Chronological framework of the fortified settlement in Spišský Štvrtok in the context of the Otomani‑Füzesabony cultural complex
Abstract
150
Full text
STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2, 150–172 Chronological framework of the fortified settlement in Spišský Štvrtok in the context of the Otomani ‑Füzesabony cultural complex Dominika Oravkinová– Jozef Vladár ABSTRACT In contrast to other contemporaneous cultural groups, the Otomani ‑Füzesabony cultural complex (OFCC) is conspicuous, inter alia, due to covering arelatively wide geographical area. Within it can be observed ahigh variability of source bases, which is conditioned by the differing emergence and adaptation backgrounds, as well as by avarying length of duration across different geographical regions. To make things worse, this diversity of archaeological sources is reflected also in the different use of terminology and in various absolute and relative chronological systems. When dealing with the chronological issues of the OFCC in the territory of Eastern Slovakia the fortified settlement in Spišský Štvrtok, deserves special consideration. Despite the absence of any absolute dates from the site, significantly represented material culture allows one to review its relative chronological framework. In this respect, the morpho ‑typology of selected pottery and metal artefacts, together with their decorative motifs, provide useful information about its relative chronology. Aformalised description of jugs, which represent the chronologically most sensitive group of pottery, allows for apartial use of statistical methods as well. As aresult, we can obtain arelatively comprehensive view of the initial phase, the length of occupation, and the abandonment period of the fortified settlement. In combination with 14C dates this information might in future contribute to amore exact understanding of the chronological relations within awider area of East ‑Central Europe. KEY WORDS Relative chronology; Otomani ‑Füzesabony cultural complex; settlement; Spišský Štvrtok; pottery; metal artefacts. INTRODUCTION The issue of dating artefacts, as well as individual archaeological sites and their mutual chron‑ ological relations, has been of crucial importance since archaeology was constituted as an independent discipline of science. Along with the development of natural scientific methods of absolute dating it still remains ahighly discussed and popular topic as well in recent specialised literature. Even though radiocarbon analyses offer avariety of interpretational possibilities, for the majority of find assemblages from significant sites, only the relative dating is available. One example of such asite is also the fortified settlement in Spišský Štvrtok, which cul‑ turally belongs to the Otomani ‑Füzesabony cultural complex (hereinafter OFCC). Despite its significance, this settlement still lacks any detailed absolute ‑chronological framework which would reflect the specificities of the local culture and the current state of research. Through the evaluation of selected materials from the settlement, contextualised within the complex issue of the OFCC, we can demonstrate the persisting necessity of relative ‑chronological systems, specifically Reinecke’speriodisation system. Even though this system has already ‘celebrated’ its hundredth anniversary, it still represents avery useful tool for the classification
151DOMINIKA ORAVKINOVÁ– JOZEF VLADÁR of Bronze Age archaeological materials, both in Slovakia and in the wider region of Central Europe. Its application brings new information and at the same time facilitates international communication. ON THE ISSUE OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF THE OFCC The history and the current state of research on the OFCC are burdened by significant ter‑ minological and ideological variability, which logically results in different approaches to the issues of relative chronology. This variability mainly arises from the vast spatial distribution of the cultural complex, which partly extends over the territory of five present ‑day states, namely north ‑eastern Romania, eastern Hungary, western Ukraine, eastern Slovakia, and south ‑eastern Poland. The overall situation is still more complicated by the fact that– within this vast area– the OFCC emerged, adapted itself, and faded out in the background of many different cultural traditions. This process was also heterogeneous from achronological point of view (for more details see Bader 1978; Gogȃltan 1999, 15–54; Balaguri 2001; Thomas 2008, 333–341; Czebreszuk 2013; Bátora– Vadár 2015, 40). Previous discussions have made it clear that successfully answering questions of supra‑ ‑regional significance will only be possible if there is aunity in the approaches of the individ‑ ual ‘national schools’ to the highest possible extent (Olexa 1987, 255; Bader 1998, 72–73; Koós 2003, 302; Šteiner 2009, 10–14; Molnár 2014, 16–25; Vladár 2014, 32–35; Bátora– Vladár 2015, 39). The current specialised literature therefore gradually abandons the chaotic nomen‑ clature which is impacted by historical interpretation or by amore detailed geographical and chronological definition. Researchers are now using with increasing frequency the general term Otomani ‑Füzesabony culture (Gancarski 1999b; 2002; Thomas 2008; Olexa 2003; Jaeger 2010; 2016; Gogȃltan 2015; Przbyła 2016; Przybyła– Skoneczna 2013, and others), or Otomani ‑Füzesabony cultural complex (Šteiner 2003; 2009; Olexa– Nováček 2013; 2015; 2017; Oravkinová 2018). RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY The heterogeneity based on the above ‑mentioned ‘national schools’ is expressed to the full extent in the perception, terminology, and definition of the relative chronology of the OFCC. Moreover, asignificant variability of published opinions can also be observed within indi‑ vidual research circles, which are presently defined geopolitically. Of crucial importance for the treatment of problems associated with the OFCC in the territory of Romania was the three ‑stage chronological classification created by I. Ordentlich (1970). Adifferent concept was introduced by T. Bader (1978; 1998), who, unlike Ordentlich, pursued a4‑stage classification. It is necessary to remark that Romanian researchers in their studies apply the principles of the so ‑called long chronology, on the basis of which they define the duration of the OFCC in the territory of Romania from the stage Br A1 to as late as the stage BrD. The Hungarian and Slovak archaeologists, on the other hand, classify the available materials within the system of ‘short chronology’ with aduration within stages Br B1/B2 (Bader 1998, 74–75). The tripartite classification system of the OFCC materials also has along tradition among the Hungarian researchers (e.g. Mozsolic 1957; 1969; Köszegi 1968; Kovács 1982), where the duration is delimited by the stages Br A1 to Br B (Köszegi 1968, 129–136). This system was also used by I. Bóna, who implemented an original periodisation system of the Bronze Age
152 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 in the Carpathian Basin (Bóna 1958; 1975; 1992). Since he in his synthetic works only seldom referred to Reinecke’speriodisation, the international adoption of the system remained prob‑ lematic. Abetter contribution with regard to an in ‑depth study of chronological aspects was therefore represented by aconcept of relative ‑chronological relations of the OFCC, which was created by E. Schalk on the basis of multiple sites. In this system she also took into consider‑ ation the periodisation systems used in the neighbouring countries as well as the previous classification systems of the cultural complex (Schalk 1981; 1992; 1994). Also helpful in this regard are several published studies which focused on the synchronisation of the relative‑ ‑chronological system by I. Bóna with Reinecke’speriodisation scheme (Kiss 2012; Kissetal. 2015; Fischletal. 2015). Slovak researchers, with the exception of terminological variations, were relatively coherent and disciplined in their opinions regarding the relative ‑chronological context of the OFCC in the territory of Slovakia. They primarily applied the three ‑stage classification of source materials with total duration from the turn of stages Br A1/Br A2 to the stage Br B1 (Točík– Vladár 1971, 393; Furmánek– Veliačik 1980, 165; Bátora 1981, 14; Bátora 1983, 184–185; Furmánek– Veliačik– Vladár 1991, 82). It was only new knowledge that allowed L. Olexa to argue for amore detailed 5‑stage classification within the same chronological dura‑ tion (Olexa 1987). Further specifications have been published since the beginning of the 21st century in comprehensive works focused on the analysis and evaluation of source materials from the western territories of the cultural complex. These publications complete and extend the five ‑stage classification model, which they delimit by the stage Br A1 and by the beginning of the stage Br B2 (Thomas 2008; Šteiner 2009; Olexa– Nováček 2013; 2015). Despite the indisputable benefits of the previous and mainly the current classification systems of the source materials of the OFCC, we encounter difficulties in their application. The relative ‑chronological classifications are often only based on the material from asingle site and the regional variability is only seldom taken into consideration (Šteiner 2009; Olexa– Nováček 2013; 2015). Applying these classifications in other enclaves thus might be problematic. Even though synthetic classifications are based on the evaluation of materials from multiple ecumenes, the determinants in them are exclusively represented by artefacts from funerary contexts, whereas the typologically more varied settlement finds are reflected only sporadically (Thomas 2008). At the same time, they use adiametrically different termi‑ nology and chronological classification of individual stages (Bader 1998, tab.1; Oravkinová 2018, tab.1), whereby they end up creating an even more distinct deepening of the already existing disunity. The only connecting element is often the definition of phases/horizons within the stages of Reinecke’speriodisation system, which for this reason is also preferred in this paper (modified after Furmánek– Vladár 2015, obr.2). ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY The duration of the OFCC from the viewpoint of absolute chronology can be defined on the basis of hitherto published results of 14C analyses (Fig. 1). Despite the fragmentary character of the dates and absence of information in several regions, they refer to arelatively wide general interval of duration of the cultural complex. The earliest dates are known from the sites in the catchment area of the Rivers Berettyó (Gáborján– Bln‑1643, 2199–1960 calBC 2σ, Bln‑1642, 2199–1771 calBC 2σ, Bln‑1644, 2130–1829 calBC 2σ, Vésztő– Bln‑1629, 2285–1926 calBC 2σ), Maros (Battonya– Bln‑1705, 2341–1958 calBC 2σ), and the upper reaches of the River Tisza (Rétközberencs– Bln‑1224, 2192–1631 calBC 2σ; Raczky– Hertelendi– Horváth 1992). The above ‑mentioned regions, together with the area of north ‑western Romania, can be regarded
153DOMINIKA ORAVKINOVÁ– JOZEF VLADÁR as the presumed centres of the emergence of the complex, whose manifestations subsequently spread to the neighbouring regions in later phases of its development. The earliest manifestations of the OFCC in its western geographical enclave are evidenced from 1965 BC at the earliest, which is documented by the dates from funerary contexts in Nižná Myšľa (1965–1754 calBC 2σ; Jaeger– Olexa 2014). The earliest human presence in the northernmost territories featuring OFCC elements, i.e. in the area delimited by the River Dunajec, in the time around 1876 BC or 1830 BC at the earliest, is dated by the results of 14C analysis of samples from the fortification and from the stratigraphically earliest contexts at the site of Maszkowice (D ‑AMS‑10625, 1876–1841, 1782–1689 calBC 2σ, MKL‑2439, 1830–1610 calBC 2σ; Przybyła 2016, fig. 8). The 14C dates from the stratigraphically latest contexts at the Fig. 1: Published calibrated radiocarbon dates from contexts belonging to the OFCC (Raczky – Hertelendi – Horváth 1992; Forenbaher 1993; Gancarski 1999a; Barta 2001; 2008; Görs‑ dorf – Furmánek – Marková 2004; Barta 2013; Przybyła– Skoneczna 2013; Duffy 2014; Jaeger– Olexa 2014; Gogȃltan 2015; Przybyła 2016; Gancarski– Madej 2018; Lieetal. 2018; Szathmári– Guba– Kulcsár 2018).
154 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 same site date the fading out of the OFCC manifestations to the year 1506 BC (D ‑AMS‑10628, 1621–1506 calBC 2σ; Przybyła 2016, fig. 8), the dates from Nižná Myšľa date it to 1430 BC (Bln‑2810, 1740–1430 calBC 2σ; Olexa– Nováček 2013, 12) and the dates from the layer with finds belonging to the earliest phase of the Piliny culture in Včelince date to 1430 BC (Bln‑5557, 1530–1430 calBC 2σ, Bln‑5558, 1500–1430 calBC 2σ; Görsdorf – Furmánek – Marková 2004, 88). On the basis of aseries of relatively late dates from the settlements of Trzcinica and Nižná Myšľa we can assume that some elements survived in individual distribution enclaves until as late as 1350–1300 BC (Gancarski 1999a, 149–150; Olexa– Nováček 2013, 12). The current state of research on absolute chronology in correlation with adetailed analy‑ sis and evaluation of archaeological materials is unfortunately limited. Apart from the basic definition of the extent, so far it does not enable one to define in more detail the duration of individual phases and verify the legitimacy and supra ‑regional applicability of the currently used relative ‑chronological systems (Thomas 2008, 341–349; Šteiner 2009, 118–110; Olexa– Nováček 2013, 12). ANALYSIS OF SELECTED ARTEFACTS FROM THE FORTIFIED SETTLEMENT IN SPIŠSKÝ ŠTVRTOK The fortified settlement from the turn of the Early and Middle Bronze Age at Myšia Hôrka hill in Spišský Štvrtok (Levoča District, Slovakia), has long been the focal point of the professional community. Aproof thereof are many archaeological excavations and surveys, which were carried out in the settlement area or in its close neighbourhood (Novotná 1962; Pivovarová 1962; 1963; Novotný– Kovalčík 1967; Kovalčík 1970). Their outcomes, mainly those of the large ‑scale systematic excavations conducted by J. Vladár (Vladár 1970; 1972; 1973; 1976), indis‑ putably placed the site within the most important sources for the study of Bronze Age society and the phenomenon of fortified settlements in Central Europe (e.g. Coles– Harding 1979, 77; Furmánek– Veliačik 1980, 165; Furmánek– Veliačik– Vladár 1991, 81–82; Furmánek 2004, 69–70; Marková– Ilon 2013, 824–825; Kienlin 2015, 38; Jaeger 2016, 101–138). In the published literature we can find various opinions on the chronological classification of the settlement. The main reason for this disunity does not consist so much in the different opinions, but rather in the absence of acomprehensive publication or presentation of the available materials. The site exacavator J. Vladár, even during his excavations and shortly after their end, defined in survey summaries that the settlement was inhabited over the course of multiple phases (he sometimes mentions two phases, at other times he mentions three phases) within the interval of stages Br A3 to Br B1. He also emphasized the presence of relics from the terminal transitional Otomani ‑Piliny stage and the Otomani ‑Suciu de Sus horizon (Vladár 1970; 1972; 1975; 1976). The other researchers defined the chronological framework of the site in adifferent way, supposing the duration of the settlement to be in stages Br A2 to Br B1 (No‑ votný– Kovalčík 1967), or only in stage Br B1 (Gašaj 2002, fig. 10; Šteiner 2009, tab.XXXIV). In order to define amore detailed relative ‑chronological framework of the settlement, we excerpt from the voluminous collection of finds several selected groups of ceramic and metal artefacts. Our selection involves only those artefacts, whose detailed analysis with regard to morpho ‑typology and decorative elements can provide some clues about the duration and intensity of settlement occupancy.
155DOMINIKA ORAVKINOVÁ– JOZEF VLADÁR POTTERY From the morpho ‑typological point of view, in the ceramic assemblage one can distinguish several variants of jugs, cups, bowls, amphorae, pots, and other ceramic forms, which together with their decorative motifs provide potential information about the relative chronology of the settlement (Fig. 2). Among the earliest ceramic forms, which are represented in the collection in aseries, are the sporadically occurring so ‑called barrel ‑shaped jugs (Fig. 2: 1–5; type B1 Aby Thomas 2008; type D3a and D3b by Šteiner 2009; type PC by Olexa– Nováček 2013). In the collection from Spišský Štvrtok they are decorated with simple variants of decomposed spiral ornaments (Fig. 3: 1). There is also aremarkable ceramic vessel, which is decorated with an ornament in the form of connected spirals (Fig. 3: 2). Regarding the numerous analogies from cemeteries and settlements of the OFCC, the barrel ‑shaped jugs with continuous spiral decoration can be dated to the turn of stages Br A2/A3 and to stage Br A3 (Thomas 2008, Taf. 89; Šteiner 2009, 60; Olexa– Nováček 2013, 28). As regards the frequency of occurrence, most distinctly represented are jugs with ahigh mouth, bulbous to biconical body, and awell ‑distinguished flat or concave bottom or alow foot (Fig. 2: 6–9; type B1 B and B1 D by Thomas 2008; type D3c by Šteiner 2009). On these vessels we can identify numerous variations of ornaments, above all decomposed spirals, concentric motifs and motifs forming the upper semi ‑arches, which are concentrated around the plastic appliqués (Fig. 3: 3–8). The occurrence of analogies to this ceramic form in combination with decorative ornaments can be dated in general to stage Br B1 and to the beginning of stage Br B2 (Thomas 2008, Taf. 89; Šteiner 2009, 61). Less frequent are jugs on alow foot, with the maximum convexity shifted to the upper part of the body (Fig. 2: 10; type B1 DAC by Thomas 2008; type D10 by Šteiner 2009). In the collection from the settlement area, this type is associated with geometrical incised ‑and ‑relief ornaments (Fig. 3: 9, 10) as well as with the only evidence of an incised festoon motif (Fig. 3: 11). Similar ornaments associated with this ceramic form are known from the terminal phases of the settlements in Košice ‑Barca and Nižná Myšľa, from the burial grounds in Streda nad Bodrogom (Šteiner 2003, tab.II; Šteiner 2009, tab.II: 23, 24, 26, 27) and Včelince (Fur‑ mánek– Marková 1998, obr.8; Furmánek– Marková 2001, Abb. 6: 6, 8, 11), from Nagyroz‑ vágy (Koós 2003, Taf. 10: 6) and from the milieu of the early phase of the Piliny culture– from the cemetery in Tornaľa (Furmánek 1981, Abb. 5). The same geometrical ornaments as those on the jugs from Spišský Štvrtok are present on amphorae of the Piliny culture (Furmánek 1977, Taf. VI: 10). The finds from selected contexts are mostly dated to the end of stage Br B1 and to the turn of stages Br B1 and Br B2 (Furmánek 1981, 46; Koós 2003, 306; Šteiner 2003, 85; Šteiner 2009, 115–116). The results of the traditional typological analysis of jugs, which represent the chronolog‑ ically most sensitive group of ceramic vessels in the collection, were verified with the help of methods of formalised typological synthesis (according to Macháček 2001; Šabatová 2007). The advantages of its application to the collection of jugs from Spišský Štvrtok consist in their presumed chronological significance and arelatively good differentiability with ahigh number of decorated individuals (79.1% fragments out of the total number are decorated). The input data comprised of the qualities of decorated individuals, whose state of preservation allowed one to carry out aformalised description of morphology (shape of the neck, body, bottom, etc.) and decoration (technology, localisation, orientation, composition of elements). Morphological and decorative attributes which were attested in asmall number of individuals, and undecorated jug fragments were excluded from the analysis. These predefined selection
156 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 Fig. 2: Spišský Štvrtok. Selected forms of ceramic vessels.
157DOMINIKA ORAVKINOVÁ– JOZEF VLADÁR Fig. 3: Spišský Štvrtok. Decorative motifs on jugs. criteria were met by atotal of 131 individuals, which were subjected to the correspondence analysis. The resulting graph forms aparabola (Fig. 4). Its left side concentrates the chrono‑ logically earlier barrel ‑shaped forms decorated with connected and decomposed spirals. The centre of the parabola mostly concentrates forms with ahigh neck and with ornaments in the form of decomposed spirals. The right side of the graph, on the other hand, concentrates individuals with amore distinct profile, the bottom on alow conical foot, and geometrical decorative motifs. The clusters in individual parts of the parabola correlate with individual types of vessels distinguished by means of traditional typological analysis, whereby they independently prove their possible chronological causality.
158 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 Fig. 4: Spišský Štvrtok. Correspondence analysis graph for jugs with representation of individual forms. If we take into consideration that the presumed chronological development of individual forms of jugs is partly also reflected in the profile and decorative composition of cups, then we can evidence the forms on alow conical foot (Fig. 2: 11, 12) typical of stage Br B1 and the beginning of stage Br B2 (Šteiner 2009, 113–114, 118). Possible chronological relations are also indicated by the presence of analogous decorative motifs in the form of concentric elements and elements arranged in the upper semi ‑arch around aplastic appliqué situated in their middle, or horizontally oriented festoon motifs and incised zigzags (Fig. 5: 1–9). The occurrence of ageometrical ornament (Fig. 5: 11) on the body of acup with unspec‑ ifiable profile is quite remarkable. It can be associated with materials typical of the end of stage Br B1 and the turn of stages Br B1/B2 with numerous analogies on vessels from the terminal phase of the OFCC (Šteiner 2009, 115–118) and the early phase of the Piliny culture (Furmánek 1977, Taf. III: 17; Furmánek 1981). Within the same horizon probably also falls adecorated cup with an atypical distinctly biconical profile of the body and aslight indent in its lower part (Fig. 2: 13, 5: 10). Similar forms are known from funerary assemblages in Tornaľa (Furmánek 1977, Taf. V: 8; VII: 16). With the latest settlement phase, we can associ‑ ate acup on ahigh hollow conical foot with adistinctly out ‑turned rim and sharply profiled biconical body (Fig. 2: 14), decorated with asimple incised ornament. Close analogies to this form, which are known among the material from the cemetery in Gelej (Kemenczei 1979, Taf. XIII: 14), are dated to the terminal horizon of the OFCC with the centre of occurrence in the material of the chronologically subsequent Tumulus cultures (Bóna 1963 I, táb. 5; IV, táb. 2; Kemenczei 1979, 32). Chronologically more sensitive forms of bowls seem to be those with acomposite profile, whose occurrence in the material culture of the OFCC is dated from the turn of stages Br A2/
165DOMINIKA ORAVKINOVÁ– JOZEF VLADÁR tive chronology. The observed variability regarding pottery decoration is one of the pillars of adetailed morpho ‑typological and potentially chronologically sensitive classification of the OFCC’smaterial culture noted in several settlements and burial grounds. Moreover, the stage Br A3 comprises dated material content of the later classic horizon, which is, among other elements, typical owing to the development of spiral ornamentation (Šteiner 2003; 2009; Olexa– Nováček 2013; 2015; 2017; Nováček 2018). In these instances, the usage of stage Br A3 or any other equivalent nomenclature reflected in the transregional relative chronological schemes can be meaningful. The analysis of the material culture revealed in the morphology and ornamentation of ceramic and metal artefacts asignificant presence of elements, which can be associated with the turn of stages Br B1 and Br B2. The above chronological range is in awider geographic context already connected with the early phase of the Piliny culture (Furmánek 1977, 321–329; Furmánek 1981; Furmánek 2015, 185; Furmánek– Mitáš 2016) and with the early phase of the complex of the Tumulus cultures (Ožďáni 1986; 2015). The causality is most distinctly evidenced by the similarity between apart of the collection of metal artefacts from the settle‑ ment and the artefacts from the hoards in Hodejov and Vyškovce nad Ipľom. The latest pottery from the site contains elements, which are characteristic of the terminal phase of the OFCC and the eastern groups of Tumulus cultures (tumulus– post ‑Otomani style; Przybyła 2009, 120–123). The formal analysis of the material culture, on the other hand, did not prove the presence of elements which would clearly refer to some relationship with the traditions of the Suciu de Sus culture (Demeterová 1984; Furmánek– Veliačik 1980, 165; 221; Furmánek 1997; 2015, 187–189). The finds from the settlement in Spišský Štvrtok herewith confirm the continuity of the development and traditions in the material culture from the end of the Early Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age (e.g. Točík– Vladár 1971, 393; Furmánek 1977, 322–325; Furmánek 2015, 185; Furmánek– Veliačik 1980, 165; 1991; Furmánek– Veliačik– Vladár 1991, 84; David 1998a; Šteiner 2009, 115–118; Vicze 2013), above all, the interconnection between the material culture of the OFCC and the Piliny culture. At the same time, it proves the legitimacy of the distinction of atransitional Otomani ‑Piliny horizon as well as for the ecumene living in the Spiš region. The argumentation is limited by the fact that from the geographic area in question we currently do not know any comprehensive evaluation and publication of amore extensive collection of pottery assignable to the early Piliny culture, early Tumulus culture or Suciu de Sus culture. Our conclusions are based almost exclusively on analogies to funerary ceramics, which, however, in their morpho ‑typology and variability do not necessarily always corre‑ spond with the primary utility forms from the settlements. CONCLUSION The current state of research on the chronology of the OFCC cannot be regarded as satisfactory. We have to deal with several different relative ‑chronological classifications as well as with the low number of published absolute dates. Moreover, the archaeological contexts which are dated by methods of absolute chronology mostly cannot be confronted with the results of an in‑ ‑depth relative ‑chronological analysis of the material culture, and vice versa. Analytical tools, like the periodisation system by P.Reinecke, when unified and systematically used, contribute to more efficient communication among experts at an international level. Their application to older collections, which are exemplified by the finds from Spišský Štvrtok, helps to analyse
166 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 and evaluate such collections in awider cultural and chronological context. At the same time, it generates asuitable base, which after the addition of 14C dates might contribute to amore exact interpretation of the chronological aspects within awider area of East ‑Central Europe. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was supported by two research projects: ‘The environment and settlement networks of late Prehistory on the example of selected periods and regions of Slovakia’ (APVV‑18‑0276) and ‘Economy and society in the Bronze Age in the area of middle Danube according to archae ‑ ological and environmental data’ (VEGA 1/0100/19). We would like to express our appreciation to Klára Pusztainé Fischl and Václav Furmánek,for their kind and beneficial consulting of chosen pottery forms. We wish to also thank Anita Kozubová for her constructive comments on the manuscript. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bader, T. 1978: Epoca bronzului în Nord ‑Vestul Transilvaniei. Cultura pretracică şi tracică. Bucureşti. Bader, T. 1998: Bemerkungen zur Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken Otomani/Füzesabony Komplex. Überblick und Fragestellung. Jahresschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 80, 43–108. Balaguri, E. 2001: Naselenie verchnego Potis’ja vepochu bronzy [The population of the Upper Potyssye in the Bronze Age]. Užhorod. Balaša, G. 1955: Nálezy bronzových predmetov pri Vyškovciach nad Ipľom. Archeologické rozhledy 7, 443–445, 467. Barta, P.2001: Absolute Dating of the Bronze Age in Slovakia: State of Research. Andos– Studies of Ancient World 1, 11–25. Barta, P.2008: Kabsolútnej chronológii doby bronzovej vo východnej strednej Európe: metódy aaplikácie [Absolute chronology of Bronze Age in the East and Central Europe: methods and applications]. Bratislava. Bartaetal. 2013 = Barta, P.– Demján, P.– Hladíková, K.– Kmeťová, P.– Piatničková, K.: Database of radiocar‑ bon dates measured on archaeological samples from Slovakia, Czechia, and adjacent regions. Available online: http://www.c14.sk (visited 4/6/ 2018). Bátora, J. 1981: Die Anfänge der Bronzezeit in der Ostslowakei. Slovenská archeológia 29, 7–16. Bátora, J. 1983: Záver eneolitu azačiatok doby bronzovej na východnom Slovensku. Historica Carpatica 14, 169–227. Bátora, J. 2000: Das Gräberfeld von Jelšovce/Slowakei. Ein Beitrag zur Frühbronzezeit im nordwestlichen Kar‑ patenbecken. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 16. Kiel. Bátora, J.– Vladár, J. 2015: Kultúry staršej doby bronzovej. In: Furmáneketal. 2015, 21–130. Benkovsky ‑Pivovarová, Z. 1976: Zur Enddatierund des Kulturkreises Maďarovce– Věteřov– Böheimkirchen. Germania 54, 342–359. Benkovsky ‑Pivovarová, Z. 1982: Zur Frage der Stufe Bronzezeit A3 und der älteren danubishen Mittel‑ bronzezeit (MDI) in der Slowakei. Germania 60, 1–12. Bóna, I. 1958: Chronologie der Hortfunde vom Koszider ‑Typus. Acta archaeologica Academiae scientiarum Hungaricae 9, 211–243. Bóna, I. 1963: Tiszakeszi késő bronzkori leletek [Spätbronzezeitliche Funde in Tiszakeszi]. Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyvei 3, 15–35.
167DOMINIKA ORAVKINOVÁ– JOZEF VLADÁR Bóna, I. 1975: Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen. Budapest. Bóna, I. 1992: Bronzezeitliche Tell ‑Kulturen in Ungarn. In: Meier ‑Arendt 1992, 9–41. Coles, J.M.– Harding, A.F. 1979: The Bronze Age in Europe. An introduction to the prehistory of Europe c. 2000–700 BC.London. Csányi, M.– Tárnoki, J. 1992: Túrkeve ‑Terehalom. In: Meier ‑Arendt 1992, 159–165. Czebreszuk, J. 2013: The Bronze Age in the Polish Lands. In: H. Fokkens– A.F. Harding (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age. Oxford, 767–786. Danietal. 2003 = Dani, J.– Máthé, M.S.– Szabó, G.V.: Ausgrabungen in der bronzezeitlichen Tell ‑Siedlung und im Gräberfeld von Polgár ‑Kenderföld (Vorbericht über die Freilegung des mittelbronzezeitlichen Gräberfeldes von Polgár ‑Kenderföld, Majoros ‑Tanya). In: C. Kacsó (ed.): Bronzezeitliche Kulturerscheinun‑ gen im Karpatischen Raum. Die Beziehungen zu den benachbarten Gebieten. Ehrensymposium für Alexandru Vulpe. Baia Mare 10.–13. Oktober 2001. Bibliotheca Marmatia 2. Baia Mare, 93–118. David, W. 1998a: Zum Ende der bronzezeitlichen Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken. In: P.Schauer (ed.): Regensburger Beiträge zur Prähistorischen Archäologie. Bonn, 231–267. David, W. 1998b: Zur Variantengliederung, Verbreitund und Datiernung der Kosziderzeitlichen Sichelnadeln. In: H. Ciugudean– F. Gogâltan (eds.): The Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis 8. Alba Iulia, 281–370. David, W. 2002a: Studien zu Ornamentik und Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Depotfundgruppe Hadúsámson ‑Apa‑ ‑Ighiel ‑Zajta 1. Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis 18/1. Alba Iulia. David, W. 2002b: Studien zu Ornamentik und Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Depotfundgruppe Hadúsámson ‑Apa‑ ‑Ighiel ‑Zajta 2. Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis 18/2. Alba Iulia. Demeterová, S. 1984: Influence de la culture Suciu de Sus dans la plaine de la Slovaquie orientale. Slovenská archeológia 32, 11–74. Duffy, P.R.2014: Complexity and Autonomy in Bronze Age Europe. Prehistoric research in the Körös Region 1. Archaeolingua 31. Budapest. Fischl, K.P.2006: Ároktő ‑Dongóhalom bronzkori tell telep. Miskolc. Fischletal. 2015 = Fischl, K.P.– Kiss, V.– Kulcsár, G.– Szeverényi, G.V.: Old and new narratives for the Car‑ pathian Basin around 2200 BC.In: H. Meller– H.W. Arz– R. Jung– R. Risch (eds.): 2200 BC– Aclimatic breakdown as acause for the collapse of the old world? 7th Archaeological Conference of Central Germany. October 23–26, 2014 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 12. Halle (Saale), 503–524. Forenbaher, S. 1993: Radiocarbon dates and absolute chronology of the central European Early Bronze Age. Antiquity 67, 235–256. Furmánek, V. 1973: Výskum pilinského žiarového pohrebiska vŠafarikove. In: J. Bolfík (ed.): Vlastivedné štúdie GemeraII. Bratislava, 26–52. Furmánek, V. 1977: Pilinyer Kultur. Slovenská archeológia 25, 251–370. Furmánek, V. 1980: Die Anhänger in der Slowakei. Prähistorische Bronzefunde XI/3. München. Furmánek, V. 1981: Die Anfänge der Pilinyer Kultur. Slovenská archeológia 29, 37–50. Furmánek, V. 1982: Bronzové závěsky doby bronzové ze Slovenska [Bronze Age Pendants of Bronze in Slo‑ vakia]. Slovenská archeológia 30, 315–346. Furmánek, V. 1997: Kproblémům kultury Suciu de Sus na Slovensku. Sborník prací Filozofiké fakulty Brno M 2, 155–167. Furmánek, V. 2004: Zlatý vek vKarpatoch. Keramika akov doby bronzovej na Slovensku (2300–800 pred n. l.) [L’età d’oro dei Carpazi. Ceramiche ametalli dell’età del Bronzo della Slovacchia 2300–800 a.C.]. Nitra. Furmánek, V. 2015: Kultúrny komplex juhovýchodných popolnicových polí. In: Furmáneketal. 2015, 184–193. Furmánek, V.– Marková, K. 1998: Osobitosti sídliska tellového typu vo Včelinciach [Besonderheiten einer Siedlung des Tell ‑Typs in Vrelince]. Slovenská archeológia 46, 204–224.
168 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 Furmánek, V. – Marková, K. 2001: Beitrag der Ausgrabung der Siedlung in Včelince zur Problematik der Bronzezeit im Thießgebiet. In: C. Kacsó (ed.): Der nordkarpatische Raum in der Bronzezeit. Symposium Baia Mare, 7.–10. Oktober 1998. Bibliotheca Marmatia 1. Baia Mare, 105–118. Furmánek, V.– Mitáš, V. 2016: Systems of Periodization Developed and Used to Study the Urnfield Period in Slovakia. Ressoviensia 11, 19–48. Furmánek, V.– Veliačik, L. 1980: Doba bronzová. Slovenská archeológia 28, 159–179. Furmánek, V.– Veliačik, L. 1991: Anfänge der Urnenfelderkulturen in der Mittel‑ und Ostslowakei. In: M. Gedl (ed.): Die Anfänge der Urnenfelderkulturen in Europa. Archaeologia interregionalis 13. Kraków. 29–46. Furmánek, V.– Vladár, J. 2006: Metallhortfunde aus dem Verfallhorizont der befestigten Siedlungen der Otomani‑ und Maďarovce ‑Kultur in der Slowakei. In: J.V. Kobaľ (ed.): Bronzezeitliche Depotfunde– Problem der Interpretation. Materialien der Festkonferenz für Tivodor Lehoczky zum 175. Geburtstag. Ushhorod, 5–6. Oktober 2005. Užhorod, 184–225. Furmánek, V.– Vladár, J. 2015: Doba bronzová ako historická epocha. In: Furmáneketal. 2015, 11–16. Furmánek, V.– Veliačik, L.– Vladár, J. 1991: Slovensko vdobe bronzovej. Bratislava. Furmáneketal. 2015 = Furmánek, V.– Bátora, J.– Ožďáni, O.– Mitáš, V.– Kujovský, R.– Vladár, J. (eds.): Staré Slovensko 4– Doba bronzová. Nitra. Gancarski, J. 1999a: Chronologia grupy pleszowskiej kultury mierzanowickiej ikultury Otomani ‑Füzesabony w Polsce na podstawie wyników badań wykopaliskowych osad vTrzcinicy iJaśle. In: Gancarski (ed.) 1999b, 145–180. Gancarski, J. ed. 1999b: Kultura Otomani ‑Füzesabony– rozwój, chronologia, gospodarka / Die Otomani ‑Füzesabo‑ ny ‑Kultur – Entwicklung, Chronologie, Wirtschaft. Materiały zkonferencji archeologicznej. Dukla, 27.–28.11.1997. Krosno. Gancarski, J. ed. 2002: Między Mykenami aBałtykiem– Kultura Otomani Füzesabony / Between Mycenae and the Baltic sea: the Otomani ‑Füzesabony culture. Warszawa. Gancarski, J.– Madej, P. 2018: Defensive settlements of the Otomani ‑Füzesabony Culture in the Wisłoka river basin. Gesta 17/2, 34–46. Gašaj, D. 1983: Výsledky záchranného výskumu opevnenej osady otomanskej kultúry vRozhanovciach [Ergebnisse der Rettungsgrabung auf der befestigten Siedlung der Otomani ‑Kultur in Rozhanovce]. Archeologické rozhledy 35, 130–137. Gašaj, D. 1991: Žiarový hrob zo staršej doby bronzovej vDrahňove. Historica Carpatica 22, 121–128. Gašaj, D. 2002: Chronology. In: Gancarski (ed.) 2002, 94–101. Găvan, A. 2016: Connectivity during the Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. Case study: the met‑ alwork. Poster at the conference Bronze Age Connectivity in the Carpathian Basin, 13.–15.10.2016, Târgu Mureş, Romania. Găvan, A.– Ignat, A. 2014: Pecica „Şantul Mare = Nagysánc“, Arad County. In: F. Gogâltan– C. Cordoş– A. Ignat (eds.): Bronze age tell, tell ‑like and mound ‑like settlements on the eastern frontier of Carpathian Basin. History of research. Cluj ‑Napoca, 148–167. Gogȃltan, F. 1999: Bronzul timpuriu şi mijlociu în Banatul românesc şi pe cursul inferior al Mureşului. I. Cronologia şi descoperirile de metal. Bibliotheca historica et archaeologica Banatica 23. Timişoara. Gogȃltan, F. 2015: The Early and Middle Bronze Age chronology on the eastern frontier of the Carpathian Basin. Revisited after 15 years. In: R.E. Németh– B. Rezi (eds.): Bronze Age chronology in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the international colloquium from Târgu Mureş. 2–4. October 2014. Bibliotheca Musei Marisiensis, Seria archaeologica 8. Tȃrgu Mureş, 53–95. Görsdorf, J.– Marková, K.– Furmánek, V. 2004: Some new 14C data to the Bronze Age in Slovakia. Geo‑ chronometria 23, 79–91. Guba, S. 2016: Ahatvani kultúra elterjedése és kutatásának állása Nógrád megyében [The spread of the Hatvan culture and the state of research in Nógrád County]. Tisicum 25, 81–90.
169DOMINIKA ORAVKINOVÁ– JOZEF VLADÁR Horváthová, E. 2011: Pohrebisko otomanskej kultúry vSeni [Gräberfeld der Ottomani ‑Kultur in Seňa]. Štúdijné zvesti 49, 115–141. Jaeger, M. 2010: Transkarpackie kontakty kultury Otomani ‑Füzesabony [Transcarpathian contacts of Otomani ‑Füzesabony culture]. In: J. Gancarski (ed.): Transkarpackie kontakty kulturowe w epoce kamienia, brązu iwczesnej epoce żelaza. Krosno, 313–330. Jaeger, M. 2016: Bronze Age Fortified settlements in Central Europe. Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 17. Poznań. Jaeger, M.– Olexa, L. 2014: The Metallurgists from Nižná Myšľa (okr. Košice ‑Okolie/SK). AContribution to the Discussion on the Metallurgy in defensive Settlements of the Otomani ‑Füzesabony Culture. Archäo‑ logisches Korrespondenzblatt 44, 163–176. Kalicz, N. 1968: Die Frühbronzezeit in Nordostungarn. Budapest. Kemenczei, T. 1967: Die Zagyvapálfalva ‑Gruppe der Pilinyer Kultur. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scienn‑ tiarum Hungaricae 19, 229–305. Kemenczei, T. 1979: Das mittelbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Gelej. Budapest. Kienlin, T.L. 2015: Bronze Age Tell Communities in Context. An Exploration into Culture, Society, and the Study of European Prehistory. 1: Critique Europe and the Mediterranean. Oxford. Kiss, V. 2012: Megjegyzések amagyarországi kora és középső bronzkor relatív és abszolút keltezésének kérdéseihez [Contribution to the relative and absolute chronology of the Hungarian Early and Middle Bronze Age]. In: B. Koloszi (ed.): MomosIV. Őskoros kutatók IV. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete. De‑ brecen, 2005. Március 22–24. Debrecen, 215–250. Kissetal. 2015 = Kiss, V.– Fabián, S.– Hajdu, T.– Köhler, K.– Kulcsár, G.– Major, I.– Szábo, G.: Contribu‑ tions to the relative and absolute chronology of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in western Hungary based on radiocarbon dating of human bones. In: R.E. Németh– B. Rezi (eds.): Bronze Age Chronology in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş, 2.–4. October 2014. Bibliotheca Musei Marisiensis, Seria archaeologica 8. Tȃrgu Mureş, 23–36. Kobaľ, J.V. 2000: Bronzezeitliche Depotfunde aus Transkarpatien (Ukraine). Stuttgart. Koós, J. 2003: Über die Chronologie der Spätphase der Mittelbronzezeit (Füzesabony ‑Kultur) in Nordostun‑ garn. In: C. Kacsó (ed.): Bronzezeitliche Kulturerscheinungen im Karpatischen Raum. Die Beziehungen zu den benachbarten Gebieten. Ehrensymposium für Alexandru Vulpe. Baia Mare 10.–13. Oktober 2001. Bibliotheca Marmatia 2. Baia Mare, 301–326. Kovalčík, R.M. 1970: Záchranný archeologický výskum na „Barimbergu“ pri Spišskom Štvrtku (okr. Spišská Nová Ves). Musaica 21/10, 5–12. Kovács, T. 1975: Tumulus Culture cemeteries of Tiszafüred. Régészeti füzetek 2/17. Budapest. Kovács, T. 1977: Funde der Metallkunst der Koszider ‑Periode aus Siedlungen und Gräberfeldern. Folia archaeologica 28, 39–65. Kovács, T. 1982: Einige neue Angaben zur Ausbildung und inneren Gliederung der Füzesabony ‑Kultur. In: B. Hänsel (ed.): Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v. Chr. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 1. Berlin, 287–304. Köszegi, F. 1968: Mittelbronzezeitliches Gräberfeld in Pusztaszikszó. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scienn‑ tiarum Hungaricae 20, 101–141. Lieetal. 2018 = Lie,M.A.– Cordoş, C.– Găvan, A.– Fazecaş, G.– Kienlin, T.L.– Gogâltan, F.: An overview of the Bronze Age tell ‑settlement in Toboliu (Bihor Conty, Romania). Gesta 17/2, 63–76. Macháček, J. 2001: Studie kvelkomoravské keramice. Metody, analýzy asyntézy, modely. Brno. Marková, K.– Ilon, G. 2013: Slovakia and Hungary. In: H. Fokkens– A.F. Harding (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age. Oxford, 813–836. Meier ‑Arendt, W. ed. 1992: Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell ‑Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Frank‑ furt am Main.
170 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 Molnár, Z. 2014: Contribuţii la cunoaşterea culturii Otomani din Nord ‑Vestul Transilvaniei. Ceramică şi metal. Patrimonium archaeologicum transylvanicum 10. Cluj ‑Napoca. Mozsolics, A. 1957: Archäologische Beiträge zur Geschichte der grossen Wanderung. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 8, 119–156. Mozsolics, A. 1967: Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von Hajdúsámson und Kosziderpadlás. Budapest. Mozsolics, A. 1969: La stratigraphie, base de la chronologie de l’ȃge du bronze de la Hongrie. Origini 3, 275–293. Nováček, T. 2018: Vyhodnotenie materiálu pohrebiska otomansko ‑füzesabonyského kultúrneho komplexu vNižnej Myšli (hroby 1–792). Unpublished PhD Thesis. Masaryk University. Brno. Novotná, M. 1962: Príspevok kosídleniu Spiša vstaršej dobe bronzovej. Musaica 13/2, 27–32. Novotná, M. 1980: Die Nadeln in der Slowakei. Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIII/3. München. Novotný, B.– Kovalčík, R.M. 1967: Sídlisko zo staršej doby bronzovej pri Spišskom Štvrtku, okr. Spišská Nová Ves. Musaica 18/7, 25–46. Olexa, L. 1987: Gräber von Metallgießern in Nižná Myšľa. Archeologické rozhledy 39, 255–275. Olexa, L. 2003: Nižná Myšľa– osada apohrebisko zdoby bronzovej. Košice. Olexa, L.– Nováček, T. 2013: Pohrebisko zo staršej doby bronzovej vNižnej Myšli. Katalóg I(hroby 1–310). Nitra. Olexa, L.– Nováček, T. 2015: Pohrebisko zo staršej doby bronzovej vNižnej Myšli. Katalóg II (hroby 311–499). Nitra. Olexa, L.– Nováček, T. 2017: Pohrebisko zo staršej doby bronzovej vNižnej Myšli. Katalóg III (hroby 500–792). Nitra. Oravkinová, D. 2018: Výšinné opevnené sídlisko otomanskej kultúry vSpišskom Štvrtku vkontexte karpatského kultúrneho vývoja. Unpublished PhD Thesis. The Institute of Archaeology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences. Bratislava– Nitra. Ordentlich, I. 1970: Die Chronologische Gliederung der Otomani ‑Kultur auf dem rumänischen Gebiet und ihre wichtigsten Merkmale. Dacia 14, 83–97. Ožďáni, O. 1986: Zur Problematik der Entwicklung der Hügelgräberkulturen in der Südwestslowakei. Slo‑ venská archeológia 34, 5–96. Ožďáni, O. 2015: Mohylové kultúry. In: Furmáneketal. 2015, 131–162. Pivovarová, Z. 1962: Spišský Štvrtok. Výskumná správa [Excavation report] 1023/62. Dokumentácia AÚ SAV vNitre. Nitra. Pivovarová, Z. 1963: Spišský Štvrtok. Výskumná správa [Excavation report] 1444/63. Dokumentácia AÚ SAV vNitre. Nitra. Polla, B. 1960: Birituelle Füzesabonyer Begräbnisstätte in Streda nad Bodrogom. In: B. Chropovský– M. Dušek– B. Polla (eds.): Pohrebiská zo staršej doby bronzovej na SlovenskuI. Archaeologica Slovaca Fontes 3. Bratislava, 299–386. Przybyła, M.S. 2009: Intercultural contacts in the Western Carpathian area at the turn of the 2nd and 1st millennia BC.Warszawa. Przybyła, M.S. 2016: Early Bronze Age stone architecture discovered in the Polish Carpathians. Archäolo‑ gisches Korrespondenzblatt 46, 291–308. Przybyła, M.S.– Skoneczna, M. 2013: The fortified settlement from Early and Middle Bronze Age at Masz‑ kowice, Nowy Sącz district (Western Carpathians). Preliminary results of studies conducted in the years 2009–2012. Recherches archéologiques (Kraków), n.s. 3, 5–20. Raczky, P.– Hertelendi, E.– Horváth, F. 1992: Zur absoluten Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Tell ‑Kulturen in Ungarn. In: Meier ‑Arendt 1992, 42–47. Říhovský, J. 1983: Die Nadeln in WestungarnI. Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIII/10. München. Schalk, E. 1981: Die Frühbronzezeitliche Tellsiedlung bei Tószeg, Ostungarn, mit Fundmaterial aus der Sammlung Groningen (Niederlande) und Cambridge (Großbritannien). Dacia 25, 63–129. Schalk, E. 1992: Das Gräberfeld von Hernádkak. Studien zum Beginn der Frühbronzezeit im nordöstlichen Kar‑ patenbecken. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 9. Bonn.
171DOMINIKA ORAVKINOVÁ– JOZEF VLADÁR Schalk, E. 1994: Das Gräberfeld der frühbronzezeitlichen Füzesabony ‑Kultur bei Megyaszó, Nordost ‑Ungarn. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 69, 152–174. Szabó, G.V. 2015: Bronzkor. Az őskori fémművesség virágkora [Bronze Age. Golden Age of prehistoric metallwork]. In: Á. Vágó (ed.): AKárpátmedence ősi kincsei. Akőkortól ahonfoglalásig / Ancient treasures of the Carpathian Basin. From the Stone Age untill the Hungarian Conquest. Budapest, 104–183. Szathmári, I.– Guba, S.– Kulcsár, G. 2018: New results on the settlement structure of the Füzesabony‑ ‑Öregdomb Bronze Age tell. Gesta 17/2, 85–103. Šabatová, K. 2007: Sídelní areál střední amladší doby bronzové vPřáslavicích. Unpublished PhD. dissertation. Masaryk University. Brno. Šteiner, P.2002: Inokultúrne vplyvy na keramike otomanskej kultúry zBarce I[Andersartige Kulturein‑ fltisse auf der Keramik der Otomani ‑Kultur aus Barca]. Štúdijné zvesti Archeologického ústavu Slovenskej akadémie vied 35, 149–153. Šteiner, P.2003: Príspevok kchronológií otomansko ‑füzesabonyského kultúrneho komplexu (pohrebisko Streda nad Bodrogom) [Ein Beitrag zur Chronologie des Otomani ‑Füzesabony ‑Kulturkomplexes (Gräber‑ feld Streda nad Bodrogom)]. Studia Historica Nitriensia 11, 84–89. Šteiner, P.2009: Keramický inventár otomansko ‑füzesabonyského kultúrneho komplexu vo svetle nálezov zBarceI. Nitra. Tarbay, J.G. 2015: The Central European „spiral arm ‑guard“. Notes on the Bronze Age asymmetrical arm‑ and anklets. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 2014/2015, 71–106. Tárnoki, J. 1986: Fragen des Fortbestehens der Hatvan ‑Kultur in Nordungarn. In: B. Chropovský (ed.): Urzeitliche und frühhistorische Besiedlung der Ostslowakei in Bezug zu den Nachbargebieten. Nitra, 139–143. Tárnoki, J. 1988: The settlement and cemetery of the Hatvan culture at Aszód. In: T. Kovács– I. Stanczik (eds.): Bronze Age Tell Settlements of the Great Hungarian PlainI. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 1. Budapest, 137–169. Thomas, M. 2008: Studien zu Chronologie und Totenritual der Otomani ‑Füzesabony ‑Kultur. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 86. Bonn. Točík, A. 1964a: Die Gräberfelder der Karpatenländischen Hügelgräberkultur. Fontes Archaeologici Pragen‑ ses 7. Praha. Točík, A. 1964b: Opevnená osada z doby bronzovej vo Veselom. Fontes Instituti Archaeologici Nitriensis Aca‑ demiae Scientiatum Slovacae 5. Bratislava. Točík, A.– Vladár, J. 1971: Prehľad bádania vproblematike vývoja Slovenska vdobe bronzovej [Übersicht der Forschung in der Problematik der bronzezeitlichen Entwicklung der Slowakei]. Slovenská archeológia 19, 365–422. Vicze, M. 1992: Die Bestattungen der Vatya ‑Kultur. In: Meier ‑Arendt 1992, 92–95. Vicze, M. 2011: Bronze Age Cemetery at Dunaújváros ‑Duna ‑dűlő. Dissertationes Pannonicae 4/1. Budapest. Vicze, M. 2013: Koszider– break or continuity? In: M. Vicze– I. Poroszlai– P.Sümegi (eds.): Koszider: Hoard, Phase, Period? Round table conference on the Koszider problem. Százhalombatta, 15–29. Vladár, J. 1970: Zisťovací výskum opevneného sídliska otomanskej kultúry vSpišskom Štvrtku. Východoslo‑ venský Pravek 1, 37–47. Vladár, J. 1972: Predbežná správa osystematickom výskume opevneného sídliska otomanskej kultúry vSpišskom Štvrtku [Verbericht über die Systematische Ausgrabung der befestigten Siedlung der Otomani ‑Kultur in Spišský Štvrtok]. Archeologické rozhledy 24, 18–25. Vladár, J. 1973: Osteuropäische und mediterrane Einflüsse im Gebiet der Slowakei während der Bronzezeit. Slovenská archeológia 21, 253–357. Vladár, J. 1975: Spišský Štvrtok. Opevnená osada otomanskej kultúry. In: III. Medzinárodný kongres slovanskej archeológie, Bratislava, 7.–14. september 1975. Nitra. Vladár, J. 1976: Komplexný výskum opevneného sídliska otomanskej kultúry vSpišskom Štvrtku. Archeo‑ logické výskumy análezy na Slovensku 1975/1976, 215–223.
172 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/2 Vladár, J. 2014: Praveké mestá zdoby bronzovej– Spišský Štvrtok aKošice ‑Barca. Musaica 28, 15–37. Vladár, J.– Oravkinová, D. 2015: Tezaurácia bronzových azlatých predmetov na opevnenom sídlisku vSpišskom Štvrtku [Hoarding of bronze and gold artifacts on the fortified settlement in Spišský Štvr‑ tok]. In: J. Bátora– P.Tóth (eds.): Keď bronz vystriedal meď. Zborník príspevkov zXXIII. Medzinárodného sympózia „Staršia doba bronzová vČechách, na Morave ana Slovensku“. Levice 8.–11. októbra 2013. Ar‑ chaeologica Slovaca Monographiae, Communicationes 18. Bratislava– Nitra, 433–452. Vlček, E.– Hájek, L. 1963: Aritual well and the find of an Early Bronze Age iron dagger at Gánovce near Poprad (Czechoslovakia). In: S. Genovés (ed.): APedro Bosch ‑Gimpera en el septuagésimo aniversario de su nacimiento. Mexico, 427–438. Dominika Oravkinová Institute of Archaeology, Slovak Academy of Science Akademická 2 949 01 Nitra [email protected] Jozef Vladár Institute of Archaeology, Slovak Academy of Science Akademická 2 949 01 Nitra [email protected]