Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T00:11:36.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Body and Social Order in Middle Bronze Age Transylvania (Central Romania, c. 1900 − 1450 BC)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Nona Palincaş
Nona Palincaş*
Affiliation:
Vasile Pârvan Institute of Archaeology, Romania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to investigate body-related beliefs and practices in relation to society in Middle Bronze Age Transylvania (central Romania between c. 1900 and 1450 BC), known as the area of the Wietenberg Culture. The low number of human remains and their treatment (through cremation and fragmentation of inhumed bodies) has been interpreted by some authors as a willingness to do away with the physical body. In contrast to this opinion, I try here to show that quite the opposite was the case. The body not only stood at the centre of a variety of rituals (funerary and otherwise), but it also constituted a powerful means for maintaining social order, providing people with an understanding of their place in the world, as well as renegotiating positions and meanings.

L'objectif de cette étude est d'examiner les croyances et pratiques ayant trait au corps par rapport à la société de l'Âge du Bronze moyen en Transylvanie (Roumanie centrale entre c. 1900–1450 av. J.C.), connue sous le nom de culture de Wietenberg. Le nombre peu élevé de restes humains et leur traitement (e.a. incinération et fragmentation des corps inhumés) ont été interprétés par certains auteurs comme une volonté de se débarrasser du corps physique. À l'encontre de cette idée, j'essaierai ici de montrer qu'en fait il s'agissait du contraire. Le corps se trouvait non seulement au centre d'une variété de rituels (funéraires et autres), mais constituait également un puissant moyen pour maintenir l'ordre social, permettre aux hommes de comprendre leur place dans le monde et renégocier des positions et des significations. Translation by Isabelle Gerges.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Ziel dieses Artikels ist die Untersuchung körperbezogener Glaubensvorstellungen und Praktiken in Bezug auf die Gesellschaft im mittelbronzezeitlichen Transsilvanien (Siebenbürgen/Zentralrumänien, ca. 1900–1450 cal. BC), das in dieser Zeit von der sog. Wietenberg-Kultur eingenommen wurde. Die geringe Anzahl menschlicher Überreste und deren Behandlung (z. B. Verbrennung und Fragmentierung der Bestatteten) wurde von machen Autoren als gezielter Versuch der Abschaffung des physischen Körpers gewertet. Dem widersprechend versucht Verf. aufzuzeigen, dass wohl eher das Gegenteil der Fall war: der Körper stand nicht nur im Zentrum einer Reihe von (Bestattungs- und anderen) Ritualen, sondern er stellte ein wirksames Werkzeug zur Aufrechterhaltung sozialer Ordnung dar, indem er den Menschen das Verständnis ihres Platzes in der Welt vermittelte sowie auch Positionen und Bedeutungen neu verhandelte. Translation by Heiner Schwarzberg.

Keywords

human bodyinhumationcremationfragmentationritualcosmologysocial ordercorps humaininhumationcrémationfragmentationrituelcosmologieordre socialmenschlicher KörperBestattungVerbrennungFragmentierungRitualKosmologiesoziale Ordnung
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 17 , Issue 2: Special Issue—Body Practices and Concepts in Later Prehistoric Europe , 2014 , pp. 301 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alicu, D. 2008. Polus. Istorie pierdută—istorie regăsită. Cluj-Napoca: Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a Transilvaniei Cluj Napoca.Google Scholar
Andriţoiu, I. 1978. Cimitirul de incineraţie din epoca bronzului de la Deva. Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arheologie, 29 (2): 241–56.Google Scholar
Andriţoiu, I. 1992. Civilizaţia tracilor din sud-vestul Transilvaniei în epoca bronzului, Symposia Thracologica 9, Bibliotheca Thracologica 2. Bucureşti: Institutul Român de Tracologie.Google Scholar
Bălan, G. & Ota, R. 2012. Situl arheologic de la Miceşti-Cigaş (Mun. Alba Iulia, jud. Alba). Apulum, 49: 41–62.Google Scholar
Bader, T. 1991. Die Schwerter in Rumänien. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV, 8. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Berecki, S. & Gőrfi, Z. 2009. Luduş-Fabrica de cânepă [accessed 12 February 2014]. Available at: http://www.muzeumures.ro/main.php?object-staticpage&id-112&research_id-67.Google Scholar
Binford, L.W. 1971. Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, 25: 6–29.Google Scholar
Bloch, M. & Parry, J. 1982. Introduction. In: Bloch, M. & Parry, J., eds. Death and the Regeneration of Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–44.Google Scholar
Boroffka, N.G.O. 1994. Die Wietenberg-Kultur. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Bronzezeit in Südosteuropa. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 19. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1980. Le sense pratique. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Bösel, M. 2008. Wandel durch Bronze ?—Vergleichende Untersuchungen sozialer Strukturen auf früh- und mittlebronzezeitlichen Gräberfeldern in Theißgebiet. Prähistorische Zeitschrift, 83 (1): 45–108.Google Scholar
Brück, J. 1995. A Place for the Dead: The Role of Human Remains in Late Bronze Age Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 61: 245–77.Google Scholar
Cavruc, V. & Buzea, D.L. 2002. Noi cercetări privind epoca bronzului în aşezarea Păuleni (Ciomortan). Campaniile din anii 2001–2002. Raport preliminar. Angustia, 7: 41–88.Google Scholar
Cavruc, V. & Rotea, M. 2000. Locuirea Wietenberg de la Păuleni (Ciomortan). Angustia. Arheologie, 5: 155–71.Google Scholar
Chapman, J. 2010. ‘Deviant’ burials in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Central and South Eastern Europe. In: Rebay-Salisbury, K., Sørensen, M.L.S. & Hughes, J., eds. Body Parts and Bodies Whole: Changing Relations and Meanings. Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow, pp. 30–45.Google Scholar
Chidioşan, N. 1980. Contribuţii la istoria tracilor din nord-vestul României. Aşezarea Wietenberg de la Derşida. Oradea: Muzeul Ţării Crişurilor.Google Scholar
Ciugudean, H. 1989. Noi descoperiri funerare aparţinând culturii Wietenberg. Apulum 26: 69–77.Google Scholar
Ciugudean, H. 1991. Zur frühen Bronzezeit in Siebenbürgen im Lichte der Ausgrabungen von Ampoiţa. Praeistorische Zeitschrift, 66 (1): 79–114.Google Scholar
Ciugudean, H. 1996. Epoca timpurie a bronzului în centrul şi sud-estul Transilvaniei. Bibliotheca Thracologica 13. Bucureşti: Vavila Edinf srl.Google Scholar
Ciugudean, H. 1999. Betrachtungen zum Ende der Wietenberg-Kultur. In: Boroffka, N.G.O. & Soroceanu, T., eds. Transsilvanica. Archäologische Untersuchngen zur älteren Geshichte des südöstlichen Mitteleuropa. Gedenkschrift für Kurt Horedt. Inventaria Archaeologica. Studia honoraria 1. Rahden in Westfallen: Marie Leidorf GmbH, pp. 107–31.Google Scholar
Ciugudean, H. 2001. Hăpria, com. Ciugud, jud. Alba. Punct: Capu Dosului. In: Angelescu, M. V., Borş, C. & Oberländer-Târnoveanu, I., eds. Cronica săpăturilor arheologice din România. Campania 2000. Bucureşti: CIMEC, pp. 97–98.Google Scholar
Ciugudean, H. 2011. Mounds and Mountains: Burial Rituals in Early Bronze Age Transylvania. In: Berecki, S., Németh, R.E. & Rezi, R., eds. Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş. 8–10 October 2010. Târgu Mureş: Editura Mega, pp. 21–57.Google Scholar
Ciugudean, H., Roman, C., Diaconescu, D. & Luca, S.A. 2005. Capitolul VII. Nivelul VII. In: Luca, S.A., ed. Cercetări arheologice în Peştera Cauce (II) (sat Cerişor, comuna Lelese, judeţul Hunedoara). Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis 5. Sibiu: Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, pp. 41–95 [accessed 12 February 2014]. Available from: http://www.cartispeo.ro/download_ok/Pestera_Cauce_2.pdf.Google Scholar
Comşa, A. 2005. Date antropologice referitoare la osemintele umane aparţinând epocii bronzului descoperite la Păuleni. Angustia. Arheologie, 5: 173–76.Google Scholar
Csordas, T.J. 1990. Embodiment as a Paradigm for Anthropology. Ethos, 18 (1): 5–47.Google Scholar
David, W. 2002. Studien zu Ornamentik und Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Depotfundgruppe Hajdúsámson-Apa-Ighiel-Zajta. Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis 18. Alba Iulia: Altip s.a.Google Scholar
David, W. 2007. Gold and Bone Artefacts as Evidence of Mutual Contact between the Aegean, the Carpathian Basin and Southern Germany in the Second Millennium BC. In: Galanaki, I., Tomas, H., Galanakis, Y. & Laffineur, R., eds. Between the Aegean and the Baltic Seas: Prehistory Across Borders. Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe’, University of Zagreb, 11–14 April 2005. Aegaeum 27. Liège: Université de Liège, pp. 411–20.Google Scholar
David, W. 2010. Die Zeichen auf der Scheibe von Nebra und das altbronzezeitliche Symbolgut des Mitteldonau-Karpatenraumes. In: Meller, H. & Bertemes, F., eds. Der Griff nach den Sternen: wie Europas Eliten zu Macht und Reichtum kamen. Internationales Symposium in Halle (Saale) 16.–21. Februar 2005. Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle, 5.1. Halle: Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt, Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte, pp. 439–86.Google Scholar
Dietrich, O. 2011. Kinderspielzeug oder Kultobjekte? Überlegungen zu anthropomorphen Figurinen der Wietenberg- und Tei-Kultur. In: Berecki, S., Németh, R.E. & Rezi, R., eds. Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş. 8–10 October 2010. Târgu Mureş: Editura Mega, pp. 87–106.Google Scholar
Dietrich, O. & Dietrich, L. 2007. Observaţii privind descoperirile cu caracter funerar din epoca bronzului de la Rotbav, comuna Feldioara, judeţul Braşov. Cumidava, 30: 34–45.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Duday, H., Courtaud, P., Crubezy, E., Sellier, P. & Tillier, A.M. 1990. L'anthropologie « de terrain »: Reconnaissance et interpretation des gestes funéraires. Bulletin et Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris, 2 (3–4): 29–50.Google Scholar
Dumont, L. 1980. Homo Hierarchicus. The Cast System and its Implications, Revised ed., trans. by Sainsbury, M., Dumont, H. & Gulati, B. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fântâneanu, C., Bălan, G., Popa, S. & Tenti, D. 2013. The Bronze Age Necropolis at Sebeş—Între Răstoace. Preliminary Considerations. In: Sîrbu, V. & Ştefănescu, R., eds. Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Thracology, Târgovişte, 10th–14th September 2013. Vol. 2. Necropolises, Cult Places, Religion, Mythology. Braşov: Editura Istros, pp. 173–91.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1975. Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Gancarski, J. 2002. Między Mykenami a Bałtykiem: Kultura Otomani-Füzesabony. Between Mycenae and the Baltic Sea: The Otomani-Füzesabony Culture. Kosno and Warsaw: Kosno Museum Podkarpackie.Google Scholar
Gerling, C. & Ciugudean, H. 2013. Insights into the Transylvanian Early Bronze Age Using Strontium and Oxygen Isotope Analyses: A Pilot Study. In: Heyd, V., Kulcsár, G. & Szeverényi, V., eds. Transitions to the Bronze Age. Interregional Interaction and Socio-Cultural Change in the Third Millennium BC Carpathian Basin and Neighbouring Regions. Budapest: Archaeolingua, pp. 181–202.Google Scholar
Gogâltan, F. & Tampa, D. 1992. Materiale arheologice aparţinând culturii Wietenberg descoperite la Şimleul Silvaniei. Acta Musei Porolissensis, 16: 61–78.Google Scholar
Haimovici, S. 2003. Resturile animaliere şi umane dintr-o groapă de cult (Groapa 4) a culturii Wietenberg de la Oarţa de Sus–‘Ghiile Botii’. Marmaţia. Arheologie şi numismatică, 7 (1): 57–64.Google Scholar
Härke, H. 2000. Social Analysis of Mortuary Evidence in German Protohistoric Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 19: 369–84.Google Scholar
Kacsó, C. 1999. Neue Daten zur ersten Phase der Suciu de Sus-Kultur. In: Boroffka, N.G.O. & Soroceanu, T., eds. Transsilvanica. Archäologische Untersuchngen zur älteren Geshichte des südöstlichen Mitteleuropa. Gedenkschrift für Kurt Horedt. Inventaria Archaeologica. Studia honoraria 1. Rahden in Westfallen: Marie Leidorf GmbH, pp. 91–106.Google Scholar
Kacsó, C. 2004. Mărturii arheologice. Colecţii muzeale I. Baia Mare: Editura Nereamia Napocae.Google Scholar
Kacsó, C. 2011. Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Maramureş. Bibliotheca Marmatia. Baia Mare: Eurotip.Google Scholar
Kacsó, C. 2013a. Câteva observaţii cu privire la o monografie a culturii Wietenberg. In: Niculică, B.P. & Boghian, D., eds. Semper fidelis. In honorem magistri Mircea Ignat. Bibliotheca Societas pro Patrimonium 1. Brăila: Editura Istros, pp. 125–40.Google Scholar
Kacsó, C. 2013b. Contribuţii la cunoaşterea ceramicii de la Oarţa de Sus–‘Ghiile Botii’. Terra Sebus. Acta Musei Sabesiensis, 5: 111–39.Google Scholar
Kaul, F. 1998. Ships on Bronzes. A Study in Bronze Age Religion and Iconography. Publications from the National Museum. Studies in Archaeology and History, vol. 3.1. Copenhagen: National Museum.Google Scholar
Kavruk, V., Buzea, D.L., Mateş, A., Lazarovici, G., Dumitroaia, G., Garvăn, D. & Munteanu, E.R. 2010. Şoimeni-Ciomortan, com. Păuleni-Ciuc, jud. Harghita, Punct: Dâmbul Cetăţii. In: Angelescu, M.V., Bem, C., Oberländer-Târnoveanu, I. & Vasilescu, F., eds. Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2009. Bucureşti: Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României, pp. 182–84.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K. & Larsson, T.B. 2005. The Rise of Bronze Age Society: Travels, Transmissions, and Transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marinescu, G. 1975. Cercetări şi descoperiri arheologice în judeţul Bistriţa-Năsăud (I). Arhiva someşană, 3: 302–33.Google Scholar
Marinescu, G. 1983-1984. Cercetări şi descoperiri arheologice în judeţul Bistriţa-Năsăud (VIII). Marisia, 13–14: 23–32.Google Scholar
Marinescu, G.G. 2008. La nécropole de crémation de Fântânele ‘Între acăţi’ (dép. de Bistriţa-Năsăud, Roumanie), datée à l'âge du Bronze. In: Sîrbu, V. & Vaida, D.L., eds. Funerary Practices of the Bronze and Iron Ages in Central and South-Eastern Europe. Proceedings of the 9th International Colloquium of Funerary Archaeology, Bistriţa, Romania, Mai 9th–11th, 2008. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Mega, pp. 151–60.Google Scholar
Mauss, M. 1934. Les techniques du corps. Talk held in 1934 at Société de Psychologie. Communication présentée à la Société de Psychologie le 17 mai 1934. Journal de Psychologie, 1936, 32 (3–4); electronic editions by Tremblay, J.-M. (2002) [accessed 12 February 2014]. Available at: http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/mauss_marcel/socio_et_anthropo/6_Techniques_corps/Techniques_corps.html.Google Scholar
Moldovan, E. 2009. Contribuţie la iconografia culturii Wietenberg. Apulum, 46: 287–312.Google Scholar
Motzoi-Chicideanu, I. 2011. Obiceiuri funerare în epoca bronzului la Dunărea Mijlocie şi Inferioară. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Române.Google Scholar
Müller, J. 1999. ‘Otomani’ in Siebenbürgen? Fragen zur mittleren Bronzezeit im Westen Rumäniens. In: Boroffka, N.G.O. & Soroceanu, T., eds. Transsilvanica. Archäologische Untersuchngen zur älteren Geshichte des südöstlichen Mitteleuropa. Gedenkschrift für Kurt Horedt. Inventaria Archaeologica. Studia honoraria 1. Rahden in Westfallen: Marie Leidorf GmbH, pp. 71–89.Google Scholar
Németi, I. 1969. Descoperiri funerare din epoca bronzului în jurul Careiului. Studii şi Comunicări Satu Mare, 1: 57–72.Google Scholar
Ordentlich, I. 1971. Aria de răspândire a culturii Otomani de pe teritoriul României. Marmaţia, 2: 19–35.Google Scholar
Palincaş, N. 2013. Animals and the Making of Gender in the Later Period of the Monteoru Culture (Subcarpathian Arc between ca. 1700 and 1500 cal BC). Mousaios, 18: 43–78.Google Scholar
Parker-Pearson, M. 1982. Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology: An Ethnoarchaeological Study. In: Hodder, I., ed. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, I. 1995. Vorgeschichtliche Untersuchungen in Siebenbürgen. Alba Iulia: Universitatea 1 Decembrie 1918.Google Scholar
Popa, C.I. & Totoianu, R. 2010. Aspecte ale epocii bronzului în Transilvania (între vechile şi noile cercetări). Biblitheca Musei Septemcastrensis, 1. Alba Iulia: Altip.Google Scholar
Popescu, D. 1956. Cercetări arheologice în Transilvania IV. Materiale şi cercetări arheologice, 2: 196–250.Google Scholar
Rappaport, R. 1999. Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rotea, M. 1993. Aşezările culturii Wietenberg. Ephemeris Napocensis, 3: 25–41.Google Scholar
Rotea, M. 2009. Pagini din preistoria Transilvaniei. Epoca bronzului. Cluj-Napoca: Mega.Google Scholar
Rotea, M., Tecar, M. & Tampa, D. 2007. Complexul ritual de la Şimleul Silvaniei aparţinând culturii Wietenberg. Revista Bistriţei, 21 (1): 63–92.Google Scholar
Rotea, M. & Wittenberger, M. 1998. The Ritual Complex of the Wietenberg Culture, Cluj-Napoca. Acta Musei Napocensis, 36 (1): 7–27.Google Scholar
Schuster, C.F., Comşa, A. & Popa, T. 2001. The Archaeology of Fire in the Bronze Age of Romania. Bibliotheca Musei Giurgiuvensis. Giurgiu: Vavila Edinf srl.Google Scholar
Sofaer, J.R. 2006. The Body as Material Culture: A Theoretical Osteoarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sørensen, M.L.S. & Rebay-Salisbury, K. 2008. From Substantial Bodies to the Substance of Bodies: Analysis of the Transition from Inhumation to Cremation during the Middle Bronze Age in Central Europe. In: Borić, D. & Robb, J., eds. Past Bodies. Body-Centred Research in Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 59–68.Google Scholar
Soroceanu, T. 1973. Descoperiri din epoca bronzului de la Obreja. Acta Musei Napocensis, 10: 493–515.Google Scholar
Soroceanu, T. & Retegan, A. 1981. Neue spätbronzezeitliche Funde im norden Rumäniens. Dacia NS, 25: 195–229.Google Scholar
Székely, Z. 1995. Necropola de incineraţie în urnă de la Turia, judeţul Covasna. Cercetări arheologice în aria nord-tracă, 1: 127–45.Google Scholar
Tainter, J.A. 1978. Mortuary Practices and the Study of Prehistoric Social Systems. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 1: 105–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teržan, B. 2005. Metamorphose—eine Vegetationsgottheit in der Spätbronzezeit. In: Horejs, B., Jung, R., Kaiser, E. & Teržan, B., eds. Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidmet. Bonn: Habelt, pp. 241–61.Google Scholar
Turner, B.S. 1996. The Body and Society. Explorations in Social Theory, 2nd ed. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Vlassa, N. 1965. Cercetări arheologice în regiunile Mureş–Autonomă Maghiară şi Cluj. Acta Musei Napocensis, 2: 19–38.Google Scholar
Vlassa, N. & Kalmar, Z. 1987. Descoperiri din etapa târzie a cuprului şi din epoca bronzului de la Bernadea. Symposia Thracologica, 5: 154–55.Google Scholar
Vulpe, A. 1970. Äxte und Beile in Rumänien. Prähistorische Bronzefunde IX, 2. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Vulpe, A. & Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, M., eds. 2010. Istoria românilor. Vol. I. Moştenirea timpurilor îndepărtate, 2nd ed. Bucureşti: Editura Enciclopedică.Google Scholar
Weiss-Krejci, E. 2010. Heart Burial in Medieval and Early Post-Medieval Central Europe. In: Rebay-Salisbury, K., Sørensen, M.L.S. & Hughes, J., eds. Body Parts and Bodies Whole: Changing Relations and Meanings. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 119–34.Google Scholar
Zaharia, E. 1991. La culture de Monteoru. La IIIe étape MIc2. Le fouilles de Sărata Monteoru (dép. de Buzău). Dacia NS, 35: 61–91.Google Scholar
Zaharia, E. 1999. Brandgräber der Übergangsperiode zur Bronzezeit aus Bratei (jud. Sibiu). In: Boroffka, N.G.O. & Soroceanu, T., eds. Transsilvanica. Archäologische Untersuchngen zur älteren Geshichte des südöstlichen Mitteleuropa. Gedenkschrift für Kurt Horedt. Inventaria Archaeologica. Studia honoraria 1. Rahden in Westfallen: Marie Leidorf GmbH, pp. 53–58.Google Scholar