ARHIVELE OLTENIEI - Universitatea din Craiova

Types of habitat at the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age in Oltenia 15function – that representing the social prestige. Such a function was presumed tohave the fortification from Popeşti, Giurgiu district, as A. Vulpe said. 30The apparition of the defended fortresses at the end of the 2 ndmillennium, wide across the Central and South-West Europe, was interpreted asa tendency of emphasising for the chief of the community “les produits enbronze étaient devenus abondants, fonctionnellment et stylistiquement très varié.Il n’est pas indifférent de sougliner que les outils métallique, qui avaient alorspris une place importante dans tous les secteurs de la productions, ne pouvaientetre fabriqués sans le concours des élites; ce qui pourait induire un déut decontrole partiel sur l’économie de subsistance de la part d’une instance supralocale.Au début de l’Age du fer, la forme de pouvoire politique ne change pastrès sensiblement...Des armes et des parures en fer, du sel en grosses quantités,des salaisons et des textiles de luxe font maintenant partie de biens de prestigeen circulation.” 31In the same manner were interpreted some ritual deposits such as thebronze hoard, specially put at the entrance of the Kronach fortress, from theSuperior Franconia. 32The fact that they don’t have only a defensive role against the invadersis suggested also by the anthropological studies. M. Eliade emphasised that “thedefensive systems of the settlements and the fortresses had a magic character atfirst: these systems made of ditches, labyrinths, defensive valli, were conceivedto stop rather the entrance of the demons and of the death’s souls than the humaninvasions … the walls of the fortresses were assigned through rituals to serve asa bound against the demon, disease or death. As a matter of fact, in the symbolicthought, the human–enemy is naturally compared with the Demon and withDeath. Because the result of any kind of attack, either demonic or military is thesame: the destruction, the annihilation, the death” 33 .The archaeological documents from the present stage of the researches,with all the lacks, allow us to observe that, in the same time with the existence ofa “spreading” habitat, similar to that of the communities that have as the mainmean of existence the grazing, are now present the reinforced fortresses that,along with the proliferation of some fatuous habits (the tumuli from Susani andLăpuş), denote the existence of some leaders, called şeferi, interested in theaffirmation and the maintaining of the social prestige.30 A. Vulpe, idem, p. 366; N. Palincaş, Social Status and Gender Relation in Late BronzeAge Popeşti. A Plea for the Introduction of New Approaches in Romanian Archaeology, in„Dacia”, 48-49, 2004-2005, p. 44 and the next.31 P. Burn, op. cit., p. 35.32Quoted by P. Schauer, Stand und Aufgaben der Urnenfelderforschung inSüddeutschland, in „Beiträge zur Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen, Monographien”RGZM, Bd. 35, Bonn 1995, p. 165, figure 41.33 M. Eliade, Sacrul şi profanul, Humanitas Publishing House, 2000, p. 40; idem,Tratatul de istorie a religiilor , 1992, p. 341.