Bronze Age Fortified Settlements in Central Europe

Bronze Age Fortified Settlements in Central Europe Mateusz Jaeger Bronze Age Fortified Settlements in Central Europe Mateusz Jaeger This volume is based on a revised and modified version of a doctoral dissertation devoted to defensive settlements – one of the foremost phenomena of Early Bronze Age in Central Europe. The book offers an aspectual, detailed characterization of sources which prove crucial for the understanding of emergence, development and functioning of fortified settlements in four selected areas of Central Europe: its Alpine region, south-western Greater Poland, the Middle Danube Basin and the Upper Tisza Basin. At present, the trial areas taken into consideration offer the most comprehensive pool of archaeological data, which served the author to conduct an interregional comparative analysis of the aforesaid phenomenon. In Kommission bei Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH SAO SPEŚ 17 Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej 17 Bronze Age Fortified Settlements in Central Europe Polskie Towarzystwo Historyczne Bronze Age Fortified Settlements in Central Europe Mateusz Jaeger Wydawnictwo Nauka i Innowacje In Kommission bei Dr Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn Poznañ 2016 Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Œrodkowej Band / Tom 17 Herausgegeben von / Redaktorzy Johannes Müller, Kiel Janusz Czebreszuk, Poznañ S³awomir Kadrow, Kraków The publication was financed by National Science Center of Poland – project no. 2012/05/B/HS3/03714 Publikacja dofinansowana przez Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wy¿szego oraz Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu Distribution Translation Editor Technical editor Graphics Cover design ISBN Printed by Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn Ryszard J. Reisner, Tomasz ¯ebrowski, Zofia Zió³kowska, Mateusz Jaeger Mieczys³awa Makarowicz Aldona Najdora Mateusz Stró¿yk Holger Dietrich und Ines Reese, Kiel 978-3-7749-4019-2 (Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn) 978-83-64864-29-2 (Wydawnictwo Nauka i Innowacje Sp. z o.o.) Uni-Druk, Luboñ, Poland © Mateusz Jaeger 2016 © Copyright by Wydawnictwo Nauka i Innowacje Sp. z o.o., Poznañ 2016 No part of the book may be, without the written permission of the authors: reproduced in any from (print, copy, CD, DVD, the Internet or other means) as well as working through, reproduced or distributed CONTENTS Preface from series’ editors .................................................................. 7 Acknowledgements ............................................................................... 9 Introduction .......................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 1. History of Research ............................................................................... 13 CHAPTER 2. Source Criticism .................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 3. Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups .......... 3.1. Natural environment and economy ............................................. 3.2. Inner layout ................................................................................... 3.3. Fortifications ................................................................................. 3.4. Metallurgy .................................................................................... 3.5. Chronology .................................................................................... 3.6. Summary: role and function of fortified settlements in the Alpine area ...... 25 25 28 32 36 38 CHAPTER 4. Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Koœcian Group of Úne¢tice culture ........................................................ 4.1. Natural environment and economy ............................................. 4.2. Inner layout ................................................................................... 4.3. Fortifications ................................................................................. 4.4. Metallurgy .................................................................................... 4.5. Chronology ................................................................................... 4.6. Summary: role and function of the Bruszczewo settlement in the Koœcian group of the Únìtice culture ........................................................ CHAPTER 5. Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture ...................... 5.1. Natural environment and economy ............................................. 5.2. Inner layout ................................................................................... 5.3. Fortifications ................................................................................. 5.4. Metallurgy .................................................................................... 5.5. Chronology ................................................................................... 5.6. Summary: role and function of Vatya culture fortified settlements ............. 40 43 44 48 51 57 58 61 69 69 77 84 87 92 99 CHAPTER 6. Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture ............................................................... 101 6.1. Natural environment and economy ............................................. 101 6.2. Inner layout ................................................................................... 104 Contents 5 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. 6.6. Fortifications ................................................................................. Metallurgy .................................................................................... Chronology ................................................................................... Summary: role and function of Otomani-Füzesabony fortified settlements 113 119 129 131 CHAPTER 7. Comparative analysis of research areas ............................................... 139 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 151 Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 153 6 Contents Preface from series’ editors his volume is yet another publication in the Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa/Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej series. It is based on the author’s doctoral dissertation concerning defensive settlements in Central Europe. he latter is one of the major focus areas in the archaeology of the period around 2000 BCE, encompassing numerous issues relating to the key phenomena of the Early Bronze age, such as social stratiication, trade and exchange, warfare and metal production. At the same time, the book contributes to the broader discussion on Bronze Age defensive settlements presented as part of the SAO/SPEŚ series, supplementing general studies (volume 5), aspectual monographs (volume 9) and the indings from research conducted at the site in Bruszczewo (volumes 2, 13 and 14). his publication ofers a comparative study of four areas in Central Europe: the Alpine region, south-western Wielkopolska, the Middle Danube Basin and Upper Tisza Basin, outlining a comprehensive panorama of the phenomenon and demonstrating regional variations. he author delivers a well-ordered disquisition concerning chief aspects of the functioning of settlements in the aforesaid cultural-geographical regions, supported by abundant data. Given the shortage of monographic studies on the addressed issue, this book constitutes a signiicant building block in our knowledge about Bronze Age settlement forms, and compellingly suggests future directions of research. Johannes Müller • Janusz Czebreszuk • Sławomir Kadrow Acknowledgements his publication is based on a doctoral dissertation defended at the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań in 2011, with only minor revisions and updates. he dissertation was drated at the AMU Institute of Prehistory, under the supervision of Professor Janusz Czebreszuk to whom expressions of gratitude are due in the irst place – not only for the sound advice and hints, but also for all the moments of frustration and arguments. I am convinced that the latter also contributed to my formation as an archaeologist. he dissertation was reviewed by Professors Arkadiusz Marciniak (AMU Poznań) and Kristian Kristiansen (University of Gothenburg). Presented version of the text was reviewed by Professors Aleksander Kośko (AMU Poznań) and Sławomir Kadrow (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków). hanks to their critical feedback, the text in its present form is free from the many shortcomings it might have had. Naturally, I bear the sole responsibility for any laws that may still be found. his work would not have been accomplished if not for the support of many of my colleagues. I am particularly grateful to Professor Aleksander Kośko, who made it possible for me to present the progress I had made to a circle of experts and kindly critics from the Poznań archaeological milieu. I am much indebted to Professor Johannes Müller, director of the Institut für Urund Frühgeschichte, Christian-Albrechts Universität zu Kiel, whose boundless hospitality was tremendously helpful. It was within the walls of that university that I spent a long time taking advantage of the abundant resource of its libraries. A group of friends made me feel in Kiel at home. For that I wish to thank Jutta Kneisel, Georg Schaferer, Martin Furholt, Robert Hofmann, as well as Doris and Carsten Mischka. I would like to thank everyone and assure those whom fallible memory might have omitted of my gratefulness. herefore I extend my expressions of gratitude to colleagues from Poznań: Józef Bednarczyk, Piotr Chachlikowski, Mateusz Cwaliński, Marcin Ignaczak, Iwona Hildebrandt-Radke, Mariusz Kufel, Przemysław Makarowicz, Mirosław Makohonienko, Jakub Niebieszczański, Łukasz Pospieszny, Mateusz Stróżyk, Paulina Suchowska-Dücke and to fellow researchers from other scientiic institutions: Peter Ettel (Jena), Klara P. Fischl (Miskolc), Anthony Harding (Exeter), Tünde Horváth (Budapest), Tobias L. Kienlin (Cologne), Viktoria Kiss (Budapest), Gabriella Kulcsár (Budapest), Klara Marková (Nitra), Justyna Molak (Kraków), Marcin S. Przybyła (Kraków), Tomáš Nováček (Brno), Ladislav Olexa (Košice), Vajk Szeverényi (Budapest) and Claes Uhnér (Gothenburg). Last but not least, I would like to thank my parents Henryka and Marek, as well as my wife Katarzyna for the years of ceaseless support. I dedicate this book to two special persons, without whom everything I do would be pointless – my son Aleksander and daughter Nina. Acknowledgements 9 Introduction he available literature on this particular subject in the last half century or so would appear to indicate that the issue of fortiied settlements in the Bronze Age is one of the key and relatively well researched questions (see chapter 1). In reality, however, the literature at large oten is of a general nature, rarely concerning itself with the appropriate source texts that contain irst-hand data recorded during the course of excavations. It can be clearly see that European prehistory would seem to make use of a particular canon of literature in this respect that bears little critical value. It is in fact on the basis of such texts that a homogenous picture of fortiied settlements and their inhabitants was created. he fortiications around settlements were to be a physical proof of the deepening social stratiication process and growing complexity of settlement hierarchy. hese very processes took place in every one of the regions where the rise of fortiied settlements was observed. Finally, a series of cultural traits of the settlements themselves would become proof of the close genetic ties with the Aegean-Anatolian zone. Although fortiied settlements were built in the majority of developed European regions of the Bronze Age, it was decided to base analysis on inds related to speciic, chosen research areas. his work therefore will devote itself to four principle chapters, each relecting a chosen point of study: the Alpine area and associated inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups (chapter 3), south-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo and related Kościan Group of the Únětice culture (chapter 4), middle Danube Basin and Vatya culture (chapter 5) and last, the upper Tisza Basin in eastern Slovakia and related Otomani-Füzesabony culture (chapter 6). he choice of speciic research areas was dictated by the acceptance of deined criteria. First, regions were selected, in which the subject of fortiied constructions has a long-standing research tradition. his guaranteed the access to a subsequently broad collection of professional literature. At the time this study was commenced, in all the regions concerned, excavation work was being conducted, planned for the next several years. his has created the possibility of inding new, up to date information that is oten (though not always, see chapter 2) in accord with the systematically raised standards of methodology (such as interdisciplinary research with the participation of the natural sciences in the various phases of locating and analysing inds). he methodology of the study therefore takes the premise that the communities of fortiied settlements in terms of their culture relect the most important processes taking place at this period during the Bronze Age, such as the intensiication of long-distance and inter-regional exchange, social stratiication, the rise of elites and the boom of artisan crats with metallurgy of bronze at the forefront. Such phenomena should therefore manifest itself in particular archaeological inds retrieved in fortiied settlement research. So as to verify current views relating to fortiied settlements, it was decided to base the structure of this study on an outline of the main aspects and in what follows, a critical analysis of chosen research areas. hus each chapter has the following sequence of discussion: natural environment and economy, inner layout, fortiications, me- Introduction 11 tallurgy and chronology. A detailed outline of particular fortiied settlement elements on the one hand aims to demonstrate the basis of documenting inds at our disposal and on the other, represents a collection of the most vital information relating to the level of social organisation for the communities analysed. he above ive principal aspects under research in this work and subject to discussion, relate to the key questions hitherto only dealt with in general terms in the professional literature. hey are presented therefore as below. First, the particular characteristics of the natural environment and economy provide an opportunity for archaeologists (and other scholars) to follow the local cultural patterns of how fortiied settlement societies adapted to the conditions present at that time, an issue which has been sometimes ignored in the research on fortiied settlements. Next, the analysis of inds relating to the inner layout is a useful basis for verifying views on the existence of evidence in regard to particular forms of spatial organisation in fortiied settlements, in part related to the inluences of the urbanised Aegean-Anatolian area (among others the existence of delineated artisan zones and the division into the acropolis and the outskirts; Bóna 1975: 146; Kadrow 2001: 83, 87). Fortiications are the fundamental elements that distinguished the above mentioned sites. Assessment of the level of technological complexity, building materials and size of fortiications was an important element allowing to deine their functionality and efort in their making. Similar 12 Introduction to the case of inner layout elements, as in fortiications, a veriication was made of the view that proposed eastern Mediterranean origins (Vladár 1973: 280-293; Krause 2007b). Further, inds relating to metallurgy were analysed. hey are known from all the regions under analysis, the vast majority of settlements also yielded evidence of a local ‘inishing’ of these. In each of these areas, however, the new raw material was treated diferently. he inds from fortiied settlements indicate that various means of adapting bronze and associated strategies of application took place. Finally, as far as chronology is concerned, data were collected and analysed in terms of absolute dating and to a lesser extent, relative chronology. Every chapter relating to one of the above mentioned study areas is completed by a summary relating to the role and function of fortiied settlements in the given region. Moreover, in this context, currently held views in the literature were subjected to critical analysis on the basis of research discussion for each aspect. he aspectual outline of study areas therefore was the basis of comparative analysis (chapter 7), which contains conclusions also conirming the comparability of certain elements of fortiied settlements in particular regions of central Europe and data corroborating the existence of local culture traditions. he conclusion completes this work, summarising data and views drawn from the discussion and in so doing, provides some answers to the respective research questions. CHAPTER 1 History of Research he fortiied settlement is one of the most important and characteristic traits of the central European Bronze Age. he emergence of such structures took place for the most part in regions with developed cultures and the growth of fortiication sites had its own internal dynamic, reaching a zenith in two periods. he irst stage of their rise was at the turn of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, the second a period that witnessed the domination of the Urnield cultural circle (Jockenhövel 1990). In the context of this study, however, there shall be a discussion in brief relating only to the earlier period, with a particular focus on selected research areas. Fortiied settlements, their role, chronology, formal features and even issues relating to terminology are a constant subject of discussion in European prehistory. he list of research monographs relating to particular sites is, however, a very short one (Točik 1964; 1981; Shennan 1995; Rind 1999; Poroszlai, Vicze 2000; Olexa 2003; Czebreszuk, Müller 2004; Poroszlai, Vicze 2005; Müller, Czebreszuk, Kneisel 2010). here is a sizeable store of research dealing with particular aspects, mostly in the form of summary reports of excavation research progress, general studies that in part relate to the subject area of fortiied settlements and a plethora of post-conference publications such as the noteworthy Beiträge zum bronzezeitlichen Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa (Chropovský, Hermann 1982) and Frühbronzezeitliche befestigte Siedlungen in Mitteleuropa (Gedl 1985). he former to a large extent was devoted to the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age whilst the latter detailed information summarising the knowledge extant in respect to fortiied settlements in Poland and to a lesser extent, the issues pertaining to regions more geographically removed. Recently, two works has been published, containing several studies on the broader geographic map of Europe in the context of the irst half of the 2nd millenium BC (Czebreszuk, Kadrow, Müller 2008; Jaeger, Czebreszuk, Fischl 2012). he history of studies into fortiied settlements in all the areas under research (with the exception of Bruszczewo microregion) date back to the 19th c. when historians and archaeologists began to take particular notice of sites that suggested a certain speciicity of terrain forms, which intimated the existence of prehistoric relics. In many places at that time excavations were conducted (Kovács 1988: 17-18; Lippert 1992: 12; Shennan 1995: 20; David 1998a: 231; Olexa 2003: 19; Gogâltan 2008: 44, Fig. 4.1). In the Alpine area, particular interest in the above mentioned types of settlement goes back to the beginnings of the 20th c. (Shennan 1995: 20). Already in this early period the potential connection was pointed out between settlement growth and local deposits of copper ore (Zschocke, Preuschen 1932). he irst excavation research was undertaken, among others, at the sites of Götschenberg and St. Veit Klinglberg (Lippert 1992: 13; Shennan 1992: 13-14). Some of the settlements were identiied under the programme of History of Research 13 survey research conducted by Hell (Hell 1921; 1924; 1927, quoted in Shennan 1995: 20). In addition, during Second World War these sites continued to be the subject of archaeological interest. From this period, among others, come the preserved archival plans of excavation sites of Fellers in Switzerland (Krause 2008: 77-78, Fig. 14.1, 14.2). In later periods, interest in Alpine settlements went hand in hand with research into their potential ties with local copper ore deposits and the existence of a hypothetical production chain that would link fortiied settlements with open ones, at the foot of the Alps (Wyss 1971; Menke 1982). In the present discussion this issue still dominates. Of particular note is the research and publication record of Krause, who proposes fortiied settlements played a key role in the control and growth of copper extraction in the east Alps and the existence of complex social structures among the communities engaged in mining. In several publications in recent years the above researcher bases his thesis on research results of excavations at the Friaga Wald settlement (Bartholomäberg) (Krause 2002; 2005; 2007a; 2008; 2009). his site is one of the elements of the wider HiMAT research project he History of Mining Activities in the Tyrol and Adjacent Areas: Impact on Environment and Human Societies created by the University of Innsbruck, which is concerned with the documentation of the processes in the rise and fall of mining areas in the eastern alps. Krause’s arguments have called forth a robust debate, in the main from Bartelheim, Kienlin and Stöllner. he irst contends that it is possible to overrate the role of metallurgy in the Bronze Age, emphasing the importance of fertile soils and salt extraction as far more crucial factors for the formation of the settlement network during that period, as well as the phenomenon of accretion in prestige and power (social stratiication) in the Early Bronze Age (Bartelheim 2002; 2007; 2009). Kienlin and Stöllner on the other hand, difer primarily in their views on the degree of complexity in social structures related to the extraction of copper ore in the Alps, and propose an alternative scenario of mining societies. In their view, the be- 14 History of Research ginnings and development in ore extraction, as well as identiication of potential in local deposits is related rather to simpler social systems such as pastoral. At the same time, Kienlin and Stöllner dispute that hierarchical societies needed to exist in order that copper mining develop at the turn of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages (Kienlin, Stöllner 2009; Kienlin 2010). he second of the areas under research is one of particular note. In contrast to the others it mainly relates to one settlement associated with the Únětice culture, Bruszczewo. he irst references to discoveries of archaeological relics in the immediate vicinity of the site are to be found already in the 17th and 18th c., the oldest such documentation in Polish lands (Czebreszuk, Müller, Silska 2004: 13). Later, in the 19th c., a chance discovery was made of a destroyed ‘princely grave’ of the Únětice culture in Przesieka Polska (Schwenzer 2004: 317). It was not until 1943 that Bruszczewo (site 5) was subject to surface analysis and some two decades later in 1964 ater surface veriication surveys that a decision was undertaken to commence excavation (Czebreszuk, Müller, Silska 2004: 14) by Pieczyński and his team in 1964-68, under the aegis of the Poznań Archaeological Museum. Both the results of this research stage and subsequent analysis of excavation begun in 1995 by the Institute of Prehistory, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, were discussed in detail in the literature (Czebreszuk, Müller, Silska 2004: 14-26). An important turning point in the Bruszczewo excavations was the commencement in 1999 of Polish-German collaboration that continued (with a break in 2002) until 2007 (irst the Free University of Berlin, then the University of Bamberg and inally, Kiel University). hereupon research was begun in the peat zone of the site, which produced a series of important and unique inds. From 2003 the author took personal part in excavation work, and from 2005 led work in particular trenches at the site’s mineral zone (non-peat, sandy soils). he results of work to date have provided the subject matter for a series of scholarly works from which the most important are recent publications (Czebreszuk, Müller 2004; Müller, Czebreszuk, Kneisel 2010), which primarily embraced specialist studies to a large extent related with the peat zone of the site. Moreover, only just recently, few studies have been published, relating to the subject of the Bruszczewo settlement and its function, as well as the extent of its social organisation (Jaeger, Czebreszuk 2010; Kneisel 2010e; Kneisel, Müller 2011). In the case of the two remaining research areas, in the context of the 19th c. geopolitical situation in Europe, a decided majority of the sites not only in Hungarian areas but also in Slovakia, were discovered by Hungarian aicionados of antiquities. he settlements in the Carpathian Basin, oten tell in formation, stood out boldly in the passing landscape. In the nascent beginnings of archaeology proper, these enigmatic formations oten were given names suggesting ties with the early history of particular regions, such as ‘Avar sconces’ (Vicze 1992: 146). As mentioned above, it was already in the 19th c. that the irst research was carried out and it should be noted that the Alscút-Göböljárás (Vatya culture) site map was drawn up by Arch Prince Joseph of Habsburg, who also led a dig over several seasons on the settlement (Kovács 1988: 23, foot. 5). his would seem to indicate the elite nature at that time in Europe of interest in prehistory. At the beginning of the 20th c. tell settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain were subject to a considerable amount of interest. V. G. Childe, among others, was involved in researching these sites as well as the broader subject of the Bronze Age in this part of Europe. He led excavation work at Tószeg-Laposhalom and was the irst to identify the collection of relics related to the Vatya culture, giving it the name of Lovasberény-Vatya (Kovács 1984a: 217; 1988: 18-19; Bóna 1992c: 104; Kreiter 2007: 18). he network of Vatya culture sites was irst presented as an independent culture by Patay in 1938 (Kovács 1984a: 217). he 1950’s are witness to the start of research activity in Hungarian archaeology on the part of future leading igures of European prehistory. During this time in 1959 Bóna produces his classical work Die Mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre Südöstlichen Beziehungen, published nearly two decades later in 1975 (Kovács 1984a: 217). he typo-chronological scheme (Bóna 1975) for the Vatya culture to this day remains the basic taxonomy for Hungarian archaeologists (Poroszlai 2000; Kreiter 2005; Kreiter 2007: 19). At the same time, Mozsolics began researching Dunaújváros-Koziderpadlás sites (Kovács 1984a: 217; Bóna 1992d). Also, very crucial data was produced by land surveys conducted by Nováki, subsequently bearing fruit as published location plans for a series of Vatya culture fortiied settlements (Nováki 1952). A signiicant intensiication of research towards identifying Vatya culture defensive structures took place in the 1960’s. Several excavation works began, among others in Aba-Belsőbárándpuszta-Bolondvár, Százhalombatta (Kovács 1963; 1969) and Lovasberény-Mihályvár (Petres, Bándi 1969). However, as in many Vatya culture sites (not only settlements) like the aforementioned, research was not completed. One of the few published studies was that of the Alpár site, which apart from a full presentation of archaeological research results, provided specialist documentation such as that of animal remains (Bóna, Nováki 1982). In the above context the number of registered Vatya culture sites has not been relected in the research literature. To the 90 sites referred to by Bóna in 1975 (his research, dated 1959), some 220 would be added several years later (Kovács 1982: 280). he present number is diicult to estimate and the recent literature relies on the estimates of Kovács (Vicze 2000: 120). One relatively recent and important research project is the joint Hungarian, Swedish and British SAX ongoing excavation work (Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition), which published two monographs and briefer studies documenting research completed thus far (Poroszlai, Vicze 2000; 2005). he most recent projects concerning Vatya culture are being carried out in by international teams in the valley of the river Benta (Earle et al. 2012) and in the Kakucs microregion. In the latter, researchers reanalysed archival excavation studies History of Research 15 (Kakucs-Balla-domb settlement; Jaeger, Kulcsár 2013) and an interdisciplinary archaeological research in the defensive settlement of Kakucs-Turján was launched by a Polish-Hungarian-German team (Kulcsár et al. 2014; Pető et al. 2015). Otomani-Füzesabony fortiied settlements were irst analysed in detail in the middle of the 20th c. although the site of Nižná Myšl’a was already referred to in 1892, and its plan published six years later (Olexa 2003: 20, Fig. 8). In 1919 the irst excavations were conducted, which took on a particular form, taking over from previously abandoned Hungarian (war) trenches. hat year the excavation work yielded the irst inds, which were deposited in the National Museum in Prague (Olexa 2003: 19). he interest of archaeologists was only awakened by a chance discovery in 1948 of inds from this cemetery. he resultant brief documentation was, however, never published (Olexa 2003: 20-21). he new excavations, which continues to this very day, began in 1977 (Gašaj, Olexa 1992: 13). At present, the eforts of the researchers focus on publishing the indings from excavations in the burial site associated with the earlier fortiied settlement (Olexa, Nováček 2013). Various authors also present studies highlighting selected aspects, based on the results of new, specialized analyses (e.g. Olexa, Nováček 2012; Jaeger, Olexa 2014). he sites of Košice-Barca and Spišský Štvrtok have been responsible for a growth of interest in fortiied settlements of the Early Bronze Age in the regions of Czechoslovakia at that time. he former was researched in 1951-1954 during which excavation work revealed a series of spectacular discoveries as well as documentation on the regular layout of 23 huts, which went on to be published without challenge or revision (Kabát 1955a; 1955b). he documentation of sites and their materials, however, has not to date been published in full. In 1994 an alternative interpretation of the site’s stratigraphic layout and construction was presented premised on a partial documentation of the settlement (Točik 1994). In the case of the Spišský Štvrtok settlement, the history of excavation work began without any fanfare, beginning in 1962, then subsequently in 1966 (Novotný, 16 History of Research Kovalčík 1967: 26-27). During this time various inds (in part tied to the Púchov culture) from local villagers’ collections began to reach nearby museums (Novotný, Kovalčík 1967: 25-27, with footnote 5). he present store of knowledge of this in the recent literature was formed as a result of excavation works conducted in 1968-1975 by Vladár. In the process of research, stone fortiications were partially revealed along with unique ramparts, as well as numerous goods out of bronze, gold and amber (Vladár 1973; 1975). hese inds were interpreted as material evidence of Aegean (early Mycenaean) inluences on local Otomani-Füzesabony communities. Vladár devoted a series of publications to this subject matter (Vladár 1973; 1974; 1979; 1982; 2012; Vladár, Bartonĕk 1977). he comprehensive collections of materials discovered during excavation work lasting several years unfortunately was never researched in full or published. Apart from any question marks that may arise in respect to the chronology of stone settlement construction (to be discussed in a subsequent part of this study), it should be emphasised that to some extent the work of Vladár proved to be signiicant in arousing research interest in central European fortiied settlements, as well as the Otomani-Füzesabony culture itself. At the turn of the 1960’s and 1970’s in Czechoslovakia, research into fortiied constructions of local cultures of the Early Bronze Age increased markedly. Apart from Otomani-Füzesabony sites, there were also identiied signiicant Mad‘arovce culture sites of Veselé and Nitriansky Hrádok (Točik 1964; 1981). he recent period has not produced meaningful progress in research in the above discussion. Nonetheless it is worth noting work on the open settlement at Včelince (Furmánek, Marková 1992; 2001). Excavation has revealed one of the few radiocarbon datings related to the cultures of the Otomani-Füzesabony, Hatvan and Piliny in Slovakia (Görsdorf, Marková, Furmánek 2004). On the other hand, progress should be noted in the case of polish research on the Otomani-Füzesabony culture. In the past 15 years settlement enclaves have been identiied and documented in the Lower Beskids (Gancarski 1994; 1999; 2002; Gancarski, Ginalski 2001; Przybyła, Skoneczna 2011; Przybyła, Skoneczna, Vitoš 2012). In conclusion, it is important to note the long research tradition of fortiied settlements in the Bronze Age. he comprehensive and rich collection of inds is alas, not relected in our present store of knowledge of this area. he majority of sites has not been researched comprehensively in the context of interdisciplinary projects and at present the professional literature is but a dispersed collection of texts, lacking monographic studies. hese and other issues will be discussed in following chapter. CHAPTER 2 Source Criticism Although each of the regions where fortiied settlements have been discovered has a long research tradition, our present knowledge is as yet signiicantly limited. his is due to a number of factors. First, it needs to be pointed out that the research of fortiied settlements, as sites of signiicant size and complexity in respect to archaeological remains, represents several challenges of an organisational and logistical nature. Long-term and interdisciplinary research projects, oten going beyond the context of traditionally understood archaeology, require sizeable inancial support and collaboration with the natural sciences. hese are factual diiculties that have and will continue to bear upon the quality of research conducted at fortiied settlements and consequently, how much the relevant data can reveal. In the context of this study of particular importance therefore are lacunae in the knowledge of various aspects of how fortiied settlements functioned in the region of the Carpathian Basin. It can be said that the number of known and researched Otomani-Füzesabony and Vatya fortiied settlements is in great contrast to the quality and number of available research publications. In the 1970’s and the 1980’s the issue of fortiied settlements served as one of the central themes undertaken by Czechoslovak scholars. On the wave of spectacular sites found such as Spišský Štvrtok (Vladár 1975) or Nitriansky Hrádok (Točík 1981), a wide-ranging discussion began on possible relations between the Carpathian Ba- sin (and further central Europe) and the Aegean-Anatolian area (Bader 1990: 181). his rather particular research trend in fortiied settlements, especially in sites related to the Otomani-Füzesabony culture, resulted in archaeologists concentrating their eforts only on the search for, and documentation of, chosen categories of material culture that could testify to the existence of the above mentioned longdistance contacts (Vladár 1973; Vladár, Bartonĕk 1977). A large number therefore of attractive discoveries absorbed scholars’ attention throughout this period. he richness of inds discovered became the so called bedrock of many well known publishing houses and archaeological exhibitions. Alas, at the same time, these sites overshadowed the research gaps in other, oten much more signiicant though less spectacular, issues such as chronology or economy (Jaeger 2012c). As a result we know of a rather impressive number of aspectual publications in respect to particular discoveries and features (e. g. Hájek 1954; Olexa 1987; 1992; Jakab, Olexa, Vladár 1999; Olexa, Pitorák 2004), which in sum do not, however, bring much to the discussion on more fundamental issues. In the context of supposed genetic relations between the Otomani-Füzesabony and Mycenaean architecture there arose also many myths (see comments on the construction of the Košice-Barca settlement and fortiications of the Spišský Štvrtok site; chapter 6. 3.) based on meagre data provided by scholars, which is now in fact diicult to verify (Jaeger 2014: 301). Source Criticism 19 Despite the long list of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture settlements in north-east Slovakia that include also the most important and spectacular fortiied sites such as Košice-Barca, Nižná Myšľa and Spišský Štvrtok, the level of knowledge in regard to the Otomani-Füzesabony communities is still insuicient, primarily a result of the meagre publication record of excavation research1. Although these sites were analysed over many seasons, no complete research was published. One of the main, oten quoted sources is publication Między Mykenami a Bałtykiem (Gancarski 2002), which boasts among others, plans of the Košice-Barca, Nižná Myšľa, Spišský Štvrtok and Rozhanovce settlements. hese do not, however, provide information on research methodology and legend, which would enable a correct interpretation. In the case of Nižná Myšľa, the published research refers mainly to the cemetery associated with the older fortiied settlement (Olexa, Nováček 2013). he outcome of excavations published at the beginning of the 1980’s is relected in actually the same text, this time published in German and Slovak, with minor changes in data (Olexa 1982a; 1982b; 1983a). he main collection of publications relating to the rich history of research are reports published in the Slovak archaeological bulletin Archeologické Výskumy a Nalezý na Slovensku. In addition, popular science publications have reached the general public, providing an outline of the site (Olexa 2003). he above limitations notwithstanding, the Nižná Myšľa settlement is still the best known sites of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture in Slovakia. On the other hand, one of the most oten cited examples of Otomani-Füzesabony fortiied settlement that is discussed, Spišský Štvrtok, is known to its many readers from only a brief work of less than twenty pages (Vladár 1975). In efect this work is a vade mecum on archaeological sites visited by guests at archaeological congress in Bratislava in 1975. In spite of the obvious limitations in research value and extent of information presented, the data has become part of the research canon and is a reference point for discussion on the above site. It should also be emphasised that in the context of Otomani-Füzesabony culture research, it has only to a small extent drawn attention to the important issue of inding sources in the natural sciences. In the case of archaeozoological data, all that is known at present are general data relating to the occurrence of particular wild and domesticated species, which are, however, devoid of information on the size of samples and methodology of plant macro-remains. he lack of excavation techniques focused on their retrieval (rinsing of archaeological features and their contents) has meant that to a large extent there are only available analyses of particular groups of inds such as seed prints in clay (mainly pieces of daub). In the case of the Vatya culture the situation is similar, as far as the extent of ield work, excavation and presentation of research is concerned, with considerable lacunae in these aspects. Out of approximately 302 fortiied settlements, only 14 were excavated3 (Vicze As in the case of Vatya culture settlements discussed in another place and the Bronzezeit in Ungarn (Frankfurt am Main 1992) catalogue, similarly in the case of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture guide to the Między Mykenami a Bałtykiem. Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony exhibition, it is one of the key publications on the Otomani-Füzesabony fortiied settlements. Moreover, it should be noted that up to recently, the main publication on research at Nižná Myšľa was the exhibition catalogue in Wuppertal (Gašaj, Olexa 1992). Further, the settlement in Trzcinica also had a guide published, largely devoted to the open-air museum project in which most of the research indings are placed (Gancarski 2006). In the analysis of bone remains and bone tools from the Bronze Age, Choyke (1979: 10; 1983: 23) mentions 26 fortiied settlements, citing older work (Nováki 1952; Petres, Bándi 1969). In the more recent literature, however, other igures in this respect are given; 30 (Vicze 2000: 120; Poroszlai, Vicze 2004: 231) and 28 (Poroszlai 1996: 5). Kovács also mentions 28 settlements, though highland ones, emphasising that only some were fortiied (Kovács 1984a: 219; 1998: 489, Fig. 7). 3 his issue is not exclusive to Vatya culture settlements but in general to those sites with tell formations in the Carpathian Basin (Kovács 1988). Out of the 188 tell and tell-like settlements catalogued by Gogâltan (2008: 42), only 28 boasted excavation work in respect to fortiications. 2 1 20 Source Criticism 2000: 121, Table 1). In some cases, analysis was devoted to the identiication of the stratigraphical layout in the settlement interior. Fortiications were analysed only in instances (Kovács 1984a: 219; Poroszlai 1988: 31; Endrődi, Gyulai 1999: 8). On account of the tell formation of settlements and associated degree of complexity in stratigraphy, the surface area of trenches was signiicantly limited, reaching from more than a dozen meters to, in some exceptional cases, several hundred square metres4 (Vicze 2000: 122; Poroszlai, Vicze 2004: 233). Apart from the relatively small scale of excavations, it could be said that methodology was also a vital problem. his is well exempliied by the Bölcske-Vörösgyűrű site, at which various research methods were used. Apart from the most controversial, the so called Spatenstichtechnik, digging to a depth deined by the length of a spade (about 20 cm; Choyke, Vretemark, Sten 2003: 179), without taking into consideration the cultural and natural strata, a division was also made of digs measuring one square metre lots. In the area of the lots, digging still went on without consideration of the respective divisions of particular layers and features. Both methods resulted in the mixing of relic materials and meant in fact that the correct identiication of the chronology of stratigraphical formations was impossible. he third method to be used was based on digging lots within a band measuring 1 meter in width and 5 m in length. his allowed the documentation both of the proile and lat plans of particular sections, but at the same time, made impossible the research of large surface areas and the observation of larger structures in the terrain – oten visible only ater putting together all the illustrative documentation from all the lots (Poroszlai 2000: 113). In this context, digging down to the length of the spade not only made work diicult but in fact made stratigraphical In the case of the Lovasberény-Mihályvár settlement, an area of 3000 m2 was excavated. In spite of all the work invested into excavation research, the subsequent documentation was not completed and only brief reports published (Petres, Bándi 1969; Choyke, Bartosiewicz 1987). 4 observation impossible, as well as limiting the quantity and quality of retrieved inds. his is for example, visible in the case of bone remains. Most oten therefore only the most obvious bone tools were collected as well as those well preserved and large fragments of bone (Choyke 1979: 10; Choyke, Vretemark, Sten 2003: 179). It is for this reason therefore that archaeozoological analyses are laden oten with a large margin of error. he principle sources in this work and its conclusions are those concerned with particular aspects of the issue in general or broad-ranging studies by Choyke and Bartosiewicz, as well as monographic studies of settlements by Százhalombatta (Poroszlai 2000; Poroszlai, Vicze 2005) and Alpár (Bóna, Nováki 1982), which include research on osteological animal material (Hartyányi 1982; Choyke 2000). In turn, archaeological research projects on the environment conducted recently in Hungary did not relate to the oecumene of the Vatya culture (Gál, Juhász, Sümegi 2005; Zatykó, Juhász, Sümegi 2007). In the context therefore of a region such as the Carpathian Basin (Sümegi, Bodor 2000: 84) that is clearly heterogeneous from a natural sciences point of view, there is practically no possibility of extrapolating the results of the above publications. Under the SAX project a number of specialist environmental analyses were conducted, including a palinological proiles. For a number of reasons, however, they represent a less than credible source for they carry errors both in the presentation of research results and their respective interpretation. hese problems shall be discussed in detail in a subsequent part of this study where the issues of the environment and economy are raised (chapter 5.1). One general and highly signiicant problem is the lack of complete publications of Vatya culture sites not only fortiied). One of the few exceptions in this context are the previously mentioned analyses of Százhalombatta and Alpár. he remaining are known only from brief reports that have few illustrations, do not provide enough (or no) detail on the scale of research, trenches location and plans (proiles) of archaeological features – including even the most important such as fortiications Source Criticism 21 and elements of construction. Information in respect to the form and size of the latter are, in several cases, only based on ield observation, which signiicantly limits their veriication. On account of the subject matter of this study one very crucial issue is the almost non-existent documentation on the absolute chronology of the Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. At present there is only very little in the way of radiocarbon dating records – which in addition for the most part do not provide reliable data relating to context, nature of materials analysed and even at times, location of research (cf. remarks in Jaeger, Kulcsár 2013). Typochronological categorization of ceramic artefacts of the Vatya culture relies on the now classic study by Bóna (1975). Correctness of the framework developed by that author has recently been validated as part of studies of a very extensive collection of pottery from the burial site in Dunaújváros-Duna-dűlő (Vicze 2011; Laabs 2014). At the same, the performance of the typological paradigm relative to the scale of absolute chronology remains an open question (see below, chapter 5.5; Jaeger, Kulcsár 2013). he case of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture in regard to the present discussion is indeed a complex one, for its territorial range is partitioned in the present day by various contemporary nations, which has resulted in the practice of difering research cultures (strategies) developing, each at their own pace (and direction). hus research in Romania, Hungary and Slovakia was conducted independently of the other in each case, which led among others, to a great number of difering ‘chronologies’ (Bader 1998: 76, Tab. 1) and the view that the Otomani-Füzesabony culture was not homogenous but rather a group of communities where various archaeological units functioned, oten within clearly deined territorial boundaries (Fischl 2006: 207, foot. 192) 5. For the purposes of the present study the term Otomani-Füzesabony culture is used, based on an existing tradition in the nomenclature of prehistory in Poland (Gancarski 2002). It is not meant to negate in any way the polymorphic nature of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture phenomenon but to 5 22 Source Criticism he traditional division among Slovak, Hungarian and Romanian scholars is relected in the nomenclature of these cultures; Otomani [Romania, Slovakia], Ottomány, Gyulavarsánd and Füzesabony [Hungary] (Bader 1998). Importantly, some of the above in the research tradition, mainly Hungarian and Romanian, represent a particular means of documenting the chronology (relative) of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture development phases. It should be noted here that to date, the independent nature of chronology and culture of highlighted Otomani-Füzesabony ‘branches’ in Hungary and Romania has as yet to be convincingly justiied (Bader 1998: 74). In Slovakia, research on the Otomani-Füzesabony culture has seen at least several typo-chronological systems proposed – none of which has as yet to be clearly deined and presented in a coherent publication (Bader 1998: 67-69). Similarly to the case of the Vatya culture, the number of radiocarbon datings is very small and only in a few instances can one observe that these are well documented for their context. Some of the above mentioned issues also relate to the Alpine area. hough the sites under discussion were registered already at the beginning of the 20th c., to date, however, only one monograph study on a fortiied site has appeared (St. Veit Klinglberg; Shennan 1995). Although it is as yet only one such, this work represents an important part of the discussion devoted to the relation of fortiied settlements to the mining and processing of copper ore from local deposits. he publication on the St. Veit Klinglberg settlement has provided also a number of animal bone remains and plant macro-remains. heir research did not, however, document clearly the means of economy organised by the autochthons. Nonetheless this became the basis of a hypothetical model of economic dependency at fortiied settlements on settlements in the valley region. Confronted with the lack of comparable natural environment data from other fortiied sites in the area ununderscore the need to view this, diferences notwithstanding, as a larger whole that decidedly goes beyond the borders of present-day countries. der discussion, this hypothesis has as yet to be fully veriied. his issue moreover, is not clariied either by hitherto mentioned palinological proiles, which demonstrate the presence of Bronze Age communities in the Alpine area and their impact on their immediate environment. hey cannot, however, provide a deinitive answer to the question of the particular model of economy functioning at fortiied settlements or their social stability, at present a point of wideranging discussion. Some of the data at our disposal moreover, comes the presentation of research results in archaeology and environment around the region of Montafon, foremost the Friaga Wald settlement (Krause 2005; 2007a; 2008; 2009). he last of the areas to be discussed in this work is south-western Wielkopolska and Bruszczewo settlement, which is clearly diferent from others in the context of the degree of archaeological identiication. First, this site is unique for the European Lowland in its preservation of archaeologi- cal and natural inds in the peat zone of the site. he long-standing interdisciplinary programme of research concerned with foremost the identiication of the fortiied settlement at Bruszczewo, as well as its environmental and cultural background, has provided many detailed records. Bruszczewo is moreover, diferent from other sites in its highly informative level of research in the cultural context. he issue of the Únĕtice culture represents one of the key problems raised in studies on the Early Bronze Age. Further, it is also the only area from which information has been gained on so called open settlements. he above factors signiicantly increase the possibility of comparing particular aspects of how settlements in Bruszczewo functioned in relation to other sites from the oecumene of the Únĕtice culture. It ought to be emphasised, however, so far it has not been possible to indicate an analogical fortiied settlement, even in such signiicant regions as central Germany or Bohemia (Ettel 2008; 2010). CHAPTER 3 Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups he Alps, divided today among several modern countries, saw intensive settlement processes already in the very early times. hey were driven by varied natural conditions that supported speciic subsistence strategies (e.g. pastoral economy, transhumance; Primas 1999: 2-4; Spindler 2003) and ofered abundance of natural resources (Della Casa 2003; Krause 2005: 391). he irst to make use of the resources of the Alpine Area were Mesolithic societies seasonally migrating between subAlpine lowlands and mountain valleys (Lippert 1999: 142; Della Casa 2002: 68, ig. 4. 3; 2003: 203-204). To their presence testify assemblages of lints. In the light of palynological studies, the irst traces of groups of humans refer to the 6th millennium BC. he next phase of settling the Alps witnessed the development of Neolithic societies, beginning with the middle of the 5th millennium BC. It is also at that time that the irst settlement indicators appeared, accompanied by others attesting to the existence of open pasture areas. Also, the irst cereal pollen is encountered then. he periods when anthropopressure was at its strongest occurred, however, in the middle of the 4th millennium BC and, even more evidently, ater ca. 2000 BC (Lippert 1999: 142, Abb. 1; Primas 1999: 4; 2009: 190-191). Both periods of intensive deforestation and anthropopressure can be related in part to the exploitation of local copper deposits. hey difered in their geological characteristics, which was relected in their varied availability (Lippert 1992; Shennan 1992: 535; Bartelheim et al. 2002; Stöllner 2003: 420, Fig. 2; Bartelheim 2007: 190-193). All these facts make it obvious that by no means the societies of the Early Bronze Age were the irst to subdue the Alps. Nonetheless, owing to a considerable acceleration of the settlement process in comparison to the preceding periods, it is the Bronze Age that must be associated with the early ‘conquest of the Alps’ (Wyss 1971; Krause 2005: 390; for an opposite view see Primas 2009: 190) (Fig. 1). 3.1. Natural environment and economy he Alpine area ofers diverse settlement conditions, supporting thus many diferent subsistence strategies. Next to numerous lakes and mountainous regions, valleys and lowlands were settled as well (Müller 2002: 281; Krause 2005: 390). What information we have on environmental conditions comes in the irst place from palynological studies and analyses of macrobotanical remains. he investigations of the settlement at Friaga Wald included collecting a series of cores from ive bogs (Garsella, Tschuga, Brannertsried, Wildes Ried and Mat- Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups 25 Fig. 1. Fortiied settlements in the Alpine area: 1 – Friaga Wald, 2 – Sotćiastel, 3 – St. Veit Klinglberg, 4 – Bischhofshofen, 5 – Buchberg, 6 – Savognin-Padnal, 7 – Gschleirsbühel, 8 – Mutta, 9 – Patscherhügel (after Krause 2005) schwitz; Krause, Oeggl, Pernicka 2004: 9-10). A proile from the Tschuga bog (Krause 2007a: 129-130, Fig. 14, Fig. 15) allows one to trace the sequence of environment changes brought about by the presence of man. he irst traces of anthropopressure, namely the thinning of the primeval ir-spruce forest including some beech and the appearance of the plantain can be seen ca. 3000 BC. A clear decline in the share of ir and spruce pollen, and the appearance of the plantain, cereal pollen and coprophilous fungi are related to another phase of anthropopressure which took place about the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. he most conspicuous changes in the environment are visible ater 2100 BC. Around 1800 BC, there is a sharp decline in the share of pollen of the coniferous trees accompanied by a steep climb of the cereal pollen curve (Krause, Oeggl, Pernicka 2004: 10-11). More information on the shares of individual species of crop plants at the site was supplied by the analysis of macrobotanical remains. hey were found in soil samples collected from the remains of two huts and the cultural layer surrounding them (Schmidl, Oeggl 2005: 304). he principal cereal was barley whose share in the identiied macrobotanical remains amounted to 67.5 per cent (Schmidl, Oeggl 2005: 305). A lesser role was played by emmer and spelt while the shares of small spelt, common wheat and true millet were very small indeed. Other crop plants included legumes: peas and broad beans. Identiied in the soil samples from the site, wild fruits such as hazel nuts, blackthorns, dog rose and elder fruits bear out conclusions following from the palynological studies, namely, that the forest cover thinned in the immediate vicinity of the settlement (Schmidl, Oeggl 2005: 305; Krause 2007a: 129). he sample content did not show any diferences that could be linked to their origin from speciic archaeological contexts, for instance from the interior of huts (Schmidl, Oeggl 2005: 309). Similar results were rendered by the analyses of macrobotanical remains from other sites in the Alps. he investigations 26 Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups of the fortiied settlement at Sotćiastel included the taking of 38 samples from different parts of the site. he samples were related to structural remains, fortiications and the cultural layer. In this case barley was the best represented cereal species as well – its share in the samples was 59.7 per cent. Emmer and spelt had a smaller share. he other species were only marginally represented. As in the case of the settlement at Friaga Wald, at Sotćiastel pea was recorded. Wild plants whose remains were identiied included raspberry, stone bramble and elder (Swidrak, Oeggl 1998). he study of bog proiles collected in the vicinity of today’s Bischofshofen yielded consistent data pointing to the thinning of forests and the presence of settlement indicators and cereal pollen (Krause, Oeggl, Pernicka 2004: 12-13). he upland settlement at Savognin-Padnal, probably surrounded originally by artiicial fortiications too (Rageth 1986: 63; Shennan 1995: 293), rendered inds related to the cultivation of cereals: a sickle, sickle fragments, quern stones and grinders. In addition, remains of barley, emmer and small spelt as well as pea and oats were recovered but have not been comprehensively analyzed yet (Rageth 1986: 83-84). he settlement at St. Veit Klinglberg (Shennan 1995) must have been surrounded by a coniferous forest typical of higher altitudes of mountain landscapes. Excavations at the site yielded charcoals of other tree species too, which could have grown close to the settlement; they were chiely broad-leaved ones such as hazel, maple, beech and elm (Gale 1995: 235-236). he most important macrobotanical remains for interpreting the function of the settlement are the inds of charred barley and wheat grains. he absence of any evidence of grain being processed locally (e.g. glumes) may indicate that threshed grains were used at the settlement (Green 1995: 229). his led the author of the research to forward a hypothesis that settlement inhabitants either produced little cereals in nearby ields or they obtained them ready for consumption through exchange (Shennan 1995: 285). For animal breeding there is little source material. he literature on the subject pro- vides little explanation why this is so, either. Perhaps some sites did not yield any sources in this category. Other possible explanations could include speciic soil conditions unfavourable to bone preservation or post-deposition processes, in particular strong soil erosion, which frequently destroys most of cultural strata. It must be observed, however, that in such a case these processes should have unfavourably afected the state of preservation of the macrobotanical remains as well. Hence, it is possible that small amounts of osteological material relect the original scarcity of livestock raised at individual settlements. In the case of St. Veit Klinglberg, relying on a small assemblage of osteological material, a conclusion was drawn that settlement inhabitants must have bred pigs. Against the possibility that pork alone was obtained through exchange testify the inds of teeth and skull bones of pigs. Next to the pig, other remains that could be identiied included cattle and a small amount of wild species. his picture corresponds to the general information on the structure of animal breeding in the discussed period of the Bronze Age (Legge 1995: 233). By contrast, the settlement at Sotćiastel supplied data indicating the presence of all the principal breeding species of the Bronze Age, i.e. cattle, goat, sheep and pig. Cattle remains were the most numerous. he assemblage of remains of small ruminants witnessed a strong domination of the sheep over the goat. he breeding of small ruminants had a mixed character as it was partially aimed at producing milk and wool. Of marginal signiicance must have been the pig; its remains made up only 4 per cent of all osteological material. Few remains of wild species (red deer, Alpine ibex, brown bear) do not relect, in the opinion of the authors of the analysis, a planned hunting economy, primarily because of their very small amounts (Riedel, Tecchiati 1998). Remains found at the Buchberg site were chiely those of domesticated animals: cattle, pig, and goat, sheep. As at the settlements mentioned earlier, wild species must have had little economic signiicance. Cattle and small ruminants were slaughtered at a mature age, which suggests that they were raised mainly for dairy products Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups 27 (cattle, goat, sheep) and wool (sheep). Pigs were of course sources of meat and were slaughtered at the age of about 2 years. Strangely enough, remains of females were not distinguished in the osteological material; in the assemblage of cattle bones, in turn, remains of females dominated (Pucher 1986). Rich bone remains from Savognin-Padnal have not been analyzed in full (Rageth 1986: 84-85). Judging by the names of species, there is no doubt that there too domesticated animals clearly dominated over wild ones. he most numerous were the remains of cattle, next were those of goats, sheep and inally those of pigs (Rageth 1986: 93-94). hese modest natural-scientiic data clearly show that the inhabitants of the Alpine settlements had an agro-breeding economy of their own. In the opinion of many authors, a special case is posed by the settlement at St. Veit Klinglberg. he discovery of threshed grains within its perimeter supposedly indicates a kind of economic dependence on lowland settlements (Shennan 1995: 285; Bartelheim 2007: 201-202). What is worth stressing is the fragmentariness of available natural-scientiic sources. On the one hand, the paucity of information is probably caused by special post-deposition factors, on the other, the discussion of the fortiied settlements of the Alpine area focused chiely on social issues and the signiicance of local copper ore deposits (Krause 2002; 2005; Bartelheim 2007: 204-205) at the expense of a thorough exploration of the natural context of the settlements and their economic foundations. 3.2. Inner layout For several investigated settlements of the Alpine area information on their inner layout is available. Frequently, however, the information is fragmentary and concerns either particular parts of a settlement or certain elements of recorded structures. he meagre information concerns the settlements at Sotćiastel, Friaga Wald and Buchberg. In the case of the irst of the named settlements, investigators point only to a possibility that ive hearths were in use at the same time (Tecchiati 1998: 384). he hearths are treated as remains of ive houses (Krause 2005: 397). An artiicial terrace built by the inhabitants of the settlement at Friaga Wald provided enough surface to hold from six to eight huts of 20 sq. m each (5 × 4 m) (Krause, Oeggl, Pernicka 2004: 7; Krause 2005: 406). he only recorded remains of the huts were stone foundations linked to the older (Early Bronze) and younger (Middle Bronze) periods of the settlement use (Krause, Oeggl, Pernicka 2004: 9, Abb. 8:7) as well as two hearths dating back to the younger settlement phase (Krause 2007a: 125). he structures must have been placed along the wall in a line and close to each other (Krause 2007a: 125) (Fig. 2). he area encircled by a stone wall at the Buchberg site did not yield any information on the layout. Relying on the distribution of pottery fragments and the discovery of a cultural layer in the north-eastern portion of the landform, the researchers came to the conclusion that the settlement proper was located there, i.e. outside the area fortiied with a wall (Sydow 1986: 188). his hypothesis was refuted later. Further excavations supplied a rich collection of pottery, bones and bronze artefacts but no remains of settlement features could be recovered (Sydow 1996). he best-known of the Alpine settlements – St. Veit Klinglberg – because of the advanced destruction of its surface due to erosion – can ofer only general information on the type and scale of structures. A large number of postholes of irregular shapes were recorded on the site; most of them, however, did not form any compact arrangements that would allow investigators to reconstruct houses. An exception was postholes located in the south-west- 28 Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups Fig. 2. Friaga Wald. Reconstruction of the inner layout of the settlement (after Krause 2007a). Fig. 3. Gschleirsbühel. Plan of the settlement with location of the excavated remains of the inner layout and fortiications (after Zemmer-Plank 1978). Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups 29 ern portion of the site that were arranged in a way suggestive of a dwelling structure measuring 7 × 3 m, however without a hearth. he other features did not permit any certain reconstruction of building forms, although it is suspected that log houses once stood on the site. hey are younger than post houses (Shennan 1995: 85-90, 282). A more complex and fuller picture of settlement layout is shown by the investigations of the settlement at Gschleirsbühel (Fig. 3). Used at the site, the system of probe trenches and the rescue character of the excavations (Krause 2005: 395) prevented the investigators from exploring the whole surface of recorded structures. Hence, the layout published by the principal investigator contains a clear element of interpretation (Zemmer-Plank 1978: 176, 178, Abb. 19). What could be partially explored was the remains of four houses. hree of them had a characteristic hearth built of lat stones and clay (houses no. 1, 2 and 4). he absence of a hearth from one of the houses (no. 3) was not interpreted in any way (another function? granary?) (Zemmer-Plank 1978: 181). he houses had irregular layouts and concealed remains of small stone walls that must have originally divided inner space into smaller rooms (Zemmer-Plank 1978: 184-185, Abb. 25). he walls of at least some houses (no. 2, 3 and 4) formed also part of the wall surrounding the settlement (Zemmer-Plank 1978: 182-184). Discovered at Gschleirsbühel, a peculiar rectangular structure, almost square, was called tower by the author of the investigations. Its walls were massive up to 2 m thick while its overall dimensions were approx. 5 × 5 m (Zemmer-Plank 1978: 179, 181; Krause 2005: 395, 397, Abb. 6). he structure, unlike the other houses, did not yield any artefacts. he remains of all recorded houses had the form of stone underpinnings of the dry wall type. hey must have supported timber structures proper (Zemmer-Plank 1978: 205). he settlement at Gschleirsbühel shows traces of destruction by ire. Aterwards, the site was used as a burial ground, with individual cremation burials being placed in niches made in the wall (Zemmer-Plank 1978: 173, 182, 184, Abb. 14). Detailed data concerning the form, scale and changes of settlement layout are available for the settlement at Savognin-Padnal. Although, as it has been mentioned earlier, it is not certain that the settlement was fortiied, owing to the quality of information that can make the above picture fuller, a decision was made to discuss the settlement in greater detail. At Savognin-Padnal, the settlement process went through several phases in the Bronze Age and was divided by the author of the research into ive horizons designated with letters beginning with E (late BA1/A2) and ending with A (youngest/ /HaB) (Rageth 1986: 64-75; 1997: 98-99). he discussion shall focus on horizons D and E linked to the Early Bronze Age and the onset of the Middle Bronze Age (Rageth 1986: 76-77, Abb. 13). Because of a hollow in the landform on which the settlement was founded, prior to any construction, the inhabitants of Savognin-Padnal had levelled the area. It was on this level that the irst huts were built in a line stretching north – south for topographic reasons. A northernmost group of houses consisted most likely of two huts. he irst of them measured 5.5 × 3 m, employed a post construction and had a stone hearth. Next to it, possibly making use of the same wall, another structure was raised measuring 4-5 × 6 m. It also had a hearth but the techniques used to build it were mixed: in part a post construction and in part a dry wall stone underpinning were employed. Another group of huts, located more to the south, was separated from the huts described earlier by a street 3 m wide. he ‘southern’ group was made up of three huts, which also stood in a line. heir dimensions were as follows: 3.5 × 3.5-3.7 m, 4.5 × 4 m and 4.6 × 4.8 m. Among the remains of one of the huts a discovery was made of timber elements of a loor (Rageth 1986: 66, Abb. 3). he southernmost hut had been partially damaged by the structures of horizon D and held sources related to metalworking (see below). Individual houses of horizon E varied in size and construction techniques. All the huts, ive to six altogether, burnt down. he next phase witnessed the construction of 8-9 huts in two groups separated 30 Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups by a street 2.5 m wide. In the centre of the irst group there stood two huts measuring 5 × 9 m and 4.5 × 5.5 m, respectively. Both had hearths. he more southern hut again supplied sources related to metalworking, which may testify to a certain continuity of placing this crat within the settlement (Rageth 1986: 68). Another group of houses had been raised west of the previously described ones, across a street about 0.9-1.3 m wide. he houses have not been preserved well enough to make any educated guesses about their full dimensions. What could be recorded only was the lengths of their walls which measured 9 and 6.5 m. In one of the houses a hearth was discovered. Next two houses were built east of the hut with metalworking remains. hey were separated only by a narrow space of 0.3-0.5 m interpreted as a drainage ditch. Also in this case, in one house only the remains of a hearth were unearthed. However, the most interesting structure belonging to horizon D was, without question, the so-called cistern. It was located south of the huts and was made of a wooden box measuring 4.8 × 3 m (originally up to 2 m high), which sunk into a pit 8-10.5 m in diameter and 2.5-3.3 m deep. he box was built of 10 vertical poles joined by wooden planks inserted into grooves made in the poles (Rageth 1986: 68, Abb. 7). he cistern must have been a receptacle of rainwater. Unlike the houses of the previous horizon, all the houses of horizon D were built on stone dry wall foundations. Impressions of large beams (15-25 cm in diameter) in the unearthed fragments of daub were interpreted as evidence for the use of log constructions. he structures belonging to horizons D and E burnt down. Horizons C and B, linked to the inal part of the Middle and Late Bronze Age (Rageth 1986: 76-77, Abb. 13), show many characteristics that are similar to those of the older settlement layout. What had not changed includes orientation along the north-south axis, the dominant log construction of houses and similar hearth constructions. he youngest, Late Bronze horizon A yielded little information. What is important, however, is the fact that layout orientation had changed. In this case houses were built along the southeast – northwest axis (Rageth 1986: 70-75). he examples of structures discussed above which were found at Alpine area settlements have several common characteristics following certainly not only from similar natural conditions and available building materials but also from a common cultural tradition (inneralpine Bronzezeit, Rageth 1986; Primas 2008: 25-26). Above all, a constant element is the use of stone material for building dry wall foundations on which timber wall constructions were raised later. he settlement layout (likewise settlement fortiications, see below) was always adjusted to local topographic conditions, which frequently naturally limited construction options. Another common element in the discussed examples is the use of similar stone hearths inside huts. Due to the fact that it is hard to detect archaeologically log constructions resting on stone foundations, it cannot be assumed with absolute certainty that this type of construction was common to a majority of Alpine area settlements. he same is true for the development process from post to log constructions observed on particular horizons at Savognin Padnal. he available sources, however, let us cautiously assume that both hypotheses are plausible (cf. Shennan 1995: 282). Relaying on settlement layout data and amount of space used for economic purposes, many hypotheses have been put forward concerning the demographic potential of Alpine settlements. It must be emphasized, however, that the basic condition of such estimations, i.e. a full excavation investigation of the whole settlement area, has not been met in any of the discussed examples. he settlement at Savognin-Padnal, during Early Bronze Age horizon E, could have been inhabited at any one time by 40 to 50 people. he number rises slightly in some calculations to about 60-70 for horizon D (Rageth 1997: 98-99). Similar estimates, arrived at by multiplying the supposed number of huts by the presumed number of inhabitants of a single hut (4-5 people; cf. remarks by Rageth 1997: 98, including footnote 5), resulted in a group of 16-20 people in the case of the settlement at Sotćiastel (Krause 2005: 397) and 24-35 people for the site at Friaga Wald (Krause 2005: 406). Relying on the published plan of the set- Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups 31 tlement at Gschleirsbühel (Zemmer-Plank 1978: 178, Abb. 19), it can be assumed that the four unearthed huts were inhabited by 16-2- people (Rageth 1997: 98, including footnotes 5 and 6). As it is unclear what the purpose of the so-called tower was, it was not included in the calculations. A higher number of potential inhabitants of a single hut, i.e. 4-7 people, was assumed by Shen- nan in the case of the settlement at St. Veit Klinglberg. With the estimated number of houses sized 7 × 3 m, this author arrived at a number of 30-40 up to 100-110 people inhabiting the settlement at any one time (Shennan 1995: 283). It is worth emphasizing that the estimates of the numbers of inhabitants living in the settlements at any one time are relatively low. 3.3. Fortiications Owing to their location, all the settlements had natural advantages making them easy to defend. he settlement at Gschleirsbühel was founded on a hill rising to an altitude of 1.073 m. he rescue character of the investigations permitted to explore only in part the structure of the settlement and its fortiications. In her report on the excavations the author uses the term Ringmauer (e.g. Zemmer-Plank 1978: 182, 186) suggesting that a wall encircled the whole settlement. he wall, in some of its sections, incorporated walls of several huts (Fig. 3). he wall, whose exact dimensions are unknown (on the average 0.9 m wide in the south-west portion of the settlement, Zemmer-Plank 1978: 182), had been built of local stone, using the dry wall technique. In the north-east portion of the investigated area, three regularly arranged postholes were identiied which most likely are remains of a timber structure supporting the stone rampart (Zemmer-Plank 1978: 178, Abb. 19, 186). A closed stone wall is also known from the settlement at Buchberg located at an altitude of 620 m (Sydow 1986: 181, Abb. 3; Krause 2005: 396). he wall marks of a rectangular space of approx. 30 × 25 m (Sydow 1996: 567) (Fig. 4). he structure of the Bronze Age fortiication had been distorted in part by building a similar, bigger rectangular wall in the La Tène period (Sydow 1986: 182). he technique used is again that of dry wall reinforced perhaps with some timber structures. Its width was estimated at 2-2.5 m (Sydow 1986: 188). A wall surrounded also the whole area (60 × 43 m) of the settlement at Mutta. It was 70 m long and 2-3 m wide (Krause, Oeggl, Pernicka 2004: 8; Krause 2005: 396). Owing to favourable defensive conditions provided by the topographic situation, settlement fortiications were oten limited to the most easily accessible parts of a site. A stone rampart divided into sections is known from the site at Patscherhügel. Built at an altitude of 860 m, the settlement was fortiied with a wall 25 m long and around 3 m wide supported by additional timber elements (Krause 2005: 396, Abb. 5, 399, Abb. 9). he investigations of the settlement at Sotćiastel exposed preserved remains of a stone rampart divided into sections. he rampart was 70 m long and 2-3 m wide and protected only the east part of the site. Due to poor stability, it must have been reinforced too with timber structures, for instance, a palisade (Tecchiati 1998: 91-92; 388). A palisade, being in his opinion one of the hypothetical elements of fortiications at Savognin-Padnal, was discerned by Rageth (Rageth 1986: 63). he hypothesis, however, was not borne out by excavations; it was not entirely disproved either as not the whole site was explored. At St. Veit Klinglberg, at a site situated about 50 m over the valley of the Salzach River, at an altitude of about 700 m, a rampart was built ater the settlement had existed in an open form for some time (Shennan 1995: 74) (Fig. 5). It crossed the south portion of the site thus cutting the settlement of from the most easily accessible ap- 32 Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups Fig. 4. Buchberg. Plan of the site with reconstructed course of the walls (Early Bronze Age and La Tène period) (after Krause 2005). proach. he width of the rampart, relying on the preserved fragments of its dispersed debris, was estimated at about 2 m while its height was put at 2-2.5 m. Indentiied in several diferent excavations, the fragments of the rampart in aggregate suggest that it was about 100 m long (Shennan 1989: 37, Abb. 2; 1995: 75, Fig. 5. 1; Krause 2005: 393, Abb. 3). he site at Friaga Wald is situated about 240 m over a valley, on an elevation rising to an altitude of 940 m (Krause 2005: 403). he elevation was modiied by making an artiicial terrace for building houses on (Krause 2007a: 123). he terrace wall (Krause, Oeggl, Pernicka 2004: 9, Abb. 7) joined a segmented stone rampart about 80 m long and 2-3 m wide. It cut of the settlement from an easily accessible slope lying to the north of the settlement (Krause, Oeggl, Pernicka 2004: 7) (Fig. 6). Loose stones of which it was composed formed a typical dry wall (Krause, Oeggl, Pernicka 2004: 12, Abb. 12; Krause 2007a: 125, Fig. 9). As in the case of structures recorded inside Alpine settlements, also in the case of their fortiications one may observe a striking homogeneity of techniques used to build defensive structures. Stone dry walls, when inhabitants desired to raise them higher, must have been given supplementary timber elements to make them stable. What all these settlements have in common is unquestionably the use of local rock material to raise ramparts. Although this seems entirely understandable and environmentally justiied, the origins of this construction technique were sought on the Adriatic. he origins of the stone structures of the Alpine area are traced to settlements of the castellieri type, which are found on the Istria peninsula (Krause 2007b; 2008: 79-82; 2009: 63). heir best-explored example is the settlement at Monkodonja (Hänsel, Matošević, Mihovilić, Teržan 2009). Mentioned idea refers to the Adriatic-Ionian zone of interaction presented by Maran (1998). From there, some elements could have reached the Alpine area (Krause 2007b: 62, Abb. 14). Considering that the settlements cursorily discussed above have not yielded any direct evidence of contacts with the Adriatic coast, Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups 33 Fig. 5. St. Veit Klinglberg. Plan of the site with reconstructed course of the wall and location of trenches (after Krause 2005). one should be sceptical about the theory. It seems that so simple architectural solutions, which we deal with here, without any other elements that would join the two regions, do not provide on their own suicient proof of a genetic relationship. In addition, it is worth noticing the motive of extraction and processing of copper ore, speciic to the Alps and diferent from that on Istria, which was oten the raison d’être of some of the settlements or even the reason, as it seems, why they came into being in the irst place. Furthermore, the very stone structures of the Alpine area by no means reproduce the complexity level that is known, for in- stance, from the settlement at Monkodonja. Stone was used there to build a settlement of a complex structure with a clear division into the so-called acropolis and suburbium (Krause 2007b: 61, Abb. 13), and elaborate architectural elements (e.g. an entrance built in many stages and a cist grave; Hänsel, Matošević, Mihovilić, Teržan 2009) that are not known from any Alpine settlements. he fact that ramparts were built in places that were most easily accessible and unprotected by terrain topography may suggest their defensive role. It is worth considering, however, whether actually most defences were large enough and had 34 Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups necessary characteristics to efectively fulil their defensive role (Shennan 1995: 75). he particularly modest size of the wall at Gschleirsbühel raises serious doubts (0.9 m wide, Zemmer-Plank 1978: 182). Even in the case of walls with a wider base and estimated height of 2-3 m, however, (Shennan 1995: 282) they could provide efective protection only when weapons requiring people to ight at close quarters were used (Ivanova 2008: 114). For defenders to take advantage of height, walls had to be build in such a way so that they could be used as so-called ‘ighting stages’ (Ivanova 2008: 114). One way of achieving this was adding platforms that enabled defenders to move along the inner side of a wall at a speciic height or along its top. No Alpine settlement rendered remains of such additional structures. When weapons of a greater range were used, as for instance bows, a wall of such a height proved use- less (Avery 1993: 59). Houses that formed portions of ramparts (see above) must have been particularly vulnerable. In case that they were higher than walls making them an easy, because well visible, target for potential attackers. he stone structures surrounding the settlements are without doubt examples of ramparts. his does not mean, however, that they played a military role. heir characteristics justify calling them curtains, i.e. structures that always formed a barrier but not always had a military signiicance. heir purpose could have been above all to protect both people and property as well as privacy. What they enabled was to control the access to the settlement space and limit the visibility of its interior (Keeley, Fontana, Quick 2007: 57-58). hese doubts are certain arguments in the discussion of the signiicance and manner of use of the Alpine settlements. With Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups Fig. 6. Friaga Wald. Plan of the site with reconstructed course of the stone wall and location of trenches (after Krause 2005). 35 respect to St. Veit Klinglberg, Shennan put forward a hypothesis about seasonal occupation of the settlement or its permanent habitation but only by few inhabitants. he number of inhabitants would grow in wintertime when there was no need to tend animals or cultivate crops and when low temperatures were conducive to mining works (Shennan 1989: 45-46). Further investigations at the site revealed that its inhabitants were self-suicient when it comes to animal breeding. his may bear out the hypothesis that the settlement was inhabited all year round by at least a small group of people (Shennan 1995: 285). Next to a defensive/military function, walls, it can be assumed, had also other roles re- lated to, say, marking of and securing the rights of a group to a piece of land, protecting livestock and better controlling a walled space by providing a single guarded entrance (Avery 1993: 65). In the case of the Alpine settlements, perhaps due to the fragmentary nature of the excavations, however, no remains of entrances could be uncovered. A considerable efort put into the construction of stone walls does not have to be an argument against the seasonal use of particular settlements. here are many sources showing that even seasonal work related to the extraction of raw materials may entail extensive infrastructure (Stöllner 2003: 432). 3.4. Metallurgy he basic category of sources, underpinning the discussion of fortiied settlements in the Alpine area, is made up of artefacts relating to metallurgy in the broad sense of the word. It is in reliance on such sources that conclusions are drawn concerning the social structure of the inhabitants of the settlements (Shennan 1995: 289; Krause 2002; 2005; Bartelheim 2007: 195-209). he features discussed here, located in a region rich in mineral deposits (Günther 1995: 254-255; Krause 2003: 37, Abb. 12), have, indeed, yielded inds that can be linked to some of the stages of copper ore processing (Eibner 1982) and a few readymade bronze objects as well. he least information is available for the settlement at Gschleirsbühel. he author of the investigations mentions only two small fragments of socketed spear (Zemmer-Plank 1978: 186). he irst excavations at Buchberg, besides characteristic pottery thinned with slag (Sydow 1986: 186), did not render initially any evidence, either, of local copper (ore) processing. he irst unequivocal evidence was obtained in 1992. A survey of the site yielded lumps of slag and black copper and more fragments of pottery thinned in a characteristic manner (Martinek 1994). Another survey yielded a ind of an axe of Langquaid II type as well as lumps of black copper and slag, a pin of Scheibenkopfnadel type and fragments of a vessel interpreted to be a crucible (Martinek 1994; 1996: 576, 583; Krause 2003: 40, Abb. 14). In 1994, the site was excavated again. his time, next to more slag lumps, a discovery was made of a tuyère (Martinek 1996: 582--583). Mineralogical and chemical analyses of the artefacts showed that fahlores, characteristic of the eastern Alps, underwent the whole production cycle at the site (Martinek 1996: 576-584; Krause 2003: 39--40). A radiocarbon date (1955-1885 BC), obtained for the site, belongs to the earliest ones testifying to the metallurgy of copper in the region (Martinek 1996: 584). From the point of view of social signiicance of metallurgy, the most important ind made in Buchberg is a dagger with a solid handle (Fig. 7:1). It must be stressed, however, that the ind is an isolated one. he settlement at Sotćiastel is known for a large assemblage of about 50 metal objects (Tecchiati 1998: 230-235, Tav. 42-47, 272) predominantly dated to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. Within the alleged fortiied settlement at Savognin-Padnal, in horizons E and D, discoveries had been made of houses, mentioned already earlier, which were inter- 36 Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups Fig. 7. Daggers with solid hilts and a halberd from the Alpine area: 1 – Buchberg, 2 – Patsch-Mülthaler Tunnel, 3 – Aham, 4 – Brünnthal (after Bartelheim 2009). preted as huts/workshops of a metallurgist. In the older of the houses, inds included copper ore lumps, metal droplets, mould and crucible fragments and remains of ore roasting (Rageth 1979: 51, Abb. 27. 1, 67, Abb. 50. 1; 1986: 67). Whereas, the younger house yielded only metal droplets (Rageth 1986: 68). As far as the region of Montafon is concerned, the investigations of a fortiied settlement at Friaga Wald are one of the arguments making a case for the fundamental role of the extraction and processing of copper ore in the life of Alpine area communities, a view shared by Krause (2002; 2005). he site rendered a single complete specimen of a pin of Lochhalsnadel mit trompetenförmigen Kopf type and two heads of similar pins dated to ca. 1500 BC (Krause 2005: 405-406, with footnote 61; 2007a: 123, Fig. 4. 1). he project, focused on early metallurgy in the region of Montafon, included taking a number of samples of minerals for the purpose of comparing them with artefacts originating in the region. Analyses were made of the trace elements of lead, which is found in copper as an impurity whose isotopic composition is speciic to individual ore deposits. he research further consisted in comparing the pattern of trace elements in copper with the isotopic values of lead in the Montafon ores and metal artefacts (Romanow 1995: 264; Krause, Oeggl, Pernicka 2004: 14-17, Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups 37 Abb. 20). he results, although they do not exclude a possibility that the raw material for the making of some objects originated with the ores found in Montafon region, are by no means conclusive because of too small a selection of copper ore samples subjected to analysis from the eastern part of the Alpine area (Krause 2007a: 132). It is worth noting that the investigations at the settlement at Friaga Wald, underpinning Krause’s project aimed at obtaining source materials that would directly link the fortiied settlements of the Alpine area to the extraction of copper ore and metallurgy, have not supplied so far any evidence of the local production of metal or any form of ore processing (see comments by Kienlin, Stöllner 2009: 71). In St. Veit Klinglberg, among the sources forming direct evidence of metalworking, a mention should be made of only two tuyère fragments (Shennan 1995: 175). here is, however, a group of sources that permits scholars to link the inhabitants of the settlement to particular stages of copper production (Shennan 1989: 41). In total, the investigations yielded about 150 objects related to metallurgy, mostly small lumps of black copper (Shennan 1995: 242-243). he assemblage includes also ine fragments of ready-made goods and complete artefacts. One should mention, above all, a dagger blade, twisted wire (probably, a pin fragment), chisel and arrowhead (Shennan 1995: 245, Fig. 10. 1). hese objects may be dated, with considerable certainty, to the late period of the Early Bronze Age (Shennan 1995: 244). It cannot be ruled out that some of them were made locally. An important category of inds from the area of St. Veit Klinglberg are the so-called ‘casting cakes’. hese are lumps of copper with a high content of arsenic, antimony, iron and sulphur. Unsuitable for producing metal objects, they had to be reined irst (Eibner 1982; Romanow 1995: 264). In the region in question, ‘casting cakes’ may have been a semi-product exchanged for other goods (Menke 1982: 214-215; Romanow 1995: 265). A peculiar source, testifying to the inhabitants’ connection to the extraction and preliminary processing of copper ore, is local pottery. Without any technological reason, as a temper meant to thin the ceramic body, slag was used here. he same practice was followed, for instance, at the settlement at Buchberg. his type of temper is characteristic only of settlements in the Alpine area (Lippert 1999: 114). No shard originating elsewhere has this characteristic. Since this kind of temper does not improve the durability of vessels, attempts were made to seek an explanation for this practice in the sphere of beliefs. he pottery makers must have been convinced that in this way they imparted metal characteristics to the pottery (Shennan 1995: 283-284). he sources related to the extraction and processing of copper, originating with Alpine settlements, make a rather modest assemblage sharply contrasting with the signiicance mining and metallurgy supposedly played in the life of local communities (recently: Krause 2009). However, intensive research into early metallurgy in the Alpine area witnessed in recent years may provide us with new information sources. Particularly meaningful in this context, the case of the Buchberg settlement shows that a return of archaeologists to a site ater almost 30 years may produce a broad gamut of artefacts testifying to the existence of the whole chain of fahlore processing. 3.5. Chronology he chronological position of the settlements is oten discussed leaving out their cultural attribution. Any indings refer to the general characteristics of pottery or metal goods that permit scholars to place them within Paul Reinecke’s system. Pot- tery is very oten simply included in an appropriate section of the inner-Alpine Bronze Age (inneralpine Bronzezeit, in the sense of Rageth 1986). Only some publications indicated the typological links of pottery to the south German Straubing cul- 38 Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups Fig. 8. The sum of the probability distribution of radiocarbon datings from fortiied settlements in the Alpine area (after Shennan 1995; Martinek 1996; Tecchiatti 1998; Krause 2005). Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups 39 ture1 (Zemmer-Plank 1978: 204; Shennan 1989: 44). Others do not refer precisely to typochronological units in the traditional meaning of archaeological culture (Shennan 1995; Krause Oeggl, Pernicka 2004; ‘inneralpine Gruppen’ Krause 2005: 392, Abb. 2), relying solely on absolute age determinations using the 14C method. In the light of available data, fortiied settlements developed in the Alpine area in the late section of the Early Bronze Age and 1 Taking into account the number of ceramic sources found at St. Veit Klinglberg (approx. 40,000 fragments), their role in the strategy of research into the settlement’s chronology was marginal (Shennan 1995: 35-48). in the early section of the Middle Bronze Age (BA2/BB1; Krause 2005: 396, Abb. 5). Only the dates from Savognin-Padnal mark an earlier period. In the case of horizon E, they are spread from the end of the 22nd century BC to ca. 1800 BC, while in the case of horizon D they are distributed from ca. 1700 to 1400 BC (Krause 1996: 80)2. In a publication devoted to the chronology of southern Germany, Switzerland and Austria (1996), Krause gave a list of dates from Savognin-Padnal that did not correspond exactly to a list of dates made by the author of the study Rageth. he former designated some dates determined in the laboratory in Bern as ones determined in a Berlin laboratory (see Rageth 1986: 95-96; Krause 1996: 82-83, Liste 1). 2 3.6. Summary: role and function of fortiied settlements in the Alpine area Observed in the inds from St. Veit Klinglberg, the simultaneous presence of cleaned cereal grains and artefacts related to copper ore processing triggered discussions of the model of circulation of metal and metal semi-inished products in the Alpine area. For it is assumed that ‘casting cakes’, a raw material for the production of copper obtained from nearby deposits, were the basic products exchanged by inhabitants for other goods (Menke 1982: 218; Shennan 1995: 307-308; Krause 2005: 395). What were these other goods? Relying on the ind of an amber bead in St. Veit Klinglberg, it was suggested that it was amber that was used in the exchange of goods (Shennan 1995: 242). Other sources from the settlement, however, indicate that goods obtained by exchange could have included farm produce, above all cereals. Another possibility is the exchange of the raw material for ready-made bronze goods manufactured in valley settlements or tin necessary to produce bronze alloys. Available maps indicate that roles in the chain of production and distribution of copper and bronze may have been divided between the mountain zone and the piedmont of the Alps. It is suggested that settlements located in the mining region (e.g. St. Veit Klinglberg) occupied themselves with the extraction of raw material which then travelled upstream (along the Salzach River) to other settlements where it was processed (reined) and from where it reached successive recipients (Menke 1982: 120; Romanow 1995: 265; Shennan 1995: 308, 295, Abb. 12.1). It is presumed that in settlements, in the valleys of the Saalach and Salzach rivers, a special kind of copper was produced to be later distributed as ingots known as Ösenringbarren and Spangenbarren (e.g. Menke 1982: 13, Abb. 4, 68, Abb. 45) across the vast areas of the Alpine piedmonts, southern Bavaria, Lower Austria, Moravia, and southern and northern Bohemia (Junk, Krause, Pernicka 2001; Moucha 2005: 25-42). he ingots were supposedly a form of commodity money of speciic quality and value (Lenerz de Wilde 1995; Pernicka, Krause 1998: 223) that was frequently valorised in deposits of a ritual character (Innerhofer 1997). So far, the social interpretation of the fortiied settlements of the Alpine area was dominated by two radically diferent views. In the conclusion of the report on investigations at the settlement at St. Veit Klinglberg, Shennan claimed that there was no convincing evidence of a central 40 Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups settlement in the region in question nor were there any sources that would point to the existence of a separate social stratum or elites (Shennan 1995: 289). Relying on ethnographic observations from Cameroun and the 19th century ‘theory of comparative advantage’ formulated by David Ricardo, he pointed to a model in which the extraction and preliminary processing of copper ore by speciic communities were simply elements of a local economic system and a result of the calculation of relationships holding between costs, proits and values (also in the social sense) (Shennan 1999; Kadrow 2001: 151-152). According to this model, the community of St. Veit Klinglberg was an underprivileged group in the exchange system, sustaining relatively high production costs of their commodity. However, the fact that they occupied a speciic niche resulted in their remaining part of a larger system, permitting them to gain some advantages (Shennan 1999). From this perspective, the inhabitants of St. Veit Klinglberg were not local elites – quite on the contrary, they were a group dependent on the recipients of the efects of their work who supplied the settlement with necessary farm produce (Bartelheim 2007: 203). A completely diferent view was presented by Krause. Relying on the analysis of the settlement at Friaga Wald (Krause, Oeggl, Pernicka 2004) and others in the region, he attributed to them a similar role to that of Medieval fortiied enclosures (Burgen) (Krause 2005: 408). hey were, in his opinion, seats of local leaders controlling the raw material and a given territory (Krause 2005: 390, 408-409). his view had been presented already earlier with respect to the region of Saalfelden in which existing settlements were assigned a task of not only guarding the places where ores were mined and processed but also controlling a route along the valley of the Saalach River (Moosleitner 1991; Shennan 1995: 21, Fig. 1.1). he major criteria that Krause adopted while formulating his hypothesis were stone defences around settlements and inds of prestige objects (halberds and daggers with solid handles) (Krause 2002; 2005: 391-392, Abb. 2). In the light of our knowledge on the settlements in the region, one can hardly agree with the opin- ions of the cited author. Speciically, in the diferent aspects of fortiied settlements described above, one can hardly ind any conclusive evidence testifying to the social diferentiation of their inhabitants. Among structures located within settlements, there are no houses that could be assigned a special position, because of their dissimilar form or a special inventory. A central house, set apart from others by its size and a number of hearths, is known from Savognin-Padnal. However, it was built in horizon B linked to the Late Bronze Age (Rageth 1986: 71-73). Also, the main characteristic of the settlements – their defences – cannot be treated by itself as evidence of the existence of a settlement hierarchy in the Alpine area (Krause 2005: 408) for the simple reasons that their functional nature is not absolutely clear and our knowledge of other, so-called open, settlement forms is inadequate3. he inventories of artefacts obtained from the settlements do not meet the traditional criteria of sources, testifying to the existence of separate social groups or elites (Bartelheim 2007: 201, 203, Abb. IV. 10). Such sources include above all objects made using a complex technique or from an exotic raw material. As such they directly testify not only to the existence of private property, but also to the possibility of acquiring them through exchange with remote areas. In all the research areas discussed here there are many examples of such inds (see below). An exception here is the settlements of the Alpine area (Fig. 7). hey yielded a very modest inventory of inds of a special status. his overall picture is not changed by the amber beads from St. Veit Klinglberg (Shennan 1995: 242) and Savognin-Padnal (Stahl 2006: 147) or the dagger with a solid handle from the settlement at Buchberg (Pöll 2014). For the presence of amber is observed in the region as early as the late the 3rd millennium BC. Whereas daggers with solid handles, apart from the exception mentioned earlier, are known, above all, from inds of single specimens oten made high in the mountains (Kienlin, 3 Located in the Bartholomäberg district, the site at Boda Weg is dated only to the 14th and 13th centuries BC (Krause 2007a: 127-128). Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups 41 Stöllner 2009: 88). Hence, there is no direct evidence that would justify linking them to the fortiied settlements. To the fact that the fortiied settlements were part of a broader cultural circle could testify fragments of Brotlaibidole unearthed at Sotćiastel and Gschleirsbühel (Zemmer-Plank 1978: 206, Taf. 14. 5; Tecchiati 1998: 193, Fig. 29a-32b). hese objects are found above all in two clusters. he irst is associated with the Polada culture in northern Italy while the other stretches from the drainage of the middle Danube to the western portion of the Carpathian Basin (Rind 1999: 92, Abb. 15). Since we do not know the function and signiicance of these objects, it is hardly possible to assess their potential ‘prestige’ or social value. Even if it is assumed that at least some of the settlements of the Alpine area were related to the mining of local copper deposits, there is no reason to see behind them complex social structures usually manifested by the presence of, at the least, prestige objects (Kienlin, Stöllner 2009). he picture of the settlements lacking any clear evidence of social hierarchy seems to agree with the opinion of Bartelheim who pointed out that manufacturing ready- made bronze goods and decorating them were valued higher than procuring raw material itself in the general central European context. his opinion may be borne out by inventories found in so-called metallurgists’ graves of which few are known (Bartelheim 2007: 205-207). Another problem, faced by those who search for elites and evidence showing how intensive social processes were, is posed by a virtually total absence of sepulchral sources in the region (Bartelheim 2007: 201). Rich ‘princely graves’, burials whose grave goods included daggers, and single/ /collective inds of, for instance, halberds are all connected to areas lying north of the Alps (e.g. Bartelheim 2007: 200, Abb. IV. 8; Weinberger 2008: 47, Fig. 5, 49, Fig. 6). hey are yet another proof that metallurgical production was easier to monopolize and that distribution of the new raw material in areas distant from its mining centres ofered previously unknown advantages (Jaeger, Czebreszuk 2010). he diference could have been a result of the way metal was treated. In the regions located closer to the places of its procurement, it could have gone through, to some extent, the stage of ‘turning into a commodity’ (Shennan 1992: 539). 42 Research Area I. Alpine Area: inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups CHAPTER 4 Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture he settlement at Bruszczewo, situated in southern Wielkopolska (Fig. 9), is a major element of a relatively small enclave, but signiicant owing to the abundance of sources, of the Únětice culture known as the Kościan Group (Szydłowski 2003; Jaeger, Czebreszuk 2010)1. Although its geographical range has not been clearly determined (Szydłowski 2003), the group should be associated in the irst place with the settlement at Bruszczewo, a unique cemetery of ‘princely graves’ in Łęki Małe (Jaeger, Czebreszuk 2010), an alleged barrow at Przysieka Polska (Schwenzer 2004), single graves, numerous hoards and isolated inds of bronze objects (Czebreszuk, Müller 2004: 41-42). For a long time, the Bruszczewo settlement had been treated as an element in the existing network of Wielkopolska’s fortiied settlements. Among features similar to Bruszczewo had been counted settlements at Słopanowo and Pudliszki (Gedl 1982: 205; Gediga 1983: 51, Abb. 1; Kłosińska 1997: 104; Czebreszuk, Müller 2004: 43, Abb. 16). However, verifying investigations he Bruszczewo site was used also by the societies of the Lusatian culture and, albeit less intensively, in the Middle Ages. he Late Bronze Age stage of settlement occupancy may be linked to a number of pits, timber structures preserved in the western peat zone and a ditch. 1 carried out in recent years led to a revision of this view. In the light of absolute chronology, the Pudliszki settlement must be associated, without any doubt, with the Late Bronze Age and the Lusatian culture (Jaeger, Czebreszuk, Müller 2008; Jaeger 2010). In the case of the Słopanowo settlement, a mistake was made in determining both the age and function of unearthed ditches. In reality, they were remains of a barrow of the Wielbark culture (Jaeger, Czebreszuk, Müller 2008: 152, with footnote 5). Next to the investigations of the settlement at Bruszczewo, signiicant information on the local Únětice culture enclave is supplied by the excavations of barrows at Łęki Małe and a survey programme systematically carried out within the Bruszczewo project (Czebreszuk, Szydłowski 2010). What all these eforts revealed is the intensity of the settlement process in the Early Bronze Age. Its scale can be compared to the periods when the Lusatian and Przeworsk cultures dominated (Czebreszuk, Szydłowski 2010: 87-88, ryc. 5). he Bruszczewo settlement has a long record of investigations (Czebreszuk, Müller, Silska 2004). Particularly interesting and unique information was obtained from the peat zone of the site where a part of wooden defences, remains of houses and a single burial with timber elements survived. Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture 43 Fig. 9. South-western Poland. Early Bronze Age fortiied settlements: 1 – Bruszczewo, 2 – Radłowice, 3 – Jędrychowice, 4 – Nowa Cerekwia. 4.1. Natural environment and economy In the case of Bruszczewo, the fund of available information on the natural context and subsistence strategies of settlement inhabitants is relatively the largest and most speciic. Already the investigations carried out in the 1960s produced animal and macrobotanical remains, which were analyzed (Klichowska 1971; Makowiecki, Drejer 2010: 288). he research project launched in the 1990s had an interdisciplinary character. During excavations, next to bone remains, a large number of soil samples were collected. Some of them were washed (loated) 44 Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture at the site (Kroll 2010: 250). Samples were taken from units of vertical stratigraphy, isolated natural strata and features considered particularly interesting. he samples were collected in both settlement zones (Kroll 2010: 252, Fig. 3). he results of the analysis of macrobotanical and animal remains were supplemented by conclusions following from palynological proiles. he latter were collected both from cultural layers and in the immediate vicinity of the settlement. he list of crops drated in the wake of the irst excavations (Klichowska 1971: 94) was conirmed by the analysis of natural layer 35 from the peat zone of the site. he layer was found to contain the remains of barley, emmer, small spelt and spelt. In addition, there were found young ofshoots and leaf fragments, which may testify to the use of leaf-hay (Karg, Bauer, Fingerhut 2004: 264, 266). Layer 35 was interpreted as manure (Haas, Wahlmüller 2004: 275). his view is supported by the presence of maggot sheaths, shed by the ly species that naturally lay eggs in animal dung (Karg, Bauer, Fingerhut 2004: 265), spores of coprophilous fungi and parasites (Haas, Wahlmüller 2004: 275-276). he analysis of macrobotanical remains shows that barley and wheat were cultivated separately in Bruszczewo. he latter was not just an accompanying cereal. Whereas oats, found in the macrobotanical remains as well, was a weed in the Early Bronze Age. Millet, in turn, is known to have been grown there because its impressions were found on pottery and it was discovered in single pits located in the central mineral part of the site (Kroll 2010: 260-262). he cereals that were found at Bruszczewo were by no means winter crops. his means that ields were cultivated from early spring to late summer. When crops were not grown on them, they could have been used as so-called stubble meadows. For this reason, they must have been ‘naturally’ fertilized with animal dung. As a result, grains recorded at Bruszczewo reached a relatively large weight (Kroll 2010: 226). Within the mineral zone, in a close stratigraphic relationship to the burial (Kneisel 2010d: 718), a large amount of grain was unearthed. he deposit consisted of barley and wheat (Kneisel 2010a: 146). Its composition difered from the ce- real concentration discovered in trench 52. An analyzed sample (20 litres of sediment with cereal from an area of 3 sq. m) yielded virtually barley only and practically without any impurities – the grain must have been made ready for consumption (Kneisel 2010a: 146; Kroll 2010: 260). he presence of a speciic weed – black bindweed – may indicate the method of harvesting and storing barley. It can be safely assumed that grain was harvested still in ears and it was in this form that it was stored (Kroll 2010: 264). Next to cereals, the analysis of macrobotanical remains revealed the presence of a number of other plants both domesticated and wild. Pit ills in the mineral zone of the site and the peat zone yielded the remains of poppy, dill, pea, lentil and bitter vetch. In the last-mentioned case, we are dealing with the oldest trace of the plant in the eastern portion of central Europe (Kroll 2010: 260, 264, 274). In all probability, specialized varieties of legumes, dill and poppy were grown in gardens (Kroll 2010: 264). Owing to the already mentioned speciic conditions prevailing in part of the site, botanical samples yielded large amounts of remains of aquatic vegetation (Kroll 2010: 257, Fig. 8). he knowledge of resources and values (not only nutritional ones) of wild plants growing around the settlement is evidence by a broad spectrum of macrobotanical remains. What was gathered included not only fruit (e.g. apples, raspberries) but also plants of potential medicinal properties (e.g. hop, henbane) and technical ones (e.g. linden as a source of ibres). he presence of hazel nuts and acorns is strongly attested. Archaeological sources found at other Bronze Age sites show clearly that acorns were above all part of human diet (Hajnalová, Furmánek, Marková 1999: 231). his is evidenced by the fact that acorns were roasted and heating is the easiest way of removing bitterness from them. In Bruszczewo, acorns were found in the grain deposit associated with the burial (Kroll 2010: 266, 274). he study of macrobotanical remains from Bruszczewo allowed Kroll to draw a number of conclusions concerning the type of landscape and vegetation in the Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture 45 surroundings of the settlement and the rate they changed. What he chiely relied on was the remains of pasture weeds indicative of the gradual eutrophication and opening of the landscape around the settlement due to animal grazing (Kroll 2010: 268-270). he process is also evidenced by the analyses of the sediment from layer 35. he manure content is in this case related to the presence of herds of cattle on the lakeshore (a watering place) (Kroll 2010: 258). he conclusions drawn from the analysis of botanical samples are borne out by palynological studies. Altogether, we have four proiles2. hree of them come form the peat zone of the site. he irst is a box proile taken from quadrat 2 (north proile of quadrat 2, trench 30) (Diers 2010: 342). Next two proiles come from cultural layers (proiles Qu-9 and BK 2005/1). Proile 16/5.5 was taken from a place located about 200 m away from the site. he drilling was done in the deepest place of the lake that originally surrounded the settlement (Haas, Wahlmüller 2010: 54, Fig. 1; 56, Fig. 2; 58). he proiles recorded anthropogenic processes related to all the periods of major settlement activity in the region known from archaeological data (Czebreszuk, Szydłowski 2010; Diers 2010: 364; Haas, Wahlmüller 2010). he proiles were analyzed in accordance with the most recent standards that next to pollen grains also stress the need to identify extrafossils (locally grown cysts, fungal spores, algal remains, charcoal bits, aquatic insect eggs, parasites) (Haas, Wahlmüller 2010: 56, 58), which ofer greater possibilities of reconstructing the former natural environment. Both archaeological and palynological data tend to show that irst societies penetrating the area of the site and its surroundings were Neolithic groups (Czebreszuk, Szydłowski 84, Fig. 1-4; Haas, Wahlmüller 2010: 70-78). However, a continuous and intensive use of the area began only in the Early Bronze Age. he most intensive deforestation of the area took place in the period from 2050 to 1750 BC. his is shown by indicators re2 For a detailed description of the method of proile collection and analysis see Diers 2010: 342-346; Haas, Wahlmüller 2010: 58-64. corded in proiles BK 2005/1 and 16/5/5. Arable ields must have been located in the immediate vicinity of the settlement. he landscape was ‘subdued’ by burning surrounding forests. Animal breeding was important. In the next period (1750-1650 BC), a clear change must be presumed in the strategy of the agro-breeding economy. his is relected in the pollen inlux value that shows that settlement inhabitants gave up burning forest and tilled the ields located at a considerable distance from the settlement. he next period (1650-1000 BC) is characterized by a steep fall in human impact indicators. he economic activity of Early Bronze Age societies was far more intensive than that recorded for later times, including the period of Roman inluence. In the latter period, the impact of man on the local natural environment seems to have been rather limited. Neither the region’s vegetation nor its landscape underwent then any major change. Surprisingly, an increase in aforestation is recorded and a clear spreading of the oak, birch and pine (Haas, Wahlmüller 2010: 78). Extrafossils, found in palynological proiles collected from both cultural layers and the original lake area, conirmed that part of accumulated sediment was made up faeces (human or animal). he waters of the lake must have contained excrements. his could have adversely afected water quality in the lake and resulted in its periodic toxicity (Haas, Wahlmüller 2010: 78-80). Next to lake contamination indicators, on the same stratigraphic level (only in the Early bronze Age), the presence of mistletoe and ivy was recorded (Haas, Wahlmüller 2010: 80). A possible explanation of the presence is the use of the twigs of these plants as cattle fodder (Karg, Bauer, Fingerhut 2004: 266). However, a correlation between the inds of mistletoe and human whipworm eggs allowed the researchers to put forward another interpretation proposal. Relying on ethnographic sources, they pointed to the potential signiicance of the plant as a cure for the parasite living in the water of the lake (Haas, Wahlmüller 2010: 80). At the present stage of research, however, this is only a working hypothesis. In the light of the investigations described above, the local natural environ- 46 Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture ment was strongly afected by the intensive animal breeding practised by settlement inhabitants. he investigations at Bruszczewo yielded a large amount of animal bone remains. he remains from both the irst and second stages of the investigations were subjected to a partial archaeozoological analysis (Makowiecki 2004; Makowiecki, Drejer 2010). Moreover preliminary taphonomical investigations were carried out on animal bones from pit no 150 (Marciniak 2010). he osteological material collected between 1995 and 2001 was made up of two bone assemblages3 built up using two different techniques. Next to the traditional manual collection of animal remains, the lotation method was taken advantage of using sieves of 3 mm mesh size. his had a considerable impact on the analysis results. What changed most was the representation of individual species. he washing revealed the presence of so-called small animals (mud turtle, pike, sheatish) and birds4 (mallard), and raised the share of wild species remains (for instance, by 10 per cent rose the number of deer bone fragments and by 15 per cent climbed those of the roe deer) (Makowiecki 2004: 283-285). At the settlement cattle breeding clearly dominated over the raising of sheep, goats or pigs, which is seen in the number of bone fragments of individual species. Little represented in the material studied were the bones of the horse or the dog (Makowiecki 2004: 283, Fig. 133; Makowiecki, Drejer 2010: 292; Table 1). he wild species that were indentiied were mostly large animals such as, above all, the deer and wild boar followed by the roe deer and aurochs. Among small animal bones, the most numerous were those of the beaver. he rest of remains belonged to the brown hare, brown bear, (pine?) marten and wildcat. Apart from mammals, the assemblage contained bird remains (Makowiecki, Drejer 2010: 292). Individual domesticated species, being the chief source of animal proteins, were he analyzed assemblage consisted in total of 2,486 bone fragments of which 1,859 or 74.8% were identiied Makowiecki 2004: 283). 4 Fish remains were not represented at all in the assemblage of bones collected in the 1960s (Makowiecki 2004: 282). 3 used in many diferent ways. For the analysis of mortality did not reveal any speciic, one-track breeding strategy. Even in the case of pigs, carcasses were of varied quality, and nutritional and culinary values as animals were slaughtered at diferent ages (Makowiecki 2004: 284, 290). When the chronology of the site could be made more speciic, the osteological material coming from the 1960s was re-analyzed. Two ‘pure’ sets of animal remains were separated and a third, mixed one. he irst two were linked to the Únětice and Lusatian cultures, respectively, while the third one combined the two phases of settlement at the Bruszczewo promontory and the Early Medieval times. Next, the three sets of chronologically ordered remains were subjected to a spatial analysis within zones (A-E, S) marked of following the form and location of pits (Makowiecki, Drejer 2010: 288-290; Fig. 1). he most interesting for this work, the set associated with the Early Bronze Age contained altogether 3,500 bone remains in 49 features. Over a half (54 per cent) could be identiied. A vast majority of them (89 per cent) belonged to domesticated species (Makowiecki, Drejer 2010: 290-292). his tendency could be seen in all the zones, although percentage ratios within them varied (Makowiecki, Drejer 2010: 294). A spatial analysis allowed to capture a cluster of Early Bronze features containing animal bones in the northeastern portion of the settlement, in zones A, B, and D. In terms of numbers, however, zones C, A and B stood out (Makowiecki, Drejer 2010: 294). What seems to be particularly signiicant, however, is the conclusions following from the spatial distribution of remains of wild species. hey were particularly densely concentrated in zones B and C, with their share in the former zone reaching 22.5 per cent. A tentative assumption can be made that this fact relects a special manner of distribution of food and raw materials obtained by hunting. he researchers pointed to a possibility that wild animals could have been diferently valorized because they belonged to the natural world (Makowiecki, Drejer 2010: 294, 300). his suggestion agrees with the view that hunting grew in social importance in Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture 47 the Bronze Age as illustrated by a rich collection of lint points discovered at Bruszczewo and attesting to the popularity of the bow – a hunter’s attribute. he above information paints a picture of a well-organized society engaged in an intensive agro-breeding economy supplemented by gathering, hunting and gar- den growing of specialized plant varieties. However, the most signiicant outcome of the research is a unique possibility of determining the scale of human impact in the region. It is this impact that, hypothetically, led to an extensive degradation of the natural environment and contributed to the fall of the Bruszczewo settlement. 4.2. Inner layout A fundamental problem facing researchers in the case of the Bruszczewo settlement is determining how its interior was laid out. he site has been an arable ield for decades. Long years of ploughing, including particularly deep and destructive steam ploughing in the 19th c., and other agrotechnical measures resulted in great destruction of strata from the Early Bronze Age. he magnitude of the problem may be illustrated by the fact that only in trench 47/05 a cultural layer linked to the Únětice settlement survived in fragments (Czebreszuk, Suchowska 2010: 545, Fig. 2). Next to contemporary destructive processes, some elements of the Early Bronze Age settlement must have been destroyed during the younger phases of the site use. his is well illustrated by the fact that the Lusatian ditch was in part dug into a ditch from the Early Bronze Age. In consequence, little data is available on the inner layout of the Bruszczewo settlement (Müller, Kneisel 2010: 762). What was nevertheless recorded is a large number of storage pits and postholes (Czebreszuk, Ducke, Müller, Silska 2004: 73; Kneisel 2010a: 94, Abb. 1) (Fig. 10). In addition, excavations and geomagnetic investigations support a view that between the most densely settled part of the settlement and the defences there was an empty space about 20 m wide (Czebreszuk, Ducke, Müller, Silska 2004: 73). Certainly, some of the postholes must be relics of Early Bronze Age post houses. What is not certain, however, is their chronology. For the most part, these features are deprived of any archaeological artefacts that would allow researchers to attribute them to a speciic period of the Bruszczewo use (Czebreszuk, Ducke, Müller, Silska 2004: 74). he arrangement of the postholes revealed in the course of excavations is insuicient to reconstruct unequivocally the remains of huts. Quite possibly, some postholes that are regularly arranged along an E-W axis are relics of Early Bronze Age structures (Czebreszuk, Ducke, Müller, Silska 2004: 74, Abb. 28). How the huts looked we can presume only indirectly relying on information from other sites of a similar chronology. In the case of sites located in Poland, our knowledge is excessively modest as a result of the absence of planned excavations (Sarnowska 1969: 16; Butent-Stefaniak 1997: 166-171; Lasak 2001: 249-253). A majority of Early Bronze Age settlements were only fragmentarily investigated, oten as part of excavations of multicultural sites. hey rendered above all discoveries of different types of storing pits. In several cases, features of exceptionally large size were interpreted as remains of dwelling structures – semidugouts (Sarnowska 1969: 14; Butent-Stefaniak 1997: 167). Relics of Early Bronze Age structures were unearthed at a fortiied settlement in Radłowice (Lasak 1988; Butent-Stefaniak 1997: 169). hey included postholes let behind by both overground huts and dwelling structures partially sunk into the ground (Lasak, Furmanek 2008: 124-125, 130, Abb. 3). Post huts were small structures measuring from 9 to 25 sq. m and may have had a similar form to hut remains known from Germany and Moravia, of which more is known (Stuchlík 2000: 221-229; Schefzik 2006: 154-155; Abb. 11-12). For the latter area, four types of post houses occurring at Early 48 Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture Fig. 10. Bruszczewo. Plan of the settlement with excavated elements of the inner layout and fortiications: 1 – ditch, 2 – palisades, 3, 4 – fascines, 5 – wooden wall, 6 – pits, 7 – excavated area, 8 – houses in wet area, 9 – probable course of EBA ditch (after Kneisel et al. 2008). Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture 49 Bronze Age settlements were distinguished: small overground houses, houses sunk into the ground, hall houses and circular ones (Stuchlík 2000). At the Bruszczewo site, in none of the investigated settlement parts, can one ind a circular arrangement of postholes at a relatively small area, which typical of houses built on a circular plan (see Velešovice; Stuchlík 2000: 237, Obr. 13). Neither are there any regularly spaced postholes, typical of hall structures (see Šumice; Stuchlík, Stuchlíková 1999: 178, Abb. 8; Eching/Öberau type; Schefzik 2006: 140, Abb. 1). I believe it can be tentatively assumed that rather small overground post houses provided shelter to settlement inhabitants. Such structures are known from many Únětice culture sites in Moravia (e.g. Sedlec, Holubice, Moravská Nová Ves; Stuchlík 2000: 224-226, Obr. 3-6). Next to postholes, the mineral part of the Bruszczewo settlement yielded a single feature which is probably a relic of a house sunk into the ground. Feature 78, only partially explored, was trapezoidal in shape, measured 4.4 m in length and 2.4 to approx. 4 m in width, and held a stone hearth (Czebreszuk, Ducke, Müller, Silska 2004: 75, Abb. 29). Dwelling features partially sunk into the ground are known from other Únětice culture settlements (Lasak 1988: 48; Stuchlík 2000: 235-236). However, feature 78 difers signiicantly from huts described by the quoted authors – in both Radłowice and Moravian Budkovice, recorded postholes were traces of structural elements of houses (Lasak 1988: 48; Stuchlík 2000: 236, Obr. 12). Moreover, feature 29 from Radłowice yielded daub fragments bearing twig impressions showing the way walls had been built (Lasak 1988: 48). Whereas in the case of Bruszczewo no postholes were found to be related to feature 78. Perhaps an explanation should be sought in another type of structure used to build the house. Next to post structures dating to the Early Bronze Age, we know of log structures as well. For instance, log huts were found at a fortiied settlement in Jędrychowice (Butent-Stefaniak 1997: 171). Owing to the speciic conditions prevailing in Bruszczewo’s peat layers, helping to preserve organic materials, numerous elements of wooden architecture survived at the site. Next to defences, in the oxygenfree environment, discoveries were made of fragments of structural elements of buildings, possibly of dwelling character. Excavations of peat layers call for a speciic methodology. One of its more important precepts is that trench size be kept rather small (Kneisel 2010a: 140). For this reason, the structural elements of houses described below, situated at the shoreline of the original lake, have been explored only in part. In total, fragments of four wooden structures were discovered and interpreted as remains of huts. he irst structure was unearthed in trench 30. It was situated west of an inner wattle. It was made of a cluster of 26 piles, which, unlike defence posts, had been halved. he structure was accompanied by the remains of a hearth (Kneisel et al. 2008: 157, 162; Kneisel 2010a: 104). Another structure, in trench 31, could be seen in geomagnetic plan as a roughly rectangular anomaly (Ducke, Müller 2004: 63, Abb. 23). Located north of the structure described earlier, its elements were uncovered simultaneously in two quadrats (5 and 7) (Kneisel 2010a: 115, Abb. 24). hese were two perpendicular and two longitudinal beams. he end of one of the beams was fastened with large stones. In the case of this structure, an unusual detail could be recorded, namely, one of the beams was placed on piles which were mortised in purpose-made openings in the beam (Kneisel 2010a: 118, Abb. 32) (Fig. 11). Between the beams, birch bark, clay and twigs were recorded which must have been remains of a loor (Kneisel et al. 2008: 162; Kneisel 2010a: 126). West of the irst described structure, in the area between the mineral and peat zones of the site, poorly preserved remains of another structure were unearthed. What was let included a single massive post, a large number of small-diameter postholes and the so-called ‘shadows’ let behind by the wood that had rotted away in the mineral layer (Kneisel et al. 2008: 163). he remains of the last house were discovered in trench 52 (quadrat 11), placed on the slope of the promontory and joining both zones of the site. Only a part of the house was explored including the remains 50 Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture Fig. 11. Bruszczewo, trench 31. Construction detail of the remains of dwelling no 2 (after Kneisel et al. 2008). of a collapsed wall in the form of layers of burned and unburned clay (Kneisel 2010a: 137-138, Abb. 64). Close to the house, a large deposit of charred grain was found (Kneisel et al. 2008: 163). Additionally, quadrat 8 in trench 31 yielded a characteristic concentration of small twigs. It is highly probable that these are remains of a destroyed wattle wall or fence (Kneisel et al. 2008: 162, Fig. 6; Kneisel 2010a: 128-130, Abb. 51). While discussing the inner layout of the settlement, it is worth noting that the only grave discovered in Bruszczewo until now was located a short distance from the above structures. A grave of a man wrapped in a willow twig mat was uncovered in quadrat 2 (Kneisel 2010d; Jaeger 2012b) (Fig. 12). he current knowledge on the layout structure in this part of the site suggests that we deal here with a burial within the settlement bounds. In Poland, we know of examples of the co-occurrence of graves and economic features on Únětice culture sites (e.g. Radłowice, Wrocław-Oporów, Domasław; Sarnowska 1969: 226; Butent-Stefaniak 1997: 169-170). Summing up, it is quite clear that the state of preservation of the mineral part of the Bruszczewo settlement largely prevents any reconstruction of houses. Nevertheless, it can be tentatively assumed that mainly small post huts were built within the settlement bounds. In one case, there is evidence of another type of structure: a hut partially sunk into the ground, possibly built of logs. Fortunately, special data were supplied by the peat zone of the site. Relying on them, it can be claimed now with certainty that along the shoreline of the original lake there stood buildings of which some at least were dwelling structures. 4.3. Fortiications he irst information on the defences on the Bruszczewo promontory referred to a stone-earthen rampart topped by a timber structure, which had been rebuilt on three occasions (Pieczyński 1985; Czebreszuk, Müller, Silska 2004: 20). he investigations carried out in the 1990s made it possible to verify the information. he Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture 51 Fig. 12. Bruszczewo. A burial in the eastern part of the settlement (after Kneisel 2010d). stratigraphy interpreted by Pieczyński as rampart remains was actually a mixed material, including stone clusters, connected to the Early Medieval and modern periods of site use (Czebreszuk 2004: 83). he new stage of research, involving drilling and aerial photography, produced the irst information on a ditch surrounding the settlement. he ditch was excavated in two phases of excavations. During the irst one, in the 1990s, ditch proiles were uncovered in trenches no. 7 (northern portion of the site), no. 10 (northeastern portion) and no. 16 (western portion) (Müller, Czebreszuk 2003: 451, Abb. 6). he second phase, tak- ing place in the 2006-2007 seasons, encompassed defences, including the ditch, in the entrance area. he drillings and aerial photographs were supplemented by geophysical prospection in the 2003 season (Ducke, Müller 2003). It helped to make comprehensive visualization of the structure of archaeological remains of which part can be unequivocally called fortiications. Generally, it must be stressed that the very location of the settlement was chosen taking into account strategic considerations. For the settlement stood on a small promontory jutting out into the valley of 52 Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture the Samica River. Hence, the site was originally surrounded by water5. he northwestern part of the promontory was cut of by a ditch (Fig. 10). In efect, the settlement was a completely isolated, almost circular space 120 m in diameter measuring about 1.5 ha (Czebreszuk, Ducke, Müller, Silska 2004: 71). he ditch varied in width. In trench 7 it was 20 m wide while is depth was up to 4.5 m (Czebreszuk, Ducke, Müller, Silska 2004: 71-72, Abb. 26). In the entrance area (trench 51) the ditch was much narrower as it must have measured only approx. 10-12 m6. Considering the relationship between the depth of the ditch and that of the body of water, and the nature of strata recorded in the bottom of trench 7, it can be safely assumed that originally the ditch was illed with water (Czebreszuk, Ducke, Müller, Silska 2004: 71). Apart from the ditch, another obstacle barring entrance to the settlement was three palisades made of rows of massive halved oak trunks up to 30 cm in diameter (Jaeger 2012b: 397, Fig. 5). Obtained radiocarbon datings show that individual sections of the palisade were regularly repaired for about 200 years (Czebreszuk, Ducke, Müller, Silska 2004: 71-73, Abb. 27). In the entrance area, in the inner palisade row, a breach was recorded in which a dark streak of charcoal and burned clay could be discerned. he streak formed a crescent about 4 m long while its width varied from 0.1 to 0.2 m. his layer is presumably what remained of a burned gate (Kneisel 2010a: 96-98) (Fig. 13). In trench 51 a large assemblage of daub fragments was recovered showing how certain elements of the entrance area had been built. A large part of the daub fragments bear wood impressions which difer in dia5 At present, specialists involved in the Bruszczewo project, continue to discuss the issue of the type of the body of water that once neighboured the settlement. he prevailing view is that it was an oxbow lake (Haas, Wahlmüller 2010; see Bork 2010 for opposite oppinnion). 6 he uncovered proile showed the structure of the Early Bronze Age ditch. Its northern slope was damaged by another ditch dug in the Late Bronze Age (Hildebrandt-Radke 2010: 25, Fig. 11). meter. Next to a small number of stake impressions having about 5 cm in diameter there is a large number of impressions of small branches only about 1,5 cm in diameter. he arrangement of impressions – frequently parallel (possibly vertical) clusters of three elements (two next to each other with the third protruding forward) – does not provide enough information to draw any conclusions as to the construction of the gate. What is certain, however, is the fact that in the entrance area there was a structure built of wooden elements of different sizes additionally secured with clay. Unique information on the structure, sizes and construction of defences at Bruszczewo was supplied by investigations in the peat zone of the site. In the oxygen-free environment prevailing there discoveries were made of excellently preserved fragments of wooden structures designed to protect the settlement’s shoreline. here were three lines of defences stretching roughly along the N-S axis: two wattle structures and a timber wall. he former consisted of piles intertwined with branches (Müller 2004: 125-133, Abb. 64-78) (Fig. 10; 14). In 2005, excavations in quadrat 4 (trench 30) supplied irst clear evidence of diferences between the two lines of wattle. he inner structure was built of thinner branches measuring 2-4 cm in diameter while the outer wattle, closer to the lake, consisted of thicker branches measuring 6-8 cm in diameter (Kneisel 2010a: 112). Relying on the length of collapsed piles, found in diferent quadrats, which once were elements of the wattles, their original minimum height can be roughly estimated at about 3 m (Kneisel 2010a: 114). In front of both wattles, looking from the lake, there stood a massive timber wall. It was built of beams inserted between double posts. he excellent state of preservation of timber structures in the peat zone of the site helped to determine tree species in many instances (Kneisel, Kroll 2010). he most widely represented species in examined piles was the oak. Its share amounted to 62 per cent (Kneisel, Kroll 2010: 567, Abb. 2). In some excavations, the oak was the only species used for building all or certain defence elements. Next to the oak, a relatively frequent use was made of the ash and al- Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture 53 Fig. 13. Bruszczewo, trench 51. View of the burned palisade and gate construction (photograph: M. Jaeger). der. Other species identiied at the site were clearly far less important. he dominance of the oak suggests that it was carefully selected. Undoubtedly, the speciic properties of the oak played a role. Oak is a particularly desirable building material because of its lexibility, durability and cleavability as well as resistance to water and, at a speciic age (60-70) years, to ire (Romanowska-Grabowska 1991: 221). Also ash and alder make a good building material suitable for a damp environment (Kneisel, Kroll 2010: 566, 568). he use of other tree species, less suitable for building purposes, may be tentatively explained by chronological differences, i.e. the fact that the defences were built in phases, or by reparation of the defences. Well established by the study of the original natural environment surrounding the settlement, the process of slow degrada- tion of the environment (seen in the deforestation of the surrounding area in the late phase of the settlement’s life) might have resulted in making use of more easily available but less suitable tree species (Kneisel, Kroll 2010: 570). here are still too few dendrological studies available to consider this hypothesis the only plausible explanation. To some extent it is supported by several recorded instances of secondary use of older pieces of timber, originally serving undoubtedly another purpose, to construct individual fortiication elements. For example, in fortiications from trench 31/6, a beam was used bearing characteristic tool marks, made from a tree cut down 10 years earlier than other trees recorded in the same structure (Kneisel, Kroll 2010: 574). he good state of preservation of timber fortiication elements allowed researchers 54 Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture to study how individual posts had been worked. A considerable number of them were sharpened (for excellent illustrations see Kneisel, Kroll 2010: 587-651). A close scrutiny of ive examples of tool marks let on posts from Bruszczewo showed remarkable coincidence between the width of the tool marks and that of the cutting edge of a bronze axe found at the site (Kneisel, Kroll 2010: 570-572, Abb. 5). In the case of a site of a unique character on a regional scale, that Bruszczewo unquestionably is, this inding is of crucial importance. Not only the monumentality of Bruszczewo fortiications, but also the way they were built – using widely available bronze tools – sent people a clear signal how advanced the social organization of settlement inhabitants was (Jaeger, Czebreszuk 2010: 220-221). he high complexity and size of the fortiications of the Bruszczewo promontory have found no analogy so far among the other fortiied settlements associated with the Únětice culture. Located in Silesia, the site at Radłowice, unlike Bruszczewo, was surrounded by two rather small ditches (Lasak, Furmanek 2008: 130, Abb. 4), the size of which questioned their military or defensive character. he defences of the settlement were explored in a selective excavation project and by no means do they resemble any structures known from Bruszczewo. Located in Silesia too, fortiied settlements belonging to the so-called Nowa Cerekiew group, are traditionally viewed as a product of elements originating with the Únětice culture and the circle of Mad’arovce-Věteřov-Böheimkirchen (Gedl 1985)7. One of such settlements located at Jędrychowice had defences comprising many complex elements. he outer line of defence was made of a rampart whose width at the base varied from 6 to 16 m. On its inner side, there was a ditch 10 to 13 m wide, 3 to 4 m deep with a V-shaped cross-section. he inner line of defence On re-analyzing the results of excavations at the settlements in Nowa Cerekiew and Jędrychowice, the share of stylistic elements of pottery linked to the circle of Mad’arovce-Věteřov-Böheimkirchen has been estimated to be much less signiicant that it had been believed so far. It is with high probability that these settlements should linked to the classic stage of the Únětice culture (Molak 2008). 7 was made of log structures (probably huts), strengthened on the ditch side with a gravel-loess bank lined with a stone wall (Chochorowski 1985). Reconstructed in the course of excavations at the site, the system of defences is a unique example of a combination of diferent elements, unknown at Bruszczewo. he eponymous settlement in Nowa Cerekiew is known from the reports of the rescue excavations that covered only a small area when compared to the potential area of the site (Kunawicz-Kosińska 1985: 111, Fig. 2). In the light of the reports, it was suggested that there existed two ditches which protected two separate settlement zones – an inner stronghold and an outer enclosure. he outer ditch was about 6 m wide and 3.6 m deep (Kunawicz-Kosińska 1985: 115). he inner ditch, in turn, was about 14 m wide and 3.5 m deep and had a V-shaped cross-section. In front of it, there was a gravel-clay rampart (Kunawicz-Kosińska 1985: 112). he hypothesis about the existence of a rampart has not been supported by any sound arguments nor has it been properly documented (see comments by Butent-Stefaniak 1997: 173). Moreover, the general structure of defences described above is an interpretation of a selective picture obtained by excavations. A probe into the course of ditches and a small space investigated within possible bailies, without recourse to other methods (e.g. magnetometry), do not provide suicient data to draw any conclusions, in particular on the complex inner division of the settlement suggestive of the existence of separate social groups among its inhabitants. he weak source base for some of her hypotheses has been conceded by the research author herself (Kunawicz-Kosińska 1985: 124). Taking into account the selective nature of the investigations of the settlement in Nowa Cerekiew and the kind and combination of the defences discovered there, the site cannot be considered an object for any comparisons with the Bruszczewo defences. Due to insuicient research, in the case of settlements located in today’s Germany, Bohemia and Moravia, it is only possible to ascertain the presence of diferent fortiication elements such as ramparts or ditches. In a vast majority of cases, little is known Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture 55 Fig. 14. Bruszczewo, trench 30. At the top – reconstruction of three lines of fortiications in the eastern peat part of the site; at the bottom – the outer fascine and wall of beams (graphics M. Stróżyk; photograph J. Kneisel). 56 Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture of speciic construction details (Stuchlík 1985; Simon 1990; Novotná 1999: 102-103; Ettel 2008; 2010). Gathering such information is oten prevented by the fact that settlements, founded at strategic locations, were used and re-used in many later periods (Ettel 2008: 11). Suggested in the literature, a similarity in size between the Bruszczewo ditch and the ditches surrounding Otomani-Füzesabony culture settlements in Slovakia (Czebreszuk, Müller 2004b: 313) is only a seemingly signiicant characteristic common to both cultural circles. A comprehensive look at the settlements reveals a number of diferent characteristics, which are far more signiicant. he Slovak settlements mentioned by the quoted authors considerably difer in size from the Bruszczewo settlement (Czebreszuk, Müller 2004b: 312, Abb. 147). Next to ditches, major defences consisted of ramparts having a complex structure of timber and earth, not infrequently reinforced with stone elements (see below, chapter 6.3). 4.4. Metallurgy Already the irst investigations at the Bruszczewo settlement, carried out in the 1960s, produced a number of inds attesting to the local working of metals. One report on Pieczyński’s investigations contains information that all objects related to metalworking were discovered on a single occasion when the so-called ‘founder’s workshop’ was unearthed (Pieczyński 1985: 167-168, Fig. 1). Actually, these objects come from diferent contexts uncovered in trenches designated by letters Y and W (Czebreszuk, Müller 2003: 482; Czebreszuk, Müller, Silska 2004: 15, Abb. 2). In 1967, in trench Y, a hoard was found consisting of two axes and a damaged dagger blade (Czebreszuk, Müller, Silska 2004: 19, Abb. 4:4-5, 10) while in trench W metallurgist’s tools were found: a ladle, tuyère, crucible, three clay pads, and a part of sandstone mould (Czebreszuk, Müller, Silska 2004: 19, Abb. 4:2, 6-9, 11-12). A third axe was probably found at the site in the layer of humus, while another dagger blade and more tuyères were discovered in pits 19 and 67, respectively (Czebreszuk, Müller 2003: 452; Czebreszuk, Müller, Silska 2004: 18) (Fig. 15). he second stage of excavations at the site also brought a number of inds of ready-made bronze goods and objects attesting to the local working of metals. he irst group comprises among others a characteristic damaged bronze disc (trench 22), a dress pin (trench 23) and a dress pin frag- ment (trench 24), an awl/punch (a loose ind from a ditch ill layer representing the Late Bronze Age; trench 51), a pin (quadrat 11, trench 52), an awl and another pin (quadrat 12, trench 52) in the peat zone. To the local production of at least some of these objects, apart from the metallurgist’s tools, testify minute but signiicant inds of metal droplets and scrap metal (Rassmann 2010: 711-712, Taf. 1-2). Some of them come from the surface soil which is regularly surveyed with a metal detector. Despite a large number of inds related to metallurgy, it is hardly possible to identify any places and their number where bronze could be worked. It must be emphasized, however, that most sources of this category were located along the edge of the area where pits and postholes were particularly densely distributed (Czebreszuk, Müller 2003: 451-452, Abb. 6). It cannot be determined, either, whether in Bruszczewo ready-made objects were manufactured by melting old damaged ones or metallic pieces of tin and copper were combined in a crucible (see comments by Kuijpers 2008: 19-20). A vast majority of Bruszczewo inds related to metallurgy can be associated with the Early Bronze Age period of the settlement life. he artefacts dating to this period include unquestionably the dagger blades. he axes, too, display forms characteristic of the Únětice culture environment. Two of them can be included in the Wrocław-Szczytniki type (variety B), while the third Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture 57 specimen is an example of a Bennewitz type axe (variety B) (Rassmann 2004: 262). Early Bronze Age provenance is shared also by the two pins discovered in the eastern peat zone. he characteristic specimen of an Ösenkopfnadel (quadrat 12, trench 52) and the more common pin of the Rollenkopfnadel type (quadrat 11, trench 52), because of their stratigraphic position, are linked to the irst stage of settlement at the Bruszczewo promontory. Also small tools, such as awls and punches, from Bruszczewo have close analogies in Únětice culture assemblages. he form of punch8 from trench 51 is known, among others, from a grave in Skarbienice (Sarnowska 1969: 139, Fig. 36:b). In turn, the type of awl discovered in quadrat 12 is recorded in a set of loose inds from the Vraný settlement in Bohemia (Moucha 2005: 164, 474, Taf. 251:9). he dress pin (double knob/doubleheader) and the fragment of a dress pin mentioned earlier are artefacts typical of the Únětice culture. In Poland, one could mention in the irst place an analogous object forming part of a hoard from Wrocław-Gądów Mały (Sarnowska 1969: 220, Fig. 76:c). In turn, the characteristic disc from Bruszczewo could have been a semi-product of a disclike ornament. Such objects are known from deposits found above all in Bohemia (Moucha 2005: 53-55, 326, Taf. 55). he assemblage of metallurgical tools comprises a crucible, tuyères and a sandstone casting mould (Fig. 15). he crucible from Bruszczewo has a small handle modelled in clay and, apart from that, has a rather common form determined by function. It is worth noting that the life of such cru8 he term ‘punch’ has been adopted instead of ‘awl’, which is found in the literature (for a broader discussion of the function and signiicance of these objects see Jaeger, Czebreszuk 2010: 225-226). cibles lasted at best ive castings (Kuijpers 2008: 86). he tuyères known from the settlement are very popular over vast areas of Europe (Jockenhövel 1985) occurring in diferent cultural contexts (Bátora 2006: 55-94). In the milieu of the Únětice culture they are found in both graves (Bátora 2006: 78-80, Obr. 55-57) and settlements (Moucha 2005: 474, Taf. 180:12). he last element of the assemblage is a mould for casting massive bracelets. Such objects are characteristic of western Poland and middle Elbe drainage (Blajer 1990: 46-47). From the area of Kościan Group of Únětice culture we know of deposits from Granowo, Kokorzyn, Piotrkowice and Poniec, which comprise massive bracelets (Blajer 1990; Jaeger, Czebreszuk 2010: 223) he analysis of the raw material components of some objects found in Bruszczewo permits to assign them to two copper types: Bennewitz and Bresinchen. According to the divisions developed by Rassmann, artefacts from the settlement concentrate chiely within horizon III (2000-1850BC) and horizon IV (1850-1650BC). A single analysis only can be related to horizon II (2100-2000 BC) (Rassmann 2005: 470, Abb. 4). Regardless of the results of further planned metallographic studies of Bruszczewo artefacts, it can be observed already now that the origins of metallurgy are relatively early and, equally important, metalworking was practised at the settlement throughout its lifetime. Next to the sources coming from the Bruszczewo settlement itself, valuable information can be obtained from numerous hoards unearthed in Kościan Group of Únětice culture. he most numerous artefact in them was massive open rings (35 specimens), followed by necklaces with loop endings (17 specimens), daggers (14 specimens), axes (13 specimens) and ear wraps (10 specimens, including 6 gold ones). 4.5. Chronology In the case of Bruszczewo we possess an exceptionally large (over 80) set of radiocarbon determinations (Czebreszuk, Müller 2004; Kneisel 2010a: 148, 150). he speciic conditions of wood preservation in the peat zone have also provided dendrologi- 58 Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture Fig. 15. Bruszczewo. A selection of bronze objects and items connected with metallurgical production (after Müller, Czebreszuk 2003). Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture 59 Fig. 16. Bruszczewo. The sum of the probability distribution of radiocarbon datings from the ill-in of the ditch (trench 51, plot 51/3). cal datings. Analyses of the data obtained during years-long excavation campaign are still being continued. Within the compass of that work more datings will probably be obtained for both categories. So far, research into the chronology of the site has been directed not just towards deining the temporal framework within which the fortiied settlement had functioned; it has also attempted a detailed reconstruction of its development. Combination of radiocarbon and dendrological datings has made it possible now to deine the age of particular elements of the settlement. he information concerns speciic parts of the fortiications, the zone of entrance to the site, remains of dwellings and a burial in the mineral zone. he oldest radiocarbon datings in the pool come from a palisade discovered in trench 7. Two dates obtained for the outer tree rings of a pole indicate the turn of the 21st and 20th c. BC as the period when the tree was felled (Czebreszuk, Müller 2004: 294-295, Abb. 135). he palisade was constantly repaired for ca 200 years. his is conirmed by the dates obtained from the successive strata of its conservation (Czebreszuk, Ducke, Müller, Silska 2004: 73, Abb. 27; Czebreszuk, Müller 2004b: 297). Objects from the mineral zone have yielded only 6 radiocarbon datings. hey show concurrent values contained in the period of the 17th and 16th c. BC (Pieczyński 1985: 169; Czebreszuk, Müller 2004b: 297, 303, Abb. 144), indicative of a relatively late period of the decline of human settlement in Bruszczewo. Next two radiocarbon dates were obtained from the entrance zone (trench 51). hey are connected with the burnt construction of the gate and the adjacent palisade, and their values are evidently concurrent: 1740-1630, 1740-1610 BC respectively (Kneisel 2010a: 150). he late dating of the decline of the settlement is further supported by datings obtained from the ill-in of the Early Bronze Age ditch in the entrance zone (trench 51). In this case the analysis based on fragments of charcoal still sunk in the pieces of daub from the gate structure. Only impressions of small wood fragments not more than 5 cm in diameter were found in the daub. he datings cover the period of 1921-1503 BC (Fig. 16). Taking into account the considerable number of objects in the mineral zone of the site, it must be made clear that the assessment of the chronology of this part of the site and the decline of the Bruszczewo settlement is by no means deinite. he peat zone revealed remains of dwellings and elements of fortiications. For the former, radiocarbon datings point to end of the 20th down to the turn of the 18th and 17th c. BC (Kneisel 2010a: 134, 136, Abb. 63). he dendrological data for the 60 Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture fortiications reveal a relatively short period over which they were constructed (Kneisel 2010b: 212). he dates from the outer fascine are contained within 1797-1790 BC time bracket, and for the inner one within 1793-1787 BC. he wall made of beams was probably erected in 1787 BC (Kneisel 2010b: 224; Ważny 2010). he youngest dendrological date from Bruszczewo discovered so far was obtained from a pole of the beam structure in quadrat 5. Its value indicates 1779 BC (Kneisel 2010a: 148). hree radiocarbon datings were done for the grave discovered in the peat zone. heir analysis and the data established for the objects in a speciied relation to the grave suggest the 1880-1780 BC time bracket as the most probable time of the man’s burial (Kneisel 2010d: 718). Further research will undoubtedly require an explanation of the discrepancy between the youngest datings from the peat zone, mainly contained in the 17th c. BC, and the mineral zone dates which go back to the 16th c. BC: it must be borne in mind that alike to the peat zone datings, expert palynological and geomorphological data indicate an earlier (17th c. BC) end of human activity (Müller, Kneisel 2010: 762). 4.6. Summary: role and function of the Bruszczewo settlement in the Kościan group of the Únětice culture he geographical location of the Bruszczewo settlement – and putting it more broadly the Kościan Group of the Únětice culture – has made authors refer to it as periphery. he cultural phenomena illustrated by Bruszczewo and its region have been treated as subordinate to the component elements of the core of Únětice settlement in central Germany (Zich 1996; Makarowicz 1998: 295). I believe, however, that the available archaeological data show that the view of Bruszczewo as a periphery is not correct. he aspects of the settlement’s life discussed above make it appear as a rather complex entity and give us an insight into the historical context in which it thrived. A high degree of social organization allowed the local community not only to raise robust defences but also to maintain and repair them over many years. he inhabitants of the Bruszczewo promontory completely subdued its vicinity as well: natural scientiic studies showed that intensive and varied use had been made of natural resources. In my opinion, however, an efective use made of local ecological conditions is not the only key to the understanding of the stability and continuance of settlement at Bruszczewo and to proper assessment of the role the fortiied settlement played on the local and supralocal scale. In this connection far more important for the settlement’s continuance was mastery over the two basic raw materials of the times: tin bronze and amber. It is only through the prism of the analysis of their importance that the geographic distance from the Únětice oecumene acquires any sense. he distance appears, paradoxically, as a basis of success and the chief reason for remaining in the mainstream of the most momentous cultural phenomena of the Early Bronze Age (Jaeger, Czebreszuk 2010; Müller, Kneisel 2010: 756-759). As mentioned earlier, the investigations of the Bruszczewo settlement carried out so far have supplied many sources, attesting to the working of metals. In the context of the signiicance of Bruszczewo’s metallurgy for the region, among the published inds, notice should be given to the stone mould for casting massive bracelets (Müller, Kneisel 2010: 757) (Fig. 15:9). Such ornaments are characteristic of western Poland and the middle Elbe drainage (Blajer 1990: 46-47). Next to necklaces with loop endings and Salez type axes, the bracelets could have formed a group of standardized objects circulating as commodity money or raw material ingots (Lenerz de Wilde 1995; Krause, Pernicka 1998; Müller 2002: Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture 61 272, Abb. 6; Pare 2000: 27-29). Next to the shape, standardization applied also to the raw material used for manufacturing massive bracelets. In this way what could be assessed was not only the weight but also the quality of goods (Pare 2000: 27-28; Krause 2003: 188-189). he inclusion of the bracelets in many Kościan Group hoards (e.g. Poniec, Kokorzyn) and the fact that such bracelets were made at the Bruszczewo settlement testify to the local community’s being part of a speciic network of cultural patterns (Müller, Kneisel 2010: 759). In addition, it can be tentatively assumed that the Bruszczewo settlement was a centre from which spread knowledge related to the system of weights and measures coming into being in the Bronze Age (Pare 1999). Many Kościan Group deposits can counted among the so-called Barrenhorte (e.g. Poniec; Blajer 1990: 109-110). On the one hand, the number and standardized form of objects make it more probable that they served as commodity money/ingots of raw material, on the other hand, the conditions in which they were hidden, which let them irretrievable, and the very fact of removing them from circulation suggest that they were oten a kind of ‘ofering for gods’ (Junk, Krause, Pernicka 2001). Another group of objects deposited by Kościan Group populations, above all because of their high cultural valorisation, are halberds and daggers (Hansen 2002: 156-160), known from, among other places, ‘princely graves’ in Łęki Małe and Przysieka Polska and a hoard in Poniec (Blajer 1990: 125-126, 228). Hence, the metallurgical production in Bruszczewo was not only an important economic factor but also played a signiicant role in the ritual life of the settlement and its vicinity. In the light of the metallographic analyses of bronze axes performed by Kienlin, it can hardly be claimed that a monopoly on bronze production by the Bruszczewo settlement was suicient to ensure local elites success. Metallurgical technology in the younger period of the Early Bronze Age (BA2) must have been quite common and the number of objects in circulation could provide enough raw material for home production not subject anymore to the control of local elites (Kienlin 2007). It must be stressed, however, that a distinction should be drawn between the knowledge of the metallurgical process and skills necessary to manufacture speciic objects (Kuijpers 2008: 32). Such skills were acquired by experience and were largely dependent on personal predilections. he distinction could have hypothetically resulted in the parallel development of metallurgy (Rowlands 1971; Levy 1991). he fact that secrets how to manufacture simple tools (e.g. axes) were widely known does not exclude a possibility that some areas of metallurgy were monopolized, for instance those related to individual stages of the production process (e.g. ornamentation) or to the making of special objects calling for special skills (e.g. halberds). With the technology becoming more and more common and the growing amount of raw material in circulation, the signiicance of manipulation of added value – meaning – could have grown if only by practising elaborate rituals. I believe that it is in this context that the role of the Bruszczewo settlement should be discussed. he metallurgy of the Únětice circle has stable special stylistic and formal traits. Despite regional diferences, the most signiicant elements, such as production of halberds, daggers and a number of ornaments remained unchanged. An important trait attesting to the cohesiveness of Únětice metallurgy was also similar technology manifested in the use of a constant set of metallurgical implements. Particularly meaningful in this connection, an object found at the Bruszczewo settlement in 2007 is a small tool having one sharp end and the other shaped like a spatula with a boss in between (Fig. 17). he function of such objects is still unclear, which is relected by diferent names applied to them. Next to the term ‘awl’ (Moucha 2005: 128, 164), the tool is called ‘punch’ (Sarnowska 1969: 139). he terms suggest that the tool was applied to diferent raw materials – leather or metal. Taking into account the context of an analogous ind from Skarbienice (Fig. 17), the latter possibility seems to be very probable. In the deposit, the tool was accompanied by gold and bronze ornaments, a chisel with parallel ends, a lat axe, spoon-like axe and 62 Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture Fig. 17. On the left – Skarbienice, burial furnishings; on the right – Bruszczewo, punch from trench 51; not to scale (after Sarnowska 1969; photograph S. Jagiolla). a bronze rod. he circumstances of the discovery indicate that the deposit was more likely a set of grave goods than a hoard (Sarnowska 1969: 139-140). he metal rod was taken by Sarnowska to be a ‘straightened out bronze bracelet’. However, in the light of current indings it should be considered rather a semi-inished necklace with loop endings or a specimen of an Ösenringbarren9. he relatively rich grave goods of the alleged burial from Skarbienice, seen in the presence of gold ear wraps and a spoon-like axe, interpreted as a status symbol known in the Early Bronze Age (Hafner 1995), point to the special status he so-called Ösenringbarren had been perceived as a semi-inished product for manufacturing other objects for a long time. Metallographic studies indicated, however, that a surprisingly large number of specimens had survived in the archaeological material. Furthermore, it was pointed out that a vast majority of such objects had been deposited in, at times, very numerous assemblages. Hence, two hypotheses were put forward. he irst maintains that Ösenringbarren could have been used for making a speciic type of objects, having speciic raw material properties, and thus special value, for the purpose of ritual depositions. he other suggests that Ösenringbarren be treated as commodity money (Krause, Pernicka 1998). 9 of the deceased. he discovered objects (a punch and semi-inished bronze ornament) may indicate that the deceased had some connection to metallurgy. he presence of a chisel does not necessarily undermine this hypothesis. he analysis of sources related to pottery, carpentry and metallurgy, made for the settlement of the Vatya culture at Százhalombatta, contradicts the view that individual crats were always kept apart (Sofaer 2006)10. What is extremely important, the punches in all It can be assumed that woodworking was one of the crats having rich cultural associations. Metal axes allowed people to successfully open up new land for cultivation. In the case of chisels, a certain insight how important skilful use of them was is ofered by sources coming from other areas. For instance, in the Nordic Area we know of special campstools and wooden cups decorated with tin nails which have been traditionally attributed to higher social strata (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 57-58). We also know of large objects, attested to in rock art, such as boats and chariots, the production of which called for great skill (Larsson 2004). In the case of the Únětice culture, we do not have such clear reference material, however, the fact that chisels were deposited in special rich contexts, as for instance the ‘princely grave’ in Leubingen, justiies the analogy (Hansen 2002: 152, Abb. 1) 10 Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture 63 cases, regardless where found, are highly standardized. If it is assumed that they served as metalworking tools, used above all to mark ornaments on metal goods, we must ponder what made them look so alike. Tool functionality does not seem to be here a decisive criterion. I believe that the most important reason was something which can be called principles of metallurgical art. he making and using of a proper tool could be decisive in successful object decoration. he ornamentation of ‘Únětice’ objects (the spectrum of forms alike), despite a long development tradition and the existence of local traditions, always has a special trait to it. he ornamentation of metal objects could not have been a question of fashion, but rather, similarly to pottery style, it carried a number of symbolic meaning, raising it to the rank of sociocultural self-identiier (Hodder 1982). he possession of knowledge about the principles of making special objects and decorating them must have been an important element which, under limited availability, may have become a source of power and might. A key term here is meaning, i.e. the characteristic that imparts a proper value to an object (Fontijn 2002: 23)11. From this point of view, the economy of the Bruszczewo settlement can be deined in terms of prestige economy (Friedman, Rowlands 1977)12, i.e. a system that for a large part relies on symbolism and manipulation of social relationships, and in which actions in the ritual sphere and in the broad realm of the sacred are an inherent element of the economy (Kim 2001: 462-463). A prestige economy is controlled Fontijn, considering the question of meaning of speciic objects, used an analogy of a modern wedding ring, which illustrates the problem extremely well. Besides the value of precious metal expressed in money, a wedding ring has no special signiicance and remains, as a mass produced article, one of many similar objects until a special status is bestowed on it during a wedding ceremony (Fontijn 2002: 25). 12 he work quoted here (Friedman, Rowlands 1977) is a starting point in the long history of the concept of ‘prestige economy’ and development of its applications in prehistorical studies, particularly in the studies of the Bronze and Iron Age (Marcoux 2007: 232-234; Barrett 2012; with further literature). 11 through many symbolic eforts. In efect, economic capital (e.g. a surplus or part of production) is transformed into political one (Earle 1997). Under this system, prestige is not accumulated by raising productivity (i.e. increasing the amount of luxury goods), but by improving their quality and value by restricting access to them. Beneits from a prestige economy are not directly proportional to a growth of surplus or the amount of production that can be exchanged. What they depend on instead is the success of eforts in the area of meaning manipulation, development of added value of prestige goods and search for the new ways to capitalise prestige. he last-mentioned aim may be attained by introducing new prestige objects and also, even more importantly, by imparting new information to them or developing a new ideology altogether (Kim 2001: 463-464). Hence, the power of elites in a prestige economy is based not only on the production of prestige goods but, irst and foremost, on the prerogative to bestow an added value – meaning – on them. he model of prestige economy entails the existence of a social stratum – elites in control of the system. In the case of the Kościan Group of the Únětice culture and the Bruszczewo settlement itself, one can easily point to archaeological sources being a manifestation of cumulated power and prestige. Next to the construction and maintenance of massive defences around the settlement, they include ‘princely graves’ known from the region (Fig. 18) (Jaeger, Czebreszuk 2010; Jaeger 2012a; Jaeger 2012b: 393-395). In the Únětice culture oecumene, we know only of single instances of this type of barrow graves (Höfer 1906; Grössler 1907; Schmidt, Nitzschke 1980; Sarnowska 1969: 292-315; Schwenzer 2004), while in the Kościan region, next to a single grave in Przysieka Polska, we are dealing with a unique funerary complex in Łęki Małe, consisting of several barrows standing in a line (Kowiańska-Piaszykowa, Kurnatowski 1954; Czebreszuk 2001: 87)13. he 13 Four of the barrows have been excavated. hey yielded a rich inventory of pottery and numerous bronze, gold and amber objects. he age 64 Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture Fig. 18. Łęki Małe, barrow no 1. At the top – view of the barrow after reconstruction; at the bottom – burial furnishing (photograph: M. Jaeger; after Czerniak 2008). Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture 65 Bruszczewo settlement can be directly linked to the ind from Przysieka Polska. he ind comprises a rich assemblage of bronze objects and a perforated amber disc (Schwenzer 2004). It is widely accepted that the ‘princely graves’ are burials of the members of the privileged stratum of the then society. heir special position is believed to have derived from the control of (re-)distribution of raw material(s) and ready-made goods (Hansen 2002). In this approach, bronze metallurgy could have made the Bruszczewo settlement the centre of the region. We do not have, however, suicient archaemetallurgical data now to be able to determine how far products made at Bruszczewo travelled. hey might have spread beyond the borders of today’s Wielkopolska. here are, however, indirect reasons to believe that Bruszczewo and the Kościan Group of Únětice culture had links to other regions. In this context, the ‘princely graves’ should be considered as the idea of building monumental and richly furnished barrow graves seems to have broader cultural connotations reaching as far as northern France and southern England (Hansen 2002: 153-154; Stefen 2010). he absolute chronology of the graves from those regions allows to partially synchronize them with the Únětice culture graves (Becker, Krause, Kromer 1989: 427; Gascó 1996: 231, 246). A tentative assumption can be made that the idea of raising barrows reached the Únětice environment as one of many ideas accompanying metallurgical technology (Pare 2000: 26-27). he other element placing Bruszczewo in a broader central European context is amber (Czebreszuk 2011). he settlement has yielded a single amber bead so far (Czebreszuk, Kneisel, Müller 2010). By no means does it detract from the signiicance of the ind. Amber is impermanent, therefore, the ‘ilter’ of post-deposition processes has a strong impact on its modest represenof the burials is determined by a set of 10 radiocarbon measurements placing the site in the period from 2200-1800 BC (Czebreszuk 2001: 84-88). hese results match those concerning the burials at Leubingen and Helmsdorf (Becker, Krause, Kromer 1989: 427). tation in settlement materials. A majority of inds linked to the Únětice culture come from grave contexts and hoards. In the case of the Kościan Group, one should mention irst artefacts from the ‘princely graves’ in Łęki Małe and Przysieka Polska (Czebreszuk, Kneisel, Müller 2010: 698; Jaeger, Czebreszuk 2010; Jaeger 2012a). Mapping out the Bruszczewo artefacts together with the other amber inds from the Early Bronze Age produces two characteristic belts (Fig. 19). he irst stretches from the Moravian Gate across Lower Silesia, eastern Wielkopolska and Kujawy as far as the mouth of the Vistula River. he second runs along the Baltic coast. Presented elsewhere, a contextual analysis of amber objects shows that the two belts coincide with the distribution of other major categories of inds such as imported goods or gold items as well as special features such as fortiied settlements and barrow graves. he belts follow trails that crossed the lands of today’s Poland and joined the northern and southern edges of the continent (Jaeger, Czebreszuk 2010: 230-231). he outlined set of archaeological characteristics reveals a singular concentration of signs pointing to the existence of stable and complex social structures in Bruszczewo’s vicinity. heir special nature can be seen in all areas, beginning with the relationship between man and the environment. he immediate vicinity of Bruszczewo formed an island in the primeval landscape where a strong human impact could be seen and which was dominated by a central fortiied settlement. he raising of fortiications and their subsequent maintenance over many years attest to the stability of power structures organizing the life of the society. Some of its members could have been involved in the most signiicant innovation of those times: the metallurgy of tin bronze. he characteristics of the Bruszczewo metallurgy emphasized earlier suggest that it had a more important role to play: local elites not only produced bronze objects but also controlled their meaning. his was a signiicant factor contributing to their superior position within the community and strengthening their rank as a partner in a long-range exchange network. his view is supported by 66 Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture the presence of ‘princely graves’ in Bruszczewo’s vicinity. A deeper understanding of the causes of this state of afairs is ofered by the analysis of the cultural signiicance of amber and its presence in the region. It was the demand for amber, growing among the societies of southern Europe, that gave societies living along the trail such a major civilization chance. he context in which the Bruszczewo settlement lived, outlined above, calls for taking a special view of the then geography of settlement. It formed lines along trails. Individual settlement regions coincided with trail hubs or existed entirely away from them. Bruszczewo societies participated in a long-range exchange in many ways and beneited socially by the very fact that it was among them that the most complex social structures took shape, headed by a stable upper class. It was the representatives of such ‘inland ports of trade’ that formed a network of people staying in touch with each other, and organized the life of individual local communities. hey were stable links of the chain that joined the most distant ends of the continent in the Bronze Age (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005; Jaeger, Czebreszuk 2010: 231-232; Czebreszuk 2011). Research Area II. South-western Wielkopolska, Bruszczewo: Kościan Group of Únĕtice culture Fig. 19. The route of the so-called irst amber road (the Early Bronze Age) over the territories of modern Poland; 1-3 – Łęki Małe, 4-5 – Bruszczewo, 6-7 – Przysieka Polska. 67 CHAPTER 5 Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture Even though the Danube is generally believed to be a river that was the main route of transmitting cultural impulses during the Bronze Age, the area is one of the least recognised for the period covering the irst half of the 2nd millennium BC. he issues connected with the Vatya culture have been, and still are, mostly the domain of Hungarian archaeologists. European archaeological literature in German and English seems not to appreciate its signiicance. he Vatya culture developed in an area diversiied in terms of natural habitat features and topography, partly drawing on the strong Early Bronze Age traditions of the Nagyrév culture. Together with its numerous and vast cemeteries it is chiely known for its fortiied settlements, oten of a tell structure (Fig. 20) (Kovács 1982; 1984a). 5.1. Natural environment and economy Taking into account all available analyses of bone remains, it can be claimed with certainty that the societies of the Middle Bronze Age obtained animal proteins above all by breeding domesticated species (Bökönyi 1982: 130; Choyke 1984: 22; 1998: 161; 2000: 100; Choyke, Vretemark, Sten 2003: 180, Fig. 2, 3). Hunting wild species was clearly a supplementary way of obtaining food; to a larger extent it served to procure such raw materials as antlers and hides (Choyke 1984: 34-35). It must be noted, however, that the occurrence of wild animal remains oten depends on the size of bone assemblage subjected to analyses1 (Choyke, Bar- tosiewicz 1999: 241-242, Table 1). Among wild species, the red deer was the most important; its remains were virtually always found at the investigated sites (Bökönyi 1982: 130; Choyke 1984: 22; 1987; 2000: 100; Choyke, Bartosiewicz 1999: 239, 246). In contrast, the signiicance of the wild boar was much smaller (Choyke 1998: 161). he remains of other wild species – the hare, brown bear and wild birds – represent usually a small percentage of assemblages (Choyke, Vretemark, Sten 2003: 180, Fig. 2, 3). he importance of the red deer is largely based on the Choyke’s analyses of bone and antler tools found at fortiied settlements located in today’s Hungary. In many cases, 1 In a large assemblage of bones (3,310 bones identiied by a NISP analysis), collected keeping to all methodological requirements during the investigations at Százhalombatta, the remains of wild species made up only about 1-2 per cent of all bones (Choyke, Vretemark, Sten 2003: 183). In the assemblage of 3,828 identiied bones from Lovasberény-Mihályvár, the share of domesticated species bones was 79.5 per cent (Choyke, Bartosiewicz 1987: 13, Table 1). Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture 69 Fig. 20. Distribution of the Vatya culture fortiied and tell settlements (index: Szeverényi, Kulcsár 2012 ). 70 Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture the share of fragments or complete antler tools was as high as 50 per cent (Choyke 1984: 34). Much less frequently, red deer remains were found in the assemblages of post-consumption refuse (Choyke 1984: 34-35). On the one hand, this indicates how important the species was, in the irst place as the source of antlers, on the other hand, it justiies a presumption that hunting was not necessarily the chief way of their procurement. he number of identiied antler fragments and ready objects made of this material suggests that the gathering of shed antlers could have been an organized efort. Antlers shed by an animal cannot lie long as they are subject to natural decay and gnawing by animals. As antler shedding occurs regularly, gathering could be planned as a seasonal activity to some extent (Choyke 1998: 172). Some researchers mention a possibility of a change in the meaning of hunting from purely economic to cultural. If this is true, hunting (with the use of dogs? Choyke, Vretemark, Sten 2003: 183) might have been a display of the life style of male elites (Vretemark, Sten 2005: 159) and a way of procuring raw material (antlers) for the making of special-value objects (e.g. elements of a horse harness, see Kristiansen 2004). he beginnings of the career of antlers as a raw material for the making of tools of necessary hardness and strength (pick, hoes, hammers, etc.) should be sought in the Late Neolithic (Lengyel i Tiszapolgár) when such tools appeared for the irst time and the red deer was an important hunted species (Choyke 1998: 172). he climate change that occurred in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Ages brought about an expansion of woodlands, where the red deer breeds naturally, and thus could have contributed to a greater use of antlers. hey were particularly suitable (because of its strength and hardness, Choyke 1998: 171) for the making of picks and hoes. In all probability, these were main tools used for breaking up soil in ditch digging and fortiication raising by the societies of the Middle Bronze Age (Choyke 1998: 174). It seems that in the case of objects of special forms and ornaments, as for instance cheekpieces, a group of cratsmen could have specialized in their production at time intervals2 (Choyke 1998: 173). Such objects are made with high precision and form a group of items, which easily crosses the boundaries of archaeological cultures and geographical regions (Hüttel 1981; Choyke, Vretemark, Sten 2003: 184). he question of cheekpieces is directly related to the use of a domesticated variety of the horse which appeared in the region together with the Early Bronze Bell Beaker and Nagyrév cultures (Bökönyi 1978; 1992: 70). In the light of available sources, a growth in its value is clearly observable. Originally, a slaughter animal (Early Bronze Age), the horse grew in value to reach the status of a draught animal used primarily3 for transporting goods and people (Middle and Late Bronze Age) (Choyke, Bartosiewicz 1999: 245). Relying on a broad distribution of cheekpieces and other elements related to the so-called Streitwagenkomplex (Kristiansen 2004), it is assumed that in the Middle Bronze Age the horse could have been a commodity exported from the Carpathian Basin to distant areas of the Aegean and Anatolia (Sherratt 1993: 24). Horse remains found at the Százhalombatta settlement testify to the long-term breeding of horses and their use as draught and riding animal (Benecke 1998: 65-67; Vretemark, Sten 2005: 165-166). A comparison of the size of horses from diferent regions of Europe shows that they reached the greatest height at the withers in the lands of today’s Hungary (Benecke 1998: 66, 68, Abb. 8). Quite frequently recorded in the osteological material, the dog had some extraeconomic role (Vörös 1996; Choyke, Bartosiewicz 1999: 247) testiied to by the fact that no traces of breaking dog bones At the settlement in Pákozdvár, a discovery was made of two cheekpieces and four fragments of antlers, being probably semi-inished products for making such objects (Choyke 1979: 16). 3 In a NISP analysis of animal bones from Százhalombatta, the share of horse remains amounted to 5 per cent. Some elements of horse carcasses were dressed for consumption, which means that although meat production was not the major reason for breeding horses, they served as a source of food under certain circumstances (Choyke, Vretemark, Sten 2003: 182) 2 Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture 71 (Choyke 1984: 24) were encountered and by the cases of depositing dog skulls under hut foundations (e.g. Százhalombatta; Choyke, Vretemark, Sten 2003: 182-183, Fig. 6, 7). he traces of bone gnawing, found in assemblages from individual settlements, point to a close relationship between dogs and inhabitants (Choyke, Bartosiewicz 1999: 245). he relationship is borne out by evidence from other regions of Bronze Age Europe, for instance by famous rock art at Tanum, Sweden (Gräslund 2004: 167, 169, Fig. 2). Dogs could have served, above all, as helpers in hunting and herd tending. he signiicance of the dog and hare in the extra-utilitarian sphere is shown well by the analyses of bone objects and waste products. Some of them could have been elements of dress, identifying members of individual societies, occupying particular settlements. Among them are, known chiefly from the settlement at Százhalombatta (one specimen comes from Pákozd and some others were registered at Kakucs-Turján4), metacarpus bones of a dog and a hare perforated on one side (suggestive of being necklaces or amulets). What they represented was probably the switness of these animals – a characteristic associated with the male element or hunting (Choyke, Vretemark, Sten 2003: 186-187). As regards domesticated species, the most important were cattle, goat, sheep and pig. Virtually in all assemblages studied, cattle bones dominated5 (Choyke, Bartosiewicz 1987: 8; Choyke, Bartosiewicz 1999: 244, Fig. 3; 246-247; Vretemark, Sten 2005: 158). he ratios of major species of domesticated animals – cattle, goat, sheep, and pig – varied with respect to space and time. What varied in the irst place was the percentage share of goat, sheep and pig bones (Choyke, Bartosiewicz 1999: 244, Fig. 3). his could have been caused by different local environment conditions rather than global climate changes (Choyke, BarAnalyses of animal osseous remains as well as bone and antler products from the Kakucs-Turján settlement are currently in progress. 5 One of very few departures from this rule, a predominance of small ruminants can be observed in a bone assemblage from Alpár (Bökönyi 1982: 120, 130). 4 tosiewicz 1999: 245-247; Bökönyi 1992: 71-72). Unlike the pig, cattle and sheep were frequently bred over many years for the purpose of obtaining milk and wool (Benecke 1998: 64-65; Choyke, Bartosiewicz 1999). In the case of the settlement at Százhalombatta, a clear trend is visible whereby the number of sheep slaughtered at a mature age grows. he trend relects a change in the strategy of their breeding between strata VI and V (Early Bronze Age, Nagyrév culture) and strata IV-II (Middle Bronze Age, Vatya culture) (Vretemark, Sten 2005: 162-164). Indirect information on the signiicance and scale of animal use is ofered by detailed pedologic examinations aimed at determining phosphate content in diferent tell strata. Such examinations have been performed for the settlement at Százhalombatta. Averaging phosphate content for strata corresponding to the period of use of the site shows that each year at least one ton of bones was accumulated (Füleky, Vicze 2007: 138). As settlements were oten located close to rivers, ishing must have been one source of food (Jaeger 2012c: 151). Unfortunately, due to the research methodology, we do not have many ichtyological remains (Choyke, Bartosiewicz 1999: 239). At the settlement at Százhalombatta, identiication was made of ish bones representing two families of ish: Cyprinidae and Acipenseridae (Choyke 2000: 100). From Alpár, we have bones of a carp, sheatish and pike (Bökönyi 1982: 130). Detailed analyses of bone tools used by the societies of the Vatya culture showed some characteristic forms such as cattle rib scraper (Choyke, Vretemark, Sten 2003: 186, Fig. 14). In the areas located east of the Vatya culture oecumene, similar tools were made from the tibiae of goats, sheep. Characteristic only of the settlement at Százhalombatta (next to pendants/amulets made of a dog or hare metacarpus bones), there were two bone objects. First, skates made of cattle tibiae (Choyke, Vretemark, Sten 2003: 187, Fig. 15) had been known from the same area only from Early Bronze Age Bell Beaker sites (Choyke, Bartosiewicz 2005: 318-319). Second, a small double 72 Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture blade made from ribs or shat fragments of long bones (Choyke, Vretemark, Sten 2003: 187, Fig. 16) is suggested to have been a body ornament, i.e. an active element of the identity of this very community (these object are not found on other Vatya culture sites). In the case of the Vatya culture, it is assumed that land cultivation and animal breeding were very important as any surpluses produced were exchanged for ready bronze objects or raw material necessary to manufacture them (Poroszlai 1996: 13; 2003: 151). As in the case of bone assemblages, also with macrobotanical remains one has to be aware of methodological problems related to their collection. For many analyzed assemblages come from the times when investigations employed Spatenstichtechnik and no systems of regular sampling or sieving of the ills of archaeological layers or features were employed (Endrődi, Gyulai 1999: 25-27). At Vatya culture settlements, the most frequently recorded cereals were small spelt, barley and emmer. Barley, present in all botanical samples studied, occasionally was the only recorded cereal (e.g. Solymár-Várhegy) or clearly dominated over the other species (e.g. 98-per-cent share of barley in Baracs-Bottyánsánc) (Endrődi, Gyulai 1999: 27). At a late Vatya culture settlement in Mende-Leányvár, an equally high shares of two kinds of wheat were recorded (small spelt and emmer) and a large amount of barley remains. At the settlement in Dunaújváros-Koziderpadlás, next to emmer, barley was found. In turn, in the case of the Alpár-Várdomb settlement, small spelt and barley dominated with a minor share of emmer (Endrődi, Gyulai 1992: 66). A noteworthy element are the substantial amounts of grain which have been discovered in Kakucs-Turján within the perimeter of the remnants of huts. Barley and einkorn predominate among the recorded cereal species (Gissel 2015). Cereal grains are oten found from individual huts and were found in vessels or pits, close to furnaces (Endrődi, Gyulai 1999: 27). At times, these were large amounts (e.g. 10 litres of wheat grains in Pákozdvár, Bóna 1975: 74), showing that the then farmers knew how to store some of their crops (Endrődi, Gyulai 1999: 27). his is also perfectly illustrated by the inds of large storage vessels (‘granaries’) at the settlement in Alpár (Bóna, Nováki 1982: 42-43, Fig. 11-12). Moreover, in the Middle Bronze Age, the cultivation of true millet became more popular (Endrődi, Gyulai 1999: 27). he shares of emmer and small spelt varied from site to site (e.g. at Százhalombatta and Mende emmer predominated while at Bölcske small spelt was clearly in the majority; Endrődi, Gyulai 1999: 27). To some extent, the distribution of wheat species seems to follow a certain spatial pattern. One can distinguish two major regions where individual species were cultivated: • east and northeast Transdanubia and the northern portion of the region lying between the Danube and Tisza rivers were characterized by the predominance of small spelt, with a smaller shares of emmer and common wheat, • the let bank of the Tisza and eastern portion of the region lying between the Tisza and Danube were characterized by a high preponderance of emmer over small spelt and common wheat (Nováki 1969: 40-41, Abb. 1; Gyulai 1993: 25-26, Fig. 1). Where the two regions overlapped, the shares of small spelt and emmer in studied samples were equal. Data concerning changes in the structure of crops throughout the lifetime of the settlement (phases Vatya I-Vatya III) were supplied by investigations at Bölcske. In the oldest phase (Vatya I), remains of different cereals were found: two- and six-row barley, multi-row barley, common wheat, small spelt, emmer, and spelt; in this period emmer was a predominant species. In the next period (Vatya II), two-row barley disappeared almost completely while emmer, spelt and small spelt continued to be grown. In the inal phase of the settlement’s lifetime (Vatya III) all species known from previous periods continued to be grown. he spectrum of crops expanded to include two-row barley (absent in phase Vatya II) and true millet. Generally speaking, since phase Vatya II the number and quality of cultivated ce- Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture 73 reals had grown. here also appeared evidence of legume cultivation, above all lentil and pea as well as bitter vetch and broad bean (Hartyányi 1982: 162; Gyulai 1992: 66; 1999: 27). he inds of apples and other wild fruits in samples studied show that, on the one hand, they supplemented the diet of the inhabitants and, on the other, indicate what kind of vegetation grew in the immediate vicinity of settlements (Endrődi, Gyulai 1999: 28-29). Next to macrobotanical remains, other evidence of the use of cereals comes from numerous stone implements related to grain processing such as quern stones and grinders as well as harvesting tools (Bóna 1975: 74, 140, 164; Horváth, Kozák, Pető 2001). he length of Nagyrév and Vatya settlement (e.g. Százhalombatta ca. 1900-1400 BC) on individual tells leads us to assume a strong human impact on the environment. However, proiles collected and palynological analyses made within the SAX project do not allow researchers to determine exactly how strong the impact was (Fig. 21, 22). Due to the absence of a suitable body of water close to the Százhalombatta settlement where pollen grains could accumulate (Sümegi, Bodor 2005: 209), a proile was collected in an oxbow lake on Csepel island, located about 500 m from the tell. he proile admitted of the following conclusions: in the Middle Bronze Age there is evidence of human activity in the form of opening the landscape for cultivation and animal breeding. he published diagrams reveal, however, the weakness of this interpretation. Above all, although evidence of occurrence of wheat pollen grains is cited in the text (Sümegi, Bodor 2000: 89), their curve is absent from the relevant diagram (see Sümegi, Bodor 2000) (Fig. 21). However, rye is included in the diagram although in this case the curve clearly shows that this pollen type is absent from the proile. Furthermore, controversies are aroused by the determinations of various oak and willow species (Sümegi, Bodor 2000: 86) (Fig. 21). In the period preceding the Bronze Age (zone A), evidence for the opening of landscape comes from the presence or even predominance of plantain. Strangely enough, the relevant diagram shows that the pollen grains of this plant were virtually absent in the period in question. A similar situation concerns grasses, the pollen grains of which were absent from the proile testifying to the opening of the landscape (Sümegi, Bodor 2000: 86-87) (Fig. 21, 22). Furthermore, despite available radiocarbon dates6, the study relies on the traditional division into the periods of Atlantic, Subboreal and Sub-Atlantic (Sümegi, Bodor 2000). Considered signiicant, the presence of the walnut may have been a result of migrations from the south (the Balkans, Anatolia) (Sümegi, Bodor 2000: 89). his brief review of controversies aroused by the analysis of the proile urges caution in accepting its results. More proiles within the same project were collected in the valley of the Benta River. he palynological studies, despite the fact that they were made about 20 km away from the Százhalombatta tell, are, next to surveys, one of the ways of exploring its settlement and economic background area. In the researchers’ opinion, it lay on the lower course of the river (Vicze, Earle, Artursson 2005: 237, 250, Fig. 1). Two proiles were collected – one in the dry valley of Lake Bia, the other close to the Sóskút settlement (Sümegi, Bodor 2005: 209; Vicze, Earle, Artursson 2005: 244). In the irst proile, in the section linked to the Bronze Age, the accumulated pollen grain composition allowed the authors to draw far-reaching conclusions concerning the existence of busy roads along the Benta River valley. It is along the roads that, in the authors’ opinion, weeds supposedly expanded (e. g. plantain, knotweed, pearlworts, saltbush as well as the hazel and walnut; it is also close to them that open areas stretched where animals were grazed. he pollen analysis did not bear out cereal cultivation in the immediate vicinity of the river valley. Indirect evidence for the presence of cereals is supposedly ofered by the pollen grains of ield weeds (Sümegi, Bodor 2005: 214-218). he analysis results of the other proile, collected about 300 m from the Sóskúti 6 he text mentions two radiocarbon dates, while the accompanying diagram presents three dates (Sümegi, Bodor 2000: 85; 95, Fig. 7a, 7b, 7c). 74 Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture Fig. 21. Pollen diagrams from Tököl, proile Tököl II. At the top – AP; AP+NAP=100%; at the bottom – NAP; AP+NAP=100% (after Sümegi, Bodor 2000). Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture 75 Hegy site, have been similarly assessed. On the site where proile was collected, in the Bronze Age, there supposedly stretched open spaces, including settlements, roads, and walnut stands. What makes a diference in this case, however, is the presence of wheat pollen, which, together with ield weed pollen, indicates the existence of cultivated ields nearby (Sümegi, Bodor 2005: 220-221). However, the way the analysis results are presented, lacking information on the shares of individual pollen grains in the proile, does not permit their unequivocal assessment (Sümegi, Bodor 2005: 234, Fig. 111). Included in the text, the information from archaeologists, pointing to the potential role of the Benta River valley as a connecting link of sorts between the mountainous region of Transdanubia and the Danube valley (Sümegi, Bodor 2005: 209), must have had an impact on the assessment of pollen diagrams and must have made the authors draw far-reaching conclusions concerning the existence of roads and related landscape elements as well as settlement in the area. Summing up, what should be noted is the considerable knowledge of animal breeding and land cultivation possessed by the inhabitants of the discussed settlements. his diversiication secured their subsistence and allowed them to make the best use of the local environment. he estimates of the population of individual settlements and their long life testify to the population success of local communities and an eicient and multiform use of the natural environment. Fig. 22. Pollen diagram (100% = Σ; water plants) from Tököl, proile Tököl II (after Sümegi, Bodor 2000). 76 Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture 5.2. Inner layout For the majority of Vatya culture settlements discussed here, the available picture of their inner layout is rather fragmentary. Excavations, albeit few, oten concentrated on the stratigraphy of their interior. Complex character of strata at the sites, of which some had been continuously settled since the Nagyrév culture (David 1998a: 232-233), resulted in a limitation of excavated areas. Although the Nagyrév culture remains outside of the scope of this dissertation, because of a close genetic relationship between this culture and the Vatya culture, observable, for instance, in construction, the discussion shall cover also inds originating with the Early Bronze strata of individual settlements. In Bölcske-Vörösgyűrű, complex stratigraphy relects the length of settlement stretching from the proto-Ökörhalom phase of the Nagyrév culture to phase III of the Vatya culture (Poroszlai 1992a: 142; 2000: 136). Inside the settlement’s perimeter, the remains of several huts with post walls were discovered as well as others with walls built of compacted clay. Both types of wall construction were used to build characteristic huts with rounded corners (Poroszlai 2000: 119, Abb. 4; 120). Numerous inds of daub bearing impressions of twigs testify to the use of wattle and daub structures (Poroszlai 2000: 118). he best preserved and the largest hut at the site was unearthed at level E3, linked to phase III (Kulcs) of the Nagyrév culture (Poroszlai 1992a: 143-144). Oriented along the NW-SO7 axis, the building measured 9.5 × 4.6 m. Inside, there was a circular hearth. Many charcoals are telltale signs of a destruction by ire. Daub fragments found inside the hut bear impressions of twigs and ingers (Poroszlai 2000: 120-121, Abb. 6; 141, Abb. 28:3). Pieces of daub were also discovered in layer 10 (level E3); it was all that survived from such construction elements as window and door frames (Poroszlai 2000: 122). In layer 9 (level E3), fragments of another two huts All hut remains discovered at the site attest to the NW-SO orientation. 7 with rounded corners were recorded. hey had been built only about 0.5-1.0 m apart (Poroszlai 2000: 122-123, Abb. 9). In the case of this settlement, information on Vatya culture structures is less precise. In layer A-D3, a discovery was made of remains of a hut 4.5 m wide, containing a circular hearth preserved only in fragments (Poroszlai 2000: 126). Due to occurrence of deep pits characteristic of the Vatya culture in its youngest strata, destroying older strata8, it was not possible to determine the structure and size of individual dwellings (Poroszlai 1993: 63; 1992: 144). Relying, however, on the data from the other sites, it may be assumed that the dwellings were very similar to Nagyrév huts (Poroszlai 2000: 124; 126; see below). At the Baracs-Földvár settlement, a stratigraphic sequence was identiied, too, testifying to the continuity of settlement from the Early to Middle Bronze Age. Layers XIII-IX related to the Nagyrév settlement. Beginning with layer VIII, traces of the Vatya culture settlement could be observed. As in the case of the settlement at Bölcske-Vörösgyűrű described earlier, also here more information is available on the older period of site settlement. Layer XI yielded remains of two huts that difered in their structure but were both oriented N-S. First was a post structure while the other had walls built of compacted clay. Next to one of them, furnace remains survived (Vicze 1992: 146-147). Vatya culture layers were pierced by numerous deep pits, hindering the study of Middle Bronze dwelling structures. It was only in layer VI that a wall fragment survived suggestive of a post-structure house, oriented N-S as in the case of the Nagyrév huts (Vicze 1992: 147). he settlement in Nagykőrös-Földvár, prior to the construction of fortiications, was open, which is evidenced by at least four settlement horizons associated with 8 Features of this type regularly hinder the study of stratigraphy in the youngest strata of Vatya culture settlements (see comments by Mozsolics 1988: 46). Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture 77 phase Vatya II. In an excavation dug next to a rampart, the remains of three huts were uncovered. Two of them (nos. 2 and 3) were parallel to each other. Hut no. 2, oriented NW-SE, had two rooms separated by a wall of which two postholes and a foundation groove survived. he burned remains of the hut permit to estimate its original width at 4 m. Among its rubble, there were many reed impressions showing that originally either its loor had been lined with reeds9 or its roof had been made of reeds and subsequently collapsed (Poroszlai 1992c: 157; 1993: 61). Due to numerous pits disturbing the feature, it is hard to estimate its full size (Poroszlai 1988: 33). Hut no. 3 had been badly damaged by pits dug into it later. What is let of it includes loor fragments of compacted clay and a hearth fragment (Poroszlai 1992c: 158). Fragments of the third hut survived as well. Inside all the huts, many postholes were found that were unrelated to the construction of walls or roofs. he postholes could be traces let behind by the furniture or ixtures that once stood in the huts (Poroszlai 1992c: 158). Some information on dwelling and other accompanying structures was obtained through excavations at the settlement in Alpár-Várdomb. In the irst (youngest) level of strata dating to the Bronze Age, badly damaged in the times of Medieval settlement, no remains of any houses could be found. he strata contained only pits and hearth remains, including characteristic hearths (Kesselherdstellen) (Bóna, Nováki 1982: 108). he second level inds included loor remains of compacted clay; they were, however, insuicient to reconstruct the forms and sizes of huts to which they related. In this case also Kesselherdstellen were found (Bóna, Nováki 1982: 109). On the second level, a stratum was recorded showing that the settlement area had been prepared for the building of new houses of the third level. Within it, a hut At the Vatya culture settlement in Aba-Belsőbárándpuszta-Bolondvár, a discovery was made of remains of huts with clay loors. he loors had been lined with reeds or leather (Kovács 1963: 131); at a Nagyrév culture site in Tiszaug-Kéménytető traces of reed-mace were recorded used for the same purpose (Csányi, Stanczik 1992: 118). 9 loor and a preserved wall of compacted clay were uncovered. Next to the hut remains, probably oriented N-S, on a prepared clay foundation, there were two oval furnaces. he hut interior was divided into separate rooms. In the third level, stratigraphy was disturbed by deep postholes indirectly indicating the type of structures used to erect houses in the younger levels (1 and 2). In the fourth level, loor remains of compacted clay survived together with a hut, the interior of which was divided into three parts. A wall fragment survived up to the height of 12 cm (Bóna, Nováki 1982: 109). As in the case of level 3, next to the hut there stood an oval furnace. In level 4, numerous pits were up to 2.6-3.6 m deep. In one of them (pit 75/10), a completely preserved storage vessel was discovered. he researchers interpreted the ind as a symbolic grave or a sacriicial pit (Bóna, Nováki 1982: 109). It seems, however, that calling the feature a storage pit, fulilling a household function, is more legitimate. In an excavation cutting the settlement’s rampart, inds included the remains of a furnace, three large storage vessels or ‘granaries’ (Bóna, Nováki 1982: 42-43, Abb. 11-12) a quern and many charred cereal grains (Bóna, Nováki 1982: 110). It could not be determined whether all these features and inds originally were inside the hut. On the inner side of the rampart, the remains of a rectangular hut survived whose walls, built of compacted clay, were reinforced by posts. About 0.25 m thick, a clay loor bore traces of being renewed ive times (Bóna, Nováki 1982: 110). Contemporaneous with the hut, pit 77/7 reached about 1.30 m below the loor level; on its bottom, a posthole approx. 0.40 m deep was discovered. In the researchers opinion, huts with walls of compacted clay can be linked to the tradition of Nagyrév architecture and are older than post structures10 (Bóna, Nováki 1982: 112). 10 Adduced by the researchers, evidence for the destruction of older levels by deep postholes from levels 1 and 2 (see above) seems to indicate that structures reinforced by posts existed also in the younger period of the settlements lifetime. 78 Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture Relying on the information contained in the report on the investigations in Alpár-Várdomb, one can trace certain chronological changes in the type and layout of the settlement. he oldest huts were built about 3 m from the line of fortiications. Built of compacted clay, their walls marked of a rather considerable space divided into separate rooms. he thin walls must have had an adverse efect on the lifetime of the huts. Later huts were placed closer to the rampart. heir walls were already thicker but still lacked any timber elements which could reinforce them. Such reinforcing elements appeared only in the successive settlement phase. hese huts were again placed farther from the rampart. In the space closer to the rampart line, furnaces and storage pits were located (Bóna, Nováki 1982: 115). he relatively most comprehensive information on inner layout was supplied by the results of the excavations at the Százhalombatta settlement that have been published so far. At the site, ive settlement levels were distinguished dating back to the Early and Middle Bronze Age; levels VI-V are associated with the Nagyrév culture while levels IV-II are linked to the Vatya culture11 (Poroszlai 2000: 16). he huts that were built in the times of Nagyrév settlement had walls erected using two diferent techniques. Some of them were reinforced on the outside by light posts/pegs, while others lacked any such elements. Floors, as in the case of the other settlements, were made of a layer of compacted clay, sometimes lined with reeds (Poroszlai 2000: 18). he interior of huts was oten divided into separate rooms. During the investigations carried out in 1989, three levels of such huts were unearthed. All of them had two things in common: their corners were rounded and they were oriented NW-SE (Poroszlai 1996: 7). In 1990, a discovery was made of a hut measuring 8 × 5 m, the interior of which was divided into two rooms serving diferent functions (a kitchen and living quarters). hey were separated by a step making the loor levels difer by approx. 11 Level I contained mixed artefacts from various chronological periods (Vatya-Koszider, HaC-D, La Tène D and inds relating to Celtic settlement) (Poroszlai 2000: 16, 21). 0.25 m and a light clay wall reinforced by slender posts/pegs. A large posthole in the middle of the step suggests that the hut had a gable roof12 (Poroszlai 1992b: 154; 1996: 7, Fig. 2). he room interpreted as a kitchen measured 2 × 3.3 m; inside, a storage pit was uncovered (1.2 × 0.50 m), containing much refuse. Next to the hut a furnace stood and remains of metallurgical production lay around such as a fragment of a mould for casting a miniature chisel (Poroszlai 2000: 19, 37, Fig. 17a), metal droplets and tuyères (Poroszlai 1992b: 154; 1996: 7). Another hut of an analogous form was built exactly on the same place. he layer that separated the remains of the structures was about 0.10-0.15 m thick – exactly as much as the layer separating the remains of Nagyrév culture settlement from strata associated with the Vatya culture (Poroszlai 1996: 8; 2000: 20). he huts of the latter culture were built in all probability in the same manner but due to numerous pits it was not possible to record any well-preserved structures. In the youngest level (Vatya-Kosider phase), remains of three huts were discovered which stood in line and were oriented NW-SE; there were also pits of which some had their bottoms lined with clay. he huts were separated by narrow alleys (Poroszlai, Vicze 2004: 233). Level IV supplied certain data conirming the similarity between the huts of both cultures. One of them was a rounded corner of a hut (Poroszlai 2000: 32, Fig. 7:H2), the loor of which did not survive. From the corner, it could be seen that hut walls were 0.40-0.50 m thick and were made of compacted clay reinforced by post/pegs (Poroszlai 2000: 17). Inside the hut, remains of a furnace were identiied; however, due to its poor state of preservation, its form could not be determined beyond any doubt (Poroszlai 2000: 32, Fig. 7:3T). In 1991, a place where Vatya culture populations produced pottery was discovered. At the site there where eleven furnaces and large amounts of burned pottery, complete vessels and vessel fragments (Poroszlai 1993: 66; 1996: 10). 12 he hut was reconstructed in the Százhalombatta Archaeological Park (Poroszlai 1997: 64-66, Abb. 6). Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture 79 Successive years of excavations (1992-1993) brought about the discovery of the parts of three Vatya culture huts. hey were oriented NW-SE and their interiors were divided into rooms. he huts had wattle and daub walls (Sofaer 2006: 130) and were separated by an alley 0.7-1.0 m wide (Poroszlai 1996: 12, Fig. 5). Relying on the examination of hut parts, the size of two huts was estimated at 15 × 8 m and 20 × 15 m (Poroszlai 1996: 11) (Fig. 23). he researchers assumed that there could be 50-70 huts at a time inhabited by large 7-8 member families. Hence, the population of the settlement could be roughly estimated at 400-500 people (Poroszlai 1996: 11; 2003: 153). he assumed numbers, however, have not been justiied in any way. Magnetometric prospection at the Kakucs-Turján site revealed remnants of several buildings. Remnants of two huts were discovered within the excavation opened in 2013, where investigations still continue. Both were probably built in exactly the same location, and to the same or similar dimensions. he relatively well-preserved remnants of the lower sections of the younger building (dated to ca 1750-1700; Jaeger 2016), suggest that it was erected using analogous methods as in other sites of the Vatya culture. hey were built of clay (tempered with a large amount of grasses typical of aquatic environment), on a “skeleton” constructed probably from vertically ixed wooden stakes of relatively small diameter. Usage of the latter is well attested not only in numerous fragments of impressed pug, but also by a number of well-preserved wooden stakes. he entire structure owed its stability to posts, though in the case of Kakucs-Turján no regular arrangement of those (in the shape of postholes) could be established for an entire building. Based on the current state of research, any internal division of the building cannot be conclusively stated. A well-preserved oven was discovered in the northern corner of the earlier hut. he loors in both huts, consisting of layers of hardpacked clay, survived only in part13. he aforementioned numer13 At the current stage of research, it cannot be determined whether the loor clay was baked as part of deliberate measure. ous fragments of pug with the impressions of wooden structural detail were recorded among the remnants of walls of both buildings. Some of the fragments were singularly moulded/ /modelled, which would suggest their special architectural signiicance. Relying on this information, one can point to many similarities between the layout and structures of Nagyrév and Vatya cultures (Poroszlai 2000: 20; 2003: 153). he huts were large, each having several rooms, pisé loor, clay walls, sometimes reinforced by posts/pegs on the outside; they were itted with hearths14; additional furnaces were oten placed next to the huts (Poroszlai 2003a: 153-154, Fig.18). Relying on this information, one can point to many similarities between the layout and structures of Nagyrév and Vatya cultures (Poroszlai 2000: 20; 2003: 153). he huts were large, each having several rooms, pisé loor, clay walls, sometimes reinforced by posts/pegs on the outside; they were itted with hearths15; additional furnaces were oten placed next to the huts (Poroszlai 2003a: 153-154, Fig. 18). A characteristic form was given to the huts by their rounded corners (Poroszlai 1992b: 153; 2000: 121, Abb. 6). Presumably, in some cases, hut walls were covered with geometric patterns known from pottery. he remains of such decorations were found at the Nagyrév culture settlement in Tiszaug-Kéménytetö (Csányi 2003: 144, Fig. 3). Studying clay use techniques employed in hut construction on the Százhalombatta site, Sofaer noticed many similarities with vessel moulding, some aspects of which were, in turn, similar to the techniques Hearths are one of the most commonly recorded features at the settlements of Nagyrév and Vatya cultures. hey were found at a vast majority of excavated settlements. Frequently, they have a complex form as, for instance, hearth discovered at Százhalombatta or mentioned hearth from Kakucs-Turján (Poroszlai 2003: 154, Fig. 18; Lakatos-Pammer 2005). 15 Hearths are one of the most commonly recorded features at the settlements of Nagyrév and Vatya cultures. hey were found at a vast majority of excavated settlements. Frequently, they have a complex form as, for instance, hearth discovered at Százhalombatta or mentioned hearth from Kakucs-Turján (Poroszlai 2003: 154, Fig. 18; Lakatos-Pammer 2005). 14 80 Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture Fig. 23. Százhalombatta. Remains of dwellings 1-3, level III (after Poroszlai 2000). Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture 81 used by metallurgists. Relying on her observations, she developed an interesting interpretation whereby cratsmen, forming a separate social group, exchanged their experience and borrowed technological solutions from one another (Sofaer 2006: 141). Some Vatya culture settlements is divided into separate sections (see chapter 5.3.). Investigations of the settlement at Lovasberény-Mihályvár justify an assumption that its individual sections may have served diferent functions. Within the site, an exceptionally large area of 3,000 sq. m was investigated (Petres, Bándi 1969: 173) including one of its smaller sections (known as Kisvár), which was investigated virtually in its entirety. However, we lack any detailed information on discovered structures. A publication concerning bone remains collected at the site mentions the discovery of three houses and 80 pits (Choyke, Bartosiewicz 1987: 7). he pits were used for extracting clay and storing grain. In addition, the remains of a metallurgist’s workshop were unearthed as well (Petres, Bándi 1969; Kovács 1982: 283) (Fig. 26). Some of the investigated area did not yield any archaeological features and was interpreted as a grazing area (Kovács 1982: 283). he investigations of the Lovasberény-Mihályvár settlement were exceptionally extensive (see Vicze 2000: 121, Table 1). he question of its functional division, however, long remained a research proposition which has never been taken up by the publication of full results of the excavations. he correctness of the interpretation may be borne out, however, by the geomagnetic surveys of the settlement in Kakucs-Turján. hey produced a map of magnetic anomalies which shows clearly three diferent sections of the settlement (Pető et al. 2015: 221). Only one section shows outlines of structures which in part follow a regular layout. hey were probably huts partially arranged along the course of fortiication. Remains of a very large building were detected in the central section of the settlement. In another section of the site, the survey revealed many anomalies that can be interpreted as remains of storage pits of varied purposes (Fig. 25). In contrast, the geomagnetic survey of the third section of the settlement detected the least number of anomalies. his and its location in the immediate vicinity of the river valley make it plausible to assume that this section was set aside for a livestock enclosure. Although the survey results should yet be veriied by excavations and some special analysis, they can provide grounds for a claim that at least some Vatya culture fortiied settlements were divided into sections according to function16. he paucity of available information on inner layout and structures relects the extremely narrow scope of excavations at the sites and permits to describe only some general layout characteristics of individual sites. What can be seen in the irst place is the absence of any diferences, induced by the cultural change, in the way huts were built and space arranged. he change from Nagyrév to Vatya characteristics is observable only in the pottery style. On the contrary, there are several pieces of evidence suggesting a close connection between the architecture of both cultures and a ‘smooth’ nature of the transition process (Kalicz 1982: 129; Bóna 1992a: 19; Poroszlai 1993: 62-63; 2000: 126). Neither is there any data conirming that settlement fortiication, after all an important development, at a speciic stage of settlement functioning (see comments in chapters 5.3 and 5.5) had any impact on the planning or constructing of space. Moreover, small areas of excavations prevent one from drawing any conclusions on possible social diferences that could be relected in a settlement layout and structure by, for instance, unusually large, specially-appointed or untypically located houses. he sources we have suggest a pragmatic use of settlement space by building huts close to one another (e.g. Nagykőrös-Földvár, Poroszlai 1988: 33, 36-37, Fig. 9) and adherence to certain rules concerning the location of household features, such as furnaces and hearths, next to huts (e. g. 16 Research aimed at verifying the hypothetical functional siginifcance of the tripartite division of the Kakucs-Turján settlement are currently in progress. 82 Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture Alpár; Bóna, Nováki 1982: 115). Furthermore, it can be tentatively assumed that specialized economic activities such as pottery iring and metalworking were carried out in speciically designated places. his may be evidenced by the discoveries of clusters of kilns at Százhalombatta (Poroszlai 1996: 10) and the remains of a metallurgist’s workshop in Lovasberény-Mihályvár (Kovács 1984a: 226). Fig. 24. Kakucs-Turján. Geomagnetic plan of the fortiied settlement with a visible three-partite division of the interior (Kakucs Archaeological Expedition, unpublished). Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture 83 5.3. Fortiications Vatya culture fortiied settlements, occurring in two areas, difered in size and layout. In Transdanubia, settlements tended to be larger (about 150-200 m in diameter) than those located between the Danube and Tisza rivers (about 100 m in diameters) (Poroszlai 1988: 30-31; Vicze 2000: 121, Table 1). Another distinctive characteristic was the form of fortiications. In the former region, fortiications surrounded the whole settlement, which was divided into two or three sections (Bóna 1975: 59), while in the latter region, fortiications protected only a part of a settlement known as the ‘citadel’ (Poroszlai 1988: 31; Poroszlai, Vicze 2004: 231). Few exceptions only prove the rule. he practice of dividing settlements into sections could decide their location in many instances. In natural depressions separating individual elevations, entrances might have been located so that they would be protected from both sides (Kovács 1982: 282-283; 1984a: 219; 1998: 489; Horváth, Kozak, Petö 2001: 12). Some od the settlements were founded in locations having natural defensive capabilities in the irst place (Kovács 1984a: 219; Endrődi, Gyulai 1999: 24). A case in point is the site in Pákozd-Vár located on a hill rising to 352 m above sea level (Horváth, Kozak, Petö 2001: 13). he basic types of defences used in these settlements were a rampart and a ditch. Due to the poor state of research described earlier, it is hardly possible to determine exactly the original size of ramparts. Preserved wall fragments are from 0.5 m (Kajászó-Várdomb), 1.0-1.5 m (Lovasberény-Mihályvár), 2.0 m (Aba-Belsőbárándpuszta-Bolondvár) to 2.5 m (Alpár-Várdomb) in height, indicating that their original size may have been quite imposing (Bóna, Nováki 1982: 107, 115; Horváth, Kozak, Petö 2001: 7, 10, 12). Occasionally, there were double ramparts (e.g. Pákozd-Vár; Horváth, Kozak, Petö 2001: 14, Plate XI). Archival, 19th c. data on Bölcske-Vörösgyűrű refer to a horseshoe rampart. However, it was not visible any more already in the 1960s (Wosinsky 1896: 236-237, quoted in: Poroszlai 1993: 62). Virtually, there are no sources testifying to the occurrence of wooden fortiication elements. A single example of an unidentiied structure made up of beams and wattle is mentioned in relation to the Baracs-Földvár settlement (Kovács 1982: 287). In the absence of a relevant publication, it is barely possible, however, to determine with any certainty the form, size and stratigraphic position of the structure. In many cases, wooden elements originally located closer to rampart tops could have been destroyed in later settlement periods17. Earth to build ramparts came from ditches. Oten, terrain features were taken advantage of, ater making them deeper. In this way ditches were built in Igar-Vámpuszta-Galástya (Horváth, Kozak, Petö 2001: 8), at Százhalombatta (Füleky, Vicze 2007: 134-135, Fig. 1-2) and probably in Lovasberény-Mihályvár (Kovács 1982: 283). Ditches around Vatya culture settlements varied in size. Some information on ditches comes from settlements explored only by surface surveys and refers exclusively to their today’s state of preservation (Fig. 25). In Aba-Belsőbárándpuszta-Bolondvár, a ditch protected probably only the east portion of the settlement. Another ditch, 25.0 m wide and about 2.0 m deep divided the settlement in two. Within the smaller section, a ditch of the preserved width of about 6 m and the depth of about 0.5 m marked of a circular space 26.0 m in diameter – the so-called bastion or citadel (Horváth, Kozak, Petö 2001: 7, Plate III). In Kajászó-Várdomb, a ditch of the preserved width of 2.0-3.0 m and the depth of about 0.80 m did not encircle the whole settlement, either (Horváth, Kozak, Petö 2001: 10, Plate VI). he few excavations that have been carried out prove that ditches were originally rather imposing in size. In Lovasberény-Mihályvár, the ditch was 7.0 m wide and 4.0 m deep (Bóna, Nováki 1982: Researchers investigating the Alpár-Várdomb settlement allow for the possibility that wooden structures could have been employed there although originally they could be located in the rampart portion that was destroyed by the construction of Medieval fortiications (Bóna, Nováki 1982: 111). 17 84 Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture 114). Although data concerning the ditch in Nagykőrös-Földvár is incomplete, its uncovered portion can be said to be 4.0 m wide and 3.0 m deep (Poroszlai 1992c: 157, Abb. 111). A fuller picture is provided by investigations at the settlement in Soroksár-Várhegy. hey included making a digital terrain model and conducting a geomagnetic survey using a proton magnetometer (Endrődi, Gyulai 1999: 7). he picture is consistent with the results of earlier excavations at the site when a V-sectioned ditch was recorded. Its greatest width in the uncovered place was 3.60 m while its depth reached 1.67 m (Endrődi, Gyulai 1999: 8-9, Fig. 6). he geomagnetic plan showed that the ditch could have varied in width from 3.0 to 5.0 m (Endrődi, Gyulai 1999: 7, Fig. 4; 23). At Százhalombatta, a large portion of the settlement together with the ditch were destroyed by extracting clay for a local brickyard (Poroszlai, Vicze 2004: 231, 238, Fig. 4). he preserved portion of the fortiication was explored by a series of drillings (Varga 2000: 77, Fig. 1). he obtained proiles show that the 5-metre-deep ditch had originally a V-shaped cross-section and a characteristic – benched – inner wall (Varga 2000: 76, 79, Fig. 3). he drillings supplied enough data for the researchers to assume tentatively that a palisade stood in the ditch bottom (Varga 2000: 76, 80, Fig. 4; Füleky, Vicze 2007: 135, Fig. 2a). Only in the northeast portion of the settlement did remains of a rampart accompanying the ditch survive (Poroszlai, Vicze 2004: 231). At the Kakucs-Turján site, the ditches identiied on the map of magnetic anomalies surrounded the entire settlement and separated its interior into the aforementioned three sections. heir structure and dimensions were determined by means of test drillings. he ditches had a trough-like proile and considerable dimensions, ranging from 6 to 8 m in width and 4 to 4.5 m in depth in various surveyed sections. It is highly probable that they were illed with water. he hypothesis is supported by the presence of a large circular feature – a water-collecting reservoir collecting which, together with the outer ditch constituted a singular hydrological system utilising water resources found in the immediate vicinity of the settlement (Pető et al. 2015). he location of some other settlements justiies a supposition that the ditches surrounding them could have been originally illed with water too (e.g. Sárbogárd-Cifrabolondvár; Horváth, Kozak, Petö 2001: 16). Despite inconclusiveness of research indings and deiciency of publications, relying however on available data, an attempt can be made to assess the functionality of the fortiications. he ditches were approx. 4.0-7.0 m wide and 2.0-5.0 m deep. In the two examples referred to above, they had a V-shaped cross-section. A ditch of this shape is the most diicult to excavate but at the same time it forms the most efective barrier. Owing to the way its walls are inclined, attackers cannot hide behind them; it is also highly resistant to erosion18. In historical times, known as Fossa Fastigata, it was the type of a ditch most oten used by Roman legions (Keeley, Fontana, Quick 2008: 58-62). Rarely recorded measures, such as placing a palisade in the bottom of a ditch or illing it with water, made ditches even harder to cross. As mentioned earlier, a ditch was one of the elements in the common combination of defences (Ivanova 2008: 112-113). he other one was an earthen rampart. Unfortunately, there is virtually no data available on the width of rampart bases; if there were any, it would be possible to estimate the original height of walls. What we also lack is hard evidence for the use of additional wooden elements crowning the ramparts (e.g. palisades) whereby making them higher. A special characteristic of some Vatya culture settlements is their internal division (Poroszlai 1988: 31; Kovács 1998: 489; Vicze, Czajlik, Timár 2005: 252-253, Fig. 4) (Fig. 24, Fig. 25:2). he excavation results in Lovasberény-Mihályvár and those of a geomagnetic survey in Kakucs-Turján, mentioned earlier, suggest that individual settlement sections could have served diferent functions. Presumably, such arrangements of space could have had military signiicance as is shown by eth18 Relatively well-preserved and oten still visible, many ditch fragments seem to bear out this claim (see site and elevation plans, Nováki 1952: 5, 7, 9, 12). Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture 85 Fig. 25. Examples of elevation maps of the Vatya culture settlements. 1 – Káva, 2 – Lovasberény-Mihályvár, 3 – Százhalombatta, 4 – Mende (after Poroszlai 2000; Gogâltan 2008). 86 Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture nographic data concerning New Guinea. Dividing settlements into smaller sections was meant there to impede the movement of attackers about the settlement: they were forced to split into smaller bands and attack individual settlement sections at the same time. Alternatively, attackers could concentrate their forces on one section only, thus leaving the others safe (Roscoe 2008: 514). Admittedly, data from ethnographic observations should not be treated as a source of deinitive occlusions but it may point to driving forces – in this case motivations of human behaviour – that cannot be made out from archaeological sources. Another argument in favour of recognizing the division of settlements as a manifestation of a certain defensive tactic is a large size of the majority of Vatya cul- ture settlements. he area of many of them reached about 2.0-3.0 hectares (Vicze 2000: 121, Table 1). he sheer size of the fortiications and settlements themselves could have been a demonstration of the power and might of their inhabitants (David 2002: 414). Yet, in real danger, a long line of defences takes a lot of efort and people to man (Podborský, Kovárník 2006: 48; Neustupný 2006: 2). he division of a settlement into smaller sections prevented, in theory, attackers from getting access to the whole settlement space if they breached the defences in a single place. Separating the dwelling quarters, suggested in the case of Vatya culture settlements, would signiicantly improve the chances of defenders by shortening the lines of defence directly protecting the inhabitants and their homes. 5.4. Metallurgy To the metallurgy of the Vatya culture, three publications by Horváth (2004a; 2004b; 2012) have been devoted recently. What they chiely deal with is stone casting moulds and related questions of technology and raw materials. In addition, in 2001 a report of a survey was published concerning fortiied settlements in the Fejér region. Next to the information on the current state of preservation of sites (see chapter 5.3), it rendered many fragments of moulds used for casting ornaments and tools (Horváth, Kozak, Petö 2001). In the area where the Vatya culture thrived there were no signiicant deposits of raw materials. Ready-made goods and raw materials were imported from the areas occupied by the communities of the Encrusted Pottery culture and through the agency of Wieselburg and Gáta groups (Bóna 1975: 48; 55). In the later phases of the Vatya culture (Middle Bronze Age), imports came also from the Mitterberg region (Horváth 2004a: 183-184). he growing interest in the new raw material is relected in objects deposited in graves. Only 5 per cent of burials contain any bronze goods which come in great variety. his proves how extensive contacts were maintained by the Vatya culture communities for the purpose of obtaining them (Bóna 1992b: 51-52; Vicze 2003: 155-156). Local metalworking has a clear development trend. Its early phase is associated with the tradition of the Early Bronze Age and the Blechkreiskulturen circle while the assortment of goods found at sites is limited above all to small objects (ornaments for the most part) made by cold forging (Bándi 1966; Bóna 1975: 48-51; Kovács 1984a: 222; Szathmári 1996: 75; Kadrow 2001: 89). In the successive development phase, next to the already known elements keeping to the style of ‘sheet metal and wire’, there appear objects of central European provenance, showing ainities with the Únětice circle metallurgy (Bóna 1975: 55-56; Szathmári 2002: 240). he third development phase witnessed the lourishing of local bronze processing observable in the appearance of new forms, including weapons and tools, frequently deposited as hoards. Characteristic objects of those times include axes, hatchets, spearheads, sickle-shaped pins and such special forms as belt buckles and diadems (Mozsolics 1967; Bóna 1975: 69-72; Kovács 1975; 1984a: 222-223; 1984b; Szathmári 1996: 75; David 1998b; 2002; Ke- Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture 87 menczei 2003: 169) (Fig. 28, 50). he boom in local production was fed by the inlux of large amounts of raw material from Alpine deposits and the Harz mountains (Horváth 2004a: 184; Kiss 2009: 330). Metalworking in the Vatya culture is evidenced by many settlement inds throughout its lifetime. At Bölcske-Vörösgyűrű, in layer E2 (phase Vatya I/post-Nagyrév; Poroszlai 1992a: 142), a mould for casting chisels was found. Layers A-D1 and E1 (phase Vatya III), yielded, in turn, a clay pipe – a tuyère element – and a small coil of gold wire19, respectively (Poroszlai 2000: 116-117, 137; Fig. 3, Fig. 22:10). he greatest number of records, however, concern stone casting moulds. At Kajászo-Vardómb, a sandstone form was discovered. Its one side was prepared for making axes/chisels, while the other was used for making unidentiied objects, probably pins (Horváth, Kozak, Petö 2001: 11, Table VII:60.80.5; Horváth 2004b: 25, Fig. 10:1a-1b) (Fig. 27). A mould from Lovasberény-Mihályvár had one side prepared for casting pins while the other was used for making other type of ornaments (Horváth, Kozak, Petö 2001: 13, Table IX-X). At the settlement at Soroksár-Várhegy, a discovery was made of a sandstone mould which could be used for manufacturing both dagger blades and pins (Endrődi, Gyulai 1999: 23, Fig. 18:6a, 6b; Horváth 2004a: 28, Fig. 12:3a, 12:3b). he use of the same moulds for manufacturing various objects is rather characteristic and has no analogy, if only in very numerous Otomani-Füzesabony culture inds in Slovakia20. As mentioned earlier, at the settlement at Lovasberény-Mihályvár, the remains of a metallurgist’s workshop were found together with associated inds of a casting mould and a crucible (Kovács 1982: 283; Horváth, Kozak, Petö 2001: 12). A feature discovered at the site is believed to be remains of a clay structure used for casting bronze objects directly in moulds imIn addition, 19th century records mention the discovery of a hoard of bronze ornaments close to or inside the settlement at Bölcske-Vörösgyűrű (Mozsolics 1988: 52). 20 However, examples of such casting moulds are known from the area of the present-day Romania (Găvan 2012). 19 pressed in clay (Petres, Bándi 1969: 175) (Fig. 26). One of the objects that could have been manufactured in this way, in the opinion of the researchers, were so-called ingots of raw material in the form of biscuits, known, for instance, from the Százhalombatta hoard (Kemenczei 2003: 169, Fig. 36). Assuming that this interpretation is right, it must be noted that the structure would be a unique source conirmation of a technique of casting bronze in sand (in this case in clay) proposed for the Bronze Age (Kuijpers 2008: 89-91). Some authors believe that this manner of producing bronze objects explains in part a strong disproportion between mass inds of readymade goods and still relatively few inds of casting moulds (Goldmann 1981). More evidence of metalworking comes from Százhalombatta and consists chiely of stone casting moulds and tuyère fragments (Poroszlai 2000: 116; Horváth, Kozák, Pető 2000: 113; Horváth 2004b: 29-32, Table 13-16). here are also indirect arguments to support the claim that local metalworking played a role in the life of Vatya culture societies. he irst relates to peculiar style and technique of making pottery at the settlement of Százhalombatta. As a result of close scrutiny of one of ceramic forms – the Rákospalota jug – it was found that, next to peculiar formal traits echoing a long tradition of imitating metal forms in clay, such as the ansa lunata handle and the sharp vessel proile, a technique taken from metalworking was used to produce them. High handles were fastened with rivets, imitating rivets known from metal objects. he technique was used in spite of the fact that it weakened a speciic part of the vessel, frequently resulting in cracks (Sofaer 2006: 133-137, Fig. 5). Another argument is ofered by many hoards of the Koszider type found within settlement themselves (Poroszlai 2003a: 153). hey were found at: Mende-Leányvár (Kovács 1975: 22, with footnote 4), Százhalombatta (Kemenczei 2003: 169, Fig. 36), Pákozd, Sárbogárd and Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás (3 deposits; Fig. 28) (Mozsolics 1988: 57, Liste II). Next to the hoards of the Hajdúsámson-Apa horizon, they constitute the main category of collective 88 Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture Fig. 26. LovasberényMihályvár. Remains of a metallurgical workshop (after Petres, Bándi 1969). inds of metal objects in the Carpathian Basin. It is suggested that their chronological position is diferent21. he former are supposedly older. he chronological difference between the two phenomena, however, is not clear and measurable in calen- dar years22 (David 2002). What they clearly difer in, however, is their structure and deposition context. Unlike the deposits of the Hajdúsámson-Apa horizon, Koszider hoards included, next to weapon forms (spearheads, dagger blades), tools (axes), 21 Furthermore, individual hoards of the Hajdúsámson-Apa horizon itself are believed to difer in age (Bóna 1992b: 56, 60). 22 See comments concerning the controversy aroused by the absolute dating of the Koszider horizon (chapter 5.5). Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture 89 Fig. 27. Kajászo-Vardómb. A bilateral casting mould (after Horváth 2012). bronze waste or raw material and numerous ornaments (pins, pendants) (Fig. 28, 50). he hoards are highly heterogeneous and their individual instances are included in the category of Koszider deposits on the strength of single telltale forms23. What else can bee seen is the contextual relationship of the hoards with settlements. he chief telltale objects are circular pendants bearing a cross ornament in the centre and others of a lily shape with arms separated by a Y-shaped element; Bóna 1992b: 59, Abb. 28). 23 he hoards were oten deposited in vessels within settlements or in their immediate vicinity (Mozsolics 1988). Both phenomena must have been diferent forms of ritual and social behaviour. From the Vatya culture context, we know of a single, relatively modest burial of a metallurgist. Grave 1029 from the Dunaújváros-Dünadülő cemetery, linked to the nearby settlement of Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás, contained a ceramic vessel, a stone mould for casting ornaments and two stone pads (Bóna 1975: 55) (Fig. 29). 90 Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture Fig. 28. Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás (deposit I). Pendants typical of the Koszider type hoards (after Bóna 1992b). Fig. 29. Dunaújváros-Dünadülő, grave no. 960. Some elements of the equipment of a metallurgist’s burial (after Bátora 2006). Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture 91 5.5. Chronology he wide-ranging issues of the Bronze Age chronology in the Carpathian Basin is a problem that deserves a separate study. he most important attempts to bring order into the chronology before the Second World War and over last ity years of the 20th century were described in detail by David (2002: 3-46)24. he schemas are based solely on stratigraphic observations of settlement and cemetery sites and the typology of pottery and metal objects, hoards included (Gogâltan 1998: 191; David 2002: 3). he reason of such situation is the scanty number of radiocarbon datings (Raczky, Hertelendi, Horváth 1992; Forenbaher 1993; Görsdorf, Marková, Furmánek 2004: 79-80, Fig. 1). he crucial issue for the subject matter of this part of the present study is the chronology of the Vatya culture and the Koszider horizon, traditionally connected with the end of the so-called autochthonous tell cultures. he classic three-tiered classiication of the Vatya culture into phases I (subphases a and b), II and III was proposed by Bóna (Bóna 1975: 25, 73; Kreiter 2007: 33). He refered to three subperiods of the Middle Bronze Age he had isolated (Kovács 1984a: 223; Mittlere Bronzezeit 1, 2, 3). he sequence closes with the Koszider period25. It is symptomatic that the author did not use in his work any of the chronological systems referred and stuck to the classic terminology of the schema proposed by Paul Reinecke. 25 he controversies concerning the Koszider horizon have even touched its nomenclature. Particular authors have adopted diferent terms such as: Vatya-Koszider horizon, period, phase and even culture (Mozsolics 1988: 42; Bóna 1992b: 58-64; Vicze, Poroszlai, Sümegi 2013, see there for more literature) to describe separate phenomena such as depositing of hoards or settlement development. he complicated picture is further obscured by the employment of terms referring to the growth of particular cultural groups and oten used in a more or less similar sense as synonyms for the Koszider-horizon – phase Streda nad Bodrogom, Bodrogszerdahely (Otomani-Füzesabony culture) (Novotná 1998: 357; Koós 2001), Alpár phase, Rákospalota phase (Vatya culture) (Kovács 1975: 310; Bóna, Nováki 1982: 113; Kreiter 2005: 17-18). 24 Originally included by the author in the Late Bronze Age, it is currently connected with the Middle Bronze Age (David 2002: 21, with footnote 131; Poroszlai 2003b: 161; Vicze, Poroszlai, Sümegi 2013). In accordance with Hungarian terminology in the perspectives posited by Kemenczei, Kovács and Kálicz the beginning of the Vatya culture (Vatya I) is related to the emergence of period MB I, phase Vatya II roughly corresponds to period MB II, and MB III contains the late variants of cultures: Vatya-Koszider, Alpár, Rákospalota (David 1998a: 232-233; 2002: 32, Abb. 2.7; 34, Abb. 2.8). In the view of Gogâltan phase Vatya I coincides with his horizon 3 of the tell cultures development (the turn of FB III and MB I; ca 2300-1950 BC), phase Vatya II with horizon 4 (MB II; ca 1900-1700 BC) and phase Vatya III with horizon 5 (MB III; ca 1650-1500 BC) (Gogâltan 2005; 2008: 40-41, Fig. 2). A diferent opinion is presented by Bóna in the catalogue for the exhibition Bronzezeit in Ungarn26. Drawing on an outdated Bronze Age chronology he proposed a general view of the chronology of the Vatya culture over the period from ca 1650 to 1350 BC (Bóna 1992a: 40). hus, accordingly, phases Vatya I and Vatya II are linked with period MB I, phase Vatya III with MB II, and the late variants Vatya-Koszider, Alpár, Rákospalota with period MB III (Bóna 1992a: 17; David 2002: 30, Abb. 2.6). he chronological views briely discussed above follow primarily from the typological indings concerning local pottery stylistics and, to a lesser degree, metallurgy. On account of the registered high stability of the stylistic development of the Vatya culture pottery (Kovács 1984a: 220; Poroszlai 2000: 22) a preliminary study of inds from the Százhalombatta settlement he catalogue was also published with no signiicant changes in a French language version entitled Le bel Age du Bronze en Hongrie (Coudrot, hevenot 1994). Since years it is one of basic sources of information about Hungary’s so-called Bronze Age tell cultures. his fact unambiguously deines the state of research and publications on the issues discussed. 26 92 Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture (Poroszlai 2000; Kreiter 2005), which draws on the classic approach of Bóna (1975:44-48, 52, 60-69), can be applied to a description of its main typological features. On level IV, connected with the oldest stage of the Vatya culture in the settlement, there are still visible traces of the Nagyrév tradition, such as deep brushing of the surface of vessels and an altogether modest decoration limited to incised lines (Poroszlai 2000: 23). here still remain in use vessels referring to forms known from the early Bronze Age, among them urns with a marked S-proile, handleless or with a ribbon-shaped handle, with no decoration or only with rib decoration with inger impressions (Szathmári 1996: 77, 82, Fig. 1:8, 84, Fig. 3:1) and bowls with an arched shoulder and one handle (Bóna 1975, Tafel 10:1); Kovács 1984a: 220; Poroszlai 2000: 23, 58, XVIII:2, 3). Furthermore, forms speciic to the early Vatya culture phase are cups with a spherical belly with one handle, found on this stratigraphic level (Bóna 1975, Tafel 3:5; Poroszlai 2000: 23, 54, Plate XIV:5). An increase in the quantity of ornamented vessels can be observed in the classic phase of the Vatya culture. here also appears a characteristic form of a deep bowl with 1, 2 or 4 handles and a speciic way of modelling the arched rims of bowls (Poroszlai 2000: 22, 56, Plate XVI:3), in many cases decorated with a web of incised lines in the lower part (Poroszlai 2000: 22). Urnshaped storage vessels are oten adorned with a web of large rhombs and rib decoration with inger impressions (Poroszlai 2000: 22, 54, Plate XIV:1; Kreiter 2007: 166, Fig. 88:11). Also, small handles placed on the necks of vessels are a typical element. hey appear only during the middle period of the Vatya culture (Kreiter 2005: 12, 21, Plate 2:2). he inal phases of the Vatya culture (phase III and Vatya-Koszider) constitute the zenith of the development of pottery production. Pit no 2 on level II of the Százhalombatta settlement yielded, among others, an assemblage of speciic thinwalled vessels burnt black, known as Rákospalota type pitchers with an ansa lunata handle (Schreiber 1967; Poroszlai 2000: 21, 25, 50, Plate X:3). he vessels occur both in an undecorated form (Bóna 1975, Tafel 49:8; Kreiter 2005: 20, Plate I:4-5) and with an ornament of incised horizontal lines, small pits and hatched triangles in arrangements located above the long neck of the belly (Poroszlai 2000: 21, 50, Plate X:3; Kreiter 2005: 16, 20, Plate I:1-3, 6; Sofaer 2006: 133, Fig. 3). he sharp long neck of the belly is sometimes emphasised by rib decoration also adorned with small dots or notches (Bóna 1975, Tafel 45:12). During the Vatya-Koszider phase there also appear vessels richly decorated with garland motifs, hatched triangles and knobs channelled with dots or accompanying “hanging” lines ending with dots (Kovács 1984a: 221; Szathmári 1996: 77; Poroszlai 2000: 41, Plate I:7, 44, Plate IV:3, 49, Plate IX:1; Kreiter 2005: 11-12, 22, Plate 3). In this period the forms that appeared earlier, such as one-handle cups, undergo marked stylistic changes – the spherical belly is replaced by sharp proiling of that part of the vessel and ansa lunata handles occur in some cases (Kreiter 2005: 17, 24, Plate 5:6-8, Plate 6). he pottery of the late phase of the Vatya culture is characterised by vessels decorated with plastic igural elements. Objects showing some features of anthropomorphisation (ornaments symbolising breasts, eyes, a hand) and weaponry (a dagger, a hatchet) are known from the settlements in Százhalombatta, Dunaújváros, Mende-Leányvár, Igar-Vámpuszta and Pákozd-Vár (Kovács 1973; Kreiter 2005). Some chronological relevance can be also ascribed to fragments of encrusted ware registered in the Százhalombatta settlement and connected with the tradition of the late phase of Kisapostag culture, the early phase of the Encrusted Pottery culture and the classic phase of the Encrusted Pottery culture dated respectively to the earliest and the late phases of the Vatya culture (Kiss 1998: 166-167; Fekete 2005: 48-49, 54). Some of the sites discussed in the present study were inhabited continually from the Early Bronze Age (the Nagyrév culture) (David 1998a: 231). he available stratigraphic data reveal that both over that period and in the early phases of the Vatya settlement they functioned as open settlements. Fortiications were mainly con- Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture 93 structed during the late Vatya phase (David 1998a: 234). here is also a group of settlements which grew and functioned only in that period (Bóna, Nováki 1982: 112, 115; Kovács 1982: 289; Poroszlai 1991: 59). As mentioned above, the vanishing of fortiied settlements and more broadly of the tell autochthonic cultures of the Carpathian Basin is related to the Koszider period. Traditionally, the wane of tell settlements is placed at the turn of the 15th and 14th century (Poroszlai 1991: 66; Bóna 1992a: 40), with ca 1350 BC most oten indicated as the dividing line that marked the moment of the end of human settlement in defensive sites (Kovács 1982: 289; Poroszlai, Vicze 2004: 231). Until recently we possessed a limited collection of radiocarbon datings which did not allow to specify the Vatya culture chronology (Forenbaher 1993: 244-245, 251, Fig. 11). Over the last years the most complete list of determinations was published in the Bronzezeit in Ungarn (Raczky, Hertelendi, Horváth 1992) catalogue mentioned elsewhere. he dates it contains, however, fail to provide the basic information concerning the location of samples within sites and the material from which the determinations were obtained. his is the reason why they do not constitute a reliable source for drawing conclusions. he probability of an erroneous interpretation of such determinations is illustrated by the examples of date Bln-341 from Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás and the dates from Bölcske-Vörösgyűrű. he former was obtained from charred grain which according to the author had been discovered in the layers connected with the Nagyrév culture. he results of the analysis seem to indicate its relation with the Vatya culture settlement (Quitta, Kohl 1969: 241; cf Raczky, Hertelendi, Horváth 1992: 45). However, this cannot be fully veriied due to the lack of excavation documentation of the context of the sample. As far as the Bölcske dates are concerned, the technique of spade-deep digging (Poroszlai 2000: 113) that for a time was used to investigate the site is open to doubt: as it were, it rules out by deinition a solid stratigraphic and contextual observation. he impression of an overwhelming information chaos is further intensiied by the diferent values of the same dates published in the admittedly scarce sources27. he problem involves the determination of the age of samples from Mende-Leányvár (Bln-1942) and Tószeg (Bln-1923). While for the irst site the discrepancy is relatively small (20 years) and carries a laboratory error (3280±45 Raczky, Hertelendi, Horváth 1992: 45; 3280±65 Forenbaher 1993: 245), in the case of the second determination the diference involves both the laboratory error (5 years) and the deined BP age that reaches as long as 100 years (3490±45 Raczky, Hertelendi, Horváth 1992: 45; 3590±50 Görsdorf, Marková, Furmánek 2004: 90). he only information concerning the kind of the analysed material (charred grain; Quitta, Kohl 1969: 241) is available for the Dunaújváros date. All dates in the catalogue were arbitrarily attributed to the Vatya culture, with no reference to its typochronology and the division into particular phases (Raczky, Hertelendi, Horváth 1992). In view of the above, they contribute little to the argument about the elaboration of the inner Vatya culture chronology and the absolute chronology of the defensive settlement in the Vatya culture area. Five radiocarbon dates connected with the Vatya culture published in the catalogue mentioned earlier and obtained from the settlements in Bölcske (2 determinations), Dunaújváros, Mende and Százhalombatta indicate the period of ca 2000 – 1600, 1500 BC (Raczky, Hertelendi, Horváth 1992; Forenbaher 1993: 244-245, 251) (Fig. 32). Adding to the knowledge concerning the temporal extent of the Vatya culture settlement can be helped by the results of the recently obtained datings from Százhalombatta and Kakucs-Balla-domb sites (Uhnér 2010: 347; Jaeger, Kulcsár 2013). A series 27 he determination of sample no 1942 from Mende-Leányvár is also published in the literature carrying the symbol of two diferent laboratories: Hannover’s (Forenbaher 1993: 245) and Berlin’s (Raczky, Hertelendi, Horváth 1992: 45). Kovács, however, mentions the date as one having been obtained in the 14C Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Bodenforschung laboratory (Kovács 1973: 12, also footnote 10). here is no information that might suggest several determinations being taken from one sample of the Mende-Leányvár origin. 94 Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture of 12 datings, altogether comprising maximally the 1900-1400 BC period, has been presented for the former (Fig. 30). In view of the full developmental cycle of the Vatya culture in the Százhalombatta settlement the absence of precise information on the relation of datings to particular typological phases, stratigraphic levels is particularly distressing. Datings for Kakucs-Balla-domb site, are maximally contained in the 2050/2000-1450 BC period (Fig. 31). he settlement was occupied from the late Nagyrév/early Vatya to the Vatya III/ /Vatya–Koszider period (Jaeger, Kulcsár 2013: 295, 300). he most relevant information to be gained from the datings is the evident precedence of all developmental phases of the Vatya culture in comparison to the suggested conventional dating models (Gogâltan 2005; 2008). Furthermore, it should be stressed that radiocarbon datings indicate a considerably bigger complexity and dynamics of the material culture diversity embodied in the ‘luid’ emergence of pottery stylistics connected with Vatya’s particular developmental phases. Even though the absolute chronology of the stratigraphic sequence from Kakucs-Balla-domb is for the time being an exception, it should be treated as a clear hint signalling the necessity of a revision of the viewpoints presented so far and a less Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture Fig. 30. The sum of the probability distribution of radiocarbon datings from the Százhalombatta settlement (the SAX project) (after Uhnér 2010). 95 Fig. 31. Kakucs–Balla-domb. The sum of the probability distribution of the radiocarbon dates for Phases I–II–III and the Koszider period of the Vatya culture (after Jaeger, Kulcsár 2013). restrictive approach to typochronological models. Only an enlargement of the pool of radiocarbon determinations for the Vatya culture and linking the Százhalombatta series with speciic phases will make a full veriication of the chronology more possible. he datings from Százhalombatta and Kakucs-Balla-domb point to the possibility of a longer period of decline of the Vatya culture than that suggested by the quoted dates from the Bronzezeit in Ungarn catalogue. he chronological framework of defensive settlement can be maximally deined as the period between 2000-1400 BC (Fig. 32). A larger number of datings exist for the Koszider period, but they are spread over a big geographical area, culturally much diversiied during the Bronze Age. he available dates were obtained from the sites of the Hatvan, Otomani-Füzesabony and Vatya cultures Raczky, Hertelendi, Horváth 1992; Forenbaher 1993; Koós 2002; Görsdorf, Marková, Furmánek 2004; Jaeger, Kulcsár 2013). hey demonstrate a relatively long period between 1950/1900 and 1500/1450 BC (Fig. 33). With information concerning the archaeological context non-existent, it is impossible to comment on the precedence of date Bln-1217 from the settlement in Jászdózsa. It is crucial, however, that this date together with the youngest one from the Kakucs-Balla-domb sequence cross the dividing line of the year 1500 BC, signalling a late moment of the decline of defensive settlement in the Carpathian Basin. In the group discussed the dates devoid of information concerning archaeological context prevail. It should be emphasised, however, that they point to a more complex and long-lasting nature of the 96 Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture Fig. 32. The sum of the probability distribution of radiocarbon datings from the fortiied settlements of the Vatya culture (after Jaeger, Kulcsár 2013). Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture 97 Fig. 33. The sum of the probability distribution of radiocarbon datings connected with the Koszider horizon (after Jaeger, Kulcsár 2013). 98 Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture Koszider period and the related cultural transformations in the Carpathian Basin (Jaeger 2011: 173-174). Traditionally, the occurrence of hoards of the Koszider type are linked solely with the late phases of the Otomani-Füzesabony, Mad’arovce and Vatya. Ater their disappearance the hoards were not deposited, though some of objects contained therein were typologically developed and their production continued (Novotná 1998: 357). Summing up, it must be noted that it is still practically impossible to chart the chronology of the key periods in the settlement development: the cultural transformation Vatya → Nagyrév registered in part of the sites (e.g. Százhalombatta; Poroszlai 1996: 5), the stage of fortifying the originally open Vatya culture sites (eg Dunaújváros, Százhalombatta, Pákozd-Vár; David 1998a: 234) and the period when there appeared new fortiied settlements related with the territorial expansion of the group postulated in the literature of the subject (e. g. Alpár; Bóna, Nováki 1982: 115; Mende, Nagykőrös; Kovács 1982: 288). Still, the increase in the amount of radiocarbon datings connected with particular settlements (Százhalombatta, Kakucs-Balla-domb) does allow to hope for a change of the present situation. Building up a series of radiocarbon dates related to complete stratigraphic sequences of speciied sites will surely help overcome the current obstacles in reconstructing the dynamics of the Vatya culture defensive settlement in the future. 5.6. Summary: role and function of Vatya culture fortiied settlements In Hungarian archaeology, a view prevails that Vatya culture fortiied settlements had a military and defensive signiicance. Arguments in favour of this opinion include not only the size or structure of settlements but their peculiar distribution. hey are positioned in a way suggesting a desire to close of some speciic space coveted because of its favourable environmental conditions and a possibility it ofers to control individual routes (Poroszlai 2000: 13; Vicze 2000: 120). Some authors speak even of marking out a tribal territory (Bóna 1975: 59; Poroszlai 2000: 13) to hold out against neighbouring cultural groups (Encrusted Pottery culture; Bóna 1992a: 24). he available maps of distribution of all site categories28 of the Vatya culture (Kovács 1969: 167, Fig. 5; 1982: 281, Abb. 1; Vicze 2000: 127, Fig. 2) suggest that settlement concentrated between two lines of fortiied settlements (Fig. 20) (critical comments in: Szeverényi, Kulcsár 2012: 288-293). he viewing of Vatya culture fortiied settlements as facilities having military signiicance has a long tradition in Hungarian archaeology. In total about 300 sites (Kovács 1982: 280; Vicze 2000: 120). 28 he view is related to two developments. First concerns the proposed crucial moment when fortiications appeared around originally open settlements. hey began to raise defences in the late period (phase III) of the Vatya culture (Poroszlai 1988: 34; Bóna 1992a: 24; David 1998a: 234; horizon V according to Gogâltan, see 2005: 162, Abb. 2; 170-171). his period is frequently called Vatya-Koszider phase (Bóna, Nováki 1982: 112) because of the second development – depositing of hoards of the socalled Koszider horizon (see chapter 5.4). Characteristic sets of metal objects, oten unearthed in the youngest strata of settlements belonging to various cultural units in the Carpathian Basin (Mozsolics 1988: 42-44), were interpreted by Bóna and Mozsolics in their already classic publications as possessions hidden by inhabitants from invaders belonging to the Tumulus culture – people of long swords (Mozsolics 1957; 1967: 123-125; Bóna 1958; recently: Csányi 2003). Although now the disappearance of tell settlement (including the defensive variety) in the irst half of the 2nd millennium BC is described as a combination of many diferent factors (Mozsolics 1988: 51; David 1998a) and the deposition of Koszi- Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture 99 der type hoards is not viewed anymore as a result of a one-of event (Bóna 1992b: 60), the fortiications built around Vatya culture settlements are still treated as a response to the pressure by neighbouring population groups (Bóna 1992a: 24; Vicze 2000: 122) and the invasion by the populations of the Tumulus culture has been named as one of the reasons for the demise of the Vatya culture for years29 (Trogmayer 1975: 156; Poroszlai 2000: 25). his picture, however, stands in contrast to available archaeological data. For so far, no sources have been recovered that would testify to the violent destruction of any settlement (Vicze 2000: 122). On the contrary, the falling into disuse of defences around many sites seems to be a rather slow and natural process as shown by stratigraphic observations. What we see there is ditches being gradually illed and bearing no evidence of sudden destruction (Füleky, Vicze 2007: 134). Other facts worth noting in this context are the absence of any traces of settlement by pohis reason is used also to explain other major cultural processes taking place in the area in question. For example, the appearance of some elements of Encrusted Pottery culture style east of the culture’s oecumene, i.e. in the area occupied by the Vatya culture, is interpreted as a result of the light of local populations from the invasion by the populations of the Tumulus culture (Bándi 1969: 56-58; Kiss 1998: 162, 167). 29 tential “invaders” – Tumulus culture populations – at deserted fortiied settlements or in their immediate vicinity (Bóna, Nováki 1982: 116; Kovács 1984a: 224; Poroszlai 1988: 39; Gogâltan 2005: 172; Vicze, Earle, Artursson 2005: 238) and the ending of settlement at certain sites (e.g. Nagykőrös-Földvár, Bölcske-Vörösgyűrű) before the Koszider period without any evidence of violent occurrences, if only layers of burnt material (Poroszlai 1993: 66; David 1998a: Poroszlai, Vicze 2004: 233). As has been mentioned earlier some of the settlements were founded in places that had been colonized earlier (Bóna 1992a: 20; Kovács 1998: 488; Poroszlai 2000: 14). In many cases the cultural change from Nagyrév to Vatya can be seen only in pottery inventories (a gradual process) while the structure of settlements or even their location and construction details of individual houses remain unchanged (Poroszlai 2003a: 153). It can be ventured that next to strategic, economic and environmental factors, cultural reasons were responsible for the continuity as well – it was important to stay in a named place associated with the ancestral tradition (Fontijn 2002: 259). Tell settlements, being dominating topographic points (Neustupný 1995), towered over their surroundings, ofering their inhabitants safety but also tying them to ancestral traditions and past buried in successive settlement layers (Chapman 1997: 143). 100 Research Area III. Middle Danube Basin: Vatya culture CHAPTER 6 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture Otomani-Füzesabony culture settlement in today’s east Slovakia concentrates in the north zone of the Otomani-Füzesabony cultural complex oecumene. hree major groups of sites can be distinguished now. hese are: the East Slovakia Lowlands, Spiš and the Košice Basin (Jaeger, Olexa 2014: 163-164, Fig. 1). Otomani-Füzesabony culture sites are grouped above all on the upper Tisza, and on the Hornád, Torysa and Latorica rivers. However, the most important fortiied settlements are found in the Košice Basin (Fig. 34). Next to Nižna Myšl’a, only several kilometres away, there are two more fortiied settlements: Košice-Barca and Rozhanovce and also numerous cemeteries, for instance Čaňa, Gača, Valaliký, and the open settlement at Vel’ká Ida (Olexa 1982a: 396, Abb. 5; Gašaj, Olexa 1992: 9, Karte 1). Otomani-Füzesabony culture settlement in mountainous Spiš was, in turn, a result of a greater expansion of the culture whereby it reached the Lower Beskids in Poland as well (Gancarski 1994: 97). 6.1. Natural environment and economy he basic information on the use of the natural environment is supplied by few and incomplete archaeobotanical and archaeozoological analyses. heir informative content, however, is very limited. In the middle 1990s, in Slovakia, palaeobotanical material was recorded only with respect to about 100 sites (altogether about 700 archaeological features) of varying chronology: from the Palaeolithic to the Middle Ages (Hajnalová 1993: 10). he small group of about a dozen Bronze Age sites that were investigated included the fortiied settlements at Košice-Barca, Nižná Myšľa and Spišský Štvrtok and the sites at Včelince and Zemplinske Kopčany – also linked to the Otomani-Füzesabony culture (Hajnalová 1989: 15-17; 1993: 111-113). Available archaeobotanical analyses are not a result of a methodical sample collection during excavations and a greater part of them concerns a special group of sources, namely plant impressions let in daub. On the whole, the washing of feature ills is rarely used in Slovakian archaeology (Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999: 130). With respect to the sites mentioned earlier, the lotation method was used to a limited extent only during the investigations at the settlement at Nižna Myšl’a (Hajnalová 1996: 131). Relying on fragmentary published data, one can currently make only a list of crop and wild plant species used by the inhabitants of fortiied settlements. In the case of the site at Spišský Štvrtok, macrobotanical remains in the form of charred seeds came from three diferent contexts: a cultural Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 101 Fig. 34. Slovakia. Distribution of Otomani-Füzesabony culture fortiied settlements: 1 – Košice-Barca, 2 – Nižna Myšl’a, 3 – Rozhanovce, 4 – Spišský Štvrtok, 5 – Lomnica, 6 – Streda nad Bodrogom. layer, burned daub and cultural layers from a proile1. Next to the most common emmer wheat, seeds of the following species were identiied: common wheat, small spelt, rye and barley (Hajnalová 1972; 1983: 606). In a large set of daub fragments, there were 36 pieces bearing impressions let by plant remains, including the seeds, ears and chaf of barley, emmer wheat, common wheat and a single fragment with an impression of blackthorn (Hajnalová 1983: 606-607; 1993: 113). A careful examination of charcoals found in feature 40 – described in detail below – showed that they came from the species that must have grown in the immediate vicinity of the settlement. he following were identiied: maple, hornNo more speciic information on the location of the palaeobotanical material is available. 1 beam, apple, spruce, willow, oak and conifer (Hajnalová 1983: 607). Archival information on the settlement at Košicce-Barca mentions a discovery of a grain pit, in which grains of three kinds of wheat were identiied: emmer wheat (70 per cent), clubed wheat (9 per cent), and small spelt (1 per cent) as well as barley (20 per cent) (Gašaj 2002b: 43). he spectrum of crop plants was supplemented by legumes: lentil and pea (Hajnalová 1993: 112), the absence of which in the samples from Spišský Štvrtok may be explained by the imperfect methodology of sample collection (Hajnalová 1983: 607). Legumes were probably grown in home gardens and harvested crops were kept in storage vessels inside huts. Due to complete absence of any palaeobotanical studies of Bronze Age dwelling features in Slovakia, this hy- 102 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture pothesis cannot be veriied (Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999: 130). As has been mentioned earlier, the investigations at the site at Nižna Myšl’a employed the lotation method to wash features ills. It must be observed, however, that the method was not used regularly or consistently: only the contents of six pits were washed while in total several hundred ground features were recorded at the site (see below, chapter 6.2.). In addition, the contents of 19 vessels found in graves were examined as well as daub fragments of which some bore plant impressions. Daub fragments collected at the older settlement bore impressions of emmer wheat and spelt, while those gathered at the younger settlement displayed traces of barley, spelt, common wheat and a single impression of cornel tree (Hajnalová 1993: 112; 1996: 131, 133, Tab. 1). In the washed clay samples, the content of cereal remains was in no case high enough to call any of the six features a storage pit. However, traces of cereals were found in them (emmer wheat, einkorn, spelt, common wheat, barley, millet) as well as of legumes (pea, lentil) and fruit (cornel tree, dewberry, hazel, dog rose) (Hajnalová 1996: 134-135, Tab. 2-3; 2001: 32-33). Moreover, many charcoals were recorded. Among them oak was dominant followed by less numerous hornbeam, maple, elm and willow. In the opinion of the researcher, all the tree species grew in the immediate vicinity of the site. Only charcoals testifying to the presence of European beech are, in her opinion, a proof that wood procured from more distant areas, economically exploited by settlement inhabitants, was used at the site (Hajnalová 1996: 139). An exceptional source of macrobotanical remains at Nižna Myšl’a, a clay object shaped like a loaf of bread (Olexa 2002b: 90, Fot. 105) was found to contain in the clay it was made of many charred remains of such plants as emmer wheat, einkorn, spelt, brome and goosefoot (Hajnalová 1991). he object was found in a pit together with pottery fragments, bones and animal skulls and a ine gold object (Hajnalová 1996: 137). Objects related to land cultivation included tools dating back to the Neolithic such as grinders, querns, ards, and hoes as well as bronze sickles, being, no doubt, an innovation of the times (Gašaj 2002b: 41, 43; Olexa 2003: F46). Next to crop cultivation, animal breeding was the other source of subsistence for the settlements. Also in relation to this question no reliable publications of any major collections of osteological material are available. What can be found in the literature on the subject is only general information on identiied species. here are no data whatsoever that would specify the methodology of any unpublished analyses, underpinning the general conclusions mentioned earlier. Generally speaking, Otomani-Füzesabony culture fortiied settlements relect the trend present in the Bronze Age where domesticated species dominate over wild ones. heir percentage ratio is believed to be roughly 85:15 per cent (Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999: 131; Gašaj 2002b: 43). he researcher investigating the settlement at Nižna Myšl’a mentions, however, that the raising of cattle, goats/sheep and pigs satisied only about 60 per cent of the demand for animal proteins (Olexa 2003: 53). In this case, other supplementary forms of procuring food would be vital; they included hunting, ishing and gathering of molluscs (Gašaj, Olexa 1992: 19; Olexa 2003: 53). Next to hunting big game, such as deer and boar for their meat, the inhabitants of Nižna Myšl’a caught beavers in large numbers for their fur, which is seen in a surprisingly large number of beaver bone remains at the site (Gašaj 2002b: 43; Olexa 2003: 53). Hunted animals provided also antlers and bones for making elements of horse harnesses. he settlements at Nižna Myšľa, Košice-Barca and Spišský Štvrtok yielded a large collection of richly ornamented bone objects related to the use of the horse as a draught and riding animal (Vladár 1973: 303-311; Olexa 1992: 193; Gašaj 2002b: 42, Fot. 36; Olexa, Pitorák 2004). Perhaps, the horse was the animal harnessed to wagons, the use of which is attested, in the irst place, by clay models found at the cemetery and settlement at Nižna Myšl’a2 (Olexa 1983b; Olexa, Pitorák 2004). At Nižna Myšl’a, the horse could have been, to a very small extent, used as a source of food, 2 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 103 he location of the fortiied settlements on water courses stands in stark contrast to a low number of sources attesting to ishing. An explanation lies in imperfect research methodology and not in local communities’ lack of interest in river resources3 (Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999: 133). At present, we know only of single inds of bronze hooks (Gašaj 2002b: 42, Fot. 37) and a small amount of ish bones and vertebrae discovered in Nižna Myšl’a (Hajnalová 1996: 132). which is evidenced by the traces of slaughtering visible on some remains (Olexa 2003: 53). 3 he inluence of the excavation technique on the quality and quantity of archaeozoological sources is well illustrated by a comparison of two methods of investigation of settlement features at an Early Bronze settlement at Rybiny (Poland). In the case of traditional manual collection of remains a domination of mammals over molluscs and ish was established; however, in the case of sieving the contents of pits, the ratios were reversed (Makowiecki, Makowiecka 1998: 274, 277, Fig. 1). It can hardly be missed that the above data looks rather modest in comparison to the informative potential of so complex sites as Otomani-Füzesabony culture fortiied settlements. A speciic research strategy decided the quality of obtained information. Currently, we are not able to go beyond a rudimentary, almost banal, way of approaching the question of economic underpinnings of the fortiied settlements. All we can say is that it was an intensive agro-breeding economy based on cereal growing and the breeding of cattle, small ruminants and pigs. he available information virtually prevents researchers from assessing the state of the natural environment when the settlements functioned and determining the degree of human impact on the surrounding landscape. Neither does it allow to grasp the changes and any development trends in subsistence strategies of individual settlements. 6.2. Inner layout As mentioned earlier, despite many excavation projects carried out sometimes for many years on Otomani-Füzesabony culture fortiied sites in today’s east Slovakia, no complete publication of investigation results is available. Some basic information on the layout, size and form of huts, not to mention any construction details, does appear incidentally in many available publications. Located on a hill at the conluence of the Hornád, Torysa and Olšava rivers, the site at Nižna Myšl’a comprised two Otomani-Füzesabony culture fortiied settlements. Within the perimeter of the older of them, measuring 50 × 60 m, 254 huts were explored and one feature called a well (Olexa 1983a: 122). All the three publications mention also remains of a stone structure, interpreted as a bastion (Olexa 1982a: 388; 1983a: 122). However, more recent publications do not mention this feature at all; it seems that remains of an unidentiied structure (perhaps a stone and timber structure of a gate identiied in later investigation stages?; Gašaj 2002b: 27; see below) were mistakenly called a bastion in earlier excavation seasons. In the explored eastern portion of the older settlement (Gašaj 2002b: 26, Fig. 4), huts stood in two rows parallel to the bowlike line of defences (Olexa 2003: 42-43) (Fig. 35). he publications of the 1980s (Olexa 1982a; 1983a) mention geophysical surveys conducted at the site (Olexa 1983a: 122). However, the geomagnetic plan has not been published yet. Oriented E-W, the huts were built of logs laid on stone underpinnings5 (Olexa 1982a: 388; 1985: In a 1982 publication, the author of the investigations mentions the discovery of 20 huts (Olexa 1982a: 388). However, the text was sent to press ater the fourth excavation season. he paper of 1983 was published with information about the completion of the ith season (Olexa 1983a: 122). In one of later publications, information appears about lower portions of walls and hut corners being lined with stones (Olexa 2003: 43, Fot. F434). Absence of any drawings makes it impossible, however, to determine unequivocally what use of stones was made in constructing the huts. 4 5 104 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 174), known also from the settlement at Spišský Štvrtok (Vladár 1975: 10). Floors of compacted clay were slightly elevated above the ground level (Olexa 1992: 191; 2003: 43), unlike the hut loors at the settlement at Košice-Barca, where clay and claytimber loors were placed at the ground level (Kabát 1955a: 596; Vladár 1973: 279, Abb. 24). In one Nižna Myšl’a huts, the loor was paved with river stones/pebbles (Olexa 1986: 174). Inside the huts, there were hearths (sometimes centrally located) and pits to which ashes were swept in some cases (Gašaj 2002b: 27). he wooden structures of walls, likewise in the case of some huts at Spišský Štvrtok, were covered with clay mixed with chaf and seeds (Hajnalová 1983: 606-607; 1996: 131; Olexa 2003: 43). Some daub fragments from Spišský Štvrtok bore traces of incised ornaments (Hajnalová 1983: 606). In the case of the Košice-Barca settlement, the wattle structure of walls is attested to by a daub fragment with impressions of thin twigs tightly bound together6 Fig. 35. Nižná Myšl’a. Plan of the older settlement with excavated elements of the inner layout, fortiications, and location of trenches (after Gašaj 2002b). 6 From the Otomani-Füzesabony settlement at Ároktő-Dongóhalom in Hungary, we know of single inds of daub fragments that can be remains of frames placed around windows or doors Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 105 Fig. 36. Košice-Barca. A “classic” plan of the settlement with reconstruction of the regular inner layout (after Gašaj 2002b). (Kabát 1955a: 598, 611, Obr. 282; Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999, Taf. 20 a, b). Between the huts, there ran alleys slightly sunk into the ground (Olexa 1983a: 122). One of the main alleys ran from the gate, crossing the settlement roughly east-west, while the other followed the fortiications. he alleys were paved with river stones (Gašaj 2002b: 27; Olexa 2003: 42-43), as in the case of the settlement at Spišský Štvrtok (Jockenhövel 1990: 216, Abb. 4). Frequently recorded elements of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture settlement layout in Slovakia, (Fischl 2006: 200). he fact that nothing is known of such inds from Slovakian settlements does not exclude a possibility that they are there for daub fragments of these sites have not been thoroughly examined. in several cases alleys were part of a regular design called with some exaggeration a town plan. A discussion about speciic proto-urban elements in the layout of the settlements stemmed from the discoveries at the settlement at Košice-Barca. In one of early publications of investigation results at Košice-Barca, a plan was published featuring 23 huts compactly arranged in rows (Kabát 1955a) (Fig. 36). hree of the rows (altogether 19 huts) were oriented north-south, while the fourth row (altogether 4 huts) stretched east-west. he huts varied in size and interior arrangement. he major hut types were as follows: huts with a single room (and 1 hearth), huts with two rooms (and 1 hearth) and huts with three rooms (and 1 or 2 hearths) (Kabát 1955a: 596-597). Inside huts, there were 106 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture postholes recorded that must be traces let by hut furnishings (Vladár 1973: 290). In 1994, a paper was published by the doyen of Slovakian archaeology, Anton Točik. Relying on the preserved documentation of the excavations by Hájek and Kabát, and available publications, he set out to reinterpret the development and chronology of the older and younger settlements at Košice-Barca (Točik 1994; David 1998a: 245-247). he veriication relied on the study of the alleys crossing the site. Točik observed that only some structures respected the course of the alley following the fortiications (Točik 1994: 63). his observation allowed him to put forward a hypothesis according to which the plan of the settlement that had been relied on for years was in fact a combination of two construction phases occurring at diferent times. he correct history of the development of the settlement supposedly looked as follows. In the older phase, an alley ran along the rampart and dwelling structures respected its course, i.e. structures oriented north-south; the north and south rows consisted of huts with two rooms while the middle row comprised huts with a single room. In the younger phase, in turn, the rampart alley had fallen into disuse and huts with three rooms were built; the irst group in the south portion of the settlement (5 huts oriented north-south) and the second group in the northwest portion of the settlement (4 huts oriented east-west) (Točik 1994: 63). hese indings concerned horizon/layer II distinguished at the site (Kabát 1955a: 597, Obr. 260). In the case of the younger settlement (horizon I), despite a much greater thickness of strata, it was not possible to capture any remains of structures in the form of clay loors, hearths, etc. he only traces of any structures were postholes 0.80-1.0 metre deep, with the diameter of posts varying from 0.25 to 0.30 m. According to Točik, they were all that remained of robust dwelling structures, which were probably two-storeys high and rectangular in shape (Točik 1994: 61). Točik’s indings are signiicant inasmuch they are one of the few examples of critical voices in the discussion of the presence of Aegean elements, which were supposedly imitated in the architecture of the Car- pathian Basin (Točik 1994: 61). Next to the regular layout of dwelling structures, one of the arguments in favour of the Aegean inspiration involved examples of internal divisions proposed in the case of the settlements at Nižna Myšl’a and Spišský Štvrtok. he division was supposedly manifested by the presence of the so-called acropolises (Olexa 1982b: 331-332). hey were irst alluded to by Vladár (1972: 21; 1975: 9-10). he general plan of the settlement, persistently reprinted and uncritically referred to for over 30 years in diferent publications (recently: Vandkilde 2004; Gogâltan 2008: 49), does not ofer any details that could help identify an acropolis and verify the claim made (Fig. 37). According to the author of the investigations, it occupied the northwest portion of the settlement. he huts with stone underpinnings, smaller than those in the settlement portion inhabited by cratsmen, supposedly formed, owing to a special arrangement in the form of the letter U, a kind of a square, paved with stones, in this portion of the settlement7 (Vladár 1973: 290; 1975: 9-10). To the special status of the inhabitants of the acropolis supposedly testiied rich deposits found in the huts, in particular hoards of gold and bronze objects (Vladár 1973: 290; Gašaj 2002b: 40, Fot. 30). Sometimes, they were placed in stone boxes hidden under loors (Vladár 1972: 21-22). Equally unclear are the source foundations of the hypothesis about an acropolis at the older settlement at Nižna Myšl’a. No plan showing its location has been published so far. What seems most probable is that the whole area enclosed by the fortiications8 was called an acropolis in order to distinguish this part of the settlement from features located in the he plan showing the outlines of houses and a sacriicial pit was published in the catalogue Między Mykenami a Bałtykiem (Between Mycenae and the Baltic) (Gašaj 2002b: 36, Fig. 6), however, we do not know any source foundations of the presented picture; in addition, Jockenhövel, following Vladár’s descriptions, published a general plan showing the proposed division into an acropolis, cratsmen’s part, etc. (Jockenhövel 1990: 213, with footnote 26, 216, Abb. 4). 8 As in the case of the settlement at Rozhanovce (Gašaj 1983: 130). 7 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 107 Fig. 37. Spišsky Štvrtok. Reconstructed course and schematic cross-sections of fortiications (after Vladár 1975). 108 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture open zone, lying between the fortiications and the cemetery (Olexa 1978: 179; 1986: 173)9. What we know with respect to the so-called acropolis is limited to the form of loors, stone underpinnings, orientation and a regular arrangement of huts. Some of this information has already been referred to (Olexa 1982b: 331-332). However, these characteristics by no means justify the use of so speciic a term and evoking so strong associations as the term acropolis does (see Loukaki 1997). he regular layout of Otomani-Füzesabony culture fortiied settlements was also a strong argument for alleged ties between the defensive architecture of the Carpathian Basin and the architecture of the Mycenaean culture in the opinion of some scholars bound and determined to trace them (Vladár 1973: 283-294). Without going into a lengthy discussion, it is worth stressing an important characteristic of the settlements which, more probably, made the inhabitants plan their layout and follow some order in building them. In the case of all the settlements, at which houses were built along alleys, we deal with relatively small sites. he area of the older settlement at Nižna Myšl’a measured 50 × 60 m (Gašaj 2002b: 27), the dimensions of the settlement at Košice-Barca were 50 × 45-50 m (Točik 1994: 63), while the Rozhanovce settlement covered approx. 3,200 sq. m (Gašaj 1983: 130)10. As Ordentlich astutely observed, referring to Otomani-Füzesabony culture settlements in Romania, with so small space, to ensure eicient transport and movement (both people and wagons) inside settlements, they had to be laid out in a regular manner (Ordentlich 1968: 143). he more so as the number of unearthed At Spišský Štvrtok, the author of the research mentions a probe exploration of an open settlement, being an economic background area in the approaches to the fortiied settlement (Vladár 1976: 216). However, no plan showing this part of the site has been published. 10 For the Rozhanovce settlement, publications give only a diameter of 50 m (Gašaj 1983: 130) or 40 m (Gašaj 2002b: 35) for the area enclosed by fortiications. he irst of the quoted texts, however, says that 800 sq. m have been explored which represented about one-fourth of the settlement area. Hence, 3,200 sq. m were adopted as the total area of the settlement. 9 huts and population estimates point to populous communities. Relying mainly on the number of graves divided by the number of generations (approx. 30 years), the population of the older settlement at Nižna Myšl’a can be estimated at 150-200 people while the younger one could have been inhabited by 300 to 350 people at any one time, assuming that there were 50 houses inhabited by 6-7 people each (Olexa 2003: 55). At Rozhanovce, 11 huts were discovered ater exploring about one-fourth of the settlement area (Fig. 38). he author drew conclusion that there were about 40 huts at any one time (Gašaj 1983: 132). In the light of the above, I believe that attempting to ind any Mycenaean stimuli in the regular layout of Otomani-Füzesabony culture settlements is groundless and denies local communities basic pragmatism in arranging the space of their settlements. In fact, such pragmatism was deeply rooted in the Neolithic tell building tradition of the Carpathian Basin (Gogâltan 2003: 230; 2009). As mentioned earlier, similarly to Košice-Barca, in Nižna Myšl’a the remains of two settlements were recorded as well. he younger settlement phase witnessed the rise of fortiied settlement, covering almost 70,000 sq. m of the irst settlement and a cemetery associated with it11 (Olexa 1992: 191; Gašaj 2002b: 33, Fot. 23; Olexa 2003: 41, Tab. V). Some younger phase huts were placed in a depression let ater a previous ditch (Olexa 1982a: 394; 2003: 49, Tab. IX) to give them a measure of protection against the elements, for instance, a strong wind (Gašaj, Olexa 1992: 16). Despite much damage caused by intensive ploughing, huts survived relatively well in the north portion of the site where they were protected by clay which had slid from a damaged rampart (Olexa 2003: 50). he huts, as in the case of the older settlement, were built of logs12 (Olexa 1999: 127). hey were A cemetery associated with the younger settlement has not been discovered yet. 12 In one of their earlier publications, the authors of the investigations mention a ‘clear change in the type of huts’ – from log ones to post ones (Gašaj, Olexa 1992: 16). he appearance of post structures in the younger phase of settlement at 11 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 109 Fig. 38. Rozhanovce. Plan of the settlement with excavated elements of the inner layout and fortiications, and the location of trenches (after Gašaj 2002b). rather small structures of about 20 sq. m, resembling in terms of size houses known, for instance, from Rozhanovce, which had uniform dimensions of 4-4.5 × 4-4.5 m; Gašaj 1983: 132). Larger houses were found at the Košice-Barca site: a hut measuring 12.5 × 4.5 m was recorded there; similar dimensions were shared by all the houses the site would coincide with the situation observed in the case of structures belonging to the younger phase of the Košice-Barca settlement (see above; Točik 1994: 61) and the younger settlement horizon at Spišský Štvrtok (David 1998a: 246). Indirectly, the presence of post huts with wattle and daub walls is demonstrated by daub fragments bearing impressions of twigs/rods 2.0-5.0 cm thick, which, however, have not been unequivocally assigned to the phase when the huts were built (Hajnalová 1996: 131). with three rooms (Kabát 1955a: 596-597, 599, Obr. 261). At most sites, huts had clay loors and central hearths lined with clay or pottery fragments (Olexa 2003: 50). In the case of the large hut found at the Košice-Barca settlement, the loor in each of the three rooms had a diferent structure. Two side rooms had a clay loor while the middle one had a wooden structure for a loor, providing insulation against dampness13 At the Otomani-Füzesabony culture settlement at Dealul Vida (Romania), a distinctive trait, in the case of huts with looring, involved thin layers of charcoal underneath it. Initially, it was believed that the charcoal was remains of the beams that supported loors of compacted clay. However, there are no beam impressions that could corroborate this opinion; it seems that the charcoal layer 13 110 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture (Kabát 1955a: 599, Obr. 261; Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999, Tafel 5b). In the younger phase of construction at the Nižna Myšl’a settlement, huts were separated by alleys, too (Olexa 2003: 50). Within its perimeter, over 400 pits of different uses were discovered. hese were household or storage pits or pits let by clay extraction. Some of them were located immediately next to hearths or huts (Olexa 2003: 53). From some of them, samples for radiocarbon dating were recovered (Olexa 1992: 193; see below, chapter 6.5). In a portion of the younger settlement, a large number of characteristic pits about 1.0 m deep were discovered. hey had vertical walls and lat bottoms. Inside them stones were found that must have stabilized heavy posts of an above-ground structure, which was tentatively interpreted by the author of the investigations as stables (Olexa 2003: 53). Despite information about numerous14 archaeological features found in every excavated part of the younger settlement (Olexa 2003: 54), no publication included a plan of excavations with their precise distribution. In turn, a speciic characteristic of the Spišský Štvrtok settlement is almost a complete absence of features sunk into the ground. At the site, altogether 47 features were discovered, including 39 huts. A small group of features sunk into the ground comprised three burials in vessels (two child burials and one animal burial) and a sacriicial pit (Vladár 1975: 8; 1976: 218; 1977: 187). he last-mentioned feature was very speciic but not exceptional. Because identical sacriicial pits had been encountered at two Otomani-Füzesabony fortiied settlements (Spišský Štvrtok and Nižna Myšl’a), it was decided to discuss them briely. hey should be seen as an integral part of the structure of settlement interior, creating an area where the nonutilitarian dimension of inhabitants’ life ruled. Feature 308 at Nižna Myšl’a merited a separate and detailed study, including an could have been a kind of insulation (Ordentlich 1968: 146-147). 14 Prior to 1999, within the younger settlement, in total 388 features were explored (Olexa 2000: 94). anthropological analysis. A roughly circular pit 2.6 m deep with widening walls (diameter at bottom about 2.6-2.7 m), recorded as superimposed over grave 582, is unquestionably linked to the younger settlement (Gašaj, Olexa 1995: 47; Jakab, Olexa, Vladár 1999: 93-95, Abb. 3-4; Gašaj 2002b: 33). Nine major strata were distinguished in it of which most (strata 4-8; Jakab, Olexa, Vladár 1999: 94-95, Abb. 3-4) contained human remains, pottery, clay wheels, daub fragments, charcoals, river shells, a quern stone fragment and animal bones, including an undamaged cranial vault of a cow (Jakab, Olexa, Vladár 1999: 91, 93). he discovered skeletons belonged to ive individuals (two children aged 3-5 and 9-13 years; two women aged 30-40 and 19-24 years and one man aged 14-18 years) (Jakab, Olexa, Vladár 1999: 94-95) (Fig. 39). In addition, a discovery was made of a skull (probably earlier cooked or subjected to high temperature?) of a child (aged 3-5 years) possibly sufering from macrocephaly (Jakab, Olexa, Vladár 1999: 113). All the victims were thrown into the pit and killed (Jakab, Olexa, Vladár 1999: 98-99, 101, Abb. 7-9). Possibly, one of the victims (young man) had been tightly bound before he died. All the victims, shortly before their death were in a sitting position, which is seen from a speciic arrangement of the parts of their skeletons (Jakab, Olexa, Vladár 1999: 121-124). his suggests a speciic manner of making a human sacriice, with which we undoubtedly deal in this case. he inal act of the grim spectacle was starting a ire which let a layer of ash in the pit (Olexa 2003: 85). Feature 40/74 at Spišský Štvrtok has not been properly documented. However, an anthropological study of the remains found in it conveys a similar picture of human sacriices (Vladár 1975: 14; Gašaj 2002b: 40, Fot. 31-32; Jakab 2004: 285-287, Obr. 1-4). In the pit, remains of nine individuals were found (man aged 20-30 years, three women aged 40-50, 50-60 and above 60 years and ive children aged 3-4, 4-6, 7-8 and 7-9 years15; Jakab 1978: 140; 2004: 288-299). heir skeletons bore traces Wrong data is given in the catalogue Między Mykenami a Bałtykiem (Between Mycenae and the 15 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 111 Fig. 39. Nižná Myšl’a. Feature no 308 – a pit with human sacriices (photograph L. Olexa). of extensive mutilation/quartering (Jakab 1978: 140; Gašaj 2002b: 39). Most of the blows were to the head of the victims and were struck with stones, a great amount of which covered the skeletons (Jakab 1978: 139). Speciic character of some injuries to the bones justiies a presumption that the tool used was a hatchet or axe (Jakab 1978: 140). Human remains are relatively oten found in the context of Otomani-Füzesabony domestic sites, including fortiied settlements (Furmánek, Jakab 1997: 19-20)16. Baltic): nine individuals, including seven children (Gašaj 2002b: 39). 16 Bones of a human hand wearing bronze ornaments were found in the famous, owing to the ind of the alleged oldest iron knife, well in Gánovce (Gašaj 2002b: 41), lying only several kilometres away from the Spišský Štvrtok settle- here is no way of knowing today what the nature and motivation of described rituals. Two aspects of these practices, however, are worth drawing attention to. he anthropological analysis did not reveal any other criteria (except for the case of suspected macrocephaly), apart from the age and sex structure, used to select victims. hey were mostly very young people, children and women. he other important aspect is the location of such sacriicial pits within settlements, contradicting the division, in principle, into the zones of the sacred and the profane which is observable in ment. A considerable amount of human bones (13 per cent of osteological material), found in the same contexts as animal remains and bearing traces of cutting, is known from the Nižna Myšl’a settlement. hey were interpreted as traces of anthropophagy (Jakab 1999). 112 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture a large majority of Bronze Age societies17. he exceptional nature of these features is certainly caused to some extent by their function as a communal element – shared by all settlement inhabitants. We do not have any speciic information on the markhis principle is well illustrated by the layout of the Nižna Myšl’a site where a burial ground is located not far from the older settlement but outside of its fortiications. 17 ing, if any, of these features on the surface. Possibly, some stones and dressed travertine fragments, found in the top layer of feature 40/74, were part of an original overground structure (Jakab 2004: 285, Obr. 1). Beyond question, making sacriice of many people, including children, must have been a shocking spectacle which was long remembered and thus contributed, if only to a small extent, to the collective identity (a group?) of inhabitants. 6.3. Fortiications As in the case of Vatya culture sites discussed earlier, Otomani-Füzesbony fortiied settlements were protected by combinations of two common elements: a rampart and a ditch. However, unlike the settlements on the middle Danube, the settlements on the Tisza River had fortiications of more varied types. Moreover, Otomani-Füzesabony culture settlement fortiications were frequently excavated, hence there is a noticeable quality diference as regards information available on them. It refers, more oten than in the case of Vatya culture settlements, to dimensions, materials used, technical solutions and their location within sites. All settlements were speciically located, which in a natural way contributed to their defensibility. he settlement at Nižna Myšl’a was founded on a hill known as Várhegy, rising to the relative elevation of 217 m above sea level (Gašaj 2002b: 25). Access to the promontory on which the settlement at Košice-Barca stood was, in turn, barred by the river lowing around it. In similarly strategic places, the Rozhanovce and Spišský Štvrtok settlements were located – both overlooked the valleys of nearby water courses (Gašaj 2002b: 21, 35, 39). According to the irst results of investigation held at Nižna Myšl’a, the older settlement was supposedly enclosed by a ditch 30 m wide and 6 m deep (Olexa 1978: 179; 1982b: 332; 1983a: 124) or 24 m wide and 6 m deep. he latest publications, however, describe the ditch as about 20-21 m wide (Gašaj 2002b: 27-28, Fot. 10; Olexa 2003: 40, 42, F 31, F 59) (Fig. 35). It was renewed twice. he younger settlement, in turn, was protected by a ditch 25-27 m wide and 5-6 m deep (Gašaj 2002b: 31). A smaller ditch was uncovered at Rozhanovce; its depth was almost 4 m while the width was 15-16 m (Gašaj 2002: 35). At Košice-Barca, only the ditch linked to the older construction phase had equally imposing dimensions: it was 18 m wide and 2.5 m deep (Kabát 1955b: 743-744). In the younger phase, the width was reduced almost by half (to 10 m) while keeping a similar depth of about 2 m (Točik 1994: 64). With respect to these settlements, there is no information that would unequivocally indicate the existence of other barriers, e.g. palisades, inside ditches18. Additional protection to settlements was aforded by ramparts. In the case of the settlements mentioned earlier, they were diversiied constructions of very large dimensions. he basic materials they were built of were timber and earth/clay. In addition, facings of timber, stone or clay were used to reinforce the main timber-earthen structure. As I have mentioned earlier, in the irst excavation seasons at Nižna Myšl’a, the remains of some other structure must have been mistakenly taken as the scattering of At Cetăţuia-Otomani, the south side of the site was protected by a ditch 20 m wide and 4.3 m deep (Ordentlich 1969: 461, Abb. 2). At the depth of about 2 m, traces of posts and daub fragments were captured – they may have been remains of an additional barrier in the form of a palisade plastered with clay (Ordentlich 1969: 460). 18 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 113 a bastion, guarding the entrance to the settlement (Olexa 1983a: 124). he settlement was protected, in the irst place, by the ditch and a massive rampart. With the progress of investigations, the data concerning the rampart size must have been made more speciic. Originally, its width at the base was estimated at 15 m (Olexa 1978: 179; 1982b: 332; 1992: 191). Now, it seems that it was much narrower, yet still quite massive with its base about 8-10 m wide (Olexa 2003: 40). he rampart could have been topped by a palisade and its construction could have been made more stable by timber piles and a stone wall of an estimated width of 1 m (Olexa 2003: 40, 42). Stones, in the form of two parallel stone walls supported also the walls of the entrance to the settlement, providing support for the log construction of the gate19 (Gašaj 2002b: 27-28, Fot. 9; Olexa 2007: 153) (Fig. 35). A rampart of a similar size – 8 m wide at the base – surrounded on two sides the settlement at Rozhanove. Built from clay and loess, it had been reinforced on both sides by piles driven into the ground and a wattle construction20 (Gašaj 1983: 132; 2002b: 35). Other structural elements of a rampart were observed at Košice-Barca. In the older phase, the settlement was protected on two sides by a rampart 7 m wide. A timber-earthen construction, was reinforced on the outside by piles 0.10 m in diameter driven about 1 m into the ground roughly 0.80 m from one another. Its facing was made of thin beams (0.04 m in diameter) laid horizontally and plastered with 0.08-m-thick layer of clay. Interestingly enough, the rampart wall slightly inclined towards the settlement interior21. he ramDuring the investigations at the entrance to the settlement at Nižna Myšl’a, the remains of a structure were found and tentatively interpreted as a tower which must have topped the construction of the gate (Olexa 2007: 153). Absence of any drawings, photographs or detailed data on the form and size of the structure prevents, however, a comprehensive assessment of the information given in the quoted publication. 20 A similar wattle construction reinforced the outer facing of a rampart at the Mad’arovce culture settlement at Nitrianski Hrádok (Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999: 119, Abb. 57). 21 he palisade topping the rampart of the irst fortiications of the settlement at Trzcinica, linked 19 part base, built from the layers of material obtained when digging the ditch, i.e. clay and gravel, was about 4.0 m wide. On the inside, 1.80 m away, it was reinforced by a timber structure similar to that described earlier. he rampart walls were joined by a kind of a latticework (Točik 1994: 63)22. he fortiications of a successive phase looked diferent. he younger settlement was not protected by a structurally complex rampart but only a simple mound topped by a palisade of an estimated height of approx. 4.5 m (Točik 1994: 64). hese examples of fortiications are typical of Otomani-Füzesbony settlements, including those located in today’s Romania and Hungary (Ordentlich 1969; Bóna 1975: 148). Despite certain variations in design, a common type of fortiications combined a rampart and a ditch. he basic materials used to build fortiications were earth/clay, timber and stone, albeit much more rarely. Stone was used mostly in the constructions of the ‘dry wall’ type or for building additional stabilizing elements of timber-earthen fortiications. Chief characteristics of the fortiications are large dimensions and adjustment of their course to terrain. he model of timber-earthen settlement fortiications prevailing in the Carpathian Basin in the Middle Bronze Age (Gogâltan 2008: 45) difers considerably from the structures uncovered at Spišský Štvrtok (Vladár 1975: 22, Abb. 2)23 (Fig. 37). What sets this settlement apart is the use of stone for building its fortiications. What’s even more interesting, the stone, in the form of characteristic broken slabs, was used for building the major elements to the Pleszów group of the Mierzanowice culture, also inclined towards the interior at an angle of 70 degrees (Gancarski 2002: 107). 22 Again, a perfect analogy is presented by a structure known from Nitriansky Hrádok (Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999: 119, Abb. 57). 23 It is worth stressing that the published plan of fortiications at the Spišský Štvrtok settlement (Vladár 1975: 22, Abb. 2) is a kind of reconstruction (see comments by Harding 2006: 107) as part of the site was destroyed in modern times. Characteristic stone slabs, of which the fortiications had been built, were in part removed by local residents; the site was also treated for some time as a sand pit (Novotny, Kovalčík 1967: 26; Vladár 1970: 37; 1973: 284). 114 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture of the fortiications (Vladár 1973: 281-282, Abb. 27-28; 1974: 227-228, Abb. 9-10). When compared to the other examples of Otomani-Füzesabony culture fortiied settlements, the fortiications at Spišský Štvrtok, measuring in total 160 m, were very complex and surrounded the whole settlement (Vladár 1973: 286; 1975: 22, Abb. 2; Jaeger 2014: 296). From the west, owing to terrain shape, the settlement was protected by a palisade only founded on a stone underpinning (Vladár 1970: 38). In the north and south, the palisade joined a rampart of characteristic construction. It was made of two stone walls whose estimated width at the bottom was 4.8 m while its top was 4.0 m wide. A tentative assumption was made about a palisade that topped the rampart and raised its height to 6.0 m (Vladár 1973: 284, 286; 1975: 23, Abb. 3). In the east of the settlement, the rampart was preceded by a stone wall approx. 120 m long. Between it and the outer facing of the rampart, there was an empty space about 0.80 m wide getting wider in parts adjoining the bastions guarding the entrance to the settlement. he bastions were the most spectacular element of the uncovered fortiications. hese were circular stone24 constructions about 5.9 m in diameter25 (Vladár 1973: 284-285, Abb. 31). In addition, in the east where the entrance was, the settlement was protected by a ditch 6.0 m wide and 2.0 m26 deep (Vladár 1973: 286). An absolutely exceptional character of the stone fortiications uncovered at Spišský here is no way of telling how high the stone walls of the bastions were. Taking into account the small width of the uncovered wall base, as seen in the published photographs, and the absence of any mortar that would keep stones together, it seems that the bastions were built of timber at least for the most part. Had stone alone been used, it is doubtful if the structure would be stable enough to reach the height of 4-6 m as estimated for the rampart. 25 he published photographs of the bastions are not helpful in determining the exact width of their walls. 26 In one of his later publications, the author of the investigations mentions that the ditch structure was not explored in full (Vladár 1976: 216). Absence of a plan showing location of individual excavations makes it impossible to tell which part of the ditch (and other fortiication elements) and to what degree was excavated. 24 Štvrtok made the author of the investigations look for analogous designs in the architecture of the Aegean, more speciically, in the architecture of the Mycenaean culture (Vladár 1972: 20). he stone fortiications were treated as an element that was to testify to the contacts between the lands of modern-day Slovakia (more broadly, of the Carpathian Basin and central Europe) with the Mediterranean (Vladár 1973; 1974; 1979; 1982). In the discussion27 lasting for many years, no recourse was actually taken to the sources concerning the defensive architecture of the Aegean. Meanwhile, a comparative analysis of the fortiied structures of the Bronze Age from former Czechoslovakia and the Mycenaean architecture of Mainland Greece and Crete showed no analogies that could attest to direct relationships (Alusik 2007; 2012; Jaeger 2014). he fortiications uncovered at Spišský Štvrtok do not have any analogy not only in the Aegean but also within the Otomani-Füzesabony culture oecumene and other so-called tell cultures. What is unique about them is the form of stone material and the way it was used. Unlike rare examples of the use of natural stones in the defensive architecture of the Carpathian Basin (Vladár 1973: 280-28; Bader 1990: 182; Gašaj 2002b: 27), at Spišský Štvrtok dressed stone was used. It was formed into characteristic slabs and used for building the main elements of the fortiications. his contradicts the rule observed in other cases where stone was used in the form of natural concretions for building additional stabilizing elements, which, in most cases, were built of timber (see above piles reinforcing the rampart at Košice-Barca). What’s more, the settlement at Spišský Štvrtok was fortiied on all sides, whereas the other discussed sites in east Slovakia had defences only where the approach was the easiest. At Spišský Štvrtok, admittedly, the terrain made fortiication builders use a diferent construction only in the west portion of the settlement because it was 27 A basic review of literature on the question of long-distance ties between central Europe and the Mediterranean is given in Bader (1990: 181, with footnote 1), David (2007: 411, with footnote 1) and Suchowska (2010). Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 115 protected best by special surface features. Hence, it was strengthened only by a palisade on a stone underpinning. In the eastern, most easily approachable portion of the site, the entrance was located and strongly guarded by a ditch and bastions. he ditch was rather small when compared to the defences of this kind found at the settlements at Nižna Myšl’a, Košice-Barca and Rozhanovce. However, a defence type, discovered at Spišský Štvrtok, departing furthest from the model of fortiications known from the Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin, or even central Europe, is the stone bastion. Two such structures guarded the gate. hey were built, like all other stone fortiication elements at Spišský Štvrtok, using the ‘dry wall’ construction (Fig. 40). Consequently, the fortiications at Spišský Štvrtok are an absolute exception among other Otomani-Füzesabony fortiied settlements. What makes them so exceptional is the use of unusual stone building material and complex defences guarding the entrance to the settlement. I believe that both these characteristics may be strong arguments in building a case for an alternative interpretation of ‘Slovakian Mycenae’ (Furmánek 2004). A petrographic study of stones from the Spišský Štvrtok fortiications showed that rocks naturally occurring at the site had not been used for raising them. he building material used came from an area about 2-3 km away (Vladár 1973: 284). his is a signiicant piece of information as it permits to exclude local availability of stone material as the main reason for the rise of the stone fortiications. he use of this particular material was an efect of a decision made beforehand and an implementation of a construction plan of fortiications, a plan which was totally alien to the tradition of Otomani-Füzesabony culture defensive architecture or that of related tell cultures of the Carpathian Basin for that matter. In 1988, Mozsolics expressed an opinion that the stone fortiications at Spišský Štvrtok belonged to the younger settlement of the Púchov culture (Mozsolics 1988: 43-44, with footnote 113). here are reasons to believe that this way of thinking is right. he area of Spiš was one of the regions of north Slovakia in the La Tène period where Púchov culture settlement was identiied (Pieta 1982: 16, Abb. 2). he publications on the Spišský Štvrtok site contain information that artefacts of the culture were found at the site, within the fortiications (Novotny, Kovalčík 1967: 25, 27, 45; Vladár 1970: 41; 1976: 220). Defensive architecture is one of the distinctive characteristics of the Púchov culture. In the group of fortiied settlements, there were distinguished two separate categories interesting for the current discussion. hese are small strongholds (Kleinburgen) and central strongholds (zentrale Burgwallanlagen) (Pieta 1982: 134). he two categories difered chiely in their size and kinds of defensive structures. he irst category sites were rather small (from 80 × 70 to 20 × 20 m) and were fortiied with timber-earthen structures only sometimes reinforced with stone walls (Pieta 1982: 134). he second category sites were much larger as they occupied up to several hectares (e.g. Liptovská Mara 1,5 ha, Vel’ký vrch Divinka 12 ha; Pieta 1982: 136). he elements of fortiications of these settlements were very oten built of stone. As in the case of the Spišský Štvrtok settlement, the building material was characteristic dressed stone slabs (sandstone and limestone) (Pieta 1982: 139; 1996: 76, Abb. 20; 87, Abb. 24) (Fig. 40). At the site at Liptovská Mara, structures surrounding the whole settlement varied in terms of their construction. he north side of the settlement, where entrance/gate was, as at Spišský Štvrtok, was guarded by a double stone wall (Pieta 1982: 137, Abb. 18). he use of double walls is interpreted as an inluence of the defensive architecture of the Celts, likewise the practice of building complex structures to protect entrances to the settlements of the Púchov culture (Pieta 1996: 73). Only few of identiied gates have been excavated. he gate of the Liptovská Mara settlement was placed in a special breach in fortiications (so-called bale gate; Keeley, Fontana, Quick 2007: 62). One of overlapping fortiication walls delected towards the settlement interior while the other continued straight. In this way a space was created lanked by a rampart practically on all sides, hence, exceptionally easy to control and de- 116 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture Fig. 40. Stone defensive constructions. At the top – Špišsky Štvrtok; at the bottom – Liptovská Mara (after Vladár 1973; Pieta 1982). Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 117 fend (Pieta 1982: 137, Abb. 18). Next, the gate of the settlement at Podtureň-Velínok was protected by two additional defences. he irst had the form of a protruding bent section of the rampart, sweeping around the approach to the settlement, and protected the gate from the north and east. he second, interpreted as a tower, guarded the gate from the south (Pieta 1982: 141-142, Abb. 19). It was a rectangular stone-timber structure with one of its sides adjacent to the fortiication line. In addition, some Púchov culture settlements were protected by ditches, too (Pieta 1982: 142-143). he rampart construction at Spišský Štvrtok seems to bear similarities to that of Púchov culture settlements whereas the defences guarding the gates of the settlements do not resemble much one another in terms of design. What seems much more signiicant, however, is their functional similarities. he examples of structures guarding gates described earlier are undoubtedly military in character (see Keeley, Fontana, Quick 2007: 62-67). he defences used at Púchov culture settlements were clearly meant to bar access to the most sensitive part of the fortiications – the gate – while ensuring it the most efective defensive capacity. he bastions discovered at Spišský Štvrtok should be treated in the same way for a number of reasons. Above all, they were placed on both sides of the entrance to ensure protection to the gate. Second, the bastions were not placed entirely outside the line of fortiications, which made them easily accessible for the defenders and aforded them additional cover in battle. he military efectiveness of the bastions was improved by the fact that they had been built only 12 m apart (Vladár 1975: 22, Abb. 2). his distance made any missiles hurled from the bastion tops (arrows, spears, stones, etc.) deadly efective against attackers as the whole approach to the gate was covered by the defenders’ shot (Keeley, Fontana, Quick 2007: 70-77, Fig. 8). In the light of the current state of our knowledge, so complex fortiications, in terms of both form and function, are absolutely alien to Otomani-Füzesabony defensive architecture while at the same time being a standard on Púchov culture settlements in the La Tène period. he above arguments are not conclusive chiely because of the deiciency of hard data on the settlement at Spišský Štvrtok, hence, paradoxically, due to the lack of arguments in favour of the Otomani-Füzesabony stratigraphic position of the stone structures. A virtually total lack of publications, containing any documentation of Vladár’s excavations, precludes any possibility of verifying the chronology of the stone fortiications he suggested. Vladár hinted at the complexity of stratigraphy within the strata attributed to the Otomani-Füzesabony culture by distinguishing within them two settlement horizons (Vladár 1975: 16-18; 1976: 218-219; 1977) and a settlement phase probably associated with the Piliny culture (Vladár 1976: 220). He also pointed to the presence of diferent settlement layouts and structures as well as postholes in the youngest strata. What his publications lack, however, is any information on stratigraphic relationships and provenance of inds associated with the Púchov culture. Hence, the data he did publish does not permit to unequivocally determine the attribution of particular characteristic elements discovered within the settlement. Next to the stone fortiications, it would be equally important to verify the stratigraphic position of the stone-paved road leading to the gate and that of a stone stela (Vladár 1975: 14). For both such elements were found at the Púchov culture settlement at Liptovská Mara (Pieta 1996: 87, Abb. 24; 89, Abb. 25), which may indicate a diferent chronology, not an Otomani-Füzesabony one. Adopting a hypothesis about a younger chronology of the stone fortiications at Spišský Štvrtok makes it necessary to create an alternative scenario for the site. One possibility is revising the assessment of stratigraphy at the site because the current assessment may have led to the failure to register any older timber-earthen fortiications than the stone ones. his possibility is indicated, I believe, by unclear information supplied by the author of the investigations, concerning the character of the older Otomani-Füzesabony culture settlement horizon. Vladár linked the stone fortiications to the younger Otomani-Füzesabony horizon (classic phase of Otomani-Füzesabony culture). At the same time, however, 118 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture because of the presence of older features only in the area enclosed by the fortiications, he hinted at a possibility that fortiications may have existed in the irst settlement horizon as well (Vladár 1976: 219). his conclusion is diicult to assess as no hypothesis has been presented concerning the form of possible older Otomani-Füzesabony culture fortiications. In this situation, the Spišský Štvrtok site could have had timber-earthen fortiications, characteristic of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture milieu, in both settlement horizons. he fortiications could have been destroyed at a later stage when stone fortiications were constructed in the La Tène period28. he latest research suggests still another scenario. Recent publications describe open Otomani-Füzesabony culture settlements that are equal to fortiied settlements in the abundance of sources. In this connection, two sites merit a mention: Füzesabony-Öregdomb (Szathmári 1992) in Hungary and Včelince in Slovakia (Furmánek, Marková 1992; 2001; 2008). he last-mentioned example is particularly signiicant. he settlement, although deprived of any Otomani-Füzesabony fortiications, yielded rich settlement sources, including evidence of local metalworking and hoards of bronze goods (Furmánek, Marková 1996; Furmánek, Illášová, Marková 1999). We are faced with a similar situation of a part of Bronze Age fortiications and strata being destroyed by younger settlement, in this case Medieval, at Otomani-Füzesabony settlements in the Lower Beskids, at Trzcinica and Trepcza (Gancarski 2002: 109; Gancarski, Ginalski 2001). Otomani-Füzesabony fortiied settlements had been located at the strategic topographic points which were re-used in the later periods of prehistory and in Medieval times. 28 6.4. Metallurgy Owing to the manner and form of publication, described elsewhere, of the results of investigations carried out at Otomani-Füzesabony culture fortiied settlements, metallurgy, supplying spectacular inds, is one of the best documented phenomena in the available literature on the subject. Investigations at the sites brought a number of discoveries related to the various stages of copper, bronze and gold processing29. To some degree, the rich representation of some sources, e.g. stone casting moulds and ready-made metal goods, can be caused by their high durability, successfully withstanding destructive post-deposition processes (see comments by Bartelheim 2002: 36). Nevertheless, the fact that all sites described below yielded a large number of objects related to metalworking relects to a high degree the original advanced technological development of Otomani-Füzesabony societies and wide- spread knowledge of relevant technologies among them30. With respect to no settlement we have full information on and a catalogue of inds, belonging to the category of interest to us here. he metallurgy of the Carpathian Basin, however, was oten discussed in general terms in synthetic works, stressing the importance of the region for the development of bronze production in other parts of Europe (Sherratt 1987; 1993; Liversage 2000: 73-75; Kristiansen, Larsson 2005). Metallurgy, in the context of the fortiied settlements of the Carpathian Basin, so far has been the subject of a single work (Novotná 1983). he work discusses a small group of inds (chiely, casting moulds and tuyères), originating with both Otomani-Füzesabony culture settlements and others belonging to the Mad’arovce culture. Monographs were devoted to the hoards of the Hajdúsámson-Apa horizon, associ- 29 Probably, it was also in the Otomani-Füzesabony culture milieu that Europe’s one of the irst iron objects (a sickle) was made, found in a well in Ganovce (Furmánek 2000). 30 Numerous inds related to metalworking were made at Otomani-Füzesabony culture sites in Hungary and Romania, too (Bóna 1975: 156, 256; Găvan 2012). Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 119 ated mainly with the Otomani-Füzesabony culture milieu (David 2002; Vachta 2008). Much space was given in them to the Apa type swords and diferent types of hatchets (see also Kovács 1994; Bartík, Furmánek 2004). heir elite character and the charge of social associations is directly linked to fortiied settlements (Sherratt 1987: 58; David 2007: 415 with footnote 26). he greatest number of inds and the most fully published ones, related to the metalworking of both bronze and gold, were supplied by many years of investigations at Nižna Myšl’a. Information coming from settlements was, in this case, supplemnented by data gathered from grave inds. Within both fortiied settlements at Nižna Myšl’a, a very numerous assemblage of inds was collected that unequivocally testify to the local production of a broad range of objects. hey were found in remains of huts, their immediate surroundings, pits and the ditch ill (Olexa 1999: 94; 2003: 59). No settlement zone showed a special concentration of inds related to metalworking or accumulation of telltale objects (e.g. casting tools) or features (e.g. furnaces) that would indicate the original location and number and type of possible places of production. Within both fortiied settlements, a very large and varied assemblage of bronze objects was collected, including many gold objects as well. Certainly, a vast majority of them were made by local metallurgists. he bronze objects, the local production of which is attested by the inds of casting moulds, include both jewellery (pins) and weapons (spearheads, daggers) as well as tools (axes) (Gašaj 2002b: 44, Fot. 39; Olexa 2003: 46, Tab. VII; 52, Tab. XI; 58, Tab. XIII). Some ornaments, as for instance small string ferrules, were made locally also of gold (Fig. 41). his is attested by the inds of such objects in local graves and the inding of a mould for casting them at the settlement (Gašaj 2002b: 47; Olexa 2003: F57). Next to stone casting moulds, metalworking is evidenced also by numerous metallurgist’s tools, including crucibles (sometimes containing metal remains; Olexa 1982c: 209-210), ladles and tuyères (Gašaj 2002b: 24, Fot. 4; Olexa 2003: 52, Tab. XI:1, 2, 6) as well as uninished or damaged objects, representing production waste (Olexa 1992: 193). As regards the Nižná Myšľa site, 11 bronze objects and 1 gold item underwent metallographic analysis in order to determine the provenance of the material. he conclusion drawn from the investigations stated that the material originated from local deposits (copper ores located near Bankov, gold deposits in the vicinity of Telkibánya and gold found in the bed of the river Ida) (Luštík, Mihok, Olexa 1991; Olexa 2003: 61). However, it should be noted that the hypothesis has now to be veriied using new analytical procedures, which in the irst place include combined analyses of lead isotopes and trace elements in available artifacts and samples from the potential sources (Gale, Stos-Gale 2000; Villa 2009; Pernicka 2014). More evidence for the use of local copper ores was supplied by investigations at the settlement at Spišský Štvrtok. Within its limits, a deposit of malachite ore was discovered (Vladár 1976: 217). Although no proper chemical analyses have been made, it can be deemed in all likelihood a store of raw material destined for further processing. Local metalworking at the site is attested by the inds of casting moulds (Vladár 1976: 217; Novotná 1983: 67) and a broad set of bronze and gold objects (Gašaj 2002b: 40, 47, Fot. 30, Fot. 33; Vladár 2012). In two features at the site, semiinished products were found for making gold ear wraps (Vladár 2012: 384). In all likelihood, also in this case some local deposits of metal were used (Vladár 1975: 11). According to the author of investigations, a large majority of the objects were deposited in boxes/’troves’ underneath loors and within huts located in the ‘acropolis’. One feature (no. 4/68) held even as many as three such deposits (Vladár 1975: 10). Rich hoards are known from other fortiied settlements, too. At Košice-Barca, within one hut, a collection of gold jewellery was found (Hájek 1954; Gašaj 2002b: 46, Fot. 47). his site yielded also deposits of langed axes and bronze jewellery (Gašaj 2002b: 22, Fot. 1; 46, Fot. 45). At Nižna Myšl’a, a hoard of bronze pendants was found as well (Gašaj 2002b: 30, Fot. 18). Exceptionally valuable, deposits found within individual huts suggest the 120 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture Fig. 41. Nižna Myšl’a. Gold ornaments (photograph L. Olexa). existence of private property and accumulation of bronze and gold in private hands (e.g. as property of a single family)31. he elaborate forms, technological sophistication, and rich ornamentation of basic weapon types included in the hoards of the Hajdúsámson-Apa horizon, i.e. swords with full handles and hatchets, justify a tentative assumption that there existed a high31 he scale of this phenomenon may be potentially illustrated by the inds from Spišský Štvrtok, where 21 hoards in total were discovered (Vladár 2012). ly specialized group of cratsmen/metallurgists who produced them. he assumption seems to be conirmed by discoveries made at Nižna Myšl’a. One of the signiicant inds, although apparently a modest one, among numerous bronze objects recovered from the site, is a fragment of a richly decorated hatchet (possibly with a button-shaped butt) (Olexa 2002a: 80, Fot. 94; 2003: 57, Tab. XII:17). his is the only ind that may represent a proof of relations linking fortiied settlements and hoards of prestigious objects of Hajdúsámson-Apa horizon. Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 121 Fig. 42. Nižná Myšl’a, grave no. 133. Furnishings of a metallurgist’s burial (after Jaeger, Olexa 2014). he investigations at the vast cemetery at Nižna Myšl’a have yielded so far two graves interpreted as metallurgists’ burials (Fig. 42, 43, 44) (Olexa 1987; Jaeger, Olexa 2014). Considering how few discoveries of this type are in the vast expanses of Europe in the Early Bronze Age (Bátora 2002: 193-195, 199-207), the two graves are a unique source of information. Both are dated to the pre-classic phase of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture, i.e. to the beginning of period BA2, from which the oldest burials at the site come (Olexa 1987: 255, 257 with footnote 1; Gašaj 2002c: 95). In the irst grave, designated as number 133, in a rectangular pit measuring 100 × × 200 × 200 cm (width/length/depth), a man had been buried in a crouched position on his right side, a position typical of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture. he grave goods were: a bronze spiral placed next to the deceased’s right elbow, two lakes (one carelessly made lake of hornstone and one good quality lake of obsidian), seven wild boar tusks halved lengthwise and a shellshaped stone mould for casting pins or awls (Olexa 1987: 259-260, Abb. 2) (Fig. 42). he other grave (no. 280) was a roughly rectangular pit measuring 155 × 250 × × 210 cm (width/length/depth), slightly disturbed in its south portion by an uninished robber dig. he grave held also a man’s body in a crouched position, lying on the right side. he grave goods consisted of 49 plates made from boar tusks (with 8 or 10 perforations; Olexa 1987: 263, Abb.) (Fig. 43, 44), an antler clasp, a spiral bracelet placed on the bone of the right forearm, a massive tuyère in front of ingers, a hammer for breaking up ore, a pin with a massive globular, obliquely perforated head placed next to the let hand, a necklace of shells and bronze spirals and tubes next to the let hand, and three boar tusk pendants. he following objects had been placed next to the deceased’s feet: an obsidian lake, a bronze pin (or, perhaps, a needle), two bone chisels, a shell-shaped sandstone mould for casting pins with obliquely perforated heads and three vessels (Olexa 1987: 260, 262, Abb. 4; 264, Abb. 6; 2002a: 78, Fot. 91; 84, Fot. 100). Some grave goods recovered from the two graves justify assigning them to the category of metallurgists’ burials. In the case of grave 133, it is above all the casting mould (Fig. 42:5) but also the halved boar tusks (Fig. 42:2, 3). he latter are interpret- 122 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture Fig. 43. Nižná Myšl’a, grave no. 280. Furnishings of a metallurgist’s burial (after Jaeger, Olexa 2014). Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 123 Fig. 44. Nižná Myšl’a, grave no. 280. Furnishings of a metallurgist’s burial (after Jaeger, Olexa 2014). 124 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture ed as tools used to hold hot crucibles or ladles. Grave no. 280 yielded more objects unequivocally related to metallurgy: a casting mould (Fig. 43:12), a tuyère (Fig. 44:14) and a heavy hammer for crushing ore (Fig. 43:13). he two graves difer not only in their grave goods but also in the overall richness of their furnishings. Unlike grave 133, in which the deceased had been given only a small bronze ornament and two lints, grave 280 held many bronze ornaments, an antler clasp, and an exceptionally large set of boar tusk implements (Fig. 44). A special arrangement of the latter in Nižna Myšl’a graves suggests that in some cases they were an element of clothing in the form of an ‘armour’ (Fig. 43). he few dead, in whose graves similar implements were discovered, are viewed as individuals of special social status (Olexa 2002a: 77-78, 83). he above data suggests that the two graves are features which can be classiied as ‘metallurgists’ burials’. he clear diference in the richness of their furnishings possibly relects a diferent valorisation of the dead as metallurgists. Suggested in the literature, the dual character of metalworking (Rowlands 1971; Levy 1991; Kuijpers 2008) assumes that artisans practising the same crat could have difered in their qualiications. Experience, individual skill and aptitude could have narrowed down specializations and brought about social stratiication of individuals engaged in metalworking. Grave no. 133 held only objects related to the casting of metal in moulds while grave no. 280 supplied inds suggesting that the deceased had broader qualiications, including mechanical (hammer) and heat (tuyère) working of ore and casting speciic objects (casting mould and a inished specimen of a pin) (Jaeger, Olexa 2014: 170-172). Both cratsmen, given the convergent dates of burial determined by means of radiocarbon dating (Jaeger, Olexa 2014: 170), were active in the settlement at the same time, performing works which varied in terms of diiculty and required diferent skills. A special characteristic of the Nižna Myšl’a site, numerous faience beads32 show Close to the richer of the metallurgists’ graves (no. 280) a double burial of a woman and a girl 32 that the local community mastered pyrotechnics. he technology of making them called for high temperatures, which are present in the metallurgical process (Olexa 1987: 258). As it seems, faience could have been a secondary efect (not a side efect) of the work of local metallurgists. he above review of available data concerning metallurgy as practised at Otomani-Füzesabony fortiied settlements permits to draw some general conclusions. What strikes the eye in the irst place is the universality and variety of the discovered sources, which is a hallmark of the sites. It must be stressed that they include many not only ready-made goods (a potential effect of exchange) but also objects related to metalworking such as moulds, crucibles, ladles, tuyères, semi-inished products and waste. No settlement, however, has yielded so far any furnaces or other features that would identify a metallurgist’s workshop33. A good example is the settlement at Nižna Myšl’a where many years of investigations accumulated sources showing that local communities were in large measure self-suicient in respect of both procurement of raw materials and all the other stages of copper/bronze and gold working. Casting moulds found at fortiied settlements certainly do not illustrate the full range of manufactured goods. hat some of them (e.g. swords and hatchets) were locally made is to be guessed. Next to the objects that were important in everyday economic life (axes, chisels, hooks etc.), non-utilitarian or symbolic goods were manufactured as well (richly decorated daggers, hatchets, swords, gold and bronze ornaments). he metallurgists’ burials at was discovered (no. 282/283). Next to bone tools, bronze ornaments and pottery, there was found also a necklace of ca. 2500 faience beads (Olexa, Novaček 2013: 105, 271-273, Tab. 137-139). 33 Despite many excavation projects carried out at fortiied settlements in the Carpathian Basin or, more broadly, southeast Europe, discoveries of metallurgist’s workshops are absolutely rare. One can name, in this context, above described feature at Lovasberény-Mihályvár and a well-documented workshop from the settlement at Feudvar (Hänsel 2009: 112, Abb. 117). Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 125 Fig. 45. Distribution of fortiied settlements, pottery with traces of Carpathian inluences and Carpathian bronze imports in the territory of Poland (after Jaeger 2011). Nižna Myšl’a justify a presumption of the existence of not only cratsmen of diferent status but also recipients of diferent needs. Some of them demanded objects of special forms and ornaments to be used in the process of cultural and social reproduction. One of its presumed manifestations, the rich deposits of the Hajdúsámson-Apa horizon are in large measure associated with the Otomani-Füzesabony milieu. In the monograph on the metallurgy of fortiied settlements in Slovakia mentioned earlier, its author claimed that metallurgist’s workshops were only locally signiicant (Novotná 1983: 67). In her opinion, local metallurgists in the irst place catered for the demand from settlement inhabitants and their neighbours. I believe that in the light of current knowledge this view has to be revised by pointing to a potentially greater role of metallurgy at Otomani-Füzesabony fortiied settlements. Many years of investigations at the cemetery at Nižna Myšl’a revealed metal arte- 126 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture facts in a vast majority of excavated graves. hese were chiely bronze and gold objects (Olexa, Nováček 2013). Large numbers of metal objects found in Nižna Myšl’a and strong evidence of local metalworking may, in principle, support a conclusion that bronze (and gold) objects were made to satisfy local needs, i.e. those of settlement inhabitants and their neighbours. However, if the hypothesis about the dual nature of metalworking at the site is accepted, it can be claimed, I believe, that at least at some Otomani-Füzesabony fortiied settlements the signiicance of metallurgy extended beyond their immediate vicinity. Ater all, the hypothesis is indirectly conirmed by the diference in the amount of grave goods in the metallurgists’ graves at Nižna Myšl’a. Some high quality goods (e.g. swords, hatchets, gold ornaments), made to meet the needs of local elites, could have been exchanged by them with populations living in other regions (David 1998: 252-254; 2002: 410-416; Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 147, 149). he Carpathian Basin, owing to local deposits of copper ores, grew in importance ater the times when Únětice circle metallurgy dominated. Fortiied settlements as local manufacturing centres, lying at strategic topographic locations, began to develop their own style and a network of ties. he ties extended both south and north (Sherratt 1993: 26-27, Fig. 7). he dynamically developing methods of chemical analyses of metal objects systematically provide new particulars which add to our knowledge about the relationships between the metallurgy of the Carpathian Basin and the areas in the north (Scandinavia – Liversage 2000; Ling et al. 2014; Poland – Hensel, Dąbrowski 2005). However, despite the accrual of new information, the notion presupposing prevalent inluence of the Carpathian communities on the development of the Nordic Bronze Age still appears to be valid (Vandkilde 2014). he literature carries claims about the presence of Trans-Carpathian elements in the lands of today’s Poland; the alleged imports are supposedly visible above all in pottery linked to the Trzciniec cultural circle. he purported southern presence can be partially traced to the impact of Otomani-Füzesabony culture settlement in the Lower Beskids/Western Carpathians (Makarowicz 1999; Górski 2003; Przybyła, Skoneczna 2011; Przybyła, Skoneczna, Vitoš 2012). However, the inlux of characteristic metal artefacts of Trans-Carpathian provenance (associated chiely with the Otomani-Füzesabony culture) can also point to an alternative route of transmission of cultural stimuli from that area (Fig. 45). Such objects concentrate mainly in western Poland, in Silesia, Wielkopolska and Western Pomerania (Jaeger 2011; Swieder 2013). Among them hatchets with buttonshaped butts, Apa-type swords with full handles and small ornaments (Fig. 46). hey are known not only from single inds but also from deposits which, on the strength of some forms and a characteristic structure, may be called Koszider-type hoards. he character of metal imports from beyond the Carpathians found in western Poland (richly ornamented, high quality objects, deposits) justiies treating them as a result of the transmission of Otomani-Füzesabony cultural patterns to northern Europe. An area that absorbed new patterns particularly well was Scandinavia (Sherratt 1993: 29; hrane 1990; Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 186-227), where some innovations, traced to the Carpathian Basin (above all, chariots and Apa-type full-hilted swords), were incorporated into the tools and weapons of local elites (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 213-225; Jaeger, Olexa 2014: 172-173). Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 127 Fig. 46. Selection of metal imports of Carpathian origin from the area of Poland: 1-2 – Rożnowo, 3 – Przećmino, 4 – Cisek, 5 – Gliniany, 6 – Kurcewo, 7 – Mirosławice (after Jaeger 2011). 128 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 6.5. Chronology he discussions of the complex issue of Otomani-Füzesabony culture chronology throughout its oecumene are based mainly on typological studies of pottery and metal objects conducted in an almost total absence of absolute age measurements (Boroka 1999; Kacsó 1999; homas 2008)34. Crucial for this work, the Otomani-Füzesabony culture chronology in Slovakia is no exception in this respect. For we do not have many radiocarbon measurements for Slovakia that could help make typochronological sequences suggested in the literature more precise with respect to the irst half of the 2nd millennium BC (Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999: 17, Tabelle 2; Barta 2001; Görsdorf, Marková, Furmánek 2004: 79). In the course of the long history of Otomani-Füzesabony culture investigations in Slovakia, several diferent chronological sequences and approaches to its internal development have been proposed (Bader 1998: 65-69). he most recent sequence, used also in relation to the Otomani settlement enclave in the Lower Beskids in Poland, divides Otomani-Füzesabony culture development into three basic periods and subdivides it still further into phases, namely, early (old Otomani phase, pre-classic phase), classic (older classic phase, younger classic phase) and late (post-classic phase, decline phase) (Gašaj 2002c: 94). his approach to the Otomani-Füzesabony culture development, however, bears no precise relationship to the calendar age (Bader 1998: 69) and its individual stages are not clearly deined with respect to all source aspects. he chief category of artefacts that is studied is pottery. In the pottery-making of the early period of Otomani-Füzesabony cul34 A large set of radiocarbon measurements related to the Otomani-Füzesabony culture in Hungary is included in the catalogue Bronzezeit in Ungarn (Raczky, Hertelendi, Horváth 1992). As in the case of dates referring to the Vatya culture discussed elsewhere, however, also Otomani-Füzesabony culture dates lack exact information on their context, kinds of analyzed samples and associated artefacts. More dates from Hungary are given in the publication by Forenbaher (1993: 244). ture development in Slovakia, one can trace in the irst place the impact of Košt’any and Hatvan cultures (homas 2008: 339-341). he period predates the rise of Otomani-Füzesabony fortiied settlements in Slovakia (Gašaj 2002c: 97). For the defensive structure of the Hatvan culture at Včelince, a radiocarbon date of 3518±37 BP (1890-1750 BC) was obtained and linked to the Hatvan-Otomani horizon distinguished at the site (Görsdorf, Marková, Furmánek 2004: 89). he older phase of the Otomani-Füzesabony classic period (correlated with the transition between BA2 and BB1) supposedly witnessed the rise of the fortiied settlements at Košice-Barca, Rozhanovce, Nižna Myšl’a and Spišský Štvrtok35 (David 1998: 239-241). he most common pottery forms in this period are jugs and shallow bowls with a low, horizontal or oblique, bend of the belly, amphorae with two handles, cups and bowls with their lips turned inward. Distinctive ornaments include large bosses, occurring alone or in combination with incised or luted circumambient spirals. his phase witnessed also the occurrence of characteristic portable furnaces (pyraunoi) (Fischl, Kiss, Kulcsár 2001: 126-127; Romsauer 2003: 62) and igural art in the form of anthropomorphic representations (simpliied female idols) (Gašaj 2002b: 38, Fot. 26; 2002c: 97, 99; Olexa 2002b: 88, Fot. 102). In the younger phase of the classic period, a new stage of building fortiied settlements took place. It is then that the second settlement at Nižna Myšl’a and the settlement at Košice-Barca were built and the settlement at Rozhanovce was reconstructed (David 1998: 246-247; Gašaj 2002c: 100). In this period, the leading ceramic forms included S-proiled pots with lat or slightly marked bottoms and the so-called sun amphorae. At its apogee were distinctive spiral ornaments of pottery and objects of 35 Slovak researchers traditionally consider the settlement at Spišský Štvrtok the youngest Otomani-Füzesabony fortiied settlement in eastern Slovakia and link it to the post-classic period, roughly synchronized with period BB1 (Gašaj 2002c: 100). Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 129 antler, bone and bronze (Gašaj 2002c: 100). he Otomani-Füzesabony culture postclassic period is associated with ceramic forms typical of the cemetery at Streda nad Bodrogom, the name of which has become a synonym of the late development period of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture. Forms distinctive of this period include large and small jugs, bowls and amphorae on an empty foot (in the form a ring). Pottery ornaments feature sharp, pointed bosses, relief ins, as well pushed and incised ornaments. A signiicant marker of this stage of Otomani-Füzesabony culture development is a boom in gold and bronze production – manufactured objects included daggers, spearheads, pins with plate-shaped heads and plate-like pendants. Some settlements yielded deposits dated to the post-classic stage, for instance, hoards of plate-like pendants from Nižna Myšl’a, of crescentic pendants from Spišský Štvrtok, and deposits of ornaments from Košice-Barca (Vladár 1973: 312, Abb. 65; Mozsolics 1988; David 1998: 246-247 with footnote 86; Gašaj 2002b: 30, Fot. 18). his stage should be also linked to a large group of inds of pins with a plate-shaped head discovered at Nižna Myšl’a and Spišský Štvrtok (David 1998b; Gašaj 2002b: 40, Fot. 33; Olexa 2002a: 80, Fot. 92). he metalworking of this stage is related to the development of Koszider style. here is no exact chronological data concerning the period of decline of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture in Slovakia. However, there is source evidence indicating the lapsing of this cultural tradition and its coexistence with the Piliny culture at the beginning of phase BB2 (Gašaj 2002c: 100). Layer II of the Včelince settlement yielded two radiocarbon dates linked to the early phase of the Piliny culture (Bln-5557, 3225±44 BP, 1530-1430 BC; Bln-5558, 3200±32 BP, 1500-1430 BC; Görsdorf, Marková, Furmánek 2004: 90). he site is the only example of an Otomani-Füzesabony settlement (in this case without any fortiications) for which we have well-documented radiocarbon dates, accompanied by full contextual information and published together with relevant ceramic artefacts. In the case of Otomani-Füzesabony fortiied settlements, absolute age measure- ments are available only for Nižna Myšl’a. With respect to the earlier settlement, no dates from the settlement features have been obtained. So far, only two radiocarbon dates have been published relating to the grave of metallurgists, from a burial site associated with the irst settlement. heir age is estimated between 1965 and 1754 BC (Jaeger, Olexa 2014: 170). In the later settlement, samples from four storage pits have been dated (pits no.: 89, 112, 120a, 470)36. In all likelihood, three dates were obtained from the samples of charcoal (dates Bln-2776, Bln-2810, Bln-2811), which may follow from a piece of information to be found in a publication. Its author mentions a discovery of charcoals in pits located within the younger settlement and sending them to radiocarbon dating (Olexa 1992: 193). Only in the case of date MKL-367 is it certain that it was made from charred grains. A combined calibration of all the dates from Nižna Myšl’a sets a relatively long period from 1800 to 1250 BC (Fig. 47). It must be observed, however, that in spite of three dates, obtained by the Berlin laboratory, being coincident, they carry the risk of being made older than they are due to the old wood efect. Unquestionably, the most certain of the dates is the one designated as MKL-367 as it was made from a short-lived sample of charred grains. he date, setting the period of 1450-1260 BC, is a crucial information, attesting to the long life of the fortiied settlement at Nižna Myšl’a, going far beyond the traditional time frame of the Koszider horizon. It is associated with the end of fortiied settlements in the Carpathian Basin (see chapter 5.5). Accepting the hypothesis about so long a life of the In the publication Die Bronzezeit im slowakichen Raum, in a list of 14C dates from Slovakia, the dates from Nižna Myšl’a (from pits 89, 112, 120a) are mistakenly described as coming from a cemetery (Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999: 17, Tabelle 2). Moreover, the date designated as Bln-2811 can be found in two publications with diferent values (3380±50, Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999: 17, Tabelle 2; 3480±50, Görsdorf, Marková, Furmánek 2004: 90). his inconsistency is not explained in any way. he date from pit no. 470 has not been published. I know about it thanks to Dr. Ladislav Olexa, for which I am grateful. 36 130 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture settlement at Nižna Myšl’a casts doubt on the development of fortiied settlements and the Otomani-Füzesabony culture itself in Slovakia, mentioned in the literature. In Vladár’s approach, it supposedly looked as follows. Relying on stratigraphic observations, he correlated the beginnings of the settlement at Košice-Barca (layer III) with BA2, while layer I (1-3) and horizon II of the Spišský Štvrtok settlement, he correlated with BA3; the youngest Otomani- -Füzesabony fortiied settlement in Slovakia was supposedly that represented by the remains of horizon I of the Spišský Štvrtok settlement, associated with z BB1 (Vladár 1977: 181). he process must have been more complicated. Since the radiocarbon dates for Nižna Myšl’a lack full information on relevant artefacts (ceramics), the dates are not helpful in making the accepted typochronological sequences more accurate. Fig. 47. Nižna Myšl’a. The sum of probability distribution of radiocarbon dates related to the younger settlement (after Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999; L. Olexa unpublished). 6.6. Summary: role and function of Otomani-Füzesabony fortiied settlements It is the above mentioned region that has given birth to the best known fortiied settlements, which have revealed several spectacular inds. It is also thanks to these Otomani-Füzesabony defensive structures that such sites began to be associated with the creation and maintenance of long-distance communication networks. In the above traditional view, however, these settlements represented cultural agglomerations under the direct genetic inluence of the Minoan and Mycenaean cultures (Vladár 1973; Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 161-163, Fig. 65). Views attributing Aegean origins to Otomani-Füzesabony fortiication architecture were based on only a few traits ascribed to particular settlements. hus in this context the following were given in support: the ‘urban planning’ of interior design in the Košice-Barca settlement, the regular style and stone architecture (ramparts, bastions), interior division (existence of the acropolis and parts of the artisan settlement on the outskirts at the Spišský Štvrtok site) (Vladár 1973: 280-293; Jockenhövel 1990: 215-216, Fig. 4; Gašaj 2002b: 39; Gogâltan 2010: 28, 31) as well as the assumed Minoan and Mycenaean architectural and functional elements transposed in well known constructions in the Carpathian Basin (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 162). In fact, however, as far as Slovakian Otoma- Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 131 ni-Füzesabony settlements are concerned, inds that speak clearly of their provenance do not exist or cannot be veriied (Jaeger 2014). Apart from architectural elements, inluences from the Aegean-Anatolian area (in particular the Mycenaean culture) were hailed as further evidence of the above in the categories of relics discovered in Otomani-Füzesabony fortiied settlements. Foremost in this regard were particular forms of spiral37 ornamentation present on bone and metal objects. hese were considered to be directly analogous in respect to iconographic elements and material inds of the Aegean Bronze Age and to have arisen under the inluence of contacts with the Minoan (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 161) and Mycenaean cultures (Vladár 1973: 296-318). As stated above, these archaeological inds under research do not provide a credible justiication to consider the above mentioned as examples of ‘Mycenaean origin’ architecture. As in the case of the Spišský Štvrtok settlement and that of Košice-Barca, it is most likely that the stratigraphy and chronology of sites was not interpreted correctly (Jaeger 2014). he most far-reaching conclusions concerning these sites still remain little more than propositions, rather than documented research based on appropriate data drawn from inds. his is especially clear in the case of the hypothetical division of the settlements and the extent of organisation in settlement constructions. An assessment of spiral ornamentation as a trait providing evidence that longdistance contacts of Otomani-Füzesabony communities existed is potentially a more complex proposition. It may be argued therefore that our present store of knowledge in regard to some materials with this characteristic ornamentation does in fact stand as evidence of supra-regional communication networks. Not only the Carpathian Basin and Peloponnesus were to be found in this context but also Anatolia and the Northern Pontic area (David 2001: 73; 2007: 416; Maran, Van de Moortel 2014). he phenomenon of a wide dissemination of such ornamented goods with so-called karpatenländisch-ostmediterrane Wellenbandornamentik is clearly limited in time to the turn of the Early and Middle Bronze Age (according to Reinecke; David 2001: 72). his is, no doubt, related to the functioning of a larger network of circulation, both in terms of material culture and its elements as well as its views of the world, as may testify the nature of goods ornamented in a particular way. he latest ind of horse-bridle piece from the LHI of the site in Mitrou, Greece, reveals the complex nature of the long-range relationships linking Bronze Age communities across Europe. he hitherto dominant notion presuming the culture-building and civilisational impact of Aegean inluences on the communities northwards (e.g. Carpathian ones) does not hold valid anymore. At its peak development, Mycenaean culture was largely a “taker” of speciic goods (and ideas? cf. the solar connotations of amber; Czebreszuk 2011: 164-171) originating from remote parts of the continent (Maran, Van de Moortel 2014: 543-545). Among the societies of the Carpathian Bronze Age, spiral ornamentation appears primarily on elements of horse harness and weapons, equipment related to the emerging warrior ideology (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 217; Maran, Van de Moortel 2014). It is in this context that particular metal goods of hoards found in the Hajdúsámson-Apa horizon ought to be viewed (Fig. 48). Its deposits were entirely of weapons, some made with high precision and their rich spiral ornamentation very oten was of a highly individual nature38. hese traits allow us to assume they were prestige items, certainly not ones fulilling a practical function. he unique, highly individual As perfectly exempliied by the hilt pommel of sword no 1 from the Apa hoard. hough during comparative studies its similarity in this context has been suggested to that of goods discovered in the Carpathian Basin, Aegean area and even Egypt, research is yet to demonstrate a convincing analogy for this (Bader 1990: 204-205). 38 37 Ornamentation described as ‘spiral’ in this context is a deliberate simpliication on the part of the author. For a detailed study of ornamentation of goods out of bone, antlers and metal, and a relevant typology please see David (2007: 412). 132 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture form notwithstanding of some of these weapons, they were deposited en masse, beyond the direct context of settlements, cemetery complexes or individual graves. his fact would seem to indicate the ‘communal’ nature of deposits and is an argument for the existence of groups bearing a unique, elite social status (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 215). In contrast to Únětice culture communities where the existence of distinguished individuals is documented by exceptional and singular ‘princely graves’, the Otomani-Füzesabony culture would appear to function on diferent social terms. hus a signiicant number of graves furnished with goods of bronze and gold at the Nižná Myšľa cemetery complex demonstrates a society at a very advanced stage of development, one where new raw materials were made available to a wider Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture Fig. 48. The hoard from Hajdúsámson (after Bóna 1992b). 133 cross-section of its community. Further, a productive system of economy based on farming, animal husbandry and local deposits of copper and gold brought gains to all the community, though no doubt there were visible diferences in the society itself. It can be said that to a large extent the strength of the elites was based on the organisation and maintenance of long-distance contacts. Elements of the horse harness no doubt are related in part to the innovation that the chariot represented. his vehicle could be said to be a common denominator connecting all the above mentioned areas that were interactive (Pare 2004: 356). Moreover, it was an important element of the reconstructed ideology of the memberwarrior of the elite in covering distances for travel. his vehicle was by no means revolutionary, however, in the ield of battle but meant to underscore the prestige and particular status of its owner. he elements of horse harness, foremost the cheekpiece made out of bone and antlers (to a lesser degree also clay models of spoked wheels) discovered at fortiied settlements may prove that local communities were familiar with the chariot (Vladár 1971; Olexa 2003: 88, Table XXIII; Borofka 2004). he appearance of this invention that become tradition among the cultures of the Carpathian Basin during the Bronze Age for a long time was perceived as the efect of cultural impact from the Aegean area (Vladár 1973: 299; Bader 1990: 185). At present, however, the spread of the chariot is approached as a more complex process, in which particular innovations disseminated from the north to the south of Europe (Maran, Van de Moortel 2014). Although at present the documented inds bearing spiral ornamentation from the North Pontic area are the ones with the least documentation (David 2001: 53-57), there is no doubt that this region played a key part in the spread of chariot. Apart from the invention itself of such form of transport, the North Pontic area was no doubt the origin, at least in part, of horses exploited in distant regions of the Carpathian Basin, Anatolia and the Aegean (Sherratt 1993: 26; Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 185). he oldest inds testify to the use of a light, two-wheel vehicle pulled by horses, have their origins in the Abashevo culture and are dated to the turn of the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC (Epimachov, Korjakova 2004: 231-233). From the region between the Volga and southern Urals, the chariot found its way to the Carpathian Basin and a little later, to the Aegean (Pare 2004: 356). Material evidence of this comes in the form of the cheekpiece and its circulation (Kristiansen 2004: 448, Fig. 3; Makarowicz 2009: 325, Fig. 20). Apart from numerous inds in the Carpathian Basin, the cheekpiece is known from several sites in present-day Poland (Makarowicz 2010: 354-355) and the fortiied settlements in south Germany as well as Toos-Waldi in Switzerland (Burgi 1982; Rind 1999: 160). he latter suggests that some of the inds ought to be associated with the exploitation of this animal for riding horseback. Both of these settlements are located in mountainous areas where the possibilities of using the chariot were highly limited. Particular inds that testify to the acceptance of the chariot as an innovation came from Scandinavia. It is most probable that the Carpathian Basin was also in this context a circulation point. In the Nordic region, the chariot became an important element of the social apparatus of elites, oten presented in the unique forms of rock art (Randsborg 1993; Coles 2002; Larsson 2004; Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 220-223). In regions that were part of a communication network it is clear there existed a small, elite group interested in owning and using this prestigious vehicle. In reality, the Bronze Age saw the chariot as an indisputably luxury object. he level of technical complexity of its construction and the need for owning and keeping the right animals meant that this two-wheel transport was not afordable on a wider scale. he complex knowledge required and training of horses in this context excludes the formation of a long chain in the transfer of information. It is most likely therefore that such a transfer took place with the aid of specialists travelling from one geographical point to another (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 170-186). 134 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture he activeness of Otomani-Füzesabony communities in the creation of inter-regional ties did not limit itself only to contacts from the Aegean and Anatolian areas. On the contrary, it could be argued that of greater signiicance for the functioning of local agglomerations was the growth and maintenance of relations with regions to the north of the Carpathian Basin as well as those within it. he expansive nature of Otomani-Füzesabony culture models and their dissemination ought to be foremost seen in terms of its rich and attractive metallurgy design forms, raw materials such as copper and gold, amber as well as the above mentioned elements of the horse harness. he impact of metallurgy from the Carpathian drainage area reached the circles of the late Únětice culture as well as communities in Scandinavia. An excellent illustration of the high value attached to Carpathian imports are the swords from Nebra. heir original value underscored not only the unique disc presenting a map of the sky but a one of its kind gilded ornamentation of the sword hilt (Meller 2002). Another particular example in this context is the discovery of a unique halberd from Przećmino (Fig. 46:3). he only known analogies for this object are those of the Otomani-Füzesabony cemetery in Tiszafüred (Kovács 1992; 1996, 100-101, Fig. 6:1, 7:1-2), which represent only some of the instances of the halberds penetrating the Carpathian communities (Kovács 1996). In the case of the Nordic region it can be said that a particular development of spiral ornamentation occurred in the local metallurgic production directly as a result of the impact of Otomani-Füzesabony models (hrane 1990: 176-178; Sherratt 1993: 29; Kemenczei 2004: 169; Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 186-227). he Nordic region became a secondary centre of full-hilt swords modelled on those of the Apa type (Bergerbrant 2013) (Fig. 49). In addition, no doubt the ceremonial forms of Scandinavian axes were derivative examples of hatchets from the Carpathian Basin area (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 195, Fig. 84). Metal goods associated with the Otomani-Füzesabony communities also reached in signiicant numbers Polish territories as well as regions further to the east, around the Dnieper and Dniester, In the oecumene of the Trzciniec cultural circle (Makarowicz 2009: 311-321; Jaeger 2011; Makarowicz 2010: 338-341). Next to inished goods, of far greater signiicance as a means of exchange between the Otomani-Füzesabony societies and communities north of the Carpathian Arch were copper and gold. From the former region of Otomani-Füzesabony it can be said came probably at least part of raw materials for the working of bronze and gold, which made their way to the Polish Lowland and Scandinavia (chapter 6.4). he Otomani-Füzesabony societies took a leading role in the development of central European bronze metallurgy ater the downfall of the Únětice agglomerations (Sherratt 1993: 29). he above mentioned inds mark out the inluence of Otomani-Füzesabony communities. heir interest in the northern part of Europe was no doubt related to the deposits of Baltic amber as evidenced by numerous discoveries of amber beads from Otomani-Füzesabony settlements (Marková 2003: 340; Makarowicz 2010: 336, Fig. 6.1), out of which were made necklaces of mixed formation (amber, animal teeth, bronze and faience). In this context research has unearthed a veritable mine of riches in the settlements of Košice-Barca and Nižná Myšľa (Gašaj 2002b: 22, Fot. 3; Olexa 2003: F33, 41, 63) (Fig. 50). In addition to exploiting succinite for their own needs, the local cultures were most likely engaged in its exchange. In this context the Otomani-Füzesabony settlement network proved to be an important link on the route where amber made its way from the Baltic coast and North Sea onto Mycenaean communities (Harding, Hughes-Brock 1974; Czebreszuk 2007; 2011). As mentioned earlier, in considering the importance of Otomani-Füzesabony fortiied settlements as centres of trade and exchange, in addition to the importance of long-distance relations, it is important to emphasise also the vital nature of Otomani-Füzesabony model designs and their dissemination into neighbouring cultures. he functioning of described societies within the Carpathian network of contacts is supported by numerous inds. Here, it is Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 135 Fig. 49. Distribution of swords with solid hilts referring to the Apa type: 1 – Dystrup, 2 – Pella, 3 – Dunavecse, 4 – Fajsz, 5 – Hajdúsámson, 6 – Sarkadkeresztúr, 7 – Téglás, 8 – Alt Sührkow, 9 – Eschwege, 10 – Oering, 11 – Rastorf, 12 – Nebra (2 specimens), 13 – Rożnowo, 14 – Złotoryja, 15 – Apa (2 specimens), 16 – Oradea, 17 – Rimetea, 18 – Topl’a-Fluss, 19 – Donja Dolina, 20 – Tornjoš (Törniospuszta), 21 – Vajska, 22 – Bragby, 23 – Mosstugan, 24 – Stensgård, 25 – Torupgård, 26 – Sandbygård (after Bartík, Furmánek 2004 with the author’s supplements). 136 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture Fig. 50. Nižná Myšl’a. Amber ornaments (photograph L. Olexa). necessary to point out the vast circulation of hoards similar to Hajdúsámson-Apa, and the presence in these collections of hatchets from a variety of regions (Nackenscheiben-, Nackenkamm- and Schalochäxte) (David 2002). Moreover, in hoards analogous to Koszider, apart from the variety of regions represented, there were cultural elements that had crossed previous geographic and cultural borders, which manifested themselves subsequently in an intensiication of intra-regional exchange and contacts (Novotná 1998: 357; Marková 2005). One particularly relevant illustration of the above are particular ornaments (Lockenringe). hese would appear to create an extra-cultural item that is eagerly accepted by representatives of the privileged classes. heir unique value lies foremost in the fact that they are oten made from gold and many such have been found in comprehensive settlement deposits. hese hoards and single inds of gold and bronze have their origins in the settlements of Košice-Barca, Nižná Myšľa and Spišský Štvrtok (Gašaj 2002b: 24, 40, 46, Fot. 6, 30, 47) and several other sites (oten also fortiied) that are associated with neighbouring cultures (Mozsolics 1988: 35-36; Hänsel, Weihermann 2000; Kadrow 2001: 90-91; David 1998a: 252-253). At the above mentioned area of Slovakia under discussion, apart from the Otomani-Füzesabony oecumene, associated inds whose concentration is particularly visible around the upper Hron (Furmánek, Marková 1999: 74, Fig. 1), are known to have their provenance in the western and to a lesser extent, central part. Both pottery and bronze goods associated with the Otomani-Füzesabony culture are from sites of all the neighbouring cultural areas through time (Mad’arovce, Hatvan and Encrusted Pottery cultures) in Slovakia, including the fortiied settlements of Nitriansky Hrádok, Malé Kosihy and open settlement in Včelince (Furmánek 2003: 100-101; Furmánek, Marková 1992; 1999). he last mentioned of these sites is a particularly notable example of a process of difusion in Otomani-Füzesabony settlements. he appearance of Otomani- Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture 137 -Füzesabony pottery stylistic at the initially fortiied settlement of Hatvan can be seen in the transitory horizon (Hatvan-Otomani) of settlements (Görsdorf, Marková, Furmánek 2004: 80). he appearance of Otomani-Füzesabony in areas hitherto occupied by the Hatvan culture has been documented at several Hungarian sites. he degree to which pottery styles became ‘integrated’ in many cases is so signiicant that it has led in fact to problems now in documenting the cultural provenance in the case of particular sites (Stanczik, Tárnoki 1992: 125; Dani, Máthé, Szabó 2003: 94; homas 2008: 289-291). he emergence of Otomani-Füzesabony culture elements in Slovakia beyond the oecumene of the eastern territories ought to be seen in the light of a further process of dissemination into the lands north of the Carpathian Arch. he archaeological inds in this context allow to accept the hypothesis of there existing two independent communication routes that exercised inluence beyond the Carpathian in present-day Poland and Scandinavia. he irst, the eastern, is associated with the rise of an Otomani- -Füzesabony settlement enclave in the Polish part of the Carpathians (Lower Beskids) and the activation of Trzciniec communities in the creation of a route linking the Carpathian Basin with the territories of the Vistula estuary (Makarowicz 1999; 2010: 337). he second route with a long Neolithic tradition (Sherratt 1993: 21, Fig. 6, bottom; Jaeger 2011: 182-183), on the other hand began to play a signiicant role, mediating the cultural circle of Mad’arovce-Věteřov-Böheimkirchen and that of the route leading through the Moravian Gate, along the course of the Odra towards the Baltic coast (and southern Scandinavia) as well as the Vistula estuary. In both cases the catalysts of interaction were movements of copper towards the north and amber towards the south. Most likely it is the territorial expansion and widening of Otomani-Füzesabony inluences in which the presence of hoards should be considered, ones such as Koszider on the Moravian-Slovakian border (Makov; Furmánek 2003: 101) as well as those in Poland (Jaworze Dolne, Kurcewo, Steklno; Blajer 2003: 239-243, 246; Jaeger 2011: 175-179). 138 Research Area IV. Upper Tisza Basin, eastern Slovakia: Otomani-Füzesabony culture CHAPTER 7 Comparative analysis of research areas he points of view put forward so far perceived defensive settlement as a homogenous phenomenon that covered a vast swathe of the continent (David 1998a: 256-260; Kristiansen 1998: 370; Kadrow 2001: 86; David 2002: 413). he proposed homogeneity of the phenomenon in question involves an assumption that the territories in which defensive settlement was registered were in contact. he mobility of Bronze Age communities and particularly of the elites engaged in creation and preservation of relations based on distribution of the main resources of the period – copper, tin, amber and gold – led to some degree of uniication in life-style and the emergence of comparable forms of fortiied sites (David 2004: 413). he similarity between fortiied settlements over such a vast area of Central Europe was to follow from the same principal role they performed in the production and (re-)distribution of goods, oten executed with consummate artistry by cratsmen dependant on local elites (Vladár 1975: 8-13; Točik 1982: 411-413; Kadrow 2001: 87-88; Gašaj 2002b: 41-49). Even if such scenario is not totally unfounded, it does not embrace all the analysed areas and all the relevant sites involved. he aspect description presented in previous chapters of this work allows to indicate both the features connecting particular research areas and the evident differences that set them apart. In view of the quoted exhaustive data, two levels of the diversity of the defensive settlement phenomenon can be discerned. he irst is general and refers to diferences between area situated to the north (inner-Alpine Bronze Age groups and the Kościan Group of Únětice culture) and south (Vatya and Otomani-Füzesabony cultures) of the Carpathian Arc. he second level of diversity is connected with local and exceptional features of defensive settlement manifested within the earlier mentioned larger geographicocultural areas of the “north” and “south” as well as within the research areas themselves. he irst feature setting apart the “southern” research areas from the “northern” ones is the long tradition dating back to the 5th millennium BC of erecting fortiied settlements within the Carpathian Basin and altogether in south-eastern Europe (Gogâltan 2003; Link 2006; Ivanova 2008). Not only the construction of fortiications combining two basic elements – the wall and the ditch (Ivanova 2008: 122-123) – and regular spatial arrangement of the settlement buildings were of Neolithic origin, but so was above all the oten registered speciic stability in occupation of particular sites leading to the emergence of tell forms. On the northern side of the Carpathian Arc defensive settlement appeared together the expansion of allochthonic groups of the Linear Pottery cultural cycle (Kaufmann 1990; see there for more literature). his phenomenon, however, had no impact on the formation of settlement tradition in Wielkopolska and the Alpine area. In the context of Linear Pottery culture, fortiied Comparative analysis of research areas 139 settlements seem to be unique organisms ensuing from the emergence of speciic and obviously local conditions (Keeley 1997). he second feature diferentiating the two settlement zones can be seen in the custom of depositing metal objects and different features of bronze metallurgy. Except for a few cases linked with the late phase of the Únětice culture in Slovakia, uniied hoards containing one type of object (known as Barrenhorte) only incidentally appear in the Carpathian Basin. In great measure deposits from the region reveal a mosaic of various metallurgical traditions (Novotná 1998: 353). he irst phenomena unifying (to some extent) the vast territories of the Carpathian Basin are the assemblages of the Hajdúsámson-Apa and Koszider type (Mozsolics 1967: 109-126; David 1993; 1998: 251-255; 2002). As mentioned above, the hoards of the Hajdúsámson-Apa horizon contain only weapons. Full-hilted swords and various types of hatchets predominate. hose objects demonstrate highly distinctive features: a characteristic manner of spiral decoration, individualism visible in details of ornamentation and form, and an intercultural range evidenced by extensive distribution and the presence of hatchets of diferent regional tradition in the hoards. he main area in which the deposits of the type discussed occur is the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin (David 2002, Karte 1). Lavish decoration of weapons, indicative of its symbolic and ceremonial signiicance, can be linked with the widespread innovation of the chariot. Bone and antler objects connected with the two-wheeled vehicle, such as cheek-pieces, were ornamented with a similar spiral decoration (Kristiansen 2003: 447-450). he bulk of the inds, together with the more and more frequently used spear, ought to be linked with the emerging privileged group of warriors. Distribution of particular products points to the development of a network of extensive relations between the elites of the Carpathian Basin, the eastern basin of the Mediterranean and the steppe zone (North Pontic area). he last mentioned area excepted, the animators of the exchange (both of material culture artefacts and ideas) between these regions were connected by a number of ob- 140 Comparative analysis of research areas jects of ostentatious wealth: pottery of exquisite quality, time-consuming and elaborate spiral ornamentation of bone/antler objects and, irst and foremost, ceremonial weapons with exclusive features that suggest their production for a concrete individual. he style and intricacy of the decoration of swords and hatchets rule out the existence of a home mass production (Fig. 48). he rules of the composition of decoration and the technique of its application on metal and bone/antler objects probably remained the domain of a limited number of specialists. It might be cautiously stated ater David that a “a style of lords” (Herrenstil), with spiral decoration as its main motif, had emerged (David 1997; 1998: 254). Apart from weapons, the deposits of Koszider type contained ornaments and tools (Fig. 51). heir distribution is mainly conined to the western part of the Carpathian Basin (David 2002, Karte 1). hey are oten found in settlements or in their immediate vicinity (Mozsolics 1988). Its speciicity is the contextual connection with individual homesteads, registered in defensive settlements and which suggests their ownership by particular individuals/families. Hoards of this type are known from sites of Otomani-Füzesabony culture, Vatya culture (Mozsolics 1988: 57, Liste II) and settlements connected with neighbouring cultural units. At this juncture one should irst and foremost mention the deposits from defensive settlements in Nitrianský Hrádok and Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom (Stanczik 1982: 384, 387; Novotná 1998: 354). In contrast to the hoards from the Carpathian Basin, a large number of deposits containing only one type of object can be documented for the context of the Únětice culture and the zone of its inluence. Many contained large amounts of a given product (e.g. Hodonin ca 650, Piding Mauthausen ca 700-800 Ösenringe; Butler 2002: 235). In the case of at least some of the deposited products (Ösenringe, Ösenhalsringe, Spangenbarren) there is plausible evidence to see them as ingots or even primitive forms of commodity money (Lenerz de Wilde 1995; Pernicka, Krause 1998: 223; Müller 2002: 272; for an opposite view concerning the Salez type axes cf. Kienlin 2010: 175-176). his is not to say that north of Fig. 51. Ócsa (except of diadem). A hoard of Koszider type bronze objects (after Bóna 1992a). Comparative analysis of research areas 141 the Carpathians bronze underwent the commodiication process more quickly: the deposits of standardised objects mentioned above oten reveal traits of ritual behaviours (Innerhofer 1997; Junk, Krause, Pernicka 2001: 361). Irrespective of the idea behind the massive hoards, it must be emphasised that it was probably foreign to Carpathian communities. his is well exempliied by Ösenhalsringe. In the group of southern cultures they constituted elements of ornament sets (Schumacher-Matthäus 1985, Taf. 42; Novotná 1998: 354, Abb. 3) as well as grave furnishings (Bátora 2006: 229-230), while in the areas of the Únětice oecumene they were primarily components of massive hoards described earlier, and were oten the best represented ornaments in the ringshaped category (Moucha 2005: 25-32; Lorenz 2010: 69, Abb. 7.16). Advantages ofered by the knowledge of tin bronze and the technological development of its production seem to have been accessible to a wider group of the population in the Carpathian Basin. Bronze was not ‘consumed’ in massive hoards and ‘princely graves’ by Carpathian communities. Deposits in individual dwellings, the large number of rich burials equipped with metal objects: weapons, tools and above all ornaments – essentially impractical luxurious items, demonstrate that to a large extent the production served to satisfy the sense of aesthetics grown from many varied cultural stimuli. In this context the examples of opulent graves from the cemetery in Nižná Myšl’a are highly representative. he extensive cemetery yielded a considerable number of burials furnished with bronze and gold articles (Olexa 2002a: 76-77, 83), probably largely produced by local metallurgists. Even if there are practically no completly studied Otomani-Füzesabony cemeteries directly related with fortiied settlements in Slovakia, it can be assumed that the magniicence of burials registered in Nižná Myšl’a was no exception. During rescue excavations in the region of modern Polgár (Hungary) a number of graves equipped with gold (ornaments) and bronze (daggers, a hatchet, ornaments) objects were discovered in the vicinity of settlements (Dani, Szabó 2004). 142 Comparative analysis of research areas Against such a background the relative poverty of burials on the northern side of the Carpathian Arc is striking. In this part of the Únětice oecumene metal objects, and speciically those perceived as status symbols (halberds, daggers and gold items) were rarely deposited (Sarnowska 1969: 23; Butent-Stefaniak 1997: 204, 209-210). In this context the Únětice ‘princely graves’ are an absolute exception (Fig. 18). hey were clearly a spatially and chronologically limited phenomenon. he only burial discovered directly in the Bruszczewo settlement contained no metal objects (Kneisel 2010d: 718; Jaeger 2012b), in contrast to the ‘princely grave’ situated nearby in Przysieka Polska (Schwenzer 2004). Similarly, in the case of the Alpine area, metal objects mainly prevail in small deposits and loose inds and rarely appear in graves (Kienlin, Stöllner 2009: 90-98). Further divisive diferences appear in the metallurgy of the trial areas. Here the relevant issue is the accessibility of material recourses. he Alpine area is a special case. Its defensive settlement should be related to the exploitation of local copper deposits. Signiicantly, however, none of the sites provided deinite evidence of bronze production. In view of our present knowledge they were probably only a link in the production chain and connected with preliminary stages of ore processing and mining. Fortiied settlements in the remaining research areas supplied plenty of evidence of local production of bronze. In the current discussion on the relations of Alpine settlements with local deposits two extreme opinions prevail, suggesting either minimum (Shennan 1995; Bartelheim 2007; Kienlin, Stöllner 2009) or maximum (Krause 2002; 2009) proits following from the exploitation of local deposits by the communities of fortiied settlements. he sources at our disposal suggest that the scepticism concerning the central role of defensive settlements in the Alpine area is well-founded (Bartelheim 2009: 36-39). Proits gained from the new raw material grew with each successive stage of working and distribution as well as the geographical distance from the ore sources in-between, as exempliied by the accumulation of power and prestige vis- ible in the Kościan Group situated in the north-eastern borderland of the Únětice oecumene (Jaeger, Czebreszuk 2010). Absence of unambiguous evidence conirming the existence of separate elites and a generally complex social structure in the Alpine area is all the more astonishing in view of the fact that at least part of the local communities must have been involved, indirectly at least, in the long-distance exchange that reached the regions on the middle Danube. As emphasised above, the Vatya culture metallurgy had a deep-rooted relationship with the Blechkreiskulturen circle. he contacts were not conined only to the irst stages of the development of local metalworking during the Early Bronze Age. he period of the greatest heyday of bronze production was also connected with the access to the ore in the Mitterberg region. Apart from the spectacular example of an import of a Vatya culture vessel into the territories of modern Austria (Poysbrunn) (Benkovsky-Pivovarová 1979) there also exist archaeometallurgical data. he analysis of 158 artefacts of Encrusted Pottery culture provided evidence that the raw material came from deposits in the Mitterberg area (Kiss 2009: 330). he Vatya culture, bordering in the west with the mentioned group, probably made use of its “liaison” position (Fig. 52). Numerous Encrusted Pottery inds at the Vatya culture sites testify to intensive relations between the two cultures (Kiss 1998; Fekete 2005: 54-55). Otomani-Füzesabony groups functioned in a diferent network of relations. hey mainly drew on deposits located in Transylvania and on locally accessible ores. he above information is of relevance, since it demonstrates that within the Carpathian Basin the existing mosaic of Bronze Age cultures did to a large extent relect powerful local traditions. Bearing this is mind, attempts to discuss the issue without referring to high diversity of the region1 carries a considerable margin of error. In a maximalist version this perspective was adopted by Kristiansen and Larsson. In their comprehensive synthesis of the section of the Bronze Age at issue they decided to use the term “Otomani culture” (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 125) to describe a number of diversiied autochthonic 1 he relations connecting the western part of the Carpathian Basin with the region of eastern Alps described above are an issue rarely exposed in the literature of the subject. Surprisingly, Trans-carpathian connotations were more easily attributed to Bruszczewo. Scholars would seek for features that linked the settlement with the Mad’arovce-Vĕteřov-Böheimkirchen circle in sources obtained during the irst seasons of excavations. he very construction of fortiications around the headland apparently was a result of Trans-carpathian inluences and indirectly of the east Mediterranean (Niesiołowska-Wędzka 1980: 65; Gediga 1983: 345; Kłosińska 1997: 103). In that case the source basis chiely consisted of bone products – speciic tools made of animal blades, a fragment of an alleged cheek-piece of Tószeg type (Kłosińska 1997: 98) and some pottery features, textile prints in particular (Kłosińska 1997: 104). A detailed analysis of some bone and antler artefacts found in Bruszczewo demonstrated a similarly wide spectrum of forms as that known from the Mad’arovce culture (Kneisel 2010c: 680). It must be noticed, however, that the Únětice cultural context has revealed no collection of sources that in sheer numbers might come close to that from Bruszczewo. hus, at the present stage of research it is diicult to draw conclusions about the origins of bone working in Bruszczewo. he antler object presented in the literature and interpreted as a cheekpiece eludes an unequivocal functional estimate, mainly due to its partial preservation (Kłosińska 1997: 97, Fig. 13:1). Dimensions of the object and a fragmentarily visible and sloppily made opening do not ofer features credible enough to deine it as a cheek-piece. Above mentioned intensive relations between the Encrusted Pottery culture and Vatya are not the only examples demonstrating the dynamic picture of Carpathian communities. cultures/pottery stylistics. As a result, in their discussion on the relations between defensive settlement in the Carpathian Basin and the Minoan/ /Mycenaean architecture they freely reached for analogies from sites of absolutely diferent character resulting from a distinct cultural tradition and development (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 162). Comparative analysis of research areas 143 Fig. 52. Distribution of the Vatya culture and Encrusted Pottery culture sites. Asterikses – Vatya fortiied settlements; black circles – sites of the northern Encrusted Pottery group, grey circles – sites of the southern Encrusted Pottery group (after Kovács 1982; Vicze 2000; Kiss 2012). his phenomenon is illustrated by hoards of described Koszider type, known from the late phases of Otomani-Füzesabony, Vatya and Mad’arovce cultures. Widespread distribution and regional differences in their content, observable mainly in hatchet and sickle pin types, testify to the increased mobility of the Carpathian Basin societies in the Middle Bronze Age (Novotná 1998: 57). 144 Comparative analysis of research areas As well as metal objects, pottery too indicates a multidirectional exchange and contacts between the communities in question – or rather a creation of a cultural melting pot. Starting with the development phase II, vessels of the Vatya culture are covered with decorative motifs connected with the stylistics of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture (Kreiter 2005: 12). In the late phase (Vatya III-Koszider) there appeared the distinctive channelled knobs (Kreiter 2007: 19). he period is generally characterised by the openness of Vatya culture communities to impulses from neighbouring groups, also noticeable in the “mitigation” of the rigours of funerary rites. Next to traditional urn graves there began to appear skeleton graves, oten furnished with vessels with foreign stylistics (Vicze 1992a: 95). he expansiveness of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture is best perceived in the slow fusion of its elements with the Hatvan culture. A number of settlements of the latter were inhabited by Otomani-Füzesabony communities during the middle Bronze Age. In some cases it was connected with the fortiications erected by Hatvan groups being buried and a reorganisation of the settlement space (e.g. Včelince in Slovakia, Furmánek, Marková 2001: 106-107; Árőkto-Dongóhalom in Hungary, Fischl 2006: 207). However, the cultural changes that can be followed in the pottery stylistics were not abrupt in character. On the contrary – in many sites a fusion of stylistic traditions was recorded, oten accompanied by elements of stylistics of the late phases of Vatya culture and Encrusted Pottery culture (Stanczik, Tárnoki 1992: 125; Fischl 2006: 208). In Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom and Polgár-Kenderföld (Hungary) Otomani-Füzesabony stylistics dominates in the so-called ine ware, while the form and decoration of others are characteristic of the Hatvan culture (Stanczik, Tárnoki 1992: 125; Dani, Máthé, Szabó 2003: 93). In the case of the Včelince site the smooth process of cultural change can be observed in the separate Hatvan-Otomani settlement horizon (Furmánek, Marková 2001: 106). A telling example comes from Polish territories. he appearance of Otomani-Füzesabony material culture (population?) in the fortiied settlement in Trzcinica, built by the Pleszów group of the Mierzanowice culture, shows no evidence of a violent event. he area of the settlement was enlarged, and new elements were added to Pleszów fortiications that never stopped functioning (Gancarski 1999: 139). he recalled example from the region of the Lower Beskids is connected with the northward expansion of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture from the territories of modern Slovakia through the Carpathian passes, described elsewhere. he process, however, also covered areas situated west of its oecumene. In this context the evidence of the presence of Otomani-Füzesabony pottery in fortiied settlements of Mad’arovce culture is of particular importance for the present discussion (Točik 1964: 162; Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999: 49). Probably due to the “liaison” role of that region spectacular objects such as Apa type swords and hatchets found their way into Polish territories and further north to Scandinavia (Fig. 49). he commodity that went south was amber (Marková 2003; Jaeger 2011). Objects made of amber, mostly small beads, were recognised in the fortiied settlements in all research areas discussed (Shennan 1995: 242; Horváth 1999: 279, Table 1; Marková 2003; Czebreszuk, Kneisel, Müller 2010; Jaeger 2016). he so-called amber route reconstructed for the period in question ran overland from the shores of the Baltic (an area of natural succinite deposits) to the southern coast of the Adriatic (Czebreszuk 2007; Jaeger, Czebreszuk 2010: 230; Jaeger 2011: 181, Fig. 7). From there amber travelled to the regions of the Aegean area (Mycenaean culture) by way of the Aegean-Ionian zone of interaction that had been already created in the 3rd millennium BC (Maran 1998; Czebreszuk 2011). Czebreszuk suggests the following course of the overland stage of amber’s journey south: the Baltic coast at the mouth of the Vistula → Kujawy → Wielkopolska → Dolny Śląsk (Lower Silesia) → Moravian Gate → the region on the upper Tisza → Caput Adria (Czebreszuk 2011: 161-162). It should be emphasised, however, that the numerous inds in the Carpathian Basin (Marková 2003: 351, Karte 1) demonstrate, besides the “liaison” role of the Otomani-Füzesabony communities in the transit of amber further south (Mycenaean culture), the existence of something that might be called an “inside Carpathian” market of its distribution (Jaeger 2016). Amber inds in the cultures of Vatya, Encrusted Pottery, Mad’arovce and Otomani-Füzesabony and Hatvan were mostly elements of grave furnishings and objects from the so-called ritual sites (eg the sacriicial well in Gánovce) (Stanczik, Tárnoki 1992: 124-125; Marková Comparative analysis of research areas 145 1999; 2003: 340-341; Horváth 1999: 279, Table 1). he context of the inds suggests that amber was not just a raw material to be exchanged far and away but an important and exclusive commodity used by the local communities. In the Carpathian Basin, succinite was the predominant type of amber. However, one has to stress that the use of local types of resins is evidenced by fairly numerous examples (Jaeger 2016). he interest in the latter is likely to have resulted from the original inlux of material from the coasts of the Baltic Sea. he sources described above clearly indicate the intensive inter-regional relationships within the Carpathian Basin. I believe that it was this complex network of relations linking particular groups that decided about their strength and permitted progress up to the moment when Carpathian communities became equal partners with the civilisation of the eastern part of the Mediterranean. Engagement of these communities in the far-reaching exchange was essentially connected with desire for obtaining locally unavailable resources – copper, tin, gold and amber. Along with those there travelled ideas, new elements of worldview and life-style. Bearing in mind the importance of exchange and the openness of fortiied settlements communities, it cannot be forgotten that their stability and survival were in fact guaranteed by their eicient economic system. Accessible sources concerning the economy of fortiied settlements, though frequently incomplete, allow to draw a few important conclusions. Settlements were not immersed in some ecological niche. heir communities possessed a considerable ability of adapting to the existing environmental conditions. his is testiied by the quota of respective domesticated species, particularly of goat/sheep and pig (Choyke, Bartosiewicz 1999: 244, Fig. 3) and by changing strategies of animal husbandry. he Százhalombatta settlement produced unambiguous data showing that the number of sheep slaughtered at a mature age increased with time (Vretemark, Sten 2005: 162-164). Due to lack of appropriate analyses, capturing similar trends in most of the settlements under discussion 146 Comparative analysis of research areas was not possible. Wild animal species were basically of little signiicance (Jaeger 2012c: 150-151), though even in that case there might have been extraordinary situations, as exempliied by the considerable amount of beaver remains recorded in the collection from Nižná Myšl’a (Olexa 2003: 53) and the postulated exceptional meaning of hunting and consumption of game in the settlements of Százhalombatta (Choyke, Vretemark, Sten 2003: 183) and Bruszczewo (Makowiecki, Drejer 2010: 294, 300). he most important domesticated animal was cattle. Numerous herds probably constituted the basic wealth of the communities and at the same time were an object of competition of particular groups (Louwe Kooijmans 1998: 334-335; Fokkens 1999). he crucial role of crop production can be assumed for most fortiied settlements. Similarly to archaeozoological data, the analyses of plant macroremains reveal a diversiication of the contribution of particular crops in the trial areas. he postulated spatial pattern of domination of some wheat species in the Vatya culture settlements is particularly telling (Nováki 1969: 40-41, Abb. 1; Gyulai 1993: 25-26, Fig. 1). Furthermore, the available sources indicate the possibility of obtaining and storing large quantities of grain (Bóna 1975: 74; Endrődi, Gyulai 1999: 27; Kneisel 2010a: 146). he storing jars/granaries in the Alpár settlement (Bóna, Nováki 1982: 42-43, Fig. 11-12) notwithstanding, no special constructions or buildings connected with grain storage were found. Also, one of the huts in Kakucs-Turján revealed numerous accumulations of a large number of grains and lentils. Some of those most likely represent a proof that grains were stored in organic containers, which have not survived. he St. Veit Klinglberg settlement is an outstanding case among the sites. Absence of traces of grain processing was interpreted as a proof of “ready-made”, that is, threshed, grain being obtained from valley-located regions (Shennan 1995: 285). Accepting that this thesis is hard to verify, it must be stressed that the remaining Alpine area settlements provided evidence testifying to both utilisation and production of crops. Apart from macroremains, inds of sickle fragments, querns and grinding stones have been known (Rageth 1986: 83-84; Swidrak, Oeggl 1998; Schmidl, Oeggl 2005: 305). What is more, palynological data from some regions show a distinct decrease in the quota of tree pollen with simultaneous growth of the crop pollen curve (Krause, Oeggl, Pernicka 2004: 10-11). Some of the sites produced data indicative of a skilful and gradual broadening of the range of cultivated plants. In each of the relevant regions pulses were cultivated, and wild fruit from the nearest vicinity collected (Gyulai 1992: 66; Swidrak, Oeggl 1998; Hajnalová 2001: 32-33; Kroll 2010: 264). he postulated special situation of St. Veit Klinglberg excepted, the communities inhabiting fortiied settlements with their diversiied farm and husbandry economies were totally self-suicient. In none of the settlements any symptoms of crisis, such as the prevalence of wild animal remains over domesticated ones, were registered. Absence of detailed analyses most oten hinders a full estimation of the productive potential of the fortiied settlements’ communities. he data for Bruszczewo show high eiciency of crop production, as exempliied by relatively big weight of the preserved grain (Kroll 2010: 266). Due to its fairly good level of recognition the settlement also yielded exceptional data demonstrating the scale of anthropological pressure that could have led to a local ecological disaster. Along with substantial deforestation at the inal stage of the settlement’s existence the quality of water in the lake fell dramatically. Palynological studies revealed the presence of parasites and coprophilic fungi related to the contamination of the reservoir with a large amount of excrements (Haas, Wahlmüller 2010: 78, 80). An eicient economy was crucial for the demographic success of the communities discussed. he number of inhabitants ascribed to particular defensive settlements oscillates between several to a few hundred. Populations inhabiting the Alpine area settlements are estimated at the lowest igures, between 16-20 individuals for Sotćiastel (Krause 2005: 397) up to 100-110 at a time in the St. Veit Klinglberg settlement (Shennan 1995: 283). he low number of inhabitants would correspond with the small size of the areas in which the eastern Alpine defensive sites were erected. In the case of Bruszczewo, the surviving traces of buildings suggest that the population of the settlement consisted of 50-100 persons. For the Carpathian Basin the estimated populations stand much higher, reaching even up to 300-350 people (Nižná Myšl’a, Olexa 2003: 5) and 400-500 (Százhalombatta, Poroszlai 2003: 153) inhabiting the settlement at a time. he cited diferences in the hypothetical numbers of communities in fortiied settlements are vital for their estimation as objects of defensive, military character. Undoubtedly, warfare was an important element constituting the Bronze Age – a period during which there appeared and spread objects performing solely the function of weapons (Kristiansen 1984; Carman, Harding 1999; Osgood, Monks, Toms 2000; Kristiansen 2002; Harding 2007) and when a huge number of defensive settlements grew up in various parts of Europe (Rind 1999: 4, Abb. 1, 342-345). A total negation of the military meaning of fortiications surrounding Bronze Age settlements would be a risky and somewhat pointless task. Yet, I do believe that it was not by sheer coincidence that in the large body of excavated settlements there are no traces of violent events that might be connected with a possible invasion/aggression. I will return to that issue in the further part of this chapter. Fortiications in the selected trial areas were highly diversiied in terms of technologies applied as well as their size and building material. Cases of locating fortiications only in places not defended by the topography of the terrain are known in some regions. Most of Otomani-Füzesabony settlements in Slovakia and those in the Alpine area were fortiied in this way (Shennan 1995: 75, Fig. 5.1; Gašaj 2002b: 21, 35, 39; Krause 2005: 396, Abb. 5). Size-wise, the fortiications difered considerably. he most impressive ones are to be found in Otomani-Füzesabony settlements in Slovakia. he ditch of the younger settlement in Nižná Myšl’a was 25-27 metres and 5-6 metres deep, and behind there was a wall 8-10 metres wide, additionally reinforced with a stone wall ca 1 meter wide Comparative analysis of research areas 147 (Gašaj 2002b: 31; Olexa 2003: 40, 42). In Bruszczewo, apart from the ditch up to 20 metres in width and ca 4.5 metres in depth (Czebreszuk, Ducke, Müller, Silska 2004: 71-72, Abb. 26) rows of palisades were also constructed. Furthermore, the part of the settlement bordering on the lake was strengthened with three lines of wooden constructions (Fig. 14). Fortiications of such dimensions must have ofered efective protection. he stone defences surrounding some of the Alpine area settlements seem to be less functional. In Gschleirsbühel the stone wall in the preserved part of the base was less than 1 meter wide (Zemmer-Plank 1978: 182) (Fig. 3). Walls of some dwellings were parts of sections of the surrounding wall. In the case of the Friaga Wald settlement huts were situated directly next to the wall (Fig. 2). Solutions of that kind put the buildings in considerable danger, the more so that they were probably taller than the fortiications themselves. In Bruszczewo and Alpár an empty space separating huts from the fortiications lines was registered (Bóna, Nováki 1982: 115; Czebreszuk, Ducke, Müller, Silska 2004: 73). Diversity of defensive constructions noticeable at the level of particular research areas can be most easily seen within the Carpathian Basin, while the defensive structures of the eastern Alpine area, with stone as the building material common to all sites, appear to be the most homogenous. Due to the considerable impact of post-depositional processes it is diicult to decide whether the partially preserved wooden elements reinforcing stone constructions, sometimes registered in the settlements, were also to some extent concurrent. In the Carpathian Basin defensive constructions were built of clay/earth and wood. he biggest amount of information was provided by the Otomani-Füzesabony sites. In their case stone was an incidental material for additional elements reinforcing the fortiications proper (Olexa 2003: 40, 42). Reinforcements of individual settlements difered considerably in details. In some cases unique solutions were introduced, such as inward-leaning wall in Košice-Barca (Točik 1994: 63) or stonereinforced walls of the gate in Nižná Myšl’a (Gašaj 2002b: 27-28, Fot. 9). 148 Comparative analysis of research areas he traditional use of stone for the construction of fortiications in the Carpathian Basin settlements was perceived as a civilisational impact of the Aegean-Anatolian zone. As it has been shown above, the most spectacular example of stone construction known from the Spišský Štvrtok settlement is open to doubt, the most serious one concerning the chronology of fortiications (Jaeger 2014). It is probable that stone constructions discovered there date to the La Tène period and should be linked with the Púchov culture. It is worth emphasizing that the remaining examples of defensive structures made of stone in the Carpathian Basin do not seem to be reliable, either (Bader 1990: 182). Some scholars believe that the Olomouc site, mentioned as an instance of stone architecture developed under the inluence of Mycenaean culture (Vladár 1973: 280, Abb. 26), also should be connected with the Púchov culture (Novotná 1996: 23-24). Certain elements of the fortiications, like for instance wattle structures registered in settlements geographically as far-lung as Bruszczewo (Müller 2004: 125-133), Rozhanovce (Gašaj 1983: 132, Abb. 64-78) and Baracs-Földvár (Kovács 1982: 287) resulted from the similar Neolithic tradition of construction of dwellings. In the case of the Vatya culture it is dificult to relate to the problem of diversity in the construction of fortiications, since we have no relevant information for most sites. One can observe, however, varied planning of the settlements’ structure. Some of them had a simple form, ie the space of the settlement was surrounded by fortiications, be it a wall, a ditch or a palisade (e.g. Százhalombatta, Nagykőrös-Földvár), while others were partitioned inside. Particular sectors probably performed diferent functions. Such interpretation is supported by the results of geomagnetic research conducted in the settlement in Kakucs (Fig. 24). As I have mentioned above, the procedure of dividing up the settlement into smaller sectors could have had a military signiicance. By grouping the dwellings it was possible to enclose them with a relatively shorter and thus more easily defensible line of fortiications. he inside partitioning of fortiied settlements is a phenomenon exclusive to the Vatya culture. It should be noted that it had nothing in common with the postulated rather than conirmed division of fortiied settlements in the Carpathian Basin into the “core” – fortiied – part and the “artisan” – open – sector (Vladár 1973: 288; Bóna 1975: 123-124, 146, 172). In the Vatya culture all separated sectors of the settlements were encircled with fortiications. he opinion just mentioned refers to the existence near defensive sites or tells, “satellite” or “outer” settlements which served as an economic base of the “core” (Fischl et al. 2014: 344). No complex of sites of this type has been excavated so far, and for this reason it is still diicult to take a stand on chronological and functional relations between the open and defensive (or tell) settlements. he hypothesis claiming that tells were only elements of larger complexes surrounded by smaller settlement forms is placed within the framework of research into the Neolithic of south-eastern Europe (Reingruber, Hansen, Toderaş 2010: 172). Its veriication could point to yet another vital element of the Neolithic tradition observable in the defensive settlement of the “southern” trial areas during the Bronze Age. he efort invested into the construction and maintenance of fortiications suggests their authentic military function. he reconstructed model of warfare for this section of Bronze Age presumes principally small-scale conlicts. he main method of warfare were probably raids (Otterbein 1989: 40). Small groups of warriors would set out to neighbouring territories a few days’ march away from home to abduct women, capture slaves, steal cattle or other easily transferable goods (Louwe Kooijmans 1998: 338; Uhnér 2010: 285-286). Taking into consideration the posited size of populations of particular settlements, groups of several dozen warriors can be stipulated only for the Carpathian Basin. It is possible that variously estimated sizes of human groups inhabiting defensive settlements in diferent trial areas account for the diversity in the massiveness and level of complexity of fortiications. Assuming that the thesis is correct, it has to be accepted that the manner of fortifying settlements corresponded with the level of real danger in a concrete region. he raid model mentioned above presumes warfare of relatively short duration. On the one hand, warriors could not leave their homes for a longer period of time, and on the other there must have considerable logistic and organisational limitations concerning supplies (Christensen 2004: 153). It is open to doubt that during raids it was possible to besiege a fortiied settlement awaiting the surrender of its defenders. Rather, the only way was to try to get inside the settlement using the element of surprise, eg under the cover of darkness (Roscoe 2008: 508; Uhnér 2010: 307). In the outcome there was probably little substantial damage that could have let a legible trace in archaeological sources. he primary aim of the raids was to switly achieve the goal by killing encountered individuals and obtaining locally unavailable goods while minimising the risk of casualties within one’s own “ranks” (Christensen 2004: 131). In view of the above information the defences of fortiied settlements in the Bronze Age, and particularly the massive fortiications known from Otomani-Füzesabony and Vatya settlements, provided an efective protection for the inhabitants and their belongings. he size of fortiications was a clear signal of organisational capabilities and strength of the inhabitants. his had a crucial preventive implication and could result in few real conlicts. Sources mentioned above reveal a frequently smooth nature of changes in material culture (pottery stylistics) in settlements and intensive contacts between regions and concrete fortiied sites, indicative rather of possible alliances and other type of relationships oriented towards cooperation. he aggressiveness demonstrated in rich hoards of arms functioned on ideological level, but did not translate into military power of the communities to be directly employed in accumulating economic and social capital (Uhnér 2010: 287). Kadrow (2001) presented an opposite view. Describing the communities of fortiied settlements as supra-local political organisms (Kadrow 2001: 162), he pointed to the possibility of a speciic condition of permanent danger and war, grown out of competition and rivalry between particular centres. In his opinion, the main argument are traces of Comparative analysis of research areas 149 destruction registered in settlements and their considerable instability perceivable over the short period of their functioning. A survey of sources made for the needs of the aspect description of trial areas fails to present evidence that would validate the above thesis. On the contrary – information provided by the work of the SAX project shows the possibility of the existence of a larger political unit (which meets the criteria set by Kadrow in reference to a supra-local political organism) consisting of a few fortiied settlements and several open ones situated in the Benta river valley (Uhnér 2010: 146-148, Fig. 66). he main actor of the arrangement was the settlement in Százhalombatta. Radiocarbon dating demonstrates that it could have functioned even for few hundred years (Uhnér 2010: 347-348). As I have mentioned above, some Vatya culture settlements were characterised by a speciic structure. he results of geomagnetic studies in Kakucs revealed huts located probably only in one sector of the settlement, partially arranged in a regular way along the line of fortiications (Pető et al. 2015: 221). he regularity of development was traditionally seen as a manifestation of urban planning grown from familiarity with Mycenaean architecture (Vladár 1973: 288). Location of huts in rows or lines was registered in the “southern” settlements of the research areas, connected with both the Otomani-Füzesabony (Olexa 2003: 42-43) and Vatya cultures (Poroszlai 1992c: 158). Linear arrangements of buildings were also found in the settlements of Friaga Wald (Krause 2007a: 125, 134, Fig. 20) and Savognin-Padnal (Rageth 1986: 68). he formerly mentioned Neolithic tradition in the Carpathian Basin notwithstanding, it 150 Comparative analysis of research areas must be emphasised that similar arrangements of dwellings situated quite close to one another appeared independently in all cases and followed from the determination to optimally exploit the settlement space. Some settlements were probably built over in a less regular way. In the case of Bruszczewo and more broadly – the Únětice culture – we can assume the existence of dwellings with the same orientation but irregularly and less closely situated (Pleiner, Rybová 1978: 370, Fig. 102; Schunke 2010: 274, Abb. 1). he manifestation of a planned development was not just the way dwellings were located. Some of the settlements provided data indicating a separation of zones with deinite functions and a planned location of out-buildings. A grouping of kilns was found in the Százhalombatta settlement (Poroszlai 1996: 10). he one in Alpár was characterised by kilns constructed near the dwellings and storage pits situated close to the walls (Bóna, Nováki 1982: 109). With the most complete source basis in the case of Bruszczewo, it was possible to capture the spatial arrangement of particular zones of economic and artisan activities relected by the concentrations of particular categories of sources (Kneisel 2010e: 187-188, Abb. 17). he small number of data conirming the existence of the so-called metallurgists’ workshops is of relevance. We known them only from Lovasberény-Mihályvár (Petres, Bándi 1969: 175, kép 6) and the alleged fortiied settlement in Savognin-Padnal (Rageth 1986: 67). In Bruszczewo it was possible only to demonstrate the sector of the settlement in which the artefacts related with founding were accumulated (Jaeger, Czebreszuk 2010: 223; Kneisel 2010e: 187). Conclusion he aim of the present work was a presentation of the fortiied settlement communities from the angle of speciic archaeological sources. he study has revealed a series of gaps in our knowledge. hey mainly result from the complexity of fortiied settlements which provide plenty of sources that oten elude the analytical capabilities of traditional archaeology. he history of research conducted so far demonstrates an obvious scarcity of interdisciplinary projects within the compass of which archaeology could be supported by natural sciences. Yet the level of diversity and dynamics of the fortiied settlement populations observable in the sources makes an employment of a single scientiic procedure impossible. In many cases essential issues were neglected. One of them is above all the absolute chronology calendar. he body of radiocarbon datings currently available does not permit a study of the potential synchronisation of cultural processes in the trial areas. We can say equally little about the economy of the communities involved. he macroscale adopted by European archaeology for presenting fortiied settlement issues allowed to wave aside the gaps mentioned above – and many others as well. An attempt to overcome the research problems diagnosed above can have serious consequences. First of all, I believe that it is essential to discard the hitherto typical perspective of approaching the communities en bloc. he present work has clearly demonstrated that, as the proverb has it, the devil’s truly in the detail. Similarities between regions and particular settlements within their reach are limited to the big picture. Each of the sites discussed, even at the current level of archaeological recognition, demonstrates unique features demanding an individual research strategy. he available sources allow the presumption that in many cases (in the majority of cases?) particular settlements were not isolated islands but on the contrary – they stayed in stable networks of cooperation, oten forming larger socio-economic and political organisms. he use of previous research procedures renders their recognition in archaeological sources impossible. Excavation work devoid of analytical opportunities ofered by natural sciences will not yield good results. he overall picture of the communities of fortiied settlements has to be made up anew, this time of small pieces that will include properly – that is, interdisciplinarily – recognised sites. he outlined scenario is not the easiest one. Its realisation is possible in a longterm perspective only, and overcoming mundane inancial and organisational problems involved demands a cooperation, on the international level as well, of many bodies. hese are not, however, diiculties to hinder modern archaeology from opening a new episode in the research into the vital issues of the communities of the Bronze Age fortiied settlements. Conclusion 151 Bibliography ALUSIK T. 2007 Defensive Architecture of Prehistoric Crete. British Archaeological Reports. Oxford. 2012 Aegean Elements and Inluences in Central European Bronze Age Defensive Architecture: Fact or Fiction? Local or Imported?, in: Jaeger M., Czebreszuk J., Fischl K. P. (eds.): Enclosed Space-Open Society. Contact and exchange in the context of Bronze Age Defensive Settlements in Central Europe. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 10. Bonn/Poznań, 11-25. AVERY M. 1993 Hillfort defences of Southern Britain. British Archaeological Reports. Oxford. BADER T. 1990 Bemerkungen über die ägäische Einlüsse auf die alt- und mittelbronzezeitliche Entwicklung im Donau-Karpatenraum, in: Bader T. (ed.): Orientalischägäische Einlüsse in der europäischen Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse eines Kolloquiums. Bonn, 181-205. 1998 Bemerkungen zur Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken. Otomani/Füzesabony-Komplex. Überblick und Fragestellung. Jahresschrit für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 80, 43-108. BÁNDI G. 1966 Ursprung der Metallschmiedekunst der Vatya-Kultur, A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1965-66 (2), 39-47. BARRETT J. C. 2012 Are models of prestige goods economies and conspicuous consumption applicable to the archaeology of the Bronze to Iron Age transition in Britain?, in: Jones A. M., Pollard J., Allen M. J., Gardiner J. (eds.): Image, Memory and Monumentality. Archaeological Engagements with the Material World: archaeological engagements with the material world: a celebration of the academic achievements of Professor Richard Bradley. Oxford, 6-17. BARTELHEIM M. 1998 Studien zur böhmischen Aunjetitzer Kultur: chronologische und chorologische Untersuchungen. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 46, Teile I-II, Bonn. 2002 Metallurgie und Gesellschat in der Frühbronzezeit Mitteleuropas, in: Müller J. (ed.): Vom Endneolithikum zur Frühbronzezeit: Muster sozialen Wandels? Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 90. Bonn, 29-44. 2007 Die Rolle der Metallurgie in vorgeschichtlichen Gesellschaten. Sozioökonomische und kulturhistorische Aspekte der Ressourcennutzung. Ein Vergleich zwischen Andalusien, Zypern und dem Nordalpenraum, Rahden/Westf. 2009 Elites and Metals in the Central European Early Bronze Age, in: Kienlin T., Roberts B. (eds.): Metals and Societies. Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 196. Bonn, 34-46. BARTELHEIM M., ECKSTEIN K., HUIJSMANS M., KRAUSE R., PERNICKA E. 2002 Kupferzeitliche Metallgewinnung in Brixlegg, Österreich, in: Bartelheim M., Pernicka E., Krause R. (eds.): Die Anfänge der Metallurgie in der Alten Welt (he Beginnings of Metallurgy in the Old World). Rahden/Westf., 33-82. BARTÍK J., FURMÁNEK V. 2004 Schwert des Typs Apa aus der Ostslowakei, in: Bátora J., Furmánek V., Veliačik L. (eds.): Einlüsse und Kontakte alteuropäischer Kulturen. Festschrit für Jozef Vladár zum 70. Geburtstag. Nitra, 255-272. BÁTORA J. 2002 Contribution to the problem of cratsmen graves at the end of Aeneolithic and in the Early Bronze Age in Central, Western and Eastern Europe. Slovenska Archeologia 50, 179-228. 2006 Štúdie ku komunikácii medzi strednou a východnou Európou v dobe bronzovej. Bratislava. Bibliography 153 BECKER B., KRAUSE R., KROMER B. 1989 Zur absoluten Chronologie der Frühen Bronzezeit. Germania 67(2), 421-442. BENECKE N. 1998 Haustierhaltung, Jagd und Kult mit Tieren im bronzezeitlichen Mitteleuropa, in: Hänsel B. (ed.): Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas. Man and Environment in European Bronze Age. Kiel, 61-75. BENKOVSKY-PIVOVAROVÁ Z. 1979 Ein Gefäss der Vatya-Kultur von Poysbrunn, Niederösterreich. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 9 (2), 179-182. BERGERBRANT S. 2013 Migration, Innovation and Meaning: sword depositions on Lolland, 1600-1100 BC, in: Alberti M. E., Sabatini S. (eds.): Exchange Networks and Local Transformations: Interaction and local change in Europe and the Mediterranean from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. Oxford, 146-155. BLAJER W. 1990 Skarby z wczesnej epoki brązu na ziemiach polskich. Wrocław. 2003 Datowanie i przynależność kulturowa skarbów brązowych i luźnych wyrobów metalowych z dorzecza Wisłoki, in: Gancarski J. (ed.): Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Karpatach polskich. Materiały z konferencji. Krosno 239-255. BOROFFKA N. 1999 Probleme der späten Otomani-Kultur. in: Gancarski J. (ed.): Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony – rozwój, chronologia, gospodarka. Krosno, 113-130. 2004 Bronzezeitliche Wagenmodelle im Karpatenbecken, in: Fansa M., Burmeister S. (eds.): Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation Wagen im Vorderen Orient und Europa. Mainz am Rhein, 347-354. BORK H. R. 2010 Archäologische und umweltgeschichtliche Untersuchung eines markanten Sporns am westlichen Talrand der Samica/Archeologiczne oraz historyczno-przyrodnicza analiza półwyspu na krawędzi doliny rzeki Samica, in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/Poznań, 39-50. BOUZEK J. 2004 Die Gussform von Spišský Štvrtok und die transylvanischen Rapiere, in: Bátora J., Furmánek V., Veliačik L. (eds.): Einlüsse und Kontakte alteuropäischer Kulturen: Festschrit für Jozef Vladár zum 70. Geburtstag. Nitra, 279-284. 154 Bibliography BÓNA I. 1975 Die Mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre Südöstlichen Beziehungen. Budapest. 1992a Bronzezeitliche Tell-Kulturen in Ungarn, in: Meier-Arendt W. (ed.): Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und heiss. Frankfurt am Main, 9-39. 1992b Bronzeguss und Metallbearbeitung bis zum der Mittleren Bronzezeit, in: Meier-Arendt W. (ed.): Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und heiss. Frankfurt am Main, 48-65. 1992c Tószeg-Laposhalom, in: Meier-Arendt W. (ed.): Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und heiss. Frankfurt am Main, 101-114. BÓNA I., NOVÁKI G. 1982 Alpár bronzkori és Árpád-kori vára. Cumania, 7, 18-268. BÖKÖNYI S. 1978 he earliest waves of domestic horses in east Europe. Journal of Indo-European Studies 6 (1, 2), 17-76. 1982 Állatamaradványok a tiszaalpári bronzkori földvár ásatásaiból, Animal remains from the excavations of the Bronze Age earthwork at Tiszaalpár, in: Bóna I., Nováki G. Alpár bronzkori és Árpád-kori vára. Cumania, 7, 118-132. 1992 Jagd und Tierzucht, in: Meier-Arendt W. (ed.): Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und heiss. Frankfurt am Main, 69-75. BUKOWSKI Z. 1998 Pomorze w epoce brązu w świetle dalekosiężnych kontaktów wymiennych. Gdańsk. BURGI Z. 1982 Die prähistorische Besiedlung von Toos-Waldi. Archäologie der Schweiz 5 (2), 82-88. BUTENT-STEFANIAK B. 1997 Z badań nad stosunkami kulturowymi w dorzeczu górnej i środkowej Odry we wczesnym okresie epoki brązu. Wrocław/Warszawa/Kraków. BUTLER J. J. 2002 Ingots and insights: relections on rings and ribs, in: Bartelheim M., Pernicka E., Krause R. (eds.): Die Anfänge der Metallurgie in Der Alten Welt. Rahden/ /Westf, 229-243. CARMAN J., HARDING A. (EDS.) 1999 Ancient Warfare: Archaeological Perspectives. Stroud. CHAPMAN J. 1997 he origins of tells in eastern Hungary, in: Topping P. (ed.): Neolithic landscapes. Oxford, 139-164. CHOCHOROWSKI J. 1985 Zur Chronologie und Rekonstruktion der Befestigungsanlage der frühbronzezeitlichen Burg Jędry- chowice, in: Gedl M. (ed.): Frühbronzezeitliche befestigte Siedlungen in Mitteleuropa. Warszawa/Kraków, 45-55. COUDROT J. L., THEVENOT J.P. (EDS.) 1994 Le bel Age du Bronze en Hongrie. Glux-en-Glenne: CentreEuropéen d’Archéologie du Mont-Beuvray. CHOYKE A. M. 1979 A classiication of the bone and antler tools from the Bronze Age hill-fortress of Pákozdvár. Alba Regia 17, 9-21. 1984 An analysis of bone, antler and tooth tools from Bronze Age Hungary. Mitteilungen des archäologischen Instituts der ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaten 12, 13, 13-57. 1987 he exploitation of red deer in the Hungarian Bronze Age. Archaeozoologia I (1), 109-116. 1998 Bronze Age red deer: case studies from the Great Hungarian Plain, in: Anreiter P., Bartosiewicz L., Jerem E., Meid W. (eds.): Man and Animal World. Studies in Archaeozoology, Archaeology, Anthropology and Paleolinguistics in memoriam Sándor Bökönyi. Budapest, 157-178. 2000 Refuse and modiied bone from Százhalombatta-Földvár, in: Poroszlai, I., Vicze, M. (eds.): Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report I. Százhalombatta, 97-102. CSÁNYI M., STANCZIK I. 1992 Túrkeve-Terehalom, in: Meier-Arendt W. (ed.): Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und heiss. Frankfurt am Main, 159-165. CHOYKE A. M., BARTOSIEWICZ L. 1987 Animal exploitation and its relationships to bone deposition at Lovasberény-Mihályvár. Alba Regia 23, 7-18. 1999 Bronze Age animal keeping in Western Hungary, in: Jerem E., Poroszlai I. (eds.): Archaeology of the Bronze Age and Iron Age: Experimental archaeology, environmental archaeology, archaeological parks. Budapest, 239-249. 2005 Skating with Horses: continuity and parallelism in prehistoric Hungary. Revue de Paléobiologie 10, 317-326. CHOYKE A. M., VRETEMARK M., STEN A. 2003 Levels of social identity expressed in the refuse and worked bone from Middle Bronze Age Százhalombatta-Földvár, Vatya culture, Hungary, in: Jones O’day S., van Neer W., Ervynck A. (eds.): Behaviour Behind Bones. he Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion Status and Identity. Oxford, 177-189. CHRISTENSEN J. 2004 Warfare in the European Neolithic. Acta Archaeologica 75, 129-156. CHROPOVSKÝ B., HERRMANN J. (EDS.) 1982 Beiträge zum bronzezeitlichen Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa. Berlin/Nitra. COLES J. 2002 Chariots of the Gods? Landscape and imagery at Frännarp, Sweden. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 68, 215-246. CSÁNYI M. 2003 Tiszaug-Kéménytet: A Bronze Age settlement in the Tiszazug, in: Visy Z., Nagy M. (eds.): Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millennium. Budapest, 143-144. CZEBRESZUK J. 2001 Schyłek neolitu i początki epoki brązu w streie południowo-zachodniobałtyckiej (III i początki II tys. przed Chr.). Alternatywny model kultury. Poznań. 2004 Stratigraphien des zentralen Siedlungsareales und des Grabens, Stratygraia strefy centralnej i fosy, in: Czebreszuk J., Müller J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band, Tom I. Forschungsstand – Erste Ergebnisse – Das östliche Feuchtbodenareal, Stan badań – Pierwsze wyniki – Wschodnia, torfowa część stanowiska. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 2. Poznań/Kiel/ /Rahden/Westf., 79-92. 2007 Amber between the Baltic and the Aegean in the 3rd and 2nd Millennia BC (An Outline of Major Issues), in: Galanaki I., Tomas H., Galanakis Y., Laineur R. (eds.) Aegaeum 27. Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas. Prehistory Across Borders. Proceedings of the International Conference, Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe University of Zagreb, 11-14 April 2005. Liège, 363-370. 2011 Bursztyn w kulturze mykeńskiej. Poznań. CZEBRESZUK J., MÜLLER J. (EDS.) 2004 Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band, Tom I. Forschungsstand – Erste Ergebnisse – Das östliche Feuchtbodenareal, Stan badań – Pierwsze wyniki – Wschodnia, torfowa część stanowiska. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 2. Poznań/Kiel/Rahden/Westf. CZEBRESZUK J., DUCKE B., MÜLLER J., SILSKA P. 2004 Siedlungsstrukturen und Siedlungstopographie, Struktura i topograia osady, in: Czebreszuk J., Müller J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und For- Bibliography 155 schungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band, Tom I. Forschungsstand – Erste Ergebnisse – Das östliche Feuchtbodenareal, Stan badań – Pierwsze wyniki – Wschodnia, torfowa część stanowiska. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 2. Poznań/Kiel/Rahden/Westf., 71-77. CZEBRESZUK J., MÜLLER J. 2004a Die Lage des Fundplatzes, Położenie stanowiska, in: Czebreszuk J., Müller J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band, Tom I. Forschungsstand – Erste Ergebnisse – Das östliche Feuchtbodenareal, Stan badań – Pierwsze wyniki – Wschodnia, torfowa część stanowiska. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 2. Poznań/Kiel/ /Rahden/Westf., 39-43. 2004b Zur absolutchronologischen Datierung des Siedlungsgeschehens, Chronologia bezwzględna osadnictwa pradziejowego, in: Czebreszuk J., Müller J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band, Tom I. Forschungsstand – Erste Ergebnisse – Das östliche Feuchtbodenareal, Stan badań – Pierwsze wyniki – Wschodnia, torfowa część stanowiska. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 2. Poznań/Kiel/Rahden/Westf., 293-308. 2004c Zusammenfassung und Ausblick, Zakończenie, in: Czebreszuk J., Müller J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band, Tom I. Forschungsstand – Erste Ergebnisse – Das östliche Feuchtbodenareal, Stan badań – Pierwsze wyniki – Wschodnia, torfowa część stanowiska. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 2. Poznań/Kiel/ /Rahden/Westf., 311-313. CZEBRESZUK J., MÜLLER J., SILSKA P. 2004 Forschungsgeschichte und Grabungsverlauf, Historia badań stanowiska, in: Czebreszuk J., Müller J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band, Tom I. Forschungsstand – Erste Ergebnisse – Das östliche Feuchtbodenareal, Stan badań – Pierwsze wyniki – Wschodnia, torfowa część stanowiska. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 2. Poznań/Kiel/Rahden/Westf., 13-35. 156 Bibliography CZEBRESZUK J., KADROW S., MÜLLER J. (EDS.) 2008 Defensive Structures from Central Europe to the Aegean in the 3rd and 2nd millenium BC. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 5. Poznań/Bonn. CZEBRESZUK J., KNEISEL J., MÜLLER J. 2010 Eine Bernsteinperle aus Bruszczewo/Paciorek bursztynowy z Bruszczewa, in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/Poznań, 693-702. CZEBRESZUK J., SUCHOWSKA P. 2010 Warstwa kulturowa w centralnej części stanowiska/Die Kulturschicht am östlichen Spornrand, in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski Band II/Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/Poznań, 545-566. CZEBRESZUK J., SZYDŁOWSKI M. 2010 Badania powierzchniowe wokół stanowiska w Bruszczewie/Die Prospektionen im Umfeld von Bruszczewo, in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/Poznań, 83-92. CZERNIAK L. 2008 Najstarsze społeczności rolnicze. Nowa epoka, in: M. Kobusiewicz (ed.) Pradzieje Wielkopolski. Od epoki kamienia do średniowiecza. Poznań, 147-201. DANI J., MÁTHÉ M. SZ., SZABÓ G. V. 2003 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: Kacsó C. (ed.): Bronzezeitliche Kulturerscheinungen im karpatischen Raum. Die Beziehungen zu den benachbarten Gebieten. Ehrensymposium für Alexandru Vulpe zum 70. Geburtstag. Baia Mare, 93-118. DANI J., SZABÓ G. V. 2004 Temetkezési szokások a Polgár határában feltárt középső bronzkori temetőkben, in: MΩMOΣ III. Őskoros Kutatók III. Összejövetelének konferencia- kötete. Halottkultusz és temetkezés. Szombathely-Bozsok, 2002. október 7-9. Szombathely, 91-119. DAVID W. 1993 Zur Ornamentik des alt- und mittelbronzezeitlichen „Hajdúsámson-Apa-Kreises“, in: Pavúk I. (ed.): Actes du XII Congrés International des Sciences Préhistoriques. Bratislava, 1-7 sept. 1991. Bratislava, 78-86. 1998a Zum Ende der bronzezeitlichen Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken, in: Küster H., Lang A., Schauer P. (eds.): Archäologische Forschungen in urgeschichtlichen Siedlungslandschaten. Festschrit für Georg Kossack zum 75. Geburtstag. Bonn, 231-267. 1998b Zu Variantengliederung, Verbreitung und Datierung der kosziderzeitlichen Sichelnadeln, in: Ciugudean H., Gogâltan F. (eds.): he Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Alba Iulia 1997. Alba Iulia, 281-370. 2001 Zu den Beziehungen zwischen Donau-Karpatenraum, osteuropäischen Steppengebiet und ägäischanatolischem Raum zur Zeit der mykenischen Schachtgräber unter Berücksichtigung neuerer Funde aus Südbayern. Anodos. Studies of Ancient World 1, 2001. Trnava, 51-80. 2002 Studien zu Ornamentik und Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Depotfundgruppe Hajdúsámson-Apa-Ighiel-Zajta. Alba Iulia. 2007 Gold and Bone Artefacts as Evidence of Mutual Contact between the Aegean, the Carpathian Basin and Southern Germany in the Second Millennium BC, in: Galanaki I., Tomas H., Galanakis Y., Laineur R. (eds.): Aegaeum 27. Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas. Prehistory Across Borders. Proceedings of the International Conference, Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe University of Zagreb, 11-14 April 2005. Liège, 411-420. DELLA CASA PH. 2003 Concepts of Copper Age mobility in the Alps based on land use, raw material and framework of contact. Preistoria Alpina 39, 203-210. 2002 Landschaten, Siedlungen, Ressourcen – Langzeitszenarien menschlicher Aktivität in ausgewählten alpinen Gebieten der Schweiz, Italiens und Frankreichs. Montagnac. DIERS S. 2010 Feinstratigraie und Chronologie: Archäologische und palynologische Analysen. Eine Fallstudie zum Fundplatz Bruszczewo 5 in Großpolen/Precyzyjna stratygraia i chronologia: analizy archeologiczne i palinologiczne. Studium na przykładzie stanowiska Bruszczewo 5 w Wielkopolsce, in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/ /Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/ /Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/Poznań, 335-460. DUCKE B., MÜLLER J. 2004 Die Geomagnetische Prospektion, Prospekcja geomagnetyczna, in: Czebreszuk J., Müller J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band, Tom I. Forschungsstand – Erste Ergebnisse – Das östliche Feuchtbodenareal, Stan badań – Pierwsze wyniki – Wschodnia, torfowa część stanowiska. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 2. Poznań/Kiel/Rahden/Westf. 61-68. EARLE T. 1997 How Chiefs Come to Power: he Political Economy in Prehistory. Stanford. EARLE T., KISS V., KULCSÁR G., SZEVERÉNYI V., POLÁNYI T., CZEBRESZUK J., JAEGER M., POSPIESZNY Ł. 2012 Bronze Age landscapes in the Benta Valley, Hungarian Archaeology E-Journal, Winter 2012; https://www.hungarianarchaeology.hu/?page_id= 279#post-3233 EIBNER C. 1982 Kupfererzbergbau in Österreichs Alpen, in: Hänsel B. (ed.): Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v. Chr. Berlin, 399-408. ENDRŐDI A., GYULAI F. 1999 Soroksár-Várhegy a Fortiied Bronze Age Settlement in the Outskirts of Budapest. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 6-34. EPIMACHOV A., KORJAKOVA L. 2004 Streitwagen der eurasischen Steppe in der Bronzezeit: Das Wolga-Uralgebiet und Kasachstan, in: Fansa M., Burmeister S. (eds.): Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation Wagen im Vorderen Orient und Europa. Mainz am Rhein, 221-236. ETTEL P. 2008 Die frühbronzezeitlichen Höhensiedlungen in Mitteldeutschland und Mitteleuropa – Stand der Forschung. Unpublished manuscript; DFG project: „Die Höhensiedlungen der Mikro- und Makroregion – ökonomische, politisch-soziale, administrative und kultische Zentralorte“, Bereich für Ur- und Frühgeschichte an der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena. 2010 Die frühbronzezeitlichen Höhensiedlungen in Mitteldeutschland und Mitteleuropa – Stand der For- Bibliography 157 schung, in: Meller H., Bertemes F. (eds.): Der Grif nach den Sternen – wie Europas Eliten zu Macht und Reichtum kamen. Internationales Symposium in Halle (Saale) 16.-21.Februar 2005. Halle, 351-380. FEKETE C. 2005 he incrusted pottery at the Bronze Age settlement of Százhalombatta, in: Poroszlai, I., Vicze, M. (eds.): Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report II. Százhalombatta, 65-64. FISCHL K. P. 2006 Ároktő-Dongóhalom bronzkori tell telep. Bronzezeitliche Tell-Siedlung in Ároktő-Dongóhalom. Miskolc. FISCHL K. P., KISS V., KULCSÁR G. 2001 Beiträge zum Gebrauch der tragbaren Feuerherde (Pyraunoi) im Karpatenbecken II. Spätbronzezeit-Früheisenzeit, in: Kacsó C. (ed.): Der Nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit. Symposium Baia Mare 7.-10. Oktober 1998. Baia Mare, 125-156. FISCHL K. P., KIENLIN T. L., PUSZTAI T., BRÜCKNER H., KLUMPP S., TUGYA B., LENGYEL G. 2014 Tard-Tatárdomb: An Update on the Intensive Survey Work on the Multi-Layer Hatvan and Füzesabony Period Settlement, in: Kienlin T. L., Valde-Nowak P., Korczyńska M., Cappenberg K., Ociepka J. (eds.): Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians. Oxford, 341-379. FOKKENS H. 1999 Cattle and martiality: changing relations between man and landscape in the Late Neolithic and the Bronze Age, in: Fabech C., Ringtved J. (eds.): Settlement and Landscape. Højbjerg, 35-44. FONTIJN D. 2002 Sacriicial Landscapes: Cultural Biographies of hings, Objects and ‘Natural Places’ in the Bronze Age of the Southern Netherlands, C. 2300-600 BC. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 33, 34. FORENBAHER S. 1993 Radiocarbon dates and absolute chronology of the central European Early Bronze Age. Antiquity 67, 235-256. FRIEDMAN J., ROWLANDS M. J. 1977 Notes towards an epigenetic model of the evolution of ‘civilisation’, in: Friedman J., Rowlands M. J. (eds.): he Evolution of Social Systems. London, 201-276. FURMÁNEK V. 2000 Eine Eisensichel aus Gánovce. Zur Interpretation des ältesten Eisengegenstandes in Mitteleuropa. Prähistorische Zeitschrit 75, 153-160. 158 Bibliography 2003 Kulturmobilität im Gebiet der Slowakei von der Mittleren bis zur Spätbronzezeit, in: hrane H. (ed.): Diachronic Settlement Studies in the Metal Ages. Moesgard, 99-107. 2004 Zlatý vek v Karpatoch. Keramika a kov doby bronzovej na Slovensku (2300 – 800 pred n. l.). Nitra. FURMÁNEK V., JAKAB J. 1997 Menschliche Skelettreste aus bronzezeitlichen Siedlungen in der Slowakei, in: Dobiat C., Leidorf K. (eds.): Sonderbestattungen in der Bronzezeit im östlichen Mitteleuropa. Rahden/Westf., 14-23. FURMÁNEK V., ILLÁŠOVÁ L., MARKOVÁ K. 1999 Metallgießerei in Včelince. Východoslovenský pravek, Special Issue: Archaeometallurgy in the Central Europe, 7-14. FURMÁNEK V., MARKOVÁ K. 1992 Siedlung des Tell-Typs in Včelince, in: Grundlagen und Ergebnisse moderner Archäologie. 100 jahre nach Schliemanns Tod. Berlin, 293-303. 1999 Die westliche Peripherie der Otomani-Kultur in der Slowakei, in: Gancarski J. (ed.): Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony – rozwój, chronologia, gospodarka. Krosno, 73-83. 2001 Beitrag der Ausgrabung der Siedlung in Včelince zur Problematik der Bronzezeit im heissgebiet, in: Kacsó C. (ed.): Der Nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit. Symposium Baia Mare 7.-10. Oktober 1998. Baia Mare, 105-118. FURMÁNEK V., VELIAČIK L., VLADÁR J. 1999 Die Bronzezeit im slowakischen Raum. Rahden/ /Westf. FÜLEKY G., VICZE M. 2007 Soil and archaeological evidences of the periods of the tell development of Százhalombatta-Földvár https://www.stsn.it/en/pubblicazioni/13-stsn/20memorie-di-serie-a-anno-2007.html GÁLE E., JUHÁSZ I., SÜMEGI P. 2005 Environmental Archaeology in North-Eastern Hungary, Budapest. GALE N., STOS-GALE Z. 2000 Lead isotope analyses applied to provenance studies, in: Ciliberto E., Spoto G. (eds.): Modern Analytical methods in Art and Archaeology. Chemical Analyses Series 155. New York, 503-584. GALE R. 1995 he Charcoal, in: Shennan S.J.: Bronze Age Copper Producers of the Eastern Alps: Excavations at St. Veit Klinglberg. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 27. Bonn, 233-236. GANCARSKI J. 1994 Pogranicze kultury trzcinieckiej i Otomani-Füzesabony – grupa jasielska, (in:) Problemy kultury trzcinieckiej. Rzeszów, 75-104. 1999 Wehranlage vom Beginn der Bronzezeit in Trzcinica, Gde. Jasło, in: Gancarski J. (ed.): Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony – rozwój, chronologia, gospodarka. Krosno, 131-144. 2002 Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony po północnej stronie Karpat, in: Gancarski J. (ed.): Między Mykenami a Bałtykiem. Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony. Krosno/ /Warszawa, 103-124. GANCARSKI J., GINALSKI J. 2001 Osada obronna z wczesnej epoki brązu w Trepczy koło Sanoka, (in:) Gancarski J. (ed.): Neolit i początki epoki brązu w Karpatach polskich. Krosno, 305-318. GAŠAJ D. 1983 Výsledky záchranného výskumu opevnenej osady otomanskej kultury v Rozhanovciach, Archeologické Rozhledy 35, 130-137. 2002a Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony w Słowacji wschodniej, he Otomani-Füzesabony culture in eastern Slovakia, in: Gancarski J. (ed.): Między Mykenami a Bałtykiem. Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony. Krosno/ /Warszawa, 15-19. 2002b Osady warowne i życie gospodarcze. Fortiied settlements and their economic life, in: Gancarski J. (ed.): Między Mykenami a Bałtykiem. Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony. Krosno/Warszawa, 21-49. 2002c Chronologia, Chronology, in: Gancarski J. (ed.): Między Mykenami a Bałtykiem. Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony. Krosno/Warszawa, 95-101. GAŠAJ D., OLEXA L. 1992 Nižná Myšl’a ein bronzezeitliches Handelszentrum in der Ostslowakei. Eine Ausstellung vom 1.12.-8.1 im Eingangsbereich der Universitätsbibliothek. Wuppertal. 1995 Sedemnasta etapa výskumu v Nižnej Myšli. Archeologické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 1993, 46-47. GASCÓ J. 1996 Chronologie de l’âge du bronze et du premier âge du fer de la France continentale, Acta Archaeologica 67, 227-250. GĂVAN A. 2012 Metallurgy and Bronze Age Tell-Settlements from Western Romania (I). Ephemeris Napocensis 22, 57-90. GEDIGA B. 1983 Wczesnobrązowe osiedla obronne na ziemiach polskich. Archeologia Polski 28, 321-350. GEDL M. 1982 Frühbronzezeitliche Burgen in Polen, in: Chropovský B., Herrmann J. (eds.): Beiträge zum bronzezeitlichen Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa. Berlin/Nitra, 189-207. GEDL M. (ED.) 1985 Frühbronzezeitliche befestigte Siedlungen in Mitteleuropa. Warszawa/Kraków. GISSEL CH. 2015 he economic importance of plant resources in the Pannonian Basin – Archaeobotanical research on the living area of the excavated Bronze Age house of Kakucs-Turján, Hungary. Unpublished M.A. thesis manuscript Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Christian-Albrechts Universität zu Kiel. GOGÂLTAN F. 1998 Early and middle bronze age chronology in southwest Romania. General aspects, (in:) Ciugudean H., Gogâltan F. (eds.): he early and middle bronze age in the carpathian Basin Proceedings of the International Symposium from Alba Iulia, 10-12 June, 1993, Alba Iulia. 191-212. 2003 Die neolitische Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken. Ein Überblick, in: Jerem E., Raczky P. (eds.): Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschengeschichte in Mittel- und Südeuropa. Festschrit für Nándor Kalicz zum 75.Geburtstag. Budapest, 223-262. 2005 Der Beginn der bronzezeitlichen Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken: Chronologische Probleme, in: Horejs B., Jung R., Kaiser E., Teržan B. (eds.): Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidmet, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 121. Bonn, 161-179. 2008 Fortiied Bronze Age Tell Settlements in the Carpathian Basin. A general overwiev, in: Czebreszuk, J., Kadrow S., Müller J. (eds.): Defensive Structures from Central Europe to the Aegean in the 3rd and 2nd millenium BC. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 5. Poznań/Bonn, 39-56. 2010 Die Tells und der Urbanisierungsprozess, in: Horejs B., Kienlin T. (eds.): Siedlung und Handwerk. Studien zu sozialen Kontaxt in der Bronzezeit, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 194. Bonn, 13-46. GOLDMANN K. 1981 Guss in verlorener Sandform – das Hauptverfahren alteuropäischer Bronzegiesser? Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 11, 109-111. GÖRSDORF J., MARKOVÁ K., FURMÁNEK V. 2004 Some new 14C data to the Bronze Age in the Slovakia. Geochronometria 23, 79-91. Bibliography 159 GRÄSLUND A. S. 2004 Dogs in graves – a question of symbolism?, in: Fritzell B. S. (ed.): Pecus. Man and animal in antiquity. Proceedings of the conference at the Swedish Institute in Rome, September 9-12, Rome, 167-176. GREEN F. J. 1995 he plant remains from the Klinglberg, in: Shennan S.J.: Bronze Age Copper Producers of the Eastern Alps: Excavations at St. Veit Klinglberg. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 27. Bonn, 223-231. GRÖSSLER H. 1907 Das Fürstengrab im großen Galgenhügel am Paulsschachte bei Helmsdorf (im Mansfelder Seekreise). Jahresschrit Halle 6, 1-87. GÓRSKI J. 2003 Uwagi o datowaniu i kontekście znalezisk ceramiki o „cechach południowych” w streie zasięgu kultury trzcinieckiej, (in:) Gancarski J. (ed.): Epoka brązu i wczesna epoka żelaza w Karpatach polskich. Materiały z konferencji. Krosno, 89-137. GÜNTHER W. 1995 Mining activities in the area of St. Veit and St. Johann im Pongau, Shennan S.J.: Bronze Age Copper Producers of the Eastern Alps: Excavations at St. Veit Klinglberg, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 27. Bonn, 253-257. GYULAI F. 1992 Umwelt, Planzebau, Ernährung, in: Meier-Arendt W. (ed.): Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und heiss, Frankfurt am Main, 66-68. 1993 Environment and agriculture in Bronze Age Hungary. Budapest. HAAS J. N., WAHLMÜLLER N. 2004 Pollenanalytische Untersuchungen im Bereich der bronzezeitlichen Seeuferstation „Bruszczewo“/Badania palinologiczne na stanowisku z epoki brązu w „Bruszczewie”, in: Czebreszuk J., Müller J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band, Tom I. Forschungsstand – Erste Ergebnisse – Das östliche Feuchtbodenareal, Stan badań – Pierwsze wyniki – Wschodnia, torfowa część stanowiska. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 2. Poznań/Kiel/Rahden/Westf., 273-279. 2010 Floren- Vegetations- und Milieuveränderungen im Zuge der bronzezeitlichen Besiedlung von Bruszczewo (Polen) und der landwirtschatlichen Nutzung der umliegenden Gebiete/ Przemiany środowiska, wegetacji i lory w ramach osadnictwa epoki brązu 160 Bibliography w Bruszczewie oraz gospodarcze użytkowanie otoczenia osady, in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/Poznań, 50-81. HAFNER A. 1995 ‘Volgrifdolch und Löfelbeil’, Statussymbole der Frühbronzezeit. Archäologie der Schweiz 18(4), 134-141. HÁJEK L. 1954 Zláty poklad v Barci u Košic. Archeologické Rozhledy 6, 584-587. HAJNALOVÁ E. 1972 Obilniny pestované 1600 rokov pred n. l. v okolí Spišskeho Stvrtku. Agrikultura 11, 19-23. 1983 Rastlinné zvyšky z opevnenej osady doby bronzovej (Jánove, čast Machalovce), Archeologické Rozhledy 35, 606-608. 1989 Katalóg zvyškov semien a plodov v archeologických nálezoch na slovensku, in: Hajnalová, E. (ed.): Súcasné Poznatky z Archeobotaniky Na Slovensku. Nitra, 3-192. 1993 Obilie v archeobotanických nálezoch na Slovensku. Nitra. 1996 Archeobotanické nálezy z Nižnej Myšle. Študijne Zvesti Archeologickego Ústavu Vied 32, 131-138. 1991 A clay loaf with glumes from Nižná Myšľa (about 1500 B.C.) (Czechoslovakia), in: Hajnalová E. (ed.): Palaeoethnobotany and Archaeology. International Work-Group for Palaeoethnobotany 8th Symposium Nitra-Nové Vozokany. Nitra, 125-126. HAJNALOVÁ E., FURMÁNEK V., MARKOVÁ K. 1999 Eicheln aus dem Objekt 21, 86 aus der Siedlung in Včelince, in: Bátora J., Peška J. (eds.): Aktuelle Probleme der Erforschung der Frühbronzezeit in Böhmen und Mähren und in der Slowakei. Nitra, 231-239. HANSEN S. 2002 „Überausstattungen“ in Gräbern und Horten der Frühbronzezeit, Müller J. (ed.): Vom Endneolithikum zur Frühbronzezeit: Muster sozialen Wandels? Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 90. Bonn, 151-174. HARDING A. 2006 Enclosing and excluding in Bronze Age Europe, in: Harding A., Sievers S., Venclová N. (eds.): Enclosing the Past: inside and outside in prehistory. Sheield, 97-115. 2007 Warriors and Weapons in Bronze Age. Budapest. HARDING A., HUGHES-BROCK H. 1974 Amber in the Mycenaean World. Annual of the British School at Athens 69, 145-172. HARTYÁNYI B. P. 1982 Tiszaalpár-Várdomb bronzkori lakótelepéről származó mag- és termésleletek (Die von der Bronzezeitlichen Wohnsiedlung Tiszaalpár-Várdomb stammende Korn- und Fruchtfunde). Cumania 7, 133-286. HÄNSEL B. 2009 Die Bronzezeit (2200-800 v. Chr.), in: von Schnurbein S. (ed.): Atlas der Vorgeschichte. Stuttgart, 108-149. HÄNSEL B., WEIHERMANN P. 2000 Ein neu erworbener Goldhort aus dem Karpatenbecken im Berliner Museum für Ur- und Frühgeschichte. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 32, 7-30. HÄNSEL B., MATOŠEVIĆ D., MIHOVILIĆ K., TERŽAN B. 2009 Zur Sozialarchäologie der befestigten Siedlung von Monkodonja (Istrien) und ihrer Gräber am Tor. Prähistorische Zeitschrit 84 (2), 151-180. HELL M. 1921 Eine bronzezeitliche Höhensiedlung bei St. Johann im Pongau in Salzburg und ihre Beziehungen zum alpinen Kupferbergbau. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesselschat in Wien 51, 194-203. 1924 Eine bronzezeitliche Siedlung in Maxglan bei Salzburg. Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrit 10, 89-98. 1927 Der Götschenberg bei Bischofshofen in Salzburg und seine Beziehungen zum Beginn des alpinen Kupferbergbaues. Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrit 14, 8-23. HENSEL Z., DĄBROWSKI J. 2005 Metallgießerei in der älteren Bronzezeit in Polen. Prähistorische Zeitschrit 80 (1), 5-20. HEUSSNER U., WAŻNY T. 2010 Synchronisation der Dendrodaten für Bruszczewo nach der ostdeutschen Kurve/Synchronizacja dat dendrochronologicznych z Bruszczewa z krzywą wschodnioniemiecką, in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/Poznań, 244-247. HILDEBRANDT-RADKE I. 2010 Wiek i główne fazy procesów denudacji i akumulacji w świetle uwarunkowań topograicznych stanowiska archeologicznego w Bruszczewie/Das geologische Alter und die Hauptphasen der Denudations- und Akkumulationsprozesse vor dem Hintergrund topograischer Verhältnisse des archäologischen Fundplatzes Bruszczewo in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/ /Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/ /Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/Poznań, 15-38. HODDER I. 1982 Symbols in action. Ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture. Cambridge. HORVÁTH T. 1999 Contribution to the study of Hungarian Amberinds. Bándi Gábor emlékkötet. Savaria 24, 3, 277-289. 2004a A középső bronzkori vatyai kultúra kőeszközeinek komplex régészeti és petrográiai feldolgozása https://ns.archeo.mta.hu/eng/munkatars/horvathtunde/ 2004b Néhány megjegyzés a Vatyai kultúra fémművességéhez-technológiai megigyelések a kultúra kőeszközein. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 11-64. 2012 Metallurgy of the Vatya Culture. Technological Observations on the Stone Tools of the Culture, in: Jaeger M., Czebreszuk J., Fischl K. P. (eds.): Enclosed Space-Open Society. Contact and exchange in the context of Bronze Age Defensive Settlements in Central Europe. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 10. Bonn/Poznań, 53-117. HORVÁTH T., KOZÁK M., PETŐ M. 2000 he stone-tools of Százhalombatta-Sánchegy, in: Poroszlai I., Vicze M. (eds.): Poroszlai I., Vicze M. (eds.): Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report I. Százhalombatta, 103-119. 2001 he complex investigations of the stone artefacts from Vatya earthworks of Fejér county. Part I. Alba Regia 30, 7-20. HÖFER P. 1906 Der Leubinger Grabhügel. Jahresschrit für die Vorgeschichte der sächsisch-thüringischen Länder 5, 1-59. HÜTTEL H. G. 1981 Bronzezeitliche Trensen in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Prähistorische Bronzefunde 16(2). München. IVANOVA M. 2008 Befestigte Siedlungen auf dem Balkan, in der Ägäis und in Westanatolien, ca. 5.000-2.000 v. Chr. Münster/New York/München/Berlin. Bibliography 161 INNERHOFER F. 1997 Frühbronzezeitliche Barrenhortfunde – Die Schätze aus dem Boden kehren zurück, in: Hänsel A., Hänsel B. (eds.): Gaben an die Götter. Schätze der Bronzezeit Europas. Berlin, 53-59. JAEGER M. 2010 Stanowisko Pudliszki 5 w ramach domniemanej sieci wczesnobrązowych osad obronnych Wielkopolski/ /Untersuchungen zum Fundplatz 5 Pudliszki und seine Zugehörigkeit zum Netz frühbronzezeitlicher befestigter Siedlungen in Großpolen, in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens/Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/ /Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/ /Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/Poznań, 784-819. 2011 Transkarpackie kontakty kultury Otomani-Füzesabony, in: Gancarski J. (ed.): Transkarpackie kontakty kulturowe w epoce kamienia, brązu i wczesnej epoce żelaza. Krosno, 171-188. 2012a Kościan Group of Unetice Culture and Fortiied Settlement in Bruszczewo. heir Role in Micro- and Macro-regional Exchange, in: Jaeger M., Czebreszuk J., Fischl K. P. (eds.): Enclosed Space-Open Society. Contact and Exchange in the context of Bronze Age Defensive Settlements in Central Europe. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 10. Bonn/Poznań, 167-176. 2012b Social Archaeology or Archaeology of Elites? Some Remarks on an Early Bronze Age Grave from Bruszczewo, in: Kienlin T., Zimmermann A. (eds.): Beyond Elites. Alternatives to Hierarchical Systems in Modelling Social Formations. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 215. Bonn, 393-411. 2012c he Relationship Between Man and Environment in the Current Stage of Research of Fortiied Settlements in the Carpathian Basin in the First Half of the 2nd Millenium BC, in: Hildebrandt-Radke I., Czebreszuk J., Dörler W., Müller J. (eds.): Anthropogenic Pressure in the Neolithic and Bronze Age in the Central-European Lowlands. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 8, Poznań-Bonn, 149-159. 2014 Stone fortiications of the settlement in Spišský Štvrtok. A contribution to the discussion on the long-ranging contacts of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture. Prähistorische Zeitschrit 89(2), 291-304. 2016 Middle Bronze Age Amber Finds in Hungary, in: Chellini R., Montanaro A. C. (eds.): Proceedings of the 1st International Conference about the Ancient Roads, Florence/San Marino, in print. 162 Bibliography JAEGER M., CZEBRESZUK J., MÜLLER J. 2008 Pudliszki site 5. An old hypothesis revisited, in: Czebreszuk J., Kadrow S., Müller J. (eds.): Defensive Structures from Central Europe to the Aegean in the 3rd and 2nd millenium BC. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 5. Poznań/Bonn, 135-154. JAEGER M., CZEBRESZUK J. 2010 Does a periphery look like that? he cultural landscape of the Unetice culture’s Kościan group, in: Kiel Graduate School “Human Development in Landscapes” (eds.): Landscapes and Human Development: he Contribution of European Archaeology. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 191. Bonn, 217-235. JAEGER M., CZEBRESZUK J., FISCHL K. P. (EDS.) 2012 Enclosed Space-Open Society. Contact and exchange in the context of Bronze Age Defensive Settlements in Central Europe. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 10. Bonn/Poznań. JAEGER M., KULCSÁR G. 2013 Kakucs-Balla-Domb. A Case Study in the Absolute and Relative Chronology of the Vatya Culture. Acta Archaeologica Hungarica 64, 289-320. JAEGER M., OLEXA L. 2014 he Metallurgists from Nižná Myšl’a. A Contribution to the Discussion on the Metallurgy in Defensive Settlements of the Otomani-Füzesabony Culture. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 44, 163-176. JAKAB J. 1978 Intentional Interference on the Skeletons of the Otomani people Found at the Cultic Object in Spišský Štvrtok. Anthropologie 16, 139-141. 1999 Zeugnisse von Anthropophagie in der Siedlung der Otomani-Kultur in Nižná Myšl’a, in: Gancarski J. (ed.): Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony – rozwój, chronologia, gospodarka. Krosno, 201-224. 2004 Ľudské obete z kultového objektu v Spišskom Štvrtku (somatická charakteristika), in: Bátora J., Furmánek V., Veliačik L. (ed.): Einlüsse und Kontakte alteuropäischer Kulturen. Festschrit für Jozef Vladár zum 70. Geburtstag. Nitra, 285-308. JAKAB J., OLEXA L., VLADÁR J. 1999 Ein Kultobjekt der Otomani-Kultur in Nižná Myšl’a. Slovenska Archeologia 47 (1), 91-127. JOCKENHÖVEL A. 1985 Bemerkungen zur Verbreitung der älterbronzezeitlichen Tondüsen in Mitteleuropa, in: Gedl M. (ed.): Frühbronzezeitliche befestigte Siedlungen in Mitteleuropa. Warszawa/Kraków, 196-205. 1990 Bronzezeitliche Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa. Untersuchungen zur Struktur frühmetallzeitlicher Gesellschaten, in: Bader T. (ed.): Orientalisch-Ägäische Einlüsse in der europäischen Bronzezeit. Mainz, 209-228. JUNK M., KRAUSE R., PERNICKA E. 2001 Ösenringbarren and the Classical Ösenring Copper, in: Metz W. H., van Beek B. L., H. Steegstra H. (eds.): Patina. Essays presented to Jay Jordan Butler on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Groningen/Amsterdam, 353-366. KABÁT J. 1955a Otomanská osada v Barci u Košic. Archeologické Rozhledy 7, 594-600. 1955b Opevnéní otomanské osady v Barci. Archeologické Rozhledy 7, 742-746. KADROW S. 2001 U progu nowej epoki. Gospodarka i społeczeństwo wczesnego okresu epoki brązu w Europie Środkowej. Kraków. KALICZ N. 1982 Die terminologischen und chronologischen Probleme der Kupfer- und Bronzezeit in Ungarn, in: Aspes A. (ed.): Il passaggio dal Neolitico all‘Età del Bronzo nell‘Europa centrale e nella regione Alpina. X Simposio Internazionale sulla ine del Neolitico e gli inizi dell‘Età del Bronzo in Europa. Verona, 117-137. KARG S., BAJER S., FINGERHUT D. 2004 Erste botanische Großrestanalysen aus dem östlichen Feuchtbodenareal (Pierwsze wyniki badań makroszczątków z torfowej części stanowiska), in: Czebreszuk J., Müller J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band, Tom I. Forschungsstand – Erste Ergebnisse – Das östliche Feuchtbodenareal, Stan badań – Pierwsze wyniki – Wschodnia, torfowa część stanowiska. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 2. Poznań/Kiel/ /Rahden/Westf., 263-272. KAUFMANN D. (ED.) 1990 Tagung über befestigte neolithische und äneolitische Siedlungen und Plätze in Mitteleuropa im Jahre 1988. Jahresschrit für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 73. KEELEY L. 1997 Frontier Warfare in the Early Neolithic, in: Miller D., Frayer D. (eds.): Troubled Times. Violence and Warfare in the Past. Amsterdam, 303-319. KEELEY L. H., FONTANA M., QUICK R. 2007 Bales and Bastions: he Universal Features of Fortiications. Journal of Archaeological Research 15, 55-95. KEMENCZEI T. 2003 Bronze Age metallurgy, in: Visy Z., Nagy M. (eds.): Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millennium. Budapest, 167-174. KIENLIN T. 2007 Von den Schmieden der Beile: Zu Verbreitung und Angleichung metallurgischen Wissens im Verlauf der Frühbronzezeit. Prähistorische Zeitschrit 82(1), 1-22. 2010 Traditions and Transformations: Approaches to Eneolithic (Copper Age) and Bronze Age Metalworking and Society in Eastern Central Europe and the Carpathian Basin. British Archaeological Reports. Oxford. KIENLIN T., STÖLLNER T. 2009 Singen Copper, Alpine Settlement and Early Bronze Age Mining: Is here a Need for Elites and Strongholds?, in: Kienlin T., Roberts B. (eds.): Metals and Societies. Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 169. Bonn, 67-104. KIM J. 2001 Elite Strategies and the Spread of Technological Innovation: he Spread of Iron in the Bronze Age Societies of Denmark and Southern Korea. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20, 442-478. KISS V. 1998 Data to the eastern relations of Transdanubian Incrusted Pottery Culture, in: Ciugudean H., Gogâltan F. (eds.): he Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Alba Iulia 1997, Alba Iulia, 161-189. 2009 he Life Cycle of Middle Bronze Age Bronze Artefacts from the Western Part of the Carpathian Basin, in: Kienlin T., Roberts B. (eds.): Metals and Societies. Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 169. Bonn, 328-335. 2012 Middle Bronze Age Encrusted Pottery in Western Hungary. Budapest. KLICHOWSKA M. 1971 Makroskopowe szczątki roślin z wykopalisk w Bruszczewie (powiat kościański). Przyroda Polski Zachodniej 9, 93-95. KŁOSIŃSKA E. 1997 Starszy okres epoki brązu w dorzeczu Warty. Wrocław. Bibliography 163 KNEISEL J. 2010a Die Grabungskampagnen Bruszczewo 2004-2006/ /Badania wykopaliskowe w Bruszczewie w sezonach 2004-2006, in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/ /Poznań, 93-166. 2010b Das östliche Feuchtbodenareal: Stratigraie des Schnitt 30, Fläche 1-4/Wschodnia, wilgotna strefa stanowiska: stratygraia wykopu 30, działki 1-4, in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/Poznań, 167-232. 2010c Die Knochen- und Geweihartefakte der Schnitte 14-17/Wyroby z kości i poroża z wykopów 14-17, in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/Poznań, 653-692. 2010d Eine Siedlungsbestattung der Frühbronzezeit/Pochówek na osadzie z wczesnej epoki brązu, in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/Poznań, 715-720. 2010e Aktivitätszonen und Ressourcennutzung in der Bronzezeit Groβpolens, in: Horejs B., Kienlin T. (eds.): Siedlung und Handwerk. Studien zu sozialen Kontaxt in der Bronzezeit, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 194. Bonn/Poznań, 173-190. KNEISEL J., BORK H. R., CZEBRESZUK J., DÖRFLER W., GROOTES P., HAAS J. N. , HEUSSNER K. U., HILDEBRANDT-RADKE I., KROLL H., MÜLLER J., WAHLMÜLLER N., WAŻNY T. 2008 Bruszczewo – Early Bronze Defensive Settlement in Wielkopolska. Metallurgy, peat zone inds and change in the environment, in: Czebreszuk J., Kadrow S., Müller J. (eds.): Defensive Structures from Central Europe to the Aegean in the 3rd and 2nd millenium BC. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 5. Poznań/Bonn, 155-170. 164 Bibliography KNEISEL J., KROLL H. 2010 Die Holzanalysen aus dem östlichen Feuchtbodenareal/Analizy drewna z części torfowej stanowiska, in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/Poznań, 567-652. KNEISEL J., MÜLLER J. 2011 Produktion, Distribution, Konsumption und die Formation sozialer Unterschiede in frühbronzezeitlichen Gesellschaten Mitteleuropas, in: Hansen S., Müller J. (eds.): Sozialarchäologische Perspektiven: Gesellschatlicher Wandel 5000-1500 v. Chr. zwischen Atlantik und Kaukasus. Internationale Tagung in Kiel 15.–18. Oktober 2007 in Kiel. Archäologie in Eurasien 24. Berlin, 295-324. KOWIAŃSKA-PIASZYKOWA M., KURNATOWSKI S. 1954 Kurhan kultury unietyckiej w Łękach Małych, pow. Kościan. Fontes Archaeologici Posnaniensis 4, 43-76. KOÓS J. 2001 Fernbeziehungen zur Zeit einer Spätbronzezeitlichen Gemeinschat Nordostungarns, in: Kacsó C. (ed.): Der Nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit. Symposium Baia Mare 7.-10. Oktober 1998. Baia Mare, 215-230. 2002 Bronzezeitliche Siedlungsforschungen in Nordostungarn. Budapest régiségei 36, s. 221-233. KOVÁCS T. 1963 Jelentés Aba-Belsőbáránd Bolondváron végzett 1960. évi ásutásról. Alba Regia 2, 3 131. 1969 A százhalombattai bronzkori telep. Archaeologiai Értesítő 96, 161-169. 1973 Representations of Weapons on Bronze Age Pottery. Folia Archaeologica 24, 7-31. 1975 Der Bronzefund von Mende. Folia Archaeologica 26, 11-43. 1982 Befestigungsanlage um die Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends v.u.Z. in Mittelungarn, in: Chropovský B., Herrmann J. (eds.): Beiträge zum bronzezeitlichen Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa. Berlin/Nitra, 279-291. 1984a Vatya-Kultur, in: Tasić N. (ed.): Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit des Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans. Beograd, 217-232. 1984b Die Koszider-Metallkunst und einige kulturelle und chronologische Fragen der Koszider-Periode, in: Tasić N. (ed.): Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit des Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans. Beograd, 377-388. 1988 Review of the Bronze Age settlement research during the past one and half centuries in Hungary, in: Kovács T., Stanczik I. (eds.): Bronze Age Tell Settle- 1992 1994 1996 1998 ments on the Great Hunagarian Plain (1). Budapest, 17-25. Tiszafüred-Ásotthalom, in: Meier-Arendt W. (ed.): Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Frankfurt am Main, 131-133. Zwei Vollgrifschwerter von Hajdúsámson-Apa-typ aus dem Donau-heiss-Zwischenstromgebiet. Folia Archaeologica 43, 51-69. Halberds in Hungary and adjacent territories, in: Kovács T. (ed.): Studien zur Metallindustrie im Karpatenbecken und den benachbarten Regionen. Festschrit für Amália Mozsolics zum 85. Geburtstag. Budapest, 89-101. Siedeln in der Tiefebene. Das Problem der bronzezeitlichen Nutzung der Überschwemmungsgebiete an der heiß, in: Hänsel B. (ed.): Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas. Man and Environment in European Bronze Age. Kiel, 481-492. KRAUSE R. 1996 Zur Chronologie der Frühen und Mittleren Bronzezeit Süddeutschlands, der Schweiz und Österreichs. he Verona Chronology Conference 1995. Acta Archaeologica Copenhagen 67, 73-86. 2002 Sozialstrukturen und Hierarchien – Überlegungen zur frühbronzezeitlichen Metallurgiekette im süddeutsehen Alpenvorland, in: Müller J. (ed.): Vom Endneolithikum zur Frühbronzezeit: Muster sozialen Wandels? Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 90. Bonn, 45-60. 2003 Studien zur kupfer- und frühbronzezeitlichen Metallurgie zwischen Karpartenbecken und Ostsee. Rahden/Westfalen. 2005 Bronzezeitliche Burgen in den Alpen. Befestigte Siedlungen der frühen bis mittleren Bronzezeit, in: Horejs B., Jung R., Kaiser E., Teržan B. (eds.): Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Festschrit B. Hänsel. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 121. Bonn, 389-413. 2007a he prehistoric settlement of the inneralpine valley of Montafon in Vorarlberg (Austria). Preistoria Alpina 42, 119-136. 2007b Mediterrane Einlüsse in der Früh- und Mittelbronzezeit Mitteleuropas. Interaktioansräume und Kulturwandel. Festschrit für B. U. Abels. Berichte der Bayerischen Bodendenkmalplege, 47, 48, 53-64. 2008 Bronze Age Hillforts in the Alps, in: Czebreszuk J., Kadrow S., Müller J. (eds.): Defensive Structures from Central Europe to the Aegean in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 5. Poznań/Bonn, 65-84. 2009 Bronze Age Copper Production in the Alps: Organisation and Social Hierarchies in Mining Communities, in: Kienlin T., Roberts B. (eds.): Metals and Societies. Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 169. Bonn, 47-66. KRAUSE R., PERNICKA E. 1998 he Function of Ingot Torques and their Relation with Early Bronze Age Copper Trade, in: Mordant C., Pernot M., Rychner V. (eds.): L’Atelier du bronzier en Europe du XXe au VIIIe siècle avant notre ère. Volume 2. Du minerai au métal, du métal à l’objet. Actes du colloque international ›Bronze ’96‹, Neuchatel et Dijon. Paris, 219-226. KRAUSE R., OEGGL K., PERNICKA E. 2004 Eine befestigte Burgsiedlung der Bronzezeit im Montafon, Vorarlberg. Interdisziplinäre Siedlungsforschungen und Montanarchäologie in Bartholomäberg und in Silbertal. Archäologie Österreichs 15(1), 4-21. KREITER A. 2005 Middle Bronze Age ceramic inds from Százhalombatta-Földvar, Hungary, in: Poroszlai I., Vicze M. (eds.): Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report 2. Százhalombatta, 9-25. 2007 Technological choices and material meanings in Early and Middle Bronze Age Hungary. Understanding the active role of material culture through ceramic analysis. British Archaeological Reports. Oxford. KRISTIANSEN K. 1984 Krieger und Häuptlinge in der Bronzezeit Dänemarks. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des bronzezeitlichen Schwertes. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseums 31, 187-208. 2002 he tale of the sword – swords and swordighters in Bronze Age Europe. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21(4), 319-332. 2004 Kontakte und Reisen im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., in: Fansa M., Burmeister S. (eds.): Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation Wagen im Vorderen Orient und Europa. Mainz am Rhein, 443-454. KRISTIANSEN K., LARSSON T. B. 2005 he rise of Bronze Age society: travels, transmissions and transformations. Cambridge. KROLL H. 2010 Die Archäobotanik von Bruszczewo – Darstellung und Interpretation der Ergebnisse/Archeobotanika w Bruszczewie – wyniki i interpretacja, in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/ /Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/ /Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/Poznań, 250-287. KUIJPERS M. 2008 Bronze Age Metalworking in the Netherlands (ca. 2000-800BC). A research into the preservation of Bibliography 165 metallurgy related artefacts and the social position of the smith. Leiden. KULCSÁR G., JAEGER M., KISS., MÁRKUS G., MÜLLER J., PETŐ A., SERLEGI G., SZEVERÉNYI V., TAYLOR N. 2012 he Beginnings of a New Research Program – Kakucs Archaeological Expedition – KEX 1. Hungarian Archaeology E-Journal, Winter 2014 https://www.hungarianarchaeology.hu/?page_id=279#post-5584 KUNAWICZ-KOSIŃSKA E. 1985 Osada obronna z wczesnej epoki brązu w Nowej Cerekwi, in: Gedl M. (ed.): Frühbronzezeitliche befestigte Siedlungen in Mitteleuropa. Warszawa/ /Kraków, 109-125. LAABS J. 2014 Das Gräberfeld von Dunaújváros-Duna-dűlő und die Mittlere Bronzezeit im zentralen Karpatenbecken: Untersuchungen zu Chronologie und Bestattungssitte. Unpublished M.A. thesis manuscript Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Christian-Albrechts Universität zu Kiel. LAKATOS-PAMMER G. 2005 Middle Bronze Age grated oven from Százhalombatta, in: Poroszlai, I., Vicze, M. (eds.): Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report 2. Százhalombatta, 195-207. LARSSON T. B. 2004 Streitwagen, Karren und Wagen im der bronzezeitlichen Felskunst Skandinaviens, in: Fansa M., Burmeister S. (eds.): Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation Wagen im Vorderen Orient und Europa. Mainz am Rhein, 381-398. LASAK I. 1996 Epoka brązu na pograniczu śląsko-wielkopolskim, cz. I. źródła. Wrocław. 2001 Epoka brązu na pograniczu śląsko-wielkopolskim, cz. II. Wrocław. LASAK I., FURMANEK M. 2008 Bemerkungen zum vermutlichen Wehrobjekt der Aunjetitzer Kultur in Radłowice in Schlesien, in: Czebreszuk J., Kadrow S., Müller J. (eds.): Defensive Structures from Central Europe to the Aegaean in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 5. Poznań/Bonn, 123-134. LEGGE A. J. 1995 he faunal evidence, in: Shennan S. J. Bronze Age Copper Producers of the Eastern Alps: Excavations at St. Veit Klinglberg, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 27. Bonn, 231-233. 166 Bibliography LENERZ DE WILDE M. 1995 Prämonetäre Zahlungsmittel in der Kupfer- und Bronzezeit Mitteleuropas. Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 20, 229-327. LEVY J. 1991 Metalworking technology and crat specialization in Bronze. Age Denmark. Archeomaterials 5, 55-74. LING J., STOS-GALE Z., GRANDIN L., BILLSTRÖM K., HJÄRTHNER-HOLDAR E., PERSSON P. 2014 Moving metals II: provenancing Scandinavian Bronze Age artefacts by lead isotope and elemental analyses. Journal of Archaeological Science 41, 106132. LINK T. 2006 Das Ende der neolithischen Tellsiedlungen: ein kulturgeschichtliches Phänomen des 5. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im Karpatenbecken. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 134, Bonn. LIPPERT A. 1992 Der Götschenberg bei Bischofshofen. Eine Ur- und Frühgeschichtliche Höhensiedlung im Salzachpongau. Wien. 1999 Die urzeitliche Siedlungsentwicklung im Pongau (Salzburg, Österreich) seit dem Neolithikum (Prehistoric settlement evolution in the Pongau, Salzburg region (Austria) from the neolithic onwards), in: Della Casa Ph. (ed.): Prehistoric alpine environment, society, and economy. Papers of the international colloquium PAESE ’97 in Zurich. (Prähistorische Umwelt, Gesellschat und Wirtschat in den Alpen – Environnement, société et économie préhistorique dans les Alpes – Ambiente, società ed economia preistorica nelle Alpi). Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 55. Bonn, 141-149. LIVERSAGE D. 2000 Interpreting impurity patterns in ancient bronze: Denmark. Copenhagen. LORENZ L. 2010 Typologisch-chronologische Studien zu Deponierungen der nordwestlichen Aunjetitzer Kultur. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 188, Bonn. LOUKAKI A. 1997 Whose Genius Loci?: Contrasting Interpretations of the “Sacred Rock of the Athenian Acropolis”. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87(2), 306-329. LOUWE KOOIJMANS L. P. 1998 Bronzezeitliche Bauern in und um die niederländische Delta-Niederung, in: Hänsel B. (ed.): Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas. Man and Environment in European Bronze Age. Kiel, 327-339. LUŠTÍK J., MIHOK L., OLEXA L. 1991 Metalograický rozbor bronzových predmetov z Nižnej Myšle. Archeologické Rozhledy 43, 138-144. MAKAROWICZ P. 1998 Rola społeczności kultury iwieńskiej w genezie trzcinieckiego kręgu kulturowego (2000-1600 BC). Poznań. 1999 he Problem of Reception of Otomani Culture Patterns on the Polish Lowlands, in: Gancarski J. (ed.): Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony – rozwój, chronologia, gospodarka. Krosno, 231-247. 2009 Baltic-Pontic interregional routes at the start of the Bronze Age, in: Kośko A. (ed.): Routes Between the Seas: Baltic-Bug-Boh-Pont from the 3rd to the middle of the 1st Millenium BC. Baltic-Pontic Studies 14, 302-337. 2010 Trzciniecki krąg kulturowy wspólnota pogranicza Wschodu i Zachodu Europy. Poznań. MAKOWIECKI D. 2004 Archäozoologische Untersuchungen zu den frühbronzezeitlichen Tierknochen aus ausgewählten Befunden Bruszczewo, in: Czebreszuk J., Müller J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band, Tom I. Forschungsstand – Erste Ergebnisse – Das östliche Feuchtbodenareal, Stan badań – Pier wsze wyniki – Wschodnia, torfowa część stanowiska. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 2. Poznań/Kiel/Rahden/Westf., 281-290. MAKOWIECKI D., MAKOWIECKA M. 1998 Gospodarka zwierzętami we wczesnej epoce brązu na Niżu Polskim w świetle źródeł archeozoologicznych, in: Kośko A., Czebreszuk J. (eds.): „Trzciniec“ – system kulturowy czy interkulturowy proces?. Poznań, 273-284. MAKOWIECKI D., DREJER A. 2010 Analiza chronologiczna i przestrzenna zwierzęcych szczątków kostnych wydobytych w Bruszczewie w latach 1964-1968/Chronologische und chorologische Analyse der in Bruszczewo gefundenen Knochenreste aus den Jahren 1964-1968, in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/ /Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/ /Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/Poznań, 288-315. MARAN J. 1998 Kulturwandel auf dem Griechischen Festland und den Kykladen im Späten Dritten Jahrtausend, v. Chr. Studien zu den kulturellen Verhältnissen in Südosteuropa und dem zentralen sowie östlichen Mittelmerraum in der späten Kupfer und frühen Eisenzeit. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 53, Teile I-II, Bonn. MARAN J., VAN DE MOORTEL A. 2014 A Horse-Bridle Piece with Carpatho-Danubian Connections from Late Helladic I Mitrou and the Emergence of a Warlike Elite in Greece During the Shat Grave Period. American Journal of Archaeology 118(4), 529-548. MARCINIAK A. 2010 Tafonomia materiałów kostnych z Bruszczewa – Wprowadzenie/Taphonomie der Knochenfunde aus Bruszczewo – ein Vorbericht, in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/ /Poznań, 316-331. MARCOUX J. B. 2007 On Reconsidering Display Goods Production and Circulation in the Moundville Chiefdom. Southeastern Archaeology 26(2), 232-245. MARKOVÁ K. 1999 Zu den Bernsteinfunden aus Nitriansky Hrádok, in: Bátora J., Peška J. (eds.): Aktuelle Probleme der Erforschung der Frühbronzezeit in Böhmen und Mähren und in der Slowakei. Nitra, 211-230. 2003 Austauschentwicklung in Karpatenbecken im Lichte der Bernsteinfunde (vorläuige Anmerkungen), in: Kacsó C. (ed.): Bronzezeitliche Kulturerscheinungen im karpatischen Raum. Die Beziehungen zu den benachbarten Gebieten. Ehrensymposium für Alexandru Vulpe zum 70. Geburtstag Baia Mare 10.-13. Oktober 2001. Baia Mare, 339-352. 2005 Niektoré prejavy vzájomných kultúrnych kontaktov na Slovensku a juhu Karpatskej kotliny v staršej a počiatku strednej doby bronzovej, in: Studeníková E. (ed.): Južné vplyvy a ich odraz v kultúrnom vývoji mladšieho praveku na strednom Dunaji. Bratislava, 12-18. MARTINEK K. P. 1994 Neufunde. Fundberichte aus Österreich 32, 694. 1996 Archäometallurgische Untersuchungen zur frühbronzezeitlichen Kupferproduktion und -verarbeitung auf dem Buchberg bei Wiesing, Tirol. Fundberichte aus Österreich 34, 575-84. Bibliography 167 MELLER H. 2002 Die Himmelsscheibe von Nebra – ein frühbronzezeitlicher Fund von außergewohnlicher Bedeutung. Archäeologie in Sachsen-Anhalt 1(02), 7-30. MENKE M. 1982 Studien zu den frühbronzezeitlichen Metalldepots Bayerns. Jahresbericht des Bayerische Bodendenkmalplege 19, 20, 5-305. MOLAK J. 2008 Uwagi w sprawie datowania grupy nowocerekwiańskiej, Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 60, 129-144. MOOSLEITNER F. 1991 Bronzezeit im Saalfeldener Becken. Salzburg. MOUCHA V. 2005 Hortfunde der frühen Bronzezeit in Böhmen. Prague. MOZSOLICS A. 1952 Die Ausgrabungen in Tószeg im Jahre 1948. Acta Archaeologica 2, 35-69. 1967 Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von Hajdúsámson und Kosziderpadlás. Budapest. 1988 Der Bronzefund aus der oberen Remete-Höhle. Acta Archaeologica Hungaricae 40, 27-64. MÜLLER J. 2002 Modelle zur Einführung der Zinnbronzetechnologie und zur sozialen Diferenzierung der mitteleuropäischen Frühbronzezeit, in: Müller J. (ed.): Vom Endneolithikum zur Frühbronzezeit: Muster sozialenWandels? (Tagung Bamberg 14.–16. Juni 2001). Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 90. Bonn, 267-289. 2004 Die östlichen Feuchtbodenareale: Stratigraphien und Architektur, Strefa torfowa stanowiska: stratygraia i architektura, in: Czebreszuk J., Müller J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band, Tom I. Forschungsstand – Erste Ergebnisse – Das östliche Feuchtbodenareal, Stan badań – Pierwsze wyniki – Wschodnia, torfowa część stanowiska. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 2. Poznań/Kiel/Rahden/Westf., 99-134. 2013 1600 B.C. – Social topographies and the development of Early Bronze Age societies in Central Europe, in: Meller H., Bertemes F., Bork H. R., Risch R. (eds.): 1600 – Kultureller Umbruch im Schatten des hera-Ausbruchs? Halle, 527-537. MÜLLER J., CZEBRESZUK J. 2003 Bruszczewo – eine frühbronzezeitliche Siedlung mit Feuchtbodenerhaltung in Großpolen. Vorbericht zu 168 Bibliography den Ausgrabungen 1999-2001. Germania 81, 443-480. MÜLLER J., CZEBRESZUK J., KNEISEL J. (EDS.) 2010 Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens/ /Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/Poznań. MÜLLER J., KNEISEL J. 2010 Bruszczewo 5: Production, distribution, consumption and the formation of social diferences, in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/Poznań, 756-782. NEUSTUPNÝ E. 2006 Neolithic and post-Neolithic enclosures in Moravia in their central European context, in: Harding A., Sievers S., Venclová N. (eds.): Enclosing the Past: inside and outside in prehistory. Sheield, 1-4. 1995 he signiicance of facts. Journal of European Archaeology 3(1), 189-212. NIESIOŁOWSKA-WĘDZKA A. 1980 Procesy urbanizacyjne w kulturach wczesnej i środkowej epoki brązu na terenie Kotliny Karpackiej w świetle oddziaływań kultury kręgu egejsko-bałkańskiego. Archeologia Polski 25(1), 29-77. NOVÁKI G. 1952 Fejér megye õskori földvárai. Archaeologiai Értesítő 79, 3-19. 1969 Änderungen der Weizenarten in Ungarn von der Bronzezeit bis zum Mittelalter. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 2, 39-45. NOVOTNÁ M. 1983 Metalurgia opevnených osád. Archeologické rozhledy 35, 63-71. 1996 Die Beziehungen zum ägäischen Raum in der älteren Bronzezeit in der Slowakei. Musaica 23, 19-27. 1998 Zur Chronologie der Bronzehortfunde im Karpatenbecken, in: Fritsch B., Maute M., Matuschik I., Müller J., Wolf C. (eds.): Tradition und Innovation. Festschrit für Christian Strahm. Rahden/Westf., 349-69. 1999 Die Aunjetitzer Kultur in der Slowakei, in: Bátora J., Peška J. (eds.): Aktuelle Probleme der Erforschung der Frühbronzezeit in Böhmen und Mähren und in der Slowakei. Nitra, 97-111. NOVOTNY B., KOVALČÍK R. M. 1967 Sídlisko zo staršej doby bronzovej pri Spišskom Štvrtku, okr. Spišska Nova Ves. Musaica 18(7), 25-46. ORDENTLICH I. 1968 Anordnung und Bau der Wohnungen im Rahmen der Otomanikultur in Rumänien. Dacia 12, 141-153. 1969 Probleme der Befestigungsanlagen in den Siedlungen der Otomanikultur in deren rumänischem Verbreitungsgebiet. Dacia 13, 457-474. OLEXA L. 1978 Zistovací výskum v Nižnej Myšli. Archeologické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 1977, 178-180. 1982a Siedlungen und Gräberfelder aus der Bronzezeit von Nižná Myšl’a in der Ostslowakei, in: Hänsel B. (ed.): Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v. Chr. Berlin, 387-397. 1982b Siedlungen aus der Bronzezeit in Nižna Myšl‘a in der Ostslowakei, in: Chropovský B., Herrmann J. (eds.): Beiträge zum bronzezeitlichen Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa. Berlin/Nitra, 331-334. 1982c Piata etapa výskumu v Nižnej Myšli. Archeologické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 1981, 208-211. 1983a Sídliská a pohrebiská z doby bronzovej v Nižnej Myšli. Archeologické Rozhledy 35, 122-129. 1983b Hlinený model vozíka z Nižnej Myšle. Študijne Zvesti Archeologickego Ústavu Vied 20, 69-77. 1986 Deviata etapa výskumu v Nižnej Myšli. Archeologické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 1985, 173-175. 1987 Gräber von metallgiessern in Nižna Myšl’a. Archeologické Rozhledy 39(3), 255-257. 1992 Náleziská z doby bronzovej v Nižnej Myšl’i. Slovenska Archeologia 50(2), 189-204. 1999 Dvadsiata prvá etapa výskumu v Nižnej Myšli. Archeologické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 1997,126-127. 2000 Pokračovanie výskumu v Nižnej Myšli. Archeologické výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku v roku 1999, 94. 2002a Cmentarzyska i ceremoniał pogrzebowy, Burial grounds and funeral ceremonies, in: Gancarski J. (ed.): Między Mykenami a Bałtykiem. Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony. Krosno/Warszawa, 53-85. 2002b Kult, Religious worship, in: Gancarski J. (ed.): Między Mykenami a Bałtykiem. Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony. Krosno/Warszawa, 89-93. 2003 Nižná Myšľa. Osada a pohrebisko z doby bronzovej. Košice. PETRES É., BÁNDI G. 1969 Ásatás Lovasberény-Mihályváron. Archaeologiai Értesítő 96, 170-177. OLEXA L., PITORÁK M. 2004 Parohové bočnice zubadiel z Nižnej Myšle, in: Bátora J., Furmánek V., Veličik L. (eds.): Einlüsse und Kontakte alteuropäischer Kulturen. Festschrit für Jozef Vladár zum 70. Geburtstag. Nitra, 309-318. PIECZYŃSKI Z. 1985 Umocnienia obronne osady z wczesnej epoki brązu w Bruszczewie, woj. leszczyńskie stan. 5., in: Gedl M. (ed.): Frühbronzezeitliche befestigte Siedlungen in Mitteleuropa. Warszawa/Kraków, 167-179. OLEXA L., NOVÁČEK T. 2012 Praveké zlato z Nižnej Myšle. in: Kujovský R., Mitáš V. (eds.): Václav Furmánek a doba bronzová. Zborník k sedemdesiatym narodeninám. Nitra, 273-278. 2013 Pohrebisko zo staršej doby bronzovej v Nižnej Myšli. Katalóg I (Hroby 1-310). Nitra. PIETA K. 1982 Die Púchov-Kultur. Nitra. 1996 Liptovská Mara. Ein frühgeschichtliches Zentrum der Nordslowakei. Bratislava. OSGOOD R., MONKS S., TOMS J. 2000 Bronze Age Warfare. Stroud. OTTERBEIN K. 1989 he Evolution of War: A Cross-Cultural Study. New Haven. PARE CHR. 1999 Weights and weighing in Bronze Age Central Europe, in: Eliten in der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen. Monographien Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum 43, 421-514. 2000 Bronze and the Bronze Age, in: Pare Chr. (ed.): Metals make the world go round. he supply and circulation of metals in Bronze Age Europe. Proceedings of a conference held at the University of Birmingham in June 1997. Oxford, 1-38. 2004 Die Wagen der Bronzezeit in Mitteleuropa, in: Fansa M., Burmeister S. (eds.): Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation Wagen im Vorderen Orient und Europa. Mainz am Rhein, 355-372. PERNICKA E. 2014 Provenance Determination of Archaeological Metal Objects, in: Roberts B. W., C. P. hornton (eds.): Archaeometallurgy in Global Perspective. Methods and Syntheses. New York, 239-268. PETŐ A., SERLEGI G., KRAUSZ E., JAEGER M., KULCSÁR G. 2015 Régészeti talajtani megigyelések „Kakucs–Turján mögött” bronzkori lelőhelyen I. Agrokémia és Talajtan 64(1), 219-237. PLEINER R., RYBOVÁ A. (EDS.) 1978 Pravěké dějiny Čech. Praha. Bibliography 169 PODBORSKÝ V., KOVÁRNÍK J. 2006 Neolithic and post-Neolithic enclosures in Moravia in their central European context, in: Harding A., Sievers S., Venclová N. (eds.): Enclosing the Past: inside and outside in prehistory. Sheield, 44-68. PÖLL J. 2014 Der frühbronzezeitliche Vollgrifdolch vom Buchberg bei Wiesing, in: Andergassen L., Frick M. (eds.): Conservatum est: Festschrit für Franz Caramelle zum 70. Geburtstag. Innsbruck, 317-344. POROSZLAI I. 1988 Preliminary report about the excavation at Nagykörös-Földvár (Vatya culture): stratigraphic data and settlement structure. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 29-39. 1991 Comparative stratigraphical study of Hungarian Bronze Age tell-settlements, in: Pavuk J. (ed.): Actes du XIII. Congrés International des Sciences Préhistoriques. Bratislava, 59-67. 1992a Bölcske-Vörösgyűrű, in: Meier-Arendt W. (ed.): Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und heiss. Frankfurt am Main, 141-145. 1992b Százhalombatta-Földvár, in: Meier-Arendt W. (ed.): Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und heiss. Frankfurt am Main, 153-155. 1992c Nagykőrös-Földvár, in: Meier-Arendt W. (ed.): Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und heiss. Frankfurt am Main, 156-158. 1993 Százhalombatta bronzkori, in: Poroszlai I. (ed.): 4000 év a 100 halom városában. Fejezetek Százhalombatta történetéből. Százhalombatta, 9-22. 1996 Excavations in the Bronze Age earthwork in Százhalombatta between 1989 and 1993, in: Poroszlai I. (ed.): Excavations at Százhalombatta 1989-1995. Százhalombatta, 5-16. 1997 Ein archäologischer Park in Százhalombatta, Ungarn. Das Altertum 43, 59-68. 2000 Excavation Campaigns at the Bronze Age Tell Site at Százhalombatta-Földvár I. 1989-1991; II. 1991-1993, in: Poroszlai I., Vicze M. (eds.): Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report 1. Százhalombatta, 13-74. 2003a Fortiied centres along the Danube, in: Visy Z., Nagy M. (eds.): Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millennium. Budapest, 151-155. 2003b he Koszider Period, in: Visy Z., Nagy M. (eds.): Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millenium. Budapest, 161. PRIMAS M. 1999 From iction to facts. Current research on prehistoric human activity in the Alps, in: Della Casa Ph. (ed.): Prehistoric alpine environment, society, and economy. Papers of the international colloquium PAESE `97 in Zürich. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 55. Zürich, 1-10. 2008 Bronzezeit zwischen Elbe und Po: Strukturwandel in Zentraleuropa 2200 – 800 v. Chr. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 150. Bonn. 2009 Nicht nur Kupfer und Salz: die Alpen im wirtschatlichen und sozialen Umfeld des 2. Jahrtausends, in: Bartelheim M., Stäuble H. (eds.): Die wirtschatlichen Grundlagen der Bronzezeit Europas, he Economic Foundations of the European Bronze Age. Rahden, Westf., 189-211. POROSZLAI I., VICZE M. 2000 Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report 1. Százhalombatta. 2004 Methodological background of a modern tell excavation in Hungary: SAX Project: Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition, in: Bátora J., Furmánek V., Veliačik L. (eds.): Einlüsse und Kontakte alteuropäischer Kulturen. Festschrit für Jozef Vladár zum 70. Geburtstag. Nitra, 231-240. POROSZLAI I., VICZE M. (EDS.) 2005 Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report 2. Százhalombatta. 170 Bibliography PRZYBYŁA M. S., SKONECZNA M. 2011 he fortiied settlement from the Early and Middle Bronze Age at Maszkowice, Nowy Sącz district (Western Carpathians). Preliminary results of studies conducted in the years 2009-2012. Recherches Archéologiques NS 3, 5-66. PRZYBYŁA M. S., SKONECZNA M., VITOŠ A. 2012 Interregional contacts or local adaptation? Studies on the defensive settlement from the Bronze and Early Iron Age in Maszkowice (Western Carpathians), in: Jaeger M., Czebreszuk J., Fischl K. P. (eds.): Enclosed Space-Open Society. Contact and exchange in the context of Bronze Age Defensive Settlements in Central Europe. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 10. Bonn/Poznań, 227-276. PUCHER E. 1986 Bronzezeitliche Tierknochen vom Buchberg, O.G. Wiesing, Tirol. Fundberichte aus Österreich 23, 209-220. QUITTA H., KOHL G. 1969 Neue Radiocarbondaten zum Neolithikum und zur frühen Bronzezeit Südosteuropas und der Sowjetunion. Zeitschrit für Archäologie 3, 223-255. RACZKY P., HERTELENDI E., HORVÁTH F. 1992 Zur absoluten Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Tell-Kulturen in Ungarn, Meier-Arendt W. (ed.): Bronzezeit in Ungarn Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und heiss. Frankfurt am Main, 42-47. RAGETH J. 1986 Die wichtigsten Resultate der Ausgrabungen in der bronzezeitlichen Siedlung auf dem Padnal bei Savognin (Oberhalbstein GR). Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschat für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 69, 63-103. 1997 Zur Bevölkerungszahl in der bronzezeitlichen Siedlung auf dem Padnal bei Savognin (Oberhalbstein, Graubünden), in: Rittershofer K. F. (ed.): Demographie der Bronzezeit. Espelkamp, 97-104. RIEDEL A., TECCHIATI U. 1998 Die Tierknochenfunde der mittel- bis spätbronzezeitlichen Siedlung von Sotćiastel im Gadertal, in: Tecchiati U. (ed.): Sotćiastel. Un insediamento fortiicato dell`età del bronzo in Val Badia (BZ). Bolzano, 285-319. RANDSBORG K. 1993 Kivik: archaeology and iconography. Acta Archaeologica 64, 1-147. ROMANOW H. P. 1995 Archaeometallurgical investigations of ’casting-cake’ and a copper ore sample from the Klinglberg, in: Shennan S.J.: Bronze Age Copper Producers of the Eastern Alps: Excavations at St. Veit Klinglberg. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 27. Bonn, 263-273. RASSMANN K. 2004 Die Bemerkungen zu den chemischen Analysen von Kupferartefakten aus der Siedlung von Bruszczewo/Uwagi na temat analiz chemicznych wyrobów miedzianych z Bruszczewa, in: Czebreszuk J., Müller J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band, Tom I. Forschungsstand – Erste Ergebnisse – Das östliche Feuchtbodenareal, Stan badań – Pier wsze wyniki – Wschodnia, torfowa część stanowiska. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 2. Poznań/Kiel/ /Rahden/Westf., 257-262. 2005 Zur Chronologie der Hortfunde der Klassischen Aunjetitzer Kultur. Eine Auswertung von Metallanalysen aus dem Forschungsvorhaben ‘Frühe Metallurgie im zentralen Mitteleuropa’, in: Horejs B., Jung R., Kaiser E., Teržan B. (eds.): Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidmet. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 121. Bonn, 463-80. 2010 Neue chemische Analysen von Kupferartefakten aus der Siedlung von Bruszczewo/Nowe analizy chemiczne wyrobów miedzianych z osady w Bruszczewie, in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/Tom II. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/Poznań, 702-712. REINGRUBER A., HANSEN S., TODERAŞ M. 2010 Monumental Living: Pietrele Near the Lower Danube River in the 5th Millenium BC, in: Kiel Graduate School “Human Development in Landscapes” (eds.): Landscapes and Human Development: he Contribution of European Archaeology. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 191. Bonn, 171-181. RIND M. 1999 Der Frauenberg oberhalb Kloster Weltenburg I. Regensburg. ROMANOWSKA-GRABOWSKA O. 1991 Gród halsztacki w Izdebnie gm. Rogowo (woj. bydgoskie), in: Jaskanis J. (ed.): Prahistoryczny gród w Biskupinie. Problematyka osiedli obronnych na początku epoki żelaza. Warszawa, 217-223. ROMSAUER P. 2003 Pyraunoi. Prenosné piecky a podstavce z doby bronzovej a železnej. Nitra. ROSCOE P. 2008 Settlement fortiication in village and ‘tribal’ society: Evidence from contact-era New Guinea. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27, 507-519. ROWLANDS M. 1971 he archaeological interpretation of prehistoric metalworking. World Archaeology 3(2), 210-224. SARNOWSKA W. 1969 Kultura unietycka w Polsce. Wrocław. SCHEFZIK M. 2006 Frühbronzezeitliche Gebäudeformen in Süddeutschland. Mit einer Gegenüberstellung des Formenbestandes des östlich angrenzenden Kulturlandschaften, in: Blajer W. (ed.): Z badań nad osadnictwem epoki brązu i wczesnej epoki żelaza w Europie Środkowej. Kraków, 139-158. SCHMIDL A., OEGGL K. 2005 Subsistence strategies of two Bronze Age hill-top settlements in the eastern Alps- Friaga, Bartholomäberg (Vorarlberg, Austria) and Ganglegg, Schluderns (South Tyrol, Italy). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14, 303-312. SCHMIDT B., NITZSCHKE W. 1980 Ein frühbronzezeitlicher ‘Fürstenhügel’ bei Dieskau im Saalkreis. Vorbericht. Ausgrabungen und Funde 25, 179-183. Bibliography 171 SCHREIBER R. 1967 A rákospalotai edénylelet. Archaeologiai Értesítő 94, 48-52. SCHULZ CH. E. 2006 Zum Aukommen des Schwertes, in: Proceedings of the Internation Symposium Arms and Armour hrough Ages (From the Bronze Age to Late Antiquity). Modra-Harmónia, 19th-22nd November 2005. Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World, 4-5, 2004-2005. Trnava, 215-229. SCHUMACHER-MATTHÄUS G. 1985 Studien zu bronzezeitlichen Schmucktrachten im Karpatenbecken. Mainz. SCHUNKE T. 2009 Die frühbronzezeitliche Siedlung von Zwenkau, Ldkr. Leipziger Land. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Beobachtungen zur Wirtschatsweise und sozialen Diferenzierung anhand der keramischen Funde, in: Bartelheim M., Stäuble H. (eds.): Die wirtschatlichen Grundlagen der Bronzezeit Europas. Rahden/Westf., 273-319. SCHWENZER S. 2004 Przysieka Polska – Ein Grabfund in der Umgebung der frühbronzezeitlichen Siedlung von Bruszczewo/Przysieka Polska – znalezisko grobowe w sąsiedztwie osady w Bruszczewie, in: Czebreszuk J., Müller J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu z terenu Wielkopolski. Band, Tom I. Forschungsstand – Erste Ergebnisse – Das östliche Feuchtbodenareal, Stan badań – Pierwsze wyniki – Wschodnia, torfowa część stanowiska. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 2. Poznań/Kiel/ /Rahden/Westf., 317-324. SHENNAN S. J. 1992 Population, prestige and production: some aspects of the development of copper and bronze metallurgy in prehistoric Europe, in: Festschrit zum 50-jährigen Bestehen des Institutes für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Innsbruck. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 27. Bonn, 535-542. 1995 Bronze Age Copper Producers of the Eastern Alps: Excavations at St. Veit-Klinglberg. zur prähistorischen Archäologie 27. Bonn. 1999 Cost, beneit and value in the organization of early European copper production. Antiquity 73, 352-363. SHERRATT A. 1987 Warriors and traders: Bronze Age chiefdoms in central Europe, in: Cunlife B. (ed.): Origins: the roots of European Civilisation. London, 54-66. 172 Bibliography 1993 What would a Bronze Age World System Look like? European Journal of Archaeology 1(2), 1-58. SIMON K. 1990 Höhensiedlungen der älteren Bronzezeit im Elbsaalegebiet. Jahresschrit für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 73, 287-330. SOFAER J. 2006 Pots, Houses and Metal. Technological Relations at the Bronze Age tell at Százhalombatta, Hungary. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25(2), 127-147. SPINDLER K. 2003 Transhumanz. Preistoria Alpina 9, 219-225. STAHL CHR. 2006 Mitteleuropäische Bernsteinfunde von der Frühbronze- bis zur Frühletènezeit. Ihre Verbreitung, Formgebung, Zeitstellung und Herkunt. Dettelbach. STANCZIK I. 1982 Befestigungs- und Siedlungssystem von Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom in der Periode der Hatvan-Kultur, in: Chropovský B., Herrmann J. (eds.): Beiträge zum bronzezeitlichen Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa. Berlin/ /Nitra, 377-388. STANCZIK I., TÁRNOKI J. 1992 Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom, in: Meier-Arendt W. (ed.): Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und heiss. Frankfurt am Main, 120-127. STEFFEN CH. 2010 Die Prunkgräber der Wessex- und der Aunjetitz-Kultur. Ein Vergleich der Repräsentationssitten von sozialem Status. British Archaeological Reports. Oxford. STÖLLNER T. 2003 Mining and Economy. A Discussion of Spatial Organisations and Structures of Early Raw Material Exploitation, in: Stöllner T., Körlin G., Stefens G., Cierny J. (eds.): Man and Mining. Studies in honour of Gerd Weisgerber. Der Anschnitt 16. Bochum, 415-446. STUCHLÍK S. 1985 Vyšinná sídliště únětické kultury na Moravě, in: Gedl M. (ed.): Frühbronzezeitliche befestigte Siedlungen in Mitteleuropa. Warszawa/Kraków, 129-142. 2000 Nadzemní kůlové stavby ze starší doby bronzové na Moravě. Pravěk NŘ 10, 219-250. STUCHLÍK S., STUCHLÍKOVÁ J. 1999 Die Erforschung des Věteřover Rondells in Šumice, in: Bátora J., Peška J. (eds.): Aktuelle Probleme der Erforschung der Frühbronzezeit in Böhmen und Mähren und in der Slowakei. Nitra, 169-182. SUCHOWSKA P. 2010 Kontakty społeczności Europy środkowej i strefy egejskiej w II tys. p. Chr. Próba analizy archeologiczno-chronometrycznej. Unpublished PhD manuscript, Institute of Prehistory, Adam Mickiewicz University Poznań. SÜMEGI P., BODOR E. 2000 Sedimentological, pollen and geoarcheologicalanalysis of core sequence at Tököl, in: Poroszlai I., Vicze M. (eds.): Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report 1. Százhalombatta, 83-96. 2005 Geoarcheological and archaeobotanical investigations in the valley of the Benta (Békás) creek, in: Poroszlai I., Vicze M. (eds.): Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Report 2. Százhalombatta, 209-235. SWIDRAK I., OEGGL K. 1998 Palaeoethnobotanische Untersuchungen von Bodenproben aus der bronzezeitlichen Siedlung von Sotćiastel, in: Tecchiati U. (ed.): Sotćiastel. Un insediamento fortiicato dell`età del bronzo in Val Badia (BZ). Bolzano, 334-346. SWIEDER A. 2013 Carpathian Basin, Oder, Baltic Sea. he role of the Oder River as communication corridor at the end of the Early and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, in: Meller H., Bertemes F., Bork H. R., Risch R. (eds.): 1600 – Kultureller Umbruch im Schatten des hera-Ausbruchs? Halle, 539-549. SYDOW W. 1986 Die prähistorischen Wehranlagen auf dem Buchberg, OG Wiesing, Tirol. Fundberichte aus Österreich 23, 179-207. 1996 Eine frühbronzezeitliche Fundstelle am Buchberg, Gem. Wiesing (Tirol). Fundberichte aus Österreich 34, 567-573. SZATHMÁRI I. 1992 Füzesabony-Öregdomb, in: Meier-Arendt W. (ed.): Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und heiss. Frankfurt am Main, 134-140. 1996 Bronze wire and sheet ornaments of the Vatya culture, in: Kovács T. (ed.): Studien zur Metallindustrie im Karpatenbecken und den benachbarten Regionen. Festschrit für Amália Mozsolics zum 85. Geburtstag. Budapest, 75-88. 2002 Neue Angaben über die Funde der Vatya-Kultur in der Umgebung von Szigetszentmiklös. Budapest régiségei 36, 235-246. SZEVERÉNYI V., KULCSÁR G. 2012 Middle Bronze Age Settlement and Society in Central Hungary, in: Jaeger M., Czebreszuk J., Fischl K.P. (eds.): Enclosed Space-Open Society. Contact and exchange in the context of Bronze Age Defensive Settlements in Central Europe. Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 10. Bonn/Poznań, 287-351. SZYDŁOWSKI M. 2003 Topogeneza Grupy Kościańskiej kultury unietyckiej. Unpublished M. A. thesis. Insitute of Prehistory, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań. TECCHIATI U. (ED.) 1998 Sotćiastel. Un insediamento fortiicato dell`età del bronzo in Val Badia (BZ). Bolzano. TERŽAN B., MIHOVILIĆ K., HÄNSEL B. 1999 Eine protourbane Siedlung der älteren Bronzezeit im istrischen Karst. Prähistorische Zeitschrit 74(2), 154-193. THOMAS M. 2008 Studien zu Chronologie und Totenritual der Otomani-Füzesabony-Kultur. Bonn. THRANE H. 1990 he Mycenaean fascination: A Northerner‘s view, in: Bader T. (ed.): Orientalisch-ägäische Eunlüsse in der europäischen Bronzezeit. Mainz, 165-179. TOČIK A. 1964 Opevnená osada z doby bronzovej vo Veselom. Bratislava. 1981 Nitriansky Hrádok-Zámeček. Band I, Het 1, 2. Nitra. 1982 Beitrag zur Problematik befestigter Siedlungen in der Südwestslowakei während der älteren und zu Beginn der mittleren Bronzezeit. in: Chropovský B., Herrmann J. (eds.): Beiträge zum bronzezeitlichen Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa. Berlin/Nitra, 405-416. 1994 Poznámky k problematike opevneného sídliska otomanskej kultúry v Barci pri Košiciach. Študijne Zvesti AU SAV 30, 59-65. TROGMAYER O. 1975 Das bronzezeitliche Grâberfeld bei Tapé. Budapest. UHNÉR C. 2010 Makt och samhälle: politisk ekonomi under bronsåldern i Karpaterbäckenet. Göteborg. WAŻNY T. 2010 Informacja na temat datowań dendrochronologicznych z Bruszczewa, sezon 2004-2005/Bericht zur Dendochronologischen Datierung von Bruszczewo, Grabungen 2004-2005, in: Müller J., Czebreszuk J., Kneisel J. (eds.): Bruszczewo. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in einer prähistorischen Siedlungskammer Grosspolens, Badania mikroregionu osadniczego z terenu Wielkopolski. Band II/Tom II. Bibliography 173 Studia nad Pradziejami Europy Środkowej/Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 6(2). Bonn/ /Poznań, 232-237. WEINBERGER S. 2008 Warfare in the Austrian Weinviertel during the early bronze age. Wien. WOSINSKY M. 1896 Tolnavármegye az őskortól a honfoglalásig. Budapest. WYSS R. 1971 Die Eroberung der Alpen durch den Bronzezeitmenschen. Zeitschrit für Schweizerische Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte 28, 130-145. VACHTA T. 2008 Studien zu den bronzezeitlichen Hortfunden des oberen heissgebietes. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 159. Bonn. VANDKILDE H. 2004 Spišský Štvrtok, in: Bogucki P., Crabtree P. J. (eds.): Ancient Europe 8000 B.C. – A.D. 1000: Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World. New York. VANDKILDE H. 2014 Breakthrough of the Nordic Bronze Age. Transcultural warriorhood and a Carpathian crossroad in the 16th century BCE. European Journal of Archaeology 17(4), 602-633. VARGA A. 2000 Coring results at Százhalombatta-Földvár, in: Poroszlai I., Vicze M. (eds.): Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report 1. Százhalombatta, 75-81. VICZE M. 1992 Baracs-Földvár, Meier-Arendt W. (ed.): Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und heiss. Frankfurt am Main. 146-148. 2000 Background information to the ield-survey, in: Poroszlai I., Vicze M. (eds.): Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report 1. Százhalombatta, 118-129. 2011 Bronze Age Cemetery at Dunaújváros-Duna-dűlő. Budapest. VICZE M., CZAJLIK Z., TIMÁR L. 2005 Aerial and topographical research of the Benta Valley, in: Poroszlai I., Vicze M. (eds.): Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report 2. Százhalombatta, 251-254. VICZE M., EARLE T., ARTURSSON M. 2005 Bronze Age site gazetteer: Benta Valley, Hungary, in: Poroszlai I., Vicze M. (eds.): Százhalombatta Ar- 174 Bibliography chaeological Expedition Report II. Százhalombatta, 237-250. VICZE M., POROSZLAI I., SÜMEGI P. (EDS.) 2013 Koszider: Hoard, Phase, Period? Round table conference on the Koszider problem. Százhalombatta. VILLA I. M. 2009 Lead Isotopic Measurements in Archaeological Objects. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 1(3), 149-153. VLADÁR J. 1970 Zist’ovací výskum opevneného výšinného sídliska otomanskej kultúry v Spišskom Štvrtku. Východoslovenský Pravek 1, 37-47. 1971 Parohové bočnice zubadiel otomanskej kultúry na Slovensku. Slovenska Archeologia 29, 5-11. 1972 Predbežná správa o systematickom výskume opevneného sídliska otomanskej kultúry v Spišskom Štvrtku. Archeologické Rozhledy 24, 18-25, 101-104. 1973 Osteuropäische und mediterrane Einlüsse im Gebiet der Slowakei während der Bronzezeit. Slovenska Archeologia 21(2), 253-357. 1974 Mediterrane Einlüsse auf die Kulturentwicklung des nördlichen Karpatenbeckens in der älteren Bronzezeit. Atti del Simposio internazionale sulla antica eta del bronzo in Europa, Trento 1974. Preistoria Alpina 10, 219-236. 1975 Spišský Štvrtok, opevnená osada otomanskej kultúry, in: III. Medzinárodni kongres slovanskej archeologi, Bratislava 7.-14. Sept. 1975. Nitra, 3-20. 1976 Komplexny vyskum opevneneho sidliska otomanskej kultury v Spišskom Stvrtku. Archeologické Výskumy a Nálezy na Slovensku, 215-223. 1979 Das Karpatenbecken, das Kaukasusgebiet und das östliche Mittelmeerraum in der mykenischen Schachtgräberzeit, in: Rapports, co-rapports, communication tchéchoslovaques pour le IVe Congrés de l’Association internationale d’etudes Sud-Est Europeén. Prague, 15-50. 1982 Probleme der Bedeutung fremder Kulturimpulse in der Entwiclung der älterbronzezeitlichen Zivilisation im Gebiet der Slowakei, in: Aspes A. (ed.): Il passaggio dal Neolitico all‘Età del Bronzo nell‘Europa centrale e nella regione Alpina. X Simposio Internazionale sulla ine del Neolitico e gli inizi dell‘Età del Bronzo in Europa. Verona, 199-205. 2012 Depoty bronzových a zlatých výrobkov na výšinnom opevnenom sídlisku otomanskej kultúry v Spišskom Štvrtku, in: Kujovský R., Mitáš V. (eds.): Václav Furmánek a doba bronzová. Zborník k sedemdesiatym narodeninám. Nitra, 383-396. VLADÁR J., BARTONĔK A. 1977 Zu den Beziehungen zwischen des ägäischen und karpatischen Raumes in der mittleren Bronzezeit und die kulturelle Ausstrahlung ägäischen Schrif- ten in die Nachbarländer. Slovenska Archeologia 25, 371-432. VÖRÖS I. 1996 Dog as building ofering from the bronze age tell at Jászdózsa. Folia Archaeologica 45, 69-88. VRETEMARK M., STEN S. 2005 Diet and animal husbandry during the Bronze Age. An analysis of animal bones from Százhalombatta-Földvár, in: Poroszlai I., Vicze M. (eds.): Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Report 2. Százhalombatta, 157-179. ZEMMER-PLANK L. 1978 Ein bronzezeitliches Gehöt auf dem Gschleirsbühel bei Matrei am Brenner. Veröfentlichungen des Tiroler Landesmuseums Ferdinandeum 58, 157-209. ZICH B. 1996 Studien zur regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der nordlichen Aunjetitzer Kultur. Berlin/ /New York. ZSCHOCKE K., PREUSCHEN E. 1932 Das urzeitliche Bergbaugebiet von Mühlbach-Bischofshofen. Wien. ZATYKÓ C., JUHÁSZ I., SÜMEGI P. 2007 Environmental Archaeology in Transdanubia, Budapest. Bibliography 175