The First Neolithic Sites in Central/South-East European Transect. Volume III: The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary 9781407309170, 9781407338996

Citation preview

BAR S2334 2012 ANDERS & SIKLÓSI (Eds) THE KÖRÖS CULTURE IN EASTERN HUNGARY

B A R

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

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

ISBN 9781407309170 paperback ISBN 9781407338996 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407309170 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

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 excavated as well as those recorded in the course of surface surveys. In view of the fact that in the Neolithization of Europe the axis running from the Balkans to the Carpathians is of essential importance we have decided to make up the inventory 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 – Southeastern Poland (see map). The result are five volume catalogue 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 settlement, material culture, subsitance economy 2. Additional data on cultural and economic problems specific 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 categories: 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 relation 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 – chronological framework of sites C. The most important references Each volume deals with a different taxonomic unit representing 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 construction 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 realized 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 questions of the Early Neolithic in southern Alföld I–II] PhD dissertation. 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 traditional 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 settlements (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 relative and absolute chronology (Krisztián Oross & Zsuzsanna Siklósi) and on earlier somewhat neglected artefactual material 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. Zoffmann), as well as the archaeozoological samples (László Bartosiewicz, Erika Gál, Pál Sümegi) and the archaeobotanical remains (Ferenc Gyulai) from various settlements. Obviously, there are some thematic overlaps between the studies, such as the culture’s research history and the chronology 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 Hungarian 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

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: Prehistoric Population Dynamics and the Roots of Socio-Cultural 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 concentration of sites varied considerably from region to region, 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 heartland 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). Obviously, the number of sites registered in a particular area also depends on the extent to which that area has been researched, 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 always be checked in the field. The known sites are not shown on the usual schematic maps, but on 18th century maps preserving 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 hydrological 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 contributed to this volume for their meticulous work. Alexandra Anders Zsuzsanna Siklósi

7

9–37.

KÖRÖS CULTURE RESEARCH HISTORY Pál Raczky Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, H-1088 Budapest, Múzeum körút 4/B, Hungary; [email protected] 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).

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 inference, dependent on a number of arguments and always vulnerable to reassessment.” (Renfrew 1979, 59). For those specialists 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 prehistorians across Europe had to rely on sophisticated typochronologies, sequences of variably defined morphological types (overwhelmingly ceramics) that attained new meaning 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 Hungary, terms such as “culture”, “group” or “phase” have often 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 distribution of material culture in time and space becomes a serious 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 understanding of the Körös culture, the word chronology largely remains shorthand for relative chronology unless radiometric 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 Hungarian Plain. One line of reasoning was based on the individual tracing and interpretation of the first, late nineteenth and early twentieth century finds representing phases in research 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

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 discussion of the beginnings of neolithization in Hungary and the Danube region. Both were published almost simultaneously in 1929: the summarizing research works by Ferenc Tompa (1929) and Vere Gordon Childe (1929). The work by Ferenc Tompa presented the “Linearkeramik” environment of northern Hungary as the artefactual context within which the first local neolithic culture appeared as the independent “eastern province” of the central European “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 “Spiralmeander” culture arriving from the Sudetenland (the modern-day border areas between Bohemia, Moravia, and parts of Silesia as included within the former state of Czechoslovakia: 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” cultural units of the Chalcolithic (Tompa 1929, 64: Synchronistische Tabelle, Abb. 7). In contrast to this idea, V. Gordon Childe viewed the first neolithic cultures of the Danubian I, represented by either 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 occurrence of the Bükk culture in the Upper Tisza region by the interaction of local “hunters” and a Neolithic population

9

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 illustrated 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 promoted 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 ceramic 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 particular style of certain sherds in a private collection from Szerbkeresztúr 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 Copper Age. Meanwhile, he pointed out that this style of decoration may be observed in various archaeological periods. Following these events, János Banner summarized the results of his own excavations at the sites of Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs-Zsoldos-tanya, Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs-Kovács-tanya and Hódmezõvásárhely-KotacpartVata-tanya in 1932. At these sites, he identified independent early neolithic settlements, accompanied by sherds representing the nail-decorated pottery style. Since in the genetic-chronological concept drafted by Tompa the first neolithic assemblages in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain were represented by Phases I–II of the Tisza culture, Banner termed his newly discovered pottery assemblage, Phase III of the Tisza culture (Banner 1932). In this publication, Banner compiled a map of 33 sites characterized 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 Donauländischen Archaeologen” during the autumn of 1933. Within the framework of this professional excursion they were given the opportunity to study the results of excavations 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 assemblages 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 assemblages 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 region (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

synchronous development of the Vinèa and Tisza settlements on the basis of the Csóka settlement (Childe 1929, 75–76, 79), the so-called “nail-decorated horizon” represented by finds at Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs and Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart could no longer be seen as synchronous 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 (Banner 1937, 32) that considering the known geographical distribution 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 terminology was used to denote the first occurrence of the Neolithic 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 ceramics of central European extraction found in northern Hungary remains undisputed. Never-the-less, the recognition 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 archaeological literature of Hungary. The influence of this line of thought was clearly reflected in a new trend. The Körös culture 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 different 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 recognized as representing a different set of southern influences. József Csalog concluded that the Bükk culture of the Northern 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 culture (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 mentioned 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-

10

Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history

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.

Tisza, Bükk and Linearband ceramic styles respectively and should be considered the earliest neolithic culture in Hungary 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 regarded one of the the first “foreign” scholars to recognized the diagnostic importance of the connections between the Körös, Vinèa and Starèevo cultures (Korošec 1943). Although 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 previously 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 relatively 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 relation to the region defined by the Danube–Drava–Sava rivers. He defined the so-called “Körösgattung” as the equivalent of the Starèevo culture in the Tisza region. In his system, 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 geographical 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-Kultur” 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 include all sites in northern Hungary under the umbrella term Körös culture (Milojæiæ 1949b, 264–265). In his publication, the usage “Körös – bzw. Starèevo (IV) – Kultur” reappears, 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 reconstruction of the development from Phase I to IV (Milojèiæ 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” represented an attempt to extend this terminology in the direction of Bulgaria (Milojèiæ 1950, 113). Studying the geographical

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 translation: 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 approach 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 settlements 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-Kotacpart-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 systematic 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 emphasized the relative scarcity of painted ware. On the other hand, she pointed out the use of various figurative relief patterns 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 assemblage. Ida Kutzián likewise discussed various types of “idols” as a typical group of Körös culture artefacts. Following this meticulous synthesis, she came to a very important conclusion in terms of relative chronology, namely, that Körös culture reached the Carpathian Basin prior to the

11

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

distribution of “Bandkeramik” in eastern and southeastern Europe, Milojèiæ again consistently used the Körös–Starèevo (IV) cultural definition. Meanwhile he insisted that “Bandkeramik”, that is the so-called “donauländische Kulturkreis”, originated in Central Europe and was independent 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 criticism 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 Bandkeramik” 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 “genetic” 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 culture in Thessaly was organically connected with a southworth 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 Starèevo III label were considered radically different from the Körös–Starèevo cultural environment representing the significantly younger Bükk–Szakálhát–Dimini III–IV–Galepsos 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 occurrence of Körös–Starèevo stylistic elements in the Morava and Danube region as a very early wave of immigration from the south (Childe 1950, 100). In essence, the same continent-wide cultural diffusion of Near Eastern origins was outlined by Schachermeyr in his theory of “vorderasiatische Kulturtrift”, where the north-western endpoints were marked by sites of the Starèevo and Körös cultures (Schachermeyr 1953, 282, map on page 285). Studying the roots of agriculture in Europe, Milojèiæ concluded that a wave of neolithization predating all previous influences 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 associated 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

Europe, that is, the roots of Bandkeramik, to local Mesolithic cultures (Milojèiæ 1952, 313, 316). Within this new interpretative framework, the Bandkeramik of central Europe and the pottery style represented by the Körös–Starèevo cultures in south-eastern Europe were seen as having radically different origins. At the beginning of the 1950s another new development 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 similarities with finds from the Criº–Starèevo culture. This added new geographical dimensions to the problem with distributions reaching into Moldavia and Transylvania (Nestor et al. 1951, 59–60). The new approach was fundamentally different from the subsequent stand taken by Romanian researchers, 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 Romania) 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. Following the system drafted by Milojèiæ on the basis of evaluation of 73 sites, she also opted for a sequence of four chronological phases including phases I–IIa–IIb–III. Within this chronological system the Körös culture was again viewed as contemporary with Phase III at Starèevo (ArandjeloviæGarašanin 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. Consequently, he dated the beginnings of the Early Neolithic to between 4000 and 3500 BC (Grbiæ 1957, chronological chart on page 138). Meanwhile Milutin Garašanin interpreted early neolithic assemblages in Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary within the framework of the “Starèevo-Gruppe” (Garašanin 1958, 4–5), a subgroup referring merely to localized 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 settlements, largely represented by material deposited in pits (Garašanin 1961, 144–145). Following 1945, Körös culture research somewhat decelerated 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 (Banner & Párducz 1948). In the meantime, János Banner published new data from his small-scale excavations at Hódmezõvásárhely-Bodzáspart (Banner 1954). The beginnings of

12

Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history

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 (Kalicz 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 important 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 summarized the results of neolithic research in Hungary. He pointed out that there was still no reliable stratigraphic evidence with regard to the internal phasing of the “Körös group”. At the same time, he cast strong doubts on the chronological parallel drawn with the latest phase of the Starèevo culture in Serbia (Milojèiæ: IV. and Garašanin: III.; Banner 1961, 207–208). Banner also emphasized that influences of the Körös Culture entity could be clearly traced in the stylistic characteristics of Linearband ceramics from both Transdanubia (Transdanubian LBK, that is, Transdanubian Linear Pottery = TLP) and the “Alföld” style Linearband ceramics from the Great Hungarian Plain (Banner 1961, 209–211; also known as Alföld Linienbandkeramik = ALBK that is Alföld Linear Pottery = ALP; for the explanation 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 Linear Pottery–Tisza cultures corresponded to the Early, Middle 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 (Neustupný 1956, 461–462; Soudský 1956, 411–412). Considering the typological connections of the so-called “Volutenkeramik” 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). Reconstructing the sphere of the oldest Bandkeramik finds in Central Europe, Hans Quitta pointed to late Starèevo/Körös and early Vinèa connections respectively. Among the possible places of origin, he considered the Central Danube Region 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.

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 (Milojèiæ 1959). Among other things, the stratigraphic position of the so-called Vorsesklo “barbotin, nail, cardium wares”, preceding the Sesklo Period, offered an especially good basis for drawing Aegean parallels to the Körös-Starèevo culture (Milojèiæ 1959, 10–11, 31–32). On the basis of excavations in Greece and Herzegovina (former Yugoslavia) and additional data (e. g. from Gremnos–Argissa, Sesklo, and Crvena Stijena) Milojèiæ thought he had discovered evidence of pre-ceramic developments in the Balkans, comparable to parallel phenomena in the Near East (Milojèiæ 1960). This theory gave support to several previously voiced hypotheses concerning the autochthonous character of neolithization in south-eastern Europe. One might say that this interpretation swept through European Neolithic archaeology on a wave of fashion (Summary of these archaeological 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 MaroslelePana, (Szeged)-Gyálarét-Szilágyi major, Röszke-Lúdvár, Deszk-I. sz. Olajkút (Trogmayer 1968a; 2003; 2004). Massive quantities of finds were recovered from refuse pits, thus representing a singular aspect of the material culture. Moreover, 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 technicality. 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-selection. Among others, Pit 1 at the site of Röszke-Lúdvár yielded 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 decorative 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-division of the Körös group (Trogmayer 1964). The synthesis of his research was prepared in the form of an unpublished dissertation in 1968 (Trogmayer 1968b). As a consequence this work remained largely unknown internationally. Some

13

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 inventoried in the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain, he defined the northernmost distribution area along an EastWest 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 Kalocsa (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 information in itself concerning the form of Körös culture houses. It was no surprise therefore, when the remains of Körös 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 review 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 Aegean relations (Makkay 1965; 1969). At this time, subsequently debated terms such as “Protovinèa Age”, “Protovinèa-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 “ProtovinèaHorizont” 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 geographically define interfaces between the Körös and Starèevo cultures in the Srem, Baèka and Banat regions of Voivodina 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

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 Temperate Europe zonation within the broader unit of southeastern 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 studies oriented exclusively by chronology. He also dramatically illustrated how the archaeological “foundations” of the entire PPN Period and Early Monochrome pottery were unacceptable (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 indicators of distinction between human groups” (Nandris 1970, 208). This summary opinion was actually a harsh criticism 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 typochronologies “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 comprehensible…” (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 reconstructing 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 figurine, labrets and cattle metapodial- based bone spoons. Likewise, 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 little influence on European researchers, who kept on investing 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

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

Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history

other factors, the geographical distribution of “horned pendants” in the central Balkan area outlined a symbolic phenomenon 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 intellectual 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 theoretical 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 Mallory, Makkay called this approach “the diachronic geography of finds”, concentrating on the distribution of special artefact types within the same time horizon (isotypes). Groupings identified in the territorial distribution of isotypes may offer a chance for tentatively reconstructing ethnic 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 & CavalliSforza 1971; 1973) in accordance with the first calibrated radiometric dates obtained for the beginnings of food production in Europe. Evidently, the model that advocated waves of demic diffusion and its chronological sequence had a consequence for interpretations of the Körös culture as well. Accordingly, the wave of neolithization reached the Carpathian Basin with a certain delay in comparison with the south-eastern 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 obtained in 1970. Meanwhile, he admitted that the internal phasing of the Starèevo- and Körös cultures was still unresolved in the concerned areas (Quitta 1970, 54 and note 15). On the basis of what was known at the time, Nándor Kalicz

2

summarized and mapped the geographical distribution of the Körös culture and Linearband ceramics in the Carpathian Basin (Kalicz 1970, Fig. 7, 1971, Abb. 1). It was an important event in research history. In 1970 an international conference was organized in Székesfehérvár, Hungary, titled “Die aktuellen Fragen der Bandkeramik”. This event was devoted to the emergence of the Linearband culture in Europe with special regard to research 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 northernmost 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 interpretation, 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 Transdanubian 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 parallel development between the Körös and Alföld Linear Pottery cultures from the beginning (Trogmayer 1972, 73–75). Contemporary researchers in Slovakia came up with essentially 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- Kultur” 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 under Körös culture influence (Vékony 1971; Kalicz & Makkay 1972a, 80–81; 1972b, 94–95).2 Meanwhile John

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

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 foundation of neolithization in Southeastern Europe was undoubtedly inspired by the discovery of emphatically important prehistoric sites in the Iron Gates Gorge of the Danube during 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 seeking 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 artefacts (Srejoviæ 1971). The site of Gura Baciului/Bácsitorok, linked to Lepenski Vir through the presence of sculpted boulders, also yielded white painted ware indicative of the Starèevo I–Criº I phase in Transylvania, in western 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 (Karmanski 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 connections 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 illustrated by a summary published by Stojan Dimitrijeviæ. He drafted a new, alternative evolution of the entire Starèevo culture (Dimitrijeviæ 1969; 1974) that fundamentally diverged 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 Region, as well as Criº culture derivatives in Oltenia, Muntenia and Moldavia (Dimitrijeviæ 1974, 94). Another line of international inquiry was followed by

Sándor Bökönyi who compared Körös culture animal bone assemblages to those from corresponding sites in Greece (Bökönyi 1971, 642–643, Table 1). His subsequent groundbreaking work (Bökönyi 1974) set the contextual and to some extent methodological framework for neolithic archaeozoology 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 reconstructing Körös culture history (see summaries by Bartosiewicz, 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 present in the Upper Tisza Region (Kalicz & Makkay 1974a; 1974b; 1977a; Makkay 2003c; Kalicz in this volume). The most important characteristics of this artefactual assemblage included a rich inventory of anthropomorphic figurines 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 relevant 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 culture and labelled it the “Méhtelek type”. Presumably, this type was connected to the block of Körös culture settlements 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 directions for neolithization of the Carpathian Basin that corresponded 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 research. In their important 1977 monograph on the emergence of the ALBK culture, Nándor Kalicz and János Makkay offered a new approach to the Körös culture as a possible predecessor on the basis of to geographical characteristics and the chronological framework (Kalicz & Makkay 1977b). This work was a multi-faceted synthesis of problems concerning the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Great Hungarian 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).

16

Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history

Beginning in 1976, field surveys and small-scale excavations 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 recovered 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 poststructure built on the ground surface. Even the roof construction with ridgeposts could be identified in the houses at Tiszajenõ and Szajol (Lenneis 1997, Fig. 3–4). This structure, in addition to other features, seems to have been a typological 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 remained widely accepted even today (Horváth & Simon 2004; Lichardus-Itten & Lichardus 2004, 49–50; Stäuble 2005, 211–213, Raczky 2006). In light of these reconstructions, previous efforts to interpret pits recovered in Transdanubia (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 (Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb: Bánffy 2004, 29–47; the relevant data base by Oross & Bánffy 2009, 182–184, Fig. 9) and the Great Hungarian Plain (Füzesabony-Gubakút: Domboróczki 1997, Mezõkövesd-Mocsolyás: Kalicz & Koós 1997a; 1997b; 2000; 2002). They were also built on the surface 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 Haberey presented pits excavated at the settlement of KölnLindenthal 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 remained particularly popular among researchers of the south-east European Neolithic (the problem has been summarised 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

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 habitation areas. This latter point in itself may be seen as indicative of a certain reliance on riverine and floodplain resources. 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). Another environmental study evaluated Körös culture settlements in the Tiszazug microregion (defined by the confluence of the Tisza and Körös rivers) within a European context (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 micro-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-covered 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 settlement 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 accumulated 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 southern Hungary. Meanwhile, referring to the horizontal stratigraphy of the latest Starèevo and earliest TLBK sites, he argued for the diachronic Starèevo–TLBK sequence, establishing 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

17

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 Protosesklo ware. It was actually the Szarvas find that provided supporting evidence for Makkay’s frequently raised hypothesis that from the onset, rates of development in the First Temperate Neolithic had been comparable in southeast 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 intensive 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 neolithic 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 limitations, the valuable analysis of these 304 “KS” (Körös– Starèevo) sites concentrated in a relatively small area remained largely inaccessible to international research (Makkay 1982b, Table I on page 113). Presuming synchronous occupation, on the basis of the compiled data, an average minimum 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) culture on the Great Hungarian Plain. With regard to the prevailing schools of thought at the time, in addition to chronological 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 “today 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 neolithic 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

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 questions at the beginning of the 1980s such as the possibility of identifying ethnicity and language through the material culture of the Körös–Starèevo entity. These ideas, however, remained hypothetical since at the time we had precious little information on mesolithic sites preceeding the Early Neolithic in the Carpathian Basin. Speculations about the ethnicity of a Mesolithic base population and its potential linguistic differences therefore could not be supported by sufficient 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-Hungarian 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 arrangement of Körös culture “shoreline settlements” (Sherratt 1982a, 16–17, Table 2.1, Fig 2.3–Fig.2.6.). In addition, archaeometric surveys at the settlement of DévaványaRéhelyi-dûlõ resulted in signatures indicative of discrete household clusters with associated storage and working areas at approximate distances of 50 m from each other (Sherratt 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 excavations carried out in this area, and especially efforts to use statistics in the evaluation of the newly excavated material, 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, Andrew Sherratt made a clear distinction between the Körös and Starèevo cultures. His distribution map was also complemented 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 CircumMediterranean complexes (Garašanin 1982). He considered the Körös group to be an independent entity within the Carpatho-Central Balkan complex, with its southern boundary 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 research at the time accepted relatively clearly defined geographical borders for the Körös culture (or group).

18

Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history

Given these developments, the geographical distribution of the Körös culture had to be revised after the important discoveries of Körös culture sites north of the city of Szolnok at Nagykörû-Tsz gyümölcsös and Kõtelek-Huszársarok, 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 recovered. This was the first ever archaeological evidence of possible 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 Transylvania and the Transcarpathian region (Bader 1968; Balahuri 1975, 281, Abb. 1.3; Kalicz & Makkay 1977a; Ignaþ 1978; 1979; Lakó 1977; 1978; Lazarovici & Lakó 1981; Lazarovici 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; Makkay 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 texture 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 features behind this term are not as strictly defined as suggested by the name. Instead of belonging to a narrowly determined 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

or symbolic practices and other forms of special, ritual behaviour were detected. The presence of such pits provided János Makkay with yet another chance to map the geographical distribution of signatures indicative of such activities 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 remained continuously in the forefront of Makkay’s attention (Makkay 1986; 1989; 2002). Likewise, he continued reiterate arguments concerning connections between the Carpathian Basin and Neolithic cultures in Thessaly notwithstanding the problem of Starèevo-Körös chronological connections (Makkay 1984b). Discussing chronological issues, Makkay correctly raised the question of relationships between the Körös–Starèevo and LBK cultures. Although tangible 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 compiled a sequence of features whose typological analysis aided the reconstruction of the three-tier internal chronology of the Körös-Starèevo culture (Makkay 1987, 16, Chronologische Tabelle). However, the dating value of certain typological characteristics (carinated bowls, high pedestalled vessels, black burnished ware, finely incised and impressed motifs etc.) were brought into question by Makkay himself (Makkay 1996, 45–47). The earliest period is characterized by white painted ware on a red ground (Makkay 1981; 1996, Pl. 9, 11), while pottery assemblages of the “late phase” (= Protovinèa) were identified using the evidence 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 eminent 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 primarily denotes a relationship in time: ‘before’, ‘sooner’, ‘earlier’, ‘preceding’, ‘older’ … The term Protovinèa denotes 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 nevertheless 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.

19

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Within the context of the Protovinèa polemics, an analogous debate between Colin Renfrew and John E. Coleman is worth mentioning here. Regarding Early Bronze Age terminology in the Aegean, Renfrew wrote: “Surely the appropriate 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 cultural 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 reassessment.”…“Either the EH I, II, III and EC I, II and III designations refer to periods, in which case they should not be confused with designations for material, or they refer to assemblages. 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 instead...” (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 dynamics in the Early Neolithic. Since when relative chronologies 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 explained in light of a polycentric model within the distribution 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 preferred 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 justified, although he considered only a few characteristics reliable in defining its early and late phases. In his opinion, the majority of known assemblages come from its “classical”

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 development 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 Carpathian Basin on a European scale. These invariably included treatises regarding the Körös culture. Alasdair Whittle included the distribution of Körös settlements in the surroundings of the town of Dévaványa among his examples of early agricultural communities in south-east Europe (Whittle 1985, 55–58 and Fig. 3.12). Whittle dated the time period 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 cultures within the Balkano-Carpathic zone (Lichardus & Lichardus-Itten 1985, 245–250). Recent analyses of lithic finds from the Early and Middle Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin directed international attention to the importance of this class of artefacts (Kaczanowska 1985; Bácskay & Simán 1987). The Neolithic utilization 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 research 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; CavalliSforza et al. 1988). This complex set of interpretations was further enhanced in the model put forward by Colin Renfrew. He associated the spread of farming in Europe with the initial dispersal of Indo-European languages from Anatolia (Renfrew 1987, 145–177). Following Graham Clark (Clark 1977, 121 and Fig. 55), one of his archaeological arguments was the almost perfect morphological correspondence between early stamp seals (pintaderas) from Anatolia and south-eastern Europe (Renfrew 1987, Fig. 7.8). From the beginning, Renfrew’s comprehensive historical explanation 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;

20

Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history

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, demographers and linguists alike, thereby generating a major body of literature whose contents eventually reached global proportions (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 virtually 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 archaeologists may also have been diverted by large-scale rescue excavations that preceded the construction of a motorway network across the country. At the same time, the previously 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 prehistoric research. Within the context of this summary on research history it is particularly interesting that among archaeologists, 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 decoration 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 organized in Szolnok and Szeged (Bökönyi ed. 1989) included several studies discussing details of the Early Neolithic in south- eastern Europe by Sándor Bökönyi, Milutin Garašanin, Milorad Giriæ, Ferenc Horváth, Janusz Krzysztof Koz³owski, Walter Meier-Arendt, Ivan Pavlù and Ottó Trogmayer. In the same volume, the geographical distribution 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 transition 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-

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 differences 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 formation of the Vinèa culture (Petroviæ 1990; Vetniæ 1990), although 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 differences 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 examples drawn from a broader pool of prehistoric cultures including the evaluation of sacred perceptions and ritual practices 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 external 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 associated with the banks of waterways but rather with the distribution of arable loess soils, not typical of the environmental zones inhabited by the Starèevo–Körös cultures (Lüning 1991, 49–53).

21

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

In his work entitled “Atlas du Néolithique Européen”, Nándor Kalicz published a short summary of the most important 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 project (“Archaeological Topography of Hungary”) in the same region. The first monograph resulting from the Microregion Research Project was published in 1992 (Bökönyi ed. 1992). It was in this volume that János Makkay published the results of his excavation at the Körös culture settlement 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 excavated at this site. The remains of two burnt houses measuring 10–12 m in length and 4–6 m in width were recovered from the site. In addition, large refuse pits, ovens, fire places, sacrificial pits, and graves were found in the proximity of houses. The find material was unusually rich. The relatively few chipped artefacts recovered at the site were published 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 contrast with the 500 years estimated for the Körös culture using 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 settlement as 30–40 years, likewise questioning the 500 years continuity of settlement. Bökönyi listed a number of possible 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 explanation either. Today it is understood that that estimates of population size and life span based simply on faunal remains need to be treated with extreme caution. In his dissertation, Ferenc Horváth wrote a brief summary of early neolithic research in the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain. In his account he also presented results of excavations at Pitvaros-Víztározó where the remains of 27 houses arranged in rows were recovered over an area of 6000 m2. The four superimposed settlement layers 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 approximately 5550/5500–5450 BC in terms of absolute chronology. Ferenc Horváth sub-divided the entire development of the Körös culture into Phases I–IV (Horváth 1994, 13–19).

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 relevant to the problem. He also discussed characteristics of the Körös–Starèevo cultures in the “Pannonian Basin” specifically. 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 excavations 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). Meanwhile, 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 proceedings of this meeting (Istvánovits ed. 1994) contain several articles with discussions of the Early and Middle Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin (Chapman 1994; Horváth & Hertelendi 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 culture could thus be estimated using 28 calibrated dates spanning 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 chronologies 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 supporting their historical theory that were also relevant to the relationship between the local Mesolithic and the Körös culture 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 floodplains 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 organized 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,

22

Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history

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 district (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 indicates that they could have been connected with early 6th millennium Körös culture sites in the Szolnok region (critically 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 mesolithic 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 between 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 culture 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 published 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 culture. As he saw it, the inhibiting factor was the ethnic/linguistic 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 excavations preceding the construction of the M3 motorway covered a distance of almost 175 km between 1993 and 1996. They offered a unique opportunity for large surface excavations in the piedmont area of the Northern Hill Region in Hungary. It was at this time that the sites of Füzesabony-Gubakút (Domboróczki 1997) and MezõkövesdMocsolyás (Kalicz & Koós 1997a) were first published in the form of catalogues. Both studies presented large Szatmár 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 European LBK settlements, emulating their internal structure. This recognition has been discussed in several subsequent publications in the European archaeological literature (summarized in: Domboróczki 2001a; 2001b; 2003; Kalicz &

Koós 1997b; 2000; 2002). In essence, this phenomenon indicated that by around 5600 BC a “ready made” culture existed in the form of the LBK (Szatmár II) in the Upper Tisza Region that could not be archaeologically linked to any local 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 Sümegi 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 palaeogeographical backround of the area they came up with concepts such as the Carpathian Basin Neolithic Adaptation Zone (CABAN AZ), Central European-Balkanic Agro-Ecological 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 reminiscent of the so-called eco-cultural/stylistic zonation developed by Stefan K. Koz³owski for the Central European Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic (Koz³owski S. K. 2001). A certain degree of environmental determinism is palpable behind these models. This approach also depicted the the northern section of the Great Hungarian Plain as an “ecological trap” (Sümegi & Kertész 1998).

KÖRÖS CULTURE RESEARCH IN THE 21th CENTURY – TOWARDS NEW SYNTHESES Around the turn of the twenty-first century, the development of early neolithic research in Hungary took place against the background of several syntheses of European dimensions. 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 issue regarding the archaeological interpretation of “rubbish”. He points to a better definition of “structured deposition” (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 neolithization in south-eastern Europe attracted attention on an almost international scale. This trend is reflected by symbolic titles given to edited volumes such as “The Widening Debate” (Cunliffe, Davies & Renfrew eds, 2002), and “The Widening Harvest” (Ammermann & Biagi eds, 2003). In

23

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

spite of this, the newly emerging mentality concerning the spatial and temporal characteristics of cultural entities during the Early Neolithic in Southeastern Europe is best reflected by the title of a book written on a slightly different topic: “Parallel tracks in time: Human evolution and archaeology” (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 northern 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 descent, they were in a real sense colonisers, since the area seems to have been at best little visited in the preceding millennia” (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 system represented by the rigid concepts of structure, community and archaeological culture, Whittle emphasized a “network” based, open system approach in the historical reconstruction 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 emphasize the role of habitus, i. e. habitus-defining practices in relation to the northern boundary of the Körös area of distribution, rather than simply relying on the hypothetical agroecological 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 complex 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 concerning the neolithization of Europe and its relation to mesolithic antecedents by Marion Lichardus-Itten and Jan Lichardus (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 interest 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

volume, Makkay and his co-authors presented the then current 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 labelled the CEB AEB model “unarchaeological” (Makkay 2003a, 494–495), although it was used in the preceding thematic 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 between their opinions both of them discussed a definite border that divided Mesolithic hunter-gatherer complexes in the north from the Early Neolithic Körös–Starèevo cultures toward the south. In their interpretation two different processes characterized the two sides of this border. Middle neolithic cultures in the northern section of the Great Hungarian Plain (ALBK) and Transdanubia (TLBK) supposedly 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 theoretical 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 settlement formed by the early Neolithic Körös culture. He therefore 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 village of Kisköre downstream all the way to the modern settlements of Rakamaz, Paszab and Ibrány (Domboróczki 2005, 8–9; 2010a, 140–144; 2010b, 181–184; Domboróczki & 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, recovering 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-

24

Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history

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 Hungarian Plain was transformed into a looser, mosaic-like settlement network north of Szolnok. This observation contributed to the idea that communities represented by the Körös culture as known in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain and the north-eastern Méhtelek area, may have met somewhere near the Tokaj piedmont area, as this volcanic 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 geographically different forms of the early neolithic cultural assemblages. 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 environment. Within this context the Upper Tisza valley between Szolnok and Méhtelek was described as an ecological-mental marginal zone (Raczky et al. 2010, 159–164), which provided a cultural environment for the subsequently developing ALBK, but whose cultural roots went back to the mosaic-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 population (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 conference 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 research history, as in the meantime the two volume monograph on the British-Hungarian joint project of Ecsegfalva, was also published (Whittle ed. 2007), prior to the preliminary report (Whittle 2010) on this small but important settlement also located on the northern margins of the Körös culture distribution area. Some other interesting papers delivered 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 devoted 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

focal problems in this context (Gronenborn 2010; Clare, Jöris & Weninger 2010). Parallel with research in the Tisza region, formative areas 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 excavated at Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb by Eszter Bánffy, who also made special efforts to embed this new information within the context of the development of LBK in Europe (Bánffy 2004). An exemplary case study was published by Pál Sümegi concerning the micro-regional environment of a Körös culture settlement of Tiszapüspöki-Karancspart-Háromág (Sümegi 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 evidence has been consistently mentioned in previous excavation 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 outcome 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 special regard to the critical evaluation of the Protovinèa problem (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 regions beyond the modern borders of Hungary (Draºovean 2007; Luca & Suciu 2007; Biagi, Gratuze & Boucetta 2007). The special session titled “Mesolithic/Neolithic Interactions in the Balkans and in the Middle Danube Basin” organized during the 2006 XVth World Congress of the International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences

25

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

(UISPP) in Lisbon, Portugal, yielded yet another thematic volume. The proceedings were published in 2007 (Koz³owski & 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 industries 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 geographical 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 colloquium “The Carpathian Basin and its Role in the Neolithisation of the Balkan Peninsula” (Luca ed. 2008). They identified 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 evidence 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 southern sections of the Tisza River valley. They also found it important to emphasize that in their view the northern extent of the Méhtelek facies was basically determined by the cognitive aspect of direct and secure access to lithic sources (especially those of obsidian) rather than by some sort of a mediating 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 previously known Méhtelek type sites in the Transcarpathian region (Potushniak 2004; 2005) could be directly linked to recently 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 considered 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-

ture settlements in the area (Kovács 2007), and was fundamental 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 title 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 including relevant historical aspects of the Körös culture in the Carpathian Basin (Bartosiewicz 2005, 54–56). Meanwhile 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 becomes evident that palaeodemographics, i.e. the size of early neolithic human populations determined the number of agencies and the quality of their network. Their developments, however, cannot be traced back directly to traits of a largely unknown Mesolithic network. In volume 2, Elisabetta Starnini published an archaeometric study of early neolithic pottery production in the Carpathian Basin (Starnini 2008). A similar approach is shown by research carried out in Transylvania by Michela Spataro (Spataro 2011). Some papers discussing archaeobotanical and archaeozoological 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 interesting 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 theoretical and methodological statements were presented with reference to concrete archaeological examples (Jongsma & Greenfield 2003). The title of this chapter, “Elusive Houses and Shifting Places: Starèevo-Körös-Criº Pottery Complexes” 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 concerning 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 systems appeared during the Neolithic. This logically hints at theoretical problems with the continuity and connection between 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 published in 2007. It contained the results of intensive field surveys and excavations he had carried out in the Szarvas micro- region and the Körös River valley between 1974 and 1989. The chapter was actually the publication of 11 settlement excavations conducted on the outskirts of Szarvas,

26

Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history

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 previously 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 contributions (Kaczanowska & Koz³owski 2007; Paluch 2007; Pap 2007) were published as Appendix I–III in the same volume. Undoubtedly, this collection of papers is a great contribution to prehistoric research in Hungary summarizing results the author had accumulated through decades of tremendous 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 concerning 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 inclusion 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 questionable from a methodological aspect. The fundamentals considered safe from his point of view are illustrated by the following sentence: “If we hypothesise that one community used a cemetery during two burial phases, although at present 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 volume (Makkay & Starnini 2008). Within the context of previously 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 quantitative information was published concerning the original size of the ceramic assemblages from which the discussed vessels were drawn, i. e. it is impossible to appraise the representative value of the material presented. Moreover, the numerical 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 qualification” of Elisabetta Starnini and the former editor Paolo Biagi. It is a sad and embarrassing narrative indeed. The polemic 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 scholarly reasoning (Makkay 2008).

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 expansion of the Körös culture toward Tokaj Hill in the north from the Upper Tisza Region. This means that while previous excavations at the sites of Nagykörû, Kõtelek and Tiszaszõlõs had indicated Körös culture populations crossing 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 “demographic barrier” in the region became altogether questionable. The single large Körös culture pit excavated at Ibrány turned out to have been a very rich source of archaeobotanical finds (Gyulai 2010). Meanwhile the archaeozoological assemblage showed characteristics of a “peripheral” settlement. Thanks to the availability of water-sieved samples – previously only studied at Ecsegfalva 23 in Hungary – 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 materials and the structure of the technological groups in IbrányNagyerdõ resemble those of Méhtelelek-Nádas and Ecsegfalva (Kaczanowska & Koz³owski 2010). The techno-functional analysis of Early Neolithic ceramic traditions in north-east Hungary revealed considerable variability in pottery 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 Distribution of the Starèevo/Körös Culture” organized in Budapest 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 concepts 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

27

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

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 southeast 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 karpatoukraine in den Jahren der Sowjetmacht. Slovenská Archeológia 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: variations of migration and adaptatioen. In Bailey, Whittle & Hofmann 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 kronológiájához – 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 Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 8, 1–48. Banner J. 1934. Ásatás a hódmezõvásárhelyi Kotacparton – Ausgrabung am Kotacpart bei Hódmezõvásárhely. Dolgozatok a Magyar Királyi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 9–10 (1933–1934), 54–84. Banner J. 1935. Ásatás a hódmezõvásárhelyi Kotacparton – Ausgrabungen 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 Entwicklung der Bronzezeit. Szeged. Banner J. 1954. Funde der Körös-Kultur von HódmezõvásárhelyBodzáspart. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4, 1–7. Banner J. 1961. Einige Probleme der ungarischen Neolitforschung. 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.

broader, European scenario. They are inseparably related to the emergence and spread of food production as well as linguistic and genetic problems in prehistoric archaeology. Shared interdisciplinary and international fora for continuous communication are indispensable in dealing with these problems on a continental scale. From this point of view the academic workshop organized by Mihael Budja, represented 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 organization “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 subjective. I could not help being influenced by decades of personal 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 transition 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 idõszakának települése Mindszent határában – Siedlung aus der jüngeren Periode der Körös-Kultur in der Gemarkung von Mindszent. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve–Studia Archaeologica 12, 15–29. Anthony D. W. & Wailes B. 1988. Review (Renfrew C.: Archaeology 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 industries of the earliest Neolithic populations in present Hungary. 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

Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history

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 culture in the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin and adjacent areas. 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 farming/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), Prehistoric 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 archaeological 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 utilization 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 farming 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 significance 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. Budapest, 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 Animals 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.

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 European 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, südostund mitteleuropäischen Neolithikums. Köln–Wien. Brukner B. 1966. Einige Fragen über die Verhhältnisse der Starèevo 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 Europe: from ceramic female figurines and cereal grains to entopics and human nuclear DNA polymorphic markers. Documenta Praehistorica 32, 53–72. Budja M. 2006. The transition to farming and the ceramic trajectories in Western Eurasia: from ceramic figurines to vessels. Documenta Praehistorica 33, 183–201. Budja M. 2009. Early Neolithic pottery dispersals and demic diffusion 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. Reconstruction of human evolution: bringing together genetic, archaeological and linguistic data. Proceedings of the National 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 prehistoric 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? Neolithic and Copper Age Settlements in Central and Eastern Europe. In Ritchie A. (ed.), Neolithic Orkney in its European Context. Cambridge, 347–362. Chapman J. 2003. From Franchthi to the Tiszazug: two Early Neolithic 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.

29

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 revised edition). London. Clare L., Jöris O. & Weninger B. 2010. Der Übergang vom Spätneolithikum 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 farming 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 language. The Puzzle of Indo-Europen origins). Current Anthropology 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 slawonischsyrmischen Raum und das Problem des Übergangs vom älteren zum mittleren Neolithikum in serbischen und kroatischen Donaugebiet. Vukovar. Dimitrijeviæ S. 1974. Das Problem der Gliederung der StarèevoKultur mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den Beitrag der südpannonischen Fundstellen zur Lösung dieses Problems. Poèeci ranih zemljoradnièkih kultura u Vojvodini i srpskom Podunavlju Materijali 10, 59–121. Dobosi V. 1972. Mesolithische Fundorten in Ungarn – Mezolithikus 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. Budapest, 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 középsõ neolitikum idõszakából, Heves megye területérõl – Characteristics 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 konferenciakötete. Debrecen, november 10–13. 1997. Debrecen, 67–94. Domboróczki L. 2003. Radiocarbon data from neolithic archaeological 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 határának problematikája a Tiszaszõlõs–Domaháza-pusztán végzett ásatás eredményeinek fényében – The problem of the Nor-

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 FriuliVenezia Giulia (2008–2009) 17, 101–155. Domboróczki L. & Raczky P. 2010. Excavations at Ibrány– Nagyerdõ and the northernmost distribution of the Körös culture 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 culture. Zrenjanin, 93–109. Draºovean F. 2007. Regional aspects in the process of the neolithisation 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 prehistoriques et protohistoriques. Beograd 9–15 Septembre 1971. Beograd, 85–96. Ehret C. 1988. Language change and the material correlates of language and ethnic shift. Antiquity 62, 564–574. Ehrich R. W. 1965. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. 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. Chicago–London, I: 375–394, II: 341–363. Eichmann W., Kertész R. & Marton T. 2010. Mesolithic in the LBK heartland of Transdanubia, western Hungary. In Gronenborn & 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 archaeology. 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 néolithique. Revue Internationale des Études Balkaniques 6, 520– 530. Galoviæ R. 1968. Die Starèevokultur in Jugoslawien. In Schwabedissen 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 Komission 39, 1–130.

30

Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history

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 protohistoriques. 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 Gheorgiu 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 idõrendjérõl Dévaványa-Réhely leletei alapján – Chronology in the late phase of the Körös culture on the basis of finds from Dévaványa-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. Connections 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 southeastern 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 Transition 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. International 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 környezet lokális és regionális adottságainak rekonstrukciójában. PhD Dissertation. Szeged University. Szeged. Manuscript. Gulyás S. & Sümegi P. 2004. Some aspects of prehistoric shellfishing from the Early Neolithic (Körös) site of Tiszapüspöki, Hungary: Methods and findings – Kagylógyûjtés a korai neolitikumban Magyarországon egy Körös lelõhely Tiszapüspöki példáján: módszerek és eredmények. Soosiana 25, 5–60. Gyulai F. 2005. Neolitikus növénymaradványok az Alföldrõl –

Neolithic plant remains of the Great Hungarian Plain. In Bende L. & Lõrinczy G. (eds), Hétköznapok Vénuszai. Hódmezõvásárhely, 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. Untersuchungen 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, American 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 radiocarbon 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 changes at the turn of the Early and Middle Neolithic in the TiszaMarosz Region. 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, 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. (= Papers in Economic Prehistory 3). Cambridge. Jongsma T. & Greenfield H. J. 2003. The Household Cluster Concept in Archaeology: Brief Review. In Nikolova, L. (ed.): Early Symbolic Systems for Communication in Southeast Europe. (= 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 neolithiscehn Feuersteinindustrien im Nordteil des Flussgebietes

31

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 Archaeologica 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 Carpathian 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 Theissund der Lengyel-Kultur. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 22, 13–23. Kalicz, N. 1971. Südliche Beziehungen im Neolithikum des südlichen 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 Beziehungen zur Linienbandkeramik. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 52, 91–130. Kalicz N. 1985. On the Chronological Problems of the Neolithic and Copper Age in Hungary. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Institutes der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 14, 21–51. Kalicz N. 1990. Frühneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus Südwestungarn. (= Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 4). Budapest. Kalicz N. 1993. The early phases of the Neolithic in Western Hungary (Transdanubia). Poroèilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika 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 Körösund der Starèevo-Kultur in Ungarn. In Hiller S. & Nikolov V. (eds), Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. 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 – Mezõkövesd-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 Motorway. 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 sírokkal Északkelet-Magyarországról – Eine Siedlung mit ältneolithischen Gräbern in Nordostungarn. Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 39, 45–76. Kalicz N. & Koós J. 2002. Eine Siedlung mit ältestneolithischen

Gräbern in Nordostungarn. Preistoria Alpina 37, 45–79. Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1972a. Probleme des frühen 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 Consecration” in the South-East European Neolithic. Acta Archaeologica 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 Prehistory of the Balkans. (= Publications of the Archaeological Institute 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, September 22–27, 1996 (= Archaeolingua Main Series 11). Budapest. Kertész R. & Sümegi P. 1999. Teóriák, kritika és egy modell: Miért állt meg a Körös-Starèevo-kultúra terjedése a Kárpátmedence 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. & Hertelendi 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 Scientiarum Hungaricae 29, 3–52. Korošec J. 1943. Körös – Vinèa. Glasnik hrvatskih zemaljskih muzeja u Sarajevu 54, 61–85.

32

Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history

Kosse K. 1979. Settlement Ecology of the Körös and Linear Pottery 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 animal 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 Interactions 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 culture) 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 – Campania 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 nordvestul României (Sãlajul, Sãtmarul ºi Clujul) – Die entwickelte Jungsteinzeit im Nordwesten Rumänien, Sãlaj, Satu Mare und Cluj. Acta Musei Porolissensis 7, 17–60. Lenneis E. 1997. Houseforms of the Central European Linear-pottery culture and of the Balkan Early Neolithic – a comparison. Poroèilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 24, 143–149.

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’Europe. Le Néolithique et le Chalcolithique entre la Méditerranée 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 linerbandkeramischer 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 südosteuropäischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums. (= Internationale Archäologie 18). Buch am Erlbach. Lichter C. 2003. Continuity and Change in Burial Customs: Examples 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 Colloquium: 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. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 35, 27–93. Makkay J. 1957. A bihari Berettyóvölgy õskori leletei – Prehistoric finds of the Berettyó valley in Bihar. Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 1948–56, 21–46. Makkay J. 1965. Die wichtigsten Fragen der Körös-StarèevoPeriode. 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 KörösStarèevo-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 Academiae 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.), Siedlungen der Kultur mit Linearkeramik. Nitra, 157–166. Makkay J. 1982b. A magyarországi neolitikum kutatásának új eredményei. Az idõrend és a népi azonosítás kérdései. Budapest. Makkay J. 1984a. Early stamp seals in South-East Europe. Budapest.

33

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Makkay J. 1984b. Chronological links between neolithic cultures of Thessaly and the Middle Danube region. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 36, 21–28. Makkay J. 1986. Angaben zur Archaologie der Indogermanenfrage I. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 38, 13–29. Makkay J. 1987. Kontakte zwischen der Körös-Starèevo-Kultur und der Linienbandkeramik. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 15–24. Makkay J. 1988. Az indoeurópai nyelvû népek õstörténete. Budapest. Makkay J. 1989. Zwei neuere Opfergruben der Körös-StarèevoKultur. In Rulf J. (ed.), Bylany Seminar 1987. Collected papers. Praha, 243–248. Makkay J. 1990. The Protovinèa problem – as seen from the northernmost 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. Archaeological 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-Kultur 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 Balkans. (= Publications of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece 3). Thessaloniki, 494–503. Makkay J. 2003b. Kõkori régiségek a vállaji határban. Nyíregyháza. Makkay J. 2003c. Méhteleki kutatások. Nyíregyháza. Makkay J. 2005. Supplement to the early Stamp Seals in Southeast 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 final 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. Prehistoric archaeology in Hungary in recent years. In Grammenos D. V. 2003. (ed), Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans. (= Publications of the Archaeological In-

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 linienbandkeramischen 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 Carpathian 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. Germania 30, 313–318. Milojèiæ V. 1959. Ergebnisse der deutschen Ausgrabungen in Thessalien (1953–1958). Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 6, 1–56. Milojèiæ V. 1960. Präkeramisches Neolithikum auf der Balkanhalbinsel. Germania 38, 320–335. Milojèiæ V. 1967. Die wichtigsten Fragen der Körös-StarèevoPeriode. 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 Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien I. Das frühe Neolithikum. (= Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 10–11). Bonn. Minichreiter C. 2007. Slavonski Brod, Galovo. Deset godina arheoloških istraživanja – Ten years of archaeological excavations. 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 Temperate Neolithic and the Bandkeramik: the Nature of the Problem. 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-BotoºaniDorohoi) 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

34

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 Mitteleuropa. 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 Nagykörübõl – 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 figural 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 Múzeumok 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 Neolithic 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 Etnográfia 24). Debrecen, 25–43. Raczky P. 1988. A Tisza-vidék kulturális és kronológiai kapcsolatai a Balkánnal és az Égeikummal a neolitikum, rézkor idõszakában. Szolnok. Raczky P. 1989. Chronological Framework of the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Tisza Region. In Bökönyi S. (ed.), Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections. (= 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 Hungarian Plain in earlier phases of the Neolithic. In Tasiæ, N. & Grozdanov, C. (eds.), Homage to Milutin Garašanin. Belgrade, 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 Gronenborn & Petrasch (Hrsg.), 147–173. Regenye J. 2007. A Starèevo-kultúra települése a Tihanyifélszigeten – 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 Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. London.

Aeneolithic Periods in Central and South-Eastern Europe. Slovenská Archeológia 16, 19–56. Neustupný E. 1988. Review. (Renfrew C.: Archaeology and language. The Puzzle of Indo-Europen origins). Current Anthropology 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 DévaványaBarcéi kishalom. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 1997, 5–25. Oross K. & Bánffy E. 2009. Three successive waves of Neolithisation: LBK development in Transdanubia. Documenta Praehistorica 36, 175–189. Orssich de Slavetich A. 1943. Bubanj, eine vorgeschichtliche Ansiedlung bei Niš. Mitteilungen der prähistorischen Komission 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.), Hétköznapok 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 idõrendjéhez. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36, 135–149. Periæ S. & Nikoliæ D. 2006. On the issue of an ossuary – pit dwelling 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 predecessors 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 Agriculture. 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-tiszavidéken. 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

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Renfrew C. 1979. Terminology and beyond. In Davis J. L. & Cherry J. F. (eds), Papers n Cycladic Prehistory (= Monograph 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 Anthropology 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 Prehistory 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. Hódmezõvásárhely, 123–144. Rosania C. N., Boulanger M. T., T. Biró K., Ryzhov S., Trnka G & Glascock M. D. 2008. Revisiting Carpathian obsidian. Antiquity 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 Starèevozur 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 Tiszajenõ. Neuere Angeben zu den Hausstypen des Frühneolithikums. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1969, 17–22. Sherratt A. 1980. Water, soil and seasonality in early cereal cultivation. 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.

Sherratt A. 1988. Review. (Renfrew C.: Archaeology and language. The Puzzle of Indo-Europen origins). Current Anthropology 29, 458–463. Sherratt A. & Sherratt S. 1988. The archaeology of Indo-European: an alternative view. Antiqiuty 62, 584–595. Šiška St. 1982. Kultur mit östlicher Linearkeramik in der Slowakei. In Chropovsk B. (Hrsg.) Siedlungen der Kultur mit Linearkeramik. 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. Journal 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 FriuliVenezia Giulia, Quaderno 12). Trieste. Srejoviæ D. 1963. Versuch einer historischen Wertung der VinèaGruppe. 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 Nordeuropa. (= 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 International 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 (ÉszakkeletMagyarország) 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 report. Sargetia 26, 79–90. Starnini E. 2000. Stone industries of the early Neolithic cultures in Hungary and their relationships with the Mesolithic background. 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 reconstruction and comparative geoarcheological analysis for the examined area. In Sümegi P. & Gulyás S. (eds.), The geohistory of Bátorliget Marshland. Budapest, 301–348.

36

Pál Raczky: Körös Culture research history

JÏnmomw noh c. ]ceo (Celco~) – Die mesolithische Fundstätte von Eger. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 1, 153–190. Vértes L. 1965. Az õskõkor és az átmeneti kõkor emlékei Magyarországon. (= 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 Napocensis 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 Hungarian 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 Neolithic 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 Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 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 neoeneolitico. 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 Neolithic 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 Europe. 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.

Sümegi P. 2004b: Findings of geoarcheological and environmental historical investigations at the Körös site of TiszapüspökiKarancspart 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? Jászkunság 44, 144–158. Tálas L. 1996. (ed.), At the Fringes of Three Worlds. Hunterersgatherers 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 Reports, 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.), Aotemjmch~ 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 Europe 6000–3000 B.C. London. Tringham R. 2000. Southeastern Europe in the transition to agriculture 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. Õsrégészeti 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 Südosteuropa. 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 Europe. Antiquity 69, 481–500. Vasiæ M. 1936. Praistoriska Vinèa II. Beograd. Vékony G. 1971. Bemerkungen zu den Streitfragen des Frühneolithikums im Karpatenbecken. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica 14, 17–24. Vértes L. 1951. Legmjhqhvepihe l`tmdih l` beowhlhe cmoz

37

39–47.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND OF THE KÖRÖS CULTURE Pál Sümegi University of Szeged, Department of Geology and Palaeontology, 6701 Szeged P.O. Box 658, Hungary; [email protected] Great Hungarian Plain. I recognized the role of neotectonic movements in the surface forming processes and the movement of riverbeds; I described the neotectonic basins and alluvial fans of the Plain, the surfaces covered with loess, the Holocene alluvia, basins, and the most significant Pleistocene and Holocene deposit facies, which served as a basis for my reconstruction of the development of the watercourse system in the Great Hungarian Plain. Under my supervision the Agrogeology Department of the Geological Institute of Hungary continued mapping the area (this had been ongoing since the late nineteenth century), and the most detailed geological, groundwater, inland inundation and soil maps were prepared (between 1929 and 1956). These maps were later used by Krisztina Kosse in her study of the environmental background of the Körös culture, even though she gave a wrong reference for the maps, just as for the one depicting the development of the watercourse system of the Plain (Kosse 1979, 79). The mapping continued under the conduct of András Rónai and the groundwater map of the Plain was prepared, along with a systematic, but not geomorphology-based geological map (Rónai 1961; 1972; 1985). Parallel to the geological and soil surveys, a number of archaeological, environmental archaeological studies were done in connection with the environmental aspects of the Körös settlement. The most noteworthy of all these are the observations of John Nandris (1970; 1972), whose studies on the floods of the Tisza river and the groundwater table pointed out that some Körös settlements, even though situated in a floodplain, were characterized by a significant fluctuation in the level of groundwater, which had an important impact on the breeding season. After Nandris’ work a groundbreaking monography was published on the environmental aspects of the Körös culture (Kosse 1979). The study covered geological, geomorphological and soil aspects as well as the problem of groundwater level and vegetation. This monography paved the way for the full reconstruction of the environment of the Körös culture, and it is not the author’s accountability that it could not be completed in the 1970s. It was rather the lack

INTRODUCTION This paper focuses on the environmental background of the Körös culture based on the scientific data gathered so far. To present the results I provide an overview of the environmental historical research on Körös sites and their environs, as well as paleoenvironmental studies on Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites. By comparing the micro- and macroenvironments of the Körös culture to those of other, chronologically successive or contemporary cultures, a more accurate picture can be gained of their landscape use and settlement strategies.

THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE KÖRÖS CULTURE IN PREVIOUS RESEARCH However surprising, the first data on the environment of the Körös sites were published by a Hungarian human geographer, Tibor Mendöl in 1928 and 1929, well before the cultural complex itself was recognized. On his contour map of the town of Szarvas and its vicinity, including Érpart, a Neolithic site, Mendöl summarized the data gathered by geodesic surveys of the area. He recognized loesscovered surfaces dating back to the Ice Age; these were higher above sea level and protected from floods. He interpreted these as remains of Neolithic settlement, agricultural and animal husbandry activities. At the same time he described floodplains periodically covered with water, which, due to the thriving reed, marshy shrub- and woodlands, provided building material, firewood and drinking water, as well as birds and fish, and which thus were interpreted as areas for hunting and gathering. The 1999 survey of the site of Szarvas-Érpart, conducted within the framework of the so-called Körös project, lead by the English archaeologist Alasdair Whittle (Whittle 2007 ed.), supports Mendöl’s 80-year-old interpretation.1 Following Mendöl’s article, József Sümeghy published a number of geological studies (Sümeghy 1929; 1937; 1942; 1944; 1952; 1953; 1954; 1956) on the environment of the Körös culture, the geology and soil characteristics of the

1

Sümegi P. 1999. Previous sites selection for environmental historical work in the Körös project. Manuscript, Debrecen.

39

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 1. The location of the Körös culture settlement of Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös as shown in the first military survey map (1782–1785). The map clearly shows the loess covered island in the flood plain. The Körös culture site (marked by a black square) is located on the northeastern edge of the island bordering on the floodplain.

of pollenanalytical, archaeobotanical, archaeozoological and soil data and their radiocarbon dating that made the precise reconstruction of the Early Neolithic environment of the Körös culture impossible, partly due to the questionable approach and methodology practiced by Hungarian researchers of the era. At the same time, however, the monography is problematic as the author (Kosse 1979) used hypothetical assumptions instead of actual geological data on the age and formation of the geological layers and features. These are especially dubious regarding the formation of infusion loess, the identification of soil types and their geographical extension, and the age and development of waterbeds, as the author (Kosse 1979) used the results of questionable observations and superficial analyses instead of unbiased geological, sedimentological descriptions and soil studies. Besides, large scale maps were used and local factors were not properly considered in the analysis. Conse-

quences of this methodological flaw can be detected in statements like 5% of all Körös sites are located on Pleistocene-aged sandy areas, although penetration tests performed at these sites certified that loess covered the sand layers (even though it might have been relocated due to the erosion caused by intensive ploughing). Consequently, the people of the Körös culture settled on the loess surface and not on the sandy bedrock. The author made similar mistakes when identifying and describing hydromorphic and chernozom soils, and erroneously discussed secondarily developed sodaic soils that were formed after the nineteenth-century river regulations (Nagy 1954) as part of the soil conditions of the Neolithic. After Kosse’s work was published, Andrew Sherratt undertook a detailed environmental archaeological study on the background of the Körös culture in the Great Hungarian Plain (Sherratt 1982; 1983). Since he was able to perform

40

Pál Sümegi: The environmental background of the Körös Culture

Table 1 The local environmental background of Late Mesolithic, Early Neolithic and MiddleNeolithic cultural complexes in the Carpathian Basin (after Sümegi 2007a) Breeding season Cultural complex

Temperature (temperature sum)

Soil (spatial extension)

Precipitation

Chernozom: 20–30% Körös

Starèevo

3000–3500 °C

3000–3200 °C

Sodaic soil: 10%

Below 350 mm

Above 400 mm

Late Mesolithic

2700–3200 °C

Above 400 mm

TLBK

2800–3200 °C

Above 400 mm

2900–3100 °C

Above 400 mm

surveys and mapping on his own, he could ignore the predominant hypotheses in Hungarian geology of that time, and his work was constructed upon his own, mainly geomorphological observations. He realized that Körös settlements are usually situated on Pleistocene-aged, loess-covered surfaces or on floodplain islands of larger basins, and that they are not located directly next to stream beds. The Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences conducted a series of microregional studies, and within this framework the detailed examination of the Gyomaendrõd area was organized as a continuation of Shratt’s environmental archaeological research. In the outskirts of Gyomaendrõd an international research group conducted comprehensive topographical, archaeological, geophysical and environmental historical investigations in 1986–89 (Bökönyi ed. 1992). During this research a high number of penetration tests were performed and exhaustive stratigraphical observations were made; the scope of the research covered the environs of Körös sites as well. Unfortunately, the technology-focused approach and the way the authors used soil mechanics terminology in the descriptions make it impossible to reconstruct the sedimentary layers and soil horizons identified and distinguished during the research. In one appendix, however, the geologist Mauro Cremaschi who participated in the project provided a detailed description of the soil and the deposits observed at the archaeological site of Endrõd 119, including features of the Körös-culture (Cremaschi 1992). He came to the conclusion that Körös sites were situated on loess-based chernozem soils, and the settlement area was covered with steppe or parkland steppe vegetation. No natural afforestation of the latter took place, as in the deposit no traces of woodland wegetation was found. These were the observations, analyses and concepts I had at hand when I started my own environmental historical, archaeological and geological research.

Vegetation (spatial extension) Steppe: 30–40%

Hydromorphic soil: 60–70%

Forest: 40–50% Waterfront, swamp: 10–20%

Brown forest soil: 70–80%

Forest: 80-90 %

Hydromorphic soil: 20–30%

Waterfront, swamp: 10–20%

Brown forest soil: 70–80%

Forest: 80%

Hydromorphic soil: 20–30%

Waterfront, swamp: 20%

Brown forest soil: 50–60%

Forest: 70–80 %

Hydromorphic soil: 50–40%

Waterfront, swamp: 20–30%

Brown forest soil: 50–60%

Forest: 70–80%

Hydromorphic soil: 50–40%

Waterfront, swamp: 20–30%

THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE KÖRÖS CULTURE IN THE MODERN RESEARCH The environment of the Körös culture on a macro- and mesoscale In the 1990s, the new environmental historical, archaeological and geological investigations, supported by radiocarbon data, clarified that until the end of the Quaternary Period a diverse environmental mosaic prevailed in the Carpathian Basin regarding climate, vegatation and soil conditions (Sümegi 1995; 1996). Since these varied environmental settings dominated the end of the Mesolithic and the beginning of the Neolithic era, they obviously must have had a substantial impact on the settlement and spreading possibilities of Neolithic cultural complexes emerging in the Carpathian Basin during the early New Stone Age. One of the most spectacular results of the environmental historical research was the establishment of a climatic and biogeographic borderline drawn on the basis of the geographic spread of Granaria frumentum, a thermophilic, air-berathing, pulmonate land snail that copes well with dry environments (Sümegi 1995; 1996; Sümegi & Krolopp 1995). This border runs from the Lake Balaton to the Csepel Islands and down to the mouth of the White Körös and Black Körös Rivers, and it signifies the northern boundaries of the environmental impact area of the Balkans within the Carpathian Basin. A similar impact area is reflected in the distribution of the silver linden (Tilia tomentosa), a species whose center of genetic diversity is located on the Balkans (Sümegi et al. 1998). As a result of the environmental historical, archaeological and geological analyses, already in 1997 an attempt was made to connect spreading Early Neolithic communities and environmental historical data on a regional scale. On this ground a model named Central European – Balkan Agroecological Barrier (CEB AEB) was created. CEB AEB

41

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

was first mentioned at the Hungarian Archaeometric Conference in Veszprém, 27 April 1997,2 the model itself, however, was presented in detail only in 1998 (Sümegi & Kertész 1998; Sümegi et al. 1998). (All studies published after this date use the terminology introduced in the abovementioned conference presentation and in the 1998 publication: Kertész & Sümegi 1999a; 1999b; Sümegi & Kertész 2001; Sümegi, Kertész & Hertelendi 2002; Sümegi, Kertész & Rudner 2004; Kertész 2003). The theoretical background of the model relied on the complex combination of two main sources: the available archaeological data and the evidence accumulated by environmental historical research. The latter, that is, the environmental historical reconstruction used in the process of model building, rested on the text and images of my 1997 candidate’s dissertation (Sümegi 1996). In spite of the numerous Hungarian and English publications on the subject, many scholars misunderstood the term and interpreted the barrier as a closed border or a “concrete wall”. In order to fully understand the nature of the barrier presented in the CEB AEB model, it is necessary to grasp the paleoecological, ecological and mathematical approaches and methodologies used in the construction of the model and the two main publications (Sümegi et al. 1998; Sümegi & Kertész 1998). For the 3D model we used a universal transverse mercator (UTM) map of the Carpathian Basin with a 10×10 km grid (see footnote 2), as biologists (Dévai, Bodnárné Pálosi & Benedek 1976; Dévai, Kátai & Miskolczi 1993; Dévai et al. 1994) already demonstrated the geographic distribution of species and the spatial pattern of the environmental factors influencing their spread by utilizing similar mapping techniques. The grid lines are 10 km long, and consequently, one grid cell covers an area of 100 km2; this means that the barrier outlined in the model spread over a number of 100 km2 grid cells, and should not be interpreted as a line, but rather as a zone. For each grid cell, numerical factors were calculated that stood for environmental elements such as soil and climatic conditions, annual, winter (January), summer (July) and breeeding season temperatures and precipitation, temperature sum for the breeding season, insolation, the thickness of snow and the character of vegetation. By converting these into numerical factors, data suitable for comparison were gained; for all elements a factor value between 1 and 5 was determined. A factor loading value of 1 was determined if the conditions were the least suitable for early Neolithic settlement of communities of Mediterranean origin, of plants with a Mediterranean center of genetic diversity, and of domestic animals; while a factor loading value of 5 meant that the conditions were the most favorable. When these factor loading values were compared and analyzed, the environmental conditions of the basin could be observed on a macro- and mesoscale, for an area of several hundreds or thousands of km2. When factor loadings for the individual cell grids were compared, a distinctive borderzone was recognized between the Danube and Tisza rivers, as this region

2

(along with the southern part of Transdanubia) was the most favorable area for the settlement of food producing communities arriving from the Balkans, used to a Pontic – Submediterranean climate. Nevertheless, in the Early Neolithic this area was not suitable for human habitation due to soil conditions, the formation of sandy soils and the overall low value of soil characteristics (Liebig 1840). This environmental borderzone that developed in contrast to the favorable climatic conditions and due to the soil being unsuitable for food production on the technological level of the given era, was named agroecological barrier. Sandy soils were, however, only one of the reasons why this barrier came to existence. The limited agricultural knowledge and experience of the human communities also contributed to the emergence of the environmental borderzone, an agroecological barrier. In my opinion, a balance was achieved along the CEB AEB borderline between the given environmental conditions and the food producing experience of the Early Neolithic groups that infiltrated the area. These New Stone Age communities had to face a set of conditions along the CEB AEB borderline that required a level of sophistication higher than their own state of technological refinement, the latter having been adapted to Southeastern European conditions. Thus, their opportunities in terms of food production were considerably limited. Archaeological settlement structure in the next centuries of the region reveal that owing to a broadening of their experience, human communities were able to transgress the agroecological borderzone, that is, they adapted to areas where preconditions for food production were unfavorable. Hence, a Neolithic adaptation zone developed inside the Carpathian Basin, where it was possible for Neolithic colony communities to gradually adapt to the Central European environmental conditions different from those on the Balkans. The local environment of the Körös Culture As the agroecological barrier model covered an area of several hundred km2, its resolution permitted to gain information only on a macro- and mesoscale, and consequently, it was not suitable for an analysis of Early Neolithic settlement on a local level. Therefore, after the creation of the agroecological barrier model, environmental historical and archaeological investigations were conducted in almost every region of the Carpathian Basin (Sümegi 1999; 2003a; 2003b; 2004a; 2004b; 2004c; 2004d; 2005a; 2005b, 2007a; 2007b; 2008, Sümegi et al. 1999; 2009; Sümegi, Kertész & Hertelendi 2002; Sümegi, Kertész & Rudner 2004; Willis et al. 1998; Willis, Rudner & Sümegi 2000; Braun et al. 2005; Jakab & Sümegi 2005; Jakab et al. 2009; Magyari et al. 2002; Magyari, Jakab & Sümegi 2009). The analysis of digital relief models, historical maps produced before the river regulations, results drawn from field walks, geological penetration tests of Pleistocene features, as well as a geological evaluation of the available archaeological sites made it possible to reconstruct the Körös settlement environment. The

Sümegi P. & Hertelendi E. 1997. A Kárpát medencei környezet fejlõdése és annak hatása a különbözõ kultúrák környezetére az elmúlt 30000 évben. Lecture given at the Hungarian Archaeometry Conference, Veszprém, 27 April 1997.

42

Pál Sümegi: The environmental background of the Körös Culture

Fig. 3. The ancient pedogical map of the Körös culture settlement of Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös in a 3D digital topographic model. Soil contitions reflect both altitude above sea level and the water table. Brown = chernozem-like soils, Blueish gray = soil in tranformation, Blue = Hydromorphic (meadow) soil.

Fig. 2. The geological map of the Körös culture settlement of Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös and its broader environs in a 3D digital topographic model. Variability is evident in the altitudes of geomorphological and geological features above sea level. Quicksand covered by loess is marked by yellow. Yellowish green stands for loessy strata deposited on glacial relict surfaces uneffected by erosion. Blueish gray marks the Holocene floodplain level, while riverbeds cutting into high banks are painted blue.

sedimentological, geochemical, macrobotanical, pollenanalytical and malacological analyses provided data for the reconstruction of climatic and vegetation conditions that prevailed in the Basin during the Neolithic, as well as the water level of lakes. Owing to our thorough environmental historical, archaeological, geological investigations of the local settlements and the analysis of digital relief maps (Sümegi 2003b; 2004a; 2004b; Sümegi & Molnár 2007), it was possible to go beyond a regional interpretation of the agroecological barrier model, and a fractal model was created that presented the environmental mosaic of the Carpathian Basin in a more reliable way (Sümegi 2003a; 2004a; 2004d; 2008). This approach, focusing on the local level led to significant discoveries in the understanding of the settlement of Körös culture. These new results corresponded to earlier observations and analyses perfectly (Sherratt 1982; 1983; Cremaschi 1992). The findings based on the natural scientific studies of Körös sites and their environs (Sümegi 2003a; 2003b; 2004a; 2008) confuted a number of archaeological topoi and provided more exact data on the settlement and subsistence strategies of Körös culture; besides, they offered an opportunity to compare the environmental circumstances of Late Mesolithic and other Early Neolithic cultural complexes. Recently, environmental historical and archaeological geological investigations have been carried out at the following sites: Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös, Kõtelek-Huszársarok, Tiszapüspöki-Karancspart-Háromág, Szajol-Felsõföld, Maroslele-Pana, Ecsegfalva-Kiritó, Tiszajenõ-Szárazérpart, Szarvas-Érpart, Furugy-Köröspart, RöszkeLúdvár, Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza puszta. The following observations have been made during our research: 1. The studied archaeological sites of the Körös culture were all situated on the edges of alluvial fans or on Holocene alluvia, on island-like or high riverbank Pleistocene

Fig. 4. The ancient vegetation map of the Körös culture settlement of Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös in a 3D digital topographic model. Dark yellow = Steppe, Light yellow = Parkland steppe, Green = woodland, Blue = oxbow.

surfaces. The relict character of the surface relief is clearly demonstrated by digital relief models and the first military survey maps made before the river regulations (Figs 1–4). The separation of deeper Holocene alluvia and higher, relict bank structures resulted from neotectonic activities, the increase of erosion following neotectonic sinking, and the Holocene (and Late Ice Age) development of the alluvium of the Great Plain. The island-like relict surfaces are areas untouched by the erosion in meander bends, while the high banks were created by the bank erosion of Ice Age sediments, by the same mechanism. 2. Settlement surfaces of Körös sites are usually situated on higher locations, covered by infusion and eolic loess (Fig. 2), which means that at these sites the level of groundwater was lower between two floods, as it was observed earlier (Nandris 1970). At the same time, however, there were considerable fluctuations in the groundwater level, which cyclically changed in the time of flooding and in the months between two floods. The flood water level did not reach today’s flood levels, as nowadays the floodplain is confined between artificial dams and covers only an area of 3000 km2, while in the Early Neolithic the floodplain must have

43

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

been as wide as 30,000 km2. Under such circumstances, water supply coming from the mountain areas in the Neolithic was drained in a larger area, and consequently, flood levels must have been lower than after the river regulations. Most of the relict surfaces, nevertheless, emerged as islands at flood stage, and were accessible only by means of water traffic. These surfaces immensely changed after the regulation of watercourses. Multiple factors, such as the regulation of rivers in the 1800s, the building of a dam system of 4000 km, the decrease of the floodplain area to its tenth, the creation of a channel system of 22,000 km length, built to drain the inland inundation, the almost ten thousand watering wells, the organization of settlement water supply, as well as the intensive agriculture using chemicals and machines fundamentally transformed the vegetation and the soil of the Great Plain in the past 150 years; the soil water balance and the chemical composition of the layers also changed dramatically. Therefore, recent environmental conditions cannot serve as a basis for understanding Neolithic natural circumstances; the reconstruction of these is only possible by means of archaeological geological and environmental historical studies at the sites and their immediate environment (Sümegi 2003a; 2003b; 2004a; 2004d; 2008). 3. According to our analysis, the environment high surface Körös sites resembled the environment of a floodplain island not only in a physical and geomorphological sense, but also from a soil scientific and biogeographical point of view. At the bottom of the Körös sites and in their neae vicinity chernozem soils (according to the World Reference Base for Soils Resources terminology, henceforth WRB), while in the wider region hydromorph soils (WRB: Vertisol, Fluvisol, Gleysol) were found. Chernozem soils appear in island-like spots according to the morphological features of the bedrock, surrounded by hydromorphic soils. At large-scale excavations (such as Tiszapüspöki, Karancspart) gradual transition between the two soil types was also observed. In addition to the two dominant soil types, secondary sodaic soils (WRB: Solonetz, Solonchaks) were also discovered in the environment of Körös sites. Sodaic soils developed in patches and stripes in the transition zone of chernozem soil types, usually at the edges of Ice Age point bars as well as in backswamps. Our investigations confirmed the observations Cremaschi (1992) made at site Endrõd 119. 4. Past vegetation must have been similar: steppe or parkland steppe covered the loess-based floodplain islands and high banks (Sümegi 2003a; 2004a; 2004d). In the deeper areas gallery forests dominated by oak, elm, ash and linden, as well as surfaces covered with reed, reedmace and sedge could be reconstructed on the basis of paleobotanical findings. The soil and the vegetation was formed in accordance with the groundwater level and the water supply, indicating a lake succession. Salt accumulated in the transition zone between the drier steppe and the swampy alluvia covered with waterfront vegetation provided living space for sodaic plants. On the basis of soil and paleobotanical studies, open steppe vegetation and herbaceous plants covered the higher surfaces where Körös communities settled, and no afforestation took place on these surfaces later either.

5. A special combining ability analysis (SCA) was carried out around the Körös sites, taking 5 km as the maximum distance covered in one day in food producing activities (one-hour’s walk), and the results indicated that 30– 50% of the surfaces was loess bedrock, and 50–70% was covered with alluvial deposits. Chernozom soils were found on 20–30% of the SCA area, hydromorphic soils on 60– 70%, while the rest (ca. 10%) was covered with sodaic soils. Vegetation frequencies corresponded to these findings. 20–30% of the area within one hour’s walk from the site was covered with steppe or parkland steppe vegetation, while waterfront vegetation (gallery forests with reed and reedmace, wetlands covered by sledge) represented 60–70%, and saline vegetation ca. 10% (Tab. 1). 6. Most of the studied archaeological sites were located near backwater lakes that were formed in the Ice Age. These backwater lakes were never filled with fresh floodwater due to their high position, and the water infiltrating into the lakes through the sandy layers of the lake floor was the only supply (Szarvas-Érpart, Ecsegfalva-Kiritó). At the same time, however, at other sites (Tiszapüspöki-Karancspart-Háromág, Szajol-Felsõföldek, Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös, Maroslele-Pana) the geomorphological conditions made it possible for backwater lakes in the site’s vicinity to receive fresh floodwater even in case of smaller floods. 7. Most of the Körös sites were thus located on floodless surfaces, with steppe or parkland steppe vegetation on chernozem soil, but in the area actively used by a community on a daily basis, wet areas with gallery forests, wetlands with waterfront vegetation and surfaces with hydromorphic soil were available as well. It is worth to mention, however, that some Körös sites were localized on active Holocene fan deposits during archaeological field walks, but no proper excavation have been undertaken at these sites, and consequently, the function of these settlements is still unknown. It is possible that communities of the Körös culture used surfaces of different character only periodically, and settled in floodless and floodplain areas in seasonal turns. This pattern would explain the twofold nature of the economy of Körös communities, that is, the parallel existence of agriculture, animal husbandry, as well as fishing, hunting and gathering. At this point, results gained from the analysis of faunal remains (Bökönyi 1974; 1992; Bartosiewicz 2007) are of particular importance, as they reveal that fishing / hunting and animal husbandry, dominated by sheep and goat, played an almost equal role in their economy. Taking into account the environment surrounding the Körös sites and the physical extent of these environmental conditions, it becomes clear that food production opportunities were considerably limited and the communities must have supplemented their food resources by other means. The data gathered reveal that the first food producing communities in the Great Plain had a settlement and environment management strategy that made them able to exploit the diversity of the environmental mosaic of the Plain even on a microscale (Sümegi 1995; 1996; 2007b), and this strategy was maintained and proved succesful even until the nineteenth-century river regulations, that is, for 8000 years.

44

Pál Sümegi: The environmental background of the Körös Culture

Thus, the environmental background and settlement conditions of the Körös and the Starèevo cultures were so dissimilar that they made different settlement locations and lifeways possible. This means that people of the Starèevo culture had to carry out a laborious deforestation in order to make the environment suitable for settlement and food production, and at the same time they had to prevent the area from natural re-afforestation. Meanwhile, Körös communities could use the natural clearings of the Great Plain parkland steppe, developed on the dry, loess-covered relict surfaces, for settlement, agriculture and animal husbandry. It is not by accident that there is a considerable difference between the extent, number and intensity of the archaeological traces and features left behind by these two Neolithic cultural complexes. In addition to the Starèevo and Körös cultures, the environmental background of Mesolithic communities was also studied (Sümegi 1999; 2003b; 2004b; 2005b). Only those Mesolith sites were included in the study (Marosi 1935; Gábori 1956; Vértes 1962; Kertész et al. 1994) whose dating was certain and where a proper environmental historical analysis had been conducted (Jánossy 1961; Stieber 1969; Sümegi 1993; 2003b; 2003c; 2005b; 2007a; 2007b). On the basis of the data collected, Mesolithic communities of the Carpathian Basin lived in closed forests everywhere, in mountain areas as well as on hills and in the plain. In the hilly and plain areas, Mesolithic finds were brought to light from Holocene alluvial fans next to streambeds of creeks and rivers, from gallery forests on lakesides, and from hydromorphic soils (Gleysol, Vertisol, Fluvisol, Histosol), while in the mountain zone, Mesolithic finds were recovered from brown forest soils (Cambisol, Luvisol) (Sümegi 2003b; 2005a; 2005b). According to our data, Starèevo communities appeared in the Carpathian Basin mostly on habitats similar to those of Mesolithic communities, while only those Körös settlements were connected to Mesolithic occupation environments which were located on the alluvial fans of the Tisza river and its tributaries. Therefore, cultural interaction and contact was more probable between Starèevo people and the local Mesolithic communities. This might also indicate that Mesolithic communities living in the southern parts of the Carpathian Basin and the northern edge of the Balkans had a stronger impact on the development of the Starèevo complex than of the Körös culture. Körös settlements situated on river alluvia have, for the same reason, a crucial importance from the point of view of transmitting Neolithic innovations, and the Neolithization of the Great Hungarian Plain.

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF KÖRÖS CULTURE Through the data gathered, it is now possible to reconstruct the local and regional environment of the Neolithic communities. It has become clear that the Körös and Starèevo cultural complexes and the Mesolithic communities of the Great Plain had very different environmental backgrounds (Table 1). Sites of the Körös Culture are situated on hydromorphic and chernozem soils, in the parkland steppe zone of the Great Plain. The word parkland steppe is used here in the sense Hungarian botanists recently have used it (Molnár et al. 2000). The local environment of most Körös sites can be described as Pleistocene relic surfaces covered with loess, with a low groundwater level and a more open, steppe-type vegetation. Open vegetation patches around the Körös sites situated on loess consisted of grasses and flowering plants characteristic of a steppe habitat, as well as herbaceous plants, and in a smaller proportion, saline vegetation (Sümegi 2004a), while woody species constituted parklands and oak forests mixed with linden, maple and elm. Studies of archaeological topography and data gathered during field walks testify to the existence of Körös sites on Holocene alluvia covered with hydromorphic soils and closed gallery forests, these, nevertheless, have not yet been properly excavated. In the fourth millenium BC these alluvial deposits of the Tisza and Duna rivers were covered by closed oak – elm – linden – ash – alder – willow forests and this environment must have differed immensely from the parkland steppe prevailing on higher surfaces. In contrast to the Körös culture, settlement locations of the Starèevo culture, including its type site and the sites along the Sava and Drava rivers, as well as in the region of the Lake Balaton and the Zala Hills, were all situated in areas covered by closed forests in the Early Neolithic. Several forest association types developed in the area of the Star- èevo cultural complex, but the oak forest mixed with linden and elm dominated everywhere, even though in Southern Transdanubia it was mixed with chestnut, and in the Western part with beech. Along the rivers, creeks and lakes, gallery forests grew in which oak, elm, ash and linden dominated, mixed with willow, alder and beech. Along the lakes, rivers and creeks hydromorphic soils (Gleysol, Vertisol, Fluvisol, Histosol) were formed, but at most locations where Starèevo sites were found, that is, on high riverbank- or plateau-like loess surfaces, brown forest soils (Cambisol, Luvisol) were usual. Temperature in the Starèevo settlement area differed only slightly from that in the Körös settlement area, but the amount of the annual and breeding season precipitation differed immensely, and consequently, there was a disrepancy between the forest vegetation of the Starèevo and the Körös habitation space. As the amount of precipitation was considerably higher in the Starèevo areas, here even the high riverbank- or plateau-like loess surfaces were almost completely afforested in spite of the low groundwater level. At the Körös sites, however, on high loess banks in the inner part of the Carpathian Basin, the small amount of precipitation and the low position of the water table precluded the development of a forest coverage.

REFERENCES Bartosiewicz L. 2007. Mammalian bone. In Whittle A. (ed), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés I. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 287–325. Bökönyi S. 1974. History of domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europa. Budapest. Bökönyi S. 1992. (ed.), Cultural and landscape changes in South-east Hungary. I. Reports on the Gyomaendrõd Project. Budapest.

45

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Braun M., Sümegi P., Tóth A., Willis K. J., Szalóki I., Margitai, Z. & Somogyi A. 2005. Reconstruciton of long-term environmental changes at Kelemér, in Hungary. In Gál, E., Juhász, I. & Sümegi, P. (eds), Environmental Archaeology in NorthEastern Hungary. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 19). Budapest, 25–38. Cremaschi M. 1992. Geomorphological survey and the distribution of archaeological sites. In Bökönyi S. (ed.), Cultural and landscape changes in South-east Hungary. I. Reports on the Gyomaendrõd Project. Budapest, 359–360. Dévai Gy Bodnárné Pálosi G. & Benedek P. 1976. A szitakötõk (Odonata) magyarországi elõfordulási adatainak elemzése. Acta Biologica Debrecina 13, Suppl. 1, 9–92. Dévai Gy Kátai J. & Miskolczi M. 1993. Az ET 56 UTM hálónégyzetben végzett odonatológiai felmérések faunisztikai eredményei. 1. rész: Elõzmények. Studia Odonatologia Hungarica 1, 33–45. Dévai Gy Miskolczi M., Pálosi G., Dévai I. & Harangi J. 1994. A magyarországi szitakötõ-imágók (Insecta: Odonata) 1982-ig közölt elõfordulási adatainak bemutatása UTM hálótérképeken. Studia Odonatologia Hungarica 2, 5–100. Gábori M. 1956. Mezolitikus leletek Szõdligetrõl – Mezolithische Funde von Szõdliget. Archeológiai Értesítõ 83, 177–182. Jakab G. & Sümegi P. 2005. The evolution of Nádas-tó at Nagybárkány in the light of the macorfossil finds. In Gál E., Juhász I. & Sümegi P. (eds), Environmental Archaeology in NorthEastern Hungary. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 19). Budapest, 67–77. Jakab G., Majkut P., Juhász I., Gulyás S., Sümegi P. & Törõcsik T. 2009. Palaeoclimatic signals and anthopogenic distubance from the peatbog at Nagybárkány (North Hungary). Hydrobiology 631, 87–106. Jánossy D. 1961. Vorläufige Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in der Felsnische Rejtek 1. Karszt és Barlangkutatás 3, 49–57. Kertész R. 2003. Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in the northwestern part of the Great Hungarian Plain. Praehistoria 3, 281–304. Kertész R. & Sümegi P. 1999a. Teóriák, kritika és egy modell: Miért állt meg a Körös–Starèevo-kultúra terjedése a Kárpátmedence centrumában? Tisicum 10, 9–22. Kertész R. & Sümegi P. 1999b Az Északi-középhegység negyedidõszak végi õstörténete. Nógrád Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve 23, 66–93. Kertész R., Sümegi P., Kozák M., Braun M., Félegyházi E. & Hetelendi, E. 1994. Archaeological and Palaeoecological study of an Early Holocene settlement in the Jászság Area. Acta Geographica, Geologica et Meteorologica Debrecina 32, 5–49. Kosse, K. 1979. Settlement Ecology of Early and Middle Neolithic Körös and Linear Pottery Cultures in Hungary. Settlement Ecology of the Körös and Linear Pottery Cultures in Hungary. (= British Archaeological Reports, International Series 64). Oxford. Liebig J. 1840. Organic Chemistry and its Application to Agriculture and Physiology. London. Magyari E., Sümegi, P., Braun, M. & Jakab G. 2002. Retarded hydrosere: anthropogenic and climatic signals in a Holocene raised bog profile from the NE Carpathian Basin. Journal of Ecology 89, 1019–1032. Magyari E. K. Jakab G. & Sümegi P. 2009. Holocene vegetation dynamics in the Bereg Plain, NE Hungary – the Báb-tava pollen and plant macrofossil record. Acta Geographica Debrecina 42, 1–16. Marosi A. 1935. Õskõkori szigony Meritõpusztáról. Székesfehérvári Szemle 75–76. Mendöl T. 1928. Szarvas földrajza. Debrecen. (facsimile: Biblio-

theca Békésensis, Békéscsaba 1981.) Mendöl T. 1929. Egy alföldi óriásfalu életének története II. Ifjúság és élet 1929. május 25. Molnár Zs., Fekete G., Varga Z., Kun A., Sümegi P., Molnár A., Facsar G., Szodfrid I. & V. Sipos J. 2000: Az Alföldi erdõssztyeppek típusai. In Molnár Zs. & Kun A. (eds), Alföld erdõssztyepp maradványok Magyarországon. Budapest, 26–35. Nagy M. 1954. Talajföldrajzi megfigyelések a Tiszazugban. Földrajzi Értesítõ 3, 507–543. 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 Temperate Neolithic and the Bandkeramik: the Nature of the Problem. Alba Regia 12, 61–70. Rónai A. 1961. Az Alföld talajvíztérképe. Budapest. Rónai A. 1972. Negyedkori üledékképzõdés és éghajlattörténet az Alföld medencéjében. (= Magyar Állami Földtani Intézet Évkönyve 56). Budapest. Rónai A. 1985. Az Alföld földtana. (= Acta Geologica Hungarica 21). Budapest. Sherratt A. 1982. 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. 1983. 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. Stieber J. 1969. A hazai késõglaciális vegetációtörténet anthrakotómiai vizsgálatok alapján. Földtani Közlöny 99, 188–193. Sümeghy J. 1929. Die geothermischen Gradienten des Alföld. (= Annals of the Royal Geological Institute of Hungary 1929: 3). Budapest. Sümeghy J. 1937. A Nagykunság felszíni képzõdményei. Magyar Királyi Földtani Intézet Évi Jelentése 1929–32-rõl 1937, 409– 436. Sümeghy J. 1942. Az Alföld földtani felépítése és a belvizek feltörése. Hidrológiai Közlöny 22, 367–380. Sümeghy, J. 1944. A Tiszántúl. (= Magyar Tájak Földtani Leírása 6). Budapest. Sümeghy J. 1952. Földtani adatatok a Duna–Tisza köze északi részérõl. Földtani Intézet Évi Jelentése 1948-ról 1952, 85–99. Sümeghy J. 1953. A Duna–Tisza közének földtani vázlata. Földtani Intézet Évi Jelentése 1950-rõl 1953, 233–264. Sümeghy J. 1954. Magyarország talajvíz viszonyai. Budapest. Sümeghy J. 1956. A Hármas-Körös közi holocén medence. Földtani Intézet Évi Jelentése 1954. évrõl 1956, 171–177. Sümegi P. 1993. Sedimentary geological and stratigraphical analysis made on the material of the Upper Paleolithic Settlement at Jászfelsõszentgyörgy-Szúnyogos. Tisicum 8, 63–70. Sümegi P. 1995. Az utolsó 30.000 év változásainak rekonstrukciója õslénytani adatok alapján a Kárpát-medence centrális részén. In „Berényi Dénes professzor születésének 95. évfordulója” tiszteletére rendezett tudományos emlékülés elõadásai. Debrecen, 244–258. Sümegi P. 1996. Az ÉK-magyarországi löszterületek összehasonlító õskörnyezeti és sztratigráfiai értékelése. PhD Dissertation. Debrecen University. Manuscript. Debrecen. Sümegi P. 1999. Reconstruction of flora, soil and landscape evolution, and human impact on the Bereg Plain from late-glacial up to the present, based on palaeoecological analysis. In Hamar J. & Sárkány-Kiss A. (eds), The Upper Tisa Valley. (= Tiscia Monograph Series). Szeged, 173–204. Sümegi P. 2003a. Early Neolithic man and riparian environment in the Carpathian Basin. In: Jerem E. & Raczky P. (Hrsg.),

46

Pál Sümegi: The environmental background of the Körös Culture

Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Budapest, 53–60. Sümegi P. 2003b. Régészeti geológia és a történeti ökológia alapjai. Szeged. Sümegi P. 2004a. Findings of geoarcheological and environmental historical investigations at the Körös site of TiszapüspökiKarancspart Háromága. Antaeus 27, 307–342. Sümegi P. 2004b. Preneolitizáció – egy Kárpát-medencei, késõmezolitikum során bekövetkezett életmódbeli változás környezettörténeti rekonstrukciója – Pre-neolitization – the environmental historical reconstruction of a change in lifestyle occurring during the late Mesolithicum in the Carpathian Basin. In: Dani, J.Hajdú, Zs.–Nagy, E. Gy. (eds): Õskoros Kutatók II. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete. Debrecen 2000. november 6–8. (= MWMOS 2). Debrecen, 21–32. Sümegi P. 2004c. The results of paleoenvironmental reconstruction and comparative geoarcheological analysis for the examined area. In Sümegi P. & Gulyás S. (eds). The geohistory of Bátorliget Marshland. Budapest, 301–348. Sümegi P. 2004d. Environmental Changes under the Neolithization Process in Central Europe: Before and After. Antaeus 27, 117–128. Sümegi P. 2005a. Pre-neolithic development in North-Eastern Hungary. In Gál, E., Juhász, I. & Sümegi, P. (eds), Environmental Archaeology in North-Eastern Hungary. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 19). Budapest, 13–22. Sümegi P. 2005b. The environmental history of the Jászság. In Gál, E., Juhász, I. & Sümegi, P. (eds), Environmental Archaeology in North-Eastern Hungary. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 19). Budapest, 103–110. Sümegi P. 2007a. Magyarország negyedidõszak végi környezettörténete. DsC Dissertation. Budapest–Szeged. Manuscript. Sümegi P. 2007b. Vegetation history of Szigliget Bay. In Zatykó Cs., Juhász I. & Sümegi P. (eds), Environmental Archaeology in Transdanubia (Hungary). (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 20). Budapest, 135–137. Sümegi P. 2008. Palaeogeographical background of the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic settlement in the Carpathian Basin. In Koz³owski, J. K. & Nowak M. (eds), Mesolithic/Neolithic Interactions in the Balans and in the Middle Danube Basin. (=British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1726). Oxford, 45–53. Sümegi P. & Kertész R. 1998. A Kárpát-medence õskörnyezeti sajátosságai – egy ökológiai csapda az újkõkorban? Jászkunság 44, 144–157. Sümegi P. & Kertész R. 2001. Palaeogeographic characteristic of the Carpathian Basin – an ecological trap durnig the Early Neolithic? In Kertész R. & Makkay J. (eds), From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of

Szolnok, September 22–27, 1996 (= Archaeolingua Main Series 11) Budapest, 405–416. Sümegi P. & Krolopp E. 1995. A magyarországi würm korú löszök képzõdésének paleoökológiai rekonstrukciója. Földtani Közlöny 124, 125–148. Sümegi P. & Molnár S. 2007. The Kiritó meander: sediments and the question of flooding. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 67–82. Sümegi P., Hertelendi E. Magyari E. & Molnár M. 1998. Evolution of the environment in the Carpathian Basin during the last 30.000 BP years and its effects on the ancient habits of the different cultures. In Költõ L. & Bartosiewicz L. (eds), Archeometrical Research in Hungary II. Budapest, 183–197. Sümegi P.-Kertész, R.-Hertelendi, E. 2002. Environmental Change and Human Adaptation in the Carpathian Basin at the lateglacial/postglacial transition. In Jerem E & T. Biró K. (eds), Archaeometry 98. Proceedings of the 31st Symposium, Budapest, April 26-May 3 1998. (= British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1043, Archaeolingua Central European Series 1). Budapest 171–177. Sümegi P., Kertész R. & Rudner, Z. E. 2004. Paleoenvironmental history of Hungary. In Visy Zs. (ed.), Hungarian archaeology at the turn of the Millennium. Budapest, 51–56. Sümegi P., Magyari E., Daniel P., Hertelendi E. & Rudner E. 1999. A kardoskúti Fehér-tó negyedidõszaki fejlõdéstörténetének rekonstrukciója. Földtani Közlöny 129, 479–519. Sümegi P., Ilon G., Jakab G., Páll D. G. & Törõcsik T. 2009. Neolit és rézkori régészeti kultúrák és környezeti hátterük az Alpokaljáról – Neolithic and Copper Age cultures and their environment in the Alpine Foreland. In Bende L. & Lõrinczy G. (eds), Medinától Etéig. Tisztelgõ írások Csalog József születésének 100. évfordulóján. Szentes 2009, 189–195. Sümegi P., Törõcsik T., Jakab G., Gulyás S., Pomázi P., Majkut P., Páll G. D., Persaits G. & Bodor E. 2008. The environmental history of Fenékpuszta with a special attention to the climate and precipitation of the last 2000 years. Journal of Environmental Geography 2, 5–14. Vértes L. 1962. Die Ausgrabungen in Szekszárd-Palánk und die archäologischen Funde. Œwiatowit 24, 159–202. Whittle A. 2007. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest. Willis K. J., Sümegi P., Braun, M., Bennett, K. D. & Tóth A. 1998. Prehistoric land degradation in Hungary: who, how and why? Antiquity 72, 101–113. Willis K. J., Rudner E. & Sümegi P. 2000. The full-glacial forests of central and southeastern Europe: Evidence from Hungarian palaeoecological records. Quaternary Research 53, 203–213.

47

49–52.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE KÖRÖS CULTURE IN THE SOUTHERN SECTION OF THE GREAT HUNGARIAN PLAIN Tibor Paluch Móra Ferenc Museum, 6720 Szeged, Roosevelt tér 1–3, Hungary; [email protected] the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain stands out even more in comparison with other corners of the Körös culture distribution area (see Map 1). Clearly, over 50% of the known early neolithic settlements in the region are concentrated within a core area of approximately 10,000 km2. This unusually high settlement density becomes even more conspicuous when compared to southern Transdanubia in the west (south of Lake Balaton) where only 26 sites were reported (Kalicz, Molnár & Rózsás 2007, 24) or the Srem district of Voivodina in Serbia with 66 known early neolithic Starèevo culture sites (Minichreiter 2001, 200). What is the explanation for the difference? In all probability, the dense network of settlements emerged in response to desirable water supplies that had shaped this diverse landscape. This hypothesis is related to the fact that a rich variety of soil types evolved in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain. West of the Tisza River, low productivity sand dunes of the Danube–Tisza Interfluve may have looked less attractive. Further downstream, the lower Tisza valley offers mediocre agricultural land. On the other hand, the eastern section of Csongrád County belongs to the so-called Békés-Csanád loess plateau known today for its excellent soils. Early neolithic settlements were established on dry elevations that had formed islands and peninsulas in the floodplain although settlement remains were also detected on dry pleistocene residual surfaces beyond the flood zone. These two types of settlements, located within and without the floodplain, have long been known as basic forms of settlement in the Körös culture (Sümegi et al. 2003, 237). Permanently dry surfaces offer better pedological quality for tillage than clay rich, hydromorphic soils that had been deposited under water cover during most of the year (Bácsmegi & Fogas 2009, 57). In light of soil properties the territorial distribution of Körös culture sites allows two conclusions to be drawn:

Natural geography, including hydrology, forms a remarkably uniform system in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain bordered by the Tisza, Maros and Körös Rivers (Pécsi & Sárfalvi 1960, 105). In spite of its relative homogeneity, however, this landscape is very diverse as the area – largely occupied by Csongrád and Békés counties – is sub-divided by major rivers (the Tisza and its tributaries) as well as a web of small water courses. Rich water supplies1 in combination with the diversity of local habitats offered good opportunities for the settlement of early neolithic human populations. The first ever communities practicing sedentary agriculture in the area of present-day Hungary were represented by the Starèevo culture in Southern Transdanubia in the west and the Körös culture that occupied a significant portion of the Great Hungarian Plain beginning with the end of the 7th millennium BC. The latter inhabited the valley of the Tisza River and of its left bank tributaries for almost a millennium (Paluch & Tóth 2005, 14–15). Catchment areas of the Tisza, Körös, Maros and Beretyó Rivers seem to have defined the first strategic boundaries of early neolithic sedentism. Within the region outlined by these rivers a previously unseen density of settlements began appearing. Considering Csongrád county alone, field surveys covering an area of over 4000 km2 as well as archival and literary data have revealed the existence of 232 early neolithic sites. Numbers have recently increased spectacularly thanks to field walks carried out within the framework of the national archaeological survey in Csongrád county.2 Previously, such a dazzling number of sites would have been unimaginable, not only within a single county but over the entire area of Hungary (Makkay 1982, 113). A similarly high density of early neolithic settlements may be observed in the adjacent area of Békés county (MRT 8; MRT 10). Plotting these early neolithic settlements over the map,

1 2

Prior to extensive river regulation projects the open floodplain area of the Tisza River exceeded 1,940,000 hectares of which only 158,000 hectares remain today (Bulla & Mendöl 1999, 149). These local surveys were carried out mostly in cooperation between the Department of Archaeology of Szeged University and archaeologists of the Ferenc Móra Museum within the framework of the project titled “Archaeological Topographic Works in Csongrád County”. To date, most of the results have remained unpublished.

49

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

1. Soil quality had no demonstrable effect on decision-making during the time of early neolithic settlement, 2. Early neolithic lifeways may have somewhat differed depending on settlement in areas characterized by the two different soil types. Agriculture may have been practiced on pleistocene residual surfaces, while fishing, hunting and gathering may have been subsistence practices pursued in floodplain areas. Other resources of the floodplain must have included wood and water itself as a means of transport and communication. Early neolithic settlements are aligned along river banks, especially those of the Tisza. Of the aforementioned 232 Körös culture settlements known in Csongrád County 16 are represented only in the form of archival records or literary references. Studies of settlement structure can be carried out concerning the remaining 216 sites. During the course of field walks carried out in the Körös culture settlement area indicate that the size of individual sites fell on average between 2 to 3 hectares, although some large settlements (covering as much as 8 to 12 hectares) were also identified along high embankments. In some cases archival records indicated extreme extents of 50–60 hectares3, such settlements, however, turned out to have represented multiperiod occupation where precise distinction between phases was often impossible. At such settlements it is usually a minor component of the find material that could be safely assigned to the Early Neolithic. Calculations using Thiessen polygons were carried out to define individual areas around each site. The results show that on average the occurrence of a new settlement may be expected every 16 km2 within the territory of Csongrád County (Map 1). In order to interpret this number, however, the definition of archaeological sites should be revised, since more than 60 of the aforementioned 216 “sites” yielded only sporadic scatters of early neolithic finds of fewer than five shards each! Moreover these not only mean chance finds of pottery collected during field walks, but also include stray finds atmajor sites, where early neolithic artefacts of potential diagnostic value could not be associated with features or other stratigraphic phenomena (Kürti 1980; Balogh 2007). This problem evidently dilutes the practical meaning of Thiessen-polygons. Surface finds provide a very poor basis for reconstructing settlement structures. Archaeological excavations were carried out at 51 of the 232 known early neolithic settlements. This may be considered a fairly high proportion as it represents almost one quarter of the entire list. However, field work revealed the root of another weakness in using Thiessen-polygons in reconstructing settlement structure in archaeology. This challenge is posed by the uncertain internal chronology of the Körös culture, a problem that remains to be solved even today. It is only the early period characterized by painted

3 4 5

ware decorated with white dots or geometric patterns on a red base (Makkay & Trogmayer 1966; Makkay 1974; 1996Pavlu 1989; Horváth 1994, 5) and the late, so-called Protovinèa phase (Makkay 1982; 1990; 1992; 1996; Raczky 1983; Goldman 1991) whose chronological interpretations seem to be reliable during the long development of Körös culture pottery types. On the basis of these criteria only a single settlement of the Körös culture may be dated to the early phase in Csongrád county today: Nagytõke-Jaksor, Csúcsföldek = Cs127 (previously known as Szentes-Jaksorérpart). During field walks this settlement yielded Körös painted ware decorated with white dots (Bácsmegi 2001). The site itself was already known as Gábor Csallány had found three early neolithic houses here during the 1932 excavations of a Sarmatian cemetery (Csallány 1936, 71–72). Based on purely typochronological criteria only nine late Körös culture sites could be identified: Deszk-I. sz. olajkút (Cs13), HódmezõvásárhelyLaktanya (Cs68), Maroslele-Pana (Cs105), MindszentSzõlõpart (Cs123), Nagymágocs-Ó-Tompa-hát (Cs125), Nagytõke-Kalinin Tsz, Péter-tanya (Cs128), NagytõkeKarácsonytelke (Cs130), Szentes-Szentlászló, Fekete János földje (Cs209) and Szentes-Veresegyház I. HoltvekerRónyai-tanya (Cs214). It may be said therefore that 220 of the 232 existing sites can be dated to the classical phase of the Körös culture. Evidently, this is a statement that needs to be further substantiated or rejected. It is most probable that our current typological systems are ill-equipped for finetuning the phasing of stylistic sequences. Unfortunately, establishing absolute chronologies is likewise difficult. To date we possess only six 14C dates from four sites4 in the entire county (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1971; Gläser 1991; Whittle et al. 2002; Oross & Siklósi in this volume). In order to solve problems of relative chronology attempts were made to more precisely distinguish between various motifs used in decorating the ceramic material (Trogmayer 1968; Raczky 1976; 1983; Goldmann 1991).5 Statistical analyses were carried out to improve the resolution of phasing based on style. Although these efforts were eventually abandoned, in my opinion it is only the evaluation of statistically viable samples that could help the chronological classification of individual sites by the characteristically homogeneous set of motifs showing only subtle stylistic variation. Large scale analyses are also of help in re-evaluating previously dated sites. Three examples are definitely worth mentioning here. The settlement of Mindszent-Szõlõpart (Cs123) was unambiguously dated to the so-called Protovinèa phase during field walks (Szalontai 1994, 53–54). It is for this reason that a square measuring 5 by 5 m was opened at the site. During the analysis of the find material, however, it became clear that the two shards collected during the survey would have misrepresented the thus recovered assemblage of 5000 ceramics (Anders & Paluch 2011). According

E.g., Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa-Vermeshalom (Cs47) (Trogmayer 1969), Makó-Járandó (Cs91). Deszk-I. sz. olajkút (Cs13) (BP 7030±50; BP 6605±100), Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart (Cs65) (BP 6450±100), Pitvaros-Víztározó (Cs141) (BP 6940±50; 6885±50), Szeged-Gyálarét, Szilágyi-major (Cs161) (BP 7090±100). Among the decorative motifs, two varieties of barbotine (applied and sprayed barbotine) were singled out for study. On the basis of these two forms of decoration a gradual diachronic increase was noted in the proportion of barbotine covered shards (Trogmayer 1968, 8).

50

Tibor Paluch: Characteristics of the Körös Culture...

Anders A. & Paluch T. 2011. A Körös-kultúra fiatalabb idõszakának települése Mindszent határában – Siedlung aus der jüngeren Periode der Körös-Kultur in der Gemarkung von Mindszent. MFMÉ–Studia Archaeologica 12, 15–29. Bácsmegi G. 2001. Nagytõke, Belsõ-Ecser, Jaksor, Kaján és Kistõke régészeti topográfiája I. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Bácsmegi G. & Fogas O. 2009. A Körös-kultúra lelõhelyei Nagytõkén – Sites of the Körös culture at Nagytõke. In Bende L. & Lõrinczy G. (eds), Medinától Etéig. Tisztelgõ írások Csalog József születésének 100. évfordulóján. Szentes 2009, 55–59. Balogh Cs. 2007. Hódmezõvásárhely, Batida. Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon 2006 – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2006, 212. Banner J. 1937. A hódmezõvásárhelyi református gimnázium régiséggyûjteménye 1. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 13, 105–120. Bulla B. & Mendöl T. 1999. A Kárpát-medence földrajza. Budapest. Csallány G. 1936. Újabb jazig temetõk Szentes határában – Jazygen Gräberfelder bei Szentes. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 12, 71–89. Gläser R. 1991. Bemerkungen zur Absoluten Datierung des Beginns der Westlichen Linienbandkeramik. Banatica 11, 53–64. Goldman Gy. 1991. A Körös kultúra késõi szakaszának idõrendjérõl Dévaványa-Réhely leletei alapján – Chronology in the Late phase of the Körös culture on the basis of finds from Dévaványa-Réhely. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 118, 33–44. Horváth F. 1994. A Dél-alföldi újkõkorkutatás új szempontjai, módszerei és eredményei. PhD Thesis. Szeged. Kalicz N., Molnár S. & Rózsás M. 2007. Az élelemtermelés kezdetei Somogy megyében a Kr.e. 7–6. évezred fordulóján. Az újkõkor (neolitikum) legidõsebb szakasza – Beginnings of food production in Somogy county at the turn of the 7th-6th Millennia B. C. The earliest phase of the Neolithic Period. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 2007, 19–64. Kürti B. 1980. Honfoglalás kori magyar temetõ Szeged-Algyõn – Ein ungarisches Gräberfeld aus der Landnahmezeit in Szeged-Algyõ. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1978–19791, 323–345. Makkay J. 1974. «Das Frühe Neolithikum auf der Otzaki Magula» und die Körös–Starèevo-Kultur. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 26, 131–154. Makkay J. 1982. A magyarországi neolitikum kutatásának új eredményei. Az idõrend és a népi azonosítás kérdései. Budapest. Makkay J. 1990. The Protovinèa problem – as seen from the northernmost frontier. In Srejoviæ D. & Tasiæ N. (eds), Vinèa and its world. International Symposium “The Danubian Region from 6000 to 3000 B. C.”. Beograd, 113–122. Makkay J. 1992. Excavations at the Körös culture settlement of Endrõd-Öregszõlõk 119 in 1986-1989. In Bökönyi S. (ed.), Cultural and landscape changes in south-east Hungary I. reports on the Gyomaendrõd Project (= Archaeolingua Main Series 1). Budapest, 121–193. Makkay J. 1996. Theories about the origin, the distribution and the end of the Körös culture. In Tálas L. (ed.), At the fringes of three worlds: hunter-gatherers and farmers in the middle Tisza valley. Szolnok, 35–53.

to the re-evaluation, the settlement belongs to the latest phase of the Körös Culture.6 One may wonder whether similar discrepancies may threaten other sites. For example, the site of Szentes-Szentlászló yielded a single fragment of a biconical bowl with an acute profile line (Makkay 1990, 117, Pl. 3.1). In the absence of excavations or even additional survey finds it remains a question whether dating this site to late Körös culture phase remains acceptable? The site of Hódmezõvásárhely-Laktanya has likewise been dated to the late phase. However, that time period is represented by a single shard as well (Paluch 2005, 35). Single occurrences of stray finds should not override dating that ought to be based on statistically reliable sets of shards, regardless of the fact that the term Protovinèa Phase 1 was originally introduced to denote sporadic occurrences of Vinèa type pottery within the stylistic context of the Körös culture (Makkay 1990, 113). Since no stratified tell settlements are known within the Körös culture distribution area,7 no distinction between superposed layers can be used in fine-tuning the chronological resolution of the 220 sites in Csongrád County currently discussed under the umbrella term “classical Körös period”. Naturally, large-scale analyses must rely on excavated artefactual assemblages as statistically significant results may only be expected from large, representative series of data. Find materials collected during field walks can be used in reconstructing settlement networks only after the rigorous critical evaluation of find circumstances. During the past decade excavations were carried out at several early neolithic sites in Csongrád County. Of these, the small early neolithic settlement completely excavated by Katalin Tóth at the sand quarry site of HódmezõvásárhelyGorzsa V. homokbánya is of special significance (Tóth 2010). Standardized methods followed in the analysis of material recovered from the 70–80 features at this site and several smaller Körös culture excavations8 may be of help in developing a more precise internal typochronology. In addition to materials from new excavations, a novel analysis of already known assemblages from old excavations is also necessary. The latter work is even more important, because , with a few notable exceptions – most archaeologists indulged in the evaluation of selected pieces or subsets, while the complete analysis of major find materials could not be carried out in the absence of resources, material and human alike. It will be, however, only after the completion of those studies that new typochronological aspects of the homogeneous-looking classical Körös culture ceramic inventory will be available for the reconstruction of early neolithic settlement patterns in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain

REFERENCES Ammerman A. J. & Cavalli-Sforza L. L. 1971. Measuring the rate of spread of early farming in Europe. Man 6, 674–688.

6 7 8

Deszk-Olajkút (Cs13) 8. gödör, Endrõd 119 (B13), Kõtelek-Huszársarok (J) Pit 1, Maroslele-Pana (Cs105) Pit 4, Öcsöd-Kiritó (Cs105) Pit 2. In spite of this, evidence of long time sedentism is present in the form of stratified Körös culture settlements such as Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs, Técsy-tanya (Banner 1937) and Pitvaros-Víztározó (Horváth 1994, 5). Notable examples include Mindszent-Szõlõpart (1992), Szentes-Boros Sámuel utca (2004) and Szentes-Munkás utca (2005).

51

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Makkay J. & Trogmayer O. 1966. Die bemalte Keramik der Körös-Gruppe. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1964–65, 47–58. Minichreiter K. 2001. The architecture of Early and Middle Neolithic settlements of the Starèevo culture in Northern Croatia. Documenta Praehistorica 28, 199–214. MRT 8. Jankovich B. D., Makkay J. & Szõke B. M. 1989. (ed.), Békés megye Régészeti Topográfiája. Szarvasi Járás IV/2 (= Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája 8). Budapest. MRT 10. Jankovich D., Medgyesi P., Nikolin E., Szatmári I. & Torma I. 1998. Békés megye Régészeti Topgráfiája. Békés és Békéscsaba környéke IV/3 (= Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája 10). Budapest. Paluch T. 2005. Kora neolit településrészlet Hódmezõvásárhely határában – An Early Neolithic Settlement on the Outskirts of Hódmezõvásárhely. In Bende L. & Lõrinczy G. (eds.) Hétkoznapok Vénuszai. Hódmezõvásárhely, 9–43. Paluch T. & Tóth K. 2005. Everyday Venuses. In Bende L. & Lõrinczy G. (eds), Everyday Venuses. Late 7th millenium mid – 5th millenium BC. Guide tho the permanent archaeological exhibition of the Tornyai János Múzeum. Hódmezõvásárhely, 7–26. Pavlù I. 1989. Early neolithic white painted pottery in SE Europe. In Bökönyi S. (ed.), Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2) Budapest, 217–222. Pécsi M. & Sárfalvi B. 1960. Magyarország földrajza. Budapest.

Raczky P. 1976. A Körös kultúra leletei Tiszajenõn — The finds of the Körös Culture at Tiszajenõ. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 103, 171–189. 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 Neolithic in the Middle and Upper Tisza region). Archaeologiai Értesítõ 110, 161–194. Sümegi P., Tímár G., Molnár S. & Herbich K. 2003. Föld, ember, folyó kapcsolata az újkõkorban. A folyóvölgyek szerepe a Kárpát-medence elsõ termelõ kultúrájának megjelenésében és megtelepedésében. Hidrológiai Közlemények 83, 234–238. Szalontai Cs. 1994. Mindszent régészeti topográfiája és településtörténete. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Tóth K. 2010. Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa V. számú homokbánya. Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon 2009 – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2009, 220–222. Trogmayer O. 1968. A Körös-csoport barbotin kerámiájáról — The “barbotine” pottery of the Körös group. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 95, 6–12. Trogmayer O. 1969. Die Bestattungen der Körös-Gruppe. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, 5–15. Whittle A., Bartosiewicz L., Boriæ D., Pettitt P. & Richards M. 2002. In the beginning: new radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary. Antaeus 25, 63–117.

52

53–68.

SOUTH WESTERN KÖRÖS CULTURE SETTLEMENT IN THE DANUBE–TISZA INTERFLUVE: SZAKMÁR-KISÜLÉS Eszter Bánffy Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, H-1014 Budapest, Úri utca 49. Hungary; [email protected] (BK42), was excavated by Ida Bognár-Kutzián in the 1970s. Her research was aimed at clarifying the stratigraphy of the settlement. However, she never posed the question of how this site was related to Körös culture settlements toward the east across the Tisza river and the Early Neolithic of Yugoslavia further south. It remains a fact that the geographical distribution of sites along the Danube is uneven north of the border between Serbia and Hungary. There is a concentration of settlements in the region between the Kalocsa-ÖregcsertõSzakmár line and Dusnok. Further south, however, only sporadically occurring sites are known (Vaskút-Hieselkert: Kutzián 1944, 9. Plate 13, 14, a–b). It is possible that this pattern is coincidental and the concentration of settlements in the surroundings of Kalocsa results from uneven research intensity in the area. This is, however, an unlikely explanation. Intensive field walks in the outskirts of Baja (including the decade long research activity by Mihály Kõhegyi) failed to discover Körös culture settlement of comparable density. On the other hand, numerous Körös culture sites appeared in the map following field walks in the Kalocsa Sárköz region during the 1960s and 1970s. On the basis of this wellsurveyed area it may be concluded that people of the Körös culture had densely settled this floodplain area in the proximity of the river (Vadász 1967) Considering repeated surveys and a brief research summary by archaeologists working in Bács-Kiskun County (Wicker, Kustár & Horváth 2001) one can no longer speak of uninhabited neolithic sand dunes in the outskirts of Kalocsa. Detailed topographic surveys in a single village, Homokmégy, revealed almost twenty sites attributable to the Körös culture (Tóth 1998, 13. ábra). Additional field walks during the early 2000s further expanded the list of these settlements (study by Rozália Kustár2 – see also her study in the present volume). Over

Some Körös culture settlements in the southern section of the Danube–Tisza Interfluve in Hungary were already known in the middle of the last century. They were discovered near the modern border with Serbia, in the south-central section of the Great Hungarian Plain. It could not be clarified, however, whether sites in this area were related to developments of Starèevo settlement further south in the Baèka and Srem districts of Voivodina in Serbia.1 Therefore uncertain and contradictory opinions have been voiced concerning the question of a Körös–Starèevo boundary in Voivodina (Kalicz 1965; Trogmayer 1968; Brukner 1974, 428– 429, and map 28; Horváth 1989, 15). Researchers hypothesized sometimes purely Körös and sometimes mixed settlement along the Danube south of the current border of Hungary. Solving this problem was not made easier by the publication of the site of Donja-Branjevina along the Danube, as the excavator identified superposed Starèevo and Körös phases. This observation, however, remains unsubstantiated as the publication of relevant ceramic finds is almost completely missing (Karmanski 2005, with previous literature). The only author who drew any conclusion from this work was János Makkay who had already pointed out the inseparable nature of the Körös–Starèevo complex as the source of confusion (Makkay 1982, 18–20 and footnote 42). This opinion, however, has since been refuted by several scholars who cited significant differences between the forms of settlement, ways of life and find materials of the two cultures (Brukner 1966; Dimitrijeviæ 1974; Raczky 1976; Kalicz 2000; Bánffy 2004). To date the question remains open whether a boundary between the two cultures may have existed along the Hungarian section of the Danube (Bánffy in press). The northernmost site of the Körös culture distribution area in the Danube–Tisza Interfluve, Szakmár-Kisülés

1 2

Research included in this study was supported by Grant OTKA 61935 of the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund. Field surveys were carried out by Eszter Bánffy, Jörg Petrasch and Rozália Kustár within the framework of the joint program between the University of Tübingen and the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG), and by Grant OTKA 61935 of the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund. The study of Rozália Kustár is expected to be published as Volume 7 in the BAR IS-Central European Series (see footnote 7).

53

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

thirty Körös culture sites became known in the broader area that included the outskirts of Szakmár, Dusnok and Miske, respectively.3 Joint excavations between the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the University of Tübingen at Fajsz-Garadomb have shown that neolithic occupation at that site also began with a settlement of the Körös culture.4 The detail of a house will be fully excavated by the fall of 2011. Moreover, Körös type sherds were found on the surface southwest of the excavated area. All research between the 1960s and the more recent 2001–2006 field walks offer evidence of settlements having been concentrated in the Danube floodplain zone, its sandy loess banks and the area of sand backs toward the east. As of today, not a single relevant site could be identified more inland, away from the courses of the two major rivers. Evidence of intensive Körös culture settlement is likewise missing on the right bank of the Tisza River. An alternative route of expansion may also be hypothesized south to north along the Danube. This possibility, however, is not supported by comparisons with find assemblages from early neolithic sites in the Voivodina. In contrast to the evidently intensive presence of the Starèevo culture in that region, the extent and geographical distribution of Körös culture settlement are uncertain (Brukner 1974; Bogdanoviæ 1988; Lekoviæ 1988; 1995; Karmanski 2005). Based on currently available data it seems that settlers along the Danube were unlikely to have been migrating from the south in an upstream direction. At this point it may be said that the information we possess does not accommodate southern connections. Find materials from both Szakmár-Kisülés and FajszGaradomb, as well as from a number of sites in the Kalocsa Sárköz region seem to be most closely related to Körös culture sites in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain (similarities are mostly based on surface finds that is ceramic sherds). When hypothesizing connections with the Szeged region and the Körös River valleys, the question must be posed, why the settlements under discussion are aligned along the Danube rather than the Tisza? A possible explanation to this phenomenon has been provided by research in environmental archaeology. These investigations have shown that wetlands had occupied much of the area northwest of Szeged. They filled the gaps between sand backs arranged in a northwest-southeast direction according to the direction of prevailing winds. Such habitats exist even today in the area under discussion here along Maty Creek and in the forms of marshlands in the vicinity of Császártöltés and the Vörös (Red) Swamp near Hajós (Sümegi 2005; Szalontai 2010). Such ancient waters may have served as corridors toward the Danubian alluvium divided by oxbows. That habitat would have offered a natural environ-

3 4 5

ment for settlement comparable to those in the floodplains of the Tisza and Körös rivers.5

KÖRÖS CULTURE SETTLEMENT AT SZAKMÁR-KISÜLÉS Excavations and traces of buildings and other settlement features Today Szakmár-Kisülés is the northernmost known Körös culture site in the Danube–Tisza Interfluve. Its significance therefore lay predominantly in its geographical location. The site was identified during field walks conducted by archaeologists of the József Katona Museum in Kecskemét (Fig. 1.1). Excavations on the barely visible slight elevation began under the direction of Ida Bognár-Kutzián of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences during the summer of 1975 and continued in 1978 (Fig. 1.2). Preliminary results were published in 1977 in the Yearbook of the Archaeological Institute (today running under the series name Antaeus; Bognár-Kutzián 1977). Previous field walks have shown that sherdfrom the Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages as well as later periods covered some seven non-metric “cadastral hold” land units (four hectares; B. Kutzián 1975; Bognárné Kutzián 1976; Bognár-Kutzián 1977; Bognárné Kutzián 1979). Deep ploughing has seriously damaged the entire surface. In addition, in all three squares opened in the excavation area early neolithic strata were disturbed by features from subsequent archaeological periods. Area ”B“ seems to have been the luckiest choice, where most of the stratigraphic observations could be made regarding the early neolithic settlement identified in the vicinity of Szakmár (Fig. 2. 1). Right beneath the plough zone the uppermost Körös culture layer is represented by Pit E, opening directly from this stratum. The second layer was indicated by Pit D (with a depth of 116 cm) in combination with a contiguous accumulation of wattle and daub (Fig. 2. 2) and Grave 3. In addition to Körös type sherds, the bottom of this stratum (layer 2/B) was marked by a mussel shell deposit. Sporadic remains of daub, traces of cereal grain and animal bones were found on the top of the third layer. Mud plastering could be identified under these artefacts. These phenomena may be interpreted as rubble and a floor segment from a house, although the information remains regrettably fragmented. Layer four was identified beneath the putative house floor, while the lowermost, fifth layer was characterized by an uneven surface pre-dating construction and the presence of clay extraction pits. An inhumation burial (Grave 4) of a contracted skeleton with no grave furniture was also recovered here. More importantly, the burial of a child (Grave 3) was found as well which contained grave goods (Figs. 2. 4–5). The

The find material is kept in the collections of the József Katona Museum in Kecskemét and the Károly Viski Museum in Kalocsa. Co-workers: Eszter Bánffy, Jörg Petrasch, Krisztián Oross, Tibor Marton, Rozália Kustár, Andrea Lantos, Pál Sümegi and students at the University of Szeged. Kind personal communication by Pál Sümegi based on his bore samples collected at Hajós, Császártöltés. The same hypothesis has been reconfirmed by the fact that, according to the kind personal communication by Ferenc Horváth, a neolithic settlement was discovered under several metres of sand during the preventive excavations preceding the construction of Motorway 5. These data also indicate that proving the existence of a route running in a southeast-northwest direction within the Danube–Tisza Interfluve on the basis of archaeological sites will remain a difficult proposition in the foreseeable future.

54

Eszter Bánffy: South western Körös Culture ...

Fig. 1

1: The location of the site near the village of Szakmár; 2: The site on an aerial photograph, taken in the early 70s.

55

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 2. 1: Stratigraphy at area “B”; 2: Wattle and daub debris over pit D; 3: Fireplace, segment of a dwelling house at area “C”; 4: Grave 3; 5: The uncovered surface with Grave 3

poorly preserved skeleton of the small child was found in a shallow pit whose edge could be identified around most of its circumference. As the outline of this shallow pit was congruent with the west to east orientation of the skeleton, it may be concluded that the body was not randomly deposited in a refuse pit in a possibly secondary manner. The skull of the infant was compressed in the soil and only some of its post-cranial bones could be observed. In situ observations of some cranial fragments and remains of the chest area indicate that the child had been placed on its back. However, it was impossible to establish whether the small body was interred in a contracted position. The skeleton was accompanied by a roughly executed small and low cup with a rimmed base (Fig. 6.1). This intact vessel was found in the area of the left temporal bone (at a depth of 50–52 cm) above the orbit in an oblique position. It was oriented north to south with the cup’s mouth opening toward the north. The position of this small cup reconfirms that it indubitably served as grave furniture. Purely Körös culture find material could be identified in area “C“, 60–75 cm below the plough zone. This layer

showed signs of trampling and yielded a deposit of wattle and daub as well as remains of mud plastering (possibly indicative of a floor). The next layer recognized between the depths of 80–100 cm contained Körös culture sherds (Fig. 2. 3). Layer 2 yielded a thick accumulation of daub rubble. Although this deposit was no longer made up by contiguous fragments, it contained remains that may be considered evidence of sculpted architectural elements (Fig. 3. 1). In addition to quantities of wattle and daub other signs in the stratigraphy are also indicative house remains. A deer skull was found on a flat clay surface alongside the remains of a heavily burnt fireplace. As mentioned before, the Körös culture settlement of Szakmár-Kisülés had been heavily disturbed by subsequent human activity. It is therefore only two of the three working areas that offered possible evidence of early neolithic building(s). The presence of houses with upright walls, however, can be concluded from the great numbers of smoothed daub fragments imprinted by twigs (Figs 4, 5). It is also visible that the mixture of clay and water contained a relatively high proportion of plant substances such as hulls of seeds

56

Eszter Bánffy: South western Körös Culture ...

Fig. 3.

Surface and profile of area “C”, with the fireplace and a red deer skull – segment of a dwelling house.

57

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

and stem remains. These examples show a tendency to use the closest, most easily available raw materials in constructing the walls (Fig. 4. 1–2, 5–6, 9, Fig. 5. 1, 3). Among the materials used for tempering, mussel shell tends to be rare at other sites. However, shell fragments could be identified in several pieces of daub at Szakmár. The explanation may be that there were plenty of mussel shells around this shore settlement and the shell of animals consumed must also have littered household refuse (Fig. 4. 11). In one case, the imprint of a plank or timber was also observed in the daub: this piece of plastering may have fastened the roof of the building (Fig. 5. 4). Finger prints could be seen in several pieces of clay plastering. One side of the daub fragments was usually smooth, while the other showed imprints of wattle such as twigs or reeds (Fig. 4. 3, 7–8. Fig. 5. 5). When two such fragments are fit together face to face, the approximate wall thickness of early neolithic houses can be estimated. Well preserved pieces of daub are usually indicative of a 8–12 cm size range. Walls were smoothed both on the inside and the outside using some kind of a wooden tool. Renewing the walls with layers of mud can also be detected. In some cases this type of “re-plastering” had peeled off and was recovered in the form of 2–3 mm thick lamellae (Fig. 5. 2). In another instance, evidence of renovation may even be seen on the external wall surface: the inhabitant of the house tried to patch up the wall with clay, possibly in an effort to repair the building, as shown by the fingerprints preserved. Cases of secondary plastering do not show traces of plant materials used in tempering. As has been observed in the composition of other early Neolithic wall surfaces (Nikolov 1989, 19; Carneiro & Mateiciucová 2007; Szakmány, Gherdán & Starnini 2004; 2006) it is possible that well-silted clay mixed with animal dung was used in both covering and re-plastering the walls. Some special daub fragments were not described or photographed by the excavator. These may be identified as corner elements (Fig. 5. 6–7). While their inner surfaces are as uneven as was mentioned in the majority of cases, they display two smooth external surfaces closing a rectangle and covered by slip-like plastering. This external layer contains no visible plant remains and in the absence of chemical tests it is impossible to tell whether the clay mixture used contained dung or not. In contrast to the rest of the daub finds these corner elements were fired very hard and tend to be whitish in colour. They may have belonged to the plastering of fireplaces. Most of the remaining fragments of daub show no signs of burning. The few charred pieces seem to have been effected by fire only superficially, usually on what seems the internal surface. Twig imprints sometimes show greyish discolouration. In the majority of cases thus one may hypothesize that these fragments were not preserved due to firing, but as a result in drying in the sun as shown by their colour varying between shades of yellow. Traces of burning may also be recognized in small reddish or gray spots on the inside of the wall fragments. These tend to occur around the imprints left by twigs. It may be thus postulated that even if burning took place, it was the dry internal wattle structure that was destroyed without significantly singeing the clay component of the wall.

The find material Almost all finds and relevant drawings and photos from Szakmár-Kisülés are concerned with ceramics. No quantitative analysis of the restored vessels (Fig. 6) and retained pottery fragments can be carried out as the surviving (as well as the documented, illustrated etc.) material would show proportions after selection and discard. Two aspects of the surviving material, however, seem certain: there is no sign of monochromic ware with red slip or white paint on a red basis that would indicate a special phase. The remains of biconical vessels are also missing. These instances of negative evidence place the Szakmár find assemblage between the best researched initial and terminal phases of the Körös culture. It remains a question, however, whether the ceramic material permits more accurate stylistic dating within this estimated interim period. Mottled discolouration could only rarely be observed on the surfaces of vessels recovered at Szakmár. Its presence would normally indicate direct exposure to fire. Temperatures used during pottery manufacturing are revealed by the “sandwich” structure of vessels: the outer and inner surfaces were fired red, with a black layer inbetween. As shown by experience, this is indicative of low firing temperatures, probably not exceeding 550–650 oC. In general, the firing temperatures of early neolithic pottery are thought to have been below 750 oC (Manson 1995; Yiouni 1996, 70; Bánffy 2004, 220–221). The fact that signs of secondary firing are missing on the pottery retained in the material is consonant with the virtual absence of burnt marks on the daub remains. The building(s?) that once stood at the site were not destroyed by fire, if anything, they may have been exposed only to small surface localized burning (Whittle & Bartosiewicz 2007, 731; Whittle 2010, 193). The pre-selected ceramic material retained from the site allows only limited analysis. None of the known bowls were of biconical shape (Fig. 8. 1–2). Among the several remains of pedestalled vessels cylindrical and slightly conical shapes with hollow base rings also occurred at Szakmár (Fig. 7. 2, 4, 6). The pedestals were most commonly associated with spherical rather than goblet-shaped bowls. Goblets tend to be smaller with conical pedestals as represented by quite a few additional sherds. On the other hand, although some pedestal fragments are of conical shape and were attached to goblet-shaped bowls, the pedestal itself was relatively high (Fig. 7. 5). Among these slightly higher pedestals some had slightly curved walls (Fig. 7. 3). A pair of opposing oval holes was perforated across the mid-point on one of the conical pedestals (Fig. 7. 1) a rare phenomenon in the Körös culture stylistic inventory. The set of restored vessels contained a handled cup (Fig. 6. 2). This thick-walled cup is of elongated shape with a rim of an oval outline. A special feature of this find from Szakmár is that the base of the handle is accompanied by two small and round decorative knobs on either side. In addition to several other cup fragments, the restored small cup recovered from Grave 3. clearly shows that, similarly to the more crudely executed single-handled cup, this cup type has an asymmetric, somewhat elongated oval mouth and its walls are slightly curved (Fig. 6. 1). The majority of cooking pots and storage vessels are of spherical shapes. Their first group is

58

Eszter Bánffy: South western Körös Culture ...

Fig. 4.

1–10: Daub fragments; 11: Shell-tempered daub.

59

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 5.

1–5: Structured elements of house walls; 6–7: Structured elements of fireplaces (?).

60

Eszter Bánffy: South western Körös Culture ...

Fig. 6.

1: cup (grave good from Grave 3); 2: handled cup; 3: small jar (panier vessel?); 4: amphora; 5: globular vessel.

61

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 7.

1: fragment of a perforated pedestalled vessel¸ 2, 4, 6: foot ring; 3: higher, curved pedestal; 4: low conical pedestal.

62

Eszter Bánffy: South western Körös Culture ...

Fig. 8.

1–2: bowl; 3: flattened globular vessel; 4: rim fragment of a storage jar; 5–7: pot base.

63

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

ger decorated barbotine, fragments covered by Schlickwurf usually originating from storage vessels (Fig. 9. 1–2) sometimes show surfaces especially made with traces of coarse slip. It seems that these vessels were covered with a layer of loose clay mixed with a considerable portion of chaff. After firing, this slip resulted in the uneven Schlickwurf that was at least 1 mm thick and preserved and admixture of imprints left by the plant components (Fig. 9. 8). The Schlickwurf technique is considered a transition toward three dimensional, plastic decoration. Among the latter, applied barbotine, sometimes arranged in rows, was also identified. Rib decoration with finger impression or nail-pinching occurs commonly. Such motifs were placed horizontally, around the vessels’ rim or belly, sometimes resulting in complex patterns (Fig. 9. 12). A bowl was decorated with oblique, finger-imprinted ribs (Fig. 8. 1). Flat disks placed on the vessel’s wall were also observed among the stylistic repertoire of plastic decoration (Fig. 9. 11). In addition to tomato-shaped net weights (Fig. 9. 13) some large clay objects weighing over 2 kg must be mentioned. As of today such artefacts have been occurring rarely in neolithic contexts. Their amorphous shape carries traces of hand-shaping. A deep thumb print on one of these pieces shows that they may represent raw clay prepared for pottery making processed by silting, trampling and handkneading. These pieces of clay were perhaps already “resting” in the proximity of a pot-making area ready to be processed as shown by their smooth surfaces and homogeneous structure. Deep cracks in the inside and pale red/light gray spots on the surface indicate that they were somehow fired. This was the key to their preservation as well. Among the figurines, female idols usually characteristic of Körös culture assemblages in other regions, are missing. Objects designated as three and four-legged small altars (Fig. 10. 2) seem more significant considering the small number of features and the scarcity of find material: eight fragments of small “tables” and relevant leg fragments may be considered here. One of the legs was certainly associated with a round plate. An unusually large, 12–13 cm tall, fourlegged table and another four-legged small altar displaying zoomorphic features are unique finds (Fig. 10. 1).

formed by the so-called globular vessels (Fig. 6. 5). The small jar, reminiscent in shape of a pannier (a wicker basket carried on the back) may have been used for storing liquids. (The available reconstruction shown here does not reveal that its body was of somewhat asymmetric shape and the possibility that originally several oblique handles may have been attached to it; Fig. 6. 3). A relatively tall amphora with outwardly bent rim may also have served for storage (Fig. 6. 4). Varieties of storage vessels are characterized by stout and cylindrical as well as slightly outward bending necks (Fig. 8. 4). On the basis of a few fragments one may consider the possibility that some pots of spherical shapes were mounted on bottom rings or even low, conical pedestals. A special sub-group of spherical pottery consists of flattened globular vessels. The side wall of one such vessel recovered at Szakmár had been decorated with a knob and incised lattice patterns (Fig. 8. 3). All handles available from the site are band-like of round or oval cross sections. It may be said in general terms that the horizontally attached handles tend to be large and must have been fitted onto the walls of pots, storage as well as panier vessels. The tops of flat rims of vessels were often decorated on top with finger impressions or a combination of nail-pinched and finger-impressed motifs. Such patterns occur predominantly on cooking pots and storage vessels but sometimes the rims of bowls were decorated the same way (Fig. 6. 5). Incised lattice patterns may be seen on the thick bases of numerous vessels (Fig. 8. 6). A cross-shaped sign was found in one case, while in the other random incisions seem to form a pattern that sporadically occurs on both Körös and Starèevo culture vessels but still awaits explanation (Fig. 8. 5). Since these incisions are not made on the most visible part of vessels they cannot be called decoration intended for display. On the other hand, their patterned occurrence seems to rule out the coincidental nature of the phenomenon. The majority of surviving [selected] pottery fragments kept in the Viski Károly Museum in Kalocsa show some form of decoration, usually nail or finger imprints and pinched motifs that occur predominantly on bowls, cooking as well as storage vessels (Fig. 6. 5, Fig. 8. 7, Fig. 9. 4–6). Pinched motifs may also have been combined into more complex patterns such as the “spike” design composed of serial nail-pinched decorations (Fig. 9. 3). Only a single piece of ceramics was retained from the Szakmár excavation whose decoration was probably not made by nails but possibly using a small shell of serrated edge (Fig. 9. 7). Although this form of decoration is rare in the Körös culture, it is characteristic in the Adriatic region. Nevertheless, it has also been identified at the Körös culture settlement of Ecsegfalva (Oross 2007, 27.25.3). Shallow, incised as well as overarching crossed lattice patterns frequently occur as well (Fig. 9. 9–10). Creating coarse slip, also known as applied barbotine or Schlickwurf, was common as is shown by pottery found at this site. Although none of the Szakmár sherds showed fin-

6

SUMMARY Evaluating the surviving documentation and find material of the excavations at the early neolithic settlement of Szakmár-Kisülés is in progress. However, our general knowledge of early neolithic settlement in the Danube–Tisza Interfluve remains scarce. This may be attributed to the low intensity of archaeological research in the area. On the other hand, it is already visible that in the Kalocsa Sárköz region – but only there – that the density of occupation is comparable to early neolithic settlement in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain. Excavations continue at the site of Fajsz-Garadomb.6 Additional answers may be expected from the detailed analysis and publication of finds recovered at Szakmár-Kisülés during the 1970s and targeted en-

Programs supported by the DFG and OTKA (Grant 61935) are headed by Jörg Petrasch and Eszter Bánffy.

64

Eszter Bánffy: South western Körös Culture ...

Fig. 9. 1, 2, 8: Barbotine decoration; 3: Spike motif; 4–6: Nail and pinched decoration; 7: Mussel decoration; 9–10: Incised net motif (lattice pattern); 11: Flat knob; 12: Applied ribs with finger impressions; 13: tomato-shaped net weight

65

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 10. 1: Zoomorphic altarpiece; 2: Rectangular altarpiece.

66

Eszter Bánffy: South western Körös Culture ...

Dissertationes Pannonicae Ser. II/23. Budapest. Kutzián, I. 1975: Szakmár-Kisülés. Régészeti Füzetek 29, 16. Lekoviæ V. 1988: Zlatara – Ruma. In Srejoviæ D. (ed.): The neolithic of Serbia. Belgrade, 108–109. Lekoviæ V. 1995. Neolitska naselja – Neolithic settlements. In Vaja Z. (ed.), Arheološka istraživanja duž autoputa kroz Srem – Archaeological investigations along the highway route in Srem. Novi Sad, 25–44. Makkay J. 1982. A magyarországi neolitikum kutatásának új eredményei. Az idõrend és a népi azonosítás kérdései. Budapest. Manson J. L. 1995. Starèevo pottery and neolithic development in the Central Balkans. In Barnett W. & Hoopes J. (eds). The emergence of pottery. Washington, 65–77. Nikolov V. 1989. Das frühneolithische Haus von Sofia-Slatina: eine Untersuchung zur vorgeschichtlichen Bautechnik. Germania 67, 1–49. Oross K. 2007. The pottery from Ecsegfalva 23. In Whittle, A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 491–620. Raczky P. 1976. A Körös-kultúra leletei Tiszajenõn — Funde der Körös–Kultur in Tiszajenõ. Archeologiai Értesítõ 103, 171– 189. Sümegi P. 2005: Császártöltés-Hajós, kétvölgyi töltésen végzett régészeti geológiai feltárás eredményei — Ergebnisse einer archäologisch-geologischen Freilegung (Császártöltés- Hajós, Kétvölgy – Aufschnittung). Cumania 21, 133–139. Szakmány Gy., Gherdán K. & Starnini E. 2004. Kora neolitikus kerámiakészítés Magyarországon: a Körös és Starèevo kultúra kerámiáinak összehasonlító archeometriai vizsgálata. Archeometriai Mûhely 2004/1: 28–31. Szakmány Gy., Gherdán K. & Starnini E. 2006. Early neolithic pottery production in Hungary: a comparative archeometrical study of Körös and Starèevo ceramics. Proceedings of the 34th Symp. on archeometry, 3–7 May 2004, Zaragoza, Spain, Insitutión Fernando el Catolico (C.S.I.C.) Excma. Zaragoza, 549–554. Szalontai Cs.: 2010. A Maty-ér szerepe és jelentõsége Szeged környékének településtörténetében. MNM NÖK Környezet, ember, kultúra. Konferencia 2010. október 6–8. abstract: htpp:www.mnm-nok.gov.hu/absztrakt_kotet_KEK2010.pdf Tóth K. 1998. Homokmégy településtörténete a neolitikumtól a bronzkor végéig. In Romsics I. (ed.), Homokmégy. Tanulmányok Homokmégy történetébõl és néprajzából. Homokmégy, 59–71. Trogmayer O. 1968. Die Hauptfragen des Neolithikums der Ungarischen Südtiefebene. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 11–19. Vadász É. 1967. A kalocsi járás õskori településtörténete. MA Dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. Manuscript. Whittle A. 2010. The Körös Culture of the Great Hungarian Plain: implications of a recent research project at Ecsegfalva, Co. Békés. In Gronenborn D. & Petrasch, J. (eds), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. Internationale Tagung, Mainz 24. bis 26. Juni 2005 – The Spread of the Neolithic in Central Europe. International Symposium, Mainz 24 June – 26 June 2005. (= RGZM Tagungen 4, 1). Mainz, 189–210. Whittle A. & Bartosiewicz L. 2007: On the waterfront. In Whittle, A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain:

vironmental studies focussing on settlement history along the Danube.7 In spite of the initial state of research, it has been important to recognize that regardless of the possible density of early neolithic settlements along the left bank of the Danube, for the time being no Körös culture settlement is known north of Szakmár in this region. This observation has implications to the broader question of neolithization in the Carpathian Basin. Namely, if groups represented by Körös culture artefacts did not move toward the north beyond the Kalocsa Sárköz area, Mesolithic populations identified in the Jászság district could not have gotten acquainted with farming through this path.

REFERENCES Bánffy E. 2004. The 6th Millennium BC boundary in Western Transdanubia and its role in the Central European transition (The Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb settlement). (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 15). Budapest. Bánffy E. in press. On neolithic frontier zones in the Carpathian Basin. In Anders A. & Kulcsár G. (eds), Prehistoric Studies 1, Budapest. Bognár-Kutzián I. 1977: Ausgrabungen in Szakmár-Kisülés im Jahre 1975. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wisenschaften 7, 13–17. Bognárné Kutzián I. 1976: Szakmár-Kisülés. Régészeti Füzetek 30, 12–13. Bognárné Kutzián I. 1979: Szakmár-Kisülés. Régészeti Füzetek 32, 23. Bogdanoviæ M. 1988. Architecture and structural features at Divostin. In McPherron A. & Srejoviæ D. (eds), Divostin and the Neolithic of central Serbia. Pittsburgh–Kragujevac. Brukner B. 1966. Einige Fragen über die Verhältnisse der KörösStarèevo-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. Carneiro A. & Mateiciucová I. 2007. Daub fragments and the question of structures. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 255–285. Dimitrijeviæ S. 1974: Das problem der Gliederung der StarèevoKultur mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den Beitrag der südpannonischen Fundstellen zur Lösung dieses Problems. Materijali Saveza Arcjeoloških Društava Jugoslavije 10, 93–107. Horváth F. 1989: A Tisza-vidék újkõkori településrendszerének és háztípusainak áttekintése – Übersicht über das Siedlungssystem und die Haustypen der Theissgegend im Neolithikum. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1988, 15–40. Kalicz N. 1965. Siedlungsgeschichtliche Probleme der Körös- und der Theiss-Kultur. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica 8, 27–40. Kalicz N. 2000. Unterscheidungsmerkmale zwischen der Körösund der Starèevo-Kultur in Ungarn. In Hiller St. & Nikolov V. (Hrsg.), Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Wien, 295–309. Karmanski J. 2005. Donja Branjevina: A neolithic settlement near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia). (= Quaderno 10). Trieste. Kutzián I. 1944, 1947: A Körös-kultúra — The Körös culture. (=

7

This publication is planned for 2011 as Volume 7 in the BAR IS-Central European Series. The list of authors includes Eszter Bánffy, Pál Sümegi, Rozália Kustár, Attila Kreiter and Zsuzsanna Zoffmann.

67

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21) Budapest, 727–752. Wicker E., Kustár R. & Horváth A. 2001 Régészeti kutatások Bács-Kiskun megyében (1990–1995). Cumania 17, 33–126.

Yiouni P. 1996: The early neolithic pottery. Technology, Typology, Functional analysis. In Wardle K. A. (ed.), Nea Nikomedeia I: The excavation of an early neolithic village in Northern Greece 1961–1964, directed by R. J. Rodden. The excavation and the ceramic assemblage. Athens, 55–193.

68

69–76.

THE KÖRÖS CULTURE OF THE GREAT HUNGARIAN PLAIN: THE RESEARCH PROJECT AT ECSEGFALVA, CO. BÉKÉS Alasdair Whittle Cardiff University, Cardiff School of History and Archaeology, GB Cardiff CF10 3EU, Great Britain; [email protected] ander of the Hortobágy-Berettyó, now known as the Kiri-tó, was not only surrounded by a scatter of Körös culture sites known through the work of the Hungarian Archaeological Topography (MRT 6; 8; 10) but proved to yield a good pollen sequence (Molnár & Sümegi 2007; Sümegi & Molnár 2007; Willis 2007). There were further advantages. The known sites proved to be – by comparison with say the Dévávanya terraces to the south (Sherratt 1982a; 1983a; 1983b) – relatively small (Hamilton 2007). Ecsegfalva and the Kiri-tó, moreover, were on the main northern limits of the Körös culture as known at the time. We had expected – for example by comparison with the impressive investigation of Endrõd 119 (Makkay 1992) – that the archaeology would be basically sub-soil, and that our efforts would be directed to careful recording of pit fills and other dug features. In the event, thanks to less intense historical local land-use, we found an archaeological deposit up to 30 cm thick above the subsoil. Our main trench was only 10 by 15 m, and we dug the Körös culture occupation deposit thinking this was a single layer. In fact we established that it thinned to one side and gave out completely on another, and it may have been rather a series of low mounded deposits. But it did offer a very rich assemblage of finds of all kinds, and a stratigraphy interleaving with underlying pits. This very richness, however, made for slow progress as we stuck to our policy of careful recording, and that will continue to be a challenge for future research on comparable Körös culture sites.

INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH QUESTIONS This summary is obviously based on the full report already published (Whittle 2007), and it relies too on another summary recently published (Whittle 2010a). The reader is referred to both of these sources. Our Ecsegfalva project lasted in the field only from 1998–2001, and relied on intensive investigation of what was by any standards a very small area excavated. We began it to try to exploit further the evident archaeological richness of the Körös culture. Much previous excavation had inevitably been carried out with simple methods of recovery. What would sieving and flotation produce? Could we establish further insights by fine excavation and close stratigraphic control? But we were also concerned to question many of the taken-for-granteds about the Körös culture. What was its physical setting? Apart from the correlation with water, we knew very little directly about the vegetational setting of the Plain. Were all settlements essentially the same, or could some be specialised or seasonally occupied? How long did they last? Generalising assumptions about the Neolithic often made it seem as though this was simply an area where there was a great deal of the same thing, over and over again. What was the role of wild resources in subsistence? Could this be a central clue to establishing the potential difference of the Körös culture? What could be said about the nature of social existence, of identity and of worldview in the Körös culture? In what sense was the Körös culture a meaningful grouping, what was distinctive about it, and how did it fit into wider patterns of change through time?

Ecsegfalva 23: some principal results Ecsegfalva 23, with other sites known from surface survey (MRT 6, 8, 10), lies on the outside levée of the very large old still-water meander. The Kiri-tó is a massive feature, nearly 3 km long, with its channel in places up to 100 m broad and more. It appears to be of Pleistocene origin (Sümegi & Molnár 2007; Willis 2007). By the early sixth millennium cal BC, deciduous woodland had long been established in the area, dominated by oak and hazel but including elm, lime and other species. Percentages of grasses and sedges up to 40 per cent, however, suggest that this may

ECSEGFALVA 23, CO. BÉKÉS (B122): A SMALL SITE ON THE NORTHERN MARGINS OF THE KÖRÖS CULTURE We wanted to combine detailed excavation of part of a Körös culture settlement with investigation of adjacent sediments for pollen and other environmental analyses. This took us eventually to Ecsegfalva, where a former great me-

69

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

have been an open-canopy, park-like woodland rather than dense forest (Gillings 2007; Willis 2007). Did occupation take place in a wet and periodically flooded environment (e.g. Banner 1937; Kosse 1979; Sherratt 1980; 1982a; 1982b)? Direct evidence of flooding in general, and of its intensity and periodicity in particular, has been much harder to obtain. The Ecsegfalva project does offer some evidence, however, in support of the standard view. Some aquatic species including Polygonum, Potamogeton and Sparganium were persistently present from before 8000 cal BC, suggesting periodic flooding, and ash from about 6000 cal BC is another possible indicator of flooding (or a wetter environment) (Willis 2007). The evidence of fish bone (Bartosiewicz 2007b), shellfish (Sümegi 2007; Gulyás, Tóth & Sümegi 2007), bird bone (Gál 2007); and some plant macro-remains (Bogaard, Bending & Jones 2007) is also compatible with this picture of a wet environment. The presence of many small fish is compatible with opportunistic catches after early summer green floods (Bartosiewicz 2007b). There was no visible evidence from the occupation remains of Ecsegfalva 23 itself for flood deposits, and little sign either in the extensive micromorphological samples for such (Macphail 2007). Although it was a deliberately speculative exercise, GIS modeling shows that Ecsegfalva 23 itself, on its slight rise, would remain dry longer than most other locations in the immediate vicinity, and would still be a very small island in floodwaters a metre above present average water level (Gillings 2007). Ecsegfalva 23 itself appears from geophysical survey to be well over 100 m long and at least 40 m broad, but may be formed by a series of smaller clusters of occupation, whose detailed history has yet to be fully explored. It appears to be centred on a slight rise in the local topography. Our Trench 23B was within the area of densest occupation on this slightly higher ground, but magnetic anomalies, surface finds and features demonstrated by excavation are also to be found slightly lower to the south. Trench 23C was in such a setting. Between Trenches 23B and 23C was an area potentially connecting to a local backswamp to the west. Trench 23A was on the edge of occupation to the north. Occupation began at Ecsegfalva 23 after 5800 cal BC (over 40 radiocarbon dates) Dates from the early 5700s cal BC come from both Trenches 23A and 23C (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007). The date of the investigated part of the major occupation concentration, that is Trench 23B, was much better established, running from the mid-5700s cal BC to the mid-5600s cal BC. The duration of this occupation is probably shorter than 150 years, and most probably was in the order of only 70–80 years. A lot of activities took place here. Food was prepared and consumed from animals, fish, shellfish and plants, and probably birds (Bartosiewicz 2007a; 2007b; Gulyás, Tóth & Sümegi 2007; Bogaard, Bending & Jones 2007; Gál 2007). Possibly all these were prepared or butchered on occasions close to or in the occupation, as witnessed by sheep and goat jaws on the one hand and barley rachis internodes on the other. Micromorphology has shown the presence of animal coprolites within the occupation deposits (Macphail 2007) and at least on occasions, if not regularly, animals were therefore folded within the occupation. There is evidence

from the wear on a sample of sheep and goat teeth that these animals did not necessarily roam freely (Mainland 2007). The phytoliths recovered from the excavations suggest that plant material was brought into the occupation (Madella) but whether as bedding or fodder is not clear. Many sherds were recovered (Oross 2007). Other important materialities were the large and small clay weights, the former possibly connected with indirect moist heating for cooking and the latter with weaving (Oross & Whittle 2007). Bone tools evoke another range of crafts and procurement and processing activities (Choyke 2007), while obsidian, limnoquartzite and flint show both further on-site processing and a likely range of cutting and scraping tasks (Mateiciucová 2007). Perhaps a variety of cutting tasks, lighter and heavier, were carried out with the small stone axes evident on the site (Starnini, Szakmány & Whittle 2007). Small stone querns and rubbers were presumably associated with food preparation (Starnini, Szakmány & Whittle 2007). None of these things makes Ecsegfalva 23 in any way special or distinctive within the spectrum of known Körös culture settlements. Although charcoal did not survive the probable shrinkand-swell of the deposits over long periods of time very well, enough was preserved to suggest that a range of woods was being used (Bogaard et al.), and there was certainly no shortage of timber round about (Willis 2007). No formal hearths as such were found, though fine-surfaced plaster found in one part of Trench 23B is compatible with some kind of oven or hearth setting (Macphail 2007; Crowther 2007; Carneiro & Mateiciucová 2007). Cereal remains came into contact with fire, perhaps accidentally and irregularly (Bogaard, Bending & Jones 2007), but sufficiently often to suggest that fires were a regular part of the scene within the occupation; ash and charcoal fragments were constituents of the deposits examined by micromorphology (Macphail 2007). Fires were presumably lit for both cooking and warmth. Fire also consumed the structures on the site, producing another rich kind of texture. Burnt daub is a striking feature (Whittle & Zalai-Gaál 2007; Carneiro & Mateiciucová 2007). Micromorphology and soil chemistry also suggested substantial quantities of deposit which could have been derived from partially burnt daub-covered structures (Macphail 2007; Crowther 2007). Many of the burnt daub fragments show the impressions of reeds and occasionally probably small pieces of wood. One striking such deposit in Trench 23B was underlain by a posthole. The excavations were incomplete in this area, and not on a sufficiently large scale for questions about structures or houses to be answered definitively. But it seems clear that all the activities discussed above were associated with the existence of built structures. People were without doubt recurrently present at this place. There is evidence for activities at different times of the year. Cereal cultivation has been reasonably well documented at the site thanks to flotation, though preservation was variable (Bogaard, Bending & Jones 2007). Glume wheats (einkorn, emmer and ‘new type’) and barley (perhaps mainly naked barley) were dominant, and only a little evidence was recovered for free-threshing wheats (Triticum aestivum and Triticum aestivum/durum), millet and lentil.

70

Alasdair Whittle: The Körös Culture of the Great Hungarian...

11 out of 13 potential arable weed species are annuals, strongly implying fixed cultivation. That cultivation took place in the immediate locality is highly probable, given cereal pollen in the Kiri-tó cores, and very possibly with autumn rather than spring sowing. The maintenance of garden plots strongly implies permanent commitment and investment; and people must have been present in the summer for harvesting (Bogaard, Bending & Jones 2007; see also Bogaard 2005). Sheep (with goat) were the dominant animal species, with also cattle, pigs, and a very few dog remains; alongside domesticated cattle, perhaps introduced on the basis of other genetic evidence, there were also wild aurochs (Bartosiewicz 2007a). Analysis of lipid residues in pottery shows animal dairy fats and strongly suggests milking (Craig et al. 2005; 2007). Quite a wide range of other wild animals were recovered, as in other Körös culture sites, but the size of the assemblage recovered and the recovery methods used (including dry and wet sieving) made it clear that wild species cannot have contributed much to routine subsistence needs (Bartosiewicz 2007a). Bones of young animals suggest summer occupation, as do also a host of bird remains, shellfish collected in spring and autumn, and fish bones (Bartosiewicz 2007a; 2007b; Gál 2007; Gulyás, Tóth & Sümegi 2007; and see Pike-Tay et al. 2004). Winter occupation can be seen in the presence of winter residents among the bird species (Gál 2007) and from the tooth sectioning data on caprines (Pike-Tay et al. 2004; Pike-Tay 2007). In these traditional ways of spotting seasons and summing the result, occupation at Ecsegfalva 23 can be seen as year-round.

ridge within which Trench 23B was located: an area some 50 by 50 m. Part of the area excavated was devoid of occupation, and the geophysical survey suggests other patches like this within the suggested core area of the site (Hamilton 2007). If we were to think in terms of units consisting of houses or structures, accompanying large pits and middens, then there might be space for only two or three, or three or four, such units on the ridge. Both within Ecsegfalva 23 and in the immediate environs, people probably lived their lives in small-scale, face-to-face, and potentially quite isolated situations. Many different materials littered the surfaces of the upper occupation deposit and were also abundant in the main occupation deposit below this. Could this have been a deliberate kind of texturing of the lived-in space, a very visual cue to the importance of the life carried on in this place (Evans 2003, chapter 3)? The abundance of pottery is particularly intriguing. Was it just part of daily life, as the range of quality of finer and heavier wares could suggest (Oross 2007), or did people also manufacture quantities for special occasions, perhaps associated with periodic or seasonal aggregations? One clue might lie in the relatively low incidence of lipid residues (Craig et al. 2005; Craig et al. 2007), which might, speculatively, be explicable in terms of short use-lives for many vessels. But there are of course many unknown factors here, apart from the small size of sample analysed, and this is yet another question for future research. It is not clear what form structures took at Ecsegfalva 23 (Whittle & Zalai-Gaál 2007; Carneiro & Mateiciucová 2007). It is possible that the excavation of Trench 23B incorporates the location of just one structure, accompanied by at least one large pit. Nothing larger than the examples of Tiszajenõ or Szolnok-Szajol need be indicated, and postframing could have been very light, with walls principally constituted by bundles of reeds (Carneiro & Mateiciucová 2007). Such a building, a few metres long, could well have been roofed, and it is easy to assume that this was so, on the basis of all the other evidence from south-east Europe for structures, backed up by three-dimensional, roofed house models. Our excavations at Ecsegfalva 23 were not sufficiently complete or extensive to see whether the residues from all the activities discussed above were concentrated inside or outside the structure or structures in question, but our evidence in Trench 23B is suggestive of structure and residues coinciding. It is possible that we are dealing with a roofed structure, not heavily built but durable enough, which was one at least of the loci for living, work and shelter within the Ecsegfalva 23 occupation. The situation is clearest in the upper occupation deposit, reflecting that moment (around the mid-5600s cal BC as suggested by the radiocarbon dating programme) when the site was abandoned. The moment of abandonment was associated with burning, which produced abundant daub. Whether this was deliberate or accidental is uncertain. That would require a detailed forensic examination of all the remains, and over a wider area than was available from the excavations of 1999–2001, to see whether fire had broken out in one spot, suggesting accidental burning, or had been started and maintained in several, suggesting deliberate burning (Tringham 2005). As experiments and observations have shown, it

Some implications for characterising the nature of Körös culture existence The Ecsegfalva 23 dates have both local and wider implications. The suggestion has already been made of a shorter rather than longer span of occupation at Endrõd 119, related to the histories of two houses (Makkay 1992; 1996). The dates imply that the beginnings of the Ecsegfalva occupation may have been quite modest in scale, since the earliest dates come from Trenches A and C which were seemingly not areas of extensive settlement. They may also imply that the numbers of people in the locality then increased relatively rapidly or that this place was quite quickly chosen as a favourite for continued settlement. They also indicate that the history of the place was finite. The obvious further implication is that it is likely that many if not most other Körös culture occupations had shorter rather than longer histories, and so the apparently populous landscapes mapped by the Topográfia for this part of the Plain (MRT 6; MRT 8; MRT 10) may at any one time have been less densely settled. It is still dangerous to generalise too much at this stage of research, but it is possible that in the area around Ecsegfalva sites were fewer and farther between than around Dévaványa a little to the south. Whether there were corresponding differences in site durations should be another question for future research, a significant challenge complicated by the fact that on the terrace edges around Dévaványa finite “sites” may not easily be defined. None of the Körös culture sites around the Kiri-tó seem particularly big. The core of the Ecsegfalva 23 site is the

71

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

is hard work to achieve a thorough burning of a wattleand-daub house (Shaffer 1999; Stevanoviæ 2002). This could suggest that accidental burnings were likely to be quick, the roof especially going up spectacularly in flame, scorching and burning daub from the upper walls. Whether that would produce the quantities of burnt daub recorded must be an open question, but it is by no means excluded that abandonment was accompanied by deliberate “domicide”, or “domithanasia” as Ruth Tringham (2005) has termed the voluntary ending of a building through fire by its residents and associates. Given the thickness of the deposit as a whole in Ecsegfalva 23B, the duration of the occupation as suggested by the radiocarbon dating programme, and the existence of dumped material in the upper fill of the major excavated pit (390), a feature which belongs to the early part of the site sequence, it can hardly be the case that the structure suggested at the top of the occupation deposit was the only one in use through the duration of the occupation. The material dumped in pit 390 includes both burnt daub and probably unburnt or half-burnt daub, suggesting that there may have been at least two episodes of house construction, use, and abandonment/burning. Was there some kind of recurrent unit, consisting of a large pit, a structure or house, and related middens? But such a unit would also be a process. Pits would have been dug not only to provide material for house construction but also to claim and tame the place in question; living in that place then took place, and when the time of the place came to at least a temporary end, material from the house or structure was returned to the earth. We can suppose that the occupation was renewed in the same way that it had all begun, with a further pit being dug and another house or structure being constructed. So I envisage a cycle of occupation, probably more or less continuous given the shorter rather than longer timescale discussed above, but with at least the possibility of short, partial or even complete abandonment within it. This simple model would also fit other more extensive terrace-edge occupations of the Körös culture, and within a repeating system there was perhaps therefore inbuilt flux and dynamism. We can think of this as a permanent system. The evidence for occupation from spring to autumn is most abundant, and for winter much less so; that emphasis would be reinforced if spring rather than autumn sowing were the case, and even autumn sowing might not entail a sustained human presence right through the winter. Conversely, if autumn sowing is supported, the caprine tooth evidence for winter kill-off becomes striking and could suggest that this was the time when people were concentrated at the site for longer periods of time. The lack of caprine tooth evidence for summer kill-off has to be accommodated in our interpretations and may suggest that people came and went from this site, perhaps on a structured basis in tune with seasons and other rhythms such as flooding, but perhaps also in line with social custom and preferences. If the site was permanently occupied as the “sedentary” base of a small population, in support are the range of seasons indicated by the varied faunal, avian and molluscan evidence, the existence of structures, and the likely maintenance of small plots or gardens for cereal cultivation. If the

site was in reality a palimpsest of different activities taking place in different ways and at different times (principally from spring to autumn) across a period of time long enough to allow a drift in habit and practice, buildings and plots could be maintained for a while without tying a set number of people to the place (and the suggested smallness of the occupation hardly suggests an autonomous reproductive unit), and may have been left to lapse or decay from time to time; opportunistic fishing and hunting trips in one year, episodic stays with herds in another, reaction to occasional big flood events in another, might all better characterise the flow of life in this place at this time. In either case, the site could be recognised by the presence of buildings, the hollows and undulations of pits at different stages of their lives, the textures of middens and other residues, and by smoke above it. People came and went from this place, and one can link their likely forays, shorter and longer, to a notion of wider taskscape. In this model, people were both rooted and often on the move. Based on all the carefully collected new data, and in the pursuit of a wider view of life in this place at this time, we can try to engender a sense of layers of experience, from close focus on the immediate and local to active attention to things past, future and more distant, while also taking account of the values and motivations that underpin the ceremonial performance of social life. There are abundant clues in the evidence, for choice, for engagement in the tasks of daily life, for response to the challenges of skillfully managing the environment, and for a distinctive style of living. Ecsegfalva 23 and other sites in its world seem concerned with the flow of daily life. The site residues are largely mundane, resulting from acts of burning, preparation, eating, defecation, digging, and so on. There are no special buildings (as far as we can tell given the limitations of the excavations) and relatively few special or unusual artefacts. It may even evoke that unexotic, unremarkable and boring domestic field so often ignored by anthropologists (Overing & Passes 2000, 9). But we can evoke the choice of position beside the great meander, the respect shown for the earth by digging pits into it and eventually returning its material to them, the modest if not limited impact made on the local surroundings, and the selective use of wild resources including sparing use of red deer and aurochs. We can summon the choice, habitual perhaps but more or less consciously maintained, of inhabiting selected places in small social groups, at distances from neighbours but not completely removed from them. We can imagine the skilful attention given to the ensemble of daily tasks, from the patient tending of gardens and the steady moving of flocks of sheep to the occasional opportunistic but presumably knowledgeable capture of small game, birds or fish. I was struck by the visual impression of the great litter of material in the excavated portion of Ecsegfalva 23 since the very first opening of our Trench 23B, and I think this was not only as a visual signal, a texture redolent of a particular human presence, but also symbol of sociality and occasional gregariousness focused round the provision of food and drink. Perhaps that took place in different ways and at different times, changing the composition of the residents, altering and lifting the mood, either at dark, slow moments in winter, when sheep

72

Alasdair Whittle: The Körös Culture of the Great Hungarian...

would be slaughtered and feasted upon, or at perhaps predictable moments when floods rose and then fell, causing flurries of excitement and activity, and then leaving a bountiful residue of fish. All these things seem to have taken up much of the time and energy of Körös culture people in their daily existence around and within the orbit of their occupations (as János Banner in 1937) had already long ago recognised), perhaps to be characterized by intimacy, informality, general peacefulness and generosity, and a steady flow to life. Issues of sedentism and mobility may seem rather less important from this perspective. The people who used Ecsegfalva 23 and other sites like it acquired lithic raw materials from considerable distances, in practically every direction: Carpathian obsidian from the north-east, limnoquartzites from the north, Szentgál radiolarite from the west, hornfels and dolerites from east (or possibly west), and Banat flint from the south. There was even a piece of Prut flint, yet more exotic (Whittle 2004; Mateiciucová 2007). While there is much that we do not understand about wider relations with other people to the north, obsidian, limnoquarzite and radiolarite must have surely come in this situation from various Mesolithic contexts, the former two from the foragers who may be presumed to have co-existed with the Körös culture to its north, largely around the fringes of the Carpathian Basin rather than within it. Movement across the northern part of the Great Hungarian Plain may have been through, at the time, a largely little used region. Szentgál radiolarite may also be presumed to have come from a forager context (Mateiciucová 2008), though just beyond the known limits of Starèevo culture settlement in Transdanubia south of Lake Balaton (Kalicz, M. Virág & T. Biró 1998; Bánffy 2004). The hills of western Romania were within the general orbit of the Criº culture, and the Banat firmly within the main area of the Starèevo culture. No one person necessarily had to go the whole distance to each raw material source. Inna Mateiciucová has identified both “Danubian” and “Mediterranean” traditions in the treatment of flint at Ecsegfalva 23 and elsewhere, which may have something to do with the mixture of contacts and people on the move (Mateiciucová 2007; 2008). But it seems unlikely that all the raw material at a site like Ecsegfalva 23 was brought to it by outsiders. Periodically, some inhabitants might have gone the 150–160 km north-east to the obsidian sources, and even if they sat on their hands beside the Kiri-tó they would still have been indirectly in touch with a much wider world. Speculatively, there might have been a flow of other exchanges: of protein and carbohydrates; fur, feather and shells; and even of people as alliance and marriage partners. The ability to move, and prowess in voyaging and negotiating, may have also have been a facet of identity in the Körös culture world. Other senses of connection can be suggested, with the past, surroundings and animals. László Bartosiewicz has emphasised how sheep-keeping appears a less than rational adaptation to the conditions of the Great Hungarian Plain in the early sixth millennium cal BC, and has stressed the likely sense of tradition linked to a past in the south. I have suggested elsewhere (Whittle 2004) that sheep by their

movement and sounds could have more or less constantly provided their owners with visible and audible reminders of one dimension of the past, as well as serving as a metaphor for cohesion and togetherness. Mythic relations with deer, and the uncertain status of aurochs, have also been suggested by László Bartosiewicz (2007a). And we can return finally to pit digging and demonstrable connections with the earth. Some kind of duality between earth and water, dry and wet, might have been one of the basic nodes of thought (Bloch 1998) with which people in the Körös culture formed their view of the world. People at this time can be defined, as well as by their relationships with domesticated animals and plants and by their use of pottery, by their repeated and very direct use of material from the earth. Other implications for beginnings and endings The Körös culture does not lend itself to easy internal phasing. The suggestion that white-painted pottery at Szarvas 23 shows an early site (Makkay 1981) has yet to find independent support. The difficulties of using biconical pottery as a marker of late developments are emphasised by Krisztián Oross in his report (Oross 2007). In this situation, the best guide to sequence is given by radiocarbon dating. Dates obtained from other Körös and northern Starèevo sites suggest that Neolithic sites first appeared in northern Serbia at the end of the seventh millennium cal BC and in southernmost Hungary around 6000 cal BC or just after (Whittle et al. 2002; 2006). Ecsegfalva 23 is dated to the 58th and 57th centuries cal BC, lying some 100 km further north than sites dated from about 6000 cal BC, such as Deszk, Maroslele-Pana, Hódmezõvásárhely and PitvarosVíztározó. The other two more northerly dated sites, Szarvas 23 and Endrõd 119, do not appear to be earlier than c. 5800 cal BC. There is only one date from Szarvas 23, but nine dates from Endrõd 119 fall between c. 5800 and 5650 cal BC (Whittle et al. 2002; 2006). We need to obtain more radiocarbon dates on well-contexted samples which will fill out this regional picture, including from the sites on the Pleistocene alluvial delta around Dévaványa not far to the south of Ecsegfalva 23 (Sherratt 1983b). A gradual northward spread, both in the Tisza corridor and elsewhere, is plausible, even though Ecsegfalva 23 itself need not be firstgeneration within its local setting. At the time of excavation we envisaged Ecsegfalva as more or less on the northern limits of the Körös culture, but subsequent discoveries further up the Tisza by László Domboróczki and Pál Raczky, at Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta and Ibrány, and the dates obtained from both, may suggest that this continued in the 56th century cal BC (Domboróczki & Raczky 2010). I believe that this has important implications for how we think about the transition from the Körös culture to the AVK and to the wider emergence of the LBK (Whittle 2010b). The overwhelmingly favourite explanation in the literature is of some kind of colonisation from the south, bringing new people, new resources, new technologies and new ways of thinking to what had been up till now, in this part of the Carpathian basin at least, a more or less empty landscape, devoid of obvious indigenous inhabitants. The new practices of cereal cultivation, animal husbandry (especially the perverse tradition of keeping sheep in the conditions of

73

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

the Great Hungarian Plain), pottery manufacture and use, and the use of rectangular buildings, more easily traced to the south than to the indigenous north, could all be explained in this way. The apparent general absence of a local population, the presence of Mesolithic or Epipalaeolithic sites in the Jászság to the north of Szolnok notwithstanding (Kertész 1996), seems for many observers to clinch the matter. The latest aDNA research, albeit from the LBK further north (e.g. Bramanti et al. 2009), also appears to suggest significant difference between Mesolithic and Neolithic populations. Was it so simple? The Körös basin did not exist in isolation. If important resources and practices came from the south, and from well established traditions there, there are indeed good grounds for thinking of population movement. But was the Plain really empty at this historical juncture? There are hints from earlier dates from Topole-Baè/Bácstopolya, Maroslele-Pana and Ecsegfalva 23 itself (Whittle et al. 2002; Boriæ 2005; Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007) that there were indeed people present on the Plain at earlier times, in the seventh millennium cal BC, and some of the features of the Ecsegfalva pollen sequence might also be consistent with this earlier presence (Willis 2007; Windland 2007). The obsidian network testifies to the reality of movement even when very few sites can be documented on the ground between raw material sources and recipient sites. So it is feasible to think of pre-existing indigenous knowledge of the Plain, based on high mobility radiating out from more frequented areas such as the Jászság or the Tokaj-Zemplén hills to the north-east. Inna Mateiciucová (Mateiciucová 2007; 2008) has stressed the importance of the “Danubian” traditions of lithic raw material procurement and treatment, including at Ecsegfalva 23. Perhaps some people made their way up from the south, perhaps rather more slowly on the Great Hungarian Plain than in other regions to the south, and without obvious leapfrogging here. They began to encounter a rather different setting. The Kiri-tó might seem a rather odd location for migrating farmers to end up in. Other people, indigenous, mobile, experienced and knowledgeable, became aware of newcomers, and contact was established. In this scenario, people would have intermingled, and rather than having to choose between colonisation and acculturation, we can think of some kind of fusion. We need to get away from – or at least be highly critical in our use of – the predetermined and essentialised characterisations of people that the terms “Mesolithic” and “Neolithic” so often carry with them. We can think of frontier situations as melting pots for the formation if not transformation of identities (Kotsakis 2005; Boriæ 2005). Finally, the abandonment of Ecsegfalva 23 is relevant to thinking about the broader picture of what came after. The immediate implications are that the local situation was, first, not static, but secondly, is unlikely to reflect a period of marked growth or expansion. In earlier accounts I suggested that this implied that it was unlikely that the Körös culture was directly involved in the emergence and development of the LBK, in Transdanubia and beyond (e.g. Otte & Noiret 2001). I argued that that was far more likely to be the result of complex processes of interaction between late

Starèevo and late Mesolithic communities in Transdanubia and to the north, with the LBK emerging c. 5500 cal BC and spreading initially quite rapidly along existing networks of interaction and exchange (Gronenborn 1999; Bánffy 2004; Whittle 2003, chapter 6; Lukes & Zvelebil 2004; Mateiciucová 2004; 2008). But with the new evidence for the continuing northward spread of the Körös culture, we have to re-think all this, and much more gradualist picture, without necessarily radical differences between Starèevo, Körös and earliest LBK (including AVK) cultures, may be more appropriate, with all manner of fusions of populations and traditions along the way (Whittle 2010b). While the abandonment of Ecsegfalva 23 c. 5650 cal BC was probably only a local event, what came after is very relevant to wider questions of change through the Plain as a whole. Here is another goal for future research. When did people adopt longhouses in the region of Ecsegfalva, and how did the sociality and conviviality of longhouse life compare with what had gone before in the days of the Körös culture? Many more local studies are needed to fill out the very broad picture available so far. Acknowledgments The Ecsegfalva project was carried out within a formal cooperation between the Institute of Archaeology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest; the county museum for Co. Békés, the Munkácsy Mihály Museum, Békéscsaba; and Cardiff University. Funding for the project was provided by The British Academy, The Humanities Research Board, The Arts and Humanities Research Board, The Society of Antiquaries of London, The Prehistoric Society, and Cardiff University. Grateful thanks are due to all who participated and supported the project, fully acknowledged in Whittle (2007).

REFERENCES 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. Banner J. 1937. Die Ethnologie der Körös-Kultur. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 13, 32–49. Bartosiewicz L. 2007a. Mammalian bone. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 287–325. Bartosiewicz L. 2007b. Fish remains. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 377– 394. Bloch M. 1998. How we think they think: anthropological approaches to cognition, memory and literacy. Boulder. Bogaard A. 2005. ‘Garden agriculture’ and the nature of early farming in Europe and the Near East. World Archaeology 37, 177–96. Bogaard A., Bending J. & Jones G. 2007. Archaeobotanical evidence for plant husbandry and use. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 421– 445. Boriæ D. 2005. Deconstructing essentialisms: unsettling frontiers of the Mesolithic-Neolithic Balkans. In Bailey D., Whittle A. & Cummings V. 2005. (eds.), (un)settling the Neolithic. Oxford, 16–31. Bramanti B., Thomas M. G., Haak W., Unterlaender M., Jores P., Tambets K., Antanaitis-Jacobs I., Haidle M. N., Jankauskas R., Kind C.-J., Lueth, F. Terberger T., Hiller J., Matsumura S., Forster P. & Burger J. 2009. Genetic discontinuity between local hunter-gatherers and central Europe’s first farmers. Science 326, 137–40.

74

Alasdair Whittle: The Körös Culture of the Great Hungarian...

end of the Körös culture. In Tálas L. (ed.), At the fringes of three worlds: hunter-gatherers and farmers in the middle Tisza valley. Szolnok, 35–53. Mateiciucová I. 2004. Mesolithic traditions and the origin of the Linear Pottery culture (LBK). In Lukes A. & Zvelebil M. 2004. (eds), LBK dialogues: studies in the formation of the Linear Pottery Culture (= BAR International Series 1304). Oxford, 91–107. Mateiciucová I. 2007. Worked stone: obsidian and flint. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 677–726. Mateiciucová I. 2008. Talking stones: the chipped stone industry in Lower Austria and Moravia and the beginnings of the Neolithic in central Europe (LBK), 5700–4900 BC. Brno. Molnár S. & Sümegi P. 2007. A long history of the Kiri-tó meander. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 47–65. MRT 6. Ecsedy I., Kovács L., Maráz B. & Torma I. 1982. 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. (ed.), Békés megye Régészeti Topográfiája. Szarvasi Járás IV/2 (= Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája 8) Budapest. MRT 10. Jankovich D., Medgyesi P., Nikolin E., Szatmári I. & Torma I. 1998. Békés megye Régészeti Topgráfiája. Békés és Békéscsaba környéke IV/3 (= Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája 10) Budapest. Oross K. 2007. The pottery from Ecsegfalva 23. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 491–620. Oross K. & Whittle A. 2007. Figural representations and other clay objects. In Whittle 2007, 621–640. Otte M. & Noiret P. 2001. Le mésolithique du basin Pannonien et la formation du Rubané. L’Anthropologie 105, 409–19. Overing J. & Passes A. 2000. Introduction: conviviality and the opening up of Amazonian anthropology. In Overing J. & Passes A. (eds), The anthropology of love and anger: the aesthetics of conviviality in Native Amazonia. London, 1–30. Pike-Tay A., Bartosiewicz L., Gál E. & Whittle A. 2004. Body part representation and seasonality; sheep/goat, bird and fish remains from Early Neolithic Ecsegfalva 23, SE Hungary. Journal of Taphonomy 2, 221–246. Shaffer G. R. 1999. An examination of architectural stability and change. Contributions from southern Italy. In Tykot, R. H., Morter J. & Robb J. E. (eds), Social dynamic of the prehistoric Central Mediterranean. Specialist Studies on the Mediterranean 3. London, 97–110. Sherratt A. 1980. Water, soil and seasonality in early cereal cultivation. World Archaeology 2, 313–30. Sherratt A. G. 1982a. The development of Neolithic and Copper Age settlement in the Great Hungarian Plain. Part 1: the regional setting. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1, 287–316. Sherratt A. 1982b. Mobile resources: settlement and exchange in early agricultural Europe. In Renfrew C. & Shennan S. (eds), Ranking, resource and exchange. Cambridge, 13–26. Sherratt A. G. 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. G. 1983b. Early agrarian settlement in the Körös region of the Great Hungarian Plain. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 35, 155–69. Starnini E., Szakmány Gy. & Whittle A. 2007. Polished, ground and other stone artefacts. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 667–676. Stevanoviæ M. 2002. Burned houses in the Neolithic of south-east Europe. In Gheorghiu D. (ed.), Fire in archaeology. (= British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1089). Oxford, 55–62.

Bronk Ramsey C., Higham T., Whittle A. & Bartosiewicz L. 2007. Radiocarbon chronology. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 173–188. Carneiro Â. & Mateiciucová I. 2007. Daub fragments and the question of structures. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 255–285. Choyke A. M. 2007. Objects for a lifetime – tools for a season: the bone tools from Ecsegfalva 23. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 641– 666. Craig O. E., Chapman J., Heron C., Willis L. H., Bartosiewicz L., Taylor G., Whittle A. & Collins, M. 2005. Did the first farmers of central and eastern Europe produce dairy foods? Antiquity 79, 882–94. Craig O. E., Heron, C., Willis L. H., Yusof N. & Taylor G. 2007. Organic residue analysis of pottery vessels. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 349–359. Crowther J. 2007. Chemical and magnetic properties of soils and pit fills. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 227–253. Domboróczki L. & Raczky P. 2010. Excavations at Ibrány– Nagyerdõ and the northernmost distribution of the Körös culture in Hungary. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 137–176. Evans J. G. 2003. Environmental archaeology and the social order. London. Gál E. 2007. Bird remains. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 361–376. Gillings M. 2007.The Ecsegfalva landscape: affordance and inhabitation. In Whittle 2007, 31–46. Gronenborn, D. 1999. Variations on a basic theme: the transition to farming in southern central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 13, 123–210. Gulyás S., Tóth A. & Sümegi P. 2007. The zooarchaeological analysis of freshwater bivalve shells and their relevance regarding the life of a Neolithic community. In Whittle 2007, 395–411. Hamilton M. A. 2007. Geophysical surveys at Ecsegfalva, 1998 and 1999. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 132–138. Kalicz N., M. Virág Zs. & T. Biró K. 1998. The northern periphery of the Early Neolithic Starèevo culture in south-western Hungary: a case study of an excavation at Lake Balaton. Documenta Praehistorica 25, 151–88. Kertész R. 1996. The Mesolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain. In Tálas L. (ed.), At the fringes of three worlds: hunter-gatherers and farmers in the middle Tisza valley. Szolnok, 5–34. Kosse K. 1979. Settlement ecology of the Early and Middle Neolithic Körös and Linear Pottery cultures in Hungary. (= British Archaeological Reports, International Series 64). Oxford. Kotsakis K. 2005. Across the border: unstable dwellings and fluid landscapes in the earliest Neolithic of Greece. In Bailey D., Whittle A. & Cummings V. 2005. (eds.), (un)settling the Neolithic. Oxford, 8–16. Lukes A. & Zvelebil M. 2004. (eds), LBK dialogues: studies in the formation of the Linear Pottery Culture (= BAR International Series 1304). Oxford. Macphail R. 2007. Soils and deposits: micromorphology. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 189–225. Mainland I. L. 2007. A microwear analysis of selected sheep and goat mandibles. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 343–348. Makkay J. 1981. Painted pottery of the Körös-Starèevo culture from Szarvas, site no. 23. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 21, 95–103. Makkay J. 1992. Excavations at the Körös culture settlement of Endrõd-Öregszõlõk 119 in 1986-1989. In Bökönyi S. (ed.), Cultural and landscape changes in south-east Hungary I. reports on the Gyomaendrõd Project (= Archaeolingua Main Series 1). Budapest, 121–193. Makkay J. 1996. Theories about the origin, the distribution and the

75

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Sümegi P. 2007. Mollusc-based environmental reconstruction around the area of the Kiri-tó. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 109–121. Sümegi P. & Molnár S. 2007. The Kiri-tó meander: sediments and the question of floods. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 67–82. Tringham R. 2005. Weaving house life and death into places: a blueprint for a hypermedia narrative. In Bailey D., Whittle A. & Cummings V. 2005. (eds.), (un)settling the Neolithic. Oxford, 98–111. Whittle A. 2003. The archaeology of people: dimensions of Neolithic life. London. Whittle A. 2004. Connections in the Körös culture world: exchange as an organising principle. Antaeus 27, 17–26. Whittle A. 2007. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest. Whittle A. 2010a. The Körös culture of the Great Hungarian Plain: implications of a recent research project at Ecsegfalva, Co. Békés. In Gronenborn, D. & Petrasch, J. (Hrsg.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. Internationale Tagung, Mainz 24. bis 26. Juni 2005 – The Spread of the Neolithic in Central Europe. International Symposium, Mainz 24 June – 26 June 2005. 1 (= RGZM Tagungen 4, 1). Mainz, 189–210.

Whittle A. 2010b. The long and winding road: reflections on sixth-millennium process. Koz³owski, J. K. & Raczky P. 2010. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 91–102. Whittle A., Bartosiewicz L., Boriæ D., Pettitt P. & Richards M. 2002. In the beginning: new radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary. Antaeus 25, 63–117. Whittle A., Bartosiewicz L., Boriæ D., Pettitt P. & Richards, M. 2006. New radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic on northern Srbia and south-east Hungary: some omissions and corrections. Antaeus 28, 347–55. Whittle A. & Zalai-Gaál I. 2007. Fieldwork and excavations. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 123–171. Willis K. J. 2007. the impact of the Early Neolithic Körös culture on the landscape: evidence from palaeoecological investigations of the Kiri-tó. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 83–98. Windland P. 2007. Phytolits of the Kiri-tó. In Whittle 2007 (ed.), 99–107.

76

77–83.

SZENTPÉTERSZEG-KÖRTVÉLYES Nándor Kalicz Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, H-1014 Budapest, Úri utca 49. Hungary; [email protected] finds also include a strange fragment that may be interpreted as either part of a bird-shaped vessel or the roof of a house model. Large numbers of tomato-shaped, cylindrical, centrally compressed and small, pear-shaped net weights were brought to light as well. Two spindle whorls made from perforated sherds carved into disk shapes are also of note (Fig. 3, 9). Vessel fragments numbered approximately 2000 pieces, including those of 17 reconstructed specimens. In terms of pottery techniques, it is interesting that in addition to chaff temper, a dominant type prevailing in this part of the Great Hungarian Plain, a coarser sand temper could also be identified. The surfaces of small and medium size vessels used presumably in cooking and for eating, were usually smoothed. The external surface of these vessels was generally light brown. They can be classified into five main types: 1) Small, conical cups and bowls (Fig. 3. 2) and larger versions of the same forms 2) Semi-spherical or compressed spherical deep bowls with rounded walls and bases. Their rims may have straight or slightly inverted profile lines. (Fig. 3. 1–2, 4, 6–9). This form occurred most commonly among the vessels, none of which had been decorated. 3) Medium size and large pots (probably made for cooking or the storage of liquids, food or grain. They are characterized by thick walls and the so-called sandwich structure resulting from firing at low temperatures. These pots have globular bodies and stout, cylindrical necks. The thick base tends to have a pronounced profile line, almost reminiscent of base rings (Fig. 4. 1–2, 4, 6–7). 4) Amphorae or large bottles (Fig. 4. 3, 5) had smoothed, globular bellies and cylindrical necks. Several specimens had two, horizontal handles attached to the lower portion of their bellies. A special feature of the vessel types described thus far is that — as is typical of the majority of Körös culture vessels on the Great Hungarian Plain —, they stand on four short legs (Fig. 3. 1, 4–9, Fig. 4. 3). These horizontally or vertically oriented double pairs of knobs on the bbellies of vessels had a technical, rather than a simply decorative function. They were designed to prevent the vessel from slipping. The majority of pots were decorated using inverted relief patterns, most commonly comprising single or paired nail-pinching and cover the vessels’ entire surface (Fig. 4. 2, 4, 6, 9). On the other hand, horizontal rows of

The site (H3) is located some 5 km East-Southeast of the town of Berettyóújfalu. It spanned the edge of a high bank, flanking one of the many branches of an ancient bed of the Berettyó River (Kalicz 1980, 158, 97, T. 1; 1982, 213–214). The area decided on for excavation was discovered through information gathered on location: a 60–80 m long, narrow band of settlement debris from the Körös culture and the so-called Esztár group of the Alföld Linear Pottery culture was identified on the surface. Small-scale test excavations were carried out by Nándor Kalicz, Pál Raczky and Márta Sz. Máthé in 1977 and 1978. Test trenches were expanded to include two major pits (Features 3 and 4; Fig. 1. 1) and two small pits (Features 5 and 6). These, and a feature destroyed by intrusive features put there by subsequent settlers contained finds attributable to the Körös culture. In the case of Pit 3, the excavated section corresponded the part of it that fell within a 2.5 m wide test trench. The diameter of this section was 4.5 m, while its depth was 140 cm relative to the surface. Pit 5 was a cylindrical feature with a diameter of 1.5 m and a depth of 90 cm. It only contained a fragment of wattle and daub, with one side smoothed and the other showing the imprint of twigs in addition to a few characteristic Körös culture sherds. By the end of the excavation it became clear that pits 1/A and 1/B belonging to the middle neolithic Esztár group had destroyed an earlier, Körös culture feature. Pit 4 was the largest and completely excavated Körös culture feature at this site (Fig. 1). It had an elongated shape measuring 9 by 4 m on the surface with a depth of 155 cm. Thanks to the great number of finds (thousands of sherds, numerous animal remains and freshwater mussel shells) all find types characteristic of the Körös culture as it is known in the Great Hungarian Plain were represented in this single pit. Among the clay objects of symbolic significance, the fragment of a small, square altar standing on legs is worth mentioning. However, fragments of ten anthropomorphic figurines (Fig. 2. 1–7, 9) and a zoomorphic fragment displaying a horizontal head-posture were also found (Fig. 2. 11). A miniature, face-decorated vessel was also brought to light (Fig. 2. 8) as well as two symbolic horns standing on a flat base, also made of clay (Fig. 1. 2–3). A square-shaped clay seal (pintedera) with a deeply engraved geometric design was also found in this assemblage (Fig. 2. 10). Special

77

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 1.

Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes – 1: Ground plan of the excavation; 2–3: Symbolic horns made of clay.

78

Nándor Kalicz: Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes (H3)

Fig. 2. Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes – 1–7, 9: Fragments of anthropomorphic figurines; 8: Miniature, face-decorated vessel; 10: Pintadera; 11: Fragment of a zoomorphic figurine.

79

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 3.

Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes – 1–8, 10: Vessel types; 9: Spindle whorl made from perforated sherd.

80

Nándor Kalicz: Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes (H3)

Fig. 4.

Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes – 1–7: Vessel types.

81

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 5.

Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes – 1–10: Worked pieces of animal bone.

82

Nándor Kalicz: Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes (H3)

small knobs were also commonly used for decoration (Fig. 3. 5). Rare decorative elements include combinations of engraved and plastic motifs that are also applied over the entire surface of vessels. One of the pots represents a fusion between all known decorative motifs characteristic of the Körös culture (Fig. 4. 5). The lower portion of the pot’s body is covered by paired nail-pinching. Above this design, a finger-imprinted, three-dimensional, plastic band decorates the pot’s belly. This is followed by a densely incised net-design covering the surface up to the base of the neck. Finally, two sparsely spaced series of tiny, pointed knobs were plastered on top of this design. 5) Large storage vessels. The only reconstructed specimen has an elongated body with an ovoid shape. The neck is stout and has a slight funnel shape. The base has a pronounced profile line (Fig. 4. 5). The surface is slightly coarse, burnt to a dark grey colour. On the shoulder, a relief of a horned animal is shown made from smooth rods of clay applied to the surface. It is surrounded by finger-imprinted plastic rods. The possible meaning of the rest of this fragmented design comprised of plastic rods cannot be identified. The lower portion of the vessel is decorated by a ring-shaped and rectangular applied rod design. It is possible that this vessel, decorated with a special design, had associations with symbolic functions. Imprints of chaff sometimes containing grain could be identified on the base of several large vessels. Twenty-seven worked pieces of animal bone and antler came to light during the course of excavations. The majority were split or ground perforators made from the metapodia of small ruminants and cattle. They were presumably used in leather-working. Worn antler tines, possibly with multiple functions also came to light. An outstanding group of bone artefacts is represented by one complete and six fragmented bone spoons, considered diagnostic bone tool types of the Körös culture (Fig. 5. 4–7). Thin-walled tubes, crafted from the leg bones of waterfowl, also belong to the less common household objects (Fig. 5. 1–2). The fragment of a thick tube was also found, carved out from the long bone of a large animal (Fig. 5, 3). A fragment of a bone bracelet is also worth mentioning along with a bone ring (Fig. 5. 8–9). Finally, the perforated shoulder blade of a cat-

tle may be considered a blank awaiting further manufacturing that never continued (Fig. 5. 7). Forty pieces of chipped stone tools were collected. The majority are blades, blade- scrapers and scrapers. They also included a blade with sickle-polish. As far as raw material is concerned, 34 were made of flint, five of obsidian while a single piece of mountain crystal was also identified (Bácskay & Simán 1987, 123, Pl. III). Only a single fragment from a ground stone axe was brought to light at this site. A burial was also discovered at this site. The slightly contracted skeleton of an infant was found at a depth of 155 cm at the bottom of Pit 4. The body was interred in a position nearly entirely turned onto its stomach. It was oriented East-Northeast/West-Southwest. The thigh bones were cut above the knee joint. The length of the remaining body measured 78 cm. The burial contained no grave goods. To date, little can be said about the position of the Szentpéterszeg-Kovadomb site within Körös culture chronology. Among the average-looking and classical ceramic finds, several sherds from biconical vessels were also recovered. These are usually considered indicative of the late phase of the Körös culture. The only 14C date from the site is: Bln 2578: 6800±60 BP = 5730–5640 cal BC (68.2%) és 5840 cal BC (95.5%) (see Oross & Siklósi in this volume). This is also indicative of the aforementioned late period.

REFERENCES Bácskay E. & Simán K. 1987. Some remarks on chipped stone industries of the earliest Neolithic populations in present Hungary. In Koz³owski J. K. & Koz³owski St. K. (eds), Chipped Stone Industries of the Early Farming Cultures in Europe. Archaeologia Interregionalis, Kraków, 107–130. Kalicz N. 1980. Ausgrabungen in Berettyóújfalu-Herpály und in Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Institutes der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 8–9 (1978–1979), 157–159. Kalicz N. 1982. Ausgrabungen in Berettyóújfalu-Herpály und in Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Institutes der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 10–11 (1980–1981), 211–214.

83

85–95.

RESEARCH ON THE SETTLEMENTS OF THE KÖRÖS CULTURE IN THE SZOLNOK AREA: THE EXCAVATIONS AT SZAJOL-FELSÕFÖLD AND SZOLNOK-SZANDA Pál Raczky Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, H-1088 Budapest, Múzeum körút 4/B, Hungary; [email protected]

janich János Museum in Szolnok. Remains of the settlement were identified across a 600 m by 200 m large area on a roughly east to west oriented flood-free elevation. The burnt daub fragments and the surface concentration of finds suggested some 25 to 30 buildings arranged in two rows. In view of its size, the settlement definitely stands out from among the other Körös sites in the Alföld even though there is no way of clearly ascertaining whether the entire settlement was continuously occupied or whether the settlement size indicated by the surface finds was the result of a periodic horizontal shift in the site’s occupation. Neither can the possibility be excluded that the settlement represents an imprint of the periodic integration of smaller settlements that aggregated for certain periods of time. In 1976, we opened 1 m by 1 m test soundings across the entire site in the hope of finding an undisturbed settlement unit and perhaps an intact houseplan. It became clear that deep ploughing had destroyed the deposits between 25 and 50 cm over the site’s greater part and that undisturbed areas could only be expected in the smaller, privately owned and cultivated fields. In 1976, we excavated an 80 m2 large area barely disturbed by ploughing near the one-time watercourse. We uncovered the remains of a 7.5 m by 4.5 m large, timber-framed house with daub walls. The 8–10 cm large post-holes for the upright timbers could be clearly observed in the floor under the 25–30 cm thick burnt debris. The remains enabled the reconstruction of a northeast to southwest oriented building (Fig. 1. 1–2) with two rooms and an entrance porch in the southwestern long wall (Raczky 1977; 1982–83; 1996; 2006; 2009; Meier-Arendt 1989, Abb. 6). This house resembled the Early Neolithic building uncovered earlier at Tiszajenõ (Selmeczi 1967; 1969; Tringham 1971, Fig. 14c, d). The building’s groundplan and structure suggested that the Körös houses at Tiszajenõ and Szajol could be regarded as one of the possible models or forerunners of the Central European LBK houses (Meier-Arendt 1989; Lenneis 2000; Raczky 2006). The burial of a young individual, probably a girl, came to light under the burnt debris of the building. The roughly

Three distinct geographical zones can be distinguished in the Hungarian distribution of the Körös culture based on the culture’s settlement patterns. Proceeding from south to north in the Alföld, the region east of the Danube, the southernmost zone falls into the area bounded the Maros and Körös rivers, the next zone extends north of the Körös rivers to the Tisza–Zagyva confluence, roughly in line with Szolnok, while the third lies along the Tisza north of Szolnok. The latter is usually regarded as representing the culture’s northern fringes, the northern “marginal” zone of the Alföld Körös culture, extending to the Tokaj region in the Upper Tisza region in the light of the currently available, rather scanty evidence (summarised by Domboróczki 2010a; Raczky et al. 2010; Domboróczky & Raczky 2010, Fig. 1). Although perhaps arbitrary and somewhat mechanical at first sight, the division into three zones is reflected in the archaeological record through the density of the settlement network, the intensity of occupation and the thickness of the occupation deposits. In addition to the three-fold spatial division, László Domboróczki distinguished three successive waves in the Körös culture’s northern advance between 6000 and 5470 BC (Domboróczki 2010b, Fig. 11). Set against this spatial and chronological background, the Körös sites in the Szolnok area played a key role in the period between 5850 and 5650 BC. The re-assessment of these sites from a topographical perspective will no doubt contribute to a more detailed reconstruction of the settlement network (Kovács 2007; Bittner 2011). More extensive excavations were conducted on three sites in the Szolnok microregion: Szajol-Felsõföld, Szolnok-Szanda and Tiszapüspöki-Karancs-Háromág (Csányi, Cseh & Tárnoki 1999).

SZAJOL-FELSÕFÖLD (J56) The Szajol site lies 8 km northeast of Szolnok, on the southern fringes of the one-time floodplain of the Tisza and the Tinóka Stream. An intensive field survey was conducted in the area south of Szajol in 1976, after typical finds of the Körös culture originating from the site reached the Dam-

85

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 1. Szajol-Felsõföld – 1: Ground plan of the post-construction house; 2: Isometric reconstruction of the house with the inside find inventory; 3–4: Clay anthropomorphic figurines; 3: From outside activity area of the post-house; 4: Stray find from the vicinity of post-house.

86

Pál Raczky: Research on the settlements of the Körös ...

east to west oriented body was deposited in a crounched position. The finds circumstances suggested that the burial on the floor can be linked to the destruction of the house and that the girl had been placed inside the house intentionally. The remarkably rich assemblage of finds recovered from the house and its area (Fig. 2. 1–12) would confirm this assumption (Raczky 1982–83). The finds included two figurines (Fig. 1. 3–4) portraying standing women (Raczky 1980, Fig. 1. 1–2, Fig. 2–3) and the foot fragment of two seated figurines (Raczky 1980, Fig. 4. 5–6). A large, barbotine-decorated storage jar stood inside the house and a similar container was found by the house’s external southeastern corner (Raczky 1996), the latter adorned by a stylised human figure in relief (Raczky 1980, Figs 8. 5a–c, Fig. 9). Comparable canonised depictions of the Körös culture have been interpreted as portraying dancing figures that, together with their Balkanic and Near Eastern counterparts, can be fitted into a broader cognitive context (Makkay 2001; 2006; Raczky 2009). In addition to the three refuse pits uncovered near the burnt building, the remains of a smaller above-ground, wattle-and-daub hut were also excavated. No archaeological traces of the hut’s wooden framework could be observed (Raczky 1980, 27), suggesting that the building resembled the simple structures with a pitched roof resting on the ground found by János Banner at HódmezõvásárhelyKotacpart (Banner 1934, Pl. XII). The archaeological record indicates that two different building types were used at the Szajol settlement of the Körös culture. The new radiocarbon dates (see Oross & Siklósi in this volume) for the settlement indicate an occupation between 5790–5640 and 5620–5470 cal BC. However, questions of the possible seasonal occupation of the site could not be more precisely explored given the possibilities of the site’s excavation in the 1970s. The evaluation of the faunal remains from the excavation was done by István Vörös (Vörös 2005, 207).

ganic matter. One indirect indication of the site’s stratigraphy was that pits used and infilled earlier were found under the burnt house debris: one of these was Pit 2 underlying House 2, indicating at least two distinct occupation phases in the settlement’s use-life. The burnt debris of Houses 1 and 2 in Trench I and the remains of Houses 3, 4 and 5 in Trench II had a differing orientation, suggesting that these buildings had not been occupied simultaneously (Fig. 3. 2). Another indication of the relative chronology of the site’s occupation is that the finds from House 4 in Trench II included a clay altar foot decorated with a white painted zig-zag pattern (Fig. 5. 1), a sure sign that the building and its finds dated from a relatively early phase of the Körös culture. In contrast, House 1 and Pit 5 in Trench I yielded carinated vessels of the type typical for the later Körös period (Fig. 4. 2, 11–12). Vessels with a decoration of black painted bands recovered from Pit 2 under House 2 provided another important chronological anchor (Kalicz & Raczky 1980–81, Taf. 11. 1–11). The chronological framework based on the finds was confirmed by the radiocarbon dates (see Oross & Siklósi in this volume) which indicated that the settlement’s use-life could be divided into two maim phases, the first between 5840–5730 and 5720–5670 BC, the second between 5720–5670 and 5610–5490. This would imply that although the settlement’s occupation was continuous, its spatial extent varied and only certain parts were occupied at a given time. It is also possible that Körös groups had settled on the site during certain time intervals only, suggesting a periodicity of occupation. The current evidence would favour the latter interpretation. Six houseplans were partially uncovered during the 1977–78 excavations at Szolnok-Szanda (Fig. 3. 2). The burnt daub remains of two northwest to southeast oriented houses built next to each other were found in Trench I (Houses 1 and 2), while the remains of three houses with a northeast to southwest orientation were uncovered in Trench II (Houses 3–5). The strongly disturbed burnt debris of House 6 came to light in Trench III during the road’s construction; however, the exact groundplan of this building could not be observed. Houses 3, 4 and 5 had once enclosed a small open area toward the waterfront. The remains of another building were identified in the freshly ploughed field east of Trench I in 1978. In view of the site’s extent, we assumed that the settlement could have accommodated a maximum of ten to twelve houses and that no more than five or six houses had been occupied simultaneously. The occupation level under the burnt debris of the houses was solely indicated by the accumulated finds without any clearly observable floor remains. Neither could the house interiors and the outside “street” or “yard” be clearly separated because both were covered with a more-or-less burnt organic refuse. It was therefore quite difficult to determine the groundplan and dimensions of the buildings, and to identify their structural elements. Three lager post-holes with a diameter of 50 cm representing the main structural elements were uncovered in line with the northwestern wall of House 2 (Fig. 3. 3), suggesting that the width of this house was 4 m, while its length was estimated as being approximately 10 m. A row of densely spaced post-holes with diameters ranging between 20–25 cm were documented

SZOLNOK-SZANDA, TENYÕSZIGET-DERSI GÁT (J72) The settlement of the Körös culture lies on the northern bank of an alluvial islet (Tenyõsziget) once enclosed by the channels of the Tisza River, cca. 6 km southeast of Szolnok. Traces of a smaller settlement covering a 150 m by 50 m large area were detected during a field survey conducted in 1976 (Fig. 3. 1). The excavations in 1977 and 1978 were conducted in two trenches adjacent to each other (Trenches I and II) and in a third trench opened along the 120 m long section of a road then under construction (Trench III) (Fig. 3. 2–3). A 1486 m² large area was investigated in all (Kalicz & Raczky 1978; 1978–79; 1979; 1982). The burnt debris of Neolithic houses destroyed by fire, disturbed by ploughing and later intrusions in some spots, lay 15–30 cm under the modern surface. The northern part of the two larger trenches was also affected by erosion and the Early Neolithic features often lay immediately under the modern humus. The loessy virgin soil, disturbed by animal burrows, lay at a depth of 40–80 cm and the thickness of the Neolithic deposits thus varied between 25 and 60 cm. However, a clear-cut stratification could not be noted in the deposits, rich in or-

87

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 2.

Szajol-Felsõföld — 1a–b, 2a–b, 4, 5, 7–11a–b: Selected fine pottery from the house; 3a–b, 6, 12: Selected pottery from pit No. 1

88

Pál Raczky: Research on the settlements of the Körös ...

Fig. 3. Szolnok-Szanda – 1: The settlement setting; 2: Simplified plan of houses and connected features on excavation surfaces Nos I–III; 3: Simplified plan of pits and graves under the house level on excavation surfaces Nos I–III.

89

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 4.

Szolnok-Szanda – 1–7: Selected fine pottery from house No. 1; 8–14: Selected fine pottery from pit No. 5.

90

Pál Raczky: Research on the settlements of the Körös ...

Fig. 5. Szolnok-Szanda – 1: White painted „altar” leg from house No. 4; 2: Bear-shaped clay figurine with a basin element on its back from pit No. III/1978.

along the northeastern wall of Houses 4 and 5, indicating a width of 6–7 m for these buildings. Two larger post-holes were uncovered in the corners of the shorter southwestern wall of House 5, from which a length of 9 m could be estimated (Fig. 3. 3). It is possible that the differences between the buildings of the two house clusters at Szanda (House 1–2 and Houses 3–5) reflect chronological differences. Despite the divergences in their construction, all the buildings at Szanda were above-ground structures with raised walls. The burnt daub fragments preserved the imprints of the wood and wattling used for the walls. The single house furnishing, the remains of a 1 m by 1 m large plastered hearth, came to light near the southwestern end of House 5. A rich assemblage of lavishly ornamented pottery fragments from a wide range of vessels came to light from the burnt debris and the pits under the houses. The usual inven-

tory of Körös wares could be reconstructed from the vessel fragments (Fig. 4). The handled cups, the carinated closed bowls, the pedestalled open bowls and the collared jars probably can be assigned to the culture’s later phase. A remarkable assemblage of three bull horns sculpted from clay came to light by the northeastern edge of House 4 in 1978 (Kalicz & Raczky 1981, 5–6, Pl. 1. 1–2, Pl. 2. 1–2, Pl. 3. 1–2, Pl. 4. 1–3, Pl. 5. 1–2). A similar, more fragmented piece was found in House 2 (Kalicz & Raczky 1981, 6, Pl. 5. 3a–b). Given their cultural parallels, these clay horns were probably early representations of Horns of Consecration in the cultural milieu of the South-East European Early Neolithic and they were no doubt genetically related to the similar depictions of the ancient Near East (Kalicz & Raczky 1981, 13–18). A virtually identical assemblage of clay horns was discovered in one of the early Neolithic

91

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 6. Szolnok-Szanda, parts of anthropomorphic figurines – 1, 4, 8a, 10: House No. 4; 2: House No. 1; 3, 5, 6, 7: Stray finds; 5: House No. 4; 8: Pit No. 13; 9: North of house No. 5.

92

Pál Raczky: Research on the settlements of the Körös ...

Fig. 7. Szolnok-Szanda – 1, 3: Clay stamp seals from house No. 1; 2: Clay stamp seal from house No. 2; 4, 6: Bone spoons from the „street” between house No. 3 and house No. 4; 5: Bone spoon from pit No. 5

93

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

buildings at Aþaði Pinar in Thrace (Schwarzberg 2006, Abb. 1–12), confirming our earlier interpretation. Five large and several smaller pits came to light under and among the houses of the Körös culture. Later intrusions also disturbed the site and its stratigraphy. One interesting feature was represented by Pit 5, lying beside the southern side of House 1: this pit yielded pottery typical for the later Körös period and the radiocarbon dates later confirmed its chronological position (see Oross & Siklósi in this volume) (Fig. 4. 8–14). Pit 8 (probably a “bothros”), lying by the southwestern side of House 2, was covered by the burnt debris of the building. Its finds included five reconstructable vessels and the fragment of a burnt bone spoon, as well as various pottery fragments (Kalicz & Raczky 1980–81, 16–17, Taf. 4, Taf. 5. 1–3, Taf. 6. 1–3, Taf. 7–8) and a small pannier shaped anthropomorphic vessel (Kalicz & Raczky 1980– 81, Taf. 5. 1a-b). Seven Neolithic burials (see Paluch in this volume) came to light during the site’s excavation (Graves 1–5 and 7–8; for the anthropological assessment, cp. Zoffmann 2001, 23–24). Their position showed a certain spatial patterning: Graves 1 and 3 lay by House 2 under its debris, Grave 2 was found by the southeaster side of House 1, while Graves 4, 5, 7 and 8 came to light in Pit 5 (Kalicz & Raczky 1980–81, 21). The bodies were deposited in a crouched position and only one of the burials contained grave goods: the fragments of a lignite bracelet were recovered from Grave 1. Pit 5 yielded two human lower mandible fragments suggesting some sort of subsequent manipulation of the human remains in view of the missing skulls and other skeletal bones. It must be noted that Pit 5 yielded an unusually rich assemblage of finds. The more remarkable finds from the site include the human figurines sculpted from clay (Kalicz–Raczky 1980–81, 19, Taf. 9. 4, 5), of which many pieces came to light from the houses and the pits alike (Fig. 6). In addition to freestanding figurines, other human depictions were made up of figures modelled in relief on large storage jars which are generally interpreted as dancing female figures (Raczky 2009, 65–66, Fig. 2. 1–2). Most animal depictions were not independent figurines, but “altars” (Fig. 5. 4) modelled in the shape of an animal bearing a small cup on its back (Kalicz & Raczky 1980–81, Taf. 4–5; Makkay 1988). The small, table-like “altars” (Fig. 5. 1–3.), of which many examples came to light from all features of the settlement, probably had a similar function. Three more unusual artefacts are represented by the handled pintaderas of clay (Fig. 7. 1–3) bearing geometric patterns used for decorating (Kalicz & Raczky 1980–81, 20, Taf. 9. 3). Stamp seals of this type have not been found north of the Körös distribution, suggesting a culturally determined use. Bone spoons made from aurochs metapodials (Fig. 7. 4–6) represent a similar, culturally determined artefact type (Kalicz & Raczky 1980–81, 20, Taf. 10. 1). Bone spoons were widely used in the Körös culture and in the Neolithic of South-East Europe, and it has been proposed that these characteristic artefacts had a specific symbolic function (Makkay 1990). Tools and implements representing less standardised types fashioned from the bones of var-

ious other species also occurred in high number (Kalicz & Raczky 1980–81, 20, Taf. 10. 2–5). The detailed evaluation of the animal bone sample from the site was begun by Sándor Bökönyi and completed by Anna Biller and Erika Gál (cp. Bartosiewicz and Gál in this volume). The Early Neolithic settlement investigated at SzolnokSzanda in 1977 and 1978 remains one of the most representative sites of the Körös culture in the central Alföld, providing information on the spatial organisation of the culture’s settlements. The diachronic relation between the above-ground houses erected on the one-time Neolithic surface and the larger pits have conclusively proven that the irregular large pits cannot be interpreted as sunken habitations.

REFERENCES Banner J. 1934. Ásatás a hódmezõvásárhelyi Kotacparton – Ausgrabung am Kotacpart bei Hódmezõvásárhely. Dolgozatok a Magyar Királyi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 9–10 (1933–1934), 54–84. Bittner B. 2011. A Körös-kultúra lelõhelyeinek régészeti topográfiája Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok megyében. MA Dissertation. Eötvös Loránd University. Budapest. Manuscript. Domboróczki L. 2010a. Report on the excavation at Tiszaszõlõs– Domaháza-puszta. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 137–176. Domboróczki L. 2010b. Neolithisation in Northeastern Hungary: Old theories and new perspectives. In Gronenborn D. & Petrasch J. (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. The Spread of the Neoltihic to Central Europe. (= RGZM – Tagungen, Band 4). Mainz, 175–187. Domboróczki L. & Raczky P. 2010. Excavations at Ibrány– Nagyerdõ and the northernmost distribution of the Körös culture in Hungary. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 191–218. Kalicz N. & Raczky P. 1978. Szolnok-Szanda-Tenyõsziget-Dersi gát. Archaeologiai Értesíto 105, 274. Kalicz & Raczky 1979. Szolnok-Szanda-Tenyõsziget-Dersi gát. Archaeologiai Értesíto 106, 276–277. Kalicz N. & Raczky P. 1980. Szolnok, Szanda, Tenyõsziget, Dersi Gát (Komitat Szolnok). Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Institutes der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 8–9 (1978–79), 224–226. Kalicz N. & Raczky P. 1981. The precursors to the “Horns of Consecration” in the South-East European Neolithic. Acta Archaeologica 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 (19801981), 13-24. 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. Lenneis E. 2000. Die altbandkeramische Siedlungen von Neckenmarkt und Strögen. Das Fundgut. In Lenneis E. & Lüning, J.: Die altbandkeramische Siedlungen von Neckenmarkt und Strögen. (= Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 82). Bonn, 1–275. Makkay J. 1988. Weitere neolithische Felidendrastellungen aus

94

Pál Raczky: Research on the settlements of the Körös ...

Südosteuropa. Germania 66, 135–143. Makkay J. 1990. The Protovinèa problem – as seen from the northernmost frontier. In Srejoviæ & Tasiæ (eds), – Vinèa and its World. Beograd, 113–122. Makkay J. 2001. Neolithic prelude to the Indo-Europeanization of Italy. An old theory in a new perspective. Budapest. Makkay J. 2006. Representation of Dance in the Figural Art of the Early Neolithic Körös Culture. Analele Banatului 14, 79–87. Meier-Arendt W. 1989. Überlegungen zur Herkunft des linienbandkeramischen Langhauses. In Bökönyi S. (ed.), Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2) Budapest, 183–189. Raczky P. 1977. Szajol-Felsõföld. Archaeologiai Értesíto 104, 263. Raczky P. 1980. A Körös kultúra újabb figurális ábrázolásai a Közép-Tisza-vidékrõl és történeti összefüggéseik – New figural 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 Múzeumok Évkönyve 5–10. 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 Hungarian Plain in earlier phases of the Neolithic. In Tasiæ, N. & Grozdanov, C. (eds.), Homage to Milutin Garašanin. Belgrade, 379–398.

Raczky P. 2009. A Körös-kultúra figurális ábrázolásainak értelmezéséhez – Contribution to the interpretation of the figural representations from the Körös culture. Tisicum 19, 65–76. 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 Gronenborn D. & Petrasch J. (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. The Spread of the Neoltihic to Central Europe. (= RGZM – Tagungen, Band 4, 1). Mainz, 147–173. Schwarzberg H. 2006. Figurale Ständer – Sozialkeramik des frühen Neolithikums aus Kirklareli-AºaÈi 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 Tiszajenõ. Neuere Angeben zu den Hausstypen des Frühneolithikums. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1969, 17–22. Tringham R. 1971. Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of eastern Europe 6000–3000 B.C. London. Vörös 2005. Neolitikus állalttartás és vadászat a Dél-Alföldön – Neolithic animal husbandry and hunting in the Great Hungarian Plain. In Bende L. & Lõrinczy G. (eds), Hétköznapok Vénuszai. Hódmezõvásárhely, 203–243. K. Zoffmann Zs. 2001. Neolitikus és rézkori embertani leletek az Alföldrõl – Neolitische und kupferzeitliche anthropologische Funde in der Tiefebene. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve– Studia Archaeologica 7, 23–42.

95

97–105.

NAGYKÖRÛ-TSZ GYÜMÖLCSÖS (CO-OPERATIVE ORCHARD) Pál Raczky Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, H-1088 Budapest, Múzeum körút 4/B, Hungary; [email protected] small, 3 m by 3 m sounding in a spot with a concentration of finds indicating a possible refuse pit by one of the fruit trees. After removing the tree, we opened the small trench and proceeded to excavate the area, collecting as many samples as possible for archaeometric analyses. Pál Sümegi from the Department of Geology and Palaeontology of Szeged University co-ordinated the collection and evaluation of the geological and palaeoenvironmental samples (Raczky et al. 2010, 148–151, Fig. 2–3; Gulyás 2011, 43– 44, Fig. 10). We uncovered the section of a 170–190 cm deep refuse pit of the Körös culture in which we found a northeast to southwest oriented burial with the body laid on the right side in a strongly crouched position. A high number of mussel shells lay in the area of the skeleton and to its south (Fig. 1. 2–3), suggesting that the concentration of mussels could be associated with the burial. The deposition and/or the consumption of the shells had probably been part of the funerary ritual. It seemed likely that the finds and the fill of the pit had not accumulated randomly, but had been a structured deposit reflecting deliberate actions (Chapman 2000). The fill of the pit was strongly burnt in the area of the body, providing further confirmation of this interpretation. Despite their heavy fragmentation, the finds from the pit (Fig. 3) provided a representative sample of the typical material in the “fringe” areas of the Körös culture (Raczky et al. 2010). László Bartosiewicz and Erika Gál’s assessment of the animal bones provided additional evidence (see Bartosiewicz in this volume) that the subsistence of this settlement had differed from the norm in the southern Alföld (Raczky et al. 2010, 151–157). The occurrence of Transdanubian radiolarite in the lithic sample analysed by Ma³gorzata Kaczanowska and Janusz K. Koz³owski probably reflects contact with the Starèevo culture. The palaeoecology of the Nagykörû settlement could be reconstructed from the anthracological samples (Moskal-del Hoyo 2010). The distribution of mussel and snail remains from pit indicated that its infilling had occurred during a European climate change (the so-called 5.1 climatic event). Sándor Gulyás suggested that mussels and snails had been part of both the human and animal diet, noting that the proportions of these species in the diet calls for further studies (Gulyás 2011, 73–78, 100– 104). The seven radiocarbon dates provide a sound basis for

The Körös site extends across a loess-covered elevation on the high bluff overlooking a former channel of the Tisza River (Fig. 1. 1). The Körös and (Szatmár II)ALBK I site at Kõtelek-Huszársarok lying to the north can be found on the bank of the same one-time Tisza meander (Raczky 1983). The surface scatter of finds indicated that the Nagykörû site covered an approximately 280–300 m by 100 m large area. The local co-operative began the planting of an orchard in the area and performed deep ripping to a depth of cca. 40–60 cm as part of the preparation work, largely destroying the occupation deposits of the prehistoric site in the process. The disturbance brought to light a rich assemblage of finds, directing the attention of local collectors to the site, explaining how a few unique figurines and unusual pottery fragments reached private collections. In 1975, the collectors turned to the archaeologists working in the Damjanich János Museum of Szolnok to get an expert opinion on these pieces and this is how the archaeological community learnt of the site. It proved impossible to conduct a control excavation in the newly planted orchard during the 1970s — over thirty years elapsed before the site could be archaeologically investigated. In exchange for the preservation of their anonymity, the finders agreed to the publication of the most remarkable finds from Nagykörû. Two rod-headed female figurines (Fig. 2. 1–2) (Raczky 1978, 7, Fig. 1. 1a–d, 2a–d; Hansen 2007, Abb. 52. 1–2), the prominent buttocks and the left foot of a standing figurine (Raczky 1978, 9, Fig. 2. 2a–b), the fragment of a storage jar bearing the relief of a dancing woman with a generous lower body (Fig. 2. 2) (Raczky 1978, 9–12, Fig. 2. 1) and the fragments of three zoomorphic “altars” (Fig. 2. 6–8) were the first pieces published from the site (Raczky 1978, 12–13, Fig. 3. 1a–b, 2a–b, Fig. 4a–c). Other finds published later included the foot and ankle fragment of a human figurine (Fig. 2. 4–5) (Raczky 1980, Fig. 7. 5; Hansen 2007, Taf. 114. 6) and the rim fragment of a face pot with a painted human face modelled in relief (Raczky 1980, Fig. 1). In 2004, we finally received permission from one of the owners of the former Nagykörû Co-operative orchard, which had in the meantime been divided among private owners, to open a small trial trench. We decided to open a

97

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 1. Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös — 1: Geographical setting of the settlement; 2: Pit burial; 3: Excavation area with the profile and the pit burial.

Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/ Körös culture. Kraków-Budapest, 177–190. Raczky P. 1978. A Körös kultúra figurális ábrázolásai Nagykörübõl – 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 figural representations of the Körös culture from the middle Tisza region and their historical connexions. Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve 1979–1980, 5–33. 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 Neolithic in the Middle and Upper Tisza region). Archaeologiai Értesítõ 110, 161–194. 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 Gronenborn D. & Petrasch J. (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. The Spread of the Neoltihic to Central Europe. (= RGZM – Tagungen, Band 4, 1). Mainz, 147–173.

determining the chronological position of the Early Neolithic settlement at Nagykörû, whose use-life could be dated between 5880 and 5650 cal BC. These dates harmonised with the radiocarbon dating of the Körös settlement at Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta, whose occupation reperesented a time span between 5730 and 5480 cal BC ((Raczky et al. 2010, 159 and note 8–9). The findings of the excavation and the assessment of the finds outline a well-definable cultural and chronological context for the Körös settlement at Nagykörû, and they also provide an indication of the complex ecologic and mental stress that led to a complex cultural transformation, which eventually led to the emergence of the Alföld LBK (Raczky et al. 2010).

REFERENCES Chapman J. 2000. Rubbish-dumps or places of deposition? Neolithic and Copper Age Settlements in Central and Eastern Europe. In Ritchie A. (ed.), Neolithic Orkney in its European Context. Cambridge, 347–362. Gulyás S. 2010. Az édesvízi kagylók szerepe a Kárpát-medencei neolit közösségek gazdálkodásában és az ártéri, folyóvízi környezet lokális és regionális adottságainak rekonstrukciójában. PhD Dissertation. Szeged University. Szeged. Manuscript. Hansen S. 2007. Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit. Untersuchungen zur anthropomorphen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit und Kupferzeit in Südosteuropa. (= Archäologie in Eurasien 20). Mainz. Moskal-del Hoyo M. 2010. Wood charcoal remains from an Early Neolithic settlement at Nagykörû (eastern Hungary). In

98

Pál Raczky: Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös ...

Fig. 2. Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös – 1–3, 5, 9: Parts of clay anthropormorphic figurines; 4: Body part of a storage vessel with a “dancing” female representation; 5–8: Fragment of zoomorphic bases of clay “altars”.

99

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 3.

Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös — 1–6: Selected fine pottery from the pit; 7–12: Selected coarse pottery from the pit.

100

Pál Raczky: Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös ...

Appendix THE ARCHAEOMALACOLOGICAL AND PHYTOLOGICAL REMAINS FROM THE REFUSE PIT OF THE KÖRÖS CULTURE UNCOVERED AT NAGYKÖRÛ-TSZ GYÜMÖLCSÖS Pál Sümegi, Sándor Gulyás & Gergõ Persaits University of Szeged, Department of Geology and Palaeontology, 6701 Szeged P.O. Box 658, Hungary; [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] tional standards elaborated by the Department of Geology and Palaeontology of Szeged University (Persaits 2010). Following the oxidisation of organic matter and carbonates, the clay fractions were separated. Fractions exceeding 250 microns were separated by wet sieving. The phytoliths were separated from other quartz particles by flotation (using heavy liquid with a specific gravity of 2.3 g/cm3). The phytoliths were identified according to the standard reference works and our own reference material at 500× magnification. We examined every row of the samples mounted on the slides and each phytolith was identified. A photo was made of each phytolith in the samples. In the lack of an accepted Hungarian terminology, we adopted the description of the phytolith forms from the English terminology (International Code For Phytolith Nomenclature 1.0). The phytoliths were assigned to the standard indicator groups in terms of their relevance for the one-time vegetation, climate and environment. The vegetation of the site’s one-time environment was reconstructed from the dominance changes in the indicator groups.

INTRODUCTION In Spring 2004, Pál Raczky and his colleagues opened a 3 m by 3 m sounding to investigate a pit of the Körös culture (Raczky et al. 2010; Raczky in this volume). Seventeen excavation levels were distinguished in the sounding. Our contribution to the site’s investigation involved the analysis of historical maps, the reconstruction of the area’s morphology and palaeovegetation based on samples collected during the excavation (Sümegi in this volume) and the assessment of the terrestrial snail and mussel finds, as well as the phytological remains.

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES We extracted the archaeomalacological material from samples taken from the successive excavation levels of the Körös refuse pit. Each sample was made up of an identical amount of the pit’s fill (30 litres). After identifying the freshwater and terrestrial snails and mussels, we determined the species frequency (abundance) and percentage (dominance) for each sample in order to reconstruct both patterns of human gathering activity (Sümegi 2003; Gulyás & Sümegi 2004) and the one-time environment (Sümegi 2005; Sümegi & Krolopp 1995; 2002). The analysis of the phytolith remains by Gergõ Persaits too contributed to the reconstruction of the one-time vegetation. The main advantage of phytoliths is that they are preserved even in dry and desiccated areas where pollens rarely survive (Persaits 2010). Phytoliths are vegetal opals (hydrated silica) formed from the dissolved silica absorbed by plants from the groundwater. They are formed in the plant’s epidermis where they take up the form of the cell they are formed in. Phytoliths are extremely resistant, preserving their form for an extremely long period of time, and are therefore suitable for determining the parent plant on the species level. The phytolith samples recovered from the surface of mussel shells and pottery vessels, as well as from the soil samples (Fig. 3) were analysed according to the protocol based on interna-

RESULTS Snail and mussel Over 14,000 individuals of eight freshwater and nine terrestrial species were identified in the samples from the pit. Freshwater elements showed an absolute dominance (over 98 per cent) in the analysed material. Despite this dominance, the reconstruction of the site’s dry habitat was essentially based on the terrestrial snail fauna (Sümegi 2001; 2003; 2005), represented by less than 400 individuals, because these were the best indicators of the area’s one-time temperature, humidity and vegetation cover (Sümegi & Krolopp 1995). The proportion of mussels and water snails was roughly the same in the entire sample from the pit as in the freshwater material, reflecting selection resulting from human activity in the examined freshwater malacological material. Each

101

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 1. The dominance frequencies of the terrestrial snail species in the samples from the archaeostratigraphical levels. The composition of the terrestrial malacofauna reflects the mosaic patterning of the environment and the periodic changes in humidity and the vegetation cover, as well as the characteristic tendencies in the pit from its lower section to the modern surface.

light from the pit. The frequencies of the mussel species varied: the samples from the pit’s lower section were dominated by Unio tumidus, Unio pictorum and Anodonta, typical for oxbows, while the samples from the middle and the upper sections by Unio crassus. A similar frequency could be noted in the case of Viviparus acerosus and Viviparus contectus (represented by over 4000 individuals), both of which thrive in freshwater habitats, and Lymnaea stagnalis and Planorbarius corneus preferring stagnant waters. The number and dominance of freshwater species was outstandingly high in the pit’s middle section. This species frequency suggests that the Holocene oxbow near the site had been completely cut off at the time the pit was opened and that the oxbow had reconnected to the main river channel, perhaps after major floods, during the second phase of the pit’s infilling, reflected by the increase of freshwater taxons in the gathering range of the Körös community occupying the site. Over 400 individuals of nine snail species could be distinguished in the sample. The diversity of the species (Table 1) and the changes in their frequencies, a sensitive indicator of habitat, provided clear evidence that the site’s environment was characterised by a mosaic patterning of the vegetation and humidity. The mosaic patterning could be observed both in the vegetation cover and in the area’s humidity because snail species thriving in steppe, forested steppe and water bank habitats were all represented in the pit that can in a certain sense be regarded as a local sediment catchment. In contrast to mussel shells, the overwhelming majority of the terrestrial snails were deposited in the pit by natural means, the only exception being edible snail (Helix pomatia), in whose case a human agency (collecting activity) can perhaps be as-

Table 1 The habitats indicated by the diversity and frequencies of the mollusc species recovered from the Körös pit at Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös Climate indication

Humidity indication

Granaria frumentum

milder climate

xerophilous

steppe

S-SE Europe

Chondrula tridens

milder climate

xerophilous

steppe

S-SE Europe

Species

Vegetation Biogeography indication

Vallonia costata

mesophilous mesophilous

forested steppe

Holarctic

Vallonia puchella

mesophilous mesophilous

forested steppe

Holarctic

steppe

S-SE Europe

Helicopsis striata Perforatella rubiginosa

milder climate

mesophilous

mesophilous hygrophilous waterfront

Euro-Siberia

Bradybaena fruticum

milder climate

hygrophilous

forest

S-SE Europe

Cepaea vindobonensis

milder climate

xerophilous

forested steppe

S-SE Europe

Helix pomatia

milder climate

mesophilous

forested steppe

S-SE Europe

archaeological sample contained a statistically representative number of freshwater mollusc shells. The sample was dominated by thick shelled river mussel (Unio crassus) with over 3500 individuals, followed by painter’s mussel (Unio pictorum) and swollen river mussel (Unio tumidus), each represented by over 820 individuals. Over one hundred shell fragments of freshwater mussel (Anodonta) came to

102

Pál Raczky: Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös ...

Fig. 2. The dominance frequencies of the palaeoecological groups distinguished in the terrestrial snail species identified in the samples recovered from the archaeostratigraphical levels. T: thermophilous species; M1: mesophilous species; X: xerophilous species; M2: mesophilous species (in terms of humidity); H: hygrophilous species; S: steppe species; WS: forest steppe species; W: woodland species; SSEE: South-East European species; HO: Holarctic species, ES: Euro-Siberian species.

sumed. Although the mollusc species (Granaria frumentum, Chondrula tridens, Cepaea vindobonensis) crucial for the reconstruction of the one-time environment clearly indicate that the area had a steppe or, at the most, a forested steppe vegetation (Figs 2–3), woodland species suggest that this steppe environment was interrupted or bordered by stands of trees. The duality of the vegetation harmonises with the duality of the hygrophilous indicator species, suggesting that the trees had grown in the lower-lying and damper alluvium surrounding the alluvial island. The xerophilous flora elements probably spread to the edge of the island, where the Körös pit (and the settlement lay), from the tree-covered alluvium. The most striking tendency in the sample was that the ratio of hygrphilous species was outstandingly high in the sample from the pit’s lower section and that the proportion of xerophilous species was the lowest. While the ratio of mesophilous species was considerable in all samples. the dominance of highly tolerant mesophilous elements was higher in the samples from the pit’s lower section (Samples S16–S8) than in those from the upper section (Samples S7–S1). The same tendency could be noted in the case of woodland and steppe species too: in addition to the continuous dominance of forest steppe elements, the ratio of woodland species was higher in the samples from the pit’s lower section and virtually negligible in the samples from its upper section. The species composition suggests that the pit’s environment during its infilling in the earlier 6th millennium BC had a minimally 20 per cent, maximally 50 per cent woodland cover and a minimally 50 per cent, maximally 80 per cent steppe vegetation. It is also quite clear that the proportion of the tree vegetation decreased continuously during the use-life of the Körös settlement and that the pit’s broader environment became drier in terms of its microclimate. The biogeographical analysis of the snail fauna too supports the above reconstruction: the samples are dominated by South-East European species, although their proportion gradually rises from the pit’s lower section (48–50 per cent) to the upper section (69–71 per cent). In contrast, the ratio of highly tolerant Holarctic and Euro-Siberian species gradually declines. The changes in the snail fauna indicate that the Early Neolithic Körös community established its settle-

Fig. 3. The phytolith composition of Level 15 of the Körös pit uncovered at Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös based on the pottery samples.

ment in a forested steppe environment with a balanced climate. The proportion of woody vegetation gradually declined and the micro-environment became drier and warmer. It is wholly possible that these changes were triggered by human activities such as the creation of cereal growing plots (wheat fields), tracks and pastures, and house construction. The expansion of anthropogenic open spaces favoured the spread of xerophilous, South-East European species thriving in an open environment. The changes in the aquatic environment and the assumed climatic changes (an initially milder and cooler period followed by a milder period) suggested by the mussels are not reflected by the terrestrial snail fauna, which indicate a longer breeding season and a gradual increase in the average temperature of the warmest month. Phytoliths In addition to the molluscs, all of the analysed soil samples (Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös OBJ: 2, STR: 4, 7–10, 14– 16) contained a sufficient number of phytoliths for a statisti-

103

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 4.

Changes in the most important phytolith indicator groups in the samples from the Körös pit.

cal evaluation (Figs. 3–4). While the secondary, non-morphological traits of vegetal opals (colour, dominant size, proportion of elongate phytoliths) pointed towards a dry steppe vegetation, it was also clear that the phytoliths had lain in a secondary position (meaning that they originated from the plants thrown into the pit) and had not been deposited from other layers during the infilling of the pit (Golyeva 2001). Grasses (Poaceae) dominated in the samples; phytoliths from trees only occurred in Samples STR: 10 and STR: 16, in which their proportion was under 2 per cent. Both samples originated from the lowermost levels. Of the characteristic indicator forms (Twiss, Suess & Smith 1969), the proportion of warm-humid indicators (max. 9 per cent) and warm-dry indicators (max. 13 per cent) was the highest. The successive infill levels of the pit did not reflect a definite tendency concerning the amount of indicator forms. While warm-wet indicator forms did not occur in the pit’s northern part (STR: 9), a striking warm-wet indicator peak could be noted in Sample STR: 14, corresponding to the same depth. The highest proportion of warm-dry and cool-wet indicator phytoliths was found in the sample from southern section of the same level, reflecting a mixed vegetation. According to Golyeva’s classification (Golyeva 2001), this level can be characterised as a soil formed under hydromorphic or arid conditions because the proportion of elongate phytoliths accounted was almost 50 per cent. Arid conditions seem more likely because soils formed under hydromorphic conditions would yield an outstandingly high value for sponges; however, the proportion of sponge spicules did not differ significantly from the ones noted for other levels. At the same time, the proportion of cool-wet indicators was much higher in the samples from the pit’s southern section (STR: 14–16) than in the ones from the northern side, where the ratio of cool-wet indicators did not exceed that of tree phytoliths. Phytolith skeletons occurred in one-half of the samples. The proportion of sponge spicules was not conspicuously high, suggesting that they either originated from water plants (such as reed) thrown into the pit, or that they were washed into the pit from the bedrock. No differences could be noted in the morphology and state of preservation of the phytoliths.

While phytoliths from cereals (Triticum sp.) occurred in all samples, they could not be more precisely identified. The presence of einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum) can be assumed, although some of the phytoliths also occur in emmer wheat (Triticum diococcum). It must here be noted that the wheat grains themselves do not contain phytoliths, which only occur in chaff and other parts. The pottery sherds recovered from the pit were examined by ultrasound scans (Persaits 2010). The ceramic fragments from Levels STR: 8 and STR: 16 proved sterile; the ceramics from Level STR: 15 provided a sufficient quantity of phytoliths. 65 per cent of the phytoliths adhering from pottery came from cereals, while 30 per cent from grasses (Poaceae). The various indicator forms (warm-wet, warmdry, cool-wet) do not account for even 5 per cent of the samples (Fig. 3). Summary The fill of the pit uncovered at Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös, a site of the Körös culture, yielded a high number of snail and water mussel shells, suggesting that both freshwater mussels and Viviparus acerosus had been part of the human diet or had been used as fodder for livestock because in view of the pit’s original size, the site’s occupants had collected several tons of these mollusc taxons, each a rich source of protein. Traces of human manipulation for the creation of adornments could be identified on no more than a few specimens of the over 14,000 freshwater mollusc shells. At the same time, it seems unlikely that the several tons of shells had been used for incising patterns on pottery or that they had been utilised for producing knives or spoons. The detailed examination of the mollusc fauna indicates a milder, drier climate at the time the settlement was established (6100–5900 cal BC). During a wetter climatic phase characterised by major floods in a later phase of the site’s occupation the oxbow on the alluvial plain was reconnected to the living river channel, while the final phase of the pit’s infilling occurred during a drier climatic phase (5710–5550 cal BC) (See Oross & Siklósi in this volume). However, it must be borne in mind that the changes in the mollusc fauna must be treated with caution because these remains were deposited in the pit following human se-

104

Pál Raczky: Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös ...

lection activity and it is also possible that the site’s occupants chose new foraging areas in the course of time. Thus the changes in the composition of the molluscan sample do not necessarily reflect environmental changes because they may have been due to human activities. The phytoliths recovered from the pit allow the reconstruction of a typical arid environment with a low proportion of trees. In addition to the dominance of phytoliths from grass species, the proportion of warm-dry and warmwet climate indicators is also significant. Substantial numbers of cereal phytoliths were also identified, probably as a result of cereal processing (storage of hulled cereals). It must be repeatedly emphasized that the sediment catchment role of a refuse pit must be treated with caution because the plant remains accumulating in a pit are usually the result of human selection. The analysis of the terrestrial snail species confirmed the reconstruction based on the phytolith remains, although the proportion of woodland species was more striking, suggesting more extensive forested areas and dry alluvial islands covered with a herbaceous vegetation enclosed by woodland. The terrestrial fauna indicated that the environment of the pit became more open, milder and drier during the 400–500 years while the pit was infilled; however, this cannot in itself be taken as a reflection of climatic change because various human activities, including cereal cultivation and house construction, may equally well have led to the transformation of the mollusc fauna that is extremely sensitive to micro-environmental changes. The shift from a mild-dry climate to a cooler-wetter one and then again to a milder-drier one reconstructed from the mussel fauna is not reflected in the terrestrial mollusc fauna, which rather suggested an initially cooler and wetter climatic phase between 6100 and 5900 cal BC, followed by a milder and drier one between 5900 and 5600 cal BC. The analysis of the malacofauna andthe phytolith remains indicated that the Körös communities chose dry alluvial islands with a steppe and forested steppe vegetation for

their settlement. Although principally engaged in farming, the site’s occupants also accumulated various resources collected on the alluvial plain. However, considerably more samples are needed from a wide range of settlement features from many sites in order to better understand the subsistence strategies of the Körös communities.

REFERENCES Golyeva A. A. 2001. Biomorphic analysis as a part of soil morphological investigations. Catena 43, 217–230. Gulyás S. & Sümegi P. 2004. Some aspects of Prehistoric shellfishing from the Early Neolithic (Körös) site of Tiszapüspöki, Hungary: methods and findings. (= Soosiana 32). Budapest. Persaits G. 2010. A fitolitok szerepe a geoarchaeológiai minták értékelésében. PhD Disseratation. Szeged University. Manuscript. Szeged. 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 Gronenborn D. & Petrasch J. (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. The Spread of the Neoltihic to Central Europe. (= RGZM – Tagungen, Band 4, 1). Mainz, 147–173. Sümegi P. 2001. A negyedidõszak földtanának és õskörnyezettanának alapjai. Szeged. Sümegi P. 2003. Régészeti geológia és a történeti ökológia alapjai. Szeged. Sümegi P. 2005. Loess and Upper Paleolithic environment in Hungary. Nagykovácsi. Sümegi P. & Krolopp E. 1995. A magyarországi würm korú löszök képzõdésének paleoökológiai rekonstrukciója. Földtani Közlöny 124, 125–148. Sümegi P. & Krolopp E. 2002. Quartermalacological analyses for modeling of the Upper Weichselian palaeoenvironmental changes in the Carpathian Basin. Quaternary International 91, 53–63. Twiss P. C., Suess E. & Smith R. N. 1969: Morphological classification of grass phytoliths. Soil Science Society of America, Proceedings 33, 109–115.

105

107–111.

RESEARCH AT TISZASZÕLÕS-DOMAHÁZA-PUSZTA IN 2003 László Domboróczki Dobó István Castle Museum, H-3300 Eger, Vár utca 1. Hungary; [email protected] even though there were no traces of postholes observable on the level of the loessy subsoil, heavily disturbed by rodent activity. The largest feature containing Körös finds was Pit 6. It measured 9×7.5 m and, similarly to the site of the house, was oriented with the long axis NW–SE. It yielded a tremendous amount of ceramic material and, similarly to the house, also contained large quantities of mussel shell, which here, however, constituted continuous layers within the fill. Pit 6 was almost 2 m deep and was uncovered in 15 artificial layers, each 10–20 cm in depth. Find material from the Körös culture was present in all layers (Fig. 2). While in the lower layers only Körös finds were recovered, in the upper layers Szatmár Group finds were also recovered. The superposition of the Körös and Szatmár finds in Pit 6 hints at successive events. It seems that the pit was initially dug out and filled in by the people of the Körös culture. When the people of the Szatmár Group arrived at the site, the walking level containing their finds covered the area of the former Körös pit. Over time, however, the high organic content of the Körös pit subsided to such an extent that the finds were compressed, causing the later Szatmár walking level to become the uppermost level of the original Körös pit. Evidence of the Szatmár walking level was also found north of Pit 6. This walking level (Walking Level 2) might have stretched as far as the area of Pit 15. Pit 15, unfortunately, was not completely excavated, so its exact shape is unknown. The 5×4 m part we excavated had a semi-cylindrical form with vertical walls. It contained substantial numbers of Körös ceramic finds, but very few mussel shell fragments. Moreover it also yielded some Szatmár- as well as Szakálhát-type finds. Although the artifacts from this pit are yet to be analysed thoroughly, it seems that the pit may have belonged to the period of the Szatmár or Szakálhát Group rather than that of the Körös culture. Out of the 6 human individuals found at the site only one skeleton can be assigned securely to the Körös culture. This skeleton (Grave 2–3), was separated into two or three parts, probably by later disturbance. It was found in the lower layers (10–13) of Pit 6. Here the intrusion must have happened soon after the funeral, since the conjoined body parts were seemingly moved away together, more or less

The Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza site (J87) is situated on the east bank of the Tisza River on the same level as Tiszaörvény on a long section of an elevated bank that borders the Tisza floodplain on the north and east. No artificial embankment has been built along the edge of this elevation, which is perhaps why archaeological sites from different periods have been preserved. They lie along an area ca. 1 km long. The small Körös culture settlement, extending no wider than 40 by 20 m, was established on the south bank section ca. 400 metres from the Tisza itself. The site was found as a result of a deliberate and carefully planned systematic search (Domboróczki 2005a, 9–11; 2005b, 183; 2010, 140–144; Domboróczki, Kaczanowska & Koz³owski 2010, 106– 110). Surveys were inspired by the fact that Körös culture sites began to be found north of their previously hypothesized border between Kunhegyes and Berettyóújfalu (Kalicz & Makkay 1972, 82; 1977a, 21–23 1977b, 18–29 Raczky 1983, 189; 1988, 29; 1989, 234; Sümegi & Kertész 1998, 154–157; Kertész & Sümegi 2001, 236–237; Kertész 2002, 289–291). Research at Tiszaszõlõs began with a surface collection. Working in 1 metre-square units, an area of 50 by 200 m was surveyed. An excavation surface of 370 m² was opened where the concentration of Körös-type finds was densest. In our exploratory trenches we worked in 1×1 m units in a manner similar to the surface collection, and during the course of removing 10–20 cm artificial layers, we counted all the finds according to different find types. We took soil samples from the excavated features and wet sieved almost all of the fill. Beside Bronze Age and medieval features, two pits (Pit 6 and 15) and a walking surface (Walking Level 1) were discovered in the excavation area that contained early neolithic Körös-culture material (Fig. 1). Out of the 6 excavated human remains only two or three (Graves 2–3, 4 and 5) may have been belonged to the Körös culture; the others were later burials of the ALBK. According to the find-density maps from the different levels of the excavation, Walking Level 1 was very regular in shape, forming an oblong of 12×5.5 m, with its long axis oriented NW–SE. It consisted of a thick layer of ceramic and mussel shell fragments and the burnt remains of a hearth were found in the centre of the southern half. This walking surface can be interpreted as the site of a house,

107

Fig. 1.

Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta – Find density maps and the excavation area with neolithic features.

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

108

László Domboróczki: Research at Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza ...

Table1 Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta – Radiocarbon dates Feature

Site

Depth

Quant.

d13C [‰]

Convent. rc. date (BP)

Calendar date 1s (cal BC)

Calendar date 2s (cal BC)

deb-11804

Pit 6, Grave 2

FJ22/55/5 FJ2263/11

65–80 cm 120–130 cm

166 g

-21.36

6740±60

5710–5615

5740–5540

deb-11890

Pit 6

FJ22/53/15

155–165 cm

200 g

-20.66

6920±50

5850–5730

5910–5710

deb-11898

Pit 6

FJ22/42-43/4

50–65 cm

96 g

-20.27

6550±95

5620–5460

5640–5320

deb-11902

Pit 6

FJ22/52/10

115–130 cm

200 g

-20.76

6780±65

5725–5630

5810–5560

deb-12962

Pit 15

FJ2370/5–6 FJ2380/6 FJ2279/6

90–150 cm

300 g

-20.76

6657±65

5640–5530

5680–5480

deb-13045

Wlk 1

FJ4240/3 FJ4158/4

40–60 cm

325 g

-20.55

6462±48

5480–5370

5490–5320

Code

VERA-4243

Wlk 1 Grave 7

FJ4245/2

-19.4

6245±30

5300– 5210

5310– 5070

OxA-20236

Pit 6, Seed 6

FJ2252/12

7.5 g

-22.96

6673±35

5635–5560

5660–5520

OxA-20237

Pit 6, Seed 115

FJ2242/13

-23.59

6776±34

5710–5640

5725–5630

OxA-20238

Pit 6, Seed 152

FJ2252/10

-21.92

6789±37

5720–5655

5740–5630

OxA-20239

Pit 6, Seed 432

FJ2262/11

-21.89

6775±40

5710–5640

5730–5620

keeping their anatomical order. Two other sets of human remains (Graves 4 and 5; only parts of bodies: a skull and a jaw) collected from this same pit may also have belonged to the Körös culture, but this has not been proved by 14C testing. The animal bones from the site were examined by István Vörös, who discovered that the percentage of domesticated animals at the site was 44%, while the percentage of wild animals amounted to 34%. The remaining 22% of the animal bones came from fish, birds, and reptiles. The several thousand mussel shell fragments were analysed by Levente Fûköh, according to whom the leading type was the painter’s mussel (Unio pictorum) at 36.9% of the total, followed by the swollen river mussel (Unio tumidus) at 30.7%, and the thick-shelled river mussel (Unio Crassus) at 26.6%. The analysis of more than one thousand carbonised seeds brought extraordinary results. According to Ferenc Gyulai, among the 38 different species 70% were from cultivated plants, cereals or legumes (Gyulai 2010, 226–234). The stone material was meticulously analysed by Ma³gorzata Kaczanowska and Janusz K. Koz³owski (Domboróczki, Kaczanowska & Koz³owski 2010, Tables 1–3). They point out that obsidian dominated among the raw materials; microliths were most often used for tools, and blades were the most frequent form of flake. The 13 radiocarbon dates, out of which 11 (Table 1) are dealt with here, make it possible to give a detailed interpretation of the features excavated (Domboróczki 2010, 151–154). The most concrete chronological values within the data set are those from carbonised seeds, as they are related to individual objects, represent short periods of time, and refer to two distinct time intervals between 5710–5660 BC and 5630–5560 BC according to their 1s domains. The time period from 5710 to 5660 BC obtained from three pieces of grain coincides well with the dates from the skeleton in Grave 2 and the dates of animal bones collected from the same layer (FJ2252/10) of Pit 6, where the grave was

found. It is probable, therefore, that the beginning of the Körös settlement, treated earlier as Phase B of this site, is associated with this group of dates and should be dated to between 5710 and 5660 BC. As for a large piece of animal bone from the lowermost layer of Pit 6 that produced a date of 5850–5730 BC, this might have preceded all the other dates by as much as 100 years. Thus, it seems that it did not belong to the early refuse produced by the settlement; nevertheless, it marks the earliest phenomenon, signalling Phase A of the site. In our interpretation, the lower layers of Pit 6 and Walking Level 1 (House 1 with the hearth) must have belonged to the Körös culture. The great density of Körös pottery and the great number of mussel shells spread there best support this theory (Fig. 1). The lifetime of this Körös settlement was confined to one or two generations, a period of ca. 50–80 years. Pit 6 was probably filled in soon after the house construction, with the result that the household waste would have been spread around the area. Although the radiocarbon dating of Walking Level 1 is much later than that of Pit 6 they were probably contaminated by later finds coming from the ALBK occupation of the site. If Walking Level 1 and House 1 are assigned to the ALBK period, the presence of the numerous Körös finds and possibly related mussel shell here could not be explained. Therefore, Walking Level 1 can justifiably be interpreted as the site of a house, even though no traces of postholes were found. This may easily be due to the fact that Körös-culture houses were built using a lighter post construction, the traces of which may easily have vanished from sight on a loessy subsoil level greatly disturbed by rodent activity. The best anaolgies for the groundplan of this supposed house is in Tiszajenõ (Selmeczi 1969, 18). The building seemingly did not burn down – no evidence was found either in the form of larger pieces of daub or charred debris levels. Only some tiny broken pieces of a plastered floor hint at the presence of a house here, but the majority of such pieces were concen-

109

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 2.

Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta – Characteristic Körös-culture ceramics.

trated in Pit 6, where burnt and ashy layers were also observed. Certainly one should also reckon with the possibility that the house was renewed during the periods of the Körös culture and the Szatmár group, although this has yet

to be demonstrated. It seems certain, however, that one should not assume that the house was in continuous use over a period of several hundred years or that the Körös house was not inhabited during the period of the classical

110

László Domboróczki: Research at Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza ...

Domboróczki L. & Raczky P. 2010. Excavations at Ibrány– Nagyerdõ and the northernmost distribution of the Körös culture in Hungary. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 137–176. Gyulai F. 2010. Archaeobotanical research at the Körös Culture site of Ibrány–Nagyerdõ, and its relationship to the plant remains from contemporaneous sites in Hungary. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 219–237. Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1972. Probleme des frühen Neolithikums in der nördlichen Tiefebene. Alba Regia 12, 77-92. 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. Kertész R. 2002. Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in the northwestern part of the Great Hungarian Plain. Praehistoria 3, 281–304. 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 R. & Makkay J. (eds), From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 22–27, 1996. (= Archaeolingua Main Series 11). Budapest, 193–214. Koz³owski J. K. & Nowak M. 2010. From Körös/Criº to the early Eastern Linear Complex: multidirectional transitions in the north-eastern fringe of the Carpathian Basin. In Koz³owski, J. K. & Raczky P. 2010. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 65–90. Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. 2010. Concluding remarks. In Koz³owski, J. K. & Raczky P. 2010. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 349–360. 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 Neolithic in the Middle and Upper Tisza region). Archaeologiai Értesítõ 110, 161–194. Raczky P. 1988. A Tisza-vidék kulturális és kronológiai kapcsolatai a Balkánnal és az Égeikummal a neolitikum, rézkor idõszakában. Szolnok. Raczky P. 1989. Chronological Framework of the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Tisza Region. In Bökönyi S. (ed.), Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2). Budapest, 233– 251. 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 Gronenborn D. & Petrasch J. (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. Internationale Tagung, Mainz 24. bis 26. Juni 2005 – The Spread of the Neolithic in Central Europe. International Symposium, Mainz 24 June – 26 June 2005. 1 (= RGZM Tagungen 4, 1). Mainz,, 147–173. Selmeczi L. 1969. Das Wohnhaus der Körös-Gruppe von Tiszajenõ. Neuere Angeben zu den Hausstypen des Frühneolithikums. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1969, 17–22. Sümegi P. & Kertész R. 1998. A Kárpát-medence õskörnyezeti sajátosságai – egy ökológiai csapda az újkõkorban? Jászkunság 44, 144–158.

ALBK. This is made even more likely by the fact that ALBK houses had much stronger post structures than Körös houses, and would therefore have left more visible traces in the ground. During the past decade, especially after the discovery of the site at Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-Puszta, researching the northernmost distribution of the Körös Culture has taken on a new momentum (Domboróczki 2005a, 9; 2005b, 181– 185; 2009, 115–116; Kaczanowska & Koz³owski 2008, 10– 11; 2010, 159–173; Domboróczki, Kaczanowska & Koz³owski 2010, 143–147; Domboróczki & Raczky 2010, 212–213; Koz³owski & Nowak 2010, 87; Koz³owski & Raczky 2010, 350–353; Raczky et al. 2010, 151, 162). In the last 30 years it has been proved for the first timethat the Körös Culture indeed extended beyond the Kunhegyes– Berettyóújfalu line in the middle Tisza area. It was this fact that gave the incentive for further field research along the Tisza River, especially its upper reaches. We did not carry out systematic field walking but rather spot-checked areas that were of hypothetical importance, had similar landscapes, and where no artificial embankment had been built along the river. Thanks to this, several new sites were discovered and others were reevaluated, such as Telekháza, Rakamaz-Õs-szemétdomb, Paszab-Felnémet tag, IbrányNagyerdõ or Tiszabezdéd-Servápa (Domboróczki 2005a, 9; Domboróczki & Raczky 2010, 196–198). Now we can state with fairly high accuracy that the Körös culture spread over the entire upper Tisza region. Out of these sites, however, only Ibrány-Nagyerdõ has beenas tested with excavation.

REFERENCES Domboróczki L. 2005a. A Körös-kultúra északi elterjedési határának problematikája a Tiszaszõlõs–Domaháza-pusztán végzett ásatás eredményeinek fényében – The problem of the Northern 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. 2005b. The problem of the Neolithization in North-Eastern Hungary. Older theories and new perspectives. In 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. International Symposium, Mainz 24 June – 26 June 2005. 1 (= RGZM Tagungen 4, 1). Mainz, 175–187. Domboróczki L. 2009. Settlement structures of the Alföld Linear Pottery Culture (ALPC) in Heves County (North-Eastern Hungary): development models and historical reconstructions on micro, mezo and macro levels. In Koz³owski J. K. (ed.), Interactions between Different Models of Neolithization North of the Central European Agro-Ecological Barrier. Papers presented on the symposium organized by the EU project FEPRE. (= Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat PAU 5). Kraków, 75–127. Domboróczki L. 2010. Report on the Excavation at Tiszaszõlõs– Domaháza-puszta and a new model for the spread of the Körös Culture. In Koz³owski, J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 137–176. 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 FriuliVenezia Giulia (2008–2009) 17, 101–155.

111

113–123.

MÉHTELEK-NÁDAS – THE FIRST EXCAVATED SITE OF THE MÉHTELEK FACIES OF THE EARLY NEOLITHIC KÖRÖS CULTURE IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN Nándor Kalicz Institute of Archaeology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, H-1014 Budapest, Úri utca 49. Hungary; [email protected] Servápa in Hungary; Homorodul de Sus/Felsõhomoród, Dudeºti Veche/Óbesenyõ, Porþ Corãu and Zãuan/Szilágyzovány in Romania; Berehovo/Beregszász-Kerekhegy, Dyakovo/Gyakovo, Rivne/Szernye-Kismezõ and Zastavne- Mala Hora/Zapszony-Kishegy in the Ukraine (Kalicz in press).

THE EXCAVATIONS AT MÉHTELEK Méhtelek lies in the north-eastern corner of Hungary (County Szabolcs-Szatmár), not far from the border with Romania and the Ukraine (Map 1). The site lies south of Méhtelek, beside a marshland known as Nádas. The excavation of the Neolithic settlement, discovered during the construction of a flood embankment in 1973, was conducted by the present author together with János Makkay and Pál Raczky, a university student at the time (Kalicz & Makkay 1976). The area of the site survived because it was “contaminated” by archaeological finds and its earth was deemed unsuitable for the embankment’s construction. The trenches opened in the undisturbed ploughland extending along the planned embanked suggested that the one-time settlement had covered an area of at least 6500 m2, of which some 2500–3000 m2 were investigated during the excavation. The uppermost 40 cm of the alluvial soil did not yield any finds. A total of eight settlement features were wholly or partially uncovered.

THE FINDS FROM MÉHTELEK The pottery fragments recovered from the excavated settlement features included sixty vessels which could be restored from their fragments, as well as the fragments of uncommon vessels and an unusually high number of pottery sherds, of which over six thousand were inventoried. The petrographic analysis of the pottery sherds indicated that the vessels had been manufactured from locally available clays. The reconstructed vessels reflect the entire range of ceramic types used at Méhtelek. Pottery General traits of the pottery finds One striking feature of the ceramics from Méhtelek is that while the vessels share many resemblances with the pottery of the Alföld Körös culture regarding their form and decoration, there are many dissimilarities too, which enabled the separation of the Méhtelek facies. The Alföld Körös vessels were predominantly tempered with vegetal matter, principally chaff (Trogmayer 1964, 56; Tringham 1971, 78–78; Raczky 1976, 176; 1983, 166). In contrast, vegetal temper was rare and played a subordinate role at Méhtelek. Even though the use of vegetal temper could be identified in the fabric of the ceramic finds, it was always secondary (appearing in the form of finely chopped vegetal matter) compared to the generally prevalent grit and small pebbles. It would appear that the tempering procedures generally employed by the potters of the Alföld Körös culture were not adopted in this region, most likely owing to the differences in the locally available clays (Kreiter 2010, 268). The current evidence indicates that vegetal temper was used by the Neolithic potters in Transylvania and

THE SETTLEMENT FEATURES OF THE MÉHTELEK SITE The Méhtelek site represents a small settlement with dispersed features. Two large pit complexes were uncovered south of the embankment (Pits 1–3/a, 4–5/a), as well as a partially destroyed pit (Pit II). The three pits were evenly spaced with 11–13 m between them and they appear to have been aligned along a north–north-east to south– south-west oriented line. While the occurrence of burnt daub fragments in the pits may be taken to indicate the remains of possible houses between the pits, the evidence is circumstantial at best. Six smaller pits were also excavated: most had a diameter of 4 m and a depth ranging between 80 cm and 135 cm (Pits III, 6/a, 6/b, I, 7a/ and 7/b). Fourteen sites of the Méhtelek facies are currently known: Fényeslitke, Ibrány-Nagyerdõ, Méhtelek-Nádas, Nagyecsed-Péterzug, Szabolcs-Földvár and Tiszabezdéd-

113

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Moldavia, as well as in the Danube Gorges, although in varying proportions, depending on the quality of the pottery (Vlassa 1972a, 193; Kalicz 1990, 49–53; Spataro 2008). It would appear that various local/regional tempering practices can be distinguished during this period. The pottery from Méhtelek is characterised by a sandwich structure. The vessels made at Méhtelek have a thinner wall than the Körös wares of the Alföld, another typical trait of the Méhtelek facies. Unfortunately, the vessel surfaces were greatly eroded owing to the chemical properties of the soil. Most vessels were fired to various hues of orange, buff and brown, although a few were fired to various shades of grey. It seems quite likely that larger vessels and containers were made from organic materials such as twigs, rush and reed plastered with clay, as well as from wood and leather, which rarely leave traces in the archaeological record. The number of miniature vessels is quite high, probably because they did not break into many pieces owing to their size. In contrast, the proportion of large vessels (standing up to 36 cm high) is lower because these vessels probably broke more easily and more often, and their fragments were scattered over the settlement. While the largest vessels of the Körös and Starèevo cultures stood up to 60 cm high, no comparably tall vessels were found at Méhtelek. Large flattish vessels (bowls with a rim diameter often exceeding 30 cm) probably served for consuming solid foods and they were most likely made to be used by several individuals.

vessels falling into this category, standing between 6–7 cm and 16–18 cm tall. The bowls in this group are generally set on four or more small feet. The bowls come in many forms: some have a gently or strongly indrawn rim and a straight, globular or biconical body. Some fragments come from bowls with a low neck. Cups, beakers, mugs Standing 6–8 cm tall, these vessels can be assigned to the category of small drinking vessels. The single reconstructed cup is rounded and adorned with pinched decoration arranged in pairs. Jars (Fig. 1. 10, 12) Jars represent the most typical vessel type of the Méhtelek facies. Interestingly enough, jars are lacking from the ceramic inventory of the Alföld Körös culture and of the other Early Neolithic cultures. Jars can be assigned to the category of large vessels. Most have a low, cylindrical or outturned neck, a pronounced shoulder and a downward tapering body. Some have a wide shoulder. Most decorated fragments come from jars. The base fragments indicate that this vessel was not set on feet. The many fragments suggest that this vessel type played a prominent role in the Méhtelek households. Vessels echoing this form can be found in the Szatmár group together with various other artefact types originating from the Méhtelek facies (Domboróczki 1997, 164, Cat. no. 51, 63; Kalicz & Koós 2001, Fig 19, 1, 10; Kovács 2007, 29, Fig. 11, 3–6). This vessel type has no good parallels in the Balkanic and Aegean Early Neolithic world, suggesting that the form was an innovation of the Méhtelek potters and was only distributed in the facies’s territory.

Vessel forms The range of vessel forms is not particularly varied in the ceramic assemblage from Méhtelek. Most vessels are characterised by a simplicity of form. Many vessels are set on four small feet, although some have five, six or eight feet, and, in a few instances, as many as ten feet. The predilection for low feet is one of the hallmarks of the Méhtelek facies. Similar small feet were common in the Alföld Körös culture, although to a lesser extent. It would appear that the use of feet was adopted from the Alföld Körös culture because their use is rare outside the distribution of the Alföld Körös culture and the Méhtelek facies.

Flasks, large globular vessels and pannier shaped vessels (Fig. 1. 11) These vessels represent basic forms in the ceramic inventory of the Méhtelek facies and of the Alföld Körös culture (Kutzián 1944, 1947). Many comparable pieces can be quoted from Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes (cp. Kalicz in this volume). Flasks, pannier shaped vessels and large globular vessels are all basic forms of the Early Neolithic whose distribution extends from the Carpathian Basin through Romanian Moldavia and the Balkans to Thessaly.

Conical bowls Simple conical bowls are common among the vessels from Méhtelek, as are the variants with a pronounced base and a low foot-ring. Bowls set on small feet are also amply represented. Their size ranges from miniature pieces to large specimens. Most bowls have their counterparts in the Alföld Körös culture.

Pedestals and vessel feet Pedestals are rare at Méhtelek. The few pieces include a few medium tall, slightly conical pedestals. Their rareness is all the more striking because pedestals of this type are quite common in the Alföld Körös culture (Kutzián 1944, 1947, Pl. 13. 1, Pl. 30, 10, Pl. 31, 1–4). The shape of vessels with a similar function was no doubt modified according to the taste of the community or culture using them.

Miniature cups and mugs Most of the vessels in this category have a cylindrical, barrel shaped, rounded or slightly conical body, and their section is occasionally oval. Some variants are set on four small feet. Parallels to almost all variants of miniature vessels can be quoted from the ceramic assemblages of the Alföld Körös culture (Makkay 1993, 142, 176, Pl. 26, 1–17).

Pottery decoration Incised and impressed decoration Impressed motifs were usually made by fingertips (singly or in pairs), by pinching or by using a tool such as a mussel shell or an implement with a blunt point. Although several basic ornamental motifs of the South-East European

Small and medium sized bowls (Fig. 1. 8–9) The ceramic inventory from Méhtelek is dominated by

114

Nándor Kalicz: Méhtelek-Nádas ...

Early Neolithic were adopted from the Körös culture, the Méhtelek potters created entirely new designs covering the entire vessel surface from these motifs. A search for remotely similar decoration leads to the Bug-Dniester culture whose pottery was decorated with a similar combination of impressed dots and linear patterns, as well as wedge shaped impressions (Danilenko 1969, Fig. 42. 4–5, Fig. 46. 10–11, Fig. 64. 1.4). Only one small decorated vessel could be restored from its fragments. Most of the decorated sherds come from the characteristic jars of the Méhtelek facies (Fig. 1. 1–7).

Several variants can be distinguished among these figurines. Alongside the classical type with rectangular body, some pieces have slightly or more strongly rounded corners (Fig. 2. 4). One is prismatic, one has a thick, oval section and some are oval. Cylindrical figurines and variants with a squat or elongated conical body can also be assigned to this type. The shared traits of these figurines are the highly schematised modelling, the indication of the eyes and the moulded nose, the latter often combined with an inverted V shaped incision above it. The coiffure is symbolised by a variety of incised motifs on some pieces. The mouth is usually lacking, as are the arms and legs. The navel and the genitals are marked by a variety of impressed or incised circles, semicircles and combinations of vertical and horizontal lines. None of the figurines has an indication of the arms or the legs. It has been suggested that oblong slab figurines did not portray the entire body, merely the head (Pavúk & Èochadžiev 1984, 210; Makkay 1993, 73–74; Hansen 2007, 143). Although there is no final verdict on this issue, a duality of meaning can perhaps be assumed (the figurine was meant to portray the entire body which incorporated the head too). The single prismatic figurine is unique in that it bears a face portrayal at each end and thus embodies two beings (Fig. 2. 8).

Applied decoration The knobs applied to vessels, principally large jars (Fig. 1. 10, 12), were not decorative elements, but had a practical function: they ensured a better grip. These simple conical knobs were usually set on the vessel shoulder and the lower body singly, in pairs or in threes, often in alternating position. Handles Handles are represented by lug handles and loop handles, mostly set on jars and pannier shaped vessels. Painted decoration Although few traces of one-time painted patterns have survived, they do indicate that vessel painting was practiced at Méhtelek. A black painted band under the rim has survived on a handful of sherds, while two fragments bear the remains of similar black painted, suggesting that vessel painting was as infrequent in the Méhtelek facies as in the Alföld Körös culture (Kutzián 1944, 1947, 74–75; Makkay & Trogmayer 1964–65). It seems unlikely that vessel painting had been adopted from southern Transylvania (Vlassa 1972b).

The distribution of Méhtelek type oblong slab figurines and related pieces in the Carpathian Basin and the Balkans Figurines with an oval, round or conical body whose main traits correspond to those of the oblong slab figurines of the Méhtelek type can also be assigned to this group despite smaller differences in their modelling. It seems likely that they had a similar meaning as the classical Méhtelek figurines. The distant parallels to the oblong slab figurines from Méhtelek were already mentioned in the preliminary report (Kalicz & Makkay 1976). Figurines of this type did not occur in the Alföld Körös assemblages known at the time — the pieces from Tiszaug (Raczky 1980), Kunszentmárton (Raczky 1982), Dévaványa (Ecsedy 1972) and Röszke (Korek 1972) were discovered much later. The earliest figurine of the Méhtelek type is the oblong figurine from Gura Baciului/Bácsitorok in Transylvania (Vlassa 1972a, Fig. 3, 5; 1972b, Fig. 14. 5; Hansen 2007, Pl. 133. 1, after restoration). Another specimen came to light at Gornea in the Danube Gorges (Lazarovici 1973, Fig. 7, centre). The oblong slab figurines found in 1911 at Óbesenyõ/Beºennova/ Dudeºti Veche in the northern Banat remained unnoticed until the publication of the pieces from Méhtelek (Lazarovici 1975, Pl. 4, 1–2; 1976, Fig. 4, 1–2; 1979, Pl. X/A, 2–8). The oblong slab figurines are an indication of the links between the Méhtelek facies and Bulgaria. The figurines of this type from sites in the Banat, the Danube Gorges, Oltenia and Moldavia confirm the cultural connections between the two distant regions. Méhtelek type figurines have been recovered from various sites in Bulgaria, with some settlements such as Galabnik yielding several pieces (Pavúk & Èohadžiev 1984). It has been suggested that the appearance of oblong slab figurines on sites scattered across an ex-

Figurines The excavations at Méhtelek-Nádas yielded an extraordinarily rich and varied assemblage of anthropomorphic figurines. Although most were broken, the number of figurines totalled sixty-seven by the end of the excavation. This astonishingly rich corpus of human representations from a single site, especially from such a small settlement, definitely calls for a more detailed discussion of these finds. Oblong slab figurines (Fig. 2. 1–5, 8) The twenty-seven figurines in this group (comprising both intact and fragmentary pieces) are the perhaps most remarkable pieces in the corpus of Méhtelek figurines. The highly schematic modelling of these flat figurines reflects a previously unencountered degree of abstraction. The figurines’ height ranges between 3 cm and 9 cm, with a few fragments perhaps coming from larger pieces. The human nature of the figurines is indicated by the eyes, the mouth, the navel and the genitals, as well as by the depiction of hair on some pieces. The figurines were without exception created using the techniques employed in pottery making. Some figurines were eroded while buried and now have a rough surface. For the time being, Méhtelek is the single site in the group’s distribution where such a high number of oblong slab figurines has been discovered.

115

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 1.

Méhtelek-Nádas, vessels and pottery decoration from pit 1–3/a.

116

Nándor Kalicz: Méhtelek-Nádas ...

Fig. 2.

Méhtelek-Nádas, figurines – 1: pit 5/a; 2, 4–7: pit 1–3/a; 3: pit 4/a.

117

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

tensive area was a reflection of cultural contacts in which the trade in obsidian played a key role (Raczky & Anders 2003, 162; Hansen 2007, 143). While this is certainly possible, it must be borne in mind that the use of obsidian appears to have been minimal in the central Balkans, and especially in Bulgaria. In the preliminary report on the Méhtelek site, we suggested that oblong slab figurines had evolved from local prototypes and had perhaps initially been carved from wood (Kalicz & Makkay 1976, 19). Interestingly enough, the fragmentation of figurines, which can be observed throughout the Neolithic (Chapman 2001, 89–105), was less typical for the oblong slab figurines. Eight of the twenty-seven oblong figurines at Méhtelek were intact, the remaining nineteen pieces were fragmentary. In contrast, all forty steatopygous figurines were broken. One possible explanation for this may be that being solid, compact pieces, the oblong slab figurines were less likely to break. At the same time, the find contexts would suggest that the intact pieces were not treated any differently than the broken ones, seeing that all came to light from refuse pits together with pottery fragments. It seems likely that the oblong slab figurines too expressed some religious, symbolic belief and that they were used in rituals. The tradition of oblong slab figurines of the Méhtelek type was continued, although in a slightly altered form, by the Szatmár group representing the earliest Alföld LBK. The survival of the type is evidenced also by the high number of human figurines with an oblong body and a triangular, upward-turned head from the Szatmár and later periods (Nagy 1998, Pl. 36, 1–3; 1999, 31–47; Kalicz & Koós 1997, 29–30, Figs 13–14; Raczky & Anders 2009, Figs 3–14).

lief. One of these is the belly fragment of a large vessel on which the anthropogenic nature was indicated by the hands in relief. Human figures, often accompanied by animals (most often deer), were sometimes applied onto larger vessels, especially storage jars; comparable pieces occur from Anatolia to the Carpathian Basin and beyond (Kutzián 1944, 1947, Pl. 20, 1a-b, Pl. 22, 2, Pl. 42, 1–3; Raczky 1980, Figs 8–12; Raczky et al. 2010, 158). It seems likely that their spread can be linked to the diffusion of farming in the Ancient Near East and Anatolia, whence they reached the Balkans (Georgiev 1967, Fig. 9; Gimbutas 1976, Pl. 26; Srejoviæ 1981, colour plate on p. 46, no. 257; Èochadžiev 1983, Fig. 21. 1–3) and the Carpathian Basin. The rich diversity of human depictions at the Méhtelek site, the surprisingly high number and uniqueness of certain portrayal types certainly suggests that this small settlement was not merely an economic centre engaged in the acquisition and redistribution of raw materials, but also acted as a ritual centre. Miscellaneous small artefacts Described here will be various smaller artefacts used in daily life. The most remarkable pieces among these are the appliqué ornaments which had once adorned larger vessels. These include strongly schematised animal heads which had once functioned as vessel lugs and a relief fragment depicting the antler of a larger creature. The utilitarian artefacts from the site include spindle whorls and loom weights, whose form changed little from the Neolithic onward, remaining more or less the same throughout prehistory. These artefacts are the simple relics of spinning and weaving. The handled clay spoon was probably a household utensil. The round clay beads and the fragments of clay rings were probably jewellery items copying similar adornments of Spondylus and marble.

Steatopygous figurines The figurines from Méhtelek are dominated by pieces akin to the steatopygous female figurines modelled in the traditional style known from the southern Alföld (Fig. 3). Forty figurines could be assigned to this category. The steatopygous figurines represented a canonised form of female depictions from the Aegean to the Carpathian Basin. While the body of the steatopygous figurines from Méhtelek resembles the form of comparable specimens from the southern Alföld (Kutzián 1944, 1947, Pl. 8. 1–2, Pl. 13, 5, 7–8; Lakó 1977; 1978; Raczky 1980, Figs 1–7; Raczky et al. 2010. Plate on p. 158), their thrown-back head and flat, triangular face is decidedly different. This head form survived into the Szatmár group together with the two short stumps indicatng the arms.

Bone and antler artefacts The acidic soil at Méhtelek did not favour the preservation of bone and antler. Most were destroyed during the millennia after burial, and only a few survived in the lower half of the pits containing a higher amount of organic matter. Antler artefacts The surviving antler artefacts were predominantly axes, hoes and hammers. The finds from Méhtelek include both intact and broken pieces, as well as semi-finished products. Some antlers had evidently been selected for later working. It is uncertain why larger antlers were thrown (or perhaps hidden) in Pit III, which was not one of the larger features. Large perforated antler tools and implements were used in all Early Neolithic cultures, including the Körös culture, although their number is surprisingly low. In contrast, a remarkably rich corpus of large antler finds is known from the Early Neolithic Bug–Dniester culture (Danilenko 1969, Fig. 124. 1, Fig. 126. 1–2, Fig. 129. 22–38, Fig. 130. 1–19). Antler tools and implements were widely used by the Epipalaeolithic and late Mesolithic communities settling in the Danube Gorges, as shown by the finds from the sites on both the Romanian and Serbian side of the Danube (Boroneanþ 1970, 407–410; 1973, Pls 5–6; Srejoviæ & Letica

Anthropomorphic and anthropographic vessels Anthropomorphic and anthropogenic vessels were current across the Alföld distribution of the Körös culture (Kalicz 1970, Pls 1–3; Korek 1972, Pls 1–3). The fragments of a larger vessel modelled on the human body was found at Méhtelek: the chest, the foot and perhaps part of the buttocks survived. The vessel’s height was estimated at 28–30 cm. One interesting trait of the vessel is that its horizontal section is oval, conforming to the human body. The other characteristic feature is that the arms resting under the breasts were modelled separately from the body. A few other pottery fragments probably bore human figures in re-

118

Nándor Kalicz: Méhtelek-Nádas ...

Fig. 3.

Méhtelek-Nádas, figurines – 1: pit 7/b; 2–3 pit 4–5/a; 4: pit 1–3/a (reconstruction).

119

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

1978, Pls 49–56, 83–92; Sladiæ 1986, Fig. 7. 28–43). If the impressive number of large antler artefacts used by the Mesolithic communities living in the Danube Gorges was not merely a local tradition, but a widespread practice across the greater part of the Carpathian Basin, we may perhaps assume that the similar tools of the Neolithic were a legacy of the Mesolithic (or Epipalaeolithic).

bering 1820 pieces in all, were first discussed by John Chapman, who noted that the obsidian from Méhtelek represented the Carpathian 1 and 2 varieties (Chapman 1987, 31–53). The most detailed study on the chipped, polished and ground lithic artefacts of the Méhtelek site was written by Elisabetta Starnini. She too emphasized the dominance of obsidian, represented by the two Carpathian variants. Her statistical analysis revealed that obsidian from the deposits in the Tokaj–Zemplén–Eperjes Mountains accounted for 50 to 80 per cent in the lithic assemblage (Starnini 1994). The high quantities of obsidian found at the Méhtelek site exceeded by far the needs of the community and the surplus was undoubtedly traded. Other lithics used in addition to obsidian were limnoquartzite and andesite. The occupants of Méhtelek took pains to acquire a wide range of lithic raw materials and they were apparently engaged in the processing and redistribution of lithics. They established and maintained contact with northern hunterforager groups, who probably controlled the obsidian sources, and with the Early Neolithic communities in the south, becoming both participants and, to some extent, forgers of a long-distance trade in this commodity. These far-flung contacts would explain how a few pieces of Banat flint and of Transdanubian radiolarite reached the site, and would confirm an observation made by Ma³gorzata Kaczanowska and Janusz K. Koz³owski that the chipped stone implements from Méhtelek share numerous traits with the chipped stone industry of Cuina Turcului I–III and Ostrovul Golu in the Danube Gorges (Kaczanowska & Koz³owski 1987, 25–52). The cultural traits particular to the Méhtelek facies, reflected by pottery and cult devices, evolved simultaneously: with the exception of the oblong slab figurines, the basic forms of the facies’s artefacts can be derived from the Körös culture of the Alföld.

Antler sickle haft One of the most extraordinary artefacts from Méhtelek is a sickle haft with two deep slots for the inserts made from an antler tip recovered from Pit III. Several sickle hafts are known from Bulgaria, especially from the sites in Thrace (Georgiev 1961, 61, Pl. 4, 9–10). The single antler sickle haft known to me from the vast territory between Méhtelek and Bulgaria is a piece from north-eastern Oltenia in Romania (Comºa 1981b, 115, Fig 1). The sickle haft from Méhtelek again underscores the contacts between the Alföld and Bulgaria during the Early Neolithic. It is noteworthy that a sickle haft made from antler came to light at the Füzesabony–Gubakút settlement of the Szatmár group (representing the earliest ALP phase) which in part overlapped with the Körös culture and was in part distributed in the former Körös territory (Domboróczki 1997, 25, Fig. 11). This artefact can be taken as yet another indication that the Méhtelek facies of the Körös culture was one of the Szatmár group’s antecedents. The apparent scarcity of sickle hafts in the Early Neolithic is perhaps illusory because the farming communities of the Early Neolithic and later periods probably used wooden sickle hafts which have perished. Their existence is suggested by the countless stone blades from the Early Neolithic onward which bear sickle gloss on the section protruding from the haft, reflecting their function as sickle inserts (Starnini 1994, Fig. 17. 2; 2000, Fig. 3. 1–6).

CHRONOLOGICAL POSITION OF THE MÉHTELEK FACIES IN THE EARLY NEOLITHIC OF THE CARPATHIAN BASIN

Bone spoons The single bone spoon from Méhtelek was recovered from Pit 1–3/a. Bone spoons carved from cattle or aurochs metapodials were widely used artefacts of the Early Neolithic, whose occurrence has been documented from the Aegean to the Carpathian Basin, where their use was obviously linked to the appearance of farming economies. A high number of bone artefacts resembling these spoons came to light on sites of the Szatmár group (Domboróczki 1997, 162, Cat. nos 5–10; Kalicz & Koós 1997, 31, Fig. 18. 167, Cat. nos 56–73; 2001, Fig. 16. 4–15). The spoons of the Szatmár group were not produced from sturdy metatarsals, but from more abundantly available and more easily carvable large animal ribs. However, ribs were more fragile and these spoons broke more often. In the south, their use can be noted from the early Vinæa culture onward, while in Central Europe, comparable bone spoons became more widespread with the diffusion of the Linear Pottery culture (Schade Lindig 2002a 57, Abb. 7–8; 2002b, 109, Abb. 8. l).

None of the finds brought to light at Méhtelek exhibited any traits suitable for establishing an internal chronology. The basic vessel forms are more or less related to the ceramics of the Alföld Körös culture. The single exception is the large jar, a vessel type encountered almost exclusively in the Méhtelek facies. This vessel type represents an alien form in the corpus of Early Neolithic pottery, suggesting that this vessel was invented by the potters of the Méhtelek facies and that its use was restricted to the facies’s distribution. The impressed designs covering the entire vessel surface are another trait specific to the Méhtelek facies. While the decorative techniques and motifs were adopted from the Alföld Körös culture, the decorative motifs were arranged into patterns covering the entire vessel surface with a disregard for the original decorative canon. The Méhtelek facies thus represents a variant on the fringes of the major Early Neolithic cultural complex. The white on red speckled and linear painting known from Transylvania and the south predated the Méhtelek facies and, perhaps, the classical Körös phase.

Lithics The one-time status of the Méhtelek site is reflected also by the richness of the lithic finds, dominated by obsidian. The chipped stone implements from Méhtelek, num-

120

Nándor Kalicz: Méhtelek-Nádas ...

The oblong slab figurines reflect the uniqueness of the Méhtelek facies in the Carpathian Basin despite the handful of similar or related pieces known from the Alföld Körös culture, Transylvania, Moldavia and Oltenia up to the Danube. A comparably rich corpus of oblong slab figurines is only known from sites south of the Danube in Bulgaria. It would appear that the primary use of these figurines was restricted to the Méhtelek distribution and Bulgaria. Some stylistic traits indirectly suggest that the Méhtelek facies can be assigned to a later period of the Körös sequence. The most notable among these are the features embodying the heritage of the Méhtelek facies in the Szatmár group representing the earliest ALBK. These include oblong slab figurines with a triangular head clearly separated from the body which, similarly to the figurines of the Méhtelek facies, are turned upward. These figurines survived into the classical ALP period, perhaps with a similar meaning. A similar continuity can be noted in the case of jars, whose use can be noted in the Szatmár group, although in a slightly modified form. The relative chronology between the Alföld Körös culture and the Szatmár group is based on the stratigraphy observed at Tiszaszõlõs (Domboróczki 2009, 113–123; 2010; Domboróczki & Raczky 2010) and the horizontal stratigraphy at Kõtelek-Huszársarok (Raczky 1983, 161, 194). Three radiocarbon dates are available for the Méhtelek facies, all obtained from charcoal samples (See Oross & Siklósi in this volume). The three dates have a 68 per cent probability: 6835±60 BP/5780–5640 BC (Bln-1331), 6665±60 BP/5640–5520 BC (Bln-1332) and 6625±50 BP/5620–5480 BC (GrN-6897).1 The three dates, provided by two different laboratories, give a fairly wide range. The dates span the classical and late phase of the Körös sequence. With the exception of the southerly regions (Gura Baciului/Bácsitorok, pre-Criº type), there are no dates from around 6000 BC for the earliest Neolithic in the Carpathian Basin and thus the absolute age of the Méhtelek facies remains uncertain.

the mixed nature of the assemblages is especially striking regarding the figurine types (Lakó 1977; 1978). The formerly enigmatic gap between Méhtelek and the Alföld Körös culture was thus bridged. A site of the Alföld Körös culture was discovered at Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta, lying some 30 km north of the previously assumed northern boundary of the Körös distribution. The excavation of the site furnished evidence for the relative chronology of the Körös culture and the Szatmár group based on the stratigraphic position of various features (Domboróczki 2009, 112–123; 2010). Another Körös site was discovered at Ibrány lying even farther to the north, where settlement features of the Méhtelek facies were brought to light (Domboróczki & Raczky 2010). The Ibrány site also shed light on the southern boundary of the Méhtelek distribution (Domboróczki & Raczky 2010). Three routes leading to the Upper Tisza region used by Körös communities could thus be distinguished: one along the Tisza, the other along the Ér/Ier Valley (in the Partium), and a third in the Szamos/Someº and Kraszna/Crasna Valleys. The perhaps most important of the three in the northward advance of the Körös culture was the route along the Tisza. The Ér Valley can be regarded as a second thoroughfare between north and south, along which the pottery wares and human figurines reached the Upper Tisza region, where they were transformed to some extent. The appearance of Körös groups in the north undoubtedly stimulated the appearance of the Méhtelek facies. The significance of the Méhtelek settlement, a site on the periphery of the Körös distribution, lies in its role in the acquisition and redistribution of various lithic raw materials, principally of Carpathian obsidian, which is represented by several varieties at the site (Rácz 2009, 321–326; Mester & Rácz 2010, 23–35). The communities of the Méhtelek facies became actors and, to some extent, forgers of a longdistance trade network, explaining how a few pieces of Banat flint and Transdanubian radiolarite reached the Méhtelek distribution. It is also possible that the Méhtelek communities played a role in the trade of salt from Solotina/ Aknaszlatina. These cultural contacts contributed to the emergence of the singular character of the Méhtelek facies, best reflected by the pottery wares which can be derived from the southern Alföld Körös culture. Echoes of the earliest painted pottery wares of Transylvania are lacking in the Méhtelek facies because the group emerged much later. Painting is similarly rare in the Méhtelek facies as in the Alföld Körös culture. The impact of Transylvanian pottery painting can first be noted during the early Szatmár period, at the same time that this decorative technique spread across Transylvania and the former Méhtelek distribution. The Méhtelek facies of the Körös culture appeared in the north-easterly region of the Hungarian Plain in the mid-6th millennium BC. The facies’s independence is reflected by the singular changes in the material culture, whose forms and decorative style echo the basic traits of the Körös culture. The Méhtelek communities played a key role

ORIGINS OF THE MÉHTELEK FACIES Several different theories have been proposed for the origins of the Méhtelek facies exactly because of the unusual nature of the finds and the few published assemblages (Raczky 1979–80; Raczky 1983; 1988). The origin of the Méhtelek facies was initially sought in Transylvania (Kalicz & Makkay 1977) owing to the striking similarities with the figurines from Homorodul de Sus/Felsõhomoród (Bader 1968). During the past few decades, however, a series of Körös (Criº) settlements have been discovered in County Bihor in Romania: the finds from these sites lying along the Ér/Ier, the Berettyó/Barcau, the Kraszna/Crasna, the Szamos/Someº and their tributaries have much in common with the Körös material from the Alföld (Ignaþ 1978; 1979; 1998, 20; Iercoºan 1994–1995). Sites yielding mixed assemblages of the Alföld Körös culture and the Méhtelek facies have been reported from the Szilágyság/Sãlaj farther to the north;

1

I am grateful to Krisztián Oross for calibrating the data.

121

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Bronzezeit auf dem Balkan und an der unteren Donau. In Böhm J. & De Laet S. J.(eds), L’Europe ´ la fin de l’ ´ge de la pierre. Praha, 45–100. Georgiev G. I. 1967. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Neolithikums und der Bronzezeit in Südbulgarien. Archaeologica Austriaca 42, 90–144. Gimbutas M. 1976. (ed.), Neolithic Macedonia. As reflected by excavation at Anza, Southeast Yougoslavia. (= Monumenta Archaeologica 1). Los Angeles. Hansen S. 2007. Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit. Untersuchungen zur anthropomorphen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit und Kupferzeit in Südosteuropa. (= Archäologie in Eurasien 20). Mainz. Iercoºan, N. 1994–95. Sãpãturi arheologice in aºezarea neolitica aparþinãnd culturii Starèevo-Criº de la Tãºnad–Sere (Jud. Satu Mare). Satumare 12, 10–23. Ignat D. 1978. Aezarea neolitic aparinnd culturii Cri de la Suplacu Barcu (J. Bihor). Crisia 8, 9–25. Ignat D. 1979. Aezarea neolitic aparinnd culturii Starevo-Cri de la Fughiu (J. Bihor). Crisia 9, 721–733. Ignat D. 1998. Grupul cultural neolitic Suplacu de Barcãu. Timiºoara. Kaczanowska M. & Koz³owski J. K. 1987. “Barbotubo” (Starèevo–Körös) and Linear Complex evolution or indipendent development of lithic industries? Arheološki Radovi i Rasprave 10, 25–52. Kalicz N. 1970. Clay gods. The Neolithic period and Copper Age in Hungary. Budapest. Kalicz N. 1990. Frühneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus Südwestungarn. (= Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 4). Budapest. Kalicz N. in press. Méhtelek-Nádas. The first excavated site of the Méhtelek group of the Early Neolithic Körös culture in the Carpathian Basin. Budapest. Kalicz N. & Koós J. 1997. Mezõkövesd-Mocsolyás. Újkõkori telep és temetkezések a Kr. e. VI. évezredbõl – MezõkövesdMocsolyás. 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 Motorway. Budapest, 28–33, 164–168. Kalicz N. & Koós J. 2001. Eine Siedlung mit ältestneolithischen Gräbern in Nodostungarn. Preistoria Alpina 37, 45–79. Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1977. Frühneolithische Siedlung in Méhtelek–Nádas. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 6, 13–24. Korek J. 1972. Katalog der ausgestellten Funde. In Bachmayer F., Ruttkay E., Melichar H. & Schultz O. (red.), Idole. Prähistorische Keramiken aus Ungarn. (= Veröffentlichungen des Natur- historisches Museums. N. F. 7). Wien, 31–44. 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. Kreiter A. 2010. Crafting difference: Early Neolithic (Körös culture) ceramic traditions in North-east Hungary. In Kozlowski, J. K. & Raczky P. 2010. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starcevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 266–282. Kutzián I. 1944, 1947. A Körös-kultúra – The Körös culture. (= Dissertationes Pannonicae II. 23). Budapest. Lakó E. 1977. Piese de cult din asezarea neolitica de la Zauan (jud. Salaj). Acta Musei Porolissensis 1, 41–46. Lakó E. 1978. Raport preliminary de cercetare arheologica efectuata în asezarea neolitica de la Zauan (jud. Salaj) în anul 1977. Acta Musei Porolissensis 2, 11–16.

in the spread of farming to this region and in the creation of trade networks with distant regions. The oblong slab figurines, one of the facies’s hallmarks, were either an innovation by the Méhtelek communities or were adopted from distant Bulgaria.

REFERENCES Bader T. 1968. Despre figurinele antropomorfe în cadrul culturii Cris – Beiträge zur Kentniss anthropomorpher Figurinen aus der Cris-Kultur. Acta Musei Napocensis 5, 381–388. Boroneanþ V. 1970. La civilization Criº de Cuina Turcului. In Filip J. (ed), Actes du VIIe CongrÀs International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques Prague 21–17 aoõt 1966. Prague, 407–410. Boroneanþ V. 1973. Recherches archéologiques sur la culture Schela Cladovei, de la zone des Portes de Fer. Dacia 17, 5–39. Chapman J. 1987. Technological and stylistic analyses of the Early Neolithic chipped stone assenblage from Méhtelek, Hungary. In T. Biró K. (ed.), Proceedings of the Ist International Conference on Prehistoric flint mining and lithic raw material identification in the Carpathian Basin. Budapest, 31–52. Chapman J. 2001. Object Fragmentation in the Neolithic and Copper Age of Southeast Europe. In Biehl F. P. & Bertemes F. (eds), The Archaeology of Cult and Religion. Budapest, 89– 105. Èochadžiev M. 1983. Die Ausgrabungen der neolithischen Siedlung in Pernik. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 52, 29–68. Comºa E. 1981. Betrachtungen über den Pflanzenbau während der Jungsteinzeit auf dem Gebiet Rumäniens. Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege Beiheft 16, 111–127. Danilenko V. N. 1969. E`lhjelim C. M. Memjhq Sio`hlz. Dj`bz doebleÐ hpqmoh }cmbmpqmvlmÐ Fbomnz. Kiev. Domboróczki L. 1997. Füzesabony-Gubakút. Újkokori falu a Kr. e. VI. évezredbol – 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. Budapest, 19–27, 162–164. Domboróczki. L. 2009: Settlement structures of the Alföld Linear Pottery Culture (ALPC) in Heves County (North-Eastern Hungary): development models and historical reconstructions on micro, meso and macro Levels. In Koz³owski J. K. (ed.), Interactions between different models of Neolithization north of the Central European agro-ecological barrier. Papers presented on the symposium organized by the EU project FEPRE. (= Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat PAU 5). Kraków, 75–127. Domboróczki L. 2010. Report on the excavation at Tiszaszõlõs– Domaháza-puszta. In Kozlowski, J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starcevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 137– 176. Domboróczki L. & Raczky P. 2010. Excavations at Ibrány– Nagyerdõ and the northernmost distribution of the Körös culture in Hungary. In Kozlowski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starcevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 191–218. Ecsedy I. 1972. Neolithische Siedlung in Dévaványa, Katonaföldek. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 3, 59-63. Georgiev G. I. 1961. Der Übergang vom Neolithikum zur frühen

122

Nándor Kalicz: Méhtelek-Nádas ...

Lazarovici, Gh. 1973. Tipologia ºi cronolgia culturii Vinèa în Banat – Tipologie und Chronologie der Vinèa-Kultur im Banat. Banatica 2, 25–55. Lazarovici, Gh. 1975. Unele probleme ale ceramicii neolitice din Banat. Banatica 3, 7–24. Lazarovici, Gh. 1976: Fragen der neolthischen Keramik in Banat. In Friesinger H., Pittioni R. & Mitscha-Marheim H. (Hrsg.), Festschrift für Richard Pittioni zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Wien, 203–224. Lazarovici, Gh. 1979: Neoliticul Banatului – Das Neolithikum in Banat. (= Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis 4). Cluj–Napoca. Makkay J. 1993. Eine prachtvolle Frauenfigur der Körös– Starcevo-Kultur. In Nikolov V. (ed.), Prähistorische Funde und Forschungen. Festschrift zum Gedenken an Prof. Georgi I. Georgiev. Sofia, 73–78. Makkay J. & Trogmayer O. 1966. Die bemalte Keramik der Körös-Gruppe. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1964–65, 47–58. Mester Zs. & Rácz B. 2010. The spread of the Körös Culture and the raw material sources in the northeastern part of the Carpathian Basin. A research project. In Kozlowski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds) Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starcevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest,, 23–35. Nagy E. Gy. 1998. Az Alföldi Vonaldíszes kerámia kultúrájának kialakulása – Die Herausbildung der Alfölder Linearbandkeramik. Déri Múzeum Évkönyve (1995–1996), 53–150. Nagy E. Gy. 1999. Középsõ neolit idolok Hajdú-Bihar megyében – Mittelneolithische Idole aus dem Komitat Hajdú-Bihar. Déri Múzeum Évkönyve (1997–1998), 31–47. Pavúk J. & Èohadžiev M. 1984. Neolithische Tellsiedlung bei Gãlãbnik in Westbulgarien. Slovenská Archeológia 32, 195– 228. Rácz B. 2009: Kárpátalja paleolit nyersanyag-felhasználási régióinak elsõdleges nyersanyagai – Primary row material source regions in Transcarpathia. In Ilon G. (ed.), MWMOS 6. Õskoros kutatók VI. összejövetelének konferenciakötete. Nyersanyagok és kereskedelem. Szombathely, 321–326. Raczky P. 1976. A Körös kultúra leletei Tiszajenõn - Funde der Körös-Kultur in Tiszajeno. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 103, 171– 189. Raczky P. 1980. A Körös kultúra újabb figurális ábrázolásai a Közép-Tisza-vidékrõl és történeti összefüggéseik – New figural 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. Újkõkor – Neolithic Period. In Raczky P. (ed.), Szolnok megye a népek országútján – Szolnok County. Crossland of many races. Szolnok, 8–23, 92–99. 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 Neolithic in the Middle and Upper Tisza region). Archaeologiai Értesíto 110, 161–194. Raczky P. 1988. A Tisza-vidék kulturális és kronológiai kapcsolatai a Balkánnal és az Égeikummal a neolitikum, rézkor idõszakában. Szolnok. Raczky P. & Anders A. 2009. Settlement history of the Middle Neolithic in the Polgár micro-region (The development of the Alföld Linearband Pottery in the Upper Tisza Region, Hungary). In Kozlowski J. K. (ed.), Interactions between different models of neolithisation north of the Central European agroecological barrier. Papers presented on the symposium organized by the EU project FEPRE. (= Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat PAU 5). Kraków, 31–50.

Raczky P., Sümegi P., Bartosiewicz L., Gál E., Kaczanowska M., Kozlowski J. K. & Anders, A. 2010. Ecological barrier versus mental marginal zone? Problems of the northernmost Körös culture settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain. In Gronenborn D. & Petrasch J. (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. The Spread of the Neoltihic to Central Europe. (= RGZM – Tagungen, Band 4, 1). Mainz, 147–173. Schade Lindig S. 2002a. Idol- und Sonderfunde der bandkeramischen Siedlung von Nauheim – Nieder-Mörlen „auf dem Hempler” (Wetteraukreis). Germania 80, 47–114. Schade Lindig S. 2002b. Idole und sonderbar verfüllte Gruben aus der bandkeramischen Siedlung „Hempler” in Bad Nauheim – Nieder-Mörlen In Beier H-J. (Hrsg.), Varia neolithica II. Weisbach, 99–115. Sladiæ, M. 1986. Kula prÀs de Mihajlovac – Une site préhistorique. In Kondiæ V. (ed.), Djerdapske sveske III. Beograd, 432–442. Spataro M. 2008. Early Neolithic pottery production in Romania: Gura Baciului and ªeuºa–La Cãrarea Morii (Transylvania). In 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, 91–100. Srejoviæ, D. 1981: Lepenski Vir. Regensburg. Srejoviæ, D. & Letica Z. 1978. Vlasac – A Mesolithic Settlement in the Iron Gates. I–II. Beograd. Starnini E. 1994. Typological and technological analyses of the Körös culture chipped, polished and ground stone assemblages from Méhtelek-Nádas (North-Eastern Hungary. Societá per la Preistoria e Protostoria della regiune Friuli-Venezia Giulia Atti 9 (1993–1994), 29–96. Starnini E. 2000. Stone industries of the early Neolithic cultures in Hungary and their relationships with the Mesolithic background. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia Quaderno 8, 207–219. Tringham R. 1971. Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of eastern Europe 6000–3000 B.C. London. Trogmayer O. 1964. Megjegyzések a Körös csoport relatív idorendjéhez. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 91, 67–86. Vlassa N. 1972a. Eine frühneolithische Kultur mit bemalter Keramik des Vor-Starèevo-Körös-Zeit in Cluj-Gura Baciului, Siebenbürgen. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 47, 174–197. Vlassa N. 1972b. Cea mai veche fazã a complexului cultural Starèevo–Criº în România – Die älteste Phase der Starèevo– Criºkultur in Rumänien. Acta Musei Napocensis 9, 7–28.

123

125–128.

RESEARCH AT IBRÁNY-NAGYERDÕ IN 2008–2009 László Domboróczki Dobó István Castle Museum, H-3300 Eger, Vár utca 1. Hungary; [email protected]

mus layer, while the central section of the fill was composed of dark sooty humus. It is important to mention that during the 1970s a 25–30 cm thick layer of humus was bulldozed from the surface of this natural elevation toward the flood zone during flood-control work, and subsequent tillage in the area disturbed the modern surface to a depth of 30– 40 cm, causing some mixing between periods in the top strata of the archaeological deposit. Anthropogenic disturbance secondary to the early neolithic occupation thus cannot be ruled out in the uppermost section of the pit, although no visible evidence of intrusion could be recognized. The complete excavation of the pit (Fig. 2, F) was carried out in a 1×1 m grid system using 15 and 20 cm thick levels. A total of 2259 sherds came from the pit, 435 of which could be categorized as fine and 1120 as coarse ware. An additional 704 pieces were so heavily fragmented and poorly preserved that they could not be assigned to even these gross categories. The distribution of fine and coarse ware across the stratigraphy shows the greatest concentration between the depths of 25 to 60 cm below the surface, near the middle of the pit. The re-fits of fine and coarse ceramics during restoration work were plotted on the layout of stratigraphic units. The resulting image revealed that matching fragments of coarse ware outline two depositional events at depths of 0–40 cm and 40–114 cm, respectively. Meanwhile, associated sherds from fine ware are scattered within a range of 25–60 cm depth. These phenomena may be seen as three phases of refuse accumulation whose sequence can be reconstructed even without the evidence of visible strata. The early neolithic ceramics recovered at the site are most similar to those known from Méhtelek in terms of style, form and decoration (Fig. 3). Even the petrograpic analysis by Attila Kreiter showed that certain pottery technologies used in Ibrány and Méhtelek are quite similar to each other, although the Ibrány material is a bit closer to the “Alföld” type of Körös-culture sites towards the south than the Méhtelek material, which has an even more distinct character (Kreiter 2010, 275–279). It is important to note that only three pottery fragments had incised linear decoration in the ceramic assemblage excavated at Ibrány and this could mean that the site is not the relevant predecessor of the early ALBK trajectory in the Upper Tisza Region, but is

Ibrány is situated on the left bank side of the Tisza River just 20 km to the east of Tokaj. The high bank that closely follows the river to the west here moves away from the Tisza and that creates a relatively wide floodplain between the running water and the first elevations. The Körös site of Ibrány-Nagyerdõ (SZ1) lies on the northern outskirts of Ibrány on a mound that was once located on the southern edge of the the Tisza floodplain nearly 2 km from the running water. It is one of the highest elevations there and the find dispersion followed the elongated form of the plateau. In addition to Körös-culture sherds, surface finds also included sporadic remains from the Copper, Bronze, and imperial Roman periods. The site was discovered in 2004 (Domboróczki 2005, 6, 9) and after an intensive field survey over a 19 m2 area, a Körös pit was excavated here in 2008 under the leadership of Pál Raczky (Domboróczki & Raczky 2010). In 2009 we made an extended survey of a wider area and registered both the geographical conditions and the find dispersion on the surface. As our map shows (Fig. 1), no clear dispersion patterns were observable. This is why some kind of filter as well as a focus on the data had to be applied in order to evaluate them. It seems that on the 80 by 60 m surface covered by finds two settlement rows could be distinguished, oriented NE–SW, in which the early Neolithic features are located in a rectangular pattern with their long axes oriented NW–SE, similar to other sites of the Körös (Fig. 1, 3). The Early Neolithic houses probably lay somewhere between the registered features. From the topography it seems that the settlement existed for a relatively long time. Judged from the style of sherds already recovered during field walking, habitation at this site may have ended by the end of the Körös culture. The primary aim of the research at Ibrány was data collection. We wanted to acquire a sufficiently large assemblage that originated from a verified archaeological context, proving the presence of the Körös culture in the Upper Tisza Region. As is well known, prior to this project no well-documented Körös-culture find material was available in Hungary west of Méhtelek and north of Tiszaszõlõs. During the field work asmall early neolithic pit (4×2 m) was excavated. The upper section of this pit ended some 20–35 cm below the modern surface in a homogeneous hu-

125

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 1. Ibrány-Nagyerdõ – Results of field survey carried out on the site in 2008. A: Distribution of daub; B: Distribution of stone; C: Distribution of ceramic; D: Distribution of bone; E: Assumed settlement features of the Körös culture under the surface and the location of the test trench; F: The area of the excavation with the excavated pit.

a variant of local early neolithic developments. The artifactual assemblage from Ibrány suggests that the Méhtelek variety of Körös-type ceramics were used on the left bank of the Tisza River in the physical proximity of Tokaj Hill during the Early Neolithic. That is why the high number of obsidian fragments recovered from the pit excavated at Ibrány is not surprising. According to Ma³gorzata Kaczanowska and Janusz K. Koz³owski, the amount of obsidian among the raw materials reaches 90%, while typologically and technologically the Ibrány stone assemblage is closely related to the Méhtelek- and Ecsegfalva-type of late Körös assemblage (Kaczanowska & Koz³owski 2010, 254, 264). The animal bone material, which due to the fragmentary nature of these finds constitutes only one third of the total animal remains from the Ibrány site, shows quite a unique character for the Körös culture. It is represented by a low proportion of domesticates (32%) and high contribution of game (68% wild mammals) and fish, which indicates a strong reliance on wild resources. As Zsófia E. Kovács, Erika Gál and László Bartosiewicz have stated, this composition stands somewhat apart from the large Körös settle-

ments in the south, where domesticated animals predominate (Kovács, Gál & Bartosiewicz 2010, 239, 246, 252). Thanks to the wet sieving of almost all of the excavated soil we have relatively rich archaeobotanical material from Ibrány. Ferenc Gyulai’s analysis revealed several of the characteristic domesticate species of the Körös culture from the site, among which millet dominates (Gyulai 2010, 221–224). Two 14C measurements from the pit are indicative of proper Körös-culture dates; they seem to position the pits’use lives at the end of the Körös culture (see Oross & Siklósi in this volume): Bone from stratum 3: 6570±40 BP (Poz-28214) 5550 (68.2%) 5480 cal BC Fishbone from stratum 48: 6630±40 BP (Poz-28216) 5620 (68.2%) 5535 cal BC These two verifiable Körös culture dates are closest to those known from Méhtelek (Bln-1332: 6655±60 BP) and this contemporaneity is further confirmed by similarities observed in the ceramic and lithic materials (Kalicz & Makkay 1977a, 23; Makkay 2007, 199–205).

126

Fig. 2. Ibrány-Nagyerdõ, showing the distribution of all surface finds, the location of the excavation, and a reconstruction of the extent of the Körös site with the two supposed house rows aligned in a NE–SW direction.

László Domboróczki: Research at Ibrány-Nagyerdõ ...

127

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 3.

Ibrány-Nagyerdõ – Selected vessels and vessel fragments from the pit of the Körös culture.

REFERENCES

Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1977a. Frühneolithische Siedlung in Méhtelek–Nádas. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 6, 13–24. Kovács E. Zs., Gál E. & Bartosiewicz L. 2010. Early Neolithic animal bones from ibrány-nagyerdõ, Hungary. In Koz³owski, J. K. & Raczky P. 2010. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 238–254. Kreiter, A. 2010. Crafting difference: Early Neolithic (Körös Culture) ceramic traditions in north-east Hungary. In Koz³owski, J. K. & Raczky P. 2010. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 266–282. 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 (= Societ´ per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 11). Trieste.

Domboróczki L. 2005a. A Körös-kultúra északi elterjedési határának problematikája a Tiszaszõlõs–Domaháza-pusztán végzett ásatás eredményeinek fényében – The problem of the Northern 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. & Raczky P. 2010. Excavations at Ibrány– Nagyerdõ and the northernmost distribution of the Körös culture in Hungary. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 137– 176. Gyulai F. 2010. Archaeobotanical research at the Körös Culture site of Ibrány–Nagyerdõ, and its relationship to the plant remains from contemporaneous sites in Hungary. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 219–237.

128

129–159.

RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY NEOLITHIC IN THE GREAT HUNGARIAN PLAIN Krisztián Oross1 and Zsuzsanna Siklósi2 1

Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences H-1014 Budapest, Úri utca 49. Hungary; [email protected] 2 Institue of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, H-1088 Budapest, Múzeum körút 4/b, Hungary; [email protected]

spectively. Meanwhile several regional traits may be observed within this general sphere of the three aforementioned Early Neolithic cultures. Their precise geographical definitions, however, are still missing. Early Neolithic assemblages first recognized in Transdanubia during the 1970s at Lánycsók-Égetthalom (Kalicz 1978) and Becsehely-Bükkaljai dûlõ (Kalicz 1980b, 202) were labelled as those of the Starèevo culture being different from the Körös culture (Kalicz 1990) and this nomenclature was almost universally accepted in the archaeological research. Differences and similarities between these two cultures were analyzed in detail by Nándor Kalicz (Kalicz 2000). Results of extensive research carried out in Transdanubia during recent years (Bánffy et al. 2010), however, will certainly help further refining the picture Kalicz drafted at the time. According to the generally accepted view, the western border of the Körös culture was formed by the Danube River, consequently Early Neolithic settlements discovered on the left bank of the river such as Szakmár-Kisülés belong to the Körös culture (Bognár-Kutzián 1978; Bánffy in this volume). János Makkay, on the other hand, has looked upon Early Neolithic materials in both eastern and western Hungary as a single unit and has consistently used the combined term Körös-Starèevo in a number of publications (Makkay 1981; 1982, 8, 26–46; 1987).

INTRODUCTION The emergence of food production, neolithization and sedentism in the Great Hungarian Plain is associated with the archaeological material of the Early Neolithic Körös culture. Therefore the precise dating, i. e. identifying the chronological position of these materials in both relative and absolute terms is of utmost importance. Without taking a specific stand in the debate concerning neolithization that has intensified during the last decades (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1984; Kertész & Sümegi 1999; 2001; van Andel & Runnels 1995; Zvelebil & Lillie 2000; Zvelebil 2001; 2004; Whittle 1996; 2003; 2010; Richards 2003; Bánffy 2004; 2008; Biagi et al. 2005; Boriæ 2005; Kotsakis 2005; Robb & Miracle 2007; Lukes & Zvelebil 2008; Spataro 2010), we attempt to present the chronology of the Early Neolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain on a basis as broad as available today. Special attention was paid to the dating of the earliest neolithic sites in the area as well as the very end of this period, the latter meaning the further expansion of neolithization and the formation of varieties of the LBK culture within the area of Hungary (Quitta 1960; Kalicz & Makkay 1972; Kalicz 1980a; 1995; Raczky 1983; 1986; 1988; Kalicz & Koós 1997; 2002; Gronenborn 1998; 1999; 2007; Domboróczki 2001; 2009; Bánffy 2004). On the one hand, this study is based on the relative and internal chronology established on the basis of the typological analysis of ceramic finds. An additional aspect is, however, the integration of these results with absolute chronological dates gained through series of radiocarbon measurements. The so-called settlement area of the Körös culture forms a tight unit with those of the Criº and Starèevo cultures in our region. These archaeological cultures labelled with different names seem to be divided in the east and south more-or-less precisely by the modern political borders between Hungary and Romania and Hungary and Serbia re-

THE CHRONOLOGICAL POSITION OF THE KÖRÖS CULTURE WITHIN THE NEOLITHIC OF HUNGARY Thanks to the quantities of nail-decorated ceramics recovered at its sites, assemblages attributable to the Körös culture today were included into public collections relatively early, during the last third of the 19th century as systematic archaeological research began in Hungary. The first publications discussing this type of find material came to

129

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

light at the same time (Pulszky 1882, pl. II. 2–3; Milleker 1893; Reizner 1899, 11). Today, a significant portion of relevant sites published before World War I fall beyond the borders of present-day Hungary, for example Szerbkeresztúr/Srpski Krstur (Milleker 1893) and Óbessenyõ/Dudeºtii Vechi (Kisléghi Nagy 1907; 1909; 1911). Others, such as Szarvas-Szappanos were discovered in the area between the Körös and Maros Rivers (Krecsmárik 1915). In spite of the marked stylistic characteristics of these ceramic assemblages it took decades before their precise relative dating was established within the neolithic chronological sequence in Hungary, although already Endre Krecsmárik had postulated on the basis of technological features that these finds “may originate not from the youngest phase of the Neolithic” (Krecsmárik 1915, 38). During the period between the two world wars, János Banner analyzed and published find materials from several excavations in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain with special regard to sites on the outskirts of Hódmezõvásárhely town including Kotacpart-Vata-tanya, Kopáncs-Zoldos-tanya and Kopáncs-Kovács-tanya (Banner 1929; 1931; 1932; 1934; 1935; 1936; 1937; 1943). The chronological position of pinch-decorated ceramics began attracting his attention following the 1926–1928 excavations at Ószentiván (Banner 1929, 23). Possible parallels with incised linear decorated ceramics had already been considered on the basis of data known from the settlement of Óbessenyõ/Dudeºtii Vechi. He found it thus evident that nail-pinched ware co-occurred with band-decorated ceramics at Szarvas-Szappanos (Banner 1929, 29–30). According to Banner’s hypothesis, the decorative motif of nail pinching evolved from linear patterns. The first varieties of early serial pinched decoration were represented by so called spike motifs and then nail-pinching began spreading over the vessels’ entire surface (Banner 1929, 30–32). In summary, Banner concluded that the occurrence of pinch-decorated ware is synchronous with that of linear decoration and occurs most commonly toward the end of the Neolithic, prior to the Copper Age (Banner 1929, 34). On the basis of assemblages recovered at Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs and Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart he reiterated the opinion that nail-pinching as a decorative technique had gradually evolved from the linear ornaments characteristic of the Tisza culture (Banner 1932, 34–42). However, he considered the thus distinguished group of finds representatives of an independent culture whose sites may be found with greatest certainty in the area defined by the Maros, Tisza and Körös Rivers, although he also mentioned two sites far more toward the north, Bodrogkeresztúr and Rakamaz (Banner 1932, 45–46). As far as the relative chronological position of this culture was concerned Banner considered relationships between sites on the outskirts of Szarvas as well as those at Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs-Zsoldos-tanya and Hódmezõvásárhely-Kökénydomb. On the basis of these geographical locations he concluded that the new culture could not have been contemporaneous with the already known periods of the Tisza culture as the two styles would not have appeared together without getting into contact. However, Banner was not able to detect archaeological evidence of such contacts in the find material at his disposal.

In the lowest layer at the site of Ószentiván nailpinched ware co-occurred with sherds from low pedestals, while Aeneolithic forms were identified in the uppermost layer. The finds from Óbessenyõ/Dudeºtii Vechi provided another point of reference. In Banner’s description, the lowermost layer at that settlement contained sherds from the Tisza culture, pottery from the newly discussed culture occurred in the middle strata, while the topmost layer yielded Copper Age find materials. On the basis of the thus enumerated arguments, he considered the newly defined archaeological culture representing the third period of the Tisza culture as was known at the time. At the same time he emphasized that his arguments will become completely acceptable only when supported by evidence based on additional, more precise stratigraphic observations. János Banner was certain, however, that this culture indicated the very end of the Neolithic (Banner 1932, 46–48). During the autumn of 1933, Banner paid a visit to the site of Starèevo (Fewkes et al. 1933) and was convinced that the cultural picture gained from the excavation of that site was identical with his own experience based on research among others at the site of HódmezõvásárhelyKotacpart-Vata-tanya whose find assemblage had been discussed in several publications. However, chronological observations made at certain excavations in Serbia have completely contradicted the relative dating established in Hungary, indicating that the cultural unit associated with the discussed ceramic assemblages belonged to the beginning of the Neolithic. Banner therefore made it clear that if the observations made in Serbia held true in Hungary, the position of the culture needs to be revised here, although he kept on referring to the find material recovered from Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart as Period III of the Tisza culture (Banner 1935, 97–99, 121–123). When summing up the results of excavations around Szeged – based on the observations made in Serbia – he took the very clear stance that this special find material needed to be dated to the Early Neolithic and considered it perhaps contemporaneous with Periods I–II of the Bükk culture. He also felt that the time had come to name the new type of pottery and proposed using the term Körös culture (Banner 1936, 271). It became clear that earlier chronological conclusions had been erroneous and that the studied find material had pre-dated the Tisza culture. He argued for the term Körös culture on the basis of the fact that at the time its northernmost distribution area was marked by the Körös River and that its most significant settlements had been found within this region (Banner 1937, 32). According to its revised chronological position thus the Körös culture represented the earliest Neolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain and its most prosperous phase was parallel with Periods I–II of the Bükk culture in the north (Banner 1937, 49). In 1937, Ferenc Tompa summarized 25 years of Hungarian prehistoric archaeology. He also gave a description of the ceramic material under discussion here. Moreover, he reviewed the initial arguments by János Banner, but asserted that the shapes of vessels and forms of decoration in question are a lot closer to linear decorated ceramics than to pottery types dated to the end of Period II of the Tisza culture. On this basis he proposed a new chronological sub-di-

130

K. Oross & Zs. Siklósi: Relative and absolute chronology ...

vision to be applied to the left bank of the Tisza River in the Great Hungarian Plain. In his system, the archaeological culture he called the Körös group preceded Periods I and II of the Tisza culture. He argued that since the newly defined material corresponds to sherds found in the lowermost strata at the sites of Starèevo and Vinèa-Belo Brdo, it must be older than Period I of the Tisza culture. In his opinion, this find material formed an independent group within the earliest Neolithic in Hungary that was contemporaneous with LBK ceramics from Western Hungary and the so-called Tordos ware recorded in the Maros/Mureº River region. In agreement with János Banner, he also suggested that the chronologically obsolete term “Period III of the Tisza culture” be changed to “Körös group”. He also argued that reference to the Körös River in the new name was justified by the unusually common occurrence of such sherds in that region (Tompa 1937, 45–47). Simultaneous publications on the subject by both scholars between 1935 and 1937 display consonant reasoning. This is indicative of the probability that their final conclusions were reached following regular consultations in the matter. In the first monographic treatment of the Körös culture Ida Kutzián fully agreed with the opinion that this culture could no more be regarded as Period III of the Tisza culture. Moreover, it could not be wedged between the two known periods of the Tisza culture and was not contemporaneous with its Period I either. In contrast to the opinion voiced by János Banner, she categorically rejected the possibility of a parallel with Period II of the Bükk culture. Ultimately she concluded that the Körös culture had preceded the Bükk culture. Possible parallels therefore could be sought only in so-called proto-Bükk assemblages and those of the early LBK culture. However, she could not support this theory with the evidence of find materials. Therefore she left the question of early LBK connection open, hypothesizing that the Körös culture had possibly occurred in the territory earlier, thereby considering it the oldest neolithic culture in the Carpathian Basin. In addition to data known from the sites of Starèevo and Vinèa-Belo Brdo, she saw parallels from excavations in Greece that supported her opinion that the Körös culture preceded Period I of the Tisza culture (Kutzián 1944, 143–147). Consequently, discussions regarding the chronological position of Körös culture within the Neolithic of Hungary have largely been concluded by the mid1940s.

ing a local system of relative chronology (Lazarovici 1969). The most detailed version of this system was published by Gheorghe Lazarovici in his comprehensive work evaluating the Neolithic of the region (Lazarovici 1979). The phasing thus developed has become fundamental in the relative chronological evaluation of finds from the entire StarèevoCriº culture distribution area in Romania (Lazarovici 1984; 1993). The chronological problems of later Early Neolithic phases were discussed in a study by Wolfram Schier. His tabulated chronological chart showing positions of phases in the diverse phasing systems relative to each other has implications for evaluating the chronological position of the Körös culture in Hungary (Schier 1997, 157, 163, table 1). These chronological systems were analyzed from the Hungarian point of view in several publications by János Makkay, who vehemently criticized them at several points (Makkay 1965; 1969, 15–25; 1982, 31–42). The main source of the debate was the different view on the precise dating of occurrence of the Körös culture within the Starèevo sequence. While Vladimir Milojèiæ drew parallels between the latest Starèevo phase and the Körös culture (Milojèiæ 1949b, 264–265; 1950, 111, 118), János Makkay insisted that the Körös and Starèevo cultures represented parallel developments (Makkay 1965, 4–11; 1969, 16–20, 30). This view was accepted by researchers in Hungary and then by the overwhelming majority of those across Europe. In contrast with those of the Starèevo and Criº cultures, the internal chronology of the Körös culture is still unresolved, in spite of the numerous ceramic typologies that have been developed to aid the phasing of find materials. Already during the early period of this research it had become clear that painted ware was far less common in Hungary than either in Romania and former Yugoslavia. It was above all this conspicuous absence of painted ware that encouraged researchers in Yugoslavia to date Körös culture assemblages within the later time horizons of the Early Neolithic cultures concerned (Arandjeloviæ-Garašanin 1954, 166). János Makkay and Ottó Trogmayer attempted to refute this opinion by gathering all painted ware available during the mid-1960 from the sites of HódmezõvásárhelyKopáncs-Zsoldos-tanya, Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart-Vata-tanya, Maroslele-Pana and Gyálarét-Szilágyi major. Ornamentation on these sherds consisted of painted bundles of white lines, white bands broken in angles, parallel black lines and dark undulating lines (Makkay & Trogmayer 1966, 50–54, Fig. 1–3). On the basis of these decorative motifs the authors classified Körös culture ceramic materials into three developmental phases. The earliest of these was characterized by the lack of painted ware. This corresponded to the lowermost deposit in Pit 4 at the site of Maroslele-Pana. Painted ware decorated with straight and arched lines (either white or black) was assigned to the second phase. This included painted ware from Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart-Vata-tanya, Hódmezõvásárhely-KopáncsZsoldos-tanya and sherds with painted line decoration from Maroslele-Pana and Gyálarét-Szilágyi major. The third phase was defined on the basis of painted wavy line decoration on sherds that had often been accompanied by fragments from Vinèa type vessels of biconical form. János Makkay and Ottó Trogmayer considered this phase contem-

INTERNAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE KÖRÖS CULTURE BASED ON CERAMIC TYPOLOGY During the quarter of a century beginning in the late 1940s, research in former Yugoslavia south of Hungary had the opportunity of accurate analyses on Early Neolithic assemblages abundant in painted ware. This helped local researchers in distinguishing between several phases of the Starèevo culture using the stylistic evaluation of the decorative motifs identified (Milojèiæ 1949a; 1950; Arandjeloviæ-Garašanin 1954; Dimitrijeviæ 1969a; 1969b; 1974; Srejoviæ 1971). In Romania, it was Early Neolithic sites discovered in the Banat region that offered the principal basis for develop-

131

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

poraneous with the finds recovered from Pit 3 at Maroslele-Pana. Finally, a fourth phase was delineated on the basis of painted spiraloid patterns, although the presence of such ware could not be found in ceramic assemblages of the Körös culture. The authors interpreted the absence of the phase determined by this decorative motif by the arrival of a new ethnic group that took over the former settlement area of the Körös culture (Makkay & Trogmayer 1966, 57–58). The first systematic excavations concentrating on several settlements in a limited region were carried out by Ottó Trogmayer. They were conducted at the sites of MaroslelePana, Gyálarét-Szilágyi major, Röszke-Lúdvár, and Deszk1. sz. Olajkút, near the confluence between the Tisza and Maros Rivers. On the basis of the find material thus recovered, the author discussed the internal chronology of the Körös culture as well (Trogmayer 1964; 1966; 1968a; 1968b; 1968c; 1969; 2003; 2004). He crafted a chronological scheme on the basis of varieties of frequency in a specific type of decoration, barbotine. He made a distinction between two principal types: in the case of the so-called applied barbotine, small lumps of clay were stuck onto the surface of vessels. The second type of decoration was created by spraying the surface with a loose clay slip into which channelled, so-called cannelure patterns were smoothed by hand. During the life span of the Körös culture there seems to be a gradual increase in the contribution of barbotine decorated sherds to the overall ceramic assemblage. On the basis of this observation, Ottó Trogmayer postulated that settlements at Gyálarét-Szilágyi major and Röszke-Lúdvár represented the early phase of the culture. His opinion was subsequently supported by radiocarbon dates (Table 1). Several pits at these sites contained no barbotine decorated ware, in others their presence was evidently scarce. Pit 4 at Maroslele-Pana was regarded as the subsequent stage of development, while the late period of the Körös culture was represented by the site of Deszk-1. sz. Olajkút and Pit 3 at Maroslele-Pana respectively. His quantitative analyses, however, did not show the distinction mentioned in the text, it was only in the case of Pit 3 at Maroslele-Pana that sherds decorated with applied barbotine are known to have made up 5.5% of the material, while channelled patterns were identified on 5.6% of the pottery fragments. Only the applied barbotine motif was encountered on sherds recovered at the sites of Gyálarét-Szilágyi-major and Röszke-Lúdvár. While the proportion of barbotine decorated sherds was the highest in Pit 15 at Deszk-1. sz. Olajkút, with the exception of a few poorly identifiable specimens, barbotine decoration on sherds from this feature represented exclusively the applied variety (Trogmayer 1968a). In fact, find assemblages of the Körös culture contain far more numerous types of barbotine decoration in the literature, including a diversity of applied, sprinkled and channelled varieties1. János Makkay has pointed out repeatedly that in his aforementioned quantitative evaluation Ottó Trogmayer had pooled several different motifs that represented completely different decorative techniques (Makkay 1969, 24; 2007, 217). Analyzing the find material from Maroslele-Pana Ottó

1

Trogmayer outlined internal developments at a single site. He could identify typochronological differences between the lowermost portion of Pit 4 and the layer above. He failed, however, to distinguish this higher layer from the rest of the pit-fill above. On the basis of fragments from vessels of a truncated cone shape as well as a peculiar form of barbotine decoration he thought the ceramic assemblage in Pit 3 at this site was later than the overall material brought to light from Pit 4 (Trogmayer 1964, 70, 78–79, 84). Following World War II important first steps were made in acquiring field survey data concerning the Körös culture. Surface collections gathered during field walks by Nándor Kalicz in the Tiszazug region marked by the confluence between the Tisza and Körös Rivers (Kalicz 1957, 16–27, 84–85, 87) and János Makkay in the Bihar County section of the Berettyó River valley were published in concise papers (Makkay 1957, 26–27). Several new sites were identified during the field walks carried out within the framework of the nationwide archaeological survey project (MRT = Archaeological Topography of Hungary) in Békés County in the southeastern part of the Great Hungarian Plain (MRT 6; MRT 8; MRT 10). This project offered an opportunity to carry out excavations of smaller and greater extents on the outskirts of Endrõd and Szarvas towns. János Makkay devoted several studies to the sites thus investigated in the Körös River region and reviewed chronological problems in light of the new data (Makkay 1965; 1969; 1981; 1982, 26–46; 1984; 1987; 1990; 1992; 1996; 2000). Recently the publication of a three volume monograph has begun presenting this material in detail, although Volumes 2 and 3 at this point are represented only by a collection of illustrations (Makkay 2007; Makkay & Starnini 2008). Fundamental chronological significance was attributed to the total of seven pieces of painted ware found by János Makkay at the site of Szarvas 23. These finds came to light from Pit 1 in Squares I–II of the 1974 excavations and Squares IV and VI opened during the 1975 field season. The most noteworthy was the discovery of white dots arranged in lines and triangles, but painted band and lattice patterns also occurred. Multiple bundles of oblique patterns on one of the black painted sherds grew into a zig-zag motif toward the vessel’s body. In another piece of black painted ware two broad black bands frame a net-like design (Makkay 1981). Researchers attributed the white painted dot decoration to a very early phase of the Early Neolithic in the region. In the chronological system elaborated by Gheorghe Lazarovici white dotted painting belongs to Phases IB–IC of the Starèevo-Criº culture (Lazarovici 1979, pl. 2. 21–24, 29), while lattice patterns are characteristic of Phase IIA (Lazarovici 1979, pl. 3. 23–24). Both white painted dot and lattice motifs have been observed at numerous sites in Romania and Serbia. Without even trying to provide a complete list, a few examples worth mentioning include Gura Baciului (Vlassa 1972, Taf. 15. 1/1–10, 2/1–10, Taf. 16. 1/1–4, 9; Lazarovici & Maxim 1995, colour pl. 1. 1–5, colour pl. 2. 7, 9 colour pl. 3. 2, colour pl. 4. 1–3, colour pl. 5. 1a–b; Maxim 1999, Pls 2–4), Ocna Sibiului (Maxim 1999,

These latter two types are usually called Schlickwurf or Schlickwurf barbotine in German.

132

K. Oross & Zs. Siklósi: Relative and absolute chronology ...

Pl. I.) and Miercurea Sibiului-Petriº in Transylvania (Luca et al. 2008, Fig. 2. 1–2, 4, 6), Cârcea-La Hanuri in Oltenia (Nica 1977, fig. 2. 1, fig. 5. 1a–b) and Donja Branjevina in Voivodina (Karmanski 1979, T. XVII. 1–4, 6–7, T. XX. 1– 6, T. XXI. 1–2, T. XXII. 6–7, T. XXIV. 3–9; 2005, pls 82– 88). In his painted ware finds from Szarvas 23 János Makkay saw unquestionable evidence that find assemblages from Hungary also contain sherds from a phase that represents the very early stage of the Starèevo-Körös culture (Makkay 1981, 101; 1982, 41). Since the same site also yielded very late materials from the same culture János Makkay made a special point emphasizing that painted sherds with white-on-red and white-on-brown patterns (complementing additional 1988 finds from shaft-shaped pits 1/4 and 8/3 as well as fragments of similar white-onbrown painted ware from Endrõd 119) had been recovered from safe stratigraphic positions. Therefore they indeed represent the early phase in the development of the StarèevoKörös culture. In his opinion, the two varieties of painted ware (white-on-red and black-on-red) recovered at Szarvas 23 had been deposited in the same pit simultaneously (Makkay 2007, 25–30). As far as ceramic types of the early phase are concerned, significantly more information has not become available since these observations. In his most recent summary, János Makkay created a uniform chronological system on the basis of the sites he had investigated in the Körös River region (Makkay 2007). In this work, the early Körös culture is divided into two phases. Phase Ia of the culture is characterized by white painted sherds that occurred in ceramic materials from features at four sites. Settlement deposits representing this phase include the lowermost section in Pit 1 excavated in Squares I–II/1974 at Szarvas 23, the earliest portion of Pit 12 at Endrõd 119 as well as certain finds from the sites of Szarvas 8 and Szarvas 56. In the following Phase Ib of the Körös culture white and black painted ware occurred simultaneously. Some finds from the settlements at Szarvas 23 and Endrõd 119 fell within this category (Makkay 2007, 198, Table 14). The hottest debate, however, has flared up concerning the classification of vessel shapes and decorative elements dated to the late phase of the Körös culture. These forms include carinated vessels, such as biconical forms whose upper portion is significantly smaller than the lower segment separated by carination. The latter, clearly defined line around the vessels’ perimeter was sometimes decorated with tiny knobs. The array of surface treatments associated with this late phase, black burnished, fine polished and fine channelled ceramics were all identified. Additional decorative motifs and forms include impressed linear motifs on polished surface and “metallic ware” (Makkay 1990, 114, 119). Channelled barbotine decoration also became widely spread during this phase. This rich inventory of typological features constituted the basis of the term „Protovinèa” in Makkay’s usage. The concept of a “Protovinèa horizon” was first used by Dragoslav Srejoviæ as an umbrella term within the context of the emergence of the Vinèa culture. He coined the term to denote forms and decorative motifs typical of the Vinèa culture and putatively of Anatolian origins that had been found outside the Starèevo culture distribution

area (Srejoviæ 1963, 7). János Makkay began using the term „Protovinèa period”. By this he meant the late phase within the life span of the Körös culture when the first stylistic elements of Vinèa pottery began appearing in the ceramic assemblages of the Körös culture. Prior to the discovery of painted ware at the site of Szarvas 23, he had considered this “period” the only distinguishable phase within the development of the culture (Makkay 1969, 25). János Makkay interpreted Protovinèa as a transitional period that preceded the Vinèa culture itself, but already possessed a set of stylistic features that contributed to the subsequent formation of that culture. The existence of such a body of pottery traits was seen as a decisive argument proving that the Vinèa culture resulted from local developments and that external phenomena of southern origins played only a catalyzing role by contributing stylistic influences (Makkay 1982, 26–29). The Protovinèa theory advocated by János Makkay has provoked a range of fundamental criticism since the beginning. Pál Raczky pointed out that latest Körös culture sites in the northernmost distribution area of this culture in the Great Hungarian Plain had been contemporaneous with the earliest phase of the ALP culture (Szatmár II). This fact has been unambiguously confirmed by radiocarbon measurements. According to his views published during the 1980s, the occurrences of biconical vessel shapes, black burnished ceramics and Schlickwurf barbotine may be explained with the actual beginning of the Vinèa culture and connections with its Phase A. Pál Raczky considered the earliest ALP 1, latest Körös (Protovinèa) and Vinèa A pottery assemblages contemporaneous which made the term „Protovinèa” anachronistic (Raczky 1983, 188; 1986, 33–35; 1988, 28). He identified fragments of biconical vessels in the find material recovered from the site of Szajol-Felsõföld which co-occurred with stroke-burnished decorated sherds. Biconical stylistic elements, however, were not as strongly pronounced here as for example among the finds brought to light at the settlement of Öcsöd-Kiritó-nyugati part. Pál Raczky therefore hypothesized the existence of a phase in Körös culture development that directly preceded the unambiguously latest phase of the culture best represented by the aforementioned assemblages from Öcsöd-Kiritó nyugati part, Pit 3 at Maroslele-Pana and Dévaványa-Atyaszeg (Raczky 1983, 189; 1986, 35; 1988, 28–29). Naturally, this also meant that first occurrences of some characteristics considered “late” during previous research had by definition preceded the earliest record of the ALBK 1–latest Körös–Vinèa A complex in the discussed area. Nándor Kalicz likewise rejected using the term Protovinèa on the basis that the Vinèa culture as such was absent in the overwhelming majority of the Körös culture distribution area within the modern-day borders of Hungary (Kalicz 1993, 92; 1994, 71, 78). Ferenc Horváth and Ede Hertelendi accepted the opinion voiced by Pál Raczky concerning the interpretation and chronological position of find assemblages relevant to the Protovinèa concept (Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 115). Subsequently János Makkay distinguished two subphases in the latest Körös culture phase that he had previously defined as the Protovinèa period. According to this finer classification, Pit 3 at Maroslele Pana would have represented the earlier sub-phase, while for example, Pit 1 in

133

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

List of individual radio Laboratory No.

Site

Feature

Material

conventional/AMS

BP date

BM-1862R

Battonya-Basarága

Pit III

charcoal

conventional

6710±110

OxA-9396

Deszk-Olajkút

Grave 6

human bone

AMS

7030±50

Bln-581

Deszk-Olajkút

Pit 8

charcoal

conventional

6605±100

Bln-584

Deszk-Olajkút

Pit 8

charcoal

conventional

6540±100

Bln-583

Deszk-Olajkút

Pit 15

charcoal

conventional

6410±100

Bln-582a

Deszk-Olajkút

Pit 15

charcoal

conventional

6390±100

Bln-582

Deszk-Olajkút

Pit 15

charcoal

conventional

6260±100

OxA-9376

Deszk-Olajkút

Grave 5

human bone

AMS

6225±55

Bln-86

Dévaványa-Katalszeg

Settlement pit

potsherd

conventional

6370±100

Bln-1379

Dévaványa-Réhelyi gát

charcoal

conventional

6640±60

OxA-12857

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 351, Find 10818

animal bone

AMS

7944±44

OxA-9329

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 313, Find 4230

animal bone

AMS

6950±45

OxA-11871

Ecsegfalva 23

23A, Context 136, Find 259

charred seeds

AMS

6930±40

OxA-9335

Ecsegfalva 23

23A, 113 Flot 105

charred seeds (barley)

AMS

6920±50

OxA-9526

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 307, Find 4064

animal bone

AMS

6915±50

OxA-11983

Ecsegfalva 23

23A, Context 135, Find 1515

animal bone

AMS

6915±36

OxA-10500

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 347, Find 6005

animal bone

AMS

6900±60

OxA-11984

Ecsegfalva 23

23C, Context 521, Find 9412

animal bone

AMS

6893±36

OxA-12654

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 359, Find 7886

animal bone

AMS

6889±36

OxA-10501

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 353, Find 6982

animal bone

AMS

6885±50

OxA-9327

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 301, Find 3178

animal bone

AMS

6870±50

OxA-11845

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 354, Find 71235

animal bone

AMS

6865±40

OxA-9333

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 336, Find 4905

animal bone

AMS

6860±45

OxA-9334

Ecsegfalva 23

23A, 113 Flot 105

charred seeds (wheat)

AMS

6855±50

OxA-10505

Ecsegfalva 23

23C, Context 515, Find 9365

animal bone

AMS

6845±50

OxA-12655

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 374, Find 8158

animal bone

AMS

6830±35

OxA-12860

Ecsegfalva 23

23C, Context 528, Find 9497

animal bone

AMS

6826±41

OxA-11863

Ecsegfalva 23

23A, Context 136, Find 242

charred seeds

AMS

6825±45

OxA-12859

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 397-404, Find 10391

animal bone

AMS

6818±44

OxA-9328

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 308, Find 4157

animal bone

AMS

6815±50

OxA-9331

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 316, Find 4706

animal bone

AMS

6815±45

OxA-9332

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 327, Find 4783

animal bone

AMS

6810±45

OxA-11982

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 404, Find 10702

animal bone

AMS

6806±39

OxA-9330

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 314, Find 4475

animal bone

AMS

6795±50

OxA-X-2040-07

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 301, Find 3178

animal bone

AMS

6787±37

OxA-13511

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 470, Find 13793

animal bone

AMS

6785±45

OxA-12858

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 352, Find 10262

animal bone

AMS

6782±42

OxA-11850

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 369, Find 7909

animal bone

AMS

6780±50

OxA-X-2040-09

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 313, Find 4230

animal bone

AMS

6780±39

OxA-X-2040-08

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 307, Find 4065

animal bone

AMS

6775±37

OxA-12854

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 344, Find 6334

animal bone

AMS

6774±45

OxA-11868

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 382, Find 10236

animal bone

AMS

6750±45

OxA-13510

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 445, Find 12845

animal bone

AMS

6731±43

OxA-12140

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 464, Find 14074

animal bone

AMS

6729±32

OxA-9325

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 304/307, Find 3814

animal bone

AMS

6690±50

OxA-10148

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 304/307, Find 3814

animal bone

AMS

6665±50

OxA-11849

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 374, Find 8157

animal bone

AMS

6660±40

OxA-12855

Ecsegfalva 23

23B, Context 373, Find 8723

animal bone

AMS

6596±42

Deb-408

Endrõd 6

Square 1, Grave 1

human bone

conventional

6580±180

Deb-450

Endrõd 6

Square 1, Depth 120-170 cm

charcoal

conventional

6240±190

Bln-1940

Endrõd 35

3/Sekt. III

conventional

6615±60

Bln-1960

Endrõd 35

BM-1864R

Endrõd 35

Pit III

BM-1868R

Endrõd 39

BM-1863R

Endrõd 39

conventional

6415±60

charcoal

conventional

6180±110

Trench XVIII, Pit 1

charcoal

conventional

6970±110

Trench IV, Pit 1

charcoal

conventional

6950±140

134

K. Oross & Zs. Siklósi: Relative and absolute chronology ...

Table1 carbon dates of the Körös culture cal BC (68.2%)

calBC (95.4%)

5720-5540

5840-5470

Bowman et al. 1990, 73

Reference

Further references

5990-5870

6020-5790

Whittle et al. 2002, 111, 115

5630-5480

5710-5370

Quitta & Kohl 1969, 241

Kohl & Quitta 1970, 408

5620-5380

5650-5310

Quitta & Kohl 1969, 240

Kohl & Quitta 1970, 408

5480-5300

5620-5080

Quitta & Kohl 1969, 240

Kohl & Quitta 1970, 408

5480-5290

5560-5070

Quitta & Kohl 1969, 240

Kohl & Quitta 1970, 408

5330-5060

5470-4990

Quitta & Kohl 1969, 240

Kohl & Quitta 1970, 408

5300-5070

5320-5030

Whittle et al. 2002, 111, 115

5480-5230

5530-5060

Kohl & Quitta 1963, 300

5630-5520

5660-5480

unpublished

7030-6700

7040-6690

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5890-5770

5980-5730

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

5850-5740

5900-5720

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5850-5730

5980-5710

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

5850-5730

5980-5710

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

5840-5740

5890-5720

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5850-5720

5970-5660

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5810-5720

5880-5710

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5810-5720

5880-5700

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 176

5840-5720

5890-5670

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 176

5840-5710

5880-5660

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

5800-5700

5850-5660

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5800-5670

5850-5650

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5790-5670

5850-5640

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5770-5660

5840-5640

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 176

5740-5670

5780-5640

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 176

5740-5660

5790-5630

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 176

5740-5660

5800-5630

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5740-5660

5790-5630

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5740-5650

5800-5620

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5740-5660

5780-5630

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5740-5660

5780-5620

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5730-5660

5750-5630

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5730-5640

5780-5620

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

5720-5650

5740-5630

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 176

5720-5640

5740-5620

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5720-5640

5740-5620

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5720-5640

5760-5570

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5720-5640

5730-5620

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5710-5640

5730-5620

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5710-5640

5740-5620

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5710-5620

5730-5570

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 176

5710-5610

5730-5560

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 176

5670-5620

5720-5560

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 176

5660-5550

5710-5520

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 176

5640-5550

5670-5490

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 176

5630-5550

5660-5510

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 176

5610-5490

5620-5480

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

5680-5350

5900-5080

Bognár-Kutzián & Csongor 1987, 133-135

5470-4960

5560-4720

Bognár-Kutzián & Csongor 1987, 133-135

5620-5510

5640-5470

unpublished

5470-5350

5490-5230

unpublished

5300-4990

5370-4830

Bowman et al. 1990, 73

5980-5740

6050-5660

Bowman et al. 1990, 73

Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 122 (with Lab.No. BM-1668R)

[11]

5990-5720

6090-5560

Bowman et al. 1990, 73

Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 122

[12]

Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 123

Notes [1]

Kohl & Quitta 1964, 316 [2]

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175

[3]

[4]

[5]

Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 176

[6]

[7]

[8] [9]

[10]

135

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Laboratory No.

Site

Feature

Material

conventional/A MS

BP date

BM-1870R

Endrõd 39

Trench XVIII, Pit 1

charcoal

conventional

6950±120

BM-1871R

Endrõd 39

Trench XIX, Pit 1

charcoal

conventional

6830±120

Bln-1941

Endrõd 39

1/Sekt. IV

conventional

6785±55

OxA-9587

Endrõd 119

Square 32, 'ash pit', 80-110 cm

animal bone (sheep)

AMS

6915±45

OxA-9583

Endrõd 119

Square 32, 'east ash pit'

animal bone (sheep)

AMS

6895±45

OxA-9588

Endrõd 119

Square 29, 'ash pit below house', 65-90 cm

animal bone (sheep)

AMS

6855±45

OxA-9586

Endrõd 119

Square 32, 'below house ruins, west', 50-80 cm

animal bone (sheep)

AMS

6850±45

OxA-9582

Endrõd 119

Square 33, 'large pit below burnt ruins'

animal bone (goat horn)

AMS

6825±45

OxA-9584

Endrõd 119

Square 29, 'inside house', 30-40 cm

animal bone (sheep)

AMS

6825±45

OxA-9590

Endrõd 119

Square 33, 'large pit, bottom', 150-200 cm

animal bone (sheep)

AMS

6815±50

OxA-9585

Endrõd 119

Square 27, 'below house', 60-90 cm

animal bone (goat)

AMS

6795±50

OxA-9589

Endrõd 119

Square 35, pit 1 bottom, 130-190 cm'

animal bone (sheep)

AMS

6720±45

OxA-9395

Endrõd-Varnyai-tanya

Grave

human bone

AMS

6595±50

Bln-75

Gyálarét-Szilágyi major

Settlement pit

potsherd

conventional

7090±100

Bln-115

Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart-Vata-tanya -

potsherd

conventional

6450±100

Poz-28216

Ibrány-Nagyerdõ

stratum 48

fishbone

AMS

6630±40

Poz-28214

Ibrány-Nagyerdõ

stratum 3

bone

AMS

6570±40

OxA-9403

Maroslele-Pana

Grave 7

human bone

AMS

7765±55

Deb-2733

Maroslele-Pana

Pit 4

bone

conventional

7497±56

OxA-9399

Maroslele-Pana

Grave 1

human bone

AMS

6965±50

OxA-10149

Maroslele-Pana

Grave 3

human bone

AMS

6845±50

OxA-9401

Maroslele-Pana

Grave 5

human bone

AMS

6780±50

OxA-9400

Maroslele-Pana

Grave 3

human bone

AMS

6740±50

Bln-1331

Méhtelek-Nádas

Pit 1-3a

charcoal

conventional

6835±60

Bln-1332

Méhtelek-Nádas

Pit 4-5a

charcoal

conventional

6655±60

GrN-6897

Méhtelek-Nádas

Pit 4-5a

charcoal

conventional

6625±50

VERA-3476

Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös

Strat. 10

animal bone

AMS

7065±35

Poz-23460

Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös

F2S16

shell

AMS

7040±40

Poz-26328

Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös

F2S16

charcoal

AMS

6970±40

Poz-26327

Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös

F2S16

charcoal

AMS

6940±40

Poz-23317

Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös

F2S16

seed

AMS

6890±40

VERA-3474

Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös

Strat. 8

animal bone

AMS

6890±35

Poz-26325

Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös

Strat. 9

charcoal

AMS

6860±40

VERA-3540

Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös

Feature 2, Strat. 9

animal bone

AMS

6850±35

VERA-3052

Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös

Strat. 1

animal bone

AMS

6755±40

OxA-9336

Pitvaros-Víztározó

Pit 3/B

charcoal

AMS

7060±45

OxA-9393

Pitvaros-Víztározó

Level 1

animal bone

AMS

6940±50

OxA-9392

Pitvaros-Víztározó

Levels 3/4

animal bone

AMS

6885±50

Deb-2730

Röszke-Lúdvár

bone

conventional

6972±59

Deb-473

Szajol-Felsõföld

Square 5, Pit 3

human bone

conventional

7100±230

VERA-3531

Szajol-Felsõföld

House, floor level

aurochs bone

AMS

6805±35

VERA-3051

Szajol-Felsõföld

House, Grave 1

human bone

AMS

6725±35

VERA-3534

Szajol-Felsõföld

House, square 4

wild boar bone

AMS

6620±35

Deb-474

Szajol-Felsõföld

"House", Grave 1

human bone

conventional

6430±220

Deb-413

Szakmár-Kisülés

Square XXIV, Depression a

charcoal

conventional

6960±220

OxA-9375

Szarvas 23

Grave 1

human bone

AMS

6855±55

BM-1866R

Szarvas 23

Trench IX, Pit 1

charcoal

conventional

6780±110

BM-1865R

Szarvas 23

Trench VIII, Pit 1

charcoal

conventional

6400±170

Deb-396

Szarvas 56

Trench 1

charcoal

conventional

7050±200

Bln-2578

Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes

Pit 4

charcoal

conventional

6800±60

Bln-1938

Szolnok-Szanda

Pit I/2

charcoal

conventional

7005±80

Bln-1946

Szolnok-Szanda

charcoal

conventional

7005±80

Bln-2576

Szolnok-Szanda

Pit 2

charcoal

conventional

6940±60

Poz-37861

Szolnok-Szanda

House 3, 40 cm

animal bone

AMS

6910±40

136

K. Oross & Zs. Siklósi: Relative and absolute chronology ...

Table1 continued cal BC (68.2%)

calBC (95.4%)

5980-5730

6040-5630

Bowman et al. 1990, 73

Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 122

[13]

5850-5620

5990-5530

Bowman et al. 1990, 73

Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 122 (with Lab.No. BM-1971R)

[14]

5720-5640

5780-5570

unpublished

5840-5740

5900-5710

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

5840-5720

5890-5670

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

5790-5670

5850-5650

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

5770-5670

5870-5640

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

5740-5660

5800-5630

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

5740-5660

5800-5630

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

5740-5650

5800-5620

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

5730-5640

5780-5620

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

5680-5560

5720-5550

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

5610-5480

5620-5480

Whittle et al. 2002, 111, 116

6070-5840

6210-5740

Kohl & Quitta 1963, 299-300

Kohl & Quitta 1964, 315; Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 122

5490-5310

5620-5220

Kohl & Quitta 1963, 300

Kohl & Quitta 1964, 315-316

5620-5530

5630-5480

Domboróczki & Raczky 2010, 214

5550-5480

5620-5470

Domboróczki & Raczky 2010, 214

6650-6500

6690-6470

Whittle et al. 2002, 111, 116

6440-6260

6450-6240

Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 122

5970-5770

5990-5730

Whittle et al. 2002, 111, 115

5770-5660

5840-5640

Whittle et al. 2002, 111, 115

5720-5640

5760-5570

Whittle et al. 2002, 111, 115

5710-5620

5730-5560

Whittle et al. 2002, 111, 115

5780-5650

5850-5620

Kalicz & Makkay 1977, 23

Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 122; Raczky et al. 2010, 164

5630-5530

5670-5480

Kalicz & Makkay 1977, 23

Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 123; Raczky et al. 2010, 164

5620-5520

5630-5480

Kalicz & Makkay 1977, 23

Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 123; Raczky et al. 2010, 164

6000-5910

6020-5880

Raczky et al. 2010, 164, Endnote Nr. 8

5990-5890

6010-5840

Gulyás et al. 2010, 1462

5970-5780

5980-5740

Raczky et al. 2010, 164, Endnote Nr. 8

5880-5750

5970-5730

Raczky et al. 2010, 164, Endnote Nr. 8

5810-5720

5890-5700

Gulyás et al. 2010, 1462

5810-5720

5880-5710

Raczky et al. 2010, 164, Endnote Nr. 8

5800-5670

5840-5660

Raczky et al. 2010, 164, Endnote Nr. 8

5770-5670

5840-5660

Raczky et al. 2010, 164, Endnote Nr. 8

5710-5630

5730-5610

Raczky et al. 2010, 164, Endnote Nr. 8

6000-5900

6020-5840

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

5880-5750

5980-5720

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

5840-5720

5890-5670

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

5980-5780

5990-5730

Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 122

6220-5750

6440-5610

Bognár-Kutzián & Csongor 1987, 133-135

5730-5660

5740-5630

Raczky 2006, 383

5680-5610

5720-5560

Raczky 2006, 383

5620-5520

5630-5490

Raczky 2006, 383

5630-5080

5760-4840

Bognár-Kutzián & Csongor 1987, 133-135

6030-5640

6340-5480

Bognár-Kutzián & Csongor 1987, 133-135

5790-5670

5880-5630

Whittle et al. 2002, 111, 115

5790-5560

5900-5490

Bowman et al. 1990, 73

[17]

5550-5210

5660-4960

Bowman et al. 1990, 73

[18]

6100-5720

6370-5610

Bognár-Kutzián & Csongor 1987, 133-135

5730-5640

5840-5610

unpublished

5990-5810

6020-5730

unpublished

5990-5810

6020-5730

unpublished

5890-5740

5990-5710

unpublished

5840-5730

5890-5720

unpublished

Reference

Further references

137

Notes

[15]

[16

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Laboratory No.

Site

Feature

Material

conventional/AMS

BP date

OxA-23754

Szolnok-Szanda

Grave 3

human bone (costa)

AMS

6859±34

Bln-2577

Szolnok-Szanda

Pit 5

charcoal

conventional

6790±70

Poz-37860

Szolnok-Szanda

Pit 3, 70-80 cm

animal bone

AMS

6770±40

OxA-23756

Szolnok-Szanda

Pit 5

human bone (mandibula)

AMS

6713±33

OxA-23755

Szolnok-Szanda

Grave 4

human bone (costa)

AMS

6713±32

OxA-23753

Szolnok-Szanda

Grave 2

human bone (femur)

AMS

6688±35

OxA-23752

Szolnok-Szanda

Grave 1

human bone (pelvis)

AMS

6554±32

Deb-11890

Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta

Pit 6

animal bone

conventional

6920±50

OxA-20238

Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta

Pit 6

seed (152)

AMS

6789±37

Deb-11902

Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta

Pit 6

animal bone

conventional

6780±65

OxA-20237

Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta

Pit 6

seed (115)

AMS

6776±34

OxA-20239

Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta

Pit 6

seed (432)

AMS

6775±40

Deb-11804

Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta

Pit 6, Grave 2

human bone

conventional

6740±60

OxA-20236

Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta

Pit 6

seed (6)

AMS

6673±35

Deb-12962

Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta

Pit 15

animal bone

conventional

6657±65

Deb-11898

Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta

Pit 6

animal bone

conventional

6550±95

Notes [1] corrected from BM-1862 6580±60 (Burleigh et al. 1983, 48) [2] sampled material based on Nándor Kalicz's kind personal comm. [3] Pit 393 [4] F3/F4/G3/G4 [5] Pit 393

[6] D6 [7] Pit 393 [8] duplicate of OxA-9325 [9] Pit 393 [10] corrected from BM-1864 6090±60 BP (Burleigh et al. 1983, 49) [11] corrected from BM-1868 6830±60 BP (Burleigh et al. 1983, 49)

Square VIII at Szarvas 23 (supported by radiocarbon dating) and Pit 1 in Square XVIII at Endrõd 39 (contradicting radiocarbon dates) would represent the later sub-phase (Makkay 1987, 16, 18). In relation to Pit 1 in Square XVIII at Endrõd 39 it must be noted that later it was dated to a time period when late Körös culture stylistic elements were still present but early ALP types had not yet occurred (Makkay 2007, Table 11, Table 14). Early ALP style sherds discovered at Körös culture sites as import ware lead him to conclude that the Szatmár II group, representing the formative phase of ALBK had already existed north of the distribution area of the Körös culture as early as the Körös classical phase. During the times to follow, ALP ware occurs increasingly in the areas previously occupied by the Körös culture. By the end of the life span of its earliest form, ALBK ware is found as far south as the Körös River region. By the time of the Protovinèa-Vinèa A transition the fully developed stylistic elements of early and classical ALBK ceramics occurred in the Maros River valley (Makkay 1987, 23). János Makkay has stressed that Protovinèa type sherds, pre-dating the Vinèa stylistic complex had not only appeared during the latest, but also earlier Körös culture find assemblages (Makkay 1990, 113). In addition, they also occur among ceramic finds of the classical and late phases of the Körös culture. Sporadic evidence of certain Protovinèa traits could be detected in materials as early as the early phase of the Körös-Starèevo culture. The general occurrence of new Protovinèa stylistic elements was seen as parallel with that of the Szatmár group. This would have meant a typochronological dating that corresponds to the second half within the classical phase of the Körös culture (Makkay 1990, 121). János Makkay also maintained the view that the formation of the Vinèa culture in areas north of the Maros

River was hindered by the southward expansion of the ALBK (Makkay 1990, 121–122). Responding to criticisms by Pál Raczky and Nándor Kalicz he asserted that he had considered the Protovinèa period as an antecedent to the Vinèa A time horizon. He also added that some characteristics mentioned as Protovinèa forms or decorative motifs cannot be exclusively linked to the late phase of the Körös culture alone. Thus for example carinated bowl types, burnished patterns, impressed or incised motifs co-occur with white-on-red and black-on-red linear patterns (Makkay 1996, 44–47). János Makkay discussed a typological group of special decorations focussing on five categories. These included pattern burnished decoration, impressed motifs, ornaments incised before vs after firing and channelled decoration. These are characteristics regularly encountered in ceramic assemblages dated to the late phase of the Körös culture. In the opinion of János Makkay, however, with the exception of the channelled motif, these techniques of decoration can be traced back to the earliest phase of the Körös culture (Makkay 2000, 311–312). An episode without further development is represented by statistical analyses carried out by György Goldman on the late Körös culture material excavated at the site of Dévaványa-Réhely. He succeeded in distinguishing between two phases and considered both of them parallel with the early Vinèa culture. He could even demonstrate measurable differences between the two thus established phases in terms of the repertoires of forms and decorative motifs. For example, he documented a decrease in the relative frequencies of pinched decoration and applied barbotine. Fragments of vessels standing on small feet and the so-called spike design practically disappeared by what he termed the second phase. Goldman named these phases Réhely I and

138

K. Oross & Zs. Siklósi: Relative and absolute chronology ...

Table1 continued cal BC (68.2%)

calBC (95.4%)

5790-5700

5840-5660

unpublished

Reference

Further references

Notes

5740-5630

5840-5560

unpublished

5710-5640

5730-5620

unpublished

5670-5570

5710-5560

unpublished

5670-5570

5710-5560

unpublished

5640-5560

5670-5530

unpublished

5530-5480

5610-5470

unpublished

5850-5730

5980-5710

Domboróczki 2010b, 152, Table 1

5720-5660

5740-5630

Domboróczki 2010b, 152, Table 1

5730-5630

5810-5560

Domboróczki 2010b, 152, Table 1

5710-5640

5730-5640

Domboróczki 2010b, 152, Table 1

5710-5640

5730-5620

Domboróczki 2010b, 152, Table 1

5720-5620

5740-5540

Domboróczki 2010b, 152, Table 1

5640-5560

5660-5530

Domboróczki 2010b, 152, Table 1

[19]

5640-5530

5710-5480

Domboróczki 2010b, 152, Table 1

[19]

5620-5380

5640-5320

Domboróczki 2010b, 152, Table 1

[19]

[12] corrected from BM-1863 6840±110 BP (Burleigh et al. 1983, 49) [13] corrected from BM-1870 6600±80 BP (Burleigh et al. 1983, 49) [14] corrected from BM-1871 6470±70 BP (Burleigh et al. 1983, 49) [15] third reference with Lab No. GrN-6892 [16]] incorrectly published as Grave 2

[17] corrected from BM-1866 6620±60 BP (Burleigh et al. 1983, 49) [18] corrected from BM-1865 6190±140 BP (Burleigh et al. 1983, 49, Trench VII, Pit 1) [19] probably Szatmár

Réhely II, although the terminology has never been used again in the archaeological literature (Goldman 1991). Contributing to the debate surrounding the Protovinèa concept, Wolfram Schier contrasted the cultural-regional interpretation by Dragoslav Srejoviæ to the opinion of János Makkay who described the term as a chronological unit (Schier 1997, 157). Wolfram Schier carefully studied the pottery types considered characteristic of this Protovinèa horizon and compared them to his own re-evaluation of ceramics from Vinèa-Belo Brdo (Schier 1996). He concluded that while the so-called Protovinèa ceramic assemblages shared a great degree of similarity with each other, stylistic traits reminiscent of Vinèa A ceramics are scarce. He identified the closest parallels to Protovinèa forms in find materials dated to the Vinèa B2 and early Vinèa C phases (Schier 1997, 158–159). Since synchronicity between these types may be ab ovo excluded, he came up with two possible explanations. One of these is that Protovinèa traits are independent of the early Vinèa culture, in which case their entire chronological position needs to be re-considered. The alternative explanation is closer to the original concept by Dragoslav Srejoviæ. According to this version the occurrence of new stylistic features during the late phases of the Starèevo culture and the formation of the Vinèa culture should be seen as elements within a broader trend of cultural transformation all over Southeastern Europe whose components must have varied regionally (Schier 1997, 157). He proposed the introduction of a chronological system in which early Protovinèa ceramic assemblages would be contemporaneous with those from the Méhtelek-type Körös culture settlements in the Upper Tisza Region and the Phase Spiraloid A of the Starèevo culture defined by Stojan Dimitrijeviæ. Meanwhile the late Protovinèa phase should

be regarded synchronous with the earliest ALBK and the Phase Spiraloid B of the Starèevo culture. Thus the early Protovinèa phase would precede the earliest Vinèa subphase defined on the basis of ceramic finds in Serbia, but would be contemporaneous with the earliest Vinèa find assemblages by the criteria outlined in the chronological system developed by Gheorghe Lazarovici (Schier 1997, 163, tables 1–2). Stratigraphic observations from the site of Ecsegfalva 23 excavated by the team directed by Alasdair Whittle between 1999 and 2001 – as well as the great number of documented finds and radiocarbon measurements available for their verification – offered a promising opportunity for fine-tuning the chronological analysis of pottery recovered at the site. Square B of the greatest extent yielded the largest assemblage of sherds. However, no major stylistic changes could be detected across the stratigraphy. The pottery inventory consisted well known features of late Körös culture ceramics. The same held true for the smaller Squares A and C of the same site that were non-contiguous with the main excavation area (B). Fragments of carinated vessels constituted the most striking forms, including biconical bowls with the smaller portion created above the carination line. These vessels had flat bases, and the perimeter of the carination line was frequently decorated with small knobs (Oross 2007, 505–506, Fig. 27.14, Fig. 27.15. 5–7, Fig. 27.17). The closest parallels to these forms may be found in Phase IVA of the Starèevo culture in the chronological system developed by Gheorghe Lazarovici. Burnished and stroke burnished decoration are equally present in the Ecsegfalva 23 material (Oross 2007, 542–543, Fig. 27.24. 2a–b, Fig. 27. 49. 1, 2a–d). Certain late Körös features such as channelled barbotine and fine channelled decoration are missing (Oross

139

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

2007, 574–575). János Makkay laid special emphasis on the latter as being diagnostic exclusively of assemblages dated to the latest phase of the Körös culture (Makkay 2000, 312). It must also be pointed out that the contribution of sherds from carinated vessels to the material recovered from Square B at Ecsegfalva 23 barely exceeds 1% of the entire pottery assemblage from the square (Oross 2007, 563–564). The few comparable assemblages include the material from Pit 3 at Maroslele-Pana where the proportion of fragments from carinated vessels made up 1.1% of all ceramic sherds (Trogmayer 1968a, 7). As has been mentioned before, János Makkay considered exactly this latter pit a representative of the early sub-phase of the latest Körös phase (Makkay 1987, 16; 1990, 119). Biconical forms made up 0.7% of the ceramic finds recovered at the site of Tiszajenõ-Szárazérpart. This assemblage was dated by Pál Raczky to a tentative phase that had directly preceded the age of Pit 3 at Maroslele-Pana, and considered it contemporaneous with the so-called Girlandoid phase defined by Stojan Dimitrijeviæ (Raczky 1976, 171, 186–187). This would correspond to Phase IIIA of the Starèevo culture in the chronological system of Gheorghe Lazarovici (Schier 1997, 163, table 1). In summary, on the basis of the find material from Square B at Ecsegfalva 23 it may be said that the excavated part of the settlement must have belonged to a relatively late developmental phase of the Körös culture. It was, however, earlier than the very latest pottery assemblages of the culture. According to the most recent tabulated summary by János Makkay the appearance of Protovinèa shapes took place during the early classical Phase (IIa) of the Körös culture. Then he proceeded to defining the subsequent Phase IIb as “earliest Protovinèa ware without Szatmár” further obscuring the already convoluted terminology. He singled out the first occurrence of ALBK type finds during the latest Körös culture as the most important difference between its classical and late phases (Makkay 2007, 198, Table 14). Considering these arguments we found the term Protovinèa referring to the latest finds of the Körös culture inappropriate, therefore refrained from using it in the rest of this paper.

As radiocarbon measurements produced “independent” absolute chronological data their introduction required the total re-evaluation of the entire Prehistory of Europe. Correspondingly, the beginnings of the Neolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain had to be reconsidered first on the basis of uncalibrated and then calibrated radiocarbon dates. Recently the application of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) in combination with Bayesian statistics in the evaluation of its results, have improved the precision of dating the Körös culture as well. Conventional radiocarbon dates As radiocarbon dating became increasingly available during the 1960s it turned upside down previous culturehistorically based chronologies used in prehistoric research across Europe (Quitta 1967a; 1967b; Neustupný 1968; 1969; Renfrew 1975[1973]; Raczky 1988, 10). The first radiocarbon dates2 (Fig. 1, Tab. 1) obtained for Early Neolithic sites in the Great Hungarian Plain – Gyálarét-Szilágyi major (Bln-75 7090±100 bp, 6070 (68.2%) 5840 cal BC), Dévaványa-Katalszeg3 (Bln-86 6370±100 bp, 5480 (68.2%) 5230 cal BC) and Hódmezõvásárhely-KotacpartVata-tanya (Bln-115 6450±100 bp, 5490 (68.2%) 5310 cal BC) 4 – fit almost perfectly within the framework of the newly drafted system, although they showed considerable dispersion (Kohl & Quitta 1963, 299–300; 1964, 315–316). In addition, however, they also indicated that the previously used culture-historical system could no longer be accepted. The first, uncalibrated radiocarbon measurements dated the Early Neolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain to between 5300–4400 bc (Quitta 1967a, 265, fig. 1.; 1967b). Although the necessity of calibrating radiocarbon data became evident by this time, in the absence of dendrochronological information from the European Neolithic such adjustments seemed impossible5 (Quitta 1967a, 266–269). Eventually, a small series of measurements was made in the C14 Laboratory of the German Academy of Sciences of Berlin using charcoal samples taken at the site of Deszk-1. sz. Olajkút (Quitta & Kohl 1969, 240–241). The first Early Neolithic radiocarbon measurements in Hungary were made at the Nuclear Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Debrecen using find material from the sites of Endrõd 6, Szajol-Felsõföld, Szakmár-Kisülés and Szarvas 56. The results did not fundamentally contradict previously obtained dates in Berlin. However, while the standard deviation of uncalibrated measurements from Berlin was usually 100 years, the same parameter of the Debrecen dates reached 200 years (Bognár-Kutzián & Csongor 1987, 134–135). A series of samples dated in the Research Laboratory of the British Museum is especially noteworthy here. The series of eight measurements on samples from Battonya-Basarága, Endrõd 35, Endrõd 39 and Szarvas 23 turned

THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGICAL POSITION OF THE KÖRÖS CULTURE Prior to the invention of radiocarbon dating, the absolute chronology of the Körös culture could only be estimated on the basis of stylistic analogies from sites in Greece. Therefore in her monograph Ida Kutzián dated the occurrence of the Körös culture in the Great Hungarian Plain to the 4th millennium BC on the basis of the Neolithic chronology of Greece, with special regard to Sesklo (Kutzián 1944, 148).

2 3 4 5

Unless otherwise stated, radiocarbon dates in this study and the tables attached were obtained using the IntCal09 calibration curve and the OxCal v4.1.7 calibration program (Reimer et al. 2009; Bronk Ramsey 2010). The most notable exceptions are dates quoted in their original form. In works by Günter Kohl and Hans Quitta the site is simply quoted as “Katalszeg”. Naturally, the first radiocarbon dates were uncalibrated. Data marked as ”bp” in the text are original radiocarbon results, accompanied by our own calibrated version. The latter were calculated to provide standardized dates for the purpose of our evaluation. The calibration of conventional data yielded even earlier dates, therefore Hans Quitta began voicing his reservations concerning the method. The dates thus obtained seemed far too old at the time (Quitta 1967a, 269; 1967b, 123).

140

K. Oross & Zs. Siklósi: Relative and absolute chronology ...

out to have been erroneous, but had already been published as such (Burleigh et al. 1983, 48–49). Between 1980 and 1984 470 archaeological samples were mis-dated in that laboratory due to a technical failure. Subsequently, these were re-evaluated and published by Sheridan G. E. Bowman and his team6 (Bowman et al. 1990, 73). Among the conventional radiocarbon measurements a reliable set of dates is available from the site of Méhtelek-Nádas. Two of them were made in Berlin, another in Groningen (Kalicz & Makkay 1977, 23). Only a single radiocarbon date is known from the site of Dévaványa-Réhelyi-gát (Bln-1379). The calibrated 5630 (68.2%) 5520 cal BC value is synchronous with those obtained for the earliest ALBK sites (e.g. Füzesabony-Gubakút, Mezõkövesd-Mocsolyás, Kõtelek-Huszársarok) (Domboróczki 2009, 81–89; Kalicz & Koós 2000, 68–69; Raczky et al. 2010, 161, 164, Endnote 10). This measurement is based on a charcoal sample from the 1970 excavations by István Ecsedy (Ecsedy 1973)7. According to János Makkay the two lowermost strata at that settlement represented the Körös culture. He found it impossible, however, to obtain a more precise chronological estimate for the bottom layer, although he had dated the Körös deposit above to the late phase of that culture (Makkay 1987, 17). This typochronological identification is consonant with the results of subsequent radiocarbon measurement. The overwhelming majority of radiocarbon measurements during the 1960–1970s were carried out using charcoal samples in accordance with the technical possibilities and sampling protocols of that time. Therefore old wood effect may have biased any of them. An additional consequence of these technical/methodological procedures was that the unusually large – sometimes 100–200 years – standard deviations obtained contributed to the fact that the Early Neolithic suddenly became an unexpectedly long period. Moreover, technical and financial constraints made the measurement of large series impossible therefore the majority of sites were represented only by one or two radiocarbon dates. The stratigraphic position and find context of the samples remained frequently unknown. Consequently, the dates obtained were relevant to the Early Neolithic as a whole, but could not be used in fine-tuning the interpretation of more subtle problems such as the internal chronology of the Körös culture. Ferenc Horváth and Ede Hertelendi are to be credited for the first summary of Middle Neolithic absolute chronology in the region. They created eight clusters based on the results of the radiocarbon measurements listed. The first four of these represented the Early Neolithic (Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 112–114, 118; Oross 2007, Table 27.16). In addition to the calibration of previously published dates for the Körös culture, they included two newly obtained dates from the sites of Maroslele-Pana (Deb-2733) and Röszke-Lúdvár (Deb-2730) (Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 122). Since the reliability of the sample taken from Pit 4 at

6 7

Fig. 1. Spread of the Neolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain as reflected in the earliest individual radiocarbon dates of Early Neolithic sites: 1, Battonya-Basarága; 2, Deszk-Olajkút; 3, Dévaványa-Katalszeg; 4, Dévaványa-Réhelyi gát; 5, Ecsegfalva 23; 6, Endrõd 6; 7, Endrõd 35; 8, Endrõd 39; 9, Endrõd 119; 10, Endrõd-Varnyai-tanya; 11, Gyálarét-Szilágyi-major; 12, Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart-Vata-tanya; 13, Ibrány-Nagyerdõ; 14, Maroslele-Pana; 15, Méhtelek-Nádas; 16, Nagykörû-TSZ Gyümölcsös; 17, Pitvaros; 18, Röszke-Lúdvár; 19, Szajol-Felsõföld; 20, Szakmár-Kisülés; 21, Szarvas 23; 22, Szarvas 56; 23, Szentpéterszeg-Körvélyes; 24, Szolnok-Szanda; 25, Tiszaszõlõs-Domaházapuszta. Conventional dates from charcoal samples and with a standard deviation exceeding 100 years were not considered.

Maroslele-Pana was not unambiguously rejected, they considered the possibility that the Körös culture had begun in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain at the extremely early date around 6300 cal BC (Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 112, 118, 122). Never-the-less, in their tabulated summary they presented this value as a separate item, rather than adding it to any of the previously established chronological clusters. As far as the late period of this culture is concerned, they postulated that the Vinèa Phase A may have begun around 5400 cal BC. Accepting arguments by Pál Raczky who advocated synchronicity between the Late Körös culture and the Vinèa Phase A, they hypothesized that the beginning of the late phase of the Körös culture could not have been earlier than 5400 cal BC. They noted with surprise, however, that certain Late Körös culture sites pre-dated the occurrence of the Vinèa culture in the Maros River region. The contradiction was resolved by accepting the results of parallel research in Romania. Those showed that some of the sites found in the Lower Danube region, such as Gornea and Liubcova-Orniþa were older

In the corrected cases a capital “R” was appended to the original laboratory identification number. As a result of corrections uncalibrated data became at least 90 (BM-1864R) and at most 360 (BM-1871R) years older. However, standard deviations also increased, exceeding 100 years in every case. Nándor Kalicz, kind personal communication.

141

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

than the lowermost, Vinèa cultural layers at the tell site of Vinèa-Belo Brdo (Lazarovici 1979, 106–112, Tab. 17–18; Luca 1991, 152–154), i. e. also pre-dated Vinèa culture settlements located at the confluence of the Tisza and Maros Rivers. According to the final summary, the first two clusters of the thus compiled set of radiocarbon dates represented the early and classical phases of the Körös culture respectively, dated to between 6300 and 5500 cal BC. Cluster III corresponded to the time interval between 5500–5400 cal BC. During the second half of this period the occurrence of early Protovinèa archaeological assemblages could be expected that would have parallelled the Starèevo IIIB/ Vinèa Phase A1 as defined by Gheorghe Lazarovici. Cluster IV included the single century between 5400–5300 cal BC. The first half of this period was marked by the existence of the latest Körös culture settlements. The authors have taken into consideration traditional ceramic typochronologies and attempted to synchronize them with radiocarbon dates. As a result, the late phase of the Körös culture looked like a relatively short, century long time period estimated to have been existed between 5450–5350 cal BC (Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 118). Following the general spread of calibrated radiocarbon dates Ede Hertelendi and his colleagues collected and calibrated all conventional radiocarbon dates relevant to the Neolithic in Eastern Hungary. They estimated the life span of the Early Neolithic in the region to between 5860 (68.2%) 5310 cal BC. Within this time interval the early phase of the Körös culture fell between 5950 (68.2%) 5400 cal BC, while the late phase of the Körös culture displayed a 5770 (68.2%) 5230 cal BC interval. Radiocarbon dates obtained for these two phases thus were indicative of a considerable time overlap. However, each of the two sets of measurements used in identifying the two phases was based on 14 samples (Hertelendi et al. 1995, 240–242, Fig. 1). Unfortunately the publication by Ede Hertelendi and his co-authors does not contain the original series of raw data. It is not entirely clear therefore which individual data served as a basis for their measurements. Recently a series of 13 radiocarbon dates have been published from the site of Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta, eight of which originated from conventional measurements (Domboróczki 2010b, 152, Table 1). László Domboróczki considered two of these (Deb-12962 and Deb11898) as dates indicating the earliest ALP, while in one case (Deb-13045) he suspected that the sample may have been contaminated. Two additional conventional dates were indicative of the time periods of the Szakálhát and Early Tisza culture respectively. Therefore the excavator identified the two burials as belonging to the Szakálhát culture (Domboróczki 2010b, 151–153, Fig. 9).

increasingly available. They were characterized by significantly narrower error margins. Previously preferred charcoal samples were gradually replaced by remains of short lived organisms, especially by seeds as well as bones. The improvement of radicarbon measurement techniques made the use of small samples possible. The breakthrough in the absolute chronology of Early Neolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain was marked by the 2002 study of Alasdair Whittle and his co-authors. This comprehensive re-evaluation of the Early Neolithic was based on a series of AMS dates obtained from carefully sampled archaeological contexts. In addition to data from Hungary, radiocarbon dates from Serbia were also included. The largest series of samples from Hungary was collected at the site of Ecsegfalva 23, a Körös culture settlement excavated at the time (Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115). Subsequently, new measurements were added to the original series and the final publication of this site could be based on a body of 38 AMS dates, although three previous measurements were removed from the series (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, Table 10.1). The total of 41 measurements published in the two versions made Ecsegfalva 23 the most thoroughly dated site in the Early Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain. With a few exceptions, the radiocarbon dates obtained fell within the time interval expected. One of the results (OxA-12857) was unambiguously earlier than the beginnings of the Neolithic in Hungary. Another date belonged to the ALP burial in Square 23A of the site (OxA-10678). The remaining outliers yielded dates far post-dating the Neolithic: one of them (OxA-12141) fell within the Early Middle Ages, while the other (OxA9326) represented the Early Modern Age. The latest date in the Körös culture series (OxA-12855) was also considered relatively late by the authors (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 174) given its archaeological context (Pit 390, Square 23B). Among the previously published dates (Whittle et al. 2002) nine animal bone samples from the site of Endrõd 119 unambiguously yielded Körös culture dates. A similarly successful set of radiocarbon measurements was carried out on a single charcoal and two animal bone samples from Pitvaros. Additional sites were represented by samples taken from burials. One of the six measurements made on human bone from Maroslele-Pana (Grave 7, OxA-9403) stood out as very old (the middle third of the 7th millennium BC), pre-dating the beginning of the Neolithic in Hungary. This phenomenon is of interest, because it is consonant with a conventional radiocarbon date (Deb-2733) obtained previously. Another measurement (Grave 6, OxA-9402) pointed to the Late Copper Age Baden culture.8 It is thus only four dates that fell unquestionably within the time interval of the Körös culture at this site. Single measurements from the sites of Endrõd-Varnyai-tanya9 (OxA-9395) and Szarvas 23 (OxA-9375) fit nicely within the group of Körös cul-

AMS dates Beginning with the 1990s conventional measurements began to be replaced with AMS measurements that became

8 9

Ottó Trogmayer considered Grave 6 of completely uncertain date, while he attributed Grave 7 to the Körös culture (Trogmayer 1964, 68). According to the authors the human bones sampled in the reference collection of Szeged University must have originated from the sites of Endrõd 6, 35 or 36. Excavations at the site of Endrõd-Varnyai-puszta were carried out by Ferenc Móra in 1929. A short report on this excavation was published by János Banner, documenting two burials (Banner 1941, 40–41). János Makkay identified the location of Ferenc Móra’s excavations as Endrõd 82 in the volume of the national archaeological survey devoted to Békés County (MRT 8, 156–157). Both Ottó Trogmayer and Tibor Paluch mentioned three graves in their respective studies discussing the burials of the Körös culture (Trogmayer 1969, 6; Paluch 2004, 26).

142

K. Oross & Zs. Siklósi: Relative and absolute chronology ...

ture dates. One of the human bone samples from DeszkOlajkút (OxA-9396) dated Grave 6 at this site to the early phase of the Körös culture. This seems to contradict both the late date obtained for the settlement on a typochronological basis and the later results of previously made conventional radiocarbon measurements. The radiocarbon age of Grave 5 at this site (OxA-9376) unambiguously post-dates the Körös culture. One of the dates from the settlement of Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart (OxA-9398) fell within the time interval of the Early Copper Age Tiszapolgár culture, while another measurement (OxA-9397) resulted in a Bronze Age date. The grave sampled at the site of Vaskút-Hiesl-kert (OxA9394) turned out to have belonged to Celtic settlement documented at the site (Whittle et al. 2002, 113–117). AMS measurements for the site of Ibrány-Nagyerdõ were carried out in the Poznan Radiocarbon Laboratory. Two of those four dates (Poz-28216 and Poz-28214) are indicative of the Körös culture while two others (Poz-29282 and Poz-28215) are contemporaneous with the Tiszapolgár culture. Early Copper Age dates were attributed to secondary deposits resulting from disturbance (Domboróczki & Raczky 2010, 214; Domboróczki in this volume). The two Early Neolithic dates were obtained from samples of mammalian animal (Poz-28214, st. 3, 0–25 cm, 5550 (68.2%) 5480 cal BC) and fish bone (Poz-28216, st. 48, 60–80 cm, 5620 (68.2%) 5530 cal BC) respectively. The AMS series from Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta includes five dates. Four measurements by the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit in the Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art (OxA-20236, OxA20237, OxA-20238, OxA-20239) fit nicely within the Early Neolithic time sequence. The single data obtained by the Vienna Environmental Research Accelerator (VERA4243), on the other hand, unambiguously post-dates the Körös culture (Domboróczki 2010b, 152, Table 1). The Oxford AMS measurements were all made on carbonized grain gathered in the lower section of Pit 6 at the site. This series offered a narrow and homogeneous time range reliably dating Early Neolithic settlement at the site (Domboróczki 2010b, 151). Conventional radiocarbon samples, on the other hand, originated from various strata at the site yielding dates belonging to diverse archaeological periods. Therefore systematic differences between the conventional and AMS method cannot be tested at this site. It is thus impossible to tell to what extent the variability in dates obtained here are the artefact of differences in methodology. László Domboróczki attributed the latest date by the Oxford Laboratory (OxA20236) to the earliest ALBK, and the grave date provided by the Vienna laboratory to the ALBK as well. On the basis of the mixed series of 13 partly conventional and partly AMS dates he outlined five phases of early Neolithic settlement at the site. According to this timetable, Phase A may be represented by a possibly occasional visit between 5850 (68.2%) 5730 cal BC that preceded actual settlement. Settlement by the Körös culture is represented by Phase B within the time interval between 5710 (68.2%) 5660 cal BC (Domboróczki 2005, 12). Phase C between 5630 (68.2%) 5560 cal BC may already have been associated with the ALBK, while Phases D and E represent later time periods not relevant to the study of Early Neolithic occupation

(Domboróczki 2010b, 151–153, Fig. 9; Domboróczki in this volume). Bayesian analysis, the evaluation of individual sites Series of radiocarbon measurements carried out on samples from reliable stratigraphic contexts, especially those obtained using the AMS method, offer an opportunity for fine tuning with the help of the Bayesian analysis. Using Bayesian method in the evaluation of radiocarbon dates has become increasingly popular during the last decade. Bayesian statistics interpret the concept of probability relating it to the existing state of knowledge. In contrast to the mechanical effect of simple calibration – yielding time intervals most frequently broader than the original, uncalibrated measurements thereby resulting in absolute chronologies even more broadly spread in time – the Bayesian analysis integrates stratigraphic information. By considering this existing knowledge it is of help in adjusting uncertainties of the calibration curve. The resulting dates are expressed in terms of more precise, reduced time intervals (Buck et al. 1991; Bayliss & Bronk Ramsey 2004; Bayliss et al. 2007; Bayliss 2009). The technical requirement, however, is the use of serial radiocarbon measurements on short-lived materials originating from clearly defined, closed stratigraphic contexts. Currently, however, such series of tightly controlled radiocarbon samples have been available only from a few Early Neolithic sites in the Great Hungarian Plain. Ideally, the Bayesian analysis would be a perfect means of testing the internal chronology of the Körös culture so far based on ceramic typology. Unfortunately the detailed publication of many sites is still pending and both the stratigraphic context and accompanying find assemblages associated with the existing radiocarbon dates are limited to a few reliable excavations. A brief review of the sites is presented here where radiocarbon measurements and precise field documentation were available for the purposes of Bayesian analysis. In the absence of vertical stratigraphy radiocarbon dates outlined three phases at the site of Deszk-1. sz. Olajkút. The oldest phase is represented by Grave 6 (OxA-9396). Pit 8 (Bln-581, Bln-584) may be considered the second phase. Finally, Pit 15 (Bln-583, Bln-582a) stands for the latest phase at this site (Tab. 1, Fig. 2). This latter assemblage was also considered one of the latest by Ottó Trogmayer on a purely typological basis (Trogmayer 1968a, 8). Modelled dates using Bayesian analysis show that settlement at this site must have begun sometime after 6130 (68.2%) 5830 cal BC. The second phase represented by Pit 8 probably began after 5770 (68.2%) 5510 cal BC, but this pit was in use for a relatively short time theoretically ranging between 0 (68.2%) to 70 years. This was followed by the third phase starting after 5530 (68.2%) 5400 cal BC, represented by deposits in yet another short lived feature Pit 15 used for 0 (68.2%) to 60 years. Soon after, life seems to have ceased at the settlement sometime before 5460 (68.2%) 5250 cal BC (Tab. 2). The Bayesian analysis of AMS data dating safely identified contexts within the Ecsegfalva 23 stratigraphy has already been accomplished. Christopher Bronk Ramsey and his co-workers elaborated two hypotheses concerning the possible beginnings and ends of periods identified at Squares 23A, 23B and 23C. The further refinement of dating was

143

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 2.

Analysis of calibrated radiocarbon dates from Deszk-Olajkút.

settlement, the composite feature labelled Pit 12 and “House 2” built above it (OxA-9587, OxA-9583, OxA-9588, OxA9586, OxA-9582, OxA-9584, OxA-9590, OxA-9585). Two phases could be distinguished on the basis of vertical stratigraphy (Makkay 1992, 122), although matching sherds recovered from both levels of the stratigraphy make it doubtful that these phases actually represent two distinct episodes of occupation at the site. An additional sample was measured from Pit 1, Square 35 (OxA-9589) west of the aforementioned locus (Table 1) (Makkay 1992; 2007, 156–157, 160, 163, 164). Modelled dates suggest that life at the settlement began after 5820 (68.2%) 5730 cal BC. According to radiocarbon measurements the first, short lived (0 (68.2%) 30 years) phase is represented by samples taken from the ash pit recovered in Square 32 (OxA-9587, OxA-9583). The second phase represented by six dates from Pit 12 and “House 2” may be estimated as having existed after 5750 (68.2%) 5710 cal BC and before 5730 (68.2%) 5660 cal BC. This also corresponds to a short, 0 (68.2%) 40 years interval. The sample representing the latest phase was taken from Pit 1 in Square 35. Occupation in this section of the settlement ended before 5710 (68.2%) 5600 cal BC (Fig. 3, Table 2). On the basis of white painted ware recovered from Pit 12 and “House 2” János Makkay dated these two features to the early phase of the Körös culture (Makkay 2007, 185–188), although he noted that sherds representing the late phase of Körös culture had also been recovered from the pit (Makkay 1992, 127; 2007, 187). Currently available radiocarbon dates from the site do not belong to the earliest cluster of Körös culture results. In other words, they do not support the typochronological dating of white linear painted ware to the early period. On a purely typological basis János Makkay dated the majority of this settlement to the classical phase of the Körös culture (Makkay 2007, 185–188), a view supported by radiometric evidence. According to the exca-

Table 2 Start and end boundary dates of several Körös culture sites Site

Start Boundary (68.2%) End Boundary (68.2%) cal BC cal BC

Deszk-Olajkút

6130-5830

5460-5250

Endrõd 119

5820-5730

5710-5600

Maroslele-Pana

5960-5740

5710-5610

Nagykörû-TSZ Gyümölcsös

6010-5900

5710-5550

Szajol-Felsõföld

5790-5640

5620-5470

Szolnok-Szanda

5840-5710

5610-5490

attempted within the stratigraphy of Square 23B. In both cases they considered 68.2% and 95.5% levels of probability.10 According to their Model A, the beginning of Basal Layer in the best studied Square B fell between 5748 (68.2%) 5702 cal BC. On the other hand, the end of occupation in that part of the site may be estimated to before 5660 (68.2%) 5626. The area represented by this major excavation square may have been in use for 46 (68.2%) to 112 years (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 181, table 10.4–10.5). This would suggest that the main occupation of Square 23B took place between the mid 5700s and mid 5600s BC. Samples taken from the two smaller squares of the site, 23A and 23C yielded somewhat earlier dates at the beginning of the 5700’s BC (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 176–177). In summary, the site was dated to the 58th and 57th century cal BC, noting that occupation was particularly short in certain parts of the site, not exceeding the span of three human generations even in Square 23B (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 184). With a single exception, radiocarbon samples gathered at the site of Endrõd 119 all represent a specific part of the

10

Dates from Ecsegfalva were calibrated using the INTCAL98 curve and the OxCal v3.9 program (Bronk Ramsey 2003; Stuiver et al. 1998).

144

K. Oross & Zs. Siklósi: Relative and absolute chronology ...

Fig. 3.

Analysis of calibrated radiocarbon dates from Endrõd 119.

vator, the settlement was almost completely excavated (Makkay 1992, 122), thus samples taken from the find material would have the potential of outlining the life span of an Early Neolithic settlement. As mentioned before, however, the majority of samples represent a single spot of habitation, representing a time span of possibly 110 years (Whittle et al. 2002, 115). Therefore they are characteristic of only this specific section of the settlement. As mentioned, two absolute dates from Maroslele-Pana (OxA-9403, Deb-2733) yielded dates from the 7th millennium BC (Tab. 1). These outliers were not taken into consideration during subsequent calculations. The set of samples from this settlement comprises of human bone taken from burials. Accepting that people were buried in the settlement during the time of occupation, two phases of settlement use could be distinguished on the basis of radiocarbon measurements of burials. Corresponding Bayesian analysis have thus shown that the Early Neolithic settlement was probably first inhabited after 5960 (68.2%) 5740 cal BC. The first phase is represented by Grave 1 (OxA-9399) with a time range of 5860 (68.2%) 5730 cal BC.11 Two burials included in the second phase (Graves 3 and 5: OxA-10149, OxA9400, OxA-9401) represent the time interval after 5770 (68.2%) 5680 cal BC. They must have been dug within a relatively short, 0 (68.2%) 50 years long time interval. Radiocarbon dates obtained for the burials at this settlement suggest that occupation at the settlement must have ended before 5710 (68.2%) 5610 cal BC (Fig. 4, Tab. 2). Grave 1 and Pit 4 as well as Grave 5 and Pit 7 were found in super-

11

position with each other (Trogmayer 1964, 67–69). No radiocarbon date is available from the fill of Pit 7, while the sample taken from Pit 4 yielded a very early date. An additional problem is posed by the fact that Pit 3, the latest feature of the settlement on the basis of typochronological evidence, remains likewise undated from the viewpoint of absolute chronology (Trogmayer 1964, 79, 84). Due to these discrepancies, to date it has been impossible to establish connections between the burials and settlement features of the site in terms of absolute chronology. Radiocarbon measurements carried out on samples from the site of Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös represent two features (Raczky et al. 2010, 164, Endnote Nr. 8; Raczky in this volume). Sample VERA-3052 was taken from Feature 1, while the rest originate from various depths of Feature 2 discovered underneath. Dates were modelled with regard to these stratigraphic observations. The results show that the earliest occupation of the site began afters 6010 (68.2%) 5900 cal BC. Feature 2 seems to have remained in use for 150 (68.2%) 250 years. Feature 1 could be dated to 5710 (68.2%) 5630 cal BC, and occupation at the site may have ended prior to 5710 (68.2%) 5550 cal BC (Fig. 5, Table 2). The three charcoal samples submitted to the Poznan laboratory (Poz26325, Poz-26327, Poz-26328) had first been subjected to anthracological studies. Identifications by Magdalena Moskal-del Hoyo have pointed to woods with small diameter, young shoots, branchwoods indicating the possibility of chosing charcoal samples that date short time intervals with reasonable reliability even in the case of tree species characterized by longevity. Such well-chosen charcoal samples can

This is a modelled date with reduced error margins, falling understandably closer to the rest of the data than the result of individual calibration dating the burial to the 5970 (68.2%) 5770 cal BC interval (Tab. 1).

145

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 4

Analysis of calibrated radiocarbon dates from Maroslele-Pana.

Fig. 5.

Analysis of calibrated radiocarbon dates from Nagykörû-TSz Gyümölcsös.

provide a basis for successfully dating the use life of archaeological features (Moskal-del Hoyo 2010). This theoretical possibility was nicely supported by the results of these measurements. The three charcoal dates in question fit perfectly within the trend outlined by the series of radiocarbon dates obtained from animal bones and cereal grain. The lowermost strata in Feature 2 (St. 10 and 16) at the site of Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös yielded a series of dates unambiguously indicative of early occupation at this site. They show that the first Neolithic communities occurred in the Middle Tisza Region around 6000–5900 cal BC, simultaneously with the earliest settlers in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain. This unusually early date is indicated by radiocarbon measurements carried out in parallel using samples of charcoal, animal bone, cereal grain and mussel shell. Reservoir effect therefore may be excluded with great probability. The site of Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös is located along the line between the towns of Kunhegyes and

Berettyóújfalu previously considered the northern border of the Körös culture distribution area. Although by now we have known sites attributable to this culture even further to the north, those settlements seem to indicate only sporadically occurring, mosaic-like occupation (Domboróczki 2005; Raczky et al. 2010, 159). This observation fully supports the point made by Pál Raczky and his co-authors: in relation to this series of radiocarbon dates they noted that so-called “frontier settlements” may have been established at a very early time even in the north of the known distribution area, more-or-less paralleling the beginnings of better known settlements in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain (Raczky et al. 2010, 159). Two early conventional samples from the site of SzajolFelsõföld show standard deviations exceeding 200 years, therefore their measurements could not be taken into consideration in the analysis of the settlement. Three AMS dates are available from the house and the burial recovered

146

K. Oross & Zs. Siklósi: Relative and absolute chronology ...

Fig. 6.

Analysis of calibrated radiocarbon dates from Szajol-Felsõföldek.

Fig. 7.

Analysis of calibrated radiocarbon dates from Szolnok-Szanda.

inside, therefore they were treated as representing a single phase. Thus the use of the house may be dated to after 5790 (68.2%) 5640 cal BC, while the deceased was interred before 5620 (68.2%) 5470 cal BC, prior to burning the house. The life span of the building may have ranged between 40 (68.2%) 140 years (Fig. 6, Tab. 2) (Raczky 1982–83; in this volume). AMS dates obtained for Szolnok-Szanda form a coherent block, consonant with stratigraphic observations. However, earlier charcoal based radiocarbon measurements contradict both these recent results and their stratigraphic positions. It is possible the difference is due to the use of charcoal in this case. Therefore conventional radiocarbon dates from the settlement of Szolnok-Szanda were not taken into consideration during the Bayesian analysis of dates obtained for this site. The results of AMS measurements and stratigraphic data allow distinction between at least two settlement phases. According to the modelled dates, life at the settlement probably began after 5840 (68.2%) 5710 cal BC. The earlier phase is represented by House 3 (Poz-37861), a building that also yielded white painted ware and Pit 3 (Poz-37860) excavated in Surface II. The span of this phase may be estimated as 0 (68.2%) 70 years. The rest of the

samples collected in Surface I yielded dates indicative of the later phase of occupation (Grave 3: OxA-23754, Pit 5: OxA-23756, Grave 4: OxA-23755, Grave 1: OxA-23752 and Grave 2: OxA-23753), although the radiocarbon date of Grave 3 found underneath the debris of House 2 seems to be a bit older than the other dates in this phase. The length of this phase may be estimated as 60 (68.2%) 170 years, while life at this settlement must have come to an end before 5610 (68.2%) 5490 cal BC (Fig. 7, Tab. 2). In summary, the life of settlements traced in Surfaces I and II partially overlapped in time (Raczky 1982–83; in this volume). When comparing radiocarbon dates from Szajol-Felsõföld and neighbouring Szolnok-Szanda, Early Neolithic occupation at the two settlements seems to have been almost perfectly parallel in time (Figs 6–7, Tab. 2).

DISCUSSION To date, the establishment of a generally valid, comprehensive internal chronology for the Körös culture using ceramic typology has been unsuccessful. Analyses based on the richest set of stylistic features have been published by János Makkay, who has largely relied on the comparative

147

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

analysis of find materials from sites that he had excavated himself. Two fundamental phases may be distinguished within the entire Körös culture. The early phase is characterized by painted ware decorated with white dots, lines or lattice patterns. The early dating of the white painted dot design seems to be particularly convincing on the basis of numerous ceramic assemblages brought to light across the Balkans (Biagi & Spataro 2005, 36; Biagi et al. 2005; Tasiæ 2006; Spataro 2010, Fig. 3). The other phase is characterized by shapes and decorative motifs attributed specifically to the late Körös culture. According to János Makkay this latter time horizon spans several developmental phases within the Körös culture and his opinion is supported by the evidence of absolute chronology. One of the cornerstones in his reasoning is that several late Körös culture stylistic characteristics – labelled Protovinèa in János Makkay’s own terminology – began appearing already during the classical phase of the Körös culture and were in fact generally spread by the second half of that classical phase. This recognition, however, means that a marked typochronological distinction between the classical and late phases of the Körös culture becomes vague. Fine grain relative chronological distinction between the classical and late phases of this culture is possible only in the case of a few types of decoration considered exclusively characteristic of the late phase. However, the precise dating of the occurrence of most shapes and of decorative motifs regarded late is unresolved notwithstanding references made to work published by János Makkay. Quantitative analyses of large ceramic assemblages of representative value tend to be missing. This means that the proportion of diagnostic pottery forms and decorative motifs in the find materials of particular phases are unknown. Possible shifts in the relative frequencies of these putative chronological markers are therefore little understood. The few notable exceptions include find materials from the excavations by Ottó Trogmayer in the Szeged region (Trogmayer 1968a, 9), as well as Tiszajenõ-Szárazérpart (Raczky 1976, 171–173, 185–186, table 1–2) and Ecsegfalva 23 (Oross 2007). The typochronological period between the early phase and the general occurrence of late pottery characteristics (a transitional stylistic inventory we could best call the “early classical” on the basis of existing knowledge) can be defined exclusively on the basis of negative evidence. In other words it includes ceramic assemblages that contain neither painted ware markedly characterisic of the early phase nor typical late stylistic features. Unambiguous typochronological distinctions have been further hindered by the fact that certain types in the ceramic assemblages from sites of outstanding importance (such as Szarvas 23 or Endrõd 119) apparently belong to different phases. Thus, for example, various stylistic phenomena recorded at Szarvas 23 may be found in all six phases of the Körös culture according to the comparative chart compiled by János Makkay (Makkay 2007, 198, Table 14). The risk of both contemporaneous and more recent disturbances can be significant at sites characterized by long occupation and a concomitant high density of settlement features. There are several references to pits whose bottom strata belong to one

phase while the rest of the deposit is dated to another defined on a purely typochronological basis. In the case of proper stratigraphic observation the explanation to this phenomenon may be threefold: 1. it is possible that the feature in question remained in continuous use for a long time, 2. periodical use may have resulted in structured deposition (see the series of radiocarbon dates from Feature 2 at Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös; Fig. 5 and Raczky in this volume). 3. the ceramic based typochronology is insufficient in reflecting physical time. The spread of neolithization in the Great Hungarian Plain: interpreting early dates During the evaluation of radiocarbon dates it is important to decide which results may be considered relevant from the viewpoint of dating the Körös culture. The reliability of materials sampled could be different. The methods of selection based on the typochronological attribution of associated ceramic materials to stratigraphic observations may also be biased. Measurements carried out on three mammalian bone samples (including a human) from the sites of Ecsegfalva 23 (OxA-12857) and Maroslele-Pana (OxA-9403, Deb-2733) pre-date by centuries the earliest Starèevo and Criº data, as well as all known Körös culture radiocarbon measurements. In the case of the cattle bone assayed from Ecsegfalva aquatic reservoir effect may be excluded as a source of bias, regardless of the wild or domestic status of the animal which could not be reliably identified from the small fragment (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175). The two early dates obtained from the samples collected at Maroslele-Pana are even more thought-provoking. The Maroslele-Pana burial has been dated to the Mesolithic by the authors (Whittle et al. 2002). Stable isotope measurements have indicated that the deceased had consumed comparable proportions of terrestrial and aquatic diets. However, the possibility of reservoir effect was excluded (Whittle et al. 2002, 77–79). These early dates were disregarded in the analysis focussing on the beginning of the Neolithic in the area. Several other results that evidently post-dated the Körös culture were likewise excluded from this analysis. Given the quantities of fish remains and mussel shell recovered at numerous Early Neolithic sites one may justifiably suppose that aquatic sources of animal protein had played an important role in the diet. Future research should be aimed at clarifying whether the exploitation of fresh water food resources may have a biasing effect on the results of radiocarbon measurements. Important initial steps in this direction are represented by radiocarbon measurements combined with stable isotope studies on the person recovered from the Maroslele-Pana burial (Whittle et al. 2002, 77– 79), radiocarbon measurements performed on a range of materials (including shell) from the site of Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös (see above, Table 1; Gulyás et al. 2010, 1462; Moskal-del Hoyo 2010; Raczky et al. 2010, 164; in this volume) and stable isotope analyses carried out at the site of Ecsegfalva and other sites (Pearson & Hedges 2007). In general, the detailed analysis of uncalibrated dates between 7100 BP and 6300 BP is justified with regard to the

148

K. Oross & Zs. Siklósi: Relative and absolute chronology ...

Table 3 List of the earliest individual radiocarbon dates of the Starèevo, Criº and Körös cultures from Voivodina, Banat, Transylvania and Hungary BP date

cal BC (68.2%)

calBC (95.4%)

OxA-8693

Laboratory Nr. Topole-Baè

Site

7170±50

6080-5990

6210-5920

Whittle et al. 2002, 108, 114

GrN-15974

Donja Branjevina

7155±50

6070-5990

6210-5910

Biagi & Spataro 2005, 36, Fig. 3

OxA-8605

Perlez-Batka "C"

7145±50

6070-5980

6160-5890

Whittle et al. 2002, 108, 114

GrN-15976

Donja Branjevina

7140±90

6090-5900

6230-5840

Biagi & Spataro 2005, 36, Fig. 3

GrA-24137

Gura Baciului

7140±45

6060-5980

6090-5910

Biagi et al. 2005, 49

OxA-19739

Miercurea Sibiului-Petriº

7131±34

6050-5980

6070-5920

Biagi & Starnini 2010, 121

GrN-28110

Ocna Sibiului

7120±60

6060-5920

6100-5840

Biagi et al. 2005, 49

OxA-10146

Perlez-Batka "C"

7100±50

6030-5910

6070-5880

Whittle et al. 2002, 108, 114

OxA-8557

Donja Branjevina

7080±55

6020-5900

6060-5840

Whittle et al. 2002, 109, 114

OxA-8607

Perlez-Batka "C"

7080±50

6020-5900

6060-5840

Whittle et al. 2002, 108, 114

GrN-28454

Foeni-Sãlaº

7080±50

6020-5900

6060-5840

Biagi et al. 2005, 49

GrN-28114

ªeuºa

7070±60

6010-5890

6070-5810

Biagi et al. 2005, 49

VERA-3476

Nagykörû-TSz Gyümölcsös

7065±35

6000-5910

6020-5880

Raczky et al. 2010, 164, Endnote Nr. 8

OxA-9336

Pitvaros-Víztározó

7060±45

6000-5900

6020-5840

Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

GrN-28520

Miercului Sibiului-Petriº

7050±70

6010-5840

6060-5770

Biagi et al. 2005, 49

Poz-23460

Nagykörû-TSz Gyümölcsös

7040±40

5990-5890

6010-5840

Gulyás et al. 2010, 1462

Poz-24697

Miercului Sibiului-Petriº

7030±50

5990-5870

6020-5790

Luca et al. 2008, 338

OxA-9396

Deszk-Olajkút

7030±50

5990-5870

6020-5790

Whittle et al. 2002, 111, 115

GrN-29954

Miercului Sibiului-Petriº

7010±40

5980-5840

5990-5790

Luca et al. 2008, 338

GrN-28111

Dudeºtii Vechi

6990±50

5980-5810

5990-5750

Biagi et al. 2005, 49

Deb-2730

Röszke-Lúdvár

6972±59

5980-5780

5990-5730

Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 122

Poz-26328

Nagykörû-TSz Gyümölcsös

6970±40

5970-5780

5980-5740

Raczky et al. 2010, 164, Endnote Nr. 8

OxA-9399

Maroslele-Pana

6965±50

5970-5770

5990-5730

Whittle et al. 2002, 111, 115

absolute chronology of the Körös culture. It must be pointed out, however, that in certain cases the great diversity of standard deviations makes the reliability of BP dates unreliable even in cases when mean values look identical. Radiocarbon dates indicative of the 6070 (68.2%) 5840 and 5980 (68.2%) 5730 cal BC time interval equally occur among the results of conventional and AMS measurements. They include samples taken at the sites of Deszk-1. sz. Olajkút (OxA-9396), Endrõd 39 (BM-1868R, BM-1863R, BM1870R), Gyálarét-Szilágyi major (Bln-75), Maroslele-Pana (OxA-9399), Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös (VERA-3476, Poz-23460, Poz-26328), Pitvaros-Víztározó (OxA-9336), Röszke-Lúdvár (Deb-2730), Szajol-Felsõföld (Deb- 473)12, Szakmár-Kisülés (Deb-413), Szarvas 56 (Deb-396) and Szolnok-Szanda (Bln-1946, Bln-1938) (Fig. 8). In the case of conventional dates, the broad ranges of standard deviation (110–230 years) may in part result from the use of charcoal samples biased by the so-called old wood effect which makes the dates questionable or at least uncertain. The earliest Körös culture occupation in the Great Hungarian Plain is usually more precisely indicated by AMS dates. Some conventional measurements, however, such as the assay made on a bone sample from the site of Röszke-Lúdvár (Deb2730) resulted in relatively small standard deviations. Such

12

Reference

dates are comparable with the earliest AMS dates obtained in the broader region (Fig. 9, Tab. 3). Some relevant samples representing the southern sections of the Baèka and Banat regions originate from the sites of Topole-Baè (OxA8693), Perlez-Batka “C” (OxA-8605, OxA-10146, OxA8607) or Donja Branjevina (OxA-8557). Similar comparisons can be made with some sites in Central and Southern Transylvania such as Gura Baciului (GrA-24137) and Miercurea Sibiului-Petriº (OxA-19739, Poz-24697) (Whittle et al. 2002, 114; Biagi et al. 2005, 44, 46–49; Luca et al. 2008, 338; Biagi & Starnini 2010, 121). More recent conventional radiocarbon measurements have yielded likewise reliable early dates (Fig. 9, Tab. 3) from Donja Branjevina (GrN15974, GrN-15976), Dudeºtii Vechi (GrN-28111), FoeniSãlaº (GrN-28454), Miercurea Sibiului-Petriº (GrN-28520, GrN-29954), Ocna Sibiului (GrN-28110) and ªeuºa (GrN28114), dated to the so-called monochrome, Pre-Criº and Criº I-II horizons (Biagi & Spataro 2005, 36, Fig. 3; Biagi et al. 2005, 44, 46–49; Karmanski 2005, 71; Spataro 2006, 65; Luca et al. 2008, 338). This sequence of dates suggests a boundary for the beginning of the Neolithic in Voivodina, Banat and Transylvania after 6040 (68.2%) 5990 cal BC. The analysis of the Earliest Körös dates indicates, that the culture first occurred in the territory of modern-day Hun-

This measurement provides a far older time interval as well that can be explained by the unusually great standard deviation.

149

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

150

Fig. 8.

Multiple plot of the individual radiocarbon dates of the Körös culture.

K. Oross & Zs. Siklósi: Relative and absolute chronology ...

151

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 9.

Sequence of the earliest Starèevo and Criº culture radiocarbon dates from Voivodina, Banat and Transylvania.

gary relatively early, around 6000 (68.2%) 5910 cal BC (Fig 10, Tab. 3). This would indicate that its formative period followed some two-three human generations after the earliest settlements had been established in the northern section of Serbia and Transylvania. Among the sites characterized by relatively early dates confirmed by radiocarbon measurements Szolnok-Szanda and Endrõd 119 yielded sherds of white painted ware. Occupation at Szolnok-Szanda began sometime after 5840 (68.2%) 5710 cal BC and at the site of Endrõd 119 at parallel dates: 5820 (68.2%) 5730 cal BC. These two sites thus represent the later settlements within the cluster of the earlier sites dated using radiocarbon measurement (Tables 1–2, Fig. 3, Fig. 7) (Makkay 1996, pl. 9. 5–7; Raczky in this volume). Although the site of Szarvas 23 has been considered

early on the basis of the typochronological evidence of white painted ware, this early status is yet to be confirmed by the evidence of radiocarbon measurements. Absolute dates available today originate from features different from those that yielded the diagnostic white painted sherds (Bowman et al. 1990, 73; Makkay 1996, 47–48, pl. 9. 1, 3–4, 8–9, 11–12, 15; Whittle et al. 2002, 115). A conventional radiocarbon date (Deb-396) is known from the site of Szarvas 56 that also yielded sherds of white painted ware (Makkay 1996, 47, pl. 9. 2, 10. 19, 21; 2007, 197–198; BognárKutzián & Csongor 1987, 134–135). Although this may be considered one of the earliest dates in the region, its large standard deviation value – 200 years – makes it look unreliable. Early dates obtained by radiocarbon measurements for the sites of Szolnok-Szanda, Szajol-Felsõföld and Nagy-

152

K. Oross & Zs. Siklósi: Relative and absolute chronology ...

körû-Tsz Gyümölcsös indicate that the first wave of neolithization may have been faster than previously thought. Sporadically occurring neolithic settlements in the Middle Tisza region appear to have been established already during this early phase. On the basis of AMS dates published from Serbia and Hungary, Alasdair Whittle and his co-authors drafted a developmental scheme for the Starèevo and Körös cultures. According to this study the earliest dates were measured in the south in Šumadia, indicative of approximately 6200 cal BC. The occurrence of Early Neolithic was dated to around 6000 cal BC in the Banat and Baèka. Further north, however, advancement seems to have been more protracted with beginnings dated to only after 5800 cal BC (Whittle et al. 2002, 93). In light of the excavations by László Domoróczki at Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta (Domboróczki 2004; 2005; 2010a; 2010b) and László Domboróczki and Pál Raczky at Ibrány-Nagyerdõ (Domboróczki & Raczky 2010) the previously unquestionable northern border of the Körös culture could be revisited. This also meant scrutinizing the concept of the Central European-Balkanic Agroecological Barrier (CEB AEB), a term coined by Róbert Kertész and Pál Sümegi (Kertész & Sümegi 1999; 2001) that had represented the ruling environmental interpretation. During their work László Domboróczki and Pál Raczky drafted a new scheme concerning the distribution of the Körös culture (Domboróczki 2010b; Domboróczki & Raczky 2010). According to László Domboróczki, the Starèevo culture may have crossed the lower section of the Middle Danube around 6200 cal BC. He also estimated the first occurrence of the Körös culture in the southernmost section of Hungary i. e. along the Maros River to 6000 cal BC. This estimate was based on certain data from the sites of Deszk-1. sz. Olajkút, Pitvaros, Maroslele-Pana and Gyálarét-Szilágyi major. The Körös culture may have reached the Körös River some 100–150 years later. In the map appended to his study Domboróczki estimates the occurrence of the first neolithic communities in this zone to between 6000–5850 cal BC. Among the sites excavated in this region, data from Endrõd 119, Szarvas 23 and Ecsegfalva 23 supported this theory. During the subsequent period dated to between 5850–5650 cal BC the Körös culture expanded into the Central Tisza Region and began reaching the northeastern borders of modern-day Hungary. During the time interval dated to approximately 5770–5650 cal BC permanent settlemets seem to have been established such as Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta and Méhtelek-Nádas. Finally, between 5630–5470 cal BC the Körös culture reached the Upper Tisza Region as shown by the settlement at Ibrány-Nagyerdõ (Domboróczki 2010b, 156–159, Fig. 11). On the basis of materials recovered at Kõtelek-Huszársarok, Nagykörû–Tsz Gyümölcsös, MéhtelekNádas, Füzesabony-Gubakút and Tiszaszõlõs-Domaházapuszta it seems that change between the Körös and the earliest ALP cultures took place both in ceramic style and general lifeways. This process was estimated to have lasted for 100–150 years in the Upper Tisza Region (Domboróczki 2003, 12–20; 2005, 12; Raczky et al. 2010, 161). With only minor differences, the same model of distribution was outlined in another study by László Dombo-

Fig. 10. Sequence of the earliest Körös culture radiocarbon dates.

róczki and Pál Raczky. Even the sites used as examples are identical. They suggest that the northward expansion of the Körös culture reached the Körös River itself by around 5900/5850 cal BC, some 100–150 years after the first settlements had been established along the Maros River. It seems to have taken another 100–150 years before the distribution area expanded toward the north reaching Tiszaszõlõs and Méhtelek regions, “crossing” the previously hypothesized northernmost border of Körös culture distribution defined by the Kunhegyes–Berettyóújfalu line in the Middle Tisza region. In the same time the Méhtelek type ceramic assemblages began appearing in northeastern Hungary. The authors warn, however, that the series of radiocarbon dates from the site of Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös and the radiocarbon measurement of the earliest sample taken at Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta are indicative of a relatively early northward expansion (Domboróczki & Raczky 2010, 214). Overall, radiocarbon dates ranging between 6000 and 5750 cal BC support hypotheses concerning the gradual northward expansion of the Körös culture. Meanwhile, however, they also illustrate the complexity of neolithization in the region, such as sporadic Körös culture settlement taking place along the northern frontier of the culture already at an early date (Raczky et al. 2010, 159, 163). It is therefore of utmost significance in future research to further study the absolute chronological background of shifts in settlement size and density. The end of the Early Neolithic Late radiocarbon dates from Méhtelek-Nádas and Ibrány-Nagyerdõ seem to indicate that the wave of neolithization that reached the Upper Tisza Region hypothetically from the direction of Transylvania arriving late, around 5780 (68.2%) 5650 cal BC. It is this important time period when sporadic settlements such as Tiszaszõlõs-Domaházapuszta may have formed north of the Kunhegyes–Berettyóújfalu line, previously considered the boundary of the northernmost distribution of the Körös culture. In light of the typochronological analysis of ceramics from Ecsegfalva

153

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

23 radiocarbon dates show that several vessel shapes and decorative motifs considered “late” were already present in artefactual assemblages at the time (Oross 2007). Serial radiocarbon dates offer convincing evidence concerning the emergence of earliest ALP occupation in the Central and Upper Tisza region during the period between 5620–5470 cal BC (Domboróczki & Raczky 2010, 215). On the basis of these dates one may conclude that the life span of the Körös culture expired along its northern distribution area around 5500 cal BC. Information available from the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain indicates that those settlements survived until the first phase of the Early Vinèa culture. Therefore the end of the late phase of the Körös culture at sites along the Maros River may be estimated to around 5400 cal BC. The latest AMS dates include a period between 5640 (68.2%) 5560 cal BC and 5620 (68.2%) 5380 cal BC measured using samples from the sites of Ecsegfalva 23 (OxA10148, OxA-11849, OxA-12855), Endrõd-Varnyai-tanya (OxA-9395), Ibrány-Nagyerdõ (Poz-28216, Poz-28214), Szajol-Felsõföld (VERA-3534), Szolnok-Szanda (OxA23752, OxA-23753) and Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta (OxA-20236) (Fig. 8, Table 1). This period has also been amply represented by conventional radiocarbon dates. These latter, however, include dates from sites in the central and southern sections of the Great Hungarian Plain which date these settlements to between 5490 (68.2%) 5310 cal BC and 5480 (68.2%) 5230 cal BC. These sites include DeszkOlajkút (Bln-583, Bln-582a), Dévaványa-Katalszeg (Bln86), Endrõd 35 (Bln-1960), Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart (Bln-115), Szajol-Felsõföld (Deb-474), Szarvas 23 (BM1865R) and a few sites that yielded even later dates. The overwhelming majority of these measurements were made on charcoal; and their standard deviations tend to be large (equalling or exceeding 100 years). These broad error margins make their interpretation very uncertain. Among the AMS dates, there is a conspicuous absence of data from this period concerning sites with supporting information gleaned from ceramic typologies. Therefore the chronologically important issue of abandonment during the latest phase of the Körös culture should be clarified through the targeted AMS measurement of samples taken at settlements inhabited during this terminal phase. In the case of Phase II at Szolnok-Szanda (Raczky in this volume), Ecsegfalva 23 (Oross 2007) and Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta (Domboróczki 2010) radiocarbon dating seems to confirm typochronological dating to the late phase. The single radiocarbon date from Dévaványa-Réhely ranges between 5630 (68.2%) 5520 cal BC confirming original typochronological estimates by István Ecsedy and János Makkay (Ecsedy 1973; Makkay 1987, 17).

stylistic phase within the Körös culture represented by the human bone. On the other hand, no radiocarbon dates are available concerning assemblages of key typochronological importance such as Pit 1 in Squares I–II at Szarvas 23 excavated in 1974. This feature yielded white painted ware of benchmark significance, referred to several times in this study. The late Körös culture ceramic assemblage of emblematic importance recovered from Pit 3 at the site of Maroslele-Pana has remained similarly undated in absolute chronological terms. The development of typochronologies based on ceramic style has come to a standstill during the last two decades. The chronological framework – probably developed to its maximum by János Makkay during the early 1990s – can no longer be substantially improved. Meanwhile there has been a general shift of scholarly foci in neolithic research that have gradually inspired new approaches to prehistoric archaeology in Hungary. During the two recent decades neolithization has increasingly been viewed as a complex process that needs to be dealt with in a comprehensive manner. Contributions by environmental archaeology and the increasing use of absolute dating are characteristic features of this new trend. Unsurprisingly, due to significant results, progress has been most promising in these two fields. Observations of settlement structure have been supported by both typochronological information and radiocarbon dates covering broad time intervals without superposition. They all suggest that the average Early Neolithic settlement had only a couple of houses functioning at a time. Larger settlemens whose traces can be clearly seen along the banks of water courses were probably also created by continuous but sparse settlement characterized by perpetual moving. Even today, the clarification of chronological issues is unimaginable without simultaneously considering ceramic typochronologies supported by keen stratigraphic observation in combination with increasingly available series of radiocarbon measurements carried out on short lived organic samples from secure, stratigraphically closed units. Studies in relative chronology based on traditional ceramic types may be best continued in targeted, small surface excavations where high resolution stratigraphic observation can also be guaranteed. The detailed and comprehensive typological evaluation of complete find assemblages originating from precisely documented stratigraphic contexts is an indispensable precondition of viable comparative studies in the future. The evaluation of qualitative traits must always be accompanied by quantitative analyses as well. The current state of archaeological knowledge seems to indicate that the ceramic inventory of the Körös culture was rather static and stuck to its stylistic tradition for centuries. It may be said that by concentrating exclusively on the stylistic analysis of ceramic materials it will be impossible to further refine the existing phasing of Early Neolithic sites in the Great Hungarian Plain. The reliability of future chronological syntheses can be improved only by the integrated use of all methods under discussion here. Only the carefully planned and consistent use of these analyses can release the potential inherent to our already existing knowledge of the Early Neolithic.

CONCLUDING REMARKS To date, due to contradictions in ceramic based relative chronology that preclude fine-grain internal phasing within the Körös culture, the reliable all-inclusive combination of relative and absolute chronologies has remained impossible. In the case of radiocarbon dates, such as the majority of samples taken from burials, we have no information on the

154

K. Oross & Zs. Siklósi: Relative and absolute chronology ...

seas? New data for the radiocarbon chronology of the Balkan Peninsula. In Nikolova L., Fritz J. & Higgins J. (eds), Prehistoric Archaeology & Theoretical Anthropology and Education (= Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 6-7). Salt Lake City, 43–51. Biagi P. & Spataro M. 2005. New observations on the radiocarbon chronology of the Starèevo-Criº and Körös cultures. In Nikolova L., Fritz J. & Higgins J. (eds), Prehistoric Archaeology & Theoretical Anthropology and Education (= Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 6-7) Salt Lake City, 35–40. Biagi P. & Starnini E. 2010. The Early Neolithic chipped stone assemblages of the Carpathian Basin: typology and raw material circulation. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 119–136. Bognár-Kutzián I. 1978. Ausgrabung in Szakmár – Kisülés im Jahre 1975. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 7, 13–17. 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. Budapest, 131–140. Boriæ D. 2005. Deconstructing essentialisms: unsettling frontiers of the Mesolithic-Neolithic Balkans. In Bailey D. W., Whittle A. & Cummings V. (eds), (un)settling the Neolithic. Oxford, 16–31. Bowman S. G. E., Ambers J. C. & Leese M. N. 1990. Re-evaluation of British Museum radiocarbon dates issued between 1980 and 1984. Radiocarbon 32/1, 59–79. Bronk Ramsey Ch. 2003. OxCal radiocarbon calibration program. http//www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/O/oxcal.php (12.2004) Bronk Ramsey Ch. 2010. OxCal online radiocarbon calibration program. https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal/OxCal.html (downloaded on 03.12.2010) Bronk Ramsey Ch., Higham T., Whittle A. & Bartosiewicz L. 2007. Radiocarbon chronology. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 173–188. Buck C. E., Kenworthy J. B., Litton C. D. & Smith A. F. M. 1991. Combining archaeological and radiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity 65, 808–821. Burleigh R., Ambers J. & Matthews K. 1983. British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XVI. Radiocarbon 25/1, 39– 58. Dimitrijeviæ S. 1969a. Das Neolithikum in Syrmien, Slawonien und Nordwestkroatien. Einführung in den Stand der Forschung. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 10, 39–76. Dimitrijeviæ S. 1969b. Starèevaèka kultúra u Slavonsko-srijemkom prostoru i problem prijelaza ranog u srednji neolit u srpskom i hrvatskom podunavlju — Die Starèevo-Kultur im slawonisch-syrmischen Raum und das Problem des Übergangs vom älteren zum mittleren Neolithikum im serbischen und kroatischen Donaugebiet. Simpozij neolit i eneolit u Slavoniji. Vukovar, 4-5th lipnja 1966. Beograd. Dimitrijeviæ S. 1974. Das Problem der Gliederung der StarèevoKultur mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den Beitrag der südpannonischen Fundstellen zur Lösung dieses Problems. Materijali 10, 59–121. Domboróczki L. 2001. The Excavation at Füzesabony-Gubakút. Preliminary Report. In Kertész R. & Makkay J. (eds.), From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 22-27, 1996. (= Archaeolingua Main Series 11). Budapest, 193–214. Domboróczki L. 2003. Radiocarbon data from neolithic archaeo-

Acknowledgement Zsuzsanna Siklósi's work is supported by the European Union and co-financed by the European Social Fund (TÁMOP-4.2.1./ B-09/1/KMR-2010-0003).

REFERENCES Ammerman A. J. & Cavalli-Sforza L. L. 1984. The Neolithic transition and the genetics of populations in Europe. Princeton. Arandjeloviæ-Garašanin D. 1954. Starèevaèka kultura. Univerzita Arheološki Seminar. Ljubljana. Banner J. 1929. Adatok a körömmel díszített edények kronológiájához – Beiträge zur Chronologie der Nagelgeritzten Gefässe. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 43, 23–34, 322–323. Banner J. 1931. A neolithikum Szarvason – Das Neolithikum in Szarvas. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 7, 61–73. 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 Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 8, 1–48. Banner J. 1934. Ásatás a hódmezõvásárhelyi Kotacparton – Ausgrabung am Kotacpart bei Hódmezõvásárhely. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 9– 10, 54–84. Banner J. 1935. Ásatás a hódmezõvásárhelyi Kotacparton – Ausgrabungen 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. 1941. A kõkori élet Békés vármegyében. (= Gyulai Dolgozatok 4). Gyula. Banner J. 1943. Az újabbkõkori lakóházkutatás mai állása Magyarországon – L’état actuel de la recherche de l’habitation néolithique en Hongrie. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 4, 1–28. 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: variations of migration and adaptation. In Bailey D. W., Whittle A. & Hofmann D. (eds), Living Well Together? Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and Central Europe. Oxford, 151–163. Bánffy E., Marton T. & Osztás A. 2010. Early Neolithic settlement and burials at Alsónyék-Bátaszék. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 37–51. Bayliss A. 2009. Rolling out revolution: using radiocarbon dating in archaeology. Radiocarbon 51/1, 123–147. Bayliss A. & Bronk Ramsey C. 2004. Pragmatic Bayesians: a decade integrating radiocarbon dates into chronological models. In Buck C. E. & Millard A. R. (eds.), Tools for Constructing Chronologies: Tools for Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries. London, 25–41. Bayliss A., Bronk Ramsey C., van der Plicht J. & Whittle A. 2007. Bradshaw and Bayes: towards a timetable for the Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17 (Supplement S1), 1– 28. Biagi P., Shennan St. & Spataro M. 2005. Rapid rivers and slow

155

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

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 határának problematikája a Tiszaszõlõs–Domaháza-pusztán végzett ásatás eredményeinek fényében – The problem of the Northern 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. 2009. Settlement structures of the Alföld Linear Pottery Culture (ALPC) in Heves county (North-Eastern Hungary): Development models and historical reconstructions on micro, meso and macro levels. In Koz³owski J. K. (ed.), Interactions between different models of Neolithization north of the Central European Agro-Ecological Barrier. Papers presented on the symposium organized by the EU project FEPRE (The Formation of Europe: Prehistoric Population Dynamics and the Roots of Socio-Cultural Diversity) (= Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat Pau Tom V) Kraków, 75–127. Domboróczki L. 2010a. Neolithisation in Northeastern Hungary: Old theories and new perspectives. In Gronenborn D. & Petrasch J. (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. The Spread of the Neoltihic to Central Europe. (= RGZM – Tagungen, Band 4). Mainz, 175–187. Domboróczki L. 2010b. Report on the excavation at Tiszaszõlõs– Domaháza-puszta and a new model for the spread of the Körös culture. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 137–176. Domboróczki L. & Raczky P. 2010. Excavations at Ibrány– Nagyerdõ and the northernmost distribution of the Körös culture in Hungary. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 191-218. Ecsedy I. 1973. Dévaványa, Réhelyi gát (Kom. Békés, Kr. Szeghalom). Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 3, 153–154. 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. Goldman Gy. 1991. A Körös kultúra késõi szakaszának idõrendjérõl Dévaványa-Réhely leletei alapján - Chronology in the Late phase of the Körös culture on the basis of finds from Dévaványa-Réhely). Archaeologiai Értesítõ 118, 33–44. Gronenborn D. 1998. Ältestbandkeramische Kultur, La Hoguette, Limburg, and … What else? – Contemplating the MesolithicNeolithic transition in southern Central Europe. Documenta Praehistorica 25, 189–202. Gronenborn D. 1999. A Variation on a Basic Theme: The Transition to Farming in Southern Central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 13/2, 123–210. Gronenborn D. 2007. Beyond the models: ’Neolithisation’ in Central Europe. In Whittle A. & Cummings V. (eds.), Going over: the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in north-west Europe. Oxford, 73–98. Gulyás S., Sümegi P. & Molnár M. 2010. New radiocarbon dates from the Late Neolithic tell settlement of HódmezõvásárhelyGorzsa SE Hungary. Radiocarbon 52/2-3, 1458–1464. 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 radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 37/2, 239–244. Horváth F. & Hertelendi E. 1994. Contribution to the 14C based

absolute chronology of the Early and Middle Neolithic Tisza region. Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36, 111– 133. Kalicz N. 1957. Tiszazug õskori települései. (= Régészeti Füzetek 8) Budapest. Kalicz N. 1978. Früh- und spätneolithische Funde in der Gemarkung des Ortes Lánycsók (Vorbericht). Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 22, 137–156. Kalicz N. 1980a. Funde der ältesten Phase der Linienbandkeramik in Südtransdanubien. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 8-9, 13– 46. Kalicz N. 1980b. Becsehely I, Bükkaljai dûlõ (Komitat Zala, Kreis Nagykanizsa). Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 8-9, 201–203. Kalicz N. 1990. Frühneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus Südwestungarn. (= Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 4). Budapest. Kalicz N. 1993. The early phases of the Neolithic in Western Hungary (Transdanubia). Poroèilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 21, 85–135. Kalicz N. 1994. A dunántúli (közép-európai) vonaldíszes kerámia legidõsebb leletei és a korai Vinèa kultúra - Die ältesten Funde der transdanubischen (mitteleuropäischen) Linienbandkeramik und die frühe Vinèa-Kultur). In Lõrinczy G. (ed.), „A kõkortól a középkorig”. Tanulmányok Trogmayer Ottó 60. születésnapjára - Von der Steinzeit bis zum Mittelalter. Studien zum 60. Geburtstag von Ottó Trogmayer. Szeged 1994, Szeged, 67–84. Kalicz N. 1995. Die älteste transdanubische (mitteleuropäische) Linienbandkeramik. Aspekte zur Ursprung, Chronologie und Beziehungen. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 47, 23–59. Kalicz N. 2000. Unterscheidungsmerkmale zwischen der Körösund der Starèevo-Kultur in Ungarn. In Hiller S. & Nikolov V. (eds), Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Wien, 295–309. Kalicz N. & Koós J. 1997. Eine Siedlung mit ältestneolithischen Hausresten und Gräbern in Nordostungarn. In Laziæ M. (ed.), Dragoslavo Srejoviæ completis LXV annis ab amicis collegis discipulis oblatum. Beograd, 125–135. Kalicz N. & Koós J. 2000. Település a legkorábbi újkõkori sírokkal Északkelet-Magyarországról – Eine Siedlung mit ältneolithischen Gräbern in Nordostungarn. Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 39, 45–76. Kalicz N. & Koós J. 2002. Eine Siedlung mit ältestneolithischen Gräbern in Nordostungarn. Preistoria Alpina 37, 45–79. Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1972. Südliche Einflüsse im frühen und mittleren Neolithikum Transdanubiens. Alba Regia 12, 93– 105. Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1977. Frühneolithische Siedlung in Méhtelek–Nádas. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 6, 13–24. Karmanski S. 1979. Donja Branjevina. 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. & Sümegi P. 1999. Teóriák, kritika és egy modell: Miért állt meg a Körös-Starèevo-kultúra terjedése a Kárpátmedence 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 R. & Makkay J. (eds), From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 22–27, 1996. (= Archae-

156

K. Oross & Zs. Siklósi: Relative and absolute chronology ...

gicae Hungariae, 15–24. Makkay J. 1990. The Protovinèa problem – as seen from the northernmost frontier. In Srejoviæ D. & Tasiæ N. (eds), Vinèa and its world. International Symposium “The Danubian Region from 6000 to 3000 B. C.”. Beograd, 113–122. Makkay J. 1992. Excavations at the Körös culture settlement of Endrõd-Öregszõlõk 119 in 1986-1989. In Bökönyi S. (ed.), Cultural and landscape changes in south-east Hungary I. Reports on the Gyomaendrõd Project (= Archaeolingua Main Series 1). Budapest, 121–193. 121–193. Makkay J. 1996. Theories about the origin, the distribution and the end of the Körös culture. In Tálas L. (ed.), At the fringes of three worlds: hunter-gatherers and farmers in the middle Tisza valley. Szolnok, 35–53. Makkay J. 2000. Bisher unbeachtete Verzierungen der Feinkeramik der Körös-Kultur. In Hiller S. & Nikolov V. (eds), Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Wien, 311–125. 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 (= Societ´ per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 11) Trieste. Makkay J. & Starnini E. 2008. The excavations of Early Neolithic sites of the Körös culture in the Körös valley, Hungary: The final report. Vol. II: The pottery assemblages. Vol. III: The small finds. Budapest. Makkay J. & Trogmayer O. 1966. Die bemalte Keramik der Körös-Gruppe. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1964-65, 47–58. Maxim Z. 1999. Neo-Eneoliticul din Transilvania. (= Bibliotheca Mvsei Napocensis 19). Cluj-Napoca. 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. Körös-Starèevo-Vinèa. In Behrens G. (ed.), Reinecke-Festschrift, zum 75. Geburtstag von Paul Reinecke. Mainz, 108–118. Milleker B. 1893. Szerb keresztúri õstelep (Torontál m.). Archaeologiai Értesítõ 13, 300–307. Moskal-del Hoyo M. 2010. Wood charcoal remains from an Early Neolithic settlement at Nagykörû (eastern Hungary). In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 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. MRT 10. Jankovich D., Medgyesi P., Nikolin E., Szatmári I. & Torma I. 1998. (eds), Békés megye régészeti topgráfiája. Békés és Békéscsaba környéke IV/3 (= Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája 10) Budapest. Neustupný E. 1968. Absolute chronology of the Neolithic and Aeneolithic periods in Central and South-Eastern Europe. Slovenská archeológia 16/1, 19–60. Neustupný E. 1969. Absolute chronology of the Neolithic and Aeneolithic periods in Central and South-East Europe II. Archeologické rozhledy 21, 783–810. Nica M. 1977. Nouvelles données sur le néolithique ancien d’Olténie. Dacia 21, 13–53.

olingua Main Series 11). Budapest, 193–214. Kisléghi Nagy Gy. 1907. Arankavidéki halmok (Torontál m.). Archaeologiai Értesítõ 27, 266–279. Kisléghi Nagy Gy. 1909. Az óbessenyõi õstelep (Torontál m.). Elsõ közlemény. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 29/2, 146–154. Kisléghi Nagy Gy. 1911. Az óbessenyõi õstelep. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 31/2, 147–161. Kohl G. & Quitta H. 1963. Berlin – Radiokarbondaten archäologischer Proben. I. Ausgrabungen und Funde 8, 281–301. Kohl G. & Quitta H. 1964. Berlin Radiocarbon Measurements I. Radiocarbon 6, 308–317. Kohl G. & Quitta H. 1970. Berlin Radiocarbon Measurements IV. Radiocarbon 12, 400–420. Kotsakis K. 2005. Across the border: unstable dwellings and fluid landscapes in the earliest Neolithic of Greece. In Bailey D. W., Whittle A. & Cummings V. (eds), (un)settling the Neolithic. Oxford, 8–16. Krecsmárik E. 1915. A békésszarvasi õstelepek. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 35, 11–43. Kutzián I. 1944. A Körös-kultúra. The Körös culture (= Dissertationes Pannonicae II. 23). Budapest. Lazarovici Gh. 1969. Cultura Starèevo – Criº în Banat. Acta Musei Napocensis 6, 3–26. Lazarovici Gh. 1979. Neoliticul Banatulu. (= Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis 4). Cluj-Napoca. Lazarovici Gh. 1984. Neoliticul timporiu in România. Acta Musei Porolissensis 8, 49–104. Lazarovici Gh. 1993. Les Carpates Méridionales et la Transylvanie. In Koz³owski J. (ed.), Atlas du Néolithique Européen. L’Europe Orientale 1 (= ERAUL 45). Paris, 243–284. Lazarovici Gh. & Maxim Z. 1995. Gura Baciului. (= Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis 11). Cluj-Napoca. Luca S. A. 1991. Stratigraphie et chronologie. Le plus ancien rapport stratigraphique d’entre les cultures Starèevo-Criº et Vinèa – Correlation d’entre les niveaux V-e et IV-e de LiubcovaOrniþa. Banatica 11, 141–155. Luca S. A., Diaconescu D. & Suciu C. I. 2008. Archaeological research in Miercurea Sibiului – Petriº (Sibiu County, Romania): the Starèevo-Criº level during 1997–2005 (a preliminary report). Documenta Praehistorica 35, 325–343. Lukes A. & Zvelebil M. 2008. Inter-generational transmissions of culture and LBK origins: some indications from eastern Central Europe. In Bailey D. W., Whittle A. & Hofmann D. (eds.), Living Well Together? Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and Central Europe. Oxford, 139–151. Makkay J. 1957. A bihari Berettyóvölgy õskori leletei — Prehistoric finds of the Berettyó valley in Bihar). Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 1948–56, 21–46. Makkay J. 1965. Die wichtigsten Fragen der Körös-StarèevoPeriode. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica 8, 3–18. Makkay J. 1969. Zur Geschichte der Erforschung der KörösStarèevo-Kultur und einiger ihrer wichtigsten Probleme. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 21, 13– 31. Makkay J. 1981. Painted pottery of the Körös-Starèevo culture from Szarvas, site no. 23. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 21, 95–103. Makkay J. 1982. A magyarországi neolitikum kutatásának új eredményei. Az idõrend és a népi azonosítás kérdései. Budapest. Makkay J. 1984. Chronological links between neolithic cultures of Thessaly and the Middle Danube region. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 36, 21–28. Makkay J. 1987. Kontakte zwischen der Körös-Starèevo-Kultur und der Linienbandkeramik. Communicationes Archaeolo-

157

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Reizner J. 1899. A honfoglalás elõtt. In Szeged története I. Szeged, 3–17. Renfrew C. 1975[1973]. Before Civilisation: The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. London. Richards M. 2003. The neolithic transition in Europe: archaeological models and genetic evidence. Documenta Praehistorica 30, 159–167. Robb J. & Miracle P. 2007. Beyond „migration” versus „acculturation”: new models for the spread of agriculture. In Whittle A. & Cummings V. (eds.), Going over: the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in north-west Europe. Oxford, 99–115. Schier W. 1996. The relative and absolute chronology of Vinèa: new evidence from the type site. In Draºovean F. (ed.), The Vinèa culture, its role and cultural connections. Timiºoara 1996, 141–162. Schier W. 1997. “Proto-Vinèa”: Zum Übergang von der Starèevozur Vinèa-Kultur im Südosten des Karpatenbeckens. In Laziæ M. (ed.), ANTIDWPON. Dragoslavo Srejoviæ completis LXV annis ab amicis collegis discipulis oblatum. Belgrade, 155–166. Spataro M. 2006. Pottery typology versus technological choices: an early Neolithic case study from Banat (Romania). Analele Banatului 14/1, 63–77. Spataro M. 2010. The neolithisation of the Central Balkans: leapfrogging diffusion and cultural transmission. In Gronenborn D. & Petrasch J. (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. Internationale Tagung, Mainz 24. bis 26. Juni 2005 – The Spread of the Neolithic in Central Europe. International Symposium, Mainz 24 June – 26 June 2005. (= RGZM Tagungen 4, 12). Mainz, 95–106. Srejoviæ D. 1963. Versuch einer historischen Wertung der Vinèa-Gruppe. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 4, 5–17. Srejoviæ D. 1971. Die Lepenski Vir-Kultur und der Beginn der Jungsteinzeit an der mittleren Donau. In Schwabedissen H. (Hrsg.), Die Anfänge des Neolithikums vom Orient bis Nordeuropa. (= Fundamenta A/3). Köln, 1–19. Stuiver M., Reimer P. J., Bard E., Beck J. W., Burr G. S., Hughen K. A., Kromer B., McCormac G., van der Plicht J. & Spruck M. 1998. INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000-0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40, 1041–1083. Tasiæ N. 2006. Absolute Chronology of the White Painted Decoration on the Starèevo Culture Pottery. In Vorgiæ B. & Bruckner B. (eds), Problemi prelaznog perioda starèevaèke u vinèansku kulturu - Current Problems of the Transition Period from the Starèevo to the Vinèa Culture. Zrenjanin, 31–41. Tompa F. 1937. 25 Jahre Urgeschichtsforschung in Ungarn 1912-1936. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 24/25, 27–127. Trogmayer O. 1964. Megjegyzések a Körös csoport relatív idõrendjéhez. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 91, 67–86. Trogmayer O. 1966. A Körös-csoport lakóházáról. Újkõkori házmodell-töredék Röszkérõl (Über das Wohnhaus der KörösGruppe. 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. Bemerkungen zur Chronologie des Frühneolithikums auf dem Südalföld. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, 35–40. Trogmayer O. 1968c. A Dél-Alföld korai neolitikumának fõbb kérdései I-II. PhD Dissertation. Szeged. Manuscript. Trogmayer O. 1969. Die Bestattungen der Körös-Gruppe. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, 5–15.

Oross K. 2007. The pottery from Ecsegfalva 23. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 491–620. Paluch T. 2004. A Körös-Starèevo kultúra temetkezései — Die Bestattungen der Körös-Starèevo-Kultur. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 46, 23–51. Pulszky F. 1882. Szegedi leletek. Archaeologiai Értesítõ, Uj folyam 1, 1–6. Pearson J. A. & Hedges R. E. M. 2007. Stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis and the evidence for diet at Ecsegfalva and beyond. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 413–419. Quitta H. 1960. Zur Frage der ältesten Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 38, 1–38, 153–188. Quitta H. 1967a. The C14 Chronology of Central and SE European Neolithic. Antiquity 41, 263–270. Quitta H. 1967b. Radiocarbondaten und die Chronologie des mittel- und südosteuropäischen Neolithikums. Ausgrabungen und Funde 12/3, 115–125. Quitta H. & Kohl G. 1969. Neue Radiokarbondaten zum Neolithikum und zur frühen Bronzezeit Südosteuropas und der Sowjetunion. Zeitschift für Archäologie 3, 223–255. Raczky P. 1976. A Körös kultúra leletei Tiszajenõn – Funde der Körös-Kultur in Tiszajenõ. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 103, 171– 189. Raczky P. 1982-83. Origins of the custom of burying the dead inside houses in South-East Europe. – A házba való temetkezés szokásának kezdetei Délkelet-Európában. Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok 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 Neolithic 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 Etnográfia 24). Debrecen, 25–43. Raczky P. 1988. A Tisza-vidék kulturális és kronológiai kapcsolatai a Balkánnal és az Égeikummal a neolitikum, rézkor idõszakában. Szolnok. Raczky P. 2006. House-structures under change on the Great Hungarian Plain in earlier phases of the Neolithic. In Tasiæ N. & Grozdanov C. (eds.), Homage to Milutin Garašanin. Belgrade, 379–398. 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 Gronenborn D. & Petrasch J. (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. The Spread of the Neoltihic to Central Europe. (= RGZM – Tagungen, Band 4, 1). Mainz, 147–173. Reimer P. J., Baillie M. G. L., Bard E., Bayliss A., Beck J. W., Blackwell P. G., Bronk Ramsey C., Buck C. E., Burr G. S., Edwards R. L., Friedrich M., Grootes P. M., Guilderson T. P., Hajdas I., Heaton T. J., Hogg A. G., Hughen K. A., Kaiser K. F., Kromer B., McCormac F. G., Manning S. W., Reimer R. W., Richards D. A., Southon J. R., Talamo S., Turney C. S. M., van der Plicht J. & Weyhenmeyer C. E. 2009. IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0-50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51/4, 1111–1150.

158

K. Oross & Zs. Siklósi: Relative and absolute chronology ...

Trogmayer O. 2003. Régi adósságaim I. Röszke-Lúdvár. Õsrégészeti Levelek 5, 8–20. Trogmayer O. 2004. Régi adósságaim II. Gyálarét-Szilágyi-major. Õsrégészeti Levelek 6, 13–26. van Andel T. H. & Runnels C. N. 1995. The earliest farmers in Europe. Antiquity 69, 481–500. Vlassa N. 1972. Eine frühneolithische Kultur mit bemalter Keramik der vor-Starèevo-Körös-Zeit in Cluj-Gura Baciului, Siebenbürgen. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 47, 174–197. Whittle A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic: the creation of new worlds. Cambridge. Whittle A. 2003. The archaeology of people: dimensions of Neolithic life. London. Whittle A. 2010. The long and winding road: reflections on sixthmillenium process. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 91–102.

Whittle A., Bartosiewicz L., Boriæ D., Pettitt P. & Richards M. 2002. In the beginning: new radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary. Antaeus 25, 63–117. Whittle A., Bartosiewicz L., Boriæ D., Pettitt P. & Richards M. 2005. New radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary: some omissions and corrections. Antaeus 28, 347–355. Zvelebil M. 2001. The agricultural transition and the origins of neolithic society in Europe. Documenta Prahistorica 28, 1–26. Zvelebil M. 2004. The many origins of the LBK. In Lukes A. & Zvelebil M. (eds.), LBK dialogues: studies in the formation of the Linear Pottery Culture (= BAR International Series 1304). Oxford, 183–205. Zvelebil M. & Lillie M. 2000. Transition to agriculture in eastern Europe. In Price T. D. (ed.), Europe’s first farmers. Cambridge, 57–92.

159

161–170.

KÖRÖS LITHICS Ma³gorzata Kaczanowska1 and Janusz K. Koz³owski2 1 2

Archaeological Museum, P-31-002 Kraków, ul. Sanecka 3, Poland; [email protected]. Institute of Archaeology, Jagiellonian University, P-31-007 Kraków, ul. Go³êbia 11, Poland; [email protected] radically autochthonistic views (comp. Starnini 2000; Koz³owski 2005) caused that different models of neolithization in the various parts of the Carpathian Basin began to be considered more seriously (Bánffy 2006). Another major step in the study of lithic production and the procurement of raw materials was the discovery and description of assemblages from the northernmost Körös culture sites in the Upper Tisza Basin (notably: TiszaszõlõsDomaháza-puszta: Domboróczki 2009; in this volume, Ibrány-Nagyerdõ: Kaczanowska & Koz³owski 2010; Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös: Raczky et al. 2010; Raczky in this volume), Various aspects of adaptation were revealed, not only in economy but also in the lithic production at the northern outskirts of the Körös culture. These discoveries showed that the return to foraging was independent of Mesolithic contacts in the northern section of the Carpathian Basin. Further they reinforced the criticism of János Makkay’s hypothesis (Makkay 1982) that claimed that the northern boundary of the Körös culture was not so much an ecological barrier but rather an ethnographic boundary between Neolithic and Late Mesolithic groups. It was only in the 1990’s that polished and ground stone tools of the Körös culture, cursorily mentioned by Ida Kutzián (1944), were described in greater detail during the late 1990’s by Elisabetta Starnini and György Szakmány (1998). Nevertheless, the classification of these artefacts is still inaccurate; the provenances of lithic raw materials have been only generally identified in extensive territories of the Carpathian Basin within the zones characterized by volcanic or sedimentary rocks.

STATE OF INVESTIGATIONS As early as the 1940s in her classical synthesis Ida Kutzián (1944) reported that nearly every site of the Körös Culture yielded chipped stone artefacts, yet this type of finds had not been analysed. The first attempt at the analysis of chipped stone artefacts from Körös culture sites (stored in some provincial museums in the Great Hungarian Plain), can be found in a paper by Ibolya M. Nepper (1970); regretfully, this work does not distinguish between technological-morphological and functional criteria. The first synthesis of the Körös Culture chipped stone industry based on modern methodology was the work by Erzsébet Bácskay and Katalin Simán (1987) presented at the conference in Kraków in 1985. The work analyzed artefacts from 20 sites that yielded a total of only 169 pieces, ranging from 1 to 49 specimens per site. That presentation formulated a general concept of the Körös culture chipped stone industry as a blade industry (including macroblades thus far not registered in the Early Neolithic of Hungary); it is characterized, first of all, by a marginal retouch of blades and few other tool types such as truncations and end-scrapers. Among the raw materials the authors mentioned “flint” (the term was used “broadly”) and obsidian. During the 1990’s more chipped stone assemblages from Körös Culture sites were analyzed in site reports from the region of Szarvas and Endrõd (Starnini & Szakmány 1998) and Méhtelek-Nádas (Starnini 1994; 2000). In 2002 Katalin T. Biró published a work that aspired to describe advances in the investigations into Early Neolithic assemblages of chipped stone artefacts. However, the Körös Culture sites were merely listed in a table (T. Biró 2002, table 2). T. Biró enumerated 26 sites/assemblages ascribed to the Körös Culture, but analysed mainly the Starèevo Culture from Transdanubia and some LBK assemblages. The monograph of the assemblage from Ecsegfalva by Inna Mateiciucova (2007), supplemented by use-wear analysis by Jolanta Ma³ecka-Kukawka (2007), is a vital contribution in the research into the Körös Culture lithic industry. In her work – just like in a number of earlier monographs (e.g. Bánffy 2005) – the stone industry of the Körös culture (and the Starèevo culture in Transdanubia) was an argument in support of the importance of the Mesolithic substratum in the neolithization of the Carpathian Basin. The criticism of

RAW MATERIALS OF CHIPPED STONE INDUSTRY For the manufacture of chipped tools people of the Körös Culture used mainly three types of raw materials: the so-called “Balkan” flint (or “Banat” flint), Carpathian obsidian and limnoquartzites. Other raw materials (e.g. radiolarites) played a minor role. The importance of raw materials changed diachronically and regionally according to – among others – changes in the geographical range of the Körös Culture and in the organization of raw material procurement and lithic production.

161

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

made from “Moesian” flint, often only retouched macroblades (Bácskay & Simán 1987). The maximum number of such artefacts is 34 (Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes, see Kalicz in this volume), mainly retouched and unretouched blades, accompanied, however, by a core fragment and 20 flakes. At Endrõd 39 a “depot” of about 100 waste flakes stored in a Körös Culture vessel points to local episodes of partial reduction of two cores from “Moesian” flint (Kaczanowska, Koz³owski & Makkay 1981). In the middle zone the discard of lithic artefacts is generally bigger: assemblages appear where artefacts are as many as 465 (Ecsegfalva), but the proportion of “Moesian” flint is minimal (2 specimens), while obsidian and limnoquartzites predominate. Thus, in the middle zone not only change in raw material composition can be seen but also a change in the organization of production based on on-site manufacture. Finally, in the northern zone lithic discard was, as a rule, high (up to several hundred specimens) while on-site production used local raw materials (limnoquartzite, obsidian); in this zone there are sites where “Moesian” flint does not occur, although sporadically single artefacts from “Moesian” flint were registered (Tiszaszõlõs-Domaházapuszta, Méhtelek-Nádas).

“Balkan” flint One of the most common raw materials, especially in the early phase of the Körös Culture and in the boundary zones with the Starèevo and Criº cultures, was brown and yellow-brown flint, frequently spotted, whose outcrops occur within the Upper Cretaceous limestones of the Moesian Platform (earlier referred to as the Pre-Balkan Platform). Outcrops of this flint as well as related workshops are located in the lower section of the Osâm river near Nikopol (Nechev 2009; Biagi & Starnini 2010), although Mesozoic flints also occur further to the south in the Stara Planina range, between Montana-Lovech and Shumen-Devnia. This flint, expoited in all the Early Neolithic cultures of the Middle Danube Basin, can therefore be referred to as the “Moesian flint” (Nechev 2009) today. The macroscopic characteristics of Cretaceous flint used in the Körös Culture correspond most closely to those of flints in the Upper Campanian limestones in the region of Nikopol, although the opinions as to the provenance of similar raw materials at the Starèevo Culture sites in the Middle Danube Basin are contradictory. In the 1980’s the source of “Balkan” flint was located, with all certainty, in north Bulgarian deposits (Pre-Balkan Platform: Koz³owski & Koz³owski 1984; Voytek 1985). But there are still views claiming local provenance for this raw material in the entire territory of the north-central Balkans (Šaric 2002) or its various meso- or extralocal sources (Bogosavljeviæ-Petroviæ 2009). Criticism of the origins of “Balkan” flint in the Moesian Platform (Šaric 2002), however, is not based on geological field surveys but on the assumption that the frequency distribution of this raw material at sites in the Danube valley is opposite to its alleged distribution from northern Bulgaria. However, there are only a few cases of such inversion: the frequency of “Balkan” flint at Lepenski Vir is higher than at sites located farther to the east in the Iron Gate namely: Ušèe Kamienickog Potoka and Knjepište. Numerous instances of prehistoric raw materials distribution indicate that their frequency is not a simple function of the distance from deposits but a sum of a number of factors (chronology of sites, social organization and its role in lithic production, symbolic role of some raw materials etc.). When we agree that the source of “Balkan” flint were Cretaceous sediments in the region of the Lower Osâm then the distance to Starèevo Culture sites in the Iron Gate was about 150–200 km, whereas to Körös culture sites on the Lower Tisza about 350 to 400 km, and on the middle Tisza and on the Körös river even up to 500 km. The axes of distribution were the Danube, and later the Tisza valleys. It is also likely that “Balkan” flint could have reached the Upper Tisza basin (e.g. the Méhtelek) through the Criº culture territories, where this flint was also recorded during the Early Phase of the Criº culture (Ocna Sibiului, Seuºa, Miercureã Sibiului etc.: Biagi & Starnini 2010). The “Moesian flint” component at Körös culture sites in Hungary is clearly linked with the southern zone and, most probably, the Early Phase of this culture. Moreover, this flint occurred at sites with off-site production and small discard of lithic artefacts which is the effect of specific organization of production similar to that at Balkan FTN sites. Numerous sites of the southern group yielded single specimens

Obsidian and limnoquartzite (Figs 1, 2) Obsidian deposits exploited by the Körös Culture people are located in the Tokaj–Zemplén plateau. Neuron activation analysis distinguished several types of this raw material, namely: Carpathian 1 whose deposits are found in the south-eastern part of Slovakia near the localities of Vinièki, Bara, Vel’ka Bara and Streda on the Bodrog (WilliamsThorpe, Warren & Nandris 1984; Kaminska 1991) and Carpathian 2 which occurs in the region of Tolcsva (2T), Erdõbénye and Mád (2E). Recently obsidian deposits have been discovered in Transcarpathian Ukraine in the region of Mukaèevo and designated as Carpathian 3. The possibility that obsidian from outcrops may occur in Transcarpathian Ukraine near Chust’-Mukaèevo was already mentioned in the earlier literature (Wiliams-Thorpe & Nandris 1977). The population of the Starèevo- and Körös-Criº Cultures exploited obsidian relatively early, when the territories with obsidian deposits of Carpathian 1, Carpathian 2 and – possibly – Carpathian 3 had not yet been colonized by Neolithic groups (Biagi, Gratuze & Boucetta 2007). Just like other raw materials obsidian spread along rivers, notably the Tisza. It penetrated the southern zone to a distance of 210–250 km (Maroslele-Panahát where the obsidian ratio is 20%) or even beyond 340 km (the eponymic site of Starèevo where obsidian is 8.4%). The flow of obsidian toward the south increased when Neolithic settlement appeared within the territories of obsidian deposits i.e. starting from the early phases of the ALP. It should be added that Körös culture population groups that penetrated territories north of the Central European agro-ecological barrier (CEB AEB) may have obtained obsidian and exported some of it to the territories to the south and east. Due to the lack of systematic procurement the inventories of neighbouring settlements show different obsidian frequencies.

162

M. Kaczanowska & J. K. Koz³owski: Körös lithics

Fig. 1.

Obsidian to other raw materials ratio in selected Körös sites – A: Northern zone; B: middle zone; C:– southern zone.

The Körös Culture population favoured various types of limno- and hydroquartzites that occur in mountain ranges surrounding the Great Hungardian Plain (Alföld) from the Danube Bend Gorge as far as Tokaj (T. Biró 1998). Limnoquartzites also occur in Transylvania and from that region they may have been carried onto sites located in the eastern part of the Great Hungarian Plain. I. Mateiciucova (2007) showed that limnoquartzite deposits in the Tokaj–Zemplén Plateau (i.e. in the vicinity of obsidian outcrops) were often exploited. But the role of limnoquartzites was much smaller than that of obsidian. Limnoquartzites were more common at sites located at a distance of less than 100–120 km from deposits (Ecsegfalva: 59.8%, including limnoquartzite from Tokaj: 23,6%; Méhtelek-Nádas: about 33%). In the case of limnoquartzites the route of distribution along the Tisza was not as important as in the case of obsidian. Analysis of the lithic inventory from Méhtelek shows that limnoquartzites were brought to the site as unworked concretions which were, then, worked on-site. Blades from limnoquartzite are as a rule slightly longer and broader than obsidian specimens. For the production of retouched tools obsidian was used more often.

Fig. 2. Obsidian ratio in relation to the distances from Carpathian sources (only two sites in southern group contain obsidian ratio not proportional to the distance: Endrõd 39 with extremely low obsidian ratio and Szarvas 8/23 – with nearly 100% of obsidian).

Chipped stone industry in the southern zone of the Körös Culture is characterized by the dominance of flint (mainly “Moesian” flint) over obsidian. Flint blades of considerable sizes (up to 14 cm long), with parallel edges and interscar ridges, were supplied to settlements (Fig. 3. 3–4). These blades had been made using the “punch technique”, mostly in specialized workshops in the vicinity of deposits. Cores made from “Moesian” flint are rare at sites in the southern zone; they were reduced in a number of successive episodes; waste material was not discarded but carefully collected which is evidenced by the depot from Endrõd 39. Unlike “Moesian” flint, obsidian was brought to sites in the southern zone in the form of concretions or initial cores which were worked on-site (Fig. 3. 1). Limnoquartzites, too, were reduced on-site (e.g. Endrõd 119: Starnini &

LITHIC TECHNOLOGY AND TOOL MORPHOLOGY The southern zone The southern zone of the Körös Culture embraces territories at a large distance from deposits of lithic raw materials. Sites in the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain yielded small series of chipped stone artefacts. Their occurrence is the effect of long-distance exchange with northern territories bartering obsidian and limnoquartzites, and with south-eastern territories bartering blanks from “Moesian” flint. Contacts with the south-western territories were weaker and brought only single specimens made from Mecsek radiolarite; artefacts from siliceous rocks from the central Banat in the east are even less frequent.

163

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Szakmány 1998) but on a smaller scale than in the case of obsidian (Fig. 3. 2). A few of the long blades from obsidian, detached by means of punch technique, could have been made away from a settlement by specialists — knappers. Inventories from the majority of sites in the southern zone are dominated by blades made using lateral retouch (Fig. 3. 3–4). End-scrapers (Fig. 3. 5), retouched flakes (Fig. 3. 6), perforators (Fig. 3. 7) and truncations are less frequent. Blades or their fragments made from “Moesian” flint were sometimes used as sickle inserts as they show strong sickle gloss. The presence of macroblades produced off-site, the small discard of lithic artefacts at sites, and a high proportion of retouched tools in assemblages, as well as a greater number of blades with lateral retouch than of other tool types all resemble assemblages of the Starèevo culture in northern Serbia (e.g. Golokut). Assemblages from Szarvas 8/23 and 4/2 (Kaczanowska & Koz³owski 2007) are altogether different. They were made almost entirely from obsidian, supplied as concretions and worked at a settlement (or its special zone). The inventory from pit 4/2 documents a full cycle of core reduction namely: residual cores and the dominance of flakes over blades (Fig. 3. 8). Core preparation was mainly restricted to the platform. Blades were fairly regular, detached with a punch, occasionally using the pressure technique. The assemblage from pit 3/3 is different, dominated by tools. In both assemblages blades with lateral retouch play a minor role, while end-scrapers (Fig. 3. 9–10), more numerous than truncations (Fig. 3. 11) or trapezes (Fig. 3. 12), predominate. The characteristic features of assemblages from Szarvas 8/23 such as a greater role of on-site production, and the dominance of end-scrapers among tools express their younger typochronological position, and correspond to the end of the Körös culture. Characteristic features such as this are registered in the early phase of the Vinèa culture, notably in its eastern group where the proportion of obsidian increased (Vinèa, level 9–7 m, Podporanj). It should be stressed that at Szarvas 8/23 ceramic imports of the Early Phase of the Eastern Linear Pottery Culture were discovered; János Makkay intends to group such assemblages as the Proto-Vinèa Phase (Makkay 2007). The process of “Vinèanization” of the southern group of the Körös Culture consists of a greater role of on-site reduction, smaller blade dimensions and higher frequency of end-scrapers that intensified in time. Simultaneously, contacts along the north-south axis grew more intensive. Macroblade elements or specimens with lateral retouch are absent from the inventory of Maroslele-Panahát, dated to 5300–5200 cal BC. Blade blanks are small, rarely medium-size (Kaczanowska, Koz³owski & Wasilewski 2010). Among the tools small, often even microlithic end-scrapers predominate (nearly 70%) which may be related to highly advanced core reduction and/or tool rejuvenation (Fig. 3. 13–15). Sites in the southern zone, especially on the left side of the middle Maros region (Szarvas 8, Endrõd 119, Endrõd 39) provided numerous ground and polished stone artefacts. As raw materials rocks were used originating, first of all,

from the Apuºeni Mountains about 160 km to the east, imported along the Körös and Maros rivers (amphibole, peridotite, dolerite, diorite, porphyry, propylitized gabbro, altered quartzdiorite, hornfels). Andesite originating from the Neogenic volcanic areas of the eastern Alps from a distance of about 350 km, also occur. The presence of these raw materials indicates that in addition to lively contacts with territories north of the Tisza river, communication along a east-west axis also flourished. When polished and ground stone tools, sometimes of considerable sizes (up to 17 cm), had been damaged (or intentionally broken) they were often reworked into smaller specimens. These are asymmetric, flat-convex or rectangular adzes (Fig. 4. 1), slightly asymmetric triangular axes, sometimes reworked from larger specimens, narrow chisels and fragments of perforated adzes with an asymmetrically located perforation (Fig. 4. 2). Such a large and rich set of tools, possibly used in wood working means that among the activities of the inhabitants of the region processing timber must have been important. The presence of a marble baton — an object endowed with symbolic significance — is also of interest. Some researchers believe that the appearance of such objects at sites in Moldavia shows the influence of the Vinèa Culture (Ursulescu & Dergachev 1991). Some assemblages in the southern zone provided fragments of well-worn lower grinding stones, basin millers, also grinders and hammerstones, mainly reworked from destroyed or damaged polished stone implements. The middle zone In terms of raw materials assemblages in the middle zone of the Körös Culture can be divided into two types: a) in assemblages dominated by local raw materials e.g. Szolnok-Szanda (Kalicz & Raczky 1982; Raczky in this volume) the discard of lithic artefacts is mostly limited to macroblades from large cores with careful lateral preparation produced off-site; a small number of flakes suggests only minor core rejuvenation conducted on-site. Retouched tools are represented by blades with lateral retouch (also inverse: Bácskay & Simán 1987, PL. IV 7,8). b) in assemblages where limnoquartzites and obsidian dominated (e.g. Ecsegfalva 23: Mateiciucova 2007) raw materials were worked on-site and the discard of artefacts was larger (463 artefacts). Discard included: cores (14: Fig. 4. 3–4), numerous flakes (156) and chips (72) which are only slightly more numerous than blades (152 – Fig. 4. 5–6) and bladelets (39: Fig. 4. 7). Tools account for 9.1% of all artefacts larger than 1.3 cm (32). These are: retouched truncations (9. Fig. 4. 8–9) and microliths-trapezes (7: Fig. 4. 10–13). Other types (including laterally retouched blades, end-scrapers, perforators/becs, burins: Fig. 4. 14) are represented by two specimens in each group. In the first model – just as in the southern zone of the Körös culture – the procurement of extralocal flint is continued, only a small component of obsidian is present. On-site working of raw materials is of minor significance indicating that – just like in the Balkans, specialist-flint knappers produced blanks and tools for a number of local groups. The assemblage from Ecsegfalva documents the incipient process of re-organization of production in the Körös

164

M. Kaczanowska & J. K. Koz³owski: Körös lithics

Fig. 3. Southern zone – 1: Szarvas 8 – core; 2–7: Endrõd 119 (2: core; 3–4: retouched blades, 5: end-scraper; 6: retouched flake; 7: perforator); 8–12: Szarvas 8/23 (8: core; 9–10: end-scrapers; 11: retouched truncation; 12: trapeze); 13–15: Maroslele-Panahát (13–15: end-scrapers) (According to Starnini & Szakmány 1998).

165

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 4. Southern zone – 1–2: Endrõd 119 (1: polished adze; 2: perforated adze). Middle zone – 3–18: Ecsegfalva 23 (3–4: cores; 5–7: blades and bladelets; 8–9: retouched truncations; 10–13: trapezes; 14: burin; 15–17: polished axes/adzes; 18: passive ground stone (according to Mateiciucova 2007; Starnini 1994 and Whittle 2007).

166

M. Kaczanowska & J. K. Koz³owski: Körös lithics

Culture namely: on-site reduction of local/nesolocal raw materials (obsidian, limnoquartzite), shift to production on a household cluster level, gradual vanishing of the macroblade technique, replacement of tools with lateral retouch by truncations and microliths. The latter tendency manifests changes in the subsistence economy mainly the increasing role of foraging. It is likely that the differences between the two models of lithic assemblages in the middle zone result from chronological differences. Regretfully, absolute dates are available only from Ecsegfalva: they span the interval between 5.9– 5.5 Kyr cal. BC (Whittle et al. 2002). In comparison with chipped tools, the number of polished and ground stone tools is small. For example at Ecsegfalva only 11 polished stone axes (Fig. 4. 15–17) and only two fragments of ground stones were discovered (the latter were flat lower grinding stones, probably subrectangular: Fig. 4. 18). Polished axes/adzes were small, trapezoidal in shape, they were all broken (intentionally?) and could have been used as grinders (Whittle et al. 2007). It is also suggested that metamorphic raw materials used in the polished/ ground stone industry may originate from northern Serbia; however, their derivation from the Carpathian Basin cannot be ruled out. In the middle zone single examples of perforated adzes were also recorded (compare Szajol-Felsõföld: Kutzián 1944).

ceous flint, although the possibility cannot be excluded that artefacts made from these rocks might be later intrusions), b) obsidian (Fig. 5. 8–9) and limnoquartzite were worked on-site, starting from initial cores until residual stage, c) punch technique was the standard technique for blade production, although sometimes direct percussion was also used, d) blade blanks were mostly “mediolithic” or microlithic; only a small number of macroblades occur. Consequently, at some sites we find three metric standards of blades; at some other sites blade length curves show an unimodal distribution due to the presence of predominantly mediolithic blanks. The differences in the northern zone are: a) the quantity of debitage products and tools is relatively small which – we assume – was caused by a brief occupation (indirect evidence at these sites is offered by the occurrence of only single houses), b) a specific tool kit with fairly few tools showing lateral retouch (most numerous at Méhtelek-Nádas: Fig. 5. 10–12), and the predominance of truncations (Fig. 5. 3–4) and microliths, c) tools such as end-scrapers, side-scrapers and perforators are very rare. However, the presence of individual arched backed blades is noteworthy (Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta, Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös – in the latter case this form is the result of tool rejuvenation), d) among microliths the majority are trapezes and rhombs, all retouched on simple breaks. Use-wear analyses show that these microliths had various functions (e.g. at Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta – inserts for cutting tools, at Méhtelek-Nádas and Ibrány-Nagyerdõ – inserts for projectile weapons: Fig. 5. 5–7). We can, thus, say that assemblages in the northern zone show continuity in relation to the middle zone. At the same time, it is possible that in the Upper Tisza Region some specific features appear which may have been the effect of contacts with north-eastern Rumania. This question requires further study and the analysis of lithic assemblages from north-east Rumania and Transcarpathian Ukraine. At sites of the northern group the proportion of polished and ground stone tools is relatively small in comparison with some sites of the southern zone. The largest series of artefacts comes from Méhtelek-Nádas (Starnini 1994); but it contains mainly fragments suggestive of the intentional breaking of axes as well as of grinding stones. These axes are primarily trapezoidal in shape (Fig. 5. 13), rectangular specimens are less numerous (Fig. 5. 14). No specimens with a flat-convex cross-section occur. A unique find in the Early Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin is an unpolished axe, bifacially worked made from silicified black sandstone (Fig. 5. 12). Flat lower grinding stones have been preserved as fragments: frequently both surfaces are concave, polished, and the central part is paper-thin. The grinders and hammerstone-grinders are intact. Limestone and claystone from the Carpathian Basin were used as raw materials for these types.

The northern zone The northern boundary of the Körös Culture has been identified with the so-called agro-ecological barrier (Kertész & Sümegi 2001). However, there are a number of sites that encroach fairly far north into the Tisza valley towards Tokaj (e.g. Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta: Domboróczki, Kaczanowska & Koz³owski 2010; Kõtelek-Huszarsárok: Raczky 1983; Tiszagyenda-Garahalom; Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös: Raczky et al. 2010; Raczky in this volume). On the other hand, there are sites in the Upper Tisza Basin (Méhtelek-Nádas: Kalicz & Makkay 1977; Starnini 1993; Kalicz in this volume, Ibrány-Nagyerdõ: Domboróczki & Raczky 2010; Kaczanowska & Koz³owski 2010, Tiszabezdéd-Servápa) that show links with sites in north-western Rumania and Transcarpathian Ukraine (Koz³owski & Nowak 2007). Sites in the northern zone have been dated to the period between 5990–5620 cal BC (Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös), 5710–5660 cal BC (phase B Tiszaszõlõs-Domaházapuszta), 5600–5500 cal BC (phase C Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta), and possibly 5730–5480 cal years BC (Méhtelek-Nádas). Chipped stone industries in the northern zone of the Körös Culture partially resemble the variant from the middle zone, but — at the same time — show major differences especially when compared with the southern zone. Similarities with the middle zone are as follows: a) the dominance of two main raw materials namely: obsidian and limnoquartzite. At sites such as TiszaszõlõsDomaháza-puszta and Méhtelek-Nádas obsidian, both Carpathian 1 and Carpathian 2, is the most important raw material. Only a few specimens (1–7) were made from “Moesian” flint (Fig. 5. 11) and other extralocal raw materials (e.g. from Transdanubian radiolarite and Dnester Creta-

167

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 5. Northern zone – 1–14: Méhtelek-Nádas (1–2, 10: retouched blades; 3–4: retouched truncations; 5–7: trapezes; 8–9: cores; 11: macroblade with sickle gloss; 12: chipped axe; 13–14: polished axes/adzes (according to Starnini 1994).

168

M. Kaczanowska & J. K. Koz³owski: Körös lithics

Societ´ per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione FriuliVenezia Giulia (2008–2009) 17, 101–155. Domboróczki L. & Raczky P. 2010. Excavations at Ibrány– Nagyerdõ and the northernmost distribution of the Körös culture in Hungary. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 191–218. Kaczanowska M. & Koz³owski J. K. 2007. The lithic assamblages of Szarvas 8/23, pits 3/3 1988 and 4/2 1988. In Makkay J.: 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 (= Societ´ per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 11) Trieste, 237–246. Kaczanowska M. & Koz³owski J. K. 2010. Chipped stone industry from Ibrány. Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 254–265 Kaczanowska M., Koz³owski J. K. & Makkay J. 1981. Flint hoard from Endrõd 39, Hungary. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 21, 105–117. Kaczanowska M., Koz³owski J. K. & Wasilewski M. 2010. Lithic implements from Maroslele-Panahát. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 305–324. Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1977. Frühneolithische Siedlung in Méhtelek–Nádas. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 6, 13–24. 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. Kaminska L. 1991. Význam surovinovej základne pre mladopaleolitickú spoloènos• vo východokarpatskej oblasti – L’importane de la matiÀre premiÀre pour les communautés de Paléolithique supérieur dans l’espace des Carpathes orientales. Slovenská archeológia 39, 7–58. 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 R. & Makkay J. (eds), From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 22–27, 1996. (= Archaeolingua Main Series 11). Budapest, 193–214. 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. & Koz³owski S. K. 1984. Chipped stone industries from Lepenski Vir, Yugoslavia. Preistoria Alpina 19, 259–287. Koz³owski J. K. & Nowak M. 2007. Neolithization of the Upper Tisza Basin. In Koz³owski, J. K. & Nowak M. (eds), Mesolithic/Neolithic Interactions in the Balcans and in the Middle Danube Basin. (= British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1726). Oxford, 77–102. Kutzián I. 1944, 1947. A Körös-kultúra — The Körös culture. (= Dissertationes Pannonicae II. 23). Budapest. Makkay J. 1982. A magyarországi neolitikum kutatásának új eredményei. Az idõrend és a népi azonosítás kérdései. 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 (= Societ´ per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 11). Trieste.

CONCLUSIONS The present outline of lithic production in the Körös Culture points to a common techno-morphological tradition with simultaneous regional and diachronic differentiation. The southern zone, overlaping with the range of more intensive contacts with the Moesian Platform, displays similarities with the northern Balkan FTN macroblade industries, where the organization of production was based on workshops and the activity of specialized knappers. One of the main causes of the spread of the Körös culture in the direction of the Upper Tisza Basin was the quest for new lithic raw materials, such as obsidian. Together with the use of obsidian and limnoquartzite, lithic production shifted to the on-site level. The adaptation of subsistence economy to local ecological conditions in the middle and the northern zones influenced the change of the tool kit structure (predominance of truncations and microliths). Generally speaking, the evolution of lithic industries was a harbinger of numerous innovations and changes in the organization of production that were later to characterize the Eastern Linear Pottery Complex. In the southern zone the direction of the evolution of lithic industry is different: the traditions of the Balkan FTN became replaced by the process of “Vinèanization”. Contacts with the northern zone (the flow of obsidian to e.g. Szarvas 8/23) gave way to trade with Voivodina and Serbia (the flow of radiolarites to MaroslelePanahát).

REFERENCES Bácskay E. & Simán K. 1987. Some remarks on chipped stone industries of the earliest Neolithic populations in present Hungary. In Koz³owski J. K. & Koz³owski St. K. (eds.), Chipped Stone Industries of the early Farming Cultures in Europe. Archaeologia Interregionalis, Kraków, 107–130. Bánffy E. 2005. Mesolithic-Neolithic contacts, as reflected in ritual finds. Documenta Prehistorica 32, 77–86. Bánffy E. 2006. Eastern, Central and Western Hungary – variations of Neolithization models. Documenta Prehistorica 33, 125–142. Biagi P., Gratuze B. & Boucetta S. 2007. New data on the archaeological obsidian from the Banat and Transilvania (Romania) In Spataro M. & Biagi P. (eds), A short walk through Balkans: first farmers of the Carpathian Basin and adjacent regions. (= Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione FriuliVenezia Giulia, Quaderno 12). Trieste, 129–148. Biagi P. & Starnini E. 2010. The Early Neolithic chipped stone assemblages of the Carpathian Basin. Typology and raw material circulation. In Koz³owski, J. K. & Raczky P. 2010. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 119–136. T. Biró K. 1998. Lithic implements and the circulation of raw materials in the Great Hungarian Plain during the Late Neolithic Period. Budapest. T. Biró K. 2002. Advances in the study on Early Neolithic lithic materials in Hungary. Antaeus 25, 119–168. Bogosavljeviæ-Petroviæ V. 2009. Razvoj technokompleksa okresanog kamena u rannom neolitu Srbie. Sbornik Narodnog Muzeja 19, 37–51. 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

169

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Ma³ecka-Kukawka. J. 2007. Use wear anlaysis. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 721–726. Mateiciucová I. 2007. Worked stone: obsidian and flint. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 677–726. Nechev C. 2009. Osnovnite tipove flint v Balgaria kato surovini za naprava na artefakti. Interdisciplinarni Izledvania 20–21, 7– 21. M. Nepper I. 1970. Megjegyzések a Körös-csoport eszközkészletének vizsgálatához – Some remarks concerning the use of tools in the Körös-Group culture. Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 1968, 79–109. 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 Neolithic in the Middle and Upper Tisza region). Archaeologiai Értesítõ 110, 161–194. 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 Gronenborn D. & Petrasch J. (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. The Spread of the Neoltihic to Central Europe. (= RGZM – Tagungen, Band 4, 1). Mainz, 147–173. Šariæ J. 2002. Stone material for production of chipped artefacts in Early and Middle Neolithic of Serbia. Starinar 52, 11–23. Starnini E. 1994. Typological and technological analyses of the

Körös culture chipped, polished and ground stone assemblages from Méhtelek-Nádas (North-Eastern Hungary. Societá per la Preistoria e Protostoria della regine Friuli-Venezia Giulia Atti 9 (1993–1994), 29–96. Starnini E. 2000. Stone industries of the early Neolithic cultures in Hungary and their relationships with the Mesolithic background. Societ´ per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia Quaderno 8, 207–219. Starnini E. & Szakmany Gy. 1998. The lithic industry of the Neolithic sites of Szarvas and Endrõd (south-eastern Hungary): techno-typological and archaeometrial aspects. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 50, 279–342. Ursulescu N. & Dergaèev V. 1991. Influences de type Vinèa dans le Néolithique Ancien de Moldavie. Banatica 11, 157–172. Voytek B. 1985. The Exploitation of lithic resources in Neolithic Southeast Europe. Berkeley. Whittle A., Bartosiewicz L., Boriæ D., Pettitt P. & Richards M. 2002. In the beginning: new radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary. Antaeus 25, 63–117. Whittle A. 2007. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest. Williams Thorpe O. & Nandris J. 1977. The Hungarian and Slovak sources of archaeological obsidian: an interim report on further fieldwork, with a note on Tektites. Journal of Archaeological Science 4, 207–219. Williams Thorpe O., Warren S. E. & Nandris J. G. 1984. The distribution and provenance of archaeological obsidian in central and eastern Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 11, 183–211.

170

171–178.

BONE, ANTLER, AND TUSK TOOLS OF THE EARLY NEOLITHIC KÖRÖS CULTURE Zsuzsanna Tóth Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, H-1088 Budapest, Múzeum körút 4/b, Hungary; [email protected] tusk piece and a rib burnisher from Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom (Oravecz 1997, 9. kép 28, 10. kép 11), the awls and rib burnishers from Tiszajenõ (Raczky 1976, 3. kép 1–4), an awl from Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta (Domboróczki 2005, 4. ábra), some more numerous bone and antler-tools from Szolnok-Szanda (Kalicz & Raczky 1982, Taf. 10), a spoon from Méhtelek-Nádas (Kalicz & Makkay 1977, Taf. 6, 1) and the tusk piece (either a fragmented ornament or a tool) from Kõtelek-Huszársarok (Raczky 1983, 17. kép 1) and the ornamented points from Endrõd (Makkay & Starnini 2008, Fig. 51).

INTRODUCTION Studies concerning the hard animal industry of the Körös culture are unfortunately not very numerous. Researchers paid scant attention to this topic, but reflected more on other find categories such as pottery. Old excavations yielded bone, antler, and tusk tools in great numbers, but no thematic study was carried out for a long time. Ida Kutzián (1944, 86–88) collected the known pieces from old excavations and published most of them with pictures in her monograph about the Körös culture. She attempted to shed light on the manufacture process and use of these tools as well. Her work was pioneering in her time, but unfortunately remained without a follow-up for decades, although some researchers, like Ibolya M. Nepper (1968) wrote about the toolkit, traversing and analyzing the stone and bonetools and some of the special clay finds from different museum collections, trying to shed light on the lifestyle of the Körös people. The next larger work was the study of János Makkay (1990). Though his work focused mainly on the bone spoons, so typical of Körös assemblages, he also dealt with the altogether 631 pieces from six sites of the culture. He lay down the basics of typological grouping among the tools. He reconstructed the manufacture process and lifespan for the spoons in particular. His greatest achievement, even today, is that he published the most numerous assemblage of osseous objects from the Körös culture so far, and produced a basic typological grouping. The excavation, study and publishing of the Ecsegfalva 23 site marks a very important chapter in the history of bone tool-study for this period. The tool assemblage (98 pieces) was studied in detail by Alice M. Choyke (2007). She focuses not only on form, but the whole life process, beginning with the raw material selection, through the manufacture, use, curation and reuse, ending with the discarding of the tools and it’s culturally determined aspects. A smaller number of tools were published from several sites scattered in the literature together with other find categories, such as the spoons from Maroslele-Pana (Trogmayer 1964, 5. kép; Paluch 2010, Fig. 6), the awls from Dévaványa-Atyaszeg (Oravecz 1995, Abb. 3, 4–5), a scraped

RAW MATERIAL CHOICE The worked osseous assemblage of the Körös culture is characterised by the dominance of bones as raw material coming from small and large ruminants. This may be caused by the fact that the culture itself is situated on the Great Hungarian Plain along the Körös rivers. In Early Neolithic time, the territory of the culture was dominated by swampy marshlands and alluvial forest steppe with low hills. This was not and is not today the most ideal habitation area for either red or roe deer. Thus, it is understandable, that antler was not found too often though it can appear, as the raw material of tools at that time. It is similar on the contemporaneous Starèevo sites except for the Iron Gates (S. Vitezoviæ pers. comm.). The third group of materials used to make tools was tusk and teeth, especially the tusk of wild boar. This skeletal element was widely used in Neolithic and Bronze Age times, mostly for knives, scrapers or fish hooks but occasionally as personal ornaments as well. This question leads us already to other osteological aspects of the Early Neolithic, the ratio of wild versus domesticated animals in the worked osseous assemblage. As seen from the study of László Bartosiewicz (see in this volume), domesticated animals greatly outnumber wild species in the faunal remains. Bones of domesticated animals, especially those of small ruminants (sheep/goat) are the most numerous, followed by cattle in the worked osseous assemblage. Wild species are less frequently worked. Where wild animal bone was used, roe deer is the most numerous, followed by red

171

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

deer, aurochs and wild swine (Bartosiewicz in this volume, Table 3). Regarding skeletal elements employed to make bone tools the most common are metapodials (metacarpus, metatarsus III+IV) followed by ribs. These two skeletal elements are the ones most often used in tool production (Choyke 2007, 662, Fig. 29.29).

ing was probably used in the manufacture process although most likely bone tool makers used lucky breaks in refuse bone instead of direct, purposeful fracturing of animal bones. In the process of further shaping the support is slowly transformed into a finished object. Finishing was carried out using various techniques. On the Great Hungarian Plain, the absence of grinding stone sources meant that scraping tended to be used rather than abrasion. This does not mean that there was a complete absence of abrasion as a shaping technique only that it occurs much less frequently than in territories where grinding stones were easily available. When a tool was broken during use, however, the tip or bevelled end was in some cases renewed using abrasion, although scraping was used more frequently (Choyke 2007, 645). Sometimes holes were drilled to obtain holes for handling or suspension although this technique was not practised too frequently.

MANUFACTURING CONTINUUM The manufacturing continuum (Choyke 1997, 66–67; 2007, 643–645) can be divided into two major classes and a transitional type. One end of the continuum is represented by carefully planned, elaborate, well made tools, manufactured in several steps. In most cases the raw material is carefully selected and the tool type strongly associated with certain skeletal parts. Such objects are often curated, suggesting they were used for longer period of time. These are the Class I tools. These tools, in many cases, characterize the time period and the site. The other end is represented by Class II tools, which are rather ad hoc, not as planned in terms of their form and skeletal element. Often a simple fortunate break was taken advantage of, with little or no surface modification. Manufacture is poorly expressed, the form serving only the function. Raw material choice is incidental as well. Often such tools are not curated, but discarded shortly after they filled their purpose. Finally, there are the Class I–II tools that lie between the two above-mentioned categories. These objects are somewhat transitional in nature. They are usually less carefully planned and not so complex in their manufacture, but the raw material choice is cardinal. The Körös culture is clearly dominated by Class I tools such as spoons, small ruminant metapodial perforators (Schibler type 1/1, 1/2), massive “hooks” and rings similarly to other neolithic cultures. The majority of the worked osseous industry reflects clear preferences in raw material and skeletal element, are well planned, multi-stage manufactured, often curated, they dominate the assemblages.

TYPOLOGY The most numerous group comprises different kinds of pointed tools. These objects were produced on a variety of skeletal elements, using a variety of manufacture techniques. During the Early Neolithic, the points represent a very distinct, well planned and prepared tool type, clearly assignable to Class I tools. The raw material used was in most cases the metapodials of small (caprines/roe deer) or large ruminants (cattle/auroch). The choice is understandable since the IIIrd and IVth metapodial bones are fused together producing a natural fracture line. Some species, for example the cervidae, have a deep, clear sulcus along the fusion line making it relatively easy to separate them and obtain two equal halves as preforms which can then be transformed into, awls, projectile points, perforators or chisels (Schibler 2007, 51). The group of the small ruminant metapodium awls with the proximal (Schibler type 1/2; Fig. 1d) or distal (Schibler 1/1; Fig. 1a–b) epiphyseal end retained is the most numerous among the pointed tools. It is a classical bone tool type, present on most prehistoric sites in Europe and in all periods to greater or lesser degrees. These tools could be used in several activities suggesting that they were multi-purpose tools. Many of them were curated several times ending their life as “pencil stubs”. This type together with the awls made from the metapodials of large ruminants makes use of multiple features. The metapodials are not meat-bearing elements or contain much marrow. They usually remain in the hide after skinning and are thrown away unless they are needed for bone tool production. The bone itself is straight, relatively long and the fusion line offers a relatively easy way to manufacture certain kinds of tools. Usually in Neolithic times they prepared the bipartition along the fusion line grooving a line with a chipped stone tool and deepening it until the medullary cavity is reached and finally splitting the metapodial into two pieces. Sometimes the groove is just along the diaphysis and at other times may extend into the epiphysis. Actually the bipartition

MANUFACTURING PROCESS In the Early Neolithic the first step in the manufacturing process was the acquisition and choice of the raw material. As seen above, these early farmers preferred bones of domesticated animals which were easily available, especially the metapodials and ribs, bones not usually broken up for marrow. In addition, the form of these bones is extraordinarily advantageous for tool production as well. The aim of the primary step in the transformation of the raw material is the production of a support or rough-out (method de débitage), which is then step by step transformed during the manufacturing process into a finished tool. In the Körös culture, chipped stones and various grinding stones were used to produce the support. The most frequently used methods in manufacture are the groove and splinter technique for bipartition, and different kinds of segmentation such as sawing with a chipped stone tool (blade/ flake) or chopping with a polished stone tool. These methods are time-consuming, but safe in the sense that they result blanks having a planned shape and dimensions. Fractur-

172

Zsuzsanna Tóth: Bone, antler, and tusk tools ...

of a metapodial can be achieved without any preparation, just by fracturing the bone, but in the Körös culture, grooving along the fusion line was preferred. The small ruminant metapodium awl with ground flat distal epiphysis (Schibler type 1/1 varia, Fig. 1c) is a time specific variation of the classical distal epiphysis based awls. In this subtype the dorso-ventral faces of the caprine metatarsus diaphysis and the distal epiphysis are ground flat to varying degrees before the metatarsal is split (Beldiman 2002). This technique appears to be purely stylist since it serves no practical purpose and the utility of the tool does not appear to have any connection with it. This technique is strongly associated with the Körös culture, later disappears in the Great Hungarian Plain. Based on their curation, these objects seem to be less intensively used than the regular 1/1 awls. The small ruminant metapodium perforators were heavily curated, most of them discarded in pencil-stub size. In comparison to that the ones with ground flat epiphysis were found longer. Numerous specimens of them were curated as well, bearing on their whole surface use-wear caused by contact with soft material (Choyke 2007, 648). This is suggesting, that they could be used probably rather as clothing pins (Choyke 2007, 662). In some cases (quite often) toolmakers did not care to or want to break the metapodials in two (bipartition). There is a group of tools (Schibler type Fig. 1. a: Small ruminant distal based metapodial awl (type 1/1, after Choyke 2007, 1/3, Fig. 1: e) where the whole circum- Fig. 29. 2a); b–c: Small ruminant metapodial awl with ground flat distal epiphysis (type ference of the metapodial is retained and 1/1 varia, after Makkay 1990, Abb. 10.1; Choyke 2007, Fig. 29.7a); d: small ruminant transformed into a pointed tool often ex- proximal based metapodial awl (type 1/2, Makkay 1990, Abb. 12.2); e: small ruminant ploiting a spiral fracture. Usually the metapodial awl (type 1/3, after Makkay 1990, Abb. 9.4); f: Ulna awl (type 1/5, after Makkay 1990, Abb. 11.8); g–h: Awl made of long bone without epiphysis (types 1/7–1/9, distal epiphysis is retained as a handle after Makkay 1990, Abb. 7.7, 9). although in some cases, the proximal epiphysis could also be retained. Based on personal experience the presence of the whole diaphysis does not necessarily lead to a more rorounding especially at the tip, or from the tip until the bust point, but gives extra stability to the tool. mid-shaft (Deschler-Erb, Marti-Grädel & Schibler 2002, In addition there are perforators (Schibler type 1/7–1/9) 291). They do not seem to be suitable for work on hard mamade on part of the diaphysis of different long bones where terials so they are simply interpreted as likely being perforathe epiphysis is not retained. In some cases, these tools betors for hide, skin or fur, or they possibly have been used in long to the so-called Class I–II or Class II group since they textile work as e.g. pin-beaters, or in activities such as matare not so well planned, not very carefully made and often ting or coiled basketry. In summary it seems likely that used just for a single purpose, then discarded. A high prothese awls were multi-purpose tools, possibly utilised in difportion of these tools are based on refuse bones that broke ferent activities, but belonging to the average household inin a fortunate manner. ventory. Evidence for this comes from the Final NeoThe small ruminant perforators are thought to have lithic-Early Copper age lake dwelling site of Arbon Bleiche been used without a handle, at least those, where the epiphy3. The preservation at this single occupation site that was sis (or a part of it) was retained. Almost all of them show infortuitously burned down and then flooded is extraordinary. tense use in the form of glossy polish and intense surface Here different types of awls were found in numbers within

173

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

rators (Schibler type 1/13–1/14, Fig. 2c–d), which occur quite often on Körös sites. Usually they are made on bipartitioned ribs, that is, which have been split in half. They appear to be too fragile to have been used in harder activities. Based on parallels with materials from much later Neolithic Swiss lakedwelling settlements such as f.e. Twann and Arbon- Bleiche 3 (Schibler 1981; Deschler-Erb, Marti-Grädel & Schibler 2002), the larger version of the category could have been used as flax-comb in the manufacture process of yarn made of plant fibres. In the Swiss material, several pointed ribs were fixed together with twine and acted as a comb to separating plant fibres such as linen. Smaller objects made from sheep/goat ribs could have been used in activities also connected to textile production, for example as pin-beaters since this is lowimpact work commensurate with the fragility of the tools. Bevel-ended tools comprise a charFig. 2. a : cattle-sized metapodium based “netting” needle (after Choyke 2007, Fig. ac ter istic group as well. Usually they 29.8c); b: cattle-sized metapodium based double-point (type 2/1, after Choyke 2007, Fig. are manufactured on the bones of large 29.8b); c: spatula made from bipartited rib (Choyke 2007, Fig. 29.2c); d: rib double point ruminants, which provide bones which (type 2/2, after Makkay 1990, Abb. 12.10). are large enough in size and thus a larger area to create a bevelled-end and a thicker cortical bone, which makes possible to use them the houses, but rarely between them (Deschler-Erb, Martion harder materials in more dynamic and forceful activities Grädel & Schibler 2002, 291). such as wood processing, bark-stripping or even bone and Other types of awls and perforators are mostly made on antler working. Thus, tools with bevelled-ends are very efvarious bones of large big ruminants, such as the ulna based fective as wedges and chisels. The heavy impacts inflicted awls (Schibler type 1/5; Fig. 1f; Makkay 1990, Abb. 11. on the tool during such work often caused serious damage 7–16; Choyke 2007, 649). The natural shape of the ulna ofto them. It is very common to find these tools broken, with fers a potential pointed or bevel ended tool with little effort cracks and edge damage displaying both large and small put into its manufacture, since except for shaping the workflakes. Such tools are not very numerous in the Hungarian ing end, no other modification is needed. The opposite end, Early Neolithic material. It may even be that bevel-ended the processus olecreani, privides a good handle, or, if used tools made of other materials such as ground stone or hard the tool as intermediate piece (f.e. wedge, perforator for wood were preferred. thicker hide or bark), a good place for striking with some Tools ending in a wide working edge can be made on kind of hammer. the ribs of large ruminants as well in this period. The rib The double points made from long bone (Schibler type may be split, but more frequently remains whole with a 2/1, Fig. 2a–b) are often explained as projectile points rounded working edge formed on one end. These tools have (Choyke 2007, Fig. 29.12). Bone projectile points tend to be long been interpreted as scrapers in hide processing due to found on settlements as new or broken during the manufacthe glossy polish on the whole surface visible with the nature They are naturally mostly lost or discarded off-site, and ked eye or scraping still wet clay surfaces in ceramic proalmost never renewed. (Choyke & Daróczi-Szabó 2010, duction (Maigrot 2004a). Use-wear studies made by the au241). We must take into consideration that double points thor on objects from Körös sites shows that some of the could have been used in other activities as well, for example tools really did function as hide scrapers. They have a as pin-beaters in weaving (Fig. 2. a) or fishing gorges. They rounded working edge formed at the end of the rib, with a may also be embedded in handles to provide a better grip as typical “leather-polish” on its surface and intense rounding they are being used. Most possibly some of these tools will at the working edge. The use-wear striations also show the fall in one of the different categories listed above, but the direction of the movement. Tools, used as pottery polishers only way to clear up this question is systematic use-wear most often have a concave working edge along the long side studies, because the form and dimensions of these objects is of the rib, characteristic to this function and visible macrovery similar to each other. scopically as well (Martineau & Maigrot 2004, 90, Fig. 10). Ribs, mostly of large ungulates were used to produce a The micro-topography of the polish extends just on the upvariety of different tools such as the large and small rib perfo-

174

Zsuzsanna Tóth: Bone, antler, and tusk tools ...

per regions in contrast to the intrusive “leather-polish”. The rounding of the active end is more angular as well (Martineau & Maigrot 2004, 88, 93). Such tools were not identified until now in the Hungarian material. The use of tooth is limited in most cases to personal ornaments, jewellery and amulets and less frequently as real working tools in this period. The split swine tusk scraper (Schibler type 17, Fig. 3e) is the only exception in neolithic times. They occur in several assemblages such as in Ecsegfalva (Choyke 2007, Fig. 29.16–17, 654), though never in great numbers. These tools have an exceptional feature. The splitting of the tusk is relatively easy as one can see in the natural decomposing process. The changes in temperature and humidity cause natural cracks in the tusk and finally they break parallel along the sides. After the rough-out or support is made by nature itself, only a little modification along the edge to strengthen it would have been needed. The inner surface was scraped with a chipped stone tool and the edge modified by scraping into a more angled, S-shape producing a very effective tool that could be used as a knife or scraper. In this case the “know-how” involves being aware of the features of the tusk itself. As Jörg Schibler says “Die Kombination von weicherem Zahnbein (Dentin) und härterem Zahnschmelz (Email) führt dazu, daß während der Benutzung stets etwas mehr Zahnbein als Zahnschmelz abgenutzt wird und dadurch immer eine scharfe, vorstehende Messerkante erhalten bleibt. Das jungsteinzeitliche Ebereckzahnmesser besitzt also eine selbstschärfende Messerkante, und ist somit eine technologisch hochstehende Entwicklung der jungsteinzeitlichen Handwerker.“ (Schibler 2007, 50). This was the main fact that made such tools extremely effective. Not surprisingly, these tools had long use lives. They can be renewed many times until the point is reached that they are no longer comfortable to handle and discarded. It has been suggested that such tools were used in wood and bark working as scrapers (Sidéra 1991, 14; Maigrot 2004) but other uses, such as real knives for meat butchering are possible to imagine as well. Spoons represent a very characteristic bone tool type of the Körös culture. They can be found in various numbers on almost every site of the culture (Fig. 3a–b). Until today the best summary of the tool-type was given by János Makkay (1990), based on the most numerous archaeological collection from several sites. He organised the spoons primary on typological ground, but we have to point out, that the typological groups created by him are related to the curation of these tools, and not to real form-varietes. With the help of István Vörös he identified the blanks, half products and waste of the spoon-production and provides a plausible hypothesis on the manufacturing process. I agree the observation of Alice Choyke, who points out, that the reason of the wide form variety of the spoons is related to the curation, which leads especially by the bowl to many different form variations, but the V-shaped junction of the bowl and handle, the small “chin” seems to be stable, it is always retained (Choyke 2007, 655). The spoons are made exclusively from metapodial bone of wild or domestic cattle. The production process was studied in detail and reconstructed by John Nandris (1972), whose research is accepted by researchers until today. He suggests, that the first step of the manufac-

ture was the bipartition of the metapodial bone, then the proximal epiphysis was removed, and the spoon bowl shaped. The handle ended in the condyle of the distal epiphysis. There may be variations in the form of the bowls ending, but the V-shaped junction is characteristic for the Körös spoons. The spoons end up their life due to the intense curation often as massive perforators. In this case only the handle remains transferred into a point. It is unknown what these spoons were used for. Many different hypothesis exist about it. Ida Kutzián disagrees that the spoons were used for polishing pottery though she considers it likely that they might have been used for decorating ceramics vessels (Kutzián 1964, 87). József Korek thinks that they were not used in everyday life. He thought it was possible that they played a role in “cultic” activities (Korek 1984, 123). Georgi G. Georgiev suggested they were used to collect flour from querns (Georgiev 1967, 95). John Nandris is the only person suggested that the spoons were really used as spoons (Nandris 1972, 64). The question has not yet been resolved yet, and the discussion will not be ended in this paper, although I had the possibility to study a well preserved spoon (Fig. 3b) displaying intense use-wear. The exact identification of the wear was not possible, though some information on the contact material was gained. Surprisingly, the manufacture marks from scraping and curation are clearly visible over almost the entire surface, which indicates intense reworking. The surface is rounded to varying degrees. The extreme end of the spoon shows intense rounding together with the bowl’s edges, especially at the V-shaped junction of the bowl and handle. The other surfaces display a less pronounced rounding. The polish displays a similar pattern as well although it is more lustrous at the bowl’s edges. There are several cracks and flakes of various sizes visible at the edge suggesting some sort of forceful activity. All polish denotes use on a soft material although the intense flaking and curation activity suggests use of considerable force. The less pronounced rounding and polish developed because of handling. The intense handling polish may be the result of the long life of these tools (Choyke 2007, 655) and storage in a soft material (leather, textile) holder. Rings are made from the long bones of large animals whose bones have the thick cortical bone necessary for producing rings. The other possible raw material for making rings from this point of view would have been red deer antler but this appears to have been largely ignored as a raw material in Körös times. A nice simple ring, though fragmentary, was found at Ecsegfalva 23 (Choyke 2007, Fig. 29.23b) together with a variety of debris from the manufacturing (Fig. 3d), divided by A. Choyke (2007) into three different categories. János Makkay reports as well on ringmaking debris from Endrõd 119 (Makkay 1990, Abb. 16:5). Hooks are also considered typical finds at Körös culture sites, especially the so-called “massive hook” (Kutzián 1944, T. XLVII, 6). Long bone diaphyses, particularly the humerus or femur of wild or domesticated cattle (Makkay 1990, Fig. 13; Choyke 2007, 655–666) were used to manufacture this object. This was the case with the Ecsegfalva example (Choyke 2007, Fig.29.7c, Fig.29.19) as well. The surface of these hooks is glossy from handling polish, but

175

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 3. a–b: spoons made of cattle metapodial (after Makkay 1990, Abb. 2.2; Choyke 2007, Fig. 29.7b); c: cattle-sized rib based bevel ended tool (type 4/10, after Makkay 1990, Abb. 15.2); d: ring-making debris: long bone cut-out and plug (after Choyke 2007, Fig. 29.22.a–b); e: split swine tusk scraper (after Makkay 1990, Abb. 18.4).

they are almost never reworked, but rather discarded when they broke. The name of this tool type may be misleading since most probably they were not real hooks but were rather personal ornaments, probably pendants. Strong associations with their wearers might explain why they were not curated but rather discarded, when broken, or the other possibility which rises, that they were broken deliberately. As mentioned above, red deer antler was not a commonly exploited raw material in the Körös culture. Aside from environmental considerations, which are not really

good for Cervidae in the Great Hungarian Plain, although red and roe deer must have lived there, the conspicuous underrepresentation of this otherwise very important raw material must be interpreted as group and culture specific. Simply, the population of the Körös culture preferred bone as raw material over antler, notwithstanding the fact that antler tools are better able to withstand shock and can be utilized for heavy-duty tools, such as hammers, mattocks, hoes, axes and adzes, handles for composite tools...etc. There are not really more than a handful of tools made from

176

Zsuzsanna Tóth: Bone, antler, and tusk tools ...

antler, scattered over all the known sites. Ecsegfalva is exceptional in the sense, that not even a single piece was found there. The most resistant part of the antler is the burr, the basal part of the beam with the rose and eye-tine. In slightly later times this part of the red deer antler was mainly used for producing heavy-duty tools subject to extreme working stress (Makkay 1990, Abb. 19, 1, 4–5). The tines were most often used as handles for composite tools or punches for chip stone flaking. It may be assumed that potentially a very small proportion of the projectile points, fishing needles and hooks were made of antler, but it is impossible to identify them with any certainty from pictures found in old publications. It is not very surprising then, that there is little information available about the manufacture process for antler in the Early Neolithic. What we can see on the few tools that have been found is that different techniques of segmentation were used to separate the tines, for example, from the beam. In the most cases simple sawing was used combined with breaking off the tine. In other cases, (Makkay 1990, Abb. 19, 4, 8–9) the use of chopping may be assumed which, in other later neolithic communities was otherwise the most often practised method for separating antler parts. The basic techniques of shaping after the antler was soaked to soften it must have been the same as for bone-working, namely scraping and sometimes abrading.

it can be seen that the technique of scraping was preferred over abrasion. The cause of this may lie in the environment where there is a dearth of abrasive stone in the Great Hungarian Plain. In the primary steps of the manufacture process, the different possible fracturing techniques were neglected and others, such as sawing, grooving & splitting, and chopping were used for segmentation, that is, dividing the raw material into sections. These techniques made it possible for the makers of these objects to have a better control over the final result, although they are more time consuming and need careful preparation. The so-called manufacturing continuum at Körös sites is preponderantly dominated by Class I tools over I–II or Class II tools. Class I tools are well planned, standardised tool types, characterised by strong raw material selection including skeletal part preference, several steps in their manufacture, curation and reuse. Class I tools can be time and site specific, strongly associated with the culture. Examples of such Class I tools typical of these Early Neolithic sites include metapodial bone spoons, small ruminant distal epiphysis based metapodial perforators with abraded faces, “massive hook-form pendants” and rings. The transitional Class I–II and Class II tools are less common and not particularly diagnostic of Körös culture assemblages. The curation of tools appears common in the assemblages, which denotes the importance of the bone tools. This is normal in communities where Class I tools dominate. They put effort into producing the tools, the manufacture process itself is relatively complicated and time consuming. Thus, it is understandable that these objects were not simply tools for the work that had to be done but were valued objects as well, worth being repaired. Sometimes the function of a tool changed over its lifetime as its form changed with repeated curation and some tools were clearly multifunctional. In some cases massive points are transformed into narrow bevel ends, when they could no longer serve as points anymore. A similar process can be seen by the bone spoons, which can be transformed into points, when the bowl is totally broken and no longer repairable. Some objects like the “massive hook-form pendants” were not repaired when they broke (or were deliberately broken) after apparently many years of being worn. In conclusion some tasks can be set for future research. The currently available studies about the worked osseous industry of the Körös culture are far from being sufficient and commensurate with present scientific research-requirements. More modern publications would be very desirable so we can understand how tool inventories varied in this period. Systematic use-wear studies would be necessary as well as they could shed light on the function of the tools and tell us something about the materials the tools were used on. Most probably the existing typological groups would change significantly on functional grounds. We could profit from this new information and gain a better understanding of the life-ways and thinking of these Early Neolithic Körös culture communities.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION When summarizing what is known to date about the worked osseous industry of the Körös culture we can rely just on few studies dealing with the worked bone assemblages. Regarding raw material preference it is clear that bone was unequivocally preferred over antler for making tools. The exploited source for bone was mainly domesticated animals, which were easily available. However, not all tools were made from their bones and a reasonable number were made from the skeletal elements of wild animals. Normally, the preference or avoidance of species reflect both availability in the faunal assemblage and cultural choices based on manufacturing traditions or ascribed beliefs about animals and skeletal elements. Tools made from small ruminant bones (capines/roe deer) dominate the worked bone assemblage, followed by the bones of large ruminants (cattle/ auroch). In terms of the preferred skeletal elements, long bones are the most numerous, especially the metapodials since pointed tools and spoons are made almost exclusively from this bone type. The other large long bones such as the humerus or the femur was used as well, but more for making objects such as the massive “hooks” and rings described above. Flat bones, such as the ribs of small and large ruminants were often used in production of points and double points as well as scraping tools made from ribs. Of the teeth, only swine tusk was manufactured and used as a tool, a knife or scraper, exploiting the natural attributes of the tusk. The manufacture technique is thus somewhat influenced by environmental givens that restricts availability and cultural traditions. Looking at the worked bone assemblage,

177

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

façonnage des poteries néolithiques de la station 4 de Chalain (Jura, France). In Bodu P. & Constantin C. (eds), Approches fonctionelles en Préhistoire. Actes du XXVéme CongrÀs Préhistorique de France, 24-26 Novembre 2000. Nanterre, 83–95. Nandris J. 1972. Bos primigenius and the Bone Spoon. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology University of London 10 (1971), 63–82. M. Nepper I. 1970. Megjegyzések a Körös-csoport eszközkészletének vizsgálatához — Some remarks concerning the use of tools in the Körös-Group culture. Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 1968, 79–109. Oravecz H. 1995. Dévaványa-Atyaszeg. Folia Archeologia 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 DévaványaBarcéi kishalom. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 5–37. Paluch T. 2010. Maroslele-Panahát. A Middle Neolithic Settlement North of the Maros River. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithisation of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost Distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 283–304. Raczky P. 1976. A Körös kultúra leletei Tiszajenõn – Funde der Körös-Kultur in Tiszajenõ. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 103, 171– 189. Raczky P. 1983. A korai neolitikumból a középsõ neolitikumba való átmenet kérdései a Közép- és Felsõ-Tiszavidéken – Questions of the Transition Between the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Middle and Upper Tisza Region. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 110, 161–194. Schibler J. 1981. Typologische Untersuchungen der cortaillodzeitlichen Knochenartefacte. Die neolithischen Ufersiedlungen von Twann, Band 17. (= Schriftenreihe der Erziehungsdirektion des Kantons Bern). Bern. Schibler J. 2007. Knochen, Zahn, Geweih und Horn: Werkstoffe der prähistorischen und historischen Epochen. Nova Acta Leopoldina NF 94, Nr. 348, 45–63. Sidéra I. 1991. Processus économiques, choix technologiques et culturels dans l’exploitation des faunes protohistoriques des VIe au IVe millénaires en France septentrionale. Revue Archéologique de Picardie 12, 3–19. Trogmayer O. 1964. Megjegyzések a Körös csoport idõrendjéhez – Remarks to the Relative Chronology of the Körös Group. Archeologiai Értesítõ 91, 67–86.

REFERENCES Beldiman C. 2002. Asupra tipologiei uneltelor neolitice timpurii din materii dure animale descoperite în România: vârful pe semimetapod distal perforat – Sur la typologie des outils en matiÀres dures animales du néolithique ancien de Roumanie: le poinçon sur demi-métapode perforé). In Gaiu C. (éd.), Ateliers et techniques artisanales. (= Contributions archéologiques, Musée Départemental Bistriþa-Nãsãud, Bibliotheca Musei Bistriþa, Série Historica 6). Cluj-Napoca 7–31. Choyke A. M. 1997. The bone manufacturing continuum. Anthropozoologica 25–26, 65–72. Choyke, A. M. 2007. Objects for a lifetime – Tools for a season: The bone tools from Ecsegfalva 23. In The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 641–666. Choyke, A. M. & Daróczi-Szabó M. 2010. The Complete and Usable Tool: Some Life Histories of Prehistoric Bone Tools in Hungary. In Legrand-Pineau A., Sidéra I., Buc N., David E. & Scheinsohn V. (eds), Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia. Cultural, technological and functional signature. (= British Archaeological Reports, International Series 2136). Oxford, 235–248. Deschler-Erb S., Marti-Grädel E. & Schibler J. 2002. Die Knochen-, Zahn- und Geweihartefakte. In de Capitani A., Deschler-Erb S., Leuzinger U., Marti-Grädel E. & Schibler J. (eds), Die jungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung Arbon Bleiche 3. Funde. (= Archäologie im Thurgau 11). Thurgau, 277–366. Domboróczki L. 2005. A Körös-kultúra északi elterjedési határának problematikája a Tiszaszõlõs–Domaháza-pusztán végzett ásatás eredményeinek fényében – The problem of the Northern 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 Georgiev G. I. 1967. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Neolithikums und der Bronzezeit in Südbulgarien. Archaeologia Austriaca 42, 90–144. Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1977. Frühneolithische Siedlung in Méhtelek–Nádas. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 6, 13–24. 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. Korek J. 1984. A honfoglalás elõtti korok régészeti emlékei. Az újkõkortól idõszámításunk kezdetéig. In Nagy I. (ed.), Hódmezõvásárhely története I. A legrégibb idõktõl a polgári forradalomig. Hódmezõvásárhely, 111–189. Kutzián I. 1944, 1947. A Körös-kultúra – The Körös culture. (= Dissertationes Pannonicae II. 23). Budapest. Maigrot Y. 2004. Les outils en matiéres dures animales utilisés pour le travail du bois ´ Chalain station 4 (Néolithique final, Jura). In Bodu P. & Constantin C. (eds), Approches fonctionelles en Préhistoire. Actes du XXVéme CongrÀs Préhistorique de France, 24-26 Novembre 2000. Nanterre, 67–82. Makkay J. 1990. Knochen-, Geweih- und Eberzahngegenstäde der frühneolithischen Körös-Kultur. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 23–58. Makkay J. & Starnini E. 2008. The excavations of Early Neolithic sites of the Körös culture in the Körös valley, Hungary: the final 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. Martineau R. & Maigrot Y. 2004. Les outils en os utilisés pour le

178

179–185.

GRAVES IN THE KÖRÖS CULTURE DISTRIBUTION AREA IN HUNGARY Tibor Paluch Móra Ferenc Museum, 6720 Szeged, Roosevelt tér 1–3, Hungary; [email protected]

archaeological aspects of the burials are discussed in this paper. During the course of excavations nine sets of human remains were recovered that may be dated to the Early Neolithic. Seven of the nine entries may be considered pro forma burials: Grave 1 (Fig. 1. 1) Fragmentary skull and postcranial skeleton of an Inf II – Juv. aged child. The body was placed on its right side in a contracted position oriented east–west. His grave goods included a bracelet made of lignit worn around the left wrist. Grave 2 (Fig. 1. 2) Fragmentary skull and postcranial skeleton of a 6–8 years old child. The body was placed on its right side in a contracted position oriented southeast–northwest. No grave goods were found. Grave 3 (Fig. 1. 3) This incomplete skeleton was found under the rubble in House 2. The body of a 40–46 years old gracile woman was placed on its left side in a contracted position oriented north/ northeast–south/southwest. No grave goods were found. Objects in the house may be seen as part of the grave furniture since they may have been left behind on purpose when the house was set on fire as part of the burial rite (Raczky 1982a, 19). Grave 4 (Fig. 1. 4) Postcranial skeleton of a 51–57 years old woman (the skull is missing). The body was placed on its right side in a contracted position oriented west–east into pit No. 5. No grave goods were found. Grave 5 (Fig. 1. 5) Relatively well-preserved skeleton of a 61–70 years old woman. The body was placed on its right side in a contracted position oriented south–north into the pit No. 5. No grave goods were added. Grave 7 (Fig. 1. 6)2 Heavily damaged postcranial skeleton of a 37–46 years old male placed on its left side in a contracted position ori-

Körös culture burials in Hungary had been discussed by several authorities including János Banner (1927; 1932, 45; 1936, 272), Ida Kutzián (1944, 93–97) and József Csalog (1965, 24–25) before the first detailed summary was published by Ottó Trogmayer (1968; 1969). Other synthetic work followed only over thirty years later (Paluch 2004; 2007). During the short time following these recent publications 55 additional burials were found at seven sites. This means that the number of 130 previously known Körös culture burials originating from 33 sites (Paluch 2007, 247) increased by almost thirty percent. This study is intended to integrate information offered by the newly discovered graves within the entire set. Graves recovered at the settlement of Szolnok-Szanda will be discussed for the first time.1 (Concerning the burial recovered at Nagykörû-Tsz gyümölcsös see the study by Pál Raczky in this volume)

EARLY NEOLITHIC GRAVES FROM SZOLNOK-SZANDA In 1977–1978, archaeological excavations took place at the site of Szolnok-Szanda-Tenyõsziget-Dersi-gát (Kalicz & Raczky 1978a; 1978b). The Körös culture settlement discovered was excavated over a surface of 340 m2. Fifty square metres of this area comprised of test trenches, while the rest could be uncovered as a single, contiguous square (Kalicz & Raczky 1978a, 25). In addition to the ruins of six early neolithic houses and other settlement features seven burials were brought to light at this site (Kalicz & Raczky 1978b, 274; Raczky 1982b, 10–15). Although preliminary reports have already been published (Kalicz & Raczky 1981, 1982; Raczky 1988, 14–26) a detailed description of the site is provided in this volume (Raczky in this volume). In relation to Grave 3 found under the layer of rubble representing House 2, the excavator described a ritual during which the burial is taking place inside the house (Raczky 1982a; 1982–1983). Human remains from these graves have already been analyzed (Zoffmann 2001, 23–24), while

1 2

Grateful thanks are due to Nándor Kalicz and Pál Raczky who released publication rights for the Szolnok-Szanda burials. Grave 6 was dated to the Migration Period.

179

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 1.

Szolnok-Szanda — 1: Grave 1; 2: Grave 2; 3: Grave 3; 4: Grave 4; 5: Grave 5; 6: Grave 7; 7: Grave 8.

180

Tibor Paluch: Graves in the Körös Culture...

ented south–north into the pit No. 5. No grave goods. Grave 8 (Fig. 1. 7) Complete skeleton of a 51–57 years old woman placed on its right side in a tightly contracted position oriented south–north into the pit No. 5. No grave goods. In addition to these seven graves, two mandibulae of two other individuals (4–5 years old child and ad.-mat. aged man) came to light during the excavation of this site from pit 5.

skeletons were brought to light. This means that information on burials is available only from the 5% of all Körös culture settlements in Csongrád County,5 and the number rises to only 20% when excavated sites are used as a basis of comparison. Therefore one may justifiably ask where the rest of the population was buried that created and inhabited these settlements. It may very well be the case that the answer will never be known. However, one cannot even try answering this question without the in-depth knowledge of mortuary behaviour. Therefore, prior to further discussing the problem it is of utmost importance that we reviewed, analyzed and understood all phenomena related to burials as much as possible. The overwhelming majority of graves came to light during the excavation of refuse pits. Relationships between burials, the domestic sphere and refuse pits in the Körös culture have been emphasized since the beginnings of such research (Banner 1932, 45; 1937, 41–43; Kutzián 1944, 93– 97; Trogmayer 1968, 115–134; 1969, 13). For a long time, burials into simple pits were accepted as routine practice although alternative opinions were voiced as well (Csalog 1968, 22). During the excavation of ordinary refuse pits the outline of a grave pit within may be easily overlooked. Therefore until recently only five such observations have been made at the sites of Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom (Oravecz 1997, 18), Dévaványa-Katonaföldek (Ecsedy 1972, 61) and Tiszapüspöki-Karancs(part)-Háromág-dûlõ (Csányi, Cseh & Tárnoki 2002). On the basis of the small number of such special grave pits it cannot be verified that the practice was general within the distribution area of the Körös culture in Hungary. On the other hand, the discovery of these few cases shows special attention paid during the disposal of the deceased which may also be hypothesized in other cases even in the absence of visible evidence. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the unusually small number of designated grave pits is related to superficial observation and coarse methods of recovery.6 The majority of skeletons in settlement features were discovered in a contracted position. Body positions may differ is some cases, but exceptions are rare: Deszk-I. sz. Olajkút (Trogmayer 1968, 120; 1969, 6), Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart-Vata-tanya (Banner 1932, 20), MaroslelePana (Trogmayer 1964, 67). On the other hand, the actual gesture of burial may only be hypothesized in a number of cases on the basis of the mere presence of human bones, for example at the settlements of Endrõd 119 (Makkay 1992, 133), Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs Zsoldos-tanya (Banner 1932, 7; Trogmayer 1968, 116, 118, 120) and SzarvasSzappanos (MRT 8, 385).

CHARACTERISTICS OF EARLY NEOLITHIC BURIALS One of the general features of early neolithic burial practices is that clearly defined cemeteries are unknown and graves seem to be occurring at random within settlements showing little sign of systematic rites and symbolic care giving (Raczky 1988, 21). A remarkable trait of Körös culture settlements, however, is the relatively small number of even such burials. Previously this scarcity could have been attributed to sampling bias resulting from the lack of large surface excavations. However, several Körös culture settlements excavated completely or almost completely during the last decade (Csányi, Cseh & Tárnoki 2002; Dani et al. 2006; Tóth 2010) have shown unambiguously that there is no direct relationship between the size of early neolithic settlements and the numbers of graves found within. Judged on the basis of settlements,3 the graves recovered represent only a tiny fraction of estimated early neolithic populations. Literary research has shown that to date 184 burials are known from 40 Körös culture settlements from Hungary. This also means that half of the 365 graves found at a total of 87 settlements of the Körös–Starèevo– Criº cultural entity were found in the present-day territory of Hungary. The exact reason for this small proportion remains unknown (Paluch 2004, 24), although early neolithic burials may also be somewhat underrepresented in the archaeological literature.4 This possibility is not only relevant to the Körös–Starèevo culture. A similar suspicion was voiced in connection with the Early Neolithic of Bulgaria as well (Bãèvarov 2000, 137). It is remarkable how the number of settlements having burials within is dwarfed by the large number of Körös culture sites known thus far. Although exact numbers would be difficult to state with regard to the area of the entire country, some comparative data are of interest. As it stands today, 232 early neolithic sites are known in Csongrád County today. Fifty-one of these were excavated which looks like a fairly high proportion, especially considering the small number of actual post-excavation analyses: almost one quarter of all known sites have been excavated. At these locations graves were recovered in 11 cases and a total of 46

3

4 5 6

Previously I estimated the number of all known Körös–Starèevo–Criº culture sites around 1000 (Paluch 2004, 24). As research stands now, even if only Körös culture sites are counted within the current borders of Hungary their number may exceed 800 (for exact numbers see the catalogue in this volume). This is a quantum leap compared to the 484 Körös (Makkay 1982, 113) and 18 Starèevo (Kalicz, M. Virág & T. Biró 1998, 155) sites reported previously. In some publications no information whatsoever may be found regarding graves (a few selected examples include: Gimbutas 1976; Minichreiter 1999; Lichter 2001). The situation is even worse on a national level. Only 184 burials are known from the approximately 1000 early neolithic sites known in Hungary. In addition to the observations made in Hungary, grave pits of this culture were identified at Suçeava, Romania (Comºa 1995, 248) and Zlatara-Ruma, Serbia (Lekoviæ 1988, 108).

181

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

POSITION

OTHER FEATURES

The position of the skeleton within the pit was not even recorded in a significant number of the 184 Körös culture inhumations mentioned in the literature (n=94, 51%). In the rest of the reports descriptions of contracted bodies laid on the left side dominate (n=52, 28%). A smaller portion of contracted skeletons were found on their right sides (n=25, 14%). In six cases (3%) only the contracted position was mentioned without specifying the side upon which the body was laid to rest. The remaining seven sets of human remains were encountered either in different positions or their condition could not be specified. In contrast to later periods of the Neolithic, differentiation by gender was not possible on the basis of the position of skeleton. The reason is that in the few cases when the sex of the person could be identified by anthropologists (Fig. 9) no significant difference could be observed in the preference of either side. In a few cases among contracted skeletons the body was found placed either on the back or face down stomach. These peculiar cases include inhumations recovered at Deszk-I. sz. Olajkút (Trogmayer 1968, 120; 1969, 6), Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart-Vata-tanya (Banner 1932, 20), Maroslele-Pana (Trogmayer 1964, 67). Among the Körös culture burials known to date the extended skeleton of a woman placed on her back discovered at the settlement of Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom should be considered an exception (Oravecz 1997, 18; Zoffmann 1997, 27).

In addition to phenomena represented by relatively large numbers of occurrences and therefore considered general, less commonly observed features of burial rite were also recorded illustrating the diversity of Körös culture mortuary behaviour. The use of red ochre in burials was generally spread and formed a well known feature of burial rites during the entire Neolithic. The custom has even earlier antecedents. The colour red, as a symbol of life must have belonged to the sacral sphere. One of the possible explanations may have been that the deceased were smeared red to help preserving their “lively” colour. This is indicated by traces of ochre discovered in burials. Publications often make only passing reference to ochre finds without specifying whether some body part may have been painted or they were simply placed into the burial as a grain or lump of paint forming part of the grave furniture. The latter form of deposition is yet to be documented in Körös culture burials. During this period eight cases of ochre use were reported from three sites in Hungary. These included Endrõd-Varnyai-puszta (Trogmayer 1968, 118), Endrõd 119, Grave 8 (Makkay 1992, 130), Szarvas-Szappanos (Krecsmarik 1915a, 13; 1915b, 19; Trogmayer 1968, 115; MRT 8. 385;). Of the eight observed cases six occurred at the site of Szarvas-Szappanos. Cremation is another rare and therefore often debated early neolithic funerary practice. Burnt human bones were identified in burials at the sites of Endrõd 119 (Makkay 1992, 133) and Szajol-Felsõföld (Raczky 1988, 21), raising the question whether they might be seen as evidence of cremation. The question is made even more interesting by the results of the analysis of bone fragments recovered from the anthropomorphic vessel from Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa. These studies have shown that the remains originated from the skull of a man aged approximately 60 years (Farkas 2005). Recently the possibility was raised that the so-called “Gorzsa Venus” – similarly to other anthropomorphic vessels dated to the Early Neolithic – does not contain evidence of a cremation burial but is rather a rare accessory of the early Neolithic skull cult in Hungary (Trogmayer 2005, 11). On the other hand, the placement of the deceased into special vessels is known in only four cases in the entire Early Neolithic of Southeastern Europe (Baèvarov 2007, 190). So-called “mass graves” were observed in five cases within the distribution area of the Körös culture in Hungary. These were determined with regard to the fact that they contained several skeletons (originating from 4–11 individuals) or at least fragmented remains indicative of the same numbers of peoples. Moreover, no signs of mortuary rituals could be detected. Such graves were recovered at Berettyóújfalu-Nagy Bócs-dûlõ (Dani et al. 2006), Endrõd-Kápolnahalom, Grave 1 (MRT 8, 129), Szarvas-Szappanos, Grave 10 (MRT 8, 385) and Tiszapüspöki-Karancs-Háromág-dûlõ, Grave 2 (Csányi, Cseh & Tárnoki 2002; Zoffmann 2005). In addition to pits containing such relatively large numbers of skeletons some features had only 2–3 individuals buried into them. This diversity seems to indicate that during the Early Neolithic there were no standardized burial practices attributable to particular cultures.

ORIENTATION Two basic forms may be observed in the orientation of inhumations so far recorded. Ninety-one, i. e. fewer than half of the 184 individuals had their orientations documented. Among the known cases placing the dead with the head toward the north may be considered dominant (n = 31, 17%). Two other relatively well represented directions include east–west (n = 23, 12.5%) and south–north (n = 25, 13.5%) respectively. Around 1/8 of the burials fall within either of these two categories. In an additional 12 cases the head of the deceased was pointing to the west. When reviewing all orientations it becomes clear that they are concentrated around two dominant axes representing the northsouth and east-west directions. Although smaller or greater deviations from this trend occur they are insignificant in number. For the time being no ritual interpretation can be provided for this diversity (Kalicz & Koós 2000, 51). It is worth emphasizing, however, that neither of the two main directions can be considered dominant, no marked differences can be seen between the three groups of graves clustered around these directions. This may be explained by the small number of known cases. In spite of all possible doubts regarding intentional patterning in the direction of inhumations, the previously described tendencies may be considered general. This distribution seems to be supported by similar groups of dominant orientations in the case of the Starèevo and Criº cultures (Lichter 2003, 148) related to the Early Neolithic in Hungary, and the study of early neolithic burials in Greece yielded similar results (PerlÀs 2001, 277).

182

Tibor Paluch: Graves in the Körös Culture...

Fig. 2.

Szentes, Boros Sámuel utca, Feature 36.

GRAVE GOODS

Of these grave goods, the vessel found at SzarvasEgyházföld contained two stone axes (MRT 8, 395; Plate 9/3–4). In addition to the former social position of the person, this special find may also be indicative of the task or “profession” performed during her life. Two of the remaining burials, excavated at Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs Zsoldos-tanya (Banner 1932, 4; Trogmayer 1968, 116) and Szolnok-Szanda (Kalicz & Raczky 1978a, 26; 1978b, 274) respectively, contained bracelets. According to the excavator, burials found inside houses at the settlements of SzajolFelsõföld and Szolnok-Szanda represent special cases in which objects (tools, jewellery, cult objects) abandoned inside the house were intended to serve as part of the grave furniture (Raczky 1988, 21; in this volume). Given the small number of burials with identifiable grave goods and the numerous bodies found in tentative refuse pits the possibility has also been raised that such skeletons may not belong to the real burials of the Körös– Starèevo culture but originate from members of enemy groups killed in conflict and the real graves of these cultures should be sought outside the settlements’ area (Csalog 1965, 19–25; Raczky 1988, 22). Recently, similar doubts have been voiced in relation to atypical burials found in the Balkans: those found within may not represent “ordinary”

Aside from Hungary, early neolithic burials across Southeastern Europe are characterized by the fact that in comparison with later periods very few objects found in the graves may be considered veritable grave goods. The majority of burials tend to be encountered during the excavation of what look like refuse pits that usually contain quantities of find material from the culture investigated. Therefore in most cases it is impossible to tell whether certain objects were simply deposited into the pit or were interred with the person in the form of grave goods. Within the distribution area of the Körös culture in Hungary only 13 of the 184 burials were accompanied by objects or fragments of objects that could be identified as part of the grave furniture. The majority of known burials accompanied by grave goods contained a single vessel as a symbol of care for the deceased. These seven graves include finds from the sites of Deszk-I. sz. olajkút (Trogmayer 1968, 118; Plate 8), Endrõd-Lyukashalom (MRT 8, 156), Endrõd-Varnyai-puszta (Trogmayer 1968, 120), Hódmezõvásárhely-KopáncsKovács-tanya (Banner 1932, 11–12; Trogmayer 1968, 117), Szakmár–Kisülés (Bognár-Kutzián 1977, 16–17; Bánnfy in this volume), Szarvas-Egyházföld (MRT 8, 395) and Szentes-Boross Sámuel utca (Fig. 2).

183

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

members of the community (PerlÀs 2001, 274). Meanwhile individuals who were accorded proper burials and sometimes were even given grave goods indicate the possibility that some concept of taking care of the dead during afterlife may have existed. The interpretation that some of the more neglected-looking bodies originated from enemies, on the other hand, is not directly supported by any evidence of perimortem skeletal trauma (Zoffmann 2005, 145). Due to the small number of burials with grave goods, early neolithic society cannot be better understood on the basis of this meagre set of artefacts. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that not only the number of known grave goods is small, but altogether few inhumations were found considering the estimated sizes of populations in various phases of the Körös culture (Raczky 1988, 21). One may also note the conspicuously small number of newborn and infants among the skeletal finds. The paucity of young individuals, however, may be explained by taphonomic loss. Poorly mineralized young bone is more perishable and may have been especially impacted by the organic substrate of refuse pits. Effects of poor preservation may have been exacerbated by insufficient recovery: small, eroded bone fragments from infants may have been overlooked at some of the earlier excavations (Zoffmann 2005, 145). In spite of the difficulties, attempts have been made to distinguish between two, vertically defined segments in early neolithic society. Developing this hypothesis was inspired by the observation that it is mostly women and children whose burials dominate within settlements (Bailey 2000, 122–124; PerlÀs 2001, 279), while men’s graves are encountered relatively infrequently. This could be explained by the aforementioned possibility that members of the community of lesser significance were interred within the settlement area, while important “real members” of the ancient society are hardly detectable archaeologically among such burials (Chapman 1983, 10). When the development of Early Neolithic in Southeastern Europe is considered it is clear that burials closely associated with settlements were widely spread during this period. It seems that settlements, symbolizing food producing economy as well as a sedentary way of life became important elements even in mortuary behaviour (Raczky 1988, 26). Burying the deceased in abandoned sections of the settlement may have been related to the evolution of their dualistic perception. The emotional need of caretaking may eventually have been in conflict with the fear of death; however, the first seems to have been more important at the time. It was only during later Neolithic times that belief systems developed to a state in which distinguishing between settlement and cemetery became a psychological necessity (Raczky 1982, 13; Chapman 1983, 10, 14–16). Attempts have also been made to explain the great diversity of burial “rites” on the basis of ethnic differences (Jovanoviæ 1975, 5–18). However, it is probably more realistic to consider spontaneous variability in funeral ceremony as an expression of the diverse ways in which afterlife was imagined. Special mortuary behaviour may be seen as the systematic extension of caregiving in a human group to its dead (Raczky 1982a, 13). Cemeteries established in later periods express coherence in larger communities through funerary customs. At the same time, patterns in mortuary

behaviour are also more easily noticed in larger series of burials than in sporadically occurring graves of the Early Neolithic.

REFERENCES Bãèvarov K. 2000. The Karanovo Neolithic mortuary practices in their Balkan and Anatolian context. In Hiller S. & Nikolov V. (Hrsg.), Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Wien, 245–252. Bãèvarov K. 2007. Jar Burials as Early Settlement Markers in Southeast European Neolithic. In Spataro M. & Biagi P. (eds), A short walk through Balkans: first farmers of the Carpathian Basin and adjacent regions. (= Societ´ per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 12). Trieste, 189–205. Bailey D. W. 2000: Balkan Prehistory: Exclusion, incorporation and identity. London–New York. 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 Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 8, 1–48. 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. Bognár-Kutzián I. 1977: Ausgrabungen in Szakmár-Kisülés im Jahre 1975. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wisenschaften 7, 13–17. Chapman J. 1983. Meaning and illusion in the study of burial in Balkan Prehistory. In Poulter A. G. (ed.), Ancient Bulgaria. Nottingham, 1–41. Comºa E. 1995. Morminte ale Purtatorilor Culturii Starèevo-Criº Descoperite în Moldova – Tombes appartenant ´ la Culture de Starèevo-Criº sur le Territoire de la Moldavie. Acta Musei Napocensis 32, 245–256. Csalog J. 1965. Zur Frage der Körös-Gruppe in Ungarn. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica 8, 19–25. Csányi M., Cseh J. & Tárnoki J. 2002. Tiszapüspöki, Karancs, Háromág-dûlõ: kora bronzkori áldozati gödör és kora vaskori épület – Tiszapüspöki, Karancs, Háromág-dûlõ: A sacrifial pit from the Early Bronze Age and a building from the Early Iron Age. Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon 1999 – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 1999. Budapest, 47–62. Dani J., Szilágyi K. A., Szelekovszky M., Czifra Sz. & Kisjuhász V. 2006. Preliminary report of the excavations preceding investment at the Berettyóújfalu, Nagy Bócs-dûlõ site in 2004– 2005. Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon 2005 – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2005. Budapest, 5–31. Ecsedy I. 1972. Neolithische Siedlung in Dévaványa, Katonaföldek. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 3, 59–63. Farkas L. Gy. 2005. Szakvélemény a Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa Kovács tanya lelõhelyen Gazdapusztai Gyula régész által 1955-ben feltárt hamvasztott csontokról. Zalai Múzeum 14, 13. Gimbutas M. 1976. (ed.), Neolithic Macedonia. As reflected by excavation at Anza, Southeast Yougoslavia. (= Monumenta Archaeologica 1). Los Angeles. Jovanoviæ B. 1975. The Origin of the Early Neolithic in Djerdap. Godišnjak Centra za Balkanološka Ispitivanja Akademije Nauka i Umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine 14, 5–18.

184

Tibor Paluch: Graves in the Körös Culture...

Kalicz N. & Koós J. 2000. Település a legkorábbi újkõkori sírokkal Északkelet-Magyarországról – Eine Siedlung mit ältneolithischen Gräbern in Nordostungarn. Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 39, 45–76. Kalicz N. & Raczky P. 1978a. Szolnok-Szanda-Tenyõsziget-Dersi gát. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 105, 274. Kalicz N. & Raczky P. 1978b. Szolnok-Szanda-Tenyõsziget-Dersi gát. Régészeti Füzetek Ser. II, 31, 25–26. Kalicz N. & Raczky P. 1981. The precursors to the “Horns of Consecration” in the South-East European Neolithic. Acta Archaeologica 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. Kalicz N., M. Virág Zs. & T. Biró K. 2002. Vörs, Máriaszonysziget. Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon 1999 – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 1999. Budapest, 15–26. Krecsmarik E. 1915a. Õskori nyomok Szarvas területén s a szappanosi neolit-korú telep. Szarvas. Krecsmárik E. 1915b. A békésszarvasi östelepek. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 35, 11–43. Kutzián I. 1944. A Körös-kultúra. (= Dissertationes Pannonicae II. 23). Budapest. Lekoviæ V. 1988. Zlatara. In Srejoviæ D. (ed.), The Neolithic in Serbia. Archaeological Research 1948–1988. Beograd, 108. Lekoviæ V. 1997. Neolithic settlements. In Vaja Z. (ed.), Arheological investigations along the highway route Srem. Beograd, 25–44. Lichter C. 2001. Untersuchungen zu den Bestattungssitten des südosteuropäischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums. Mainz am Rhein. Lichter C. 2003. Continuity and Change in Burial Customs: Examples 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. Makkay J. 1982. A magyarországi neolitikum kutatásának új eredményei. Az idõrend és a népi azonosítás kérdései. Budapest. Makkay J. 1992. Excavations at the Körös culture settlement of Endrõd-Öregszõlõk 119 in 1986–1989. In Bökönyi S. (ed.), Cultural and landscape changes in south-east Hungary I. reports on the Gyomaendrõd Project (= Archaeolingua Main Series 1). Budapest, 121–193. Minichreiter K. 1999. Ranoneolitièki ukopi i pogrebni obièaji u naseljima starèevaèkog kulturnog kompleksa – Early Neolithic burials and funerary customs in settlements of the Starèevo culture complex. Prilozi 15–16 (1998–1999), 5–20. 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. Oravecz H. 1997. Dévaványa–Barcéi kishalom. A Körös kultúra fiatalabb (Protovinèa) szakaszának telepe és temetkezése – Late Körös (Protovinèa) settlement and burial at DévaványaBarcéi kishalom. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 5–25. Paluch T. 2004. A Körös–Starèevo kultúra temetkezései – Die Bestattungen der Körös–Starèevo-Kultur. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 46, 23–51. Paluch T. 2007. The Körös culture graves. In Makkay J.: 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 (= Societ´ per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia,

Quaderno 11) Trieste, 247–257. PerlÀs C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge. Raczky P. 1982a. A házba való temetkezés szokásának kezdetei Délkelet-Európában. Elõmunkálatok a Magyarság Néprajzához 10, 17–26. Raczky P. 1982b. Újkõkor – Neolithic Period. In Raczky P. (ed.), Szolnok megye a népek országútján – Szolnok County. Crossland of many races. Szolnok, 8–23, 92–99. Raczky P. 1982–1983. Origins of the Custom of Burying the Dead inside Houses in Sout-East Europe. Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve 5–10. Raczky P. 1988. A Tisza-vidék kulturális és kronológiai kapcsolatai a Balkánnal és az Égeikummal a neolitikum, rézkor idõszakában. Szolnok. Tóth K. 2010. Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa V. számú homokbánya. Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon 2009 – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2009. Budapest, 220–222. 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. 1968. A Dél-Alföld korai neolitikumának fõbb kérdései. PhD Dissertation. Szeged. Manuscript. Trogmayer O. 1969. Die Bestattungen der Körös-Gruppe. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1969:2, 5–15. Trogmayer O. 2005. A kora neolitikum edény-idoljairól. Zalai Múzeum 14, 11–12. Whittle A. 2007. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest. K. Zoffmann Zs. 1997. A Körös kultúra kései szakaszának embertani lelete Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom lelõhelyrõl – Anthropological material from Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom from the Early Neolithic Late Körös culture. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 26–30. K. Zoffmann Zs. 2001. Neolitikus és rézkori embertani leletek az Alföldrõl – Neolitische und kupferzeitliche anthropologische Funde in der Tiefebene. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve– Studia Archaeologica 7, 23–42. K. Zoffmann Zs. 2005. Embertani adatok a dél-alföldi neolitikum biológiai és történelmi rekonstrukciójához — Anthropological data to the biological and historical reconstruction of the Neolithic of the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain. In Bende L. & Lõrinczy G. (eds), Hétköznapok Vénuszai. Hódmezõvásárhely, 145–155.

185

187–193.

RESULTS OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THE KÖRÖS POPULATION Zsuzsanna K. Zoffmann [email protected] a general taxonomic profile of the population whose burials had been recovered at Körös culture settlements. During the earliest taxonomic characterization of the Körös population, János Nemeskéri (1956) identified representatives of this culture as of Eastern-Alpinid cranial type. Somewhat later, however, he established the presence of a moderate dolichomorph component in addition to marked brachycrania (Nemeskéri 1961). During the publication of subsequent Körös culture human remains, Pál Lipták (1976) emphasized the presence of short and gracile Mediterranean and tall Atlanto-mediterranean (nordoid?) components. In his opinion dolichocrania dominated in the find material at the expense of brachycrania. It is clear that with the discovery of new finds the relative representation of types has changed within the overall picture. On the basis of several finds recovered during previous excavations Gyula Farkas (1975) concluded that the eastern half of the Carpathian Basin was populated from south-southeast and that this connection can also be detected in the anthropological find material. In his opinion the human population from the Körös culture belonged to a rather homogeneous group that can be outlined on the basis of contemporaneous neolithic populations who once had inhabited the territories of modern-day Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece, that is, Southeastern Europe (Farkas 1975). Two studies were published with the aim of presenting the views of Hungarian researchers to broader, international audiences (Kiszely 1979 and Kiszely & Schwidetzky 1978). Unfortunately, they were laden with mistakes and misconceptions both from an archaeological and anthropological point of view; therefore they had proven useless already at the time of their publication. László Szathmáry (1981) wrote about the immigration of southern population groups during the Early Neolithic. In his opinion, settlement by these people in the Carpathian Basin had resulted in a process that lead to the occurrence of increasingly gracile, microcephalic forms. Emphasizing the taxonomic heterogeneity of Körös culture populations Szathmáry appraised the contribution of various cranial types. He found that the contribution of Mediterranean types was over 50%. Nordoid types followed with 30%, while brachycran types had only a 10% share (Szathmáry 1981). In his later work Szathmáry (1982) has again asserted that anthro-

THE CHARACTERIZATION OF FINDS To date the human population associated with Körös culture is represented only by a small number of anthropological finds. The main reason is the lack of large, contiguous cemeteries datable to this period. The deceased found at settlements of this culture are usually buried into ordinary pits, underneath the houses or into sporadic graves scattered across settlements. Consequently the majority of sites yielded only a few skeletons (Table 1). Among the 22 Körös culture sites where human remains were studied, Törökszentmiklós yielded a large pit with several skeletons scattered in it (Zoffmann 2004a). At the site of Szarvas-Szappanos, in addition to a single inhumation, several skeletons were found in a mass grave in the form of human remains just tossed all over each other (Zoffmann 1985). Calcined human bone was recovered from a vessel at the site of Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa (Farkas 2004).

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA Currently no archaeological information has been available that would explain whose bodies were placed into pits within the settlement and the way the rest of the dead were disposed of. Anthropological research has shown that the remains of children, men and women are represented in equal proportions. That is, burial within the settlement cannot be directly linked to age and gender, although the remains of newborn are usually missing. Only a single case has been recorded, although the under-representation of this age group may be attributed to taphonomic factors such as destructive soil conditions and insufficient precision of recovery. The rest of the age groups are more-or-less evenly distributed between infants to mature individuals, although the senile age cohort is also represented by only a single burial (Tab. 1).

TAXONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Poor quantitative representation is accompanied by the similarly non-satisfactory qualitative information content of the human osteological find material. In many cases morphological and metric analyses could not be carried out on the poorly preserved human remains. In spite of this, several physical anthropologists have repeatedly attempted to draft

187

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Table 1 List of the anthropological finds dated to the Körös culture from the Carpathian Basin Sites

Children

Males

Females

Adults of unknown sex

Total

Literature

1.

Berettyóújfalu-Nagy-Bócs dûlõ

2

1

5

1

9

Zoffmann 2011

2.

Csorvás-Orosházi útfél

–

1

1

–

2

Zoffmann 1985

3.

Deszk-I.olajkút

–

–

2

–

2

Lipták 1976

4.

Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom

–

–

1

–

1

Zoffmann 1997

5.

Ecsegfalva 23B

1

–

–

–

1

Guba, Szikossy & Pap 2007

6.

Endrõd

1

1

–

–

2

Farkas 1975, Zoffmann 1985

7.

Hódmezõvásárhely-Bodzáspart

–

1

–

–

1

Farkas 1975

8.

Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa-Kovács tanya

–

1

–

–

1

Farkas 2005

9.

Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart-Vata tanya

–

6

4

–

10

Farkas 1975

10.

Maroslele-Pana

–

2

1

–

3

Farkas 1975

11.

Nagykörü-TSZ-Gyümölcsös

–

–

1

–

1

Zoffmann 2011

12.

Novi Sad - Sajlovo 5.

1

–

1

–

2

Zoffmann, Unpublished

13.

Obrež-Baštine

1

–

–

–

1

Zoffmann 1976

14.

Szajol-Felsõföld

–

–

1

–

1

Zoffmann 2011

15.

Szarvas(23)-Egyházföld

–

–

1

–

1

Zoffmann 1985

16.

Szarvas(8)-Szappanos

3

1

3

1

8

Zoffmann 1985

17.

Szegvár-Táncsics u.2/a

–

1

–

–

1

Zoffmann 1985

18.

Szentes-Boros Sámuel u. 46.

–

–

¡2

–

2

Zoffmann 2011

19.

Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes

1

–

–

–

1

Zoffmann 1985

20.

Szolnok-Szanda-Tenyõsziget-Dersi gát

2

2

3

–

7

Zoffmann 2001

21

Tiszaszõlõs-Domaházapuszta-Réti dûlõ

–

2

–

–

2

Zoffmann 2011

22

Törökszentmiklós-Tiszapüspöki-Karancs-Háromág

6

1

2

–

9

Zoffmann 2004a

23

Vaskút-Hieslkert

–

1

–

–

1

Nemeskéri 1944

17

21

28

2

68

Total

pological finds of the Körös culture point toward southern origins. One of the components may be associated with Lepenski Vir (Szathmáry 1982), while the other shows links with the Nea Nikomedeia–Karanovo–Anzabegovo complex. However, there is a third component indicative of the survival of a local, archaic group of people (Szathmáry 1982). During the subsequent taxonomic characterization of populations connected to the Körös culture a degree of taxonomic heterogeneity was observed encompassing gracile Mediterranean, nordoid and brachycran components which could potentially be traced back to southern/southeastern ancestry (Zoffmann 1976; 1980; 1984; 2005a). This could possibly mean that a new population arrived into the Carpathian Basin during the Early Neolithic (Zoffmann 2001; 2004b; 2005a; 2005b). The same heterogeneity is supported by the ever increasing body of metric information yielded by new finds. The population associated with the Körös culture has currently been represented (?) by the series of measurements taken on the skulls of males and females listed in Table 2. This tendency is shown by the sigma ratios (SR) when ten or more cases are available for study as well as the broad ranges encompassed by the minimum and maximum values when cases are available only in numbers smaller than ten (Zoffmann 2011).

Archaeologists often found the taxonomic names associated with geographic concepts confusing. Therefore various types have been referred to by using terms defined on the basis of metric features. A recent characterization of the population was published along these lines with an emphasis on the taxonomic heterogeneity of Körös culture anthropological finds. This resulted in the identification of three typological components as well. These, however, somewhat differ from those in the previously established set (Zoffmann 2011). They include the following variations: 1 – leptodolichomorphic type, characterized by a short stature, gracile build with narrow and low face, 2 – eurydolichomoprhic type, characterized by a short stature, robustly built, with rectangular and low face, 3 – leptobrachymorphic type, characterized by a relatively tall stature, robustly built, with a high facial part.

BIOSTATISTICAL ANALYSIS Thanks to the increasing number of finds chances of using biostatistics in further evaluations improved. This time the method of choice was Penrose’s distance analysis (Penrose 1954). The Penrose analysis under discussion here was performed using 36 series (Table 3). These consisted of male skull measurements pooled with those of females, the

188

Zsuzsanna K. Zoffmann: Results of physical anthropological...

Table 2 The most important metric parameters of the male and female cranial series Martin

Males

Females

N

V min-max

x

s

SR

P%

N

V min-max

x

s

SR

P%

1

12

173-199

185.8

7.27

119.21

30 > P > 10

16

167-191

179.4

5.94

102.48

50 > P > 30

8

12

129-146

139.5

4.95

98.90

50 > P > 30

16

122-145

137.6

5.75

119.79

30 > P > 10 70 > P > 50

9

13

90-104

97.0

4.16

94.62

70 > P > 50

17

88-101

94.3

3.87

89.98

17

1

–

137

–

–

–

5

128-135

130.6

–

–

–

20

9

113-126

117.3

–

–

–

12

108-124

113.0

4.59

120.86

30 > P > 10

45

1

–

128

–

–

–

6

115-130

121.3

–

–

–

47

4

112-132

119.8

–

–

–

6

104-115

112.7

–

–

–

48

6

53-81

65.7

–

–

–

9

60-70

65.1

–

–

–

51

5

38-41

39.4

–

–

–

9

36-40

38.1

–

–

–

52

6

30-39

34.5

–

–

–

10

29-35

32.3

1.93

101.73

50 > P > 30

54

5

25-27

25.8

–

–

–

9

22-27

24.7

–

–

–

55

5

46-60

51.4

–

–

–

10

44-50

46.8

2.10

77.69

90 > P > 70

66

6

89-102

96.5

–

–

–

7

90-102

95.7

–

–

–

8/1

10

69.0-81.5

75.8

3.65

114.0

–

15

66.7-83.2

76.7

3.99

124.61

10 > P > 5

17/1

1

–

79.2

–

–

–

5

69.9-78.4

73.6

–

–

–

20/1

8

59.5-66.1

63.1

–

–

–

12

59.1-67.1

62.8

2.19

87.73

70 > P > 50

9/8

11

64.8-74.4

68.9

2.59

78.38

–

16

63.5-80.3

68.7

4.11

124.60

10 > P > 5

47/45

–

–

–

–

–

–

4

89.8-97.5

92.8

–

–

–

48/45

1

–

48.4

–

–

–

6

49.2-55.0

53.1

–

–

–

52/51

5

79.0-95.1

86.2

–

–

–

9

78.4-91.9

84.4

–

–

–

54/55

3

43.3-56.5

48.7

–

–

–

8

46.9-59.1

52.5

–

–

–

shape (CR2). These values are usually plotted in the form of dendograms for visual presentation. Two dimensional dendograms, however, are not always suitable for illustrating all close relationships between the pairs of groups. As an alternative solution connections between individual series are displayed in a different format here. Figure 1 shows all the close connections between each pair of series. Relations beyond the required minimum distance, however, would only be visible in dendograms (for example the connection between the “early & northern ALBK” series and those from Northern Europe; Zoffmann 2005a). In essence, series included in the spider web-like diagram in Figure 1 fall within three groups of various sizes that are not connected with each other by close relations: – The smallest group was formed by series of the Dniepro-Donietz culture representing the Neolithic of Ukraine. They are in close connection with the series from Lepenski Vir located on the Danube (Iron Gates) outside the Carpathian Basin. – The core of the largest group comprises of series from Southeastern Europe and Anatolia. These show strong connections with cultures in the Eastern Balkans, the Tripolye culture as well as neolithic series from Germany. The series representing Körös culture populations shows close connections with the Cernica cemetery of the Boian culture belonging to this group. Consequently Körös is the only Neolithic series from the Carpathian Basin that is linked to Southeast European neolithic groups.

latter having been subjected to standardization following the formula developed by V. P. Alekseyev and G. F. Debetz (1964). Calculations were carried out with the inclusion of all Neolithic and Copper Age cranial series available from the Carpathian Basin. These were compared to relevant series from neighbouring areas of Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe (Zoffmann 2004b). On the basis of the results it could be asserted that Körös culture population groups in the Hungarian Plain had probably arrived from the Balkans to the eastern areas of the Carpathian Basin; connections revealed by the Penrose analysis point in that direction. Meanwhile it also became clear that humans associated with the Körös and archaeologically related Starèevo cultures were in no way linked in terms of the cranial measurements entered into the Penrose analysis (Zoffmann 2004b; 2004c; 2005–2007). Table 3 shows Penrose distances (CR2) obtained for the Körös and Starèevo cultures side by side. The long-term chronological continuity of the Körös population cannot be demonstrated either using this method: no associations were found with people of the subsequent Middle and Late Neolithic (Zoffmann 2004b; 2005a). Since no series of sufficiently large case numbers have been published recently from areas outside the Carpathian Mountain range (Schwidetzky 1967), previously evaluated data were also incorporated in this comparison. Penrose distance analysis results in a single number expressing the relation between series on the basis of generalized size and

189

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Table 3 Penrose distances between the series of the Körös and Starèevo cultures and additional series dated to the Neolithic and Copper Age periods from other territories Körös Culture

Series

Starèevo Culture CR2

Carpathian Basin 1

KÖRÖS CULTURE (Zoffmann 2011)

2

STARÈEVO CULTURE (Zoffmann 2005-2007)

0.318

– –

3

ALBK - Early & Northern finds from the Great Hungarian Plain (Zoffmann, unpublished)

0.527

0.431

4

LBK - West Carpathian Basin (Zoffmann, unpublished)

0.317

0.642

5

LENGYEL CULTURE - Aszód-Papiföldek (Zoffmann, unpublished)

0.338

0.527

6

LENGYEL CULTURE - Mórágy-Tûzkõdomb B.1 (Zoffmann 2004)

0.361

0.430

7

LENGYEL CULTURE - South Transdanubia (Zoffmann, unpublished)

0.286

0.428

8

LATE NEOLITHIC CULTURE - Northern part of the Great Hung. Plain - Polgár M3/6 (Zoffmann, unpublished)

0.382

0.621

9

TISZA CULTURE (Zoffmann, unpublished)

0.382

0.557

10

VINÈA CULTURE - Voivodina (Zoffmann, unpublished)

0.280

0.555

1

LBK - Bohemia (Zoffmann 1980)

0.353

0.707

2

LBK - Bruchstedt (Bach 1978)

0.296

0.373

3

LBK - Sondershausen (Bach 1978)

0.405

0.587

4

LBK - W-Germany & Alsace (Riquet 1970)

0.445

0.519

5

WALTERNIENBUG-BERNBURG CULTURE - Schönstedt (Bach & Bach 1972)

0.313

0.420

6

JORDANOWO CULTURE - Brzesc Kujawski (Wiercinski 1973)

0.443

0.656

7

GLOBULAR AMPHORA CULTURE - Poland (Wiercinsky 1973)

0.353

0.619

8

Z£OTA CULTURE (Wiercinsky 1973)

0.292

0.537

1

COMBPIT CULTURE - Baltic region (Debetz 1973)

0.851

1.087

2

FATJANOVO CULTURE (Debetz 1973)

0.828

1.074

3

BALANOVO CULTURE (Debetz 1973)

0.541

0.706

4

TRIPOLJE CULTURE - Bilcze Zlote (Wiercinski 1973)

0.339

0.411

5

TRIPOLJE CULTURE (Debetz 1973)

0.693

1.023

6

DNJEPRO-DONJETZ CULTURE - Nikolskoje (Zineviè 1967)

1.627

1.679

7

DNJEPRO-DONJETZ CULTURE - Volnoje (Surnina 1961)

1.887

2.146

8

DNJEPRO-DONJETZ CULTURE - Vovnigi (Zineviè 1967)

1.447

1.600

9

DNJEPRO-DONJETZ CULTURE - Dereivka (Zineviè 1967)

1.114

1.254

Central Europe

East Europe

East Balkan 1

LEPENSKI VIR CULTURE (Zoffmann 1983, unpublished)

0.926

1.008

2

HAMANGIA CULTURE - Cernavoda-C (Necrasov et al. 1982)

0.234

0.498

3

BOIAN CULTURE - Cernica (Necrasov 1986)

0.140

0.400

4

GUMELNIÞA CULTURE - Ruse (Boev 1972)

0.349

0.596

1

NEOLITHIC PERIOD - Nea Nicomedeia (Angel 1973)

0.364

0.727

2

NEOLITHIC & EH PERIODS - Greece (Angel 1944)

0.213

0.329

3

NEOLITHIC PERIOD - Troy I-V (Angel 1951)

0.221

0.339

4

CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD - Middle & East Angela (Angel 1951)

0.223

0.496

5

CHALCOLITHIC PERIOD - Al'Ubaid (Keith 1927)

0.214

0.499

SE-Europe & Anatolia

– The most compact grouping included Neolithic finds from the Carpathian Basin. They are linked to the series recovered from the cemetery of Bruchstedt, so that the latter is clearly separated from other series representing the same

LBK culture in Germany. The remaining members of this group are indicative of tight, variegated and close connections between the west of the Carpathian Basin, LBK culture populations in Bohemia and late neolithic peoples in the

190

Fig. 1.

Significant combined size and shape connections (CR2) between the Neolithic cranial series from the Carpathian Basin and Neolithic and Copper Age series.

Zsuzsanna K. Zoffmann: Results of physical anthropological...

191

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

(Hrsg.), Rassengeschichte der Menschheit 6. Europa 4. München, 9–49. Kiszely I. & Schwidetzky I. 1978. Der Mensch des Neolithikums und der Stein-Kupferzeit in Ungarn. Fundamenta B/3, VIIIa, 2, Berlin, 120–127. Lipták P. 1976. Neolitikus csontvázmaradványok Deszk mellett — Neolithische Knochenreste bei Deszk. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve (1974–75/2), 311–315. Necrasov O., Cristescu M., Botezatu D. & Miu G. 1982. Sur les caractéristiques anthropologiques de la population Néolithique de Cernica, appartenant ´ la culture Boian. Annuaire Roumain d’Anthropologie 20, 3–15. Nemeskéri J. 1944. A vaskúti neolithkori (Körös-kultúra) csontváz embertani ismertetése. In Kutzián I.: A Körös-kultúra. (= Dissertationes Pannonicae II. 23). Budapest, 149–152. Nemeskéri J. 1956. Anthropologische Übersicht des Volkes der Péceler Kultur. In Banner J.: Die Péceler Kultur. (= Archaeologia Hungarica 35). 295–314. Nemeskéri J. 1961. Die wichtigsten anthropologischen Fragen der Urgeschichte in Ungarn. Anthropológiai Közlemények 5, 39– 47. Penrose L. S. 1954. Distance, size and shape. Annals of Eugenics 18, 337–343. Riquet R.1970. Anthropologie du Néolithique et du Bronze Ancien. Poitiers. Surnina T. S. 1961. Paleoantropologièeskije materijali iz Volnjenskogo neolitièeskogo mogilnika. Antropologièeskij Sbornik 71, 1–25. Schwidetzky I. 1967. Vergleichend-statistische Untersuchungen zur Anthropologie des Neolithikums. Homo 18, 133–230. Szathmáry L. 1981. The skeletal history of the Neolithic in the Carpathian Basin (An anthropological outline). Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve, 51–64. Szathmáry L. 1982. Quantitative Untersuchungen an den Skelettfunden der Linienbandkeramikkultur der Ostregion des Karpatenbeckens (Autochtonität der Skelettfunde der Alföld Linienbandkeramik). Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve, 23–51. Wiercinski A. 1973. Untersuchungen zur Anthropologie des Neolithikums in Polen. Fundamenta B/3, VIIIa, 170–185. Zineviè G. P. 1967. Oèerki paleoantropologiji Ukrajini. Kijev. K. Zoffmann Zs. 1976. Embertani ismereteink a Körös-StarèevoCriº kultúra népességérõl – Anthropologische Kenntnisse über die Bevölkerung der Körös-Starèevo-Criº-Kultur. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 103, 190–196. K. Zoffmann Zs. 1980. Eine Übersicht über das anthropologische Material des neolithischen und kupferzeitlichen Kulturen im Karpathenbecken. Alba Regia 19, 9–29. K. Zoffmann Zs. 1984. A Kárpát-medence neolitikus és rézkori embertani leleteinek fõbb metrikus és taxonómiai jellemzõi — Main metric and taxonomic data of the anthropological finds dating from the Neolithic and Copper Ages in the Carpathian Basin. Anthropológiai Közlemények 28, 79–90. K. Zoffmann Zs. 1985. Neue anthropologische Funde der neolithischen Körös- und Theiß-Kultur aus Südungarn. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1984–85, 39–64. K. Zoffmann Zs. 2001. Anthropological structure of the Prehistoric populations living in the Carpathian Basin in the Neolithic, Copper, Bronze and Iron Ages. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 52, 49–62. K. Zoffmann Zs. 2004a. Újabb õskori embertani leletek KeletMagyarországról – New Prehistoric anthropological finds from East Hungary. Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 2004, 83–94. K. Zoffmann Zs. 2004b. Õslakosok és bevándorlók a neolitikus és rézkori Kárpát-medencében az embertani adatok alapján (A Somogy megyében újonnan feltárt Badeni temetõk Penrose-

Carpathian Basin. They show the late neolithic diffusion of an autochtonous local population from the western into eastern Carpathian Basin which had evolved undisturbed in the absence of immigration into the western part of the Basin. – The early neolithic Starèevo series and the series formed by finds of the early & northern ALBK culture are not closely connected to any of the previously discussed groups. Relationships of the first may hypothetically point to neolithic populations in the Central Balkans unknown from an anthropological point of view. According to previous analyses (Zoffmann 2005a) people of the early & northern ALBK culture may be related to a base population in Northeastern Europe. Biological mixing between Körös culture groups and a hypothesized autochtonous post-mesolithic population still remains to be demonstrated or refuted on the basis of osteological evidence. The archaeological merger represented by the pottery of the so-called Szatmár group has no yet yielded a sufficiently large number of finds to be included in Penrose analyses (Zoffmann 2005a). However, even the few finds available seem to indicate that the Szatmár population equally included taxonomically diagnostic gracile features of the Körös culture human remains and a more robust, sometimes archaic variant widely associated with the early & northern ALBK culture (Zoffmann in press a; in press b).

REFERENCES Alekseyev V. P. & Debetz G. F. 1964. Kraniometriya: Metodika antropologicheskih issledovanii. Moskva. Angel J. L. 1944. A racial analysis of the ancient Greeks: An essay on the use of morphological traits. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2 ns. 4, 329–376. Angel J. L. 1951. Troy. The human remains. Cincinnati. Angel J. L. Early Neolithic people of Nea Nikomedeia. Fundamenta B/3, VIIIa, 1, 101–112. Bach A. 1978. Neolithische Populationen im Mittelelbe-SaaleGebiet. Zur Anthropologie des Neolithikums unter besondere Berücksichtigung der Bandkeramiker. (= Weimarer Monographien zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte). Weimar. Bach A. & Bach H. 1972. Anthropologische Analyse des Walternienburg-Bernburger Kollektivgrabes von Schönstedt im Thüringer Becken. Alt Thüringen 12, 59–107. Boev P. 1972. Die Rassentypen der Balkanhalbinsel und der Ostägäischen Inselwelt und deren Bedeutung für die Herkunft ihrer Bevölkerung. Sofia. Debetz G. F. 1973. Die Sowjetunion. Fundamenta B/3, VIIIa, 1, 153–169. Farkas Gy. 1975. A Dél-Alföld õskorának paleoantropológiája. PhD dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Farkas L. Gy. 2005. Szakvélemény a Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa Kovács tanya lelõhelyen Gazdapusztai Gyula régész által 1955-ben feltárt hamvasztott csontokról. Zalai Múzeum 14, 13. Guba Zs., Szikossy I. & Pap I. 2007. Anthropological analysis of the human skeletal remains. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest.461–467. Keith A. 1927. Report on the human remains. In Hall H. R. & Woolley C. L. (eds), Ur excavation. Oxford, 214–240. Kiszely I. 1979. Rassengeschichte von Ungarn. In Schwidetzky I.

192

Zsuzsanna K. Zoffmann: Results of physical anthropological...

analízise) – Autochtonous population and immigrants in the Carpathian Basin of the Neolithic and the Copper Age after the anthropological data (The Penrose analysis of the recently unearthed Baden cemeteries in Somogy county). Somogy megyei Múzeumi Közlemények 16, 127–137. K. Zoffmann Zs. 2004c. Antropološki pregled populacije Starèevaèke kulture (Najnoviji osteološki nalazi sa lokaliteta ViziæGolokut) – Anthropological review of the Starèevo population (The most recent finds from Viziæ-Golokut site). Rad Muzeja Vojvodine 46, 143–149. K. Zoffmann Zs. 2005a. Prehistoric anthropological finds in the Carpathian Basin and the Penrose connections of the ethnic groups they represent. Praehistoria 6, 103–129. K. Zoffmann Zs. 2005b. Embertani adatok a dél-alföldi neolitikum biológiai és történelmi rekonstrukciójához – Anthropological data to the biological and historical reconstruction of the Neolithic of the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain. In Bende L. & Lõrinczy G. (eds), Hétköznapok Vénuszai. Hódmezõvásárhely, 145–155.

K. Zoffmann Zs. 2005–2007. A Starèevo kultúra újonnan feltárt embertani leletei a Dél-Dunántúlról – Newly unearthed anthropological finds dated to the Starèevo Culture from STransdanubia). Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 50–52, 7–23. K. Zoffmann Zs. 2011. A Körös kultúra új antropológiai leletei – New anthropological finds from the Early Neolithic Körös Culture. Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 2010, 25–33. K. Zoffmann Zs. in press a. Anthropological remains representing the Szatmár ethnic group from the site Füzesabony-Gubakút. In Domboróczki L.: Füzesabony-Gubakút. K. Zoffmann Zs. in press b. A Szatmár csoport MezõkövesdMocsolyás lelõhelyrõl származó embertani leletei – Anthropological finds from Mezõkövesd-Mocsolyás dated to the Szatmár group. In Kalicz N. & Koós J.: Mezõkövesd-Mocsolyás.

193

195–204.

MAMMALIAN REMAINS FROM KÖRÖS CULTURE SITES IN HUNGARY László Bartosiewicz Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, H-1088 Budapest, Múzeum körút 4/b, Hungary; [email protected] framework of Sándor Bökönyi’s hypothesis. Research along the northern fringes of the Körös culture, however, has offered some intriguing new details on the complexity and advancement of early neolithic animal exploitation in Hungary. One of the most pervasive ideas has been that the exploitation of domesticates shows a near-linear, straightforward development through which [technically inferior] hunting-gathering strategies were replaced by [more advanced] productive economies. Early observations have become topoi that are worth re-evaluating in light of new evidence concerning early neolithic animal exploitation in Hungary.

INTRODUCTION Animal domestication reached the Carpathian Basin from Southwest Asia during the 7th millennium BC. In the Balkans, domesticates introduced from their home regions thrived in dry environments closely resembling their native habitats. In his pioneering studies, Joachim Boessneck (1956, 7–10; 1962, 38) published early neolithic animal bones assemblages of this type from Greece that have become paradigmatic in the study of early animal keeping. They were dominated by sheep/goat remains and showed a negligible contribution by hunted game. Animal exploitation in the Körös culture was first discussed by Sándor Bökönyi (1964, 88) concerning vertebrate remains from Maroslele-Pana near Szeged, Hungary. Although this site has recently undergone typo-chronological revision (Paluch 2010), those 202 animal bones showed proportions reminiscent of subsequently excavated Körös culture assemblages in the area. The idea of a wave-of-advance for farming across Europe was described by Al Ammermann and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza (1973) who explained this phenomenon in terms of a diffusive move of human populations termed the “demic flow”. Earlier, Munro S. Edmonson (1961) had considered “cultural’’ diffusion as the mechanism for the spread of farming, suggesting that technology could be passed on without significant population movement. It is thus still poorly understood how agriculture spread and whether the form of its first occurrence was the same from region to region. Bökönyi’s hypothesis was that Körös culture animal husbandry had been a variant of Thessalian animal keeping under different geographic conditions (Bökönyi 1974, 56) and one illadapted to the marshy habitats of the Great Hungarian Plain. Excavations at Röszke-Lúdvár were the first to yield a major early Körös culture animal bone assemblage (Bökönyi 1974, 396). Others from the settlements of Szajol-Felsõföld (Vörös 1980, 57), Endrõd-Öregszõlõk 119 (Bökönyi 1992, 273), Ecsegfalva 23B (Bartosiewicz 2007) and most recently from Szolnok-Szanda (Biller in press) have reconfirmed the gross

1

MATERIAL AND METHODS The study area of this chapter is limited to archaeological sites within the present political borders of Hungary. It includes the northern and central portions of the Great Plain largely occupying the eastern half of the Carpathian Basin, referred to as the Great Hungarian Plain in Hungarian archaeology (Fig. 1). Over two decades ago Sándor Bökönyi (1989, 14) mentioned 37 early neolithic animal bone assemblages in his short review article on the Körös–Starèevo complex. Some of these, however, have been re-evaluated from a relative chronological point of view and Starèevo sites in the hilly region of southwestern Hungary have not been included in this study. In combination with some newly excavated sites altogether11 assemblages, listed in Table 1, were included in the present analysis.1 This restricted set of Körös culture sites embodies a heterogeneous data set. Nagykörû-Tsz. Gyümölcsös, KõtelekHuszársarok and Ibrány-Nagyerdõ are represented by large, single pits. Meanwhile, animal bones from Ecsegfalva, Endrõd 119 and Szolnok-Szanda originate from large-scale, systematic excavations. Water sieving was carried out only at Ecsegfalva and Ibrány-Nagyerdõ. Tracking down the “very first farmers” has long been a popular outdoor sport on the Great Hungarian Plain. Recent

Special thanks due to Anna Biller who released her unpublished data for the purpose of analysis.

195

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 1. The geographical distribution of major Körös culture sites in the Carpathian Basin. Sites with animal bone assemblages discussed in this paper are marked by white dots.

Table 1 Körös culture faunal assemblages from the Great Hungarian Plain Complete site name*

Code

County

NISP

Source

Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom

D

Békés

303

Vörös 1997

Ecsegfalva 23B

E

Békés

4377

Bartosiewicz 2007

Endrõd-Öregszõlõk 119

En

Békés

22355

Bökönyi 1992

Gyálarét-Szilágyi-majora

G

Csongrád

293

Bökönyi 1974

Hódmezõvásárhely-Bodzáspart

H

Csongrád

35

Vörös 1980

Ibrány-Nagyerdõ

I

Szabolcs

113

Kovács, Gál & Bartosiewicz 2010

Kõtelek-Huszársarok

K

Szolnok

67

Vörös 1980

Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös

N

Szolnok

460

Raczky et al. 2010

Röszke-Lúdvár

R

Csongrád

1397

Bökönyi 1974

Szajol-Felsõföld

S

Szolnok**

1361

Vörös 1980

Szolnok-Szanda

Sz

Szolnok

6525

Biller, unpublished

Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza

T

Szolnok

1673

Domboróczki 2010

*The short site names used throughout the text are marked in boldface print ** Szolnok is short for the administrative composite of Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok county

various sophisticated biochemical methods (e.g. Craig et al. 2005; Edwards et al. 2007). Of these points, the first three are of direct relevance here. A diverse body of 14C dates has been accumulated for nine of the eleven faunal assemblages,2 including conventional (Berlin, Debrecen) as well as AMS (Oxford, Poznañ, Vienna) measurements as follows (see Oross & Siklósi in this volume): 1. Ecsegfalva 23: ca. 5800/5750–5650 cal BC (Oxford, 39 AMS) 2. Endrõd 119: 5840 (68.2%) 5560 cal BC (Oxford, 9 AMS) 3. Gyálarét-Szilágyi-major: 6070–5840 (68.2%; Berlin 1 conv.) 4. Ibrány-Nagyerdõ 5620 (68.2%) 5480 cal BC (Poznañ, 2 AMS)

advances in Körös culture archaeozoological research in Hungary have been stimulated by a number of favourable developments including: – the increasing availability of targeted and systematically collected radiocarbon dates (Whittle et al. 2002; 2005), – the discovery of new sites north of the “classical” Körös culture distribution area all the way to the Tisza River and beyond, – a greater awareness of sampling bias (Bartosiewicz & Gál 2007), – the introduction of finer excavation techniques (Bartosiewicz 2007; Raczky et al. 2010; Kovács, Gál & Bartosiewicz. 2010), – complementary information gained by implementing

2

Help by Dr. Zsuzsanna Siklósi is gratefully acknowledged: she provided a review of 14C dates for this paper.

196

László Bartosiewicz: Mammalian remains from Körös ...

5. Kõtelek-Huszársarok: 5720 (68.2%) 5520 cal BC (Berlin 1 conv., Vienna 1 AMS), the latter (5720–5640; 68.2%) may be considered more reliable. 6. Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös: 6000 (68.2%) 5620 cal BC (Poznañ, 3 AMS; Vienna, 3 AMS) 7. Röszke-Lúdvár: 5980–5780 (68.2%; Debrecen 1 conv.) 8. Szajol-Felsõföldek: 6220–5080 (68.2%; Debrecen 2 conv., 230 yrs error) 9. Szolnok-Szanda: 5990 (68.2%) 5630 cal BC (68.2%; Berlin 4 conv.) The geographical locations of individual sites by gross, century-long time intervals are shown in Figure 2. Typical of the Great Hungarian Plain, the average altitude of these lowland settlements established on ancient terraces, levees and other small elevations is 79.4 m (standard deviation = 7.6 m) above sea level.

RESULTS It has been hypothesized that domesticates already known in the Balkans reached the Carpathian Basin during the early neolithic climatic optimum. Although the mode of diffusion is still debated, the northward advance of material culture into the Carpathian Basin may be traced archaeologically beyond the southern border of modern-day Hungary that cross-cuts the Körös culture distribution area. Normative description First general trends in the animal bone assemblages need to be outlined. Their variability will then be studied by individual site. Domesticates were herded into new areas, becoming part of a landscape previously barely modified by low density hunter-gatherer populations. The numbers of identifiable bone specimens originating from domestic animals at the 11 Körös culture sites studied are listed in Table 2. Some assemblages are indeed similar to those of the pre-pottery neolithic in Thessaly. Whoever the people of the Körös culture were, most relied on a characteristically south-eastern composition of livestock. Sheep/goat remains dominated over those of cattle in all samples of representative size. Sheep and goat on average yielded almost 3/4 of NISP from domesticates (cattle was represented only by 1/2). Unfortunately, these two small ruminants are seldom distinguished in site reports, but the limited subsample identifiable to species shows a near 10/1 ratio of sheep to goat (NISP=3444/369). The remains of domestic pig and dog are sporadic (around 1%) in the 11 assemblages. Sheep and goat would seem to be ill-suited to the marshland that covered much of the Great Hungarian Plain prior to 19th century river regulations. While the origins of pottery styles are sometimes difficult to track down, from a purely archaeological point of view, domestic animals have the immense advantage that sheep and goat had to be imported into Europe as they have no ancestors that could be domesticated on this continent. They could only be spread by diffusion from Southwest Asia, even if humans did not follow, but flocks were handed over from community to community.

3

Fig. 2 The geographical and chronological distribution of archaeozoological assemblages listed in Table 1.

The wild ancestors of cattle and pig were present in the Great Plain, but they were exploited by hunting rather than domestication. Mitochondrial DNA studies showed no direct relationship between local aurochs and neolithic cattle in Ecsegfalva (Edwards & Bradley 2007). The composition of far smaller samples of large game is shown in Table 3. Overall, large game made up less than 10% of NISP relative to domesticates (NISP=3205/33 599). Wild animal bone and antler played very small roles even in bone manufacturing (Choyke 2007), although shed antler could have been collected without ever having to hunt the stag himself. Within this small contingent, aurochs and wild pig were of similar importance. The relatively high contribution of red deer is potentially biased by pieces of antler not distinguished from skeletal bone in earlier publications. Gathering shed antler and high fragmentation may result in the over-representation of red deer by NISP, giving a false impression of intensive hunting.3 Red deer made up almost 1/3

Overemphasis on antler is less of a problem in the case of roe deer whose antlers are smaller, therefore not as easily fragmented and tend to be less frequently gathered for manufacturing.

197

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Table 2 NISP values for domestic animals at the 11 Körös culture settlements Cattle (Bos taurus)

Sheep (Ovis arie)

Goat (Capra hircus)

Sheep/goat (Caprinae)

Pig Dog (Sus domesticus) (Canis familiaris)

Total

Gyálarét

65

136

10

3

214

Röszke

153

631

14

34

832

Nagykörû Endrõd

75

35

1

302

15

6

434

5139

2332

298

12717

140

87

20713

436

408

9

3067

66

26

4012

Ecsegfalva Hódmezõvásárhely

15

8

Kõtelek

23

22

Szajol

576

680

2

Dévaványa

186

8

11

58

3428

93

33

Ibrány Szolnok

98

Tiszaszõlõs

45

3

571

4

1262

1

17 1557

23

288 36 5740

389

190

37

107

723

Domestic total

8631

3634

369

20999

389

300

33599

Domestic livestock distributions, %

25.1

10.6

1.1

61.2

1.1

0.9

100.0

Table 3 NISP values for large game at the 11 Körös culture settlements Aurochs Wild pig (Bos (Sus scrofa) primigenius)

Red deer (Cervus elaphus)

Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus)

Wild ass (Equus hydruntinus)

Equus sp.

Equid

Brown bear (Ursus arctos)

Total

Gyálarét

13

37

11

13

1

75

Röszke

72

75

307

54

17

525

Nagykörû

2

4

8

9

Endrõd

243

376

138

671

16

1444

Ecsegfalva

117

19

30

80

2

248

2

2

6

1

87

Hódmezõvásárhely

2

Kõtelek

2

2

3

2

48

16

13

9

Szajol Dévaványa

3

4

Ibrány

1

36

15

13

180

115

235

147

Szolnok Tiszaszõlõs

23

9 1

8

1 21

1

2

14

67 714

27

65

289

124

7

Total

710

749

1049

1124

67

4

14

1

3718

Large game distributions, %

19.1

20.1

28.2

30.2

1.8

0.1

0.4

0.0

100.0

of the pooled assemblage of large game remains. Equids are the least well represented large game. However, together with the dominance of roe deer remains they are indicative of open grassland and gallery forests that may also have been a preferred habitat of the extinct aurochs. A single occurrence of brown bear bone in the north at Ibrány-Nagyerdõ represents the only carnivore in this category. The heterogeneous set of small game, sometimes referred to as fur-bearing animals, includes an odd admixture of insectivores, rodents, lagomorphs and carnivores. When compared to the bones of domestic livestock, these species

512

(Table 4) comprise only 1.5% of NISP at Körös culture settlements. On average almost half of the small game remains originate from brown hare, a bona fide prey item that could be easily hunted for both meat and fur by just about anyone using a snare or stick. Hare prefers grassland habitats and the forest edge therefore it is indicative of the similar, open environments favoured by roe deer and wild ass. It must have been easily available even on cultivated land. The interpretation of the second most common fur-bearing animal, red fox (providing nearly 1/3 of the small game remains), is

198

László Bartosiewicz: Mammalian remains from Körös ...

Table 4

15

40

1

3

2

29

14

198

80

117

9

13

8

Nagykörû

2

Endrõd 1

4

7

1

137

13

1

2

32

Hódmezõvásárhely

1

1 4

3

1

6

Kõtelek

4

Szajol

1

5

3

3

12

Dévaványa

1

Ibrány

1

Szolnok

2

Tiszaszõlõs

9

Total Small game %

Wolf (Canis lupus) 7

L y nx (Lynx lynx)

Total

Wild cat (Felis sylvestris)

Mustelid

Weasel (Mustela nivalis)

Polecat (Mustela putorius)

Marten (Martes martes)

Badger (Meles meles)

2

4

Röszke

Ecsegfalva

Red fox (Vulpes vulpes)

Gyálarét

Brown hare (Lepus europaeus)

Hamster (Cricetus cricetus)

Beaver (Castor fiber)

Hedgehog (Erinaceus concolor)

NISP values for small game at the 11 Körös culture settlements

7 2

31

6

6

1

4

4

2

3

1

6

7

2

10

20

71

9

29

1

23

2

223

34

6

6

2

3

12

2

40

156

510

0.2

4.5

0.4

43.8

6.7

0.4

1.2

0.4

0.6

2.4

0.4

7.8

30.8

100.0

more uncertain. In the absence of cut marks, especially those indicative of skinning, it is difficult to identify which animals were hunted and which bones originate from burrowing individuals unless detailed in situ examination of the bone deposit took place. The same holds true for badger and hamster. It cannot be ruled out that these animals were hunted, but in the absence of human modification of their bones they may also be considered secondary, “taphonomic gain”. Among small game, wolf and lynx represent borderline cases as the largest species in this list. Both may have been occasionally hunted by shepherds as vermin in the form of Schutzjagd although, in spite of all potential animosity, their rare pelts must have been held in high esteem (cf. Bartosiewicz 1993). The rarity of hunting these predators is clearly shown by the fact that their remains occur exclusively in large assemblages where variability is higher.

addition to the small sample from Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös. The latter is also the oldest within this group, invariably characterized by a high contribution by bones from sheep and goat, exceeding well over 50%. The largest of these assemblages, Endrõd 119, defines the character of the overall picture expressed in the Total for all 11 sites at the bottom of the graph. There seems to be a widely held belief that animalkeeping and hunting-gathering were of comparable importance in Körös culture economies. This is based on the observation that at some settlements bones of domesticates dominated while at others wild animal remains yielded high percentages. Such superficial assertions, however, tend to rely on widely varying sample sizes. The number of animal species identified depends on assemblage size (Grayson 1984, 137). When decimal logarithms of the numbers of taxa identified (y) are plotted against the numbers of identifiable specimens (x) in the 11 Körös culture assemblages (Fig. 4) the resulting trend may be described as follows:

Comparisons between sites In Figure 3, results concerning individual sites are summarized in percentual terms. Ratios for the four meat-purpose domesticates are compared to those of pooled large game as an indicator of two often contrasted forms of animal exploitation: hunting and farming. High percentages of game are typical of Ibrány-Nagyerdõ, one of the latest sites as well as Gyálarét-Szilágyi-major and Röszke-Lúdvár, two of the earliest Körös culture settlements under discussion here. The lowest third of the graph is dominated by large, “typical” Körös culture assemblages (Endrõd 119, Ecsegfalva 23, Szolnok-Szandaa) in

y = 4.736 x 0.144 The high coefficient of correlation (r=0.906; P=0.000) displays a substantial, statistically significant exponential relationship between NISP and the number of species in the set of 11 early neolithic samples. Some sites falling above the trend line in Figure 4 contain disproportionately high numbers of species: these include Röszke-Lúdvár of the oldest Körös culture sites, Ecsegfalva 23 and Ibrány-Nagyerdõ. Once the number of species identified exceeds 5 (the

199

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 3. The percentual composition of identifiable animal remains at the 11 sites available for study. Numbers listed with site names indicate NISP values.

“neolithic package”: dog, sheep, goat, cattle, pig), new mammals can only added from the wild fauna. This is a stark reminder that in small samples the odd random element plays a far more pivotal role: a few wild animal bones may create the false impression of “intensive hunting” in terms of unsubstantiated percentages: the proportion of wild animal remains tends to be overstated in small assemblages (Bartosiewicz 2007, 297). In addition to taxonomic diversity, the relationship between assemblage size and the contribution of sheep/goat remains was also studied. Since ratio values cannot be safely used in parametric statistics (Atchley et al. 1976) as assemblage size distributions are rarely normal, the relationship between these variables was calculated using Spearman’s rank correlation. A statistically significant (rs = 0.596, P = 0.031) Spearman rank correlation has already been found between NISP and the percentual contribution of all domesticates (Kovács, Gál & Bartosiewicz 2010, 250, Fig. 9). When sheep and goat are singled out for a similar comparison, the high rank correlation between assemblage size and the contribution of sheep/goat is even more clearly expressed (rs=0.678, P=0.024). Conversely, the “importance of hunting” tends to be represented by rather small as-

4

semblages, while convincingly large samples (NISP1000) all show the overwhelming dominance of sheep/goat remains (Fig. 5, upper right quarter). Of these large samples shown in the graph only Röszke (R) had major quantities of red deer remains (bone vs. antler were not specified in the original report). The low, 15% contribution of sheep at the site of Tiszaszõlõs is partly influenced by the great NISP value of domestic cattle. Simply put, small assemblages, do not represent “hunting” vs. “animal keeping” as reliably as would have been suggested on the basis of percentages alone. Some of the difference may be a product of sample size and should therefore always be considered within the broader archaeological context. Chronological aspects In Figure 6, the latitudes for each site with studied faunal assemblages are plotted against time in BP terms. Excluding the relatively late Körös site of Szolnok-Szanda,4 the “wave of advancement” represented by settlements with known faunal assemblages in this microregion is characterized by a high and significant linear correlation (r = 0.862, P = 0.020). According to the pertinent regression equation (y = 0.004x + 74.722) the well known northward expansion is

The inclusion of relatively late Szolnok-Szanda deflated this coefficient of correlation to r = 0.669, P£0.050.

200

László Bartosiewicz: Mammalian remains from Körös ...

Fig. 4. The size-dependent taxonomic diversity of assemblages available for study. Cases falling above the trend line may be considered rich in species relative to their sizes.

Fig. 5. The positive relationship between assemblage size (NISP) and the percentual contributions by sheep/goat. Assemblages of established Körös culture sites of reliable sizes (upper right quarter) tend to be dominated by the remains of these two domesticates. For site codes see Table 1.

evident: new Körös culture settlements, on average, would have been established each year some 340 m more northwards. This meaningless distance could be translated into a ca. 9 km move over a human generation. The quantitative “wave-of-advance” model (Ammermann & Cavalli-Sforza 1973) made use of an estimated annual speed of 1 km. The trend calculated for these Körös culture animal bone assemblages estimates a decelerated mean “speed” of advancement compared to that overall process as would have been expected on the basis of the “arrhytmic diffusion” model mentioned by Koz³owski and Raczky (2010, 353) in their recent summary of the problem. In reality, however, this local tendency is a composite phenomenon resulting from a diverse set of factors, whose local varieties contribute to the overall trend.5 The time interval within which Körös Culture ceramics occurred in the Upper Tisza region has recently been re-defined by 14C dates from Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös and Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta. Logically, it may have been in the Tokaj area of the Upper Tisza region where people of the Körös Culture both from the Great Hungarian Plain (south) and Méhtelek (east) interacted with any hypothetical Mesolithic population. The new dates show that more-orless synchronously with the beginning of Körös sites in the southern Great Hungarian Plain, a frontier zone was emerging this far north between 5880 and 5650 cal BC as well as 5850 and 5620 cal BC (Domboróczki 2005, 12). This observation is directly supported by the archetypical, Körös Culture form of animal exploitation practised at the site of Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös (Raczky et al. 2010, 159).

5

Fig. 6. Possibly arrhythmic and arrested “waves of advancement” as shown in the presence of sheep and goat in Körös culture animal bone assemblages in Hungary. A potential outlier, the site of Szolnok–Szanda was left out of the calculation. For site codes see Table 1

In Figure 6, the lowest contribution by sheep/goat is evident in the two earliest (Gyálarét and Röszke) in the south and one of the latest (Ibrány) settlements in the north. The remainder of the sites (especially the large, “typical” Körös

Analogous cycles of historically documented deceleration display a repeatedly protracted decline in mobile pastoralism by various [eastern] ethnic groups (from Sarmatians to Cumanians, including the Hungarians themselves), as they were forced to adapt their animal husbandry practices to ever-changing natural and particularly social environments within the limited territory of the Carpathian Basin (Bartosiewicz 2003).

201

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 7. Arthrotic deformations in the elbow joints of early neolithic sheep from Endrõd are indicative of high morbidity in an unfavourable environment. The specimen on the left hand side shows signs of a compound fracture of the ulna.

culture assemblages) occupy an intermediate position both chronologically and in geographical terms. Outliers include the small sample of Kõtelek (with less than 50% sheep/goat bone) and Szolnok where the exploitation of small ruminants persisted, representing a “typical” Körös culture faunal profile. Bökönyi (1989, 13) suggested that due to indubitable environmental pressure in marshy habitats on their livestock, Körös populations had to resort to hunting, fowling and fishing to complement their diets. The chronological and geographical distribution of sites in Figure 6 refines this picture. It looks as if newly settled Körös herders (regardless of their absolute chronological position) had to complement their diets more heavily, relying on natural resources as is suggested by animal remains from Gyálarét and Röszke in the south and centuries later Ibrány in the north. The rest occupy a better established middle ground, where sheep herding economies may not thrive but can sustain Körös culture pastoral tradition, largely relying on their flocks for animal protein. Szolnok represents a special case where this form of subsistence survived until a late date. In summary, the trend of advancement is slow but strongly linear, while settlements along this trend represent various phases in their complementary attitudes to domestic vs. natural animal resources. Unfortunately, the assemblages available for study do not permit conclusions to be drawn concerning the areas in between the small clusters of settlements shown in Figure 6; some areas have been simply more intensively investigated. This potential sampling bias, however, does not discredit the idea that various degrees of Körös culture adaptations could be observed — similar in south and north and different from the more intensively investigated central area.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The expansion of the Körös culture is unlikely to have been the result of a straightforward, targeted migration, but rather a protracted but cumulative translocation of an ever-changing, elusive settlement pattern of mobile agriculturalists. While the earliest Körös culture sites in Hungary have been dated to ca. 6200–6000 BC (Whittle et al. 2002, 107–117), individual settlements display only short-term, temporary occupation. Ecsegfalva 23, one of the best studied settlements, was firmly assigned to ca. 5800–5650 cal BC indicating that the time spans of occupation represented by differing parts of the site were all likely to have been relatively short. Even the longest occupation seen in Trench 23B, singled out for study here, was probably not longer than three human generations. If nothing else, the intensity of spring and summer floods must have evidently forced seasonal movements on herders (Pike-Tay 2007), until they could return to the rejuvenated pastures in the low lying floodplain areas. In the absence of known permanent core settlements, such movements, largely following annual cycles, should not be confused with historically documented, classical long-distance transhumance in the area of the Great Hungarian Plain. However, the functional similarity is undeniable, for example with the composition of 19th century herds dominated by sheep and merely complemented by goat and cattle (Bartosiewicz 1999). Researchers have long tried establishing physical frontiers in the natural environment that halted the northward expansion of the Körös culture in the Carpathian Basin. The much publicized “Central European-Balcanic agroecological barrier” (Kertész & Sümegi 2001) marked one attempt

202

László Bartosiewicz: Mammalian remains from Körös ...

to provide a comprehensive ecological explanation. Prior to excavations at Ecsegfalva, the so-called Sárrét marshland (that once covered some 90,000 hectares north of the Körös river, in the Berettyó and Hortobágy river valleys) was considered a major obstacle. Towards the north and west, the Tisza River was thought to have been another natural barrier before Körös culture sites were identified on its right bank. Undoubtedly, large sections of the Great Hungarian Plain became difficult, seasonally impenetrable terrain during the time of at least biannual major floods. The eventual dissolution of the aforementioned hypothetical natural barriers shows, however, that seeking solely environmental factors behind the expansion, stagnation and disappearance of the Körös culture is insufficient. Unfortunately, the remains of domestic animals have been routinely interpreted as “index fossils”, i.e. indicators of the natural environment. This strengthened environmental determinism in research, sometimes leading to circular reasoning. Habitat reconstructions based on these finds are biased by anthropogenic “noise” (Bartosiewicz 2001). This primary human effect, however, is culturally idiosyncratic: wild animals were hunted selectively and at the same time domestic animals could be herded far away from their most preferred habitats. The deposition of bones, typically in the form of food remains, is far from properly representing “faunas”. While archaeological evidence for the Körös culture evidently tapers away in a north-western direction within the Great Hungarian Plain, the importance of human agency influencing the chains of decision-making that facilitated daily life should not be overlooked. Körös culture sheep herders may have perceived their new, marshy environment as a “marginal zone” from a cognitive point of view (Raczky et al. 2010). They periodically adapted to it through opportunistic hunting, fowling, fishing and gathering. However, they seem to have stuck to what seems to be their own, traditional form of animal keeping in the face of the mounting difficulties of sheep herding in a marshy environment. Increasing environmental stress on early neolithic sheep populations in temperate Europe, including the Körös culture in Hungary, has been made evident in the palaeopa- thological record (Bartosiewicz 2008). The conspicuously meagre sizes of sheep bones recorded at the typical settlements of Ecsegfalva and Endrõd (Bartosiewicz 2007, 293, Fig. 14.8) fall in line with these observations. The heavy emphasis on the near-monocultural exploitation of sheep and the relative disregard of the local wild fauna at established Körös culture settlements may strengthen arguments for a demic diffusion. This persistence seems to suggest that sheep and goat were introduced by de facto pastoral communities to the Carpathian Basin, who tried to maintain their traditional pastoral way of life, possibly because local power-structures and social status were dependent on sheep as a symbol of wealth. Game as well as pig, in spite of being far more suitable for the local habitats, seem to have been of cursory interest to these herders. It remains a question whether this consistent pattern stemmed from communal memory (spread through demic diffusion) or, less probably, an odd “technological” trend of adopting food production alien to the mesolithic inhabitants of the Great Hungarian Plain.

REFERENCES Ammerman A. & Cavalli-Sforza L. L. 1973. A population model for the diffusion of early farming in Europe. In Renfrew C. (ed.). The Explanation of Culture Change. London, 343–358. Atchley A. H., Gaskins C. T. & Anderson, D. 1976. Statistical properties of ratios I. Empirical results. Systematic Zoology 25, 137–138. Bartosiewicz L. 1993. Late Medieval lynx skeleton from Hungary. In Clason A., Payne S. & Uerpmann H.-P. (eds), Skeletons in her cupboard. (= Oxbow Monograph 34). Oxford, 5–18. Bartosiewicz L. 1999. The role of sheep versus goat in meat consumption at archaeological sites. In Bartosiewicz L. & Greenfield H. (eds). Transhumant pastoralism in Southern Europe. Budapest, 47–60. Bartosiewicz L. 2001. Archaeozoology or zooarchaeology?: A problem from the last century. Archaeologia Polona 39, 75– 86. Bartosiewicz L. 2003. A millennium of migrations: Protohistoric mobile pastoralism in Hungary. In Wayne King F. & Porter C. M. (eds), Zooarchaeology: Papers to Honor Elizabeth S. Wing. (= Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 44). 101–130. Bartosiewicz L. 2007. Mammalian bone. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 287–325. Bartosiewicz L. 2008. Environmental stress in early domestic sheep. In Miklíková Z. & Thomas R. (eds), Current Research in Animal Palaeopathology: Proceedings of the Second Animal Palaeopathology Working Group Conference. (= British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1844). Oxford, 3–13. Bartosiewicz L. & Gál E. 2007. Sample size and taxonomic richness in mammalian and avian bone assemblages from archaeological sites. Archeometriai Mûhely 2007/1, 37–44. http:// www.ace.hu/am/2007_1/AM-2007-01-BL.pdf Boessneck J. 1956. Zu den Tierknochen aus neolitischen Siedlungen Thessaliens. Berichte der Römisch-Germanisches Kommission 36, 1–51. Boessneck J. 1962. Die Tierreste aus Argissa Magula vom präkeramischen Neolithikum bis zum mittleren Bronzezeit. In Milojèiæ V., Boessneck J. & Hopf M.: Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa Magula in Thessalien I. Bonn, 27–99. Bökönyi S. 1964. A maroslele-panai neolithikus telep gerinces faunája – The vertebrate fauna of the neolithic site of Maroslele-Pana. Archeologiai Értesítõ 91, 87–93. Bökönyi S. 1974. History of Domestic Animals in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest. Bökönyi S. 1989. Animal husbandry of the Körös-Starèevo complex: its origin and development. Bökönyi S. 1989. (ed.), Neolithic of Southeastern Europa and its Near Eastern Connections. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2). Budapest, 13–16. Bökönyi, S. 1992. The Early Neolithic vertebrate fauna of Endrõd 119. In Bökönyi S. (ed). Cultural and landscape changes in south-east Hungary I. Reports on the Gyomaendrõd Project (= Archaeolingua Main Series 1). Budapest, 195–299. Choyke A. M. 2007. Objects for a lifetime – tools for a season: the bone tools from Ecsegfalva 23. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 641–666. Choyke A. M. 2009. Grandmother’s Awl: Individual and Collective Memory through Material Culture. In Barbiera I., Choyke A. & Rasson J. A. (eds), Materializing Memory, Archaeological Material Culture and the Semantics of the Past. (= British

203

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Archaeological Reports, International Series 1977). Oxford, 21–40. Craig O. E., Chapman J., Heron, C., Willis L. H., Bartosiewicz L., Taylor G., Whittle, A. & Collins M. 2005. Did the first farmers of central and eastern Europe produce dairy foods? Antiquity 79, 882–894. Domboróczki L. 2005. A Körös-kultúra északi elterjedési határának problematikája a Tiszaszõlõs–Domaháza-pusztán végzett ásatás eredményeinek fényében – The problem of the Northern 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. 2010. Report on the excavations at Tiszaszõlõs– Domaháza-puszta and a new model for the spread of the Körös culture. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Norhternmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 137–176. Edmonson M. S. 1961. Neolithic Diffusion Rates. Current Anthropology 2:2, 71–102. Edwards C. J. & Bradley D. G. 2007. Ancient DNA analysis of aurochsen. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 327–330. Edwards C. J., Bollongino R., Scheu A., Chamberlain A., Tresset A., Vigne J-D., Baird J. F., Larson G., Ho S. Y. W., Heuping T. W., Shapiro B., Freeman A. R., Thomas M. G., Arbogast R-M., Arndt B., Bartosiewicz L., Benecke N., Budja M., Chaix L., Choyke A. M., Conqueugniot E., Döhle H.-J., Göldner H., Hartz S., Helmer D., Herzig B., Hongo H., Mashkour M., Özdogan M., Pucher E., Roth G., Schade-Lindig S., Schmölke U., Schulting R. J., Stephan E., Uerpmann H.-P., Vörös I., Voytek B., Bradley D. G. & Burger J. 2007. Mitochondrial DNA shows a Near Eastern Neolithic origin of domestic cattle and no indication of domestication of European aurochs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 274, 1377–1385. Grayson D. K. 1984. Quantitative Zooarchaeology. New York. 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 R. & Makkay J. (eds), From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 22–27, 1996. (= Archa-

eolingua Main Series 11). Budapest, 193–214. Kovács E. Zs., Gál E. & Bartosiewicz L. 2010. Early Neolithic animal bones from ibrány-nagyerdõ, Hungary. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Norhternmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 238–254. Kozlowski J. K. & Raczky P. 2010. Concluding remarks. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Norhternmost distribution of the Starèevo/ Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 249–360. Paluch T. 2010. Maroslele-Panahát. A Middle Neolithic settlement north of the Maros River. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 283–304. Pike-Tay A. 2007. Skeletochronological evidence for seasonal culling of caprines. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 331–342. 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 Gronenborn D. & Petrasch J. (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. The Spread of the Neoltihic to Central Europe. (= RGZM – Tagungen, Band 4, 1). Mainz, 147–173. Vörös I. 1980. Zoological and palaeoeconomical investigations on the archaeozoological material of the Early Neolithic Körös Culture. Folia Archaeologica 31, 35–61. Vörös I. 1997. Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom kora neolitikus állatcsontleletei — Early neolithic animal bone finds from Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 31–37. Whittle A., Bartosiewicz L., Boriæ D., Pettit P. & Richards M. 2002. In the beginning: new radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary. Antaeus 25, 1–51. Whittle A., Bartosiewicz L., Boriæ D., Pettitt P. & Richards M. 2005. New radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary: some omissions and corrections. Antaeus 28, 347–355.

204

205–212.

BIRD REMAINS FROM KÖRÖS CULTURE SITES IN HUNGARY Erika Gál Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, H-1014 Budapest, Úri utca 49. Hungary; gal_erika&yahoo.com

INTRODUCTION

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Birds represent a special group among vertebrates, not only from an anatomical and physiological point of view, but also considering the type of meat and other primary and secondary products such as skin, fat, bone, feathers, and eggs, for which they have been exploited from the beginning. The first domesticated bird, the domestic hen (Gallus domesticus Linnaeus, 1758), was introduced into the Carpathian Basin (and Europe) during the Late Bronze Age – Iron Age; before that, only wild birds had been available to prehistoric people. Nevertheless, due to the temperate climate of the Holocene (following the Pleistocene Period), a rather large number of avian species became available to people inhabiting the Carpathian Basin. The Great Hungarian Plain, by its special geographic and ecological characteristics, represented an outstanding habitat not only for people, but for birds as well. Since a number of them are only available seasonally and each bird offers only a small amount of meat, it is hypothesized that fowling was practiced together with fishing and gathering. The first lists of avian remains and species identified from Körös culture sites were published in catalogue-like works covering a wide time span from the Neolithic to the Middle Ages (Bökönyi & Jánossy 1965; Jánossy 1985) or briefly commented on in site monographs (Bökönyi 1992, 226). Recent contributions, either published as separate papers about different assemblages (Gál 2007a; Kovács, Gál & Bartosiewicz 2010; Raczky et al. 2010) or in monographs (Gál 2007b), have put the avian data in a wider environmental, seasonal, and taphonomic context and compared the results with other data concerning animals that were hunted or trapped.

Similarly to the analyses of fish and mammalian remains in this volume, this study of bird assemblages covers Körös-culture sites located within the present borders of Hungary (Tab. 1). Avian remains found at Körös-culture sites have recently been discussed and compared with each other (Gál 2007b, 49–56), but some later data and results make this short summary topical. One of the sites from the Maroslele-Panahát publication (Paluch 2010) has been excluded from the list of Körös culture sites because of showing more Starèevo elements. The assemblage from IbrányNagyerdõ provided new remains and results that have already been published (Kovács, Gál & Bartosiewicz 2010). Therefore, on the one hand, this paper introduces a new list of bird species identified from Körös-culture sites, and on the other hand, will focus on the very latest identifications and results compared to data that have already been published. The number of identifiable remains from these sites varies, ranging from four or five bones (Kõtelek-Huszársarok and Szajol-Felsõföld, respectively) to 300 bones (Ibrány-Nagyerdõ). Out of the 545 bird remains from the site of Endrõd-Öregszõlõk 119, referred to as “not yet identified birds” and “unidentifiable birds,” 142 have recently been identified.1 The results are presented in a separate column in the summary in Table 2, but commented on together with the older assemblage because the recently studied remains came from the same excavation. The same method is followed in the case of the remains from the site of SzolnokSzanda, from where the as-yet-unstudied vertebrate remains have recently been identified (Biller, unpublished). This site yielded another 106 avian remains in addition to the 19 remains identified and published by Jánossy (1985, 73).2

1

2

I am grateful to Dr. Mihály Gasparik for drawing my attention to the as-yet-unidentified bird remains from Endrõd-Öregszõlõk 119, and for allowing access to the recent comparative bird bone collection housed at the Department of Geology and Palaeontolgy of the Natural History Museum of Hungary. Anna Biller is thanked for separating the avian remains from the rest of the vertebrate bones.

205

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Table 1 Körös-culture avian bone assemblages from the Great Hungarian Plain Complete site name

Code

Mammal NISP

Röszke-Lúdvár

R

1397

Bökönyi 1974

38

Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös

N*

460

Raczky et al. 2010

48

T

1287

Domboróczki 2010

25

Takács 1992

216

Bartosiewicz 2007

217

Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta Endrõd-Öregszõlõk 119

Source

Bird NISP

En 119

22 355

Ecsegfalva 23

E*

4377

Kõtelek-Huszársarok

K

67

Vörös 1980

Szajol-Felsõföld

S

1361

Vörös 1980

Ibrány-Nagyerdõ

I*

113

Kovács, Gál & Bartosiewicz 2010

310

Szolnok-Szanda

Sz

6525

Biller, unpublished

118

Endrõd 39

En 39

-

-

53

Endrõd 6

En 6

-

-

113

Ó

-

-

4

Ószentiván

4 5

*Water-sieved assemblages

Similarly to the bone evidence for fishing, data concerning bird hunting and egg-gathering strongly depended on the recovery methods used at the excavations because of the usually small size of avian remains. Wet sieving was applied only in the case of the assemblages from Ecsegfalva 23, Ibrány-Nagyerdõ and Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös (Table 1). This resulted both in a general increase of the avian assemblage compared to the other sites and in a greater number of remains from small species (usually perching birds) as in the case of the assemblage from Ecsegfalva 23 (Table 2). The advantage of applying water-sieving during excavation can be tested here indirectly by comparing the strikingly different number of remains from sites where only a single prehistoric pit was opened, such as Ibrány (309 remains), Nagykörû (51 remains) and Kõtelek (four remains). Recovering more bird remains increases the chance of identifying new species and offers better opportunities for environmental reconstruction (Bartosiewicz & Gál 2007).3

case of hand-collected assemblages that can be described by the following equation: y=0.127x0.726 The diagram (Fig. 1) also shows that water-sieved assemblages understandably provide more information on bird remains. As already discussed in previous papers (e.g. Gál 2007a; 2007b; 2009), most of the avian remains belonged to species living in aquatic and humid environments such as lakes, rivers, ponds, marshes, and floodplain forests. Wading birds, geese, ducks and other aquatic species such as coot (Fulica atra Linnaeus, 1758) were the most frequent at Körös-culture sites according to the geographical positions of settlements. At Ibrány-Nagyerdõ, where a single feature was excavated, bird hunting seems to have focused on two species, mallard (Anas platyrhychos Linnaeus, 1758) and ferruginous duck (Aythya nyroca Güldenstadt, 1770), as seen in the greater number of individuals (Kovács, Gál & Bartosiewicz 2010). Most of the diurnal birds of prey identified from Körösculture sites also live in gallery forests and hunt along rivers and in marshes. The number of steppe and forest-steppe species was greater at Ecsegfalva 23 and Szolnok-Szanda (Kovács, Gál & Bartosiewicz 2010: 252, Fig. 11). However, since only single remains of birds living in the steppe were found at Ecsegfalva 23, their representation is rather modest when shown as the percentual distribution of remains (Fig. 2). Black grouse (Tetrao tetrix Linnaeus, 1758), crane (Grus grus Linnaeus, 1758), and great bustard (Otis tarda Linnaeus, 1758) seem to have been more frequent at Endrõd 119 and Szolnok–Szanda than at the other sites. Endrõd 39 yielded the greatest number of remains (14 bones) from the latter species. Woodland birds, many of them of small size such as thrushes (Turdus) and jay (Garrulus glandarius

RESULTS AND COMPARISON BETWEEN SITES The total of 12 verified Körös culture sites yielded a considerable number of identifiable avian remains (Table 2), especially in the case of water-sieved assemblages and large-scale excavations such as Ecsegfalva 23 (NISP=217 remains), Ibrány (NISP = 300 remains), Nagykörû (NISP = 48 remains), Endrõd 119 (NISP = 216 remains), Endrõd 6 (NISP=113 remains) and Szolnok (NISP = 118 remains). Similarly to the fish assemblages (Bartosiewicz in this volume), the close relationship between the number of mammalian (x) and bird bones (y) in archaeozoological assemblages has been verified. The result is a degressive but strong, positive relationship (R2 = 0.767, P = 0.000) in the

3

For more information on the size and chronology of sites and bone assemblages, see the papers by László Bartosiewicz in this volume.

206

Erika Gál: Bird remains from Körös Culture ...

Linnaeus, 1758), were the most frequent at Ecsegfalva 23. In the case of this assemblage, however, one has to remark on the large scale of the excavation and the collecting methods applied that have positively affected the chance of finding the remains of these species (Fig. 2). The study of recently identified bird remains from the site of Szolnok-Szanda provided most of the newest data. The lesser white-fronted goose (Anser erythropus Linnaeus, 1758), osprey (Pandon haliaëtus Linnaeus, 1758), black kite (Milvus migrans Boddaert, 1783) and eagle owl (Bubo bubo Linnaeus, 1758) are the first of their species to be described from a Körös-culture site in Hungary. The recently identified remains from Endrõd 119 also yielded two new species from this point of view: the long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis Linnaeus, 1758) and the red kite (M. milvus Linnaeus, 1758). The lesser white-fronted goose breeds in northern Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Siberia. It is a passage species that may over-winter in Hungary during a mild winter. It mostly appears east of the Tisza River between September and March (Peterson, Mountfort & Hollom 1977, 56; Cramp 1998). In addition to this species, the presence of the winter visitor goosander (Mergus merganser Linnaeus, 1758) provides evidence that fowling was also practiced at Szolnok-Szanda during the cold season. A number of other passage and winter visitor species also have been identified from other Körös sites, indicating

Fig. 1. The relationship between the numbers of identifiable mammalian and avian bone specimens in hand-collected Körös culture archaeozoological assemblages. Gray data points indicate the increased potential of water-sieved assemblages in evaluating bird bones. *NISP includes all remains identified as “bird”.

Fig. 2. The percentual composition of identifiable bird remains at the 12 sites available for study. Numbers listed with site names indicate NISP values.

207

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Table 2 List of bird species (NISP/MNI). Bold letters indicate water-sieved assemblages Taxon Gavia arctica

Black-throated diver

Podiceps cristatus

Great crested grebe

E

En 3/6 En 39

En En 119* 119**

3/2

2/2

Cormorant

Botaurus stellaris

Bittern

2/1

Nycticorax nycticorax

Night heron

2/1

Egretta garzetta

Little egret

1

1

1

Egretta alba

Great white egret

2/1

1

3

5/2

Ardea cinerea

Grey heron

4/2

6/2

1

3/1

Ardea purpurea

Purple heron

8/1

Ciconia cf. nigra

Black stork

Ciconia ciconia

White stork

Ciconia nigra/ C. ciconia

Black stork/White stork

Cygnus olor

Mute swan

Anser erytropus

Lesser white-fronted goose

Anser fabalis

Bean goose

Anser albifrons

White-fronted goose

Anser anser

Grey-lag goose

Anser sp.

unidentifiable goose

Branta leucopsis

Barnacle goose

Anas penelope

Wigeon

Anas cf. strepera

Gadwall

Anas crecca

Teal

Ó

R

S

Sz*** Sz**

T

1

1

1

Phalacrocorax carbo

unidentifiable wading bird

N

1

Podiceps cf. auritus Slavonian grebe

Ciconiiformes sp. indet.

K 1

5/1

Podiceps griseigena Red-nacked grebe

Platalea leucorodia Spoonbill

I

5/2

11/5

1

2/1

5/4

1

1

2 1

6/3 1

1

7/1

6

3/1

4

2

3 4/1

1

1

2/1

4/2 1

1

2

7/2 2/1

1

8/3 1

1

2/1 1

11/3

1

2/?

1 5/?

2

2/1 7/2

1 4/2

5/1

2

1 2

1

1

10/2

1

1

8/1

1

1

3

5/1

1

1 1

1

6/3

3/2

6/3 8/1

5/3

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard

33/6

41/7

2/1

Anas acuta

Pintail

3/1

Anas querquedula

Garganey

6/2

2/1

Anas cf. clypeata

Shoveler

1

7/2

Anas sp.

unidentified duck

11/?

11/?

Aythya ferina

Pochard

3/1

1

6

6/2

Aythya nyroca

Ferruginous duck

17/3

2/1

3

3/2

80/10

Aythya fuligula

Tufted duck

2/1

10/4

1

Aythya marila

Scaup

Clangula hyemalis

Long-tailed duck

Mergus merganser

Goosander

Anseriformes sp. indet.

unidentifiable goose/duck

Pandion haliaëtus

Osprey

Milvus migrans

Black kite

Milvus milvus

Red kite

Haliaëtus albicilla

White-tailed eagle

2

Circaëtus gallicus

Short-toed eagle

1

19

12

16/2

45/10 168/13

7/3

11

1

8

10/3

4/1

1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1

2/1 2

2/1

1

1

1 1

1 1 21/?

10/2 2/?

7/?

5/?

5/? 1 1

1

208

1

8/3 1

1

Erika Gál: Bird remains from Körös Culture ...

Table 2 continued Taxon

E

Circus aeruginosus

Marsh harrier

Circus sp.

unidentifiable harrier

1

Buteo buteo

Buzzard

1

Aquila pomarina

Lesser spotted eagle

Hieraaetus pennatus Booted eagle Partridge

1

Porzana porzana

Spotted crake

1

1

7

Ó

R

S

Sz*** Sz**

T

2/1

1

14/2

Grus grus

Crane

1

Tetrax tetrax

Little bustard

Otis tarda

Great bustard

1

Scolopax rusticola

Woodcock

1

Limosa limosa

Black-tailed godwit

Columba palumbus

Woodpigeon

Bubo bubo

Eagle owl

Strix aluco

Tawny owl

1

Coracias garrulus

Roller

1

Dendrcopus major

Great spotted woodpecker

1

Alauda arvensis

Skylark

1

Turdus merula

Blackbird

1

Turdus viscivorus

Mistle trush

Turdus sp.

unidentifiable trush

Acrocephalus sp.

unidentifiable warbler

8/3

1

1

Coot

1 2/1

3

1

9/2

16/2

3

6

3/1

1

1 2/1

2/?

2/1

1

3/1

1

2

4/3

2

9/4

2 14

8

6/2

1 11/2

1

1 24/4

1

1

1 1

1

1 2/? 1

Garrulus glandarius Jay

1

Pica pica

Magpie

1

Corvus cf. frugilegus

Rook

Corvus cf. corone

Carrion crow

Corvus frugilegus/ C. corone

Rook/Carrion crow

2/1

Sturnus vulgaris

Starling

6/2

Passer domesticus

House sparrow

2/2

unidentifiable bird

N

1

2/1

Fulica atra

Total

K

1

Perdix perdix

Aves indet.

I

1

Black grouse

unidentifiable Passeriformes indet. passerine

En En 119* 119**

2

Tetrao tetrix

Gallinula chloropus Moorhen

En 3/6 En 39

2 2/1

1 1

5/? 59/?

14/?

276/61 127/31

545 53

2/?

9/?

607 156/52 309/37

3/? 4/3

51/16

13/? 4

38

5/5

19

10/?

106/39 35/16

List of bird species (NISP/MNI). Bold letters indicate water-sieved assemblages. Code: E: Ecsegfalva 23; En 6: Endrõd 6; En 39: Endrõd 39; En 119: Endrõd-Öregszõlõk 119; I: Ibrány-Nagyerdõ; K: Kõtelek-Huszársarok; N: Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös; Ó: Ószentiván (Tiszasziget); R: Röszke-Lúdvár; S: Szajol-Felsõföld; Sz: Szolnok-Szanda; T: Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-Puszta. *from Bökönyi 1992; ** new identification from the original assemblage; ***from Jánossy 1985

their year-round habitation. Ecsegfalva 23 yielded tufted duck (Aythya fuligula Linnaeus, 1758) in addition to goosander; Endrõd 39 yielded bean goose (Anser fabalis Latham, 1787); Endrõd 119 yielded Slavonian grebe (Podiceps auritus Linnaeus, 1758), white-fronted goose (A. albifrons Scopoli, 1769), and long-tailed duck in addition to tufted

duck; Ibrány-Nagyerdõ and Röszke-Lúdvár yielded tufted duck; Kõtelek-Huszársarok yielded black-throated diver (Gavia arctica Linnaeus, 1758); Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös yielded barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis Bechstein, 1803), and Ószentiván yielded white-fronted goose. From a taphonomic point of view, the accumulation of

209

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 3.

Carpometacarpi from the site of Szolnok-Szanda. Upper row: white-tailed eagle, lower row: great bustard.

carpometacarpus, the distal wing bone, is noteworthy in the case of large-sized birds such as the white-tailed eagle (Haliaëtus albicilla Linnaeus, 1758), crane, and great bustard at Szolnok-Szanda (Fig. 3). The longest feathers, the so-called primary remiges, are associated with this skeletal part and the phalanges anteriores. Wing bones from the wood pigeon (Columba palumbus Linnaeus, 1758), especially the distal ones, were strikingly frequent at Ecsegfalva 23 (Gál 2007a, 372). Similarly to this assemblage, it is sug-

gested that the feathers and/or the wings of these species could have been used for different purposes such as fletching arrows, signalling, decoration, etc. (Serjeantson 2009, 207–208). The exploitation of bird wings is also evidenced by a fragment of ulna from a mute swan (Cygnus olor Gmelin 1789) that shows a circular cut mark on its proximal end (Fig. 4). Due to its tubular shape and structure, the ulna of birds, especially large-sized species, has been used widely

210

Erika Gál: Bird remains from Körös Culture ...

for producing various artefacts such as tubes, flutes, and handles in all historical periods (Gál 2005).

CONCLUSIONS The total of 1,151 identifiable avian remains from 12 Körös-culture sites provides information both from a qualitative and quantitative point of view. According to the various bird species, usually representing at least three kinds of habitats, it is likely that opportunistic fowling – probably connected to fishing, gathering, and hunting other animals – was practiced in most cases. Nevertheless, as a result of the geographical positions of Körös settlements, the avian assemblages and lists of species are strongly dominated by birds living in aquatic and marshy environments. Results from the water-sieved assemblage from Ibrány-Nagyerdõ suggest that ferruginous duck and mallard were the most frequently targeted among birds. These species also provided a greater number of remains at Ecsegfalva 23, Endrõd 6 and Endrõd 119. The latter two sites, in addition to Szolnok-Szanda, yielded the greatest number of great bustard remains. Steppe and forest-steppe species were more frequent in the southern part of the region around the confluence of the Tisza and Körös rivers. In addition to the three aforementioned assemblages, the poorly represented sites of Kisköre, Kõtelek, and Szajol may also be counted here. The seasonal characteristics of the bird species identified suggest that nine of the 12 sites would have been inhabited year-round. Evidence of winter-time fowling is missing so far from Endrõd 6, Szajol-Felsõföld and TiszaszõlõsDomaháza-Puszta. The opportunistic character of fowling at Körös culture (and other prehistoric) sites and the small quantity of protein provided by birds seem to indicate that the contribution of fowling to the diet was limited However, birds also provided special raw materials such as thin and tubular bones for working and feathers that could have been used for various decorative and practical purposes both in everyday life and ritual activities. The frequency of distal wing bones from certain species such as the wood pigeon, white-tailed eagle and great bustard in the assemblages found at Ecsegfalva 23 and Szolnok-Szanda point to the use of wings and/or feathers.

REFERENCES Bartosiewicz L. 2007. Mammalian bone. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 287–325. Bartosiewicz L. & Gál E. 2007. Sample size and taxonomic richness in mammalian and bird bone assemblages from archaeological sites. Archeometriai Mûhely 2007/1, 37–44. Bökönyi S. 1974. History of Domestic Animals in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest. Bökönyi S. 1992. The Early Neolithic vertebrate fauna of Endrõd 119. In Bökönyi S. (ed.), Cultural and landscape changes in south-east Hungary I. reports on the Gyomaendrõd Project (= Archaeolingua Main Series 1). Budapest, 195–299. Bökönyi S. & Jánossy D. 1965. Szubfosszilis madárleletek Magy-

Fig. 4. Fine cut mark on the mute swan ulna from SzolnokSzanda.

211

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

arországon – Sub fossile Wildvogelfunde aus Ungarn. Vertebrata Hungarica 7(1-2): 85–99. Cramp S. 1998. (ed.), Birds of the Western Palearctic on CDROM. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Domboróczki L. 2010. Report on the excavations at Tiszaszõlõs– Domaháza-puszta and a new model for the spread of the Körös culture. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Norhternmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 137–176. Gál E. 2005. New data to the bird bone artefacts from Hungary and Romania. In Luik H., Choyke A. M., Batey C. E. & Lõugas L. (eds), From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth. Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Tallinn, 325–338. Gál E. 2007a. Bird remains. Whittle A. 2007. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 361–375. Gál E. 2007b. Fowling in lowlands. Neolithic and Copper Age bird bone remains from the Great Hungarian Plain and South-East Romania. (= Archaeolingua, Series Minor 24). Budapest. Gál E. 2009. New bird remains from the prehistoric site of Endrõd 3/6. In Bartosiewicz L., Gál E. & Kováts I. (eds), Csontvázak a szekrényben — Skeletons from the cupboard. Budapest. Jánossy D. 1985. Wildvogelreste aus archäologischen Grabungen in Ungarn (Neolithicum bis Mittelalter). Fragmenta Mineralogica et Palaeontologica 12, 67–103.

Kovács E. Zs., Gál E. & Bartosiewicz L. 2010. Early Neolithic animal bones from Ibrány-nagyerdõ, Hungary. In Koz³owski, J. K. & Raczky P. 2010. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 238–254. Paluch T. 2010. Maroslele-Panahát. A Middle Neolithic settlement north of the Maros River. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 283–304. Peterson R. T., Mountfort G. & Hollom P. A. D. 1977. Európa madarai. Budapest. Serjeantson D. 2009. Birds. Cambridge. 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 Gronenborn D. & Petrasch J. (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. The Spread of the Neoltihic to Central Europe. (= RGZM – Tagungen, Band 4, 1). Mainz, 147–173. Takács I. 1992. Fish remains from the early Neolithic site of Endrõd 119. In Bökönyi S. (ed). Cultural and landscape changes in south-east Hungary I. Reports on the Gyomaendrõd Project (= Archaeolingua Main Series 1). Budapest, 301–311. Vörös I. 1980. Zoological and palaeoeconomical investigations on the archaeozoological material of the Early Neolithic Körös Culture. Folia Archaeologica 31, 35–61.

212

213–218.

FISH REMAINS FROM KÖRÖS CULTURE SITES IN HUNGARY László Bartosiewicz Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, H-1088 Budapest, Múzeum körút 4/b, Hungary; [email protected] represented by large archaeoichthyological remains helps fine-tune the reconstruction of the roles various fish species played in the diet.

INTRODUCTION It has been widely hypothesized that the natural environment had a decisive impact on the life of Körös-culture settlements as manifested in the exploitation of wild fauna. Reliance on foraging, however, seems to have varied greatly, complementing food production. Hunting, fishing, and gathering fluctuated in importance depending on the geographical location and socio-economic conditions of this culture that pioneered agricultural activity in the Carpathian Basin during the 7th–6th millennium BC. Fish had the potential to yield an abundant supply of animal protein in prehistoric subsistence economies in the valleys of the Tisza River and its tributaries, but the species available for consumption were defined by the composition of the local ichthyofauna of various alluvial habitats in a diverse, mosaic-like lowland environment. People of the early neolithic Körös culture occupied slight elevations in the loess floodplains, usually away from the main river courses, but always in proximity to water. Remains of fishing clearly illustrate the diversity of animal resources exploited, but are difficult to compare to zoological evidence of other forms of subsistence. Typical Körös-culture sheep herders may have perceived their marshy environment as a “marginal zone” from a cognitive point of view (Raczky et al. 2010), where they resorted to occasional fishing and gathering, probably more spontaneously than hunting. The opportunistic nature of exploiting aquatic resources, however, is suggested by the observation that fishing (including gathering fish and shellfish in residual flood pools that may have served as natural traps) played only a complementary role in Körös-culture meat diets (Takács 1992; Bartosiewicz 2007b; Kovács, Gál & Bartosiewicz 2010). Ancient trends in subsistence fishing, however, are frustratingly obscured by the inconsistent recovery and sporadic reporting of fish remains in the Hungarian archaeozoological literature. Species representation is thus unreliable; in many cases only the sporadic presence of fish can be established. Familiarity with the range of fish ages/sizes

1

MATERIAL AND METHODS Recent advances in Körös-culture research have stimulated archaeozoological research. The increasing availability of targeted and systematically collected radiocarbon dates (Whittle et al. 2002; 2005), the discovery of new sites north of the “classical” Körös-culture distribution area all the way to the Tisza River, and the introduction of finer excavation techniques (Bartosiewicz 2007a; Kovács, Gál & Bartosiewicz 2010; Raczky et al. 2010;) have greatly benefited the study of fish remains. Similarly to the analysis of mammalian remains in this volume, the study of fish bone assemblages was limited to verified Körös-culture settlements within the present borders of Hungary. In his discussion of subsistence in the Körös–Starèevo culture complex Bökönyi (1989, 14) mentioned 37 early neolithic animal bone assemblages. None of these animal bones was recovered using water-sieving, and some have been re-evaluated from the viewpoint of relative chronology. In the case of the fish remains, the information content of the 11 settlements thus discussed in this chapter is further constrained by the lack of water-sieved materials at all but three sites. In other reports, chance fish remains were identified with varying precision, but only one hand-collected assemblage underwent specialist analysis (Takács 1992). Hand-collected fish-bone assemblages are inevitably selected by size; their poor information content is comparable only to similar materials published in the literature. They can be used at best for drafting a general framework within which more detailed but less numerous analyses of water-sieved materials can be interpreted. In Table 1, fish bone assemblages available in the literature are listed in a tentative chronological order,1 including newly identified fish bone assemblages that were collected using fine recovery methods at the British-Hungarian Pro-

For radiocarbon date ranges see Bartosiewicz, this volume: “Mammalian remains from Körös culture sites in Hungary”.

213

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

sieved. Meanwhile, the animal bones from Endrõd, Szolnok, and Ecsegfalva originate from large-scale, systematic excavations. Of these, a systematic water-sieving program was carried out only at Ecsegfalva. A target-oriented experiment has shown that bone fragments measuring less than 19 mm tend to be missed with great probability when finds are collected exclusively by hand (Bartosiewicz 1988). Unfortunately, as is clearly shown by water-sieved bone assemblages, the overwhelming majority of fish remains from prehistoric sites in Hungary would fall far below this size criterion, resulting in an irreversible loss of information. In contrast, with the exception of the smallest animal bone assemblage in this list, Hódmezõvásárhely–Bodzáspart, even hand-collected samples of modest sizes contain fish bones, showing the presence of an aquatic component in Körösculture diets.

Table 1 Körös culture fish bone assemblages from the Great Hungarian Plain Complete site name Gyálarét-Szilágyi-major Röszke-Lúdvár Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös Endrõd-Öregszõlõk 119 Ecsegfalva 23B Hódmezõvásárhely-Bodzás part Kõtelek-Huszársarok

Mammal NISP

Fish NISP

Source

293

57

Bökönyi 1974

1397

402

Bökönyi 1974

460

30

Raczky et al. 2010

22 355

592

4377

18186

Takács 1992

35

0

Vörös 1980

Bartosiewicz 2007c

67

6

Vörös 1980

1361

67

Vörös 1980

Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom

303

0

Vörös 1997

Ibrány-Nagyerdõ

113

16704

Kovács, Gál & Bartosiewicz 2010

Szolnok-Szanda

6525

295

Biller, unpublished

Szajo-Felsõföld

RESULTS

The degressive but strong (R2=0.816, P=0.001) relationship between the numbers of identifiable mammalian (x) and fish bones (y) in hand-collected materials can be described by the following equation:

*Water-sieved assemblages

y = 0.429x0.760 Comparison to this clear trend in Figure 1, however, it is clearly visible that water-sieving yields a wealth of information that is qualitatively different from the meagre impressions gleaned from the traditional hand-collected archaeozoological assemblages published in the literature. The taxonomic distribution of Körös-culture fish bones available for study is summarized in Table 2. Empty cells in this table reflect gaping holes in the precision of recovery and expertise in identifying the varied and usually fragmentary skeletal elements of fish rather than trends in subsistence. However, the consistent presence of fish bones and the rarely encountered identification of characteristically toothed dentalia from pike and catfish carry some information even in hand-collected assemblages. Typically, it is these two large carnivorous species and large specimens of carp that tend to be best represented in most assemblages. In spite of the criticism of regarding the inconsistent manner in which some fish-bone assemblages have been collected, it should be noted that these are fish of sizes worth catching. However, masses of smaller bodied small Cyprinids also contributed to the diet, as is shown by water-sieved materials. Moreover, the habitat preferences of all species need to be evaluated synthetically in order to draw conclusions concerning prehistoric alluvial environments and the possibly seasonal nature of fishing. These species lists tend to be indicative of slow currents with soft substrates (Bartosiewicz & Bonsall 2004). Catfish, carp, and several other Cyprinids (especially tench) are typical of stagnant, muddy waters with relatively high temperatures and concomitant low rates of dissolved oxygen (Pénzes & Tölg 1977, 327), best indicated by the 0.7 mg/l

Fig. 1. The relationship between the number of identifiable mammalian and fish bone specimens in hand-collected Körös culture archaeozoological assemblages. Gray data points indicate the radically increased potential of water-sieved materials in evaluating fish remains. *NISP includes all remains identified as “fish”.

ject at Ecsegfalva 23 and smaller test excavations at Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös, and Ibrány-Nagyerdõ. The material from Szolnok still awaits detailed analysis.2 As was mentioned in connection with the mammalian remains, Kõtelek, Nagykörû and Ibrány are represented by large, single pits; the pit at Ibrány was completely water-

2

Special thanks are due to Anna Biller, who released her unpublished data for the purpose of this publication.

214

Erika Gál: Bird remains from Körös Culture ...

Table 2

Pisces indet.

Pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca)

Catfish (Silurus glanis)

Cyprinid varia

Carp (Cyprinus carpio)

Vimba (Vimba vimba)

Roach (Rutilus rutilus)

Barbel (Barbus barbus)

Bream (Abramis brama)

Crucian carp (Carassius carassius)

Tench (Tinca tinca)

Orfe (Leuciscus idus)

Pike (Esox lucius)

Sterlet (Acipenser ruthenus)

NISP values for fish and non-identified remains at the 10 Körös culture settlements

Gyálarét

1

1

55

Röszke

1

1

400

Nagykörû

1

Endrõd Ecsegfalva*

4

2

5

30

223

896

5

42

4

3

7

23

11

526

17 6872

Kõtelek

1

4

57

5

9731 6

Szajol Ibrány*

2

5 338

67 6002

3

6

2

54

17

Szolnok

12

785

9824

346 295

*Water-sieved assemblages

oxygen requirement characterizing tench. Rare occurrences of bones from pikeperch (2.0–3.0 mg/l) and sterlet (3.0–3.5 mg/l) in Table 2 should be considered symptomatic of the “quiet backwaters” typically exploited by Körös culture foragers. Pike represents a special case as it is a ubiquitous predator preying largely on small Cyprinids, but in hunting it relies on high visibility in clear waters. In addition, it is a species that tends to colonize temporarily inundated areas quickly.

Körös-culture outpost with known archaeozoological remains, located as far north as the Tisza River (Bartosiewicz in this volume: Fig. 2). Even using water-sieving it was mainly the remains of the characteristically large fish species (pike, carp, and catfish) that could be identified in greatest numbers at Ecsegfalva. A major difference, however, was that the presence of numerous small Cyprinid species and young individuals of large fish such as pike could also be documented (Bartosiewicz 2007a). Thousands of these small-sized remains clearly illustrate the importance of sieving for obtaining reliable archaeoichthyological information. The same may be said about Ibrány, although a quantitative difference between these two sites is immediately noticeable: three relatively large trenches (A, B and C) at Ecsegfalva yielded 18,186 fish remains, more or less the same number as a single stratified pit at Ibrány (17,051). Pike at the latter site was better represented by an order of magnitude while catfish was missing. The numbers of carp remains seem comparable. However, when the remains of identifiable small Cyprinids are grouped by their spawning regimes (Pike-Tay et al. 2004, 236, Tab. 3), a dominance of early spawning species (cold tolerant but oxygen-preferring barbel, bream, and roach) is evident at Ibrány. The opposite holds true for Ecsegfalva, where the bones of late-spawning species (tench, crucian carp and orfe) dominate among the small Cyprinids (Table 3). Testing the heterogeneity of distribution of these two groups of small Cyprinids between the two sites resulted in a statistically significant difference (Chi2 = 37.779, degree of freedom = 1, P = 0.000). Converted into a Pearson’s coefficient of correlation, there is a medium strong (r = 0.447) but highly probable relationship between location and the taxonomic composition of the small Cyprinid sample originating from these two archaeologically different Körös-culture sites. Early- and late-spawning species are represented

Comparison between Ecsegfalva and Ibrány In addition to the unsurprising general conclusion that fishing at least occasionally played some role in Körös-culture subsistence, reliable and detailed information is offered only by the two water-sieved fish bone assemblages, from Ecsegfalva and Ibrány. It is should be considered especially fortunate that based on differences in their chronological and geographical positions (also reflected in mammalian remains) these two assemblages represent two different types of Körös-culture settlements. AMS radiocarbon dates place Ecsegfalva at ca. 5800/ 5750–5650 cal BC (Oxford) and Ibrány at 5620 (68.2%) 5480 cal BC (Poznañ). In contrast to the difference in age, the earlier Ecsegfalva represents a more established form of Körös-culture animal husbandry (Bartosiewicz 2007b), comparable to that of the far larger settlement excavated at Endrõd (Bökönyi 1992) in the same region. Meanwhile, mammalian and bird remains indicate that despite the presence of Körös-culture archaeological artefacts and later radiocarbon dates, the younger settlement of Ibrány represents an archaic form of subsistence with more reliance on foraging and the exploitation of wild animals. Seen in a geographical context, the difference is understandable. Ecsegfalva belongs to the well-investigated core area of the Körös culture in the southern/central portion of the Great Hungarian Plain. In sharp contrast, Ibrány is the northernmost

215

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

identification. The 896 identifiable pike remains weighed 162.6 g. In comparison, at the settlement of Ibrány 6002 identifiable pike bones weighed 2238.0 g. This means that the average weight of pike fragments was 0.181 g at Ecsegfalva and 0.373 g at Ibrány. Although using a Student’s t-test this twofold difference is statistically significant (P = 0.000). This seems to have been massively influenced by differential fragmentation, therefore could not be responsibly interpreted in itself, although it directed attention to the potentially different sizes of pike involved. Using osteological measurements following the protocol published by Morales and Rosenlund (1979), the two sets of archaeological pike measurements were compared against the backdrop of a sample of 24 present-day pike skeletons studied in Sweden (Göteborg Museum of Natural History; Bartosiewicz 1990).3 Their osteometric parameters were used in standardizing measurements taken on the bones of Körös-culture pike. Statistically significant (P = 0.0002) differences were found between the length estimates of 56 Ecsegfalva (mean value = 385 ± 135 mm) and 154 Ibrány (mean value = 462 ± 127 mm) specimens (Kovács, Gál & Bartosiewicz 2010, 248, Fig. 7, Tab. 7). When significant size differences in pike are converted into ages (Harka 1981), 1–2 year-old (180–540 g) pike dominate the Ecsegfalva assemblage, while greater numbers of 3 year-old (ca. 1000 g) and older/larger individuals were caught at Ibrány (Figure 2). In short, the age profile of the Ecsegfalva assemblage falls closer to a “catastrophic” age profile typical of natural deaths, with a proportionally higher representation of young individuals. The “attritional” age distribution obtained for Ibrány, on the other hand, potentially indicates a size-selective fishing strategy. In the Great Hungarian Plain both scenarios must have been possible. Historical records reveal that as early summer floods receded, millions of fish of all sizes (cf. stagnophilous small Cyprinids and young pike at Ecsegfalva) were trapped in residual pools where they were simply gathered by hand or “potting,” using large, bottomless baskets. Mátyás Bél, a mid-18th-century Hungarian naturalist, mentions the unbearable stench of rotting fish left behind after major floods of the Tisza River (Bél 1764 [1984]). When gathered in time, these fish must have provided an easily available rich resource for Körös culture pastoralists. Nanna NoeNygaard (1983, 130) raises the possibility of harpooning small pike at Mesolithic Praestelyngen in Denmark. However, artifactual evidence of active fishing remains very indirect at Ecsegfalva 23. It includes small bone double points, possibly interpretable as fish gorges (Choyke & Bartosiewicz 1994). Although the small-scale excavations at Ibrány did not reveal implements associated with active fishing, the size distribution indicative of large pike may be seen as evidence for targeted if not specialized fishing. Unfortunately, due to great intraspecific variability in modern [domestic] carp (Bartosiewicz, Takács & Székelyhidy 1994, 58), similar algorithms have not yet been developed for the prediction of overall size from skeletal measurements in the prehistoric wild ancestor. Descriptive sta-

Table 3 The distribution of bones from two groups of small Cyprinid species Ecsegfalva

Ibrány

Total

Early spawning

44

83

127

Late spawning

51

11

62

Total

95

94

189

Fig. 2. Age profiles reconstructed from bone measurements of pike at Ecsegfalva (56 specimens) and Ibrány (154 specimens). The visual trend is supported by a statistically significant difference in estimated body lengths (Kovács, Gál & Bartosiewicz 2010, 248).

in comparable numbers at Ecsegfalva, while a dominance of early-spawning Cyprinids can be seen in the Ibrány sample. Interpretations of this difference may be equally attributed to: – seasonal (spring vs. summer) fishing: stochastically speaking, since spawning occurs near riverbanks this increases the chances of catching different species during the spring and early summer, – differences in habitat: the broad categories established on the basis of spawning schedules largely correspond to the groups of rheophylous vs. stagnophilous species distinguished on the basis of the intensities of current they prefer. In order to fine-tune these inter-site differences, complementary evidence was sought in the case of the two best represented species, pike and carp. Fish size reconstruction The heavy representation of small pike in the Ecsegfalva assemblage was already noted during the course of

3

Help and guidance by the late Johannes Lepiksaar is gratefully acknowledged.

216

Erika Gál: Bird remains from Körös Culture ...

Fig. 3. The size distribution of pharyngeal process width in carp and tench at Ecsegfalva. Although the bones represent a largely symmetric trend, two specimens of far larger sizes were identified at Nagykörû.

tistics are available only for the pharyngeal process from Ecsegfalva and Nagykörü. This is the bony base of the keratinous “palate” on the ventral side of the basioccipital bone against which the pharyngeal teeth grind fibrous plant material in Cyprinid fish. The mean width of 30 such carp bones from Ecsegfalva resulted in a mean value of 12.1±2.9 mm (ranging between 4.2 and 18.2 mm). Even without being converted into body sizes or ages, these values show a near-normal distribution (Figure 3). Many of the specimens originate from adult individuals around the peak of the largely normal distribution shown in the figure, while three unusually large carp can also be identified. At the other extreme, three measurements taken on pharyngeal processes of tench more or less correspond to the size range estimated for small pike as discussed previously. Although no comparable measurements are available from Ibrány, the early Körös-culture site of Nagykörû-Tsz Gyümölcsös, AMS dated to ca. 6000 (68.2%) 5620 cal BC, yielded two such bones from large carp. Measuring 19.1 and 25.1 mm respectively (Raczky et al. 2010), both fall well above the size range represented at Ecsegfalva, dwarfing the size of the average carp caught there.

small elevations in the Great Hungarian Plain – ranged between approximately 67–91 m (mean = 79.4 ± 7.6 m) above sea level. The intensity of spring and summer floods evidently influenced the seasonality of landscape use. Residual flood pools offered abundant sources of food until flocks could return to the rejuvenated pastures on low-lying ground. Carp, as well as smaller species of Cyprinids identified in Körös-culture assemblages, are typical of shallow waters where specimens of all sizes may easily be caught by various methods. Catfish is also indicative of such habitats. However, except for the early spring spawning season, large pike tend to seek deeper, cooler, and cleaner waters where they need to be pursued by active fishing. This difference in fish behaviour raises the possibility that the two comparable water-sieved assemblages from Ecsegfalva and Ibrány represent different attitudes to fish expressed in divergent fishing practices. While the opportunistic exploitation of floodplain resources was possibly characteristic of established sheep herders in the core area of sites, of which Ecsegfalva has been studied in detail, Ibrány may be seen as a settlement in a frontier position in the far north. Pike fishing (as well as a heavy reliance on hunting) may be indicative of a precarious, possibly archaic, existence in which food production played a secondary role. To date, it remains a question whether the people behind this scenario were late Körös-culture pioneers subsisting in the outback of their territory or elusive mesolithic foragers in the process of acculturation, experimenting with neolithic inventions such as pottery use and the keeping of domesticates.

CONCLUSIONS Körös-culture archaeozoological assemblages of sufficiently large size contain at least sporadic evidence of fishing, even when only hand-collected animal bones are available for study. The altitudes of the settlements under discussion here – found on ancient terraces, levees, and other

217

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Kovács E. Zs., Gál E. & Bartosiewicz L. 2010. Early Neolithic animal bones from Ibrány-Nagyerdõ, Hungary. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Norhternmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 238–254. Morales A. & Rosenlund K. 1979. Fish bone measurements. An attempt to standardize the measuring of fish bones from archaeological sites. Copenhagen. Noe-Nygaard N. 1983. The importance of aquatic resources to Mesolithic man in inland sites in Denmark. In Grigson C. & Clutton-Brock J. (eds), Animals and archaeology 2. Shell middens, fishes, and birds. (= British Archaeological Reports, International Series 183). Oxford, 125–142. Pénzes B. and Tölg I. 1977. Halbiológia horgászoknak. Budapest. Pike-Tay A., Bartosiewicz L., Gál E. & Whittle, A. 2004. Body-part representation and seasonality: sheep/goat, bird and fish remains from early Neolithic Ecsegfalva 23, SE Hungary. Journal of Taphonomy 2/4, 221–246. 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 Gronenborn D. & Petrasch J. (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. The Spread of the Neoltihic to Central Europe. ( = RGZM – Tagungen, Band 4, 1). Mainz, 147–173. Takács I. 1992. Fish remains from the early Neolithic site of Endrõd 119. In Bökönyi S. (ed). Cultural and landscape changes in south-east Hungary I. Reports on the Gyomaendrõd Project (= Archaeolingua Main Series 1). Budapest, 301–311. Vörös I. 1980. Zoological and palaeoeconomical investigations on the archaeozoological material of the Early Neolithic Körös Culture. Folia Archaeologica 31, 35–61. Vörös I. 1997. Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom kora neolitikus állatcsontleletei – Early neolithic animal bone finds from Dévaványa-Barcéi kishalom. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 31–37. Whittle A., Bartosiewicz L., Boriæ D., Pettit P. & Richards M. 2002. In the beginning: new radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary. Antaeus 25, 1–51. Whittle A., Bartosiewicz L., Boriæ D., Pettitt P. & Richards M. 2005. New radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary: some omissions and corrections. Antaeus 28, 347–355.

REFERENCES Bartosiewicz L. 1988. Water-sieving experiment at Örménykút, Site 54. In Járó M. & Költõ L. (eds), Archaeometrical research in Hungary. Budapest, 267–274. Bartosiewicz L. 1990. Osteometrical studies on the skeleton of pike (Esox lucius L. 1758). Aquacultura Hungarica 6, 25–34. Bartosiewicz L. 2007a. Mammalian bone. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 287–325. Bartosiewicz L. 2007b. Making a living: further technicalities. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 733–742. Bartosiewicz L. 2007c. Fish remains. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 377–394. Bartosiewicz L. & Bonsall C. 2004. Prehistoric Fishing along the Danube. Antaeus 27, 253–272. Bartosiewicz L., Takács I. & Székelyhidy I. 1994. Problems of size determination in common carp (Cyprinus carpio). In Van Neer W. (ed.), Fish exploitation in the past. (= Koninklijk Museum voor Midden-Afrika, Annalen, Zoologische Wetenschappen 274) 55–60. Bél M. 1764 [1984]. Tractatus de rustica Hungarorum: A magyarországi halakról és azok halászatáról (Hungarian translation of the 1764 copy: Deák A. A. Vízügyi Történeti Füzetek, Budapest.) Bökönyi S. 1974. History of Domestic Animals in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest. Bökönyi S. 1989. Animal husbandry of the Körös-Starèevo complex: its origin and development. Bökönyi S. 1989. (ed.), Neolithic of Southeastern Europa and its Near Eastern Connections. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2). Budapest, 13–16. Bökönyi S. 1992. The Early Neolithic vertebrate fauna of Endrõd 119. In Bökönyi S. (ed). Cultural and landscape changes in south-east Hungary I. Reports on the Gyomaendrõd Project (= Archaeolingua Main Series 1). Budapest, 195–299. Choyke A. M. & Bartosiewicz L. 1994. Angling with bone. In Van Neer W. (ed.), Fish exploitation in the past. (= Koninklijk Museum voor Midden-Afrika, Annalen, Zoologische Wetenschappen 274, 177–182. Harka Á. 1981. A csuka (Esox lucius L.) növekedése a Tisza tiszafüredi szakaszán. Állattani Közlemények 68: 67–75.

218

219–222.

THE ARCHAEOMALACOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF KÖRÖS CULTURE SITES Pál Sümegi University of Szeged, Department of Geology and Palaeontology, 6701 Szeged P.O. Box 658, Hungary; [email protected] tics and calculations of the numbers of individuals had been published in the international literature of archaeomalacological research (Wyman 1875). Later archaeomalacological reports, published mostly by archaeologists usually mention only the names of the snail and mussel taxa brought to light at sites without providing information on their quantities or the species proportions. Sometimes minor comments were made on whether the excavated layer was dominated by snails or mussels (Trogmayer 1964; 1968). An analysis of the economic strategies of early neolithic Körös sites, however, is impossible without reconstructing gathering activities, including the gathering of molluscs, and without data on the biomass available as food human populations in the past. The first attempts to carry out consumption studies on the basis of a biometric and statistical analysis of snail and mussel shell fragments began in the 1990s (Sümegi 2003a). First, a malacofauna of some 300,000 specimens recovered from the neolithic tell at Gorzsa was analysed (Sümegi 1999a; 1999b, Gulyás et al. in press), followed by the taxonomic, statistical and biometric study of the mollusc assemblage discovered in a Körös pit at the archaeological site of Tiszapüspöki-Karancs-Háromág (Sümegi 2003b; Gulyás & Sümegi, 2004). Later, the malacofauna at the site of Ecsegfalva (Gulyás, Tóth & Sümegi 2007) and from the Körös sites at Nagykörû were studied (See Sümegi, Gulyás & Persaits in this volume). It has become clear that at a number of Körös sites a significant amount (several tons) of gathered mussels and snails was deposited over the course of a few hundred years. The adaptation (Sümegi 2003b) of recent biometric investigations (Kiss 1996) made it clear that perhaps hundreds of kilograms of protein rich mussels might have been exploited in the early Neolithic. This gives rise to the following questions: Why did neolithic communities gather snails and mussels intensively while the undoubtedly hunter-gatherer mesolithic population did not follow the same practice? What kind of cultural connections might the practice of intensive snail and mussel gathering reveal? How did the neolithic communities make use of this significant number of molluscs? Was it consumed by the

INTRODUCTION The shells of mollusc (Mollusca) species have a significant role in archaeological research as they can be widely used in the reconstruction of past events and environmental conditions and thus, as possible indicators of the relationship between humans and the environment. Through their thorough analysis, different site types and taxa from various (sea- and freshwater, dry land) habitats may reveal activities carried out in human communities including gathering molluscs and trading with them. At the same time, molluscs provide information on past climatic conditions (Sümegi 1999a; 1999b; 2003b). Archaeological assemblages of molluscs consist of specimens collected for consumption or for later use as jewellery or tools (scrapers, scoops or knives). Molluscs can also be used as colouring material (e.g. from the purple dry murex shell). In addition, fossil (older than the site itself, acquired by humans from geological layers) as well as contemporary specimens accumulated as a result of mollusc trade may also end up in the archaeological assemblages. There are archaeological sites consisting of several million gathered mussels and snails (shell midden deposits). The largest of such sites are usually located in river deltas and seaside plains, or beside large rivers.

RESEARCH HISTORY It is thus not surprising that in the several thousand square kilometers of floodplains in the Carpathian Basin, archaeological layers rich in freshwater snails and mussels as well as fragments of land snail and bivalve shells have been observed. Such layers are present from the Neolithic onwards. Neolithic snail and bivalve accumulations were first studied by Kálmán Czógler who examined mussels from the neolithic tells around the city of Szeged (Czógler 1934). These notes on freshwater bivalves provided the first pieces of information on gathered and consumed molluscs in Hungarian faunal material. However, these reports can mostly be used only for the identification of the gathered taxa and not for quantitative calculations, as precise numbers were not provided despite the fact that from the end of the nineteenth century onwards detailed quantitative statis-

219

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

human population or was it also used as fodder for their animals? Was the accumulation of this considerable number of molluscs concentrated in one particular gathering season or did early neolithic people gather them throughout their breeding season (that is, in all frost free months)? Could the practice of intensive collecting result in a population change in the local mollusc fauna within the gathering range? Are the changes in the molluscs’ size and weight due to climatic changes or rather to other more specific climaticdependent factors (e.g. the size and frequency of floods)? 1. The first problem is crucial as in the second half of the Mesolithic during the early Holocene (9600–6500 cal BC) environmental conditions in the Carpathian Basin were very similar to those in the Early Neolithic, especially in the area of the Great Plain. Relatively short winters of 2–3 months and long, mild breeding seasons characterized the end of the Mesolithic (Sümegi 1998; 2004; 2010). There were extensive river floodplains, and parkland forest vegetation prevailed around the beds of rivers (Sümegi 1999c). In the Danube floodplains three characteristic maximum water levels were observed during the Mesolithic, while in the floodplains of the Tisza River there are two such levels. Nevertheless, the Mesolithic archaeological sites excavated so far revealed only a minimal number of mollusc remains, of which only an insignificant proportion would have been suitable for consumption (Sümegi 1999c). The absence of mollusc remains may be rooted in the relatively small number of excavated Mesolithic sites in the plain regions of the Carpathian Basin (Koz³owski 2005). It is, however, odd that Mesolithic sites in the Great Plain have failed to reveal anything similar to the shell middens found at the Starèevo culture site of Alsónyék-Bátaszék (Bánnfy, Marton & Osztás 2010 or the Körös culture sites along the Tisza River (Sümegi 2003b). Not only do the reconstructed environmental conditions suggest the abundance of molluscs in these areas but shell middens created by mesolithic populations are present in significant numbers throughout Europe (Andersen 1991; 2007). Molluscs are, however, not common even in the Tardenoisian Mesolithic assemblages of the Great Plain (including the site of Szõdliget and sites in the Jászság area), although gathering snails and mussels was usual at sites of the Tardenoisian culture (Dinan 1996). Other Mesolithic cultures in Central Europe (Sauveterrian, Swiderian) also exploited large numbers of gathered snails and mussels (Bonizzoni et al. 2009). Consequently, mollusc data from mesolithic sites in Hungary are not easy to contextualize and find analogies for. A number of questions must be formulated when such mesolithic data are compared to the mollusc-gathering practices of early neolithic populations. Especially, what was the difference in size between the mesolithic and neolithic populations, and how were these populations structured when they exploited large numbers of molluscs? Data from the international literature on mollusc-gathering suggest

1

there should have been no difference between the number of snails and mussels gathered by mesolithic and neolithic populations, that is, discrepancies in numbers cannot be explained by cultural dissimilarities. Data from the Great Plain, however, indicate that the population size of mesolithic and neolithic communities might have been very different in a given area and it is possible that smaller mesolithic communities simply had no need of this protein source. This question, nevertheless, cannot be answered without further data from thorough excavations of mesolithic sites. Lacking such data this problem cannot be resolved at the moment. It is, however, logical to ask whether early neolithic peoples gathered molluscs for their own consumption or whether they gathered it as complementary fodder for their domesticates. 2. Thus, the biological food value of the material becomes an important issue. In temperate zone ecosystems the omnivorous wild boar is widespread and was present during the Early Holocene (Vörös 1987). This species may consume large numbers of snails and mussels during its lifetime (Baló 2007). It is possible, therefore, that swine kept by people of the early neolithic Körös culture might have been fed on gathered molluscs, or at least a part of the accumulated snail and mussel flesh was given to them. Furthermore, it cannot be excluded that other species were also fed on snails and mussels. Molluscs can also be used for the fattening of predominantly herbivore domesticates, cattle and sheep1 (Kiss & Pekli 1988). It is, however, doubtful, whether the snails and mussels were given to the animals, as most shells of both the freshwater and sea molluscs (70–80%) were unearthed in an intact state from the soil. Most of the damage to the shells most likely occurred during the excavation procedure itself, as well as the weight of the deposit. In any case, it seems that the majority of the shells were not fragmented by animals. Both omnivore and herbivore teeth leave characteristic traces on the shell’s surface and nothing of this kind has yet been encountered. It is possible, of course, that in case of mussels the shells were opened and the flesh was removed before feeding it to the animals, but this process is long and laborious, and the mussels must be left in the sun for a relatively long time so that they open up. This natural process may be sped up by warming or roasting on fire, but on the basis of our observations (burnt, calcined fragments) only a few percent of the shells were exposed to heat. This, together with the dominance of intact snail shells, suggest that gathered molluscs were only occasionally fed to the domesticates. 3. The third question may be best answered by studying incremental rings in mollusc shells. Analytical results available to date (Gulyás & Sümegi 2004) have shown that individual layers in mussel shell deposits are indicative of relatively short gathering events. 4–5. Questions four and five represent a complex of intimately related issues. Namely, the sizes of mussel (as well as snail) shells in the midden can equally well be influenced by the intensity of gathering and climatic changes.

Poster on conference: Kiss Á. & Pekli J.: Takarmányozási célú kagylótenyésztés. Mezõgazdasági Tudományos Napok I. Szekció, Gödöllõi Agrártudományi Egyetem, Gödöllõ, 04.06.1988.

220

Pál Sümegi: The archaeomalacological investigation ...

Baló A. K. 2007. A vaddisznó állománydinamikája és természetvédelmi megítélése a kesznyéteni tájvédelmi körzet területén – The environmental end dynamic view of wild boar population in the landscape – Protection Area of Kesznyéten. PhD Dissertation. Debrecen University. Manuscript. Debrecen. Bánffy E., Marton T. & Osztás A. 2010. Early Neolithic settlement and burials at Alsónyék-Bátaszék. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. 2010. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 37–51. Barna G. & Fórizs I. 2007. A Balaton stabil-izotóp-hidrológiai karakterisztikája. Térbeli eloszlás és a párolgási izotópeffektus. Hidrológiai Közlöny 87, 35–51. Bonizzoni L., Bruni S. Girod A. & Guglielmi V. 2009. Archaeomteric study of shells of Helicida from Edera cave (Northeastern Italy). Archaeometry 51, 151–173. Czógler K. 1934. Édesvízi kagylók szeged-vidéki régészeti leletekben – Freshwater mussels from archaeological remains around Szeged town. Dolgozatok a Magyar Királyi Ferencz József Tudományegyetem Archaeológiai Intézetébõl 9–10, 298–303. Dinan E. H. 1996. Preliminary lithic analysis of the Epigravettian levels from the Iron Gates site of Cuina Turcului. Mesolithic Miscellany 17, 25–40. Gulyás S. & Sümegi P. 2004. Some aspects of Prehistoric shellfishing from the Early Neolithic (Körös) site of Tiszapüspöki, Hungary: methods and findings. (= Soosiana 32). Budapest. Gulyás S., Tóth A. & Sümegi P. 2007. The zooarchaeological analysis of freshwater bivalve shells and their relevance regarding the life of a Neolithic community. In Whittle A. 2007. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 395–411. Gulyás S., Tóth A. & Sümegi P. & Horváth F. in press. What can freshwater mussels tell us about the life of a late Neolithic tell community from Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa, SE Hungary? In Baldia M. (eds.), Paleoclimatic changes and socio-cultural human responses – WAC-5 Proceedings paper. Juhász P., Truncsányi I., Kovács T., Olajos P., Truncsényi B., & Kiss B. 1998. Vízi makroszkópikus gerinctelen élõlényegyüttesek vizsgálata a Felsõ-Tiszán. Hidrológiai Közlöny 78, 346–347. Juhász P., Kiss B., Olajos P. & Grigorszky I. 1999. Faunisztikai kutatások a Körös–Maros Nemzeti Park mûködési területén levõ „szentély” jellegû holtmedrekben. Crisicum 2, 99–110. Juhász P., Kiss B., Olajos P. & Grigorszky I. 2000. Vízi makroszkópikus gerinctelenek faunisztikai vizsgálata a KörösMaros Nemzeti Park mûködési területén. Crisicum 3, 141– 156. Juhász P., Kovács T., Ambrus A. & Kavrán V. 2004. Data to the knowledge of the mollusc fauna living in the Hungarian segment of the River Tisza (Mollusca: Gastropoda, Bivalvia). Malakológiai Tájékoztató 22, 97–130. Kiss Á. 1996. A balatoni kagylók növekedése, különös tekintettel az Unio pictorum és U. tumidus fajra. Állattani Közlemények 81, 183–191. 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. Sümegi P. 1998. Az utolsó 15000 év környezeti változásai és hatásuk az emberi kultúrákra Magyarországon. In Ilon G. (ed.), A régésztechnikusok kézikönyve. Szombathely, 367–397. Sümegi P. 1999a. Csigák és kagylók a régészeti kutatásokban. I. Természet Világa 130:10, 454–457.

It is for this reason that biometric data alone is not enough to show whether shifts in the composition of middens were caused by environmental change or climatic effects alone. Unfortunately, a recent proliferation of statistical analyses resulted in correlating metric changes in the same shell being correlated gathering strategies as well as climatic variability (Tóth et al. 2004). Moreover, changes observed in the composition of aquatic molluscan faunas were explained by shifts in atmospheric temperatures alone. Recent population studies of the molluscan fauna along the Tisza River and its tributaries (Juhász et al. 1998; 1999; 2000; 2004) have unambiguously shown that it was not only the quantity of water carried by the river (determined by precipitation in the watershed) that influenced the size of various shells. Qualitative traits characterizing the aquatic environment such as the oxygen content and chemical composition of the water as well as the speed of the current all impact shell growth. Temperature plays a limiting role, but only up to a certain point in shell development. Some of the aforementioned parameters can be clearly identified by the chemical analysis of shells and by interpreting changes in the representation of species favouring particular environments. Meanwhile, we need to be aware of the fact that the subject of this study is not a natural shell deposit but represents the remains of animals acquired by gathering. A midden thus may contain species imported from a variety of aquatic habitats (oxbow, floodplain, prehistoric mainstream). Studies of modern-day aquatic faunas indicate that these animals may have attained different sizes as a result of various growth intensities and are characterized by their varying geochemical and isotopic contents (Barna & Fórizs 2007). Even minimal changes in the ancient shell gathering areas may have altered measurements characteristic of certain populations and the chemical and isotopic contents of shells thus gathered vary as well. It is thus impossible to reconstruct whether different habitats within the overall gathering grounds were exploited or whether changes in the size, chemical and isotopic composition of shells were caused by shifts in the climate. In this manner, the analysis of artificially created shell middens from archaeological sites may reflect the presence of different habitats where shells were gathered and is thus of limited use in palaeoclimatic and palaeoenvironmental analyses. These assemblages may be considerably biased by human interference in the form of patterned gathering. Environmental conclusions drawn from archaeological shell assemblages therefore need to be treated very cautiously. Changes in gathering strategies rather than environmental events may lie behind the variability exhibited by the observed phenomena.

REFERENCES Andersen S. H. 1991. Norsminde. A “KÝkkenmÝdding” with Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic Occupation. Journal of Danish Archaeology 8, 13–40. Andersen S. H. 2007. Shell middens (“KÝkkenmÝddinger”) in Danish Prehistory as a reflection of the marin environment. In Milner N., Craig O. & Bailey G. (eds), Shell middens in Atlantic Europe. Oxford, 31–45.

221

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Sümegi P. 1999b. Csigák és kagylók a régészeti kutatásokban. II. Természet Világa 130:11, 513–515. Sümegi P. 1999c. Reconstruction of flora, soil and landscape evolution, and human impact on the Bereg Plain from late-glacial up to the present, based on palaeoecological analysis. In Hamar J. & Sárkány-Kiss A. (eds). The Upper Tisa Valley. (= Tiscia Monograph Series). Szeged, 173–204. Sümegi P. 2003a. Early Neolithic man and riparian environment in the Carpathian Basin. 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, 53–60. Sümegi P. 2003b. Régészeti geológia és történeti ökológia alapjai. Szeged. Sümegi P. 2004. The results of paleoenvironmental reconstruction and comparative geoarcheological analysis for the examined area. In Sümegi P. & Gulyás S. (eds), The geohistory of Bátorliget Marshland. An Example for the Reconstruction of Late Quaternary Environmental Changes and Past Human Impact from the Northeastern Part of the Carpathian Basin. (= Archaeolingua Main Series). Budapest, 301–348. Sümegi P. 2010. Az Északi-középhegység negyedidõszak végi õstörténete. Ember és környezet kapcsolata a szubkárpáti

(felföldi) régióban — Paleohistory of the Northern Mountains at the end of the Quaternary – Connections between Man and Environment in the Subcarpathian Region. In Guba Sz. & Tankó K. (eds), „Régrõl kell kezdenünk…” Studia Archaeologica in honoreum Pauli Patay. Régészeti tanulmányok Nógrád megyébõl Patay Pál tiszteletére. Szécsény, 295–326. 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. 1968b. A Dél-Alföld korai neolitikumának fõbb kérdései I–II. PhD Dissertation. Szeged. Manuscript. Tóth A., Gulyás S.,Horváth F. & Sümegi P. 2005. Környezetrégészeti kutatások a gorzsai késõ neolit tell XVII. szelvényének kagylóanyagának vizsgálatával. Múzeumi Kutatások Csongrád Megyében 2004, 69–89. Vörös I. 1987. Large Mammalian Faunal Changes During the Late Upper Pleistocene and Early Holocene Times in the Carpathian Basin. In Pécsi M. (ed.), Pleistocene Environment in Hungary. Budapest, 81–101. Wyman J. 1875. Fresh-water shell mounds of the St. John’s River, Florida. Memoirs of the Peabody Academy of Science 1, 3–94.

222

223–230.

THE ARCHAEOBOTANICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE KÖRÖS CULTURE Ferenc Gyulai Szent István University, H-2103 Gödöllõ, Páter Károly utca 1, Hungary; [email protected] viewpoint of forest cover. For example the pedunculate oak–hornbeam association (Qerco robori–Carpinetum) that has been prevalent in the Great Hungarian Plain since the Atlantic Phase may be considered a continuation of the flora in the East European steppe in the Ukraine. Palynological studies in the Great Hungarian Plain (Komlódi 1966) created an opportunity for reconstructing the vegetation cover of the Atlantic Phase (Szujkó-Lacza 1991). Due to holocene changes in the course of the Tisza River, the surface of the Great Hungarian Plain became extremely variable. From a floristic point of view this area, largely covered by loess, has always been open to the Northern Hill region, the Transdanubian Hills in the west, as well as toward the south (western and eastern Illyricum and the plains of Southern Russia). During its vegetation history numerous plant species of similar climatic/environmental preferences have entered this area either by natural migration or by human mediation. The rapid settlement and cultivation activity of the Körös culture is shown by the presence of land snails in lacustrian sediments in the Great Hungarian Plain (Sümegi et al. 1998) that were accompanied by botanical remains indicative of slash-and-burn land clearance (Willis 1997). The investigation of archaeobotanical remains of the Körös culture began already during the 1960s. Prior to the 1990s, however, researchers concentrated mainly on the imprints of seeds, ears fragments, forks (furca bicornis) and husks (glumae) preserved in fragments of daub and ceramic sherds (Hartyányi, Nováky & Patay 1968; Hartyányi & Nováki 1974; Füzes 1990). Those days the actual plant remains themselves were hardly ever encountered. It was archaeological excavations with a more clearly defined environmental focus beginning in the 1990s whose systematically collected soil samples yielded long expected direct archaeobotanical evidence supporting hypotheses of Körös culture crop cultivation. Most archaeobotanical materials from the Great Hungarian Plain under discussion here were analyzed by Borbála P. Hartyányi and Miklós Füzes. Beginning with the mid-1990s the author of this chapter has joined archaeobotanical investigations. More recently, archaeobotanists from the UK have also joined early neolithic research in the region. As the number of find materials increased, several reports have been published

INTRODUCTION The people of the Körös culture were the first cultivators in Central Europe. The excavated settlements of this prehistoric culture are neatly distributed over the palaeohydrographic map of the Great Hungarian Plain (Map 1). They are located in the proximity of major rivers beyond the flood zone, occupying areas of loessy arable land. Prior to major human impact first represented by the Körös culture the natural surface of the Carpathian Basin may be considered a “raw landscape” (Fráter, Biró & Kósa 2000). People began converting nature as they switched from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a sedentary agricultural way of life that also included animal husbandry. Settlement favored the emergence of food production. The beginning of this change in subsistence coincided with a climatic period during which the Great Hungarian Plain had its greatest forest cover. The mosaic-like environment of the Carpathian Basin that had emerged during the Quaternary period influenced human populations who arrived here. People familiar with crop cultivation arriving here from the Balkans sought habitats that were familiar, i. e. similar to the natural environments they had inhabited before. The region of the Tisza– Maros–Körös Rivers was such an area. Evidently, they could best profit from their previously accumulated knowledge of a food-producing economies. The know-how of agriculture spread relatively rapidly from the Near East toward regions of southeastern and Central Europe where comparable climatic and environmental conditions prevailed, and reached the area under discussion here in approximately two millennia. One of the main routes the expansion of agriculture followed lead through mainland Greece, Thessaly, and the Balkans. The other route crossed the territory of modern-day Bulgaria on the way to the Carpathian Basin. The first cultivators of the Great Hungarian Plain and Transylvania were associated with the Körös culture and related to the aforementioned early neolithic agricultural communities in the Balkans. The fast distribution of domesticated plants and of the relevant know-how required by their cultivation may be explained by environmental similarities. During the Atlantic Phase the Great Hungarian Plain must have been similar to the Balkans (as well as the Crimean Peninsula) from the

223

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

communities (Fraxino panonicae–Querceti roboris) and oak/ash/elm gallery forests (Queco–Ulmetum) must have occupied seasonally inundated areas, while drier land was possibly covered by varieties of dry-mesic oak forest associations typical of loess in combination with lily of the valley (Convallario–Quercetum) and tartarian maple (Aceri tatarico–Quercetum hungaricum). Elm remains may have originated from elm/linden/ash communities or mixed oak forests of the region. Numerous textile imprints could be identified on Körös culture sherds (Makkay 2001). At the site of Gyomaendrõd the imprint of flax (Linum usitatissimum) or hemp (Cannabis sativa) tissue was preserved on the surface of exogeneous calcium concretions on a piece of red deer antler. Even if this fortunate find cannot be considered the evidence of local fibre plant production, it certainly proves familiarity with plant processing, including weaving. The cast of loosely woven textile could also be made at the same site (Füzes 1990). In his opinion, this pattern was left by a sieve made from twigs of willow or linden trees (Salix/Tilia) that were used in sifting cereal grain during the cleaning process. In addition to imprints, direct archaeobotanical finds also show that people of the Körös-–Starèevo-culture pursued plant gathering. They consumed fruits, nuts and berries found in their direct environment. From this point of view, the “finger thick” layer of hazelnut (Corylus avellana) shell recovered at Méhtelek-Nádas (excavations by Nándor Kalicz and János Makkay in 1973, Kalicz & Makkay 1977) is of special importance. According to studies by Elvira Nagyné Bodor (1988) hazel was widely spread in Transdanubia (Western Hungary) during this time period. This is by no means an accident. Hazel was the predominant type of bush during the Boreal Phase that preceded the Atlantic Phase. Stones of Cornelian cherry (Cornus mas) recovered at the site of Battonya-Basarága are likewise important (Fig. 5. 2). To date, Szeged-Gyálarét-Szilágyi-major (excavations by Ottó Trogmayer in 1964, Trogmayer 2004) is the only Körös culture site, where in addition to imprints and cereal grain, other types of macrobotanical finds were found. Since they were recovered in the proximity of wheat, they were probably the remains of weeds associated with this cereal. Meanwhile, they represent the earliest finds of weed associations in Hungary. They include sweet peas or vetchlings (Lathyrus spec) and brome (Bromus spec). Unfortunately the surviving imprints are not suitable for a finer, species level identification. Excavations were carried out in the outskirts of Ecsegfalva (Békés county) by the University of Cardiff in cooperation with the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences between 1999–2001 (Whittle 2007; in this volume). The macrobotanical material brought to light during the course of these excavations was dated to the time of the Körös culture (Bogaard, Bending & Jones 2007). Amy Bogaard and her co-workers identified the following carbonized seeds in the soil: many row barley (Hordeum vulgare polystichum), naked barley (Hordeum vulgare var. nudum), einkorn (Triticum monococcum subsp. monococcum), emmer (Triticum turgidum subsp. dicoccum)

(e.g. Hartyányi, Nováky & Patay 1968; Hartyányi & Nováki 1974; 1975; Füzes 1990; Willis 1997; Gyulai 2005; 2007; Bogaard, Bending J. & Jones 2007).

MATERIAL AND METHOD To date, macrobotanical remains have been identified from 13 Körös culture sites in the Great Hungarian Plain (Gyulai 2010, 220, Fig. 1). These include both sporadic finds and material gathered through systematic excavations aimed at environmental reconstruction. They also include sites where seeds and fruit remains were found (Table 1), as well as the aforementioned imprints identified on the surfaces of sherds and adobe fragments. Archaeobotanical remains offer an opportunity for reconstructing the Körös culture knowledge of plants, land cultivation and agricultural production. Moreover, early neolithic plant remains help characterizing patterns of ancient settlement and its relation to the natural environment. Field work at the Körös culture site of Röszke-Lúdvár (excavations by Ottó Trogmayer in 1964–65, Trogmayer 2003) yielded pot sherds with imprints predominantly of einkorn (Triticum monococcum subsp. monococcum) and to a lesser extent emmer (Triticum turgidum subsp. dicoccum) that could be identified using silicone rubber casts (Füzes 1990). Aside from those of einkorn, no other grain imprints could be recognized on the sherds recovered from the sites of Battonya-Basarága (excavations by János József Szabó in 1975, Szabó 1977; Makkay 2007, 216) and Gyomaendrõd 119 (excavations by János Makkay in 1990, Makkay 1992). Imprints are difficult to identify, in part because they tend to be poorly preserved. Therefore such studies became less frequent in the absence of lucky finds. Moreover wheat could only be identified only on a general level at the sites of Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa (excavations by Gyula Gazdapusztai in 1955, Gazdapusztai 1957) and Szarvas-Szappanos (excavations by Endre Krecsmárik in 1912, Krecsmárik 1915), subspecies determination was impossible. Interestingly enough, no ceramic imprints have ever been interpreted as those of barley (Hordeum spec). Never-theless, one should presume that barley was among the cultivars at such sites. A similar conclusion was drawn from the analysis of Körös culture sherds found by Endre Krecsmárik near Szarvas. One of these was imprinted by an ear fragment from either barley or hulled wheat (Füzes 1990). Macroscopic studies of the antropomorphic vessel dubbed the “Venus of Gorzsa” (Gazdapusztai 1957, 11; Trogmayer, Koncz & Paluch 2006, 13, 1; Plate 1/1) are unusually exciting. X-ray pictures of this vessel show intact wheat grain mixed into the tempering of the clay, a custom entirely unknown in the case of ordinary pottery. No plant imprints, only charcoal remains were studied at the site of Deszk-I. sz. Olajkút (excavations by Ottó Trogmayer in 1960, Trogmayer 1968) and Ószentiván (excavations by Ida Kutzián in 1960, B. Kutzián 1961). Oak was identified at both sites (Quercus spec), while at the latter settlement elm (Ulmus spec) was also used. This information concerning early neolithic environments is very important. A variety of oak associations must have occupied the Tisza–Maros River region at the time. Floodplain forest

224

Ferenc Gyulai: The archaeobotanical characterization ...

and associated weeds such as field brome (Bromus arvensis), barren/drooping brome (Bromus sterilis/tectorum), black bindweed (Fallopia convolvulus), corpse-bindweed (Fallopia dumetorum), false cleavers (Galium spurium), redshank (Polygonum cf. persicaria) and tiny vetch (Vicia cf. hirsuta). Some ruderal weeds resistant to trampling representing human presence were also mixed with this material: fat hen (Chenopodium album), maple-leaved goosefoot (Chenopodium hybridum), danewort (Sambucus ebulus), while others are indicative of the once humid environment: water-chestnut (Trapa natans), common club-rush (Schoenoplectus lacustris). A real surprise is the occurrence of millet (Panicum miliaceum) at such an early date. The Tisza River marked the probably northernmost distribution of the Körös culture. The site of TiszaszõlõsDomaháza-puszta located near the river was excavated by László Domboróczki in 2003 (Domboróczki 2010; in this volume). Settlement layers representing several neolithic cultures were found. Some 200 carbonized plant remains were recovered from the soils sample taken from the Körös culture layer of a large refuse pit. The majority originated from cereals, mostly emmer (Triticum turgidum subsp. dicoccum), somewhat fewer barley (Hordeum vulgare), einkorn (Triticum monococcum subsp. monococcum) and spelt (Triticum aestivum subsp. spelta). According to radiocarbon measurements carried out by Tom Higham (Oxford 14C Laboratory) these finds may be dated to 5850–5630 calBC. Cereal grain was also found in the transitional zone between the upper (Szatmár group of the ALBK culture) and lower (Körös culture) deposit of the pit. The macrobotanical remains recovered from the site of Füzesabony-Gubakút excavated by László Domboróczki in 1995 (Domboróczki 1997) represent the 6th millennium BC transitional period between the Körös and the Alföld LBK in the Great Hungarian Plain. In spite of the fact that numerous samples had been studied, only a relatively few carbonized plant remains were found. The most important cereals of the people who inhabited the settlement but did not seem to have been engaged in large-scale crop cultivation were barley and emmer. Their local production and processing is shown by fragmentary bifurcated fork (furca bicornis) remains. Wild oat (Avena fatua) was the only weed species identified. Another macrobotanical assemblage originated from the site of Ibrány-Nagyerdõ Huda-tábla, a Körös culture site excavated under the direction of Pál Raczky and László Domboróczki in 2008 (Domboróczki & Raczky 2010). Some 50 samples were taken from a single pit (Gyulai 2010). These, however, contained hardly more than two dozen plant macro remains, many of them fragmented, making identification difficult or impossible. Almost half the plant remains originated from millet (Panicum miliaceum: Fig. 5. 3). The germ is missing as is common after hulling during which it tends to break. A grain fragment of barley (Hordeum vulgare) was also encountered (Fig. 5. 4). The single wheat grain found is very similar to tetraploid cultivated naked wheat (T. parvicoccum), a plant that was identified at several sites dated to the first half of the Neolithic (Fig. 5. 5). The sample contained seeds of the following pulses: microsperma lentils (Lens culinaris subsp. micro-

sperma) and field pea (Pisum sativum subsp. arvense). Moreover, fragmented seeds of an oil plant, poppy (Papaver cf. somniferum) were also encountered (Fig. 5. 6–8). In addition to the remains of cultigens, a single weed, the hulled grain (cum caryopse corticata) of rye brome (Bromus secalinus) could be identified (Fig. 5. 9) in this material. Remains of cooked or baked cereal mush made from coarsely ground grain offer important evidence of food processing at this site (Fig. 5. 10). The most recent research materials from the Körös culture originate from the settlement of Berettyóújfalu-Nagy Bõcs-dûlõ. The site was excavated by János Dani and his co-workers during 2004–2005 (Dani et al. 2006). About a dozen soil samples yielded a rich and diverse macrobotanical assemblage. Over seven hundred remains came to light representing more than forty plant species. The majority of this well-preserved material is made up by cereals. On the basis of the great number of its finds, people of this settlement predominantly cultivated hulled wheat: emmer and einkorn. Several bifurcated fork (furca bicornis) remains were left behind by the processing of these cereals. Sporadic occurrences of spelt and common wheat could also be recorded. Barley occurred less commonly, but its remains originated from many-rowed as well as two-rowed naked barley. Millet was also present in the samples. Highly developed cereal grain cultivation was complemented by growing pulses such as microsperma lentils and field peas. The remains of several weed species were also identified: field brome (Bromus arvensis), soft brome (B. hordeaceus), rye brome (B. secalinus), false cleavers (Galium spurium), black bindweed (Fallopia convolvulus), red hemp nettle (Galeopsis ladanum), pyramidal star of Bethlehem (Ornithogalum pyramidale), field madder (Sherardia arvensis). Aside from weeds, the occurrence of heavily poisonous sclerotia from the ergot of rye (Claviceps purpurea) are indicative of the poor health condition of early neolithic crops. The fruits of several wild plants were gathered in the surrounding environment: crab apple (Malus silvetris), pedunculate or English oak (Quercus robur), common elder/ red elder (Sambucus nigra/racemosa), wild grape (Vitis vinifera subsp. silvestris). Ruderal weed species that withstand trampling and are therefore characteristic of human settlement were also identified. They included fat hen (Chenopodium album) and danewort (Sambucus ebulus). Since the overall environment of the site was marshy, the seeds of some plants preferring overwhelmingly humid habitats were also represented. They included Bowles golden sedge/slender-spiked sedge (Carex elata/gracilis), true fox-sedge/rough sedge (Carex vulpina/muricata) and common spike-rush (Eleocharis palustris).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The 13 Körös culture settlements located in the Great Hungarian Plain under discussion here yielded 4746 macrobotanical remains from 56 taxa (genera/species/subspecies). The majority was carbonized seeds and fruits, but plant imprints were also included. In addition to plant materials, 41 food preserved food fragments and 5 miscellaneous remains (flower/bud, sclerotium and rodent excrement)

225

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 1. gary.

the number of grain seeds (caryopsis nuda) and bifurcated forks (furca bicornis) the most important cereal of the Körös culture was barley followed by emmer (Triticum turgidum subsp. dicoccum) and einkorn (T. monococcum subsp. monococcum) (Fig. 3). Better preserved specimens of barley grain may be distinguished as those of many (probably six) row barley (Hordeum vulgare subsp. hexastichum), two-row barley (H. v. subsp. distichon) and naked barley (H. v. subsp. distichon convar. nudum) respectively. Almost all species of the Triticum genus were represented in the material. In addition to hulled emmer and einkorn that made up the majority of wheat remains spelt (Triticum aestivum subsp. spelta) was also represented. Even if sporadically, forms of naked wheat were also recovered. They included durum (T. turgidum conv. durum), common (T. ae. subsp. vulgare) and dwarf wheat (T. ae. subsp. compactum). Given the small number of these remains, however, it is unlikely that these forms could have been cultivated separately. They must have accompanied the cultivation of hulled wheat. It is particularly noteworthy that a tetraploid form of cultivated naked wheat (Triticum parvicoccum) could be identified in the archaeobotanical material of the Körös culture. This species has been found several times in late PPN C (ca. 7500 BP) assemblages in both Anatolia and the Levant (Kislev, Hartmann & Galili 2004). The same species occurred in the materials identified from Ibrány-Nagyerdõ and Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-puszta as well. This phenomenon may be tentatively linked to seed stocks of Anatolian origins. It seems that this type of tetraploid naked wheat disappeared from the Carpathian Basin already during the Neolithic. Perhaps the prevailing climatic conditions did not favor its survival. The presence of millet (Panicum miliaceum) is likewise interesting among the plants of the Körös culture. It is present in the find materials from Ecsegfalva, BerettyóújfaluNagy Bõcs-dûlõ and the majority of macro remains is made up by this plant in the material from Ibrány-Nagyerdõ. The gene centre of millet is located in Central Asia. It first appeared during the 5th millennium BC in Northern China, but also at a number of sites in Europe. This complex situation remains to be explained (Hunt et al. 2008). Millet grain re-

Archaeobotanical remains of Körös culture sites in Hun-

were encountered (Fig. 1). Depending on the circumstances of diagenesis, the material also contained plant parts preserved by peat formation, however, the overwhelming majority of remains available for study survived in a carbonized state (Gyulai 2010, 228–234, Table 2). Carbonated plant parts were exposed to only lesser degrees of heat and reached that state through indirect reduction. Archaeobotanical materials from settlements of the Körös culture show great diversity (Fig. 2). In spite of this the number of seeds originating from cultivars is relatively low. This is an understandable phenomenon at the beginning of plant cultivation, as domestic plants probably represented special value and were therefore completely consumed or used some other way. Never-the-less, a largely uniform picture of crop cultivation seems to be emerging from the evidence of botanical finds. Unfortunately, many of the cereal remains did not survive in a precisely identifiable condition. Considering

Fig. 2.

Distribution of plant remains at Körös culture sites.

226

Ferenc Gyulai: The archaeobotanical characterization ...

Fig. 3.

Distribution of cereals at Körös culture sites.

Fig. 4.

Landscape reconstruction of Körös culture sites based on the ecological distribution of species

Popular forest fruits included Cornelian cherry (Cornus mas) fresh or dried, hazel nuts (Corylus avellana) and crab apple (Malus silvestris). Seeds of wild grape (Vitis vinifera subsp. silvestris) found at the site of Berettyóújfalu-Nagy Bõcs-dûlõ originate from riparian gallery forests. These are the oldest grape seeds known from the Carpathian Basin and their relatively great number raises the question whether wine could have been prepared at the time. Various oak associations existed in the Tisza–Körös– Maros region during this time period. Roasted acorns of pedunculate oak (Quercus robur), evidently intended for consumption, originate from such gallery forests that surrounded settlements. Seeds of some plants species such as lesser calamint (Calamintha nepeta) of the forest and black night shade (Solanum nigrum) as well as corpse-bindweed (Fallopia dumetorum) of the forest edge may represent random occurrences in the find material.

covered from the sites of the Körös culture in the Great Hungarian Plain may be considered of Balkan origins. Therefore the routes of distribution for millet in Europe should be revised. Numerous other cultivars could also be identified at settlements of the Körös culture in the Great Hungarian Plain. Among pulses, field pea (Pisum sativum subsp. arvense) and microsperma lentils (Lens culinaris subsp. microsperma), of the oil and fibre plants poppy (Papaver somniferum) and flax (Linum usitatissimum) were cultivated. Early neolithic diets were made more colorful by gathering wild fruits, rich in vitamins. Exploiting the natural environment is further illustrated by the remains of numerous wild fruits identified in the find material. Water-chestnut (Trapa natans) whose edible fruits were collected bears witness of the proximity of open water surfaces while woodland strawberry (Fragaria vesca) and common elder (Sambucus nigra) are indicative of the forest edge or clearings.

227

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Fig. 5. Archaeological macro remains — 1: Einkorn (Triticum monococcum) spicelet (furca bicornis) imprint on a sherd found at Gyomaendrõd (after Füzes 1990); 2: Cornelian cherry (Cornus mas) stone from Battonya-Basarága (after Füzes 1990); 3: Millet (Panicum miliaceum) grain; 4: Barley (Hordeum vulgare) grains; 5: Tetraploid naked wheat (Triticum parvicoccum) grain; 6: Small seed lentil (Lens culinaris subsp. microsperma) seed; 7: Field pea (Pisum sativum subsp. arvense) seed fragment; 8: Poppy (Papaver somniferum) seed fragment; 9: Rye brome (Bromus secalinus) naked grain; 10: Porrige fragment. 3–10: Ibrány-Nagyerdõ (1–2: after Füzes 1990; 3–10: Photo: Á. Kenéz).

Seeds of cereal weeds left behind at the site offer evidence of not only local cereal cultivation but also on site crop processing including cleaning, especially sifting and winnowing. These species were imported to the Carpathian

Basin together with domestic cereals. Fragments of the spikelet axis (artus rachis) were left in the material after threshing and cleaning, while the cleaning of hulled wheat is attested by remains of bifurcated forks (furca bicornis)

228

Ferenc Gyulai: The archaeobotanical characterization ...

among the finds. In the case of plow land weeds it is impossible to tell whether they were distinguishable as autumn and spring cereal weeds already at this early stage of cereal cultivation. If such a distinction were valid in the Early Neolithic, it could be said the majority of species belonged to autumn cereal weeds (Secalietea): field brome or Schrader’s brome (Bromus arvensis), soft brome (B. hordeaceus), rye brome (B. secalinus), black bindweed (Fallopia convolvulus), red hemp nettle (Galeopsis ladanum), false cleavers (Galium spurium), pyramidal star of Bethlehem (Ornithogalum pyramidale), field madder (Sherardia arvensis), haresfoot clover (Trifolium arvense), garden vetch (Vicia angustifolia), tiny vetch (V. hirsuta), common wild oat (Avena fatua) and field forget-me-not (Myosotis arvensis). These are all relatively tall plant species, indicating that cereals were harvested approximately at a 2/3 height of the cultivated plants. Otherwise seeds of these plants could not have been mixed with domestic grain in the find material. Spring weeds, also known as garden weeds (PolygenoChenopodietalia) are relatively underrepresented in the assemblages. They include bearded darnel (Lolium temulentum), redshank (Polygonum persicaria), maple-leaved goosefoot (Chenopodium hybridum) and barnyardgrass/yellow foxtail grass (Echinocloa crus-galli/Setaria lutescens). The remains of ruderal weeds encountered at the settlement are indicative of synanthropization. The relatively small number of weed species closely associated with human environments may be related to the small extent and the low population density of the settlement. Most of them are indicative of a habitat of average humidity: barren brone (Bromus sterilis), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), common soapwort (Saponaria officinalis), danewort (Sambucus ebulus), common elder (S. nigra) and goosegrass (Galium aparine). These ruderal weed species are diagnostic of areas under intensive human use. Their remains originated from ditches, roads, levees, fallow as well as the surroundings of corrals and houses. These are microenvironments rich in nitrogen possibly even as a result of manuring. Of these weeds the seeds of fat-hen (Chenopodium album) occurred most commonly. Wild plants whose remains were occasionally mixed into the archaeobotanical samples are of help in reconstructing the natural environment of Körös culture settlements (Fig. 4). Such reconstructions consistently show that settlement always took place along the courses of major rivers in elevated parts of the flood zone. Loess soils deposited in such areas were particularly suitable for cereal cultivation. The immediate environment of settlement was characterized probably not only by open water surfaces, but also by wet meadow and marshland vegetation, as well as open forest that was easily turned into plow land. Grazing areas must also have formed part of the human environment. The vegetation of wetland habitats dominating the area must also have intruded cultivated land. The mosaic-like, diverse environment offered good means of livelihood for those occupying it. Water-chestnut (Trapa natans) is indicative of open water surfaces in the settlements’ environment. Seeds of common club-rush (Schoenoplectus lacustris) are indicative of reed beds, while high-rush is represented by seeds of common spike-rush (Eleocharis palustris). Elements of the

riparian vegetation, such as seeds of Bowles golden sedge/ slender-spiked sedge (Carex elata/gracilis) and true foxsedge/rough sedge (C. vulpina/muricata) may be considered accidental occurrences. Interestingly, none of the sites thus far have yielded remains of exclusively marshland plants. The aforementioned fruits and berries as well as wild grape originated from gallery forests located near water. The number of meadow and grassland species that may be related to the small extent of these latter habitats. They included cypress spurge (Euphorbia cyparissias), wall germander (Teucrium chamaedrys) and small meadow rue (Thalictrum minus). Finally, food remains of extreme interest recovered at Körös culture settlements such as Tiszaszõlõs-Domaházapusza and Ibrány-Nagyerdõ should also be mentioned. These carbonized fragments, often measuring no more than a few millimeters bear important witness of how the cereals produced were turned into food. The forty known finds may be considered the crumbled remains of a few larger lumps of ancient food. Macroscopic studies reveal that the majority of these foods were made from coarsely ground cereal grain. It is also likely that it was widely consumed. Barley and wheat may have been equally prepared this way. The dough was made with plain water, it was baked unleavened, although in a single case smaller and larger bubbles seem to have been indicative of leavening. This fragment was made from more finely ground grain and may have originated from dough rather than a kasha-type mush. It must be noted here that prehistoric beer was made from fermented dough; it is thus conceivable that this small find originated from beer processing.

REFERENCES Bogaard A., Bending J. & Jones G. 2007. Archaeobotanical evidence for plant husbandry and use. In Whittle A. (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest, 421–445 Bökönyi S. 1959. Die frühalluviale Wirbeltierfauna Ungarns. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 11, 39– 102. Bökönyi S. 1974. History of domestic Mammals in Central and eastern Europa. Budapest. Dani J., Szilágyi K. A., Szelekovszky M., Czifra Sz. & Kisjuhász V. 2006. Preliminary report of the excavations preceding investment at the Berettyóújfalu, Nagy Bócs-dûlõ site in 20042005. Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon 2005 – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2005, 5–31. 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. Budapest, 19–27, 162–164. Domboróczki L. 2010. Report on the excavations at Tiszaszõlõs– Domaháza-puszta and a new model for the spread of the Körös culture. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Norhternmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 137–176. Domboróczki L. & Raczky P. 2010. Excavations at Ibrány–Nagyerdõ and the northernmost distribution of the Körös culture in Hungary. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithiza-

229

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

tion of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 191–218. Fráter E., Biró M. & Kósa G. 2000. A tájhasználat változása a Békés megyei Fáspusztán. In Füleki Gy. (ed.), A táj változásai a Kárpát-medencében a történelmi események hatására. Budapest–Gödöllõ, 266–268. Füzes M. 1990. A földmívelés kezdeti szakaszának (neolitikum és rézkor) növényleletei Magyarországon. Archaeobotanikai vázlat – Die Pflanzenfunden in Ungarn der Anfänglichen Entwicklungsfase des Ackerbaues (Neolithikum und Kupferzeit). Archaeobotanische Skizze. Tapolcai Városi Múzeum Közleményei 1, 139–238. Gazdapusztai Gy. 1957. A Körös kultúra lakótelepe Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsán – The settlement of the Körös culture at Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 84, 3–13. Gyulai F. 2005. Neolitikus növénymaradványok az Alföldrõl – Neolithic plant remains of the Great Hungarian Plain. In Bende L. & Lõrinczy G. (eds), Hétköznapok Vénuszai. Hódmezõvásárhely, 171–202. Gyulai F. 2007. Seed and fruit remains associated with neolithic origins in the Carpathian Basin. In Colledge S. & Conolly J. (eds), The Origins and Spread of Domestic Plants in Southwest Asia and Europe. Walnut Creek, 125–140. 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, J. K. & Raczky P. 2010. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 219–237. Hunt V. H., Linden V. M., Liu X., Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute G., Colledge S. & Jones K. M. 2008. Millets across Eurasia: chronology and context of early records of the genera Panicum and Setaria from archaeological sites in the Old World. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17 (Suppl 1), 5–18. Hartyányi B., Nováki Gy. & Patay Á. 1968: Növényi mag- és termésleletek Magyarországon az újkõkortól a XVIII. sz.-ig. I – Samen- und Fruchtfunde in Ungarn von der Jungsteinzeit bis zum XVIII. Jahrhundert. I. Magyar Mezõgazdasági Múzeum Közleményei (1967–1968), 5–85. Hartyányi B. & Nováki Gy. 1974. Növényi mag- és termésleletek Magyarországon az újkõkortól a XVIII. sz.-ig. II. – Samenund Fruchtfunde in Ungarn von der Jungsteinzeit bis zum XVIII. Jahrhundert. II. Magyar Mezõgazdasági Múzeum Közleményei (1973–74), 23–73. Hartyányi B. & Nováki Gy. 1975. Samen- und Fruchtfunde in Ungarn von der Jungsteinzeit bis zum 18. Jahrhundert. Agrártörténeti Szemle 17 (Supplementum), 1–22. Kalicz N. & Makkay J. 1977. Frühneolithische Siedlung in Méhtelek–Nádas. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 6, 13–24. Kislev M. E., Hartmann, A. & Galili, E. 2004. Archaeobotanical and archaeoentomological evidence from a well at Atlit-Yam indicates colder, more humid climate on the Israeli coast during the PPNC period. Journal of Archaeological Science 31/9, 1301–1310. Komlódi M. 1966. Adatok az Alföld negyedkori klíma- és vegetációtörténetéhez. I. – Quaternary climatic changes and vegetational history of the Great Hungarian Plain. I. Botanikai Közlemények 53, 191–201. Krecsmárik E. 1915. A békésszarvasi östelepek. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 35, 11–43. B. Kutzián I. 1961. Tiszasziget. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 88, 285. Makkay J. 2001. Textile impressions and related finds of the Early Neolithic Körös culture in Hungary. Budapest. Makkay J. 1992. Excavations at the Körös culture settlement of

Endrõd-Öregszõlõk 119 in 1986-1989. In Bökönyi S. (ed.), Cultural and landscape changes in south-east Hungary I. reports on the Gyomaendrõd Project (= Archaeolingua Main Series 1). Budapest, 121–193. 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 (= Societ´ per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 11). Trieste. Nagyné Bodor E. 1988. A Balaton pannóniai és holocén képzõdményeinek palynológiai vizsgálata. Magyar Állami Földtani Intézet Évi jelentése az 1986. évrõl, 535–568. Sümegi P., Hertelendi E., Magyari E. & Molnár M. 1998. Evolution of the environment in the Carpathian Basin during the last 30.000 BP years and its effects on the ancient habitats of the different cultures. In Bartosiewicz L. & Költõ L. (eds), Archeometrical Research in Hungary II. Budapest, 183–193. Szabó J. J. 1977. Battonya-Basarága, Laposéri csatorna. Régészeti Füzetek 30, 3. Szujkó-Lacza J. 1991. Reconstruction of the history of the postglacial flora and vegetation in the region between Danube and Tisza and Tiszántúl. Kiev. Trogmayer O. 1968. A Körös-csoport barbotin kerámiájáról — The „Barbotine” pottery of the Körös Group. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 95, 6–12. Trogmayer O. 2003. Régi adósságaim I. Röszke-Lúdvár. Õsrégészeti Levelek 5, 8–20. Trogmayer O. 2004. Régi adósságaim II. Gyálarét-Szilágyi-major. Õsrégészeti Levelek 6, 13–26. Trogmayer O., Koncz M. & Paluch T. 2005. Hétezer éves kerámiamûvészet. „Az újkõkor és a rézkor mûvészete” címû hódmezõvásárhelyi állandó régészeti kiállítás (1970–2003) – Seven thousand years old ceramic art. Catalogue of the permanent archaeological exhibition „Art of the Neolithic and the Copper Age” in Hódmezõvásárhely (1970–2003). Hódmezõvásárhely. Willis K. J. 1997. The impact of early agriculture upon the Hungarian landscape. In Chapman J. & Dolukhanov P. (eds), Landscapes in Flux. Central and Eastern Europe in Antiquity. (= Colloquia Pontica 3). Oxford, 193–207.

230

CATALOGUE Edited by Zsuzsanna Siklósi Maps by László Kupnik

4. Type and number of features 5. Relative chronology based on archaeological seriation; number of settlement phases 6. Absolute chronology B. Information on sites recognized on the basis of surface finds 1. Area of occurrence of portable finds 2. Taxonomic attribution and – when possible – chronological framework of sites C. The most important references

Identification and location of sites (repository ID) (Fepre Map Number FM) Name of the site (first administrative unit) 1. Administrative unit appropriate to a given site 2. River basin 3. Geographical coordinates 4. Geomorphological situation (river basin, location in relation to the land relief) 5. Short description 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

Location of archaeological sites on the map.

Geological and hydrological terms Hungarian

English

árok

ditch

csatorna

channel

ér

stream

fok

spur

gát

flood embankment

halom

mound

lelõhely

site

major

farm

patak

brook

sziget

island, islet

tanya

farmstead

tó

lake

völgy

valley

232

Catalogue

233

235.

CATALOGUE OF KÖRÖS CULTURE SITES IN SZABOLCS-SZATMÁR-BEREG COUNTY Zsuzsanna Siklósi Eötvös Loránd University, Institute of Archaeological Sciences, H-1088 Budapest, Múzeum körút 4/B, Hungary; [email protected]

Sz1. Ibrány-Nagyerdõ-Huda-tábla 1. Ibrány 2. Tisza River 3. 48°08’45,33"N, 21°42’48,96"E 4. The site is located on the levee of a former floodplain. The ancient riverbed of the Tisza River is stretching northwest of the site. A 1. L. Domboróczki, P. Raczky 2. 2008 3. 6×5 m 4. Settlement: one pit. B 1. 80×60 m 2. Körös culture, Méhtelek facies C Domboróczki 2005; Domboróczki & Raczky 2010; Gyulai 2010; Kovács et al. 2010; Kaczanowska & Koz³owski 2010; Kreiter 2010; Domboróczki in this volume 14C dates: Domboróczki & Raczky 2010, 214; Oross & Siklósi in this volume

Sz3. Nagyecsed-Péterzug 1. Nagyecsed 2. Kraszna-csatorna 3. 47°52’53,04"N, 22°22’37,81"E 4. The site is located on a small hill by the left bank of Kraszna-csatorna on the northwestern outskirts of Nagyecsed. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture, Méhtelek facies C Kalicz & Makkay 1972a, fig. 2.1, 4–7, 11–14, 16, 20, 23–28, 31–34, fig. 3; 1977b, 146, t. 1, 2, 162. 1, 4–7, 11–14, 16, 20, 23–28, 31–34 Sz4. Tiszabezdéd-Servápa 1. Tiszabezdéd 2. – 3. 48°22’14,33"N, 22°08’57,08"E 4. The site is located on the northern outskirts of the village. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture, Méhtelek facies C Kalicz & Makkay 1972b, t. 10.2; 1977b, 165, t. 3., 84.2, 162.2, 3, 8–10, 15, 17–19, 21, 22, 29, 30, 186.12

Sz2. Méhtelek-Nádas 1. Méhtelek 2. Túr River 3. 47°55’18,34"N, 22°49’57,70"E 4. The site is located on a small elevation surrounded by marshy areas near the left bank of the Túr River. A 1. N. Kalicz, J. Makkay, P. Raczky 2. 1973 3. cca. 10×10 m, 8×10.5 m, 7.5×5 m, 4×3.5 m, 4.5×5.5 m, 3.5×4 m 4. Settlement: pits. B 1. 80×80 m 2. Körös culture, Méhtelek facies C Kalicz & Makkay 1977a; Makkay 2007, 199–205; Makkay & Starnini 2008, fig. 340–357; Kalicz in press; in this volume 14 C dates: Kalicz & Makkay 1977a, 23; Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 122; Raczky et al. 2010, 164; Oross & Siklósi in this volume

Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg county List of the sites Sz1. Ibrány-Nagyerdõ-Huda-tábla Sz2. Méhtelek-Nádas Sz3. Nagyecsed-Péterzug Sz4. Tiszabezdéd-Servápa

235

237–252.

CATALOGUE OF KÖRÖS CULTURE SITES IN JÁSZ-NAGYKUN-SZOLNOK COUNTY Bettina Bittner [email protected]

4. The site is located on a spur of the levee on the inner side of the flood embankment. A– B 1. 33,000 m2; 220×150 m 2. Körös culture C Kovács 2004; 2007, 42–47.

J1. Besenyszög-Fokorú-puszta VI. 1. Besenyszög 2. Milléri-fõcsatorna (Mély-ér) 3. 47°12’55,81"N, 20°15’40,37"E 4. The site is located on the western levee known as Fokorú-puszta. A– B 1. 1200 m2; 120×100 m 2. Körös culture C Kovács 2004, 176; 2007, 40–41.

J5. Besenyszög-Tiszagát (Dobapuszta/27. lelõhely) 1. Besenyszög 2. Ballai (1. sz.)-fõcsatorna 3. 47°15’43,67"N, 20°20’37,21"E 4. The site is located beside the flood embankment. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage

J2. Besenyszög-Nagyfokorú II. (MOL-vezeték 6./Nagy-Fokorú 6.) 1. Besenyszög 2. Berek-ér 3. 47°13’19,08"N, 20°16’55,01"E 4. The site is located west of a gently sloping, north to south running levee in an area known as Nagyfokorú, southeast of Besenyszög. A– B 1. 12,000 m2; 400×300 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage, the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok) and the Hungarian National Museum (Budapest)

J6. Csépa-Csipsár-part I–II. (Csipsár-part, Csépa 15) 1. Csépa 2. – 3. 46°48’25,25"N, 20°09’08,82"E 4. The site is located on the levee overlooking a former floodplain of the Tisza River, south of Téglagyár and south of the road leading to Szelevény on the eastern outskirts of Csépa. A– B 1. 17,500 m2; 700×250 m 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1957, 28–29.

J3. Besenyszög-Nagy-Fokorú III. 1. Besenyszög 2. Berek-ér 3. 47°13’00,91"N, 20°16’43,56"E 4. The site is located on a spur facing Fokorú-puszta. A– B 1. 70,000 m2; 350×200 m 2. Körös culture C Kovács 2004, 176.

J7. Csépa-Csipsárpart III. Szira-tanya 1. Csépa 2. Csépa-Nagyszékháti-csatorna 3. 46°48’09,33"N, 20°07’32,51"E 4. The Csipsárpart levee extends east of Csépa to the Szira farmstead, where it turns south. An extensive settlement of the Körös culture was identified in the bend of the levee by the farmstead. A–

J4. Besenyszög-Szórópuszta-ártér 1. Besenyszög 2. – 3. 47°14’44,62"N, 20°19’26,15"E

237

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

B

J12. Kengyel–Pusztakengyel 1. Kengyel 2. Cserber-ér 3. 47°06’27,93"N, 20°17’29,58"E 4. The site is located in the area enclosed by the Cserber-ér beside the Derzsi-gát, on the outskirts of Új-Szanda-Pusztakengyel. A 1. J. Sõregi 2. 1939 3. – 4. Settlement B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage, the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok) and the Hungarian National Museum (Budapest)

1. – 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1957, 16–17. J8. Csépa-Csipsárpart V. Dancza-tanya 1. Csépa 2. Csépa-Nagyszékháti-csatorna 3. 46°47’16,76"N, 20°08’51,61"E 4. The southern end of the Csipsárpart levee is a projecting spur, once surrounded by water on three sides. The surrounding area is the joint floodplain of the Körös and Tisza Rivers. An extensive settlement of the Körös culture is located on the levee in the area around József Dancza’s farmstead. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1957, 17.

J13. Kengyel-Kis-tanya (Baghy-homok) 1. Kengyel 2. – 3. 47°04’43,55"N, 20°19’49,67"E 4. The site was discovered while digging a silo pit on the levee overlooking a former Tisza channel near the Kis farmstead south of Kengyel. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Cseh 1992

J9. Csépa-Csipsár-part (Csépa 16/Csipsár-part VI) 1. Csépa 2. Csépa-Nagyszékháti-csatorna 3. 46°48’06,10"N, 20°09’03,52"E 4. The site is located on a spur in the area of the Lovas farmstead opposite the bend of the Csipsárpart levee. A– B 1. 30,000 m2; 300×100 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J14. Kõtelek-Huszár-sarok 1. Kõtelek 2. – 3. 47°19’04,48"N, 20°24’21,19"E 4. The site is located on a levee overlooking a former floodplain of the Tisza River, cca. 4 km southwest of Kõtelek. A 1. P. Raczky 2. 1974 3. – 4. Settlement: a pit. B

J10. Csépa-Ludas-dûlõ (Szélmalom 2) 1. Csépa 2. Pókaháza-ér/Sas-Csépa-Mámai-mellékcsatorna 3. 46°48’46,28"N, 20°06’55,51"E 4. The site lies on the northern bank of the Pókaháza-ér, on the fringes of a former floodplain of the Tisza, extending along both sides of the road between Tiszasas and Csépa west of Csépa. The settlement’s remains showed a concentration along the edge of the streambank, around the former windmill and to its east. A– B 1. 50,000 m2; 250×200 m 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1957, 27.

1. – 2. Körös culture C Raczky 1983 J15. Kunszentmárton-Jaksori-dûlõ (Kunszentmárton 24) 1. Kunszentmárton 2. Tõke-éri-csatorna 3. 46°48’26,73"N, 20°14’34,57"E 4. The site is located in the southeastern part of a large clay extraction pit dug into the southwestern bank of a former Holt-Körös channel starting from Brena-zug. The east to west running road leading to the Kettõs-halom bisects the site. A– B 1. 5000 m2; 100×50 m 2. Körös culture

J11. Jászberény-Disznószög 1. Jászberény 2. – 3. 47°28’42,48"N, 19°58’45,41"E 4. – A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Poroszlai 1990, 13–28.

238

Bettina Bittner: Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County...

2. Körös culture

C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

C Kalicz 1957 J20. Kunszentmárton-Körtvélyesi-dûlõ (Körtvélyes IV./Kungyalu 2.) 1. Kunszentmárton 2. Hármas-Körös 3. 46°53’39,41"N, 20°19’03,82"E 4. The site is located on a levee overlooking the Körös River, on the outer side of the flood embankment, east of the junction of the embankment and the so-called Körtvélyes road running north of the Hármas-Körös River. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1957, 29.

J16. Kunszentmárton-Jaksori-dûlõ (Kunszentmárton 29) 1. Kunszentmárton 2. Tõke-éri-csatorna 3. 46°48’23,96"N, 20°15’30,92"E 4. The site is located 150 m northeast of the Kettõs-halom on the bank of a former Holt-Körös channel. A– B 1. 45,000 m2; 300×150 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok) J17. Kunszentmárton-Kékes-lápos partja II. (Kunszentmárton 54) 1. Kunszentmárton 2. Kékes-lápos 3. 46°51’47,95"N, 20°16’39,70"E 4. The site extending to an east to west running road is located on the bank of the Kékes-lápos. A– B 1. 5000 m2; 100×50 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J21. Kunszentmárton-Nagy-ér K-i partja (Kunszentmárton 8) 1. Kunszentmárton 2. Kékes-Laposi-fõcsatorna/Nagy-éri fõcsatorna 3. 46°50’30,01"N, 20°17’55,57"E 4. The site is located on the steep eastern bank of the Nagy-ér. A– B 1. 1500 m2; 300×50 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok) J22. Kunszentmárton-Nagy-éri-fõcsatorna partja I. (Kunszentmárton 7) 1. Kunszentmárton 2. Kékes-Laposi-fõcsatorna/Nagy-éri fõcsatorna 3. 46°50’21,82"N, 20°18’03,87"E 4. The site is located in the western section of the eastern bank of the Nagy-éri-fõcsatorna, directly beside the railway line. A– B 1. 10,000 m2; 200×50 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J18. Kunszentmárton-Kékes-lapos partja VI. (Kunszentmárton 58) 1. Kunszentmárton 2. Hármas-Körös 3. 46°52’23,57"N, 20°17’07,68"E 4. The L-shaped site is located on the steep northern bank of the Kékes-lápos, where it turns sharply northward. Pottery sherds of the Körös culture were scattered across the northern end of the site. A– B 1. 40,000 m2; 400×100 m, with burnt daub fragments outlining a house 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J23. Kunszentmárton-Nagy-Jaksor-érpart (Kunszentmárton 1) 1. Kunszentmárton 2. Nagy-Jaksor-éri-csatorna 3. 46°47’54,79"N, 20°17’33,08"E 4. The site is located along the northwestern edge of the levee known as Nagy-Jaksor-érpart. A– B 1. 32,000 m2; 400×80 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage, the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok) and the Hungarian National Museum (Budapest)

J19. Kunszentmárton-Körtvélyesi-dûlõ (Körtvélyes III./Kungyalu 3) 1. Kunszentmárton 2. Hármas-Körös 3. 46°54’00,30"N, 20°19’10,03"E 4. The site is located on a levee in an area known as Körtvélyes-dûlõ beside the flood embankment, north of the Hármas-Körös River. A– B 1. 8000 m2; 100×80 m

239

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J24. Kunszentmárton-Nagy-Jaksor-érpart (Kunszentmárton 11) 1. Kunszentmárton 2. Nagy-Jaksoréri-csatorna 3. 46°48’22,18"N, 20°17’45,51"E 4. The site is located in an oak forest on the southern bank of the northern branch of the Nagy-Jaksor-ér. A – The site is probably identical with the one investigated by Elemér Supiter. B 1. 7500 m2; 150×50 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J28. Mezõtúr-Szandazugi-csatorna (Holt-Berettyó)-Kada-tanya 1. Mezõtúr 2. Szanda-zugi-fõcsatorna 3. 47°00’35,86"N, 20°42’40,54"E 4. The site is located on the spot of the Kada farmstead, but this farmstead and the neighbouring Gombási farmstead no longer exist. The site extends along a north to south running levee. A– B 1. 5000 m2; 100×50 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J25. Kunszentmárton-Nagy-Jaksor-érpart (Kunszentmárton 12) 1. Kunszentmárton 2. Nagy-Jaksor-éri-csatorna 3. 46°48’32,69"N, 20°17’02,40"E 4. Lying between the forest edge and the eastern side of a clay extraction pit dug parallel to the river, the site extends westward on the southern bank of the northern branch of the Nagy-Jaksor-ér. A– B 1. 7500 m2; 150×50 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J29. Mezõtúr-Felsõrészi-dûlõ-Gáztelep (Mezõtúr 3) 1. Mezõtúr 2. Csukás-ér 3. 46°58’25,44"N, 20°39’08,73"E 4. The site is located on a levee known as Felsõrészi-dûlõ, northwest of the Szalai farmstead. A– B 1. 30,000 m2; 200×150 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J26. Kunszentmárton-Péter-szög (Kunszentmárton 21) 1. Kunszentmárton 2. Nagy-Jaksor-éri-csatorna 3. 46°48’47,07"N, 20°14’49,17"E 4. The site is located on a northeast to southwest running levee overlooking the Körös floodplain. The site is bordered by a large, east to west clay extraction pit in the south. A– B 1. 15,000 m2; 300×50 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J30. Nagykörû I. 1. Nagykörû 2. Dobai (19. sz.)-fõcsatorna 3. 47°18’01,90"N, 20°26’15,29"E 4. A high number of stone tools were collected on three sites lying close to each other in the northern part of a smaller levee known as Kaszáló. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage

J27. Kunszentmárton-Pusztaistvánháza (Kunszentmárton 1/85) 1. Kunszentmárton 2. Hármas-Körös 3. 46°49’06,71"N, 20°15’00,47"E 4. The site is located on a levee marking the edge of the floodplain south of Pusztaistvánháza. A– B 1. 5000 m2; 100×50 m. The exact extent of the site cannot be determined because it is currently surrounded by houses on three sides. 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of

J31. Nagykörû-Tsz-Gyümölcsös 1. Nagykörû 2. – 3. 47°17’42,49"N, 20°25’20,03"E 4. The site is located on the bank of a former Tisza channel on the outskirts of Nagykörû. A 1. P. Raczky 2. 2003 3. 3×3 m 4. Settlement B 1. – 2. Körös culture

240

Bettina Bittner: Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County...

C

J36. Öcsöd 103. lelõhely 1. Öcsöd 2. – 3. 46°52’29,51"N, 20°23’33,04"E 4. The site is located on an 85 m high, northeast to southwest running elevation along the road between Öcsöd and Kunszentmárton. A– B 1. 300 m long 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

Raczky 1978; 1979–80; in this volume; Csányi 2003 14 C dates: Raczky et al. 2010, 164, note 8; Gulyás et al. 2010, 1462. J32. Nagyrév-Belsõ-sáp (Sápi-part II./Nagyrév 10./Fehér B.-tanya) 1. Nagyrév 2. Holt-Tisza 3. 46°57’06,30"N, 20°08’43,38"E 4. The site is located on a levee west of the Fehér B. farmstead. A– B 1. 5000 m2; 100×50 m 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1957, 32.

J37. Öcsöd-Csököny-ér 1. Öcsöd 2. Csököny-ér-Atrácsi-csatorna 3. 46°48’38,25"N, 20°24’59,43"E 4. The site is located on a levee west of the Csököny-ér-Atrácsi channel, north of the Zubor farmstead. It covers a small area beside the farmstead. A– B 1. 2500 m2; 50 × 50 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J33. Nagyrév-Holt-Tisza-partja (Nagyrév 33/Új-tag É-i part/ Zsidó-halom III.) 1. Nagyrév 2. Beside the channel connecting the living and the Holt-Tisza. 3. 46°55’45,47"N, 20°10’09,19"E 4. The site is located on a levee extending northeast of the centre of Haladás state farm, north of the channel connecting the living and the Holt-Tisza. A– B 1. 10,000 m2; 100×100 m 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1957, 47.

J38. Öcsöd-Gácsi-tanya (Öcsöd 1/128. lelõhely) 1. Öcsöd 2. – 3. 46°54’14,62"N, 20°22’00,88"E 4. The site is located east of the Kossuth sheep-breeding farm, to the south and southeast of the Gácsi farmstead. A– B 1. 28,000 m2; 350×80 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J34. Nagyrév-Új-tag (Nagyrév 37) 1. Nagyrév 2. Between the living and the Holt-Tisza. 3. 46°56’ 00,91"N, 20°09’46,58"E 4. The site is located 200–240 m northeast of a levee lying southeast of the village, northeast of the centre of Haladás state farm and north of the channel connecting the living and the Holt-Tisza. A– B 1. 3200 m2; 80×60 m 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1957

J39. Öcsöd-Hármas-Körös partja (Öcsöd 18) 1. Öcsöd 2. Hármas-Körös 3. 46°54’42,04"N, 20°25’46,59"E 4. The site is located on the southern bank of the Hármas-Körös River. A– B 1. 70,000 m2; 700×100 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J35. Nagyrév-Új-tag (Nagyrév 38/ Új-tag/ Zsidó-halom V.) 1. Nagyrév 2. Between the living and the Holt-Tisza 3. 46°56’04,54"N, 20°09’39,99"E 4. The site is located by a small inlet of a levee adjacent to the last houses on the southeastern outskirts of Nagyrév. Towards the northeast, the site extends to the bend in the levee. The settlement core lies on a smaller elevation. A– B 1. 25,000 m2; 250×100 m, with house remains disturbed by ploughing. 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1957, 19.

J40. Öcsöd-Horga-völgy (Öcsöd 2/4. lelõhely) 1. Öcsöd 2. Horga-völgyi-fõcsatorna 3. 46°53’42,08"N, 20°25’44,00"E

241

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

4. The site is located by the side of a clay extraction pit dug at the edge of the former Körös floodplain, north of the Mogyorás-halom. A– B 1. 10,000 m2; 200×50 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J44. Öcsöd-Kenderes-halom 1. Öcsöd 2. Körös 3. 46°54’56,54"N, 20°23’39,76"E 4. The site is located on a ridge with an average diameter of 250 m on the left bank of the Körös River, cca. 1.5 km north of Öcsöd. The river flows in its original channel along this section. The Kenderes kurgan was raised in the northwestern part of the Neolithic settlement. A 1. J. Csalog 2. 1958 3. – 4. Settlement, in part eroded by the Körös River. The so-called Venus of Öcsöd, an anthropomorphic vessel, and some graves were washed out by the river from the side of the mound. B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Csalog 1959

J41. Öcsöd-Horga-völgyi-fõcsatorna partja (Öcsöd 100. lelõhely) 1. Öcsöd 2. Horga-völgyi-fõcsatorna 3. 46°52’25,02"N, 20°25’42,20"E 4. The site is located on the bank of a former watercourse north of the Horga-völgyi-fõcsatorna and southeast of the buildings of the former Szabadság state farm. A– B 1. 12,000 m2; 150×80 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J45. Öcsöd-Kéthalom 1. Öcsöd 2. Kiritó 3. 46°53’05,99"N, 20°22’25,65"E 4. The site is located around the Kéthalom on the bank of Kiritó. A 1. J. Korek 2. 1958 3. – 4. Settlement: a pit. B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Korek 1959

J42. Öcsöd-Horga-völgyi-fõcsatorna partja (Öcsöd 2/11. lelõhely) 1. Öcsöd 2. Horga-völgyi-fõcsatorna 3. 46°53’03,59"N, 20°24’48,59"E 4. The site is located on the southern bank of a former Körös channel known as the Horga-völgyi-fõcsatorna. A– B 1. 64,000 m2; 800×80 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J46. Öcsöd-Kiri-tó-Fõcsatorna (Öcsöd 33. lelõhely) 1. Öcsöd 2. Kiri-tó-fõcsatorna 3. 46°52’38,26"N, 20°22’42,44"E 4. The site is located on the bank of the Kiri-tó-fõcsatorna. The intensive settlement of the Körös culture extends from the farmstead to the Kettõs-halom. A– B 1. 50,000 m2; 500×100 m. The remains of two or three houses could be observed. 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J43. Öcsöd-Horga-völgyi-fõcsatorna partja (Öcsöd 2/13. lelõhely) 1. Öcsöd 2. Horga-völgyi-fõcsatorna 3. 46°53’23,42"N, 20°24’39,55"E 4. The site is located on the northern bank of the Horga-völgyi-fõcsatorna. A 1. J. Cseh, G. Kalla, J. Laszlovszky, M. Vicze 2. 1984 3. 1×1 m 4. Settlement: a pit. B 1. 28,000 m2; 350×80 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J47. Öcsöd-Kiri-tó-Keleti fõcsatorna (Öcsöd 29. lelõhely) 1. Öcsöd 2. Keleti-fõcsatorna 3. 46°53’01,21"N, 20°23’11,68"E 4. The site is located on the bank of the Keleti-fõcsatorna. A– B 1. within a 50 m radius 2. Körös culture

242

Bettina Bittner: Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County...

Körös River. The site covers an L shaped area along the riverbank (Félegyházi csatorna), east of the floodplain.

C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

A– B 1. 60,000 m2; 400×200 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J48. Öcsöd-Kiri-tó-Keleti fõcsatorna partja (Öcsöd 26/ Vágott-halom) 1. Öcsöd 2. Kiri-tó-Keleti-fõcsatorna 3. 46°53’17,74"N, 20°23’41,06"E 4. The site extends across the top of the Vágott-halom and its southern slope, directly north of it, and on the bank of the Kiri-tó-Keleti fõcsatorna beside the road. A– B 1. 10,000 m2; 100×100 m. The remains of several houses could be observed. 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J52. Öcsöd-Nagy-éri-dûlõ (Öcsöd 1/6. lelõhely) 1. Öcsöd 2. Nagy-éri-fõcsatorna 3. 46°51’24,13"N, 20°20’18,00"E 4. The site is located on a levee beside the state pig breeding farm south of the Babocka-halom. A– B 1. 8000 m2; 100×80 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J49. Öcsöd-Kováshalom 1. Öcsöd 2. Nagy-éri-fõcsatorna 3. 46°52’45,17"N, 20°19’43,58"E 4. The site is located on the bank of a Körös oxbow, on both sides of the road between Öcsöd and Kunszentmárton. A 1. P. Raczky 2. 1983–1985 3. 600 m2 4. Settlement: pits. B 1. 600 m2 2. Körös culture C Raczky 1986

J53. Öcsöd-Nagy-éri-fõcsatorna partja (Öcsöd 1/4. lelõhely) 1. Öcsöd 2. Nagy-éri-fõcsatorna 3. 46°52’13,75"N, 20°20’12,59"E 4. The site is located on the levee rising beside the Nagy-éri-fõcsatorna, a former Körös branch. A– B 1. 5000 m2; 50×100 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J50. Öcsöd-Körös-part (Öcsöd 2/129. lelõhely) 1. Öcsöd 2. Hármas-Körös 3. 46°55’31,43"N, 20°22’19,46"E 4. The site is located on a former levee near the one-time Gál Ferenc farmstead, between the flood embankment and the eroding bank of the Hármas-Körös River, north of the river, southwest of the flood embankment, west of the Öcsöd bridgehead, in the area where the embankment and the river separate. A– B 1. 15,000 m2; 300×50 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J54. Öcsöd-Nagyhéki-ér partja (Öcsöd 68. lelõhely) 1. Öcsöd 2. 1. sz. fõcsatorna (Nagyhéki-ér) 3. 46°56’51,85"N, 20°23’39,49"E 4. The site is located on the steep southeastern bank of the Nagyhéki-ér. The southern end of the site runs into a small inlet perpendicular to the riverbank. A– B 1. 30,000 m2; 300×100 m. House remains were observed on the site. 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok) J55. Öcsöd-Vásár-hát-dûlõ (Öcsöd 2/2. lelõhely) 1. Öcsöd 2. – 3. 46°53’31,42"N, 20°26’32,63"E 4. The site is located on the bank of the former Körös floodplain extending north of the Mogyorós-halom. A–

J51. Öcsöd-Körös-part (Öcsöd 48. lelõhely) 1. Öcsöd 2. Hármas-Körös/ Félegyházi csatorna 3. 46°54’57,08"N, 20°23’49,23"E 4. Finds were collected from the side of a tumulus raised on the bank of Körös River and south of the mound, on the bank of a former river channel flowing perpendicular to the

243

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

3. 47°09’15,27"N, 20°17’39,32"E 4. The site is located in the southeastern corner of the area known as Tenyõ-puszta dûlõ, cca. 400 m north of the fence corner of the MOL base and cca. 300 m northeast of the access road. A– B 1. 80,000 m2; 400×200 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

B 1. 25,000 m2; 500×50 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok) J56. Pusztataskony-Szociális oothon 1. Pusztataskony 2. MirkÙ-GyÙcsi-fÞcsatorna 3. 47°27’20,87"N, 20°30’53,34"E 4. The site is located on the former levee of the Tisza River (nowadays: MirkÙ-GyÙcsi-fÞcsatorna) in the southern fields of Pusztataskony on the right side of road between Tiszabura and Kisköre. A B 1. 150×90 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archive of the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J60. Szelevény-Brena-lapos partja II. (Szelevény 19/Brena-lapos partja II.) 1. Szelevény 2. Hármas-Körös 3. 46°49’18,53"N, 20°14’14,49"E 4. The site is located in an area known as Brena-lapos, a former levee overlooking the Körös River. The levee runs north to south between Istvánháza and Szelevény, and extends to the farmstead beside the Körös flood embankment. The extensive settlement of the Körös culture covers a narrow strip of the levee, cca. 1 km north of the farmstead. A– B 1. 28,000 m2; 350×80 m 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1957, 19.

J57. Szajol-Felsõföld 1. Szajol 2. Tinóka-ér 3. 47°10’44,79"N, 20°17’42,36"E 4. The site is located on the bank of a former Tisza oxbow on the outskirts of Szajol. A 1. P. Raczky 2. 1976 3. 80 m2 4. Settlement: a rectangular houseplan, an intramural burial, three pits. B 1. 12,000 m2; 600×200 m. House remains forming a row running parallel to the riverbank could be noted farther away. 2. Körös culture C Raczky 1982; 1982–83; in this volume 14 C dates: Bognár-Kutzián & Csongor 1987, 134, 135; Raczky 2006, 383.

J61. Szelevény-Csipsár-part II. 1. Szelevény 2. Csépa-Nagyszékháti-csatorna 3. 46°47’28,35"N, 20°09’24,72"E 4. The site is located on the north to south running Csipsár-part. A– B 1. 20,000 m2; 200×100 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J58. Szajol-Major-köz 1. Szajol 2. Alcsi-Holt-Tisza 3. 47°09’50,15"N, 20°16’15,94"E 4. The site is located on a barely prominent small elevation east of Szolnok between Road 4 and the access road leading to the MOL base, cca. 800 m south–southeast of Road 4 and cca. 200 m northeast of the access road. A– B 1. 40,000 m2; 200×200 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J62. Szelevény-Csipsár-part V. 1. Szelevény 2. Csépa-Nagyszékháti-csatorna 3. 46°48’15,76"N, 20°09’22,54"E 4. The site is located on the north to south running Csipsár-part. A– B 1. 72,000 m2; 600×120 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J59. Szajol-Tenyõ-puszta 1. Szajol 2. Kengyeli-fõcsatorna (Cseber-ér)

J63. Szelevény-Demeter (Kisasszony-part II/Szelevény 31) 1. Szelevény 2. Csépa-Nagyszékháti-csatorna

244

Bettina Bittner: Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County...

3. 46°48’48,20"N, 20°10’55,97"E 4. The site is located on a lower section of the levee overlooking the floodplain south of Szelevény Site 30, on the other side of the road leading to Tiszasas. A– B 1. 50,000 m2; 500×100 m 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1957, 20.

water on three sides, beside a windmill on the outskirts of the village. The settlement of the Körös culture extends across the area facing the southwest. A– B 1. 45,000 m2; 300×150 m 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1957. J68. Szelevény-Menyasszony-part (Földvár/Régi temetõ/ Szelevény 17/Tóközipart) 1. Szelevény 2. Dömötör-ér 3. 46°48’26,92"N, 20°11’44,28"E 4. The site is located on a triangular elevation in the old cemetery of Szelevény. A– B 1. 30,000 m2; 300×100 m 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1957, 60-64.

J64. Szelevény-Demeter IV. (Kisasszony-part I./Szelevény 47) 1. Szelevény 2. Dömötör-ér 3. 46°48’33,87"N, 20°10’51,12"E 4. The site is located on the bank of the Demeter-lapos, north of the Szelevény-Csépa railway line. A 1. N. Kalicz, P. Raczky 2. 1976 3. – 4. Settlement: a pit B 1. 16,000 m2; 200×80 m 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1957, 20.

J69. Szelevény-Telek-part III. (Szelevény 28) 1. Szelevény 2. Cserkei-mellékcsatorna 3. 46°50’48,46"N, 20°14’09,40"E 4. The site is located on a levee overlooking the Körös River, at the point where the road leading to Szelevény turns north. A– B 1. 13 500 m2; 450×30 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J65. Szelevény-Hosszú-dûlõ (Kisasszony-part II./Szelevény 30) 1. Szelevény 2. – 3. 46°48’55,02"N, 20°10’50,96"E 4. The site is located on a levee overlooking the floodplain by the area known as Hosszú-dûlõ, west of the road leading to Szelevény. The finds of the Körös culture showed a concentration at the northern end of the site. A– B 1. 40,000 m2; 800×50 m 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1957, 20.

J70. Szolnok-Beke Pál halma II. lelõhely 1. Szolnok 2. Kengyel-fõcsatorna (Cseber-ér) 3. 47°07’05,25"N, 20°15’03,50"E 4. – A 1. Z. Polgár 2. 2001 3. 2500 m2; 50×50 m 4. Settlement B 1. 2500 m2; 50×50 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage

J66. Szelevény-Hosszúhát 1. Szelevény 2. Vadas-éri-mellékcsatorna 3. 46°47’39,94"N, 20°11’55,78"E 4. The site is located south of Szelevény. Hosszúhát is a cca. 1 km long, narrow, tongue-like elevation, once enclosed by water on three sides, beside a windmill on the outskirts of the village. The settlement of the Körös culture extends across the area facing the southwest. A– B 1. 10,000 m2; 400×200 m 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1957, 20.

J71. Szolnok-Fekete város (Fekete vára/Szolnok-Vár Tiszapart) 1. Szolnok 2. Between the Milléri-fõcsatorna and the Holt-Tisza 3. 47°12’06,18"N, 20°15’26,84"E 4. The site is located in an area lying 4–5 km northeast of Szolnok. The Fekete-város area extends across an islet-like elevation rising above the northern part of the Milléri-lapos area, a depression between the Milléri-fõcsatorna and the Holt-Tisza oxbow. The site is located on a triangular elevation at the southeastern edge of the floodplain.

J67. Szelevény-Hosszú-hát II. (Szelevény 73) 1. Szelevény 2. Hármas-Körös 3. 46°47’28,57"N, 20°12’09,07"E 4. The site is located south of Szelevény. Hosszúhát is a cca. 1 km long, narrow, tongue-like elevation, once enclosed by

245

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

A

J75. Tiszaföldvár-Régi-temetõ (Kossuth u.-Mártírok u. sarok) 1. Tiszaföldvár 2. Csesz-árok 3. 46°58’49,13"N, 20°15’24,44"E 4. The site lies in the area of an overgrown, unused cemetery. In 1998–99, the local council decided to clear the area and the graves were exhumed. A large body of prehistoric finds came to light while clearing the area. A department store was built over a part of the area. The construction of a kindergarten was begun in 2005 and the area towards the riverbank was ploughed up. A– B 1. 60,000 m2; 400×150 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage

1. B. Balogh 2. 1924 3. 50 m 4. Settlement B 1. 50 m 2. Körös culture C Kaposvári & Mészáros 1975; Raczky 1979-1980, 10 J72. Szolnok-Kénsavgyár 1. Szolnok 2. Tisza 3. 47°07’48,15"N, 20°08’23,84"E 4. – A 1. Gy. Kaposvári 2. 1959 3. – 4. Settlement B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Kaposvári 1960; Kaposvári & Mészáros 1975

J76. Tiszaföldvár-Újtemetõ 1. Tiszaföldvár 2. Máté-éri-mellékcsatorna 3. 46°58’42,78"N, 20°14’10,94"E 4. The site is located on a steep high bluff at the edge of a former Tisza floodplain beside the Újtemetõ southwest of Tiszaföldvár. A 1. P. Raczky, Cs. Siklódi 2. 1979, 1983 3. – 4. Settlement: two rectangular houseplans were partially excavated. The site is heavily disturbed. B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Raczky 1979–1980; Siklódi 1984

J73. Szolnok-Szandaszõllõs V. (Tenyõ-sziget-Dersi-gát) 1. Szolnok 2. Alcsi-Holt-Tisza 3. 47°08’16,66"N, 20°17’02,97"E 4. The site is located on the northern spur of the Tenyõ-sziget levee rising above the floodplain areas known as Szanda-lapos and Csikó-lapos, east of the Szandaszõllõs quarter of Szolnok. A 1. N. Kalicz, P. Raczky 2. 1977, 1978 3. 287.5 m2; 50 m2 large trench 4. Settlement: two rectangular houseplans lying 3 m apart were uncovered in the trench, both oriented west-northwest to east-southeast. Two other houseplans and two pits were partially excavated in the trench. Six burials also came to light. B 1. 12,0000 m2; 400×300 m 2. Körös culture C Kalicz & Raczky 1978; Raczky in this volume 14 C dates: Oross & Siklósi in this volume

J77. Tiszaföldvár-Téglagyár 1. Tiszaföldvár 2. Csesz-árok 3. 46°58’51,97"N, 20°16’02,36"E 4. The site is located on the territory of a brickyard’s clay quarry. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J74. Tiszaföldvár-10. lelõhely 1. Tiszaföldvár 2. Csesz-árok 3. 46°59’10,29"N, 20°16’45,38"E 4. The site is located on the bank of a former Tisza channel northeast of Tiszaföldvár. A– B 1. 600 m long 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage and the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J78. Tiszagyenda-Garahalmi Üzemegység 34/2. csatorna, 50. szelvény 1. Tiszagyenda 2. Tiszabõi-csatorna 3. 47°20’27,71"N, 20°33’27,46"E 4. A triangle-shaped, intact land parcel is surrounded by the Tiszabõi-csatorna and smaller channels south-southwest of the Tiszabõi-csatorna. The site is located here on a low, east to west running levee. A– B 1. 160×100 m 2. Körös culture

246

Bettina Bittner: Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County...

of Tiszapüspöki, directly on the boundary between the two settlements, 0.4 km from the junction of bypass road 4. Tiszapüspöki-Karancs-Háromág-dûlõ site is located 600 m east of this site on the highest point of the former riverbank.

C Unpublished data from the archive of the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

A– B 1. 1000 m2, 200×50m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage, the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J79. Tiszainoka-Szõlõút 1. Tiszainoka 2. – 3. 46°53’54,62"N, 20°09’44,67"E 4. The site is located south of the road to Tiszainoka, near the junction of the road between Tiszakürt and Cibakháza and the Szõlõút, on the right side of the Szõlõút. A– B 1. 180×40–50 m 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1957, 22.

J83. Tiszapüspöki-Fehér-tó-part V. 1. Tiszapüspöki 2. – 3. 47°11’56,78"N, 20°21’41,36"E 4. The road between Törökszentmiklós and Tiszapüspöki leads parallel to a northwest to southeast running levee northwest of the town. Most finds were collected on the edge of the levee. A large clay extraction pit was dug into the northern part of the site. A– B 1. 1000 m2; 200×50 m 2. Körös culture C Bittner 2011, 43.

J80. Tiszajenõ-Száraz-ér-part 1. Tiszajenõ 2. Körös-ér 3. 47°01’16,92"N, 20°07’07,65"E 4. The site is located on a levee directly beside the confluence of the Száraz-ér and the Körös-ér, on the right side of the Szolnok-Kiskunfélegyháza railway line, cca. 2 km from the Tiszajenõ-Alsó railway station. A 1. L. Selmeczi 2. 1967 3. 115 m2 4. Settlement: a rectangular, 9.2×4.2 m large houseplan and two hearths B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Selmeczi 1969; Raczky 1976

J84. Tiszasas-Csillagpart (Tiszasas 8) 1. Tiszasas 2. Sas-Csépa-Mamai-mellékcsatorna 3. 46°49’32,18"N, 20°04’08,76"E 4. The site is located on the bank of a former Tisza channel on the western outskirts of Tiszasas. A 1. P. Raczky, Cs. Siklódi 2. 1982 3. 60 m2 4. Settlement: three houseplans and seven pits B 1. 300×100 m 2. Körös culture C Raczky & Siklódi 1983

J81. Tiszapüspöki-Karancs-Háromág-dûlõ 1. Tiszapüspöki 2. Tinóka-ér 3. 47°11’04,04"N, 20°22’41,06"E 4. Karancs-Háromág lies in an area known as Alatkai oldal, northeast of Törökszentmiklós and southwest of Tiszapüspöki, at the boundary of the two settlements. The east to west running levee of a Tisza inlet rises 4–5 m above the floodplain. The site is located on a triangular spur jutting into the floodplain, cca. 40 m south of the levee’s northern edge. A 1. M. Csányi 2. 1999 3. 5000 m2 4. Settlement: pits, hearths, ditches, eight graves. B 1. 5000 m2 2. Körös culture C Csányi et al. 1999

J85. Tiszasas-Faluszél (Tiszasas 11/Körösi Imre kertje) 1. Tiszasas 2. Sas-Csépa-Mámai-mellékcsatorna 3. 46°49’07,28"N, 20°05’16,37"E 4. The site is located on a former steep riverbank of the Tisza River, south of the road leading to Csépa on the southeastern outskirts of Tiszasas. A– B 1. 45,000 m2; 300×150 m 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1957, 23. J86. Tiszasas-Kémény-hegy (Kémény-tetõ/Tiszaug-Kéménytetõ II/Tiszasas 1) 1. Tiszasas 2. Tisza 3. 46°50’10,23"N, 20°02’52,89"E 4. The site is located on a levee south of the Kéménytetõ triple mound.

J82. Tiszapüspöki-Fehér-tó-part III. 1. Tiszapüspöki 2. – 3. 47°11’09,79"N, 20°22’05,95"E 4. The site is located on a northwest to southeast running, 4–5 m levee, northeast of Törökszentmiklós and southwest

247

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

A– B 1. 45,000 m2; 300×150 m 2. Körös culture C Kutzián 1944; Kalicz 1957, 24–25

J90. Törökszentmiklós-Morotva-köz-dûlõ 1. Törökszentmiklós 2. – 3. 47°12’51,69"N, 20°25’02,79"E 4. The road between Törökszentmiklós and Ballatelep traverses a Tisza oxbow lake, cca. 2.5 km north of the town. The oxbow lake is a former channel of the Décse-ér, now a waterlogged area. The extensive site is located on the southern part of 3–4 m high hillfort-like levee. A 1. L. Madaras 2. 2006 3. 105,000 m2; 350×300 m 4. Settlement B 1. 105,000 m2; 350×300 m 2. Körös culture C Madaras 2007, 305; Bittner 2011, 39.

J87. Tiszasas-Rév (Tiszasas 4) 1. Tiszasas 2. Tisza 3. 46°49’53,20"N, 20°02’48,61"E 4. The site is located on a flat ridge north of the Tiszasas ferry and west of the Tisza flood embankment. A 1. N. Kalicz 2. 1982 3. – 4. Settlement B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1957, 23–24.

J91. Törökszentmiklós-Perjes-hát V. 1. Törökszentmiklós 2. – 3. 47°13’53,69"N, 20°25’01,53"E 4. The road between Törökszentmiklós and Ballatelep runs north of the town and cuts lengthwise through a levee. The road forks at the edge of the tongue-shaped levee, with one branch leading to the flood embankment towards the north, the other to Óballa towards the west. The site is located on the levee in line with the road fork, cca. 200–250 m away from the road. The site was disturbed by a clay extraction pit. The sides of the huge pit collapsed, causing a shift in the site’s position, and thus the finds too lay in a secondary position. Pottery sherds were also collected in the pit. The site extends to the levee and its edge. A– B 1. 20,000 m2, 200×100 m 2. Körös culture C Bittner 2011, 43.

J88. Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-Puszta-Réti-dûlõ (Domaháza-puszta) 1. Tiszaszõlõs 2. Tisza 3. 47°35’12,51"N, 20°43’17,12"E 4. The site is located on the levee overlooking a former Tisza floodplain area, 600 m east of the current Tisza channel in the southern part of the Domaháza-puszta pastureland. A 1. L. Domboróczki 2. 2003 3. 370 m2 4. Settlement: the find scatter outlined a regular, northwest to southeast oriented rectangular houseplan measuring 12×5.5 m. The remains of a hearth lay in its middle. B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Domboróczki 2005; 2010b; in this volume 14 C dates: Domboróczki 2010b, 152, Table 1

J92. Törökszentmiklós-Szakállas-Csobánkai-rét I 1. Törökszentmiklós 2. – 3. 47°14’22,51"N, 20°28’50,40"E 4. The site is located on a levee on the southeastern outskirts of Szakállas, northeast of Törökszentmiklós. The site covers the northwest to southeast running levee and the spur jutting out from it. A– B 1. 90,000 m2, 600×150 m 2. Körös culture C Bittner 2011, 47–48.

J89. Tószeg-Telek (Vegyimûvek csatornája) 1. Tószeg 2. Tisza 3. 47°07’07,44"N, 20°10’28,03"E 4. The site lies on the highest point of the Tószeg-Telek levee, constantly eroded by the Tisza River. Pottery sherds of the Körös culture lay scattered across the sloping, crescentic floodplain edge adjacent to the riverbank, a dry area given the river’s current water level. A 1. Gy. Kaposvári, Zs. Csalog 2. 1959 3. – 4. Settlement B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the National Office of Cultural Heritage, the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok) and the Hungarian National Museum (Budapest)

J93. Túrkeve-Csudabalai-fõcsatorna déli sarka (=Gyomaendrõd) 1. Túrkeve 2. Csudabalai-fõcsatorna 3. 47°04’09,94"N, 20°47’44,89"E 4. The site is located on the southern bank of a former Berettyó channel on the northern outskirts of Túrkeve. A–

248

Bettina Bittner: Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County...

west. A huge clay extraction pit was dug into the middle of the site.

B 1. 2000 m2; 100×20 m 2. Körös culture

A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 204.

C MRT 8, 197. J94. Túrkeve-Csurgó 1. Túrkeve 2. Between the Hortobágy-Berettyó fõcsatorna and the Csurgó-Alsóréhelyi mellékcsatorna 3. 47°07’31,18"N, 20°51’30,79"E 4. The site is located west of the small channel marking the boundary between Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok and Békés counties, southeast of Túrkeve. The site lies on a small, north to south oriented, oval elevation. A 1. M. Csányi, J. Tárnoki 2. 1998 3. 60,000 m2, 300×200 m 4. Settlement: a houseplan, four pits B 1. 60,000 m2; 300×200 m 2. Körös culture C Micopulosz 2006

J98. Túrkeve-Osváth-Bala-Csurgó-part (=Gyomaendrõd) 1. Túrkeve 2. Csurgó-Alsóréhelyi mellékcsatorna 3. 47°05’10,51"N, 20°50’19,87"E 4. The site is located on a levee overlooking the wide floodplain, on the southern bank of a former meander of the Holt-Berettyó on the northern outskirts of Túrkeve. A– B 1. 225 m2, 15×15 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 258. J99. Túrkeve-Osváth-Bala-Kovács-tanya (=Gyomaendrõd) 1. Túrkeve 2. Csudabalai (II.sz.) fõcsatorna 3. 47°04’39,12"N, 20°49’13,38"E 4. The site is located on the high southeastern bank of a former northeast to southwest flowing river channel in an area known as Csudabala. A– B 1. 600 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 202–203.

J95. Túrkeve-Lénárt-Bala (=Gyomaendrõd) 1. Túrkeve 2. – 3. 47°03’40,26"N, 20°46’30,44"E 4. The site is located on a southeast to northwest running ridge, south of the Csudabala farmstead. This ridge forms the southern bank of a larger waterlogged area. A– B 1. 10,000 m2; 200×50 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 193–194.

J100. Túrkeve-Remete-halom (=Gyomaendrõd) 1. Túrkeve 2. Sártó-Gabonás csatorna 3. 47°04’58,26"N, 20°50’37,05"E 4. The extensive site is located on the western bank of a bend in the Sártó-Gabonás csatorna, now flowing in an old Holt-Berettyó bed on the northeastern outskirts of Túrkeve. The Remete-halom kurgan rises at the northern end of the bend; the site extends southward from the mound. A– B 1. 400 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 204.

J96. Túrkeve-Liziczai-gát (=Gyomaendrõd-Villanykarós út I) 1. Túrkeve 2. Csudabalai (II. sz.) fõcsatorna 3. 47°05’05,63"N, 20°47’53,11"E 4. A roughly triangular elevation rises on the southern bank of a former north to south Berettyó channel on the northern outskirts of Túrkeve. Most pottery sherds lay scattered along a 200 m long section at the northern edge of this ridge, 10-15 m south of the bankslope. A concentration of burnt daub fragments and various artefacts of the Körös culture was observed over a larger area lying 30 m northwest of the Szoboszlai farmstead. A– B 1. 200 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 192–193.

J101. Túrkeve-Sártó-Gabonás-csatorna (=Gyomaendrõd) 1. Túrkeve 2. Sártó-Gabonás mellékcsatorna 3. 47°04’01,11"N, 20°51’28,70"E 4. Flowing in an old meander of the Holt-Berettyó, the Sártó-Gabonás mellékcsatorna marks the town’s northeastern boundary. The site is located on the western bank by the confluence of the two meander channels, where the channel turns northwestward. A large clay extraction pit dug into the bank has almost completely destroyed the site. A– B 1. 100 m long

J97. Túrkeve-Osváth-Bala (=Gyomaendrõd) 1. Túrkeve 2. Sártó-Gabonás mellékcsatorna 3. 47°04’46,13"N, 20°50’27,77"E 4. The Sártó-Gabonás mellékcsatorna flows in an old, north to south Berettyó riverbed in the eastern part of the northern outskirts of Túrkeve. The site is located on a levee in the

249

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

2. Körös culture

J106. Túrkeve-Határ-halom (=Gyomaendrõd) 1. Túrkeve 2. Sártó-Gabonás-csatorna 3. 47°04’29,99"N, 20°50’36,15"E 4. The site is located southeast of the Sártó-Gabonás-csatorna, which flows in an old, north to south Berettyó channel on the northeastern outskirts of Túrkeve. A northeast to southwest running channel branching from the Holt-Berettyó cuts through the site, which extends across a small elevation northwest of the Határ-halom kurgan erected on the southern bank of the channel. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Csányi 1992; MRT 8, 204–205.

C MRT 8, 205. J102. Túrkeve-Simon-Bala-Tiba-tanya (=Gyomaendrõd) 1. Túrkeve 2. – 3. 47°03’53,80"N, 20°45’56,51"E 4. A southeast to northwest running levee extends along the dirt track marking the northern boundary of Simon-Bala. A large clay extraction pit was dug into the levee. Pottery sherds of the Körös culture were collected by the pit and in its broader area. A– B 1. 4500 m2; 150×30 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 197.

J107. Túrkeve-Léderer-tanya (=Gyomaendrõd) 1. Túrkeve 2. Csudabalai (II. sz.) fõcsatorna 3. 47°04’04,44"N, 20°48’24,34"E 4. The site is located on the riverbank south of a large clay extraction pit dug into the eastern bank of a meander of the Holt-Berettyó in an area known as Bala south of the Léderer farmstead. A– B 1. 250 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 212.

J103. Túrkeve-Szakálas-tanya (=Gyomaendrõd) 1. Túrkeve 2. – 3. 47°02’18,28"N, 20°48’25,11"E 4. Pottery sherds of the Körös culture were collected on the western bank of the southernmost branch of the Holt-Berettyó north of Póhalom. A– B 1. 1500 m2; 50×30 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 208.

J108. Túrkeve-Lyukas-halom (=Gyomaendrõd) 1. Túrkeve 2. Malomzug-Simafoki fõcsatorna (old Berettyó riverbed) 3. 47°03’15,01"N, 20°45’35,55"E 4. The Lyukas-halom kurgan is located on the eastern bank of the north to south flowing Holt-Berettyó in the southern part of the area known as Csudabala lying far north of Túrkeve. The archaeological finds were collected around the kurgan. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Csányi 1992; MRT 8, 190.

J104. Túrkeve-Villanykarós út-Geszti-tanya (=Gyomaendrõd) 1. Túrkeve 2. Csudabalai (II. sz.) fõcsatorna 3. 47°04’26,27"N, 20°48’47,58"E 4. The site is located on the southern bank of an old Holt-Berettyó channel, at the point where the channel turns westward, in an area known as Balák on the town’s northern outskirts. A– B 1. 200 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 199.

J109. Túrkeve-Sártó-Gabonás-Tóth-tanya (=Gyomaendrõd) 1. Túrkeve 2. Sártó-Gabonás mellékcsatorna 3. 47°03’43,48"N, 20°51’29,43"E 4. Pottery sherds of the Körös culture were collected on a barely prominent elevation on the levee overlooking a former river channel on the northeastern outskirts of Túrkeve. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 205.

J105. Túrkeve-Határ-csatorna (Gyoma 4/25) 1. Túrkeve 2. Határ-csatorna 3. 47°05’14,00"N, 20°49’16,19"E 4. The Határ-csatorna flows in a natural river channel east of the stalls of the former Nagykunság state farm. The site is located between two clay extraction pits on a north to south running high levee. A– B 1. 12,000 m2; 150×80 m 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of the Damjanich János Museum (Szolnok)

J110. Túrkeve-Vásári-Bala-Pozsár-tanya (=Gyomaendrõd) 1. Túrkeve

250

Bettina Bittner: Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County...

2. Hortobágy-Berettyó fõcsatorna 3. 47°05’22,00"N, 20°48’11,15"E 4. The site is located on the northeastern bank of a former river channel south of the Berettyó flood embankment on the northernmost outskirts of Túrkeve. A– B 1. 160-180 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 192.

J28. Mezõtúr-Szandazugi-csatorna (Holt-Berettyó)-Kada-tanya J29. Mezõtúr-Felsõrészi-dûlõ-Gáztelep (Mezõtúr 3) J30. Nagykörû I. J31. Nagykörû-Tsz-Gyümölcsös J32. Nagyrév-Belsõ-sáp (Sápi-part II./Nagyrév 10./Fehér B.-tanya) (B) J33. Nagyrév-Holt-Tisza-partja (Nagyrév 33/Új-tag É-i part/ Zsidó-halom III.) (B) J34. Nagyrév-Új-tag (Nagyrév 37) (B) J35. Nagyrév-Új-tag (Nagyrév 38/ Új-tag/ Zsidó-halom V.) (B) J36. Öcsöd 103. lelõhely (B) J37. Öcsöd-Csököny-ér (B) J38. Öcsöd-Gácsi-tanya (Öcsöd 1/128. lelõhely) (B) J39. Öcsöd-Hármas-Körös partja (Öcsöd 18) (B) J40. Öcsöd-Horga-völgy (Öcsöd 2/4. lelõhely) (B) J41. Öcsöd-Horga-völgyi-fõcsatorna partja (Öcsöd 100. lelõhely) (B) J42. Öcsöd-Horga-völgyi-fõcsatorna partja (Öcsöd 2/11. lelõhely) (B) J43. Öcsöd-Horga-völgyi-fõcsatorna partja (Öcsöd 2/13. lelõhely) (B) J44. Öcsöd-Kenderes-halom (B) J45. Öcsöd-Kéthalom (B) J46. Öcsöd-Kiri-tó-Fõcsatorna (Öcsöd 33. lelõhely) (B) J47. Öcsöd-Kiri-tó-Keleti fõcsatorna (Öcsöd 29. lelõhely) (B) J48. Öcsöd-Kiri-tó-Keleti fõcsatorna partja (Öcsöd 26/Vágott-halom) (B) J49. Öcsöd-Kováshalom (B) J50. Öcsöd-Körös-part (Öcsöd 2/129. lelõhely) (B) J51. Öcsöd-Körös-part (Öcsöd 48. lelõhely) (B) J52. Öcsöd-Nagy-éri-dûlõ (Öcsöd 1/6. lelõhely) (B) J53. Öcsöd-Nagy-éri-fõcsatorna partja (Öcsöd 1/4. lelõhely) (B) J54. Öcsöd-Nagyhéki-ér partja (Öcsöd 68. lelõhely) (B) J55. Öcsöd-Vásár-hát-dûlõ (Öcsöd 2/2. lelõhely) (B) J56. Pusztataskony-Szociális otthon J57. Szajol-Felsõföld (A) J58. Szajol-Major-köz (A) J59. Szajol-Tenyõ-puszta (A) J60. Szelevény-Brena-lapos partja II. (Szelevény 19/Brena-lapos partja II.) (B) J61. Szelevény-Csipsár-part II. (B) J62. Szelevény-Csipsár-part V. (B) J63. Szelevény-Demeter (Kisasszony-part II./Szelevény 31) (B) J64. Szelevény-Demeter IV. (Kisasszony-part I./Szelevény 47) (B) J65. Szelevény-Hosszú-dûlõ (Kisasszony-part II./Szelevény 30) (B) J66. Szelevény-Hosszúhát (B) J67. Szelevény-Hosszú-hát II. (Szelevény 73) (B) J68. Szelevény-Menyasszony-part (Földvár/Régi temetõ/ Szelevény 17/Tóközipart) (B) J69. Szelevény-Telek-part III. (Szelevény 28) (B) J70. Szolnok-Beke Pál halma II. lelõhely (A) J71. Szolnok-Fekete város (Fekete vára/Szolnok-Vár Tiszapart) (A) J72. Szolnok-Kénsavgyár (A) J73. Szolnok-Szandaszõlõs V. (Tenyõ-sziget-Dersi-gát) (A) J74. Tiszaföldvár-10. lelõhely (B) J75. Tiszaföldvár-Régi-temetõ (Kossuth u.-Mártírok u. sarok) (B) J76. Tiszaföldvár-Újtemetõ (B) J77. Tiszaföldvár-Téglagyár (B) J78. Tiszagyenda-Garahalmi Üzemegység 34/2. csatorna, 50. szelvény J79. Tiszainoka-Szõlõút (B) J80. Tiszajenõ-Száraz-ér-part

J111. Túrkeve-Zichy-Bala-Berettyó-part 1. Túrkeve 2. Malomzug-Simafoki fõcsatorna (Berettyó-mellékér) 3. 47°02’54,94"N, 20°45’39,55"E 4. The site is located on the eastern bank of the Holt-Berettyó, south of the Lyukas-halom on the northwestern outskirts of Túrkeve. A– B 1. 500 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 191.

Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok county List of the sites J1. Besenyszög-Fokorú-puszta VI. (A) J2. Besenyszög-Nagyfokorú II. (MOL-vezeték 6./Nagy-Fokorú 6.) (A) J3. Besenyszög-Nagy-Fokorú III. (A) J4. Besenyszög-Szórópuszta-ártér (A) J5. Besenyszög-Tiszagát (Dobapuszta/27. lelõhely) (A) J6. Csépa-Csipsár-part I-II. (Csipsár-part, Csépa 15) (B) J7. Csépa-Csipsárpart III. Szira-tanya (B) J8. Csépa-Csipsárpart V. Dancza-tanya (B) J9. Csépa-Csipsár-part (Csépa 16/Csipsár-part VI) (B) J10. Csépa-Ludas-dûlõ (Szélmalom 2) (B) J11. Jászberény-Disznószög J12. Kengyel-Pusztakengyel (A) J13. Kengyel-Kis-tanya (Baghy-homok) (A) J14. Kõtelek-Huszár-sarok J15. Kunszentmárton-Jaksori-dûlõ (Kunszentmárton 24) (B) J16. Kunszentmárton-Jaksori-dûlõ (Kunszentmárton 29) (B) J17. Kunszentmárton-Kékes-lápos partja II. (Kunszentmárton 54) (B) J18. Kunszentmárton-Kékes-lapos partja VI. (Kunszentmárton 58) (B) J19. Kunszentmárton-Körtvélyesi-dûlõ (Körtvélyes III./Kungyalu 3) (B) J20. Kunszentmárton-Körtvélyesi-dûlõ (Körtvélyes IV./Kungyalu 2.) (B) J21. Kunszentmárton-Nagy-ér K-i partja (Kunszentmárton 8) (B) J22. Kunszentmárton-Nagy-éri-fõcsatorna partja I. (Kunszentmárton 7) (B) J23. Kunszentmárton-Nagy-Jaksor-érpart (Kunszentmárton 1) (B) J24. Kunszentmárton-Nagy-Jaksor-érpart (Kunszentmárton 11) (B) J25. Kunszentmárton-Nagy-Jaksor-érpart (Kunszentmárton 12) (B) J26. Kunszentmárton-Péter-szög (Kunszentmárton 21) (B) J27. Kunszentmárton-Pusztaistvánháza (Kunszentmárton 1/85) (B)

251

The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary

J81. Tiszapüspöki-Karancspart-Háromág-dûlõ (A) J82. Tiszapüspöki-Fehér-tó-part III. (A) J83. Tiszapüspöki-Fehér-tó-part V. (A) J84. Tiszasas-Csillagpart (Tiszasas 8) (B) J85. Tiszasas-Faluszél (Tiszasas 11/Körösi Imre kertje) (B) J86. Tiszasas-Kémény-hegy (Kémény-tetõ/Tiszaug-Kéménytetõ II./Tiszasas 1) (B) J87. Tiszasas-Rév (Tiszasas 4) (B) J88. Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-Puszta-Réti-dûlõ (Domaháza-puszta) J89. Tószeg-Telek (Vegyimûvek csatornája) (A) J90. Törökszentmiklós-Morotva-köz-dûlõ (A) J91. Törökszentmiklós-Perjes-hát V. (A) J92. Törökszentmiklós-Szakállas-Csobánkai-rét I (A) J93. Túrkeve-Csudabalai-fõcsatorna déli sarka (=Gyomaendrõd) (C) J94. Túrkeve-Csurgó (C) J95. Túrkeve-Lénárt-Bala (=Gyomaendrõd) (C)

J96. Túrkeve-Liziczai-gát (=Gyomaendrõd-Villanykarós út I) (C) J97. Túrkeve-Osváth-Bala (=Gyomaendrõd) (C) J98. Túrkeve-Osváth-Bala-Csurgó-part (=Gyomaendrõd) (C) J99. Túrkeve-Osváth-Bala-Kovács-tanya (=Gyomaendrõd) (C) J100. Túrkeve-Remete-halom (=Gyomaendrõd) (C) J101. Túrkeve-Sártó-Gabonás-csatorna (=Gyomaendrõd) (C) J102. Túrkeve-Simon-Bala-Tiba-tanya (=Gyomaendrõd) (C) J103. Túrkeve-Szakálas-tanya (=Gyomaendrõd) (C) J104. Túrkeve-Villanykarós út-Geszti-tanya (=Gyomaendrõd) (C) J105. Túrkeve-Határ-csatorna (Gyoma 4/25) (C) J106. Túrkeve-Határ-halom (=Gyomaendrõd) (C) J107. Túrkeve-Léderer-tanya (=Gyomaendrõd) (C) J108. Túrkeve-Lyukas-halom (=Gyomaendrõd) (C) J109. Túrkeve-Sártó-Gabonás-Tóth-tanya (=Gyomaendrõd) (C) J110. Túrkeve-Vásári-Bala-Pozsár-tanya (=Gyomaendrõd) (C) J111. Túrkeve-Zichy-Bala-Berettyó-part (C)

252

253–255.

CATALOGUE OF THE KÖRÖS CULTURE SITES IN HAJDÚ-BIHAR COUNTY János Dani Déri Museum, 4026 Debrecen, Déri tér 1., Hungary; [email protected] 14

H1. Berettyóújfalu-Dózsa György út, Malom 1. Berettyóújfalu 2. Berettyó River 3. 47°13’0.36"N, 21°32’4.45"E 4. The site is located on the high bluff overlooking the river, by the mill on Dózsa György út. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Makkay 1957, 27; Makkay 1958a, 11; Makkay 1958b, 200; Kralovánszky 1965, 35; Sz. Máthé 1981, 12.

C dates: Oross & Siklósi in this volume

H4. Berettyóújfalu-Levente utca 17–19. 1. Berettyóújfalu 2. Berettyó River 3. 47°12’59.44"N, 21°32’29.32"E 4. The site is located in the town’s built-up area, in what was Levente utca 17–19 before World War 2 (in the yard of Lajos Reszeghy). A 1. L. Reszeghy (owner) 2. 1932 3. – 4. Stray finds: on the basis of the find circumstances and the information provided by the finder, a refuse pit containing a burial had come to light. B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Soregi 1933, 28

H2. Berettyóújfalu-Kis-Bócs, Nyártói-csatorna nyugati partja 1. Berettyóújfalu 2. Berettyó River 3. 47°10’12.45"N, 21°31’8.15"E 4. The site is located on a crescentic hill on the inner side of a meander (the Nyártói csatorna flowing in an old Berettyó riverbed) between Berettyószentmárton and Furta. A– B 1. Approx. 8–10 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

H5. Berettyóújfalu-Morotva Liget 1. Berettyóújfalu (Berettyószentmárton district) 2. Berettyó River 3. 47°12’10.40"N, 21°31’41.91"E 4. The site is located on the high bluff overlooking a meander of the Berettyó River. A 1. L. D. Szabó 2. 2011 3. 1400 m2 4. Settlement: a large amorphous refuse pit containing a north-northeast to south-southwest oriented inhumation burial in a crouched position in the uppermost layer of the pit’s fill. B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

H3. Berettyóújfalu/Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes I. 1. Berettyóújfalu 2. Berettyó River 3. 47°14’12.49"N, 21°35’36.66"E 4. The site is located on an oval hilltop on the southern bank of an old meander of the Berettyó River, west of Szentpéterszeg. A 1. N. Kalicz , M. Sz. Máthé, P. Raczky 2. 1977–1978 3. – 4. Settlement: a refuse pit with a burial of a child deposited in crouched position. B 1. Approx. 0.84 ha 2. Körös culture C Kalicz et al. 1978, 24; Kalicz 1979, 27; in this volume; M. Nepper & Sz. Máthé 1983, 112–113.

H6. Berettyóújfalu-Nagy-Bócs-dulo, Nyártói-csatorna keleti partja 1. Berettyóújfalu (Berettyószentmárton district) 2. Berettyó River 3. 47°10’4.93"N, 21°31’56.27"E

253

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

4. The site is located on a high bluff overlooking a former meander of the Berettyó River (the Nyártói-csatorna) between Berettyószentmárton and Furta.

B 1. Approx.1.4 ha 2. Körös culture

A

C 1. J. Dani 2. 2004–2005, 2006, 2011 3. Altogether 9.3 ha 4. Settlement: large amorphous clay extraction and refuse pits containing eight inhumation burials in their fill were uncovered.

Roska 1942; Makkay 1957, 27; Kalicz 1958a, 14–15; Kalicz 1958b, 84; Kralovánszky 1965, 43.

Hajdú-Bihar county List of the sites

B

H1. Berettyóújfalu-Dózsa György út, Malom H2. Berettyóújfalu-Kis-Bócs, Nyártói-csatorna nyugati partja H3. Berettyóújfalu/Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes I. H4. Berettyóújfalu-Levente út17-19. H5. Berettyóújfalu-Morotva Liget H6. Berettyóújfalu-Nagy-Bócs-dûlõ, Nyártói-csatorna keleti partja H7. Csökmõ-Tordai-zsilip I. H8. Furta-Csátó (Veresér or Vereshalom) H9. Zsáka-Várdomb

1. Over 5 ha 2. Körös culture C Dani et al. 2006, 5–7; Dani 2011, 18. H7. Csökmo-Tordai-zsilip I 1. Csökmo 2. Berettyó River 3. 47° 1’20.86"N, 21°15’13.09"E 4. The site is located on the southeastern bank of the Patkó-ér, in the area known as Halasi-legelo west of Csökmo. A 1. Zs. Hajdú 2. 1987–1988 3. Approx. 4 m2 4. Settlement: a small amorphous refuse pit B 1. Approx. 0.35 ha 2. Körös culture C M. Nepper & Sz. Máthé 1993, 113; Hajdú & Nagy 2000, 34–35. H8. Furta-Csátó (Veresér or Vereshalom) 1. Zsáka 2. Berettyó River 3. 47°9’24.57"N, 21°29’19.06"E 4. The site is located on a terrace by the bank of the Zsáka–Furta-csatorna, an old Sebes Körös channel, southeast of Zsáka. A 1. I. M. Nepper 2. 1967 3. 70 m2 4. Settlement: a disturbed amorphous refuse pit containing four burials and a fragmented hearth in its fill; a larger patch of clay plastering, perhaps the floor of a house. B 1. Over 10 ha 2. Körös culture C M. Nepper 1968, 6; M. Nepper 1970, 94; Mesterházy 1970, 67; Makkay 2007, 206–210. H9. Zsáka-Várdomb 1. Zsáka 2. Berettyó River 3. 47°7’56.18"N, 21°26’11.28"E 4. The site is located on a west to east running hill within the village, by the Zsáka–Furta-csatorna. A 1. M. Roska, N. Kalicz 2. 1940, 1956 3. Over 60 m2 4. Settlement

254

Paolo Biagi: Some aspects of the earliest Neolithic ...

255

257–296.

CATALOGUE OF KÖRÖS CULTURE SITES IN BÉKÉS COUNTY Bettina Bittner [email protected] 3. 46°44’49.56"N, 21° 8’50.82"E 4. The site is located on a triangle-shaped hill surrounded by the Körös river and its tributary, Dánfok – flowing into the Körös from east –, south of Békés, on the eastern bank of Holt-Fehér-Körös. It is spread on both sides of the main road leading toward Gerla. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 96–97.

B1. Battonya-Basarága, Lapos-éri-csatorna 1. Battonya 2. Lapos-éri-csatorna 3. 46°16’18.47"N, 21°02’54.28"E 4. The site is located near the mouth of Lapos-éri-csatorna. A 1. J. J. Szabó, J. Makkay 2. 1976, 1977 3. – 4. Settlement: a pit. B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Szabó 1977; Makkay 2007, 216. 14 C dates: Bowman et al. 1990, 73; Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 123.

B5. Békés-Jégvermi-kert 1. Békés 2. Holt-Kettõs-Körös river 3. 46°47’20.46"N, 21° 7’11.28"E 4. The site is located in the northern fields of Békés town, east of Nagykert, on the western bank of Holt-Kettõs-Körös, on an oval elevation, east of the Dobi János farm. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 55.

B2. Békés-Bánom-Andor-tanya 1. Békés 2. – 3. 46°48’37.26"N, 21° 9’0.66"E 4. The settlement is located on a north to south running ridge in the outskirts northeast of the Andor farmstead. A– B 1. 390 000 m2, 1300×300 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 104. B3. Békés-Berényi út sarok 1. Békés 2. – 3. 46°48’6.72"N, 21° 3’43.62"E 4. The site is located in the northwestern fields, next to the main road leading to Mezõberény on a low, island-like hill. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 69–70.

B6. Békés-Kászmánkert I. 1. Békés 2. – 3. 46°44’21.72"N, 21° 9’1.74" E 4. The site is located in the southern fields of Békés town, east of the main road leading to Gerla, in the area called Kászmánkert. A wide and deep former riverbed is running here parallel to the main road. A high terrace can be found on the eastern bank of the riverbed, this is the central part of the settlement. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 59–60.

B4. Békés-Csatárkert-Szivattyú helye 1. Békés 2. Holt-Fehér-Körös river

B7. Békés-Koldus-zug I. 1. Békés 2. Holt-Körös

257

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

3. 46°47’49.68"N, 21° 7’13.90"E 4. Potsherds of the Körös culture can be found on the northwestern fields of Békés town, on a north to south running ridge, located on a low, inner terrace of the Holt-Körös meander. A– B 1. 80,000 m2, 400×200 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 101.

C MRT 10, 103. B12. Békés-Ludad-Szabó-tanya 1. Békés 2. – 3. 46°48’57.29"N, 21° 8’53.38"E 4. Potsherds of the Körös culture have been found on a triangle-shaped hill in the northeastern fields of Békés town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 105.

B8. Békés-Koldus-zug II. 1. Békés 2. Holt-Kettõs-Körös 3. 46°47’40.26"N, 21° 7’15.88"E 4. The site is located on a peninsula-like ridge of a hill by the northern bank of a meander of the Holt-Kettõs-Körös on the northern confines of the town. A– B 1. 20,000 m2, 200×100 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 101.

B13. Békés-Maksár I. 1. Békés 2. Körös river 3. 46°44’35.90"N, 21°12’2.45"E 4. Sporadic Körös culture finds have been collected on a low, narrow, semicircular ridge located 200 m from the Körös dam in the southeastern fields of Békés town. A– B 1. 200 m in length 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 115.

B9. Békés-Krisztina-zug 1. Békés 2. Körös river 3. 46°48’7.80"N, 21° 6’50.80"E 4. The site is located north of Békés town, west of the Körös on the southern bank of the backwaters surrounding of Povád-zug. A– B 1. 300,000 m2; 1200×250 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 100.

B14. Békés-Malomasszonykert-Dudás-tanya 1. Békés 2. Holt-Fehér-Körös 3. 46°45’13.71"N, 21° 8’35.66"E 4. The site can be found on a narrow ridge on the western bank of the Holt-Fehér-Körös River on the southern confines of the town. The site is located opposite to the mouth of a smaller stream flowing into the Fehér-Körös from the east. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 97–98.

B10. Békés-Ludad-Andor-tanya 1. Békés 2. – 3. 46°49’28.00"N, 21° 8’39.45"E 4. The site is located in the northeastern fields of Békés town on the highest, middle part of a northeast to southwest running ridge approximately 300 m from Ludad farm. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 104.

B15. Békés-Povád 1. Békés 2. Kettõs-Körös 3. 46°48’4.64"N, 21° 8’27.45"E 4. The site is located on the eastern bank of the Kettõs-Körös river in the northeastern fields of Békés town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 81–87.

B11. Békés-Ludadi megálló III. 1. Békés 2. – 3. 46°48’47.26"N, 21° 9’46.57"E 4. The site is located opposite to the previous site on a ridge which is surrounded by a former alluvial watercourse from the east in the northeastern fields of Békés town. A– B 1. 40,000 m2, 400×100 m 2. Körös culture

B16. Békés-Szécsénykert IV. 1. Békés 2. – 3. 46°47’23.06"N, 21° 7’35.70"E 4. Potsherds have been found on the ridge on the northern bank of a meander surrounding the Kastély-zug district in the northern part of Békés town.

258

Bettina Bittner: Békés County

A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 102.

B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 81–82. B21. Békésszentandrás-Csató-tanya 1. Békésszentandrás 2. – 3. 46°51’48.73"N, 20°30’30.88"E 4. The site is located east of the village on a low, north to south running riverbank which is the remains of an old terrace of the Körös, south of the main road leading to Szarvas. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 82–83.

B17. Békés-Török-sziget-Csapó-tanya 1. Békés 2. – 3. 46°47’48.45"N, 21° 4’2.65"E 4. The site is located on a ridge of a hill running parallel to the road, on the southern side of the main road leading to Mezõberény in the northwestern fields of Békés town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture. C MRT 10, 68.

B22. Békésszentandrás-Furugy 1. Békésszentandrás 2. – 3. 46°49’49.23"N, 20°30’37.00"E 4. Furugy is located on the edge of an oval, east to west running elevation in the southeastern fields. The ridge can be found south of a cut off and silted in oxbow of the Körös River. This branch of the meander sourrounds the Furugylapos depression covered by stagnant waters. Sites can be found only on the outer bank of this meander branch. The site is located mainly north of the riverbank sloping toward the floodplain of the Körös River. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 73–76.

B18. Békés-Vizesbánom-Egyetértés Tsz Bekötõút 1. Békés 2. Kis-Körös 3. 46°47’46.20"N, 21° 9’40.87"E 4. There is a wide, plateau-like elevation in the environs of the access road on the northern side of the main road leading to Tarhos, northeast of the town which is surrounded by a former depression prone to flooding from north and east; this is a smaller stream flowing into the former watercourse of the Kis-Körös. There have been lots of prehistoric potsherds on a smaller hill mixed with light gray soil east of the access road. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 70.

B23. Békésszentandrás-Furugyi-hát 1. Békésszentandrás 2. – 3. 46°49’49.97"N, 20°30’21.25"E 4. The site is located in the southeastern fields of the village, on the highest part of the aforementioned ridge (see Békésszentandrás–Furugy site) and looks on the Furugyi-lapos to northwest. A 1. P. Árkus, D. B. Jankovich, J. Makkay, J. J. Szabó, M. B. Szõke 2. 1974, 1977, 1978, 1979 3. – 4. Settlement: one pit disturbed. B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 76–78.

B19. Békés-Vizesfási-ág 1. Békés 2. Vizesfási-ág 3. 46°47’56.77"N, 21° 9’25.80"E 4. The site is located on the northeastern end of a wide, northeast to southwest running ridge of a hill, east of the town, north of the main road leading to Tarhos. The ridge of the hill is surrounded by a former watercourse from the south and east. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 105. B20. Békésszentandrás-Liba-lapos-Molnár-tanya 1. Békésszentandrás 2. – 3. 46°52’4.50"N, 20°30’17.35"E 4. Several potsherds have been collected over a large area by a low, east to west running riverbank inside the large Szappanos meander of the Holt-Körös, east of the town, south of the main road leading to Szarvas. The riverbed of the Holt-Körös runs 200–300 m west of the site. A–

B24. Békésszentandrás-Kenderföldek III. 1. Békésszentandrás 2. Hármas-Körös 3. 46°53’21.88"N, 20°27’33.25"E 4. The settlement is located on the eastern end of the bank of Hármas-Körös in the northwestern fields of Békésszentandrás village.

259

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

A– B 1. 3750 m2, 150×25 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 63–64.

B29. Bélmegyer-Kárász-megyer-Érpart 1. Bélmegyer 2. – 3. 46°51’44.54"N, 21°11’43.83"E 4. The site is located on a triangle-shaped elevation on a narrow, north to south running ridge which forms the inner terrace of a cut off of a former stream southeast of the village. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 333.

B25. Békésszentandrás-Körösön túli rész I. 1. Békésszentandrás 2. Holt-Körös 3. 46°52’56.35"N, 20°29’41.82"E 4. Sherds have been found on the small elevation on the eastern bank of the Holt-Körös northeast of the village. A– B 1. 20,000 m2, 400×50 m 2. Körös culture C Krecsmárik 1915, 9; MRT 8, 67.

B30. Bélmegyer-Kürtös-Nagydomb 1. Bélmegyer 2. Kürtös-ér 3. 46°51’9.72"N, 21°12’16.15"E 4. The site is located on a northeast to southwest running ridge of a hill on the southeastern riverbank of the former Kürtös-ér southeast of the village. A– B 1. 20,000 m2, 200×100 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 349.

B26. Békésszentandrás-Szõlõk alja 1. Békésszentandrás 2. Holt-Körös 3. 46°50’29.18"N, 20°30’10.48"E 4. The site is located south of the large village, northwest of the Kerek-zug meander of the Holt-Körös oxbow lake. Furugy-lapos, a depression covered by stagnant waters, can be found inside this old meander. The site spreads between the western bank of the Holt-Körös and the northeastern corner of Furugy-lapos. A– B 1. 3,750 m2, 250×15 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 69–70.

B31. Bélmegyer-Mondoki-domb 1. Bélmegyer 2. – 3. 46°53’0.34"N, 21°10’49.60"E 4. A stream of considerable size meanders west of the road leading to Fáspuszta, north of the village. The site is located on a croissant-shaped ridge on the southwestern riverbank of a meander. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 348–349.

B27. Békésszentandrás-Üdülõtelep 1. Békésszentandrás 2. – 3. 46°53’15.24"N, 20°27’50.35"E 4. The site is located on a ridge by the bank of an old meander of the Holt-Körös oxbow lake, surrounded Békésszentandrás-Sirató, northwest of the large village. A– B 1. 525 m2, 35×15 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 64.

B32. Bélmegyer-Telek-megyer-Prolok-tanya 1. Bélmegyer 2. – 3. 46°53’15.22"N, 21°11’52.96"E 4. The site is located on the southeastern riverbank which surrounds the Verebes island from the southeast in the northeastern fields of Bélmegyer. A– B 1. 12,500 m2, 250×50 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 362.

B28. Bélmegyer-Fehér-háti laponyag I. 1. Bélmegyer 2. – 3. 46°51’12.17"N, 21° 7’48.26"E 4. The site is located on a small mound at the end of a north to south running ridge in the southwestern fields of Bélmegyer, in the western half of Fehér-hát pasture. A– B 1. 200 m in length 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 342.

B33. Bélmegyer-Telek-megyer-Szalkai-tanya 1. Bélmegyer 2. – 3. 46°52’53.11"N, 21°11’40.68"E 4. The site is located on a high, triangle-shaped ridge on the eastern bank of a former stream of roughly north–south direction, northeast of the village of Bélmegyer. A–

260

Bettina Bittner: Békés County

4. The site is located on the eastern bank of the confluence between former streams one running east to west and the other northeast to southwest, southeast of the village. A– B 1. 90,000 m2, 300×300 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 339–340.

B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 352–360. B34. Bélmegyer-Telek-megyer-Verebes-sziget 1. Bélmegyer 2. – 3. 46°53’15.90"N, 21°11’42.58"E 4. The site is located on the southeastern edge of an island surrounded by two former streams, northeast of the village of Bélmegyer. A– B 1. 36,000 m, 450×80 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 361–362.

B39. Bucsa-Árpád-sor-Akácos utca 1. Bucsa 2. – 3. 47°12’23.05"N, 21° 0’41.35" 4. The site is located on a ridge of a hill turning to north in the eastern fields of Bucsa village. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 31–32.

B35. Bélmegyer-Vadas-megyer-Domokos 1. Bélmegyer 2. – 3. 46°52’0.02"N, 21°13’28.52"E 4. The site is located on the low, southeastern riverbank of a northeast to southwest flowing watercourse in the eastern fields of Bélmegyer. A– B 1. 50,000 m2, 500×100 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 350.

B40. Bucsa-Hortobágyi-Lapos 1. Bucsa 2. Sárrét-csatorna 3. 47°10’38.79"N, 20°57’44.31"E 4. Sherds of the Körös culture have been collected on the bank of Sárrét-csatorna opposite to the Pusztaborz farm. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 31.

B36. Bélmegyer-Vadas-megyer-Füzes 1. Bélmegyer 2. – 3. 46°51’54.83"N, 21°14’9.40"E 4. The site is located on a hill surrounded by a meander of an east to west flowing stream in the eastern fields of Bélmegyer. A– B 1. 40,000 m2, 200×200 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 341.

B41. Bucsa-Bucsai-Legelõ 1. Bucsa 2. – 3. 47°12’11.90"N, 20°58’52.14"E 4. The site is located on the bank of the oxbow lake dividing the pasture in the southwestern fields of Bucsa. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 29.

B37. Bélmegyer-Vadas-megyer-Harmati-tanya II. 1. Bélmegyer 2. – 3. 46°51’43.07"N, 21°13’35.33"E 4. The site is located on an oval, island-like hill surrounded by an east to west flowing stream in the eastern fields of Bélmegyer. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 340.

B42. Bucsa-Kis-Bucsa 1. Bucsa 2. Sárrét-csatorna 3. 47°11’16.55"N, 20°59’36.36"E 4. The site is located on a steep slope of the ridge on the northern bank of the Sárrét-csatorna. A– B 1. 21,000 m2, 700×30 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 31.

B38. Bélmegyer-Vadas-megyer-Vadas-major 1. Bélmegyer 2. – 3. 46°51’46.15"N, 21°13’15.79"

B43. Bucsa-Kismonostor 1. Bucsa 2. – 3. 47°11’33.39"N, 21° 4’17.10"E

261

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

4. The site is located on a low hill on the two banks of a dried up watercourse. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 32.

3. 46°53’8.77"N, 20°55’39.67"E 4. The site is located on the eastern bank of a north to south running section of a former watercourse in the northern fields of Csárdaszállás. A– B 1. 17,500 m2, 350×50 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 381.

B44. Bucsa-Mari-Major (Faluhely) 1. Bucsa 2. Sárrét-csatorna 3. 47°12’6.11"N, 21° 0’38.00"E 4. The site is located on the eastern bank of Sárrét-csatorna (former Berettyó riverbed). A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 30–31.

B49. Csárdaszállás-Csukás-dûlõ-Gátõrház 1. Csárdaszállás 2. – 3. 46°53’31.71"N, 20°56’14.07"E 4. The site is extended in a semicircular shape, primarily west of the Csukás-dûlõ dam guard’s house in the northern fields of Csárdaszállás. It covers completely the ridge of the hill which forms the southern edge of the former floodplain area, called Nyilas. Another extensive flood zone, Csukás-dûlõ forms its southern boundary. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 382–383.

B45. Bucsa-Töviskes-hát I. 1. Bucsa 2. Sárrét-csatorna 3. 47°11’47.93"N, 20°59’27.87"E 4. The site is located on a narrow ridge of a high, western bank of a sharp oxbow of Sárrét-csatorna near the southern corner of the village. A– B 1. 6,000 m2, 200×30 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 31.

B50. Csárdaszállás-Csukás-dûlõ-Kiszely-tanya 1. Csárdaszállás 2. – 3. 46°53’13.57"N, 20°55’48.57"E 4. The site is located at the southwestern end of a high, long ridge of an ancient, northeast to southwest running riverbank in the northern fields of Csárdaszállás. The ridge of the hill is bordered by the wide lowland of Csukás-dûlõ on the southeast and another depression in the north which previously must have been prone to flooding. A– B 1. 200×80 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 381.

B46. Bucsa-Töviskes-hát II. 1. Bucsa 2. Sárrét-csatorna 3. 47°11’12.18"N, 20°57’56.08"E 4. The site is located on a ridge of a hill on the eastern side of the Hortobágyi-lapos. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 34.

B51. Csárdaszállás-Félhalom 1. Csárdaszállás 2. – 3. 46°53’44.64"N, 20°54’53.60"E 4. Archaeological finds have been collected on a high, ridge of arched groundplan which is surrounded by a former riverbed in the northern fields. This is an old bed of the Körös River meandering from east to west, aligned by terraces of high, alluvial sediment. A– B– 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 376–380.

B47. Csárdaszállás-Baráthalom-dûlõ-Filó-tanya II. 1. Csárdaszállás 2. – 3. 46°53’1.25"N, 20°54’27.73"E 4. The site is located on the western bank of a north to south flowing watercourse, northeast of the main road leading to Gyoma, north of the village. A– B 1. 25,000 m2, 250×100 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 375.

B52. Csárdaszállás-Félhalom-Gátoldal 1. Csárdaszállás 2. – 3. 46°53’20.22"N, 20°55’14.51"E 4. The site is located in the northern fields of Csárdaszállás on

B48. Csárdaszállás-Csukás-dûlõ-gát 1. Csárdaszállás 2. –

262

Bettina Bittner: Békés County

the northeastern side of the Pityer dam demolished in 1984. The dam had been built on a semicircular, low ridge of a riverbank.

B57. Dévaványa-Atyaszegi-legelõ-Besnyõ-part 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°5’45.98"N, 20°58’36.18"E 4. The site is located on the small hill in Atyaszeg pasture. A 1. J. Korek 2. 1949 3. – 4. Settlement B 1. – 2. Körös culture, latest Körös phase C MRT 6, 57; Oravecz 1995

A– B 1. 45,000 m2, 450×100 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 386. B53. Csárdaszállás-Szelespart 1. Csárdaszállás 2. – 3. 46°53’4.74"N, 20°54’36.84"E 4. The site is located in the northern fields of Csárdaszállás, on the northern edge of a long, north to south running ridge of a hill, flanked by areas covered by stagnant waters from north and east. A– B– 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 385.

B58. Dévaványa-Bánom-kert 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°1’57.73"N, 20°58’31.88" 4. The site is located on a steep bank of a stream on the eastern confines of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 64.

B54. Csárdaszállás-Tóth-tanya 1. Csárdaszállás 2. – 3. 46°53’4.90"N, 20°55’33.71"E 4. The site is located north of the Tóth farmstead on the western bank of a north–south section of a former meander in the northern fields of Csárdaszállás. A– B 1. 17,500 m2, 350×50 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 380–381.

B59. Dévaványa-Barcé 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°1’41.33"N, 20°53’49.89"E 4. The site is located on the northeastern bank of an old stream, right by the northern side of the road leading to Túrkeve, west of the town. A B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 59.

B55. Dévaványa-Atyaszeg-Doszta-part (Bogáros) 1. Dévaványa 2. Doszta-part 3. 47°7’18.21"N, 20°59’15.50"E 4. Finds of the Körös culture have been collected in the northern end of the Atyaszeg pasture in the northern fields of Dévaványa. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 68.

B60. Dévaványa-Barcé-Csik-ér 1. Dévaványa 2. Csik-ér 3. 47°3’12.92"N, 20°55’41.11"E 4. The site is located on the eastern bank of a stream running north to south, 1.5 km northwest of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 46.

B56. Dévaványa-Atyaszeg-Hajós-halom 1. Dévaványa 2. Felsõ-Réhelyi összekötõ csatorna 3. 47°5’41.52"N, 20°59’50.02"E 4. The site is located mainly on a small hill on the bank of a stream northeast of the Hajós-halom, and on a smaller mound some 150 m north. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 67–68.

B61. Dévaványa-Barcéi-kishalom 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°2’33.84"N, 20°54’58.97"E 4. The site is located on an island-like ridge north of the road leading to Túrkeve and west of the town. A 1. F. Losits 2. 1982 3. 60 m2

263

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

4. Settlement: 4 pits and a grave. 5. Classic Körös culture

2. Csík-ér 3. 47°2’52.79"N, 20°55’39.49"E 4. The site is located on a terrace next to the southernmost part of the Csík-ér northeast of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 73.

B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 61; Losits 1983, 11; Oravecz 1997. B62. Dévaványa-Berek 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°3’30.77"N, 20°56’11.20"E 4. Traces of a settlement have been observed in several areas along the high bank of a former stream running northwest to southeast, divided by small hills east of the road leading to Ecsegfalva, north of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 45.

B67. Dévaványa-Dombrí (Dombrév) 1. Dévaványa 2. Tálagy-ér 3. 47°1’6.16"N, 21°0’25.48"E 4. The site is located on a semicircular elevation of a western terrace of the former Tálagy-ér in the southeastern fields of Dévaványa. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 63.

B63. Dévaványa-Berek-halom 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°3’17.88"N, 20°56’54.23" 4. The site is located on the southern side of a terrace north of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 45.

B68. Dévaványa-Fudéri-dûlõ 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°4’38.13"N, 21°1’20.52"E 4. The site is located on the northern bank of the wide, northwest to southeast running stream bed in the northeastern fields of Dévaványa. A– B 1. Settlement features and a grave were disturbed by quarry pit. 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 54–55.

B64. Dévaványa-Borszeg 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°3’57.85"N, 20°57’12.65"E 4. The site is located in the northwestern edge of Borszegi-dûlõ north of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 56.

B69. Dévaványa-Gabonás 1. Dévaványa 2. Gabonás-ér 3. 47°3’31.83"N, 20°53’1.23"E 4. The site is located on the bank of the Gabonás-ér northwest of the town. A– B 1. Settlement features (pits and hearths) were disturbed by quarry pit. 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 40–41.

B65. Dévaványa-Borszeg II. 1. Dévaványa 2. Nagy-éri-csatorna 3. 47°3’44.62"N, 20°57’4.27"E 4. An earth quarry was opened north of the rectangular oxbow of Nagy-éri-csatorna north of the town. Traces of a settlement, beginning near the quarry area, have been observed by the steep bank of the stream. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 69–70.

B70. Dévaványa-Gabonás-Tûzoltó-föld 1. Dévaványa 2. Csudabalai-csatorna 3. 47°4’21.86"N, 20°52’54.90" 4. The site is located on the western terrace of a former stream, crossing the road leading to Csudabala, on the northern side of the road in the northwestern fields of Dévaványa. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture

B66. Dévaványa-Csík-ér-farka 1. Dévaványa

264

Bettina Bittner: Békés County

C

B MRT 6, 60.

1. – 2. Körös culture C

B71. Dévaványa-Katal-szeg I. 1. Dévaványa 2. Gabonás-ér 3. 47°3’24.68"N, 20°53’20.47"E 4. The site is located on a small elevation on the eastern bank of the former Gabonás-ér in the northwestern fields of Dévaványa. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 41–42.

MRT 6, 39. B76. Dévaványa-Kér-sziget II. 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°4’41.97"N, 20°53’16.36"E 4. There is a dry stream bed of east–west direction north of the road leading to Túrkeve which has a sizeable meander to the west where it eventually turns toward a north–south direction. The site is located on the northwestern terrace of the meander. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 40.

B72. Dévaványa-Katal-szeg II. 1. Dévaványa 2. Gabonás-ér 3. 47°4’7.35"N, 20°53’41.03"E 4. The site is located on a low terrace south of the road leading to Csudabala. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 46–47.

B77. Dévaványa-Kér-sziget-Katonaföldek 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°6’0.12"N, 20°52’6.96"E 4. Traces of a settlement have been found extending along a considerably long section of the southwestern bank of the stream around the Kér island in the northwestern fields of Dévaványa. A 1. I. Ecsedy 2. 1970 3. – 4. Ground plans of rectangular houses located 20–30 m from each other as well as spots of associated refuse pits could be clearly seen in the western section of the site. Test excavations revealed settlement features of the Körös culture and an inhumation grave with the skeleton in a contracted position without grave goods. B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Ecsedy 1972, 59–63; MRT 6, 35.

B73. Dévaványa-Katal-szeg III. 1. Dévaványa 2. Gabonás-ér 3. 47°3’56.42"N, 20°53’26.25"E 4. The site is located on the terrace by the eastern bank of the former Gabonás-ér in the northwestern fields of Dévaványa. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 42. B74. Dévaványa-Katal-szeg IV. 1. Dévaványa 2. Gabonás-ér 3. 47°4’4.44"N, 20°53’40.16"E 4. The road leading to Csudabala cuts the eastern terrace of the former Gabonás-ér northwest of the town. The site is located on the bank and its slopes on either side of the road. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 42.

B78. Dévaványa-Két-ér köze-Bogya-tanya 1. Dévaványa 2. Két-ér 3. 47°4’24.32"N, 20°58’9.64"E 4. The site is located on the eastern bank of the stream dividing Réhely and Két-ér köze dûlõ. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 55. B79. Dévaványa-Két-halom II. 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°0’37.28"N, 20°59’56.12"E 4. Two large mounds had been erected on the eastern side of the road leading to Körösladány southeast of the town centre. Sherds of the Körös culture have been collected from a quarry pit northeast of the northern mound.

B75. Dévaványa-Kér-sziget I. 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°4’55.73"N, 20°54’18.76"E 4. The site is located on a northern terrace along a dried up stream bed, north of the road leading to Túrkeve in the northwestern fields of Dévaványa. A–

265

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 49.

C MRT 6, 48. B84. Dévaványa-Külsõ-Atyaszeg 1. Dévaványa 2. Doszta-Felsõ-Réhelyi-összekötõ csatorna 3. 47°6’26.53"N, 21°1’16.93"E 4. Doszta-Felsõ-Réhelyi-összekötõ csatorna cuts into a former terrace of a stream in the northeastern fields of Dévaványa. The site is located on this terrace – stretching along both banks of the stream – and in the quarry pit opened north of the channel. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 66–67.

B80. Dévaványa-Két-halom IV. 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°0’21.54"N, 21°0’43.03"E 4. Traces of a settlement have been found in quarry pits on the western terrace of an old stream in the southeastern fields of Dévaványa. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 49.

B85. Dévaványa-Nádösvény 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°1’36.24"N, 20°54’20.19"E 4. The site is located on the northern end of a ridge between old stream beds in the southern side of the road leading to Túrkeve, west of the centre of Dévaványa. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 59.

B81. Dévaványa-Kis-gabonás 1. Dévaványa 2. Sártó-Gabonás-mellékcsatorna 3. 47°3’4.81"N, 20°51’50.10"E 4. The site is located on the eastern terrace of an oxbow of Sártó-Gabonás, a side canal in the western fields of Dévaványa. A B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 60.

B86. Dévaványa-Nagy-Varsány-hát 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 46°58’48.45"N, 20°54’55.83"E 4. The site is located on the low lying riverbank west of the former Kiss farmstead in the southwestern fields of Dévaványa. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 58.

B82. Dévaványa-Kovács-Laponyag 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°6’9.87"N, 20°55’11.76"E 4. Traces of a settlement have been found on the northeastern terrace of an oxbow of a former stream in both sides of the road leading to Ecsegfalva in the northern fields of Dévaványa. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 43.

B87. Dévaványa-Õrhalom I. 1. Dévaványa 2. Nagy-éri-csatorna 3. 47°3’25.03"N, 20°59’16.67"E 4. Sherds have been collected in a quarry pit opened on the western bank of the Nagy-éri-csatorna flowing in the former stream bed on the border of the Csorda-járás and the Õrhalom-zug districts of Dévaványa, northeast of the centre of town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 52.

B83. Dévaványa-Köles-halom 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°0’39.66"N, 20°56’30.32"E 4. There are two mounds on an elevation in the floodplain of a former stream on the eastern side of the road leading to Gyoma in the southern fields of Dévaványa. The bigger mound is called Vas doktor-halma. A smaller mound, totally damaged by tillage, can be found northeast of this mound. Traces of a settlement have been found on the smaller mound and in its environs as well as in a quarry pit north of the larger mound. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture

B88. Dévaványa-Õrhalom II. 1. Dévaványa

266

Bettina Bittner: Békés County

2. Nagy-éri-csatorna 3. 47°3’35.31"N, 21°0’8.82"E 4. The site of Õrhalom can be found on the northern bank of a stream dividing the Sima-sziget from the Õrhalom-zug district, 3 km northeast of the town centre. The mound was erected in the middle of a neolithic settlement, numerous sherds have been collected on the mound and its environment. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 53.

C MRT 6, 69. B93. Dévaványa-Réhely III. 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°4’33.45"N, 20°56’41.32"E 4. The site is located on the western terrace of a dry, north to south running stream bed between the former Kürti and Dékány farmsteads on the east side of the former Dévaványa-Kisújszállás railway line. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 69.

B89. Dévaványa-Õrhalom III. 1. Dévaványa 2. Nagy-éri-csatorna 3. 47°3’9.98"N, 21°0’29.18"E 4. The site is located on the eastern terrace of the Nagy-éri-csatorna in the northeastern fields of Dévaványa. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 53.

B94. Dévaványa-Réhely IV. 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°4’32.16"N, 20°55’27.01"E 4. The site is located on a terrace by the bank of an old stream in the western side of the road leading to Ecsegfalva north of the town. A 1. H. Oravecz 2. 1979, 1980 3. 4. Settlement B 1. 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 43–44; Goldman 1991

B90. Dévaványa-Õrhalom-zug 1. Dévaványa 2. Nagy-éri-csatorna 3. 47°2’48.18"N, 21°1’3.08"E 4. The site is located on the northern bank of the Nagy-éri-csatorna in the eastern fields of Dévaványa. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 65.

B95. Dévaványa-Réhely-Besnyõ-part-Szarka-tanya 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°5’52.91"N, 20°58’12.89"E 4. The site is located on a terrace by the western bank of the stream forming the eastern border of Réhely in the northern fields of Dévaványa. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 68.

B91. Dévaványa-Réhely I. 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°4’58.38"N, 20°55’8.73"E 4. The site is located on the eastern terrace of an old stream west of the road leading to Ecsegfalva in the northwestern fields. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 43.

B96. Dévaványa-Réhely-dûlõ 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°5’50.33"N, 20°55’9.13"E 4. Traces of a large settlement have been found on the eastern terrace of an oxbow of an old stream in the western side of the road leading to Ecsegfalva in the northern fields of Dévaványa. The settlement extends all the way to the road. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture, Late Körös phase C MRT 6, 42–43.

B92. Dévaványa-Réhely II. 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°4’51.67"N, 20°57’11.92"E 4. The site is located on a peninsula-like hill on the northeastern bank of the former, northeast to southwest flowing stream, southeast of the Réhely railway station. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture

267

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

B97. Dévaványa-Réhelyi-gát 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°4’9.37"N, 20°55’8.78"E 4. The site is located on the steep, southern bank of a former watercourse northwest of the town. A 1. I. Ecsedy 2. 1970 3. 150 m2 4. Settlement 5. Test excavations brought to light several layers of a stratified settlement. The two lowermost layers belong to the Körös culture. B 1. – 2. Classical Körös culture, Latest Körös phase C MRT 6, 44–45; Ecsedy 1973 14 C dates: Oross & Siklósi in this volume

B101. Dévaványa-Séli-zug 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°3’5.18"N, 21°2’43.89"E 4. Traces of the Körös culture settlement have been observed in the quarry pit at the eastern end of the Séli-zug district of Dévaványa. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 65. B102. Dévaványa-Sima-sziget I. 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°1’37.38"N, 21°0’29.11"E 4. The site is located on the southwestern edge of the Sima-sziget on the eastern bank of the stream bed of a roughly north to south direction. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 62.

B98. Dévaványa-Sártó-halom 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°4’3.66"N, 20°52’14.18"E 4. The site is located on both sides of the road leading to Túrkeve and the southwestern side of the so-called Sártó-halom. This mound emerges on the south-southeastern terrace of a stream which surrounds Sártó-sziget in a semicircle on the northern side of the road leading to Túrkeve. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 38.

B103. Dévaványa-Sima-sziget II. 1. Dévaványa 2. Tálagy-ér 3. 47°2’6.56"N, 21°0’7.07"E 4. The extensive site is located on a steep terrace on the eastern bank of the oxbow of the Tálagy-ér south of the road leading to Szeghalom. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 64–65.

B99. Dévaványa-Sártó-sziget 1. Dévaványa 2. Sártó-ér 3. 47°4’41.36"N, 20°51’42.31"E 4. The site is located in the field between the creek-like depressions interrupting the bank of the Sártó-ér. It was discovered on the eastern side of the terrace surrounded by the stream, northwest of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 38–39.

B104. Dévaványa-Sima-sziget III. 1. Dévaványa 2. Tálagy-ér 3. 47°2’4.24"N, 20°59’22.09"E 4. The site is located on the northern terrace of the Tálagy-ér east of the town centre. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 50

B100. Dévaványa-Sártó-Tímár Frigyes halma 1. Dévaványa 2. Gabonás-ér 3. 47°3’51.00"N, 20°51’47.02"E 4. The two branches of the former Gabonás-ér surround a peninsula-like terrace in the northwestern fields of Dévaványa. The site is located on the highest, eastern part of this terrace. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 37–38; Kutzián 1944, 32–33, Pl. XV.1–16, XVI.1–3.

B105. Dévaványa-Sima-sziget IV. 1. Dévaványa 2. Nagy-éri-csatorna 3. 47°2’42.62"N, 20°59’15.10"E 4. Körös culture sherds have been sporadically found on the southeastern terrace of the Nagy-éri-csatorna in the eastern fields of Dévaványa. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture

268

Bettina Bittner: Békés County

4. A sherd of a Körös culture storage vessel was collected in the soil-amelioration quarry opened in the northwestern fields, called Sima-sziget in 1958. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 62–63.

C MRT 6, 51. B106. Dévaványa-Sima-sziget V. 1. Dévaványa 2. Nagy-éri-csatorna 3. 47°2’50.70"N, 20°59’26.89"E 4. The site is located on the southeastern and eastern terraces by the oxbow of the Nagy-éri-csatorna northeast of the town centre. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 51.

B111. Dévaványa-Tó-kert I. 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°2’21.58"N, 20°58’26.89"E 4. A prehistoric tell settlement can be found in the territory of the so-called Tó-kert orchard on the terrace of the former Sima-tó on the northern side of the road leading to Szeghalom in the eastern fields. A 1. I. Bereczki, I. Méri 2. 1936 3. – 4. Settlement B 1. 7500 m2, 150×50 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 50–51.

B107. Dévaványa-Sima-sziget VI. 1. Dévaványa 2. Nagy-éri-csatorna 3. 47°2’47.38"N, 21°0’18.78"E 4. The site is located on the southern bank of the stream bed dividing Sima-sziget and the Õrhalom-zug district in the eastern fields of Dévaványa. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 53.

B112. Dévaványa-Tó-kert II. 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°2’35.04"N, 20°58’30.27"E 4. Körös culture sherds have been found sporadically on the western terrace of an old stream at the northeastern border of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 51.

B108. Dévaványa-Sima-sziget-Kecskeméti tanya 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°1’17.21"N, 21°0’36.13"E 4. The site is located on the eastern bank of a roughly north to south running stream bed in the southern part of the Sima-sziget east of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 62.

B113. Dévaványa-Vágás-part 1. Dévaványa 2. Tálagy-ér 3. 47°1’46.05"N, 20°59’1.61"E 4. The site is located on the steep southern bank of the former Tálagy-ér, mainly north of the eastern end of the Calvinist cemetery in Vágás at the eastern border of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 64.

B109. Dévaványa-Sima-sziget-Tálagyi-átjáró 1. Dévaványa 2. Tálagy-ér 3. 47°1’49.55"N, 21°0’18.40"E 4. The site is located on the eastern terrace of the Tálagy-ér east of the town. The Körös culture sherds have been concentrated in the eastern part of the site. A 1. 7.Korek 2. 1962 3. 800 m long 4. Settlement B 1. 800 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 49.

B114. Ecsegfalva-Egyházhalma I. 1. Ecsegfalva 2. – 3. 47°6’54.70"N, 20°53’26.63"E 4. There is a mound on a protruding part of the northwestern bank of the former Ecseg-tó southwest of the village. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture

B110. Dévaványa-Sima-sziget-Tóalja 1. Dévaványa 2. – 3. 47°2’36.37"N, 20°58’50.12"

269

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

C

A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 79.

MRT 6, 75–76. B115. Ecsegfalva-Egyházhalma II. 1. Ecsegfalva 2. – 3. 47°6’31.33"N, 20°53’8.14"E 4. Non-characteristic prehistoric sherds have been collected along the northern bank of the Ecseg-tó, southwest of the previously described mound of the Ecsegfalva-Egyházhalma site I. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 76.

B120. Ecsegfalva-Kiritó-part 1. Ecsegfalva 2. – 3. 47°8’32.40"N, 20°54’52.55"E 4. The site is located near the eastern end of a stream bed southwest of the village. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 79

B116. Ecsegfalva-Füzes-tó-köz 1. Ecsegfalva 2. – 3. 47°10’22.89"N, 20°56’7.55"E 4. The site is located on a narrow part of the western bank of a former, north to south running riverbed, north of the village. A– B 1. 21,000 m2, 700×30 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 77.

B121. Ecsegfalva-Kóré-zug I. 1. Ecsegfalva 2. Felsõ-Réhelyi-mellékcsatorna 3. 47°8’18.97"N, 20°53’20.93"E 4. The site is located on the terrace by the southwestern bank of the oxbow of the Felsõ-Réhelyi-mellékcsatorna west of the village. A few potsherds have been collected from the bank of the channels cutting across the pasture. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 79.

B117. Ecsegfalva-Kelemen-zug I. 1. Ecsegfalva 2. – 3. 47°5’50.38"N, 20°54’6.80"E 4. The site is located on the southern terrace of a riverbed connecting to the Ecseg-tó in the southernmost part of fields near Ecsegfalva. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 76.

B122. Ecsegfalva-Kóré-zug II. 1. Ecsegfalva 2. Felsõ-Réhelyi-mellékcsatorna 3. 47°8’16.51"N, 20°53’45.38"E 4. The Felsõ-Réhelyi-mellékcsatorna cuts off the slope of a ridge of a hill in the western fields. Körös culture potsherds have been found here. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 80.

B118. Ecsegfalva-Kelemen-zug II. 1. Ecsegfalva 2. Kelemen-zugi-ér 3. 47°6’9.88"N, 20°54’46.33" 4. A few, non-distinctive, prehistoric finds have been collected on the bank of Kelemen-zugi-ér. A– B 1. 700 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 76.

B123. Ecsegfalva-Kóré-zug III. (Ecsegfalva 23) 1. Ecsegfalva 2. Felsõ-Réhelyi-mellékcsatorna 3. 47°8’3.54"N, 20°54’31.75"E 4. Traces of a neolithic settlement have been found when ditch was dug near the western bank of the Felsõ-Réhelyi-mellékcsatorna. The site is located beside the Kiri-tó which is an old riverbed of the Hortobágy-Berettyó River. A 1. A. Whittle 2. 1999–2001 3. 140 m long 4. Settlement: Several pits were revealed in three squares. B 1. – 2. Körös culture

B119. Ecsegfalva-Kiritó 1. Ecsegfalva 2. Felsõ-Réhelyi-mellékcsatorna 3. 47°8’27.78"N, 20°54’24.64"E 4. Traces of a settlement have been observed in the soilamelioration pits opened on the side of the elevation surrounded by the oxbow of the Felsõ-Réhelyi-mellékcsatorna in the western fields.

270

Bettina Bittner: Békés County

4. The extensive site is located on the eastern bank of the former riverbed called Icce-ér in the eastern fields of Gerla. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 449.

C MRT 6, 80; Whittle 2007; in this volume 14 C dates: Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115; Bronk Ramsey et al. 2007, 175–176. B124. Ecsegfalva-Nagyködmönös 1. Ecsegfalva 2. – 3. 47°7’6.03"N, 20°57’53.30"E 4. Dense traces of settlements have been observed on the western terrace on a bank of a stream running north to south in the southeastern fields of Ecsegfalva. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 78–79.

B129. Gerla-Icce-part II. 1. Gerla 2. – 3. 46°41’59.06"N, 21°13’46.69"E 4. A small hill is located in the flat, undivided field far from all known watercourses in the eastern fields of Gerla. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 449–450.

B125. Ecsegfalva-Pusztaborz 1. Ecsegfalva 2. Sárréti-csatorna 3. 47°10’24.42"N, 20°57’38.51"E 4. The site is located in the territory of the farmstead on the bank of the Sárréti-csatorna northeast of the village. A– B 1. 30,000 m2, 300×100 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 78.

B130. Gyomaendrõd-Elõhalmi Páskum-Útköze (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°57’3.42"N, 20°51’14.53"E 4. The site is located on the low, northern bank of a stream bed running east to west on the southeastern side of the road leading to Dévaványa, northeast of the town itself. A– B 1. 200 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 251–252.

B126. Ecsegfalva-Szõlõs 1. Ecsegfalva 2. – 3. 47°10’9.17"N, 20°56’27.68"E 4. Sporadic traces of settlement have been observed on a terrace between two channels in the northern fields. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 77.

B131. Gyomaendrõd-Bacsa-lapos, Csatornapart I. (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°53’56.09"N, 20°44’34.06"E 4. The site is located the northern bank of an old, silted-in riverbed south of the road leading to Szarvas in the western fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. 6000 m2, 200 × 30 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 174.

B127. Gerla-Fácántelep 1. Gerla 2. – 3. 46°42’20.86"N, 21°12’52.88"E 4. The site is located at the eastern end of a ridge of a small hill directed east to west near the forest edge in the eastern fields of Gerla. The site is bordered by the floodplain of a former watercourse from the south. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 452.

B132. Gyomaendrõd-Akácos (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 47°2’7.76"N, 20°48’50.70"E 4. The confluence between the Köles-árok and a former stream bed running southeast to northwest can be found northeast of the Póhalom in the northern fields of Gyomaendrõd. The site is located on the eastern terrace of this old watercourse. A– B 1. 200 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 247.

B128. Gerla-Icce part I. 1. Gerla 2. Icce-ér 3. 46°42’4.03"N, 21°13’37.07"E

271

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

2. Körös culture

B133. Gyomaendrõd-Bánffy-Bala-Telefonos-út (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Berettyó 3. 47°1’55.81"N, 20°48’28.44"E 4. The site is located on a 1 km long ridge on the western bank of the Holt-Berettyó River. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 208.

C MRT 8, 161. B138. Gyomaendrõd-Csepüs-kert-Kiss-tanya (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°54’45.63"N, 20°50’40.40"E 4. There is an 800 m long, narrow, arched ridge along the northeastern side of the road leading to Mezõberény, south-southeast of the town. This ridge emerges high above the surrounding Körös River floodplain, and it actually forms its southern–southwestern border. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 213.

B134. Gyomaendrõd-Bátori-sor-Vicián-tanya (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Gabonás-ér 3. 47°2’48.86"N, 20°51’44.17"E 4. Körös culture sherds have been collected on a small tell-like elevation on the western bank of Gabonás-ér of north–south direction in the northeastern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. 600 m2, 30×20 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 258.

B139. Gyomaendrõd-Cserepes-halom (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 47°1’35.80"N, 20°51’46.56"E 4. A low, island-like hill overlooks the fields in the floodplain surrounded by the bed of the former Ó-Berettyó River, north of Telek in the northern fields of Gyomaendrõd. An agricultural clay extraction pit was dug into the south–southeastern part of this hill. The northern wall of this pit cuts a smaller elevation upon which once the settlement of the Körös culture stood. A– B 1. 3500 m2, 100×35 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 246–247.

B135. Gyomaendrõd-Béke Tsz-Korcsag-tanya (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°53’26.18"N, 20°45’6.39"E 4. The site is located on a low hill of arched ground plan in the Öregszõlõk district. The hill was once flanked by a watercourse as shown by a depression south-southeast of the site. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 135–136.

B140. Gyomaendrõd-Egei-dûlõ-Lengyel-tanya (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°53’35.09"N, 20°53’43.42"E 4. The site is located in the southeastern fields of Gyomaendrõd the northern bank of a stream bed where its course turns southwest from northeast. A– B 1. 250 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 224–225.

B136. Gyomaendrõd-Bogárzó (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Körös 3. 46°57’29.07"N, 20°43’4.10"E 4. The site is located on the northern part of a north to south running levee on the southern bank of a meander of the Holt-Körös in the northwestern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 177–178.

B141. Gyomaendrõd-Egei-halom-dûlõ-Megyeri-tanya (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°54’4.17"N, 20°51’41.56"E 4. There is a high mound directed north to south located north of the road leading to Békéscsaba in the southeastern fields of Gyomaendrõd. Potsherds have been collected in the area of this mound and along a bank toward the north. A– B 1. 200 m long 2. Körös culture

B137. Gyomaendrõd-Csejt-puszta-Zubogó (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Berettyó 3. 47°1’51.69"N, 20°43’28.69"E 4. The site is located on the northern levee of the section of the Holt-Berettyó river turning west in the northwestern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. 800 m long

272

Bettina Bittner: Békés County

C

B146. Gyomaendrõd-Feneki-ér (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Feneki-ér 3. 47°2’54.77"N, 20°49’4.19"E 4. The site is located on a flat terrace by the southern bank of the Holt-Berettyó meander in the Bala fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 207.

MRT 8, 265–266. B142. Gyomaendrõd-Egei-halom-dûlõ-Bogár-tanya (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°53’38.97"N, 20°53’57.13"E 4. The site is located on the northern bank of a northeast to southwest running stream bed in the southeastern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. 350 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 225.

B147. Gyomaendrõd-Feneki-erdõ (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Berettyó 3. 47°3’7.99"N, 20°49’57.15"E 4. The site is located on the southern bank of the confluence between two branches of meanders of the Holt-Berettyó in the northern part of the Svarc-bala area. A– B 1. 500 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 207.

B143. Gyomaendrõd-Elõhalmi Páskum-Oláh-tanya (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°56’58.62"N, 20°51’20.60"E 4. The site is located on the western bank of the stream bed turning north to south, north of the main road leading to Körösladány in the northeastern fields. Finds have been collected on the eastern slope of a small elevation in the southern part of the bank. A– B 1. 4000 m2, 200×20 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 252.

B148. Gyomaendrõd-Gabonás-ér (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Gabonás-ér 3. 47°2’43.43"N, 20°51’48.65"E 4. The site is located on a ridge whose diameter is cca. 25 m in a north–south direction and is perpendicular to the stream bed on the southern bank of the Holt-Berettyó meander in the northeastern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 206–207.

B144. Gyomaendrõd-Elõhalmi Páskum-Molnár-tanya (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°57’7.81"N, 20°51’36.32"E 4. Sherds have been collected on a small elevation of oval shape in the area of the farmstead located on the southern bank of an east to west running stream bed, north of the main road leading to Körösladány, northeast of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 252.

B149. Gyomaendrõd-Gátõrház (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Hármas-Körös 3. 46°56’22.65"N, 20°50’42.95"E 4. The site is located on both sides of the dam of the Hármas-Körös river on the northwestern bank of a branch of the Holt-Körös oxbow lake east of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 236.

B145. Gyomaendrõd-Farkas-fok (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Körös 3. 46°59’10.00"N, 20°43’23.16"E 4. Sherds have been collected in a long, narrow strip along the northeastern bank of the Holt-Körös riverbed surrounding the Simai-zug district on the southwestern side of the main road leading to Mezõtúr crossing the northwestern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 124.

B150. Gyomaendrõd-Gellai-Bala-Varjúföld (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Ivánfenéki-csatorna 3. 47°2’28.21"N, 20°50’52.74"E 4. The former Holt-Berettyó riverbed is running north in a short section in the northern fields of Gyomaendrõd. Recently, the Ivánfenéki-csatorna has been dug into it. The site is located on a low terrace on the western bank of this riverbed.

273

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

A– B 1. 30,000 m2, 300×100 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 201.

C MRT 8, 257. B155. Gyomaendrõd-Kápolna-halom (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°53’58.14"N, 20°44’2.55"E 4. Kápolnás-halom was located on the northern side of the main road leading to Szarvas in Décs-Páskum southwest of the town. Körös culture finds have been revealed on the lower parts of a ridge, mainly on the northern side on the bank of the former riverbed. A 1. J. Makkay 2. 1982, 1985, 1986 3. – 4. Settlement: 2 pits B 1. – 2. Körös culture, Late Körös phase C MRT 8, 126–129; Makkay 2007, 72–93; Makkay & Starnini 2008, Fig. 146–168. 14 C dates: Bognár-Kutzián & Csongor 1987, 134–135.

B151. Gyomaendrõd-Hantos-Gyebnár-kert (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Körös 3. 46°56’46.16"N, 20°49’45.57" 4. Sherds have been collected on a long, narrow terrace running southeast to northwest along a meander of the Holt-Körös oxbow lake in the northern fields of Gyomaendrõd. The site is located at the ends of Zrínyi and Kõrösi Csoma Sándor streets in orchards and gardens and its western side reaches the circular dam. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 250. B152. Gyomaendrõd-Hornok-halom (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°53’27.47"N, 20°44’50.37"E 4. The site is located on the western bank of a stream southwest of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 166.

B156. Gyomaendrõd-Kiss-tanya (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Berettyó 3. 47°2’23.20"N, 20°45’22.76"E 4. The site is located on the widely opening, flat western bank of the Holt-Berettyó in the northern part of the Csejt fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 162.

B153. Gyomaendrõd-Hunya Mihály-tanyája (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Köles-árok 3. 47°1’13.51"N, 20°49’21.19"E 4. The Köles-árok is flowing in the riverbed of the southernmost branch of the Holt-Berettyó. A shallow stream feeds it from the south. The site is located on the plateau between the two riverbeds. A– B 1. 250 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 208.

B157. Gyomaendrõd-Konyha-ér-Olajfüzes (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Konyha-ér 3. 47°0’20.22"N, 20°51’51.84"E 4. The site is located on an elevation on the southern bank of the former watercourse called Konyha-ér on the western side of the access road leading to Póhalom, southeast of Póhalom in the northern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 247–248.

B154. Gyomaendrõd-Ivánfenéki-csatorna-Mocsárpart (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Ivánfenéki-csatorna 3. 47°3’10.37"N, 20°50’32.84"E 4. The Ivánfenéki-csatorna is dug into an old, north to south running riverbed at the southeastern edge of the Bala area in the northern fields of Gyomaendrõd. Sherds have been sporadically found on a higher elevation on the western bank of the riverbed. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture

B158. Gyomaendrõd-Koplaló-Berek, Szivattyúház (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Berettyó 3. 47°0’33.02"N, 20°45’22.67"E 4. Finds have been collected along the southeastern bank of the oxbow of the Holt-Berettyó in the northern fields. The site is located on a ridge south of the mouth of the former Köles-ér. A– B 1. 28,000 m2, 400×70 m 2. Körös culture

274

Bettina Bittner: Békés County

2. Hármas-Körös 3. 46°56’54.44"N, 20°50’33.96"E 4. The site is located on a southeast to northwest running terrace on the right bank of the Hármas-Körös on both sides of the dam northwest of the main road leading to Dévaványa, northeast of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 231–233.

C MRT 8, 157. B159. Gyomaendrõd–Koplaló-part, megyehatár (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°59’59.94"N, 20°43’12.27"E 4. There is a northeast to southwest running ridge starting cca. 500 m north of the main road leading to Mezõtúr and ending near the Holt-Berettyó River in the northern fields of Gyomaendrõd. The site is located on the ridge and its northwestern slope descending to the Berettyó River. A– B 1. 800 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 155.

B164. Gyomaendrõd-Nagyszirt-Fülöp-tanya (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°57’7.45"N, 20°50’58.09"E 4. The site is located on the higher parts on the northern bank of a stream bed running east to west on the northwestern side of the main road leading to Dévaványa, northeast of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 250.

B160. Gyomaendrõd-Korcsog-tanya (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Köles-ér 3. 47°2’15.66"N, 20°50’32.72"E 4. The site is located on the northern bank of a branch of the Köles-ér oriented east–west in the northern section of the Póhalom fields north of the town. A– B 1. 30,000 m2, 300×100 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 257.

B165. Gyomaendrõd-Öregszõlõk-Cserép Ernõ-tanya (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°54’4.39"N, 20°45’38.26"E 4. The site is located on a cca. 200 m long, 50–60 m wide elevation of northeast–southwest direction directly south of the road leading to Szarvas. A 1. P. Árkus, J. Makkay 2. 1975 3. 128 m2 4. Settlement: 2 pits B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Árkus & Makkay 1976, 7–8; MRT 8, 148; Makkay 2007, 189–196; Makkay & Starnini 2008, Figs. 264–265.

B161. Gyomaendrõd-Kõszigeti-Gyep-Gecsei-tanya (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 47°0’7.03"N, 20°51’52.19"E 4. Sherds have been collected in a small area on the northeastern top of a northeast–southwest elevation in the western, flat side of the access road leading to Póhalom in the northern fields of Gyomaendrõd. The site extends southwest of the former farmstead building. A– B 1. 10×15 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 248.

B166. Gyomaendrõd-Öregszõlõk II. (Endrõd 35. lelõhely) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°54’8.28"N, 20°46’14.71"E 4. The site is located on a flat bank sloping to the north surrounded by an old, wide riverbed in the western part of Öregszõlõk, and north of the houses of Hazug street in Gyomaendrõd. A 1. J. Makkay 2. 1975 3. – 4. Settlement: 2 pits, 1 grave B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 141–142; Makkay 2007, 94–99; Makkay & Starnini

B162. Gyomaendrõd-Lyukas-halom (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Berettyó 3. 47°0’23.52"N, 20°44’53.95"E 4. The site is located on the southeastern bank of the Holt-Berettyó meander where the river turns from north to southwest in the northern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. 36,000 m2, 600×60 m. Settlement features (a pit and a grave) were disturbed. 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 156–157; Makkay 2007, 197. B163. Gyomaendrõd-Nagyszirt 1. Gyomaendrõd

275

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

2008, Figs. 169–182. C dates: Bowman et al. 1990, 73; Burleigh et al. 1983, 49; Oross & Siklósi in this volume

3. 46°58’3.72"N, 20°52’34.12"E 4. There is a ridge running northeast to southwest on the south–southeastern side of the road leading to Dévaványa in the eastern fields of Gyomaendrõd. Õzed-halom emerges at the southwestern end of this ridge, the site was found east of the mound. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 249.

14

B167. Gyomaendrõd-Öregszõlõk IV. (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°54’16.62"N, 20°46’22.59" 4. The site is located on a small hill stretching along the southern bank of a former Körös branch of east–west direction. This spot is north of the Hazug street and slightly southeast of the rectangular turn of the road leading to Szarvas. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 142–143.

B172. Gyomaendrõd-Õzed-Vasútvonal (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°58’3.02"N, 20°52’11.45"E 4. The site is located on a higher plateau on the northwestern side of the main road leading to Dévaványa in the northeastern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 258.

B168. Gyomaendrõd-Öregszõlõk V. (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°54’16.62"N, 20°46’22.59"E 4. Sherds have been sporadically collected on a southern slope of a low, east to west running bank. The site was surrounded by a shallow area covered by stagnant waters on the south. It belongs to the eastern part of Öregszõlõk, south of the town of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 140.

B173. Gyomaendrõd-Páskum, Iványi-köz (Endrõd 119. lelõhely) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°53’32.71"N, 20°44’46.45"E 4. A smaller, oval hill is at the northwestern edge of a northeast to southwest running terrace, which is divided by an old watercourse from the hill, south of the road leading to Szarvas in the southwestern fields. A 1. J. Makkay 2. 1986–1989 3. 2500 m2 4. Settlement, four burials. B 1. 2500 m2 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 166; Makkay 1992, 121–193; 2007, 126–188; Makkay & Starnini 2008, Figs. 266–323. 14 C dates: Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115; Oross & Siklósi in this volume

B169. Gyomaendrõd-Öregszõlõk VI. (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°54’5.27"N, 20°46’4.33"E 4. Sherds have been sporadically found in a small area on the northern bank of an old stream bed running east to west in the Öregszõlõk district near the end of the houses. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 143. B170. Gyomaendrõd-Õzedi-dûlõ-Balogh-tanya (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°59’7.37"N, 20°52’58.41"E 4. Sherds have been sporadically collected on the northern bank of a shallow, northeast to southwest running stream bed in the eastern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. 200 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 248.

B174. Gyomaendrõd-Páskun-Vaszkó-tanya (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°53’19.77"N, 20°44’45.45"E 4. The site is located at the flattening end of a ridge south of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 167. B175. Gyomaendrõd-Paulik-tanya (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°53’36.79"N, 20°45’53.72"E

B171. Gyomaendrõd-Õzedi-part (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. –

276

Bettina Bittner: Békés County

4. The site is located on a narrow, northeast to southwest running ridge, surrounded by a shallow bed of an old watercourse on the northwest, southwest of Öregszõlõk district. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 140

C MRT 8, 243. B180. Gyomaendrõd-Póhalom-Kozma-tanya (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Köles-ér 3. 47°1’5.44"N, 20°49’15.30"E 4. The site is located on the western bank of an old stream bed running southeast to northwest, northwest of Póhalom farmstead. The site is extended to the Köles-ér in the north. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 210.

B176. Gyomaendrõd-Póhalom (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 47°0’41.43"N, 20°49’36.56"E 4. There is a mound in the middle of the northern fields of Gyomaendrõd. It is located on a low bank surrounded by a shallow stream bed on the north and northeast. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 209.

B181. Gyomaendrõd-Polyák-dûlõ, Hegedûs-tanya (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°53’42.34"N, 20°45’3.91"E 4. The site is located on a long, narrow ridge running northeast to southwest surrounded by watercourses, south of the road leading to Szarvas. A silted-in riverbed forms its northwestern border. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 163–164.

B177. Gyomaendrõd-Póhalom-Czmarkó-tanya (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 47°0’39.38"N, 20°49’52.17" 4. The extensive site is located on a plateau cca. 100 m east of the Czmarkó farmstead and south of the road leading to Póhalom. The site is surrounded by areas covered by stagnant waters in a semicircle formed by an oxbow of a former riverbed. These areas separate the site from the surrounding sites in the east, south and west. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 209–210.

B182. Gyomaendrõd-Réda-halom (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Köles-ér 3. 47°0’57.79"N, 20°48’2.98"E 4. The site is located at the northwestern edge of a field west of Póhalom. Extensive, flat areas covered by stagnant waters can be found west-northwest of the place. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 201.

B178. Gyomaendrõd-Póhalom-Farkas-tanya II. (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 47°0’46.96"N, 20°50’21.47"E 4. The site is located east of Póhalom on the north bank of a stream – flowing southwest to northeast then turning to southeast. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 242.

B183. Gyomaendrõd-Sárgaparti átjáró 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Berettyó 3. 47°2’1.35"N, 20°42’31.16"E 4. The site is located in a high elevation on the southern, east to west running bank section of the Holt-Berettyó in the northwestern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. 150 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 162.

B179. Gyomaendrõd–Póhalom-Hosszúpart (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 47°0’34.98"N, 20°50’12.06"E 4. The site is located on a terrace on the northwestern bank of a stream bed southeast of Póhalom farmstead. A– B 1. 600×50–60 m 2. Körös culture

B184. Gyomaendrõd-Sártó-Gabonás-Tóth-tanya (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 47°3’40.08"N, 20°51’29.55"E 4. Sherds dated to the Körös culture have been found on a small, low elevation on the bank of a former riverbed in the northeastern fields of Gyomaendrõd.

277

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

2. Körös culture

A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 205.

C MRT 8, 159–160. B189. Gyomaendrõd-Sûrû csejt-Holt-Berettyó hídja (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Berettyó 3. 47°1’16.71"N, 20°45’16.33"E 4. The site is located on a terrace on the western bank of the Holt-Berettyó River running north to south in the northern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. 400 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 158–159.

B185. Gyomaendrõd-Soczó-zug, Gátõrház (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Hármas-Körös 3. 46°56’7.70"N, 20°45’43.75"E 4. The site is located north of the town on an elevation at the confluence between the watercourse and the backwaters near the northern bank of the Hármas-Körös River. It falls on the eastern bank of the river’s long meander defined by the Körös channel and its dam on the north. The long and narrow meander is closed at its north end, but opens toward the south. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 171.

B190. Gyomaendrõd-Szentmiklós-zug, Berettyó-part I. (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Berettyó 3. 47°1’4.29"N, 20°42’31.30"E 4. The site is located on the western bank of the Holt-Berettyó River in the northwestern fields of Gyomaendrõd. Finds have been collected at the eastern edge of a small elevation on the southern bank of stream bed. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 161–162.

B186. Gyomaendrõd-Soczó-zug-Apaállat-telep (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Körös 3. 46°56’39.75"N, 20°45’56.12"E 4. The site is located northwest of the town on the southern section of a long terrace oriented east–west. The terrace extends between the two branches west of the meander of the Holt-Körös oxbow lake. Its two ends are defined by Templom-zug district and the oxbow of the Holt-Körös in Soczó-zug district. A– B 1. 12,000 m2, 200×60 m 2. Körös culture C Krecsmárik 1925; MRT 8, 133–134.

B191. Gyomaendrõd-Szentmiklós-zug, Csatorna-part (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Berettyó 3. 47°1’21.00"N, 20°42’58.62"E 4. The site is located on a roughly triangle-shaped elevation on the western bank of the Holt-Berettyó River in the northwestern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 161.

B187. Gyomaendrõd-Sûrû csejt, Földvári-tanya II. (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Berettyó 3. 47°1’20.00"N, 20°45’7.48"E 4. A smaller, northeast to southwest running ditch joins the right bank of the Holt-Berettyó River at its north–south section near the Földvár farmstead in the northern fields of Gyomaendrõd. The site is located on the northwestern bank of this ditch. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 162–163.

B192. Gyomaendrõd-Szentmiklós-zug, Megyehatár (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Berettyó 3. 47°0’43.86"N, 20°42’34.41"E 4. The site is located on a terrace on the western bank of the Holt-Berettyó River in the northwestern fields of Gyomaendrõd. It is extended into the territory of Szolnok County in the south. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 162.

B188. Gyomaendrõd-Sûrû csejt-Földvári-tanya I. (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Berettyó 3. 47°1’41.41"N, 20°45’21.17"E 4. The site is located on a terrace on the western bank of the Holt-Berettyó River in the northern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. 800 m long

B193. Gyomaendrõd-Szujókereszt (Endrõd. lelõhely) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. –

278

Bettina Bittner: Békés County

3. 46°53’40.87"N, 20°45’21.80"E 4. The large site is extended southwest of Öregszõlõk, directly south of Katona farmstead and underneath the farmstead buildings. It is located on a peninsula-like, low elevation surrounded by a former depression mainly in the southeast and south.

B197. Gyomaendrõd-Teleki-Siló (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 47°1’1.39"N, 20°51’14.83"E 4. The site is located on a low riverbank on the northern side of the access road leading to Póhalom, northeast of Póhalom itself. A– B 1. 7200 m2, 120×60 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 246.

A 1. D. B. Jankovich, J. Makkay, M. B. Szõke 2. 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978 3. – 4. Settlement, flint hoard. B 1. – 2. Körös culture C

B198. Gyomaendrõd-Tímár-föld (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Ivánfenéki-csatorna 3. 47°2’31.29"N, 20°51’2.54"E 4. Sherds have been collected on a terrace on the eastern bank of Ivánfenéki-csatorna north of Póhalom. A– B 1. 300 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 200.

Makkay 1976, 7; 1983, 157–160; 2007, 100–125; MRT 8, 143–147; Kaczanowska, Koz³owski & Makkay 1981, 105–116; Makkay & Starnini 2008, Figs. 183–263. 14 C dates: Bowman et al. 1990, 73; Burleigh et al. 1983, 49; Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 122; Oross & Siklósi in this volume B194. Gyomaendrõd-Téglástelek (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 47°0’57.55"N, 20°51’32.79"E 4. There is a wide, deep, old watercourse running northeast to southwest in the north of the Telek farmstead. The site is located on the inner part of the elevation on the southeastern bank far from the water to be found northwest of the local farmstead. A– B 1. 700 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 238–240.

B199. Gyomaendrõd-Udvarnok-Bácskai-tanya (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Berettyó 3. 47°2’45.39"N, 20°48’38.85"E 4. Sherds have been sporadically found on the terrace on the eastern riverbank of the Holt-Berettyó River in the northeastern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. 500 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 158.

B195. Gyomaendrõd-Teleki-Kerektó-Nagy-tanya (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Köles-ér 3. 47°1’34.76"N, 20°50’12.88"E 4. The site is located on the southeastern bank of the Köles-ér north of Póhalom in the northern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. 17,500 m2, 350×50 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 256–257.

B200. Gyomaendrõd–Újcsejt-Tímár-tanya (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Berettyó 3. 46°56’33.12"N, 20°50’34.05"E 4. The site is located on the northern bank of an east–west section of the Holt-Berettyó River directly in the slope of the former riverbed in the northern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 172.

B196. Gyomaendrõd-Teleki-puszta-Hodály (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 47°0’42.78"N, 20°51’20.92"E 4. The extensive site is located on a low hill west of Telek farmstead. There may have been a watercourse east of the small mound but it seems absolutely silted in. A– B 1. 60,000 m2, 400×150 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 240.

B201. Gyomaendrõd-Viczián-halom (Endrõd) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. Holt-Berettyó 3. 47°2’46.10"N, 20°51’44.75"E 4. The site is located on the southwestern bank of the Holt-Berettyó meander in the northeastern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture

279

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

C

A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 113.

MRT 8, 206. B202. Gyomaendrõd-Zöld-lapos-Imre-tanya (Gyoma) 1. Gyomaendrõd 2. – 3. 46°56’41.15"N, 20°51’49.57"E 4. The site is located on a low elevation on the flattening western bank of a former, northeast to southwest running stream bed among the modern day paddy-fields south of the main road leading to Körösladány in the eastern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 260.

B207. Körösladány-Korhány II. 1. Körösladány 2. – 3. 46°57’55.02"N, 21°3’30.14"E 4. Sherds of the Körös culture have been collected on the surface and in the environs of a mound on the western outskirts of the town. A– B 1. 16,000 m2, 80×200 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 113–114.

B203. Körösladány-Büngösd-part 1. Körösladány 2. Büngösd-ér 3. 46°54’56.72"N, 21°4’46.00"E 4. Few sherds of the Körös culture have been collected in a small area on a steep section of the bank of Büngösd-ér in the southern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 111.

B208. Körösladány-Körtvélyesi-legelõ 1. Körösladány 2. – 3. 46°59’52.36"N, 21°3’13.80"E 4. Körös culture sherds have been extensively collected on a terrace of a stream northeast of the road leading to Dévaványa. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 117.

B204. Körösladány-Hereföldek 1. Körösladány 2. – 3. 46°55’4.85"N, 21°5’12.98"E 4. The site is located on the bank of a dried up watercourse in the southern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 108.

B209. Körösladány-Méhes 1. Körösladány 2. – 3. 46°54’23.03"N, 21°8’37.14"E 4. The site is located on the inner terrace of an oxbow of a stream near the border with the Bélmegyer fields. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 109.

B205. Körösladány-Kengyel-köz I. 1. Körösladány 2. – 3. 46°54’16.54"N, 21°8’28.30"E 4. The site is located by the side of the inner, island-like elevation on the bank of a silted in stream’s meander in the southeastern fields of Gyomaendrõd. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 109.

B210. Körösladány-Nagyrét 1. Körösladány 2. – 3. 46°59’49.46"N, 21°2’36.79"E 4. The settlement is located on the terrace by the western bank of a stream bed running northeast to southwest in the northwestern fields of Körösladány. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 117.

B206. Körösladány-Korhány I. 1. Körösladány 2. – 3. 46°57’41.37"N, 21°3’40.35"E 4. Sporadic sherds of the Körös culture have been collected on a low elevation on the western outskirts of the town.

B211. Körösladány-Pakac-ér-partja 1. Körösladány 2. Pakac-ér 3. 47°1’1.91"N, 21°4’45.55"E

280

Bettina Bittner: Békés County

4. The site is located on the southern bank of the Pakac-ér. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 115.

northwest to southeast marking the border of the floodplain of the Körös River. A– B 1. 45,000 m2, 50×900 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 515–517.

B212. Körösladány-Sárréte I. 1. Körösladány 2. Csecser-ér 3. 47°0’24.05"N, 21°1’57.87"E 4. The site is located on the northeastern terrace of the Csecser-ér in the northwestern fields of Körösladány. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 114.

B217. Köröstarcsa-Körtvélyes-Kiss-tanya 1. Köröstarcsa 2. – 3. 46°52’55.64"N, 21°3’25.04"E 4. The site is located on a triangle-shaped, inner terrace surrounded by a cut-off meander of the Körös River east of the village. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 529.

B213. Körösladány-Sárréte II. 1. Körösladány 2. – 3. 47°0’11.33"N, 21°3’26.14"E 4. The small settlement of the Körös culture is located on a stream bank southwest of the Sárrét or Nagyrét-halom. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 117

B218. Köröstarcsa-Mezõberényi út-Szabó-tanya 1. Köröstarcsa 2. – 3. 46°51’26.25"N, 21°1’42.18"E 4. The site is located on an island-like ridge of a hill of north–south direction in the eastern side of the main road leading to Mezõberény in the southern fields of Köröstarcsa. Sherds have been collected on both sides of the dirt road leading to Újkert. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 531.

B214. Körösladány-Siskási-dûlõ 1. Körösladány 2. Pakac-ér 3. 47°0’49.16"N, 21°5’44.95"E 4. The site is located beside the Köves-halom on the southern bank of the Pakac-ér. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 114–115.

B219. Köröstarcsa-Papfenék-Fábián-tanya 1. Köröstarcsa 2. – 3. 46°52’43.35"N, 21°0’3.63"E 4. The site is located north of the main road leading to Gyomaendrõd, west of the village. A– B 1. 900 m2, 30×30 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 524.

B215. Körösladány-Tikos-ér 1. Körösladány 2. Tikos-ér 3. 47°0’12.00"N, 21°5’54.51"E 4. A fragment of a tomato-shaped net weight was found on the northwestern bank of the Tikos-ér north of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 113.

B220. Köröstarcsa-Papföld 1. Köröstarcsa 2. – 3. 46°52’58.77"N, 21°0’12.65"E 4. The site is located on a narrow, relatively high, northwest to southeast running ridge west of the village. The ridge is bordered by wide lowland from the northeast and an ancient watercourse from the southwest. A– B 1. 30,000 m2, 60×500 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 523–524.

B216. Köröstarcsa-Edeles 1. Köröstarcsa 2. – 3. 46°53’12.31"N, 20°59’47.85"E 4. The site is located on the southern side of the Pityer dam west of the village. There is a high, narrow ridge running

281

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

main road leading to Köröstarcsa in the northern fields of Mezõberény.

B221. Köröstarcsa-Református temetõ 1. Köröstarcsa 2. – 3. 46°52’18.43"N, 21°1’11.21"E 4. A rich prehistoric site was found on a high, round-shaped elevation in the middle of the Calvinist cemetery along the circular dam in the southern confines of the village. A former riverbed surrounds the hill from the south–southwest in the external side of the circular dam. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 524–525.

A– B 1. 45,000 m2, 300×150 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 573. B226. Mezõberény-Bódis-major II. 1. Mezõberény 2. – 3. 46°51’1.89"N, 21°2’53.35"E 4. The site is located on a north–south terrace in the area of the Bódis farmstead northeast of the town. A– B 1. 500 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 570–571.

B222. Köröstarcsa-Újkert-Berényi határ 1. Köröstarcsa 2. – 3. 46°51’22.61"N, 21°2’21.40"E 4. The site is located at the southern end of the north to south running ridge in the middle of a garden south of the village. A– B 1. 40,000 m2, 400×100 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 513.

B227. Mezõberény-Bódis-major III. 1. Mezõberény 2. László-zugi-csatorna 3. 46°51’11.47"N, 21°2’40.09"E 4. The site is located on ridge of a small hill widening from northwest to southeast, north of the Bódis farmstead in the northern fields of Mezõberény. A– B 1. 45,000 m2, 450×100 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 571.

B223. Köröstarcsa-Vénkert I. 1. Köröstarcsa 2. – 3. 46°51’35.72"N, 21°0’42.93"E 4. The site is located on a round hill in the northern part of the former vineyard in the southern fields of Köröstarcsa. The hill must have been surrounded by stagnant waters from the north. The site is within the area of the former Szilágyi farmstead. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 534.

B228. Mezõberény-Bodzás-halom 1. Mezõberény 2. – 3. 46°49’25.34"N, 21°2’41.18"E 4. The Bodzás-halom can be found by the intersection of the Ligeti road and the circular dam south of the road and east of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 551–555.

B224. Mezõberény-Balogh-tanya 1. Mezõberény 2. – 3. 46°51’34.13"N, 21°4’41.42"E 4. The site is located on a northeast to southwest running ridge in the southwestern part of Kerek fields. The site becomes narrower towards the west following to the form of the elevation. A– B 1. 90,000 m2, 600×150 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 564.

B229. Mezõberény-Laposi kertek alja II. 1. Mezõberény 2. – 3. 46°49’43.99"N, 21°2’41.52"E 4. The site is located on the eastern side of the circular dam east of the town. A 1. E. Nikolin 2. 1984–1986 3. – 4. Settlement B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 551.

B225. Mezõberény-Bódis-háti-legelõ I. 1. Mezõberény 2. – 3. 46°50’52.44"N, 21°2’2.53"E 4. The site is located on a north–south elevation surrounded by areas previously prone to flooding all around, east of the

282

Bettina Bittner: Békés County

2. Körös culture, early phase identified on the basis of white painted ware

B230. Mezõberény-Só-zug-Fácános 1. Mezõberény 2. Só-zug 3. 46°50’55.53"N, 21°5’5.81"E 4. The site is located on the inner terrace of the Só-zug meander on the southern side of the dam, southeast of the Kerek bridge in the eastern fields of Mezõberény. A– B 1. 105,000 m2, 350×300 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 587.

C Makkay 1976, 16; 1980, 21; 1980–1981, 269; 2007, 18–63; MRT 8, 392–397; Makkay & Starnini 2008, Figs. 33–131 14 C dates: Bowman et al. 1990, 73; Burleigh et al. 1983, 49; Whittle et al. 2002, 111, 115. B234. Szarvas-Arany János utca 30–32. 1. Szarvas 2. – 3. 46°52’6.08"N, 20°33’0.82"E 4. The site was found during the digging of water-pipe ditches in the town. The site is located at the northern edge of an east to west running terrace on the southern bank of a wide riverbed. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 441.

B231. Mezõberény-Tisza-háti-dûlõ-Büngösd-part 1. Mezõberény 2. Büngösd-patak 3. 46°53’18.74"N, 21°7’31.24"E 4. The site is located on the highest point on the bank of a cut-off former branch of the Büngösd-patak in the eastern part of Kerek fields. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 565.

B235. Szarvas-Cigány-ér-part-Alsó-csatorna 1. Szarvas 2. Cigány-ér 3. 46°53’1.90"N, 20°34’55.25"E 4. The site is located on the right levee of the Cigány-ér turning from south to northwest, northeast of the town. A– B 1. 15,000 m2, 50×300 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 421.

B232. Mezõberény-Tücsök-halom 1. Mezõberény 2. – 3. 46°50’36.18"N, 21°2’36.49"E 4. The Tücsök-halom is elevated on the northern top of the north–south ridge stretching along the circular dam on the northeastern confines of the town. The site is located below and around the mound. A 1. B. Maráz 2. 1971 3. – 4. Settlement B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 10, 575–579; Maráz 1972

B236. Szarvas-Cigány-ér-part-Andróczy-tanya 1. Szarvas 2. Cigány-ér 3. 46°52’39.04"N, 20°34’54.32"E 4. The site is located on a terrace on the eastern bank of the Cigány-ér flowing from north to south on the eastern confines of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 439.

B233. Szarvas-Egyházföld (Szarvas 23. lelõhely) 1. Szarvas 2. Cigány-ér 3. 46°51’17.75"N, 20°35’2.29"E 4. The site is located on the southeastern bank of a large oxbow of an old Körös backwater – previously called Cigány-ér – east of the town. The wide Kondoros-völgy forms the northern border of the site before it flows into the younger Cigány-ér here. The settlement of the Körös culture is found on the east to west running southern bank of the Kondoros-völgy. A 1. E. Krecsmárik, J. Makkay, S. Sipos 2. 1880, 1910, 1912, 1974, 1975, 1979 3. 734.8 m2 4. Settlement features (pits, hearths) and 14 graves were found. B 1. 250×100–150 m

B237. Szarvas-Cigány-ér-part-Kerek-sánc 1. Szarvas 2. Cigány-ér 3. 46°52’50.20"N, 20°34’37.77"E 4. The site is located on the gently sloping bank of the filled up, wide Cigány-ér valley flowing to the north on the northeastern outskirts of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 415–416. B238. Szarvas-Cigány-ér-part-Simonyi szõlõk 1. Szarvas

283

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

2. Cigány-ér 3. 46°52’42.96"N, 20°34’36.81"E 4. The site is located on the gently sloping western bank of the Cigány-ér flowing to the north, northeast of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 416.

B243. Szarvas-Érpart-Fullajtár-tanya 1. Szarvas 2. Cigány-ér 3. 46°52’1.15"N, 20°35’45.09"E 4. The site is located on the high parts of a terrace on the eastern bank of the Cigány-ér on the western side of the road leading to Gyomaendrõd east of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 389.

B239. Szarvas-Cigány-foki-ér-Megyeri-tanya 1. Szarvas 2. Cigány-ér 3. 46°52’49.34"N, 20°34’55.80"E 4. The site is located on a terrace on the eastern bank of the Cigány-ér northeast of the town. The sherds of the Körös culture have been concentrated in the northern part of the site. A– B 1. 500 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 416–417.

B244. Szarvas-Érpart-Laukó-tanya 1. Szarvas 2. Cigány-ér 3. 46°52’23.47"N, 20°35’38.45"E 4. The site is located on two smaller elevations on the western bank of the former Körös meander, called Cigány-ér, east of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 409.

B240. Szarvas-Egyházföld-Berényi-út 1. Szarvas 2. – 3. 46°51’18.21"N, 20°35’29.12"E 4. The site is located on a narrow ridge on the northern side of the road leading to Mezõberény east of the town. A– B 1. 100 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 426.

B245. Szarvas-Érpart-Litauszki-tanya 1. Szarvas 2. Cigány-ér 3. 46°52’41.38"N, 20°35’55.16"E 4. The site is located on a cca. 100 m long elevation on the western bank of the former Körös riverbed, called Cigány-ér, northeast of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 409.

B241. Szarvas-Érpart-Antal-tanya 1. Szarvas 2. – 3. 46°52’48.49"N, 20°36’27.46"E 4. The site is located on a low terrace on the southeastern bank of an old, silted-in meander of the Körös River northeast of the town. A– B 1. 5,000 m2, 100×50 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 420.

B246. Szarvas-Érpart-Medvegy-és Simó-tanya 1. Szarvas 2. Cigány-ér 3. 46°51’46.48"N, 20°35’35.07" 4. The site is located on the eastern bank of the Cigány-ér on the western side of the road leading to Gyomaendrõd east of the town. A– B 1. 6,000 m2, 200×30 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 389–390.

B242. Szarvas-Érpart-Frankó-tanya 1. Szarvas 2. Cigány-ér 3. 46°51’38.55"N, 20°35’25.50"E 4. The site is located on a levee east of the left bank of the Cigány-ér on the western side of the road leading to Gyomaendrõd east of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 390–391.

B247. Szarvas–Érpart-Sonkoly-tanya 1. Szarvas 2. Cigány-ér 3. 46°52’20.35"N, 20°36’8.12"E 4. The site is located on the northern, which was closer to the water, part of the low, eastern bank of the Cigány-ér flowing from the northeast to southwest here. The site can be found on both sides of the main road leading to Gyomaendrõd east of the town. A–

284

Bettina Bittner: Békés County

B

B252. Szarvas-halom-Vajda Péter utca 1.- Tessedik Sámuel Múzeum 1. Szarvas 2. – 3. 46°51’52.53"N, 20°32’29.17"E 4. Finds of the Körös culture have been revealed during the digging of a water-pipe ditch at the northeastern corner of the volleyball court in the playground of the college for nursery-school teachers behind the building of the Tessedik Sámuel Museum. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 402.

1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 389. B248. Szarvas–Erzsébet-liget-Városi föld 1. Szarvas 2. Holt-Körös-szappanosi-ága 3. 46°51’49.47"N, 20°31’42.67"E 4. There is a low ridge surrounded by the Holt-Körös-szappanosi-ág which was cut by the access road of the Fisheries Research Institute (HAKI) south of the road leading to Békésszentandrás in the western fields. The site is located on the small elevation beside the access road. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 462–463.

B253. Szarvas-Kovács-halom 1. Szarvas 2. Holt-Körös-szappanosi-ága 3. 46°53’4.85"N, 20°31’52.06"E 4. A high elevation runs north to south on the right (western) bank of the Nyúlzug branch of the Holt-Körös oxbow lake pointing toward the south. The elevation is parallel with the river but is located some 100–120 m west of its modern bed. Its promontory is thus somewhat away from the river. The high, southern section of the elevation already falls within the area of the nursery garden and orchard of the Arboretum. The site itself is largely spread in the fields north of the nursery garden. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 373–378.

B249. Szarvas-Halásztelek-Sziráczki-tanya 1. Szarvas 2. – 3. 46°54’15.30"N, 20°35’24.31"E 4. The extensive site is located on an old bank of a meander flowing from the southeast to the northwest, south of the cut off meanders of the Körös River in the northern fields. The southeastern end of this bank reaches a branch of the current Holt-Körös. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 422–424; Makkay & Starnini 2008, Figs. 358–359.

B254. Szarvas-Középhalmi-dûlõ 1. Szarvas 2. – 3. 46°52’35.33"N, 20°36’11.32"E 4. The site is located on a low terrace near the former areas covered by stagnant waters on the eastern bank of the Cigány-ér northeast of the town. A– B 1. 150 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 409–410.

B250. Szarvas-Halesz 1. Szarvas 2. Cigány-ér 3. 46°51’34.80"N, 20°34’14.88"E 4. The site is located on the left, southern bank of the Cigány-ér, north of the road leading to Békéscsaba east of the railway station on the eastern confines of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 450.

B255. Szarvas-Középhalmi-dûlõ, former Krajcsovics-tanya 1. Szarvas 2. – 3. 46°52’49.50"N, 20°36’1.32"E 4. The site is located on a terrace by the western bank of the stream bed northeast of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 437.

B251. Szarvas-halom-az Öntözési Kutató Intézet-a hajdani Bolza-kastély területe 1. Szarvas 2. Holt-Körös 3. 46°51’49.91"N, 20°32’28.11"E 4. The site is located at the edge of the Szarvas-halom toward the Holt-Körös oxbow lake near the Irrigation Research Institute. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 403–404.

B256. Szarvas-Középhalom 1. Szarvas 2. –

285

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

3. 46°51’18.48"N, 20°35’43.18"E 4. There is a mound at the western end of the east–west, low riverbank on the northern side of the main road leading to Mezõberény east of the town. Neolithic finds have been collected on a hill east of this mound and in the areas westward and northwestward from it. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 426.

3. 46°52’17.15"N, 20°32’23.42"E 4. The Betlehem area can be found on the western outskirts of the town, on both sides of the old dam on the eastern bank of the oxbow of the Holt-Körös. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 466–467. B261. Szarvas-Ótemetõ 1. Szarvas 2. Cigány-ér 3. 46°52’26.45"N, 20°33’31.88"E 4. The old Lutheran cemetery after which the site has been named can be found on the southern bank of the Cigány-ér flowing from the east to the west on the northern outskirts of the town. Finds have been collected on the terrace west of the cemetery in the gardens of Lenkei street 28, 30, 32. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 439.

B257. Szarvas-Krakkó 1. Szarvas 2. Cigány-ér 3. 46°52’21.10"N, 20°34’4.86"E 4. The railway line between Szarvas and Mezõtúr is running to the north parallel with the Cigány-ér on the eastern confines of the town. A smaller stream branches out from the Cigányér to the northwest, north of the site. The site is located on the southwestern bank of this stream west of the railroad track. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 462.

B262. Szarvas-Petõfi utca 31. 1. Szarvas 2. Holt-Körös-szappanosi-ága 3. 46°51’38.89"N, 20°32’28.80"E 4. The site is located on the eastern bank of the Holt-Körös-szappanosi-ág in the southern part of town. Finds have been collected in the garden of Petõfi street 31 on a triagle-shaped elevation. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 429–430.

B258. Szarvas-Lómer-halom 1. Szarvas 2. – 3. 46°52’25.93"N, 20°36’41.00"E 4. The site is located in the middle of a croissant-shaped sand back northeast of the town in the garden area called Ószõlõk. This elevation was previously known as Lómer-halom. Only the former sand pit could be detected and a few vessel fragments of the Körös culture have been collected from its sides. This area is not suitable for a Neolithic settlement therefore sherds must have been found in a secondary position. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 417.

B263. Szarvas-Rizsás-laponyag 1. Szarvas 2. Décsi-pusztai-csatorna 3. 46°54’14.25"N, 20°40’43.19"E 4. The site is located on a low, round elevation on the southern bank of the Décsi-pusztai-csatorna, north of the Rózsás district State Farm. A– B 1. 25–30 m high hill 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 462.

B259. Szarvas-Malom-zugi-csatorna 1. Szarvas 2. Malom-zugi-csatorna 3. 46°53’14.67"N, 20°35’42.43"E 4. The site is located on the southern bank of the Malom-zugi-csatorna flowing into the silted-in riverbed of a Holt-Körös branch northeast of the town. A– B 1. 600 m2, 30×20 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 464.

B264. Szarvas-Roszik-tanya II. 1. Szarvas 2. – 3. 46°53’24.98"N, 20°39’25.67"E 4. The site is located on the southeastern bank of a silted-in riverbed running northeast to southwest, west of the Rózsás district State Farm in the eastern fields. A– B 1. –

B260. Szarvas-Mangol-zug-Betlehem 1. Szarvas 2. Holt-Körös

286

Bettina Bittner: Békés County

2. Körös culture

2. Körös culture

C

C MRT 8, 464.

Kutzián 1944, 8; Makkay 1975, 23–24; 1976, 16; 2007, 63–71; MRT 8, 380–386; Makkay & Starnini 2008, Figs. 132–145.

B265. Szarvas-Roszik-tanya III. 1. Szarvas 2. – 3. 46°53’22.05"N, 20°39’16.90"E 4. The site is located in the deeper parts of a creek on the northeastern bank of a shallow riverbed northwest of the Rózsás district State Farm. A– B 1. 2,400 m2, 60×40 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 464–465.

B269. Szarvas-Széles úti-dûlõ 1. Szarvas 2. – 3. 46°53’12.80"N, 20°36’54.97"E 4. The stream-bed is gradually disappearing in the northeast where finds of the Körös culture have been collected on a peninsula-like tongue northeast of the town. A– B 1. 30,000 m2, 600×50 m 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 420.

B266. Szarvas-Rózsás-halom 1. Szarvas 2. – 3. 46°53’19.62"N, 20°38’21.03"E 4. There is a mound on the northern part of a plateau to the north of the main road leading to Gyomaendrõd in the northeastern fields of Szarvas. South of this area, a channel cuts through the site in the east–west direction. Neolithic finds have been collected on the southern bank of this channel. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 431–432.

B270. Szarvas-Táncsics Tsz Libatelep 1. Szarvas 2. – 3. 46°53’34.10"N, 20°34’9.65"E 4. The site is located on a peninsula-like elevation by the confluence between two old, silted-in meanders of the Körös River in the northern fields of Szarvas. The site is surrounded by these riverbeds from west and south. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 425.

B267. Szarvas-Strázsa-halom 1. Szarvas 2. Cigány-ér 3. 46°51’14.23"N, 20°34’38.04"E 4. The Õrhalom, previously called Strázsa-halom is a huge mound east of the town, just a few metres from the road leading to Békéscsaba between the main road and the Cigány-ér on the southern riverbank. Finds have been collected on the mound and in its environs. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Kutzián 1944, 7; MRT 8, 391–392.

B271. Szarvas-Tomasovszki-tanya 1. Szarvas 2. – 3. 46°52’41.81"N, 20°34’8.54"E 4. The site is located on a terrace on the south-southeast bank of an old Körös riverbed north of the old clay extraction pits at the end of Dózsa György road north of the town. A 1. J. Makkay 2. 1978 3. 12 m2, 6×2 m 4. Settlement was disturbed. B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 411–412.

B268. Szarvas-Szappanos 1. Szarvas 2. – 3. 46°50’56.51"N, 20°32’1.64"E 4. The former Szappanos vineyards could be found 1.5 km south-southwest of the town on the western part of a north–south terrace on the left (eastern) bank of the Holt-Körös-Szappanos meander. A 1. E. Krecsmárik, Gy. Gazdapusztai, J. Makkay 2. 1911–1915, 1926, 1930, 1957, 1974, 1975 3. 82 m2, 9×3 m, 12×2 m, 5×5 m, 3×2 m 4. Settlement features (pits) and graves were revealed. B 1. –

272. Szarvas-former Veles-, nowadays Sándor-tanya 1. Szarvas 2. Cigány-ér 3. 46°51’32.03"N, 20°35’33.27"E 4. The site is located on a terrace on the southern bank of a small stream where it flows into the Cigány-ér east of the town. A– B 1. 100 m long 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 397.

287

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

B273. Szarvas-Wesselényi utca 6. 1. Szarvas 2. – 3. 46°51’26.35"N, 20°33’22.38"E 4. “Typical prehistoric sherds and a net weight were found during ditch digging in front of the Brózik Lajos school" during the spring of 1913. Today there is a small, round elevation in this area. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 8, 466.

C MRT 6, 142. B278. Szeghalom-Kert-közi-dûlõ 1. Szeghalom 2. – 3. 47°1’54.40"N, 21°6’57.80"E 4. The site is located in the area between the Szeghalom main interceptor drainage channel and the road leading to Dévaványa. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 162.

B274. Szeghalom-Cséfán-K. Papp-tanya 1. Szeghalom 2. – 3. 47°6’44.83"N, 21°7’59.01"E 4. The site is located in the northern fields of Szeghalom. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 177.

B279. Szeghalom-Kettõs-halom 1. Szeghalom 2. – 3. 47°2’9.91"N, 21°6’4.63"E 4. The site is located on an east to west running terrace which was cut by the road leading to Dévaványa in the western fields of Szeghalom. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 144.

B275. Szeghalom-Csik-éri-dûlõ 1. Szeghalom 2. – 3. 47°2’46.73"N, 21°13’36.54"E 4. The site is located on the external bank of a former oxbow east of the Berettyó River in the eastern fields of Szeghalom. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 151.

B280. Szeghalom-Kis-fás 1. Szeghalom 2. Dió-ér 3. 46°57’31.31"N, 21°8’28.56"E 4. The site is located on the steep section of the southern bank of the oxbow of the Dió-ér in the southwestern fields of Szeghalom. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 158–159.

B276. Szeghalom-Fok-közi-erdõ 1. Szeghalom 2. Sebes-Körös 3. 46°58’48.12"N, 21°11’56.04"E 4. Traces of the settlement were found at the edge of the forest south of the Sebes-Körös River in the southeastern fields of Szeghalom. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 169.

B281. Szeghalom-Kis-halas-dûlõ I. 1. Szeghalom 2. – 3. 47°0’43.26"N, 21°13’15.65"E 4. The site is located on the eastern bank of a stream bed running north to south cca. 2.5 km east of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 170.

B277. Szeghalom-Hegyesi-tanya 1. Szeghalom 2. – 3. 47°1’41.32"N, 21°7’37.33"E 4. The site is located on a terrace by the northwestern part of the confluence between two stream beds west of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture

B282. Szeghalom-Kis-halas-dûlõ II. 1. Szeghalom 2. – 3. 47°0’37.85"N, 21°12’35.32"E 4. The site is located in a depression, which is slightly elevated from the stream bed, surrounded by stream banks north of the road leading to Csökmõ in the eastern fields of Szeghalom.

288

Bettina Bittner: Békés County

4. The extensive settlement was found on the northern bank of the Csecser-ér in the western fields of Szeghalom. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 144–145.

A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 172–173. B283. Szeghalom-Koplaló-kert 1. Szeghalom 2. Holt-Körös 3. 46°59’35.40"N, 21°10’13.79"E 4. The site is located at the southern end of a ridge on the northern bank of a partially dried up riverbed of the Holt-Körös south of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 160.

B288. Szeghalom-Sima-sziget II. 1. Szeghalom 2. Nagy-éri-csatorna 3. 47°2’33.76"N, 21°1’0.45"E 4. The site is located on the southern bank of the Nagy-éri-csatorna in the western fields of Szeghalom. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 147.

B284. Szeghalom-Nagy-lapos 1. Szeghalom 2. Szeghalmi övcsatorna 3. 47°1’40.18"N, 21°7’53.36"E 4. Traces of a settlement have been observed the eastern bank of the Szeghalmi-övcsatorna south of the road leading to Dévaványa in the western fields of Szeghalom. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 142–143.

B289. Szeghalom-Sima-sziget III. 1. Szeghalom 2. Nagy-éri-csatorna 3. 47°2’37.89"N, 21°2’9.54"E 4. The settlement was found between the road leading to Dévaványa and Nagy-éri-csatorna in the western fields of Szeghalom. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 163.

B285. Szeghalom-Nagytúlakörös 1. Szeghalom 2. Dió-ér 3. 46°58’47.60"N, 21°8’48.92"E 4. Traces of a settlement have been observed on the northern bank of Dió-ér southwest of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 154.

B290. Szeghalom-Sziget-dûlõ 1. Szeghalom 2. Pakác-ér 3. 47°1’29.25"N, 21°4’17.07"E 4. The settlement was found on the western bank of the oxbow of the Pakác-ér west of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 143–144.

B286. Szeghalom-Pakác-halom 1. Szeghalom 2. – 3. 47°1’36.87"N, 21°5’7.91"E 4. A neolithic settlement was found near the Pakác-halom located on a triangle-shaped ridge south of the road leading to Dévaványa in the western fields of Szeghalom. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 143.

B291. Szeghalom-Szuka-dûlõ 1. Szeghalom 2. – 3. 47°1’28.77"N, 21°6’40.72"E 4. Traces of a settlement have been observed on the northern bank of an east to west flowing stream south of the road leading to Dévaványa in the western fields of Szeghalom. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 143.

B287. Szeghalom-Sima-sziget I. 1. Szeghalom 2. Csecser-ér 3. 47°1’20.41"N, 21°1’47.42"E

B292. Szeghalom-Torda 1. Szeghalom 2. –

289

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

3. 46°59’10.34"N, 21°12’10.29"E 4. Traces of a prehistoric settlement have been found on the bank of a former oxbow of the Sebes-Körös River southeast of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 153.

B297. Vésztõ-Cigány-foki-csatorna 1. Vésztõ 2. Cigány-foki-csatorna 3. 46°55’29.98"N, 21°17’41.68"E 4. The site is located on the eastern bank of a former stream, east of the confluence between the Cigány-foki-csatorna and the Holt-Körös, east of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 190.

B293. Szeghalom-Zsombékos 1. Szeghalom 2. – 3. 46°59’51.27"N, 21°12’21.77"E 4. The settlement is located on the bank of stream bed running northeast to southwest to 3 km southeast of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 170.

B298. Vésztõ-Cigoró I. 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°52’46.76"N, 21°14’54.74"E 4. The site is located on the southwestern section of bank of a stream meander flowing northward parallel to the road between Szeghalom and Vésztõ, east of the road. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 191–192.

B294. Szeghalom-Zsombokos 1. Szeghalom 2. – 3. 46°59’43.66"N, 21°12’6.00"E 4. A sherd attributed to the Körös culture was found on the eastern bank of a former stream flowing into the Sebes-Körös River in the southeastern fields of Szeghalom. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 153.

B299. Vésztõ-Cigoró II. 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°53’10.51"N, 21°15’19.59"E 4. The site is located on the elevated western bank of an old stream in the southern fields. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 197.

B295. Vésztõ-Bálványos-ér 1. Vésztõ 2. Bálványos-ér 3. 46°58’4.26"N, 21°11’22.06"E 4. Traces of a settlement have been observed on the southern bank of the Bálványos-ér in the northwestern fields of Vésztõ. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 202.

B300. Vésztõ-Damjanich utca 6. 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°55’25.48"N, 21°16’4.25"E 4. Sherds of the Körös culture have been found in the garden of Sándor B. Turbucz in 1899. A settlement of the Körös culture is located on the nearby bank of a stream. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 193.

B296. Vésztõ-Bika-zug 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°52’48.46"N, 21°14’0.47"E 4. The site is located on an eastern terrace on the bank of a former stream west of the road leading to Doboz, south of the town. A channel cuts into the site. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 193–195.

B301. Vésztõ-Dió-ér-hát I. 1. Vésztõ 2. Dió-ér 3. 46°56’33.35"N, 21°11’48.80"E 4. The site is located on an island-like elevation surrounded by stream beds in the western fields of Vésztõ. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 182–183.

290

Bettina Bittner: Békés County

B302. Vésztõ-Dió-ér-hát II. 1. Vésztõ 2. Dió-ér 3. 46°56’17.49"N, 21°11’57.47"E 4. The site is located on a northeast to southwest running ridge west of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 183.

B307. Vésztõ-Földház-zug 1. Vésztõ 2. Sebes-Körös 3. 46°58’19.54"N, 21°14’54.18"E 4. The site is located by the confluence between the Sebes-Körös river and an old, wide riverbed in the northern fields of Vésztõ. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 200.

B303. Vésztõ-Dió-ér-hát III. 1. Vésztõ 2. Dió-ér 3. 46°56’2.23"N, 21°12’18.42"E 4. The site is located next to an oxbow lake of the Holt-Körös west of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 188.

B308. Vésztõ-Kertmeg 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°57’4.19"N, 21°19’5.44"E 4. The site is located on a former stream bank in the eastern fields of Vésztõ. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 189.

B304. Vésztõ-Földházi-major I. 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°58’16.81"N, 21°14’19.75"E 4. The site is located on a terrace by the southern bank of a former, wide riverbed in the northern fields of Vésztõ. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 198.

B309. Vésztõ-Kertmeg-puszta 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°56’32.28"N, 21°18’55.11"E 4. Traces of a settlement have been found on the northwestern bank of an old stream west of the road leading to Újiráz in the eastern fields of Vésztõ. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 189.

B305. Vésztõ-Földházi-major II. 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°58’0.76"N, 21°14’12.74"E 4. The site is located south of the Vésztõ-Földházi-major site I in the northern fields of Vésztõ. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 198.

B310. Vésztõ-Kót-puszta 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°57’15.93"N, 21°20’23.13"E 4. There is a mound east of the road leading to Újiráz in the eastern fields of Vésztõ. Finds of the Körös culture have been collected on the surface of the mound and its environs. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 189.

B306. Vésztõ-Földházi-major III. 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°57’51.40"N, 21°13’59.14"E 4. The site is located on the western bank of a former riverbed in the northern fields of Vésztõ. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 198.

B311. Vésztõ-Kót-puszta II. 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°57’50.71"N, 21°20’46.64"E 4. The site is located on a low elevation northeast of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 181.

291

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

B312. Vésztõ-Kót-puszta III. 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°57’28.15"N, 21°19’58.25"E 4. Twelve graves of a 10–11th century Hungarian cemetery of commons have been revealed during a rescue excavation in the courtyard of the main building of Kót-puszta state farm in 1957. Graves have been dug into the layers of the Körös culture settlement. A 1. J. Kovalovszki 2. 1957 3. – 4. Settlement: 1 pit B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 206.

A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 201.

B313. Vésztõ-Lucsári-derék 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°58’12.12"N, 21°15’53.63"E 4. The site is located on a terrace by the northern bank of a former riverbed in the northern fields of Vésztõ. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 198.

B318. Vésztõ-Németi-legelõ 1. Vésztõ 2. Holt-Sebes-Körös 3. 46°56’9.45"N, 21°13’27.32"E 4. The site is located on a terrace on the eastern bank of the Holt-Sebes-Körös river on the southern side of the road leading to Szeghalom in the western fields of Vésztõ. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 199.

B317. Vésztõ-Németi, Hosszú-dûlõ 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°57’5.63"N, 21°13’19.97"E 4. The site is located on the eastern bank of an old stream northwest of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 198–199.

B314. Vésztõ-Lucsári-dûlõ 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°57’59.80"N, 21°15’42.92"E 4. There is a mound on the western bank of a former stream north of the town. Few sherds – probably belonging to the Körös culture – have been found on its surface. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 190–191.

B319. Vésztõ-Németi-puszta 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°58’5.38"N, 21°14’54.99"E 4. The site is located on the low, northern bank of a horseshoe-shaped depression in the northern fields of Vésztõ. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 200.

B315. Vésztõ-Mágori-legelõ I. 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°58’4.93"N, 21°12’42.25"E 4. Sherds have been collected on a terrace on the southern bank of a stream bed in the northwestern fields of Vésztõ. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 181.

B320. Vésztõ-Pereces 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°57’42.69"N, 21°16’53.08"E 4. Sporadic finds have been collected on an elevation on the northern bank of an oxbow of a former stream in the northern fields of Vésztõ. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 191.

B316. Vésztõ-Mágori-legelõ II. 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°57’17.83"N, 21°12’8.95"E 4. The site is located on a low stream bank on the eastern side of the road leading to Szeghalom in the northern fields of Vésztõ.

321. Vésztõ-Szilad 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°57’15.07"N, 21°18’12.99"E

292

Bettina Bittner: Békés County

4. Traces of a Körös culture settlement have been observed on a low elevation northeast of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 182.

B326. Vésztõ-Veres-láp I. 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°53’25.27"N, 21°15’24.73"E 4. The site is located on the winding, western bank of a stream bed south of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 197.

322. Vésztõ-Temetõ 1. Vésztõ 2. Holt-Sebes-Körös 3. 46°55’29.36"N, 21°14’51.01"E 4. Traces of the settlement have been found in the middle of the cemetery in the western part of the town on the southeastern bank of the Holt-Sebes-Körös River. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 200.

B327. Vésztõ-Veres-láp II. 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°53’31.01"N, 21°15’7.81"E 4. The site is located on a terrace by the southern bank of an old stream on the eastern side of the road leading to Bélmegyer south of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 197.

B323. Vésztõ-Temetõ-Gyümölcsöskert 1. Vésztõ 2. Holt-Sebes-Körös 3. 46°55’25.45"N, 21°14’43.43"E 4. An extensive settlement was located on the eastern bank of the oxbow of the Holt-Sebes-Körös River in the southwestern corner of the cemetery in the western part of the town and in the next orchard. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 201.

B328. Vésztõ-Zsebengõ 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°55’43.68"N, 21°16’29.76"E 4. The site is located on a ridge along a stream bed northeast of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 203.

B324. Vésztõ-Ükmös 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°53’55.20"N, 21°14’35.05"E 4. Traces of a settlement have been observed on the eastern bank of an old stream west of the road leading to Bélmegyer in the southern fields of Vésztõ. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 196.

B329. Zsadány-Kisorosi 1. Zsadány 2. Salamon-ér 3. 46°53’50.53"N, 21°29’14.84"E 4. The site is located on the high, western bank of the Salamon-ér south of the village. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 212. B330. Zsadány-Korhány-köz 1. Zsadány 2. Salamon-ér 3. 46°54’52.20"N, 21°29’31.30"E 4. The site is located on the eastern side of Salamon-ér at the southern end of the village. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 207.

B325. Vésztõ-Vadas 1. Vésztõ 2. – 3. 46°53’35.16"N, 21°13’42.60"E 4. The site is located on the western bank of an old stream southwest of the town. A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C MRT 6, 196.

293

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

B62. Dévaványa-Berek (A) B63. Dévaványa-Berek-halom (A) B64. Dévaványa-Borszeg (A) B65. Dévaványa-Borszeg II. (A) B66. Dévaványa-Csík-ér-farka (A) B67. Dévaványa-Domrí (Dombrév) (A) B68. Dévaványa-Fudéri-dûlõ (A) B69. Dévaványa-Gabonás (A) B70. Dévaványa-Gabonás-Tûzoltó-föld (A) B71. Dévaványa-Katal-szeg I. (A) B72. Dévaványa-Katal-szeg II. (A) B73. Dévaványa-Katal-szeg III. (A) B74. Dévaványa-Katal-szeg IV. (A) B75. Dévaványa-Kér-sziget I. (A) B76. Dévaványa-Kér-sziget II. (A) B77. Dévaványa-Kér-sziget-Katonaföldek (A) B78. Dévaványa-Két-ér köze-Bogya-tanya (A) B79. Dévaványa-Két-halom II. (A) B80. Dévaványa-Két-halom IV. (A) B81. Dévaványa-Kis-gabonás (A) B82. Dévaványa-Kovács-Laponyag (A) B83. Dévaványa-Köles-halom (A) B84. Dévaványa-Külsõ-Atyaszeg (A) B85. Dévaványa-Nádösvény (A) B86. Dévaványa-Nagy-Varsány-hát (A) B87. Dévaványa-Õrhalom I. (A) B88. Dévaványa-Õrhalom II. (A) B89. Dévaványa-Õrhalom III. (A) B90. Dévaványa-Õrhalom-zug (A) B91. Dévaványa-Réhely I. (A) B92. Dévaványa-Réhely II. (A) B93. Dévaványa-Réhely III. (A) B94. Dévaványa-Réhely IV. (A) B95. Dévaványa-Réhely-Besnyõ-part-Szarka-tanya (A) B96. Dévaványa-Réhely-dûlõ (A) B97. Dévaványa-Réhelyi-gát (A) B98. Dévaványa-Sártó-halom (A) B99. Dévaványa-Sártó-sziget (A) B100. Dévaványa-Sártó-Tímár Frigyes halma (A) B101. Dévaványa-Séli-zug (A) B102. Dévaványa-Sima-sziget I. (A) B103. Dévaványa-Sima-sziget II. (A) B104. Dévaványa-Sima-sziget III. (A) B105. Dévaványa-Sima-sziget IV. (A) B106. Dévaványa-Sima-sziget V. (A) B107. Dévaványa-Sima-sziget VI. (A) B108. Dévaványa-Sima-sziget-Kecskeméti tanya (A) B109. Dévaványa-Sima-sziget-Tálagyi-átjáró (A) B110. Dévaványa-Sima-sziget-Tóalja (A) B111. Dévaványa-Tó-kert I. (A) B112. Dévaványa-Tó-kert II. (A) B113. Dévaványa-Vágás-part (A) B114. Ecsegfalva-Egyházhalma I. (A) B115. Ecsegfalva-Egyházhalma II. (A) B116. Ecsegfalva-Füzes-tó-köz (A) B117. Ecsegfalva-Kelemen-zug I. (A) B118. Ecsegfalva-Kelemen-zug II. (A) B119. Ecsegfalva-Kiritó (A) B120. Ecsegfalva-Kiritó-part (A) B121. Ecsegfalva-Kóré-zug I. (A) B122. Ecsegfalva-Kóré-zug II. (A) B123. Ecsegfalva-Kóré-zug III. (Ecsegfalva 23)(A) B124. Ecsegfalva-Nagyködmönös (A) B125. Ecsegfalva-Pusztaborz (A)

Békés county List of the sites B1. Battonya-Basarága, Lapos-éri-csatorna B2. Békés-Bánom, Andor-tanya (E) B3. Békés-Berényi út sarok (E) B4. Békés-Csatárkert-Szivattyú helye (E) B5. Békés-Jégvermi-kert (E) B6. Békés-Kászmánkert I. (E) B7. Békés-Koldus-zug I. (E) B8. Békés-Koldus-zug II. (E) B9. Békés-Krisztina-zug (E) B10. Békés-Ludad-Andor-tanya (E) B11. Békés-Ludadi megálló III. (E) B12. Békés-Ludad-Szabó-tanya (E) B13. Békés-Maksár I. (E) B14. Békés-Malomasszonykert-Dudás-tanya (E) B15. Békés-Povád (E) B16. Békés-Szécsénykert IV. (E) B17. Békés-Török-sziget-Csapó-tanya (E) B18. Békés-Vizesbánom-Egyetértés Tsz Bekötõút (E) B19. Békés-Vizesfási-ág (E) B20. Békésszentandrás-Liba-lapos-Molnár-tanya (B) B21. Békésszentandrás-Csató-tanya (B) B22. Békésszentandrás-Furugy (B) B23. Békésszentandrás-Furugyi-hát (B) B24. Békésszentandrás-Kenderföldek III. (B) B25. Békésszentandrás-Körösön túli rész I. (B) B26. Békésszentandrás-Szõlõk alja (B) B27. Békésszentandrás-Üdülõtelep (B) B28. Bélmegyer-Fehér-háti laponyag I. (D, E) B29. Bélmegyer-Kárász-megyer-Érpart (D, E) B30. Bélmegyer-Kürtös-Nagydomb (D, E) B31. Bélmegyer-Mondoki-domb (D, E) B32. Bélmegyer-Telek-megyer-Prolok-tanya (D, E) B33. Bélmegyer-Telek-megyer-Szalkai-tanya (D, E) B34. Bélmegyer-Telek-megyer-Verebes-sziget (D, E) B35. Bélmegyer-Vadas-megyer-Domokos (D, E) B36. Bélmegyer-Vadas-megyer-Füzes (D, E) B37. Bélmegyer-Vadas-megyer-Harmati-tanya II. (D, E) B38. Bélmegyer-Vadas-megyer-Vadas-major (D, E) B39. Bucsa-Árpád-sor-Akácos utca (A) B40. Bucsa-Hortobágyi-Lapos (A) B41. Bucsa-Bucsai-Legelõ (A) B42. Bucsa-Kis-Bucsa (A) B43. Bucsa-Kismonostor (A) B44. Bucsa-Mari-Major (Faluhely) (A) B45. Bucsa-Töviskes-hát I. (A) B46. Bucsa-Töviskes-hát II. (A) B47. Csárdaszállás-Baráthalom-dûlõ-Filó-tanya (C) B48. Csárdaszállás-Csukás-dûlõ-gát (C) B49. Csárdaszállás-Csukás-dûlõ-Gátõrház (C) B50. Csárdaszállás-Csukás-dûlõ-Kiszely-tanya (C) B51. Csárdaszállás-Félhalom (C) B52. Csárdaszállás-Félhalom-Gátoldal (C) B53. Csárdaszállás-Szelespart (C) B54. Csárdaszállás-Tóth-tanya (C) B55. Dévaványa-Atyaszeg-Doszta-part (Bogáros) (A) B56. Dévaványa-Atyaszeg-Hajós-halom (A) B57. Dévaványa-Atyaszegi-legelõ-Besnyõ-part (A) B58. Dévaványa-Bánom-kert (A) B59. Dévaványa-Barcé (A) B60. Dévaványa-Barcé-Csik-ér (A) B61. Dévaványa-Barcéi-kishalom (A)

294

Bettina Bittner: Békés County

B126. Ecsegfalva-Szõlõs (A) B127. Gerla-Fácántelep (E) B128. Gerla-Icce part I.(E) B129. Gerla-Icce-part II.(E) B130. Gyomaendrõd-Elõhalmi Páskum-Útköze (Gyoma) (A) B131. Gyomaendrõd-Bacsa-lapos, Csatornapart I. (Endrõd) (C) B132. Gyomaendrõd-Akácos (Gyoma) (A) B133. Gyomaendrõd-Bánffy-Bala-Telefonos-út (Endrõd) (A) B134. Gyomaendrõd-Bátori-sor-Vicián-tanya (Gyoma) (A) B135. Gyomaendrõd-Béke Tsz-Korcsag-tanya (Endrõd) (C) B136. Gyomaendrõd-Bogárzó (Endrõd) (A) B137. Gyomaendrõd-Csejt-puszta-Zubogó (Endrõd) (A) B138. Gyomaendrõd-Csepüs-kert-Kiss-tanya (Endrõd) (C) B139. Gyomaendrõd-Cserepes-halom (Gyoma) (A) B140. Gyomaendrõd-Egei-dûlõ-Lengyel-tanya (Endrõd) (C) B141. Gyomaendrõd-Egei-halom-dûlõ-Megyeri-tanya (Gyoma) (C) B142. Gyomaendrõd-Egei-halom-dûlõ-Bogár-tanya (Endrõd) (C) B143. Gyomaendrõd-Elõhalmi Páskum-Oláh-tanya (Gyoma) (A) B144. Gyomaendrõ-Elõhalmi Páskum-Molnár-tanya (Gyoma) (A) B145. Gyomaendrõd-Farkas-fok (Endrõd) (A) B146. Gyomaendrõd-Feneki-ér (Endrõd) (A) B147. Gyomaendrõd-Feneki-erdõ (Endrõd) (A) B148. Gyomaendrõd-Gabonás-ér (Endrõd) (A) B149. Gyomaendrõd-Gátõrház (Gyoma) (A, C) B150. Gyomaendrõd-Gellai-Bala-Varjúföld (Endrõd) (A) B151. Gyomaendrõd-Hantos-Gyebnár-kert (Gyoma) (A, C) B152. Gyomaendrõd-Hornok-halom (Endrõd) (C) B153. Gyomaendrõd-Hunya Mihály-tanyája (Endrõd) (A) B154. Gyomaendrõ-Ivánfenéki-csatorna-Mocsárpart (Gyoma) (A) B155. Gyomaendrõd-Kápolna-halom (Endrõd 6. lelõhely) (C) B156. Gyomaendrõd-Kiss-tanya (Endrõd) (A) B157. Gyomaendrõd-Konyha-ér-Olajfüzes (Gyoma) (A) B158. Gyomaendrõd-Koplaló-Berek, Szivattyúház (Endrõd) (A) B159. Gyomaendrõd-Koplaló-part, megyehatár (Endrõd) (A) B160. Gyomaendrõd-Korcsog-tanya (Gyoma) (A) B161. Gyomaendrõd-Kõszigeti-Gyep-Gecsei-tanya (Gyoma) (A) B162. Gyomaendrõd-Lyukas-halom (Endrõd) (A) B163. Gyomaendrõd-Nagyszirt (A) B164. Gyomaendrõd-Nagyszirt-Fülöp-tanya (Gyoma) (A) B165. Gyomaendrõd-Öregszõlõk- Cserép Ernõ-tanya (Endrõd) (C) B166. Gyomaendrõd-Öregszõlõk II. (Endrõd 35. lelõhely) (C) B167. Gyomaendrõd-Öregszõlõk IV. (Endrõd) (C) B168. Gyomaendrõd-Öregszõlõk V. (Endrõd) (C) B169. Gyomaendrõd-Öregszõlõk VI. (Endrõd) (C) B170. Gyomaendrõd-Õzedi-dûlõ-Balogh-tanya (Gyoma) (A) B171. Gyomaendrõd-Õzedi-part (Gyoma) (A) B172. Gyomaendrõd-Õzed-Vasútvonal (Gyoma) (A) B173. Gyomaendrõd-Páskum, Iványi-köz (Endrõd 119. lelõhely) (C) B174. Gyomaendrõd-Páskun-Vaszkó-tanya (Endrõd) (C) B175. Gyomaendrõd-Paulik-tanya (Endrõd) (C) B176. Gyomaendrõd-Póhalom (Endrõd) (A) B177. Gyomaendrõd-Póhalom-Czmarkó-tanya (Endrõd) (A) B178. Gyomaendrõd-Póhalom-Farkas-tanya II. (Gyoma) (A) B179. Gyomaendrõd-Póhalom-Hosszúpart (Gyoma) (A) B180. Gyomaendrõd-Póhalom-Kozma-tanya (Endrõd) (A) B181. Gyomaendrõd-Polyák-dûlõ, Hegedûs-tanya (Endrõd) (C) B182. Gyomaendrõd-Réda-halom (Endrõd) (A) B183. Gyomaendrõd-Sárgaparti átjáró (A) B184. Gyomaendrõd-Sártó-Gabonás-Tóth-tanya (Endrõd) (A) B185. Gyomaendrõd-Soczó-zug, Gátõrház (Endrõd) (A, C) B186. Gyomaendrõd-Soczó-zug-Apaállat-telep (Endrõd) (A, C) B187. Gyomaendrõd-Sûrû csejt, Földvári-tanya II. (Endrõd) (A) B188. Gyomaendrõd-Sûrû csejt-Földvári-tanya I. (Endrõd) (A)

B189. Gyomaendrõd-Sûrûcsejt-Holt-Berettyó hídja (Endrõd) (A) B190. Gyomaendrõd-Szentmiklós-zug, Berettyó-part I. (Endrõd) (A) B191. Gyomaendrõd-Szentmiklós-zug, Csatorna-part (Endrõd) (A) B192. Gyomaendrõd-Szentmiklós-zug, Megyehatár (Endrõd) (A) B193. Gyomaendrõd-Szujókereszt (Endrõd 39. lelõhely) (C) B194. Gyomaendrõd-Téglástelek (Gyoma) (A) B195. Gyomaendrõd-Teleki-Kerektó-Nagy-tanya (Gyoma) (A) B196. Gyomaendrõd-Teleki-puszta-Hodály (Gyoma) (A) B197. Gyomaendrõd-Teleki-Siló (Gyoma) (A) B198. Gyomaendrõd-Tímár-föld (Gyoma) (A) B199. Gyomaendrõd-Udvarnok-Bácskai-tanya (Endrõd) (A) B200. Gyomaendrõd-Újcsejt-Tímár-tanya (Endrõd) (A, C) B201. Gyomaendrõd-Viczián-halom (Endrõd) (A) B202. Gyomaendrõd-Gyomaendrõd-Zöld-lapos-Imre-tanya (Gyoma) (A, C) B203. Körösladány-Büngösd-part (A, D) B204. Körösladány-Hereföldek (A, D) B205. Körösladány-Kengyel-köz I. (D) B206. Körösladány-Korhány I. (A) B207. Körösladány-Korhány II. (A) B208. Körösladány-Körtvélyesi-legelõ (A) B209. Körösladány-Méhes (D) B210. Körösladány-Nagyrét (A) B211. Körösladány-Pakac-ér-partja (A) B212. Körösladány-Sárréte I. (A) B213. Körösladány-Sárréte II. (A) B214. Körösladány-Siskási-dûlõ (A, D) B215. Körösladány-Tikos-ér (A, D) B216. Köröstarcsa-Edeles (C, E) B217. Köröstarcsa-Körtvélyes-Kiss-tanya (E) B218. Köröstarcsa-Mezõberényi út-Szabó-tanya (E) B219. Köröstarcsa-Papfenék-Fábián-tanya (C, E) B220. Köröstarcsa-Papföld (C, E) B221. Köröstarcsa-Református temetõ (C, E) B222. Köröstarcsa-Újkert-Berényi határ (E) B223. Köröstarcsa-Vénkert I. (C, E) B224. Mezõberény-Balogh-tanya (D, E) B225. Mezõberény-Bódis-háti-legelõ I. (E) B226. Mezõberény-Bódis-major II. (E) B227. Mezõberény-Bódis-major III. € B228. Mezõberény-Bodzás-halom (E) B229. Mezõberény-Laposi kertek alja II. (E) B230. Mezõberény-Só-zug-Fácános (D, E) B231. Mezõberény-Tisza-háti-dûlõ-Büngösd-part (D, E) B232. Mezõberény-Tücsök-halom (E) B233. Szarvas-Egyházföld (Szarvas 23. lelõhely (B) B234. Szarvas-Arany János utca 30-32. (B) B235. Szarvas-Cigány-ér-part-Alsó-csatorna (B) B236. Szarvas-Cigány-ér-part-Andróczy-tanya (B) B237. Szarvas-Cigány-ér-part-Kerek-sánc (B) B238. Szarvas-Cigány-ér-part-Simonyi szõlõk (B) B239. Szarvas-Cigány-foki-ér-Megyeri-tanya (B) B240. Szarvas-Egyházföld-Berényi-út (B) B241. Szarvas-Érpart-Antal-tanya (B) B242. Szarvas-Érpart-Frankó-tanya (B) B243. Szarvas-Érpart-Fullajtár-tanya (B) B244. Szarvas-Érpart-Laukó-tanya (B) B245. Szarvas-Érpart-Litauszki-tanya (B) B246. Szarvas-Érpart-Medvegy- és Simó-tanya (B) B247. Szarvas-Érpart-Sonkoly-tanya (B) B248. Szarvas-Erzsébet-liget-Városi-föld (B) B249. Szarvas-Halásztelek-Sziráczki-tanya (B) B250. Szarvas-Halesz (B) B251. Szarvas-halom-az Öntözési Kutató Intézet-a hajdani

295

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

Bolza-kastély területe (B) B252. Szarvas-halom-Vajda Péter utca 1.-Tessedik Sámuel Múzeum (B) B253. Szarvas-Kovács-halom (B) B254. Szarvas-Középhalmi-dûlõ (B) B255. Szarvas-Középhalmi-dûlõ, former Krajcsovics-tanya (B) B256. Szarvas-Középhalom (B) B257. Szarvas-Krakkó (B) B258. Szarvas-Lómer-halom (B) B259. Szarvas-Malom-zugi-csatorna (B) B260. Szarvas-Mangol-zug-Betlehem (B) B261. Szarvas-Ótemetõ (B) B262. Szarvas-Petõfi utca 31. (B) B263. Szarvas-Rizsás-laponyag (B, C) B264. Szarvas-Roszik-tanya II. (B, C) B265. Szarvas-Roszik-tanya III. (B) B266. Szarvas-Rózsás-halom (B) B267. Szarvas-Strázsa-halom (B) B268. Szarvas-Szappanos (B) B269. Szarvas-Széles úti-dûlõ (B) B270. Szarvas-Táncsics Tsz Libatelep (B) B271. Szarvas-Tomasovszki-tanya (B) B272. Szarvas-former Veles-, nowadays Sándor-tanya (B) B273. Szarvas-Wesselényi utca 6. (B) B274. Szeghalom-Cséfán-K. Papp-tanya (A) B275. Szeghalom-Csik-éri-dûlõ (D) B276. Szeghalom-Fok-közi-erdõ (D) B277. Szeghalom-Hegyesi-tanya (A, D) B278. Szeghalom-Kert-közi-dûlõ (A, D) B279. Szeghalom-Kettõs-halom (A, D) B280. Szeghalom-Kis-fás (A, D) B281. Szeghalom-Kis-halas-dûlõ I. (D) B282. Szeghalom-Kis-halas-dûlõ II. (D) B283. Szeghalom-Koplaló-kert (D) B284. Szeghalom-Nagy-lapos (A, D) B285. Szeghalom-Nagytúlakörös (A, D) B286. Szeghalom-Pakác-halom (A, D) B287. Szeghalom-Sima-sziget I. (A) B288. Szeghalom-Sima-sziget II. (A) B289. Szeghalom-Sima-sziget III. (A) B290. Szeghalom-Sziget-dûlõ (A)

B291. Szeghalom-Szuka-dûlõ (A, D) B292. Szeghalom-Torda (D) B293. Szeghalom-Zsombékos (D) B294. Szeghalom-Zsombokos (D) B295. Vésztõ-Bálványos-ér (D) B296. Vésztõ-Bika-zug (D, E) B297. Vésztõ-Cigány-foki-csatorna (D) B298. Vésztõ-Cigoró I. (D, E) B299. Vésztõ-Cigoró II. (D, E) B300. Vésztõ-Damjanich utca 6. (D) B301. Vésztõ-Dió-ér-hát I. (D) B302. Vésztõ-Dió-ér-hát II. (D) B303. Vésztõ-Dió-ér-hát III. (D) B304. Vésztõ-Földházi-major I. (D) B305. Vésztõ-Földházi-major II. (D) B306. Vésztõ-Földházi-major III. (D) B307. Vésztõ-Földház-zug (D) B308. Vésztõ-Kertmeg (D) B309. Vésztõ-Kertmeg-puszta (D) B310. Vésztõ-Kót-puszta (D) B311. Vésztõ-Kót-puszta II. (D) B312. Vésztõ-Kót-puszta III. (D) B313. Vésztõ-Lucsári-derék (D) B314. Vésztõ-Lucsári-dûlõ (D) B315. Vésztõ-Mágori-legelõ I. (D) B316. Vésztõ-Mágori-legelõ II. (D) B317. Vésztõ-Németi, Hosszú-dûlõ (D) B318. Vésztõ-Németi-legelõ (D) B319. Vésztõ-Németi-puszta (D) B320. Vésztõ-Pereces (D) B321. Vésztõ-Szilad (D) B322. Vésztõ-Temetõ (D) B323. Vésztõ-Temetõ-Gyümölcsöskert (D) B324. Vésztõ-Ükmös (D, E) B325. Vésztõ-Vadas (D, E) B326. Vésztõ-Veres-láp I. B327. Vésztõ-Veres-láp II. (D, E) B328. Vésztõ-Zsebengõ (D) B329. Zsadány-Kisorosi (D) B330. Zsadány-Korhány-köz (D)

296

297–322.

CATALOGUE OF THE KÖRÖS CULTURE SITES IN CSONGRÁD COUNTY Tibor Paluch Móra Ferenc Museum, 6720 Szeged, Roosevelt tér 1–3, Hungary; [email protected] B

Cs1. Algyõ-258. sz. kútkörzet 1. Algyõ 2. Tisza River 3. 46°18’37.2"N, 20°12’54.4"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. B. Kürti, D. Pópity 2. 1973–1976 3. 3568 m2 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 0.5 ha 2. Körös culture C Kürti 1974; 1974a; 1975; 1975a; 1976; 1977; 1980

1. Approx. 0.1 ha 2. Körös culture C Béres 1985; Hegyi 1987 Cs5. Ambrózfalva-Vasúti-dûlõ V. 1. Ambrózfalva 2. Maros River 3. 46°21’02.4"N, 20°44’38.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Pál 1994

Cs2. Algyõ-Küvestöltés 1. Algyõ 2. Tisza River 3. 46°21’46.5"N, 20°09’33.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 3 ha 2. Körös culture C Béres 1985; Hegyi 1987

Cs6. Baks-Felsõ, Ányás-Kápolna 1. Baks 2. Tisza River 3. 46°29’45.0"N, 20°10’08.0"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2.5 ha 2. Körös culture C Farkas 1997

Cs3. Algyõ-Küvestöltés, Vidács Antal földje 1. Algyõ 2. Tisza River 3. 46°20’43.1"N, 20°11’39.1"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Stray finds 2. Körös culture C Béres 1985; Hegyi 1987

Cs7. Baks-Csontospart and Ópusztaszer-Csontospart 1. Baks 2. Tisza River 3. 46°31’07.1"N, 20°05’11.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 10 ha 2. Körös culture C Farkas 1997; László 1997

Cs4. Algyõ-Békás III. 1. Algyõ 2. Tisza River 3. 46°20’07.4"N, 20°10’45.2"E 4. Top of the hill A–

Cs8. Balástya-Õszeszék határrész, Tóth-tanya 1. Balástya 2. Tisza River 3. 46°24’42.5"N, 19°59’21.0"E 4. Top of the hill

297

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

A– B 1. Approx. 3.5 ha 2. Körös culture C Gáspár 1996 Cs9. Csanytelek-Halnevelõ 1. Csanytelek 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°34’01.0"N, 20°05’50.7"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Stray finds 2. Körös culture C P. Fischl 1996

Cs13. Deszk-I. sz. olajkút 1. Deszk 2. Maros River 3. 46°12’56.0"N, 20°16’50.2"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. O. Trogmayer 2. 1966 3. 300 m2 4. 2 graves, 5 pits 5. Körös culture, Latest Körös phase B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Trogmayer 1968a; 1968b; Matuz 1981 14 C dates: Kohl & Quitta 1970, 408; Quitta & Kohl 1969, 240–241; Whittle et al. 2002, 111, 115.

Cs10. Csongrád-Ellésmonostor 1. Csongrád 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°44’20.3"N, 20°08’02.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Pölös 1988

Cs14. Deszk B, C, E 1. Deszk 2. Maros River 3. 46°12’41.6"N, 20°13’31.2"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Stray finds 2. Körös culture C Banner 1932

Cs11. Csongrád-Bokros, Búzáspart 1. Csongrád 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°46’21.9"N, 20°03’06.9"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. N. Kalicz 2. 1958 3. – 4. – 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 0.1 ha 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1960; Bozsik 1991

Cs15. Deszk G 1. Deszk 2. Maros River 3. 46°12’23.4"N, 20°20’20.5"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. D. Csallány, J. Kotormány 2. 1932–1933, 1937, 1939 3. – 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Matuz 1981

Cs12. Csongrád-Bokros, Halomsír a Vadvízelvezetõ csatornánál 1. Csongrád 2. Tisza River 3. 46°46’05.9"N, 20°02’22.9"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. T. Exterde 2. 1940 3. – 4. 2 graves 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 0.1 ha 2. Körös culture C Bozsik 1991

Cs16. Deszk I or Okopi-dûlõ 1. Deszk 2. Maros River 3. 46°14’06.5"N, 20°17’32.0"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. J. Czuci 2. 1933 3. – 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Matuz 1981

298

297–322.

CATALOGUE OF THE KÖRÖS CULTURE SITES IN CSONGRÁD COUNTY Tibor Paluch Móra Ferenc Museum, 6720 Szeged, Roosevelt tér 1–3, Hungary; [email protected] B

Cs1. Algyõ-258. sz. kútkörzet 1. Algyõ 2. Tisza River 3. 46°18’37.2"N, 20°12’54.4"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. B. Kürti, D. Pópity 2. 1973–1976 3. 3568 m2 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 0.5 ha 2. Körös culture C Kürti 1974; 1974a; 1975; 1975a; 1976; 1977; 1980

1. Approx. 0.1 ha 2. Körös culture C Béres 1985; Hegyi 1987 Cs5. Ambrózfalva-Vasúti-dûlõ V. 1. Ambrózfalva 2. Maros River 3. 46°21’02.4"N, 20°44’38.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Pál 1994

Cs2. Algyõ-Küvestöltés 1. Algyõ 2. Tisza River 3. 46°21’46.5"N, 20°09’33.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 3 ha 2. Körös culture C Béres 1985; Hegyi 1987

Cs6. Baks-Felsõ, Ányás-Kápolna 1. Baks 2. Tisza River 3. 46°29’45.0"N, 20°10’08.0"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2.5 ha 2. Körös culture C Farkas 1997

Cs3. Algyõ-Küvestöltés, Vidács Antal földje 1. Algyõ 2. Tisza River 3. 46°20’43.1"N, 20°11’39.1"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Stray finds 2. Körös culture C Béres 1985; Hegyi 1987

Cs7. Baks-Csontospart and Ópusztaszer-Csontospart 1. Baks 2. Tisza River 3. 46°31’07.1"N, 20°05’11.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 10 ha 2. Körös culture C Farkas 1997; László 1997

Cs4. Algyõ-Békás III. 1. Algyõ 2. Tisza River 3. 46°20’07.4"N, 20°10’45.2"E 4. Top of the hill A–

Cs8. Balástya-Õszeszék határrész, Tóth-tanya 1. Balástya 2. Tisza River 3. 46°24’42.5"N, 19°59’21.0"E 4. Top of the hill

297

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

A– B 1. Approx. 3.5 ha 2. Körös culture C Gáspár 1996 Cs9. Csanytelek-Halnevelõ 1. Csanytelek 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°34’01.0"N, 20°05’50.7"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Stray finds 2. Körös culture C P. Fischl 1996

Cs13. Deszk-I. sz. olajkút 1. Deszk 2. Maros River 3. 46°12’56.0"N, 20°16’50.2"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. O. Trogmayer 2. 1966 3. 300 m2 4. 2 graves, 5 pits 5. Körös culture, Latest Körös phase B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Trogmayer 1968a; 1968b; Matuz 1981 14 C dates: Kohl & Quitta 1970, 408; Quitta & Kohl 1969, 240–241; Whittle et al. 2002, 111, 115.

Cs10. Csongrád-Ellésmonostor 1. Csongrád 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°44’20.3"N, 20°08’02.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Pölös 1988

Cs14. Deszk B, C, E 1. Deszk 2. Maros River 3. 46°12’41.6"N, 20°13’31.2"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Stray finds 2. Körös culture C Banner 1932

Cs11. Csongrád-Bokros, Búzáspart 1. Csongrád 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°46’21.9"N, 20°03’06.9"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. N. Kalicz 2. 1958 3. – 4. – 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 0.1 ha 2. Körös culture C Kalicz 1960; Bozsik 1991

Cs15. Deszk G 1. Deszk 2. Maros River 3. 46°12’23.4"N, 20°20’20.5"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. D. Csallány, J. Kotormány 2. 1932–1933, 1937, 1939 3. – 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Matuz 1981

Cs12. Csongrád-Bokros, Halomsír a Vadvízelvezetõ csatornánál 1. Csongrád 2. Tisza River 3. 46°46’05.9"N, 20°02’22.9"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. T. Exterde 2. 1940 3. – 4. 2 graves 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 0.1 ha 2. Körös culture C Bozsik 1991

Cs16. Deszk I or Okopi-dûlõ 1. Deszk 2. Maros River 3. 46°14’06.5"N, 20°17’32.0"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. J. Czuci 2. 1933 3. – 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Matuz 1981

298

Tibor Paluch: Csongrád County...

Cs17. Deszk-Ordos csatornánál 1. Deszk 2. Maros River 3. 46°12’36.6"N, 20°17’52.3"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Matuz 1981

B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Tóth 1996 Cs23. Dóc-Bíbic-háti erdõ VI. 1. Dóc 2. Tisza River 3. 46°26’04.0"N, 20°08’09.7"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Tóth 1996

Cs18. Dóc-Bíbic-háti erdõ I. 1. Dóc 2. Tisza River 3. 46°26’20.5"N, 20°09’28.8"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 8 ha 2. Körös culture C Tóth 1996

Cs24. Dóc-Bíbic-háti erdõ VI-Pecsorai-major 1. Dóc 2. Tisza River 3. 46°26’39.9"N, 20°09’34.3"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Tóth 1996

Cs19. Dóc-Bíbic-háti erdõ II. 1. Dóc 2. Tisza River 3. 46°26’13.6"N, 20°09’28.1"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 5 ha 2. Körös culture C Tóth 1996

Cs25. Dóc-Dóc-Sándorfalva határút 1. Dóc 2. Tisza River 3. 46°25’14.1"N, 20°08’08.8"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Tóth 1996

Cs20. Dóc-Bíbic-háti erdõ III. 1. Dóc 2. Tisza River 3. 46°25’49.9"N, 20°08’15.0"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Tóth 1996

Cs26. Dóc-Erzsébetliget csatorna 1. Dóc 2. Tisza River 3. 46°26’09.4"N, 20°07’36.5"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 12 ha 2. Körös culture C Tóth 1996

Cs21. Dóc-Bíbic-háti erdõ IV. 1. Dóc 2. Tisza River 3. 46°25’42.7"N, 20°08’11.1"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 5 ha 2. Körös culture C Tóth 1996

Cs27. Dóc-Kõtörési-major 1. Dóc 2. Tisza River 3. 46°27’28.1"N, 20°09’11.0"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 8 ha 2. Körös culture C Tóth 1996

Cs22. Dóc-Bíbic-háti erdõ V. 1. Dóc 2. Tisza River 3. 46°26’22.8"N, 20°08’56.0"E 4. Top of the hill A–

299

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

Cs28. Dóc-Szeméttelep 1. Dóc 2. Tisza River 3. 46°26’15.5"N, 20°08’46.5"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Tóth 1996

B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Gál 1984 Cs34. Hódmezõvásárhely-Batida II. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°18’59.9"N, 20°19’56.1"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. Cs. Balogh 2. 2006 3. 250 m2 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Balogh 2007

Cs29. Domaszék-Furus II. 1. Domaszék 2. Tisza River 3. 46°13’42.6"N, 19°59’44.1"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Egry 1986

Cs35. Hódmezõvásárhely-Batida IV. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°19’09.0"N, 20°19’57.3"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Simon 1979; Pávai 1989

Cs30. Fábiánsebestyén-Belsõ-dûlõ, Dónáti buszmegálló 1. Fábiánsebestyén 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°40’11.0"N, 20°22’23.5"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 5 ha 2. Körös culture C Pap 2002

Cs36. Hódmezõvásárhely-Batida, Magony-tanya 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°18’38.7"N, 20°19’47.0"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Simon 1979; Pávai 1989

Cs31. Fábiánsebestyén-Pusztatemplom 1. Fábiánsebestyén 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°41’05.4"N, 20°24’50.4"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 3 ha 2. Körös culture C Pap 2002

Cs37. Hódmezõvásárhely-Bodzáspart-Banga major 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. – 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Kutzián 1944

Cs32. Fábiánsebestyén-Varga-dûlõ 1. Fábiánsebestyén 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°42’54.6"N, 20°28’50.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 3 ha 2. Körös culture C Pap 2002

Cs38. Hódmezõvásárhely-Bodzáspart-Pap bognár földje 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°24’11.3"N, 20°16’04.7"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. J. Banner, J. Korek

Cs33. Ferencszállás-Somogyi-dûlõ 1. Ferencszállás 2. Maros River 3. 46°12’44.0"N, 20°20’47.4"E 4. Top of the hill A–

300

Tibor Paluch: Csongrád County...

3. 57.000 m2 4. Nearly 50-60 settlement features 5. Körös culture

2. 1937, 1946, 1952? 3. – 4. 1 pit, 5 or 6 graves 5. Körös culture

B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture

B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture

C Simon 1979; Pávai 1989; Tóth 2010

C Banner 1939; 1954; Kutzián 1944; Korek 1984

Cs44. Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa, Kovács-tanya 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°19’49.0"N, 20°19’13.1"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. Gy. Gazdapusztai 2. 1955 3. 700 m2 4. 2 pits 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Gazdapusztai 1957

Cs39. Hódmezõvásárhely-Bõve-halom II. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°30’35.8"N, 20°22’35.3"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 3 ha 2. Körös culture C Vályi 1977; Pávai 1989 Cs40. Hódmezõvásárhely-Csomorkányi oldal VII. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°26’05.0"N, 20°27’03.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Regenye 1979; Pávai 1989

Cs45. Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa, Molnár-tanya 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. – 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

Cs41. Hódmezõvásárhely-Dilinkai temetõ 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°24’56.1"N, 20°21’36.8"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

Cs46. Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa, Pócsy-tanya 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°19’25.2"N, 20°20’38.8"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. A. Bálint 2. 1936 3. – 4. 1 grave 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Banner 1937; Kutzián 1944

Cs42. Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa III. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°19’43.4"N, 20°14’24.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 4 ha 2. Körös culture C Simon 1979; Pávai 1989

Cs47. Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa-Vermeshalom 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°19’11.2"N, 20°19’07.3"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. – 2. – 3. – 4. 1 grave 5. Körös culture

Cs43. Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa, V. homokbánya 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°20’01.0"N, 20°18’11.4"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. K. Tóth 2. 2009

301

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

2. Tisza River 3. – 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C–

B 1. Approx. 52 ha 2. Körös culture C Kutzián 1944; Trogmayer 1968a; 1969 Cs48. Hódmezõvásárhely-Hámszárító csárda 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°24’13.2"N, 20°13’21.6"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. Gy. Török 2. 1934 3. – 4. 1 pit 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 4 ha 2. Körös culture C Oláh & Varga 1897; Török 1935

Cs53. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kerek Szikáncs-Nádas-halom 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°22’17.2"N, 20°24’58.4"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Dudás 1988; Pávai 1989 Cs54. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kingéc I. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°18’28.2"N, 20°19’55.4"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Simon 1979; Pávai 1989

Cs49. Hódmezõvásárhely-Ifjúság útja, Halász porta 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°24’16.6"N, 20°18’52.9"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. K. B. Nagy 2. 1967 3. 200 m2 4. – 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Korek 1984

Cs55. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kingéc II. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°18’12.0"N, 20°19’02.7"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. V. Csányi 2. 2009 3. 40,000 m2 4. Nearly 20–30 settlement features 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 23 ha 2. Körös culture C–

Cs50. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kenyere ér déli partja XI. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°26’13.0"N, 20°14’59.1"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Galántha 1977; Pávai 1989

Cs56. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kingéc III. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°18’06.3"N, 20°18’47.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Simon 1979; Pávai 1989

Cs51. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kenyere ér déli partja XII. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°26’06.9"N, 20°14’58.5"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Galántha 1977; Pávai 1989

Cs57. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs IV. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°20’48.3"N, 20°17’44.5"E 4. Top of the hill

Cs52. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kenyerehát-Tóbiás major 1. Hódmezõvásárhely

302

Tibor Paluch: Csongrád County...

2. 1932 3. – 4. 2 houses, 4 graves 5. Körös culture

A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Koós 1979; Pávai 1989

B 1. – 2. Körös culture

Cs58. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs V. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°21’25.0"N, 20°18’32.1"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 4 ha 2. Körös culture C Koós 1979; Pávai 1989

C Banner 1932; Kutzián 1944 Cs63. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs, Técsy major 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°22’07.3"N, 20°15’46.5"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. I. Oláh, Gy. Gazdapusztai 2. 1894-1895, 1965 3. – 4. 2.5 m thick culture layer 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 4 ha 2. Körös culture C Banner 1937a; Kutzián 1944

Cs59. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs VII. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°20’45.0"N, 20°17’51.4"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1,5 ha 2. Körös culture C Koós 1979; Pávai 1989

Cs64. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs, Zsoldos major 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°20’30.3"N, 20°16’04.9"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. J. Banner 2. 1931 3. 300 m2 4. 8 graves 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 8 ha 2. Körös culture C Banner 1932; 1937b; Kutzián 1944

Cs60. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs, Homokbánya 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°23’03.8"N, 20°16’22.5"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. K. Tóth 2. 2009 3. 7440 m2 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 4 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

Cs65. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°23’39.1"N, 20°14’37.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Vályi 1977; Pávai 1989

Cs61. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs-Koncz major 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. – 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

Cs66. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart, Vata-tanya 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°23’37.7"N, 20°14’42.0"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. J. Banner, M. Párducz and K. Tóth 2. 1932–1934, 2008 3. – 4. Nearly 20 settlement features 5. Körös culture

Cs62. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs, Kovács major 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. – 4. Top of the hill A 1. J. Banner

303

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

B

C 1. Approx. 4 ha 2. Körös culture

Cs72. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget VIII. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°22’17.9"N, 20°19’20.1"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 3 ha 2. Körös culture C Koós 1979; Pávai 1989

C Párducz 1932; Banner 1932; 1934; 1935; Kutzián 1944 Cs67. Hódmezõvásárhely-Külsõ Batida, Makkos, Tölgyes erdõ 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°18’57.6"N, 20°20’01.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

Cs73. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget X. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°22’49.1"N, 20°18’17.2"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Koós 1979; Pávai 1989

Cs68. Hódmezõvásárhely-Laktanya 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°24’11.4"N, 20°19’08.7"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. K. Tóth 2. 2001-2002 3. 17,740 m2 4. 13 pits 5. Körös culture, Latest Körös phase B 1. Approx. 11 ha 2. Körös culture C Paluch 2005

Cs74. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget XI. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°22’44.7"N, 20°17’59.8"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Koós 1979; Pávai 1989

Cs69. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget I. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°23’41.6"N, 20°20’08.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C

Cs75. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget XII. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°22’46.1"N, 20°17’23.3"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Koós 1979; Pávai 1989

Cs70. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget II. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°22’46.3"N, 20°18’08.2"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 7 ha 2. Körös culture C

Cs76. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget XIII. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°22’49.0"N, 20°17’29.5"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Koós 1979; Pávai 1989

Cs71. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget IV. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°22’21.3"N, 20°19’06.2"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture

Cs77. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget XVI. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°23’57.7"N, 20°20’18.2"E 4. Top of the hill

304

Tibor Paluch: Csongrád County...

2. 1934-1935, 1948 3. – 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture

A– B 1. Approx. 6 ha 2. Körös culture C Koós 1979; Pávai 1989

B 1. Approx. 7,5 ha 2. Körös culture

Cs78. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget XVII. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°22’07.5"N, 20°20’25.8"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 22 ha 2. Körös culture C Koós 1979; Pávai 1989

C Banner & Bálint 1935 Cs83. Hódmezõvásárhely-Szoboszlai utca 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°24’50.9"N, 20°21’05.3"E 4. – A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

Cs79. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget XXI. 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°22’45.2"N, 20°16’51.0"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Koós 1979; Pávai 1989

Cs84. Hódmezõvásárhely-Tuhutum utca 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°24’31.7"N, 20°20’20.4"E 4. – A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

Cs80. Hódmezõvásárhely-Petõfi Sándor utca 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°25’00.5"N, 20°19’23.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Korek 1984

Cs85. Kistelek-Erdõsarki iskola 1. Kistelek 2. Tisza River 3. 46°30’36.9"N, 19°54’17.1"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 3 ha 2. Körös culture C Szász 1994

Cs81. Hódmezõvásárhely-Solt Palé, Égetõ-tanya 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°24’01.7"N, 20°14’09.8"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. J. Banner 2. 1935 3. – 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Banner 1937

Cs86. Kiszombor-D 1. Kiszombor 2. Maros River 3. – 4. Top of the hill A 1. F. Móra 2. 1930 3. – 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Vízi 1985

Cs82. Hódmezõvásárhely-Szakálhát, Bakay-tanya 1. Hódmezõvásárhely 2. Tisza River 3. 46°24’01.9"N, 20°13’54.8"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. J. Banner, A. Bálint and M. Párducz

Cs87. Kiszombor-65. 1. Kiszombor 2. Tisza River

305

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

3. 46°09’33.8"N, 20°24’01.4"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Vízi 1985

3. 46°15’21.8"N, 20°27’16.4"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

Cs88. Kiszombor-80. 1. Kiszombor 2. Tisza River 3. 46°09’44.9"N, 20°25’29.3"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Vízi 1985

Cs93. Magyarcsanád-Szent Gellért híd, Vámház 1. Magyarcsanád 2. Maros River 3. 46°09’21.5"N, 20°35’18.8"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

Cs89. Klárafalva-Vasút utca or Deszk-Kübekházi út jobb oldala 1. Klárafalva 2. Maros River 3. 46°12’58.3"N, 20°19’18.7"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. B. K. Nagy 2. 1965 3. 300 m2 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Nagy 1975

Cs94. Maroslele-Arany János utca 19. 1. Maroslele 2. Maros River 3. 46°16’11.4"N, 20°20’38.8"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished Cs95. Maroslele-Faluszéle 1. Maroslele 2. Maros River 3. 46°15’51.0"N, 20°21’40.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 6 ha 2. Körös culture C Szemán 1985

Cs90. Makó-Fekete Mocsár I. 1. Makó 2. Maros River 3. 46°18’15.5"N, 20°37’36.5"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

Cs96. Maroslele-Gazdag-tanya 1. Maroslele 2. Maros River 3. 46°17’35.0"N, 20°20’40.3"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Szemán 1985

Cs91. Makó-Járandó 1. Makó 2. Maros River 3. 46°14’38.2"N, 20°32’12.3"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 60 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

Cs97. Maroslele-Gyûrûs-dûlõ I. 1. Maroslele 2. Maros River 3. 46°15’13.4"N, 20°22’31.7"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 4 ha 2. Körös culture

Cs92. Makó-Pap-hát IV. 1. Makó 2. Maros River

306

Tibor Paluch: Csongrád County...

3. 46°15’25.0"N, 20°21’48.8"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Szemán 1985

C Szemán 1985 Cs98. Maroslele-Gyûrûs-dûlõ III. 1. Maroslele 2. Maros River 3. 46°15’01.3"N, 20°22’03.0"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Szemán 1985

Cs104. Maroslele-Makói út 1. Maroslele 2. Maros River 3. 46°15’43.1"N, 20°21’58.4"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Szemán 1985

Cs99. Maroslele-Kingéc 1. Maroslele 2. Maros River 3. 46°17’29.2"N, 20°18’18.8"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Szemán 1985

Cs105. Maroslele-Pana 1. Maroslele 2. Maros River 3. 46°17’00.7"N, 20°18’05.0"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. O. Trogmayer 2. 1963 3. 300 m2 4. 7 pits and 2 graves 5. Körös culture, Latest Körös phase B 1. Approx. 11 ha 2. Körös culture C Trogmayer 1964 14 C dates: Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 122; Whittle et al. 2002, 111, 115–116.

Cs100. Maroslele-Kislele II. 1. Maroslele 2. Maros River 3. 46°15’16.1"N, 20°21’10.7"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Szemán 1985 Cs101. Maroslele-Kislele IV. 1. Maroslele 2. Maros River 3. 46°15’11.4"N, 20°21’01.5"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 3 ha 2. Körös culture C Szemán 1985

Cs106. Maroslele-Pernye-hát 1. Maroslele 2. Maros River 3. 46°17’18.3"N, 20°19’32.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 3 ha 2. Körös culture C Szemán 1985

Cs102. Maroslele-Lóci-tanya I. 1. Maroslele 2. Maros River 3. 46°15’35.8"N, 20°21’47.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 4 ha 2. Körös culture C Szemán 1985

Cs107. Maroslele-Simon-tanya 1. Maroslele 2. Maros River 3. 46°16’22.5"N, 20°18’12.4"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Szemán 1985

Cs103. Maroslele-Lóci-tanya II. 1. Maroslele 2. Maros River

Cs108. Maroslele-Sportpálya 1. Maroslele

307

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

2. Maros River 3. 46°15’44.8"N, 20°20’04.2"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 3 ha 2. Körös culture C Szemán 1985

Cs113. Mártély-Korhány 1. Mártély 2. Tisza River 3. – 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Korek 1984

Cs109. Maroslele-Takács Imre telke 1. Maroslele 2. Maros River 3. 46°16’33.9"N, 20°20’12.6"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. J. Korek 2. 1947 3. – 4. – 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Szemán 1985

Cs114. Mártély-Maczelka-tanya 1. Mártély 2. Tisza River 3. 46°27’01.2"N, 20°13’33.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Kató 1985 Cs115. Mártély-Pamuk II. 1. Mártély 2. Tisza River 3. 46°26’56.2"N, 20°14’07.5"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Kató 1985

Cs110. Maroslele-Vásárhelyi utca 72–79. 1. Maroslele 2. Maros River 3. 46°16’23.00"N, 20°20’20.8"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Szemán 1985

Cs116. Mindszent-Berta-tanya 1. Mindszent 2. Tisza River 3. 46°30’55.1"N, 20°11’28.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Szalontai 1994

Cs111. Mártély-Csanyi-part 1. Mártély 2. Tisza River 3. 46°29’04.4"N, 20°13’14.5"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. S. Farkas, A. Varga, L. Szilágyi, G. Csallány, B. K. Nagy 2. 1891, 1894, 1897-1899, 1903, 1975-1976 3. – 4. – 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 4 ha 2. Körös culture C Zalotay 1932; Korek 1984

Cs117. Mindszent-Bográcsos 1. Mindszent 2. Tisza River 3. – 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C–

Cs112. Mártély-Fürst Sándor Tsz 1. Mártély 2. Tisza River 3. 46°26’50.0"N, 20°14’29.1"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Kató 1985

Cs118. Mindszent-Harangos-halom 1. Mindszent 2. Tisza River 3. – 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. –

308

Tibor Paluch: Csongrád County...

2. Körös culture

C Szalontai 1994; Bede 2006; Anders & Paluch 2011

C Unpublished

Cs124. Nagyér-Kádár-dûlõ I. 1. Nagyér 2. Maros River 3. 46°22’42.6"N, 20°44’04.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Pál 1994

Cs119. Mindszent-Kápolna utca 1. Mindszent 2. Tisza River 3. 46°31’14.3"N, 20°10’47.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 8 ha 2. Körös culture C Szalontai 1994

Cs125. Nagymágocs-Ó-Tompa-hát VII. 1. Nagymágocs 2. Tisza River 3. 46°33’35.1"N, 20°26’14.7"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture, latest phase C Voicsek 1999

Cs120. Mindszent-Kurcaoldal, Magaspart 1. Mindszent 2. Tisza River 3. 46°33’08.3"N, 20°12’39.1"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Szalontai 1994

Cs126. Nagytõke-Belsõ-Ecser-Veker-part 1. Nagytõke 2. Tisza and Körös River 3. 46°44’54.2"N, 20°18’58.7"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Kovalovszki 1957; Fogas 2005

Cs121. Mindszent-Szent István utca 1. Mindszent 2. Tisza River 3. 46°31’18.0"N, 20°11’24.1"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Szalontai 1994

Cs127. Nagytõke-Jaksor, Csúcs-földek 1. Nagytõke 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°47’30.2"N, 20°14’44.0"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. G. Csallány 2. 1932 3. – 4. 3 houses 5. Körös culture, early, white painted phase B 1. Approx. 15 ha 2. Körös culture C Csallány 1936; Kutzián 1944; Bácsmegi 2001; Fogas 2003; 2005

Cs122. Mindszent-Szõlõ utca 1. Mindszent 2. Tisza River 3. 46°31’45.4"N, 20°11’33.4"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Szalontai 1994 Cs123. Mindszent-Szõlõpart 1. Mindszent 2. Tisza River 3. 46°32’40.9"N, 20°11’52.7"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. G. Lõrinczy 2. 1992 3. 25 m2 4. 21 pits 5. Körös culture, latest phase B 1. Approx. 4 ha 2. Körös culture

Cs128. Nagytõke-Jaksor, Kökényzug-Molnár Ignácz földje 1. Nagytõke 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°47’22.1"N, 20°13’07.6"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. G. Csallány 2. 1908-1909, 1932, 1934 3. –

309

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture

C

1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture

Cs134. Nagytõke-Kistõke, Sváb-dûlõ, Dányi-tanya 1. Nagytõke 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°46’01.5"N, 20°16’06.4"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 3 ha 2. Körös culture C Bácsmegi 2001

Bácsmegi 2001

B

C Kutzián 1944; Kovalovszki 1957; Bácsmegi 2001; Fogas 2003; 2005 Cs129. Nagytõke-Kalinin Tsz, Péter-tanya 1. Nagytõke 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°45’47.0"N, 20°16’30.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture, latest phase C Kutzián 1944; Fogas 2005

Cs135. Nagytõke-Kistõke, Szabó-dûlõ III. 1. Nagytõke 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°46’19.8"N, 20°15’49.8"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 11 ha 2. Körös culture C Fogas 2005

Cs130. Nagytõke-Karácsonytelke, Kerek domb 1. Nagytõke 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°44’59.6"N, 20°15’19.0"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 16 ha 2. Körös culture, latest phase C Bácsmegi 2001

Cs136. Nagytõke-Kistõke, Szabó-dûlõ, Halász-tanya 1. Nagytõke 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°46’10.7"N, 20°15’58.1"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Fogas 2005

Cs131. Nagytõke-Kistõke I. 1. Nagytõke 2. Tisza and Körös River 3. 46°45’28.5"N, 20°16’36.3"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 4 ha 2. Körös culture C Bácsmegi 2001

Cs137. Nagytõke-Kistõke, Szikháti-dûlõ 1. Nagytõke 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°43’44.3"N, 20°17’02.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Bácsmegi 2001

Cs132. Nagytõke-Kistõke II. 1. Nagytõke 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°44’59.9"N, 20°15’13.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Bácsmegi 2001

Cs138. Nagytõke-Kistõke, Szõke-tanya 1. Nagytõke 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°45’34.2"N, 20°16’12.8"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 4 ha 2. Körös culture C Fogas 2005

Cs133. Nagytõke-Kistõke, Sváb-dûlõ III. 1. Nagytõke 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°45’42.9"N, 20°16’19.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 8 ha 2. Körös culture

Cs139. Nagytõke-Kistõke, Tõke-halom 1. Nagytõke 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers

310

Tibor Paluch: Csongrád County...

3. 46°44’44.4"N, 20°17’10.1"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 28 ha 2. Körös culture C Bácsmegi 2001; Bede 2006

3. 46°10’47.08"N, 20°04’40.64"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. O. Trogmayer 2. 1964–1965 3. 100 m2 4. 1 pit 5. Körös culture B 1. – 2. Körös culture

Cs140. Ópusztaszer VI. 1. Ópusztaszer 2. Tisza River 3. 46°31’09.8"N, 20°04’55.7"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C László 1997

C Trogmayer 2003 14 C dates: Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 122 Cs145. Röszke-Sárosvölgy, Piaristák telke 1. Röszke 2. Tisza River 3. 46°11’31.3"N, 20°03’00.5"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. J. Reizner 2. 1885 3. – 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Kovács 1991; 1996

Cs141. Pitvaros-Víztározó 1. Pitvaros 2. Maros River 3. 46°18’01.0"N, 20°44’33.4"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. L. Bende, F. Horváth 2. 1994 3. 6,600 m2 4. 27 houses 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Horváth 1994 14 C dates: Whittle et al. 2002, 110, 115

Cs146. Röszke-Vasútállomás 1. Röszke 2. Tisza River 3. 46°11’41.8"N, 20°02’05.2"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Kovács 1991, 1996

Cs142. Pusztaszer-Petõfi Tsz, Bitó-tanya 1. Pusztaszer 2. Tisza River 3. 46°32’29.3"N, 19°59’44.2"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Kolozsi 1998

Cs147. Röszke-M5 autópálya, 48/71. lelõhely 1. Röszke 2. Tisza River 3. 46°12’19.6"N, 20°01’01.0"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Kovács 1991; 1996

Cs143. Pusztaszer-Teknõs 1. Pusztaszer 2. Tisza River 3. 46°32’19.9"N, 19°59’43.4"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 5 ha 2. Körös culture C Kolozsi 1998

Cs148. Sándorfalva-Békás 1. Sándorfalva 2. Tisza River 3. 46°20’29.3"N, 20°10’43.8"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Váradi 1996

Cs144. Röszke-Lúdvár 1. Röszke 2. Tisza River

311

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

Cs149. Sándorfalva-Büdös-tó III. 1. Sándorfalva 2. Tisza River 3. 46°22’33.3"N, 20°09’20.8"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Váradi 1996

B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Váradi 1996 Cs155. Sándorfalva-Köves töltés VI. 1. Sándorfalva 2. Tisza River 3. 46°22’36.4"N, 20°08’36.3"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Váradi 1996

Cs150. Sándorfalva-Irma majori út II. 1. Sándorfalva 2. Tisza River 3. 46°21’21.2"N, 20°10’44.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 3 ha 2. Körös culture C Váradi 1996

Cs156. Sándorfalva-Nagy István-tanya 1. Sándorfalva 2. Tisza River 3. 46°21’31.4"N, 20°09’14.2"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 6 ha 2. Körös culture C Váradi 1996

Cs151. Sándorfalva-Köves töltés II. 1. Sándorfalva 2. Tisza River 3. 46°22’28.2"N, 20°08’28.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 5 ha 2. Körös culture C Váradi 1996

Cs157. Sándorfalva-Sajtos 1. Sándorfalva 2. Tisza River 3. 46°21’07.9"N, 20°11’05.4"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 10 ha 2. Körös culture C Váradi 1996

Cs152. Sándorfalva-Köves töltés III. 1. Sándorfalva 2. Tisza River 3. 46°21’32.2"N, 20°09’34.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 15 ha 2. Körös culture C Váradi 1996

Cs158. Sándorfalva-Serkéd II. 1. Sándorfalva 2. Tisza River 3. 46°22’56.8"N, 20°09’01.1"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 37 ha 2. Körös culture C Váradi 1996

Cs153. Sándorfalva-Köves töltés IV. 1. Sándorfalva 2. Tisza River 3. 46°21’37.3"N, 20°10’27.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 6.5 ha 2. Körös culture C Váradi 1996

Cs159. Sándorfalva-Szokony-tanya 1. Sándorfalva 2. Tisza River 3. 46°24’08.3"N, 20°08’47.8"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 38 ha 2. Körös culture C Váradi 1996

Cs154. Sándorfalva-Köves töltés V. 1. Sándorfalva 2. Tisza River 3. 46°21’39.5"N, 20°09’57.5"E 4. Top of the hill A–

312

Tibor Paluch: Csongrád County...

Cs160. Szeged-Fertõláposa 1. Szeged 2. Tisza River 3. 46°19’04.0"N, 20°08’27.1"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. B. Kürti 2. 1987–1988 3. – 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 3 ha 2. Körös culture C Kürti 1988; 1990; 1991

B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Unpublished Cs165. Szeged-Szõreg, Téglagyár 1. Szeged 2. Tisza River 3. 46°10’54.5"N, 20°11’56.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Trogmayer 1977

Cs161. Szeged-Gyálarét, Szilágyi-major 1. Szeged 2. Tisza River 3. 46°12’05.9"N, 20°06’06.0"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. O. Trogmayer 2. 1964 3. 300 m2 4. 2 settlement phases, 15 pits 5. Körös culture B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Trogmayer 2004 14 C dates: Kohl & Quitta 1963, 299–300; 1964, 315; Horváth & Hertelendi 1994, 122.

Cs166. Szeged-Tápé-Lebõ 1. Szeged 2. Tisza River 3. 46°12’05.9"N, 20°06’06.0"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. J. Reizner, I. Tömörkény, F. Móra, M. Párducz, J. Korek, A. Bálint, O. Trogmayer, F. Horváth 2. 1903–1904, 1907, 1927–1928, 1930, 1942, 1950, 1956, 1967, 1987 3. – 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 40 ha 2. Körös culture C Kutzián 1944; Trogmayer 1957; Horváth 1989

Cs162. Szeged-Kiskundorozsma, Márták-dûlõ VI. 1. Szeged 2. Tisza River 3. 46°18’49.6"N, 20°00’43.3"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Nagy 1986; 1995

Cs167. Szeged-Tápé-Malajdok II. 1. Szeged 2. Tisza River 3. 46°16’08.7"N, 20°14’53.6"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. D. Fükõh 2. 2009 3. 500 m2 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C–

Cs163. Szeged-Kiskundorozsma, Márták-dûlõ VII. 1. Szeged 2. Tisza River 3. 46°18’50.5"N, 20°00’50.3"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Nagy 1986; 1995

Cs168. Szeged-Tápé-Vetyehát 1. Szeged 2. Tisza River 3. – 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Trogmayer 1971; Anders 1991

Cs164. Szeged-Öthalom 1. Szeged 2. Tisza River 3. 46°17’04.3"N, 20°06’03.7"E 4. Top of the hill A–

313

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

Cs169. Szegvár-Berek-sziget I. 1. Szegvár 2. Tisza River 3. 46°36’11.5"N, 20°13’32.3"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Kurucz 1981

B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Kurucz 1981 Cs175. Szegvár-Kurca partja II. 1. Szegvár 2. Tisza River 3. 46°33’18.1"N, 20°12’39.7"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Kurucz 1981

Cs170. Szegvár-Berek sziget II. 1. Szegvár 2. Tisza River 3. 46°36’04.6"N, 20°13’44.4"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

Cs176. Szegvár-Kurca partja III. 1. Szegvár 2. Tisza River 3. 46°33’18.1"N, 20°12’43.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Kurucz 1981

CS171. Szegvár-Erdei Ferenc utca 50–52. 1. Szegvár 2. Tisza River 3. 46°35’28.0"N, 20°13’10.2"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

Cs177. Szegvár-Ludas-éri csatorna torkolata 1. Szegvár 2. Tisza River 3. 46°33’19.8"N, 20°13’08.4"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Kurucz 1981

Cs172. Szegvár-Kórógyszentgyörgy, Kurca part 1. Szegvár 2. Tisza River 3. 46°33’44.3"N, 20°13’22.1"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Kurucz 1981

Cs178. Szegvár-Mindszenti határ 1. Szegvár 2. Tisza River 3. 46°33’16.8"N, 20°12’14.3"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1,5 ha 2. Körös culture C Kurucz 1981

Cs173. Szegvár-Kórógy part 1. Szegvár 2. Tisza River 3. 46°35’13.2"N, 20°15’02.2"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Kurucz 1981

Cs179. Szegvár-Rákóczi utca 1. Szegvár 2. Tisza River 3. 46°34’39.6"N, 20°13’21.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

Cs174. Szegvár-Kossuth-telep 1. Szegvár 2. Tisza River 3. 46°35’00.5"N, 20°14’15.9"E 4. Top of the hill A–

314

Tibor Paluch: Csongrád County...

Cs180. Szegvár-Táncsics utca 2. 1. Szegvár 2. Tisza River 3. 46°34’40.4"N, 20°13’14.8"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. K. Hegedûs 2. 1976 3. – 4. – 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Kurucz 1981

Cs185. Szentes-Berek 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°36’53.7"N, 20°13’15.2"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 11 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished Cs186. Szentes-Berekhát, Sáp-halom 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°36’30.2"N, 20°16’14.7"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Kutzián 1944; Kovalovszki 1957

Cs181. Szentes-Alsórét, Szeder-dûlõ 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°39’23.3"N, 20°12’49.4"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished Cs182. Szentes-Belsõ-Dónát, Üneszék 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°39’03.6"N, 20°22’42.3"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 14 ha 2. Körös culture C Marton 2000

Cs187. Szentes-Boros Sámuel utca 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°40’03.7"N, 20°15’11.8"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. J. Csalog, J. J. Szabó 2. 1959, 2004 3. – 4. – 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Csalog 1960, 1963

Cs183. Szentes-Belsõ-Ecser 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°46’01.0"N, 20°22’14.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 15 ha 2. Körös culture C Türk 2000

Cs188. Szentes-Bökény, Körös-part 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. – 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Kutzián 1944; Kovalovszki 1957

Cs184. Szentes-Belsõ-Ecser, Számuel-dûlõ 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°45’16.4"N, 20°22’35.0"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Türk 2000

Cs189. Szentes-Cserebökény 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°45’17.8"N, 20°29’05.2"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

315

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

Cs190. Szentes-Derekegyházi-oldal 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°35’02.1"N, 20°20’34.3"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 14 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

B 1. Approx. 7 ha 2. Körös culture C Oross 2000 Cs196. Szentes-Kistõke, Dinnyés-halom, Kanász Nagy Antal földje 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°42’58.0"N, 20°15’59.9"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. G. Csallány 2. 1937 3. – 4. – 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 4 ha 2. Körös culture C Kutzián 1944

Cs191. Szentes-Felsõrét I. 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°41’11.8"N, 20°14’51.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Patay 1999 Cs192. Szentes-Felsõrét II. 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°41’21.6"N, 20°14’44.7"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 3,5 ha 2. Körös culture C Patay 1999

Cs197. Szentes-Korsós sor 25. 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°39’48.7"N, 20°16’20.8"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. J. J. Szabó 2. 2005-2006 3.50 m2 4. 1 pit 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

Cs193. Szentes-Felsõrét III. 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°41’18.9"N, 20°14’56.4"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Patay 1999

Cs198. Szentes-Kurca part 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. – 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Kutzián 1944

Cs194. Szentes-Kaján 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°45’09.6"N, 20°22’30.1"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 13 ha 2. Körös culture C Türk 2000

Cs199. Szentes-Lapistó 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°38’42.6"N, 20°19’38.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 3 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

Cs195. Szentes-Kistõke 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°41’54.4"N, 20°16’39.4"E 4. Top of the hill A–

316

Tibor Paluch: Csongrád County...

Cs200. Szentes-Magyartés 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°42’58.7"N, 20°14’52.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2,5 ha 2. Körös culture C Patay 1999

C Hegedûs 1977 Cs205. Szentes-Sima Ferenc utca 16–34. 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°39’33.8"N, 20°15’23.6"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. J. J. Szabó 2. 2004–2005 3. 50 m2 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

Cs201. Szentes-Magyartés-Dóczi-tanya 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°43’19.5"N, 20°12’43.5"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 3 ha 2. Körös culture C Patay 1999

Cs206. Szentes-Alsórét-Szentilona (Ilonapart) 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°38’49.7"N, 20°14’14.1"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. J. Csalog 2. 1960–1961 3. 50 m2 4. 2 pits 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 15 ha 2. Körös culture C Kovalovszki 1957; Csalog 1961

Cs202. Szentes-Munkás utca 14., 25. 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°40’14.4"N, 20°16’09.1"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. J. J. Szabó 2. 2005-2006 3.50 m2 4. 2 pits 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 6 ha 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

Cs207. Szentes-Szentlászló, Malom-dûlõ 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°42’46.9"N, 20°19’34.8"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2 ha 2. Körös culture C Marton 2000

Cs203. Szentes-Nagyhegy, Mucha János földje 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. – 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Kutzián 1944; Oross 2000

Cs208. Szentes-Szentlászló II. 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. – 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Unpublished

Cs204. Szentes-Nagynyomás, Besenyõ-halom 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös River 3. 46°40’15.6"N, 20°18’12.2"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. K. Hegedûs 2. 1975 3. – 4. 1 pit 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture

Cs209. Szentes-Szentlászló, Fekete János földje 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°41’02.6"N, 20°19’13.3"E 4. Top of the hill

317

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Makkay 1990

Cs215. Szentes-Veresegyház II. 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°47’18.0"N, 20°26’19.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 4 ha 2. Körös culture C Hansel 2000

Cs210. Szentes-Vekerhát 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°36’31.7"N, 20°19’41.5"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 10 ha 2. Körös culture, Latest Körös phase C Straub 1999

Cs216. Szentes-Veresegyház, Hármashatár-dûlõ 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°46’56.8"N, 20°26’40.3"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 8 ha 2. Körös culture C Hansel 2000

Cs211. Szentes-Vekerzug I. 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°42’24.7"N, 20°19’45.6"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 6.5 ha 2. Körös culture C Oross 2000

Cs217. Szentes-Veresegyház, Kontra-dûlõ 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°47’56.3"N, 20°27’33.7"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 6 ha 2. Körös culture C Hansel 2000

Cs212. Szentes-Vekerzug II. 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°42’15.7"N, 20°20’09.4"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 5 ha 2. Körös culture C Oross 2000

Cs218. Tiszasziget-Agyagbánya, északi gödör 1. Tiszasziget 2. Tisza River 3. 46°10’00.9"N, 20°09’20.2"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. D. Pópity 2. 2008 3. 207 m2 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 3.5 ha 2. Körös culture C Pópity 2006; 2009

Cs213. Szentes-Vekerzug III. 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°42’14.1"N, 20°20’38.5"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Oross 2000

Cs219. Tiszasziget-Andróé-alja, (earlier: Ószentiván VIII) 1. Tiszasziget 2. Tisza River 3. 46°10’39.3"N, 20°09’22.6"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. M. Párducz, A. Bálint, G. Tóth, J. Korek, I. Kutzián 2. 1932, 1941–1943, 1960 3. – 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 4 ha 2. Körös culture

Cs214. Szentes-Veresegyház I. or Holtveker, Rónay-tanya 1. Szentes 2. Tisza and Körös Rivers 3. 46°47’12.6"N, 20°27’04.3"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 9 ha 2. Körös culture, latest phase C Hansel 2000

318

Tibor Paluch: Csongrád County...

3. 46°10’49.7"N, 20°06’35.1"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Matuz 1981; Pópity 2006

C Párducz 1934; Tóth 1942; Korek 1943; Kutzián 1944, 1961; Bognár-Kutzián 1966 Cs220. Tiszasziget-Csürü-föld I. 1. Tiszasziget 2. Tisza River 3. 46°10’41.4"N, 20°07’36.9"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Matuz 1981; Pópity 2006

Cs226. Tiszasziget-Szélmalom domb I (earlier: Ószentiván I) 1. Tiszasziget 2. Tisza River 3. 46°10’51.6"N, 20°09’47.7"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. J. Banner 2. 1928 3. – 4. Stray finds 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Banner & Párducz 1948

Cs221. Tiszasziget-Csürü-föld II. 1. Tiszasziget 2. Tisza River 3. 46°10’45.8"N, 20°07’59.5"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Matuz 1981; Pópity 2006

Cs227. Tiszasziget-Szélmalom domb II (earlier: Ószentiván II) 1. Tiszasziget 2. Tisza River 3. 46°10’47.5"N, 20°09’45.4"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. J. Banner 2. 1926–1928 3. – 4. – 5. Körös culture B 1. Approx. 14 ha 2. Körös culture C Banner 1928

Cs222. Tiszasziget-Jató II. 1. Tiszasziget 2. Tisza River 3. 46°09’34.6"N, 20°10’21.2"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Matuz 1981; Pópity 2006 Cs223. Tiszasziget-Kónya-tanya 1. Tiszasziget 2. Tisza River 3. 46°10’59.0"N, 20°06’37.2"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 3 ha 2. Körös culture C Matuz 1981; Pópity 2006

Cs228. Tiszasziget-Szüget-tetõ 1. Tiszasziget 2. Tisza River 3. 46°09’17.9"N, 20°09’18.4"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 3 ha 2. Körös culture C Matuz 1981; Pópity 2006

Cs224. Tiszasziget-Papok földje 1. Tiszasziget 2. Tisza River 3. 46°10’42.7"N, 20°07’23.1"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 6 ha 2. Körös culture C Matuz 1981; Pópity 2006 Cs225. Tiszasziget-Szécsi-tanya 1. Tiszasziget 2. Tisza River

Cs229. Tiszasziget-Templom domb (earlier: Ószentiván III) 1. Tiszasziget 2. Tisza River 3. 46°10’29.5"N, 20°09’29.6"E 4. Top of the hill A 1. J. Banner, J. Korek 2. 1926, 1929, 1943 3. – 4. Stray finds

319

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

5. Körös culture

Cs14. Deszk B, C, E (C) Cs15. Deszk G (C) Cs16. Deszk I or Okopi-dûlõ (C) Cs17. Deszk-Ordos csatornánál (C) Cs18. Dóc-Bíbic-háti erdõ I. (B) Cs19. Dóc-Bíbic-háti erdõ II. (B) Cs20. Dóc-Bíbic-háti erdõ III. (B) Cs21. Dóc-Bíbic-háti erdõ IV. (B) Cs22. Dóc-Bíbic-háti erdõ V. (B) Cs23. Dóc-Bíbic-háti erdõ VI. (B) Cs24. Dóc-Bíbic-háti erdõ VI-Pecsorai-major (B) Cs25. Dóc-Dóc-Sándorfalva határút (B) Cs26. Dóc-Erzsébetliget csatorna (B) Cs27. Dóc-Kõtörési-major (B) Cs28. Dóc-Szeméttelep (B) Cs29. Domaszék-Furus II. Cs30. Fábiánsebestyén-Belsõ-dûlõ, Dónáti buszmegálló (A) Cs31. Fábiánsebestyén-Pusztatemplom (A) Cs32. Fábiánsebestyén-Varga-dûlõ (A) Cs33. Ferencszállás-Somogyi-dûlõ (C) Cs34. Hódmezõvásárhely-Batida II. (B) Cs35. Hódmezõvásárhely-Batida IV. (B) Cs36. Hódmezõvásárhely-Batida, Magony-tanya (B) Cs37. Hódmezõvásárhely-Bodzáspart-Banga major (B) Cs38. Hódmezõvásárhely-Bodzáspart-Pap bognár földje (B) Cs39. Hódmezõvásárhely-Bõve-halom II. (A) Cs40. Hódmezõvásárhely-Csomorkányi oldal VII. (B) Cs41. Hódmezõvásárhely-Dilinkai temetõ (B) Cs42. Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa III. (B) Cs43. Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa, V. homokbánya (B) Cs44. Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa, Kovács-tanya (B) Cs45. Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa, Molnár-tanya (B) Cs46. Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa, Pócsy-tanya (B) Cs47. Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa-Vermeshalom (B) Cs48. Hódmezõvásárhely-Hámszárító csárda (B) Cs49. Hódmezõvásárhely-Ifjúság útja, Halász porta (B) Cs50. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kenyere ér déli partja XI. (B) Cs51. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kenyere ér déli partja XII. (B) Cs52. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kenyerehát-Tóbiás major (B) Cs53. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kerek Szikáncs-Nádas-halom (B) Cs54. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kingéc I. (B) Cs55. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kingéc II. (B) Cs56. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kingéc III. (B) Cs57. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs IV. (B) Cs58. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs V. (B) Cs59. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs VII. (B) Cs60. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs, Homokbánya (B) Cs61. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs-Koncz major (B) Cs62. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs, Kovács major (B) Cs63. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs, Técsy major (B) Cs64. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs, Zsoldos major (B) Cs65. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart (B) Cs66. Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart, Vata-tanya (B) Cs67. Hódmezõvásárhely-Külsõ Batida, Makkos, Tölgyes erdõ (B) Cs68. Hódmezõvásárhely-Laktanya (B) Cs69. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget I. (B) Cs70. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget II. (B) Cs71. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget IV. (B) Cs72. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget VIII. (B) Cs73. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget X. (B) Cs74. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget XI. (B) Cs75. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget XII. (B) Cs76. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget XIII. (B) Cs77. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget XVI. (B)

B 1. Approx. 10 ha 2. Körös culture C Matuz 1981; Pópity 2006 Cs230. Tiszasziget-Térvár-Fehér-part II. 1. Tiszasziget 2. Tisza River 3. 46°08’43.0"N, 20°08’38.3"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 2.5 ha 2. Körös culture C Matuz 1981; Pópity 2006 Cs231. Tiszasziget-Sziget-alja 1. Tiszasziget 2. Tisza River 3. 46°09’51.4"N, 20°09’33.7"E 4. Top of the hill A– B 1. Approx. 1 ha 2. Körös culture C Matuz 1981; Pópity 2006 Cs232. Tömörkény-Új major (earlier: Felgyõ-Új major) 1. Tömörkény 2. Tisza and Körös River 3. – 4. Top of the hill A 1. A. Bálint 2. 1953 3. – 4. Settlement features 5. Körös culture B 1. – 2. Körös culture C Csalog 1959; Polgár 1998

Csongrád county List of the sites Cs1. Algyõ-258. sz. kútkörzet (B) Cs2. Algyõ-Küvestöltés (B) Cs3. Algyõ-Küvestöltés, Vidács Antal földje (B) Cs4. Algyõ-Békás III. (B) Cs5. Ambrózfalva-Vasúti-dûlõ V. Cs6. Baks-Felsõ, Ányás-Kápolna (B) Cs7. Baks-Csontospart and Ópusztaszer-Csontospart (A) Cs8. Balástya-Õszeszék határrész, Tóth-tanya (B) Cs9. Csanytelek-Halnevelõ (A) Cs10. Csongrád-Ellésmonostor (A) Cs11. Csongrád-Bokros, Búzáspart (A) Cs12. Csongrád-Bokros, Halomsír a Vadvízelvezetõ csatornánál (A) Cs13. Deszk-I. sz. olajkút (C)

320

Tibor Paluch: Csongrád County...

Cs78. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget XVII. (B) Cs79. Hódmezõvásárhely-Nagysziget XXI. (B) Cs80. Hódmezõvásárhely-Petõfi Sándor utca (B) Cs81. Hódmezõvásárhely-Solt Palé, Égetõ-tanya (B) Cs82. Hódmezõvásárhely-Szakálhát, Bakay-tanya (B) Cs83. Hódmezõvásárhely-Szoboszlai utca (B) Cs84. Hódmezõvásárhely-Tuhutum utca (B) Cs85. Kistelek-Erdõsarki iskola Cs86. Kiszombor-D (C) Cs87. Kiszombor-65. (C) Cs88. Kiszombor-80. (C) Cs89. Klárafalva-Vasút utca or Deszk-Kübekházi út jobb oldala (C) Cs90. Makó-Fekete Mocsár I. Cs91. Makó-Járandó (C) Cs92. Makó-Pap-hát IV. (C) Cs93. Magyarcsanád-Szent Gellért híd, Vámház (C) Cs94. Maroslele- Arany János utca 19. (C) Cs95. Maroslele-Faluszéle (C) Cs96. Maroslele-Gazdag-tanya (B) Cs97. Maroslele-Gyûrûs-dûlõ I. (B,C) Cs98. Maroslele-Gyûrûs-dûlõ III. (C) Cs99. Maroslele-Kingéc (B, C) Cs100. Maroslele-Kislele II. (C) Cs101. Maroslele-Kislele IV. (C) Cs102. Maroslele-Lóci-tanya I. (C) Cs103. Maroslele-Lóci-tanya II. (C) Cs104. Maroslele-Makói út (C) Cs105. Maroslele-Pana (B, C) Cs106. Maroslele-Pernye-hát (B C) Cs107. Maroslele-Simon-tanya (C) Cs108. Maroslele-Sportpálya (C) Cs109. Maroslele-Takács Imre telke (C) Cs110. Maroslele-Vásárhelyi utca 72-79. (C) Cs111. Mártély-Csanyi-part (B) Cs112. Mártély-Fürst Sándor Tsz (B) Cs113. Mártély-Korhány (B) Cs114. Mártély-Maczelka-tanya (B) Cs115. Mártély-Pamuk II. (B) Cs116. Mindszent-Berta-tanya (A) Cs117. Mindszent-Bográcsos (A) Cs118. Mindszent-Harangos-halom (A) Cs119. Mindszent-Kápolna utca (A) Cs120. Mindszent-Kurcaoldal, Magaspart (A) Cs121. Mindszent-Szent István utca (A) Cs122. Mindszent-Szõlõ utca (A) Cs123. Mindszent-Szõlõpart (A) Cs124. Nagyér-Kádár-dûlõ I. Cs125. Nagymágocs-Ó-Tompa-hát VII. (A) Cs126. Nagytõke-Belsõ-Ecser-Veker-part (A) Cs127. Nagytõke-Jaksor, Csúcs-földek (A) Cs128. Nagytõke-Jaksor, Kökényzug-Molnár Ignácz földje (A) Cs129. Nagytõke-Kalinin Tsz, Péter-tanya (A) Cs130. Nagytõke-Karácsonytelke, Kerek domb (A) Cs131. Nagytõke-Kistõke I. (A) Cs132. Nagytõke-Kistõke II. (A) Cs133. Nagytõke-Kistõke, Sváb-dûlõ III. (A) Cs134. Nagytõke-Kistõke, Sváb-dûlõ, Dányi-tanya (A) Cs135. Nagytõke-Kistõke, Szabó-dûlõ III. (A) Cs136. Nagytõke-Kistõke, Szabó-dûlõ, Halász-tanya (A) Cs137. Nagytõke-Kistõke, Szikháti-dûlõ (A) Cs138. Nagytõke-Kistõke, Szõke-tanya (A) Cs139. Nagytõke-Kistõke, Tõke-halom (A) Cs140. Ópusztaszer VI. (A) Cs141. Pitvaros-Víztározó

Cs142. Pusztaszer-Petõfi Tsz, Bitó-tanya (A) Cs143. Pusztaszer-Teknõs (A) Cs144. Röszke-Lúdvár (C) Cs145. Röszke-Sárosvölgy, Piaristák telke Cs146. Röszke-Vasútállomás Cs147. Röszke-M5 autópálya, 48/71. lelõhely Cs148. Sándorfalva-Békás (B) Cs149. Sándorfalva-Büdös-tó III. (B) Cs150. Sándorfalva-Irma majori út II. (B) Cs151. Sándorfalva-Köves töltés II. (B) Cs152. Sándorfalva-Köves töltés III. (B) Cs153. Sándorfalva-Köves töltés IV. (B) Cs154. Sándorfalva-Köves töltés V. (B) Cs155. Sándorfalva-Köves töltés VI. (B) Cs156. Sándorfalva-Nagy István-tanya (B) Cs157. Sándorfalva-Sajtos (B) Cs158. Sándorfalva-Serkéd II. (B) Cs159. Sándorfalva-Szokony-tanya (B) Cs160. Szeged-Fertõláposa (B) Cs161. Szeged-Gyálarét, Szilágyi-major (C) Cs162. Szeged-Kiskundorozsma, Márták-dûlõ VI. (B) Cs163. Szeged-Kiskundorozsma, Márták-dûlõ VII. (B) Cs164. Szeged-Öthalom (B, C) Cs165. Szeged-Szõreg, Téglagyár (C) Cs166. Szeged-Tápé-Lebõ (B) Cs167. Szeged-Tápé-Malajdok II. (B) Cs168. Szeged-Tápé-Vetyehát (B) Cs169. Szegvár-Berek-sziget I. (A) Cs170. Szegvár-Berek sziget II. (A) Cs171. Szegvár-Erdei Ferenc utca 50-52. Cs172. Szegvár-Kórógyszentgyörgy, Kurca part (A) Cs173. Szegvár-Kórógy part (A) Cs174. Szegvár-Kossuth-telep (A) Cs175. Szegvár-Kurca partja II. (A) Cs176. Szegvár-Kurca partja III. (A) Cs177. Szegvár-Ludas-éri csatorna torkolata (A) Cs178. Szegvár-Mindszenti határ (A) Cs179. Szegvár-Rákóczi utca (A) Cs180. Szegvár-Táncsics utca 2. (A) Cs181. Szentes-Alsórét, Szeder-dûlõ (A) Cs182. Szentes-Belsõ-Dónát, Üneszék (A) Cs183. Szentes-Belsõ-Ecser (A) Cs184. Szentes-Belsõ-Ecser, Számuel-dûlõ (A) Cs185. Szentes-Berek (A) Cs186. Szentes-Berekhát, Sáp-halom (A) Cs187. Szentes-Boros Sámuel utca (A) Cs188. Szentes-Bökény, Körös-part (A) Cs189. Szentes-Cserebökény (A) Cs190. Szentes-Derekegyházi-oldal (A) Cs191. Szentes-Felsõrét I. (A) Cs192. Szentes-Felsõrét II. (A) Cs193. Szentes-Felsõrét III. (A) Cs194. Szentes-Kaján (A) Cs195. Szentes-Kistõke (A) Cs196. Szentes-Kistõke, Dinnyés-halom, Kanász Nagy Antal földje (A) Cs197. Szentes-Korsós sor 25. (A) Cs198. Szentes-Kurca part (A) Cs199. Szentes-Lapistó (A) Cs200. Szentes-Magyartés (A) Cs201. Szentes-Magyartés-Dóczi-tanya (A) Cs202. Szentes-Munkás utca 14., 25. (A) Cs203. Szentes-Nagyhegy, Mucha János földje (A) Cs204. Szentes-Nagynyomás, Besenyõ-halom (A) Cs205. Szentes-Sima Ferenc utca 16-34. (A)

321

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

Cs206. Szentes-Alsórét-Szentilona (Ilonapart) (A) Cs207. Szentes-Szentlászló, Malom-dûlõ (A) Cs208. Szentes-Szentlászló II. (A) Cs209. Szentes-Szentlászló, Fekete János földje (A) Cs210. Szentes-Vekerhát (A) Cs211. Szentes-Vekerzug I. (A) Cs212. Szentes-Vekerzug II. (A) Cs213. Szentes-Vekerzug III. (A) Cs214. Szentes-Veresegyház I. or Holtveker, Rónay-tanya (A) Cs215. Szentes-Veresegyház II. (A) Cs216. Szentes-Veresegyház, Hármashatár-dûlõ (A) Cs217. Szentes-Veresegyház, Kontra-dûlõ (A) Cs218. Tiszasziget-Agyagbánya, északi gödör (C) Cs219. Tiszasziget-Andróé-alja, (earlier: Ószentiván VIII) (C)

Cs220. Tiszasziget-Csürü-föld I. (C) Cs221. Tiszasziget-Csürü-föld II. (C) Cs222. Tiszasziget-Jató II. (C) Cs223. Tiszasziget-Kónya-tanya (C) Cs224. Tiszasziget-Papok földje (C) Cs225. Tiszasziget-Szécsi-tanya (C) Cs226. Tiszasziget-Szélmalom domb I (earlier: Ószentiván I) (C) Cs227. Tiszasziget-Szélmalom domb II (earlier: Ószentiván II) (C) Cs228. Tiszasziget-Szüget-tetõ (C) Cs229. Tiszasziget-Templom domb (earlier: Ószentiván III) (C) Cs230. Tiszasziget-Térvár-Fehér-part II. (C) Cs231. Tiszasziget-Sziget-alja (C) Cs232. Tömörkény-Új major (earlier: Felgyõ-Új major) (A)

322

323–329.

CATALOGUE OF KÖRÖS CULTURE SITES IN BÁCS-KISKUN COUNTY Rozália Kustár Viski Károly Museum, H-6300, Kalocsa, 25 Szent István út; [email protected] the cemetery. A– B 1. 15,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Wicker et al. 2001

BK1. Bátya-Oroszpuszta, Hízlaló 1. Bátya 2. – 3. 46°26’14,26"N; 18°57’41,77"E 4. The site is located on a 200 m×150 m large prominent hilltop west of the buildings of an animal breeding farm on the floodplain of the Danube in the Kalocsai Sárköz region. A– B 1. 30,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Wicker et al. 2001

BK5. Dusnok-Fekete I–II (Templomhely, Crkvica) 1. Dusnok 2. Vajas-csatorna 3. 46°24’34,58"N, 18°59’34,30"E 4. The site is located on the top of a 350 m×70 m large hill between the Nagy farmstead and the irrigation channel, south of the bend in the Vajas-csatorna, on the northern side of the dirt track leading to Miske. A– B 1. 25,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa

BK2. Bátya-Oroszpuszta, 130 km kõ 1. Bátya 2. – 3. 46°25’49,60"N, 18°56’51,23"E 4. The site is located on a prominent hill with a diameter of cca. 50 m on the eastern side of Road 51, near the 130 km milestone. A– B 1. 10,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Wicker et al. 2001, 39.

BK6. Dusnok-Halom DNy-i része 1. Dusnok 2. Vajas-fok 3. 46°22’05,52"N, 18°57’14,10"E 4. The site covers a 400 m×60 m large area on the top of a prominent hill lying cca. 150–200 m from a bend in the Vajas-fok River, on the western side of Road 51 at 137.5 km south of Dusnok. A– B 1. 24,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa

BK3. Drágszél-Bolvári tanya közelében 1. Drágszél 2. – 3. 46°27’25,63"N, 19°03’05,00"E 4. The site is located on a prominent hill with a diameter of 60 m overlooking a dried-out stream bed. A– B 1. 4000 m2 2. Körös culture C Wicker et al. 2001

BK7. Dusnok-Homród-Kerülõfok (Szelistye) 1. Dusnok 2. Between Homród and Kerülõ fok 3. 46°24’58,92"N, 19°02’13,48"E 4. The site is located at the eastern end of a 1.2 km long hill extending along the southern bank of the Homród stream, in the area enclosed by the Homród and the Kerülõ fok.

BK4. Drágszél-Temetõ-Temetõ-hátja 1. Drágszél 2. Árpás-ér 3. 46°28’11,61"N, 19°01’39,69"E 4. The site is located on a hilltop and the adjacent flat area to the east along the Árpás-ér, between an economic base and

323

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

2. Körös culture

A– B 1. 25,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa

C Vadász 1967, 54, Pl. 34. 4–5, 10. BK12. Hajós-Kall-puszta I. 1. Hajós 2. – 3. 46°21’47,83"N, 19°04’57,25"E 4. The site is located on the top of a north to south running hill, west of a northwest to southeast leading dirt track and channel. A– B 1. 40,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa

BK8. Dusnok-Körtvélyesi hát, szeméttelep 1. Dusnok 2. Körtvélyes-tó 3. 46°23’36,24"N, 18°58’19,47"E 4. The site is located on the top of an elongated hill by the dried-out bed of Körtvélyes-tó, near the Vajas-fok and the rubbish dump. A– B 1. 30,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa

BK13. Hajós-Kall-sziget IV. 1. Hajós 2. – 3. 46°22’25,08"N, 19°04’10,48"E 4. The site is located on the top of a low, north-northeast to south-southwest running hill on the bank of a former river channel, but slightly to its east. A– B 1. 45,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa

BK9. Fajsz-Garadomb 1. Fajsz 2. – 3. 46°24’08,53"N, 18°56’17,71"E 4. The extensive site is located on the top of a prominent hill disturbed by sand mining, south of the village. A 1. M. Kõhegyi, E. Bánffy, J. Petrasch 2. 1971, 1986; from 2001 3. – 4. Settlement B 1. 20,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Vadász 1967, 45, Pl. 44. 7–19, Pl. 45; H. Tóth 1990, 89; Gallina & Romsics 1998, 9–11.

BK14. Hajós-Kall-sziget XII. 1. Hajós 2. – 3. 46°22’23,44"N, 19°05’30,02"E 4. The site is located on the top of a prominent north-northwest to south-southeast running hill east of a modern dirt track. A– B 1. 26,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa

BK10. Hajós-Fácános-alatti-dûlõ II 1. Hajós 2. – 3. 46°23’08,74"N, 19°06’49,62"E 4. The site is located on a northeast to southwest running hill, southwest of a former river channel. The hill extends perpendicular to the channel. A– B 1. 60,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa

BK15. Hajós-Kolecsányi puszta II. 1. Hajós 2. Racsmann csatorna 3. 46°26’03,63"N, 19°06’33,43"E 4. The site is located on the high bank of a dried out channel, the northern bank of the Racsmann channel, cca. 500 m east of the Kolecsányi puszta. A– B 1. 15,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Vadász 1967, 49, Pl. 25. 17, 20–21.

BK11. Hajós-Hildpusztai út 1. Hajós 2. – 3. 46°23’02,29"N, 19°06’05,15"E 4. The site is located on the less prominent bank of a former river channel on the western side of the dirt track leading to Hild, 2.2 km from the village centre. A– B 1. 20,000 m2

BK16. Hajós-Május-telepi-táblák I. 1. Hajós 2. – 3. 46°21’55,91"N, 19°05’46,37"E

324

Rozália Kustár: Bács-Kiskun County...

4. The site is located on the top of a north-northeast to south-southwest running prominent hill, west of the northwest to southeast leading macadam road. A– B 1. 12,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa

BK21. Homokmégy-Alsómégy-Kiserdõ 1. Homokmégy 2. – 3. 46°27’40,74"N, 19°07’46,18"E 4. The site is located on an islet protected by water on the inner side of a meander in an area known as Kácsaheverõ, at the edge of the Örjeg marshland, 2.2 km south of Alsómégy. A– B 1. 40,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Gallina 1998, 111, Site 38; Tóth 1998, 61.

BK17. Hajós-Morcsi-dûlõ VI. 1. Hajós 2. – 3. 46°26’14,91"N, 19°08’07,13"E 4. The site extends from the northwest to the southeast on the eastern bank of a former river channel. A– B 1. 18,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa

BK22. Homokmégy-Alsómégy-Romsics földjei 1. Homokmégy 2. – 3. 46°28’11,50"N, 19°07’57,95"E 4. The site is located on the southern slope of a flat, northwest to southeast running hill at the edge of a waterlogged area known as Kácsaheverõ, northwest of the outer side of a former meander. A– B 1. 15,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Gallina 1998, 112, Site 39; Tóth 1998, 61.

BK18. Hajós-Sipsai-dûlõ III. (Csipsa) 1. Hajós 2. – 3. 46°22’38,04"N, 19°03’14,34"E 4. The site is located on a prominent hill surrounded by water and marshland on three sides, lying on the boundary between Hajós and Nemesnádudvar. A– B 1. 23,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa

BK23. Homokmégy-Alsómégy-Tag 1. Homokmégy 2. – 3. 46°28’32,58"N, 19°07’08,76"E 4. The site is located on the top of a north-northeast to south-southwest running hill, part of the high bluff of a watercourse. A– B 1. 30,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Gallina 1998, 109, Fig. 15. 1–5, Site 30; Tóth 1998, 61.

BK19. Homokmégy-Alsómégy-Hajósi földút III. (Brésztó) 1. Homokmégy 2. Góda-csatorna 3. 46°28’11,55"N, 19°06’40,61"E 4. The site is located near a former watercourse, now the bed of the Góda-csatorna, near the junction of the Hillye-Alsómégy road and the dirt track leading to Hajós. A– B 1. 10,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Gallina 1998, 108, Site 25.

BK24. Homokmégy-Gódapart 1. Homokmégy 2. Góda-foki-csatorna 3. 46°28’55,32"N, 19°05’06,90"E 4. The site is located on a north to west running elevation east of the Góda-foki-csatorna, now flowing in the bed of a former watercourse. A– B 1. 20,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Gallina 1998, 107, Site 18; Tóth 1998, 61.

BK20. Homokmégy-Alsómégy-Hajósi földút I. (Iván sziget) 1. Homokmégy 2. Góda-csatorna 3. 46°27’48,17"N, 19°08’16,66"E 4. The site extends across several hilltops between a former watercourse, now the bed of the Góda-csatorna, and the river to its east-northeast, 1800 m south of Alsómégy. A– B 1. 150,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Gallina 1998, 110, Fig. 16. 1–6, Site 33; Tóth 1998, 61.

BK25. Homokmégy-Halom-Gyõrtelek II. 1. Homokmégy 2. – 3. 46°31’34,02"N, 19°04’01,32"E 4. The site is located on a hill most prominent from the east and south on the bank of the Malomér, south of the Kalocsa–Kiskõrös railway line, on the western side of the Szakmár–Homokmégy road. The mound was formerly surrounded by water on three sides.

325

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

former Rekettye-csatorna (now known as the Folyó-csatorna) and the Dunavölgyi-fõcsatorrna.

A– B 1. 50,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Gallina 1998, 128.

A– B 1. 10,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Gallina 1998, 117, Fig. 15. 6, Site 78; Tóth 1998, 61.

BK26. Homokmégy-Hillye-Rasztik 1. Homokmégy 2. Góda-fok 3. 46°27’13,31"N, 19°04’15,28"E 4. The site is located on the top of an elongated, northeast to southwest running hill near the Góda-fok. A– B 1. 40,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Gallina 1998, 115, Site 65; Tóth 1998, 61.

BK31. Homokmégy-Morcs III. 1. Homokmégy 2. Rekettye-csatorna 3. 46°26’58,60"N, 19°08’35,32"E 4. The site is located on the flat top of a north to south running hill overlooking the former Rekettye-csatorna, 500–600 m west of the Dunavölgyi-fõcsatorna. A– B 1. 45,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Gallina 1998, 117, Site 79; Tóth 1998, 61.

BK27. Homokmégy-Humok 1. Homokmégy 2. – 3. 46°28’52,07"N, 19°05’06,89"E 4. The site is located on a crescentic hilltop extending along both sides of the road leading to Alsómégy, immediately southeast of the village. A– B 1. 22,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Gallina 1998, 110, Site 4; Tóth 1998, 61.

BK32. Homokmégy-Papsziget 1. Homokmégy 2. – 3. 46°30’09,81"N, 19°04’36,46"E 4. The site is located on the top of a north to south running elongated hill. It is bounded by a waterlogged area to the north and by a flat marshland to the northwest. A– B 1. 50,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Gallina 1998, 123, Site 123; Tóth 1998, 61.

BK28. Homokmégy-Mácsai tanya 1. Homokmégy 2. Góda-fok 3. 46°29’37,43"N, 19°03’17,67"E 4. The site is located on the flat top of a north-northwest to south-southeast running hill near the Góda-fok. A– B 1. 18,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Gallina 1998, 112, Site 53; Tóth 1998, 61.

BK33. Homokmégy-Rideg budzsak 1. Homokmégy 2. Góda-fok 3. 46°28’57,27"N, 19°04’20,01"E 4. The site is located on the top of a north-northeast to south-southwest running hill overlooking a bend of the Góda-fok, at the point where the bend narrows. A– B 1. 45,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Gallina 1998, 114, Site 59; Tóth 1998, 61.

BK29. Homokmégy-Morcs I. 1. Homokmégy 2. Rekettye-csatorna 3. 46°27’19,65"N, 19°08’37,70"E 4. The site extends across a larger northern and a smaller southern hill, immediately east of the former Rekettye-csatorna (now known as the Folyó-csatorna). A– B 1. 37,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Gallina 1998, 116, Fig. 16. 7–8, Site 74; Tóth 1998, 61.

BK34. Homokmégy-Szabál 1. Homokmégy 2. Góda-fok 3. 46°29’43,91"N, 19°03’15,32"E 4. The site is located on the flat top of a northwest to southeast running hill rising above the surrounding waterlogged area beside a former channel of the Góda-fok. A– B 1. 3000 m2 2. Körös culture C Gallina 1998, 114, Site 56; Tóth 1998, 61.

BK30. Homokmégy-Morcs II. 1. Homokmégy 2. Between the Rekettye-csatorna and the Dunavölgyi-fõcsatorna 3. 46°26’51,47"N, 19°08’43,74"E 4. The site is located on flat, lower lying area between the

BK35. Miske-Becsali 1. Miske

326

Rozália Kustár: Bács-Kiskun County...

2. – 3. 46°26’44,17"N, 19°02’41,57"E 4. The extensive site with several rich concentrations of finds extends across both banks of a former stream channel. A– B 1. 60,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa

C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa BK40. Öregcsertõ-Rákóczi-dûlõ 1. Öregcsertõ 2. Malom-ér 3. 46°30’42,06"N, 19°08’33,36"E 4. The site extends across a hill overlooking the area between the Malom-ér and a former watercourse. A– B 1. 42,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa

BK36. Miske-Miskei szõlõk 1. Miske 2. – 3. 46°24’50,79"N, 19°05’48,87"E 4. The site is located on a sand hill rising slightly above the surrounding marshland, near the Hajós road, cca. 1.5 km northwest of Hajós. A– B 1. 25,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Vadász 1967, 48.

BK41. Szakmár-Gyarmat 1. Szakmár 2. Csorna-foktõi csatorna 3. 46°33’58,12"N, 19°05’04,76"E 4. The site is located on a hill rising above the surrounding land at the confluence of the Csorna-foktõi csatorna (a former branch of the Árpás-ér) and another stream, 400 m east of the macadam road leading to Keserûtelek, north of Szakmár. A– B 1. 40,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa

BK37. Miske-Sopkadomb 1. Miske 2. – 3. 46°26’10,16"N, 19°04’31,65"E 4. The site is located on a small, round hill rising above the surrounding area in the former orchard of the Miske state farm. A– B 1. 2500 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa

BK42. Szakmár-Kisülés 1. Szakmár 2. Kisülési csatorna 3. 46°32’35,55"N, 19°03’51,95"E 4. The site is located on a prominent, high hill by the bridge at the junction of the Kisülési csatorna (flowing in the bed of the Árpás-ér, once a natural watercourse) and the macadam road leading to Kalocsa. A 1. I. Bognár-Kutzián 2. 1974–1976 3. 520 m2 4. Settlement B 1. 70,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Bognár-Kutzián 1977; H. Tóth 1990; Bánffy in this volume 14 C dates: Bognár-Kutzián & Csongor 1987, 133–135.

BK38. Nemesnádudvar-Crna Bara hátja 1. Nemesnádudvar 2. Crna Bara-fok 3. 46°19’52,87"N, 19°01’17,44"E 4. The site is located on a hilltop surrounded by waterlogged marshland on three sides near the dried out Crna Bara-fok, west of the town. A– B 1. 25,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa

BK43. Szakmár-Kövinádikós, Körtefás Lapos 1. Szakmár 2. – 3. 46°33’24,13"N, 19°03’33,19"E 4. The site is located on the top of a northeast to southwest running hill on the eastern edge of the area known as Körtefás-Lapos, west of Szakmár. A– B 1. 42,000 m2 2. Körös culture

BK39. Öregcsertõ-Csóti dûlõ 1. Öregcsertõ 2. Tölgyfa-ér 3. 46°30’38,76"N, 19°09’46,07"E 4. The site is located on the top of a hill by the outer bend of the Tölgyfa-ér, on the edge of the Örjeg marshland. A– B 1. 80,000 m2. The finds were concentrated in two distinct patches. 2. Körös culture

327

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

C

BK48. Szakmár-Szilfa-hát II. 1. Szakmár 2. – 3. 46°34’28,83"N, 19°06’57,49"E 4. The site is located on the top of a hill overlooking a former stream in the northern part of an area known as Szilfa-hát, cca. 500 m east of the Csorna-Foktõi-csatorna. A– B 1. 25,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa

Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa BK44. Szakmár-Kövinádikós (Tölgyrísz) 1. Szakmár 2. Csorna-Foktõi-csatorna 3. 46°33’46,79"N, 19°04’34,23"E 4. The site is located on an elevation bounded by dirt tracks and the Csorna-Foktõi-csatorna, flowing in the bed of a former watercourse. A– B 1. 32,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa

Bács-Kiskun county List of the sites BK1. Bátya-Oroszpuszta, Hízlaló (A) BK2. Bátya-Oroszpuszta, 130 km kõ (A) BK3. Drágszél-Bolvári tanya közelében (A) BK4. Drágszél-Temetõ-Temetõ-hátja (A) BK5. Dusnok-Fekete I-II. (Templomhely, Crkvica) (A) BK6. Dusnok-Halom DNy-i része (A) BK7. Dusnok-Homród-Kerülõfok (Szelistye) (A) BK8. Dusnok-Körtvélyesi hát, szeméttelep (A) BK9. Fajsz-Garadomb (A) BK10. Hajós-Fácános-alatti-dûlõ II. (A) BK11. Hajós-Hildpusztai út (A) BK12. Hajós-Kall-puszta I. (A) BK13. Hajós-Kall-sziget IV. (A) BK14. Hajós-Kall-sziget XII. (A) BK15. Hajós-Kolecsányi puszta II. (A) BK16. Hajós-Május-telepi-táblák I. (A) BK17. Hajós-Morcsi-dûlõ VI. (A) BK18. Hajós-Sipsai-dûlõ III. (Csipsa) (A) BK19. Homokmégy-Alsómégy-Hajósi földút III. (Brésztó) (A) BK20. Homokmégy-Alsómégy-Hajósi földút I. (Iván sziget) (A) BK21. Homokmégy-Alsómégy-Kiserdõ (A) BK22. Homokmégy-Alsómégy-Romsics földjei (A) BK23. Homokmégy-Alsómégy-Tag (A) BK24. Homokmégy-Gódapart (A) BK25. Homokmégy-Halom-Gyõrtelek II. (A) BK26. Homokmégy-Hillye-Rasztik (A) BK27. Homokmégy-Humok (A) BK28. Homokmégy-Mácsai tanya (A) BK29. Homokmégy-Morcs I. (A) BK30. Homokmégy-Morcs II. (A) BK31. Homokmégy-Morcs III. (A) BK32. Homokmégy-Papsziget (A) BK33. Homokmégy-Rideg budzsak (A) BK34. Homokmégy-Szabál (A) BK35. Miske-Becsali (A) BK36. Miske-Miskei szõlõk (A) BK37. Miske-Sopkadomb (A) BK38. Nemesnádudvar-Crna Bara hátja (A) BK39. Öregcsertõ-Csóti-dûlõ (A) BK40. Öregcsertõ-Rákóczi-dûlõ (A) BK41. Szakmár-Gyarmat (A) BK42. Szakmár-Kisülés (A) BK43. Szakmár-Kövinádikós, Körtefás Lapos (A) BK44. Szakmár-Kövinádikós (Tölgyrísz) (A) BK45. Szakmár-Petõfi Tsz (A) BK46. Szakmár-Örjeg (A) BK47. Szakmár-Szilfa-hát I. (A) BK48. Szakmár-Szilfa-hát II. (A)

BK45. Szakmár-Petõfi Tsz 1. Szakmár 2. – 3. 46°33’32,21"N, 19°05’14,13"E 4. An impressive find assemblage was collected on a hill rising above a formerly waterlogged area lying between the fishponds of the Petõfi Tsz and the road leading to there, north of Szakmár. A– B 1. 20,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa BK46. Szakmár-Örjeg 1. Szakmár 2. Kígyós-ér 3. 46°35’23,70"N, 19°10’31,30"E 4. The site is located on the top of a prominent hill rising above the surrounding area in the Örjeg marshland, near the Kígyós-ér (main channel III), northeast of Szakmár and north of Csorna. A– B 1. 50,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archives of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa BK47. Szakmár-Szilfa-hát I. 1. Szakmár 2. Csorna-Foktõi-csatorna 3. 46°34’28,84"N, 19°06’38,70"E 4. The site is located on a high bluff east of the Csorna-Foktõi-csatorna flowing in the bed of a former watercourse. A– B 1. 90,000 m2 2. Körös culture C Unpublished data from the archived of Viski Károly Museum, Kalocsa

328

Rozália Kustár: Bács-Kiskun County...

329

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. Budapest, 131–140. Bozsik K. 1991. Csongrád-Bokros régészeti topográfiája és településtörténete. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Csallány G. 1936. Újabb jazig temetõk Szentes határában. – Jazygen Gräberfelder bei Szentes. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 12, 71–89. Csalog J. 1959. Das Wohnhaus „E” von Szegvár-Tûzköves. Acta ArchHung 9 (1959) 95–114. Csalog J. 1959. Öcsöd-Kenderes-halom. Régészeti Füzetek 11, 20–21. Csalog J. 1960. Szentes-Boros Sámuel u. Régészeti Füzetek 13, 29. Csalog J. 1961. Szentes-Ilonapart. Régészeti Füzetek 14, 17–18. Csalog J. 1963. Tûzfúró és fúró az õskorban – Feurerbohrer und Bohrer in der Urzeit. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 3–19. Csányi M. 1992. Túrkeve honfoglalás elõtti története, régészeti leletei és lelõhelyei. In Örsi J. (ed.), Túrkeve földje és népe. Túrkeve, 7–47. Csányi M., Cseh J. & Tárnoki J. 1999. Tiszapüspöki, Karancs, Háromság-dûlõ: kora bronzkori áldozati gödör és kora vaskori épület. Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon 1999. Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 1999, 47–62. Cseh J. 1992. Kengyel, Kis-tanya, Baghy-homok. Régészeti Füzetek 44, 16–18. Dani J. 2011. Berettyóújfalu és környéke az õskortól 1301-ig. In Kállai I. (ed.), Berettyóújfalu az újkõkortól napjainkig. Berettyóújfalu, 16–31. Dani J., Szilágyi K. A., Szelekovszky M., Czifra Sz. & Kisjuhász V. 2006. Preliminary report of the excavations preceding investment at the Berettyóújfalu, Nagy Bócs-dûlõ site in 20042005. Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon 2005. Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2005, 5–31. Domboróczky L. 2005. A Körös-kultúra északi elterjedési határnak problematikája a Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza-pusztán végzett ásatás eredményeinek fényében (The problem of the Northern extension of the Körös culture in the light of the excavation result from Tiszaszõlõs-Domaháza). Archeometriai Mûhely 2005/2, 5–15. Domboróczki L. 2010b. Report on the excavation at Tiszaszõlõs– Domaháza-puszta. In Koz³owski J. K. & Raczky P. (eds), Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starèevo/Körös culture. Kraków–Budapest, 137–176. Dudás A. 1988. Hódmezõvásárhely déli részének régészeti topográfiája. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Ecsedy I. 1972. Neolithische Siedlung in Dévaványa, Katonaföldek. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 3, 59-63. Ecsedy I. 1973. Dévaványa, Réhelyi gát (Kom. Békés, Kr. Szeghalom). Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 3, 153–154. Egry I. 1986. Domaszék régészeti topográfiája és településtörténete. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Farkas Cs. 1997. Baks község régészeti topográfiája és településtörténete a terepbejárások tükrében. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. P. Fischl K. 1996. Csanytelek régészeti topográfiája. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Fogas O. 2003. A Körös-kultúra újabb kultusztárgyai Nagytõkérõl (Csongrád megye) — Neue Kultgegenstände der Körös-Kultur

REFERENCES Anders A. 1991. Tápé régészeti topográfiája és településtörténete. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Anders A. & Paluch T. 2011. A Körös-kultúra fiatalabb idõszakának települése Mindszent határában – Siedlung aus der jüngeren Periode der Körös-Kultur in der Gemarkung von Mindszent. MFMÉ–Studia Archaeologica 12, 15–29. Árkus P. & Makkay J. 1976. Endrõd-Szujókereszt, Öregszõlõk, Öregszõlõk, Hazug u. és Endrõd 45. sz. topogr. lelõhely. Régészeti Füzetek 29, 7-8. Bácsmegi G. 2001. Nagytõke, Belsõ-Ecser, Jaksor, Kaján és Kistõke régészeti topográfiája I. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Balogh Cs. 2007. Hódmezõvásárhely, Batida. Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon 2006 – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2006, 212. Banner J. 1928. Az ószentiváni ásatások. – Grabungen bei Ószentiván. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 4, 148–243. Banner J. 1932. A kopáncsi és a kotacparti neolitikus telepek és a tiszai kultúra III. periódusa. – Die neolithische Ansiedlungen von Hódmezõvásárhely-Kopáncs und Kotacpart und die III. Periode der Theiss-Kultur. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 8, 1–48. Banner J. 1934. A hódmezõvásárhelyi városi múzeum régészeti osztályának elsõ öt éve. – Die ersten 5 Jahre der Archäologischen Abteilung des Städtischen Museums in Hódmezõvásárhely. Szeged. Banner J. 1935. Ásatás a hódmezõvásárhelyi Kotacparton. – Ausgrabungen zu Kotacpart bei Hódmezõvásárhely. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 11, 97–125. Banner J. 1937. Die Ethnologie der Körös-kultur. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 13, 32–49. Banner J. 1937a. A hódmezõvásárhelyi református gimnázium régiséggyûjteménye 1. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 13, 105–120. Banner J. 1937b. A hódmezõvásárhelyi múzeum ásatásai 1935ben. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 13, 50–77. Banner J. 1939. Bádeni sírok Hódmezõvásárhelyen, a Bodzásparton – Graves of the „Baden” culture at Hódmezõvásárhely, on the Bodzáspart. Folia Archaeologica 1–2, 13–23. Banner J. 1954. Funde der Körös Kultur von Hódmezõvásárhely Bodzáspart. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4, 1–8. Banner J. & Bálint A. 1935. A szakálháti õskori telep — Die prähistorische Ansiedlung in Szakálhát. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 11, 76–96. 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, 19–41. Bede Á. 2006. Északkelet Csongrád megye halmai. MA dissertation, University of Szeged, Szeged. Manuscript. Béres M. 1985. Algyõ régészeti topográfiája és településtörténete. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Bognár-Kutzián I. 1966. Das Neolithikum in Ungarn. Archaeologia Austriaca 40, 249–280. Bognár-Kutzián I. 1977 Ausgrabung in Szakmár-Kisülés im Jahre 1975. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 7, 13–17.

331

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

in Nagytõke (Komitat Csongrád). MFMÉ – Studia Archaeologica 9, 49–55. Fogas O. 2005. Nagytõke, Belsõ-Ecser, Jaksor, Kaján és Kistõke régészeti topográfiája II. Szakdolgozat. MA dissertation, Universityof Szeged, Szeged. Manuscript. Gál É. 1984. Klárafalva és Ferencszállás régészeti topográfiája. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Galántha M. 1977. Hódmezõvásárhely északnyugati részének régészeti topográfiája és településtörténete. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Gallina Zs. & Romsics I. 1998. A Kalocsai Sárköz régészeti emlékei. (= Kalocsai Múzeumi Közlemények 3) Kalocsa. Gallina Zs. 1998. Homokmégy régészeti emlékei a késõ vaskortól a középkor végéig. (Lelõhelykataszter címû fejezet). In Romsics I. (ed.), Homokmégy. Tanulmányok Homokmégy történetébõl és néprajzából. Homokmégy, 103–133. Gazdapusztai Gy. 1957. A Körös kultúra lakótelepe Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsán – The settlement of the Körös culture at Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 84, 3–13. Goldman Gy. 1991. A Körös kultúra késõi szakaszának idõrendjérõl Dévaványa-Réhely leletei alapján (Chronology in the Late phase of the Körös culture on the basis of finds from Dévaványa-Réhely). Archaeologiai Értesítõ 118, 33–44. Gulyás S., Sümegi P. & Molnár M. 2010. New radiocarbon dates from the Late Neolithic tell settlement of HódmezõvásárhelyGorzsa SE Hungary. Radiocarbon 52/2-3, 1458–1464. Hajdú Zs & Nagy E. Gy. 2000. Újabb neolit leletek Hajdú-Bihar megyébõl. Recent Neolithic Findings from Hajdú-Bihar County. In Hajdú Zs. & Nagy E. Gy. (eds.), „Biharország” neolitikuma. Válogatás a környék újkõkori leleteibõl. Neoliticul în judeþele Bihor ºi Hajdú-Bihar. Neolithic of „Bihar-area”. Debrecen-Oradea, 33–38. Hansel B. 2000. Szentes-Cserebökény határrész régészeti topográfiája. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Hegedûs K. 1977. A Vésztõ-Mágordombi újkõkori és rézkori temetkezések. PhD dissertation, Budapest. Manuscript. Hegyi A. 1987. (szerk.) Algyõ és népe. Szeged. Horváth F. 1989. A Tisza-vidék újkõkori településrendszerének és háztípusainak áttekintése. – Übersicht über das Siedlungssystem und die Haustypen der Theissgegend im Neolithikum. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1988-1, 15–40. Horváth F. 1994. A Dél-alföldi újkõkorkutatás új szempontjai, módszerei és eredményei. PhD Thesis. Szeged. Horváth F. & Hertelendi E. 1994. Contribution to the 14C based absolute chronology of the Early and Middle Neolithic Tisza region. Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36, 111–133. Kaczanowska M., Koz³owski J. K. & Makkay J. 1981. Flind hoard from Endrõd, site 39., Hungary (Körös culture). Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 21, 105-116. Kalicz N. 1957. Tiszazug õskori települései. (= Régészeti Füzetek Ser. II.8.). Budapest. Kalicz N. 1958a. Zsáka-Várdomb/Hajdú-Bihar megye; berettyóújfalusi járás. Régészeti Füzetek 9, 14–15. Kalicz N. 1958b. Zsáka-Várdomb (Komitat Hajdú-Bihar, Kreis Berettyóújfalu). Archaeologiai Értesítõ 85, 84. Kalicz N. 1960. Bokros-Búzáspart. Régészeti Füzetek Ser.I. No.13., 59. Kalicz N. 1979. Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes (Hajdú-Bihar m.). Régészeti Füzetek 32, 27. Kalicz N., Sz. Máthé M. & Raczky P. 1978. SzentpéterszegKörtvélyes (Hajdú-Bihar m.). Régészeti Füzetek 31, 24. Kalicz N. & Raczky P. 1978. Szolnok-Szanda-Tenyõsziget-Dersi

gát. Régészeti Füzetek 31, 25–26. Kaposvári Gy. 1960. Szolnok-Vegyimûvek. Régészeti Füzetek 13, 29. Kaposvári Gy. & Mészáros F. 1975. Szolnok város története I. Szolnok. Kató S. 1985. Mártély község határának régészeti topográfiája. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Kohl G. & Quitta H. 1963. Berlin – Radiokarbondaten archäologischer Proben. I. Ausgrabungen und Funde 8, 281–301. Kohl G. & Quitta H. 1964. Berlin Radiocarbon Measurements I. Radiocarbon 6, 308–317. Kohl G. & Quitta H. 1970. Berlin Radiocarbon Measurements IV. Radiocarbon 12, 400-420. Kolozsi B. 1998. Pusztaszer határának régészeti terepbejárása. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Koós J. 1979. Hódmezõvásárhely délnyugati részének régészeti topográfiája és településtörténete. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Korek J. 1943. Az 1943. évi ószentiváni ásatások – Die Ausgrabungen in Ószentiván im Jahre 1943. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 19, 208– 210. Korek J. 1959. Öcsöd-Kéthalom. Régészeti Füzetek 11, 22. Korek J. 1984. Az újkõkortól idõszámításunk kezdetéig. In I. Nagy (ed.), Hódmezõvásárhely története I. Hódmezõvásárhely, 112-188. Kovács K. 2004. Besenyszög határa. Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon 2004. Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2004, 176. Kovács K. 2007. Neolitikus településnyomok a Tisza Szolnok és Szórópuszta közötti magaspartján (Neolithic settlements on the Tisza bank between Szolnok and Szórópuszta). Õsrégészeti Levelek 8-9, 39–50. Kovács S. T. 1991. Röszke község története és régészeti topográfiája. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Kovács S. T. 1996. Régészeti emlékek. In L. Péter (ed.), Röszke földje és népe. Szeged, 25–77. Kovalovszki J. 1957. Régészeti adatok Szentes környékének település történetéhez. (= Régészeti Füzetek 5). Budapest. Kralovánszky A. 1965. Hajdú-Bihar megyei régészeti kutatások 1944-1961. (Leletkataszter). Archaeological excavations in county Hajdú-Bihar 1944-1961 (register of finds). A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 1962-1964, 31–45. Krecsmárik E. 1915. A békésszarvasi östelepek. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 35, 11–43. Krecsmárik E. 1925. Szarvasi Hírlap 24. évf. 19. sz. 1925. máj. 9., 1. old.; Gyoma-Endrõd Vidéke 1925. máj. 10., 1.old.; Békésmegyei Közlöny 1925. máj. 12., 2. old.; Gyoma-Endrõd Vidéke 4.évf. 25. sz., 1925. jún. 21., 4. old. Kurucz K. 1981. Szegvár község régészeti topográfiája és településtörténete. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Kutzián I. 1944. A Körös-kultúra. The Körös culture. Dissertationes Pannonicae II. 23 Budapest. B. Kutzián I. 1961. Tiszasziget. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 88, 285. Kürti B. 1974. Algyõ, 258. sz. kútkörzet. Régészeti Füzetek 27, 67. Kürti B. 1974a. Algyõ - 258. sz. kútkörzet. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 101, 320. Kürti B. 1975. Algyõ, 258. sz. kútkörzet. Régészeti Füzetek 28, 86. Kürti B. 1975a. Algyõ - 258. sz. kútkörzet. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 102, 305. Kürti B. 1976. Algyõ, 258. sz. kútkörzet. Régészeti Füzetek 29, 59.

332

References

Kürti B. 1977. Algyõ, 258. sz. kútkörzet. Régészeti Füzetek 30, 38. Kürti B. 1980. Honfoglalás kori magyar temetõ Szeged-Algyõn – Ein ungarisches Gräberfeld aus der Landnahmezeit in Szeged-Algyõ. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1978–19791, 323–345. Kürti B. 1988. Fertõ láposa. Régészeti Füzetek 41, 55–56. Kürti B. 1990. Fertõ láposa. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 117, 127. Kürti B. 1991. Fertõ láposa. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 118, 127. László J. 1997. Ópusztaszer régészeti topográfiája és településtörténete. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Losits F. 1983. Dévaványa-Barcéi-kishalom. Régészeti Füzetek I.Ser. 1. No. 36, 11. Lõrinczy G. 2009. Örökségvédelmi hatástanulmány Szegvár község területérõl. Szeged. Madaras L. 2007. Törökszentmiklós határa. Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon 2006. Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2006, 304–305. Makkay J. 1957. A bihari Berettyóvölgy õskori leletei. Prehistoric finds of the Berettyó valley in Bihar. A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 1948-1956, 21–46. Makkay J. 1958a. Berettyóújfalu, Dózsa György út /Hajdú-Bihar m.; berettyóújfalusi j/. Régészeti Füzetek 10, 11. Makkay J. 1958b. Berettyóújfalu, Dózsa György Strasse (Komitat Hajdú-Bihar, Kreis Berettyóújfalu). Archaeologiai Értesítõ 85, 200. Makkay J. 1975. Szarvas-Szappanos. Régészeti Füzetek 28, 22-23. Makkay J. 1976. Szarvas-Egyházföld, Szappanos és Cigányérpart. Endrõd-Szujókereszt, Öregszõlõk és Öregszõlõk Hazug u. Régészeti Füzetek 29, 7, 16-17. Makkay J. 1980. Szarvas, 23. Egyházföld. Régészeti Füzetek 33, 21. Makkay J. 1980-1981. Szarvas, Egyházföld. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 10-11, 269. Makkay J. 1983. Foundation sacrifices in Neolithic houses of the Carpathian Basin. Prehistoric art and religion. In Anati E. (ed.) Valcamonica Symposium ’79. The intellectual expressions of prehistoric man: art and religion. Capo di Ponte – Milano, 157-160. Makkay J. 1990. The Protovinèa problem – as seen from the Northernmost Frontier. In D. Srejoviæ & N. Tasiæ (eds.) Vinèa and its World. Beograd, 113–122. Makkay J. 1992. Excavations at the Körös culture settlement of Endrõd-Öregszõlõk 119 in 1986-1989. In Bökönyi S. (ed.), Cultural and landscape changes in south-east Hungary I. reports on the Gyomaendrõd Project (= Archaeolingua Main Series 1). Budapest, 121–193. 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. With contributions by Kaczanowska M., Koz³owski J. K., Paluch T., Pap I. and Vörös I. Trieste. Makkay J. & Starnini E. 2008. The excavations of Early Neolithic sites of the Körös culture in the Körös valley, Hungary: the final 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. Maráz B. 1972. Mezõberény-Tücsök-halom. Régészeti Füzetek 25, 13. Marton T. 2000. Szentes-Szentlászló, Lapistó, Nagynyomás és Belsõ-Dónát határrészek régészeti topográfiája. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Sz. Máthé M. 1970. Szolnok környéki neolitikus települések. MA

dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. Manuscript. Sz. Máthé M. 1981. Berettyóújfalu környékének története az õskorban. In Varga Gy. (ed.), Berettyóújfalu története. Berettyóújfalu, 11–39. Matuz E. 1981. A Tisza-Maros szög (Deszk, Szõreg, Tiszasziget, Újszentiván) régészeti topográfiája és településtörténete. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Mesterházy K. 1966. A Déri Múzeum régészeti tevékenysége 1962-1965 (Leletkataszter) – The archeological activity of the Déri Museum in the years 1962-1965 (A survey of finds). Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 1965, 19–59. Mesterházy K. 1970. A Déri Múzeum régészeti tevékenysége 1966-1968 (Leletkataszter). The archeological activity of the Déri Museum in the years 1966-1968 (A survey of finds). Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 1967, 61–77. Micopulosz V. 2006. A Körös-kultúra települése TúrkeveCsurgón. MA dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. Manuscript. 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. MRT 10. Jankovich D., Medgyesi P., Nikolin E., Szatmári I. & Torma I. 1998. (eds), Békés megye Régészeti Topgráfiája. Békés és Békéscsaba környéke IV/3 (= Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája 10) Budapest. Nagy K. 1975. Klárafalva, Vasút u. Régészeti Füzetek 28, 79–80. Nagy E. 1986. Kiskundorozsma régészeti topográfiája és településtörténete. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Nagy E. 1995. Az õskortól a magyar honfoglalásig. In L. Kövér & S. Tóth (eds.) Kiskundorozsma. Szeged, 59–74. M. Nepper I. 1968. Furta-Csátó /Hajdú-Bihar m.; berettyóújfalui j./. Régészeti Füzetek 21, 6. M. Nepper I. 1970. Megjegyzések a Körös csoport eszközkészletének vizsgálatához. – Some Remarks Concerning the Use of Tools in the Körös-Group Culture. A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 1968, 79–109. M. Nepper I. & Sz. Máthé M. 1983. A Hajdú-Bihar megyei múzeumok régészeti tevékenysége 1977-1980 (Leletkataszter). The archeological activity of the Museums in HajdúBihar county in the years 1977-1980 (A survey of finds). A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 1980, 95–115. M. Nepper I. & Sz. Máthé M. 1993. A Hajdú-Bihar megyei múzeumok régészeti tevékenysége 1986-1991. (Leletkataszter). Archeological activity of Museums in Hajdú-Bihar county from 1986 to 1991. (Rewiev of finds). A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 1991, 109–140. Oláh I. & Varga A. 1897. A hódmezõvásárhelyi Református Fõgimnázium története Érem- és régiséggyûjtemény. Hódmezõvásárhely. Oravecz H. 1995. Dévaványa-Atyaszeg. Folia Archaeologica XLIV, 61–69. Oravecz H. 1997. Dévavány-Barcéi kishalom a Körös kultúra fiatalabb (Protovinèa) szakaszának telepe és temetkezése. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 1997, 2-25. Oross K. 2000. Szentes-Vekerzug, Nagytõke, Kistõke, Vekerlapos és Nagyhegy határrészek régészeti topográfiája. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. A. Pál G. 1994. Ambrózfalva és Nagyér régészeti topográfiája. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript.

333

The Köros Culture in Eastern Hungary

Paluch T. 2005. Kora neolit településrészlet Hódmezõvásárhely határában. – An Early Neolithic Settlement on the Outskirts of Hódmezõvásárhely. In L. Bende & G. Lõrinczy (eds.) Hétköznapok Vénuszai. Hódmezõvásárhely, 9–43. Pap I. K. 2002. Fábiánsebestyén nyugati határrészének régészeti topográfiája. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Párducz M. 1932. A Hódmezõvásárhely-kotacparti neolith telep és rézkori temetõ. – Die neolitische Ansiedlung und das Kupferzeitliche Gräberfeld von Hódmezõvásárhely-Kotacpart. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 8, 103–113. Párducz M. 1934. Újabb õskori telep Ószentiván határában. – Eine neue urzeitliche Ansiedlung bei Ószentiván. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 9-10, 44–53. Patay R. 1999. Szentes-Magyartés és Kistõke régészeti topográfiája. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Pávai É. 1989. Hódmezõvásárhely határának összesített lelõhelyjegyzéke. Kézirat. Szeged. Polgár 1998. Pópity D. 2006. Terepbejárás Tiszasziget határában 2004-2006 között (Újabb adatok a falu településtörténetéhez). Field walking at Tiszasziget in 2004-2006 (New data on the settlement history of the village). Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon 2006 — Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2006, Budapest, 105–120. Pópity D. 2009. Tiszasziget, Agyagbánya. Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon 2008 — Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2008, Budapest, 301–302. Poroszlai I. 1990. Õskori lelõhelyek a Jászság nyugati felén. Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve 7, 13–28. Pölös A. 1988. Csongrád terepbejárása. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Quitta H. & Kohl G. 1969. Neue Radiokarbondaten zum Neolithikum und zur frühen Bronzezeit Südosteuropas und der Sowjetunion. Zeitschift für Archäologie 3, 223–255. Raczky P. 1976. A Körös kultúra leletei Tiszajenõn (Funde der Körös-Kultur in Tiszajenõ). Archaeologiai Értesítõ 103, 171– 189. Raczky P. 1978. A Körös-figurális ábrázolásai Nagykörûbõl. (Figurale Darstellugen der Körös-Kultur aus Nagykörû). Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve 7–18. Raczky P. 1979–1980. A Körös kultúra újabb figurális ábrázolásai a Közép-Tiszavidékrõl és történeti összefüggéseik. (New Figural Representations of the Körös Culture from the Middle Tisza Region and their Historical Connexions). Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve 5–33. Raczky P. 1982. Újkõkor. In Raczky P. (ed.), Szolnok megye története a régészeti leletek tükrében. Szolnok, 8–22. Raczky P. 1982–83. Origins of the custom of burying the dead inside houses in South East Europe (A házba való temetkezés szokásának kezdetei Délkelet-Európában). Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve, 5–10. Raczky P. 1983. A korai neolitikumból a középsõ neolitikumba való átmenet kérdései a Középsõ- és Felsõ-Tiszavidéken (Questions of transition between the Early and Middle Neolihic in the Middle and Upper Tisza Region). Archaeologiai Értesítõ 110, 161–194. Raczky P. 1986. Öcsöd-Kovács-halom. Régészeti Füzetek 39, 22. Raczky P. 2006. House-structures under change on the Great Hungarian Plain in earlier phases of the Neolithic. In Tasiæ N. & Grozdanov C. (eds.), Homage to Milutin Garašanin. Belgrade, 379–398.

Raczky P. & Siklódi Cs. 1983. Tiszasas-Csillagpart. Régészeti Füzetek 36, 27–28. 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 Gronenborn D. & Petrasch J. (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. The Spread of the Neoltihic to Central Europe. RGZM – Tagungen, Band 4. Mainz, 147–173. Regenye J. 1979. Hódmezõvásárhely keleti határának régészeti topográfiája. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Romsics I. 1998 (ed.). Homokmégy. Tanulmányok Homokmégy történetébõl és néprajzából. Homokmégy. Roska M. 1942. Ásatások a zsákai (Bihar megye) várban. Ausgrabungen i. d. Vár (burg) von Zsáka, Kom. Bihar. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 3, 54–72. Selmeczi L. 1969. Das Wohnhaus der Körös-Gruppe von Tiszajenõ. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, 17–22. Siklódi Cs. 1984. Tiszaföldvár-Újtemetõ. Régészeti Füzetek 37, 29–30. Simon K. 1979. Hódmezõvásárhely déli részének régészeti topográfiája és településtörténete. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Sõregi J. 1933. A múzeum gyarapodása. IV. Érem- és régiségtárnál. Jelentés Debrecen szabad királyi város DériMúzeumának 1932. évi mûkõdésérõl és állapotáról. Debrecen, 26–31. Straub P. 1999. Szentes-Kaján és Cserebökény régészeti topográfiája. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Szabó J. J. 1977. Battonya-Basarága, Laposéri csatorna. Régészeti Füzetek 30 (1977) 3. Szalontai Cs. 1994. Mindszent régészeti topográfiája és településtörténete. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Szász D. 1994. Kistelek város régészeti topográfiája. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Szemán A. 1985. Maroslele régészeti topográfiája. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. H. Tóth, E. 1990. Négy évtized régészeti kutatásai Bács-Kiskun megyében 1949–1989. Cumania 12, 81–234. Tóth G. 1942. Újabb ásatás az Ószentiván VIII. lelõhelyen. – Neuere Ausgrabungen im VIII. Fundort von Ószentiván. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 18, 143-145. Tóth K. 1996. Dóc község településtörténete a régészeti leletek alapján. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Tóth K. 1998. Homokmégy településtörténete a neolitikumtól a bronzkor végéig. In Romsics I. (ed.), Homokmégy. Tanulmányok Homokmégy történetébõl és néprajzából. Homokmégy, 59–71. Tóth K. 2010. Hódmezõvásárhely-Gorzsa V. számú homokbánya. Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon 2009 – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2009. Budapest, 220–222. Török Gy. 1935. Kõkori telep a hódmezõvásárhelyi Hámszárítócsárda helyén. – Eine steinzeitliche Siedlung an der Stelle der Heideschenke Hámszárító. In J. Banner (ed.) A hódmezõvásárhelyi városi múzeum régészeti osztályának 1934. évi ásatásai. Szeged, 238–239. Trogmayer O. 1957. Ásatás Tápé-Lebõn. – Ausgrabung auf Tápé-Lebõ. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1957, 19–57. Trogmayer O. 1964. Megjegyzések a Körös csoport relatív idõrendjéhez – Remarks to the Relative Chronology of the

334

References

Körös Group. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 91, 67–86. Trogmayer O. 1968a. A Dél-Alföld korai neolitikumának fõbb kérdései. PhD dissertation. Szeged. Manuscript. Trogmayer O. 1968b. A Körös-csoport barbotin kerámiájáról — The „Barbotine” pottery of the Körös Group. Archaeologiai Értesítõ 95, 6–12. Trogmayer O. 1969. Die Bestattungen der Körös-Gruppe. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, 5–15. Trogmayer O. 1971. Tápé területének régészeti emlékei. In Juhász A. & Ilia M. (eds.), Tápé története és néprajza. Tápé 1971, 31–45. Trogmayer O. 1977. Szõreg õstörténete. In Hegyi A. (ed.), Szõreg és népe. Szeged, 51–66. Trogmayer O. 2003. Régi adósságaim I. Röszke-Lúdvár. Õsrégészeti Levelek 5, 8–20. Trogmayer O. 2004. Régi adósságaim II. Gyálarét-Szilágyi-major. Õsrégészeti Levelek 6, 13–26. Türk A. 2000. Szentes-Kaján és Belsõecser határrészek régészeti topográfiája. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Vadász É. 1967. A kalocsi járás õskori településtörténete. MA dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. Manuscript. Vályi K. 1977. Hódmezõvásárhely északkeleti határának régészeti

topográfiája. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Váradi A. 1996. Sándorfalva régészeti topográfiája és településtörténete. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Vízi M. 1985. Kiszombor régészeti topográfiája. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Voicsek V. 1999. Nagymágocs régészeti topográfiája. MA dissertation, József Attila University, Szeged. Manuscript. Whittle A., Bartosiewicz L., Boriæ D., Pettitt P. & Richards M. 2002. In the beginning: new radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary. Antaeus 25, 63–117. Whittle A. 2007. (ed.) The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. (= Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 21). Budapest. Wicker E., Kustár R. & Horváth A. 2001. Régészeti kutatások Bács-Kiskun megyében (1990–1995). Cumania 17, 33–126. Zalotay E. 1932. Csongrád vármegye õskori települése. Dolgozatok a Szegedi Tudományegyetem Régiségtudományi Intézetébõl 8, 49–102.

335