Mare. 1967 Probleme der jungbronzezeitlichen Keramik in Transsilvanien, AAC, 9, 5–28. 1967a Einlüsse der Hügelgräberkultur und der Velaticer-Kultur in Siebenbürgen, Germania, 45, 42–50. 1979 Moreşti. Grabungen in einer vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Siedlung in Siebenbürgen, Bukarest. 1981 Eine Befestigte Siedlung der älteren Hallstattzeit bei Voivodeni in Siebenbürgen, (in:) Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte (Coblenz-Festschrift), 1, Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur Sächsischen Bodendenkmalplege, 16, 225–236. Horváth L. 1994 Adatok Délnyugat-Dunántúl későbronzkorának történetéhez, (in:) Die Fragen der Bronzezeit, Zalai Múzeum, 5, 217–235. Hozer M. 2005 Historia badań kultury wysockiej, (in:) Problemy kultury wysockiej (ed. S. Czopek), Rzeszów, 21–31. Hrala J. 1973 Konovizská kultura ve střednich Čechách, Archeologické Studijni Materiály, 11, Praha. Hrubý V. 1958 Kultovní objekty lidstva středodunajské kultury mohylové na Moravě, Pamatký archeologické, 49, 40–57. 4 Hüttel H.G. 1979 Bemerkungen zur Chronologie der Suciu de Sus-Kultur, PZ, 54, 32–46. Iconomu C. and Piu C. 1992 Un mormînt din prima epocă a ierului descperit la Iaşi, Arheologia Moldovei, 15, 177–180. Iconomu C. and Şovan O.-L. 1999 Noi descoperiri archeologice de culturii Corlăteni-Chişinău la Mihălăşeni, jud. Botoşani, Arheologia Moldovei, 20, 13–25. Iconomu C. and Tanasachi M. 1992 Descoperirile archeologice din necropola hallstattiană timpurie de la Cotu Morii-Jaşi, Arheologia Moldovei, 15, 23–44. Ignaczak P. and Ślusarska-Michalik K. 2003 The radiocarbon chronology of the Urnield Complex and the dating of cultural phenomena in the Pontic Area (Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age), Baltic-Pontic Studies, 12, 382–395. Ihde Ch. 2001 Die früh- und mittelbronzezeitliche Keramik von Feudvar, Gem. Mošorin, Vojvodina (Serbien), Archäologische Informationen, 24/1, 135–139. Ilon G. 2004 Szombathely őskori településtörténetének vázlata, Őskorunk, 2, Szombathely. Innerhofer F. 2000 Die mittelbronzezeitliche Nadeln zwischen Vogesen und Karpaten. Studien zur Chronologie, Typologie und regionalen Gliederung der Hügelgräberkultur, cz. 1–2, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, 71, Bonn. Izak K. 1986 Brązowe zabytki w typie środkowoeuropejskim na terenie Grecji i wschodniej części wybrzeża Morza Śródziemnego a problem wędrówek Dorów i „ludów morskich”, Materiały Zachodniopomorskie, 32, 85–138. 4 Jamka R. 1972 Pradzieje regionu krośnieńskiego, (in:) Krosno – studia z dziejów miasta i regionu, Kraków, 41–57. Jankovits K. 1992 Spätbronzezeitliche Hügelgräber in der Bakony-Gegend, AAASH, 44, 3–81. 1992a Spätbronzezeitliche Hügelgräber von Bakonyjákó, AAASH, 44, 265–343. 2004 Ein Hausrest der Proto-Gáva Kultur in Sarkadkeresztúr-Csapháti-Weide (Komitat Békés), Communicationes Archaeologiae Hungariae 2004, 65–77. Janowski J. 1961 Rola przełęczy karpackich w pradziejach, ZOW, 27, 97–99. 1966 Z badań nad osadnictwem kultury łużyckiej w Wietrznie, pow. Krosno, SROA 1965, 32–35. 1968 Z badań nad osadnictwem prahistorycznym w Wietrznie, pow. Krosno, MSROA 1966, 138–145. Jarosz P. and Szczepanek A. 2005 Ratownicze badania wykopaliskowe w 2004 r. na cmentarzysku grupy tarnobrzeskiej w Łazach, pow. Jarosław, Rocznik Przemyski, 41/2, 71–78. 2007 Badania wykopaliskowe na stan. 30 w Łazach pow. Jarosław w 2006 r., Rocznik Przemyski, 43/2, Archeologia, 31–37. In print Elementy obrządku pogrzebowego na cmentarzysku grupy tarnobrzeskiej w Łazach, gm. Radymno, woj podkarpackie, (in:) Aktualne problemy tarnobrzeskiej kultury łużyckiej, Rzeszów. Jarosz P., Szczepanek A. and Wołoszyn M. 2006 Badania wykopaliskowe na stan. 30 w Łazach pow. Jarosław w 2005 r., Rocznik Przemyski, 42/2, Archeologia, 33–42. Jarosz P. and Tunia K. 2008 Badania wykopaliskowe na osadzie z epoki brązu w Oľšavcach, stanowisko 4, okr. Bardejov, (in:) Archeologia i środowisko naturalne Beskidu Niskiego w Karpatach II (ed. J. Machnik), Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat, 4, Kraków, 297–320. Jasnosz S. 1958 Prace wykopaliskowe w miejscowości Bojanowo Stare, pow. Kościan, WA, 25, 262–267. 48 Jaszewska A. and Kałagate S. 2006 Wstępne wyniki badań archeologicznych na autostradzie A18 Olszyna-Golnice (nitka północna), (in:) Ogólnopolski Program Ochrony Dóbr Kultury Zagrożonych Planowaną Budową Autostrad, Raport 2003–2004, 2, Warszawa, 445–490. Javorský F. 1981 Výskumy a prieskumy Výskumnej expedicie Spiš Archeologického ústavu SAV, AVANS 1980, 108–126. Jażdżewski K. 1948 O zagadnieniu początków kultury łużyckiej, Slavia Antiqua, 1, 94–151. Jensen J. 1991 Egtvedpigens alder, Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 1991, 11–19. 1997 Fra Bronze- til Jernalder. En kronologisk undersøgelse, Nordiske Fortidsminder, B15, København. Jevtić M. 1983 Keramika starijeg gvozdenog doba na centralnobalkanskom području, Univerzitet u Beogradu, Centar za arheološka istraživanja, 2, Beograd. Jevtić M. and Vukmanović M. 1996 Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages In the Danube Valley from V. Gradište down to Prahovo, (in:) The Yugoslav Danube Basin and the Neighbouring Regions in the 2nd Millennium BC (ed. N. Tasić), Belgrad-Vršac, 283–293. Jílková E. 1961 Piliňské pohřebiště Barca II a jeho časové a kulturní horizonty, Slov. Arch., 9, 69–106. Jockenhövel A. 1991 Räumliche Mobilität von Personen in der mittlerer Bronzezeit des westlichen Mitteleuropa, Germania, 69, 49–62. 2005 Zur Archäologie der Gewalt: Bemerkungen zu Aggression und Krieg in der Bronzezeit Alteuropas, Anodos, 4-5 (2004–2005), 101–132. 4 2007 Zu Mobilität und Grenzen in der Bronzezeit, (in:) Auf der Suche nach Identitäten: Volk – Stamm – Kultur – Ethnos. Internationale Tagung der Universität Leipzig vum 8.–9. Dezember 2000 (eds. S. Rieckhof and U. Sommer), BAR, 95–106. Jodłowski A. 1963 Sprawozdanie z badań wykopaliskowych przeprowadzonych na osadzie w Temeszowie, powiat Brzozów, w roku 1963, SROA 1963, 21. 1967 Osadnictwo obronne w dolinie Dunajca, MA, 8, 5–23. 1968 Pradzieje Wieliczki i okolicy, Studia i Materiały do dziejów żup solnych w Polsce, 2, 7–136. 1971 Eksploatacja soli na terenie Małopolski w pradziejach i we wczesnym średniowieczu, Studia i Materiały do dziejów żup solnych w Polsce, 4, Wieliczka. 1988 Badania osady wielokulturowej w Starym Sączu na stanowisku I, Badania archeologiczne prowadzone przez Muzeum Żup Krakowskich Wieliczka w latach 1986–1987, 5–13. Jovanović B. and Janković I. 1996 Die Keramik der Nekropole der Paraćin-Kultur – Trnjane bei Bor, (in:) The Yugoslav Danube Basin and the Neighbouring Regions in the 2nd Millenium BC (ed. N. Tasić), Belgrad-Vrsač, 185–199. Kacsó C. 1975 Contributions à la connaissance de la culture de Suciu de Sus à la lumière des recherches faites à Lăpuş, Dacia, 19, 45-–68. 1987 Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Verbreitungsgebietes und Chronologie der Suciu de Sus-Kultur, Dacia, 31, 51–75. 1990 Bronzul tîrziu în nord-westul României, Symposia Thracologica, 8, Satu Mare-Carei, 41–50. 1990a Contribuţii la cunoaşterea Bronzului tîrziu din nordul Transilvaniei. Cercetările de la Libotin, Thraco-Dacica, 11, 79–98. 1992 Descoperirile din epoca bronzului de la Felnac. Contribuţii la cunoaşterea culturii tumulare în Banat, Symposia Thracologica, 9, 97–98. 1993 Contribuţii la cunoaşterea bronzului târziu din nordul Transilvaniei. Cercetârile de la Suciu de Sus şi Groşii Ţibleşului, Revista Bistriţei, 7, 29–49. 40 1994 Der Bronzedolch von Asuaju de Jos (Alsószivágy, Rumänien), Communicationes Archeologicae Hungariae 1993, 39–45. 1995 Der Hortfund von Arpăşel, Kr. Bihor, (in:) Bronzefunde aus Rumänien (ed. T. Soroceanu), Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 10, Berlin, 81–130. 1995a Der Depotfund von Popeşti (Nádaspapfalva), Folia Archaeologica, 44, 95–105. 1995b Der Hortfund von Lăschia, Kr. Maramureş, (in:) Bronzefunde aus Rumänien (ed. T. Soroceanu), Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 10, Berlin, 131–140. 1999 Die Endphase der Otomani-Kultur und die daraufolgende kulturelle Entwicklung in Nordwesten Rumäniens, (in:) Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony – rozwój, chronologia, gospodarka (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 85–112. 1999a Das urnenfelderzeitliche Schwertdepot von Onceşti, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 29/1, 47–55. 2001 Zur chronologischen und kulturellen Stellung des Hügelgräberfeldes von Lăpuş, (in:) Der nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit (ed. C. Kacsó), Bibliotheca Marmatia, 1, Baia Mare, 231–278. 2001a Die späte Bronzezeit im Karpaten-Donau-Raum (14.–9. Jahrhundert v. Chr.), (in:) Thraker und Kelten beidseits der Karpaten, Eberdingen, 31–41. 2003 Der zweite Depotfund von Ungureni, (in:) Bronzezeitliche Kulturerscheinungen im karpatischen Raum. Die Beziehungen zu den benachbarten Gebieten (ed. C. Kacsó), Bibliotheca Marmatia, 2, 267–300. 2004 Zu den Problemen der Suciu de Sus-Kultur in Siebenbürgen, (in:) Einlüsse und Kontakte alteuropäischer Kulturen. Festschrift für Josef Vladár zum 70 Geburtstag (eds. J. Bátora, V. Furmánek and L. Veliačik), Nitra, 327–340. Kaczmarek M. 2002 Zachodniowielkopolskie społeczności kultury łużyckiej w epoce brązu, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu – Seria Archeologia, 48, Poznań. Kadrow S. 1991 Iwanowice, stanowisko Babia Góra, cz. I. Rozwój przestrzenny osady z wczesnego okresu epoki brązu, Kraków. 1996 Gospodarka i Społeczeństwo. Wczesny okres epoki brązu w Małopolsce, Kraków. 41 2001 U progu nowej epoki. Gospodarka i społeczeństwo wczesnego okresu epoki brązu w Europie Środkowej, Kraków. 2007 Soziale Strukturen und ethnische Identitäten in der Bronzezeit Ostpolens (in:) Auf der Suche nach Identitäten: Volk – Stamm – Kultur – Ethnos. Internationale Tagung der Universität Leipzig vum 8.–9. Dezember 2000 (eds. S. Rieckhof and U. Sommer), BAR, 107–119. Kadrow S. and Machnik J. 1997 Kultura mierzanowicka. Chronologia, taksonomia i rozwój przestrzenny, Prace Komisji Archeologicznej PAN, 29, Kraków. Kadrow S. and Nowak-Włodarczak E. 2003 Osada kultury łużyckiej na stan. 27 w Krakowie-Bieżanowie – organizacja warzelnictwa soli, (in:) Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Karpatach polskich (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 549–567. Kállay Á. Sz. 1983 A késő bronzkori halomsiros kultúra időszakának leletei Battonya határában, Archaeologiai Értesítő, 110, 42–60. 1986 Késo bronzkori edénydepot Battonya határában, Archaeologiai Értesítő, 113, 159–165. Kalicki T. and Krąpiec M. 1991 Subboreal „black oaks“ identiied from the Vistula alluvia at Grabie near Cracow (South Poland), Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Górniczo-Hutniczej, Geologia, 17, 155–171. Kalicz N. 1958 Későbronzokori urnatemető Igrici község határában, HOMÉ, 2, 45–72. Kalicz-Schreiber R. 1991 Das spätbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Budapest (Ungarn), PZ, 66, 161–196. Karabinoš A. and Vizdal M. 2007 Nové nálezy z Veľkého Šariša, AVANS 2005, 102–103. 42 Karavanić S., Mihaljević M. and Kalafatić H. 2002 Naselje Mačkovac – Crišnjevi kao prilog poznavanju početaka kulture polja sa žarama u slavonskoj Posavini, Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, 19, 47–62. Kashuba M.T. 2000 Rannee zhelezo v lesostepi mezhdu Dnestrom i Siretom (kuľtura Kozia-Sakharna), Stratum plus, 3, 241–492. Kaus K. 1971 Das Hallstatt-A-Gräberfeld von Getzersdorf, p. B. St. Pölten, NÖ, Archaeologia Austriaca, 50, 68–113. 1983 KG Siegendorf, OG Siegendorf im Burgenland, VB Eisenstadt-Umgebung (ÖK 77, O 10 mm, S 65 mm), Fundberichte aus Österreich, 22, 249–250. Kaus M. 1984 Das Gräberfeld der jüngeren Urnenfelderzeit von Stillfried an der March. Ergebnise der Ausgrabungen 1975–1977, Veröfentlichungen der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, 16, Forschungen in Stillfried, 6, Wien. 1987 Zum Forschungstand der Urnenfelderzeit in Ostösterreich, (in:) Die Urnenfelderkulturen Mitteleuropas (eds. E. Plesl and J. Hrala), Praha, 99–106. 1994 Ein mittelbronzezeitliches Hügelgrab mit Čaka-Nachbestattungen von Neusiedl-Hutweide, Burgenland, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft, 123/124, 89–104. Kemenczei T. 1964 A pilinyi kultúra bárcai csoportja, HOMÉ, 4, 7–36. 1965 A pilinyi kultúra tagolása, Archaeologiai Értesítő, 92, 3–26. 1965a Die Chronologie der Hortfunde vom Typ Rimaszombat, HOMÉ, 5, 105–175. 1966 A Jászberény-Cserőhalmi későbronzkori temető, Archaeologiai Értesítő, 93, 65–97. 1967 Die Zagyvapálfalva-Gruppe der Piliner Kultur, AAASH, 19, 229–305. 1968 Adatok a kárpát-medencei halomsíros kultúra vándorlásának kérdéséhez, Archaeologiai Értesítő, 95, 159–187. 1970 A Kyjatice kultúra Észak-Magyarországon, HOMÉ, 9, 17–78. 1971 A Gáva kultúra leletei a Miskolci múzeumban, HOMÉ, 10, 31–86. 43 1974 Zur Deutung der Depotfunde von Aranyos, Folia Archaeologica, 25, 49–70. 1975 Zur Verbreitung der spätbronzezeitlichen Urnenfelderkultur östlich der Donau, Folia Archaeologica, 26, 45–70. 1981 Das spätbronzezeitliche Urnengräberfeld von Alsóberecki, Folia Archaeologica, 32, 69–94. 1982 Der spätbronzezeitliche Burgenbau in Nordungarn, (in:) Beiträge zum bronzezeitlichen Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa (ed. J. Hermann), Berlin-Nitra, 273–278. 1982a Die Gáva-Kultur, (in:) Południowa strefa kultury łużyckiej i powiązania tej kultury z południem (ed. M. Gedl), Kraków-Przemyśl, 275–285. 1982b Die Siedlungsfunde der Gáva-Kultur aus Nagykálló, Folia Archaeologica, 33, 73–95. 1984 Die Spätbronzezeit Nordostungarns, Archaeologia Hungarica, 51, Budapest. 1989 Der ungarische Donauraum und seine Beziehungen am Ende der Hügelgräberbronzezeit, (in:) Beiträge zur mitteleuropäischen Bronzezeit (eds. V. Furmánek and F. Horst), BerlinNitra, 207–228. 1989a Bemerkungen zur Chronologie der spätbronzezeitlichen Grabfunde im Donau-Theiß Zwischenstromgebiet, Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 1989, 73–96. 1990 (review) A. Mozsolics: Bronzefunde aus Ungarn. Depotfundhorizonte von Aranyos, Kurd und Gyermely, AAASH, 42, 303–312. 1991 A Pécska/Pecica második bronzelet, Folia Archaeologica, 42, 27–48. 1991a Die Schwerter aus Ungran II (Vollgrifschwerter), Prähistorische Bronzefunde, IV, 9, Stuttgart. 1996 Zum Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in NW-Transdanubia, Folia Archaeologica, 45, 91-131. 1996a Angaben zur Frage der endbronzezeitlichen Hortfundstufen im Donau-Theißgebiet, Communicationes Archaeologiae Hungariae 1996, 53–92. 1996b Notes on the Chronology of Late Bronze Age Hoards in Hungary, (in:) Problemy epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w Europie Środkowej. Księga jubileuszowa poświęcona Markowi Gedlowi (ed. J. Chochorowski), Kraków, 247–279. 2003 Zum Forschungstand der Urnenfelderkulturen in Ungarn, (in:) Die Urnenfelderkultur in Österreich – Standort und Ausblick. Broschüre zum Symposium, Wien, 17–20. Kempisty A. 1978 Schyłek neolitu i początek epoki brązu na Wyżynie Małopolskiej w świetle badań nad kopcami, Warszawa. 44 Kerchler H. 1962 Das Brandgräberfeld der jüngeren Urnenfelderkultur auf dem Leopoldsberg, Wien, Archaeologia Austriaca, 31, 49–73. Kern A. 2003 Fremde(s) in Hallstatt?, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 133, 91–99. Kenlin T.L. 2007 Von den Schmieden der Beile: Zu Verbreitung und Angleichung metallurgischen Wissens im Verlauf der Frühbronzezeit, PZ, 82/1, 1–22. Kienlin T. L. and Valde-Nowak P. 2008 Untersuchungen zur bronzezeitlichen Besiedlung im Bereich des mittleren Dunajectals (WiśniczHügelland, Kleinpolen), PZ, 83, 189–221. in print Bronzezeitliche Siedlungswesen im Vorfeld der polnischen Westkarpaten: Geomagnetische Untersuchungen und Geländebegehungen im Bereich des Dunajectals, Recherches Archeologiques 2004–2006. Kimmig W. 1964 Seevölkerbewegung und Urnenfelderkultur. Ein archäologisch-historischer Versuch, (in:) Studien aus Alteuropa, 1, Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher, 10/1, 220–283. Kitanoski B. 1980 Praistorisko keramičko depo od Varoš vo Prilep, Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica, 6, 21–36. Kleemann O. 1977 Die mittlere Bronzezeit in Schlesien (1939), Bonner Hefte zur Vorgeschichte, 12/13, Bonn. Klochko V. I. 1993 Weapons of the Tribes of the Northern Pontic Zone in the 16th–10th Centuries B.C., BalticPontic Studies, 1, Poznań. 45 2004 „Protoskifskoje“ oruzhie v Vostochnoi Evropie, (in:) Kimmerowie, Scytowie, Sarmaci. Księga poświęcona pamięci profesora Tadeusza Sulimirskiego (ed. J. Chochorowski), Kraków, 199–217. Kłosińska E. 1983 Obrządek pogrzebowy ludności kultury zachodniotrzcinieckiej, Archeologiczne Listy, 7, Lublin. 2005 Na południowo-wschodnich peryferiach popielnicowego świata – sytuacja kulturowa i osadnicza w młodszej epoce brązu i we wczesnej epoce żelaza w dorzeczu Huczwy i górnego Bugu, (in:) Problemy kultury wysockiej (ed. S. Czopek), Rzeszów, 161–192. 2005a Zapomniane cmentarzysko ludności kultury łużyckiej w Bezku, pow. Chełm, Archeologia Polski Środkowowschodniej, 7, 216–218. in print Unikatowe znaleziska ozdób ogłowia końskiego z południowo-wschodniej Lubelszczyzny, Spr. Arch., 60. Kłosińska E. and Piotrowski M. 2005 Wstępne wyniki badań wykopaliskowych na wielokulturowym stanowisku 54 w Perespie, gm. Tyszowce, w sezonach 2003–2004, MSROA, 26, 385–408. Knapp I. 1999 Fürst oder Häuptling? Eine Analyse der herausragenden Bestattungen der frühen Bronzezeit, Archäologische Informationen, 22/2, 261–268. Knavs M. and Mlinar M. 2005 Bronastodobna lončenina iz Turjeve jame v dolini Nadiže, Arheološki vestnik, 66, 59–72. Knopf T. 2002 Kontinuität und Diskontinuität in der Archäologie. Quellenkritisch-vergleichende Studien, Tübinger Schriften zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie, 6, Münster. Knor A. 1952 Halštatská mohyly v Čace u Želiezovců, Archeologické rozhledy, 4, 388–395. 4 Knudsen K.L. and Eiríksson J. 2002 Application of tephrochronology to the timing and correlation of paleoclimatical events recorded in Holocene and Late Glacial shelf sediments of North Iceland, Marine Geology, 191, 165–188. Kobal’ J. V. 1992 Luzhichkie elementy v arkheologicheskikh kul’turakh konca bronzovogo- nachala rannezheleznogo vekov Zakarpat’ia, (in:) Ziemie polskie we wczesnej epoce żelaza i ich powiązania z innymi terenami (ed. S. Czopek), Rzeszów, 173–182. 1996 Kurhannyj mogyl’nyk bronzovoho viku poblyzu sela Chomonyna na Zakarpatti, Naukovyj Zbirnyk Zakarpach’koho Kraeznavchoho Muzeiu, 2, 195–210. 2000 Bronzezeitliche Depotfunde aus Transkarpatien (Ukraine), Prähistorische Bronzefunde, XX, 4, Stuttgart. 2005 Pamiatky doby bronzy sela Kvasova, Naukovyj Zbirnyk Zakarpats’koho Kraeznavtsoho Muzeiu, 7, 208–224. 2007 Do pytannia pro khronologiiu ta periodyzatsiiu kul’tury Stanove, Zapyski Naukovogo Tovarystva imeni Shchevchenka, 253, 583–601. Kogus A. 1982 Zespół osadniczy ludności kultury łużyckiej w Krakowie-Pleszowie (Nowa Huta), (in:) Południowa strefa kultury łużyckiej i powiązania tej kultury z południem (ed. M. Gedl), Kraków-Przemyśl, 335–349. 1984 Osada kultury łużyckiej w Nowej Hucie-Pleszowie (Część I. Katalog materiałów z badań prowadzonych w latach 1954–1971), MA Nowej Huty, 8, 7–123. 1985 Osada kultury łużyckiej w Nowej Hucie-Pleszowie (Część II. Katalog materiałów z badań prowadzonych w latach 1955–1978), MA Nowej Huty 9, 7–88. Koledin J. 2003 Ostava bronzanih predmeta iz Hetina, Rad Muzeja Vojvodine, 43–45 (2001–2003), 29–40. Konieczny B. and Trela E. in print Zabytki krzemienne z cmentarzyska ciałopalnego kultury łużyckiej ze stan. 10 i 11 w Targowisku, gm. Kłaj, woj. małopolskie, (in:) Krzemieniarstwo wspólnot kultur pól popielnicowych – materiały z konferencji, Warszawa. 4 Koós J. 2003 Über die Chronologie der Spätphase der Mittelbronzezeit (Füzesabony-Kultur) in Nordostungarn, (in:) Bronzezeitliche Kulturerscheinungen im karpatischen Raum. Die Beziehungen zu den benachbarten Gebieten, Bibliotheca Marmatia, 2, Baia Mare, 301–326. Kopacz J. 2001 Początki epoki brązu w streie karpackiej, Kraków. Kośko A. and Czebreszuk J. (eds.) 1998 „Trzciniec” – system kulturowy czy interkulturowy proces, Poznań. Kosorić M. and Krstić D. 1988 Hronološka determinacija grobova iz humki sa poteza Trnovice-Padine-Roćevići, Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja, 13, 29–55. Kossack G. 1996 Bronzezeitliche Keramik aus Zschornewitz und ihre Verwandten im Banat, (in:) Problemy epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w Europie Środkowej. Księga jubileuszowa poświęcona Markowi Gedlowi (ed. J. Chochorowski), Kraków, 293–316. 2002 Tordierte Gefäßhenkel am Beginn der Spätbronzezeit, Godišnjak Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, 30 (32), 199–216. Kossinna G. 1912 Zur älteren Bronzezeit Mitteleuropas II, Mannus, 4, 173–184. Kostek A. 1991 Cmentarzysko grupy tarnobrzeskiej w Wietlinie II, gm. Laszki, woj. Przemyśl, MSROA 1980–1984, 5–44. 2002 Cmentarzysko w Paluchach, pow. Przeworsk. Dotychczasowe badania, (in:) Wielkie cmentarzyska z epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza, Prace Komitetu Nauk Prai Protohistorycznych PAN, 5, Warszawa, 313–337. 2004 Przemyśl w epoce brązu i wczesnej epoce żelaza, (in:) Dzieje Przemyśla, t. 1 – osadnictwo pradziejowe i wczesnośredniowieczne, cz. II – analiza źródeł i synteza (ed. F. Kiryk), Przemyśl, 33–53. 48 Kostrzewski J. 1919 Der Depotfund von Stefkowa, Kr. Lisko (Ostgalizien), PZ, 10 (1918), 160–166. 1924 Z badań nad osadnictwem wczesnej i środkowej epoki brązowej na ziemiach polskich, Przegląd Archeologiczny, 2/2 (1923), 161–218. 1927 Przyczynek do epoki bronzowej na Wołyniu, Przegląd Archeologiczny, 3/3 (1926), 111–115. 1929 I, II i III okres epoki brązowej w Polsce (uwagi na marginesie nowej książki prof. Leona Kozłowskiego), Przegląd Archeologiczny, 4/1 (1928), 1–35. 1948 Dzieje polskich badań prehistorycznych, Historia Nauki Polskiej w Monograiach, 18, Kraków. 1949 Pradzieje Polski, Poznań. 1961 Uwagi o pracy Aleksandra Gardawskiego, „Plemiona kultury trzcinieckiej w Polsce”, APolski, 6, 127–150. 1961a Zagadnienie ciągłości zaludnienia ziem polskich w pradziejach (od połowy II tysiąclecia p.n.e. do wczesnego średniowiecza), Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk, Prace Komisji Archeologicznej, 4/3, Poznań. 1964 Skarby i luźne znaleziska metalowe od eneolitu do wczesnego okresu żelaza z górnego i środkowego dorzecza Wisły i górnego dorzecza Warty, Przegląd Archeologiczny, 15 (1962), 5–133. Kostrzewski J., Chmielewski W. and Jażdżewski K. 1965 Pradzieje Polski, Wrocław. Kőszegi F. 1988 A Dunátúl története a későbronzkorban – The history of Transdanubia during the Late Bronze Age, BTM Möhely, 1, Budapest. Kotorová-Jenčová M. 2004 Archeologické výskumy Vlastivedného múzea v Hanušovciach nad Topľou v roku 2003, AVANS 2003, 98. 2006 Pokračovanie výskumu v Sedliskách-Podčičve, AVANS 2004, 113–114. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki Ch. 1982 Late Bronze Age in Eastern Macedonia, (in:) Semaines philippolitaines de l’histoire et de la culture thrace – Plovdiv (ed. A. Fol), Thracia Praehistorica, Supplementum Pulpudeva, 3, 231–258. 4 Kovács T. 1965 Adatok a későbronzkori Egyeki csoport kialakulásához, A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkőnyve 1962–1964, 75–86. 1966 A halomsíros kultúra leletei az Észak-Alföldön, Archaeologiai Értesítő, 93, 159–202. 1967 Eastern Connections of North-Eastern Hungary in the Late Bronze Age, Folia Archaeologica, 18, 27–58. 1970 A Hajdúbagosi bronzkori temető, Folia Archaeologica, 21, 27–47. 1975 Tumulus culture cementeries of Tiszafüred, Régészeti Füzetek, II/17, Budapest. 1981 Zur Problematik der Entstehung der Hügelgräber in Ungarn, Slov. Arch., 29, 87–96. 1988 Die topograische und chronologische Stelle der Szeremle-Kultur in der Bronzezeit des südlichen Karpatenbecken, (in:) Gomolava. Chronologie und Stratigraphie der vorgeschichtlichen und antiken Kulturen der Donauniederung und Südosteuropas (eds. N. Tasić and J. Petrović), Novi Sad, 155–167. Kovalukh N.N, Petrenko, L.V. and Kovalenko V.V. 1996 Geochronology of the nival-glacial deposits of the Ukrainian Carpathian Mountains, Zeszyty naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej, Matematyka-Fizyka, 80, Geochronometria 14, 111–119. Kozieł S. 1958 Grodzisko kultury łużyckiej w miejscowości Zabrzeż (Polska), AAC, 1, 109–112. Kozłowski L. 1928 Wczesna, starsza i środkowa epoka bronzu w Polsce w świetle subborealnego optimum klimatycznego i jego wpływu na ruchy etniczne i zaludnienie Polski, Lwów. 1939 Zarys pradziejów Polski południowo-wschodniej, (in:) Polska południowo-wschodnia, 1, Geograia, prehistoria, antropologia, etnologia (ed. Z. Czerny), Lwów, 5–104. Krämer W. 1961 Fremder Frauenschmuck am Manching, Germania, 39, 305–322. Krąpiec M. 1998 Oak Dendrochronology of the Neoholocene in Poland, Folia Quaternaria, 69, 5–133. 480 Krąpiec M. and Margielewski W. 2003 Reconstruction of paleoclimatic changes registred in the Kaletowa Landsleid (Beskid Makowski Mts., outer Carpathians, South Poland) on the basis of sedimentological and dendrochronological records, Folia Quaternaria, 74, 17–34. Kraskovská L. 1962 Lužické popolnicové hroby v Dražovciach, Študijné zvesti AUSAV, 10, 77–84. 1969 Bohatý popolnicový hrob pilinskej kultúry z Viničiek, Nové obzory, 11, 225–229. Krauss A. 1956 Skarb wczesnobrązowy z miejscowości Załęże, pow. Jasło, WA, 23, 72–80. 1977 Poglądy na kształtowanie się kultury łużyckiej w południowo-wschodniej Polsce, Materiały Archeologiczne, 17, 5–46. Krauß R. 2005 Depotfund von Ovča Mogila, Kreis Svištov (Bulgarien): Zur Datierung der Bronzehorte von der unteren Donau über mykenische Schwerter, (in:) Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit, Bernhard Hänsel von Seinem Schülern gewidmet (eds. B. Horejs et al.), Universitätsforchungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, 121, Bonn, 199–210. Krauße D. 1999 Der „Keltenfürst“ von Hochdorf: Dorfältester oder Sakralkönig? Anspruch und Wirklichkeit der sog. Kulturanthropologischen Hallstatt-Archäologie, Archäologische Korrespondenzblatt, 29, 339–358. Kristiansen K. 1986 Ideologie und Gesellschaft während der Bronzezeit in Südskandinavien, Veröfentlichungen des Museums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Potsdam, 20, 303–307. 1998 Europe before history, Cambridge. Kristiansen K. and Rowlands M.J. 1998 Social Transformations in Archaeology. Global and Local Perspectives, Routledge. 481 Kristiansen K. and Larsson T. B. 2005 The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and Transformations, Cambridge. Kromer K. 1986 Das östliche Mitteleuropa in der frühen Eisenzeit (7.–5. Jh. v. Chr.). Seine Beziehungen zu Steppenvölkern und antiken Hochkulturen, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 33/1, 3–93. Krstić D. 1992 Praistorijske nekropole u Gornoj Stražavi, Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja, 14/1, 231– 249. 2003 Glamija. Nekropola bronzanog doba u Korbovu, Archeološke Monograije, 15, Beograd. Krushel’nychka L. I. 1972 Pro zv’iazki luzkhich’koï ta visochkoï kul’tur, Arheologia 1972 (6), Kiïv. 1976 Pivnichne Prikarpattja i zakhidna Volin’ za dobi rann’ogo zaliza, Kiïv. 1979 Studien zur Besiedlung der ukrainischen Karpaten und des Karpatenvorlandes zu Beginn der Eisenzeit, AAC, 19, 73–96. 1985 Vzaemozv’iazky naselennia Prykarpattia i Volyni z plemenamy skhidnoï i chentral’noï Evropy (rubizh epokh bronzy i zaliza), Kiïv. 1990 Kul’tura Noa, (in:) Arkheologiia Prikarpat’ia, Vol’yni i Zakarpat’ia, Kiev, 99–104. 1995 Jüngere Bronzezeit im nordöstlichen Karpatenvorland, (in:) Beiträge zur Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen, Römisch-Germanische Zentralmuseum – Monographien, 35, Bonn, 399–411. Krushel’nychka L. I. and Maleev J. N. 1990 Plemena kul’tury frakijskogo Hal’shtata (Gava-Holyhrady), (in:) Arkheologiia Prikarpat’ia, Vol’yni i Zakarpat’ia, Kiev, 123–132. Kučerová-Giertlová M. 2003 Výskum na trase diaľnice v Spišskom Štvrtku – ku Čeničiam, Východnoslovenský pravek, 6, 87–118. 482 Kučerová M. and Novák A. 2006 Výskum sídliska z neskorej doby bronzovej v Kežmaroku, AVANS 2004, 121–123. Kujovský R. 1994 Príspevok k poznaniu vzťahov lužických a stredodunajských popolnicových polí na Slovensku, Slov. Arch., 42, 261–317. 2004 Sídlisko lužickej kultúry v Trenčine a počiatky lužickej kultúry na Slovensku, (in:) Einlüsse und Kontakte alteuropäischer Kulturen. Festschrift für Josef Vladár zum 70 Geburtstag (eds. J. Bátora, V. Furmánek and L. Veliačik), Nitra, 359–370. Kümmel Ch. 2001 Frühe Weltsysteme. Zentrum und Peripherie-Modelle in der Archäologie, Tübinger Texte. Materialien zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie, 4, Rahden. Kuniholm P. I., Kromer B., Manning S. W., Newton M., Latini Ch. E. and Jaye Bruce M. 1996 Anatolian tree rings and the absolute chronology of the eastern Mediterranean, 2220–718 BC, Nature, 381, 780–783. Kunysz A. 1961 Badania archeologiczne na terenie Biecza w roku 1961, SROA 1961, 12–16. Kurnatowski S. 1966 Materiały do środkowego okresu epoki brązowej w Wielkopolsce, Przegląd Archeologiczny, 17, 122–201. Kustár R. 2000 Spätbronzezeitliches Hügelgrab in Isztimér-Csőszpuszta, Alba Regia, 29, 7–52. Kustár R. and Wicker E. 2002 Birituarel Gräberfeld der Hügelgräberkultur in Csólyospálos (Ungarn), (in:) Studies of the Ancient World in Honour of Mária Novotná, Anodos, 2, 169–192. 483 Kuśnierz J. 1989 Dziobate siekierki z tulejką jako wyraz kontaktów ludności grupy tarnobrzeskiej kultury łużyckiej z obszarami wschodniej części Kotliny Karpackiej, (in:) Grupa tarnobrzeska kultury łużyckiej w Polsce (ed. A. Barłowska), Rzeszów, 143–163. 1998 Die Beile in Polen III, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, IX, 21, Stuttgart. Kytlicová O. 1988 K sociální struktuře kultury popelnicových polí, Památky archeologické, 79, 342–389. Labuda J. 1981 Výsledky doterajšeho archeologického výskumu na Sitne, Študijné zvesti AUSAV, 19, 113–123. LaMarche V.C., Hirschboeck K.K. 1984 Frost rings in trees as records of major volcanic eruptions, Nature, 307, 121–126. Lamiová-Schmiedlová M. 1961 Halštatské a rímske nálezy z Kechneca III, Archeologické rozhledy, 13, 325–334. Lamiová-Schmiedlová M. and Tomášová B. 1988 Osada z doby bronzovej a hrnčiarska dielňa z doby rímskej v Ostrovanoch, okr. Prešov, Nové obzory, 30, 77–96. 1992 Štvartá etapa výskumu v Ostrovanoch, AVANS 1990, 68–69. Lamut B. 1989 Kronološka skica prazgodovinske naselbine v Ormožu, Arheološki vestnik, 39/40 (1988–1989), 235–276. László A. 1973 Consideraţii asupra ceramicii de tip Gáva din Hallstattul timpuriu, SCIV, 24, 575–609. 1976 Über den Ursprung und die Entwicklung der frühhallstattzeitlichen Kulturen in der Moldau, Thraco-Dacica, 1, 89–98. 484 1984 Zu den Beziechungen zwischen der oberen Theissgegend und dem nord-östlichen ausserkarpatischen Raum in der älteren Hallstattzeit. Eine neue Gruppe der Gáva-Holihrady Kultur in der Suceava-Hochebene, (in:) Hallstatt Kolloquium Veszprém, Mitteilungen Archäologisches Instituts, 3, Budapest, 149–163, 389–393. 1994 Începuturile epocii ierului la est de Carpaţi. Culturile Gáva-Holihrady şi Corlăteni-Chişinău pe teritoriul Moldovei, Bibliotheca Thracologica, 6, Bucureşti. Lazarovici G. 1971 Sondajul arheologice de la Deuş (jud. Cluj), Apulum, 9, 71–82. Lazarovici G. and Milea Z. 1976 Săpături arheologice la Bădeni. Campania din 1968, Acta Musei Napocensis, 13, 7–35. Lazin G. and Pop S. 1997 O nouă descoperire aparţinând culturii Suciu de Sus (Aşezarea de la Tătăreşti, jud. Satu Mare), Satu Mare Studii şi comunicări, 14, 75–84. Łęga W. 1924 Kilka bronzów z Pomorza, Przegląd Archeologiczny, 2/2, 236–238. Lehmkühler S. 1990 Das archäologische Konzept der fremden Frau als Grundlage für die Paläopopulationsgenetik, typescript of master thesis, Eberhard-Karl-Universität, Tübingen. 1991 Heiratskreise in der Vorgeschichte, Archäologische Informationen, 14, 155–159. Lenarczyk L. 1984 Materiały archeologiczne z Góry Zamkowej w Bieczu, MSROA 1976–1979, 143–170. Leńczyk G. 1933 Sprawozdanie z inwentaryzacji i planowania grodzisk w okolicy Krakowa, Sprawozdania z Czynności i Posiedzeń PAU, 37/9, 36–40. 1934 Drugie sprawozdanie z inwentaryzacji i planowania grodzisk w woj. krakowskiem w r. 1933, Sprawozdania z Czynności i Posiedzeń PAU, 39/3, 28–33. 485 1938 Wyniki wstępnych badań na południowej części grodziska zwanej Zamczysko w Zawadzie Lanckorońskiej nad Dunajcem w pow. brzeskim, Sprawozdania z czynności i posiedzeń Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności 1938, 338–340. 1950 Prasłowiański gród nad Dunajcem w Zawadzie Lanckorońskiej, Prace Prehistoryczne PAU, 4, Kraków. Letica Z. 1981 Pešter u bronzano i gvozdeno doba, Starinar, 32, 9–17. Leuschner H-H. and Delorme A. 1988 Tree-Ring Work in Göttingen Absolute Oak Chronologies Back to 6255 B.C., (in:) Wood and Archaeology, PACT, 22, 123–132. Lewandowski S. 1978 Cmentarzysko epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w Paluchach, woj. Przemyśl, Spr.Arch., 30, 129–150. 1978a Nehrybka, gm. Przemyśl, Informator Archeologiczny 1977, 185–186. 1979 Wyniki badań archeologicznych na cmentarzysku grupy tarnobrzeskiej w Paluchach, stan. 1 gm. Sieniawa, woj. Przemyśl, MSROA 1973–1975, 117–128. Lévi-Strauss C. 1992 Zasada wzajemności [Le principe de réciprocité], (in:) Współczesne teorie wymiany społecznej. Zbiór tekstów (ed. M. Kempny and J. Szmatka), Warszawa, 107–130. 2000 Antropologia strukturalna [Anthropologie structurale], Warszawa. Leviţki O. 1992 La situation culturelle et historique dans l’espace carpato-dniestrien a l’époque du Hallstatt, Symposia Thracologica, 9, Bibliotheca Thracologica, 2, Bucureşti, 119–121. 1994 Cultura Hallstattului canelat la răsărit de Carpaţi, Bibliotheca Thracologica, 4, Bucureşti. 1994a Culturi din epoca hallstattului timpuriu şi mijlociu, Thraco-Dacica, 15, 159–214. Lichardus J. and Vladár J. 1996 Karpatenbecken-Sintašta-Mykene. Ein Beitrag zur Deinition der Bronzezeit als historischer Epoche, Slov.Arch., 44, 25–93. 48 Lochner M. 1986 Das frühurnenfelderzeitliche Gräberfeld von Baierdorf, Niederösterreich – eine Gesamtdarstellung, Archaeologia Austriaca, 70, 263–293. 1986a Ein urnenfelderzeitliches Keramikdepot aus Oberravelsbach, Niederösterreich, Archeologia Austriaca, 70, 295–315. 1991 Studien zur Urnenfelderkultur im Valdviertel (Niederösterreich), Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommision, 25, Wien. 1991a Ein Gräberfeld der älteren Urnenfelderzeit aus Horn, Niederösterreich, Archaeologia Austriaca, 75, 137–215. Lomborg E. 1959 Donauländische Kulturbeziehungen und die relative Chronologie der frühen nordischen Bronzezeit, Acta Archaeologica (København), 30, 51–146. Ložnjak Dizdar D. 2005 Naseljenosti Podravine u starijoj fazi kulture polja sa žarama – Die Besiedlung der Podravina in der älteren Phase der Urnenfelderkultur, Prilozi Instituta za racheologiu u Zagrebiu, 22, 25–58. Luci K. 1984 Nova grupa grobova na praistorijskoj nekropoli u Donjoj Brnjici, Glasnik Muzeja Kosova, 13/14, 25–34. Łuka J.L. 1959 Importy italskie i wschodnioalpejskie oraz ich naśladownictwa na obszarze kultury „łużyckiej“ okresu halsztackiego w Polsce, Slavia Antiqua, 6, 1–99. Mačalová H. and Mačala P. 2008 Zisťovací výskum v Porúbke, okr. Bardejov, (in:) Archeologia i środowisko naturalne Beskidu Niskiego w Karpatach II (ed. J. Machnik), Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat, 4, Kraków, 329–346. Machajewski H. 2002 Znalezisko z Roska – skarb czy miejsce kultu, (in:) Z najdawniejszych dziejów Ziemi Wieleńskiej, Wieleń, 97–118. 48 Machnik J. 1967 Stosunki kulturowe na przełomie neolitu i epoki brązu w Małopolsce (na tle przemian w Europie Środkowej), (in:) Materiały do prahistorii ziem polskich, III(1), Warszawa. 1987 Kultury z przełomu eneolitu i epoki brązu w streie karpackiej, Wrocław. Machnik J. and Mačala P. 2001 General results of the Polish-Slovak interdisciplinary research around the Lower Beskid Mountains, (in:) Archaeology and Natural Background of the Lower Beskid Mountains in Carpathians I (ed. J. Machnik), Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat, 2, Kraków, 7–19. 2008 Badania polsko-słowackiej ekspedycji archeologicznej w rejonie Kurimskiej Brázdy na Wyżynie Ondawskiej – wprowadzenie do opracowania wyników, (in:) Archeologia i środowisko naturalne Beskidu Niskiego w Karpatach II (ed. J. Machnik), Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat, 4, Kraków, 5-29. Madas D. 1996 Resultate der Forschungen an Tumuli der späten Bronzezeit auf der Lokalität Paulie bei Loznica, (in:) The Yugoslav Danube Basin and the Neighbouring Regions in the 2nd Millenium BC (ed. N. Tasić), Belgrad-Vrsač, 227–230. Madej P. and Valde-Nowak P. 1996 Sprawozdania z badań ratowniczych w Wielkiej Wsi, gm. Wojnicz, stan. 16 (AZP 59), typescript in archive of PSOZ at Tarnów, Kraków. 1997 Badania wykopaliskowe na stanowisku 10 w Czchowie, woj, Tarnów, w 1997 roku, typescript in archive of PSOZ at Tarnów, Kraków. 1998 Stanowisko 10 w Czchowie w świetle wyników prac wykopaliskowych w 1997 roku, AAC, 34 (1997–1998), 5–24. 2001 Badania wykopaliskowe na stanowisku Czchów 10/38, woj. małopolskie w 1999 roku, typescript in archive of PSOZ at Tarnów, Kraków. Mäder A. 2002 Die spätbronzezeitlichen und spätlatènezeitlichen Brandstellen und Brandbestatungen in Elgg (Kanton Zürich), Zürich. 488 Mäder A. and Sormaz T. 2000 Die Dendrodaten der beginnenden Spätbronzezeit (BzD) von Elgg-Breiti ZH, Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, 83, 65–78. Madyda-Legutko R. 1995 Zróżnicowanie kulturowe polskiej strefy beskidzkiej w okresie lateńskim i rzymskim – katalog stanowisk, Rozprawy Habilitacyjne UJ, 304/2, Kraków. 1995a Sytuacja kulturowa we wczesnej epoce żelaza na terenie polskiej części Karpat Zachodnich, (in:) Dziedzictwo kulturowe epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza na Górnym Śląsku i w Małopolsce (ed. J. Szydłowski), Śląskie Prace Prehistoryczne, 4, 241–265. 1996 Zróżnicowanie kulturowe polskiej strefy beskidzkiej w okresie lateńskim i rzymskim, Rozprawy Habilitacyjne UJ, 304/1, Kraków. Madyda-Legutko R. and Poleski J. 1995 Podegrodzie, Woiwodschaft Nowy Sącz, Fundstelle 2, „Zamczysko”. Vorgeschichtliche Siedlung und frühmittelalterzeitlicher Burgwall, Recherches Archaeologiques de 1991–1992, 92–98. Majnarić-Pandžić N. 1976 Prilog problematici licenske keramike u sjevernoj Jugoslaviji, Arheološki vestnik, 27, 68–96. 1988 Prilog poznavanju kasnoga brončanog doba u sjeverozapadnoj Hrvatskoj, Arheolozski radovi i rasprave, 11, 9–27. 1998 Einige Anmerkungen über neue Siedlungsforschungen in Nordwestkroatien, (in:) Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas. Die Bronzezeit: das erste goldene Zeitalter Europas (ed. B. Hänsel), Kiel, 249–256. Makarowicz P. 1999 The Problem of Reception of Otomani Culture Patterns on the Polish Lowlands, (in:) Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony – rozwój, chronologia, gospodarka (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 231–247. Malček R. 1996 Prvá sezóna výskumu pravekého hradiska vo Zvolene na Pustom hrade, AVANS 1994, 129. 2002 Zisťovací výskum na polohe Zvolen-Borová hora, AVANS 2001, 125–128. 48 2006 Výsledky zisťovacieho výskumu vo Zvolene na Borovej hore, Zborník Slovenského národného múzea, 100, Archeológia, 16, 55–72. Maleev J. N. 1988 Trackie grodziska okresu halsztackiego na północno-wschodnim Podkarpaciu, AAC, 27, 95–116. 2006 Uwagi o kulturze Noua w dorzeczu Dniestru, (in:) Zmierzch kompleksu trzcinieckokomarowskiego. Kształtowanie się nowej rzeczywistości kulturowej w środkowej i młodszej epoce brązu (ed. H. Taras), Lublin, 179–186. Maleev J. and Kobal’ J. 2005 Bojovi sokyry epokhy bronzy vnutritsn’oho karpatskoho pokhodzhennia na pohranychchi Pokuttia ti Bukovyni, Naukovyj Zbirnyk Zakarpats’koho Kraeznavtsoho Muzeju, 7, 225–239. Malinowski T. 1975 Problem pogranicza prasłowiańsko-prailiryjskiego, Slavia Antiqua, 21, 5–46. 1984 Bronzene Zwillingshalsringe der Lausitzer Kultur in Polen, PZ, 59, 230–245. Malinowski T. and Novotná M. 1982 Środkowoeuropejskie wielokrotne naszyjniki brązowe, Archaeologia Interregionalis, 4, Słupsk. Manning S.W. 1996 Dating the Aegean Bronze Age: without, with, and beyond, radiocarbon, (in:) Absolute Chronology. Archaeological Europe 2500–500 BC, Acta Archaeologica Suplementa, 1, Acta Archaeologica (København), 67, 15–37. Manning S.W. and Weninger B. 1992 A light in the dark: archaeological wiggle matching and the absolute chronology of the close of the Aegean Late Bronze Age, Antiquity, 66, 636–663. Mante G. 2000 Archäologie zwischen Geistes- und Naturwissenschaft, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift, 41/1, 1–16. 40 Marić Z. 1961 Vis kod Derevente, nasilje kasnog bronzanog doba, GZM, 15/16, 151–171. 1964 Donja Dolina, GZM, 19, 5–128. Marinescu G. 1979 Depozitul de bronzuri de la Agrieş (com. Tîrlişua, jud. Bistriţa-Năsăud) şi unele probleme de bronzului tîrziu în Transilvania nord-estica, Apulum, 17, 91–101. 1986 Necropola de la sfîrşitul epocii bronzului (cultura Noua) de la Archiud, comuna Teaca, judeţul Bistriţa-Năsăud, Thraco-Dacica, 7, 46–58. Marková K. 2003 Austauschentwicklung in Karpatenbecken im Lichte der Bernsteinfunde (vorläuige Anmerkungen), (in:) Bronzezeitliche Kulturerscheinungen im karpatischen Raum. Die Beziehungen zu den benachbarten Gebieten (ed. C. Kacsó), Bibliotheca Marmatia, 2, 339–352. Marta L. 2003 Eine Brozneibel vom Typ Unter-Radl aus der frühhallstatzeitlichen Siedlung von Porumbenii Mari (Kreis Harghita), (in:) Bronzezeitliche Kulturerscheinungen im Karpatischen Raum. Die Beziehungen zu den Benachbarten Gebieten, (ed. C. Kacsó) Bibliotheca Marmatia, 2, Baia Mare, 353–360. 2005 Der bronzene Nadeldepotfund von Petea, Kr. Satu Mare, (in:) Bronzefunde aus Rumänien II (ed. T. Soroceanu), Complexul Muzeal Bistriţa-Năsăud, Seria Historica, Bistriţa-Cluj, 75–94. Marta L. and Tóth K. 2006 Gefäßdepotfund der Felsőszőcs-Kultur in Nyírmada-Válogvető, (in:) Bronzezeitliche Depotfunde – Problem der Interpretation. Materialien der Festkonferenz für Tivodor Lehoczky zum 175. Geburtstag (ed. J. Kobal’), 302–317. Materna M. 1999 Osadnictwo z epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w dorzeczu Raby, typescript of master thesis, IA UJ, Kraków. 41 Máthé M. Sz. 2001 Angaben zum Ursprung der Ottomány (Otomani) Kultur, (in:) Der nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit (ed. C. Kacsó), Bibliotheca Marmatia, 1, Baia Mare, 39–43. Matoga A. 1987 Problem przynależności kulturowej grobów szkieletowych z Bocheńca, woj. kieleckie, (in:) Kultura trzciniecka w Polsce, Kraków. 1991 Uwagi o początkach kultury łużyckiej na Kielecczyźnie na tle problematyki tzw. fazy przejściowej trzciniecko-łużyckiej, (in:) Die Anfänge der Urnenfelderkulturen in Europa (ed. M. Gedl), Archaeologia Interregionalis, 13, Warszawa, 217–245. Matuz E. D. 1992 A Kyjaticei kultúra földvára Felsőtárkány-Várhegyen, Agria, 27/28 (1991–1992), 5–84. 1994 A Kyjaticei kultúra földvára Bükkszentlászló-Nagysáncon, HOMÉ, 32, 9–54. 2001 Archäologische Denkmäler der östlichen und südlichen Beziehungen im Fundmaterial der Erdwälle der Kyjatice-Kultur in Nordungarn, (in:) Der nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit (ed. C. Kacsó), Bibliotheca Marmatia, 1, Baia Mare, 299–313. Matuz E. D. and Kállay Á. 1994 Késő bronzkori – kora vaskori településrészlet Mátraszentimre-Ágasváron, Agria, 29/30 (1993-1994), 43–65. Mauerer H. 1971 Ein urnenfelderzeitliches Brandgrab aus Getzersdorf, p.B. St. Pölten, NÖ, Archaeologia Austriaca, 50, 114–123. Mauss M. 2001 Szkic o darze [Essai sur le don], (in:) M. Maus: Socjologia i antropologia [Sociologie et anthropologie], Warszawa, 164–306. Mayer E.F. 1977 Die Äxte und Beile in Östereich, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, IX, 9, München. 42 Mazur M. in print Geograia osadnictwa w międzyrzeczu Wisłoki, Dunajca i Białej Dunajcowej w epoce brązu i we wczesnej epoce żelaza, (in:) Aktualne problemy tarnobrzeskiej kultury łużyckiej, Rzeszów. Medeleţ F. 1991 O locuinţă hallstattiană de la Remetea Mare – “Gomila lui Gabor” (jud. Timiş), ThracoDacica, 12, 63–83. 1993 L’aspect culturel Remetea Mare (Hallstatt ancien), (in:) Actes du XIIe Congrès International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques, 3, Bratislava, 136–139. 1996 Die Urnengräberfelder im Banat, (in:) The Yugoslav Danube Basin and the Neighbouring Regions in the 2nd Millennium BC (ed. N. Tasić), Belgrad-Vršac, 231–245. Medović P. 1978 Naselja starieg gvozdenog doba u jugoslovenskom podunavlju, Disseratationes et Monographiae, vol. 22, Beograd. 1988 Kalakača. Naselje ranog gvozdenog doba, Posebna Izdanja Vojvodanski Muzej, Novi Sad. 1989 Kanelovana keramika prelaznog perioda u Vojvodini, Rad Vojvodanskich Muzeja, 31, 45–57. 1991 Die Eisenzeitliche Besiedlung und ihre Funde, (in:) Vorbericht über die jugoslawisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen in der Stellung von Feudvar bei Mošorin von 1986–1990, BRGK, 72, 144–151. 1996 Die inkrustierte Keramik der Mittelbronzezeit in der Vojvodina, (in:) The Yugoslav Danube Basin and the Neighbouring Regions in the 2nd Millennium BC (ed. N. Tasić), BelgradVršac, 163–183. 1997 Ein neuer Idoltyp aus Nekropole Stubarlija bei der Siedlung Feudvar/Vojvodina, (in:) Χρόνος. Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie zwischen Nord- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Bernhard Hänsel (eds. M. Roeder and B. Teržan), Internationale Archäologie, Studia honoraria, 1, Espelkamp, 335–340. 2007 Stubarlija. Nekropola naselja Feudvar kod Mošorina (Bačka), Muzej Vojvodine, Posebna Izdanja, 20, Novi Sad. Meljukova A. I. 1961 Kultury predskifskogo perioda v lesostepnoj Moldavii, (in:) Pamjatniki epokhi bronzy i rannego zcheleza v severnom pritsernomore, Materialy i Issledovannja po Arkheologii SSSR, 96, 5–52. 43 Metzner-Nebelsick C. 1998 Abscheid von den „Thrako-Kimmeriern” – neue Aspekte der Interaktion zwischen karpatenländischen Kulturgruppen der späten Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit mit der osteuropäischen Steppenkultur, (in:) Das Karpatenbecken und die osteuropäische Steppe (eds. B. Hänsel and J. Machnik), Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 12, München, 361–422. Miclea I. and Florescu R. 1980 Prehistoria Daciei, Bucureşti. Mierzwiński A. 1994 Przemiany osadnicze społeczności kultury łużyckiej na Śląsku, Wrocław. Miroššayová E. 1976 Lužické žiarové hroby zo Šváboviec, Nové obzory, 18, 155–167. 1982 Besiedlung der Südostslowakei in der älteren Eisenzeit, Thraco-Dacica, 3, 25–30. 1987 Problematika osídlenia východného Slovenska v dobe halštatskej, Slov. Arch., 35/1, 107–164. 1992 Osidlenie Spiša v dobe halštatskej, (in:) Ziemie polskie we wczesnej epoce żelaza i ich powiązania z innymi terenami (ed. S. Czopek), Rzeszów, 133–138. 1999 Výšinné hradisko na Kláštorisku-Čertovej sihoti v Letanovciach, Slov. Arch., 47/1, 129–152. 2005 Nálezy keramiki s perforovanými okrajami z východného Slovenska, (in:) Problemy kultury wysockiej, Rzeszów, 195–204. Miroššayová E. and Šarudyová M. 1999 Hromadný nález bronzových predmetov z Huncoviec, Študijné Zvesti AUSAV, 33, 155–160. Miśkiewicz J. 1962 Cmentarzysko kultury łużyckiej w miejscowości Trzebiel, pow. Żary, Materiały Starożytne, 8, 355–383. Mitrevski D. 1993 A Brnjica Type Necropolis near Skopje, Starinar, 43/44, 115–124. 1998 New Aspects of the Bronze Age Sites on the Northern Periphery of the Mycenaean World, (in:) Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas. Die Bronzezeit: das erste goldene Zeitalter Europas (ed. B. Hänsel), Kiel, 449–456. 44 Mogielnicka-Urban M. 1984 Warsztat ceramiczny w kulturze łużyckiej, Biblioteka Archeologiczna, 27, Wrocław. Morintz S. 1978 Contribuţii archeologice la istoria Tracilor timpurii I. Epoca bronzululi in spaţiul carpatobalcanic, Biblioteca de Archeologie, 34, Bucureşti. 1987 Noi date şi probleme privind perioadele hallstattiană timpurie şi mijlocie în zona istro-pontică (Cercetările de la Babadag), Thraco-Dacica, 8, 39–71. Morintz S. and Anghelescu N. 1970 O nouă cultură a epocii bronzului in România, SCIV, 21, 373–415. Morintz S. and Roman P. 1969 Un nou group hallstattian timpuriu in sud-vestul României – Insula Banului, SCIV, 20, 393–423. Moscalu E. 1976 Die frühhallstattzeitlichen Gräber von Meri (Gem. Vedea, Kr. Teleorman), Thraco-Dacica, 1, 77–86. 1981 Problèmes concernant la culture thraco-gète d’Olténie, Dacia, 25, 343–347. Moskwa K. 1960 Badania na cmentarzysku łużyckim w Grodzisku Dolnym, pow. Leżajsk, MSROA 1963, 15–16. 1973 Stan badań nad grupą tarnobrzeską kultury łużyckiej, MSROA 1968–1969, 7–26. 1976 Kultura łużycka w południowo-wschodniej Polsce, Rzeszów. 1982 Tendencje rozwoju grupy tarnobrzeskiej kultury łużyckiej, (in:) Południowa strefa kultury łużyckiej i powiązania tej kultury z południem (ed. M. Gedl), Kraków-Przemyśl, 301–316. Motzoi-Chicideanu I. 2001 Ein neuer Fund vom Beginn der Hallstattzeit aus der Kleinen Walachei, Dacia, 43–45 (1999–2001), 197–229. Motzoi-Chicideanu I. and Iuga G. 1995 Der Bronzefund von Bogdan Vodă, Kr. Maramureş, (in:) Bronzefunde aus Rumänien (ed. T. Soroceanu), Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, vol. 10, Berlin, 141–168. 45 Mozsolics A. 1958 Archäologische Beiträge zur Geschichte des Grossen Wanderung, AAASH, 8 (1957), 119–156. 1960 Der Tumulus von Nyirkarász-Gyulaháza, AAASH, 12, 113–123. 1963 Két Nagykállói depotlelet és a telekoldali bronzelet vizsgálata, Archaeologiai Értesítő, 90, 252–262. 1967 Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von Hajdúsámson und Kosziderpadlás, Budapest. 1973 Bronze- und Goldfunde des Karpatenbeckens, Depotfundhorizonte von Forró und Ópályi, Budapest. 1985 Bronzefunde aus Ungarn. Depotfundhorizonte von Aranyos, Kurd und Gyermely, Budapest. 2000 (with commentary of Emily Schalk) Bronzefunde aus Ungarn. Depotfundhorizonte Hajdúböszörmény, Románd und Bükkszentlászló, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 17, Kiel. Müller J. 1996 Konsequenz: Die Beschreibung von Hierarchien wenig stratiizierter prähistorischer Gesellschaften, (in:) Prestige – Prestigegüter – Sozialstrukturen. Beispiele aus dem europäischen und vorderasiatischen Neolithikum (eds. J. Müller and R. Bernbeck), Archäologische Berichte, 6, Bonn, 115–117. 1999 „Otomani“ in Siebenburgen? Fragen zur mittleren Bronzezeit im Westen Rumäniens, (in:) Transsilvanica. Archäologische Untersuchungen zur älteren Geschichte des südöstlichen Mitteleuropa, Gedenkschrift für Kurt Horedt (eds. N. Borofka and T. Soroceanu), Internationale Archäologie, Studia honoraria, 7, Rahden, 71–89. 2006 Soziale Grenzen und die Frage räumlicher Identitätsgruppen in der Prähistorie, (in:) Soziale Gruppen – kulturelle Grenzen. Die Interpretation sozialer Identitäten in der prähistorischen Archäologie (eds. S. Burmeister and N. Müller-Scheeßel), Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher, 5, Münster-New York-München-Berlin, 103–117. Müller J. and Bernbeck R. 1996 Prestige und Prestigegüter aus kulturanthropologischer und archäologischer Sicht, (in:) Prestige – Prestigegüter – Sozialstrukturen. Beispiele aus dem europäischen und vorderasiatischen Neolithikum (eds. J. Müller and R. Bernbeck), Archäologische Berichte, 6, Bonn, 1–27. 4 Müller-Karpe H. 1959 Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen, RömischGermanische Forschungen, 21, Berlin. 1961 Die Vollgrifschwerter der Urnenfelderzeit aus Bayern, Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 6, München. Munteanu O. 1996 Cercetări cu privire la epoca bronzului târziu în spaţiul pruto-nistrian, Acta Musei Napocensis, 33, 19–48. Muscă T.I. 1980 Interpretări arheologice, Apulum, 18, 67–80. Muzyczuk A. 2003 Ślady produkcji brązowniczej w Hłomczy, pow. Sanok, (in:) Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Karpatach polskich (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 339–356. 2007 Osada ze starszej epoki brązu w Targowiskach koło Krosna, woj. podkarpackie, (in:) Studia nad epoką brązu i wczesną epoką żelaza w Europie. Księga poświęcona Profesorowi Markowi Gedlowi na pięćdziesięciolecie pracy w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim (ed. J. Chochorowski), Kraków, 533–542. Muzyczuk A. and Pohorska-Kleja E. 1985 Wstępne wyniki badań wykopaliskowych na wielokulturowym stanowisku w Hłomczy, gmina Sanok, Studia i Materiały Muzeum Okręgowego w Krośnie, 3 (1983), 169–195. 1994 Wyniki badań wykopaliskowych w Hłomczy, gm. Sanok, woj. Krosno w latach 1981–1985, część I – materiały, MSROA 1993, 55–154. 1996 Wyniki badań wykopaliskowych w Hłomczy, gm. Sanok, woj. Krosno w 1995 roku, MSROA, 17, 65–83. Nebelsick L.D. 1994 Den Übergang von den Urnenfelder- zur Hallstattzeit am nördlichen Ostalpenrand und im nördlichen Transdanubien, (in:) Archäologische Untersuchungen zum Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit zwischen Nordsee und Kaukasus (ed. P. Schauer), Regensburger Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie, 1, Regensburg, 307–363. 4 Neipert M. 2006 Der „Wanderhandwerker“. Archäologisch-ethnographische Untersuchungen, Tübinger Texte. Materialien zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie, 6, Rahden. Nekvasil J. 1964 K otázce lužické kultury na severní Moravě, Archeologické rozhledy, 16, 225–264. 1969 Überblick über die Entwicklung der nährischen Lausitzer Kultur unter Berücksichtigung der Einlüsse aus dem Donauländischen Milieu und ihrer Speziikation im Rahmen der Lausitzer Kultur, (in:) Beiträge zur Lausitzer Kultur, Arbeits und Forschungsberichte zur Sächsischen Bodendenkmalplege, supplement 7, Berlin, 131–159. 1977 K migraci lužické kultury na Moravĕ, (in:) Geneza kultury łużyckiej na terenie Nadodrza (ed. B. Gediga), Wrocław, 61–78. 1978 Mohylníky lužické kultury na Moravě, Pamatky archeologické, 69, 52–116. 1982 Mohyly s kamennými konstrukcemi na pohřebišti v Moravičanech, (in:) Południowa strefa kultury łużyckiej i powiązania tej kultury z południem (M. Gedl), Kraków-Przemyśl, 153–178. 1982a Pohřebiště lužické kultury v Moravičanech. Katalog nálezů, Fontes Archaeologiae Moravicae, 14/2, Brno. Nĕmejcová-Pavúková V. 1981 Načrt periodizácie badenskej kultúry a jej chronologických vzťahov k juhovychodnej Európe, Slov. Arch., 29, 261–290. Németi I. 1978 Descoperiri de la sfîrşitul epocii bronzului în zona Careiului, SCIVA, 29, 99–122. 1982 Descoperiri de la începutul Hallstatt-ului în zona Careiului, Satu Mare Studii şi Comunicări, 5–6 (1981–1982), 45–58. 1990 Contributi la cunoaşterea sirşitului epoci bronzului din nord-vestul României, SCIVA, 41, 19–54. 1996 Câteva consideraţii privind descoperirile funerare din epoca bronzului din nord-vestul României, Studii şi Comunicări Satu Mare, 13, 29–55. Nestor J. 1933 Der Stand der Vorgeschichtsforschung in Rumänien, BRGK, 22 (1932), 11–181. 48 1952 Şantierul valea Jijiei, SCIV, 3, 19–119. Neustupný J. 1939 Poklad bronzů na Dreveniku ve Spiši, Sborník Národného Musea v Praze, 1 (1938– 1939), A, 201–220. Neugebauer J.-W. 1976 25 Jahre Bronzezeitforschung in Niederösterreich, Archaeologia Austriaca, 59/60, 49–86. 1994 Bronzezeit in Ostösterreich, St. Pölten-Wien. Niedźwiedź J. 1999 Badania ratownicze na cmentarzysku kultury łużyckiej w Gródku nad Bugiem, stan. 1B, pow. Hrubieszów, w 1998 roku, Archeologia Polski Środkowowschodniej, 4, 107–112. 2001 Badania ratownicze na cmentarzysku kultury łużyckiej w Gródku nad Bugiem, stan. 1B, pow. Hrubieszów w 2000 r., Archeologia Polski Środkowowschodniej, 6, 70–75. Niedźwiedź J. and Taras H. 2006 Schyłek kultury trzcinieckiej i początki kultury łużyckiej we wschodniej Polsce, (in:) Zmierzch kompleksu trzciniecko-komarowskiego. Kształtowanie się nowej rzeczywistości kulturowej w środkowej i młodszej epoce brązu (ed. H. Taras), Lubelskie Materiały Archeologiczne, 14, Lublin, 91–109. Niesiołowska-Wędzka A. 1974 Początki i rozwój grodów kultury łużyckiej, Polskie Badania Archeologiczne, 18, Wrocław. Nikolov B. 1978 Niekropol ot k’snata bronzova epokha pri s. Gradeshnitsa, Vratsansko, Ivvestia na Muzeite v Severozapadna B’lgariia, 2, 19–29. Nikolov B. and Zhekova V. 1982 Kolektivna nakhodka na keramitsni s’dove ot k’skhata bronzova epokha v s. Esenitsa, varnenski okr’g, Izvestiia na Narodniia Muzei-Varna, 18 (33), 87–93. 4 Novotná M. 1955 Výskum na žiarovom pohrebisku v Mužle, Archeologické rozhledy, 7, 746–750, 761–762. 1970 Die Äxte und Beile in der Slowakei, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, IX, 3, München. 1970a Die Bronzehortfunde in der Slowakei, Spätbronzezeit, Archaeologica Slovaca Fontes, Bratislava. 1978 Horizont bronzov typu Dreveník I, Historica Carpathica, 9, 331–343. 1980 Die Nadeln in der Slowakei, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, XIII, 6, München. 1991 Die velaticer Phase in der Slowakei, (in:) Die Anfänge der Urnenfelderkulturen in Europa (ed. M. Gedl), Archaeologia Interregionalis, 13, Warszawa, 47–54. 1995 Stand und Aufgaben der Urnenfelderforschung in der Slowakei und angrenzenden Gebieten, (in:) Beiträge zur Urnenfelderzeit Nördlich und Südlich der Alpen, Monographien Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, 35, Mainz, 373–387. 1999 Beiträge zur Besiedlung der mitteldanubischen Hügelgräberkultur in der Slowakei, (in:) Aktuelle Probleme der Erforschung der Frühbronzezeit in Böhmen und Mähren und in der Slowakei (eds. J. Bátora and J. Peška), Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae, 1, Nitra, 241–249. 2000 K depotom horizontu Gyermaly v Karpatskej Kotline, Pravěk, 10, 365–377. 2001 Die Fibeln in der Slowakei, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, XIV, 11, Stuttgart. 2003 K stavu bádania o dobe bronzovej na hornom Spiši, (in:) Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Karpatach polskich (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 55–62. Novotná M. and Soják M. 1997 Výskum osady z doby bronzovej v Poprade-Matejovciach, AVANS 1995, 139–141. Novotný B. 1972 Übersicht der vorgeschichtlichen Besiedlung ser Zips (Spiš) und des Bereiches unterhalb der Hohen Tatra, Zborník Filozoickej fakultu Univerzity Komenského, 23, Musaica, 12, 3–12. Novotný B. and Novotná M. 1981 Siedlung der Čaka- und Velatice-Kultur von Šarovce, (in:) Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte (Coblenz-Festschrift), 1, Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur Sächsischen Bodendenkmalplege, 16, 237–250. 500 Nowicka E. 2005 Świat człowieka – świat kultury. Systematyczny wykład problemów antropologii kulturowej, Warszawa. Okoński J. and Szpunar A. 2002 Najdawniejsza przeszłość Wojnicza i okolic, Wojnicz. Ormian K. 2005 Stylistyka nadsańska ceramiki tarnobrzeskiej kultury łużyckiej – zarys problematyki, (in:) Archeologia Kotliny Sandomierskiej (ed. M. Kuraś), Rocznik Muzeum Regionalnego w Stalowej Woli, 4, 291–312. Ormian K., Brylska M. and Guściora K. J. 2001 Cmentarzysko z epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w Furmanach, stan. 1, pow. Tarnobrzeg, woj. podkarpackie, MSROA, 22, 295–312. Ormian K. and Wróbel J. 2007 Pochówki szkieletowe z cmentarzyska ludności tarnobrzeskiej kultury łużyckiej w Wierzawicach stan. 18, pow. Leżajsk, województwo podkarpackie, (in:) Studia nad epoką brązu i wczesną epoką żelaza w Europie. Księga poświęcona Profesorowi Markowi Gedlowi na pięćdziesięciolecie pracy w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim (ed. J. Chochorowski), Kraków, 543–564. Ottaway B. 1981 Modelle des Kupferhandels im Äneolithikum Europas, Slov. Arch., 29/1, 139–150. Ožďáni O. 1986 Zur Problematik der Entwicklung der Hügelgräberkulturen in der Südwestslowakei, Slov. Arch., 34/1, 5–96. Pădureanu E.D. 1990 Noi descoperiri arheologice în aşezarea fortiicată de la Păuliş-Dealul Bătrân, jud Arad, Thraco-Dacica, 11, 157–192. 1992 Noi aşezari din epoca bronzului în judeţul Arad, Acta Musei Napocensis, 24–25 (1987–1988), 507–528. 501 Palincaş N. 1996 Valoriicarea arheologică a probelor 14C din fortiicaţia aparţinând bronzului târziu de la Popeşti (jud. Giurgiu), SCIVA, 47, 239–295. 2005 Zur chronologischen Stellung der Kannelierten (Vor-Basarabi-) Keramik von Popeşti, Dacia, 48/49 (2004–2005), 55–64. Pangl O. 1995 Handel, Händler und Verkehr in Spiegel griechischer Texte von Linear B bis Homer, (in:) Handel, Tausch, Verkehr im bronze- und früheisenzeitlichen Südosteuropa (ed. B. Hänsel), Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 11, München-Berlin, 49–52. Pankau C. 2004 Die älterhallstattzeitliche Keramik aus Mediaş/Siebenbürgen, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, 109, Bonn. Pap L. 1998 Nalazište poznog bronzanog doba kod motela Poloj u blizini Bačke Palanke, Rad Muzeja Vojvodine, 40, 25–38. Parczewski M. 1984 Prahistoryczne i średniowieczne źródła archeologiczne z doliny górnego Sanu – część I: odcinek SanokWara, AAC, 23, 175–224. 1985 Ulucz, Woiwodschaft Krosno, Gemeinde Dydnia, Fundstelle 3 (Eine Mehrkulturellensiedlung, von überwiegend frühmittelalterlicher Charaktere), Recherches Archaeologiques de 1983, 33–40. 1988 Sanok-Biała Góra. Mehrkulturensiedlung, vorwiegend aus der Bronzezeit und frühen Mittelalter, Recherches Archeologiques de 1986, Kraków, 41–47. Pare C.F.E. 1999 Beiträge zum Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa I, JRGZM, 45/1, 293–433. Pászthóry K. and Mayer E.F. 1998 Die Äxte und Beile in Bayern, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, IX, 20, Stuttgart. 502 Pastor J. 1958 Sídliskový výskum na Somotorskej hore r. 1955, Slov. Arch. 6/2, 314–346. Patay P. 1954 Előzetes jelentés a Nagybátonyi temető ásatának eredményeiről, Archaeologiai Értesítő, 81, 33–49. 1976 Vorbericht über die Ausgrabungen zu Poroszló-Aponhát, Folia Archaeologica, 27, 193–201. 1990 Die Bronzegefäße in Ungarn, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, II, 10, München. Patek E. 1961 Die Siedlung und das Gräberfeld von Neszmély, AAASH, 13, 33–82. 1968 Die Urnenfelderkultur in Transdanubien, Archaeologia Hungarica, 44, Budapest. 1970 Ein spätbronzezeitliches Grab in Bakonyszűcs-Százhalom, AAASH, 22, 41–49. 1984 Zum Übergang von der Urnenfelderzeit zur Hallstattzeit in Transdanubien. Überblick über den heutigen Forschungstand, (in:) Hallstatt Kolloquium Veszprém, Mitteilungen Archäologisches Instituts, 3, Budapest, 165–171. Paulík J. 1960 K problematike mladšej doby bronzovej na juhozápadnom Slovensku, Archeologické rozhledy, 12, 409–427. 1962 Das Velatice-Baierdorfer Hügelgrab in Očkov, Slov. Arch., 10, 5–96. 1962a Čakanské pohrebisko v Marcelovej, Študijné zvesti AUSAV, 9, 99–108. 1962b Príspevok k problematike stredného Slovenska v mladšej dobe bronzovej, Sborník Československé společnosti archeologické, 2, 113–139. 1963 K problematike čakanskej kultúry w Karpatskej kotline, Slov. Arch., 11, 269–338. 1965 Význam ludu severných „popolnicových” poli vnútrokarpatský vývoj, Študijné zvesti AUSAV, 13, 163–184. 1966 Mohyla čakanskej kultúry v Kolte, Slov. Arch., 14/2, 357–393. 1968 K problematike východného Slovenska v mladšej dobe bronzovej, Zborník Slovenského národného múzea, 62, História, 8, 3–43. 1969 Mohyla z mladšej doby bronzovej v Lužanoch, Zborník Slovenského národného múzea, 63, História, 9, 3–51. 503 1984 Čačianska mohyla v Dedinke, okres Nové Zámky (II), Zborník Slovenského národného múzea, 78, História, 24, 27–48. 1985 Čačianska mohyla v Dedinke, okres Nové Zámky (III), Zborník Slovenského národného múzea, 79, História, 25, 37–55. 1992 Osada čakanskej kultúry v Dedinke, Zborník Slovenského národného múzea, 86, História, 32, 45–66. Pawłowska M. and Poradyło W. 2004 Sprawozdanie z archeologicznych badań sondażowych na stanowisku nr 17 w Warzycach, gm. Jasło, woj. Podkarpackie, Krosno-Warzyce, typescript in archive of museum at Krosno. Pearce M. and De Guio A. 1999 Between the mountains and the plain: an integrated metals production and circulation system in Later Bronze Age north-eastern Italy, (in:) Prehistoric alpine environment, society, and economy. Papers of the international colloquium PAESE ’97 in Zürich (ed. P. Della Casa), Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, 55, Bonn, 289–293. Penjak C.I. 1983 Skarb epokhu bronzi iz Tsinadievo (Zakarpattia), Arkheologiia (Kiïv), 44, 62–69. Peroni R. 1995 Stand und Aufgaben der Urnenfelderforschung in Italien, (in:) Beiträge zur Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen, Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum, Monographien, 35, Bonn, 225–237. Peška J. and Bém M. 1999 Olomouc-Slavonín (okr. Olomouc), Přehled výzkumů, 40 (1997–1998), 241–243. Peters É. 1960 Früheisenzeitliches Gräberfeld in Vál, Alba Iulia, 1, 17–42. Petre G. I. 1980 Contibutions à l’étude de la in du Bronze et du commencement du Hallstatt dans le nord-est de l’Oltenie, (in:) Actes du IIe Congrès International de Tracologie, t. 1, Bucureşti, 137–142. 504 Petrescu-Dîmboviţa M. 1964 Date noi relativ la descoperirile de obiecte de bronz de la sfîrşitul epocii bronzului şi începutul Hallstatt-ului din Moldova, Arheologia Moldovei, 2/3, 251–272. 1977 Depozitele de bronzuri din România, Biblioteca de Archeologie, Bucureşti. 1978 Die Sicheln in Rumänien mit Corpus der jung- und spätbronzezeitlichen Horte Rumäniens, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, XVIII, 1, München. 1988 Certaines considérations sur quelques problèmes du Hallstatt de l’espace carpato-danubienpontique d-après les données des recherches récentes, Slov. Arch., 36, 175–188. 1998 Der Arm- und Beinschmuck in Rumänien, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, X, 4, Stuttgart. Petersen E. 1931 Die geschweiften Bronzemesser in Schlesien, Altschlesien, 3, 205–227. 1940 Funde der Czechy-Wysocko-Kultur im unteren Weichselgebiet und ihre Bedeutung für die Wanderung der frühostgermanischen Gesichtsurnenkultur, Gothiskanza, 2, 16–21. Pfützenreiter F. 1931 Zwei wichtige Grabfunde der Urnenfelderzeit, Altschlesien, 3, 163–170. Pichlerová M. 1966 Hromadný nález keramiky z Kopčan, okr. Skalica, Zborník Slovenského Národného Múzea, 60, Historia, 6, 57–72. 1984 Žiarový hrob z doby bronzovej vo Voderadoch-Slovenskej Novej Vsi, AVANS 1983, 186–187. Pieróg I. 2002 Osada kultury łużyckiej na stanowisku 18 w Krakowie-Nowej Hucie-Pleszowie, MA Nowej Huty, 23, 39–73. 2003 Przedmioty brązowe z Wadowic, MA, 34, 149–151. 2003a Ceramika i wyroby metalowe kultury łużyckiej, (in:) Kraków-Bieżanów, stanowisko 27 i Kraków-Rżąka, stanowisko 1. Osada kultury łużyckiej (ed. S. Kadrow), Via Arachaeologica, Kraków, 53–204. 2005 Stan rozpoznania archeologicznego stanowisk z okresu epoki brązu położonych w Machowie, pow. tarnobrzeski (badania A. Kraussa w latach 1957–1967), (in:) Archeologia Kotliny Sandomierskiej (ed. M. Kuraś), Rocznik Muzeum Regionalnego w Stalowej Woli, 4, 401–409. 505 2007 Domniemany skarb siekierek brązowych z Pławowic, gm. Nowe Brzesko, (in:) Studia nad epoką brązu i wczesną epoką żelaza w Europie. Księga poświęcona Profesorowi Markowi Gedlowi na pięćdziesięciolecie pracy w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim (ed. J. Chochorowski), Kraków, 565–569. Pivovarová Z. 1965 K problematike mohýl lužickej kultúry na Slovensku, Slov. Arch., 13, 107–153. Plachá V. and Paulík J. 2000 Počiatky osidlenia devénskeho hradiska v mladšej dobe bronzovej, Slov. Arch., 48, 37–86. Pleinerová I. and Hrala J. 1988 Březno. Osada lidu knovízské kultury v severozápadních Čechách, Ústí nad Labem. Pleinerová I. and Olmerová H. 1958 Halštatské nálezy ze Somotorské hory, Slov. Arch., 6/1, 109–119. Plesl E. 1978 Die Bronze- und Hallstattzeit Böhmens und ihre Wechselbeziehungen zum Süden der DDR, Arbeitsund Forschungsberichte zur Sächsischen Bodendenkmalplege, 22, 225–236. 1991 Zur Problematik der Anfänge der Urnenfelderperiode in Bähmen, (in:) Die Anfänge der Urnenfelderkulturen in Europa (ed. M. Gedl), Archaeologia Interregionalis, 13, 59–80. Podborský V. 1960 Bemerkungen zur Problematik der mährischen Hallstattzeit, Sborník prací ilosoické fakulty University JEP v Brně, E 5, 23–56. 1970 Die Mähren in der Bronzezeit und in der Schwelle der Eisenzeit, Sborník prací Filosoicke fakulty Brněnské university, Brno. 1993 Kultura lužických popelnicových polí, (in:) Pravĕké dĕjiny Moravy, Vlastivĕda Moravská Zemĕ a Lid, 3, Brno, 301–328. Pohorska-Kleja E. and Zielińska M. 1992 Osada z epoki brązu w Sanoku, MSROA 1985–1990, 155–164. 1993 Osada z epoki brązu w Sanoku, MSROA 1991–1992, 159–161. 50 Poleski J. 2004 Wczesnośredniowieczne grody w dorzeczu Dunajca, Kraków. Popa D. and Borofka N. 1996 Consideraţii privind cultura Noua. Aşezarea de la Ţichindeal, jud. Sibiu, SCIVA, 47/1, 51–61. Popović D. 1981 Keramika starijeg gvozdenog doba u Sremu, Fontes Archaeologia Iugoslaviae, 4, Beograd. Popovich I. 1989 Peredkushtanovich’kij khorizont pamjatok rann’ozaliznogo viki Zakarpattja, (in:) Tezi dopovidej I-oï narodoznavtsoï naukovo-praktichnoï konferentsiï, Užgorod, 77–78. 1990 Naselenie Zakarpat’ia v epochu rannego zheleza, (in:) Archeologiia Prikarpat’ia, Vol’yni i Zakarpat’ia, Kiev, 132–135. 1999 Study of the Early Iron Age sites in the Transcarpathian region, JAMÉ, 41, 137–159. 2006 Zakarpattia za dobi rann’ogo zaliza, Kraków-Lwów. Popović P. and Vukmanović M. 1998 Vajuga-Pesak. Early Iron Age Cemetery – Vajuga Pesak. Nekropola starijeg gvozdenog doba, Đerdapske sveske, Posebna izdanja, 3, Beograd. Poradyło W. 1995 Materiały z dawnych badań na cmentarzyskach grupy tarnobrzeskiej, przechowywane w muzeach w Przemyślu i Krakowie, MSROA, 16, 23–76. Poroszlai I. 1984 Késő bronzkori edény-depot lelet Debrecenből, DDMÉ 1982, 75–100. Potocki J. 1966 Skarb przedmiotów brązowych z Podłęża, AAC, 8, 153–168. Potushnjak F. M. 1958 Arkheologichni znakhidki bronzovogo ta zaliznogo viku na Zakarpatti, Uzhgorod. 50 Prendi F. 1982 Die Bronzezeit und der Beginn der Eisenzeit in Albanien, (in:) Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v. Chr. (ed. B. Hänsel), Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 1, Berlin, 203–233. Price D. T., Wahl J. and Bentley A. R. 2006 Isotopic evidence for mobility and group organisation among Neolithic farmers at Talheim, Germany, 5000 BC, European Journal of Archaeology, 9/2–3, 259–284. Prien R. 2005 Archäologie und Migration. Vergleichende Studien zur archäologischen Nachweisbarkeit von Wanderungsbewegungen, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, 120, Bonn. Primas M. 1977 Untersuchungen zu den Bestatungssitten der ausgehenden Kupfer und frühen Bronzezeit, BRGK, 58, 1–160. 2008 Bronzezeit zwischen Elbe und Po. Strukturwandel in Zentraleuropa 2200–800 v. Chr., Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorische Archäologie, 150, Bonn. Przybyła M. S. 2003 Uwagi o chronologii ceramiki grupy tarnobrzeskiej, MSROA, 24, 27–54. 2003a Piąty sezon ratowniczych badań wykopaliskowych na stanowisku 5 w Lipniku, pow. Przeworsk, Rocznik Przemyski, 39/2, Archeologia, 89–102. 2004 Wybrane aspekty obrządku pogrzebowego grupy tarnobrzeskiej, MSROA, 25, 91–103. 2005 Die spätbronzezeitlichen Inventare mit kannelierter Keramik in westlichem Kleinpolen und ihre Verbindungen mit südlichem Teil des Karpatenbeckens, Slov. Arch., 53/2, 219–f236. 2006 Mittel- und Südosteuropa in der zweiten Hälfte des 12. Jh. v. Chr. – die Klimakrise von 1159-1141 BC und deren Widerspiegelung im Fundmaterial – Europa Środkowa i południowowschodnia w 2 połowie XII w. przed Chr. – kryzys klimatyczny lat 1159–1141 BC i jego odbicie w zapisie źródeł archeologicznych, Spr. Arch., 58, 21–92. 2006a Husów, Gde. Markowa, Kr. Łańcut – eine Siedlung aus der jüngeren Steinzeit und der Bronzezeit, Recherches Archeologiques de 1999–2003, 61–65. 508 2007 Początki późnej epoki brązu w dorzeczach Sanu i Cisy – chronologia, obraz kulturowy i transkarpackie powiązania, (in:) Studia nad epoką brązu i wczesną epoką żelaza w Europie. Księga jubileuszowa poświęcona Profesorowi Markowi Gedlowi na pięćdziesięciolecie pracy w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim (ed. J. Chochorowski), Kraków, 571–640. 2007a The Inluences of the Middle Danubian Urnield Culture on the Silesian Group of the Lusatian Culture in the Younger Period of Bronze Age, (in:) Long-distance trade exchange in the Bronze Age and early Iron Age (eds. J. Baron and I. Lasak), Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis, nr 2960, Studia Archeologiczne, 40, Wrocław, 117–140. Przybyła M. S. and Blajer W. 2008 Struktury osadnicze w epoce brązu i wczesnej epoce żelaza na obszarze podkarpackiej wysoczyzny lessowej między Wisłokiem i Sanem, Kraków. Pydyn A. 1999 Exchange and Cultural Interactions. A study of long-distance trade and cross-cultural contacts in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in Central and Eastern Europe, BAR International Series, 813, Oxford. 2000 Value and exchange of bronzes in the Baltic area and in north-east Europe, (in:) Metals make the World go round. The Supply and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe. Proceedings of a conference held at the University of Birmingham in June 1997 (ed. C.F.E. Pare), Oxford, 225–232. Rachwaniec A. 1982 Problematyka wczesnej fazy kultury łużyckiej w rejonie Nowej Huty, (in:) Południowa strefa kultury łużyckiej i jej powiązania z południem (ed. M. Gedl), Kraków-Przemyśl, 59–72. 1985 Materiały archeologiczne ze starszego okresu epoki brązu oraz kultury łużyckiej z rejonu Kopca Wandy w Nowej Hucie-Mogile, MA Nowej Huty, 9, 89–191. Radu O. 1973 Cu privire la necropola de la Cruceni (jud. Timiş), SCIV, 23, 503–520. Rampino M. and Self S. 1984 Les efets atmosphériques de l’éruption d’El Chichón, (in:) Les Volcans, Paris, 96–106. 50 Randsborg K. 1968 Von Periode II zu III. Chronologische Studien über die ältere Bronzezeit Südskandinaviens und Norddeutschlands, Acta Archaeologica (København), 39, 1–142. 1972 From Period III to Period IV. Chronological studies of the Bronze Age in Southern Scandinavia and Northern Germany, Publications of the National Museum, ArchaeologicalHistorical Series I/15, Copenhagen. 1992 Historical Implications. Chronological Studies in European Archeology c. 2000–500 B.C., Acta Archaeologica (København), 62 (1991), 89–108. 1996 The Nordic Bronze Age: Chronological Dimensions, (in:) Absolute Chronology. Archaeological Europe 2500–500 BC, Acta Archaeologica Suplementa, 1, Acta Archaeologica (København), 67, 61–72. Randsborg K. and Christensen K. 2006 Bronze Age oak-coin graves. Archaeology and dendro-dating, Acta Archaeologica Suplementa, 7, Acta Archaeologica (København), 77, København. Reguła K. 2005 Skarb brązowy kultury łużyckiej z Niepołomic, Studia i Materiały do Dziejów Żup Solnych w Polsce, 24, 319–351. Reichel M. 2000 Das urnenfelderzeitliche Gräberfeld von Gemmringem, Fundberichte aus BadenWürttemberg, 24, 275. Reinecke P. 1924 Zur chronologischen Gliederung der süddeutschen Bronzezeit, Germania, 8, 43–44. Renfrew C. 1986 Introduction: peer polity interaction and socio-political change, (in:) Peer polity interaction and socio-political change (ed. C. Renfrew and J.F. Cherry), Cambridge, 1–18. 1994 The identity of Europe in prehistoric archaeology, Journal of European Archaeology, 2/2, 153–173. 510 Renfrew C. and Bahn P. 2002 Archeologia. Teorie, metody, praktyka [Archaeology – theory, methods and practice], Warszawa. Richthofen B. von 1935 Die Bedeutung der Lausitzer Kultur für die Vorgeschichte der Donauländer und das Illyrientum ihres Volkszugehörigkeit, Mannus, 27, 69–81. Říhovský J. 1958 Etážovitá osudí ve velatické kultuře, Archeologické rozhledy, 10, 79–106. 1958a Problém expanse lidu s lužickou kulturou do středního Podunají, Archeologické rozhledy, 10, 203–232. 1960 Problematika podolské kultury, Archeologické rozhledy, 12, 212–250. 1961 Přispěvek k poznani starši fáze velatické kultury na Moravě, Archeologické rozhledy, 13, 214–252. 1961a Počátky velatické kultury na Moravĕ, Slov.Arch., 9/1–2, 107–154. 1965 Das Urnengräberfeld von Klentnice, Fontes Archaeologici Pragenses, 8, Praha. 1966 Počatky mladší (podolské) fáze středodunajského okruhu kultury popelnicových polí, Památky archeologické, 57, 459–534. 1968 Urnengräberfeld in Oblekovice, Fontes Archaeologici Pragenses, 12, Praha. 1967 Starší (velatická) fáze středodunajského okruhu kultury popelnicových polí na Moravě, Zprávy čs. společnosti archeologické, 9/4, 29–41. 1979 Die Nadeln in Mähren und im Ostalpengebiet, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, XIII, 5, München. 1982 Základy středodunajských popelnicových polí na Moravě, Studie Archeologického Ústavu Československé Akademie Věd v Brně, X/1, Praha. 1983 Die Nadeln in Westungarn I, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, XIII, 10, München. Rittershofer K.-F. 1984 Der Hortfund von Bühl und seine Beziehungen, BRGK, 64, 139–415. Rodak T. 2003 Grób kultury pilińskiej ze stanowiska 1 w Chełmie, pow. Bochnia, (in:) Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Krapatach polskich (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 205–214. 511 Roeder M. 1991 Der Übergang von Bronzezeit zu früher Eisenzeit, (in:) Vorbericht über die jugoslawischdeutschen Ausgrabungen in der Stellung von Feudvar bei Mošorin von 1986–1990, BRGK, 72, 119–136. Rogozea P. 1994 New Archaeological Finds in the Cave from Româneşti, Timiş County, (in:) The Early Hallstatt Period (1200–700 B.C.) in South-Eastern Europe (eds. N. Borofka and H. Ciugudean), Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis, 1, Alba Iulia, 185–195. 1995 Balta Sărăta cultural group ceramics. Ceramics artifacts decoration and shapes typology, Thraco-Dacica, 16, 81–86. Romsauer P. and Veliačik L. 1987 Entwicklung und Besiedlung der lausitzer und mitteldonauländischen Urnenfelder in der Westslowakai, (in:) Die Urnenfelderkulturen Mitteleuropas (eds. E. Plesl and J. Hrala), Praha, 295–304. Rook E. 1960 Zabytki kultury łużyckiej z Pleszowa (Nowa Huta) z badań w latach 1954–1955, MA, 2, 179–196. 1997 Kultura ceramiki promienistej, (in:) Z archeologii Małopolski. Historia i stan badań zachodniomałopolskiej wyżyny lessowej (ed. K. Tunia), Kraków, 147–162. Rotea M. 1994 Penetraţia culturii Otomani în Transilvania. Între realitate şi himeră, Apulum, 31, 39–57. Rusu M. 1963 Die Verbreitung der Bronzehorte in Transsilvanien vom Ende der Bronzezeit bis in die mittlere Hallstattzeit, Dacia, 7, 177–210. Rusu M., Dörner E. and Ordentlich I. 1999 Die Erdburg von Sântana-Arad in dem zeitgleichen archäologischen Kontext, (in:) Transsilvanica. Archäologische Untersuchungen zur älteren Geschichte des südöstlichen Mitteleuropa, Gedenkschrift für Kurt Horedt (eds. N. Borofka and T. Soroceanu), Internationale Archäologie, Studia honoraria, 7, Rahden, 143–165. 512 Rusu M. and Pintea V. 1977 Dezmir, Kr. Cluj, (in:) Bronzehortfunde aus Transsilvanien (Hallstatt A2–B3), Inventaria Archaeologica, Rumänien 10, R 65. Rychner V. 1995 Stand und Aufgaben dendrochronologischer Forschung zur Urnenfelderzeit, (in:) Beiträge zur Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen, Monographien RömischGermanisches Zentralmuseum, 35, Bonn, 455–487. Rychner V., Böhringer S. and Gassmann P. 1996 Dendrochronologie et typologie du Bronze inal dans la région de Neuchâtel (Suisse): un résumé, (in:) Absolute Chronology. Archaeological Europe 2500 BC–500 BC, Acta Archaeologica Suplementa, 1, Acta Archaeologica (København), 67, 307–314. Rydzewski J. 1982 Liczebność grupy ludzkiej a możliwości produkcyjne środowiska naturalnego na przykładzie zespołu osadniczego kultury łużyckiej w Wawrzeńczycach, woj. Krakowskie, (in:) Południowa strefa kultury łużyckiej i powiązania tej kultury z południem (ed. M. Gedl), Kraków-Przemyśl, 319–333. 1989 Osada kultury łużyckiej w Podłężu (część I: katalog materiałów), MA Nowej Huty, 13, 11–124. 1991 Początki kultury łużyckiej w okolicy Krakowa, (in:) Die Anfänge der Urnenfelderkulturen in Europa (ed. M. Gedl), Archaeologia Interregionalis, 13, Warszawa, 247–262. 1997 Kultura łużycka, (in:) Z archeologii Małopolski. Historia i stan badań zachodniomałopolskiej wyżyny lessowej (ed. K. Tunia), Kraków, 249–286. Rysiewska T. 1996 Struktura rodowa w społecznościach pradziejowych. Cmentarzyska z epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w południowej Polsce, Monograie Fundacji na Rzecz Nauki Polskiej, Wrocław. Rzehak A. 1905 Prähistorische Funde aus Eisgrub und Umgebung, Zeitschrift des Mährischen Landesmuseums, 5, 34–80. 513 Šabatová K. 2004 K závěru vývoje mohylové kultury a počátku lužických popelnicových polí na střední a severní Moravě, Pravěk, 14, 101–122. 2006 Siedlungsareal der mittleren und jüngeren Bronzezeit von Přáslavice, Bez. Olomouc, (in:) Z badań nad osadnictwem epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w Europie Środkowej (ed. W. Blajer), Kraków, 127–137. Šabatová K. and Vitula P. 2002 Přáslavice. Díly pod dědinou, Kousky a kukličky (II). Pohřebiště a sídliště z doby bronzové (katalog), Archaeologiae Regionalis Fontes, 4, Olomouc. Sackett J. R. 1977 The meaning of style in archaeology: a general model, American Antiquity, 42/3, 369–380. Saile T. 1999 Der Ainitätskoeizient K*. Eine Maßzahl zur Beurteilung von Siedlungskontinuität bzw. -ainität, Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Niedersachsen, 21, 241–250. Salaš M. 1990 K západním vlivům v kultuře středodunajských popelnicových polí na Moravĕ, Acta Musei Moraviae, Scientiae sociales, 75, 39–52. 1993 Kultura středodunajských popelnicových polí, (in:) Pravĕké dĕjiny Moravy, Vlastivĕda Moravská Zemĕ a Lid, 3, Brno, 286–301. 1997 Der Urnenfelderzeitliche Hortfund von Polešovice und die Frage der Stellung des Depotfundhorizonts Drslavice in Mähren, Brno. 2005 Bronzové depoty sřední až pozdní doby bronzové na Moravě a ve Slezsku, Brno. Šalganova T. 1994 Das Auftreten der kannelierten Keramik und der Übergang von der Spätbronzezeit zur frühen Eisenzeit in Nordwestbulgarien, (in:) The Early Hallstatt Period (1200–700 B.C.) in South-Eastern Europe (eds. N. Borofka and H. Ciugudean), Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis, 1, Alba Iulia, 185–195. 514 Sánta G. 2004 A halomsíros kultúra leletei Zákányszék határában, MFMÉ, 10, 53–80. Sava E. 2005 Die spätbronzezeitliche Aschehügel (“Zol’niki“) – ein Erklärungsmodell und einige historischwirtschaftliche Aspekte, PZ, 80, 65–109. Schauer P. 1971 Die Schwerter in Süddeutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz I, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, IV, 2, München. 1984 Überregionale Gemeinsamkeiten bei Wafengräbern der ausgehenden Bronzezeit und älteren Urnenfelderzeit des Voralpenraumes, JRGZM, 31, 209–235. Ścibior J.M. and Ścibior J. 1990 Obiekt schyłkowej (łódzkiej) fazy kultury trzcinieckiej w Dwikozach, woj. Tarnobrzeg, Spr. Arch., 41, 95–124. Seger H. 1924 Die Stilenentwicklung in der Keramik der schlesischen Urnen-Friedhöfe, Schlesiens Vorzeit in Bild und Schrift, N.F., 8, 5–19. Shennan S. J. 1978 Archaeological cultures: an empirical investigation, (in:) The Spatial Organisation of Culture (ed. I. Hodder), London, 113–139. Sherrat A. 1993 What would a Bronze-Age world system look like? Relations between temperate Europe and the Mediterranean in later prehistory, Journal of European Archaeology, 1/2, 1–57. Sicherl B. 2004 Studien zur mittelbronzezeitlichen Bewafnung in Tschechien, dem nördlichen Niederösterreich und der südwestlischen Slowakei, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, 107, Bonn. 515 Šimić J. 1994 Early Hallstatt Horizon in north-eastern Slavonia, (in:) The Early Hallstatt Period (1200– 700 BC) in south-eastern Europe (eds. N. Borofka and H. Ciugudean), Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis, 1, Alba Iulia, 197–218. 2001 Brončano i starije željezno doba na području grada Osijeka, Osijecki Zbornik, 24–25 (1996–1999), 23–42. Simon G. 2001 Cultures et groupes culturels dans la région du bas Danube à la in du bronze récent, (in:) Der nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit (ed. C. Kacsó), Bibliotheca Marmatia, t. 1, Baia Mare, 315–333. Slivka M. 1982 Praveké a rannostredoveké osídlenie Šarišského Hradného vrchu, Nové obzory, 24, 141–159. Šmíd M. 1998 Dům a dva kostrové hroby ze střední doby bronzové ve Slavoníně u Olomouce, Pravěk, 7, 255–270. Smirnova G. I. 1966 Gal’shtachkie gorodisha v Zakarpat’e, Slov. Arch. 14/2, 397–410. 1969 Poselenie Magala – pamiatnik drevnefrankijskoj kul’tury v Prikarpat’e (vtorai polovina XIII–seredina VII v. do n.e.), (in:) Drevnie Frakijchy v severnom Pritsernomor’e, Materiali i issljedovaniia po arkheologii SSSR, 150, 7–34. 1972 Novye issledovaniia poseleniia Magala, Arkheologicheskii Sbornik, 14, 12–31. 1973 Pozdnegoligradskij mogilnik u s. Ostricha (Magalianskaia) na Bukovine, Arkheologicheskii Sbornik, 15, 7–11. 1974 Complexele de tip Gáva-Holihrady o comunitate cultural-istorică, SCIV, 25, 359–380. 1985 Osnovy khronologii predskifskich pamiatnikov iugo-zapada SSSR, Sovetskaia Arkheologiia 1985, z. 4, 33–53. 1990 Pamiatniki tipa Kishinev-Korlaten’ v dnestro-siretskom mezhdurech’e i gruppa Belegish II v jugoslavskom podunav’e, Arkheologicheskii Sbornik, 30, 20–33. 1993 Zur Frage der thrakischen und illyrischen Komponenten in der Frühhallstattkultur des Vorkarpatenraums, Thraco-Dacica, 14, 91–99. 51 Sochacki Z. 1975 Nowość! Kultura Gáva pod Krakowem, ZOW, 41, 8–14. Soják M. 2003 Stručné dejiny Spiša od najstarších čias po rozhranie letopočtov, (in:) Terra Scepusiensis. Stań badań nad dziejami Spiszu (eds. R. Gładkiewicz and M. Homza), LevočaWrocław, 115–144. 2003a Sídlisko z doby bronzovej v Poprade-Matejovciach, (in:) Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Karpatach polskich (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 449–476. 2004 Výskum na D1 Spiš v roku 2003, AVANS 2003, 174–176. Soják M., Soják O. and Suchý A. 2004 Záchranné výskumy na Spiši, AVANS 2003, 177–182. Šolle J. 1957 Zur Entwicklung der Hallstatt-Kultur im Gebiete des heutigen Ungarn, Archeologické rozhledy, 9, 235–248. Sommer U. 2003 Materielle Kultur und Etnizität – eine sinlosse Fragestellung?, (in:) Spuren und Botschaften: Interpretation materieller Kultur (eds. U. Veit, T.L. Kienlin, Ch. Kümmel and S. Schmidt), Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbucher, 4, Münster, 205–223. Soroceanu T. 1981 Der zweite Depotfund von Vîlcele, Rumänien, PZ, 56, 249–261. 1982 Hortfunde und Befestigte Anlagen in Transsilvanien, (in:) Beiträge zum bronzezeitlichen Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa (ed. J. Hermann), Berlin-Nitra, 363–376. 1984 Die Periodisierung der Mureş-Kultur, AAC, 23, 43–78. 1991 Studien zur Mureş-Kultur, Internationale Archäologie, 7, Buch am Erlbach. 1996 Der Bronzedepotfund von Cincu/Groß-Schenk, Siebenbürgen, Euroasia Antiqua, 2, 241–282. Soroceanu T. and Retegean A. 1981 Neue spätbronzezeitliche Funde in Norden Rumäniens, Dacia, 25, 195-229. 51 Sperber L. 1987 Untersuchungen zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderkultur im nördlichen Alpenvorland von der Schweiz bis Oberösterreich, Antiquitas, 3, Bonn. 1999 Zu den Schwertträgern in westlichen Kreis der Urnenfelderkultur: Profane und religiose Aspekte, (in:) Eliten in der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen, Monographien RGZM, 43/2, Mainz, 605–659. Sprockhof E. 1954 Nordische Bronzezeit und frühes Griechtum, JRGZM, 1, 28–110. Spurný V. 1954 Pohled do osídlení Hradiska u Kroměříže ve střední době bronzové, Pamatký archeologické, 45, 357–382. 1961 Neue Forschungen über die Anfänge der Lausitzer Kultur in Mähren, (in:) Kommission für das Äneolithikum und die ältere Bronzezeit – Nitra 1958, Bratislava, 125–137. 1969 Rituele Bräuche in der Anfangszeit der Lausitzer Kultur in Mähren, (in:) Beiträge zur Lausitzer Kultur, Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur Sächsischen Bodendenkmalplege, supplement 7, Berlin, 283–293. 1972 Sídliště starší a střední doby bronzové v Bezměrově u Kroměříže, Pamatký archeologické, 43, 180–248. 1982 K časovému a kulturnímu postavení protolužického horizontu na Moravě, (in:) Południowa strefa kultury łużyckiej i powiązania tej kultury z południem (ed. M. Gedl), KrakówPrzemyśl, 121–133. Srejović D. 1960 Praistorijska nekropola u Donjoj Brnjici, Glasnik Muzeja Kosova i Metohije, 4–5 (1959–1960), 83–135. Steuer H. 1999 Handel II. Archäologie und Geschichte, (in:) Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, 13, Berlin-New York, 502–593. 2006 Fürstengräber, Adelsgräber, Elitegräber: Methodisches zur Anthropologie der Prunkgräber, (in:) Herrschaft – Tod – Bestattung (eds. C v. Carnap-Bornheim et al.), Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, 139, 11–25. 518 Stegmann-Rajtár S. 1984 Neuerkenntnisse zum Grab 1969 von Brno-Obřany (Mähren), (in:) Hallstatt Kolloquium Veszprém, Mitteilungen Archäologisches Instituts, 3, Budapest, 211–219. 1992 Spätbronze- und früheisenzeitliche Fundgruppen des mittleren Donaugebietes, BRGK, 73, 29–179. Stjernquist B. 1985 Methodische Überlegungen zum Nachweis von Handel aufgrund archäologischer Quellen, (in:) Untersuchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Zeit in Mittel- und Nordeuropa, I, Methodische Grundlagen und Darstellungen zum Handel in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit und in der Antike (eds. K. Düwel, H. Jankuhn, H. Siems and D. Timpe), Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, III, 143, Göttingen, 56–83. Stommel H. and Stommel E. 1984 L’année sans été, (in:) Les Volcans, Paris, 107–113. Strakošová I. 1990 Záhranný výskum v Humennom, AVANS 1988, 155–156. 1992 Záchranný výskum v Jasenove, AVANS 1991, 116. 1995 Výsledky výskumov Múzea v Humennom, AVANS 1993, 124. 2003 Osídlenie Humenného a okolia v dobe bronzovej, (in:) Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Karpatach polskich (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 437–447. Stratan I. 1964 O nouă descoperire hallstattiană din Banat, SCIV, 15, 523–528. Stratan I. and Vulpe A. 1977 Der Hügel von Susani, PZ, 52, 28–60. Stojić M. 1994 Le bassin de la Morava entre 1200 et 700 avant J.C., (in:) The Early Hallstatt Period (1200–700 B.C.) in South-Eastern Europe (eds. N. Borofka and H. Ciugudeanu), Alba Iulia, 219–230. 1996 Le bassin de la Morava a l’âge de bronze et à la période de transition de l’âge de bronze a celui de 51 fer, (in:) The Yugoslav Danube Basin and the Neighbouring Regions in the 2nd Millenium BC (ed. N. Tasić), Belgrad-Vrsač, 247–256. 2000 The Brnijica Cultural Group in the South Morava Basin. Genesis, Development and Chronology, Starinar, 50, 9–59. Štrof A. 1993 Kultura lužických popelnicových polí, (in:) Pravĕké dĕjiny Moravy, Vlastivĕda Moravská Zemĕ a Lid, 3, Brno, s. 301–328. 1995 Sídliště z doby bronzové u Býkovic (okr. Blansko). Příspěvek k problematice „protolužického horizontu”, Acta Musei Moraviae, Scientiae sociales, 80, 83–108. Strupiechowski J. 1968 Sprawozdanie z archeologicznych badań wykopaliskowych w Solinie, pow. Lesko w roku 1966, MSROA 1966, 207–217. Stuchlík S. 1988 Bronzové sekeromlaty na Moravĕ, Památky archeologické, 79, 269–328. 1993 Středodunajska mohylová kultura, (in:) Pravĕké dĕjiny Moravy, Vlastivĕda Moravská Zemĕ a Lid, 3, Brno, 272–286. 2003 Die Beziehungen Mährens zu den südöstlichen Gebieten am Anfang der Bronzezeit, (in:) Bronzezeitliche Kulturerscheinungen im karpatischen Raum. Die Beziehungen zu den benachbarten Gebieten (ed. C. Kacsó), Bibliotheca Marmatia, 2, Baia Mare, 445–468. Studeniková E. 1978 Nálezy z doby bronzovej v Zohore, okres Bratislava-videk, Zborník Slovenského Národného Múzea, 72, Historia, 18, 9–39. 1986 Ostkarpatische Einlüsse in Material hallstattzeitlicher Siedlungen in der Südwestslowakei, (in:) Urzeitliche und frühhistorische Besiedlung der Ostslowakei in Bezug zu den Nachbargebieten (ed. B. Chropovský), Nitra, 201–207. Sulimirski T. 1929 Bronzy Małopolski Środkowej, Lwów. 1938 Die thrako-kimmerische Periode in Südostpolen, Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift, 25, 90–151. 1968 Corded Ware and the Globular Amphorae North-East of the Carpathians, London. 520 Sveshnikov I. K. 1967 Kultura komarowska, APolski, 12, 39–107. 1968 Bogat’ie pogrebeniia komarovskoï kul’tury u s. Ivan’ia rovenskoï oblasti, Sovetskaia Arkheologiia, 1968/2, 159–168. Szabó G.V. 1996 A Csorva-csoport és Gáva-kultúra kutatásénak problémái néhány Csongrád megyei leletegyüttes alapján, MFMÉ, 2, 9–109. 2004 Ház, településszerkezet a késő bronzkori (BD, HA, HB periódus) Tisza-vidéken, (in:) ΜΩΜΟΣ II. Őskoros Kutatók II. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete, Debrecen, 137–170. 2004a A Tiszacsegei edénydepó. Újabb adatok a Tisza-vidéki késő bronzkori edénydeponálás szokásához, MFMÉ, 10, 81–113. 2007 Polgár határában előkerült késő bronzkori kút feltárása és rekonstrukciója, Ősrégészeti Levelek, 7 (2005), 146–165. Szadkowska L. 1970 Badania ratownicze na cmentarzysku kultury łużyckiej w Dobrzeniu Wielkim, powiat Opole, w roku 1965, Opolski Rocznik Muzealny, 4, 51–106. Szafran-Szadkowska L. 1966 Cmentarzysko ciałopalne kultury łużyckiej w Dobrzeniu Wielkim, powiat Opole (badania w roku 1959), Opolski Rocznik Muzealny, 2, 9–54. 1968 Wyniki badań archeologicznych na cmentarzysku kultury łużyckiej w Dobrzeniu Wielkim, powiat Opole, w roku 1964, Opolski Rocznik Muzealny, 3, 9–144. Szafrański W. 1955 Skarby brązowe z epoki wspólnoty pierwotnej (IV i V okres epoki brązowej) w Wielkopolsce, Biblioteka Archeologiczna, 6, Warszawa-Wrocław. Szarek-Waszkowska E. 1993 Sépulture à inhumation no 101, Furmany 1, dép. Tarnobrzeg, (in:) Sépultures à inhumation de la prèmiere phase du groupe de Tarnobrzeg en Pologne sud-est, Inventaria Archaeologica, 65, PL 396. 521 Székely Z. 1994 Le début de la âge du fer dans le sud-est de la Transylvanie, Acta Musei Napocensis, 31, 173–177. 2001 Some Aspects of the Late Bronze Age in South-Eastern Transylvania, (in:) Der nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit (ed. C. Kacsó), Bibliotheca Marmatia, 1, Baia Mare, 175–189. Szkaradek R. 1941 Ausgrabungen in Neu-Sandez. Ein drei Jahrtausende altes Brandgrab in Marcinkowice, Krakauer Zeitung, 19.10.1941. Szombathy J. 1929 Prähistorische Flachgräber bei Gemeinlebarn in Niederösterreich, Römisch-Germanische Forschungen, 3, Berlin-Leipzig. Szpunar A. 1987 Die Beile in Polen I, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, IX, 16, München. 1995 Badania sondażowe cmentarzyska kultury łużyckiej w Gwoźdźcu, gm. Zakliczyn, stan. 9, Badania archeologiczne w województwie tarnowskim w 1990 r., 11–18. 1996 Zabytki archeologiczne w zbiorach Liceum Ogólnokształcącego w Dębicy, Rocznik Tarnowski 1995/1996, 189–193. Szpunar A. and Okoński J. 2003 Faza łużycka wielokulturowej osady w Tarnowcu, gm. Tarnów, pow. tarnowski, woj. małopolskie, stan. 1, (in:) Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Karpatach polskich, Krosno, 397–435. Szpunar A. and Szpunar B. 2003 Cmentarzyska w Gwoźdźcu, gm. Zakliczyn, stan. 9, i Bruśniku, gm. Ciężkowice, stan. 1, woj. Małopolskie, (in:) Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Karpatach polskich (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 477–509. Szybowicz A. 1987 Marcinkowice, gm. Chełmiec, woj. nowosądeckie, Informator Archeologiczny 1986, 145–146. 522 Szybowicz A., Szybowicz B. and Poleski J. 1998 Wczesnośredniowieczne grodzisko w Marcinkowicach, AAC, 34 (1997–1998), 77–92. Szybowicz B. 1995 Cmentarzysko z epoki brązu w Bachórzu-Chodorówce. Analiza antropologiczna, Kraków. 2008 Analiza antropologiczna szczątków kostnych z cmentarzyska grupy tarnobrzeskiej w Lipniku, stanowisko 5 (aneks 2), (in:) Przybyła, Blajer 2008, 328–344. Szydłowska E. 1982 W sprawie interpretacji specyiki kulturowej podgrupy częstochowsko-gliwickiej kultury łużyckiej, (in:) Południowa strefa kultury łużyckiej i powiązania tej kultury z południem (ed. M. Gedl), Kraków-Przemyśl, 37–46. Szymaszkiewicz M. 1985 Wstępne badania wykopaliskowe na cmentarzysku kultury pilińskiej w Chełmcu, gm. loco, woj. nowosądeckie, AAC, 24, 147–152. Taras H. 1995 Kultura trzciniecka w międzyrzeczu Wisły, Bugu i Sanu, Lublin. Tasić N. 1962 Naselie kulture polia sa urnama istotsnom delu Sriema, Rad Vojvodanskich Muzeja, 11, 127–144. 1974 Bronzano doba, (in:) Praistorija Vojvodine, Novi Sad, 185–256. 1982 Neue Ergebnisse in der Erforschung der frühen und mittleren Bronzezeit im jugoslawischen Donauraum, (in:) Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v. Chr. (ed. B. Hänsel), Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 1, Berlin, 255–266. 1988 Bronze- und ältere Eisenzeit auf Gomolava, (in:) Gomolava. Chronologie und Stratigraphie der vorgeschichtlichen und antiken Kulturen der Donauniederung und Südosteuropas (eds. N. Tasic and J. Petrović), Novi Sad, 47–58. 1989 Mittlere Bronzezeit im jugoslawischen Donauraum, Godišnjak. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, 25, 91–101. 1993 Die Verbindungen zwischen den spätbronzezeitlichen Kulturen in den Südkarpaten und im Donaugebiet, Banatica, 12, 85–90. 523 1996 Das Problem der Funde von Szeremle in Banat und ihre Chronologie, (in:) The Yugoslav Danube Basin and the Neighbouring Regions in the 2nd Millennium BC (ed. N. Tasić), Belgrad-Vršac, 147–163. 1997 Einige Fragen über die Chronologie und Genese der Brnjica-Kultur, (in:) Antidoron. Dragoslavo Srejović completis LXV annis ab amicis collegis discipulis oblatum (eds. M. Garašanin et al.), Belgrade, 285–299. 1999 Die „Gáva“-Kultur im Raum des Eisernen Tores I und II, Thraco-Dacica, 20, 127–133. 2002 Metallfunde in der Brnjica-Kultur und das Problem des mykenischen Imports, (in:) Studies of the Ancient World in Honour of Mária Novotná, Anodos, 2, 315–323. Teržan B. 1995 Stand und Aufgaben der Forschungen zur Urnenfelderzeit in Jugoslawien, (in:) Beiträge zur Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen, Römisch-Germanische Zentralmuseum – Monographien, 35, Bonn, 323–372. 1999 An Outline of the Urnield Culture Period in Slovenia, Arheološki vestnik, 50, 97–143. 2005 Metamorphose – eine Vegetationsgottheit in der Spätbronzezeit, (in:) Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidmet (eds. B. Horejs et al.), Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, 121, Bonn, 241–261. Teržan B., Mihovilić K. and Hänsel B. 1998 Eine bronzezeitliche befestigte Siedlung von Monkodonja bei Rovinj in Istrien, (in:) Archäologische Forschungen in urgeschichtlichen Siedlungslandschaften. Festschrift für Georg Kossack zum 75. Geburtstag (eds. H. Küster, A. Lang and P. Schauer), Regensburger Beiträge zur Prähistorischen Archäologie, 5, Regensburg-Bonn, 155–184. Tinner W., Lotter A.F., Ammann B., Conedera M., Hubschmid P., van Leeuwen J.F.N. and Wehrli M. 2005 Klima und Landschaftsumgestaltung – Palynologysche Hinweise zur Komplexität prähistorischer Mensch-Umwelt-Beziehungen, (in:) WES’04 Wetland Economies and Societies. Proceedings of the International Conference in Zürich, 10–13 March 2004 (eds. Ph. Della Casa and M. Trachsel), Collectio Archaeologica 3, Zurich, 57–68. Točík A. 1951 Zišťovací výskum v Bešeňove na Slovensku, Archeologické rozhledy, 3, 306–307. 524 Točík A. and Paulík J. 1960 Výskum mohyly v Čake v rokoch 1950–1951, Slov. Arch., 8/1, 59–106. 1979 Mohyla z mladšej boby bronzovej a kostrové pohrebisko z 11. storočia v Čapore, Slov. Arch., 27/1, 87–124. Točík A. and Vladár J. 1969 Zur Problematik der Anfänge der Lausitzer Kultur in der Slowakei, (in:) Beiträge zur Lausitzer Kultur, Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur Sächsischen Bodendenkmalplege, supplement 7, Berlin, 295–304. 1971 Prehľad bádania v problematike vývoja Slovenska v dobe bronzovej, Slov. Arch., 19, 365–422. Todorović J. 1977 Praistorijska Karaburma II – nekropola bronzanog doba, Dissertationes et Monographiae, 19, Mnograije, 4, Beograd. Tompa F. von 1937 25 Jahre Urgeschichtsforschung in Ungarn 1912–1936, BRGK, 24/25 (1934–1935), 27–127. Tončeva G. 1980 Chronologie du Hallstatt ancien dans Bulgarie de nord-est, Soia. Torbrügge W. 1959 Die Bronzezeit in der Oberpfalz, Materialhefte zur Bayerischen Vorgeschichte, Kallmünz. 1961 Terminologische Mißverständnisse als Fehlerquellen der Bronzezeit-Chronologie im südlichen Mitteleuropa, (in:) Bericht über den V. Internationalen Kongress für Vor- und Frühgeschichte Hamburg (ed. G. Bersu), Berlin, 818–823. Trbuhović V. 1961 Praistoriiska nekropola u Belegishu, Starinar, 11, 163–180. 1968 Problemi porekla i datovanja bronzanog doba u Srbiji, Arheološki Institut – Posebna Izdanja, 6, Beograd. 525 Trgina G. 1983 Pohrebisko lužickej kultury v Žiari nad Hronom, AVANS 1982, 161–165. Trigger B. G. 2007 A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge. Trogmayer O. 1963 Beiträge zur Spätbronzezeit des südlichen Teils der Ungarischen Tiefebene, AAASH, 15, 85–122. 1975 Das bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld bei Tápé, Fontes Archaeologici Hungariae, Budapest. Trogmayer O. and Szekeres L. 1968 Prilogi itsorii kasnog bronzanog doba Vojvodinie, Rad Vojvodanskich Muzeja, 15–17 (1966–68), 17–30. Trybała K. 2003 Z badań nad interpretacją cmentarzysk ciałopalnych z epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w południowo-wschodniej Polsce, (in:) Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Karpatach polskich (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 303–322. Trzepacz-Cabalska M. 1959 Sprawozdanie z badań archeologicznych w Starym Sączu, pow. Nowy Sącz przeprowadzonych w latach 1959–1957, WA, 26, 176–180. Tunia K. 1977 Archeologiczne zdjęcie terenu polskiej części dorzecza Popradu, AAC, 17, 183–206. 2008 Słowacko-polskie archeologiczne badania powierzchniowe w górnym dorzeczu Topli, Słowacja, (in:) Archeologia i środowisko naturalne Beskidu Niskiego w Karpatach II (ed. J. Machnik), Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat, 4, Kraków, 41–138. Unz Ch. 1973 Die spätbronzezeitlche Keramik in Südwestdeutschland, in der Schweiz und in Ostfrankreich, PZ, 48, 1–124. 52 Upham S. 1990 Decoupling the process of political evolution, (in:) The evolution of political systems: Sociopolitics in small-scale swedentary societes (ed. S. Upham), Cambridge, 1–21. Urban T. 1993 Studien zur mittleren Bronzezeit in Norditalien I, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, 14, Bonn. Urbanek H. 1941 Die frühen Flachgräberfelder Ostpreußens, Schriften der Albertus-Universität, Geisteswissenschaftliche Reiche, 33, Königsberg-Berlin. Urbański B. 2008 Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w dolinie Dunajca, typescript of master thesis, IA UJ, Kraków. Uzelac J. 1996 Bronze Age in the South of the Yugoslavian Banat, (in:) The Yugoslav Danube Basin and the Neighbouring Regions in the 2nd Millennium BC (ed. N. Tasić), Belgrad-Vršac, s. 23–43. Valde-Nowak P. 1986 Inventare des Orava-Typus und ihre Bedeutung in der Beziehung der Besiedlung an der Frühbronzezeit in der Karpaten, (in:) Urzeitliche und frühhistorische Besiedlung der Ostslowakei in Bezug zu den Nachbargebieten (ed. B. Chropovský), Nitra, 115–123. 1988 Etapy i strefy zasiedlenia Karpat polskich w neolicie i na początku epoki brązu, Wrocław. 1989 Zabytki kamienne z wielokulturowej osady w Maszkowicach nad Dunajcem, AAC, 28, 81–107. 1996 Paleolityczne i wczesnobrązowe ślady osadnictwa w zachodniej części Beskidu Niskiego, AAC, 33, 24–49. 2003 Wyroby kamienne z epoki brązu w Karpatach, (in:) Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Karpatach polskich (ed. J. Gancarski), Krosno, 43–53. Valde-Nowak P. and Madej P. 1996 Archeologiczny „Projekt Spiski“ sięga Ziemi Tarnowskiej, Zeszyty Wojnickie, 12 (56), December 1996, 9–10. 52 1997 Badania wykopaliskowe na stanowisku 16/59 w Wielkiej Wsi, woj. Tarnów, w 1997 r., typescript in archive of PSOZ at Tarnów, Kraków. 1998 Sprawozdanie z badań wykopaliskowych na stanowisku 5 w Jurkowie, gm. Czchów, woj. Tarnów (AZP 107-63/73 X-328-Y-146), typescript in archive of PSOZ at Tarnów, Kraków. Vandkilde H. 1999 Social distinction and the ethnic reconstruction in the earliest Danish Bronze Age, (in:) Eliten in der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen, Monographien RGZM, 43/1, Mainz 245–276. Vasić R. 1995 Gütertausch und Fernbeziehungen im früheisenzeitlichen Serbien, (in:) Handel, Tausch und Verkehr im Bronze- und Früheisenzeitlichen Südosteuropa (ed. B. Hänsel), Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 11, München-Berlin, 349–362. 2003 Beleške o Glasinču. Hronološka i teritornjalna pitanja, Balkanika, 32/33, 7–36. Vasiliev V. 1983 Probleme ale cronologiei hallstattului în Transilvania, Acta Musei Napocensis, 20, 53–57. 1992 Probleme privind cronologia epocii hallstattiene în aria intracarpatică a României (III), Ephemeris Napocensis, 2, 19–26. 1994 Despre câteva opinii referitorae la cronologia primei epoci a ierului în Transilvania, Acta Musei Napocensis, 31, 36–47. 1995 Fortiications de refuge et établissements fortiités du premier âge du fer en Transylvanie, Bibliotheca Thracologica, 12, Bucarest. 1995a Les recherches consacrées au Premier âge du fer en Transylvanie. Résultats et problèmes, Thraco-Dacica, 16, 93–98. Vasiliev V., Aldea I. A. and Ciugudean H. 1991 Civilizaţia dacică timpurie în aria intracarpatică a României. Contribuţii arheologice: aşezarea fortiicată de la Teleac, Cluj-Napoca. Vasiliev V. and Gaiu C. 1980 Aşezarea fortiicată din prima vîrsră a ierului de la Ciceu-Corabia, jud. Bistriţa-Năsăud, Acta Musei Napocensis, 17, 31–63. 528 Veliačik L. 1981 Archeologický výskum v Liptovskej Teplej, AVANS 1980, 322–325. 1982 Príspevok k otázke vzniku a vnútorného členenia lužickej kultúry na Slovensku, (in:) Południowa strefa kultury łużyckiej i powiązania tej kultury z południem (ed. M. Gedl), Kraków-Przemyśl, 73–95. 1983 Die Lausitzer Kultur in der Slowakei, Studia Archaeologica Slovaca Instituti Archaeologici Academiae Scientiarum Slovacae, 2, Nitra. 1989 Súčasný stav výskumu lužickej kultúry na Slovensku, Archeologické rozhledy, 41, 152–167. 1996 Zur Frage der Kontaktzone der Besiedlung der Lausitzer und mitteldanubischen Urnenfelder in der Westslowakei, (in:) Problemy epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w Europie Środkowej. Księga jubileuszowa poświęcona Markowi Gedlowi (ed. J. Chochorowski), Kraków, 503–512. Veliačik L. and Javorský F. 1983 Záchranný výskum na hradisku Tureň vo Vítkovciach, Archeologické rozhledy, 35, 143–147, 239–240. Veliačik L. and Romsauer P. 1994 Vývoj a vzťah osídlenia lužických a stredodunajských popolnicových polí na západnom Slovensku, I – Katalóg, Nitra. Vinski-Gasparini K. 1973 Kultura polja sa žarama u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj, Filozofski Fakultet Sveučilište u Zagrebu – Monograije, 1, Zadar. 1983 Kultura polja sa žarama sa svojim grupama, (in:) Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, 4, Bronzano doba, Sarajevo, 547–646. Vizdal M. 1985 Prieskum Humenského podolia, AVANS 1984, 249–251. Vrdoljak S. 1994 Tipološka klasiikacja kasnobrončanodobne keramike iz naselja Kalnik-Igrišče (SZ Hrvatska), Opuscula archaeologica, 18, 7–81. 52 Vulpe A. 1965 Zur mittleren Hallstattzeit in Rumänien (die Basarabikultur), Dacia, 9, 105–132. 1970 Die Äxte und Beile in Rumänien I, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, IX, 2, München. 1977 Zur Chronologie der Ferigile-Gruppe, Dacia, 21, 81–111. 1979 (reviev) Bernhard Hänsel, Beiträge zur regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der ältern Hallstattzeit an der unteren Donau, Germania, 57, 207–215. 1986 Zur Entstehung der Geto-Dakischen Zivilisation. Die Basarabikultur, Dacia, 30, 49–89. 1990 Die Kurzschwerter, Dolche und Streitmesser der Hallstattzeit in Rumänien, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, VI, 9, München. 2005 50 Years of Systematic Archaeological Excavations at the Pre- and Protohistoric Site at Popeşti, Dacia, 48/49, 19–37. Vulpe A. and Lăzar V. 1989 Neue Bronzefunde aus Transsilvanien, Dacia, N.S., 33, 235–246. Vulpe A. and Veselovschi-Buşilă V. 1967 Date na privind periodizarea culturii Tei şi cunoaşterea culturii Basarabi (Săpăturile de la Novaci, 1961), SCIV, 18, 83–112. Wardle K. A. 1980 Excavations at Assiros, 1975–9. A settlement site in Central Macedonia and its signiicance for the prehistory of South-East Europe, The Annual of the British School at Athens, 75, 229–265. Warren P. and Hankey V. 1989 Aegean Bronze Age Chronology, Bristol. Węgrzynowicz T. 1981 Cmentarzysko z fazy łódzkiej w Zarzęcinie Dużym woj. piotrkowskie, WA, 46, 145–165. Welbourn D. A. 1985 Craft specialization and complex societies: a critique, (in:) Settlement and Society: aspects of West European prehistory in the irst millennium B.C. (eds. T.C. Champion and J.V.S. Megaw), Leicester, 123–131. 530 Wenskus R. 1961 Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Werden der frühmittelalterzeitlichen gentes, Köln. 1985 Pytheas und der Bernsteinhandel, (in:) Untersuchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vorund frühgeschichtlichen Zeit in Mittel- und Nordeuropa, I, Methodische Grundlagen und Darstellungen zum Handel in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit und in der Antike (eds. K. Düwel, H. Jankuhn, H. Siems and D. Timpe), Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, III, 143, Göttingen, 84–108. Wewerka B. 2003 Die urnenfelderzeitlichen Gräberfelder vov Strass im Strassertal und Hadersdorf am Kamp, NÖ, (in:) Die Urnenfelderkultur in Österreich – Standort und Ausblick. Broschüre zum Symposium, Wien, 48–49. Wiklak H. 1963 Początki kultury łużyckiej w Polsce środkowej, Acta Archaeologica Lodziensia, 12, Łódź. Winghart S. 1994 Südbayern und der Donauraum. Aspekte zum Thema der spätbronze- und früheisenzeitlichen Höhensiedlungen entlang der Donau, (in:) The Early Hallstatt period (1200–700 B.C.) in South-Eastern Europe (eds. H. Ciugudean and N. Borofka), Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis, 1, Alba Iulia, 241–253. 1999 Die Wagengräber von Poing und Hart a.d. Alz. Evidenz und Ursachen spätbronzezeitlichen Elitenbildung in der Zone nordwärts der Alpen, (in:) Eliten in der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen, Monographien RGZM, 43/2, 515–532. Winkler I. and Takács M. 1980 Săpăturile arheologice de la Cicău (jud. Alba). Descoperirile din epocile bronzului şi hallstattiană, Apulum, 18, 23–59. Woźniak Z. 1962 Z najdawniejszej przeszłości Podegrodzia, Rocznik Sądecki, 5, 11–27. 531 1968 Pierwsze tysiąclecie p.n.e. w Małopolsce, (in:) Archeologia i numizmatyka, cz. 2, Archeologia, Kraków, 11–19. Yasur-Landau A. 2003 The Absolute Chronology of the Late Helladic III C Period: a View from the Levant, (in:) LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms (eds. S. Deger-Jalkotzy and M. Zavadil), Veröfentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission, 20, Wien, 235–247. Ząbkiewicz-Koszańska H.A. 1960 O kilku naczyniach kultury łużyckiej późnej epoki brązu z Małej Wsi w powiecie wieluńskim – przyczynek do zagadnienia wpływów metalowych naczyń „węgierskich” na ceramikę łużycką, Przegląd Archeologiczny, 12, 27–31. Zaharia E. 1965 Remarques sur le Hallstatt ancien de Transsylvanie. Fouilles et trouvailles de Mediaş 1958, Dacia, 9, 83–104. Zaharia E. and Morintz S. 1965 Cercetarea hallstattului timpuriu în România, SCIV, 16, 451–462. Żaki A. 1949 Ochrona grodziska przedhistorycznego, ZOW, 18, 54. 1950 Początki rozwoju kultury łużyckiej w dorzeczu górnej Wisły, Annales UMCS, 3 (1948), 1–214. 1954 Wyniki wstępnych badań grodziska w Naszacowicach, pow. Nowy Sącz, WA, 20, 234–251. 1957 Wietrznów – wczesnośredniowieczny gród graniczny w świetle badań z lat 1952–53, WA, 24, 1-36. 1962 Z archeologii województwa rzeszowskiego, Rocznik Przemyski, 9, 193–229. 1962a Cmentarzysko kultury łużyckiej w Chełmku Polskim, pow. Nowy Sącz (notatka sprawozdawcza), (in:) Sprawozdania z badań terenowych Zakładu Archeologii Polski IHKM PAN w Krakowie i Komisji Archeologicznej Oddziału PAN w Krakowie, prowadzonych w roku 1962, Kraków (typescript). 1964 Nowo odkryte grodzisko w Kurowie, pow. Nowy Sącz, AAC, 6, 41–46. 532 1966 Problem starożytnych fortyikacji w sądeckiem, Rocznik Sądecki, 7, 353–375. 1966a Badania archeologiczne w dorzeczu Dunajca w 1964 roku, Spr. Arch., 18, 280–285. Zatukál J. and Zatukál E. 1937 Adatok Podkarpatszka Rusz praehistoriájához, Mukachevo. Žebrák P. 1982 Předběžné výsledky záchranného výzkumu v okolí Zvolena, AVANS 1981, 310–313. 1987 Die urzeitliche Burganlage von Sitno, (in:) Die Urnenfelderkulturen Mitteleuropas (eds. E. Plesl and J. Hrala), Praha, 331–333. Zeeb-Lanz A. 2006 Überlegungen zu Sozialaspekten keramischer Gruppen. Beispiele aus den Neolitikum Südwestdeutschlands, (in:) Soziale Gruppen – kulturelle Grenzen. Die Interpretation sozialer Identitäten in der prähistorischen Archäologie (eds. S. Burmeister and N. Müller-Scheeßel), Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher, 5, Münster-New York-München-Berlin, 81–102. Zettler Ch. 1948 Typische Formen der jüngsten Bronzezeit Oberschlesiens, (in:) Strena Praehistorica. Festgabe zum 60. Geburtstag von Martin Jahn (ed. K. Schwarz), Halle/Saale, 134–152. Zielińska M. 2005 Skarby spod Sanoka, Rocznik Przemyski, 41/2, Archeologia, 61–70. 2005a Osada i cmentarzysko z młodszej epoki brązu w Sanoku-Olchowcach, MSROA, 26, 165–202. Zielinski G.A., Mayewski P.A., Meeker L.D., Whitlow S., Twickler M.S., Morrison M., Meese D.A., Gow A.J. and Alley R.B. 1994 Record of Volcanism Since 7000 B.C. from the GISP2 Greenland Ice Core and Implications for the Volcano-Climate System, Science, 264, 948–952. 533 Zimmermann U. 1988 Nordeuropa während der älteren Bronzezeit. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Gruppengliederung, Arbeiten zur Urgeschichte des Menschen, 12, Frankfurt am Main. Żurowski J. 1927 Skarby halsztackiego okresu z doliny Dunajca, Prace i Materiały AntropologicznoArcheologiczne i Etnograiczne, 4, 3–112. 1933 Problem kultury ceramiki promienistej, WA, 12, 139–167. 534 Streszczenie Kontakty międzykulturowe w strefie Karpat Zachodnich na przełomie II i I tysiąclecia p.n.e. Zagadnienie powiązań między jednostkami kulturowymi, rozwijającymi się w epoce brązu na północ i na południe od Karpat Zachodnich, pojawiło się w polskich badaniach archeologicznych już na przełomie XIX i XX wieku. Od tego czasu problematyka ta była poruszana zarówno przy omawianiu nowych odkryć terenowych, jak i w próbach syntetycznego ujęcia pradziejów dorzecza Odry i Wisły. Istotny wzrost danych źródłowych, zwłaszcza w ostatnich dekadach, oraz konieczność uporządkowania dotychczasowych ustaleń, skłaniają jednak do podjęcia na nowo tego tematu. W prezentowanej pracy uwaga została przede wszystkim poświęcona opisowi zróżnicowania kultury materialnej, jaki wynika z zapisów w zapisie] źródeł archeologicznych. Przyjąłem tutaj założenie, iż podstawowym narzędziem badań o kulturze są obserwacje empiryczne. Tym samym teorie (pojęcia, modele) nie mogą funkcjonować w oderwaniu od konkretnych danych i same z siebie służyć formułowaniu praw, lecz ich rola jest ograniczona do „dyscyplinowania” opisu, tworzenia pewnych ram ułatwiających wyjaśnianie prawidłowości wynikających z obserwacji. W pierwszej części mojej pracy scharakteryzowałem kulturę materialną w późnej epoce brązu (XVI–IX w. p.n.e.) na obszarze Kotliny Karpackiej, a zwłaszcza na terenach położonych na północnym przedpolu Karpat Zachodnich. Potem rozważyłem możliwości wykorzystania niektórych perspektyw wnioskowania na temat kontaktów dalekosiężnych (między innymi modelu centrum i peryferia, teorii ekonomii dóbr prestiżowych, koncepcji fremde Frauen – rozdz. 1.3) w kontekście konkretnych, opisywanych tutaj uwarunkowań 535 53 historycznych. Uzyskany w ten sposób schemat mechanizmu transmisji wzorców kulturowych (ryc. 3) został następnie przetestowany w oparciu o uzyskany wcześniej obraz przestrzennej i czasowej zmienności kultury materialnej. Skomplikowany obraz zróżnicowania kulturowego na obszarze Kotliny Karpackiej w późnej epoce brązu można przedstawić, odwołując się do kilku najważniejszych zachodzących w tym czasie procesów (rozdz. 3.1). Do XVII wieku p.n.e. cały obszar Kotliny Karpackiej zajęty był przez stabilne osadnictwo kultur środkowej epoki brązu, określanych czasem mianem kultur tellowych – od spotykanej zwłaszcza na terenach nadcisańskich formy wielowarstwowych stanowisk osadowych. Do załamania rozwoju tego kompleksu kultur doszło pomiędzy XVII i XVI stuleciem. Kryzys, zdaniem niektórych badaczy spowodowany niekorzystnymi zmianami klimatycznymi lub degradacją środowiska, zbiegł się ze zjawiskiem rozprzestrzenia nowego wzorca kulturowego określanego jako krąg mogiłowy i powiązanego z tradycjami rozwijającymi się w zachodniej partii Europy Środkowej. Proces przemian kulturowych z przełomu środkowej i późnej epoki brązu w Kotlinie Karpackiej podzielić można na trzy powiązane ze sobą zjawiska. Pierwsze to rozprzestrzenienie się kręgu mogiłowego w jego „czystej” postaci. Stanowiska pozostawione przez ludność o kulturze zbliżonej do kultury znanej w tym samym czasie na przykład z Moraw lub Kotliny Czeskiej pojawiły się w XVI wieku w Transdanubii oraz w południowej części Kotliny Karpackiej. Wpływy tego nurtu sięgnęły na południe aż do Bośni. Drugie zjawisko widoczne jest na terenach położonych nad Cisą oraz na części obszarów leżących na wschód od tej rzeki. Tutaj tradycja miejscowych społeczności połączyła się z nowymi wzorcami – zarówno mogiłowymi, jak i reprezentującymi środkowobrązowe tradycje, które wywodzą się z innych rejonów dorzecza środkowego Dunaju. Skutkiem tego procesu było wytworzenie się szeregu lokalnych zjawisk kulturowych rozwijających się na tych ziemiach w początkach późnej epoki brązu – pomiędzy XV i XII stuleciem. Wśród nich największy zasięg 53 terytorialny miała kultura pilińska. Trzecim wreszcie, niejako wtórnym, efektem rozprzestrzenienia się kręgu mogiłowego było przemieszczenie się środkowobrązowych tradycji kulturowych z Transdsdanubii do południowej partii Kotliny Karpackiej i nad dolny Dunaj. Z powstałych tam ugrupowań, które charakteryzowały się cmentarzyskami popielnicowymi, szczególnie należy wymienić tak zwaną kulturę Belegiš występującą na obszarze Wojwodiny. Przejawem kolejnego procesu przekształceń kulturowych, który objął całą Kotlinę Karpacką, jest rozprzestrzenienie się zwyczaju zdobienia naczyń kanelurami. Ten styl dekoracji znany był już w nadcisańskich kulturach środkowej epoki brązu. Około w XIII wieku doszło do odrodzenia się tego zwyczaju w dwóch regionach Kotliny Karpackiej – w kulturze Belegiš oraz w środkowodunajskim kręgu pól popielnicowych z obszaru południowych Moraw, Dolnej Austrii i zachodniej Słowacji. W ciągu XII wieku p.n.e. ceramika kanelowana, typowa dla obu tych zjawisk kulturowych, rozprzestrzeniła się na całym terenie Kotliny Karpackiej i na sąsiadujących z nią obszarach. Proces ten miał dynamiczny charakter, a w niektórych regionach wiązał się z całkowitym zanikiem wcześniejszych tradycji kulturowych. O jego związku z wydarzeniami o charakterze politycznym świadczyć może obecność omawianego rodzaju ceramiki w warstwach zgliszczy osiedli kultury mykeńskiej w Macedonii. Na przełomie XI i IX wieku nastąpiła stabilizacja osadnictwa kultur z ceramiką kanelowaną. Granice pomiędzy wyróżnianymi w tym okresie zjawiskami kulturowymi są jednak płynne. Zwłaszcza w strefach górskich dochodziło do łączenia różnych tradycji, czego przykładem mogą być doliny północnej Słowacji. Na stanowiskach z obszaru Spisza i Szarisza zaobserwowano występowanie zarówno znalezisk typowych dla kultur z Kotliny Karpackiej jak i dla kultury łużyckiej. Rozwój kultur z ceramiką kanelowaną zakończył się w ciągu IX i VIII stulecia. W okresie tym na obszarze Europy Środkowej i południowowschodniej pojawił się horyzont oddziaływań kultur z obszarów stepów 538 wschodnioeuropejskich. Wpłynęło to na wykształcenie się, między innymi w zachodniej części Kotliny Karpackiej, zjawisk kulturowych typowych już dla wczesnej epoki żelaza. Jednak w tym samym czasie w regionach górskich – zarówno w Siedmiogrodzie jak i w dolinach Karpat Zachodnich – wciąż trwały tradycje kultur z późnej epoki brązu. Odniesienie znalezisk z ziem polskich do zarysowanego tu schematu przemian kulturowych w Kotlinie Karpackiej napotyka na przeszkodę natury terminologicznej. Uważam, że nie jest metodycznie poprawne stosowanie dla określania tych znalezisk nazw kultur archeologicznych tradycyjnie deiniowanych dla dorzecza Dunaju. Te ostatnie wyróżnione zostały bowiem w oparciu o cały zespół cech, tak z zakresu kultury materialnej, osadnictwa, jak i obrządku pogrzebowego. Tymczasem w wypadku zespołów z ziem polskich dysponujemy przeważnie tylko pojedynczymi zabytkami, w tym szczególnie ceramiką naczyniową. Z tego powodu prezentowana tutaj praca to próba spojrzenia na przemiany kulturowe w Kotlinie Karpackiej z perspektywy zróżnicowania i rozwoju stylistyki ceramicznej. W oparciu o przegląd dostępnych źródeł, wsparty analizą statystyczną, wyróżniłem kilka głównych nurtów stylistycznych, które tylko częściowo pokrywają się z terytorialnym i czasowym zasięgiem występowania tradycyjnych kultur archeologicznych (rozdz. 3.2). Tak opisane style ceramiki można z jednej strony powiązać z określonymi procesami kulturowymi zachodzącymi na terenie Kotliny Karpackiej, a z drugiej można do nich przyporządkować także znaleziska spoza tego obszaru, w tym zabytki z ziem polskich, dobrze osadzone w miejscowym kontekście kulturowym (rozdz. 4.2–4.3, 5.2–5.4). Na obszarze obecnych ziem polskich sekwencję zakarpackich grup ceramiki z epoki brązu otwierają znaleziska naczyń z dekoracją spiralnoguzową, typową dla kultury Otomani z dorzecza Cisy, datowane pomiędzy XIX i XVII wiekiem p.n.e. Na ziemiach polskich zabytki te występują niemal wyłącznie w streie karpackiej, w obrębie wcześniejszych zespołów osadniczych kultury mierzanowickiej. Zarówno we wschodniej części pol- 53 skich Karpat, a więc w tak zwanej grupie jasielskiej, jak i na stanowiskach z doliny Dunajca, ceramice spiralno-guzowej towarzyszą naczynia wykonane w stylistyce właściwej dla kultury trzcinieckiej. Można tu przypomnieć, że kultura ta, powiązana z tradycjami środkowoeuropejskiej strefy niżowej, w XVIII lub XVII stuleciu zastąpiła osadnictwo mierzanowickie w lessowej streie dorzecza górnej Wisły. Kolejną grupę ceramiki zakarpackiej reprezentują naczynia w stylu określonym tu jako mogiłowo-postotomański. Ceramika ta typowa była dla ugrupowań rozwijających się pomiędzy XVI i XIII stuleciem w dorzeczu Cisy. Charakteryzuje się ona połączeniem elementów stylistycznych reprezentujących tradycję kręgu mogiłowego oraz naddunajskich i nadcisańskich kultur ze środkowej epoki brązu, zwłaszcza kultury Otomani. Typowe dla tego nurtu stylistycznego naczynia znane są z młodszych stanowisk grupy jasielskiej z dorzecza górnego Sanu i Kotliny Jasielskiej. W dolinie Dunajca obok materiałów osadowych styl ten reprezentują również zespoły grobowe z cmentarzyska popielnicowego w Chełmcu. W całej polskiej streie karpackiej ceramice tej towarzyszą naczynia kultury trzcinieckiej. Ze stanowisk kultury trzcinieckiej, zwłaszcza z rejonu podkrakowskiego, znane są liczne naczynia w stylu mogiłowo-postotomańskim. Okres rozwoju omawianego nurtu stylistycznego odpowiada napływowi w dorzecze Wisły pierwszych wyrobów brązowych związanych z ośrodkami metalurgicznymi zlokalizowanymi na obszarze kultury pilińskiej i w dorzeczu górnej Cisy. Wyroby te znane są głównie ze strefy karpackiej, część z nich traiała jednak dalej na północ. Dotyczy to zwłaszcza zdobionych bransolet występujących w najstarszych zespołach grobowych tak zwanej grupy tarnobrzeskiej z dorzecza środkowego i dolnego Sanu (rozdz. 5.1). Dynamiczne procesy kulturowe zachodzące w Kotlinie Karpackiej w XII wieku p.n.e., związane z rozprzestrzenieniem się kultur z ceramiką kanelowaną, wystąpiły również na ziemiach polskich. Na obszarze Kotliny Jasielskiej z procesami tymi można powiązać stanowiska z ceramiką żłob- 540 kowaną typową dla późnej fazy kultury pilińskiej oraz z naczyniami reprezentującymi styl Belegiš II – nurt powstały na pograniczu obecnej Serbii i Rumunii, który w XII stuleciu rozprzestrzenił się od doliny serbskiej Morawy na południu po dorzecze środkowej Cisy na północy i Mołdawię na wschodzie. Na ziemiach polskich ceramika stylu Belegiš II występuje również na osiedlach z wczesnej fazy kultury łużyckiej na lessach podkrakowskich. Obok naczyń stylu Belegiš II do obcej grupy ceramiki należą tutaj również formy reprezentujące nurt właściwy dla wczesnej fazy środkowodunajskiego kręgu pól popielnicowych z pogranicza Moraw, Dolnej Austrii i Słowacji. Przemieszanie obu tych nurtów stylistycznych nie jest zjawiskiem widocznym wyłącznie w materiałach podkrakowskich, cechuje także datowane na XII lub XI wiek zespoły z Wielkiej Niziny Węgierskiej, które stanowią najbliższą analogię do znalezisk polskich. W dolinie Dunajca, która pozostawała w izolacji od dorzecza Cisy, proces przemian kulturowych z końca II tysiąclecia p.n.e. stymulowany był przez zjawisko rozprzestrzenienia się wczesnej fazy kultury łużyckiej. Ze zlokalizowanych tutaj osiedli pochodzi ceramika guzowa, typowa dla grupy śląskiej, oraz żłobkowane naczynia słowackiej odmiany kultury łużyckiej. Obok tych form znaleziono także liczne naczynia w stylu późnej fazy kultury pilińskiej. To przemieszanie elementów kultury materialnej o proweniencji nadcisańskiej oraz związanych z kulturą łużycką charakterystyczne jest również dla zespołów z obszaru Spisza oraz dla niektórych innych lokalnych zjawisk kulturowych ze śródgórskich dolin Słowacji. W stuleciach XII i XI znacznie zwiększył się napływ na ziemie polskie przedmiotów brązowych wytwarzanych w ośrodkach nadcisańskich. Przedmioty te nadal występowały głównie w dorzeczu górnej Wisły, zwłaszcza w rejonach, gdzie znajdowano zespoły z ceramiką zakarpacką. Na tych terenach spotykane są także gromadne znaleziska wyrobów brązowych importowanych zza Karpat. Można przy tym zauważyć prawidłowość, że o ile z dorzecza górnej Wisły znane jest szerokie spektrum ozdób 541 i narzędzi brązowych, o tyle na pozostałym obszarze Polski wśród datowanych na XII–XI wiek zabytków importowanych z Kotliny Karpackiej występują wyłącznie elementy uzbrojenia (rozdz. 5.1). Młodsze odcinki późnej epoki brązu datowane na X i IX wiek p.n.e. charakteryzowały się regionalizacją kultury materialnej w całej streie Karpackiej. We wschodniej części polskich Karpat na okres ten można datować materiały nawiązujące do nurtu określanego tu jako styl Gáva II, charakterystycznego dla rozległych obszarów dorzecza Cisy i górnego Dniestru. Naczynia reprezentujące ten sam nurt lub jego lokalne naśladownictwa znane są również z zespołów grupy tarnobrzeskiej w dorzeczu Sanu oraz z nielicznych znalezisk z obszaru Lubelszczyzny. W pochodzących z tego samego przedziału czasu materiałach z doliny Dunajca obok dominującej ceramiki kultury łużyckiej można zauważyć też naczynia zdobione w sposób charakterystyczny dla kultury kyjatyckiej lub lokalnych odmian ceramiki spotykanych wyłącznie na Spiszu. Prawdopodobnie nieco młodszy nurt reprezentują zdobione rogowatymi guzami lub stempelkiem naczynia nawiązujące do zabytków z tak zwanych postgawskich osiedli ze wschodniej Słowacji. Znaleziska te można datować już na przełom późnej epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza, to znaczy na IX i VIII stulecie. Prąd południowych oddziaływań kulturowych, który można umieszczać jeszcze w XI lub X wieku p.n.e., zaznaczył się na obszarze śląskiej grupy kultury łużyckiej. Z terenu tego znana jest stosunkowo niewielka liczba zespołów grobowych wyposażonych w ceramikę typową dla znalezisk z przełomu między starszą i młodszą fazą środkowodunajskiego kręgu pól popielnicowych. Być może obecność tych zespołów pozostaje w związku z wyraźnym zwiększeniem się – w tym samym okresie – napływu naddunajskich przedmiotów brązowych na tereny położone w dorzeczu Odry. Zauważyć można, że datowane od XI do IX/VIII stulecia, liczne pochodzące z południa przedmioty brązowe z zachodniej Polski, wpisują się w szerszy obraz rozprzestrzenienia interregionalnych form zabytków wyznaczający szlak 542 dalekosiężnych kontaktów wymiennych, który łączył Skandynawię z Kotliną Karpacką (rozdz. 5.1). Zarysowane powyżej zestawienie „obcych” grup ceramiki oraz importowanych z południa zabytków brązowych, a także analiza kierunków wyznaczanych przez nie powiązań i ich miejscowego kontekstu stały się podstawą do próby zrekonstruowania mechanizmów związanych ze zjawiskiem zakarpackich oddziaływań kulturowych na ziemiach polskich. Dla potrzeb tej interpretacji przyjęto szereg założeń opartych czy to na dotychczasowych wynikach archeologicznych badań nad społecznościami z epoki brązu, czy to na dorobku antropologii kulturowej. W oparciu o dwa szczegółowe przykłady (analiza struktur osadniczych w dorzeczu środkowego Sanu oraz analiza struktury wyposażenia zmarłych we wczesnej fazie cmentarzyska w Grodzisku Dolnym – rozdz. 6.1–6.2) zweryikowane zostały również ustalenia odnoszące się do stopnia hierarchizacji społeczności z późnej epoki brązu w streie Karpat Zachodnich. Można przypuszczać, że obecność elit w analizowanych społecznościach miała raczej efemeryczny charakter, jednak to właśnie permanentna rywalizacja pomiędzy aspirującymi do tej roli jednostkami stymulowała rozwój sieci powiązań dalekosiężnych. Dzięki epizodycznym, lecz bezpośrednim kontaktom nawiązywanym na skutek „wędrówek” jednostek (np. wypraw wojennych lub migracji małżeńskich) do grup lokalnych napływały egzotyczne przedmioty, które w nowym środowisku nabierały znaczenia dóbr prestiżowych. Kryterium ich wartości mógł być zwłaszcza dystans, jaki pokonywały one z miejsca wytworzenia. Opierając się na raz ustalonych „tradycyjnych kanałach kontaktu kulturowego”, powiązania pomiędzy wyższymi warstwami odległych społeczności mogły być odnawiane w kolejnych aktach wymiany. Ich istnienie było bowiem sprzężone z obecnością elit – te ostatnie kreowały je, lecz jednocześnie potrzebowały ich do ciągłego umacniania władzy (zdobytej już wcześniej lub uzyskanej dopiero w wyniku rywalizacji w obrębie grup lokalnych). Te trwałe kanały kontaktu pomiędzy przedstawicielami odległych populacji 543 tworzyły rodzaj rozległej sieci ponadregionalnych powiązań. „Wędrujące” w ten sposób jednostki i wzorce kulturowe rozchodziły się następnie jeszcze trwalszymi kanałami wymiany, swoistymi „strukturami codzienności”, wiążącymi – w warunkach stabilnego rozwoju osadnictwa – sąsiadujące ze sobą wspólnoty wioskowe i grupy lokalne (ryc. 3 i 103). Jednym z elementów kulturowych rozprzestrzeniających się tą drogą był styl kultury materialnej, w tym również styl wytwórczości ceramicznej. Dzięki wyróżnieniu nurtów stylistycznych, analizie ich rozmieszczenia w poszczególnych przedziałach czasu i zestawieniu tak uzyskanych danych z danymi odnoszącymi się do rozmieszczenia wytworów poszczególnych ośrodków metalurgicznych oraz z informacjami o ogólnym rozwoju kulturowym możliwa jest rekonstrukcja przekształceń, jakim ulegał system kontaktów międzykulturowych (rozdz. 6.4–6.6). Próbę rekonstrukcji rozwoju sieci powiązań w streie Karpat Zachodnich trzeba zacząć od początków epoki brązu. Na początku II tysiąclecia p.n.e. pogórza i doliny Karpat Zachodnich zajmowały społeczności kultury mierzanowickiej i powiązane z nią lokalne ugrupowania ze środkowej i wschodniej Słowacji. Około XIX lub XVIII wieku rozpoczął się okres rozkwitu kultur tellowych, które sąsiadowały z nimi od południa. Nad Cisą powstał także pierwszy w tym regionie ośrodek metalurgii brązowej o szerokim zasięgu oddziaływania. Wytwory tego ośrodka oraz inne luksusowe przedmioty z otwartych na południe dolin karpackich docierały do środowisk episznurowych społeczności, a następnie mogły traiać do lokalnych systemów cyrkulacji, obejmując też społeczności żyjące na terenach położonych na północ od łuku Karpat. Dla uformowania się sieci powiązań w obrębie Karpat Zachodnich kluczowe mogły być szlaki kontaktów międzygrupowych ukształtowane jeszcze w okresie formowania się kultury mierzanowickiej. Napływ luksusowych przedmiotów z dolin karpackich do lokalnych elit mógł stymulować rywalizację prestiżową i jeszcze bardziej aktywizować rozwój sieci dalekosiężnych powiązań. Jedną z instytucji mogących funkcjonować na drodze tak wytworzonych kanałów kontaktu 544 była, być może, dalekosiężna wymiana małżeńska. Przenoszone – w ten sposób między innymi – nowe wzorce (tak w zakresie kultury materialnej, jak i duchowej) mogły – jako związane z ośrodkami władzy i prestiżu – rozprzestrzeniać się następnie w obrębie grup lokalnych oraz traiać do innych społeczności zasiedlających Karpaty Zachodnie. W prezentowanym schemacie zasadniczą rolę odgrywałyby zatem lokalne sieci powiązań, a nie dalekosiężny handel, jak w najczęściej spotykanych wariantach modelu centrum-peryferie. Konsekwencją takiego sposobu rozchodzenia się wzorców kulturowych byłoby stopniowe słabnięcie i opóźnienie sygnału wychodzącego z kulturowego centrum. W istocie, o ile na Spiszu lub w Kotlinie Koszyckiej lokalne społeczności przejęły nie tylko kulturę materialną, lecz również formy osadnictwa i obrządku pogrzebowego typowe dla populacji z Wielkiej Niziny Węgierskiej, o tyle na lessach podkrakowskich – gdzie społeczności kultury mierzanowickiej zostały prawdopodobnie zasymilowane przez napływową ludność kultury trzcinieckiej – wpływy nadcisańskie manifestują się niemal wyłącznie zmianami w stylistyce wytwórczości ceramicznej, są też zasadniczo młodsze od klasycznej fazy kultur tellowych. Przedstawiony tu mechanizm budowania sieci powiązań pomiędzy grupami lokalnymi oraz rozchodzenia się wzorców kulturowych funkcjonował prawdopodobnie podczas dalszych faz epoki brązu w streie Karpat Zachodnich, choć załamanie się rozwoju kultur tellowych spowodowało rozpad dotychczasowego układu typu centrum-peryferia i duże zmiany w obrazie kulturowym. W początkach późnej epoki brązu na południe od łuku Karpat rozwijały się grupy z ceramiką stylu mogiłowo-postotomańskiego podlegające wpływom kręgu mogiłowego znad Dunaju, lecz mające także własny ośrodek metalurgiczny, który zlokalizowany był na terenie kultury pilińskiej. W lessowej streie po północnej stronie Karpat zespołowi temu odpowiadał system powiązań lokalnych grup zespołu trzciniecko-komarowskiego. Społeczności ze śródgórskich dolin odgrywały rolę pośrednika między tymi układami powiązań. 545 Zmiany, które zaszły w tym krajobrazie kulturowym w kolejnych stuleciach, zostały wywołane przez trzy niezależne przyczyny: wykształcenie się prężnego ośrodka metalurgicznego nad górną Cisą, rozwój wczesnej fazy kultury łużyckiej i jej ekspansję do zachodniej Małopolski oraz pojawienie się nad górnym Dniestrem i w Siedmiogrodzie kultury Noua powiązanej genetycznie z ugrupowaniami ze strefy nadczarnomorskiej. Zmiany te mogły spowodować rozbicie systemu powiązań społeczności trzciniecko-komarowskich i włączenie części z nich – zwłaszcza zajmujących dorzecze Sanu – do nowej sieci grupującej też populacje z ceramiką stylu mogiłowo-postotomańskiego znad górnej Cisy i nadddniestrzańskie społeczności kultury Noua. Archeologicznym śladem tego procesu mogą być bogate groby z najwcześniejszego horyzontu istnienia cmentarzysk grupy tarnobrzeskiej. Społeczności z doliny Dunajca i ze Spiszu utrzymały kontakty z zachodnią Małopolską, co doprowadziło do pojawienia się ceramiki wczesnołużyckiej na stanowiskach karpackich. W okresie tym wytworzyła się funkcjonująca przez następne stulecia strefa kontaktowa pomiędzy kulturą łużycką i nadcisańskimi tradycjami kulturowymi. Ukształtowany w ciągu XIV i XIII stulecia obraz trwał z niewielkimi zmianami do połowy XII wieku. Wówczas to dynamiczne procesy kulturowe związane z rozprzestrzenieniem się grup z ceramiką kanelowaną spowodowały między innymi przerwanie rozwoju społeczności z dorzecza górnej Cisy. Niektóre elementy reprezentujące tradycję tych grup pojawiły się wraz z ceramiką kanelowaną po północnej stronie Karpat. Można wysunąć przypuszczenie, iż w II połowie XII wieku tradycyjnymi kanałami kontaktu kulturowego w dorzecze górnej Wisły przywędrowały grupy ludności reprezentujące zarówno dawne mogiłowo-postotomańskie środowisko kulturowe, jak i nurty z ceramiką kanelowaną pochodzące z zachodniej i południowej części Kotliny Karpackiej. Najbardziej czytelnym przejawem tego procesu jest enklawa stylu Belegiš II zlokalizowana w środowisku podkrakowskiej kultury łużyckiej. Proces rozprzestrzenienia się ceramiki kanelowanej na obszarze Karpat Zachodnich i w dorzeczu 54 Wisły był elementem szerszych przemian kulturowych, jakie około XII wieku wystąpiły w całej Europie. Stopień i dynamika tych przekształceń pozwalają na sformułowanie przypuszczenia, iż świadczą one o zachodzących w tym okresie masowych migracjach lub konliktach międzygrupowych. Można też wysunąć pogląd, że pierwszą przyczyną tych przemian mógł być kataklizm naturalny – datowany przez część badaczy na połowę XII stulecia – i spowodowane przez niego zachwianie podstaw bytowych, przynajmniej niektórych populacji. W okresie rozkwitu ugrupowań z ceramiką kanelowaną systemy powiązań w streie Karpat Zachodnich przybrały układ równoleżnikowy. Metalurgiczny i kulturowy ośrodek zlokalizowany na terytorium występowania ceramiki stylu Gáva II oddziaływał na środkowodunajski krąg pól popielnicowych. Stamtąd zaś, przez Bramę Morawską, naddunajskie wyroby brązowe, ale również wzorce kulturowe, traiały w dorzecze Odry. Na północ od Karpat Zachodnich uniikującą rolę zaczęła odgrywać kultura łużycka. Proces ten nasilił się w schyłkowym okresie późnej epoki brązu – w IX wieku – wraz z wykształceniem się swoistego fenomenu kulturowego, jakim jest grupa górnośląsko-małopolska kultury łużyckiej. W tym samym czasie na południe od Karpat, na Wielkiej Nizinie Węgierskiej, doszło do zaniku ugrupowań z ceramiką stylu Gáva II i do regionalizacji obrazu kulturowego. Tradycje postgawskie trwały nadal w odciętej od dotychczasowych centrów kulturowych północno-zachodniej partii Kotliny Karpackiej. System wymiany idei, funkcjonujący w śródgórskich dolinach Karpat Zachodnich od środkowej epoki brązu, przenosił nowe wzorce, w jeszcze większym stopniu ujednolicając obraz kulturowy tego obszaru. I tak formy naczyń typowe dla grupy górnośląsko-małopolskiej można odnaleźć na stanowiskach znad Torysy lub z Wyżyny Ondawskiej, zaś bogato zdobioną ceramikę charakterystyczną dla „postgawskich” społeczności z obrzeży Kotliny Karpackiej można znaleźć wśród materiałów z osiedli położonych w dolinie Dunajca. Na całym omawianym obszarze upowszechnił się również zwyczaj wznoszenia osiedli obronnych. 54 Podsumowując zebrane w niniejszej pracy obserwacje i ustalenia, można stwierdzić, że w późnej epoce brązu obszar Karpat Zachodnich nie stanowił bariery dzielącej dwa „światy” lub tradycje kulturowe. Przeciwnie, to właśnie procesy społeczne zachodzące w obrębie populacji zamieszkujących śródgórskie kotliny stanowiły główny czynnik stymulujący rozwój dalekosiężnych, transkarpackich dróg wymiany. W tych kontaktach partnerami były nie rozległe i scentralizowane organizmy społeczne i ich elity, lecz niewielkie lokalne wspólnoty. W warunkach długotrwałej stabilizacji osadniczej wspólnoty te mogły stworzyć sieć powiązań z sąsiednimi grupami. Z czasem, poprzez te drogi kontaktu lub też epizodyczne działania jednostek, do grup tych docierały także egzotyczne, pochodzące z odległych obszarów wytwory. W nowym środowisku, wkraczając w życie społeczne lokalnych wspólnot, przedmioty te stawały się symbolem prestiżu i władzy. Aspiracje jednostek uczestniczących w prestiżowej rywalizacji wzmagały „popyt” na te egzotyczne dobra luksusowe. To prowadziło do prób ich pozyskiwania – na drodze dalekich wypraw lub nawiązywania sojuszów pomiędzy lineażami z odległych regionów. Wytworzonymi w ten sposób „kanałami kontaktu kulturowego” wędrowali ludzie czy to w ramach wymiany małżeńskiej, czy też zachodzących na mniejszą lub większą skalę migracji. Przenosili oni pewną pulę właściwych dla siebie wzorców kulturowych, które wzbogacały następnie miejscową tradycję i były przekazywane dalej, pojawiając się w środowiskach kulturowych odległych o dziesiątki lub setki kilometrów od strefy, w której powstały. Proces ten zachodził w warunkach nieprzerwanego, trwającego kilkaset lat rozwoju struktur osadniczych. Tylko raz, w analizowanym tutaj przedziale czasu, doszło do wyraźniejszego zakłócenia w funkcjonowaniu systemu powiązań międzygrupowych. Radykalne zmiany obrazu kulturowego w Kotlinie Karpackiej zaszły w połowie XII wieku p.n.e. i prawdopodobnie były związane z masowymi migracjami. Zasadniczo jednak cała późna epoka brązu w streie Karpat Zachodnich to okres funkcjonowania jednego systemu powiązań międzygrupowych, który stopniowo ewoluował pod wpływem procesów kulturowych zachodzących w różnych partiach tego układu. 548 Contents Acknowledgments .........................................................................................................5 Chapter 1 STUDIES ON INTERCULTURAL CONTACTS IN THE BRONZE AGE – TRADITIONS AND PERSPECTIVES ......................................................................5 1.1 Main trends in the research on intercultural contacts in the Western Carpathian area during the Bronze Age .................................................................5 1.2 Interpreting the material culture ............................................................................5 1.3 Intercultural contacts in the European Bronze Age – research perspectives ....... 5 World system, prestige goods and elites...................................................................5 Forms of goods exchange.........................................................................................5 Inter-regional marriage exchange – a fremde Frauen concept .......................................5 Migrations of people and ideas ................................................................................5 Digression – climatic crisis as a cause of mass migrations in the 12th century BC ......5 1.4 The method assumed and initial presumptions......................................................5 Chapter 2 CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK.......................................................................5 2.1 Relative chronology schemes in the North Alpine zone and in the Nordic culture ..................................................................................................5 2.2 Relative chronology of the Late Bronze Age in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin ..........................................................................................5 Hoards of the Forró type .........................................................................................5 Hoards of the Rimavská Sobota series (Rimaszombat) ............................................5 Late Bronze I phase (LB I) on the territories east of the Tisza River ........................5 Late Bronze II phase (LB II).....................................................................................5 Late Bronze III phase (LB III) ..................................................................................5 Late Bronze IV phase (LB IV) .................................................................................5 2.3 Absolute chronology of the central European Late Bronze Age ...........................5 54 550 Chapter 3 ARCHEOLOGICAL CULTURES AND POTTERY STYLES OF THE CARPATHIAN BASIN IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 2ND AND BEGINNING OF THE 1ST MILLENNIA BC...................................................5 3.1 A cultural and historical review The northwestern part of the Carpathian Basin – the Middle Danubian Urnfield circle in the Late Bronze Age ...............................................................5 Southern Transdanubia and the territories between the Drava and Sava rivers in the older phases of the Late Bronze Age ..............................................5 Beginning of the Late Bronze Age (BrB2–BrD) in the area between the Danube and Tisza rivers ...............................................................................5 Beginning of the Late Bronze Age (BrB2–BrD) on the middle and upper Tisza River and in northern Transylvania ...........................................................5 Older phases of the Late Bronze Age in Transylvania ..............................................5 Culture group circle with fluted pottery in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin – terminological problems......................................................5 Urn cemeteries in the southern part of the Carpathian Basin – the Belegiš culture .............................................................................................5 Groups with fluted pottery in the territory of the Wallachian Plain and in Moldavia .................................................................................................5 The middle Tisza basin at the beginning of the development of fluted pottery groups ...................................................................................................5 The Gáva culture .....................................................................................................5 Culture groups with fluted pottery in the northern part of the Carpathian Basin .....5 The period of development of culture groups with fluted pottery south of the Sava and Danube rivers ............................................................................5 3.2. Pottery manufacturing patterns in the Carpathian Basin at the turn of the 2nd and 1st millennia BC ................................................................................5 Tumulus-post-Otomani style...................................................................................5 The late Piliny-Kyjatice style 5 Velatice-Čaka style ..................................................................................................5 Belegiš II style ..........................................................................................................5 Gáva I style ..............................................................................................................5 Gáva II style.............................................................................................................5 Stylistic traditions in pottery manufacture in the view of a cluster analysis ...............5 551 Chapter 4 THE LATE BRONZE AGE IN THE WESTERN CARPATHIANS – A PRESENTATION OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RECORDS ......................................5 4.1 The characterization of Late Bronze Age findings in the southern approaches to the Western Carpathians.................................................................5 The Ondava Upland and Šariš .................................................................................5 The Spiš region ........................................................................................................5 The oldest phase of the Lusatian culture settlement in the upper Váh valley ...........5 The so-called proto-Lusatian horizon in Moravia and its connections with the Carpathian Basin ..................................................................................5 Middle Danubian Urnfield finds in Lusatian culture assemblages of Moravia and western Slovakia .........................................................................................5 4.2 Late Bronze Age assemblages in the northern part of the eastern Beskid Mountains ...............................................................................................................5 Transcarpathian influences on the Trzciniec culture ................................................5 Assemblages with Transcarpathian pottery from younger segments of the Late Bronze Age – the state of research and sources ..........................................5 Periodization of Late Bronze Age inventories from the eastern Polish Carpathians ..5 4.3 Inventories with Transcarpathian pottery in the Dunajec River valley and in neighboring territories ...........................................................................................5 An outline of studies on the Late Bronze Age settlement in the Dunajec River valley ..........................................................................................5 Comments on the interpretation of archeological records .......................................5 The periodization of Bronze Age and Early Iron Age finds from the Dunajec River valley ..........................................................................................5 Chapter 5 “TRANSCARPATHIAN” ARTIFACTS IN THE CONTEXT OF LUSATIAN CULTURE ASSEMBLAGES FROM THE ODER AND VISTULA RIVER BASINS....5 5.1 The inflow of bronze objects from the Danube basin into regions north of the Carpathians ..................................................................................................5 Characterization of sources .....................................................................................5 Determining phases for the inflow of bronze objects north of the Carpathians and directions of ensuing relations .....................................................................5 552 5.2 The influence of Carpathian Basin cultural traditions in the territory of the Lusatian culture in the San basin..................................................................5 The state of research on the origin of the Tarnobrzeg group and the role of Transcarpathian influences in this process .....................................................5 Assemblages testifying to „southern” and „eastern” influences in the initial phase of the Tarnobrzeg group ....................................................................................5 The origin of the urn cremation burial ritual in the early phase of the Tarnobrzeg group .................................................................................................................5 Pottery with Transcarpathian traits from assemblages of the early phase of the Tarnobrzeg group ....................................................................................5 Vessels with Transcarpathian traits in the Lusatian culture assemblages in the eastern Lublin region ...............................................................................5 5.3 “Foreign” fluted pottery from Lusatian culture sites in western Lesser Poland.....5 The state of research on Transcarpathian influences on the Lusatian culture of western Lesser Poland ...................................................................................5 The cultural situation in the Late Bronze Age in western Lesser Poland and the local context of the “foreign” pottery group ..........................................5 The characterization of the “foreign” pottery group of western Lesser Poland’s loess zone .............................................................................................5 Vessels from Zajezierze and Zschornewitz – the presence of Transcarpathian cultural elements in the southern Baltic zone .....................................................5 The attempt to interpret the horizon of Transcarpathian influences in the Lusatian culture of western Lesser Poland’s loess zone and of the Baltic zone ..................5 5.4 Assemblages with Middle Danubian Urnfield pottery in sites of the Silesia group of the Lusatian culture ............................................................................................5 The state of research on Middle Danubian Urnfield area influences on the Silesia group of the Lusatian culture .............................................................................5 Pottery of the Middle Danubian Urnfield complex in Silesia group assemblages from the Younger Bronze Age ............................................................................5 Attempted interpretation of assemblages with the Middle Danubian Urnfield pottery in sites of the Lusatian culture’s Silesian group .....................................5 553 Chapter 6 THE FUNCTIONING AND DEVELOPMENT OF A SUPRA-REGIONAL COMMUNICATION NETWORK IN THE WESTERN CARPATHIAN REGION IN THE LATE BRONZE AGE ......5 6.1 Settlement network as a reflection of social organization structures of Late Bronze Age populations in the Carpathian zone ....................................................5 6.2 The social structure of the Late Bronze Age populations in the Carpathian area and prestige goods identification in the archeological material in the example of Tarnobrzeg group cemeteries in the San River basin ..........................5 6.3 The onset of supra-regional connections in the Western Carpathian zone – an attempt to adapt the “core and periphery” model .............................................5 6.4 Decline of the “core-periphery” type of relations in the initial phases of the Late Bronze Age .....................................................................................................5 6.5 The period of fluted pottery culture development in the Danube River basin and its impact on Western Carpathian and neighboring societies .........................5 Initial phase of fluted pottery culture development .................................................5 Digression: The diffusion of fluted pottery trends and the “cultural package” model ................................................................................................................5 The impact of cultural transformations in LB III phase on supra-regional connections systems in the Western Carpathian area .........................................5 6.6 Supra-regional links in the Western Carpathians and adjoining regions at the end of the Late Bronze Age ..........................................................................5 6.7 Final conclusions .....................................................................................................5 Appendices ...................................................................................................................5 References.....................................................................................................................5 Streszczenie. Kontakty międzykulturowe w strefie Karpat Zachodnich na przełomie II i I tysiąclecia p.n.e..........................................................................5 554 555 55 55 558 55 50 51 52 53 54 55 5 5 58 5 50 51 52 53 54 55 5 5 58 5