View Full Version : Urnfields Chmps d'urnes - demic or only cultural

05-03-16, 16:20
I open this thread because I did not manage to find other ones about the matter, spite I'm sure there was some
Not to give new opinion but to give the points of some specialists (abstracts).

2.2.3.Northward influences
Inthe context of studies on movements of ethnic groups, thearchaeologists, particularly during the inter -war period, discussedone more group of finds connected with the Urnfieldperiod. It was the pottery, typical of the Younger Bronze Age in theVistula basin (the Lusatian culture), which occurred on the Nordiccircle sites: on Danish islands, in southern and central Sweden, onGotland, on Aland Islands, on the south -western coast of Finland(Dąbrowski 1987; Kaliff 2001: 48 -53, and older literature citedthere). Previous data, mainly from cemeteries (e.g. Thrane 1975: 177-182), have been supplemented in recent decades with large series ofsources collected during investigation of settlements
(e.g.Jaanusson 1981; Dąbrowski 1983; Kaliff 2001: 49 -54; Larsson,Hulthén 2004). Detailed
comparativestudies on the material from sites located in Sweden andnorth-western
Polandshowed significant similarities in vessel forms and in techniques ofvessel surface
treatmentbetween the two regions (Dąbrowski 1983: 146 -153; 1987: 72 -73).However,
analysesof pottery mass proved that “Lusatian” vessels found inScandinavia were manufactured
onplace(compare e.g. Thrane 1984: 125, 216). Theabove mentioned similarities
allowassuming that in the Younger Bronze Age migration of groups from theVistula
basinto Denmark and Sweden took place, however it seems that it was not alarge–scale one (e.g.Dąbrowski 1983: 155; Kaliff 2001: 51; Kristiansen, Larsson 2005: 50,and further literature there). Except for the appearance of newvessel forms and gradual spread of cremation, inYounger Bronze Age Scandinavia one can observe a general continuationand lack of similarities to the Lusatian culture,neither in secondary traits of funeral rite nor in predominantsettlement forms.

*onthese processes (1998), assumed that thecultures of Central European Bronze Age
(especiallythose from the Danube basin) remained in close relation with theMycenaean
civilization.In his view, a large part of cultural phenomena of the Europeantemperate
zonewas a reaction to events taking place in the Aegean circle.Kristiansen not only explicitly assumes that the events such as theappearance of CentralEuropean mercenaries in the Mycenaean world or invasions of warlikegroups from the north to the Balkans took place in timescorresponding to the beginnings of the Urnfields,but also argues that they could be analogous to Celtic or Germanicpenetrations known from historic times (Kristiansen 1998: 388 -390;compare also Bouzek 1985; 1988; in this volume). The world picturedby the above authors was characterized by theaura of mobility, including a readiness to maintain long-distancecontacts, which was a response to both: external events and innersocial conflicts (e.g. growing demographic pressure).Thisvision can be to some extent supported by the analyses of symbolicbehaviours, such as e.g. patterns of hoards deposition (Hansen 1998)or making inter-group alliances (Blajer 1996). Finally, the alreadymentioned syntheses of regional groups on the peripheries of thediscussed cultural complex account convincingly for the role ofmigrations in the spread of the Urnfields in Europe.

+ Sörensen Rebay 2009 : abstract about Hungary burying practices in Middle Bronze Age where one could see the phases of proto-Urnfields development in 1 of the 3 studied groups:

In the foregoing analysis we have utilized the ‘snapshot’ that a part of the Middle Bronze Age provides to interpret differences in burial practices. These developed from previous burial traditions and are part of a trajectory of transformation, but the larger picture of change in burial practices over the longer term has not been our concern here. Rather, zooming in on a particular ‘moment’ during the Bronze Age, we have been able to trace differences between groups that lived in close proximity and engaged with each other regularly.On one level, it becomes clear that the differences between cremation and inhumation
did not cause the different communities to alter their basic attitudes to the need to bury the dead in a formal manner. For instance, they all use extra-mural
Figure 8. Left: the association of different pottery types (bowls, jugs, cups) with zones of the body (face, hands, waist, legs, feet, buttocks, and back) in the cemetery of Gelej. Right: an example of the ‘feeding of the dead’ with one hand holding the cup close to the mouth from the same cemetery
(grave 26; Kemenczei 1979:fig. 5).Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at University of Leicester Library on April 2, 2009
cemeteries close to the settlements, and they continue to use individual graves.There is no evidence to suggest that either inhumation or cremation was used preferentially for a particular fraction of society.
On another level, there are also discrete variations and regionally specific practices.The inhumation graves of the Füzesabony Culture are similar to many other
contemporary Bronze Age traditions in the construction of the graves and the treatment of the body; we can express this by saying that there is not an entirely new‘language’ developed, even if there may be a distinct ‘dialect’. The reflection on the body during the Füzesabony funerals focuses on its social identity, whereas its corporealexistence is not disputed or altered. The emphasis on social identity does not appear as an explicit central point of the burials of the ncrusted Ware Culture or the Vatya Culture, and the existence of the body appears to be a very real concern.Cremation transforms the body into a substance that requires further attention and assistance. Through burning, the body becomes ‘vulnerable’, and its transformed form calls for discursive engagement to reach an understanding of the new substance. In the two examples of a cremation tradition we see very different responses
to these challenges, but, interestingly, both communities seem to draw upon analogies with their domestic environment and routine practices. These differences may be characterized by seeing the EncrustedWare Culture as reconstituting the body as a ‘two-dimensional’ spatial entity that is laid down and spread out. Hence, despite its fragmentation, the cremated body still echoes the familiar form of the presentation of the fleshed body, as exemplified by the Füzesabony Culture. In contrast, the Vatya urn defines new bodily boundaries within a three-dimensional space. This space can be seen as analogous to the domestic pits with their connotation of storing and preserving, returning us to the notion of the ‘vulnerable’ body. The way in which bronze ornaments and pottery are differently included in the graves of the three cultures reveals aspects of their relations to the body. Bronze Figure 9. The relationship between pottery and the material body in Middle Bronze Age graves:Encrusted Ware: scattered bones, large amount of pottery over the grave, body-sized; Vatya:
enclosed bones, pottery as container, urns in pits; and Füzesabony: inhumation, sets of pottery annotating parts of the body, body-sized grave pits.
Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at University of Leicester Library on April 2, 2009 dress elements might have been closely linked to the body itself and thus unintentionallyincluded in the burial, or alternatively they can be added deliberately to thecomposition to confirm certain elements of social order, such as gender. Pottery maybe selected from the domestic assemblages and added to the grave in response to the ‘needs’ of the deceased, and it may simultaneously form part of the construction of the graves themselves, as in the EncrustedWare and Vatya Cultures. Whether the body is cremated or inhumed cannot be explained through reference to the everyday practices of each group; but other aspects, such as the use of materials and the forms of the graves do suggest that meaning and metaphors were interchangeable between the spheres of the living and the dead. It is through these links that regional traditions are formed, continued and, most probably, utilized deliberately to articulate and maintain ‘otherness’. The differences become more diffuse in the course of time, and regional distinction in the tradition of burial rites becomes less pronounced, suggesting, perhaps, the fusing of different ideas about the body.
EncrustedWare Vatya Füzesabony
Cemetery separated from, but in large and small on elevations next to
location close vicinity to cemeteries in close settlements,
settlements vicinity to tells separated by
small waterways ...]
there was pictures but I cannot paste them correctly for now.