(PDF) Menace from the afterlife? Some remarks about the archaeological evidence for fearing and banishing the dead and a contribution to Otomani-Füzesabony sepulchral rite
About
Press
Papers
We're Hiring!
Outline
Title
Abstract
References
All Topics
Anthropology
Archaeology
Menace from the afterlife? Some remarks about the archaeological evidence for fearing and banishing the dead and a contribution to Otomani-Füzesabony sepulchral rite
Jens Notroff
visibility
description
18 pages
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
check
Get notified about relevant papers
check
Save papers to use in your research
check
Join the discussion with peers
check
Track your impact
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to discuss the meaning of 'special burials' to contribute to our understanding of prehistoric burial rite and concepts of the afterlife. Especially an omnipresent model explaining deviant burials with fearing and banishing the dead, Totenangst and Totenbann, serves as starting ground of the thoughts presented. Consulting only the conspicuous aberrant feature means to assume with tacit understanding that the archaeological record depicts a general rule of rather simplified behavior. That there are many reasons for possible infringements of the norm, that sometimes even 'the norm' needs to be questioned, is demonstrated with a number of examples and with the help of ethnographic analogies. It can hardly be negated, that there are indeed sometimes burials which stand out by their unique and most remarkable way of how the deceased were treated.
The role of amulets in burial ritual is also analyzed in the course of this study. Within several graves, even those emptied some time after the burial, a number of objects were found. Especially the heart- and crescent-shaped pendants, a find group rather common and widely spread in the Early and Middle Bronze Age attracts our attention. Recognizing them as stylized anthropomorphic depictions and linking them to contemporary idols and figurines emphasizes their supposed significance in cultic activity, particularly an apotropaic role. The frequent appearance of these pendants in hoards does not only underline this cultic interpretation (recognizing at least some of these hoards as offerings through which the objects are entrusted to a numinous sphere as well) but also draws another close line between burials and depositions and the related concepts behind both.
Related papers
Mortuary display, associated artefacts, and the resurrection of the body in early Christian thought: Some considerations for archaeologist
Ádám Bollók
Antaues, 2018
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Late Eneolithic mortuary practices and their social significance
Jan Turek
F. Berthemes,P. BiehlH. Meller (eds): The …, 2001
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Adela Kovács, Thinking beyond the artefacts: a few hypotheses in reconstructing the rituals in temples and sanctuaries from Neolithic and Copper Age, Studia archaeologica et linguistica : miscellanea in honorem annos LXXV peragentis Professoris Adriani Poruciuc oblata, Cluj-Napoca, 2023, p. 87-133
Adela Kovacs
Studia archaeologica et linguistica : miscellanea in honorem annos LXXV peragentis Professoris Adriani Poruciuc oblata Other Authors: Aparaschivei, Dan , [Editor] Berzovan, Alexandru 1986- , [Editor] Published: Cluj-Napoca : Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2023., 2023
The present work has the purpose to open some possibilities of interpretation of several artifacts, which, viewed as a whole, can bring new directions of vision in order to reconstruct some cultic or religious activities in the Neolithic period. We started our study from the premise that religious life is developed in a special place, and in this way temples and sanctuaries appear. It is possible that people who approached the sacred space must accomplish certain conditions, such as initiation. Profane activities are prohibited inside the place of worship. All the arrangements made within the cult buildings have the role of props for certain rituals and cults held inside. We distinguish a series of universal rituals, present in all prehistoric societies. We note the fumigatio, mactatio and libatio (more precisely the burnt offering, the blood offering and the liquid offering), each with a specific inventory: libation vessels, for keeping some liquids, seeds or products; idols or altars with cultic signs and symbols that have the role of transmitting a message or with an apotropaic role. Grinding, keeping grains and ground flour, preparation of ritual food are elements documented in certain temples. This apparently profane activity is widely present in religious buildings, in temples, but also in models of houses / sanctuaries in the Cucuten area. On the same line of ritual preparation, the activity of weaving, the making of clothes (perhaps for the administrator of the cult) or of the various fabrics needed in the cultic cleaning is included. Until now, based on the elements that are repeated in many contexts, situations, features and cultures, hypotheses have been elaborated regarding a series of cults present in the Neolithic and the Copper Age. A cult with a wide spread is that of fertility and fecundity, linked to cult manifestations in many aspects, demonstrated by the presence of idols and figurines, ritual activities, specific architectural elements. All these aspects were sometimes included under the global term of agrarian cults. Another particularly important cult is that of the female divinity, in all its aspects, encompassing a series of terms such as "great goddess" or "mother goddess". This female character, omnipresent in the central, south-eastern and southern European areas, is sometimes represented on a monumental scale, forming cultic altars. Correlating the low light or the light directed on the monumental statues, it is possible to induce the feeling of mystery, of impressing the person, the worshiper, the believer or the "priest" entering the interior of the temple building. It is possible that this was the purpose of making altars and statues of impressive dimensions. Another omnipresent character in the cultures analysed by us is the bull. Its representations covered a wide range, from wall paintings, reliefs with clay skulls and bucrania, skeletons or skulls of bulls deposited as offerings or as leftovers from public feasts, zoomorphic idols. As a symbol, the bull represents the God of Storms, through his roar like thunder, the god who brings rain and ensures the growth of plants. The art from the Neolithic and Eneolithic periods has a religious purpose, being intended to ensure abundant harvests by directly observing the cycles of nature, the seasons. The analysis of the religion of a community as a whole could help to understand the way in which the majority of individuals in a certain society worship their gods and especially the way of thinking and conception of cultic spaces.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Talismanic Practice at Lefkandi: Trinkets, Burials and Belief in the Early Iron Age
Nathan Arrington
Excavations at Lefkandi have dispelled much of the gloom enshrouding the Early Iron Age, revealing a community with significant disposable wealth and with connections throughout the Mediterranean. The eastern imports in particular have drawn scholarly attention, with discussion moving from questions of production and transportation to issues surrounding consumption. This article draws attention to some limitations in prevalent socio-political explanations of consumption at Lefkandi, arguing that models relying on gift-exchange, prestige-goods and elite display cannot adequately account for the distribution, chronology, find context and function of imports at Lefkandi. A study of trinkets – small but manifestly foreign imports of cheap material – offers a new perspective. An analysis of their form, context, use and meaning demonstrates that trinkets were meaningfully and deliberately deposited with children as talismans or amulets. Talismanic practice had Late Bronze Age precedents, and in the Early Iron Age was stimulated from personal contact with the Near East or Cyprus and nurtured by the unique mortuary landscape at Lefkandi. This article demonstrates the need for archaeologists to treat mortuary beliefs as a meaningful explanatory variable. Moreover, the ability of non-elite objects to convey powerful ideas has important implications for the nature and dynamics of artistic and cultural exchanges between Greece and the East in the Iron Age.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Eastern, Western and Local Habits in the Early Cult of Relics, Studia Patristica 91 (2017), 283-296 [IF YOU NEED A COPY OF THIS ARTICLE FOR PERSONAL USE, PLEASE, SEND ME A MESSAGE]
Robert Wiśniewski
The cult of relics emerged in Christendom only in the 4 th century, but then it spread with an astonishing speed. This article addresses the questions of whether in this process this new phenomenon remained uniform or evolved locally, and especially whether the general distinction between eastern and western customs is useful for its description. I will argue that several practices indeed developed in specific places and remained more popular in their regions of origin. However, these practices did proliferate and if the diversity of customs in this field never disappeared, it is due to limited contacts between different regions and to the lack of interest in making the cult of relics homogeneous, and not to any profoundly different views on how the remains of saints should be venerated.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
R. Banytė-Rowell, Searching for links between artefacts from areas of prehistoric dwelling sites and burial grounds. Lietuvos archeologija, vol. 43, 87-114.
Rasa Banyte-Rowell
Grave-goods belong to the sphere of sacrum where property donated for the dead might reflect a distorted picture of reality. They are the result of creative activity performed in „real life“. Therefore finds from dwelling sites have great importance for connecting artefacts from burial grounds back to the sphere of profanum. Several examples from Lithuanian archaeology are presented concerning dwelling sites as centres of production and exchange of artefacts that later found their way into grave-sets. Some considerations are presented regarding the elements of costume of people of the Brushed Pottery Culture; comparision of distribution of Roman imports in cemeteries and dwelling sites; the importance of chronological indicators has been distinguished thanks to databases of burial sites for the dating of layers in dwelling sites. Finally we present some hyphotesis about the possible everyday or ceremonial functions of outfit elements based on the example of female temple ornaments.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
On the Outside Looking In: Deviant Burials in Prehistory
Laura Cawley
The aim of this thesis is to investigate the usefulness of the concept of deviant burials in prehistory. Deviant burials are extensively recorded in the archaeological record in later period archaeology, for example vampire burials. For the purposes of this work deviant will include burials which are unusual, and deliberately differentiated from the standard burial practices of a site. I am investigating whether this approach has value in looking at the prehistoric burial record because they have been seen as a later period phenomenon almost entirely; this is due to the ease with which they can be detected in the historic period, when normative Christian burial practices were dominant and there is evidence of written accounts of treatment of particular individuals. By examining an unusual prehistoric burial in terms of its context and in that of burial practices in this location and time period, can burials which are genuinely atypical be identified? The case studies of Khirokitia in Cyprus, Shkãrat Msaied in Jordan, and Locality HK43 in Hierakonpolis in Egypt will be discussed.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Weird Treatment of People (Skull worshippers, Settlement burials)/Hoards. In: M. Golec, The Phenomenon of Býčí Skála Cave. Landscape, Cave and Mankind. Archaeologica Olomucensia - Tomus I. Olomouc 2017.
Pavel Fojtík
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Grave goods in early medieval burials: messages and meanings. Mortality 19:1, 2014. 1-21. (DOI 10.1080/13576275.2013.870544)
Heinrich Härke
Mortality: Promoting the interdisciplinary study of death and dying (Taylor & Francis), 2014
Objects in graves have been a traditional focus of burial archaeology. Conventional interpretations of their meanings revolved around religion (equipment for the hereafter, Charon’s Penny), legal concepts (inalienable possessions) and social structure (status display, ostentatious destruction of wealth). An interdisciplinary perspective drawing on archaeological literature, anthropological evidence and sociological theory widens the range of possible interpretations. Textual sources of the Roman and early medieval periods highlight the importance of gift-giving to the deceased, but also to deities. Anthropology shows the importance of the disposal of polluted items in the grave, and of protecting the living. Ethnographic cases also underpin theoretical considerations concerning the role of biographical representations (metaphors) during the funeral, as well as emphasizing the desire and the need to forget the dead. Textual and archaeological evidence from the Early Middle Ages suggest that these motives were not sharply separated, but that many of them played a role during any one funeral. In addition, motives changed over time, and the associations of particular grave-goods (such as coins or weapons) varied across time and geographical regions. Above all, multiplicity of messages and variability of meanings characterized the deposition of objects in early medieval graves.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
'Symbolically Overloaded' Burials: Early Fourth-Millennium BC Hunter-Fisher-Gatherer Mortuary Practices from North-Eastern Europe
Kerkko Nordqvist
Marja Ahola
European Journal of Arhaeology, 2025
At the beginning of the fourth millennium BC, the Typical Comb Ware culture (TCW) emerged in northeastern Europe. One of its characteristics is a wealth of 'amber' or 'ochre' graves and mortuary practices. This article concerns the graves' key elements, their distribution and frequency, and their relationship to the TCW phenomenon. The analysis of seventy-seven graves from twenty-three sites suggests that TCW graves are a materialization of a complex set of practices in which visual aspects (colours, contrasts, and combinations of materials) and performance play significant roles. Given the small number and distribution of graves, these practices were reserved for particular people and/or occasions, and the tradition only lasted for a few centuries. Interpreted from the perspective of identity production and sociocultural networks, these graves and associated practices are defined as 'symbolically overloaded', with buried bodies and activities intended to be seen.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
BRONZE AGE RITES AND RITUALS
IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN
Proceedings of the International Colloquium
from Târgu Mureş
8–10 October 2010
Edited by
Sándor Berecki
Rita E. Németh
Botond Rezi
Editura MEGA
Târgu Mureș
2011
Content
Preface....................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Aleksandar Kapuran
Relationship between Settlements and Necropoles of the Bronze Age in Eastern Serbia......................... 9
Horia Ciugudean
Mounds and Mountains: Burial Rituals in Early Bronze Age Transylvania............................................. 21
Sándor BERECKI–Áldor Csaba Balázs
Discoveries belonging to the Schneckenberg Culture from Şincai, Transylvania.................................... 59
Tiberiu Ioan TECAR–Monica Voichiţa TECAR
A Unique Cult Object belonging to the Wietenberg Culture..................................................................... 77
Oliver Dietrich
Kinderspielzeug oder Kultobjekte? Überlegungen zu anthropomorphen Figurinen
der Wietenberg- und Tei-Kultur..................................................................................................................... 87
Florea COSTEA–Zsolt SZÉKELY
Aspects of the Ritual Life of the Wietenberg Culture. Miniature Religious Shrines from Racoş,
Transylvania.................................................................................................................................................... 107
Attila László
Eine Kultstelle der Wietenberg-Kultur auf der Füvenyestető Anhöhe bei Malnaş Băi
(Südost-Siebenbürgen)?................................................................................................................................. 115
Laura Dietrich
„Aschehügel“ der Noua-Kultur als Plätze von Arbeit und Fest................................................................ 131
Jens Notroff
Menace from the Afterlife? Some Remarks about the Archaeological Evidence for Fearing and
Banishing the Dead and a Contribution to Otomani and Füzesabony Sepulchral Rite........................ 143
Malvinka Urák–Liviu Marta
Human Remains of the Late Bronze Age Settlements in the Upper Tisza Area. New Researches
and New Evidence.......................................................................................................................................... 155
Florin Gogâltan–Rita E. Németh–Emese Apai
Eine rituelle Grube bei Vlaha, Gemeinde Săvădisla (Kreis Cluj)............................................................. 163
János EMŐDI
About the so-called ‘Hand Protectors’ of the Bronze Age......................................................................... 185
6 |
Tiberius BADER
Grossgrabhügel von Medieşu Aurit/Aranyosmeggyes, Bez. Satu Mare, Rumänien.............................. 189
Carol Kacsó
Die Hügelnekropole von Lăpuş. Eine zusammenfassende Einleitung.................................................... 213
Daria Ložnjak Dizdar
Funerary Practices of Late Bronze Age Communities in Continental Croatia...................................... 245
Mihai Wittenberger–Mihai Rotea
Aspects of the Bronze Metallurgy in Transylvania..................................................................................... 261
Tudor soroceanu
Zweigeteilte Einheit oder geeinte Zweiheit? Zur Frage der Dualität in den bronzezeitlichen
Deponierungen............................................................................................................................................... 269
Wojciech BLAJER
Zwischen dem Karpatenbecken und der Ostsee. Bemerkungen zu den besonderen Fundumständen
der Bronzehorte in Polen............................................................................................................................... 295
Botond REZI
Voluntary Destruction and Fragmentation in Late Bronze Age Hoards
from Central Transylvania............................................................................................................................. 303
Gábor V. SZABÓ
Spätbronzezeitliche Bronzehortfunde im Siedlungskontext – Neue Forschungsergebnisse
aus Ostungarn................................................................................................................................................. 335
Tobias MÖRTZ
At the Head of Concealment. The Deposition of Bronze Age Helmets in the Carpathian Basin........ 357
Abbreviations....................................................................................................................................................... 377
Menace from the Afterlife?
Some Remarks about the Archaeological Evidence for
Fearing and Banishing the Dead and a Contribution to
Otomani and Füzesabony Sepulchral Rite
Jens Notroff
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut
Berlin, Germany
[email protected]
Keywords: deviant burial, secondary grave opening, burial ritual, amulet,
Otomani–Füzesabony complex, Totenangst, Totenbann
Next to settlements and depositions, grave finds are the most important sources of information
in prehistoric archaeology. Grave customs and burial rites allow us to distinguish and define patterns of
funeral traditions which can be understood as culture-specific and indeed definitive aspects of human
behaviour. Graves which are seen as aberrations of these rules are mainly denoted as ‘deviant burials’
(Sonderbestattungen, ‘special burials’ in the German terminology),1 a concept which is rather vague, since
there is no precise definition about what such a ‘special’ burial actually is. This remark should not be under-
stood as criticism since it is the conceptual ambiguity caused by the multifaceted character of these burials
themselves which makes it so difficult to define this term clearly or find binding criteria to describe it.
The concept of special burials covers a rather wide range of meaning and content. In anthropol-
ogy, where the term was first used in the context of paleodemographical analysis, it means the absence of
certain demographic relevant sections of a population in burials, such as certain age groups or the numeri-
cal relation of sexes, etc. (Schwidetzky 1965). In cultural anthropology respectively ethnology the same
term is used to describe the sepulchral rite and the ceremonies connected to it in a very active meaning
while archaeology in contrast usually only is able to document the remaining material leftovers of these
actions (as far as these are preserved). Generally, in archaeology special or deviant burials mean all buri-
als different from what is considered the normative in the funeral rite of a group, community or society.
This can be referring to the spatial situation of the dead and its grave, the grave construction itself, the
treatment of the deceased as well as conspicuous or unusual grave goods and contents. The impossibility
to cover the complete funeral behaviour of a prehistoric society is obvious. Too many traditions of diverse
relevance may have asked for a special treatment of certain individuals for different reasons; there seems
to be no chance trying to define consistent, universally valid features.
Totenangst and Totenbann
While the explanations and the appearances of special burials are various, their interpretation usu-
ally is surprisingly uniform (especially in Continental research tradition). Quite often these deviant burials
are explained rather monocausally and connected to a certain diffuse fear of the dead.2 For lack of a better
1 A more detailed discussion of the German-language and Anglophone research on this topic and the concepts behind both
terms can be found at Aspöck 2008.
2. For an insight into the younger discussion on the connection between special burials and fear of the dead cf. Meyer-Orlac
1982 and 1997 as well as U. Veits remarks concerning her works (Veit 1988).
Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin, 2011, p. 143–153
144 | Jens Notroff
English catchphrase it seems suitable to introduce the German term Totenangst (meaning exactly this: fear
of the dead) and use it in the following. This assumed Totenangst is the reason why we are confronted with
‘the living dead’, ‘revenants’ and even ‘vampires’ in the archaeological specialist literature (Kyll 1964, 175;
Wilke 1931). Again here lies a problematic vagueness in the meaning of this fear. Is it the fear of death and
knowledge of the own mortality? Is it the fear of anything dead in general or a specific dead individual in
particular? If so, does this mean people were afraid of hurtful actions by the dead out of their grave3 or of a
real carnal return of the deceased? Adapted from later written sources and against the background of his-
torical tradition a number of peculiarities in the context of burials (as discussed in the following) are often
seen as protective measures against possibly harmful dead individuals.4 In contrast to the aforementioned
Totenangst, we may apply and use another German term here to describe this situation: Totenbann (mean-
ing the banishment of the dead). Most of the graves showing these characteristics are seen as measures to
detain the deceased from a return in a very physical meaning. This is owed to the nature of these finds and
features. Among those we find bound and tied bodies, bodies burdened with stones and such in an unusual
position as well as separated and dislocated body parts.
An interpretation like this of course is a less subtle and most obvious one seen through the eyes
of our very modern understanding of deference. One should not wonder that there is disagreement and
criticism questioning explanation models like these (Meyer-Orlac 1997, 5f.; Schaub 2009). Maintaining
the examples given before, it is probable that bodies might have been tied for better and easier trans-
port, stones might found there way into the graves for other reasons as part of the ritual, unusual posi-
tions may be connected to post-depositional processes in at least the one or other case and dislocated
body parts could hint at an earlier injury or be part of the burial rite (Schaub 2009, 6–10). Therefore the
term Sonderbestattung (‘special burial’) should be preferred over ‘deviant burial’, since the first one itself
is value-free and more neutrally than the rather negative connotated latter term (cf. Aspöck 2008, 29).
Appearances can be deceiving
The aim of this paper is not to deny that the special treatment of certain dead individuals might
have been caused by beliefs involving Totenangst and Totenbann. However, it is important to disengage
ourselves from postulating such interpretations based on the mere fact that a burial differs from what is
considered the normative ritual. Special treatment of the dead does not necessarily involve a negative
reason; it could also indicate an increased appreciation. If we could find other parameters supporting the
concept of defensive measures against such deceased individuals thought to be potentially dangerous this
would add to the interpretation of special burials.
To illustrate this point a number of selected examples of conspicuous burials from the Bronze Age
Carpathian Basin should be addressed, focussing at the area of north-eastern Hungary and Slovakia (Fig. 1),
especially the Otomani–Füzesabony cemeteries of Gelej–Beltelek and Gelej–Kanálisdűlő (1), Hernádkak
(2), Pusztaszikszó (3), Streda nad Bodrogom (4), Tarnaméra–Uszoda (5), Tiszafüred–Majoroshalom,
Tiszaörvény–Temetődomb (6) and the Late Bronze Age5 burials from Mezőcsát (7).6
The attempt to approach the topic of deviant burials in the Bronze Age material confronts us with
the – in this case problematic – introduction of cremation. Obviously this caused a large-scale change in bur-
ial customs and makes it even more difficult to address a differing treatment of the deceased. Especially in
these times following the increased appearance of cremation we are confronted with a side by side of inhu-
mation and cremation burials; both that numerous that it seems a bit of a stress to denote them exceptions.7
While in the Middle Bronze Age cemetery of Gelej nearly exclusively crouched burials were documented
(Kemenczei 1979, 27), at other contemporary places, cremation burial was already adopted. The urn graves
3. According to popular belief, a revenant – German: Nachzehrer from nach (afterwards) and zehren (feeding upon something
or somebody) – would not leave his grave, but harm people (mostly own family members) from within it by exhausting their
vitality (for more information cf. Schürmann 1990).
4. A number of examples and analogies are listed in Trauwitz-Hellwig 1935 and Jankuhn Et Al. 1978.
5. Chronological terms used here are always referring to the common Hungarian chronology systems (for an overview cf. e.g.
Hänsel 1968).
6. The close relation of these burials at Mezőcsát and their connection to the nearby cemetery of Gelej in terms of burial ritual
and similarities in the treatment of the dead despite the chronological distance was pointed out by B. Hänsel and N. Kalicz
already (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 71–73). Given that, including the features and finds from Mezőcsát was self-evident and only
consequent, especially in the view of the secondary grave openings there as well as in Gelej and other related sites.
7. This does, by the way, raise the question from what percentage on and to what number we would and should exemplify such
exceptional cases.
Menace from the Afterlife? | 145
at Igrici–Matata (Hänsel 1968, 151ff.; Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 67–70) from the Middle Bronze Age, and
the not yet completely researched cremation cemetery at Biharszentjános (Bóna 1975, 121ff.; Bader 1998,
80 (annotation 15) may serve as examples. Among the burials at Mezőcsát, dating into the Late Bronze Age
and having a noticeable shorter phase of occupation than the aforementioned sites, only five8 of a total of 39
graves were cremations. The new custom was clearly evident here but statistically of subordinate relevance.
These cremation burials seem to belong to the earliest burial activity in Mezőcsát, chronologically interfer-
ing with the later phases of Igrici judging by the antiquated pottery in these graves (Hänsel 1968, 151ff.;
Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 67). This would mean that after the introduction of cremation there was a recurrence
of the older tradition of inhumation burial again. What usually in the best case (with an accordingly large
enough number of both customs) would have been considered as a bi-ritual burial rite and in particular
cases (meaning an only low number of differing burials) as special burial turned out to be a dynamic, repeti-
tive change in funeral behaviour.
Fig. 1. Location of the Otomani–Füzesabony cemeteries mentioned in the text.
This leads to the discussion of symbolic burials or cenotaphs (cf. e.g. Bátora 1999) which were
found at Gelej–Kanálisdűlő9 and Gelej–Beltelek10. Their interpretation has to be rethought in light of a par-
allel existence of inhumation and cremation burial customs. Often interpreted as substitutional graves for
individuals who could not be buried for certain reasons or seen as cultic vessel depositions within burial
grounds (Thomas 2008, 82–85), there is another aspect to be taken into consideration. In Hernádkak such
burials without any skeletal material11 contained nothing but ceramics and had few in common with the
majority of inhumation burials. But they did show a striking similarity with the number, shape and posi-
tion of vessels enclosed to unurned cremation burials of contemporary sites such as Tarnaméra–Uszoda
and Tiszaörvény–Temetődomb as Schalk (1992, 37f.) pointed out. Also, Thomas (2008, 130f.) noted
that the cremation graves from the cemetery of Pusztaszikszó just a few kilometres north of Gelej showed
a related scheme of integration into the zones of inhumation graves like the symbolic ones do there.
Together this should allow taking into consideration that we are confronted with unurned cremations in
this case, too – probably not always recognizable because of unfavourable preservation circumstances.
8. Graves 21, 38, 80, 85, and 75 (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 20–33).
9. Graves 24, 25, 54, 56, 67, 95, 97, 145, 149, 160, 175, 176, 195, 211, 212, 216 and 217 (Kemenczei 1979, 7–26).
10. Graves 32, 66 and 71 (Kemenczei 1979, 7–26).
11. Graves 1–4, 23, 24, 28, 29, 56, 101 and 124 (Schalk 1992, 37f.).
146 | Jens Notroff
Other explanatory models, such as multiple-stage burials or differing rites carried out by minori-
ties with their own sepulchral behaviour, seem suitable for related features, especially in view of ethno-
graphic parallels.12 Two case studies may illustrate this: The Dayak of Borneo, for instance, follow a two-
step burial rite. After the unburned body is buried for a certain amount of time, the ritual demands an
exhumation and a new funeral of the discarnate bones. Since it is connected with extensive and expensive
feasting, this second step often is delayed and not uncommonly completely left undone (Miles 1965). It
is not hard to imagine how this would appear to be confusing in the archaeological record, when most of
the deceased are present in an accumulation of loose bones among very few completely preserved skel-
etons. Another unusual feature would be the burials of Vishnu and Shiva devotees in India, if it were not
for the written record to explain this conspicuous situation. Although part of one ethnicity both groups
differ in burial rites; one group practicing inhumation, the other cremation burial (Schlenther 1960).
Depending on the structure of population, one of these funeral types may dominate the archaeological
record making the other one appear extraordinary.
These examples demonstrate that a simple aberration from what is considered the norm in burial
practice because of numeral predominance does indeed not define a special burial. In contrast, a minority
of finds could lose their character as exception with progressing research and figures are about to adapt
from a different point of view.
Desecration of graves as part of the rite
From virtually all of the cemeteries mentioned above a number of burials are reported as either
missing certain body parts or only containing those (Kemenczei 1979, 27–30; Hänsel–Kalicz 1986,
50–52; Schalk 1992, 81–84; Thomas 2008, 36–39, 89), which has become a topos in the interpretations
of special burials as expression of Totenangst (e.g. Pauli 1975, 176; Olexa 2002, 89; Schaub 2009, 10f.).
In Gelej we know of such graves, where especially the bones of the lower extremities are missing13
or such with not more than a single skull or mandible.14 Other examples are known from Hernádkak and
Mezőcsát.15 Apart from the possibility that this could reflect one or another earlier injury during lifetime
caused by an accident or brute force in some examples, the phenomenon of removed extremities is not
unknown but rather frequent in the Otomani–Füzesabony culture (O’Shea 1996, 176ff.) and seems to be
part of the burial rite. Furthermore, the majority of these partial burials (but not all) were obviously dis-
turbed – the already existing graves were secondary opened (Pástor 1969, 82f.; Hänsel–Kalicz 1986,
50f.; Schalk 1992, 81–84; Thomas 2008, 39). In Gelej–Kanálisdűlő some graves exhibit signs of a second-
ary opening and manipulation as well: in grave 18 the skull was missing and the area of the pelvis was
disturbed (Kemenczei 1979, 8), in grave 106 the jaw was dislocated (Kemenczei 1979, 12) and in grave
137, again, the skull was disassembled while an additional skull was placed in the same grave (Kemenczei
1979, 15).
From the 30 burials of the bi-ritual cemetery of Pusztaszikszó three disturbed graves are reported
(Kõszegi 1968, 113), from Streda nad Bodrogom, also bi-ritual, 14 disturbed burials are known of a total
of 67 (Polla 1960, 327–331). However, for both sites more recent damage must be considered (Thomas
2008, 122 and 156f.). From Hernádkak there are a number of burials referred to as being found in a stirred
up state,16 but the vague sources make it difficult to address any details. We can only state that skull and
chest section apparently have been disturbed in these examples and that objects were taken out (Schalk
1992, 81f.).
Of the burials in Mezőcsát more than 50% were disturbed or partly disturbed (Hänsel–Kalicz
1986, 50) and the damage clearly reveals why these graves were opened: they show a complete lack of
metal objects, although small remaining rests serve witness of a more wealthy burial equipment in the first
place. Grave 66 from Mezőcsát, for instance, shows a secondary pit in the head area of the body buried
there. A headdress formerly located there (as a few remaining buttons and spirals attest), was removed,
while a collar and an arm bracelet were left untouched (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 31). A similar picture is
12. Of course, such analogies are not proving anything, but demonstrate a wide range of possible models. On the use and benefit
of ethnography in the archaeological interpretation cf. Ucko 1969 (especially p. 262f.), Fischer 1990 and Gramsch 2000.
13. Graves 13, 15 and 151 (Kemenczei 1979, 27–29; Thomas 2008, 36–39).
14. Graves 53, 131 and 150A (Kemenczei 1979; Thomas 2008).
15. Graves 4–5, 58, 61–63 and (103–) 104 from Hernádkak (Schalk 1992, 81); graves 9, 10, 15, 25, 34, 36, 47, 66 and 86 from
Mezőcsát (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 14–38).
16. Graves 43, 92, 110, 122 (Schalk 1992, 82).
Menace from the Afterlife? | 147
revealed in grave 47 from the same site. Again, the area of the head was disturbed, the head being dislo-
cated. While a necklace was left at its place, yet again the headdress (from which only small remains were
present) was removed. Two more pits were directed at the arms, leaving nothing but a disarrangement of
bones and bronze fragments (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 27).
This well directed removal of grave goods while neighbouring areas of the same burial stay mostly
untouched is evidence for people acting here with a detailed knowledge of the grave and maybe even for
persons who were present at the burial itself. The question about the intentions behind this behaviour has
to come up. Was it all about the value of the material, thus indeed to be understood as grave robbery by
all means? Or are we confronted with a tolerated, even purposed mannerism here? The frequency of these
secondary grave openings as demonstrated in the examples above makes it a rather common practice. It
does not appear to be looting of graves in the meaning of grave robbery17 but more a rather regular ele-
ment of the burial rite (Primas 1977, 106f.). The minimization of destruction inflicted upon the dead
body underlines this and indicates some degree of respect for the deceased. B. Hänsel and N. Kalicz
(1986, 52) suggested a sepulchral rite including the opening of graves and removing of grave goods based
on a belief that the dead individual was only allowed (or needing) to possess the given objects as long
as their own physicality was given; after the decomposition of the dead body the more valuable objects
returned into the property of the bereaved.18
Obviously, this did not apply to all grave goods, not even to all metal ones, since some were still left
behind in the graves. Thus, it is probable that the removal of objects was not the sole motivation to open
burials again. A comprehensive ritual with a more complex content has to be suspected behind this, most
likely connected to a cult of ancestor worship. Furthermore these objects removed from the graves and
therefore taken back from the dead could have been connected to another aspect of numinous nature, if
they were not to go back into the property of the living but offered to a higher force and withdrawn from
any profane use in this way. It was K.-F. Rittershofer (1987, 21) who noticed that numerous hoards
containing multiple elements of attire, so called Ausstattunsghorte (outfit / equipment hoards), are found
exactly in these cultural regions where the burials are manipulated and objects removed. The content
of these depositions seems to correspond with the missing (removed) objects in the graves,19 a thought
which also recalls H.-J. Hundt’s (1955, 107ff.) Totenschätze (treasures of the dead). Without going too
much into detail since this complex topic deserves and needs an analysis on its own going beyond the
frame of this paper, it is important to point out the depositions of the type Koszider and Tolnanémedi
(Bóna 1958; Ruttkay 1983) and the objects of jewellery and attire accumulated there (especially pen-
dants); items, also playing an important role in ritual activity concerning burial and beyond, as will be
discussed in the following.
Amulet and talisman
If the aberration from burial rite does not suffice to understand special – deviant – burials as
expression of Totenangst, it is necessary to explicate what other parameters may have to be taken into
account for such an interpretation. This is also important because of the apparent conflict between the
disturbance of burials brought up above – be it a disrespectful act or intended part of the rite – and the
often claimed fear of the dead.
As a result of this, the role of grave goods must be re-examined. Especially objects destroyed and
therewith made unusable could be interpreted as being disturbed motivated through the fear of the dead.
On one hand they satisfy the duty to equip the deceased for the afterlife, on the other hand they also pre-
vent the real use of these items any longer. However, to think of this as a kind of banishment, Totenbann,
would also mean that a great many of dead individuals was put under the general suspicion of being a
potential revenant, considering the frequent appearance and distribution of this phenomenon.
17. For a more detailed survey on grave robbery in prehistoric times cf. Jankuhn Et Al. 1978 and Kümmel 2009. Secondary
grave openings are not unknown in Central and Eastern Europe starting on a widespread basis as early as the Chalcolithic (cf.
Bertemes 1989, 131f.).
18. Neugebauer (1991, 126f.) expresses doubts concerning the interpretation of secondary grave openings in this way. With
reference to the situation at the cemetery of Gemeinlebarn, Lower Austria, he speaks in favour of actual looting of the graves
for the material value of grave furnishings and points out the high degree of destruction done. Interestingly, he also mentions
a frequent disturbance of the skull area and he explains the removing of skulls from the graves with the fear of revenge by the
dead, which of course could be listed under Totenbann as discussed above.
19. For the correlation of hoard and grave finds and items of attire respectively jewellery in the Danube-Carpathian region cf.
especially Schumacher-Matthäus 1985, 126ff. and 140ff.
148 | Jens Notroff
An alternative approach is more favourable. Burial furnishings usually can be divided into two
groups: attire as well as personal items from the dead’s property and additional equipment for the afterlife.
L. Pauli (1975, 11) suggested a third group of objects with amulet character.20 The term ‘amulet’ is used
here to describe objects which have been assigned spiritual powers, providing salvation and – even more
emphasized in the frame of this paper – protection and defence.21 Objects understood in this way could
have been of different nature and shape. They may have found their way into the grave as part of the per-
sonal dress in life and it is likely that a supposed protective character of these objects in a lifetime was also
exceeded into the afterlife. In regard to L. Pauli’s thoughts on this topic, the question at hand is whether
grave goods interpreted in means of amulets have to be expanded in their meaning to another facet: what
if at least some of them were used as a spiritual defence mechanism, not to protect the dead from dangers
in the other world, but to guard the living descendants from possibly harmful deceased relatives and actu-
ally banish them right there in the grave (Pauli 1975, 171)?
Is it possible to apply this concept also to the Bronze Age burials introduced and discussed above?
If so, where among the material could such thoughts best be based? When in many cases a large number of
needles and buttons were reported found concentrated in the head area of these burials (Hänsel–Kalicz
1986, 56; Schalk 1992, 68f.; Thomas 2008, 75f.), the suggested interpretation of a garment or cloth origi-
nally covering the head or whole body is convincing, leaving these objects rather unlikely amulets.
A stronger approach suggests that such pendants were made of animal teeth, of which we know
examples from grave 111 in Hernádkak where three worked boar tusks were found lying close to each
other (Schalk 1992, 72f.) and grave 13 from Streda nad Bodrogom where two perforated wolf (?) teeth
were found (Polla 1960, 337). The finds of boar tusks have several analogies in their wider vicinity and
especially among the grave finds of the Košt´any culture in the eastern Slovakian Košice basin (Schalk
1992, Abb. 25 and 26). Comparatively, the finds from Streda nad Bodrogom are unknown in other
Füzesabony cemeteries but find parallels in the younger burials from Tiszafüred–Majoroshalom (Kovács
1975, Taf. 27). In Mezõcsát animal teeth were found among the grave goods, too. While grave 7 contained
the remains of a necklace made of dog teeth (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 14), in grave 15 a canine tooth of
boar was found together with other remains of pig and disarranged human bones (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986,
18). Grave 87 is significant because it is explicitly mentioned as special burial holding the body of a senile
man who was put into the pit head first. There were nearly no grave goods apart from two tusks of a boar,
one at each of the temples (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 38). While this is seen as remaining braid of a cap or
headband by the excavators and the deceased interpreted as shaman, one could also stress the apotropaic
nature of animal tusks and their use as amulets (Pauli 1975, 129; Primas 1977, 101). However, it is nec-
essary to determine that burial offerings of perforated tusks may reflect an older, widely spread tradition
of such elements in common dress (Schalk 1992, 72f.) and therefore are hard to differentiate from what
might have served as protective charm.22 This is the general dilemma in addressing grave goods with amu-
let character; it needs careful and close observance to distinguish elements of attire (worn on the body)
and an explicit addition to the grave.
Returning to grave 66 in Mezõcsát we have another closer look at its grave furnishings. As stated
above, the headdress of the young woman buried there was removed when the grave was reopened again
at a later date while a necklace (Fig. 2/15) was left untouched. The deceased also had a second necklace of
four reverted heart-shaped pendants (Fig. 2/16–19) in her hand (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 31). Considering
the other jewellery around her neck and the fact that pendants and necklaces apparently are not part of
the common equipment in other graves – proof of corresponding jewellery is only evident from two more
graves: remains of similar pendants from the secondarily opened grave 47 (Fig. 2/6–14) and one more
(Fig. 2/5) from the badly preserved child burial in grave 51 (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 27–29) – under-
lines the outstanding character of these finds within graves. From Gelej–Beltelek three related pieces are
reported (Fig. 2/1–3), all coming from just one burial, grave 68 (Kemenczei 1979, 39). They might have
been part of a necklet originally, together with four spirals and seven other beads found there as well. The
larger of these pendants is crescent-shaped, the other two are smaller and of reverted heart-shape. Another
20. Pauli (1975, 185–190) also noted, that an increase of amulets in graves can be connected to periods of social change, which
also go along with an increase in unusual burial practices.
21. For a more detailed discussion concerning objects with amulet character cf. Hansmann–Kriss-Rettenbeck 1966.
22. While not present in the examples examined here, objects made of antler are known from burial contexts of the Otomani–
Füzesabony complex as well. Therefore it should not be neglected to note their outstanding character among finds with an
emphasized apotropaic meaning (Pauli 1975, 172).
Menace from the Afterlife? | 149
crescent-shaped example (Fig. 2/4), but considerably larger, is known from Tiszafüred–Majoroshalom
(Kovács 1984, 242).
Pendants of this type are common in the Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin and are known
in several variants and sub types (Hänsel 1968, 115–118). Their character as part of female dress was
pointed out with reference to their appearance and association in hoards and grave finds (Bóna 1975,
284f.) and depictions on anthropomorphic clay idols (e.g. Hájek 1957, 323f., Abb. 5; Ruttkay 1983,
12–14). The amulet character of these pendants was also suggested (Mozsolics 1988, 33, also mentioning
their association with animal teeth), above all because of the connection to other types of finds interpreted
in means of more refined, spiritual and cultic realms like the aforementioned clay idols and depositions
(Ruttkay 1983, 1, 9 and 14). Emerging in the Early Bronze Age and becoming more frequent in the
Middle Bronze Age (Hänsel 1968, 145; Furmanek 1980, 16–23; Mozsolics 1988, 33) they show a long
lasting tradition (Bóna 1975, 285f.).
Fig. 2. Examples of heart-shaped and crescent-shaped pendants. 1–3. Gelej–Beltelek, grave 68 (after Kemenczei
1979, Taf. IX/8–10); 4. Tiszafüred–Majoroshalom, grave D345 (after Kovács 1984, Taf. LXIX/13); 5. Mezőcsát,
grave 51 (after Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, Taf. 8/51c); 6–14. Mezőcsát, grave 47 (after Hänsel–Kalicz 1986,
Taf. 8/47 m, n, t); 15–19. Mezőcsát, grave 66 (after Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, Taf. 9/66 k and h). No scale.
There is a variety of classification and nomenclature in the archaeological literature concerning
the different forms of these types of pendants and their various subtypes. Below are outlined only those
two general forms appearing in the material discussed:
1. The open heart-shaped examples are formed by two arms bending downwards. Their backside
is flat, the front often convex. There are several subtypes differing in how far both arms are mutually
curved, nearly or totally touching each other and therefore closing the ‘heart’. Another typological crite-
rion would be the shaping of a central spine and its connection to the arms (e.g. Hänsel 1968, 115–118;
Furmanek 1980, 15f.)
2. The crescent-shaped forms appear like a sickle downwards opened, showing a perforated tong
at the upper end and an extension (often larger and anchor-shaped, sometimes not more than a small
tip) pointing down from the centre of the crescent. Variants are mostly differing in decoration only (e.g.
Hänsel 1968, 121f.; Furmanek 1980, 16f.).
The three specimens from Gelej belong to the earlier examples, especially the large crescent-
shaped piece with its middle decoration having parallels in finds of the Koszider Horizon (Mozsolics
1967, 87f., Schumacher-Matthäus 1985, 36). The appropriate items from the Mezõcsát burials are
150 | Jens Notroff
corresponding to the later forms according to
Hänsel – the chronological unsusceptible vari-
ants 1 and 2 (Hänsel 1968, 115) and variant 7
(Hänsel 1968, 118) – showing the long lifetime
of this group and their unbroken tradition espe-
cially in the sphere of the Otomani–Füzesabony
complex. The crescent-shaped example from
Tiszafüred–Majoroshalom shows a barely devel-
oped decorative tip in the middle – a basic type
characteristic for the younger phase.
Despite this range of typological and
chronological characteristics all those types
are beyond question closely related, most
likely representing the same motif. They can
be regarded as anthropomorphic depictions
as J. Blischke (2000, 34f.) demonstrated
Fig. 3. The Bronze sheet pendant from Kisapostag, grave 2 convincingly on the basis of a closely related
(1) visualizes the anthropomorphic nature of heart shaped
pendant (made of sheet bronze) from a burial
pendants (2) as well as parallels to postures of the Cîrna idols
(3). (No scale; after Blischke 2000, Abb. 5).
at Kisapostag (Mozsolics 1942, Taf. I/86).
J. Blischke was not only able to determine
that they indeed depict a human with arms brought together above the abdomen (Fig. 3), he also
pointed out a striking resemblance with postures and the top of the clay idols from Cîrna in southern
Romania and the arm position in inhumation burials of the Middle Bronze Age Carpathian region,
where it seems to be a common cultic gesture.
The connection to the Cîrna type idols has to be emphasized particularly. Figurines like these
are known from a broad range of contexts. Reported finds include settlements and cemeteries alike.23 In
the cemetery of Cîrna these clay figurines are almost exclusively found in a number of children burials
(Hachmann 1968, 369).24 It was suggested to read them as marker of individuals with a higher social rank
(Reich 2002, 162) or even as guardian divinities (Schumacher-Matthäus 1985, 8). If this indicates a
similar role and function as stated for the pendants, and if these also should be understood as representa-
tion of an idealized character in the meaning of a deity alluding to special status and rank, is open to ques-
tion. A large number of these figurines apparently wearing the same pendants we find with the deceased
in their graves and offered in depositions intensify the importance attached to them.
Bearing in mind the already discussed phenomenon of secondary grave openings and their role
in the sepulchral rite, one can only presume why some of these objects with amulet character were left
in otherwise emptied graves while another large number of similar items apparently were removed (and
transferred into hoards?). It is unlikely that these few pieces were disesteemed or of lower value. More
likely they are marking a somehow special person when staying in the grave, indicating the known and
accepted apotropaic role of these symbols encouraging their interpretation as amulet.25
One more example from Mezõcsát confronts us with a shackled female individual in grave 81,
buried in a rather flat pit. The heavily smashed skull hints at an injury inflicted on purpose (Hänsel–
Kalicz 1986, 46). Was tried here to get rid of an unpopular, disliked woman as B. Hänsel and N. Kalicz
suggest? Assuming that the trauma was not only inflicted pre-mortal but maybe even lethal, this could be
considered a ‘bad death’ and therefore decisive for the special treatment (altering the violent act from a
part of this treatment to its very reason). The concept of ‘bad death’ is known from ethnological field study.
It describes the ill-timed death as well as one in an unusual way, i.e. death by violence (warriors, victims
23. That figurine finds within settlements do not necessarily exclude a cultic interpretation is demonstrated by O. Dietrich with
his contribution to this volume.
24. This adds to L. Pauli’s (1975, 152) opinion, that the gifting of amulets is dependent on the age of a person and the time of
its death (while he stated a dominance of amulets especially in children’s burials and those of young adults for the Iron Age
examples he examined, the situation seems to be reversed here, replacing the stylized apotropaic symbol by a more concrete
depiction).
25. Even J. W. Neugebauer, who argues for a very aggressive and comprehensive grave robbery in Gemeinlebarn, mentions bronze
objects which were left in the looted tombs because of a certain symbolic value; although he prefers an interpretation in means
of insignia or regalia (Neugebauer 1991, 126).
Menace from the Afterlife? | 151
of murder and manslaughter as well as executed individuals), death by accident, suicides, death by disease
and death in childbed (Sell 1955, 3).26
There is another example of at first stance unusual treatment experienced by the young women
in grave 19b at Mezőcsát, who was thrown into the grave pit head first (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 48). As
peculiar as this appears, the woman was treated commonly in the further process of the ritual. A later
opening of graves together with the removal of a large number of grave goods was discussed in detail and
shown above to be part of a complex burial rite. The individual in grave 19b was not an exception anymore
– her originally wealthy burial equipment (of which only a piece of sheet gold remained) was taken out
at a later time (Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, 48). While the original entombment was varied, the following rite
was apparently fulfilled. The millstone found in this burial among the few remaining grave goods might
be seen in context with working activity or even as symbolic gift. M. Primas (1977, 103), for instance,
pointed out the underestimated role of stones (although she was referring to unworked stones and peb-
bles) in the sense of amulets.
***
The aim of this paper was to discuss the meaning of deviant burials to contribute to our under-
standing of prehistoric burial rite and concepts of the afterlife. Especially an omnipresent model explain-
ing so called ‘special’ burials with fearing and banishing the dead, Totenangst and Totenbann, served as
starting ground of the thoughts presented above. Consulting only the conspicuous aberrant feature means
to assume with tacit understanding that the archaeological record depicts a general rule of rather simpli-
fied behaviour. That there are many reasons for possible infringements of the norm, that sometimes even
‘the norm’ needs to be questioned, was demonstrated with a number of examples and with the help of
ethnographic analogies. It could hardly be negated, that there are indeed sometimes burials which stand
out by their unique and most remarkable way of how the deceased were treated.
The role of amulets in burial ritual was also analyzed in the course of this study. Within several
graves, even those emptied some time after the burial, a number of objects were found which could be
connected to an amulet nature. Especially the heart- and crescent-shaped pendants, a find group rather
common and widely spread in the Early and Middle Bronze Age attracted our attention. Recognizing
them as stylized anthropomorphic depictions and linking them to contemporary idols and figurines
emphasized their supposed significance in cultic activity, particularly their apotropaic role. The frequent
appearance of these pendants in hoards does not only underline this cultic interpretation (recognizing
at least some of these hoards as offerings through which the objects are entrusted to a numinous sphere
as well) but also draws another close line between burials and depositions and the related concepts of an
‘other world’ behind both.
That these beliefs might also contain a fear of returning dangerous dead is not unimaginable,
judging by the countless examples from historical and ethnographical sources this is even more likely. It
is not enough to state the obvious deviation, since the reasons can be numerous. Closer examination is
necessary where the burial rite seems to make an exception. To evaluate how ‘special’ a burial really is, the
complexity of the rite itself must be understood. Sometimes the smaller details among grave furnishing
and equipment indicate many more commonalities than the obvious aberration of what is considered the
norm would make one believe.
References
Aspöck 2008 Aspöck, E., What Actually is a ‘Deviant Burial’? Comparing German-Language
and Anglophone Research on ‘Deviant Burials’, IN: Murphy, E. M. (ed.), Deviant
Burial in the Archaeological Record, Oxford, 17–34.
Bader 1998 Bader, T., Bemerkungen zur Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken. Otomani/Füzesabo-
ny-Komplex, JahrMV, 80, 43–108.
26. That in the end such a sudden and unexpected death might be connected with malevolent and vengeful dead cannot be
excluded (Sell 1955, 9) and may also lead to a special treatment of the deceased in terms of protective measures (Sell 1955,
191–199, 225).
152 | Jens Notroff
Bátora 1999 Bátora, J., Symbolische (?) Gräber in der älteren Bronzezeit in der Slowakei, IN:
Bátora, J.–Peška, J. (Hrsg.), Aktuelle Probleme der Erforschung der Frühbronzezeit
in Böhmen und Mähren und in der Slowakei, Nitra, 63–73.
Bertemes 1989 Bertemes, F., Das frühbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Gemeinlebarn, SAB, 45.
Blischke 2000 Blischke, J., Die Sprache der Toten. Grabbeigaben und gesellschaftlicher Kontext,
MittBGAEU, 21, 29–36.
Bóna 1958 Bóna, I., Chronologie der Hortfunde vom Koszider Typus, ActaArch, 9, 213–243.
Bóna 1975 Bóna, I., Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen,
ArchHung, 49, Budapest.
Fischer 1990 Fischer, U., Analogie und Urgeschichte, Saeculum, 41, 3, 318–325.
Furmanek 1980 Furmanek, V., Die Anhänger in der Slowakei, PBF, Abteilung XI, 3.
Gramsch 2000 Gramsch, A. (ed.), Vergleichen als archäologische Methode. Analogien in den
Archäologien, BAR, International Series, 825, Oxford.
Hachmann 1968 Hachmann, R., Besprechung von: Dumitrescu, Vl., Necropola de incinerație din
epoca bronzului de la Cîrna, Germania, 46, 368–370.
Hájek 1957 Hájek, L., Hlinĕné lidské plastiky z doby bronzové v Barci u Košic, SlovArch, 5,
323–338.
Hänsel 1968 Hänsel, B., Beiträge zur Chronologie der mittleren Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken,
Bonn.
Hänsel–Kalicz 1986 Hänsel, B.–Kalicz, N., Das bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Mezőcsát, Kom.
Borsod, Nordostungarn [with a contribution by I. Lengyel], BerRGK, 67, 5–88.
Hansmann–Kriss-Rettenbeck Hansmann, L.–Kriss-Rettenbeck, L., Amulett und Talisman. Erscheinungsform
1966 und Geschichte, München.
Hundt 1955 Hundt, H.-J., Versuch zur Deutung der Depotfunde der nordischen jüngeren Bronze-
zeit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Mecklenburgs, Jahrbuch RGZM, 2, 95–140.
Jankuhn Et Al. 1978 Jankuhn, H.–Nelsen, H.–Roth, H. (Hrsg.), Zum Grabfrevel in vor- und frühge-
schichtlicher Zeit. Untersuchungen zu Grabraub und „haugbrot“ in Mittel- und
Nordeuropa, Bericht über ein Kolloquium der Kommission für die Altertum-
skunde Mittel- und Nordeuropas vom 14. bis 16. Februar 1977, Abhandlungen
der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse
Folge 3, 113, Göttingen.
Kemenczei 1979 Kemenczei, T., Das mittelbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Gelej, Budapest.
KŐszegi 1968 Kőszegi, F., Mittelbronzezeitliches Gräberfeld in Pusztaszikszó, ActaArch, 20, 101–141.
Kovács 1975 Kovács, T., Tumulus Culture Cemeteries of Tiszafüred, RégFüz, Series II, 17, Budapest.
Kovács 1984 Kovács, T., Füzesabony-Kultur, IN: Tasić, N. (ed.), Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit
des Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans, Belgrad, 235–256.
Kovács 1992 Kovács, T., Bestattungssitten der Füzesabony-Kultur und das Gräberfeld von
Tiszafüred–Majoroshalom, IN: Meier-Arendt, W. (ed.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn.
Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an der Donau und Theiss, Frankfurt, 96–98.
Kümmel 2009 Kümmel, Ch., Ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Grabraub. Archäologische Interpretation
und kulturanthropologische Erklärung, TübSchr, 9.
Kyll 1968 Kyll, N., Die Bestattung der Toten mit dem Gesight nach unten, Trierer Zeitschirft
27, 168–183.
Meyer-Orlac 1982 Meyer-Orlac, R., Mensch und Tod: Archäologischer Befund – Grenzen der
Interpretation, Hohenschäftlarm.
Meyer-Orlac 1997 Meyer-Orlac, R., Zur Problematik der „Sonderbestattungen“ in der Archäologie,
IN: Rittershofer, K.-F. (ed.), Sonderbestattungen in der Bronzezeit im östlichen
Mitteleuropa, West- und Süddeutscher Verband für Altertumsforschung,
Jahrestagung vom 5.–20. Juni 1990 in Pottenstein (Fränkische Schweiz).
Kolloquium der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bronzezeit, IA 37, Espelkamp, 1–10.
Miles 1965 Miles, D., Socio-Economic Aspects of Secondary Burial, Oceania, 35(3), 161–174.
Mozsolics 1942 Mozsolics, A., Der frühbronzezeitliche Urnenfriedhof von Kisapostag, ArchHung,
26, Budapest.
Mozsolics 1967 Mozsolics, A., Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von
Hajdúsámson und Kosziderpadlás, Budapest.
Mozsolics 1988 Mozsolics, A., Der Bronzefund aus der oberen Remete-Höhle, ActaArch, 40, 26–64.
Menace from the Afterlife? | 153
Neugebauer 1991 Neugebauer, J. W., Die Nekropole F von Gemeinlebarn, Niederösterreich. Untersu-
chungen zu den Bestattungssitten und zum Grabraub in der ausgehenden Frühbron-
zezeit in Niederösterreich südlich der Donau zwischen Enns und Wienerwald, RGF, 49.
O’Shea 1996 O’Shea, J. M., Villagers of the Maros. A Portrait of an Early Bronze Age Society,
New York.
Olexa 2002 Olexa, L., Kult. Religious Worship, IN: Gancarski, J. (ed.), Miedzy Mykenami a
Bałtykiem. Kultura Otomani–Füzesabony. Between Mycenae and the Baltic Sea.
The Otomani–Füzesabony Culture, Krosno–Warszawa, 89–94.
Pástor 1969 Pástor, J., Košické Pohrebisko, Košice.
Pauli 1975 Pauli, L., Keltischer Volksglaube. Amulette und Sonderbestattungen am Dürrnberg
bei Hallein und im eisenzeitlichen Mitteleuropa, Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und
Frühgeschichte, 28, München.
Polla 1960 Polla, B., Birituelle Füzesabonyer Begräbnisstätte in Streda nad Bodrogom, IN:
Chropovsky, B.–Dúšek, M.–Polla, P. (eds.), Pohrebiská zo staršej doby bronzvej,
Bratislava, 299–386.
Primas 1977 Primas, M., Untersuchungen zu den Bestattungssitten der ausgehenden Kupfer-
und frühen Bronzezeit, BerRGK, 58, 1–160.
Reich 2002 Reich, Chr., Das Gräberfeld von Cîrna, PZ, 77, 159–179.
Rittershofer 1987 Rittershofer, K.-F., Grabraub in der Bronzezeit, BerRGK, 68, 5–23.
Ruttkay 1983 Ruttkay, E., Zur Deutung der Depotfunde vom Typus Tolnanémedi im
Zusammenhang mit dem Idol von Babska, AnnalenWien, 85, 1–17.
Schalk 1992 Schalk, E., Das Gräberfeld von Hernádkak. Studien zum Beginn der Frühbronzezeit
im nordöstlichen Karpatenbecken, UPA, 9.
Schaub 2009 Schaub, H., Knochen und Bestattungssitten. Die Bedeutung archäologischer
Funde zum Wiedergänger- bzw. Vampirglauben, Kakanien Revisited 12 [online],
Available at: http://www.kakanien.ac.at/beitr/vamp/HSchaub1.pdf [Accessed: 14
November 2010].
Schlenther 1960 Schlenther, U., Brandbestattung und Seelenglauben. Verbreitung und Ursachen der
Leichenverbrennung bei außereuropäischen Völkern, Berlin.
Schumacher-Matthäus 1985 Schumacher-Matthäus, G., Studien zu bronzezeitlichen Schmucktrachten im
Karpatenbecken, MSVF, 6.
Schürmann 1990 Schürmann, Th., Der Nachzehrerglauben in Mitteleuropa, Marburg.
Schwidetzky 1965 Schwidetzky, I., Sonderbestattungen und ihre paläodemographische Bedeutung,
Homo, 16, 230–247.
Sell 1955 Sell, H.-J., Der schlimme Tod bei den Völkern Indonesiens, 's-Gravenhage.
Thomas 2008 Thomas, M., Studien zu Chronologie und Totenritual der Otomani–Füzesabony-
Kultur, SAB, 86.
Trauwitz-Hellwig 1935 Trauwitz-Hellwig, J., Totenverehrung, Totenabwehr und Vorgeschichte, München.
Ucko 1969 Ucko, P. J., Ethnography and Archaeological Interpretation of Funerary Remains,
WArch, 1, 262–280.
Veit 1988 Veit, U., Des Fürsten neue Schuhe – Überlegungen zum Befund von Hochdorf,
Germania, 66, 162–169.
Wilke 1931 Wilke, G., Die Bestattung in Bauchlage, Mannus, 23, 202–206.
List of figures
Fig. 1. Location of the Otomani–Füzesabony cemeteries mentioned in the text: 1. Gelej–Beltelek, and Gelej–
Kanálisdűlő, 2. Hernádkak, 3. Pusztaszikszó, 4. Streda nad Bodrogom, 5. Tarnaméra–Uszoda, 6. Tiszafüred–
Majoroshalom and Tiszaörvény–Temetődomb, 7. Mezőcsát. (Base map: www.donau-archaeologie.de).
Fig. 2. Examples of heart-shaped and crescent-shaped pendants. 1–3. Gelej–Beltelek, grave 68 (after Kemenczei
1979, Taf. IX/8–10); 4. Tiszafüred–Majoroshalom, grave D345 (after Kovács 1984, Taf. LXIX/13); 5. Mezőcsát,
grave 51 (after Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, Taf. 8/51c); 6–14. Mezőcsát, grave 47 (after Hänsel–Kalicz 1986,
Taf. 8/47 m, n, t); 15–19. Mezőcsát, grave 66 (after Hänsel–Kalicz 1986, Taf. 9/66 k and h). No scale.
Fig. 3. The Bronze sheet pendant from Kisapostag, grave 2 (1) visualizes the anthropomorphic nature of heart shaped
pendants (2) as well as parallels to postures of the Cîrna idols (3). (No scale; after Blischke 2000, Abb. 5).
Abbreviations
AABW Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart
AB Ausgrabungen in Berlin
Acta Acta (Siculica), Muzeul Naţional Secuiesc, Sfântu Gheorghe
ActaArch Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Budapest
ActaMB Acta Musei Brukenthal, Sibiu
ActaMN Acta Musei Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca
ActaMP Acta Musei Porolissensis, Zalău
ActaMPa Acta Musei Papensis, Pápa
ActaPraehistArch Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica, Berlin
ActaTS Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, Sibiu
AFSB Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur Sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege
Agria Agria, Az Egri Múzeum Évkönyve (1982), Eger
AIBW Archäologische Informationen aus Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart
AIH Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon / Archaeological Investigation in Hungary,
Budapest
AJ The Archaeological Journal, London
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AJB Das Archäologische Jahr in Bayern
Alba Regia Alba Regia, Annales Musei Stephani Regis, Székesfehérvár
Aluta Aluta, Revista Muzeului Naţional Secuiesc, Sfântu Gheorghe
AmAnt American Antiquity
Analele Banatului Analele Banatului, Muzeul Banatului, Timişoara
AnnalenWien Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien
AnnalesIA Annales Instituti Archaeologici, Zagreb
Angustia Angustia, Muzeul Carpaţilor Răsăriteni, Sfântu Gheorghe
ANOOH Aarboger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed Og Historie
Antiquity Antiquity, London
AO Arhivele Olteniei, Craiova
AÖ Archäologie Österreichs
Apulum Apulum, Acta Musei Apulensis, Alba Iulia
ArchAustr Archaeologia Austriaca, Wien
ArchE Archäologie in Eurasien, Mainz am Rhein
ArchÉrt Archaeologiai Értesítő, Budapest
ArchHung Archaeologia Hungarica, Budapest
ArchD Archäologie in Deutschland
ArchKorr Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum in
Mainz
ArchPol Archeologia Polski
ArchRoz Archeologické Rozhledy, Prague
ArhMold Arheologia Moldovei, Iaşi
ArhRR Arheološki radovi i rasprave, Zagreb
ArhVest Arheološki vestnik (Acta Archaeologica), Inštitut za arheologijo, Lubljana
378 |
ASA Anzeiger für Schweizerische Altertumskunde, Zürich
ASF Archaeologia Slovaca Fontes, Bratislava
ASGE Arheologičeskij Sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaža, Leningrad
AVSL Archiv des Vereins für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde
BA Biblioteca de Arheologie, Bucureşti
BArch Biblioteka Archeologiczna, Warszawa-Wrocław
Balcanica Balcanica, Beograd
Banatica Banatica, Muzeul de Istorie al Judeţului Caraş-Severin, Reşiţa
BAR British Archaeological Reports, International Series, Oxford
BayerVorgeschbl Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter, München
BB Bibliotheca Brukenthal, Sibiu
BBVF Berliner Blätter für Vor- und Frühgeschichte
BCŞS Buletinul Cercurilor Ştiinţifice Studenţeşti, Alba Iulia
Beiträge UFMV Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns
BerRGK Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission
BIP Biblioteca Istro-Pontica, Seria Arheologie, Institutul de Cercetări Eco-Muzeale Tulcea
BJV Berliner Jahrbuch für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Berlin
BM Bibliotheca Marmatia, Baia Mare
BMA Biblioteca Mvsei Apvlensis, Alba Iulia
BMAnt Bibliotheca Memoriae Antiquitatis, Muzeul de istorie Piatra Neamţ
BMG Bibliotheka Mvsei Giurgiuvensis, Giurgiu
BMM Bibliotheca Mvsei Marisiensis, Seria Archaeologica, Târgu Mureș, Cluj Napoca
BMN Bibliotheca Mvsei Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca
BMS Bibliotheca Mvsei Sabesiensis, Sebeş
BpRég Budapest Régiségei, Budapest
Bremer ArchBl Bremer Archäologische Blätter, Focke-Museum, Bremer Landesmuseum
BSE Biblioteca di “Studi etruschi”
BT Bibliotheca Thracologica, Bucureşti
BTMM Budapest Történeti Múzeum, Műhely
Bulletin SPF Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française
BZ Bjelovarski zbornik, Bjelovar
CA Cercetări Arheologice
CAB Cercetări Arheologice în Bucureşti
Carpica Carpica, Muzeul Judeţean de Istorie şi Artă „Iulian Antonescu”, Bacău
CCA Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România
CI Cercetări Istorice
ComArchHung Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, Budapest
Corviniana Corviniana, Acta Musei Corviniensis, Hunedoara
Crisia Crisia, Muzeul Ţării Crişurilor, Oradea
Cumidava Cumidava, Anuarul Muzeelor Braşovene
Dacia Dacia, Recherches et décuvertes archéologiques en Roumanie, I–XII (1924–1948),
Bucureşti; Nouvelle série (N. S.), Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire anciene,
Bucureşti
DolgKolozsvár Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából, Kolozsvár
EA Eurasia Antiqua, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut
Ea-online European archaeology – online (www.archaeology.ro)
EAZ Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift, Berlin
EJA European Journal of Archaeology
EphemNap Ephemeris Napocensis, Cluj–Napoca
ESA Eurasia septentrionalis antiqua
FAS Freiburger Archäologische Studien
FBBW Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg
FBSMB Forschungen und Berichte der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin
FMSt Frühmittelalterliche Studien, Münster
| 379
FolArch Folia Archeologica, a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Évkönyve, Budapest
Godišnjak Sarajevo Godišnjak Centra za Balkanoloska Ispitivanja Akademije Nauka i Umjetnosti, Bosne i
Hercegovine, Sarajevo
Germania Germania, Frankfurt am Main
Glasnik ZM Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu
Historia Carpatica Historica Carpatica, Zborník Východoslovenského múzeá v Košiciach, Kosice
HOMÉ A Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve, Miskolc
IA Internationale Archäologie, Buch am Erlbach, Espelkamp, Rahden/Westf.
IHAD Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, Zagreb
IPH Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae, Budapest
Istros Istros, Buletinul Muzeului Brăilei, Brăila
JAA Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Amsterdam
Jahrbuch RGZM Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz
JahrBB Jahresbericht der Bayerischen Bodendenkmalpflege, München
JahrBern Jahresbericht des Historischen Museums in Bern
JahrDAI Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Berlin
JahrMV Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte, Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften
for the Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte (Halle), Berlin
JahrVMGA Jahrbücher des Vereins für Mecklenburgische Geschichte und Altertumskunde
JahrVSTL Jahresschrift für die Vorgeschichte der Sächsisch-Thüringischen Länder
JAMÉ A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve, Nyíregyháza
JAnR Journal of Anthropological Research
JEA Journal of European Archaeology, Durham, UK
JPMÉ A Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve, Pécs
JRAI Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain
Лесковачки зборник Народни музеј у Лесковцу, Лесковац
Közlemények Debrecen Közlemények a Debreceni M. Kir. Tisza István Tudomány Egyetem Régészeti Intéze-
téből, Debrecen
Közlemények Kolozsvár Közlemények az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából, Cluj
Litua Litua, Muzeul Gorjului
Marisia Marisia (V–), Studii şi Materiale, Târgu Mureş
MatArch Materiały Archeologiczne, Kraków
MatBV Materialien zur Bayerischen Vorgeschichte
MatZach Materiały Zachodniopomorskie, Muzeum Narodowe w Szczecinie
MCA Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice, Bucureşti
MemAnt Memoria Antiquitatis, Acta Musei Petrodavensis, Bucureşti
MFMÉ A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, Szeged
MittAGW Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft Wien
MittBGAEU Mitteilungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte
MittBSM Mitteilungen des Burzenländer Sächsischen Museums
MittCCEB Mittheilungen der Central-Commission zur Erhaltung der Baudenkmale
MΩMOΣ MΩMOΣ, Őskoros Kutatók Összejövetelének Konferenciakötete
Mousaios Mousaios, Muzeul Judeţean Buzău, Muzeul Brăilei
MPK Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommision, Viena
MSVF Marbuger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Mainz
MVFBW Materialhefte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart
Notizie ArchBerg Notizie Archeologiche Bergomensi, Civico Museo Archeologico di Bergamo
NotizieS Notizie degli Scavi
OIAS Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae
OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology
OpArch Opuscula Archaeologica, Arheološki zavod, Filozofski fakultet u Zagrebu
OTTÉ Orvos- és Természettudományi Értesítő, Kolozsvár
OZ Osječki Zbornik, Osijek
Ősrégészeti levelek Ősrégészeti levelek / Prehistoric newsletter, Budapest
380 |
PA Patrimonium Apulense, Alba Iulia
PamArch Památky Archeologické, Praha
PAS Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, Berlin, Kiel, München
PBF Prähistorische Bronzefunde, München, Stuttgart
Peuce Peuce, Studii şi cercetări de istorie şi arheologie, Institutul de Cercetari Eco-Muzeale
Tulcea, Institutul de Istorie si Arheologie, Tulcea
PMAAE Prace i Materiały Antropologiczno-Archeologiczne i Etnograficzne, Kraków
PPS Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, London
Pravĕk NŘ Pravĕk NŘ, Masarykova univerzita Brno
Preistoria Alpina Preistoria Alpina, Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali
Prilozi IAZ Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju iz Zagreba
PrzArch Przegląd Archeologiczny, Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk
PZ Praehistorische Zeitschrift, Berlin
RegBPA Regensburger Beiträge zur Prähistorischen Archäologie
RégFüz Régészeti Füzetek, Budapest
RevBis Revista Bistriţei, Complexul Judeţean Muzeal Bistriţa-Năsăud
RevMuz Revista Muzeelor, București
RGF Römisch-Germanische Forschungen, Mainz, Berlin
RKM Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon
RoczB Rocznik Białostocki
SAB Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde, Bonn
Sargetia Sargeţia, Buletinul Muzeului Judeţului Hunedoara, Acta Musei Devensis, Deva
Savaria Savaria, A Vas Megyei Múzeumok Értesítője, Szombathely
SCIV(A) Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche (şi Arheologie 1974–), Bucureşti
SJ Saalburg Jahrbuch, Berlin
SJA Southwestern Journal of Anthropology
SlovArch Slovenská Archeológia, Bratislava
SpJ Speläologisches Jahrbuch, Wien
SSA Śląskie Sprawozdania Archeologiczne, Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego
SSUF Schriften der Sektion für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Berlin
Starinar Starinar, Arheološki institute, Beograd
StCom Satu Mare Studii şi Comunicări Satu Mare
StCom Sibiu Studii şi Comunicări, Muzeul Brukenthal, Sibiu
StudiaAA Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, Iaşi
Studie AUCAB Studie Archeologického Ústavu Československé Akademie vĕd v Brnĕ, Praha
Študijné zvesti Študijné zvesti, Archeologického Ústavu Slovenskej Akadémie Vied, Nitra
SymThrac Symposia Thracologica, Institutul Român de Tracologie, Bucureşti
Thraco-Dacica Thraco-Dacica, Institutul de Tracologie, Bucureşti
Tibiscus Tibiscus, Muzeul Banatului, Timişoara
Tisicum Tisicum, A Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve, Szolnok
TübSchr Tübinger Schriften zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie, Münster
UPA Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, Bonn
VAH Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, Budapest
VAMZ Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu
VHAD Vjesnik Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, Zagreb
VMMK A Veszprém Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei
WA Wiadomości Archeologiczne, Państwowe Muzeum Archeologiczne, Warsaw
WArch World Archaeology, Oxford, Oxbow
WMMÉ Wosinsky Mór Múzeum Évkönyve, Szekszárd
WPZ Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift, Wien
Zalai Múzeum Zalai Múzeum, Közlemények Zala megye múzeumaiból, Zalaegerszeg
Zbornik Bor Zbornik radova muzeja rudarstva i metalurgije u Boru
Zborník SNM Zborník Slovenského Národného Múzea, Bratislava
ZfA Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters, Bonn
References (67)
Bátora, J., Symbolische (?) Gräber in der älteren Bronzezeit in der Slowakei, IN: Bátora, J.-Peška, J. (Hrsg.), Aktuelle Probleme der Erforschung der Frühbronzezeit in Böhmen und Mähren und in der Slowakei, Nitra, 63-73. Bertemes 1989
Bertemes, F., Das frühbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Gemeinlebarn, SAB, 45. Blischke 2000
Blischke, J., Die Sprache der Toten. Grabbeigaben und gesellschaftlicher Kontext, MittBGAEU, 21, 29-36.
Bóna 1958
Bóna, I., Chronologie der Hortfunde vom Koszider Typus, ActaArch, 9, 213-243. Bóna 1975
Bóna, I., Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen, ArchHung, 49, Budapest. Fischer 1990
Fischer, U., Analogie und Urgeschichte, Saeculum, 41, 3, 318-325.
Furmanek 1980
Furmanek, V., Die Anhänger in der Slowakei, PBF, Abteilung XI, 3. Gramsch 2000
Gramsch, A. (ed.), Vergleichen als archäologische Methode. Analogien in den Archäologien, BAR, International Series, 825, Oxford. Hachmann 1968
Hachmann, R., Besprechung von: Dumitrescu, Vl., Necropola de incinerație din epoca bronzului de la Cîrna, Germania, 46, 368-370.
Hájek, L., Hlinĕné lidské plastiky z doby bronzové v Barci u Košic, SlovArch, 5, 323-338.
Hänsel 1968
Hänsel, B., Beiträge zur Chronologie der mittleren Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken, Bonn. Hänsel-Kalicz 1986
Hänsel, B.-Kalicz, N., Das bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Mezőcsát, Kom. Borsod, Nordostungarn [with a contribution by I. Lengyel], BerRGK, 67, 5-88.
Hansmann-Kriss-Rettenbeck 1966
Hansmann, L.-Kriss-Rettenbeck, L., Amulett und Talisman. Erscheinungsform und Geschichte, München. Hundt 1955
Hundt, H.-J., Versuch zur Deutung der Depotfunde der nordischen jüngeren Bronze- zeit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Mecklenburgs, Jahrbuch RGZM, 2, 95-140.
Jankuhn Et Al. 1978
Jankuhn, H.-Nelsen, H.-Roth, H. (Hrsg.), Zum Grabfrevel in vor-und frühge- schichtlicher Zeit. Untersuchungen zu Grabraub und "haugbrot" in Mittel-und Nordeuropa, Bericht über ein Kolloquium der Kommission für die Altertum- skunde Mittel-und Nordeuropas vom 14. bis 16. Februar 1977, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse Folge 3, 113, Göttingen. Kemenczei 1979
Kemenczei, T., Das mittelbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Gelej, Budapest. KŐszegi 1968
Kőszegi, F., Mittelbronzezeitliches Gräberfeld in Pusztaszikszó, ActaArch, 20, 101-141. Kovács 1975
Kovács, T., Tumulus Culture Cemeteries of Tiszafüred, RégFüz, Series II, 17, Budapest. Kovács 1984
Kovács, T., Füzesabony-Kultur, IN: Tasić, N. (ed.), Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit des Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans, Belgrad, 235-256.
Kovács, T., Bestattungssitten der Füzesabony-Kultur und das Gräberfeld von Tiszafüred-Majoroshalom, IN: Meier-Arendt, W. (ed.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an der Donau und Theiss, Frankfurt, 96-98. Kümmel 2009
Kümmel, Ch., Ur-und frühgeschichtlicher Grabraub. Archäologische Interpretation und kulturanthropologische Erklärung, TübSchr, 9. Kyll 1968
Kyll, N., Die Bestattung der Toten mit dem Gesight nach unten, Trierer Zeitschirft 27, 168-183.
Meyer-Orlac 1982
Meyer-Orlac, R., Mensch und Tod: Archäologischer Befund -Grenzen der Interpretation, Hohenschäftlarm.
Meyer-Orlac 1997
Meyer-Orlac, R., Zur Problematik der "Sonderbestattungen" in der Archäologie, IN: Rittershofer, K.-F. (ed.), Sonderbestattungen in der Bronzezeit im östlichen Mitteleuropa, West-und Süddeutscher Verband für Altertumsforschung, Jahrestagung vom 5.-20. Juni 1990 in Pottenstein (Fränkische Schweiz). Kolloquium der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bronzezeit, IA 37, Espelkamp, 1-10. Miles 1965
Miles, D., Socio-Economic Aspects of Secondary Burial, Oceania, 35(3), 161-174. Mozsolics 1942
Mozsolics, A., Der frühbronzezeitliche Urnenfriedhof von Kisapostag, ArchHung, 26, Budapest. Mozsolics 1967
Mozsolics, A., Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von Hajdúsámson und Kosziderpadlás, Budapest. Mozsolics 1988
Mozsolics, A., Der Bronzefund aus der oberen Remete-Höhle, ActaArch, 40, 26-64. Neugebauer 1991
Neugebauer, J. W., Die Nekropole F von Gemeinlebarn, Niederösterreich. Untersu- chungen zu den Bestattungssitten und zum Grabraub in der ausgehenden Frühbron- zezeit in Niederösterreich südlich der Donau zwischen Enns und Wienerwald, RGF, 49.
O'Shea 1996
O'Shea, J. M., Villagers of the Maros. A Portrait of an Early Bronze Age Society, New York.
Olexa, L., Kult. Religious Worship, IN: Gancarski, J. (ed.), Miedzy Mykenami a Bałtykiem. Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony. Between Mycenae and the Baltic Sea. The Otomani-Füzesabony Culture, Krosno-Warszawa, 89-94.
Pástor 1969
Pástor, J., Košické Pohrebisko, Košice. Pauli 1975
Pauli, L., Keltischer Volksglaube. Amulette und Sonderbestattungen am Dürrnberg bei Hallein und im eisenzeitlichen Mitteleuropa, Münchner Beiträge zur Vor-und Frühgeschichte, 28, München. Polla 1960
Polla, B., Birituelle Füzesabonyer Begräbnisstätte in Streda nad Bodrogom, IN: Chropovsky, B.-Dúšek, M.-Polla, P. (eds.), Pohrebiská zo staršej doby bronzvej, Bratislava, 299-386.
Primas 1977
Primas, M., Untersuchungen zu den Bestattungssitten der ausgehenden Kupfer- und frühen Bronzezeit, BerRGK, 58, 1-160.
Reich 2002 Reich, Chr., Das Gräberfeld von Cîrna, PZ, 77, 159-179.
Rittershofer 1987
Rittershofer, K.-F., Grabraub in der Bronzezeit, BerRGK, 68, 5-23. Ruttkay 1983
Ruttkay, E., Zur Deutung der Depotfunde vom Typus Tolnanémedi im Zusammenhang mit dem Idol von Babska, AnnalenWien, 85, 1-17.
Schalk 1992
Schalk, E., Das Gräberfeld von Hernádkak. Studien zum Beginn der Frühbronzezeit im nordöstlichen Karpatenbecken, UPA, 9. Schaub 2009
Schaub, H., Knochen und Bestattungssitten. Die Bedeutung archäologischer Funde zum Wiedergänger-bzw. Vampirglauben, Kakanien Revisited 12 [online], Available at: http://www.kakanien.ac.at/beitr/vamp/HSchaub1.pdf [Accessed: 14 November 2010].
Schlenther 1960
Schlenther, U., Brandbestattung und Seelenglauben. Verbreitung und Ursachen der Leichenverbrennung bei außereuropäischen Völkern, Berlin.
Schumacher-Matthäus 1985
Schumacher-Matthäus, G., Studien zu bronzezeitlichen Schmucktrachten im Karpatenbecken, MSVF, 6. Schürmann 1990
Schürmann, Th., Der Nachzehrerglauben in Mitteleuropa, Marburg. Schwidetzky 1965
Schwidetzky, I., Sonderbestattungen und ihre paläodemographische Bedeutung, Homo, 16, 230-247.
Sell 1955
Sell, H.-J., Der schlimme Tod bei den Völkern Indonesiens, 's-Gravenhage. Thomas 2008
Thomas, M., Studien zu Chronologie und Totenritual der Otomani-Füzesabony- Kultur, SAB, 86.
Trauwitz-Hellwig 1935
Trauwitz-Hellwig, J., Totenverehrung, Totenabwehr und Vorgeschichte, München. Ucko 1969
Ucko, P. J., Ethnography and Archaeological Interpretation of Funerary Remains, WArch, 1, 262-280.
Veit, U., Des Fürsten neue Schuhe -Überlegungen zum Befund von Hochdorf, Germania, 66, 162-169.
Wilke 1931
Wilke, G., Die Bestattung in Bauchlage, Mannus, 23, 202-206.
January 13, 2021
Jens Notroff
German Archaeological Institute, Department Member
I studied Prehistoric Archaeology at the Free University of Berlin under Prof. Hänsel and Prof. Teržan, where I finished studies in 2009 achieving the degree of Magister Artium.
Main focus of my research interest is the European Bronze Age, especially burial customs and material culture in view of the representation of prestige and social hierarchy. This is closely related to my interest in places of cult and ritual respectively the question of their archaeological evidence.
At the moment I am graduating at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich; my dissertation deals with the phenomenon of miniature swords in the Nordic Bronze Age and the role of these symbolic arms as markers of social rank. From Montelius’ Period IV onwards, miniature swords are found in burials while their larger pendants are mostly (but not exclusively) connected to depositions. Other than stated before, miniature swords are not displacing the large arms as grave goods completely – when they are disappearing from burials in Period V this also means the end of the Bronze Age miniature sword phenomenon in the North.
My second field of activity – the Pre-Pottery Neolithic and the beginning sedentism as well as the development of early complex societies in that period – has to do with my affiliation with a research project of the German Archaeological Institute regarding the Göbekli Tepe near Şanlıurfa in south-eastern Anatolia, where we are excavating and researching the first monumental architecture of man, which apparently was a very early cultic centre or gathering place of hunter-gatherer groups.
Papers
85
Followers
2,829
View all papers from
Jens Notroff
arrow_forward
Related papers
OFFERINGS FROM A SYMBOLIC BURIAL, VILLAGE OF BELISH, TROYAN MINICIPALITY
Ivan Hristov
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Symbolism, Social Relations and the Interpretation of Mortuary Remains. By E llen -J ane P ader
Ellen Pader
Archaeological Journal, 1983
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Hoards, votives, offerings: the archaeology of the dedicated object
ROBIN OSBORNE
World Archaeology, 2004
Objects given to supernatural powers have been remarkably neglected by archaeologists. This paper makes the case for the importance of such objects, whether they be described as votives, dedications, ritual deposits, ritual hoards, offerings or by some other term. It explores some archaeological reasons for their neglect, including the practice of publishing artefacts by type rather than by context, and argues that archaeologists should not assume that religious practices can be discussed only when there are texts available as guides. It summarizes the particular concerns of the papers which follow in this volume.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
"The Prehistoric Burial Customs" (Chapter 8)
Lyssa C Stapleton
Excavations at the Prehistoric Burial Tumulus at Lofkënd, Albania. Volume I, 2014
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
TANGIBLE TRACES OF DEVOTION The Post-mortem Life of Relics
Anna Kjellström
Though relics have attracted immense interest from a variety of scholars, not much attention has been paid to the practical handling of the holy corporal remains. Here, with the aim of better understanding the treatment of the bodies and relics as physical objects in Sweden during the Middle Ages, osseous materials from three different contexts were osteo-logically analysed. The investigation offers detailed insight into the treatment of the bones and makes it possible to distinguish three physical phases of the cult of relics. The three phases demonstrate the utilitarian administration of the bones and the fortitude of belief.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Burial practices as imagined community spaces: The example of the Late Bronze Age house urns
Serena Sabatini
Alexanderson H., Andreef A. & Bünz A. (eds), Med hjärta och hjärna: en vänbok till Elisabeth Arwill-Nordbladh. Gothenburg, pp. 537-549, 2014
Burial practices provide significant information for the study of prehistoric societies. When specific elements not only express a clear intention of distinction from what we could call the local customs, but also repeat themselves in several distant areas, an imagined community model seems to off er fruitful tools for the interpretations of such phenomena. Th is paper aims to discuss such model and to apply it to the study of the North European Late Bronze Age house urns. Th e latter show a twofold attitude, being at the same time compliant to the local rituals, but atypical in their formal characteristics (e.g. shape) and meanings. Used for a limited number of burials at every site, they seem to point to the existence of an imagined community stretching over several cultural borders.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
BOOK REVIEW: SYMBOLS AND RITUALS IN MORTUARY PRACTICE OF PRE-URBAN BACTRIA
Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry (MAA)
2021
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Apotropaion and Burial in Early Byzantium: Some Preliminary Considerations
Ádám Bollók
2013
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Minoan inverted vases in funerary contexts: offerings to dead or to ancestors? in ASAtene LXXXIX, 2011, pp. 135-146.
Ilaria Caloi
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Trinkets for the Afterlife: Personal Ornaments from Graves of Children in the Necropolis of Apollonia Pontica
Mila Chacheva
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Related topics
Archaeology
Prehistoric Archaeology
Identity (Culture)
Death and Burial (Archaeology)
Burial (Ritual)
Burial Practices (Archaeology)
Bronze Age (Archaeology)
Mortuary archaeology
Archaeology of burials
Mortuary Practices
Archaeology of death and burial
Burial Customs
Death and Burial
Explore
Papers
Topics
Features
Mentions
Analytics
PDF Packages
Advanced Search
Search Alerts
Journals
Academia.edu Journals
My submissions
Reviewer Hub
Why publish with us
Testimonials
Company
About
Careers
Press
Content Policy
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104