Comments on the interpretation of the so-called cattle burials of Neolithic Central Europe.

Comments on the interpretation of the so-called cattle burials of Neolithic Central Europe. Cattle burials in Neolithic Europe Neolithic Europe is the time between the Mesolithic and Bronze Age periods in Europe, roughly from 7000 BC (the approximate time of the first farming societies in Greece) to ca. 1700 BC (the beginning of the Bronze Age in northwest Europe). The cattle burials of Neolithic Europe offer an interesting meansof access to early belief systems. Burials of up to 10 animals have beenreported, either near or within human graves, or unconnected with humansbut associated with other domestic animals. The earliest contexts (c.3500 BC) are the Salzmunde complex and the Altmarkische Tiefstichkeramikin central Germany and the Funnel Beakers in Poland. The latest burialsrelate to the Corded Ware and the 'Schonfeld' complexesalthough most of the finds belong to the Globular globularresembling a globe.globular hearta spherical cardiac silhouette, usually greatly enlarged and lacking the detailed outline of the right and left atria and apex. Characteristic of pericardial effusion and cardiomyopathy. Amphorae horizon. Thedistribution of cattle burials extends from central Germany in the westto Hungary in the south and the Ukraine in the east [ILLUSTRATION FORFIGURE 1 OMITTED]. Interestingly, the appearance of cattle depositionscoincides with the first evidence of wagons in Europe (Maran 1998). The term 'cattle burial' is misleading, sincedifferentiation should be made between cattle burial, sacrifice andgrave goods In archaeology and anthropology grave goods are the items buried along with the body.They are usually personal possessions, supplies to smooth the deceased's journey into the afterlife or offerings to the gods. Grave goods are a type of votive deposit. . I propose that a more neutral term 'cattledeposition' seems to be more appropriate, since an intentionalburial of a slaughtered animal is different from one that died naturally(Ebert 1929: 301). The interpretation of cattle burial requires the following: a Acattle deposition without connection to a human burial b A single animal in the pit The association of cattle depositions in a human grave implies adifferent relationship of animal sacrifice Animal sacrifice is the ritual killing of an animal as part of a religion. It is practised by many religions as a means of appeasing a god or gods or changing the course of nature. and grave offering, ratherthan as a burial in its own right. Artefacts offer additional potentialto interpret possible sacrificial sac��ri��fi��cial?adj.Of, relating to, or concerned with a sacrifice: a sacrificial offering.sac contexts, for example double-pointedbone awls. In Parchatka one awl awl:see drill. was found between the ribs of a cow(Behrens 1964: 110-11); in Zlota another was located between the ribs ofa calf and in Krasnoe Selo, Ukraine, two bone tools were embedded in thechest of a bull (Tschernjaskij 1972). These finds of bone awls areinterpreted as killing instruments (Gabalowna 1958: 53-4; Behrens 1964:113; Hensel 1974: 60; Muller-Karpe 1974: 735; Krzak 1977: 61). However,such tools have been found in or close to the animals in or near humangraves as well as without burial association. Three possible, if less significant factors may assist indistinguishing between the criteria of burial, grave and sacrifice(TABLE 1): 1 Traces of fire 2 Grave goods dedicated to animals 3 Significant age or treatment of the animals The lack of distinguishing criteria in the cattle depositions makesthe functional interpretation between grave gift or sacrifice difficult.A cattle deposition without an awl, for example could be seen asequivalent to a human burial, so we need to establish the cause of theanimal's death. In any case an interpretation as a sacrifice isalways possible. Explanations- for cattle burials Some ethnographic eth��nog��ra��phy?n.The branch of anthropology that deals with the scientific description of specific human cultures.eth��nog views promote the idea that sacrifice was tomaintain the status quo [Latin, The existing state of things at any given date.] Status quo ante bellum means the state of things before the war. The status quo to be preserved by a preliminary injunction is the last actual, peaceable, uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy. . The most popular theory explains sacrifice asthe offer of life to divine powers, thereby achieving the originalorder. Alternatively, since deities A list of deities from the different religions, cultures and mythologies of the world. The title of an episode in the science fiction television series Max Headroom. would have no need of life, it isthe divine power itself that is sacrificed. The deity's death isseen as essential in closing the circle of death and rebirth re��birth?n.1. A second or new birth; reincarnation.2. A renaissance; a revival: a rebirth of classicism in architecture. , andthrough killing it, humans thus imitate im��i��tate?tr.v. im��i��tat��ed, im��i��tat��ing, im��i��tates1. To use or follow as a model.2. a. the deity and are nourished nour��ish?tr.v. nour��ished, nour��ish��ing, nour��ish��es1. To provide with food or other substances necessary for life and growth; feed.2. byits immortality immortality,attribute of deathlessness ascribed to the soul in many religions and philosophies. Forthright belief in immortality of the body is rare. Immortality of the soul is a cardinal tenet of Islam and is held generally in Judaism, although it is not an (Streck 1987: 157-60; Hirschberg 1988: 348-9). Three different approaches to the interpretation ofcattle-depositions can be pursued. The first is the use of analogy,suggested by the ideas of Ludwig Giesebrecht (1847) and Georg Wilke(Ebert 1929), who used Ancient Egyptian written [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE1 OMITTED] evidence to explain the animal graves of northern Europe.Since the 1950s other approaches have gained more importance, andinclude the second approach, the economic, and the third, socialinterpretations. Otto Friedrich Gandert (1953) suggested that theexistence of cattle-depositions shows the importance of cattle both inan economic and spiritual sense. Lidia Gabalowna (1958) saw in them anindication of the development and importance of cattle breeding in theNeolithic. In her opinion, finds of cattle skeletons were honouredbecause of their immense economic importance, and the cult of the deadwith finds of cattle in human graves should thus be regarded as anindication of the special status of the buried individual. In some casesboth humans and animals could have been subject to the same ritualactivity. In his monograph mon��o��graph?n.A scholarly piece of writing of essay or book length on a specific, often limited subject.tr.v. mon��o��graphed, mon��o��graph��ing, mon��o��graphsTo write a monograph on. of 1964, Hermann Behrens investigated theorigin and meaning of Neolithic animal burials in the old world. Heremarked on the human and cattle skeletons and suggested that the lattercan usually be understood as grave gifts similar to other animal bones.He also accepted Gabalowna's suggestion that similar ideas ofsacrifice, emotion and holy status may apply to both man and animal,with similar grave orientations, pottery and skeletal treatment. Theanimal burials unconnected to human graves might represent a cult of thedead, where the natural death of holy animals was followed by burial. Using ethnographic examples, Behrens saw several possible motivesfor animal-burials. First, in connection to human burials: 1 sociological (offerings to high status individuals) 2 religious (animals as companions in the next life), 3 emotional (offerings of favourite animals or for appeasement appeasementForeign policy of pacifying an aggrieved nation through negotiation in order to prevent war. The prime example is Britain's policy toward Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in the 1930s. ). Second, inspired without connection to human burials: 1 totemistic (burials of totemistic animals) 2 emotional (burials of feared or respected animals) 3 religious (offerings to buildings, gods, or symbolic ofresurrection) Behrens remarks that the economic importance of the cattledepositions might be related directly to Neolithic religious beliefs. Inthe case of buried dogs, he suggests they might be substitutes for morevaluable animals such as cattle. A century of scientific discussion of cattle-depositioninterpretation had progressed from analogies with ancient Egypt Editing of this page by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled due to vandalism. , toeconomic explanations, to more sociological interpretations. Despite newdiscoveries, the interest in new interpretations of cattle depositionshas dwindled, and whilst each interpretation has its own attraction, isit possible to draw new social and economic conclusions from Neolithiccattle depositions? (See Krzak 1977; Behrens 1973; Beier 1984; 1988;Lehmkuhl & Nagel 1991 for additional discussion.) The role of cattle in Neolithic Europe It is likely that cattle were of great economic importance forNeolithic farmers, and their traction power was of particular value. Butcan we discern the economic role of bos in Neolithic [TABULAR DATA FORTABLE 2 OMITTED] beliefs from the cattle depositions? On the one hand,the practical use of cattle may have made its way into religious ideasand have found expression in rites that include cattle depositions.Alternatively, we can assume that these rites reflected the specialstatus of bos in the belief system. Scientific discussion has failed toaddress this aspect as fully as it might. In the case of Neolithic cattle, it is too simple to assume only aneconomic role for these animals, but if it was of exceptional importanceit should be evident in the osteological material in terms of relativenumbers and treatment. For example, the excavation of three featurescontaining paired cattle skeletons led Hans-Jurgen Dohle & HeribertStahlhofen (1985) to believe they were draught cattle. This proposal waslinked to finds of clay wagon models in Hungary (Soproni 1954). Forexample, a clay model was found at the Budakalasz cemetery where acattle skeleton was also excavated. Recently, Klaus Gunther (1990) has considered cattle-depositions inthe same context as engravings in megalithic meg��a��lith?n.A very large stone used in various prehistoric architectures or monumental styles, notably in western Europe during the second millennium b.c. graves from Warburg(Westfalen) and Zuschen (Hessen). He proposes (based on an idea fromMuller-Karpe (1974: 735) that the stylized styl��ize?tr.v. styl��ized, styl��iz��ing, styl��iz��es1. To restrict or make conform to a particular style.2. To represent conventionally; conventionalize. cattle teams shown in theengravings represent the interface between the non-wagon-using westernmegalith megalithHuge, often undressed stone used in various types of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age monuments. The most ancient form of megalithic construction is probably the dolmen, a type of burial chamber consisting of several upright supports and a flat roofing slab. tradition and the eastern zone with its sacred carts andmythical myth��i��cal? also myth��icadj.1. Of or existing in myth: the mythical unicorn.2. Imaginary; fictitious.3. cattle. Archaeological evidence Osteological patterns can be contradictory, as at Kuiavia (TABLE2), where many cattle depositions of the Globular Amphorae CulturalComplex were found, and where proportions of bos are lower than in otherNeolithic complexes. The bones appear to reflect the proportion ofanimals in the respective periods rather than reflecting cattle utility.Nevertheless, the low number of cattle bones in complexes with GlobularAmphorae is remarkable, since it seems that cattle were not consumed,perhaps as a consequence of their special status in the religioussystem. Dohle & Stahlhofen (1985) interpret this sociologically,identifying the double depositions of bos as draught cattle, connectedto human burial through a wagon-burial. They see the double depositionsas an indication of higher social status of the persons buried in ornear the assumed wagon (see also Beier 1984: 42). Arguments against thisinterpretation are: 1 no direct connection between human grave and a cattle-deposition(for example: a distance of 50 m separates the burials at Derenburg) 2 no evidence of wagons 3 pits too small to contain a wagon plus cattle 4 frequency of collective-graves containing egalitarian equipment; 5 anonymous ownership of wagon in a collective grave Sociological interpretations of double cattle-depositions offermuch the same interpretation as the economic ideas. In FIGURE 2, thecattle depositions are plotted as number of individuals per feature, andmultiple burials of more than two are shown to be rare. This could beinterpreted as an expression of the greater significance of single anddouble cattle depositions, which again may link with the wagon idea. Inthe case of double cattle depositions, the distribution of sexes issignificant, since bulls are difficult to team together with a cow andaggressive to handle (Dohle & Stahlhofen 1985: 172). Additionally,over-worked cows give less milk. The usual or desirable team should betwo oxen oxenadult castrated male of any breed of Bos spp. . Of the six double depositions where sex has been identified,one grave contains two cows (Zdrojowka), another, two bulls (Derenburggrave 2), another two oxen (Oschersleben) another contains a bull andcow (Osterburg), a cow-and-ox combination (Derenburg grave 3) andfinally, a bull and an ox (Derenburg, grave 1). At Biendorf, the sexesare probably male and female. Thus, no clear pattern emerges, but itseems that the double cattle depositions may not reflect the normal sexcombinations of typical draught cattle. A wagon can also be drawn by asingle animal; and here, three of the five single cattle depositionswith a known sex or age are either female, or too young to pull a wagon(Plotha, Zauschwitz, Bresc Kujawski grave 1 and 4; Klementowice VIIgrave 1). Origins and development of cattle depositions and ritual landscapes In contrast to burials of dogs or horses in central Europe Central Europe is the region lying between the variously and vaguely defined areas of Eastern and Western Europe. In addition, Northern, Southern and Southeastern Europe may variously delimit or overlap into Central Europe. , findsof cattle skeletons appear regularly only from the early (Younger) tothe final Neolithic only (periodization Periodization is the attempt to categorize or divide time into discrete named blocks. The result is a descriptive abstraction that provides a useful handle on periods of time with relatively stable characteristics. after Luning 1996). There isalso a difference to other animals in the Neolithic. Cattle skeletonsare less connected to human burials than other animal skeletons (seeBehrens 1964: 95-127), making up only 25% of animals in human graves,and 20.7% of animals placed near human graves. Cattle skeletons totallyunconnected to human graves, however, make up a total of 62.5% of allsuch disassociated animal graves. Although a functional connection of cattle depositions to the cultof the dead is questionable, human graves and features with cattleskeletons were often found close together, and some sites were usedseveral times. For instance, in Buchow-Karpzow and Pevestorf someburials were marked with posts; in Jordanow, Pit 5 was divided into twostrata, both of which contained animal remains. Sometimes burial pitscontained many cattle skeletons. Formal graveyards and collective graveswith cattle depositions were used at certain times. It is likely thatthese sites were sometimes highly visible hilltop cult places, where thespacing of up to 50 m between, for example, the collective grave inDerenburg and the cattle skeletons, was no great distance for thefuneral processions and activities. We could describe some sites assacred or ritual parts of the landscape (for instance: Buchow-Karpzow,Falkenwalde, Penkun, Pevestorf, Polkern, Zachow, Klementowice VII,Klementowice XV, Krusza Zamkowa, Mierzanowice, Sandomierz, ZrotaGajowizna). The features containing cattle skeletons are diverse. Someskeletons are covered with stones while others have furnishings (pots,axe). The cattle depositions suggest no pattern of geographicalorientations for either age or sex, no regular numbers of buried cattleor other animals within the features or the human graves. Also theSchonfeld complex (c. 2700-2200 Be) with its human cremation cremation,disposal of a corpse by fire. It is an ancient and widespread practice, second only to burial. It has been found among the chiefdoms of the Pacific Northwest, among Northern Athapascan bands in Alaska, and among Canadian cultural groups. burialsincludes cattle depositions, also cremated (Meyer 1993: 94). Similarly,the animals were not eaten and excluded from a profane PROFANE. That which has not been consecrated. By a profane place is understood one which is neither sacred, nor sanctified, nor religious. Dig. 11, 7, 2, 4. Vide Things. utilization(which according to according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. Gladigow 1984: 38, applies to all intact, deposited'things' in general). The impression of diversity is a strongindication that there were no orthodox rules dictating the form ofcattle depositions, but a set of ideas which perhaps found differentexpressions in different landscapes, seasons, situations, generationsand so forth. As further visual evidence of the social importance of cattle canbe seen the engravings on megalithic tombs at Warburg (Westfalen), andZuschen (Hessen); and the copper cattle-team model from Bytyn (Wislanski1979: 238, table 137.1, 1a). Additionally, the handle ornament ornament, in architectureornament,in architecture, decorative detail enhancing structures. Structural ornament, an integral part of the framework, includes the shaping and placement of the buttress, cornice, molding, ceiling, and roof and the capital and fromKreznica Jara (Gajewski 1953: 37, table 37); the signs on bowls fromBronocice (Milisauskas & Kruk 1982; 1991) and Ostrowca Swietokrzysko(Uzarowiczowa 1975a), and the clay wagon models from ritual contexts(Makkay 1965: 14) at Budakalasz (Soproni 1954) and Szigetszentmarton(Kalicz 1976: 109, [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 4 OMITTED]) imply a mythicalor symbolic meaning (Gunther 1990: 59-62). Other wagon models orwagon-vessels come from Radosina (Nemejcova-Pavukova & Barta 1977:table 7) and Boglarlelle (Ecsedy 1982: table 8/9). Here the models haveno wheels but draught cattle instead. These models of theRadosina-Boglarlelle of Boleraz-type complexes are older than those fromBudakalasz and Szigetszentmarton, and are contemporarily close to thebowl from Bronocice (Kalisz 1976a). Interpreting religious phenomena The investigation of prehistoric religious phenomena depends on anunderstanding of scientific data on one hand, and human behaviour on theother. Simple causal explanation is unsatisfactory (see especially Winch winch,mechanical device for hauling or lifting consisting essentially of a movable drum around which a cable is wound so that rotation of the drum produces a drawing force at the end of the cable. 1964; Kippenberg & Luchesi 1987), and it is impossible to drawdirect conclusions about the sociology or economy of the Neolithic fromcattle depositions which may have influenced such sacrifices. It seemsmore realistic to search for a religious or cult origin for the cattledepositions. It is likely that in the Neolithic, cattle were important both forthemselves and as a draught animals. They may have been valued as sacredanimals; as an aspect of a deity; or even as a deity's embodiment em��bod��i��ment?n.1. The act of embodying or the state of being embodied.2. One that embodies: "The flag is the embodiment, not of sentiment, but of history" .The bowl from Bronocice [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 3 OMITTED] is a keyfind for the approach to the deity, because it shows the symbols ofrain, water, cereal-ears or lightning. In addition, there is one symbolshowing a four-wheeled wagon bearing a sun-symbol (Milisauskas &Kruk 1982:141, Tafel 8; 1991: 565; Gunther 1990: 61-2), suggesting thatthe wagon has a symbolic dimension. Similarly, the Funnel Beaker beaker/beak��er/ (bek��er) a glass cup, usually with a lip for pouring, used by chemists and pharmacists. beakera round laboratory vessel of various materials, usually with parallel sides and often with a pouring spout. clay discs and the Globular Amphorae('sun-coloured') amber discs [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 4OMITTED] could be seen as sun-wheel symbols. The latter were found forinstance in Bresc Kujawski (Gabalowna 1958: 75-7) where pit featuresalso contained cattle skeletons. In the cases of the amber discs zigzagbands along the rims or simple crosses appear as decorations. Accordingto Neustupny (1966: 655), Hensel (1974: 60) and Hausler (1994: 243), itis likely that the amber discs symbolize the sun, and the Bronocicebowl, 'sun-wagon' and the 'amber disc wheels',provide a possible parallel for the cattle-depositions. The occurrenceof the sun-symbol is not limited to discs or the Bronocice bowl,however, and is found on globular amphorae. These vessels are decoratedwith hanging triangles on the shoulder, and when viewed from aboveappear as sun symbols similar to the Bresc Kujawski disc. These finds and symbolic motifs offer an approach to the beliefs ofthe Neolithic people. The Bronocice bowl suggests that the sun played animportant role as this is the only sign decorating the wagon motif, andin this object it was probably 'symbolically' pulled by cattle(Gunther 1990: 65). Following this argument, wagon and cattle appear asattributes to a deity which relates to the sun. In this context, the cult of the dead seems to be of secondaryimportance (Gunther 1990: 62, 64). The same suggestion is reinforced bythe bowl's domestic context from a pit in the settlement(Milisauskas & Kruk 1982: 143). The general geographical relationship between the cattledepositions and the Globular Amphorae is significant, suggesting allcultures with cattle depositions were connected to a wide communicationnetwork across Late Neolithic central Europe (see [ILLUSTRATION FORFIGURE 1 OMITTED] and maps by Kosko 1989; Maran 1998: 521). But we cannot presume that those people in areas without cattleskeleton finds had different ideas from those practisingcattle-deposition. For example, the engravings of stylized cattle teamsin Zuschen and Warburg or the amber discs found in Lithuania (Rimantiene1994: 122) indicate similar religious interests, as represented by the'sun wagon' and the cattle depositions. It might be concludedthat there is little religious difference between the acts Between the Acts is the final novel by Virginia Woolf, published in 1941 shortly after her suicide. It describes the mounting, performance, and audience of a festival play (hence the title) in a small English village just before the outbreak of the Second World War. of eating ordepositing, especially in view of the occurrence of complete andincomplete cattle skeletons in the same feature (Tangermunde, Adolfin,Pilismarot). Conclusions The patterns of cattle-deposition, sun-symbols and the variety anddistribution of Neolithic cultures differ in time and space, asdiscussed by Eggert (1978: 19): 'Nicht Kulturen, sondern die Kulturstellt die primare Bezugseinheit dar'. As Shennan (1986: 13)emphasizes, 'Cultures have been dismissed as imaginary entitieswhich simply confuse an analysis of social and historicalprocesses'. Changing interpretations of Neolithic cattle depositions in centralEurope have ranged from uncritical analogical an��a��log��i��cal?adj.Of, expressing, composed of, or based on an analogy: the analogical use of a metaphor.an reasoning to economic orsociological interpretations. The emerging pattern of evidence nowsuggests that the religious beliefs were changing around 3500 BC in away that encouraged the deposition of cattle. Whether these were assacrifice, burial or grave gift will never be quite clear, althoughcattle-depositions accompanying human burial were certainly intended assome kind of sacrificial act. The act of killing the animal, followed bythe prevention of normal consumption, must have been of religioussignificance. Cattle depositions represent a surprisingly uniformphenomenon in terms of religious cult Noun 1. religious cult - a system of religious beliefs and rituals; "devoted to the cultus of the Blessed Virgin"cultus, cultfaith, religion, religious belief - a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his behaviour over an immense area ofcentral Europe (from the Elbe to the Danube and the Bug basins), and along temporal cultural continuity from the Late (Younger) to the Final(End) Neolithic. Along with the other indications for the sun symbol,the area is even wider. The maintenance of such close contacts betweenthese populations implies that there was indeed a similar religiousframework centred on aspects of the sun wagon and perhaps to a cyclic cyclic/cyc��lic/ (sik��lik) pertaining to or occurring in a cycle or cycles; applied to chemical compounds containing a ring of atoms in the nucleus. cy��clicor cy��cli��caladj.1. and non-linear philosophy of life and death. Acknowledgements. I wish to thank the students and teachers of theHumboldt University Berlin and the unknown referees for their commentsand critics and especially J.F. Owyang for her proof-reading. References BACZYNSKA, B. 1993. Cmentarzysko kultury mierzanowickiej w Szarbi,woj. Kieleckie. Krakow. BALCER, B. 1963. Osada kultury amfor kulistych na stanowisku 1 wMierzanowicach, pow. Opatow. Materialy Starozytne 9: 99-142. BEHRENS, H. 1964. Die neolithisch-fruhmetallzeitlichenTierskelettfunde der Alten Welt. Berlin. 1973. Die Jungsteinzeit im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet. Berlin. BEIER, H.-J. 1984. Die Grab- und Bestattungssitten derWalternien-burger und Bernburger Kultur. Halle. 1988. Die Kugelamphorenkultur im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet und in derAltmark. Berlin. BOKONYI, S. 1974. History of domestic mammals in Central andEastern Europe The term "Central and Eastern Europe" came into wide spread use, replacing "Eastern bloc", to describe former Communist countries in Europe, after the collapse of the Iron Curtain in 1989/90. . Budapest. DOHLE, H. J. & B. SCHLENKER. 1998. Ein Tiergrab derKugelamphorenkultur von Oschersleben, Ldkr. Bordekreis, Jahresschriftfur Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 80: 13-42. DOHLE, H.-J. & H. STAHLHOFEN. 1985. Die neolithischenRindergraber auf dem 'Lowenberg' bei Derenburg, Kr.Wernigerode, Jahresschrift fur Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 68: 157-77. EBERT, M. 1929. Tierbestattung (G. Wilke), Reallexikon derVorgeschichte Bd. 13: 300-305. Berlin. ECSEDY, I. 1982. Kesorezkori leletek Bolarlellerol/Late copper agefinds from Boglarlelle, Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae: 15-29. EGGERT, M.K.H. 1978. Zum Kulturkonzept in der prahistorischenArchaologie, Bonner Jahrbucher 178: 1-20. GABALOWNA, L. 1958. Pochowki bydlece kultury amfor kulistych zestanowiska 4 w Brzesciu Kujawskim w swietle podobnych znalezisk kultursrodkowoeuropejskich, Prace i Materialy Lodz 3: 63-108. GAJEWSKI, L. 1953. Kultura czasz lejkowatych miedzy Wisla a Bugiem,Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-SkIodowska 4: 3-194. GANDERT, O.-F. 1953. Neolithische Graber mit Rinderbeigaben undRinderbestattungen in Mitteleuropa, in Congres International desSciences Prehistoriques et Protohistoriques. Actes de la [III.sup.e]Session Zurich 1950: 201. GARDAWSKI, A. & J. MISKIEWICZ. 1958. Sprawozdanie z badanpodjetych w 1957 roku w miejscowosci Mierzanowice, poj. Opatow,Wiadomosci Archeologiczne 25: 322-38. GREBE grebe(grēb), common name for swimming birds found on or near quiet waters in most parts of the world. Grebes resemble the loon and the duck; they have short wings, vestigial tails, and long, individually webbed toes on feet that are set far back , K. 1962. Graber der Kugelamhorenkultur aus Ketzin, Kr.Nauen, und Brandenburg (Havel)-Neuendorf, Veroffentlichungen des Museumsfur Ur- und Fruhgeschichte Potsdam 1: 16-36. GIESEBRECHT, L. 1847. Ueber Thiergraber, Baltische Studien 13(2):112-33. GLADIGOW, B. 1984. Die Teilung des Opfers. Zur Interpretation vonOpfern in Vor- und Fruhgeschichtlichen Epochen, FruhmittelalterlicheStudien 18: 19-43. GUNTHER, K. 1990. Neolithische Bildzeichen an einem ehemaligenMegalithgrab bei Warburg, Kr. Hoxter (Westfalen), Germania 68(1): 39-65. HAUSLER, A. 1994. Archaologische Zeugnisse fur Pferd und Wagen inOst- und Mitteleuropa, in B. Hansel han��sel?n. & v.Variant of handsel. & S. Zimmer (ed.), DieIndosermanen und das Pferd: 217-57. Budapest. HENSEL, W. 1974. Ur- und Fruhgeschichte Polens. Berlin HIRSCHBERG, W. (ed.) 1988. Neues Worterbuch der Volkerkunde.Berlin. KALICZ, N. 1976. Novaya nakhodka modeli porozki epokhi eneolita izokresnostej Budapeshta, Sovetskaja Arkheologia 2: 106-17. KALISZ, N. 1976. Ein neues Wagenmodell aus der Umgebung vonBudapest, Archeologica Austriaca, Beiheft 13. Festschrift fest��schrift?n. pl. fest��schrif��ten or fest��schriftsA volume of learned articles or essays by colleagues and admirers, serving as a tribute or memorial especially to a scholar. R. Pittioni:188-202. KIPPENBERG, H.G. & B. LUCHESI (ed.). 1987. Magie. Diesozialwissenschafiliche Kontroverse uber das Verstehen fremden Denkens.Frankfurt/Main. KIRSCH kirsch?n.A colorless brandy made from the fermented juice of cherries.[French, short for German Kirschwasser; see kirschwasser. , E. & F. PLATE. 1984. Zwei mittelneolithische Fundplatzebei Buchow-Karpzow, Kr. Nauen, Veroffentlichungen des Museums fur Ur-und Fruhgeschichte Potsdam 18: 7-61. 1990. Der Gallberg bei Zachow, Kr. Nauen - ein mittel-neolithischerKultplatz. Veroffentlichungen des Museums fur Ur- und FruhgeschichtePotsdam 24: 27-43. KOKOWSKI, A. & J. SCIBIOR. 1990. Bemerkungen zur regionalenGliederung der Kugelamphorenkultur in Polen, Acta praehistorica etarchaeologica 22: 37-55. KOSKO, A. 1989. Cultural development of Kuiavian communities duringthe Late Neolithic and the Neolithic-Bronze Age Interstage in the aspectof exogenous ExogenousDescribes facts outside the control of the firm. Converse of endogenous. culture-forming pattern reception, in A. Cofta-Broniewska(ed.), Prehistoric contacts of kuiavian communities with other Europeanpeoples: 145-81. Warszawa. KOSKO, A. 1989a. Formy eksploatacji terenu stanowiska w epokachneolitu i brozu, in A. Cofta-Broniewska, Miejsce Pradziejowych iSredniowiecznych Praktyk Kultowych w Kruszy Zamkowej: 15-61. KOWALCZYK, J. (ed.). 1977. Cmentarzysko Kultury Amfor Kulistych wZIotej Sandomierskiej. Wroclaw, Warszawa, Krakow, Gdansk. KRYSIAK, K. & A. LASOTA-MOSKALEWSKA. 1977. Groby zwierzece na'Gajowiznie'/Animal graves at the 'Gajowizna'archaeological site, in Kowalczyk (ed.): 83-96. KRZAK, Z. 1977. Cmentarzysko na 'Gajowiznie' pod pod, in botanypodor legume,dehiscent fruit of a member of the family Leguminosae (pulse family). At maturity the pod splits along its two seams and releases the enclosed seeds. wzgledemarcheologicznym/The 'Gajowizna' cemetery from thearcheological aspect, in Kowalczyk (ed.): 9-82. LASOTA, A. 1972. Neolityczny pochowek zwierzecy na stanowisku XV wKlementowicach, pow. Pulawy/A neolithic burial at site XV atKlementowice, Pulawi district, Wiadomosci archeologiczne 37(3): 293-8. 1975. Grob zwierzecy kultury amfor kulistych w Klementowicach, pow.Pulawy/An animal grave of the globular amphorae culture at Klementowice,Pulawi district, Wiadomosci archeologiczne 40(2): 205-8. LEHMKUHL, U. & E. NAGEL 1991. Ein neolithischer Kultplatz inFalkenwalde, Kreis Prenzlau, Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg Jahrbuch1990, Bd. 38: 7-51. Berlin. LUNING, J. 1996. Erneute Gedanken zur Benennung der neolithischenPerioden, Germania 74(1): 233-7. MAKKAY, J. 1965. What was the copper age clay wagon model ofBudakaldsz? Alba Regia 4: 11-15. MARAN, J. 1998. Die Badener Kultur und der agaisch-anatolischeRaum, Germania 76: 497-525. MEYER, M. 1993. Pevestorf 19. Ein mehrperiodiger Fundplatz imLandkreis Luchow-Dannenberg. Oldenburg. MILISAUSKAS, S. & J. KRUK. 1982. Die Wagendarstellung auf einemTrichterbecher aus Bronocice in Polen, ArchaologischesKorrespondenzblatt 12: 141-4. 1991. Utilization of cattle for traction during the later Neolithicin southeastern Poland, Antiquity 65: 562-6. MULLER-KARPE, H. 1974. Handbuch der Vorgeschichte 3, 1-3. Munchen. NEMEJCOVA-PAVUKOVA, V. & J. BARTA. 1977. Aneolithische Siedlungder Boleraz-Gruppe in Radosina, Slovenska Archeologia 25: 433-48. NEUSTUPNY, J. 1966. Kugelamphorenkultur, in J. Filip (ed.),Enzyklopadisches Handbuch zur Ur- und Fruhgeschichte Europas I: 651-5.Prague. RIMANTIENE, R. 1994. Die Steinzeit in Litauen, Berichte derRomisch-Germanischen Kommission 75: 23-147. SCIBIOR, J. & J.M. SCIBIOR. 1990. Sandomierz 78 -wielkokulturowe stanowisko z przelomu neolitu i epoku brazu. Badaniaratownicze w 1984 roku, Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 42: 157-201. SELENT, A., B. LUCK, V. DRESELEY & V. WEBER. 1996. Leitungsbauund Bodendenkmalpflege. Archaologische Rettungsgrabungen im Vorfeld derErdgastrasse Wernigerode-Oschersleben, Archaologische Berichte ausSachsen-Anhalt 1995: 43-50. SHENNAN, S. 1986. Introduction: archaeological approaches tocultural identity, in S. Shennan (ed.), Archaeological approaches tocultural identity: 1-32. London: Routledge. One World Archaeology 10. SOBOCINSKI, M. & D. MAKOWIECKI. 1991. Current state ofknowledge of archaeozoological materials of the Globular AmphoraeCulture in Kuiavia, in A. Cofta-Broniewska (ed.), New tendencies instudies of Globular Amphorae Culture: 145-53. Warszawa, Krakow, Poznan. SOPRONI, S. 1954. A budakalaszi kosci/Der Wagen von Budakalaszi,Folia fo��li��a?n.Plural of folium. Archaeologica 6: 29-36. STRECK, W. (ed.) 1987. Worterbuch der Ethnologie. Koln. SWIEZYNSKI, K. 1958. Analiza szczatkow kostnych neolitycznychgrobow zwierzocych z Brzescia Kujawskiego, Prace i Materialy Lodz 3:109-26. TEICHERT, L. 1976. Haus und Wildtierknochenreste aus Siedlungen undGraberfeldern der Schonfelder Gruppe, Jahresschrift fur mitteldeutscheVorgescheschichte 60: 433-55. TEICHERT, L. 1990. Tierknochenreste von einem Kultplatz derWalternienburger Kultur bei Zachow, Kr. Nauen, Veroffentlichungen desMuseums fur Ur- und Fruhgeschichte Potsdam 24: 45-52. TSCHERNJASKIJ, M.M. 1972. Mogilni na Rossi. Pomniki gistoryi ikultury Belarussi 1972 (4): 30ff, quoted in J.K. Svesnikow,Kul'tura sarowydnich amfor (Moscow 1983): 20-21. UZAROWICZOWA, A. 1972. Obiekty kultury pucharow lejkowatych ikultury amfor kulistych na stanowisku XV w Klementowicach, pow.Pulawy/Graves of the Funnel Beaker and Globular Amphora Culture The Globular Amphora Culture, German Kugelamphoren, ca. 3400-2800 BC, is an archaeological culture overlapping the central area occupied by the Corded Ware culture. Somewhat to the south and west, it was bordered by the Baden culture. To the northeast was the Narva culture. at SiteXV at Klementowice, Pulawy District, Wiadomosci Archeologiczne 37(3):277-92. 1975a. Ornament naczyniu kultury pucharow lejkowatych z OstrowcaSwietokrzyskiego, Wiadomosci Archeologiczne 40(1): 3-12. 1975b. Wielokulturowe neolityczne stanowisko VII w Klementowicach,pow. Pulawy/Neolithic site VII with traces of many cultures atKlementowice, Pulawy District, Wiadomosci Archeologiczne 40(2): 179-204. VOROS, I. 1979. Szarvasmarha aldozat a peceli kultura pilismarotitelepen/Rinderopfer auf der Siedlung der Peceler-Kuktur von Pilismarot,Dunai Regeszeti Kozlemenyek: 21-7. WETZEL, G. 1974. Steinzeitliche Funde von Polkern, Kr. Osterburg,Jahresschrift fur mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 58: 175-248. 1979. Die Schonfelder Kultur. Berlin. WINCH, P. 1987. Was heisst eine 'primitive Gesellschaftverstehen'?, in Kippenberg & Luchesi (ed.): 73-119. WISLANSKI, T. 1966. Kultura amfor kulystich w Polscepolnocnozachodniej. Wroclaw, Warszawa, Krakow. 1979. Ksztaltowanie sie miejscowych kultur rolniczohodowlanych.Plemiona Kultury Pucharow Lejkowatych, in W. Hensel & T. Wislanski,Prahistoria ziem polskich. Neolit: 261-99. Wroclaw, Warszawa, Krakow.