Here is the translation. Original text at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64377
> Anyway, this is the best I can offer for now. Translation follows:
> Jan Lichardus
> Körpergräber der frühen Kaiserzeit
> im Gebiet der südlichen Elbgermanen
> pp. 59-69
Jan Lichardus
Inhumation funerals of the early Imperial period in the area of the
southern Elbe Germani
(Körpergräber der frühen Kaiserzeit im Gebiet der südlichen
Elbgermanen)
pp. 59-69
D. INTERPRETATION
Cremation of the deceased in his apparel is in accordance with an old
tradition of the Germanic funerary ritual. Although it would thus
appear to be a good idea to deal with the cremation graves here
first, the interpretation of the inhumation custom will be given
priority, since it will turn out that certain hints for the
interpretation of the various cremation groups might result from that.
I. INHUMATION FUNERALS
Unlike cremation, burying the uncremated deceased is no custom of
Germanic tradition 1). Since the placement of the inhumation graves
in the initial early imperial period is isolated or in quite
consciously designated locations within the community cemeteries,
this seems to indicate an intended differential treatment of many
deceased, which must have deeper causes. Thus we must first ask:
1. When and how did the inhumation custom arise in the Elbe Germanic
area?
2. Should the Elbe Germanic inhumation graves be seen as connected as
a whole temporally and spatially?
3. Which connections exist between the "Lubiesowo/Lübsow graves" and
the other Elbe Germanic inhumation burials?
The appearance of the inhumation burial custom in the Elbe Germanic
area was at first explained as the intrusion of foreign ethnic
elements. One talked of Celtic nobility, Celtic or Roman traders or
artisans, but thought it conceivable that relatives of other Germanic
tribes such as the Rugians or Vandals were interred in the inhumation
burials 2). Already in the 50's H. J. Eggers successfully proved that
the inhumation burials contained purely Germanic types of finds and
that those there interred must be native Germani 3). Since Eggers
however was then primarily concerned with graves of the
Lubiesowo/Lübsow type, he didn't search for the beginning of the
inhumation custom as such in some given Germanic area; but drew from
the set of funerary accoutrement of this particular burial category a
conclusion of Roman influence. Since Eggers' investigations it is
undisputed, that the appearance of the inhumation custom cannot be
explained with foreign ethnoi, but that native conditions of a social
or religious nature are reflected here, essentially to be attributed
to external impulses.
In this text we could establish that the first inhumation burials in
North-west Bohemia and in Central Germany appear in Phase 2. If we
must consider external influences, these might in theory have come
from the Roman, 'East Germanic' or Celtic area.
The customary Roman funerary ritual was the cremation burial 4). The
deceased was cremated on an ustrina or busta and buried in an urn,
mostly without funeral accoutrement. The function and importance of
the deceased can be determined from funerary inscriptions, funerary
architecture and from the selection of the location of the burial.
Important personalities found their last resting place in developed
grave chambers, the walls of which are decorated with frescos
rendering life events or funerary ceremonies. Objects of personal ort
ritual use might be included. Beside these cremation funerals exist a
few inhumation burials which, apart from the unique and different
treatment of the corpse, express the same elements of the funerary
ritual 5). The reasons for the inhumation burial are unexplained.
In the Roman provinces or in areas belonging to the Roman power
sphere, the Romanized population also essentially practiced the Roman
funerary ritual. In spite of that, native traditions become evident
in the fact that the deceased was given a set of funerary
accoutrements erhielt, which was not customary in Rome. The cremation
cemetery at Kempten, probably founded already in the early Tiberian
period shows this clearly for the Raetian area 6). Since the
inhumation custom among the Elbe Germani begins with Phase 2, in a
period, when the cultural relations with Rome were only beginning,
and since the inhumation custom in Rome itself has been practiced
only rarely and not by any particular layer or religious group, the
emergence of this custom among the Elbe Germani can hardly be derived
directly from the Roman funerary ritual.
The second thesis, ie. that the inhumation custom comes from the East
Germanic area 7), one attempted to corroborate by the fact, that also
in Central Germany there exist some East Germanic inhumation funerals
which are older than the earliest Elbe Germanic finds 8).
Chronologically these burials belong to the middle section of the
later pre-Roman Iron Age, corresponding approx to the stage Latène D1
in the area of Southern Germany. A conspicuous concentration of such
inhumation funerals is found above all in Poland, in Silesia and
Kuyavia, in the area of the Przeworsk Culture; inhumation funerals
have been demonstrated here sporadically also in the early Imperial
Period 9). In constrast to the Elbe Germanic inhumation burials the
deceased here are often interred lying on the side with legs flexed
or in crouched position. Their funeral accoutrement consists of
apparel items, knives, awls, various fittings and only rarely of
weapons. The grave fields are often bi-ritual; burials in segregated
locations are found less frequently 10). In its total habitus these
inhumation burials are so different from the Elbe Germanic ones, that
a take-over from this area seems unlikely. Also, these inhumation
funerals show neither chronological nor cultural connections to the
Lubiesowo/Lübsow graves also shown to be here 11), which for their
own part have likely come about under influence from the Elbe
Germanic area, and no argument whatsoever speaks for a derivation of
the Elbe Germanic inhumation burials from this area.
As thus the inhumation custom in the Elbe Germanic area could have
developed neither from a Germanic base nor from Roman influence then
the question comes up whether influences from the Celtic area might
be responsible for its emergence. In the Central European areas in
question cremation burial was customary in the late Celtic period.
Normally the graves are urn graves with funeral accoutrement or
Brandschüttungsgräber, which either have no funerary accoutrement or
else contain parts of apparel, pottery and weapons 12). It turns out,
however, that inhumation custom earlier practiced generally among the
Celts apparently had never quite gone to oblivion. Many inhumation
burials, like those of Mellingen, Kr. Weimar 13) in Thuringia, or
Traunstein 14), in Southern Bavaria, confirm this. In both cases we
are probably dealing with women's graves, characterized by their
segregated location, meticulous outfitting of the grave space and wealth of apparel items. Even in the Augustan period ther still exist
a few native-population inhumation burials in old Celtic tradition
inhumation burials 15). This can be observed from Gaul all the way to
the East Alpine area. Admittedly, such inhumation burials are
relatively rare; but those situated outside the cemeteries
distinguish themselves by their extraordinary wealth of apparel items
and Italic imports. The graves, frequently weaponless, were
constructed with great care, and they lie isolated or in small groups
outside the ordinary cemeteries. Both male and female burials have
been registered 16).
The wealth of the funerary accoutrement as well as the burial custom
and the segregated location indicate that leading members of the
Celtic society have been buried here. It seems as if the Celtic upper
layer in the period of Roman expansive policy under Augustus and
Tiberius harkened back to the once typical Celtic burial custom. It
cannot be excluded that they did that in order clearly to set
themselves apart, in the burial ceremonial, from those rites which
were customary to the Romans, and in the course of time now also to
their own popultation, but ultimately foreign 17). That the Celts in
various fields preserved their autonomy until the Claudian period,
can also be gathered from written sources 18). Case in point, Gallic
clothing was still worn, and this even by Celtic members of the
Roman Senate, in which wearing toga was customary. Also the druid
cult was not outlawed until Claudius. A certain adjustment to the new
situation is shown ie. by the fact that certain members of the upper
layer, even members of families who fought Caesar, had themselves
elected high priests at the Augustus altar at Lungudunum.
Generally spoken such a reaction by the Celtic upper layer can be
seen everywhere where it stood under Roman influence. At the same
time it should be stressed, that such reactions can be expressed
totally differently, because the old Celtic inhumation burial custom
was not taken up again everywhere. In many cases also the upper layer
went on practicing cremation burial - occasionally a restructuring of
the funerary accoutrement can be observed. As examples of this the
graves at Goeblingen-Nospelt in the Saar-Mosel area 19) and at Welwyn
Garden in South East England should be mentioned 20). As for the
regions bordering directly on the southern areas of the Elbe Germani,
it can be established as fact, that the native population in Noricum
and in northeastern Raetia could preserve their particular way of
life into the Claudian period 21), while the rest of Raetia
experienced a certain restriction of their autonomy 22). This may
have been caused by the settlement of Romanized population groups and
probably also by the founding of Cambodunum approx. in the year 17 CE
23).
In northeastern Raetia, bordering on western Noricum, a few
inhumation funerals from the early occupation period, already
presented by P. Reinecke in 1957, have become known 24). These
burials are characterized by Celtic - Eastern Alpine apparel
accoutrements, and they contain no weapons (fig. 24). Although
Reinecke did succeed in concluding the type of from apparel finds
alone, in spite of the fact only deficient information of the
circumstances of the finds was available to him at the time, too few
complete finds could be evaluated.
New discoveries in Kirchheim at München-Heimstätten, Ldkr. München,
have qualitatively definitely improved the source situation 25). Here
three NNW-SSO oriented inhumation burials were excavated, on their
backs and in a relatively shallow depth, from 45 to 60 cm, and with
distances from 4.5 to 8 m. Because of the shallow depth and the
distances between the graves the possibilty should be considered that
the graves were originally situated under mounds. It should not be
considered as certain that no further graves were situated in the
closer vicinity. The women's graves from Heimstätten contained rich
apparel accessories of Norican-Pannonian and also Provincial Roman
provenance, and they belong chronologically to the Tiberian into the
Claudian period 26).
For the known early Imperial Period inhumation funerals of North-East
Raetia the following is characteristic:
1. Graves are single, or the burials form small groups.
2. The orientation of the graves seems to follow no rules. The
deceased lie stretched out on their backs; occasionally slightly
crouched positions occur.
3. The graves were presumably covered with small mounds of approx. 5
m diameter. Often they appear as re-interments in older mounds.
4. Of apparel items fibulas, belt sets, neck, arm- and finger rings
and glass pearls or rings on strings have been found.
5. No weapons. Pottery, iron knives and, in a few cases, drinking
horns and bronze vessels occur.
The cultural assignation of these graves follows from the apparel.
Already Reinecke was of the opinion that these graves suggest to
think of a tribal characteristic within the North Raetian-Vindelican
area and to refer to these finds as indicators of an isolated tribal
area which continued to exist several decades after the occupation of
the country 15 BCE 27). Recently however the discussion of these
questions is moving between an assignation on the one hand to a
native residual Celtic population, on the other hand to a Romanised
group of people stemming from the Adige valley or even the founders
of Cambodunum 28). Although for many items, as in particular the
heavy gold jewellery (fig. 24) no direct predecessors are known as of
yet in Celtic artisanry 29), the finds from the late Celtic cremation
funeral field at Kundl in the Tirol 30) in particular show, that it
very well must be items of apparel of Celtic tradition (fig. 25).
Norican-Pannonian items of apparel in native tradition were the rule
in the northeast Alpine regions also after the Romans seized power.
A few individual items even reached into the neighboring Elbe
Germanic area to the north; apparently such ornaments were worn also
by the "Romanised" population of the occupation period. The finds
from the grave field and from the settlement at Kempten confirm this
31). From these observations, however, it must be concluded, that the
group of Northeast Raetian inhumation funerals should be interpreted
not solely based on the types of ornament, but on the type
combination and the total funerary ritual.
Reinecke's observation, that these inhumation burials are distributed
in area between Isar and Lech 32), is accurate to this day. For these
inhumation funerals it is characteristic, that they are situated
immediately east of Roman military posts (fig. 26), and it is easily
recognized that there must exist some sort of connection 33). Mostly
this situation is interpreted to mean that there must have been an
intention behind burying these deceased near Roman installations.
This conclusion however is not unconditionally inevitable, and it is
definitely conceivable, that inversely the Romans sought to place
their camps and military posts near Celtic power centers 34). This,
admittedly, would mean that the custom of inhumation burial appeared
earlier in the East Raetian area than assumed until now where such
graves have been dated to the late Tiberian-Claudian period. When
settling this question, the general situation of the East Raetian
(Vindelican) area in the Augustan - early Tiberian period must be
considered first.
Recently R. Christlein, building on earlier lines of reasoning by W.
Krämer and P. Glüsing, was able to demonstrate that in an area
adjoining to the east the area of the East Raetian inhumation
funerals, there appear late Latène Period cremation funerals (Latène
D2) of the Uttenhofen-Kronwinkl-Hortgertshausen Group (fig 27), which
he describes as Celtic and places in connection with the exodus of
the Helvetii (58 BCE) 35). Based on the fibulas and belt sets
situated in these areas 36), a more detailed relative-chronological
dating can be performed, inasmuch as Grave 2 from Kronwinkl, which
contains two arched iron fibulas 'mit oberer Sehne', should be
equated with the horizon Großromstedt B. The same is true for the
burial at Uttenhofen, where a late Latène fibula var. Beltz J is
accompanied with an arched Bronze fibula of type Almgren 18/1. The
fibula types as well as the openwork belt hooks show that these
graves are contemporaneous with Großromstedt B and thus also with the
Bohemian Phase 1. Connections to central Germany however can be
concluded by the late Latène fibula with openwork pin rest from Grave 1 at Hortgertshausen, which corresponds to those from the inhumation
grave (?) with sword and razor from Markkleeberg-Gautzsch 37). While
the Aylesford pan in this grave must be put down to Celtic
connections, the characteristic roller-stamped pottery must without a
doubt be categorized as Elbe Germanic. Now in Southern Bavaria itself
also the inhumation grave of Traunstein 38) must, because of its
fibulas var. Beltz J and the openwork belt hook, on the one hand be
connected with the cremation burials of the Uttenhofen-Kronwinkl-
Hortgertshausen Group, on the other hand with the Thuringian
inhumation grave at Meilingen 39). Beside these relations to Central
Germany the southern Bavarian cremation burials however also display
connctions to Bohemia, as already P. Glüsing was able to demonstrate
40). In close connection with the chronological determination and the
cultural historical evaluation of the cremation funerals mentioned
the question rises one again of the end of the southern Bavarian
oppida, and here in particular of that at Manching 41). Since the
cremation funerals of the Uttenhofen-Kronwinkl-Hortgertshausen Group
on the one hand should be equated with the Bohemian Phase 1
(Großromstedt B), on the other hand with Latène D2 in the South
German area, the destruction of the oppidum of Manchinng must have
taken place in a period between the end of Latène D1 and the Bohemian
Phase 1, ie. between 50/40 and 9/0 BCE. Since the Bavarian cremation
funerals are so narrowly connected to the finds of the Bohemian Phase
1, dating them to the period of the exodus of the Helvetii around 58
BCE is thus hardly acceptable. The question of a more accurate
determination of the end of Manching however must and can not be
pursued here, especially also as the available publications and the
extent of the excavated area at 5% of the total area do not permit us
to say anything more detailed on the subject for the present. Of
importance here also must be the observation, that the Bavarian
cremation funerals of the Uttenhofen-Kronwinkl-Hortgertshausen Group,
because of their connections to the Bohemian Phase 1, must be younger
than assumed until now. Also finds of early Elbe Germanic pottery
from these areas permit such a dating 42). In spite of all this the
ethnic labelling of this Bavarian grave group is still uncertain. The
finds from the grave field at Kundl do show though, that we should
absolutely consider established a direct continuity between Latène D1
and D2, and that therefore a population replacement in this area is
hardly likely 43). This area seems instead in the last decades BCE to
have been home to a Celtic residual population which admittedly
maintained close relations to the Elbe Germani regions of Bohemia
(Phase 1), Central Germany and also Franconia 44). Determining
whether the area of Lower Bavaria was settled by Celts or Germani in
these periods is obviously difficult for the reason that beside
Celtic traditions Germanic elements are also absolutely discernible.
It must however be considered significant, that Germanic elements in
the period corresponding to the Bohemian Phase 2, can no longer be
shown here 45), whereas from this time Celtic material again moves
more strongly into the foreground, as the finds from Karlstein-Bad
Reichenhall clearly show 46). There is even much which speaks for the
proposal that the Romans in the course of their occupation of the
regions north of the Alps, in the Eastern Lower Bavarian areas,
approx. between Manching and Karlstein, did not impinge so decisively
on the way of life of the Celtic population resident here 47). The
continued existence of the Celtic structure then also explains the
connections that exist between the inhumation burial at Traunstein
and the East Raetian inhumation funerals, since they reflect a local
tradition, although there seems to be a hiatus between them in the
late Augustan period, which probably should be explained as a
research lacuna.
That these inhumation funerals reveal Celtic funeral customs can be
explained from the preservation observed everywhere of Celtic
traditions in those areas north of the Alps which came under Roman
rule in the Augustan period. This did not change fundamentally until
the Claudian period, when a new organisation and consolidation of the
provinciae was undertaken 48).
The attitude and reaction of the Celtic upper layer in the period of
Roman expansion policy, ie. from the Caesarean period on, however now
make it possible to illuminate also the emergence of the Elbe
Germanic inhumation burials from a cultural historical perspective
49). This is so because certain correspondences can be observed
between the inhumation funerals in the Raetian and in the early Elbe
Germanic area:
1. Small segregated cemeteries are founded and burials are performed
here over an extended period.
2. The deceased lie on their backs in a stretched-outere seems or
slightly crouched, and they are not uniformly oriented.
3. Weapons are not included. Parts of apparel, knives and pottery are
typical funeral accoutrement.
4. Particular attention is paid to the construction of the grave
space.
In the basic features thus clear commonalities can be observerved.
Differences in the funerary accoutrement are are conditioned by the
different environment, where the Germanic areas are characterized by
needles and shears, the Celtic ones on the other hand by ornamental
rings and pearl necklaces. That direct contacts between the Elbe
Germani of Bohemia and the Celts in the northeast Alpine area are
apparent in a whole sequence of cultural factors and that enriching
influences above all went from the south northwards, this is
sufficiently known and undisputed. Just as clear is it that cultural
relations also after the Roman expansion in the Augustan period in
the areas north of the Alps not only continued to exist, but even
intensified further given the opportunities offered by the
well-developed commercial system of the early Imperial Period 50).
When however we observe, that in the Elbe Germanic area it was the
Marcomanni who as the first began to restructure their funerary
ritual with the goal, by the inhumation burial to set apart certain
of the deceased from the rest of the population, and when this rite
also can be observed among the high-ranking Celts of Raetia, then the
question crops up, why the Marcomanni did this. It can't be pure
coincidence; a conscious imitation is clearly recognizable. Since the
Marcomanni before their definitive defeat in the clash with Drusus in
the years 10/9 BCE obviously stayed somewhere in the Main region (?),
but certainly in an area bordering closely on the later Raetia,
contacts to the Celts settling here were, as could already be shown
above, not only likely, but can be actually demonstrated deep into
the Celtic area 51). It is therefore absolutely conceivable, that
part of the Marcomanni upper layer took over from the Celts the
custom of inhumation burial and the segregation expressed by it. This
happened probably not so much by pure imitation as rather by a
structural transfer with which the Germanic upper layer sought - in a
similar fashion to the Celtic one - to raise itsef through the
funerary ritual not only above their own warrior layer, but also
above the common population. It is very likely that the takeover took
place in a period, when the Celtic hierarchical system was still
intact, ie. before the Roman occupation of Raetia 52). It is also not
surprising, that it should be the Marcomanni under Marbod, who
possessed themselves a pronouncedly hierarchical system and among
whom therefore the idea of set of funerary rituals reserved for the
upper layer would be received favorably 53). That the emergence of
the inhumation custom takes place within Phase 2, ie. in the period
of consolidation of Marbod's rule, falls into place logically in the
archaeological scenario. The appearance of the inhumation funerals of
Group 1 can thus so far be explained by historical events. With
respect to the first question then, the answer that the Elbe Germani
took over the custom of inhumation burial from the neighboring
northern Alpine Celts turns out to be the most probable.
The archaeological data however also indicate, that the emergence and
development of the inhumation custom in the Elbe Germanic area should
be considered as differentiated in time and space. From their
interrelations the following rhythms can be determined:
From the Bohemian find material it can be shown, that the inhumation
funerals of Group 1 can be demonstrated since Phase 2 and in the
Phases 3 and 4. With the inhumation funerals of Group 2, which can
only be shown from Phase 3 on, however a significant further factor
joins in with the use of grave gifts of Roman culinary sets. It is
established, that since Phase 3 inhumation funerals of Groups 1 and 2
exist side by side. The emergence of inhumation funerals of Group 2
must however fundamentally be put down to the inhumation funerals of
Group 1. That can be concluded both from the position of the
deceased, the orientation, the structure and location of the grave,
from the set of apparel items. Other than chronologically conditioned
changes of the apparel items it is in particular however the grave
gifts of sets of imported Roman vessels or particular objects, which
is characteristic for the inhumation funerals of Group 2.
Observations made in southwestern Slovakia show that inhumation
funerals of Group 3 here appear from Phase 4 onwards. These burials
stand unambiguously in the tradition of those of Group 1. They differ
from the latter merely in being situated not separately, but within
the community cemeteries, but in a particular area of the cemetery. A
certain segregation is consequently also manifested here. Only from
Phase 5 on inhumation and cremation funerals seem no more to have
placed so clearly separate from each other. In the southwest
Slovakian area there do also exist inhumation burials of Group 2,
which obviously are contemporaneous wiith those of the Groups 3 and
4. Thus it can be shown, that the different groups of inhumation
burials allow distinctions as well temporally as spatially. This
becomes especially obvious from the relations between Bohemia and
southwestern Slovakia, where the latter appears to us as a secondary
settlement area. Thus also the second question can be answered
affirmatively: There do in fact exist temporally and spatially
conditioned differences.
The last question addresses the problem of how this restructuring to
the Lubiesowo/Lübsow graves as defined by Eggers came about, a
restructuring, which above all manifests itself in grave gift sets of
sets of Roman metal vessels, here emphasized as characteristic of the
inhumation funerals of Group 2. The Roman vessels could have reached
the Elbe Germani as guest gift as well as commercial commodity or
booty 54). They represented, and this goes of course especially for
silver and glass vessels, a great value, and they came into the
possession of both the social upper layer and that of warrior and
wealthy members of the society. If the owner died, these vessels and
other possessions were cremated along with him or they were placed in
the grave undamaged. The burials differ in the number and selection
of vessels. But only from a certain period on we observe typical
vessel combinations, such as pitcher and polubrum ('Griffschale'),
pairs of cups or basins, ladle and sieve. First from this moment on
the do Roman imported vessels begin to play a strictly defined role
in the Elbe Germanic ritual of the deceased and possibly also in the
burial rites. Regularities in the combination of polubrum and pitcher
have already been demonstrated convincingly from Moesia to Gaul 55).
If one asks the question of where this custom of grave gift sets of
specific culinary sets in the Elbe Germanic area came from, we have
to conclude that it couldn't stem from Raetia or Noricum, since there
is nothing similar there in the relevant periodst. We are rather
dealing with a custom practiced in Rome by a certain layer
(magistrate). It needs no special mention that the Elbe Germanic
upper layer under their King Marbod had access to Roman customs to
imitate, since after the "peace treaty" in the year 6 CE they
entertained particularly close connections with Rome 56).
The study of rich cremation funerals in Italy shows, that these
either contain numerous grave gifts, like metal vessels, jewelry or
games 57), or that these objects, in a certain sense vicariouly, are
depicted in wall paintings in the grave chamber. These wall paintings
offer us a wealth of informations in this respect, since very often
several vessels are depicted which don't end up in the graves of
Roman upper layer. In a impressive manner this is what the frescos
show us in the grave chamber of the aedil Vestorius Priscus at the
Porta Vesuvio in Pompeii, which by the later funeral of his mother
Mulvia Prisca can be dated to approx. the Claudian period 58). The
grave chamber which is made up like a temple is well preserved, and
in it is found painted scenes from the life of the young aedil. In
this connection it is important that also his funeral meal is
depicted. This scene consists of a table, at which 5 people are
seated. Next to it is placed a sideboard table, on which several
silver vessels in symmetric arrangement can be seen (table 5). Under
the table stand pitcher and patera. The metal vessels correspond in
their form to those which also appear in Elbe Germanic graves in
certain combinations 59).
This speaks in favor of the assumption, that the Group 1 funerary
ritual practiced by the Elbe Germani upper layer was restructured by
Roman influence into Group 2. On the other hand, this can not have
been a simple takeover; a profound restructuring and change in the
concepts of the beyond must be assumed. This becomes especially
obvious in the frequent grave gift set of pitcher and polubrum,
which, used in ritual ablutions, testify to the takeover of an idea
and were placed in the graves not just for their material value.
Whether this however can be assumed in all cases or only in a few
cases is very difficult to determine. In any case, such a
restructuring cannot be demonstrated in all inhumation burials, for
it turns out, that only a small fraction of the deceased took the
step to Group 2, and thus we must conclude, that there has existed a
far-reaching differentiation in the upper layer. The inhumation
funerals of the Groups 3 and 4, which can best be followed in the
southwestern Slovakian area, represent a further development from
Group 1. It cannot be excluded, that this also manifests historical
processes, ie. that they can be connected to the founding of Vannius'
empire after the overthrow of the rulers Marbod and Catualda.
With the emergence of the inhumation burial among the early Elbe
Germani we see the outline of a particularly interesting process in
which a part of the funerary ritual was taken over by the leading
layer of a neighboring area. This can not be seen only as an attempt
to align oneself with the foreign upper layer and its hierarchical
system; it also expresses a wish to detach oneself from one's own
population 60). As already stated above, the restructuring of the
funerary ritual in two stages, in which at first, in the period
around the birth of Christ, a Celtic element and then, in the first
decades CE, a Roman element found acceptance in the funerary ritual
of the Elbe Germanic upper layer.
II. CREMATION FUNERALS
It can be assumed to be well-known that with the cremation funerals
with certain recurrent weapon combinations, with rich apparel and
imported metal vessels, which further in many grave fields are
conspicuously concentrated in certain areas, the burials of a local
leading social layer can be comprehended. The weapon set permits an
interpretation as warrior graves. When comparing the graves of weapon
set Groups a, b, c and d also gradual differences within the warrior
layer become visible. It is true that we can't yet determine whether
a further subdivision of weapon set Group a is feasible, and it
should also be said that the sources not yet suffice to make out
regularities in the other funeral accoutrement 61). It looks however
as if the more or less opulent grave sets of pieces of apparel and
imported metal vessels reflected local opportunities and private
property of the deceased.
For the evaluation of the changes in the funerary ritual of the
warrior layer it is important to note, that in the course of Phase 4
came about the development of the cremation funeral Group 2 (grave
gift sets of Roman Services and other select Roman items) and Group 3
(weaponless burials separate from the community cemeteries). When
compared with the restructurings in the inhumation funerals it turns
out that the changes in the cremation funerals appear with certain
delays. In the cremation funeral Group 2 it amounts to one phase, in
Group 3 even to two phases. Since we may assume that also the
cremating warrior layer were aware of the corresponding Celtic and
Roman cuistoms, the delay in the restructuring of the funerary should
probably just be explained by observing that it could only take
place, as people actually became aware of the idea, that the in
subdomains changed funerary ritual indicates a particular status.
This awareness did not become established in the warrior layer until
the late Tiberian and Claudian period. It is however also here again
characteristic that only part of the warrior layer undertook this
step. But why did they do this? It is obvious that it is not the
wealth of apparel parts and the weapon set which distinguish the
leading layer. The unique and different funerary ritual does that.
The appearance of cremation burial Groups 2 and 3 is therefore to be
interpreted such that members of the warrior layer strove for
positions of the upper layer and in some cases also obtained them.
Particularly obvious is this process in the graves of Group 3, which
lie apart and possess no weapons. That means consequently, that the
inhumating southern Elbe Germani must higher rank socially, a rank
desirable for the members of the cremating warrior layer.
A comparable taking over of subdomains of the new funerary ritual can
also be observed in the rich weaponless funerals deposited in
imported metal vessels in community cemeteries. Also in these graves,
as in the weapon graves, a delay in the restructuring of the funerary
ritual is recorded.
1 H. J. Eggers, Prähist. Zeitschr. 34/35, 1949/50, 104 ff.
2 Cf.
G. C. F. Lisch,
Jahrb. Ver. mecklenburg. Gesch. u. Altkde 8, 1843, 38 ff.;
id., Jahrb. Ver. mecklenburg. Gesch. u. Altkde 35, 1870, 135 ff.;
O. Almgren, Mannus 10, 1918, 1 ff.;
M. Jahn, in:
Vorgeschichte der deutschen Stämme (hrsg. H. Reinerth) 3 (1940) 967;
W. Schrickel, Jahrb. RGZM 11, 1964, 138 ff.
3 H. J. Eggers ibd. (note 1) 105 ff.
4
F. Cumont, Recherches sur le symbolisme funéraire des Romains (1966);
J. M. Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World (1971);
J. Marquardt, Das Privatleben der Römer (1886)2 340 ff.
5 J. M. Toynbee, a a. O.33 ff; cf. on that subject also:
H. Bürgin-Kreis, in:
Provincialia, Festschrift R. Laur-Belart (1968) 25 ff.
The custom of inhumation burial can be demonstrated in the 1st cent
CE in the Roman provinces from Northern Gaul to the Alpine region.
Whether in fact this has to do with Celtic traditions or whether also
other causes should be considered, should be investigated in a
regional perspective. Cf.
A. v. Doorselaer,
Les nécropoles de l'époque romaine en Gaule septentrionale,
Diss. Arch. Gand., 10 (1967);
R. Nierhaus, Helinium 9, 1969, 245 ff.;
G. Graeser, Ur-Schweiz 28, 1964, 29 ff.;
id., Ur-Schweiz 33, 1969, 2 ff.
6
M. Mackensen, Das römische Gräberfeld auf der Keckwiese in Kempten,
I. Gräber and Grabanlagen des 1. and 4. Jahrhunderts.
Cambodunumforschungen 4,
Materialh. Bayer. Vorgesch.,
Reihe A 34 (1978).
7
M. Jahn, in:
25 Jahre Siedlungsarchäologie (hrsg. H. Hahne),
Mannus Bibl. 22 (1922) 78 ff.;
id. ibd. (note 2) 986 ff.
8
K. H. Otto, Jahresschr. Halle 33, 1949, 120 ff.;
id., Jahresschr. Halle 34, 1950, 142 ff.
9 Für die Latènezeitliche Gruppe 1 sind charakteristisch:
z. B. die Gräber von
Z.erniki Wielkie, pow. Wrocl/aw
(Ch. Pescheck, Die frühwandalische Kultur in Mittelschlesien.
Quellenschr. ostdt. Vor- u. früh-gesch. 5 (1939) 171 ff., 210 ff.) and
Biskupin, pow. Z.nin (B. Balke, Wiadomos´ci Arch. 34, 1969, 361 ff.).
On the Celtic tradition:
J. Kostrzewski, Sprawoszdania PAU Kraków 41, 1936, 183;
Z. Woz.niak, Osadnictwo celtyjske w Polsce (1970) 323;
St. Pazda, Studia Archeologiczne 5, 1972, 92 ff.
For the early Imperial period Group 2 should be mentioned:
the graves of
Wrocl/aw-Kozanow (Ch. Pescheck ibd. fig. 3),
Radwanice, pow. Wrocl/aw
(I. Kramarkowa, Silesia Antiqua 16, 1974, 197 ff.),
Kraków-Nowa Huta, pow.Krakow
(R. Hachulska-Ledwos, Mat. Arch. Kraków 7, 1966, 151 ff.) and
Czacz, pow. Kos´cian
(B. Kostrzewski, Fontes Arch. Posnan. 6, 1955, 68).
Listing of all inhumation burials in the area of the Przeworsk culture in:
K. Bykowski,
Acta Univ. Wratislawiensis 253,
Studia Archeologiczne 7, 1976, 139 ff.
Here also further reading.
Finally on that subject:
J. Wielowiejski (Hrsg.)
Póz´ny okres laten´ski i okres rzymski.
Prahistoria ziem Polskich 5 (1981) 108 ff.
11 H.J. Eggers ibd. (note 3) 109, Tab. I.
12 J. Filip,
Keltové ve str^ední Evrope.
Monumenta Archaeologica 5 (1956) 289 ff.
On the situation in Southern Bavaria and in Tirol: cf.
W. Krämer, Germania 39, 1971, 305 ff.;
O. Menghin, Bayer. Vorgeschbl. 39, 1974, 80 ff.;
R. Christlein, in:
Das archäologische Jahr in Bavaria (hrsg. R. Christlein) (1980)
108 ff.
Especially important are the observations in
Hortgertshausen (R. Christlein ibd.),
where apparently on has to assume small heaped-up mounds.
13 K. Peschel, Ausgr. u. Funde 20, 1975, 235 ff.
Here however considering unconvincing connections to the Rhine area.
Cf. on the finds in the Rhine area:
B. Stümpel. Mitt. Hist. Ver. Pfalz 67, 1969, 64 ff.
14 W. Krämer ibd. (note 12) 305 ff.
15 Cf. on that subject:
J. Werner, Bayer. Vorgeschbl. 20, 1954, 44 ff.;
id., Bayer. Vorgeschbl. 43, 1978, 1 ff.;
J. L. Flouest - I. M. Stead,
Mém. de la soc. d'agr. commerc. sc. et arts du dép. Marne
92, 1977, 55 ff.
16 In general on this problem:
J. Collis, CBA-Report (1977) 3 ff.
17 This becomes apparent even in Southern France, eg. in the grave at
Saint-Laurent des Arbres (Dép. Gard) in the Rhone valley,
which must be dated to the initial Augustan period
(G. Barruol - G. Sauzade, Riv. Stud. Liguri 35, 1969, 15 ff.).
In this grave was found beside helmet, sword, lance and shield a
drinking set consisting of pottery and bronze vessels. In the Rhone
valley several burials of this kind can be demonstrated. The
well-known princely grave at Fontillet, Berry-Bouy (Dép. Cher), also
with sword, shield, lance and Roma bronze vessels is dated to the
late Augustan period
(J. Werner, Bayer. Vorgeschbl. 20, 1954, 60 ff., fig. 6).
No doubt in these graves we are dealing with funerals of Celtic
nobles.
18 On that subject:
V. Gardthausen,
Augustus and seine Zeit 1, 2; 2, 2 (1964)
(Nachdruck der Ausgabe Leipzig 1896).
19
G. Thill, Hemecht 18, 1966, 483 ff.;
id., Hemecht 19, 1967, 199 ff.
This graves and their relation to the outgoing late Latène period in
the central Rhine area in:
A. Haffner, Arch. Korrbl. 4, 1974, 59 ff.
Haffner places the grave of Trier-Olewig
(R. Schindler, Trierer Zeitschr. 34, 1971, 43 ff.)
in the early phase of his Horizon 5, but the graves C and D at
Goeblingen-Nospelt in the later phase of this horizon. The grave B at Goeblingen-Nospelt and the burial at Wincheringen
(H. Koethe - W. Kimmig, Trierer Zeitschr. 12, 1937, 44 ff.)
he places in the earliest group of Roman time graves.
Grave A at Goeblingen-Nospelt, according to him, belongs in the
transitional period between the two horizons. The end of horizon 5 is dated at 10 BCE at the latest, the start approx. between 50 and 40
BCE (A. Haffner ibd. 68 ff.). Geographically extensive connections
evident from the scabbard from Grave B (outlay in Opus interrasile) at: J. Werner, in: Latène-Symposium Male Vozokany (1977) 370 ff. The
finds in Goeblingen-Nospelt are also important because a continuity
can be demonstrated here in the funerary ritual of the Treveri upper
layer (grave sequence C/D - A - B). This shows us that the first
impulses from the Roman world, such as the taking over of drinking
sets and amphorae in Northern Gaul, came already shortly after the
Caesarian period. To what extent the upper layer could preserve their
autonomy in the funerary ritual into late Augustan and early Tiberian
times is uncertain. The common population was apparently Romanised,
as shown by the grave fields of Wederath
(A. Haffner,
Das keltisch-römische Gräberfeld von Wederath-Belginum,
Trierer Grabungen u. Forschungen
6, 1 (1971); 6, 2(1974); 6,3 (1978)) and
Lebach
(G. Gerlach,
Das Gräberfeld Die Motte" bei Lebach.
Saarbrücker Beitr. Altkde. 16 (1976)).
However, independent Treveri auxiliary troops are documented
historically into the Claudian period
(A. Kraft, Jahrb. RGZM 4, 1957, 104 ff.).
20 The graves of the type Welwyn Garden
(I. M. Stead, Archeologia 101, 1967, 1 ff.)
are characterized by rich cremation burials situated outside the
community cemeteries. They include great grave pits, and they contain
culinary sets, consisting of Italic, Roman or Belgic imported bowls,
amphorae, game pieces, iron knives, weapons and fire dogs. I. M. Stead distiguishes between two groups. The older, in which Kelheim
type jugs and silver cups appear, is dated to the period between 50
and 10 BCE (graves: Welwyn A, Welwyn B, Welwyn Garden City). The
younger group on the other hand is characterized by Terra Sigillata
and Gallo-Belgian products. It is dated to the period between 10 BCE
and 50 CE. The most important graves are those of Mount Bures,
Snailwell, Stanfordbury A, Stanfordbury B. Both grave groups should
be seen as connected to the Aylesford-Swarling culture, which is
distributed in Southeast England, in Normandy, Picardy and in Belgium
during the late Latène. The burials of this culture mostly contain
pottery, only rarely pieces af apparel and exceptionally bronze
vessels (A. Birchall, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 31, 1965, 241 ff.). Cf.
also: J.-L. Flouest - I. M. Stead, Iron Age Cemeteries in Champagne
in: Brit. Mus. Occas. Papers 6 (1979). Princely graves exist also in
even later periods. Cf.: P. G. Laver, Archaeologia 76, 1926/27, 241
ff. When considering the Welwyn Garden type graves it is important,
that on the one hand connections exist to the normal burials of the
Aylesford-Swarling culture, on the other hand that a restructuring of
the funerary rituals under Roman influence can be determined and
thereby a continuity from approx. Caesarean into the Claudian period.
21
G. Alföldy,
Noricum. The Provinces of the Roman Empire (1974) 62 ff.
Here also the most important litterature.
22 B. Overbeck, Raetien zur Prinzipatszeit, in:
ANRW 5, 2 (1976) 669 ff.
23 Cf.
W. Krämer, Cambodunumforschungen 1953/1.
Die Ausgrabungen von Holzhäusern zwischen der 1. and 2. Querstraße, Materialh. bayer. Vorgesch. 9 (1957) 118;
M. Mackensen ibd. (note 6) 180 ff.
24 P. Reinecke, Bayer. Vorgeschbl. 22, 1957, 36 ff.
25 E. Keller, Arch. Korrbl. 3, 1973, 325 ff.
I would like to thank Herr Dr. E. Keller cordially for additional
information on this grave complex and for the opportunity of taking a
view of the grave plans and the find inventory of his as yet
unprinted article.
26
Dated to early Tiberian period in:
M. Menke, in: Studien zur vor- u. earlygeschichtlichen Archäologie, Festschrift J. Werner 1 (1974) 141.
Dated to Tiberian-Claudian period in:
E. Keller ibd. 327; J. Garbsch, in:
Studien zur vor- u. frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie,
Festschrift J. Werner 1 (1974) 163 ff.
In M. Mackensen (ibd. (note 6) 49 ff.) discussion of the dating
proposed by M. Menke.
The dating of these graves is based on the assignation of the fibulas
Almgren 236 b4 (list in J. Garbsch ibd. 180), the last (?) appearance
of which should be documented in Claudian camps, and of the fibulas
Almgren 238 f, which however also should be documented in the early
Tiberian period. Cf. on that point: J. Garbsch ibd. 169, note 14. In
this proposed dating one should however take into account, that
normally the Alpine fibula forms are dated under the assumption that
the East Raetic inhumation funerals at the earliest should belong to
the period after the founding of the first Roman military
installations. Only in grave 1 at Heimstätten comes a direct pointer,
as it contained a sesterce of Gaius Caesar, minted for Agrippina
mater (37/41 CE.). Meanwhile, apparel parts from the cremation
funerals at Kundl in Tirol (O. Menghin, Bayer. Vorgeschbl. 39, 1974,
80 ff.) make Celtic traditions clearly evident in belt sets as well
as in Alpine fibulas.
27 P. Reinecke ibd. (note 24) 57 ff.
28 Cf. on that subject:
M. Menke ibd. (note 26) 144 ff.;
M. Mackensen ibd. (note 6) 51.
29 M. Menke ibd. 141 ff.
30 O. Menghin ibd. (note 26) 80 ff.
31 M. Mackensen ibd. (note 6) 49.
32 P. Reinecke ibd. (note 24) fig. 1.
33 P. Glüsing, Offa 21/22, 1964/65, 7 ff., fig. 1.
34 something similar can be observed already in Caesar's conquest of
Gaul.
Cf. on that subject also:
E. M. Wightman, Helinium 17, 1977, 105 ff.
35 R. Christlein, Bayer. Vorgeschbl. 47, 1982, 275 ff.
Cf. on that subject:
W. Krämer, Germania 30, 1952, 330 ff.;
id., Germania 37, 1959, 140 ff.;
id., Bayer. Vorgeschbl. 33, 1968, 81 ff.;
P. Glüsing ibd. (note 33) 7 ff.
On these question finally also:
S. Rieckhoff-Pauli, Bayer. Vorgeschbl. 48, 1983, 98 ff.
36
Uttenhofen: W. Krämer, Germania 30, 1952, table 20, 11 - 19;
Kronwinkl: id., Germania 37, 1959, fig. 1 and 2.
37
Markkleeberg-Gautzsch:
Th. Voigt, Jahresschr. Halle 32, 1940, tabel 9, 2;
Hortgertshausen: R. Christlein ibd. (note 35) fig. 3, 1.
38 W.Krämer, Germania 30, 1952, table 20, 1 - 10.
39 K. Peschel, Ausgr. u. Funde 20, 1975, 235 ff.
On the connections between Mellingen and Traunstein already:
R. Christlein ibd. (note 35) 285.
40 P. Glüsing ibd. (note 33) 10.
41 On the end of the oppidum at Manching cf.
W. Krämer, Germania 40, 1962, 304 ff.;
R. Christlein ibd. (note 35) 275 ff.
42
Manching: W. Krämer, Germania 39, 1961, 320, note 52;
Günzburg: E. Keller, Bayer. Vorgeschbl. 35, 1970, 142 f.;
Karlstein: M. Menke, in:
Latène-Symposium Male Vozokany (1977) 223 ff., fig. 6.
Cf. also:
K. Peschel,
Anfänge germanischer Besiedlung im Mittelgebirgsraum,
Sueben-Hermunduren-Markomannen.
Arbeits- u. Forschber. Sachsen, Beih. 12 (1978) 189 ff.
43 O. Menghin ibd. (note 26) 80 ff.
44 R. Christlein ibd. (note 35) 281 ff. however connects the grave
group Uttenhofen-Kronwinkl-Hortgertshausen exclusivly with Latène
material from Central Germany. His comparisons are based on the late
Latène potter's wheel ware, the appearance of which is not ethnically
bound, but, because of its excellent quality, was used also by
"non-Celts". That's why the appearance of late Latène potter's wheel
ware on the one hand, and handmade, early Elbe Germanic pottery on
the other hand, should also be evaluated differently. At least a part
of these graves (Traunstein, Hortgertshausen) ist however because of
the apparel items and because of the continuous development
demonstrable in Kundl certainly Celtic. The Germanic elements,
predominantly arched fibulas, but in a few cases also pottery, must
however be placed in connection with central Germany and Bohemia.
Thus also S. Rieckhoff-Pauli ibd. (note 35) 41. Already P. Glüsing
ibd. (note 3 3) 20, distinguishes in Lower Bavaria between a Celtic
and a Germanic phase (?).
45 Something similar is seen as well in Southern Bohemia as in
Franconia (here in the course of Phase 2) and this may be causally
connected. Referring to the absolute dating of the Bohemian Phase 2
this retreat of the Germani can likely be connected to the
large-scale pincer attack by Tiberius and Saturninus against Marbod.
Of that it is reported, that leaving Carnuntum under Tiberius, and
leaving Mainz under Saturninus, in total 12 Roman legions pushed
forward. The enormous size of the army could not have been only in
order to match the troop strength of the Marcomanni opponent, but the
intention must also have been to leave behind units behind in the
invaded territories for the purpose of pacifying them. According to
the written testimony, the two army units were only 5 days' march
away from the enemy outposts when the whole campaign had to be
aborted because of the Pannonian uprising (Vell. Paterc. II, 110).
From Mainz, in the direction of Boiohaemum, the most direct route for
Saturninus went over Hesse, along the Main river, to Lower Bavaria,
where he was to meet up with Tiberius, who was following the Danube.
Also for tactical-military reasons it would be appear obvious for the
appointed meeting point to be situated in the area around Linz, thus
in the area of the friendly Noricans, from which central Bohemia
could be reached, along the Moldau river. The importance of this
Danube passage was, as known, soon afterwards matched with the
building of the castella of Linz and Enns-Lorch
(H. Ubl, in:
W. S. Hanson - L. J. F. Keppie,
Roman Frontier Studies, Bd. 2,
BAR Internat. Ser. 71 (1980) 590).
It should be admitted the actual sequence of events of this
enterprise cannot yet be reconstructed in detail. It does appear
though that on the hypothetical march route of Saturninus, there are
no traces of Germanic settlement, in Franconia in the course of Phase
2, in Bavaria from the beginning of Phase 2. The fate of the Germani
once settled here is unknown. From the late Tiberian period on, ie.
after the "pincer attack", Elbe Germanic finds appear in the Roman
Rhine provinces, and it can therefore not be excluded that, that
Saturninus' retreat is responsible for the fate of the Germani
settled on his march route. On the Suebians in the Rhine area: R.
Nierhaus, Das suebische Gräberfeld von Diersheim, Röm.-Germ. Forsch.
28 (1966) 182 ff.
46 Zu Karlstein: cf. M. Menke ibd. (note 42) 223 ff.
47 This already discussed in detail by G. Ulbert. Here it is even
assumed, that the great Danube oppida at Manching and Kelheim
continued to exist after the occuption of Raetia
(G. Ulbert, Germania 35, 1957, 324 ff.).
The Raetian inhumation funeral group is here interpreted as the
continuation of a Celtic local development into the Tiberian-Claudian
period. On the interpretation of Lower Bavaria in the Augustan and
Tiberian period cf. W. Krämer ibd. (note 41) 314 ff. Here also maps
of the distribution of the stages D1, D2 and D3.
48
B. Overbeck, in: ANRW II, 5, 2 (1976) 658 ff.;
H. J. Kellner, in: ANRW II, 5, 1 (1976) 690 ff.
49 The inhumation funerals begin in the Elbe Germanic area with the
Bohemian Phase 2. If the grave at Markkleeberg-Gautzsch
(H.-J. Eggers,
Der Grabfund von Markkleeberg-Gautzsch bei Leipzig.
Studien aus Alteuropa 2. Festschr. K. Tackenberg.
Beih. Bonner Jahrb. 10/2 (1965) 201 ff.)
should turn out to be in fact an inhumation burial, then this find
may illustrate how the inhumation custom was taken over in the
neighboring areas.
50 Here the question should be asked, how the fact that the old trade
relations apparently were not interrupted after the Marcomanni
destruction of the Celtic oppida should be understood historically.
Does that not speak for special and broader contacts between
Bohemian Boii and the immigrated Marcomanni? The question is
important because then it must be determined who functioned in
Southern Bohemia as mediator to Noricum from Phase 2 on, when this
area obviouly was no longer settled by Marcomanni.
51 Cf. note 42 and 44.
52 The Germani's veneration for the Celtic upper layer is evident not
only from the occasional marriage of Germanic leaders with daughters
of the Celtic nobility (Ariovistus with the sister of king Vocco of
Noricum, cf. BG I, 53, 4), but also from the fact that Germanic
leaders assumed Celtic names. Cf. on that subject:
R. Much, Zeitschr. dt. Altert, u. dt. Lit. 65, 1928, 1 ff.;
A. Scherer, Beitr. Namenforsch. 4, 1953, 5.
On this question R. Nierhaus ibd. (note 45).
53 E. Gierach, König Marbod, in: Gymnasium 50, 1939, 82.
54 On that subject:
H. J. Eggers, Der römische Import im Freien Germanien.
Atlas der Urgeschichte 1 (1951) 64 ff.;
J. Kunow,
Negotiator et Vectura. Händler and Transport im Freien Germanien, in:
Kl. Schr. Vorgesch. Seminar Marburg 6 (1980);
J. Oldenstein, in: Arch. Korrbl. 5, 1975, 299 ff.
55 H. U. Nuber, in: Ber. RGK 53, 1972, 1 ff.
56 Permanent relations were maintained by envoys.
On that subject:
Vell. Paterc. II, 109, 2.
57 Cf. on that subject:
R. Zahn, Jahrb. DAI 65/66, 1950/51, 264 ff.
58
G. Spano,
Atti della Accad. d'Italia.
Memorie della Classe di Scienze Morali e Storiche,
7. Ser., 3, 1943, 237 ff.;
J.-M. Dentzer, Mélanges Ecole Franç. Rome 74, 1962, 534 ff.
59 Cf. on that subject:
H. U. Nuber ibd. (note 41) 144 ff.;
H. Gabelmann, Helvetia Arch. 49, 1982, 9 ff.
60 The same can be observed in the Thraco-Dacian upper layer of the
Principate period.
Here above all the graves of
Alikaria, Anhial province, and
Elehc^a, Haskovo province, in Bulgarien, and the grave at
Vize, Lüleburgaz district, in Turkey
should be mentioned.
Cf. on that subject:
B. A. Raev, 58. Ber. RGK 1977, 632 ff.
The same is true of burials of the contemporaneous Western Ukrainian
Lipica culture
(M. Smiszko, Wiadomos´ci Arch. 13, 1935, 154 ff.;
id., Sov. Arch. 1957/1, 238 ff.).
61 Here above regional peculiarities should be taken account of.
Something similar appears in the investigtion of the sword graves in
the Bronze and Iron Age. As a rule the sword determines securely
which particular group the grave belongs to; the differences in the
number of apparel items and grave gifts is on the other hand more
dependent on personal opportunities and wealth.
> Note that in the supposedly exhaustive probing of all possible
> ethnic origins of the new inhumation-related funeral customs,
> Sarmatian doesn't get a single word.
Torsten