Abstract
This chapter contains the interpretation of the results described in Chap. 4. The first section deals with a general overview of the group identities that may be linked to the funerary practice patterns uncovered through the statistical groups. Most attention will be given to a separate discussion of each cluster, highlighting their main characteristics by comparison with other groups and suggesting possible scenarios for the communal identities that they signal. The second section takes a wider ranging approach, focussing on the two large supra-groups formed by some of the clusters and underlining the elements that differ and the ones that they have in common and what kind of scenario such a situation supports. This is followed in the third section by a micro-analysis of the various geographical regions within the study area, determining the general characteristics of the graves from each and making deductions of the possible development of particularly localized identities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Notes
- 1.
It should also be noted that there may also be errors introduced through the clustering procedure, leading to some graves being placed wrongfully in a group. Some of these errors are signaled and, when possible, corrected in the different sections of this chapter.
- 2.
An effect introduced by this situation, and already discussed in the previous chapter, is the difficulty in statistically validating the clustering results.
- 3.
It should be noted that such an interpretation method unavoidably leads to a series of repetitions. In order to reduce such situations, some group characteristics will be intentionally omitted if they are not relevant to the comparison or if they were amply discussed in a different section.
- 4.
This last observation is significant since cluster 1 and 2 contained a nearly identical number of graves: there were 51 in group 1 and 50 in group 2.
- 5.
The reasons for someone being seen as an outcast were probably varied. They may have been ostracized because of some activity that they carried out during their life or they may have been slaves since the existence of occasional slaves among the communities of the Eastern Carpathian basin was mentioned (Bodor 1981; Florea 2006; Gostar and Lica 1984). Alternatively, social exclusion could have been brought about by some diseases or disabilities, although the lack of extensive pathological data does not allow for confirmation.
- 6.
It should be mentioned that Jordanes wrote several hundred years later, although he had as sources writings that were chronologically closer to the Late La Tène.
- 7.
Using natural scoops in the rock for placing bodies is not an uncommon practice (Parker Pearson 1999, p. 5). Nonetheless, there are no other such instances in the Late Iron Age of the Eastern Carpathian basin and the Lower Danube.
- 8.
The cluster.stats R function calculates a separation of just 0.08 between the two.
- 9.
However, in terms of spatial distribution, there is a larger overlap than in the case of group 4, since several group 5 graves were found in Muntenia.
- 10.
It should be mentioned that for other chronological periods it was noted that arrowheads frequently appeared in the graves of women or children, for which reason they have been interpreted as being highly symbolical, without any reference to martial aspects (Knaut 1993, p. 209).
- 11.
The presence of weapons in graves does not necessarily imply that those individuals were full-time warriors during their lifetimes. Such an assumption would have to be backed up by anthropological analyses to confirm the presence of battle injuries (cf. Hausmair 2015). Nonetheless, in this study I refer to the deceased of groups 4, 5 and 6 as having a martial identity, even though they may well not have been (all) warriors.
- 12.
- 13.
An excellent analysis of the written sources is offered by Petre (2004).
- 14.
Accepting uncritically the information coming from the ancient texts could also place present interpretations in terms of the world picture of their authors.
- 15.
To be fair it is more Centre-West, but to allow for easier language and contrast West will be used.
- 16.
The only type that appeared in both instances was the type 17 fibula as defined by Rustoiu, also known as the Jezerine fibula. However, the brooch from the Western supra-group, coming from Piatra Craivii, was signaled as being a local variation since it was made of iron, rather than bronze, and it was considerably larger than all other Jezerine fibulae. Hence, it has been argued that the brooch from Piatra Craivii was in fact not part of the regular dress in which such fibula types were normally included (Rustoiu and Gheorghiu 2009, 2010).
- 17.
It should be noted that the graves of Poiana and Răcătău, both found in Moldova, were situated outside of the regular distribution area for the Western supra-group, which already signals their unusual character. Only one grave appeared in each instance.
- 18.
The graves usually contained a combination of weapons and vessels or just simply vessels.
- 19.
Such a situation is not surprising since it should be remembered that clusters 1 and 2 were statistically similar.
- 20.
It should be noted that one of the graves is an uncertain discovery.
- 21.
Some of the adornments were quite lavish and unique in character, such as a gilded mask and other golden objects.
- 22.
A nearly identical situation was encountered at the site of Brad, which was another Late Iron Age settlement placed on the same Siret River and situated several kilometres to the North of Răcătău.
- 23.
However, tumulus 1, which was placed in cluster 4, actually fits better in group 5. Still, that would not change its inclusion in the larger Western supra-group.
- 24.
In this respect it is worth mentioning again the relatively higher investment required for cremations when compared with inhumations (cf. Williams 2004).
- 25.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the inhumations pertaining to the Eastern supra-group were found in this case outside a settlement, in a place that was specifically reserved for the dead, which did not happen at most other sites where such graves were uncovered.
- 26.
The three graves from Gomolava are clearly isolated finds for the area of Vojvodina and may be indicative of contracts with the main area of the Eastern supra-group (see discussion for Central Serbia and Vojvodina in the following subsection of this chapter). As for Kalimanitsa, the grave may have been erroneously placed in cluster 1 and could be e better fit for cluster 4, which would put it in the Western supra-group (see discussion for North-West Thrace in the following subsection of this chapter).
- 27.
Inhumation graves were not found within the settlement of Poiana. This may be because much of the site has eroded into the Siret River (Vulpe and Teodor 2003).
- 28.
The area North of the Black Sea, also known as the North Pontic region, was inhabited by steppe populations often denominated in ancient texts and modern studies as Sarmatians. Recently however, this term, together with the cultural and ethnical unity of the region, has come under heavy criticism (Mordvintseva 2013).
- 29.
The same observation can be made if one considers the tumuli of Moldova to be similar to those from Muntenia or South-West Transylvania, which were included in the Western supra-group.
- 30.
It should also be noted that the grave was placed in group 5 rather than 4 by the Diana clustering method.
- 31.
It is worth mentioning that with the exception of these two finds, all the other group 4 graves were located geographically West of the river Olt.
- 32.
- 33.
The only area that seems to have shared the material culture forms of Central Serbia and Vojvodina is the Western part of North-West Thrace.
- 34.
In spite of most of the graves being isolated finds, many of them were actually part of small groups of burials, usually three to five. However, it rarely happened that more than one of the graves was excavated (cf. Theodossiev 2000).
- 35.
The region of Thrace, and North-West Thrace in particular, is an area where mortuary finds are badly affected by treasure hunters. This is due to the landscape being dotted with a multitude of tumulus graves, dated to the Early or Late Iron Age, some of which contain items made of precious metal (see Dyer 2005; also press articles such as http://btvnews.bg/vsichko-ot-dnes/imanyari-rushat-na-poraziya-kulturnoto-nasledstvo-na-blgariya.html).
- 36.
It is interested to remark that according to Strabo (Geography, VII.4.12) the Western side of North-West Thrace and Central Serbia were inhabited by closely related people.
- 37.
For example, there were 13 graves in South-West Transylvania that contained fibulae and these represented 8 different fibula types (Table 5.1).
- 38.
- 39.
This can be said due to the preponderance of graves from the Eastern supra-group, characteristic of Moldova, Muntenia and parts of Oltenia.
References
Agre, D. (1987). Leskovskoto gradishte i nekropolat kray nego, Mihaylovgradski okrug. In Arheologicheski Otkritiya i Razkopki prez 1986 (pp. 91–93). Razgrad.
Armit, I. (2012). Headhunting and the body in Iron Age Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Babić, S. (2005). Status identity and archaeology. In M. Díaz-Andreu, S. Lucy, S. Babić, & D. Edwards (Eds.), The archaeology of identity: Approaches to gender, age, status, ethnicity and religion (pp. 67–85). London: Routledge.
Berciu, D. (1983). Mormintele de înhumaţie de la Ocniţa-Buridava. Thraco-Dacica, 4(1–2), 32–38.
Bodor, A. (1981). Structura societăţii dacice. In H. Daicoviciu (Ed.), Studii dacice (pp. 7–22). Cluj-Napoca.
Botezatu, D., & Miu, C. (1989). Studiul scheletelor in mormintele de la Brad aparţinând perioadei dacice. Carpica, 20, 297–304.
Brather, S. (2004). Ethnische Interpretationen in der frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie. Geschichte, Grundlagen und Alternativen. Berlin: W. de Gruyte.
Brather, S. (2005). Soziale Strukturen und frühmittelalterliche Reihengräberfelder. In J. Müller (Ed.), Alter und Geschlecht in ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Gesellschaften : Tagung Bamberg, 20.-21. Februar 2004 (pp. 157–178). Bonn: R. Habelt.
Butoi, M. (1974). Mormânt de incineraţie din epoca fierului descoperit la Slatina. Oltenia. Studii şi comunicări, 1, 29–32.
Căpitanu, V. (1986). Cercetările arheologice de la Răcătău, jud. Bacău. Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice, 16, 109–120.
Carr, G., & Knüsel, C. J. (1997). The ritual framework of excarnation by exposure as the morutary practice of the early and middle Iron Ages of central southern Britain. In A. Gwilt & C. Haselgrove (Eds.), Reconstructing Iron Age societies: New approaches to the British Iron Age (pp. 167–173). Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Chamberlain, A. (1997). Commentary: Missing stages of life – towards the perception of children in archaeology. In J. Moore & E. Scott (Eds.), Invisible people and processes: Writing gender and childhood into European archaeology (pp. 248–250). London: Leicester University Press.
Chamberlain, A. (2000). Minor concerns: A demographic perspective on children in past societies. In J. S. Derevenski (Ed.), Children and material culture (pp. 206–212). London: Routledge.
Comşa, E. (1972). Contribuţie la riturile funerare din secolele II-I îen., din sud-estul Olteniei (mormintele de la Orlea). Apulum, 10.
Comşa, A. (1991). Date cu privire la structura antropologică şi la unele ritualuri funerare la geto-daci (secolele VI îen. – I en.) Thraco-Dacica, 12(1–2), 153–166.
Crişan, I. H. (1980). Necropola dacică de la Cugir. Apulum, 18, 81–87.
Dyer, J. (2005). Bulgarian archaeologists race looters for ancient Thracian prize. AP Worldstream. Retrieved April 22. 2013, from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-116008280.html.
Egri, M., & Rustoiu, A. (2008). The social significance of conviviality in the Scordiscian environment. In V. Sîrbu & D. L. Vaida (Eds.), Funerary practices of the Bronze and Iron Ages in Central and South-Eastern Europe. Proceedings of the 9th international colloquium of funerary archaeology (pp. 83–93). Mega: Cluj-Napoca.
Florea, G. (2006). The ‘public image’ of the Dacian aristocracy. Studia Universitatis “Babeş-Bolyai”. Historia, 51(1), 1–11.
Florea, G. (2011). Dava et oppidum. Débuts de la genèse urbaine en Europe au deuxième âge du Fer. Cluj-Napoca: Acadèmie Roumaine. Centre d’Études Transylvaines.
Fowler, C. (2004). The archaeology of personhood: An anthropological approach. London: Routledge.
Gerstenberger, J. (2002). Analyse alter DNA zur Ermittlung von Heiratsmustern in einer frühmittelalterlichen Bevölkerung (PhD). Göttingen: Georg-August-Universität zu Göttingen.
Gherghe, P. (1978). Cercetările arheologice de salvare efectuate în necropola şi aşezarea geto-dacică de la Turburea-Spahii. Litua. Studii şi Cercetări, 1, 15–31.
Gherghe, P. (1983). Cercetări şi descoperiri arheologice cu privire la civilizaţia geto-dacică pe teritoriul judeţului Gorj. Arhivele Olteniei, 2, 49–73.
Gherghe, P. (2008). The necropolis and the Geto-Dacian settlement of the Turburea locality, Spahii village, Gorj county. In V. Sîrbu & I. Stângă (Eds.), The Iron Gates region during the Second Iron Age. Settlements, necropolises, treasures (pp. 140–149). Drobeta Turnu-Severin; Craiova: Editura Universitaria.
Gostar, N., & Lica, V. (1984). Societatea geto-dacică de la Burebista la Decebal. Bucureşti: Junimea.
Hakenbeck, S. (2007). Situational ethnicity and nested identities: New approaches to an old problem. Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, 14, 19–27.
Halsall, G. (1996). Female status and power in early Merovingian central Austrasia. The burial evidence. Early Medieval Europe, 5, 1–24.
Härke, H. (1997). Early Anglo-Saxon social structure. In J. Hines (Ed.), The Anglo-Saxons from the migration period to the eighth century: An ethnographic perspective (pp. 125–160). Woodbridge: Boydell Press.
Hausmair, B. (2015). Am Rande des Grabs. Todeskonzepte und Bestattungsritual in der frühmittelalterlichen Alamannia. Leiden: Sidestone Press.
Jovanović, B. (1971). The settlement of Scordisci on Gomolava – excavation from 1967-1971. Rad Vojvodine Muzeja. Novi Sad, 20, 123–146.
Jovanović, B. (1988). Gomolava: Naselje Mlađeg Gvozdenog Doba. Late La Tène settlement. Novi Sad: Vojvođanski muzej.
Knaut, M. (1993). Die alamannischen Gräberfelder von Neresheim und Kösingen, Ostalbkreis. Stuttgart: Kommissionsverlag K. Theiss.
Kokkotidis, K. G. (1999). Untersuchungen zur Paläodemographie der Alamannen des Frühmittelalters (PhD). Köln: Universität Köln.
Kossorić, M. (1960). Tumulus de Kostolac. The Star, 11, 197–198.
Kuzmanov, M. (2005). The horse in the Thracian burial rites. Helis, 4, 98–107.
Lucy, S. (1994). Children on early medieval cemeteries. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 13, 21–34.
Malinowski, B. (2004). Magic, science and religion. In A. C. G. M. Robben (Ed.), Death, mourning, and burial: A cross-cultural reader (pp. 19–22). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Mordvintseva, V. (2013). The Sarmatians: The creation of archaeological evidence. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 32(2), 203–219.
Nicolăescu-Plopşor, C. S. (1945). Antiquités celtiques en Olténie. Dacia, 11–12, 17–33.
Nicolăescu-Plopșor, D., & Ricuşiţa, C. (1969). Caracterizarea antrolologică şi morfobiologică a scheletelor din complexul funerar de la Orlea (sec. II-I î.e.n). Revista Muzeelor, 1, 69–73.
Nikolov, B. (1965). Thrakische Denkmäler in Bezirk Vraca. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, 28, 163–202.
Oltean, I. A. (2007). Dacia: Landscape, colonisation and romanisation. London: Routledge.
Parker Pearson, M. (1999). The archaeology of death and burial. Stroud: Sutton.
Petre, Z. (2004). Practica nemuririi: O lectură critică a izvoarelor greceşti referitoare la geţi. Iaşi: Polirom. http://www.scribd.com/doc/129112274/Zoe-Petre-Practica-Nemuririi.
Popa, C. N. (2012). Till death do us part. A statistical approach to identifying burial similarity and grouping. The case of the Late La Tène graves from the Eastern Carpathian basin. In S. Berecki (Ed.), Iron Age rites and rituals in the Carpathian basin (pp. 401–412). Târgu Mureş: Mega.
Popa, C. N. (2014). The quest for group identity in Late Iron Age Romania. Statistical reconstruction of groups based on funerary evidence. In C. N. Popa & S. Stoddart (Eds.), Fingerprinting the Iron Age (pp. 108–122). Oxford: Oxbow.
Popescu, E., & Vulpe, A. (1982). Nouvelles découvertes du type Ferigile. Dacia, 26, 77–114.
Preda, C. (1986). Geto-dacii din bazinul Oltului inferior: Dava de la Sprincenata. Bucuresti.
Röder, B. (2002). Statisten in der Welt der Erwachsenen: Kinder auf archäologischen Lebensbildern. In K. W. Alt & A. Kemkes-Grottenthaler (Eds.), Kinderwelten: Anthropologie, Geschichte, Kulturvergleich (pp. 95–105). Köln: Böhlau.
Rustoiu, A., & Gheorghiu, G. (2009). An iron variant of the Jezerine-type brooches from Pre-Roman Dacia. Instrumentum, 30, 30–31.
Rustoiu, A., & Gheorghiu, G. (2010). ‘General’ and ‘particular’ in the dressing fashion and metalwork of Pre-Roman Dacia (an iron variant of the Jezerine-type brooches from Piatra-Craivii – Alba County). In I. Cândea (Ed.), The Thracians and their neighbours in antiquity. Studia in honorem Valerii Sîrbu (pp. 447–457). Brăila.
Rustoiu, A., Comşa, A., & Lisovschi-Cheleşanu, C. (1993). Practici funerare în aşezarea dacică de la Sighişoara-Wietenberg (observaţii preliminare). Ephemeris Napocensis, 3, 81–95.
Sîrbu, V. (1986). Rituels et pratiques funéraires des gèto-daces IIe siècle av. n.è - Ier siècle de n.è. Dacia N.S., 30(1–2), 91–108.
Sîrbu, V. (1993). Credinţe şi practici funerare, religioase şi magice în lumea geto-dacilor (pornind de la descoperirile arheologice din Câmpia Brăilei). Galaţi: Porto-Franco.
Sîrbu, V. (1994). Morminte tumulare din zona Carpato-Dunăreană (sec. I î. d. Chr. – I d. Chr.) Istros, 7, 123–160.
Sîrbu, V. (1997). Sacrifices humains et pratiques funéraires insolites dans l’areal thrace du Hallstatt et du La Tène. In Prima epocă a fierului la gurile Dunării ṣi în zonele Circumpontice. Lucrările colocviului internaṭional, septembrie 1993, Tulcea (pp. 193–221). Tulcea: Institutul de Cercetări Eco-Muzeale.
Sîrbu, V., Luca, S. A., & Roman, C. (2007a). Tombs of Dacian warriors (2nd – 1st C. BC) found in Hunedoara–Grădina Castelului (Hunedoara county). Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, 7(1), 155–177.
Sîrbu, V., Luca, S. A., Roman, C., Purece, S., Diaconescu, D., & Cerişor, N. (2007b). Vestigiile dacice de la Hunedoara/The Dacian vestiges in Hunedoara. Sibiu: Muzeul Naţional Brukenthal.
Strathern, M. (1999). Property, substance and effect: Anthropological essays on persons and things. London: Athlone.
Symonenko, O. (1995). Catacomb graves of the Sarmatians of the North Pontic region. MFMÉ—Studia Archáeologica, 1, 345–374.
Teleagă, E., Bălăşescu, A., Soficaru, A., & Schoch, W. (2014). Die Scheiterhaufen aus Cugir und Tarinci. Ein Beitrag zu den Bestattungssitten der Balkanhalbinsel und des vorrömischen Dakiens in der Spätlatènezeit. Praehistorische Zeitschrift, 89(2), 305–336.
Theodossiev, N. (2000). North-Western Thrace from the fifth to first centuries BC. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Tonkova, M. (2010). On human sacrifice in Thrace (on archaeological evidence). In I. Cândea (Ed.), The Thracians and their neighbours in antiquity. Studia in honorem Valerii Sîrbu (pp. 503–522). Brăila.
Ursachi, V. (1995). Zargidava: Cetatea dacică de la Brad. Bucureşti: Caro Trading.
Vulpe, A. (1976). La nécroplole tumulaire gète de Popeşti. Thraco-Dacica, 1, 193–215.
Vulpe, A. (2004). 50 years of systematic excavations at the pre- and protohistoric site at Popeşti. Dacia N.S., 48–49.
Vulpe, A., & Gheorghiţă, M. (1979). Şantierul arheologic Popeşti. com. Mihăileşti, jud. Ilfov. Raport preliminar asupra rezultatelor din campania anilor 1976-1977. Cercetări arheologice Muz. Istorie România, 3, 95–105.
Vulpe, R., & Teodor, S. (2003). Piroboridava aşezarea geto-dacică de la Poiana. Bucureşti: Vavila Edinf.
Walker, L. (1984). The deposition of human remains. In B. Cunliffe (Ed.), Danebury: An Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire (Vol. 2, pp. 442–463). London: CBA.
Williams, H. (2004). Death warmed up: The agency of bodies and bones in Early Anglo-Saxon cremation rites. Journal of Material Culture, 9, 263–291.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Popa, C.N. (2018). From Large to Small. Results Discussion. In: Modelling Identities. Quantitative Archaeology and Archaeological Modelling . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63267-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63267-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63265-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63267-4
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)