srgszeti Tanulmnyok / Prehistoric Studies

MOMENTS IN TIME

srgszeti Tanulmnyok / Prehistoric Studies

Series Editors
Alexandra Anders, Gbor Kalla, Viktria Kiss,
Gabriella Kulcsr and Gbor V. Szab

MOMENTS IN TIME
Papers Presented to Pl Raczky
on His 60th Birthday

Edited by
Alexandra Anders and Gabriella Kulcsr
with
Gbor Kalla, Viktria Kiss and Gbor V. Szab

srgszeti Trsasg / Prehistoric Society

Etvs Lornd University
LHarmattan
Budapest 2013

English and German text revised by

Lszl Bartosiewicz, Alice M. Choyke, Judith A. Rasson and Magdalna Seleanu (English)
Ulf Morche and va Pvai (German)

he publication of this volume was generously supported by

Etvs Lornd University, Faculty of Humanities
Deutsches Archologisches Institut, Eurasien-Abteilung
srgszeti Trsasg / Prehistoric Society
Nra 97 Kt.
Archeodata 1998 Bt.
satrs Kt.

he Authors, 2013
LHarmattan Kiad, 2013

ISBN 978-963-236-346-2
ISSN 2063-8930

Typography by
Zsolt Gembela
Cover design
Gbor Vczi and Zsolt Gembela

Printed in Hungary by Robinco Kt.

Director: Pter Kecskemthy

CONTENTS
Editorial / A szerkesztk elszava..................................................................................................................14
Publications of Pl Raczky .............................................................................................................................16
Walter Meier-Arendt
Pl Raczky zum 60. Geburtstag. Ein Vor- und Gruwort ........................................................................ 27

The Early Neolithic The First Moments

Krum Bacvarov
Malak Preslavets Revisited: he Early Neolithic Burials ..................................................................... 29
Eszter Bnfy
On Neolithic Frontiers in the Carpathian Basin .................................................................................. 35
Paolo Biagi Elisabetta Starnini
Pre-Balkan Platform Flint in the Early Neolithic Sites
of the Carpathian Basin: Its Occurrence and Signiicance ................................................................. 47
Mihael Budja
Potters and Pots in the MesolithicNeolithic Transformation
in Southeastern Europe .............................................................................................................................61
Ivan Gatsov
Lithic Assemblages from the Area of the North-Western Pontic
from the 9th7th Millennia ........................................................................................................................ 85

The Middle Neolithic The Time of the LBK

Piroska Csengeri
Figural Representations from the Initial Phase of the Alfld Linear
Pottery Culture from Novajidrny (Hernd Valley, Northeast Hungary) ........................................91
Ferenc Horvth Florin Draovean
Remarks on the Connections between the Banat and the Great
Hungarian Plain at the Beginning of the Middle Neolithic
(SatchinezAlfld Linear PotteryEsztrVina)................................................................................113
Gbor Ilon
he Transdanubian Linear Pottery Culture in County Vas:
Recent Finds and Findings ......................................................................................................................133
Eva Lenneis
Beobachtungen zu frhneolithischen Schlitzgruben ..........................................................................147

Contents
Tibor Marton
LBK Households in Transdanubia: A Case Study .............................................................................. 159
Zsolt Mester Jacques Tixier
Pot lames: he Neolithic Blade Depot from Boldogkvralja
(Northeast Hungary) ...............................................................................................................................173
Krisztin Oross
Regional Traits in the LBK Architecture of Transdanubia ................................................................187
Tibor Paluch
Maroslele-Panaht, Legel: Data to the Middle Neolithic
Anthropomorphic Vessel ....................................................................................................................... 203
Juraj Pavk Zdenk Farka
Beitrag zur Gliederung der lteren Linearkeramik ............................................................................213
Jrg Petrasch
Standardisierung versus Individualitt?
Das Wesen der jungsteinzeitlichen Bestattungssitten ........................................................................ 237
Katalin Sebk
Two Ceramic-Covered Burials from the Middle Neolithic
of the Carpathian Basin.......................................................................................................................... 249
Peter Stadler Nadezdha Kotova
he Early LBK Site at Brunn am Gebirge, Wolholz (56705100 BC):
Locally Established or Founded by Immigrants from the Starevo Territory? .............................. 259
Gerhard Trnka
Ein bemerkenswerter Klingenkern aus Szentgl-Radiolarit
von Gro-Schollach im westlichen Niedersterreich ........................................................................ 277
Zsuzsanna M. Virg
On the Anthropomorphic Representations of TLPC in Connection
with Some Recent Finds from Budapest (Figurines and Vessels with Facial
Representations) ...................................................................................................................................... 289

The Late Neolithic Polgr-Csszhalom and Its World

Judit P. Barna
A Miniature Anthropomorphic Vessel from the Early Lengyel Culture
Site at Sorms-Trk-fldek in Southwestern Hungary......................................................................311
John Chapman
From Varna to Brittany via Csszhalom Was here a Varna Efect? ..................................... 323
Alice M. Choyke Zsuzsanna Tth
Practice Makes Perfect: Quartered Metapodial Awls
in the Late Neolithic of Hungary .......................................................................................................... 337

Contents
Magorzata Kaczanowska Janusz K. Kozowski
he Transition from the Neolithic to the Copper Age Lithic Industries
in the Northern Carpathian Basin........................................................................................................ 353
Nndor Kalicz
Siedlungsstruktur und Bestattungen mit Prestigeobjekten
des Fundplatzes Tp-Leb (sdliches heigebiet, Ungarn) ........................................................... 365
Katalin Kovcs
Late Neolithic Exchange Networks in the Carpathian Basin ........................................................... 385
Kitti Khler
Ergebnisse der anthropologischen Untersuchungen zweier
sptneolithischer Bestattungen in Alsnyk ....................................................................................... 401
Johannes Mller Robert Hofmann Nils Mller-Scheeel Knut Rassmann
Neolithische Arbeitsteilung: Spezialisierung in einem Tell um 4900 v. Chr. ................................. 407
Zsuzsanna Siklsi
Traces of Social Inequality and Ritual in the Late Neolithic
of the Great Hungarian Plain ................................................................................................................ 421
Krisztina Somogyi Zsolt Gallina
Besonderes anthropomorphes Gef der Lengyel-Kultur mit doppelter
Gesichts- und Menschendarstellung in Alsnyk (SW-Ungarn) ..................................................... 437
Alasdair Whittle
Enclosures in the Making: Knowledge, Creativity and Temporality ............................................... 457
Istvn Zalai-Gal
Totenhaltung als Indikator relativer Chronologie
im transdanubischen Sptneolithikum? .............................................................................................. 467

Neolithic Spiritual Life

Lszl Domborczki
Neolithic Cult Objects and heir Symbolism ..................................................................................... 487
Gheorghe Lazarovici Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici
Sacred house and heir Importance for the Reconstruction
of Architecture, Inner Furnishings and Spiritual Life ....................................................................... 503

The Early Copper Age Between Change and Tradition

Attila Gyucha William A. Parkinson
Archaeological Cultures and the Study of Social Interaction:
he Emergence of the Early Copper Age Tiszapolgr Culture ..........................................................521

Contents
Svend Hansen
Figurinen aus Stein und Bein in der sdosteuropischen Kupferzeit ............................................. 539
Judit Regenye
Surviving Neolithic he Early Copper Age in Transdanubia,
North of Lake Balaton ............................................................................................................................ 557
Wolfram Schier
An Antiquarians Grave? Early Tiszapolgr Burials
in the Late Vina Tell Site of Uivar (Romania) .................................................................................. 569

The Middle Copper Age Time of Axes

Attila Lszl Sndor Jzsef Sztncsuj
Vessels with Handles with Discoid Attachments Discovered
in the AriudCucuteni Area and Some Problems in the Development and
Chronology of the Ariud (Ersd) Culture in Southeastern Transylvania ..................................... 579
Ildik Szathmri
Kupferhammeraxt mit Spuren eines Holzschatrestes
vom Donauufer bei Szentendre ............................................................................................................ 595

From the Late Copper Age to the Beginning of the Bronze Age Transitions
Mria Bondr
Utilitarian, Artistic, Ritual or Prestige Articles? he Possible Function
of an Enigmatic Artefact ....................................................................................................................... 605
Szilvia Fbin
A Preliminary Analysis of Intrasite Patterns at Balatonkeresztr-Rti-dl,
a Late Copper Age Site on the Southern Shore of Lake Balaton in Hungary ..................................613
Lszl Gyrgy
Late Copper Age Animal Burials in the Carpathian Basin .............................................................. 627
Gabriella Kulcsr
Glimpses of the hird Millenium BC in the Carpathian Basin ....................................................... 643
Vajk Szevernyi
he Earliest Copper Shat-Hole Axes in the Carpathian Basin:
Interaction, Chronology and Transformations of Meaning ............................................................ 661

The Early Bronze Age The Rise of a New Age

Jnos Dani Viktria Kisjuhsz
Bestattungen der Mak-Kultur in Berettyjfalu, Nagy Bcs-dl ................................................ 671

Contents
Anna Endrdi
Recent Data on the Settlement History and Contact System of the Bell
BeakerCsepel group .............................................................................................................................. 693

The Middle Bronze Age Tells and Metals

Marietta Csnyi Judit Trnoki
A Dinner Set from a Bronze Age House
in Level 2 of the Trkeve-Terehalom Settlement ................................................................................ 707
Klra P. Fischl Lszl Remnyi
Interpretation Possibilites of the Bronze Age Tell Sites
in the Carpathian Basin ......................................................................................................................... 725
Szilvia Honti Viktria Kiss
he Bronze Hoard from Zalaszabar. New Data on the Study
of the Tolnanmedi Horizon Part 2 ................................................................................................... 739
Magdolna Vicze
Middle Bronze Age Households at Szzhalombatta-Fldvr ............................................................ 757

The Late Bronze Age Rituals of Power

Judit Kos
Sptbronzezeitliche Grube mit besonderer Bestimmung
aus Oszlr-Nyrfaszg (Nordostungarn) ............................................................................................. 771
Gbor V. Szab
Late Bronze Age Stolen. New Data on the Illegal Acquisition
and Trade of Bronze Age Artefacts in the Carpathian Basin ........................................................... 793
Gbor Vczi
Burial of the Late TumulusEarly Urnield Period
from the Vicinity of Nadap, Hungary ...................................................................................................817

The Iron Age End of the (Pre)history

Istvn Fodor
A Scythian Mirror from Hajdnns, Hungary ..................................................................................831
Mikls Szab
Livre celte de la puszta hongroise ........................................................................................................ 839

Contents

Interdisciplinary Archaeology
Lszl Bartosiewicz Erika Gl Zsia Eszter Kovcs
Domesticating Mathematics: Taxonomic Diversity
in Archaeozoological Assemblages ....................................................................................................... 853
Katalin T. Bir
More on How Much? ........................................................................................................................... 863
Zoltn Czajlik Andrs Bdcs
he Efectiveness of Aerial Archaeological Research
An Approach from the GIS Perspective ............................................................................................... 873
Ferenc Gyulai
Archaeobotanical Research of the Neolithic Sites in the Polgr Area ............................................. 885
Pl Smegi Sndor Gulys Gerg Persaits
he Geoarchaeological Evolution of the Loess-Covered Alluvial Island
of Polgr and Its Role in Shaping Human Settlement Strategies ...................................................... 901
Zsuzsanna K. Zofmann
Signiicant Biostatistical Connections between Late Neolithic
Ethnic Groups from the Carpathian Basin and Bronze Age Populations
from Territories beyond the Carpathians .............................................................................................913

10

On Neolithic Frontiers in the Carpathian Basin

Eszter Bnfy

Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Research Centre for the Humanities
Institute of Archaeology
H-1014 Budapest, ri utca 49.
banfy.eszter@btk.mta.hu

Whilst earlier theories presented on the Neolithic frontiers of the Carpathian Basin assume the existence of some
sort of impassable demarcation line, more recently, border zones are conceived of as permeable, dynamic areas. his
study focuses on the Early Neolithic frontiers along the northernmost distribution area of the Krs and the Starevo
cultures.
he possible reasons for the emergence of these frontiers and the extent of the settlement territory of the indigenous
hunter-gatherer groups have been discussed in several studies, as has the emergence of the Central European Linear
Pottery in Transdanubia.
Recent investigations have indicated the existence of yet another frontier zone in the Kalocsa and the Tolna Srkz
region at the Danube in southern Hungary. he irst farmers, originally part of a large Balkanic cultural complex,
separated into three well distinguishable groups at the onset of the 6th millennium BC in the northernmost part of
their distribution: the western, central and eastern half of the Carpathian Basin (in Transdanubia, the Danube
Tisza Interluve and the Great Hungarian Plain, and Transylvania and the Partium). Although the Starevo and
Krs populations settled close to each other, along the banks of the Danube in southern Hungary there are
remarkable diferences in the nature and density of the settlements and also, in their material culture. he paper
discusses whether there were any geological, geographical, hydrological and/or climatic factors explaining the presence of this frontier, although the basic ecological conditions on both sides of the Danube are the same and must
have been the same in the Neolithic as well. he occupation of the woodland west of the Danube is certainly a basic
diference: still, to gain a irmer understanding of the stable diferences lasting for over a millennium, some other
components such as cognitive, economic, social and cultural diferences in the development characterising the two
populations seem probable.
Mg a Krpt-medence jkkori hatrvidkeivel kapcsolatban korbban az elvlaszt tnyezk jtszottak f
szerepet, ma inkbb tjrhat, mobil s vltozatos zna ltt tarthatjuk valsznnek. A tanulmny egy konkrt idben s terleten, a Krs- s Starevo-kultra dl-magyarorszgi teleplseivel kapcsolatban vizsglja a
hatrvidk krdst.
A letelepedett s lelemtermel letmd kialakulsval kapcsolatban tbb tanulmny foglalkozott az els dunntli fldmvelk s a helyi vadsz-gyjtget lakossg feltehet kapcsolatval, a kettejk kztti hatrvidkkel, s azzal, hogyan alakult ki ebbl a kapcsolatbl a kzp-eurpai vonaldszes kermia kultrja, amely
aztn gyorsan elterjedt a Duna mentn szaknyugat fel. Az utbbi vekben tbb nemzetkzi kutatsi program
nyomn fordult a igyelem a Duna kt oldaln, a Tolnai s a Kalocsai Srkz terletn lt kora neolitikus npcsoportok kztti hatrvidk fel. Az szak-Balknon mg egysges kultrj korai fldmvesek szakabbra
hrom, tbb-kevsb klnll csoportra bomlottak a Krpt-medence nyugati (dunntli), kzps (alfldi)
s keleti (partiumi) rszn. Noha a Krs- s a Starevo-lelhelyek alig nhny kilomternyi tvolsgra fekszenek
egymstl, a Duna akkoriban pedig nem egy szles folyt, hanem inkbb kis gakbl s mocsarakbl ll, de
tjrhat tjat jelentett, mgis jelents kulturlis klnbsgek fedezhetk fel kzttk, mind a teleplsek srsgt, jellegt, mind pedig a rgszeti hagyatkot tekintve. A tanulmny vizsglja a krdst, vajon a fldrajzi,
geolgiai, vzrajzi s klimatikus klnbsgek szerepet kaphattak-e a csoportok klnvl fejldsi tjban.
Jelents klnbsg, hogy mg a Krs-kultra npe tovbbra is a sk, rtri vidket kedvelte, a Starevo-kultra
megteleplt a Dl-Dunntl srn erdslt dombvidkn is, ezzel azonban aligha magyarzhat a sok szz vre
llandsult s a kt csoport utdainak idejn is fennll hatrvidk. A klnbsgek jobb megrtshez egyb,
a trsadalom bels szerkezetvel s fejldsvel, valamint a kt csoport identitsnak klnvlsval s eltr
alakulsval kapcsolatos krdsekkel is szmolnunk kell.

MOMENTS IN TIME BUDAPEST 2013

35

Eszter Bnffy
To Pl Raczky, old friend and colleague, in remembrance of times both good and bad,
with the conviction that we shall have ample opportunity to share our thoughts
on the problems of the Neolithic and of Hungarian archaeology in general.
Many theories have been presented on the Neolithic frontiers of the Carpathian Basin, most of
which relect an awareness of the fact that in addition to the identiication of possible internal transformations, the possible reasons for the halt in the
advance of an archaeological culture in an area
where there were no apparent natural geographic
barriers must also be examined in order to better
understand cultural trajectories, as must the lack
of any interaction with neighbouring cultures regarding customs and material culture.
Models concerning archaic boundaries have
changed signiicantly during the past decades.
Earlier, the existence of some sort of impassable
demarcation line was generally assumed (Ehrich
1961), even though boundaries of this kind hardly
existed in Europe before the emergence of nation
states and their closely guarded borders. More recently, border zones are conceived of as permeable
areas, porous and dynamic, providing ample opportunities for interaction between diferent communities, and resembling frontiers rather than

boundaries, whose mediating role is at least as important as their presence as a barrier.

Prehistoric frontiers of this type evolved in areas
where there was a longer tradition of interaction
between hunter-gatherer and farmer groups: the existence of more or less permanent frontier zones of
this type north of the Carpathian Basin have been
described in detail (ZvelebilRowley-Conwy
1984; Zvelebil 1986). Even Neustupn suggested
that linguistic boundaries can perhaps also be assumed in these cases (Neustupn 1984; 1991).
According to David W. Anthony, the distinguished
scholar of prehistoric migrations and frontier
zones, the persistent, long-lasting survival of frontier zones over several centuries is a clear indication
of linguistic frontiers (Anthony 2007, 104). Most
of the examples cited by him refer to the Eastern
European steppe region and his model is certainly
credible in the context of the tribal societies with
difering material culture and subsistence strategies
living in that region. He is probably correct in noting that ethnolinguistic frontiers are not a modern

Fig. 1. he Krs and the Starevo distribution area frontier zones along Lake Balaton and the Danube

36

On Neolithic Frontiers in the Carpathian Basin

invention but have a millennium long tradition
and that diferences of this kind should be assumed
in the most persistent frontier regions. An explanation along these lines seems justiied in most cases,
including the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition, when
immigrant farmers and local forager groups faced
each other across the frontier. In this study, I shall
examine the problems raised by frontiers through
the example of an Early Neolithic frontier zone
in southern Hungary and the perceptibly distinct
cultural identities of the local Krs and Starevo
communities in that region.
hat the problem of frontier regions cannot be
simply explained by singling out one or two factors, such as linguistic diferences, is adequately
illustrated by the persistent frontier between the
Neolithic cultures of Transdanubia, which existed
for a long period and separated various cultural
groups, oten within the Linear Pottery distribution. he distribution of the Krs and Starevo
cultures in the Danube region is another case in

point (Fig. 1). Were we to assume that the Krs

and Starevo population and, later, the northern
and southern Transdanubian groups of the Linear Pottery culture, and, later still, the Lengyel
population and the various Neolithic groups of
the Danube region (Sopot, early Vina, Szaklht, early Tisza) all belonged to diferent language
families, or were part of the same language family, but spoke difering tongues preventing mutual understanding, we should make every effort to deine when and where these diferences
evolved. he Krs and Starevo populations were
still part of the same cultural complex in the cultures early phase, which lasted until the turn of
the 7th6th millennia in the northern Balkans, not
far from Hungarys current southern border. he
early Linear Pottery groups can, for the greater
part, be derived from the Starevo culture, while
the late Linear Pottery groups developed from a
single, early cultural unit ater a few generations.
he Lengyel culture is a direct descendant of the
Linear Pottery. New cultural impulses, if any,
could only have come from the northern Balkans,
Fig. 2. Krs sites on the let bank
12: Szakmr-Kisls, 13: Btya-Oroszpuszta I, 14: Btya-Oroszpuszta II, 15:
Drgszl-Bitang, 16: Drgszl site 13, 17:
Drgszl-Temet (site 22), 18: DusnokFelslugos-Zsilip, 19: Dusnok-Halom,
20: Dusnok-Krtvlyesi ht, 21: Dusnok-Temet, Vajaspart, 22: Fajsz-Garadomb, 23: Hajs-Kolecsnyi puszta,
24: Homokmgy 67, 25: Homokmgy
Alsmgy, Hajsi fldt III, 26: Homokmgy-Halom, Gyrtelek II, 27:
Homokmgy-Humok, 28. HomokmgyGdapart, 29: Homokmgy-Alsmgy,
Tag, 30: Homokmgy-Ivn sziget, 31:
Homokmgy-Alsmgy, Kiserd, 32:
Homokmgy-Alsmgy, Romsics flgyei,
33: Homokmgy-Mcsai Tanya, 34: Homokmgy-Szabl, 35: Homokmgy-Rideg
budzsak, 36: Homokmgy-Hillye, Rasztik
(site 64), 37: Homokmgy-Morcs (site
74), 38: Homokmgy-Morcs (site 78),
39: Homokmgy-Morcs (site 79), 40:
Homokmgy-Papsziget, 41: Homokmgy
site 2002/5, 42: Miske-Sopkadomb, 43:
Vaskt-Hieselkert), Starevo sites on the
right bank (1: Sikls, 2: Babarc, 3: Medina, 4: Harc, 5: csny, 6: Dunaszekcs,
7: Lnycsk, 8: Bly, 9: Szr, 10: TolnaMzs, 11: Alsnyk) a frontier along
the Danube in southern Hungary

37

Eszter Bnffy
the very region from which this culture set itself
apart. How can diferent language groups be conceived within the Neolithic populations of Transdanubia in the light of such a clear-cut genealogic
order? It follows from the above that the current
archaeological record is unsuitable for the study
of the possible linguistic aspects of the Neolithic
of the Carpathian Basin and thus linguistic arguments can hardly play a role in the frontier models
suggested for this region.
he advance of the food producing communities
arriving from the south halted in the centre of the
Carpathian Basin, in the Balaton region and in the
Upper Tisza region. he frontiers evolving in these
regions survived during the Early Neolithic, namely
during the Krs and Starevo period. he possible
reasons for the emergence of these frontiers and
the extent of the settlement territory of the indigenous hunter-gatherer groups have been discussed
in several studies (BnffyEichmannMarton
2007; EichmannKertszMarton in press), as
has the emergence of the Central European Linear
Pottery (Bnffy 2004). Following a brief, uniform
cultural phase, however, the earlier frontier in the
Balaton region re-surfaced again with the appearance of the Keszthely and Zseliz groups in the late
centuries of the Linear Pottery sequence, recalling the one of two hundred years earlier (BnffyOross 2009; OrossBnffy 2009; Oross in
this volume). Around 5350 BC, this frontier zone
separated the Keszthely and the Zseliz groups of
the late Linear Pottery period in the Balaton region. A similar phenomenon has been noted in
the Great Hungarian Plain regarding the northern
distribution of the Krs culture (Domborczki
2005; Whittle 2007). hese frontier zones appear
to have re-emerged from time to time during the
later Neolithic (Raczky 1983; 1986; Bnffy 1999;
Domborczki 2005; Nagy 2005; Raczky 2006).
Recent investigations have indicated the existence of yet a third frontier zone in the Kalocsa
area and the Tolna Srkz region, in the southern
Danube region of Hungary (Fig. 2). Let us irst
examine whether there were any geological, geographical, hydrological and/or climatic factors explaining the presence of this frontier.
he regions most prominent element is the
Danube, the river lowing across the greater part of
the European continent. A closer look at old maps
and the indings of geological investigations clearly indicate that the wide waterway of today lowing

38

between two banks did not exist before the rivers

regulation.1 he Danube split into two branches
just under Pest: one branch lowed westward and,
winding along the edge of the drit-sand, reached
the rivers current main channel at Baja. he
main Danube bed shited westward together with
the old branches which later disappeared, and a
marshland interlaced with streamlets providing
excellent channels of communication extended
along both river banks. Flanking both banks of
the Danube, the Srkz region formed a transition
between the Great Hungarian Plain and Transdanubia (Nebojszki 2006). Smuel Mikovinys
map from the 18th century still shows the colourful mosaic of countless bends, side-branches, active channels and periodically looded loodplains
dotting the marshland. he map of the First Ordnance Survey recorded a similar environment.
Only the river regulations begun in the later 19th
century created the current landscape of cultivated ields criss-crossed by channels. he Danube
had simply not existed as a frontier river in the 6th
millennium BC: instead, the river branches meandered across a waterlogged marshland dotted
with shallow sand-banks. Many of these branches were living rivers, while others were branches
transformed into living water only during times
of lood, or oxbows cut of from the main channel at some earlier time. he region was far from
impenetrable: communication between the rivers
two banks was continuous during the past millennia, the only exception being the Roman limes
along the river, although the Roman imports appearing in the heritage of the Sarmatians living on
the rivers let bank suggest that the Roman frontier was not as rigid as it might seem, and could be
negotiated to some extent. Similarly, there is ample
evidence for exchange contacts between Transdanubia and the Krs Valleys during the Neolithic,
many millennia before the Roman rule.
he former Danube channels on the let bank
shited westward, conforming to the rivers changing low direction. he deposits from these former
channels can be identiied in the pebble and sand
layers lying at a depth of ca. 2 meters (Pcsi 1981).
he current, north to south channel developed at
the close of the Upper Pleistocene; the river has
since remained the single natural drainage in the
region (Romsics 1998, 17). he area known as the
1
I am greatly indebted to Pl Smegi for his insightful comments.

On Neolithic Frontiers in the Carpathian Basin

Kalocsa Srkz is a high loodplain extending for
some 20 kilometres from the Danube, whose terraced levees rising no more than a few meters above
the surrounding land are criss-crossed by streamlets and the oxbows detached from the palaeoDanube. Extensive areas are covered with alluvial
silt; the excellent humiied alluvial soils evolving
from them make the area of the Srkz region lying in the DanubeTisza Interluve one of the most
fertile agricultural regions (Romsics 1998, 23).
he right bank of the Danube is covered with
waterlogged loodplain dissected by oxbow lakes
up to the Szekszrd Hills.2 he small islets rising
above the marshy loodplain were the remnants of
one-time alluvial cones, the single lood-free areas
during the long millennia before the rivers regulation. hese alluvial terraces were the only areas
suitable for farming since the lower-lying areas
were covered with gallery woods. he area is now
predominantly covered with alluvial soils, with
the occasional meadow chernozem on the higher
terraces (MarosiSomogyi 1990).
It is clear from the above brief overview that
similar geomorphological and hydrological conditions characterised both banks of the Danube.
According to Imre Katona (1954, 2), an extensive
water-world and marshland extended from the
Szekszrd Hills to the sand-banks of the Danube
Tisza Interluve, with its own distinct lifeways and
habits, a water-world which was neither part of
Transdanubia, nor of the Great Hungarian Plain,
but acted as a transition between the two. Lying
between the Szekszrd Hills and the high sand
ridges of the DanubeTisza Interluve was a deep,
marshy Danube trough, on whose loor wound
the unregulated Danube, roughly in its middle.
he river between the two banks did not form a
divide as it does today: the communities living on
the opposite banks could communicate with each
other without any hindrance. he real barrier
between Transdanubia and the Great Hungarian Plain was the edge of the marshland lanking
the river. he above description is an excellent
summary of the environmental conditions in the
Srkz region: it was a uniform landscape before
the river regulations, and thus also in the earlier
6th millennium BC. It must at this point be recalled that Starevo groups had settled in roughly
2
I would here like to thank Pl Smegi for kindly presenting
me with a copy of his still unpublished study on the regions palaeoenvironment.

similar environments south of the Srkz region

too: marshy loess dominates the areas bordering
on the 90200 meters high alluvial soils between
the Drava and the Sava, where loods occurred
regularly (parica 2007, 25). Starevo settlements have been identiied on high plateaus in
the Srem (Petrovi 1976; 198485), resembling
the cultures sites in the Szekszrd area. According to Kornelija Minichreiter, the settlements lay
on the riverbank terraces, on the sun-drenched,
lower-lying gentle hill slopes in stream valleys and
near water sources in the plain next to former
watercourses, of which only dry beds remain today (Minichreiter 2006, 80). he single major
diference between the two regions was that Transdanubia was more heavily forested (Smegi 2003;
2004).
he irst farmers, originally part of a large Balkanic cultural complex, separated into three well
distinguishable groups at the onset of the 6th millennium BC in the northernmost part of their distribution: the western, central and eastern half of the
Carpathian Basin (in Transdanubia, the Danube
Tisza Interluve and the Great Hungarian Plain, and
Transylvania and the Partium). Discussed in the
following will be the diferences in the archaeological heritage of the Starevo and Krs populations.
he irst major diference can be noted in the
location and nature of the settlements. During
their migration to the northern Balkans, the practice of continuous settlement in the same location
over several centuries was abandoned: tell settlements can no longer be found in this region, It
would appear that both the Krs and the Starevo
communities adapted to the changed environmental and ecologic conditions, and that both
responded in the same manner. he Krs communities preferred the wet loodplains along the
rivers because their villages lie along the one-time
meanders of various rivers. he same holds true
for the Krs settlements along the Danube since
these settlements always lie beside water habitats.
he Starevo villages can be found in more varied
environments, with some established on ridges lying farther from watersides. he Starevo communities populated both the valleys and the hills of
Transdanubia. While the number of new sites has
multiplied during the past years, it is quite clear
that the number of Starevo sites, as well as the
size of these settlements and the ind assemblages
testifying to their permanent occupation will nev-

39

Eszter Bnffy
er eclipse that of the Krs culture. he current
archaeological record would suggest that the most
densely settled area was the DravaDanube Valley
and that the overall Starevo population of Transdanubia was fairly low. It is also quite clear that
the archaeological heritage of the Starevo culture
was modiied to the greatest extent in the northwestern frontier region, which can most likely be
attributed to the interaction and blending with
the local indigenous population (Bnffy 2004;
2005; 2006). he intensively occupied Krs sites
lie along the let Danube bank up to the Kalocsa
area, where the cultures distribution in the DanubeTisza Interluve abruptly ends. he main differences between the material culture of these two
cultures have been discussed by Nndor Kalicz
(1988; 2000), who identiied the local traits of the
Krs and Starevo wares and their decoration.
It is quite obvious that aside from the nature
of the settlements and the archaeological heritage, the subsistence practices of the Krs and
Starevo populations difered to some extent,
owing to the difering environmental and ecologic conditions. An excellent study on a Krs
site, combining traditional archaeological and
palaeoenvironmental analyses, has recently been
published (Whittle 2007). A similarly complex
investigation is planned for the recently identiied Starevo settlement at Alsnyk, the cultures
perhaps largest and most signiicant site in Transdanubia. he indings of these investigations will
undoubtedly contribute to a better understanding
of the persistent frontier zone in this region.
An overview of the thirteen then known sites
in the Hungarian (Transdanubian) distribution of
the Starevo culture was published in 1990 (Kalicz 1990). In 2001, the present author published
the inds from Babarc, a Starevo site destroyed by
the Romans (Bnffy 2001). Other, more recently
identiied sites include the one on the northern
shore of Lake Balaton (Regenye 2008). A recent
study lists twenty-six Starevo sites in Transdanubia (KaliczMolnrRzss 2007). One recent
advance in the research of the Starevo culture was
the identiication of a local group typical for the
cultures northern frontier zone (H. Simon 1994;
1996; KaliczM. VirgT. Bir 1998; Bnffy
2000a; 2000b; H. Simon 2002; Bnffy 2004; Regenye 2008). he number of Starevo sites in the
south-eastern Transdanubian corner has increased during the past few years, in part owing to

40

the archaeological salvage operations preceding the

construction of the M6 Motorway (Szr, csny,
Tolna-Mzs, Alsnyk-Kanizsa-dl). he csny,
the Tolna-Mzs and the Alsnyk settlements were
larger and more intensively occupied than the other Starevo sites in Transdanubia. he number of
Starevo sites currently known in Transdanubia
has risen to twenty-nine, eleven of which lie in the
small area bounded by the Danube and the Drava
Rivers in south-eastern Transdanubia. he sites in
the Szekszrd area, and especially the extensive settlement at Alsnyk, suggest that the nature of the
Starevo occupation along the Danube in southeastern Transdanubia shares many similarities with
the cultures distribution in the DanubeDrava triangle to the south and the eastern Slavonian region
bounded by the Drava and the Sava Rivers. hey
form a single cultural unit. he dense Starevo occupation in Croatia has been discussed in several
studies (Minichreiter 1992; 1997; Balen 2006,
2527; Buni 2007, 65). he settlement at Donja
Branjevina by the Danube in the Voivodina occupies a key position owing to the Krs and Starevo
inds recovered from its occupation deposits. According to the excavator, the earliest, monochrome
pottery was followed by white painted wares. Both
phases contained Krs wares decorated with appliqu, while the pottery of the overlying layer
yielding black on red painted wares was dominated
by Starevo traits. Unfortunately, the exact cultural
contexts of the inds from this site are not always
clear (Thissen 2000). Neither Sergej Karmanski,
who excavated the site (Karmanski 1968; 1977;
1979; 1988; 1990; 1993), nor Paolo Biagi, who edited and published the surviving ield documentation (Karmanski 2005) can be faulted for this. he
stratigraphy of the earlier excavations is uncertain
and only a few pottery sherds have been published
from the ceramic inventory, mostly pieces with igural depictions. he inds from Donja Branjevina
and other sites in the Serbian Srem (Petrovi
1976; 198485; Lekovi 1988) could be taken to
imply that the by this time divided cultural unit
spread northward during this late phase however, any statements to this efect would be premature before a better knowledge of the exact date and
internal chronology of the sites in Transdanubia
and the DanubeTisza Interluve. Not to speak of
the fact that even if this separation could be exactly
pinpointed, it would hardly bring us closer to understanding the reasons for the separation.

On Neolithic Frontiers in the Carpathian Basin

Many advances have been made in the research
of the Neolithic on the let Danube bank, especially regarding the surprisingly intensive Krs distribution. Ida Kutzin mentioned a few Krs sites
in the DanubeTisza Interluve (Kutzin 1944,
Fig. 9. 1319, Fig. 10), and she also excavated the
cultures northernmost site at Szakmr-Kisls, on
which she later published a brief report (BognrKutzin 1977). Field surveys by va V. Vadsz
and Klmn D. Szab too suggested a fairly dense
Krs occupation. While an overview of these
Krs settlements has been published (Wicker
KustrHorvth 2001), the realisation that
this dense Krs occupation was virtually within
eyesight of the well-known Starevo sites was apparently missed at the time. hese sites are complemented by the sites listed in the archaeological
chapters of a few new local history monographs,
such as the one on the history of Homokmgy,
which mentions a high number of Krs sites on
the villages outskirts (Tth 1998).
Figure 2 shows the currently known Starevo
and Krs sites in the Tolna and Kalocsa Srkz
and in the DanubeDrava region south of Hungarys border.
he possible reasons for the unbreached divide
between the two cultures have not been explored
yet. What kind of information and evidence has
been missed by archaeologists and specialists focusing on the reconstruction of prehistoric environments? While we can now pose meaningful questions, the answers can only be hoped for
from the evaluation of the immense corpus of new
Krs and Starevo assemblages.
Still, the current archaeological record does allow the formulation of rudimentary models and
work hypotheses. As mentioned in the above, the
settlement patterns and the ind material of the
Starevo and the Krs cultures can be clearly
distinguished. One intriguing question is whether the emergence of local varieties from the large
Balkanic cultural complex can be attributed to
the difering environmental and ecologic conditions, or whether the diferences can already be
demonstrated in an earlier phase. According to
our present knowledge, the Starevo communities
reached Lake Balaton during the cultures classical
and late phase (phases Linear B and Spiraloid B in
Stojan Dimitrijevis framework). By that time, the
range of environments in which Starevo communities established their settlements was much

wider than that of the Krs culture. At the same

time, the size of the Starevo settlements and the
intensity of their occupation, as well as the corpus
of inds recovered from them remain far below
that of the Krs culture.
he above data relect the diferences between
the two cultures. he question of why there was no
interaction between the two cultures in the Srkz
region along the right and let bank of the Danube
remains unanswered. his is all the more intriguing because there is growing evidence for interaction between the Starevo population and the indigenous groups of the Carpathian Basin, which
undoubtedly led to exchanges, adaptation and,
most probably, genetic mixing. Similarly, the possibility that there were similar contacts between
the Krs groups and the local forager population
in the northern part of the Greater Hungarian
Plain cannot be excluded out of hand, even though
evidence for contacts of this kind is scanty. At the
same time, there seems to have been no interaction
between the Starevo and Krs communities, two
groups with a shared cultural background and
common cultural roots living on opposite banks of
the Danube. here are no Starevo imports on the
Krs sites, or Krs inds on Starevo sites.
While a linguistic diference preventing communication between the Krs and Starevo communities seems unlikely (in part owing to the not
much earlier separation), the current archaeological record is unsuitable for an ethnolinguistic
analysis of this kind. It is also quite obvious that
there was no ecologic frontier zone between the
distributions of the two cultures. Can we therefore
assume a diference in subsistence practices? his
issue can be examined in the light of the difering
settlement densities and the choices of settlement
locations. he reason for the lack of any contact
between two groups with a shared ancestry and
a common cultural background, both engaged
in farming and animal husbandry, whose architecture shares numerous similarities (Bnffy
Smegi in press), living within eyesight of each
other must perhaps be sought in mental habits,
which cannot be directly be recognised from the
typological and palaeoenvironmental record. An
interpretative approach can at best be of aid in
formulating certain questions.
he diferences between the Krs and Starevo
populations were probably expressed through different customs; at the same time, these diferences

41

Eszter Bnffy
are not relected in the artefactual material. While
the traditional archaeological, typological, settlement historical, environmental, economic, demographic and genetic aspects of the transition to the
Neolithic have oten been discussed, little attention has been paid to the mental and, particularly,
to the irrational aspect of the transition because
it is archaeologically undetectable. It is even more
elusive than the cultural interaction between the
Balkanic farmers and the indigenous population,
relected in the copying of cult items (Bnffy
2005). To quote D. W. Anthony, it was the persistent opposition of bundles of customs that deined the frontier rather any other artefact type
(Anthony 2007, 105). What were the diferences
as relected in customs and ideology?
Any search for the possible mental diferences
between the two cultures inevitably leads to one
of the basic issues of Neolithic development in the
Carpathian Basin, which invariably comes up in
any examination of Neolithic development in western and eastern Hungary. How can one explain
that the Krs culture and its successors, the Alfld
Linear Pottery and the Late Neolithic Tisza culture,
adhered to and remained in the initially colonised
regions for several thousand years and did not
expand beyond those regions? Why is it that the
Starevo culture and its successors, the Transdanubian Linear Pottery and the Late Neolithic Lengyel
culture, were dynamic cultures from the very moment of their birth: the Linear Pottery spread to the
greater part of Central Europe, while the Lengyel
culture occupied the southerly parts of this area and
maintained intensive cultural and trade contacts
with the areas beyond too? Even a cursory glance at
the strict separation in the Szekszrd and Kalocsa
Srkz excludes the possibility of mere chance.
I have tried to ind a rational explanation by
suggesting that the economic reason lay in the demand for salt (Bnffy 2004, 390391): the communities in the Great Hungarian Plain had access
to salt deposits, while the ones living in Transdanubia could only acquire this commodity through
their contacts with the north-west. Even if this was
the case, it does not provide an exclusive or full
answer to the basic question. Persistent frontiers
survived during later prehistory and historic times
too, even in times when linguistic diferences had
since long disappeared, in cases when the group
identity of two populations difered markedly. his
identity may have been expressed in diferent re-

42

ligious beliefs, although there is no need for such

far-reaching assumptions. While it seems likely
that the Krs and Starevo populations chose different group identities, it will be diicult to either
prove or refute this assumption using traditional
analytical techniques of archaeology.
he assumption of separate group identities
presumes the existence of separate groups. Was
this indeed the case in the Early Neolithic? According to James Woodburn, the main precondition to a group identity, the division of labour,
had been present in hunter-gatherer communities, meaning that this was no obstacle (Woodburn 1982). We may also assume the existence of
some form of social dominance in both groups, in
which the role of personal authority became a key
factor (Hodder 1992, 242). It is possible that the
diverging self-identity of the two populations was
in fact an adaptive strategy to ensure that subsistence based on food production would be successful both in the practical sphere (governed by the
environment and the climate) and in the symbolic
sphere. We may perhaps assume that each population believed its own strategy to be superior, this
being one of the reasons that they did not communicate with each other. he greatly difering
cognitive, economic, social and cultural development characterising the two populations and their
descendants until the close of the Neolithic, for
over a thousand years, certainly seems to support
this assumption.
If this was indeed one of the reasons for the
otherwise unexplainable and (as yet) baling separation, the behaviour of the Krs and Starevo
groups is an eloquent example of how the personal
attitudes and cognitive behaviour of prehistoric
communities are relected in their adaptation to
a speciic environment and in their material culture. Given, of course, that our interpretation of
the record is correct.
he following few years will see the evaluation
of the Krs settlements along the let bank of the
Danubes southern stretch in Hungary, and of the
Starevo settlements in County Tolna, providing
ample opportunities for bearing in mind the theses outlined in the above while performing these
immense tasks.3

3
his studie was written during the tenure of a grant from the
OTKA (NSF) K 61935.

On Neolithic Frontiers in the Carpathian Basin

References
Anthony, D. W. 2007: he horse, the wheel and language. How Bronze Age riders from the Eurasian steppes shaped
the modern world. Princeton University Press: Princeton and Oxford.
Balen, J. 2006: Sarva neolitiko i eneolitiko naselje Sarva Neolithic and Eneolithic settlement. Katalozi i
monograije Arheolokog muzeja u Zagrebu Catalogues and monographs of the Archaeological Museum
in Zagreb 2, Zagreb.
Bnffy, E. 1999: Az jkkori lelhely rtkelse Neolithic settlement. In: Petercsk, T.Szab, J. J. (eds): KompoltKistr. jkkori, bronzkori, szarmata s avar lelhely. Leletment sats az M3-as autplya nyomvonaln
Kompolt-Kistr. A Neolithic, Bronze Age, Sarmatian and Avar site. Rescue excavation at the M3 Motorway.
Heves megyei Rgszeti Kzlemnyek, Eger 1999, 141170, 351356.
Bnffy, E. 2000a: Starevo und/oder LBK? In: Beier, H.-J. (ed.): Varia Neolithica I. Beitrge der Sitzungen der AG
Neolithikum in Neubrandenburg und Wien. Beitrge zur Ur- und Frhgeschichte Mitteleuropas 22, Weissbach
2000, 4760.
Bnffy, E. 2000b: he late Starevo and the earliest Linear Pottery groups in Western Transdanubia. Documenta
Praehistorica 27 (2000) 173185.
Bnffy, E. 2001: Neue Funde der Starevo-Kultur in Sdtransdanubien. In: Draovean, F. (ed.): Festschrit fr
Gheorghe Lazarovici zum 60. Geburtstag. Bibliotheca historica et archaeologica Banatica 30, Timioara 2001,
4158.
Bnffy, E. 2004: he 6th Millennium BC boundary in Western Transdanubia and its role in the Central European
transition (he SzentgyrgyvlgyPityerdomb settlement). Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 15, Budapest.
Bnffy, E. 2005: Mesolithicneolithic contacts, as relected in ritual inds. Documenta Praehistorica 32 (2005) 7786.
Bnffy, E. 2006: Eastern, Central and Western Hungary variations of neolithisation models. Documenta
Praehistorica 33 (2006) 125142.
Bnffy, E.Eichmann, W. J.Marton, T. 2007: Mesolithic foragers and the spread of agriculture in Western
Hungary. In: Kozowski, J.Nowak, M. (eds): Mesolithic-Neolithic interactions in the Balkans and in the
Middle Danube Basin. Proceedings of the XV. World Congress (Lisbon, 49 September 2006) Vol. 6. British
Archaeological ReportsInternational Series 1726, Oxford 2007, 5382.
Bnffy, E.Oross, K. 2009: Entwicklung und Dynamik der Linearbandkeramik in Transdanubien. In: Zeeb-Lanz,
A. (Hrsg.): KrisenKulturwandelKontinuitten: Zum Ende der Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Beitrge der
Internationalen Tagung in Herxheim bei Landau (Pfalz) vom 14.17. 06. 2007. Internationale Archologie
Arbeitsgemeinschat, Symposium, Tagung, Kongress 10, Rahden/Westfalen 2009, 219240.
Bnffy, E.Smegi, P. in press: he [environ-]mental contexts of earliest Neolithic settlement and architecture in
western Hungary. In: Viner, S.Robinson, E. (eds): Trajectories of Neolithisation. Sheield.
BognrKutzin 1977: Ausgrabungen in Szakmr-Kisls im Jahre 1975. Mitteilungen des Archologischen
Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaten 7 (1977) 1317.
Buni, M. 2007: Topograia pretpovijesnih nazalita u Vukovaru i okoloici Topography of prehistoric sites in
Vukovar and surroundings. Vjesnik Arheolokog muzeja u Zagrebu 40 (2007) 3572.
Domborczki, L. 2005: A Krs-kultra szaki elterjedsi hatrnak problematikja a Tiszaszls-Domahzapusztn vgzett sats eredmnyeinek fnyben he problem of the northern extension of the Krs
culture in the light of the excavation results from Tiszaszls-Domahza. Archaeometry Workshop, e-journal
published by the Hungarian National Museum 2005/2: s.p. www.ace.hu/am/2005_2/AM-2005-2-DL.pdf
Ehrich, R. W. 1961: On the persistence and recurrences of culture areas and culture boundaries during the course
of European prehistory, protohistory, and history. In: Bersu, G. (Hrsg.): Bericht ber den V. Internationalen
Kongress fr Vor- und Frhgeschichte Hamburg vom 24. bis 30. August 1958. Berlin 1961, 253257.
Eichmann, W. J.Kertsz, R.Marton, T. in press: he Mesolithic in the LBK (Linearbandkeramik) Heartland
of Western Hungary. In: Gronenborn, D.Petrasch, J. (eds): he Spread of the Neolithic to Central Europe.
RmischGermanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz, Tagungen, Band 2, Mainz.
Hodder, I. 1992: heory and practice in archaeology. LondonNew York.
Kalicz, N. 1988: A termel gazdlkods kezdetei a Dunntlon Neolitikum [he Beginnings of a production economy
in Transdanubia]. DSc hesis, manuscript. Budapest.
Kalicz, N. 1990: Frhneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus Sdwestungarn. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 4,
Budapest.
Kalicz, N. 2000: Unterscheidungsmerkmale zwischen der Krs- und der Starevo-Kultur in Ungarn. In: Hiller,
St.Nikolov, V. (Hrsg): Karanovo III. Beitrge zum Neolithikum in Sdosteuropa. Wien 2000, 295309.

43

Eszter Bnffy
Kalicz, N.Molnr, S.Rzss, M. 2007: Az lelemtermels kezdetei Somogy megyben a Kr. e. 7.6. vezred
forduljn Beginnings of food production in Somogy county the turn of the 7th6th millennia BC. he
earliest phase of the Neolithic Period. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 2007, 1964.
Kalicz, N.M. Virg, Zs.T. Bir, K. 1998: he northern periphery of the early neolithic Starevo culture in
south-western Hungary: a case study of an excavation at Lake Balaton. Documenta Praehistorica 25 (1998)
151187.
Karmanski, S. 1968: rtvenici, statuete i amuleti sa lokaliteta Donja Branjevina kod Deronja. Odaci.
Karmanski, S. 1977: Katalog antropomorfne i zoomorfne plastike iz okolina Odaka. Odaci.
Karmanski, S. 1979: Donja Branjevina. Odaci.
Karmanski, S. 1988: Donja Branjevina. In: Srejovi, D. (ed.): he neolithic of Serbia. Belgrade 1988, 7576.
Karmanski, S. 1990: Donja Branjevina. Beitrge. Odaci.
Karmanski, S. 1993: Donja Branjevina 19891993. Odaci.
Karmanski, S. 2005: Donja Branjevina: A neolithic settlement near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia). Societ per la
preistoria e protostoria della regione FriuliVenezia Giulia 10, Trieste 2005.
Katona, I. 1954: A Kalocsai Srkz nprajza. Budapest.
Kutzin, I. 1944: A Krs-kultra he Krs culture. Dissertationes Pannonicae II/23, Budapest.
Lekovi, V. 1988: Zlatara-Ruma. In: Srejovi, D. (ed.): he neolithic of Serbia. Belgrade 1988, 108109.
Marosi, S.Somogyi, S. 1990: Magyarorszg kistjainak katasztere III. MTA FKI: Budapest.
Minichreiter, K. 1992: Starevaka kultura u Sjevernoj Hrvatskoj he Starevo culture in Northern Croatia.
Disertacije i monograije 1, Zagreb.
Minichreiter, K. 1997: Nalazi Starevake kulture u Osijeku kao prilog daljem upoznavanju najstarijeg naseljavanja
istone Slavonije Starevo culture indings in Osijek as the contribution to the further knowledge the oldest
settling Eastern Slavonia. Osjeki Zbornik 2223 (1997) 719.
Minichreiter, K. 2006: Development of the Starevo culture on the territory of continental Croatia. In: Tasi,
N.Grozdanov, C. (eds): Homage to Milutin Garaanin. SaSa Special editions. Cicero publishing: Belgrade
2006, 7997.
Nagy, E. Gy. 2005: Adatok az alfldi vonaldszes kermia kultrjnak teleplstrtneti kphez a Fels-Tisza-vidken
[Data to the settlement history of the Alfld LBK in the Upper Tisza region]. PhD hesis, Budapest.
Nebojszki, L. 2006: A mltrz Srkz. Termszet Vilga 137/10, October 2006 http://www.termeszetvilaga.hu/
szamok/tv2006/tv0610/neboj.html
Neustupn, E. 1984: Archeologick prospekce s vyuitm pravdpodobnostnch metod Prospecting by means
of probabilistic methods. In: ujanov-Jlkov, E. (ed.): Nov prospekn metody v archeologii. Vzkumy v
echch, Supplementum 1984, Praha 1984, 105130.
Neustupn, E. 1991: Community areas of prehistoric farmers in Bohemia. Antiquity 65, No. 247 (1991) 326331.
Pcsi, M. 1981 (ed.): A Dunntli dombsg (Dl-Dunntl). Budapest.
Petrovi, J. 1976: Golokut-Vizi, praistorijsko naselje. Arheoloki Pregled 18 (1976) 1122.
Petrovi, J. 198485: Naselje starevake kulture na Golokutu kod Vizia A settlement of the Starevo culture at
Golokut near Vizi. Rad Vojvoanskih Muzeja 29 (198485) 925.
Oross, K.Bnffy, E. 2009: hree successive waves of neolithization: the LBK development in Transdanubia.
Documenta Praehistorica 36 (2009) 175189.
Raczky, P. 1983: A korai neolitikumbl a kzps neolitikumba val tmenet krdsei a Kzp- s Fels-Tiszavidken Questions of transition between the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Middle and Upper Tisza
region. Archaeologiai rtest 110 (1983) 161194.
Raczky, P. 1986: Megjegyzsek az alfldi vonaldszes kermia kialakulsnak krdshez. In: Nmeth, P. (ed.):
Rgszeti tanulmnyok Kelet-Magyarorszgrl. Folklr s Etnogria 24, Debrecen 1986, 4559.
Raczky, P. 2006: House-structures under change on the Great Hungarian Plain in Earlier Phases of the Neolithic.
In: Tasi, N.Grozdanov, C. (eds): Homage to Milutin Garaanin. SaSa Special editions. Cicero publishing:
Belgrade 2006, 379398.
Regenye, J. 2008: A Starevo-kultra teleplse a Tihanyi-flszigeten A settlement of the Starevo culture in the
Tihany Peninsula. srgszeti Levelek/Prehistoric Newsletter 89 (2007 [2008]) 515.
Romsics, I. 1998 (ed.): Homokmgy. Tanulmnyok Homokmgy trtnetbl s nprajzbl. Homokmgy.
H. Simon, K. 1994: Frhneolithische Kultgegenstnde bei Gellnhza, Kom. Zala. In: Lrinczy, G. (ed.): A kkortl a
kzpkorig Von der Steinzeit bis zum Mittelalter. Studien zum Geburtstag von Ott Trogmayer. Szeged 1994,
5365.

44

On Neolithic Frontiers in the Carpathian Basin

H. Simon, K. 1996: Ein neuer Fundort der Starevo-Kultur bei Gellnhza (Kom. Zala, Ungarn) und seine sdliche
Beziehungen. In: Draovean, Fl. (ed.): he Vina culture, its role and cultural connections. Timioara 1996,
5992.
H. Simon, K. 2002: Das Fundmaterial der frhesten Phase der Transdanubischen Linienbandkeramik auf dem
Fundort Zalaegerszeg-Andrshida, Gbrti-t, Arbeitsplatz III. In: Bnfy, E. (ed.): Prehistoric Studies in
memoriam Ida Bognar-Kutzin. Antaeus 25 (2002) 189203.
Smegi, P. 2003: Preneolitizci egy Krpt-medencei, ks mezolitikum sorn bekvetkezet letmdbeli vltozs
krnyezetrgszeti rekonstrukcija Pre-neolitization the environmental historical reconstruction of a
change in lifestyle occurring during the late Mesolithicum in the Carpathian Basin. In: Dani, J.Hajd, Zs.
Nagy, E. Gy. (eds): skoros Kutatk II. sszejvetelnek konferenciaktete. Debrecen 2000. november 68.
M 2, Debrecen 2004, 2132.
Smegi, P. 2004: Environmental changes under the Neolithisation Process in Central Europe. Before and ater.
Antaeus 27 (2004) 117127.
parica, M. 2007: Zemljopisne i geoloke odrednice Brodskog Posavlja Geographical and geological determinants
of Brodsko Posavlje. In: Tomii, . (ed.): Slavonski Brod i Galovo, deset godina arheolokih istraivanja
Galovo-Slavonski Brod, a settlement of the Starevo culture. Zagreb 2007, 2329.
Thissen, L. 2000: A chronological framework for the neolithisation of the Southern Balkans. In: Hiller, St.
Nikolov, V. (eds): Karanovo III. Beitrge zum Neolithikum in Sdosteuropa. Wien 2000, 193212.
Tth, K. 1998: Homokmgy teleplstrtnete a neolitikumtl a bronzkor vgig. In: Romsics, I. (ed.): Homokmgy. Tanulmnyok Homokmgy trtnetbl s nprajzbl. Homokmgy 1998, 5971.
Whittle, A. 2007 (ed.): he Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of the Krs culture site of
Ecsegfalva 23, County Bks. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21, Budapest.
Woodburn, J. 1982: Egalitarian societies. Man 17 (1982) 431451.
Wicker, E.Kustr, R.Horvth, A. 2001: Rgszeti kutatsok Bcs-Kiskun megyben (19901995)
Archaeologische Forschungen Komitat Bcs-Kiskun (19901995). Cumania 17 (2001) 33126.
Zvelebil, M. 1986: Mesolithic societies and the transition to farming: problems of time, scale and organisation. In:
Zvelebil, M. (ed.): Hunters in transition. Cambridge 1986, 167188.
Zvelebil, M.Rowley-Conwy, P. 1984: Transition to farming in northern Europe: a hunter-gatherer perspective.
Norwegian Archaeological Review 17 (1984) 104128.

45