Ősrégészeti Tanulmányok / Prehistoric Studies I

Moments in Time

Ősrégészeti Tanulmányok / Prehistoric Studies
Series Editors Alexandra Anders, Gábor Kalla, Viktória Kiss, Gabriella Kulcsár and Gábor V. Szabó

Szabó Ősrégészeti Társaság / Prehistoric Society Eötvös Loránd University L’Harmattan Budapest 2013 .Moments in Time Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on His 60th Birthday Edited by Alexandra Anders and Gabriella Kulcsár with Gábor Kalla. Viktória Kiss and Gábor V.

Archeodata 1998 Bt.English and German text revised by László Bartosiewicz. Judith A. Choyke. Eurasien-Abteilung Ősrégészeti Társaság / Prehistoric Society Nóra ’97 Kft. © The Authors. Rasson and Magdaléna Seleanu (English) Ulf Morche and Éva Pávai (German) The publication of this volume was generously supported by Eötvös Loránd University. 2013 ISBN 978-963-236-346-2 ISSN 2063-8930 Typography by Zsolt Gembela Cover design Gábor Váczi and Zsolt Gembela Printed in Hungary by Robinco Kft. Faculty of Humanities Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Director: Péter Kecskeméthy . 2013 © L’Harmattan Kiadó. Alice M. Ásatárs Kft.

.......................................................................................61 Ivan Gatsov Lithic Assemblages from the Area of the North-Western Pontic from the 9th–7th Millennia......... Northeast Hungary)...........................................................16 Walter Meier-Arendt Pál Raczky zum 60.......................... Ein Vor........................................................................................................................................ 29 Eszter Bánffy On Neolithic Frontiers in the Carpathian Basin.... 85 The Middle Neolithic — The Time of the LBK Piroska Csengeri Figural Representations from the Initial Phase of the Alföld Linear Pottery Culture from Novajidrány (Hernád Valley....................113 Gábor Ilon The Transdanubian Linear Pottery Culture in County Vas: Recent Finds and Findings................................................ .......... 35 Paolo Biagi – Elisabetta Starnini Pre-Balkan Platform Flint in the Early Neolithic Sites of the Carpathian Basin: Its Occurrence and Significance...................................133 Eva Lenneis Beobachtungen zu frühneolithischen Schlitzgruben..............................................................................14 Publications of Pál Raczky ...................147 .......................................................................................................... Geburtstag.................................................. 47 Mihael Budja Potters and Pots in the Mesolithic–Neolithic Transformation in Southeastern Europe.....................................und Grußwort.......................................................91 Ferenc Horváth – Florin Draşovean Remarks on the Connections between the Banat and the Great Hungarian Plain at the Beginning of the Middle Neolithic (Satchinez–Alföld Linear Pottery–Esztár–Vinča).................................................................................................................................................................................................Contents Editorial / A szerkesztők előszava..... 27 The Early Neolithic — The First Moments Krum Bacvarov Malak Preslavets Revisited: The Early Neolithic Burials...........................................................................................................................

........... 323 Alice M.............................................................................................................................................................................. 203 Juraj Pavúk – Zdeněk Farkaš Beitrag zur Gliederung der älteren Linearkeramik ........................................................................................ 289 The Late Neolithic — Polgár-Csőszhalom and Its World Judit P............................................................................................... Barna A Miniature Anthropomorphic Vessel from the Early Lengyel Culture Site at Sormás-Török-földek in Southwestern Hungary..... Choyke – Zsuzsanna Tóth Practice Makes Perfect: Quartered Metapodial Awls in the Late Neolithic of Hungary....................................................................311 John Chapman From Varna to Brittany via Csőszhalom — Was There a “Varna Effect”? ...............................187 Tibor Paluch Maroslele-Panahát............................................... Legelő: Data to the Middle Neolithic Anthropomorphic Vessel...........................213 Jörg Petrasch Standardisierung versus Individualität? Das Wesen der jungsteinzeitlichen Bestattungssitten....................... 337 6 .....................Contents Tibor Marton LBK Households in Transdanubia: A Case Study......................................................................................................173 Krisztián Oross Regional Traits in the LBK Architecture of Transdanubia.......................................... 237 Katalin Sebők Two Ceramic-Covered Burials from the Middle Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin............ .......................................................................... Wolfholz (5670–5100 BC): Locally Established or Founded by Immigrants from the Starčevo Territory?............................................... ................ 159 Zsolt Mester – Jacques Tixier Pot à lames: The Neolithic Blade Depot from Boldogkőváralja (Northeast Hungary)..... 259 Gerhard Trnka Ein bemerkenswerter Klingenkern aus Szentgál-Radiolarit von Groß-Schollach im westlichen Niederösterreich .................................................................................................................................. Virág On the Anthropomorphic Representations of TLPC in Connection with Some Recent Finds from Budapest (Figurines and Vessels with Facial Representations)........................................... 277 Zsuzsanna M................................................... 249 Peter Stadler – Nadezdha Kotova The Early LBK Site at Brunn am Gebirge...........

............ 437 Alasdair Whittle Enclosures in the Making: Knowledge................................ Kozłowski The Transition from the Neolithic to the Copper Age Lithic Industries in the Northern Carpathian Basin............................................................................. Parkinson Archaeological “Cultures” and the Study of Social Interaction: The Emergence of the Early Copper Age Tiszapolgár Culture.................. Chr........................................................ Inner Furnishings and Spiritual Life......................................................................................................................................................................................und Menschendarstellung in Alsónyék (SW-Ungarn)......................... 401 Johannes Müller – Robert Hofmann – Nils Müller-Scheeßel – Knut Rassmann Neolithische Arbeitsteilung: Spezialisierung in einem Tell um 4900 v.......................................... 421 Krisztina Somogyi – Zsolt Gallina Besonderes anthropomorphes Gefäß der Lengyel-Kultur mit doppelter Gesichts....................................Contents Małgorzata Kaczanowska – Janusz K........................................................ 407 Zsuzsanna Siklósi Traces of Social Inequality and Ritual in the Late Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain.................................... 457 István Zalai-Gaál Totenhaltung als Indikator relativer Chronologie im transdanubischen Spätneolithikum?. 365 Katalin Kovács Late Neolithic Exchange Networks in the Carpathian Basin...... Creativity and Temporality....... 353 Nándor Kalicz Siedlungsstruktur und Bestattungen mit Prestigeobjekten des Fundplatzes Tápé-Lebő (südliches Theißgebiet.................................521 7 ............................................................................................................................. 467 Neolithic Spiritual Life László Domboróczki Neolithic Cult Objects and Their Symbolism ......................................................... 487 Gheorghe Lazarovici – Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici “Sacred house” and Their Importance for the Reconstruction of Architecture.... 385 Kitti Köhler Ergebnisse der anthropologischen Untersuchungen zweier spätneolithischer Bestattungen in Alsónyék................................ Ungarn)................................. 503 The Early Copper Age — Between Change and Tradition Attila Gyucha – William A............

................ 569 The Middle Copper Age — Time of Axes Attila László – Sándor József Sztáncsuj Vessels with Handles with Discoid Attachments Discovered in the Ariuşd–Cucuteni Area and Some Problems in the Development and Chronology of the Ariuşd (Erősd) Culture in Southeastern Transylvania..............................................613 László György Late Copper Age Animal Burials in the Carpathian Basin .................................................. Chronology and Transformations of Meaning ...... Ritual or Prestige Articles? The Possible Function of an Enigmatic Artefact ...................... 557 Wolfram Schier An Antiquarian’s Grave? Early Tiszapolgár Burials in the Late Vinča Tell Site of Uivar (Romania) .................. 643 Vajk Szeverényi The Earliest Copper Shaft-Hole Axes in the Carpathian Basin: Interaction............ a Late Copper Age Site on the Southern Shore of Lake Balaton in Hungary.................................................................. 605 Szilvia Fábián A Preliminary Analysis of Intrasite Patterns at Balatonkeresztúr-Réti-dűlő............................................................ 595 From the Late Copper Age to the Beginning of the Bronze Age — Transitions Mária Bondár Utilitarian................................................................................................................................................................... 579 Ildikó Szathmári Kupferhammeraxt mit Spuren eines Holzschaftrestes vom Donauufer bei Szentendre ............................... 661 The Early Bronze Age — The Rise of a New Age János Dani – Viktória Kisjuhász Bestattungen der Makó-Kultur in Berettyóújfalu............................................................... Nagy Bócs-dűlő... 539 Judit Regenye Surviving Neolithic — The Early Copper Age in Transdanubia................................... ........................ 671 8 .................Contents Svend Hansen Figurinen aus Stein und Bein in der südosteuropäischen Kupferzeit ................................................................. North of Lake Balaton......... 627 Gabriella Kulcsár Glimpses of the Third Millenium BC in the Carpathian Basin ...................................................... Artistic.............................

.............................................................................................. New Data on the Illegal Acquisition and Trade of Bronze Age Artefacts in the Carpathian Basin................. 839 9 .......................................................................................................................... 707 Klára P............................................................................................................................................................................................... 725 Szilvia Honti – Viktória Kiss The Bronze Hoard from Zalaszabar............ Hungary.... 693 The Middle Bronze Age — Tells and Metals Marietta Csányi – Judit Tárnoki A Dinner Set from a Bronze Age House in Level 2 of the Túrkeve-Terehalom Settlement............................................................................................................................Contents Anna Endrődi Recent Data on the Settlement History and Contact System of the Bell Beaker–Csepel group....................................................... 771 Gábor V...............831 Miklós Szabó Lièvre celte de la puszta hongroise...................... Fischl – László Reményi Interpretation Possibilites of the Bronze Age Tell Sites in the Carpathian Basin............. New Data on the Study of the Tolnanémedi Horizon – Part 2............................................................................... 739 Magdolna Vicze Middle Bronze Age Households at Százhalombatta-Földvár........................ Szabó Late Bronze Age Stolen.......817 The Iron Age — End of the (Pre)history István Fodor A Scythian Mirror from Hajdúnánás.......................... 793 Gábor Váczi Burial of the Late Tumulus–Early Urnfield Period from the Vicinity of Nadap........... 757 The Late Bronze Age — Rituals of Power Judit Koós Spätbronzezeitliche Grube mit besonderer Bestimmung aus Oszlár-Nyárfaszög (Nordostungarn)........................................................................... Hungary.................................................

............................................................................................... 853 Katalin T....Contents Interdisciplinary Archaeology László Bartosiewicz – Erika Gál – Zsófia Eszter Kovács Domesticating Mathematics: Taxonomic Diversity in Archaeozoological Assemblages.............................. 873 Ferenc Gyulai Archaeobotanical Research of the Neolithic Sites in the Polgár Area...................... 885 Pál Sümegi – Sándor Gulyás – Gergő Persaits The Geoarchaeological Evolution of the Loess-Covered Alluvial Island of Polgár and Its Role in Shaping Human Settlement Strategies....................................................................................................................................................... Zoffmann Significant Biostatistical Connections between Late Neolithic Ethnic Groups from the Carpathian Basin and Bronze Age Populations from Territories beyond the Carpathians............................................ Biró More on “How Much?”...........................................................913 10 ............................................................ 901 Zsuzsanna K............................................ 863 Zoltán Czajlik – András Bödőcs The Effectiveness of Aerial Archaeological Research — An Approach from the GIS Perspective.............

which could be associated with different groups.com. míg egy részüket a mágneses felmérés során azonosítottuk. The settlement was occupied between 5670 and 5100 cal BC. The remains of 73 longhouses were identified.. with deviations to the west or to the east on some sites. Likewise. Összesen 73 hosszúházat ismerhettünk meg. Burgring 7 peter. Hasonló változás a házépítésben is megfigyelhető. Wolfholz (5670–5100 BC): Locally Established or Founded by Immigrants from the Starc ˇevo Territory? Peter Stadler Nadezhda Kotova Naturhistorisches Museum Wien A-1010 Wien. ezt követi időben a 2b. illetve néhány lelőhelyen kelet felé is. Bécs déli határában. straighter section on the inner part of the longpits flanking the houses probably served as the bedding trench for the timber posts of the walls. Different constructions could be distinguished. The houses are usually oriented south to north. illetve az állattartásban egyaránt nyomon követhetőek. településrész. lelőhely jobb állapotban megmaradt épületei között más típusú szerkezeteket is megfigyeltünk. although these were not as substantial.000 m2 large . Úgy tűnik. 4. mainly among the better-preserved houseplans of Site 3. most of which were excavated. bár nem akkora mértékben. és a 6. Egy jelentős kora neolitikus település részleteit figyeltük meg és tártuk föl 1989 és 2005 között az alsó-ausztriai Brunn am Gebirge lelőhelyen.The Early LBK Site at Brunn am Gebirge. A changing pattern of lithics usage and animal exploitation could be noted during the settlement’s occupation. 5. changes could be noted in house construction techniques too. néhány házalapot a mellettük húzódó hosszanti gödrök alapján. near the southern boundary of Vienna. Az időbeli változások a kőeszköz.at Ukrainian Academy of Sciences Institute of Archaeology UA-04210 Kiev. 1 and 6. and some were located through magnetic prospection.. Moments in Time – Budapest 2013 259 . 4. The earliest part of the settlement is represented by Site 2a. 5. A hosszúházak maradványai különböző területeken kerültek elő. It would appear that this shift in orientation has a chronological dimension. olykor kisebb eltéréssel nyugat. A tetőszerkezetet három hosszanti cölöpsor tartotta.stadler@univie.ua Sections of an extensive Early Neolithic settlement were surveyed and excavated between 1989 and 2005 at Brunn am Gebirge in Lower Austria. A házakat általában dél–észak irányba tájolták. followed by Sites 2b. 3. The remains of longhouses were uncovered in locations labelled Sites 1–7. The excavated area is about 90.. The standard length of 20 m and breadth of 7 to 8 m could be documented from the earliest occupation at Site 2a. hogy a tájolás változásának időrendi jelentősége is lehet.és a kerámia-anyagban. az épületek mintegy 20 m hosszúak és 7–8 m szélesek. 1. A legkorábbi 2a lelőhelyen a házakat már a standard méretnek megfelelően építették. 3. Three longitudinal rows of posts supported the roof. A feltárt terület nagysága közel 90 000 m2. lelőhelyként jelöltünk. A 3. A házak mellett húzódó hosszanti gödrök belső oldalán megfigyelt szabályosabb részbe ágyazták a falszerkezetet tartó cölöpöket. although some were only indicated by their debris and the longpits flanking them. Az egész település életét 5670–5100 cal BC közé keltezhetjük. melyeket 1–7. The more regular. legnagyobb részüket az ásatás során.. A település legkorábbi részét a 2a lelőhely képviseli. prospect Geroev Stalingrada 12 kotova@i.ac.

3. 1). together with the location of Sites 1–7. The finer details of some houses are shown in Figure 3. Site 2 is currently in preparation (Stadler–Kotova in press). while the northern part of the houses from Sites 3. Only Site 6 diverges from this pattern of settlement development because it is located in the south and it is the latest. Occupation shifted from this location to Sites 2b. while their inner.Peter Stadler – Nadezhda Kotova The excavation The largest settlement of the Early LBK (Linear Pottery culture) was excavated over an area of about 90. although the exact position of Site 7 The houses are usually oriented south to north.1 Figure 2 presents the triangulation map of the sites (excluding Site 7). showing the roughly 90. 4 and 1 are the longpits flanking the house. A handful of preliminary reports and internet publications are already available (Stadler 1997). Brunn am Gebirge — triangulation map.000 m 2 large area investigated between 1989 and 2005 be ordered into a chronological sequence. 1 and 6. excavated between 1989 and 2005 Fig. was established around 5700–5600 BC and was occupied for some 220 years. Most houses measure 20 m by 7–8 m. 1. 260 . All excavated houses are visible. The northern part of the oldest houses from Site 2 deviates more to the west. The houses are distributed over seven locations which can still needs to be confirmed. Satellite view of the sites at Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz in Google Earth. The overall length of the settlement is ca. 3. 4. whose irregular outer part was used for extracting the clay needed for the construction of the house walls. occasionally with smaller deviations to the west or to the east. in this chronological sequence. The land is flat. The settlement’s occupation shifted from south-west to northeast over time. Site 2a. extending also across a small hill. representing the earliest settlement. 4 and 1 deviates more to the east. the site has not been excavated yet. Altogether 73 longhouses with a standard length of 7 m or 20 m respectively were wholly or partially uncovered. together with the buildings identified through magnetic prospection. more regularly shaped part served as the bedding trench for the house 1 Pottery sherds and daub fragments came to light at Site 7 during construction work. Fig. 5. The humus had to be removed mechanically with machines and the surface had to be cleaned by our workers over an area of 15.000 m 2 between 1989 and 2005 at Brunn am Gebirge lying near Wolfholz. a few meters beyond the southern boundary of Vienna.000 m2. We have marked the location of the eight sites. 500 m. A book with 225 illustrations on the ceramic finds from Brunn Wolfholz. 1000 m with a maximum breadth of ca. although rising slightly toward the north-east. 2. The most striking feature of the houses from Sites 2. A satellite image from Google Earth from 2008 offers a good overview of the settlement’s broader area (Fig.

raw material for the stone implements was procured from Bakony- 261 . Different constructions could be distinguished. The long occupation of Site 2 certainly supports this hypothesis. The best-preserved remains of the timber structure. had a depth of about 2. One of the houses from Site 3 (cp. but also in the case of most other houses built during the Noten­ kopf period. some of which were sometime visible in the longpits. 3. six rows of post-holes made up of three post-holes each. It is possible that this house too had an additional. The most thorough study on the houses from the earliest LBK period. The question of whether these differences are functional or chronological is currently being analysed.The Early LBK Site at Brunn am Gebirge. there is a clear development from the earliest occupation at Site 2 to the latest one at Site 6. A semi-circular ditch system enclosing at least three houses was found at Site 2a. Fewer post-holes were preserved in the house’s southern part. raised floor (or one or more storeys). showing the foundations of several longhouses walls. Some of the trapezes found at Site 2 are shown in Figure 4.5 m. This phenomenon has been observed not only at Brunn. The bedding trench of the houses’ long walls contained many post-holes. It is also possible that the principles of house construction changed radically during the period that elapsed between the occupation of Sites 1 and 6. 3) contained double post-holes. The clay extracted from these ditches was perhaps also used later. Regarding the stone arterfacts. mainly in the better preserved section of Site 3. One of the houses at Site 6. containing also a discussion of their construction techniques was written by Harald Stäuble (Stäuble 2005). Brunn am Gebirge — aerial photo of the 1999 season. The western longpit of another houseplan from Site 3. we shall discuss the different categories of finds recovered from the site. perhaps because they were dug to a shallower depth. featuring only postholes. for renewing the house walls. the remains of a house of which only the western half could be excavated. over 10. lay inside the houses. Wolfholz (5670–5100 BC) Fig. whose majority came to light at Site 2. One remarkable phenomenon is that we found an enormous amount of lithics. suggesting that there was an additional raised floor. During the earliest occupation. The builders had perhaps devised a method for transporting the clay needed for the walls over longer distances without too big an effort. The high number of lithic finds contrasts sharply with other Austrian sites from the same period. the other rows were made up of fewer post-holes. In the following. This depth is exceptional because the longpits of most other houses were no more than 1 m deep or even less.000 pieces. lacks longpits. long after the construction of the houses. While one row running across the house had eleven post-holes. representing the latest occupation. Fig.

2008). The most important categoFig. which. Pottery with linear ornamentation bably from a nearby deposit at Giess­­ hübl. pro­ tling at Brunn. Brunn am Gebirge — stone implements (trapezes) from Site 2 with a low proportion of local lithic raw material at the end of the occupation at Sites 1 and 6. Figure 5 shows the distribution of the Ba­ konySzentgál raw material in the Carpathian Basin after Inna Ma­ tei­­ ciu­ cová (Mateiciucová 2008). The lithic material from Brunn has been analysed in three preliminary publications (Gro­­ nen­ born 1997. the coarse pottery was fired at lower nuously from the early to the late occupation. Local below. reveals much about the community set“Horn­ stein” of the Mauer–Antonshöhe type. was is mostly missing from the oldest sections of the seldom used. temperatures and is undecorated or has applied 262 . These percentages changed conti­ settlement. Matei­ ciu­­ cová 2002.Peter Stadler – Nadezhda Kotova Fig. as will be shown Szentgál near Lake Balaton in Hungary. 4. Distribution of Szentgál radiolarite (after Mateiciucová 2008) ry of finds is the ceramic assemblage. 5. The distance between the raw material source in Hungary and the Brunn sites is a little over 150 km.

16. there appears to be little difference between the coarse wares from Site 1 and the much earlier Site 2. 7. 1. as already mentioned above. However. Site 2a. but were entirely lacking at Site 2. Taf. So-called barbotine decorated pottery is rare at Brunn 2. 9). Pottery sherds with an decorated over their entire surface are shown in Figure 7. such as the finds from Lánycsók (Kalicz 1990. This pottery resembles the ceramics from excavations in southern Hungary. This type of barbotine is usually regarded as a typical ornamentation of the earliest LBK and late Starčevo pottery (Pavúk 2004. the proportion of linear decorated pottery increases in the settlement sections occupied later. Figure 8 shows pottery decorated with this technique. At first glance. 6. It is the earliest figurine with a face found in an Fig. which were recovered from Site 1. Brunn am Gebirge — vessels decorated with finger impressions and/or knobs from Sites 2 (left) and Site 1 (right) decoration at the most. 19. Brunn am Gebirge — knob decorated pottery from Site 2 263 .The Early LBK Site at Brunn am Gebirge. 3. However. Shown in Figure 9 is the currently known single human figurine from Brunn Wolfholz. pottery decorated using the same barbotine technique is known from the earlier Lánycsók settlement. 18. Taf. 75). A biconical bowl from Site 2b is presented in Figure 6 together with other vessels from Site 2. alongside pottery from Site 1 (on the right). the use of figurines gradually declined. Starting with Site 3. too (Kalicz 1990. Wolfholz (5670–5100 BC) Fig. Taf. It was found together with a figurine foot in a pit. there are major differences in terms of fine wares. culturally assigned to the early Starčevo culture (Linear B phase). In contrast. 2). alongside the increasing use of fine wares in addition to the coarse one. used principally for adorning cooking (or cooling?) pots because the surface en- largement provided by this decorative technique provided a better heat exchange.

3. The face of the figurine resembles the ones on the pieces from Lánycsók (Kalicz 1993. while bovids were the main species at Site 1. and their primary purpose is to translate a relative chronology into an absolute one. The OxCal programme then computes the most probable correlation of radiocarbon dates with the archaeological sequence. 2004) with the atmospheric record. Stadler et al. Fig. The methods used have been discussed in detail by Peter Stadler (Stadler 2005. currently still in progress. archaeological groups are created whose chronological sequence is established using traditional archaeological methods. Radiocarbon dates become more meaningful if they are combined with the available archaeological information. 1 and 5. 10). We therefore also tested the results using Bayesian statistics. Even so. Seeing that a value of 60% already offers a sufficiently positive correlation between the radiocarbon dates and the archaeological groups. followed by Sites 2b. We are aware that this time range (especially regarding the earlier site) may be too early because most of our samples were taken from charred oak. The constraints provided by archaeology regarding the occupation sequence of the sites from Brunn enables the reduction of the radiocarbon dating intervals to the black areas. 6). The low number of animal bones cannot be explained by the poor preservation of the bones because human skeletons were found in four graves at Site 2 (Gerold–Teschler-Nicola in press). Fig. The irregular shape of the calibration curve is used to find the best fit and. 264 . who found conclusive evidence that the ceramics analysed by him were produced from locally available clay. Analytical procedures and methods The next section is devoted to the analytical procedures and methods used in the evaluation. The simple group calibrations indicated that entire occupation of the settlement could be dated between 5540 and 5060 BC at the 1σ level (based on 60 AMS radiocarbon dates from the ETH laboratory in Zürich and the VERA laboratory in Vienna. in this case the occupation sequence of the sites. The earliest section of the settlement is Site 2a. a changing pattern of animal exploitation could be noted during the settlement’s occupation. Most samples submitted to dating were taken from charcoal because no animal bones were preserved at the earliest settlement sections investigated at Sites 2a and 2b. The animal bones were analysed by Erich Pucher (Pucher 1998 in press). at the same time.4%. a correlation coefficient is maximized. We used the latest calibration curve by Paula Reimer and her colleagues 2004 (Reimer et al. The value of A obtained thus (the correlation coefficient) was 100. The sequencing of the calibrated radiocarbon dates provides the calibrated radiocarbon intervals as areas under the white curves as presented in Figure 11. The pottery from the different Brunn sites were analysed petrographically and chemically by Roman Sauer (Sauer in press). Brunn am Gebirge — barbotine decorated pottery from Site 2 LBK context (a later figurine with a face portrayal was found at Bicske: Makkay 1978.Peter Stadler – Nadezhda Kotova AMS laboratory (VERA). Fig. The sample from Site 3 was dominated by capra-ovis bones. 3. 4. All measurements were performed either at the AMS laboratory of the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) in Zürich or at the Vienna VERA: Vienna Environmental Research Accelerator.10 programme. representing the latest occupation. The animal bone sample from Site 2 was not particularly large. thus the “old wood effect” may have influenced the dates. Using the sequencing method of Bayesian statistics.2 The evaluations were performed with the OxCal 3. the results with this significantly higher value suggest 2 Fig. The method of sequencing is based on Bayesian statistics. First discussed will be the radiocarbon dates. 2006). developed by Christopher Bronk Ramsey in Oxford (Bronk Ramsey 1995). 1). 8.

These yielded a span 2a 12 5540–5210 5750–5050 of about 50 years between 5750 and 5700. 9. Kotova) site. It must be noted. were available for the next phase. 1 4 5310–5060 5370–4940 The comparison of the Brunn sequence with the 5 1 5305–5255 5320–5200 Starčevo chronology reflects a major overlap between the two from the end of the Linear to the Total 60 5480–5060 5700–5000 3 We used the radiocarbon dates from the Starčevo distribution published by Paolo Biagi and Michaela Spataro (Biagi–Spataro 2005). The five 2b 14 5480–5280 5650–5050 dates available for the ensuing phase (represented by Linear wares) indicated a duration of no more 3 24 5450–5200 5700–4950 than 30 years from about 5700 to 5670. Brunn am Gebirge — group calibrations of radiocarbon dates 265 . especially the creation and ochrome pre-Starčevo phase began around 6080 continuous enlargement of the Montelius Image and lasted until around 5750. The next Fig. The evaluation of the find material from Brunn ing of the published radiocarbon dates from the 3 Starčevo distribution. The results are presented Wolfholz has been made possible by the applicain Figure 13. altogether sixNumber of Site 1 σ range BC 2 σ range BC samples teen. 10. which gave a span of 200 years from 5670 to about 5470. represented by White on Red wares. Acend of the Brunn sequence with its mean dates of cording to Gheorghe Lazarovici. We had to omit a part of the available data from this evaluation because the model used for sequencing assumes that the sites actually formed a genuine sequence. Named after the Swedish archaeologist however. Altogether 4 5 5390–5300 5480–5200 13 dates were used for the Spiraloid phase. Site 1 falls into the related with a part of Early Starčevo Linear B to 52nd century. Brunn am Gebirge — figurine face and leg from Brunn 2a (photo by P.The Early LBK Site at Brunn am Gebirge. Site 2a seems to have had a very long occupation of about 220 years. drawing by N. with an occupation occupation of the Brunn settlement can be corfrom 5413 to 5350 (63 years). that only three radiocarbon dates were available for this phase. Fig. Wolfholz (5670–5100 BC) that the correlation is good.Vinča A phase between 5470 and 5390. Database. The results indicated that the mon. suggesting that the dates from the 54th century. a situation with which sequencing cannot deal (yet). we performed the sequenc. More dates. while Site 6 represents the current the end of the Spiraloid phase (Spiraloid B). 60 dates for sequencing. The results of the sequencing are presented in Figure 12. had a shorter uselife of about 37 years. the last Starčevo phase (Phase IV) coincides with the rise of the between 5215 and 5100 BC. However. Stadler. from 5450 to 5413. We used only 39 of the ca. meaning that the occupation of the earliest settlement began sometime in the 57th century. For a comparison. Site 3 end of the Spiraloid phase. The earliest site (Site 2a) gave a mean calibration interval of 5670–5450.tion of new methods. Site 2b. the omitted values suggested that there was a considerable chronological overlap between the sites.

11.5% 104.1.4%(A'c= 60. 7 Fundstellen: 2a.4.5.1% Boundary Fdst2a/Fdst2b Phase Fdst2b ETH ETH VERA VERA VERA ETH VERA 11143 108.0% 1797 98.Peter Stadler – Nadezhda Kotova Atmospheric data from Reimer et al (2004).0% 202 111.0% 11131 92.10 Bronk Ramsey (2005).6% 11138 107. 2b.0%)} Boundary Start Fdst2a Phase Fdst2a ETH Ki Ki ETH ETH VERA VERA ETH ETH 11148 76.1% 11145 87. 7 Fundstellen: 2a.1% 1799 100.2b.1% 91. Brunn am Gebirge — sequencing of 39 radiocarbon dates from Sites 2a.9% 13538 111. 3.2% 11139 127.4.3. 5.9% 13612 99.5% 1800 98.6 {A=100.0% 199 87.3.0% 13615 70.2b.0% 108. 4.5.6 Sequence Brunn Wolfholz.0% Boundary Fdst2b/Fdst3 Phase Fdst3 ETH 11124 103. 1 and 6 266 .OxCal v3.6% 6500BC 6000BC Calendar date 5500BC 5000BC Fig. cub r:5 sd:12 prob usp[chron] Sequence Brunn Wolfholz.4% VERA 1805 Ki 13614 VERA 201 ETH 11133 119.1.9% 200 76.7% 13537 117.

Wolfholz (5670–5100 BC) Atmospheric data from Reimer et al (2004).6% 11121 134.0% 11126 56.7% VERA-197 137.5.6 Sequence Brunn Wolfholz.1% VERA-195 124.0%)} Phase Fdst3 Phase ETH ETH 11130 110.3.9% VERA4798 104. 11.3. 7 Fundstellen: 2a.4%(A'c= 60.The Early LBK Site at Brunn am Gebirge.2b.2% 48.5% Boundary End Fdst6 6000BC 5500BC Calendar date 5000BC 4500BC Fig.3% 11123 139.10 Bronk Ramsey (2005).1.9% 13611 86.1% VERA 1806 Boundary Fdst3/Fdst4 Phase Fdst4 VERA-192 96.6% VERA-193 133.4% Boundary Fdst4/Fdst5 Phase Fdst5 VERA 1812 97.6 {A=100.5.4.4% 11125 123.4.1% 90. continued 267 .7% VERA4799 103.2b.OxCal v3.0% Boundary Fdst5/Fdst1 Phase Fdst1 VERA 3414 VERA 3415 ETH ETH ETH Ki ETH 93.6% 11128 110.3% Boundary Fdst1/Fdst6 Phase Fdst6 VERA4797 104. cub r:5 sd:12 prob usp[chron] Sequence Brunn Wolfholz. 7 Fundstellen: 2a.1.

texts (burial. WinSerion also allows users to evaluate and auLinear 5 5730 5670 5700 5710 5630 5670 40 100 30 tomatically compare all maps Spiraloid 13 5710 5630 5670 5530 5400 5470 -100 310 200 produced in this manner with IV 4 5530 5400 5470 5470 5210 5340 70 320 130 the help of an algorithm known   41                 740 as the Analysis of the N-Next Neighbours (ANN). Max. and laid down using the programme’s drag ‘n drop feature. Max. The database comprises a collection of images keramik. “Raw” 2a 9 5770 5570 5670 5495 5405 5450 75 365 220 publications are also a source of 2b 7 5495 5405 5450 5460 5365 5413 -55 130 38 written information. most publications. settlement feature or hoard assemlications. Seriation Fig. Data on 2 σ level. and volunteers. Vinča–Pločnik and in at least two different modes. Every single artefact is described using the MonSite Number Min.tive chronology into an absolute one. 630. Impressokeramik Körös. Linearbandkeramik. either monographs or articles. according to closed find conThe starting points are provided by the “raw” pub. Max. The complex view mode differs little from the way in which new arŽeliezovce cultures. images can be moved first introduced by Christian Jürgensen Thomsen. students. Vinča.Peter Stadler – Nadezhda Kotova and individual artefacts are then separated by means of image Duration processing. Illustra. im1 7 5310 5225 5268 5290 5140 5215 -65 170 53 ages can be presented either in a 6 3 5290 5140 5215 5220 4980 5100 -80 310 115 complex mode or a typological   39                 570 mode.000 images of prehistoric and early medieval Absolute data allow an association between relaassemblages from Europe. years BC Time span start with Samples highest probability Time span end with highest probability 268 . Any the principles of archaeological typology as a key method for archanges made in the typology structure are immechaeological research (Montelius 1903). Max. Bükk. the basic procedure for working with typol4 Oskar Montelius refined the concept of closed find contexts. enabling Fig.tics and its primary purpose is to translate a relalished artefacts taken from the Alföld Linearband. artefact images are grouped tion plates displaying assemblages are scanned according to formal similarity in the typological mode. Brunn am Gebirge — sequencing of Starčevo-Phases produces relative chronologies. 13. of archaeological artefacts which can be displayed Szakálhát. ogy. Max. Mean Min. Mw Min. Max.blages).e. WinSerion allows different types of seriations. The applied sixty archaeologists. Mean teliusEntry programme. 12. By means of the Montelius section of our Win5 1 5355 5280 5318 5310 5225 5268 -30 130 50 Serion programme package. Mw basic AutoCad map offer the opportunity of mapping finds by Mono 3 6170 5990 6080 5800 5715 5760 -190 455 320 chrome means of a WinSerion embedded Geographical Information White on 16 5800 5715 5760 5730 5670 5700 15 130 60 Red System feature. Stichbandkeramik. In contrast. The images entered into the Montelius Image chaeological information is presented visually in Database provide the basis for further evaluations. the database was created in Vienna in 1999. 4 which can then be compared with the results of Oskar Montelius (1843–1921). assembled by some tive chronologies and absolute dates. it now contains over the spatial analysis performed by means of ANN. Absolute chronology of Brunn by sequencing of different sites the identification of possible patterns in the studied archaeData on that Time span beginning Time span end with 2 σ level. Samples Duration ological material. Bucovaţ. i. Mean Min. Mw Min. The local or with highest probability highest probability years BC global maps generated using a Phase Number Min. which can 3 8 5460 5365 5413 5380 5320 5350 -15 140 63 be catalogued together with ar4 4 5380 5320 5350 5355 5280 5318 -35 100 33 tefact images. Starčevo. In the typological mode. The method (sequencing) is based on Bayesian statisEarly Neolithic section contains some 70. Szatmár.000 pub.

which is designed to identify a combination map for all other mappings. Interpretation The available data indicates major changes in the course of time across the sites at Brunn Wolfholz. For more information.htm 6 Viewing and editing the contents of the Montelius Image Database is performed with the MonteliusEditor programme.7 The input is performed with the MonteliusEntry programme. a statistical analysis revealed which of these distributions were non-random. To better understand possible relationships between different pits containing similar types ceramic. cp. http://winserion.org/ 5 An image database has been created for the ceramics as part of the preparation for the volume mentioned in the above (Stadler 2005) and a typological framework was constructed with help of Michaela Lochner (Lochner in press) and Eva Lenneis (Lenneis in press). For more information. Aside from these two views.6 The allocation of one image to an existing type takes a few seconds more.org/LVAS/QAM/Gallery_MonteliusEntry_En. http://winserion. Quote. Importing the image of a particular artefact into the database takes less than 60 seconds. An existing type can be easily split up into two or more sub-types.5 The search for possible formal analogies to a particular artefact takes only about 30 seconds in the typology mode of MonteliusEditor. Meaningful relations appear as lines between the pits containing the same types while the line width corresponds to the number of different relations. A new View can be created quite easily if necessary. A number of different functions provide support for work on the typology of such an enormous material. A new type can be easily created by creating a new folder. In sum. http://winserion. Culture and Site View).htm 7 For more information on this software and the possibilities of free usage in joint projects. All ceramics types for Sites 2a. one great advantage over conventional typological methods is that comparisons can thus be made a hundred times faster than normally. an example of the results with a network map is shown in Figure 14. cp. cp. Date&Time. there are several other view options (such as like Worker. The nonrandom distributions are evaluated together with the “Analysis of the N Next Neighbours”. The most interesting question is whether the site’s 269 . network map diately imported into the “background” database. 14.The Early LBK Site at Brunn am Gebirge. Analysis of the N-Next Neighbours.org/LVAS/QAM/Gallery_MonteliusEditor_En. Wolfholz (5670–5100 BC) Fig. 2b and 1 have been plotted on the excavation plan.

the wares from other early Linear Pottery sites were fashioned from clay tempered with a combination of organic matter. Site 6. The pottery from these sites was manufactured using abundant organic tempering agents. Incised lines. The stone implements were predominantly fashioned from imported raw material whose source lies in Transdanubia in Hungary. In the course of time. Slovakia. in contrast. Linear patterns increased in the course of time. The pottery from Sites 2a and 2b is characterised by very coarse wares made with organic temper fired at a very low temperature. as well as designs created from wide bands. is located completely in the south. This pottery is at the most decorated with applied ornaments. In a recent project. the typical decoration of the Linear Pottery culture. a development culminating at Site 1 whose ceramic inventory comprises “classical” Linear Pottery vessels with rich repertoire of incised decoration and a surface coated with graphite. 15. we studied the ceramics from the earliest Linear Pottery culture sites in Austria. namely from Szentgál in the Bakony Woods near Lake Balaton. 3–4: Lánycsók after Kalicz 1990) occupants arrived from a region lying to the southeast or whether the settlement was established by a local Mesolithic population which adopted farming under influences from the south-east. Another difference regarding the material from 270 . sand and mica. Hungary and Croatia. are very rare. An interesting development can also be noted in the lithic material. The number of stone im- plements recovered from the earliest sites (Sites 2a and 2b) is very high. representing the earliest occupation at Brunn. dating from after about 5200 BC. if ornamented at all. are unique among the Linear Pottery settlements. this settlement section yielded pottery with linear and Notenkopf patterns.Peter Stadler – Nadezhda Kotova Fig. Parallels to various vessels from Brunn (5–10) from sites yielding pottery of the Early Starčevo Linear B phase in Hungary (1–2: Barcs. Poland. Only the latest settlement. We found that the assemblage from Sites 2a and 2b. the amount of lithic artefacts decreased and local raw material of the Mauer–Antonshöhe type was used for their manufacture instead of imported material.

however. 4–5: Kaposvár after Kalicz 1990) and Croatia (2–3: Vinkovci) Brunn 2a and 2b is the low number of sherds from fine pottery. especially the variants with globular vessel. it seems likely that archaeological investigations conducted over larger areas will lead to the discovery of longhouses in the Malo Korenovo culture and. it is practically identical with the Starčevo Linear B vessels from Croatia. especially the lines on horizontal handles. namely the Linear Pottery culture with its set of new tools. 3–4. In addition to the similar manufacturing tech- niques and vessel shapes. Some bowls are decorated with a rib on the lower part (Fig. 5–7). which are lacking from the Linear Pottery culture. 15. another shared feature is that the clay used for producing these wares was tempered with a large amount of organic matter. In addition to highly similar vessel forms and decorative patterns. Parallels to various vessels from Brunn (6–12) from sites yielding pottery of the Late Starčevo Spiraloid B phase in Hungary (1: Barcs. 8–10). it seems reasonable to assume that the Brunn 2a assemblage was the result of a long development of the cultural traditions of a population group which had migrated from the territory of modern Croatia (and perhaps Serbia). another shared trait is an uncommon variant of linear ornamentation. The common vessel forms include pedestalled vessels (Fig. the local LBK development in the Starčevo area. perhaps in the Starčevo distribution too. Neither have longhouses been found in the Malo Korenovo culture. 271 . alongside new. 15. While the pottery from Brunn 2a has much in common with Starčevo Linear B wares in Transdanubia on the whole. Wolfholz (5670–5100 BC) Fig. The pottery of Brunn 2a and of the early Starčevo culture in Croatia contains far more organic temper than the Starčevo Linear B pottery in Hungary. Seeing that the Brunn 2a site is later than the Starčevo Linear B sites in Croatia on the testimony of the radiocarbon dates. 1–2. and a few coarse pots with painted decoration. more rudimentary pottery wares without fine vessels and. The vessels from Brunn 2a and 2b compare best with the Early Starčevo wares of the Linear B phase from Croatia and from Transdanubia in Hungary. 16. as well as similar figurines. new house forms. The blend of the two populations led to the emergence of a new culture.8 8 The problem is the lack of longhouses in the Starčevo culture.The Early LBK Site at Brunn am Gebirge. and had perhaps assimilated local Mesolithic groups. probably.

ly connected with the environmental and climatic their pottery included fine and coarse ceramchanges during the Early Neolithic. the Central Eu.Danube–Drava Interfluve. 1. A similar process probably took place on the territory of modern Serbia. However. this agro-ecological barrier could have been covered in a much shorter time. even though the distance itself could ranean oak forest belt. It is easily have been disturbed during a period of possible that the earliest occupation at the Brunn aridity and drier climate. The coarse wares of these sites differed Róbert Kertész and Pál Sümegi.minished. Other groups of the Early Starčevo populaSümegi 2001). An especially arid peri.tion and relinquished an important part of their 272 .tlements of the Starčevo Linear B period (Lány­ tery culture can be conceptualised as follows. when the late Starčevo sites were still occupied. modified by P. Bezysko–Kotova–Kovalyuh 2000). when the Some Starčevo Linear B traditions were retained wild animal stocks decreased and the pasturing in the pottery manufacture of the new culture. The Carpathian Basin in the mid-6th millennium BC (after Bánffy 2000. a situation adapted to the sub-Mediterranean zone. in part. Modcultures with Balkanic roots (Starčevo and Körös) ern Austria has a damper and colder climate than halted along this line because their economy was Serbia. the problem of population Fig. The csók and Barcs) investigated in that region. af.settlements have been dated to around 5700 BC. Some migrant groups apparently settled in the ing large amounts of organic temper. Croatia and southern Hungary. This migration probably resolved. The advance of Neolithic southern Austria during this arid period. tion advanced as far as central Transdanubia and faunal and floral zones. covering a distance of over 620 km. All of these lie in the sub-Mediter. This strong aridity led to a deterioration in the living circumstances of early farmers.earliest settlement at Brunn. According to ics alike. seeod across all of Eastern Europe has been identified ing that the site has been excavated only partially. the migrants estabfecting also the Balkans and Central Europe. For example. The migration along the Danube was probably 6000–5600 BC. The barrier marked the northern boundary of the sub-Mediterranean climatic. as indicated by two seting to the formation of the earliest Linear Pot. Both emergence of the Linear Pottery culture was close. the Eastern Europe steppe encroached on the forest-steppe zone and extended to the southern boundary of the modern forest zone. Croatia and Hungary. density too. Stadler) during times of aridity. A tentative reconstruction of the process lead. Some groups of the Early Starčevo population migrated northward along the Danube. areas. perhaps lasting as long as a hundred years. But this which does not differ much from that in prehisscheme is only valid for the wetter period around tory. as well as crop yields of domestic plants diprincipally the manufacture of coarse vessels us. One lished contact with the local Mesolithic populatypical trait of this aridity was that the natural. 17.from the Starčevo pottery of Croatia and Brunn 2 ropean–Balkanic agro-ecological barrier ran near in that less organic matter was used for tempering Lake Balaton in central Transdanubia (Kertész– the clay. an important aspect Fig.a long process. around 6200–6000 BC (Spiridonova–Lavrushin During the migration or in the yet undiscovered 1997.Wolfholz settlement has not been found yet.Peter Stadler – Nadezhda Kotova climatic zones shifted northward.

as shown by the findings of the excavations at Neckenmarkt. this pilot settlement may also have influenced the development of the early Linear Pottery culture in Hungary.The Early LBK Site at Brunn am Gebirge. while at the same time they adopted certain traditions of the local Mesolithic population. The early settlers at Brunn Wolfholz maintained contact with their homeland until the end of the Starčevo culture. 4–5. known from Brunn 2 and the Mesolithic sites of Hungary (Mateiciucová 2004. Figure 17 shows the distribution of the early LBK and the early Alföld LBK based on the current evidence as presented by Hungarian archaeologists (Bánffy 2000. such as long trapezes. What is certain is that Brunn 2 is the currently known earliest Linear Pottery site in Europe and that it shows one particular variant of the formation of this culture. 273 . In the course of the migration. which are reflected in human figurines. vessels with vertical neck (Fig. Is it possible that this pilot settlement was not the single one of its kind? I strongly suspect that there must be other sites too. Site 2 were excavated as part of a German project (Lenneis–Lüning 2001). Wolfholz (5670–5100 BC) own culture in the process. At the same time. namely to Brunn am Gebirge. while the current situation is a reflection of the current state of research. 1). contacts with the Starčevo culture of Hungary and Croatia were preserved and the earliest Neolithic population in Austria remained under cultural impacts from the late Starčevo culture until the end of the Starčevo sequence as shown by the similar vessel types. reflected by the disappearance of the most sophisticated pottery wares (painted fine ceramics). marked by an arrow. The bowls with concave upper part (Fig. 11–12) from Brunn 2b resemble the pottery of the Late Starčevo culture (the Spiraloid B phase). It seems to us that there was a migration. I am confident that other sites will be discovered sooner or later despite the poor research in Burgenland. This broad picture now needs to be modified owing to the discovery of a Starčevo site far beyond the culture’s core distribution. while the early Alföld LBK appeared north of the Körös distribution. It is difficult to determine when exactly the inhabitants of the Brunn 2 settlement arrived to Lower Austria and whence they came. 16. perhaps in Burgenland and in Transdanubia in Hungary. as well as some cults. One innovation was the appearance of a new house type (the longhouse with its elaborate post construction) ― if it really was new ― and certain tool types. This migration took place during Early Starčevo Linear B phase or at its end (or perhaps even earlier?). 16. the migrants’ culture declined to some extent. who noted that the early LBK developed north of the Starčevo distribution. Another possible explanation for the lack of fine painted pottery is that fine wares were only produced in one centre in the Starčevo distribution and that the farther a settlement lay from this centre. The newcomers preserved their subsistence practices based on crop cultivation and animal husbandry. the fewer the vessels reaching its occupants. 3. although more intensive cultural impacts probably arrived directly from the original Starčevo distribution.9 9 It is regrettable that no other Austrian sites contemporary with Brunn am Gebirge. from the Starčevo territory in modern Croatia (or Serbia) along the Danube directly to a location in the Vienna Basin. 10) or biconical bowls (Fig. During the formation of the new Linear Pottery culture. The inhabitants of the Brunn 2 settlement apparently only used locally produced coarse pottery and tools manufactured from the raw material obtained from the lithic deposits at Szentgál in north-western Hungary. Fig. The Brunn 2a assemblage reflects one variant of the neolithisation process involving the migration of early farmers. 16. 99). namely their fine painted wares. 6–7).

Л. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok. T. In: Anreiter. C. 1997: Silexartefakte der ältestbandkeramischen Kultur. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistori­ schen Archäologie 37. F. E. J. Cultural Anthropology. Salt Lake City 2005. Lenneis. in press: Die Tierknochen der Fundstellen von Brunn. In: Alena. 274 . E. R.–Bard. Bonn. J. I. Kalicz.– Manning. Antaeus 25 (2002) 169–188.–Meid. in press: Die menschlichen Skelettreste aus der frühneolithischen Siedlung von Brunn am Gebirge. Biagi. K. 2001: Theories. M. C. Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 6–7. S. 2004: Early Linear Pottery Culture in Slovakia and the Neolithisation of Central Europe. E.–Sümegi. R. 225–246. N. In: Stadler–Kotova in press. Reimer.–Bayliss. In: Alena. G. Z.): Prehistoric Studies in memoriam Ida Bognár-Kutzián. In: Bánffy. (ed. Z. W.–Taylor.–Marek. In: Stadler–Kotova in press.–Fritz. W. I. 2004.–Talamo. in press: Zu einigen wesentlichen Merkmalen der Keramik von Brunn. C. P. S. Anthropology and Palaeolinguistics in memoriam Sándor Bökönyi. J. C. L. Pavúk. 1978: Excavations at Bicske I: The Early Neolithic – The earliest Linear Band Ceramic. J. Studies in Archaeozoology. Radiocarbon 46 (2004) 1029–1058. British Archaeological Reports–International Series 1304. Praha–Brno. Bronk Ramsey. Archaeolingua 11. (eds): From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Alba Regia 16 (1978) 9–60. Budapest. 1996. N. 1998: Die Tierknochen des linearbandkeramischen Siedlungsplatzes Brunn am Gebirge (Niederösterreich). Gronenborn. Н.–Cutler.–Guilderson. Documenta Praehistorica 27 (2000) 173–185.–McCormac.–Bartosiewicz. 35–40.–Bronk Ramsey. F. R. P. J. M. J.–Reimer. G.– Friedrich. Archaeolingua 8. Kertész. W. Archaeology. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 4. H. A. Н. Student Anthropological Projects. Kalicz. 2005: New observations on the radiocarbon chronology of the Starčevo–Criş and Körös cultures. E. Lochner. R. E. J. J. L.–Kovalyuh.–Bertrand.–Hughen.–Makkay. (eds): Man and the Animal World. 91–108. I. In: Stadler–Kotova in press. E. in press: Die Erfassung der Keramik. Die Methode. E. Oxford 2004. 1990: Frühneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus Südwestungarn. Niederösterreich (Vorbericht). Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 82. A.–Damon. In: Stadler–Kotova in press. P. 89–108. 0–26 cal Kyr BP.–Burr. Poročilo raziskovanju paleolita. L. C. P.–Stuiver. С–Ковалюх.–Kotova.–Edwards. O. Montelius. G. Bezysko. J. Mateiciucová. S. Makkay. 2000: Безусько. 2008: The beginnings of the Neolithic in Central Europe in the light of research into the chipped stone industry of early farming (LBK) communities in Moravia and Lower Austria. 465–479. British Archaeological Reports–International Series 1304. In: Nikolova.–Hogg. 1903: Die älteren Kulturperioden im Orient und in Europa.–van der Plicht. N. L. (eds): Prehistoric Archaeology and Anthropological Theory and Education: Archaeology. M. R. B. Radiocarbon 37 (1995) 425–430. Gerold. Genealogy. Mateiciucová.–Spataro. D.– Baillie.–Fairbanks. K.–Remmele. critiques and a model: Why did the expansion of the Körös–Starčevo stop in the centre of the Carpathian Basin? In: Kertész. (eds): LBK Dialogues.: Население эпохи неолита – раннего энеолита западного Приазовья и окружающая среда.–Southon.–Котова. E. 71–82. 1995: Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy: The OxCal Program. E. J.–Warren Beck. G. Pucher. L. Dissertationes Archaeologicae Brunenses–Pragensesque 4. B. W. G.–Blackwell. E. Stockholm. M.– Marek. 2002: Silexartefakte der ältesten und älteren Linearbandkeramik aus Brunn-am Gebirge. 1993: The Early Phases of the Neolithic in Western Hungary (Transdanubia). P. Budapest 1998. N.–Kromer. M. R. 2001: Die altbandkeramischen Siedlungen von Neckenmarkt und Strögen. P. 5700–4900 BC. N.–Weyhenmeyer. Lenneis. L.–Buck. Г. neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 21 (1993) 85–135. S.–Lüning.–Higgins. Pucher. P. I. E. Mateiciucová.–Teschler-Nicola. Budapest 2001.Peter Stadler – Nadezhda Kotova References Bánffy.–Jerem. Mesolithic traditions and the origin of the Linear Pottery culture (LBK). C. A. G. September 22–27. Старожитності степового Причорномор”я і Криму – Випуск УШ – Запоріжжя. Oxford 2004. L. Bonn. M. (eds): LBK Dialogues. J. Н. 2004: IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration. 2000: The late Starčevo and the earliest Linear Pottery groups in Western Transdanubia.

2006: Absolutchronologie der Mährisch–Ostösterreichischen Gruppe (MOG) der bemalten Keramik aufgrund von neuen 14C-Datierungen.–Wild. Bonn. The ceramics from site 2.org/Brunn/index. In: Четвертичная геология и палеогеография России. N.–Lavryusin. In: Stadler–Kotova in press. M. Philosophisch–historische Klasse.html Stadler.– Neugebauer-Maresch.The Early LBK Site at Brunn am Gebirge.–Friesinger. Stadler.–Weninger. Mit Beiträgen von Walter Kutschera.–Kotova. Москва 1997. Ju. 275 . Ю. Jahrtausend v. P. Spiridonova.–Ruttkay. Walter Pohl und Eva Maria Wild. Flur Wolfsholz (6. Е. W. H. E. H. 151–170. in press: Petrographische und mineralogische Untersuchungen an Keramikproben und Sedimentproben. P. M. Chr. W. R. Stadler. C. Wolfholz (5670–5100 BC) Sauer. 1997: Спиридонова. 2005: Quantitative Studien zur Archäologie der Awaren I. E. 2005: Häuser und absolute Chronologie der ältesten Bandkeramik. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.–Lauermann. Stadler. Stäuble.–Neubauer.–Trnka.) http://winserion. А. Universitätsforschungen zur prähostorischen Archäologie 117. G. in press: Brunn am Gebirge Wolfholz.–Doneus. бораеальной и аридной зон Восточной Европы. E. Wien.–Лаврушин. E. settlement of the oldest LBK.: Корреляция геолого–палеоэкологических событий голоцена арктической. Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission 60.–Kutschera. 1997: Die Homepage der Archäologischen Ausgrabung einer Frühneolithischen Siedlung von Brunn am Gebirge. P. P. F. Archäologie Österreichs 17/2 (2006) 53–81.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful