TransCarpathian Contacts in the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age. In: T. L. Kielnin, P. Valde-Nowak, M. Korzyńska, K. Cappenberg, J. Ociepka (eds.), Settlement, Communication and

Settlement, Communication and

Exchange around the Western Carpathians

International Workshop held at the Institute of Archaeology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków

October 27–28, 2012

Edited by

T. L. Kienlin, P. Valde-Nowak, M. Korczyńska, K. Cappenberg and J. Ociepka

Archaeopress Archaeology

ArchaeopressGordon House

276 Banbury RoadOxford OX2 7ED

www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978 1 78491 036 5ISBN 978 1 78491 037 2 (e-Pdf)

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2014

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise,

without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.

Printed in England by CMP (UK) Ltd

This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

i

Table of Contents

Preface 1Tobias L. Kienlin – Paweł Valde-Nowak – Marta Korczyńska – Klaus Cappenberg – Jakob OciepkaThe Western Carpathian Highlands During the Neolithic 3Peter BoguckiTransCarpathian Contacts in the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age 13Sławomir KadrowLong Houses on Hilltop – Camps in the Mountains: Some Aspects of the Neolithic in the Dunajec Project 27Paweł Valde-NowakLandscape as a Feature: Using GIS and Statistics to Compare Two Types of Early Neolithic Sites in Lesser Poland 51Klaus CappenbergOne Too Many Settlements: Das bandkeramische Eythra im Kontext weiterer Siedlungsregionen in Nordwestsachsen 67Harald StäubleTechnology of the Earliest Vessels in the Upper Vistula River Basin – Imports against Local Production 95Agnieszka Czekaj-Zastawny – Anna Rauba-BukowskaLong-Distance Exchange at the End of the 5th Millennium calBC – Bodrogkeresztúr Culture Pottery at the Baltic Coast 109Agnieszka Czekaj-Zastawny – Jacek Kabaciński – Thomas TerbergerSettlement and Economic Transformations in Western Little Poland between 3500 BC and 2500 BC: Internal Development vs. External Implantation 125Marek NowakSettlement, Economy and Climate between 3200 and 2500 BC: Late Neolithic Transformations in South-Eastern Poland 143Andrzej PelisiakAlternative Trajectories in Bronze Age Landscapes and the ‘Failure’ to Enclose: A Case Study from the Middle Dunajec Valley 159Tobias L. Kienlin – Marta Korczyńska – Klaus Cappenberg Erwägungen zur geomagnetischen Prospektion im mittleren Dunajectal, Kleinpolen 201Jakob OciepkaPlant Remains Found in Archaeological Sites in the Carpathian Foothills – Preliminary Report 207Maria Lityńska-Zając – Magdalena Moskal-del Hoyo – Katarzyna CywaStones Collecting and Preliminary Discrimination on the Archaeological Site – Janowice (AZP 106-65 no. 61) Case Study 223Michał Wasilewski Dynamics of the Depositional Processes: The Example of the Tree Windthrow Structure at the Graveyard in Janowice, site 44 (AZP 106-65/103) 231Marta KorczyńskaPreliminary Results of the Anthropological Analysis of Human Bones from Janowice (AZP 106-65 No. 103) 249Anita SzczepanekThe Remains of the Medieval Settlement in Janowice, Comm. Pleśna, Site 44 253Michał WojenkaThe Bronze Age Settlement in Maszkowice (Western Carpathians) – Analyses and Interpretations 265Marcin S. Przybyła – Magdalena SkonecznaThe West Carpathians as a Contact Zone in the Bronze Age in Light of Hoards and Isolated Finds of Metal Objects 287Wojciech BlajerTranscarpathian Influences on the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age Settlement at Wierzchosławice Site 15 297Ireneusz Miraś – Łukasz Oleszczak

ii

Magnetic Prospection and Excavation Verification of a Site from the Late Pre-Roman Period in Wielka Wieś (District Tarnów) 317Artur BuszekSettlement Strategies in the Early Bronze Age in South-Western Slovakia 325Jozef Bátora – Peter TóthTard-Tatárdomb: An Update on the Intensive Survey Work on the Multi-Layer Hatvan and Füzesabony Period Settlement 341Klára P. Fischl – Tobias L. Kienlin – Tamás Pusztai – Helmut Brückner – Simone Klumpp – Beáta Tugya – György LengyelNew Geophysical Data on the Internal Structure of the Gáva Sites of Andrid-Corlat and Căuaş-Sighetiu in North-Western Romania 381Tobias L. Kienlin – Liviu Marta

13

TransCarpathian Contacts in the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age

Sławomir Kadrow

Abstract: This article discusses selected examples of transCarpathian contacts in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. They are ana-lysed in the light of some theoretical traditions: mainly culture-historical and functional archaeologies. The influence of the research-er’s personal background (ethnic origin, social class membership etc.) on the results of archaeological studies is highlighted. Also the impact of accepted concepts of the culture on the obtained results is emphasised. There is also a critical discussion, inspired by some modern concepts in sociology, on the role of migration as a factor in culture change.

Keywords: TransCarpathian contacts, Neolithic, Early Bronze Age, migrations, archaeological theory, concept of culture

Theoretical basis: an outline

In Pierre Bourdieu’s view, the ultimate outcome of sociocultural studies is affected by three types of distortion. The first one results from the researcher’s personal background (ethnic origin, social class membership etc.), obvious and easily controllable through reflexive analysis carried out by oneself or by others. The second type, less frequently noticed, is related to one’s position in the academic milieu. The third type consists in an ‘intellectual bias’ preventing the researcher from discerning concrete problems which require practical solutions (cf. Wacquant 2001: 32).

In the study of transCarpathian contacts, the third type of distortion plays a minor role, due to the decisive predominance of archaeological practitioners over theoreticians in that field. One may even say that theoretical reflection has largely been replaced there with common-sense propositions or unexplicated theoretical approaches ingrained in a given academic circle and thus taken for granted, regarded as self-evident. Since David Clarke’s Archaeology: the Loss of Innocence (1973), however, more and more archaeologists have shown appreciation of the need to consciously follow and reveal specific theories in their research; there is also growing awareness that, whether we recognise it or not, theories influence the ultimate effect of all kinds of study (‘[…] theory has a direct and tangible impact on everything archaeology is and does’; cf. Marciniak 2012: 85).

The relationship between the adopted scientific theory and the interpretation of the analysed phenomena or materials may be illustrated by the academic career of Vere Gordon Childe. In The Aryans (1926) and e.g. The Danube in Prehistory (1929a), which adhered to the premises of culture-historical archaeology originated at that time, Childe sought the sources of cultural change outside the cultural units he examined, pointing to migrations as the main mechanism of that change. In e.g. Man Makes Himself (1936) and What Happened in History (1942), inspired by Marxism, he located these sources within the

society itself and identified the mechanism of change with social conflict.

Archaeology is a part of science. Science is an important part of culture. Culture assigns a major role to the rules of comprehending empirical realities as meaningful, i.e. to the mythical organisation of the world. Myths give meaning to science insofar as they invoke accepted systems of values; they degenerate, however, when turned into doctrines and aspiring to be sets of scientific propositions (cf. Kołakowski 2005: 13–15). Such myths have animated the entire modern civilisation; in archaeology, the crucial ones include the idea ex oriente lux (e.g. Childe 1929a; 1929b; Kristiansen/Larsson 2005) and the indoeuropeanization of Europe through successive waves of migration from the Eurasian steppes (e.g. Childe 1926; Gimbutas 1977; Häusler 1992). Both these myths have contributed, to a various degree, to the development of migrationist concepts in archaeology (cf. Kadrow 2010: 48, 55–57). Both have impacted on the evolving views on the transCarpathian contacts.

Many areas in archaeology, including that of the transCarpathian contacts, have been affected by definitions of certain key notions, especially the notion of an archaeological culture. Modern research has been influenced considerably by the normative concept of an archaeological culture proposed by Childe (1929: v–vi), much indebted to Gustaf Kossinna’s ethno-linguistic explanation (Kossinna 1911; cf. also Thomas 1999: 440). The normative approach is based on two assumptions: first, artefacts are an expression of cultural norms; second, the norms define a given culture (Johnson 2010: 17–18). The normative concept both in Kossinna’s and in Childe’s versions has made it easy to link assemblages of artefacts of material culture with units of living culture (people, tribe, ethnos).

One consequence of that view on an archaeological culture has been acknowledging its particularity as opposed to the global approaches which dominated in evolutionist archaeology of the latter half of the 19th century. Searching for differences between local cultures harmonised

14

Settlement, Communication and Exchange around the Western Carpathians

perfectly with the ambience of the neo-Romantic German Volkskunde, and Kossinna’s Siedlungsarchäologie was an archaeological exemplification of that trend (cf. e.g. Thomas 1999: 437–499).

This concept has played a crucial part in various kinds of archaeological studies. It has also inspired experts, popularisers and ideologists alike, being used for diverse political purposes, from Nazi propaganda feeding on Kossinna’s findings in Germany to the contemporary ‘terror of culture’ in the Balkans (cf. Čolović 2007).

Another consequence of the normative concept has been the belief in the essential immutability of an archaeological culture, because elements of material culture are considered as an expression of ideas common to members of a particular culture. The easiest way to explain a change, therefore, has been to seek its sources outside, in migration or diffusion (Johnson 2010: 18–19). Migrations were identified as the main means of dissemination of cultural elements also by Fritz Graebner and Bernhard Ankermann, theoreticians of diffusionism (Gingrich 2007: 73–76).

However, a much deeper reason for explaining all cultural change with migration has been the influence of Friedrich Ratzel’s human geography (Thomas 1999: 437–438), that is, the principle of geographic determinism. In this view, geographic environment conditions the growth of societies, determining the progress of civilisation, distribution of the population etc. (Geremek/Kula 2004: 8). The human geography school includes Otto Karl Schlüter’s Altlandschaftsforschung and Robert Grandmann’s Steppenheidentheorie (cf. Kadrow 2012: 234). German researchers have subsequently specified the premises of that approach, mostly abandoning the hard consistent version of geographic determinism (e.g. Wahle 1943). The direction taken by Ernst Wahle and continued e.g. by Carl Schuchardt and Albert Kiekebusch has resulted in contemporary German settlement archaeology, with its principles and aims – harmonization of natural and cultural factors – recounted most thoroughly by Herbert Jankuhn (1977) and developed by Jens Lüning (1997; cf. also Schülke 2011).

Whether the cultural change is explained with the direct impact of migrating human groups or with the influence of changing climatic conditions and natural environment, its mechanism is located outside the cultural unit. Therefore, the belief in the essential immutability of a normatively understood culture remains unshaken (Kadrow 2012: 235).

Researchers interested in the sociocultural process in archaeology and social sciences have been affected to a great extent, though often unconsciously, by the general concept of culture. At least since the 19th century, when August Comte and Herbert Spencer published their works, social and cultural sciences have been dominated by the metaphor of the society and culture viewed as an organism, with a lasting distinction between ‘social statics’ and ‘social dynamics’ (Turner 2004: 9–10). Due to Émile

Durkheim (1912), the metaphor has entered anthropology and, indirectly, archaeology. Social statics (the structure) has been considered as a study of the anatomy of the society (its components and their arrangement), by analogy with the anatomy of the human body and its organs, while social dynamics (the function) has centred around processes within the society, modelled on the physiology of a biological organism (breathing, metabolism etc.).

The organic metaphor has been a kind of ‘original sin’ in social and cultural sciences, determining the further development of theory and practice in these disciplines. Ideas typical of social and cultural organicism may be found in the systems theory, in functionalism and functional structuralism (Sztompka 2007: 20–21).

Talcott Parsons’ (1951) systems theory has been referred to indirectly by Graham Clark’s (1939; 1959) functionalism, the British paleoeconomic school (e.g. Vita-Finzi/Higgs 1970); in Poland, mostly by Janusz Kruk’s (1973; 1980) settlement archaeology and by Kruk’s followers.1

The systems theory has also been invoked with full conviction by the new archaeology school (Clarke 1978: 42–45). In their research on prehistory, new archaeologists focus on synchronic relations within the system of culture (cf. Redman 1999: 60–65) viewed as adaptable to changing conditions of the natural environment (Binford 1962: 219; Thomas 448–451). Processual archaeology has practically renounced migration as the main source and mechanism of cultural change; instead, it has sought them in ecological subsystems, mostly the climatic one, still outside the cultural system (cf. e.g. Gronenborn 2010). The scientistic theory of cognition and belief in the systems theory as the right model of social and cultural changes (Johnson 2010: 23–31, 35–41) have virtually deprived new archaeologists of the possibility of a dynamic concept of the society and its internally conditioned transformations (Kadrow 2012: 236).

A breakthrough in the approach to the internal mechanisms of cultural change has been brought about by Pierre Bourdieu’s (1972) theory of practice and Anthony Giddens’ (1984) theory of structuration adopted by Ian Hodder (1986), founder of contextual archaeology and key figure in modern archaeological studies. The new models of the society and culture, e.g. Bourdieu’s (1972) theory of practice, Giddens’ (1984) structuration, Sztompka’s (1991) theory of social becoming and Habermas’ (1981) theory of communicative action or, even earlier, Childe’s (1936; 1942) views inspired by Marxism, underline the universal dynamic features of social reality, no longer treating that reality as an object. They foreground events instead of things and processes instead of states. Consequently, they prefer the historical (diachronic) perspective to the purely synchronic one.

1 e.g. Tunia 1986; Valde-Nowak 1988; 1995; Machnik 1992; Kadrow 1995.

15

Sławomir Kadrow: TransCarpathian Contacts in the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age

Theory has never been a strong point of archaeology in most countries of the former Ostblock. For this reason, the choice of theoretical approaches, usually made unconsciously, has been affected mainly by the first or the second types of distortion identified by Pierre Bourdieu. Archaeologists have unreflectively invoked research practices and traditions prevalent in their academic milieu or country, and they have followed the example of their eminent teachers, modifying it with conclusions from their own research and their own position in the network of sociocultural and ethnic factors.

Field investigation in the Carpathians: Selected examples

Progress in the study of the transCarpathian contacts would not have been possible without field investigation, which has provided researchers with new materials and necessary premises.

Research on the settlement, contacts and exchange in the West Carpathians has quite a long history. For obvious reasons, it has been carried out mainly by Polish and Slovak archaeologists. The region has never attracted as much attention as the areas around the Carpathians, e.g. the loess uplands of Małopolska or the lowlands in south-western and eastern Slovakia, let alone the Carpathian Basin.

The earlier stages of archaeological research on the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Ages in the Polish section of the West Carpathians have been summed up by Paweł Valde-Nowak, one of the most distinguished researchers of that region (Valde-Nowak 1988: 11–15). In Valde-Nowak’s opinion, the earliest expression of the scientific interest in the prehistoric Carpathian settlement is Józef Żurowski’s study from the 1930s (Żurowski 1935). Żurowski recorded a concentration of finds within the foothills and their trace presence in the Beskids. Carpathian archaeology also owes much to Andrzej Żaki, who in his studies concerning primarily the Early Middle Ages (Żaki 1967) noted the ‘Rzeszow’ type of Neolithic ceramics, linked later with the Malice culture (Żaki 1962: 198, 199; Kamieńska 1973: 101). Jan Machnik collected data about the Corded Ware culture in the entire Polish Carpathians (Machnik 1960). In the 1960s, abundant materials were obtained in the loess foothills near Rzeszow, Przemyśl and Wieliczka (e.g. Aksamit 1962; 1966; Kozłowski 1974; Kadrow 1990).

Even at that early stage, general theses were advanced, e.g. about the role of the Carpathian passes in the contacts with the Carpathian Basin (e.g. Żaki 1955). Researchers also embarked on the cultural and chronological arrangement of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age materials uncovered in the Carpathians.2

In the 1970s and later, scientific interests began to focus on the mutual relationships between settlement, environment 2 Kamieńska 1973; Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1973; Kozłowski 1974; Machnik 1967.

and economy (Kruk 1973). Archaeological studies (Kruk 1980; Tunia 1986; Valde-Nowak 1988) pooled the results of previous palynological analyses of the Carpathian materials.3 Foundations were laid of the school of Carpathian archaeology, inspired to a greater or lesser degree by the investigation of settlement, environment and economy mentioned above (Tunia 1986; Valde-Nowak 1988; Machnik 1992). Exploration carried out by followers of this school has resulted in many valuable publications both about the Polish section4 and the Slovak section of the West Carpathians.5

New archaeological discoveries and the deepening knowledge of the landform features and the natural environment of the West Carpathians have allowed researchers to recognize the important role which the passes of Low Beskid played in the transCarpathian contacts and in the exchange of people, ideas, artefacts and raw materials along the north-south axis (Machnik/Mačala 2001: 15–17). It seems also possible to confirm an analogous function of the passes in the Bieszczady (Parczewski/Pelisiak/Szczepanek 2012: 15).

The research on the transCarpathian contacts has also gained useful data from Jan Gancarski’s field investigation in Doły Jasielsko-Sanockie, centred around fortified settlement in the Early and Older Bronze Age (e.g. Gancarski 1988; 1999; 2002; 2006), as well as from field investigations carried out in Maszkowice and other Bronze Age sites in the Dunajec valley.6

TransCarpathian contacts: Concepts and their determinants

Włodzimierz Antoniewicz, author of the first study of Polish prehistory (Antoniewicz 1928), was clearly influenced by Robert Gradmann’s Steppenheidentheorie. As he explained, in the Neolithic Age, c. 4000 BC, ‘drought in the fertile steppes on the Danube forced a considerable army of settlers to set off along the large river channels both to the west, into the regions situated on the Rhine, and to the north, across Moravia to Silesia and Małopolska. Those were farmers, skilled also in cattle and pig breeding. (…) Due to a growth in population and to continued droughts, the people moved still farther, to fertile and forestless lands (…)’ (Antoniewicz 1928: 39). The groups migrated from the south (the Carpathian Basin) to the north (Małopolska) not by the shortest route, i.e. across the West Carpathians, but across Moravia, presumably through the Moravian Gate, bypassing the Carpathians from the west. Antoniewicz drew on Gustaf Kossinna’s theories, too, as evidenced by his opinion that the division of the cultural groups in the Early Neolithic Age, based on stylistic and

3 e.g. Koperowa 1962; Pawlikowa 1965; Harmata 1969; Ralska-Jasiewiczowa 1968.4 Machnik 2001; Przybyła/Blajer 2008; Zych 2008; Parczewski/Pelisiak/Szczepanek 2012.5 e.g. Kaczanowska/Kozłowski/Nowak 1997; Kozłowski 1997; Nowak 1997; Machnik 2001; 2008.6 e.g. Cabalska 1970; Kienlin et al. 2010; Kienlin et al. 2013; Przybyła/Skoneczna/Vitoš 2012; Przybyła/Skoneczna 2013.

16


typological analysis of ceramics, corresponded to the ethnic units (Antoniewicz 1928: 40).

In the Early Bronze Age, Małopolska witnessed groups of people migrating from present-day Hungary, who used flexed burials, and new groups from Bukovina and Moldova, moving along the outer eastern arc of the Carpathians. The more accessible Carpathian passes, on the other hand, were used to transport bronze knobbed shaft-hole axes, willow-leaf earrings and Noppenringe, signifying the presence of short but crucial trade routes leading from the south to the north (Antoniewicz 1928: 77).

Kossinna’s eminent disciple Józef Kostrzewski interpreted the great economic turning point of the Polish Neolithic Age as brought about by human groups, termed by him the Banded Pottery people, migrating from the areas on the central Danube through the Moravian Gate into Małopolska. The people moved further on to the east (toward Volhynia) and the south-east (toward Podolia) along the northern and north-eastern arc of the Carpathians (Kostrzewski 1949: 29–30).

Slightly later, Małopolska received more migrants from the south, i.e. a Tisza culture group who spread to the east, reaching as far as Red Ruthenia and Volhynia. Another group, representing the south Moravian Painted Pottery culture, settled in western Małopolska (Kostrzewski 1949: 32–36). The youngest stage of the presence of the Danubian cultures in Małopolska, the Radial Decorated Pottery people, was also related to migration from the south (Kostrzewski 1949: 59).

Konrad Jażdżewski writes: ‘styles of ceramics within the Danubian complex do not express differences greater than dialectal variants within a large linguistic unit, varieties of dress in different regions of the same population or changes in aesthetic tastes in subsequent generations of essentially the same community’ (Kostrzewski/Chmielewski/Jażdżewski 1965: 60). This opinion places him in the centre of culture-historical archaeology, where the normative concept of an archaeological culture is of great importance. Elsewhere Jażdżewski states: ‘first of all, we should try every available source arguing for the local development of individual cultures, without recourse, unnecessary in most cases, to migrationist theories invoked in order to interpret those phenomena’ (Jażdżewski 1981: 292–294). This quotation, in turn, reflects the stance of the ‘autochthonous school’ in Polish archaeology, which – though grounded in Kossinna’s Siedlungsarchäologie and conforming to the majority of its premises – rejects migrationism in favour of seeking the local roots of the most significant cultural phenomena. Such a view was a response to the use of Siedlungsarchäologie by the Nazi, who wanted to legitimise their political aims by referring to prehistory, in which Germanic migrations played a major part (cf. Lech 1998: 34–38, 48–54, 65–78; Kadrow 2011a: 132).

However, the ‘autochthonous school’, too, links the earliest Neolithic Age in Poland with the influx of a farming population from Moravia through the Moravian Gate (Kostrzewski/Chmielewski/Jażdżewski 1965: 60–61; Hensel 1988: 57). The ‘Carpathian barrier’ is thought to have been crossed no earlier than by the Bükk population migrating from the borderland between Slovakia and Hungary into Małopolska (Kostrzewski/Chmielewski/Jażdżewski 1965: 69). The Moravian Gate and the Carpathian passes were also used by groups of the Lengyel, Bodrogkeresztur and Radial Decorated Pottery cultures in their expansion to the north. Researchers emphasise long-distance contacts of those people, occasioned by the acquisition of copper and the exchange of various ornaments (Kostrzewski/Chmielewski/Jażdżewski 1965: 73, 78, 105–108).

Followers of culture-historical archaeology give no reasons for the expansion of the Danubian cultures to the north of the Carpathians, and they explain the Carpathian contacts in the Neolithic and, particularly, the Bronze Ages mostly with the need for raw materials (various kinds of flint, obsidian, amber, copper etc.). The transfer of ideas and technologies, they believe, resulted from the acquisition of raw materials. The progress of civilisation in the Bronze Age would not have been possible without contacts with areas on the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. This refers not only to the Únětice or the Madarovce cultures but also to the essentially Neolithic Strzyżów culture (Kostrzewski/Chmielewski/Jażdżewski 1965: 119, 121, 132–135).

In the 1960s, a group of archaeologists in Krakow undertook to systematise relative chronology and taxonomy of the Danubian and Early Bronze Age cultures in Małopolska in keeping with the standards accepted south and south-west of the Carpathians.7 The researchers, focusing on the basic elements of the archaeological method: typology, taxonomy and chronology, deliberately placed themselves outside the ‘neo-autochthonous school’ and other trends in Polish archaeology of that time. The taxonomic and chronological foundations of their work, with slight modifications, remain valid even today. Their specifications have revealed the significance of the transCarpathian contacts and stimulated detailed studies of the relationships between various cultural units in the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Ages around the West Carpathians.

Discussion within that current of Polish archaeology centres around two issues: a. whether and to what extent the areas north of the Carpathians were the destination of successive waves of migration from the south in the younger phases of the development of the Danubian cultures, and b. the reasons and mechanisms of the transCarpathian contacts.

7 e.g. Kozłowski 1966; Kamieńska 1967; 1973; Kamieńska/Kozłowski 1970; Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1968; Machnik 1967.

17


Among a wide range of approaches, two opposite views stand out. According to one of them, there was no continuation between the Linear Pottery culture and the younger stage of the Danubian cultural circle; the settlement phases in Małopolska may have been separated even by 200–300 years. Consequently, proponents of that view postulate that the areas north of the Carpathians were settled once more by a second great wave of migration from the south, particularly from the central part of northern Hungary. The Aszód group in that region shows close analogies to the Samborzec-Opatów group (cf. e.g. Raczky/Domboróczki/Hajdú 2007: fig. 5, 1–2), which opens the post-Linear stage of settlement in Małopolska. From that perspective, the Malice culture had foreign, Lengyel (contrary to Juraj Pavúk 2007), origins as well (Kaczanowski/Kozłowski 1998: 111–112).

The second view emphasises the continuation of settlement in Małopolska, suggesting an uninterrupted transition from the Linear culture to the younger Danubian cultures. Anna Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa writes: ‘The culture of the Linear Pottery communities developing in Małopolska underwent essential changes under the impact of the reinforced southern trends. The rich compact environment witnessed the merging of currents transmitting cultural elements from many directions, especially a great wave of the Lengyel influences’ (Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1979: 99). From that perspective, the key part was played by the transCarpathian contacts and influences, not by migrations or the influx of new human groups.

The dispute outlined above as well as the marked difference of views on the role of Mesolithic elements in the development of Neolithic communities in the Balkans and the Carpathian Basin8 demonstrate that the abundance of sources does not preclude the polarization of opinions also among experts in source studies, not only among more theoretically-oriented archaeologists. The presented examples challenge the thesis that inferences in archaeology are determined by sources alone. Supporters of this thesis, who may be called unreflective positivists, still constitute a substantial proportion of archaeologists in the former Ostblock countries.

Between these polarized opinions, however, it is possible to find a middle ground which will include both migration and influences. The identification of various forms of the Carpathian contacts is aided considerably by the study of the extraction and distribution of stone materials in the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Ages. Lech (1981) and Kaczanowska (1985) put stress on the inflow of obsidian from the borderland between Slovakia and Hungary across the Low Beskid passes to Małopolska (e.g. Lech 1981: figs. 6, 7; Kaczanowska 1985: fig. 89). It seems that raw materials, e.g. Jurassic flint, were exported from Małopolska as well, mostly through the Moravian Gate, to Moravia and e.g. Spiš in the Carpathians, while

8 e.g. Lichardus-Itten/Lichardus 2003; Neustupný 2004 vs. Todorova 2003; Pavúk 2004.

Volhynian flint from Volhynia and the Dniester basin went across the Low Beskid passes to eastern Slovakia and north-eastern Hungary (Kaczanowska 1985: 190–197, figs. 88, 89). The models of stone material supplies around the West Carpathians have been inspired by the findings of processual archaeology, as evidenced by the bibliographical references in both publications.

The culture-historical approach includes Jan Gancarski’s field investigation in Doły Jasielsko-Sanockie, mentioned above, and the even broader research (as well as its interpretations) carried out by Ladislav Olexa and Darius Gašaj in eastern Slovakia. The studies focus on the identification and recording of settlement traces of the Otomani-Füzesabony culture on both sides of the Carpathians (e.g. Gašaj 2002a; 2002b; Olexa 2002; Gancarski 2006). Gancarski, Gašaj and Olexa perceive that part of prehistoric Central Europe as a crucial link between the great civilisations of the Anatolian-Balkan zone and the areas on the Baltic Sea (Gancarski 2002: 7), its role resulting from the abundant natural resources, mainly deposits of copper ore, and the favourable geographical situation of eastern Slovakia. The region came under the influence of the Balkan and Anatolian centres, the Mycenaean culture in particular (Gašaj 2002c: 11). By taking this view, the researchers place themselves firmly among adherents of the idea ex Oriente lux, especially its version called Ägäische Faszination (cf. Lichardus/Vladár 1996: 26), a rather deprecating term coined by proponents of the rival thesis who relate the Mycenaean culture and the contemporary advanced cultural phenomena in the Carpathian Basin to the steppe influences (Lichardus/Vladár 1996; also Bátora 2006). The argument between supporters of these two theses tends to push the issue of archaeological sources into the background (cf. e.g. Kadrow 1998).

By thus invoking different concepts of the mythical organisation of the world (in the meaning suggested by Leszek Kołakowski 2005), the Slovak archaeologists may be influenced to some extent not only by diverse research traditions but also by rivalry between the academic centres of the eastern (Gašaj and Olexa: Košice) and western (Lichardus, Vladár and Bátora: originally, Nitra) Slovakia.

Jan Lichardus, one of the most eminent followers of culture-historical archaeology, is also one of the few who, when analysing the successive phases of invasion of the steppe peoples on the Balkans and the Carpathian Basis, take care to support their theses with theoretical premises – in this case, with the functionalist theory of a social group or an archaeological culture and with historical accounts of the effects of the invasions during the migration of people (Lichardus 1991: 181, 191). Lichardus lends archaeological credence to the theory of migration of the steppe peoples, which he treats a priori as the only feasible one, by reconstructing the key moments of the historical process. The concept of a social group as a stable system leads him to the conclusion that such a group could have been changed by external factors only. He invokes

18


accounts of the invasions at the time of the migration of people as a reliable model of cultural change. However, he passes over the fact that the invasions and migrations functioned as events of ‘second degree history’ even while they were being recorded in the form of a chronicle. Accounts like those operated within the ‘social framework of memory’. When construed, they were usually subject to manipulations as political or ideological tools (cf. Assman 2008; Saryusz-Wolska 2009: 20–23; Kadrow 2011b: 46–47). Consequently, they underwent conventionalization; the historical uniqueness of described events clashed in them with views about social and political reality which were common in a given cultural context (cf. Żmudzki 2009: 11–23).

The point of the discussion on the role and significance of migration in prehistory, not only in the context of the Carpathian studies, is not to pointlessly deny the migrations as a sociocultural and political phenomenon in the past, but to determine their function in the processes of cultural change. As a good illustration of this approach, I would mention publications by Carola Metzner-Nebelsick, who investigates relationships between various historical phenomena which were behind the ‘crisis of the system’ of communities inhabiting the Carpathian Basin at the beginning of the first millennium BC, and which set in motion the steppe peoples from Eastern Europe (e.g. Metzner-Nebelsick 1998; 2010).

Due to the tendency to identify an archaeological culture with culture in general, followers of culture-historical archaeology attach much weight to the names of cultures, and even more weight to the territory where the eponym of a given culture comes from. This leads to the first type of distortion described by Pierre Bourdieu, related to the researcher’s ethnic origin affecting the interpretation (Wacquant 2001: 32). Several publications show the variable terms designating the archaeological culture which is most often called Otomani or Füzesabony (Bóna 1975; 1991; Gašaj 2002a). The controversial naming of that cultural unit, one of the most important in prehistoric Europe, results from a political event, the division of the Hungarian territory after the First World War (e.g. Bóna 1991: 10). The phenomenon of tell settlement in the Middle Bronze Age has been given almost as many names as there were new states created in Europe after the Treaty of Trianon in 1920. And, though the compromise name ‘the Otomani-Füzesabony culture’ may suggest otherwise, this terminological variety is not merely a linguistic issue (e.g. Gancarski 1999).

Regrettably, culture-historical archaeology often defines specific archaeological cultures or other cultural units in different ways to achieve the expected scientific aims. Archaeologists from Romania, Slovakia and (in their majority) Poland tend to use the names ‘the Otomani culture’ or ‘the Otomani-Füzesabony culture’ in their broadest sense, i.e. with reference to the markedly different phenomena defined precisely by Hungarian scholars, such as Otomani, Füzesabony or Gyulavarsand (e.g. Bóna 1991:

26–32). This makes it impossible to properly estimate the role of the Kost’any group/culture in the development of the Füzesabony culture or, more generally, identify the part played in that process by the Samborzec group of the Mierzanowice culture (cf. Kadrow 1997: 234, fig. 5).

A similar mechanism, based on the ‘ethnic distortion’, seems to be characteristic of the debate between Slovak and Polish archaeologists concerning the taxonomic position of the Chłopice-Veselé group. Several Polish publications suggest that the name be abandoned as it combines chronologically different assemblages of artefacts (Kadrow/Machnikowie 1992: 90). Stratigraphic data and radiocarbon datings indicate that assemblages of the Chłopice type are older than those of the Veselé type. Further, the types differ distinctly in the style and typology of the forms and ornamentation of ceramics (cf. Kadrow/Machnik 1997: 49–53). Accordingly, the thesis, popular among scholars in Slovakia, that the Chłopice-Veselé group originated in Eastern Europe (e.g. Točik 1963: 716; Vladár 1973: 254; Točik/Vladár 1971: 367), is unfounded, because the Chłopice type assemblages (= the proto-Mierzanowice phase of the Mierzanowice culture) had no eastern references, being rooted in the local environment of the late Corded Ware culture in Małopolska (Kadrow/Machnik 1997: 25–28). The Polish suggestion has been ignored by Slovak researchers (e.g. Bátora 2000: 517–524). Apparently, the attractive myth of the East European steppes indoeuropeanizing Europe has proved again to be a stronger argument than the archaeological sources.

Apart from general studies which necessarily include some discussion of the archaeological findings in the Carpathians (e.g. Kristiansen 1987; Frank 1993; Sherratt 1993), researchers seldom examine the Carpathian contacts by invoking the model of the centre and the peripheries (e.g. Braudel 1992; Wallerstein 1994). Klára Fischl employs it to present a few variants of relationships between the Mycenaean and the Füzesabony cultures (Fischl 2012). The author of this paper, by using the relations between the centre, peripheries and margins as an example, attempts to establish the northern range of the Mycenaean influences and to determine their nature in the Carpathian Basin and the areas north of the Carpathians (Kadrow 2007). By the same method, Marcin S. Przybyła reconstructs the paradigms of cultural transmission in the Late Bronze Age in the West Carpathians (Przybyła 2009: 367–374). Other authors, while seeking their own explanatory models, appreciate the value of Fernand Braudel’s and Immanuel Wallerstein’s proposals. Their interest centres e.g. around the growing marginalisation of the Otomani influences toward the north (e.g. Makarowicz 1999) or around the routes linking the cultural centres of the Aegean civilisation, the Balkans and the Carpathian Basin to the areas situated north of the Carpathians (Makarowicz 2012; Czebreszuk 2011).

The next stage of reconstructing the Carpathian contacts is related to field investigations and studies of settlement based on theoretical assumptions of the functional school

19


in Polish archaeology (mainly Kruk 1973; 1980). First of all, researchers have identified the boundaries of the settled areas in the Polish Carpathians in the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Ages (Valde-Nowak 1988), proving that the settlement expanded with time: the Forelands and the threshold of the Foothills were settled already in the Early Neolithic Age; the Foothills themselves underwent the colonisation in the period of the younger Danubian cultures, while mountain valleys and lower parts of the Beskids were not colonized until the turn of the Neolithic and the Bronze Ages (Valde-Nowak 1988: 80–104, fig. 37). The findings have been made possible by detailed analyses of the distribution of settlement points representing various cultures in diverse conditions of the natural environment in the Carpathians (Valde-Nowak 1988: 46–75).

The wider scope of observation and the deeper analytic programme have resulted in a model of the ‘mountain facies of the Neolithic Age in Eastern Europe’, i.e. in the German Central Uplands, the Sudetes and the West Carpathians (e.g. Valde-Nowak 1995; 1998). The model is partly based on the study of usefulness of various areas in the Polish Carpathians for cultivation and breeding (Valde-Nowak 1988: 76–81) and on the detailed reconstruction of pastoralism as the dominant form of economy in the mountain areas (Valde-Nowak 1995: 129–141).

The model of the ‘mountain facies of the Neolithic Age’ and mountain pastoralism in Eastern Europe has been proposed as an alternative to Jan Machnik’s view that the Funnel Beaker settlement was an indispensable preliminary to the expansion of the Corded Ware population in the Carpathians (Machnik 1992: 56). His argument is based on Janusz Kruk’s model of environmental, economic and cultural changes in the loess uplands (1973; 1980), where the pressure of a dense network of Funnel Beaker sites on the environment created vast woodless areas favouring the development of pastoral economy of the Corded Ware population. The range of the Corded Ware settlement, however, was much wider than that of the Funnel Beaker culture. The Corded Ware people, therefore, must have bred their herds not in the open areas but in forests (Valde-Nowak 1995: 133–140, 143–144). Both researchers reject the concept of hunting and gathering as the economic basis of the Late Neolithic population. They also disregard the impact of the cooling and moistening climate which may have enhanced the effects of the pressure of even small human groups in the process of deforestation at that time (cf. Kalicki 2006: 292; Kadrow 2008: 246–248).

The archaeological school inspired by the rules of functional archaeology includes research on settlement structures in the loess upland near the Carpathians in the Bronze and the Early Iron Ages (Przybyła/Blajer 2008). The research, however, concerns not only the relationships between the natural environment, settlement and economy but also the correspondence between structures of the social organisation and structures of the settlement network (Przybyła/Blajer 2008: 102–110). It also seeks archaeological premises of determining the continuity

or discontinuity of settlement. In contrast with other investigations carried out by this archaeological school, presented above, it attaches much weight to chronology, taxonomy and source studies.

It seems that Przybyła and Blajer’s publication (2008) has given rise to a new approach which gains popularity in Carpathian archaeology, often serving a pretext for exploring more general issues. Successive publications show the expanding range of environmental, economic and settlement studies, also involving GIS techniques, e.g. the view-shed analysis (e.g. Przybyła/Skoneczna/Vitoš 2012: fig. 19). Studies of this kind, in contrast with culture-historical archaeology, focus on local determinants of settlement, primarily within microregions. They are aided by non-invasive methods of archaeological survey, which appear particularly effective when correlated with excavations and surface survey of the Polish Archaeological Record type (Kienlin et al. 2010; Kienlin et al. 2013).

The studies have demonstrated that upland or fortified settlements (Maszkowice, Marcinkowice, Zawada Lanckorońska and Janowice) in the Carpathians were elements of a stable settlement network based on profitable exploitation of local resources. They were brought about by internally conditioned socioeconomic and cultural processes. Their traces may be treated as evidence that certain parts of the Carpathians in the Bronze Age were not a periphery of the neighbouring centres but an area of regular settlement.

The findings of culture-historical and processual archaeologies considered from the synthesising perspective of the neo-Darwinian school (cf. Przybyła 2011: 186–191) offer a wider view of the Carpathian migrations. The researched issues include socioeconomic and cultural crises determined by natural phenomena. The climatically unfavourable effects of the eruption of Iceland’s volcano Hekla in 1159 BC are used as an example in analysing the chains of events which led to the crisis in the HA1 period (Central European chronology) and the PH IIIC period (Aegean chronology), resulting in migrational movements and profound changes both in archaeological cultures and in symbolic culture (cf. Przybyła 2006: 104–106, 128–132, fig. 3).

Another issue of interest is the method to distinguish archaeological traces of migration from those of exchange contacts or diffusion of so-called cultural packages. In examining the migrations, researchers propose inference procedures based on analysis of various features of ceramics (Przybyła 2010). These studies stand out favourably from publications guided by the premises of geographical determinism or by the imperative of conquest which allegedly motivated the migrating warlike Indo-Europeans.

Moreover, attempts at overcoming the normative concept of an archaeological culture and the resulting

20


interpretation of intercultural contacts (also those across and around the Carpathians) include the use of network analysis in the study of relationships between various territorial units of the Baden culture (Furholt 2011). The solutions are partly inspired by the concepts of the ‘time of the tribes’ or the ‘return of the barbarians’ as an assessment of modern societies (cf. Maffesoli 1988). This approach justifies employing the methods of studying contemporary communities or market behaviour and mass culture in research on prehistoric communities, because those contemporary phenomena are viewed as structurally similar to tribal behaviours.

Concluding remarks

Of course, the sources, mechanisms or effects of migration described above provoke discussion about their theoretical basis. Personally I doubt that factors as climatic changes or other cataclysms – according to the concept of a culture I accept – can be direct reasons behind migrations, invasions or, broadly speaking, cultural transformations.

Migration is a political and organisational (sociocultural) fact. As a component of the natural environment that remains outside human culture, climate cannot influence migration directly. It is part of so-called border conditions of cultural and civilizational phenomena, and it may be a necessary condition of cultural change, but never its sufficient condition. It creates conditions to introduce some political and organisational solutions (e.g. it can help make the decision to migrate), but it does not bring them about directly (cf. Habermas 1981: 40–45). Reconstruction of necessary and sufficient conditions requires knowledge of images of the world prevalent in a given society that involve moral and practical suggestions about how to solve organisational and legal problems in an essential framework of world-view and religion (Habermas 1981: 40–45).

This thesis may be illustrated with the Biblical exodus of families of herdsmen from Egypt in the mid-second millennium BC. Joseph, sold into Egyptian bondage by his jealous brothers (Gen. 37:12–28), rose high in the pharaoh’s court thanks to his exceptional talents (Gen. 41:37–57; 47:13–26) and triggered great immigration of herdsmen who had starved in Canaan (Gen. 42:1–24; 43:1–34). The immigrants believed even then that their stay in Egypt would boost their power and importance, as reflected in God’s words to Joseph: ‘Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for I will make you into a great nation there’ (Gen. 46:3). When dying, Joseph assured his brothers that they would not stay in Egypt for ever and that they would receive what God had earlier promised to the great patriarchs: ‘I am about to die. But God will surely come to your aid and take you up out of this land to the land he promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ (Gen. 50:24). The exodus from Egypt, therefore, had been planned even before the pharaoh started to make the lives of the families bitter (Ex. 1:11–22). After Joseph’s death and then after long oppression, the immigrants found a

new leader in Moses, who urged them to leave Egypt and go to the Promised Land (Ex. 3:1–15; 6:2–13). He led the migrants out of the country (Ex. 12:37–42), turning them into a nation with a strong sense of its own identity, mainly due to a code of laws and rituals formulated during their journey to Canaan (e.g. Ex. 20:1–17).

The Biblical story of the immigrants leaving Egypt, i.e. their migration from Egypt to Canaan, shows clearly that the decisive (necessary and sufficient) condition of their migration (exodus) was the image of the Promised Land present in their consciousness. The image developed before the external factors (the oppression, plagues, starvation etc.), which functioned only as border (necessary but insufficient) conditions. They were conducive to the decision about leaving Egypt; however, the plan to leave Egypt had been formed much earlier and independently of those external factors (Kadrow 2010: 55–57).

In accepted by me directions of modern sociology dominated a picture that a community is a dynamic, historically shaped phenomenon undergoing transformations that are mostly determined internally (cf. e.g. Giddens 2003: 331–406; Sztompka 2007: 67–77). Stable self-controlled systems (social structures) aiming at equilibrium have been replaced with active subjects, human beings. Their practical activity is determined by environment interpreted in two ways: a) as the natural environment; b) as the ideological environment (images of the world; Sztompka 2007: 202–212). The natural environment generates conditions that are necessary but insufficient, while ideology generates conditions that are necessary and decisive (Habermas 1981: 40–45). Motives of human actions are shaped by culture and history, not by a direct impact of natural or economic factors (Sztompka 2007: 212–217).

The Carpathian contacts provide a good opportunity to demonstrate that the adopted theory and the position in the archaeological milieu have an impact on the researcher’s results. The outline of the problem presented above does not aspire to exhaust the subject. On the contrary, it is only intended to point out certain cognitive (epistemological) determinants, unrelated to source material, which tend to be overlooked in research practice of culture-historical archaeologists.

Address

Sławomir KadrowInstytut Archeologii i Etnologii PANul. Sławkowska 1731-016 Krakó[email protected]

References

Aksamit 1962 T. Aksamit, Sprawozdanie z badań osady neolitycznej w Rzeszowie w r. 1962. In: T. Aksamit

21


(ed.), Sprawozdania Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka Archeologicznego za rok 1962. Rzeszów: Muzeum Okręgowe w Rzeszowie 1962, 9–11.

Aksamit 1966 T. Aksamit, Badania osad neolitycznych na terenie Rzeszowa. In: T. Aksamit (ed.), Sprawozdania Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka Archeologicznego za rok 1965. Rzeszów: Muzeum Okręgowe w Rzeszowie 1966, 15–23.

Antoniewicz 1928 W. Antoniewicz, Archeologia Polski. Zarys czasów przedhistorycznych i wczesnodziejowych ziem polskich. Warszawa: Trzaska, Evert i Michalski 1928.

Assmann 2008 J. Assmann, Pamięć kulturowa. Pismo, zapamiętywanie i polityczna tożsamość w cywilizacjach starożytnych. Warszawa: 2008.

Bátora 2000 J. Bátora, Das Gräberfeld von Jelšovce/Slowakei. Ein Beitrag zur Frühbronzezeit im nordwestlichen Karpatenbecken. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 16. Kiel: Oetker/Voges 2000.

Bátora 2006 J. Bátora, Štúdie ku komunikácii medzi Strednou a Východnou Európou v dobe bronzovej. Bratislava: Petrus 2006.

Binford 1962 L. R. Binford, Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28, 1962, 217–225.

Bóna 1975 I. Bóna, Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen. Budapest: Academiai Kiado 1975.

Bóna 1992 I. Bóna, Bronzezeitliche Tell-Kulturen in Ungarn. In: W. Meier-Arendt (ed.), Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Frankfurt a. M.: Pytheas 1992, 9–41.

Bourdieu 1972 P. Bourdieu, Esquisse d’une théorie de la practique. Précédé de Trois etudes d’ethnologie kabyle. Genève: Librairie Droz 1972.

Braudel 1992 F. Braudel, Kultura materialna, gospodarka i kapitalizm XV–XVIII wiek. Struktury codzienności. Tom 1. Możliwe i niemożliwe. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy 1992.

Cabalska 1970 M. Cabalska, Sprawozdanie z badań osady kultury łużyckiej w Maszkowicach. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 22, 1970, 91–101.

Childe 1926 V. G. Childe, The Aryans: A Study of Indo-European Origins. London: Kegan Paul 1926.

Childe 1926a V. G. Childe, The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1926.

Childe 1929 V. G. Childe, The Most Ancient East: The Oriental Prelude to European Prehistory. London: Kegan Paul 1929.

Childe 1936 V. G. Childe, Man Makes Himself. London: Watts 1936.

Childe 1942 V. G. Childe, What Happened in History. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books 1942.

Clark 1939 J. G. D. Clark, Archaeology and Society. London: Methuen 1939.

Clark 1957 J. G. D. Clark, Europa przedhistoryczna. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe 1957.

Clarke 1973 D. Clarke, Archaeology: the Loss of Innocence. Antiquity 47, 1973, 6–18.

Clarke 1978 D. Clarke, Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen 1978.

Czebreszuk 2011 J. Czebreszuk, Bursztyn w kulturze mykeńskiej. Zarys problematyki badawczej. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie 2011.

Čolović 2007 I. Čolović, Bałkany – terror kultury. Wołowiec: Czarne 2007.

Durkheim 1912 E. Durkheim, Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse. Le système totemique en Australie. Paris: Les Presses universitaires de France 1912.

Fischl 2012 K. P. Fischl, The role of the Hernád Valley in the Settlement Structure of the Füzesabony Culture. In: M. Jaeger/J. Czebreszuk/K. P. Fischl (eds.), Enclosed Space – Open Society. Contact and Exchange in the Context of Bronze Age Fortified Settlements in Central Europe. Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 9. Poznań: Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe 2012, 39–51.

Frank 1993 A. G. Frank, Bronze Age World System Cycles. Current Anthropology 34, 1993, 383–429.

Furholt 2011 M. Furholt, Polythetic classification and measures of similarity in material culture. A quantitative approach to Baden Complex material. In: S. Kadrow/W. Rączkowski (eds.), Things, Sources, Interpretations. Analecta Archaeologica Ressoviensia 4. Rzeszów: Instytut Archeologii UR 2011, 225–263.

Gancarski 1988 J. Gancarski, Wstępne sprawozdanie z badań osady trzciniecko-otomańskiej na stanowisku nr 29 w Jaśle, województwo krośnieńskie. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 27, 1988, 61–83.

Gancarski 1992 J. Gancarski, Wehranlage vom Beginn der Bronzezeit in Trzcinica, Gde. Jasło. In: J. Gancarski (ed.), Die Otomani-Füzesabony-Kultur. Entwicklung, Chronologie, Wirtschaft. Krosno: Muzeum Podkarpackie 1992, 131–144.

Gancarski 2002 J. Gancarski, The Otomani-Füzesabony Culture on the northern side of the Carpathians. In: J. Gancarski, Between Mycenae and the Baltic Sea. The Otomani-Füzesabony Culture. Krosno: Muzeum Podkarpackie 2002, 103–124.

Gancarski 2006 J. Gancarski, Trzcinica – Karpacka Troja. Krosno: Muzeum Podkarpackie 2006.

Gašaj 2002a D. Gašaj, The Otomani-Füzesabony Culture in Eastern Slovakia. In: J. Gancarski, Between Mycenae and the Baltic Sea. The Otomani-Füzesabony Culture. Krosno: Muzeum Podkarpackie 2002, 15–20.

Gašaj 2002b D. Gašaj, Fortified Settlements and their Economic Life. In: J. Gancarski, Between Mycenae and the Baltic Sea. The Otomani-Füzesabony Culture. Krosno: Muzeum Podkarpackie 2002, 21–52.

Gašaj 2002c D. Gašaj, Between Mycenae and the Baltic Sea. In: J. Gancarski, Between Mycenae and the Baltic Sea. The Otomani-Füzesabony Culture. Krosno: Muzeum Podkarpackie 2002, 11–14.

Geremek/Kula 2004 B. Geremek/W. Kula, Fernand Braudel i „Morze Śródziemne”. In: F. Braudel, Morze Śródziemne i świat śródziemnomorski w epoce Filipa II. Vol. 1. Warszawa: Książka i Wiedza 2004, 6–13.

22


Giddens 1984 A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Oxford: Blackwell 1984.

Giddens 2003 A. Giddens, Stanowienie społeczeństwa. Zarys teorii strukturacji. Poznań: Zysk i S-ka Wydawnictwo 2003.

Gimbutas 1977 M. Gimbutas, The First Wave of Eurasian Steppe Pastoralists into Copper Age Europe. Journal of Indo-European Studies 5, 1977, 277–339.

Gingrich 2007 A. Gingrich, Kraje niemieckojęzyczne. In: F. Barth/A. Gingrich/R. Parkin/S. Silverman, Antropologia. Jedna dyscyplina, cztery tradycje: brytyjska, niemiecka, francuska i amerykańska. Kraków: Wydawnictwo UJ 2007, 73–176.

Gronenborn 2010 D. Gronenborn, Climate, crisis, and the „neolithisation” of Central Europe between IRD-Evants 6 and 4. In: D. Gronenborn/J. Petrasch (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. Inernationale Tagung Mainz 24. bis 26. Juni 2005. Mainz: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum 2010, 61–80.

Habermas 1976 J. Habermas, Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1976.

Habermas 1981 J. Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (vol. 1 Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung; vol. 2 Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1981.

Harmata 1969 K. Harmata, Materiały do postglacjalnej historii roślinności Karpat Zachodnich. Torfowisko na Palenicy. Folia Quarternaria 33, 1969, 1–14.

Häusler 1992 A. Häusler, Archäologie und Ursprung der Indogermanen. Das Altertum 38, 1992, 3–16.

Hensel 1988 W. Hensel, Polska starożytna. Wrocław: Ossolineum ³1988.

Hodder 1986 I. Hodder, Reading the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1986.

Jankuhn 1977 H. Jankuhn, Einführung in die Siedlungsarchäologie. Berlin: de Gruyter 1977.

Jażdżewski 1981 K. Jażdżewski, Pradzieje Europy Środkowej. Wrocław: Ossolineum 1981.

Johnson 2010 M. Johnson, Archaeological Theory. An Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell ²2010.

Kaczanowska 1985 M. Kaczanowska, Rohstoffe, Technik und Typologie der neolithischen Feuersteinindustrie im Nordteil des Flussgebietes der Mitteldonau. Warszawa: PWN 1985.

Kaczanowska et al. 1997 M. Kaczanowska/J. K. Kozłowski/M. Nowak, Conclusions. In: J. K. Kozłowski (ed.), The Linear Pottery Culture in Eastern Slovakia. Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat 1. Kraków: PAU 1997, 267–273.

Kaczanowski/Kozłowski 1998 P. Kaczanowski/J. K. Kozłowski, Najdawniejsze dzieje ziem polskich. Wielka Historia Polski 1. Kraków: Fogra 1998.

Kadrow 1990 S. Kadrow, Osada neolityczna na stan. nr 16 w Rzeszowie na Osiedlu Piastów. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 41, 1990, 9–76.

Kadrow 1995 S. Kadrow, Gospodarka i społeczeństwo. Wczesny okres epoki brązu w Małopolsce. Kraków: IAE PAN 1995.

Kadrow 1996 S. Kadrow, Faza rzeszowska kultury Malickiej. In: J. K. Kozłowski (ed.), Kultura Malicka. Drugi etap adaptacji naddunajskich wzorców kulturowych w neolicie północnej części Środkowej Europy. Kraków: PAU 1996, 51–70.

Kadrow 1997 S. Kadrow, Bemerkungen zur Chronologie der Frühbronzezeit in Kleinpolen und in der Slowakei. In: C. Becker/M.-L. Dunkelmann/C. Metzner-Nebelsick/H. Peter-Röcher/M. Roeder/B. Terúan (eds.), Chronos. Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie zwischen Nord-und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Bernhard Hänsel, Internationale Archäologie, Studia honoraria. Espelkamp: Leidorf 1997, 229–235.

Kadrow 1998 S. Kadrow, Osteuropäische Beziehungen des epischnurkeramischen karpatenländischen Kulturkreises in der Frühbronzezeit. In: B. Hänsel/J. Machnik (eds.), Das Karpatenbecken und die osteuropäische Steppe. Nomadenbewegungen und Kulturaustausch in den vorchristlichen Metallzeiten (4000–500 v. Chr.). Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 12. München: Leidorf 1998, 253–260.

Kadrow 2007 S. Kadrow, North of Carpathians – The Outskirts of the Aegean World? In: I. Galanaki/H. Tomas/Y. Galanakis/R. Laffineur (eds.), Between the Aegean and Baltic Sees. Prehistory across Borders. Aegaeum 27. Liège: Université de Liège 2007, 323–329.

Kadrow 2008 S. Kadrow, Settlements and Subsistence Strategies of the Corded Ware Culture at the Beginning of the 3rd millennium BC in Southeastern Poland and in Western Ukraine. In: W. Dörfler/J. Müller (eds.), Umwelt, Wirtschaft, Siedlungen im dritten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend Mitteleuropas und Südskandinaviens. Offa Bücher 84. Neumünster: Wachholtz 2008, 243–252.

Kadrow 2010 S. Kadrow, Examples of Migration in the Early Phases of the Metal Ages from a Contemporary Sociological Perspective. In: K. Dzięgielewski/M. S. Przybyła/A. Gawlik (eds.), Migration in Bronze and Early Iron Age Europe. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka 2010, 47–61.

Kadrow 2011a S. Kadrow, The German Influence on Polish Archaeology. In: A. Gramsch/U. Sommer (eds.), A History of Central European Archaeology. Theory, Methods, and Politics. Budapest: Archaeoligua 2011, 125–141.

Kadrow 2011b S. Kadrow, Power and Authority in Prehistory and the Problem of Interdisciplinary Archaeological Studies. Analecta Archaeologica Ressoviensia 6, 2011, 11–54.

Kadrow 2012 S. Kadrow, Źródła i mechanizmy zmiany kulturowej. Przypadek wczesnego eneolitu. In: B. Gediga/A. Grossman/W. Piotrowski (eds.), Rytm przemian kulturowych w pradziejach i średniowieczu. Biskupin: IAE PAN 2012.

23


Kadrow/Machnikowie 1992 S. Kadrow/A. Machnikowie, Iwanowice, stanowisko Babia Góra, część II. Cmentarzysko z wczesnego okresu epoki brązu. Kraków: IHKM PAN 1992.

Kadrow/Machnik 1997 S. Kadrow/J. Machnik, Kultura mierzanowicka. Chronologia, Taksonomia i rozwój przestrzenny. Prace Komisji Archeologicznej PAN O/Kraków 29. Kraków: PAN 1997.

Kalicki 2006 T. Kalicki, Zapis zmian klimatu oraz działalności człowieka i ich rola w holoceńskiej ewolucji dolin środkowoeuropejskich. Prace Geograficzne IGiPZ PAN 204. Warszawa: Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania PAN 2006.

Kamieńska 1967 J. Kamieńska, Z badań nad kulturą lendzielską w Małopolsce. Archeologia Polski 12, 1967, 257–279.

Kamieńska 1973 J. Kamieńska, Grupa malicka tzw. kultury nadcisańskiej w Małopolsce. In: J. Machnik (ed.), Z badań nad neolitem i wczesną epoką brązu w Małopolsce. Wrocław: Ossolineum 1973, 65–104.

Kamieńska/Kozłowski 1970 J. Kamieńska/J. K. Kozłowski, The Lengyel and Tisza Cultures. In: T. Wiślański (ed.), The Neolithic in Poland. Wrocław: Ossolineum 1970, 76–143.

Kienlin 2012 T. L. Kienlin, Patterns of Change, or: Perceptions Deceived? Comments on the Interpretation of Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Tell Settlement in the Carpathian Basin. In: T. L. Kienlin/A. Zimmermann (eds.), Beyond Elites. Alternatives to Hierarchical Systems in Modelling Social Formations. International Conference at the Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany October 22–24 2009. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 215. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt 2012, 251–310.

Kienlin et al. 2010 T. L. Kienlin/K. Cappenberg/M. M. Korczyńska/M. S. Przybyła/P. Valde-Nowak, Peripherie oder Kommunikationsraum? Siedlungsarchäologische Untersuchungen im Vorfeld der polnischen Westkarpaten (Wiśnicz-Hügelland und mittleres Dunajectal, Kleinpolen). In: B. Horejs/T. L. Kienlin (eds.), Siedlung und Handwerk. Studien zu sozialen Kontexten in der Bronzezeit. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorische Archäologie 194. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt 2010, 191–267.

Kienlin et al. 2013 T. L. Kienlin/K. Cappenberg/M. M. Korczyńska/J. Ociepka, Vorläufiger Bericht über die Prospektionsarbeiten der Jahre 2010 und 2011 im Umfeld der Höhensiedlung von Janowice (AZP 106-65 Nr. 61) im mittleren Dunajectal, Kleinpolen. Recherches Archéologiques, Nouvelle Serie 3, 2011, 113–141.

Kołakowski 2005 L. Kołakowski, Obecność mitu. Warszawa: Prószyński i S-ka 2005.

Koperowa 1962 W. Koperowa, Późnoglacjalna i holoceńska historia roślinności Kotliny Nowotarskiej. Archeologia Polski 2, 2005, 1–57.

Kossinna 1911 G. Kossinna, Die Herkunft der Germanen. Zur Methode der Siedlungsarchäologie. Würzburg: Kabitzsch 1911.

Kostrzewski 1949 J. Kostrzewski, Pradzieje Polski. Poznań: Księgarnia Akademicka 1949.

Kostrzewski et al. 1965 J. Kostrzewski/W. Chmielewski/K. Jażdżewski, Pradzieje Polski. Wrocław: Ossolineum 1965.

Kozłowski 1966 J. K. Kozłowski, Próba klasyfikacji materiałów zaliczanych do kultury lendzielskiej i nadcisańskiej w Polsce południowej. Archeologia Polski 11, 1966, 7–27.

Kozłowski 1974 J. K. Kozłowski, Über die Untersuchungen der östlichen Peripherien der Linien-Bandkeramik-Kultur. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 14, 1974, 5–55.

Kozłowski 1996 J. K. Kozłowski, The Malice Culture. In: J. K. Kozłowski (ed.), Kultura Malicka. Drugi etap adaptacji naddunajskich wzorców kulturowych w neolicie północnej części Środkowej Europy. Kraków: PAU 1996, 159–164.

Kozłowski 1997 J. K. Kozłowski (ed.), The Linear Pottery Culture in Eastern Slovakia. Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat 1. Kraków: PAU 1997.

Kristiansen 1987 K. Kristiansen, Centre and Periphery in Bronze Age Scandinavia. In: M. Rowlands/M. Larssen/K. Kristiansen (eds.), Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1987, 74–85.

Kristiansen/Larsson 2005 K. Kristiansen/T. Larsson, The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and Transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2005.

Kruk 1973 J. Kruk, Studia osadnicze nad neolitem wyżyn lessowych. Wrocław: Ossolineum 1973.

Kruk 1980 J. Kruk, Gospodarka w Polsce południowo-wschodniej w V–III tysiącleciu p.n.e. Wrocław: Ossolineum 1980.

Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1968 A. Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa, Ze studiów nad kulturą ceramiki wstęgowej w Polsce. Archeologia Polski 13, 1968, 56–124.

Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1973 A. Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa, Wczesnoneolityczne osadnictwo w dorzeczu Raby. In: J. Machnik (ed.), Z badań nad neolitem i wczesną epoką brązu w Małopolsce. Wrocław: Ossolineum 1973, 19–64.

Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1979 A. Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa, Pierwsze społeczeństwa rolnicze na ziemiach polskich. Kultury kręgu naddunajskiego. In: W. Hensel/T. Wiślański (eds.), Prahistoria Ziem Polskich 2. Neolit. Wrocław: Ossolineum 1979, 19–164.

Lech 1981 J. Lech, Górnictwo krzemienia społeczności wczesnorolniczych na Wyżynie Krakowskiej. KoniecVI tysiąclecia – 1 połowa IV tysiąclecia p.n.e. Wrocław: Ossolineum 1981.

Lech 1998 J. Lech, Between captivity and freedom: Polish archaeology in the 20th century. Archaeologia Polona 35, 1998, 25–222.

Lichardus 1991 J. Lichardus, Das Gräberfeld von Varna im Rahmen des Totenrituals des Kodžadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI-Komplexes. In: J. Lichardus (ed.),

24


Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Symposium Saarbrücken/Otzenhausen 1988. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 55. Bonn: Habelt 1991, 167–194.

Lichardus-Itten/Lichardus 2003 M. Lichardus-Itten/J. Lichardus, Strukturelle Grundlagen zum Verständnis der Noelithisierungsprozesse in Südost- und Mitteleuropa. In: J. Jerem/P. Raczky (eds.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Rtappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Budapest: Archaeolingua 2003, 61–81.

Lichardus/Vládar 1996 J. Lichardus/J. Vládar, Karpatenbecken – Sintašta – Mykene. Ein Beitrag zur Definition der Bronzezeit als historischer Epoche. Slovenská Archeológia 44, 1996, 25–93.

Lüning 1997 J. Lüning, Landschaftsarchäologie in Deutschland – Ein Programm. Archäologisches Nachrichtenblatt 2, 1997, 277–285.

Machnik 1960 J. Machnik, Ze studiów nad kulturą ceramiki sznurowej w Karpatach polskich. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 2, 1960, 55–86.

Machnik 1967 J. Machnik, Stosunki kulturowe na przełomie neolitu i epoki brązu w Małopolsce (na tle przemian w Europie Środkowej). Materiały do prahistorii ziem polskich. Część III. Epoka brązu. Zeszyt 1. Warszawa: IHKM PAN 1967.

Machnik 1992 J. Machnik, Die ältesten Hirten in den Karpaten. Schriften des Vorarlberger Landesmuseum 5, 1992, 55–58.

Machnik 2001 J. Machnik (ed.), Archaeology and Natural Background of the Lower Beskid Mountains, Carpathians. Part I. Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat 2. Kraków: PAU 2001.

Machnik 2008 J. Machnik (ed.), Archeologia i środowisko naturalne Beskidu Niskiego w Karpatach. Część II. Kurimská Brázda. Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat 4. Kraków: PAU 2008.

Machnik/Mačala 2001 J. Machnik/P. Mačala, General Results of the Polish-Slovak Interdisciplinary Research around the Lower Beskid Mountains. In: J. Machnik (ed.), Archaeology and Natural Background of the Lower Beskid Mountains, Carpathians. Part I. Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat 2. Kraków: PAU 201, 7–19.

Maffesoli 1988 M. Maffesoli, Le temps des tribus. Le déclin de l’individualisme dans les societies postmodernes. Paris: Hachette 1988.

Makarowicz 1999 P. Makarowicz, The Problem of Reception of Otomani Culture Patterns on the Polish Lowlands. In: J. Gancarski (ed.), Die Otomani-Füzesabony-Kultur – Entwicklung, Chronologie, Wirtschaft. Krosno: Muzeum Podkarpackie 1999, 231–247.

Makarowicz 2012 P. Makarowicz, Zwischen baltischen Bernstein und transylvanischem Gold. Der Trzciniec-Kulturkreis – nordöstlicher Partner der Otomani/Füzesabony-Kultur. In: M. Jaeger/J. Czebreszuk/K. P. Fischl (eds.), Enclosed Space – Open Society. Contact and Exchange in the Context of Bronze Age Fortified Settlements in Central Europe. Studien zur Archäologie

in Ostmitteleuropa 9. Poznań: Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe 2012, 177–214.

Marciniak 2012 A. Marciniak, Teoria w archeologii. In: S. Tabaczyński/A. Marciniak/D. Cyngot/A. Zalewska (eds.), Przeszłość społeczna. Próba konceptualizacji. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie 2012, 84–116.

Metzner-Nebelsick 1998 C. Metzner-Nebelsick, Abschied von den “Thrako-Kimmeriern”? – Neue Aspekte der Interaktion zwischen kapatenländischen Kulturgruppe der späten Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit mit der osteuropäischen Steppenkoine. In: B. Hänsel/J. Machnik (eds.), Das Karpatenbecken und die osteuropäische Steppe. Nomadenbewegungen und Kulturaustausch in den vorchristlichen Metallzeiten (4000–500 v. Chr.). Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 12. Rahden/Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf 1998, 361–422.

Metzner-Nebelsick 2010 C. Metzner-Nebelsick, Aspects of Mobility and Migration in the Eastern Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Areas in the Early Iron Age (10th–7th Centuries BC). In: K. Dzięgielewski/M. S. Przybyła/A. Gawlik (eds.), Migration in Bronze and Early Iron Age Europe. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka 2010, 121–151.

Neustupný 2004 E. Neustupný, Remarks on the Origin of the Linear Pottery Culture. In: A. Lukes/M. Zvelebil (eds.), LBK Dialogues. Studies in the Formation of the Linear Pottery Culture. British Archaeological Research. International Series 1304. Oxford: Archaeopress 2004, 3–5.

Nowak 1997 M. Nowak, Regional settlement patterns of the Early Phases of the Eastern Linear Pottery Culture in the Eastern Slovakian Lowland. In: J. K. Kozłowski (ed.), Kultura Malicka. Drugi etap adaptacji naddunajskich wzorców kulturowych w neolicie północnej części Środkowej Europy. Kraków: PAU 1997, 15–41.

Olexa 2002 L. Olexa, Burial Grounds and Funeral Ceremonies. In: Between Mycenae and the Baltic Sea. The Otomani-Füzesabony Culture. Krosno: Muzeum Podkarpackie 2002, 53–87.

Parczewski et al. 2012 M. Parczewski/A. Pelisiak/K. Szczepanek, Najdawniejsza przeszłość polskich Bieszczadów. Materiały i Sprawozdania Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka Archeologicznego 33, 2012, 9–42.

Parsons 1951 T. Parsons, The Social System. New York: Free Press 1951.

Pavúk 2004 J. Pavúk, Early Linear Pottery Culture in Slovakia and the Neolithisation of Central Europe. In: A. Lukes/M. Zvelebil (eds.), LBK Dialogues. Studies in the Formation of the Linear Pottery Culture. British Archaeological Research. International Series 1304. Oxford: Archaeopress 2004, 71–82.

Pavúk 2007 J. Pavúk, Zur Frage der Entstehung und Verbreitung der Lengyel-Kultur. In: J. K. Kozłowski/P. Raczky (eds.), The Lengyel, Polgár and Related Cultures in the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe. Kraków: PAU 2007, 11–28.

25


Pawlikowa 1965 B. Pawlikowa, Materiały do postglacjalnej historii roślinności Karpat Zachodnich. Torfowisko na Bryjarce. Folia Quarternaria 18, 1965, 1–9.

Przybyła 2006 M. S. Przybyła/Mittel- und Südosteuropa in der zweiten Hälfte des 12. Jh. v. Chr. – die Klimakrise von 1159–1141 BC und deren Widerspiegelung im Fundmaterial. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 58, 2006, 21–92.

Przybyła 2009 M. S. Przybyła, Intercultural Contacts in the Western Carpathian Area at the turn of the 2nd and 1st Millennia BC. Warszawa: NCK 2009.

Przybyła 2012 M. S. Przybyła, Pottery Analyses as the Basis for Studying Migrations. The Case of Danubian Pottery Groups from the End of the 2nd Millennium BC. In: K. Dzięgielewski/M. S. Przybyła/A. Gawlik (eds.), Migration in Bronze and Early Iron Age Europe. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka 2012, 87–104.

Przybyła 2011 M. S. Przybyła, Quantitative analysis of prehistoric pottery and neo-Darwinian approach in archaeology. In: S. Kadrow/W. Rączkowski (eds.), Things, Sources, Interpretations. Analecta Archaeologica Ressoviensia 4. Rzeszów: Instytut Archeologii UR 2011, 155–223.

Przybyła/Blajer 2008 M. S. Przybyła/W. Blajer, Struktury osadnicze w epoce brązu i wczesnej epoce żelaza na obszarze podkarpackiej wysoczyzny lessowej między Wisłokiem i Sanem. Kraków: Wydawnictwo UJ 2008.

Przybyła et al. 2012 M. S. Przybyła/M. Skoneczna/A. Vitoš, Interregional Contacts or Local Adaptation? Studies on the Defensive Settlement from the Bronze and Early Iron Age in Maszkowice (Western Carpathians). In: M. Jaeger/J. Czebreszuk/K. P. Fischl (eds.), Enclosed Space – Open Society. Contact and Exchange in the Context of Bronze Age Fortified Settlements in Central Europe. Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 9. Poznań: Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe 2012, 225–273.

Przybyła/Skoneczna 2013 M. S. Przybyła/M. Skoneczna, The fortified settlement from the Early and Middle Bronze Age at Maszkowice, Nowy Sączdistrict (Western Carpathians). Preliminary results of studies conducted in the years 2009–2012. Recherches Archéologiques in press.

Raczky et al. 2007 P. Raczky/L. Domboróczki/Z. Hajdú, The Site of Polgár-Csőszhalom and its Cultural and Chronological connections with the Lengyel Culture. In: J. K. Kozłowski/P. Raczky (eds.), The Lengyel, Polgár and Related Cultures in the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe. Kraków: PAU 2007, 49–70.

Ralska-Jasiewiczowa 1968 M. Ralska-Jasiewiczowa, Ślady osadnictwa prahistorycznego w diagramach pyłkowych z terenu Polski. Folia Quarternaria 29, 1968, 163–182.

Redman 1999 C. L. Redman, The development of archaeological theory. Explaining the past. In: G. Barker (ed.), Companion Encyclopedia of Archaeology. London: Routledge 1999, 48–80.

Saryusz-Wolska 2009 M. Saryusz-Wolska, Wprowadzenie. In: M. Saryusz-Wolska (ed.), Pamięć zbiorowai

kulturowa. Współczesna perspektywa niemiecka. Kraków: Universitas 2009, 7–38.

Schülke 2011 A. Schülke, Landschaften – Eine archäologische Untersuchung der Region zwischen Schweriner See und Stepenitz. Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 68. Darmstadt: Verlag Philipp von Zabern 2011.

Sherratt 1993 A. Sherratt, What would a Bronze-Age world system look like? Relations between temperate Europe and the Mediterranean in later prehistory. Journal of European Archaeology 1, 1993, 1–58.

Sztompka 1991 P. Sztompka, Society in Action: The Theory of Social Becoming. Oxford: Polity Press 1991.

Sztompka 2007 P. Sztompka, Socjologia zmian społecznych. Kraków: Znak 2007.

Thomas 1999 J. Thomas, Culture and identity. In: G. Barker (ed.), Companion Encyclopedia of Archaeology. London: Routledge 1999, 431–469.

Točík 1963 A. Točík, Die Nitra –Gruppe. Archeologické rozhledy 15, 1963, 716–774.

Točík/Vládar 1971 A. Točík/J. Vládar, Prehl’ad badania v problematike vyvoja Slovenska v dobe bronzovej. Slovenská Archeológia 19, 1971, 365–422.

Todorova 2003 H. Todorova, Neue Angaben zur Neolithisierung der Bankalhalbinsel. In: J. Jerem/P. Raczky (eds.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Rtappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Budapest: Archaeolingua 2003, 83–88.

Turner 2004 J. H. Turner, Struktura teorii socjologicznej. Wydanie nowe. Warszawa: PWN 2004.

Tunia 1986 K. Tunia, Z problematyki środowiskowych uwarunkowań gospodarki pasterskiej na terenie górskiej strefy polskich Karpat. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 25, 1986, 219–230.

Valde-Nowak 1988 P. Valde-Nowak, Etapy i strefy zasiedlenia Karpat polskich w neolicie i na początku epoki brązu. Kraków: IHKM PAN 1988.

Valde-Nowak 1995 P. Valde-Nowak, Osadnictwo wczesno rolnicze średniogórza niemieckiego. Kraków: IAE PAN 1995.

Valde-Nowak 1998 P. Valde-Nowak (ed.), Początki osadnictwa w Sudetach. Kraków: IAE PAN 1998.

Vita-Finzi/Higgs 1970 C. Vita-Finzi/E. S. Higgs, Prehistoric Economy in the Mount Carmel Area of Palestine: Site Catchment Analysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36, 1970, 1–37.

Vládar 1973 J. Vládar, Osteuropäische und mediterrane Einfl üsse im Gebiet der Slowakei während der Bronzezeit. Slovenská Archeológia 21, 1973, 253–357.

Wacquant 2001 L. J. D. Wacquant, Wprowadzenie. In: P. Bourdieu/L. J. D. Wacquant, Zaproszenie do socjologii refleksyjnej. Terminus 21. Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa 2001, 8–41.

Wahle 1943 E. Wahle, Frühgeschichte als Landesgeschichte. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer 1943.

Wallerstein 1994 I. Wallerstein, The Modern World-System 1. Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the

26


European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press 1994.

Zych 2004 R. Zych, Kultura pucharów lejkowatych w Polsce południowo-wschodniej. Collectio Archaeologica Ressoviensis 7. Rzeszów: Instytut Archeologii UR 2004.

Żaki 1955 A. Żaki, Początki osadnictwa w Karpatach Polskich. Wierchy 24, 1955, 99–116.

Żaki 1962 A. Żaki, Z archeologii województwa rzeszowskiego. Rocznik Przemyski 9, 1962, 193–229.

Żaki 1967 A. Żaki, Pierwsze znaleziska neolityczne z Tatr polskich i Podtatrza. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 9, 1967, 55–62.

Żmudzki 2009 P. Żmudzki, Władca i wojownicy. Narracje o wodzach, drużynie i wojnach w najdawniejszej historiografii Polski i Rusi. Wrocław: Fundacja na Rzecz Nauki Polskiej 2009.

Żurowski 1935 J. Żurowski, Osadnictwo przedhistoryczne północnych zboczy Karpat zachodnich Małopolski. In: II Zjazd prehistoryków polskich w Krakowie. Kraków 1935.

TransCarpathian Contacts in the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age. In: T. L. Kielnin, P. Valde-Nowak, M. Korzyńska, K. Cappenberg, J. Ociepka (eds.), Settlement, Communication and

Documents