Alpr Dobos Coriolan Horaiu Opreanu

MIGRATION PERIOD AND EARLY MEDIEVAL CEMETERIES AT FNTNELE

(Bistria-Nsud County)

ROMANIAN ACADEMY

INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ART HISTORY CLUJ-NAPOCA

Series

Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum

Editors

Sorin Coci

Adrian Ursuiu

Volume 5

INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ART HISTORY CLUJ-NAPOCA

ALPR DOBOS CORIOLAN HORAIU OPREANU

MIGRATION PERIOD AND EARLY MEDIEVAL

CEMETERIESAT FNTNELE(BISTRIA-NSUD COUNTY)

MEGA PUBLISHING HOUSECluj-Napoca, 2012

With contributions of Szilrd Sndor Gl and Eszter Horvth

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naionale a RomnieiDOBOS ALPR Migration period and early medieval cemeteries at Fntnele / Alpr Dobos, Coriolan Horaiu Opreanu. - Cluj-Napoca : Mega, 2012 Bibliogr. ISBN 978-606-543-259-8

I. Opreanu, Coriolan Horaiu

902(498 Fntnele)

Editura Mega | www.edituramega.ro

e-mail: mega@edituramega.ro

The Authors, 2012

Tehnoredactare:Crina Sincovici

IN MEMORY OF ION HORAIU CRIAN AND FLORIN MEDELE

Ion Horaiu Crian (left) and Florin Medele (right) troweling the princely grave at Cugir

7CONTENTS

Foreword................................................................................................................................ 9

I. Introduction .....................................................................................................................11

II. The graves from the Migration Period .........................................................................13II.1.Burial customs .........................................................................................................13

II.1.1.Orientation ..................................................................................................13II.1.2.Dimensions, depth, and shape of the graves ................................................ 14II.1.3.Animal graves ............................................................................................. 14

II.2.Analysis of grave-goods............................................................................................15II.2.1.Grave 1 VWZ ...............................................................................................15II.2.2.Pit 3 ............................................................................................................15II.2.3.Grave 1 ....................................................................................................... 16II.2.4.Grave 4 .......................................................................................................17

II.3.Chronology ............................................................................................................ 20

III. The Early Medieval Cemetery ...................................................................................... 21III.1.The structure of the cemetery ............................................................................... 21III.2.The population...................................................................................................... 21III.3.Later interventions ............................................................................................... 22III.4.Burial customs ...................................................................................................... 28

III.4.1.Orientation ............................................................................................... 28III.4.2.The graves ................................................................................................. 29

III.4.2.1.Dimensions, depth, and shape of the graves .................................. 29III.4.2.2.Interior structures ......................................................................... 29

III.4.3.The position of the skeletons ......................................................................31III.4.4.Double burials (?) ......................................................................................31III.4.5.Co ns ...................................................................................................... 32III.4.6.Animal bones ............................................................................................ 32

III.4.6.1.Animal bones in human graves ...................................................... 32III.4.6.2.Animal grave................................................................................. 33III.4.6.3.Contexts 20 and 39 ....................................................................... 34

III.4.7.Empty graves ............................................................................................. 35III.5.Analysis of grave-goods ......................................................................................... 35

III.5.1.Personal ornaments and jewellery ............................................................. 35III.5.1.1.Earrings ......................................................................................... 35III.5.1.2.Beads ............................................................................................ 36III.5.1.3.Buckles and belt accessories .......................................................... 37III.5.1.4.Leg garters (Wadenbindengarnituren) ............................................ 42

8III.5.2.Weapons and weapon accessories .............................................................. 43III.5.2.1.Spearheads .................................................................................... 43III.5.2.2.Arrowheads ................................................................................... 46III.5.2.3.Shield-boss .................................................................................... 47III.5.2.4.Pyramidal strap-retainer ............................................................... 47

III.5.3.Tools ......................................................................................................... 49III.5.3.1.Knives ........................................................................................... 49III.5.3.2.Scissors ......................................................................................... 50III.5.3.3.Spindle-whorl ............................................................................... 50

III.5.4.Other objects ............................................................................................ 50III.5.5.Pottery .......................................................................................................51

III.5.5.1.Wheel-thrown pottery ................................................................... 54III.5.5.2.Hand-made pottery ....................................................................... 56

III.6.Chronology ........................................................................................................... 58

IV. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 59

V. Catalogue of graves........................................................................................................ 63

References ........................................................................................................................... 81

Appendix 1. Osteological analysis of human remains (by Szilrd Sndor Gl) ................ 93

Appendix 2. Optical microscope investigation of the glass nds discovered at Fntnele (by Eszter Horvth) ..................................................................... 97

Abbreviations .....................................................................................................................101

Plates ...................................................................................................................................103

9FOREWORD

Starting with the early 1970s Fntnele (Bistria-Nsud County) has been a well-known site in the archaeological literature referring to the Migration Period and Early Middle Ages in Transylvania. Although the excavations carried out on the hill called Dmbul Popii by the research team lead by Ion Horaiu Crian have never been published exhaustively, the site was included in several synthesis works on the topic of the archaeological material from Transylvania belonging to the Migration Period, respectively to the 6th7th centuries. The main goal of the present volume is to ll this gap by publishing all the known data regarding the mentioned discoveries based on the original documentation (written and drawn record) on one hand, and on the grave-goods identi ed with a few exceptions in the depot of the Institute of Archaeology and Art History, Cluj-Napoca, on the other hand.

Due to the fact that the majority of the skeletal material discovered at Fntnele was also preserved in the mentioned location, it was possible to carry out anthro-pological investigations on a part of them (Appendix 1), for which we are grateful to Szilrd Sndor Gl. For the optical microscope investigation of the glass inlays discovered in graves 1 and 6 (Appendix 2) we would like to thank Eszter Horvth.

A substantial part of this research was accomplished with the nancial support o ered to Alpr Dobos by Domus Hungarica Scientiarium et Artium in the frame of a Junior Fellowship awarded in November December 2011 at Budapest, to whom the authors are thankful. The drawing of the archaeological material was done by Narcisa ugar (Institute of Archaeology and Art History, Cluj-Napoca). The authors would also like to thank dr. Sorin Coci and dr. Adrian Ursuiu (Institute of Archaeology and Art History, Cluj-Napoca) for the possibility of publishing these results in the series Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum.

The authors,Cluj-Napoca, 01.10.2012

11

IINTRODUCTIONThe excavations at Fntnele (Hungarian: Szszjs, js; German: Neusch, Eisch, Bistria-Nsud County) began in 1969. The nd-spot called Dmbul Popii is located on the south-western part of the village, near the reformed church (Pl. 1). The main task of the research team lead by Ion Horaiu Crian and composed of Tudor Soroceanu and Florin Medele1 was the investigation of the cremation cemetery dated in the La Tne Period identi ed in 19672 on this plateau. The eld research lasted until 1976 and resulted, beside the excavation of the mentioned cemetery from the La Tne Period, in the identi cation of several groups of inhumation graves dated in di er-ent periods. From methodological point of view the excavation consisted of 1 m wide trenches of di erent lenght; between these a 0.3 m space was left (Pl. 56).

The rst group of archaeological features discussed in the present volume was unearthed in 1972 consisting of one human and four animal graves. On the grounds of the archaeological material they were dated in the Migration Period and therefore the human grave was named grave1VWZ (Vlkerwanderungszeit), while the animal graves were considered pits and num-bered from 2 to 5. Unfortunately, the exact position of these features is unknown since none of them was marked on the general plan of the excavation. The only information comes from the written record where it is mentioned that they had been discovered in trench I excavated in order to verify the area of the new reformat cemetery which was planed to be opened at the end of the same year. On the grounds of this information the graves in question can be roughly located on the territory of the actual cemetery (Pl. 1). It seems that they formed a small group of graves; however, it is not clear enough if the three trenches excavated with this purpose man-aged to cover the whole area of the modern cemetery excluding the possibility of the existence of other, unobserved graves.

In the next year another grave belonging to the Migration Period was discovered which, on the basis of its topographical position, seems to be an isolated burial. In order to distinguish it from the Scythian and La Tne graves, a new numbering was started using Roman numerals, thus the discussed burial became grave I. Another small group belonging to the Migration Period and consisting of four burials was identi ed in 1974. In spite of the relatively great distance from grave I they were considered to be part of the same cemetery and were numbered continuously, i.e. IIV.

In 1975, eastwards from the previously mentioned area, several graves were also identi ed which can be dated in the 6th7th centuries; however, the chronological di erence between these and graves IV was not recognized immediately by the leaders of the excavation. In the course of 19751976 there were unearthed 59 graves belonging to this Early Medieval cemetery which

1 George Marinescu (19701973), tefan Dnil (1970), Teodor Cmpan (1973) and Coriolan Horaiu Opreanu (1976) were also part of the eld research team.

2 DNIL 1974, 465.

12

were numbered continuously from VI to LXV3. For practical reasons it was decided to renumber the graves, using in this volume Arabic numerals instead of Roman ones. On the other hand, the numbering of grave 1 VWZ and pits 25 were not changed.

Since the end of the excavations no monographic publication has been published and, because of the quite complicated situation presented above, several confusions appeared in the archaeological literature, mainly regarding to the number4 and the dating of the graves. The rst archaeological reports, referring to the excavations from 19721974, mentioned the burials belonging to the Migration Period, without the exact number of the discovered graves5. Later, these burials were considered to be part of the Early Medieval cemetery which was dated in the 5th6th centuries.6

The only burial which was exhaustively published by the leaders of the excavation in 1991 is grave 47 which, at the same time, is the richest one discovered at FntneleDmbul Popii. Later, it was included in Radu Harhoius monograph on the Early Migration Period in Romania as well.8 Both the graves from the Migration Period and the cemetery from the 6th7th century were discussed in the PhD thesis of Corneliu Gaiu, without o ering an exhaustive description9. A few artefacts discovered in the latter one were included also in the Catalogue of the exhibition organized on the topic of the Gepids in Transylvania in 201110.

3 Grave XXVIII turned out to be the same as grave 93 dated in the Scythian Period.4 Regarding the number of the graves the confusions were created, among others, by the fact that not all the authors

discussed separated the Migration Period graves and the Early Medieval ones. Thus the number of the burials belonging to the Migration Period varies between one and three (one: HARHOIU 19992001, 151, Nr.41/a.1; HARHOIU 20042005, 311, Nr. 37/a1; GEPIZII 2011, 36, nr. 46/b1; two: HOREDT 1977, 267, Nr. 10; two or three: GAIU 1999a, 194, nr. 8/a; three: DNIL 1974, 470; CSEH 1990, 69, 31/A), while the number of the ones dated in the 6th7th centuries oscillates between 41 and over 100 (41: HARHOIU 19992001, 151, Nr. 41/a.2; 46: HOREDT 1977, 267, Nr. 10; CSEH 1990, 69, 31/B; 60: GAIU 1999a, 194, nr. 8/b; 61: GEPIZII 2011, 36, nr. 46/b2; over 100: EAIVR 1996, 127 considering all the excavated graves to be part of the same cemetery).

5 MORINTZ 1973, 375, no. 62; DNIL 1974, 470; STOIA 1975, 285, no. 79.6 STOIA 1976, 277, no. 51/a; STOIA 1977, 363, no. 55. 7 CRIAN OPREANU 1991.8 HARHOIU 1998, 174, Nr. 38.1, Taf. LXXXVIII/C.9 GAIU 1999a, 194195, nr. 8.10 GEPIZII 2011, 139142, nr. 129137. The artefacts were borrowed by C. Opreanu to C. Gaiu for an exhibition

at Bistria. C. Gaiu published them under his name in the Catalogue without asking permission from the owner (Institute of Archaeology and Art History Cluj-Napoca C. Opreanu), breaking the deontological rules without any explanation.

13

IITHE GRAVES FROM THE M IGRATION PERIODAs it was shown above, from a topographical point of view, the graves dating from the Early Migration Period and the partially excavated cemetery belonging to the 6th7th centuries at FntneleDmbul Popii can be easily separated. Unfortunately, the exact place of each grave of the former group is not known, since the plan of the excavations contains only the burials belonging to the Early Iron Age and the La Tne period, respectively the inhumation graves unearthed during the campaigns from 19731976 marked with numbers from 1 to 65.Because of this situation, the position of the grave 1 VWZ and of the pits 25 inside the cemetery is unclear. It seems that graves 25 formed a group which was situated relatively far from grave 1. These circumstances make it impossible to analyze in detail the structure of this early grave group.

II.1. BURIAL CUSTOMS

II.1.1. Orientation

Due to the lack of information regarding the pits 2511, the more or less exact orientation is known only in the case of graves 1 VWZ and 15.These six graves can be divided in three groups: graves with NS orientation (graves 1, 2), one grave with SN orientation (grave 3) and graves with WE orientation (graves 1 VWZ, 4, 5). This situation of cemeteries with mixed orientation is typical for the end of the 4th century rst half of the 5th century. This period can be char-acterized by the mixture of di erent cultural in uences not only from the point of view of the artefacts, but also in what concerns the burial customs. These characteristics appear in di erent proportion in the cemeteries of the period12.

Generally, the graves with di erent orientation inside one cemetery were interpreted on chronological, religious and ethnic-cultural grounds. For example, in the cemetery at TiszadobSziget, the graves with WE orientation were considered as representing a later phase than those oriented SN13. The same conclusion was drawn also in the case of the cemetery at rtndBiharkeresztesKisfarkasdomb, where the three WE oriented graves were included in the latest phase of the cemetery14. Regarding the cultural background, the SN orientation was explained as a re ection of Sarmatian traditions, while the NS one was connected to the Sntana de Mure / Marosszentanna-ernjachov culture15. The WE orientation appeared already in the area of the Sntana de Mure / Marosszentanna-ernjachov culture, representing a minority16. During the

11 Neither the drawn nor the written documentation contains any data referring to their orientation. 12 For a general view see ISTVNOVITS KULCSR 1999.13 ISTVNOVITS 1991, 3035; ISTVNOVITS KULCSR 1999, 69.14 MESTERHZY 2007, 268.15 ISTVNOVITS KULCSR 1999.16 ISTVNOVITS 1991, 34 (with further bibliography); for the situation of the Transylvanian cemeteries see HICA-

CMPEANU 1979, 164; for the graveyards from Muntenia see MITREA PREDA 1966, 123124.

14

5th century in the Carpathian Basin it became the dominant way of orienting the graves, and it was used almost exclusively in the row-grave cemeteries from the Gepidic/Langobard Period17.

Taking into account the small number of graves and more important the lack of data, at Fntnele it is di cult to draw conclusions regarding the proportion of the NS and WE ori-entated graves. The same is valid for their chronological relation, because only pit 3 and graves 1 and 4 contained more or less datable nds (see below).

II.1.2. Dimensions, depth, and shape of the graves

All the graves in discussion were disturbed; therefore the reconstruction of their dimen-sions and shape should be done carefully. Grave 1 had unusually big dimensions: 3.221.59m. Its northern half was wider, which possibly can be connected to a later reopening. On these grounds it cannot be excluded that grave 1 initially had an oval shape.

It can be observed that the two NS oriented human graves (1, 2) are bigger than those hav-ing a WE orientation, mainly in what concerns their width18. A similar di erence was detected also in the cemeteries from the area of the Sntana de Mure / Marosszentanna-ernjachov culture, just like in the case of the cemetery at TiszadobSziget (this time between the graves ori-ented SN and WE)19. The majority of the graves (1 VWZ, 1, 5) have a more or less oval shape. Grave 4 is rectangular (or slightly rhomboidal); grave 2 is straight on its northern end, while the southern end is rounded.

Taking a closer look to the depth, grave 1 draws the attention again: it is the deepest (1.67m)20, being followed by the other NS oriented grave (no. 2) (1.02m). The graves with WE orientation are less deep, varying between 0.33 (grave 5) and around 0.75 m (grave 4).

In three cases (graves 1, 2, 4) steps were observed along one (graves 2 and 4) or both of the long edges (grave 1). Just like the case of the cemetery dated in the 6th7th centuries, the ques-tion referring to the validity of these steps and if they can be connected to later interventions, remains open. Even if not characteristic, this phenomenon was observed several times in the cemeteries from the 4th5th centuries21.

II.1.3. Animal graves

Out of the ve graves which contained only animal bones four (pits 25) cannot be located exactly, the only certain fact in this direction is that they were laying close one to the other in the neighbouring area of grave 1 VWZ. The fth grave (nr. 3) was situated next to the human grave 2; therefore a connection between them seems probable.

The way the animals (probably horses) were deposited in the graves is di cult to recon-struct, due to the fact that all of them were disturbed. On the basis of the bones which were left in the graves (some of them, in original position) it can be presumed that the complete body of the animals was buried. Generally, the burial pits were oval and narrow; their depth varied from 0.70 m to 2.15 m measured from the surface22.

Horse bones were discovered also in grave 1, being mixed with the human ones. The dis-turbed condition of the grave makes it impossible to draw further conclusions.

17 For a general overview see OTTOMNYI 2001, 4445.More scholars connected this change to the adoption of Christianity, see e.g. HICA-CMPEANU 1979, 164; MITREA PREDA 1966, 160.

18 NS orientation: grave 1: 3.221.59m, grave 2: 2.121.21m; WE orientation: grave 1 VWZ: 1.630.51m, grave 4: 2.090.80m, grave 5: 1.870.67m.

19 ISTVNOVITS 1991, 35.20 The depths are calculated from the level of the identi cation of the graves.21 E. g. Budapest-Gazdagrt: ZSIDI 1987, 66; Pty: OTTOMNYI 2001, 43.22 Unfortunately, no information is given regarding the identi cation level of the graves; only the relative depth,

measured from the level of the contemporary walking surface, was recorded.

15

II.2. ANALYSIS OF GRAVE-GOODSII.2.1. Grave 1 VWZ

The single nd from this grave is a looped iron mount of longish triangular shape (Pl.3/1VWZ/2; Pl.36/4) discovered above the basin of the skeleton. Judging after its shape, it could belong to a bit, having the role of connecting the bridle and the mouthpiece. Objects of similar form were discovered xed on bits with cheek pieces, for example at Apahida, princely grave 223 or at Deersheim, grave 924.

A bronze object with somewhat similar structure, but of straighter form was discovered in the female grave dating from the second half of the 5th century at Aquincum/buda25. Due to its secondary position the exact functionality could not be established. According to gnes B. Tth the piece served most likely for suspending a heavy object and was xed on a thick strap of leather or a piece of wood. However, the same author did not exclude the possibility that the artefact had initially another purpose, most likely as part of the harness, and later received a secondary functionality26.

Since the object from Fntnele had no associated nds, it is di cult to date it or to o er a closer interpretation.

II.2.2. Pit 3

The iron brooch discovered in the ll of pit 3 (Pl.4/P3/4; Pl.36/2) is fragmentary, the foot is completely missing and the pin is only partially preserved. This fragmentary state of preservation impedes seriously its typological framing. Based on the relatively narrow spring and the shape of the bow, it possibly can be connected to the Viminacium type brooches27. However, this typologi-cal identi cation is not certain, taking into consideration that the foot with the pin holder, one of the most representative components of the type, is missing. Most of the brooches of Viminacium type were discovered in the North-Balkans, along the Danube limes, but in smaller quantity they are known from the North-Danubian areas, as well. They were dated in the period between the middle of the 5th century and the beginning of the 6th century28. Simple iron brooches were pre-sent on several Transylvanian sites of the period, rst of all being attested in settlements29, less frequently in cemeteries30.

The iron buckle (Pl.4/P3/3; Pl. 36/1) discovered in the same grave belongs to the large group of buckles with ribbed decoration, representing the kidney-shaped variant without plate. Buckles of similar shape with or without decoration are known in a relative high number from the Middle Danube region in the course of the 5th century, the majority of them being made of non-ferrous metals31. Regarding the technique of the ribbed decoration, having as starting point a few buckles (Gyngysapti, Drslavice, Borovoje, Marchegg) dated in the Hun Age32, an east-ern origin was accepted by several archaeologists33. Based on this presumption, as well as on a

23 HOREDT PROTASE 1972, 185186, Abb.7/1, Taf.45/4a-b.24 The two undecorated pieces are made of bronze: SCHNEIDER 1983, 220, Abb.74/3, 8.25 B. TTH 2010, Fig.6.4/8, Fig.6.5/8.26 B. TTH 2010, 201202.27 SCHULZE-DRLAMM 1986, 605608, Abb.11.28 SCHULZE-DRLAMM 1986, 605608, for their distribution see 713, Fundliste 3, 606, Abb.12; IVANIEVI

KAZANSKI MASTYKOVA 2006, 17.29 E. g. Moreti: HOREDT 1979a, Taf. 41/4/8; Bratei, settlement no. 1: BRZU 19941995, 255, Fig. 16/1113;

FloretiPolus Center: LZRESCU 2009, Pl.XXVIII/5.30 E. g. Moreti, grave 17: POPESCU 1974, 218, Taf.5/89.31 B. TTH 2010, 193195.32 WERNER 1956, Taf.41/9, 43/1112, 51/4, 12/B6.33 GARSCHA 1962, 159160; WIECZOREK 1987, 420421; UENZE 1992, 178179.

16

few pieces discovered in the Gepidic milieu34, some of the buckles with ribbed decoration, for example the ones from Rakovani, IatrusKrivina, or Mlhofen, were interpreted as Danubian/Gepidic/Gothic in uences35.

Recently, a few buckles mainly of higher quality from the territory of the Byzantine Empire were published36. None of these nds were discovered in closed contexts, thus they can-not be dated precisely. Therefore Brigitte Haas presumed that these Byzantine buckles could rep-resent the prototypes for the Hun and Merovingian Age pieces37. In Mechtild Schulze-Drlamms opinion they represent the evidence that both the kidney-shaped and the oval buckles with ribbed decoration can be considered products of Byzantine workshops, excluding the possibility that they could have been produced also by craftsmen in the Middle Danube Region38. On stylis-tic grounds she dated the kidney-shaped variant roughly to the end of the 5th early 6th century and the oval variant to a longer period between the end of the 5th and the second half of the 6th century39. In the Middle Danube region the buckles belonging to this type were placed mainly in Phase D3 (Mitteldonaulndische Phase 2), i.e. in the period around 450470/8040.

The lack of the well datable related nds makes impossible a closer chronological interpre-tation of the buckle from Fntnele. The rst examples appeared already in the rst half of the 5th century, the type being in use mainly in the second half of the 5th century until the beginning of the next one41. This is the period in which the buckle from Fntnele can be placed. A similar dating must be accepted also for the whole pit 3.

II.2.3. Grave 1

The inventory of grave 1 consisted of three small gilded mounts with glass inlay, made of copper alloy (Pl.5/1/24; Pl.36/57) and a very small fragment of a comb (Pl.5/1/5). Due to its fragmentary state of preservation, the type of the latter one cannot be identi ed.

The functionality of the three mounts is unclear. They were discovered on the bottom of the grave, relatively far from each other. Their original number is unknown. The form and struc-ture suggest that they could be xed on a ring. If so, they could belong to a strap distributor42 or could be part of the harness43. Judging after their form and decoration they could also be con-nected to the small buckles and suspension rings known from numerous graves from the Hunnic Age44. The loop of the mounts from Fntnele excludes the possibility that they belonged to buck-les, because there is no space for xing the buckle-pin; instead it seems possible that they were part of suspension rings fastened on the belt. Both the small buckles and suspension rings repre-

34 Breaza: HOREDT 1958a, Abb.28/4; KormadinJakovo: DIMITRIJEVI 1960, Tab. I/7; SzentesKknyzug, grave 69, Kiszombor, grave 247, Komitat Szabolcs (Museum Nyregyhza), Hungary (Hungarian National Museum): CSALLNY 1961, Taf.XVI/15, Taf.CXLII/8, Taf.CCI/17, Taf.CCXVI/9. Recently, another buckle with rhombic plate was published from OradeaSalca Gherie, grave 5: HARHOIU GLL LAKATOS 2009, 221, Abb.5/8.

35 Rakovani: MILETI 1975, 209210, Taf. II/11; IatrusKrivina: GOMOLKA-FUCHS 1991, 171, Taf. 58/777; GOMOLKA-FUCHS 1995, 103, Taf.2/15; Mlhofen: GRUNWALD 1998, 52, Abb.7/2.

36 Byblos or Tyros and Achmin: HAAS SCHEWE 1993, 265, Nr.89, Abb.11; two buckles from Asia Minor and one with unknown place of discovery from the Byzantine Empire: SCHULZE-DRLAMM 2002, 1317, Nr.57; Ibida/Slava Rus: OPAI 1991, 47, nr. 47, Fig.18/47.

37 HAAS SCHEWE 1993, 263.38 SCHULZE-DRLAMM 2002, 1215.39 SCHULZE-DRLAMM 2002, 1315.40 TEJRAL 2005, 123.41 HARHOIU 1998, 106.42 Such objects with similar mounts as the ones from Fntnele are known, for example, from the North-Caucasus

region, from Koumboulta and Kamunta and were interpreted as sets belonging to the headdress: AKHMEDOV 2007, 264265, Fig.1/2122.

43 Horse bones were also discovered in the grave.44 BNA 1991, 106, Abb.41, 255.

17

sent typical nds of the elite male graves, generally being made of gold and decorated with pre-cious stone inlay45. Concerning the fastening system, similar pieces with the ones from Fntnele can be mentioned e. g. from SzegedNagyszkss46, Untersiebenbrunn47 or Lengyeltti48. This group of artefacts represent one of the most typical objects of the phase D2, i.e. the Hunnic Age, being represented in a much smaller number in the following period49. They were used mainly as elements of the belt-set or, less frequently, as part of the harness50.

The decoration of the abovementioned suspender rings and small buckles consists gener-ally of a round inlaid stone or glass plate, but kidney-shaped inlays occur less frequently. Such decoration is known e. g. from one of the suspender rings from SzegedNagyszkss51 or from a small buckle plate discovered in the second princely grave at Apahida52. Kidney-shaped stone and glass inlays had a wide distribution all around Europe53, being in use both in the Byzantine Empire and the Barbaricum. The earliest objects decorated with this kind of inlays appeared already in the 4th century, reaching the heyday of their popularity in the 5th century, mainly in its second and third quarter54.

Taking into consideration the raw materials55 (copper alloy, glass) used for the manufac-turing of the mounts from Fntnele in comparison with the ones (gold, precious stones) out of which the suspender rings of the elite men from the Hun Age were produced, one can presume that the mounts in question represent a cheaper imitation made after the golden prototypes of the period. This hypothesis is supported also by the technique applied for the production of the pieces from Fntnele. They were cast out of copper alloy, their surface being gilded in order to create the impression of golden objects. In the same time, the technique of the inlay is much simpler than in the case of the objects of high quality: there was no golden backing foil beneath the inlayed glass plate, only the surface of the mount is gilded, without having any decoration. On these grounds, it seems probable that the mounts discovered in grave 1 at Fntnele can be considered imitations of the similar objects of the period and can be dated in the Hunnic Age or slightly later.

II.2.4. Grave 456

Even if disturbed, grave 4 had the most numerous nds out of the burials from FntneleDmbul Popii. Beside this, it draws the attention also because of the arti cially deformed skull of the deceased57.

The brooch with triangular head-plate, rhombic foot-plate and chip-carved (Kerbschnitt) decoration (Pl.6/4/3; Pl.35/1) belongs to the Pra-Levice type de ned by Joachim Werner58. Based on the similar brooches discovered in Crimea, Werner believed that the type developed in workshops from South-Russia, and was distributed in the Middle Danube region in the mid-

45 KELLER 1967, 112113; TEJRAL 1988, 254; KAZANSKI AKHMEDOV 2007, 253254.46 FETTICH 1953, I. tbla/77a.47 KELLER 1967, Abb.1/11.48 BAKAY 1978, Abb.3/5, Abb.4/5.49 TEJRAL 1988, 254, Abb.21/15, 1315; KAZANSKI AKHMEDOV 2007, 253255.50 KAZANSKI AKHMEDOV 2007, 255.51 FETTICH 1953, I. tbla/88a.52 HOREDT PROTASE 1972, Taf.33/4.53 For their distribution see SCHMAUDER 2002, I, 332333, Fundliste 9, II, 114, Karte 7.54 For a detailed discussion about the distribution and dating of the artefacts with kidney-shaped inlay see QUAST

2007, 3942.55 For a more detailed analysis of the raw materials and the manufacturing technique see the contribution of Eszter

Horvth in this volume (Appendix 2).56 Grave 4 was already published:CRIAN OPREANU 1991; later it was also included in HARHOIU 1998, 174,

Nr.38.1, Taf.LXXXVIII/C.57 See the contribution of Szilrd Sndor Gl in this volume (Appendix 1).58 WERNER 1959, 428431.

18

dle and the second half of the 5th century59. Later, the Crimean origin and the distribution path proposed by Werner were questioned, and it was suggested that the type appeared in the Danube area being distributed the other way around, i.e. in WestEast direction60. Anyway, the dispersal area of the brooches of Pra-Levice type61 shows a higher concentration in the area of the Middle- and Lower Danube than in South-Russia. Beside the brooch from Fntnele, in Transylvania only a pair of brooches belonging to the discussed type were discovered at Bratei, grave 2/196862. As dating of the Pra-Levice type brooches, the middle/second half of the 5th century was generally accepted63. The brooch from Fntnele, grave 4 can be placed in this period as well, a closer dating being impossible due to the lack of well datable related nds.

The second brooch (Pl. 6/4/8; Pl. 35/2) discovered in grave 4 belongs to the type with reverted foot. Such artefacts are known from the Late Roman Period as well as from the sites belonging to the Sntana de Mure / Marosszentanna ernjachov culture, being in use through the whole Migration Period. Since the brooch in question is fragmentary, only the foot being preserved, its closer typological and chronological interpretation is not possible.

The earring with massive polyedric button (Pl.6/4/4; Pl.35/7) belongs to one of the most common types of the period. The origin of these earrings was the subject of debate among the scholars. In the archaeological literature two main theories can be distinguished regarding this problem. This situation resulted from the observation that the earliest examples appeared at the end of the 4th/beginning of the 5th century both in the Caucasus area and in the Late Roman cem-eteries in Pannonia and Noricum. Therefore a few specialists believed that the Late Roman earrings with massive polyedric button from the Middle Danube region (Lorch/Lauriacum, Dunajvros/Intercisa, Cskvr) can be considered the earliest pieces and, in the same time, can be connected to the Roman population, excluding any barbarian in uences. According to this theory the type was taken over from the Roman provinces by the di erent (mainly Eastern Germanic) populations64. In opposition to the hypothesis of Late Roman roots, other scholars argued in favour of an eastern origin. The adepts of this theory emphasized the importance of the early nds from the Caucasus region suggesting an EastWest direction of distribution. In their view the presence of the earrings with massive polyedric button in the Late Roman cemeteries could be the result of migration from the East of di erent communities, and in consequence they represent foreign elements. In the case of the cemetery at Cskvr they were connected to colonized communities settled down in Pannonia in the Late Roman Period65. Other researchers believed that they were distributed in the Middle Danube region by the migration of the Goths66, Alans67, or the Huns68. At the present stage of the research it cannot be decided with certainty in which territory the earrings with massive polyedric button appeared for the rst time; it seems probable that they were produced as early as the end of the 4th century both in the area of the Caucasus and in the Danubian provinces69.

59 WERNER 1959, 431.60 For the history of research see HEINRICH 1990, 9495.Based on the general dating in the Hunnic Age of the cem-

etery at BotoaniDealu Crmidriei, where in grave 1 a brooch of Pra-Levice type was discovered, R. Harhoiu suggested also a distribution from the Middle Danube area in the direction of Crimea: HARHOIU 1998, 102.

61 Recently TEJRAL 2008, 260, Abb.6.62 BRZU 1986, 99100, Fig.5/23; HARHOIU 1998, 167, Nr. 17.3, Taf. LXXXIX/A/1213.63 WERNER 1959, 431; HEINRICH 1990, 95; HARHOIU 1998, 102; TEJRAL 2008, 258259, Abb.5/9.64 BIERBRAUER 1975, 164165; B. VG BNA 1976, 196197; BNA 1979, 3738.65 SALAMON BARKCZI 1971, 74; see also FREEDEN 1980, 287.66 FREEDEN 1980, 286287; However, the type is unknown in the territory of the Sntana de Mure / Marosszentanna

ernjachov culture considered to be representative for the Goths from this period, see SALAMON BARKCZI 1971, 63; B. VG BNA 1976, 196197; HOREDT 1979b, 245; ISTVNOVITS 1993, 121.

67 HOREDT 1979b, 245246.68 HARHOIU 1998, 6263.69 ISTVNOVITS 1993, 121; see also HARHOIU 1998, 6263.

19

During the whole 5th century and the rst half of the 6th century the earrings with mas-sive polyedric button were very popular, being distributed in large areas of Middle- and Eastern Europe. They also represent one of the most characteristic nds of the Gepidic Age cemeteries both in the Tisza-region and Transylvania. Recently, on the basis of the distribution map of the type in the Gepidic Age cemeteries70, it was suggested that a concentration of the discoveries could be observed in Transylvania71. Due to the fact that from a formal point of view they did not change during the abovementioned period, a closer dating is possible only in those cases when it is o ered by the related nds72.

The small copper alloy object with longish form and sharp ending (Pl.7/4/2; Pl.35/4) was interpreted in the rst publication as a pendant which was probably xed on a thin wire ring or with a rivet, as the small ori ce on the upper end suggested73. Later, it was included in the cate-gory of the strap-ends74. Unfortunately, the position of the object inside the grave (Pl.6/4/1) can-not o er any further hints regarding the functionality. Strap-ends with similar shape are known from the Hunnic Age75, for example from the grave discovered at Lengyeltti76; however, their length (6.9 and 7.1cm) is approximately double in comparison with the object from Fntnele (3.17 cm). A small strap-end with a length of 3.5 cm comes from grave 1 from Mezkvesd-Mocsolys77 belonging to the 5th century.

The most numerous grave-goods coming from grave 4 are represented by the beads. These are quite varied both from the point of view of the row material and the shape. Due to the post-burial disturbances all of them were discovered in secondary position. In the archaeological collec-tions of the Institute of Archaeology and Art History, Cluj-Napoca the beads discovered in grave 4 were deposited threaded on two di erent strings (Pl.7/4/1, 4; Pl.35/6, 9) which are completely arti cial and have nothing to do with the situation documented in the moment of the excavation. On the basis of the observations made in the case of the princely grave at Turda, it was presumed that the 386 small glass beads from grave 4 at Fntnele could have been sewn on the dress78. Such hypothesis cannot be totally excluded. However, judging after the plan of the grave it seems more likely that all the beads were part of a single string which in the moment of the reopening was still intact. On this string the small beads were combined with other types, of bigger dimensions.

Out of the 401 beads discovered in the discussed grave 398 are made of glass, 2 of coral, and 1 of amber. The most numerous category of the glass beads is represented by the so-called millet type (Pl.7/4/4; Pl.35/9). Such beads of small dimensions represent one of the most common types of the period, being in use for a long time. They occur quite frequent both in the Hunnic79 and the Gepidic Age80. In the Avar Period they appear more frequently in the last third of the 7th century and at the beginning of the 8th century, but in a smaller quantity they are known also from the early phase81. The large green beads of attened globular shape (Pl.7/4/1.fi; Pl.35/6.fi) can be related to beads of Tempelmann-Mczyska group II, type 42a82; however, two of them (Pl.7/4/1.gh;

70 HOREDT 1979b, 242, Abb.1, 247248, Fundliste 1/A; CSEH 1990, 53, 16.lista, XVI. trkp.71 FERENCZ NAGY LZRESCU 2009, 430.72 HOREDT 1979b, 243244.73 CRIAN OPREANU 1991, 117.74 HARHOIU 1998, 174.75 For a general overview see KAZANSKI AKHMEDOV 2007, 255258.76 BAKAY 1978, 152, Abb.3/1011.77 LOVSZ 2005, 5051, Taf.34/1.3, Taf.86/3.78 BRBULESCU 2008, 61, 161.79 CRIAN OPREANU 1991, 120.80 E. g. Slimnic: GLODARIU 1974, Abb.2/3; Cluj-Cordo, grave IV: HICA FERENCZI 2006, Fig.1/3; Floreti

Polus Center, grave 3 and CX 41B: FERENCZ NAGY LZRESCU 2009, Pl.V/1, Pl.XVI/4; they were frequent in the cemetery at Moreti: POPESCU 1974, 207.

81 PSZTOR 2008, 315316.82 TEMPELMANN-MCZYSKA 1985, 18, Taf.1/42a.

20

Pl.35/6.gh) have a more irregular section. These kind of beads were widely distributed, being in use for a long time comprising the period between phases B1 and D.83 The three brown globular beads (Pl.7/4/1.c, kl; Pl.35/6.c, kl) as well as the smaller blue ones (Pl.7/4/1.b,m; Pl.35/6.b,m) represent common types, too. The bead with cogged decoration (Pl.7/4/1.d; Pl.35/6.d) belongs to a less frequently used category. Similar pieces were discovered in several cemeteries dated in the second half of the 4th century and the rst half of the 5th century84. Even if rarer, the mentioned decoration appears also in the Gepidic Age cemeteries85. The tubular bead of blue colour with hexagonal section (Pl.7/4/1.n; Pl.35/6.n) may be connected to the category of the glass beads with polygonal section (Tempelmann-Mczyska group XII) identi ed in the Central-European Barbaricum in the period beginning with phase B2/C1 until the end of phase D, or even later86. The single amber bead (Pl.7/4/1.e; Pl.35/6.e) discovered in grave 4 has an irregular discoid shape, similar to the ones belonging to Tempelmann-Mczyska group XXXVI, type 403 dated in the period beginning with phase B2/C1 until the Late Migration Period87.

As it was already pointed out in the rst publication of the grave88, the bronze coin of Constans (Pl.35/5) minted in Siscia in the period between 341 and 34689 cannot o er a starting point for the dating of the whole funeral assemblage. As it was shown above the associated nds indicate a later chronological position, at least with a century.

II.3. CHRONOLOGYDue to the insu ciency of data as well as the small number of the well datable grave-goods,

the chronological interpretation of the burials belonging to the Migration Period at Fntnele cannot be precisely established.

It seems that the NS oriented grave 1 is the earliest one which on the basis of the mounts with glass inlay can be generally dated in the Hunnic Age, or slightly later. The relative big dis-tance between grave 1 and graves 25 suggests that it was an isolated burial which was not directly related to the other ones.

Out of the group composed of graves 25 only grave 4 can be dated; graves 2 and 5 did not contain any grave-goods due to the post-burial disturbances, while the objects discovered in grave 3 could not be identi ed in the Institute of Archaeology and Art History, Cluj-Napoca. However, it is sure that the four graves formed a group and therefore the chronological di erences between them cannot be too wide. Despite the fact that grave 4 contained a coin of Constans, it can be dated on basis of the other grave-goods which show a much later chronological position. Among them the best datable element is represented by the brooch of Pra-Levice type which indicates a dating in the middle or, more probably, in the second half of the 5th century.

As it was already mentioned above, the topographical position of grave 1 VWZ and pits 25 is uncertain, so the question of their relation to the other graves remains open. The few grave-goods discovered in these burials (mainly those coming from pit 3) indicate a dating in the mid-dle/second half of the 5th century, or possibly the beginning of the next one.

83 TEMPELMANN-MCZYSKA 1985, 31, 97, Tab. 8.84 CRIAN OPREANU 1991, 119.85 E. g. Kiszombor, grave 279: CSALLNY 1961, Taf.CXXXVI/1213; Szreg-Tglagyr, grave 46: NAGY 2005b,

Taf.55/46.1; Cluj-Cordo, grave IV: HICA FERENCZI 2006, Fig.1/3.86 TEMPELMANN-MCZYSKA 1985, 35, Taf.2/108122.87 TEMPELMANN-MCZYSKA 1985, 69, Taf.15/403.88 CRIAN OPREANU 1991, 120.89 CRIAN OPREANU 1991, 117.

21

IIITHE EARLY MEDIEVAL CEMETERYIII.1. THE STRUCTURE OF THE CEMETERYAs it was shown above (Chapter I) the Early Medieval cemetery is sharply delimited from the graves dated in the Migration Period, being situated towards SouthEast from these (Pl.5557). It seems that no connection can be demonstrated between them.

On the basis of the main characteristics (inhumation rite, WestEast orientation of the graves, presence of grave-goods etc.) the cemetery can be connected to the type of the so-called row-grave cemeteries (Reihengrberfelder), typical for Western- and Central-Europe in the Merovingian Period. The graves are arranged in more or less parallel rows orientated NorthSouth.

Unfortunately the dimensions of the cemetery are not known, the plan of the excava-tion (Pl. 56) suggests that it was partially excavated. On these grounds it can be surely stated that the northern edge of the necropolis was identi ed; instead its extension towards south remainsunsettled.

In the excavated part of the cemetery three cases of superposition were registered:graves 34 and 35, context 39 and grave 41, respectively graves 54 and 58 were intersecting each other. Unfortunately it is not clearly speci ed in the documentation what kind of relative chronological relation can be established between the mentioned features.

III.2. THE POPULATION

Because the cemetery was not entirely excavated the exact number of the buried indi-viduals at Fntnele remains unknown. Another factor which seriously hinders a more thorough analysis concerning the population which used the cemetery is represented by the high degree of the disturbed burials which made impossible in the majority of the cases to carry out anthro-pological investigations.

The age of the deceased persons was established between 910 (grave 38) and over 60 years (graves 43 and 50)90. It is worth mentioning that the anthropological analysis did not identify any skeletal material belonging to infants or very young children (Infans I). This phenomenon was observed also in other contemporary cemeteries91. However, based on the dimensions, graves 30 (1.220.56m) and 46 (1.220.60m) could belong to children died at this age.

90 See the contribution of Szilrd Sndor Gl in this volume (Appendix 1).91 E. g. Galaii Bistriei: HARHOIU 2008, 185; FloretiPolus Center: ROTEA ET ALII 2008, 6263; Hdmezvsrhely

Kishomok: BNA NAGY 2002, 143, Tab. 43. The lack of the infants (so-called Kleinkinderde zit) is characteristic for the Merovingian Age cemeteries, too. See LOHRKE 2004, 3840 (with further bibliography).

22

III.3. LATER INTERVENTIONSA constant phenomenon observed in the cemetery is that the human bones were not dis-

covered in anatomical position; instead they were mixed up, indicating a post-burial interven-tion. A similar situation is characteristic for the whole Merovingian Age Europe. Even if very frequent, until the present no separate study was dedicated to the phenomenon of the reopening of the graves in the row-grave cemeteries dating from the Gepidic and Early Avar Period; gener-ally it was treated in a subchapter in the frame of the monographs of di erent sites92. In most of the cases the authors used the terms grave plundering / looting (Grabraub, Grabplnderung) or grave disturbing (Grabstrung)93 in order to de ne this process. In our opinion terms like plundering, robbing or looting should be used only in those cases when it is sure that the only goal of the perpetrators was to take out the precious objects situated in the graves. Taking into consideration that the mentioned expressions already suggest an interpretation, the much more neutral terms disturbing and reopening will be used in this volume.

Traces of disturbing could be observed in all the graves excavated at Fntnele; however the intensity varies from one grave to the other. Taking a general look at the contemporary cem-eteries from Transylvania, one can observe that all of them contained disturbed burials in dif-ferent proportions. For example in the necropolis at Moreti-Hul out of 82 graves 25 were cer-tainly disturbed which means approximately the quarter (25.6%) of the excavated burials94. A much higher percentage could be observed in the cemetery at Bistria, where out of 60 graves 53 (88.33%) were reopened95. A similarly high proportion was documented in the still unpublished cemetery at Vlaha-Pad reaching approximately 90% of the total number of the graves96. An even higher number was registered at Band where all the graves seemed to be reopened97.

Unfortunately, the lack of data regarding the post-burial reopening of the graves discovered at Fntnele makes the reconstruction and interpretation of the discussed process very di cult. Neither the pits dug in the moment of the reopening nor the traces of the co ns (see below) were documented properly. Therefore the only certain source is represented by the position of the bones inside the graves98. On these grounds two main categories can be distinguished (Fig.1): partially and totally disturbed graves. In the rst category those burials were included which con-tained at least one bone which was discovered in original position99. The dimensions of the area a ected di er from grave to grave. Generally the activity of reopening the graves concentrated on the area of the chest and the basin, in many cases also on the surroundings of the skull; therefore most frequently the legs remained untouched. In the cemetery at Fntnele grave 50 (Pl.29/50/1) remained the most intact, only the zone of the chest and of the basin, and partially the forearms were disturbed. Grave 43 (Pl.25/43/1) is also worth mentioning, where the legs, the mandible, the

92 E.g. BNA NAGY 2002, 9093; NAGY 2005b, 140143; FERENCZ NAGY LZRESCU 2009, 425429.93 In the case of the row-grave cemeteries excavated in Western-, Northern-, and Central-Europe the terminology is

much more elaborated, see ASPCK 2003, 225226.94 The data are based on the grave descriptions given by POPESCU 1974, 214236; the grave discovered at the

control excavations in 1986 was included in the statistics as well (for its description see PROTASE 1999, 266, Abb.4).

95 Data based on the grave descriptions given in the publication of the necropolis: GAIU 1992, 115121.96 STANCIU ET ALII 2007, 394.97 Discussing the problem of the disturbed graves, I. Kovcs mentions only one exception, namely grave 148

(KOVCS 1913, 365) which, on the basis of the description (KOVCS 1913, 347349), probably did not belong to the Early Medieval necropolis.

98 The situation is not better in the other Transylvanian cemeteries either, the only ones where the so-called robbing pit was documented are VlahaPad (STANCIU ET ALII 2007, 394), FloretiPolus Center (FERENCZ NAGY LZRESCU 2009, 425429, 441454), Cristuru SecuiescPiaa Libertii (KRSFI SZKELY 2007) and partially Bratei, cemetery no. 3 (BRZU 2010, 1516, Abb.3).

99 Altogether 16 graves (28.07 %): 6, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 31, 37, 43, 47, 50, 56, 57, 64.

23

shoulders, most of the vertebrae, and partially the arms were discovered in anatomical position. Instead, the skull was found in the centre of the grave. In several cases100 both the skull and the legs lay (at least partially) in original position, the rest of the body missing or being discovered in secondary position. To the second category belong those burials where the entire grave was reo-pened and no bones remained intact. This group can be divided in two: graves including bones in secondary position and graves without bones (Fig.1).

The complex phenomenon of the disturbed graves raises a series of questions which can hardly be answered even in the case of the well-documented funerary sites. Such questions are related to di erent aspects, like the dating of the reopening, the methods used during this process, the identity of those who committed it, their goals, the objects taken out and left inside the grave etc.

Regarding the methods of the reopening of the graves in most of the cases the starting point is represented by the position of the disturbed area in comparison to the grave pit. On these grounds Kroly Sgi established three main methods during the analysis of the Langobard Age cemetery from Vrs: 1.if the co n had been already mouldered the grave pit was completely exca-vated and the objects were taken out; 2.a smaller shaft was excavated, then the lid of the co n was perforated or broken and the objects were taken out with the help of a long stick-like object (so-called Hakenberaubung); 3.a bigger pit was dug, afterwards the lid of the co n was opened and the objects were removed101. In his opinion the choice of the applied method depended mainly on the length of the time passed between the funeral and the reopening of the grave. According to this, the rst method was used in those situations when the tomb was disturbed after a longer period compared to the moment of the funeral and the co n had already broken, and in conse-quence it had been lled up with earth. In the case of the second method the time passed between the moment of the funeral and that of the reopening was shorter, the co n being still preserved. Therefore after the lid had been broken, the vacuum inside the co n permitted the perpetrators to take out the grave-goods using the abovementioned object. The third method was applied at those graves where the funeral had taken place shortly before their reopening102.

6 7

11

1298

10

14

13

15

16

17

19

18

20

24

23

21

22

25

27

26

32

31

30

29

3534

33

37

3640

41

39

38

42

47

46

45

44

43

52

51

50

49

4853

57

56

5560

59

5854

61

65

64

63

62

0 10 m

Partially disturbed gravesTotally disturbed gravesGraves without skeleton

Fig.1.Distribution map of the disturbed graves in the cemetery at Fntnele

100 Graves 24, 25, 31, 56, 57 (Pl.16/24/1; Pl.17/25/2; Pl.20/31/1; Pl.28/56/1; Pl.31/57/1).101 SGI 1964, 391392; this typology was taken over with small modi cations by ROTH 1978, 6566.102 SGI 1964, 392; ROTH 1978, 6566; ASPCK 2003, 242.

24

Due to the lack of observations made on the eld referring both to the later interventions and the co ns it is di cult, if not impossible, to reconstruct the methods applied in the cem-etery at Fntnele. It seems very likely that in the case of the totally disturbed graves, when no bones have left in original position, the rst variant was employed. The majority of the burials can be included in this category. It is more di cult to identify the second method, taking into account the already mentioned insu ciency of the documentation; however, this does not mean that it was not used at all. Its application can be presumed in the case of the partially disturbed graves, even if the existence of a co n in these tombs remains uncertain103. This possibility is supported also by the large-scale employment of this method in the Merovingian Age104. If the third method was applied at Fntnele cannot be established with certainty. Anyway, such situ-ation can be imagined only in the case of the graves which did not contain any human bones.

As it was already pointed out by Johannes Schneider105, the main de ciency of Sgis gener-ally accepted typology is that it refers only to the burials with co n, in spite of the fact that the graves without co n were disturbed in the same proportion.

Regarding the identity and the purposes of the perpetrators precious information can be o ered by the objects removed and left behind. From a methodological point of view the identi- cation of the objects which were taken out is more di cult because it is possible only in those situations when fragments or other strongly related objects remained in the grave. Concerning the objects which were left in the grave the main question is if they were not picked up intention-ally or escaped the perpetrators attention. From this point of view the thorough documentation of the disturbed area inside the graves is essential, which was not the case at Fntnele. The rst serious attempt to identify regularities in this phenomenon was made by Helmuth Roth who concluded that in the case of the female graves the primary purpose of the reopening was to take out the jewels and the brooches made of precious metals; however, he noticed that many times one of the four brooches characteristic to the Merovingian Age female dress (the so-called Vier beltracht) was intentionally left behind or thrown back in the grave. Generally the two main weapon types, the spatha and the seax, as well as the components of the belt were removed from the male graves. In the same time, in his view a few artefact types were intentionally left or thrown back in the grave, like the already mentioned brooches, the rings and the beads in the female graves, the spears in the male ones, respectively the bronze vessels106. Later, several researchers tried to verify Roths results107.

At Fntnele there are a few burials which allow us to draw some cautious conclusions referring to the objects which were taken out in the moment of their reopening. In this respect the most important is grave 19 where the small pyramidal strap-retainer indicates certainly that the deceased was buried together with his sword108. In the totally disturbed grave 48 a gilded ear-

103 See for example grave 50 (Pl.29/50/1) which was disturbed only in the area of the chest and the basin; in this grave also wooden traces were observed which could easily belong to a co n.

104 In Transylvania it seems that a considerable part of the graves excavated in the well documented cemetery at VlahaPad was reopened with this method. In several cases the robbing pit situated in the area of the chest stopped on the level of the co n. Based on these observations the leader of the excavation concluded that the co n should have been intact in the moment of the reopening of the graves: STANCIU ET ALII 2007, 394.

105 SCHNEIDER 1983, 120.106 ROTH 1977, 287289; ROTH 1978, 6771.107 E.g. in the case of Deersheim: SCHNEIDER 1983, 126: among the objects left in the graves noticed the silver

spoons, the vessels made of wood, glass or bronze, and the amulets; regarding the cemetery at Unterthrheim: GRNEWALD 1988, 3438: mainly the belts, pendants, and brooches were taken out, while the vessels, one of the brooches, the beads, the spears, more rarely also the seaxes and the shield-bosses were left inside the grave; for the Langobard Age cemetery at Brunn am Gebirge: ASPCK 2003, 258259: in most of the cases the belt-buckles were taken out from the male graves, while in the female ones were left inside; otherwise the most important categories of the removed objects were the brooches, the girdle-hangers, the swords, and the seaxes.

108 See chapter III.5.2.4.

25

ring was discovered which suggests that its pair was probably taken away. The di erent pieces belonging to belt-sets are signs for the other elements of the belt which were removed109. It can-not be excluded that the three rivets coming from grave 42 belonged to a small buckle similar to the one discovered in the same grave.

As it was stressed above, it is di cult to gure out in most of the cases if the discovered grave-goods were situated in the disturbed area of the graves. According to Helmuth Roth an important category of artefacts which was often left in the grave is represented by the beads110. Indeed, beads were found in three disturbed graves at Fntnele, but their reduced number mainly in graves 6 and 42 suggests rather that the majority of them were taken out111. Regarding the male graves Roth stated that the spearhead usually remained in the grave112. At Fntnele two burials contained spearhead, both of them situated in the south-eastern part of the grave; therefore it is more likely that they were not observed when the tombs were reopened than the possibility that they were intentionally left inside the grave. Taking a general look on the archaeological material discovered in the cemetery, one can remark the relatively high number of the knives and the ceramic vessels in comparison to other artefact categories. The fact that the pottery was left inside the graves can be assigned partially to the peripheral position of the vessels (generally near the western end of the grave). However, there are several situations when the vessel was certainly situated in the disturbed area, often being broken. In these situations the most likely explication is that the vessel was simply broken in the moment when the rob-bing pit was excavated or was thrown back in the grave. As far as the documentation permits, it seems that the majority of the knives were discovered in the disturbed area of the graves. These observations suggest that the perpetrators were interested neither in the pottery nor in the iron knives, possibly due to their low material value. This presumption is supported also by other contemporary cemeteries113.

Based on the observations taken in the course of the eld research, the hypothesis according to which the reopening of the burials took place shortly after the moment of the funeral became generally accepted already during the early research114. The main argument to support this theory was that those who disturbed the graves knew exactly where the precious objects were situated. As it was already mentioned, Sgi and Roth saw a strong connection between the length of the period passed between the funeral and the disturbing of the grave and the selected method of the reopening. This statement presumes that the perpetrators knew exactly the date of the funeral. In order to verify this hypothesis the best method is to take a look to the placement of the robbing pits compared to the grave pit. A classi cation of this relationship was established for the cemetery 3 at Bratei having important chronological conclusions. Type 1, when the robbing pit overlapped the grave occurred more often on the edges and in the eastern half of the cemetery, considered to represent the later phase. In the same time, types 2 (the robbing pit is bigger than the grave), 3 (the grave is only partially overlapped by the robbing pit), and 4 (the orientation of the robbing pit and of the grave is di erent) are more characteristic for the western, earlier part of the necropolis115. On these grounds it seems more plausible that hypothesis according to which

109 E.g. the fragmentary strap-end from grave 61 or the buckle with triangular plate from grave 54.110 ROTH 1978, 69.111 For a similar opinion see GRNEWALD 1988, 37; ASPCK 2003, 258259.112 ROTH 1978, 71.113 On the territory of the cemetery at Band four complete vessels (contexts no. 2, 63, 76, and 78) were discovered

between the graves which probably initially belonged to the inventory of the burials and were taken out in the course of the reopening of the graves: KOVCS 1913, 281, 328, 333.At VlahaPad in several cases in the ll of the robbing pit ceramic fragments were discovered which initially belonged to other graves: STANCIU ET ALII 2007, 394.

114 For the history of research see ROTH 1978, 5358.115 HARHOIU 2010, 149, Abb.3, Verbreitungskarte 35.

26

the persons who disturbed the graves should not have known necessarily the date of the funeral, but it was enough if they were aware of the general burial customs of the period116.

Concerning the robbing pits in the cemetery at Fntnele the data provided by the docu-mentation are incomplete. Even if this phenomenon was not documented at all, in a few cases some preliminary conclusions can be drawn. In several graves steps were observed inside117 which in a few cases could stay in connection with the reopening of the burials. Such situation can be supposed in graves 12 (Pl.11/12/1) and 33 (Pl.18/33/1). It seems likely that the small pit containing animal bones documented in grave 16 (Pl.13/16/1) represents also a shaft of this kind. Unfortunately its exact position compared to the grave is unknown; it is worth mentioning that its orientation di ers from that of the grave. A similar situation can be presumed in grave 25 (Pl.17/25/1), too. The shape of graves 49 (Pl.28/49/1) and 57 (Pl.31/57/1) could be of chronological importance. The former one has in its eastern third a 0.75 m high step which could belong also to the robbing pit. In grave 57 the majority of the bones were discovered in the western end of the tomb, a few of them lying still in original position. The eastern half widens out, in this area only a few bones were discovered in secondary position. In these two cases the possibility that the perpetrators did not know the exact location of the grave cannot be excluded. Possibly initially they started to dig a pit which overlapped the grave only partially (Harhoiu type 3)118. This could be the explanation also for the unusual form and dimensions of grave 51 (Pl. 27/51/1) in which no bones were discovered.

Judging after the secondary position of the bones it seems that at Fntnele all the graves were disturbed after the corpses had been mouldered. What does this mean exactly in years is di cult to estimate. In the archaeological literature the data referring to the length of this period varies between 3 and 10/15 years119.

There is another question which can be raised regarding the date of the disturbing, namely if all the tombs were reopened in the same moment. Analyzing the phenomenon in Avar Age cemeteries, Kornl Bakay concluded that in those necropolises where a part of the graves remained undisturbed these can be considered the latest burials120. In any case, it is sure that more graves were reopened simultaneously. Indications in this direction are represented by those graves in which, beside the skeleton, other bones were discovered which did not belong to the burial121. At Fntnele, in grave 36 fragments of two skulls were found; the possibility that one of them initially did not belong to this burial and was moved there from another grave during the activity of the reopening cannot be excluded. Other signs for the simultaneous reo-pening of more graves are the already mentioned ceramic fragments from Vlaha-Pad which were discovered in di erent graves, but belonged to the same vessel122. In the Late Sarmatian Hunnic Age cemetery at Madaras there were situations when a common robbing pit was excavated for two neighbouring graves123.

Another strongly debated aspect concerns the identity of the perpetrators and the rea-sons of their activity. In order to clarify these reasons a high number of interpretations was proposed in the archaeological literature124. For a short period in the Romanian research the

116 GRNEWALD 1988, 34; ASPCK 2003, 244.117 See chapter III.4.2.2.118 Similar situations were observed in the already mentioned cemetery no. 3 at Bratei: HARHOIU 2010, 149, Abb.3,

Verbreitungskarte 5; or in the cemetery dated in the Late Sarmatian Period / Hunnic Age at Madaras: KHEGYI 1980, 20, Abb.45.

119 BAKAY 1973, 78; GRNEWALD 1988, 3536; ASPCK 2003, 242243.120 BAKAY 1973, 7879. It seems that, at least in the cemeteries with a high number of graves, this possibility can be

excluded on statistical grounds, see GRNEWALD 1988, 40.121 From the territory of the Gepidic Kingdom an example of this kind is known from grave 103 at Szreg-Tglagyr.

In this grave beside the skeleton two other skull were found:NAGY 2005b, 133.122 See note 113.123 KHEGYI 1980, 20, Abb.6.124 For the di erent possibilities of interpretation see ASPCK 2003, 236239.

27

theory according to which the discussed phenomenon was the result of ritual activities and not of secondary interventions was quite popular. It was based on the observations made in the cem-etery at Cpuu Mare-Cnepite excavated in the early 1950s. The publishers of the cemetery concluded that during the ritual activities which preceded the funeral the bones of the deceased were disarticulated and deposited in the grave deliberately in the position in which they were discovered in the moment of the archaeological excavation125.

Generally the main goal of the reopening of the graves is considered the material interest as it is shown also by the most frequently used term grave plundering. Joachim Werner stressed the idea of the crisis of precious metals in the 7th century; in his view this is the reason why in this period the frequency of the grave disturbance is the highest126. In the same time, Helmuth Roth saw a connection between the reopening of the graves and the spread of the Christianity. He based his theory on the observation according to which the objects with Christian character were usually left inside the grave representing a taboo. In his opinion with the wider distribu-tion of Christianity the mentality also changed, taking into consideration that in the Christian view the deceased person does not need any grave-good to enter in the other world; therefore the custom of the grave reopening became legitimate127. According to another hypothesis the cemeteries could be disturbed in chaotic or war periods when the laws could not be applied anymore and the communities were not able to protect the burials of their own deceased mem-bers128. Several scholars tried to connect the moment of the reopening to political events129. For the moment there is no reason to make such a connection; it seems more likely that the reopen-ing of the graves represented a continuous process which was carried out with the knowledge of the community130.

Of course, the secondary reopening of the graves could also have ritual causes, like the protec-tion from the return of the deceaseds soul or the performing of post-burial ritual ceremonies etc.131. Such ritual processes were supposed mainly in the case of the male burials, taking into account that these contained less pieces made of precious metals. Because of the lower material value the act of taking out weapons, rst of all swords, could have had a ritual meaning, too132. On the other hand, on the basis of the more expensive raw material of the brooches and jewels, in the case of the female burials mainly the material interest was emphasized133. However, the more precious raw material does not exclude a symbolic meaning of the elements of the female costume134. In several cemeter-ies regularities were identi ed regarding the position of the bones inside the grave. These observa-

125 RUSSU ROTH 1956, 2734; a shorter variant of this hypothesis was already included in the archaeological report appeared four years earlier, see AEZRI SLAVE 1952, 314317.The theory of the corpses chopped before the funeral had already been known in the European literature before the excavations at Cpuu Mare due to Eduard Beningers activity who explained this ritual with the reversed world concept of the Germanic tribes, see BENINGER 1940, 857.

126 WERNER 1953, 7.127 ROTH 1977, 289290; ROTH 1978, 74; for the critique of the theory see STEUER 1998, 519520.128 MLLER 1976, 125.129 E.g. in the case of the Langobard Age cemeteries from the Vienna Basin it was supposed by Joachim Werner that

they were disturbed by the Slavs which appeared in the area after the Langobards moved out: WERNER 1962, 113.Later, Herbert Mitscha-Mrheim had the same opinion regarding the mentioned region, while in the case of Pannonia he believed that the Avars were those who disturbed the Langobard necropolises: BENINGER MITSCHA-MRHEIM 1966, 170. In contrast, Istvn Bna emphasized the role of the Langobards in this activity, in his view they were those who reopened the graves of their own cemeteries shortly before moving away: BNA 1993, 124125.

130 SCHNEIDER 1983, 128; GRNEWALD 1988, 40; STEUER 1998, 519.131 For a general overview see ASPCK 2003, 231235.Regarding the material from Transylvania the possibility of the

ritual reopening was suggested in connection with grave 4 from Fntnele, see CRIAN OPREANU 1991, 113.132 ROTH 1978, 73.133 ROTH 1978, 74.134 GRNEWALD 1988, 42; ASPCK 2003, 263.

28

tions made possible the interpretation of the reopening of the graves as a conscious ritual act of the community135 . This hypothesis is supported also by ethnographical analogies.136

Summing up, the incomplete documentation of the cemetery at Fntnele impedes seri-ously the detailed interpretation of the disturbed graves. On the basis of the position of the bones it seems probable that the reopening of the graves was carried out shortly after the moment of the funeral, but after a period long enough for the corpses to moulder away. Due to this activity the inventory of the cemetery is pretty poor which let us presume that the origi-nal number of the male burials with weapons and of female burials containing jewellery was considerably higher.

III.4. BURIAL CUSTOMSIII.4.1. Orientation

Similar to the general burial customs of the Merovingian row-grave cemeteries from Western and Central Europe137 as well as to the ones from the Tisza-region and Transylvania138, the graves from the necropolis at Fntnele are oriented more or less WE. Of course, di er-ent variations could be observed. Only one tomb was perfectly WE oriented (grave 34), while graves 29 and 30 had WNWESE orientation. The rest of the graves show deviations of di erent degree towards the WSWENE direction (Fig.2). These small deviations could represent the dif-ferences between the seasons when the funerals took place or could be explained by small human errors in the identi cation of the cardinal points.

Fig.2.Orientation of the graves in the cemetery at Fntnele

135 ZBOJNK 1997, 78-79; OPREANU 2003, 5672; for examples from the area of the Masomcz group see KOKOWSKI 1992.

136 OPREANU 2003, 66-70.137 AMENT 2003, 362.138 CSALLNY 1961, 296; NAGY 1993, 60.

29

III.4.2. The graves

III.4.2.1. Dimensions, depth, and shape of the graves

The exact dimensions and the shape of the graves were precisely documented in each case. A problem which rises during the interpretation is related to the post-burial activities, namely in what measure the dimensions and the shape of the graves were a ected by the later interventions. The dimensions of the grave pits were probably directly related to the height of the persons which were buried in them; however, it is likely that other criteria were taken into consideration as well. The length of the burial pits varies between 1.22 m (graves 30 and 46) and 2.85 m (grave51), while the width oscillates between 0.56 m (grave 30) and 1.44 m (grave 60)139. Of course, the smallest graves belonged to children; however, a sharp delimitation of the children and adult burials is not possible since an anthropological analysis was not possible in all the cases.

For calculating the depth of the graves the di erence between the level of identi cation and the bottom of the grave (both given in the documentation in values measured from the sur-face) was taken into consideration. In this way the depth of the graves varies between 0.12 m (grave 10) and 1.45 m (grave 51). Taking a look on the plan of the cemetery it can be observed that the majority of the graves deeper than 1 meter are situated in the eastern part of the exca-vated area (Fig.3). In this phenomenon the erosion could have an important role, taking into account that the less deep graves lay closer to the top of the hill (Pl.57).

The shape of the graves is quite varied. The majority of them are rectangular with rounded corners or oval. Beside these basic forms graves with irregular shape also occur.

6 7

11

1298

10

14

13

15

16

17

19

18

20

24

23

21

22

25

27

26

32

31

30

29

3534

33

37

3640

41

39

38

42

47

46

45

44

43

52

51

50

49

4853

57

56

5560

59

5854

61

65

64

63

62

0 10 m

Graves with depth between 0.12 and 0.50 mGraves with depth between 0.51 and 0.75 mGraves with depth between 0.76 and 1.00 mGraves with depth between 1.01 and 1.45 m

Fig.3.The depth of the graves in the cemetery at Fntnele

III.4.2.2. Interior structures

In 28 graves140 (49.12%) one or more steps were observed during the excavation; in com-parison with the contemporary cemeteries their number is conspicuously high. It cannot be excluded that a few of them were arti cial steps left by the archaeologists, mainly if we take into

139 In these values were included neither the partially excavated graves nor contexts 20 and 39 which represent special cases, see chapter III.4.6.3.

140 Graves 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 40, 41, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 57, 59, 61.

30

account the section drawing of grave 19 (Pl.15/19/2)141 where the lines marked as steps on the plan of the grave show rather the slope of the grave walls than real steps. On the other hand, due to the fact that the activities which took place after the burials were not documented at all, it is not clear in what measure this phenomenon can be connected to the reopening of the graves142.

The steps are situated generally along the long edges of the graves; their height meas-ured from the bottom of the grave varies between 0.08 m (grave 30 belonging to a child) and 0.80m (grave 37). Steps along the long edges of the graves are quite usual in the cemeteries from Pannonia in the Langobard Period. Characteristic for these graves is a relative large burial pit which at a certain depth becomes much narrower and goes deeper in the centre of the grave. In this shaft was deposited the deceased generally in a co n or other wooden burial structure. For this grave type the term Absatzgrab was accepted in the case of the cemetery at Szld where it was the dominant burial form143. It is known also from several other cemeteries from Pannonia dated in the Langobard Period144 as well as from Merovingian sites from WesternEurope145. At Fntnele such structure could be presumed only in those cases when there are two steps being situated along the northern and the southern edges of the grave. This kind of situation occurs relative rarely (graves 7, 11, 35, 37, 41, 53); their interpretation as Absatzgrber is quite di cult, given the low height of the steps.

From the cemeteries in the Tisza-region dated in the Gepidic Period very few cases are known when steps were identi ed inside the graves. At HdmezvsrhelyKishomok in ve graves (56, 64, 65, 67, 72) the burial pit became shorter and narrower slightly above the bot-tom146. This phenomenon was interpreted as the mark of the co n, even if no wooden traces were observed147. The regular form and the small height of the steps around the edges of the graves (varying between 0.05 and 0.15m) make this presumption plausible. At Fntnele such interpretation cannot be excluded in the case of a few burials.

Graves with steps inside, similar to the ones from Fntnele are known mainly from the Early Avar Period148. Their height and position inside the grave varies and therefore it seems di cult to determine their functionality. Anyway, they represent more convincing analogies for the situations documented at Fntnele than the ones from Pannonia and the Tisza-region dated before the Avar conquest in the Carpathian Basin. In a few cases it can be presumed that they served as a shaft for the co n. Due to the insu ciency of information regarding the burial customs in the contem-porary cemeteries from Transylvania there are known extremely few graves with steps from this region: they can be supposed in two cases in the cemetery at Galaii Bistriei-La Hrube149.

In three cases the steps served as support for the deposited vessels. In graves 7 and 32 the pottery was positioned in the south-western corner of the grave, while in grave 49 it was placed on the eastern end of the step situated along the northern wall of the grave. Similar situations

141 Unfortunately for the rest of the graves there are no section drawings at our disposal.142 A connection between the two phenomena can be presumed in the case of graves 12 and 57 (Pl.11/12/1; Pl.31/57/1).143 FREEDEN VIDA 2007, 368; FREEDEN 2008, 401402.144 For example: Vrs, graves 19, 20, 21: SGI 1964, 374377, Abb.19, Abb.22; The new corpus of the Langobard

Age cemeteries from Western-Hungary showed that the Absatzgrab was one of the most popular burial type, which appears almost in each cemetery: HegykMez utca, KajdacsHomokbnya, Kdrtargemez, KpolnsnykKastlykert, Rcalmsjtelep, SzentendrePannoniatelep: BNA HORVTH 2009, Abb.15, 28, 30, 38, 43, 51, 55, 60, 70, 71, 73, 74, 86, 95.

145 For a general discussion of their distribution in the Merovingian Period see FREEDEN VIDA 2007, 368.146 BNA NAGY 2002, 57, 5962, Abb.26/56, Abb.28/64, 65, Abb.29/67, Abb.30/72.147 BNA NAGY 2002, 57.148 See for example the grave-group no. IX at KlkedFeketekapu B: KISS 2001, 262; Zamrdi-Rtifldek, graves

82, 187, 264, 280, 283, 291, 297, 320, 1163, 1222, 1389: BRDOS GARAM 2009, Abb.4/82, Abb. 11/187, Abb.1213, Abb.35/1163, 1222, Abb.44/1389; Hajdnns, graves 3, 5, 8, 12, 15: RCZ SZENTHE 2009, 324, 4.kp/3, 5.kp/5, 8, 9. kp, 10. kp/15.

149 Graves 19 and 20: HARHOIU 2008, 184.

31

were documented in other cemeteries of the period, too, like Carei-Kozrd, grave 6/1996 and probably grave 4/1996150, Galaii BistrieiLa Hrube, graves 7, 8, and 13151 or Brateicemetery no. 3, graves 30, 166, and 222152.

In graves 49 and 50 slabs of sandstone were discovered being arranged one near the other. In grave 50 (Pl.29/50/1) these were situated in the eastern half of the grave pit, next to the southern wall. They were lying approximately 0.77 m above the bottom of the tomb which possibly indicates a secondary position. In grave 49 (Pl.28/49/1) the slabs were situated on the bottom of the grave, in its western end, so in this case an intentional arrangement seems probable. Taking into consid-eration that in this area should have been situated the skull (which disappeared completely due to the reopening of the grave), it can be presumed that the head of the deceased was lain on this bed made of sandstone slabs. It seems that the edges of grave 29 were marked with stone slabs.

III.4.3. The position of the skeletons

Because of all the graves of the cemetery were disturbed, there are only few data regarding the original position of the skeletons. Such information is provided by the partially disturbed graves where di erent parts of the skeleton remained untouched. The picture is quite homoge-neous: like in the other contemporary cemeteries the corpses were laid on their back with the head towards west. Sometimes the skull was slightly turned; the legs were stretched parallel one to the other. Only in the case of grave 21 (Pl.13/21/1) was attested another position of the legs, namely they were crossing each other. Regarding the position of the arms, which generally is the most varied in this period, there is no information due to the fact that the area of the arms was generally a ected by the post-burial activities.

III.4.4. Double burials (?)

There are two graves in the cemetery at Fntnele which could represent double burials. According to the anthropological analysis the skeletal material coming from grave 21 contained the remains of two persons: a male and a female adult153. The written and the drawn record of the excavation indicate a partially disturbed burial with only one skeleton laid on its back (Pl.13/21/1). Therefore it is not clear enough whether the presence of the bones belonging to the second skeleton are the results of the later interventions or the bones were mixed up in the deposit of the Institute of Archaeology and Art History, Cluj-Napoca. In any case, on the basis of the documentation it seems improbable that grave 21 was a double burial. This possibility is supported neither by the dimensions of the grave pit (2.220.65m). Grave 36 (Pl.21/36/1) contained skull fragments belonging to two di erent individuals. The tomb was completely dis-turbed, apart from the skull fragments only a few bones were recovered. According to the doc-umentation both of the skulls belonged to children154. There are two possibilities to interpret this burial:either only one of the skulls belonged to the grave, the other one being moved from another tomb in the moment of the reopening of the graves or it represents a disturbed double burial. The insu cient data regarding to this grave makes impossible to con rm any of the pro-posed hypothesises. Taking into account the small dimensions of the grave pit (1.760.71m) a double burial would be possible only if the two children were very young. Double burials were discovered in several contemporary cemeteries155, their proportion being generally low.

150 STANCIU IERCOAN 2003, 140141, 148149.151 HARHOIU 2008, 184, Abb.10/B.152 BRZU 2010, 25.153 See the contribution of Szilrd Sndor Gl in this volume (Appendix 1).154 The skulls could not be identi ed in the Institute of Archaeology and Art History, thus an anthropological analysis

was not possible.155 E.g. Nolac: RUSU 1962, 270; Bistria: GAIU 1992, 121; VlahaPad: STANCIU ET ALII 2007, 394; Bratei,

cemetery no. 3: BRZU 2010, 1819, Abb.5.

32

III.4.5. Coffins

In several graves wooden traces of di erent form were registered in the documentation. The question if these belonged to a co n remains unanswered. The existence of a co n can be presumed mainly in those tombs where the wooden traces were preserved in a relatively regular line parallel to the edges of the grave. Such traces were identi ed in graves 14, 37, 45, 47, 49, 50, 59, and 60. The most massive wooden traces were observed in grave 53, probably belonging to a child. In this case it is sure that the deceased was buried in a co n, possibly formed of a hollow tree trunk, or another timber structure.

The custom of burying the deaths in co ns is a general characteristic of the row-grave cemeteries both in the Gepidic and the Avar Period. The frequency of the graves with co n var-ies from one site to the other, but the general picture shows a quite low proportion156. On the other hand, th