Gogâltan, Florin: RITUAL ASPECTS OF THE BRONZE AGE TELL-SETTLEMENTS IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN. Ephemeris Napocensis XXII (2012)

EPHEMERIS NAPOCENSIS

XXII2012

ROMANIAN ACADEMYINSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF ART CLUJ-NAPOCA

EDITORIAL BOARDEditor: Coriolan Horaţiu OpreanuMembers: Sorin Cociş, Vlad-Andrei Lăzărescu, Ioan Stanciu

ADVISORY BOARDAlexandru Avram (Le Mans, France); Mihai Bărbulescu (Rome, Italy); Alexander Bursche (Warsaw, Poland); Falko Daim (Mainz, Germany); Andreas Lippert (Vienna, Austria); Bernd Päffgen (Munich, Germany); Marius Porumb (Cluj-Napoca, Romania); Alexander Rubel (Iași, Romania); Peter Scherrer (Graz, Austria); Alexandru Vulpe (Bucharest, Romania).

Responsible of the volume: Ioan Stanciu

În ţară revista se poate procura prin poştă, pe bază de abonament la: EDITURA ACADEMIEI ROMÂNE, Calea 13 Septembrie nr. 13, sector 5, P. O. Box 5–42, Bucureşti, România, RO–76117, Tel. 021–411.90.08, 021–410.32.00; fax. 021–410.39.83; RODIPET SA, Piaţa Presei Libere nr. 1, Sector 1, P. O. Box 33–57, Fax 021–222.64.07. Tel. 021–618.51.03, 021–222.41.26, Bucureşti, România; ORION PRESS IMPEX 2000, P. O. Box 77–19, Bucureşti 3 – România, Tel. 021–301.87.86, 021–335.02.96.

E P H E M E R I S N A P O C E N S I S

Any correspondence will be sent to the editor:INSTITUTUL DE ARHEOLOGIE ŞI ISTORIA ARTEIStr. M. Kogălniceanu nr. 12–14, 400084 Cluj-Napoca, RO

e-mail: [email protected]

All responsability for the content, interpretations and opinionsexpressed in the volume belongs exclusively to the authors.

DTP and print: MEGA PRINTCover: Roxana Sfârlea

© 2012 EDITURA ACADEMIEI ROMÂNECalea 13 Septembrie nr. 13, Sector 5, Bucureşti 76117Telefon 021–410.38.46; 021–410.32.00/2107, 2119

ACADEMIA ROMÂNĂINSTITUTUL DE ARHEOLOGIE ŞI ISTORIA ARTEI

E P H E M E R I S NAPOCENSIS

X X I I2 0 1 2

EDITURA ACADEMIEI ROMÂNE

SOMMAIRE – CONTENTS – INHALT

STUDIES

FLORIN GOGÂLTAN Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin. A Methodological Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

ALEXANDRA GĂVAN Metallurgy and Bronze Age Tell-Settlements from Western Romania (I) . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

DÁVID PETRUŢ Everyday Life in the Research Concerning the Roman Army in the Western European Part of the Empire and the Province of Dacia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

CORIOLAN HORAŢIU OPREANU From “στρατόπεδον” to Colonia Dacica Sarmizegetusa. A File of the Problem . . . . . . . . 113

CĂLIN COSMA Ethnische und politische Gegebenheiten im Westen und Nordwesten Rumäniens im 8.–10. Jh. n.Chr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND EPIGRAPHICAL NOTES

AUREL RUSTOIU Commentaria Archaeologica et Historica (I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

VITALIE BÂRCĂ Some Remarks on Metal Cups with Zoomorphic Handles in the Sarmatian Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

FLORIN FODOREAN “Spa” Vignettes in Tabula Peutingeriana. Travelling Ad Aquas: thermal Water Resources in Roman Dacia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

DAN AUGUSTIN DEAC Note on Apis Bull Representations in Roman Dacia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

SILVIA MUSTAŢĂ, SORIN COCIŞ, VALENTIN VOIŞIAN Instrumentum Balnei from Roman Napoca. Two Iron Vessels Discovered on the Site from Victor Deleu Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

IOAN STANCIU About the Use of the So-Called Clay “Breadcakes” in the Milieu of the Early Slav Settlements (6th–7th Centuries) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

DAN BĂCUEŢ-CRIŞANContributions to the Study of Elites and Power Centers in Transylvania during the second Half of the 9th – first Half of the 10th Centuries. Proposal of Identification Criteria Based on archaeological Discoveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

ADRIANA ISAC, ERWIN GÁLL, SZILÁRD GÁL A 12th Century Cemetery Fragment from Gilău (Cluj County) (Germ.: Julmarkt; Hung.: Gyalu) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

ADRIAN ANDREI RUSU Stove Tiles with the Royal Coat of Arms of King Matthias I Corvinus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

REVIEWS

IULIAN MOGA, Culte solare şi lunare în Asia Mică în timpul Principatului/Solar and Lunar Cults in Asia Minor in the Age of the Principate, Editura Universităţii “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” Iași (Iași 2011), 752 p. (Szabó Csaba) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

DAN GH. TEODOR, Un centru meşteşugăresc din evul mediu timpuriu. Cercetările arheologice de la Lozna-Botoşani/An Artisan centre from the Early Middle Ages. The archaeological research from Lozna-Botoşani, Bibliotheca Archaeologica Moldaviae XV, Academia Română – Filiala Iași, Institutul de Arheologie, Editura Istros (Brăila 2011), 200 p. (including 118 figures), abstract and list of figures in French (Ioan Stanciu) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

CĂLIN COSMA, Funerary Pottery in Transylvania of the 7th–10th Centuries, Series Ethnic and Cultural Interferences in the 1st Millenium B.C. to the 1st Millenium AD. 18, Romanian Academy – Institute of Archaeology and Art History Cluj-Napoca, Mega Publishing House (Cluj-Napoca 2011), 183 p., 49 plates (Aurel Dragotă) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

RESEARCH PROJECTS

Crossing the Boundaries. Remodeling Cultural Identities at the End of Antiquity in Central and Eastern Europe. A Case Study (Coriolan H. Oprean, Vlad-Andrei Lăzărescu) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343

Warriors and military retainers in Transylvania of the 7th–9th centuries (Călin Cosma) . . . . . . . . . 349

Seeing the Unseen. Landscape Archaeology on the Northern Frontier of the Roman Empire at Porolissvm (Romania) (Coriolan H. Oprean, Vlad-Andrei Lăzărescu) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352

Abbreviations that can not be found in Bericht der Römisch-Germanische Kommission . . . . . 363

Guidelines for “Ephemeris Napocensis” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366

RITUAL ASPECTS OF THE BRONZE AGE TELL-SETTLEMENTS IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN.

A METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH1

Florin Gogâltan2

To Professor Gheorghe Lazarovici at his 70th anniversary

Abstract: When trying to find traces of spiritual manifestations in a settlement, certain discoveries must be taken into account such as: 1. cult structures (sanctuaries or other features with ritual function); 2. “deviant burials” (“Sonderbestattungen”); 3. ritual deposits of ceramics or metal artifacts; 4. artifacts with ritual function (idols, vessels with symbolic representations, altars etc.); 5. fireplaces with ritual function. Besides the already mentioned discoveries, one should take into consideration that there must have been other categories of objects or places in the settlement with special meanings. One may suppose the existence of

1 This topic was the subject of my conference paper held at the 8th annual conference of the European Archaeologists Association on September 24th–29th 2002, Thessaloniki, Greece, in the section “The archaeology of beliefs and ritual practices” (GOGÂLTAN 2002a, 215). The intent of the organizers to publish a conference volume was unfortunatly not realized. In the meantime, several books and articles dealing with the subject of Bronze Age rituals and the archaeology of religion have been published (MCCAULEY/LAWSON 2002; MÜLLER F. 2002; GRUENWALD 2003; METZNER-NEBELSICK 2003a, 99–117; INSOLL 2004; BRADLEY 2005; KRISTIANSEN/LARSSON 2005, 142–356; KYRIAKIDIS 2007; BARROWCLONGH/MALONE 2007; D’AGATA/van de MOORTEL 2009; BERGGREN/NILSSON STUTZ 2010 etc.) as well as a number of publications focused on Bronze Age tells from the Carpathian Basin (GOGÂLTAN 2002b, 11–45; DANI/MÁTHÉ/SZABÓ 2003, 93–118; OLEXA 2003; GAŠAJ 2003, 21–51; HÄNSEL/MEDOVIĆ 2004, 83–111; GOGÂLTAN 2005a, 161–179; O’SHEA ET AL. 2005, 81–109; GOGÂLTAN 2005b, 11–43; POROSZLAI/VICZE 2005; FISCHL 2006; MOLNÁR/IMECS 2006, 29–87; GOGÂLTAN 2006, 61–74; MOLNÁR 2006, 75–119; NÉMETI/MOLNÁR 2007; GOGÂLTAN 2008, 39–56; BÁTORA ET AL. 2008, 97–107; MOLNÁR 2008, 33–60; FURMÁNEK/MARKOVÁ 2008; DANI 2009, 17–21; DAVID 2009, 563–594; KULCSÁR 2009; ANDERS ET AL. 2010, 147–160; GOGÂLTAN 2010, 13–46; EARLE/KRISTIANSEN 2010; MOLNÁR 2011, 269–330; KALICZ ET AL. 2011; GOGÂLTAN 2011, 9–34; BÁTORA ET AL. 2012, 111–130 etc). Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Bonn/Bad Godesberg, Germany) offered me the opportunity to research the topic of the Bronze Age tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin (under the direct lead of prof. B. Hänsel at Freie Universität Berlin–2001–2002) which also included the participation at the Thessaloniki symposium. I am indebted also to Anca Gogâltan, Raluca Burlacu-Timofte, Mihaela Savu and Demjén Andrea who helped me with editing the present article. The bibliographical additions were possible with the financial support of the Sectoral Operational Programme for Human Development 2007–2013, co-financed by the European Social Fund, under the project number POSDRU/89/1.5/S/61104 with the title “Social sciences and humanities in the context of global development – development and implementation of postdoctoral research” and a scholarship offered by MTA Domus Hungarica Scientiarum et Artium (Budapest 2012).

2 Institute of Archaeology and Art History Cluj-Napoca, Romanian Academy Cluj Branch, M. Kogălniceanu str. 12–14, 400084, Cluj-Napoca, Cluj county, RO; e-mail: [email protected].

wooden idols. Probably there also existed sacred trees, pillars and stones with supernatural powers.Keywords: Bronze Age, tell settlements, Carpathian Basin, ritual, religious life

STUDIES

Ephemeris Napocensis, XXII, 2012, p. 7–56

8 Florin Gogâltan

Religion is as ancient as language3. Prehistoric, ancient or medieval people used to put all their faith and belief in supernatural forces to protect them in case of natural disasters or against other threats. These beliefs made the difference between those people of the past and today’s, rational human beings. Who were these Gods, what were their names and in which ways were they adored?

Mircea Eliade was right when he emphasized the opacity of the prehistoric sources concerning various aspects of spiritual life4. Without written sources, reconstruction of the religious life is one of the hardest tasks for an archaeologist5. How close are we to what Colin Renfrew6 referred to as “the ancient mind”? Anthony Harding considered that it is impossible “to enter into the psyche of prehistoric peoples or chart the psychological processes”7. Many primitive societies did not make any difference between profane and sacred actions, between what was practical and symbolic. In that case, are we able to make the distinction between the domestic remains and the rests of a ritual banquet? Are the human, the animal figurines and the miniature vessels votive objects or simple toys? Was a fireplace, found outside the house, used for cooking everyday meals or was it destined also for burning offerings for the Gods?

Fig. 1. Bronze Age tells, tell-like and mound-like settlements in the Carpathian Basin.

3 RAPPAPORT 1999, 16.4 ELIADE 1991, 15–18. 5 In a debate on archaeology’s methods and theory written 50 years ago, Christopher Hawkes established a

scale of difficulties in archaeological researches: “1. To infer from the archaeological phenomena to the techniques producing them I take to be relatively easy...; 2. To infer to the subsistence-economies of the human groups concerned is fairly easy...; 3. To infer to the socio/political institutions of the groups, however, is considerably harder; 4. To infer to the religious institutions and spiritual life is the hardest inference of all” (HAWKES 1954, 161–162). Janet E. Levy held a similar position: “The identification and interpretation of material remains as evidence of prehistoric ritual activity is one of the most complex and frustrating tasks for an archaeologist” (LEVY 1981, 174).

6 This notion was defined in the context of the debate around the so-called “cognitive archaeology” (see: RENFREW 1994a, 3–12). In the same book C. Renfrew emphasized that “any attempt to encompass the archaeology of mind must inevitably consider the archaeological approach towards religion” (RENFREW 1994b, 47).

7 HARDING 2000, 308.

9Ritual Aspects of the Bronze Age Tell-Settlements in the Carpathian Basin

Along with the rites and funerary rituals8, the so-called “natural sanctuaries” (caves, cliffs, springs etc.)9, presented by Martin P. Nilsson in 1927 in The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion10, the sanctuaries located outside the settlements (peak-sanctuaries)11, the bronze hoards12 as well as the discoveries inside the settlements may offer more details to the research of the spiritual life13. It is very difficult to make a presentation of ritual aspects of the Bronze Age tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin. In order to reconstruct an overall image of the elements composing different rituals, I will begin with a survey of all the types of information available on this subject.

An important issue, debated by scholars, was the notion of ritual itself, whether it should be interpreted as a sacred or as a profane practice. Similar questions were raised concerning sacri-fices and votive offerings14. Beginning with the late 19th century, important contributions to the archaeological interpretation of such practices were offered by ethnographic studies about prehis-toric communities, as well as by the historians of antique religions. In spite of the fact that an impressive literature was published around this subject15, of the existing theories only some are convincing. For example, William H. D. Rouse suggested that for the ancient Greeks a votive offering was “whatever is given of freewill to a being conceived as superhuman”16. Gerardus van der Leeuw developed the principle, now classic, of do ut des17. The practical purpose of an offering is the so-called do ut accipiam18. In one of the main writings referring to the sacrifice and its archaeo-logical interpretation, Berta Stjernquist explained the implications of this concept in Europe: she understood those objects which were deposited with a religious purpose as “Opferfund”19.

Both archaeologists and anthropologists have elaborated numerous and various defini-tions of ritual which have been literally accepted by some, and reformulated by others, without reaching a common view20. If anthropologists couldn’t get to an agreement concerning the ritual as a consequence of the multitude of contradictory examples21, for archaeologists the

8 For example: ROBERTS/LEE/BINTLIFF 1989; STJERNQUIST 1994; BRANIGAN 1998; LICHTER 2001 etc.

9 New perspective by JANKUHN 1970; HÄGG/MARINATOS 1981; CARMICHAEL ET AL. 1994; SCHAUER 1996, 381–416; BUSCH 2000; BIEHL/BERTEMES/MELLER 2001; CASTLEDEN 2001, 59–63 etc.

10 NILSSON 1950, 53–71. 11 RUTKOWSKI 1985, 345–359; RUTKOWSKI 1986; CASTLEDEN 2001, 53–59 etc.12 The interpretation of the bronze deposits found in bogs as ritual gestures was already proposed by WORSAAE

1866, 313–326. Out of the large number of works available on this matter I have selected those that may give an idea about how the debate developed over time: MÜLLER 1897; STJERNQUIST 1963, 5–64; JENSEN 1972, 115–164; TORBRÜGGE 1972, 1–146; v. BRUNN 1980, 91–150; LEVY 1982; WILLROTH 1985, 361–400; BRADLEY 1990; HANSEN 1994; SOROCEANU 1995, 15–80; HÄNSEL A./HÄNSEL B. 1997; HARDING 2000, 361–368; HANSEN 2000, 31–62 etc. See also: OSBORNE 2004, 1–10; HANSEN 2005, 211–230; SALAŠ 2005; MARASZEK 2006; LUND/MELHEIM 2011, 441–446 etc.

13 HILL 1995. Find a more recent perspective in BRADLEY 2005.14 As in Latin, there is a difference between sacrificium and votum in the modern languages as well. For example,

in English is used “sacrifice” and “votive-offering”, and in German “Opfer” and “Weihungen”. See also HANSEN 1994, 382 n. 95.

15 See also the Romanian translations for these writings: FRAZER 1890; MAUSS/HUBERT 1898, 29–138; MAUSS/HUBERT 1903, 1–146; van GENNEP 1909; DURKHEIM 1912 etc. For a brief presentation of the older anthropological literature see MORRIS 1987. More recent contributions are CARTER 2003; NEGEL 2005.

16 ROUSE 1998, 1 (first edition published in Cambridge in 1902, and the second one in New York in 1975). S. Hansen, talking about “Votivopfer” is using this definition (HANSEN 1994, 382).

17 van der LEEUW 1921, 241–253.18 BERTHOLET 1942, 18–19.19 STJERNQUIST 1963, 8 (“Der Begriff Opferfund ist – ganz allgemein – eine Bezeichnung für solche

Fundgegenstände, deren Niederlegung einen religiösen Sinn und Zweck hatte”).20 BELL 1992, 13–66; BELL 1997, 3–89.21 One should take into account the opinion of Catherine Bell “I have not proposed a new theory of ritual because

I believe that a new theory of ritual, by definition, would do little to solve the real conundrums that the study of ritual

10 Florin Gogâltan

problem was simpler. They agreed that ritual practices may be considered those acts fundamen-tally different from other daily activities22. It is difficult to interpret, from our contemporary perspective, which actions were non-functional, irrational, and symbolically valuable for prehis-toric societies. Some specialists consider that interpreting the archaeological material, from a religious point of view, means crossing the borders of the research. There are others who don’t have such restraints: “for them a thorough knowledge of the relevant data coupled with the free exercise of the creative human gift for sympathetic imagination can together lead directly to valid insights into long-vanished belief systems”23. With a characteristic English humor, Paul Bahn defined the ritual as an “all-purpose explanation used where nothing else comes to mind”24. In this case it may be debatable if the gesture of throwing a coin into the Fontana di Trevi in Rome or lighting a candle in a church represents a ritual or it is just a superstition for many of us.

Fig. 2. Tiszaug “Kéménytető”. A house of the Nagyrév culture (after CSÁNYI/STANCZIK 1992).

has come up against. Instead, I have proposed a new framework within which to reconsider traditional questions about ritual. In this framework, ritual activities are restored to their rightful context, the multitude of ways of acting in a particular culture”. This might be the reason why she insists on what she defines as “ritualization”: “the production of ritualized acts can be described, in part, as that way of acting that sets itself off from other ways of acting by virtue of the way in which it does what it does” (BELL 1992, 140). Lately her concept was adopted by some archaeologists (BRADLEY 2003, 12–21). In a following work, she establishes six categories of ritual action: “They are rites of passage, which are also called life-cycle rites; calendrical and commemorative rites; rites of exchange and communion; rites of affliction; rites of feasting, fasting, and festivals; and, finally, political rituals” (BELL 1997, 94).

22 After LEVY 1981, 173 “I understand religious ritual (often referred to simply as ritual in this paper) to be repeated, stereotyped (although not necessarily rigidly) behaviors directed toward a non-empirical, supernatural world. Such behaviors may involve individuals or groups, may consist of any number of physical and verbal activities, and may be directed at entities conceived of as beings, natural objects, essences, immanent forces etc.” In Colin Renfrew’s opinion “Ritual behavior is readily recognized in life through its formality, through the elements of repetition involved, and through its evidently purposive character – it has to be seen to be done, whether publicly by a gathering of people, or privately in the presence of the deity” (RENFREW 1985, 14). A more recent presentation of that debate may be found in BRÜCK 1999, 314–344. Also important is her conclusion, according to which “This equation of ritual with non-functional action is, I would argue, the single most important characteristic of both archaeological and anthropological approaches to ritual” (BRÜCK 1999, 317).

23 RENFREW 1985, 1.24 BAHN 1989, 62.


More recently, post-processual and interpretative archaeology has paid more attention to symbolic meanings of the archaeological data. All sorts of arguments were given in order to prove that the whole existence of primitive societies must have been bound by rituals. The great majority of these studies didn’t make a distinction between sacred and profane; they insisted on the social role of ritual practices that would permit the reproduction and renegotiation of the social order25. Therefore, it became customary to consider all human creations, starting with the artifacts from the waste pits to the administration of wider territories, as metaphoric representations of the social and cosmic order26. They insist on the fact that ritual had to be incorporated in all the aspects of daily life in prehistoric societies. This is why it is very difficult to reconstruct the pre and proto historical past because everything could be a reflection of our imagination27. Nevertheless, this opinion is not fully embraced by all post-processualists; some are aware of the danger of interpreting everything under the category of ritual. This being the case, it surely appears more and more obvious that “human actions are both practical and symbolic”. These two sides are not to be considered separately, as they can describe the same thing, and this is the reason why Joanna Brück referred to it as “the coin of human action”28.

The late Roy Rappaport, former professor at the University of Ann Arbor/Michigan, came with a new anthropological interpretation of the matters of ritual and religion in 1999. He defined ritual as “the performance of, more or less, invariant sequences of formal acts and utterances not entirely encoded by performers”29. For this reason, he considered the ritual to be a basic activity of the society. However, he pointed out that “... as all ritual is not religions, not all religions acts are ritual”30.

Another important issue of the theoretical approach concerning ritual regarded the means by which archaeologists could trace such manifestations31. It is well-known that in the Ancient world the offerings accompanied by prayers were meant to connect humans with their deities32. Beyond archaeological proofs, literary sources support the idea that almost anything could have served as an offering33. This was proved by W.H.D. Rouse already in the beginning of the 20th century in his above-mentioned work34. More recently, a series of other contribu-tions published in collective volumes35, synthesis concerning the archaic sanctuaries in Ionia36, the cult places for Hera37 as well as the votive depositions on the Acropolis of Athens, from the geometric and sub-geometric periods contributed to a better knowledge of the matter38.

25 BARRETT 1991, 1–9; GARWOOD 1991, 10–32; BARRETT 1994, 72–85 etc.26 PARKER PEARSON/RICHARDS 1994, 38–72; HILL 1995, 96–101.27 A reply to the post-processualist “criticism” is made by RENFREW 1994a, 9.28 BRÜCK 1999, 325.29 RAPPAPORT 1999, 24.30 RAPPAPORT 1999, 25.31 Beyond the contributions of B. Stjernquist (STJERNQUIST 1963, 5–64) and H. Kirchner (KIRCHNER

1968, 379–389), in the German archaeological school the position of C. Colpe is now classical. He proposed several means by which ritual deposits may be identified: “Von dem Material, auf das zu achten ist, fallen Haus – und Siedlungsgrundrisse aus, nur tragbare Gegenstände und Tiere kommen in Frage. Wiederholung der Niederlegung dürfte leicht festzustellen sein; die Außergewöhnlichkeit kann sich an der Wahl der Gegenstände (Kostbarkeit, Seltenheit in der Umgebung) bzw. Tiere (Bevorzugung einer Art, Altersstufe, eines Geschlechts) und dem Ort und der Art ihrer Niederlegung zeigen (Gruppierungen, die sich nicht zufällig ergeben; bestimmte Tötungsarten; Anordnung der Knochen unw.). Wiederholung und Außergewöhnlichkeit der Niederlegung dürfen wir unter dem Begriff der Ritualisierung zusammenfassen” (COLPE 1970, 36).

32 van STRATEN 1981, 65.33 van STRATEN 1981, 80.34 ROUSE 1998.35 van STRATEN 1992, 247–284; SIMON 1997, 125–143 etc.36 SIMON 1986.37 BAUMBACH 2004.38 SCHOLL 2007, 42–173.

12 Florin Gogâltan

Whereas in the study of Antiquity one may correlate archaeological finds with written sources, in the case of Prehistory it is harder to determine which were the offerings for the Gods.

Fig. 3. Sălacea “Dealul Vida”. The plan of “megaron-temple” (after CHIDIOŞAN/ORDENTLICH 1975).

Based on ethnographic observations, J. Levy discovered some general criteria defining rituals that, in my opinion, may be still considered valid: “There are several generalizations about material remains of offering rituals which can be drawn from this survey: (1) You can expect ritual remains to be located in some special limited location, forbidden to or hidden from most of the population. (2) You can expect ritual remains to be a special subclass of the community’s material culture, characterized by restrictions of form, color, quality etc. (3) You can expect ritual remains to be arranged in special required patterns. (4) You can expect ritual remains to be associated with remains of food, such as ritual meals, slaughtering, and libations”39.

There are archaeologists, especially Germans, as well as other specialists anchored in the German literature, who are more concerned with methodology and less with a theoretical approach40. They adopted a more neutral point of view concerning the concept of commu-nication with the Gods41. According to them, the offerings were Gifts to the Gods42 or Gaben an die Götter43. For those deities, people were ready to sacrifice golden vessels and even humans44. Other methods of analysis focus on the order of offering the goods. Horst Kirchner proposed to arrange these practices according to the geographical space, the chronological and cultural horizon, the category of deposited goods, the place of the offering, the person

39 LEVY 1981, 176.40 The new generations of German specialists were also influenced by the debates from the Anglo-American

literature. See: BERNBECK 1997; BERTEMES/BIEHL 2001, 11–24; MÜLLER F. 2002; ZIPF 2003, 9–16; METZNER-NEBELSICK 2003a, 99–117 etc. More recently TRACHSEL 2008, 1–5.

41 GLADIGOW 1984, 19–43; BURKERT 1987, 43–50.42 GREGORY 1980, 626–652; van STRATEN 1981, 65–151; LINDERS/NORDQUIST 1987.43 HÄNSEL/HÄNSEL 1997.44 The Tn 316 tablet from Pylos cited at the end of this article is a well-known example. A discussion on this

subject, starting with the representations on the frescoes from Knossos may be found in BOULOTIS 1987, 145–155.


making the sacrifice, the reason, the goal and the receiver of the offering45. According to Hermann Müller-Karpe, when dealing with the question of sacrifice and the cultic structures in Europe (without including the Mycenaean world), more important are the place, the way and the cathegories of offerings. As cultic places he took into consideration swamps, rivers, caves, hill and mountain tops, as well as settlements. He analysed several of the procedures in which offerings were deposited, such as sinking, burial and burning. The ritual deposited goods were represented by weapons, jewelry, tools, vessels with contents, animals respectively parts of animals and other cultic objects46.

In the debate about spiritual life, it will also be useful to trace some general aspects concerning the problem of Bronze Age tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin. The artificial mounds began to draw the attention of specialists already in the beginning of the 18th century47. Starting with the second half of the 19th century, these settlements had been archaeologi-cally investigated with the methods available at that time48. After publishing the first results of the excavations49, experts like Flóris Rómer50, Luigi Pigorini51, Rudolf Virchow52, Johanna Mestorf53 and later Lajos Márton54 and Vere Gordon Childe55 related the settlements of Tószeg, Nagyrév, Füzesabony, Pecica, Periam, etc, with the so-called terramare from Northern Italy. In an article written in 1937, Ferencz Tompa was the first one to associate the multilayered settlements in Hungary with those in the Near East, naming them with the general term of tells56. Several scholars, such as Pál Patay57, Nándor Kalicz58, István Bóna59, János Makkay60, John Chapman61 etc., debated the problem of the tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin, but they didn’t propose a definition. N. Kalicz and P Pál Raczky classified tells into “genuine tell

45 KIRCHNER 1968, 386–389: “Geographischer Bereich”, “Zeitstellung und Kulturzugehörigkeit”, “Gegenstand des Opfers”, “Umstände des Opfers”, “Spender des Opfers”, “Anlass des Opfers (des Opferns)”, “Sinn des Opfers (des Opferns)”, “Empfänger des Opfers”.

46 MÜLLER-KARPE 1980, 682: “An Deponierungsplätzen kommen in Betracht: Moore, Gewässer, Höhlen, vor allem Spalthöhlen, Anhöhen, aber auch Siedlungen; an Behandlungsarten: Versenken, Vergraben oder Verbrennen; an rituell deponierten Gegenständen: Waffen, Schmuck, Geräte, Gefäße mit Inhalt, Tiere bzw. Teile von Tieren und ausgesprochene Kultobjekte.”.

47 The earliest reliable information concerning the existence of some fortified elements that surrounded the artificial mounds is provided by Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli (1658–1730). He mentioned and sketched the defense system of the Feudvar tell that he had seen in 1693 in his work Danubius Pannonico-Mysicus (1726) (NEBEHAY 1981, 75–88). See also GOGÂLTAN 2008, 41–42, Fig. 3/1.

48 KUBINYI 1861, 104–113.49 KUBINYI 1861, 104–113 (Gomba “Várhegy”); FOLTINY 1870, 442–455 (Szihalom “Árpádvár = Földvár”) etc.50 RÓMER 1878, 18–38.51 PIGORINI 1876, 230–241.52 VIRCHOW 1876, 243–255.53 MESTORF 1876.54 MÁRTON 1910, 86–87.55 CHILDE 1929, 216, 263–264 etc.56 TOMPA 1937, Pl. 39 “Unsere Abb. zeigt das Höherwachsen des Tells durch Erneuerung der Häuser an der

gleichen Stelle”.57 PATAY 1938, 29, 32, 57 (“Tell-förmig”).58 KALICZ 1965, 31 “in geschichtete Siedlung (Schnitt-Tiefe von 50–150 cm) mit Tell-Eigenschaften”.59 BÓNA 1975, 16–17 “Der Tell ist ein mehrschichtiger, aus dem Flachland emporragender Siedlungsrest.

Damit die Schichten entsthehen, müssen sich nicht unbedingt mehrere Kulturen an derselben Stelle ansiedeln, doch kommt das wegen der günstigen Lage oft vor. Die Tells stammen von Bewohnern, die seßhaft waren, vornehmlich intensiv wirtschafteten und Mehrfelderwirtschaft betriben. Zu ihrer Entstehung ist also die Kenntnis der Mehrfelderwirtschaft notwendig”.

60 MAKKAY 1982, 104–106.61 CHAPMAN 1989, 39 “a physical and social expression of continuity with the ancestors, who once lived in

the same place”.

14 Florin Gogâltan

settlements“, and “tell-like settlements“62. Genuine tell settlements were described as having a stratigraphy of 3–4 m and a long period of living, while tell-like settlements were occupied for a shorter period of time and had a stratigraphy of maximum 1 to 2.5 m. This definition was adopted by other scholars as well63.

Fig. 4. Nižná Myšl’a (after GASAJ 1994).

Taking into consideration all these opinions and the existing realities in the Carpathian Basin, I include in the category of tells those multilayered settlements which have been created by accumulation of successive sequences of building and rebuilding of surface houses, created in the wattle and daub technique64. I established a catalogue of tell settlements based on this definition and on the principle that these multilayered settlements belong to a certain archaeological culture. According to the number of layers and their thickness, I proposed to divide them into tell settlements and tell-like settlements. Furthermore, I suggested to consider tells those sites with over 1 m stratigraphy and with 3 or more layers. The tell-like settlements represent those cases with at least two archaeological levels and a stratigraphy up to 1 m height. As for those settlements which weren’t archeologically researched but have the structure and materials similar to those usually present in tell settlements, I included them in another category: mound-like settlements65.

Based on these criteria, I took into account 188 settlements, as shown on the map (Fig. 1). As it may be seen, they are concentrated in different areas of the Carpathian Basin: along the high terrace of the Danube, on the lower course of the Mureş river, the lower plains of the Tisa, Criş, Barcău and Er rivers, the hilly area on the north-eastern part

62 KALICZ/RACZKY 1987, 15. 63 MEIER-ARENDT 1991, 77–85. 64 Terminological aspects were discussed in several articles: GOGÂLTAN 2002B, 11–45; GOGÂLTAN 2003a,

224; GOGÂLTAN 2003b, 45–93; GOGÂLTAN 2005a, 161 etc.65 Recent additions appear in LINK 2006, 7–14. See the comments regarding my opinions and those of

Thomas Link in HORVÁTH 2009, 159–165.


of Budapest (the hills of Gödölö) and the foot of the Bükk mountains. Chronologically speaking, they are representative for a period of 1000 years, approximately between 2500 B.C. and 1500 B.C.66.

What kind of information offered the Bronze Age tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin concerning spiritual life? Writing about the cult places in the Mycenaean settlements, Gabriele Albers divided them in five categories: 1. cult places inside homes (“Kultstätten in Häusern”); 2. cult places with protective function in profane spaces (“Kultausstattung mit religiöser Schutzfunktion im Profanbereich”)67; 3. shrine-gates (“Torheiligtümer”); 4. cult places in palaces (“Kultstätten in Palästen”); 5. public sanctuaries (“Stadtheiligtümer”)68. Discussing the Bronze Age rituals in Slovakia, Václav Furmánek and Jozef Vladár referred to three aspects to be taken into consideration: 1. the so-called built “sanctuary”, 2. offerings with a ritual character and 3. cultic objects69. Considering the second point in the list of difficulties, Andrea Stapel estab-lished three major types of ritual offerings in settlements: ceramic deposits (Keramikdeposition), graves in settlements (Siedlungsbestattung) and the pits or other features with ritual significance (Opfergrube/-befund)70.

When trying to find traces of spiritual manifestations in a settlement, certain discov-eries must be taken into account such as: 1. cult structures (sanctuaries or other features with ritual function)71; 2. “deviant burials” (“Sonderbestattungen”); 3. ritual deposits of ceramics or metal artifacts; 4. artifacts with ritual function (idols, vessels with symbolic representations, altars etc.); 5. fireplaces with ritual function. Besides the already mentioned discoveries, one should take into consideration that there must have been other categories of objects or places in the settlement with special meanings. One may suppose the existence of wooden idols, following the examples of Northern Europe, England or Ireland, where such items were discovered and

66 GOGÂLTAN 2005a, 161–179.67 In which category may be included the placing of idols at the entrance in a house, on fireplaces, against the

walls or in workshops etc.68 ALBERS 1994, 7–8. See also the synthesis proposed by Helene Whittaker (WHITTAKER 1997).69 FURMÁNEK/VLADÁR 1996, 497.70 STAPEL 1999, 19.71 Still a valid theory that establishes the characteristics of a cult place is the “List of Correlates” proposed by

C. Renfrew. He argued that: “1. Ritual may take place in a spot with special, natural associations: e.g. a cave, a grove of trees, a spring, a mountain top. 2. Alternatively it may take place in a special building set apart from sacred function. 3. It may involve both conspicuous public display, and hidden exclusive mysteries, whose practice will be reflected in the architecture. 4. Worship will involve prayer and special movements – gesture of adoration – and these may be reflected in the iconography of decorations or images. 5. The ritual may employ devices for inducing religious experience, such as dance, music and drugs. 6. The structure and equipment used may employ a number of attention-focusing devices, reflected in the architecture and in the movable equipment. 7. The association with the omnipotent power(s) may be reflected in the use of a cult image of the power, or its an-iconic representation. 8. The chosen place will have special facilities for the practice of ritual, e.g. altars, benches, pools or basins of water, hearths, pits for libations. 9. The sacrifice of animals or humans may be practiced. 10. Food and drink may be brought, and possibly consumed as offerings, or burnt/poured away. 11. Other material objects may be brought and offered (votives). The act of offering may entail breakage. 12. Special portable equipment may be employed in the cult practice, e.g. special receptacles, lamps etc. 13. The sacred area is likely to be rich in repeated symbols (redundancy). 14. The symbols used will often relate from an iconographic point of view to the deities worshipped and their associated myth. In particular specific animal symbolism (of real or mythical animals) may be employed, particular animals relating to specific deities or powers. 15. The symbolism used may relate to that seen also in funerary rituals, and in other rites of passage. 16. Concepts of cleanliness and pollution may be reflected in the facilities and maintenance of sacred area. 17. Great investment of wealth may be reflected both in the equipment used and in the offerings made. 18. Great investment of wealth and resources may be reflected in the structure itself and its facilities” (RENFREW 1985, 19–20).

16 Florin Gogâltan

were interpreted as being representations of certain deities72. Probably there also existed sacred trees, pillars73 and stones with supernatural powers74.

Fig. 5. Pocsaj–“Leányvár”(after BÓNA 1992).

In the first category (cult structures) should be probably included a house from Tiszaug “Kéménytető”75. This has the exterior walls decorated with geometric motifs similar to those on the ceramics of the Nagyrév culture76 (Fig. 2). The sacred symbolism of the decorations77, and the fact that these don’t have any analogy in the Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin78, might indicate that the building had a special function in the community. And if we cannot consider it to be a sanctuary, we may at least interpret it as the dwelling of an important member of the local community, a member who was perhaps in charge with religious practices.

The detailed research of the tell in Sălacea “Dealul Vida” led by Ivan Ordentlich between 1964–1969, made possible the discovery of a so-called “megaron-temple” in this area79. The building was placed in the Southern part of the settlement, at the periphery. However, it was not isolated from the community, as the only access into the fortification was in that area. The construction was rectangular with the dimensions of 8.80m × 5.20m, being oriented North-West-South-East (Fig. 3). It consisted of three rooms: a porch with one opened side, a small rectangular room and a large rectangular one. No archaeological material was discovered in the entrance area. The second room (the vestibule) had a square, clay platform, probably suspended. Near it were discovered compact pieces of coal along with small, broken pottery fragments. The third room, and the largest one, contained two clay altar pieces of a certain height above the floor, which presented traces of repeated burning.

72 More recently COLES 1990, 315–333 with bibliography.73 EVANS 1901, 99–204; NILSSON 1950, 262–288; BRUNAUX 1993, 57–65.74 VLADÁR 1973, 294. “Auf dem Opferplatz der Otomani-Kultur in Spišský Štvrtok fand man drei massive,

herzförmig zugehauene Travertinsteine” (FURMÁNEK/VELIAĆIK/VLADÁR 1999, 170).75 CSÁNYI/STANCZIK 1992, 116, 118.76 KALICZ-SCHREIBER 1990, 59–107.77 SCHREIBER 1984, 3–28; CSÁNYI 1992, 83–84.78 The decoration from a house in Feudvar is very different (HÄNSEL/MEDOVIĆ 1991, Abb. 10).79 ORDENTLICH 1972, 71, 83, Fig. 5–6; CHIDIOŞAN/ORDENTLICH 1975, 15–26.


On them were found 9 clay pyramid-shaped loom-weights, 3 stone knives and 1 clay support (Pl. I). These were the only objects found in the third room. It is important to mention that the interior wall was decorated and some of its areas were painted in white.

1 2

Fig. 6. 1 – Pecica–“Şanţul Mare”(after Soroceanu 1991). 2 – Feudvar (after HÄNSEL/MEDOVIĆ 1991).

The researchers who discovered this building interpreted it as being a “megaron-temple”80. There are more scholars like John M. Coles and A.F. Harding who acknowledged the special function of this building in their writing regarding the European Bronze Age81. Kurt Horedt82, Tibór Kovács83 and more recently, Klavs Randsborg84 in his analysis about war and sacrifice in the prehistory of Europe considered it a megaron. Comparing it with the megara from the Mycenaean world, we may find some obvious similarities as well as certain differences such as the lack of columns in the porch and the absence of the fireplace in the central room (Pl. II). This may be probably explained by the fact that this building is older than those of the Mycenaean and Minoan worlds and it has a different geographical location and cultural background. It is also well known that there are certain differences among the megara themselves85.

80 Unfortunately, the first publication in an international language about this unusual Bronze Age building from the Carpathian Basin by Tiberiu Bader is not complete and contains errors (BADER 1990, 182–183 Abb. 1–2). For example: the building is situated in the Southern part of the tell and not in “im südöstlichen Teil” as the author claims (BADER 1990, 182); the plan of the building is presented more simple than the original one (BADER 1990, Abb. 2); the archaeologists who excavated there, didn’t ignore “ob etwa das griechische Megaron hier als Vorbild gedient haben könnte” (BADER 1990, 183). This hypothesis is reflected even in the title of Nicolae Chidioşan and I. Ordentlich’s article which refers to a megaron-temple. Their conclusion is that “the entire assembly imitates megaron constructions which are specific for the Greek culture” (CHIDIOŞAN/ORDENTLICH 1975, 20).

81 COLES/HARDING 1979, 86–88, Fig. 33.82 HOREDT 1988, 155, Abb. 3–4.83 KOVÁCS 1992, 77 “... das als Tempel oder Heiligtum fungiert haben dürfte”.84 RANDSBORG 1995, 121, Fig. 33.85 DARCQUE 1990, 21–31; JUNG 2000, 75–77.

18 Florin Gogâltan

Fig. 7. Tószeg–“Laposhalom”(after BANNER/BÓNA/MÁRTON 1959).

We may also include in the category of cult structures a stone block (1.01m × 1.41m × 0.57m), discovered in the area of the acropolis at Spišský Štrvtok “Myšia hôrka = Barimberg”, which was considered by J. Vladár to be an “Opferplatte”. Its special significance may be proved by two incin-eration urns which contain the cremated remains of two children, together with numerous incin-erated animal bones and the remains of the offerings deposited there86. It is more than probable that there were more buildings in the tell settlements with special purposes than those which were discovered until now. Some were identified by excavating entire settlements like the one at Sălacea or larger areas as in the case of Spišský Štvrtok were 6600 m2 were investigated87.

The second and the third categories of archaeological data are the offerings with ritual purposes. Out of these, one group is represented by “deviant” burials (“Sonderbestattungen”) of people and animals88. In almost all the tell settlements, that were systematically researched and where bone analysis were also made, were found human remains as well. Burying human and animal remains in houses or near them is not a surprising behavior, being an old practice. There are many examples dating back to Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic89, as well as to the Bronze Age90, Iron Age91 and even later92.

86 VLADÁR 1973, 294. FURMÁNEK/VLADÁR 1996, 502 talks about “eine Brandbestattung eines Tires”.87 VLADÁR 1975, 2–24.88 For the definition of this term see WAHL 1994, 85–106. I quoted a more recent article (ASPÖCK 2008,

17–34) as well as the other studies from MURPHY 2008. See also CHAPMAN 2010, 30–45; KOŁODZIEJ 2011, 141–358; NOTROFF 2011, 143 (“Generally, in archaeology special or deviant burials mean all burials 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”).

89 HAPP 1991; VEIT 1996.90 RITTERSHOFER 1997; STAPEL 1999, 203–255. A recently published article about this kind of discoveries

from the Carpathian Basin is URÁK/MARTA 2011, 155–162. 91 CAPELLE 1987, 182–205. I also quote some articles about these kinds of Iron Age complexes from Romania

SÎRBU 1993; AILINCĂI 2008, 9–33; GOGÂLTAN/APAI/KELEMEN 2008, 109–124 etc.92 MAKIEWICZ 1988; RIND 1996.


Twenty-four pits containing human bones and entire skeletons along with three “Pithosbestattungen” with children remains were found at Nitriansky Hrádok “Zámeček”93 (Pl. III/2–6). In the case of “deviant” burials (“Sonderbestattungen”), one notices the deposit in the same pit of several individuals, some presenting certain marks of violence: Spišský Štvrtok94, Carei “Bobald”95 (Pl. III/1), Nižná Myšľa “Várhegy”96 (Pl. IV/2). Entire skeletons of adults and children (Nitriansky Hrádok, Jászdózsa “Kápolnahalom”97) or some separate anatomic parts (three skull calottes) were discovered under the floor of a building in Semlac “Livada lui Onea”98, and at Andrid “Curtea grajdurilor”99 (Pl. IV/1). Concerning the existence of certain practices which suppose the depositing of animals or parts of animals as offerings100, an example can be Jászdózsa. There, an incomplete dog skeleton was recovered from one of the walls of a house101 (Pl. V/1, 3). A similar case of “building offering” was considered a dog skull discovered at Tószeg “Laposhalom”102. Among the recent findings at Jászdózsa was a small pit located in the defense ditch which contained 10–12 animal skulls of aurochs, deer, bear and boar103. In a ritual pit from Nitriansky Hrádok an entire calf skeleton was unearthed104 and there are many other similar examples (Pl. V/2).

Another archaeological category among ritual offerings are the ceramic deposits (“Keramikdepotfund”)105. When referring to these specific offerings, we should mention 2 cases in which the deposit was connected to the fireplace. For example, at Corneşti “Dealul Cornet”, 23 vessels were found on a fireplace106. Out of them, 19 were drinking vessels, 2 were large dishes, one represented a big, globular vessel and another one was a strainer. At Vărşand “Movila dintre vii” = “Laposhalom”, several drinking vessels were discovered in a decorated fireplace107. Another example is a group of 6 cups placed under the floor of a house from Nižná Myšl’a108 (Fig. 4).

93 It concerns the pits: 3, 27, 28, 105, 116, 120, 134, 216, 220, 228, 230, 237, 242, 243, 252, 266, 268, 285, 296–298, 306 and 325. Children “Pithosbestattungen” were found in Sektor G/18, H/22 and N/22 (TOČÍK 1981).

94 JAKAB 1978, 139–141.95 NÉMETI 1996, 29–30, Fig. 12/3.96 JAKAB/OLEXA/VLADÁR 1999, 91–127.97 A child was buried under the floor of a house, together with a funerary inventory consisting of three golden

rings (CSÁNYI/STANCZIK/TÁRNOKI 2000, 151, 165).98 Archaeological researches by Florin Gogâltan 1994.99 In this tell-like settlement, a ditch having the walls and the bottom burned to red, was studied (the length at

the top is 1.30 m and at the bottom is 1.05 m). In the researched area of 4.70 m, a lot of sherds were found, along with charcoal and human bones of several people. The fragments of long bones, vertebrae and skulls were not placed in anatomic position. Also, the human bones were covered with ash and ceramic fragments, but they didn’t present any secondary burning marks. The function of this complex inside the settlement couldn’t be explained, due to incomplete researches (NÉMETI 1996, 28–29 Fig.: 11/3; 12/1, 2, 4–7).

100 See CAPELLE 1985, 498–501; CAPELLE 1987, 182–205, for the older literature. A more recent perspective appears in KOŁODZIEJ 2011, 141–358.

101 VÖRÖS 1996, 69–88.102 STANCZIK 1980, 67, 76 Ábr. 6.103 STANCZIK/TÁRNOKI 1992, 127 “Hier handelt es sich möglicherweise um ein Bauopfer nach Beendigung

des Grabenbaus”.104 TOČÍK 1981, Plan 71/4.105 EIBNER 1969, 19–52; STAPEL 1999, 76–117. Regarding this subject I have recently published an article

where the bibliography may be found (GOGÂLTAN/NÉMETH/APAI 2011, 163–183). In Stapel’s opinion: “Unter Keramikdeposition wird die Niederlegung eines oder mehrerer vollständiger oder z.T. stark beschädigter Gefäße verstanden” (STAPEL 1999, 19)

106 RADU 1972, 272–277 Fig. 3–7.107 DOMONKOS 1908, 75–76, Ábr. VI.108 GAŠAJ 1994, 81–86.

20 Florin Gogâltan

There were many debates concerning the role played by the metal hoards in a settlement. The core of the discussions was the sacred versus profane character of those deposits109. Some recent discoveries, such as the second deposit from Včelince “Lászlófala”110 (Pl. VI/2–3) or the one from Jászdózsa111 (Pl. VI/1), both under the dwellings’ floors, are cases of intentional burials with religious character. As M. Eliade argued, metallurgy was regarded as a spiritual activity as well112. There are tell settlements, like those at Pecica “Şanţul Mare”113 and Mošorin “Feudvár”114, where metal workshops were identified115. The archaeological discoveries suggest that similar workshops must have existed in other settlements too116. Beyond their main purpose of supplying with metal products the local and the neighborhood commu-nities, such settlements also received spiritual powers. This was a consequence of the smith’s position in the society due his knowledge in working the metals.

Archaeological researches made in Bronze Age tell settlements from the Carpathian Basin led to the discovery of a great number of objects that may have been used in religious practices. The clay figurines constitute the first category of such objects117. These are stylized figurines of human, animals, weapons and tools etc.118. In comparison to the Neolithic and Copper Age, in the Bronze Age the animal idols were more spread than the human ones. There are two main types of such objects: with a sketched head, decorated or not (Košice “Barca”, Nižná Myšl’a “Várhegy”, Spišský Štvrtok119 – Pl. VII/1–8) and with a mobile one (Tibolddaróc “Bércút”120, Sălacea121 – Pl. VII/9–10). However, if they were not found in an evident ritual context, it is hard to establish whether these clay objects were representations of certain individuals122,

109 MOZSOLICS 1987, 93–98; CSÁNYI/STANCZIK/TÁRNOKI 2000, 164–165.110 FURMÁNEK/MARKOVÁ 1996, 137–146.111 CSÁNYI/STANCZIK/TÁRNOKI 2000, 149–151, 164–165.112 ELIADE 1991b.113 GOGÂLTAN 1999, 100–101, 127–128.114 HÄNSEL/MEDOVIĆ 2004, 83–111.115 See also the article published in the same volume by Alexandra Găvan.116 See the recent discoveries from Nižná Myšľa “Várhegy” (OLEXA 2003, Tab.: VII; XI; XIII) or Včelince

(FURMÁNEK/MARKOVÁ 2008, Obr. 21).117 KOSSACK 1954, 2. 118 KOVÁCS 1990a, 31–51; BÖKÖNYI 1992, 69 Fig. 30; KOVÁCS 1992, 77 Fig. 39; MARKOVÁ 2001,

353–364. Recently OLEXA 2003, Tab. XXII.119 FURMÁNEK/VELIAĆIK/VLADÁR 1999, 170; MARKOVÁ 2001, Abb.: 3/1–5, 7–8; 4/1, 3–4.120 BALÁSZ 1907, Ábr. 17.121 ORDENTLICH 1967, 147–154.122 Such interpretation was offered by D.W. Bailey for the Chalcolithic figurines in South-Eastern Europe (BAILEY

1994, 321–331). A more convincing analysis of these idols was proposed by BIEHL 2003; HANSEN 2007.

Fig. 8. 1 – Tószeg–“Laposhalom”. 2 – Dunaújváros–“Dunapentele-Koziderpadlás”.

3 – Mende–“Leányvár”(after KOVÁCS 1988).

1

2b

2a

3b

3a


“toys”123, or idols124. Nevertheless, the last hypothesis must be considered the least plausible125. The animal idols were found in almost all tell settlements and they were inspired by the domestic and wild fauna of that time: pigs, sheep, horses, oxen, bears etc.126. The miniature clay representations of some weapons as a double axe at Jászdózsa, provide other information concerning the cults practiced during the Bronze Age127. The functionality of such objects is still debated but a great number of scholars argue that such artifacts had ritual purpose128. Miniature vessels, as for example those discovered at Vărşand, were labeled as toys129, but they could have also been models for ceramic pots.

Another specific category of objects, characteristic for the tell settlements, were the miniature clay wagons: Békés “Várdomb”, Pir “Cetate = Vársziget”, Pocsaj “Leányvár” (Fig. 5), Săcueni “Cetatea Boului = Ökörvár = Ökördomb“, Sălacea, Töröksezentmiklós “Terehalomról”, Vărşand, Derşida “Dealul lui Balotă” (Pl. VIII/1–4, 7, 9) etc.130. Besides these, a great number of wagon wheels decorated with all sorts of ornaments or undecorated were found131 (Pl. VIII/6, 8, 10). There are also cases in which the wagons present animal protoma (Derşida132), that were not precisely identified (horse?) (Pl. VIII/9). The special character of these miniature clay wagons is indicated by their discovery in necropolis like that of the tell settlement from Nižná Myšľa133. Besides wagons, a large variety of small altars with or without legs, circular or rectangular (Bakonszeg “Kádárdomb” = “Kórógypuszta”134, Berettyóújfalu “Herpály-Földvár” = “Herpályidomb”135, Derşida136, Jászdózsa137, Pecica138, Tarcal “Mézmájtető”139, Feudvar140 etc.) was discovered (Fig. 6). These objects must have served as house altars upon which small offers could have been burnt or placed141. In the same group may be included the fireplaces, especially the decorated ones (Tiszafüred “Ásotthalom”142,

123 A recent discussion concerning such objects contemporary with those from the tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin in DIETRICH 2011, 87–106.

124 GIMBUTAS 1974; GIMBUTAS 1999, 3–42.125 A debate about the possibility to identify them as deities of the Bronze Age see at RENFREW 1985, 22–23.126 HAIMOVICI 1987, 37–54; BÖKÖNYI 1992, 69–72; FURMÁNEK/VELIAĆIK/VLADÁR 1999, 132–

133. See, for example, the animal idols from Alsóvadász “Várdomb” (KALICZ 1968, Taf. LIX/7–15; CSÁNYI/TÁRNOKI 1992, 417–419); Jászdózsa (CSÁNYI/TÁRNOKI 1992, 403–413), Szihalom “Árpádvár = Földvár” (KALICZ 1968, Taf. LXXXI/1, 3–11)), Tibolddaróc (BALÁSZ 1907, Ábr. 3–16; KALICZ 1968, Taf. LXIV/1–18); Tiszaluc “Dankadomb” (KALICZ 1968, Taf. XLV/13) etc.

127 STANCZIK/TÁRNOKI 1992, 125; CSÁNYI/TÁRNOKI 1992, 205 nr. 421. See also the new discoveries at Včelince (FURMÁNEK/MARKOVÁ 2008, Obr. F. 10).

128 BUCHHOLZ 1959.129 BANNER 1959, 245–252.130 BÓNA 1960, 83–111; ORDENTLICH/CHIDIOŞAN 1975, 27–44; MESTERHÁZY 1976, 223–230;

BÓNA 1992, 73–75; SCHUSTER 1996, 117–137; TÁRNOKI 1999, 165–177.131 BÓNA 1960, 92–93. New views and discoveries on this matter appear in BOROFFKA 2004, 347–354;

KOVÁCS 2006, 39–43, Abb. 4 (Füzesabony “Öregdomb”).132 CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Pl. 25/7, 9.133 OLEXA 1982, 390–391, Abb.: 1; 2/2.134 MÁTHÉ 1988, Pl. 21/4.135 MÁTHÉ 1992, Abb. 129.136 CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Pl. 26.137 CSÁNYI/TÁRNOKI 1992, 447.138 SOROCEANU 1991, Taf.: 32/5, 15; 39/3.139 KALICZ 1968, Taf. LVIII/16.140 HÄNSEL/MEDOVIĆ 1991, Taf. 23.141 Similar altars were also identified in the cemeteries of the middle Bronze Age (BÓNA 1975, Taf.: 221/18;

222/4; 230/7; 232/14; 236/10 – Királyszentistván).142 BÓNA 1975, Taf. 197/2.

22 Florin Gogâltan

Tószeg143, Vărşand144 etc.), a hypothesis recently suggested by Christian Schuster145 (Fig. 7). More than probable, a ritual purpose must have had the smoking vessels (“Tonröhren”), like the ones found in the tell settlement from Derşida146 (Pl. VIII/11–12).

Among the archaeological sources important for interpreting the ritual practices in the tell settlements one may also include the pottery. Although this is usually analyzed from the perspective of its functionality when ceramic objects are found in ritual contexts, they gain special values. One good example is a pyraunos from Spišský Štvrtok which was found in a pit, together with 9 human skeletons147. Without any doubt, a certain role in the ritual practices must have had those vessels which depict the shape of a bird (bird-shaped askoi, bird-shaped vessels): Dunaújváros “Dunapentele-Koziderpadlás”, Füzesabony “Öregdomb” = “Nagyhalom” = “Cigánydomb”, Jászdózsa, Malé Kosihy “Törökdomb”, Nitriansky Hrádok, Pákozd, Santovka “Nad Búrom” = Maďarovce = Malinovec etc.148 (Pl. IX). Among the vessels with special meanings we may include those with anthropomorphic representations due to their rarity and symbolic decorations: Igar “Vámpuszta-Galástya”149, Mende “Leányvár”150 (Fig. 8/3), Tószeg151 (Fig. 8/1). Connected to such depictions are dagger representations such as the ones on the vessels discovered in Mende152 or in Tószeg153 (Fig. 8/1, 3) or the one which suggests an ax, on a vessel from Pákozd “Várhegy”154. Along with these examples it was proved that a certain category of vessels, the so-called “Gefäße mit säulenartigen Henkeln”, were used to pour liquids in offerings (Nitriansky Hrádok, Túrkeve “Terehalom”, Békés, Vărşand)155 (Pl. X). The symbols existing on vessels contain valuable information. For example, on the pottery discovered in the

143 BANNER/BÓNA/MÁRTON 1959, Abb. 4/1, 24–25.144 BÓNA 1975, Taf. 146/1–7.145 SCHUSTER/COMŞA/POPA 2001.146 CHIDIOŞAN 1980, Pl. 25/11–12. The attention on this category of vessel was drawn by BOROFFKA 1994,

169 („Räuchergefäße”) and mostly by Carol Kacsó. He wrote about the existence of such artifacts („die geschlitzte Tonröhre”) discovered in the open sanctuary that functioned in the time of the communities Wietenberg II and III on the hill called “Ghiile Botii” in Oarţa de Sus (KACSÓ 1998, 255–266). See a presentation of this interesting cult place from the Middle Bronze Age investigated by C. Kacsó and the bibliography in GOGÂLTAN/NÉMETH/APAI 2011, 172 n. 30.

147 FURMÁNEK/VLADÁR 1996, 506.148 KOVÁCS 1972, 7–28; KOVÁCS/STANCZIK 1980, 44–52. More recently SZATHMÁRI 2003, 513–523;

GUBA/SZEVERÉNYI 2007, 75–110 (with the complete list). On the neck of an askos type vessel, accidentally found in the area close to the tell settlement from Tiszafüred, a human face is depicted (KOVÁCS 1990b, 9–27). Together with other discoveries from the Middle Bronze Age, this vessel type may be related to a feminine deity like Hera from the Greek Pantheon (REICH 2005, 231–239). Interesting observations on this subject were also made by Szilvia Guba and Vajk Szeverényi: “In the case of bird-shaped askoi we may assume with some certainty that they were the paraphernalia of rites connected with blood sacrifice, probably carried out at tell settlements, which functioned as religious centers as well. At the same time we may suggest in the case of both the askoi and the bird-shaped vessels that they were used to contain special, valuable, ritually significant perhaps psychoactive liquids as well” (GUBA/SZEVERÉNYI 2007, 87).

149 KOVÁCS 1973, 10 Fig. 5.150 KOVÁCS 1973, 10 Fig. 4. 151 The human face fragment from Tószeg which was initially published in KOVÁCS 1973, 12 Fig. 8, was

proved to be part of a vessel on which a dagger was also represented (KOVÁCS 1988, 81–92).152 KOVÁCS 1973, 7–10, Fig. 1–3. From the tell settlements cemetery in Dunaújváros was unearthed an urn

fragment with a human depiction, together with a dagger similar to the one published in (MAKKAY 1971, 19–28; KOVÁCS 1973, 10–11, Fig. 6).

153 KOVÁCS 1973, 12 Fig. 8; KOVÁCS 1988, 81–92. 154 KOVÁCS 1973, 11 Fig. 7.155 BANNER/BÓNA 1974, 50 Abb. 20; HORVÁTH. L. A. 2000, 169–181. Without questioning the role they

must have played in rituals, Szilvia Honti argued that this type of vessel was mainly used for smoke-drying (HONTI 1994, 6, táb. VI/12).


tell settlements belonging to the Nagyrév culture (Pl. XI), a multitude of human, solar and animal representations may be seen156.

In some tells or tell-like settlements from Slovakia (Košice “Barca”, Nitriansky Hrádok, Spišský Štrvtok, Veselé “Hradisko-Podzámske”, Vráble “Földvár = Fidvár”)157 (Fig. 9) and Hungary (Kisterenye “Hársashegy”, Süttő “Hosszuvölgy”, Tiszafüred)158, was discovered a puzzling type of objects. The so-called “pintadere” (“Brotlaibidole”) made of clay are representative for the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning of the Late Bronze Age in a vast area from Northern Italy to Middle and Lower Danube. Their functionality is still debated. Some scholars believe that they had a practical purpose, being used to decorate ceramics or mark the quality or quantity of amber; others argue that these could have been used like pendants, having a symbolic value159.

***

What do all these discoveries suggest? First of all, they point out that in the Bronze Age tell settlements of the Carpathian Basin, like in the Mycenaean world160, a so-called official cult was practiced in specific buildings, but there also existed a family cult. The fireplace of each

dwelling, the small altar pieces or the miniature wagons made of clay could have been used in cult practices in the house161. On the other hand, altars such as those discovered in the “megaron-temple” at Sălacea could have been destined to serve the entire community. The characteristics of the sanctuary in Sălacea are similar to the classic megara in Mycenae, Pylos and Tiryns dating from a later period. It is difficult to establish if in the case of Sălacea we may suppose the existence of a ruler like wanakas (wa-na-ka) mentioned in the Linear B tablets from Pylos and Knossos162. Even in the Mycenaean world the role played by the wanakas in the megaron remains uncertain163. Some scholars believe that such buildings were used by

156 KALICZ-SCHREIBER 1990, 59–107; CSÁNYI 1992, 83–87.157 BARTÍK/BAČA 1999, 13–25.158 BÁNDI 1974, 237–252.159 The most recent article concerning this type of objects is that of Monica Şandor-Chicideanu where may

be found almost the complete bibliography on this matter (ŞANDOR-CHICIDEANU 2003, 413–428). Unfortunately, for those who don’t have access to the libraries in Germany will not be able to find the complete titles of the literature referring to this type of artifacts. Illustrations of these artifacts, such as those made by Gábor Bandi, Juraj Bartík and R. Bača, would have also been useful. To this bibliography, one should add Gerhard Trinka’s article, from the same publication (TRNKA 2003, 483–486) as well as an earlier article of Michael M. Rind. He published a “Brotlaibidole” discovered in the fortification from Frauenberg hill, placed near Weltenburg Monastery in Southern Germany (RIND 1999, 89–98).

160 HÄGG 1981, 35–39; WRIGHT 1994, 72–76. HÄGG 1996, 387 wrote about “‘the official level’ and ‘the popular level’”.

161 WRIGHT 1994, 57–60.162 KILIAN 1988, 291–302.163 DARCQUE 1990, 21–31; Jung 2000, 71–95.

Fig. 9. 1–3, 6, 7 – Veselé–“Hradisko-Podzámske”. 4–5, 8 – Nitriansky Hrádok–“Zámecek”

(after BARTÍK/BACA 1999).

1 2 3

4 5

6 7 8

0

5 cm

24 Florin Gogâltan

the wanaks/wanakas164 for official political purposes as throne rooms like in Mycenae, Tiryns or Pylos. Others argue that these were also destined for cult practices. In that case, wanakas were in the same time rulers and high priests165. If there is information about the divinities of the Mycenaean and Minoan civilization, in the case of the Bronze Age from the Carpathian Basin very little is known. However, based on analogies with the Greek world, several attempts to reconstruct the Bronze Age Pantheon in Central Europe were made166.

Concerning the tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin, it is arguable that the solar cult was representative in the spiritual life of the human communities. There are various depic-tions of the sun, of water birds on vessels and metal artifacts along with miniature wagons made of clay167, all of them recalling the practice of Zeus’/Apollo’s cult168. An interesting argument is provided by a discovery in Veselé which probably represented a clay boat pulled by two horses recalling Apollo’s chariot169 (Pl. XII/1). The cult of the sun is better known in a later period170, when the Urnfields culture developed in Central Europe. The classical examples are the chariot of Dupljaja (Serbia)171 and Trundholm in the Nordic Bronze Age172 (Pl. XII/2–3).

Besides the cult of the sun, the cult of the dead, known in the Homeric world mostly through funerary discoveries173, must have been practiced in settlements too. Some of the “deviant” burial (“Sonderbestattungen”), identified in the Bronze Age tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin, could be interpreted in this sense174. Human sacrifices might have been addressed to a deity of war, (such as Ares175), as signs of respect and gratitude for the protection offered and/or as a consequence of a military victory obtained by the local community176.

Following the same pattern, we may suggest, that the offerings consisting of food might have represented gifts for some deity of fertility, like the “Great Mother”. This cult survived for millennia177, reinventing itself, in the field of practice, during the Bronze Age178. The stylized

164 KILIAN 1987, 21–38; REHAK 1995a, 95–118. Recently WRIGHT 2006, 9–52.165 PALAIMA 1995, 119–139; STAVRIANOPOULOU 1995, 423–433. Recently PALAIMA 2006, 53–72.166 KOSSACK 1999, 5–20. An attempt to identify, on iconographic basis, the different Minoic and Mycenaean

deities may be found at LAFFINEUR 2001, 387–392.167 NOVOTNÁ 2001, 365–375. A new point of view at GUBA/SZEVERÉNYI 2007, 75–110.168 HEGYI 1989, 5–21; KAUL 1998; PAULÍK 1999, 29–54; PAULÍK 2000, 29–60; PAULÍK 2001,

9–72. Among the recent works debating the whole matter of the solar deity in the Bronze Age, see PAULÍK 2002, 7–16; KAUL 2003, 36–51; KAUL 2004; MARINATOS 2010. For the Greek civilization see LARSON 2007, 86–100.

169 PAULÍK 1999, Obr. 4/1a-b.170 VERHAGEN 1986, 114–148.171 BOŠKOVIĆ 1959, 41–45; GARAŠANIN 1983, 530 T. LXXXIII/1.172 ANER/KERSTEN 1976, Taf. 139; KAUL 2003, 36–51.173 ANDRONIKOS 1968; MARINATOS 1993, mostly the second chapter. J. Bátora and J. Vladár consider

that the image of the chariot on the well-known vessel belonging to Suciu de Sus culture from Velké Raškovce in South-Eastern Slovakia (VIZDAL 1972, Abb. 1), must be related to a funerary practice (BÁTORA/VLADÁR 2001, 178–179). A recent view at GALLOU 2005.

174 RITTERSHOFER 1997; STAPEL 1999, 203–255.175 LARSON 2007, 156–157.176 For the different aspects of human sacrifices in Bronze Age, along with the cited bibliography, see the story of

the events that took place in the Minoic temple of Anemóspilia (SAKELLARAKIS/SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKIS 1981, 205–222). Other ritual gestures in the antic Greece appear at HUGHES 1991 and BONNECHERE 1994. Reinhard Jung has also an interesting analysis about representations of human sacrifices (JUNG 1997, 133–194). New general approaches on this matter in BREMMER 2007; PETER-RÖCHER 2007.

177 GIMBUTAS 1974, 152–200; GIMBUTAS 1999, 127–213. See Demeter and Kore/Persephone from the Greek world (LARSON 2007, 69–85).

178 GOODISON/MORRIS 1998, 113–132; YIANNOULI 1998, 65–84.


animal idols might be considered symbols of certain types of offerings destined to protect the health and the prosperity of the herds179. Offerings consisting of drinking vessels such as those from Corneşti or Vărşand make us think to the same “Great Mother” or to a God like Dionysus, form the Mycenaean world180. The grape kernels discovered in tells181 indicate that wine was obtained like in the Aegean world182. In libation practices, wine wasn’t the only drink used; water, oil, milk, mead, beer were sometimes part of the ritual too183.

Like in the Minoan civilization184, or in other regions185, the cult of the double axe (labrys) seems to have existed in the tell settlements of the Carpathian Basin as well. A “hero cult”186 or a God like Hephaestus could have inspired the offerings consisting in weapons and other metal objects187. One must not ignore the deities of the house, to whom animals or other types of offerings were given like in other historical periods (“Bauopfern”)188. Good examples for such practices are the discovery of a dog skull placed in the wall of a house in Jászdózsa or the vessel deposit found under the floor of a house in Nižna Myšla. The everyday respect shown to house Gods (similar to Hestia/Vesta in the Greco-Roman Pantheon) might explain the care with which the fireplaces were made or to the great number of small clay altars189.

Unfortunately, our knowledge about the religious life and the practices performed in Bronze Age tell settlements of the Carpathian Basin, is very limited. However, even if we are not acquainted with the names of Gods venerated in this area, the archaeological discoveries provide various hints about their existence190. The inhabitants of Bronze Age tell settlements must have also acknowledged, like those in Mycenaean Greece, Orient or Egypt, the strength of Gods’ power along with the price to pray and pay for their protection:

For Poseidon: one golden cup, two womenFor Zeus: one golden bowl, one manFor Hera: one golden bowl, one womanFor Hermes: one golden cup, one man191.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AILINCĂI 2008S.C. AILINCĂI, The Place for the Dead in Early and Middle Iron Age Lower Danube Area. In: V. Sârbu/D. L. Vaida (Eds.), Funerary Practices of the Bronze and Iron Ages in Central and South-Eastern Europe. Proceedings of the 9th International Colloquium of Funerary Archaeology. Bistriţa, Romania May 9th–11th, 2008 (Cluj-Napoca 2008), 9–33.

179 HAMILAKIS/KONSOLAKI 2004, Fig. 5.180 ANTONELLI 1996, 169–176; KONSOLAKI-YNNOPOULOU 2001, 213–220. See as well WRIGHT

2004; WHITTAKER 2008, 89–96; LARSON 2007, 126–143.181 For the discoveries in the Carpathian Basin see FACSAR/JEREM 1985, 121–144.182 PALMER 1994.183 Recent contributions on this topic appear in GOGÂLTAN/NÉMETH/APAI 2011, 173, with the bibliography.184 See HAYSOM 2010, 35–55, with an extent bibliography on this subject.185 BOUZEK 1985, 41–46.186 See the works from HÄGG 1999. Recently LARSON 2007, 183–187, 196–207.187 LARSON 2007, 159–160.188 See MEDELEŢ 1991, 82 with some important bibliographical references. The comparison with other spaces

and cultural realities should be also taken into consideration (RECH 1981, 505–528).189 For this, see the classic work of Denis Fustel de Coulanges “The Ancient City” (“La Cité antique”), published

in 1864; LARSON 2007, 160–162.190 HÄNSEL 2000, 331–344; BOUZEK 2000, 345–354.191 Pylos Table Tn 316 after MYLONAS 1966, 136.

26 Florin Gogâltan

ALBERS 1994G. ALBERS, Spätmykenische Stadtheiligtümer. Systematische Analyse und vergleichende Auswertung der archäologischen Befunde (Oxford 1994).

ANDERS ET AL. 2010AL. ANDERS/Z. CZAJLIK/M. CSÁNYI/N. KALICZ/E.G. NAGY/P. RACZKY/J. TÁRNOKI, Archaeological Register of Tell Settlements in Hungary. Arch. Ért 135, 2010, 147–160.

ANDRONIKOS 1968M. ANDRONIKOS, Totenkult. Archaeologia Homerica, Band III, Kapitel W (Göttingen 1968).

ANER/KERSTEN 1976E. ANER/K. KERSTEN, Die Funde der älteren Bronzezeit des nordischen Kreises in Dänemark, Schleswig-Holstein und Niedersachsen, II, Hlbæk, Sorø und Præstø Amter (Neumünster 1976).

ANTONELLI 1996C. ANTONELLI, Dioniso: una divinità micenea. In: E. de Miro/L. Godart/A. Sacconi (Eds.), Atti e memorie del secondo congresso internazionale di micenologia, Roma-Napoli, 14–20 ottobre 1991 (Roma 1996), 169–176.

ASPÖCK 2008E. ASPÖCK, What Actually is a ‘Deviant Burial’? Comparing German-Language and Anglophone Research on ‘Deviant Burials’. In: MURPHY 2008, 17–34.

BADER 1990T. BADER, Bemerkungen über ägäischen Einflüsse auf die alt– und mittelbronzezeitliche Entwiecklung im Donau-Karpatenraum. In: Orientalisch-Ägäische Einflüsse in der europäischen Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums. Mainz 1985 (Bonn 1990), 181–205.

BAHN 1989P. BAHN, Bluff Your Way in Arcaeology (Horsham 1989).

BAILEY 1994D.W. BAILEY, Reading prehistoric figurines as individuals. World Arch. 23/3, 1994, 321–331.

BALÁSZ 1907B. BALÁSZ, A tibold-daróczi (Borsod megye) bérczúti őstelep (Második közlemény). Arch. Ért. 26, 1906, 346–354.

BÁNDI 1974G. BÁNDI, Über den Ursprung und die historischen Beziehungen der Tonstempel der bronzezeitlichen Gruppen: Madarovče und Polada. Preist. Alpina 10, 1974, 237–252.

BANNER 1959B. BANNER, Kinderspielzeuge im Fundmaterial der bronzezeitlichen Siedlung Gyulavarsánd-Laposhalom. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 9, 1959, 245–252.

BANNER/BÓNA 1974J. BANNER/I. BÓNA, Mittelbronzezeitliche Tell-Siedlung bei Békés (Budapest 1974).

BANNER/BÓNA/MÁRTON 1959J. BANNER/I. BÓNA/L. MÁRTON, Die Ausgrabungen von L. Márton in Tószeg. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 10, 1959, 1–140.

BARRETT 1991J. C. BARRETT, Towards an Archaeology of Ritual. In: P. Garwood/D. Jennings/R. Skeates/ J. Toms (Eds.), Sacred and Profane. Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion. Oxford, 1989 (Oxford 1991), 1–9.

BARRETT 1994J. C. BARRETT, Fragments from Antiquity. An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900–1200 BC (Oxford 1994).

BARROWCLONGH/MALONE 2007D. A. BARROWCLONGH/C. MALONE, Cult in Context. Reconsidering Ritual in Archaeology (Oxford 2007).

BARTÍK/BAČA 1999J. BARTÍK/R. BAČA, Bocghníkové idoly z Veselého. Príspevok k bochníkovým idolom z územia Slovenska. Zborník Slovenského Národ. Múz. – Arch. 93/9, 1999, 13–25.


BÁTORA/VLADÁR 2001J. BÁTORA/J. VLADÁR, Die Kunstäußerung des Nordkarpatenraumes in der Bronzezeit. In: B. Gediga/A. Mierzwiński/W. Piotrowski (Red.), Sztuka epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w europie środkowej/Die Kunst der Bronzezeit und der frühen Eisenzeit im Mitteleuropa (Wrocław-Biskupin 2001), 173–182.

BÁTORA ET AL. 2008J. BÁTORA/B. EITEL/F. FALKENSTEIN/K. RASSMANN, Fidvár bei Vráble – Eine befestigte Zentralsiedlung der Frühenbronzezeit in der Slowakei. In: J. Czebreszuk/S. Kadrow/J. Müller (Eds.), Defensive Structures from Central Europe to the Aegean in the 3rd and 2nd

millennia BC (Poznan/Bonn 2008), 97–107.BÁTORA ET AL. 2012

J. BÁTORA/A. BEHRENS/J. GRESKY/M. IVANOVA/K. RASSMANN/P. TÓTH/ K. WINKELMANN, The Rise and Decline of the Early Bronze Age Settlement, Fidvár near Vráble, Slovakia. In: J. Kneisel/W. Kirleis/M. Dal Corson/N. Tayler/V. Tiedtke (Eds.), Collapse or Continuity? Environment and Development of Bronze Age Human Landscapes. Proceedings of the International Workshop “Socio-Environmental Dynamics over the Last 12.000 Years: The Creation of Landscapes II (14th–18th March 2011)” in Kiel. Volume 1 (Bonn 2012), 111–130.

BAUMBACH 2004J. D. BAUMBACH, The Significance of Votive Offerings in Selected Hera Sanctuaries in the Peloponnese, Ionia and Western Greece (Oxford 2004).

BELL 1992C. BELL, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (Oxford 1992).

BELL 1997C. BELL, Ritual. Perspectives and Dimensions (Oxford 1997).

BERGGREN/NILSSON STUTZ 2010Å. BERGGREN/L. NILSSON STUTZ, From spectator to critic and participant – a new role for archaeology in ritual studies. Journal Social Arch. 10/2, 2010, 171–197.

BERNBECK 1997R. BERNBECK, Theorien in der Archäologie (Tübingen/Basel 1997).

BERTEMES/BIEHL 2001F. BERTEMES/P. F. BIEHL, The Archaeology of Cult and Religion: An Introduction. In: BIEHL/BERTEMES/MELLER 2001, 11–24.

BERTHOLET 1942A. BERTHOLET, Der Sinn des kultischen Opfers. Abhandl. Dt. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 2, 1942, 1–27.

BIEHL 2003P. F. BIEHL, Studien zum Symbolgut des Neolithikums und der Kupferzeit in Südosteuropa (Bonn 2003).

BIEHL/BERTEMES/MELLER 2001P. F. BIEHL/F. BERTEMES/H. MELLER (Eds.), The Archaeology of Cult and Religion (Budapest 2001).

BÖKÖNYI 1992S. BÖKÖNYI, Jagd und Tierzucht. In: W. Meier-Arendt (Hrsg.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main 1992), 69–72.

BOŠKOVIĆ 1959D. Bošković, Quelques observations sur le char cultuel de Dupljaja. Arch. Iugoslavica 3, 1959, 41–45.

BÓNA 1960I. BÓNA, Clay models of Bronze Age Wagons and Wheels in the Middle Danube Basin. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 12, 1960, 83–111.

BÓNA 1975I. Bóna, Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen (Budapest 1975).

28 Florin Gogâltan

BÓNA 1992I. BÓNA, Wagen und Wagenmodelle in den Tell-Kulturen. In: W. Meier-Arendt (Hrsg.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main 1992), 73–75.

BONNECHERE 1994P. BONNECHERE, Le sacrifice humain en Grèce ancienne (Liège 1994).

BOROFFKA 1994N. BOROFFKA, Die Wietenberg-Kultur. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Bronzezeit in Südosteuropa (Bonn 1994).

BOROFFKA 2004N. BOROFFKA, Bronzezeitliche Wagenmodelle im Karpatenbecken. In: M. Fansa/ S. Baumeister (Hrsg.), Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Inovation. Wagen im Vorderen Orient und Europa (Mainz am Rhein 2004), 347–354.

BOULOTIS 1987C. BOULOTIS, Nochmals zum Prozessionsfresko von Knossos: Palast und Darbringung von Prestige-Objekten. In: R. Hägg/N. Marinatos (Eds.), Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 10–16 June, 1984 (Stockholm 1987), 145–155.

BOUZEK 1985J. BOUZEK, The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe: cultural interrelations in the second millenium BC (Praha 1985).

BOUZEK 2000J. BOUZEK, Versuch einer Rekonstruktion des Pantheons der Urnenfelderzeit. In: B. Gediga/ D. Piotrowska (Red.), Kultura symboliczna kręgu pól popielnicowych epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w europie środkowej (Warszawa/Wrcław/Biskupin 2000), 345–354.

BRADLEY 1990R. BRADLEY, The passage of arms. An archaeological analysis of prehistoric hoards and votive deposits (Cambridge 1990).

BRADLEY 2003R. BRADLEY, A Life Less Ordinary: the Ritualization of the Domestic Sphere in Later Prehistoric Europe. Cambridge Arch. Journal 13/1, 2003, 5–23.

BRADLEY 2005R. BRADLEY, Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe (London/New York 2005).

BRANIGAN 1998K. BRANIGAN (Ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield 1998).

BREMMER 2007 J. D. BREMMER, The Strange World of Human Sacrifice (Leuven 2007).

BRÜCK 1999J. BRÜCK, Ritual and rationality: Some problems of interpretation in European archaeology. European Journal Arch. 2/3, 1999, 313–344.

V. BRUNN 1980W. A. v. BRUNN, Eine Deutung spätbronzezeitlicher Hortfunde zwischen Elbe und Weichsel. Ber. RGK 61, 1980, 91–150.

BRUNAUX 1993J.-L. BRUNAUX, Les bois sacrés des Celtes et des Germains. In: Les bois sacrés. Actes du colloque international organisé par le Centre Jean Bérard et l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Ve section). Naples, 23–25 Novembre 1988 (Naples 1993), 57–65.

BUCHHOLZ 1959H.-G. BUCHHOLZ, Zur Herkunft der kretischen Doppelaxt. Geschichte und auswärtige Beziehungen eines minoischen Kultsymbols (München 1959).

BURKERT 1987W. BURKERT, Offerings in Perspective: Surrender, Distribution, Exchange. In: LINDERS/NORDQUIST 1987, 43–50.


BUSCH 2000R. BUSCH (Hrsg.), Opferplatz und Heiligtum. Kult der Vorzeit in Norddeutschland (Neumünster 2000).

CAPELLE 1985T. CAPELLE, Programmatisches zu einer Untersuchung frühgeschichtlicher Bauopfer. Frühmittelalterl. Stud. 19, 1985, 498–501.

CAPELLE 1987T. CAPELLE, Eisenzeitliche Bauopfer. Frühmittelalterl. Stud. 21, 1987, 182–205.

CARMICHAEL ET AL. 1994D. L. CARMICHAEL/J. HUBERT/B. REEVES/A. SCHANCHE (Eds.), Sacred sites, sacred places (New York 1994).

CARTER 2003J. CARTER, Understanding religious sacrifice: a reader (New York 2003).

CASTLEDEN 2001R. CASTLEDEN, Minoas. Life in Bronze Age Crete (New York/London 2001).

CHAPMAN 1989J. CHAPMAN, The early Balkan village. In: S. Bököny (Ed.), Neolithic of southeastern Europe and ist Near Eastern connection. International Conference 1987 Szolnok-Szeged (Budapest 1989), 33–53.

CHAPMAN 2010J. CHAPMAN, ‘Deviant’ burials in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Central and South Eastern Europe. In: K. Rebay-Salisbury/M. L. Stig Sørensen/J. Hughes (Eds.), Body Parts and Bodies Whole. Changing Relations and Meanings (Oxford 2010), 30–45.

CHIDIOŞAN 1980N. CHIDIOŞAN, Contribuţii la istoria tracilor din nord-vestul României. Așezarea Wietenberg de la Derșida (Oradea 1980).

CHIDIOŞAN/ORDENTLICH 1975N. CHIDIOŞAN/I. ORDENTLICH, Un templu-megaron din epoca bronzului descoperit la Sălacea. Crisia 5, 1975, 15–26.

CHILDE 1929V. G. CHILDE, The Danube in Prehistory (Oxford 1929).

COLES 1990B. COLES, Anthropomorphic Wooden Figures from Britain and Ireland. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 56, 1990, 315–333.

COLES/HARDING 1979J. M. COLES/A. F. HARDING, The Bronze Age in Europe. An introduction to the prehistory of Europe c. 2000–700 BC (London 1979).

COLPE 1970C. COLPE, Theoretische Möglichkeiten zur Identifizierung von Heiligtümern und Interpretation von Opfern in ur– und parahistorischen Epochen. In: JANKUHN 1970, 18–39.

CSÁNYI 1992M. CSÁNYI, Bestattungen, Kult und sakrale Symbole der Nagyrév-Kultur. In: W. Meier-Arendt (Hrsg.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main 1992), 83–87.

CSÁNYI/STANCZIK 1992M. CSÁNYI/I. STANCZIK, Tiszaug-Kéménytető. In: W. Meier-Arendt (Hrsg.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main 1992), 115–119.

CSÁNYI/TÁRNOKI 1992M. CSÁNYI/J. TÁRNOKI, Katalog der ausgestellten Funde. In: W. Meier-Arendt (Hrsg.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main 1992), 175–210.

30 Florin Gogâltan

CSÁNYI/STANCZIK/TÁRNOKI 2000M. CSÁNYI/I. STANCZIK/J. TÁRNOKI, Der bronzezeitliche Schatzfund von Jászdósza-Kápolnahalom. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 51, 1999–2000 [2000], 147–167.

D’AGATA/VAN DE MOORTEL 2009L. D’AGATA/A. van de MOORTEL (Eds.), Archaeologies of Cult. Essays on Ritual and Cult in Crete in Honor of Geraldine C. Gesell (Athens 2009).

DARCQUE 1990P. DARCQUE, Pour l’abandon du terme «Mégaron». In: P. Darcque/R. Treuil (Éds.), L’habitat égéen préhistorique. Actes de la Table Ronde internationale organisée par le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, l’Université de Paris I et l’École française d’Athènes (Athènes, 23–25 juin 1987) (Paris 1990), 21–31.

DANI 2009J. DANI, A Berettyó-völgy középső bronzkori erődített tell-településeinek társadalmi vonatkozásai. Debreceni Déri-Múz. Évk., 2008–2009 [2009], 17–21.

DANI/MÁTHÉ/SZABÓ 2003J. DANI/M.SZ. MÁTHÉ/G. V. SZABÓ, Ausgrabungen in der bronzezeitlichen Tell-Siedlung und im Gräberfeld von Polgár-Kenderföld (Vorbericht über die Freilegung des mittelbronzezeitlichen Gräberfeldes von Polgár-Kenderföld, Majoros-Tanya). In: C. Kacsó (Hrsg.), Bronzezeitliche Kulturerscheinungen im karpatischen Raum. Die Beziehungen zu den benachbarten Gebieten. Ehrensymposium für Alexandru Vulpe zum 70. Geburstag Baia Mare 10.13. Oktober 2001 (Baia Mare 2003), 93–118.

DAVID 2009W. DAVID, Nascita e Crollo della Civiltá dei Tell dell’Antica Etá del Bronzo nel Bacino Carpatico ed Indizi di Possibili, Analoghi Fenomeni Culturali Coevi nella Regione dell’Alto e Medio Danubio nella Prima Metá del II Millennio A.C. Scien. Ant. 15, 2009, 563–594.

DIETRICH 2011O. DIETRICH, Kinderspielzeug oder Kultobjekte? Überlegungen zu anthropomorphen Figurinen der Wietenberg– und Tei-Kultur. In: S. Berecki/E. Németh/B. Rezi (Eds.), Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureș 8–10 October 2010 (Târgu Mureș 2011), 87–106.

DOMONKOS 1908J. DOMONKOS, A lapós halom (Arad m.). Arch. Ért 28, 1908, 55–78.

DURKHEIM 1912E. DURKHEIM, Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse (Paris 1912).

EARLE/KRISTIANSEN 2010T. EARLE/K. KRISTIANSEN (Eds.), Organizing Bronze Age Societies. The Mediterranean, Central Europe and Scandinavia Compared (Cambridge 2010).

EIBNER 1969C. EIBNER, Ein mittelbronzezeitlicher Gefäßverwahrfund von Schrattenburg, p. B. Mistelbach, NÖ. Zur Interpretation der sog. Töpfereiwarenlager. Arch. Austriaca 46, 1969, 19–52.

ELIADE 1991AM. ELIADE, Istoria credinţelor și ideilor religioase2, I (București 1991).

ELIADE 1991BM. ELIADE, Alchimie asiatică (București 1991).

EVANS 1901A. J. EVANS, Mycenaean tree and pillar cult and its Mediterranean relations. Journal Hellenic Stud. 21, 1901, 99–204.

FACSAR/JEREM 1985G. FACSAR/E. JEREM, Zum urgeschichtlichen Weinbau in Mitteleuropa. Wiss. Arbeiten aus dem Burgenland 71, 1985, 121–144.

FISCHL 2006K. P. FISCHL, Ároktő-Dongóhalom bronzkori tell telep. Bronzezeitliche Tell-Siedlung in Áraktő-Dongóhalom (Miskolc 2006).


FOLTINY 1870J. FOLTINY, A szíhalmi Árpádvár, vagy Földvárhalom ásatásának s az ott lelt targyaknak ismertetése. Századok 4, 1870, 442–455.

FRAZER 1890J. G. FRAZER, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion (London 1890).

FURMÁNEK/VLADÁR 1996V. FURMÁNEK/J. VLADÁR, Kultstätten und Votivdeponierungen in der Bronzezeit der Slowakei. In: P. Schauer (Hrsg.), Archäologische Forschungen zum Kultgeschehen in der jüngeren Bronzezeit und frühen Eisenzezeit Alteuropas. Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums in Regensburg 4.–7. Oktober 1993 (Bonn 1996), 497–516.

FURMÁNEK/MARKOVÁ 1996V. FURMÁNEK/K. MARKOVÁ, Ein zweiter Bronzehortfund aus Včelince. In: T. Kovács (Hrsg.), Studien zur Metallindustrie im Karpatenbecken und den benachbarten Regionen. Festschrift für Amália Mozsolics zum 85. Geburtstag (Budapest 1996), 137–146.

FURMÁNEK/MARKOVÁ 2008V. FURMÁNEK/K. MARKOVÁ, Včelince. Archív dávnej minulosti (Nitra 2008).

FURMÁNEK/VELIAĆIK/VLADÁR 1999V. FURMÁNEK/L. VELIAĆIK/J. VLADÁR, Die Bronzezeit im slowakischen Raum (Rahden/Westf. 1999).

GALLOU 2005CH. GALLOU, The Mycenaen Cult of the Dead (Oxford 2005).

GARAŠANIN 1983M. GARAŠANIN, Dubovačko-žutobrdska grupa. In: A. Benac (Ed.), Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja. IV. Bronzano doba (Sarajevo 1983).

GARWOOD 1991P. GARWOOD, Ritual Tradition and the Reconstitution of Society. In: P. Garwood/D. Jennings/R. Skeates/J. Toms (Eds.), Sacred and Profane. Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion. Oxford, 1989 (Oxford 1991), 10–32.

GAŠAJ 1994D. GAŠAJ, Keramický depot zo staršej doby bronzovey v Nižnej Myšli. Hist. Carpatica 23–24, 1993 [1994], 81–86.

GAŠAJ 2003D. GAŠAJ, Osady warowne i zycie gospodarcze/Fortified settlements and their economic life. In: J. Gancarski (Red.), Wystawa. Między Mykenami a Bałtykiem. Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony/Exhibition. Between Mycenae and the Baltic See. The Otomani-Füzesabony Culture (Krosno 2003), 21–51.

VAN GENNEP 1909A. van GENNEP, Les rites de passage (Paris 1909).

GIMBUTAS 1974M. GIMBUTAS, The Gods and Goddess of Old Europe. 7000 to 3500 BC: Miths and Cult Images (London 1974).

GIMBUTAS 1999M. GIMBUTAS, The Living Goggesses (Berkely/Los Angeles/London 1999).

GLADIGOW 1984B. GLADIGOW, Die Teilung des Opfers. Zur Interpretation von Opfern in vor – und frühgeschichtlichen Epochen. Frühmittelalterl. Stud. 18, 1984, 19–43.

GOODISON/MORRIS 1998L. GOODISON/C. MORRIS, Beyond the ‘Great Mother’: The sacred world of the Minoans. In: L. Goodison/C. Morris (Eds.), Ancient Goddesses (London 1998), 113–132.

GOGÂLTAN 1999FL. GOGÂLTAN, Bronzul timpuriu și mijlociu în Banatul românesc și pe cursul inferior al Mureșului. I. Cronologia și descoperirile de metal (Timișoara 1999).

32 Florin Gogâltan

GOGÂLTAN 2002aFL. GOGÂLTAN, Ritual locations in Bronze Age tell settlements of the Carpathian Basin. In: European Association of Archaeologist. 8th EAA Annual Meeting. 24–29 september 2002 Thessaloniki, Hellas. Abstracts Book (Thessaloniki) 2002, 215.

GOGÂLTAN 2002bFL. GOGÂLTAN, Zur Terminologie der bronzezeitliche Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken. In: A. Rustoiu/A. Ursuţiu (Hrsg.), Interregionale und Kulturelle Beziehungen im Karpatenraum (2.Jht. v.Chr.–1. Jht. n.Chr.) (Cluj-Napoca 2002), 11–45.

GOGÂLTAN 2003aFL. GOGÂLTAN, Die neolitische Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken. Ein Überblick. In: E. Jerem/ P. Raczky (Hrsg.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschengeschichte in Mittel – und Südeuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zu 75. Geburtstag (Budapest 2003), 223–262.

GOGÂLTAN 2003bFL. GOGÂLTAN, Tell-urile epocii bronzului în Bazinul Carpatic. Probleme de terminologie. Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis 2, 2003, 45–93.

GOGÂLTAN 2005aFL. GOGÂLTAN, Der Beginn der bronzezeitlichen Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken: Chronologische Probleme. In: B. Horejs/R. Jung/E. Kaiser/B. Teržan (Hrsg.), Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidment (Bonn 2005), 161–179.

GOGÂLTAN 2005bFL. GOGÂLTAN, Funcţia socială şi economică a tell-urilor epocii bronzului din Bazinul Carpatic. I. Aspecte teoretice. In: C. Cosma/A. Rustoiu (Eds.), Comerţ și civilizaţie. Transilvania în contextul schimburilor comerciale și culturale în antichitate/Trade and civilization. Transylvania in the frame of trade and cultural exchanges in antiquity (Cluj-Napoca 2005), 11–43.

GOGÂLTAN 2006FL. GOGÂLTAN, Zur Entsthehung der bronzezeitlichen Tellkulturen im Karpatenbecken. Ein allgemeiner Überblick. In: C. Gaiu/Cr. Găzdac (Eds.), Fontes Historiae. Studia in honorem Demetrii Protase (Bistriţa/Cluj Napoca 2006), 61–74.

GOGÂLTAN 2008FL. GOGÂLTAN, Fortified Bronze Age Tell Settlements in the Carpathian Basin. A General Overview. In: J. Czebreszuk/S. Kadrow/J. Müller (Eds.), Defensive Structures from Central Europe to the Aegean in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC (Poznań/Bonn 2008), 39–56.

GOGÂLTAN 2010FL. GOGÂLTAN, Die Tells und der Urbanisierungsprozess. In: B. Horejs/T. L. Kienlin (Hrsg.), Siedlung und Handwerk. Studien zu sozialen Kontexten in der Bronzezeit. Beiträge zu den Sitzungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bronzezeit auf der Jahrestagung des Nordwestdeutschen Verbandes für Altertumsforschung in Schleswig 2007 und auf dem Deutschen Archäologenkongress in Mannheim 2008 (Bonn 2010), 13–46.

GOGÂLTAN 2011FL. GOGÂLTAN, Funcţia economică și socială a tell-urilor epocii bronzului din Bazinul Carpatic. II. Tell-urile și procesul de urbanizare. Crisia 41, 2011, 9–34.

GOGÂLTAN/APAI/KELEMEN 2008FL. GOGÂLTAN/E. APAI/I. KELEMEN, Leben mit den Toten. Ein Ältereisenzeitliches Grab von Vlaha, Kr. Cluj. In: V. Sîrbu/D. L. Vaida (Eds.), Funerary Practices of the Bronze and Iron Ages in Central and South-Eastern Europe. Proceedings of the 9th International Colloquium of Funerary Archaeology. Bistriţa, Romania May 9th–11th, 2008 (Cluj-Napoca 2008), 109–124.

GOGÂLTAN/NÉMETH/APAI 2011FL. GOGÂLTAN/R. E. NÉMETH/E. APAI, Eine rituelle Grube bei Vlaha, Gemeinde Săvădisla (Kreis Cluj). In: S. Berecki/E. Németh/B. Rezi (Eds.), Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureș 8–10 October 2010 (Târgu Mureș 2011), 163–183.


GREGORY 1980C. A. GREGORY, Gifts to men and gifts to gods. Man 15, 1980, 626–652.

GRUENWALD 2003I. GRUENWALD, Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel (Leiden/Boston 2003).

GUBA/SZEVERÉNYI 2007S. GUBA/V. SZEVERÉNYI, Bronze Age bird representations from the Carpathian Basin. Commun. Arch. Hungariae, 2007, 75–110.

HAIMOVICI 1987S. HAIMOVICI, Studiul paleofaunei din așezarea eponimă a culturii Otomani – epoca bronzului. Crisia 17, 1987, 37–54.

HANSEN 1994S. HANSEN, Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen während der älteren Urnenfelderzeit zwischen Rhôhnetal und Karpatenbecken (Bonn 1994).

HANSEN 2000S. HANSEN, Gewässerfunde im bronzezetlichen Europa. Ein Panorama. Altertum 46, 2000, 31–62.

HANSEN 2005S. HANSEN, Über bronzezeitliche Horte in Ungarn – Horte als soziale Praxis. In: B. Horejs/ R. Jung/E. Kaiser/B. Teržan (Hrsg.), Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidment (Bonn 2005), 211–230.

HANSEN 2007S. HANSEN, Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit. Untersuchungen zur anthropomorphen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit in Südosteuropa (Mainz 2007).

HÄGG 1981R. HAGG, Official and popular cults in Mycenaean Greece. In: R. Hägg/N. Marinatos (Eds.), Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 10–16 June, 1984 (Stockholm 1987), 35–39.

HÄGG 1996R. HÄGG, State and Religion in Mycenaean Greece. In: E. De Miro/L. Godart/A. Saconi (Eds.), Atti e memorie del secondo congresso internazionale di micenologia, Roma-Napoli, 14–20 ottobre 1991 (Roma 1996), 387–391.

HÄGG 1999R. HÄGG (Ed.), Ancient Greek Hero Cult. Proceedings of the Fifth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, Göteborg 1995 (Stockholm 1999).

HÄGG/MARINATOS 1981R. HÄGG/N. MARINATOS (Eds.), Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12–13 May, 1980 (Stockholm 1981).

HAMILAKIS/KONSOLAKI 2004Y. HAMILAKIS/E. KONSOLAKI, Pigs for the Gods: Burnt Animal Sacrifices as Embodied Rituals at a Mycenaean Sanctuary. European Journal Arch. 23/2, 2004, 135–151.

HÄNSEL 2000B. HÄNSEL, Die Götter Griechenlands und die südost– bis mitteleuropäische Spätbronzezeit. In: B. Gediga/D. Piotrowska (Red.), Kultura symboliczna kręgu pól popielnicowych epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w europie środkowej (Warszawa/Wrcław/Biskupin, 2000), 331–344.

HÄNSEL/MEDOVIĆ 1991B. HÄNSEL/P. MEDOVIĆ, Vorbericht über die jugoslawisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen in der Siedlung von Feudvar bei Mošorin (Gem. Titel, Vojvodina) von 1986–1990. Bronzezeit-Vorrömische Eisenzeit. Ber. RGK 72, 1991, 45–204.

HÄNSEL/MEDOVIĆ 2004B. HÄNSEL/P. MEDOVIĆ, Eine Bronzegießerwerkstatt der Frühen Bronzezeit in Feudvar bei Mošorin in der Vojvodina. In: B. Hänsel (Hrsg.), Parerga Praehistorica. Jubiläumsschrift zur Prähistorischen Archäologie. 15 Jahre. Universitätsforsch. zur prähist. Arch. 100 (Bonn 2004), 83–111.

34 Florin Gogâltan

HAPP 1991G. HAPP, Bestattungen und Menschenreste in “Häusern” und Siedlungen des steinzeitlichen Mitteleuropa (Frankfurt am Main 1991).

HARDING 2000F. HARDING, European Societies in the Bronze Age (Cambridge 2000).

HAYSOM 2010M. HAYSOM, The Double-Axe: A contextual approach to the understanding of a cretan symbol in the Neopalatial period. Oxford Journal Arch. 29/1, 2010, 35–55.

HAWKES 1954CH. HAWKES, Archaeological Theory and Method: Some Suggesstions from the Old World. American Anthr. 56, 1954, 155–168.

HEGYI 1989D. HEGYI, Prehellenic roots of the greek cult of Apollo. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 32, 1989, 5–21.

HILL 1995J. D. HILL, Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex. A study on the formation of a particular archaeological record (Oxford 1995).

HONTI 1994S. HONTI, A mészbetétes kerámia kultúrája leletei Somogyvárról. Somogyi Múz. Közl. 10, 1994, 5–21.

HOREDT 1988K. HOREDT, Zur Zeitstellung der Otomani– und der Wietenbergkultur. Germania 66/1, 1988, 155–161.

HORVÁTH 2009F. HORVÁTH, Comments on the Tells in the Carpathian Basin: Terminology, Classification and Formation. In: Fl. Drașovean/D.L. Ciobotaru/M. Maddison (Eds.), Ten years after: The Neolithic of the Balkans, as uncovered by the last decade of research. Proceedings of the Conference held at the Museum of Banat on November 9th–10th, 2007 (Timișoara 2009), 159–165.

HORVÁTH L. A. 2000L. A. HORVÁTH, Eine besondere Gefässform aus der mittleren Bronzezeit. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 51, 1999/2000 [2000], 169–181.

HUGHES 1991D. D. HUGHES, Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece (London/New York) 1991.

INSOLL 2004T. INSOLL, Archaeology, Ritual, Religion (London/New York) 2004.

JAKAB 1978J. JAKAB, Intentional Interference on the Skeletons of the Otomani People Found at the Cultic Object in Spišský Štvrtok. Anthr. (Brno) 16/2, 1978, 139–141.

JAKAB/OLEXA/VLADÁR 1999J. JAKAB/L. OLEXA/J. VLADÁR, Ein Kultobjekt der Otomani-Kultur in Nižná Myšl’a. Slovenská Arch. 47/1, 1999, 91–127.

JANKUHN 1970H. JANKUHN (Hrsg.), Vorgeschichtliche Heiligtümer und Opferplätze in Mittel – und Nordeuropa. Bericht über ein Symposium in Reinhausen bei Göttingen in der Zeit vom 14. bis. 16. Oktober 1968 (Göttingen 1970).

JENSEN 1972J. JENSEN, Ein neues Hallstattschwert aus Danemark. Beitrag zur Problematik der jungbronzezeitlichen Votivfunde. Acta Arch. (København) 43, 1972, 115–164.

JUNG 1997R. JUNG, Menschenopferdarstellungen? Zur Analyse minoischer und mykenischer Siegelbilder. Prähist. Zeitschr. 72, 1997, 133–194.

JUNG 2000R. JUNG, Das Megaron – Ein Analogie(kurz)schluss der ägäischen Archäologie. In: AL. Gramsch (Hrsg.), Vergleichen als archäologische Methode. Analogien in den


Archäologien. Mit Beiträgen einer Tagung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Theorie (T-AG) und einer Kommentierten Bibliographie (Oxford 2000), 71–95.

KACSÓ 1998C. KACSÓ, Eine Sonderform der Wietenberg-Keramik: die geschlitzte Tonröhre. In: H. Ciugudean/Fl. Gogâltan (Eds.), The Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Alba Iulia, 24–28 September 1997 (Alba Iulia 1998), 255–266.

KALICZ 1965N. KALICZ, Siedlungsgeschichtliche Probleme der Körös– und Theiss Kultur. Acta Ant. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 8, 1965, 27–40.

KALICZ 1968N. Kalicz, Die Frühbronzezeit in Nordost-Ungarn. Abriss der Geschichte des 19.–16. Jahrhunderts v.u.Z. (Budapest 1968).

KALICZ/RACZKY 1987N. KALICZ/P. RACZKY, The Late Neolithic of the Tisza region. A survey of recent archaeological research. In: L. Tálos/P. Raczky (Eds.), The Late Neolithic of the Tisza region. A survey of recent excavations and their findings: Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa, Szegvár-Tűzköves, Öcsöd-Kováshalom, Vésztő-Mágor, Berettyóújfalu-Herpály (Budapest/Szolnok 1987), 11–30.

KALICZ ET AL. 2011N. KALICZ/P. RACZKY/AL. ANDERS/K. KOVÁCS, Preserved by Ancestral Fires. Pictures of an excavation. The Neolithic village at Berettyóújfalu-Herpály (Budapest 2011).

KALICZ-SCHREIBER 1990R. KALICZ-SCHREIBER, Symbolic representations on Early Bronze Age vessels. Journal Indo-European Stud. 18/1–2, 1990, 59–107.

KAUL 1998F. KAUL, Ships on Bronzes. A Study in Bronze Age Religion and Iconography (Copenhagen 1998).

KAUL 2003F. KAUL, Der Mythos von der Reise der Sonne. Darstellungen auf Bronzegegenständen der späten Nordischen Bronzezeit. In: T. Springer (Hrsg.), Gold und Kult der Bronzezeit (Nürenberg 2003), 36–51.

KAUL 2004F. KAUL, Bronzealderens religion. Studier af den nordiske bronze alders ikonografi (København 2004).

KILIAN 1987K. KILIAN, Zur Funktion der mykenischen residenzen auf dem griechischen Festland. In: R. Hägg/N. Marinatos (Eds.), Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 10–16 June, 1984 (Stockholm 1987), 21–38.

KILIAN 1988K. KILIAN, The emergence of Wanax ideology in the Mycenaean palaces. Oxford Journal Arch. 7, 1988, 291–302.

KIRCHNER 1968H. KIRCHNER, Bemerkungen zu einer systematischen Opferfundforschung. In: M. Claus/ W. Haarnagel/K. Raddatz (Hrsg.), Studien zur europäischen Vor– und Frühgeschichte (Neumünster 1968), 379–389.

KOŁODZIEJ 2011B. KOŁODZIEJ, Animal Burials in the Early Bronze Age in Central and Eastern Europe. Analecta Arch. Ressoviensia 5, 2010 [2011], 141–358.

KONSOLAKI-YNNOPOULOU 2001E. KONSOLAKI-YNNOPOULOU, New evidence for the practice of libations in the Aegean Bronze Age. In: R. Laffineur/R. Hägg (Eds.), POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegaen

36 Florin Gogâltan

Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th Aegaen Conference Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12–15 April 2000 (Liège/Austin 2001), 213–220.

KOSSACK 1954G. KOSSACK, Studien zum Symbolgut der Urnenfelder– und Hallstattzeit Mitteleuropas (Berlin 1954).

KOSSACK 1999G. KOSSACK, Religiöses Denken in dinglicher und bildlicher Überlieferung Alteuropas aus der Spätbronze– und frühen Eisenzeit (9.–6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Geb.) (München 1999).

KOVÁCS 1972T. KOVÁCS, Askoi, Bird-Shaped Vessels, Bird-Shaped Rattles in Bronze Age Hungary. Folia Arch. 23, 1972, 7–28.

KOVÁCS 1973T. KOVÁCS, Representations of Weapons on Bronze Age Pottery. Folia Arch. 24, 1973, 7–31.

KOVÁCS 1988T. KOVÁCS, A face pot with dagger representation from Tószeg. Folia Arch. 39, 1988, 81–92.

KOVÁCS 1990AT. KOVÁCS, Menschen– und Tierdarstellungen an der bronzezeitlichen Siedlung von Füzesabony-Öregdomb. Agria 25–26, 1989–1990 [1990], 31–51.

KOVÁCS 1990BT. KOVÁCS, Eine bronzezeitliche Rarität: Askos mit menschlichem Gesicht von Tiszafüred und seine südöstlichen Beziehungen. Folia Arch. 41, 1990, 9–27.

KOVÁCS 1992T. KOVÁCS, Glaubenswelt und Kunst. In: W. Meier-Arendt (Hrsg.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main 1992), 76–82.

KOVÁCS 2006T. KOVÁCS, Bisher unbekannte kupfer– und bronzezeitliche Wagenmodelle aus Ungarn. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 57, 2006, 35–45.

KOVÁCS/STANCZIK 1980T. KOVÁCS/I. STANCZIK, Bronzkori aszkosz Nagyrévről. Arch. Ért 107, 1980, 44–52.

KRISTIANSEN/LARSSON 2005K. KRISTIANSEN/TH. B. LARSSON, The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and Transformation (Cambridge 2005).

KUBINYI 1861F. KUBINYI, Magyarországban talált kő– és bronzkori régiségek. Arch. Közl. 2, 1861, 81–113.

KULCSÁR 2009G. KULCSÁR, The Beginnings of the Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. The Makó-Kosihy-Čaka and the Somogyvár-Vinkovci Cultures in Hungary (Budapest 2009).

KYRIAKIDIS 2007E. KYRIAKIDIS (Ed.), The Archaeology of Ritual (Los Angeles 2007).

LAFFINEUR 2001R. LAFFINEUR, Seeing is Believing: Reflections on Divine Imagery in the Aegean Bronze Age. In: R. Laffineur/R. Hägg (Eds.), POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegaen Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 8th Aegaen Conference Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12–15 April 2000 (Liège/Austin 2001), 387–392.

LARSON 2007J. LARSON, Ancient Greek Cults. A Guide (New York 2007).

VAN DER LEEUW 1921G. van der LEEUW, Die do-ut-des-Formel in der Opfertheorie. Archiv Religionwiss. 20, 1920/21, 241–253.

LEVY 1981J. E. LEVY, Religious Ritual ans Social Stratification in Prehistoric Societies: An Example from Bronze Age Denmark. Hist. Religions 21/2, 1981, 172–188.


LEVY 1982J. LEVY, Social and Religious Organization in Bronze Age Denmark: An Analysis of Ritual Hoard Finds (Oxford 1982).

LICHTER 2001C. LICHTER, Untersuchungen zu den Bestattungssitten des südosteuropäischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums (Mainz am Rhein 2001).

LINDERS/NORDQUIST 1987T. LINDERS/G. NORDQUIST (Eds.), Gifts to the Gods. Papers read at the International Symposium in Uppsala 1985 (Uppsala 1987).

LINK 2006T. LINK, Das Ende der neolitischen Tellsiedlungen. Ein kulturgeschichtliches Phänomen des 5. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im Karpatenbecken (Bonn 2006).

LUND/MELHEIM 2011J. LUND/L. MELHEIM, Heads and Tails – Minds and Bodies: Reconsidering the Late Bronze Age Vestby Hoard in Light of Symbolist and Body Perspectives. European Journal Arch. 14/3, 2011, 441–446.

MAKIEWICZ 1988T. MAKIEWICZ, Opfer und Opferplätze der vorrömischen und römischen Eisenzeit in Polen. Prähist. Zeitschr. 63, 1988, 81–112.

MAKKAY 1971J. MAKKAY, A Dagger of Mycenaean Type Represented on a Bronze Age Urn from Dunaújváros. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 23, 1971, 19–28.

MAKKAY 1982J. MAKKAY, A magyarországi neolitikum kutatásának új eredményei (Budapest 1982).

MARASZEK 2006R. MARASZEK, Spätbronzezeitliche Hortfundlandschaften in atlantischer und nordischer Metalltradition (Halle 2006).

MARINATOS 1993N. MARINATOS, Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image, and Symbol (Columbia 1993).

MARINATOS 2010N. MARINATOS, Minoan kingship and the solar goddess. A Near Eastern koine (Chicago 2010).

MARKOVÁ 2001K. MARKOVÁ, Die Plastik in der älteren Bronzezeit in der Slowakei. In: B. Gediga/ A. Mierzwiński/W. Piotrowski (Red.), Sztuka epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w europie środkowej. Die Kunst der Bronzezeit und der frühen Eisenzeit im Mitteleuropa (Wrocław/Biskupin 2001), 353–364.

MÁRTON 1910L. MÁRTON, Aphorismen über Ethnographie und Kunstgewerbe in der prähistorischen Archaeologie von Dr. J. L. Pić. Arch. Ért. 30, 1910, 86–87.

MÁTHÉ 1988M. SZ. MÁTHÉ, Bronze Age tells in the Berettyó valley. In: T. Kovács/I. Stanczik (Eds.), Bronze Age Tell Settlements on the Great Hungarian Plain (Budapest 1988), 27–122.

MÁTHÉ 1992M. SZ. MÁTHÉ, Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár (Die bronzezeitlichen Schichten des für die neolitische Herpály-Kultur Fundortes). In: W. Meier-Arendt (Hrsg.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main 1992), 170–173.

MAUSS/HUBERT 1898M. MAUSS/H. HUBERT, Essai sur la nature et la fonction du sacrifice. L’Année sociologique, deuxième année (1897–1898), 29–138.

MAUSS/HUBERT 1903M. MAUSS/H. HUBERT, Esquisse d’une théorie generale de la Magie. L’Annee sociologique, septième année (1902–1903), 1–146.

38 Florin Gogâltan

MCCAULEY/LAWSON 2002R. N. MCCAULEY/E.T. LAWSON, Bringing Ritual to Mind. Psycological Foundations of Cultural Forms (Cambridge 2002).

MEDELEŢ 1991FL. MEDELEŢ, O locuinţă hallstattiană de la Remetea Mare “Gomila lui Gabor” (jud. Timiş). Thraco-Dacico 12, 1991, 63–83.

MEIER-ARENDT 1991W. MEIER-ARENDT, Zu Tells und tellartigen Siedlungen im Spätneolithikum Ost-Ungarns, Siebenbürgens und des Banat: Überlegungen zu Enstehung und Funktion. Banatica 11, 1991, 77–85.

MESTERHÁZY 1976K. MESTERHÁZY, Agyag kocsimodell Pocsajról. Arch. Ért 103/1, 1976, 223–230.

MESTORF 1876J. MESTORF, Der internationale Anthropologen– und Archäologen-Congress in Budapest vom 4. bis 11. September 1876 (Hamburg 1876).

METZNER-NEBELSICK 2003AC. METZNER-NEBELSICK, Ritual und Herrschaft. Zur Struktur von spätbronzezeitlichen Metallgefäßdepots zwischen Nord-und Südosteuropa. In: C. Metzner-Nebelsick (Hrsg.), Rituale in der Vorgeschichte, Antike und Gegenwart. Studien zur Vorderasiatischen, Prähistorischen und Klassischen Archäologie, Ägyptologie, Alten Geschichte, Theologie und Religionswissenschaft. Interdisziplinäre Tagung vom 1.–2. Februar 2002 an der Freien Universität Berlin (Rahden/Westf. 2003), 99–117.

MYLONAS 1966G. E. MYLONAS, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton 1966).

MOLNÁR 2006ZS. MOLNÁR, Daten zur Problematik der frühen Entwicklungsphase der Otomani-Kultur. In: C. Gaiu/Cr. Găzdac (Eds.), Fontes Historiae. Studia in honorem Demetrii Protase (Bistriţa/Cluj Napoca 2006), 75–119.

MOLNÁR 2008ZS. MOLNÁR, Habitatul culturii Otomani din Câmpia Careiului şi valea Eriului. Stud. și Comun. (Satu Mare) 22/1, 2005 (2008), 33–60.

MOLNÁR 2011ZS. MOLNÁR, Die Bronzemetallurgie in den Otomani-Gemeinschaften von der Carei-Ebene und dem Eriul-Tal. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 62/2, 2011, 269–330.

MOLNÁR/IMECS 2006ZS. MOLNÁR/Z. IMECS, Adatok a Nagykárolyi síkság és az Ér vidék településhálozatának kutatásához. Dolgozatok Erdélyi Nemzeti Múz. 1, 2006, 29–87.

MORRIS 1987B. MORRIS, Anthropological studies of religion: an introductory text (Cambridge 1987).

MOZSOLICS 1987A. MOZSOLICS, Verwahr– oder Opferfunde?. Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae 39, 1987, 93–98.

MÜLLER S. 1897S. MÜLLER, Vor Oldtid. Danmarks forhistoriske Archæologi (Kjøbenhavn 1897).

MÜLLER F. 2002F. MÜLLER, Götter, Gaben, Rituale. Religion in der Frühgeschichte Europas (Mainz am Rhein 2002).

MURPHY 2008E. M. MURPHY (Ed.), Deviant Burial in the Archaeological Record (Oxford 2008).

MÜLLER-KARPE 1980H. MÜLLER-KARPE, Handbuch der Vorgeschichte. IV. Bronzezeit (München 1980).

NEBEHAY 1981S. NEBEHAY, Prähistorisches bei Marsigli. Arch. Austriaca 65, 1981, 75–88.


NEGEL 2005J. NEGEL, Ambivalentes Opfer. Studien zur Symbolik, Dialektik und Aporetik eines theologischen Fundamentalbegriffs (Paderborn 2005).

NÉMETI 1996I. NÉMETI, Câteva consideraţii privind descoperirile funerare din epoca bronzului din nord-vestul României. Stud. și Comun. (Satu Mare) 13, 1996, 27–55.

NÉMETI/MOLNÁR 2007J. NÉMETI/ZS. MOLNÁR, A tell-telepek fejlődése és vége a Nagykárolyi-síkságon és az Ér völgyében (Cluj-Napoca 2007).

NILSSON 1950M. P. NILSSON, The Minoan-Mycenaean religion and its survival in Greek religion2 (Lund 1950).

NOVOTNÁ 2001M. NOVOTNÁ, Symbole vom Rad und Sonne in der Kunst der Bronzezeit. In: B. Gediga/ A. Mierzwiński/W. Piotrowski (Red.), Sztuka epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w europie środkowej/Die Kunst der Bronzezeit und der frühen Eisenzeit im Mitteleuropa (Wrocław/Biskupin 2001), 365–375.

NOTROFF 2011J. 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. In: S. Berecki/E. Németh/B. Rezi (Eds.), Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureș 8–10 October 2010 (Târgu Mureș 2011), 143–153.

OSBORNE 2004R. OSBORNE, Hoards, votives, offerings: the archaeology of the dedicated object. World Arch. 23/1, 2004, 1–10.

O’SHEA ET AL. 2005J. O’SHEA/A. W. BARKER/S. SHERWOOD/A. SZENTMIKLOSI, New Archeaeological Investigations at Pecica-Şanţul Mare. An. Banatului 12–13, 2004–2005 [2005], 81–109.

OLEXA 1982L. OLEXA, Siedlungen und Gräberfelder aus der Bronzezeit von Nižná Myšl’a in der Ostslowakei. In: B. Hänsel (Hrsg.), Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v.Chr. (Berlin 1982), 387–397.

OLEXA 2003L. OLEXA, Nizná Myšl’a. Osada a pohrebisko z doby bronzovej (Košice 2003).

ORDENTLICH 1967I. ORDENTLICH, Două statuete cu “cap mobil” descoperite la Sălacea. Stud. și Cerc. Istor. Veche 18/1, 1967, 147–154.

ORDENTLICH 1972I. ORDENTLICH, Contribuţia săpăturilor arheologice de pe “Dealul Vida” (com. Sălacea, jud. Bihor) la cunoașterea culturii Otomani. Stud. și Comun. (Satu Mare) 2, 1972, 63–84.

ORDENTLICH/CHIDIOŞAN 1975I. ORDENTLICH/N. CHIODIOŞAN, Cărucioare miniatură din lut aparţinând culturii Otomani (epoca bronzului) de pe teritoriul României. Crisia 5, 1975, 27–44.

PALAIMA 1995TH. G. PALAIMA, The Nature of the Mycenaean Wanax: Non-Indo-European Origins and Priestly Functions. In: P. Rehak (Ed.), The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean. Proceedings of a Panel Discussion presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America New Orleans, Louisiana 28 December 1992 with Additions (Liège/Austin 1995), 119–139.

PALAIMA 2006TH. G. PALAIMA, Wanaks and related power terms in Mycenaean and later Greek. In: S. Deger-Jalkotzy/I. S. Lemos (Eds.), Ancient Greece. From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer (Edinburgh 2006), 53–72.

40 Florin Gogâltan

PALMER 1994R. PALMER, Wine in the Mycenean Palace Economy (Liège/Austin 1994).

PARKER PEARSON/RICHARDS 1994M. PARKER PEARSON/C. RICHARDS, Architecture and order: spatial representation and archaeology. In: M. Parker Pearson/C. Richards (Eds.), Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space (London 1994), 38–72.

PATAY 1938P. PATAY, Frühbronzezeitliche Kulturen in Ungarn (Budapest 1938).

PAULÍK 1999J. PAULÍK, Nálezhlinenej vtáčej ľoďky v Dvorníkoch-Posádke. I. Zborník Slovenského Národ. Múz.-Arch. 9 (XCIII), 1999, 29–54.

PAULÍK 2000J. PAULÍK, Nálezhlinenej vtáčej ľoďky v Dvorníkoch-Posádke. II. Zborník Slovenského Národ. Múz.-Arch. 10 (XCIV), 2000, 29–60.

PAULÍK 2001J. PAULÍK, Nálezhlinenej vtáčej ľoďky v Dvorníkoch-Posádke. III. Zborník Slovenského Národ. Múz.-Arch. 11 (XCV), 2001, 9–72.

PAULÍK 2002J. PAULÍK, Príspevok ku kultu doby bronzovej. I. Zborník Slovenského Národ. Múz.-Arch. 12 (XCVI), 2002, 7–16.

PETER-RÖCHER 2007H. PETER-RÖCHER, Gewalt und Krieg im prähistorischen Europa. Beiträge zur Konfliktforschung auf der Grundlage archäologischer, antropologischer und ethnologischer Quellen (Bonn 2007).

PIGORINI 1876L. PIGORINI, Terra Mare ungheresi. Bull. Paletn. Italiana 15–16, 1876, 230–241.

POROSZLAI/VICZE 2005I. POROSZLAI/M. VICZE (Eds.), Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition. SAX. Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition. Report 2 – Field Season 2000–2003, (Százhalombatta 2005).

RECH 1981M. RECH, Bauopfer und Deponierungssitten in Mesoamerika. Allgemeine und vergleichende Archäologie – Beiträge–2, 1980 [1981], 505–528.

RADU 1972O. RADU, Contribuţii la cunoașterea culturii Vatina – Săpăturile de la Cornești, jud. Timiș. Stud. și Cer. Istor. Veche 23/2, 1972, 271–283.

RANDSBORG 1995K. RANDSBORG, Hjortspring. Warfare and sacrifice in early Europe (Aarhaus/Oxford 1995).

RAPPAPORT 1999R. A. RAPPAPORT, Ritual and religion in the making of humanity (Cambridge 1999).

REHAK 1995P. REHAK, Enthroned Figures in Aegean Art and the Function of the Mycenaean Megaron. In: P. Rehak (Ed.), The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean. Proceedings of a Panel Discussion presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America New Orleans, Louisiana 28 December 1992 with Additions (Liège/Austin 1995), 95–118.

REICH 2005CH. REICH, “Vogelmenschen und Menschenvögel“. Bronzezeitliche Vogel-Mensch-Darstellungen im mittleren und unteren Donauraum. In: B. Horejs/R. Jung/E. Kaiser/B. Teržan (Hrsg.), Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidment (Bonn 2005), 231–239.

RENFREW 1985C. RENFREW, The archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at Philakopi (London 1985).


RENFREW 1994aC. RENFREW, Towards a cognitive archaeology. In: C. Renfrew/E. B. W. Zubrow (Eds.), The ancient mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology (Cambridge 1994), 3–12.

RENFREW 1994bC. RENFREW, The archaeology of religion. In: C. Renfrew/E. B. W. Zubrow (Eds.), The ancient mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology (Cambridge 1994), 47–54.

RIND 1996M. M. RIND, Menschenopfer. Vom Kult der Grausamkeit (Regensburg 1996).

RIND 1999M. M. RIND, Höhenbefestigungen der Bronze– und Urnenfelderzeit. Der Frauenberg oberhalb Kloster Weltenburg I/1–2 (Exkurs. Das tönerne, sog. “Brotlaibidol” aus Weltenburg im Beziehungsgeflecht frühbronzezeitlicher Kulturgruppen in Mitteleuropa). Regensburger Beitr. zur Prähist. Arch. 6, 1999, 89–98.

RITTERSHOFER 1997K.-F. RITTERSHOFER (Hrsg.), 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 – (Espelkamp 1997).

ROBERTS/LEE/BINTLIFF 1989CH. A. ROBERTS/F. LEE/J. BINTLIFF (Eds.), Burial Archaeology, Current Research, Methods and Developments (Oxford 1989).

RÓMER 1878FL. RÓMER, Résultats généraux du mouvement archéologique en Hongrie. Avant la VIIIe session du congrès international d’anthropologie et d’archéologie préhistoriques à Budapest 1876. Compte-rendu de la huitième session à Budapest 1876. Second volume. I. Partie. Resultats généreaux (Budapest 1878).

ROUSE 1998W. D. H. ROUSE, Greek votive offerings: an essay in the history of the Greek religion (Chicago 1998).

RUTKOWSKI 1985B. RUTKOWSKI, Untersuchungen zu bronzezeitlichen Bergheiligtümern auf Kreta. Germania 63/2, 1985, 345–359.

RUTKOWSKI 1986B. RUTKOWSKI, The cult places of the Aegean (New Haven 1986).

SAKELLARAKIS/SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKIS 1981J. SAKELLARAKIS/E. SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKIS, Drama of Death in a Minoan Temple. National Geographic 159/2, 1981, 205–222.

SALAŠ 2005M. SALAŠ, Bronzové depoty střední až pozdní doby bronzové na Moravě a ve Slezsku (Brno 2005).

SCHAUER 1996P. SCHAUER, Naturheilige Plätze, Opferstätten, Deponierungsfunde und Symbolgut der jüngeren Bronzezeit Süddeutschland. In: P. Schauer (Hrsg.), Archäologische Forschungen zum Kultgeschehen in der jüngeren Bronzezeit und frühen Eisenzezeit Alteuropas. Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums in Regensburg 4.–7. Oktober 1993 (Bonn 1996), 381–416.

SCHOLL 2007A. SCHOLL, ΑΝΑΘΗΜΑΤΑ TΩN APXAIΩN. Die Akropolisvotive aus dem 8. bis frühen 6. Jahrhundert v.Chr. und die Staatswerdung Athens. Jahrb. DAI 121, 2006 (2007), 1–173.

SCHREIBER 1984R. SCHREIBER, Szimbolikus ábrázolások korabronzkori edényeken. Arch. Ért 111/1, 1984, 3–28.

SCHUSTER 1996CH. SCHUSTER, Despre cărucioarele din lut ars din Epoca bronzului de pe teritoriul României. Thraco-Dacica 17, 1996, 117–137.

42 Florin Gogâltan

SCHUSTER/COMŞA/POPA 2001CH. SCHUSTER/AL. COMŞA/T. POPA, The archaeology of fire in the Bronze Age of Romania (Giurgiu 2001).

SIMON 1986C. G. SIMON, The Archaic votive offerings and cults of Ionia. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley (Ann Arbor 1986).

SIMON 1997C. G. SIMON, The archaeology of cult in Geometric Greece: Ionian temples, altars and dedications. In: S. Langdon (Ed.), New Light on a Dark Age: Exploring the Culture of Geometric Greece (Columbia 1997), 125–143.

SÎRBU 1993V. SÎRBU, Credinţe și practici funerare, religioase și magice în lumea geto-dacilor (pornind de la descoperiri arheologice din Câmpia Brăilei) (Galaţi 1993).

SÎRBU/VAIDA 2008V. SÎRBU/D. L. VAIDA (Eds.), Funerary Practices of the Bronze and Iron Ages in Central and South-Eastern Europe. Proceedings of the 9th International Colloquium of Funerary Archaeology. Bistriţa, Romania May 9th–11th, 2008 (Cluj-Napoca 2008).

SOROCEANU 1991T. SOROCEANU, Studien zur Mureș-Kultur (Buch am Erlbach 1991).

SOROCEANU 1995T. SOROCEANU, Die Fundumstände bronzezeitlicher Deponierungen – Ein Beitrag zur Hortdeutung beiderseits der Karpaten. In: T. Soroceanu (Bearb. u. Red.), Bronzefunde aus Rumänien (Berlin 1995), 15–80.

STANCZIK 1980I. STANCZIK, Az 1973–74 évi tószegi ásatások. Szolnok Megyei Múz. Évk. 1978–1980 [1980], 63–81.

STANCZIK/TÁRNOKI 1992I. STANCZIK/J. TÁRNOKI, Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom. In: W. Meier-Arendt (Hrsg.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss (Frankfurt am Main 1992), 120–127.

STAPEL 1999A. STAPEL, Bronzezeitliche Deponierungen im Siedlungsbereich. Altdorf-Römerfeld und Altheim, Landkreis Landshut (Münster/New York/ München/Berlin 1999).

STAVRIANOPOULOU 1995E. STAVRIANOPOULOU, Die Verflechtung des Politischen mit dem Religiösen im mykenischen Pylos. In: R. Laffineur/W.-D. Niemeier (Hrsg.), Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, 10–13 April 1994 (Liege 1995), 423–433.

STJERNQUIST 1963B. STJERNQUIST, Präliminarien zu einer Untersuchung von Opferfunden. Begriffsbestimmung und Theoriebildung. Meddel. Lund Univ. Hist. Mus. 1962–1963 [1963], 5–64.

STJERNQUIST 1994B. STJERNQUIST (Ed.), Prehistoric Graves as a Source of Information. Symposium at Kastlösa, Öland, may 21–23, 1992 (Stockholm 1994).

VAN STRATEN 1981F. T. van STRATEN, Gifts for the gods. In: H. S. Versnel (Ed.), Faith, Hope and Worship. Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (Leiden 1981), 65–151.

VAN STRATEN 1992F. T. van STRATEN, Votives and votaries in Greek sanctuaries. In: A. Schachter (Ed.), Le Sanctuaire grec (Geneva 1992), 247–284.

SZATHMÁRI 2003I. SZATHMÁRI, Beiträge zu den Vorgeldarstellungen der bronzezeitlichen Tell-Kulturen. In: E. Jerem/P. Raczky (Hrsg.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der


Menschengeschichte in Mittel– und Südeuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zu 75. Geburtstag (Budapest 2003), 513–523.

ŞANDOR-CHICIDEANU 2003M. ŞANDOR-CHICIDEANU, Neue “Brotlaibidole” aus Ton aus dem Becken der unteren Donau. In: C. Kacsó (Hrsg.), Bronzezeitliche Kulturerscheinungen im karpatischen Raum. Die Beziehungen zu den benachbarten Gebieten. Ehrensymposium für Alexandru Vulpe zum 70. Geburstag Baia Mare 10.13. Oktober 2001 (Baia Mare 2003), 413–428.

TÁRNOKI 1999J. TÁRNOKI, Bronzkori kocsimodell Töröksezentmiklós-Terehalomról. Savaria 24/3, 1998–1999 [1999], 165–177.

TOČÍK 1981A. TOČÍK, Nitriansky Hrádok-Zámeček. Bronzezeitliche Befestigte Ansiedlung der Madarovce Kultur (Nitra 1981).

TORBRÜGGE 1972W. TORBRÜGGE, Vor– und frühgeschichtliche Flußfunde. Zur Ordung und Bestimmung einer Denkmälergruppe. Ber. RGK 51–52, 1970–1971 [1972], 1–146.

TOMPA 1937F. v. TOMPA, 25 Jahre Urgeschichtsforschung in Ungarn 1912–1936. Ber. RGK 25, 1934–1935 [1937], 27–127.

TRACHSEL 2008M. TRACHSEL, Rituale in der Prähistorischen Archäologie. Definition – Identifikation – Interpretation. In: Ch. Eggl/P. Trebsche/I. Balzer/J. Fries-Knoblach/J. K. Koch/H. Nortmann/ J. Wiethold (Hrsg.), Ritus und Religion in der Eisenzeit. Beiträge zur Sitzung der AG Eisenzeit während der Jahrestagung des Mittel– und Ostdeutschen Verbandes für Altertumsforschung e. V. in Halle an der Saale 2007 (Langenweissbach 2008), 1–5.

TRNKA 2003G. TRNKA, Neue frühbronzezeitliche Brotlaibidolfunde in Österreich. In: C. Kacsó (Hrsg.), Bronzezeitliche Kulturerscheinungen im karpatischen Raum. Die Beziehungen zu den benachbarten Gebieten. Ehrensymposium für Alexandru Vulpe zum 70. Geburstag Baia Mare 10.13. Oktober 2001 (Baia Mare 2003), 483–486.

URÁK/MARTA 2011M. URÁK/L. MARTA, Human Remains of the Late Bronze Age Settlements in the Upper Tisza Area. New Researches and New Evidence. In: S. Berecki/E. Németh/B. Rezi (Eds.), Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureș 8–10 October 2010 (Târgu Mureș 2011), 155–162.

VERHAGEN 1986B. VERHAGEN, Götter Kulte und Bräuche der Nordgermanen. Kulturelle Wurzeln des Abendlandes in der nordeuropäischen Bronzezeit (Herrsching 1986).

VEIT 1996U. VEIT, Studien zum Problem der Siedlungsbestattung im europäischen Neolithikum (Münster/New York 1996).

VIRCHOW 1876R. VIRCHOW, Terramare an der Theiss und über ungarische Alterthümer überhaupt. Zeitschr. Ethn. 8, 1876, 243–255.

VIZDAL 1972J. VIZDAL, Erste bildliche Darstellung eines zweirädrigen Wagens vom Ende der mittleren Bronzezeit in der Slowakei. Slovenská Arch. 20/1, 1972, 223–231.

VLADÁR 1973J. VLADÁR, Osteuropäische und mediterrane Einflüsse im Gebiet der Slowakei während der Bronzezeit. Slovenská Arch. 21/2, 1973, 253–357.

VLADÁR 1975J. VLADÁR, Spišský Štvrtok, befestigte Siedlung der Otomani-Kultur. In: III. Internationaler Kongress für slawische Archäologie Bratislava, 7.14. September 1975 (Nitra 1975), 2–24.

44 Florin Gogâltan

VÖRÖS 1996I. VÖRÖS, Dog as building offering from the Bronze Age Tell at Jászdózsa. Folia Arch. 45, 1996, 69–90.

WAHL 1994J. WAHL, Zur Ansprache und Definition von Sonderbestattungen. In: M. Kokabi/J. Wahl (Zusammengestellt), Beiträge zur Archäozoologie und Prähistorischen Anthropologie. 8. Arbeitstreffen der Osteologen Konstanz 1993 im Andeken an Joachim Boessneck (Stuttgart 1994), 85–106.

WHITTAKER 1997H. WHITTAKER, Mycenaean Cult Buildings. A Study of their Architecture and Function in the Context of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean (Bergen/Athens 1997).

WHITTAKER 2008H. WHITTAKER, The Role of Drinking in Religious Ritual in the Mycenaean Period. In: L. A. Hitchcock/R. Laffineur/J. Crowley (Eds.), DAIS. The Aegean Feast. Proceedings of the 12th International Aegean Conference University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, 25–29 March 2008 (Liège 2008), 89–96.

WILLROTH 1985K.-H. WILLROTH, Aspekte älterbronzezeitlicher Deponierungen im südlichen Skandinavien. Germania 63/2, 1985, 361–400.

WORSAAE 1866J. J. A. WORSAAE, Om nogle mosefund fra Broncealderen. In: Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie (Aarbøger 1866), 313–326.

WRIGHT 1994J.C. WRIGHT, The Spatial Configuration of Belief: The Archaeology of Mycenaean Religion. In: S. E. Alcock/R. Osborne (Eds.), Placing the Gods. Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece (Oxford 1995), 37–78.

WRIGHT 2004J. C. WRIGHT (Ed.), The Mycenaean Feast (Princeton 2004).

WRIGHT 2006J. C. Wright, The formation of the Mycenean palace. In: S. Deger-Jalkotzy/I. S. Lemos (Eds.), Ancient Greece. From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer (Edinburgh 2006), 9–52.

YIANNOULI 1998E. YIANNOULI, Fecundity and the Sacred. Some Preliminary Thoughts Regarding Bronze Age Greece. Journal Prehist. Religion 11–12, 1998, 65–84.

ZIPF 2003G. ZIPF, Formalisierung, Reduzierung, Inszenierung – Zur wissenschaftlichen Konzeption von Ritualen und ihrer Umsetzung in der Interpretation archäologischer (Be-)Funde. In: C. Metzner-Nebelsick (Hrsg.), Rituale in der Vorgeschichte, Antike und Gegenwart. Studien zur Vorderasiatischen, Prähistorischen und Klassischen Archäologie, Ägyptologie, Alten Geschichte, Theologie und Religionswissenschaft. Interdisziplinäre Tagung vom 1.–2. Februar 2002 an der Freien Universität Berlin (Rahden/Westf. 2003), 9–16.


1 2 3 4

5

6 78

9 1011

12 13

Pl. I. Salacea–“Dealul Vida”. Inventary objects from the “megaron-temple” (after CHIDIOŞAN/ORDENTLICH 1975).

46 Florin Gogâltan

MH

EUTRESIS

SĂLACEA

LHIIB

MENELAION

LHIIIA1

TIRYNS PHYLAKOPI

HAGIA TRIADA

LHIIIB2

TIRYNS MYCENAE PYLOS PHYLAKOPI

0 10 20 m

Pl. II. The “megaron-temple” from Sălacea–“Delul Vida”and the architectural layout of residential nuclei in Mycenaean palaces (after KILIAN 1988).


1 2

3 4

5 6

0 1 m

0 1 m0 1 m

Pl. III. 1 – Carei–“Bobáld” (after NÉMETI 1996). 2–6 – Nitriansky Hrádok–“Zámecek” (after TOCIK 1981).

48 Florin Gogâltan

1

2

Pl. IV. 1 – Andrid–“Curtea grajdurilor” (after NÉMETI 1996). 2 – Nižná Myšl’a–“Várhegy” (after JAKAB/OLEXA/VLADÁR 1999).


1 2

3

0 1 m

Pl. V. 1, 3 – Jászdózsa–“Kápolnahalom” (after VÖRÖS 1996). 2 – Nitriansky Hrádok–“Zámecek” (after TOCIK 1981).

50 Florin Gogâltan

1

2 30 00 0

0 0

Pl. VI. 1 – Jászdózsa–“Kápolnahalom” (after CSÁNYI/STANCZIK/TÁRNOKI 2000). 2–3 – Vcelince–“Lászlófala” (after FURMÁNEK/MARKOVÁ 1996).


9 10

1

3

2

4

6

5

7 8

0 5 cm

Pl. VII. 1, 4–8 – Košice–“Barca”. 2 – Nižná Myšl’a–“Várhegy”. 3 – Spišský Štvrtok–“Myšia hôrka = Barimberg” (after MARKOVÁ 2001); 9–10. Salacea–“Dealul Vida” (after ORDENTLICH 1967).

52 Florin Gogâltan

a b 12

a b 3 4

5 6

78

910

11 12

Pl. VIII. Derşida–“Dealul lui Balotă”. Clay wagons, wagon wheels, smoking vessels (after CHIDIOŞAN 1980).


Pl. IX. Bird-shaped askoi, bird-shaped vessels (after KOVÁCS 1972).

54 Florin Gogâltan

Pl. X. “Gefäße mit säulenartigen Henkeln” (after HORVÁTH L. A. 2000).


Pl. XI. Symbols on the pottery discovered in the Nagyrév tell settlements (after KALICZ-SCHREIBER 1990).

56 Florin Gogâltan

1

2

3

0 1 2 3 cm

Pl. XII. 1 – Veselé–“Hradisko-Podzámske” (after PAULÍK 1999). 2 – Dupljaja (after GARAŠANIN 1983). 3 – Trundholm (after ANER/KERSTEN 1976).

Documents

Gogâltan, Florin: RITUAL ASPECTS OF THE BRONZE AGE TELL-SETTLEMENTS IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN. Ephemeris Napocensis XXII (2012)