2012_Raczky, P.: Körös culture research history

Specific Targeted Research Project on the Formation of Europe: Prehistoric Population Dynamics and the Roots of Socio-Cultural Diversity

Institute of Archaeology Jagiellonian University

The First Neolithic Sites in Central/South-East European Transect

Volume III

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Edited by

Alexandra Anders Zsuzsanna Siklósi

BAR International Series 2334 2012

Published by Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED England [email protected] www.archaeopress.com BAR S2334 The First Neolithic Sites in Central/South‐East European Transect. Volume III: The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary © Archaeopress and the individual authors 2012 ISBN 978 1 4073 0917 0

Printed in England by CMP (UK) Ltd All BAR titles are available from: Hadrian Books Ltd 122 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7BP England www.hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

From the se ries ed i tor

The mod el ling of the pro cess of Neolithization – one ofthe ba sic tasks of the FEPRE pro ject – re quires to built acom plete da ta base i.e. not only the reg is ter of ra dio car bondates but also the in ven tory of the FTN sites: both those ex -ca vated as well as those re corded in the course of sur facesur veys. In view of the fact that in the Neolithization of Eu -rope the axis run ning from the Bal kans to the Carpathians isof es sen tial im por tance we have de cided to make up the in -ven tory of FTN sites along this axis. Within the ter ri toryfrom 41 to 51 de grees lat i tude north the fol low ing sheetshave been taken into ac count: I – Bul garia, II – Ro ma nia,III – East ern Hun gary, IV – East ern Slovakia, V – South -east ern Po land (see map). The re sult are five vol ume cat a -logue of FTN sites with the fol low ing con tents:1. Gen eral in for ma tion about cul tural evo lu tion at the on set

of Neo lithic in a given ter ri tory: tax o nomic def i ni tions,strati graphic se quences, seriations, ba sic data on set tle -ment, ma te rial cul ture, subsitance econ omy

2. Ad di tional data on cul tural and eco nomic prob lems spe -cific for a given re gion

3. A list of ra dio met ric dates4. A cat a logue of sites in al pha bet i cal or der.

Site cat a logues are made up of the fol low ing data cat e -go ries:Iden ti fi ca tion and lo ca tion of sitesName of a site (and num ber on the map)1. Ad min is tra tive unit ap pro pri ate to a given site2. River ba sin3. Geo graph ical co or di nates4. Geomorphological sit u a tion (river ba sin, lo ca tion in re la -

tion to the land re lief)

A. In for ma tion on ex ca vated sites1. Name(s) of re searcher(s) re spon si ble for the ex ca va tion2. Date of ex ca va tion (years)3. Bounded re search area: ex ca vated and sur veyed4. Type and num ber of fea tures5. Rel a tive chro nol ogy based on ar chae o log i cal seria- tion

and ab so lute chro nol ogy; num ber of set tle ment phasesB. In for ma tion on sites rec og nized on the ba sis of sur face

finds1. Area of oc cur rence of por ta ble finds2. Tax o nomic at tri bu tion and – when pos si ble – chro no log i -

cal frame work of sitesC. The most im por tant ref er ences

Each vol ume deals with a dif fer ent tax o nomic unit rep -re sent ing FTN in a given ter ri tory:Vol ume I – Bul garia – sites of the Mono chrome and the

Early Painted Pot tery Phase (Karanovo I type);Vol ume II – Ro ma nia (Transilvania and Banat) – sites of the

Early Phase (with white-painted pot tery) of Criº- KörösCul ture;

Vol ume III – East ern Hun gary (Tisza ba sin) – sites of theKörös-Starèevo Cul ture;

Vol ume IV – East ern Slovakia – sites of the Early Phase ofthe East ern Lin ear Pot tery Cul ture;

Vol ume V – South-East ern Po land – LBK sites.The da ta base and the anal y sis of ar chae o log i cal re cords

pro vides the most up-to-date ground work for the con struc -tion of the model on Neolithization of Cen tral Eu ropewithin the frame work of the FEPRE pro ject; it is also aimedat any other mod el ing of these pro cesses.

The fi nal stage of work on vol. III of this se ries was re -al ized as part of a re search pro ject fi nanced by the Pol ishNa tional Sci ence Cen ter (Nr 2085/B/H03/2011/40).

Janusz K. Koz³owski

5

CON TENTS

Alexandra An ders & Zsuzsanna SiklósiForeword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Pál RaczkyKörös culture re search his tory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Pál SümegiThe en vi ron men tal back ground of the Körös cul ture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Tibor PaluchChar ac ter is tics of the Körös cul ture in the south ern sec tion of the Great Hun gar ian Plain . . 49

Eszter BánffySouth West ern Körös Cul ture set tle ment in the Dan ube-Tisza interfluve: Szakmár-Kisülés . 53

Alasdair Whit tleThe Körös cul ture of the Great Hun gar ian Plain: the re search pro ject at Ecsegfalva,Co. Békés . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Nándor KaliczSzentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Pál RaczkyRe search on the set tle ments of the Körös cul ture in the Szolnok area: the ex ca va tionsat Szajol-Felsõföld and Szolnok-Szanda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Pál RaczkyNagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös (Co-op er a tive Or chard) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Ap pen dix Pál Sümegi, Sándor Gulyás & Gergõ Persaits The archaeomalacological and phytological re mains from the re fuse pit of the Körös cul ture un cov ered at Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

László DomboróczkiRe search at Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta in 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Nándor KaliczMéhtelek-Nádas. The first ex ca vated site of the Méhtelek facies of the Early Neo lithicKörös cul ture in the Carpathian Ba sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

László DomboróczkiRe search at Ibrány-Nagyerdõ in 2008–2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Krisztián Oross & Zsuzsanna SiklósiRel a tive and ab so lute chronology of the Early Neo lithic in the Great Hun gar ian Plain . . . 129

Ma³gorzata Kaczanowska & Janusz K. Koz³owskiKörös lithics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Zsuzsanna TóthBone, ant ler, and tusk tools of the Early Neo lithic Körös cul ture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

6

Tibor PaluchGraves in the Körös cul ture dis tri bu tion area in Hun gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Zsuzsanna Zoffmann Re sults of phys i cal an thro po log i cal in ves ti ga tions of the Körös pop u la tion . . . . . . . . . 187

László BartosiewiczMam ma lian re mains from Körös cul ture sites in Hun gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Erika Gál Bird re mains from Körös cul ture sites in Hun gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

László BartosiewiczFish re mains from Körös cul ture sites in Hun gary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Pál SümegiThe archaeomalacological in ves ti ga tion of Körös cul ture sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Ferenc GyulaiThe archaeobotanical char ac ter iza tion of the Körös cul ture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Cat a logue (ed ited by Zsuzsanna Siklósi, maps by László Kupnik) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

Zsuzsanna SiklósiCat a logue of Körös cul ture sites in Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg county . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

Bettina BittnerCat a logue of Körös cul ture sites in Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok county . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

János DaniCat a logue of Körös cul ture sites in Hajdú-Bihar county . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253Bettina BittnerCat a logue of Körös cul ture sites in Békés county . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

Tibor PaluchCat a logue of Körös cul ture sites in Csongrád county . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

Rozália KustárCat a logue of Körös cul ture sites in Bács-Kiskun county. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

Ref er ences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

7.

Fore word

Pro fes sor Janusz K. Koz³owski’s re quest has pro videda unique op por tu nity for Hun gar ian ar chae ol o gists en gagedin the re search of the Körös cul ture be cause there has beenno com pre hen sive over view of the cul ture’s sites since IdaKutzián’s mono graph, pub lished in 1944 (A Körös-kultúra– The Körös cul ture. Dissertationes Pannonicae Ser. II. 23,Bu da pest). Al though Ottó Trogmayer’s syn the sis in 1968skil fully drew to gether the new ev i dence (A Dél-Alföldkorai neolitikumának fõbb kérdései I–II. [The main ques -tions of the Early Neo lithic in south ern Alföld I–II] PhD dis -ser ta tion. Szeged), his manu script re mained un pub lished. Aspate of new stud ies have ap peared on the cul ture’s re gional units and in di vid ual sites, as well as on var i ous as pects ofthe Körös cul ture, but a new re view of the cur rent state ofKörös re search has been sorely lack ing.

The stud ies in the vol ume cover the find ings of tra di -tional and in ter dis ci plin ary re search con ducted over the past forty years, ar ranged into larger the matic sec tions. Theover view of the cul ture’s re search his tory (Pál Raczky) andthe de scrip tion of the en vi ron men tal set ting of Körös set tle -ments (Pál Sümegi) is fol lowed by an over view of var i ousre gions of the cul ture’s dis tri bu tion pro ceed ing from southto north, re flect ing the north ward ad vance of the Köröscom mu ni ties (south ern Alföld: Tibor Paluch, Dan ube–Tisza interfluve: Eszter Bánffy, Szolnok area: Pál Raczky),and a de scrip tion of the cul ture’s key sites (Ecsegfalva:Alasdair Whit tle, Nagykörû: Pál Raczky, Szentpéterszeg,Méhtelek: Nándor Kalicz, Tiszaszõlõs, Ibrány: LászlóDomboróczki). Some of these sites are pub lished here forthe first time. The next sec tion fo cuses on the cul ture’s rel a -tive and ab so lute chro nol ogy (Krisztián Oross & Zsuzsanna Siklósi) and on ear lier some what ne glected artefactual ma te -rial such as lithics (Ma³gorzata Kaczanowska & Janusz K.Koz³owski) and bone, ant ler and tusk tools (ZsuzsannaTóth). Other stud ies dis cuss the cul ture’s buri als (TiborPaluch) and phys i cal an thro pol ogy (Zsuzsanna K. Zoff-mann), as well as the archaeozoological sam ples (LászlóBartosiewicz, Erika Gál, Pál Sümegi) and the archaeobota-nical re mains (Ferenc Gyulai) from var i ous set tle ments.Ob vi ously, there are some the matic over laps be tween thestud ies, such as the cul ture’s re search his tory and the chro -nol ogy of the Körös se quence, two is sues ex plored fromdif fer ent per spec tives. How ever, these re peat edly ad dressed sub jects en sure that each study is read able in de pend entlyand thus ben e fits the en tire vol ume.

The stud ies are fol lowed by a cat a logue of the Hun gar -ian sites of the Körös cul ture (ed ited by Zsuzsanna Siklósi),the per haps great est strength of the vol ume. Ida Kutziánlisted 104 sites in her 1944 mono graph, to which Ottó

Trogmayer added doz ens of new sites, bring ing the num berto 156. The gaz et teer in this vol ume con tains 734 sites, each de scribed in de tail ac cord ing to uni form cri te ria. Di verg ingfrom the for mat in other FEPRE (For ma tion of Eu rope: Pre -his toric Pop u la tion Dy nam ics and the Roots of Socio-Cul -tural Di ver sity) vol umes, the sites of the Körös cul ture arehere pre sented ac cord ing to mod ern coun ties be cause thecul ture’s north ward spread meant that the num ber and con -cen tra tion of sites var ied con sid er ably from re gion to re -gion, and thus each site can be more eas ily iden ti fied on themap and in the da ta base. A to tal of 232 sites are known from County Csongrád (Tibor Paluch), 330 from County Békés(Bettina Bittner) and 111 from County Szolnok (RozáliaKustár), the three coun ties in cor po rat ing the Körös heart -land in Hun gary. Con sid er ably fewer sites were reg is teredin the fringe ar eas: 48 in County Bács-Kiskun (RozáliaKustár), 9 in County Hajdú-Bihar (János Dani) and 4 inCounty Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg (Zsuzsanna Siklósi). Ob vi -ously, the num ber of sites reg is tered in a par tic u lar area alsode pends on the ex tent to which that area has been re -searched, and our knowl edge of var i ous ar eas in the Körösdis tri bu tion var ies. County Csongrád and cer tain parts ofCoun ties Bács-Kiskun, Békés and Jász-Nagykun-Szolnokhave been sys tem at i cally and thor oughly sur veyed, but thesame can not be said of other re gions where re search hasbeen less in ten sive, mak ing the re cord is ex tremely patchy.Aside from the amount of the avail able in for ma tion, itsqual ity too var ies be cause the mu seum re cords could not al -ways be checked in the field. The known sites are not shown on the usual sche matic maps, but on 18th cen tury maps pre -serv ing the hy dro log i cal con di tions be fore the large-scaleriver reg u la tions, which of fer a better idea of con di tionsdur ing pre his tory (László Rupnik). We re tained the orig i nalHun gar ian name of the sites to ease their iden ti fi ca tion inthe ar chae o log i cal lit er a ture and have pro vided a bi lin gualglos sary with the most im por tant geo graphic and hy dro log i -cal terms.

We are grate ful to Pro fes sor Janusz K. Koz³owski forpro vid ing this op por tu nity to re deem one of the ma jor debtsof Hun gar ian Neo lithic stud ies and for in cor po rat ing thisvol ume into the FEPRE se ries. We hope that this vol umewill serve as a source of in spi ra tion for fur ther stud ies in this field. We wish to thank all our col leagues who have con trib -uted to this vol ume for their me tic u lous work.

Alexandra An ders Zsuzsanna Siklósi

7

9–37.

KÖRÖS CUL TURE RE SEARCH HIS TORY

Pál Raczky

In sti tute of Ar chae o log i cal Sci ences, Eötvös Loránd Uni ver sity, H-1088 Bu da pest, Múzeum körút 4/B, Hun gary;[email protected]

IN TRO DUC TIONIn 1979 Colin Renfrew wrote: “…the re la tion ship of the

ma te rial – the cul tural as sem blages – to the chro nol ogy isnei ther as sumed nor known a pri ori. It is a mat ter of in fer -ence, de pend ent on a num ber of ar gu ments and al ways vul -ner a ble to re as sess ment.” (Renfrew 1979, 59). For those spe -cial ists who view Hun gar ian pre his toric ar chae ol ogy fromthe out side, this quote may serve as a key to un der stand inghow schol arly thought has evolved there for over a cen tury.

In the ab sence of ab so lute dat ing meth ods, early pre-his to ri ans across Eu rope had to rely on so phis ti cated typo-chro nol o gies, se quences of vari ably de fined mor pho log i caltypes (over whelm ingly ce ram ics) that at tained new mean -ing as in di ca tors of time. The jar gon re sult ing from thismeth od ol ogy has come to have a life of its own. Given thetra di tion ally his tor i cal ori en ta tion of ar chae ol ogy in Hun -gary, terms such as “cul ture”, “group” or “phase” have of -ten been used in con sis tently or even syn on y mously with the con cept of real, ab so lute time. In some nar ra tives they may“act” al le gor i cally as prox ies for an cient so ci et ies. When ageo graphic di men sion is added, in ter pret ing the ac tual dis -tri bu tion of ma te rial cul ture in time and space be comes a se -ri ous chal lenge. Dur ing the de vel op ment of ar chae o log i calthought, em pha sis has per pet u ally shifted be tween thesemain com po nents of in quiry. Al though re cently ra dio car bon dat ing has as sumed a piv otal role in fine-tun ing our un der -stand ing of the Körös cul ture, the word chro nol ogy largelyre mains short hand for rel a tive chro nol ogy un less ra dio met -ric re sults are ex plic itly cited.

The rec og ni tion of the spa tial as well as chro no log i caldef i ni tion of artefactual as sem blages rep re sent ing the Körös cul ture to day de vel oped within two sep a rate schools ofthought. These schools are in sep a ra ble from the view pointof re con struct ing early neo lithic his tory on the Great Hun -gar ian Plain. One line of rea son ing was based on the in di -vid ual trac ing and in ter pre ta tion of the first, late nine teenthand early twen ti eth cen tury finds rep re sent ing phases in re -search his tory out of which grew the cur rent re con struc tionof the Körös cul ture (Ban ner 1932; 1942, 14–26; Kutzián1944, 5–45). There was, how ever, an other re search trendaimed at mod el ling the be gin ning of early neo lithic his toryon the scale of the Carpathian Ba sin as de duced from theEu ro pean con text, with re gard to the broader geo graph ical

re gion and its rel e vant re la tion ships (Tompa 1937, 28–50;Milojèiæ 1949a; 1950; Childe 1950, 83–105; 1957, 84–88;Schachermeyr 1950, 590–593; 1953, 274–278).

BE TWEEN EU ROPE AND THE NEAREAST – EARLY CON CEPTS ON THEBE GIN NINGS OF THE NEO LITHICIN THE CARPATHIAN BA SIN

Two ground-break ing mono graphs stand out in any dis -cus sion of the be gin nings of neolithization in Hun gary andthe Dan ube re gion. Both were pub lished al most si mul ta -neously in 1929: the sum ma riz ing re search works by Ferenc Tompa (1929) and Vere Gordon Childe (1929).

The work by Ferenc Tompa pre sented the “Lin earkera-mik” en vi ron ment of north ern Hun gary as the artefactualcontext within which the first lo cal neo lithic cul ture ap peared as the in de pend ent “east ern prov ince” of the cen tral Eu ro -pean “Bandkeramik” cul ture. Ac cord ing to the pre vail ingview of Ger man pre his toric re search at the time, he soughtthe or i gins of the new im mi grant pop u la tion in the “Spi ral-me an der” cul ture ar riv ing from the Sudetenland (the mod -ern-day bor der ar eas be tween Bo he mia, Moravia, and partsof Silesia as in cluded within the for mer state of Czecho slo va -kia: Tompa 1929, 61). In his view, the so-called Bükk cul ture and its Phases I–III in the North ern Hill Re gion of Hun garyemerged lo cally from the Bandkeramik. In this way, he coulddis cern the or i gins of the Tisza cul ture that col o nized low land ar eas in the en tire Great Hun gar ian Plain mov ing from thenorth to ward the south. These com mu ni ties, pre sum ably,prop a gated a neo lithic way of life. Tompa hoped to de ducethe birth of the Tisza cul ture from this sce nario, since in thismodel the emer gence of Phases I and II of the Tisza cul turewere fol lowed by the then known “steinkupferzeitlich” cul -tural units of the Chalcolithic (Tompa 1929, 64: Syn chroni-stische Tabelle, Abb. 7).

In con trast to this idea, V. Gordon Childe viewed thefirst neo lithic cul tures of the Danubian I, rep re sented by ei -ther spi ral-me an der or lin ear ce ramic mo tifs, as de scen dants of Bal kan (Vinèa I) cul tures rooted in an te ced ents knownfrom the Aegean re gion and Anatolia. He ex plained the oc -cur rence of the Bükk cul ture in the Up per Tisza re gion bythe in ter ac tion of lo cal “hunt ers” and a Neo lithic pop u la tion

9

im mi grat ing from the south (Childe 1929, 60–63, 67). Healso at trib uted the emer gence of the Vinèa II–Danubian IIciv i li za tions to sub se quent south ern in flu ences, as illustra-ted by finds of Tisza cul ture artefacts at the site of Csóka/Èoka (Childe 1929, 68–69, Fig. 37).

At the time, these two schol ars of Eu ro pean stat ure pro -moted two com pletely dif fer ent opin ions. János Ban ner wasthe first to rec og nize the in de pend ent phe nom e non of whathe called the Nagelgeritzte (nail-dec o rated) ce ram ics in thesouth ern part of the Great Hun gar ian Plain, re cov ered dur ingthe ex ca va tions at Ószentiván. With his keen sense of ce -ramic style, he also at trib uted sim i lar pot tery from the sites of Szerbkeresztúr, Óbessenyõ, and Szarvas–Szappanos to thesame group (Ban ner 1929). Béla Pósta rec og nized the par tic -u lar style of cer tain sherds in a pri vate col lec tion from Szerb-keresztúr in a lec ture given as early as 1888. This opin ion,how ever, re mained un pub lished (Ban ner 1932, 1). Fol low ing the “ge netic” model pro moted by Ferenc Tompa, Ban nerpub lished the nail-dec o rated ce ram ics as a phe nom e non thatfol lowed Phases I–II of the Tisza cul ture, pre ced ing the Cop -per Age. Mean while, he pointed out that this style of dec o ra -tion may be ob served in var i ous ar chae o log i cal pe ri ods.

Fol low ing these events, János Ban ner sum ma rized there sults of his own ex ca va tions at the sites of Hódmezõvá-sárhely-Kopáncs-Zsoldos-tanya, Hódmezõvásárhely-Ko-páncs-Kovács-tanya and Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart-Vata-tanya in 1932. At these sites, he iden ti fied in de pend ent early neo lithic set tle ments, ac com pa nied by sherds rep re -sent ing the nail-dec o rated pot tery style. Since in the ge -netic-chro no log i cal con cept drafted by Tompa the first neo -lithic as sem blages in the south ern sec tion of the Great Hun -gar ian Plain were rep re sented by Phases I–II of the Tiszacul ture, Ban ner termed his newly dis cov ered pot tery as sem -blage, Phase III of the Tisza cul ture (Ban ner 1932). In thispub li ca tion, Ban ner com piled a map of 33 sites char ac ter -ized for the first time by the dis tri bu tion of nail-dec o ratedce ram ics in the Great Hun gar ian Plain (Ban ner 1932, fig. on page 29 and list of sites on page 30). Ferenc Tompa andJános Ban ner joined the so-called “Studienfahrt der Donau- ländischen Archaeologen” dur ing the au tumn of 1933.Within the frame work of this pro fes sional ex cur sion theywere given the op por tu nity to study the re sults of ex ca va -tions at Vinèa and Starèevo in Ser bia on lo ca tion (Ban ner1935, 121; Jankovich 1990, 110). Find ma te rial re cov eredat the set tle ment of Starèevo dur ing 1931–1932 (Fewkes,Goldman & Erich 1933) re con firmed the opin ion that as -sem blages ac com pa nied by nail-dec o rated sherds rep re sentan in de pend ent cul tural phe nom e non in the north ern sec tion of the Bal kans (Ban ner 1935, 122–123).

Tompa and Ban ner also had an op por tu nity to study as -sem blages of Starèevo type ce ram ics that came to light from pits from the very bot tom of the tell set tle ment at Vinèa in1931 and sub se quently in 1934. These finds long served asan im por tant ref er ence in ap prais ing the oc cur rence of theEarly Neo lithic in the Bal kans as well as in the Dan ube re -gion (Plan with pits: Fewkes, Goldman & Erich 1933, 35;Vasiæ 1936, cl. 209; Holste 1939, 2; See re cent dis cus sionson the ear li est oc cur rences at Vinèa re gard ing the os su aryand pit dwell ing ‘Z’ as sum ma rized by Periæ & Nikoliæ2006). Since V. G. Childe had pre vi ously rec og nized the

syn chro nous de vel op ment of the Vinèa and Tisza set tle -ments on the ba sis of the Csóka set tle ment (Childe 1929,75–76, 79), the so-called “nail-dec o rated ho ri zon” rep re -sented by finds at Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs and Hódme- zõvásárhely-Kotacpart could no lon ger be seen as syn chro -nous with Tisza III. Nei ther could they be re con structed asrep re sent ing the Tisza cul ture. See ing the re sults dur ing the1933 ex cur sion to Ser bia, Tompa and Ban ner agreed (Ban -ner 1937, 32) that con sid er ing the known geo graph ical dis -tri bu tion of the set tle ments in the south ern part of the GreatHun gar ian Plain, this par tic u lar group of ce ramic findsmight rep re sent a cul ture of its own. As a re sult, FerencTompa be gan writ ing about the Körösgruppe (Tompa 1937, 46–47) and János Ban ner men tioned the Körös-Kul tur in his own publictions (Ban ner 1936, 271; 1937, 32). This ter mi -nol ogy was used to de note the first oc cur rence of the Neo -lithic in the south ern part of the Great Hun gar ian Plain. Itwas a pre lude to the re search his tory of the Körös cul ture inHun gary.

The his tor i cal and ge netic in ter pre ta tion out lined byFerenc Tompa in 1929 has still not changed sig nif i cantly, as the pre vi ously es tab lished an te ced ence of Linearband ce -ram ics of cen tral Eu ro pean ex trac tion found in north ernHungary re mains un dis puted. Never-the-less, the rec og ni -tion that Körös cul ture pre ceded Phases I–II of the Tiszacul ture in the south ern part of the Great Hun gar ian Plainrep re sented a new, south ern ori en ta tion in the ar chae o log i -cal lit er a ture of Hun gary. The in flu ence of this line ofthought was clearly re flected in a new trend. The Körös cul -ture of the Great Hun gar ian Plain was “el e vated” to the time ho ri zon of Phases I–II of the Bükk cul ture, iden ti fied as therep re sen ta tive of the Linearband cul ture in the North ernHill Re gion of Hun gary (Ban ner 1935, 270–272). SándorGallus be gan ar gu ing for the chro no log i cal po si tion of theKörös cul ture as fol low ing Phases I–II of the Bükk cul turebut pre ced ing its Phase III (Gallus 1938, 520), Mean while,Pál Patay gen er ally ar gued for the com plete synchronicityof the Körös and Bükk cul tures (Patay 1941, 1–2). In otherwords, the be gin nings of neolithization in Hun gary wereseen as re sult ing from two large and com pletely dif fer entcul tural spheres. These spheres em bod ied two en tirely dif -fer ent types of or i gins and net works of cul tural con nec tions. The Bükk sty lis tic cir cle was seen as the Cen tral Eu ro peanLinearband con nec tions, while the Körös cul ture was rec og -nized as rep re sent ing a dif fer ent set of south ern in flu ences.József Csalog con cluded that the Bükk cul ture of the North -ern Hill re gion, the Tisza cul ture in the cen tre of the GreatHun gar ian Plain and the Körös block in the south ern part ofthe same re gion were con tem po rary (Csalog 1941, Abb. 3).

This view in flu enced the his tor i cal ap proach of JánosBan ner in his first ma jor syn thetic works on the Körös cul -ture (Ban ner 1937, 32–49; 1940, 22–30; 1942, 14–26). The1938 vis its by Childe to Szeged and Hódmezõvásárhelywere in stru men tal in hav ing the Körös cul ture ac cepted andpro moted on a Eu ro pean scale (Jankovich 1990, 108–109,140). On the ba sis of these de vel op ments, Childe also men -tioned the “Körös cul ture” in his 1939 study on Eu ro pean–Near East ern re la tion ships, as the lo cal rep re sen ta tive ofDanubian I on the Great Hun gar ian Plain (Childe 1939, 17). In 1938, Vladi mir Jaroslav Fewkes, the ex ca va tor of Star-

The Körös Cul ture in East ern Hun gary

10

èevo (Fewkes, Goldman & Erich 1933) and his four dis ci ples came to Szeged to study Körös cul ture finds re cov ered in theout skirts of Hódmezõvásárhely. He came to the con clu sionthat sites in the two re gions were closely re lated (Fewkes1939, 8, 10–11; Jankovich 1990, 141). These events clearlyil lus trate how quickly new re sults of pre his toric re search inEu rope reached their pro fes sional au di ences prior to WorldWar II. This re sulted in a dy namic in ter change be tweenpractioners of var i ous mod els in that ex cit ing pe riod.

CUL TURAL EN VI RON MENT STUD IESOF THE KÖRÖS CUL TURE IN THE 1940sAND 1950s

Fol low ing these an te ced ents, Ida Kutzián pub lished her doc toral the sis in 1944. It was the first ever mono graphicsyn the sis of the Körös cul ture (Kutzián 1944, Eng lish trans -la tion: Kutzián 1947). This work be came para dig matic inthe new wave of re search into the pre his tory of theCarpathian Ba sin that fol lowed World War II. The fresh ap -proach rep re sented by Ida Kutzián saw the oc cur rence ofthe Körös cul ture in the Tisza Re gion as re sult ing from acom plex net work of re la tion ships that bound to gether theBal kans and the Aegean re gion through a his tor i cal paththat passed through Ser bia north wards (Kutzián 1944, 129–130). She con sid ered ce ramic ma te ri als from Sztarcsova/Starèevo in the Lower Dan ube re gion to be re lated to theKörös cul ture and even in cluded these sites within the samein ven tory (Kutzián 1944, 99–102, 154). The cat a logue ofthis cul ture con tained 104 sites with a ma jor dis tri bu tionarea bor dered by the Maros and Zagyva trib u tar ies of theTisza river, ap prox i mately marked by the mod ern towns ofSzeged and Szolnok in Hun gary (Kutzián 1944, 97–98,156–157). The se rial dis tri bu tion of Körös cul ture set tle -ments along wa ter courses could be de duced to some ex tentfrom the lo ca tion of some sites (Kutzián 1944, 92).

As far as the form of Körös houses is con cerned, onlythe plan of the hut re cov ered at Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotac-part-Vata-tanya by János Ban ner (Ban ner 1934, 74–76, Taf. XII–XIII) was avail able for her study (Kutzián 1944, 90–91). On the ba sis of his ob ser va tions, it was con cluded thatthe build ing had no up right walls and its sad dle-shaped roofrested di rectly on the ground. Aside from this, the sys tem -atic sum mary by Ida Kutzián in cluded very de tailed findma te ri als and site phe nom ena of the Körös cul ture, rang ingfrom ce ramic styles to mor tu ary be hav iour (Kutzián 1944,46–97). She sin gled out “nail and fin ger tip im pres sions” asthe most char ac ter is tic type of ce ramic dec o ra tion, as wellas va ri et ies of barbotine (a form of ce ramic slip or a mix tureof clay and wa ter used for dec o rat ing pot tery). She em pha -sized the rel a tive scar city of painted ware. On the otherhand, she pointed out the use of var i ous fig u ra tive re lief pat -terns or na ment ing Körös cul ture pot tery. In ad di tion tothese spe cif ics, she also em pha sized the great di ver sity offigural mo tifs as a spe cial char ac ter is tic of this ce ramic as -sem blage. Ida Kutzián like wise dis cussed var i ous types of“idols” as a typ i cal group of Körös cul ture artefacts. Fol -low ing this me tic u lous syn the sis, she came to a very im por -tant con clu sion in terms of rel a tive chro nol ogy, namely, that Körös cul ture reached the Carpathian Ba sin prior to the

Tisza, Bükk and Linearband ce ramic styles re spec tively and should be con sid ered the ear li est neo lithic cul ture in Hun -gary dat ing to the 4th mil len nium BC (Kutzián 1944, 147–148). In the mono graphic dis ser ta tion by Kutzián it is clearthat she saw the Körös cul ture as an equally im por tant en tity in geo graph ical and chro no log i cal terms.

In terms of re search his tory Josip Korošec should be re -garded one of the the first “for eign” schol ars to rec og nizedthe di ag nos tic im por tance of the con nec tions be tween theKörös, Vinèa and Starèevo cul tures (Korošec 1943). Al -though he wrote his work based on early guid ance fromBan ner, he com piled a cor rect ty po logi cal ta ble on the ba sisof ce ram ics rel e vant to the Körös cul ture based on pre vi -ously pub lished spec i mens (Korošec 1943, Fig. on page71). A sim i lar work by Pia Laviosa Zambotti shows theswift in ter na tional ab sorp tion of ideas sur round ing theKörös cul ture as de fined by Ban ner and Tompa (Zambotti1943, 191–198). Rich ard Rudolf Schmidt dis cov ered a rel a -tively thick layer of Starèevo set tle ment de bris at the bot tom of the tell stratigraphies at both Vuèedol and Sarvaš(Schmidt 1945, 5–8, 127–131). Thereby, he man aged todem on strate the strati graphic po si tion of the cul ture in re la -tion to the re gion de fined by the Dan ube–Drava–Savarivers. He de fined the so-called “Körösgattung” as the equi- valent of the Starèevo cul ture in the Tisza re gion. In his sys -tem, the Körös type pre dates Linearband ce ram ics in theDan ube re gion (Schmidt 1945, 136, 159–160). AdamOrssich de Slavetich pub lished ma te rial from Bubanj in thevi cin ity of Niš. He not only ex panded the known geo graph -ical dis tri bu tion of the Starèevo cul ture, but also in dicted the im por tance of a char ac ter is tic bone spoon type in de fin ingre la tion ships with the Körös cul ture en tity (Orssich deSlavetich 1943, 27).

Fol low ing World War II, Vladi mir Milojèiæ pub lishedtwo ground-break ing works in 1949. In these syn the ses, here ferred to the “Starèevo-Körös-Kul tur” and “Körös-Kul -tur” re spec tively, re ly ing on the 1942 pub li ca tion by Ban ner (Milojèiæ 1949a, 91; 1949b, 264–265). The chro no log i calta ble pub lished in the first of these works shows the Köröscul ture in re la tion to Phases III–IV of the Starèevo cul ture.Through this as so ci a tion, he also cre ated a link to theVor(Pre)-Sesklo, Sesklo and Dimini pe ri ods in Thessaly.He dated the be gin nings of the Körös cul ture to 3000 BC(Milojèiæ 1949a, figs on pages 74 and 94). In an other study,how ever, he used the term Starèevo “fourth pe riod” to in -clude all sites in north ern Hun gary un der the um brella termKörös cul ture (Milojæiæ 1949b, 264–265). In his pub li ca -tion, the us age “Körös – bzw. Starèevo (IV) – Kul tur” re ap -pears, al though he pre sented a pooled dis tri bu tion map forthe Starèevo–Körös cul tures (Milojèiæ 1951, 118, Abb. 3).In an other study dated to 1950, Milojèiæ eval u ated theKörös-Starèevo-Vinèa sys tem of re la tion ships in light of the mono graph pub lished by Kutzián. In ad di tion to us ing theum brella term “Starèevo-Köröškultur” he pre sented a re -con struc tion of the de vel op ment from Phase I to IV (Miloj-èiæ 1950, 109–112). In the same work, a broader term wasalso used fol low ing James Harvey Gaul (1948, 10–51), thecon cept of “Starèevo-Köröš-Kremikovci-Kul tur” rep re -sented an at tempt to ex tend this ter mi nol ogy in the di rec tion of Bul garia (Milojèiæ 1950, 113). Study ing the geo graph ical

Pál Raczky: Körös Culture re search his tory

11

dis tri bu tion of “Bandkeramik” in east ern and south east ernEu rope, Milojèiæ again con sis tently used the Körös–Star-èevo (IV) cul tural def i ni tion. Mean while he in sisted that“Bandkeramik”, that is the so-called “donauländischeKulturkreis”, orig i nated in Cen tral Eu rope and was in de -pend ent of the Körös-Starèevo cul tural sphere (Milojèiæ1951, 110– 118). Unsurprisingly, ev i dent in con sis ten cies in the cul tural and chro no log i cal def i ni tions of theKörös–Starèevo cul tures by Milojèiæ, pro voked harsh crit i -cism by János Makkay (1965, 1969). The re sult ing de bate(Milojèiæ 1967) drove the ar chae o log i cal dis cus sion on theStarèevo–Körös cul tures in the di rec tion of fun da men tallystrati graphic and chro no log i cal ar gu ments.

A new Aegean as pect to the Körös cul ture was firstvoiced in the works of Fritz Schachermeyr be gin ning in theearly 1950s. The ma te rial cul ture re cord in cor po ratedwithin the cul tural frame work of what he called “SeskloideAussenzone” (Schachermeyr 1950, 590, fig. on page 574).In his sub se quent work en ti tled “Dimini und die Band-keramik” he dated the be gin nings of the Körös cul ture to the time ho ri zon rep re sented by the Starèevo I and Proto-Sesklo Pe ri ods (Schachermeyr 1953–1954, 38: Zeittabelle). Sincehe con sid ered Phase IV of the Starèevo cul ture as set forthby Milojèiæ to be with out foun da tion, he pro posed a “ge -netic” re la tion ship be tween Starèevo III de vel op ments andthe so-called Bükk–Tisza ma te rial that fol lowed the Körösand Bandkeramik pe ri ods in the Tisza re gion. On top of this, he also hy poth e sized that the for ma tion of the Dimini cul -ture in Thessaly was or gan i cally con nected with a south-worth mi gra tion that orig i nated in the Tisza re gion, but alsoin cor po rated the Balkanic charateristics of Starèevo IIIphase (Schachermeyr 1953/54 8–18, Taf. 2). Thus, FritzSchachermeyr sowed the seeds of the sub se quent viewwhereby artefactual as sem blages in cluded un der the Star-èevo III la bel were con sid ered rad i cally dif fer ent from theKörös–Starèevo cul tural en vi ron ment rep re sent ing the sig -nif i cantly youn ger Bükk–Szakálhát–Dimini III–IV–Galep-sos ho ri zon. In du bi ta bly, the most mil i tant sup porter of thishy poth e sis was Makkay (1965, 15–16; 1969, 28–29, 31).

At the be gin ning of the 1950s, Childe ex plained the oc -cur rence of Körös–Starèevo sty lis tic el e ments in theMorava and Dan ube re gion as a very early wave of im mi -gra tion from the south (Childe 1950, 100). In es sence, thesame continent-wide cul tural dif fu sion of Near East ern or i -gins was out lined by Schachermeyr in his the ory of “vor-derasiatische Kulturtrift”, where the north-west ern end-points were marked by sites of the Starèevo and Körös cul -tures (Schachermeyr 1953, 282, map on page 285). Study -ing the roots of ag ri cul ture in Eu rope, Milojèiæ con cludedthat a wave of neolithization pre dat ing all pre vi ous in flu -ences reached Eu rope from the Med i ter ra nean along theVardar and Morava rivers up to the Dan ube re gion. Amongother things, he ex plained the oc cur rence of coarse ware as -so ci ated with the Starèevo I–Körös cul tures in the Bal kanswith this move ment (Milojèiæ 1952, 316–317). All thesethe o ries in tro duced a new way of re con struct ing Eu rope’spre his tory that be gan in the Near East with the rec og ni tionof a “preceramic” phase (at Je ri cho, Jarmo and KarimShahir). At the same time, Milojèiæ (1952, 313, 316) stilltried to trace back the emer gence of the Neo lithic in Cen tral

Eu rope, that is, the roots of Bandkeramik, to lo cal Meso-lithic cul tures (Milojèiæ 1952, 313, 316). Within this newin ter pre ta tive frame work, the Bandkeramik of cen tral Eu -rope and the pot tery style rep re sented by the Körös–Star-èevo cul tures in south-east ern Eu rope were seen as hav ingrad i cally dif fer ent or i gins.

At the be gin ning of the 1950s an other new de vel op -ment took place in Ro ma nia. Lo cal re search ers in ter pretedthe finds from the sites of Glãvãneºti and Valea Lupului aswell as Leþ-Várhegy/Dealul Cetãþii as dis play ing sim i lar i -ties with finds from the Criº–Starèevo cul ture. This addednew geo graph ical di men sions to the prob lem with dis tri bu -tions reach ing into Moldavia and Transylvania (Nestor etal. 1951, 59–60). The new ap proach was fun da men tally dif -fer ent from the sub se quent stand taken by Ro ma nian re -search ers, who con sid ered the Criº cul ture sim ply a lit eraltrans la tion of the Körös cul ture iden ti fied orig i nally in there gion of the Tisza–Körös–Maros rivers by Ida Kutzián.This in ter pre ta tion of the Criº cul ture would have made itmerely an ex ten sion to wards Transylvania (west ern Ro ma -nia) and the trans-Carpathian re gion (Petrescu-Dimboviþa1957, 78; 1958; Comsa 1959, 173; Vlassa 1966, 9–11). This was fol lowed by the de vel op ment of a spe cial Starèevo–Criº ter mi nol ogy in the re gions of Banatas well as Olteniaand Muntenia. Mean while, a dif fer ent cul tural en tity, theso-called Criº–Starèevo–Kremikovci com plex was de finedfor the en tire area of the Bal kans on the ba sis of paintedware (Berciu 1961, 21–35; Lazarovici 1969, 3. Fig. 1).

A mono graphic sum mary of the Starèevo cul ture waspub lished by Draga Arandjeloviæ-Garašanin in 1954. Fol -low ing the sys tem drafted by Milojèiæ on the ba sis of eval u -a tion of 73 sites, she also opted for a se quence of four chro -no log i cal phases in clud ing phases I–IIa–IIb–III. Within this chro no log i cal sys tem the Körös cul ture was again viewed as con tem po rary with Phase III at Starèevo (Arandjeloviæ-Garašanin 1954, 37–138). In the cen tre of the Bal kan area,Miodrag Grbiæ out lined a rather uni form “Starèevo–Körös– Pre-Sesklo” cul tural group on the ba sis of the pot tery. Con -se quently, he dated the be gin nings of the Early Neo lithic tobe tween 4000 and 3500 BC (Grbiæ 1957, chro no log i calchart on page 138). Mean while Milutin Garašanin interpre-ted early neo lithic as sem blages in Bul garia, Ro ma nia andHun gary within the frame work of the “Starèevo-Gruppe”(Garašanin 1958, 4–5), a sub group re fer ring merely to lo -cal ized ap pear ances of the same phe nom e non. By this time,how ever, ce ramic as sem blages of the Vršnik I, Karanovo Itype also be came known, rep re sent ing a char ac ter is tic telltype that con trasted to the hor i zon tal Körös–Starèevo set tle -ments, largely rep re sented by ma te rial de pos ited in pits(Garašanin 1961, 144–145).

Fol low ing 1945, Körös cul ture re search some what de -cel er ated in Hun gary in com par i son with the in ten sity ofearly neo lithic re search in neigh bour ing coun tries. One ofthe new achieve ments was the pub li ca tion of the im por tantas sem blage from Ószentiván, a site lo cated in the vi cin ity of Szeged. A mix ture of sty lis tic el e ments from both the Körös and Vinèa cul tures were iden ti fied at this set tle ment (Ban -ner & Párducz 1948). In the mean time, János Ban ner pub -lished new data from his small-scale ex ca va tions at Hódme- zõvásárhely-Bodzáspart (Ban ner 1954). The be gin nings of


12

a new, in ter dis ci plin ary trend in re search were marked bythe study of the an i mal re mains from this site (Bökönyi1954). Mean while field-walk ing car ried out by NándorKalicz in the Tiszazug re gion (at the con flu ence of the Tisza and Körös Rivers) yielded new data on the ar chae o log i calto pog ra phy and set tle ment his tory of the Körös cul ture (Ka- licz 1957). Field sur veys con ducted by János Makkay in theBerettyó River re gion were of sim i lar sig nif i cance (Makkay 1957, 26–27). These re sults were com ple mented by an im -por tant strati graphic ob ser va tion at Békésszentandrás (thereal name of the site in the Ar chae o log i cal To pog ra phy ofHun gary: Szarvas-Kovács-halom: MRT 8, 373–378) whereKörös type sherds were dis cov ered be neath the two lay ersmarked by houses dated to the Tisza cul ture (Csalog 1958,82). At the be gin ning of the 1960s, János Ban ner sum ma -rized the re sults of neo lithic re search in Hun gary. Hepointed out that there was still no re li able strati graphic ev i -dence with re gard to the in ter nal phas ing of the “Körösgroup”. At the same time, he cast strong doubts on the chro -no log i cal par al lel drawn with the lat est phase of the Star-èevo cul ture in Ser bia (Milojèiæ: IV. and Garašanin: III.;Banner 1961, 207–208). Ban ner also em pha sized that in flu -ences of the Körös Cul ture en tity could be clearly traced inthe sty lis tic char ac ter is tics of Linearband ce ram ics fromboth Transdanubia (Transdanubian LBK, that is, Transda-nubian Lin ear Pot tery = TLP) and the “Alföld” style Lin ear- band ce ram ics from the Great Hun gar ian Plain (Ban ner1961, 209–211; also known as Alföld Linienbandkeramik =ALBK that is Alföld Lin ear Pot tery = ALP; for the ex pla na -tion of ter mi nol ogy see Whit tle 1996, 146).

Fol low ing the cat a logu ing of 104 Linearband sites from the Great Hun gar ian Plain post-dat ing the Körös cul ture(Korek 1960), it was pos si ble to draft a new chro no log i calframe work in which the se quence of the Körös–Alföld Lin -ear Pot tery–Tisza cul tures cor re sponded to the Early, Mid -dle and Late Neo lithic in the Tisza River re gion.

Par al lel ing these de vel op ments in Hun gar ian re searchhis tory, a change of para dig matic di men sions took place inthe study of the or i gins of the Cen tral Eu ro pean Linearbandcul ture by the end of the 1950s. In con trast to pre vi ousviews, char ac ter is tics of the Cen tral Eu ro pean Linearbandce ram ics were seen within a Körös–Starèevo con text and“ge netic” re la tions were sought in the Aegean re gion (Neu-stupný 1956, 461–462; Soudský 1956, 411–412). Con sid er -ing the ty po logi cal con nec tions of the so-called “Voluten-keramik” in Moravia, Radomir Tichý laid spe cial em pha sison sty lis tic char ac ter is tics of the Körös cul ture ce ram ics asone of the most im por tant cri te ria (Tichý 1960, 439). Re -con struct ing the sphere of the old est Bandkeramik finds inCen tral Eu rope, Hans Quitta pointed to late Starèevo/Körösand early Vinèa con nec tions re spec tively. Among the pos si -ble places of or i gin, he con sid ered the Cen tral Dan ube Re -gion to be the most likely. He drew a chro no log i cal par al lelbe tween the de vel op ment of the Bandkeramik and that ofthe Vinèa cul ture. On the ba sis of the first ra dio car bondates, he placed this time pe riod to be tween 4400–4000 BC(Quitta 1960). Due to his im por tant con clu sions, HansQuitta’s work set a new agenda that sig nif i cantly in spiredearly and mid dle neo lithic re search in Hun gary that wasagain be gin ning to pros per in the 1960s.

Re sults of Ger man ex ca va tions con ducted in Thessalybe came a source of sim i larly great in spi ra tion. The fielddata con trib uted a bench mark in pre cise strati graphic dat ing for Neo lithic re search across south-east ern Eu rope (Miloj-èiæ 1959). Among other things, the strati graphic po si tion ofthe so-called Vorsesklo “barbotin, nail, cardium wares”,pre ced ing the Sesklo Pe riod, of fered an es pe cially good ba -sis for draw ing Aegean par al lels to the Körös-Starèevo cul -ture (Milojèiæ 1959, 10–11, 31–32). On the ba sis of ex ca va -tions in Greece and Herzegovina (for mer Yu go sla via) andad di tional data (e. g. from Gremnos–Argissa, Sesklo, andCrvena Stijena) Milojèiæ thought he had dis cov ered ev i -dence of pre-ce ramic de vel op ments in the Bal kans, com pa -ra ble to par al lel phe nom ena in the Near East (Milojèiæ1960). This the ory gave sup port to sev eral pre vi ously voi-ced hy poth e ses con cern ing the autochthonous char ac ter ofneolithization in south-east ern Eu rope. One might say thatthis in ter pre ta tion swept through Eu ro pean Neo lithic ar -chae ol ogy on a wave of fash ion (Sum mary of these ar chae -o log i cal pub li ca tions: Tringham 1971, Note 2 on page 137)

CUL TURAL EN VI RON MENT STUD IESOF THE KÖRÖS CUL TURE DUR ING THE1960s and 1970s – NEW PER SPEC TIVESAND METH ODS

In Hun gary, re search on the Körös cul ture gained newmo men tum dur ing the 1960s, re sult ing from a ex ca va tionprogramme ini ti ated by Ottó Trogmayer on the out skirts ofSzeged. (the newly ex ca vated sites in cluded Maroslele-Pana, (Szeged)-Gyálarét-Szilágyi ma jor, Röszke-Lúdvár,Deszk-I. sz. Olajkút (Trogmayer 1968a; 2003; 2004). Mas -sive quan ti ties of finds were re cov ered from re fuse pits, thus rep re sent ing a sin gu lar as pect of the ma te rial cul ture. More -over, stratigraphies ob served in pit de pos its did not pro videa ba sis for re li able in ter nal rel a tive chro nol o gies (Csalog1965, 25). An other ma jor dif fi culty was posed by a tech ni -cal ity. Al though great num bers of sherds came to light fromthese Körös cul ture pits, in con trast to pre vi ous prac tice, allof them were taken to the lo cal mu seum with out pre-se lec -tion. Among oth ers, Pit 1 at the site of Röszke-Lúdvár yiel-ded al most 33,000 sherds (Trogmayer 1968a, 9; 2003). Ever since, pre his toric ar chae ol ogy in Hun gary has been rid dledby prob lems of han dling such “cul tural mass pro duce” andthe lim its of its in ter pre ta tion. With un usual in sight for thetime, Trogmayer car ried out a quan ti ta tive anal y sis of dec o -ra tive styles and con cluded that barbotine was of di ag nos ticchro no log i cal sig nif i cance (Trogmayer 1968a). Al thoughpainted ware was en coun tered rarely, some sherds from thesites of Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs-Zsoldos-tanya andHódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart-Vata-tanya of fered ev i denceof early oc cur rences based on Starèevo ter mi nol ogy,thereby sup port ing the o ries of ini tial par al lel de vel op mentin the Körös–Starèevo phe nom e non (Makkay & Trogmayer 1966). On the ba sis of as sem blages re cov ered from pits atMaroslele-Pana, Trogmayer sug gested a tri par tite sub-di vi -sion of the Körös group (Trogmayer 1964). The syn the sis of his re search was pre pared in the form of an un pub lished dis -ser ta tion in 1968 (Trogmayer 1968b). As a con se quencethis work re mained largely un known in ter na tion ally. Some


13

spe cial as sem blages from Röszke-Lúdvár have only beenpub lished re cently (Trogmayer 2003a; 2003b).

Ac cord ing to Trogmayer, in ad di tion to the Vorsesklo,Kremikovci–Karanovo I, Starèevo and Criº styles, theKörös group also formed part of the “pinched ware cul ture”in south-east ern Eu rope. On the ba sis of 156 sites in ven to -ried in the south ern part of the Great Hun gar ian Plain, hede fined the north ern most dis tri bu tion area along an East-West line marked by the mod ern cit ies of Berettyóújfalu and Szolnok. He only ex tended this bound ary north wards on the left bank of the Dan ube to Szakmár near the town of Ka-locsa (Trogmayer 1968b, 10–28).

A frag ment of a ga ble roof struc ture from a clay housemodel was dis cov ered at the site of Röszke-Lúdvár. Fromthis find, Trogmayer re con structed houses with squareground plans and ver ti cal, up right walls (as op posed to pitdwellings) and ver ti cal sup port posts (Trogmayer 1966a,Figs. 1–2; 1966b, Bild. 1). This spe cial find sup plied new in -for ma tion in it self con cern ing the form of Körös cul turehouses. It was no sur prise there fore, when the re mains of Kö- rös cul ture houses with up right walls and sup port posts werefound at the site of Tiszajenõ-Szárazérpart (Selmeczi 1967;1969). The re con struc tion of this house be came widelyknown thanks to the sum mary of the Eu ro pean Neo lithicpub lished by Ruth Tringham, who also pub li cized the clayidol called the “Ve nus of Ludvár” (Tringham 1971, Fig. 14,c–d, Plate 2). In spite of its sig nif i cance, find ma te rial fromthe Tiszajenõ house was only pub lished years later (Raczky1976).

Mean while, János Makkay wrote a lit er a ture-based re -view of Körös-Starèevo cul ture re search his tory, of fer ing acrit i cal re-eval u a tion of the in ter nal chro nol ogy ad vo catedby Milojèiæ and Garašanin, as well as the ques tion of Ae-gean re la tions (Makkay 1965; 1969). At this time, sub se -quently de bated terms such as “Protovinèa Age”, “Proto-vinèa-Periode”, were in tro duced, de not ing an in de pend ent“Entwicklungphase – a de vel op men tal phase” within thedis tri bu tion area of the Körös–Starèevo com plex (Makkay1968, 282; 1969, 25). Orig i nally, the so-called “Protovinèa- Horizont” in tro duced by Srejoviæ was ap plied within theStarèevo dis tri bu tion area, be cause (in con trast to Makkay’s con cept) the Körös and Starèevo cul tures were con sid eredspa tially well-de fined, sep a rate cul tural units by re search ers in Yu go sla via (Srejoviæ 1963, 7; Galoviæ 1968, 1). In theirap proach, there fore, the Protovinèa ho ri zon re ferred to achronological phase within a geo graph ical en tity fromwhich the Vinèa cul ture even tu ally emerged, mak ing thiscon cept con sis tent in terms of space and time. Among otherre search ers, Bogdan Brukner made spe cial ef forts to geo -graph i cally de fine in ter faces be tween the Körös and Star-èevo cul tures in the Srem, Baèka and Banat re gions of Voi-vodina in for mer Yu go sla via (Brukner 1966; 1974, 432).On the other hand, some thought in over arch ing cul turalterms that were even broader than Makkay’s def i ni tion. The “Körös-Criº-Starèevo com plex” was first out lined for thenorth ern Bal kans by Rob ert Ehrich (1965, 412–413). The

large cul tural en tity de fined by John Nandris as “The FirstTem per ate Neo lithic” in cluded the sub-groups of theStarèevo, Körös, Criš, Kremikovci and Karanovo I in thetem per ate zone of south-east ern Eu rope (Nandris 1970,202). Mean while, Nandris also thought he had rec og nizedthe ba sis for a Med i ter ra nean, Macedo-Bul gar ian and Tem -per ate Eu rope zonation within the broader unit of south-east ern Eu rope (Nandris 1972).

The 1970 syn the sis by John Nandris may be con sid ereda sym bolic mile stone in the early neo lithic re search ofSoutheast ern Eu rope. On the one hand, he of fered a crit i calre view of the Greek Neo lithic pin point ing prob lems of stud -ies ori ented ex clu sively by chro nol ogy. He also dra mat i -cally il lus trated how the ar chae o log i cal “foun da tions” of the en tire PPN Pe riod and Early Mono chrome pot tery were un -ac cept able (Nandris 1970, 196–201). On the other hand, heeval u ated the re li abil ity of lo cal anal y ses based on pot teryby con clud ing that “...pot tery dif fer ences, as in the case ofMagoulitsa level beta, can not be re garded as ab so lute in di -ca tors of dis tinc tion be tween hu man groups” (Nandris1970, 208). This sum mary opin ion was ac tu ally a harsh crit -i cism of all the pre vi ous ef forts that had been con cen tratedon the es tab lish ment of in ter nal phas ing within the Köröscul ture adopt ing cri te ria in the Tisza Re gion that had beende vel oped for Starèevo, Criº or Greek Early Neo lithic typo-chro nol o gies “The cat e go ries of ‘Starèevo’ and ‘Vinèa’, forex am ple, do not have quite the same rel e vance in theMacedo-Bul gar ian area as in the ar eas for which they werede vel oped. It is fu tile to sup pose that la bels de vel oped forthe stra tig ra phy of spe cific sites in the area of Laris sa willnec es sar ily make de vel op ments in the area of Karditsa com -pre hen si ble…” (Nandris 1970, 210). It seems that the sameso ber ar gu ment could have also served as a crit i cism of theen tire Protovinèa prob lem.

Dur ing the 1970s John Nandris be gan pay ing at ten tion tospe cial types of ob jects that looked prom is ing in terms of re -con struct ing the sym bolic con texts of so cial be hav iour. Hethere fore no lon ger fo cussed on mass-pro duced ce ram ics butrather on spe cial ob jects whose ap pear ance and geo graph icaldis tri bu tion de fined ha bit ual con texts, that is, ranges of cul tural in ter pre ta tion. Con se quently, he paid spe cial at ten tion to thesouth-east Eu ro pean dis tri bu tion of ob jects such as the hornedpen dant, stamp seal, in te gral seated fig ure, red-headed fig u -rine, labrets and cat tle metapodial- based bone spoons. Like -wise, he con cen trated on the vary ing styles of First Tem per ateNeo lithic painted ware as well as their re gional group ings(Nandris 1970, 201–209, Fig. 1–2; 1972).

The es sence of John Nandris’s views had rel a tively lit -tle in flu ence on Eu ro pean re search ers, who kept on in vest -ing he roic ef forts in the “ce ramic study” of ever in creas ingearly neo lithic find as sem blages.1 How ever, Körös cul turebased broader syn the ses by János Makkay be gan re flect ingsim i lar ideas by fo cus sing on arte fact groups such as stampseals (Makkay 1984a; 2005), spe cial clay fig u rines (1993)and bone spoons (1990). On a com pa ra ble meth od olog i calba sis, Nándor Kalicz ar gued that in ad di tion to nu mer ous


14

1 Subsequently it became clear, that pottery-based research lay at the heart of numerous methodological problems in the reconstruction of early foodproduction; Makkay 1998, 422–431; Gheorgiu 2008; Budja 2009; Jordan & Zvelebil 2009; 2009.

other fac tors, the geo graph ical dis tri bu tion of “horned pen -dants” in the cen tral Bal kan area out lined a sym bolic phe -nom e non dis tinct from its Körös cul ture en vi ron mentthereby re con firm ing the in de pend ent na ture of the Körösand Starèevo cul tures (Kalicz 2000, 298–299). Sym bolicand sa cred roots as well as the Near East ern con nec tions ofearly food pro duc tion in south-east ern Eu rope could betraced by map ping the dis tri bu tion of the so-called “horns of con se cra tion”, a spe cial group of clay artefacts (Kalicz &Raczky 1981; Schwarzberg 2006). Over all, the nu mer ousex am ples of “bucranium” mod elled fig ures from theCarpathian Ba sin and the Bal kans de fine sim i larly tight in -tel lec tual links within the ar chae o log i cal con text of thisbroad re gion (Hansen 2007, 132–186). Be yond the con textof the ex am ples sin gled out here, it may be said that the the -o ret i cal di rec tion set by John Nandris in the study of theFirst Tem per ate Neo lithic ma te rial cul ture in the Bal kansdur ing the 1970s is most closely fol lowed by Mihael Budja(Budja 2001; 2005; 2006). Fol low ing James Pat rick Mal-lory, Makkay called this ap proach “the diachronic ge og ra -phy of finds”, con cen trat ing on the dis tri bu tion of spe cialarte fact types within the same time ho ri zon (isotypes).Group ings iden ti fied in the ter ri to rial dis tri bu tion of iso-types may of fer a chance for ten ta tively re con struct ing eth -nic or lin guis tic groups (Makkay 1991, 232–233).

By the 1960–1970s, in creas ing em pha sis be gan to belaid upon the use of ra dio met ric dat ing in neo lithic re searchin Eu rope. It was Gra ham D. Clark who first used a rel e vantset of ra dio car bon data in study ing the ex pan sion of farm ingfrom the Near East across Eu rope (Clark 1965). The5200–4000 B.C. ra dio met ric date ob tained for early farm ingset tle ments in cen tral Eu rope at the time (Clark 1965, Fig. 2;Renfrew 1973, 69–72) did not sub stan tially dif fer from the5000 BC date cal cu lated for the be gin ning of the Körös–Starèevo cul ture es ti mated by Stu art Pigott us ing “clas si cal”meth ods (Pigott 1965, fig. 12). The first re sults of cal i bra tion, how ever, stretched this chro no log i cal bound ary to 5350 B.C.(Neustupný 1968, 52). The spread of early farm ing in Eu rope was ex plained within the frame work of the “wave of ad vance model” by Al bert Ammerman and Luca Cavalli-Sforza. They es ti mated an av er age an nual ad vance ment of 1km to ward thenorth west re lated to demic dif fu sion (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1971; 1973) in ac cor dance with the first cal i brated ra -dio met ric dates ob tained for the be gin nings of food pro duc -tion in Eu rope. Ev i dently, the model that ad vo cated waves ofdemic dif fu sion and its chro no log i cal se quence had a con se -quence for in ter pre ta tions of the Körös cul ture as well. Ac -cord ingly, the wave of neolithization reached the CarpathianBa sin with a cer tain de lay in com par i son with the south-east -ern re gions of Eu rope, in clud ing the dis tri bu tion area of theStarèevo cul ture. This pos si bil ity was clearly voiced by HansQuitta on the ba sis of the first rel e vant ra dio car bon dates ob -tained in 1970. Mean while, he ad mit ted that the in ter nalphas ing of the Starèevo- and Körös cul tures was still un re -solved in the con cerned ar eas (Quitta 1970, 54 and note 15).On the ba sis of what was known at the time, Nándor Kalicz

sum ma rized and mapped the geo graph ical dis tri bu tion of theKörös cul ture and Linearband ce ram ics in the Carpathian Ba -sin (Kalicz 1970, Fig. 7, 1971, Abb. 1).

It was an im por tant event in re search his tory. In 1970an in ter na tional con fer ence was or ga nized in Székesfehér-vár, Hun gary, ti tled “Die aktuellen Fragen der Bandkera-mik”. This event was de voted to the emer gence of theLinearband cul ture in Eu rope with spe cial re gard to re -search in the Carpathian Ba sin. The pro ceed ings pub lishedin 1972 were of mon u men tal sig nif i cance. In the vol ume,Nándor Kalicz and János Makkay drew a bound ary for thefirst time through the north ern part of the Great Hun gar ianPlain, ap prox i mately be tween the cit ies of Kunhegyes andBerettyóújfalu. In their view, this was the limit of the north -ern most dis tri bu tion of the Körös cul ture (Kalicz & Makkay 1972a, Abb. 1). Sites and as sem blages of the so-calledSzatmár group were iden ti fied north of this line. These sitesmarked the for ma tion pe riod of the afore men tioned AlföldLin ear Pot tery (ALP), so typ i cal of the Great Hun gar ianPlain. The two re search ers be lieved that the halt of Köröscul ture ex pan sion north of this line could be ex plained bythe pres ence of a lo cal Mesolithic pop u la tion. In their in ter -pre ta tion, these Mesolithic peo ple rep re sented the ba sis forthe emerg ing ALBK cul ture (Kalicz & Makkay 1972a). Atthe same time, Kalicz and Makkay found ev i dence amongear lier finds from Me dina and Harc-Nyanyapuszta that theStarèevo cul ture had been pres ent in south ern Transdanubia and played a de ci sive role in the for ma tion of the Trans-danubian Lin ear Pot tery (TLP) cul ture (Kalicz & Makkay1972b). In es sence, these re sults from Hun gary pro vided the first ar chae o log i cal ev i dence for the pre dic tions by HansQuitta dat ing back to the 1960s, as ar eas as so ci ated with theemer gence of Linearband ce ram ics could be de fined on theba sis of as sem blages. Kalicz and Makkay also came up with a novel idea from a chro no log i cal point of view. They drewa par al lel be tween the Szatmár group, the Me dina type andthe ear li est phase of the Körös cul ture rep re sented in Pit 3(Protovinèa) at Maroslele-Pana (Kalicz & Makkay 1972b,94–95). In con trast, Ottó Trogmayer had hy poth e sized a par -al lel de vel op ment be tween the Körös and Alföld Lin ear Pot -tery cul tures from the be gin ning (Trogmayer 1972, 73–75).

Con tem po rary re search ers in Slovakia came up with es -sen tially the same ideas (Lichardus 1964, 867; 1972, 10–12), and ar gued con sis tently for par tial syn chrony be tweenthe Körös-Starèevo and LBK cul tures (Pavúk 1980, 50–77). (It re mains a cu ri os ity in re search his tory that at the timeJuraj Pavúk con sis tently used the term ”Starèevo-Criº- Kul -tur” in re la tion to the Tisza re gion and mark edly avoi- dedthe gen eral “Starèevo-Körös” name that was widely used inthe lit er a ture. For ex am ple: “Besiedlung mit Criº-Kul tur istim Theißgebiet schon relativ gut bekannt” (Pavúk 1980,72). Re con struc tion of the his tory of the ALBk cul ture at the time was dom i nated by the hy po thet i cal ac cul tur a tion of thelo cal Mesolithic pop u la tion of the Eger cul ture who fell un -der Körös cul ture in flu ence (Vékony 1971; Kalicz &Makkay 1972a, 80–81; 1972b, 94–95).2 Mean while John


15

2 At that time the Eger culture was defined on the ground of a macrolithic stone industry in northeastern Hungary (Vértes 1951; 1965, 216-221; Dobosi1972, 42-59) which after 50 years the Late Mesolithic stonework has been identified as a Paleolithic assemblage (Summarised by Koz³owski 2005, 185).

Nandris pointed to the ab sence of ar chae o log i cal ev i dencefor any such pop u la tion and the great va ri ety of con nec tions be tween the Mesolithic and First Tem per ate Neo lithic(Nandris 1972).

In creased in ter est in the lo cal Mesolithic as the foun da -tion of neolithization in South east ern Eu rope was un doubt -edly in spired by the dis cov ery of em phat i cally im por tantpre his toric sites in the Iron Gates Gorge of the Dan ube dur -ing the 1960–1970s in clud ing Lepenski Vir, Padina and anum ber of re lated set tle ments (Srejoviæ 1966; 1969; 1972;1973; Jovanoviæ 1966; 1969; 1972; Letica 1969). By seek -ing core sim i lar i ties be tween the Natufian and Lepenski Vircul tures, seeds of an in de pend ent neolithization pro cess ofNear East ern type could be hy poth e sized in the south ernDan ube Ba sin (Srejoviæ 1974, 27–30). Crit i cism of this“fash ion wave” in his tor i cal in ter pre ta tion (Dumitrescu1971) was largely ig nored at the time. Dragoslav Srejoviæ,the ex ca va tor of Lepenski Vir, hy poth e sized the con ti nu ityof clas si cal Starèevo evo lu tion at the site that pre ceded theoc cur rence of typ i cal barbotine dec o rated ware as the findsin cluded mono chrome, Protostarèevo and mesolithic arte-facts (Srejoviæ 1971). The site of Gura Baciului/Bácsi-torok, linked to Lepenski Vir through the pres ence ofsculpted boul ders, also yielded white painted ware in dic a -tive of the Starèevo I–Criº I phase in Transylvania, in west -ern Ro ma nia. In the in ter pre ta tion of Nikolae Vlassa, thisdis cov ery also meant that chro no log i cal par al lels could bedrawn with the Protosesklo cul ture in Thessaly (Vlassa1972). The rich find ma te rial, how ever, was only pub lishedsig nif i cantly later (Lazarovici & Maxim 1995). Sim i larpainted ware (dec o rated with white dots on a red base) wasal ready known from the site of Donja-Branjevina in thenorth ern Baèka re gion of Ser bia, widely con sid ered a zoneof over lap be tween the Körös and Starèevo cul tures (Kar-manski 1968a; 1968b; fi nal pub li ca tion: Karmanski 2005).

Sub se quently, János Makkay re viewed the pub li ca tionof early neo lithic Otzaki-Magula (Milojèiæ-v. Zumbusch &Milojèiæ 1971) and 22 ar chae o log i cal ar gu ments avail ableat the time that seemed to sup port the par al lel de vel op mentof the Körös-Starèevo and Protosesklo cul tures since theirbe gin nings (Makkay 1974, 144–153). Chro no log i cal con -nec tions be tween neo lithic cul tures in Thessaly and theMid dle Dan ube Re gion have been fre quently re vis ited byMakkay, who in the end ar gued for Körös–Starèevo andMono chrome phase syn chrony (Makkay 1984b, 26 andchro no log i cal chart).

These de vel op ments in di cate that dur ing this pe riod ofre search his tory, chro no log i cal stud ies as sumed par a mountim por tance in re search within the gen eral prob lem ofneolithization in south-east ern Eu rope. This is clearly il lus -trated by a sum mary pub lished by Stojan Dimitrijeviæ. Hedrafted a new, al ter na tive evo lu tion of the en tire Starèevocul ture (Dimitrijeviæ 1969; 1974) that fun da men tally di -verged from the chro no log i cal sys tems used by V. Milojèiæ,D. Garašanin and their re formed ver sion (Garašanin M.1971). In ad di tion, he em pha sized the sep a rate na ture ofclas si cal va ri et ies such as the Körös cul ture in the Tisza Re -gion, as well as Criº cul ture de riv a tives in Oltenia, Munte-nia and Moldavia (Dimitrijeviæ 1974, 94).

An other line of in ter na tional in quiry was fol lowed by

Sándor Bökönyi who com pared Körös cul ture an i mal boneas sem blages to those from cor re spond ing sites in Greece(Bökönyi 1971, 642–643, Ta ble 1). His sub se quent ground- break ing work (Bökönyi 1974) set the con tex tual and tosome ex tent meth od olog i cal frame work for neo lithic archa-eozoology in Hun gary for de cades to come. His school ofthought reached Eu ro pean fora through the eval u a tion ofearly neo lithic an i mal re mains and their im pact on re con -struct ing Körös cul ture his tory (see sum ma ries by Bartosie-wicz, Gál & Tóth in this vol ume).

Fol low ing ex ca va tions by Nándor Kalicz and JánosMakkay at Méhtelek-Nádas it be came clear that be yond thenorth ern bound ary of the Körös cul ture dis tri bu tion area,Transylvanian va ri et ies of the Körös cul ture were also pres -ent in the Up per Tisza Re gion (Kalicz & Makkay 1974a;1974b; 1977a; Makkay 2003c; Kalicz in this vol ume). Themost im por tant char ac ter is tics of this artefactual as sem -blage in cluded a rich in ven tory of an thro po mor phic fig u -rines and the dom i nance of ob sid ian among the lithic rawma te ri als (Chap man 1986; Starnini 1994; Makkay 2007).This rich ness in ob sid ian was in rad i cal con trast with rel e -vant lithic as sem blages from Körös cul ture sites in thesouth ern part of the Great Hun gar ian Plain (Bácskay 1976).This dis cov ery in di cated two dif fer ent ways and meth ods of ob sid ian ac qui si tion. The most ev i dent par al lels to the findma te rial from Méhtelek came to light at the set tle ment ofHomorodul de Sus/Felsõhomoród in north west ern Ro ma nia(Bader 1968). Kalicz and Makkay con sid ered the Méhtelek, to gether with sites of the pre vi ously de fined Szatmár groupin the Up per Tisza Re gion, a spe cial fa cies of the Körös cul -ture and la belled it the “Méhtelek type”. Pre sum ably, thistype was con nected to the block of Körös cul ture set tle -ments in the south ern part of the Great Hun gar ian Plainthrough the Szamos-Kraszna-Ér-Berettyó river val leys(Kalicz & Makkay 1977a, 22–24), as well as the re gion ofCriº set tle ment within Transylvania.

In a broader sense these de vel op ments de fined three di -rec tions for neolithization of the Carpathian Ba sin that cor -re sponded to id io syn cratic artefactual as sem blages. Theyin cluded the Starèevo cul ture in Transdanubia, the Köröscul ture in the Great Hun gar ian Plain, and the Criº cul ture inTransylvania and Moldavia in Ro ma nia. It is a note wor thyde vel op ment that the dis cov ery of Körös cul ture finds in the Up per Tisza Re gion (within the Túr–Szamos–Kraszna river val leys) shifted the em pha sis from chro no log i cal ques tionsto those of geo graph ical dis tri bu tion in Körös cul ture re -search.

In their im por tant 1977 mono graph on the emer genceof the ALBK cul ture, Nándor Kalicz and János Makkay of -fered a new ap proach to the Körös cul ture as a pos si ble pre -de ces sor on the ba sis of to geo graph ical char ac ter is tics andthe chro no log i cal frame work (Kalicz & Makkay 1977b).This work was a multi-fac eted syn the sis of prob lems con -cern ing the Early and Mid dle Neo lithic in the Great Hun -gar ian Plain but had rel e vance on the broader scale of theCarpathian Ba sin as well. They re-drew a clear map ofKörös cul ture sites up dated with the then newly dis cov eredKörös set tle ments (at Furta-Csátó, Dévaványa-Atyaszeg,Tiszaug-Tópart, Maroslele-Pana: Kalicz & Makkay 1977b,Karte 2).


16

Be gin ning in 1976, field sur veys and small-scale ex ca -va tions in the Mid dle Tisza Re gion within the north ernfron tier zone of the Körös cul ture dis tri bu tion area yieldednew re sults in set tle ment his tory. A com plete burnt housewith up right, verticl walls and a post-struc ture was re cov -ered at the site of Szajol-Felsõföld (Raczky 1977; 1980, 5;1996; in this vol ume). A fe male skel e ton found on her rightside in a con tracted po si tion un der neath the rub ble could bein ter preted as in ten tional burial within the house (Raczky1982–1983; 1983). Ex ca va tions at Szolnok-Szanda in 1977and 1978 brought to light six burnt houses, sev eral pits andseven graves of the Körös cul ture (Kalicz & Raczky 1982;Raczky in this vol ume). House re mains from these twosites, along with the ear lier find at Tiszajenõ, made it clearthat the typ i cal Körös house had up right walls and a post-struc ture built on the ground sur face. Even the roof con -struc tion with ridgeposts could be iden ti fied in the houses at Tiszajenõ and Szajol (Lenneis 1997, Fig. 3–4). This struc -ture, in ad di tion to other fea tures, seems to have been a ty -po logi cal tran si tion to wards house types known from theCen tral Eu ro pean LBK (Lichardus 1972, 13; Meier-Arendt1989; Lichter 1993, 77–80; Lenneis 1997, 143–145;Raczky 2006). Since the 1970s and 1980s, Körös cul turewat tle and daub houses of this type have gen er ally beencon sid ered pre cur sors of LBK hab i ta tion, a view that re -mained widely ac cepted even to day (Horváth & Si mon2004; Lichardus-Itten & Lichardus 2004, 49–50; Stäuble2005, 211–213, Raczky 2006). In light of these re con struc -tions, pre vi ous ef forts to in ter pret pits re cov ered in Trans-danubia (Bicske-Galagonyás: Makkay 1978) as well as theGreat Hun gar ian Plain (Szarvas site no. 102 and Gyoma site no. 107: Makkay 1982a) as early rep re sen ta tives of LBKsemi-sub ter ra nean houses be came ir rel e vant. This be cameev i dent when ar chae o log i cally ver i fi able traces of the firstLBK houses were found in both Transdanubia (Szentgyörgy- völgy-Pityerdomb: Bánffy 2004, 29–47; the rel e vant database by Oross & Bánffy 2009, 182–184, Fig. 9) and theGreat Hun gar ian Plain (Füzesabony-Gubakút: Dombo-róczki 1997, Mezõkövesd-Mocsolyás: Kalicz & Koós1997a; 1997b; 2000; 2002). They were also built on the sur -face with up right, verticl walls sup ported by post-struc tures. It is pos si ble that the (pre) con cep tion of LBK and ALBKsemi-sub ter ra nean houses re sulted in the log i cal ne ces sityof try ing to at trib ute a house type to the lo cal mesolithicpop u la tion. This story is strongly rem i nis cent of a sit u a tiondur ing the 1930s when Werner Buttler and Waldemar Ha-berey pre sented pits ex ca vated at the set tle ment of Köln-Lindenthal as “Wohngruben”, a type of semi-sub ter ra neanhab i ta tion (The his tor i cal re view of the re search his tory:Lichter 1993, 21). The be lief in the sig nif i cance ofsemi-sub ter ra nean houses seems to be strong and has re -mained par tic u larly pop u lar among re search ers of thesouth-east Eu ro pean Neo lithic (the prob lem has been sum -ma rised by Lichardus-Itten & Lichardus 2004; some ofthese in ter pre ta tions in: Green field & Jongsma 2006;Minichreiter 2007, 37–57; Lazarovici & Lazarovici 2011,24–27).

The first in-depth en vi ron men tal eval u a tion of Köröscul ture set tle ments was pub lished by Kristina Kosse. Shewas the first to rep re sent the view that neo lithic sites in the

Carpathian Ba sin need to be stud ied within the con text oftheir re spec tive en vi ron men tal set tings (Kosse 1979). Hermost im por tant dis cov er ies in clude the lin ear ar range mentof Körös cul ture set tle ments along river banks as well as the im por tance of hydromorphic soils in the se lec tion of hab i ta -tion ar eas. This lat ter point in it self may be seen as in dic a -tive of a cer tain re li ance on riverine and floodplain re -sources. In ad di tion, with the cir cum spect use of a broadrange of data from in ter dis ci plin ary re search she at tempteda re con struc tion of the broad-spec trum eco nomic base ofthe Körös cul ture (Kosse 1979, 125–132). This work fit tedsmoothly within the ”wa ter-soil” cen tred char ac ter iza tion of early set tle ments on a Eu ro pean scale (Sherratt 1980). An -other en vi ron men tal study eval u ated Körös cul ture set tle -ments in the Tiszazug microregion (de fined by the con flu -ence of the Tisza and Körös rivers) within a Eu ro pean con -text (Jarman, Bailey & Jarman 1982, 168–179). Re sultsfrom these macro-level en vi ron men tal in ves ti ga tions ofKörös cul ture set tle ments have be come pop u lar and end upbe ing cited as themes in sev eral ar chae o log i cal sum ma ries.Subsequntly, Pál Sümegi and his school ini ti ated mi -cro-scale lo cal ized re search that con trib uted rad i cally newin for ma tion to these pre vi ous en vi ron men tal re sults. One ofhis most sig nif i cant rev e la tions has been that a mo saic typeof paleoenvironmental struc ture on is land-like loess-cov -ered sur faces may have been the most im por tant el e ment inthe es tab lish ment of Körös cul ture set tle ments in par tic u larar eas. In this in ter pre ta tion, an en vi ron men tal com plexcom posed of gal lery for est cov ered floodplains, Pleis to cene riverbeds and back swamps of fered ac cess to a mo saic-like,and di verse set of nat u ral hab i tats for Körös cul ture set tle -ment pop u la tions (sum ma rized by Sümegi 2004a, 308–309,314–316, 336–337 and foot notes 23, 24; 2007).

In 1980, as part of a broader sum mary, a pre dom i nantlylit er a ture-based study of the Körös cul ture in clud ing theMéhtelek type was pub lished by Valerij Titov in Rus sian. Hepro vided a rather good ap praisal of re search his tory at thetime (Titov 1980, 77–112). At the same time, Nándor Kaliczwrote short re ports on the lat est re sults of neo lithic re searchin Hun gary, with ref er ence to Starèevo cul ture sites inTransdanubia (Becsehely, Lánycsók). In light of this ac cu -mu lated in for ma tion, he came to the con clu sion that Körösand Starèevo rep re sented two dis tinct cul tural phe nom enasep a rated by a clear bor der zone along the Dan ube in south -ern Hun gary. Mean while, re fer ring to the hor i zon tal stra tig -ra phy of the lat est Starèevo and ear li est TLBK sites, he ar -gued for the diachronic Starèevo–TLBK se quence, es tab lish -ing a clear point of ref er ence in the rel a tive chro nol ogy forthe or i gins of LBK in cen tral Eu rope (Kalicz 1980; 1984).

A NEW WAVE IN KÖRÖS CUL TURESTUD IES IN HUN GARY: THE 1980s –COM PLEX AP PROACHES

In 1981, János Makkay pub lished painted ware fromthe site of Szarvas No. 23. These sherds, dec o rated withwhite on red or na ments, rep re sented an early style which,af ter Donja Branjevina, Gura Baciului, and CÐrcea wereiden ti fied for the first time at a Körös cul ture set tle ment in


17

the Great Hun gar ian Plain. Par al lels for this ce ramic typeare known in the Aegean as types of the so-called Proto-sesklo ware. It was ac tu ally the Szarvas find that pro videdsup port ing ev i dence for Makkay’s fre quently raised hy -poth e sis that from the on set, rates of de vel op ment in theFirst Tem per ate Neo lithic had been com pa ra ble in south-east Eu rope, in clud ing the ad ja cent south ern sec tion of theCarpathian Ba sin (Makkay 1981). In the mean time, a flinthoard was pub lished from the site of Endrõd No. 39 in theGreat Hun gar ian Plain. The raw ma te rial com po si tion in itclearly pointed to con nec tions with the Banat dis trict ofVoivodina and pos si bly even fur ther south in the Bal kans(Kaczanowska, Koz³owski & Makkay 1981).

The na tion wide ar chae o log i cal sur vey pro ject (MRT =Ar chae o log i cal To pog ra phy of Hun gary) reached Békéscounty in the south-east ern part of the Great Hun gar ianPlain in 1968. As a re sult of sys tem atic field walk ing and in -ten sive ex ca va tions, the num ber of known Körös cul turesites mul ti plied in the re gion. This quan ti ta tive in creasemeant that new set tle ment pat terns could be de duced withinthe broader re gion.

In 1982, János Makkay wrote a ma jor syn the sis on neo -lithic re search in Hun gary. His sum mary was based on 158sites from the 1219 km2 Szeghalom Dis trict (MRT 6) and146 sites from the 793 km2 area of Szarvas Dis trict (MRT 8) in Békés county. Un for tu nately, due to lan guage lim i ta -tions, the valu able anal y sis of these 304 “KS” (Körös–Starèevo) sites con cen trated in a rel a tively small area remai- ned largely in ac ces si ble to in ter na tional re search (Makkay1982b, Ta ble I on page 113). Pre sum ing syn chro nous oc cu -pa tion, on the ba sis of the com piled data, an av er age min i -mum area of 6.6 km2 may have be longed to each site. Hehad at his dis posal 484 sites from the es ti mated 13000 km2

dis tri bu tion area of the Körös–Starèevo (in fact Körös) cul -ture on the Great Hun gar ian Plain. With re gard to the pre -vail ing schools of thought at the time, in ad di tion to chro no -log i cal im pli ca tions, Makkay also con sid ered the “gen e sis”of the find ma te rial as well as cer tain phe nom ena re lated to“eco nomic-so cial de vel op ment” (Makkay 1982b, 7–9). Inhis view, no sub stan tive dif fer ences ex ist be tween Körös andStarèevo cul tural phe nom ena. He there fore uni formly usedthe “KS” la bel in his ter mi nol ogy. Un for tu nately, time hasnot yet passed over his state ment that the Körös cul ture “to -day still lacks an in ter nal chro nol ogy that could be re li ablygen er al ized to its en tire (or at least a suf fi ciently large) area”(Makkay 1982b, 41). In spite of this, in his chro no log i calchart he pre sented a three-tier rel a tive chro nol ogy of theKörös-Starèevo cul ture. In his view, the north ern bound aryof the “KS” cul ture on both the Great Hun gar ian Plain andTransdanubia cor re sponds to the “ethnocultural” bor der of apreneolithic pop u la tion, rather than any geo graph ical fea ture. In ad di tion, he at trib uted the di vi sion be tween mid dle neo -lithic re gions (that is, the ALBK and TLBK dis tinc tion) to asim i lar ethnocultural and lin guis tic dif fer ence that pre cededthe “KS” cul ture and dom i nated in the Mesolithic or pos si blyeven the Up per Palaeo lithic (Makkay 1982b, 68– 70,77–80). He hy poth e sized the ex is tence of the so-called“Jászság-bound ary” in the piedmont area of the North ernHill Re gion in Hun gary. This con cept has re tained a piv otalrole in Makkay’s sub se quent stud ies as mark ing not only an

eth nic but also a lin guis tic bar rier (Makkay 2001a, 62–65;2001b, 18–24, 41–43, 57). At the same time, he linked the“KS” pop u la tion with the protoindoeuropean lin guis ticfoun da tion of the Bal kans (Makkay 1982b, 79–80).

To János Makkay’s credit, he ad dressed novel ques -tions at the be gin ning of the 1980s such as the pos si bil ity ofiden ti fy ing eth nic ity and lan guage through the ma te rial cul -ture of the Körös–Starèevo en tity. These ideas, how ever, re -mained hy po thet i cal since at the time we had pre cious lit tlein for ma tion on mesolithic sites preceeding the Early Neo -lithic in the Carpathian Ba sin. Spec u la tions about the eth -nic ity of a Mesolithic base pop u la tion and its po ten tial lin -guis tic dif fer ences there fore could not be sup ported by suf -fi cient data. Never-the-less, Makkay’s thought-pro vok ingap proach played an im por tant role in Hun gary, pre-dat ingthe in tro duc tory chap ter of Sir Colin Renfrew’s book whichtack led sim i lar prob lems on a broader based Eur asian scale(Renfrew 1987; 1988).

The so-called “Szeghalom sur vey” was a Brit ish-Hun -gar ian co op er a tive set tle ment re search pro ject car ried outon the out skirts of Dévaványa, Szeghalom, Körösladány,Vésztõ within the frame work of the Békés county na tionalsur vey. Its re sults have in gen eral re con firmed the lin ear ar -range ment of Körös cul ture “shore line set tle ments” (She-rratt 1982a, 16–17, Ta ble 2.1, Fig 2.3–Fig.2.6.). In ad di tion, archaeometric sur veys at the set tle ment of Dévaványa-Réhelyi-dûlõ re sulted in sig na tures in dic a tive of dis cretehouse hold clus ters with as so ci ated stor age and work ing ar -eas at ap prox i mate dis tances of 50 m from each other (Sher- ratt 1983a, 23, 33; 1983b, 160–164). At the time, An drewSherrat es ti mated that the Körös cul ture ex isted within atime in ter val be tween 6000–5300 BC, mean ing, he was thefirst who ac cepted such early cal i brated ra dio met ric dates as his tor i cal re al ity (Sherratt 1983a, 23). The re sults of test ex -ca va tions car ried out in this area, and es pe cially ef forts touse sta tis tics in the eval u a tion of the newly ex ca vated ma te -rial, con trib uted lit tle to an un der stand ing of the in ter nalchro nol ogy of the Körös cul ture (Goldman 1991). It wasim por tant, how ever, that in his 1982 re search sum mary, An -drew Sherratt made a clear dis tinc tion be tween the Körösand Starèevo cul tures. His dis tri bu tion map was also com -ple mented by the Szatmár group in the north (as so ci atedwith Criº in Transylvania), in stead of a poorly de fined“mesolithic sub strate” (Sherratt 1982b, 295–297, Fig. 6). Inthis man ner, he made some thing of a novel con tri bu tion todis cus sions re gard ing the north ern dis tri bu tion of Köröscul ture ini ti ated by Nándor Kalicz and János Makkay.

In his great syn the sis of the Bal kan Neo lithic, MilutinGarašanin out lined three geo graph ical en vi ron ments thatseem to have cor re sponded to ma jor cul tural en ti ties dur ingthe Early Neo lithic. These were the Balkano-Ana to lian(south), Carpatho-Cen tral Bal kan (north) and the Circum-Med i ter ra nean com plexes (Garašanin 1982). He con sid ered the Körös group to be an in de pend ent en tity within theCarpatho-Cen tral Bal kan com plex, with its south ern bound -ary de fined in the Baèka and Banat dis tricts of Voivodina,near the con flu ence of the Aranka–Maros–Tisza Rivers(Garašanin 1982, 101). This shows that in ter na tional re -search at the time ac cepted rel a tively clearly de fined geo -graph ical bor ders for the Körös cul ture (or group).


18

Given these de vel op ments, the geo graph ical dis tri bu -tion of the Körös cul ture had to be re vised af ter the im por -tant dis cov er ies of Körös cul ture sites north of the city ofSzolnok at Nagykörû-Tsz gyümölcsös and Kõtelek-Huszár- sarok, since these set tle ments fell within the then knownnorth ern most zone of Körös dis tri bu tion (Raczky 1978;1983; 1986). Mean while, in ad di tion to the Körös cul turefea ture iden ti fied at Kõtelek, a find as sem blage dis play ingearly char ac ter is tics of the Szatmár group was also re cov -ered. This was the first ever ar chae o log i cal ev i dence of pos -si ble con nec tions be tween Körös and Szatmár fea tureswithin the same set tle ment. The pos si bil ity pre vi ouslyraised by An drew Sherratt was thus re con firmed by fielddata: the Körös cul ture as known in the south ern part of theGreat Hun gar ian Plain may have been bor dered by theMéhtelek fa cies, rather than a Mesolithic pop u la tion in theUp per Tisza Re gion (Raczky 1983, 189). Fol low ing thisdis cov ery the log i cal con clu sion was that the eth nic ba sis ofthe evolv ing ALBK cul ture was not nec es sar ily pro vided by lo cal Mesolithic pop u la tions. There may have been vari antsof the Körös cul ture in the Up per Tisza Re gion, rep re sentedby finds from the Szamos–Kraszna River val leys (Raczky1980, 29–30; 1986, 29–33). These lat ter phe nom ena seemto be clearly rooted in the Körös–Criº cul tures in Transyl-vania and the Transcarpathian re gion (Bader 1968; Balahuri 1975, 281, Abb. 1.3; Kalicz & Makkay 1977a; Ignaþ 1978;1979; Lakó 1977; 1978; Lazarovici & Lakó 1981; Laza-rovici 1985; Potusnjak 1985, 140–148). It is on the ba sis ofthis net work of or i gins that the emer gence of a spe cial typeof painted ware in the Up per Tisza Re gion at the be gin ningof the Mid dle Neo lithic may be ex plained: va ri et ies of black paint on the raw clay sur face or on red slip can not be tracedback to the tra di tion of dec o ra tive mo tifs used by the Köröscul ture in the south ern part of the Great Hun gar ian Plain(Esztár–Szamos–Kopèany–Raškovce groups: Vízdal 1973;Kalicz & Makkay 1977b; 43, 47, 52–56; Korek 1977; Mak-kay 1982b, 53–54; Šiška 1982; Bóna 1986, 64–65; Raczky1989, 235, Fig. 8–9; Makkay 2003b). This style is far morerem i nis cent of the early neo lithic painted ware known fromGura-Baciuliu in Transylvania (Raczky 1983, 187–192;1986, 38–39). Par al lels to the black paint with a beaded tex -ture char ac ter is tic of Szatmár II style pot tery may be mostclearly rec og nized at sites in north-west ern Ro ma nia dur ingthe early phase of the Piºcolþ group (Lazarovici & Németi1983).

The Protovinèa ques tion re sur faced dur ing the study ofthe Szatmár group as well. The ma jor ity of ty po logi cal fea -tures be hind this term are not as strictly de fined as sug -gested by the name. In stead of be long ing to a nar rowly de -ter mined cul tural con text, they are gen eral char ac ter is tics of the Mid dle Neo lithic of the Bal kans, ev i dently oc cur ringover a broad geo graph ical re gion. Within this con text, the“Protovinèa” as a con cept re mains ac cept able only in ar easwhere it was de facto fol lowed by the Vinèa cul ture. Whenim ported me chan i cally to the Tisza re gion, the term doesnot ex press the dy nam ics of lo cal de vel op ment (Raczky1983, 187–189; 1986, 34–40; 1988, 28–29).

The next im por tant stage in Körös cul ture re search wasthe study of ar chae o log i cal con texts (es pe cially sac ri fi cialpits), where traces of un usual ac tiv i ties in dic a tive of sa cred

or sym bolic prac tices and other forms of spe cial, rit ual be -hav iour were de tected. The pres ence of such pits pro videdJános Makkay with yet an other chance to map the geo -graph ical dis tri bu tion of sig na tures in dic a tive of such ac tiv -i ties along with their ar chae o log i cal con texts. Based on thisma te rial, he be gan to ex plore deeper im pli ca tions of cul tural re la tion ships dur ing the Körös cul ture. This topic has re -mained con tin u ously in the fore front of Makkay’s at ten tion(Makkay 1986; 1989; 2002). Like wise, he con tin ued re it er -ate ar gu ments con cern ing con nec tions be tween the Carpa-thian Ba sin and Neo lithic cul tures in Thessaly not with -stand ing the prob lem of Starèevo-Körös chro no log i cal con -nec tions (Makkay 1984b). Dis cuss ing chro no log i cal is sues,Makkay cor rectly raised the ques tion of re la tion ships be -tween the Körös–Starèevo and LBK cul tures. Al though tan -gi ble strati graphic in for ma tion was only avail able from theset tle ment of Dévaványa-Réhelyi gát (MRT 6, Site 3/33),re ly ing on find ma te ri als from his own re search (Szarvas 23, Endrõd 39, Szarvas 8, Endrõd 39, Dévaványa 33) he com -piled a se quence of fea tures whose ty po logi cal anal y sisaided the re con struc tion of the three-tier in ter nal chro nol -ogy of the Körös-Starèevo cul ture (Makkay 1987, 16,Chronologische Tabelle). How ever, the dat ing value of cer -tain ty po logi cal char ac ter is tics (carinated bowls, high ped -es talled ves sels, black bur nished ware, finely in cised andim pressed mo tifs etc.) were brought into ques tion by Mak-kay him self (Makkay 1996, 45–47). The ear li est pe riod ischar ac ter ized by white painted ware on a red ground (Mak-kay 1981; 1996, Pl. 9, 11), while pot tery as sem blages of the“late phase” (= Protovinèa) were iden ti fied us ing the ev i -dence of sherds rep re sent ing ALP ”im ports” (Makkay 1982b, 26–46 and foot note 76, Makkay 1987; 1990; 2007, 216).Most re cently, carinated and ped es talled ves sel types haveagain been treated as di ag nos tic of the Protovinèa pe riod atthe site of Furta–Csátó among oth ers (Makkay 2007, 206).

In Makkay’s view, the early ALBK cul ture was co evalwith “Protovinèa” and, ac cord ing to his chro no log i cal chart, with the Vinèa A cul ture as it is known south of the MarosRiver. There fore, ac cord ing to this scheme, Protovinèa isequals to Vinèa A, dem on strat ing the in con sis tency of theProtovinèa def i ni tion when ap plied to ma te rial from theGreat Hun gar ian Plain and Transdanubia (Makkay 1984b,chro no log i cal chart). This fun da men tal con tra dic tion is notre solved by his sub se quent spe cious rea son ing: “My em i -nent col leagues who have de voted sev eral stud ies to theProtovinèa prob lem seem to be un clear on the mean ing ofthe term Protovinèa. The Greek, proteroz or prwtoz pri -mar ily de notes a re la tion ship in time: ‘be fore’, ‘sooner’,‘ear lier’, ‘pre ced ing’, ‘older’ … The term Protovinèa de -notes some thing that has some thing to do with the Vinèacul ture, but pre cedes it in time” (Makkay 1996, 44). This isthen fol lowed by a new def i ni tion: “Thirdly, Kalicz, Raczky and Horváth failed to note that by ”Protovinèa” I meant (and still mean) not only types that ap pear at the end of the Körös se quence, but also types whose pre cur sors ap peared muchear lier...” (Makkay 1996, 45). The ac tual ques tion nev er the -less re mains whether Protovinèa should be the def i ni tion ofa time pe riod or ce ramic types within Makkay’s par a digm(Makkay 1996, 44–46 and foot note 53). Re gret ta bly thesetwo types of def i ni tion do not have the same mean ing.


19

Within the con text of the Protovinèa po lem ics, an anal -o gous de bate be tween Colin Renfrew and John E. Colemanis worth men tion ing here. Re gard ing Early Bronze Age ter -mi nol ogy in the Aegean, Renfrew wrote: “Surely the ap pro -pri ate pro ce dure is to start with the data, at tempt to or der itby clas si fi ca tion and sub di vi sion, name it and only then tryto date it.”… “But the re la tion ship of the ma te rial – the cul -tural as sem blages – to the chro nol ogy is nei ther as sumednor known a pri ori. It is a mat ter of in fer ence, de pend ent ona num ber of ar gu ments and al ways vul ner a ble to re as sess -ment.”…“Ei ther the EH I, II, III and EC I, II and III des ig -na tions re fer to pe ri ods, in which case they should not becon fused with des ig na tions for ma te rial, or they re fer to as -sem blages. They can no lon ger be al lowed to do both. Forthat rea son I sug gested some years ago that the EH I, II andIII ter mi nol ogy no lon ger be used for the as sem blages andpro posed the terms of Eutresis cul ture, Korakou cul ture andTiryns cul ture as ap pro pri ate as sem blage des ig na tions in -stead...” (Renfrew 1979, 58–61).

In sum mary, us ing the term Protovinèa as in ter pretedby János Makkay may not be cor rect from a meth od olog i cal point of view as it raises more ques tions than it can an swer(Makkay 1990; Schier 1997; Brukner 2006; Horváth 2006;An ders & Paluch 2011). In gen eral it may be said that eachre gional unit (as a spa tially de fined en tity, e.-g. the GreatHun gar ian Plain) al ready pos sessed its own tem po ral dy -nam ics in the Early Neo lithic. Since when rel a tive chro nol -o gies were be ing de vel oped no a pri ori, ab so lute time scales were avail able, time was re con structed in ar chae ol ogy us ing in di rect meth ods in ar chae ol ogy in clud ing com par a tivestra tig ra phy and typology. It is sug gested here that theemer gence of the ALBK and Vinèa cul tures should be ex -plained in light of a polycentric model within the dis tri bu -tion area of the Körös and Starèevo cul tures. Even withinthis area one may see spe cial and di verse de vel op men talpro cesses within var i ous microregions, a num ber of which,at some point cul mi nated in su pra-re gional in te gra tion. This pos si bil ity, more pre cisely the ob ser va tion that the Vinèacul ture may have been formed around three or four foci hasalso been raised by John Chap man. In fact, the pos si bil ityhad also been con sid ered by János Makkay. In the end,how ever, evo lu tion from a sin gle cen tre be came the pre -ferred the ory (Chap man 1981, 33–39; Makkay 1982b,26–30). As may be con sid ered a gen eral phe nom e non in thede vel op ment of com plex sys tems, new char ac ter is tics of the sys tem may emerge that can not be me chan i cally de ducedfrom its in di vid ual com po nents. The var ie gated na ture ofthis com plex pro cess is oblit er ated by the gen er al iz ing term“Protovinèa”. It would be more de sir able to talk about theter mi nal phase of the Körös- and Starèevo cul tures northand south of the Maros River (An ders & Paluch 2011,16–17). Sty lis tic de vel op ments in one area ended up in theMid dle Neo lithic ALBK cul ture (to the north of the Maros),while in the south ern area de vel op ments gave rise to theVinèa cul ture.

Dur ing the 1980s, Nándor Kalicz thought the tri par titein ter nal chro nol ogy of the Körös cul ture was prob a bly jus ti -fied, al though he con sid ered only a few char ac ter is tics re li -able in de fin ing its early and late phases. In his opin ion, thema jor ity of known as sem blages come from its “clas si cal”

phase. Im por tantly, he al ready con sid ered the evo lu tion ofthe Neo lithic and Cop per Age in the Carpathian Ba sinwithin the frame work of ra dio met ric, ab so lute chro nol ogy(Kalicz 1985). In con nec tion with this stra te gic de vel op -ment it was of sym bolic sig nif i cance that the first ever sixra dio car bon dates by the Nu clear Re search In sti tute of theHun gar ian Acad emy of Sci ences in Debrecen were alsopub lished, re gard ing var i ous con texts of the Körös cul ture(Bognár-Kutzián & Csongor 1987, 135)

THE ROLE OF PLAYED BY THE KÖRÖSCUL TURE IN THE SPREADOF AG RI CUL TURE IN SOUTH-EASTEU ROPE – THE 1990s

Dur ing the sec ond half of the 1980s, sev eral syn the sestook aim at ques tions sur round ing neolithization in the Car-pathian Ba sin on a Eu ro pean scale. These in vari ably inclu-ded trea tises re gard ing the Körös cul ture. Alasdair Whit tlein cluded the dis tri bu tion of Körös set tle ments in the sur -round ings of the town of Dévaványa among his ex am ples of early ag ri cul tural com mu ni ties in south-east Eu rope (Whit -tle 1985, 55–58 and Fig. 3.12). Whit tle dated the time pe -riod of first farm ers to be tween 6000 and 4000 BC, a timein ter val ap par ently sup ported by ra dio met ric dates at thetime (Breunig 1987, 86. Abb. 149). Jan Lichardus andMarion Lichardus-Itten also stud ied the Körös cul turewithin a broader con text as one of the rep re sen ta tive cul -tures within the Balkano-Carpathic zone (Lichardus &Lichardus-Itten 1985, 245–250).

Re cent anal y ses of lithic finds from the Early and Mid -dle Neo lithic of the Carpathian Ba sin di rected in ter na tionalat ten tion to the im por tance of this class of artefacts (Kacza-nowska 1985; Bácskay & Simán 1987). The Neo lithic uti li -za tion of raw ma te ri als be came a cen tral ques tion in theCarpathian Ba sin as the ac qui si tion net works of lithic rawma te ri als be came one of the best mark ers of both re gionaland trans-re gional con tacts (T. Biró 1987; 1991).

A new di men sion opened in Eu ro pean pre his toric re -search with the in tro duc tion of the wave of ad vance model,whereby the spread of early farm ing was in ter preted as a“pop u la tion wave”. Sub se quently, demic dif fu sion was seen in con junc tion with the geo graph ical dis tri bu tion of cer tainge netic traits (Ammermann & Cavalli-Sforza 1984; Cavalli- Sforza et al. 1988). This com plex set of in ter pre ta tions wasfur ther en hanced in the model put for ward by Colin Ren-frew. He as so ci ated the spread of farm ing in Eu rope withthe ini tial dis persal of Indo-Eu ro pean lan guages from Ana-tolia (Renfrew 1987, 145–177). Fol low ing Gra ham Clark(Clark 1977, 121 and Fig. 55), one of his ar chae o log i cal ar -gu ments was the al most per fect mor pho log i cal cor re spon -dence be tween early stamp seals (pintaderas) from Anatolia and south-east ern Eu rope (Renfrew 1987, Fig. 7.8). Fromthe be gin ning, Renfrew’s com pre hen sive his tor i cal ex pla -na tion gen er ated con sid er able dis cus sion. Jour nals such asAn tiq uity, Cur rent An thro pol ogy and the Pro ceed ings of the Pre his toric So ci ety pub lished spe cial col umns on the de bate (An tiq uity: Chris to pher Ehret 1988; Marek Zvelebil andKamil V. Zvelebil 1988; An drew Sherratt and Su sanSherratt 1988; Cur rent Anthroplogy: Colin Renfrew 1988;


20

Da vid W. An thony and Ber nard Wailes 1988; Philip Baldi1988; Graeme Barker 1988; John E. Coleman 1988; EvženNeustupný 1988; An drew Sherratt 1988; Pro ceed ings of the Pre his toric So ci ety: Nor man Yoffee 1990). The topic hasbeen of great in ter est to ar chae ol o gists, ge net i cists, de mog -ra phers and lin guists alike, thereby gen er at ing a ma jor bodyof lit er a ture whose con tents even tu ally reached global pro -por tions (Ma jor re views: Renfrew 2000; Renfrew–Boyle2000; Cavalli-Sforza 2001; Bellwood–Renfrew eds. 2002;Pinhasi 2003; Pinhasi et al. 2005; Zvelebil 2005; Forster &Renfrew 2006; Bocquet-Ap pel & Bar-Yosef 2008;Bellwood 2008; Budja 2009; Pluciennik & Zvelebil 2008;Galeta & Bruzek 2009; Renfrew 2010; Soares et al. 2010).

Some what sur pris ingly, ev i dence of this schol arly fe ver that swept through Eu rope at the end of the 1980s is vir tu -ally miss ing from the ar chae o log i cal lit er a ture in Hun gary.This ap par ent in dif fer ence to such ar chae o log i cal ideas may also be ex plained in part by pre oc cu pa tion with emerg ingpo lit i cal changes fol lowed by ma jor struc tural changes inar chae ol ogy. The re main ing en thu si asm of Hun gar ian ar -chae ol o gists may also have been di verted by large-scale res -cue ex ca va tions that pre ceded the con struc tion of a motor -way net work across the coun try. At the same time, the pre -vi ously in ten sive in ter est in Körös cul ture re search alsoseems to have de clined. It was ex ca va tion of late neo lithictell set tle ments that be gan to oc cupy cen tral the stage in pre -his toric re search. Within the con text of this sum mary on re -search his tory it is par tic u larly in ter est ing that among ar -chae ol o gists, János Makkay was the only re searcher whocon tin ued to de vote at ten tion to the ar chae o log i cal as pectsof multi-fac eted Indo-Eu ro pean or i gins (sum ma rized inMakkay 1986; 1988; 1991; 1992; 1998).

Prob lems of cul tural and chro no log i cal de vel op mentsin the Early and Mid dle Neo lithic in the Tisza re gion weresum ma rized in Hun gar ian, with spe cial em pha sis on thewest bank set tle ment ex ca vated at Öcsöd-Kiritó. The lat estde vel op men tal phase of the Körös cul ture at this site wasrep re sented by new types, in clud ing carinated bowls andblack bur nished ware as well as sherds with in cised dec o ra -tion char ac ter is tic of the ALBK cul ture (Raczky 1988,28–29, Fig. 4–9). In ad di tion to Phases I–II–III of the Körös cul ture listed in the chro no log i cal chart of this pub li ca tion,Phase IV was also in cluded (re plac ing the pre vi ously usedProtovinèa Pe riod: Raczky 1988, Fig 37, chro no log i calchart). Nat u rally, this chro no log i cal sys tem re mained asspec u la tive as all pre vi ous schemes.

Pro ceed ings of the 1987 in ter na tional con fer ence or ga -nized in Szolnok and Szeged (Bökönyi ed. 1989) in cludedsev eral stud ies dis cuss ing de tails of the Early Neo lithic insouth- east ern Eu rope by Sándor Bökönyi, Milutin Garaša-nin, Milorad Giriæ, Ferenc Horváth, Janusz KrzysztofKoz³owski, Wal ter Meier-Arendt, Ivan Pavlù and OttóTrogmayer. In the same vol ume, the geo graph ical dis tri bu -tion of Early and Mid dle Neo lithic pot tery styles in theTisza Re gion was pre sented in a se ries of maps, clearlyshow ing the ter ri to rial bound aries of the Starèevo, Körös,and Criº cul tures. Spe cial em pha sis was laid on the tran si -tion be tween the Körös and ALBK cul tures (Raczky 1989,234–236, Fig. 1–9). The 1989 study by John Chap man onthe early Bal kan vil lage was of de ci sive im por tance re gard -

ing the set tle ment char ac ter is tics of the Körös-Starèevo. Hede fined set tle ment types of the First Tem per ate Neo lithicsuch as the farm stead, ham let and vil lage, as well as dif fer -ences be tween tell and hor i zon tal set tle ments on the ba sis of multi-fac eted in for ma tion in clud ing the anal y sis of met ricdata (Chap man 1989).

Ar chae o log i cal as pects of the Protovinèa prob lem havebeen dis cussed in the pro ceed ings of the 1988 con fer enceen ti tled “Vinèa and its World” or ga nized in Bel grade andSmederevska Palanka (Srejoviæ & Tasiæ eds. 1990). Mostau thors touched upon Protovinèa in re la tion to the for ma -tion of the Vinèa cul ture (Petroviæ 1990; Vetniæ 1990), al -though the topic was nat u rally rel e vant to sim i lar prob lemson the Great Hun gar ian Plain (Makkay 1990). Mean while itbe came ev i dent once again that the mean ing of the term“Protovinèa” dif fered be tween north ern Ser bia and theGreat Hun gar ian Plain.

Nándor Kalicz de voted an en tire mono graph to theStarèevo cul ture in Transdanubia. He iden ti fied 13 sites(Kalicz 1990) within its 6000 km2 es ti mated dis tri bu tion area (fall ing within the ter ri tory of pres ent-day Hun gary). Thisnum ber in it self may dem on strate the fun da men tal dif fer -ences be tween the set tle ment struc tures of the Starèevo andKörös cul tures that formed sep a rate blocks. In ten sive fieldsur veys have iden ti fied 300 sites over 2000 km2 in the KörösRiver re gion alone. Nev er the less, Kalicz wrote an en tirechap ter on the ar chae o log i cal ev i dence that sup ported thiscul tural dif fer ence (Kalicz 1990, 83–88). In ad di tion, hevoiced scep ti cism re gard ing the Starèevo type “pit dwell ing – zemunica” struc tures in the Bal kans (Kalicz 1990, 41–43).This time the dis tri bu tion of the Starèevo sites rep re sented acul tural ter ri tory lo cated ap prox i mately in the south ern partof Transdanubia. How ever, three years later, Lake Balatonap peared as the north ern most bor der in the dis tri bu tion mapsof the Starèevo cul ture (Kalicz 1993, Fig. 1–2, Fig. 14–15).

Eszter Bánffy con sid ered ques tions of cult and re latedar chae o log i cal con text in south-east Eu rope. She cited ex -am ples drawn from a broader pool of pre his toric cul tures in -clud ing the eval u a tion of sa cred per cep tions and rit ual prac -tices of the Körös and Starèevo cul tures (Bánffy 1991). Ines sence, this was a valu able ef fort to the mat i cally re viewthe shared ideo log i cal back ground of cul tural en ti ties thathad ex isted in the Bal kans at the time.

The LBK in cen tral Eu rope was re viewed within abroader Eu ro pean con text by Jens Lüning. In ac cor dancewith the prin ci ple of demic dif fu sion he ac corded spe cialsig nif i cance to the Körös–Starèevo cul tural sphere in theemer gence of the LBK cul ture (Lüning 1991, 33–37). Onthe ba sis of the nearly 1000 ar chae o log i cally doc u mentedhouses known from Cen tral Eu rope, many re search ers inGer many de fined the ba sic set tle ment mod ule within thephys i cal con text of “Haus und Hof = House and yard”(Boelicke 1982). These ba sic units were as so ci ated with ex -ter nal zones of daily ac tiv ity (Boelicke 1982; Lüning 1991,32, 68–70, 78–83). Lüning also came to the con clu sion thatLBK set tle ment in Cen tral Eu rope was not pri mar ily as so ci -ated with the banks of wa ter ways but rather with the dis tri -bu tion of ar a ble loess soils, not typ i cal of the en vi ron men talzones in hab ited by the Starèevo–Körös cul tures (Lüning1991, 49–53).


21

In his work en ti tled “At las du Néolithique Européen”,Nándor Kalicz pub lished a short sum mary of the most im -por tant ar chae o log i cal char ac ter is tics of the Körös,Starèevo and ALBK cul tures and re viewed the gen eral stateof re search (Kalicz 1993).

The so-called Microregion Re search Pro ject ini ti atedby the Ar chae o log i cal In sti tute of the Hun gar ian Acad emyof Sci ences, be gan near the vil lage of Gyomaendrõd in 1984 as a con tin u a tion of the na tional ar chae o log i cal sur vey pro -ject (“Ar chae o log i cal To pog ra phy of Hun gary”) in thesame re gion. The first mono graph re sult ing from the Mi cro- re gion Re search Pro ject was pub lished in 1992 (Bökönyied. 1992). It was in this vol ume that János Makkay pub -lished the re sults of his ex ca va tion at the Körös cul ture set -tle ment of Endrõd-Öregszõlõk 119 (Site No. 3/119 in MRT8; Makkay 1992). A rel a tively small set tle ment, oc cu py inga 70–75 m long and 40–50 m wide area, was com pletely ex -ca vated at this site. The re mains of two burnt houses mea -sur ing 10–12 m in length and 4–6 m in width were re cov -ered from the site. In ad di tion, large re fuse pits, ov ens, fireplaces, sac ri fi cial pits, and graves were found in the prox im -ity of houses. The find ma te rial was un usu ally rich. The rel -a tively few chipped artefacts re cov ered at the site were pub -lished by Elisabetta Starnini (Starnini 1995–96). Makkaysub-di vided the chro nol ogy of the set tle ment into two ba sicphases. These in cluded the early Körös phase, in di cated bywhite painted ware and the clas sic pe riod. These two phases would have cov ered most of the Körös cul ture. At the sametime, how ever, he es ti mated the set tle ment had ex isted forno more than four hu man gen er a tions at most, in sharp con -trast with the 500 years es ti mated for the Körös cul ture us -ing cal i brated ra dio car bon dates. To date, the an i mal boneas sem blage re cov ered from this site at 23,647 re mains is the larg est and most rep re sen ta tive of all Körös cul ture fau nalsam ples (Bökönyi 1992, 197–198). Cal cu lat ing the quan tity of meat con sump tion in light of hab i ta tion char ac ter is tics,Sándor Bökönyi also es ti mated the life span of the set tle -ment as 30–40 years, like wise ques tion ing the 500 yearscon ti nu ity of set tle ment. Bökönyi listed a num ber of pos si -ble ex pla na tions to re solve this ar chae o log i cal con tra dic tion (Bökönyi 1992, 235–239). Al though Makkay re peat edlytried to dis credit both al ter na tive ar gu ments by Bökönyi aswell as the en tire ra dio car bon method (Makkay 1996, 36and foot note 12), he could not come up with a co her ent ex -pla na tion ei ther. To day it is un der stood that that es ti matesof pop u la tion size and life span based sim ply on fau nal re -mains need to be treated with ex treme cau tion.

In his dis ser ta tion, Ferenc Horváth wrote a brief sum -mary of early neo lithic re search in the south ern part of theGreat Hun gar ian Plain. In his ac count he also pre sented re -sults of ex ca va tions at Pitvaros-Víztározó where the re -mains of 27 houses ar ranged in rows were re cov ered overan area of 6000 m2. The four su per im posed set tle ment lay -ers iden ti fied at the site could be in ter preted as rep re sent ingtwo ma jor phases of the Körös cul ture (clas sic and latephases). These would cor re spond to a time in ter val from ap -prox i mately 5550/5500–5450 BC in terms of ab so lute chro -nol ogy. Ferenc Horváth sub-di vided the en tire de vel op ment of the Körös cul ture into Phases I–IV (Horváth 1994,13–19).

In 1994, John Chap man drafted a rep re sen ta tive pic tureof the com plex or i gins of farm ing in south-east Eu rope andclearly de scribed the in di genes and diffusionist op tions rel -e vant to the prob lem. He also dis cussed char ac ter is tics ofthe Körös–Starèevo cul tures in the “Pannonian Ba sin” spe -cif i cally. He thought that res i den tial base mod ules in theTisza Re gion con sisted of clus ters made up of from 1–18set tle ments within the Körös cul ture in con trast to the sin gle place of oc cu pa tion best rep re sented by tell set tle ments(Chap man 1994, 141–144). Al though by this time Chap man was aware of the un pub lished mesolithic set tle ment ex ca va -tions con ducted by Róbert Kertész in the Jászság dis trict, he found the over all ab sence of late for ager sites in the GreatHun gar ian Plain con spic u ous (Chap man 1994, 143). Mean -while, he saw the or i gins of Eu ro pean ag ri cul ture within abroader con text, ex plain ing it within the frame work of thefarmer-for ager ex change model.

An in ter na tional con fer ence mostly de voted to neo lithic top ics was or ga nized in Nyíregyháza in 1993. The pro ceed -ings of this meet ing (Istvánovits ed. 1994) con tain sev eralar ti cles with dis cus sions of the Early and Mid dle Neo lithicof the Carpathian Ba sin (Chap man 1994; Horváth & Herte-lendi 1994; Kertész et al. 1994; Trogmayer 1994; Pavúk1994; Starnini 1994).

De ter min ing the ab so lute chro no log i cal bound aries ofthe Early Neo lithic in east ern Hun gary be came pos si ble by1995 on the ba sis of what was then a sig nif i cant num ber ofra dio met ric mea sure ments. The ex is tence of the Körös cul -ture could thus be es ti mated us ing 28 cal i brated dates span -ning a pe riod be tween 5860–5310 BC (Hertelendi et al.1995, 242, Fig. 2). This fur ther sup ported the 5715–5370BC in ter val es tab lished for the Körös cul ture by Rob ert W.Ehrich and H. Ar thur Bankoff a short time pre vi ously(Ehrich & Bankoff 1992, I/381, II/351–352). Ear lier chro -nol o gies by Ferenc Horváth and Ede Hertelendi of 6300–5300 BC (Phases I–IV) es ti mated for the Körös cul turecould like wise be re vised (Horváth & Hertelendi 1994,118). These re sults gave mo men tum to se rial ra dio car bonmea sure ments in di cat ing that the method had fi nally comeof age in ar chae o log i cal in ter pre ta tion in Hun gary.

The demic dif fu sion “leap-frog” model for the spreadof ag ri cul ture in Eu rope de vel oped by Tjeerd H. van Andeland Curtis N. Run nels con tained three ob ser va tions sup -port ing their his tor i cal the ory that were also rel e vant to there la tion ship be tween the lo cal Mesolithic and the Körös cul -ture in Hun gary:

“i. the con cen tra tion of Neo lithic set tle ment in ar eas ofGreece and the south east ern Bal kans that were onlysparsely oc cu pied by in dig e nous Mesolithic pop u la tions;

ii. the patch i ness of the set tle ment pat terns and;ii. the ob vi ous pref er ence of the im mi grants for flood-

plains of rivers and lakes.” (van Andel & Run nels 1995,481, 494).

Al most as a re ac tion to these an te ced ents in re searchhis tory, an ar chae o log i cal ex hi bi tion and re lated con fer ence en ti tled “From the Mesolithic to the Neo lithic” were or ga -nized in Szolnok in 1996. A small vol ume was pub lishedmark ing this oc ca sion (Tálas ed. 1996) con sist ing of twothe matic units. The first, deal ing with the Mesolithic, waswrit ten by Róbert Kertész (Kertész 1996), while the sec ond,


22

con cern ing the early neo lithic Körös cul ture was authoredby János Makkay (Makkay 1996). It was in this pub li ca tionthat Kertész drew the fi nal con clu sions from his ex ca va tions of the mesolithic sites at the sites of Jászberény I andJásztelek I as well as from field sur veys in the Jászság dis -trict (sum ma rized in: Kertész et al. 1994). In spite of hisschol arly ef forts, it is clear that nei ther the geo graph ical northe chro no log i cal dis tri bu tion of these mesolithic sites in di -cates that they could have been con nected with early 6th

mil len nium Körös cul ture sites in the Szolnok re gion (crit i -cally sum ma rized with re gard to south-east ern Eu rope in:Starnini 2000; Koz³owski 2005; Koz³owski & Nowak2007). In light of this time gap, it was clear that the meso-lithic cul tural com plex iden ti fied for the Jászság dis trictcould in no way have in ter acted with Körös cul ture groupsand could not have in flu enced the north ward ex pan sion ofthe lat ter. Al though the ti tle of the study by János Makkay in the same vol ume (The o ries about the or i gin, the dis tri bu tion and the end of the Körös cul ture) seems to in di cate that hehad ac cepted the in de pend ent na ture of the Körös cul ture,the work has a po lemic tone ar gu ing against the the sis ofNándor Kalicz about the ex is tence of cul tural dis tinc tions be -tween the Körös, Starèevo and Criê cul tures (Kalicz 1990).Al though Makkay con sis tently uti lized the KS (Körös–Starèevo) ter mi nol ogy (Makkay 1996, 35–36), in the samepa per he pub lished a ver i fied list of un pub lished Körös cul -ture sites. This in cluded over twenty lo ca tions and filled ama jor gap in Hun gar ian ar chae o log i cal in quiry at the time(Makkay 1996, 36 and foot note 5). Un for tu nately, dur ingthose years only two late Körös cul ture sites were fully pub -lished from the sur round ings of Dévaványa (Oravecz 1995;1997). This gave János Makkay an op por tu nity to re it er atehis views on the north ern most ex pan sion of the Körös cul -ture. As he saw it, the in hib it ing fac tor was the eth nic/lin guis -tic block formed by a hy po thet i cal mesolithic base pop u la tion in the north ern part of the Great Hun gar ian Plain (Makkay1996, 40–43). In ad di tion, he again de fended the term“Protovinèa” and rad i cally re jected any op po si tion to it(Makkay 1996, 44–46). In spite its po lem i cal as pects, thepro ceed ings of the 1996 Szolnok con fer ence (Kertész &Makkay eds. 2001) con tained sev eral im por tant pub li ca tions. Dur ing this pe riod the fo cal point of early neo lithic re searchshifted to ward the north ern part of the Great Hun gar ianPlain for an other, more mun dane, rea son: res cue ex ca va -tions pre ced ing the con struc tion of the M3 motor way cov -ered a dis tance of al most 175 km be tween 1993 and 1996.They of fered a unique op por tu nity for large sur face ex ca va -tions in the piedmont area of the North ern Hill Re gion inHun gary. It was at this time that the sites of Füzesa-bony-Gubakút (Domboróczki 1997) and Mezõkövesd-Mocsolyás (Kalicz & Koós 1997a) were first pub lished inthe form of cat a logues. Both stud ies pre sented large Szat-már II–early ALBK set tle ments along with their im pres sivefind as sem blages. The sys tem of houses built on the sur faceto gether with as so ci ated pits and sur round ing buri als wasac tu ally quite sim i lar to ex am ples known from Cen tral Eu -ro pean LBK set tle ments, em u lat ing their in ter nal struc ture.This rec og ni tion has been dis cussed in sev eral sub se quentpub li ca tions in the Eu ro pean ar chae o log i cal lit er a ture (sum -ma rized in: Domboróczki 2001a; 2001b; 2003; Kalicz &

Koós 1997b; 2000; 2002). In es sence, this phe nom e non in -di cated that by around 5600 BC a “ready made” cul ture ex -isted in the form of the LBK (Szatmár II) in the Up per TiszaRe gion that could not be ar chae o log i cally linked to any lo -cal an te ced ents. A ben e fi cial con se quence of in ten si fy ingre search in the north ern sec tion of the Great Hun gar ianPlain was that through co op er a tion with ar chae ol o gistsfrom Slovakia and Po land, re search into the early LBK andits po ten tial neo lithic an te ced ents in east ern Slovakia alsoyielded re spect able re sults (Koz³owski ed. 1997). Pál Sü-megi and Róbert Kertész de vel oped a new model to ex plainwhy Körös cul ture ex pan sion had ground to a halt in thenorth ern Great Hun gar ian Plain, ap prox i mately along theKunhegyes–Berettyóújfalu line. On the ba sis of the palaeo -geo graphi cal backround of the area they came up with con -cepts such as the Carpathian Ba sin Neo lithic Ad ap ta tionZone (CABAN AZ), Cen tral Eu ro pean-Balkanic Agro-Eco -log i cal Bar rier (CEB AEB), Carpathian PiedmontAgro-Eco log i cal Bar rier (CP AEB) and Carpathian Up landAgro-Eco log i cal Bar rier (CU AEB; sum ma rized in: Sümegi & Kertész 1998; Kertész & Sümegi 1999; 2001; Kertész2002; Sümegi 2007). In par tic u lar, it was the line of theagro-eco log i cal bar rier that seems to have co in cided withthe bound ary of Körös–Starèevo site dis tri bu tions in theCarpathian Ba sin. Over all, this model was strongly rem i nis -cent of the so-called eco-cul tural/sty lis tic zonation de vel -oped by Stefan K. Koz³owski for the Cen tral Eu ro peanMesolithic and Epipaleolithic (Koz³owski S. K. 2001). Acer tain de gree of en vi ron men tal de ter min ism is pal pa ble be -hind these mod els. This ap proach also de picted the thenorth ern sec tion of the Great Hun gar ian Plain as an “eco -log i cal trap” (Sümegi & Kertész 1998).

KÖRÖS CUL TURE RE SEARCH INTHE 21th CEN TURY – TO WARDS NEWSYN THE SES

Around the turn of the twenty-first cen tury, the de vel -op ment of early neo lithic re search in Hun gary took placeagainst the back ground of sev eral syn the ses of Eu ro pean di -men sions. Some of these pub li ca tions pro vided fresh in sight into the Early Neo lithic of the Carpathian Ba sin and theKörös cul ture spe cif i cally (Whit tle 1996; Kalicz 1998;Gronenborn 1999; Bailey 2000; Tringham 2000).

In a short study John Chap man raised an im por tant is -sue re gard ing the ar chae o log i cal in ter pre ta tion of “rub -bish”. He points to a better def i ni tion of “struc tured de po si -tion” (Chap man 2000, 347–351). In light of this con cep tualdif fer ence, large fea tures of the Körös cul ture pre vi ouslycon sid ered “re fuse pits” were eval u ated in a more sub tleman ner. Ques tions re gard ing the ob jects thus re cov ered, aswell as their pos si ble re use, have re vealed some im por tantso cial as pects of re cy cling.

By the be gin ning of the 2000s, prob lems of neolithi-zation in south-east ern Eu rope at tracted at ten tion on an al -most in ter na tional scale. This trend is re flected by sym bolicti tles given to ed ited vol umes such as “The Wid en ing De -bate” (Cunliffe, Davies & Renfrew eds, 2002), and “TheWid en ing Har vest” (Ammermann & Biagi eds, 2003). In


23

spite of this, the newly emerg ing men tal ity con cern ing thespa tial and tem po ral char ac ter is tics of cul tural en ti ties dur -ing the Early Neo lithic in South east ern Eu rope is best re -flected by the ti tle of a book writ ten on a slightly dif fer enttopic: “Par al lel tracks in time: Hu man evo lu tion and ar chae -ol ogy” (Foley 2002). A fun da men tally sim i lar model to the“leap frog” con cept was pro posed by Jean Guilaine in theearly years of 2000 (Guilaine 2001; 2007). This model,lbelled “arrhythmic dif fu sion” also pos tu lated a wave-likespread of ag ri cul ture across Eu rope, which in cer tain phases stag nated and changed the speed of dis tri bu tion. Par al lelwith the in ter rup tions in this punc tu ated diffusional pro cess, new ma te rial man i fes ta tions ap peared in the con text of there lated in ter face-zones. One of the stag na tion zones datedap prox i mately 5600 BC was iden ti fied ex actly on the north -ern fron tier of the Körös and Starèevo dis tri bu tions of theCarpathian Ba sin. The ac tive role played by wa ter ways inthe spread of ag ri cul ture across Eu rope has re cently beendis cussed in sev eral stud ies (Biagi, Shennan & Spataro2005; Davison et al. 2006, Bocquet-Ap pel et al. 2009).

From the view point of iden ti fy ing the or i gins of Köröscul ture hu man pop u la tions on the Great Hun gar ian Plain, itwas very im por tant to spell out that “…what ever their de -scent, they were in a real sense colo nis ers, since the areaseems to have been at best lit tle vis ited in the pre ced ing mil -len nia” (Whit tle 2003, 55), as pre vi ous opin ions ex pressedby Alasdair Whit tle had not been very much in fa vour of the colo nis ation model. Mean while, in stead of the closed sys -tem rep re sented by the rigid con cepts of struc ture, com mu -nity and ar chae o log i cal cul ture, Whit tle em pha sized a “net -work” based, open sys tem ap proach in the his tor i cal re con -struc tion of mesolithic-neo lithic re la tion ships. Within thiscon text, the hu man as pects of “habitus” and “nexus” playedde ci sive roles (Whit tle 2003, 19–21). Sim i larly to AlasdairWhit tle, John Chap man also con sid ered it im por tant to em -pha size the role of habitus, i. e. habitus-de fin ing prac tices in re la tion to the north ern bound ary of the Körös area of dis tri -bu tion, rather than sim ply re ly ing on the hy po thet i cal agro-eco log i cal bar rier (CEB AEB) ad vo cated by Pál Sümegiand Róbert Kertész. In other words, hu man fac tors ratherthan en vi ron ment alone were be ing in creas ingly con sid ered(Chap man 2003, 91–93). Sim i larly, the roles played bytrade and ex change and cer tain pat terns of con sump tionwere em pha sized by Nenad Tasiæ in his dis cus sion of thegeo graph ical dis tri bu tion of the Starèevo–Körös–Criº com -plex in re la tion to nat u ral sources of salt (Tasiæ 2000).Characteric burial prac tices ob served in the Early Neo lithicof the Carpathian Ba sin also de lin eate ter ri to ries united bycer tain norms of so cial be hav iour (Lichter 2003, 138, 148).

Fol low ing ear lier, rel a tively short sum ma ries con cern -ing the neolithization of Eu rope and its re la tion to mesoli-thic an te ced ents by Marion Lichardus-Itten and Jan Lichar-dus (2003) and Ron Pinhasi (2003), Silviane Scharl de voted an en tire vol ume in 2004 to sum ming up the hy poth e ses and ex plan a tory mod els of neolithisation most pop u lar at thetime (Scharl 2004).

Mean while, an other syn the sis of gen eral Eu ro pean in -ter est was ed ited to re view re search de vel op ments in theBal kans (Grammenos 2003). This sum ma rized work by agroup of young schol ars or ga nized by János Makkay. In this

vol ume, Makkay and his co-au thors pre sented the then cur -rent sit u a tion of pre his toric arcaheology in Hun gary(Makkay et al. 2003). Dis cus sion the Early Neo lithic was an im por tant part of this study. In the in tro duc tion, Makkay la -belled the CEB AEB model “unarchaeological” (Makkay2003a, 494–495), al though it was used in the pre ced ing the -matic chap ter on the Mesolithic in Hun gary by RóbertKertész there was a the o ret i cal ef fort to sup port the the sis(Kertész 2003, 494). In spite of the marked dif fer ence be -tween their opin ions both of them dis cussed a def i nite bor -der that di vided Mesolithic hunter-gath erer com plexes inthe north from the Early Neo lithic Körös–Starèevo cul turesto ward the south. In their in ter pre ta tion two dif fer ent pro -cesses char ac ter ized the two sides of this bor der. Mid dleneo lithic cul tures in the north ern sec tion of the Great Hun -gar ian Plain (ALBK) and Transdanubia (TLBK) sup pos -edly emerged from the na tive Late Mesolithic as a re sult ofthese pro cesses (Makkay 2003, 496). On the same page,Makkay re fers to the Starèevo cul ture in south-west ernHun gary as a “Transdanubian Körös vari ant” which issome what sur pris ing given the stern con sis tency by whichhe had pre vi ously used the term Körös–Starèevo (KS) in the in ter na tional lit er a ture (Makkay 2003a, 496).

By this time, László Domboróczki had come to the the -o ret i cal con clu sion that the ab sence of Mesolithic sites inthe Up per Tisza Re gion re flects a real sit u a tion. He alsonoted that the dis tri bu tion of the newly de vel op ing Mid dleNeo lithic Szatmár group over lapped with blocks of set tle -ment formed by the early Neo lithic Körös cul ture. He there -fore hy poth e sized that there ex isted some form of ge neticcon ti nu ity be tween the two sty lis tic en ti ties (Domboróczki2003, 37–43; 2005, 8–9). On the ba sis of this ob ser va tion he hy poth e sized that north ern sites of the Körös cul ture had not ceased to spread at the pro posed Kunhegyes–Berettyóújfalu line and that early Neo lithic set tle ments sim i lar to the site of Méhtelek were not lim ited to the re gion odefined by theSzamos–Kraszna–Túr–Ér Rivers in the north ern sec tion ofthe Great Hun gar ian Plain. In spired by these ideas, he be gan sys tem atic sur veys along the up per sec tion of the TiszaRiver in 2003 in search of an Early Neo lithic “miss inglink”. His field walks cov ered the river banks from the vil -lage of Kisköre down stream all the way to the mod ern set -tle ments of Rakamaz, Paszab and Ibrány (Domboróczki2005, 8–9; 2010a, 140–144; 2010b, 181–184; Dombo-róczki & Raczky 2010; Domboróczki in this vol ume).Dur ing his ex plo ra tions he iden ti fied sev eral prom is ingsites. One of these was Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta thathe be gan ex ca vat ing dur ing the sum mer of 2003, re cov er -ing rel a tively early fea tures of the Körös cul ture dated to5850– 5620 cal BC (Domboróczki 2004; 2005; 2010a,144–156; Domboróczki, Kaczanowska & Koz³owski2010). This dis cov ery has clearly dem on strated as early as2003 that the north ward ex pan sion of the Körös in theGreat Hun gar ian Plain did not stop at the lat i tude ofKunhegyes town.

In 2003, par al lel ing the programme ini ti ated by LászlóDomboróczki, small-scale ex ca va tions were also car ried out north of Szolnok ver i fy ing the presesence of a Körös cul ture site Nagykörû-Tsz gyümölcsös (Co op er a tive Or chard)known from pre vi ous field sur veys. In ter dis ci plin ary anal y -


24

ses of the find ma te rial from this site con trib uted valu ablegen eral in for ma tion con cern ing Körös cul ture set tle mentsthat were thought to oc cupy a fron tier po si tion in the north(Gulyás 2010; Moskal de Hoyo 2010; Raczky et al. 2010).They helped out line the opin ion that the closed set tle mentclus ter known from the south ern sec tion of the Great Hun -gar ian Plain was trans formed into a looser, mo saic-like set -tle ment net work north of Szolnok. This ob ser va tion con trib -uted to the idea that com mu ni ties rep re sented by the Köröscul ture as known in the south ern sec tion of the Great Hun -gar ian Plain and the north-east ern Méhtelek area, may havemet some where near the Tokaj piedmont area, as this vol ca -nic hill was an im por tant source vi tal ob sid ian re sources. Inthis model, safe ac cess to lithic re sources in the north wasseen as an im por tant in te grat ing fac tor be tween two geo -graph i cally dif fer ent forms of the early neo lithic cul tural as -sem blages. As a more gen eral in ter pre ta tion of this model, it may be as sumed that the for ma tion of a new Early Neo lithiccog ni tive sys tem was re lated to the land scape be yond thepre vi ously hy poth e sized con straints of the nat u ral en vi ron -ment. Within this con text the Up per Tisza val ley be tweenSzolnok and Méhtelek was de scribed as an eco log i cal-men -tal mar ginal zone (Raczky et al. 2010, 159–164), whichpro vided a cul tural en vi ron ment for the sub se quently de vel -op ing ALBK, but whose cul tural roots went back to the mo -saic-like con ver gence be tween the strands of Körös cul ture.This model bears ma jor re sem blance to the con cept of aNeo lithic Ad ap ta tion al Zone pro moted by Pál Sümegi andRóbert Kertész with the es sen tial dif fer ence that it does notre quire the solid eth nic ba sis of a lo cal Mesolithic pop u la -tion (Sümegi 2007). It was also of stra te gic im por tance thatcom ple men tary dis cov er ies at the sites of Domaháza andNagykörû con cern ing the an te ced ents of the ALBK cul turein the Tisza val ley could be pre sented to and dis cussed bythe in ter na tional com mu nity of prehistorians at the con fer -ence ti tled “Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas – The Spread of the Neo lithic to Cen tral Eu rope” (Gronenborn & Petrasch Hrsg. 2010) in Mainz, Ger many, dur ing 2005, al though there sults along with many rel e vant re ports be came avail ableto the pub lic only five years later (Domboróczki 2010b;Raczky et al. 2010). This cre ated a pe cu liar time warp in re -search his tory, as in the mean time the two vol ume mono -graph on the Brit ish-Hun gar ian joint pro ject of Ecsegfalva,was also pub lished (Whit tle ed. 2007), prior to the pre lim i -nary re port (Whit tle 2010) on this small but im por tant set -tle ment also lo cated on the north ern mar gins of the Köröscul ture dis tri bu tion area. Some other in ter est ing pa pers de -liv ered in Mainz like wise be came dated. They in cluded there search sum mary by Nándor Kalicz on the Starèevo cul ture in Transdanubia and an eval u a tion of the TransdanubianMesolithic by Wil liam J. Eichmann, Róbert Kertész andTibor Marton (Eichmann et. al. 2010; Kalicz 2010). TheMainz vol umes in clude sim i larly in for ma tive sum ma ries onthe emer gence of the LBK from a Cen tral Eu ro pean point of view (Bánffy & Oross 2010; Zvelebil, Lukes & Pettitt2010). At the Mainz con fer ence spe cial at ten tion was de -voted to paleoclimatic changes and the gen er ated com plexcul tural ef fects on the be gin ning of the Neo lithic in Eur asia.Among oth ers, the ice-rafted debries events (IRD events)BP and their ar chae o log i cal con se quences were con sid ered

fo cal prob lems in this con text (Gronenborn 2010; Clare,Jöris & Weninger 2010).

Par al lel with re search in the Tisza re gion, for ma tive ar -eas of early food pro duc tion were also in ves ti gated inTransdanubia. De fin ing the chro no log i cal and geo graph ical bound aries of the Early Neo lithic in this dif fer ent nat u ralen vi ron ment was sub stan tially helped by the de tailed andcom pre hen sive eval u a tion of the TLBK set tle ment ex ca -vated at Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb by Eszter Bánffy,who also made spe cial ef forts to em bed this new in for ma -tion within the con text of the de vel op ment of LBK in Eu -rope (Bánffy 2004).

An ex em plary case study was pub lished by Pál Sümegicon cern ing the mi cro-re gional en vi ron ment of a Körös cul -ture set tle ment of Tiszapüspöki-Karancspart-Háromág (Sü-megi 2004b). The first ever de tailed anal y sis of mus sel shell de pos its at this site was also pub lished (Gulyás & Sümegi2004), in spite of the fact that this type of zoo log i cal ev i -dence has been con sis tently men tioned in pre vi ous ex ca va -tion re ports. Es ti ma tions of food nu tri tional val ues showedthat al though fresh wa ter mus sels did not rep re sent a ma jorquan tity of an i mal pro tein, but may have been left be hindaf ter some so cial event such as feast ing (Gulyás & Sümegi2004, 42–44). This con clu sion as well as the ob ser va tionthat mus sel shell was dis cov ered in dis tinct lay ers at the siteagain pointed to the con cept of “struc tured de pos its” as hadbeen pre vi ously in di cated in cer tain Körös cul ture pits byJohn Chap man (2000).

Af ter a long hi a tus, Tibor Paluch was the first to pub lish new re sults from a Körös cul ture site in the Szeged re gion.He ex ca vated a small set tle ment with 13 fea tures at the siteof Hódmezõvásárhely-Laktanya (Paluch 2005). His pro jectin te grated some in ter dis ci plin ary as pects in clud ing phys i cal an thro pol ogy (K. Zoffmann 2005), an i mal hus bandry(Vörös 2005), plant re mains (Gyulai 2005) and the study ofwo ven and plaited fab rics (Rich ter 2005).

An other pro ceed ings, pub lished in 2006, was the out -come of the con fer ence “Cur rent Prob lems of the Tran si tion Pe riod from the Starèevo to the Vinèa cul ture” or ga nized in1996 (Vorgiæ & Brukner eds. 2006). In this vol ume sev eralau thors dis cussed the Starèevo–Vinèa tran si tion with spe -cial re gard to the crit i cal eval u a tion of the Protovinèa prob -lem (Brukner 2006; Draºovean 2006; Horváth 2006).

The in ter na tional con fer ence ti tled “A Short Walkthrough the Bal kans: the First Farm ers of the CarpathianBa sin and Ad ja cent Re gions” was held in Lon don in 2005.The pro ceed ings were pub lished in Trieste (Spataro & Biagi eds. 2007) con tained stud ies that con sid ered the topic froma Eu ro pean per spec tive. The key note study by John Nandris (Nandris 2007) de fined the men tal ity of the en tire vol umewith a ref er ence to “adap tive me di a tion in the FTN” in theti tle. In this set of pa pers Körös cul ture con nec tions weredis cussed within the con text of Transylvania and Banat re -gions be yond the mod ern bor ders of Hun gary (Draºovean2007; Luca & Suciu 2007; Biagi, Gratuze & Boucetta2007).

The spe cial ses sion ti tled “Mesolithic/Neo lithic In ter ac -tions in the Bal kans and in the Mid dle Dan ube Ba sin” or ga -nized dur ing the 2006 XVth World Con gress of the In ter na -tional Un ion of Pre his toric and Protohistoric Sci ences


25

(UISPP) in Lis bon, Por tu gal, yielded yet an other the maticvol ume. The pro ceed ings were pub lished in 2007 (Koz³ow-ski & Nowak eds. 2007). Due to the spe cial fo cus of themeet ing, em pha sis was laid on the dis tri bu tion of lithic rawma te ri als and tech no log i cal char ac ter is tics of lithic in dus -tries in the Carpathian Ba sin (T. Biró 2007; Koz³owski &Nowak 2007). The study of spe cial sources has been closely linked with prob lems of neolithization in the Up per TiszaRe gion. Study ing the net work of con nec tions and their geo -graph ical as pects have pro vided a far more re li able ba sis for Early Neo lithic re search than the study of ce ramic findsalone (Kozlowski & Nowak 2007, 87–88 and Fig. 7.17).

This trend in in ves ti gat ing neolithization in the Up perTisza Re gion was con tin ued in a study by Ma³gorzataKaczanowska and Janusz K. Koz³owski (Kaczanowska &Kozlowski 2008) pub lished in the pro ceed ings of the col lo -quium “The Carpathian Ba sin and its Role in the Neolithi-sation of the Bal kan Pen in sula” (Luca ed. 2008). They iden -ti fied the most im por tant dif fer ence be tween Körös cul turecom mu ni ties in the south and those rep re sented by theMéhtelek as sem blage in ad di tion to the ab so lute dom i nanceof ob sid ian, the lat ter set tle ment also yielded con clu sive ev -i dence of on-site lithic pro duc tion. Lithic as sem blages fromsouth ern sites of the First Tem per ate Neo lithic, on the otherhand, were char ac ter ized by over whelm ingly higher ra tiosof “Banat” or “Bal kan” flint par al leled with a con sis tentlylow pro por tion or even ab sence of cores (Kaczanowska &Koz³owski 2008, 12–16). This may be in ter preted as a clearsign of rad i cally dif fer ent at ti tudes to lithic raw ma te ri alsdur ing the Early Neo lithic be tween the north ern and south -ern sec tions of the Tisza River val ley. They also found it im -por tant to em pha size that in their view the north ern ex tent of the Méhtelek fa cies was ba si cally de ter mined by the cog ni -tive as pect of di rect and se cure ac cess to lithic sources (es -pe cially those of ob sid ian) rather than by some sort of a me -di at ing role played by lo cal Mesolithic com mu ni ties in theprovisioning of these raw ma te ri als (Mateiciucová 2007,712–716, Fig. 31.10). They saw clear ev i dence that pre vi -ously known Méhtelek type sites in the Transcarpathian re -gion (Potushniak 2004; 2005) could be di rectly linked to re -cently dis cov ered re sources of Type 3 Carpathian ob sid ianin the area be tween Rokosovo and Maly Rakovec in theUkraine (sum ma rized in: Rosania at al. 2008; Mester &Rácz 2010). The same at ti tude to lithic raw ma te ri als couldalso be ob served north of Lake Balaton in Hun gary at theStarèevo cul ture site of Tihany-Apáti, where set tle ment may be in ter preted as a di rect con se quence of easy ac cess toSzentgál type radiolarite (Regenye 2007; 2010). Nat u rally,while the mech a nisms by which neolithization spread in theGreat Hun gar ian Plain and Transdanubia may be con sid -ered dif fer ent, early neo lithic com mu ni ties in this broaderre gion may have shared cer tain con cerns such as ac cess tosalt and a va ri ety of other raw ma te ri als (Bánffy 2008, 160–162).

A dis tri bu tion map and lit er ary re view sum ma riz ing the state of re search con cern ing the geo graph ical dis tri bu tion of the Körös and Starèevo cul tures around 2000 was pub lished in 2007 (Raczky & Kalicz 2007, 237, Karte 9a–9b). Fieldwalk ing car ried out by Katalin Kovács be tween Szolnokand Nagykörû ver i fied and doc u mented sev eral Körös cul -

ture set tle ments in the area (Kovács 2007), and was fun da -men tal in de vel op ing knowl edge at the time.

The in ter na tional con fer ence ti tled “(un)set tling theNeo lithic” was or ga nized in Car diff, UK, in 2003. The firstvol ume of the pro ceed ings was pub lished un der the same ti -tle in 2005 (Bailey, Whit tle & Cummings eds. 2005). Thesec ond, ti tled “Liv ing well to gether?” fol lowed in 2008(Bailey, Whit tle & Hofmann eds. 2008). The first vol umecon tained an archaeozoological re view of the Neo lithic in -clud ing rel e vant his tor i cal as pects of the Körös cul ture inthe Carpathian Ba sin (Bartosiewicz 2005, 54–56). Mean -while Alasdair Whit tle drafted a lived ex pe ri ence model ofthe Early Neo lithic in the Great Hun gar ian Plain (Whit tle2005, 67–68, Fig. 7.1). Think ing along these lines it be -comes ev i dent that palaeodemographics, i.e. the size ofearly neo lithic hu man pop u la tions de ter mined the num berof agen cies and the qual ity of their net work. Their de vel op -ments, how ever, can not be traced back di rectly to traits of alargely un known Mesolithic net work. In vol ume 2, Elisa-betta Starnini pub lished an archaeometric study of earlyneo lithic pot tery pro duc tion in the Carpathian Ba sin (Star-nini 2008). A sim i lar ap proach is shown by re search car riedout in Transylvania by Michela Spataro (Spataro 2011).Some pa pers dis cuss ing archaeobotanical and archaeozoo-log i cal ev i dence con cerned Körös cul ture en vi ron ments aswell (Green field & Jongsma 2008; Bogaard & Bend ing2008). John Chap man pre sented a sum mary of Neo lithicset tle ment his tory in South east ern Eu rope. Dis tin guish ingbe tween “pit-sites” and “house-sites” is par tic u larly in ter -est ing with re gard to the Körös cul ture (Chap man 2008,76–79) rais ing a num ber of im por tant re lated ques tions. Athe mat i cally sim i lar study was pub lished by Dušan Boriæ,who re viewed re la tion ships be tween the con cepts of thephys i cal house (house hold clus ter) and the house hold as aso cial unit in Bal kan pre his tory (Boriæ 2008). His the o ret i -cal and meth od olog i cal state ments were pre sented with ref -er ence to con crete ar chae o log i cal ex am ples (Jongsma &Green field 2003). The ti tle of this chap ter, “Elu sive Housesand Shift ing Places: Starèevo-Körös-Criº Pot tery Com -plexes” clearly ex presses the es sence of the prob lem (Boriæ2008).

A con fer ence was held at Harward Uni ver sity about theprob lem of neo lithic de mo graphic tran si tion in 2006.Among other sub jects, new ev i dence was dis cussed con -cern ing the links be tween de mog ra phy and cul tural change(Bocquet-Ap pel & Bar-Yosef eds. 2008). A very im por tanttheme of the stud ies pre sented there could be sum ma rised as fol lows: with the in crease in pop u la tion new net work sys -tems ap peared dur ing the Neo lithic. This log i cally hints atthe o ret i cal prob lems with the con ti nu ity and con nec tion be -tween Mesolithic and Neo lithic net work sys tems. This isalso rel e vant to the sup posed con ti nu ity be tween mesolithicand neo lithic pro cure ment sys tems in the Early Neo lithic ofthe Carpathian Ba sin.

The great re search sum mary by János Makkay was pub -lished in 2007. It con tained the re sults of in ten sive field sur -veys and ex ca va tions he had car ried out in the Szarvas mi -cro- re gion and the Körös River val ley be tween 1974 and1989. The chap ter was ac tu ally the pub li ca tion of 11 set tle -ment ex ca va tions con ducted on the out skirts of Szarvas,


26

Endrõd and Battonya (Makkay 2007). In ad di tion, re searchre ports con cern ing the Early and Mid dle Neo lithic sites ofMéhtelek-Nádas, Furta-Csátó and Tiszacsege-Homokbánya were ap pended to the re view, sites the au thor had been pre -vi ously study ing in co op er a tion with Nándor Kalicz.Makkay’s 2007 work (Vol ume I) con tains the de scrip tionsof ex ca va tions, stratigraphies, set tle ment struc tures, sa cralfea tures and graves. Rel e vant in ter dis ci plin ary con tri bu -tions (Kaczanowska & Koz³owski 2007; Paluch 2007; Pap2007) were pub lished as Ap pen dix I–III in the same vol -ume. Un doubt edly, this col lec tion of pa pers is a great con -tri bu tion to pre his toric re search in Hun gary sum ma riz ingre sults the au thor had ac cu mu lated through de cades of tre -men dous work. It may be re garded as a new, twenty-firstcen tury foun da tion source for the Körös cul ture. Mean while highly per sonal com ments in the text are as un wor thy ofJános Makkay as they are of the en tire tone of pre his toricdis course in Hun gary (Makkay 2007, 9–16). In parts of thisvol ume Makkay re it er ates his old the ses, in clud ing theProtovinèa prob lem (Makkay 2007, 206), ques tions con -cern ing the Agroecological Bar rier, “pop u la tion bar rier”and the lo cal Mesolithic (Makkay 2007, 199–200, 231–234), as well as the fron tier in the Jászság dis trict (Makkay2007, 234–236). This rep er toire is ex panded with the in clu -sion of the the ory of the so-called “Dimini-Wanderung”(Makkay 2007, 235–236). His re jec tion of the ra dio car bonmethod in dat ing the Körös cul ture is based on ex am plestaken from Cop per Age ma te ri als, a prop o si tion ques tion -able from a meth od olog i cal as pect. The fun da men tals con -sid ered safe from his point of view are il lus trated by the fol -low ing sen tence: “If we hy poth es ise that one com mu nityused a cem e tery dur ing two burial phases, al though at pres -ent we do not have any proof, then we have to con clude thatthe lon gest pos si ble life span of the Tiszapolgár Cul ture wasat most 150–200 years.” (Makkay 2007, 217).

In 2008 the se quel to the 2007 Körös cul ture syn the siswas pub lished by János Makkay alone in a large, sin gle vol -ume (Makkay & Starnini 2008). Within the con text of pre -vi ously pub lished ex ca va tions he co-authored the re sults ofjoint re search with Elisabetta Starnini un der the ti tles “Thepot tery as sem blages” (Vol. II) and “The small finds” (Vol.III) (Makkay & Starnini 2008). In the fore word of his bookMakkay states cor rectly that the 537 re con structed Köröscul ture ves sels rep re sent the great est as sem blage of thesouth-east Eu ro pean Early Neo lithic. How ever, no quan ti ta -tive in for ma tion was pub lished con cern ing the orig i nal sizeof the ce ramic as sem blages from which the dis cussed ves -sels were drawn, i. e. it is im pos si ble to ap praise the rep re -sen ta tive value of the ma te rial pre sented. More over, the nu -mer i cal dis tri bu tion of var i ous forms and dec o ra tive mo tifsat the sites in ques tion re mains like wise un known. Be yondthis, how ever, the schol arly tone of the fore word turns into a far less pro fes sional ap praisal of the “ac a demic qual i fi ca -tion” of Elisabetta Starnini and the for mer ed i tor PaoloBiagi. It is a sad and em bar rass ing nar ra tive in deed. The po -lemic tone and com bat ive style of some re marks con cern ing rel e vant ar chae o log i cal com ments made by Eszter Bánffy,László Domboróczki, Katalin Kovács and Pál Sümegi arelike wise alien to con ven tion ally ac cepted norms of schol -arly rea son ing (Makkay 2008).

Fol low ing the suc cess of ex ca vat ing the Körös cul tureset tle ment at Tiszaszõlõs, László Domboróczki re vis ited the site of Ibrány-Nagyerdõ lo cated across from Tokaj Hill onthe bank of the Tisza River. Be tween 2004 and 2008 sev eral sur veys were car ried out in the lo ca tion that ap par entlyyielded early neo lithic finds. Fol low ing in ten sive sur vey,ex ca va tions be gan at this site in 2008 (Domboróczki &Raczky 2010, 191–207). Ce ramic finds brought to light atthe site show sim i lar i ties with pot tery from Méhtelek. Atime over lap be tween the two sites could also be es tab lished (Ibrány: 5620–5470 cal BC, Méhtelek: 5770–5530 cal BC).These re sults seem to sup port the o ries con cern ing the ex -pan sion of the Körös cul ture to ward Tokaj Hill in the northfrom the Up per Tisza Re gion. This means that while pre vi -ous ex ca va tions at the sites of Nagykörû, Kõtelek andTiszaszõlõs had in di cated Körös cul ture pop u la tions cross -ing the Agroecological Bar rier from the south, the site ofIbrány il lus trated the pos si ble ar rival of Körös groups fromthe north-east (Domboróczki & Raczky 2010, Fig 1). Thismay be in ter preted as the first ar chae o log i cal ev i dence oftwo Körös cul ture pop u la tions of pos si bly dif fer ent or i ginsmov ing north in the Great Hun gar ian Plain. Con se quently,the role of a hy poth e sized Mesolithic pop u la tion as a “de -mo graphic bar rier” in the re gion be came al to gether ques -tion able. The sin gle large Körös cul ture pit ex ca vated atIbrány turned out to have been a very rich source of archa-eobotanical finds (Gyulai 2010). Mean while the archaeo-zoo log i cal as sem blage showed char ac ter is tics of a “pe riph -eral” set tle ment. Thanks to the avail abil ity of wa ter-sievedsam ples – pre vi ously only stud ied at Ecsegfalva 23 in Hun -gary – the Ibrány ma te rial showed signs of tar geted fowl ing and pos si ble ac tive fish ing in ad di tion to the low pro por tionof do mes ti cates within the small set of mam ma lian bones(Kovács, Gál & Bartosiewicz 2010). The lithic raw ma te ri -als and the struc ture of the tech no log i cal groups in Ibrány-Nagyerdõ re sem ble those of Méhtelelek-Nádas and Ecseg-falva (Kaczanowska & Koz³owski 2010). The techno-func -tional anal y sis of Early Neo lithic ce ramic tra di tions innorth-east Hun gary re vealed con sid er able vari abil ity in pot -tery pro duc tion (Kreiter 2010). Re sults of the ex ca va tions at Ibrány also dem on strate how the multi-fac eted anal y sis of asin gle fea ture may con trib ute so phis ti cated new as pects tohis tor i cal in ter pre ta tion in pre his toric ar chae ol ogy. Ide ally,they may also en cour age ex plor ing new av e nues of EarlyNeo lithic in quiry in Hun gary.

The most re cent sum mary of Early Neo lithic re searchwas pre sented within the frame work of the con fer ence ti tled “Neolithization of the Carpathian Ba sin: North ern most Dis -tri bu tion of the Starèevo/Körös Cul ture” or ga nized in Bu da -pest dur ing 2009 whose pro ceed ings con tain ing 19 stud ieswere pub lished in 2010 (Kozlowski & Raczky eds. 2010).This col lec tion of pa pers rep re sents the cur rent state inKörös cul ture re search his tory. Ini tial tem po ral anal y ses ofthe Körös–Starèevo cul ture were first com ple mented by ageo graph ical (space ori ented) ap proach rep re sented by con -cepts of a “bound ary/bar rier”. Thanks to the re fine ment ofab so lute chro nol o gies, these fun da men tals have re centlyevolved to ward an in te grated spa tial/tem po ral frame work.

Re search ques tions con cern ing the Körös–Starèevocul ture in the Carpathian Ba sin form an in te gral part of the


27

broader, Eu ro pean sce nario. They are in sep a ra bly re lated tothe emer gence and spread of food pro duc tion as well as lin -guis tic and ge netic prob lems in pre his toric ar chae ol ogy.Shared in ter dis ci plin ary and in ter na tional fora for con tin u -ous com mu ni ca tion are in dis pens able in deal ing with theseprob lems on a con ti nen tal scale. From this point of view theac a demic work shop or ga nized by Mihael Budja, rep re -sented by the se ries Documenta Prehistorica (Ljubljana,Slovenia) is of out stand ing im por tance. Dur ing re centyears, reg u lar meet ings at this fo rum have be come the scenefor the con tin u ous re-eval u a tion of in ter na tional re searchdata. Con fer ences and con com i tant pro ceed ings of the or ga -ni za tion “The For ma tion of Eu rope: Pre his toric Pop u la tionDy nam ics and the Roots of Socio-Cul tural Di ver sity”(FEPRE) or ga nized by Janusz K. Koz³owski ful fil a sim i larmis sion.

This re view of twen ti eth and twenty-first cen tury Körös cul ture re search his tory aimed at pre sent ing the broadercon text of the most sig nif i cant ar chae o log i cal re sults fromthe Carpathian Ba sin. The way ma jor in tel lec tual trends inEu ro pean ar chae ol ogy in in ter ac tion with lo cally de vel opedideas in flu enced this re search is clear. How ever, not eventhis com pre hen sive re view could have ac com mo dated allthe re sults, pub li ca tions and opin ions and their all-in clu sivesyn the sis. The way ma jor schools of thought were pre sented in their ar chae o log i cal en vi ron ments is ad mit tedly sub jec -tive. I could not help be ing in flu enced by de cades of per -sonal ex pe ri ence in volv ing both early neo lithic sources inHun gary and – not least – the per son al i ties work ing withthem.

REF ER ENCESAmmerman A. J. & Cavalli-Sforza L. L. 1971. Mea sur ing the rate

of spread of early farm ing in Eu rope. Man 6, 674–688.Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1973. A pop u la tion model for the

diffusion of early farm ing in Eu rope. In Renfrew C. (ed.), Theex pla na tion of cul ture change. Lon don, 343-357.

Ammerman A. J. & Cavalli-Sforza L. L. 1984. The Neo lithic tran -si tion and the ge net ics of pop u la tions in Eu rope. Prince ton.

Ammermann A. A. & Biagi P. 2003. (eds), The Wid en ing Har vest. The Neo lithic Tran si tion in Eu rope: Look ing back, Look ingForward. (= Col lo quia and Conferencs Pa pers 6). Boston.

An ders A. & Paluch T. 2011. A Körös-kultúra fiatalabb idõsza-kának települése Mindszent határában – Siedlung aus der jün-geren Periode der Körös-Kul tur in der Gemarkung von Mind-szent. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve–Studia Archaeologica12, 15–29.

An thony D. W. & Wailes B. 1988. Re view (Renfrew C.: Ar chae -ol ogy and lan guage. The Puz zle of Indo-Europen Or i gins).Current An thro pol ogy 29, 441–445.

Arandjeloviæ-Garašanin D. 1954. Starèevaèka kultura. UniverzitaArheološki Sem i nar. Ljubljana.

Bácskay E. 1976. Early Neo lithic chipped stone im ple ments inHungary. (= Dissertationes Archaeologicae ex InstitutoArchaeologico Universitatis de Ro lando Eötvös nominataeIV/2). Bu da pest.

Bácskay E. & Simán K. 1987. Some re marks on chipped stone in -dus tries of the ear li est Neo lithic pop u la tions in pres ent Hun -gary. In Koz³owski J. K. & Koz³owski St. K. (eds.), ChippedStone In dus tries of the Early Farm ing Cul tures in Eu rope. (=Archaeologia Interregionalis). Kraków, 107–130.

Bader T. 1968. Despre figurinele antropomorfe în cadrul culturii

Criº – Beiträge zur Kentniss anthropomorpher Figurinen ausder Criº-Kul tur. Acta Musei Napocensis 5, 381-388.

Bailey D. 2000. Bal kan Pre his tory. Ex clu sion, In cor po ra tion andIden tity. Lon don.

Bailey D., Whit tle A. & Cummings V. 2005. (eds.), (un)set tlingthe Neo lithic. Ox ford.

Bailey D. W., Whit tle A. & Hofmann D. 2008. (eds.), Liv ing WellTo gether? Set tle ment and ma te ri al ity in the Neo lithic of south- east and cen tral Eu rope. Ox ford.

Balahuri E. 1975. B`j`crohh F. A. Ippjedmb`lh~ òtemjmchvepiht n`k~qlhimb Hìòn`qy~ g` cmdz pmbeqpimÐ bj`pqh – Untersuchung archäologischer Fundstellen in der karpato-ukraine in den Jahren der Sowjetmacht. Slovenská Archeo-lógia 23, 261–282.

Baldi P. 1988. Re view (Renfrew C.: Ar chae ol ogy and lan guage.The Puz zle of Indo-Europen or i gins). Cur rent An thro pol ogy29, 445–449.

Bánffy E. 1991. Cult and Ar chae o log i cal Con text in Cen tral- andSouth-East ern Eu rope in the Neo lithic and the Calcolithic.Mitteilungen des Archäologischen In sti tutes der UngarischenAkademie der Wissenschaften 19–20 (1990–1991), 183–249.

Bánffy E. 2004. The 6th Mil len nium BC Bound ary in West ernTransdanubia and its role in the Cen tral Eu ro pean Neo lithicTran si tion. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 15). Bu da pest.

Bánffy E. 2008. The bound ary in west ern Transdanubia: vari a -tions of mi gra tion and adaptatioen. In Bailey, Whit tle & Hof-mann 2008 (eds), 160–162.

Bánffy E. & Oross K. 2010. The ear li est and ear lier phase of theLBK in Transdanubia. In Gronenborn & Petrasch 2010 (eds),255–272.

Ban ner J. 1929. Adatok a körömmel díszített edények kronológiá-jához – Beiträge zur Chronologie der Nagelgeritzten Gefässe.Archaeologiai Értesítõ 43, 23–34, 322–323.

Ban ner J. 1932. A kopáncsi és kotacparti neolithikus telepek és atiszai-kultúra III. periodusa – Die neolithische Ansiedlungvon Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs und Kotacpart und die III.Periode der Theiss-Kul tur. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudománye-gyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 8, 1–48.

Ban ner J. 1934. Ásatás a hódmezõvásárhelyi Kotacparton – Aus-grabung am Kotacpart bei Hódmezõvásárhely. Dolgozatok aMag yar Királyi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intéze-tébõl 9–10 (1933–1934), 54–84.

Ban ner J. 1935. Ásatás a hódmezõvásárhelyi Kotacparton – Aus-grabungen zu Kotacpart bei Hódmezõvásárhely. Dolgozatok aSzegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 11,97–125.

Ban ner J. 1936. Régészeti kutatások Szegeden. Dolgozatok aSzegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 12,267–285.

Ban ner J. 1937. Die Ethnologie der Körös-Kul tur. Dolgozatok aSzegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 13,32–49.

Ban ner J. 1940. Régészeti kutatások Békés megyében. Gyula.

Ban ner J. 1942. Das Tisza-, Maros-, Kõrös-Gebiet bis zur Ent-wicklung der Bronzezeit. Szeged.

Ban ner J. 1954. Funde der Körös-Kul tur von Hódmezõvásárhely-Bodzáspart. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hun- garicae 4, 1–7.

Ban ner J. 1961. Einige Probleme der ungarischen Neolitfor-schung. In Böhm J. & De Laet S. J. (eds), L’Europe ´ la fin del’âge de la pi erre. Prague, 205–219.

Ban ner J. & Párducz M. 1948. Újabb adatok Dél-Magyarországújabb-kõkorához – Con tri bu tions nouvelles a l’histoire duNéolitique en Hongrie. Archaeologiai Értesítõ III/7–9(1946–1948), 19–41.


28

Barker G. 1988. Re view (Renfrew C.: Ar chae ol ogy and lan guage.The Puz zle of Indo-Europen Or i gins). Cur rent An thro pol ogy29, 448–449.

Bartosiewicz L. 2005. Plain talk: an i mals, en vi ron ment and cul -ture in the Neo lithic of the Carpathian Ba sin and ad ja cent ar -eas. In Bailey, Whit tle & Cummings 2005, 51–63.

Bellwood P. 2008. Ar chae ol ogy and the Or i gins of Lan guageFam i lies. In Bentley R. A., Maschner H. D. G. & ChippindaleC. (eds), Hand book of Ar chae o log i cal The o ries. Lanham,225–243.

Bellwood P. & Renfrew C. 2002. (eds), Ex am in ing the farm -ing/lan guage dis persal hy poth e sis. (= Mc Don ald Insitute forAr chae o log i cal Re search) Cam bridge.

Berciu D. 1961. Contribuþii la problemele neoliticului in Ro ma niain lu mina noilor cercetari. Bucureºti.

Biagi P., Shennan St. & Spataro M. 2005. Rapid rivers and slowseas? New data for the ra dio car bon chro nol ogy of the Bal kanpen in sula. In Nikolova L., Fritz J. & Hig gins J. (eds), Pre his -toric Ar chae ol ogy & An thro po log i cal The ory and Ed u ca tion.(= Re ports of Pre his toric Re search Pro jects 6–7). Salt LakeCity–Karlovo, 41–50.

Biagi P., Gratuze B. & Boucetta S. 2007. New data on the ar chae o -log i cal ob sid ians from the Banat and Transilvania (Ro ma nia).In Spataro & Biagi 2007 (eds), 129–141.

T. Biró K. 1987. Chipped stone in dus try of the Linearband Pot teryCul ture in Hun gary. In Koz³owski J. K. & Koz³owski St. K.(eds.), Chipped Stone In dus tries of the early Farm ing Cul tures in Eu rope. Archaeologia Interregionalis, Kraków, 131–167.

T. Biró K. 1991. The prob lem of con ti nu ity in the pre his toric uti li -za tion of raw ma te ri als. Antaeus 19–20, 41–50, 335–339.

T. Biró K. 2007. Early Neo lithic raw ma te rial econ o mies in theCarpathian Ba sin. In Koz³owski & Nowak 2007 (eds), 63–75.

Bocquet-Ap pel J.-P. & Bar-Yosef O. 2008. (eds), The Neo lithicDe mo graphic Tran si tion and its Con se quences. Springer.

Bocquet-Ap pel J.-P., Naji St., Lin den V. M. & Koz³owski J. K.2009. De tec tion of dif fu sion and con tact zones of early farm -ing in Eu rope from the space-time dis tri bu tion of 14C dates.Jour nal of Ar chae o log i cal Sci ence 36, 807–820.

Boelicke U. 1982. Gruben und Häuser. Untersuchungen zurStruktur bandkeramischer Hofplätze. In Chropovský, B.(Hrsg.) Siedlungen der Kul tur mit Linearkeramik. Nitra 1982,17–28.

Bogaard A. & Bend ing, J. 2008. Crop hus bandry and its so cial sig -nif i cance in the Körös and LBK. In Bailey, Whit tle &Hofmann 2008 (eds), 131–138.

Bognár-Kutzián I. & Csongor É. 1987. New re sults of ra dio car bon dat ing of ar chae o log i cal finds in Hun gary. In Pécsi M. &Kordos L. (eds), Ho lo cene en vi ron ment in Hun gary. Bu da -pest, 131–140.

Bökönyi S. 1954. Eine Pleistozän-Eselart im Neolithikum derUngarischen Tiefebene. Acta Archaeologica AcademiaeScientiarum Hungaricae 4, 9–24.

Bökönyi S. 1971. The De vel op ment and His tory of Do mes tic An i -mals in Hun gary. The Neo lithic through the Mid dle Ages.Amer i can An thro pol o gist 73, 640–674.

Bökönyi S. 1974. His tory of do mes tic Mam mals in Cen tral andeast ern Europa. Bu da pest.

Bökönyi S. 1989. (ed.), Neo lithic of South east ern Europa and itsNear East ern Con nec tions. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2). Bu da pest.

Bökönyi S. 1992. (ed.), Cul tural and land scape changes insouth-east Hun gary I. Re ports on the Gyomaendrõd Pro ject (= Archaeolingua Main Se ries 1). Bu da pest.

Bökönyi S. 1992. The Early Neo lithic ver te brate fauna of Endrõd119. In Bökönyi 1992 (eds), 195–299.

Bóna I. 1986. A neolitikum kezdetei Szatmárban. In Németh P.(ed.), Régészeti tanulmányok Kelet-Magyarországról 24, (=Folklór és Etnográfia 24). Debrecen, 61–67.

Boriæ D. 2008. First House holds and ‘House So ci et ies’ in Eu ro -pean Pre his tory. In Jones A. (ed.), Pre his toric Eu rope. The oryand Prac tice. (= Blackwell stud ies in global ar chae ol ogy 12).Malden, 109–142.

Breunig P. 1987. 14C-Chronologie des vorderasiatischen, südost-und mitteleuropäischen Neolithikums. Köln–Wien.

Brukner B. 1966. Einige Fragen über die Verhhältnisse der Star-èevo und Körös Gruppe. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica 10, 7– 10.

Brukner B. 1974. Rani neolit – The early Neo lithic pe riod. InBrukner B., Jovanoviæ B. & Tasiæ N.: Praistorija Vojvodine.Novi Sad, 29–68, 427–433.

Brukner B. 2006. A con tri bu tion to the study of es tab lish ment ofeth nic and cul tural (dis)con ti nu ity at the tran si tion from theStarèevo to the Vinèa cul ture group. In Vorgiæ, B. & Brukner,B. (eds), Problemi prelaznog perioda starèevaèke u vinèaskukulturu – Cur rent prob lems of the tran si tion pe riod fromStarèevo to Vinèa cul ture. Zrenjanin, 165–178.

Budja M. 2001. The tran si tion to farm ing in South east Eu rope:per spec tives from pot tery. Documenta Praehistorica 28,27–47.

Budja M. 2005. The pro cess of Neolithisation in South-east ern Eu -rope: from ce ramic fe male fig u rines and ce real grains to ento-pics and hu man nu clear DNA poly mor phic mark ers. Docu-menta Praehistorica 32, 53–72.

Budja M. 2006. The tran si tion to farm ing and the ce ramic tra jec to -ries in West ern Eur asia: from ce ramic fig u rines to ves sels.Documenta Praehistorica 33, 183–201.

Budja M. 2009. Early Neo lithic pot tery dis pers als and demic dif -fu sion in South east ern Eu rope. Documenta Praehistorica 36,117–137.

Cavalli-Sforza L. 2001. Genes, peo ples and lan guages. Lon don.

Cavalli-Sforza L., Pi azza A., Menozzi, P & Moun tain J. 1988. Re -con struc tion of hu man evo lu tion: bring ing to gether ge netic,ar chae o log i cal and lin guis tic data. Pro ceed ings of the Na -tional Acad emy of Sci ences of the USA 85, 6002–6006.

Chap man J. 1981. The Vina cul ture of South-East Eu rope. Stud iesin chro nol ogy, econ omy and so ci ety. (= Brit ish Ar chae o log i cal Re ports, In ter na tional Se ries 117). Ox ford.

Chap man J. 1986. Tech no log i cal and sty lis tic anal y sis of the Early Neo lithic chipped stone as sem blage from Méhtelek, Hun gary.In Pro ceed ings of the 1st in ter na tional con fer ence on pre his -toric flint min ing and lithic raw ma te rial iden ti fi ca tion in theCarpathian Ba sin. Bu da pest–Sümeg, 31–52.

Chap man J. 1989. The early Bal kan vil lage. In Bökönyi 1989(ed.), 33–53.

Chap man J. 1994. The Or i gins of Farm ing in South East Eu rope.Préhistoire Européenne 6, 133-156.

Chap man J. 2000. Rub bish-dumps or places of de po si tion? Neo -lithic and Cop per Age Set tle ments in Cen tral and East ern Eu -rope. In Ritchie A. (ed.), Neo lithic Ork ney in its Eu ro peanCon text. Cam bridge, 347–362.

Chap man J. 2003. From Franchthi to the Tiszazug: two Early Neo -lithic worlds. In Jerem E. & Raczky P. (Hrsg.): Morgenrot derKulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte inMittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum75. Geburtstag. Bu da pest, 89–108.

Chap man J. 2008. Meet the an ces tors: set tle ment his to ries in theNeo lithic. In Bailey, Whit tle & Hofmann 2008 (eds), 68–80.

Childe V. G. 1929. The down of Eu ro pean Civili sa tion. Lon don.

Childe V. G. 1939. The Ori ent and Eu rope. Amer i can Jour nal ofAr chae ol ogy 44, 10–26.


29

Childe V. G. 1950. Pre his toric Mi gra tions in Eu rope. Oslo.

Childe V. G. 1957. The Dawn of Eu ro pean Civili sa tion. (6th re -vised edi tion). Lon don.

Clare L., Jöris O. & Weninger B. 2010. Der Übergang vom Spät-neolithikum zur frühen Kupferzeit in Westasien um 8200 calBP – eine ethnoarchäologische Betrachtung. In Gronenborn &Petrasch 2010 (Hrsg.), 45–60.

Clark J. G. D. 1965. Ra dio car bon dat ing and the ex pan sion of far-ming cul ture from the Near East over Eu rope. Pro ceed ings ofthe Pre his toric So ci ety 4, 58-73.

Clark G. 1977. World pre his tory in new per spec tive. Cam bridge.

Coleman R. 1988. Re view. (Renfrew C.: Ar chae ol ogy and lan -guage. The Puz zle of Indo-Europen or i gins). Cur rent An thro -pol ogy 29, 449–453.

Comºa E. 1959. La civili sa tion Criº sur le territoire de la R. P.Roumanie. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 1, 173–184.

Csalog J. 1941. A magyarországi újabbkõkori agyagmûvességbükki és tiszai csoportja – Die Chronologie der Bükker undder Theisskultur. Folia Archaeologica 3–4, 1–27.

Csalog J. 1958. Békésszentandrás. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 85, 82.

Csalog J. 1965. Zur Frage der Körös-Gruppe in Ungarn. ActaAntiqua et Archaeologica 8, 19–25.

Cunliffe B., Davies W. & Renfrew C. 2002. (eds), Ar chae ol ogy.The Wid en ing De bate. Ox ford.

Davison K., Dolukhanov P. M., Sarson G. R. & Shukorov A. 2006. The role of wa ter ways in the spread of the Neo lithic. Jour nalof Ar chae o log i cal Sci ence 33, 641–652.

Dimitrijeviæ S. 1969. Starèevaèka kultura u slavonsko-srijemskom prostoru i prob lem prijeleza starijeg u srednji neolit u srpskom i hrvatskom Podunavlju – Die Starèevo-Kul tur im slawonisch-syrmischen Raum und das Prob lem des Übergangs vom älte-ren zum mittleren Neolithikum in serbischen und kroatischenDonaugebiet. Vukovar.

Dimitrijeviæ S. 1974. Das Prob lem der Gliederung der Starèevo-Kul tur mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den Beitrag der süd-pannonischen Fundstellen zur Lösung dieses Prob lems. Po-èeci ranih zemljoradnièkih kultura u Vojvodini i srpskomPodunavlju Materijali 10, 59–121.

Dobosi V. 1972. Mesolithische Fundorten in Ungarn – Mezoli-thikus lelõhelyek Magyarországon. Alba Regia 11, 39–60.

Domboróczki L. 1997. Füzesabony-Gubakút. Újkõkori falu a Kr.e. VI. évezredbõl – Neo lithic vil lage from the 6th Mil len niumBC. In Raczky P., Kovács T. & An ders A. (eds), Utak amúltba. Az M3-as autópálya régészeti leletmentései – Paths into the Past. Res cue Ex ca va tions on the M3 Motor way. Bu da -pest, 19–27, 162–164.

Domboróczki L. 2001a. The ex ca va tion at Füzesabony-Gubakút.Pre lim i nary Re port. In Kertész & Makkay 2001 (eds), 193–214.

Domboróczki L. 2001b. Településszerkezeti sajátosságok a közé-psõ neolitikum idõszakából, Heves megye területérõl – Char -ac ter is tics of Set tle ment Pat terns in the Mid dle Phase of theNew Stone Age from the Area of Heves County. In: Dani J.,Hajdú Zs., Nagy E. Gy. & Selmeczi L. (eds), MWMOS I.„Fiatal Õskoros Kutatók” I. Összejövetelének konferencia-kötete. Debrecen, no vem ber 10–13. 1997. Debrecen, 67–94.

Domboróczki L. 2003. Ra dio car bon data from neo lithic archaeo-logical sites in Heves County (North-East ern Hun gary). Agria39, 5–71.

Domboróczki L. 2004. Tiszaszõlõs, Domaháza, Puszta-Réti-dûlõ.Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon 2003 - Ar chae o log i calIn ves ti ga tions in Hun gary 2003. Bu da pest, 303–305.

Domboróczki L. 2005. A Körös-kultúra északi elterjedési határá-nak problematikája a Tiszaszõlõs–Domaháza-pusztán vég-zett ásatás eredményeinek fényében – The prob lem of the Nor-

thern ex ten sion of the Körös Cul ture in the light of ex ca va tionre sults from Tiszaszõlõs–Domaháza. Archeometriai Mûhely2:2, 5–15. (http://www.ace.hu/am)

Domboróczki L. 2010a. Re port on the ex ca va tion at Tiszaszõlõs–Domaháza-puszta and a new model for the spread of the Körös cul ture. In Koz³owski & Raczky 2010 (eds), 137–176.

Domboróczki L. 2010b. Neolithisation in North east ern Hun gary:Old the o ries and new per spec tives. In Gronenborn & Petrasch2010 (Hrsg.), 175–187.

Domboróczki L., Kaczanowska M. & Koz³owski J. K. 2010. TheNeo lithic set tle ment at Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta and theques tion of the north ern spread of the Körös Cul ture. Atti della Societ´ per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia (2008–2009) 17, 101–155.

Domboróczki L. & Raczky P. 2010. Ex ca va tions at Ibrány–Nagyerdõ and the north ern most dis tri bu tion of the Körös cul -ture in Hun gary. In Koz³owski & Raczky 2010 (eds), 191– 218.

Draºovean F. 2006. The Starèevo-Criº to the Vinèa Tran si tion inNorth ern Banat. In Vorgiæ, B. & Brukner, B. (eds), Problemiprelaznog perioda starèevaèke u vinèasku kulturu. – Cur rentprob lems of the tran si tion pe riod from Starèevo to Vinèa cul -ture. Zrenjanin, 93–109.

Draºovean F. 2007. Re gional as pects in the pro cess of the neolithisation of the Banat (south-west ern Ro ma nia): the set tle ment of Foeni-Salas. In Spataro & Biagi 2007 (eds), 67–76.

Dumitrescu V. 1971. Le début du néolithique au nord du Dan ubeen Roumanie. In Garašanin M., Benac A. & Tasiæ N. (eds),Actes du VIIIe Congres in ter na tional des Sci ences prehistori-ques et protohistoriques. Beograd 9–15 Septembre 1971.Beograd, 85–96.

Ehret C. 1988. Lan guage change and the ma te rial cor re lates of lan -guage and eth nic shift. An tiq uity 62, 564–574.

Ehrich R. W. 1965. (ed.), Chro nol o gies in Old World Ar chae ol -ogy. Chi cago.

Ehrich R. W. & Bankoff H. A. Geo graph ical and chro no log i calpat terns in East Cen tral and South east ern Eu rope. In Ehrich R.W. (ed.), Chro nol o gies in Old World Ar chae ol ogy I–II. Chi -cago–Lon don, I: 375–394, II: 341–363.

Eichmann W., Kertész R. & Marton T. 2010. Mesolithic in theLBK heart land of Transdanubia, west ern Hun gary. In Gronen- born & Petrasch 2010 (Hrsg.), 211–234.

Fewkes V. J. 1939. A Re port on the 1938 Sum mer Course of theAmer i can School of Pre his toric Re search. Bul le tin, Amer i canSchool of Pre his toric Re search 15, 6–12.

Fewkes V. J., Goldman H. & Erich R. W. 1933. Ex ca va tions atStarcevo, Yu go sla via, sea sons 1931 and 1932. A pre lim i naryre port. Bul le tin, Amer i can School of Pre his toric Re search 9,33–55.

Foley R. 2002. Par al lel tracks in time: Hu man evo lu tion and ar -chae ol ogy. In Cunliffe B., Davies W. & Renfrew C. 2002.(eds), Ar chae ol ogy. The Wid en ing De bate. Ox ford, 3–42.

Forster P. & Renfrew C. 2006. (eds), Phylo gen etic Meth ods andthe Pre his tory of Lan guages. Cam bridge.

Galeta P. & Buzek J. 2009. De mo graphic model of the Neo lithictran si tion in Cen tral Eu rope. Documenta Praehistorica 36,139–150.

Gallus S. 1938. Des mouvements vers les Bal kans ´ la fin du néo-lithique. Re vue Internationale des Études Balkaniques 6, 520– 530.

Galoviæ R. 1968. Die Starèevokultur in Jugoslawien. In Schwabe-dissen H. (Hrsg.), Die Anfänge des Neolithikums vom Ori entbis Nordeuropa. A/3. Köln–Graz.

Garašanin M. V. 1958. Neolithikum und Bronzezeit in Serbienund Makedonien. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Komi-ssion 39, 1–130.


30

Garašanin M. V. 1961. Zur Chronologie und Deutung einigerfrühneolithischer Kulturen des Bal kans. Germania 39, 142–146.

Garašanin M. 1971. Genetische und chronologische Probleme desfrühkeramischen Nelithikums aif dem mittleren Bal kan. InGarašanin M., Benac A. & Tasiæ N. (eds), Actes du VIIIe

Congres in ter na tional des Sci ences prehistoriques et proto-historiques. Beograd 9–15 Septembre 1971. Beograd, 73–84.

Garašanin M. 1982. The Stone Age in the Cen tral Bal kan Area. InEd wards I. E. S., Gadd, C. J. & Hammond, N. G. L. (eds),Cambridge An cient His tory III/1, Cam bridge, 75–162.

Gheorgiu D. 2008. The Emer gence of Pot tery. In Jones A. (ed.),Pre his toric Eu rope. The ory and Prac tice. (= Blackwell stud ies in global ar chae ol ogy 12). Malden, 164–192.

Gheorgiu D. 2009. Early Pot tery: A Con cise over view. In Gheor-giu D. (ed.), Early Farm ers, Late For ag ers, and Ce ramicTraditions: On the Be gin ning of Pot tery in the Near East andEu rope. Cam bridge, 22–43.

Goldman Gy. 1991. A Körös kultúra késõi szakaszának idõren-djérõl Dévaványa-Réhely leletei alapján – Chro nol ogy in thelate phase of the Körös cul ture on the ba sis of finds from Dé-vaványa-Réhely. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 118, 33–44.

Grammenos D. V. 2003. (ed), Re cent Re search in the Pre his tory of the Bal kans. (= Pub li ca tions of the Ar chae o log i cal In sti tute ofNorth ern Greece 3). Thessaloniki.

Grbiæ M. 1957. Preclassical pot tery in the Cen tral Bal kans. Con -nec tions and par al lels with Agea, the Cen tral Dan ube andAnatolia. Amer i can Jour nal of Ar chae ol ogy 61, 137–149.

Green field H. J. & Jongsma T. 2006. The intrasettlement spa tialstruc ture of Early Neo lithic set tle ments in tem per ate south -east ern Eu rope: a view from Blagotin, Ser bia. In Rob ert son E.C., Siebert J. D., Fernandez D. C & Zender M. U. (eds), Spaceand Spa tial anal y sis in Ar chae ol ogy. Cal gary, 69–79.

Green field H. J. & Jongsma T. 2008. Sed en tary pas to ral gath er ersinthe early Neo lithic: ar chi tec tural, bo tan i cal, and zoo log i calev i dence for mo bile econ o mies from Foeni-Salaº, south-westRo ma nia. In Bailey, Whit tle & Hofmann 2008 (eds), 108–130.

Gronenborn D. 1999. A Vari a tion on a Ba sic Theme: The Tran si -tion to Farm ing in South ern Cen tral Eu rope. Jour nal of WorldPre his tory 13, 123-210.

Gronenborn, D. & Petrasch, J. 2010. (Hrsg.), Die NeolithisierungMitteleuropas. Internationale Tagung, Mainz 24. bis 26. Juni2005 – The Spread of the Neo lithic in Cen tral Eu rope. In ter na -tional Sym po sium, Mainz 24 June – 26 June 2005. (= RGZMTagungen 4, 1–2). Mainz.

Gronenborn D. 2010. Cli mate, cri ses, and the “neolithisation” ofcen tral Eu rope be tween IRD-events 6 and 4. In Gronenborn &Petrasch 2010 (Hrsg.), 61–80.

Guilaine J. 2001. La dif fu sion de l’agriculture en Eu rope: unehypothese arythmique. Zephy rus 53–54 (2000–2001), 267–272.

Guilaine J. 2007. Die Ausbreitung der neolithischen Lebensweiseim Mittelmeerraum. In Lichter Cl. (Hrsg.), Vor 12.000 Jahrenin Anatolien. Die älteste Monumente der Menscheit. Stuttgart,166–176.

Gulyás S. 2010. Az édesvízi kagylók szerepe a Kárpát-medenceineolit közösségek gazdálkodásában és az ártéri, folyóvízi kör-nyezet lokális és regionális adottságainak rekonstrukciójában. PhD Dis ser ta tion. Szeged Uni ver sity. Szeged. Manu script.

Gulyás S. & Sümegi P. 2004. Some as pects of pre his toric shell-fish ing from the Early Neo lithic (Körös) site of Tiszapüspöki,Hun gary: Meth ods and find ings – Kagylógyûjtés a korai neo-litikumban Magyarországon egy Körös lelõhely Tiszapüspökipéldáján: módszerek és eredmények. Soosiana 25, 5–60.

Gyulai F. 2005. Neolitikus növénymaradványok az Alföldrõl –

Neolithic plant re mains of the Great Hun gar ian Plain. InBende L. & Lõrinczy G. (eds), Hétköznapok Vénuszai. Hód-mezõvásárhely, 171–202.

Gyulai F. 2010. Archaeobotanical re search at the Körös Cul turesite of Ibrány–Nagyerdõ and ist re la tion ship to plant re mainsfrom con tem po ra ne ous sites in Hun gary. In Koz³owski &Raczky 2010 (eds), 219–237.

Hansen S. 2007. Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit. Untersu-chungen zur anthropomorphen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit undKupferzeit in Südosteuropa. (= Archäologie in Eurasien 20).Mainz.

Harvey Gaul J. 1948. The Neo lithic Pe riod in Bul garia: EarlyFood-Pro duc ing Cul tures of East ern Eu rope. (Bul le tin, Amer -i can School of Pre his toric Re search 16). Cam bridge (Mas.).

Hertelendi E., Kalicz N., Raczky P., Horváth F., Veres M.,Svingor É., Futó I. & Bartosiewicz L. 1995. Re-eval u a tion ofthe Neolithic in East ern Hun gary based on the cal i brated ra -dio car bon dates. Ra dio car bon 37/2, 239–244.

Holste F. 1939. Zur chronologischen Stellung der Vinèa Keramik.Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift 26, 1–21.

Horváth F. 1994. A dél-alföldi újkõkorkutatás új szempontjai,módszerei és eredményei. PhD The sis. Bu da pest. Manu script.

Horváth F. 2006. A con tri bu tion to the ques tion of cul tural chan-ges at the turn of the Early and Mid dle Neo lithic in the Tisza-Marosz Re gion. In Vorgiæ, B. & Brukner, B. (eds), Problemiprelaznog perioda starèevaèke u vinèasku kulturu. – Cur rentprob lems of the tran si tion pe riod from Starèevo to Vinèa cul -ture. Zrenjanin, 111–133.

Horváth F. & Hertelendi E. 1994. Con tri bu tion to the 14C basedab so lute chro nol ogy of the Early and Mid dle Neo lithic Tiszare gion. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36, 111–133.

Horváth L. A. & H. Si mon K. 2004. Bemerkungen zur Baukundeder Körös-Kul tur. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve–StudiaArchaeologica 10, 9 – 23.

Ignaþ D. 1978. Aezarea neolitic aparinnd culturii Cri de la SuplacuBarcu (J. Bihor). Crisia 8, 9–25.

Ignaþ D. 1979. Aezarea neolitic aparinnd culturii Starevo-Cri de laFughiu (J. Bihor). Crisia 9, 721–733.

Istvánovits E. 1994. (ed.), Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36.Nyíregyháza.

Jankovich B. D. 1990. (ed.), Békés–Kolozsvár–Jászberény–Szeged. (Ban ner János emlékiratai 1945-ig). Gyula.

Jarman, M. R., Bailey, G. N. & Jarman, H. N. 1982. (eds), EarlyEuropeen Ag ri cul ture: its foun da tion and de vel op ment. (= Pa -pers in Eco nomic Pre his tory 3). Cam bridge.

Jongsma T. & Green field H. J. 2003. The House hold Clus ter Con -cept in Ar chae ol ogy: Brief Re view. In Nikolova, L. (ed.):Early Sym bolic Sys tems for Com mu ni ca tion in South east Eu -rope. (= Brit ish Ar chae o log i cal Re ports, In ter na tional Se ries1139 Vol. 1). Ox ford 2003, 21–24.

Jor dan P. & Zvelebil M. 2009. Ex Oriente Lux: The Pre his tory ofHunter-Gath erer Ce ramic Dis pers als. In Jor dan P. & ZvelebilM. (eds), Ce ram ics Be fore Farm ing. The Dis persal of Pot teryAmong Pre his toric Eur asian Hunter-Gath er ers. Wal nutCreek, 33–89.

Jovanoviæ B. 1966. Sculp tures de la nécropole de l’áge du ferancienâ Hajduèka Vodenica. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 7,31–34.

Jovanoviæ B. 1969. Chro no log i cal Frames of the Iron Gate Groupof the early Neo lithic Pe riod. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 10,23–38.

Jovanoviæ B. 1972. The autochtonous and mi gra tional com po nents of the early Neo lithic in the Iron Gates. Balcanica 3, 49–58.

Kaczanowska M. 1985. Rohstoffe, Technik und Typologie der neo- lithiscehn Feuersteinindustrien im Nordteil des Flussgebietes


31

der Mitteldonau. Warszawa.

Kaczanowska M. Koz³owski J. K. & Makkay J. 1981. Flint Hoardfrom Endrõd, site 39, Hun gary (Körös cul ture) Acta Archaeo-logica Carpathica 21, 105–117.

Kaczanowska M. & Koz³owski J. K. 2007. The lithic assamblagesof Szarvas 8/23, pits 3/3 1988 and 4/2 1988. In Makkay 2007,237–246.

Kaczanowska M. & Koz³owski J. K. 2008. The Körös and theearly East ern Lin ear Cul ture in the north ern part of the Carpa-thian ba sin: a view from the per spec tive of lithic in dus tries.Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis 7, 9–37.

Kaczanowska M. & Koz³owski J. K. 2010. Chipped stone in dus try from Ibrány. In Koz³owski & Raczky 2010 (eds), 254–265.

Kalicz N. 1957. Tiszazug õskori települései (= Régészeti Füzetek8). Bu da pest.

Kalicz, N. 1970. Über die Probleme der Beziehung der Theiss-und der Lengyel-Kul tur. Acta Archaeologica AcademiaeScientiarum Hungaricae 22, 13–23.

Kalicz, N. 1971. Südliche Beziehungen im Neolithikum des süd-li chen Donaubeckens. In Schlette F. (Hrsg.), Evo lu tion undRev o lu tion im Alten Ori ent und Europa. Das Neolithikum alshistorische Erscheinung. Berlin, 145–157.

Kalicz N. 1980. Neuere Forschungen über die Entstehung desNeolithikums in Ungarn. In Kozlowski J. K. & Kozlowski S.K.: Problémes de la néolithisation dans certaines re gions del’Europe. Wroclaw, 97–122.

Kalicz N. 1984. Die Körös–Starèevo-Kulturen und ihre Bezie-hungen zur Linienbandkeramik. Nachrichten aus Nieder-sachsens Urgeschichte 52, 91–130.

Kalicz N. 1985. On the Chro no log i cal Prob lems of the Neo lithicand Cop per Age in Hun gary. Mitteilungen des Archäologi-schen In sti tutes der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten 14, 21–51.

Kalicz N. 1990. Frühneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus Südwest-ungarn. (= Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 4). Bu da pest.

Kalicz N. 1993. The early phases of the Neo lithic in West ern Hun -gary (Transdanubia). Poroèilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 21, 85–135.

Kalicz N. 1998. Das Frühneolithikum im Karpatenbecken, InPreuß, J. (Hrsg.), Das Neolithikum in Mitteleuropa. Kulturen – Wirtschaft – Umwelt vom 6. bis 3. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. 1/2,Weissbach, 257–262.

Kalicz N. 2000. Unterscheidungsmerkmale zwischen der Körös-und der Starèevo-Kul tur in Ungarn. In Hiller S. & Nikolov V.(eds), Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südost-europa. Wien, 295–309.

Kalicz N. 2010. An der Grenze “zweier Welten” – Transdanubien(Ungarn) im Frühneolithikum. In Gronenborn & Petrasch2010 (Hrsg.), 235–254.

Kalicz N. & Koós J. 1997a. Mezõkövesd-Mocsolyás. Újkõkoritelep és temetkezések a Kr. e. VI. évezredbõl – Mezõkö-vesd-Mocsolyás. Neo lithic set tle ment and graves from the 6th

mil len nium B.C. In Raczky P., Kovács T. & An ders A. (eds),„Utak a múltba”. Az M3-as autópálya régészeti leletmentései– “Paths into the Past”. Res cue Ex ca va tions on the M3 Motor -way. Bu da pest, 28–33, 164–168.

Kalicz N. & Koós J. 1997b. Eine Siedlung mit ältestneolithischenHausresten und Gräbern in Nordostungarn. In Laziæ M. (ed.), Dragoslavo Srejoviæ completis LXV annsi ab amicis collegisdiscipulis oblatum. Bel grade, 123–135.

Kalicz N. & Koós J. 2000. Település a legkorábbi újkõkori sírok-kal Északkelet-Magyarországról – Eine Siedlung mit ältneo-lithischen Gräbern in Nordostungarn. Herman Ottó MúzeumÉvkönyve 39, 45–76.

Kalicz N. & Koós J. 2002. Eine Siedlung mit ältestneolithischen

Gräbern in Nordostungarn. Preistoria Alpina 37, 45–79.

Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1972a. Probleme des frühen Neolithikumsin der nördlichen Tiefebene. Alba Regia 12, 77–92.

Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1972b. Südliche Einflüsse im frühen undmittleren Neolithikum Transdanubiens. Alba Regia 12,93–105.

Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1974a. A méhteleki agyagistenek – Guideto the Méhtelek ex po si tion: a sum mary. A nyíregyházi JósaAndrás Múzeum idõszaki régészeti kiállításának vezetõje.Nyíregyháza.

Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1974b. A méhteleki újkõkori leletek. Egyváratlan régészeti felfedezés. Élet és Tudomány 29, 838–843.

Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1977a. Frühneolithische Siedlung inMéhtelek–Nádas. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Institutsder Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 6, 13–24.

Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1977b. Die Linienbandkeramik in derGroßen Ungarischen Tiefebene. (= Studia Archaeologica 7).Bu da pest.

Kalicz N. & Raczky P. 1981. The pre cur sors to the “Horns of Con -se cra tion” in the South-East Eu ro pean Neo lithic. Acta Archa-eologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 33, 5–20.

Kalicz N. & Raczky P. 1982. Siedlung der Körös-Kul tur inSzolnok-Szanda. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen In sti tutesder Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 10–11 (1980–1981), 13–24.

Karmanski S. 1968a. Slikana keramika sa lokaliteta DonjaBranjevina. Odžaci.

Karmanski S. 1968b. Žrtvenici stat u ette i am u let sa lokalitetaDonja Branjevina kod Deronja. Odžaci.

Karmanski S. 2005. Donja Branjevina: a Neo lithic set tle ment near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Ser bia). (= Societ´ per la Preistoriae Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno10). Trieste.

Kertész R. 1996. The Mesolithic in the Great Hun gar ian Plain: ASur vey of the Ev i dence. In Tálas 1996 (ed.), 5–34.

Kertész R. 2002. Mesolithic hunter-gath er ers in the north west ernpart of the Great Hun gar ian Plain. Praehistoria 3, 281–304.

Kertész R. 2003. The Paleolithikum and the Mesolithikum. InGrammenos D. V. 2003. (ed), Re cent Re search in the Pre his -tory of the Bal kans. (= Pub li ca tions of the Ar chae o log i cal In -sti tute of North ern Greece 3). Thessaloniki, 490–494.

Kertész R. & Makkay J. 2001. (eds.) From the Mesolithic to theNeo lithic. Pro ceed ings of the In ter na tional Ar chae o log i calCon fer ence held in the Damjanich Mu seum of Szolnok, Sep -tem ber 22–27, 1996 (= Archaeolingua Main Se ries 11). Bu da -pest.

Kertész R. & Sümegi P. 1999. Teóriák, kritika és egy modell:Miért állt meg a Körös-Starèevo-kultúra terjedése a Kárpát-medence centrumában? Tisicum 11, 19–23.

Kertész R. & Sümegi P. 2001. The o ries, cri tiques and a model:Why did the ex pan sion of the Körös-Starèevo cul ture stop inthe cen tre of the Carpathian Ba sin? In Kertész & Makkay 2001 (eds), 193–214.

Kertész R., Sümegi P., Kozák M., Braun M., Félegyházi E. & Her- telendi E. 1994. Mesolithikum im nördlichen Teil der GroßenUngarischen Tiefebene – Mezolitikum az Észak-Alföldön.Jósa Adrás Múzeum Évkönyve 36, 15–61.

Korek J. 1960. A vonaldíszes kerámia kultúra elterjedése azAlföldön – Verbreitung der linearkeramischen Kul tur auf dem Alföld. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1958–1959, 19–52.

Korek J. 1977. Die frühe und mittlere Phase des Neolithikums aufdem Theissrücken. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientia-rum Hungaricae 29, 3–52.

Korošec J. 1943. Körös – Vinèa. Glasnik hrvatskih zemaljskihmuzeja u Sarajevu 54, 61–85.


32

Kosse K. 1979. Set tle ment Ecol ogy of the Körös and Lin ear Pot -tery Cul tures in Hun gary. (= Brit ish Ar chae o log i cal Re ports,In ter na tional Se ries 64). Ox ford.

Kovács K. 2007. Neolitikus telepnyomok a Tisza Szolnok ésSzórópuszta közötti magaspartján – Neo lithic set tle ments onthe Tisza bank be tween Szolnok and Szórópuszta. ÕsrégészetiLevelek 8–9 (2006–2007), 39–50.

Kovács E. Zs., Gál E. & Bartosiewicz L. 2010. Early Neo lithic an -i mal bones from Ibrány–Nagyerdõ, Hun gary. In Koz³owski &Raczky 2010 (eds), 238–254.

Koz³owski J. K. 1997. (ed.), The early Lin ear Pot tery Cul ture ineast ern Slovakia. Kraków.

Koz³owski J. K. 2005. Re marks on the Mesolithic in the north ernpart of the Carpathian Ba sin. In Gál E., Juhász I. & Sümegi P.En vi ron men tal Ar chae ol ogy in North-East ern Hun gary. (=Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 19). Bu da pest, 175–186.

Koz³owski J. K. & Nowak M. 2007. (eds), Mesolithic/Neo lithic In -ter ac tions in the Balans and in the Mid dle Dan ube Ba sin. (=British Ar chae o log i cal Re ports, In ter na tional Se ries 1726).Ox ford.

Koz³owski J. K. & Nowak M. 2007. Neolithization of the Up perTisza Ba sin. In Koz³owski & Nowak 2007 (eds), 77–102.

Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. 2010. (eds), Neolithization of theCarpathian Ba sin: North ern most dis tri bu tion of the Starèevo/Körös cul ture. Kraków–Bu da pest.

Koz³owski, S. K. 2001. Eco-cul tural/sty lis tic zonation of theMesolithic/Epipaleolithic in Cen tral Eu rope. In Kertész &Makkay 2001 (eds), 261–282.

Kreiter A. 2010. Craft ing dif fer ence: Early Neo lithic (Körös cul -ture) ce ramic tra di tions in North-east Hun gary. In Koz³owski& Raczky 2010 (eds), 266–282.

Kutzián I. 1944. A Körös-kultúra. (= Dissertationes Pannonicae II. 23). Bu da pest.

Kutzián I. 1947. The Körös cul ture. (= Dissertationes PannonicaeII. 23). Bu da pest.

Lakó E. 1977. Piese de cult din aºezarea neoliticã de la Zãuan (jud. Sãlaj). Acta Musei Porolissensis 1, 41–46.

Lakó E. 1978. Raport pre lim i nary de cercetare arheologicãefectuatã în aºezarea neoliticã de la Zãuan (jud. Sãlaj) în anul1977. Acta Musei Porolissensis 2, 11–16.

Lazarovici Gh. 1969. Cultura Starèevo – Criº în Banat. Acta Musei Napocensis 6, 3–26.

Lazarovici Gh. 1985. Sincronisme etno-culturale în neolticul dinSãlaj ºi din vestul României. Acta Musei Porolissensis 9,69–73.

Lazarovici Gh. & Lakó É. 1981. Sãpãturile de la Zãuan – Cam -pania din 1980 ºi importanþa acestor descoperiri pentruneoliticul din nord-vestul României. Acta Musei Napocensis18, 13–44.

Lazarovici Gh. & Lazarovici C. M. 2011. Ar chi tec ture of the Early Neo lithic in Ro ma nia. In Luca S. A. & Suciu C. (eds), TheFirst neo lithic Sites in Cen tral/South-East Eu ro pean Transect. Vol. II. Early Neo lithic (Starèevo-Criº) Sites on the Ter ri toryof Ro ma nia. (= Brit ish Ar chae o log i cal Re ports, In ter na tionalSe ries 2188). Ox ford, 19–35.

Lazarovici Gh. & Maxim Z. 1995. Gura Baciului (= BibliothecaMusei Napocensis 11). Cluj-Napoca.

Lazarovici G. & Németi I. 1983. Neoliticul dezvoltat din nord-vestul României (Sãlajul, Sãtmarul ºi Clujul) – Die entwick-elte Jungsteinzeit im Nordwesten Rumänien, Sãlaj, Satu Mareund Cluj. Acta Musei Porolissensis 7, 17–60.

Lenneis E. 1997. Houseforms of the Cen tral Eu ro pean Lin ear-pot -tery cul ture and of the Bal kan Early Neo lithic – a com par i son. Poroèilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika vSloveniji 24, 143–149.

Letica Z. 1969. Vlasac – nouvel hab i tat de la cul ture de LepenskiVir a Djerdap. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 10, 7–11.

Lichardus J. 1964. Beitrag zur Linearkeramik in der Ostslowakei.Archeologické Rozhledy 16, 841–881.

Lichardus J. 1972. Zur Entstehung der Linearkeramik. Germania50, 1–15.

Lichardus-Itten M. & Lichardus J. 1985. La protohistoire de l’Eu-rope. Le Néolithique et le Chalcolithique en tre la Méditerra-née et la mer Baltique. Paris.

Lichardus-Itten M. & Lichardus J. 2003. Strukturelle Grundlagenzum Verständnis der neolithisierungsprozesse in Südost- undMitteleuropa. In Jerem E. & Raczky P. (Hrsg.): Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte inMittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum75. Geburtstag. Bu da pest, 61–81.

Lichardus-Itten M. & Lichardus J. 2004. Frühneolithische Häuserim Balkano-Karpatischen Raum als Grundlagen linerband-keramischer Bauweise. In Bátora J., Furmánek V. & VeliaèikL. (Hrsg.), Einflüsse und Kontakte alteuropäischer Kulturen.Festschrift für Jozef Vladár zum 70. Geburtstag. Nitra, 25–56.

Lichter Cl. 1993. Untersuchungen zu den Bauten des südosteuro-päischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums. (= InternationaleArchäologie 18). Buch am Erlbach.

Lichter C. 2003. Con ti nu ity and Change in Burial Cus toms: Ex am -ples from the Carpathian Ba sin. In Nikolova L. (ed.), EarlySym bolic Sys tems for Com mu ni ca tion in South east Eu rope. (=Brit ish Ar chae o log i cal Re ports, In ter na tional Se ries 1139).Ox ford, 135–152.

Luca S. A. 2008. (ed.), Pro ceed ings of the In ter na tional Col lo -quium: The Carpathian Ba sin and its Role in the Neolithisation of the Bal kan Pen in sula. Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis 7.

Luca S. A. & Suciu C. 2007. Mi gra tions and lo cal evolutuion inthe Early Neo lithic in Transylvania: the ty po logi cal-sty lis ticanal y sis and the ra dio car bon data. In Spataro & Biagi 2007(eds), 77–87.

Lüning J. 1991. Frühe Bauern in Mitteeuropa im 6. und 5. Jahr-tausend v. Chr. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentral- mu se ums 35, 27–93.

Makkay J. 1957. A bihari Berettyóvölgy õskori leletei – Pre his -toric finds of the Berettyó val ley in Bihar. Debreceni DériMúzeum Évkönyve 1948–56, 21–46.

Makkay J. 1965. Die wichtigsten Fragen der Körös-Starèevo-Periode. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica 8, 3–18.

Makkay J. 1968. The Tartaria Tab lets. Orientalia 37, 272–289.

Makkay J. 1969. Zur Geschichte der Erforschung der Körös-Starèevo-Kul tur und einiger ihrer wichtigsten Probleme. ActaArchaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 21,13–31.

Makkay J. 1974. «Das Frühe Neolithikum auf der Otzaki Magula»und die Körös–Starèevo-Kul tur. Acta Archaeologica Aca-demiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 26, 131–154.

Makkay J. 1978. Ex ca va tions at Bicske I: The Early Neo lithic –The Ear li est Lin ear Band Ce ramic. Alba Regia 16, 1978, 9 –60.

Makkay J. 1981. Painted pot tery of the Körös-Starèevo cul turefrom Szarvas, site no. 23. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 21,95–103.

Makkay J. 1982a. Some com ments on the set tle ment pat terns ofthe Alföld Lin ear Pot tery. In Chropovský, B. (Hrsg.), Sied-lungen der Kul tur mit Linearkeramik. Nitra, 157–166.

Makkay J. 1982b. A magyarországi neolitikum kutatásának újeredményei. Az idõrend és a népi azonosítás kérdései. Bu da -pest.

Makkay J. 1984a. Early stamp seals in South-East Eu rope. Bu da -pest.


33

Makkay J. 1984b. Chro no log i cal links be tween neo lithic cul turesof Thessaly and the Mid dle Dan ube re gion. Acta Archaeolo-gica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 36, 21–28.

Makkay J. 1986. Angaben zur Archaologie der Indogermanen-frage I. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungari-cae 38, 13–29.

Makkay J. 1987. Kontakte zwischen der Körös-Starèevo-Kul turund der Linienbandkeramik. Communicationes Archaeolo-gicae Hungariae, 15–24.

Makkay J. 1988. Az indoeurópai nyelvû népek õstörténete. Bu da -pest.

Makkay J. 1989. Zwei neuere Opfergruben der Körös-Starèevo-Kul tur. In Rulf J. (ed.), Bylany Sem i nar 1987. Col lected pa -pers. Praha, 243–248.

Makkay J. 1990. The Protovinèa prob lem – as seen from the north -ern most fron tier. In Srejoviæ & Tasiæ (eds) 1990, 113–122.

Makkay J. 1991. Az indoeurópai népek õstörténete. Bu da pest.

Makkay J. 1992. Ex ca va tions at the Körös cul ture set tle ment ofEndrõd-Öregszõlõk 119 in 1986-1989. In Bökönyi 1992 (eds), 121–193.

Makkay J. 1993. Eine prachtvolle Frauenfigur der Körös–Starèevo-Kul tur. In Nikolov V. (ed.), Prähistorische Fundeund Forschungen. Festschrift zum Gedenken an Prof. GeorgiI. Georgiev. So fia, 73–78.

Makkay J. 1996. The o ries about the or i gin, the dis tri bu tion and the end of the Körös cul ture. In Tálas 1996 (ed.), 35–53.

Makkay J. 1998. Az indoeurópai népek õstörténete. Bu da pest.

Makkay J. 2001a. A Jászság-határ és az indoeurópai õstörténet:régészeti tények és nyelvtörténeti vonatkozásaik – TheJászság bor der and the Indoeuropean Pre his tory. Ar chae o log i -cal Re al i ties and their lin guis tic in ter pre ta tions. Tisicum 12,57–78.

Makkay J. 2001b. Neo lithic pre lude to the Indo-Europeanizationof It aly. An old the ory in a new per spec tive. Bu da pest.

Makkay J. 2002. Ein Opferfund der frühneolithischen Körös-Kul -tur mit einem Gefäß mit Schlangendarstellung. ArcheologickéRozhledy 54, 202–207.

Makkay J. 2003a. The Neo lithic and Cop per Ages. Grammenos D. V. 2003. (ed), Re cent Re search in the Pre his tory of the Bal -kans. (= Pub li ca tions of the Ar chae o log i cal In sti tute of North -ern Greece 3). Thessaloniki, 494–503.

Makkay J. 2003b. Kõkori régiségek a vállaji határban. Nyíregy-háza.

Makkay J. 2003c. Méhteleki kutatások. Nyíregyháza.

Makkay J. 2005. Sup ple ment to the early Stamp Seals in South-east Eu rope. (= Tractata Minuscola 44). Bu da pest.

Makkay J. 2007. The ex ca va tions of the Early Neo lithic sites of the Körös cul ture in the Körös val ley, Hun gary: the fi nal re port.Vol ume I. The ex ca va tions: stra tig ra phy, struc tures andgraves (= Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della RegioneFriuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 11). Trieste.

Makkay J. 2008. Fore word. In Makkay & Starnini 2008, 7–11.

Makkay J. & Starnini E. 2008. The ex ca va tions of Early Neo lithicsites of the Körös cul ture in the Körös val ley, Hun gary: the fi -nal re port. Vol ume II: The pot tery as sem blages, and Vol umeIII: The small finds: fig u rines, re liefs, face ves sels, han dledcups, al tars, loomweights, netweights, and other small finds.Bu da pest.

Makkay J. & Trogmayer O. 1966. Die bemalte Keramik derKörös-Gruppe. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1964–65,47–58.

Makkay J., Almássy K., Dani J., Kertész R. & Tóth K. 2003. Pre -his toric ar chae ol ogy in Hun gary in re cent years. InGrammenos D. V. 2003. (ed), Re cent Re search in the Pre his -tory of the Bal kans. (= Pub li ca tions of the Ar chae o log i cal In -

sti tute of North ern Greece 3). Thessaloniki, 487–537.

Mateiciucová I. 2007. Worked stone: ob sid ian and flint. In Whit tle 2007 (ed.), 677–726.

Meier-Arendt W. 1989. Überlegungen zur Herkunft des linien-bandkeramischen Langhauses. In Bökönyi 1989 (ed.), 183–189.

Mester Zs. & Rácz B. 2010. The spread of t.he Körös Cul ture andthe raw ma te rial sources in the north east ern part of the Carpa-thian Ba sin. A re search pro ject. In Koz³owski J. K. & RaczkyP. 2010 (eds), 23–35.

Milojèiæ V. 1949a. Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit Mittel- und Südosteuropas. Berlin.

Milojèiæ V. 1949b. South-east ern el e ments in the pre his toriccivili sa tion of Ser bia. An nual of the Brit ish School at Ath ens44, 258–306.

Milojèiæ V. 1950. Köröš-Starèevo-Vinèa. In Behrens G. (ed.),Reinecke-Festschrift, zum 75. Geburtstag von Paul Reinecke.Mainz, 108–118.

Milojèiæ V. 1951. Die Siedlungsgrenzen und zeitstellung derBandkeramik im Osten und Südosten Europas. Bericht derRömisch-Germanischen Kommission 33 (1943–1950),110–124.

Milojèiæ V. 1952. Die früheste Ackerbauer in Mitteleuropa. Ger-ma nia 30, 313–318.

Milojèiæ V. 1959. Ergebnisse der deutschen Ausgrabungen inThessalien (1953–1958). Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germani-schen Zentralmuseums 6, 1–56.

Milojèiæ V. 1960. Präkeramisches Neolithikum auf der Bal kan-halbinsel. Germania 38, 320–335.

Milojèiæ V. 1967. Die wichtigsten Fragen der Körös-Starèevo-Periode. Eine Entgegnung auf den gleichbetitelten Aufsatz von J. Makkay, in: Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica 8, 1965. Szeged.Hei del berg.

Milojèiæ. V. Zumbusch & Milojèiæ 1971. Die deutschen Ausgra-bungen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien I. Das frühe Neo- lithikum. (= Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäo-logie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 10–11). Bonn.

Minichreiter C. 2007. Slavonski Brod, Galovo. Deset godinaarheoloških istraživanja – Ten years of ar chae o log i cal ex ca -va tions. Zagreb.

Moskal-del Hoyo M. 2010. Wood char coal re mains from an EarlyNeo lithic set tle ment at Nagykörû (east ern Hun gary). InKoz³owski & Raczky 2010 (eds), 177–190.

MRT 6. Ecsedy I., Kovács L., Maráz B. & Torma I. 1982. (eds),Békés megye régészeti topográfiája. A szeghalmi járás IV/1 (=Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája 6). Bu da pest.

MRT 8. Jankovich B. D., Makkay J. & Szõke B. M. 1989. (eds),Békés megye Régészeti Topográfiája. Szarvasi Járás IV/2 (=Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája 8). Bu da pest.

Nandris J. 1970. Ground wa ter as a fac tor in the first tem per ateNeo lithic set tle ment of the Körös re gion. Zbornik NarodnogMuzeja 6, 59–71.

Nandris J. 1972. Re la tions be tween the Mesolithic, the First Tem -per ate Neo lithic and the Bandkeramik: the Na ture of the Prob -lem. Alba Regia 12, 61–70.

Nandris J. 2007. Adap tive me di a tion in the FTN: the na ture androle of the First Tem per ate Eu ro pean Neo lithic. In Spataro &Biagi 2007 (eds), 11–23.

Nestor I., Alexandrescu A., Comºa E., Zaharia-Petrescu E. & Zirra V. 1951. Sapaturile de pe ºantierul Valea Jijiei (Iaºi-Botoºani-Dorohoi) in anul 1950. Studii ºi cercetãri de Istorie Veche 1,51–76.

Neustupný E. 1956. K relativní chronologii volutové keramiky.Archeologické Rozhledy 8, 386–407; 461–462.

Neustupný E. 1968. Ab so lute Chro nol ogy of the Neo lithic and


34

Aeneolithic Pe ri ods in Cen tral and South-East ern Eu rope.Slovenská Archeológia 16, 19–56.

Neustupný E. 1988. Re view. (Renfrew C.: Ar chae ol ogy and lan -guage. The Puz zle of Indo-Europen or i gins). Cur rent An thro -pol ogy 29, 456–458.

Oravecz H. 1995. Dévaványa-Atyaszeg. Folia Archaeologica 44,61–69.

Oravecz H. 1997. Dévaványa–Barcéi kishalom. A Körös kultúrafiatalabb (Protovinèa) szakaszának telepe és temetkezése –Late Körös (Protovinèa) set tle ment and burial at Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hunga-riae 1997, 5–25.

Oross K. & Bánffy E. 2009. Three suc ces sive waves of Neoli-thisation: LBK de vel op ment in Transdanubia. DocumentaPraehistorica 36, 175–189.

Orssich de Slavetich A. 1943. Bubanj, eine vorgeschichtlicheAnsiedlung bei Niš. Mitteilungen der prähistorischen Komi-ssion der Akademie der Wissenschaften 4, 1–46.

Paluch T. 2005. Kora neolit településrészlet Hódmezõvásárhelyhatárában – An Early Neo lithic Set tle ment on the Out skirts ofHódmezõvásárhely. In Bende L. & Lõrinczy G. (eds.), Hétköz- napok Vénuszai. Hódmezõvásárhely, 9–43.

Paluch T. 2007. The Körös cul ture graves. In Makkay 2007,247–257.

Pap I. 2007. The hu man bones. In Makkay 2007, 255–256.

Patay P. 1941. Kapcsolatok a bükki és körösi kultúra között –Zusammenhänge zwischen der Bükker- und Körös-Kul tur.Archaeologiai Értesítõ III/2, 1–3.

Pavúk J. 1980. Ältere Linearkeramik in der Slowakei. SlovenskáArcheológia 28, 7–90.

Pavúk J. 1994. Zur rel a tive Chronologie der älteren Linearkeramik – Adatok a legkorábbi vonaldíszes kerámia relatív idõrend-jéhez. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36, 135–149.

Periæ S. & Nikoliæ D. 2006. On the is sue of an os su ary – pit dwell -ing Z in the old est ho ri zon at Vinèa. Starinar 56, 47–72.

Petrescu-Dimboviþa M. 1957. Sondajul stratigrafic de la Perieni(reg. Iaºi, r. Bîrlad) – Sondage stratigraphique de Perieni.Materiale ºi Cercetarãri Arheologice 3, 65–82.

Petrescu-Dimboviþa M. 1958. Con tri bu tions au problÀme de lacul ture Criþ en Moldavie. Acta Archaeologica AcademiaeScientiarum Hungaricae 9, 55–68.

Petroviæ J. 1990. A con tri bu tion to the study of autochthonous pre -de ces sors of the Vinèa cul ture in Srem. In Srejoviæ & Tasiæ1990 (eds), 85–89.

Pigott S. 1965. An cient Eu rope from the be gin nings of Ag ri cul tureto Clas si cal An tiq uity. Ed in burgh.

Pinhasi R. 2003. A new model for the spread of the first farm ers inEu rope. Documenta Praehistorica 30, 1–47.

Pinhasi R., Fort J. & Ammerman A. J. 2005. Trac ing the Or i ginand Spread of Ag ri cul ture in Eu rope. PLoS Bi ol ogy 3,doi:10.1371/jour nal.pbio.0030410

Pluciennik M. & Zvelebil M. 2008. The Or i gins and Spread of Ag -ri cul ture. In Bentley R. A., Maschner H. D. G. & ChippindaleC. (eds), Hand book of Ar chae o log i cal The o ries. Lanham,467–486.

Potusnjak M. F. 1985. Omqrwl~i L. T. Memjhq Hìòn`qy~:irjyqroz Johw h o`pnhplmÐ ieo`khih. In: Beoeg`lpi`~Q. Q. et al. (eds), Aotemjmch~ Sio`hlpimÐ QQP. ¤.Oebmazql`~ òtemjmch~~. Jheb. 139–150.

Potushniak M. 2004. Data to the ques tion of the Starèevo/KörösCul ture dwell ings in the Up per Tisza Re gion – Adatok aKörös–Starèevo kultúra épületeinek kérdéséhez a Felsõ-tisza-vidéken. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 46, 53–69.

Potushniak M. 2005. Omqrwl~i L. O`k~qlhih o`llymcmlemjhqr r beotb× o. Rhph. M`rimbhÐ gaolhi H`-

iòn`qpyimcm Jo`|gl`bvmcm Lrge} 7, 172– 207.

Quitta H. 1960. Zur Frage der ältesten Bandkeramik in Mittel-europa. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 38, 1–38, 153–188.

Quitta H. 1970. Der Bal kan als Mittler zwischen Vorderem Ori entund Europa. In Schlette F. (Hrsg.), Evo lu tion und Rev o lu tionim Alten Ori ent und Europa. Das Neolithikum als historischeErscheinung. Berlin, 38–63.

Raczky P. 1976. A Körös kultúra leletei Tiszajenõn – Funde derKörös-Kul tur in Tiszajenõ. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 103, 171–189.

Raczky P. 1977. Szajol-Felsõföld. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 104,263.

Raczky P. 1978. A Körös kultúra figurális ábrázolásai Nagy-körübõl – Figurale Darstellungen der Körös Kul tur ausNagykörü. Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve 1978, 7–17.

Raczky P. 1980. A Körös kultúra újabb figurális ábrázolásai aKözép-Tisza-vidékrõl és történeti összefüggéseik – New figu- ral rep re sen ta tions of the Körös cul ture from the mid dle Tiszare gion and their his tor i cal connexions. Szolnok MegyeiMúzeumok Évkönyve 1979–1980, 5–33.

Raczky P. 1982–1983. Or i gins of the Cus tom of Bury ing the Deadin side Houses in Sout-East Eu rope. Szolnok Megyei Múzeu-mok Évkönyve 5–10.

Raczky P. 1983. A korai neolitikumból a középsõ neolitikumbavaló átmenet kérdései a Közép- és Felsõ-Tiszavidéken –Ques tions of tran si tion be tween the Early and Mid dle Neo -lithic in the Mid dle and Up per Tisza re gion). ArchaeologiaiÉrtesítõ 110, 161–194.

Raczky P. 1986. Megjegyzések az „alföldi vonaldíszes kerámia”kialakulásának kérdéséhez. In Németh P. (ed.), Régészetitanulmányok Kelet-Magyarországról 24 (= Folklór és Etno-gráfia 24). Debrecen, 25–43.

Raczky P. 1988. A Tisza-vidék kulturális és kronológiai kapcso-latai a Balkánnal és az Égeikummal a neolitikum, rézkor idõ-szakában. Szolnok.

Raczky P. 1989. Chro no log i cal Frame work of the Early and Mid -dle Neo lithic in the Tisza Re gion. In Bökönyi S. (ed.), Neo -lithic of South east ern Eu rope and its Near East ern Con nec -tions. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2). Bu da pest, 233–251.

Raczky P. 1996. Az elsõ paraszti falvak a Közép-Tisza-vidéken az újkõkor elején (Szajol-Felsõföld települése). In Madaras L.(ed.), „Vendégségben õseink háza táján”. Állandó régészetikiállítás a szolnoki Damjanich Múzeumban. Szolnok, 22 – 30.

Raczky P. 2006. House-struc tures un der change on the Great Hun -gar ian Plain in ear lier phases of the Neo lithic. In Tasiæ, N. &Grozdanov, C. (eds.), Hom age to Milutin Garašanin. Bel -grade, 379–398.

Raczky P. & Kalicz N. 2007. Ungarn. K. 9–16. In Buchvaldek, M., Lippert A. & Košnar L. (eds), Archeologický At las pravìkéEvropy – Ar chae o log i cal At las of Pre his toric Eu rope. Praha,237–244.

Raczky P., Sümegi P., Bartosiewicz L., Gál E., Kaczanowska M.,Koz³owski J. K. & An ders, A. 2010. Eco log i cal bar rier ver susmen tal mar ginal zone? Prob lems of the north ern most Köröscul ture set tle ments in the Great Hun gar ian Plain. In Gronen-born & Petrasch (Hrsg.), 147–173.

Regenye J. 2007. A Starèevo-kultúra települése a Tihanyi-félszigeten – A set tle ment of the Starèevo cul ture on theTihany Pen in sula. Õsrégészeti Levelek 8–9, 5–15.

Regenye J. 2010. What about the other side: Starèevo and LBKset tle ments north of Lake Balaton. In Koz³owski, J. K. &Raczky 2010 (eds), 53–64.

Renfrew C. 1973. Be fore Civ i li za tion. The Ra dio car bon Rev o lu -tion and Pre his toric Eu rope. Lon don.


35

Renfrew C. 1979. Ter mi nol ogy and be yond. In Da vis J. L. &Cherry J. F. (eds), Pa pers n Cycladic Pre his tory (= Mono -graph 14. In sti tute of Ar chae ol ogy, Uni ver sity of Cal i for nia).Los An geles, 51–63.

Renfrew C. 1987. Ar chae ol ogy and Lan guage. The Puz zle ofIndo-Eu ro pean Or i gins. Lon don.

Renfrew C. 1988. Au thor’s Précis. (Renfrew C.: Ar chae ol ogy andlan guage. The Puz zle of Indo-Europen or i gins). Cur rent An -thro pol ogy 29, 437–441.

Renfrew C. 1992. Ar chae ol ogy, ge net ics and lin guis tic di ver sity.Man 27, 445–478.

Renfrew C. 2000. At the Edge of Knowability: To wards a Pre his -tory of Lan guages. Cam bridge Ar chae o log i cal Jour nal 10,7–34.

Renfrew C. 2010. Archaeogenetics – To wards a ’New Syn the sis’?Cur rent Bi ol ogy 20, R162–R165.

Renfrew C. & Boyle K. 2000. (eds), Archaeogenetics: DNA andthe pop u la tion pre his tory of Eu rope. Cam bridge.

Rich ter É. 2005. Textil- és négyzetrendszeres fonatlenyomatok azAlföld neolitikumából – Wo ven and plaited fab rics in theNeolithic of the Great Hun gar ian Plain. In Bende L. &Lõrinczy G. (eds.), Hétköznapok Vénuszai. Hódmezõvásár-hely, 123–144.

Rosania C. N., Boulanger M. T., T. Biró K., Ryzhov S., Trnka G & Glascock M. D. 2008. Re vis it ing Carpathian ob sid ian. An tiq -uity 82:318, http://an tiq uity.ac.uk/projgall/rosania/in dex.html

Schachermeyr F. 1950. Zur Entstehung der ältesten Civili sa tion inGriechenland. La Nou velle Clio 10, 567–601.

Schachermeyr F. 1953. Die vorderasiatische Kulturtrift. Saeculum5, 268–291.

Schachermeyr F. 1953–1954. Dimini und die Bandkeramik.Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft 83, 1–39.

Scharl S. 2004. Die Neolithisierung Europas. Ausgewälte Modelle und Hypothesen. (= Würzburger Arbeiten zur PrähistorischenArchäologie 2). Rahden/Westf.

Schier W. 1997. “Proto-Vinèa”: Zum Übergang von der Starèevo-zur Vinèa-Kul tur im Südosten des Karpatenbeckens. In LaziæM. (ed.), Completis LXV annis Dragoslavo Srejoviæ ab amicis collegis discipulis oblatum. Bel grade, 155–166.

Schmidt R. R. 1945. Die Burg Vuèedol. Zagreb.

Schwarzberg H. 2006. Figurale Ständer – Sozialkeramik desfrühen Neolithikums aus Kirklareli-AêaÈi Pinar, Türkisch–Thrakien. Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 9, 97– 124.

Selmeczi L. 1967. Régészeti kutatásaink 1967-ben. Jászkunság13, 166–172.

Selmeczi L. 1969. Das Wohnhaus der Körös-Gruppe von Tisza-jenõ. Neuere Angeben zu den Hausstypen des Frühneoli-thikums. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1969, 17–22.

Sherratt A. 1980. Wa ter, soil and sea son al ity in early ce real cul ti -va tion. World Ar chae ol ogy 11, 313–330.

Sherratt A. 1982a. Mo bile re sources: set tle ment and ex change inearlz ag ri cul tural Eu rope. In Renfrew, C. & Shennan, S. (ed.),Rank ing, re source and ex change. As pects of the ar chae ol ogyof early Eu ro pean So ci ety. Cam bridge, 13–26.

Sherratt A. 1982b. The de vel op ment of Neo lithic and Cop per Ageset tle ment in the Great Hun gar ian Plain. Part I: The re gionalset ting. Ox ford Jour nal of Ar chae ol ogy 1, 287–316.

Sherratt A. 1983a. The de vel op ment of Neo lithic and Cop per Ageset tle ment in the Great Hun gar ian Plain. Part II: Site sur veyand set tle ment dy nam ics. Ox ford Jour nal of Ar chae ol ogy 2,13–41.

Sherratt A. 1983b. Early agrar ian set tle ment in the Körös re gion of the Great Hun gar ian Plain. Acta Archaeologica AcademiaeScientiarum Hungaricae 35, 155–169.

Sherratt A. 1988. Re view. (Renfrew C.: Ar chae ol ogy and lan -guage. The Puz zle of Indo-Europen or i gins). Cur rent An thro -pol ogy 29, 458–463.

Sherratt A. & Sherratt S. 1988. The ar chae ol ogy of Indo-Eu ro -pean: an al ter na tive view. Antiqiuty 62, 584–595.

Šiška St. 1982. Kul tur mit östlicher Linearkeramik in der Slo-wakei. In Chropovsk B. (Hrsg.) Siedlungen der Kul tur mit Lin -earkeramik. Nitra, 261–270.

Soares, P. Achilli A., Semino O., Davies W., Macaulay V.,Bandelt H.-J., Torroni A. & Rich ards M. B. 2010. TheArchaeogenetics of Eu rope. Cur rent Bi ol ogy 20, R174–R183.

Soudský 1956. K relativní chronologii volutové keramiky.Archeologické Rozhledy 8, 408–412, 462–463.

Spataro M. 2011. A com par i son of chem i cal and petrographicanalyes of Neo lithic pot tery from South-east ern Eu rope. Jour -nal of Ar chae o log i cal Sci ence 38, 255–269.

Spataro M. & Biagi P. 2007. (eds), A short walk through Bal kans:first farm ers of the Carpathian Ba sin and ad ja cent re gions. (=Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 12). Trieste.

Srejoviæ D. 1963. Versuch einer historischen Wertung der Vinèa-Gruppe. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 4, 5–17.

Srejoviæ D. 1966. Lepenski Vir – a new Pre his toric Cul ture in theDanubian re gion. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 7, 13–17.

Srejoviæ D. 1969. Lepenski Vir. Beograd.

Srejoviæ D. 1971. Die Lepenski Vir-Kul tur und der Beginn derJungsteinzeit an der mittleren Donau. In Schwabedissen H.(ed.), Die Anfänge des Neolithikums vom Ori ent bis Nord-europa. (= Fundamenta A/3). Böhlau. Köln, 1–19.

Srejoviæ D. 1972. Kulturen des frühen Postgalzials im südlichenDonauraum. Balcanica 3, 11–47.

Srejoviæ D. 1973. Die Anfänge des Neolithikums im Bereich desmittleren Donauraumes. In Actes du VIIIe Congres In ter na -tional des Sci ences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques.Beograd, 252–263.

Srejoviæ D. 1974. Mezolitske osnove neolitskih kultura u južnomPodunavlju – The Mesolithic bases of the Neo lithic cul tures in the south ern Dan ube Ba sin. In Poèeci ranih zemljoradnièkihkultura u Vojvodini i srpskom Podunavlju Materijali 10,21–30.

Srejoviæ D. & Tasiæ N. 1990. (eds), Chlv` h °el pbeq. – Vinèaand its World. Beograd.

Starnini E. 1994. Ty po logi cal and tech no log i cal anlysis of theKörös Cul ture stone assamblages of Méhtelek-Nádas andTiszacsege (Nort-East Hun gary). A Pre lim i nary re port – AKörös kultúra Méhtelek-nádasi és tiszacsegei (Északkelet-Magyarország) lelõhelyeirõl származó kõeszközök tipológiaiés technológiai elemzése. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36,101–110.

Starnini E. 1995–96. As pects of the Körös Cul ture lithic in dus try:the as sem blage from Endrõd 119 (Hun gary). A pre lim i nary re -port. Sargetia 26, 79–90.

Starnini E. 2000. Stone in dus tries of the early Neo lithic cul tures in Hun gary and their re la tion ships with the Mesolithic back -ground. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della RegioneFriuli-Venezia Giulia Quaderno 8, 207–219.

Starnini E. 2008. Ma te rial cul ture tra di tions and iden tity. In Bailey D. W., Whit tle A. & Hofmann D. (eds), 2008, 101–107.

Stäuble H. 2005. Häuser und ab so lute Datierung der ÄltestenBandkeramik. (= Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischenArchäologie 117). Bonn.

Sümegi P. 2004a. The re sults of paleoenvironmental re con struc -tion and com par a tive geoarcheological anal y sis for the ex am -ined area. In Sümegi P. & Gulyás S. (eds.), The geohistory ofBátorliget Marsh land. Bu da pest, 301–348.


36

Sümegi P. 2004b: Find ings of geoarcheological and en vi ron men -tal his tor i cal in ves ti ga tions at the Körös site of Tiszapüspöki-Karancspart Háromága. Antaeus 27, 307–341.

Sümegi P. 2007. Palaeographical back ground of the Mesolithicand Early Neo lithic set tle ment in the Carpathian Ba sin. InKoz³owski & Nowak 2010 (eds), 47–51.

Sümegi P. & Kertész R. 1998. A Kárpát-medence õskörnyezetisajátosságai – egy ökológiai csapda az újkõkorban? Jász-kunság 44, 144–158.

Tálas L. 1996. (ed.), At the Fringes of Three Worlds. Hunterers-gath er ers and Farm ers in the Mid dle Tisza Val ley. Szolnok.

Tasiæ N. 2000. Salt Use in the Early and Mid dle Neo lithic of theBal kan Pen in sula. In Nikolova L. (ed.), Tech nol ogy, Style andSo ci ety. Con tri bu tions to the In no va tions be tween the Alps and the Black Sea in Pre his tory. (= Brit ish Ar chae o log i cal Re -ports, In ter na tional Se ries 854). Ox ford, 35–40.

Tichý R. 1960. K nejstarší volutové keramice na Moravì. Památky Archeologické 51, 415–441.

Titov V. Sz. 1980. Rhqmb C. P`llhÐ h poedlhÐ lemjhqbmpqmvlmÐ Celcohh. In Rhqmb C. & ]odejh I. (red.), Aote-mjmch~ Celcohh. J`kellzÐ bei. Moskva.

Tompa F. 1929. Die Bandkeramik in Ungarn. Die Bükker und dieTheiß-Kul tur. (= Archeologica Hungarica 5–6). Bu da pest.

Tompa F. 1937. 25 Jahre Urgeschichtsforschung in Ungarn1912–1936. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission24/25, 27–127.

Tringham R. 1971. Hunt ers, Fish ers and Farm ers of east ern Eu -rope 6000–3000 B.C. Lon don.

Tringham R. 2000. South east ern Eu rope in the tran si tion to ag ri -cul ture in Eu rope: bridge, buffer, or mo saic. In Price T. D.(ed.), Eu rope’s First Farm ers. Cam bridge, 19–56.

Trogmayer O. 1964. Megjegyzések a Körös csoport relatívidõrendjéhez – Re marks to the Rel a tive Chro nol ogy of theKörös Group. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 91, 67–86.

Trogmayer O. 1966a. Ein neolithisches Hausmodellfragment vonRöszke. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica 10, 11–26.

Trogmayer O. 1966b. A Körös-csoport lakóházáról. Újkõkoriházmodell-töredék Röszkérõl – Über das Wohnhaus derKörös-Gruppe. Neolithisches Hausmodell-Frag ment ausRöszke. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 93, 235–240.

Trogmayer O. 1968a. A Körös-csoport barbotin kerámiájáról –The “barbotine” pot tery of the Körös group. ArchaeologiaiÉrtesítõ 95, 6–12.

Trogmayer O. 1968b. A Dél-Alföld korai neolitikumának fõbbkérdései I-II. PhD Dis ser ta tion. Szeged. Manu script.

Trogmayer O. 1972. Körös Gruppe – Linienbandkeramik. AlbaRegia 12, 71–76.

Trogmayer O. 1994. Zum Geleit – Bevezetõ. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36, 9–14.

Trogmayer O. 2003a. Régi adósságaim I. Röszke-Lúdvár. Õsré-gészeti Levelek 5, 8–20.

Trogmayer O. 2003b. A unique Neo lithic find from Röszke. InJerem E. & Raczky P. (Hrsg.): Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Süd-osteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag.Bu da pest, 109–113.

Trogmayer O. 2004. Gyálarét-Szilágyi-ma jor. Õsrégészeti Levelek6, 13–26.

van Andel T. H. & Run nels C. N. 1995. The ear li est farm ers in Eu -rope. An tiq uity 69, 481–500.

Vasiæ M. 1936. Praistoriska Vinèa II. Beograd.Vékony G. 1971. Bemerkungen zu den Streitfragen des Früh-

neolithikums im Karpatenbecken. Acta Antiqua et Archaeo-logica 14, 17–24.

Vértes L. 1951. Legmjhqhvepihe l`tmdih l` beowhlhe cmoz

JÏnmomw noh c. ]ceo (Celco~) – Die mesolithische Fund-stätte von Eger. Acta Archaeologica Academiae ScientiarumHungaricae 1, 153–190.

Vértes L. 1965. Az õskõkor és az átmeneti kõkor emlékei Mag yar-országon. (= A Mag yar Régészet Kézikönyve 1). Bu da pest.

Vetniæ S. 1990. The ear li est Set tle ments oft he Vinèa Cul ture(Proto-Vinèa) in the Morava Val ley – M`®o`lh®` l`pe¯` bhlv`lpie irjqroe (nomqm-Chlv`) r dmjhlh Lo`be. InSrejoviæ & Tasiæ 1990 (eds), 91–97.

Vízdal J. 1973. Zemplín v mladšej dobe kamennej. Košice. Vlassa N. 1966. Cultura Criº în Transilvania. Acta Musei Napo-

censis 3, 9–47.Vlassa N. 1972. Eine frühneolithische Kul tur mit bemalter

Keramik der vor-Starèevo-Körös-Zeit in Cluj-Gura Baciului,Siebenbürgen. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 47, 174–197.

Vorgiæ, B. & Brukner, B. 2006. (eds), Problemi prelaznog perioda starèevaèke u vinèasku kulturu – Cur rent prob lems of thetran si tion pe riod from Starèevo to Vinèa cul ture. Zrenjanin.

Vörös 2005. Neolitikus állalttartás és vadászat a Dél-Alföldön –Neo lithic an i mal hus bandry and hunt ing in the Great Hun gar -ian Plain. In Bende L. & Lõrinczy G. (eds), HétköznapokVénuszai. Hódmezõvásárhely, 203–243.

Whit tle A. 1985. Neo lithic Eu rope: a sur vey. Cam bridge. Whit tle A. 1996. Eu rope in the Neo lithic: the cre ation of new

worlds. Cam bridge.Whit tle A. 2003. The ar chae ol ogy of peo ple: di men sions of Neo -

lithic life. Lon don.Whit tle A. 2005. Lived ex pe ri ence in the Early Neo lithic of the

Great Hun gar ian Plain. In Bailey, Whit tle & Cummings 2005(eds), 64–70.

Whit tle A. 2007. (ed.), The Early Neo lithic on the Great Hun gar -ian Plain. In ves ti ga tions of the Körös cul ture site of Ecseg-falva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica21). Bu da pest.

Whit tle A. 2010. The long and wind ing road: re flec tions onsixth-millenium pro cess. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P.(eds), 2010, 91–102.

Yoffee N. 1990. Be fore Ba bel. A Re view Ar ti cle. Pro ceed ings ofthe Pre his toric So ci ety 56, 299–313.

Zambotti P. L. 1943. Le più antiche cul ture agricole Europee.L’Italia, i Balcani e l’Europa Centrale du rante il neo-eneolitico. Milano–Messina.

K. Zoffmann Zs. 2005. Embertani adatok a dél-alföldi neolitikumbiológiai és történelmi rekonstrukciójához – An thro po log i caldata to the bi o log i cal and his tor i cal re con struc tion of the Neo -lithic of the south ern part of the Great Hun gar ian Plain. InBende L. & Lõrinczy G. (eds), Hétköznapok Vénuszai.Hódmezõvásárhely, 145–155.

Zvelebil M. 2005. Look ing back at the neo lithic tran si tion in Eu -rope. Eu ro pean Jour nal of Ar chae ol ogy 8, 183–194.

Zvelebil M. &. Zvelebil K. V. 1988. Ag ri cul tural tran si tion andIndo-Eu ro pean dis pers als. An tiq uity 62, 574–583.

Zvelebil M., Lukes A. & Pettitt P. 2010. The emer gence of theLBK Cul ture: search for the an ces tors. In Gronenborn &Petrasch 2010 (Hrsg.), 301–325.


37

2012_Raczky, P.: Körös culture research history

Documents