The Early to Middle Bronze Age transition as exemplified by Moravia

STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2, 124–139 The Early to Middle Bronze Age transition as exemplified by Moravia Klára Šabatová– David Parma ABSTRACT The current study of late prehistoric chronology is aimed at defining more robust horizons and, often, at documenting the continuity of phenomena. Systematic records and rescue excavations make it possible to better quantify archaeological sources and identify periods in which archaeological records are missing. The article addresses the issue of the end of Únětice cemeteries in Moravia connected with the movement of burials to the surface level beneath barrows as well as long ‑term traits regarded as chronologically sensitive. The basic trends are supported with the absolute dates of graves. KEYWORDS Early Bronze Age; pit burial; inhumation burial; radiocarbon dating; Moravia. INTRODUCTION The article aims to foster adiscussion on the chronology of the Early Bronze Age from the per‑ spective of burial practices. The region of Moravia on which the work is based is the northwest edge of the Carpathian Basin in the eastern part of the Czech Republic. The basic materials are the existing applied chronology, the database of archaeological components from rescue excavations, and radiocarbon dates from grave assemblages and burials in settlement features that can be classified well on the basis of inventory in the traditional cultural ‑chronological scheme. We wish to deliberate three key issues: Are burials in settlement pits typical for the end of the Early Bronze Age? When do Únětice burial sites end? And where are the graves of the final horizon of the Early Bronze Age in Moravia? We have discussed this topic already (Šabatová– Parma 2019) and our intention here is to introduce our knowledge to broader public in context of lately published studies. In the sense of the cultural ‑chronological scheme, the end of the Early Bronze Age is represented by the post ‑classic phase of the Únětice culture (ÚC) and the Věteřov group (VG). Current knowledge in Moravia is based especially on the work by S. Stuchlíks, J. Stuchlíková and V. Podborský (Lorencová– Beneš– Podborský 1987; Stuchlík 1993; Stuchlíková 1993; Stuchlík– Stuchlíková 1996; Stuchlík 2006). Two ÚC periodisation are used for Moravia. J. Ondráček identified five phases based on the typology of pottery from Únětice cemeteries, whereas Stuchlík (1972) defined three periods on the grounds of settlement material: the Proto ‑Únětice period (comparable to Ondráček’sphase 1), the early period of the ÚC (the second and third phases of the Early Únětice and Middle Únětice combined with Br A1) and the late period of the ÚC (phase 4 and 5– classic and post‑ ‑classic Únětice combined with Br A2) (Lorencová– Beneš– Podborský 1987, 124; Stuchlík 1972; Stuchlík 1993, 240). Important new work from neighbouring regions includes especially the evaluation of the Early and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age cemeteries from west Slovakia by Z. Benkovsky ‑Pivovarová (Benkovsky ‑Pivovarová– Chropovský 2015), as well as 125KLÁRA ŠABATOVÁ– DAVID PARMA the evaluation of the cemetery in Miškovice, which determined the absolute chronology of the ÚC in Bohemia and again pointed to the possible contemporaneity of typological groups of the ÚC. Dates for the classic phase of the ÚC fall here between the years 2000 and 1850 BC (Ernée 2015). The chronology of the Věteřov group was divided, mainly on the basis of ceramics, into three phases: early, contemporary with the end of the ÚC, classic phase filling asubstantial part of the development of the VG, and post ‑classic phase dated to Br B1 (Ondráček– Stuchlíková 1988; Stuchlík 2006, 221). At present, the detailed five phases chronology is introduced by D. Rožnovský (2019, 108–111). Due to the fact that we do not have typical ceramics in graves, we consider the VG as one period. THE STRUCTURE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOURCES As aresult of rescue excavations, the past three decades have witnessed intensive growth in archaeological sources. Alook at sites with amore precise dating (2400–800 BC) shows that the greatest numbers belong to the Bell Beaker culture (BBC), ÚC, and the Early Urnfield period (EUP) (Fig. 1A). Arecalculation of dates with respect to the assumed duration of individual cultures (Fig. 1B)1 reveals that the number of BBC, ÚC, VG, and Tumulus Culture (TC) components is balanced. Asignificant increase is not seen until the EUP component. The situation is different if only sites with graves (Fig. 1B) are chosen from the recalculated dates– the greatest number of inhumation cemeteries belongs to BBC. The subsequent decline in numbers in the Proto ‑Únětice culture (PÚC) could be expected, but the lower number of ÚC cemeteries is surprising. In contrast, the absence of graves of the Věteřov component and the weak representation of graves of the TC component is significant. Fig. 1: Database of rescue excavations conducted by the Archaeological Heritage Institute Brno in 1993–2016. Records of archaeological components. 1A: Records of all closely dated components (n = 471), absolute numbers. 1B: Records of all closely dated components– recount to the years of duration (BBC– Bell Beaker Culture, PÚC– Proto ‑Únětice Culture, ÚC– Únětice Culture, VG– Věteřov Group, TC– Tumulus Culture, EUP– Early Urnfield period, LUP– Late Urnfield period). 1 BBC– 82 sites, 300 years; PÚC– 6 sites, 200 years; ÚC– 90 sites, 350 years; VG– 34 sites, 150 years; TC– 45 sites, 300 years; EUP– 150 sites, 250 years. LUP– 64 sites, 250 years. 126 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 BURIAL PRACTICES AT THE END OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE The end of the Early Bronze Age in Moravia (VG, Br A2 late) is characterised by the ‘collapse of traditional burial practices and the nearly complete absence of grave finds’; the disappearance of Únětice cemeteries is assumed from the end of the classic phase of the ÚC (Stuchlíková 1990, 146; Stuchlíková 1993). Typical burial practices of the VG were previously thought to be burials of the dead in settlement pits outside of cemeteries, so ‑called pit burials, or even pot burials of children, known as pithoi burials, and afew disposals of cremation remains (Tihelka 1960, 109–112; Stuchlík 2006, 134–135). Today it is clear that the dead were in fact buried in graves in the VG, though burials at settlements and pot burials make up ahigh share of the known number of burials. It is known that both of these phenomena appear already in the ÚC, and it is assumed that burials in vessels are often documented in the (Late) Únětice environment (Blučina ‘Cezavy’, Brno ‑Slatina, Dolní Věstonice, Vedrovice), though they appear in the greatest numbers later in the VG (Stuchlík 1993, 247, 251; Stuchlík 2007; Salaš 2008). J. Stuchlíková (1990) dealt in detail with the burial practices of the VG, as did S. Stuchlík (2006) while studying the only larger VG cemetery in Borotice. Since this publication, the inventory of Věteřov graves has been expanded by several assemblages of inhumation burials (Bratčice, Hulín 1 ‘UIsidorka’: Stuchlík 2009; Daňhel 2010; agrave from Vrchoslavice 3 was also considered: Peška 2012c) and one disposal of cremation remains from Zlín ‑Malenovice (Fojtík 2015). Burials in settlement features, both ÚC and VG, have been followed in alarge number of studies (Salaš 1990; Stapel 1999; Stuchlík 2006; 2007; 2009; 2010; Rožnovský 2010; 2012; Pankowská– Moník 2017; Moravcová– Kala 2019). The most prominent VG burial sites include the barrow cemetery in Borotice, where 19 graves are reliably attributed to the VG, 18 probably belong to this culture, and another 16 are uncertain. Others cases include single graves or a few graves in small cemeteries of earlier or later cultures (Branišovice, Kroměříž ‘Hradisko’, Vrchoslavice 3). Inventories (Stuchlík 2006; 2009; Peška 2012c) indicate that the total number of VG graves is 60 certain (two of which are cremation, three are burials in vessels) and 48 uncertain (two of which are cre‑ mation, 18 in vessels). At least 94 burials in settlement features are also known. The situation Fig. 2: Map of sites in Moravia providing radiocarbon dates. Only burial assemblages with apublished inventory are listed. 1. Borotice, 2. Hulín 1 ‘UIsidorka’, 3. Hulín ‑Pravčice 1 ‘Uobrázku’, 4. Modřice ‘Ryb‑ níky’, 5.Olomouc ‑Slavonín, 6.Těšetice ‘Vinohrady’, 7.Těšetice ‑Kyjovice ‘Sutny’, 8.Vrchoslavice 3. Recently da‑ ted assemblages are indicated with ●, the earlier dates from J.Peška’swith▲. 127KLÁRA ŠABATOVÁ– DAVID PARMA in the preceding ÚC period is only partially different: although more than 1030 inhumation Únětice graves are known from 60 cemeteries, there are also seven burials in vessels and at least 100 burials in settlement features (Tihelka 1953; Lorencová– Beneš– Podborský 1987; Stuchlík 1993; 2007; Salaš 2008; Sosna 2009, tab.6.1, 6.3; Stuchlík 2010; Pankowská– Moník 2017; Moravcová– Kala 2019). Smaller community cemeteries in Moravia represent adistinct difference to the large Early Bronze Age necropoleis of the Maďarovce and Böheimkirchen cultures continuing to the end of the period in Br A2c or Br B1 (Neugebaueretal. 1994, 96; Bátora2000; Stuchlík 2006). RADIOCARBON DATES The largest number of radiocarbon dates from the Eneolithic and the Bronze Age in Moravia come from the work of J. Peška (2006; 2012a; 2013a; 2013b). For our work, we sought radiocar‑ bon dates for published burial assemblages from the end of the Early and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age which can be dated using the traditional typology. This group is composed of 12 burials. We also chose and dated another four burials and one mass pit burial belonging to the end of the Early Bronze Age based on their typological dating (Fig. 2). As such, we have atotal of 16 burial assemblages with18 radiocarbon dates (Fig. 3 and 4). Site Context Nr. Context type Lab. Nr. Date ±Sample Archaeological Dating References Borotice (sample 1) Tum. 2, Gr. 2 grave Poz‑89834 3425 30 human bone VG Stuchlík 2006 Borotice (sample 2) Tum. 2, Gr. 2 grave Poz‑97561 3335 30 human bone VG Stuchlík 2006 Hulín 1 ‘U Isidorka’ Gr. 31 grave Poz‑14847 3485 35 unspecified ÚC Peška 2012a,b Hulín 1 ‘U Isidorka’ Gr. 32 grave Poz‑14849 3435 30 unspecified ÚC Peška 2012a,b Hulín 1 ‘U Isidorka’ Gr. 38 grave Poz‑14850 3510 40 unspecified ÚC Peška 2012a,b Hulín 1 ‘U Isidorka’ Gr. 108 grave UGAMS 7657 3390 25 unspecified VG Daňhel 2010; Peška et al. 2011 Hulín ‑ Pravčice 1 ‘U obrázku’ F. 85 pit burial KIA 34727 3510 30 unspecified ÚC Peška et al. 2011 Hulín ‑ Pravčice 1 ‘U obrázku’ F. 315 pit burial KIA 34731 3540 30 unspecified ÚC Peška et al. 2011 Modřice ‘Rybníky’ (sample 1) Gr. 811 grave DSH8050_G 3467 30 human bone ÚC unpublished Modřice ‘Rybníky’ (sample 2) Gr. 811 grave DSH8051_G 3473 32 human bone ÚC unpublished Olomouc ‑ Slavonín Gr. 46 grave VERA 2127 3565 40 unspecified ÚC Peška 2006 Olomouc ‑ Slavonin Gr. 55 grave VERA 2096 3510 40 unspecified ÚC Peška 2006 Olomouc ‑ Slavonín Gr. 73 grave VERA 2100 3175 45 unspecified TC (BzB) Šmíd 1997; Peška 2012a Olomouc ‑ Slavonín Gr. 86 grave VERA 2101 3280 35 unspecified TC (BzB) Šmíd 1997; Peška 2012a Těšetice ‘Vinohrady’ Gr. 22 grave Poz‑89832 3535 35 human bone ÚC Lorencová et al. 1987 Těšetice ‘Vinohrady’ Gr. 45 grave Poz‑89833 3515 35 human bone ÚC Lorencová et al. 1987 Těšetice ‑ Kyjovice ‘Sutny’ F. 387 pit burial Poz‑89831 3590 35 human bone ÚC Čižmář et al. 1993 Vrchoslavice 3 Gr. 4 grave Poz‑14835 3205 30 human bone VG? (BzB) Peška 2012c Fig. 3: An overview of radiocarbon dates of inhumation burials and burials in settlement features from the Early and Middle Bronze Age in Moravia. Only assemblages with published invento‑ ries are listed. Recently dated assemblages are indicated in bold print. 128 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 Site, grave, radiocarbon date Dating artefacts Typological dating Hulín‑Pravčice ‘U obrázku’ f. 85 1918–1748 BC (probability 95.4%) Pin with a spherical head with an oblique perforation (schräg durchlochte Kugelkopfnadel), a Únětice cup and a jug (Peška et al. 2011, 57, fig. 4). Dating into the post‑classic phase of the ÚC with a possible extension to VG (Stuchlík 1993, fig. 157: 24; Innerhofer 2000, 81–83; Benkovsky‑Pivovarová ‑ Chropovský 2015, 31–33, 51–52, Abb. 101e, 120). Hulín‑Pravčice ‘U obrázku’ f. 315 1955–1767 BC (probability 95.4%) Two Lockenringe of a simple type and a fragment, perhaps a Nopperinge, a small globular vessel and a small amphora with engraved decoration (Peška et al. 2011, fig. 5). Classic or post‑classic phase of the ÚC. Graves with Lockenringe typically precede the horizon of graves with a spherical and obliquely perforated head (Stuchlík 1993, fig. 157; Stuchlík 2009, 176; Benkovsky‑Pivovarová – Chropovský 2015, 62, Abb. 120). Olomouc‑Slavonín Gr. 46 2026–1773 BC (probability 95.4%) Copper axe with a fan‑shaped cutting edge and a trace of a central step with side flanges (Peška 2006, fig. 9). Assumed dating of the cemetery to the classic and possibly the post‑classic phase of the ÚC (Peška 2006, 159–152), axe fromGr. 46 from Br A2 to the beginning of Br C (Absatzbeile, Gruppe I: Říhovský 1992, 109–112). Olomouce‑Slavonín Gr. 55 1941–1700 BC (probability 95.4%) Únětice cup (Peška 2006, fig. 10). Typologically datable to the late period of the ÚC (Stuchlík 2009, 176; Benkovsky‑Pivovarová – Chropovský 2015, 32–33, Abb. 101e). Hulín 1‑U Isidorka, Gr. 38 1941–1700 BC (probability 95.4%) Únětice cup and pot with an S‑shaped profile (Peška 2012b, Abb. 3; Peška 2012a). The pot typologically falls in the earlier part of the ÚC (Stuchlík 1993, fig. 156: 19), the cup to the classic phase, though the material of this phase can overlap with the early period of the ÚC (Ernée 2015, 294–295). Hulín 1‑U Isidorka, Gr. 31 1896–1695 BC (probability 95.4%) Axe with side flanges (Randleistenbeil) and a bowl with a groove below the rim and four feet (Peška 2012b, Abb. 3; Peška 2012a). Late period of the ÚC (Říhovský 1992, 90–91; Neugebauer et al. 1994, Abb. 46/14; Stuchlík 2004). Hulín 1‑U Isidorka, Gr. 32 1877–1661 BC (probability 95.4%) Jug (Peška 2012b, Abb. 3). The original dating to the classic phase can be extended into the post‑classic phase of the ÚC (Lorencová et al. 1987, 126). Hulín 1‑U Isidorka, Gr. 108 1745–1627 BC (probability 95.4%) Profiled jug of the post‑classic phase and an early palstave axe (Absatzbeil) (Daňhel 2010, 119, fig. 4; Peška et al. 2011, 57). VG (Daňhel 2010, 123–126). Vrchoslavice Gr. 4 1530–1417 BC (probability 95.4%) Palstave axe on the border between an arched and cordate stop bar and a dagger with a trace of the expansion of the rounded butt plate and five rivets (Peška 2012c, 14–16). Late phase Br A2–B1 (Benkovsky‑Pivovarová 1985, 30, 80, Taf. 226: 1–2; Říhovský 1992, 111–112, 122–123; Neugebauer et al. 1994, Abb. 47: 1–4; Bátora 2000, Beil. 3; David 2002, 224, 315–317, Taf. 212, 255; Salaš 2005, 32–33; Benkovsky‑Pivovarová – Chropovský 2015. Fig. 4: The dating overview of previously published find units in Moravia. PIT BURIALS To answer the first question as to whether burials in settlement pits are typical for the end of the Early Bronze Age, we acquired aradiocarbon date from the mass burial in settlement feature 387 from the Těšetice ‑Kyjovice ‘Sutny’ site (Fig. 5). The burial of four individuals and adog in astorage pit with adepth of 195 cm was covered with stones. Awoman was deposited on the bottom of the pit, while the skeletons of ajuvenile woman and ayoung boy were at ahigher level. The remains of an infant were deposited by the wall of the pit.2 The pit burial (Gr. 16) was dated to the VG based on an analogy in burial practices. The most striking find was the woman’snecklace composed of 199 beads and apot ‑shaped vessel with lengthwise relief knobs (Čižmářetal. 1993, 52–56, fig. 13). None of the artefacts are typologically classifiable to the VG (cf. Rožnovský 2010; Stuchlík 2010). 2 The deposition of achild in avessel must be first anthropologically revisited, so we do not take this interpretation into account. 129KLÁRA ŠABATOVÁ– DAVID PARMA Fig. 5: Settlement Těšetice ‑Kyjovice ‘Sutny’. Pit burial of four individuals and adog inf. 387 (Čiž‑ mářetal. 1993). The calibrated radiocarbon date of 2110–1783 BC (probability 95.4%; Figs. 3 and 6)3 obtained from the woman’sskeleton points to the early period of the ÚC. Her bead necklace from the perspective of the type of artefact and the origin of the stone material (Mrázek 1996, 66–67) as well as the type of vessel (apot) present in the grave suggest aconnection with the Epi‑ ‑Corded Ware complex. Similar radiocarbon dates associated with the Nitra culture or more generally with the Carpathian Epi ‑Corded Ware Culture Complex come from east Moravia and from the Jelšovce and Opava ‑Vávrovice cemeteries showing that manifestations of the Epi ‑Corded Complex were acommon feature of this time period (Bátora 2000, 568–569; Peška 2013a, Taf. 1; Hlas– Stuchlík– Šín 2017, 70–71, tab.2). Atotal of three radiocarbon dates from pit burials with grave goods are known today for Moravia. In addition to feature 387 from Těšetice ‑Kyjovice, these are two skeletons from the Hulín ‑Pravčice ‘Uobrázku’ (f. 85 and f. 315), both of which can be dated to post ‑classic ÚC (Fig. 3, 4, 6). Radiocarbon dates show that laying down pit burials is aphenomenon that is characteristic of the entire Early Bronze Age and cannot be used as amore accurate dating criterion. In the case of two assemblages discussed here, the deposition in asettlement feature influenced the archaeological dating, e.g. feature 387 from Těšetice ‑Kyjovice ‘Sutny’ and the burial from Hulín ‑Pravčiče, feature 85, both originally dated to VG. Asimilar picture was newly provided by the settlement area in Vliněves, Bohemia. Ra‑ diocarbon data from human remains buried in seven settlement pits are known here. The earliest dated skeleton falls into 2199–1941 BC (probability 95.4%). The other six features are later, dating between 2000–1600 BC (Limburskýetal. 2018, 502, tab.45, fig. 334). 3 Other yet unpublished radiocarbon data for feature 387 from M. Dočkalová’sproject have been ascertained, which confirm this chronology. 130 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 Fig. 6: Comparison of radiocarbon dates from pit and inhumation burials from the Early and beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. A. Pit burials. B. Únětice Culture graves. C. Věteřov Group graves. D. Graves of Middle Bronze Age. INHUMATION BURIALS Ten graves from Moravia with typologically classifiable inventory determined by radiocarbon dating come from the Early Bronze Age. Four were dated recently (Borotice, Modřice ‑Rybníky Gr. 811, Těšetice ‘Vinohrady’ Gr. 22 and Gr. 45), and the other come from published excavations in central Moravia (Hulín 1 ‘UIsidorka’ and Olomouc ‑Slavonín: Peška 2006; Daňhel 2010; Peška– Tajer– Pankowska 2011; Peška 2012a; 2012b). Grave 46 from Olomouc ‑Slavonín with adate of 2026–1772 BC (probability 95.4%; Fig. 3, 4, 6) has amedian before 1900 BC and ranks among assemblages typologically classified to the classic phase of the ÚC, the absolute dates of which are at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC (cf. Ernée 2015, 294–295). The median of most absolute dates from graves falls between 1900 and 1800 BC.Graves regarded as late on the basis of atypological analysis were recently dated to identify the end 131KLÁRA ŠABATOVÁ– DAVID PARMA of burials at Únětice cemeteries. Burials from the ‘Rybníky’ site in Modřice and the ‘Vinohrady’ site in Těšetice were selected. Grave 22 from the ‘Vinohrady’ site in Těšetice with atree ‑trunk coffin covered with stones and with asecondary disturbance is considered to be one of the latest features in the Těšetice cemetery. It contained asmaller smoothed jug and asmall dagger (Fig. 7; Lorencová– Beneš– Podborský 1987, 43–45, 128, fig. 14a–b). The jug has parallels in Moravia in material dated to Fig. 7: The Těšetice ‘Vinohrady’ cemetery. Graves 22 and 45 (Lorencová– Beneš– Podborský 1987). 132 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 the ÚC (Lorencová– Beneš– Podborský 1987, 128, fig. 36b, 44c; Moravcová– Kala 2019, tab.18/1, 20/4). Z. Benkovsky ‑Pivovarová classified similar forms as jugs of broader type G‑3, which she records as ÚC (Benkovsky ‑Pivovarová– Chropovský 2015, 31, Taf. 37/3, 39/8). Abronze dagger with three rivet holes and an omega ‑shaped hilt line (Fig. 7) was dated to the classic phase of ÚC (Nr. 84: Novák 2011, 47). Radiocarbon dating placed Grave 22 from Těšetice in 1956–1751 BC (probability 95.4%; Figs. 3, 6), which corresponds to aclassification of inventory in the late period of the ÚC. The pit of Grave 45 from the ‘Vinohrady’ site in Těšetice (Lorencová– Beneš– Podbor‑ ský 1987, 79–81, fig. 36a–b) covered with stones and with asecondary disturbance contained athin ‑walled jug, ahigher conical bowl, asmall conical beaker, and the remnants of abronze dagger. The shaft held acup (Fig. 7) considered as one of latest vessels on the cemetery, very similar to the cup from the Grave 22 (Lorencová– Beneš– Podborský 1987, 124, 126, 128). The date of 1936–1746 BC (probability 95.4%; Figs. 3, 6) from Grave 45 is similar to Grave 22 too. Based on the inventory, arange from the late period of the ÚC can also be assumed in this case. Grave 811 with awood coffin covered with stones was chosen from the ‘Rybníky’ site in Modřice. The inventory contains two pins with aspherical head (diam. 12 mm) with an oblique perforation (schräg durchlochte Kugelkopfnadel, Typ Matzhausen) and asmall handle ‑less vessel (Fig. 8). Pins with an oblique perforation are regarded as artefacts from the end of the Early Bronze Age in the Br A2. Dating of the pieces with decoration of engraved lines on the head to the Únětice period is supported by both typological reasons and by radiocarbon dates (Benkovsky ‑Pivovarová– Chropovský 2015, 51–52, Abb. 120; Ernée 2015, 270; Innerhofer 2000, 82–83; Massy 2018, Abb. 21; Peška et al. 2011, 57, fig. 4). Two samples were taken from the skeleton, and the combination of the two dates falls into the range of 1880–1699 BC (probability 95.4%, Figs. 3, 6; OxCal R ‑Combine: Bronk Ramsey 2009). Based on the grave inventory and absolute dates, the burial assemblage can be placed at the late period of the ÚC, though not the very end of the Early Bronze Age. Fig. 8: The Modřice ‘Rybníky’ cemetery. Grave 811. 139KLÁRA ŠABATOVÁ– DAVID PARMA David Parma Ústav archeologické památkové péče Brno,v.v.i. Kaloudova 370/6 614 00 Brno [email protected] Klára Šabatová Masarykova univerzita, Filozofická fakulta Ústav archeologie amuzeologie Arna Nováka 1 602 00 Brno sabato[email protected].cz