Content uploaded by Przemysław Makarowicz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Przemysław Makarowicz on Apr 17, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
The birth of anewworld.
Barrows, warriors,
andmetallurgists
(1600-1200/1100 BC)
C 5
128 Introduction
129 1. The origins of the phenomenon
132 2. Tumulus culture in the Odra
and Warta/Noteć interfluve
137 3. Barrow landscapes
148 4. Cemeteries and flat graves
154 Burial customs of the Silesian-
Greater Polish Tumulus culture
communities – conclusions
155 Metallurgy and social structure
158 The Silesian-Greater Polish
Tumulus culture: asummary
159 A
159 Górzyca. An elite necropolis on
the middle Odra
164 Karczyn – asmall family burial
ground?
167 Smoszew – aburial mound at Wał
Krotoszyński
171 Szczepidło – asettlement of
metallurgists on the Warta river
178 Bibliography
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
128
At the end of the first half of the 2
nd
millennium BC asignificant
cultural change occurred across vast areas of Europe. Groups
of circular or slightly oval tumuli, visible from aconsiderable
distance and sometimes forming telltale ‘barrow landscapes’
or ‘mortuary landscapes’ (Fontijn 1996, 78; Bourgeois 2013,
further literature therein), began to appear between the Rhine
in the west and the Tisa river basin in the east. The custom
of erecting such mounds, originating from the steppe, had
already been practiced in this region of Europe by Corded
Ware culture communities in the 3rd millennium BC. The new
type was, however, more sophisticated in design, due to
the use of diverse materials including stone elements. The
presence of barrows signals the emergence of anew and
dynamic social formation with adistinct identity, highly de-
veloped bronze metallurgy, and an original material culture
deeply rooted in ritual life. Their earth-and-stone mounds,
sometimes including wooden elements, contained mainly
individual graves, situated at the initial ground level or beneath
the ancient humus. It is due to this diagnostic feature that the
community of the builders and users of such structures were
labelled the ‘Tumulus culture’ (Hügelgrabkultur). Despite its
pan-European scope, the culture was homogenous, but not
devoid of peculiarities (dierences) that were local in nature.
In avery short period of time – only afew generations – the
identifiers of this formation spread from its heartland in the
upper Danube and upper Rhine basin to the east, towards
the Carpathian Basin, and to the north-east – as far as the
area between the Odra and the middle Vistula basin in pres-
ent-day Poland. The new lifestyle changed the developmental
trajectory of social and cultural life in temperate Europe. Its
emergence provides acaesura dividing the Early and Middle
Bronze Age in this region (Forenbaher 1993, 236; Vandkilde
1996, Fig. 134; Kristiansen 1998; Harding 2000, table 1.1; Jock-
enhövel 2013, 727; Roberts, Uckelmann and Brandherm 2013).
Introduction
P M
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 129
1. The origins of the phenomenon
The origins of Tumulus culture are the subject of ongoing
academic discussion (for more see: Dzięgielewski, Przybyła
and Gawlik 2010, 10-15). In the last 50 years the hypotheses
explaining the emergence of this cultural formation have
emphasized the role of migration or local changes; models
based on the complex relations between the centre and the
peripheries have also been made (Kristiansen 1998, 377; Vand-
kilde 2007, 129; cf. Sherratt 1993). The speed of dissemination
of the Tumulus patterns, the presence of barrows (usually
associated with the activity of mobile pastoral communities)
and, most of all, the military character of relevant material
identifiers – these factors have led scholars to believe that
Tumulus culture was composed of mobile groups of warriors
and animal breeders. The extreme version of this theory that
started to gain popularity in the 1950s (when the ‘migrationist’
vision of cultural changes in Central Europe was the dominant
paradigm) stated that the destruction of certain tells and
fortified settlements in the Carpathian Basin was caused
by an invasion of expansive ‘Tumulus’ communities armed
with swords (Kalicz 1958, 63f.; Mozsolics 1958, 141-144; Bóna
1975; 1992, 32-38; Kemenczei 1984; cf. also David 1998, 240f.;
2002, 23-26; Dzięgielewski, Przybyła and Gawlik 2010, 11).
However, some scholars emphasized the significant role of
the regional and local transformations of Early Bronze Age
communities which, coupled with the spread of new social
customs and rituals, may have resulted in the emergence of
anew culture. The abandonment of some tells was seen as
stemming from aslow structural crisis (economic, political, so-
cial, and settlement-related) that arose in the highly developed
cultural centers in the middle Danube drainage basin at the
end of the first half of the 2nd millennium BC independently
of the arrival of Tumulus culture communities, (Hänsel 1968;
Rittershoer 1984; Dzięgielewski, Przybyła and Gawlik 2010,
13). What is more, some regions bear traces of more settled
forms of Tumulus culture habitation, which ipso facto are at
variance with the hypothesis of massive and violent expansion
(Primas 2008, 26-28). Some research approaches emphasize
the importance of local changes in climate and the natural
environment (caused by excessive human activity) in the pro-
cess of cultural transformations which led to the emergence
of anew pan-European phenomenon (Novotná 1999, after:
Dzięgielewski, Przybyła and Gawlik 2010, 11). The current
interpretation of the mobility of ‘Tumulus’ communities and
their possible translocation deep into the Carpathian Basin and
into the north-eastern borderlands underscores the possibility
of the limited, slow migration of small groups, but negates
theories of asingle massive expansion that would be military
in character (Dzięgielewski, Przybyła and Gawlik 2010, 15).
One issue which proves significant in determining
the origins of Tumulus culture is the diversity in the level of
development of the early Bronze Age cultures that preceded
it in Central Europe. Particularly valuable information may be
drawn from the phenomenon of continuation and discontinu-
ation of culture and settlement structures. In the 17th century
BC the northern reaches of the Únětice culture oecumene
experienced astructural crisis and asettlement hiatus; no
such interruption in development occurred in the southern
or western regions, or further west in the circle of the Blech-
kreiskulturen (Innerhofer 2000; Müller 2012, 257f.). In light of
the most recent research, the decline of Únětice structures in
the north was associated with agrowing social and ecological
crisis that resulted e.g., in the well-documented regression in
the development of the fortified settlement in Bruszczewo in
Greater Poland/Wielkopolska, which occurred ca. 1650/1600
BC (Kneisel 2012; Kneisel 2013, 101f.; Müller 2012). The set-
tlement structure in that region only stabilized after several
decades, with the emergence of Tumulus culture (Schurbein
2009; Cwaliński 2012, 16). In some parts of Central Europe
(e.g., Bohemia, Bavaria, Hesse, Thuringia) arelatively grad-
ual and smooth transition in the form of bronze items and
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
130
pottery was observed between the periods of BA2 and BB1,
diagnostic for the Early and Middle Bronze Age respectively
(Rittershofer 1984; Innerhofer 2000). The term ‘pre-Tumulus’
horizon (BA3) was introduced to denote the stage that followed
the disappearance of Early Bronze Age cultural structures and
preceded the formation of Tumulus culture at the foothills of
the Alps (Innerhofer 2000, 241f.). The precise and absolute
chronology for the emergence of Tumulus culture still causes
controversies (the BB1 period is dated to ca. 1600 or 1500
BC; Harding 2000, 17f. and Fig. 1.3; Dąbrowski 2004, 102-
105; Kristiansen, Larsson 2005, 127f.; Vandkilde 2007, 121f.;
cf. Cwaliński 2012, 15). The latest theories and radiocarbon
data acquired in Germany (Müller, Lohrke 2009) suggest
that 1600-1500 BC ought to be regarded as the period of
the gradual formation of this cultural entity over the course
of several generations (Innerhofer 2000, 270f.; Schnurbein
2009, after: Cwaliński 2012, 15; Vandkilde 2014, 606, table 1).
The processes behind the development of this new
cultural phenomenon may become clearer if one considers
the origins of the new ideology of warriorhood apparent in
the most progressive formations of the late stages of the early
Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin (Vandkilde 2007, 129;
2014; the beginnings of the Middle Bronze Age in Hungarian
chronology; Hänsel 1968; Bóna 1992; Harding 2000, Fig. 1.3).
This factor is particularly relevant in the case of the centralized
communities of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture. Its members
built impressive fortified settlements, knew advanced methods
of bronze casting, and maintained avast network of contacts
that connected the north of Europe with the eastern reaches
of the Mediterranean world (e.g., Bouzek 1985; Furmánek,
Veliačik, Vladár 1991; Kristiansen, Larrson 2005; David 2007).
This was the first culture in temperate Europe to use swords,
which later became an integral part of the ‘Tumulus culture
set’ (Vandkilde 2007, 131f.). The composition of some spec-
tacular hoards and the presence of military items in some of
the graves associated with such communities may suggest
that anew type of individualized elite (military aristocracy)
emerged in this very culture (Kristiansen 1998, 376f.; 1999;
Kristiansen, Larrson 2005). The attractive ideology would then
have spread to the west and north-west and be adapted by the
‘post-Early-Bronze’, de-centralized and mobile communities
(most likely based on kinship) of animal farmers inhabiting
the upper Danube basin and the upper Rhine basin, as well
as by the peoples of the Nordic regions (Vandkilde 2014, Fig.
5). This process went hand in hand with the dissemination of
the custom of tumulus-building and the associated religious
concepts, funerary practices, and territorial behaviour. The
mechanism behind the adoption of this custom remains un-
known. It may have been the result of imitating the barrows
of Corded Ware culture, already present in the landscape of
Central Europe – asimilar process took place in the commu-
nities of the Trzciniec circle (Makarowicz 2009; 2010; 2011). It
is also possible that the tumuli were based on the few existing
Únětice barrows, though in this case the similarities are more
apparent in the stone elements beneath the barrows’ mound.
In both cases there was no direct contact between the earlier
cultural formation and the emerging group.
Thus, the emergence of anew social structure – with an
elite class based on anovel type of identity (warriorhood), con-
trol over new copper deposits, and the custom of burying the
dead under massive mounds with acomplex structure – took
place over the course of several generations and involved the
gradual dissemination of acertain lifestyle and the ideology
that ‘fueled’ it. Some members of this community were buried
with spectacular grave goods of bronze, gold (weapons in
particular), amber, and glass. The items indicated the gender
of the deceased, their social role, status, and sometimes also
group membership (Kristiansen 1998; Vandkilde 2007, 131;
Jockenhövel 1991; 2013).
The new lifestyle became apan-European phenome-
non, but involved aconsiderable degree of regional diversity
that stemmed primarily from contact with local tradition (Bóna
1975; Gedl 1989; Jockenhövel, Kubach [eds.] 1994; David
2002; Jockenhövel 2013). But how did this model spread? It
appears that analogies for this development may be found
in the social processes and interactions that took place at
the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC and led to the emer-
gence of the Bell Beaker phenomenon (Burgess 1986; Nicolis
2001 [ed.]; Czebreszuk 2001; 2004 [ed.]; Heyd 2013; Van der
Linden 2013, further literature therein). The most important
elements of the ‘Tumulus set of cultural patterns’ included:
warriorhood (conveyed through the presence of individual
weaponry as grave goods), characteristic types of territorial
behaviour (methods of familiarizing space that largely relied
on constructing tumuli – monumental graves with aunique
external form and internal architecture that was singular,
spectacular, and immensely symbolic), and aspecific array of
valuables made of bronze or, less frequently, of amber or glass
(such items indicated the status, gender, and sometimes also
the social role of the deceased with whom they were buried).
Local cultural milieux transmitted and adapted aset of ideo-
logical, social, and political principles that gave the emerging
I
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 131
formation coherence and anew ‘quality’. The symbolism of
the stone barrow construction (rings, kerbs, cores, rays, etc.),
the high value of bronze and amber, and the emergence of
the custom of cremation suggests that ‘Tumulus’ communities
had alarge part to play in the dissemination of the solar cult
during the Middle Bronze Age (cf. Kristiansen, Larsson 2005;
Czebreszuk 2011, 164-171).
The decline of the Central European early Bronze Age
civilization and the birth of anew, pan-European formation was
acomplex process that lasted at least several decades. It may
be surmised that the downfall of Únětice structures and the
Otomani-Füzesabony-Gyulavarsánd complex in the Carpathian
Basin was brought about primarily by internal structural crises,
yet the reasons for the emergence of Tumulus culture lay in
the attractive, almost ‘Dionysian’ ideology of warriorhood.
Its solidification coincided with the decline of the ‘old’ Early
Bronze Age elites that ruled over centralized structures that
were territorial in character (fortified settlements with pro-
to-urban characteristics) and were buried in magnificent, richly
furnished graves covered with mounds (Fürstengräber). It was
also concurrent with the emergence of active kinship-based
and de-centralized groups led by the ‘new’ elite class of war-
riors (the beginnings of military aristocracy?). The significance
of such groups continued to grow during the pivotal period
– and the decline of the Únětice world and the final turbulent
phase of the development of centres in the Carpathian Basin
may well be thus described. The process was facilitated by
the escalation of military conflicts that occurred in the Bronze
Age (Harding 1999; 2007; Kristiansen 1999; Osgood, Monks,
with Thoms 2000; Kristiansen, Larsson 2005; Hårde 2006;
Vandkilde 2011; 2014). War became an inherent part of social
life, as indicated by the increasing presence of weaponry
in male graves, rock carvings and steles depicting warriors
and their equipment, as well as arrowheads and spearheads
embedded in the bones (soft tissues) of the deceased, and
plentiful evidence of injuries caused by melee weapons (e.g.,
Osgood 2006). New types of weaponry (swords, spears) start-
ed to be used in the first half of the 2
nd
millennium BC, leading
to more ecient methods of combat (e.g., Harding 2006;
Thrane 2006). This must have resulted in the emergence of
new types of units, combat styles, and military strategies. It
may also be surmised that ‘Tumulus’ communities adopted
ahitherto unknown, institutionalized model of warriorhood
based on groups of men who dealt with warfare professionally
(cf. Sarauw 2007, 66).
The origin of Tumulus culture may therefore be per-
ceived as having stemmed primarily from dynamic socio-po-
litical and ideological changes and the quick pan-European
transmission of the set of attractive ‘Dionysian’ models. Signs
of the presence of professional warriors or even chiefs (the
most instructive example being the warrior from Hagenau;
Boos 2000, 106f. further literature therein) and direct evidence
of fighting (e.g., the bronze arrowhead found in the bone of
the deceased interred in amound in the famous burial ground
in Schwarza in southern Thuringia; Feustel 1958, Abb. XXXII:
4-6) can be found in various regions of the new culture’s area
of habitation.
Additional factors which facilitated and, to acertain
degree, fueled the transformation include regional climactic
changes (at this stage of the Subboreal period there was
adecrease in temperature and an increase in humidity, which
stimulated population mobility and the development of animal
husbandry), the recession of established centres of metallurgy
and the increasing importance of new ones (e.g., in eastern
regions of the Alps), the popularization of bronze casting
and the changes in the network of long-distance intercul-
tural links (e.g., Sherratt 1993; Kneisel 2012, 215). It appears,
however, that these played only asupplementary role to the
above-mentioned ‘mental’ factors.
In light of the above concepts, the expansion of Tu
-
mulus culture from its heartland in the upper Danube and
upper Rhine to the east may be regarded as the process
of adopting the ideology of new elites along with acertain
set of cultural behaviour patterns. As with Bell Beakers, this
attractive cultural package was transmitted, imitated, trans-
formed, and reproduced with varying results, first by the elites
of local cultural groups and then by wider communities. The
success of the new model lay in the favourable combination
of three elements: the power of hierarchized, de-centralized,
and mobile kinship-based social structures (military aristocra-
cy-warriors, their clients and families), control over resources
and long-distance trade routes, and the dissemination of
metallurgy techniques (especially methods of casting).
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
132
2. Tumulus culture in the Odra and Warta/
Noteć interfluve
The communities of Tumulus culture inhabiting Silesia/Śląsk
and Greater Poland/Wielkopolska (Pre-Lusatian culture) con-
stitute the northeasternmost enclave of the large complex
of Tumulus cultures (Fig. 1). They belong to the least stud-
ied groups in Polish territory (Kostrzewski 1924; Gedl 1975;
1989; 1992; Gediga 1978; Kłosińska 1997; Bukowski 1998;
Lasak 2001; Dąbrowski 2004, 11f.; Kaczmarek 2012, 157-232;
Makarowicz 2016). This state of research stems from the fact
that for almost four decades the dominant historical and cultur-
al theoretical framework has been cementing and reiterating
the ‘routine’ view on this cultural formation. The discourse
has tended to focus on taxonomy, especially on the typology
of artefacts, relative chronology, territorial division, and the
origins and nature of contacts with neighbouring regions.
Social and economic issues, along with the internal dynamics
of changes and the features of the system have received
scant attention. The situation started to change not until the
early 21st century as aresult of field research (limited though
0 125 25062,5
[km]
N
E
S
W
Fig. 1. Spatial range of the Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus Culture (‘Vorlauzitzer Kultur’) after M.Gedl 1992, amended
2. T O W/N
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 133
it was) – excavations and non-invasive projects – and the ap-
plication of new theoretical norms in the interpretation of this
phenomenon (Cwaliński 2010; 2012; Jaeger, Pospieszny 2011;
Cwaliński, Niebieszczański 2012; 2013; Kneisel 2012; Kneisel
2013; Makarowicz, Garbacz-Klempka 2014; Makarowicz 2016).
As with other regional groups of Tumulus culture, most of the
archaeological material found in Polish territory is funerary in
nature. Objectively, this is alimitation that makes the internal
system of the culture more dicult to define.
Settlement centres of the Silesian/Greater-Polish Tu-
mulus culture were found mainly in Upper Śląsk, the left-bank
regions of Lower Śląsk, the right-bank (northern) part of Mid-
dle Śląsk, as well as in Wielkopolska and Cuiavia/Kujawy, as
far as the interfluve of the upper Noteć and middle Vistula
(territorial range – Fig. 2). The concentration of `Tumulus`
sites in these regions varies. The area along the upper and
middle Warta and Prosna interfluve as far as Kujawy is re-
garded as the zone of interspersed Trzciniec-Tumulus cultural
features (Gardawski 1959; Dąbrowski 1972; 2004, Karte 8;
Gedl 1975; Gediga 1978; Miśkiewicz 1978) and in more recent
interpretations as the region of syncretization of both these
cultural models (Ignaczak, Makarowicz 1998). Reception of
Tumulusculture features also took place in Lubusz Land and
in western Pomerania/Pomorze, where the Ostrowice Group
(western-Pomeranian Group) has been distinguished. The
culture also adopted patterns associated with the Nordic
Bronze Age (Gedl 1975, 73f.; 1989, 475; Dąbrowski 1985, 106f.;
Bukowski 1998, 121, 125). In general, the region was subjected
to cultural influence from Brandenburg, Meklemburg, and
Scandinavia (Bukowski 1998, 121f.). Some scholars claim that
Tumulus culture and the Nordic culture had an equal impact
on this region (Gedl 1992, 41); astronger influence of Tumulus
culture is apparent especially in the lower Odra basin and in
Pyrzyce Land (Gediga 1977, 9; 1978; 137f.).
The oecumene of Tumulus culture in the borderlands
between Śląsk and Wielkopolska (acentral settlement region)
was not evenly populated or homogenous (cf.Gardawski 1959,
129-132; Gediga 1978, 164-167). It featured densely and more
E
((
(
(
((
(
(
DD
(
D
E
E
¨
E
((
(
(
¨
E
¨
¨
((
(
(((
(
(
((
(
(
E
(
D
DD
E
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
D
((
(
(
E
((
(
(
(
D
DE
¨
¨
(
D
((
(
(
D(
E
¨
¨
¨
((
(
(
(
D
¨
(
¨
¨
(
D
D
((
(
(
((
(
(
¨
((
(
(
(
D
¨
(
(
((
(
(
D
D
((
(
(
¨
((
(
(
(
(
Barycz
Prosna
Odra
W
arta
¨
Barrow burial g round
((
(
(
Flat burial groun d
E
Single grave
(
Camp
Settlement
D
Stray find
0 25 5012,5
[km]
N
E
S
W
Fig. 2. Settlement points of the Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus Culture in the Prosna-Odra interfluve (‘close zone’)
superimposed on ahypsometric map. By Jakub Niebieszczański
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
134
sparsely populated areas, as well as regions with agreater
and lower concentration of ‘Tumulus’ features. Three larger
settlement clusters may be distinguished (Fig. 3; Kneisel 2012,
221, fig. 10; 2013, Abb. 10). The first and geographically largest
encompasses the middle and parts of the lower course of the
Warta river as far as the Obra river basin; the second stretches
across the middle Barycz-Odra interfluve; whereas the third is
located in the upper Barycz basin, in the southern part of the
Kalisz Upland and the northern stretch of the Ostrzeszów Hills.
The origins of Tumulus culture in what is now Polish
territory most likely resulted from acombination of dierent
factors. In the hitherto prevailing narrative its arrival in the
Odra-middle Vistula interfluve was associated with an invasion
(aggressive migration) of the Tumulus peoples from enclaves
in the middle Danube basin, the destruction of Únětice cen-
tres and the Nowa Cerekwia Group, and the subsequent
conquest of the western territories inhabited by members
of the Trzciniec culture (Gedl 1975, 81; 1989; 1992; Gediga
1978). There is, however, much evidence to suggest that the
provenance of this cultural group is more complex.
Recent archaeological research and environmental
analyses indicate that the decline of the Únětice culture in
the northern reaches of its scope (e.g., the economic and
settlement crisis of the Kościan agglomeration with its centre
in Bruszczewo and the princely barrow graves in Łęki Małe)
was mainly the result of excessive human activity and overly
intense exploitation of natural resources (Kneisel 2012; 2013;
Müller 2012). Palynological data from the period of1700-1500
BC collected in this part of the North European Plain indicates
adecline of human activity. It coincides with the devolution
of settlement centres (hamlets and necropolises) dated to
the end of the Early Bronze Age and the beginning of the
Middle Bronze Age (depopulation?). The decline of Early
Bronze Age settlements occurred between 1700 and 1600
BC, whereas the beginning of the Silesian-Greater Polish
Tumulus culture may be dated to 1600-1500 BC. Arenewed
increase in human activity, indicated e.g., by the ‘opening’
of the landscape , did not occur until ca. 1500-1400 BC, in
the classic period of the development of ‘Tumulus’ cultural
structures (Kneisel 2012, 221).
HH
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
#
*
N
ote
ć
Bób
r
B
ó
br
Note
ć
Widaw
a
Ba
r
yc
z
Prosna
Odra
W
i
s
ł
a
Warta
N
E
S
W
025 5012,5
[km]
(
Grave mound
0 - 25
25 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 200
200 - 400
400 - 700
700 - 800
800 - 900
900 - 1000
1000 - 1250 km
2
Fig. 3. Point density of Middle-Bronze-Age sites of the Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus Culture
(after Kneisel 2012; 2013)
2. T O W/N
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 135
Juta Kneisel’s maps of settlement centres in the
Śląsk-Wielkopolska borderlands (Kneisel 2012, 219-221, Fig.
8-10) indicate ashift in the area of habitation – from the inter-
fluve of the middle Odra and the western part of the middle
Warta basin in the Early Bronze Age towards the north-east,
east and south in the Middle Bronze Age (both Tumulus and
Trzciniec type settlements). If one disregards the settlement
centres categorized as belonging to Trzciniec circle, it be-
comes apparent that the density of the settlement structure
decreased by ca. 25%. The majority of the Early Bronze Age
sites are settlements, whereas most of the sites dated to the
Middle Bronze Age are funerary in nature. The latter sites,
however, represent the developed phase of Tumulus culture
(Kneisel 2012, 218).
The introduction of new funerary practices – i.e., tu-
mulus burial grounds – can be observed primarily in the
southern part of the middle Bronze Age settlement cluster.
To the north of Barycz such sites are only incidental. This fact
was interpreted as indicative of adecline in the role of the
Odra as aconnecting route and an increase in the Warta’s
importance (Kneisel 2012, 219). This is also the area where
the majority of the Lochhalsnadel pins and pins with hemi-
spherical heads were found (the latter type also appears in
Kujawy and Pomorze). Such items are associated with the
early stage of the middle Bronze Age, i.e., to the early phase
in the development of Tumulus culture (BB1/BB2; Gedl 1983,
36-40; Innerhofer 2000; after: Kneisel 2012, 219). If all the
above-mentioned facts are taken into consideration, the
origins of the Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus culture may
be presented as follows:
1.
After the crisis (‘downfall’) of the Únětice settlements
in 1700-1600 BC, agradual but partial depopulation
occurs in the area between the western section of the
middle Warta basin and the river Odra. Models of the
Věteřov-Mad’arovce culture appear in the late develop-
mental stages of the Únětice communities in Śląsk and
southern regions of Wielkopolska (Szmukier 1980; Gedl
1983a); they are also apparent in the Trzciniec cultural
circle (Czebreszuk 1996; Makarowicz 1998; 2010; Górski
2003; 2012).
2. Trzciniec-type settlements start to appear at the end of
this period, spreading westwards from the middle Warta
and Bzura river basins towards the Odra (cf. Gardawski
1959; Cabalska 1961; Berezanskaja 1972; Makarowicz
2010); the area becomes colonized by ‘Trzciniec’ com-
munities. Their settlement structure is, however, relatively
unstable. The presence of this culture in the region may
be deduced primarily on the basis of pottery (Kłosińska
1997, 44-50; Ignaczak, Makarowicz 1998; 1998a; Lasak
2001). It is possible that these groups erected asmall
number of barrows in the area to the west and south of
the Warta river. The mounds of some Tumulus culture
barrows located in the borderlands between Śląsk and
Wielkopolska contain uncharacteristic ceramic material
which may be categorized as ‘Trzciniec-type’ or ‘Trzciniec-
type with Mad’arovce elements’ rather than as belonging
to Tumulus culture. This stage might be regarded as
something of a‘pre-Tumulus’ horizon.
3.
Around 1600 BC, the first few Tumulus culture communi-
ties start to appear in the southern regions of the border-
lands between Śląsk and Wielkopolska. These peoples
arrive from Bohemia and Moravia and are associated
with the Tumulus culture enclave in the Danube basin
(Gedl 1975, 79-82). Owing to their mobility and specific
territorial practices, they take control over most of the
region in arelatively short time. They found their own
necropolises on uninhabited land and erect tumuli near
the compact area of habitation of the Trzciniec culture,
creating avast network of inter-regional connections.
Small Tumulus culture communities also arrive from the
western regions of Brandenburg and Mecklenburg, as
indicated by the early- and classical-Tumulus style of the
bronze items found at the burial ground in Górzyca in
Lubusz Land (Socha, Sójkowska-Socha 2014; see: Ap-
pendix, Górzyca). At this initial (‘scouting’) stage, groups
of newcomers could settle at the peripheries of the
area inhabited by the peoples of the Trzciniec cultural
circle. Due to the mobility already stressed, the attrac-
tiveness of their cultural model and the eectiveness
of the decentralized kinship-based groups, the new
lifestyle gained popularity over the course of several
generations, becoming the dominant model of behaviour
in local ‘Trzciniec’ communities, which gradually lost their
former identity. Asimilar process might have caused the
changes in the ‘late-Únětice and Věteřov’ structures in
Śląsk. It must, however, be noted that Tumulus culture
did not continue the Early Bronze Age tradition of metal
processing, which may serve as an indirect argument for
the discontinuation of cultural development and ahiatus
preceding the preliminary stage in the evolution of the
Silesian-Greater Polish strand of Tumulus culture (Blajer
2014, further literature therein).
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
136
Some corroboration for this hypothetical scenario may
be found in the recent 14C radiocarbon examination of the
organic material from the mounds of several tumuli and from
the settlement in Niegibalice in Wielkopolska. The data points
to the 18th century BC, i.e., the pre-Tumulus period (personal
communication Mateusz Jaeger and Mateusz Cwaliński). The
concept is also consistent with what is known on the further
development of ‘Trzciniec-Tumulus’ relations (syncretization in
the area between the Warta and Noteć rivers; the adaptation
of the ‘Tumulus style’ of bronze ware by groups of the Trzciniec
circle; the gradual changes in the style of ‘Trzciniec’ pottery
that made it more similar to the ‘Tumulus’ model, occurring
also beyond the areas of direct contact. Cf. Makarowicz,
Garbacz 2014; Makarowicz 2016; cf. Appendix, Szczepidło).
It appears that one of the reasons (the main reason?)
for extending the habitation area of Tumulus culture towards
the left bank of the middle Vistula valley was related to the
demand for amber, which played acrucial role in the ideology
and ritual practices of many Bronze Age societies. Graves
and hoards discovered in present-day Germany, especially
in Württemberg and southern Bavaria, yielded many luxury
items made of amber, such as elements of attire and neclac-
es (Jockenhövel 2013, 729f.). Before the emergence of the
Silesian-Greater Polish enclave, the amber exchange was
conducted along the network of long-distance routes be-
tween communities of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture and
those belonging to the Trzciniec cultural circle (for more see:
Makarowicz 2009; 2010, 359-367; 2012). The distribution of
amber items, mainly fragments of necklaces, deposited in the
Vistula and Odra river basins in the 2
nd
millennium BC indicates
ashift in circulation from the Vistula basin towards the Odra
(Makarowicz 2010, Fig. 6.1). It may therefore be deduced that in
the second half of the millennium the task of distributing amber
(organizing trade?) was taken over by Tumulus communities.
Middle Bronze Age sites in the Odra-Vistula interfluve yield
fewer items of amber (mainly necklace elements) than Early
Bronze Age ones (Bukowski 2002, map Iand II; Kaczmarek
2012, 214f.). The material appears in funerary contexts and
very rarely in settlements between the middle/upper Odra (on
both sides of the Barycz river) and the middle Warta. There is
avisible shift in the concentration of amber from the regions on
the left bank of the upper and middle Odra towards the north.
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 137
3. Barrow landscapes
Information on the Silesian-Greater Polish strand of Tumulus
culture is inferred primarily from material associated with the
ritual context (burial grounds) and from deposits of metal items
(hoards). Very few settlements of this cultural group have been
found (Gedl 1975; 1989; 1992, 35-40; Gediga 1978, 142f.). This
situation continues to this day (Kaczmarek 2012, 157-170). As
with other regional groups of the Tumulus cultural circle (e.g.,
Feustel 1958; Ziegert 1963; Čujanová-Jílková 1970; Hochstetter
1980;Kristiansen 1998; Görner 2002; Chvojka, Krištuf,Rytiř
2009; Guba, Bácsmegi 2009; Šmejda2011; Jockenhövel 2013,
further literature therein), barrows constituted the most diag-
nostic form of burial in the Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus
culture (Gedl 1975, 86f.; 1992; Cwaliński, Niebieszczański
2012; 2013). Several hundred monuments were found in
the 29 necropolises located in the Silesian Lowland and the
Wielkopolska-Kujawy Lowland (Fig. 3). They are all found in
the roughly square stretch of land (120 square kilometres)
between the Odra, Warta, Vistula, and Prosna. Interpreting
barrows as spatial markers (e.g., Górski 1996; Johansen, Laurs-
en, Holst 2004; Makarowicz 2010; 2010a; Bourgeois 2013),
one may assume that they delineated the close boundaries of
the Tumulus culture area of habitation. Originally, the number
of burial grounds was indubitably greater, but many of them
were razed as aresult of intense agricultural activity that took
place after the area’s deforestation. Some were destroyed by
amateur archaeologists and robbers in the 19
th
and in the first
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
Barycz
Prosna
Mikowice
Obrót
Ludgierzowice
Niedary Rościszowice
Czeszów
Skoroszów Łazy Wielkie
Wielka Lipa Siemianice
Oborniki
Śląskie
Gogołowice
Krotoszyn
Smoszew
Gliśnica Wysocko
Wielkie
Sadowie
Grabonóg
Dąbrowa
Odra
Warta
¨
Wolica Nowa (Polówka)
W
i
s
ł
a
0 25 5012,5
[km]
N
E
S
W
Fig. 4. Location of burial grounds of the Silesian-Great Polish Tumulus Culture in the borderlands between Śląsk
and Wielkopolska (map model made in ESRI &Maps MediaKit, SRTM shaded relief data). By Jakub Niebieszczański
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
138
half of the 20
th
century (Gedl 1975, 8-15). Necropolises located
in old oak and beech forests were preserved relatively well.
Barrows may also have covered graves located on some burial
grounds now categorized as flat (e.g., Guzowice, site no. 7 and
Krzelów, site no. 3, in Śląsk; Górzyca, site no. 20, in Lubusz
Land; Seger 1909, 62f.; Richthofen 1926, 153; Gedl 1975, 109,
113; Lasak 2001, 294; Socha, Sójkowska-Socha 2010; 2014).
Comprehensive field research conducted in recent
years, coupled with non-invasive methods and the systematic
analysis of archival data provided abetter-quality image of
the funerary customs of Tumulus culture. It reveals distinct
regularities in the location of burial grounds, and oers new
information on the construction of barrows and the relations
between them (Cwaliński 2010; 2012; Jaeger, Pospieszny 2011;
Cwaliński, Niebieszczański 2012; 2013; Czebreszuk et al. 2013).
Tumulus burial grounds appear in clusters; the highest
concentration of sites is found in the Pleistocene moraine
ridge that runs along the Barycz Urstromtal (Fig. 4; Cwaliński,
Niebieszczański 2013, Fig. 2 and 3). The remaining ones are
singular and located at the borderlands of the area inhabit-
ed by the Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus communities (in
Wielkopolska: Mikowice, Śląsk, Dąbrowa, Grabonóg; Wolica
Nowa in Kujawy). The majority of the known necropolises
were found on the hills along the Barycz/Odra watershed
and to the north and northwest of the upper Barycz. The
southwesternmost cluster consists of three burial grounds
located on Wał Trzebnicki (Wielka Lipa and the neighbour-
ing Siemianice; Oborniki Śląskie ca. 10 km to the southeast).
Another, larger concentration of cemeteries (six in total: Nie-
dary, Ludgierzowice, Rościszowice; Czeszów, Skoroszów
and Łazy Wielkie further north) was found ca. 30 kilometres
to the northeast of this group, in another section of Wał Tr-
zebnicki and the nearby Twardogórskie Hills. The distance
between the outermost necropolises was 12 kilometres. Two
large, isolated burial grounds were found 35-45 km to the
southeast of that cluster, in Obrót and Mikowice. Anumber
of burial grounds is also scattered to the north of the Barycz
valley, up to where it extends towards the Prosna river valley.
In the 75-kilometres long stretch along this circle of latitude
six necropolises were discovered (Fig. 5). They are located on
Wał Krotoszyński (Gogołowice and the almost neighbouring
sites of Krotoszyn and Smoszew, ca. 30 km further to the
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
B
a
rycz
Gogołowice
Krotoszyn
Smoszew
Gliśnica
Wysocko
Wielkie
Sadowie
0 5 102,5
[km]
N
E
S
W
W
z
g
ó
r
z
a
W
y
sockie
Wyso
c
zyzna
Kali
s
ka
Wał
K
r
o
t
o
s
z
y
ń
ski
Fig. 5. Barrow necropolis of the Silesian-Great Polish Tumulus Culture in the settlement region by Pradolina
Baryczy (superimposed on ahypsometric map). By Jakub Niebieszczański
3. B
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 139
northeast). Approximately 45 kilometres to the southeast two
more burial grounds were found in close proximity to one
another (two groups of graves within asingle burial ground?)
– in Sadowie and Wysocko Wielkie. Another large necropolis
is located between these two clusters in Gliśnica (Cwaliński,
Niebieszczański 2013, 119-122).
The topographical location of tumulus burial grounds
associated with the eponymous culture was not accidental and
resembles that of barrows characteristic for earlier eras and
cultural formations inhabiting dierent parts of Europe (e.g.,
Johansen, Laursen, Holst 2004; Machnik, Pavliv, Petehyryč
2006; 2006a; 2006b; Garwood 2007; Makarowicz 2009;
2010; 2010a; Fontijn 2011; Bourgeois 2013; Harmata, Machnik,
Rybicka 2014 [eds.]; Makarowicz et al. 2016). Cemeteries
were built in exposed terrain, on flattened hilltops, gentle
slopes and edges of hills, near running water, on the blus
of rivers (at the edges thereof) and on elevated sections of
fluvial terraces. Burial grounds formed groups that stretched
along lines of latitude and were divided by smaller rivers or
larger valleys (Cwaliński, Niebieszczański 2013, 121). In some
cases bodies of running water served as demarcation lines
separating specific groups of mounds to create autonomous
areas of sacred space (Cwaliński 2012, 81).
Tumulus burial grounds contain barrows in linear or
cluster formation, usually divided into smaller groups (from
several to more than adozen barrows each). The distance
between the groups varied and could amount to several,
several dozen, or several hundred metres (e.g., Smoszew,
Sadowie-Wysocko, Gliśnica, Ludgierzowice-Niedary; cf. Fig.
6 and Appendix, Smoszew). In some cases the larger groups
also contain smaller clusters of two, three, or four mounds.
Isolated barrows standing apart from the groups were also
discovered.
The largest extant necropolises comprise several doz-
en tumuli and cover an area of several square kilometres.
The original number of mounds was much greater; the scale
of destruction is clearly apparent in the case of the burial
ground in Gliśnica, which now consists of 21 documented
tumuli, even though at the beginning of the 19
th
century there
were around 60 mounds in the area. Asimilar number of
sites was recorded during the recently conducted research
in Obrót in Śląsk (Mateusz Cwaliński, pers. comm.). Modern
!
!
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
¨
Wysocko
Wielkie
Sadowie
Gniła Barycz
Barycz
VIII
VII
III
IV
II
VI b
VI a
V
b
Va
X c X a
IX
0 0,5 10,25
[km]
N
E
S
W
Fig. 6. The distribution of tumuli at the site in Sadowie – Wysocko Wielkie, Ostrów county.
By Jakub Niebieszczański
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
140
research methods, especially airborne laser scanning, have
allowed scholars to verify the number of barrows in Smoszew
(Wielkopolska). Earlier estimates pointed to 35 burial sites
(Kostrzewski 1924; Gedl 1975); three times as many have so
far been registered in the vicinity of Wał Krotoszyński (Fig. 7;
Cwaliński, Niebieszczański 2013). Other sizable necropolises
are located in Mikowice in Śląsk (24 tumuli), Wysocko Wielkie
in Wielkopolska (13 tumuli) and Wielka Lipa in Lower Śląsk (9
tumuli). Since only acertain number of the barrows in these
burial grounds has been excavated (most of them before
World War II), it is not certain whether all of them ought to be
regarded as relics of Tumulus culture. They might also repre-
sent earlier formations (e.g., Corded Ware culture or Únětice
culture), or later ones (most likely Lusatian culture). It appears,
however, that the majority of monuments in these sites were
erected by ‘Tumulus’ communities; research conducted on
an extensive sample of sites on several burial grounds seems
to corroborate this hypothesis. Many scholars emphasize the
palimpsestic nature of barrow necropolises, in which new
mounds were often erected near pre-existing ones (Bourgeois
2013, 7; cf. Sulimirski 1968; Machnik et al. 2006; Machnik et
al2014; Makarowicz 2010; 2010a).
The group of smaller cemeteries consisting of several
barrows includes sites in Oborniki Śląskie, Czeszów, and
Ludgierzowice in Lower Śląsk (two mounds at each site),
Skoroszów, Rościszowice, Niedary, Grochowa in Lower Śląsk
(three mounds at each site). Four barrows were discovered in
Gogołowice in Lower Śląsk, five in Sadowie in Wielkopolska,
and six in Siemianice in Lower Śląsk (Gedl 1975; Butent-Stefa-
niak 1992; Lasak 2001, 295f.; Cwaliński, Niebieszczański 2013).
In the Central and Eastern Europe of the 3
rd
and 2
nd
millennium BC, groups of barrows on burial grounds located
not too far from one another created anew type of cultural
landscape. Its distinctive elements were not singular mounds
but groups thereof, ones forming larger sections that became
the “barrow landscapes” (Fontijn 1996, 78; Bourgeois 2013
further literature therein). The tumuli could be seen from
aconsiderable distance; their location probably meant that
each individual mound in agroup located on aslope could be
visible. It may be surmised that erecting barrows on agiven
type of terrain – their topographical location – facilitated the
optimization of visual contact with other mounds on the burial
ground or at least within asmaller group (cf. Tilley 2004, 194).
Palynological data from other territories suggest that the areas
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!
!
Krotoszyn
Sulmierzyce
0 2 41
[km]
N
E
S
W
Fig. 7. Concentrations of tumuli detected using airborne laser scanning in Las Krotoszyn, in Wielkopolska
(after Czebreszuk et al. 2013)
3. B
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 141
on which tumuli were erected in the Middle Bronze Age were
to alarge extent deforested (Machnik et al. 2006; Machnik
et al 2014; Makarowicz 2010; Bourgeois 2013). However,
the situation in what is now south-western Poland and the
neighbouring regions of Germany appears much less clear.
Analysis of several profiles from these areas has indicated
that the culmination of deforestation processes (evidenced by
the presence of open-terrain indicators) occurred in the late
period of the Early Bronze Age, i.e., before the appearance of
Tumulus communities in the region (2000-1700 BC). Between
1700-1500 BC adecrease in indicators of field cultivation and
pasture usage is observed; signs of human activity, deforest-
ation and the opening of terrain become more prominent in
layers dated to 1500-1400 BC (Kneisel 2012, 221-225). This
might mean that the first tumuli were built in oak forests (e.g.,
on glades or at the edge of woods) that were just being cleared
and that burial grounds were established in mainly deforested
terrain only in the classical phase in the development of the
Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus culture.
In Tumulus culture, the primary and most important
function of barrows was related to funerary customs – the
rituals of passage into transcendent reality. As in earlier cul-
tures, such graves were reserved only for aselected part of
the community, e.g., agroup based on kinship or origin. It was
aprestigious and spectacular type of burial; tumuli served as
the resting place of chosen individuals – ancestors (members
of the elite: warriors, leaders, heads of clans and their families,
etc.) rather than of the entire populace (Makarowicz 2010;
2010a; 2015; Bourgeois 2013, part 2).
The massive size of barrows, their visibility, and the fact
that they are arranged in linear and group-linear formation
suggest that such structures served not only as aplace to
bury the deceased, but also as aparticular type of territorial
marker (Górski 1996; Makarowicz 2010; 2010a; Johansen,
Laursen, Holst 2004; Bradley, Frazer 2011; Holst, Rassmus-
sen 2012; Bourgeois 2013). They constituted and delineated
the space that was ‘domesticated’ by their constructors. In
macro-scale, barrow necropolises determined the borders
of conquered territory (oecumene), on the micro-scale they
marked the area of jurisdiction of agiven kinship-based group
(lineage). Thus, they separated territories belonging to dier-
ent communities. The linear alignment of tumuli might have
reflected the continuity of lineages or family structures. Their
visibility within specific cluster indicated the passage of time,
emphasizing the links between generations (Fokkens and
Arnouldsesen 2008, 8f.). The linear distribution of mounds
can be considered therefore in terms of lineage patterns and
memorizing the ancestry.
Given the lack of archaeologically detectable traces of
settlements associated with the Silesian-Greater Polish group
of Tumulus culture, barrow cemeteries – and perhaps flat burial
grounds as well – could have been the focal points of the
settlement network around which social and religious life was
centered (Górski 1996). This was where ancestral graves lay
and where – in the presence of members of older generations
resting beneath the mounds – elaborate burial ceremonies
were taking place, rearming the unity of the group and re-
newing the bond with their great forebears (Garwood 2007,
37). Corroboration for this theory is found in the content of
the mound embankments (pottery shards, traces of hearths,
sometimes also waste material from meals, such as animal
bones). Tumuli represented the physical and visual presence
of ancestors (Fokkens 2012, 566f.; Bourgeois 2013, 7), they
were amemorial to individual dead (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005,
218; Bourgeois 2013, 12, further literature therein), but also
aplace of collective memory (Ślusarska 2007). They formed
the mythologized, sacral cultural landscape, separating it from
the realm of the profanum, i.e., the space outside of burial
grounds (Bradley, Fraser 2011; Cwaliński, Niebieszczański
2013, 121). What is more, the sheer size of barrows and their
complex, multi-material structure indicates that each tumulus
was erected by alarge group of people (the entire local com-
munity; the entire clan?). The results of research conducted in
Denmark suggest that the construction process also involved
groups of specialized workers who performed specific tasks
and supervised the entire process (Holst, Rasmussen 2012,
260-263). The indubitably time-consuming construction of the
tumuli made of earth, stone, and wood and the ritual practices
that accompanied the process facilitated the integration of
the community (Górski 1996, 208). Many scholars also em-
phasize the role of barrows as guide-posts (markers) on the
routes used for long-distance communication and exchange
(Makarowicz 2009, 29; 2010a, 204, further literature therein).
In the case of the Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus culture, the
location of some burial grounds seems to corroborate this
hypothesis. The necropolises in question were founded on
specific parts of hills, near passes leading to other hillocks
to signal the beginning or the end of atrail. Other evidence
includes the linear arrangement of tumuli which may have
indicated the direction of the route (Fig. 5). Adopting the now
dominant view that the communities of Tumulus culture were
mobile (e.g., Gedl 1975, 79f.), then the systematic location
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
142
of barrows may be regarded as amessage to other groups,
announcing the presence of kindred communities in agiven
territory. It may be assumed that the construction of atumulus
(or tumuli) probably constituted an act of establishing acom-
munity (lineage) and settling in agiven land.
In the case of Tumulus culture (and especially its Sile-
sian-Greater Polish version), the data regarding the relation
of burial grounds (including the ones with barrows) to settle-
ments is rather scarce. The available territorial data (cf. Fig. 2)
and information on the habitation area of the Trzciniec circle
(close in terms of territory and chronology) and of other en-
claves of the Tumulus complex (e.g., Makarowicz 2010, 104;
Jockenhövel 2013, 730) suggests that camps and settlements
were situated in the nearest vicinity of the necropolises. The
barrows probably constituted the first structures appearing in
the inhabited space; the communication infrastructure – the
network of inter-group connections – was gradually built
around them (cf. Górski 1996, 208). In some territorial groups
of Tumulus culture, especially the ones from present-day
Germany, flat graves were placed between mounds or in the
vicinity of tumulus burial grounds (Jockenhövel 2013, 730).
Such practices have not been recorded in the Silesian-Greater
Polish Tumulus culture, since the areas between tumuli has
yet to be examined.
3.1. T
The architectural diversity of barrows in the Silesian-Greater
Polish Tumulus culture is along-known fact, yet only recently
could the issue be presented in acomprehensive manner, fol-
lowing athorough-going study based on information gathered
at 75 tumuli from 20 burial grounds (Cwaliński, Niebieszczański
2012; 2013). Only three of the mounds studiedare clearly oval
in shape (Skoroszów, barrow no. 1; Wysocko Wielkie, barrow
no. 5 and Obrót, barrow no 7, Lower Śląsk); the remaining
objects are circular (Fig. 8). Their current diameter varies
from 5.5 to 22 m, and the extant height amounts to 0.5–4
m (Cwaliński, Niebieszczański 2012, Table 1; 2013, Chart 1.1).
Tumulus culture communities constructed barrows
using earth, sod, stones, and wood or acombination of these
materials (Gedl 1975; 1992; Geschwinde 2000; Görner 2002;
Jockenhövel 2011, 728). Mounds made entirely of earth appear
rarely and come mainly from the late stage in the development
of the Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus culture (e.g., Sadowie,
tumuli no. 21 and 22, Siemianice; Lasak 2001, 287f.). The size
of barrows within acluster varied, as did the complexity of
their construction.
Most barrows feature stone elements of construction;
wood was used more rarely. In many cases there are traces
of the terrain being cleared of vegetation and layers of turf
before the construction of the mound began (Lasak 2001,
300). The stone construction elements include: cores, inner
and outer perimetres (circles), layerings, corridors, rays, kerbs
around graves and burial chambers (Gedl 1975, 89f.; Gediga
1978, 145; Lasak 2001, 287; Cwaliński, Niebieszczański 2013,
122-128). They were present in almost all burial grounds of
the Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus culture.
The most characteristic stone elements of tumulus
construction are cores. Conical or hemispherical in shape,
they comprise several layers of stone situated at the centre
of the barrow, in the lowermost layer of the tumulus, on the
bedrock or on primary humus (definitions of construction
elements after: Cwaliński, Niebieszczański 2013, 122-128 and
Fig. 4). Cores were discovered in 35 of the studied barrows,
on almost all burial grounds They were several metres in di-
ameter and could cover the burial pit or chamber (Fig. 9: 1,2,4).
Another frequently appearing feature (29 instances)
was that of rings (circles) consisting of one or several rows
of stones running along the circumference of the barrow
(Fig. 9: 1-3, 5, 6; Lasak 2001, 297). The breadth of the rings
varied – from 0.4 to almost 2 metres (e.g., Wolica Nowa,
Kujawy; Grygiel 2000, Fig. 3). In some cases the structures
were not continuous, but had one or more gaps ranging from
several dozen centimetres to several metres in breadth (e.g.,
in Wielkopolska: Wysocko Wielkie, tumulus no. 2, Smoszew,
Fig. 8. Tumulus at site 3 in Gogołowice, in Śląsk. Photo from the
Archives of the Archaeological Museum in Wrocław
3. B
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 143
tumuli no. 1 and 20; in Śląsk: Gogołowice, tumulus no. 4 – Fig.
9: 3 and Fig. 10, Mikowice, tumulus no. 4 – Fig. 6: 6, tumulus
no. 11 – Fig. 11; Seger 1909; Richthoen 1926; Zotz 1936, fig. 3;
Gedl 1975, tables 1, 2, 4). The primary function of such outer
circles appears to have been symbolic: the ring separated
the sacrum from the profanum, the sacred ritual space from
the external world. Its role was similar to that of the palisade
in barrows built by Corded Ware culture (Czebreszuk, Szmyt
2011). Rings did, however, have apractical function – they pre-
vented the earth on the mound from sliding down (Cwaliński,
Niebieszczański 2013, 123f.) Given their circular shape, the
rings could have also expressed asolar concept, amotif that
was popular in the Bronze Age (Kristiansen, Larsson 2005;
Czebreszuk 2011; Goldhahn 2013).
Construction elements that appear
less frequently include cobbles and kerbs
(15 and 11 instances respectively). Cobbles
were found in various sections of the tumuli.
Such constructions were composed of one
or more layers of stones, approximately oval
or rectangular in shape. The function of the
cobbles varied: they served as paving or
covered the burial pits; they were also the
layer on which burial goods were placed and
feasts were held (as evidenced by traces
of broken pottery and – sometimes inten-
tionally – damaged bronze items; Cwaliński,
Niebieszczański 2013, 124f.; cf. Kristiansen,
Larsson 2005, 242f.). In some burial grounds
asingle mound could have more than one
such structure: e.g., two in tumulus no. 13
in Obrót in Śląsk, three in tumulus no. 1 in
Wolica Nowa in Kujawy and in tumulus no. 2
in Wysocko Wielkie in Wielkopolska (Cwal-
iński, Niebieszczański 2013, table 1.2). Kerbs,
which sometimes appear alongside cobbles,
consist of stones placed at the edges of
burial pits, along one or more of its walls,
or only in the corners. The latter case is
deemed to be stone framing (Cwaliński, Nie-
bieszczański 2013, 125). As the mounds of
the Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus culture
Fig. 9. Examples of stone and wooden construction
elements in tumuli. 1, 2 – Smoszew, tumuli 8 and 20;
3 – Gogołowice, tumulus 4; 4a, 4b – Niedary, tumulus
3; 5 – Siemianice, tumulus 1; 6 – Mikowice, tumulus
4; 7 – Gogołowice, tumulus 4 (reconstruction); 8a, 8b
–Mikowice, tumulus 19 (view before excavation works
and reconstruction); 9 – Mikowice (jama grobowa);
10 – Mikowice, tumulus 12 (burial pit); 11 – Mikowice,
tumulus 19; 12 – Mikowice, tumulus 18 (after Seger
1909; Zotz 1934; 1936; Butent 1992; Gedl 1975). 1, 2 –
Wielkopolska, 3-12 – Śląsk
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
144
usually contain individual burials, asingle mound contains
one kerb/framing. Exceptions to this rule include the mound
in Wolica Nowa, site no. 1, in which three such structures have
been found (Grygiel 2000, Fig. 3).
The remaining of the above-listed construction ele-
ments appear much less frequently. The studied sample of
mounds featured five examples of inner rings (circles), three
corridors, two layerings, and asingle instance of a burial
chamber and stone rays. Inner circles resemble outer rings
(and appear alongside them), but are located closer to the
centre of the barrow, not along its circumference (Cwaliński,
Niebieszczański 2013, 125; cf. Cehak-Hołubowiczowa 1971, Fig.
4). They might have played asimilar symbolic role as outer
rings (i.e., to delineate the boundaries of ‘strictly’ sacred space).
Corridors are aspecific element of tumulus construc-
tion. They are composed of two parallel lines of stones running
perpendicularly from the gaps in the outer circle towards the
centre of the mound (Fig. 8: 6). Such pathways represented the
symbolic entrance (or perhaps provided actual access) to the
barrow and the grave located within. Corridors allowed ritual
foodstu to be brought in or (more rarely) other bodies to be
transported to the burial chamber. Sometimes the gap in the
outer ring was covered with awooden structure (Cwaliński,
Niebieszczański 2013, 126).
Very few of the mounds erected by Tumulus culture
communities in Silesia/Śląsk and Greater Poland/Wielkopol-
ska feature one or – more often – several layers of stones
covering at least half the surface of the tumulus. These are
larger than the stone cores, although their morphology is very
similar. They were situated at the foot of the mound or at the
top, under alayer of soil. Stone layerings covered the graves
and reinforced the structure of the mound (Cwaliński, Nie-
bieszczański 2013, 126; cf. Ebner 2001, 33; Görner 2002, 11f.).
The last two of the above-listed stone construction
elements – the burial chamber and stone rays – appeared
only incidentally. The former term signifies astructure that
covers the entire grave, i.e., its roofing, floor, and walls. It was
discovered in tumulus no. 1 in Siemianice in Lower Śląsk. The
latter – an arrangement of several lines of stones running
radially from the centre of the mound towards its outer rim,
was documented in atumulus in Grabonóg in Wielkopolska
(Fig. 12; Kowiańska 1951; Cwaliński, Niebieszczański 2013,
128). Stone burial chambers are arather common feature of
barrows built by various regional groups of Tumulus culture,
yet analogies to the ‘rays’ are scarce and come from Nordic
Bronze Age sites in Denmark: in Hjodkaer (Aner, Kersten 1981,
Fig. 37) and (similar construction) in Skelhøj (Holst, Rasmussen
2012, Fig. 5).
Fig. 11. Mikowice, Śląsk, tumulus 11 during excavation works. Photo from
the Archives of the Archaeological Museum in Wrocław
Fig. 10. Gogołowice, Śląsk, tumulus 4 during excavation works.
Photo from the Archives of the Archaeological Museum in Wrocław
3. B
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 145
In anumber of tumuli, construction elements such as
rings and kerbs contained quern-stones (e.g., Oborniki Śląskie,
Gogołowice, tumulus no. 4 in Śląsk; Wolica Nowa, site no. 1
in Kujawy; Pudliszki in Wielkopolska). This custom was also
relatively common in other communities that erected earthen
mounds, including various groups of the Trzciniec circle (Górski
2010, 375; Makarowicz 2010, 227, further literature therein ).
Due to rapid mineralization, wooden construction
elements are found much less frequently and the array of
structures is less diverse. For this reason, their presence may
actually be underestimated. Wooden structures appear along-
side stone ones and include: tree-trunk cons, the mortuary
houses, and palisades that left traces in the form of post holes
arranged in specific patterns (Cwaliński, Niebieszczański 2013,
122-130 and Table 1.2). Singular post holes may, in turn, consti-
tute the remnants of objects used to mark the location of the
burial as akind of funerary stele. In total, wooden structures
were discovered in 12 tumuli in seven necropolises. The larg-
est concentration (six instances) was registered in Mikowice
in Lower Śląsk (Cwaliński, Niebieszczański 2013, table 1.2).
The majority of wooden constructions appeared individually
or together with astone circle; or in rare cases alongside
other stone elements (Cwaliński, Niebieszczański 2013, 135).
The most common wooden elements are remnants of
posts used in the construction of mortuary houses. Erected
already in the Neolithic (especially in the circle of megalithic
cultures), such structures were also popular in the Bronze
Age (Harding 2000, 89; Batora 2006, 121-192; Makarowicz
2010, 233-239; Bourgeois, Fontijn 2012, 535-537; Cwaliński,
Niebieszczański 2013, 128). The architecture of the Toten-
hausen varied, yet in its most classic form the structure was
composed of four or more posts that supported aroof. Post
holes associated with such structures were found e.g., in
tumuli no. 2 and 18 in Mikowice, (Fig. 9: 9; Zotz 1936), in tu-
mulus no. 13 in Obrót, and in tumulus no. 2 in Skoroszów in
Śląsk (Gedl 1975, 91).
In some cases the mound of the tumulus or its central
part (where the burial was located) was surrounded with
apalisade. Such aconstruction, composed of aring of irreg-
ularly placed posts and asmall number of poles located on
the inside of the palisade, was discovered in tumulus no. 19
in Mikowice (Fig. 9: 8).
The final type of wooden elements of construction
found beneath the mounds erected by the Tumulus commu-
nities in Wielkopolska and Śląsk are cons made of hollowed
tree trunks. These were found at three sites: two in Mikowice
(barrows no. 12 and 20 ) and in Ludgierzowice (barrow no. 1).
The latter object is particularly interesting, as arectangular
burial pit was discovered there at some distance from the
centre of the tumulus. Dug in primary humus and bedrock,
the rectangular pit with rounded edges lay at the depth of
2.8 metres; its dimensions amounted to 2.2 metres in length,
1.1 metres in width, and 1 metre in depth. Arectangular con
made of an oak trunk (dimensions: 1.65 x 0.35 – 0.42, height
Fig. 13. Ludgierzowice, Śląsk, tumulus 1. Wooden con. Photo by
B.Butent. From the Archives of the Institute of Archaeology and
Ethnology PAS, Wrocław Branch
Fig. 12. Grabonóg, Wielkopolska. Unique stone construction. Photo from
the Archives of the Archaeological Museum in Wrocław
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
146
0.21 m) was placed at the bottom along the N–S axis. It con-
tained the remains of abody in asupine position (Fig. 13;
Butent-Stefaniak 1992, 58f. as well as Fig. 19 and 20).
Complex methods of statistical examination, including
cluster analysis and correspondence analysis, indicate acon-
nection between the stone cores and outer rings; whereas
cobblestones usually appear alongside kerbs/framing (Cwal-
iński, Niebieszczański 2013, 133).
3.2. G, ,
The graves beneath the mounds contain skeletal, cremation,
and biritual burials. Some necropolises bear traces of both
inhumation and cremation being practiced, sometimes even
within asingle barrow, e.g., in tumulus no. 12 in Mikowice. It
is possible that in this case cremation graves were dug into
apre-existing tumulus – as evidenced by the chronologically
diverse array of grave goods (Gedl 1975, 97). Amound usually
covered asingle grave; multiple burials within amound are
rare (e.g., three burials per mound in Wolica Nowa, Sadowie
and in tumulus no 12 in Mikowice; two burials in tumuli no. 4
and 18 in Mikowice– Fig. 8: 10, and in tumulus no 16 in Obrót –
Zotz 1936; Gedl 1975; Grygiel 2000). The graves were situated
in the central section of the tumulus or, much less frequently,
in specific sectors. The majority was dug into the layer of an-
cient humus or (somewhat less often) located on the original
surface of the humus. In asmall number of cases the graves
were placed higher up in the coat of the tumulus. They are
most often arranged along the N–S axis or, less frequently,
along the E–Waxis or with aNW–SE tilt (Gedl 1975, 160-164;
Cwaliński 2012, 139). Burial pits were usually reinforced with
the above-mentioned structures made of stone (cores, cobbles,
and kerbs/framing are the dominant forms, often appearing in
tandem, or sometimes individually; the appearance of burial
chambers is incidental) or wood (poles or, less frequently,
tree-trunk cons; in rare cases walls and flooring (Cwaliński
2012, 138, diagrams 31 and 32).
As regards the burials found in barrow graves of the
Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus culture, inhumation was three
times more common than cremation. Three sites contained
partially cremated (burnt) remains. What should be taken into
account in this context is the destructive impact of acidic soil,
which causes the rapid mineralization of bones deposited in-
side amound. This, in turn, leads to the under-representation
of skeletal burials (Cwaliński, Niebieszczański 2013, 128). The
practice of cremation is likely to have appeared at alater stage
of the classical phase. The bodies of the deceased were par-
tially cremated (partially burnt), most probably in the process
of burning wooden constructions resembling mortuary houses
(Gedl 1975, 91). Typical cremation as apermanent element of
funerary rituals of Tumulus culture was more common at alater
stage, which was connected to more general changes in the
set of views and beliefs that occurred at the end of the Middle
Bronze Age (Gedl 1975, 94f.; 1989; 1992).
Inhumation burials appear primarily beneath the
mounds that contain stone elements and corridors, while cre-
mation burials are frequent in earthen barrows in which wood-
en structures are more prominent (Cwaliński, Niebieszczański
2013, 133, 135). Tumulus no. 3 in Niedary in Śląsk contains
partially burnt remains (Butent 1992). Tangential occurrence
of inhumation and cremation burials was registered at two
cemeteries (Wielka Lipa, tumulus no. 1 and Mikowice, tumulus
no. 12, Śląsk); however, their chronological relation to the
primary burials remains unclear. In these cases it may be sur-
mised either that two types of burial customs were practiced
at the same period or that cremation graves were dug into
the mounds of pre-existing tumuli.
New mounds were erected throughout the entire de-
velopment period of the Silesian-Greater Polish strand of
Tumulus culture (1600/1500 – 1200/1100 BC?). Stone construc-
tion elements such as cores, cobblestones or kerbs/framing
appear in cemeteries from the early stage (BB1) and at the
classical stage (BB2-BC1), but are absent from tumuli dated
to the late stage of this culture’s development. Stone circles,
in turn, were used as an architectural element of tumulus on-
struction regardless of the period (Cwaliński, Niebieszczański
2013, 139). At alater stage of development (BC2-BD) ‘Tumulus’
communities started to erect simple earthen mounds; wooden
architectural elements: cons, palisades, roofing covering the
mortuary houses, gained more prominence. These processes
went hand in hand with an increase in the number of cremation
burials and the decline of inhumation practices (which were
still dominant).
The structural patterns of funerary customs practiced
by ‘Tumulus’ societies in Śląsk and Wielkopolska are dicult
to ascertain due to the scarcity of skeletal burials and the lack
of markers indicating the gender and age of the deceased.
The vast majority of burials are individual; collective graves
appear very rarely (Gedl 1975, 93). Only in 9 out of 26 reg-
istered skeletal burials could the arrangement of the body
be discerned. The dominant custom was to lay the body on
the back in asupine position (Fig. 14); in isolated cases the
3. B
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 147
deceased were laid on the left side with their legs drawn up
or in aprostrate position on their right side. The majority of
the graves (and the bodies therein) were aligned along the
N–S axis, other types of alignment (NW–SE or W–E) are less
frequent (Gedl 1975, 160-164). In three cases the skeletons
were fragmented, misarranged or interspersed with the re-
mains of another person. In the case of cremation burials the
bones were placed directly in the pit (eight instances); only
one grave contained an urn (Cwaliński 2012, 140). Only in four
graves wasthe age of the deceased determined (Maturus), in
three cases researchers also established the gender (two men
and one woman; Cwaliński 2012, 141). The fact that women
and children also had the right to be buried in tumuli is also
evident from the anthropological analysis of site no. 6 in the
necropolis in Pudliszki in Wielkopolska (not included in the
above-presented statistics). Anumber of graves at this burial
ground was probably covered with mounds, as the presence
of complex stone structures would suggest (Kowiańska-Pi-
aszykowa 1966). The remains of 16 individuals included one
child (Infans II), two individuals in the Iuvenis age group, two
women in the Adultus category, and two men (one in the
Adultus and one in the Maturus age group). The remaining
individuals were described as ‘adults’(Malinowski 1966, 120).
In some groups/cultures of the Tumulus circle the
choice of grave goods indicated the gender, status, wealth,
and prestige of the person buried with them
(e.g.Jockenhövel 1991; 2013). The array of items
found in the necropolises of the Silesian-Greater
Polish enclave corroborates this statement to
arather limited degree, as the age and gender
of the deceased was determined in very few
burials, be they flat or located under mounds.
In many cases the connection between the
gender of the deceased and the grave goods
can be made only on the basis of the nature
of the said items.
The grave goods in barrows turned out
to be varied, but generally rather modest and
much less spectacular than the furnishings
found at flat burial grounds. Of the 65 exca-
vated sites, thirteen contained not asingle item
whatsoever. The most common type of grave
goods were ceramic pots, which contradicts
earlier theories deprecating the importance of
this category of items in the inventories of the
Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus culture (Gedl
1975, 70f.; Gediga 1978 159f., further literature therein). Twenty
one of the excavated graves yielded 41 vessels, which could
be reconstructed to agreater or lesser degree. Eighteen
graves contained only fragments of pots. Bronze items (38 in
total) were discovered in twenty five of the excavated burials.
The most common finding in this category was that of pins (23
specimens in 18 graves); coils, and rings of wire, and other types
of ornaments appeared seldom. Three sites yielded bracelets
(Obrót, tumuli no. 2 and 10; and Wolica Nowa) and only two
contained daggers (Smoszew, tumuli no. 1 and 8).
The small group of more richly furnished graves includes
the above barrows no 1 and 8 in Smoszew (cf. Appendix, Smo-
szew). Apart from daggers, the sites yielded apin, three vessels
and shards of more pots (in tumulus no. 1), an unidentified
bronze item, and vessels (tumulus no. 8). Five pendants and
acoil of bronze wire (elements of anecklace?), as well as four
pots were found in barrow no. 1 in Mikowice. Only tumulus no.
1 in Oborniki Śląskie contained an amber bead, most likely an
element of anecklace.
To recapitulate, it may be assumed that the deceased
laid to rest in tumulus graves were provided with ceramic ves-
sels containing most likely ritual comestibles and beverages,
and dressed in funerary attire that was usually fastened with
apin (more than 35% of the graves). The presence of other
metal items as grave goods is incidental.
Fig. 14. Siemianice, Śląsk. The arrangement of the body in atumulus grave. Illustration
from the Archives of the Archaeological Museum in Wrocław
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
148
4. Cemeteries and flat graves
Flat burial grounds have not been studied as thoroughly as
tumulus sites. More than 40 burial grounds (including individual
flat funerary sites) containing ca. 130 graves in total have so far
been discovered in the habitation area of the Silesian-Greater
Polish Tumulus culture. There can be no doubt that the number
of cemeteries used to be greater; many were destroyed by
natural causes or by human activity. Some of the accidentally
discovered bronze items must come from damaged flat graves.
In most cases these were individual burials or small necrop-
olises containing no more than several graves and covering
an area of several hundred square metres to several square
kilometres. The largest known cemetery lies in Górzyca in
Lubusz Land and contains 35 graves. However, research
works at the site have not yet been completed (cf. Appendix,
Górzyca). The remaining burial grounds are much smaller.
The one in Borek in Wielkopolska comprises 14 graves; the
one in Opatów in Lower Śląsk contains eight; and the one in
Karczyn in Cuiavia/Kujawy has seven (cf. Appendix, Karczyn).
The sites at Jordanów, Kietrz, Kleszczewo, Kruszyniec, Łag-
iewniki, Marcinkowice, Masłów, Pudliszki, and Wojdal contain
between two and five burials (Gedl 1975, 160-164). It might be
assumed that they represent small burial grounds intended
for family or for lineages.
Flat burial grounds were located on elevated terrain
such as gentle slopes in smaller or greater valleys or the edges
and promontories of fluvial terraces. Almost all of them appear
in the vicinity of ariver; thus, their topography resembles that
of tumulus necropolises. The flat burial grounds were, however,
much less discernible in the landscape, which means that
their non-funerary role in the settlement network was less
significant. The territorial range of flat burial grounds within
the oecumene of the Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus culture
is greater than that of the tumulus necropolises. Cemeteries
with flat graves and isolated graves also form clusters located
several kilometres from one another, sometimes neighbour-
ing one another (Fig. 2). In several cases these type of burial
grounds are situated in the vicinity of tumulus graves. Such
acluster was found to the south of Barycz, between two
groups of barrow cemeteries.
4.1. T
Already at the early stage of its development, the Sile-
sian-Greater Polish Tumulus culture communities built graves
using soil, stones, and wood. The simplest of them had the
form of arectangular or oval pit with no additional elements of
construction (Gedl 1975, 160-164). Such objects were discov-
ered at 30 burial grounds (isolated graves included). Twenty
four necropolises contain graves with amore complex ar-
chitecture, mostly stone elements of construction (21 sites).
The appearance of wooden or wood-and-stone construction
elements is incidental. In some cases flat graves mark the start
of along period of utilization of large cemeteries of Lusatian
culture. Such is the case e.g., in Kietrz (graves no. 934 and
1143) and Zbrojewsko in Śląsk (graves no. 16, 22, 24, 96, 116,
336, 455, 485) (Gedl 1964; 1968; 1975; 1984).
The total number of simple burial pits with no construc-
tion elements (73 instances) slightly exceeds that of graves
lined with stone or wood (65 instances). If the cemetery in
Górzyca in/ziemia lubuska, where all graves feature additional
construction, was to be disregarded, the simple earthen burial
pits would outnumber those with wood or stone elements
almost two to one. Most pits are approximately oval or rectan-
gular in shape. Few of the flat graves are dated to the early
period; the majority ought to be associated with the classical
and late stage in the development of the Silesian-Greater
Polish Tumulus culture (Gedl 1975, 160-164). As the relevant
documentation is incomplete, in some cases it is impossible
to categorize agrave as either simple or containing additional
elements of construction.
4. C
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 149
The more complex flat graves were reinforced with
kerbs, cobbles, or acombination of the two. Stone kerbs
appeared as the sole structural element in 12 graves locat-
ed on nine necropolises (individual graves included). Such
aconstruction was known already in the early period (e.g.,
Guzowice in Śląsk; Górzyca), yet the majority of examples is
dated to later stages in the culture’s development (Bolkowice;
Brzyków; Chachalnia?; Kleszczewo, graves no. 3a, 3b, 3c B-C;
Łagiewniki, grave no. 2?; Pudliszki, grave 18A–C; Borek, grave
no. 13; Gedl 1975, 160-164; Ziąbka 1987; Ziąbka, Maryniak 1988;
Socha, Sójkowska-Socha 2014; Socha, Sójkowska-Socha [eds.]
2017). The forms of these varied. In many cases the grave pit
was marked by several stones placed in the corners or along
its walls at intervals. Less frequently (e.g., in Górzyca, grave no.
243) the graves were reinforced by amore cohesive structure
comprising rows of roughly rectangular or oval stones (Fig.
15). Acomplex, sophisticated structure of considerable size,
internally divided with stone partition walls, was discovered
e.g., in Kruszyniec in Śląsk (Tackenberg 1927; Lasak 2001, ryc.
19) and Górzyca, graves no. 400A and B (Socha, Sójkows-
ka-Socha 2014; Socha, Sójkowska-Socha [eds.] 2017).
Sites in which kerbs appear alongside cobblestones
(on the floor or the roofing of the pit) constitute amore so-
phisticated category. Such structures were found in at least
four necropolises, e.g., in Jordanów (graves A, B, D), Kow-
alowice, Kruszyniec in Śląsk (grave no. 2) and in Górzyca,
where asubstantial number of sepulchral sites belongs to
this type (Gedl 1975; 160-164; Socha, Sójkowska-Socha 2014;
Socha, Sójkowska-Socha [eds.] 2017). Graves featuring both
kerbs and cobbles were characteristic for the classical and
late phase of the culture’s development; in Górzyca, however,
such structures were built even in the early phase (BB1-B2;
Socha, Sójkowska-Socha 2014; Socha, Sójkowska-Socha
[eds.] 2017; Makarowicz 2017).
The next category are grave pits reinforced only (?)
with cobbles, composed of one or several layers of stone.
The shape of the paved area varied, though round, oval,
rectangular or square forms are the majority. Such sites were
founds in Kleszczewo (grave no. 1?), Kruszyniec (grave no. 1),
Fig. 15. Górzyca, ziemia lubuska, grave no. 243 with astone kerb.
Photo by Krzysztof Socha
Fig. 16. Krzelów, Śląsk, agrave “covered with stones”. Illustration from
the Archives of the Archaeological Museum in Wrocław
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
150
Opatów (graves no. 851 and 1118), Zbrojewsko (graves no. 28
and 348). Sites ‘covered with stones’ (cobbles?) were also
discovered in Krzelów (Fig. 16), Damianowice, and Raków in
Śląsk (Gedl 1975, 160-164). An illuminating example comes
from the burial ground in Pudliszki in Wielkopolska, where
several such graves were found (no. 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15a-c, 17a-
c, 18a-d, 19a-d). Sizable stretches of cobblestones, roughly
round or oval in shape and measuring 9.8 × 8 m (object no.
18), 7 × 7 m (object no. 15 and 19), 7 × 4.5 m (object no. 7)
and 6.5 × 5.7 m (object no. 17), were found in dierent areas
of the cemetery and covered three or four grave pits each
(Kowiańska-Piaszykowa 1966).
The more complex construction elements could be dis-
cernible on the surface or covered with alayer of soil. Some
graves were also marked with steles – such was the case
e.g., with the richly furnished cremation burial no. 291 at the
burial ground in Górzyca (Socha, Sójkowska-Socha 2014, 17).
Graves that feature acombination of stone and wooden
elements of construction are much less common, most likely
due to mineralization processes. Such structures, comprising
poles that supported aroof, are referred to as mortuary houses.
They were discovered in Górzyca (graves no. 317, 400A and
400 B, 570 – cf. Appendix, Górzyca). In Wolica Nowa in Ku-
jawy astone kerb and the remains of an unspecified wooden
construction was found (Grygiel 2008, fig. 2), while grave no.
12 at the necropolis in Borek in Wielkopolska/Greater Poland
contained traces of awooden con or formwork (Ziąbka,
Maryniak 1988, Fig. 6: 2).
Similarly to the tumulus burials, most graves in flat
necropolises are aligned along the N–S axis (Zbrojewsko,
graves no. 22 and 24, the majority of graves in Górzyca, Borek
and Karczyn), sometimes with aslight tilt to the NW–SE or
NE–NW (Opatów, Pudliszki, graves no. 17b and 18d, Zbrojew-
sko, graves no. 336 and 348, anumber of graves in Górzyca,
Borek and Karczyn) (Gedl 1975, 160; Ziąbka, Maryniak 1988;
Socha, Sójkowska-Socha 2014; Socha, Sójkowska-Socha
[eds.] 2017). Several graves in Kietrz (no. 934 and 1143) and
Kruszyniec (no. 1 and 2) were aligned dierently, i.e., along
the W–E axis (Gedl 1975, 160).
4.2. B
The number of cemeteries with flat graves associated with
the Silesian-Greater Polish strand of Tumulus culture ex-
ceeds forty. The majority of the 115 skeletal burials discovered
at these sites contained the remains of asingle individual;
though several cases of adouble burial and asingle finding
of acommunal burial were also registered. The largest ne-
cropolis, located in Górzyca in Lubusz Land, contains at least
33 inhumation graves (cf. Appendix, Górzyca). Small groups
of graves with inhumed individuals have also been found at
much less impressive burial grounds (e.g., 10 in Zbrojewsko,
nine in Opatów, six in Karczyn – five of which were double
burials; four in Jordanów).
The presence of flat collective graves and double
burials is arare feature that proves characteristic for Tumulus
culture communities inhabiting the Odra/Vistula interfluve.
Aunique burial type was discovered in Borek in Wielkopolska
(grave no. 13; Fig. 13: 2). The collective grave contains the
remains of more than ten individuals placed ‘top and tail’, with
their heads near the shorter sides of the burial pit and their
long bones directed towards the centre. The grave was fur-
nished with metal items representing the ‘late-Tumulus’ style.
Acollective cremation grave, the shape of which resembled
alarge chest, was discovered in Kleszczewo in Wielkopolska
(Lasak 2001, 302). Double burials were found e.g., in Borek
(cremation burials, graves no. 1, 2, 4; Ziąbka, Maryniak 1988),
and in Bożejewice in Kujawy (skeletal burial; Czebreszuk
1988). The arrangement of the bodies in Borek resembled
that found in two graves in Górzyca (grave 400 Ai400 B) and
five in Karczyn in Kujawy (graves no. 23, 30, 173, 200, 230).
Each contained the bones of two individuals – the array of
grave goods suggests aman (?) and awoman – arranged
in a‘top and tail’ position (with their heads at the opposite
sides of the pit; cf. Appendices Górzyca and Karczyn; Socha,
Sójkowska-Socha 2014; Socha, Sójkowska-Socha [eds.] 2014).
It may be concluded that, against the backdrop of
other groups/cultures in the Tumulus circle, this collective
and double burials with the characteristic (‘top and tail’) ar-
rangement of the deceased constitute adiagnostic feature of
the Silesian-Greater Polish enclave. The appearance of this
‘syncretic’ custom may be attributed to the influence of the
‘Trzciniec’ societies, among whom this funerary practice was
very common (Makarowicz 2010, 244-262; 2010a).
In the areas inhabited by the Silesian-Greater Polish
Tumulus culture the known cemeteries containing skeletal
graves are almost three times more numerous than burial
grounds with cremation graves (Gedl 1975, 74). Cremation
burials were discovered at 12 sites (34 graves in total). Most
of them contained the remains of asingle individual. Grave
no. 291 in Górzyca, featuring astone kerb and astele, con-
tained the cremated remains of aman in the Maturus age
4. C
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 151
group. Most cremation burials in the borderlands between
Wielkopolska and Śląsk were found in simple earthen pits,
with the remains of the deceased placed directly in the infill
(Kleszczewo, graves no. 2 and 3; Ligota, graves no. 1, 5, 6;
Masłów, graves no. 2 and 3; Pudliszki, graves no. 6, 7C, 10,
11, 15C, 18A, 18B, 18D, 19A-19C; Lasak 2001, 302). In very few
cases were the charred bones put either in organic containers
(the grave in Górzyca; Kruszyniec and grave no. 3 in Kleszcze-
wo, where several clusters of bones were found) or in urns
(Kleszczewo, Pudliszki, Wymysłowo; Kowiańska-Piaszykowa
1966, 122; Gedl 1975, 160-164; Jasnosz 1975, 91f.; Lasak 2001,
302). Graves containing cremated remains were much less
likely to feature additional construction elements of wood or
stone. Inhumation preceded cremation as aburial custom, but
was practiced at all stages of the development of Tumulus
culture in the Odra drainage area and the middle Vistula basin.
Cremation was evident in ‘flat surface’ necropolises earlier
than it was in tumuli, i.e., in the later phase of the classical
period (isolated cases in the early period? – Gedl 1975, 86) and
became popular at the late stage of the culture’s development,
most likely due to the influence of Urnfield culture (Cwaliński
2010; 2012; Cwaliński, Niebieszczański 2013).
In some cases both forms of burial appear at the same
necropolises. There are also cases of cremated and inhumed
remains being found in the same grave (e.g., in Wielkopolska:
grave no. 13 in Borek, grave no 1 in Kleszczew, grave no 18d?
in Pudliszki; in Śląsk: Brzyków, grave D in Jordanów, grave
no. 2 in Kruszyniec, graves no. 1 and 4 in Masłów; Kowiańs-
ka-Piaszykowa 1966; Gedl 1975, 160-164; Kłosińska 1997, 150).
Biritualism is also evident within asingle burial ground, e.g.,
in Górzyca, where two cremation burials were conducted at
alate stage of the burial ground’s period of utilization (Socha,
Sójkowska-Socha 2017 [eds.]).
The scarcity of anthropological markers and the poor
condition of the bone remains prevent researchers from
identifying general patterns concerning the gender and age
of the deceased, the spatial arrangement of the bodies, and
the grave goods. The necropolis in Borek in Wielkopolska pro-
vided acertain amount of such data. The cemetery contained
the remains of 27 individuals, most of whom were cremated.
The age of the deceased could be determined in 20 cases;
gender only in six (four males and two females). They were
mostly adults from 20-30 to 50-60 years of age. The right to
be interred at aburial ground also applied to children (the
age groups of Infans Iand II were represented) and juveniles
(Ziąbka, Maryniak 1988, Chart no. 1). However, this information
pertains to necropolises from late-stage Tumulus culture and
cannot be taken as referring to the circumstances in the earlier
periods. In other cases (e.g., in Górzyca) conjectures as to the
gender of the deceased could only be made on the basis of
the grave goods or the presence of the specific double burial
that suggests the interring of a‘husband’ and ‘wife’(e.g., the
necropolises in Karczyn and Górzyca).
Reliable information on grave goods could be inferred
from 104 graves associated with the Silesian-Greater Polish
Tumulus culture. These contained dress fittings, ornaments
worn on arms and legs or, less often, weapons and tools.
The dominant form of grave goods were bronze items (378
specimens in 99 graves, i.e., in more than 95% of their total
number). Pins were the most common types in this category
(157 specimens – 41.5% of all metal objects, discovered in
81 graves, i.e., in almost 78% of the analyzed burials). Items
frequently found in funerary contexts also included armlets/
spirals and bracelets (respective categories: 73 specimens in
38 graves, i.e., 36.5% and 53 specimens in 23 graves). Thir-
ty-two graves were furnished with ceramic vessels (49 items);
17 more contain only fragments of pots. Clay vessels were
found in almost 50% of flat-surface funerary sites. Daggers
(nine in total) were found in eight graves, arrowheads in four,
swords in three, and arrowheads in two. Rare finds included
necklaces made of amber (three graves), amber, glass, and
bronze, or only glass (one specimen in each category). Twelve
graves yielded flint items including arrowheads (found in
two graves). This list does not include items found at the
necropolis in Górzyca, where research is still underway. The
site has so far yielded numerous bronze items (cf. the general
characteristic in Appendix, Górzyca).
The deceased were buried in funerary attire, usually
fastened with one or two pins – though some graves contained
more, even as many as five or ten (e.g., Kruszyniec, graves
no. 1 and 2; Marcinkowice, graves no. 1-3; Borek, grave no. 13;
Gedl 1975, 92; Ziąbka, Maryniak 1988). In some cases there
is the possibility of alarger number of bodies being buried
in asingle grave. Anumber of instructive examples (e.g., the
necropolis in Górzyca; Socha, Sójkowska-Socha 2014; cf. also
Gedl 1975, 160-164) suggests that male graves were furnished
with weapons (swords, daggers, archery equipment of which
only flint or bronze arrowheads have survived), tools and insig-
nia (hatchets, hammer-axes, maces – Gedl 1996), ornaments
(bracelets, armlets, spirals, rings) and dress fittings (pins)
and, in rare cases, razors, tongs, and pots. Female graves
contained the above types of jewellery, dress fittings, and
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
152
head ornaments. Ceramic vessels were arare finding, but
appeared more often than in the case of male graves. The
custom of using pottery as grave goods gained more popu-
larity at the late stage of the development of Tumulus culture
in the Odra and Vistula river basins. The graves dated to that
period could be furnished with several vessels (e.g., grave
no. 1 in Masłów; Fig. 17). The most common forms included
pots, vases, bowls, and drinking cups, decorated with vertical
fluting and bosses or, less often, with horizontal bands, along
with coarsening or ‘textile’ incised ornaments (Fig. 18; Gedl
1975, Table XXII-XXVIII). The latter type of decoration used
to be regarded as aspecific marker of ‘pre-Lusatian’ culture
(Vorlauzitzerkultur; Richthofen 1926, 1943; Kostrzewski 1963,
128; Kowiańska-Piaszykowa 1966, Map no. 1; Gedl 1975, 62-71;
Gediga 1978, 159f.), yet this thesis has been questioned by
more recent research, which has indicated that the custom
had existed in other cultural circles (including earlier ones;
Kłosińska 1997, 46f.; Makarowicz 2010, 192).
Apart from stately graves furnished with many goods
(mostly bronze, but in rare cases also clay, flint, stone, amber,
earthenware), archaeologists have found burial pits contain-
ing only asingle item (predominantly pins used to fasten
the funerary attire). The former category includes elite in-
humation burials from Marcinkowice (graves no. 1 – 3) and
Górzyca (no. 317 and 528) Wojdal (no. 2) and Krzelów (Gedl
1975, 164; Socha-Sójkowska-Socha 2014, 17). Grave no. 2 in
Marcinkowice yielded 27 bronze items, among them nine pins,
seven bracelets, two daggers, apair of pincers, two spirals
or armlets, and avessel (Fig. 19). Archival material and the
arrangement of bones does not provide sucient information
to ascertain whether this was an individual or acollective burial
(Fig. 20). Grave no. 1 at the same necropolis (afemale grave?)
contained six pins and two diadems (Fig. 21). An impressive
array of grave goods was recovered from grave no. 317 in
Górzyca (cf. Appendix, Górzyca). The deceased – awarrior
– was buried in amulti-layered stone structure of consider-
able size. Apart from militaria (asword, adagger, axes, and
arrowheads remaining from an archery kit), the site yielded
Fig. 17. Masłów, Śląsk, grave no. 1. Photo from the Archives of the
Archaeological Museum in Wrocław
Fig. 18. Bąblin, Wielkopolska. Vessel with atextile incised ornament.
Photo by B.Walkiewicz. From the Archives of the Archaeological
Museum in Poznań
4. C
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 153
dress fittings (two pins, coils of bronze wire) and
abronze retouching tool. Another spectacularly
furnished grave at the same necropolis is labelled
no. 528. It contained the remains of an individual
in the Iuvenis-Adultus age group (undetermined
gender; the grave goods suggest awoman) bur-
ied with asumptuous bronze necklace with spiral
discs and two bronze pins whose heads had the
shape of aspiral disc (the three items constituted
aset), as well as three rings and abronze nodule
– ahead ornament (Socha, Sójkowska-Socha 2014,
Fig.12). The grave in Krzelów in Śląsk, reinforced
with stone construction elements, contained the
remains of aman in asupine position with afull-
tang dagger at his waist, two pins (one of which
probably fastened the funerary attire on the chest),
afluted stone hammer by his right shoulder, and
afooted cup by the head (Fig. 15; Seger 1909, 62f,
Abb. 22, 23; Gedl 1975, 113).
Ample goods were sometimes found in
cremation and biritual graves (e.g., in Kruszyniec
and Masłów in Śląsk). Grave no. 1 in Kruszyniec,
covered with alayer of cobbles, contained two
clusters of bones, as well as anecklace of amber
beads and five bronze pins. The biritual grave no.
2 at the same burial ground had asimilar con-
struction. It yielded anecklace with beads made
of amber, glass, and bronze, spiral discs, and five
bronze pins, as well as fragments of ceramic ves-
sels (Tackenberg 1927, 15-23; Gedl 1975, 113).The
stone-lined grave no. 1 in Masłów was, in turn,
furnished with at least five vessels, three pins and
wire coils – most likely fragments of anecklace
(Fig. 17; Gedl 1975, 117 and 160).
Fig. 21. Marcinkowice, Śląsk, furnishings from grave no. 1. Photo from
the Archives of the Archaeological Museum in Wrocław
Fig. 20. Marcinkowice, Śląsk, grave no. 2 (in situ). Photo from the
Archives of the Archaeological Museum in Wrocław
Fig. 19. Marcinkowice, Śląsk, furnishings from grave no. 2. Photo from
the Archives of the Archaeological Museum in Wrocław
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
154
Burial customs of the Silesian-Greater Polish
Tumulus culture communities – conclusions
In the culture under analysis, the funerary aspect of ritual
life was extremely well-developed. Apart from their tumulus
burial grounds – some of them vast – these people also
established necropolises with flat-surface graves. Larger
barrow necropolises were usually composed of separate
groups that included from several to over adozen tumuli.
Barrow cemeteries constituted afundamental element of
the settlement network, fulfilling not only asepulchral, but
also asocial function.
The presence of complex constructions of stone or
(less frequently) wood is acharacteristic feature of ‘Tumulus’
graves. The right to be buried in such objects applied to adults
of both genders and to children. The dominant custom was
to bury the dead in individual graves; collective graves are
incidental. The remains were either inhumed or cremated,
though biritual burials (some with partially burnt bones) were
also practiced. Aspecific, albeit rare, category is that of double
burials (family burials?).
Initially Tumulus communities erected onlybarrows,
but flat graves started to appear already in the early stage of
this culture’s development (e.g., Guzowice, Kurów, Krzelów,
Siechnice). The number of such burials grew in the classical
phase. Inhumation was the earlier rite; in tumulus graves this
burial custom was three times more common than cremation.
In flat-surface necropolises inhumation graves outnumber
cremation graves two to one. Stone elements of construction
started to appear in tumulus and flat graves in the early period.
Earthen mounds featuring wooden elements (cons, pali-
sades, mortuary houses) are characteristic for the late phase,
whereas in flat graves such construction forms were already
present in the classical phase of the culture’s development.
Graves without mounds were furnished much more
lavishly than the ones beneath barrows. In both cases the
dominant type of grave goods was that of bronze items; they
appear in graves dated to all periods of Tumulus culture’s
development. In sites dated to the early phase vessels are
arare finding, but become more common in the classical
and late period.
As Tumulus culture developed, the treatment of the
deceased underwent radical changes, most likely conditioned
by new religious ideas and ashift in world-view. The custom
of cremation is likely to have appeared at the later stage of
the classical period (BC1), as evidenced e.g., by the presence
of early pin forms in cremation graves in Jordanów and Kietrz
(Gedl 1975, 82). However, this did not become widespread
until the late stage of the culture’s development. In the Sile-
sian-Greater Polish Tumulus culture this fundamental change
was due to the influence of the Lusatian culture.
The introduction of the new religious doctrine (cosmol-
ogy) that brought the custom of cremation also had amaterial
manifestation in the form of using wooden elements such as
cons, mortuary houses, and palisades in the construction
of flat-surface and tumulus graves. In funerary architecture
dated to that period stone construction elements are much
less common than they were in the early and classical phas-
es. It appears that the changes in the symbolic culture of the
Tumulus communities in Śląsk and Wielkopolska fit the more
general trends in the development of the groups inhabiting
Central Europe at the end of the 2
nd
millennium BC. Amber and
bronze probably played asignificant role in the popularization
of the symbolism of the ‘solar’ cult, which supplemented or
rather complemented aquatic cults at that time.
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 155
Metallurgy and social structure
Metal is almost universally recognized as an important eco-
nomic and social asset that generates rank and accelerates
the process of dierentiation within and between communities
(e.g., Pare 2000 [ed.]; Kienlin, Roberts [ed.] 2009; Kienlin 2010;
opposing views in – Bartelheim 2009; cf. also Kienlin 2013). In
the Central Europe of the Middle Bronze Age the technique of
metal casting became widely known and more high-tin bronze
was produced (Vandkilde 1998; Harding 2000; Pare 2000).
The Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus culture did not con-
tinue the early Bronze Age models of the Únětice and Véterov
cultures. It developed its own style – particularly apparent in
the design of pins, armlets, and bracelets – characteristic for
the Odra/Vistula interfluve (Fig. 22). This fact provides indirect
evidence for the existence of local metallurgy workshops
(Blajer 1998, 339 and 342; 2014, 89, further literature therein).
Mostly high-tin bronze was produced at that time (Dąbrowski,
Hensel 2005). There is no direct material evidence of local
metalworking in the early and classical phase of this culture’s
development – no casting moulds or clay elements of bel-
lows’ nozzles have been found. Such items appear onlyin
alate-phase context, in Szczepidło (middle Warta), where
the remains of asizable permanent settlement have been
discovered. The site provided evidence for various stages
of intensive metalworking activity (cf. Appendix, Szczepidło)
(Makarowicz 2016). It should, however, be assumed that the
characteristic style of the Silesian-Greater Polish-Cuiavian
enclave that distinguished local products from those made
by other Tumulus culture communities in Central Europe ap-
peared (at the latest) in the classical phase of this culture’s
development in Polish territory. The source for copper and tin
ore used in the production of bronze remains unknown (Blajer
2014, 89), yet chemical analysis of certain samples of ‘Tumulus’
metals found in the Odra/Vistula interfluve suggests that the
mineral came from the Carpathians (Dąbrowski, Hensel 2005).
The influence of Silesian-Greater Polish metallurgy ex-
tended far outside the relevant habitation area, especially to
the east. Sites associated with the late-stage Trzciniec culture
(i.e., after 1600 BC) yield relatively many items characteristic for
Tumulus-culture workshops – pins, daggers, bracelets, armlets/
spirals, spearheads (more in: Makarowicz 2010, 177, 343f.).
Bronze items are found mainly in ritual contexts – in
graves and hoards (mass deposits of metal). The rare items
discovered with no context (stray finds) are usually the re-
mains of these two categories of sites. Few bronze objects
were discovered in settlements. At the early stage of this
culture’s development (BB1), bronze artefacts were rarely
placed in barrow and flat graves (pins, bracelets, armlets)
and even less often in hoards (pins never appear in those;
e.g., Grodnica in Wielkopolska, and Śmiełowo and Legnica
in Śląsk; Blajer 1999, 115). Most of them were imports from
beyond the Carpathians or local imitations thereof – in most
cases the dierence is dicult to discern. The type of items
that cannot be reliably categorized as either imports or local
copies are referred to as creative translations (Vandkilde
2014, 603f.). Substantial progress in bronze production and
an increase in the number of bronze items found in ritual
contexts is discernible only in the classical phase of the cul-
ture’s development. The dominant type of grave goods at
that time comprised jewellery sets including pins to fasten
funerary attire, bracelets and armlets with spiral discs, coils of
wire with spiral disc endings, salta leone coils (fragments of
necklaces), and rings (Blajer 1999, 116). In this phase (BB2-BC1)
hoards characteristic for the Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus
culture become more prominent. Most of them feature sets of
ornaments: bracelets, armlets/spirals and pins. Unfortunately,
the precise dating of many of these deposits is impossible to
ascertain (Blajer 1999, 145). Since most hoards from the Middle
Bronze Age have been discovered in awatery environment,
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
156
Fig. 22. Bronze items of the Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus Culture. Photo by B.Walkiewicz.
From the Archives of the Archaeological Museum in Poznań
B S-G P T –
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 157
the dominant interpretation is that such practices had acult
or votive function (Blajer 1999, 148). Metal objects were left in
the wetlands (bodies of standing water, bogs) as an oering
intended to secure divine favour (the do ut des principle; cf.
A.and B.Hänsel [eds.] 1997).
Although abroad spectrum of bronze items has been
retrieved from graves, no burial associated with the circle of
the Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus culture may be unequiv-
ocally categorized as containing the remains of ablacksmith/
metallurgist (the grave in Krzelów is apotential choice, due
to the presence of astone hammer). The only find of amet-
allurgy workshop comes from the settlement mentioned in
Szczepidło by the middle Warta river. Its contents testify to the
high level of specialization of local blacksmiths (Makarowicz,
Garbacz-Klempka 2014; Makarowicz 2016).
As regards attempts at defining the social structure of
the Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus culture, the only sources
that may be useful pertain to ritual behaviour. Due to their
performative and fundamentally unchanging nature, rituals
and the symbols they entail constitute (among other things)
akind of code that provides information regarding not only
the entire community and its groups, but also specific individ-
uals – such as social status, prestige, material wealth, power,
rules of succession, rights and obligations (Leach 1954, 279;
Garwood 1991; van Gennep 2006; Rappaport 2007; Makarow
-
icz 2010, 281-283).
Given the nature of the source material and the fact
that practically no settlements have been discovered and
excavated, the size of communities belonging to the Sile-
sian-Greater Polish Tumulus culture is dicult to ascertain.
Estimates based on the use of space, utilization time, and
forms of architecture in the only studied Tumulus settlement
in the Silesian-Greater Polish enclave of Szczepidło upon
Warta (cf. Appendix, Szczepidło) allow scholars to calculate
the approximate number of people inhabiting the place during
one construction phase. The data gathered from necropolises
is dicult to interpret, as it has not been studied in full and
the bone remains of the deceased are poorly preserved. To
complicate things even more, the prevailing theory is that
only apart of the community was buried in barrow necropo-
lises (Górski 1996; Makarowicz 2010; Bourgeois 2013). This
suggests that the communities that utilized even the largest
burial grounds were not populous and could have numbered
several dozen people.
Sources indicating the level of complexity and dier-
entiation of the social structure prove more informative. The
grave goods buried with agiven individual, the type of grave,
and the amount of work required to erect such astructure
may have reflected the status, wealth, role, and prestige that
aperson enjoyed in life (e.g., Cobb 1993, 54f.; Müller 1994;
Kadrow 2001, 154; Makarowicz 2003; Włodarczak 2006, 143f.).
However, many scholars advise against firmly associating
the form and furnishing of the grave with the status of the
deceased, emphasizing that elaborate funerary customs may
be the result of specific ‘needs’ and intentions of the living
members of the community (mourners, families, lineages,
etc.; Vandkilde 1996, 260; 1999; Parker Pearson 1999; Biehl,
Marciniak 2000; Makarowicz 2003; 2010).
The monumental constructions discovered beneath the
mounds and in flat graves associated with the Silesian-Greater
Polish Tumulus culture, the extent of work required to build
them, and the sumptuous grave goods placed with some of the
deceased (luxury items of bronze, amber, and glass) suggest
ahigh level of social stratification. The predominance of single
burials, in turn, indicates aconsiderable degree of individual-
ization, which was already typical of some late-Neolithic and
most early Bronze-Age communities in Central Europe. This
tendency also coincides with the ‘personalization’ of grave
goods (reflecting or suggesting the identity of the deceased
and their gender), which may be observed in the case of
some Tumulus-culture burials in the Vistula/Odra interfluve.
The most valuable information on the structural com-
plexity of the Silesian-Greater Polish enclave comes from
the construction and furnishings of certain flat burials and,
less often, tumulus graves. Examples include grave no. 317
in Górzyca (cf. Appendix, Górzyca), graves no. 1–3 in Mar-
cinkowice (Fig. 19 and 21), graves no 1 and 2 in Kruszyniec and
graves beneath tumuli no. 1 and 8 in Smoszew (cf. Appendix,
Smoszew). The warrior grave in Górzyca and the sites in
Marcinkowice contained sumptuous furnishings testifying to
the extraordinary wealth and high status/rank of the people
buried there.
The linear arrangement of tumuli and the fact they
tend to be grouped in smaller clusters suggest astrong bond
between successive generations and their predecessors
(ancestors). Specific patterns of territorial behaviour indicate
that the communities of the Silesian-Greater Polish enclave
of Tumulus culture were most likely based on kinship – they
consisted of autonomous origin groups (lineages) whose
mobility (as animal farmers/warriors) and vast network of
contacts that reached the neighbouring territories ensured
marital exchange and the inflow of metal (Blajer 2014, 89).
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
158
The Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus culture:
asummary
The image of the Tumulus communities inhabiting the Vistula/
Odra interfluve is not complete due to the partiality of the
sources, which mostly represent the ritual variant of the culture.
The scarce data on the settlement structure and the economy
(cf. Appendix, Szczepidło) suggest that aconsiderable degree
of stabilization (permanent architecture, double-track economy
based on agriculture and animal husbandry with cereals as
the dominant crop) was observable in the later stages of the
culture’s development. The Silesian-Greater Polish-Cuiavian
enclave of Tumulus culture, especially the northern and east-
ern parts of its habitation zone, is characterized by the syn-
cretism of native (Tumulus) and foreign models, mainly Nordic
and associated with the Trzciniec circle. On the other hand, it
is distinctly dierent from other groups in the Tumulus cultur-
al circle, especially with regard to the style of bronze items.
The form of some metal objects suggests that the enclave
maintained avast network of contacts (Gedl1975, table I: 8,
9; Bukowski 1998; Kaczmarek 2012; Socha, Sójkowska-Socha
2014; Socha, Sójkowska-Socha [eds.] 2017).
The available data reveals an image of ahighly sophis-
ticated ritual life. Diagnostic features of the northeasternmost
enclave of Tumulus culture include: barrows as the dominant
and externally discernible form of burial; mounds and flat
graves featuring complex construction elements (of stone
and wood); elitism manifested in the richness of grave goods
(mostly bronze items); knowledge of advanced methods of
high-tin bronze production and casting; and the ideology
of warriorhood which cemented the social structures of the
emerging military aristocracy. This is, however, arather ide-
alized image of the communities under analysis. Spectacular
features of this ‘cultural package’ aside, many finds consists
of simple burials with average or modest furnishings and
deposits of only afew metal items. In spite of – or maybe
due to – this visible polarization, it may be surmised that the
communities of the Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus culture
were highly hierarchized or even stratified (Wason 1994).
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 159
A
Górzyca. An elite necropolis on the middle
Odra
The burial ground in Górzyca is the largest flat-surface cem-
etery of the Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus culture that has
been excavated so far – and work is still underway (Socha,
Sójkowska-Socha 2010; 2014; Socha, Sójkowska-Socha [eds.]
2017). The site lies in the Thorn-Eberswalder Urstromtal, in
the Lubusz Gorge of the river Odra (Fig. 1). It occupies the
top of asmall hillock with awestern exposure, which consti-
tutes part of apost-glacial ground moraine (Kondracki 1979,
308-309). The hill is located ca. 0.8 kilometres from the Odra
river channel.
The necropolis was utilized in the early and classical
stages of Tumulus culture development (BB1–BC1, i.e., 1600-
1350 BC; Gedl 1975, 72-74; 1992). Thirty-five graves have been
discovered here, distributed over an area of ca. 1.2 acres/0,5
ha (the northern boundary of the necropolis has not been
established). Twenty-five of those feature stone elements
of construction; ten include acombination of wooden and
stone elements (Fig. 2). The spatial arrangement of the graves
indicates that some of them may have been covered with
mounds, yet the damage done to the surface layer at the site
makes it impossible to verify this hypothesis.
The graves in Górzyca had the shape of an oval or arec-
tangle with rounded corners and measured 1.50–3.50 metres
in length, 0.60–2.40 metres in width and 0.20–1.0 metres
in depth. Almost all of them were aligned along the NW–SE
axis. The majority of graves featured astone construction
and were covered with cobbles (32 sites), often comprising
several layers. In two cases the construction included astone
kerb, but no cobbles. In several graves (317, 400, 570) traces
of posts placed at regular intervals were found, forming amor-
tuary-house-type structure. Stone structures were uncovered
at lower excavations levels.
Inhumation was the dominant form of burial; cremated
remains constitute arare find (two such graves have been
discovered so far). Due to the unfavourable characteristics
of the local soil, most of the bone material was damaged by
mineralization; it is mostly long bones, skull fragments, and
teeth that have survived. The arrangement of these indicates
that the deceased were buried in asupine position with their
heads to the northeast (or, less frequently, to the southwest).
The few cases that have been anthropologically studied
suggest that the cemetery served as the final resting place
for men, women, and children. Several graves did not contain
bones, but only traces of dark stains on the ground; others
yielded asmall number of non-mineralized bones and grave
goods (Fig. 10). The majority of burials were individual; in three
cases asingle pit held the remains of two persons arranged
in a‘top and tail’ position. The skulls were at the opposing
ends of the burial pit, while the long bones touched at the
centre of the grave.
Fig. 1. Górzyca, ziemia lubuska, location of the site
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
160
A
The graves in Górzyca contained sumptuous goods.
The 35 excavated sites yielded 115 bronze items (or fragments
thereof), 10 vessels (in six graves; several more contained
singular fragments of ceramic pots), asingle, blue glass bead,
16 flint arrowheads, and semi-finished forms used in their pro-
duction. The bronze items included: asword with hilt fittings
and ascabbard chape, seven daggers, four axes, 27 pins, 15
bracelets, two necklaces, five small rivets from adagger scab-
bard, 13 rings or other small circular ornaments, aretouching
tool, three head ornaments and 26 melted bronze items of
unidentified function. The richly furnished graves did not form
discernible clusters. Grave goods (weapons, ornaments, and
vessels) were often covered with smaller or larger stones.
Grave no. 317 is among the most spectacular sites of
the Górzyca necropolis. It held the remains of amale in the
Maturus age group, buried with items of amilitary nature.
Radiocarbon dating points to the early phase of Tumulus
culture (1600-1500 BC). The body of the warrior was placed
in astone casket measuring 3.3 x 1.5 metres. Excavation
revealed three layers of cobbles covering the deceased
and the grave goods (Fig. 4, 5). The post holes discovered
around the grave are remnants of awooden construction –
amortuary house. The grave goods consisted of avessel,
asword, adagger, two pins with flared tips coiled into an eye,
an axe in northern German style, coils of bronze wire (salta
leone), several flint arrowheads and half-finished forms thereof
(remnants of archery equipment?), and abronze retouching
tool (Fig. 5; Socha, Sójkowska-Socha 2014, 19-22; Socha,
Sójkowska-Socha [eds.] 2017).
The sword, made of high-tin bronze, was placed on the
right-hand side of the deceased (Fig. 9). The hilt was probably
located at the level of the forearm. The weapon measures 52
cm in length (the tang measures 7.3 cm). The hilt was made
of organic material. It was fastened to the tang with aspecial
Fig. 2. Górzyca, site 20, plan of the cemetery (drawing by J. Sójkowska-Socha) ,
Tumulus Culture marked in blue, other settlement phases marked in dierent colours
G. A O
T P S 3: 2000 – 500 161
A
overlay. An elliptical bronze plaque pierced at the centre was
discovered near the end of the tang – the item might have
served as the tip of the hilt. Anarrow ridge runs along the
centre of the blade, from the tang towards the point (Socha,
Sójkowska-Socha 2010, 84). Remnants of the scabbard were
found on the sword’s crossguard. Achape – ascabbard tip
(made of coiled wire) – was discovered ca. 5 centimetres from
the point of the sword. It is one of the oldest examples of such
an item found in Poland in afunerary context. Its provenance
is, however, dicult to ascertain. Probable analogies should
most likely be sought in the north, in the Nordic cultural circle.
Near the head of the deceased avessel and afragment
of coiled wire (in the salta leone type) were placed. Two pins
were discovered lying slightly below the chest; these were
probably used to fasten the funerary attire. The hatchet was
located at the level of the hips, whereas the three flint arrow-
heads lay at the feet of the deceased. Acluster of half-finished
arrowheads and prefabricates were discovered at adistance
of more than twenty centimetres from the feet, along with
aretouching tool. These items were most likely placed there
in acontainer of organic material (Fig. 5).
The warrior grave was not the only one in Górzyca that
contained weaponry. Five graves yielded daggers (seven in
total) whose hilts had been made of an organic material. The
hilts used to be fixed to the blade using two to four metal rivets.
One particularly spectacular specimen features four rivets
and atrapezoidal hilt plate. Five small bronze rivets, initially
fastened to ascabbard of organic material, were found around
the weapon (Fig. 3). Daggers with atrapezoidal hilt plate are
most often found in the Nordic circle (Vandkilde 1996; Loba
2006, 16). Similar specimens, categorized as Wohlde-type,
Fig. 6. Górzyca, double grave (400A and 400B; photo by K. Socha)
Fig. 5. Górzyca, warrior’s grave (no. 317; photo by K. Socha)
Fig. 4. Górzyca, warrior’s grave (feature 317; photo by K. Socha)Fig. 3. Górzyca, dagger with four rivets and a trapesoidal hilt plate,
before conservation (photo by T. Kulik)
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
162
A
Fig. 9. Górzyca, sword from the warrior’s grave, after conservation (photo by K. Socha)
are characteristic of north-western Germany and Jutland
(Gedl 1980, 57-58; Socha, Sójkowska-Socha2014, 19).
Three graves yielded atotal number of 12 flint ar-
rowheads (no. 296, no. 648, no. 666) (Socha, Szemelak
2012). Traces of adark-coloured substance were found
in the flutes and the middle sections of the arrowhead
bodies. The substance – wood tar – was used as an
adhesive to fasten the arrowhead to the wooden shaft
(Pietrzak, Langer 2012, 340). In grave no 296 nine arrow-
heads were placed (stuck in the ground?) around asingle
stone (Socha, Szemelak 2012, 387).
Grave no. 570 had an interesting construction. It
was amortuary house, rectangular in shape, with post
holes in each of the corners. Such structures originated
in the Neolithic, but continued to be built in the Bronze
Age (e.g., Chmielewski 1952, 73-92; Sulimirski 1968, 107;
Gedl 1975, 91, 1984; Jarosz 2011, 18-20, Fig. 6; Lasak 2001,
300; Staniewicz 2008, 13-14; Makarowicz 2010, 233-239).
Below the structure, at the centre of the grave, alarge
dense cluster of sizable stones was found. The burial pit
with four stones in each corner, was located beneath –
0.7 metres below surface level. The grave yielded the
only fragment of askull and afew slaked shards of long
bones. The grave goods (abronze wire bracelet with
overlapping ends) was covered with astone.
Grave no. 291 provides an example of acremation
burial of amale in the Maturus age group. It had arec-
tangular stone kerb; one of the larger stones is likely
to have initially served as astele. Judging from their
arrangement, the charred bones had originally been
placed in acontainer of organic material. The furnishings
comprised avessel – atwo-handled vase with pierced
handles, an ornamental bracelet of bronze tape decorated
with elongated ribs, acollar necklace (type A1 – Kersten
1936, 40), adisc-headed pin with an ear (type Ain: Seger
1909), two pins with aspindle-shaped head, the head of
adisc-headed pin, apartially melted bronze axe, and
more than ten fragments of melted bronze items. Collars
were produced in Mecklenburg, northern Brandenburg,
and locally in western Pomorze (Bukowski 1998; Loba
2006, 14f.).
Graves no. 400 Aand B (Fig. 6) is unique with
regard to form. It is composed of two contiguous burial
pits which share one of the longer sides and are each
surrounded with astone kerb (3.5 × 2.4 metres). Traces
of wooden posts were found around the pit, beyond
the stone kerb, which suggests that the actual size of
the grave amounted to 4.15 metres. Each of the burial
chambers contained small fragments of human bones
and bronze ornaments such as pins with aflared head
coiled into an ear and apartially twisted shaft and pins
with the heads in the form of aspiral disc. It is likely that
both graves were covered with an earthen mound. This
may be indirectly inferred from the fact that the sites
were surrounded with empty space and that in alater
period ‘Lusatian’ graves were dug within the perimeter.
Fig. 7. Górzyca, pin with an ear and a disc head with a star motif
(photo by K. Socha)
Fig. 8. Górzyca, furnishings from the grave of a woman of the Ślask-
Wielkopolska Tumulus Culture: tutulus composed of 9 discs with
spikes and two pins with spiral-disc heads, after conservation
(photo by K. Socha)
G. A O
T P S 3: 2000 – 500 163
A
One of the most valuable items found in the Górzyca
necropolis was abronze tutulus composed of nine discs
with spikes of varying size, which most likely belonged to
the grave goods deposited at the richly furnished grave of
an individual in the Iuvenis age group (no. 528; Fig. 8). Apart
from the necklace, the grave yielded two bronze pins with
spiral-disc heads, three rings and abronze nodule (ahead
ornament). The arrangement of these items suggests that
they constituted aset. Necklaces composed of disk beads
with spikes are typical for the Carpathian Basin from where
the style spread to various groups of Tumulus culture. As
regards Polish territory, they are found in western Pomorze,
yet usually as individual discs (Blajer 1999, 94).
The more interesting palstaves discovered in Górzyca
include: aspecimen of the northern German type deposited
in the warrior grave (no. 317) and the Kappeln-type axe with
arounded heel, associated with the Nordic Bronze Age. Such
item were produced in Pomorze beyond the Odra (Kersten
1958, 30, Chart 23c) and probably also in western Pomorze
(Dąbrowski 2004, 12; Socha, Sójkowska-Socha2014).
Vessels associated with Tumulus culture constitute
arare find (Gedl 1975, 160-164). In Górzyca, six graves yielded
atotal number of 10 vessels; two more burial pits contained
only fragments of ceramics. These were two-handled vas-
es with horizontally pierced handles, beakers, jars with an
S-shaped profile and aflared lip, and asingle bowl. Atwo-han-
dled vase with aboss-ornament on the body exemplifies
alate Tumulus form, bearing the most resemblance to early
Lusatian culture boss-decorated ceramics.
The site in Górzyca is an exceptional example of aTu-
mulus culture necropolis in the Silesian-Greater Polish oecu-
mene. Its vast size, the monumental stone and stone-and-wood
constructions and the richness of grave goods all testify to
the unique nature of this burial ground. In the Bronze Age,
the middle Odra valley where the cemetery is located (near
the Warta/Odra confluence) served as an important route of
communication connecting the Carpathian Basin with the
shores of the Baltic Sea (Sherratt 1993; Vandkilde 2014). This
strategic position resulted in the presence of bronze items
(and glass beads – most likely the elements of anecklace)
whose style resembles that found in Northern Germany and
Denmark, in sites associated with Tumulus culture and the
‘Nordic’ culture, as well as in Tumulus cemeteries in the Car-
pathian Basin. The vast network of contacts ought to be
linked with the culture’s specific social structure. Substantial
evidence from the necropolis analyzed corroborates the
popular opinion that the elite strata of these communities
were that of amilitary aristocracy composed of mobile groups
of warriors and their families (Kristiansen 1998; Kristiansen,
Larsson 2005). The burial ground in Górzyca was most likely
the final resting place of several generations of families in
asingle or multiple lineage.
Fig. 10. Górzyca, furnishings of the double grave no. 243, in situ (photo by K. Socha)
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
164
A
Karczyn – asmall family burial ground?
The burial ground in Karczyn in Kujawy (Fig. 1; research con-
ducted by J.Bednarczyk and A.Romańska from the Institute
of Archaeology at the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań)
lies at the edge and on the slope of the Bachorza river Ur-
stromtal. It occupies apart of alarge promontory rising above
the wetlands in the river valley. The site is covered with alayer
of dark soil.
The necropolis comprises only six graves, yet the spe-
cific spatial arrangement suggests that there might be some
burials that remain undiscovered (Fig. 2). The graves are dis-
tributed over an area with no clear spatial plan, though it may
be argued that graves no. 23, 30, 230, and 311 are arranged
linearly. The distance between neighbouring pits varies from
several to several dozen metres. The pits are aligned along
the NE–SW axis; with the exception of grave no. 30 (N–S).
Some of them appear in pairs or close to one another.
The Tumulus culture graves in Karczyn do not feature
impressive elements of construction or contain spectacular
grave goods. The uniqueness of this burial ground lies in the
specific ‘top and tail’ arrangement of the buried bodies. Five
of the burial pits (the sixth was considerably damaged by the
addition of later structures) contained the remains of apair
of individuals (aman and awoman) placed ‘top and tail’ with
their heads at the opposing shorter sides of the cavity and
their long bones towards the centre. This characteristic type
of burial has Neolithic roots; it was almost ubiquitous in the
double and collective graves of the Trzciniec cultural centre
in the area between the Warta and Dnieper (Makarowicz
2010, 244-253). Infrequent examples were also found in
some necropolises associated with Tumulus culture, e.g., in
Górzyca in Lubusz Land (Socha, Sójkowska-Socha 2014). The
array of grave goods did not include pottery, but only bronze
items – predominantly pins to fasten funerary attire (Fig. 3-5).
Inhumation graves no. 23 and 30 were located next
to one another in the southern part of the necropolis. The
roughly rectangular pits (with rounded corners) had aba-
sin-shaped profile and measured 225 × 125 cm (no. 23) and
305 × 120 cm (no. 30). Their respective depth was 30 and
35 centimetres. Both contained double inhumation burials
Fig. 1. Karczyn, Kujawy, site 21/22. 1 – location of the site
Fig. 2. Karczyn, spatial arrangement of graves in the burial ground
K – ?
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 165
Appendices
Fig. 5. Karczyn, selection of pins from graves no. 23 and 311
with the deceased placed in a‘top and tail’. The regular and
clearly distinguishable contour of the burial pit suggests that
the bodies were placed in awooden formwork (cons). The
skeletons in grave no. 23 were poorly preserved; the fur-
nishings consisted of pins and atutulus, most likely adress
fitting. In grave no. 30 two individuals were placed ‘top and
tail’ in asupine position with their legs slightly bent (Fig. 6,
8). The deceased were buried in afunerary attire fastened
at the waist with bronze pins.
Another double burial was discovered in grave no. 173
(Fig. 9). The faintly distinguishable burial pit was oval in shape
and measured 103 × 55 × 9 centimetres. The skeletons were
aligned along the NE–SE axis; one with the head towards
the north, the other to the south (‘top and tail’). Despite the
outward appearance of correct anatomical orientation, the
bones are fragmented and dislocated. In skeleton no. 1 the
remains of pelvic bones were found directly below the skull,
while in skeleton no. 2 wrist bones lay by the head; only the
pelvis and the long bones of the lower limbs remained in their
‘proper’ location. Abronze pin was found slightly above the
pelvis, while abronze arrowhead lay below the femur. Obser-
vations made during the process of excavation indicate that
skeleton no. 2 was placed atop skeleton no. 1.
The remaining two double inhumation graves (no. 200
and 230) were very similar to the ones described above. Site
no. 200 was located ca. 15 metres to the south-east of grave
no. 173. It featured aquadrilateral burial pit measuring 174
× 48 cm, aligned along the N–S axis. The deceased were
placed in an alternating arrangement, with their heads towards
the north and south, both facing east (Fig. 7). As with other
graves, the dead were dressed in funerary attire fastened at
the pelvis with bronze pins. In grave no. 230 the outline of
the roughly rectangular pit was clearly distinct. It measured
310 × 166 cm and was 15cm deep. Although the bones within
had mineralized, it is very probable that the grave contained
adouble inhumation burial. The grave goods discovered at
the site – abronze disc-headed pin with an ear and atutulus
– are analogous to those retrieved from 23. The placement
of grave goods is also identical.
Grave no 311 is located at the north-eastern periphery
of the necropolis. It was discovered during the exploration
of askeletal grave from the Roman period. Fragments of
askull, several teeth and abronze pin were recovered from
the southern section of the oval burial pit aligned along the
NE–SW axis. At aconsiderable distance – ca. 85 cm – to the
north-east acluster of human bones was found (fragments
Fig. 3. Karczyn, selection of pins from graves no. 23 and 311
Fig. 4. Karczyn, selection of pins from graves no. 23 and 311
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
166
Appendices
of the spine, long bones); their poor state of preservation
made it impossible to ascertain whether these were remains
of asingle or two individuals.
Against the background of other cemeteries associated
with the Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus culture, the one in
Karczyn is something of acuriosum. The local burial customs
reflect two dierent traditions. The practice of laying two indi-
viduals (aman and awoman?) into asingle grave in a‘top and
tail’ position and the custom of changing the arrangement of
the bones is connected with earlier funerary customs of the
Trzciniec cultural circle. The orientation of the deceased and
the supine position are, in turn, afeature clearly related to
Tumulus culture (Makarowicz 2010, 244-253). It could therefore
be surmised that the necropolis is an early Tumulus culture
site representative of asyncretic form of burial customs. This
hypothesis is, however, contradicted by the fact that the
style of items placed there as grave goods corresponds to
the late stage in the development of Tumulus culture and an
early stage of Lusatian culture. The most likely explanation
is that in the north-eastern parts of the area inhabited by
Silesian-Greater Polish Tumulus communities the tradition of
the Trzciniec circle proved more lasting than in the south and
south-west. Diagnostic features of the Tumulus and early-Lu-
satian communities developedon the foundation, as it were, of
‘Trzciniec’ customs. Such an interpretation is accordant with
the rhythm of social and cultural transformations discernible
from the material found in the settlement of Szczepidło on
the middle Warta river (cf. Appendix, Szczepidło).
Fig. 9. Karczyn, grave no. 173 (drawing by A. Romańska, J. Romaniszyn)
Fig. 7. Karczyn, grave no. 200 (drawing by A. Romańska, J. Romaniszyn)Fig. 6. Karczyn, grave no. 30 (Photo by A. Romańska)
Fig. 8. Karczyn, grave no. 30 (Photo by A. Romańska)
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 167
A
Smoszew – aburial mound at Wał
Krotoszyński
One of the largest necropolises of the Silesian-Greater Polish
Tumulus culture is located in Smoszew in Wielkopolska, be-
tween the river Barycz and the middle Odra (Fig. 1; Kostrzewski
1924; Suryś 1985, 47, fig. 3; Jaeger, Pospieszny 2011), at Wał
Krotoszyński – the terminal moraine of the Warta Glaciation
(Krygowski 1961). The burial ground is found halfway up the
eastern slope of ahillock whose relative height amounts
to ca. 50 metres (Cwaliński, Niebieszczański 2013, 119). An
old oak and beech forest (Krotoszyn Forest) now covers the
area, which is why the cemetery was not damaged during
the intensive agricultural exploitation of the land. Thirty-five
mounds were discovered in the area in the 1920s; archaeo-
logical research has thus far been conducted on six of them
(Kostrzewski 1924, 171, 200; Kostrzewski 1924a, 259-268,
fig. 1-21; 84; Durczewski 1933, 212-213, 221-222, fig. 8 – 10;
13-19; Jaeger, Pospieszny 2011; Kneisel 2012; 2013; Cwaliński,
Niebieszczański 2013). The use of modern research methods
(e.g., airborne laser scanning) allowed scholars to detect
over 120 tumuli scattered around the forest mentionedat Wał
Krotoszyński (Fig. 4; Czebreszuk et al. 2013).
The main cluster of barrows is situated on astretch of
flat terrain on aslope between two streams flowing into the
Czarna Woda river. These bodies of running water are likely to
have been present at the location in the Middle Bronze Age
(Fig. 2, 3; Cwaliński, Niebieszczański 2012, 237-240, Fig. 2).
The tumuli at Wał Krotoszyński dier with regard to size
(height and diameter); the initial diversity is still discernible
despite erosion processes (Kostrzewski 1924, 261; Jaeger,
Pospieszny 2011). The barrows which were excavated (1, 2, 8,
15, 20, 21) featured complex internal structures in the form of
rings and cores (barrows no. 1, 8 and 20) or cobbles (tumuli
no. 2 and 21).
Barrow no. 1 measures 13-14 m in diameter and 1.10 m
in height. It contained adome-shaped stone core covering an
oval burial pit (the bones had mineralized). The grave is not
Fig. 2. Smoszew, spatial arrangement of the central group of tumuli
(after Cwaliński, Niebieszczański 2012)
Fig. 1. Smoszew, Wielkopolska, location of the site
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
168
Appendices
Fig. 3. Smoszew, spatial arrangement of the central group
of tumuli with contour lines (after Jaeger, Pospieszny 2010)
located directly at the centre of the core but slightly to the
north and measures 5.60 × 4.60 metres. It was surrounded
with an irregularly shaped ring of glacial erratics, 0.8–1.2
metres in width. It is possible that the tumulus also featured
wooden elements of construction. Grave goods consisted of
afragmented bronze dagger with acentral ridge and traces
of awooden scabbard, apin with aflaring head bent into
an ear and three vessels – two pots and abowl (Fig. 7, 9, 11;
Kostrzewski 1924,262–268; fig. 3–4, 10, 14, 20).
Barrow no. 2 was small and oval in ground plan (5.6
× 5.3 m, height 0.4 m). Thirty centimetres below the surface
level (aportion of the soil had been removed) aspheroid
stretch of cobblestone pavement composed of several lay-
ers was found. No remains of aburial were discovered. The
furnishings consisted of three vessels (Fig. 8, 12). The first of
them – atwo-handled pot – was located in the central section
of the mound, at adepth of 0.70 metres. It was covered with
astone slab. The other two vessels were found in pieces
buried at the depth of 0.45 and 0.35 metres, near the edge
of the cobbled patch. One was afooted bowl decorated with
four elongated bosses below the rim; only the bottom of the
other container was found.
The mound of tumulus no. 8 is 21 m in diameter and 1.7
m in height. It held astone ring ca. 1.30 m in width, surround-
ing an oval, dome-shaped (semicircular in profile) stone core
Fig. 4. Smoszew, digital elevation model made using laser scanning
(after Cwaliński, Niebieszczański 2013)
Fig. 5. Smoszew, plan of tumulus 8 (after Gedl 1975)
S – W K
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 169
Appendices
measuring 6 × 4.8 metres, 1.7 m in height (Fig. 5). Beneath was
arectangular stone burial chamber (3 × 2 m) aligned along
the N–S axis. The grave yielded abronze dagger tang with an
arched base and traces of three rivets, as well as fragments
of acrushed ceramic vessel. Fragments of ceramic pots and
an unidentified bronze item were found outside of the burial
pit (Kostrzewski 1924, 266, fig.14–15).
Research works in tumulus no. 15 were recentlycon-
ducted (Fig. 6). The centre of the mound contained astone
core surrounded by two rings of stones of considerable width.
Arobbery trench was discovered in the north-eastern section
of the mound. The barrow yielded fragments of vessels and
abronze pin (Janusz Czebreszuk, pers. comm.).
Barrow no. 20 is circular (20m in diameter) and meas-
ures 2.20 m in height. It featured an oval ring of stones(19 ×
16.6 m) that measures 1.20 m in width. The ring surrounded
around stone core in the shape of atruncated cone, which
was located ca. 1 metre below the top of the barrow. The core
was 1.60 metres high, 5 metres wide at the base and 2.20
metres wide at the top. It contained traces of charcoal and
some fragments of unidentified bronze items.
The bronze items recovered from the barrows in Smo-
szew may be dated to the classical phase of the Silesian-Great-
er Polish Tumulus culture (BB2-BC1, i.e., 1500-1400 BC). The
arched pin belongs to the type with aflared head coiled into
an ear (Gedl 1983, Tafel 36: 588, Tafel 60), yet this form has
awider chronology (Blajer 2001, 194-195; Dąbrowski 1985,
128, 129, Fig. 13; Jaeger, Pospieszny 2009). Only one of the
daggers is complete enough to allow more precise identifi-
cation (the specimen with three rivets fastening the handle
– Gedl 1975; 1992).
Fig. 6. Smoszew, tumulus 15 (photo by M. Jaeger)
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
170
Appendices
Fig. 10. Smoszew, furnishings of tumulus graves (selection), tumulus8
(photo by B. Walkiewicz, from the Archives of the Archaeological
Museum in Poznań)
Fig. 9. Smoszew, furnishings of tumulus graves (selection), tumulus1
(photo by B. Walkiewicz, from the Archives of the Archaeological
Museum in Poznań)
Fig. 7. Smoszew, furnishings of tumulus graves (selection), tumulus1
(photo by B. Walkiewicz, from the Archives of the Archaeological
Museum in Poznań)
Fig. 12. Smoszew, furnishings of tumulus graves (selection), tumulus2
(photo by B. Walkiewicz, from the Archives of the Archaeological
Museum in Poznań)
Fig. 11. Smoszew, furnishings of tumulus graves (selection), tumulus1
(photo by B. Walkiewicz, from the Archives of the Archaeological
Museum in Poznań)
Fig. 8. Smoszew, furnishings of tumulus graves (selection), tumulus2
(photo by B. Walkiewicz, from the Archives of the Archaeological
Museum in Poznań)
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 171
A
Szczepidło – asettlement of metallurgists
on the Warta river
The archaeological site in Szczepidło in Wielkopolska is
unique in Europe. The spectacular relics from the middle
and late Bronze Age were discovered at avast dune on
afluvial terrace of the Warta river, where it runs along the
line of latitude (Fig. 1; Hildebrandt-Radke, Makarowicz 2014;
Makarowicz, Garbacz 2014; Makarowicz 2016). The site is
located in ablowout between two parabolic dunes (Fig. 2,
3). Stylistic analysis of pottery finds (Fig. 15) and the series of
over 30 radiocarbon-dated samples suggest that the settle-
ment functioned for ca. 300 years (1500-1200 BC). Research
has revealed two phases of its development interrupted by
nearly ahundred-years hiatus. It encompassed an area of ca.
7 acres/3 ha. ‘Taxonomical’ changes (apart from the dominant
Tumulus phase, the site yielded material from the Trzciniec
cultural circle and the early Lusatian culture) came gradually
and resulted from the activity of successive generations of
the same peoples.
Fig. 1. Szczepidło, Wielkopolska, site 17, location of the site
Fig. 3. Szczepidło, the blowout where the site is locatedFig. 2. Szczepidło, the blowout where the site is located
(after Hildebrandt-Radke, Makarowicz 2014)
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
172
Appendices
Fig. 5. Szczepidło, distribution of features and traces of metalworking, the casting
workshop in the centre (after Makarowicz 2016)
Fig. 4. Szczepidło, site and height plan with the location of digs (after Makarowicz 2016)
S – W
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 173
Appendices
The excavated section (3,500 square metres) contains
at least adozen clusters of objects (ca. 300 in total) and pot-
tery that indicate the location of households, i.e., dwellings
with barnyards. These, in turn formed larger functional areas
of varying size (Fig. 4, 5; Grygiel 1986; Kadrow 1991; Górski
1993; Makarowicz 2010; 2013a; Makarowicz, Garbacz 2014).
Judging from the style of the material and the absolute chro-
nology of the objects and the areas of the settlement, not
all households were built within asingle phase of construc-
tion. Geomagnetic research and the dispersion of movable
material on the surface suggest that clusters of objects may
also be present beyond the excavated parts of the site. The
hypothesis regarding the permanent and sedentary nature
of the settlement is further corroborated by the immovable
material finds: most objects are multi-level cellars/storage
pits with atrapezoidal or rectangular infill (Fig. 7, 10). Traces
of intense human activity may also be discerned. Palaeobo-
tanical and palaeozoological analysis indicates that the local
economy was based on animal husbandry and agriculture, with
cereal cultivation being the dominant aspect. The inhabitants
grew barley (Hordeum vulgare), millet (Panicum miliaceum),
common wheat (Triticum aestivum), emmer wheat (Triticum
dicoccon), and wheat (Triticum sp.). The animals they kept
included cattle, pigs, sheep/goats, horses, and dogs.
The principal production zone of the settlement was
located on ahillock at the centre of the archaeologically
studied area, which was most likely the centre of the original
settlement as well. The casting workshop discovered there
has no equivalent anywhere in Central Europe. The pro-
duction area contained the largest and most dense cluster
of ceramic fragments and bronze items, as well as objects
made of stone and flint, cinder, and scarce fragments of clay
used in construction (Fig. 5). The central object was abuild-
ing (casting workshop) with asunken floor, but with no post
holes in sight. This latter fact makes it dicult to determine
the type of structure and the technique of its construction.
The workshop has the shape of an irregular polygon aligned
along aNW–SE axis. Its length amounted to 13.2 m; its width
Fig. 6. Szczepidło, topography and structural image of a fragment of crucible wall; with a visible drop of solidified metal alloy (after Makarowicz,
Garbacz-Klempka 2014)
Fig. 7. Szczepidło, plans and cross-sections of storage pits
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
174
Appendices
to 10.3 m, and its maximum depth to 1.04 metres. The mul-
ti-layered, basin-shaped infill contained strata of humus in
various stages of podzolization and unpodzolized, mixed with
fine-grained yellow sand. Traces of burnt matter and lumps of
charcoal were visible at diering depth. The traces of burning,
ground charcoal, and burnt ceramic fragments, together with
the large array of (damaged) bronze items, waste material,
sprues, cinder, fragments of handshank ladles and crucibles,
lumps of metal, stone chasing tools, and burnt stone all point
to intensive production of high-tin bronze over along period
of time. It is likely that the workshop was permanent. Acon-
siderable amount of artefacts was also registered around
the object in question, especially to the west and to the east.
The casting workshop may have had an open or semi-open
construction (low walls that allowed the noxious fumes and
gas to disperse). The infill contained larger and smaller frag-
ments of several hundred vessels.
The central workshop aside, asmaller cluster of relics
associated with metalworking was found in the southern
part of the excavated area. The dark colour of the infill (dark
brown or black) coupled with traces of charcoal and burning
indicates that these sites may have been used in the process
of metal production. Asmall number of cinder lumps have
also been found not too deep beneath the top of the humus.
Numerous metal lumps, fragments of metal items and slag
ware found between the metallurgy workshop (site no. 153)
and this cluster of objects, mainly in the topsoil layer (Fig. 12).
However, their spatial allocation results from the frequent
displacement of surface levels of soil (secondary distribution).
The bronze objects were studied macroscopically and
chemically (XRF analysis); selected samples were also scanned
with an electron microscope and energy-dispersive spectrom-
eter (SEM-EDS) to determine their composition and structure.
In all the analyzed cases the dominant element was copper,
Fig. 8. Szczepidło, bronze sprue (after Makarowicz, Garbacz-Klempka 2014)
Fig. 9. Szczepidło, bronze pins and arrowheads (after Makarowicz 2016)
S – W
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 175
Appendices
with tin being the main alloy component. Lead was also pres-
ent as the second intentionally added ingredient. The array
of metal objects consists mostly of defective items – either
damaged mechanically or miscast. They were most likely
used as raw material to be melted down. The items include
arrowheads with visible casting defects (Fig. 9; most of them
misrun) or damage resulting from use – namely, mechanically
damaged rods and pins, broken and fragmented (Fig. 11). All
of them had been made in acasting mould, some were later
worked by hand. The heavily damaged pieces bear the rem-
nants of decorations made with casting techniques as well
as traces of surface processing done after the casting was
complete. Further corroboration for the thesis that the items
mentionedhad been made in the local metallurgy workshop
is provided by the presence of fragments of sprue structures,
especially the funnel-shaped sprues with aclearly visible
area of solidification, something characteristic for casts that
solidified in an open form (Fig. 8).
Fig. 10. Szczepidło, plans and cross-sections of
storage pits (after Makarowicz 2016)
Fig. 11. Szczepidło, bronze pins and
arrowheads (after Makarowicz 2016)
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
176
Appendices
Selected crucibles were analyzed and studied using
optical, confocal and scanning microscopy, defectoscopy,
x-ray spectroscopy in macro-scale (XRF) and micro-scale (SEM-
EDS). The results confirm that the ceramic mass had contact
with molten metal. It resulted in metal particles getting into
the pores of the crucible walls. These were ‘saturated with
metal’ i.e., had ahigher than usual concentration of metal
elements in their ceramic mass. In some cases droplets of
alloy solidified in the pores as aresult of metal diusion (Fig.
6). The analyzed ceramics was used in the process of melting
and casting performed in the workshop that produced bronze.
The crucibles were made of clay mixed with aconsiderable
amount of sand. The added component drained the moisture
from the mass, facilitated heat exchange, and improved the
fire-resistance of the vessels. Analysis has shown that the
walls of the crucibles contained trace amounts of copper
and tin (the fact that twice as much tin was deposited on the
walls is related to its density). The chemical composition of
the droplets that solidified on crucibles is similar to that of
the bronze items.
Two of the numerous chasing tools found at the site
deserve separate mention. Both of them have the form of
asmall hammer/anvil. The first, made of sandstone, is natu-
ral in shape. Quadrilateral in plan and rectangular in profile,
the tool has asingle work area (Fig. 14). The latter specimen,
made of diabase, was preliminarily processed – its sides were
polished to form atrapezoidal shape resembling ahalf-fin-
ished axe (Fig. 13).
The analyzed material – consisting of raw materials,
fragments of crucibles and pieces of scrap bronze, i.e., sprue
structures, the heavily damaged and the non-damaged fin-
ished products (the latter rarely found), the well-finished prod-
ucts, as well as chasing tools and pieces of slag – indisputably
indicates that what was discovered in Szczepidło was an
advanced casting workshop dating from the 2nd millennium
BC (precisely: 1330-1230 BC), afind that is unique in Central
Europe. All of the above elements of ametallurgical work-
shop appearing together point to the production processes
that were carried out onsite. Due to the discovered objects’
insucient state of preservation and the absence of ahearth
or afurnace, it is impossible to determine the size of the work-
shop, or the volume of its output, with any precision. All that
can be stated is that it produced small-sized objects made
with considerable precision, such as ornaments or arrowheads.
The objects were cast of high-tin bronze and (rarely)
high-lead bronze, although the composition of some half-fin-
ished products is highly untypical. No pure raw materials
(copper or tin) have been found onsite. The only exception
is lead, which may be considered to have been of local or-
igin, i.e., coming from Śląsk or the Kraków region, from the
zinc/lead deposits with aproportion of silver, where mining
began in avery early period (Makarowicz, Garbacz-Klempka
Fig. 12. Szczepidło, cinder (after Makarowicz, Garbacz-Klempka 2014)
S – W
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 177
Appendices
2014). Some of the objects under consideration contain high
percentages of lead, which may indicate that the admixture
of this element – which slightly modifies the technological
qualities of the products – was intentional and consequently
that the alloys were modified onsite, in the workshop.
The discovered fragments of sprue structures broken
o from the finished products – and more precisely: the
main sprues, which have the shape of afunnel formed in the
mould’s runner – indicate that objects made by casting were
produced onsite; they also directly corroborate the compo-
sition of the casts made in the workshop. In the absence of
stone moulds, the assumption that the workshop used clay
moulds is highly credible. This is confirmed by the quality of
the finished products, which do not have the seam lines which
usually formed when split moulds made of stone were used
(although the seams may have been removed later, during
the process of finishing).
The finished products show traces of working by means
of various techniques. The casts demonstrate the eects of
hammering, grinding and polishing aimed at completing the
object technologically, with various chasing tools. As aresult,
the faults were removed and the aesthetics-oriented finishing
processes increased the decorative quality of the object. In
terms of the development of metallurgy in Tumulus Culture
communities resident in the drainage basins of the Vistula
and the Odra, the discovery of the Szczepidło workshop
is of crucial importance, as it yields essential information
regarding the technology of manufacturing bronze objects.
In addition, source materials obtained from this stable and
durable settlement document the characteristic course of
taxonomical changes during the Middle and Late Bronze Age
in this part of Poland.
Fig. 15. Szczepidło, vessel decorated with vertical grooves
(after Makarowicz 2016)
Fig. 13. Szczepidło, chasing tool (after Makarowicz 2016) Fig. 14. Szczepidło, chasing tool (after Makarowicz 2016)
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
178
Aner E., KerstenK. 1981. Die Funde der älteren Bronzezeit des
nordischen Kreises in Dänemark, Schleswig-Holstein
und Niedersachsen . Vol. 6, København. Wachholtz,
Neumünster.
Bartelheim M.2007. Elites and metals in the Central
European Early Bronze Age. In: T.Kienlin, B.Quilliec
and B.Roberts (eds.) Metals and societies .
[=Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen
Archäologie 169, 2009]: 34-46. Habelt, Bonn.
Bátora J.2006. Štúdie ku komunikáci medzi strednou
avýchodnou Európou v dobe bronzovej , Petrus,
Bratislava.
Berezanskaja S.S.1972. Srednij period bronzovogo veka
wsevernoj Ukrainie , Kiev.
Biehl P., Marciniak A.2000. The Construction of Hierarchy:
Rethinking the Copper Age inSoutheastern Europe. In:
M.W.Diehl (ed.) Hierarchies in Action. Cui Bono? : 181-
209, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Blajer W.1998. Przyczynek do dyskusji oznaczeniu metalurgii
brązu wzachodnim odłamie kultury trzcinieckiej. In:
A.Kośko, J.Czebreszuk (eds.) „Trzciniec” – system
kulturowy czy interkulturowy proces? : 337-342,
Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, Poznań.
Blajer W.1999. Skarby ze starszej iśrodkowej epoki brązu
na ziemiach polskich , [= PAN O/Kraków. Prace Komisji
Archeologicznej 30 ]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe DWN,
Kraków.
Blajer W.2001. Skarby przedmiotów metalowych zepoki
brązu iwczesnej epoki żelaza na ziemiach polskich .
Księgarnia Akademicka, Kraków.
Blajer W.2014. Epoka brązu iokres halsztacki. In: E.Tomczak
(ed.) Archeologia. Górny Śląsk : 88-91, Śląskie Centrum
Dziedzictwa Kulturowego, Katowice.
Bóna I.1975. Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre
südöstlichen Beziehungen, Archaeologia Hungarica,
Series Nova, Vol. IL . Akadémiai kiadó, Budapest.
Bóna I.1992. Bronzezeitliche Tell-Kulturen in Ungarn.
In: W.Meier-Arendt (ed.) Bronzezeit in Ungarn.
Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss :
9-41, Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte Frankfurt am
Main, Frankfurt.
Boos A.2000. The Chieftain’s Grave of Hagenau and Related
Warrior Graves, In: J.Jensen (ed.) Gods and heroes of
Bronze Age Europe. The roots of Odysseus : 106-107,
Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen.
Bourgeois Q.P.J.2013. Monuments on the Horizon. The
Formation of the Barrow Landscape Throughout the 3rd
and 2nd Millennium BC , Sidestone Press, Leiden.
Bourgeois Q.P.J., Fontijn D.2012. Diversity in uniformity,
uniformity in diversity: barrow groups in the Netherlands.
In: D.Bérenger, J.Bourgeois, M.Talon, S.Wirth (eds.),
Gräberlandschaften der Bronzezeit. Bodenaltertümer
Westfalens 51, Gräberlandschaften der Bronzezeit.
Internationales Kolloquium zur Bronzezeit, Herne,
15.–18. Oktober 2008 . [=Berichte der LWL-Archäologie
für Westfalen]: 533-551. Philipp von Zabern, Darmstadt, .
Bouzek J.1985. The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe. Cultural
Interrrelations in the Second Millennium B.C., Studies in
Meditterranean Archaeology 29 , Academia, Göteborg-
Åström-Prague.
Bradley R., Fraser E.2011. Bronze Age Barrows and the
Boundary between the Living and the Dead. In: D.Mullin
(ed.), Places in Between: The Archaeology of Social,
Cultural and Geographical Borders and Borderlands :
40-47. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Bukowski Z.1998. Pomorze wepoce brązu wświetle
dalekosiężnych kontaktów wymiennych , Gdańskie
Towarzystwo Naukowe, Gdańsk.
Bukowski Z.2002. Znaleziska bursztynu wzespołach zepoki
brązu izwczesnej epoki żelaza zdorzecza Odry iWisły ,
Wydawnictwo IAE PAN, Warszawa.
Bibliography
B
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 179
Burgess C.1976. The Beaker Phenomenon: Some Suggestions,
Part I: General Comments and the British Evidence. In:
C.B.Burges, R.Miket (eds.) Settlement and Economy
in the Third and Second Millennium BC [=BAR 33]: 309-
331, BAR Publishing, Oxford.
Butent B.1992. Zagadnienie kurhanów wNiedarach
iLudgierzowicach, gm.Trzebnica, woj. Wrocław. Studia
Archeologiczne 22: 35-83.
Cabalska M.1961. Stan badan nad II okresem brązu wPolsce.
Zeszyty Naukowe UJ. [= Prace Archeologiczne 3 ]: 17-38.
Cehak-Hołubowicz H.1971. Kurhany ludności kultury amfor
kulistych koło Niedar wpow. trzebnickim. Studia
Archeologiczne 4: 113-139.
Chvojka O., Krištuf P., Rytiř L.2009. Mohylová pohřebiště
na okrese Písek. Part 1. Cíle, současný stav poznání
ametoda sběru dat . [=Archeologické výzkumy v Jižních
Čechách. Supplementum 6]. Jihočeské muzeum v
Českých Budějovićich, Západočeská univerzita v Plzni,
České Budějovice-Plzeň.
Cobb C.R.1993. Archaeological Approaches to the Political
Economy of Nonstratified Societies. In: M.B.Schier
(ed.) Archaeological Method and Theory 5 : 43-100,
University of Arizona Press, Tucson-London.
Čujanová-Jílková E.1970. Mittelbronzezeitliche
Hügelgräberfelder in Westböhmen. Archeologické
studijní materiály 8 . Archeologický ústav ČSAV. Praha.
Cwaliński M.2010. Kurhan wkulturze mogiłowej. Analiza
konstrukcji na podstawie cmentarzysk ze Śląska
iWielkopolski (unpublished manuscript), Poznań.
Cwaliński M.2012. Kultura mogiłowa po dwóch stronach
Sudetów. Próba analizy porównawczej kurhanowego
obrządku pogrzebowego kultur mogiłowych, zterenów
południowozachodniej Polski oraz zachodnich Czech
(unpublished manuscript), Poznań.
Cwaliński M., Niebieszczański J.2012. The Tumulus Culture
Burial Mounds in southwestern Poland. Construction
of the Barrows and their Place in the Landscape. In:
J.Kneisel, W.Kirleis, M.Dal Corso, N.Taylor, W.Tiedtke
(eds.), Collapse or Continuity? Environment and
Development of Bronze Age Human Landscapes .
[=Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen
Archäologie, Band 205]: 235-256. Habelt, Bonn.
Cwaliński M., Niebieszczański J.2013. Kurhanowy obrządek
pogrzebowy kultury mogiłowej na terenach
południowo-zachodniej Polski. Konstrukcja kurhanów
iich położenie wkrajobrazie. Fontes Praehistorici
Posnanienses 49: 107-144.
Czebreszuk J.1988. Grab vom Ende der Frühbronzezeit
in Bożejewice, Gemainde Strzelno, Wojewodschaft
Bydgoszcz, Fundstelle 8. Folia Praehistorica
Posnaniensia 3: 31-42.
Czebreszuk J.1996. Społeczności Kujaw wpoczątkach epoki
brązu , PSO, Poznań.
Czebreszuk J.2001. Schyłek neolitu ipoczątki epoki brązu
wstrefie południowo-zachodniobałtyckiej (III ipoczątki
II tys. przed Chr.). Alternatywny model kultury .
Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań.
Czebreszuk J.2011. Bursztyn wkulturze mykeńskiej ,
Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, Poznań.
Czebreszuk J.(red.) 2004. Similar but Dierent. Bell Beakers in
Europe , Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań.
Czebreszuk J., Jaeger M.Pospieszny Ł., Cwaliński M.,
Niebieszczański J., Strużyk M.2013. Modelowe badania
nieinwazyjne obszarów leśnych – Las Krotoszyn.
Zbadań nad przemianami krajobrazu kulturowego
wpradziejach Wielkopolski, Fontes Praehistorici
Posnanienses 49: 157-175.
Czebreszuk J., Szmyt M.2011. Kurhan, rów, palisada wtradycji
kultury ceramiki sznurowej. Próba rekonstrukcji
scenariuszy rytualnych. In: H.Kowalewska-Marszałek,
P.Włodarczak (eds.), Kurhany iobrządek pogrzebowy
wIV-II tysiącleciu p.n.e. : 123-130, Instytut Archeologii
iEtnologii PAN, Instytut Archeologii UW, Kraków-
Warszawa.
David V.1998. Zum Ende der bronzezeitlichen Tellsiedlungen
im Karpatenbecken. In: H.Küster, A.Lang, P.Schauer
(eds.) Archäologische Forschungen in urgeschichtlichen
Siedlungslandschaften. Festschrift für Georg Kossak
zum 75 Geburtstag : 231-267, Universitätsverlag
Regensburg, Regensburg.
David V.2002. Studien zu Ornamentik und Datierung der
bronzezeilichen Depotfundgruppe Hajdùsámson-Apa-
Ighiel-Zajta , Alba Iulia, Karlsburg-Weissenburg.
David V.2007. Gold and Bronze Artefacts as Evidence of
Mutual Contact between the Aegean, the Carpathian
Basin and southern Germany in the Second Millennium
BC. In: I.Galanaki, H.Tomas, Y.Galanakis & R.Laneur,
(eds.) Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas: Prehistory
across Borders (Proceedings of the International
Conference Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
180
and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean
and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and
Northern Europe, Zagreb 11-14 April 2005), [=Aegaeum
27]: 411-420, Université de Liège, University of Texas at
Austin, Liège-Austin.
Dąbrowski J.1972. Powiązanie ziem polskich zterenami
wschodnimi wepoce brązu , Ossolineum, Wrocław.
Dąbrowski J.1985. Problem zróżnicowania kulturowego ziem
Polski wstarszej epoce brązu, Przegląd Archeologiczny
33: 105-157.
Dąbrowski J.2004. Ältere Bronzezeit in Polen , Instytut
Archeologii iEtnologii PAN, Warszawa.
Dąbrowski J., Hensel Z.2005. Metallgießerei in der älteren
Bronzezeit in Polen, Praehistorische Zeitschrift 80/1:
5-48.
Durczewski Z.1933. Powiat krotoszyński wczasach
przedhistorycznych, Przegląd Archeologiczny 4: 208-
222.
Dzięgielewski K., Przybyła M.& Gawlik A.2010. Reconsidering
Migration in Bronze and Early Iron Age Europe: Bridging
aGap in European Mobility?, In: K.Dzięgielewski,
M.Przybyła & A.Gawlik (eds.) Reconsidering Migration
in Bronze and Early Iron Age Europe , [=Prace
Archeologiczne 63]: 9-35, Instytut Archeologii UJ,
Kraków.
Ebner K.2001. Die mittlere Bronzezeit in Südthüringen .
(unpublished manuscript) Marburg.
Feustel R.1958. Bronzezeitliche Hügelgräberkultur im Gebiet
von Schwarza (Südthüringen) , [=Veröentlichungen des
Museums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte] Weimar, Weimar.
Fokkens H.2012. Access to origins: on the meaning of
continuity and discontinuity in the use of barrow
‘cemeteries’, In: D.Bérenger, J.Bourgeois, M.Yalon
and S.Wirth (eds.) Gräberlandschaften der
Bronzezeit – Paysages funéraires de l’âge du Bronze.
Internationales [=Kolloqium zur Bronzezeit – colloque
International surl’âge du Bronze. Herne 15-18 Oktober
2008, Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 51] : 553-572, Philipp
von Zabern, Darmstadt.
Fokkens H.& Arnouldsesen S.2008. Towards new models,
In: S.Arnouldsen & H.Fokkens (eds.) Bronze Age
Settlements in the Low Countries : 1-16, Oxford Book,
Oxford.
Fontijn D.R.1996. Socializing Landscape. Second thoughts
about the cultural biography of urfields, Archaeological
Dialogues 3: 77-87.
Fontijn D.R.2011. The ‘Ritual’ Fabric of Prehistoric Landscape.
Funerary Places and Deposition Sites in the Low
Countries, c. 5000-1500 cal BC, Archäologie in
Eurasien 24: 429-448.
Forenbaher S.1993. Radiocarbon dates and European Early
Bronze Age, Antiquity 67: 218-253.
Furmánek V., Veliačik L., Vladár J.1991 Slovensko v dobe
bronzovej , Veda, Bratislava.
Gardawski A.1951. Niektóre zagadnienia kultury trzcinieckiej
wświetle wykopalisk wmiejscowości Łubna, pow.
Sieradz. Wiadomości Archeologiczne 18: 1-84.
Garwood P.1991. Ritual Tradition and the Reconstruction
of Society. In: P.Garwood, D.Jennings, R.Skeates,
J.Toms (eds.) Sacred and Profane. Proceedings of
aConference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion,
Oxford 1989 : 10-30, Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Garwood P.2007. Before the hills in order stood: chronology,
time and history in the Interpretation of Early Bronze
Age round barrows. In: Last J.(ed.) Beyond the grave:
new perspectives on round barrows : 30-52, Oxbow
Books, Oxford.
Gediga B.1977. Zagadnienie genezy kultury łużyckiej na
terenie Nadodrza. In: B.Gediga (ed.) Geneza kultury
łużyckiej na terenie Nadodrza : 7-16, Warszawa.
Gediga B.1978. Starszy okres epoki brązu na zachodnich
ziemiach polskich wzasięgu „kultury przedłużyckiej”.
In: A.Gardawski, J.Kowalczyk (eds.), Prahistoria
Ziem Polskich, Vol. III. Wczesna epoka brązu : 137-172.
Ossolineum, Wydawnictwo PAN, Wrocław-Warszawa-
Kraków-Gdańsk.
Gedl M.1964. Wczesny istarszy okres epoki brązu na Górnym
Śląsku, Przegląd Archeologiczny 16: 24-55.
Gedl M.1968. Dwa szkieletowe groby kultury przedłużyckiej
wKietrzu, powiat Głubczyce, Opolski Rocznik Muzealny
3: 145-152.
Gedl M.1975. Kultura przedłużycka , Ossolineum, Kraków.
Gedl M.1980. Die Dolche und Stabdolche in Polen,
Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abtailung 6 (4) , C-H.Beck,
München.
Gedl M.1983. Die Nadeln in Polen I(Frühe und ältere
Bronzezeit). Prähistorische Bronzefunde Abtailung 13 (7) ,
C-H.Beck, München.
Gedl M.1983a. Frühbronzezeitliche befestige Siedlung
in Jedrychowice und die Probleme der Nowa
Cerekiew-Gruppe in Oberschlesien. In: M.Gedl
(ed.) Frühbronzezeitliche befestigte Siedlungen in
Mitteleuropa, Archaeologia Interregionalis 6 : 27-43.
B
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 181
Gedl M.1984. Wczesnołużyckie groby zkonstrukcjami
drewnianymi , Ossolineum, Wrocław.
Gedl M.1989 Kultura przedłużycka. In: J.Kmieciński (ed.)
Pradzieje ziem polskich. Vol. I.Od paleolitu do
środkowego okresu lateńskiego. Part 2. Epoka
brązu ipoczątki epoki żelaza : 467-475, Ossolineum,
Wydawnictwo PAN, Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk.
Gedl M.1992. Die Vorlauzitzer Kultur, Prähistorische
Bronzefunde, Abtailung 21 (2) , Franz Steiner-Verlag,
Stuttgart.
Gedl M.1996. Uwagi odatowaniu iprzynależności kulturowej
kamiennych główek buław na Śląsku. Silesia Antiqua
38: 35-43.
Geschwinde M.2000. Die Hügelgraber auf der Großen Heide
bei Ripdorf im Landkreis Uelzen. Göttinger Schriften zur
Vor- und Frühgeschichte 29 , Wachholz, Neumünster.
Goldhahn J.2013. Rethinking Bronze Age cosmology: aNorth
European prespective. In: H.Fokkens and A.Harding
(eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze
Age : 248-265, Oxford University Press, Oxford,.
Görner I.2000. Bestattungssitten der Hügelgräberbronzezeit in
Nord- und Osthessen. Marburger Studien zur Vor- und
Frühgeschichte 20 , VML, Rahden/Westf.
Górski J.1993. Osada kultury trzcinieckiej iłużyckiej wNowej
Hucie-Mogile, stanowisko 55. Analiza materiałów część
I. Materiały Archeologiczne Nowej Huty 16 : 55-102.
Górski J.1996 Uwagi oznaczeniu kurhanów dla społeczności
kultury trzcinieckiej zobszarów lessowych Zachodniej
Małopolski. In: J.ChochorowskI (ed.) Problemy epoki
brązu iwczesnej epoki żelaza wEuropie Środkowej.
Księga jubileuszowa poświęcona Markowi Gedlowi :
204-211, Cracovia, Kraków.
Górski J.2003. Uwagi odatowaniu ikontekście znalezisk
ceramiki o„cechach południowych” wstrefie zasięgu
kultury trzcinieckiej. In: J.Gancarski (ed.) Epoka brązu
iwczesna epoka żelaza wKarpatach polskich : 89-137,
Mitel, Krosno.
Górski J.2010 Niektóre elementy symboliczne wkurhanach
kultury trzcinieckiej. In: S.Czopek, S.Kadrow (eds.)
Mente et rutro. Studia archaeologica Johanni
Machnik viro doctissimo octogesimo vitae anno ab
amicis, collegis et discipulis oblate : 396-378, Instytut
Archeologii UR, Rzeszów.
Górski J.2012 Transcarpathian elements in the Trzciniec
culture. Wanderings of people or ideas? In: R.Kujovský,
V.Mitáš (eds.) Václav Furmánek adoba bronzová.
Zbornik k 70 : 89-97. Narodeniná, Nitra.
Grygiel R.1986. The household cluster as afundamental
unit of the Lengyel culture in the Polish Lowlands.
Prace iMateriały Muzeum Archeologicznego
iEtnograficznego wŁodzi 31 : 43-270.
Grygiel R.2000. Kurhan ze starszej epoki brązu zWolicy Nowej
(Polówki) koło Brześcia Kujawskiego. In: S.Kadrow
(ed.) ATurning of Ages. Im Waldel der Zeiten. Jubilee
Book Dedicated to Professor Jan Machnik on His 70th
Anniversary : 225-238, Instytut Archeologii iEtnologii
PAN, Kraków.
Grygiel R.2008. Dalszy grób ze starszej epoki brązu zWolicy
Nowej (Polówki) koło Brześcia Kujawskiego. In:
J.Bednarczyk, J.Czebreszuk, P.Makarowicz, M.Szmyt
(eds.) Na pograniczu światów. Studia zpradziejów
międzymorza bałtycko-pontyjskiego ofiarowane
Profesorowi Aleksandrowi Kośko w60. rocznicę
urodzin : 115-121, Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, Poznań.
Guba S., Bácsmegi G.2009. Eine dreifache Besttatung
der Hügelgräberkultur aus der Gemarkung von
Szurdokpüspöki (NO-Ungarn). Analele Banatului, SN,
Arhaologie–Istorie 17 : 127-137.
Harmata K., Machnik J., Rybicka M.(eds.) 2013. Natural
Environment and Man on the Upper Dniester Region
of the Halyč–Bukačivci Basin in Prehistory and Early
Medieval Period, [= Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat, VI ],
PAU, Kraków.
Hänsel B.1968. Beiträge zur Chronologie der mittleren
Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken, Habelt, Bonn.
Hänsel A.iB.(eds.) 1997. Gaben an die Götter – Schätze der
Bronzezeit Europas. Bestands katalog des Museums für
Vor- und Frühgeschichte 4 , SMPK, Berlin.
Hårde A.2006. Funerary Rituals and Warfare in the Early
Bronze Age Nitra Culture of Slovakia and Moravia. In:
T.Otto, H.Thrane and H.Vandkilde (eds.) Warfare and
Society. Archaeological an Social Anthropological
Perspective : Aarhus University Press, Aarhus.
Harding A.F.1999. Warfare: adefining characteristic of Bronze
Age Europe. In: J.Carman, A.Harding (eds.) Ancient
Warfare. Archaeological Perspectives : 157-173, Stroud,
Sutton.
Harding A.F.2000. European Societies in the Bronze Age ,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Harding A.F.2006. What Does the Context of Deposition
and Frequency of Bronze Age Weaponry Tell Us about
the Function of Weapons. In: T.Otto, H.Thrane and
H.Vandkilde (eds.) Warfare and Society. Archaeological
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
182
an Social Anthropological Perspective : 505-513, Aarhus
University Press, Aarhus.
Harding A.F.2007. Warriors and Weapon in the Bronze Age
Europe , Archaeolingua, Budapest.
Heyd V.2013. Europe 2500 to 2200 BC: Between Expiring
Ideologies and Emerging Complexity. In: H.Fokkens
and A.Harding (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the
European Bronze Age : 47-67, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Hildebrandt-Radke I., Makarowicz P.2014. Naturalne
iantropogeniczne przekształcenia środowiska
geograficznego na stanowisku archeologicznym kultury
mogiłowej wSzczepidle 17 (Kotlina Kolska), Landform
Analysis 26: 21-37.
Hochstetter A.1980. Die Hügelgräberbronzezeit in
Niederbayern. Materialhefte zur Bayer. Vorgeschichte.
Reihe A- Fundinventare und Ausgrabungsbefunde 41 ,
Kallmünz.
Holst M.K., Rasmussen M.2012. Combined eorts. The
cooperation and coordination of barrow-building in
the Bronze Age. In: M.D.Jessen, N.N.Johannsen,
H.J.Jensen (eds.) Excavating the Mind: Cross-Sections
through Culture, Cognition and Materiality , Aarhus
University Press, Aarhus.
Ignaczak M., Makarowicz P.1998. Krąg trzciniecki akrąg
mogiłowy. Problem zmiany kulturowej na Kujawach
idorzeczu środkowej Warty. In: A.Kośko, J.Czebreszuk
(eds.) „Trzciniec – system kulturowy czy interkulturowy
proces?” : 379-397, Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, Poznań.
Ignaczak M., Makarowicz P.1998a. The South-Western Frontier
of the Trzciniec Cultural Circle In: A.Kośko (ed.) The
Trzciniec area of the Early Bronze age Civilization: 1950-
1200 BC , [Baltic-Pontic Studies 6]: 74-86, Wydawnictwo
PSO, Poznań.
Innerhofer F.2000. Die mittelbronzezeitlichen Nadeln
zwischen Vogesen und Karpaten. Studien zur
Chronologie, Typologie und regionale Gliederung
der Hügelgräberkultur. Universitätsforschungen zur
Prähistorischen Archäologie 71 . Habelt, Bonn.
Jaeger M., Pospieszny Ł.2011. Nieinwazyjne badania
weryfikacyjne kurhanów kultury mogiłowej na
stanowisku Smoszew 1 (pow. Krotoszyn, woj.
wielkopolskie). In: H.Kowalewska-Marszałek,
P.Włodarczak (eds.), Kurhany iobrządek pogrzebowy
wIV-II tysiącleciu p. n. e. : 435-450, Instytut Archeologii
iEtnologii PAN, Kraków-Warszawa.
Jarosz P.2011. Kurhany kultury ceramiki sznurowej
na pogórzach iwysoczyznach karpackich. In:
H.Kowalewska-Marszałek and P.Włodarczak (eds.)
Kurhany iobrządek pogrzebowy wIV-II tysiącleciu
p.n.e. : 255-277, Instytut Archeologii iEtnologii PAN,
Kraków-Warszawa.
Jasnosz S.1975. Materiały do osadnictwa wstarszej epoce
brązu na obszarze Wielkopolski południowej. Fontes
Archaeologici Posnanienses 25: 85-94.
Jockenhövel A.1991 Räumliche Mobilität von Personen in der
mittleren Bronzezeit des westlichen Mitteneuropa.
Germania 69: 49-62.
Jockenhövel A.2013 Germany in the Bronze Age. In:
H.Fokkens and A.Harding (eds.) The Oxford Handbook
of the European Bronze Age : 723-745, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Jockenhövel A., Kubach W.(eds.) 1994. Bronzezeit in
Deutschland. Archäologie in Deutschland Sonderheft
1994 , Stuttgart.
Johansen K.L., Laursen S.T., & Holst M.K.2004. Spatial
patterns of social organization in the Early Bronze
Age of South Scandinavia. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 23: 33–55
Kaczmarek M.2012. Epoka brązu na Nizinie Wielkopolsko-
Kujawskiej wświetle interregionalnych kontaktów
wymiennych , Wydawnictwo Poznańskiego Towarzystwa
Przyjaciół Nauk, Poznań.
Kadrow S.1991. Iwanowice, stanowisko Babia Góra, cz.
I.Rozwój przestrzenny osady zwczesnego okresu
epoki brązu , Secesja, Kraków.
Kadrow S.2001. Uprogu nowej epoki. Gospodarka
ispołeczeństwo wczesnego okresu epoki brązu
wEuropie Środkowej , Instytut Archeologii iEtnologii
PAN, Kraków.
Kalicz N.1958. Későbronzkori urnatemető. Igrici község
határában, AMiskolci Hermen Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve
2 : 45-72.
Kemenczei T.1984. Die Späbronzezeit Nordostungarns,
Archeologia Hungarica 51, Budapest.
Kersten K.1936. Zur älteren nordischen Bronzezeit ,
Neumünster.
Kersten K.1958. Die Funde der älteren Bronzezeit in Pommern ,
Hamburg.
Kienlin T.L.2010. Traditions and Transformations: Approaches
to Eneolithic (Copper Age) and Bronze Age
Metalworking and Society in Eastern Central Europe
B
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 183
and the Carpathian Basin, British Archaeological Report,
International Series 2184 , BAR Publishing, Oxford.
Kienlin T.L.2013. Copper and Bronze Age Metalworking
in Context. In: H.Fokkens and A.Harding (eds.) The
Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age : 413-
436, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kienlin T.L., Roberts B.W.(eds.) 2009. Metals and
Societies. Studia in Honour of Barbara S.Ottaway,
Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen
Archäologie 169 , Habelt, Bonn.
Kłosińska E.1997. Starszy okres epoki brązu wdorzeczu Warty ,
Werk, Wrocław.
Kneisel J.2012. The Problem of the Middle Bronze Age
Inception in Northeast Europe – or: Did the Únětice
Society Collapse? In: J.Kneisel, W.Kirleis, M.Dal Corso,
N.Taylor, W.Tiedtke (eds.), Collapse or Continuity?
Environment and Development of Bronze Age
Human Landscapes . [=Universitätsforschungen zur
Prähistorischen Archäologie 205]: 209-234, Habelt,
Bonn.
Kneisel J.2013. Der Übergang von der Frühbronzezeit
zur Mittelbronzezeit im nordöstlichen Mitteleuropa
– Lücke oder Forschungs desiderat? In: J.Kneisel,
H.J.Behnke und F.Schopper (eds.) Frühbronzezeit –
Mittelbronzezeit. Neue Erkenntnisse zur Besiedlung
zwischen Elbe and Warthe und angrenzender Regionen ,
[=Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 10]: 95-
120, Habelt, Bonn.
Kneisel J., Kirleis W., Dal Corso M., Taylor N., Tiedtke W.2012
(eds.) Collapse or Continuity? Environment and
Development of Bronze Age Human Landscapes.
Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen
Archäologie 205 , Habelt, Bonn
Kostrzewski J.1924. Zbadań nad osadnictwem wczesnej
iśrodkowej epoki bronzowej na ziemiach polskich.
Przegląd Archeologiczny 2 : 161-218.
Kostrzewski J.1924a. Kurhany zII-go okresu epoki
bronzowej wokolicy Krotoszyna iOstrowa. Przegląd
Archeologiczny 2 : 259-274.
Kowiańska M.1951. Wyniki prac badawczych
przeprowadzonych na kurhanie wGrabonogu, pow.
Gostyń. Sprawozdania Państwowego Muzeum
Archeologicznego 4 : 57-64.
Kowiańska-Piaszykowa A.1966. Cmentarzysko zII okresu
epoki brązu wPudliszkach wpow. gostyńskim. Przegląd
Archeologiczny 18 : 86-119.
Kristiansen K.1998. Europe before history , Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Kristiansen K.1999. The emergence of warrior aristocracies in
later European prehistory and their long-term history.
In: J.Carman, A.Harding (eds.) Ancient Warfare.
Archaeological Perspectives : 175-202, Stroud, Sutton.
Kristiansen K., Larsson T.B.2005. The Rise of Bronze Age
Society. Travels, Transmissions and Transformations .
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Krygowski B.1961. Geografia Fizyczna Niziny Wielkopolskiej.
Część I– Geomorfologia , Państwowe Wydawnictwo
Naukowe, Poznań.
Lasak I.2001. Epoka brązu na pograniczu śląsko-
wielkopolskim. Część 2 – zagadnienia kulturowo-
osadnicze , Sudety, Wrocław.
Leach E.1954. Political Systems of Highland Burma, Study of
Kachin Social Structure [= LSE Econ Monograph - Social
Anthropology 44 ], Bloomsbury Academic, London.
Loba E.2006. „Import” nordyjski na ziemiach polskich
wstarszej epoce brązu , Wydawnictwo UAM, Poznań.
Machnik J., Pavliv D., Petehyryč V.2006. Results of the
Archaeological Field Survey on the the Drohobyč
Upland. In: K.Harmata, J.Machnik and L.Starkel (eds.)
Environment and Man at the Carpathian Foreland in
the Upper Dnister Catchment from Neolithic to Early
Mediaeval Period : 43-105, PAU, Kraków.
Machnik J., Pavliv D., Petehyryč V.2006a. Results of the
Archaeological Field Survey on the Sambir Upland. In:
K.Harmata, J.Machnik and L.Starkel (eds.) Environment
and Man at the Carpathian Foreland in the Upper
Dnister Catchment from Neolithic to Early Mediaeval
Period : 121-161, PAU, Kraków.
Machnik J., Pavliv D., Petehyryč V.2006b. Barrow of the Late
Corded Ware Culture from Bikiv, Drohobyč District. In:
K.Harmata, J.Machnik and L.Starkel (eds.) Environment
and Man at the Carpathian Foreland in the Upper
Dniester Catchment from Neolithic to Early Mediaeval
Period : 195-227, PAU, Kraków.
Makarowicz P.1998. Rola społeczności kultury iwieńskiej
wgenezie trzcinieckiego kręgu kulturowego (2000-
1600 BC) , Wydawnictwo IH UAM, Poznań.
Makarowicz P.2003. The Construction of Social Structure: Bell
Beakers and Trzciniec Complex in North-Eastern Part of
Central Europe. Przegląd Archeologiczny 51 : 123-158.
Makarowicz P.2009. Baltic-Pontic Interregional Routes at the
Start of the Bronze Age, In: A.Kośko, V.Klochko (eds.)
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
184
Routes Between the Seas: Baltic – Boh – Bug – Pont
from the 3rd to the Middle of the 1st Millennium BC ,
[=Baltic-Pontic Studies 14]: 301-336, Wydawnictwo PSO,
Poznań.
Makarowicz P.2010. Trzciniecki krąg kulturowy – wspólnota
pogranicza Wschodu iZachodu Europy , Wydawnictwo
Poznańskie, Poznań.
Makarowicz P.2010a. The Creation of New Social Space.
Barrows of the Corded Ware Culture and Trzciniec
Circle as markers of amental map in the upland parts of
Poland and western Ukraine. In: Kiel Graduate School
“Human Development in Landscapes” (eds.) Landscapes
and Human Development: The Contribution
of European Archaeology. Proceedings of the
International Worksop “Socio-environmental dynamics
over the last 12,000 years: The creation of landscapes,
(1st – 4th April 2009)” , [=Universitätsforschungen zur
PrähistorischenArchäologie” 191]: 203-215, Habelt, Bonn.
Makarowicz P.2011. Geneza kurhanów wtrzcinieckim
kręgu kulturowym. In: H.Kowalewska-Marszałek,
P.Włodarczak (eds.) Kurhany iobrządek pogrzebowy
wIV-II tysiącleciu p.n.e : 139-160, Instytut Archeologii
iEtnologii PAN, Kraków-Warszawa,.
Makarowicz P.2013. Osadnictwo społeczności trzcinieckiego
kręgu kulturowego wdorzeczu środkowej Warty:
archeologiczne badania ratunkowe na trasie autostrady
A2, Via Archaeologica Posnaniensis 7 , Instytut
Archeologii iEtnologii PAN, Poznań.
Makarowicz P.2016. Szczepidło. Osada metalurgów kultury
mogiłowej nad Wartą, Archaeologia Bimaris 9 , Instytut
Archeologii UAM, Poznań.
Makarowicz P.2017. Chronologia absolutna cmentarzyska
wGórzycy, In: Krzysztof Socha K., Sójkowska-
Socha J.(eds.) Górzyca, stanowisko 20. Birytualne
cmentarzysko ludności kultury mogiłowej. Studia
interdyscyplinarne . Zielona Góra.
Makarowicz P.2015. Barrows, Long-distance Mobility and
Peripheral Elites between the Baltic and Black Seas
during the 2nd Millennium BC, In: P.Suchowska-Ducke,
S.Scott Reiter& H.Vandkilde (eds.) Forging Identities.
The Mobility of Culture in Bronze Age Europe, Report
from aMarie Curie project 2009-2012 with concluding
conference at Aarhus University, Moesgaard 2012, Vol.
2 , British Archaeological Report, International Series
2772: 213-223.
Makarowicz P., Garbacz-Klempka A.2014. Osada metalurgów
wSzczepidle nad środkową Wartą. Zbadań nad
wytwórczością zbrązu wII tys. BC. Fontes Praehistorici
Posnanienses 50 (2): 262-283.
Makarowicz P., Kochkin I., Niebieszczański J., Romaniszyn
J., Cwaliński M., Staniuk R., Lepionka H., Hildebrandt-
Radke I., Panakhyd H., Boltryk Y., Rud V., Wawrusiewicz
A., Tkachuk T., Skrzyniecki R., Bahyrycz C.2016.
Catalogue of Komarów Culture Barrow Cemeteries in
the Upper Dniester Drainage Basin (former Stanisławów
province), Archaeologia Bimaris 8 , Wydawnictwo UAM,
Poznań.
Malinowski A.1966. Wyniki badań przepalonych szczątków
kości ludzkich zcmentarzyska ludności kultury
przedłużyckiej wPudliszkach wpow. gostyńskim.
Przegląd Archeologiczny 18 : 119-122.
Miśkiewicz J.1978. Kultura trzciniecka. In: A.Gardawski,
J.Kowalczyk (eds.) Prahistoria ziem polskich, III.
Wczesna epoka brązu : 173-196, Ossolineum,
Wydawnictwo PAN, Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk.
Mozsolics A.1958. Archäologische Beiträge zur Geschichte des
Grossen Wanderung. Acta Archaeologica Academiae
Scientarium Hungaricae 8 : 119-156.
Müller J.1994. Bestattungsformen als Spiegel dualer
Organisation in prähistorischen Gesellschaften,
Mitteilungen der Berliner GesellschaftfürAnthropologie.
Ethnologie und Urgeschichte 15 : 81-88.
Müller J.2012. Changes in the Bronze Age: Social, Economical
and/or Ecological Causes? In: J.Kneisel, W.Kirleis,
M.Dal Corso, N.Taylor, W.Tiedtke (eds.), Collapse or
Continuity? Environment and Development of Bronze
Age Human Landscapes. Universitätsforschungen zur
Prähistorischen Archäologie 205 : 257-266. Habelt,
Bonn.
Müller J., Lohrke B.2009. Neue absolutchronologische Daten
für die süddeutsche Hügelgräberbronzezeit. Germania
87 : 25-39.
Nicolis F.(ed.) 2001. Bell Beakers Today. Pottery, People,
Culture, Symbols in Prehistoric Europe, Oxbow Books,
Oxford.
Novotná M.1999. Beiträge zur Besiedlung der
mitteldanubischen Hügelgraberkultur in der Slowakei.
In: J.Bátora und J.Peška (eds.), Aktuelle Probleme der
Erforschung der Frühbronzezeit in Böhmen und Mähren
und der Slowakei : 241-249, rchäologisches Institut der
Slowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Nitra,
Institut für Archäologische Denkmalpflege Olomouc,
Nitra.
B
The Past Societies 3: 2000 – 500 bc 185
Osgood R.2006. The Dead of Tormarton: Bronze Age Combat
Victims? In: T.Otto, H.Thrane and H.Vandkilde
(eds.) Warfare and Society. Archaeological an Social
Anthropological Perspective : 331-340, Aarhus University
Press, Aarhus.
Osgood R., Monks S., 2000. Bronze Age Warfare, History Press,
Stroud.Pare C.F.E.2000. Bronze and the Bronze Age.
In: C.F.E.Pare (ed.) Metals Make The World Go Round.
The Supply and Circulation of Metals in bronze Age
Europe : 1-38, Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Parker Pearson M.1999. The Archaeology of Dead and Burial ,
The History Press, Sutton.
Pietrzak S., Langer J.2012. Badania archeometrycznej
substancji organicznej zkrzemiennych grocików
zcmentarzyska ludności kultury mogiłowej wGórzycy
nad Odrą. Folia Praehistorica Posnaniensia 17 : 333-344.
Primas M.2008. Bronzezeitzwischen Elbe und Po:
Strukturwandel in Zentraleuropa 2200-800 v.
Chr. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen
Archäologie 150 , Habelt, Bonn.
Rappaport R.A.2007. Rytuał ireligia wrozwoju ludzkości ,
Nomos, Kraków.
Richthofen B., von 1926. Die ältereBronzezeit in Schlesien ,
Berlin.
Rittershofer K.F.1984. Das Hortfund aus Bühl und seine
Beziehungen. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen
Kommission 64 : 139-415
Roberts B.W., UckelmannM. & Brandherm D.2013. Old Father
Time: The Bronze Age Chronology of Western Europe.
In: H.Fokkens and A.Harding (eds.) The Oxford
Handbook of the European Bronze Age : 17-46, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Sarauw T.2007. Male symbols or warrior identities? The
‘archery burials’ of the Danish Bell Beaker Culture.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (1) : 65-87.
Schnurbein S.v. 2009. Atlas der Vorgeschichte. Europa
von den ersten Menschen bis Christi Geburt , Theiss,
Stuttgart.
Seger H.1909. Schlesische Hügelgräber. Schlesiens Vorzeit in
Bild und Schrift 5 : 28-35.
Sherratt A.1993. What Would aBronze-Age World System Look
Like? Relations between Temperature Europe and the
Mediterranean in Later Prehistory. Journal of European
Archaeology 1 (2) : 1-57.
Socha K., Sójkowska-Socha J.2010. Górzyca. Pradziejowa
nekropola nad Odrą, Zotchłani wieków 65, Archeologia
lubuska : 81-92.
Socha K., Sójkowska-Socha J.2014. Od birytualnego
cmentarzyska ludności kultury mogiłowej po
osadę średniowieczną. Wstępne wyniki badań
wykopaliskowych wielokulturowego stanowiska nr 20
wGórzycy, pow. słubicki, Archeologia Środkowego
Nadodrza 11 : 7-52.
Socha K., Sójkowska-Socha J.(eds.) 2017. Górzyca, stanowisko
20. Birytualne cmentarzysko ludności kultury mogiłowej.
Studia interdyscyplinarne . Zielona Góra.
Socha K., Szemelak R.2012. Krzemienne grociki strzał
zcmentarzyska ludności kultury mogiłowej wGórzycy
nad Odrą, Folia Praehistorica Posnaniensia 17 : 369-391.
Staniewicz T.2008. II okres epoki brązu na Środkowym
Nadodrzu, Archeologia Środkowego Nadodrza 6 : 7-72.
Sulimirski T.1968. Corded Ware and Globular Amphorae North-
East of the Carpathians , London.
Suryś J.1985. Problematyka pogranicza kultur trzcinieckiej
iprzedłużyckiej, Lubelskie Materiały Archeologiczne 1 :
31-50
Szmukier W.1980. Stosunki kulturowe wPolsce południowo-
zachodniej na przełomie wczesnej istarszej epoki
brązu (stan badań). Archeologia Polski 25 : 7-28.
Ślusarska K.2007. Kurhan wtradycji grzebalnej społeczności
północnego nadczarnomorza we wczesnym okresie
epoki brązu. In: W.Dzieduszycki, J.Wrzesiński (eds.)
Środowisko pośmiertne człowieka. Funeralia Lednickie
9 : 251-256. SNAP, Poznań.
Šmejda, L.2011. Burial Mounds in West Bohemia: The Current
State of Research. Ancestral Landscapes, In: E.Borgna
and S.Müller Celka (eds.) Burial Mounds in the Copper
and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern Europe –
Balkans – Adriatic – Aegean, 4th-2nd millennium B.C.) .
[=Proceedings of the Interntional Conference held in
Udine, May 15th-18th 2008, Lyon]: 120-126.
Tackenberg K.1927. Das erste Auftreten der
Leichenverbrennung in Schlesien. Altschlesien 2 : 15-23,
Breslau.
Thrane H.2006. Swords and Other Weapons in the Nordic
Bronze Age. In: T.Otto, H.Thrane and H.Vandkilde
(eds.) Warfare and Society. Archaeological an Social
Anthropological Perspective : 491-504, Aarhus University
Press, Aarhus.
Tilley Ch. 2005. Round barrows and dykes as landscape
metaphors. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14 (2) :
185–203.
C 5 T . B, , (1600-1200/1100 BC)
186
Gennep van A.2006. Obrzędy przejścia. Systematyczne
studium ceremonii , Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy,
Warszawa.
Vander Linden M.2013. ALittle Bit of History Repeating Itself:
Theories on the Bell Baker Phenomenon. In: H.Fokkens
and A.Harding (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the
European Bronze Age : 68-81, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Vandkilde H.1996. From Stone to Bronze. The Metalwork of
the Late Neolithic and Earliest Bronze Age in Denmark,
Aarhus University Press, Aarhus.
Vandkilde H.1998. Denmark and Europe: typochronology,
metal composition and socio-economic change in
the Early Bronze Age. In: C.Mordant, M.Pernot et
V.Rychner (eds.) L’atelier du bronzier en Europe du
XXe au VIIIe siècle avant notre ère. Actes du colloque
international „Bronze‚96“ Neuchâtel et Dijon : 119-134,
CTHS EDITION, Paris.
Vandkilde H.1999. Social Distinction and Ethnic Reconstruction
in the Earliest Danish Bronze Age. In: Eliten in der
Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse Zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und
Athen 1 : 245-276, Römisch-Germianischen Kommission
Mainz, Mainz.
Vandkilde H.2007. Culture and Change In Central European
Prehistory 6th to 1st Millennium BC, Aarhus University
Press, Aarhus.
Vandkilde H.2011. Bronze Age Warfare in Temperate Europe.
In: S.Hansen, J.Müller (eds) Sozialarchäologische
Perspektiven: Gesellschaftlicher Wandel 5000-1500
v. Chr.: zwischen Atlantik und Kaukasus : 365-380,
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Eurasien-Abteilung,
Berlin.
Vandkilde H.2014. Breakthrough of the Nordic Bronze Age.
Transcultural warriorhood and aCarpathian crossroad in
the 16th century BC. European Journal of Archaeology
17 (4) : 602-633.
Wason P.1994. The archaeology of rank, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Włodarczak P 2006. Kultura ceramiki sznurowej na Wyżynie
Małopolskiej , Instytut Archeologii iEtnologii PAN,
Kraków.
Ziąbka L.1987. Cmentarzysko zII okresu epoki brązu zBorku,
gm. Godzieszce Wielkie (stanowisko 1). In: kultura
trzciniecka wPolsce : 89-105, SGH, Kraków.
Ziąbka L., Maryniak B.1988. Cmentarzysko zII iprzełomu II na
III okres wBorku, gm. Godzieszce Wielki, woj. kaliskie
(stanowisko 1). Fontes Archaeological Posnanienses 36 :
59-88.
Ziegert H.1963. Zur Chronologie und Gruppengliederung der
Westlichen Hugelgräberkultur. Berliner Beitrage zur Vor-
Und Frühgeschichte 7 , Berlin.
Zotz L.F.1936. Schlesische Hügelgräber der mittleren
Bronzezeit mit Grabhäusern. PrähistorischeZeitschrift
27 : 196-211.
