P1190281

HS Mima Ę Prn Im la

frooci thc «tnctcr> ■ Kietrz - be regardcd later as evidence of the influences fosa thc regic*n> cmbraced by the younger phase of the VelaSce culture (Gcdl 1979. 30-37. 6»-TO. 19SO: 97. 19S9: 1 7. 18. 20; 2002; 93—94). These statements «oe s«qpf>cnrd b\ the fact staied SB Madimir Podborsky <1970: 14—15) and Jmdn Nckvas-.l icg 19X2: 153. 160—108. 175). that at the end of the Hallstatt A pehce tHa.\ł. B short-term chrowologteal horizon etisted. charactcnsed by the preseacc ot' the Middlc Daaubtaa Urnfiełd culture artefacts in the Lusatian culture enviroa* aa Maava.

of the Velatice cułturt

etenoMs- at the cetnetery tn Kjeaz. stated that the rangę of possiblc Southern n-Aueacc>    hnuted to Ae Głubczyce subgroup arca. He also mentioned the ep>

-"rrrlrr dancter of gaH phenomenon, linuted in timc to Kietrz 111 phase (dated a

^encra! to Hx\2 phase 1 Gcdl 1989: 25 I and show ing no traces of continuatioa a rtw- laser period (Getfl 1989: 17—25).

The coocłuskns ofM- Oedl arc the initial point for this paper. Its purposeisa cołket other eumples of the \essels \with the features typtcal of the Middle Dtaa-b«aa Utnfidd cufetae and fbund in the regions vt ithin the reach of the Silesia graup- Althouęh the Siłesian group of the Lusatian culture is mentioned in the a-l

trom which the analysed materiał s ong>nj~| ha& boea ionited auły to the Polish territory. It is caused not only by the possibthty ofhener aceess to Ac studies conceming the territory defined in this way, but mos of ■■ by be    tha mcludmg Lusatian culture finds from northem Nlorasia a

riw raaec of Siłesian group tGcdl Ws<)b: 30) is controversial. MoraGan reseaefc-as — aot wMhoai    — disńnguish in this arca a separate taxonomic unit. w

ooaader a n I—nimlii|i widi die Siłesian group only in the case of the sites locatea m Opavan Silesia tPodborsky 1970: 20: Strof 1993: 310).

Howewo, aa many cases it is quite difhcrult to State unequivocally, whka

fiom a forei.gn cultural enx irontncnL w

gSESSBHBBEB m this paper Ido not undettake that purpose, limitin base only H be puMnhcd materials. Besides 1 am going to focus on the fortns. winek lanc dnse refcrcnces in the Middle Danubian Umfield culture

0

In the period of time discussed herc, i.e. in phases HaA2-HaBl, n has ap-peared i serious tuming-poinl in the Middle Danubian Umfield culture. mani-fested not only by the presence of artefact forms which were di (Terem than m the carlier period, but aiso by setting up new cemeteries. Howeier. the Podoli culture, fonned as a result of those transformations, is considered a continuation of the Yekuice culture from the middle period of the Bronze Age (Rihorsky 1966:461-464) Therefore in the archaeological nomenclature the term “£ransitive Velatice-Podoli phase". proposed by J. fohovsky (1960: 216-222), is used to describe the materials represennng the discussed tuming-poinL

The HąA2 phase in Southern Moravia corresponds to the decline stage of the Yelatice culture. represented especially by graves nom the early phase of the cemetery in Oblekovice (ftihovsky 1966:462; SalaS 1993:289). The furthercem-ctenes (eg. Brno-Obfany, Klentnice) were founded during the transitive Yelatice-Podoli phase (phase Klentnice I). dated to the tum of HaAlTIaB 1. or in the early penod of the Podoli phase (Klentnice II) from the beginning of HaB < Rihotsky >%3:1966). The sites from the younger phase of the Middle Danubian Umfield culture in Moravia concentratę on the region of the lower Dyja river and in the vicinity of Bmo (ftihovsky 1966, Fig. 26; Podborsky 1970: 58-59: Salas 1993. Map 24). However. contrary to the Velatice phase (Salas 1993, Map 23), tbere are no materials from that period on the middle Morava river. Settlement of so-called Siłesian phase of the Lusatian culture appeared in that region at that time (Podborsky 1970:18-55. Map: Nekvasil 1977:69-70. Fig. 2).

In the region of Lower Austria, a comparatively smali number of sites are conoected with the finał period of the Velatice culture or the tuming point between theolder and the younger phase of the Middle Danubian Umfield culture. We can lis) herc the cemeteries in Vienna-Gross Enzarsdorf (ftihovsky 1966. Figs 24-25) :nd Maicrsch. district of Hora (Berg 1962) as well as the oldest graves from the Mte Sl AndrŁ district of Tulln (Stegmann-Rajtar 1992: 51). There are much morę ftnds known from Transdanubia. A large number of sites from the beginning of the HaB phase are noted particularly in the ucinity of Budapest (Kószegi 1988. Map 6). The presence of those materials - described by Erzsebet Patek (1968. 13) as the VA1 group⁴ - some researchers are willing to connect with migration of population from the regions located on the northem bank of the Danube (Rom-sauer, Yeliaćik 1987:303).

-awmg our anention to the facl. that the clemenls of the Middle Danubian Umfield cutaae are Presem not indy at the cemetery in Kietrz, but aiso at other sites dated to the younger penoi of the BmacAfe, as well as the opportunity to presenl that phenomenon on the hackgroond of caitusal Ptoceacs taking place at that time southwards from the Siłesian group's rangę, are suffictcnt rcasws of aadataking that subject.

* la the literaturę preceding the study by E. Patek, the term “Val culture* bad referred enhreł>

¹ adacńlOgical evidence from Transdanubia dated to the Umfield period ( for a review of ofńnoas ' this subject sec Stegmann-Rajtar 1992: 61)