7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

1/63

MUZEUL JUDEEAN SATU MARE

SATU MARESTUDII I COMUNICRI

seria

ARHEOLOGIE

XXVIII/I2012

EDITURA MUZEULUI STMREAN

SATU MARE

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

2/63

Colegiul de redacie:Ciprian ASALO-Redactor responsabilCristian VIRAG-Secretar de redacieRobert GINDELE

Reereni tiinifici:Wolgang DAVID (Manching, Germania)Florin GOGLAN (Cluj Napoca, Romnia)

COPERA: Iulian PERESCU, Aurel CORDEA(Sigiliul oraului Satu Mare din secolul al XVIII-lea)

ehnoredactare computerizat: Janos-Ludovic BAKAI

Rspunderea pentru coninutul tiinific al studiilor, ormulri i calitatea textelor n limbi strine revine,n exclusivitate, autorilor.Te authors are responsible or the presentation o the acts contained in their articles, and or the ac-curacy o the oreign languages texts.

SATU MARE-STUDII i COMUNICRI

Orice coresponden se va trimite pe adresa: MUZEUL JUDEEANAny mail will be posted to the next address: Piaa Dr. Vasile Lucaciu, 21oute corespondance sera envoye ladresse: 440031 Satu Mare, ROMNIA

Richten Sie bitten jedwelche Korrespondenz el.: 04/0261/73.75.26an die Adresse: E-mail: muzeusm@gmail.com

ISSN 2067-6956TIPOGRAFIA: KUMAR PRINT S.R.L.

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

3/63

THE GVA CULTURE IN THE TISA PLAIN ANDTRANSYLVANIA

DIE GVA-KULTUR IN DER THEIEBENE UND

SIEBENBRGEN

SYMPOSIUM

Satu Mare 17-18 June/Juni 2011

Editor / Herausgeber

LIVIU MARTA

SATU MARE 2012

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

4/63

Travelling or not? Tracing Individual Mobility Patterns o Late Bronze Age Metalworkersin the Carpathian Basin

Oliver Dietrich

Keywords:Carpathian Basin, Media, Bronze Age, Gva Culture, crafsmen, ounders, mobility

Abstract:Te present paper tries to address the problem o mobile crasmen in the BronzeAge o southeastern Europe by having a close look at their main tools: casting moulds. Te starting pointsare two moulds or socketed axes discovered at Media-Cetate, a hill settlement situated in eastern ran-sylvania. Due to their context, material and technical eatures they can be attributed to the same ounder.Tis offers the possibility to investigate the supra-regional influences acting on an individual metalwork-er and to close in on an answer to the question o the degree o mobility related to Bronze Age crasmen.

Introduction1

Tere are ideas in archaeology, which implicitly or explicitly dominate the perception o awhole poque o prehistory. One o these concepts is the itinerant crasman, sketched by V. GordonChilde in several o his works2. Starting rom the thought that the processes related to the production obronze items are highly complex, Childe proposed that metalworkers3had to undergo a long phase oapprenticeship to become the first ull-time specialist crasmen in history. As their work was as highlytime consuming as their products were essential to the societies they lived in, the rest o the group had toprovide or their subsistence. In Childes eyes this resulted in a privileged social position o the ounders.Tis social position is urther enhanced by a certain magical component Childe sees involved mainlyin the work o the miners and smelters, who transorm and alter solid matter through complicated pro-cesses into something new. He concludes that people with occupations related to metallurgy constituteddistinct cras or even castes, membership o which implied initiation but conerred some degree o im-

munity rom the bondage o tribal custom4

. Tis allowed these people to travel unhindered to distributetheir products, or/ as the demand would not be stable at one place all the time, to go where their services

1Te present study set out to contribute to the knowledge on the metallurgy o the Gva Culture, to which the moulds discussedhere were attributed until recently. In the course o studying the material it became more and more clear that this attributioncannot be supported any longer. Tus, regarding the Gva Culture, the results o this article are o a somehow negative nature.wo finds important or the chronological setting o a key site have to be re-dated to the Late Bronze Age, most probably theNoua Culture. Anyway, the considerations regarding the mobility o crasmen may be o value or the whole Bronze Age, in-cluding the Gva Culture.2Childe 1930, 4-5, 10; 1952, 94-99; 2009, 169-171.3Te terms smith and ounder seem to be interchangeable in many works on Bronze Age metallurgy. Tis might be justified

to some degree as archaeological finds like the Feudvar workshop (Hnsel/ Medovi 2004; see also below) seem to indicatethat all steps in the production o an artiact (melting, casting, working o the semi-products) and maybe also pure smithingtasks like the working o sheet metal lay in one hand. On the other hand Jockenhvel (1982) has pointed out that in graves withmetallurgy related artiacts a differentiation regarding metallurgical tasks seems to be observable. He showed that graves withitems connected to primary metallurgy (e.g. mining, smelting) usually do not yield also grave goods connected to ounding/smithing (a combination o moulds/crucibles and tuyres was observable in two graves though: Jockenhvel 1982, 300; on theother hand there is the possibility that these are related to melting the metal immediately beore casting ). Tis differentiationmaybe could be extended to ounders and smiths, as graves oen only portray one o these tasks (comp. or example graveswith casting equipment rom the area o the Lusatian Culture (e. g., Bnisch 1999; Gedl 2004, 111-113, Nr. 540, 544, 547-550,552; Schmalu 2008) with graves that yield only smithing equipment like Lachen-Speyerdor (Sperber 2000) or Steinkirchen(Mller-Karpe 1969). Although the selection o grave goods may ollow rules specific or the respective cultural milieus and it ispossible that the items were meantpars pro tototo characterize one aspect o the social position o the deceased, the possibility opeople specialized in certain metallurgical tasks and maybe working together in workshops cannot be ruled out completely. Tisimportant question obviously cannot be decided here. In the ollowing the term ounder will be used to reer to Bronze Age

metalworkers (as ar as not the opinions o others are cited), as this aspect seems most important when discussing the metallurgyo bronze, while smithing is the main manuacturing process regarding ironworking.4Childe 1930, 10.

Satu Mare - Studii i Comunicri, nr. XXVIII / 1, 2012 (211-229)

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

5/63

212

Oliver Dietrich

were needed and to produce bronze objects locally, exchanging them or what they needed5. Childefinds evidence or these activities in the so-called ounders hoards composed o scrap metal to bere-melted, raw material and bronzesmiths tools6; and in workshops and graves o metallurgists missingrom the archaeological record in his days7. As his idea offered a convenient explanation as well or thedistribution o oen stunningly uniorm types o metalwork throughout wide areas o Europe as well asor the occasional exotic item stemming rom ar away, it became swily an integral part o the generallyaccepted scholarly image o the Bronze Age8.

Critique came late, but when it came by the late 1960s and early 1970s, it hit hard. O the criti-cisms aimed at the theoretical and ideological background o Childes historical views in the wake othe so-called New Archaeology9 it was especially the 1971 article o M. J. Rowlands which led to athorough rethinking o the organization orms o Bronze Age metallurgy10. Rowlands used ethnographicdata to show weaknesses in the oundations o Childes image o the itinerant crasman. He concludedthat within the majority o the ethnographic case studies examined by him, ull-time specialist smithsare only consistently ound when supported by privileged minorities11, while smiths are usually workingonly seasonally when demand is high, oen between harvest and the next planting, when they are not

engaged in the subsistence economy

12

. He also brought orward examples that contested Childes secondimportant assumption o the detribalized status o the smith, stating that in the majority o ethno-graphic examples the smith is embedded in a particular social and cultural context, and, even i to someextent itinerant, does not necessarily belong to a subgroup o distinct origin and cultural identity 13.Rowlands expressed urthermore doubts towards Childes statement that smiths would always have ahigh status due to their skills and knowledge. He recorded a wide range o sentiments regarding smithsranging rom ear, contempt and loathing to respect and awe 14. Based on ethnographic analogies, Row-lands concluded that Childes itinerant crasman is not the most likely organization type o Bronze Agemetalworking. A recent ample ethnoarchaeological study by M. Neipert reaches the same conclusionlargely by a similar line o argumentation15.

Nevertheless, neither Rowlands nor Neipert are disregarding a more mobile way o lie or

metallurgists completely16

. Rowlands names travelling Mongol silversmiths as an example that matchesChildes assumptions quite well17, Indian brass casters would be another one18. Neipert details severalcases o ull or restricted mobility o crasmen as well19and differentiates regular and irregular patternso mobility in several levels rom peripatetic groups to completely sedentary crasmen20. Itinerant cras-men organized as a guild based in the town o Awka provided nearly all the metalwork or the Igbo osouthern Nigeria crossing the boundaries to other communities21. During their travels in small groupsthey were protected by virtue o the visible accoutrements o their trade and their distinctive Awka

5Childe 1952, 97.6Childe 1930, 45.7

Childe 2009, 169; this situation has obviously changed; comp. e.g. Jockenhvel 1982; Btora 2002.8Rowlands 1971, 212, 214, 215.9rigger 1980, or the itinerant crasman esp. 68-69. For a comprehensive view see Neipert 2006, 12-15, 19-21.10Rowlands 1971.11Rowlands 1971, 212-213.12de Maret 1980, 270-271 reaches a more ambiguous conclusion in his review o central Arican smiths observing that le mtierdu orgeron est soi occasionel, soit permanent, depending on the societies dimensions and its capacities or producing ood orthe crasmen. Payment or metalwork in oodstuff seems to be widespread.13Rowlands 1971, 214.14Rowlands 1971, 216.15Neipert 2006.16Rowlands 1971, 214; Neipert 2006, 124.17Rowlands 1971, 214.18Horne 1994; David/ Kramer 2006, 355-356.19

Neipert 2006, 75-102.20Neipert 2006, 79-80.21Neaher 1976; Neaher 1979; 87-91.

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

6/63

213

ravelling or not? racing Individual Mobility Patterns o Late Bronze Age Metalworkers ...

dialect22. Teir travels were a major actorinthe creation o new tastes and innovations in metalwork23.Tey imported not only oreign goods to their homelands, but also elements o oreign cults. Tey wereable to attune to the tastes o their hosts but modified them at the same time, in plus inventing an arrayo new types o objects to maximize their sources o profit. In comparison to stationary smiths o thesame population through acilitating the flow o goods and engaging in high status marital alliances theAwka smiths became wealthy and achieved high social status. Another example o regularly travellingmetalworkers, in this case o low social status, which easily springs to mind, would be European tinkers24.

Seasonal mobility as a means to secure an income in the dry season has been described by N.obert or the Zaghawa in Sudan25. Here, in the six months aer harvest, groups comprised o potters,blacksmiths and aluminum casters travel to promising market places to produce and sell their goods.

Tere are also examples or a more limited mobility or just one larger journey in a smithsliecycle26. Among the Swahili on the Kenyan coast area becoming a master smith is a very long processtaking at least ten years27. o be appointed a master smith by the group o already existing masters to anew or already existing orge is only possible when the old master dies or retires, when demand is highenough to make a urther smithy necessary, or i the newly advanced master moves to another place to

set up his orge

28

. Migration and temporal relocation to more lucrative villages were common betweenSwahili smiths29, as itinerancy prevents saturation o the market and minimizes competition and sor-cery among young smiths30. Movement out o mercantile considerations is also known in other cases31.

Further, there would be the possibility o mobility being restricted to a certain stage in lie, e.g.apprenticeship, as known with temporarily itinerant crasmen o the European Middle Ages32.

Tere is also evidence or regular long-distance travels in order to procure raw materials, orexample with the Zanaki in northwestern anzania, who got their iron in orm o hoes rom the Rongoo the southwestern Lake Victoria region33. Te example o the Zanaki also shows that such contacts canhave implications that are visible archaeologically, as they led the Zanaki smithing clan (the uri) to imi-tate these hoes locally in a slightly different orm.

Remarkably, in societies with high social / cultic boundaries restricting interpersonal contacts,

like the Kpelle in the West Arican town o Gbarngasuakwelle, smiths are among the ew persons whodo interact with strangers as their cra orces them to do so, while others limit their contacts to residentand kinship groups out o ear o sorcery34. In such societies smiths become ocal points or inormationrom the outside world as they are the only ones crossing social boundaries.

Specialization in certain products can also be the reason or the movement o things or people.With the amberna in ogo we meet the situation o local smiths being specialized in the production ocertain categories o objects35. Te western amberna produce only jewelry, while their eastern counter-parts produce tools like hoes. o get these products, people rom the western region have to buy romsmiths rom the western lands or rom oreign smiths living in their area36.

22

Neaher 1979, 362.23Neaher 1979, 363.24For example Bohn Gmelch/ Gmelch 1976; Kearns 1977; Bohn Gmelch 1986; Neipert 2006, 96-100.25obert 1985; obert 1988; Neipert 2006, 91-96.26Neipert 2006, 100-107 with urther examples not repeated here.27Kusimba 1996, 390-393.28Kusimba 1996, 390. Interestingly Kusimba also reports rom this area a case, in which a local apprentice was trained by anitinerant one.29Kusimba 1996, 402.30Kusimba 1996, 402.31Bischoferger 1969, 55; Gray 1963, 77; Bohn Gmelch/ Gmelch 1976.32Boroa 2005, 168; Epstein 1998.33Bischoferger 1969, 55.34Lancy 1980, 268.35

Preston Blier 1984, 58.36For example a study by Simon 1982, 350-352 proves that such a model could be detectable archaeologically by identiying aregionally specialized production o rings or Late Bronze and Early Iron Age workshops in eastern Turingia.

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

7/63

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

8/63

215

ravelling or not? racing Individual Mobility Patterns o Late Bronze Age Metalworkers...

them, or i there was a to some degree mobile crasman visiting his high status customers over longerdistances. For commodities bound less explicitly to a single person but nonetheless o high status value,trade, however it may have been organized44, has to be taken into account45. As a result, the movement ocrasmen cannot be in sinea valid explanation or object distributions, even i there is the possibility toestablish a secure connection between an object and the individual who craed it, or example throughthe analysis o characteristic marks le on the objects throughout the craing process or o stylistic pecu-liarities innate to an individual metalworker or his school. Some more evidence is needed to get a graspat the possible mobility patterns o Bronze Age metalworkers.

Hints at the organization o metalworking could urther be expected rom a close inspection ometalworking sites. Unortunately most complexes related to Bronze Age metallurgical processes do notconstitute in the workshop areas themselves, but in remains o the chane opratoire deposited in pits46,although exceptions are known47. One o the most remarkable exceptions is the so-called oundershouse in the early Bronze Age settlement o Feudvar on a loess plateau in the Serbian Voivodina48. Tesettlement o Feudvar is organized according to a strongly regulated rectangular layout plan with houseso 9-12 m length and 5-6 m width divided by lanes o about 1 m width, which was respected when houses

were reconstructed aer voluntary or involuntary destruction

49

. Inconspicuously integrated in this planis a 9 m long house, which was divided in two rooms in its interior50. Te smaller room in the southseems to have been open on its eastern flank; and although there was some damage done to it by an IronAge pit, traces o an oven survive. Concentrated in the vicinity o the southern wall o the room a largeamount o metallurgy related items was ound51. A big number o two-piece clay moulds, cores and pot-tery clearly represent the tools o a ounder stored in shelves at the wall, which came down in a roaringfire that affected a large part o the settlement. A ragment o a crucible, grinders, small rests o bronzeand a ragment o a male mould or a sword52ound nearby mark the place o his work53. Work was obvi-ously not confined to the house, as at a small distance to the south more than one hundred pieces o clayorms or castings cire perdue where ound in situ54.

Te Feudvar workshop is an extraordinary find in many respects, or example it provides the

so ar earliest evidence or socketed axes in southeastern Europe55

. But what can be learned about theounder who used it? Primarily it becomes clear that he managed the whole chane opratoire rom themanuacture o the moulds, the melting and casting to the finished object56. Te room available in theworkshop allowed or only a ew persons or maybe just one crasman to work effectively at the sametime. He had to master a wide range o processes, including so complicated ones as the casting o hollowobjects with two-piece moulds, so there is reason to view him as a specialist in his cra57. He seems tohave served the whole settlement, as the other houses show no evidence o metallurgy58. His house was

44Comp. or the Bronze and early Iron Age o southeastern Europe Hnsel (ed.) 1995; Neipert 2006, 55-58.45Good examples or these kind o objects are metal vessels (Harding 2000, 193, fig. 5/14), which oen have a Europe-wide

distribution. Compare or instance the cups o the Fuchstadt or Kirkendrup types, which show only small typological variationscompared to their vast distribution areas (Soroceanu 2008, 35-41, 53-66 or a comprehensive view).46For an overview: Harding 2000, 232-234.47E.g. Dun Aengus, Co. Galway, Ireland: Faolin 2004, 57-59, 180-182, Nr. 6.6, Abb. 43A, C; Hallunda, Stockholm, Sweden:Vahlne 1989.48Hnsel/ Medovi 2004.49Hnsel/ Medovi 2004, 86-87.50Hnsel/ Medovi 2004, 88-91, fig. 2.51Hnsel/ Medovi 2004, 90-91, fig. 3-4.52Hnsel/ Medovi 2004, 101, no. 29.53Hnsel/ Medovi 2004, 91, 94.54Hnsel/ Medovi 2004, 92-93.55Hnsel/ Medovi 2004, 97.56Hnsel/ Medovi 2004, 94.57

One maybe has to add also the hammering o sheet metal to his skills, i a mould or a bronze disc o about 5 cm diameter, thatwas ound in the same area but in a higher level originally belonged to the complex: Hnsel/ Medovi 2004, 92-93.58 Hnsel/ Medovi 2004, 87-88.

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

9/63

216

Oliver Dietrich

not extraordinarily big; there are no signs o a high social status o its inhabitant59. Stocks o metal werenot ound, but whether this means that his customers brought the raw material needed60, or that theprecious materials were saved rom the ruin, remains open. Te house was lacking a hearth and a loom,otherwise standard devices in the houses o Feudvar61. Whether this means that the ounder was suppliedby the rest o society with everything he needed62, or that the complex was an exclusive workshop areawith the ounder staying somewhere nearby, remains open, too. O interest is the act, that the workshopwas not reconstructed like the other buildings that had burned down. Neither is there evidence or anearlier workshop. Te excavators, B. Hnsel and P. Medovi, take this as a clue or an itinerant specialistcrasman staying at the central place o Feudvar just or a short period o time (i.e. one constructionphase) supported entirely by what he received rom the local community in return or his services63. Tismight seem a persuasive argument in avor o mobility, but lately . Kienlin has shown, that even suchan extensively preserved and careully documented complex set in the generally accepted picture o theEarly Bronze Age as a time o high status individuals64controlling larger areas rom big, oen ortifiedplaces65like Feudvar leaves room or completely other views66.

Indifferent on how one regards these attempts to reinterpret the Early Bronze Age archaeologi-

cal evidence and with it the ounders role and social setting, it is clear that there is room or very differ-ent models o explanation even with extraordinary discoveries like the site and the bronze workshop oFeudvar.

A third way to get through to the Bronze Age ounder is to have a look at his tools. Castingmoulds o stone are highly complex implements with a variety o technologically relevant or just sty-listic characteristics, which can be used or identiying individuals involved in Bronze Age metallurgy.In addition the orms o the objects cast can give an impression o the radius the metalworker receivedinfluences rom, technological peculiarities can hint at the geographic regions where he learned his cra.I we would be able to identiy moulds made and used with a decent degree o security by the same met-alworker in different places, this would be solid evidence or him being mobile to a certain extent.

Tis will be exemplified starting rom two at the first glance rather inconspicuous halves o

two-piece casting moulds or socketed axes, which were ound accidentally during construction activi-ties at Media in ransylvania. Te southeast European casting moulds or socketed axes have been thesubject o a thorough study by B. Wanzek67, who was able to show the chorological relevance o several otheir technical attributes. Tey therewith represent a good basis or having a detailed look at the Bronze

59Hnsel/ Medovi 2004, 94-95.60Hnsel/ Medovi 2004, 94.61Hnsel/ Medovi 2004, 88.62Hnsel/ Medovi 2004, 95.63Hnsel/ Medovi 2004, 95.64E.g. Hnsel 1998; Hansen 2002a.65See or example Hnsel 2002; Dietrich 2010.66

. Kienlin 2007, esp. 15-16 raises, starting rom the Feudvar workshop, the basic question whether the introduction ometalworking was really enough to alter the Neolithic social system based on lineages into one o elites situated in oen ortifiedcentral sites like Feudvar with a presumed proto-urban character as the economic prerequisite or ully specialized crasmen.He sees the bronze ounder as an at the most semi-specialized person working rather seasonally while integrated firmly in hislineage system and subsistence work, arguing along the theoretical ramework established by Rowlands 1971. Communicationand mobility are in Kienlins eyes important mechanisms or the transmission o novelties like stable alloy ratios o tin bronzes,but actual personal mobility would be confined to the borders o the area settled by the lineage group; innovations and goodsbeing passed down the line. Kienlin sees, based on ethnographic analogies or seasonal work discussed above, the large amounto metallurgic debris sealed in a single event not necessarily as an indication o a ull-time metalworker. His production rangewould not necessarily have aimed at a social elite, neither was his workshop spatially associated with an elite quarter, whichanyway was not ound at Feudvar. As already mentioned it cannot be stated securely whether the lack o a hearth means thatthe ounder was provided with daily goods in exchange or his products, or i he was just living in one o the houses near theworkshop. Although some o his argumentation may be contestable, one remains with the opinion also expressed earlier byBoroa and Ridiche 2005, 167 that the Feudvar complex adds a lot to our knowledge about technological and chronological

questions as well as the degree o specialization involved, but less to the social and economic status and the duration o the stayo the metalworker in Feudvar.67Wanzek 1989.

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

10/63

217

ravelling or not? racing Individual Mobility Patterns o Late Bronze Age Metalworkers...

Age ounder, starting rom the point o view that not only objects do have biographies68, but that theysometimes can tell us a lot about the biography o the individual that made and used them. In order toprove this point, a close look at the Media moulds, the circumstances o their discovery and similaritiesto other pieces is necessary.

Two Casting Moulds rom Media-CetateBoth casting moulds have been known in the literature or some time. Tey were discovered in

a settlement situated on the Cetate(Fortress)-hill in the northern part o the modern town o Media(Fig. 1). Te Cetate-hill is one o the most cited places in discussions regarding the early Hallstatt period69o ransylvania70. Tis stands in a strange contrast to the amount o work done there and data obtainedrom primary contexts. Scientific excavations by E. Zaharia and I. Nestor took place in only one year,comprising only a small part o the settlement71. A large area o the settlement was destroyed by build-ing activities and terracing or viniculture. Tereore, in spite o its dominant position overlooking thesurrounding valleys on an almost rectangular, 50-70 m high and maybe partly ortified hill72, it is hard tocharacterize the settlement as a central place, as nearly nothing o the inner structure is known. What is

known on the contrary are very rich finds mainly consisting in pottery. Te dating o the site is a prob-lem due to a lack o clear stratigraphic contexts. Based on analogies or the ceramic finds, quite differentdatings arose.

Zaharia dated the whole settlement to Ha B, while K. Horedt proposed a beginning o settle-ment activities already in Ha A73and pointed at earlier materials, namely o the late Bronze Age NouaCulture74. Tis is supported also in remarks by Z. Szkely75and M. Bljan, D. Botezatu and E. Coma76,who describe typical Noua pottery amongst the finds rom the Cetate-hill. In her comprehensive studyon the early Hallstatt materials rom Media, C. Pankau stressed the problematic character o the findsand argued with precaution or a beginning o major settlement activities in Ha A1, which possibly wenton aer Hallstatt B77.

One important argument or the early start o settlement activities are the two moulds dis-

cussed here, or which Wanzek78

brought orward some early Hallstatt analogies. It will be necessary torecur on the dating o the moulds in more detail later on. Although they play such an important role indating the settlement, only ew has been written about the finding circumstances o the two artiacts.Wanzek79catalogued them as single finds, while Pankau80correctly cites the inormation Szkely pro-

vided about the finds already in 195381. Te moulds were discovered together in 1936 during construc-tion activities in what today is called the Pe Cetate-street on the slopes o the Cetate-hill (Fig. 1) by Ioanunzor, in an area with traces o fireplaces, burnt loam, pottery and loom weights. Tis account is backedup by the notes in the inventory o the Media Museum and clarifies two points. Te moulds are settle-ment finds, or maybe (part o ) a hoard and they belong definitely together. Whether the find concentra-tion described represents the rests o a house or just settlement strata remains unclear. Apart rom thecircumstances o discovery, the two moulds share some technological and stylistic traits. Te objects,

now preserved in the museum o Media82, can be described in short as ollows:

68Appadurai 1988.69Tis would mean Ha A and B in Middle European terminology.70Pankau 2004.71Zaharia 1965.72Pankau 2004, 13, fig. 5.73Horedt 1960, 180.74Horedt 1953, 806-807, fig. 13.75Szkely 1953, 6.76Bljan/ Botezatu/ Coma 1987, 52, note 19.77Pankau 2004, 97-98.78Wanzek 1989, 90, 104-105.79

Wanzek 1989, 201.80Pankau 2004, 16-17.81Szkely 1953, 7, fig. 2-3.82I have to thank Mr. Vlad argu, director o the Media Museum or the permission, to study the objects during a study trip

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

11/63

218

Oliver Dietrich

Figure 1: opographical setting o the hill-settlement at Media - Cetate. Te zone in which the mouldswere discovered is hatched (aer Pankau 2004, Abb. 2 with changes).

Mould 1. Museum Media (Inv.-No. 1891; Pl. 1/1).One hal o a two-piece casting mould or a socketed axe with loop. Under the slightly concave

rim vertical ribs are visible, the broadside shows a parabola like elevation. Regarding technological ea-tures, two dowel holes or joining the two-piece mould together and a unnel or pouring in the bronze(or ascension pipe?) aiming at the loop area can be observed. Te orm is made o quite hard crystallinegreyish limestone; its backside is slightly acetted.

Measurements o the mould: 16,09 x 9,22 x 3,98 cm, weight 1323,2 g. Measurements o the axeto be produced: Length 11,82 cm, width on the rim o the socket (including loop) 5,34 cm, width o thecutting edge 5,04 cm.

Mould 2. Museum Media (Inv.-Nr. 1890, Pl. 1/2)One hal o a two-piece casting mould or a slim socketed axe with loop. Under the slightly con-

cave rim the upper part o the axe is ribbed horizontally and decorated with zick-zack-lines. Te socketis accentuated by an U-shaped elevation. As with mould 1 there are two dowel holes or joining the twopieces o the mould together and a unnel or pouring in the metal (or ascension pipe?) is aimed at theloop. In addition rom the loop a negative or a rod-like device with an ear protrudes downwards. On thenarrow sides o the mould marks can be seen which presumably helped to fit the two pieces o the mouldtogether exactly or held a rope in place in order to tie them firmly together during casting. Te mould ismade o the same hard crystalline limestone as mould 1, its backside is more heavily acetted.

Measurements o the mould: 17,93 x 6,89 x 2,91 cm, weight 753,1 g. Measurements o the axeto be produced: Length 13,4 cm, width on the rim o the socket (including loop) 4,09 cm, width o thecutting edge 4,7 cm.

o sum up, both moulds are made o the same greyish hard limestone. Further, the dowel jointsare made and arranged likewise, and the rough outs or the moulds were produced in the same, veryspecial way, leaving acets on their backsides, clearly visible with mould 2, which has a nearly pentagonalcross section, but observable also with mould 1. Te unnels or pouring in the bronze (or ascensionpipes?) are laid out in the same ashion in both moulds. In Wanzeks classification system or the tech-nological eatures o casting moulds or socketed axes, they belong to Eingussvariante 4 which is typi-

financed by the DAAD. For his help with the museums collections I urther have to thank Mr. Viorel teu.

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

12/63

219

ravelling or not? racing Individual Mobility Patterns o Late Bronze Age Metalworkers...

cal or the Carpathian basin83. Judging rom these peculiarities, it is very probable that the moulds weremade and used by the same crasman. Tis is urther confirmed by the finding circumstances detailedabove. Tis provides us with the chance to trace the influences, which acted on an individual personworking bronze at a maybe regionally important Bronze Age site.

Analogies and the date o the mouldso fix the ounder rom Media in time and place, a close look at the socketed axes to be pro-

duced in his moulds will be necessary. Both are not part o the canon commonly used (or preserved) inthe Carpathian basin. Wanzek collected analogies or the axe with parabola-like raised broadsides and

vertical ribs under its rim to be cast in mould 1 rom the lower Danube region, especially at Iron Gatesand northwestern Bulgaria84. He differentiated several variants using the placement o the ribs in relationto the parabola as an argument. Based on his observations and a larger basis o analogies, I would suggestdistinguishing our variants as ollows (Pl. 2, numbers correspond with list)85.

Variant 1: Te ribs are placed above the parabola-like acet and are not going beyond it. Pieceswith a loop and without it are known:

a. with a loop:1. Boljetin, okr. Bor, Serbia, isolated find86. 2. rmonjice, ob. Jugovzhodna Slovenija, Slove-nia, hoard: one axe, Bz D87. 3. Izvoarele, com. Hotarele, Giurgiu county, Romania, one axe, possibly oundin the area o a settlement o the ei Culture (phase ei IV)88. 4-5. Majaka, obl. Cherson, Ukraine, hoard:two axes, Ha A189. 6. Negreti-Brigada, Vaslui county, Romania, hoard: one axe, Bz D90.

b. without a loop:7. Buzovgrad, obl. Stara Zagora, Bulgaria, hoard: one axe, phase Gura-Reti (Bz D) 91. 8.

Constana-Palas, Constana county, Romania, hoard: one axe, phase Gura Dobrogei (Bz D)92. 9. GorskoKosovo, obl. Sevlievo, Bulgaria, hoard: one axe, phase Lesura-Vrbica (Ha A1)93. 10. Okr. umen, Bul-garia, isolated find94. 11. Pela, obl. Jambol, Bulgaria, isolated find95.

Variant 2: Te ribs stretch over the whole width o the axe above the parabola. Pieces with a

loop and without it are known:a. with a loop:12. Aiud, Alba county, hoard: one axe, phase Cincu-Suseni (Ha A1)96. 13. Lesura, obl. Vratsa,

Bulgaria, hoard: one axe, phase Lesura-Vrbica (Ha A1)97. 14. Magura-cave, near Rabia, obl. Vidin, Bul-garia, one axe98. 15. Ostrovul Mare-Bivolrii, com. Gogou, Mehedini county, Romania, on axe, mayberom the perimeter o a cemetery o the Grla Mare Culture 99. 16-19. Urovica, okr. Bor, Serbia, hoard:our axes, Ha A2-B1100.

83Wanzek 1989, 63-64, Pl. 12.84Wanzek 1989, 104-105; 159-160.85Some o the axes listed by Wanzek have ribs all over their bodies, this being a clear difference to those cast in mould 1.Tereore the ollowing axes are omitted here: Altimir, ernych 1978, Pl. 39/4 Wanzek 1989, 104, no. 7; Obl. Orjachovo, ernych

1978, Pl. 39/5 Wanzek 1989, 104, no. 11; Bulgaria, ernych 1978, Pl. 39/6-7, Wanzek 1989, 104, no. 12.86Srejovi 1960, 63, fig. 31d; Wanzek 1989, 104, no. 2.87Mller-Karpe 1959, 108, Pl. 132A/3; Wanzek 1989, 104, no. 9; ere/ inkovec 1995, 149-159, especially 150, Pl. 51/3, 148/5.88erbnescu/ rohani 1975, fig. 3/6.89Dergaev 2010, 155, no. 22-23, pl. 9/22, 23.90Petrescu-Dmbovia 1978, Pl. 63A/4; Wanzek 1989, 104, no. 14.91Hnsel 1976, 31, no. 13; Wanzek 1989, 129, no. 7.92Irimia 1968, 91, no. 1, fig. 4; Wanzek 1989, 129, no. 3.93Photo Hnsel; Hnsel 1976, 38, no. 7. Te axe is similar to the Sokol type defined by Hnsel, it could thus also date to Bz D:c. Hnsel 1976, 38, fig. 1/394ernych 1978, Pl. 34/11; Wanzek 1989, 129, no. 1.95ernych 1978, Pl. 32/10; Wanzek 1989, 129, no. 6.96Rusu 1981, fig. 4/8; Wanzek 1989, 104, no. 10, Pl. 11, 47.97ernych 1978, Pl. 39/2; Wanzek 1989, 104, no. 5.98ernych 1978, Pl. 39/3; Wanzek 1989, 104, Nr. 6.99Berciu 1953, 623, a. XXXV/6 (grave find); Wanzek 1989, 104, Nr. 8 (listed under jud. Mehedini).100Srejovi 1975, Pl. LXXXI/1, 2, 12, 14; Wanzek 1989, 104, no. 1.

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

13/63

220

Oliver Dietrich

b. without loop:20. Pobit Kamk, obl. Razgrad, Bulgaria, hoard o casting moulds: one part o a two-piece

mould, phase Lesura-Vrbica101. 21. Skalica, obl. Jambol, Bulgaria, isolated find, one part o a two-piecemould102. 22. Sokol, obl. Silistra, Bulgaria, hoard o casting moulds: one casting mould, Ha A-B103. 23.Sterne Dergisi, valilik ekirda, urkey, hoard: one axe, Ha A-B (in middle European terms)104. 24.Straica, obl. Veliko rnovo, Bulgaria, hoard: one axe, phase Smbta I-Mlada Gvardia, the axes areearlier: phase Lesura-Vrbica105. 25. roas, urkey, isolated find106.

Variant 3: wo oblique groups o ribs are to be ound above the parabola. Only pieces withouta loop are known.

26. Buzorovo, obl. olbuchin, Bulgaria, hoard: one axe, phase Gura-Reti107. 27. Lesura, obl.Vraca, Bulgaria, hoard: one axe108. 28. Vrbica I, obl. Pleven, Bulgaria, hoard: one axe, phase Lesura-Vrbica109.

Variant 4: In addition to the parabola-like acet the broadsides are designed similarly to thoseo axes o the so-called ransylvanian type. Only pieces with a loop are known.

29. Austria, find spot unknown, one axe110. 30. endreni, Galai county, find spot insecure, one

axe (bought by the Galai Museum rom a collector living in endreni)

111

.Te axe to be cast in the mould ound at Media belongs to variant 1. Socketed axes o thisorm spread widely in Southeastern Europe (Pl. 3/1), but there is a concentration in the lower Danubearea with some finds reaching the Rhodope Mountains. o the south o the Danube, where the distri-bution pattern shows a concentration, only variant 1b, axes without a loop, are known. Te majority opieces listed above come rom hoards, which can broadly be dated to horizons contemporary with Bz Din middle European terminology. A couple o finds come rom early or late Ha A hoards. But, as the bigHa A hoards oen contain earlier pieces, it does not seem improbable that the actual time o use o the

variant has to be confined to Bz D in act, with some older pieces deposited in Ha A. Te single (insecure)settlement find rom Izvoarele would back up this dating, i it was possible to link it definitely to the siterom the 4th phase o the ei culture. Te mapping o variant 2 (Pl. 3/2), which is very close in its eatures

to variant 1, underlines the general findings. Again pieces without a loop are those reaching the arthestsouth o the Danube. Near to Media in ransylvania there is only one find spot, an axe rom the big HaA1-hoard rom Aiud. Unlike Variant 1, most o these finds date to Ha A or even B. Te general impres-sion taking together variants 1 and 2 is that o an axe orm rom the lower Danube and Rhodope areaspreading in low density to the north, where it seems to be adapted to local taste by adding a loop andloosing characteristic southern eatures like the almond-shaped depression or hole.

Te axe to be cast in the second mould is much harder to asses. As already Wanzek noted, thereis not a single axe known that shares all characteristics o the piece112. He was able to list some analogiesor the general orm o the axe, which were distributed widely in Romania and ransdanubia. A consid-erably enhanced state o research and publication makes it possible to complement and substantiate hisdiscussion.

Tere are only ew socketed axes which share several eatures with the negative in mould 2.

101Hnsel 1976, 39, Pl. 1/8.102ernych 1978, Pl. 34/14, Wanzek 1989, 195, no. 11.103ernych 1978, Pl. 30/17 (imprecise drawing); Wanzek 1989, 195-196, no. 12, Pl. 46/5.104Wanzek 1989, 130, a. 3/6.105Hnsel 1976, 42, no. 7; Wanzek 1989, 129, no. 8.106Bittel/ Schneider 1940, fig. 10; Wanzek 1989, 129, no. 4.107Hnsel 1976, 31, no. 16; ernych 1978, pl. 34/12; Wanzek 1989, 129, no. 2.108Hnsel 1976, 38, no. 2; ernych 1978, Pl. 31/12; Wanzek 1989, 129, no. 9.109Hnsel 1976, 38, no. 5; ernych 1978, Pl. 30/19; Wanzek 1989, 129, no. 10.110

Mayer 1977, 186, no. 986, Pl. 71/986, Wanzek 1989, 104, no. 13.111Dragomir 1979, 597, fig. 3/2; Wanzek 1989, 104, no. 3.112Wanzek 1989, 90.

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

14/63

221

ravelling or not? racing Individual Mobility Patterns o Late Bronze Age Metalworkers...

Te most appropriate analogy seems to be an axe ound at rsing, Austria (Pl. 4/1)113. It has a concaverim with just one rib and one zick-zack line beneath it. It has not the pronounced triangular blade o theMedia axe, but this could very well be due to wear induced by prolonged use. Te axe belongs to a groupo objects bought by the Graz museum in 1836. Tey are presumed to belong to one Ha A1 hoard, whichis not entirely certain due to the provenance o the pieces and the different colors o their patina. An axewith u-shaped ribs on the socket, but a nearly horizontal ribbed rim comes rom the Bz D hoard find oBkkaranyos (II) in Hungary (Pl. 4/2)114. Although its general shape has similarities to the axe to be castin mould 2, the differences predominate. Te same is true or an axe rom a Ha B1 hoard rom Berkesz,Hungary (Pl. 4/3)115. It is much squatter, its rim is approximately horizontal and like the axe rom rs-ing it has only one horizontal rib and one zick-zack line.

Nevertheless, there are numerous close matches or the general orm o the axe negative rommould 2, i.e. slender socketed axes with a concave rim and horizontal ribs (comp. Pl. 4/4-10)116:

a.Bluina 18, okr. Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic, hoard: one axe, Bluina or early Drslavice-Oechov phase (Bz D-Ha A1)117. b. Brodski Varo, Slavonski Brod up., Croatia, hoard: one axe, Bz D-HaA1118. c. Cadea, com. Scueni, Bihor county, Romania, isolated find119. d.Cetatea de Balt-Sub Coast,

Alba county, Romania, hoard: one axe, phase Cincu-Suseni, Ha A1

120

. e. Muievo I, obl. Beregovo,Ukraine, hoard: one axe, phase Kriva? (Bz C2/D)121. .Oinacu, Giurgiu county, Romania, one axe, maybepart o the BZ D hoard find122. g.Olcsvaapti, Kom. Szabolcs-Szatmr, Hungary, hoard II: one axe, phaseplyi, Bz D123. h.Podmonastyr II, obl. Mukaevo, Ukraine, hoard: two axes, phase Kriva (Bz C2-D)124.i.Rozavlea-Dealul Butan, Maramure county, Romania, hoard III: eight axes, phase Uriu-Domneti, BzD125.j.Smbta Nou, com. opolog, ulcea county, Romania, hoard II: axe, Ha A1126. k.Seleuu, com.Dane, Mure county, Romania, hoard: small ragment o an axe, phase Cincu-Suseni, Ha A1127. l.Ska-lica, surroundings o the city, rnavsk kraj, Slovakia, isolated find128. m.uncuiu-Petera Lesiana, Bihorcounty, Romania, hoard: one axe, BzD-HaA1129. n.Uioara de Sus-ul Mare, today part o Ocna Mure,Alba county, Romania, hoard: three axes, Ha A1130. o.Ugorod V, obl. Ugorod, Ukraine, hoard: one axe,phase Kriva, Bz C2-Ha A1131.

A map o these analogies (Pl. 4/2) shows a clear concentration in the upper isza region, where

113Mller-Karpe 1959, 277, Pl. 127B/8; Mayer 1977, 204, no. 1162, Pl. 83/1162.114Mozsolics 1985, 105-106, Pl. 3/5.115Mozsolics 1985, 96-97, Pl. 176/1; Kemenczei 1984, 170, no. 5, Pl. CLXVIII/2.116Tere are also socketed axes with a horizontal rim and ribs, which Wanzek partly listed as analogies. Tey not only differin the design o the rim but are usually much more jolted. Furthermore they oen belong to later contexts than the slenderorm with concave rim: Bonyhd, surroundings, Kom. olna, Hungary, hoard: one axe, phase Kurd, Ha B1, Mozsolics 1985,103-104, Pl. 36/10; Dola, imi county, Romania, isolated find, Ha A1-2, Szentmiklosi 1997, 21, fig. 2; Jamul Mare, imicounty, Romania, hoard: one axe, Ha A1, Holste 1951, Pl. 48/17; Kk, Kom., Szabolcs-Szatmr, Hungary, hoard: one axe,Gva Culture, Kemenczei 1984, 174-175, no. 27, Pl. 181/1; Obreja, com. Mihal, Alba county, Romania, isolated find, Ha B,Soroceanu/ Lak 1995, 188-189, fig. 2/3; Rdeni-Corli, com. Pstrveni, Neam county, Romania, settlement find, late NouaCulture, Dumitroaia 1985, 467-468, no. 6, fig. 1/b; ad, com. Drgeti, Bihor county, Romania, hoard: one axe, phase Cincu-

Suseni, Petrescu-Dmbovia 1977, 112-113, Pl. 213/2; echirghiol-Urluchioi, Constana county, Romania, hoard: one axe, phaseechirghiol, Ha A1, Petrescu-Dmbovia 1978, 136, no. 192, Pl. 214C/1.117Sala 2005, 306, no. 18, Pl. 89B1.118Vinski-Gasparini 1973, Pl. 61/15.119Nnsi 1974, 177, fig. 3/7; Bader 1978, 121, no. 16.120Pepelea 1973, fig. 1/12.121Hampel 1886, Pl. XII/8; Kobal 2000, 89, no. 90, Pl. 64D/1.122Unpublished, inormation A. Popescu, Bucharest.123Mozsolics 1973, 164, Pl. 34/5.124Kobal 2000, 93-94, no. 115, Pl. 36/41-42.125Kacs/ Mitrea 1976, fig. 1/1-8.126Aricescu 1965, 26-27, fig. 6/3.127Petrescu-Dmbovia 1978, 106, no. 67, Pl. 45B/10.128Novotn 1970, 81, no. 573, Pl. 32/573.129

Dumitracu/ Crian 1989, 26, no. 7, fig. XVII/1.130Petrescu-Dmbovia 1978, Pl. 164/97-98, one unpublished; Mus. Cluj-Napoca III 4947; III 5191; III 5166.131Kobal 2000, 97, no. 140, Pl. 38C/1.

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

15/63

222

Oliver Dietrich

also hoard finds with more than one piece are located. O special importance is the hoard rom Rozavlea(III). It comprises eight axes rom the same mould, which were obviously never used. Tis find clearlyhints at a production o this type o axes in the region. Another concentration o finds lies along themiddle course o the Mure, the axes stemming rom the big Ha A hoards o Uioara de Sus and Cetateade Balt. A ew specimens reach urther out to the south and the west.

Basically the distribution can be called a classical case or a production center with pieces get-ting ewer and more widely spread the urther they depart rom it. Again most o the finds date to Bz D,especially those in the center in the upper isza region, while axes ound arther away are oen part olater hoards. As stated above, older pieces (sometimes even dating back to the Middle Bronze Age) area phenomenon well known or the big Ha A1 hoards o ransylvania. Te same could be true or theaxe rom rsing, which presents the closest match or mould 2. As with the axe orm to be producedin mould 1, Ha A has to be regarded as the date o the deposition o the objects, not necessarily that otheir use.

O course, this is in obvious contrast to the so ar accepted Ha A1 date o the Media moulds.But, as no associated finds are known, these analogies are the single line o proo available. And, as stated

above, there is evidence or finds o the late Bronze Age Noua Culture rom Media-Cetate. It seems thatthe moulds cannot be any longer an argument or a Ha A settlement at the site, but or an even earlierhorizon.

Apart rom the chronological implications, the analogies or the moulds produced and usedby one crasman stem rom very different regions. Te axe to be cast in mould 1 is clearly a orm o thelower Danube area, while the second axe has clear affinities to the upper isza region, while the closestanalogy comes presumably rom Austria, on the border o the llenbeilkreis.

Patterns o mobility?Tus the point is reached to answer the question o how these influences on the ounder rom

Media came about. Usually that would mean to either point at the itinerant crasman or to argue

or cultural modes o the transmission o knowledge, both lines o argumentation based largely on eth-nographic data and a ew archaeological considerations. O course the finished products could havetravelled and inspired a local ounder. Tis possibility would be even more plausible as axes o slightlydifferent orm, but with the main attributes o the pieces to be produced in his moulds were present in theregion around Media. But there is also an attribute o the mould itsel pointing at the extra-Carpathianmain distribution area o the axes to be cast in mould 1. Wanzek has shown that casting moulds withholes or dowels concentrate there, while scattered examples are known throughout southeastern Europe(Fig. 2)132.

And there is one other strong argument or an at least regional mobility o the Media cras-man. Another mould or socketed axes ound at Cernat133(Pl. 5/1), around 200 km to the east o Mediain the rgu Secuiesc depression at the oot o the Carpathian mountains (Fig. 2) shares key eatures with

the moulds rom Media.At Cernat, a big ortified settlement dating in its main phase to Ha B134is known since excava-

tions done by Z. Szkely in the early 1960s as well as another one rom the Late Bronze Age135.It is not entirely clear rom which o these site the mould or a socketed axe o the so-called

ransylvanian ype stems136. Anyway, Szkely has reported the context o this discovery only shortly, but

132Wanzek 1989, Pl. 7.133Szkely 1970, 478, Pl. VIII/6.134Szkely 1966, 17-28.135Szkely 2002.136 Wanzek 1989, 200, no. 43 locates the find together with another ragment at the Ha B settlement o Cernat-Vr Ascuit(without naming the toponym). Szkely 1966, 21 explicitly mentions only Neolithic, Hallstatt and La ne finds rom there and

illustrates only the mould ragment. In his short lines regarding the complete mould he does not mention the exact location othe Late Bronze Age dwelling the mould was ound in (Szkely 1970, 478). It is possible that the mould was actually ound inanother settlement at Cernat, possibly that at Rberttag, which has ample evidence or settlement activities o the Late Bronze

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

16/63

223

ravelling or not? racing Individual Mobility Patterns o Late Bronze Age Metalworkers...

Figure 2: Map summarizing the influences on the Media ounder.

stating clearly that it was ound in a dwelling o the late Bronze Age 137, making the dating o the objectclear. Resemblances with the mould rom Media can not only be observed regarding the material used the same hard crystalline greyish limestone - and the overall orm, but also in the acets on the back-side,which are completely unusual or the axe casting moulds so ar known rom Romania138and southeast-

ern Europe in general139. Only dowel holes are missing rom this mould. Te artiact rom Cernat is notonly another clue regarding the earlier dating o the moulds rom Media. As the technical properties othe orms rom Media and Cernat coincide it seems quite possible that there is a connection betweenthis find and the crasman rom Media, or at least his school. Te distance between Media and Cernatis not too big, but the finds in any case are proo o one crasman, or someone who learned his cra romhim, travelling it.

I one wants to stick to the impression gained by the ethnographic parallels listed above, i.e.that a general itinerant way o live is less probable than individual larger journeys brought about or ex-ample by the saturation o markets or to many ounders working in one area, a tentative reconstructiono the Media ounders lie could read like this. He may have learned his cra somewhere south o theCarpathians in the lower Danube area. Tis would be sustained by him using technological eatures moretypical to this region (e.g. the dowel holes) and by the orm o the axe to be cast in mould 1 typical orthis region as well. He could then have moved, maybe at the end o his apprenticeship in the search ora region he could work in, to the northern Carpathian basin or directly to the settlement at modern dayMedia, where he came in contact with axes o the general orm o the specimens to be made in mould2. He settled at Media, where he produced inter aliaaxes that resembled or combined eatures o theseorms. He or one o his apprentices later moved to Cernat, the latter being more probable as with thedowel joints a main eature o the Media orms is missing, while another (the acets) remains. O coursethis interpretation remains fictional in large parts, but it is a model that would fit the evidence as well as

Age Noua Culture (comp. Szkely 2002). Anyway, it is clear that the mould is rom one o the sites at Cernat.137

Szkely 1970, 478.138Dietrich 2011, 83-85, Fundliste 1.139Wanzek 1989.

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

17/63

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

18/63

225

ravelling or not? racing Individual Mobility Patterns o Late Bronze Age Metalworkers...

Plate 1: Te two moulds rom Media.

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

19/63

226

Oliver DietrichPlate2:Typolo

gicaltableosocketedaxeswithparabola-likeacetsandverticalribsundertheirrim:analogiesormo

uld1:1.Boljetin(aferSrejovic1960,fig.

31/d);2.rmo

njice(aferMller-Karpe1959,Pl.132A3);3Izvoarele(afererbne

scu-Trohani1975,fig.3/6);4-5.Majaka(aferDergaev2010,Pl.9/2

2,23);

6.Negreti(af

erPetrescu-Dmbovia1978,pl.63A/4);7.Buzovgrad(drawingbyB.Hnsel);8.Constana-Palas(aferIrimia1968,fig.4),9.GorskoK

osovo

(PhotoB.Hnsel);10.Okr.umen(afererny

ch1978,Pl.34/11);11.Pela(er

nych1978,Pl.32/10);12.Aiud(aferRusu1981,fig.4/8);13.Lesura

(afer

ernych1978,Pl.39/2);14.Magura-cavenearRabia

(ernych1978,Pl.39/3);15.

OstrovulMare;16-19.Urovica(af

erSrejovi1975,Pl.LXXXI/1,2,1

2,14);

20.PobitKamk(aferHnsel1976,Pl.1/8);21.Skalica(aferernych1978,Pl.34/14);22.Sokol(drawingB.Hnsel);2

3.SterneDergisi(aferWanzek198

9,Ta.

3/6);24.Straica(drawingB.Hnsel);26.Buzorovo(aferernych1978,Pl.34/12);27.Lesura(aferernych1978,Pl.31/12);28.VrbicaI(aferernych

1978,

Pl.30/19);29.Aus

tria(aferMayer1977,pl.71/986);30.endreni(aferDragomir1979

,fig.3/2).

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

20/63

227

ravelling or not? racing Individual Mobility Patterns o Late Bronze Age Metalworkers...

Plate 3: Distribution maps o Variant 1 (above) and 2 (below) o the axes with parabola-like acets andvertical ribs under their rim.

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

21/63

228

Oliver Dietrich

Plate 4: Above: A selection o analogies or the axe to be cast in mould 2: 1 rsing (aer Mller-Karpe1959, Pl. 127B/8); 2 Bkkaranyos II (aer Mozsolics 1985, Pl. 3/5); Berkesz (aer Kemenczei 1984, Pl.CLXVIII/2); 4 Muievo I (aer Hampel 1886, Pl. XII/8); 5 Olcsvaapti (aer Mozsolics 1973, 164, Pl.

34/5); 6-8 Rozavlea; 9 uncuiu (aer Dumitracu/ Crian 1989, fig. XVII/1); 10 Smbta Nou (PhotoB. Hnsel). Below: Distribution Map o analogies or the axe to be cast in mould 2 (letters correspond to

list in text).

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

22/63

229

ravelling or not? racing Individual Mobility Patterns o Late Bronze Age Metalworkers...

Plate 5: 1 Te mould rom Cernat; 2 Mould rom Plenia (aer Boroa/ Ridiche 2005, fig. 3/2).

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

23/63

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

24/63

Bibliography / Literaturverzeichnis

Ailinci 2008 = S.-C. Ailinci, Te Place or the Dead in Early and Middle Iron Age Lower Danube Area .In: V. Srbu/ R. tenescu (eds.), Funerary Practices in Central and Eastern Europe (10th c.BC 3rd AD). Brila Braov, 2008, 11-30

Ailinci et al. 2005-2006 = S.-C. Ailinci/ G. Jugnaru/ A.-C. rlea/ M. Vernescu, Early Iron Age Com-plexes with Human Remains rom the Babadag Settlement. Peuce S.N. III IV, 2005-2006,77-108

Alexa et al. 1965 = I. Alexa/ t. Ferenczi/ N. teiu, Sondajele arheologice la HuedinBolic. AMN II, 1965,637-643

Almssy/ Gindele 2005 = K. Almssy/ R. Gindele, Nyregyhza - Rozsrtszl, Mars telep. AIH 2005, 291Andrioiu 1992 = I. Andrioiu, Civilizaia tracilor din sud-vestul ransilvaniei n epoca bronzului. Bibl.

Trac. II, Bucureti, 1992Andronic 1997 = M. Andronic, Evoluia habitatului uman n bazinul hidrografic Solone din paleolitic

pn la sritul secolului al XVIII-lea. Iai, 1997Andronic 2008 = M. Andronic, Istoria Bucovina Museumi. I. De la nceputuri pn la epoca cuceririi

romane a Daciei. Suceava, 2008Andronic 2010 = M. Andronic, tude de cas: lvolutionde lhabitat humain prhistorique dans le bassinhidrographique de la riviere Ilieti. AnnUnivValahia, ome XII, 1, 191-197

Andronic 2011 = M. Andronic, Cercetri arheologice n aezarea hallstattian de la odireti La Nuci,jud. Suceava. Presentation within the National Symposium Bucovina File de Istorie, 13thed., Archeology section, Suceava, 25-26 November 2011

Appadurai 1988 = A. Appadurai (ed.), Te social lie o things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cam-bridge, 1988

Ardeu 1995-1996 = A. G. Ardeu, Contribuii privind stadiul cercetrii Hallstattului timpuriu n spaiulintracarpatic. Sargetia 26/1, 1995-1996, 189-226

Ardeu/ Blos 2002 = A. Ardeu/ A. Blos, Cercetri arheologice la Mgura Uroiului (jud. Hunedoara).Cumidava XXV, 2002, 67-81

Aricescu 1965 = A. Aricescu, Depozitele de bronzuri din Dobrogea. SCIV 16, 1, 1965, 17-42Arnoldussen 2008 = S. Arnoldussen, A living landscape. Bronze Age settlement sites in the Dutch river area

(c. 2000-800 BC). Leiden, 2008Aspck 2008 = E. Aspck, What Actually is a Deviant Burial? Comparing German-Language and An-

glophone Research on Deviant Burial.In: E. M. Murphy (ed.), Deviant Burial in the Archae-ological Record. Oxord, 2008, 17-35

Bcsmegi/ Smegi 2005 = G. Bcsmegi/ P. Smegi, Hhalom-emplomdomb bronzkori tell geoarchaeol-giai vizsglata.ComArchHung 2005, 167176

Bader 1970 = . Bader, Die eingliedrigen Schildfibeln. ActaAntArch14, 1971, 63-71Bader 1970a = . Bader, Fibulele cu scut dintr-un singur fir/ Fibules bouclier, travailles dans un seul fin

(eingliedrige Schildfibeln).SCIV21, 1970, 2, 209-224

Bader 1976 = . Bader, O veche colecie de ceramic aparinnd culturii Suciu de Sus n Muzeul JudeeanMure/ Eine alte Keramiksammlung der Suciu de Sus-Kultur im Kreismuseum Mure.Marisia6,1976, 37-47

Bader 1978 = . Bader, Epoca bronzului n nord-vestul ransilvaniei/ Die Bronzezeit in Nordwestsiebenbr-gen. Bucureti, 1978

Bader 1982 = . Bader, Spturile arheologice din judeul Satu Mare (Partea I-a). StCom Satu Mare 5-6,1981-1982, 143-165

Bader 1983 = . Bader, Die Fibeln in Rumnien. PBF XIV, 6, Mnchen, 1983Bader 1991 = . Bader, Die Schwerter in Rumnien.PBF IV, 8, Stuttgart, 1991Bader 1996 =. Bader, Neue Bronzeunde in Nordwestrumnien. In: . Kovcs (Hrsg.), Studien zur Me-

tallindustrie im Karpatenbecken und den benachbarten Regionen. Festschri r AmliaMozsolics zum 85. Geburtstag. Budapest, 1996, 265301

Bader 2001= . Bader, Passunde aus der Bronzezeit in den Karpaten. ComArchHung, 2001, 1539

Satu Mare - Studii i Comunicri, nr. XXVIII / 1, 2012 (281-315)

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

25/63

282

Bader 2007 = . Bader, Balahuri Edurd (1931-2004) vlogatott rsai. JAM49, 2007, 12-23Bader/ Lazin 1980 = . Bader/ Gh. Lazin, Mrturii arheologice din judeul Satu Mare. Muzeul Judeean

Satu Mare, Satu Mare 1980Baillie 1995 = M.G.L. Baillie:A slice through time. Dendrochronology and precision dating. London, 1995Baillie 1998 = M.G.L. Baillie 1998: Hints that Cometary Debris played some Role in several ree-Rings da-

ted. Environmental Downturns in the Bronze Age. In: B. J. Peiser/ . Palmer/ M. Baylei (eds.),Catastrophes During Bronze Age Civilisations. Archaeological, geological, astronomicaland cultural perspectives. BAR 728. Oxord, 1998, 109-116

Balaguri 1972 = . A. , .In: c i ,Ugorod 1972, 9-75

Balaguri 1983 = . A. , x . Kiev 1983, 57

Balaguri 2001 = . A. , x . Ugorod 2001Balogh 1987 = Cs. Balogh, Elzetes jelents egy kora bronzkori telepls eltrsrl Kiskunlegyhza-

Izski t lelhelyen. Rgszeti problmk egy objektum rtelmezse krl. MKBKM 1995-96,1997, 49-53

Barber et al. 2004 = K. Barber, B. Zolitschka, B. arasov, A. F. Lotter,Atlantic to Urals. Te Holocene cli-

matic record o Mid-Latitude Europe.In: R. W. Batterbee/ F. Gasse/ C. E. Stickley (eds.), Pastclimate variability through Europe and Arica, Vol. 6. Dordrecht, 2004

Batariuc 2003 = P.-V. Batariuc, L pe de bronze dcouverte a Mneui(com. de Frtuii Vechi, dp. deSuceava). SAA IX, 2003, 167-172

Btora 2002 = J. Btora, Contribution to the problem o crafsmen graves at the end o Aeneolithic and inthe Early Bronze Age in Central, Western and Eastern Europe . SlovArch 50, 2, 2000, 179-228

Bayer 1928 = J. Bayer, Die ossarner Kultur, eine neolitische Mischkultur im stlichen Mitteleuropa. Eiszeitund Urgeschichte 5, 1928, Leipzig, 60-72

Bazielich 1978 = M. Bazielich, Elementy kultury Gva z osady kultury luyckiej w Nowej Hucie-Plaszowie,stan. 17/ Elements o the Gva culture rom a Lusatian culture settlement at Nowa Huta-Pleszw, site 17. ArchPolski 23, 1978, 307-354

Bazielich 1982a = M. Bazielich,Materiay kultury uyckiej i kultury Gva ze stanowiska 21 w Zesawi-cach-Dubni (Krakw-Nowa Huta). Wiadomoci Arch 47, 1982, 91-106Bazielich 1982b = M. Bazielich,Materiay kultury uyckiej i kultury Gva ze stanovwiska 22 w Zesawi-

cach-Dubni (Krakw-Nowa Huta).Wiadomoci Arch 47, 1982, 71-90Bazielich 1982c = M. Bazielich, Wyniki analiz technologicznych ceramiki kultury Gva i kultury uyckiej

ze stanowisk w Maopolsce i ponocno-zachodniej Modawii. Wiadomoci Arch 47, 1982,107-117

Bazielich 1982d = M Bazielich, Zagadnienie wystpowania elementw kultury Gva w okolicach Krakowaoraz jej oddziaywa na grup tarnaborzesk kultury uyckiej/ Zur Frage des Vorkommensvon Elementen der Gva-Kultur in der Umgebung von Krakw.In: Poudniowa strea kulturyuyckiej i powizania tej kutury z poudniem. Krakw-Przemy, 1982, 287-297

Bazielich 1983 = M. Bazielich, Die in Krakw geundenen Elemente der Gva-Kultur als Beitrag zur For-

schungen ber Kontakte Kleinpolens mit der Ostslowakei. Vortrag an der InternationalenKonerenz von Kaschau, 16-20.09.1983

Bazielich 1984 = M. Bazielich, Elementy kultury Gva w rejonie Krakowa-Nowej Huty. ArchPolski 29,1984, 317-349

Bazielich 1986 = M. Bazielich, Die in Krakow geundenen Elemente der Gva-Kultur als Beitrag zu For-schungen ber Kontakte Kleinpolens mit der Ostslowakei. In: B. Chropovsk (ed.), Urzetli-chen und rhhistorische Besiedlung der Ostslowakei in Bezug zu den Nachbargebieten.Nitra 1986, 145-150

Blan 2009 = G. Blan, Cronologia i tipologia dlilor de bronz cu toc de nmnuare din Romnia. Apu-lum XLVI, 2009, 1-40

Bejinariu 2003 = I. Bejinariu, Epoca bronzului n Depresiunea imleului.Rezumatul tezei de doctorat,

Alba Iulia 2003

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

26/63

283

Bejinariu 2003 = I. Bejinariu, Noi descoperiri ale culturii Suciu de Sus din judeul Slaj. Marmatia 7/1,2003, 65-81

Bejinariu 2006 = I. Bejinariu, Descoperiri ale primei epoci a fierului. In: H. Pop/ I. Bejinariu/ S. Bcue-Crian/ D. Bcue-Crian/ D. Sana/ Zs. Csk (eds.), imleu Silvaniei. Monografie arheolo-gic. (I) Istoricul cercetrilor. Cluj Napoca, 2006, 45-66

Bejinariu 2010 = I. Bejinariu,Aspects o the Late Bronze Age Cultural Evolution in Northwestern Romania(the Upper Barcu and Crasna Rivers). StCom Satu Mare26,1 2010, 235-266Benac/ ovi 1957 = A. Benac/ B. ovi, Glasinac II. Eisenzeit, Katalog der vorgeschichtlichen Sammlung

des Landesmuseums in Sarajevo 2, Sarajevo, 1957Benedikov/ Harutiak/ Pavelkov 2010 = L. Benedikov/ J. Harutiak/ J. Pavelkov, Pohrebisko luickej

kultry v Rajci, okr. ilina. In: V. Furmnek/ E. Miroayov (eds.), Popolnicov polia adoba haltatsk. Nitra 2010, 11-18

Berciu 1953 = D. Berciu, Catalogul muzeului arheologic din urnu-Severin. Materiale I,1953, 589-691Berciu 1966 = D. Berciu, Zorile istoriei n Carpai i la Dunre, Bucureti, 1966Berciu 1966a = D. Berciu, Neue Forschungsergebnisse zur Vorgeschichte Rumniens. Antiquitatis, Reihe 2,

Bd. 4, 1966, 25-39Berciu 1967 = D. Berciu, Romania beore Burebista. New York-Washington 1967

Berciu/ Berciu 1945 = D. Berciu/ I. Berciu, Cercetri i spturi arheologice n judeele Alba i urda. Apulum II, 1943-1945, 1-80

Bernjakovi 1955 = . . , e.Naunye zapiski13, Ugorod 1955, 171-186

Bernjakovi 1957 = . . , (). SlovArch5, 2, 1957, 435-450

Bischoferger 1969 = O. Bischoferger, Die soziale und rituelle Stellung der Schmiede und des Schmiede-Klans bei den Zanaki (anzania).Paideuma 15, 1969, 54-63

Bittel/ Schneider 1940 = K. Bittel/ A.M. Schneider, Archologische Funde aus der rkei im Jahre 1939.ArchAnzeiger 1940, 554-595

Bljan /Botezatu / Coma 1987 = M. Bljan/ D. Botezatu/ E. Coma,Mormntul hallstattian de la Media.

Apulum 24, 1987, 47-53Blegen et al. 1958 = C. W. Blegen/ C. G. Boulter/ J. L. Rawson/ M. Rawson, roy IV. Settlements VIIa, VIIband VIII.Princeton, 1958

Boghian/ Mihai 1987 = D. Boghian/ C. Mihai, Le complexe de culte et le vasse decor Buznea. In: Lacivilisation de Cucuteni en contexte europen. Bibl.Arch.Iassiensis 1, Iai, 313-325

Bohn-Gmelch 1986 = S. Bohn-Gmelch, Groups that dont wantin. Gypsies and other artisan, trader, andentertainer minorities.AnnRevAnthr, 15, 1986, 307-330

Bohn-Gmelch/ Gmelch 1976 = S. Bohn-Gmelch/ G. Gmelch, Te emergence o an ethnic group: Te Irishtinkers.AnthrQuart, 49, 4, 1976, 225-238

Bka 2007 = G. Bka,Addig jr a kors a ktra Vaskori kutak Bkscsaba hatrbl.BMMK, 30, 2007,111151

Bka 2008 = G. Bka, A Krs-vidken zajl teleplstrtneti vltozsok paleokolgiai httere a ks

bronzkor vgn s a kora vaskorban. Egy hipotzis.GYK, 13, 149171Bna 1958 = I. Bna, Chronologie der Hortunde vom Koszider ypus.ActaArch Hung 9, 1958, 211-243Bna 1963 = I. Bna, iszakeszi ksbronzkori leletek/ Sptbronzezeitliche Funde in iszakeszi. HOM3,

1963, 15-35Bna 1968 = I. Bna, skor.In: Szabolcs-Szatmr megye memlkei. Nyregyhza 1968, 15-55Bna 1993 = I. Bna, A honoglals eltti kultrk s npek. In: L. Cservenyk (ed.), Szabolcs-Szatmr-

Bereg megye monogrfija I. rtnelem s kultra. Nyregyhza, 1993, 63-137Bondr 2004 = M. Bondr,A kocsi a ks rzkori Eurpban/ Die Wagen im sptkuperzeitlichen Europa.

A 129, 534Bnisch 1999 = E. Bnisch, Bestattung in aller Form Das Grab eines Bronzegieers aus der Niederlausitz.

Ausgrabungen im Niederlausitzer Braunkohlerevier Arbeitshee zur Bodendenkmalpflege

in Brandenburg 6, 1999, 67-84

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

27/63

284

Bnisch 2005 = E. Bnisch, Begrabene Huser? Brandschutt mit bronzezeitlichem Hausinventar. In: B.Horjes/ R. Jung/ E. Kaiser/ B. erzan (Hrsg.), Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. BernhardHansel von seinen Schlern gewidmet. Bonn, 2005, 445462

Born/ Hansen 1992 = H. Born/ S. Hansen,Antike Herstellungstechniken: Ein urnenelderzeitlicher Bronze-helm aus der Waffensammlung Zschille.ActaPraehArch 24, 1992, 339356

Boroa 1994 = N. Boroa, Probleme der jungbronzezeitlichen Keramik in Ostungarn und Westrumni-en. In: H. Ciugudean/ N. Boroa (eds.), Te Early Hallstatt period (1200-700 B. C.) inSouth-Eastern Europe.Alba Iulia 1994, 7-23

Boroa 1994a = N. Boroa, Die Wietenberg-Kultur. UPA 19, Bonn, 1994Boroa/ Boroa 2006 = N. Boroa/ R. Boroa, Materiale pre-romane/ Vorrmische Besiedlung von

Sighioara Dealul Viilor.In: R. Harhoiu/ Gh. Baltag (eds.), Sighioara - Dealul Viilor. Bis-tria - Cluj-Napoca, 2006, 575-619

Boroa/ Ridiche 2005 = N. Boroa/ F. Ridiche, Der Gussormenund von Plenia, Kreis Dolj, Rumnien.In: . Soroceanu (ed.), Bronzeunde aus Rumnien II, Cluj-Napoca, 2005, 133-208

Bounegru/ Ota 2006 = G. Bounegru/ R. Ota, Piepteni de os din aezarea postroman de la Alba Iulia Dealul Furcilor-Monolit. Apulum XLIII/1, 2006, 297-307

Bouzek 1993 = J. Bouzek, Climatic changes: new archaeological evidence rom the Bohemian Karst and

other areas. Antiquity 67, 1993, 386393Bouzek 1999 = J. Bouzek, Climatic changes and southern relations: two aspects o the East Hallstatt cultu-

res. In: E. Jerem, I. Poroszlai (Eds.), Archaeology o the Bronze and Iron Age. Proceedings othe International Archaeological Conerence Szzhalombatta, 37 October 1996.Budapest,1999, 1325

Bratu 2009 = O. Bratu, Depuneri de bronzuri ntre Dunrea Mijlocie i Nistru n secolele XIII-VII a. Chr. .Bucureti, 2009

Brown 2008 = . Brown,Bronze Age climate and environment o Britain.Bronze Age Review 1, 2008,722.

Budinsk-Krika 1947 = V. Budinsk-Krika, Slovensko v dobe bronzovej a haltatskej. Slovensk dejiny1, 1947, 68 -103

Budinsk-Krika 1963 = V. Budinsk-Krika, iarov pohrebisko z mladej doby bronzovej v Dvornkoch,okres Koice. SCIV 11, 1963, 20-30Budinsk-Krika 1976 = V. Budinsk-Krika, Predkutanovick iarov pohrebisko vo Vojnatine/ Ein Vor-

kutanovicer Brandgrbereld in Vojnatina. SlovArch 24/1, 1976, 119-149Budinsk-Krika/ Veliaik 1986 = V. Budinsk-Krika/ L. Veliaik, Krsna Ves Grbereld der Lausitzer

Kultur. MatArch Slovaca, Nitra, 1986Budinsk-Krika/ Miroayov 1992 = V. Budinsk-Krika/ E. Miroayov, era-Lys str sdlisko z

neskorej doby bronzovej a haltatskej (Pokus o chronologick a kultrne urenie)/ era-Lysstr Eine Siedlung aus der Sptbronze- und Hallstattzeit (Versuch einer chronologischenund kulturellen Bestimmung).SlovArch. 40, 1992, 47-76

Bukvi 2000 = L. Bukvi, Kanelovana Keramika Gava kompleksa u Banatu. Novi Sad 2000Bulbuc 2006 = A. I. Bulbuc, Graiul pamntului, Pagini din monografia Iclodului. Cluj-Napoca, 2006

Cabalska 1983 = M. Cabalska, Materiay z epoki brzu i wczesnego okresu epoki elaza odkryte na sta-nowisku Nowa- Huta-Wycie I (5) w latach 1950-1952. MatArch NowejHuty7, 1993, 7-74

Cpitanu/ Vulpe 1985 = V. Cpitanu/ Al. Vulpe, Sabia de la Marvila. MemAntiq IX-XI, 1977-1979 (1985),497-502

Catalogue Berlin 1981 = roja und Trakien. roia i rakija.Ausstellungskatalog. Berlin, 1981ere/ inkovec 1995 = P. ere/ I. inkovec, Catalogue o Hoards o the Urnfield Culture. In: B. eran

(ed.), Hoards and Individual Metal Finds rom the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages in Slovenia.Ljubljana, 1995, 129-232

ernych 1978 = E. N. ernych, Gornoe delo i metallurgija v drevnejej Bolgarii. Sofia, 1978Chidioan 1970 = N. Chidioan, Contribuii la cunoaterea grupei Suciu de Sus n contextul epocii bron-

zului din Criana. SCIV 21, 1970, 287-293

Chidioan 1979 = N. Chidioan, Raport asupra spturilor arheologice ntreprinse n anul 1978 n satulad, com. Drgeti (jud. Bihor). Materiale, 1979, 85-89

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

28/63

285

Chidioan/ Emdi 1983 = I. Chidioan/ I. Emdi, Descoperirile arheologice din petera Izbndi (comunauncuiu) aparinnd grupului cultural Igria/ Les decouvertes archologiques de la grotta Iz-bndi (commune de uncuiu) appartenant au groupe culturel Igria.Crisia 13, 1983, 17-32

Childe 1929 = V. Gordon Childe, Te Danube in Preistory. Oxord, 1929Childe 1930 = V. G. Childe, Te Bronze Age. Cambridge, 1930

Childe 1952 = V.G. Childe, Stuen der Kultur. Stuttgart, 1952Childe 2009 = V.G. Childe, Te Prehistory o European Society. Reprint. London, 2009iikova1974 = M. iikova, Frhthrakische Siedlungen in Bulgarien. In: Symposium zu Problemen der

jngeren Hallstattzeit in Mitteleuropa. Bratislava,1974, 6184Ciugudean 1994a = H. Ciugudean, Perioada Hallstatt A n centrul ransilvaniei/ Te Hallstatt A period in

Central ransylvania. Apulum31, 1994, 59-73Ciugudean 1994b = H. Ciugudean, Te Hallstatt A period in Central ransylvania. In: H. Ciugudean/ N.

Boroa (eds.), Te Early Hallstatt period (1200-700 B. C.) in South-Eastern Europe.AlbaIulia, 1994, 25-40

Ciugudean 1997 = H. Ciugudean, Prima vrsta a fierului I. Cultura Basarabi n ransilvania/ Te IronAge I. Te Basarabi culture in ransylvania.In: H. Ciugudean (ed.), Cercetri privind epocabronzului i prima vrst a fierului n ransilvania.Alba Iulia 1997, 135-161, 226-228

Ciugudean 2004 = H. Ciugudean, Descoperiri aparinnd bronzului trziu pe cursul mijlociu al Mureu-lui/ Late Bronze Age on the middle Mure valley. Apulum41, 2004, 180-185

Ciugudean 2009 = H. Ciugudean, Bemerkungen zur Chronologie der beestigten Siedlung von eleac. In:L. Dietrich/ O. Dietrich/ B. Heeb/ A Szentmiklosi (Hrsg.), Aes Aeterna. In Honorem udorSoroceanu. AB 17. imioara, 2009, 67-87

Ciugudean 2009a = H. Ciugudean, Cteva observaii privind cronologia aezrii ortificate de la eleac/Bemerkungen zur Chronologie der beestigten Siedlung von eleac. Apulum 46, 2009, 313-336

Ciugudean 2009b = H. Ciugudean, Bemerkungen zur Chronologie der beestigten Siedlung von eleac. AB,SN, Arheologie-Istorie,17, 2009, 67-87

Ciugudean 2010 = H. Ciugudean, Te Late Bronze Age in ransylvania (With primary ocus on the centraland Southern areas). StCom Satu Mare, 26,1, 2010, 157-202

Ciugudean 2011 = H. Ciugudean, Periodizarea culturii Gava n ransilvania n lumina noilor cercetri .Apulum, XLVIII, 2011, 69 102Clausing 2005 = Ch. Clausing, Untersuchungen zu den urnenelderzeitlichen Grbern mit Waffenbeigaben

vom Alpenkamm bis zur Sdzone des Nordischen Kreises. Eine Analyse ihrer Grabinventareund Grabormen. BAR IntSer 1375. Oxord, 2005

Coci et al. 2008 = S. Coci/ A. Ursuiu/ Fl. Gogltan/ C. Gzdac/ A. Rustoiu/ Sz. Ferencz/ S. Musta/. Darczi/ D. Budihal/ Zs. Molnr/ B. Gergely, 67. Floreti, com. Floreti, jud. Cluj, Punct:apca Verde, Cod sit: 57715.06, Autorizaia de cercetare preventiv nr. 38/2007. CCAR, 2008,137138

Costea 2011 = F. Costea, Vier urnenelderzeitliche Fibeln aus Siebenbrgen. Cumidava 31-34, 2011, 81-93Costea/ Bauman 2001 = F. Costea/ I. Bauman, Dou fibule hallstattiene de tip Augustin, In: G. Florea/

L. Suciu (eds.), Studii de istorie antic. Omagiu proesorului Ioan Glodariu. Cluj-Napoca,

2001, 1-5Costea et al. 2006 = Fl. Costea/ L. O. Savu/ M. Cioc/ A. Blos, Augustin, com. Augustin, jud. Braov ipia

Ormeniului. CCAR, 2006, 8082Costea et al. 2006a = F. Costea/ A. Blos/ L. Savu/ R. Ardevan/ A. Ursuiu/ I. oneriu/ G. El Susi/ B. Daisa

Ciut/ D. tean/ M.-M. Duescu,Augustin-ipia Ormeniului, judeul Braov. Monografiearheologic (I). Braov, 2006

Crian 1993 = V. Crian, Obiecte de cupru i bronz aflate n coleciile muzeelor din Harghita . AMN 26-30/1, 1989-1993, 239-250

Crian 1994 = V. Crian, Spturile arheologice de salvare de la Vitea Pluta (Te saving diggings romVitea Pluta). AMN 31, 1, 1994, 357365

Crumley 1994 = C. L. Crumley, Historical ecology. Cultural knowledge and changing landscapes. School o

American Research Advanced Seminar Series. SAR Press, 1994

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

29/63

286

Csnyi 1980 = M. Csnyi, rokkal krlvett srok a halomsros kultra jnoshidai temetjben/ Gravessurrounded by ditches int he Jnoshida cemetery o the tumulus grave culture . A 107, 1980,153-165

Csnyi/ rnoki 1996 = M. Csnyi/ J. rnoki, Bronzkori tell-telepek a Kzp-isza-vidken. In: R. Kerteszet al (Hrsg.), Vendgsgben seink hza tjn. lland rgszeti killts a szolnoki Damja-

nich Jnos Mzeumban. Szolnok, 1996, 3148Cuco 1973 = . Cuco, Un complex ritual cucutenien descoperit la Ghelieti. SCIVA 24, 1973, 207-215Czyborra 1997 = I. Czyborra, Gedeponierungen Speise und rank r Gtter und Menschen. In: A.

Hnsel/ F. Innerhoer (Hrsg.), Gaben an die Gtter. Schtze der Bronzezeit Europas. Semi-nar r Ur und Frhgeschichte der Freien Universitt, Museum r Vor- und Frhgeschi-chte, Bestandskataloge Band 4, Berlin, 1997, 87-92

Dani 1999 = J. Dani,A Gva kultura urnatemetje Vencsell-Kastlykert lelhelyrl/ Das Urnengrbereldder Gva-Kultur vom Fundort Vencsell-Kastlykert. JAM 41, 1999, 109-135

Dani 2001 = J. Dani, More recent cemetery o the Gva culture at the upper isza river region. In: C.Kacs (Hrsg.), Der nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit. Bibl.Marmatia 1, Baia Mare,2001, 279-297

Dani et al 2006 = J. Dani/ K. A. Szilgyi/ M. Szelekovszky/ Sz. Czira / V. Kisjuhsz, Elzetes jelents a

Berettyjalu, Nagy Bcs-dl lelhelyen 2004-2005 sorn vgzett megelz eltrsrl/ Pre-liminary report o the excavations preceding investment at the Berettyjalu, Nagy Bcs-dlsite. AIH 2005 (2006), 5-31

Dani/ Szilgyi 2006 = J. Dani / K. A. Szilgyi, Elzetes jelents a Berettyjalu Nagy Bcs-dl lelhelyen2004-2005 sorn vgzett megelz eltrsokrl.BiM 10-11, 2006, 7-28

Dank/ Patay 2000 = J. Dank/ P. Patay, Rgszeti leletek a srospataki Reormtus Kollgium udomnyosGyjtemnyeiben.BAZMRE 2, Miskolc, 2000

David/ Kramer 2006 = N. David/ C. Kramer, Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge, 2006Demeterov 1983 = S. Demeterov, Hradisk kultry Suciu de Sus a Gva/ Burgwallanlagen der Suciu de

Sus und Gva-Kultur. AR 35, 1983, 33-38Demeterov 1983a = S. Demeterov, iarov hroby a objekty z neskorej doby bronzovej a zo zaiatku

starej doby eleznej v Zemplnskych Kopanoch/ Brandgrber und Objekte aus der sptenBronzezeit und am Anang der lteren Eisenzeit in Zemplinske Kopany. tudijn Zvesti 20,1983, 113-23

Demeterov 1986 = S. Demeterov, Poiatky gvskej kultry na vchodnom Slovensku/ Die Annge derGva-Kultur in der Ostslowakei. SlovArch 34, 1986, 97-131

Demeterov 1987 = S. Demeterov, Gegenseitige Kontakte der Urnenelderkulturen in der Ostslowakei.In:Die Urnenelderkulturen Mitteleuropas Symposium, Liblice, 21-25.10.1985. Praha, 1987,305-315

Demeterov 1988 = S. Demeterov, Kultovy objekt a nlezy oromanskej kultury zo Zemplinskych Kopian,okr. Michalovce. AR 60/2, 1988, 155-165

Dergaev 2010 = V. Dergaev, opory-kelty pozdnej bronzy karpato-podunavja.Chiinu, 2010Dietrich 2010 = L. Dietrich, Eliten der rhen und mittleren Bronzezeit im sdstlichen Karpatenbecken .

PZ 85, 2, 2010, 191-206Dietrich 2011 = O. Dietrich, Zentralisierte Produktionsstrukturen? berlegungen zur rumlichen Bezie-

hung von bronzezeitlichen Gussormen und Fertigprodukten in Sdosteuropa am Beispiel derrumnischen llenbeile. Marisia XXXI, 2011, 77-91

Dietrich/ Dietrich 2007 = L. Dietrich/ O. Dietrich,Alte und neue Bronzeunde aus Rotbav, La Pru.Materiale N.F. 3, 2007, 89102.

Dirksen et al. 2005 = V. G. Dirksen/ B. van Geel/ G. I. Zaitseva, Holocene climate changes and their influ-ence on cultural development in southern Siberia and Central Asia. GRA, 7, 2005

Domonkoov ibensk/ Nagyov/ Bodorkov 2007 = K. Domonkoov ibensk/ N. Nagyov/ S. Bo-dorkov,Antropologick analza kostrovch pozostatkov zo iarovho pohrebiska z lokalityrenn-Biskupice.Ve slubch archeologie 2, 2007, 63-67

Dragomir 1979 = I. . Dragomir, Noi descoperiri arheologice de obiecte de aram i de bronz n regiuneade sud a Moldovei. SCIVA, 4 30,4, 1979, 591-601

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

30/63

287

Dressler 1960 = J. Ch. Dressler, Chronik der bukowiner Landgemeinde-Illischestie. Freilassing, 1960Dumitracu/ Crian 1989 = S. Dumitracu/ I. Crian, Depozitul de bronzuri de la uncuiu, Judeul Bihor.

Crisia 19, 1989, 17-118Dumitracu 1974 = S. Dumitracu, Figurinele preistorice descoperite n Criana. In: In Memoriam Con-

stantin Daicoviciu. Cluj- Napoca, 1974, 129-136

Dumitracu 1994 = S. Dumitracu, Biharia I. Spturi arheologice(1973-1980).Oradea, 1994Dumitrescu 1974 = V. Dumitrescu,Arta preistoric n Romnia.Bucureti, 1974Dumitrescu/ Bolomey/ Mogoanu 1983 = Vl. Dumitrescu/ A. Bolomey/ F. Mogoanu, Esquisse dune

prhistoire de la Roumanie. Bucarest, 1983Dumitroaia 1985 = Gh. Dumitroaia, Obiecte de aram i bronz descoperite pe teritoriul judeului Neam.

MemAntiq IX-XI, 1985, 465-481Dumitroaia 2000 = Gh. Dumitroaia, Comuniti preistorice din nord-estul Romniei. De la cultura Cucu-

teni pn n bronzul mijlociu. Piatra-Neam, 2000Duru 1986 = R. Duru, arinhncesi aglarina ait dini bir tren/ Religious perormance o prehistoric date.

Anadolu Aratirmalari 10, 1986, 169-176Dzembas 1992 = . , .Car-

patica3, 1992, 41-46

Ecsedy 1983 = I. Ecsedy,satsok Zk-Vrhegyen (1977-1982). (Elzetes jelents.)/ Excavations at Zk-Vrhegy (1977-1982). (Preliminary Report.) JPM 27, 1982- 1983, 59-105

Eisner 1933 = J. Eisner, Slovensko v pravku/ Die Vor- un Frhgeschichte des Landes Slowakei. Bratislava,1933

El Susi 2002 = G. El Susi, Cercetri arheozoologice n aezarea de epoca bronzului de la Carei-Bobald(Judeul Satu-Mare).Traco-Dacia, 23, 2002, 243265

Emdi 1980 = I. Emdi, Necropola de la sritul epocii bronzului din petera Igria. SCIVA 31/2, 1980,229-273

Epstein 1998 = S.R. Epstein, Craf guilds, apprenticeship, and technological change in preindustrial Europe.JEcHist 58, 3, 1998, 684-713

ry et al. 1963 = K. K. ry/ A. Kralovnszky/ J. Nemeskri, rtneti npessgek rekonstrukcijnak

reprezentcija/ A representative reconstruction o historic populations. Anthropolgiai K-zlemnyek 7, Budapest, 1963, 41-90Falkenstein 1997 = F. Falkenstein, Eine Katastrophen-Teorie zum Beginn der Urnenelderkultur. In: C.

Becker et al. (Hrsg.), . Chronos. Festschri r Bernhardt Hnsel. Espelkamp, 1997,549-563

Feurdean 2005 = A. Feurdean, Holocene orest dynamics in Northwestern Romania.Holocene, 15/3, 2005,435446

Feurdean/ Astalo 2005 = A. Feurdean/ C. Astalo, Te impact o the human activities in the GutiuluiMountains, Romania. StudiaUBB Geologia,50, 12, 2005, 6372

Foltiny 1941 = I. Foltiny,A szregi bronzkori temet. Dolg Szeged17, 1941, 1-67. Gva Kultur 64 . a.23, 11; 24, 30

Foltiny 1941 = I. Foltiny, Magyarorszgi eredet rgszeti leletek a berlini Staatliches Museum r Vor-

und Frhgeschichte gyjtemnyben s raktrban. Dolg Szeged 19, 1943, 218-220Foltiny 1966/68 = S. Foltiny, / Zur sptbronzezeitlichen

Keramik in der Vojvodina. RVM. 15-17, 1966/68, 5-15Foltiny 1967 = S. Foltiny,Angaben zur Kenntnis der urnenelderzeitlichen Keramik im sdlichen eile des

Karpatenbeckens. Apulum 6, 1967, 49-71Foltiny 1968 = S. Foltiny, Zum Problem der sogennanten Pseudo-Protovillanova Urnen. Origini 2, 1968,

333-356Foltiny 1985 = S. Foltiny, Zur urnenelderzeitlichen Keramik im Banat. In: Wissenschal. Arb. Burgen-

land Urgeschichte-Rmerzeit-Mittelalter. Festschri A.-J. Ohrenberger.Eisenstadt, 1985,111-120

Foltiny 1989 = S. Foltiny, Einige Bemerkungen zur Frage der mittel- und sptbronzezeitlichen Keramik in

der Baka, in Syrmien und in Ostslawonien. Mitt. Arch. Gesellsch. Wien 118/119, 1988/89(1989), 229-246

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

31/63

288

Forenbaher 1988 = S. Forenbaher, On Pseudoprotovillanova urns in Yugoslav Danube area. OA 13,1988, 23-41

Forenbaher 1991 = S. Forenbaher, Nalazita grupe Belegi II u istonoj Slavoniji/ Sites o the Late BronzeAge Belegi II groupin Eastern Slavonia. OA15, 1991, 47-69

Forenbaher 1994 = S. Forenbaher, Te Belegi II Group in Eastern Slavonia. In: H. Ciugudean/ N.

Boroa (eds.), Te Early Hallstatt Period (1200700 B.C.) in South-Eastern Europe. AlbaIulia, 1994, 4962Furmnek 1977 = V. Furmnek, Pilinyer Kultur. SlovArch 25, 1977, 251-370.Furmnek 1981 = V. Furmnek, Die Annge der Pilinyer Kultur. SlovArch 29, 1981, 37-50Furmnek1986 = V. Furmnek, Kyjatice eponymn lokalita kyjatick kultury. SlovArch 34, 1986, 319-

330Furmnek1997 = V. Furmnek, Stand der demographischen Erorschung der Bronzezeit in der Slowakei.

Internationale Archologie 36, Espelkamp 1997, 74-78.Furmnek2000 = V. Furmnek, Popelnicov pole v Karpatsk kotlin. ActaHistMuseol5, Opava 2000,

95-106Furmnek2004 = V. Furmnek, Zlat vek v Karpatoch. Keramika a kov doby bronzovej na Slovensku

(2300-800 pred n. l.). Nitra, 2004

Furmnek/ Jakab 1997 = V. Furmnek/ J. Jakab, Menschliche Skelettreste aus bronzezeitlichen Siedlungenin der Slowakei. In: K.-F. Rittershoer (Hrsg.), Sonderbestattungen in der Bronzezeit im st-lichen Mitteleuropa, Espelkamp 1997, 14-20

Furmnek/ Mit 2010a = V. Furmnek/V. Mit, Pohebn ritus zpadn enklvy jihovchodnch popelni-covch pol. PA, 101, 2010, 39-11

Furmnek/ Mit 2010b = V. Furmnek/ V. Mit, Pohrebisko kyjatickej kultry v Cinobani, okr. Poltr(Predben sprva). In: V. Furmnek/ E. Miroayov (eds.), Popolnicov polia a dobahaltatsk. Nitra 2010, 101-115

Furmnek/ Mit/ Pavelkov 2010 = V. Furmnek/ V. Mit/ J. Pavelkov, Te Burian ground o the Kyja-tice culture in Cinobaa (Slovakia). In:Rgrl kell kezdennk. Studia Archaeologica inhonorem Pauli Patay. Szcsny, 2010, 125-136

Furmnek/ Stegmann Rajtr 2003 = V. Furmnek/ S. Stegmann Rajtr, Gegenwrtiger Forschungsstandzur Urnenelderkultur in der Slowakei. In: Broschre zum Symposium Die Urneelderkul-tur in strerreich Standort und Ausblick. Wien, 2003, 22-24

Furmnek/ Stloukal 1985= V. Furmnek/ M. Stloukal,Jihovchodn popelnicov pole ve svtle antropolo-gick anlzy. SlovArch33, 1985, 137-152

Furmnek/ Stloukal 1986 = V. Furmnek/ M. Stloukal, Einige Ergebnisse der archol.-antropologischenUntersuchungen des Grbereldes in Radzovce.Verff. Mus. Ur- u. Frhgesch. 20, 1986, 143-149

Furmnek/ Veliaik 1980 = V. Furmnek/ L. Veliaik, Doba bronzov. SlovArch 28, 1980, 159-179Furmnek/ Veliaik/ Romsauer 1982 = V. Furmnek/ L. Veliaik/ P. Romsauer,Jungbronzezeitliche bees-

tigte Siedlungen in der Slowakei. In: Beitrge zum bronzezeitlichen Burgenbau in Mitteleu-ropa.Berlin-Nitra, 1982, 159-175 Furmnek/ Veliaik 1987 = V. Furmnek/ L. Veliaik, Die

Urnenelderkulturen in der Slowakei. In: Urnenelderkulturen Mitteleuropas. Praha 1987,287-293

Furmnek/ Veliaik/ Vladr 1991 = V. Furmnek/ L. Veliaik/ J. Vladr, Slovensko v dobe bronzovej.Bra-tislava, 1991

Furmnek/ Veliaik/ Vladr 1999 = V. Furmnek/ L. Veliaik/ J. Vladr, Die Bronzezeit im slowakischenRaum. Rahden/West., 1999

Gbris 1995 = Gy. Gbris, A paleohidrolgiai kutatsok jabb eredmnyei.Fldrajzi Kzlemnyek, 44,1995, 101109.

Gabrovec 1970 = S. Gabrovec, Dvozankaste lone fibule. Godinjak 8, Centar za balkanoloka ispitivanja,6, 1970, 5-65.

Gaaj/ Olexa 1980 = D.Gaaj/ L. Olexa, Nov nlezy gvskej kuktry v Bori/ Die neuen Fundorten der

Gawschen Kultur in Bora. HC 10, 1979 (1980), 247-258Gavranovi 2007 = M. Gavranovi, Eine dreischlefige Bogenfibeln mit dreieckiger Fuplatte aus Bosnien.ArhVestnik, 58, 2007, 157-166

7/24/2019 A026_ST.Com_SM2012

32/63

289

Gavranovi 2007a = M. Gavranovi,Keramik mit Basarabi und basarabi-artiger Ornamentik in Bosnien.Godinjak, 34, 2007, 35-67

Gedl 2001 = M. Gedl, Die jngere Bronzezeit im Osteil der polnischen Karpaten. In: C. Kacs (Hrsg.), Dernordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit. BiblMarmatia I, Baia Mare, 2001, 335-352

Gedl 2004 = M. Gedl, Die Beile in Polen IV. PBF IX, 24. Stuttgart, 2004

Geel et al. 1999 = B. Geel/ O. M. Raspopov/ H. Renssen/ J. van der Plicht/ V. Dergachev/ H. A. J. Meijer,Te role o solar orcing upon climate change.QSR 18, 1999, 331338.Genito/ Kemenczei 1990 = B. Genito/ . Kemenczei, Te Late Bronze Age vessels rom Gyoma 133 S. E.

Hungary.ComArchHung. 1990, 113-125Gergova 1987 = D. Gergova, Frh- und ltereisenzeitliche Fibeln in Bulgarien. PBF, 14/7, Mnchen, 1987Gheorghiu/ Lascu 2011 = R. Gheorghiu/ I. Lascu, Gropi cu depuneri de oase umane descoperite n ae-

zrile din prima vrst a fierului din spaiul intracarpatic. Apulum XLVIII, 2011, 185 194Gimbutas 1965 = M. Gimbutas, Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe. Hague, 1965Glunz 1997 = B. E. Glunz, Studien zu den Fibeln aus dem Grbereld von Hallstatt, Obersterreich. Mit

einem Beitrag zur verkehrsgeographischen Bedeutung des Linzer Raumes whrend der Hall-stattzeit. Linz, 1997

Gods and Heroes 1998 = Gods and Heroes o the Bronze Age. Europe at the ime o Ulysses . Copenhagen,

1998Gogltan 2009 = Fl. Gogltan,A Late Bronze Age dwelling at IernutCtunul Sntu Gheorghe Monu-

ment, Mure district. In: S. Berecki/ E.R. Nmeth/ B. Rezi (eds.), Bronze Age Communitiesin the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings o the International Colloquium rom rgu Mure.Cluj-Napoca, 2009, 103-141

Gogltan/ Nagy 2012 = Fl. Gogltan/ J.-G. Nagy, Proane or ritual? Pit CX 0375 rom Vlaha Pad(Svdisla commune, Cluj County). A discovery o the end o the Early Iron Age rom ransyl-vania. In: S. Berecki (ed.), Iron Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedingso the International Colloquium rom rgu Mure 79 October 2011. rgu Mure, 2012,105-132

Gogltan et al. 2004 = Fl. Gogltan/ I.Al. Aldea/ A. Ursuiu, Raport preliminar asupra investigaiilor ar-

heologice de la Gligoreti Holoame, com. Luna, jud. Cluj (1994-1996) [Preliminary rapportconcerning the archaeological excavations rom Gligoreti Holoame, Cluj District (1994-1996)]. Apulum XLI, 2004, 61-101

Gogltan et al. 2008 = Fl. Gogltan/ E. Apai/ I. Kelemen, Leben mit den oten. Ein ltereisenzeitlichesGrab von Vlaha, Kr. Cluj. In: V. Srbu/ D.L. Vaida (eds.), Funerary Practices o the Bronzeand Iron Ages in Central and South-Eastern Europe. Proceedings o the 9th InternationalColloquium o Funerary Archaeology. Bistria, Romania, May 9th - 11th, 2008. Cluj-Napo-ca, 2008, 109-123

Gogltan et al. 2011 = Fl. Gogltan, R.E. Nmeth, E. Apai, Eine rituelle Grube bei Vlaha, GemeindeSvdisla (Kreis Cluj). In: S. Berecki/ R.E. Nmeth/ B. Rezi (eds.), Bronze Age Rites andRituals in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings o the International Colloquium rom rguMure 8-10 October 2010. rgu Mure, 2011, p. 163-183

Gooss 1876 = C. Gooss, Chronik der archologischen Funde Siebenbrgens. Hermannstadt/Sibiu, 1876Gray 1963 = R. F. Gray, Te Sonjo o anganyika. London, 1963Gstrein/ Lippert 1987= P. Gstrein/ A. Lippert, Untersuchung bronzezeitlicher Pingen am Hochmoos bei

Bischoshoen, Salzburg. ArchAus 71, 1987, 89100Guba 2008 = S. Guba,A pilinyi kultra temetkezsei Bercel-Srnyhegy II. lelhelyn.NMM 32, 2008,

73-98Guba/ Szevernyi 2007 = Sz. Guba/ V. Szevernyi, Bronze Age bird representations rom the Carpathian

Basin. ComArchHung 2007, 75110Gulys 2012 = Gy. Gulys, Mak-Jrand, Mak 39. lelhely. In: J. Kvassay (ed.), vknyv s jelents a

K..Sz. 2009. vi eltrsairl. Field Service or Cultural Heritage 2009. Yearbook andreview o archaeological investigations. Budapest 2012, 74

Gulys 2012a = Gy. Gulys, Szeged-Algy 47-es ti csompont. In: J. Kvassay (ed.), vknyv s jelentsa K..Sz. 2009. vi eltrsairl. Field Service or Cultural Heritage 2009. Yearbook andreview o archaeological investi