Marta, Liviu (szerk.): Satu Mare. Studii şi comunicări. Seria arheologie 26/1. (2010)
Biba Teržan: Observations on graves in Lapuş
Observations on graves in Lapuş The following investigations are based upon exceptional finds from the tumulus cemetery at Lapuş, province of Maramureş in northern Transylvania, which today still remain enigmatic. Located in a landscape of undulating hills, this expansive cemetery comprises several groups of tumuli as well as individual tumulus graves. Reportedly there were originally ca. 70 tumuli present there. Twenty mounds have since been excavated, but published only to a scant extent. Regrettably, due to the poor state of publication only a few elaborately decorated ceramic vessels and metal grave goods can be assembled as find complexes.' Nevertheless, they can be viewed as leading finds of great import for our line of inquiry. According to the excavator C. Kacsó, there are essential differences in the manner of burial among the individual tumuli at Lapuş. These divergences can be summed up in three basic forms. The first burial form includes mounds that were built directly above the place of the funeral pyre. Before a tumulus was erected, some of the burnt bones were collected and placed in the centre of the mound. The remaining residue from the funeral pyre was shoved to the sides, and grave goods like vessels and metal objects placed upon it. In some of the tumuli the remains of the funeral pyre were first covered with gravel, and then the grave goods were deposited. The mound heaped above the grave extends far beyond the area of the funeral pyre; pottery was found in the earth that had been intentionally broken, indicating a special funerary ritual. The second burial form includes tumuli, in which burials in urns are found, in contrast to unumed scattered cremations of the first group. However, occasionally burnt remains appeared in the earth heaped above the tumuli. This indicates that the cremation of the deceased did not take place at the site of the tumulus, but elsewhere in the vicinity. The third possible form involves tumuli in which scarcely any human bones are present, but instead large amounts of burnt remains, pottery sherds, pieces of clay, stones, charred animal bones and also metal objects. If these contexts should be viewed as graves and not as relicts of special rituals or even as metallurgical activities, then one could assume that they are cenotaphs.1 2 3 Kacsó has a chronological explanation for these differences in burial forms at the cemetery in Lapuş. He ascribes tumuli with unumed cremation graves to the first phase, and tumuli with urn burials as well as “cenotaphs” to the second phase. This temporal assignment of the tumuli bases upon the characteristic grave goods, in particular the pottery. In the thus far only partially published repertory of ceramics from Lapuş, three to four groupings in the pottery are clearly recognizable. They can be differentiated according to form and decoration, and they can be further subdivided as well. Due to limited time and space a detailed treatment of the pottery cannot be made here; therefore, a brief description of the groups must suffice. The most outstanding type among the ceramics is the vessel with a tall cylindrical or conical neck, and with large horns or even animal protomes in the form of a bull’ or dog’s head (Fig. 1). The surface of the vessels is decorated expansively with various motifs in incised or chip-carved (Kerbschnitt-) techniques. The motifs are ordered into several zones that run in a parallel, diagonal or wavy course. It is noteworthy that figurai representations appear tall as Biba Terzan 1 Kacsó 1975; ibid. 1994; ibid. 2001a, ibid. 2001b; ibid. 2004a, PI. 50-64. Thereby, the great difference in quality between the drawings in the articles of 1975 and 2001a is quite a disadvantage. Furthermore, there are a few discrepancies in the assignment of some of the vessels to tumuli. 2 Kacsó 2001a, 236 f.; ibid. 2001b, 36 f. Kacsó’s reason for viewing these as “collective graves” is not clear in his description. In this respect, see also Motzoi-Chicideanu 1999-2001,227 ff. Fig. 18. 3 Opposite Kacsó’s erroneous attribution (Kacsó 2001 a, 232), this does not represent the head of a ram. Satu Mare - Studii şi Comunicări, nr. XXVI / I, 2010
