CHAPTER FIFTEEN

GIANT TUMULI OF THE IRON AGE:

TRADITION – MONUMENTALITY –
KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
Svend Hansen

INTRODUCTION

In recent years interest in tumuli as places of memory and architectural mon-

uments has increased visibly. Several contributions in edited volumes are a
particular reflection of this increased attention (Borgna/Müller-Celka 2011;
Henry/Kelp 2015; Pető/Barczi 2011). This interest is partly fed by the contem-
porary culture of memory, and it is easy to gain the impression that tumuli were
a universal phenomenon. However, on closer examination it is clear that large
tumuli are restricted to particular epochs and are not found in all geographical
regions.
This chapter addresses the question as to why large tumuli were constructed
in the Iron Age from the 8th century BC in so many regions, because there was
no direct Late Bronze Age tradition for them. My thesis is that the construction
of the giant tumuli was part of the orientalizing tradition that characterized the
Mediterranean in the Early Iron Age (Hansen 2011). At the same time, a tradi-
tion could also be constructed with the barrows as an old form of burial. The
monumentality of these tumuli was a culturally stored sign of the exhibition
of power.
The burials in the tumuli are characterized by elaborate furnishings that
represent first and foremost the banquet, the Mediterranean symposium. The
exotic grave goods reflect the extensive long-distance contacts of the ‘princes’
with the Mediterranean world. These contacts resulted not only in the import
of luxury articles but also in the adoption of architectural forms in major
225
226 SVEND HANSEN

settlements or towns north of the Alps.Recent research has shown,for example,

that the Heuneburg on the Danube, which has been the object of many years
of research, was only the fortified part of a much larger settlement (Fernández-
Götz/Krausse 2013 and this volume;Krausse 2006).Economically differentiated
activities were regulated and controlled in those large settlements. The quality
of the products, whether metalwork or textiles, is evidence for a society with a
division of labour and numerous specialists. Political power was concentrated
in the fortified settlements (Krausse et al. 2012), and their lords probably came
from a small number of families who had exercised this control for generations.

THE HISTORY OF THE TUMULI

In the Early Iron Age tumuli were not essentially new, but rather belong to
the manifold technological and social innovations of the second half of the 4th
millennium BC: for example, the ‘hypermounds’ of the Maykop Culture in
the North Caucasus or the tumuli of the contemporary Usatovo and Baden
Cultures. Of course, they are not the first monumental tombs, because the large
Breton megalith tombs had already been constructed in the 5th millennium
BC. However, the erection of such a sizeable monument over the burial of an
individual was certainly a new phenomenon. Even in the Caucasus there were
older, large Chalcolithic barrows in which the rulers were usually portrayed as
warriors. Kurgans were markers in the landscape that in the long term were to
become a dominant feature in the spatial orientation of a society. At the same
time they also documented the legitimacy of current claims to ownership and
the control of land.
Tumuli were to become an important characteristic in many regions in
Europe in the 3rd millennium BC, but during the Bronze Age of the 2nd mil-
lennium BC they were only erected during brief periods in various parts of
Europe. From the Late Bronze Age in the last quarter of the 2nd millennium
BC, flat graves finally became by far the most common type, with numer-
ous burials in urns. A few remarkable tumuli were erected on the northern
periphery in the Late Bronze Age, among them the famous ‘King’s tumulus’
from Seddin in Prignitz (May/Hauptmann 2012) that produced C14 dates in
the second half of the 9th century BC. A bronze amphora was sealed with
a phalera and contained the cremated remains of an adult male. It stood in a
large ceramic situla that was also sealed with a lid. The ashes of two additional
individuals, probably female, were found in other ceramic vessels.
The situation is very similar at Lusehøj near Voldtofte on Fünen (Thrane
1984, 2006). The most recent C14 date for the cremated human remains is
about 800 BC. The ashes were deposited – as at Seddin – in a bronze ves-
sel together with the grave goods. The ashes were wrapped additionally in
cloth, which was made of nettle: According to the latest strontium isotope
analyses, this nettle was not native, but was imported, perhaps from the area of
GIANT TUMULI OF THE IRON AGE 227

Carinthia-Styria (Bergfjord et al. 2012). The vessel was sealed with a bronze lid
and resin into which pieces of amber had been inserted. There are numerous
examples for the use of bronze vessels as containers for cremation remains in
northern Central Europe in the 7th century BC, and they can be interpreted
as the result of the transalpine contacts of the elites (Fontijn/Fokkens 2007:
364–365; Verger 1997).
However, a burial from Lefkandi on Euboea reveals a great deal about the
ideological background to such burials. There, in a large apsidal building, the
remarkable burial of a woman with rich gold jewellery was discovered. Next
to it was a bronze amphora containing the cremated remains of a man. His
grave goods included a sword, a lance, and a whetstone. The grave can be
dated to the 10th century BC. The urn was probably produced on Cyprus
in the 12th century BC and so was already an antique at the time. P. Blome
has drawn attention to the fact that we have here a ‘Homeric’ burial from
two hundred years before Homer (Blome 1984). The deceased was buried in
the manner described in Book XXIII of the Iliad: Patrocolus was cremated, his
bones picked out from the pyre and coated in fat (Hector’s bones were wrapped
in cloth) and then buried in a gold dish beneath a barrow. Lefkandi can be
understood as representative of a number of older, Early Iron Age traditions of
heroes’ burials. Such ‘Homeric’ burials were also known in Greece in the late
Geometric period and experienced there a renaissance in the 5th century BC
(Guggisberger 2008; cf. for Italy also Schweizer 2008).

EARLY IRON AGE BARROWS

When the construction of barrows began in the Early Iron Age, they nowhere
followed from an existing Bronze Age tradition. Of course, there was an aware-
ness of tumuli, because they were a significant feature of the landscape of the
1st millennium BC in many regions. But nevertheless, it is quite unlikely that
the Iron Age tumuli had their origins in local events, because in many regions
in Italy, North Greece, West Anatolia and the northern Black Sea area, and
the northern Caucasus as far as Siberia, the tumulus became the characteristic
funerary monument for the most powerful.
Thus, burial beneath tumuli can be seen as part of an ‘internationalization’
in which (proto)state societies between East France and the Caucasus came
into much closer contact with the city and state centres of the Mediterranean,
Anatolia, and the Near East than they had earlier in the Bronze Age (Dietler
1997; Guidi 2006). The Early Iron Age barrows were part of the ‘orientaliz-
ing’ movement that gripped practically the entire Mediterranean from the 8th
century BC. Among the central elements of the orientalizing lifestyle were
new forms of feasting; in other words, new drinking and eating customs. Peo-
ple began to lie on a kline and to scoop wine from large mixing vessels, while
singers and dancers provided entertainment. The feasting frieze from Poggio
228 SVEND HANSEN

15.1. Poggio Civitate (Murlo). Representation of a feast (author, based on Small 1971).

Civitate from about 560 BC shows men reclining on a kline and female atten-
dants embracing them (Figure 15.1). Descriptions of feasts can be found in the
biblical Book of Amos, as well as Homer. The feast and the Greek symposium
became important events that served to create and strengthen social connec-
tions. This is clear from the furnishings and goods placed in numerous graves.
Whether the feasts at Mont Lassois in Central France, for example, really had a
lot in common with symposia in Athens is not the point: They were, however,
based on oriental models.
The Iron Age reception of Oriental culture went well beyond the import
of goods. New worlds of images arrived, and together with them new literary
tales and myths. Craft techniques, as well as magic and medicine, were also
part of the transfer of knowledge from the East. Even the representation of
Oriental rulers was echoed in Italy. The unknown ruler on the procession
frieze in Poggio Civitate was represented as the receiver of divine favour in
just the same manner as Assurbanipal was shown on the reliefs in Nineveh
(Hague Sinos 1994, 100–102, figs. 11.2 and 11.10). W. Burkert (1995) called this
the ‘Orientalizing Revolution.’
Of course, there were also concrete economic interests behind this revo-
lution. In particular, the mineral resources on the Iberian Peninsula or from
Central Italy – copper, silver, and iron – were the object of great interest. The
Phoenicians already focused attention on the mining region of Rio Tinto no
later than the 9th century BC, and perhaps even as early as the 10th century
BC (Brandherm 2008; González de Canales et al. 2006; see also Chapter 17,
this volume). The oldest Phoenician imports on the Iberian Peninsula can be
dated to the 10th century BC and are an indication of new forms of feasting
(Armada Pita 2008; see also Artzy 2006).
GIANT TUMULI OF THE IRON AGE 229

ORIENTAL IMAGES

A pyxis from Appenwihr and bronze vessels from a tumulus in the Frankfurt
Stadtwald indicate that as early as the 7th century BC the world of the South
was beginning to open up (Fischer 1979). The best parallels for three bronze
table legs found near Saarbrücken are from an exceptionally rich burial in
Verucchio (Italy). Exceptional objects like these were part of the furnishings
in feasting halls (Erbach-Schönberg 1994). If these objects are to be used to
determine the social status of burials in Southwest Germany, then we first must
understand their value in Italy. Even there they were by no means cheap mass-
produced products, but were tied to the sphere of the ruling families.
With the mass adoption of Oriental motifs in the art of the 7th century
BC, a new kind of world of myths now appeared, which greatly expanded
the intellectual horizons of the owners of cauldrons with protomes of lions or
griffins (Figure 15.2).At the very least their owners demonstrated that they were
involved in intellectual and material exchanges with the Mediterranean world.
As is visible on the decoration of East Alpine situlae, Mediterranean motifs
were adopted in artwork, reassembled, and interpreted. The Greek interpre-
tation of Oriental art had worked its way via the Greek emporia and colonies
in the Western Mediterranean from Ampurias, via Marseille, and as far as the
Northern Black Sea region. With the new images, so too new tales and myths
about great kings, fantastic wealth, and wondrous palaces spread to the Alpine

15.2. Sumptuous grave of Hochdorf. Cauldron with protomes of lions (Photo: LM Stuttgart).
230 SVEND HANSEN

region. The First Book of Kings 10 and 14–29, in which the fantastic wealth of
King David is described, may be an example of such accounts. An archaeolog-
ical concentration on objects should not obscure our view of the role played
by knowledge in exchange during the Early Iron Age.
With the new pictorial media, the amount of information that could be
transferred was multiplied enormously. This can be recognized from the bronze
foot bowl from Hallstatt, grave no. 682 (Figure 15.3). It is 57 cm high and 32 cm
in diameter. The inside surface of the bowl is decorated with a figural frieze
in two rows. In the upper row large four-legged animals, probably horses and
cattle, as well as smaller ones, perhaps a lion or griffin, are to be seen. The lower
row consists of alternating lions or griffins and humans with long hair, naked

15.3. Bronze foot bowl from Hallstatt (Photo: NHM Wien).

GIANT TUMULI OF THE IRON AGE 231

upper bodies, and skirt-like clothing. This representation has connections with
Phoenician metal bowls – for example, those known from the Tomba Bernar-
dini in Praeneste or the Tomba Regolini Galassi in Cerveteri – as well as those
throughout the entire Mediterranean (Sciacca 2006–07). The world was pop-
ulated with mysterious animals such as lions and griffins that were at the same
time both real and unreal.

TUMULI IN SOUTHWEST GERMANY

Although the largest tumuli from the Western Hallstatt circle measure between
80 and 100 m at the base and are preserved to heights of up to 14 m (Kurz
1997: 41ff. fig. 13), the majority of Hallstatt tumuli have a diameter of only 10 to
20 m, and there are a number of examples measuring about 20–50 m. However,
barrows larger than 50 m are the exception. Among the largest of the Iron Age
tumuli is the Hohmichele near the Heuneburg, with a diameter of 80 m and a
height of 13.5 m. Grave VI, which was installed later, contained the burials of
a man and a woman. Among the grave goods a chariot and horse tackle stand
out, together with Mediterranean bronze vessels, various articles of attire and
two necklaces with 351 amber and 2,360 glass beads, respectively. Apparently it
was the woman’s lot to follow the man into the grave, where she was placed
beneath the chariot. In the Early Iron Age, it was quite common to follow
others into the grave.
The grave at Hochdorf, discovered in the late 1970s, is somewhat younger
than the Hohmichele burials. The grave had not been robbed, and the rich
finds caused great excitement (Biel 1998). It can be dated to about 540/530
BC. In the centre of the mound was a central burial with a wooden chamber.
The deceased was buried lying on the bronze furniture on the west side of the
chamber. At his feet was a large cauldron, whereas the chariot was placed in
the chamber’s northeast corner and was used as a table for the bronze vessels.
All of the grave goods were carefully wrapped in cloth. The hill was com-
pletely excavated, had a diameter of 60 m, and was originally probably at least
6 m high. The Hochdorf grave shows in all its depth what was the key feature
of the princely burials: the feast. The lord presents himself as the host tend-
ing to his social connections and alliances. Some time ago D. Krausse (1993)
also interpreted the drinking horns within the context of the Mediterranean
symposium. Perhaps all that was missing for a Mediterranean feast on the Upper
Danube was the wine, because only a few transport containers are known from
the North, and it was mead that was found in the cauldron from Hochdorf (see
Figure 15.2).
The dimensions of the feast were once again significantly extended around
500 BC with the large krater that was found in Vix, at the foot of Mont Lassois
(Rolley 2003). It could hold 1,100 litres and is the largest metal vessel from
the ancient world. It was produced, probably after 530 BC, in a workshop in
232 SVEND HANSEN

the Greek world. An Attic drinking bowl was also part of the feast, and the
decoration on it of Amazons in battle corresponds to the warrior scene on
the krater, while the neckring with the figure of Pegasus transports us into
the world of fabulous creatures. These are all of the older grave goods, which
S. Verger separated from the later goods in the grave of the woman (Verger
2009; contra Péré-Noguès 2011).
At Grafenbühl near the Hohenasperg, among the furnishings of the burial
are a stand for a cauldron and a bronze cauldron. However, the most interesting
find is a kline dating to the second half of the 6th century BC, which is a clear
indication of the adoption of feasting in Southwest Germany. It was already
an antique when it was placed in the grave, given that the tumulus on the
Grafenbühl hill had been erected in the second half of the 5th century BC.
The grave goods also included two ivory lions feet that can be interpreted as
the remains of a table or footstool (Fischer 1990: 120). The custom of reclining
on a kline to dine was adopted by the Lydians in the 7th century BC, and
from there spread to the eastern Greek world and on to Etruria as well around
600 BC. A representation of mourning for the dead Achilles on a Corinthian
hydria of the mid-6th century BC is remarkable (Figure 15.4) (Naso 2007),
because the dead hero, Achilles, is lain out on a kline of this kind, while the

15.4. Hydria of Damon, 560–545 BC (Photo: Louvre E643).

GIANT TUMULI OF THE IRON AGE 233

mourning Nereids stand behind it,thus linking the world of the symposium with
death.

EAST HALLSTATT CIRCLE

In the Southeast Alpine region the oldest ‘rich’ burials follow directly from
the preceding Urnfield period. The latest burials continue as late as the phase
Hallstatt D1. The tumulus field at Klein-Klein in Styria is grouped in a ring
around the hilltop settlement ‘Burgstallkogel’, and today still consists of around
700 tumuli, although originally there must have been more than 2,000 (Egg
2009). Klein-Klein is thus the largest tumulus necropolis in the Southeast
Alpine region and remained in use for more than 150 years. Fifteen very large
tumuli were levelled in the 19th century. M. Egg has interpreted the erection
of these large barrows as the result of a pronounced dynastic awareness (Egg
2009: 41).
The Kröll-Schmiedkogel tumulus, erected shortly before or about 600 BC,
was 40 m in diameter and 12 m high. It contained a wooden burial chamber
(8 × 8 m) and included a dromos that was 12 m long and nearly 5 m wide.
This architecture was adopted from Italy and demonstrates that the transfer
of knowledge also included the architecture of the tumulus. Three individuals
were buried in the chamber (Egg/Kramer 2005). Two of them are interpreted
as funerary offerings for the prince, a phenomenon that could be identified
elsewhere in the Eastern Hallstatt Circle (Egg/Kramer 2005: 39). The grave
goods included a complete set of weapons. An imposing find category is the
thirty-two bronze vessels that composed a service; they were probably adopted
from Italic circles.
Particularly in the Eastern Alpine region, the large tumuli with their stone
chambers and a dromos that was probably accessible represent rich burials that
are remarkable for the inclusion of weapons among the grave goods, as well as
a large number of bronze vessels. Here too the feast played an important role.

TUMULI IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

From the 7th century BC, the Iron Age rulers north of the Alps obtained
a sizeable proportion of their luxury goods from Italy. So too from the 7th
century BC large tumuli were constructed in the cemeteries at Veio, Cerveteri,
and Tarquinia. On the basis of structural details, it has been suggested that there
was a connection between the construction of the Etruscan tumuli and Lydia,
evidence of an architectural transfer taking place (Demus Quatember 1958;
Naso 1998; Prayon 1990).
As a rule,the large tumuli were erected over several burial chambers with one
access point. An example of such an exceptional burial is the Tomba Regolini
Galassi in Cerveteri with its excessively orientalizing metalwork (Sannibale
2008). Here too the feast is represented by numerous drinking bowls, as well
234 SVEND HANSEN

as a bronze cauldron used as a mixing vessel and large ceramic pithoi, just as is
illustrated on the clay frieze from Murlo (see Figure 15.1).
In contrast to what was happening in other regions of Europe, the elabo-
rateness of burials in Greece was restricted from the 8th century BC onwards.
In Athens laws limiting funerary luxury were passed on several occasions, and
from the 8th century BC the public display of valuable objects as dedications
in sanctuaries played the leading role in individual representation. The sanctu-
ary was also the place where the legendarily rich kings of Asia Minor offered
up their gifts. The largest tumulus on the Kerameikos in Athens is of relatively
modest dimensions, with a diameter of 30 m and a height of 5 m. It was erected
over two square chambers with sealed entrances. In the undisturbed grave the
excavators found Samian lekythoi and Lydian ointment vessels, as well as an
ivory kline. It dates to the second half of the 6th century BC, and the closest
comparison is from Grafenbühl (see the earlier discussion). In the grave goods
S. Houby-Nielsen sees the material expression of what the Greeks called truphe,
a lifestyle that was oriented on the luxurious Lydian bodily culture (Houby-
Nielsen 1995: 160).

BLACK SEA REGION

Large tumuli appeared in an extremely wide area to the north and west of the
Black Sea only in the 5th and 4th centuries BC, but within a really short time
(Bittel 1942: 94). They were often extremely large complexes. Naipköy, one of
the largest funerary mounds in Turkish Thrace, was up to 21 m high and had
a diameter of 84 m. In the burial chamber the kline and the table were made
of slabs of marble (Delemen 2006).
In the north Black Sea area, large, richly furnished kurgans appeared in the
contact zone together with the foundation of the first Greek colonies. In the
7th century BC there were isolated large kurgans in the area of forest steppes in
the Western Dnieper region (for example, Perepjaticha). Large, richly furnished
kurgans dating to the early 7th century BC are known only in the areas on the
northwestern borders of the Caucasus. Exceptional examples from this period
are the kurgans from Kelermes near Majkop (Galanina 2007), which could be
as high as 4 to 5 m. In addition to characteristic objects in the Scythian animal
style, the grave goods include objects that drew on Oriental-Mediterranean
pictorial motifs such as lions, griffins or the Potnia Theron.
It was only in the 5th century BC that the large barrows appeared that are
also known as the ‘Pyramids of the Steppes’ (Alekseev 2007; Boltrik/Fialko
2007). They include Čertomlyk (with a height of ca. 19.5–22 m), as well as the
kurgans of Alexandropol, Solocha, and Nečaeva Mogila, which were between
17 and 20 m high. At the end of the 19th century the Oguz kurgan, which was
built in the 4th century BC, had a diameter of 100–110 m and was more than
21 m high.
GIANT TUMULI OF THE IRON AGE 235

The most expensive features of such barrows were not the numerous gold
grave goods, but rather the very large amount of grass sods required to build
the mounds. The result was that the area affected was unsuitable for grazing
cattle for years. For the kurgan of Čertomlyk grass sods would have had to be
cut from an area of 75 ha. Such ‘grass tiles’ must be interpreted as additional
grave goods, even if of a symbolic nature. Just as the ruler was buried with his
servants and horses, his weapons and all his other implements, so too he was to
have a ‘heavenly pasture’ at his disposal (Rolle/Murzin 1991).

ANATOLIA

The earliest and largest tumuli of the Early Iron Age are to be found in Ana-
tolia. Even today Bin Tepe, the necropolis of a thousand hills, is an impressive
monument, with a width of 10 km stretching some 6 km north of Sardis to
Lake Koloë.
Herodotus (1, 93) reports that in Sardis there was a structure that, except for
the wonders of Egypt and Babylon, surpassed all others in size: This was the
funerary monument for Alyattes, the father of the legendary rich King Croesus.
For this reason the largest tumulus in Sardis, with a diameter of 355 m and a
height of more than 69 m, is attributed to this king (Özgür 2011: 15). Generally
the tomb is dated to about 570/560 BC. The burial chamber was situated some
30 m southwest of the centre of the mound and was built of marble blocks. The
site had probably already been robbed in Roman times, and various Greek and
Lydian ceramic sherds are all that is left of the grave goods. The monumentality
of the Lydian royal tombs today is testimony to the extravagant wealth of the
Lydian upper classes.
More than eighty tumuli lie outside Gordion, the capital of Phrygia, of
which twenty-three mounds have been excavated. The best known is mound
MM, called the ‘grave of Midas.’ The mound is nearly 300 m in diameter and
53 m high (Young 1981). The deceased was buried in the northwest corner of
the burial chamber in an open wooden coffin. The grave goods consisted of 3
large cauldrons, 2 of which had attachments in the form of Sirens (Figure 15.5);
10 small cauldrons; 31 flagons; one lion’s head and one bull’s head; 2 ladles; 121
bronze bowls; 194 fibulae (145 in a textile bag); 11 bronze and leather belts; 3
iron tripods; and 17 ceramic vessels. The excellent state of preservation is the
result of the wooden furniture, above all tables, on which part of the bronze
vessels were stacked. Dendrochronological analysis revealed that the chamber
was constructed around 740 BC (De Vries 2008), so that it cannot be attributed
to any of the historically testified rulers called Midas. Possibly it was built by
Midas for his predecessor (Berndt-Ersöz 2008; Rose 2012: 243). The tumulus
necropolis at Gordion was used until 540 BC; that is, for two more centuries.
At the same time, the largest tumuli were built on top of the oldest ones, so
that the latter can be seen as ‘foundation monuments.’
236 SVEND HANSEN

15.5. Cauldron from grave MM in Gordion (author).

DISCUSSION

Tumuli were a time-honoured form of burial, the origins of which date to

the 4th millennium BC. During the Bronze Age they played a role in many
areas of Europe until the last quarter of the 2nd millennium BC, when flat
graves became the usual form of burial. In the Early Iron Age tumuli were the
funerary monument of choice for the ruling elites in extensive regions of West-
ern Eurasia. Their ‘revitalization’ in the 1st millennium BC can be understood
as an ‘invented tradition,’ because nowhere can a genuine continuity in this
form of funerary architecture from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age be
identified.
The oldest burial mounds appeared during the 8th and 7th centuries BC.
Tumulus MM in Gordion, still an impressive monument today, is both the
oldest and the largest Early Iron Age tumulus. Built around 740 BC, it could
have become the locus classicus. Such a giant structure was surely the subject
of tales that rapidly spread across the Mediterranean and beyond. In it the
deceased played the role of host at a feast, its opulence testified to by the
vessels.
GIANT TUMULI OF THE IRON AGE 237

The form of feast that is best known to us, the Greek symposium, was a central
element of the ‘orientalizing’ lifestyle. The term ‘orientalizing’ must be under-
stood in a broader sense than what is meant by the narrow art-historical term
for a particular style: It involved the adoption not only of visual motifs but also
of forms of social interaction from the early 1st millennium BC that continued
to spread and be influential well into the 5th century BC. Ultimately, the ori-
gins of this phenomenon stretch back to the Bronze Age Mediterranean,where
the ‘cultural’ differences between Egypt, the Levant, Cyprus, West Anatolia, and
Greece were more fluid. It has long been known that these close contacts also
extended to legends and myths; for example, numberous Oriental motifs are
included in the Homeric epics. It is by no means irrelevant that the Iliad is
the literary place where the tumulus is described as the monument for the
heroes.
If we understand the ‘grave of Midas’ as a ‘holistic work of art’ that consists
not only of the staging of the feast but also of the erection of the giant tumulus,
then it seems by no means absurd that this monument, which was an object of
wonder, could have been a model for other burial mounds in the orientalizing
world and one to which reference was made.

REFERENCES

Alekseev, A. J. (2007): Skythische Könige
und Fürstenkurgane. In W. Menghin/
H. Parzinger/A. Nagler/M. Nawroth (eds.),
Im Zeichen des goldenen Greifen. Königsgräber der
Skythen. Prestel, Munich, 242–255.
Armada Pita, X. L. (2008): Carne, drogas o alco-
hol? Calderos y banquetes en el bronce final
de la Península Ibérica. Cuadernos de prehisto-
ria y arquelogía de la Universidad de Granada 18,
125–162.
Artzy, M. (2006): The Jatt Metal Hoard in North-
ern Canaanite, Phoenician and Cypriote Context.
Cuadernos de Arqueologia Mediterránea 14,
Barcelona.
Bergfjord, C./U. Mannering/K. M. Frei/M.
Gleba/A. B. Scharff/I. Skals/J. Heinemeier/
M./L. Nosch/B. Holst (2012): Nettle as a dis-
tinct Bronze Age textile plant. Scientific Reports
2: 664 | doi: 10.1038/srep00664.
Berndt-Ersöz,S.(2008):The chronology and his-
torical context of Midas. Historia 57, 1–37.
Biel, J. (1998): Der Keltenfürst von Hochdorf. Wis-
senschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.
Bittel, K. (1942): Kleinasiatische Studien. Istan-
buler Mitteilungen 5, 1–224.
Blome, P. (1984): Lefkandi und Homer. Würz-
burger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaften
N.F. 10, 9–21.
Boltrik, J./E. Fialko (2007): Der Fürstenkurgan
von Oguz. In W. Menghin/H. Parzinger/A.
Nagler/M. Nawroth (eds.), Im Zeichen des gold-
enen Greifen. Königsgräber der Skythen. Prestel-
Verlag, Munich, 268–275.
Borgna, E./S. Müller-Celka (2011): Ancestral
Landscapes. Central and Eastern Europe, Balkans,
Adriatic, Aegean, 4th–2nd Millennium B.C.: Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference Held in
Udine, May 15th–18th 2008. Lyon, 21–30.
Brandherm, D. (2008): Erneut zur Datierung
der ältesten griechischen und phönizischen
Importkreramik auf der Iberischen Halbinsel.
Madrider Mitteilungen 49, 115–144.
Burkert, W. (1995): The Orientalizing Revolution:
Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the
Early Archaic Age. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Delemen, I. (2006): An unplundered chamber
tomb on Ganos Mountain in Southeastern
Thrace. American Journal of Archaeology 110,
251–273.
238 SVEND HANSEN
Demus-Quatember, M. (1958): Etruskische
Grabarchitektur. Typologie und Ursprungsfragen.
Baden-Baden.
De Vries, K. (2008): The age of Midas at Gor-
dion and beyond. Ancient Near Eastern Studies
45, 30–64.
Dietler, M. (1997): The Iron Age in Mediter-
ranean France: Colonial encounters, entangle-
ments, and transformations. Journal of World
Prehistory 11, 269–358.
Egg, M. (2009): Sozialarchäologische Betrach-
tungen zu den hallstattzeitlichen Fürsten-
gräbern von Kleinklein (Bez. Leibnitz, West-
steiermark) – eine Zwischenbilanz. In M.
Egg/D. Quast, Aufstieg und Untergang. Zwis-
chenbilanz des Forschungsschwerpunktes “Studien
zu Genese und Struktur von Eliten in Vor-
und Frühgeschichtlichen Gesellschaften.” RGZM,
Mainz, 31–58.
Egg, M./D. Kramer (2005): Krieger, Feste,
Totenopfer: Der letzte Hallstattfürst von Klein-
klein in der Steiermark. RGZM, Mainz.
Erbach-Schönberg, M. zu (1994): Etruskische
Tischbeine im Museum Wiesbaden? Germa-
nia 72, 449–466.
Fernández-Götz, M./D. Krausse (2013): Re-
thinking Early Iron Age urbanisation in Cen-
tral Europe: The Heuneburg Site and its
archaeological environment. Antiquity 87, 336,
473–487.
Fischer, U. (1979): Ein Grabhügel der Bronze und
Eisenzeit im Frankfurter Stadtwald. Schriften
des Archäologischen Museums Frankfurt am
Main.
Fischer, J. (1990): Zu einer griechischen Kline
und weiteren Südimporten aus dem Fürsten-
grabhügel Grafenbühl, Asperg, Kr. Ludwigs-
burg. Germania 68, 115–127.
Fontijn, D./Fokkens, H. (2007): The emergence
of Early Iron Age ‘chieftains’ graves’ in the
southern Netherlands: Reconsidering trans-
formations in burial and depositional prac-
tices. In C. Haselgrove/R. Pope (eds.), The
Earlier Iron Age in Britain and the Near Conti-
nent. Oxbow Books, Oxford, 354–373.
Galanina, L. K. (2007): Die Fürstengräber von
Kostromskaja und Kelermes. In W. Menghin/
H. Parzinger/A. Nagler/M. Nawroth (eds.),
Im Zeichen des goldenen Greifen. Königsgräber der
Skythen. Prestel, Munich, 198–203.
González de Canales, F./L. Serrano/J. Llompart
(2006): The pre-colonial Phoenician empo-
rium of Huelva ca 900–700 BC. BA Besch 81,
13–29.
Guggisberger, M. (2008): Gräber von Bürg-
ern und Heroen: Homerische Bestattun-
gen im klassischen Athen. In C. Kümmel/B.
Schweizer/U. Veit (eds.), Körperinszenierung –
Objektsammlung – Monumentalisierung. Toten-
ritual und Grabkult in frühen Gesellschaften.Wax-
mann, Münster, 287–318.
Guidi, A. (2006): The archaeology of early state
in Italy. Social Evolution & History 6, 55–
90.
Hague Sinos, R. (1994): Godlike men: A discus-
sion of the Murlo Procession Frieze. In R.
Daniel de Puma/J. Penny Small (eds.), Murlo
and the Etruscans: Art and Society in Ancient
Etruria. University of Wisconsin Press, Madi-
son, Madison 100–117.
Hansen, S. (2011): Großgrabhügel der älteren
Eisenzeit zwischen West und Ost. Eine
Annäherung. In V. I. Molodin/S. Hansen
(eds.), “Terra Skythica”: Materialien des inter-
nationalen Symposiums “Terra Skythica” (17.–23.
August 2011, Denisov-Höhle, Altai). Novosibirsk,
291–318.
Henry, O./U./U. Kelp (eds.) (2015): Tumulus as
Sema: Space, Politics, Culture and Religion in the
First Millennium BC. De Gruyter, Berlin.
Houby-Nielsen, S. (1995): Burial language in
Archaic and Classical Kerameikos. Proceedings
of the Danish Institute in Athen 1, 129–192.
Krausse, D. (1993): Trinkhorn und Kline:
Zur griechischen Vermittlung orientalischer
Trinksitten an die frühen Kelten. Germania 71,
188–197.
Krausse, D. (2006): Prunkgräber der nordwest-
alpinen Späthallstattkultur: Neue Fragest-
ellungen und Untersuchungen zu ihrer
sozialhistorischen Deutung. In C. von
Carnap-Bornheim/D. Krausse/A. Wesse
(eds.), Herrschaft – Tod – Bestattung. Zu den
vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Prunkgräbern als
archäologisch-historische Quelle. Habelt, Bonn,
61–80.
GIANT TUMULI OF THE IRON AGE
Krausse, D./D. Beilharz/M. Fernández-Götz
(2012): Macht, Zentralisierung, Herrschaft:
Zentren der Macht in der Eisenzeit. In Die
Welt der Kelten. Zentren der Macht – Kost-
barkeiten der Kunst. Jan Thorbecke Verlag,
Ostfildern, 39–41.
Kurz, S. (1997): Bestattungsbrauch in der westlichen
Hallstattkultur (Südwestdeutschland, Ostfrankre-
ich, Nordwestschweiz). Waxmann, Münster u. a.
May, J./ T. Hauptmann (2012): Das »Königs-
grab« von Seddin und sein engeres Umfeld
im Spiegel neuer Feldforschungen. In D.
Bérenger/J. Bourgeois/M. Talon/S. Wirth
(eds.), Gräberlandschaften der Bronzezeit.
Paysages funéraires de l‘âge du Bronze. Kollo-
quium zur Bronzezeit. Zabern, Darmstadt,
77–104.
Naso, A. (1998): I tumuli monumentali in
Etruria Meridionale: Caratteri propri e pos-
sibili ascendenze orientali. In Archäologische
Untersuchungen zu den Beziehungen zwischen
Altitalien und der Zone nordwärts der Alpen
während der frühen Eisenzeit Alteuropas. Regens-
burg, 117–157.
Naso, A. (2007): Klinai lignee intarsiate dalla
Ionia all’Europa centrale. Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische
Abteilung 113, 9–34.
Özgür, I. (2011): Der sog. Alyattes-Tumulus in
Sardes. Thetis. Mannheimer Beiträge zur Klas-
sischen Archäologie und Geschichte Griechenlands
und Zyperns 18, 9–30.
Péré-Noguès, S. (2011): Le genre au prisme de
l’archéologie: Quelques réflexions autour de
la «dame de Vix». Les Cahiers de Framespa [En
ligne] 7. http://framespa.revues.org/660.
Pető, A./A. Barczi (eds.) (2011): Kurgan Studies.
An Environmental and Archaeological Multiproxy
Study of Burial Mounds in the Eurasian Steppe
Zone. BAR International Series 2238, Oxford.
Prayon, F. (1990): Ostmediterrane Einflüsse auf
den Beginn der Monumentalarchitektur in
Etrurien? Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseums 37, 501–519.
Rolle, R./V. J. Murzin (1991): Pyramiden der
Steppe und Viehweiden für die Ewigkeit.
In R. Rolle/M. Müller-Wille/K. Schietzel
239
(eds.), Gold der Steppe. Archäologie der Ukraine.
Schleswig, 171–176.
Rolley, C. (ed.) (2003): La tombe princière de Vix.
Picard, Paris.
Rose, C. B. (2012): Fieldwork at Gordion 1950–
2012. Archäologischer Anzeiger 2012, 231–254.
Sannibale, M. (2008): Gli ori della Tomba
Regolini-Galassi: Tra tecnologia e simbolo.
Nuove proposte di lettura nel quadro del
fenomeno orientalizzante in Etruria. MEFRA
120/2, 337–367.
Schweizer, B. (2008): Fürstengräber – Hero-
engräber: Zweierlei Modi der Distinktion
im archaischen Griechenland und Italien.
In C. Kümmel/B. Schweizer/U. Veit (eds.),
Körperinszenierung – Objektsammlung – Mon-
umentalisierung. Totenritual und Grabkult in
frühen Gesellschaften. Waxmann, Münster, 233–
270.
Sciacca, F. (2006–07): La circolazione dei doni
nell’aristocrazia tirrenica: Esempi dall’archeo-
logia. Revista d’Arquelogia de Ponent 16–17,
281–292.
Small, J. P. (1971): The Banquet Frieze from Pog-
gio Civitate (Murlo). Studi Etruschi 39, 25–
61.
Thrane, H. (1984): Lusehøj ved Voldtofte- en syd-
vestfynsk storhøj fra yngre broncealder. Odense.
Thrane, H. (2006): Bronzezeitliche Prunkgräber
nördlich der Elbe. In C. von Carnap-
Bornheim/D. Krausse/A. Wesse (eds.),
Herrschaft – Tod – Bestattung. Zu den vor- und
frühgeschichtlichen Prunkgräbern als archäologisch-
historische Quelle. Habelt, Bonn, 27–40.
Verger, S. (1997): L’incinération en urne
métallique: Un indicateur des contacts aris-
torcratiques transalpins. In P. Brun/B. Chaume
(eds.), Vix et les éphémères pricipautés celtiques.
Actes du colloque de Châtillon-sur-Seine. Paris,
223–238.
Verger, S. (2009): La Dame de Vix: Une défunte
à personnalité multiple. In J. Guilaine (ed.),
Sépultures et sociétés: du Néolithique à l’Histoire.
Errance, Paris, 285–309.
Young,R.S.(1981):The Gordion Excavations.Final
Reports, 1. Three Great Early Tumuli. University
of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.