2.1.2.2 FACTORES FAMILIARES

The animal depositions in graves of members of elevated social group have been analysed in detail, except for the frequency of their occurrence. Because of the state of research this aspect can be studied in a limited number of barrow cemeteries/ groups with a high proportion of excavated graves and recorded animal remains. In Dunajská Lužná-Nové Košariská animal remains were found in four out of five

barrows. In Százhalombatta, they were in every barrow excavated in the late 1970s and 1980s (7 barrows; Holport 1993, 28; 33). In Fehérvárcsurgó, horse remains were found in five out of nine excavated barrows; presence of other animals is still unpublished. Accordingly, the occurrence of animal depositions in barrows of social elites was notably frequent. Moreover, the absence of osteological animal remains in some barrows cannot exclude the original presence of unboned animal depositions, for example unboned meat, since it can be evidenced only by methods of archaeological chemistry.

This situation will be compared with that in other types of cemeteries/graves in the region, in order to recognize the association of animal depositions with graves of social elites within wider vertical social structure.

Considering “flat” cemeteries (cf. Rebay 2006, 43-44) which are regarded as burial places for common population, only a few of them (those that were archaeozoologicaly analysed) are of any use for this study. Animal remains in these cemeteries were detected in a rather small number of graves. For example, in the large Statzendorf cemetery in Lower Austria they were recognized in 57 graves out of about 375, in relatively close Grafenwörth cemetery in four graves out of 21, in western Slovak Vrádište cemetery in 14 out of 28 graves, in Transdanubian Halimba-Cseres in four out of 24 graves and in Nagydém-Középrépáspuszta in twelve out of 23 graves (Ambros 1960; Lochner 1988; Nagy 1939; Pichlerová 1960; Rebay 2006; Schmitzberger 2006). No clear correlation between amount of grave goods and presence of animal remains are observed, since animal remains were found in ‘rich’ as well as ‘poor’ graves. The number of animal species in individual graves was also considerably lower than that in presented barrows. Remains of one species were the most frequent, while two were much more sporadic and three species in a grave were very rare. Regarding the variability of species, it seems that various species were placed in these graves, similarly to barrows. Namely, along with the three (or four) most frequent species, remains of horse, red deer, beaver or hen were also occasionally detected. Considering the forms of animal depositions, there were also various forms present (meat depositions, pars pro toto (?), astragali, single bones or teeth etc.), but mostly only one per grave. The amount of animal remains from individual species in a grave was also considerably lower than in barrows: usually there was a single bone or a couple of adjacent bones forming a portion of meat. Sporadically other parts of animal bodies occur. It must be pointed out that in none of these graves entire mammals were found and moreover, large parts were present extremely rarely. It is also of notice that remains of particular species were treated very similarly as in presented barrows (e.g. pork cuts, larger parts of sheep, even whole extremities, sheep astragali, chopped cattle remains). Finally, it seems that the main differences between the animal depositions in barrows of top social elites and deceased from ‘flat’ cemeteries were multiplicity and variability.

Similar tendencies can be observed in the south Moravian cemetery in Vojkovice, even though archaeozoological analyses were not carried out/published (Golec 2005, 141-267). It is a flat cemetery with a high proportion of chamber graves (19) compared to simple urn graves (2). Chamber graves are interpreted as of ‘higher middle class’, but also a rich female grave socially comparable to those from barrows was among them. Animal remains were recorded in twelve chamber graves, all with more grave goods than in remaining ones. Usually there was only a small amount of bones, only in graves with large number of grave

goods or luxurious artefacts were there more animal remains or animal body parts, sporadically located even in a couple of places. In the rich female grave a piglet skeleton was found.

From barrows of smaller dimensions and smaller amount and variability of grave goods than in dominant barrows, those in Bad Fischau (Klemm 1992, 311- 464; Szombathy 1924) are suitable for comparison as well as a single grave from Donnerskirchen (grave 1; Rebay 2005). In Bad Fischau animal remains were found/mentioned in eleven out of 16 barrows, two of them (no. 10, Hochholz) are considered above as dominant barrows. The number of animal species in a barrow was one or two. Remains of cattle, sheep and swine were the most frequent, while other species occurred rather rarely (ovicaprid, equid). The character of these remains resembles those in dominant barrows. They were present in graves of males as well as females.

In conclusion, it seems that the number of animal species, amount of their remains and the variability of forms of their depositions in a grave generally increase with higher social importance of buried person (if burial rites/grave type really reflected vertical social structure). It applies to animal remains interpreted as food, but also to other forms of animal depositions. However, accurate definition of situation in these ‘less prestigious’ types of graves requires further detailed and complex research.