28900 P1170414 (2)

tian types such as the smali cups (H. Jaanusson 1981, fig- 29,6) in an area straditonally regarded as remote from the Lusatian sphere of influence. Less unexpected is the renewed occurrence at Voldtofte on South Fyn, i.e. directly opposite the coast of Mecklenburg of Lusatian ceramic elements. Here, as at Hallunda, we find the internal circular channels on the bases ofbowls which must reflect the influence of the Turbanrand-schalen or related bowls without the Turbanrand (H. Thrane 1984a, p. 126 f., fig. 61c). The distribution along the Baltię coasts may in this case be too wide for a precise location of the area whence the Danish potters learnt the idea of this element, but Pomerania will certainly have to be included in the suspected zonę. I am quite convinced that the Danish specimens were locally madę, but somehow the idea had to be picked up.

1 am not so surę about the „amphora” (fig. 1) from Lusehaj (H. Thrane 1984a, p. 125. fig. 44d), which is the most strikingly foreign vessel known from the Voldtofte find concentration. The composition of the clay does not differ significantly from local pots, but the shape and whole decoration is so foreign as could be. I have not been able to locate the precise source. but perhaps my Polish colleagues can help? This case shows the difficulties of concise ascription even for such distinctive features. How could we expect better results when comparing such widespread features as surface treatment e.g. the roughening of the outside (rusticated: H. Jaanusson 1981, p. 38 ff.) or shape (e.g. H. Thrane 1982b, fig. 2)? There can be no doubt of the dependancy of the Nordic pottery in a generał way on that of the Lusatian culture, but there is a long way to go before this relationship has been elucidated properly. '

The study ofburial rites and flmerary ceremoniał as expressed in the archaeological remains is still in its infant stage (L. R. Binford 1971). I am -surę that anyone who has tried to examine any specific feature over a wider area will agree with me. Whether it be the variation of mound size. constructional details, the frequency of cremated bronzes or other features. the situation is unfortunately always the same.

The bronzes have their Prdhistorische Bronzefunde, the contexts of the bronzes have nothing except the widely scattered articles - - exactly the situation which lead to the start of PBF. The great corpus of E. Aner and K. Kersten (1973 ff.) is the exception and is liable to remain a monolith (although a megalith) for a very long time. E. Aner and K. Kersten realized this problem and publish the fuli information on graves, mounds, ploughmarks etc. with extremely useful indices and have madę their volumes models in this respect. Even in the absence of the necessary publications I think that there are very elear indications of prom is mg results in this field.

Phenomena like the mini-mounds of Funen (fig. 2) are very probably

Ig.

;wV\,

m

3S

«

S^sila

gCr

IB

5 cm

- _e„ ^„r (1) and urn «) from prUnwy gr»ve .n

Fig- 3. Hotmcbo. 0sler Skjormngc. Fun •    _whif »nlav

mound. Urn pa.ntod rod

j gdj&ccnt Gcrrnftny

related to the Baltic Coastal areas °i a nu^ber of ^sP^ecif^^S'^m

and 1 would not be surprised to    _Ba\tic (H- Thrane 1984a. p.

the grave ritual on both sides o