Re: The Heuneburg

Uwe Müller wrote: dr7as0$gqt$1@xxxxxxxxx,
"Peter Alaca" schrieb
Uwe Müller wrote:
"Peter Alaca" schrieb

snip >
The burial practics of the Late Bronze Age - early iron Age elites
can be viewed at Tomba http://www.rgzm.de/tomba1/home/frames.htm >>> a data base for rich burials.

I come no further than the first page, and back to the RGZN. 

I had to dig up the old Internet Exploder, enable Java, put all
security settings to near enough nil and wait a long time, even with
a dsl connection. The site will then send a little piece of something
setting up a window with a searchable registry. You can search by
names, countries, artefact types etc.


BTW see also: Bettina Arnold (2000)
"A Landscape of Ancestors: The Space and
Place of Death in Iron Age West-Central Europe"
In: Helaine Silverman and David B. Small (eds)
"The Space and Place of Death"
Archeological Papers of the American
Anthropological Association 11(2000):129-145
http://tinyurl.com/da44c   [pdf 206 pp, 5 Mb]


Another nice site. Some notes on the text from Bettina Arnold: Latest
Hallstatt, Hallstatt D3, ist thought to be contemporary with Latène
A, the difference being more of a cultural, economic and political
thing, than only being a difference in time. At the Heuneburg, one of
the major focal points of Late Hallstatt society, Hallstatt D3 would
have lasted longer, around the Hohenasperg, one of the early emerging
centres of early Latene society, it would have been short (if present
at all).

As for the analysis of the graves and the landscape surrounding them,
she puts IMHO to much stress on the central burials, and forgets,
that the majority were secondary burials in existing tumuli. Zuern
has argued, that at a number of sites, a clear pattern can be seen,
women, married and with children, were buried in the central grave of
a newly constructed tumulus, while their male children, unmarried
female children and husbands, were buried in secondary burials in
their mothers tumulus. Other areas show male inhumations as founding
burials, with secondary (unknown relation to the first) burials added
later, so the social relations in the early iron age are far from
uniform.


Intriguing phenomenon.

In addition to that, she fails to mention, that for instance the
erection of tumuli beside roads or well traveled routes, the
positioning on high lying grounds outside of primary, in many cases
even of secondary settlement areas, is quite old and can be followed
to at least the late Megalithic. And lots more could have been said
about the looting of graves, which is not a general phenomenon, but
seems to be rather restricted to times of change.


And posibly influencend our understanding.

As to the elites being buried in those graves, a comparison between
rich (containing gold and/or pieces of waggons) and poor burials
shows, that for any rich burial, there were only about 15 to 20 poor
graves. For our understanding, this woud not even be enough to call
the rich burials those of a small village chief, but rather of a
bigger farm or small hamlet. The term Fuerstensitz, princely
settlement, is very colourfull, but does not give any indication of
the real social relations of the times discussed. I prefer the
terminus residence.


But in fact that means in a way a greater social difference
then if the ratio was e.g. 1:10000.
It means there was not just one rich 'king' and his family,
but a far more extended class of riches, and a relativily
small underclass of sevants(?). (if the burial practise reflects
the facts of life).
So what we see(!) appears to be a very wealthy society.

Following the discoveries of the rich grave at the Glauberg the
discussion of the ritual landscape constructed around burial sites,
as she does, is a very important contribution to our knowledge about
the time. Some minor faults do not marr the picture, if viewed as a
generalisation.


--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°

.