Specific Targeted Research Project on the Formation of Europe:

Prehistoric Population Dynamics and the Roots of Socio-Cultural Diversity

Institute of Archaeology
Jagiellonian University

The First Neolithic Sites in

Central/South-East
European Transect
Volume III
The Körös Culture
in Eastern Hungary
Edited by

Alexandra Anders
Zsuzsanna Siklósi

BAR International Series 2334

2012
 
 
Published by 
 
Archaeopress 
Publishers of British Archaeological Reports 
Gordon House 
276 Banbury Road 
Oxford OX2 7ED 
England 
bar@archaeopress.com 
www.archaeopress.com 
 
 
 
BAR S2334 
 
 
The First Neolithic Sites in Central/South‐East European Transect. Volume III: The Körös Culture in Eastern 
Hungary 
 
 
© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2012 
 
 
 
ISBN 978 1 4073 0917 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Printed in England by CMP (UK) Ltd 
 
 
All BAR titles are available from: 
 
Hadrian Books Ltd 
122 Banbury Road 
Oxford 
OX2 7BP 
England 
www.hadrianbooks.co.uk 
 
The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from 
Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com 
 From the series editor
The modelling of the process of Neolithization – one of
the basic tasks of the FEPRE project – requires to built a
complete database i.e. not only the register of radiocarbon
dates but also the inventory of the FTN sites: both those ex-
cavated as well as those recorded in the course of surface
surveys. In view of the fact that in the Neolithization of Eu-
rope the axis running from the Balkans to the Carpathians is
of essential importance we have decided to make up the in-
ventory of FTN sites along this axis. Within the territory
from 41 to 51 degrees latitude north the following sheets
have been taken into account: I – Bulgaria, II – Romania,
III – Eastern Hungary, IV – Eastern Slovakia, V – South-
eastern Poland (see map). The result are five volume cata-
logue of FTN sites with the following contents:
1. General information about cultural evolution at the onset
of Neolithic in a given territory: taxonomic definitions,
stratigraphic sequences, seriations, basic data on settle-
ment, material culture, subsitance economy
2. Additional data on cultural and economic problems spe-
cific for a given region
3. A list of radiometric dates
4. A catalogue of sites in alphabetical order.
Site catalogues are made up of the following data cate-
gories:
Identification and location of sites
Name of a site (and number on the map)
1. Administrative unit appropriate to a given site
2. River basin
3. Geographical coordinates
4. Geomorphological situation (river basin, location in rela-
tion to the land relief)
A. Information on excavated sites
1. Name(s) of researcher(s) responsible for the excavation
2. Date of excavation (years)
3. Bounded research area: excavated and surveyed
4. Type and number of features
5. Relative chronology based on archaeological seria- tion
and absolute chronology; number of settlement phases
B. Information on sites recognized on the basis of surface
finds
1. Area of occurrence of portable finds
2. Taxonomic attribution and – when possible – chronologi-
cal framework of sites
C. The most important references
Each volume deals with a different taxonomic unit rep-
resenting FTN in a given territory:
Volume I – Bulgaria – sites of the Monochrome and the
Early Painted Pottery Phase (Karanovo I type);
Volume II – Romania (Transilvania and Banat) – sites of the
Early Phase (with white-painted pottery) of Criº- Körös
Culture;
Volume III – Eastern Hungary (Tisza basin) – sites of the
Körös-Starèevo Culture;
Volume IV – Eastern Slovakia – sites of the Early Phase of
the Eastern Linear Pottery Culture;
Volume V – South-Eastern Poland – LBK sites.
The database and the analysis of archaeological records
provides the most up-to-date groundwork for the construc-
tion of the model on Neolithization of Central Europe
within the framework of the FEPRE project; it is also aimed
at any other modeling of these processes.
The final stage of work on vol. III of this series was re-
alized as part of a research project financed by the Polish
National Science Center (Nr 2085/B/H03/2011/40).
Janusz K. Koz³owski
 CONTENTS
Alexandra Anders & Zsuzsanna Siklósi
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Pál Raczky
Körös culture research history. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Pál Sümegi
The environmental background of the Körös culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Tibor Paluch
Characteristics of the Körös culture in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain . . 49

Eszter Bánffy
South Western Körös Culture settlement in the Danube-Tisza interfluve: Szakmár-Kisülés . 53

Alasdair Whittle
The Körös culture of the Great Hungarian Plain: the research project at Ecsegfalva,
Co. Békés . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Nándor Kalicz
Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Pál Raczky
Research on the settlements of the Körös culture in the Szolnok area: the excavations
at Szajol-Felsõföld and Szolnok-Szanda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Pál Raczky
Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös (Co-operative Orchard) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Appendix
Pál Sümegi, Sándor Gulyás & Gergõ Persaits
The archaeomalacological and phytological remains from the refuse pit of the Körös
culture uncovered at Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

László Domboróczki
Research at Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta in 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Nándor Kalicz
Méhtelek-Nádas. The first excavated site of the Méhtelek facies of the Early Neolithic
Körös culture in the Carpathian Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

László Domboróczki
Research at Ibrány-Nagyerdõ in 2008–2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Krisztián Oross & Zsuzsanna Siklósi

Relative and absolute chronology of the Early Neolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain . . . 129

Ma³gorzata Kaczanowska & Janusz K. Koz³owski

Körös lithics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Zsuzsanna Tóth
Bone, antler, and tusk tools of the Early Neolithic Körös culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

5
Tibor Paluch
Graves in the Körös culture distribution area in Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Zsuzsanna Zoffmann
Results of physical anthropological investigations of the Körös population . . . . . . . . . 187

László Bartosiewicz
Mammalian remains from Körös culture sites in Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Erika Gál
Bird remains from Körös culture sites in Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

László Bartosiewicz
Fish remains from Körös culture sites in Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Pál Sümegi
The archaeomalacological investigation of Körös culture sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Ferenc Gyulai
The archaeobotanical characterization of the Körös culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Catalogue (edited by Zsuzsanna Siklósi, maps by László Kupnik) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

Zsuzsanna Siklósi
Catalogue of Körös culture sites in Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg county . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

Bettina Bittner
Catalogue of Körös culture sites in Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok county . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

János Dani
Catalogue of Körös culture sites in Hajdú-Bihar county . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Bettina Bittner
Catalogue of Körös culture sites in Békés county . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

Tibor Paluch
Catalogue of Körös culture sites in Csongrád county . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

Rozália Kustár
Catalogue of Körös culture sites in Bács-Kiskun county. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

6
7.
Foreword
Professor Janusz K. Koz³owski’s request has provided
a unique opportunity for Hungarian archaeologists engaged
in the research of the Körös culture because there has been
no comprehensive overview of the culture’s sites since Ida
Kutzián’s monograph, published in 1944 (A Körös-kultúra
– The Körös culture. Dissertationes Pannonicae Ser. II. 23,
Budapest). Although Ottó Trogmayer’s synthesis in 1968
skilfully drew together the new evidence (A Dél-Alföld
korai neolitikumának fõbb kérdései I–II. [The main ques-
tions of the Early Neolithic in southern Alföld I–II] PhD dis-
sertation. Szeged), his manuscript remained unpublished. A
spate of new studies have appeared on the culture’s regional
units and individual sites, as well as on various aspects of
the Körös culture, but a new review of the current state of
Körös research has been sorely lacking.
The studies in the volume cover the findings of tradi-
tional and interdisciplinary research conducted over the past
forty years, arranged into larger thematic sections. The
overview of the culture’s research history (Pál Raczky) and
the description of the environmental setting of Körös settle-
ments (Pál Sümegi) is followed by an overview of various
regions of the culture’s distribution proceeding from south
to north, reflecting the northward advance of the Körös
communities (southern Alföld: Tibor Paluch, Danube–
Tisza interfluve: Eszter Bánffy, Szolnok area: Pál Raczky),
and a description of the culture’s key sites (Ecsegfalva:
Alasdair Whittle, Nagykörû: Pál Raczky, Szentpéterszeg,
Méhtelek: Nándor Kalicz, Tiszaszõlõs, Ibrány: László
Domboróczki). Some of these sites are published here for
the first time. The next section focuses on the culture’s rela-
tive and absolute chronology (Krisztián Oross & Zsuzsanna
Siklósi) and on earlier somewhat neglected artefactual mate-
rial such as lithics (Ma³gorzata Kaczanowska & Janusz K.
Koz³owski) and bone, antler and tusk tools (Zsuzsanna
Tóth). Other studies discuss the culture’s burials (Tibor
Paluch) and physical anthropology (Zsuzsanna K. Zoff-
mann), as well as the archaeozoological samples (László
Bartosiewicz, Erika Gál, Pál Sümegi) and the archaeobota-
nical remains (Ferenc Gyulai) from various settlements.
Obviously, there are some thematic overlaps between the
studies, such as the culture’s research history and the chro-
nology of the Körös sequence, two issues explored from
different perspectives. However, these repeatedly addressed
subjects ensure that each study is readable independently
and thus benefits the entire volume.
The studies are followed by a catalogue of the Hungar-
ian sites of the Körös culture (edited by Zsuzsanna Siklósi),
the perhaps greatest strength of the volume. Ida Kutzián
listed 104 sites in her 1944 monograph, to which Ottó
7
Trogmayer added dozens of new sites, bringing the number
to 156. The gazetteer in this volume contains 734 sites, each
described in detail according to uniform criteria. Diverging
from the format in other FEPRE (Formation of Europe: Pre-
historic Population Dynamics and the Roots of Socio-Cul-
tural Diversity) volumes, the sites of the Körös culture are
here presented according to modern counties because the
culture’s northward spread meant that the number and con-
centration of sites varied considerably from region to re-
gion, and thus each site can be more easily identified on the
map and in the database. A total of 232 sites are known from
County Csongrád (Tibor Paluch), 330 from County Békés
(Bettina Bittner) and 111 from County Szolnok (Rozália
Kustár), the three counties incorporating the Körös heart-
land in Hungary. Considerably fewer sites were registered
in the fringe areas: 48 in County Bács-Kiskun (Rozália
Kustár), 9 in County Hajdú-Bihar (János Dani) and 4 in
County Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg (Zsuzsanna Siklósi). Obvi-
ously, the number of sites registered in a particular area also
depends on the extent to which that area has been re-
searched, and our knowledge of various areas in the Körös
distribution varies. County Csongrád and certain parts of
Counties Bács-Kiskun, Békés and Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok
have been systematically and thoroughly surveyed, but the
same cannot be said of other regions where research has
been less intensive, making the record is extremely patchy.
Aside from the amount of the available information, its
quality too varies because the museum records could not al-
ways be checked in the field. The known sites are not shown
on the usual schematic maps, but on 18th century maps pre-
serving the hydrological conditions before the large-scale
river regulations, which offer a better idea of conditions
during prehistory (László Rupnik). We retained the original
Hungarian name of the sites to ease their identification in
the archaeological literature and have provided a bilingual
glossary with the most important geographic and hydrologi-
cal terms.
We are grateful to Professor Janusz K. Koz³owski for
providing this opportunity to redeem one of the major debts
of Hungarian Neolithic studies and for incorporating this
volume into the FEPRE series. We hope that this volume
will serve as a source of inspiration for further studies in this
field. We wish to thank all our colleagues who have contrib-
uted to this volume for their meticulous work.
Alexandra Anders
Zsuzsanna Siklósi
9–37.
KÖRÖS CULTURE RESEARCH HISTORY
Pál Raczky
Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, H-1088 Budapest, Múzeum körút 4/B, Hungary;
raczky.pal@btk.elte.hu
INTRODUCTION
In 1979 Colin Renfrew wrote: “…the relationship of the
material – the cultural assemblages – to the chronology is
neither assumed nor known a priori. It is a matter of infer-
ence, dependent on a number of arguments and always vul-
nerable to reassessment.” (Renfrew 1979, 59). For those spe-
cialists who view Hungarian prehistoric archaeology from
the outside, this quote may serve as a key to understanding
how scholarly thought has evolved there for over a century.
In the absence of absolute dating methods, early pre-
historians across Europe had to rely on sophisticated typo-
chronologies, sequences of variably defined morphological
types (overwhelmingly ceramics) that attained new mean-
ing as indicators of time. The jargon resulting from this
methodology has come to have a life of its own. Given the
traditionally historical orientation of archaeology in Hun-
gary, terms such as “culture”, “group” or “phase” have of-
ten been used inconsistently or even synonymously with the
concept of real, absolute time. In some narratives they may
“act” allegorically as proxies for ancient societies. When a
geographic dimension is added, interpreting the actual dis-
tribution of material culture in time and space becomes a se-
rious challenge. During the development of archaeological
thought, emphasis has perpetually shifted between these
main components of inquiry. Although recently radiocarbon
dating has assumed a pivotal role in fine-tuning our under-
standing of the Körös culture, the word chronology largely
remains shorthand for relative chronology unless radiomet-
ric results are explicitly cited.
The recognition of the spatial as well as chronological
definition of artefactual assemblages representing the Körös
culture today developed within two separate schools of
thought. These schools are inseparable from the viewpoint
of reconstructing early neolithic history on the Great Hun-
garian Plain. One line of reasoning was based on the indi-
vidual tracing and interpretation of the first, late nineteenth
and early twentieth century finds representing phases in re-
search history out of which grew the current reconstruction
of the Körös culture (Banner 1932; 1942, 14–26; Kutzián
1944, 5–45). There was, however, another research trend
aimed at modelling the beginning of early neolithic history
on the scale of the Carpathian Basin as deduced from the
European context, with regard to the broader geographical
9
region and its relevant relationships (Tompa 1937, 28–50;
Milojèiæ 1949a; 1950; Childe 1950, 83–105; 1957, 84–88;
Schachermeyr 1950, 590–593; 1953, 274–278).
BETWEEN EUROPE AND THE NEAR
EAST – EARLY CONCEPTS ON THE
BEGINNINGS OF THE NEOLITHIC
IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN
Two ground-breaking monographs stand out in any dis-
cussion of the beginnings of neolithization in Hungary and
the Danube region. Both were published almost simulta-
neously in 1929: the summarizing research works by Ferenc
Tompa (1929) and Vere Gordon Childe (1929).
The work by Ferenc Tompa presented the “Linearkera-
mik” environment of northern Hungary as the artefactual
context within which the first local neolithic culture appeared
as the independent “eastern province” of the central Euro-
pean “Bandkeramik” culture. According to the prevailing
view of German prehistoric research at the time, he sought
the origins of the new immigrant population in the “Spiral-
meander” culture arriving from the Sudetenland (the mod-
ern-day border areas between Bohemia, Moravia, and parts
of Silesia as included within the former state of Czechoslova-
kia: Tompa 1929, 61). In his view, the so-called Bükk culture
and its Phases I–III in the Northern Hill Region of Hungary
emerged locally from the Bandkeramik. In this way, he could
discern the origins of the Tisza culture that colonized lowland
areas in the entire Great Hungarian Plain moving from the
north toward the south. These communities, presumably,
propagated a neolithic way of life. Tompa hoped to deduce
the birth of the Tisza culture from this scenario, since in this
model the emergence of Phases I and II of the Tisza culture
were followed by the then known “steinkupferzeitlich” cul-
tural units of the Chalcolithic (Tompa 1929, 64: Synchroni-
stische Tabelle, Abb. 7).
In contrast to this idea, V. Gordon Childe viewed the
first neolithic cultures of the Danubian I, represented by ei-
ther spiral-meander or linear ceramic motifs, as descendants
of Balkan (Vinèa I) cultures rooted in antecedents known
from the Aegean region and Anatolia. He explained the oc-
currence of the Bükk culture in the Upper Tisza region by
the interaction of local “hunters” and a Neolithic population
The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary
immigrating from the south (Childe 1929, 60–63, 67). He
also attributed the emergence of the Vinèa II–Danubian II
civilizations to subsequent southern influences, as illustra-
ted by finds of Tisza culture artefacts at the site of Csóka/
Èoka (Childe 1929, 68–69, Fig. 37).
At the time, these two scholars of European stature pro-
moted two completely different opinions. János Banner was
the first to recognize the independent phenomenon of what
he called the Nagelgeritzte (nail-decorated) ceramics in the
southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain, recovered during
the excavations at Ószentiván. With his keen sense of ce-
ramic style, he also attributed similar pottery from the sites of
Szerbkeresztúr, Óbessenyõ, and Szarvas–Szappanos to the
same group (Banner 1929). Béla Pósta recognized the partic-
ular style of certain sherds in a private collection from Szerb-
keresztúr in a lecture given as early as 1888. This opinion,
however, remained unpublished (Banner 1932, 1). Following
the “genetic” model promoted by Ferenc Tompa, Banner
published the nail-decorated ceramics as a phenomenon that
followed Phases I–II of the Tisza culture, preceding the Cop-
per Age. Meanwhile, he pointed out that this style of decora-
tion may be observed in various archaeological periods.
Following these events, János Banner summarized the
results of his own excavations at the sites of Hódmezõvá-
sárhely-Kopáncs-Zsoldos-tanya, Hódmezõvásárhely-Ko-
páncs-Kovács-tanya and Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart-
Vata-tanya in 1932. At these sites, he identified independent
early neolithic settlements, accompanied by sherds repre-
senting the nail-decorated pottery style. Since in the ge-
netic-chronological concept drafted by Tompa the first neo-
lithic assemblages in the southern section of the Great Hun-
garian Plain were represented by Phases I–II of the Tisza
culture, Banner termed his newly discovered pottery assem-
blage, Phase III of the Tisza culture (Banner 1932). In this
publication, Banner compiled a map of 33 sites character-
ized for the first time by the distribution of nail-decorated
ceramics in the Great Hungarian Plain (Banner 1932, fig. on
page 29 and list of sites on page 30). Ferenc Tompa and
János Banner joined the so-called “Studienfahrt der Donau-
ländischen Archaeologen” during the autumn of 1933.
Within the framework of this professional excursion they
were given the opportunity to study the results of excava-
tions at Vinèa and Starèevo in Serbia on location (Banner
1935, 121; Jankovich 1990, 110). Find material recovered
at the settlement of Starèevo during 1931–1932 (Fewkes,
Goldman & Erich 1933) reconfirmed the opinion that as-
semblages accompanied by nail-decorated sherds represent
an independent cultural phenomenon in the northern section
of the Balkans (Banner 1935, 122–123).
Tompa and Banner also had an opportunity to study as-
semblages of Starèevo type ceramics that came to light from
pits from the very bottom of the tell settlement at Vinèa in
1931 and subsequently in 1934. These finds long served as
an important reference in appraising the occurrence of the
Early Neolithic in the Balkans as well as in the Danube re-
gion (Plan with pits: Fewkes, Goldman & Erich 1933, 35;
Vasiæ 1936, cl. 209; Holste 1939, 2; See recent discussions
on the earliest occurrences at Vinèa regarding the ossuary
and pit dwelling ‘Z’ as summarized by Periæ & Nikoliæ
2006). Since V. G. Childe had previously recognized the
10
synchronous development of the Vinèa and Tisza settle-
ments on the basis of the Csóka settlement (Childe 1929,
75–76, 79), the so-called “nail-decorated horizon” repre-
sented by finds at Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs and Hódme-
zõvásárhely-Kotacpart could no longer be seen as synchro-
nous with Tisza III. Neither could they be reconstructed as
representing the Tisza culture. Seeing the results during the
1933 excursion to Serbia, Tompa and Banner agreed (Ban-
ner 1937, 32) that considering the known geographical dis-
tribution of the settlements in the southern part of the Great
Hungarian Plain, this particular group of ceramic finds
might represent a culture of its own. As a result, Ferenc
Tompa began writing about the Körösgruppe (Tompa 1937,
46–47) and János Banner mentioned the Körös-Kultur in his
own publictions (Banner 1936, 271; 1937, 32). This termi-
nology was used to denote the first occurrence of the Neo-
lithic in the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain. It
was a prelude to the research history of the Körös culture in
Hungary.
The historical and genetic interpretation outlined by
Ferenc Tompa in 1929 has still not changed significantly, as
the previously established antecedence of Linearband ce-
ramics of central European extraction found in northern
Hungary remains undisputed. Never-the-less, the recogni-
tion that Körös culture preceded Phases I–II of the Tisza
culture in the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain
represented a new, southern orientation in the archaeologi-
cal literature of Hungary. The influence of this line of
thought was clearly reflected in a new trend. The Körös cul-
ture of the Great Hungarian Plain was “elevated” to the time
horizon of Phases I–II of the Bükk culture, identified as the
representative of the Linearband culture in the Northern
Hill Region of Hungary (Banner 1935, 270–272). Sándor
Gallus began arguing for the chronological position of the
Körös culture as following Phases I–II of the Bükk culture
but preceding its Phase III (Gallus 1938, 520), Meanwhile,
Pál Patay generally argued for the complete synchronicity
of the Körös and Bükk cultures (Patay 1941, 1–2). In other
words, the beginnings of neolithization in Hungary were
seen as resulting from two large and completely different
cultural spheres. These spheres embodied two entirely dif-
ferent types of origins and networks of cultural connections.
The Bükk stylistic circle was seen as the Central European
Linearband connections, while the Körös culture was recog-
nized as representing a different set of southern influences.
József Csalog concluded that the Bükk culture of the North-
ern Hill region, the Tisza culture in the centre of the Great
Hungarian Plain and the Körös block in the southern part of
the same region were contemporary (Csalog 1941, Abb. 3).
This view influenced the historical approach of János
Banner in his first major synthetic works on the Körös cul-
ture (Banner 1937, 32–49; 1940, 22–30; 1942, 14–26). The
1938 visits by Childe to Szeged and Hódmezõvásárhely
were instrumental in having the Körös culture accepted and
promoted on a European scale (Jankovich 1990, 108–109,
140). On the basis of these developments, Childe also men-
tioned the “Körös culture” in his 1939 study on European–
Near Eastern relationships, as the local representative of
Danubian I on the Great Hungarian Plain (Childe 1939, 17).
In 1938, Vladimir Jaroslav Fewkes, the excavator of Star-

èevo (Fewkes, Goldman & Erich 1933) and his four disciples
came to Szeged to study Körös culture finds recovered in the
outskirts of Hódmezõvásárhely. He came to the conclusion
that sites in the two regions were closely related (Fewkes
1939, 8, 10–11; Jankovich 1990, 141). These events clearly
illustrate how quickly new results of prehistoric research in
Europe reached their professional audiences prior to World
War II. This resulted in a dynamic interchange between
practioners of various models in that exciting period.
CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT STUDIES
OF THE KÖRÖS CULTURE IN THE 1940s
AND 1950s
Following these antecedents, Ida Kutzián published her
doctoral thesis in 1944. It was the first ever monographic
synthesis of the Körös culture (Kutzián 1944, English trans-
lation: Kutzián 1947). This work became paradigmatic in
the new wave of research into the prehistory of the
Carpathian Basin that followed World War II. The fresh ap-
proach represented by Ida Kutzián saw the occurrence of
the Körös culture in the Tisza Region as resulting from a
complex network of relationships that bound together the
Balkans and the Aegean region through a historical path
that passed through Serbia northwards (Kutzián 1944, 129–
130). She considered ceramic materials from Sztarcsova/
Starèevo in the Lower Danube region to be related to the
Körös culture and even included these sites within the same
inventory (Kutzián 1944, 99–102, 154). The catalogue of
this culture contained 104 sites with a major distribution
area bordered by the Maros and Zagyva tributaries of the
Tisza river, approximately marked by the modern towns of
Szeged and Szolnok in Hungary (Kutzián 1944, 97–98,
156–157). The serial distribution of Körös culture settle-
ments along water courses could be deduced to some extent
from the location of some sites (Kutzián 1944, 92).
As far as the form of Körös houses is concerned, only
the plan of the hut recovered at Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotac-
part-Vata-tanya by János Banner (Banner 1934, 74–76, Taf.
XII–XIII) was available for her study (Kutzián 1944, 90–
91). On the basis of his observations, it was concluded that
the building had no upright walls and its saddle-shaped roof
rested directly on the ground. Aside from this, the system-
atic summary by Ida Kutzián included very detailed find
materials and site phenomena of the Körös culture, ranging
from ceramic styles to mortuary behaviour (Kutzián 1944,
46–97). She singled out “nail and finger tip impressions” as
the most characteristic type of ceramic decoration, as well
as varieties of barbotine (a form of ceramic slip or a mixture
of clay and water used for decorating pottery). She empha-
sized the relative scarcity of painted ware. On the other
hand, she pointed out the use of various figurative relief pat-
terns ornamenting Körös culture pottery. In addition to
these specifics, she also emphasized the great diversity of
figural motifs as a special characteristic of this ceramic as-
semblage. Ida Kutzián likewise discussed various types of
“idols” as a typical group of Körös culture artefacts. Fol-
lowing this meticulous synthesis, she came to a very impor-
tant conclusion in terms of relative chronology, namely, that
Körös culture reached the Carpathian Basin prior to the
11
Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history
Tisza, Bükk and Linearband ceramic styles respectively and
should be considered the earliest neolithic culture in Hun-
gary dating to the 4th millennium BC (Kutzián 1944, 147–
148). In the monographic dissertation by Kutzián it is clear
that she saw the Körös culture as an equally important entity
in geographical and chronological terms.
In terms of research history Josip Korošec should be re-
garded one of the the first “foreign” scholars to recognized
the diagnostic importance of the connections between the
Körös, Vinèa and Starèevo cultures (Korošec 1943). Al-
though he wrote his work based on early guidance from
Banner, he compiled a correct typological table on the basis
of ceramics relevant to the Körös culture based on previ-
ously published specimens (Korošec 1943, Fig. on page
71). A similar work by Pia Laviosa Zambotti shows the
swift international absorption of ideas surrounding the
Körös culture as defined by Banner and Tompa (Zambotti
1943, 191–198). Richard Rudolf Schmidt discovered a rela-
tively thick layer of Starèevo settlement debris at the bottom
of the tell stratigraphies at both Vuèedol and Sarvaš
(Schmidt 1945, 5–8, 127–131). Thereby, he managed to
demonstrate the stratigraphic position of the culture in rela-
tion to the region defined by the Danube–Drava–Sava
rivers. He defined the so-called “Körösgattung” as the equi-
valent of the Starèevo culture in the Tisza region. In his sys-
tem, the Körös type predates Linearband ceramics in the
Danube region (Schmidt 1945, 136, 159–160). Adam
Orssich de Slavetich published material from Bubanj in the
vicinity of Niš. He not only expanded the known geograph-
ical distribution of the Starèevo culture, but also indicted the
importance of a characteristic bone spoon type in defining
relationships with the Körös culture entity (Orssich de
Slavetich 1943, 27).
Following World War II, Vladimir Milojèiæ published
two ground-breaking works in 1949. In these syntheses, he
referred to the “Starèevo-Körös-Kultur” and “Körös-Kul-
tur” respectively, relying on the 1942 publication by Banner
(Milojèiæ 1949a, 91; 1949b, 264–265). The chronological
table published in the first of these works shows the Körös
culture in relation to Phases III–IV of the Starèevo culture.
Through this association, he also created a link to the
Vor(Pre)-Sesklo, Sesklo and Dimini periods in Thessaly.
He dated the beginnings of the Körös culture to 3000 BC
(Milojèiæ 1949a, figs on pages 74 and 94). In another study,
however, he used the term Starèevo “fourth period” to in-
clude all sites in northern Hungary under the umbrella term
Körös culture (Milojæiæ 1949b, 264–265). In his publica-
tion, the usage “Körös – bzw. Starèevo (IV) – Kultur” reap-
pears, although he presented a pooled distribution map for
the Starèevo–Körös cultures (Milojèiæ 1951, 118, Abb. 3).
In another study dated to 1950, Milojèiæ evaluated the
Körös-Starèevo-Vinèa system of relationships in light of the
monograph published by Kutzián. In addition to using the
umbrella term “Starèevo-Köröškultur” he presented a re-
construction of the development from Phase I to IV (Miloj-
èiæ 1950, 109–112). In the same work, a broader term was
also used following James Harvey Gaul (1948, 10–51), the
concept of “Starèevo-Köröš-Kremikovci-Kultur” repre-
sented an attempt to extend this terminology in the direction
of Bulgaria (Milojèiæ 1950, 113). Studying the geographical
The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary
distribution of “Bandkeramik” in eastern and southeastern
Europe, Milojèiæ again consistently used the Körös–Star-
èevo (IV) cultural definition. Meanwhile he insisted that
“Bandkeramik”, that is the so-called “donauländische
Kulturkreis”, originated in Central Europe and was inde-
pendent of the Körös-Starèevo cultural sphere (Milojèiæ
1951, 110– 118). Unsurprisingly, evident inconsistencies in
the cultural and chronological definitions of the
Körös–Starèevo cultures by Milojèiæ, provoked harsh criti-
cism by János Makkay (1965, 1969). The resulting debate
(Milojèiæ 1967) drove the archaeological discussion on the
Starèevo–Körös cultures in the direction of fundamentally
stratigraphic and chronological arguments.
A new Aegean aspect to the Körös culture was first
voiced in the works of Fritz Schachermeyr beginning in the
early 1950s. The material culture record incorporated
within the cultural framework of what he called “Seskloide
Aussenzone” (Schachermeyr 1950, 590, fig. on page 574).
In his subsequent work entitled “Dimini und die Band-
keramik” he dated the beginnings of the Körös culture to the
time horizon represented by the Starèevo I and Proto-Sesklo
Periods (Schachermeyr 1953–1954, 38: Zeittabelle). Since
he considered Phase IV of the Starèevo culture as set forth
by Milojèiæ to be without foundation, he proposed a “ge-
netic” relationship between Starèevo III developments and
the so-called Bükk–Tisza material that followed the Körös
and Bandkeramik periods in the Tisza region. On top of this,
he also hypothesized that the formation of the Dimini cul-
ture in Thessaly was organically connected with a south-
worth migration that originated in the Tisza region, but also
incorporated the Balkanic charateristics of Starèevo III
phase (Schachermeyr 1953/54 8–18, Taf. 2). Thus, Fritz
Schachermeyr sowed the seeds of the subsequent view
whereby artefactual assemblages included under the Star-
èevo III label were considered radically different from the
Körös–Starèevo cultural environment representing the sig-
nificantly younger Bükk–Szakálhát–Dimini III–IV–Galep-
sos horizon. Indubitably, the most militant supporter of this
hypothesis was Makkay (1965, 15–16; 1969, 28–29, 31).
At the beginning of the 1950s, Childe explained the oc-
currence of Körös–Starèevo stylistic elements in the
Morava and Danube region as a very early wave of immi-
gration from the south (Childe 1950, 100). In essence, the
same continent-wide cultural diffusion of Near Eastern ori-
gins was outlined by Schachermeyr in his theory of “vor-
derasiatische Kulturtrift”, where the north-western end-
points were marked by sites of the Starèevo and Körös cul-
tures (Schachermeyr 1953, 282, map on page 285). Study-
ing the roots of agriculture in Europe, Milojèiæ concluded
that a wave of neolithization predating all previous influ-
ences reached Europe from the Mediterranean along the
Vardar and Morava rivers up to the Danube region. Among
other things, he explained the occurrence of coarse ware as-
sociated with the Starèevo I–Körös cultures in the Balkans
with this movement (Milojèiæ 1952, 316–317). All these
theories introduced a new way of reconstructing Europe’s
prehistory that began in the Near East with the recognition
of a “preceramic” phase (at Jericho, Jarmo and Karim
Shahir). At the same time, Milojèiæ (1952, 313, 316) still
tried to trace back the emergence of the Neolithic in Central
12
Europe, that is, the roots of Bandkeramik, to local Meso-
lithic cultures (Milojèiæ 1952, 313, 316). Within this new
interpretative framework, the Bandkeramik of central Eu-
rope and the pottery style represented by the Körös–Star-
èevo cultures in south-eastern Europe were seen as having
radically different origins.
At the beginning of the 1950s another new develop-
ment took place in Romania. Local researchers interpreted
the finds from the sites of Glãvãneºti and Valea Lupului as
well as Leþ-Várhegy/Dealul Cetãþii as displaying similari-
ties with finds from the Criº–Starèevo culture. This added
new geographical dimensions to the problem with distribu-
tions reaching into Moldavia and Transylvania (Nestor et
al. 1951, 59–60). The new approach was fundamentally dif-
ferent from the subsequent stand taken by Romanian re-
searchers, who considered the Criº culture simply a literal
translation of the Körös culture identified originally in the
region of the Tisza–Körös–Maros rivers by Ida Kutzián.
This interpretation of the Criº culture would have made it
merely an extension towards Transylvania (western Roma-
nia) and the trans-Carpathian region (Petrescu-Dimboviþa
1957, 78; 1958; Comsa 1959, 173; Vlassa 1966, 9–11). This
was followed by the development of a special Starèevo–
Criº terminology in the regions of Banatas well as Oltenia
and Muntenia. Meanwhile, a different cultural entity, the
so-called Criº–Starèevo–Kremikovci complex was defined
for the entire area of the Balkans on the basis of painted
ware (Berciu 1961, 21–35; Lazarovici 1969, 3. Fig. 1).
A monographic summary of the Starèevo culture was
published by Draga Arandjeloviæ-Garašanin in 1954. Fol-
lowing the system drafted by Milojèiæ on the basis of evalu-
ation of 73 sites, she also opted for a sequence of four chro-
nological phases including phases I–IIa–IIb–III. Within this
chronological system the Körös culture was again viewed as
contemporary with Phase III at Starèevo (Arandjeloviæ-
Garašanin 1954, 37–138). In the centre of the Balkan area,
Miodrag Grbiæ outlined a rather uniform “Starèevo–Körös–
Pre-Sesklo” cultural group on the basis of the pottery. Con-
sequently, he dated the beginnings of the Early Neolithic to
between 4000 and 3500 BC (Grbiæ 1957, chronological
chart on page 138). Meanwhile Milutin Garašanin interpre-
ted early neolithic assemblages in Bulgaria, Romania and
Hungary within the framework of the “Starèevo-Gruppe”
(Garašanin 1958, 4–5), a subgroup referring merely to lo-
calized appearances of the same phenomenon. By this time,
however, ceramic assemblages of the Vršnik I, Karanovo I
type also became known, representing a characteristic tell
type that contrasted to the horizontal Körös–Starèevo settle-
ments, largely represented by material deposited in pits
(Garašanin 1961, 144–145).
Following 1945, Körös culture research somewhat de-
celerated in Hungary in comparison with the intensity of
early neolithic research in neighbouring countries. One of
the new achievements was the publication of the important
assemblage from Ószentiván, a site located in the vicinity of
Szeged. A mixture of stylistic elements from both the Körös
and Vinèa cultures were identified at this settlement (Ban-
ner & Párducz 1948). In the meantime, János Banner pub-
lished new data from his small-scale excavations at Hódme-
zõvásárhely-Bodzáspart (Banner 1954). The beginnings of

a new, interdisciplinary trend in research were marked by
the study of the animal remains from this site (Bökönyi
1954). Meanwhile field-walking carried out by Nándor
Kalicz in the Tiszazug region (at the confluence of the Tisza
and Körös Rivers) yielded new data on the archaeological
topography and settlement history of the Körös culture (Ka-
licz 1957). Field surveys conducted by János Makkay in the
Berettyó River region were of similar significance (Makkay
1957, 26–27). These results were complemented by an im-
portant stratigraphic observation at Békésszentandrás (the
real name of the site in the Archaeological Topography of
Hungary: Szarvas-Kovács-halom: MRT 8, 373–378) where
Körös type sherds were discovered beneath the two layers
marked by houses dated to the Tisza culture (Csalog 1958,
82). At the beginning of the 1960s, János Banner summa-
rized the results of neolithic research in Hungary. He
pointed out that there was still no reliable stratigraphic evi-
dence with regard to the internal phasing of the “Körös
group”. At the same time, he cast strong doubts on the chro-
nological parallel drawn with the latest phase of the Star-
èevo culture in Serbia (Milojèiæ: IV. and Garašanin: III.;
Banner 1961, 207–208). Banner also emphasized that influ-
ences of the Körös Culture entity could be clearly traced in
the stylistic characteristics of Linearband ceramics from
both Transdanubia (Transdanubian LBK, that is, Transda-
nubian Linear Pottery = TLP) and the “Alföld” style Linear-
band ceramics from the Great Hungarian Plain (Banner
1961, 209–211; also known as Alföld Linienbandkeramik =
ALBK that is Alföld Linear Pottery = ALP; for the explana-
tion of terminology see Whittle 1996, 146).
Following the cataloguing of 104 Linearband sites from
the Great Hungarian Plain post-dating the Körös culture
(Korek 1960), it was possible to draft a new chronological
framework in which the sequence of the Körös–Alföld Lin-
ear Pottery–Tisza cultures corresponded to the Early, Mid-
dle and Late Neolithic in the Tisza River region.
Paralleling these developments in Hungarian research
history, a change of paradigmatic dimensions took place in
the study of the origins of the Central European Linearband
culture by the end of the 1950s. In contrast to previous
views, characteristics of the Central European Linearband
ceramics were seen within a Körös–Starèevo context and
“genetic” relations were sought in the Aegean region (Neu-
stupný 1956, 461–462; Soudský 1956, 411–412). Consider-
ing the typological connections of the so-called “Voluten-
keramik” in Moravia, Radomir Tichý laid special emphasis
on stylistic characteristics of the Körös culture ceramics as
one of the most important criteria (Tichý 1960, 439). Re-
constructing the sphere of the oldest Bandkeramik finds in
Central Europe, Hans Quitta pointed to late Starèevo/Körös
and early Vinèa connections respectively. Among the possi-
ble places of origin, he considered the Central Danube Re-
gion to be the most likely. He drew a chronological parallel
between the development of the Bandkeramik and that of
the Vinèa culture. On the basis of the first radiocarbon
dates, he placed this time period to between 4400–4000 BC
(Quitta 1960). Due to his important conclusions, Hans
Quitta’s work set a new agenda that significantly inspired
early and middle neolithic research in Hungary that was
again beginning to prosper in the 1960s.
13
Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history
Results of German excavations conducted in Thessaly
became a source of similarly great inspiration. The field
data contributed a benchmark in precise stratigraphic dating
for Neolithic research across south-eastern Europe (Miloj-
èiæ 1959). Among other things, the stratigraphic position of
the so-called Vorsesklo “barbotin, nail, cardium wares”,
preceding the Sesklo Period, offered an especially good ba-
sis for drawing Aegean parallels to the Körös-Starèevo cul-
ture (Milojèiæ 1959, 10–11, 31–32). On the basis of excava-
tions in Greece and Herzegovina (former Yugoslavia) and
additional data (e. g. from Gremnos–Argissa, Sesklo, and
Crvena Stijena) Milojèiæ thought he had discovered evi-
dence of pre-ceramic developments in the Balkans, compa-
rable to parallel phenomena in the Near East (Milojèiæ
1960). This theory gave support to several previously voi-
ced hypotheses concerning the autochthonous character of
neolithization in south-eastern Europe. One might say that
this interpretation swept through European Neolithic ar-
chaeology on a wave of fashion (Summary of these archae-
ological publications: Tringham 1971, Note 2 on page 137)
CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT STUDIES
OF THE KÖRÖS CULTURE DURING THE
1960s and 1970s – NEW PERSPECTIVES
AND METHODS
In Hungary, research on the Körös culture gained new
momentum during the 1960s, resulting from a excavation
programme initiated by Ottó Trogmayer on the outskirts of
Szeged. (the newly excavated sites included Maroslele-
Pana, (Szeged)-Gyálarét-Szilágyi major, Röszke-Lúdvár,
Deszk-I. sz. Olajkút (Trogmayer 1968a; 2003; 2004). Mas-
sive quantities of finds were recovered from refuse pits, thus
representing a singular aspect of the material culture. More-
over, stratigraphies observed in pit deposits did not provide
a basis for reliable internal relative chronologies (Csalog
1965, 25). Another major difficulty was posed by a techni-
cality. Although great numbers of sherds came to light from
these Körös culture pits, in contrast to previous practice, all
of them were taken to the local museum without pre-selec-
tion. Among others, Pit 1 at the site of Röszke-Lúdvár yiel-
ded almost 33,000 sherds (Trogmayer 1968a, 9; 2003). Ever
since, prehistoric archaeology in Hungary has been riddled
by problems of handling such “cultural mass produce” and
the limits of its interpretation. With unusual insight for the
time, Trogmayer carried out a quantitative analysis of deco-
rative styles and concluded that barbotine was of diagnostic
chronological significance (Trogmayer 1968a). Although
painted ware was encountered rarely, some sherds from the
sites of Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs-Zsoldos-tanya and
Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart-Vata-tanya offered evidence
of early occurrences based on Starèevo terminology,
thereby supporting theories of initial parallel development
in the Körös–Starèevo phenomenon (Makkay & Trogmayer
1966). On the basis of assemblages recovered from pits at
Maroslele-Pana, Trogmayer suggested a tripartite sub-divi-
sion of the Körös group (Trogmayer 1964). The synthesis of
his research was prepared in the form of an unpublished dis-
sertation in 1968 (Trogmayer 1968b). As a consequence
this work remained largely unknown internationally. Some
The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary
special assemblages from Röszke-Lúdvár have only been
published recently (Trogmayer 2003a; 2003b).
According to Trogmayer, in addition to the Vorsesklo,
Kremikovci–Karanovo I, Starèevo and Criº styles, the
Körös group also formed part of the “pinched ware culture”
in south-eastern Europe. On the basis of 156 sites invento-
ried in the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain, he
defined the northernmost distribution area along an East-
West line marked by the modern cities of Berettyóújfalu and
Szolnok. He only extended this boundary northwards on the
left bank of the Danube to Szakmár near the town of Ka-
locsa (Trogmayer 1968b, 10–28).
A fragment of a gable roof structure from a clay house
model was discovered at the site of Röszke-Lúdvár. From
this find, Trogmayer reconstructed houses with square
ground plans and vertical, upright walls (as opposed to pit
dwellings) and vertical support posts (Trogmayer 1966a,
Figs. 1–2; 1966b, Bild. 1). This special find supplied new in-
formation in itself concerning the form of Körös culture
houses. It was no surprise therefore, when the remains of Kö-
rös culture houses with upright walls and support posts were
found at the site of Tiszajenõ-Szárazérpart (Selmeczi 1967;
1969). The reconstruction of this house became widely
known thanks to the summary of the European Neolithic
published by Ruth Tringham, who also publicized the clay
idol called the “Venus of Ludvár” (Tringham 1971, Fig. 14,
c–d, Plate 2). In spite of its significance, find material from
the Tiszajenõ house was only published years later (Raczky
1976).
Meanwhile, János Makkay wrote a literature-based re-
view of Körös-Starèevo culture research history, offering a
critical re-evaluation of the internal chronology advocated
by Milojèiæ and Garašanin, as well as the question of Ae-
gean relations (Makkay 1965; 1969). At this time, subse-
quently debated terms such as “Protovinèa Age”, “Proto-
vinèa-Periode”, were introduced, denoting an independent
“Entwicklungphase – a developmental phase” within the
distribution area of the Körös–Starèevo complex (Makkay
1968, 282; 1969, 25). Originally, the so-called “Protovinèa-
Horizont” introduced by Srejoviæ was applied within the
Starèevo distribution area, because (in contrast to Makkay’s
concept) the Körös and Starèevo cultures were considered
spatially well-defined, separate cultural units by researchers
in Yugoslavia (Srejoviæ 1963, 7; Galoviæ 1968, 1). In their
approach, therefore, the Protovinèa horizon referred to a
chronological phase within a geographical entity from
which the Vinèa culture eventually emerged, making this
concept consistent in terms of space and time. Among other
researchers, Bogdan Brukner made special efforts to geo-
graphically define interfaces between the Körös and Star-
èevo cultures in the Srem, Baèka and Banat regions of Voi-
vodina in former Yugoslavia (Brukner 1966; 1974, 432).
On the other hand, some thought in overarching cultural
terms that were even broader than Makkay’s definition. The
“Körös-Criº-Starèevo complex” was first outlined for the
northern Balkans by Robert Ehrich (1965, 412–413). The
1 Subsequently it became clear, that pottery-based research lay at the heart of numerous methodological problems in the reconstruction of early food
production; Makkay 1998, 422–431; Gheorgiu 2008; Budja 2009; Jordan & Zvelebil 2009; 2009.
14
large cultural entity defined by John Nandris as “The First
Temperate Neolithic” included the sub-groups of the
Starèevo, Körös, Criš, Kremikovci and Karanovo I in the
temperate zone of south-eastern Europe (Nandris 1970,
202). Meanwhile, Nandris also thought he had recognized
the basis for a Mediterranean, Macedo-Bulgarian and Tem-
perate Europe zonation within the broader unit of south-
eastern Europe (Nandris 1972).
The 1970 synthesis by John Nandris may be considered
a symbolic milestone in the early neolithic research of
Southeastern Europe. On the one hand, he offered a critical
review of the Greek Neolithic pinpointing problems of stud-
ies oriented exclusively by chronology. He also dramati-
cally illustrated how the archaeological “foundations” of the
entire PPN Period and Early Monochrome pottery were un-
acceptable (Nandris 1970, 196–201). On the other hand, he
evaluated the reliability of local analyses based on pottery
by concluding that “...pottery differences, as in the case of
Magoulitsa level beta, cannot be regarded as absolute indi-
cators of distinction between human groups” (Nandris
1970, 208). This summary opinion was actually a harsh crit-
icism of all the previous efforts that had been concentrated
on the establishment of internal phasing within the Körös
culture adopting criteria in the Tisza Region that had been
developed for Starèevo, Criº or Greek Early Neolithic typo-
chronologies “The categories of ‘Starèevo’ and ‘Vinèa’, for
example, do not have quite the same relevance in the
Macedo-Bulgarian area as in the areas for which they were
developed. It is futile to suppose that labels developed for
the stratigraphy of specific sites in the area of Larissa will
necessarily make developments in the area of Karditsa com-
prehensible…” (Nandris 1970, 210). It seems that the same
sober argument could have also served as a criticism of the
entire Protovinèa problem.
During the 1970s John Nandris began paying attention to
special types of objects that looked promising in terms of re-
constructing the symbolic contexts of social behaviour. He
therefore no longer focussed on mass-produced ceramics but
rather on special objects whose appearance and geographical
distribution defined habitual contexts, that is, ranges of cultural
interpretation. Consequently, he paid special attention to the
south-east European distribution of objects such as the horned
pendant, stamp seal, integral seated figure, red-headed figu-
rine, labrets and cattle metapodial- based bone spoons. Like-
wise, he concentrated on the varying styles of First Temperate
Neolithic painted ware as well as their regional groupings
(Nandris 1970, 201–209, Fig. 1–2; 1972).
The essence of John Nandris’s views had relatively lit-
tle influence on European researchers, who kept on invest-
ing heroic efforts in the “ceramic study” of ever increasing
early neolithic find assemblages.1 However, Körös culture
based broader syntheses by János Makkay began reflecting
similar ideas by focussing on artefact groups such as stamp
seals (Makkay 1984a; 2005), special clay figurines (1993)
and bone spoons (1990). On a comparable methodological
basis, Nándor Kalicz argued that in addition to numerous

other factors, the geographical distribution of “horned pen-
dants” in the central Balkan area outlined a symbolic phe-
nomenon distinct from its Körös culture environment
thereby reconfirming the independent nature of the Körös
and Starèevo cultures (Kalicz 2000, 298–299). Symbolic
and sacred roots as well as the Near Eastern connections of
early food production in south-eastern Europe could be
traced by mapping the distribution of the so-called “horns of
consecration”, a special group of clay artefacts (Kalicz &
Raczky 1981; Schwarzberg 2006). Overall, the numerous
examples of “bucranium” modelled figures from the
Carpathian Basin and the Balkans define similarly tight in-
tellectual links within the archaeological context of this
broad region (Hansen 2007, 132–186). Beyond the context
of the examples singled out here, it may be said that the the-
oretical direction set by John Nandris in the study of the
First Temperate Neolithic material culture in the Balkans
during the 1970s is most closely followed by Mihael Budja
(Budja 2001; 2005; 2006). Following James Patrick Mal-
lory, Makkay called this approach “the diachronic geogra-
phy of finds”, concentrating on the distribution of special
artefact types within the same time horizon (isotypes).
Groupings identified in the territorial distribution of iso-
types may offer a chance for tentatively reconstructing eth-
nic or linguistic groups (Makkay 1991, 232–233).
By the 1960–1970s, increasing emphasis began to be
laid upon the use of radiometric dating in neolithic research
in Europe. It was Graham D. Clark who first used a relevant
set of radiocarbon data in studying the expansion of farming
from the Near East across Europe (Clark 1965). The
5200–4000 B.C. radiometric date obtained for early farming
settlements in central Europe at the time (Clark 1965, Fig. 2;
Renfrew 1973, 69–72) did not substantially differ from the
5000 BC date calculated for the beginning of the Körös–
Starèevo culture estimated by Stuart Pigott using “classical”
methods (Pigott 1965, fig. 12). The first results of calibration,
however, stretched this chronological boundary to 5350 B.C.
(Neustupný 1968, 52). The spread of early farming in Europe
was explained within the framework of the “wave of advance
model” by Albert Ammerman and Luca Cavalli-Sforza. They
estimated an average annual advancement of 1km toward the
northwest related to demic diffusion (Ammerman & Cavalli-
Sforza 1971; 1973) in accordance with the first calibrated ra-
diometric dates obtained for the beginnings of food produc-
tion in Europe. Evidently, the model that advocated waves of
demic diffusion and its chronological sequence had a conse-
quence for interpretations of the Körös culture as well. Ac-
cordingly, the wave of neolithization reached the Carpathian
Basin with a certain delay in comparison with the south-east-
ern regions of Europe, including the distribution area of the
Starèevo culture. This possibility was clearly voiced by Hans
Quitta on the basis of the first relevant radiocarbon dates ob-
tained in 1970. Meanwhile, he admitted that the internal
phasing of the Starèevo- and Körös cultures was still unre-
solved in the concerned areas (Quitta 1970, 54 and note 15).
On the basis of what was known at the time, Nándor Kalicz
2 At that time the Eger culture was defined on the ground of a macrolithic stone industry in northeastern Hungary (Vértes 1951; 1965, 216-221; Dobosi
1972, 42-59) which after 50 years the Late Mesolithic stonework has been identified as a Paleolithic assemblage (Summarised by Koz³owski 2005, 185).
15
Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history
summarized and mapped the geographical distribution of the
Körös culture and Linearband ceramics in the Carpathian Ba-
sin (Kalicz 1970, Fig. 7, 1971, Abb. 1).
It was an important event in research history. In 1970
an international conference was organized in Székesfehér-
vár, Hungary, titled “Die aktuellen Fragen der Bandkera-
mik”. This event was devoted to the emergence of the
Linearband culture in Europe with special regard to re-
search in the Carpathian Basin. The proceedings published
in 1972 were of monumental significance. In the volume,
Nándor Kalicz and János Makkay drew a boundary for the
first time through the northern part of the Great Hungarian
Plain, approximately between the cities of Kunhegyes and
Berettyóújfalu. In their view, this was the limit of the north-
ernmost distribution of the Körös culture (Kalicz & Makkay
1972a, Abb. 1). Sites and assemblages of the so-called
Szatmár group were identified north of this line. These sites
marked the formation period of the aforementioned Alföld
Linear Pottery (ALP), so typical of the Great Hungarian
Plain. The two researchers believed that the halt of Körös
culture expansion north of this line could be explained by
the presence of a local Mesolithic population. In their inter-
pretation, these Mesolithic people represented the basis for
the emerging ALBK culture (Kalicz & Makkay 1972a). At
the same time, Kalicz and Makkay found evidence among
earlier finds from Medina and Harc-Nyanyapuszta that the
Starèevo culture had been present in southern Transdanubia
and played a decisive role in the formation of the Trans-
danubian Linear Pottery (TLP) culture (Kalicz & Makkay
1972b). In essence, these results from Hungary provided the
first archaeological evidence for the predictions by Hans
Quitta dating back to the 1960s, as areas associated with the
emergence of Linearband ceramics could be defined on the
basis of assemblages. Kalicz and Makkay also came up with
a novel idea from a chronological point of view. They drew
a parallel between the Szatmár group, the Medina type and
the earliest phase of the Körös culture represented in Pit 3
(Protovinèa) at Maroslele-Pana (Kalicz & Makkay 1972b,
94–95). In contrast, Ottó Trogmayer had hypothesized a par-
allel development between the Körös and Alföld Linear Pot-
tery cultures from the beginning (Trogmayer 1972, 73–75).
Contemporary researchers in Slovakia came up with es-
sentially the same ideas (Lichardus 1964, 867; 1972, 10–
12), and argued consistently for partial synchrony between
the Körös-Starèevo and LBK cultures (Pavúk 1980, 50–77).
(It remains a curiosity in research history that at the time
Juraj Pavúk consistently used the term ”Starèevo-Criº- Kul-
tur” in relation to the Tisza region and markedly avoi- ded
the general “Starèevo-Körös” name that was widely used in
the literature. For example: “Besiedlung mit Criº-Kultur ist
im Theißgebiet schon relativ gut bekannt” (Pavúk 1980,
72). Reconstruction of the history of the ALBk culture at the
time was dominated by the hypothetical acculturation of the
local Mesolithic population of the Eger culture who fell un-
der Körös culture influence (Vékony 1971; Kalicz &
Makkay 1972a, 80–81; 1972b, 94–95).2 Meanwhile John
The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary
Nandris pointed to the absence of archaeological evidence
for any such population and the great variety of connections
between the Mesolithic and First Temperate Neolithic
(Nandris 1972).
Increased interest in the local Mesolithic as the founda-
tion of neolithization in Southeastern Europe was undoubt-
edly inspired by the discovery of emphatically important
prehistoric sites in the Iron Gates Gorge of the Danube dur-
ing the 1960–1970s including Lepenski Vir, Padina and a
number of related settlements (Srejoviæ 1966; 1969; 1972;
1973; Jovanoviæ 1966; 1969; 1972; Letica 1969). By seek-
ing core similarities between the Natufian and Lepenski Vir
cultures, seeds of an independent neolithization process of
Near Eastern type could be hypothesized in the southern
Danube Basin (Srejoviæ 1974, 27–30). Criticism of this
“fashion wave” in historical interpretation (Dumitrescu
1971) was largely ignored at the time. Dragoslav Srejoviæ,
the excavator of Lepenski Vir, hypothesized the continuity
of classical Starèevo evolution at the site that preceded the
occurrence of typical barbotine decorated ware as the finds
included monochrome, Protostarèevo and mesolithic arte-
facts (Srejoviæ 1971). The site of Gura Baciului/Bácsi-
torok, linked to Lepenski Vir through the presence of
sculpted boulders, also yielded white painted ware indica-
tive of the Starèevo I–Criº I phase in Transylvania, in west-
ern Romania. In the interpretation of Nikolae Vlassa, this
discovery also meant that chronological parallels could be
drawn with the Protosesklo culture in Thessaly (Vlassa
1972). The rich find material, however, was only published
significantly later (Lazarovici & Maxim 1995). Similar
painted ware (decorated with white dots on a red base) was
already known from the site of Donja-Branjevina in the
northern Baèka region of Serbia, widely considered a zone
of overlap between the Körös and Starèevo cultures (Kar-
manski 1968a; 1968b; final publication: Karmanski 2005).
Subsequently, János Makkay reviewed the publication
of early neolithic Otzaki-Magula (Milojèiæ-v. Zumbusch &
Milojèiæ 1971) and 22 archaeological arguments available
at the time that seemed to support the parallel development
of the Körös-Starèevo and Protosesklo cultures since their
beginnings (Makkay 1974, 144–153). Chronological con-
nections between neolithic cultures in Thessaly and the
Middle Danube Region have been frequently revisited by
Makkay, who in the end argued for Körös–Starèevo and
Monochrome phase synchrony (Makkay 1984b, 26 and
chronological chart).
These developments indicate that during this period of
research history, chronological studies assumed paramount
importance in research within the general problem of
neolithization in south-eastern Europe. This is clearly illus-
trated by a summary published by Stojan Dimitrijeviæ. He
drafted a new, alternative evolution of the entire Starèevo
culture (Dimitrijeviæ 1969; 1974) that fundamentally di-
verged from the chronological systems used by V. Milojèiæ,
D. Garašanin and their reformed version (Garašanin M.
1971). In addition, he emphasized the separate nature of
classical varieties such as the Körös culture in the Tisza Re-
gion, as well as Criº culture derivatives in Oltenia, Munte-
nia and Moldavia (Dimitrijeviæ 1974, 94).
Another line of international inquiry was followed by
16
Sándor Bökönyi who compared Körös culture animal bone
assemblages to those from corresponding sites in Greece
(Bökönyi 1971, 642–643, Table 1). His subsequent ground-
breaking work (Bökönyi 1974) set the contextual and to
some extent methodological framework for neolithic archa-
eozoology in Hungary for decades to come. His school of
thought reached European fora through the evaluation of
early neolithic animal remains and their impact on recon-
structing Körös culture history (see summaries by Bartosie-
wicz, Gál & Tóth in this volume).
Following excavations by Nándor Kalicz and János
Makkay at Méhtelek-Nádas it became clear that beyond the
northern boundary of the Körös culture distribution area,
Transylvanian varieties of the Körös culture were also pres-
ent in the Upper Tisza Region (Kalicz & Makkay 1974a;
1974b; 1977a; Makkay 2003c; Kalicz in this volume). The
most important characteristics of this artefactual assem-
blage included a rich inventory of anthropomorphic figu-
rines and the dominance of obsidian among the lithic raw
materials (Chapman 1986; Starnini 1994; Makkay 2007).
This richness in obsidian was in radical contrast with rele-
vant lithic assemblages from Körös culture sites in the
southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain (Bácskay 1976).
This discovery indicated two different ways and methods of
obsidian acquisition. The most evident parallels to the find
material from Méhtelek came to light at the settlement of
Homorodul de Sus/Felsõhomoród in northwestern Romania
(Bader 1968). Kalicz and Makkay considered the Méhtelek,
together with sites of the previously defined Szatmár group
in the Upper Tisza Region, a special facies of the Körös cul-
ture and labelled it the “Méhtelek type”. Presumably, this
type was connected to the block of Körös culture settle-
ments in the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain
through the Szamos-Kraszna-Ér-Berettyó river valleys
(Kalicz & Makkay 1977a, 22–24), as well as the region of
Criº settlement within Transylvania.
In a broader sense these developments defined three di-
rections for neolithization of the Carpathian Basin that cor-
responded to idiosyncratic artefactual assemblages. They
included the Starèevo culture in Transdanubia, the Körös
culture in the Great Hungarian Plain, and the Criº culture in
Transylvania and Moldavia in Romania. It is a noteworthy
development that the discovery of Körös culture finds in the
Upper Tisza Region (within the Túr–Szamos–Kraszna river
valleys) shifted the emphasis from chronological questions
to those of geographical distribution in Körös culture re-
search.
In their important 1977 monograph on the emergence
of the ALBK culture, Nándor Kalicz and János Makkay of-
fered a new approach to the Körös culture as a possible pre-
decessor on the basis of to geographical characteristics and
the chronological framework (Kalicz & Makkay 1977b).
This work was a multi-faceted synthesis of problems con-
cerning the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Great Hun-
garian Plain but had relevance on the broader scale of the
Carpathian Basin as well. They re-drew a clear map of
Körös culture sites updated with the then newly discovered
Körös settlements (at Furta-Csátó, Dévaványa-Atyaszeg,
Tiszaug-Tópart, Maroslele-Pana: Kalicz & Makkay 1977b,
Karte 2).

Beginning in 1976, field surveys and small-scale exca-
vations in the Middle Tisza Region within the northern
frontier zone of the Körös culture distribution area yielded
new results in settlement history. A complete burnt house
with upright, verticl walls and a post-structure was recov-
ered at the site of Szajol-Felsõföld (Raczky 1977; 1980, 5;
1996; in this volume). A female skeleton found on her right
side in a contracted position underneath the rubble could be
interpreted as intentional burial within the house (Raczky
1982–1983; 1983). Excavations at Szolnok-Szanda in 1977
and 1978 brought to light six burnt houses, several pits and
seven graves of the Körös culture (Kalicz & Raczky 1982;
Raczky in this volume). House remains from these two
sites, along with the earlier find at Tiszajenõ, made it clear
that the typical Körös house had upright walls and a post-
structure built on the ground surface. Even the roof con-
struction with ridgeposts could be identified in the houses at
Tiszajenõ and Szajol (Lenneis 1997, Fig. 3–4). This struc-
ture, in addition to other features, seems to have been a ty-
pological transition towards house types known from the
Central European LBK (Lichardus 1972, 13; Meier-Arendt
1989; Lichter 1993, 77–80; Lenneis 1997, 143–145;
Raczky 2006). Since the 1970s and 1980s, Körös culture
wattle and daub houses of this type have generally been
considered precursors of LBK habitation, a view that re-
mained widely accepted even today (Horváth & Simon
2004; Lichardus-Itten & Lichardus 2004, 49–50; Stäuble
2005, 211–213, Raczky 2006). In light of these reconstruc-
tions, previous efforts to interpret pits recovered in Trans-
danubia (Bicske-Galagonyás: Makkay 1978) as well as the
Great Hungarian Plain (Szarvas site no. 102 and Gyoma site
no. 107: Makkay 1982a) as early representatives of LBK
semi-subterranean houses became irrelevant. This became
evident when archaeologically verifiable traces of the first
LBK houses were found in both Transdanubia (Szentgyörgy-
völgy-Pityerdomb: Bánffy 2004, 29–47; the relevant data
base by Oross & Bánffy 2009, 182–184, Fig. 9) and the
Great Hungarian Plain (Füzesabony-Gubakút: Dombo-
róczki 1997, Mezõkövesd-Mocsolyás: Kalicz & Koós
1997a; 1997b; 2000; 2002). They were also built on the sur-
face with upright, verticl walls supported by post-structures.
It is possible that the (pre) conception of LBK and ALBK
semi-subterranean houses resulted in the logical necessity
of trying to attribute a house type to the local mesolithic
population. This story is strongly reminiscent of a situation
during the 1930s when Werner Buttler and Waldemar Ha-
berey presented pits excavated at the settlement of Köln-
Lindenthal as “Wohngruben”, a type of semi-subterranean
habitation (The historical review of the research history:
Lichter 1993, 21). The belief in the significance of
semi-subterranean houses seems to be strong and has re-
mained particularly popular among researchers of the
south-east European Neolithic (the problem has been sum-
marised by Lichardus-Itten & Lichardus 2004; some of
these interpretations in: Greenfield & Jongsma 2006;
Minichreiter 2007, 37–57; Lazarovici & Lazarovici 2011,
24–27).
The first in-depth environmental evaluation of Körös
culture settlements was published by Kristina Kosse. She
was the first to represent the view that neolithic sites in the
17
Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history
Carpathian Basin need to be studied within the context of
their respective environmental settings (Kosse 1979). Her
most important discoveries include the linear arrangement
of Körös culture settlements along river banks as well as the
importance of hydromorphic soils in the selection of habita-
tion areas. This latter point in itself may be seen as indica-
tive of a certain reliance on riverine and floodplain re-
sources. In addition, with the circumspect use of a broad
range of data from interdisciplinary research she attempted
a reconstruction of the broad-spectrum economic base of
the Körös culture (Kosse 1979, 125–132). This work fitted
smoothly within the ”water-soil” centred characterization of
early settlements on a European scale (Sherratt 1980). An-
other environmental study evaluated Körös culture settle-
ments in the Tiszazug microregion (defined by the conflu-
ence of the Tisza and Körös rivers) within a European con-
text (Jarman, Bailey & Jarman 1982, 168–179). Results
from these macro-level environmental investigations of
Körös culture settlements have become popular and end up
being cited as themes in several archaeological summaries.
Subsequntly, Pál Sümegi and his school initiated mi-
cro-scale localized research that contributed radically new
information to these previous environmental results. One of
his most significant revelations has been that a mosaic type
of paleoenvironmental structure on island-like loess-cov-
ered surfaces may have been the most important element in
the establishment of Körös culture settlements in particular
areas. In this interpretation, an environmental complex
composed of gallery forest covered floodplains, Pleistocene
riverbeds and back swamps offered access to a mosaic-like,
and diverse set of natural habitats for Körös culture settle-
ment populations (summarized by Sümegi 2004a, 308–309,
314–316, 336–337 and footnotes 23, 24; 2007).
In 1980, as part of a broader summary, a predominantly
literature-based study of the Körös culture including the
Méhtelek type was published by Valerij Titov in Russian. He
provided a rather good appraisal of research history at the
time (Titov 1980, 77–112). At the same time, Nándor Kalicz
wrote short reports on the latest results of neolithic research
in Hungary, with reference to Starèevo culture sites in
Transdanubia (Becsehely, Lánycsók). In light of this accu-
mulated information, he came to the conclusion that Körös
and Starèevo represented two distinct cultural phenomena
separated by a clear border zone along the Danube in south-
ern Hungary. Meanwhile, referring to the horizontal stratig-
raphy of the latest Starèevo and earliest TLBK sites, he ar-
gued for the diachronic Starèevo–TLBK sequence, establish-
ing a clear point of reference in the relative chronology for
the origins of LBK in central Europe (Kalicz 1980; 1984).
A NEW WAVE IN KÖRÖS CULTURE
STUDIES IN HUNGARY: THE 1980s –
COMPLEX APPROACHES
In 1981, János Makkay published painted ware from
the site of Szarvas No. 23. These sherds, decorated with
white on red ornaments, represented an early style which,
after Donja Branjevina, Gura Baciului, and CÐrcea were
identified for the first time at a Körös culture settlement in
The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary
the Great Hungarian Plain. Parallels for this ceramic type
are known in the Aegean as types of the so-called Proto-
sesklo ware. It was actually the Szarvas find that provided
supporting evidence for Makkay’s frequently raised hy-
pothesis that from the onset, rates of development in the
First Temperate Neolithic had been comparable in south-
east Europe, including the adjacent southern section of the
Carpathian Basin (Makkay 1981). In the meantime, a flint
hoard was published from the site of Endrõd No. 39 in the
Great Hungarian Plain. The raw material composition in it
clearly pointed to connections with the Banat district of
Voivodina and possibly even further south in the Balkans
(Kaczanowska, Koz³owski & Makkay 1981).
The nationwide archaeological survey project (MRT =
Archaeological Topography of Hungary) reached Békés
county in the south-eastern part of the Great Hungarian
Plain in 1968. As a result of systematic field walking and in-
tensive excavations, the number of known Körös culture
sites multiplied in the region. This quantitative increase
meant that new settlement patterns could be deduced within
the broader region.
In 1982, János Makkay wrote a major synthesis on neo-
lithic research in Hungary. His summary was based on 158
sites from the 1219 km2 Szeghalom District (MRT 6) and
146 sites from the 793 km2 area of Szarvas District (MRT 8)
in Békés county. Unfortunately, due to language limita-
tions, the valuable analysis of these 304 “KS” (Körös–
Starèevo) sites concentrated in a relatively small area remai-
ned largely inaccessible to international research (Makkay
1982b, Table I on page 113). Presuming synchronous occu-
pation, on the basis of the compiled data, an average mini-
mum area of 6.6 km2 may have belonged to each site. He
had at his disposal 484 sites from the estimated 13000 km2
distribution area of the Körös–Starèevo (in fact Körös) cul-
ture on the Great Hungarian Plain. With regard to the pre-
vailing schools of thought at the time, in addition to chrono-
logical implications, Makkay also considered the “genesis”
of the find material as well as certain phenomena related to
“economic-social development” (Makkay 1982b, 7–9). In
his view, no substantive differences exist between Körös and
Starèevo cultural phenomena. He therefore uniformly used
the “KS” label in his terminology. Unfortunately, time has
not yet passed over his statement that the Körös culture “to-
day still lacks an internal chronology that could be reliably
generalized to its entire (or at least a sufficiently large) area”
(Makkay 1982b, 41). In spite of this, in his chronological
chart he presented a three-tier relative chronology of the
Körös-Starèevo culture. In his view, the northern boundary
of the “KS” culture on both the Great Hungarian Plain and
Transdanubia corresponds to the “ethnocultural” border of a
preneolithic population, rather than any geographical feature.
In addition, he attributed the division between middle neo-
lithic regions (that is, the ALBK and TLBK distinction) to a
similar ethnocultural and linguistic difference that preceded
the “KS” culture and dominated in the Mesolithic or possibly
even the Upper Palaeolithic (Makkay 1982b, 68– 70,
77–80). He hypothesized the existence of the so-called
“Jászság-boundary” in the piedmont area of the Northern
Hill Region in Hungary. This concept has retained a pivotal
role in Makkay’s subsequent studies as marking not only an
18
ethnic but also a linguistic barrier (Makkay 2001a, 62–65;
2001b, 18–24, 41–43, 57). At the same time, he linked the
“KS” population with the protoindoeuropean linguistic
foundation of the Balkans (Makkay 1982b, 79–80).
To János Makkay’s credit, he addressed novel ques-
tions at the beginning of the 1980s such as the possibility of
identifying ethnicity and language through the material cul-
ture of the Körös–Starèevo entity. These ideas, however, re-
mained hypothetical since at the time we had precious little
information on mesolithic sites preceeding the Early Neo-
lithic in the Carpathian Basin. Speculations about the eth-
nicity of a Mesolithic base population and its potential lin-
guistic differences therefore could not be supported by suf-
ficient data. Never-the-less, Makkay’s thought-provoking
approach played an important role in Hungary, pre-dating
the introductory chapter of Sir Colin Renfrew’s book which
tackled similar problems on a broader based Eurasian scale
(Renfrew 1987; 1988).
The so-called “Szeghalom survey” was a British-Hun-
garian cooperative settlement research project carried out
on the outskirts of Dévaványa, Szeghalom, Körösladány,
Vésztõ within the framework of the Békés county national
survey. Its results have in general reconfirmed the linear ar-
rangement of Körös culture “shoreline settlements” (She-
rratt 1982a, 16–17, Table 2.1, Fig 2.3–Fig.2.6.). In addition,
archaeometric surveys at the settlement of Dévaványa-
Réhelyi-dûlõ resulted in signatures indicative of discrete
household clusters with associated storage and working ar-
eas at approximate distances of 50 m from each other (Sher-
ratt 1983a, 23, 33; 1983b, 160–164). At the time, Andrew
Sherrat estimated that the Körös culture existed within a
time interval between 6000–5300 BC, meaning, he was the
first who accepted such early calibrated radiometric dates as
historical reality (Sherratt 1983a, 23). The results of test ex-
cavations carried out in this area, and especially efforts to
use statistics in the evaluation of the newly excavated mate-
rial, contributed little to an understanding of the internal
chronology of the Körös culture (Goldman 1991). It was
important, however, that in his 1982 research summary, An-
drew Sherratt made a clear distinction between the Körös
and Starèevo cultures. His distribution map was also com-
plemented by the Szatmár group in the north (associated
with Criº in Transylvania), instead of a poorly defined
“mesolithic substrate” (Sherratt 1982b, 295–297, Fig. 6). In
this manner, he made something of a novel contribution to
discussions regarding the northern distribution of Körös
culture initiated by Nándor Kalicz and János Makkay.
In his great synthesis of the Balkan Neolithic, Milutin
Garašanin outlined three geographical environments that
seem to have corresponded to major cultural entities during
the Early Neolithic. These were the Balkano-Anatolian
(south), Carpatho-Central Balkan (north) and the Circum-
Mediterranean complexes (Garašanin 1982). He considered
the Körös group to be an independent entity within the
Carpatho-Central Balkan complex, with its southern bound-
ary defined in the Baèka and Banat districts of Voivodina,
near the confluence of the Aranka–Maros–Tisza Rivers
(Garašanin 1982, 101). This shows that international re-
search at the time accepted relatively clearly defined geo-
graphical borders for the Körös culture (or group).

Given these developments, the geographical distribu-
tion of the Körös culture had to be revised after the impor-
tant discoveries of Körös culture sites north of the city of
Szolnok at Nagykörû-Tsz gyümölcsös and Kõtelek-Huszár-
sarok, since these settlements fell within the then known
northernmost zone of Körös distribution (Raczky 1978;
1983; 1986). Meanwhile, in addition to the Körös culture
feature identified at Kõtelek, a find assemblage displaying
early characteristics of the Szatmár group was also recov-
ered. This was the first ever archaeological evidence of pos-
sible connections between Körös and Szatmár features
within the same settlement. The possibility previously
raised by Andrew Sherratt was thus reconfirmed by field
data: the Körös culture as known in the southern part of the
Great Hungarian Plain may have been bordered by the
Méhtelek facies, rather than a Mesolithic population in the
Upper Tisza Region (Raczky 1983, 189). Following this
discovery the logical conclusion was that the ethnic basis of
the evolving ALBK culture was not necessarily provided by
local Mesolithic populations. There may have been variants
of the Körös culture in the Upper Tisza Region, represented
by finds from the Szamos–Kraszna River valleys (Raczky
1980, 29–30; 1986, 29–33). These latter phenomena seem
to be clearly rooted in the Körös–Criº cultures in Transyl-
vania and the Transcarpathian region (Bader 1968; Balahuri
1975, 281, Abb. 1.3; Kalicz & Makkay 1977a; Ignaþ 1978;
1979; Lakó 1977; 1978; Lazarovici & Lakó 1981; Laza-
rovici 1985; Potusnjak 1985, 140–148). It is on the basis of
this network of origins that the emergence of a special type
of painted ware in the Upper Tisza Region at the beginning
of the Middle Neolithic may be explained: varieties of black
paint on the raw clay surface or on red slip cannot be traced
back to the tradition of decorative motifs used by the Körös
culture in the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain
(Esztár–Szamos–Kopèany–Raškovce groups: Vízdal 1973;
Kalicz & Makkay 1977b; 43, 47, 52–56; Korek 1977; Mak-
kay 1982b, 53–54; Šiška 1982; Bóna 1986, 64–65; Raczky
1989, 235, Fig. 8–9; Makkay 2003b). This style is far more
reminiscent of the early neolithic painted ware known from
Gura-Baciuliu in Transylvania (Raczky 1983, 187–192;
1986, 38–39). Parallels to the black paint with a beaded tex-
ture characteristic of Szatmár II style pottery may be most
clearly recognized at sites in north-western Romania during
the early phase of the Piºcolþ group (Lazarovici & Németi
1983).
The Protovinèa question resurfaced during the study of
the Szatmár group as well. The majority of typological fea-
tures behind this term are not as strictly defined as sug-
gested by the name. Instead of belonging to a narrowly de-
termined cultural context, they are general characteristics of
the Middle Neolithic of the Balkans, evidently occurring
over a broad geographical region. Within this context, the
“Protovinèa” as a concept remains acceptable only in areas
where it was de facto followed by the Vinèa culture. When
imported mechanically to the Tisza region, the term does
not express the dynamics of local development (Raczky
1983, 187–189; 1986, 34–40; 1988, 28–29).
The next important stage in Körös culture research was
the study of archaeological contexts (especially sacrificial
pits), where traces of unusual activities indicative of sacred
19
Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history
or symbolic practices and other forms of special, ritual be-
haviour were detected. The presence of such pits provided
János Makkay with yet another chance to map the geo-
graphical distribution of signatures indicative of such activ-
ities along with their archaeological contexts. Based on this
material, he began to explore deeper implications of cultural
relationships during the Körös culture. This topic has re-
mained continuously in the forefront of Makkay’s attention
(Makkay 1986; 1989; 2002). Likewise, he continued reiter-
ate arguments concerning connections between the Carpa-
thian Basin and Neolithic cultures in Thessaly notwith-
standing the problem of Starèevo-Körös chronological con-
nections (Makkay 1984b). Discussing chronological issues,
Makkay correctly raised the question of relationships be-
tween the Körös–Starèevo and LBK cultures. Although tan-
gible stratigraphic information was only available from the
settlement of Dévaványa-Réhelyi gát (MRT 6, Site 3/33),
relying on find materials from his own research (Szarvas 23,
Endrõd 39, Szarvas 8, Endrõd 39, Dévaványa 33) he com-
piled a sequence of features whose typological analysis
aided the reconstruction of the three-tier internal chronol-
ogy of the Körös-Starèevo culture (Makkay 1987, 16,
Chronologische Tabelle). However, the dating value of cer-
tain typological characteristics (carinated bowls, high ped-
estalled vessels, black burnished ware, finely incised and
impressed motifs etc.) were brought into question by Mak-
kay himself (Makkay 1996, 45–47). The earliest period is
characterized by white painted ware on a red ground (Mak-
kay 1981; 1996, Pl. 9, 11), while pottery assemblages of the
“late phase” (= Protovinèa) were identified using the evi-
dence of sherds representing ALP ”imports” (Makkay 1982b,
26–46 and footnote 76, Makkay 1987; 1990; 2007, 216).
Most recently, carinated and pedestalled vessel types have
again been treated as diagnostic of the Protovinèa period at
the site of Furta–Csátó among others (Makkay 2007, 206).
In Makkay’s view, the early ALBK culture was coeval
with “Protovinèa” and, according to his chronological chart,
with the Vinèa A culture as it is known south of the Maros
River. Therefore, according to this scheme, Protovinèa is
equals to Vinèa A, demonstrating the inconsistency of the
Protovinèa definition when applied to material from the
Great Hungarian Plain and Transdanubia (Makkay 1984b,
chronological chart). This fundamental contradiction is not
resolved by his subsequent specious reasoning: “My emi-
nent colleagues who have devoted several studies to the
Protovinèa problem seem to be unclear on the meaning of
the term Protovinèa. The Greek, proteroz or prwtoz pri-
marily denotes a relationship in time: ‘before’, ‘sooner’,
‘earlier’, ‘preceding’, ‘older’ … The term Protovinèa de-
notes something that has something to do with the Vinèa
culture, but precedes it in time” (Makkay 1996, 44). This is
then followed by a new definition: “Thirdly, Kalicz, Raczky
and Horváth failed to note that by ”Protovinèa” I meant (and
still mean) not only types that appear at the end of the Körös
sequence, but also types whose precursors appeared much
earlier...” (Makkay 1996, 45). The actual question neverthe-
less remains whether Protovinèa should be the definition of
a time period or ceramic types within Makkay’s paradigm
(Makkay 1996, 44–46 and footnote 53). Regrettably these
two types of definition do not have the same meaning.
The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary
Within the context of the Protovinèa polemics, an anal-
ogous debate between Colin Renfrew and John E. Coleman
is worth mentioning here. Regarding Early Bronze Age ter-
minology in the Aegean, Renfrew wrote: “Surely the appro-
priate procedure is to start with the data, attempt to order it
by classification and subdivision, name it and only then try
to date it.”… “But the relationship of the material – the cul-
tural assemblages – to the chronology is neither assumed
nor known a priori. It is a matter of inference, dependent on
a number of arguments and always vulnerable to reassess-
ment.”…“Either the EH I, II, III and EC I, II and III desig-
nations refer to periods, in which case they should not be
confused with designations for material, or they refer to as-
semblages. They can no longer be allowed to do both. For
that reason I suggested some years ago that the EH I, II and
III terminology no longer be used for the assemblages and
proposed the terms of Eutresis culture, Korakou culture and
Tiryns culture as appropriate assemblage designations in-
stead...” (Renfrew 1979, 58–61).
In summary, using the term Protovinèa as interpreted
by János Makkay may not be correct from a methodological
point of view as it raises more questions than it can answer
(Makkay 1990; Schier 1997; Brukner 2006; Horváth 2006;
Anders & Paluch 2011). In general it may be said that each
regional unit (as a spatially defined entity, e.-g. the Great
Hungarian Plain) already possessed its own temporal dy-
namics in the Early Neolithic. Since when relative chronol-
ogies were being developed no a priori, absolute time scales
were available, time was reconstructed in archaeology using
indirect methods in archaeology including comparative
stratigraphy and typology. It is suggested here that the
emergence of the ALBK and Vinèa cultures should be ex-
plained in light of a polycentric model within the distribu-
tion area of the Körös and Starèevo cultures. Even within
this area one may see special and diverse developmental
processes within various microregions, a number of which,
at some point culminated in supra-regional integration. This
possibility, more precisely the observation that the Vinèa
culture may have been formed around three or four foci has
also been raised by John Chapman. In fact, the possibility
had also been considered by János Makkay. In the end,
however, evolution from a single centre became the pre-
ferred theory (Chapman 1981, 33–39; Makkay 1982b,
26–30). As may be considered a general phenomenon in the
development of complex systems, new characteristics of the
system may emerge that cannot be mechanically deduced
from its individual components. The variegated nature of
this complex process is obliterated by the generalizing term
“Protovinèa”. It would be more desirable to talk about the
terminal phase of the Körös- and Starèevo cultures north
and south of the Maros River (Anders & Paluch 2011,
16–17). Stylistic developments in one area ended up in the
Middle Neolithic ALBK culture (to the north of the Maros),
while in the southern area developments gave rise to the
Vinèa culture.
During the 1980s, Nándor Kalicz thought the tripartite
internal chronology of the Körös culture was probably justi-
fied, although he considered only a few characteristics reli-
able in defining its early and late phases. In his opinion, the
majority of known assemblages come from its “classical”
20
phase. Importantly, he already considered the evolution of
the Neolithic and Copper Age in the Carpathian Basin
within the framework of radiometric, absolute chronology
(Kalicz 1985). In connection with this strategic develop-
ment it was of symbolic significance that the first ever six
radiocarbon dates by the Nuclear Research Institute of the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Debrecen were also
published, regarding various contexts of the Körös culture
(Bognár-Kutzián & Csongor 1987, 135)
THE ROLE OF PLAYED BY THE KÖRÖS
CULTURE IN THE SPREAD
OF AGRICULTURE IN SOUTH-EAST
EUROPE – THE 1990s
During the second half of the 1980s, several syntheses
took aim at questions surrounding neolithization in the Car-
pathian Basin on a European scale. These invariably inclu-
ded treatises regarding the Körös culture. Alasdair Whittle
included the distribution of Körös settlements in the sur-
roundings of the town of Dévaványa among his examples of
early agricultural communities in south-east Europe (Whit-
tle 1985, 55–58 and Fig. 3.12). Whittle dated the time pe-
riod of first farmers to between 6000 and 4000 BC, a time
interval apparently supported by radiometric dates at the
time (Breunig 1987, 86. Abb. 149). Jan Lichardus and
Marion Lichardus-Itten also studied the Körös culture
within a broader context as one of the representative cul-
tures within the Balkano-Carpathic zone (Lichardus &
Lichardus-Itten 1985, 245–250).
Recent analyses of lithic finds from the Early and Mid-
dle Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin directed international
attention to the importance of this class of artefacts (Kacza-
nowska 1985; Bácskay & Simán 1987). The Neolithic utili-
zation of raw materials became a central question in the
Carpathian Basin as the acquisition networks of lithic raw
materials became one of the best markers of both regional
and trans-regional contacts (T. Biró 1987; 1991).
A new dimension opened in European prehistoric re-
search with the introduction of the wave of advance model,
whereby the spread of early farming was interpreted as a
“population wave”. Subsequently, demic diffusion was seen
in conjunction with the geographical distribution of certain
genetic traits (Ammermann & Cavalli-Sforza 1984; Cavalli-
Sforza et al. 1988). This complex set of interpretations was
further enhanced in the model put forward by Colin Ren-
frew. He associated the spread of farming in Europe with
the initial dispersal of Indo-European languages from Ana-
tolia (Renfrew 1987, 145–177). Following Graham Clark
(Clark 1977, 121 and Fig. 55), one of his archaeological ar-
guments was the almost perfect morphological correspon-
dence between early stamp seals (pintaderas) from Anatolia
and south-eastern Europe (Renfrew 1987, Fig. 7.8). From
the beginning, Renfrew’s comprehensive historical expla-
nation generated considerable discussion. Journals such as
Antiquity, Current Anthropology and the Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society published special columns on the debate
(Antiquity: Christopher Ehret 1988; Marek Zvelebil and
Kamil V. Zvelebil 1988; Andrew Sherratt and Susan
Sherratt 1988; Current Anthroplogy: Colin Renfrew 1988;

David W. Anthony and Bernard Wailes 1988; Philip Baldi
1988; Graeme Barker 1988; John E. Coleman 1988; Evžen
Neustupný 1988; Andrew Sherratt 1988; Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society: Norman Yoffee 1990). The topic has
been of great interest to archaeologists, geneticists, demog-
raphers and linguists alike, thereby generating a major body
of literature whose contents eventually reached global pro-
portions (Major reviews: Renfrew 2000; Renfrew–Boyle
2000; Cavalli-Sforza 2001; Bellwood–Renfrew eds. 2002;
Pinhasi 2003; Pinhasi et al. 2005; Zvelebil 2005; Forster &
Renfrew 2006; Bocquet-Appel & Bar-Yosef 2008;
Bellwood 2008; Budja 2009; Pluciennik & Zvelebil 2008;
Galeta & Bruzek 2009; Renfrew 2010; Soares et al. 2010).
Somewhat surprisingly, evidence of this scholarly fever
that swept through Europe at the end of the 1980s is virtu-
ally missing from the archaeological literature in Hungary.
This apparent indifference to such archaeological ideas may
also be explained in part by preoccupation with emerging
political changes followed by major structural changes in
archaeology. The remaining enthusiasm of Hungarian ar-
chaeologists may also have been diverted by large-scale res-
cue excavations that preceded the construction of a motor-
way network across the country. At the same time, the pre-
viously intensive interest in Körös culture research also
seems to have declined. It was excavation of late neolithic
tell settlements that began to occupy central the stage in pre-
historic research. Within the context of this summary on re-
search history it is particularly interesting that among ar-
chaeologists, János Makkay was the only researcher who
continued to devote attention to the archaeological aspects
of multi-faceted Indo-European origins (summarized in
Makkay 1986; 1988; 1991; 1992; 1998).
Problems of cultural and chronological developments
in the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Tisza region were
summarized in Hungarian, with special emphasis on the
west bank settlement excavated at Öcsöd-Kiritó. The latest
developmental phase of the Körös culture at this site was
represented by new types, including carinated bowls and
black burnished ware as well as sherds with incised decora-
tion characteristic of the ALBK culture (Raczky 1988,
28–29, Fig. 4–9). In addition to Phases I–II–III of the Körös
culture listed in the chronological chart of this publication,
Phase IV was also included (replacing the previously used
Protovinèa Period: Raczky 1988, Fig 37, chronological
chart). Naturally, this chronological system remained as
speculative as all previous schemes.
Proceedings of the 1987 international conference orga-
nized in Szolnok and Szeged (Bökönyi ed. 1989) included
several studies discussing details of the Early Neolithic in
south- eastern Europe by Sándor Bökönyi, Milutin Garaša-
nin, Milorad Giriæ, Ferenc Horváth, Janusz Krzysztof
Koz³owski, Walter Meier-Arendt, Ivan Pavlù and Ottó
Trogmayer. In the same volume, the geographical distribu-
tion of Early and Middle Neolithic pottery styles in the
Tisza Region was presented in a series of maps, clearly
showing the territorial boundaries of the Starèevo, Körös,
and Criº cultures. Special emphasis was laid on the transi-
tion between the Körös and ALBK cultures (Raczky 1989,
234–236, Fig. 1–9). The 1989 study by John Chapman on
the early Balkan village was of decisive importance regard-
21
Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history
ing the settlement characteristics of the Körös-Starèevo. He
defined settlement types of the First Temperate Neolithic
such as the farmstead, hamlet and village, as well as differ-
ences between tell and horizontal settlements on the basis of
multi-faceted information including the analysis of metric
data (Chapman 1989).
Archaeological aspects of the Protovinèa problem have
been discussed in the proceedings of the 1988 conference
entitled “Vinèa and its World” organized in Belgrade and
Smederevska Palanka (Srejoviæ & Tasiæ eds. 1990). Most
authors touched upon Protovinèa in relation to the forma-
tion of the Vinèa culture (Petroviæ 1990; Vetniæ 1990), al-
though the topic was naturally relevant to similar problems
on the Great Hungarian Plain (Makkay 1990). Meanwhile it
became evident once again that the meaning of the term
“Protovinèa” differed between northern Serbia and the
Great Hungarian Plain.
Nándor Kalicz devoted an entire monograph to the
Starèevo culture in Transdanubia. He identified 13 sites
(Kalicz 1990) within its 6000 km2 estimated distribution area
(falling within the territory of present-day Hungary). This
number in itself may demonstrate the fundamental differ-
ences between the settlement structures of the Starèevo and
Körös cultures that formed separate blocks. Intensive field
surveys have identified 300 sites over 2000 km2 in the Körös
River region alone. Nevertheless, Kalicz wrote an entire
chapter on the archaeological evidence that supported this
cultural difference (Kalicz 1990, 83–88). In addition, he
voiced scepticism regarding the Starèevo type “pit dwelling –
zemunica” structures in the Balkans (Kalicz 1990, 41–43).
This time the distribution of the Starèevo sites represented a
cultural territory located approximately in the southern part
of Transdanubia. However, three years later, Lake Balaton
appeared as the northernmost border in the distribution maps
of the Starèevo culture (Kalicz 1993, Fig. 1–2, Fig. 14–15).
Eszter Bánffy considered questions of cult and related
archaeological context in south-east Europe. She cited ex-
amples drawn from a broader pool of prehistoric cultures in-
cluding the evaluation of sacred perceptions and ritual prac-
tices of the Körös and Starèevo cultures (Bánffy 1991). In
essence, this was a valuable effort to thematically review
the shared ideological background of cultural entities that
had existed in the Balkans at the time.
The LBK in central Europe was reviewed within a
broader European context by Jens Lüning. In accordance
with the principle of demic diffusion he accorded special
significance to the Körös–Starèevo cultural sphere in the
emergence of the LBK culture (Lüning 1991, 33–37). On
the basis of the nearly 1000 archaeologically documented
houses known from Central Europe, many researchers in
Germany defined the basic settlement module within the
physical context of “Haus und Hof = House and yard”
(Boelicke 1982). These basic units were associated with ex-
ternal zones of daily activity (Boelicke 1982; Lüning 1991,
32, 68–70, 78–83). Lüning also came to the conclusion that
LBK settlement in Central Europe was not primarily associ-
ated with the banks of waterways but rather with the distri-
bution of arable loess soils, not typical of the environmental
zones inhabited by the Starèevo–Körös cultures (Lüning
1991, 49–53).
The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary
In his work entitled “Atlas du Néolithique Européen”,
Nándor Kalicz published a short summary of the most im-
portant archaeological characteristics of the Körös,
Starèevo and ALBK cultures and reviewed the general state
of research (Kalicz 1993).
The so-called Microregion Research Project initiated
by the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy
of Sciences, began near the village of Gyomaendrõd in 1984
as a continuation of the national archaeological survey pro-
ject (“Archaeological Topography of Hungary”) in the
same region. The first monograph resulting from the Micro-
region Research Project was published in 1992 (Bökönyi
ed. 1992). It was in this volume that János Makkay pub-
lished the results of his excavation at the Körös culture set-
tlement of Endrõd-Öregszõlõk 119 (Site No. 3/119 in MRT
8; Makkay 1992). A relatively small settlement, occupying
a 70–75 m long and 40–50 m wide area, was completely ex-
cavated at this site. The remains of two burnt houses mea-
suring 10–12 m in length and 4–6 m in width were recov-
ered from the site. In addition, large refuse pits, ovens, fire
places, sacrificial pits, and graves were found in the proxim-
ity of houses. The find material was unusually rich. The rel-
atively few chipped artefacts recovered at the site were pub-
lished by Elisabetta Starnini (Starnini 1995–96). Makkay
sub-divided the chronology of the settlement into two basic
phases. These included the early Körös phase, indicated by
white painted ware and the classic period. These two phases
would have covered most of the Körös culture. At the same
time, however, he estimated the settlement had existed for
no more than four human generations at most, in sharp con-
trast with the 500 years estimated for the Körös culture us-
ing calibrated radiocarbon dates. To date, the animal bone
assemblage recovered from this site at 23,647 remains is the
largest and most representative of all Körös culture faunal
samples (Bökönyi 1992, 197–198). Calculating the quantity
of meat consumption in light of habitation characteristics,
Sándor Bökönyi also estimated the life span of the settle-
ment as 30–40 years, likewise questioning the 500 years
continuity of settlement. Bökönyi listed a number of possi-
ble explanations to resolve this archaeological contradiction
(Bökönyi 1992, 235–239). Although Makkay repeatedly
tried to discredit both alternative arguments by Bökönyi as
well as the entire radiocarbon method (Makkay 1996, 36
and footnote 12), he could not come up with a coherent ex-
planation either. Today it is understood that that estimates
of population size and life span based simply on faunal re-
mains need to be treated with extreme caution.
In his dissertation, Ferenc Horváth wrote a brief sum-
mary of early neolithic research in the southern part of the
Great Hungarian Plain. In his account he also presented re-
sults of excavations at Pitvaros-Víztározó where the re-
mains of 27 houses arranged in rows were recovered over
an area of 6000 m2. The four superimposed settlement lay-
ers identified at the site could be interpreted as representing
two major phases of the Körös culture (classic and late
phases). These would correspond to a time interval from ap-
proximately 5550/5500–5450 BC in terms of absolute chro-
nology. Ferenc Horváth sub-divided the entire development
of the Körös culture into Phases I–IV (Horváth 1994,
13–19).
22
In 1994, John Chapman drafted a representative picture
of the complex origins of farming in south-east Europe and
clearly described the indigenes and diffusionist options rel-
evant to the problem. He also discussed characteristics of
the Körös–Starèevo cultures in the “Pannonian Basin” spe-
cifically. He thought that residential base modules in the
Tisza Region consisted of clusters made up of from 1–18
settlements within the Körös culture in contrast to the single
place of occupation best represented by tell settlements
(Chapman 1994, 141–144). Although by this time Chapman
was aware of the unpublished mesolithic settlement excava-
tions conducted by Róbert Kertész in the Jászság district, he
found the overall absence of late forager sites in the Great
Hungarian Plain conspicuous (Chapman 1994, 143). Mean-
while, he saw the origins of European agriculture within a
broader context, explaining it within the framework of the
farmer-forager exchange model.
An international conference mostly devoted to neolithic
topics was organized in Nyíregyháza in 1993. The proceed-
ings of this meeting (Istvánovits ed. 1994) contain several
articles with discussions of the Early and Middle Neolithic
of the Carpathian Basin (Chapman 1994; Horváth & Herte-
lendi 1994; Kertész et al. 1994; Trogmayer 1994; Pavúk
1994; Starnini 1994).
Determining the absolute chronological boundaries of
the Early Neolithic in eastern Hungary became possible by
1995 on the basis of what was then a significant number of
radiometric measurements. The existence of the Körös cul-
ture could thus be estimated using 28 calibrated dates span-
ning a period between 5860–5310 BC (Hertelendi et al.
1995, 242, Fig. 2). This further supported the 5715–5370
BC interval established for the Körös culture by Robert W.
Ehrich and H. Arthur Bankoff a short time previously
(Ehrich & Bankoff 1992, I/381, II/351–352). Earlier chro-
nologies by Ferenc Horváth and Ede Hertelendi of 6300–
5300 BC (Phases I–IV) estimated for the Körös culture
could likewise be revised (Horváth & Hertelendi 1994,
118). These results gave momentum to serial radiocarbon
measurements indicating that the method had finally come
of age in archaeological interpretation in Hungary.
The demic diffusion “leap-frog” model for the spread
of agriculture in Europe developed by Tjeerd H. van Andel
and Curtis N. Runnels contained three observations sup-
porting their historical theory that were also relevant to the
relationship between the local Mesolithic and the Körös cul-
ture in Hungary:
“i. the concentration of Neolithic settlement in areas of
Greece and the southeastern Balkans that were only
sparsely occupied by indigenous Mesolithic populations;
ii. the patchiness of the settlement patterns and;
ii. the obvious preference of the immigrants for flood-
plains of rivers and lakes.” (van Andel & Runnels 1995,
481, 494).
Almost as a reaction to these antecedents in research
history, an archaeological exhibition and related conference
entitled “From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic” were orga-
nized in Szolnok in 1996. A small volume was published
marking this occasion (Tálas ed. 1996) consisting of two
thematic units. The first, dealing with the Mesolithic, was
written by Róbert Kertész (Kertész 1996), while the second,

concerning the early neolithic Körös culture was authored
by János Makkay (Makkay 1996). It was in this publication
that Kertész drew the final conclusions from his excavations
of the mesolithic sites at the sites of Jászberény I and
Jásztelek I as well as from field surveys in the Jászság dis-
trict (summarized in: Kertész et al. 1994). In spite of his
scholarly efforts, it is clear that neither the geographical nor
the chronological distribution of these mesolithic sites indi-
cates that they could have been connected with early 6th
millennium Körös culture sites in the Szolnok region (criti-
cally summarized with regard to south-eastern Europe in:
Starnini 2000; Koz³owski 2005; Koz³owski & Nowak
2007). In light of this time gap, it was clear that the meso-
lithic cultural complex identified for the Jászság district
could in no way have interacted with Körös culture groups
and could not have influenced the northward expansion of
the latter. Although the title of the study by János Makkay in
the same volume (Theories about the origin, the distribution
and the end of the Körös culture) seems to indicate that he
had accepted the independent nature of the Körös culture,
the work has a polemic tone arguing against the thesis of
Nándor Kalicz about the existence of cultural distinctions be-
tween the Körös, Starèevo and Criê cultures (Kalicz 1990).
Although Makkay consistently utilized the KS (Körös–
Starèevo) terminology (Makkay 1996, 35–36), in the same
paper he published a verified list of unpublished Körös cul-
ture sites. This included over twenty locations and filled a
major gap in Hungarian archaeological inquiry at the time
(Makkay 1996, 36 and footnote 5). Unfortunately, during
those years only two late Körös culture sites were fully pub-
lished from the surroundings of Dévaványa (Oravecz 1995;
1997). This gave János Makkay an opportunity to reiterate
his views on the northernmost expansion of the Körös cul-
ture. As he saw it, the inhibiting factor was the ethnic/linguis-
tic block formed by a hypothetical mesolithic base population
in the northern part of the Great Hungarian Plain (Makkay
1996, 40–43). In addition, he again defended the term
“Protovinèa” and radically rejected any opposition to it
(Makkay 1996, 44–46). In spite its polemical aspects, the
proceedings of the 1996 Szolnok conference (Kertész &
Makkay eds. 2001) contained several important publications.
During this period the focal point of early neolithic research
shifted toward the northern part of the Great Hungarian
Plain for another, more mundane, reason: rescue excava-
tions preceding the construction of the M3 motorway cov-
ered a distance of almost 175 km between 1993 and 1996.
They offered a unique opportunity for large surface excava-
tions in the piedmont area of the Northern Hill Region in
Hungary. It was at this time that the sites of Füzesa-
bony-Gubakút (Domboróczki 1997) and Mezõkövesd-
Mocsolyás (Kalicz & Koós 1997a) were first published in
the form of catalogues. Both studies presented large Szat-
már II–early ALBK settlements along with their impressive
find assemblages. The system of houses built on the surface
together with associated pits and surrounding burials was
actually quite similar to examples known from Central Eu-
ropean LBK settlements, emulating their internal structure.
This recognition has been discussed in several subsequent
publications in the European archaeological literature (sum-
marized in: Domboróczki 2001a; 2001b; 2003; Kalicz &
23
Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history
Koós 1997b; 2000; 2002). In essence, this phenomenon in-
dicated that by around 5600 BC a “ready made” culture ex-
isted in the form of the LBK (Szatmár II) in the Upper Tisza
Region that could not be archaeologically linked to any lo-
cal antecedents. A beneficial consequence of intensifying
research in the northern section of the Great Hungarian
Plain was that through cooperation with archaeologists
from Slovakia and Poland, research into the early LBK and
its potential neolithic antecedents in eastern Slovakia also
yielded respectable results (Koz³owski ed. 1997). Pál Sü-
megi and Róbert Kertész developed a new model to explain
why Körös culture expansion had ground to a halt in the
northern Great Hungarian Plain, approximately along the
Kunhegyes–Berettyóújfalu line. On the basis of the palaeo-
geographical backround of the area they came up with con-
cepts such as the Carpathian Basin Neolithic Adaptation
Zone (CABAN AZ), Central European-Balkanic Agro-Eco-
logical Barrier (CEB AEB), Carpathian Piedmont
Agro-Ecological Barrier (CP AEB) and Carpathian Upland
Agro-Ecological Barrier (CU AEB; summarized in: Sümegi
& Kertész 1998; Kertész & Sümegi 1999; 2001; Kertész
2002; Sümegi 2007). In particular, it was the line of the
agro-ecological barrier that seems to have coincided with
the boundary of Körös–Starèevo site distributions in the
Carpathian Basin. Overall, this model was strongly reminis-
cent of the so-called eco-cultural/stylistic zonation devel-
oped by Stefan K. Koz³owski for the Central European
Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic (Koz³owski S. K. 2001). A
certain degree of environmental determinism is palpable be-
hind these models. This approach also depicted the the
northern section of the Great Hungarian Plain as an “eco-
logical trap” (Sümegi & Kertész 1998).
KÖRÖS CULTURE RESEARCH IN
THE 21th CENTURY – TOWARDS NEW
SYNTHESES
Around the turn of the twenty-first century, the devel-
opment of early neolithic research in Hungary took place
against the background of several syntheses of European di-
mensions. Some of these publications provided fresh insight
into the Early Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin and the
Körös culture specifically (Whittle 1996; Kalicz 1998;
Gronenborn 1999; Bailey 2000; Tringham 2000).
In a short study John Chapman raised an important is-
sue regarding the archaeological interpretation of “rub-
bish”. He points to a better definition of “structured deposi-
tion” (Chapman 2000, 347–351). In light of this conceptual
difference, large features of the Körös culture previously
considered “refuse pits” were evaluated in a more subtle
manner. Questions regarding the objects thus recovered, as
well as their possible reuse, have revealed some important
social aspects of recycling.
By the beginning of the 2000s, problems of neolithi-
zation in south-eastern Europe attracted attention on an al-
most international scale. This trend is reflected by symbolic
titles given to edited volumes such as “The Widening De-
bate” (Cunliffe, Davies & Renfrew eds, 2002), and “The
Widening Harvest” (Ammermann & Biagi eds, 2003). In
The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary
spite of this, the newly emerging mentality concerning the
spatial and temporal characteristics of cultural entities dur-
ing the Early Neolithic in Southeastern Europe is best re-
flected by the title of a book written on a slightly different
topic: “Parallel tracks in time: Human evolution and archae-
ology” (Foley 2002). A fundamentally similar model to the
“leap frog” concept was proposed by Jean Guilaine in the
early years of 2000 (Guilaine 2001; 2007). This model,
lbelled “arrhythmic diffusion” also postulated a wave-like
spread of agriculture across Europe, which in certain phases
stagnated and changed the speed of distribution. Parallel
with the interruptions in this punctuated diffusional process,
new material manifestations appeared in the context of the
related interface-zones. One of the stagnation zones dated
approximately 5600 BC was identified exactly on the north-
ern frontier of the Körös and Starèevo distributions of the
Carpathian Basin. The active role played by waterways in
the spread of agriculture across Europe has recently been
discussed in several studies (Biagi, Shennan & Spataro
2005; Davison et al. 2006, Bocquet-Appel et al. 2009).
From the viewpoint of identifying the origins of Körös
culture human populations on the Great Hungarian Plain, it
was very important to spell out that “…whatever their de-
scent, they were in a real sense colonisers, since the area
seems to have been at best little visited in the preceding mil-
lennia” (Whittle 2003, 55), as previous opinions expressed
by Alasdair Whittle had not been very much in favour of the
colonisation model. Meanwhile, instead of the closed sys-
tem represented by the rigid concepts of structure, commu-
nity and archaeological culture, Whittle emphasized a “net-
work” based, open system approach in the historical recon-
struction of mesolithic-neolithic relationships. Within this
context, the human aspects of “habitus” and “nexus” played
decisive roles (Whittle 2003, 19–21). Similarly to Alasdair
Whittle, John Chapman also considered it important to em-
phasize the role of habitus, i. e. habitus-defining practices in
relation to the northern boundary of the Körös area of distri-
bution, rather than simply relying on the hypothetical agro-
ecological barrier (CEB AEB) advocated by Pál Sümegi
and Róbert Kertész. In other words, human factors rather
than environment alone were being increasingly considered
(Chapman 2003, 91–93). Similarly, the roles played by
trade and exchange and certain patterns of consumption
were emphasized by Nenad Tasiæ in his discussion of the
geographical distribution of the Starèevo–Körös–Criº com-
plex in relation to natural sources of salt (Tasiæ 2000).
Characteric burial practices observed in the Early Neolithic
of the Carpathian Basin also delineate territories united by
certain norms of social behaviour (Lichter 2003, 138, 148).
Following earlier, relatively short summaries concern-
ing the neolithization of Europe and its relation to mesoli-
thic antecedents by Marion Lichardus-Itten and Jan Lichar-
dus (2003) and Ron Pinhasi (2003), Silviane Scharl devoted
an entire volume in 2004 to summing up the hypotheses and
explanatory models of neolithisation most popular at the
time (Scharl 2004).
Meanwhile, another synthesis of general European in-
terest was edited to review research developments in the
Balkans (Grammenos 2003). This summarized work by a
group of young scholars organized by János Makkay. In this
24
volume, Makkay and his co-authors presented the then cur-
rent situation of prehistoric arcaheology in Hungary
(Makkay et al. 2003). Discussion the Early Neolithic was an
important part of this study. In the introduction, Makkay la-
belled the CEB AEB model “unarchaeological” (Makkay
2003a, 494–495), although it was used in the preceding the-
matic chapter on the Mesolithic in Hungary by Róbert
Kertész there was a theoretical effort to support the thesis
(Kertész 2003, 494). In spite of the marked difference be-
tween their opinions both of them discussed a definite bor-
der that divided Mesolithic hunter-gatherer complexes in
the north from the Early Neolithic Körös–Starèevo cultures
toward the south. In their interpretation two different pro-
cesses characterized the two sides of this border. Middle
neolithic cultures in the northern section of the Great Hun-
garian Plain (ALBK) and Transdanubia (TLBK) suppos-
edly emerged from the native Late Mesolithic as a result of
these processes (Makkay 2003, 496). On the same page,
Makkay refers to the Starèevo culture in south-western
Hungary as a “Transdanubian Körös variant” which is
somewhat surprising given the stern consistency by which
he had previously used the term Körös–Starèevo (KS) in the
international literature (Makkay 2003a, 496).
By this time, László Domboróczki had come to the the-
oretical conclusion that the absence of Mesolithic sites in
the Upper Tisza Region reflects a real situation. He also
noted that the distribution of the newly developing Middle
Neolithic Szatmár group overlapped with blocks of settle-
ment formed by the early Neolithic Körös culture. He there-
fore hypothesized that there existed some form of genetic
continuity between the two stylistic entities (Domboróczki
2003, 37–43; 2005, 8–9). On the basis of this observation he
hypothesized that northern sites of the Körös culture had not
ceased to spread at the proposed Kunhegyes–Berettyóújfalu
line and that early Neolithic settlements similar to the site of
Méhtelek were not limited to the region odefined by the
Szamos–Kraszna–Túr–Ér Rivers in the northern section of
the Great Hungarian Plain. Inspired by these ideas, he began
systematic surveys along the upper section of the Tisza
River in 2003 in search of an Early Neolithic “missing
link”. His field walks covered the river banks from the vil-
lage of Kisköre downstream all the way to the modern set-
tlements of Rakamaz, Paszab and Ibrány (Domboróczki
2005, 8–9; 2010a, 140–144; 2010b, 181–184; Dombo-
róczki & Raczky 2010; Domboróczki in this volume).
During his explorations he identified several promising
sites. One of these was Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta that
he began excavating during the summer of 2003, recover-
ing relatively early features of the Körös culture dated to
5850– 5620 cal BC (Domboróczki 2004; 2005; 2010a,
144–156; Domboróczki, Kaczanowska & Koz³owski
2010). This discovery has clearly demonstrated as early as
2003 that the northward expansion of the Körös in the
Great Hungarian Plain did not stop at the latitude of
Kunhegyes town.
In 2003, paralleling the programme initiated by László
Domboróczki, small-scale excavations were also carried out
north of Szolnok verifying the presesence of a Körös culture
site Nagykörû-Tsz gyümölcsös (Cooperative Orchard)
known from previous field surveys. Interdisciplinary analy-

ses of the find material from this site contributed valuable
general information concerning Körös culture settlements
that were thought to occupy a frontier position in the north
(Gulyás 2010; Moskal de Hoyo 2010; Raczky et al. 2010).
They helped outline the opinion that the closed settlement
cluster known from the southern section of the Great Hun-
garian Plain was transformed into a looser, mosaic-like set-
tlement network north of Szolnok. This observation contrib-
uted to the idea that communities represented by the Körös
culture as known in the southern section of the Great Hun-
garian Plain and the north-eastern Méhtelek area, may have
met somewhere near the Tokaj piedmont area, as this volca-
nic hill was an important source vital obsidian resources. In
this model, safe access to lithic resources in the north was
seen as an important integrating factor between two geo-
graphically different forms of the early neolithic cultural as-
semblages. As a more general interpretation of this model, it
may be assumed that the formation of a new Early Neolithic
cognitive system was related to the landscape beyond the
previously hypothesized constraints of the natural environ-
ment. Within this context the Upper Tisza valley between
Szolnok and Méhtelek was described as an ecological-men-
tal marginal zone (Raczky et al. 2010, 159–164), which
provided a cultural environment for the subsequently devel-
oping ALBK, but whose cultural roots went back to the mo-
saic-like convergence between the strands of Körös culture.
This model bears major resemblance to the concept of a
Neolithic Adaptational Zone promoted by Pál Sümegi and
Róbert Kertész with the essential difference that it does not
require the solid ethnic basis of a local Mesolithic popula-
tion (Sümegi 2007). It was also of strategic importance that
complementary discoveries at the sites of Domaháza and
Nagykörû concerning the antecedents of the ALBK culture
in the Tisza valley could be presented to and discussed by
the international community of prehistorians at the confer-
ence titled “Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas – The Spread
of the Neolithic to Central Europe” (Gronenborn & Petrasch
Hrsg. 2010) in Mainz, Germany, during 2005, although the
results along with many relevant reports became available
to the public only five years later (Domboróczki 2010b;
Raczky et al. 2010). This created a peculiar time warp in re-
search history, as in the meantime the two volume mono-
graph on the British-Hungarian joint project of Ecsegfalva,
was also published (Whittle ed. 2007), prior to the prelimi-
nary report (Whittle 2010) on this small but important set-
tlement also located on the northern margins of the Körös
culture distribution area. Some other interesting papers de-
livered in Mainz likewise became dated. They included the
research summary by Nándor Kalicz on the Starèevo culture
in Transdanubia and an evaluation of the Transdanubian
Mesolithic by William J. Eichmann, Róbert Kertész and
Tibor Marton (Eichmann et. al. 2010; Kalicz 2010). The
Mainz volumes include similarly informative summaries on
the emergence of the LBK from a Central European point of
view (Bánffy & Oross 2010; Zvelebil, Lukes & Pettitt
2010). At the Mainz conference special attention was de-
voted to paleoclimatic changes and the generated complex
cultural effects on the beginning of the Neolithic in Eurasia.
Among others, the ice-rafted debries events (IRD events)
BP and their archaeological consequences were considered
25
Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history
focal problems in this context (Gronenborn 2010; Clare,
Jöris & Weninger 2010).
Parallel with research in the Tisza region, formative ar-
eas of early food production were also investigated in
Transdanubia. Defining the chronological and geographical
boundaries of the Early Neolithic in this different natural
environment was substantially helped by the detailed and
comprehensive evaluation of the TLBK settlement exca-
vated at Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb by Eszter Bánffy,
who also made special efforts to embed this new informa-
tion within the context of the development of LBK in Eu-
rope (Bánffy 2004).
An exemplary case study was published by Pál Sümegi
concerning the micro-regional environment of a Körös cul-
ture settlement of Tiszapüspöki-Karancspart-Háromág (Sü-
megi 2004b). The first ever detailed analysis of mussel shell
deposits at this site was also published (Gulyás & Sümegi
2004), in spite of the fact that this type of zoological evi-
dence has been consistently mentioned in previous excava-
tion reports. Estimations of food nutritional values showed
that although freshwater mussels did not represent a major
quantity of animal protein, but may have been left behind
after some social event such as feasting (Gulyás & Sümegi
2004, 42–44). This conclusion as well as the observation
that mussel shell was discovered in distinct layers at the site
again pointed to the concept of “structured deposits” as had
been previously indicated in certain Körös culture pits by
John Chapman (2000).
After a long hiatus, Tibor Paluch was the first to publish
new results from a Körös culture site in the Szeged region.
He excavated a small settlement with 13 features at the site
of Hódmezõvásárhely-Laktanya (Paluch 2005). His project
integrated some interdisciplinary aspects including physical
anthropology (K. Zoffmann 2005), animal husbandry
(Vörös 2005), plant remains (Gyulai 2005) and the study of
woven and plaited fabrics (Richter 2005).
Another proceedings, published in 2006, was the out-
come of the conference “Current Problems of the Transition
Period from the Starèevo to the Vinèa culture” organized in
1996 (Vorgiæ & Brukner eds. 2006). In this volume several
authors discussed the Starèevo–Vinèa transition with spe-
cial regard to the critical evaluation of the Protovinèa prob-
lem (Brukner 2006; Draºovean 2006; Horváth 2006).
The international conference titled “A Short Walk
through the Balkans: the First Farmers of the Carpathian
Basin and Adjacent Regions” was held in London in 2005.
The proceedings were published in Trieste (Spataro & Biagi
eds. 2007) contained studies that considered the topic from
a European perspective. The keynote study by John Nandris
(Nandris 2007) defined the mentality of the entire volume
with a reference to “adaptive mediation in the FTN” in the
title. In this set of papers Körös culture connections were
discussed within the context of Transylvania and Banat re-
gions beyond the modern borders of Hungary (Draºovean
2007; Luca & Suciu 2007; Biagi, Gratuze & Boucetta
2007).
The special session titled “Mesolithic/Neolithic Interac-
tions in the Balkans and in the Middle Danube Basin” orga-
nized during the 2006 XVth World Congress of the Interna-
tional Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences
The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary
(UISPP) in Lisbon, Portugal, yielded yet another thematic
volume. The proceedings were published in 2007 (Koz³ow-
ski & Nowak eds. 2007). Due to the special focus of the
meeting, emphasis was laid on the distribution of lithic raw
materials and technological characteristics of lithic indus-
tries in the Carpathian Basin (T. Biró 2007; Koz³owski &
Nowak 2007). The study of special sources has been closely
linked with problems of neolithization in the Upper Tisza
Region. Studying the network of connections and their geo-
graphical aspects have provided a far more reliable basis for
Early Neolithic research than the study of ceramic finds
alone (Kozlowski & Nowak 2007, 87–88 and Fig. 7.17).
This trend in investigating neolithization in the Upper
Tisza Region was continued in a study by Ma³gorzata
Kaczanowska and Janusz K. Koz³owski (Kaczanowska &
Kozlowski 2008) published in the proceedings of the collo-
quium “The Carpathian Basin and its Role in the Neolithi-
sation of the Balkan Peninsula” (Luca ed. 2008). They iden-
tified the most important difference between Körös culture
communities in the south and those represented by the
Méhtelek assemblage in addition to the absolute dominance
of obsidian, the latter settlement also yielded conclusive ev-
idence of on-site lithic production. Lithic assemblages from
southern sites of the First Temperate Neolithic, on the other
hand, were characterized by overwhelmingly higher ratios
of “Banat” or “Balkan” flint paralleled with a consistently
low proportion or even absence of cores (Kaczanowska &
Koz³owski 2008, 12–16). This may be interpreted as a clear
sign of radically different attitudes to lithic raw materials
during the Early Neolithic between the northern and south-
ern sections of the Tisza River valley. They also found it im-
portant to emphasize that in their view the northern extent of
the Méhtelek facies was basically determined by the cogni-
tive aspect of direct and secure access to lithic sources (es-
pecially those of obsidian) rather than by some sort of a me-
diating role played by local Mesolithic communities in the
provisioning of these raw materials (Mateiciucová 2007,
712–716, Fig. 31.10). They saw clear evidence that previ-
ously known Méhtelek type sites in the Transcarpathian re-
gion (Potushniak 2004; 2005) could be directly linked to re-
cently discovered resources of Type 3 Carpathian obsidian
in the area between Rokosovo and Maly Rakovec in the
Ukraine (summarized in: Rosania at al. 2008; Mester &
Rácz 2010). The same attitude to lithic raw materials could
also be observed north of Lake Balaton in Hungary at the
Starèevo culture site of Tihany-Apáti, where settlement may
be interpreted as a direct consequence of easy access to
Szentgál type radiolarite (Regenye 2007; 2010). Naturally,
while the mechanisms by which neolithization spread in the
Great Hungarian Plain and Transdanubia may be consid-
ered different, early neolithic communities in this broader
region may have shared certain concerns such as access to
salt and a variety of other raw materials (Bánffy 2008, 160–
162).
A distribution map and literary review summarizing the
state of research concerning the geographical distribution of
the Körös and Starèevo cultures around 2000 was published
in 2007 (Raczky & Kalicz 2007, 237, Karte 9a–9b). Field
walking carried out by Katalin Kovács between Szolnok
and Nagykörû verified and documented several Körös cul-
26
ture settlements in the area (Kovács 2007), and was funda-
mental in developing knowledge at the time.
The international conference titled “(un)settling the
Neolithic” was organized in Cardiff, UK, in 2003. The first
volume of the proceedings was published under the same ti-
tle in 2005 (Bailey, Whittle & Cummings eds. 2005). The
second, titled “Living well together?” followed in 2008
(Bailey, Whittle & Hofmann eds. 2008). The first volume
contained an archaeozoological review of the Neolithic in-
cluding relevant historical aspects of the Körös culture in
the Carpathian Basin (Bartosiewicz 2005, 54–56). Mean-
while Alasdair Whittle drafted a lived experience model of
the Early Neolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain (Whittle
2005, 67–68, Fig. 7.1). Thinking along these lines it be-
comes evident that palaeodemographics, i.e. the size of
early neolithic human populations determined the number
of agencies and the quality of their network. Their develop-
ments, however, cannot be traced back directly to traits of a
largely unknown Mesolithic network. In volume 2, Elisa-
betta Starnini published an archaeometric study of early
neolithic pottery production in the Carpathian Basin (Star-
nini 2008). A similar approach is shown by research carried
out in Transylvania by Michela Spataro (Spataro 2011).
Some papers discussing archaeobotanical and archaeozoo-
logical evidence concerned Körös culture environments as
well (Greenfield & Jongsma 2008; Bogaard & Bending
2008). John Chapman presented a summary of Neolithic
settlement history in Southeastern Europe. Distinguishing
between “pit-sites” and “house-sites” is particularly inter-
esting with regard to the Körös culture (Chapman 2008,
76–79) raising a number of important related questions. A
thematically similar study was published by Dušan Boriæ,
who reviewed relationships between the concepts of the
physical house (household cluster) and the household as a
social unit in Balkan prehistory (Boriæ 2008). His theoreti-
cal and methodological statements were presented with ref-
erence to concrete archaeological examples (Jongsma &
Greenfield 2003). The title of this chapter, “Elusive Houses
and Shifting Places: Starèevo-Körös-Criº Pottery Com-
plexes” clearly expresses the essence of the problem (Boriæ
2008).
A conference was held at Harward University about the
problem of neolithic demographic transition in 2006.
Among other subjects, new evidence was discussed con-
cerning the links between demography and cultural change
(Bocquet-Appel & Bar-Yosef eds. 2008). A very important
theme of the studies presented there could be summarised as
follows: with the increase in population new network sys-
tems appeared during the Neolithic. This logically hints at
theoretical problems with the continuity and connection be-
tween Mesolithic and Neolithic network systems. This is
also relevant to the supposed continuity between mesolithic
and neolithic procurement systems in the Early Neolithic of
the Carpathian Basin.
The great research summary by János Makkay was pub-
lished in 2007. It contained the results of intensive field sur-
veys and excavations he had carried out in the Szarvas mi-
cro- region and the Körös River valley between 1974 and
1989. The chapter was actually the publication of 11 settle-
ment excavations conducted on the outskirts of Szarvas,

Endrõd and Battonya (Makkay 2007). In addition, research
reports concerning the Early and Middle Neolithic sites of
Méhtelek-Nádas, Furta-Csátó and Tiszacsege-Homokbánya
were appended to the review, sites the author had been pre-
viously studying in cooperation with Nándor Kalicz.
Makkay’s 2007 work (Volume I) contains the descriptions
of excavations, stratigraphies, settlement structures, sacral
features and graves. Relevant interdisciplinary contribu-
tions (Kaczanowska & Koz³owski 2007; Paluch 2007; Pap
2007) were published as Appendix I–III in the same vol-
ume. Undoubtedly, this collection of papers is a great con-
tribution to prehistoric research in Hungary summarizing
results the author had accumulated through decades of tre-
mendous work. It may be regarded as a new, twenty-first
century foundation source for the Körös culture. Meanwhile
highly personal comments in the text are as unworthy of
János Makkay as they are of the entire tone of prehistoric
discourse in Hungary (Makkay 2007, 9–16). In parts of this
volume Makkay reiterates his old theses, including the
Protovinèa problem (Makkay 2007, 206), questions con-
cerning the Agroecological Barrier, “population barrier”
and the local Mesolithic (Makkay 2007, 199–200, 231–
234), as well as the frontier in the Jászság district (Makkay
2007, 234–236). This repertoire is expanded with the inclu-
sion of the theory of the so-called “Dimini-Wanderung”
(Makkay 2007, 235–236). His rejection of the radiocarbon
method in dating the Körös culture is based on examples
taken from Copper Age materials, a proposition question-
able from a methodological aspect. The fundamentals con-
sidered safe from his point of view are illustrated by the fol-
lowing sentence: “If we hypothesise that one community
used a cemetery during two burial phases, although at pres-
ent we do not have any proof, then we have to conclude that
the longest possible lifespan of the Tiszapolgár Culture was
at most 150–200 years.” (Makkay 2007, 217).
In 2008 the sequel to the 2007 Körös culture synthesis
was published by János Makkay alone in a large, single vol-
ume (Makkay & Starnini 2008). Within the context of pre-
viously published excavations he co-authored the results of
joint research with Elisabetta Starnini under the titles “The
pottery assemblages” (Vol. II) and “The small finds” (Vol.
III) (Makkay & Starnini 2008). In the foreword of his book
Makkay states correctly that the 537 reconstructed Körös
culture vessels represent the greatest assemblage of the
south-east European Early Neolithic. However, no quantita-
tive information was published concerning the original size
of the ceramic assemblages from which the discussed ves-
sels were drawn, i. e. it is impossible to appraise the repre-
sentative value of the material presented. Moreover, the nu-
merical distribution of various forms and decorative motifs
at the sites in question remains likewise unknown. Beyond
this, however, the scholarly tone of the foreword turns into a
far less professional appraisal of the “academic qualifica-
tion” of Elisabetta Starnini and the former editor Paolo
Biagi. It is a sad and embarrassing narrative indeed. The po-
lemic tone and combative style of some remarks concerning
relevant archaeological comments made by Eszter Bánffy,
László Domboróczki, Katalin Kovács and Pál Sümegi are
likewise alien to conventionally accepted norms of schol-
arly reasoning (Makkay 2008).
27
Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history
Following the success of excavating the Körös culture
settlement at Tiszaszõlõs, László Domboróczki revisited the
site of Ibrány-Nagyerdõ located across from Tokaj Hill on
the bank of the Tisza River. Between 2004 and 2008 several
surveys were carried out in the location that apparently
yielded early neolithic finds. Following intensive survey,
excavations began at this site in 2008 (Domboróczki &
Raczky 2010, 191–207). Ceramic finds brought to light at
the site show similarities with pottery from Méhtelek. A
time overlap between the two sites could also be established
(Ibrány: 5620–5470 cal BC, Méhtelek: 5770–5530 cal BC).
These results seem to support theories concerning the ex-
pansion of the Körös culture toward Tokaj Hill in the north
from the Upper Tisza Region. This means that while previ-
ous excavations at the sites of Nagykörû, Kõtelek and
Tiszaszõlõs had indicated Körös culture populations cross-
ing the Agroecological Barrier from the south, the site of
Ibrány illustrated the possible arrival of Körös groups from
the north-east (Domboróczki & Raczky 2010, Fig 1). This
may be interpreted as the first archaeological evidence of
two Körös culture populations of possibly different origins
moving north in the Great Hungarian Plain. Consequently,
the role of a hypothesized Mesolithic population as a “de-
mographic barrier” in the region became altogether ques-
tionable. The single large Körös culture pit excavated at
Ibrány turned out to have been a very rich source of archa-
eobotanical finds (Gyulai 2010). Meanwhile the archaeo-
zoological assemblage showed characteristics of a “periph-
eral” settlement. Thanks to the availability of water-sieved
samples – previously only studied at Ecsegfalva 23 in Hun-
gary – the Ibrány material showed signs of targeted fowling
and possible active fishing in addition to the low proportion
of domesticates within the small set of mammalian bones
(Kovács, Gál & Bartosiewicz 2010). The lithic raw materi-
als and the structure of the technological groups in Ibrány-
Nagyerdõ resemble those of Méhtelelek-Nádas and Ecseg-
falva (Kaczanowska & Koz³owski 2010). The techno-func-
tional analysis of Early Neolithic ceramic traditions in
north-east Hungary revealed considerable variability in pot-
tery production (Kreiter 2010). Results of the excavations at
Ibrány also demonstrate how the multi-faceted analysis of a
single feature may contribute sophisticated new aspects to
historical interpretation in prehistoric archaeology. Ideally,
they may also encourage exploring new avenues of Early
Neolithic inquiry in Hungary.
The most recent summary of Early Neolithic research
was presented within the framework of the conference titled
“Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost Dis-
tribution of the Starèevo/Körös Culture” organized in Buda-
pest during 2009 whose proceedings containing 19 studies
were published in 2010 (Kozlowski & Raczky eds. 2010).
This collection of papers represents the current state in
Körös culture research history. Initial temporal analyses of
the Körös–Starèevo culture were first complemented by a
geographical (space oriented) approach represented by con-
cepts of a “boundary/barrier”. Thanks to the refinement of
absolute chronologies, these fundamentals have recently
evolved toward an integrated spatial/temporal framework.
Research questions concerning the Körös–Starèevo
culture in the Carpathian Basin form an integral part of the
The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary
broader, European scenario. They are inseparably related to
the emergence and spread of food production as well as lin-
guistic and genetic problems in prehistoric archaeology.
Shared interdisciplinary and international fora for continu-
ous communication are indispensable in dealing with these
problems on a continental scale. From this point of view the
academic workshop organized by Mihael Budja, repre-
sented by the series Documenta Prehistorica (Ljubljana,
Slovenia) is of outstanding importance. During recent
years, regular meetings at this forum have become the scene
for the continuous re-evaluation of international research
data. Conferences and concomitant proceedings of the orga-
nization “The Formation of Europe: Prehistoric Population
Dynamics and the Roots of Socio-Cultural Diversity”
(FEPRE) organized by Janusz K. Koz³owski fulfil a similar
mission.
This review of twentieth and twenty-first century Körös
culture research history aimed at presenting the broader
context of the most significant archaeological results from
the Carpathian Basin. The way major intellectual trends in
European archaeology in interaction with locally developed
ideas influenced this research is clear. However, not even
this comprehensive review could have accommodated all
the results, publications and opinions and their all-inclusive
synthesis. The way major schools of thought were presented
in their archaeological environments is admittedly subjec-
tive. I could not help being influenced by decades of per-
sonal experience involving both early neolithic sources in
Hungary and – not least – the personalities working with
them.
REFERENCES
Ammerman A. J. & Cavalli-Sforza L. L. 1971. Measuring the rate
of spread of early farming in Europe. Man 6, 674–688.
Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1973. A population model for the
diffusion of early farming in Europe. In Renfrew C. (ed.), The
explanation of culture change. London, 343-357.
Ammerman A. J. & Cavalli-Sforza L. L. 1984. The Neolithic tran-
sition and the genetics of populations in Europe. Princeton.
Ammermann A. A. & Biagi P. 2003. (eds), The Widening Harvest.
The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Looking back, Looking
Forward. (= Colloquia and Conferencs Papers 6). Boston.
Anders A. & Paluch T. 2011. A Körös-kultúra fiatalabb idõsza-
kának települése Mindszent határában – Siedlung aus der jün-
geren Periode der Körös-Kultur in der Gemarkung von Mind-
szent. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve–Studia Archaeologica
12, 15–29.
Anthony D. W. & Wailes B. 1988. Review (Renfrew C.: Archae-
ology and language. The Puzzle of Indo-Europen Origins).
Current Anthropology 29, 441–445.
Arandjeloviæ-Garašanin D. 1954. Starèevaèka kultura. Univerzita
Arheološki Seminar. Ljubljana.
Bácskay E. 1976. Early Neolithic chipped stone implements in
Hungary. (= Dissertationes Archaeologicae ex Instituto
Archaeologico Universitatis de Rolando Eötvös nominatae
IV/2). Budapest.
Bácskay E. & Simán K. 1987. Some remarks on chipped stone in-
dustries of the earliest Neolithic populations in present Hun-
gary. In Koz³owski J. K. & Koz³owski St. K. (eds.), Chipped
Stone Industries of the Early Farming Cultures in Europe. (=
Archaeologia Interregionalis). Kraków, 107–130.
Bader T. 1968. Despre figurinele antropomorfe în cadrul culturii
28
Criº – Beiträge zur Kentniss anthropomorpher Figurinen aus
der Criº-Kultur. Acta Musei Napocensis 5, 381-388.
Bailey D. 2000. Balkan Prehistory. Exclusion, Incorporation and
Identity. London.
Bailey D., Whittle A. & Cummings V. 2005. (eds.), (un)settling
the Neolithic. Oxford.
Bailey D. W., Whittle A. & Hofmann D. 2008. (eds.), Living Well
Together? Settlement and materiality in the Neolithic of south-
east and central Europe. Oxford.
Balahuri E. 1975. B`j`crohh F. A. Ippjedmb`lh~ `otemjmchve
piht n`k~qlhimb H`i`on`qy~ g` cmdz pmbeqpimÐ bj`pqh –
Untersuchung archäologischer Fundstellen in der karpato-
ukraine in den Jahren der Sowjetmacht. Slovenská Archeo-
lógia 23, 261–282.
Baldi P. 1988. Review (Renfrew C.: Archaeology and language.
The Puzzle of Indo-Europen origins). Current Anthropology
29, 445–449.
Bánffy E. 1991. Cult and Archaeological Context in Central- and
South-Eastern Europe in the Neolithic and the Calcolithic.
Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Institutes der Ungarischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften 19–20 (1990–1991), 183–249.
Bánffy E. 2004. The 6th Millennium BC Boundary in Western
Transdanubia and its role in the Central European Neolithic
Transition. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 15). Budapest.
Bánffy E. 2008. The boundary in western Transdanubia: varia-
tions of migration and adaptatioen. In Bailey, Whittle & Hof-
mann 2008 (eds), 160–162.
Bánffy E. & Oross K. 2010. The earliest and earlier phase of the
LBK in Transdanubia. In Gronenborn & Petrasch 2010 (eds),
255–272.
Banner J. 1929. Adatok a körömmel díszített edények kronológiá-
jához – Beiträge zur Chronologie der Nagelgeritzten Gefässe.
Archaeologiai Értesítõ 43, 23–34, 322–323.
Banner J. 1932. A kopáncsi és kotacparti neolithikus telepek és a
tiszai-kultúra III. periodusa – Die neolithische Ansiedlung
von Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs und Kotacpart und die III.
Periode der Theiss-Kultur. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudománye-
gyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 8, 1–48.
Banner J. 1934. Ásatás a hódmezõvásárhelyi Kotacparton – Aus-
grabung am Kotacpart bei Hódmezõvásárhely. Dolgozatok a
Magyar Királyi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intéze-
tébõl 9–10 (1933–1934), 54–84.
Banner J. 1935. Ásatás a hódmezõvásárhelyi Kotacparton – Aus-
grabungen zu Kotacpart bei Hódmezõvásárhely. Dolgozatok a
Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 11,
97–125.
Banner J. 1936. Régészeti kutatások Szegeden. Dolgozatok a
Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 12,
267–285.
Banner J. 1937. Die Ethnologie der Körös-Kultur. Dolgozatok a
Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 13,
32–49.
Banner J. 1940. Régészeti kutatások Békés megyében. Gyula.
Banner J. 1942. Das Tisza-, Maros-, Kõrös-Gebiet bis zur Ent-
wicklung der Bronzezeit. Szeged.
Banner J. 1954. Funde der Körös-Kultur von Hódmezõvásárhely-
Bodzáspart. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hun-
garicae 4, 1–7.
Banner J. 1961. Einige Probleme der ungarischen Neolitfor-
schung. In Böhm J. & De Laet S. J. (eds), L’Europe ´ la fin de
l’âge de la pierre. Prague, 205–219.
Banner J. & Párducz M. 1948. Újabb adatok Dél-Magyarország
újabb-kõkorához – Contributions nouvelles a l’histoire du
Néolitique en Hongrie. Archaeologiai Értesítõ III/7–9
(1946–1948), 19–41.

Barker G. 1988. Review (Renfrew C.: Archaeology and language.
The Puzzle of Indo-Europen Origins). Current Anthropology
29, 448–449.
Bartosiewicz L. 2005. Plain talk: animals, environment and cul-
ture in the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin and adjacent ar-
eas. In Bailey, Whittle & Cummings 2005, 51–63.
Bellwood P. 2008. Archaeology and the Origins of Language
Families. In Bentley R. A., Maschner H. D. G. & Chippindale
C. (eds), Handbook of Archaeological Theories. Lanham,
225–243.
Bellwood P. & Renfrew C. 2002. (eds), Examining the farm-
ing/language dispersal hypothesis. (= McDonald Insitute for
Archaeological Research) Cambridge.
Berciu D. 1961. Contribuþii la problemele neoliticului in Romania
in lumina noilor cercetari. Bucureºti.
Biagi P., Shennan St. & Spataro M. 2005. Rapid rivers and slow
seas? New data for the radiocarbon chronology of the Balkan
peninsula. In Nikolova L., Fritz J. & Higgins J. (eds), Prehis-
toric Archaeology & Anthropological Theory and Education.
(= Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 6–7). Salt Lake
City–Karlovo, 41–50.
Biagi P., Gratuze B. & Boucetta S. 2007. New data on the archaeo-
logical obsidians from the Banat and Transilvania (Romania).
In Spataro & Biagi 2007 (eds), 129–141.
T. Biró K. 1987. Chipped stone industry of the Linearband Pottery
Culture in Hungary. In Koz³owski J. K. & Koz³owski St. K.
(eds.), Chipped Stone Industries of the early Farming Cultures
in Europe. Archaeologia Interregionalis, Kraków, 131–167.
T. Biró K. 1991. The problem of continuity in the prehistoric utili-
zation of raw materials. Antaeus 19–20, 41–50, 335–339.
T. Biró K. 2007. Early Neolithic raw material economies in the
Carpathian Basin. In Koz³owski & Nowak 2007 (eds), 63–75.
Bocquet-Appel J.-P. & Bar-Yosef O. 2008. (eds), The Neolithic
Demographic Transition and its Consequences. Springer.
Bocquet-Appel J.-P., Naji St., Linden V. M. & Koz³owski J. K.
2009. Detection of diffusion and contact zones of early farm-
ing in Europe from the space-time distribution of 14C dates.
Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 807–820.
Boelicke U. 1982. Gruben und Häuser. Untersuchungen zur
Struktur bandkeramischer Hofplätze. In Chropovský, B.
(Hrsg.) Siedlungen der Kultur mit Linearkeramik. Nitra 1982,
17–28.
Bogaard A. & Bending, J. 2008. Crop husbandry and its social sig-
nificance in the Körös and LBK. In Bailey, Whittle &
Hofmann 2008 (eds), 131–138.
Bognár-Kutzián I. & Csongor É. 1987. New results of radiocarbon
dating of archaeological finds in Hungary. In Pécsi M. &
Kordos L. (eds), Holocene environment in Hungary. Buda-
pest, 131–140.
Bökönyi S. 1954. Eine Pleistozän-Eselart im Neolithikum der
Ungarischen Tiefebene. Acta Archaeologica Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae 4, 9–24.
Bökönyi S. 1971. The Development and History of Domestic Ani-
mals in Hungary. The Neolithic through the Middle Ages.
American Anthropologist 73, 640–674.
Bökönyi S. 1974. History of domestic Mammals in Central and
eastern Europa. Budapest.
Bökönyi S. 1989. (ed.), Neolithic of Southeastern Europa and its
Near Eastern Connections. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica
2). Budapest.
Bökönyi S. 1992. (ed.), Cultural and landscape changes in
south-east Hungary I. Reports on the Gyomaendrõd Project (=
Archaeolingua Main Series 1). Budapest.
Bökönyi S. 1992. The Early Neolithic vertebrate fauna of Endrõd
119. In Bökönyi 1992 (eds), 195–299.
29
Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history
Bóna I. 1986. A neolitikum kezdetei Szatmárban. In Németh P.
(ed.), Régészeti tanulmányok Kelet-Magyarországról 24, (=
Folklór és Etnográfia 24). Debrecen, 61–67.
Boriæ D. 2008. First Households and ‘House Societies’ in Euro-
pean Prehistory. In Jones A. (ed.), Prehistoric Europe. Theory
and Practice. (= Blackwell studies in global archaeology 12).
Malden, 109–142.
Breunig P. 1987. 14C-Chronologie des vorderasiatischen, südost-
und mitteleuropäischen Neolithikums. Köln–Wien.
Brukner B. 1966. Einige Fragen über die Verhhältnisse der Star-
èevo und Körös Gruppe. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica 10, 7–
10.
Brukner B. 1974. Rani neolit – The early Neolithic period. In
Brukner B., Jovanoviæ B. & Tasiæ N.: Praistorija Vojvodine.
Novi Sad, 29–68, 427–433.
Brukner B. 2006. A contribution to the study of establishment of
ethnic and cultural (dis)continuity at the transition from the
Starèevo to the Vinèa culture group. In Vorgiæ, B. & Brukner,
B. (eds), Problemi prelaznog perioda starèevaèke u vinèasku
kulturu – Current problems of the transition period from
Starèevo to Vinèa culture. Zrenjanin, 165–178.
Budja M. 2001. The transition to farming in Southeast Europe:
perspectives from pottery. Documenta Praehistorica 28,
27–47.
Budja M. 2005. The process of Neolithisation in South-eastern Eu-
rope: from ceramic female figurines and cereal grains to ento-
pics and human nuclear DNA polymorphic markers. Docu-
menta Praehistorica 32, 53–72.
Budja M. 2006. The transition to farming and the ceramic trajecto-
ries in Western Eurasia: from ceramic figurines to vessels.
Documenta Praehistorica 33, 183–201.
Budja M. 2009. Early Neolithic pottery dispersals and demic dif-
fusion in Southeastern Europe. Documenta Praehistorica 36,
117–137.
Cavalli-Sforza L. 2001. Genes, peoples and languages. London.
Cavalli-Sforza L., Piazza A., Menozzi, P & Mountain J. 1988. Re-
construction of human evolution: bringing together genetic,
archaeological and linguistic data. Proceedings of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences of the USA 85, 6002–6006.
Chapman J. 1981. The Vina culture of South-East Europe. Studies
in chronology, economy and society. (= British Archaeological
Reports, International Series 117). Oxford.
Chapman J. 1986. Technological and stylistic analysis of the Early
Neolithic chipped stone assemblage from Méhtelek, Hungary.
In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on prehis-
toric flint mining and lithic raw material identification in the
Carpathian Basin. Budapest–Sümeg, 31–52.
Chapman J. 1989. The early Balkan village. In Bökönyi 1989
(ed.), 33–53.
Chapman J. 1994. The Origins of Farming in South East Europe.
Préhistoire Européenne 6, 133-156.
Chapman J. 2000. Rubbish-dumps or places of deposition? Neo-
lithic and Copper Age Settlements in Central and Eastern Eu-
rope. In Ritchie A. (ed.), Neolithic Orkney in its European
Context. Cambridge, 347–362.
Chapman J. 2003. From Franchthi to the Tiszazug: two Early Neo-
lithic worlds. In Jerem E. & Raczky P. (Hrsg.): Morgenrot der
Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in
Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum
75. Geburtstag. Budapest, 89–108.
Chapman J. 2008. Meet the ancestors: settlement histories in the
Neolithic. In Bailey, Whittle & Hofmann 2008 (eds), 68–80.
Childe V. G. 1929. The down of European Civilisation. London.
Childe V. G. 1939. The Orient and Europe. American Journal of
Archaeology 44, 10–26.
The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary
Childe V. G. 1950. Prehistoric Migrations in Europe. Oslo.
Childe V. G. 1957. The Dawn of European Civilisation. (6th re-
vised edition). London.
Clare L., Jöris O. & Weninger B. 2010. Der Übergang vom Spät-
neolithikum zur frühen Kupferzeit in Westasien um 8200 cal
BP – eine ethnoarchäologische Betrachtung. In Gronenborn &
Petrasch 2010 (Hrsg.), 45–60.
Clark J. G. D. 1965. Radiocarbon dating and the expansion of far-
ming culture from the Near East over Europe. Proceedings of
the Prehistoric Society 4, 58-73.
Clark G. 1977. World prehistory in new perspective. Cambridge.
Coleman R. 1988. Review. (Renfrew C.: Archaeology and lan-
guage. The Puzzle of Indo-Europen origins). Current Anthro-
pology 29, 449–453.
Comºa E. 1959. La civilisation Criº sur le territoire de la R. P.
Roumanie. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 1, 173–184.
Csalog J. 1941. A magyarországi újabbkõkori agyagmûvesség
bükki és tiszai csoportja – Die Chronologie der Bükker und
der Theisskultur. Folia Archaeologica 3–4, 1–27.
Csalog J. 1958. Békésszentandrás. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 85, 82.
Csalog J. 1965. Zur Frage der Körös-Gruppe in Ungarn. Acta
Antiqua et Archaeologica 8, 19–25.
Cunliffe B., Davies W. & Renfrew C. 2002. (eds), Archaeology.
The Widening Debate. Oxford.
Davison K., Dolukhanov P. M., Sarson G. R. & Shukorov A. 2006.
The role of waterways in the spread of the Neolithic. Journal
of Archaeological Science 33, 641–652.
Dimitrijeviæ S. 1969. Starèevaèka kultura u slavonsko-srijemskom
prostoru i problem prijeleza starijeg u srednji neolit u srpskom
i hrvatskom Podunavlju – Die Starèevo-Kultur im slawonisch-
syrmischen Raum und das Problem des Übergangs vom älte-
ren zum mittleren Neolithikum in serbischen und kroatischen
Donaugebiet. Vukovar.
Dimitrijeviæ S. 1974. Das Problem der Gliederung der Starèevo-
Kultur mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den Beitrag der süd-
pannonischen Fundstellen zur Lösung dieses Problems. Po-
èeci ranih zemljoradnièkih kultura u Vojvodini i srpskom
Podunavlju Materijali 10, 59–121.
Dobosi V. 1972. Mesolithische Fundorten in Ungarn – Mezoli-
thikus lelõhelyek Magyarországon. Alba Regia 11, 39–60.
Domboróczki L. 1997. Füzesabony-Gubakút. Újkõkori falu a Kr.
e. VI. évezredbõl – Neolithic village from the 6th Millennium
BC. In Raczky P., Kovács T. & Anders A. (eds), Utak a
múltba. Az M3-as autópálya régészeti leletmentései – Paths in
to the Past. Rescue Excavations on the M3 Motorway. Buda-
pest, 19–27, 162–164.
Domboróczki L. 2001a. The excavation at Füzesabony-Gubakút.
Preliminary Report. In Kertész & Makkay 2001 (eds), 193–
214.
Domboróczki L. 2001b. Településszerkezeti sajátosságok a közé-
psõ neolitikum idõszakából, Heves megye területérõl – Char-
acteristics of Settlement Patterns in the Middle Phase of the
New Stone Age from the Area of Heves County. In: Dani J.,
Hajdú Zs., Nagy E. Gy. & Selmeczi L. (eds), MWMOS I.
„Fiatal Õskoros Kutatók” I. Összejövetelének konferencia-
kötete. Debrecen, november 10–13. 1997. Debrecen, 67–94.
Domboróczki L. 2003. Radiocarbon data from neolithic archaeo-
logical sites in Heves County (North-Eastern Hungary). Agria
39, 5–71.
Domboróczki L. 2004. Tiszaszõlõs, Domaháza, Puszta-Réti-dûlõ.
Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon 2003 - Archaeological
Investigations in Hungary 2003. Budapest, 303–305.
Domboróczki L. 2005. A Körös-kultúra északi elterjedési határá-
nak problematikája a Tiszaszõlõs–Domaháza-pusztán vég-
zett ásatás eredményeinek fényében – The problem of the Nor-
30
thern extension of the Körös Culture in the light of excavation
results from Tiszaszõlõs–Domaháza. Archeometriai Mûhely
2:2, 5–15. (http://www.ace.hu/am)
Domboróczki L. 2010a. Report on the excavation at Tiszaszõlõs–
Domaháza-puszta and a new model for the spread of the Körös
culture. In Koz³owski & Raczky 2010 (eds), 137–176.
Domboróczki L. 2010b. Neolithisation in Northeastern Hungary:
Old theories and new perspectives. In Gronenborn & Petrasch
2010 (Hrsg.), 175–187.
Domboróczki L., Kaczanowska M. & Koz³owski J. K. 2010. The
Neolithic settlement at Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta and the
question of the northern spread of the Körös Culture. Atti della
Societ´ per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-
Venezia Giulia (2008–2009) 17, 101–155.
Domboróczki L. & Raczky P. 2010. Excavations at Ibrány–
Nagyerdõ and the northernmost distribution of the Körös cul-
ture in Hungary. In Koz³owski & Raczky 2010 (eds), 191– 218.
Draºovean F. 2006. The Starèevo-Criº to the Vinèa Transition in
Northern Banat. In Vorgiæ, B. & Brukner, B. (eds), Problemi
prelaznog perioda starèevaèke u vinèasku kulturu. – Current
problems of the transition period from Starèevo to Vinèa cul-
ture. Zrenjanin, 93–109.
Draºovean F. 2007. Regional aspects in the process of the neolithi-
sation of the Banat (south-western Romania): the settlement of
Foeni-Salas. In Spataro & Biagi 2007 (eds), 67–76.
Dumitrescu V. 1971. Le début du néolithique au nord du Danube
en Roumanie. In Garašanin M., Benac A. & Tasiæ N. (eds),
Actes du VIIIe Congres international des Sciences prehistori-
ques et protohistoriques. Beograd 9–15 Septembre 1971.
Beograd, 85–96.
Ehret C. 1988. Language change and the material correlates of lan-
guage and ethnic shift. Antiquity 62, 564–574.
Ehrich R. W. 1965. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeol-
ogy. Chicago.
Ehrich R. W. & Bankoff H. A. Geographical and chronological
patterns in East Central and Southeastern Europe. In Ehrich R.
W. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology I–II. Chi-
cago–London, I: 375–394, II: 341–363.
Eichmann W., Kertész R. & Marton T. 2010. Mesolithic in the
LBK heartland of Transdanubia, western Hungary. In Gronen-
born & Petrasch 2010 (Hrsg.), 211–234.
Fewkes V. J. 1939. A Report on the 1938 Summer Course of the
American School of Prehistoric Research. Bulletin, American
School of Prehistoric Research 15, 6–12.
Fewkes V. J., Goldman H. & Erich R. W. 1933. Excavations at
Starcevo, Yugoslavia, seasons 1931 and 1932. A preliminary
report. Bulletin, American School of Prehistoric Research 9,
33–55.
Foley R. 2002. Parallel tracks in time: Human evolution and ar-
chaeology. In Cunliffe B., Davies W. & Renfrew C. 2002.
(eds), Archaeology. The Widening Debate. Oxford, 3–42.
Forster P. & Renfrew C. 2006. (eds), Phylogenetic Methods and
the Prehistory of Languages. Cambridge.
Galeta P. & Buzek J. 2009. Demographic model of the Neolithic
transition in Central Europe. Documenta Praehistorica 36,
139–150.
Gallus S. 1938. Des mouvements vers les Balkans ´ la fin du néo-
lithique. Revue Internationale des Études Balkaniques 6, 520–
530.
Galoviæ R. 1968. Die Starèevokultur in Jugoslawien. In Schwabe-
dissen H. (Hrsg.), Die Anfänge des Neolithikums vom Orient
bis Nordeuropa. A/3. Köln–Graz.
Garašanin M. V. 1958. Neolithikum und Bronzezeit in Serbien
und Makedonien. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Komi-
ssion 39, 1–130.

Garašanin M. V. 1961. Zur Chronologie und Deutung einiger
frühneolithischer Kulturen des Balkans. Germania 39, 142–
146.
Garašanin M. 1971. Genetische und chronologische Probleme des
frühkeramischen Nelithikums aif dem mittleren Balkan. In
Garašanin M., Benac A. & Tasiæ N. (eds), Actes du VIIIe
Congres international des Sciences prehistoriques et proto-
historiques. Beograd 9–15 Septembre 1971. Beograd, 73–84.
Garašanin M. 1982. The Stone Age in the Central Balkan Area. In
Edwards I. E. S., Gadd, C. J. & Hammond, N. G. L. (eds),
Cambridge Ancient History III/1, Cambridge, 75–162.
Gheorgiu D. 2008. The Emergence of Pottery. In Jones A. (ed.),
Prehistoric Europe. Theory and Practice. (= Blackwell studies
in global archaeology 12). Malden, 164–192.
Gheorgiu D. 2009. Early Pottery: A Concise overview. In Gheor-
giu D. (ed.), Early Farmers, Late Foragers, and Ceramic
Traditions: On the Beginning of Pottery in the Near East and
Europe. Cambridge, 22–43.
Goldman Gy. 1991. A Körös kultúra késõi szakaszának idõren-
djérõl Dévaványa-Réhely leletei alapján – Chronology in the
late phase of the Körös culture on the basis of finds from Dé-
vaványa-Réhely. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 118, 33–44.
Grammenos D. V. 2003. (ed), Recent Research in the Prehistory of
the Balkans. (= Publications of the Archaeological Institute of
Northern Greece 3). Thessaloniki.
Grbiæ M. 1957. Preclassical pottery in the Central Balkans. Con-
nections and parallels with Agea, the Central Danube and
Anatolia. American Journal of Archaeology 61, 137–149.
Greenfield H. J. & Jongsma T. 2006. The intrasettlement spatial
structure of Early Neolithic settlements in temperate south-
eastern Europe: a view from Blagotin, Serbia. In Robertson E.
C., Siebert J. D., Fernandez D. C & Zender M. U. (eds), Space
and Spatial analysis in Archaeology. Calgary, 69–79.
Greenfield H. J. & Jongsma T. 2008. Sedentary pastoral gatherers
inthe early Neolithic: architectural, botanical, and zoological
evidence for mobile economies from Foeni-Salaº, south-west
Romania. In Bailey, Whittle & Hofmann 2008 (eds), 108–130.
Gronenborn D. 1999. A Variation on a Basic Theme: The Transi-
tion to Farming in Southern Central Europe. Journal of World
Prehistory 13, 123-210.
Gronenborn, D. & Petrasch, J. 2010. (Hrsg.), Die Neolithisierung
Mitteleuropas. Internationale Tagung, Mainz 24. bis 26. Juni
2005 – The Spread of the Neolithic in Central Europe. Interna-
tional Symposium, Mainz 24 June – 26 June 2005. (= RGZM
Tagungen 4, 1–2). Mainz.
Gronenborn D. 2010. Climate, crises, and the “neolithisation” of
central Europe between IRD-events 6 and 4. In Gronenborn &
Petrasch 2010 (Hrsg.), 61–80.
Guilaine J. 2001. La diffusion de l’agriculture en Europe: une
hypothese arythmique. Zephyrus 53–54 (2000–2001), 267–
272.
Guilaine J. 2007. Die Ausbreitung der neolithischen Lebensweise
im Mittelmeerraum. In Lichter Cl. (Hrsg.), Vor 12.000 Jahren
in Anatolien. Die älteste Monumente der Menscheit. Stuttgart,
166–176.
Gulyás S. 2010. Az édesvízi kagylók szerepe a Kárpát-medencei
neolit közösségek gazdálkodásában és az ártéri, folyóvízi kör-
nyezet lokális és regionális adottságainak rekonstrukciójában.
PhD Dissertation. Szeged University. Szeged. Manuscript.
Gulyás S. & Sümegi P. 2004. Some aspects of prehistoric shell-
fishing from the Early Neolithic (Körös) site of Tiszapüspöki,
Hungary: Methods and findings – Kagylógyûjtés a korai neo-
litikumban Magyarországon egy Körös lelõhely Tiszapüspöki
példáján: módszerek és eredmények. Soosiana 25, 5–60.
Gyulai F. 2005. Neolitikus növénymaradványok az Alföldrõl –
31
Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history
Neolithic plant remains of the Great Hungarian Plain. In
Bende L. & Lõrinczy G. (eds), Hétköznapok Vénuszai. Hód-
mezõvásárhely, 171–202.
Gyulai F. 2010. Archaeobotanical research at the Körös Culture
site of Ibrány–Nagyerdõ and ist relationship to plant remains
from contemporaneous sites in Hungary. In Koz³owski &
Raczky 2010 (eds), 219–237.
Hansen S. 2007. Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit. Untersu-
chungen zur anthropomorphen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit und
Kupferzeit in Südosteuropa. (= Archäologie in Eurasien 20).
Mainz.
Harvey Gaul J. 1948. The Neolithic Period in Bulgaria: Early
Food-Producing Cultures of Eastern Europe. (Bulletin, Amer-
ican School of Prehistoric Research 16). Cambridge (Mas.).
Hertelendi E., Kalicz N., Raczky P., Horváth F., Veres M.,
Svingor É., Futó I. & Bartosiewicz L. 1995. Re-evaluation of
the Neolithic in Eastern Hungary based on the calibrated ra-
diocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 37/2, 239–244.
Holste F. 1939. Zur chronologischen Stellung der Vinèa Keramik.
Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift 26, 1–21.
Horváth F. 1994. A dél-alföldi újkõkorkutatás új szempontjai,
módszerei és eredményei. PhD Thesis. Budapest. Manuscript.
Horváth F. 2006. A contribution to the question of cultural chan-
ges at the turn of the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Tisza-
Marosz Region. In Vorgiæ, B. & Brukner, B. (eds), Problemi
prelaznog perioda starèevaèke u vinèasku kulturu. – Current
problems of the transition period from Starèevo to Vinèa cul-
ture. Zrenjanin, 111–133.
Horváth F. & Hertelendi E. 1994. Contribution to the 14C based
absolute chronology of the Early and Middle Neolithic Tisza
region. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36, 111–133.
Horváth L. A. & H. Simon K. 2004. Bemerkungen zur Baukunde
der Körös-Kultur. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve–Studia
Archaeologica 10, 9 – 23.
Ignaþ D. 1978. Aezarea neolitic aparinnd culturii Cri de la Suplacu
Barcu (J. Bihor). Crisia 8, 9–25.
Ignaþ D. 1979. Aezarea neolitic aparinnd culturii Starevo-Cri de la
Fughiu (J. Bihor). Crisia 9, 721–733.
Istvánovits E. 1994. (ed.), Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36.
Nyíregyháza.
Jankovich B. D. 1990. (ed.), Békés–Kolozsvár–Jászberény–
Szeged. (Banner János emlékiratai 1945-ig). Gyula.
Jarman, M. R., Bailey, G. N. & Jarman, H. N. 1982. (eds), Early
Europeen Agriculture: its foundation and development. (= Pa-
pers in Economic Prehistory 3). Cambridge.
Jongsma T. & Greenfield H. J. 2003. The Household Cluster Con-
cept in Archaeology: Brief Review. In Nikolova, L. (ed.):
Early Symbolic Systems for Communication in Southeast Eu-
rope. (= British Archaeological Reports, International Series
1139 Vol. 1). Oxford 2003, 21–24.
Jordan P. & Zvelebil M. 2009. Ex Oriente Lux: The Prehistory of
Hunter-Gatherer Ceramic Dispersals. In Jordan P. & Zvelebil
M. (eds), Ceramics Before Farming. The Dispersal of Pottery
Among Prehistoric Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers. Walnut
Creek, 33–89.
Jovanoviæ B. 1966. Sculptures de la nécropole de l’áge du fer
ancienâ Hajduèka Vodenica. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 7,
31–34.
Jovanoviæ B. 1969. Chronological Frames of the Iron Gate Group
of the early Neolithic Period. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 10,
23–38.
Jovanoviæ B. 1972. The autochtonous and migrational components
of the early Neolithic in the Iron Gates. Balcanica 3, 49–58.
Kaczanowska M. 1985. Rohstoffe, Technik und Typologie der neo-
lithiscehn Feuersteinindustrien im Nordteil des Flussgebietes
The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary
der Mitteldonau. Warszawa.
Kaczanowska M. Koz³owski J. K. & Makkay J. 1981. Flint Hoard
from Endrõd, site 39, Hungary (Körös culture) Acta Archaeo-
logica Carpathica 21, 105–117.
Kaczanowska M. & Koz³owski J. K. 2007. The lithic assamblages
of Szarvas 8/23, pits 3/3 1988 and 4/2 1988. In Makkay 2007,
237–246.
Kaczanowska M. & Koz³owski J. K. 2008. The Körös and the
early Eastern Linear Culture in the northern part of the Carpa-
thian basin: a view from the perspective of lithic industries.
Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis 7, 9–37.
Kaczanowska M. & Koz³owski J. K. 2010. Chipped stone industry
from Ibrány. In Koz³owski & Raczky 2010 (eds), 254–265.
Kalicz N. 1957. Tiszazug õskori települései (= Régészeti Füzetek
8). Budapest.
Kalicz, N. 1970. Über die Probleme der Beziehung der Theiss-
und der Lengyel-Kultur. Acta Archaeologica Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae 22, 13–23.
Kalicz, N. 1971. Südliche Beziehungen im Neolithikum des süd-
lichen Donaubeckens. In Schlette F. (Hrsg.), Evolution und
Revolution im Alten Orient und Europa. Das Neolithikum als
historische Erscheinung. Berlin, 145–157.
Kalicz N. 1980. Neuere Forschungen über die Entstehung des
Neolithikums in Ungarn. In Kozlowski J. K. & Kozlowski S.
K.: Problémes de la néolithisation dans certaines regions de
l’Europe. Wroclaw, 97–122.
Kalicz N. 1984. Die Körös–Starèevo-Kulturen und ihre Bezie-
hungen zur Linienbandkeramik. Nachrichten aus Nieder-
sachsens Urgeschichte 52, 91–130.
Kalicz N. 1985. On the Chronological Problems of the Neolithic
and Copper Age in Hungary. Mitteilungen des Archäologi-
schen Institutes der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-
ten 14, 21–51.
Kalicz N. 1990. Frühneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus Südwest-
ungarn. (= Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 4). Budapest.
Kalicz N. 1993. The early phases of the Neolithic in Western Hun-
gary (Transdanubia). Poroèilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neo-
litika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 21, 85–135.
Kalicz N. 1998. Das Frühneolithikum im Karpatenbecken, In
Preuß, J. (Hrsg.), Das Neolithikum in Mitteleuropa. Kulturen –
Wirtschaft – Umwelt vom 6. bis 3. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. 1/2,
Weissbach, 257–262.
Kalicz N. 2000. Unterscheidungsmerkmale zwischen der Körös-
und der Starèevo-Kultur in Ungarn. In Hiller S. & Nikolov V.
(eds), Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südost-
europa. Wien, 295–309.
Kalicz N. 2010. An der Grenze “zweier Welten” – Transdanubien
(Ungarn) im Frühneolithikum. In Gronenborn & Petrasch
2010 (Hrsg.), 235–254.
Kalicz N. & Koós J. 1997a. Mezõkövesd-Mocsolyás. Újkõkori
telep és temetkezések a Kr. e. VI. évezredbõl – Mezõkö-
vesd-Mocsolyás. Neolithic settlement and graves from the 6th
millennium B.C. In Raczky P., Kovács T. & Anders A. (eds),
„Utak a múltba”. Az M3-as autópálya régészeti leletmentései
– “Paths into the Past”. Rescue Excavations on the M3 Motor-
way. Budapest, 28–33, 164–168.
Kalicz N. & Koós J. 1997b. Eine Siedlung mit ältestneolithischen
Hausresten und Gräbern in Nordostungarn. In Laziæ M. (ed.),
Dragoslavo Srejoviæ completis LXV annsi ab amicis collegis
discipulis oblatum. Belgrade, 123–135.
Kalicz N. & Koós J. 2000. Település a legkorábbi újkõkori sírok-
kal Északkelet-Magyarországról – Eine Siedlung mit ältneo-
lithischen Gräbern in Nordostungarn. Herman Ottó Múzeum
Évkönyve 39, 45–76.
Kalicz N. & Koós J. 2002. Eine Siedlung mit ältestneolithischen
32
Gräbern in Nordostungarn. Preistoria Alpina 37, 45–79.
Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1972a. Probleme des frühen Neolithikums
in der nördlichen Tiefebene. Alba Regia 12, 77–92.
Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1972b. Südliche Einflüsse im frühen und
mittleren Neolithikum Transdanubiens. Alba Regia 12,
93–105.
Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1974a. A méhteleki agyagistenek – Guide
to the Méhtelek exposition: a summary. A nyíregyházi Jósa
András Múzeum idõszaki régészeti kiállításának vezetõje.
Nyíregyháza.
Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1974b. A méhteleki újkõkori leletek. Egy
váratlan régészeti felfedezés. Élet és Tudomány 29, 838–843.
Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1977a. Frühneolithische Siedlung in
Méhtelek–Nádas. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts
der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 6, 13–24.
Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1977b. Die Linienbandkeramik in der
Großen Ungarischen Tiefebene. (= Studia Archaeologica 7).
Budapest.
Kalicz N. & Raczky P. 1981. The precursors to the “Horns of Con-
secration” in the South-East European Neolithic. Acta Archa-
eologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 33, 5–20.
Kalicz N. & Raczky P. 1982. Siedlung der Körös-Kultur in
Szolnok-Szanda. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Institutes
der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 10–11 (1980–
1981), 13–24.
Karmanski S. 1968a. Slikana keramika sa lokaliteta Donja
Branjevina. Odžaci.
Karmanski S. 1968b. Žrtvenici statuette i amulet sa lokaliteta
Donja Branjevina kod Deronja. Odžaci.
Karmanski S. 2005. Donja Branjevina: a Neolithic settlement near
Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia). (= Societ´ per la Preistoria
e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno
10). Trieste.
Kertész R. 1996. The Mesolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain: A
Survey of the Evidence. In Tálas 1996 (ed.), 5–34.
Kertész R. 2002. Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in the northwestern
part of the Great Hungarian Plain. Praehistoria 3, 281–304.
Kertész R. 2003. The Paleolithikum and the Mesolithikum. In
Grammenos D. V. 2003. (ed), Recent Research in the Prehis-
tory of the Balkans. (= Publications of the Archaeological In-
stitute of Northern Greece 3). Thessaloniki, 490–494.
Kertész R. & Makkay J. 2001. (eds.) From the Mesolithic to the
Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological
Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, Sep-
tember 22–27, 1996 (= Archaeolingua Main Series 11). Buda-
pest.
Kertész R. & Sümegi P. 1999. Teóriák, kritika és egy modell:
Miért állt meg a Körös-Starèevo-kultúra terjedése a Kárpát-
medence centrumában? Tisicum 11, 19–23.
Kertész R. & Sümegi P. 2001. Theories, critiques and a model:
Why did the expansion of the Körös-Starèevo culture stop in
the centre of the Carpathian Basin? In Kertész & Makkay 2001
(eds), 193–214.
Kertész R., Sümegi P., Kozák M., Braun M., Félegyházi E. & Her-
telendi E. 1994. Mesolithikum im nördlichen Teil der Großen
Ungarischen Tiefebene – Mezolitikum az Észak-Alföldön.
Jósa Adrás Múzeum Évkönyve 36, 15–61.
Korek J. 1960. A vonaldíszes kerámia kultúra elterjedése az
Alföldön – Verbreitung der linearkeramischen Kultur auf dem
Alföld. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1958–1959, 19–52.
Korek J. 1977. Die frühe und mittlere Phase des Neolithikums auf
dem Theissrücken. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientia-
rum Hungaricae 29, 3–52.
Korošec J. 1943. Körös – Vinèa. Glasnik hrvatskih zemaljskih
muzeja u Sarajevu 54, 61–85.

Kosse K. 1979. Settlement Ecology of the Körös and Linear Pot-
tery Cultures in Hungary. (= British Archaeological Reports,
International Series 64). Oxford.
Kovács K. 2007. Neolitikus telepnyomok a Tisza Szolnok és
Szórópuszta közötti magaspartján – Neolithic settlements on
the Tisza bank between Szolnok and Szórópuszta. Õsrégészeti
Levelek 8–9 (2006–2007), 39–50.
Kovács E. Zs., Gál E. & Bartosiewicz L. 2010. Early Neolithic an-
imal bones from Ibrány–Nagyerdõ, Hungary. In Koz³owski &
Raczky 2010 (eds), 238–254.
Koz³owski J. K. 1997. (ed.), The early Linear Pottery Culture in
eastern Slovakia. Kraków.
Koz³owski J. K. 2005. Remarks on the Mesolithic in the northern
part of the Carpathian Basin. In Gál E., Juhász I. & Sümegi P.
Environmental Archaeology in North-Eastern Hungary. (=
Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 19). Budapest, 175–186.
Koz³owski J. K. & Nowak M. 2007. (eds), Mesolithic/Neolithic In-
teractions in the Balans and in the Middle Danube Basin. (=
British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1726).
Oxford.
Koz³owski J. K. & Nowak M. 2007. Neolithization of the Upper
Tisza Basin. In Koz³owski & Nowak 2007 (eds), 77–102.
Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. 2010. (eds), Neolithization of the
Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/
Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest.
Koz³owski, S. K. 2001. Eco-cultural/stylistic zonation of the
Mesolithic/Epipaleolithic in Central Europe. In Kertész &
Makkay 2001 (eds), 261–282.
Kreiter A. 2010. Crafting difference: Early Neolithic (Körös cul-
ture) ceramic traditions in North-east Hungary. In Koz³owski
& Raczky 2010 (eds), 266–282.
Kutzián I. 1944. A Körös-kultúra. (= Dissertationes Pannonicae II.
23). Budapest.
Kutzián I. 1947. The Körös culture. (= Dissertationes Pannonicae
II. 23). Budapest.
Lakó E. 1977. Piese de cult din aºezarea neoliticã de la Zãuan (jud.
Sãlaj). Acta Musei Porolissensis 1, 41–46.
Lakó E. 1978. Raport preliminary de cercetare arheologicã
efectuatã în aºezarea neoliticã de la Zãuan (jud. Sãlaj) în anul
1977. Acta Musei Porolissensis 2, 11–16.
Lazarovici Gh. 1969. Cultura Starèevo – Criº în Banat. Acta Musei
Napocensis 6, 3–26.
Lazarovici Gh. 1985. Sincronisme etno-culturale în neolticul din
Sãlaj ºi din vestul României. Acta Musei Porolissensis 9,
69–73.
Lazarovici Gh. & Lakó É. 1981. Sãpãturile de la Zãuan – Cam-
pania din 1980 ºi importanþa acestor descoperiri pentru
neoliticul din nord-vestul României. Acta Musei Napocensis
18, 13–44.
Lazarovici Gh. & Lazarovici C. M. 2011. Architecture of the Early
Neolithic in Romania. In Luca S. A. & Suciu C. (eds), The
First neolithic Sites in Central/South-East European Transect.
Vol. II. Early Neolithic (Starèevo-Criº) Sites on the Territory
of Romania. (= British Archaeological Reports, International
Series 2188). Oxford, 19–35.
Lazarovici Gh. & Maxim Z. 1995. Gura Baciului (= Bibliotheca
Musei Napocensis 11). Cluj-Napoca.
Lazarovici G. & Németi I. 1983. Neoliticul dezvoltat din nord-
vestul României (Sãlajul, Sãtmarul ºi Clujul) – Die entwick-
elte Jungsteinzeit im Nordwesten Rumänien, Sãlaj, Satu Mare
und Cluj. Acta Musei Porolissensis 7, 17–60.
Lenneis E. 1997. Houseforms of the Central European Linear-pot-
tery culture and of the Balkan Early Neolithic – a comparison.
Poroèilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v
Sloveniji 24, 143–149.
33
Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history
Letica Z. 1969. Vlasac – nouvel habitat de la culture de Lepenski
Vir a Djerdap. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 10, 7–11.
Lichardus J. 1964. Beitrag zur Linearkeramik in der Ostslowakei.
Archeologické Rozhledy 16, 841–881.
Lichardus J. 1972. Zur Entstehung der Linearkeramik. Germania
50, 1–15.
Lichardus-Itten M. & Lichardus J. 1985. La protohistoire de l’Eu-
rope. Le Néolithique et le Chalcolithique entre la Méditerra-
née et la mer Baltique. Paris.
Lichardus-Itten M. & Lichardus J. 2003. Strukturelle Grundlagen
zum Verständnis der neolithisierungsprozesse in Südost- und
Mitteleuropa. In Jerem E. & Raczky P. (Hrsg.): Morgenrot der
Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in
Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum
75. Geburtstag. Budapest, 61–81.
Lichardus-Itten M. & Lichardus J. 2004. Frühneolithische Häuser
im Balkano-Karpatischen Raum als Grundlagen linerband-
keramischer Bauweise. In Bátora J., Furmánek V. & Veliaèik
L. (Hrsg.), Einflüsse und Kontakte alteuropäischer Kulturen.
Festschrift für Jozef Vladár zum 70. Geburtstag. Nitra, 25–56.
Lichter Cl. 1993. Untersuchungen zu den Bauten des südosteuro-
päischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums. (= Internationale
Archäologie 18). Buch am Erlbach.
Lichter C. 2003. Continuity and Change in Burial Customs: Exam-
ples from the Carpathian Basin. In Nikolova L. (ed.), Early
Symbolic Systems for Communication in Southeast Europe. (=
British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1139).
Oxford, 135–152.
Luca S. A. 2008. (ed.), Proceedings of the International Collo-
quium: The Carpathian Basin and its Role in the Neolithisation
of the Balkan Peninsula. Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis 7.
Luca S. A. & Suciu C. 2007. Migrations and local evolutuion in
the Early Neolithic in Transylvania: the typological-stylistic
analysis and the radiocarbon data. In Spataro & Biagi 2007
(eds), 77–87.
Lüning J. 1991. Frühe Bauern in Mitteeuropa im 6. und 5. Jahr-
tausend v. Chr. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentral-
museums 35, 27–93.
Makkay J. 1957. A bihari Berettyóvölgy õskori leletei – Prehis-
toric finds of the Berettyó valley in Bihar. Debreceni Déri
Múzeum Évkönyve 1948–56, 21–46.
Makkay J. 1965. Die wichtigsten Fragen der Körös-Starèevo-
Periode. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica 8, 3–18.
Makkay J. 1968. The Tartaria Tablets. Orientalia 37, 272–289.
Makkay J. 1969. Zur Geschichte der Erforschung der Körös-
Starèevo-Kultur und einiger ihrer wichtigsten Probleme. Acta
Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 21,
13–31.
Makkay J. 1974. «Das Frühe Neolithikum auf der Otzaki Magula»
und die Körös–Starèevo-Kultur. Acta Archaeologica Aca-
demiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 26, 131–154.
Makkay J. 1978. Excavations at Bicske I: The Early Neolithic –
The Earliest Linear Band Ceramic. Alba Regia 16, 1978, 9 –
60.
Makkay J. 1981. Painted pottery of the Körös-Starèevo culture
from Szarvas, site no. 23. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 21,
95–103.
Makkay J. 1982a. Some comments on the settlement patterns of
the Alföld Linear Pottery. In Chropovský, B. (Hrsg.), Sied-
lungen der Kultur mit Linearkeramik. Nitra, 157–166.
Makkay J. 1982b. A magyarországi neolitikum kutatásának új
eredményei. Az idõrend és a népi azonosítás kérdései. Buda-
pest.
Makkay J. 1984a. Early stamp seals in South-East Europe. Buda-
pest.
The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary
Makkay J. 1984b. Chronological links between neolithic cultures
of Thessaly and the Middle Danube region. Acta Archaeolo-
gica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 36, 21–28.
Makkay J. 1986. Angaben zur Archaologie der Indogermanen-
frage I. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungari-
cae 38, 13–29.
Makkay J. 1987. Kontakte zwischen der Körös-Starèevo-Kultur
und der Linienbandkeramik. Communicationes Archaeolo-
gicae Hungariae, 15–24.
Makkay J. 1988. Az indoeurópai nyelvû népek õstörténete. Buda-
pest.
Makkay J. 1989. Zwei neuere Opfergruben der Körös-Starèevo-
Kultur. In Rulf J. (ed.), Bylany Seminar 1987. Collected pa-
pers. Praha, 243–248.
Makkay J. 1990. The Protovinèa problem – as seen from the north-
ernmost frontier. In Srejoviæ & Tasiæ (eds) 1990, 113–122.
Makkay J. 1991. Az indoeurópai népek õstörténete. Budapest.
Makkay J. 1992. Excavations at the Körös culture settlement of
Endrõd-Öregszõlõk 119 in 1986-1989. In Bökönyi 1992 (eds),
121–193.
Makkay J. 1993. Eine prachtvolle Frauenfigur der Körös–
Starèevo-Kultur. In Nikolov V. (ed.), Prähistorische Funde
und Forschungen. Festschrift zum Gedenken an Prof. Georgi
I. Georgiev. Sofia, 73–78.
Makkay J. 1996. Theories about the origin, the distribution and the
end of the Körös culture. In Tálas 1996 (ed.), 35–53.
Makkay J. 1998. Az indoeurópai népek õstörténete. Budapest.
Makkay J. 2001a. A Jászság-határ és az indoeurópai õstörténet:
régészeti tények és nyelvtörténeti vonatkozásaik – The
Jászság border and the Indoeuropean Prehistory. Archaeologi-
cal Realities and their linguistic interpretations. Tisicum 12,
57–78.
Makkay J. 2001b. Neolithic prelude to the Indo-Europeanization
of Italy. An old theory in a new perspective. Budapest.
Makkay J. 2002. Ein Opferfund der frühneolithischen Körös-Kul-
tur mit einem Gefäß mit Schlangendarstellung. Archeologické
Rozhledy 54, 202–207.
Makkay J. 2003a. The Neolithic and Copper Ages. Grammenos D.
V. 2003. (ed), Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Bal-
kans. (= Publications of the Archaeological Institute of North-
ern Greece 3). Thessaloniki, 494–503.
Makkay J. 2003b. Kõkori régiségek a vállaji határban. Nyíregy-
háza.
Makkay J. 2003c. Méhteleki kutatások. Nyíregyháza.
Makkay J. 2005. Supplement to the early Stamp Seals in South-
east Europe. (= Tractata Minuscola 44). Budapest.
Makkay J. 2007. The excavations of the Early Neolithic sites of the
Körös culture in the Körös valley, Hungary: the final report.
Volume I. The excavations: stratigraphy, structures and
graves (= Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione
Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 11). Trieste.
Makkay J. 2008. Foreword. In Makkay & Starnini 2008, 7–11.
Makkay J. & Starnini E. 2008. The excavations of Early Neolithic
sites of the Körös culture in the Körös valley, Hungary: the fi-
nal report. Volume II: The pottery assemblages, and Volume
III: The small finds: figurines, reliefs, face vessels, handled
cups, altars, loomweights, netweights, and other small finds.
Budapest.
Makkay J. & Trogmayer O. 1966. Die bemalte Keramik der
Körös-Gruppe. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1964–65,
47–58.
Makkay J., Almássy K., Dani J., Kertész R. & Tóth K. 2003. Pre-
historic archaeology in Hungary in recent years. In
Grammenos D. V. 2003. (ed), Recent Research in the Prehis-
tory of the Balkans. (= Publications of the Archaeological In-
34
stitute of Northern Greece 3). Thessaloniki, 487–537.
Mateiciucová I. 2007. Worked stone: obsidian and flint. In Whittle
2007 (ed.), 677–726.
Meier-Arendt W. 1989. Überlegungen zur Herkunft des linien-
bandkeramischen Langhauses. In Bökönyi 1989 (ed.), 183–
189.
Mester Zs. & Rácz B. 2010. The spread of t.he Körös Culture and
the raw material sources in the northeastern part of the Carpa-
thian Basin. A research project. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky
P. 2010 (eds), 23–35.
Milojèiæ V. 1949a. Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit Mittel- und
Südosteuropas. Berlin.
Milojèiæ V. 1949b. South-eastern elements in the prehistoric
civilisation of Serbia. Annual of the British School at Athens
44, 258–306.
Milojèiæ V. 1950. Köröš-Starèevo-Vinèa. In Behrens G. (ed.),
Reinecke-Festschrift, zum 75. Geburtstag von Paul Reinecke.
Mainz, 108–118.
Milojèiæ V. 1951. Die Siedlungsgrenzen und zeitstellung der
Bandkeramik im Osten und Südosten Europas. Bericht der
Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 33 (1943–1950),
110–124.
Milojèiæ V. 1952. Die früheste Ackerbauer in Mitteleuropa. Ger-
mania 30, 313–318.
Milojèiæ V. 1959. Ergebnisse der deutschen Ausgrabungen in
Thessalien (1953–1958). Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germani-
schen Zentralmuseums 6, 1–56.
Milojèiæ V. 1960. Präkeramisches Neolithikum auf der Balkan-
halbinsel. Germania 38, 320–335.
Milojèiæ V. 1967. Die wichtigsten Fragen der Körös-Starèevo-
Periode. Eine Entgegnung auf den gleichbetitelten Aufsatz von
J. Makkay, in: Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica 8, 1965. Szeged.
Heidelberg.
Milojèiæ. V. Zumbusch & Milojèiæ 1971. Die deutschen Ausgra-
bungen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien I. Das frühe Neo-
lithikum. (= Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäo-
logie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 10–11). Bonn.
Minichreiter C. 2007. Slavonski Brod, Galovo. Deset godina
arheoloških istraživanja – Ten years of archaeological exca-
vations. Zagreb.
Moskal-del Hoyo M. 2010. Wood charcoal remains from an Early
Neolithic settlement at Nagykörû (eastern Hungary). In
Koz³owski & Raczky 2010 (eds), 177–190.
MRT 6. Ecsedy I., Kovács L., Maráz B. & Torma I. 1982. (eds),
Békés megye régészeti topográfiája. A szeghalmi járás IV/1 (=
Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája 6). Budapest.
MRT 8. Jankovich B. D., Makkay J. & Szõke B. M. 1989. (eds),
Békés megye Régészeti Topográfiája. Szarvasi Járás IV/2 (=
Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája 8). Budapest.
Nandris J. 1970. Ground water as a factor in the first temperate
Neolithic settlement of the Körös region. Zbornik Narodnog
Muzeja 6, 59–71.
Nandris J. 1972. Relations between the Mesolithic, the First Tem-
perate Neolithic and the Bandkeramik: the Nature of the Prob-
lem. Alba Regia 12, 61–70.
Nandris J. 2007. Adaptive mediation in the FTN: the nature and
role of the First Temperate European Neolithic. In Spataro &
Biagi 2007 (eds), 11–23.
Nestor I., Alexandrescu A., Comºa E., Zaharia-Petrescu E. & Zirra
V. 1951. Sapaturile de pe ºantierul Valea Jijiei (Iaºi-Botoºani-
Dorohoi) in anul 1950. Studii ºi cercetãri de Istorie Veche 1,
51–76.
Neustupný E. 1956. K relativní chronologii volutové keramiky.
Archeologické Rozhledy 8, 386–407; 461–462.
Neustupný E. 1968. Absolute Chronology of the Neolithic and

Aeneolithic Periods in Central and South-Eastern Europe.
Slovenská Archeológia 16, 19–56.
Neustupný E. 1988. Review. (Renfrew C.: Archaeology and lan-
guage. The Puzzle of Indo-Europen origins). Current Anthro-
pology 29, 456–458.
Oravecz H. 1995. Dévaványa-Atyaszeg. Folia Archaeologica 44,
61–69.
Oravecz H. 1997. Dévaványa–Barcéi kishalom. A Körös kultúra
fiatalabb (Protovinèa) szakaszának telepe és temetkezése –
Late Körös (Protovinèa) settlement and burial at Dévaványa-
Barcéi kishalom. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hunga-
riae 1997, 5–25.
Oross K. & Bánffy E. 2009. Three successive waves of Neoli-
thisation: LBK development in Transdanubia. Documenta
Praehistorica 36, 175–189.
Orssich de Slavetich A. 1943. Bubanj, eine vorgeschichtliche
Ansiedlung bei Niš. Mitteilungen der prähistorischen Komi-
ssion der Akademie der Wissenschaften 4, 1–46.
Paluch T. 2005. Kora neolit településrészlet Hódmezõvásárhely
határában – An Early Neolithic Settlement on the Outskirts of
Hódmezõvásárhely. In Bende L. & Lõrinczy G. (eds.), Hétköz-
napok Vénuszai. Hódmezõvásárhely, 9–43.
Paluch T. 2007. The Körös culture graves. In Makkay 2007,
247–257.
Pap I. 2007. The human bones. In Makkay 2007, 255–256.
Patay P. 1941. Kapcsolatok a bükki és körösi kultúra között –
Zusammenhänge zwischen der Bükker- und Körös-Kultur.
Archaeologiai Értesítõ III/2, 1–3.
Pavúk J. 1980. Ältere Linearkeramik in der Slowakei. Slovenská
Archeológia 28, 7–90.
Pavúk J. 1994. Zur relative Chronologie der älteren Linearkeramik
– Adatok a legkorábbi vonaldíszes kerámia relatív idõrend-
jéhez. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36, 135–149.
Periæ S. & Nikoliæ D. 2006. On the issue of an ossuary – pit dwell-
ing Z in the oldest horizon at Vinèa. Starinar 56, 47–72.
Petrescu-Dimboviþa M. 1957. Sondajul stratigrafic de la Perieni
(reg. Iaºi, r. Bîrlad) – Sondage stratigraphique de Perieni.
Materiale ºi Cercetarãri Arheologice 3, 65–82.
Petrescu-Dimboviþa M. 1958. Contributions au problÀme de la
culture Criþ en Moldavie. Acta Archaeologica Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae 9, 55–68.
Petroviæ J. 1990. A contribution to the study of autochthonous pre-
decessors of the Vinèa culture in Srem. In Srejoviæ & Tasiæ
1990 (eds), 85–89.
Pigott S. 1965. Ancient Europe from the beginnings of Agriculture
to Classical Antiquity. Edinburgh.
Pinhasi R. 2003. A new model for the spread of the first farmers in
Europe. Documenta Praehistorica 30, 1–47.
Pinhasi R., Fort J. & Ammerman A. J. 2005. Tracing the Origin
and Spread of Agriculture in Europe. PLoS Biology 3,
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030410
Pluciennik M. & Zvelebil M. 2008. The Origins and Spread of Ag-
riculture. In Bentley R. A., Maschner H. D. G. & Chippindale
C. (eds), Handbook of Archaeological Theories. Lanham,
467–486.
Potusnjak M. F. 1985. Omqrwl~i L. T. Memjhq H`i`on`qy~:
irjyqroz Johw h o`pnhplmÐ ieo`khih. In: Beoeg`lpi`~
Q. Q. et al. (eds), Aotemjmch~ Sio`hlpimÐ QQP. ¤.
Oebmazql`~ `otemjmch~~. Jheb. 139–150.
Potushniak M. 2004. Data to the question of the Starèevo/Körös
Culture dwellings in the Upper Tisza Region – Adatok a
Körös–Starèevo kultúra épületeinek kérdéséhez a Felsõ-tisza-
vidéken. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 46, 53–69.
Potushniak M. 2005. Omqrwl~i L. O`k~qlhih o`llymcm
lemjhqr r beot­b× o. Rhph. M`rimbhÐ ga­olhi H`-
35
Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history
i`on`qpyimcm Jo`|gl`bvmcm Lrge} 7, 172– 207.
Quitta H. 1960. Zur Frage der ältesten Bandkeramik in Mittel-
europa. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 38, 1–38, 153–188.
Quitta H. 1970. Der Balkan als Mittler zwischen Vorderem Orient
und Europa. In Schlette F. (Hrsg.), Evolution und Revolution
im Alten Orient und Europa. Das Neolithikum als historische
Erscheinung. Berlin, 38–63.
Raczky P. 1976. A Körös kultúra leletei Tiszajenõn – Funde der
Körös-Kultur in Tiszajenõ. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 103, 171–
189.
Raczky P. 1977. Szajol-Felsõföld. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 104,
263.
Raczky P. 1978. A Körös kultúra figurális ábrázolásai Nagy-
körübõl – Figurale Darstellungen der Körös Kultur aus
Nagykörü. Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve 1978, 7–17.
Raczky P. 1980. A Körös kultúra újabb figurális ábrázolásai a
Közép-Tisza-vidékrõl és történeti összefüggéseik – New figu-
ral representations of the Körös culture from the middle Tisza
region and their historical connexions. Szolnok Megyei
Múzeumok Évkönyve 1979–1980, 5–33.
Raczky P. 1982–1983. Origins of the Custom of Burying the Dead
inside Houses in Sout-East Europe. Szolnok Megyei Múzeu-
mok Évkönyve 5–10.
Raczky P. 1983. A korai neolitikumból a középsõ neolitikumba
való átmenet kérdései a Közép- és Felsõ-Tiszavidéken –
Questions of transition between the Early and Middle Neo-
lithic in the Middle and Upper Tisza region). Archaeologiai
Értesítõ 110, 161–194.
Raczky P. 1986. Megjegyzések az „alföldi vonaldíszes kerámia”
kialakulásának kérdéséhez. In Németh P. (ed.), Régészeti
tanulmányok Kelet-Magyarországról 24 (= Folklór és Etno-
gráfia 24). Debrecen, 25–43.
Raczky P. 1988. A Tisza-vidék kulturális és kronológiai kapcso-
latai a Balkánnal és az Égeikummal a neolitikum, rézkor idõ-
szakában. Szolnok.
Raczky P. 1989. Chronological Framework of the Early and Mid-
dle Neolithic in the Tisza Region. In Bökönyi S. (ed.), Neo-
lithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connec-
tions. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2). Budapest, 233–
251.
Raczky P. 1996. Az elsõ paraszti falvak a Közép-Tisza-vidéken az
újkõkor elején (Szajol-Felsõföld települése). In Madaras L.
(ed.), „Vendégségben õseink háza táján”. Állandó régészeti
kiállítás a szolnoki Damjanich Múzeumban. Szolnok, 22 – 30.
Raczky P. 2006. House-structures under change on the Great Hun-
garian Plain in earlier phases of the Neolithic. In Tasiæ, N. &
Grozdanov, C. (eds.), Homage to Milutin Garašanin. Bel-
grade, 379–398.
Raczky P. & Kalicz N. 2007. Ungarn. K. 9–16. In Buchvaldek, M.,
Lippert A. & Košnar L. (eds), Archeologický Atlas pravìké
Evropy – Archaeological Atlas of Prehistoric Europe. Praha,
237–244.
Raczky P., Sümegi P., Bartosiewicz L., Gál E., Kaczanowska M.,
Koz³owski J. K. & Anders, A. 2010. Ecological barrier versus
mental marginal zone? Problems of the northernmost Körös
culture settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain. In Gronen-
born & Petrasch (Hrsg.), 147–173.
Regenye J. 2007. A Starèevo-kultúra települése a Tihanyi-
félszigeten – A settlement of the Starèevo culture on the
Tihany Peninsula. Õsrégészeti Levelek 8–9, 5–15.
Regenye J. 2010. What about the other side: Starèevo and LBK
settlements north of Lake Balaton. In Koz³owski, J. K. &
Raczky 2010 (eds), 53–64.
Renfrew C. 1973. Before Civilization. The Radiocarbon Revolu-
tion and Prehistoric Europe. London.
The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary
Renfrew C. 1979. Terminology and beyond. In Davis J. L. &
Cherry J. F. (eds), Papers n Cycladic Prehistory (= Mono-
graph 14. Institute of Archaeology, University of California).
Los Angeles, 51–63.
Renfrew C. 1987. Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of
Indo-European Origins. London.
Renfrew C. 1988. Author’s Précis. (Renfrew C.: Archaeology and
language. The Puzzle of Indo-Europen origins). Current An-
thropology 29, 437–441.
Renfrew C. 1992. Archaeology, genetics and linguistic diversity.
Man 27, 445–478.
Renfrew C. 2000. At the Edge of Knowability: Towards a Prehis-
tory of Languages. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10,
7–34.
Renfrew C. 2010. Archaeogenetics – Towards a ’New Synthesis’?
Current Biology 20, R162–R165.
Renfrew C. & Boyle K. 2000. (eds), Archaeogenetics: DNA and
the population prehistory of Europe. Cambridge.
Richter É. 2005. Textil- és négyzetrendszeres fonatlenyomatok az
Alföld neolitikumából – Woven and plaited fabrics in the
Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain. In Bende L. &
Lõrinczy G. (eds.), Hétköznapok Vénuszai. Hódmezõvásár-
hely, 123–144.
Rosania C. N., Boulanger M. T., T. Biró K., Ryzhov S., Trnka G &
Glascock M. D. 2008. Revisiting Carpathian obsidian. Antiq-
uity 82:318, http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/rosania/index.html
Schachermeyr F. 1950. Zur Entstehung der ältesten Civilisation in
Griechenland. La Nouvelle Clio 10, 567–601.
Schachermeyr F. 1953. Die vorderasiatische Kulturtrift. Saeculum
5, 268–291.
Schachermeyr F. 1953–1954. Dimini und die Bandkeramik.
Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft 83, 1–39.
Scharl S. 2004. Die Neolithisierung Europas. Ausgewälte Modelle
und Hypothesen. (= Würzburger Arbeiten zur Prähistorischen
Archäologie 2). Rahden/Westf.
Schier W. 1997. “Proto-Vinèa”: Zum Übergang von der Starèevo-
zur Vinèa-Kultur im Südosten des Karpatenbeckens. In Laziæ
M. (ed.), Completis LXV annis Dragoslavo Srejoviæ ab amicis
collegis discipulis oblatum. Belgrade, 155–166.
Schmidt R. R. 1945. Die Burg Vuèedol. Zagreb.
Schwarzberg H. 2006. Figurale Ständer – Sozialkeramik des
frühen Neolithikums aus Kirklareli-AêaÈi Pinar, Türkisch–
Thrakien. Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 9, 97–
124.
Selmeczi L. 1967. Régészeti kutatásaink 1967-ben. Jászkunság
13, 166–172.
Selmeczi L. 1969. Das Wohnhaus der Körös-Gruppe von Tisza-
jenõ. Neuere Angeben zu den Hausstypen des Frühneoli-
thikums. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1969, 17–22.
Sherratt A. 1980. Water, soil and seasonality in early cereal culti-
vation. World Archaeology 11, 313–330.
Sherratt A. 1982a. Mobile resources: settlement and exchange in
earlz agricultural Europe. In Renfrew, C. & Shennan, S. (ed.),
Ranking, resource and exchange. Aspects of the archaeology
of early European Society. Cambridge, 13–26.
Sherratt A. 1982b. The development of Neolithic and Copper Age
settlement in the Great Hungarian Plain. Part I: The regional
setting. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1, 287–316.
Sherratt A. 1983a. The development of Neolithic and Copper Age
settlement in the Great Hungarian Plain. Part II: Site survey
and settlement dynamics. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 2,
13–41.
Sherratt A. 1983b. Early agrarian settlement in the Körös region of
the Great Hungarian Plain. Acta Archaeologica Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae 35, 155–169.
36
Sherratt A. 1988. Review. (Renfrew C.: Archaeology and lan-
guage. The Puzzle of Indo-Europen origins). Current Anthro-
pology 29, 458–463.
Sherratt A. & Sherratt S. 1988. The archaeology of Indo-Euro-
pean: an alternative view. Antiqiuty 62, 584–595.
Šiška St. 1982. Kultur mit östlicher Linearkeramik in der Slo-
wakei. In Chropovsk B. (Hrsg.) Siedlungen der Kultur mit Lin-
earkeramik. Nitra, 261–270.
Soares, P. Achilli A., Semino O., Davies W., Macaulay V.,
Bandelt H.-J., Torroni A. & Richards M. B. 2010. The
Archaeogenetics of Europe. Current Biology 20, R174–R183.
Soudský 1956. K relativní chronologii volutové keramiky.
Archeologické Rozhledy 8, 408–412, 462–463.
Spataro M. 2011. A comparison of chemical and petrographic
analyes of Neolithic pottery from South-eastern Europe. Jour-
nal of Archaeological Science 38, 255–269.
Spataro M. & Biagi P. 2007. (eds), A short walk through Balkans:
first farmers of the Carpathian Basin and adjacent regions. (=
Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-
Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 12). Trieste.
Srejoviæ D. 1963. Versuch einer historischen Wertung der Vinèa-
Gruppe. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 4, 5–17.
Srejoviæ D. 1966. Lepenski Vir – a new Prehistoric Culture in the
Danubian region. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 7, 13–17.
Srejoviæ D. 1969. Lepenski Vir. Beograd.
Srejoviæ D. 1971. Die Lepenski Vir-Kultur und der Beginn der
Jungsteinzeit an der mittleren Donau. In Schwabedissen H.
(ed.), Die Anfänge des Neolithikums vom Orient bis Nord-
europa. (= Fundamenta A/3). Böhlau. Köln, 1–19.
Srejoviæ D. 1972. Kulturen des frühen Postgalzials im südlichen
Donauraum. Balcanica 3, 11–47.
Srejoviæ D. 1973. Die Anfänge des Neolithikums im Bereich des
mittleren Donauraumes. In Actes du VIIIe Congres Interna-
tional des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques.
Beograd, 252–263.
Srejoviæ D. 1974. Mezolitske osnove neolitskih kultura u južnom
Podunavlju – The Mesolithic bases of the Neolithic cultures in
the southern Danube Basin. In Poèeci ranih zemljoradnièkih
kultura u Vojvodini i srpskom Podunavlju Materijali 10,
21–30.
Srejoviæ D. & Tasiæ N. 1990. (eds), Chlv` h °el pbeq. – Vinèa
and its World. Beograd.
Starnini E. 1994. Typological and technological anlysis of the
Körös Culture stone assamblages of Méhtelek-Nádas and
Tiszacsege (Nort-East Hungary). A Preliminary report – A
Körös kultúra Méhtelek-nádasi és tiszacsegei (Északkelet-
Magyarország) lelõhelyeirõl származó kõeszközök tipológiai
és technológiai elemzése. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36,
101–110.
Starnini E. 1995–96. Aspects of the Körös Culture lithic industry:
the assemblage from Endrõd 119 (Hungary). A preliminary re-
port. Sargetia 26, 79–90.
Starnini E. 2000. Stone industries of the early Neolithic cultures in
Hungary and their relationships with the Mesolithic back-
ground. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione
Friuli-Venezia Giulia Quaderno 8, 207–219.
Starnini E. 2008. Material culture traditions and identity. In Bailey
D. W., Whittle A. & Hofmann D. (eds), 2008, 101–107.
Stäuble H. 2005. Häuser und absolute Datierung der Ältesten
Bandkeramik. (= Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen
Archäologie 117). Bonn.
Sümegi P. 2004a. The results of paleoenvironmental reconstruc-
tion and comparative geoarcheological analysis for the exam-
ined area. In Sümegi P. & Gulyás S. (eds.), The geohistory of
Bátorliget Marshland. Budapest, 301–348.

Sümegi P. 2004b: Findings of geoarcheological and environmen-
tal historical investigations at the Körös site of Tiszapüspöki-
Karancspart Háromága. Antaeus 27, 307–341.
Sümegi P. 2007. Palaeographical background of the Mesolithic
and Early Neolithic settlement in the Carpathian Basin. In
Koz³owski & Nowak 2010 (eds), 47–51.
Sümegi P. & Kertész R. 1998. A Kárpát-medence õskörnyezeti
sajátosságai – egy ökológiai csapda az újkõkorban? Jász-
kunság 44, 144–158.
Tálas L. 1996. (ed.), At the Fringes of Three Worlds. Hunterers-
gatherers and Farmers in the Middle Tisza Valley. Szolnok.
Tasiæ N. 2000. Salt Use in the Early and Middle Neolithic of the
Balkan Peninsula. In Nikolova L. (ed.), Technology, Style and
Society. Contributions to the Innovations between the Alps and
the Black Sea in Prehistory. (= British Archaeological Re-
ports, International Series 854). Oxford, 35–40.
Tichý R. 1960. K nejstarší volutové keramice na Moravì. Památky
Archeologické 51, 415–441.
Titov V. Sz. 1980. Rhqmb C. P`llhÐ h poedlhÐ lemjhq
bmpqmvlmÐ Celcohh. In Rhqmb C. & ]odejh I. (red.), Aote-
mjmch~ Celcohh. J`kellzÐ bei. Moskva.
Tompa F. 1929. Die Bandkeramik in Ungarn. Die Bükker und die
Theiß-Kultur. (= Archeologica Hungarica 5–6). Budapest.
Tompa F. 1937. 25 Jahre Urgeschichtsforschung in Ungarn
1912–1936. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission
24/25, 27–127.
Tringham R. 1971. Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of eastern Eu-
rope 6000–3000 B.C. London.
Tringham R. 2000. Southeastern Europe in the transition to agri-
culture in Europe: bridge, buffer, or mosaic. In Price T. D.
(ed.), Europe’s First Farmers. Cambridge, 19–56.
Trogmayer O. 1964. Megjegyzések a Körös csoport relatív
idõrendjéhez – Remarks to the Relative Chronology of the
Körös Group. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 91, 67–86.
Trogmayer O. 1966a. Ein neolithisches Hausmodellfragment von
Röszke. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica 10, 11–26.
Trogmayer O. 1966b. A Körös-csoport lakóházáról. Újkõkori
házmodell-töredék Röszkérõl – Über das Wohnhaus der
Körös-Gruppe. Neolithisches Hausmodell-Fragment aus
Röszke. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 93, 235–240.
Trogmayer O. 1968a. A Körös-csoport barbotin kerámiájáról –
The “barbotine” pottery of the Körös group. Archaeologiai
Értesítõ 95, 6–12.
Trogmayer O. 1968b. A Dél-Alföld korai neolitikumának fõbb
kérdései I-II. PhD Dissertation. Szeged. Manuscript.
Trogmayer O. 1972. Körös Gruppe – Linienbandkeramik. Alba
Regia 12, 71–76.
Trogmayer O. 1994. Zum Geleit – Bevezetõ. Jósa András Múzeum
Évkönyve 36, 9–14.
Trogmayer O. 2003a. Régi adósságaim I. Röszke-Lúdvár. Õsré-
gészeti Levelek 5, 8–20.
Trogmayer O. 2003b. A unique Neolithic find from Röszke. In
Jerem E. & Raczky P. (Hrsg.): Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe
Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Süd-
osteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag.
Budapest, 109–113.
Trogmayer O. 2004. Gyálarét-Szilágyi-major. Õsrégészeti Levelek
6, 13–26.
van Andel T. H. & Runnels C. N. 1995. The earliest farmers in Eu-
rope. Antiquity 69, 481–500.
Vasiæ M. 1936. Praistoriska Vinèa II. Beograd.
Vékony G. 1971. Bemerkungen zu den Streitfragen des Früh-
neolithikums im Karpatenbecken. Acta Antiqua et Archaeo-
logica 14, 17–24.
Vértes L. 1951. Legmjhqhvepihe l`tmdih l` beowhlhe cmoz
37
Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history
JÏnmomw noh c. ]ceo (Celco~) – Die mesolithische Fund-
stätte von Eger. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae 1, 153–190.
Vértes L. 1965. Az õskõkor és az átmeneti kõkor emlékei Magyar-
országon. (= A Magyar Régészet Kézikönyve 1). Budapest.
Vetniæ S. 1990. The earliest Settlements oft he Vinèa Culture
(Proto-Vinèa) in the Morava Valley – M`®o`lh®` l`pe¯` bh
lv`lpie irjqroe (nomqm-Chlv`) r dmjhlh Lo`be. In
Srejoviæ & Tasiæ 1990 (eds), 91–97.
Vízdal J. 1973. Zemplín v mladšej dobe kamennej. Košice.
Vlassa N. 1966. Cultura Criº în Transilvania. Acta Musei Napo-
censis 3, 9–47.
Vlassa N. 1972. Eine frühneolithische Kultur mit bemalter
Keramik der vor-Starèevo-Körös-Zeit in Cluj-Gura Baciului,
Siebenbürgen. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 47, 174–197.
Vorgiæ, B. & Brukner, B. 2006. (eds), Problemi prelaznog perioda
starèevaèke u vinèasku kulturu – Current problems of the
transition period from Starèevo to Vinèa culture. Zrenjanin.
Vörös 2005. Neolitikus állalttartás és vadászat a Dél-Alföldön –
Neolithic animal husbandry and hunting in the Great Hungar-
ian Plain. In Bende L. & Lõrinczy G. (eds), Hétköznapok
Vénuszai. Hódmezõvásárhely, 203–243.
Whittle A. 1985. Neolithic Europe: a survey. Cambridge.
Whittle A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic: the creation of new
worlds. Cambridge.
Whittle A. 2003. The archaeology of people: dimensions of Neo-
lithic life. London.
Whittle A. 2005. Lived experience in the Early Neolithic of the
Great Hungarian Plain. In Bailey, Whittle & Cummings 2005
(eds), 64–70.
Whittle A. 2007. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungar-
ian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecseg-
falva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica
21). Budapest.
Whittle A. 2010. The long and winding road: reflections on
sixth-millenium process. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P.
(eds), 2010, 91–102.
Yoffee N. 1990. Before Babel. A Review Article. Proceedings of
the Prehistoric Society 56, 299–313.
Zambotti P. L. 1943. Le più antiche culture agricole Europee.
L’Italia, i Balcani e l’Europa Centrale durante il neo-
eneolitico. Milano–Messina.
K. Zoffmann Zs. 2005. Embertani adatok a dél-alföldi neolitikum
biológiai és történelmi rekonstrukciójához – Anthropological
data to the biological and historical reconstruction of the Neo-
lithic of the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain. In
Bende L. & Lõrinczy G. (eds), Hétköznapok Vénuszai.
Hódmezõvásárhely, 145–155.
Zvelebil M. 2005. Looking back at the neolithic transition in Eu-
rope. European Journal of Archaeology 8, 183–194.
Zvelebil M. &. Zvelebil K. V. 1988. Agricultural transition and
Indo-European dispersals. Antiquity 62, 574–583.
Zvelebil M., Lukes A. & Pettitt P. 2010. The emergence of the
LBK Culture: search for the ancestors. In Gronenborn &
Petrasch 2010 (Hrsg.), 301–325.